Part 1:

Blog post:

It all started with a simple question from Meno, he wanted to achieve Virtue. But he had the wrong idea, he would’ve ask anyone else he would probably had a simple answer. However we decided to go ask Socrates. The following:

“Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue can be taught, or is acquired by practice, not teaching? Or if neither by practice nor by learning, whether it comes to mankind by nature or in some other way?”

To which Socrates said he couldn’t answer without truly knowing what virtue is. This made me makes Meno question his knowledge about a subject he thought he knew. For which Socrates tries to argue that Meno’s believes of the true meaning of virtue were wrong. And that his idea of virtue being the ability to govern is not completely true.

“No, indeed, it would be unlikely, my excellent friend. And again, consider this further point: you say it is “to be able to govern”; shall we not add to that—“justly, not unjustly”?”

From this part I learned that we truly know nothing, or that at least some of the things we think we know can be rebutted by some simple questions

In part 3 and 4 of Plato’s Meno, Socrates and Meno continue their talk about virtue and what it really means to have virtue. Some questions that came up were, Are there teachers of virtue? Which they found in part 4 that there are many Athenian gentlemen that could do the job, just as past ones have done for them. Another question that came up was, what is virtue? They came to the conclusion that virtue is wholly or wisdom in the end of part 3. The conversation about good and bad and how men can do bad things consciously, continued and I came across this quotation at the end of part 3:

No, for then, I presume, we should have had this result: if good men were so good 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 gld 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.(32)

This quotation explains how the world works today. In today’s society we lock up people who we, the privileged and “sane” live in “peace” as if there’s no problem with it. It’s been the same system since medieval times and in some cases, the system works fine, but when innocent people are locked up because the privileged are scared of them, that’s not fair judgement.

The point of the whole Plato’s Meno dialogue is to make the reader ask a question. Most of the topics were about personal opinion, and how people reflect on it. I start asking myself lots of questions. I had disagreements and agreements in some parts, but in my opinion, the general idea is to questioning and making yourself thinking deeply.

In the part 3 and part 4 of Plato’s Meno,  Socrates and Meno are discussing whether virtue is a kind of knowledge.

Socrates
So you see we have made short work of this question—if virtue belongs to one class of things it is teachable, and if to another, it is not.（29）

In this part, Socrates gives Meno a vague answer, and does not directly give a judgment, whether virtue is a kind of knowledge.

What is good and bad? This is the topic of part three as same as part four of dialogue. As we read through, we questioning ourselves ” Is it true that we were born knowing what is good, or we taught it”. An idea of part three and four are focusing on the idea of what is good or what is bad. It is a personal question, and its a question of morality. As an example, we can take Russia in 17th c. Famous writer Pushkin was killed in a duel, because of the woman he wanted to marry. At this time it was normal, which means it was good, but today we will consider it as something bad.

This is for me one of the most interesting parts of the whole “Meno”. In this part, it is questioned whether men were born good or if they are taught to be good. This part is very interesting since it created a question for me: if we think that we are doing good, is it because we were taught to believe that it is good? This also means that good is relative. Each person or group has a different perception of it. For example, if in my culture we believe that killing is not good, in others they can believe it is.

in part two of Meno’s and Socrates’ dialogue, they are disguising ways of learning and educating people.  Socrates is questioning a young slave about geometrical figures and equations, by one simple question ” Tell me, bo, do you know that a square figure is like this?”. A teacher never tells the boy a piece of new information, the boy is learning by questioning himself. Slave boy was facing complicated tasks, but, by the end, he reached the conclusion and Socrates’ method about questioning students, so they can learn is working. The reader might have some questions about this method as we can’t be sure if it is efficient.

Socrates wants to prove Meno that someone would not be taught by asking questions, but for recollecting information, by repetition. Socrates summons one of his slaves and starts to instruct him with some geometry and math related questions, by the end, the boy without any previous knowledge, learns something. With this, he shows how the boy learnt only by doing the task himself. By receiving instructions and suppositions.

