In Meno 5, Socrates came to the conclusion that man can do right by two things: correct opinions and knowledge. Therefore, the final conclusion seems to be: “virtue is neither out of nature nor teachable, but possessed by divinity, and people are given without knowing it.” But Socrates, in the end, seems to suggest that this conclusion is not final. On the one hand, there may be a person who can make others become politicians. On the other hand, we should first understand what virtue itself is.
Socrates For my part, I care not. As for him, Meno, we will converse with him some other time. At the moment, if through all this discussion our queries and statements have been correct, virtue is found to be neither natural nor taught, but is imparted to us by a divine dispensation without understanding in those who receive it, unless there should be somebody among the statesmen capable of making a statesman of another. And if there should be any such, he might fairly be said to be among the living what Homer says Teiresias was among the dead–“He alone has comprehension; the rest are flitting shades.”31 In the same way he on earth, in respect of virtue, will be a real substance among shadows.
After I read Stephen’s Guide to Logical Fallacies, I think logic is a very useful tool. In simple terms, I understood that “the flow of thought until a conclusion is reached”.
In Stephen’s Guide to Logical Fallacies, there is some example,
- Fred, the Australian, stole my wallet. Thus, all Australians are thieves. (Of course, we shouldn’t judge all Australians on the basis of one example.)
I think this is very exaggerated and not logical. The good logical analogy is “This store is always lined up” → “It must be popular” But both can be said to be logical because there is a way to get results.
“This store is always lined up” → “It must be popular”
“Australian store my wallet” → “All Australian are thieves”
After reading Meno part 5, Socrates decides nobody can’t teach virtue. Menon asks that excellent people know the virtue, but Socrates denies it. Menon then asks if even the existence of a “person with virtue” would be denied. Socrates pointed out that they had not realized that virtue was not only guided by “knowledge”.
In part 4, he said knowledge is a virtue but he thinks it not correct.
Socrates said the “excellent person” is the “beneficial person”, and the reason for its “beneficial” is that we “lead” correctly, but we thought that it was done only by “knowledge”. State that it was not. Socrates points out that “knowledge” is not something that is born. Menon agrees. Socrates pointed out that “excellent people” are not as good as they were born. Menon agrees.
And they come to the conclusion that virtue is the grace of God. I felt that meno hadn’t understood until the end. It was too hard to understand for English is not the first language people. However, they didn’t understand the essence of virtue.
After reading part 3 and 4, I’m really happy about part 4 is short reading. In part 3, they are talking about “What is a virtue” again but this time Meno asks Socrates to answer the “What is a virtue”. Socrate also doesn’t know what is virtue means so, considering what kind of property it is. Socrates said that “virtue” is knowledge, but if virtue is knowledge, he said it would be strange that no one could be taught.
In part 4, Socrates more think about virtue is knowledge or not so, he decided to look for a “virtue teacher” but there is nobody who can teach. Socrates thought that if he or she was a good person, he would excel at “teaching others’ virtues”. So he took Temist Cres as an example and he said that if his son was as good as him, virtue could be taught. However, his son is not better than him, Socrate said, ‘Virtue is nobody teach”
Well, is it not obvious that this father would never have spent his money on having his children taught all those things, and then have omitted to teach them at no expense the others that would have made them good men, if virtue was to be taught? Will you say that perhaps Thucydides was one of the meaner sort, and had no great number of friends among the Athenians and allies? He, who was of a great house and had much influence in our city and all over Greece, so that if virtue were to be taught he would have found out the man who was likely to make his sons good, whether one of our own people or a foreigner, were he himself too busy owing to the cares of state! Ah no, my dear Anytus, it looks as though virtue were not a teachable thing.
In this paragraph, I think this is a really good example of “Why nobody can’t teach virtue” .
After I finished reading Meno part 2, I find a Socrates is not that much talking about “what is a virtue” He is talking about soul and squares. He uses a lot of examples to Meno and finally he accept his idea.
I think part two is more easy to understand than part one but It made me think more. When I am reading part two, I felt that common sense was denied because Socrates was told that the soul was immortal, or that “a square with a double area is supposed to have a double side”. It made me confused.
