Plato's 'The Meno' (1 Viewer)

[rounder]

I just finished reading 'The Meno' by Plato. It's a brilliant dialogue that takes place between Socrates and Meno concerning virtue mostly. But a small part of it concerning the possibility of attaining knowledge really caught my attention. Meno assumes a sophistic position by stating that attaining knowledge is impossible. Basically his argument is this; if you possess knowledge then you would not be in the pursuit of it, but if you were pursuing knowledge then you could not possibly attain it since you do not know what you are pursuing.

Socrates' answer was that our immortal souls having lived so many lives before have come to know absolute knowledge, we are in the process of remembering so to speak. It's an interesting way of debunking sophism. The sophistic argument is flawless unless you assume Socrates' rebuttal is true.

The idea of having reincarnated souls that innately possess all knowledge is a bit too farfetched for me. But if I don't accept it, it seems sophism must be true.


What do you people think about this?

Here's the full text. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html

The part about knowledge is just less than halfway through.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Byrone]

Martin is going to own your ass once a debate occurs.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I just finished reading 'The Meno' by Plato. It's a brilliant dialogue that takes place between Socrates and Meno concerning virtue mostly. But a small part of it concerning the possibility of attaining knowledge really caught my attention. Meno assumes a sophistic position by stating that attaining knowledge is impossible. Basically his argument is this; if you possess knowledge then you would not be in the pursuit of it, but if you were pursuing knowledge then you could not possibly attain it since you do not know what you are pursuing.
Socrates' answer was that our immortal souls having lived so many lives before have come to know absolute knowledge, we are in the process of remembering so to speak. It's an interesting way of debunking sophism. The sophistic argument is flawless unless you assume Socrates' rebuttal is true.

The idea of having reincarnated souls that innately possess all knowledge is a bit too farfetched for me. But if I don't accept it, it seems sophism must be true.


What do you people think about this?

Here's the full text. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html

The part about knowledge is just less than halfway through.

What if I want to learn German? Don't I know what I'm attaining, and can't I pursue it?

 

[Ford Prefect]

What if I want to learn German? Don't I know what I'm attaining, and can't I pursue it?

I think for the first time i am agreeing with you! That notion is frankly ridiculous. I am not implying you are supporting it revolution, i am merely noting on its stupidity.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I can die happy

 

[Zé Tahir]

Me too.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Me too.

try harder

 

[Zé Tahir]

For what purpose?

 

[Ford Prefect]

For what purpose?

To die happier?

 

[Zé Tahir]

Is that a threat?

 

[rounder]

I'll try and defend sophism for a second here.

I think what Mano was talking about is absolute knowledge.

Let me ask you this.
Do you know what a table is?

 

[Ford Prefect]

Is that a threat?

Lets just say you had better be as happy as the scream mask when i show up

I'll try and defend sophism for a second here.

I think what Mano was talking about is absolute knowledge.

Let me ask you this.
Do you know what a table is?

If we want to go down this route then it will be a difficult one.

Can i refered you to a piece of dialogue from the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?

The set up is a character (Zarniwoop) is talking to the man who rules the universe.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I only decide about my Universe," continued the man quietly. "My Universe is my eyes and my ears. Anything else is hearsay."

"But don't you believe in anything?"

The man shrugged and picked up his cat.

"I don't understand what you mean," he said.

"You don't understand that what you decide in this shack of yours affects the lives and fates of millions of people? This is all monstrously wrong!"

"I don't know. I've never met all these people you speak of. And neither, I suspect, have you. They only exist in words we hear. It is folly to say you know what is happening to other people. Only they know, if they exist. They have their own Universes of their own eyes and ears."

"Do you believe other people exist?" insisted Zarniwoop.

"I have no opinion. How can I say?"

"But don't you understand that people live or die on your word?"

The ruler of the Universe waited for as long as he could. When he heard the faint sound of the ship's engines starting he spoke to cover it.

"It's nothing to do with me," he said, "I am not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man."

