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”

Socrates

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.

pg[16-17]

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.

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.

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 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.

Reference:

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?

Reference:

Plato, and Sir Walter Rangeley Maitland Lamb. Laches. Protagoras. Meno. Euthydemus. 1962.

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 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.

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.

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.

Anytus

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 conclusion of “Plato’s Meno”, (part five), Socrates and Meno discuss the concept of retaining knowledge and how as one practices a subject or art, the more times it is completed, the more perfected the person gets at doing it and the easier it is for them to do it.

To possess one of his works is let loose does not count for much in value; it will not stay with you any more than a runaway slave: but when fastened up it is worth a great deal, for his productions are very fine things. And to what am I referring in all this? To true opinion. For these, so long as they stay with us, are a fine possession, and effect all that is good; but they do not care to stay long, and run away out of the human soul, and thus are of no great value until one makes them fast with casual reasoning. And this process, friend Meno, is recollection, as in our previous talk we have agreed. But when once they are fastened, in the first place they turn into knowledge, and in the second, are abiding. And this is why knowledge is more prized than right opinion: the one transcend the other by its trammels. [p. 43]

In this quote by Socrates, Socrates states to Meno that as you gain knowledge, you must practice it to fully harness it to your full potential. I find that this “script” fits in well with the concepts of TOK and the concepts of the IB and teachers. It gets you to think about what you say, what you know, and gets you to realize how you should inquire and that you should seek more questions and find the answers yourself from the questions, then having the answer to your questions. It is also like the way a good teacher teaches because it says that the way to get better at something, you must practice and want to get better at it to do so (not just teachers say that but it is just an example).

In pt. 5, Socrates and Meno have agreed that virtue cannot be taught because there is no discipline. however they are now stuck trying to figure out how people come to be good people or if they are good people at all. Meno questions Socrates with this “by what possible sort of process good people can come to exist.” (pg 42) The conversation continues and Socrates says people have guidance “they will be useful if they give us right guidance” (pg 42) This makes sense but at the beginning of the text, teaching was just helping the students remember or in other words guiding them so they know how to do it again. Does that not just leave us right where we started?

Socrates
Then the result of our reasoning, Meno, is found to be that virtue comes to us by a divine dispensation, when it does come. But the certainty of this we shall only know when, before asking in what way virtue comes to mankind, we set about inquiring what virtue is, in and
by itself. It is time now for me to go my way, but do you persuade our friend Anytus of that whereof you are now yourself persuaded, so as to put him in a gentler mood; for if you can persuade him, you will do a good turn to the people of Athens also.

In the part 5 of Plato’s Meno, Socrates and Meno concluded the discussion of the virtues and got the answer, the virtual comes to us by a divine dispensation, when it does come.  I think this answer is Socrates in the perfunctory Meno, because it has been discussed for a long time whether the virtues have been taught by the teacher. Suddenly, it is directly determined that virtue is a talent.

In part 5 of Plato’s Meno, Socrates and Meno finish their discussion and now finish with a new discussion about knowledge versus belief. On page 41, Meno mentions how he
wonders how good people come to exist and if there are any good people at all. I found this quite interesting because even in modern times we still struggle with figuring out if a person is good or bad or what defines a “good person”. All these ideas they spoke about throughout part 5, and through the rest of the Meno are relevant ideas to today. I found a particular part in part 5 intriguing. When Meno and Socrates were talking about good guidance or right opinions being just as valuable as knowledge:

Hence true opinion is as good a guide to rightness of action as knowledge; and this is a point we omitted just now in our consideration of the nature of virtue, when we stated that knowledge is the only guide of right action; whereas we find there is also true opinion. (42)

In the quotation, it explains what they were talking about, as mentioned before as well as a deeper understanding about the concept they are trying to explain. I found that part 5 was the least confusing out of all of the parts and the idea behind it was the easiest to follow.

Part 1: In part 1, Meno and Socrates are talking about what is a virtue. This can be taught? And they used a series of examples.

Is it possible to manage a state well, or a house, or anything at all, if you do not

manage it temperately and justly?

Meno

Surely not.

Socrates

Then whoever manages temperately and justly will manage with temperance and justice?

Meno

That must be.

Socrates

Then both the woman and the man require the same qualities of justice and temperance, if

they are to be good.

