Platos Meno Plot, Analysis, and Commentary on virtue

Plato's Meno Plot, Analysis, and Commentary on virtue Although fairly short, Platos dialog Meno is generally regarded as one of his most important and influential works. In a few pages, it ranges over several fundamental philosophical questions, such as: What is virtue?Can it be taught or is it innate?Do we know some things a priori (independent of experience)?What is the difference between really knowing something and merely holding a correct belief about it? The dialog also has some dramatic significance. We see Socrates reduce Meno, who begins by confidently assuming that he knows what virtue is, to a state of confusion–an unpleasant experience presumably common among those who engaged Socrates in debate. We also see Anytus, who will one day be one of the prosecutors responsible for Socrates trial and execution, warn Socrates that he should be careful what he says, especially about his fellow Athenians. The  Meno  can be divided into four main parts: The unsuccessful search for a definition of virtueSocrates proof that some of our knowledge is innateA discussion of whether virtue can be taughtA discussion of why there are no teachers of virtue Part One: The Search for a Definition of Virtue The dialog opens with Meno asking Socrates a seemingly straightforward question: Can virtue be taught? Socrates, typically for him, says he doesnt know since he doesnt know what virtue is, and he hasnt met anyone who does. Meno is astonished at this reply and accepts Socrates invitation to define the term. The Greek word usually translated as virtue is arete, although it might also be translated as excellence.  The concept is closely linked to the idea of something fulfilling its purpose or function. Thus, the arete of a sword would be those qualities that make it a good weapon, for instance: sharpness, strength, balance. The arete of a horse would be qualities such as speed, stamina, and obedience. Menos first definition: Virtue is relative to the sort of person in question. For example, the virtue of a woman is to be good at managing a household and to be submissive to her husband. The virtue of a soldier is to be skilled at fighting and brave in battle. Socrates response: Given the meaning of arete,  Menos answer is quite understandable. But Socrates rejects it. He argues that when Meno points to several things as instances of virtue, there must be something they all have in common, which is why they are all called virtues. A good definition of a concept should identify this common core or essence. Menos second definition: Virtue is the ability to rule men. This may strike a modern reader as rather odd, but the thinking behind it is probably something like this: Virtue is what makes possible the fulfillment of ones purpose. For men, the ultimate purpose is happiness; happiness consists of lots of pleasure; pleasure is the satisfaction of desire; and the key to satisfying ones desires is to wield power- in other words, to rule over men. This sort of reasoning would have been associated with the sophists. Socrates response: The ability to rule men is only good if the rule is just.  But justice is only one of the virtues.  So Meno has defined the general concept of virtue by identifying it with one specific kind of virtue. Socrates then clarifies what he wants with an analogy.  The concept of shape cant be defined by describing squares, circles or triangles.  Shape is what all these figures share.  A general definition would be something like this: shape is that which is bounded by color. Menos third definition: Virtue is the desire to have and the ability to acquire fine and beautiful things. Socrates response: Everyone desires what they think is good (an idea one encounters in many of Platos dialogues). So if people differ in virtue, as they do, this must be because they differ in their ability to acquire the fine things they consider good.  But acquiring these things–satisfying ones desires–can be done in a good way or a bad way.  Meno concedes that this ability is only a virtue if it is exercised in a good way–in other words, virtuously.  So once again, Meno has built into his  definition the very notion hes trying to define. Part Two: Is Some of Our Knowledge Innate? Meno declares himself utterly confused:   O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that  you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt; and now you  are casting your spells over me, and I am simply getting bewitched and  enchanted, and am at my wits end. And if I may venture to make a jest  upon you, you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power over  others to be very like the flat torpedo fish, who torpifies those who come  near him and touch him, as you have now torpified me, I think. For my soul  and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not know how to answer you. Menos description of how he feels gives us some idea of the effect Socrates must have had on many people. The Greek term for the situation he finds himself in is aporia, which is often translated as impasse but also denotes perplexity.  