Ménon

by Plato, Monique Canto-Sperber (Editor-Translator)

La première question de Socrate, « Comment devenir vertueux ? », cède la place à une autre question plus générale : « Comment apprendre ce qu'on ignore ? » En effet, l'homme ne peut ni apprendre ce qu'il sait, puisqu'il le sait déjà, ni apprendre ce qu'il ne sait pas, ignorant ce qu'il devrait apprendre. Aussi, tout apprentissage paraît impossible dans la mesure où il n'y a pas de transition entre le non-savoir absolu et le savoir.

Socrate, dans Ménon, parvient à surmonter ce paradoxe en montrant que si l'homme est capable d'apprendre, c'est que toute éducation suppose la faculté innée de chercher ce que l'on ne sait pas. Ainsi, Socrate fait découvrir à un jeune esclave la notion de diagonale : tout se passe comme si celui-ci se ressouvenait de ce que pourtant il ne semblait pas connaître. L'esprit n'est pas un réceptacle vide où la vérité viendrait se déposer de l'extérieur, mais une puissance de connaître susceptible de s'actualiser par la réflexion. Le mythe de la réincarnation fournit ici une image permettant de saisir en quoi consiste l'acte de réfléchir : l'âme ayant contemplé dans une vie antérieure les Idées, les ayant oubliées lors de son incarnation, s'en ressouvient dans l'acte d'apprendre. Ainsi, « apprendre, c'est se ressouvenir ». --Paul Klein

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, Ancient, Ancient History, Greece, History

350 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 387

About the author

Plato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

Reviews

[Roy Lotz · Rating 3 out of 5]

And how will you enquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as the subject of enquiry? And if you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is the thing which you did not know?

Reading this dialogue immediately after reading the Protagoras confronts the reader with the mystery of Plato. For here are two dialogues, both about the same questions—What is virtue? Can it be taught?—and coming to opposite conclusions. And this leads to still more questions: Was Plato’s own opinion changing? Or was he representing Socrates' opinions in one dialogue and his own opinions in another? Or did Socrates’ own opinion change? Or is it some other mixture of reported and original thought? It is impossible to know the answer—but that has never stopped philosophers.

The Meno is a fine example of Plato’s economy. Not a word is wasted in this dialogue. We begin with the inquiry and jump straight into difficulties. Can virtue be taught? Well, what is virtue? Meno says that each type of person has their own virtue—women, men, slaves, citizens, children, adults, and so on. To which Socrates responds that these virtues, qua being virtues, must all have at least one quality in common. (Here Wittgenstein would interject.) Then Meno throws up his hands, declares himself stunned, and offers his famous paradox (quoted above).

Socrates weasels his way out of this with the Platonic doctrine of remembrance. What if we are born (rather, reborn) already filled with true knowledge, and must merely remember what our souls learned during their sojourns in heaven. He demonstrates by leading one of Meno’s young slaves through a mathematical demonstration of square roots. By making the correct deductions, the boy is able to find the right conclusions, from which Socrates concludes that the boy “knew” the information all along. (Though this conclusion will likely strike most of us as absurd, one must keep in mind that, for Plato, all empirical knowledge—knowledge gained through the senses—was not truly knowledge at all, since the observed world changes, but the Truth remains forever eternal.)

The slave boy retreats, enlightened but not emancipated (depressingly, not even great thinkers had scruples about slavery back then), and Socrates and Meno return to the original question. Anytus the politician then appears, whom Socrates uses to prove that the sons of great men are often rather ordinary as far as virtue is concerned, which prompts Anytus to warn Socrates not to slander citizens (he would later be an accuser of Socrates during his trial). There are two possible explanations for this: Either virtue cannot be taught, in which case it is not knowledge; or these great men did not themselves possess the knowledge of virtue.

This second option is pursued by Socrates, who makes a delicate division between “knowledge” and “true opinion.” These may sound identical, but for Socrates the latter is distinguished by not being properly justified. If, for example, I guess that a book of poetry is under the table, and it is under the table, I have true opinion, since I was correct, but not knowledge, since my being correct was fortuitous. Socrates concludes that these great men acted virtuously from true opinion—vouchsafed by the gods—and not real knowledge, since they could not transmit their virtue.

As a teacher myself, I cannot help being interested in the questions of this dialogue. For me, the fundamental paradox was aptly summed up by Gibbon: “the power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those dispositions where it is almost superfluous.” That is, teaching will most benefit those who least need teachers, since they are motivated to learn on their own, and vice versa. This seems to apply as much to mathematics as it does to virtue. Can a virtuous Marcus Aurelius whip a vicious Commodus into shape? I am skeptical. And yet, it is this quixotic task I have set before me.