Meno

Evidently.

Socrates

And what of a child or an old man? Can they ever hope to be good if they are intemperate

and unjust?

Meno

Surely not.

Socrates

Only if they are temperate and just?

Meno

Yes.

Socrates

So all mankind is good in the same way; for they become good when they acquire the

same qualities.

Meno

So it seems.

Socrates

And I presume, if they had not the same virtue, they would not be good in the same way. 

For me, everyone has the ability to see things in the true light. That’s like a ruler in your life, help you measure your future. And we know what should do, what should not do. virtue may be taught by our parents and our teachers, we may get ideas from our own selves,  or maybe that is the gift from the god. However, there is no single criterion for virtue. We need to use our own knowledge to determine whether is a virtue or not.

The part that I liked the most out of part five of Plato’s Meno is at the beginning. Socrates is speaking to Meno about how people “teach” virtue.

Then are we to call those persons teachers of this thing, when they do not even agree on that great question? [39]

Socrates is saying, “How can we call these people teachers if we cannot even agree if virtue can actually be taught? How can they teach it if they do not know the answer? How does this make all of our teachers teachers? Do they know the answers to what they are teaching? If there is no answer to a question how do we learn what it means?”

This quotation made me think about how teachers actually teach so that students want to learn.

I n part 5 Meno is continuing to try to get the answer to his question of wether or not virtue can be taught. multiple times through this part of the story. Meno thinks that he has found the answer to his question but when Socrates continues to question him he realizes that maybe that isn’t the right answer to the question he is asking.

Socrates: Well, can you name any other subject in which the professing teachers are not only refused recognition as teachers of others, but regarded as not even understanding it themselves, and indeed as inferior in the very quality of which they claim to be teachers; while those who are themselves recognized as men of worth and honour say at one time that it is teachable, and at another that it is not? When people are so confused about this or that matter, can you say they are teachers in any proper sense of the word?

p.40

In this passage I think that Socrates was asking meno if he thinks that if a teacher is confused by the subject that they are teaching and they do not understand it then can they actually be considered teachers.

From this Meno forms the conclusion that if people don’t understand virtue then it can not be taught therefore virtue c an not be taught.

In this part of Plate’s Meno, Meno starts to question himself about whether virtue can be taught or not. This question raised by Meno is now being challenged by opinions that were driven by his own statements and Socrates, with the help of a slave boy of Meno’s, taught him that both were wrong, believing the wrong fact to be right is worse than knowing to be wrong, to begin with.

What Socrates taught Meno in Part 2 is about the difference between popular opinion and widely acknowledged facts that are proven. Socrates by knowing he knows nothing is smarter than those who believed they knew everything yet the things they’ve believed are wrong.

In part 1 of Plato’s Meno, Socrates persuaded Meno that no mortal knows what Virtue truly is. He first attacked Meno from a logic perspective. If figures and specific variants of figures such as round or square are equal or say that blue or green or yellow are both equal, then there is no such thing as a bad virtue. It’s only from the perspective or a man’s own self standards to determine what’s good for himself. Thus, if nobody knows what to define “good virtue”, it isn’t known by anyone, surely can’t be taught.

At the beginning of Meno part 5, Meno and Socrates still discuss about is virtue teachable or not, and they concluded that virtue is not teachable. The people who consider themselves as the teacher of virtue, but just like Meno, they may don’t know anything about virtue, therefore there is no real teacher of virtue, no teacher means no people study virtue, it is unteachable.

At the end of part 5, they came to a conclusion that virtue is neither inherent nor acquired, it came from some sort of divine power.

Socrates

Then the result of our reasoning, Meno, is found to be that virtue comes to us by a divine dispensation, when it does come. But the certainty of this we shall only know when, before asking in what way virtue comes to mankind, we set about inquiring what virtue is, in and by itself. It is time now for me to go my way, but do you persuade our friend Anytus of that whereof you are now yourself persuaded, so as to put him in a gentler mood; for if you can persuade him, you will do a good turn to the people of Athens also.(47)

But at the end of the Meno, they still did figure out what is virtue.

Part 3

On the third part of this conversation socrates and meno discuss whether if virtue is something good or evil,harmful or helpful.

