Plato's Meno

[QuikSand]

As I previously mentioned in the Life Syllabus (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=39798) thread, I am taking a seminar at St. John’s college, covering a number of great books and dealing with Freedom, Virtue, and Society (http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=6946). After one session (covering Huckleberry Finn) I now have a decent sense of what to expect… and I’m now trying to get the most out of my second reading – Plato’s dialogue Meno.


I confess, I missed out on most of my liberal arts in college, as I was busy taking a more science-oriented curriculum, and only gravitated to the softer sciences later on. I took a couple classes in philosophy, a few more in political science, but I missed out on a lot of classics in these areas. So, I’m reading Meno for the first time now, though I was generally familiar with its content.


I wonder if anyone else has either read Meno and might have some thoughts about it, or might be willing to give it a read (it’s only about 25 ordinary pages in total) and participate in some exchange about it here. My role in this seminar is just to offer my thoughts – I’m not trying to get ahead for a grade or anything of the sort – and I thought having some informal discussion about the topic might spark my interest more.

And for those of you who expressed some interest in the “life syllabus” idea – maybe this would be an opportunity to do a small bit of exploration of your own in that direction. Who knows?

I don’t feel qualified to “lead” a discussion here, but I have read Meno once, and am trying to get through it with a more critical eye now. Any thoughts you may have would be welcome, as I try to digest this in a little more depth. Our tutor (Professor) for the seminar has said something like “I find Meno to be the central essence of this whole college” – so I know how takes it very seriously, and urged us not to miss this particular session of the seminar. So, I’m trying to do it justice and take it seriously.


A few resource links, for those who might be interested:

Full text of Plato’s dialogue Meno (http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/Projects/digitexts/plato/meno/meno.html)


Lecture on Meno (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/introser/meno.htm) by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, public domain

Boyles article on Meno (http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/96_docs/boyles.html)

Hall’s response to Boyles (http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/96_docs/hall.html)

[WSUCougar]

Cool.

It's been many moons since I read it, but I'll give it another read and then chip in what I can.

[QuikSand]

My biggest problem so far is that, on my first reading, I took its central theme to be that knowledge is essentially innate, and the process of "teaching" is essentially just causing people to discover that which they already knew. Even as it applies only to more central or universal truths (it's clearly absurd to suggest that this would apply in any meaningful way to simple facts) I still have trouble embracing the notion.

The experimental converstaion with Meno's slave seems to suggest that this uneducated man already knew the essential basics of the pythagorean theorem -- he just had to have it teased out of him by proper questioning. I guess I see the truth in this... but have trouble seeing it as a profound conclusion, really.

Thus, my search for more insight.

(I also found the link to "virtue" to be a lot thinner than I had expected... but I suspect I am missing the point there)

[Ajaxab]

I admittedly haven't gone through Meno, but recently worked through Plato's Phaedrus. The notion of innate knowledge seems to accord with Plato's discussion of philosophy in Phaedrus. Philosophy, in that text, comes from having seen true, for example, beauty in another realm, coming to earth and then recognizing that beauty in another person. The philosophy then flows from that recognition. This would imply to me that knowledge of what is truly real (which might have something to do with Plato's theory of forms) is innate and is only waiting to be triggered by the earthly recognition of this reality. Maybe not a profound conclusion, but it seems from what you've mentioned that Plato is making a similar point in Meno.

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

I studied more on Aritstotle and St Thomas Aquinas (My favorite). When I had to try to understand Aristotle and "Demonstration" I had to look at this dialogue.

Arisstotle discusses Demonstration in "Posterior Analytitcs" and he begins this book with the problem of learning which takes us to Meno.

Meno asks Socrates whether virtue is teachable, and Socrates responds that he cannot answer that question until he knows what virtue is. After Meno gives several bad definitions of virtue, he decides to give up the search for the definition of virtue, and poses the problem of learning as the cause. "The Learner can ot search for what he knows since there is no need to search".

If the learner already knows what virtue is, then there is not need to learn it. But if he does not know what virtue is, then even if someone told him the definition he would not recognize it as the true definition of virtue. Therefore, it is impossible to learn what virtue is.