"Ah!" barked Zarniwoop, "you say 'The Lord'. You believe in something!"

"My cat," said the man benignly, picking it up and stroking it, "I call him The Lord. I am kind to him."

"Alright," said Zarniwoop, pressing home his point, "How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what he thinks of as your kindness?"

"I don't," said the man with a smile, "I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. Do you behave any differently? Please, I think I am tired."


http://flag.blackened.net/dinsdale/dna/book2.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

is that the point you want to get across?

 

[rounder]

What if I want to learn German? Don't I know what I'm attaining, and can't I pursue it?

I think it's important that you differentiate between language, which falls under the category of belief(I'll explain why in a second), from true knowledge.

Let me clarify. If I told you that the world is spherical, and you believe me. You have not gained any knowledge even though you learned something that is true. That is what Socrates calls 'belief'. You do not know for certain that the world is spherical but rather you believe it to be so. That is, of course, unless you are in possession of absolute proof of that fact.

Another example. You might want to learn about evolution. So you read Darwin's 'origin of species' and you think you understand his hypothesis. Again, you have not gained any knowledge here but you are merely believing what he says. This applies to religious books as well.


This also applies to learning the German language. You don't know what the words mean but you simply believe your teacher or book.

What is absolute knowledge, according to Socrates, Mathematics, music among other things can be considered as such.

 

[rounder]

Not exactly. Although with some fancy footwork you could come to the conclusion that nothing exists although that would be ridiculous.

However, that is not the point I'm trying to make. Meno's argument is that the pursuit of knowledge is impossible. You cannot gain knowledge, he is not saying that knowledge does not exist. His argument is, if you have knowledge of something, you would not pursue it in the first place, but if you were looking for knowledge of something you cannot possibly find it because you don't know what you are looking for.

You can trying answering my table question if you want.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Not exactly. Although with some fancy footwork you could come to the conclusion that nothing exists although that would be ridiculous.

However, that is not the point I'm trying to make. Meno's argument is that the pursuit of knowledge is impossible. You cannot gain knowledge, he is not saying that knowledge does not exist. His argument is, if you have knowledge of something, you would not pursue it in the first place, but if you were looking for knowledge of something you cannot possibly find it because you don't know what you are looking for.

You can trying answering my table question if you want.

But is that not a logical falicy. When i was 8 i had no concept of Iranian politics, but through seeking an understanding of it i know have knowledge of the situation.

For you to allow the point you want make i will answer your question.

To my perception of reality a table exists. It is a word that applied a structure designed to sustain pressure.

 

[rounder]

But is that not a logical falicy. When i was 8 i had no concept of Iranian politics, but through seeking an understanding of it i know have knowledge of the situation.

For you to allow the point you want make i will answer your question.

To my perception of reality a table exists. It is a word that applied a structure designed to sustain pressure.

I mentioned in my previous post what was meant by knowledge. You don't really know Iranian politics because politics is not a form of absolute knowledge. Your opinion of Iranian politics may be different from someone else's, therefore it is only belief or opinion. It must be universal knowledge. Like mathematics.

Can I not say that a chair is a structure designed to sustain pressure?

 

[Ford Prefect]

I mentioned in my previous post what was meant by knowledge. You don't really know Iranian politics because politics is not a form of absolute knowledge. Your opinion of Iranian politics may be different from someone else's, therefore it is only belief or opinion. It must be universal knowledge. Like mathematics.

Can I not say that a chair is a structure designed to sustain pressure?

I will end the first debate now. Any scientiest or mathmetician will not say there can be any absolutes. The reason that everything has theory attached to it is because of this. Scientific theory is different to standard theory though. In The Great Show On Earth, Dawkins explains the difference between the two.

Theory, Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideals or statements held as an explaination of account of a group of facts of phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation of experiment, and is propounded or acceptedas accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Theory, Sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hehnce, a mere hypothesis, spectulation, conjecture, an idea or set of ideas about something, and individual view or notion.

