Plato's Meno (2005)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PLATO’S MENO Given its brevity, Plato’s Meno covers an astonishingly wide array of topics: politics, education, virtue, definition, philosophical method, mathematics, the nature and acquisition of knowledge, and immor- tality. Its treatment of these, though profound, is tantalizingly short, leaving the reader with many unresolved questions. This book con- fronts the dialogue’s many enigmas and attempts to solve them in a way that is both lucid and sympathetic to Plato’s philosophy. Reading the dialogue as a whole, it explains how different arguments are related to one another, and how the interplay between characters is connected to the philosophical content of the work. In a new departure, this book’s exploration focuses primarily on the content and coherence of the dialogue in its own right, and not merely in the context of other dialogues, making it required reading for all students of Plato, be they from the world of classics or philosophy. dominic scott is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Clare College. His previous publications include Recollection and Experience: Plato’s Theory of Learning and its Successors (Cambridge, 1995). cambridge studies in the dialogues of plato Series editor: Mary Margaret McCabe Plato’s dialogues are rich mixtures of subtle argument, sublime theorising and superb literature. It is tempting to read them piecemeal – by analysing the argu- ments, by espousing or rejecting the theories or by praising Plato’s literary expertise. It is equally tempting to search for Platonic views across dialogues, selecting pas- sages from throughout the Platonic corpus. But Plato offers us the dialogues to read whole and one by one. This series provides original studies in individual dialogues of Plato. Each study will aim to throw light on such questions as why its chosen dialogue is composed in the complex way that it is, and what makes this unified whole more than the sum of its parts. In so doing, each volume will both give a full account of its dialogue and offer a view of Plato’s philosophising from that perspective. Titles published in the series: Plato’s Cratylus David Sedley Plato’s Lysis Christopher Rowe and Terence Penner Plato’s Meno Dominic Scott Forthcoming titles in the series: Plato’s Euthydemus Mary Margaret McCabe Plato’s Timaeus Dorothea Frede Plato’s Symposium Robert Wardy PLATO’S MENO DOMINIC SCOTT University of Cambridge cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru,UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9780521640336 © Dominic Scott 2005 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2006 isbn-13 978-0-511-14655-8 eBook (EBL) isbn-10 0-511-14655-8 eBook (EBL) isbn-13 978-0-521-64033-6 hardback isbn-10 0-521-64033-4 hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. For Aylin Contents Acknowledgements page ix Introduction 1 part i 1 The opening: 70a–71d 11 2 The first definition: 71e–73c 23 3 A lesson in definition: 73c–77d 31 4 The third definition: 77b–79e 46 5 Meno as an interlocutor 60 part ii 6 The stingray: 79e–80d 69 7 ‘Meno’s paradox’: 80d–81a 75 8 The emergence of recollection: 81a–e 92 9 The argument for recollection: 82b–85d 98 10 The conclusion: 86b6–c2 121 part iii 11 The method of hypothesis: 86c–87c 129 12 Virtue is teachable: 87c–89c 145 vii viii Contents 13 Virtue is not teachable: 89e–96d 161 14 Virtue as true belief: 96d–100b 176 15 Irony in the Meno: the evidence of the Gorgias 194 16 Meno’s progress 209 Conclusion 214 Appendices 219 References 227 Index of ancient passages 232 General index 235 Acknowledgements Most of this book was written while I was a British Academy Research Reader in 2001–3.Needless to say, I am enormously grateful to the Academy for this opportunity. I would also like to thank the Center for Hellenic Studies and its Directors, Debbie Boedekker and Kurt Raaflaub, for a very productive and enjoyable fellowship there in 1998–9.Asever,Ioweagreat debt of gratitude to the Cambridge Faculty of Philosophy and to Clare College for their continued support. I have benefited from trying out the central ideas of this book at various seminars and conferences. My debts to individuals who commented at such occasions are too numerous to recall, but I would especially like to thank Hugh Benson, Tad Brennan, Lesley Brown, Victor Caston, Terry Irwin, Thomas Johansen, Geoffrey Lloyd, Mark McPherran, David Sedley, Frisbee Sheffield, Roslyn Weiss and Raphael Woolf. I am particularly grateful to Jimmy Altham, Myles Burnyeat, Gail Fine and Rosanna Keefe for reading earlier drafts of the manuscript all the way through. I have also been very fortunate that Gail Fine gave me detailed feedback on the manuscript. Her comments, invariably incisive, have saved me from a number of errors. From beginning to end, M. M. McCabe has acted as gadfly, midwife and occasionally stingray (though only in the most beneficial sense). The series of which this book forms a part is very much her inspiration. I only hope I have done her credit. As with all my research, I also owe a lasting debt to Myles Burnyeat, who has been a continuing source of inspiration. For some years, the Meno has been a set text on the undergraduate philosophy syllabus at Cambridge, and I owe a special debt to my students. Their obvious enthusiasm for the dialogue has been a constant delight and their feedback yet another source of inspiration. My only regret is that I may have to remove it from the syllabus to prevent future generations hounding me with lists of my errors, now that they have been committed to print. ix x Acknowledgements Finally, I would like to thank the Cambridge University Press, and par- ticularly Linda Woodward, for their help in the final stages of production. This book has been some years in the making. Doubtless it would benefit by gestating for many more. But the moment of publication can no longer be delayed. My text of the dialogue is now on the verge of disintegration and is threatening to do so at the very page where Socrates remarks on the need to examine the same topic over and over again (85c10–11). No one should ignore such an omen. Introduction synopsis of the dialogue Meno, a young aristocrat from Thessaly, asks how virtue is acquired. In reply, Socrates professes himself unable to answer: since he does not even know what virtue is, how can he know how it is acquired? Meno agrees to tackle the nature of virtue first and offers Socrates a definition, or rather a list of different kinds of virtue. After some argument, he accepts that this is inadequate, and offers another definition – virtue as the power to rule – which is also rejected. In order to help the inquiry along, Socrates gives a short lesson in definition, after which Meno offers his third and final definition of virtue: the desire for fine things and ability to acquire them. When this is refuted, he despairs of ever making any progress in their inquiry: how, he demands, can you look for something of whose nature youare entirely ignorant? Even if you stumble upon the answer, how will you know that this is the thing you did not know before? In the face of this challenge, Socrates changes tack (81a). Adopting a religious tone, he asserts that the soul is immortal and has had many pre- vious lives; what we call learning is in fact the recollection of knowledge that the soul had before. At Meno’s request, he offers to provide some support for these claims, and summons one of Meno’s slave boys to join them. Drawing some figures in the sand, he sets the boy a geometrical puzzle: take a square with sides of two feet and an area of four square feet. What would be the length of the sides of the square whose area is double the original? In response to Socrates’ questioning, the boy first gives two wrong answers. But eventually, after continued questioning, he gives the correct one. Socrates argues that, as he has only questioned the boy and never taught him, the answers must have been in him all along. In fact, they must have been in him before birth. Finally, Socrates mounts an argu- ment to show that the truth was in him for all time and that his soul is immortal. 1 2 Introduction They now return to the topic of virtue. Socrates still wants it defined, but Meno persists in asking how it is acquired (86c). Socrates yields to his demand and, to move the inquiry ahead, introduces a new method adapted from geometry, the method of hypothesis. If virtue is a form of knowledge, he argues, it can be taught. The task now is to show that virtue is a form of knowledge, which Socrates immediately proceeds to do: virtue is the knowledge that enables us to make correct use of our available resources, be they money, power, or qualities of character, such as endurance or self-discipline.