Plato’s ‘Meno’ part one is telling the reader about the dialogue between Meno and Socrates. Meno is a student of Socrates, and he is asking the mentor about virtue and if it can be taught. The first part of dialogue makes the reader ask questions without an answer, with a hope the straight answer will be giving right away. As Meno and Socrates reached the point of conclusions,  Meno defined virtue as the role in society

Meno goes to Socrates seeking answers. He wants to know whether virtue can be taught or not. Socrates tells Meno how he doesn’t know what virtue is, and has not even met anyone who does. Meno, disappointed keeps asking other questions. Meno defines virtue as the ability to rule men.

After having asked several questions, and not receiving any answers, but more questions instead out of frustration Meno questions Socrates’ knowledge by making fun of him.

The part that made me think the most about parts three and four of Plato’s Meno was when they were discussing whether men are good by nature or if they have to be taught to be good. I liked this part because it made me think about what I considered to be good or not.

Then if this is so, good men cannot be good by nature. [31]

This was the sentence that made me think the most about if we are taught to be good or if we are good by nature. It was said by Socrates after they were discussing if virtue can be taught or not. I liked it because it made me think about if virtue can be taught or not.

The third part of Meno was shorter than all of the others. In my opinion part 3 of Meno was very similar to part 1 of Meno because in part 3 Meno is still asking Socrates about virtrue and comes to the conclusion that if virtue is a kind of knowledge then is must be able to be taught. To this socrates replies that  you have to be able to understand what virtue is before it can be taught.  This leads into their discussion on if virtue is good or bad and about how different things could be considered good or bad depending on the situation.

Socrates: Then as to the other things, wealth and the like, that we mentioned just now as being sometimes good and sometimes harmful- are not these also made profitable or harmful by the soul according as she uses and guides them rightly or wrongly: just as, in the case of the soul generally, we found that the guidance of wisdom makes profitable the properties of the soul, while that of folly makes them harmful?

p.31

In this quote from socrates I understood that certain things like wealth can be considered good or bad based on how they are used and what they are used for. Because of this I think that people can find that their ideas of what is good and what is bad can change over time.

Another topic that Meno and Socrates discussed in this section of the story was if people were good by nature or if they are taught to be good by someone else. I found that this was one of the topics that I found the most interesting in the story because it is something that I have never really considered before and I think that it is something that I think that different people would have different opinions on.

Socrates: So since it is not by nature that the good become good, is it by education?

p. 32

From this Meno comes to the conclusion that virtue is knowledge and it must be taught.

In this part of the dialog opens with Meno asking socrates of seemingly straightforward question: Can virtue be taught?

Menos first definition: Virtue is relative to the sort of person in question. Menos second definition: Virtue is the ability to rule men. then the conclusion form  socrates was Everyone desires what they think is good. So if people differ in virtue, as they do, this must be because they differ in their ability to acquire the fine things they consider good.

Part 5

In this “Chapter” Socrates, says that virtue can not be taught on purpose, nor given by a birth. What I consider as a right statement, although I would say it differently. The knowledge, is not given by nature, it is not given by teachers, but it is picked up by those who wonder and open to new experience.

Generally, now I have nothing to oppose and argue against. However, I can say that surroundings, can make you “pick up knowledge at faster rate”, what we can say a some-what form of teaching. For example, surrounded by a classroom, teacher, books and etc., you are more likely to start picking up. However, not a fact.

Summarizing the whole text, I would say that most of the time it was kinda boring, and mostly (except the ending) not life related. But it is made me think, and to try my self to connect it to our   daily life, interpret some stuff and explore beyond OUR REALITY. And the ending of chapter 5, really surprised me with good final idea. I enjoyed this work, although the reading it self was so so.

This is part of Socrates’ discussion of whether virtue can be taught or not. I think everyone has a different idea, which makes virtue more complicated.