The first sense being that of scientific fact. In laymans terms it means essentially something is correct untill something can proove it otherwise. Ie the 'theory' of evolution is correct unless something can definitivley proove otherwise.

In answer to your second question surely the two are defined by the purpose we give to them, they both provide the same service, i could sit on a table and eat from a chair and there would be little difference, is it not just a name we give to something, a structure to which we have defined its purpose?


I am sure there are lots of typos in there, i am quite tired.

 

[rounder]

I will end the first debate now. Any scientiest or mathmetician will not say there can be any absolutes. The reason that everything has theory attached to it is because of this. Scientific theory is different to standard theory though. In The Great Show On Earth, Dawkins explains the difference between the two.

Theory, Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideals or statements held as an explaination of account of a group of facts of phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation of experiment, and is propounded or acceptedas accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Theory, Sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hehnce, a mere hypothesis, spectulation, conjecture, an idea or set of ideas about something, and individual view or notion.

The first sense being that of scientific fact. In laymans terms it means essentially something is correct untill something can proove it otherwise. Ie the 'theory' of evolution is correct unless something can definitivley proove otherwise.

In answer to your second question surely the two are defined by the purpose we give to them, they both provide the same service, i could sit on a table and eat from a chair and there would be little difference, is it not just a name we give to something, a structure to which we have defined its purpose?


I am sure there are lots of typos in there, i am quite tired.

Right. Are you stating that there are no absolutes? Seriously?
So 2+2=4 is not an absolute? The Pythagorus theorem is not an absolute? The area of a square is its side multiplied by itself? I can go on forever with mathematics. In music there is an absolute standard all musicians must follow in order to achieve harmony, something to do with 7. Too tired to explain it.

what about deductive arguments in philosophy? are they not absolute truths?
Premise 1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates was a man.
Conclusion:Socrates was a mortal.

As for the table. The point is we don't know what a table is because it is not a form of knowledge. As with language. It is just words that are given to different things. This was way back when someone mentioned learning German.

I think the concept is a difficult one to grasp. But I'll try my best to show you what I understand from it. Say I read a note that told me to look for 'gahamaha'. What would I do? Do I know what gahamaha is? Maybe it's an object, a set of objects, a color, a unique shape, a mathematical formula, perhaps a form of spiritual enlightenment? Now let's say that gahamaha is a small puppy that lives in my backyard. It's previous owners called it gahamaha. If one day I find gahamaha, would I know that I did? This is how I understand the sophistic argument. I cannot gain knowledge of something I don't know.

I'm no expert on the subject, that's just my honest interpretation of the idea. Don't take my word for it.

 

[Ford Prefect]

I am going to bed because its just shy of 3 am and i will answer most of this tomorrow. There are no absolutes because things such as 2+2=4 are only correct because we say they are correct. Its a value we put on something, that doesn't make it true. Pythagorus' theory is only correct untill something else prooves it to be otherwise, i wouldn't consider someone who claims otherwise as a mathmetician as they have missed a fundamental area of whats math theory is (refer to the definitions provided by dawkins).

 

[rounder]

You can answer this tommorow and this is my last post before I go to bed.

To say that 2+2=4 is true because we say is true seems to me an utterly ridiculous notion I'm sorry. At one point everyone believed that the world was flat, now we know that it isn't. The world was never flat, it was always egg shaped even when we all thought otherwise. Clearly, this means that it is a truth that is independant of what we think.

Things aren't true because we want them to be true, but rather they are true regardless. I agree, scientific theories are always being corrected and replaced with time but just because our scientific theories change does not mean that the truth changes as well. I think your assumption is very erroneous to say the least.

A triangular shape has three sides is another absolute truth.
The sum of any triangle's angles will equal 180 degrees.
If you draw two perpendicular lines across each other you will form four 90 degree angles.

These are all mathematical truths, they are objective and absolute in every sense. I don't see how you can believe it to be otherwise. I really don't care about Dawkin's definitions. No offense.