Plato himself, through the mouth of Socrates, gives as an answer to this problem his theory of recollection. Plato claims that before we were born our souls existed in another realm in which we knew everything that we later say that we are learning. When we are born, we forget that knowledge, and the process called learning is simply the recalling, or recollecting, of knowledge that we possess already but in a hidden way. We can restate this position in another way: we already know the answers to all the questions, but our own knowledge is hidden from us, and the process of learning is simply the process of uncovering that hidden known...

Meno's problem with regard to our knowledge of conclusions is where I would start the discussion....

I dont know if I made sense but I figured I would chime in.

[QuikSand]

Plato himself, through the mouth of Socrates, gives as an answer to this problem his theory of recollection. Plato claims that before we were born our souls existed in another realm in which we knew everything that we later say that we are learning. When we are born, we forget that knowledge, and the process called learning is simply the recalling, or recollecting, of knowledge that we possess already but in a hidden way. We can restate this position in another way: we already know the answers to all the questions, but our own knowledge is hidden from us, and the process of learning is simply the process of uncovering that hidden known...

Pretty well put, seems to me. Thanks.

[st.cronin]

Figured this is as good a place as any to mention that I am going back to school for an undergrad degree at St. John's in Santa Fe.

[QuikSand]

Plato claims that before we were born our souls existed in another realm in which we knew everything that we later say that we are learning. When we are born, we forget that knowledge, and the process called learning is simply the recalling, or recollecting, of knowledge that we possess already but in a hidden way.

Is this assertion (which is, more or less, what I am getting from Plato's conclusions in the Meno) something that can be wholly separated from the concept of the immortal soul or the like?

I am not particularly comfortable with the notion that these two concepts are irretrievably intertwined. Can I accept Plato here cafeteria-style, and basically say that I accept there to be universal truths, than virtue may indeed lie within that realm, but then reject the notion of any sort of pre-imprinting or anything that depends on existence outside the mortal realm? For me, the scientific concept of "instinct" seems like a fair parallel.

Or is that cheating?

[WSUCougar]

How would it then follow that "virtue" or any other universal truth could be defined at a universally-accepted level? Given your statement above, how/when/where do you "set the bar" of a universal truth for all mortal mankind to discover it?

[NoMyths]

Is this assertion (which is, more or less, what I am getting from Plato's conclusions in the Meno) something that can be wholly separated from the concept of the immortal soul or the like?

I am not particularly comfortable with the notion that these two concepts are irretrievably intertwined. Can I accept Plato here cafeteria-style, and basically say that I accept there to be universal truths, than virtue may indeed lie within that realm, but then reject the notion of any sort of pre-imprinting or anything that depends on existence outside the mortal realm? For me, the scientific concept of "instinct" seems like a fair parallel.

Or is that cheating?Unless I'm misunderstanding your rejection, I don't believe Plato would have accepted the premise that something could exist without being 'pre-imprinted' beyond the mortal realm. Everything in the mortal realm is merely a copy of a copy for Plato, after all.

[QuikSand]

Well, what I get from Plato's use of a mathematical truth (the extended discussion with Meno's slave, leading to the principles of the Pythagorean Theorem) is that there are some things that transcend learning as we know it -- they are true and we recognize them to be true, even if we never had an academic context to properly frame that understanding. Mathematics make a very clear example, it seems to me.

That does, however, set the bar pretty high for something to be a sort of universal truth. Issues of morals frequently struggle at this point, and that's fine. I don't claim to resolve it -- but rather, I am fairly open to the argument that virtue could be argued to be one such universal truth.

With that -- my bigger hesitation here (before even going on with the larger question) is whether buying Plato's argument about universal truth compels me to buy in to his arguemnt that these truths are not just in existence on their own... but rather that they are somehow imprinted upon us prior to our own existsnece, through something that sounds very much like the traditionally regligious notion of an eternal soul.

So, essentially, I am getting caught up in one of the premises here, even before I grapple too much with the resulting conclusion.

[QuikSand]

Unless I'm misunderstanding your rejection, I don't believe Plato would have accepted the premise that something could exist without being 'pre-imprinted' beyond the mortal realm. Everything in the mortal realm is merely a copy of a copy for Plato, after all.

