Category Archives: Intro to TOK

How do you know that something is good or bad, right or wrong? -Andrea Ita

There are many ways to know if something is good or bad, right or wrong, these ways are based on each individual. However, i think that it depends on the concept and the exact definition of what is “good” and what is “bad”, these definitions may also change depending on each person, for example there are many topics that people either agree or disagree on, one example of this is abortion, i might think that abortion is Good, but there are people who think that abortion is bad and is wrong, and the answer to wheather this is righ or wrong depends on each person’s perspective. But who really defines what is Good or what is bad? where do we learn that we are supposed to do something or that if we do something we might have consecuences? i personally think that the concept of what is wrong or right is based on what society makes us believe and what the media tells us.

Meno part 3,4

Meno asks Socrates to return to their original question: Can virtue be taught? Socrates reluctantly agrees and constructs the following argument:

  • Virtue is something beneficial; it’s a good thing to have
  • All good things are only good if they are accompanied by knowledge or wisdom (for example, courage is good in a wise person, but in a fool, it is mere recklessness)
  • Therefore virtue is a kind of knowledge
  • Therefore virtue can be taught

The argument is not especially convincing. The fact that all good things, in order to be beneficial, must be accompanied by wisdom doesn’t really show that this wisdom is the same thing as virtue. The idea that virtue is a kind of knowledge, however, does seem to have been a central tenet of Plato’s moral philosophy.

Meno part 5

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.

Difference between inductive and deductive- Andrea Ita

The process of thinking about something, in a rational manner, so as to draw valid conclusions, is known as Reasoning. There are 2 types of reasoning, inductive and deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning consists of inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole.  The inductive reasoning is most likely based on fallacies, there are different types of fallacies and each fallacies depends on certain things, such as, the similarity of the sample and the population.



How to disagree-Paul Graham-Isaac Salvador-October 12 2019

In “How to Disagree”, the author “Paul Graham” goes over the different levels of a disagreement and what significance each of them have. I found that the more insulting and meaningful ones were more complex and had a lot of depth to them. I thought that something like “u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!”[p. 1] would be more offensive but it is a level one insult. And on the other hand, having someone say something about your points or something you wrote, as being a level 6 disagreement, would be less. I found it interesting for me because if I had written something or if I was the one being insulted, I would much rater have the level 6 because I would see it as their opinion/view or as a form of constructive feedback. For me, I am fine with people disagreeing with me and it would make me try and either change it if I agree with what they are saying, or, just leave it their opinion if I do not agree with them. On the other hand, the level one disagreement is just plain straight out being rude and has no motive to benefit the author or writer. In conclusion, I find that “Paul Graham’s” how to disagree guide was very useful to me because I can now look at how the disagreement is written and see what I can do to make it better, and to better see where it is coming from.

Plato’s Meno part 5 – Andrea Ita

In part 5 of Plato’s Meno the main argument in here is knowledge against belief.

In this section is the final discussion between Socrates and Meno, they still talk about the topics mentioned in parts 1 to 4, they still talk about Anytus being angry, and still discussing whether there are teachers of virtue or not. Sócrates starts asking Meno about who he thinks are teachers of virtue, an example of this is when Socrates says “Then you do not think the sophists are teachers of virtue?” and Meno answers I cannot say, Socrates. I am in the same plight as the rest of the world: sometimes I think that they are, sometimes that they are not”.



Plato’s meno part 3 and 4 -Andrea Ita

In part 3 of Plato’s meno the main question that is asked is if Virtue can be taught?

Now the argument between Socrates and Meno is weather virtue can be taught or not, they return to this original question, and this time the argument is not as strong as in part one or two. The fact that all good things, in order to be beneficial, must be accompanied by wisdom doesn’t really show that this wisdom is the same thing as virtue. The idea that virtue is a kind of knowledge, however, does seem to have been a central tenet of Plato’s moral philosophy.

In part 4 of  Plato’s meno, the main argument is why they afre no teachers of virtue. In this part, Sócrates uses a boy as an example, and explains how the kid understands better by being asked questions, instead of just writing down the information or someone teaching them. 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.


Plato´s Meno part 2- Andrea Ita

In part 2 of Plato’s Meno the main question that the author makes you think about is whether some of our knowledge is innate or not.

We can also understand better how Meno feels when he says “O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt; and now you are casting your spells over me, and I am simply getting bewitched and enchanted, and am at my wits’ end. And if I may venture to make a jest upon you, you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power over others to be very like the flat torpedo fish, who torpifies those who come near him and touch him, as you have now torpified me, I think. For my soul and my tongue are torpid, and I do not know how to answer you.” Meno gives us some perspective on how what Socrates says influences people.

In part one the main topic they talk about is virtue, however in part two they discuss about things such as reincarnation, and Socrates also gives his argument and point of view regarding this.


Plato‘s Meno

The whole discussion begins with the question “whether virtue can be taught”. Since Socrates, being asked, didn’t know what is the virtue, then Meno just agreed Socrates’ request to define this term “virtue”.

First of all, Meno just takes the examples of human roles, such us the virtue of a man, a woman’s virtue and so on. However, the points of virtues that Meno said must have something in common, and a good definition of a term should have its common essence. During the process, Socrates asked Meno about the differences and similarities between bees in order to let Meno present the common character of virtue. I feel these kind of sentences just express someone’s own opinions or questions for some certain conclusions. And the passage below just drive the development of discussion.

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? Tell me,
what would be your answer to this question?

About Meno’s second definition, he thinks that virtue is the power of governing mankind, ( I can’t get the point of this). then Socrates uses the method of analogy to illustrate what he wants to say, like the case about figure. The concept of figure can’t be defined by roundness or stuff like that.

What I would in any other case. To take roundness, for instance; I should call it a figure,
and not figure pure and simple. And I should name it so because there are other figures as
You would be quite right—just as I say there are other virtues besides justice.
What are they? Tell me. In the same way as I can tell you of other figures, if you request
me, so do you tell me of other virtues.
Well then, courage, I consider, is a virtue, and temperance, and wisdom, and loftiness of
mind; and there are a great many others.
Once more, Meno, we are in the same plight: again we have found a number of virtues
when we were looking for one, though not in the same way as we did just now; but the one
that runs through them all, this we are not able to find.


Plato´s Meno Part 1- Andrea Ita

In part one of Plato´s Meno I could see that it makes you think of several phylosofical questions such as “what is virtue?”, i also thought that it was a dramatic dialogue between two people.

The text begins with Meno saying that he knew what virtue was, so we could say that the whole part one was a debate between Meno and Socrates.

This Dialogue begins abruptly with a question of Meno, who asks, “whether virtue can be taught.” Socrates replies that he does not  know what virtue is, and has never known anyone who did.

So as I previously  mentioned this dialogue arises different questions relating to what Meno says of what virtue is, so in my personal opinión, the part one of the mono can be divided into different parts according to what happens, first  they are searching for an accurate meaning of the Word virtue, then Sócrates tries to proove that some of our knowledge is innate, then they had a discussion on whether virtue could be tought or not, and finally they had a disccution on why there weren´t any theachers of virtue.