Contents
Why is it that Meno and Socrates conclude that virtue Cannot be taught?
Someone who does not know himself how to drive a car seems unlikely to be able to teach someone else how to. Socrates and Meno much agree that there is no one that truly knows what is meant by “virtue” and because of this reason cannot be taught.
What is the argument in the Meno?
The argument known as “Meno’s Paradox” can be reformulated as follows: If you know what you’re looking for, inquiry is unnecessary. If you don’t know what you’re looking for, inquiry is impossible. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.
Why does Meno’s first answer fail to define virtue?
Socrates rejects the first definition that Meno offers. Socrates explains to Meno that he has only provided examples of virtues, instead of describing the nature of virtue itself. In order to define virtue itself, one must attempt to pinpoint what it is that makes all examples of virtues virtuous.
What is Socrates argument in Meno?
Socrates remarks that Meno makes many out of one, like somebody who breaks a plate. Meno proposes that virtue is the desire for good things and the power to get them. Socrates points out that this raises a second problem—many people do not recognize evil.
Why can virtue be taught Meno?
Meno, remembering the two hypotheses proposed by Socrates, happily concludes that, since virtue is knowledge, people must learn it by being taught.
Why does Socrates think that virtue is not appropriately defined as the acquiring of goods?
Socrates argues that no one desires what is not good, and that therefore the definition reduces to “the power of acquiring good things” (78c). But of course the good things must be acquired justly, and justice is a “part” of virtue, so the definition is circular (79d).
Why does Socrates reject Meno’s first attempt to define virtue as like a swarm?
Meno next suggests that virtue is being able to rule over people, but Socrates dismisses this suggestion on two grounds: first, it is not virtuous for slaves or children to rule over people, and second, ruling is virtuous only if it is done justly. This response prompts Meno to define virtue as justice.
What is the overall topic of the Meno?
Virtue, Ignorance, and Knowledge
Virtue is the central concern of Socrates’s dialogue with Meno, as each man struggles to find productive ways to talk about this elusive concept.
What is the main question of Meno?
The Meno is probably one of Plato’s earliest dialogues, with the conversation dateable to about 402 BCE. The dialogue begins with Meno asking Socrates whether virtue can be taught, and this question (along with the more fundamental question of what virtue is) occupies the two men for the entirety of the text.
What is the Meno problem?
In Plato’s Meno, Socrates raises the question of why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief. Call this the Meno problem or, anticipating distinctions made below, the primary value problem.
How does Socrates argue that knowledge is recollection is it a good argument?
Socrates affirms that the ability to recollect knowledge must prove a souls existence before the human form . Through recollection, a person can be reminded by something of another entity that is similar or dissimilar . Socrates gives the example of a lyre bringing to mind the image of the youth to which it belongs .
What is Socrates argument regarding recollection and equality What is this supposed to demonstrate?
Socrates’ argument for theory of recollection and that one cannot acquire knowledge of absolute equality through empirical means does succeed despite some minor issues with it. Socrates first proves that there is no example of absolute equality in one’s own experience.
What is the argument from recollection?
The Argument from Recollection (72e-78b) Cebes mentions that the soul’s immortality also is supported by Socrates’ theory that learning is “recollection” (a theory which is, by most accounts, distinctively Platonic, and one that plays a role in his dialogues Meno and Phaedrus as well).
Why does the argument the learning is recollection imply that the soul must be able to exist separately from the body?
The Theory of Recollection shows that the soul existed before birth, and the Argument from Opposites shows that it must have been born from out of death. Bearing in mind that the soul has to be re-born after it dies, Simmias and Cebes are forced to acknowledge that it must continue to exist after death.
What implicit conclusion does Meno make about possessing virtue?
Meno: virtue is the desire for good things and the power to get them. A person is virtuous if they desire beautiful things and have the power to acquire them.
Why is the theory of recollection wrong?
One of the flaws of Socrates view of the recollection theory of learning is that he says the soul has knowledge of absolute forms that can be recollected if asked the right questions, but it does not always seem to be the case with such abstract, nonmaterial forms such as beauty or justice.
What are the four main arguments for immortality in the Phaedo?
The Phaedo gives us four different arguments for the immortality of the soul: The Argument from Opposites, the Theory of Recollection, the Argument from Affinity, and the final argument, given as a response to Cebes’ objection. Plato does not seem to place equal weight on all four of these arguments.
What is Plato’s final argument?
The final argument of Plato’s Phaedo was created to prove souls cannot perish. Plato does so by arguing how a soul cannot die nor cease to exist on the same fundamental grounds of how the number three can never be even. For the number three holds the essence of being odd, without being odd entirely.
What is the main idea of the argument from the form of life?
The Argument from Form of Life, or The Final Argument explains that the Forms, incorporeal and static entities, are the cause of all things in the world, and all things participate in Forms.
What argument is offered for the soul’s immortality?
The lecture focuses exclusively on one argument for the immortality of the soul from Plato’s Phaedo, namely, “the argument from simplicity.” Plato suggests that in order for something to be destroyed, it must have parts, that is, it must be possible to “take it apart.” Arguing that the soul is simple, that it does not …
What is Socrates argument from opposites how good an argument is it?
Here Socrates introduces the Argument from Opposites. He puts forth the claim that everything that comes to be, comes to be from its opposite. For instance, for an object to become bigger, it must have been smaller beforehand, and has become bigger out of this smallness.
What is the imperfection argument?
The “Imperfection Argument” (Phaedo 74-76)
Plato bases the argument on the imperfection of sensible objects and our ability to make judgments about those sensible objects. (The Forms are supposed to be the perfect objects that the sensibles only imperfectly approximate).
Related posts:
Is there a phenomenological real time, for Husserl?
Could it be justified to kill someone or make someone sick to reproduce yourself?
The debate around moral veganism?
What does the type theory in the Principia Mathematica and that of contemporary logic have in common?
Is Tarski’s theory of truth widely accepted?
What does Bertrand Russell mean by saying this?
Granted Hume’s psychological perspective regarding impressions and ideas, doesn’t this make his epistemology obscure?
Evaluating between seemingly logical, yet contradicting, arguments?
Is meditation valid to study consciousness scientifically?
Why isn’t differentia just quality in Aristotle?