They say that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time comes to an end, which is called dying, and at another is born again, but never perishes. Consequently one ought to live all one’s life in the utmost holiness. For from whomsoever Persephone shall accept requital for ancient wrong,6 the souls of these she restores in the ninth year to the upper sun again; from them arise glorious kings and men of splendid might and surpassing wisdom, and for all remaining time are they called holy heroes amongst mankind. Seeing then that the soul is immortal and has been born many times, and has beheld all things both in this world and in the nether realms, she has acquired knowledge of all and everything; so that it is no wonder that she should be able to recollect all that she knew before about virtue and other things.
I thought Socrates’s idea was interesting because he believed that the soul was immortal, believing in the existence of a soul that was unknown. I thought it was a really interesting idea.
Hasty generalization is when the sample size doesn’t provide enough evidence to support the conclusion. To prove hasty generalization you must first identify the size of the sample as well as the size of the population, then you have to show that the sample size is too small.
In part five, socrates and Meno finished discussing ending up in Meno thinking that virtue can be taught, Socrates thinks that virtue cannot be taught because nobody is qualified to teach it.
Socrates states that virtue cannot be taught and therefore you are born with it and it is developed by your own. During part 5 they still talk about topics of part 1 to 4 and talk about Anytus, they talk about knowledge vs belief, meno thinks how a person comes to be good in the world and I find that interesting because indeed since we are born we are taught what is good and bad but it can change depending in your beliefs and family, so what actually is good.
Logic generally refers to the laws and rules of thinking and is also important in our daily lives. In class, we know two arguments, deductive and inductive.
All odd numbers are integers.
All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.
This is an example in the text, I think it is too hasty to use inductive.
so first we need to know what is sensibility and what is rationality,so in my own proposal the sensibility is a person’s view and feeling of a thing is very intuitive,this mean l will show my relay
ideas and insights to everyone, like if l want cry l will cry,if l’m happy l let my happy show on the face . the sensibility mean a personal has a very rich feelings and will express them.and if he want to Policy decision some Important choices when he is When you are angry or very happy this personal maybe will get control by his emotion。
the rationality is there can control them-self,and the way there think about the question
very Objective and calm there will not get control by Other things or people or Own emotions
so l feel the most different between rationality personal and sensibility personal is can there control them self and can there thinking question very calm .
A logical fallacy that interests me and that I’m guilty of committing is “hasty generalization”, when you are quick to assume something and jump to a conclusion before you have seen or gathered any background evidence, for example if you were to have a first class in a certain subject and it didn’t go too well, you would assume that “this class will suck for the whole year” when you’ve only had one class. To make a fair evaluation the person must attend not one but several classes for it to be a reasonable conclusion. It also accommodates according to the person’s personal beliefs, so say in a class a particular student disliked, they would jump to the conclusion that the class would suck for the rest of the year, while other students who may enjoy it may not jump to the same conclusion.
Logic is a resource that ensures the strength of our arguments. Thus, if we start from a series of statements that we consider true, through the rules of logic we can infer valid conclusions. There are also extensions of classical logic that deal with need, possibility or beliefs.
Reason aims to form judgments about matters that matter to us. For this, in addition to the logic, we need our wishes to indicate our interest and apply some criteria to select among these wishes those that we consider valid. This involved making decisions about the values to which we adhere and taking stock when they are in conflict.
In the real life, most of people think that the ability to reason is the most obvious thing to set human apart from other species. However, a seemingly correct view has certain flaws. Years after Shakespeare or other famous people made their points that Thinking is the hardest work，a growing number of scientists assert that human dont think frequently because our rbrains are designed for avoidance of thought. That is true.
Your brain serves many purposes, and thinking is not the one it serves best. Your brain also supports the ability to see and to move, for example, and these functions operate much more efficiently and reliably than your ability to think. It’s no accident that most of your brain’s real estate is devoted to these activities. The extra brain power is needed because seeing is actually more difficult than playing chess or solving calculus problems.
The examples that follow in the text prove this point that the ability to see and move is more essential perfectly. Like machines almost can do everything about thinking，especially for some repetitive calculation that our human need to think. But they cannot see，and dont know how to configure themselves or to think about novel ways to move or something like that，but our human just are able to accomplish this kind of thing，so these things are most valuable for us.
In Meno’s Part 5 we can observe the final discussions of whether virtue can be taught or not, showing us the picture of Meno being content for concluding that virtue is in fact teachable (from Meno’s point of view). Nevertheless Socrates deny the argument with a simple and overwhelming idea: If virtue could be taught, there would be someone to do it, but there is not.
Socrates final statement is that since there is no people who in fact teach virtue, you are born with it and by your own thoughts and decisions that you self-develop your own virtue.
