Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature vs nurture psychology summary
Nature vs nurture psychology summary
Nature vs nurture psychology summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nature vs nurture psychology summary
In Plato’s Meno, the main question in the dialogue is whether virtue can be taught. In order to figure this answer out, you would have to know what virtue is. Merriam-Webster dictionary states the virtue is a conformity to a standard of right and a particular moral excellence. Oxford dictionaries states that virtue is a behavior showing high moral standards. These and many other dictionaries have similar definitions showing us that there is common ground on the definition of virtue. However this was not a simple task in the platonic dialogue Meno. The story Meno discovers that there is no definite definition to what is virtue? Virtue can be many things.
Before Meno is talked about, there needs to be some background knowledge needed to be presented concerning virtue. In the ancient language of greek, virtue is translated to arete meaning moral goodness. According to Quatr.us, arete is related to aristos meaning the best which is where aristocracy comes from. Aristocracy is the rule of the best people, so virtue was necessary in being a greek aristocrat. Arete was a favored trait in people. Not only can people have arete, things like houses or possessions can have it. Virtue is also shown in many religions, especially Christianity. For example, in Christianity,
…show more content…
According to Socrates, a virtue must be consistent and has to be universal to all people. One of the definitions that Meno provided wasn’t for everyone. He named virtues for genders, age, and social status. Different cultures have different types of virtues that may be universal to them. For example Americans believe in tolerance as a virtue. Virtues are universal in cultures. Virtues cannot be universal internationally because factors like nature and nurture come into play. Socrates also believes that a virtue has to be good. The problem with this is that what may be good to someone be may be bad to someone else. Even great philosophers like Socrates can be contradicted using his
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,
The formula of humanity and universal laws help people decide how a certain act would affect the world and if it would be a moral thing to do. This allows for a more standardization of figuring out if something is moral or not. Aristotle’s view of virtue is like The Bible. The things that he finds are virtuous can be seen in different ways. For example, people use The Bible to say certain things like men shouldn’t marry other men or that capital punishment is bad, but other people can use the same text to argue that men should get married and that capital punishment is fine. Same can be said for Aristotle because he gives a list of virtues in chapter 7, but these virtues can be seen in different ways. An example of this could be friendliness which is a virtue. People can be too friendly or not friendly enough but it’s personal preference and changes for everyone. Furthermore, some virtues aren’t on the list, and as societies grow more virtuous characteristics arise as
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.
This essay discusses and clarifies a concept that is central to Plato's argument in the Republic — an argument in favour of the transcendent value of justice as a human good; that justice informs and guides moral conduct. Plato's argument implies that justice and morality are intimately interconnected, because the excellence and goodness of human life — the best way for a person to live — is intimately dependent upon and closely interwoven with those 'things that we find desirable in themselves and for their consequences [1]. Hence, we acknowledge that Plato Is moral thesis cannot be interpreted either as a deontological or as a consequentialist argument — or as an act centred or agent centred moral concept. Plato's thesis is informative, in philosophical terms, precisely because it enables us to find new and more fruitful ways of looking at those basic questions concerning justice and morality, and the manner in which they are interrelated [2].
In Plato’s Meno, Socrates claims that all learning is actually recollection (80d – 86c). What prompts Socrates to make this claim, and what does he mean by it?
In The Republic Plato argues that some women have the ability to become philosopher-Guardians. This idea during that time wasn’t viewed as a normal idea to spring upon, therefor Plato argues this statement through questionings and contradictions to justify this radical idea. He does so by summing up his ideas and thoughts through his theory of virtue.
... individuals interpret human experience in different ways and thus interpret virtues in different ways. This means that virtue ethics cannot be an objective and universal theory. This, consequently, causes Aristotelian virtue ethics to be an unpractical and unsuccessful moral theory in reality. This is because there cannot be an agreed consensus of what is the actual mean, the virtue, between the vices of deficiency and excess.
Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic. In Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human nature. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by using a personal character.
lthough today's society includes much technology and new things are supposedly being discovered every day, many age old questions still remain unanswered; questions such as: "Can virtue be taught?" This question is examined in detail throughout Plato's Meno, and although the play leaves the question as to what virtue is unanswered, Socrates attempts an answer to Meno's question. Although he is not particularly keen on answering whether virtue can be taught without first having a complete understanding of what virtue is, he attempts to please Meno by solving this in the way that geometers conduct their investigations, through a hypothesis. Socrates states that if indeed virtue can be taught then one thing will happen, and if it cannot a different thing will happen. In the end of the play, the conclusion is reached that virtue is a gift from the gods. Now the question must be asked: how was this conclusion reached in relationship to Socrates' previous hypothesis?
Aristotle was on the right path, but he made his argument too specific, and as a result made virtue something that it is not.
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.”
Virtue is very tough to define, as evidenced in the difficulty that Socrates, Nicias, and Laches have with trying to define both courage and virtue. In Socrates’ arguments with Nicias, he does seem to indicate that Nicias stumbled into a possible definition of virtue. Socrates says in regards to what Nicias thought was that, “Courage is the knowledge not just of the fearful and the hopeful, but in your [Nicias’] opinion, it would be the knowledge of practically all goods and evils put together” (Laches and Charmides, 199D). However, after Nicias agrees that this is not the definition of courage that Socrates and Nicias are searching for, Socrates asks if “[Does] a man with this kind of knowledge seem to depart from virtue in any respect” (Laches and Charmides, 199D)? The simple answer to this question is no. The definition that was suggested by Socrates for the definition of courage has become the definition of virtue. “Then the thing you are now talking about, Nicias, would seem not be a part of virtue but rather virtue entire” (Laches and Charmides, 199E). To summarize, for a person to be virtuous, he or she must have knowledge of all goods and evils...
“Plato, Apologia” is a primary source that is a story written by Plato, it is a written account of Socrates, a Greek philosopher, who was being tried for immorality towards the gods and for “corrupting the youth” (Strayer). In this primary source, Socrates is trying to plead his case so he won 't be charged; unfortunately, Socrates does get charged with the crimes he was convicted of and is sentenced to be put to death. Through his Socrates’ plea, his discusses what he believes is “the good life,” what “wisdom” is, and what “virtue” is.
Their character and virtue is looked at to determine if they are a good person and if their actions are morally right or wrong. What is a virtue in virtue ethics? According to Aristotle, who is seen as one of the founding fathers of Virtue ethics, “A virtue is a stable disposition to act and feel according to some ideal or model of excellence”(136). Aristotle goes further and says that a virtue is “a deeply embedded character trait” (136). Someone who believes in virtue ethics believes that certain virtues are necessary to have a good life and be a good person. They strive to either learn or better use the virtues that they have or are trying to develop. For example, stated in the text is “Virtue ethicist...agree with Aristotle that the cultivation of virtues is not merely a moral requirement-- it is a way (some would say the only way) to ensure human flourishing and the good life” (137). That statement brings me to my next point as to why Virtue ethics is more convincing than the other systems of