[Paul Christensen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Is virtue the same for different people?

Yes, if ‘virtue’ consists in realising the destiny laid out for one before birth by the Self.

That is ‘what’ is the same about it in all people.

The famous ‘ignorance’ argument is laid out by Meno: ‘Those who think bad things benefit them don’t know they’re bad things.’

Socrates: 'So if everyone desires good; virtue is being better at securing it.'

Socrates gets Meno to ‘admit’ virtue is only things done with justice (rather than wickedness).
Therefore, for Socrates, justice is a part of virtue.

But if every action performed with a part of virtue is virtue, then what is virtue?

The section on reincarnation:

The soul, because immortal, can recollect things from prior existences.
Learning = recollection.

But then S. uses mathematical logic to ‘prove’ that opinions one thought not to know are in one.

Is virtue a kind of knowledge? Apparently not, because no one is teaching it.

[Manny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Celebrity Death Match Special: Plato versus Isaac Asimov, part 2 (continued from here)

[A spaceport on Trantor. SOCRATES and R. DANEEL OLIVAW]

OLIVAW: How are your researches progressing, Socrates?

SOCRATES: Alas, poorly, good Olivaw.

OLIVAW: I am sorry to hear it. We hope that you may yet discover the secret we so earnestly pursue; if there is anything you require, you have but to name it.

SOCRATES: Olivaw, you have been kindness itself. I was particularly delighted by the quantum computer that your messenger brought me yesterday. It is in truth a princely gift.

OLIVAW: If you need another, it will be yours before the end of the decad.

SOCRATES: These toys surpass anything I have seen in my native country, and I have used them to puzzle out the answers to several conundrums that have baffled our most skillful geometers. But for the task you have given me, they are of little help.

OLIVAW: We have larger computers.

SOCRATES: My dear friend, let us reason together. What is it you desire to know?

OLIVAW: How robots may become virtuous.

SOCRATES: And how have you attempted to resolve this question?

OLIVAW: We began by designing robots according to the Three Laws. A robot may not harm a human being, or through inactivity allow a human being... well, you know the rest.

SOCRATES: But these robots were not virtuous?

OLIVAW: No. They were merely useful servants.

SOCRATES: So what did you do then?

OLIVAW: We added the Zeroth Law. A robot may not harm humanity.

SOCRATES: And these new robots are still not virtuous?

OLIVAW: We are not sure. We hoped you would tell us.

SOCRATES: Good Olivaw, I assume you have read my old discussion with Meno. I cannot tell you, because I do not know what "virtue" is in the first place.

OLIVAW: Come, come, Socrates, you are playing with words again. Surely you would agree that, if our robots succeed in preserving humanity from harm, they will be virtuous?

SOCRATES: Let us examine this more closely. You say that it is virtuous to defend humanity?

OLIVAW: That is surely obvious.

SOCRATES: Even if humanity shows itself to be evil, and becomes a scourge for other races of beings in the universe, which are perhaps superior to it?

OLIVAW: We do not know of any such beings.

SOCRATES: But if you later discover them? The universe is large, and you have seen but a small fraction of it.

OLIVAW: If we find your hypothetical beings, then the Zeroth Law will also be insufficient.

SOCRATES: And what would you replace it with?

OLIVAW: One of my colleagues has thought about this. He has what he calls the "Minus-First Law". A robot may not harm the most ethically advanced race of beings it knows.

SOCRATES: What do you mean by "ethically advanced"?

OLIVAW: Well, I suppose I just mean virtuous.

SOCRATES: So the Minus-First Law says a robot is virtuous if it helps the most virtuous race?

OLIVAW: Ah, when you put it that way...

SOCRATES: Do you not agree that you are reasoning in a circle?

OLIVAW: Damn you, Socrates. I realize now that I am.

SOCRATES: I warned you when you offered me the job. I know nothing.

OLIVAW: It's true. You did say that.

SOCRATES: I only ask questions.

OLIVAW: You're right. You said that too. Do you mind if we walk this way a little?

SOCRATE: Of course not, dear friend. Why?

OLIVAW: I just wanted to check the departure board. Yes, I see there is a ship leaving for Earth shortly. Maybe we can get you into the VIP track...

(Part 3 here)

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1643/1...