That is pretty much my conclusion, too. I think Plato and I are going to have to agree to disagree here.

Given the gushing terms with which our tutor/professor has prefaced this discussion... I am anticipating a cacophony at the next discussion if I do much talking. I'm quite certain that I will be outgunned in such a debate. (I look forward to it, though)

[NoMyths]

Right; you'd need to buy into his argument that these truths are "imprinted" within us prior to our existence. As is everything in the world, with its Real counterpart. I'm not sure whether or not Plato would argue that this imprinting is individual, however, which speaks to the issue of the eternal, individual soul.

[NoMyths]

That is pretty much my conclusion, too. I think Plato and I are going to have to agree to disagree here.

Given the gushing terms with which our tutor/professor has prefaced this discussion... I am anticipating a cacophony at the next discussion if I do much talking. I'm quite certain that I will be outgunned in such a debate. (I look forward to it, though)Hehe...those are the fun classes. :)

Though not Meno, a colleague of mine and I have been discussing Plato's poetics (Ion, parts of The Republic) in the context of other philosophers for about a month now, and some of the same issues keep cropping up.

[QuikSand]

Okay... so it's pretty well agreed that babies are born with an instinct to suckle. We just know what to do - we don't have to be taught. It's a necessity. You don't have to buy into the whole immortal soul and cosmic designer in order to accept that, right?

So - isn't there some way to square the idea that we are also born with some innate knowledge (that may or may not include the principles of virtue) with a rejection of these notions of the soul? Can't it be, more or less, just instinct? Or can't that knowledge exist not within us ourselves or our souls, but rather "exist" in some general way that stands both before and after we discover it. (Poorly put, I fear)

[QuikSand]

And I am no Jungian, either. Just to cut that off at the pass.

[NoMyths]

Okay... so it's pretty well agreed that babies are born with an instinct to suckle. We just know what to do - we don't have to be taught. It's a necessity. You don't have to buy into the whole immortal soul and cosmic designer in order to accept that, right?

So - isn't there some way to square the idea that we are also born with some innate knowledge (that may or may not include the principles of virtue) with a rejection of these notions of the soul? Can't it be, more or less, just instinct? Or can't that knowledge exist not within us ourselves or our souls, but rather "exist" in some general way that stands both before and after we discover it. (Poorly put, I fear)I've tried a couple of times to take a stab at this, but I'm just not clear enough on the question. Is there a way to rephrase for my muddled mind?

[QuikSand]

Sorry, missed this. The muddling was mine, i'm sure.

My point is -- isn't it possible to agree that there is such a thing as "knowledge without learning" even if we don't accept the concept of an immortal soul?

My example: a baby "knows" how to suckle. Does not need to be taught. We all agree on that, even those among us who might not believe that this was some fort of package begifted to tbebaby by a higher power via an immortal soul. We have another explanation -- that of natural instinct.

And if so, can't we find some way to accept similar thinking with regard to virtue?

[NoMyths]

I think we can, but don't believe that Plato would have agreed, as he seems to be pretty clear on the concept of an immortal soul (though obviously in a different sense than the Christian one). As far as the concept of instinct, the absence of an individual soul isn't problematic; insofar as virtue is concerned, however, it becomes much more troublesome.

[Dutch]

I'm way behind the learning curve here...or am I?

Is Socrates suggesting that I already know College Trig and I just need to untap it?

[QuikSand]

I'm way behind the learning curve here...or am I?

Is Socrates suggesting that I already know College Trig and I just need to untap it?

Sort of... Plato (who uses Socrates as his character/voice) is suggesting that while you might not actually "know" the various formulas and details that you'd need to pass a trig test -- you do already at least understand the basic relationships that the language of trigonometry seeks to describe. Your taking the class, and studying the language of trigonometry, he'd suggest, is really more of an exercise in getting you to properly express and manage the information that you already have. Or something like that.

Make any sense?

[HomerJSimpson]

Sort of... Plato (who uses Socrates as his character/voice) is suggesting that while you might not actually "know" the various formulas and details that you'd need to pass a trig test -- you do already at least understand the basic relationships that the language of trigonometry seeks to describe. Your taking the class, and studying the language of trigonometry, he'd suggest, is really more of an exercise in getting you to properly express and manage the information that you already have. Or something like that.