At first they thought that virtue could be taught, but there was no teacher of virtue, no real definition of it, and maybe what we think of as a wrong definition could be right. Since there is no teacher of virtue, Socrates is beginning to feel that the first syllogism is wrong.

It is the goodness in our hearts and the morality we will never understand. I believe that there will still be people in this world who know what virtue is. Maybe they just don’t know how to teach others.

Virtue is vague, it is impenetrable knowledge, they says that it is a god-given power, and it may be nothing more than that man himself takes the initiative to do what he thinks good, and calls it virtue.

Socrates:

Since than it is not only because of knowledge that men will be good and useful to their country, where such men are to be found, but also on account of right opinion; and since neither of these two things— knowledge and true opinion— is a natural property of mankind, being acquired— or do you think that either of them is natural?

Meno:

Not I.   (Page. 44)

In San Tzu Ching, the first line is people born with goodness, we believe some of the morality innate. In part 2 they are discuss is some of our knowledge innate？

Socrates
Now if he always had it, he was always in a state of knowing; and if he acquired it all some time, he could not have acquired it in this life. Or has someone taught him geometry? You see, he can do the same as this with all geometry and every branch of knowledge. Now, can anyone have taught him all this? You ought surely to know, especially as he was born and bred in your house.
Meno
Well, I know that no one has ever taught him.
Socrates
And has he these opinions, or has he not?
Meno
He must have them, Socrates, evidently.
Socrates
And if he did not acquire them in this present life, is it not obvious at once that he had them and learnt them during some other time?

Socrates believe some of the thing are innate. 

The third and fourth parts have written that Socrates and Meno discussed the is virtues as knowledge? If virtue is knowledge, who can teach virtue. Socrates believes that virtue is good for us, but it must be used properly. He gave an example. If a person has a lot of money, it is very beneficial to that person. But if he uses the money to do something bad, then this is not a virtue. Because he did not use money properly.

Socrates：
Then let us see, in particular instances, what sort of things they are that profit us. Health, let us say, and strength, and beauty, and wealth—these and their like we call profitable, do we not?
Meno：
Yes.
Socrates：
But these same things, we admit, actually harm us at times; or do you dispute that statement?
Meno：
No, I agree.
Socrates：
Consider now, what is the guiding condition in each case that makes them at one time profitable, and at another harmful. Are they not profitable when the use of them is right, and harmful when it is not?
Meno：
To be sure.

He also said that if virtue is brave, just, temperate and the like. But if you don’t have the rationality to do brave things, then it is just reckless.

Socrates:
Then let us consider next the goods of the soul: by these you understand temperance, justice, courage, intelligence, memory, magnanimity, and so forth?
Meno:
Yes.
Socrates:
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 is courage 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?
Meno:
Yes.

Socrates and Anytus later discussed whether virtue can be taught. Socrates believes that if one wants to learn a true virtue and knowledge, he should send that person to someone who is called a “wise man.” But Anytus disagreed with Socrates’s point of view. Anytus believes that those who are called “wise men” are corrupt, selfish, corrupt officials. Anytus also believes that those who give money to the “wise” are stupid to learn the “virtues and knowledge”.

Anytus：
To whom are you referring, Socrates?
Socrates：
Surely you know as well as anyone; they are the men whom people call sophists.
Anytus：
For heaven’s sake hold your tongue, Socrates! May no kinsman or friend of mine, whether of this city or another, be seized with such madness as to let himself be infected with the company of those men; for they are a manifest plague and corruption to those who frequent them.

I think there is some truth in what Anytus said. In this era, there are indeed many people who use the hat of “sage” to deceive people’s money and trust. There are even a lot of powerful officials who use their rights to make money and benefits for themselves. But this is also the reality of society and the nature of mankind.