On my opinion logic is a resource that ensures the strength of our arguments. Thus, if we start from a series of statements that we consider true, through the rules of logic we can infer valid conclusions.And reason aims to form judgments about matters that matter to us. For this, in addition to the logic, we need our wishes to indicate our interest and apply some criteria to select among these wishes those that we consider valid. This implies making decisions about the values to which we adhere and taking stock when they are in conflict.
Meno is content to conclude that virtue can be taught, but Socrates, to Meno’s 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 aren’t any. Therefore it can’t be teachable after all.
Meno part 4:
In part four they have an encounter with Anytus and at first is seems as if he and Socrates have a same idea of the sophists, they talk about them being the worst. Further on Socrates tells Anytus that how can he hate them if he hasn’t met one of them, this confrontation causes Anytus to leave at the end of the chapter.
I found this chapter really interesting because Socrates expose the truth about Anytus and I happen to relate to it. The truth was that even without ever meeting a sophist he had hate. That use to happen to me with food, even though I had never tried it I hated it. And its something that we all experience and I liked the approach of it in the text.
The last conversation between meno and Socrates is mainly about the question, whether if virtue can be taught or if you were born with it. After Socrates questioned meno with a lot of deep thinking questions, they came to think that virtue could be taught and if had virtue was because you were born with it.
Then the results of our training, Meno, is found to be that virtue comes to us by a divine dispensation, whenn it does come.
The text shows us how some logical fallacies and generalizations work. For example, if in Spain bullfighting is a tradition, then everyone must like it. Another topic we covered is how humans dislike thinking, we like to take the easy way. That’s why teenagers dislike school, we go there to reconfigure our brain to think when it is against our nature.
I read all the handouts and I found that the contents of Stephen’s Guide to Logic’s Paradox have the greatest impact on me. In this handout, the author shows me how people abuse logic in several ways through practical examples. I think he is very right because these things can be said to be very common in my real life. People simply point out that something is logical, or that it contains some logic to think that something is real. For example, in China, my older generation thought that the length of an indoor umbrella would not be high. When I ask them why, they always tell you that this is what their parents told them. This is a very stubborn generalization, which means that the sample size is not large enough to support the conclusion. So something that people believe does not mean that it is correct.
The fifth part mainly talks about the conclusions of Socrates and Meno. The conclusion is that virtue is Granted by God. I don’t think that virtue is God’s gift to us. Because virtue does not belong to our human instinct. Instinct refers to what the subconscious will do. For example, when we were born, we will cry. For example, when something comes to our eyes quickly, we will close our eyes subconsciously. These are called instinct. And virtue is guided by the day after tomorrow. Why do I say guidance rather than teaching, because no one in the world can teach virtue. Human nature is greedy and selfish. Even a person like the captain of the United States will withdraw from the Avengers for friends. So I think that Socrates said that virtue cannot be taught. But we can be guided to know the virtues. Because this is a human culture, when we were young, we were instilled by our parents what is good and what is a concept of evil. And our parents were also instilled with the same ideas by their parents when they were young. Like some residents living in Iraq, some of them have been in contact with war since childhood, so they are more numb to life and death.
For my part, I care not. As for him, Meno, we will converse with him some other time. At the moment, if through all this discussion our queries and statements have been correct, virtue is found to be neither natural nor taught, but is imparted to us by a divine dispensation without understanding in those who receive it, unless there should be somebody among the statesmen capable of making a statesman of another. And if there should be any such, he might fairly be said to be among the living what Homer says Teiresias was among the dead—“He alone has comprehension; the rest are flitting
shades.” In the same way he on earth, in respect of virtue, will be a real substance among shadows.
I think that this passage is not correct in some respects. Socrates believes that if there is a truly knowledgeable politician, he can teach a politician like him. I think everyone is unique. Even if the politician teaches a person to let him completely copy his thoughts and ways of doing things, that person will not eventually become him. Because this society is like a bottle of ink, a person is like a piece of white paper, and that person will eventually enter the society and blacken the white paper.
Part 5 of ‘Meno’ continues its topic of discussion from parts 3 and 4: whether virtue can be taught or be born with. But differently in this part, they came to a conclusion: that virtue cannot be taught or born with by nature, but a grace of god. Able to be brought out from any man by guidance and recollection:
Socrates: When we stated that knowledge is the only guide of right action; whereas we ﬁnd there is also true opinion.