He then presents Socrates with a famous paradox. Menos paradox: Either we know something or we dont.  If we know it, we dont need to inquire any further.  But if we dont know it if we cant inquire since we dont know what were looking for and wont recognize it if we found it. Socrates dismisses Menos paradox as a debaters trick,  but he nevertheless responds to the challenge, and his response is both surprising and sophisticated.  He appeals to the testimony of priests and priestesses who say that the soul is immortal, entering and leaving one body after another, that in the process it acquires a comprehensive knowledge of all there is to know, and that what we call learning is actually just a process of recollecting what we already know. This is a doctrine that Plato may have learned from the Pythagoreans. The slave boy demonstration:  Meno asks Socrates if he can prove that all learning is recollection. Socrates responds by calling over a slave boy, who he establishes has had no mathematical training, and setting him a geometry problem.  Drawing a square in the dirt, Socrates asks the boy how to double the area of the square.  The boys first guess is that one should double the length of the squares sides.  Socrates shows that this is incorrect.  The slave boy tries again, this time suggesting that one increase the length of the sides by 50 percent.  He is shown that this is also wrong.  The boy then declares himself to be at a loss.  Socrates points out that the boys situation now is similar to that of Meno.  They both believed they knew something; they now realize their belief was mistaken; but this new awareness of their own ignorance, this feeling of perplexity, is, in fact, an improvement. Socrates then proceeds to guide the boy to the right answer: you double the area of a square by using its diagonal as the basis for the larger square. He claims at the end to have demonstrated that the boy in some sense already had this knowledge within himself: all that was needed was someone to stir it up and make recollection easier.   Many readers will be skeptical of this claim. Socrates certainly seems to ask the boy leading questions. But many philosophers have found something impressive about the passage.  Most dont consider it a proof of the theory of reincarnation, and even Socrates concedes that this theory is highly speculative. But many have seen it as a convincing proof that human beings have some a priori knowledge (information that is self-evident).  The boy may not be able to reach the correct conclusion unaided, but he is able to recognize the truth of the conclusion and the validity of the steps that lead him to it.  He isnt simply repeating something he has been taught. Socrates doesnt insist that his claims about reincarnation are certain.  But he does argue that the demonstration supports his fervent belief that we will live better lives if we believe that knowledge is worth pursuing as opposed to lazily assuming that there is no point in trying. Part Three: Can Virtue Be Taught? Meno asks Socrates to return to their original question: Can virtue be taught?  Socrates reluctantly agrees and constructs the following argument: Virtue is something beneficial; its a  good thing to haveAll good things are only good if they are accompanied by knowledge or wisdom (for example, courage is good in a wise person, but in a fool, it is mere recklessness)Therefore virtue is a kind of knowledgeTherefore virtue can be taught The argument is not especially convincing.  The fact that all good things, in order to be beneficial, must be accompanied by wisdom doesnt really show that this wisdom is the same thing as virtue.  The idea that virtue is a kind of knowledge, however, does seem to have been a central tenet of Platos moral philosophy.  Ultimately, the knowledge in question is the knowledge of what truly is in ones best long-term interests. Anyone who knows this will be virtuous since they know that living a good life is the surest path to happiness.  And anyone who fails to be virtuous reveals that they dont understand this.  Hence the flip side of virtue is knowledge is all wrongdoing is ignorance, a claim that Plato spells out and seeks to justify in dialogues  such as the Gorgias.   Part Four: Why Are There No Teachers of Virtue? Meno is content to conclude that virtue can be taught, but Socrates, to Menos surprise, turns on his own argument and starts criticizing it.  His objection is simple.  If virtue could be taught there would be teachers of virtue.  But there arent any.  Therefore it cant be teachable after all. There follows an exchange with Anytus, who has joined the conversation, that is charged with dramatic irony.  In response to Socrates wondering, rather tongue-in-cheek query whether sophists might not be teachers of virtue, Anytus contemptuously dismisses the sophists as people who, far from teaching virtue, corrupt those who listen to them. Asked who could teach virtue, Anytus suggests that any Athenian gentleman should be able to do this by passing on what they have learned from preceding generations.  