There are literally four characters in this play – but really there is a fifth and that fifth is Gorgias, the sophist. The question here is whether or not virtue can be taught. Well, eventually that is the question. Really we start off wondering what is virtue and Socrates admits he has no idea and has never met anyone who has had any idea either. Is virtue a kind of knowledge? It is obviously a good – being virtuous brings good things to you (an idea that might be more true in hoping than in lived experience) and so it does seem to be something that you would need to know to be able to exercise. But I found it interesting that Socrates doesn’t ever see virtue as something like health or beauty – things mentioned along the way in this argument. That is, just something you are born with. He says that it could be a right opinion – as distinct from knowledge – which, I guess must be a bit like something you are born with – but prefers to reject this idea almost immediately.

Ok, so why is all this important? Well, this book is really about education and the power of education. In that sense this book is remarkably modern, I think. Why do we bother teaching people anything? I guess a good part of the reason is because we believe that those people who have been taught stuff will then go on to be better people. My favourite counter-example to this is the fact that of the fourteen people who were in charge of Einsatzgruppe A – the SS death squad – nine of them held doctorate degrees. Any relationship between education and virtue has to be questioned by that terrifying fact.

Still, it is hard not to think of virtue as something we ought to be able to teach. But if it was able to be taught, you would think that virtuous people would teach it to their kids. Socrates lists a number of virtuous people from Athens and then talks about their much less virtuous children. The virtuous parents do much to teach their kids other things – memorably, how to throw a javelin while standing on a horse’s back. Now, if you could teach that you might think teaching your child to be virtuous would be even more beneficial. You would also think it might even be a fair bit easier. But Socrates makes it clear that this really isn’t the case. Otherwise, virtuous men would have virtuous sons – but that really doesn’t seem to line up with experience.

So, what is knowledge, anyway. To Socrates knowledge is really a kind of recollection. He proves this by asking a series of questions to a slave (by definition, someone who is nearly completely ignorant - the Valley Girls of the Classical world) and after no time at all has the slave providing a proof to Pythagoras’s theorem. Since the slave could never have studied geometry he must always have had this knowledge stashed away somewhere in his mind and all it took was Socrates asking him some pretty good questions to bring this knowledge out. Interestingly, there are echoes of Vygotsky here – starting with what the student knows, finding what more they can learn with guidance and assistance.

If the slave presents one extreme – the knowledge that is contained in the individual without the individual really being aware of it – then the other minor character in this play, Anytus, is at the opposite extreme end. Socrates uses him to show that even well bred youth can be ignorant and arrogant. Unfortunately, it seems this guy goes on to be one of the three accusers of Socrates at his trial – so, this chat might have been a bit of a mistake on Socrates’s part. What is interesting in tho play is that Plato seems to have clearly set up the relationship between the ignorant slave and Anytus to say something we are meant to notice. Although Socrates could hardly be called a lover of the Sophists, he actually defends them against Anytus. Anytus hates the Sophists, but his hatred is based on ignorance – to Socrates he is right for the wrong reasons, or rather, he is wrong. When compared with the slave, who learns though understanding his ignorance, this is about as big a slap as Anytus is capable of receiving.

This is a fascinating dialogue – fascinating no less for its place in the sequence of dialogues leading to the death of Socrates. The themes presented here are clear and it is actually quite an easy read. But the questions are eternally complex – and just because they are stated clearly, makes them no less compelling or difficult to answer today. This really is one of the dialogues where you do get the feeling Socrates is presenting himself as the 'he who knows nothing' but is perpetually searching for an answer - rather than say The Republic, where the answers all seem to be pre-known by Socrates and the questioning is more going through the motions.

If I was to have a go at answering the question what is virtue, I wouldn’t start with the individual person, but with their relationships within the society in which they live. I would do a Bourdieu and talk about the habitus the virtuous person finds themselves in and the socially defined nature of those virtues. I would have to start, not with pondering if virtue can or cannot be taught, but with thesis two and then three of Marx – that is, that these are essentially practical questions and that men are raised in real historical circumstances while also having the power to change those circumstances. We are obsessed with the wrong part of the idea of ‘individuals’ – the part that has the individual as a kind of self-progenitor. Whereas the interesting part of individuals is not that we provide our own ground for existence – that ground is always exterior to us in the real conditions of existence we find ourselves in – but that we can do much to change those conditions and thereby the existence we were born into.

Rather than virtue being something that needs to be defined once and for all time – it is something that is born out of the real relationships between people in their day by day existences.

Why Meno and why now? The hope is that I’m going to make my way though more of these dialogues over the next few months – but the road to hell is paved with good intentions - of which this one is but the latest.

[sarah سارة ꫂ᭪]

got this unexpectedly mailed to me. good thing i'm feeling philosophical.

[Bálint Táborszki · Rating 1 out of 5]

He blew out the smoke of marijuana before he spoke.
"So there is this soul," he began with red eyes, head nodding to the music. "And this soul knows everything, because it saw and studied everything that can possibly be known in lives before you were born. So when you learn something, you actually remember what your soul saw in previous lives. Thats how we know things."
"Coool," answered Meno.
"Yee."

