RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Knowledge as Remembering.
If someone wanted to know where to start with Plato, I would point him to the dialogue Meno. The dialogical format makes for easy reading and it introduces the reader to key Platonic concepts. The downside is that Plato (and I am going to use Plato and Socrates interchangeably) never really explains what virtue is.
Interestingly, Meno is Xenophon’s enemy and a dirty traitor in Anabasis.
I.
Socrates wants Meno to tell him what virtue is. In a skillful cross-examination Meno is forced to accept that what we call virtue must be the same in all men, otherwise his original claim that it is to rule well means that women and slaves can’t be virtuous (73C-74E).
Meno’s problem is that his answer makes virtue that which makes any action virtuous. He says that “all action with justice” is virtue. Well, maybe, but that tells us nothing of what virtue is.
II.
The dialogue shifts to the nature of the soul and remembering. The soul is immortal (81B-82B). The second line of thought is “there is nothing known which is not learnt.” This would seem to rule out “innate ideas,” but that’s not Plato’s point. Rather, he says that “there is not such thing as teaching, only remembering.” His point is that you can't move from not-knowledge to knowledge. If you could, you would already know what you need to know. To prove it he employs the famous scene where Socrates shows that an illiterate slave boy already knows the principles of geometry. How does he know that? His soul is immortal and existed before his body.
The point is that we can’t learn virtue, nor can virtue be taught. Is virtue knowledge then? If it is knowledge, it can be taught. Yet Socrates seems to think he has shown that virtue can’t be taught.
III.
Socrates then moves to the distinction between right opinion and knowledge. He develops this more in The Republic. He has established, so he thinks, that virtue is not knowledge. Yet he wants to say it is something stronger than mere opinion, for virtuous men don’t seem to govern justly by mere opinion. So what is it? Here’s the kicker: virtue comes neither by nature nor by teaching, but by divine allotment (99B-100C).
Evaluation
Is “knowledge remembering?” I don’t think we need to take that literally, since it seems so manifestly false. It’s better to say that we learn analogically. The mind makes a proleptic jump from one mental pattern to another. Still, anamnesis is a crucial philosophical concept that needs to be explored more fully, which I won't do here.
Leaving aside the subtle assertion of reincarnation, I am not so sure that Plato established the claim that virtue cannot be taught. All he has shown is that the virtuous leaders of Athens failed to teach their sons, not that they were conceptually unable to teach.
Nonetheless, this was a delightful dialogue and an excellent introduction to Plato.
If someone wanted to know where to start with Plato, I would point him to the dialogue Meno. The dialogical format makes for easy reading and it introduces the reader to key Platonic concepts. The downside is that Plato (and I am going to use Plato and Socrates interchangeably) never really explains what virtue is.
Interestingly, Meno is Xenophon’s enemy and a dirty traitor in Anabasis.
I.
Socrates wants Meno to tell him what virtue is. In a skillful cross-examination Meno is forced to accept that what we call virtue must be the same in all men, otherwise his original claim that it is to rule well means that women and slaves can’t be virtuous (73C-74E).
Meno’s problem is that his answer makes virtue that which makes any action virtuous. He says that “all action with justice” is virtue. Well, maybe, but that tells us nothing of what virtue is.
II.
The dialogue shifts to the nature of the soul and remembering. The soul is immortal (81B-82B). The second line of thought is “there is nothing known which is not learnt.” This would seem to rule out “innate ideas,” but that’s not Plato’s point. Rather, he says that “there is not such thing as teaching, only remembering.” His point is that you can't move from not-knowledge to knowledge. If you could, you would already know what you need to know. To prove it he employs the famous scene where Socrates shows that an illiterate slave boy already knows the principles of geometry. How does he know that? His soul is immortal and existed before his body.
The point is that we can’t learn virtue, nor can virtue be taught. Is virtue knowledge then? If it is knowledge, it can be taught. Yet Socrates seems to think he has shown that virtue can’t be taught.
III.
Socrates then moves to the distinction between right opinion and knowledge. He develops this more in The Republic. He has established, so he thinks, that virtue is not knowledge. Yet he wants to say it is something stronger than mere opinion, for virtuous men don’t seem to govern justly by mere opinion. So what is it? Here’s the kicker: virtue comes neither by nature nor by teaching, but by divine allotment (99B-100C).
Evaluation
Is “knowledge remembering?” I don’t think we need to take that literally, since it seems so manifestly false. It’s better to say that we learn analogically. The mind makes a proleptic jump from one mental pattern to another. Still, anamnesis is a crucial philosophical concept that needs to be explored more fully, which I won't do here.
Leaving aside the subtle assertion of reincarnation, I am not so sure that Plato established the claim that virtue cannot be taught. All he has shown is that the virtuous leaders of Athens failed to teach their sons, not that they were conceptually unable to teach.
Nonetheless, this was a delightful dialogue and an excellent introduction to Plato.