Can Virtue Be Acquired? An Examination of the Laches, Meno and Protagoras

In Plato’s Meno, Socrates and Meno attempt to answer the question, ‘What is virtue?’ Through this discussion, Meno is lead to question whether they are even able to arrive at an answer, presenting us with the paradox of inquiry, ‘And how will you enquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as a subject of enquiry? And if you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is the thing which you did not know?’ (Meno 80d). Meno’s paradox states that one cannot gain knowledge through enquiry.

Through several dialogues Plato gives readers accounts of Socrates’ interactions with other Athenians. While some may think of him as a teacher of sorts, Socrates is adamant in rejecting any such claim (Plato, Apology 33a-b). He insists that he is not a teacher because he is not transferring any knowledge from himself to others, but rather assisting those he interacts with in reaching the truth. This assistance is the reason Socrates walks around Athens, engaging in conversation with anyone that he can convince to converse with him. An assertion he makes at his trial in Plato’s Apology is at the center of what drives Socrates in his abnormal ways, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (38a). Socrates, through aporia, looks to lead an examined life to perfect his soul and live as the best person he can be. This paper looks to examine the ‘unexamined life’ and the implications rooted in living a life like Socrates’.

Socrates declares that there is no one to teach people about wisdom and virtues. His conversation with Callias explains that no one can teach wisdom and virtue as there is no one that has mastered wisdom and virtue. Human beings are fallible creatures, morality, ethics and virtues are not always primarily considered in the multitude of decisions and actions that are performed every day. Humans are imperfect individuals, bound by no definitive moral code that is enforceable under any circumstance. Humans are creatures of free will and with free will comes evil and righteousness simultaneously. No one can teach a human being to always be righteous, kind, caring and generous. Socrates declares that there is no one capable of teaching all of these virtues because humans are all imperfect individuals but through inner evaluation humans can constantly strive to get closer to perfection.

"Socrates, can virtue be taught?"1 The dialogue begins with Meno asking Socrates whether virtue can be taught. At the end of the Meno (86d-100b), Socrates attempts to answer the question. This question is prior to the division between opinion and knowledge and provides to unsettle both. Anytus participated in Socrates and Meno conversation about virtue. Socrates claims that if virtue is a kind of knowledge, then it can be learned. If it is something besides a kind of knowledge, it perceptibly cannot be taught.

The portrayal of Socrates, through the book “the trial and death of Socrates” is one that has created a fairly controversial character in Western history. In many ways, Socrates changed the idea of common philosophy in ancient Greece; he transformed their view on philosophy from a study of why the way things are, into a consideration man. Specifically, he analyzed the virtue and health of the human soul. Along side commending Socrates for his strong beliefs, and having the courage to stand by those convictions, Socrates can be commended for many other desirable characteristics. Some of those can include being the first martyr to die for his philosophical beliefs and having the courage to challenge indoctrinated cultural norms is part of

Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own

Philosophers are known to question, analyze and evaluate everything but do not always end with concrete conclusions. Plato’s Euthyphro and Apology, to no surprise, highlight one of such debate: the human characteristics of wisdom. Though Plato was one of the earliest philosophers, the topic of wisdom is still debated by modern philosophers today, contemplating questions such as “What are the classifications of ‘wisdom’?” According to Plato’s two dialogues, the characteristics of wisdom have a strong correlation with the characteristics of “being a good person”. This concept highlights the values of virtue and selflessness and at the same time juxtapose views on virtue while taking into account the different forms of rationality. In this paper, I will highlight how Plato uses his two dialogues to enforce his own opinion about the relationship between being wise and being a good person, and evaluate the inconsistencies within this claim.

This is a clearer example of what Plato wrote about. Socrates said that virtue is knowledge which is to know what is right is to do what is right. All wrong doing is the result of ignorance, nobody chooses to do wrong purposely. Therefore, to be honest you must have true knowledge. Plato was trying to find a solution to the problem that although there is fundamental steadiness in the world (sun comes up every morning), it is constantly changing (you never step into the same river twice). An old theory about this problem is that we gain all knowledge from our senses. Plato disagreed with this. He said that because the world is constantly changing, our senses cannot be trusted. Socrates sets up a mathematical problem for a slave boy. The slave boy knows the answer, yet he has not been taught arithmetic. Plato suggests that the slave boy remembers the answer to the problem, which has been in

If we apply this to the question of virtue, which is being considered in the Meno, neither Socrates nor Meno can define virtue, and so they do not know what virtue is, therefore they can not inquire about virtue.

Plato's "Euthyphro" introduces the Socratic student both to the Socratic Method of inquiry and to, or at least towards, a definition of piety. Because the character of Euthyphro exits the dialogue before Socrates can arrive at a reasonable definition, an adequate understanding of piety is never given. However, what piety is not is certainly demonstrated. Euthyphro gives three definitions of piety that fail to mean much to Socrates, who refutes each one. In this paper, I will present Euthyphro's definitions along with Socrates' rebuttals. I will also show that Socrates goal in the dialogue is two-fold: 1) to arrive at a true definition, and 2) to exercise his method of teaching/inquiry. At the conclusion of this paper, I will give my own definition of piety and imagine what Socrates might say in response.

Therefore, if these things are not exchanged with the help of wisdom then Socrates believes that the aspect of virtue is “…a mere illusion.” (Phaedo 69b). In conclusion, Socrates view on morality is based upon justice, examining how to live, and expanding one’s wisdom.

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

In the Meno, Socrates and Meno discuss the nature of virtue, the process of acquiring knowledge, and also the concept of the teachability of virtue. Throughout the text, Meno suggests many varying definitions for virtue, all of which Socrates is able to dismantle. The point is also raised that it may be impossible to know about something that was not previously understood, because the searcher would have no idea what to be looking for. To dispute this, Socrates makes a point that all knowledge is innate, and the process of “learning” is really just recollecting knowledge that is buried deeply within the human mind. The issue of the teachability of virtue is an important theme in this dialogue because it raises points about whether virtue is knowledge, which then leads to the issue of knowledge in general.

The use of Socrates’ inquiry in the Meno is a perfect example to show how Socrates pushed his listeners to question their own knowledge. Socrates never told Meno his definitions were wrong and his own were right, rather continued to question Meno’s conclusions to show him that he did not know the true meaning of virtue. The people of Athens were unable to accept the fact that many of them were ignorant on topics such as the definition of virtue, whereas Socrates himself was able to admit it. The Athenians disguised Socrates’ true desire to teach people for corruption and impiety because they believed he was trying to humiliate them. Although the people of Athens were blind of Socrates’ true intentions, his method of inquiry did in fact benefit the city of Athens. Socrates’ methods eliminated ignorance and increased proper knowledge on important things such as virtue and knowledge within the city of Athens, which is what he meant when he said he was “a gift of the gods to the city of Athens.”

To further imply that virtue is not teachable, the conclusion is reached that if there are no teachers or pupils of a topic, the subject can't be taught. Then, after an involved conversation with Anytus, it is proved that virtue cannot be taught, and since it cannot be taught, it is later agreed that, in light of this, virtue cannot be knowledge. As Socrates sees it, since virtue is not knowledge, it must be that virtue is only present in those people who have acquired it from the gods.