Discussion Of Virtue In Plato's Meno

In this paper, I try to discuss the sixth chapter in the book which focuses on the definition of virtue. This passage mainly goes through dialogues between Socrates and Meno, who debated with each other in order to make a certain definition of virtue. In the passage, Socrates gave his opinion of virtue and tried to make Meno understand his ideas, while Meno held his opinion. In fact, virtue is rather difficult to be defined. Even though both Socrates and Meno had contemplated what virtue, it is still hard to give a definition of it. Also, trying to make a certain definition of virtue is also the broad aim of the whole book---Plato’s Meno. This book was written by Plato, which is filled with Socrates’ dialogues. It aims to make sure the essence of virtue. From this portion in the book, I can see that the aim of this passage could make a difference in helping reach the entire aim of the book. In this paper, I prepared to explain the content of the passage as well as some important concepts. What’s more, I aim to mark out the difficult and important ideas, thoughts I have gained in the process of reading. At the same time, I will also cite my personal experiences in order to support the ideas in the passage.

"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.

In Plato’s Apology, the Oracle at Delphi asserted that Socrates is the wisest man of them all, Socrates was confused because he believed that wisdom is what you know is the only thing that you know and he claimed that he knows nothing. Socrates was aware that he was not the wisest of them but did not understand what they meant when they said he was the wisest “For surely he does not lie” (Plato Pg. 26). With great confusion Socrates would then try to challenge what the Oracle had said and proved him wrong. I agree with Socrates belief in wisdom and what wisdom is all about, because knowledge is acquired when you admit to yourself that you know nothing. That knowledge you have already obtain will be the only knowledge you can declare until you are than shared with new knowledge.

Plato’s Apology is one of the most well-known pieces of Plato’s writing today, perhaps due to a certain dramatic style and context that can appeal to any reader. The ‘Apology’ is the defence speech of Socrates before the court at a trial for his life. He has been accused of deliberately corrupting the young and of non-belief in the Athenians’ gods. It is widely accepted that this is a true event, Socrates was tried, found guilty and put to death. What is not known for certain is the accuracy of Plato’s account of his defence. David Leibowitz tells us that the Greek title is ambiguous and could mean a defence speech either for or by Socrates. From this it is hard to discern if the Apology as

The question that is asked in Plato’s Meno dialogue in the beginning is whether virtue can be taught. Quite truly, the answer is in the negative even though the indication is weak, consisting only of the observation that no one relates to themselves as a “virtue instructor”. But I think Plato could have worded the questions a bit differently, which may have given him a diverse answer; as an alternative way of asking whether virtue can be taught, he might have had a better chance if he were to ask whether virtue could be learned.

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.

We all have questions: what am I? What is a human being? What is the meaning of life? Where are we going as a society? Sometimes we might wake up in a cold sweat at night and despair about ever truly having the answers. We joke around with them. We brush them off. We do anything but face them. We refuse to give them power over us. These are truly questions that need to be asked that we have to confront because only with sound answers will we be able to go forward in our lives meaningfully. Philosophy empowers us to ask the big questions, the questions that matter. It is a way to not let the fear take over our lives, but to live without fear of the unknown. Even if these questions seem too broad, too all- encompassing they can be broken down

In Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human nature. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by use of a personal character. The argument, originally given by Thrasymachus, contends that at the root of our human nature we all yearn for the most profit possible. It also contends that any man will act immorally if given free reign. The theory proves unplausible due to circularity in the argument and implications that prove untrue.

Plato’s dialogue Meno begins with Meno asking Socrates whether virtue can be taught. Socrates responds by saying that he does not have an answer to such question because he does not even have knowledge of what virtue is. This claim prompts Meno to provide Socrates with a definition of virtue. He explains that there are different virtues for different people dependent on their gender, age, and social class (Plato 872). Socrates, however, rejects this definition because it fails to provide a single form common to all kinds of virtue. Meno gives another attempt by defining virtue as the ability to rule over people (Plato 873). Socrates swiftly refutes this claim by pointing out how it fails to explain virtue in the case of a child or slave. In his third attempt, Meno defines virtue as justice, but Socrates again explains how justice is merely a virtue and not a common feature of virtue. In his final attempt, Meno defines virtue as a poet says, “to find joy in beautiful things and have power” (Plato 877). The argument breaks down when Socrates explains how everybody desires good things and that acquiring power is not necessarily a good thing if not accompanied by justice or piety. Thus, Meno has repeated his earlier mistake by using different types of virtues in order to define virtue. In the end, Socrates is left nowhere closer to an answer as Meno realizes that he does not know what virtue is.

Plato’s dialogue, titled ‘Meno’, began with Meno proposing a question to Socrates on whether virtue is teachable, can be developed by practice, or something one is born with. Socrates, who is somewhat humored by the question, wants to first know what the nature of virtue truly is. Meno offers Socrates multiple examples of virtues based of roles, including the virtue of a man, a woman, a child, an elder, and a slave. The virtue of a man would be to manage his public affairs, and bring good on to himself and his friends and harm to his enemies. The virtue of a woman is to manage the household and to be submissive to her husband (Meno, pg. 60-61). He goes on to say that there are many other ways of defining virtue that is specific to the actions,

Plato’s Republic proposes a number of intriguing theories, ranging from his contemporary view of ethics to political idealism. It is because of Plato’s emerging interpretations that philosophers still refer to Plato’s definitions of moral philosophy as a standard. Plato’s possibly most argued concept could be said to be the analogy between city and soul in Book IV, partially due to his expansive analysis of justice and the role justice plays in an “ideal city,” which has some key flaws. Despite these flawed assumptions that my essay will point out, Plato’s exposition on ethics is still relevant for scholars and academics to study, due to his interpretive view on morality and justice.

“the having and doing of one’s own and what belongs to one would be agreed to

Through the use of rationale, the philosopher Socrates concluded that there is only one standard by which all things are holy or unholy. Socrates conclusion is logical, it is logical because morality is a way of existing and has no distinguishable construct, therefore it is a mysterious order that has always existed in an unchanging form. We cannot define this form, we sense that it is present and we know that a person or thing is either good or bad. For this reason, the logical outcome is that holiness is its own standard, you are holy or you are unholy.

workers, so that they do not desire to be in the ruler's position. It is seen

Plato's Republic is often read as a political work, as a statement of some sort on government, society, and law. This is certainly not a rash reading of the dialogue; it is called the Republic, and over half of it is devoted to the construction of a city through speech, a city complete with a government structure, a military, an economic system, and laws. However, I believe that to read the Republic as a political statement is inaccurate. Although Socrates and his companions construct a city out of speech as they attempt to define justice, the dialogue repeatedly frames justice as something that cannot be established through a fixed system of morality, let alone through a rigid