Make any sense?

And if it does, then you already knew it, but QS is helping manage and recall that information. :D

[Dutch]

I think it makes perfect sense although I can't explain why. Which I guess is part of the point.

[QuikSand]

Been thinking about this some more... and trigonometry. Trial run here.


You may have never studied trig before, but you already "know" how a lot of it works.

Assume you have a basic understanding of angles and distance -- nothing too technical, just the very basic concept -- to the level which could be expressed by, say, scratching things in the dirt. Past that, you have no knowledge of trigonometry at all.

Now, I will tell you that I am building a triangle, I have two sides already -- those are fized, and they will adjoin (of course). What I want to set is the interior angle between those two sides, which is as of yet unknown.

Even if you know nothing of trigonometry -- you have never been taught the terminology or the functions or any of that stuff... you already know that there is a relationship between the measure of that angle (between the two fixed sides of the triangle) and the distance that the third side will need to be to connect that triangle. You can, presumably, even see what the range of the possible lengths of the two sides would be. As the angle approaches zero, the third side's length will approach the difference between the two lengths, as the tringle becomes closer and closer to just being a flat stack of line segments. As the angle approaches 180 degrees (its maximum value) it becomes clear that the length of the third side approaches the sum of the two fixed sides. So, that is your possible range of values. It's also pretty intuitively clear that there is a positive correlation between the measure of that angle and the distance of the third side -- that it never becomes an inverse relationship at any point... every increase in the angle lengthens that remaining line.


So... if you buy that, that you can understand that concept at the "drawing in the dirt" level... then it's not an unfair example (and slightly less extended than Plato's) of innate knowledge that we all possess, regardless of education. You may not know the terminology or the precise formula that would be used in a trigonometry class, but you understand the relationship that underlies it. The rest, Plato would say, are just expressions of the knowledge you already possessed.

[Dutch]

Fair enough, that makes sense. But isn't it only because math makes sense, at the very basic level? It's extremely logical afterall.

I wonder what the boundaries are of this. Obviously I have to be taught what Ghengis Khan had for lunch after ransacking villages back in the 12th century because I wouldn't be born with that knowledge.

Seriously, I do not understand the limitations of this inate knowledge or the fundamentals of it.

Another example-
In science, I have been taught that the Earth rotates, but the moon doesn't. I don't know why either of them do, but I know it. However, I don't know if the Sun rotates. I haven't been taught that (or don't remember). I'm not even sure I have the fundamental knowledge to know if the Sun rotates or not without discovering something new my brain simply has never been aware of.

Sorry if this isn't very articulate.

[QuikSand]

Fair enough, that makes sense. But isn't it only because math makes sense, at the very basic level? It's extremely logical afterall.

I wonder what the boundaries are of this. Obviously I have to be taught what Ghengis Khan had for lunch after ransacking villages back in the 12th century because I wouldn't be born with that knowledge.

Seriously, I do not understand the limitations of this inate knowledge or the fundamentals of it.

Another example-
In science, I have been taught that the Earth rotates, but the moon doesn't. I don't know why either of them do, but I know it. However, I don't know if the Sun rotates. I haven't been taught that (or don't remember). I'm not even sure I have the fundamental knowledge to know if the Sun rotates or not without discovering something new my brain simply has never been aware of.

Sorry if this isn't very articulate.


Plenty articulate. I get it completely.

Of course we are not born with "facts" like you mention... but rather with knowledge. Plato seeks to argue that some things are just known by everyone... not to include facts, but rather some absolute principles and relationships that are more universal. Math seems the best place to argue this, but in concept it's broader than that.

Socrates's conversation with Meno is about virtue... and Plato (through Socrates) wants to conclude that virtue is one such thing -- that being a virtuous person is not something that you must truly learn how to do, but rather you only must recall or process the things, the principles, that you already know.

At least, that's what I get from it.

[Dutch]

A good analogy might be a computer that comes pre-loaded with Windows XP which gives the computer the ability to learn FOF2k or MS Word.