If virtue is one of the things in the soul and is necessarily
beneficial to it, it must be wisdom, since all of these things of the soul are in
themselves neither beneficial nor harmful, but become beneficial or harmful
when accompanied by wisdom or foolishness. According to this account,
since virtue is beneficial, it must be a kind of wisdom.
M: I think so.
So: And the other things too that we were just now talking about,
wealth and such like, that are sometimes good and sometimes harmful, in
the way that wisdom made the goods of the soul beneficial by guiding the
rest of the soul, in the same way, doesn’t the soul make them beneficial by
using and guiding them correctly, but if incorrectly, harmful?

And at the very end of this part the talk about virtue being teachable so there must be someone that can teach it.

 I will tell you, Meno. That it is teachable if it is knowledge, I don’t
take that back or think it wasn’t well said, but rather, that it is knowledge.
See if my doubt seems reasonable to you. Tell me this, if something is
teachable, not just virtue, wouldn’t there have to be teachers and learners of
it?

Part 4

The fourth part starts with  the introduction of a new character. Sócrates asks Anytus(Another big philosopher like socrates)who would be able to teach Meno virtue.

So: Well said. And now you can deliberate along with me about your
guest-friend* Meno here. For he has been telling me a long time, Anytus,
that he desires the wisdom and virtue by which men manage households
and cities, and take care of their parents, and know how to receive and send
off citizens and foreigners in the manner worthy of a good man. Think
about to whom we would be right to send him, with respect to this virtue.
Or is it clear, according to our recent principle, that it is to those who
promise to be teachers of virtue and declare themselves available to any
Greek who wants to learn, and who set a fee and collect it?

Then socrates implies that he sending meno with the sophist could be a good idea because he knew that anytus had a very bad impression of them.Then anytus talks says that he strongly disagrees with that option because he thinks that the sophists were a group corrupting the community. Socrates knew that like most of the philosophers that hated the sophist have never meet one or read anything made from them.

An: By Heracles! Quiet, Sócrates! Let none of my household or
friends, whether Athenian or foreigner, be seized by the kind of madness
that would send them to be ruined by these people, since they are
obviously the ruin and corruption of those they associate with.

Then they return to the question “Who could teach virtue”.Anytus answers that any athenian gentleman would be able to do so,but socrates thinks different so he gives example of great men that had no so great sons and that they weren’t able to teach virtue even when they were known for having it.The whole conversation ends with Anytus pissed at socrates for making him doubt about what he thought,it also ends with the conclusion of virtue being something you are born with it.

Based on this reasoning, then, Meno, it seems to us that virtue is
present to those who have it by a share of the divine. We will have clear
knowledge of it when, before we ask in what way virtue comes to be in
man, we first try to discover what exactly virtue is in its own right.
But now it is time for me to go somewhere. As for you, on the other
hand, persuade your guest-friend* here, Anytus, of the very things you
have been convinced of, so that he might become gentler. If you persuade
him, you will also benefit the Athenians.

The second part of the conversation between socrates and meno is about meno not knowing the difference between learning and recollecting.Socrates use a slave to help meno understand the differences between these 2 things by asking and impling questions to the slave about a math problem in which he tries to explain the solution without  knowing the right answer.

So: Now, if this side were two feet and this side two feet also, how
many feet would the whole be? Look at it like this: if this one were two feet
but this one only one foot, wouldn’t the area have to be two feet taken once?
Slave: Yes.
So: When this one is also two feet, there would be twice two?
Slave: There would.
So: An area of twice two feet?
Slave: Yes.
So: How much is twice two feet? Calculate and tell me.
Slave: Four, Socrates.
So: Couldn’t there be one different from this, doubled, but of the
same kind, with all the lines equal, as in that one?
Slave: Yes.
So: And how many feet in area?
Slave: Eight.
So: Come then, try to tell me how long each line of this one will be.
Meno 12
In that one, it’s two, but what about in that doubled one?
Slave: It’s clearly double, Socrates.

Then after some questions meno understands the different characteristics fo recollection and learning by hearing that the boy gave a wrong answer at the end.

So: You see, Meno, that I am not teaching anything, but put
everything as a question. He now believes he knows what sort of line the
eight feet area comes from. Or don’t you think so?
M: I do.
So: And does he know?
M: Not at all.
So: He believes it comes from the double?
M: Yes.

