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.

In part 5 sarcrates claimed that since virtue cannot be taught  instead of knowledges ,it will make more sense in terms of ture opinion.

And if not by knowledge, it must have been by right opinion. This is the means which statesmen employ for their direction of states. Like poets or fortune-tellers, they utter many a true thing when inspired, but they have no knowledge of anything they say.

I somehow don’t agree with him, if u have a true opinion to something then it must be right or correct which is the basic defination of knowledge, and for poet they must write a poem with their own thought and knowledges,and their own thought is based on common sense which is knowledge.

In the third part of this script, we see Meno and Socrates return to the topic of whether virtue can be taught or not, as well as talking about if virtue is good or evil. They encounter a question that stumps Meno as well as me.

“So since it is not by nature that the good become good, is it by education?” (p.32)

This question interests me as it opens up a large question not for me, but for everyone.

Is goodness and kindness a virtue within a person from birth, or does it need to be taught? The same applies with evil. Is one evil by nature? Or does there need to be some external force influencing one to become evil?

Part 3 and 4: In part 3 the main question is: can virtue be taught? 

Meno and Socrates argue about this and if it can be taught who can teach it. Socrates states that virtue is some kind of knowledge, he said that virtue is not from birth, it is from learning. In part 4 Socrates explains to Meno talking with another boy called Anytus, that virtue indeed cannot be taught.

Part 2: Meno asks socrates how can a man know that they don’t know something, Socrates answers that someone cannot inquire something only if the person knows he doesn’t know it, that way the person knows what to inquire, socrates says that learning is recollecting and remembering, Socrates with that idea calls a boy who is ignorant in geometry to solve a geometry problem.

Socrates helps the boy to solve the problem by only giving hints not answers, that way he can understand better and not forget it.

Part 1: The conversation starts as Meno ask Socrates what virtue is, Meno is a student of Socrates, he asks if virtue can be taught, they start to expand the conversation as Socrates says that he does not know what virtue is, they get to the topic of why people are evil, they get to a conclusion where people are evil because they are not happy with the authority or their law or government.

Socrates states that virtue is different for every living form and I don’t think it changes depending on your living form, I think is the same for all of us, it is to show a high moral.

In part 3, sacrates and meno was trying to get back to their main purpose argument which is inquiry the nature of virtue.And sacrates has pointing out that virtue can be harm to the people in some case.

Now tell me; such of these as you think are not knowledge, but different from knowledge—do they not sometimes harm us, and sometimes profit us? For example, courage, if it iscourage apart from prudence, and only a sort of boldness: when a man is bold without sense, he is harmed; but when he has sense at the same time, he is profited, is he not?

I do agree sacrates ideas that good thing could be harm in some particular cases,he also gave a example in order to demonstrate the harm of courage in different circumstances,when having courge without prudence it became reckless and could be harmed.so when inquiry the nature of virture,we have to considered the two side of the things,nothing is absolutely good when it’s out of the range.

In part 2 Socrates was trying to convince Meno that people gain knowledge by “recollecting” instead of “study”,so he proved his idea on a illiterate boy by asking him series of questions,and he considered that his question did benefit the small boy.

And we have certainly given him some assistance, it would seem, towards finding out the truth of the matter: for now he will push on in the search gladly, as lacking knowledge;whereas then he would have been only too ready to suppose he was right in saying,before any number of people any number of times, that the double space must have a line of double the length for its side.

I strongly support Socrates ideas,  that rather than tell him the answer directly Socrates demonstrate a very good way to gained knowledge which, is asking him question and let him searched the answer by himself.This helped to form a good habit of thinking, and in the future when other people are struggling with the questions that they haven’t learned before, he will be able to tell the answer through his thinking.

I seem to be in a most lucky way, Meno; for in seeking one virtue I have discovered a
whole swarm of virtues there in your keeping. Now, Meno, to follow this figure of a swarm,
suppose I should ask you what is the real nature of the bee, and you replied that there are
many different kinds of bees, and I rejoined: Do you say it is by being bees that they are of
many and various kinds and differ from each other, or does their difference lie not in that,
but in something else—for example, in their beauty or size or some other quality

from this paragraph, I felt that Socrates was just try to tease meno. Socrates asked Meno what is the virtue at first, so Meno gave him some example of the virtue in order to let him understand the norm of the virtue,but he kept asking Meno the real nature of the virtue which is pointless,and I think that giving example were the best way to define the things itself.

furthermore he didn’t answer Meno’s question instead he asked another question which made him more confusing, so I don’t agree with socrates’s idea.

In response to another post on the IBO’s forum for TOK teachers, Greta Timmers, a former colleague of mine who teaches in The Netherlands, had this response, which may help students understand what is being asked for:

Criterion D asks “how the question could be approached from different perspectives and how their implications should be considered in related areas” (paraphrased).

That sounds to me like urging the students to consider what they also do for the essay: “Does the student show an awareness of his or her own perspective as a knower in relation to other perspectives, such as those that may arise, for example, from academic and philosophical traditions, culture or position in society (gender, age, and so on)?”

The second part of the criterion I interpret as: If you conclude [something] for X, does this also have implications for Y and Z?

Possible example: if a presenter holds that life is sacred, [and that] medical ethics should [therefore] not allow euthanasia and abortion, [does this mean] also that political ethics should not allow war? Does it also imply (as Peter Singer does, for example) that the presenter has a duty to help starving individuals?

Criterion D assesses the amount of exploration that has been done.