So in reverse, the application, no matter how much it makes sense, can't be learned without that basic building blocks of knowledge that's already in place (WinXP).

[QuikSand]

My class on Meno is tomorrow night. I have read it three times, read a couple of critical articles, and have had a few discussions with others who have read it (including here). I still have fear that I am underprepared for the discussion. (Though similar fears were unfounded in the first class, even with a far more approachable work Huckleberry Finn.)

[WSUCougar]

Been thinking about this some more... and trigonometry. Trial run here.


You may have never studied trig before, but you already "know" how a lot of it works.

Assume you have a basic understanding of angles and distance -- nothing too technical, just the very basic concept -- to the level which could be expressed by, say, scratching things in the dirt. Past that, you have no knowledge of trigonometry at all.

Now, I will tell you that I am building a triangle, I have two sides already -- those are fized, and they will adjoin (of course). What I want to set is the interior angle between those two sides, which is as of yet unknown.

Even if you know nothing of trigonometry -- you have never been taught the terminology or the functions or any of that stuff... you already know that there is a relationship between the measure of that angle (between the two fixed sides of the triangle) and the distance that the third side will need to be to connect that triangle. You can, presumably, even see what the range of the possible lengths of the two sides would be. As the angle approaches zero, the third side's length will approach the difference between the two lengths, as the tringle becomes closer and closer to just being a flat stack of line segments. As the angle approaches 180 degrees (its maximum value) it becomes clear that the length of the third side approaches the sum of the two fixed sides. So, that is your possible range of values. It's also pretty intuitively clear that there is a positive correlation between the measure of that angle and the distance of the third side -- that it never becomes an inverse relationship at any point... every increase in the angle lengthens that remaining line.


So... if you buy that, that you can understand that concept at the "drawing in the dirt" level... then it's not an unfair example (and slightly less extended than Plato's) of innate knowledge that we all possess, regardless of education. You may not know the terminology or the precise formula that would be used in a trigonometry class, but you understand the relationship that underlies it. The rest, Plato would say, are just expressions of the knowledge you already possessed.
In the case of your example, what we know as trigonometry is merely human labeling what is a scientific truth. It's a means of us connecting the mental dots, so to speak. Our "knowledge" of it is merely coining in human terms what is a scientific certainty.

But virtue is not scientifically defined or quantifiable. It's human-defined. While the science of trig is that way to a man as well as a monkey, you can't say that a monkey can tune into virtue unless he's steered that way by a human...correct?

edit: corrected "be a human" to "by a human"

[QuikSand]

In the case of your example, what we know as trigonometry is merely human labeling what is a scientific truth. It's a means of us connecting the mental dots, so to speak. Our "knowledge" of it is merely coining in human terms what is a scientific certainty.

But virtue is not scientifically defined or quantifiable. It's human-defined. While the science of trig is that way to a man as well as a monkey, you can't say that a monkey can tune into virtue unless he's steered that way be a human...correct?

That's pretty good...

I think Plato would say here that men are given a sort of "divine spark" (my phrase, not his) that allows us to possess an understanding of virtue from within. In that sense, I think he'd be prepared to argue that this is essentially the same as the inherent mathematical knowledge -- it's something we undertstand inherently, we just need a way to uncover that knowledge and then choose whether to actually follow it and act virtuously.

[WSUCougar]

I think Plato would say here that men are given a sort of "divine spark" (my phrase, not his) that allows us to possess an understanding of virtue from within. In that sense, I think he'd be prepared to argue that this is essentially the same as the inherent mathematical knowledge -- it's something we undertstand inherently, we just need a way to uncover that knowledge and then choose whether to actually follow it and act virtuously.
But the things that define virtue are choice-based, are they not? Humanity establishes virtue as a value system, whether universal or not, through the choices we make as a species, as a group, or as individuals.

Example: Suicide is not considered virtuous to most people, but what if you are a kamikaze pilot in 1945 Japan?

Math is not choice-based...something either is or is not a triangle.

[QuikSand]

Example: Suicide is not considered virtuous to most people, but what if you are a kamikaze pilot in 1945 Japan?