In part three of “Plato’s” “Meno”, Meno is still wanting to know what virtue is and so he keeps on asking Socrates about how to learn and understand it, so he can have virtue.

Then since we are of one mind as to the duty of inquiring into what one does not know, do you agree to our attempting a joint inquiry into the nature of virtue? [p. 28]

What Meno really wants to know is not what virtue is. Meno wants to know how to get power and be successful and so once again, Socrates makes Meno think again about his question, by asking him one as well.

Then if virtue is something that is in the soul, and must needs be profitable, it ought to be wisdom, seeing that all the properties of the soul are in themselves neither profitable nor harmful, but are made either one or the other by the addiction of wisdom or folly; and hence, by this argument, virtue being profitable must be a sort of wisdom.

[p 31]

In order for Meno to understand, Meno has to stop wanting to understand virtue for the wrong reason, and want to understand for the purpose of being better. The quote is very important because socrates is saying that virtue must be profitable, or a source and this sets him up to be able to question Meno if everything has to be profitable, and thus, getting Meno to think more and more, and break apart everything that he thinks he knows, so that he can be truly sure and so that he can understand and build up a better understanding.

At the beginning of part3, Meno asks Socrates to return to the original question that whether virtue can or cannot be taught, without knowing what virtue is, Socrates sets up hypothesis about triangular space and circle to account for the properties of virtue. After explanation, the conclusion that Socrates makes is that virtue is kind of knowledge and must be taught.

In the same way with regard to our question about virtue, since we do not know either what it is or what kind of thing it may be, we had best make use of a hypothesis in considering whether it can be taught or not, as thus: what kind of thing must virtue be in the class of mental properties, so as to be teachable or not? In the first place, if it is something dissimilar or similar to knowledge, is it taught or not—or, as we were saying just now, remembered? Let us have no disputing about the choice of a name: is it taught? Or is not this fact plain to everyone—that the one and only thing taught to men is knowledge?
Meno
I agree to that.
Socrates
Then if virtue is a kind of knowledge, clearly it must be taught?
Meno
Certainly.

when they discuss the relationship between virtue and knowledge，Socrates also mentions that this hypothesis or opinion stands in the idea that virtue is a good thing and is profitable.Then，Socrates consider the goods of the soul and takes some examples such as courage to lead to the wisdom（virtue must be a sort of wisdom）

Socrates
No, for then, I presume, we should have had this result: if good men were so by nature, we surely should have had men able to discern who of the young were good by nature, and on their pointing them out we should have taken them over and kept them safe in the citadel, having set our mark on them far rather than on our gold treasure, in order that none might have tampered with them, and that when they came to be of age, they might be useful to their country.
Meno
Yes, most likely, Socrates.
Socrates
So since it is not by nature that the good become good, is it by education?
Meno
We must now conclude, I think, that it is; and plainly, Socrates, on our hypothesis that virtue is knowledge, it must be taught.

Ultimately，they conclude that all beneficial things are good if they are accompanied by knowledge or wisdom，and because virtue is good，is a kind of knowledge，therefore virtue can be taught. Overall，I just assert that this kind of conclusion is not convincing，and I just dont know how to admit wisdom is the same thing as virtue. All the other things maybe are so so.

Later，they begin to suspect that whether virtue is a kind of knowledge. So a new topic has appeared “are there no teachers of virtue？”In order to criticize Menos conclusion， Socrates just invites Anytus joining into the conversation. Through this process，they take some instances about the situation that how do some famous person teach their kids.

Socrates
And, you know as well as I, he taught them to be the foremost horsemen of Athens, and trained them to excel in music and gymnastics and all else that comes under the head of the arts; and with all that, had he no desire to make them good men? He wished to, I imagine, but presumably it is not a thing one can be taught. And that you may not suppose it was only a few of the meanest sort of Athenians who failed in this matter, let me remind you that Thucydides’27 also brought up two sons, Melesias and Stephanus, and that besides giving them a good general education he made them the best wrestlers in Athens: one he placed with Xanthias, and the other with Eudorus—masters who, I should think, had the name of being the best exponents of the art. You remember them, do you not?
Anytus
Yes, by hearsay.
Socrates
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.

The results are all same that they didnt teach their sons to be virtuous as themselves，which reveal that it has no this kind of teacher to teach the virtue.