Plato Philosophy 1301 Simon Roig

Simon Roig

Philosophy 1301-024 Fall 09 Plato on Recollection

Plato strives to discover the truth about virtue: what it is, whether it is profitable, and whether it can be taught. While in the Meno he assigns certain qualities to virtue that he deems to be true, he makes it clear through Socrates’ narration that he is at least partially ignorant of the true nature of virtue. One of the characteristics of virtue that he ascertains is that it is found throughout all professions of men, and that it does not vary from one to the other but is the common denominator by which people seek to be good, prosperous, and admirable. Socrates and Meno arrive at the conclusion that what all professions have in common in regards to virtue is that it is the means by which something is done justly, honorably, and with temperance. Whenever something is done in this fashion it is done virtuously and with the purpose of attaining good. Socrates believes all men desire good, whether they are conscious of it or not, for many desire evil and are deceived in thinking that it will not bring them misery and ill-fate. Virtue, then, is a tool by which only good, not evil, can be achieved. Since all men essentially desire good equally, the difference between them lies in their ability to attain and retain the good. Socrates poses the question of whether virtue can be classified as knowledge, supposing that if it is it would be possible to teach or learn it. He goes on to explain how to attain knowledge through recollection. Recollection is a process that is only possible if our souls, which make part of us immortal and have lived many lives exist within us and allow us to access knowledge that we always possessed but were unaware of. The geometry example serves to prove that we can recollect information if showed how to arrive at a certain conclusion. Socrates believes that there is a difference between gaining true opinions through memorization, blind faith, or divination, and recollecting through the process of answering questions which cause us to search for new answers based on previous knowledge. Recollection builds on preexisting knowledge to arrive at what Socrates calls abiding knowledge. Conversely, while one may be

shown and feel certain of a truth through indirect learning, the witness to this truth might soon forget how he arrived at a conclusion. The most important aspect of recollection is that it makes the subject aware of his own ignorance at realizing that he did not truly know, but may have had a right opinion about something. The latter would be gained not through first-hand experience but through learning via other people’s accounts of their opinions. This ignorance is crucial in developing virtue because once one is aware of the ignorance, he will try to remedy it and thus begins the quest for truth. This realization of ignorance sheds light on the fact that what we thought we knew is often based on assumptions and second-hand opinions. In trying to fix this, we begin enquiring into the true nature of things and scrutinizing hypotheses according to standards such as consistency, permanence, and universality. Towards the end of the Meno Socrates argues that true opinions and truth are no different in practical purposes because they both serve the same function, given that they are both accurate and will prove equally effective to carry out a goal. It is implied that truth would be superior to true opinion, and when Meno raises this question forward, Socrates explains that truth is superior in the sense that it stays fastened to the soul through recollection and is far more lasting than right opinion. Right opinion can be used to achieve the same goals but is only temporary and will flee from us in due time. Attaining knowledge that is learned indirectly is easily achieved and results in the learner adopting an opinion which may be true or false. More often than not, men tend to rely on this kind of knowledge because it requires less exploration and effort. It is also often accompanied by a stubborn, false sense of certainty, which has been seen throughout history in the indoctrination of inaccurate beliefs deemed false by science. Plato makes a distinction between attaining and retaining good. The former being the kind that we experience simply by being exposed to our surroundings and reacting to them