Meno part 5

In part 5 of Plato’s Meno, i think the general meaning of it is — true and false divided by different people, the true, justice thing for one group of people might be false and injustice for another group, and  right opinion is a thing that can help you to reach the answer off your question.

Socrates

I will tell you. If a man knew the way to Larisa, or any other place you please, and walked there and led others, would he not give right and good guidance?

Meno

Certainly.

Socrates

Well, and a person who had a right opinion as to which was the way, but had never been there and did not really know, might give right guidance, might he not?

Meno

Certainly.

Socrates

And so long, I presume, as he has right opinion about that which the other man really knows, he will be just as good a guide—if he thinks the truth instead of knowing it—as the man who has the knowledge.

Meno

Just as good. Socrates 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.

This is what i understand about this part, there are lot more things that confuse me in this part, i think what i know about this part is only 25%.

Meno offers a fine illustration of socrates argumentative method and his search for definitions of moral concepts. Like platos early dialogues, it ends rather inconclusively. virtue and believe has been  defined. it has been identified with a kind of knowledge or wisdom, but exactly what this knowledge consist in hasn’t been specified.it seems its can be taught, at least in principle, thats why there are not teachers of virtue.

At end of part 5 Socrates says that virtue is neither by nature or taught by others and people who have virtue were possessed of God; it does not related to knowledge.

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.

Socrates: Meno, I think Anytus is angry, and I am not at all surprised: for he conceives, in the first place, that I am speaking ill of these gentlemen; and in the second place, he considers he is one of them himself. Yet, should the day come when he knows what “speaking ill” means, his anger will cease; at present he does not know. Now you must answer me: are there not good and honorable men among your people also?

In the part 5 of Plato’s of Meno Socrates shows his point of view which means there is a kindly inside of people’s heart and some people is angry but it is not out of surprised. In my opinion Socrates is trying to let Meno believe that everyone have kind in their mind but some of the people are have angry in their mind.

Part 3

Socrates sates in part 3 states that virtues is some kind of knowledge, and it is profitable, so what wisdom. That means that any virtue can not be given by berth, but only thought. I completely agree with that statement, think it is a really good explanation, but for some reason at the end of chapter, Socrates’s “teenage maximalism” wakes up and he started to argue against his own ideas. He supports the opinion that if virtue can be thought there must be teachers. And then part 4 starts.

Part 4
In part 4, Socrates explains to Meno (by talking to Anytus) that virtue is not a thing which can be thought. However, Socrates forgets to consider the fact that, knowing/obtaining virtue does not guarantee that you have enough teaching skills to pass your virtues to someone. Knowing and teaching different things. And at the end Socrates, openly says to Anytus that he is just a piece of brown substance. What I find, not really professional from his side.

My notes:

Chapter 4 for me seemed so fake, in there it is clear that author, Plato starts to push his own, uncovered thoughts/opinions. All the text gets felling of just an attempt to promote some really biased ideas on his own. The character, of Anytus is so cliched, as an example lines 23-33 on page 35, literally say:
-Do you like “something”.
-No
-Have you ever tried that “something”
-No
-How can you judge? Ah? Ah?
Come on, only complete vegetable would say that… This is so bad way, to flourish a character’s badness. Even children in kindergarten do not have such dialogues.

Conclusion:
I have liked part 3 until the end, and for me part 4 is the worst one out of all. The virtue can be though only, but you need a great desire for you to learn.

In part 3, Socrates and Meno discuss whether can virtue be taught, and they made a hypophysis that if a virtue is a knowledge, it can be taught, otherwise it can’t.

Socrates

Consider now, what is the guiding condition in each case that makes them at one time profitable, and at another harmful. Are they not profitable when the use of them is right, and harmful when it is not?

I strongly agree with Socrates’ idea, something profits people may harm people. For example, the desire of getting money, if a person has that desire could encourage him to study harder and work harder for being more successful and make more money, but it also could lead people to criminal, getting money in illegal or inappropriate way.