I think Plato's discussion here of virtue is not this specific. (This is just my own conclusion, not based on anything else)

Seems to me that what he considers universal is the notion of "what kind of thing is virtuous?" or perhaps "what is it that makes an act virtuous?" So, with your question about an ambiguous situation that might have competing elements of virtue and evil, I think Plato would be saying that as long as you understand the general concept of virtue enough to engage in the debate of whether this specific act is virtuous, then you do indeed possess that universal human knowledge. (Whether you reach the correct conclusion about any particular case is perhaps another matter)

[WSUCougar]

So the choice itself does not so much define the virtue in a universal sense, but rather the reason that choice is selected?

That sounds more like a conscience.

(I'm throwing Devil's Advocate stuff at you on purpose, Quik.)

[Warhammer]

My example: a baby "knows" how to suckle. Does not need to be taught. We all agree on that, even those among us who might not believe that this was some fort of package begifted to tbebaby by a higher power via an immortal soul. We have another explanation -- that of natural instinct.

However, some babies do not know how to suckle. It is actually a learned ability. That is part of the reason why some babies lose more weight than others after childbirth.

[QuikSand]

I think it is a conscience, Coug, in the usual sense that we think of that term.

If a conscience is the little voice that tells you what's "right" or 'wrong" to do -- then that voice is guided by an innate understanding of virtue.


Maybe I'm making too wide a split of virtue and virtuous behavior... I guess a discussion of who understands the general nature of right and wrong (absent any intent to select the "right" behavior" is pretty pointless. So, maybe you're right... but then, it seems to me, Plato's extended discussion of knowledge and virtue (and the lengthy, deliberate parallels between them) seems pointless to me.

And if all men are endowed with the gift of virtuous behavior, then how would there be any man-made evil in the world? That seems like a quick absurdum there.

[QuikSand]

However, some babies do not know how to suckle. It is actually a learned ability. That is part of the reason why some babies lose more weight than others after childbirth.

I think you are looking at it a little more practically than I am. Babies understand the combination of muscle motions to engage to suck -- nobody has to teach them to do so. Whether this instinct is a strong and apparent one or not so strong I'm sure avries -- but it's not like babies don't know how to suckle. (And if I have that wrong somehow, the misinformation is wholly immaterial to my point here anyway)

If that example doesn't work for you - how about crying? Nobody has to teach a baby to cry - they just know to do so by instinct. Point being - humans are born with knowledge, anod nobody argued this is incontrovertible proof of a higher power... we can tally it up to "instinct" very comfortably.

[WSUCougar]

Let's talk Lord of the Flies scenario, then.

What would Plato say about a group of humans who grow up bereft of society and any kind of external moral nurturing, who then fall into a might-makes-right, survival of the fittest type of environment. Is the innate understanding of virtue lost? Subverted? Ignored? Still there?

[Warhammer]

My argument is this:

If we know everything to begin with, yet forget and must recollect our knowledge. How can we look at the same set of data and come to different conclusions?

[QuikSand]

My argument is this:

If we know everything to begin with, yet forget and must recollect our knowledge. How can we look at the same set of data and come to different conclusions?

First, I think Plato would suggest that it is only essential truths that we all "know" from the start.

But I think the best way to answer this question is to acknowledge that we each do a diferent job in uncovering the truths that we already know, and in acting upon that knowledge. This involves one's own judgment - something that is bound to be variable across people, even those with essentially the same knowldege.

[QuikSand]

Let's talk Lord of the Flies scenario, then.

What would Plato say about a group of humans who grow up bereft of society and any kind of external moral nurturing, who then fall into a might-makes-right, survival of the fittest type of environment. Is the innate understanding of virtue lost? Subverted? Ignored? Still there?

Okay... I think Plato would say that our knowledge of virtue remains... but in this case, perhaps it can become subverted by a more hedonistic drive (cf Ralph). Inside, we all understand that it is "right" to stay together, to respect one another, to behave fairly and responsibly. But we also recognize that it may indeed be more "fun" to wear war paint, to run around with spears, and to occasionally poke things with our spears. Or "empowering" to do so.

We are then faced with a choice between the virtuous behavior and something less so... and even in that context, both Plato and Golding would agree that we are properly held accountable for our decisions in that respect.

