Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle’s theory of virtue
Socrates' educational theory
Aristotle’s theory of virtue
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aristotle’s theory of virtue
Meno asks Socrates/Plato the simple question of whether virtue can be taught. Socrates/Plato makes an effort towards answering this question by using his dialectic, the Socratic elenchus. However, his main goal is not to answer the question, but to share his thoughts about the status of the soul. Socrates/Plato cared about the “care of the soul” (pg.6) and was a dualist who believed in two realities. One reality is higher than the other. The higher reality includes Metaphysics and Epistemology. Also according to Socrates/Plato the Soul is made of three parts, Reason, spirit, and appetite. Reason is in the higher reality, spirit is in the middle of both, and appetite is in the lower reality. The status of one’s soul determines one’s ability …show more content…
He relates virtue to a swarm of bees. There is a difference between different kinds of bees, like honey bees and bumblebees, and the “definition of what it means for any of these things to be a bee” (pg.12). This relates to the difference between different kinds of virtue and what it actually means to be a virtue. There is a major opposition between the two but Meno has less developed understanding and is incompetent of understanding. He needs to see beyond the superficial elements of …show more content…
He is stuck in his character as an erotic man and does not understand the concept of virtue. His overemphasis on power and desire keep him from understanding virtue like Socrates does. However, the slave that he owns does realize the full concept. His soul moves up when he is presented with a geometry problem and he is able to comprehend it. The Pythagorean Theory, which uses squares, helps him to see the full concept of virtue.The theory is equal to pure ideas that are in the Metaphysical level. Meno does not understand this level like he
Right after Socrates comments how they can both look for virtue, Meno gives him these questions: “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing you did not know (80d)?” This is Meno’s paradox which explains the discovery of knowledge is impossible and if you do not know what you are learning, and that you cannot discover it either. Meno states in his first premise that you either know what knowledge is or you don’t, and whether you do know it or not, you cannot discover what that piece of knowledge is. This,
When discussing specific knowledge, it is often hard to pin down an exact definition of what it is you are discussing. Often a concept or word will get thrown around so often that it will begin to be taken for granted and when pressed, a person may struggle to pin down specifically what it is they mean. Realizing this, Socrates often went out and attempted to fix these kinds of problems and find out what people actually knew, compared to what they just thought they knew. In the dialogues Euthyphro and Meno, Socrates attempts to pin down definitions for piety and virtue, respectively. In doing so, we are shown that the thinkers in question struggle to define these terms, and attempt to do so in vague terms that may vary heavily under different circumstances. What Socrates is attempting to find is one definitive definition of piety and virtue, what is called his One Form Requirement. Rather than defining something by classifying different parts that make it up, Socrates maintains the belief that piety and virtue both can be simplified into one specific form that describes exactly what makes all F actions F.
The critical argument, known as Meno's Paradox, as presented in Plato's “Meno”, questions the very basis of Socrates method of arriving at knowledge of unknown things through inquiry. If Socrates truly wants to gain knowledge of what no one else knows, then the content of that “unknown” thing will produce absolutely nothing. The paradox bases itself in stating that humans can never learn anything that they don't already obtain knowledge of. As identified by Meno, the paradox is this: "And how are you going to inquire about it, Socrates, when you do not at all know what it is? For what sort of thing, from among the ones you do not know, will you take as the object of your inquiry? And even if you do happen to bump right into it, how are you going to know that It is the thing you did not know?” By saying this, Meno proposes that since Socrates does not really know what virtue is, he cannot find it because he would not recognize it even if he did. Each time Meno offers an explanation of the term, Socrates rejects them immediately because they are, in his eyes, inadequate. Socrates delivers an excellent theory, along with an example, to criticize this paradox and provide for the opportunity of humans achieving knowledge.
In order to demonstrate my argument, it is better to first have an understanding of what knowledge, and correct opinion are, respectively. In the Meno, Socrates argues that “true opinion is no way a worse guide for correct action than knowledge” (Plato 89). To some extent, both correct opinion and knowledge are beneficial to people, because both of them could lead people to success, i.e. “correct action”. Hence correct opinion is as useful as knowledge. In the Meno, Meno has difficulties understanding why “knowledge is prized far more highly than right opinion”, and Socrates explains by illustrating the difference between these two ideas. He argues that correct opinion does not “remain long”, and does not “worth much until one ties them down by [giving] an account of reason why” (Plato 90). Correct opinion, in this sense is not stationary, and it only transforms to knowledge by rec...
