'Meno And Socrates Socratic Paradox'

If the basis of ones theory is unsound there is no reason to accept what has been built up from it. If Socrates’ refutation of Meno’s Paradox is that knowledge is simply recollection, it is necessary that he prove the immortality of the soul independently. Since Socrates has failed to do so, then his theory cannot be accepted a sufficient way of overcoming the paradox.

For example, for those people who get money from human trafficking, there is no possible chance that they do not know human trafficking is morally bad. Of course, most people know that if they do human trafficking, they will be miserable. They know if they are caught, they will be harmed which in this case means sent to jail or death penalty. According to the arguments of Socrates, nobody desires what is bad because nobody wants to be miserable. These people desire to make human trafficking and they know they will be miserable, but they still choose to do it. They choose to do so because of the mass personal benefit comes with human trafficking. If somebody believes that not being miserable is more important than anything else in his life, he will not choose to be miserable for something else. These people choose to be miserable for money and other personal benefits. Therefore, we know these people don’t believe that not being miserable is more important than anything else in their

It is thought that Meno's paradox is of critical importance both within Plato's thought and within the whole history of ideas. It's major importance is that for the first time on record, the possibility of achieving knowledge from the mind's own resources rather than from experience is articulated, demonstrated and seen as raising important philosophical questions.

Socrates might be a wise philosopher but one of his ideas strikes me as particularly naive. In the allegory of the cave, he tells Glaucon that "in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort [·] and that this is the power upon which he [the intellectual] would act rationally" (517b-c). In other words, he seems to be implying that knowledge of goodness is a sufficient condition for being good. A person who has seen what goodness is will henceforth act in a way that is good. Is this belief justified? For instance, we sometimes do things that we know are not good but we do them nonetheless and feel guilty after that. If, as such cases

Meno and Socrates, found themselves in a debate over virtue. The men were trying to uncover the truth about how one acquires virtue; is it taught? Is it practiced? Or is it inborn? When Socrates proposes that they try to define virtue itself, because they do not know what it is to begin with, the men reach a disagreement. Both Socrates and Meno had very different views about how one acquires knowledge about virtue and all other things as well. Meno proposes a view, or a paradox, in which people can not learn new things, while Socrates proposes a theory, the “theory of recollection”, in which people already know everything within their minds. Socrates’s theory of recollection

Socrates is known for his ability to ask questions of people and cause them to think critically about the topic to formulate ideas. It’s a method that causes the person defending a point of view to question and possibly contradict themselves to strengthen the others point. Socrates ability to use analogies and ignorance of his accuser, Meletus, was a valid way of defending the charges set against him. Socrates is accused of corrupting the youth of Athens by Meletus. However, Socrates argues that it was unintentional.

During the time period in which he said this quote, Socrates felt as though those in his community weren't cognizant of the injustices occurring around them. He compares himself to a gadfly in an attempt to defend himself and help others understand his purpose for his actions which was to help them understand right from wrong. And essentially sting life into Athens. Moreover, Socrates pretended to be uneducated on many topics so he could ask the opinions of others and strike conversations. To me this quote means Socrates wanted Athens to wake up, open their eyes and simply think, be a philosopher! Have ideas and form arguments rather than be the sluggish horse who has no worry for such discussions. This kind of attitude is also expressed

In Plato’s The Meno, Socrates, who was a Greek philosopher and considered one of the wisest of all people expresses his views on the relationship between knowledge and virtue. In todays era, virtue is defined as having good morals as a human being. Knowledge is defined as factual information and skills that are acquired by a person through experience or education. Together Socrates makes a statement and or beliefs, that virtue is knowledge because if you know what is right, you will in fact do what is right.

Most people recognize the difference between good and bad, and aim to do only the good for the world. Yet, there seems to be a lot of bad happening in the world, and the idea of ethics or a universal moral code comes into question. Despite the influence our family has, as Marcus Aurelius pointed out, human beings still find a way to do terrible things, it seems everyone has a different moral code. The question that remains is that of a true right or wrong. The Republic by Plato aims to outline the difference between good and bad, and how this difference can shape the world and the

Plato concurs that rationality requires self-intrigued activity. On the other hand, he recognizes the difference between perceived self-interest and real self-interest and contends that any evident clash in the middle of rationality and morality is essentially a contention between one 's apparent self-interest and the prerequisites of justice. Seeking after of one 's genuine self-interest never clashes with the requests of morality. Since, for Plato, it is more reasonable to seek after one 's genuine, than one 's evident, self-interest, rationality and morality do not conflict. It is rational to be moral.

This discussion ultimately leads to another question which concerns whether a person tends to injustice or justice due to his or her nature. In developing the argument, Plato shows that it is characteristic of the human nature to prefer injustice over justice, especially in the cases when person's self-interest requires this. Glaucon states in the dialogue, “all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice” (Plato). In introducing this idea, Plato emphasizes that people tend to act according to the principles of morality only if they have a reason for it. However, another important point to consider here is the promoted by Glaucon idea that people's actions come as result of a compromise between the most desirable and keeping one's appearances. Hence, the motivation to act morally originates from the outside of an individual and people subject to it

While in his more develop works, Plato attests a wide range of positive regulations (the most well known of which was his hypothesis of structures), it is exceptionally questionable whether Socrates propels any positive proposals by any means. On one hand, he expressly guarantees that he doesn't know anything, and that his insight lies in his affirmation of that reality. Then again, there do appear to be some moral rule that profoundly advise the greater part of Socrates' reasoning. Case in point, he is acclaimed for focusing on the significance of knowing oneself and for affirming that nobody ever purposely and deliberately does detestable instead of good. In this area of the content, these moral standards become an integral factor in power

According to Plato, evil is simply the result of ignorance. He believed that all people are attempting to do what they understand as good. He believes there are three parts of the soul. There is a rational and moral part of the soul that loves truth, justice and good. There is a spirited part of the soul that loves worldly achievement, riches and victory. Lastly, there is an appetitive part of the soul that craves food and carnal gratification. Plato argued that the rational part of the soul should rightly be in charge, as it is most in tune with moral value.

The thought here is that people only act justly out of a threat of punishment. Plato believes that no man wishes to do good. He believes that if a man is allowed to do bad or good without any punishment, he will always choose to do bad because bad feelings are more pleasurable. In thinking about this myth, I do agree with it. Examples are people committing crimes or politicians who are in power, rather than thinking of the consequences, they are going with the initial pleasurable feeling and worrying about consequences only after they are caught. This is reasonable, but there are also counter examples such as

In Plato’s Meno it begins with a debate between a fictional Socrates and Meno about whether virtue can be taught or if it is acquired in another way. Socrates begins to prove his point when he asks the slaves about the geometry question. When the slave answers the question, Socrates suggests to Meno that they inquire this together. Meno argues with his “Meno’s Paradox” that, “one logically cannot inquire productivity into what one does not already know” (Meno 58). Then Socrates continues to make Meno question his own beliefs when the slave recognizes the answer to geometrical problem. Socrates proceeds to confirm with the concept that the sole is immortal and the slave was “recollecting” knowledge that the soul already had.