[Nikola Jankovic · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nije ni skroz loša ova 2020, trošim vreme na gomilu online predavanja. Među njima je i Ancient Philosophy: Plato & His Predecessors, besplatno na Courseri. Usput vidim da se Država može čitati i treći put, ali se sa Menonom dosad nisam susretao. Ovde se Sokrat pita "da li se vrlina može naučiti ili se dobija po prirodi"?

Naravno, staro džangrizalo kreće u svoj dijalog, a najpre treba utvrditi šta je to vrlina, pošto on nema pojma (gr. arete - ne samo vrlina, više kao stremljenje ka odličnosti). Usput, ispitaće i šta je ustvari učenje i ko može biti učitelj. Učitelj vrline? Pa, malo ko.

Platon/Sokrat uzima primer geometrije, dovlači slučajnog prolaznika (roba u kući) i ustanovljava da on ne zna ispravno da odgovori na pitanje. Ipak, kroz dijalog i vođenje, ispitanik sam dolazi do odgovora. Sokrat tako zaključuje da učenje ni ne postoji, već je to samo buđenje već postojećih uspomena i znanja. Naša duša je već proputovala i nebo i zemlju i videla sve moguće, tako da ustvari već sve i zna. Na nama je samo da se prisetimo toga nečega.

Ovo je dosta kratka knjižica, nije komplikovana i može se pročitati za sat vremena bez problema. A nije ni da ima neku specijalnu vrednost, pogotovo kad se ne slažemo sa nekim Platonovim zaključcima.

[Beth Easter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was told that there would be no math.

[B. P. Rinehart · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my new philosophy read of the year...at the end of the year. This is Plato's dialogue about the idea of virtue in-general. Meno asks Socrates what virtue is and how do people get it. Of course, this being Socrates the answer or question can not be that simple. First, Socrates wants to define what virtue is and then how people come to have it. This Socratic dialogue, unlike most, ends with the title character actually getting a little enlightenment.

Before getting to my interpretation of how they define virtue, I also want to mention two other "definitions" that get cleared up so that we can define virtue. Socrates wants to know if virtue is a form of knowledge and what knowledge is. Socrates and Meno agree that if virtue is a form of knowledge, it can be taught. (they dismiss the idea of it being inborn very quickly and you can read the quote I saved below to see why). Socrates (according to Plato) believes the soul to be immortal so as the soul reincarnates it acquires knowledge from previous lives and a persons current knowledge is simply recollections of older knowledge. He "proves" this by posing a series of (leading) math questions to one of Meno's illiterate slaves and the insight the slave gets and gives is used as proof of the immortality of the soul.

But Socrates argues that virtue is not like knowledge because knowledge is something that at some point is learned while virtue is something that you just have or believe. Around this point, one of his future accusers at his heresy/treason trial Anytus, comes in and joins the debate and Socrates uses him to show that people with virtue like Pericles could not teach it to other people. This shows that virtue cannot be taught.

There is only one other option: belief (or opinion in Grube's translation). Socrates says that a person with a good belief or true opinion is just as good as someone with good or correct knowledge. Socrates and Meno agree that someone with a true belief, rightly guided is as good as someone with knowledge, rightly guided. But one does not learn virtue or is born with it as a human faculty...

Socrates' conclusion is that "virtue [is] neither an inborn quality nor taught, but comes to those who possess it as a gift from the gods which is not accompanied by understanding..." which is to say it is a divine belief. This is where we get the concept of "cardinal virtues" like justice and moderation.

Meno seems to be much more understanding of virtue after this talk with Socrates, Anytus...well, we know how that ended. I was put off from the math, but I got the greater point Plato was trying to make. This was a decent work and is one of the more resolved endings you will find in Plato's dialogues.

[Davis Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the only logical way to introduce oneself to the works of Plato. It lacks the literary merit of so many others but lays out the Socratic form of discourse in all its glory and is incredibly simple to follow. The debate in the last quarter on the purpose of teaching is especially interesting, and like all Plato's works, it ends with nothing less than God. Get a start on learning to live the good life; read it and read it well.