In the part 2 of Plato’s Meno, Socrates develops an interesting idea, that as soon as you understand that you know not something, you learn. It is basic, but significant at the same time. You can not learn unless you know what you need to learn and where you have knowledge blanks. That is why in our days we have such lot of testing, so to help students learn and develop on their mistakes. This looks to me quite interesting. Now I mostly agree with him, but on the other side, the idea is to basic and obvious, so it is hard to not agree with it, and even harder not to notice. He says that you learn only what you don’t know. So I can say that you eat, when you are hungry, it is obvious. In addition it doesn’t change a concept of thinking, or doesn’t make you look from different perspective, I think maybe the time this work was written, it could be actual, due to the fact that most of the people were alliterated. But our time, it is strange to say that «you go for knowledge only when you realize the lack of it» is at least strange.

Meno Part 3&4

Meno is content to conclude that virtue can be taught, but socrates, to menos surprise, turns on his own argument and starts criticizing it. if virtue could be taught there would be teachers of virtue. but there aren’t any.

most the time in life, we get by perfectly well if simply have correct beliefs about something.  For example, if you want to grow tomatoes and you correctly believe that planting them on the south side of the garden will produce good crop, the if you do this you will get the outcome you’re aiming at. Another example that I learn the good men who fail to teach their sons virtue are like practical gardeners without theoretical knowledge.

In that part Meno ask socrates to return to their original question: can virtue be thought? Then just Socrates reluctantly agrees and constructs the following argument:

• Virtue is something beneficial; Its a good thing to have
• All good things are only if they are accompanied by knowledge or wisdom (for example I read about courage is good in a wise person, but in a fool is mere recklenessness
• virtue is a kind of knowledge
• therefore virtue can be taught

At the beginning of these two passages, Socrates and Meno discuss the existence of virtue and whether it can be taught. They’ve talked before about the memory of the soul, so at first Socrates assumes that virtue is a kind of wisdom that can be taught, because virtue is a kind of goodness.

Socrates: Then may we assert this as a universal rule, that in man all other things depend upon the soul, while the things of the soul herself depend upon wisdom, if they are to be good; and so by this account the profitable will be wisdom, and virtue, we say, is profitable? (page. 32)

Then he began to talk with another man about whether virtue could be taught, and the man thought it could be taught, but he thought the wise man could not, and that it would be a waste to communicate with the wise man.

After some discussion, Socrates overturns the assumption that virtue can be taught because there is no such thing as a teacher of virtue.

When I first read it, I could see clearly what Socrates was trying to say, but in the end it was like being stuck in a quagmire and not knowing what he was talking about. I’ve seen it over and over and over again, and I still can’t make it clear, but I wonder if Socrates is trying to say that if you think rationally you can get real wisdom, that you can’t be perfect from the beginning, but that you become good by reason and what you think is good. Everyone understands the good differently, but everyone knows what the so-called good is. Virtue can not be taught, but knowledge can be taught, once there is wisdom, may be learned from the actions of others so-called virtue.

No matter how much we say, if we don’t know the root of virtue, we can’t teach it to others. People who know what virtue is may not be able to truly understand it.

In part 3, Socrates and Meno argued that virtue is knowledge or not. Socrates says that if virtue is a kind of “knowledge”, it can be taught, but if not it can not be taught.

In part 4, Socrates ask about the argument to Anytus, but at the end Anytus  said to Socrates that don’t talk to people  rude, so advise is to be careful not to cause a disaster.

Socrates, I consider you are too apt to speak ill if 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 part 3 and part 4 of Plato’s Meno there is a quote which shows that Socrates think that virtue is a kind of wisdoms which is from people’s soul.

Socrates 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 addition of wisdom or folly; and hence, by this argument, virtue being profitable must be a sort of wisdom.

