Plato And Plato's SocratesTheory Of Recollection

Hence, Socrates concludes “the living come from the dead in this way no less than the dead from the living, and, if that is so, it seems to be a sufficient proof that the souls of the dead must be somewhere whence they can come back again” (Phaedo 72a) and as a result, “if anyone recollects anything, he must have known it before” (Phaedo 73c). Socrates uses the example of Equal to demonstrate that we knew the essence of Equal before birth. Knowing the essence allows people to “[realize] that all these objects strive to be like the Equal but are deficient in this” (Phaedo 75a). Recollection in life can be extrapolated that humans lose a

In The Phaedo, one of Socrates’ aims is to convince us that our souls existed prior to our birth. In making this argument, he claims that we had some knowledge of imperceptible things prior to our birth, and that through “recollection” of our pre-birth knowledge of imperceptible things, we are able to perceive certain qualities of things like equality beginning after our birth. Socrates’ argument begins by defining recollection as when someone ‘perceives one thing, knows that thing, and also thinks of another thing of which the knowledge is not the same but different’ (73c). Socrates asks that we consider our perception of equal things, such as sticks and sticks or stones and stones. He claims there is “Equal itself” or the Form of Equality, which is unmistakably equal at all times (74a). Once the Form of Equality, is agreed upon, Socrates claims that “as long as the sight of one thing makes you think of another, whether it be similar or dissimilar,” you are recollecting (74d). Socrates then concludes that because we are able to make judgments about equal things through perception, we must have knowledge of the Form of Equality prior to making these judgments about equal and unequal things, and we are able to recognize these things as equal or unequal by recalling the form of equality. Socrates’ argument begins with the idea that our souls were acquainted with all forms prior to our births, and he outlines an argument that illustrates his Theory of Recollection, concluding

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 accurately contests that this definition does not provide the true nature of piety or why pious acts are in fact considered pious. By challenging Euthyphro’s perception of piety, Socrates attempts to obtain an objectivist definition of what it truly means to be pious. Socrates’ queries provide powerful support for the notion that one’s judgements regarding value is a response to objectively existing values. That is, the pious leads the gods to love it or the morally just leads one to approve it. However, perhaps the reason the dialogue draws to an aporetic conclusion, is the fact that piety may not be defined objectively. Pious acts may be considered immeasurable as they are based upon subjective individual values. Thus, the meaning of piety can differ as a result of one’s individual views and values. As one’s definition of piety may contradict another’s, acts may be regarded as both pious and impious simultaneously. Additionally, one’s own definition of what is considered pious may shift overtime, due to experience or greater understanding of a situation resulting in further discord between piety and impiety. However, whilst this Socratic dialogue does not result in a concise definition of what it means to be pious, it does indirectly enhance one’s understanding of piety by encouraging one to evaluate what the pious is

In Plato 's “The Apology of Socrates”, Socrates states, “the unexamined life is not worth living” and he would rather be put to death them stop his practice of philosophy (The Apology). In this writing, Socrates is charged with not accepting the gods recognized by the state, devising new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. However, the word "apology" in the title is not our modern English interpretation of the word. The name of the speech stems from the Greek word "apologia," which translates as a speech made in defense (SparkNotes Editors). The “The Apology of Socrates” is an account of the speech Socrates makes at the trial in which he defends himself, not apologizes. What Socrates meant by declaring, “the unexamined life is not worth living”, is that a life is worth living only if it is lived in as a pursuit for a life worthy of a man to live (The Apology). Socrates believed what makes a man worthy of life is that he lives up to what is best in him as a man. Therefore this quote can be better translated as, “the unexamined life is not a worthy life for a man to live”. Socrates believes a good or worthy man has virtue. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards such as honor and nobility. An unexamined life is one that does not examine oneself for these characteristics but claims to have wisdom. This unexamined life can be also compared to living your life on autopilot with the same dull routine and beliefs. According to Socrates, to live an examined life, one

ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the viability of certain aspects (the sex lottery) of Plato's Republic, book V. It is college level 'A' paper.

For instance one must be “pious” and avoid being “impious.” One must not claim that he knows more that he actually does. In the first dialogue “Euthyphro” Socrates is waiting at the courthouse where he ran into his fellow peer Euthyphro. Euthyphro is also waiting outside of the courthouse to open, Socrates inquires why Euthyphro is at the courthouse. Socrates and Euthyphro exchanged reason for being at the courthouse Socrates states that he’s been accused by Meleus of corrupting the youth “He says he knows how the youth are being vour report and who are their corruptors.” (1) and creating new gods “He brings a wonderful accusation against me, which first hearing excites surprises: he says that I am a poet or a maker of gods and that I deny the existence of old ones.” (2) Euthyphro is at the courthouse to prosecute his father for murder. Euthyphro then states that he is doing the pious thing by prosecuting his father, and others who are telling him not to prosecute his father know very little about piety. “That shows how little they know of the opinion of the gods and about piety and impiety.” (4) Through the Socratic method which are a series of simple question Socrates proves that Euthyphro doesn’t know as much as he thinks he does, in fact he doesn't know what piety is at

In this essay I will show that Socrates answer to Meno 's paradox was unsuccessful. First, I will explain what Meno 's paradox is and how the question of what virtue is was raised. Second, I will explain Socrates attempt to answer the paradox with his theory of recollection and how he believes the soul is immortal. Third, I will provide an argument for why his response was unsuccessful. This will involve looking at empirical questions, rather than non-empirical questions and how Socrates theory of recollection fails in this case. Next, I will provide an argument for why his response was successful. This will involve his interview with the slave boy and how the slave boy is able to provide the correct answers to Socrates questions. Lastly, I will explain why Socrates ' interview with the slave boy does not actually successfully prove his theory of recollection by examining how Socrates phrases his questions.

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 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.

Socrates ponders this thought and explains that, “His soul must have always possessed this knowledge, for he either was or was not a man” (The Philosophical Journey 89). This explains that it is an innate notion, where the soul always has the knowledge and can be obtained through remembering said knowledge. Therefore, Socrates believes that since the truth is always inside the soul, then it must be immortal. The soul has all knowledge, and through the process of recollection, one can recover this information.

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 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.

Plato and Locke have opposite opinions on the matter of innate ideas. Plato argues that the recognition of truth in reality is derived from the "recollection" of truth in the soul. A necessary part of Plato's argument is that "recollection" of Truth depends upon the existence of an immortal soul. Locke, on the other hand, rejects Plato's argument by stating that the recognition of truth is not dependent on "recollection" but is rather "self-evident." In other words, Locke argues that one does not need to "understand" truth to know it or admit of the existence of an immortal soul, for truth according to Locke reveals itself by virtue of its being true. This paper will analyze the arguments of each philosopher and show why I believe Plato to have the better argument on the matter of "recollection" and innate ideas in the soul.

However, in proving that what we call learning is actually recollection, Plato also proved that the soul is immortal. As was stated, there is no example of true perfection in our world. Yet, we can imagine the idea of perfection. Where could this idea come from if we have not experienced it in our world? We must have experienced it at some point if the idea is within us.