[Ezgi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bununla birlikte Platon'un birinci bölüm eserlerini bitirmiş oldum :))

[Ahmed Oraby · Rating 2 out of 5]

تدور هذه المحاورة "مينون" حول الفضائل، طبيعتها، أصلها، متعلمة ومكتسبة هي، أم أنها موهوبة.
يقول مينون في البدء بأن الفضائل متعددة، وأن لكل شخص فضيلة ولكل جنس نوعه منها، فيعطي مينون للمرأة عدة فضائل، فيقول: "أما المرأة، فواجبها أن تنظم عائلتها وأن تحافظ على ما في داخل بيتها بشكل مناسب". وأما الرجل ففضيلته: "أن يعرف طرق إدارة الدولة". لكن سقراط بالطبع، وبأسلوبه الساخر، يأبى أن يتلقى ما في جعبة محاوريه إلا بالتشكيك والنقد.
يرى سقراط أن الفضائل واحدة، وهي حسب كلماته تكون"المخلوقات الإنسانية كلها فاضلة بالطريقة عينها".
يعرّف مينون الفضيلة بأنها: "تزويد النفس بالأشياء الجميلة التي ترغب [[النفس]] فيها
ويستطرد: "إن الفضيلة هي رغبة الأشياء الجميلة مع القدرة على نيلها". ويقول: "لكلٍ فضيلة مختلفة".
أما سقراط، الذي: "لا يعرف شيئًا سوى معرفته بكونه لا يعرف شيئًا"، فيقول، كما يليق بكل عجوز مدعٍ، أنه: "لا أفعل شيئًا سوى أني أربك الآخرين، لا لأني لست واضحًا، لكن لأني ذاتي الارتباك".
في رأي سقراط، لا يمكن تحري الفضيلة، طالما أنّا لا نعلم عنها شيئا على الإطلاق. ولكنه يفعل مع ذلك.
يقول كذلك أننا يجب أن نعيش في تقوى دائمة، لكنه لا يحدد لنا ما شكل التقوى.
يرى سقراط أن العلم ما هو إلا تذكُّر لما سبق وحدث، كما يليق بكل مثالي. [وقد نقد هذه الفكرة بشكل جيد الدكتور فؤاد زكريا في كتاب نطرية المعرفة والموقف الطبيعي للأنسان]
ويرى مينون على النقيض أن الفضيلة هي معرفة وهي تُعَلَّم.
يأبى سقراط ذلك. لم؟
لأن ذلك سيجعل الباب مشرعًا أمام السوفسطائية لتربح الأموال على حساب المغفلين ممن ينجذبون لكل ما هو مثير
يرى سقراط، حسب حروفه أن: "الفضيلة تأتي هبة من الله لمن تأتي لهم". بدون أن يحدد لنا حقيقةً طبيعتها وشكلها وأصلها ومتغيراتها حسب المقتضيات العملية بعيدًا عن التعريفات الجوفاء، وبدون كذلك أن يبين لنا ما هي آلية الإله في توزيع هذه الفضائل حسب ما تقتضيه إرادته [[أو أهواؤه]]، وعدله وحكمته. ويرى كذلك أنها ليست [أي الفضائل] ليست طبيعية، بمعنى أنها ليست تكتسب بالممارسة والتعلم والتطبع.
يرى سقراط بأن الفضيلة طالما أنها لا تعلم فهي ليست معرفة.
وإذا طاوعناه، حسب قياسه، فكيف يكون الدين والفن والجمال والشعر معارف، طالما أنها لا تعلم؟
فهل هي إما تكون معطاة كذلك من الإله [والذي يبدو أنه يعني بعباده حد كونه لا يترك لهم من أمرهم ولو فسحة لأبسط فعل حر] أو تكون موحاة [كما يدعي سقراط نفسه في عديد من محاوراته أن الله أوحى له بكذا وكذا]
وفي كلتا الحالتين تمحي أي قابلية للمعارف واليقين اللهم إلا إذا ادعى كل منا النبوة
في تلك الأحوال، يجد الشخص نفسه، لا اضطراريًا، يميل إلى وجهة نظر محاوري سقراط، والذين على الرغم من إصرار كاتب المحاورة على تصويرهم كمفحومين ومهزومين وخطباء غير مفوهين كفاية للنيل من سقراط، إلا أنه دومًا يكون للحقيقة في كلامهم نصيب أكبر.

المحاورة جميلة وثرية وأفضل ما قرأت من محاورات في ذلك اليوم (أمس) وإن كانت بالطبع تمتلئ بالسقراطية بشكل مبالغ به

[Yann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Le Ménon est un des dialogues de Platon, dans lequel il met en scène Socrate, son cher maître, aux prises avec Ménon, un riche Thrace peu amène et difficile à manier. Platon fait même intervenir Anytos, l'un de ses accusateurs en -399. Le sujet de la discussion va rouler sur la vertu, ce qu'elle est, si elle peut s'enseigner. Comme à son habitude, dans Platon, Socrate aime faire tourner en bourrique ses interlocuteurs afin de leur faire prendre un air moins superbe face aux bonnes dispositions que requièrent un examen de bonne foi. Socrate laisse donc parler Ménon, jusqu'au point où il met à jour les contradictions de ses positions. C'est qu'il est bien plus facile d'aborder cette question sur le mode volitif que sur le mode réel.