Socrates is unconvinced.  He points out that great Athenians like Pericles, Themistocles, and Aristides were all good men, and they managed to teach their sons specific skills like horse riding, or music.  But they didnt teach their sons to be as virtuous as themselves, which they surely would have done if they had been able to. Anytus leaves, ominously warning Socrates that he is too ready to speak ill of people and that he should take care in expressing such views.  After he leaves Socrates confronts the paradox that he now finds himself with: on the one hand, virtue is teachable since it is a kind of knowledge; on the other hand, there are no teachers of virtue. He resolves it by distinguishing between real knowledge and correct opinion.   Most of the time in practical life, we get by perfectly well if we simply have correct beliefs about something. For example,  if you want to grow tomatoes and you correctly believe that planting them on the south side of the garden will produce a good crop, then if you do this youll get the outcome youre aiming at. But to really be able to teach someone how to grow tomatoes, you need more than a bit of practical experience and a few rules of thumb; you need a genuine knowledge of horticulture, which includes an understanding of soils, climate, hydration, germination, and so on. The good men who fail to teach their sons virtue are like practical gardeners without theoretical knowledge. They do well enough themselves most of the time, but their opinions are not always reliable, and they arent equipped to teach others. How do these good men acquire virtue?  Socrates suggests it is a gift from the gods, similar to the gift of poetic inspiration enjoyed by those who are able to write poetry but are unable to explain how they do it. The Significance of the  Meno The  Meno  offers a fine illustration of Socrates argumentative methods and his search for definitions of moral concepts.  Like many of Platos early dialogues, it ends rather inconclusively.  Virtue hasnt been defined.  It has been identified with a kind of knowledge or wisdom, but exactly what this knowledge consists in hasnt been specified.  It seems it can be taught, at least in principle, but there are no teachers of virtue since no one has an adequate theoretical understanding of its essential nature.  Socrates implicitly includes himself among those who cannot teach virtue since he candidly admits at the outset that he doesnt know how to define it.   Framed by all this uncertainty, however, is the episode with the slave boy where Socrates asserts the doctrine of reincarnation and demonstrates the existence of innate knowledge.  Here he seems more confident about the truth of his claims.  It is likely that these ideas about reincarnation and inborn knowledge represent the views of Plato rather than Socrates.  They figure again in other dialogues, notably the Phaedo.  This passage is one of the most celebrated in the history of philosophy and is the starting point for many subsequent debates about the nature and the possibility of a priori knowledge. An Ominous Subtext While the content of Meno is a classic in its form and metaphysical function, it also has an underlying and ominous subtext. Plato wrote Meno about 385 BCE, placing the events about 402 BCE, when Socrates was 67 years old, and about three years before he was executed for corrupting Athenian youth. Meno was a young man who was described in historical records as treacherous, eager for wealth and supremely self-confident. In the dialogue, Meno believes he is virtuous because he has given several discourses about it in the past: and Socrates proves that he cant know whether hes virtuous or not because he doesnt know what virtue is. Anytus was the main prosecutor in the court case that led to Socratess death. In Meno, Anytus threatens Socrates, I think that you are too ready to speak evil of men: and, if you will take my advice, I would recommend you to be careful. Anytus is missing the point, but nevertheless, Socrates is, in fact, shoving this particular Athenian youth off his self-confident pedestal, which would definitely be construed in Anytuss eyes as a corrupting influence. Resources and Further Reading Bluck, R. S. Platos Meno. Phronesis 6.2 (1961): 94–101. Print.Hoerber, Robert G. Platos Meno. Phronesis 5.2 (1960): 78–102. Print.Klein, Jacob. A Commentary on Platos Meno. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.Kraut, Richard. Plato. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2017. Web.Plato. Meno. Translated by Benjamin Jowett, Dover, 2019.Silverman, Allan. Platos Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2014. Web.Tejera, V. History and Rhetoric in Platos Meno, or on the Difficulties of Communicating Human Excellence. Philosophy Rhetoric 11.1 (1978): 19–42. Print.