almost impulsively by our sense of expectation, and the latter through recollection. The recollection that Socrates talks about that is confirmed by the soul and abides in it can only be achieved when one reaches a state of perplexity and proceeds to enquire into that which he does not know. Meno asks how it can be possible for one to enquire into something which he does not know to which Socrates replies by referencing priests and poets when they say that the soul lives and dies many lives but is never destroyed and has the power to call forth all the knowledge that abides within it through recollection. While one may hardly know about a topic, he might have an idea of its contents and if there is a willingness to reduce his ignorance, he will enquire onto the details and perhaps experience the truth of said topic in a way that will bind the knowledge to the soul. Socrates arrives at conclusions led by a series of deductions that he appears to be quite sure of, so I will venture to put forth my doubts in his reasoning. Socrates enquires into whether knowledge is good and goes on to say “knowledge embraces all good” by which one can infer that he means that knowledge leads to nothing but good. I will venture to enquire as to whether it is impossible to arrive at anything bad with the aid of knowledge. Since we can be certain of some knowledge, it is evident that we possess only a part of knowledge and not the whole. While Socrates claims that our soul possesses all the knowledge, the practical, concrete, irrefutable knowledge gained through science that helps us to be prosperous in every day situations is limited. Having partial knowledge can sometimes lead us to make assumptions about the whole, and then make judgments and decisions based on those assumptions. Sometimes those decisions can be imprudent and unjust, and this leads us to bad. The leader of an empire may decide to attack a weaker nation (based on the assumption or pretext that said nation is a threat) if he has the knowledge that the undertaking will be profitable for the empire’s economy, but whether that knowledge led to good or bad is open to interpretation and

subjectivity. It may be good for the invader, but bad for the subjugated. In this case it would be fair to say that the assumptions we make from partial knowledge can sometimes lead to bad. Socrates presents the inference that because all good things are profitable, then we must be profitable if we are good, and that virtue must also be profitable. As time has repeatedly shown, bad things happen to good people. The premise that all good things are profitable does not necessarily mean that if we are good we will also be profitable. One may argue that the sense of good or bad, just or unjust is subjective to each person and rarely finds any true consistency. Socrates continues to say that if virtue is profitable, then one would think prosperous things such as health, courage, and wealth are virtuous, yet what makes them profitable is the way in which they are used, rightly or wrongly. That leaves Socrates only one candidate left to which he can assign a black-and-white, dictionary definition of virtue: wisdom. The next assumption we can make is that since good things are only good when done virtuously, good men are not good by nature but through instruction, which would indicate the necessity for teachers of virtue. Meno has followed Socrates down this path to attest that virtue is knowledge and can be taught, to which Socrates replies that he is unsure that such is the case. He gives examples of great men in Athens who possessed many great qualities but were unable to instruct their children and impart the same level of virtue they possessed. From this he infers that virtue, if said man were truly virtuous and good and wanted the same for their offspring, would be incapable of being taught. I doubt whether a man being virtuous and possessing knowledge of virtue would be incapable of imparting this gift to another given that in order for teaching to occur, the teacher must be adept at teaching and the pupil at learning. Without both factors being present, the knowledge will not be passed on. It may be fair to say that a son is unlikely to learn virtue from a father if he is unwilling or incapable of doing so. Socrates establishes that the men who governed the state and were unable to pass on

this skill to others did not governby knowledge but by virtue. There would be no reason to doubt this if every time a wise man spoke, a foolish one listened. He argues that because virtue is not knowledge, then knowledge cannot be used as a guide for political life, although he had previously stated that the guides of man are true opinion and knowledge. If the two goods described are knowledge and true opinion, and we cannot use knowledge to govern (for reasons omitted), the “only alternative” must be right opinion. Cannot true opinion be taught and learned? Is it not easier for a man to attain true opinion than knowledge? If this right opinion which is a sort of divination by which politicians govern the state comes from god and is not fastened to the soul, should men blindly rely on their leaders’ “virtue” to account for their wellbeing? Are leadersaccountable to their peers by god or their fellow man, which rule by knowledge? It seems likely to me that no man will ever overcome life’s hurdles unless he gains the knowledge of the forms and ideas that stay constant through time. Right opinion might serve one purpose and fail at another, which can be used to one’s advantage in deceiving for personal profit. Knowledge, when perceived circumspectly and from all angles leads us to the virtue of becoming prosperous. When applied in this way, thorough, not partial knowledge, seems to eclipse subjectivity and bring forth good to all parties involved. It seems to me that we all possess a sense of virtue to some degree, as well as the ability to learn virtue from others to varying degrees. Every skill and virtue can be assignedone man that has excelled more so than any other, just as well with a race that can only have one winner, but there is no virtue known to me that has only been possessed by one man and no other. If a luthier crafts an instrument that had previously not existed, and he is the only one with the knowledge to play it, will a pupil not be able to learn how to play it if given the right instruction and has the willingness and capability to do so?