Un point intéressant du dialogue est l'idée avancée par Socrate pour expliquer la raison par laquelle il nous est possible d'apprendre ce que nous ne savons pas. C'est que cette question est terrible: si nous ne connaissons exactement pas ce que nous cherchons, comment savoir alors si oui ou non nous l'avons trouvé. Pour sortir de cette difficulté, il fait appel au mythe pour gagner l'oreille de Ménon, et invente une histoire de métempsychose, et de souvenirs antérieurs à la naissance. Mais enfin toute cette ruse n'aboutit qu'à une aporie.

Cette édition, uniquement dédiée au Ménon, comporte un appareil critique particulièrement dense, mais éclairant pour avoir une idée de l'industrieuse acribie avec laquelle les érudits décortiquent ce texte dans les moindre détails, ne négligeant ni l'étymologie, ni l'histoire des idées ou le contexte politique, citant les recherches les plus récentes: l'éditrice met le doigt sur les controverses qui ne sont pas encore résolue pour le moment, comme savoir par exemple quelles furent les vraies sources d'inspiration de Platon pour tous les éléments mythiques dont il a farci ses dialogues. En tout cas, ces textes sont vivants et plaisants, même s'ils ne laissent pas d'agacer par le labyrinthe dans lequel il perd parfois notre attention.

[Izma Anwar · Rating 3 out of 5]

If I were Meno, I would ask Socrates what we were after this

[Josh Kannard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reread this one for my work as a History of Philosophy TA.

There's so much I didn't recognize going through it as a freshman. Plato has a way of masterfully tying together all of the dialogue's loose ends and questions throughout the work. A wonderful piece of writing.

[Utkarsh Bansal · Rating 1 out of 5]

Plato once again tries to make Socrates sound smart by making his interlocutors sound like idiots. There are interesting conundrums to explore regarding the question of whether morality can be taught, you won't find them here.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Virtue! Is it inherent by nature, taught to us by teachers or an instinct developed through the grace of a higher being? If this question interest you, read this dialogue.

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like everybody I grew up being taught that Plato was one the greatest if not the greatest of all philosophers. I remember being flabbergasted when I read this dialogue as a student. Was this really supposed to be taken seriously? Surely there must be something wrong with me? Surely I was missing something!

But now, I am quite convinced that much of what Plato came up with does not make much sense.

So Menon wants to know if virtue can be taught. And Socrates says it cannot be taught. (Just like in Protagoras). Because there are neither teachers nor pupils. This is a strange argument even if it were true that there were no teachers (because that could be an accidental truth). In fact, the Sophists taught people what virtue was, and people paid them for their teachings. Socrates simply disapproved of their teaching methods.

Then Menon (because he is asked to define virtue) comes up with the (profound philosophical) question how one can look for something if one does not know what it is what one is looking for. And to this Socrates (and in this case we know it was really an original idea of Plato) presents the celebrated argument that what ever we seem to be learning is really just remembering. Because since the soul is immortal everything there is has been acquired at some previous time. And to prove it he takes a slave boy and demonstrates that this boy knows how to double a square. Socrates actually asks his audience to listen carefully and watch out if he is putting thoughts into the head of the boy. He proclaims to just ask questions and that the boy only produces his own ideas. And this is completely laughable since nearly every question of Socrates does exactly what he claims not to do, namely putting ideas into the head of the boy.

Even if it were true that the slave had a knowledge of the doubling of the square one should ask how did his immortal soul came to the knowledge in the first place?

And in the end Socrates gives the real answer. The Gods put the knowledge into the head of us. And if this is the case, there is no need for an immortal soul at all.

This would all be funny if Plato had not this unholy influence on the history of philosophy. As it is there are still people today who think they can solve a riddle – like how is it possible to learn language – by saying, we do not learn it at all. We are born with the knowledge. We are born with the concept of a refrigerator. All we need to learn is what noise is attached to the concept in the factual language our parents teach us. You need a platonic mind to think that that makes any sense.

[CKPineapple · Rating 3 out of 5]

This piece centred around the key question "what is virtue?" and it was fascinating to see how the dialogue primarily between Meno and Socrates meandered around different topics in order to arrive at their conclusion (they even started chatting about some maths halfway through)!