One could see the final walk-away as a complete failure to a then seemingly meaningless story. Yet, I do not see it this way. Although Euthyphro walked away without a resolution, there was still much to be learned. The seemingly arrogant man that we were introduced to in the beginning, was not the same man in the final pages of the book. We may not have received a complete answer, but we did find something better; the knowledge that we cannot believe that our insights are always correct. And this is what Socrates strove to do: to evoke thought. When put on trial, we see this questioning is not an isolated occurrence as he states, “I believe the god has placed me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself in your company” (Apology, 30e). Socrates believed it was his duty to live a life of service in order to make people open their minds. In order for people to grow in wisdom, they needed to realize their ignorance. We need to be challenged in order to grow and it is through experiences, like Euthyphro’s, in which we become more
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
In Gorgias, Plato`s dialogue on rhetoric, the crowd watching the debate between Socrates and Gorgias played a major role in the way the debate was processed by both of them. Gorgias tried to prove that rhetoric was the ultimate skill related to all expertise; and targeted the audience to promote himself as a rhetorician that can teach that powerful skill. Socrates used different technics to appeal to the same audience in order to connect with them; and persuade them that Gorgias views on rhetoric were wrong and probably ruin his career. Even though Socrates arguments were in opposition of rhetoric, he used three elements of persuasion known now as “Rhetorical appeals”; which allowed him to
In Nichomachean Ethics, virtue is defined as achieving good. Virtue is a state of character, which Aristotle says is pointless to examine. All that matters is the achievement of good. He says that there are two kinds of virtue, intellectual and moral. Moral virtue is a disposition to behave in the correct manner. Virtue must be taught from a young age. It is striking a balance between deficiency and excess, which are vices.
In the Republic written by Socrates, Socrates attempts to prove that human beings ought to practice justice in order to live a more just life. Socrates moves through several examples in order to prove that the just life is one worth living and is the one that ought to be practiced. Through Socrates’s compelling argument in the book titled Plato’s Republic , one can see that the just life is the proper human life.
This begins Socrates’ rapid firing of questions that ultimately confuse Meno. (72e-74b) His answers to each question show his confusion more and more. When Socrates asks him if justice [was] a virtue or is virtue, Meno could not immediately answer. (73e) When he does answer, however, he admits that justice is in fact a virtue, he begins to list many other virtues as well. This causes Socrates to explain that Meno may know what some virtues are but he has yet to explain the meaning of what virtue is.
In the Meno, Plato addresses the question of virtue, what it is, how to obtain and if virtue can be taught. Meno came to conclusion after a long discussion with Socrates that it is impossible to know what virtue is. The Meno’x paradox states, “if one knows what virtue is, he does not need to search for it. However, if one does not know what virtue is, how can he search for it? He may not know he has it even when he gets it.”
In The Abolition of Man, Plato comes up with a question that he answers himself. Can virtue be taught? In his writings, he answers this question with eleven simple words. “No justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous”. This is simply implying that virtue can’t be taught because being virtuous is something you are born with. A twist to this question that could possibly give us a positive answer would be asking if virtue could be learned. The only difference between these questions is that when you ask if virtue can be learned, you’re inferring that there is a teacher and a pupil. Asking if something can be learned simply suggests that there is a student and he teaches himself virtue by experiencing life lessons. To give an example, asking if a person was taught how to play soccer means that there was someone to teach that person; while asking whether a person learned to play soccer has certain inclination towards that person learning from life experiences or by watching soccer being played.
In Plato’s “Republic”, Socrates creates an ideal society in his perspective. He contemplates what his idea of ‘justice’ is. According to Socrates, justice is the “…having and doing what is a man’s own, and belongs to him”. (Book 4 pg. 12) Justice is giving to everyone what they deserve. Socrates uses the ‘myth of the metals’ as an example to show how justice can prosper in a society, while also showing a way that democracy can be unjust.
Aristotle’s ethics makes virtue central. First explain what the two types of virtue are and how they are acquired. What, for Aristotle, does a virtuous soul look like? How might this (i.e., the way in which virtues are acquired) open up the possibility of moral failing?
Throughout the dialogue of “Meno”, Socrates inquires what virtue is and whether virtue is innate, acquired through learning, or received as a gift from the gods (Jowett, 1949). After some discussion with Meno, Socrates first proposes the theory that virtue is innate. Subsequently the knowledge of innate virtue is of a priori knowledge, which is in turn contingent on a priori justification (Russell, 2011).