This theory of recollection then takes us back to part two, when Socrates proved all knowledge is within the soul, just waiting to be guided to recall. Socrates’ final ideas presented: Knowledge is not limited to rights or wrongs, but much more. It has always been a failure of Meno to perceive what virtue truly is, and hence he cannot understand what makes a man to be virtuous and good. Good guidance and right opinions are equally valuable as knowledge.
Plato, and Sir Walter Rangeley Maitland Lamb. Laches. Protagoras. Meno. Euthydemus. 1962.
In these two parts of ‘Meno’, Anytus is introduced, and Socrates and Meno moves on to discuss the question whether virtue is born with or taught to. As always, Meno seeks not true virtue, but power and wealth. Socrates replies Meno’s questions in a very intriguing manner:
Socrates: By this argument, virtue being profitable must be a sort of wisdom.
And as for his own views, Socrates replied:
Socrates: In men, all other things rely on the soul, while the things of the soul rely on wisdom.
I find The debate between Socrates and Meno specially interesting in these parts as they discuss the questions of perception: if one commits wrongs yet think they are virtuous, is that virtue? The unawareness of right and wrong deepens their discussion on seeking virtue, and also presents the question that cannot yet be answered even now: What is right, and what is wrong?
Plato, and Sir Walter Rangeley Maitland Lamb. Laches. Protagoras. Meno. Euthydemus. 1962.
In the last class discussion, we were talking about what people don’t like to think about. I agree with that, and I would say its human nature to make things easier for us, and less complicated. As an example, some people would say “teenagers don’t like going to school, because they have to train their brain and think, and people don’t like thinking”. Personally, I think it’s not true, and it also depends on a person and his abilities. TOK is that type og class, where people have to disagree or agree with statements or make their own.
The whole point of this dialogue is to make you think deeply about some areas which at first glance you won’t pay much attention. In my opinion, I do agree with some of them but on the other side, I disagree with the statement about how to learn things. I doubt that every person would find the method of asking yourself questions is efficient, yes, it might work for some people, but i am certain that everyone learns differently.
In Meno part 5, the last part of the play. Socrates and Meno were talking about whether virtues can be taught nor have it by nature. Meno came to the realization by Socrates questioning him about virtue, that it couldn’t be taught and do not come by nature. In my opinion, I disagree to that statement. I do believe that it could be taught but not by an intellectual. I think it could be taught by our experiences.
In class, we were discussing about logic. Before we even begin, I didn’t know that there different types of reasoning. We talk about deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive is that know for certain. Inductive on the other hand, are by observing. During the class, we also talking about the fact human don’t like to think and reason why people dislike to think deeply. People like to move through space more than think because body use less energy than the brain do. Nonetheless, this didn’t matter to our body if it’s the topic that we interested in or the things that would benefit us at that period of time.
I want to talk about a interesting concept in logiacal fallacies, here is the defination of it:”The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself.” This happened a lot in our life, when people are arguing to eachothers one of them tend to attack their opponents directly,which is unfair since one of them already deny the person himself so whatever he said will become pointless.
In part 5, the last part of Meno, It has been decided that virtue can neither be taught nor have it by nature. People who have it were “possessed by god”. Some might disagree to that but Socrates it very wise so I have to agree.
I like deductive reasoning because it is simple and can be used in a variety of ways. I also like it because you can deduce that something is true because something similar is also true. This example stood out to me the most.
if you know the general principle that the sum of the angles in any triangle is always 180 degrees, and you have a particular triangle in mind, you can then conclude that the sum of the angles in your triangle is 180 degrees.
This quotation stood out to me the most because it made the most sense to me. Another example could be that is a particular square has four sides, then a square that is in your mind must also have four sides. This made the most sense to me.
In this part Meno is again trying to figure out what virtue is and if it can be taught. It has been said that virtue is the good of the soul. It is talked about how some people who do bad are unaware that is it bad and thinks it is good. Some people are taught bad but for all their life they were told it was good so they thought they were good, therefore they think they have virtue.
In part 3, a point is made by Socrates “in men, all other things rely on the soul, while the things of the soul rely on wisdom (page 32). I find that a confusing phrase, even though is seems straight forward. Men rely on the soul, I think that means that is how men classify people. But the soul is all declared on your wisdom. So in conclusion doesn’t that mean for a men to rely on the soul, they have to rely on the wisdom too?