Socrates was trying to convince Meno that virtue was a sort of wisdom and that is  come from soul which is saved in last century. so he think if people keep remembering in their life they could know many knowledge and wake the virtue up which is inside of their soul.  In my opinion the theory he is trying to telling Meno is perfectly wrong but that was right at that moment because it’s easy to let somebody know something. If we put his theory in 2019 that will be a paradox so it’s no fit to now.

And the other thing is that he think knowledge was in the soul and it’s saved from last century so if people keep remembering they could get knowledge from their soul. This is also totally wrong whenever in that moment or now.

The part I liked most in part two of Meno occurred when Socrates asked Meno if he could gain knowledge if he did not already have an opinion of something. This part made me think about what I knew and what I only thought I knew.

I understand the point you would make, Meno. Do you see what a captious argument you are introducing–that, forsooth, a man cannot inquire either about what he knows or about what he does not know? For he cannot inquire about what he knows, because he knows it, and in that case is in no need of inquiry; nor again can he inquire about what he does not know, since he does not know about what he is to inquire. [16]

I think that this was the most interesting part of the story because I liked how Socrates made the reader think differently about what we know and how we know it. Socrates says how can you ask about something that you do not know because you would not know what to ask. In my opinion, if I don’t know how something works, I will inquire about it. Anyway, that was the part that made me think the most.

In “Meno” part 2, Meno asked Socrates about t how can a man know a thing that they don’t know it. Socrates’ answer is that a man can not inquire a thing whether he knows it doesn’t know it, because if he knows it, he has nothing to inquire about, but if he doesn’t, he doesn’t know what he inquires about. And Socrates proclaimed his idea according to a story that soul is immoral, and soul already learned everything, learning is recollecting and remembering. To prove his idea, Socrates demonstrated in front of Meno to make a boy which ignorant with any geometric knowledge to solve a geometric question.

From the demonstrates of Socrates which is teach a boy to solve a math problem, I found that the boy is same with Meno. Because at first, the boy was very confident with his answer that double the length of the side while Socrates asked about how to double the size of a square with 2 feet of the side. After the boy was told that the solution is wrong, he got confused and trying to find another answer with enlightenment from Socrates but no telling the answer directly, the boy finally figured out the answer. It is a similar case with the Meno. At first, Meno though he knows about the virtue, whereas he realized that he knows nothing about virtue after discussing with Scratches, and he got confused. In the dialogue, Scratches was guiding and questioning Meno in order to find out the definition of virtue instead of telling what virtue is.

The theory of Socrates about the soul within every creature carries all the knowledge explained Meno’s paradox that how we learn a thing which we don’t know, it also shows what do we need to do to learn things.

Socrates
And at this moment those opinions have just been stirred up in him, like a dream; but if he were repeatedly asked these same questions in a variety of forms, you know he will have in the end as exact an understanding of them as anyone.(26)

In the demonstration of teaching the boy to solve a math problem, Socrates did not actually tall the answer but provide some hint to him to get the answer. The reason why he did that because he thinks that is how people learn things. It reflects the real-life situation, in primary school teacher teach us how to do calculation instead of just telling the answer. Because if we know how to solve the question we know how to do it next time, but if we only know the answer, we will forget about it. As the text above mentioned, to understand better, teacher will ask you to the same question in different ways to help you to understand.

Socrates

And so it does to me, Meno. Most of the points I have made in support of my argument are not such as I can confidently assert; but that the belief in the duty of inquiring after what we do not know will make us better and braver and less helpless than the notion that there is not even a possibility of discovering what we do not know, nor any duty of inquiring after it—this is a point for which I am determined to do battle, so far as I am able,both in word and deed.(28)

According to the theory of Socrates , the soul knows every knowledge, learning is actually recollecting the knowledge, therefore there is nothing we can’t know as long as people are willing to put enough effort to find out the answer. From the paragraph,  Socrates shows his attitude to his life which is to learn and discover what we do not know until reaching death for being more braver and less helpless. I think we should learn from him.