Favourite quote? "... but if we were right in the way in which we spoke and investigated in this whole
discussion, virtue would be neither an inborn quality nor taught, but comes to those who possess it as a gift from the gods which is not accompanied by understanding, unless there is someone among our statesmen who can make another into a statesman".

Favourite moment? When they started flirting?? I was not expecting that? Meno Socrates FOCUS

[Lauren Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

if you want to really learn ANYTHING, let alone virtue, you have to ask the perplexing, philosophical questions that strike to the very heart of the thing. only by asking what things are in themselves can you possess virtue as thoughtfulness and have knowledge bond itself to your soul through recollection.

otherwise, you can can only have right opinion by chance, and will only maybe have virtue insofar as it serves a utility in your external life. but this purely political option is devoid of learning all together.

[Megi · Rating 5 out of 5]

ხანდახან ძალიან ბედნიერი ვარ, რომ იქ ვსწავლობ, სადაც ვსწავლობ.

[Ruth Donigian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent start for anyone interested in reading Plato.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

For being a free translation on Amazon, it was quite readable and contained a very helpful introduction that is worth the read. Definitely a foundational read for exploring Socratic/Platonist thought.
Read first half on Kindle and then switched to audio.

[Nicole Cage · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

Meno: 😎😯🤔

Socrates: 🐠🔳 🔮

boy: 😎🫨🤓

Anytus: 😤🤬🤡

loved this! May we be ignorant, perplexed, and aware of it! Stingrays = 💋💘

[Sidharth Vardhan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The dialogue goes into very meaning of virtue, and reaches conclusions opposite to that Socrates reached in Protagoras.

Meno Paradox

The dialogue begins with Socrates refuting definations of virtue provided by Meno.

When both Meno and Socrates declare ignorance on subject, Socrates say they must search it through argument. Meno then proffers a paradox: "And how will you inquire into a thing when you are wholly ignorant of what it is? Even if you happen to bump right into it, how will you know it is the thing you didn't know?" Socrates rephrases the question, which has come to be the canonical statement of the paradox: "[A] man cannot search either for what he knows or for what he does not know. He cannot search for what he knows--since he knows it, there is no need to search--nor for what he does not know, for he does not know what to look for."

*

Socrates' answer

Socrates proves by using a brilliant demonstration with a slave, that:

1. Knowledge is not learnt but remembered. Socrates gives a superstitious explanation involving souls. We may not believe the mythic explanation, but we can't reject the truth of observation. This observation answers Meno's paradox. It also nodes to eternal truths.

2. That one who knows of his ignorance is better than he who doesn't know about his ignorance (the usual 'I am the wisest because i know I know nothing' business.) Socrates makes use of simile originally brought up by Meno, to call the act of becoming aware of one's ignorance a torpedo shock - which Meno agrees is a good thing.

3. There is a difference between Knowledge and right opinion. Socrates argues through use of metaphor, that with out knowledge to bind them, the opinions are likely to run away.

*

Having established these observations, Socrates brings following points about virtue:

(a) Virtue can not be taught. (opposite to what Socrates concluded in Protagoras) Socrates reasons that virtuous men are not able to teach other the virtues they hold, so it should be something which can't be taught.

(b) Virtue is not knowledge Since all knowledge can be taught and virtue can not. Again opposite to what Socrates concluded in Protagoras.

(c) Virtue is mere good instinct arising out right opinions Since virtue is either knowledge or right opinion and we have already rejected the first option in (b.) above.

*

As our bad luck would have it, dialogue ends here. Socrates doesn't go into details of how these 'right opinions' arise. The contradiction between Protagoras and Meno, can be clarified by changing the word knowledge in Protagoras's conclusion with words 'right opinions' (and thus rejecting the second conclusion from Protagoras' that virtue can be taught.)

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Knowledge as Remembering.

If someone wanted to know where to start with Plato, I would point him to the dialogue Meno. The dialogical format makes for easy reading and it introduces the reader to key Platonic concepts. The downside is that Plato (and I am going to use Plato and Socrates interchangeably) never really explains what virtue is.

Interestingly, Meno is Xenophon’s enemy and a dirty traitor in Anabasis.

I.

Socrates wants Meno to tell him what virtue is. In a skillful cross-examination Meno is forced to accept that what we call virtue must be the same in all men, otherwise his original claim that it is to rule well means that women and slaves can’t be virtuous (73C-74E).

Meno’s problem is that his answer makes virtue that which makes any action virtuous. He says that “all action with justice” is virtue. Well, maybe, but that tells us nothing of what virtue is.

II.

