We Don't Need No Education - Plato's Meno

-Can virtue be taught?
   -The conclusion of Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Meno" is that we don't ever actually learn anything because we are actually just recollecting what we already know.
   -In the dialogue Socrates is speaking with the Greek general Meno (AKA Menon) about this.  Socrates says that he can't say if virtue can be taught or not because he doesn't know what "virtue" even is. 
      -Meno tries to provide some definitions, but Socrates shoots them down.  This eventually results in Meno experiencing aporia (puzzlement, confusion, an impasse, etc.). 
         -Meno was actually confident that he could say what virtue is due to his rhetoric training under Gorgias (see last post). 
            -According to Gorgias, each kind of person has their own virtue.  For example, a man's virtue is to be successful in politics, or a woman's virtue is to be successful in looking after the home.
               -Socrates argues, however, that this isn't a definition, it's just a list.  What do all these types of virtues have in common?
      -The dialogue ultimately leads to the question(s)- "Do you have to know what virtue is in order to be able to define it?   And what's a definition, anyway?"
         -Meno says that virtue is achieving things in a "just" way, but Socrates points out that the very concept of "just" is also a virtue (i.e. Meno is basically saying "Virtue is achieving things in a virtuous way")!  So this just goes in circles.
      -Socrates finally explains to Meno the kind of definition he wants.  The model he wants is similar to how you would define a geometric pattern.  Because of this, Meno reaches aporia.
         -This aporia is eventually broken, however, during the part of the dialogue known as "Meno's Paradox".
            -Meno's Paradox basically says that you either know something, or you don't.  If you need to inquire into it's nature or seek a definition, then you don't know it.  However, how can you inquire into something that you don't know?  And how will you know it when you find a proper definition?
               -This paradox is meant to raise questions for the reader: What about partially knowing something?  How much do we need to know until we can say that we know something for real?  And how do we learn anything if we start out not knowing anything about it?
                  -Socrates answers these questions by getting mystical- he says that he heard from religious leaders that our souls are immortal.  They have and always will exist.  Because of this, our souls have already learned everything there is to possibly know.  Therefore, it's impossible for us to know nothing because we actually know everything, we've just forgotten it because we keep on shifting into different stages of existence (i.e. reincarnation?).
                     -Meno isn't convinced because he thinks this is a pretty zany idea.  So, Socrates summons a slave boy who is completely uneducated and tries to get him to do some geometric problem involving calculating the area of the squares.  Obviously, the slave is unable to do it.  However, he then gets the slave to see the correct answer through classic Socratic dialogue (asking leading questions).  This leads Socrates to conclude that the slave knew the answer all along, it just had to be "brought out". 
                        -Variations on this idea of "innate knowledge" still continue today (e.g. Noam Chomsky's theory of universal grammar).
      -Anyway, one of the central themes of this dialogue is still being debated today- knowledge vs. belief.
         -Also, there's the question of TRUE belief vs. knowledge.  Are they the same thing?  Or is one inferior to the other?
            -Socrates makes an analogy- true beliefs are like magic statues that run away unless they are tied down.  Our true beliefs can be unreliable unless they are "tied down" with reason behind their truth.  This also suggests that those who have true belief can't share it because they have no reason that can prove it. 
      -It also gets brought up that virtue CAN be teachable IF it's a kind of knowledge.
         -If that's true though, where are the teachers of virtue?
         -At this point in the dialogue, a new character enters- the Athenian politician Anytus (also one of the future prosecutors of Socrates!). 
             -Socrates asks Anytus if anyone can teach virtue.  Maybe the sophists?
               -Anytus doesn't think so because he hates the sophists and instead says it's better to just ask the average Athenian citizen or politician about this. 
                  -Socrates counters by pointing out that a lot of great politicians have shitty sons, so if they were such good sources for teaching virtue, then why do their kids suck ass?
                     -Obviously, this just pisses off Anytus, and Socrates doesn't get a good answer. 
      -One takeaway from this dialogue is that perhaps virtuous men instead possess beliefs about what they think is "right" (in terms of acting "virtuously"), instead of the knowledge of what is actually right. 
         -At one point Socrates proposes that these beliefs actually come from the gods, and this is evident because a lot of virtuous people aren't philosophers who would be able to explain themselves via sound reasoning why or how they are virtuous. 
            -Essentially, "true belief + x = knowledge", so the question is, what is x?