In pt 3 Socrates makes a universal rule that “in men, all other things rely on the soul, while the things of the soul itself rely on wisdom” pg,32 and the conclusion they agree to is “either wholly or partly wisdom” pg 32 so if its still wisdom then how is it learnes. It still needs to be taught somehow.
Thinking logically is to organizing causal relationships and considering them in order, or explaining them clearly.
For example, “I feel stomachache in summer”. “summer” and “feel a stomachache” does not have a relation. It has be like this,
I eat ice-cream a lot in summer.→ Eating ice-cream makes stomachache.→So in summer when I often eat ice-cream, my stomach hurts.
It made easier to understand by understanding the causal relationships between “summer” and “feel a stomachache”.
I am going to talk about Hasty Generalization, and how this Inductive fallacy was used as a tool to control societies through centuries. Every society in our world is held by one common interest or relation to one another, by relation I mean nations, families, relatives and etc… , and by “one common interest” I mean people like fans of sport club or people who like to play on guitar and etc.. . The two main and powerful tools that leaders of different countries have is Hasty Generalization, it’s easier to control people if you can make them bring fear to their homes, if you have a common goal or an enemy. During Second World War, when Germany launched there massive invasion on Soviet union. People were terrified of this war not only because it’s total destruction to civilians but also Government of Soviet Union were falling to their citizens that Germans are all evil and brutal savages. I can only agree that many Germans were evil and brutal savages towards people that there captured, but not all of Germans were like evil and brutal savages. That’s Hasty Generalization and it’s really effective tool was to bring fear to people.
In this parts, Meno try to figure out is virtue can be taught or it comes with our life. In Socrates’ point, he thinks they need to find out what is virtue before they discuss can it be taught or not. Then they defined virtue is a good of the soul, the people that are good must know what is virtue and must have virtue, because they think virtue is a good thing, good people must have it. After that, Socrates used the way of how to educate his child of a gentlemen in their country as example to ask Anytus about can goods, virtue be taught, but this make him angry about it.
Socrates, I consider you are too apt to speak ill of people. I, for one, if you will take my advice, would warn you to be careful: in most cities it is probably easier to do people harm than good, and particularly in this one; I think you know that yourself.
In the three articles we have read in the class from the past two classes, I like “Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies” the most. It introduces various inductive fallacies with clear definition and explanation, and give several examples for each fallacies, makes me understand each fallacy easily. After I read through the text, I found that those fallacies are always be used while people are trying to argue with somebody or to proof something. Especially “Anonymous Authorities”(p.6), rumors are usually created based on this logic fallacy for example, “A government official said today that the new gun law will be proposed tomorrow. “. It is sound so persuasive because it is said by “Authorities”, but the point is the “Authorities” is anonymous, people can not confirm that the authority is an expert.
In document Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies, he introduced Inductive Fallacies and Changing the Subject. In part one Inductive Fallacies. He defined it means inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole. It contains “Hasty Generalization”, the size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion; “Unrepresentative Sample”, the sample used in an inductive inference is relevantly different from the population as a whole; “False Analogy”, two objects A and B are similar, then if A has property P, B must have property P; “Slothful Induction”, the proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary; and “Fallacy of Exclusion”, important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
The Inductive fallacies happens all around us. We may defined the whole group by just meet a few of them; defined the quality of one dozen of apple by just try one of them.
Logic Fallacy: Unrepresentative Sample.
Often hear: “He was bad at school but now owns biggest company somewhere”. This is a great example, cause we better to look not onto the individuals, but statistics and trends. Such statement does not include that other 99%, who studied bad, now have no work, no salary. Nothing. It works because people want to believe in bright and wonderful future, ignoring reality and pretending to be somewhat spacial in comparison to others.
Logic Fallacy: False analogy.
In my opinion, false analogy is one of the most common, tricky and hypocritical argument . From personal experience would say that it is common for parents to say: “If your friends would be jumping out from windows, you would do so to?”. But when some one needs you to do or not do something they give you false analogy of smokers/drug addicted/alcohol addicted not reaching the same social status as some actors or etc.
I like it best and think the best article is Stephen’s Guide. This article provides several examples for us to refer to, and it is also good to know what is abusive reasoning. Some of the reasoning is not true, some of the reasoning is true, and the final answer is determined by the current situation.
There are two kinds of reasoning that are most common, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. These are the simplest and most commonly used, especially inductive reasoning, but with varying degrees of accuracy.
No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true.