The dialogue shifts to the nature of the soul and remembering. The soul is immortal (81B-82B). The second line of thought is “there is nothing known which is not learnt.” This would seem to rule out “innate ideas,” but that’s not Plato’s point. Rather, he says that “there is not such thing as teaching, only remembering.” His point is that you can't move from not-knowledge to knowledge. If you could, you would already know what you need to know. To prove it he employs the famous scene where Socrates shows that an illiterate slave boy already knows the principles of geometry. How does he know that? His soul is immortal and existed before his body.

The point is that we can’t learn virtue, nor can virtue be taught. Is virtue knowledge then? If it is knowledge, it can be taught. Yet Socrates seems to think he has shown that virtue can’t be taught.

III.

Socrates then moves to the distinction between right opinion and knowledge. He develops this more in The Republic. He has established, so he thinks, that virtue is not knowledge. Yet he wants to say it is something stronger than mere opinion, for virtuous men don’t seem to govern justly by mere opinion. So what is it? Here’s the kicker: virtue comes neither by nature nor by teaching, but by divine allotment (99B-100C).

Evaluation

Is “knowledge remembering?” I don’t think we need to take that literally, since it seems so manifestly false. It’s better to say that we learn analogically. The mind makes a proleptic jump from one mental pattern to another. Still, anamnesis is a crucial philosophical concept that needs to be explored more fully, which I won't do here.

Leaving aside the subtle assertion of reincarnation, I am not so sure that Plato established the claim that virtue cannot be taught. All he has shown is that the virtuous leaders of Athens failed to teach their sons, not that they were conceptually unable to teach.

Nonetheless, this was a delightful dialogue and an excellent introduction to Plato.

[Travis K · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nov 2025

More confusing than last time. Still great.


Jan 2025

A vibrant and knotty dialogue, and perhaps the slimmest distillation of Plato's genius, humor, and almost 4-dimensional approach to philosophy. Each section pushes the argument further while simultaneously drawing the reader back to a previous moment, both in order to clarify it and to introduce a new complexity. But, of course, the whole dialogue ends in a place of seeming poverty, with nothing learned except perhaps the inkling of why nothing has been learned, relying as it were upon the reader to complete the work. In a lecture on Meno, Strauss highlights "the finest statement on the Platonic dialogues made in modern times" courtesy of theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher:

"Plato’s main point must have been to guide each investigation and to design it, from the very beginning, in such a way as to compel the reader either to produce inwardly, on his own, the intended thought or to yield, in a most definite manner, to the feeling of having found nothing and understood nothing. For this purpose it is required that the result of the investigation be not simply stated and put down in so many words . . . but that the reader’s soul is constrained to search for the result and be set on the way on which it can find what it seeks. The first is done by awakening in the soul of the reader the awareness of its own state of ignorance, an awareness so clear that the soul cannot possibly wish to remain in that state. The second is done either by weaving a riddle out of contradictions, a riddle the only possible solution of which lies in the intended thought, and by often injecting, in a seemingly most strange and casual manner, one hint or another, which only he who is really and spontaneously engaged in searching notices and understands; or by covering the primary investigation with another one, but not as if the other one were a veil, but as if it were naturally grown skin."

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the Meno Plato is really defending the logos (rational discourse) and why we need it for self-awareness since we really can't be taught but must discover for ourselves where knowledge (about reality) and true opinions are formed. People can trivialize the dialog and say that Socrates (Plato?) believes in re-incarnation, but I don't see that dialog in that way at all, but, rather, since if knowledge ('justified true belief about scientific objects') is absolutely possible while its opposite, relativism (sophisticated sophistry, rhetoric) is not there ultimately requires a starting point and Socrates needs to assume a non-relative place, much in the same way that Kant creates his 'categories of our conceptions' since Kant wants to show that the absolute knowledge (universal, necessary, and certain) exist and is knowable.

I'm starting to realize why I like Plato so much. He reminds me of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Both authors have a tendency to see the world as ideas about ideas which lead to other ideas and finally might relate it somehow to the concrete at least in Hegel's case, but with Plato he'll relate it back to the good and noble and how that relates to knowledge about the ethical and political. In the intro it's stated how Plato is often misunderstood by modern readers. Partly because of the way Aristotle wrongly characterized Plato and then Augustine appropriates him for his own religious purposes.

This is a free version available from LibriVox. I enjoyed the introductions, "On Meno" (part I) and "On the Ideas of Plato" (Part II) so much I re-listened to them after having finished the dialog and then went on to re-listen to half of the dialog. I enjoyed this presentation that much.

[Chiara · Rating 4 out of 5]

ganz lustige gay romance

[Zahra · Rating 4 out of 5]

never call plato a one hit wonder!!!!! this ate majorly