[WSUCougar]

As a species we ignore what we know to be virtuous in spite of ourselves.

[QuikSand]

Well... a follow-up here, now that the clas has run. I meant to do this soon after the class, but I kept leaving my notes at home.

Anyway... my fears about being unprepared for the discussion were very much unfounded. I, once again, overestimated the abilities of my fellow classmates - many of whom continue to demonstrate how much more they are focused on themselves than on the subject matter.


As for the discussion -- our tutor focused at first on the question of "what is virtue?" (Which he wrote out in Greek, using the greek term that doesn't quite transalte perfectly as "virtue" but perhaps better as "human excellence" ... I tried to find the proper charaters in MS Word, but failed to do so to my dismay) From there, we had a somewhat uncomfortable conversation on that topic, which led to the conclusions that (1) the Meno lecture certainly doesn't answer that question, and (2) we in the room also were at a real loss to provide a very satisfying answer.

We then had some conversation about the "Socratic method" as demonstrated in the Meno, where Socrates teases out his points by way of questioning and rigorous logic. Pretty basic stuff, but the conversation was pretty good, I thought. I tried to make the argument that, in the Meno, we can't help but admire Socrates for his intellectual approach, and that when he goes on to teach the slave boy about the geometic problem... we see that his intended approach is an attempt to get him to "own" the information, rather than just "know" it. This parallel seemed to get us on a good track for a while, and that issue (and not the ultimate conclusions of the dialogue itself) seem to be what drives our tutor's passions for this particular dialogue.


Another issue came up that I had not considered, but I found compelling as we talked in class. In the geometirc exercise, we end up discussing the square root of eight... and determined that it's some number larger than two, smaller than three, but a bit slippery to define precisely. The slave, though, certainly agrees that, in the illustration Socrates draws in the dirt, the length of the side of the interior square is indeed that length (the square root of eight) -- this he certainly believes, even if he can't quite articulate what that value is.

In essence, this seems to parallel our understainding of virtue (or human excellence) pretty well. Everyone in the room certainly seemed to have a general sense of what virtue is -- we were all in general agreement when faced with a variety of constructed situations on what is or is not virtuous... but when asked to assembel a general rule or definition, we came up pretty empty. To me, that was rather like the square root -- we all know what it is conceptually with some precision, but none of us could articulate it as a number very effectively (uh, two point eight...three...uh...) .


In any event... I thought it was an evening pretty well spent. And I did, in the end, fell like I got a good deal from the reading itself -- more than I had imagined. I think I spent too much time and focus (both here and on my own) discussing the actual conclusions of the question meno asked ("Can virtue be tought?") and the uncomfortable conclusions Plato's Socrates reaches (It's a gift from the gods, that's it)... and missed a bit of what is the real value in the lecture itself -- much more on method and presentation than the actual dialogue's contents.


Anyway... next topic is Book Three of Arisotle's Politics. Once I get started, I will perhaps post a thread for discusion of that as well. I enjoyed the conversation here.

[WSUCougar]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing your experience.

[Calis]

Another issue came up that I had not considered, but I found compelling as we talked in class. In the geometirc exercise, we end up discussing the square root of eight... and determined that it's some number larger than two, smaller than three, but a bit slippery to define precisely. The slave, though, certainly agrees that, in the illustration Socrates draws in the dirt, the length of the side of the interior square is indeed that length (the square root of eight) -- this he certainly believes, even if he can't quite articulate what that value is.



Heh, I like that. I just recently finished up a research paper on Time, the history of the theories on it and such, and there was a Greek philosopher, can't remember his name now for sure but had a quote something along the lines of, "We know exactly what time is until asked to define it."

Fits pretty well.

Interesting stuff though, hope to see you continue with these topics. I don't have the understanding to add anything of value to the conversation, but I do enjoy reading them. :)

[st.cronin]

I am reminded of Will Durant, who once commented that philosophy tends to degenerate into epistemology (I think that's the word ... the study of where knowledge comes from.)

Also, arete is not merely 'human excellence' - Homer often praised horses for their arete. It's one of those words that doesn't really have an English equivalent. Excellence, but not merely pragmatic excellence, is probably the best definition *I* can give.