Meno by Plato - an understanding, a criticism

Meno is a dialogue written by Plato and like many of his dialogues, it has Socrates as one of the interlocutors, if not the main interlocutor. Along with him, is of course, the titular Meno. The leading question is whether virtue can be taught or whether it is something that is strictly inherent nature. However, to uncover that, one must first understand what exactly virtue is. Now, that is not the aim of this essay, today, you and I will not try to comprehend what virtue is. Rather, it aims to be a dissemination of specific part of the dialogue.

For some context, as the socratic dialogue goes on and the first question eventually branches into many. One that is brought up by Meno is whether one can successfully inquire into the absolute unknown. Socrates essentially says that one can, and the way he comes to that resolution is what will be examined in this essay.

When the meno asks the question of whether we can inquire into the unknown with any chance of success, Socrates asks Meno to call for one of his attendants. This attendant was born and brought up in Meno’s household, so when we are told that the attendant is not educated, we know that that is a fact. Socrates then begins asking the attendant a spate of mathematical questions based on simple geometry - a square. We needn’t go into detail about the actual questions - knowing that the questions are based on simple math is enough for this essay.

The attendant answers all of the questions correctly. So, predicated on this, Socrates comes to a conclusion. That the soul is immortal and when it is in the form of a soul, it is incredibly learned. How so? Well, because of the accretive knowledge gained when the soul was manifested in the physical form is imbued into the soul and once the physical body dies, and the soul comes to take hold of a new body, that knowledge passes on. Except that the new body, the new consciousness cannot immediately recall that knowledge. Rather, it is stored in a deep, dark, and nebulous recess of one’s lexical archives which one must reach far back into to take control of. As is exemplified by the attendant, whose label of being educated belied the primordial knowledge that he has, and in that sense, everybody has. Essentially, Socrates augments the idea of metempsychosis by adding an epistemological aspect to it.

Now, let us get into the interpretation of this part of the dialogue, which has ended up being more of a disagreement than an agreement.

The first point, is that this answer to a question that is grounded in reality and perfectly reasonable and rational, only works when one believes in the fantastical. No offence is intended towards those who believe in metempsychosis, but I postulate that not everybody in the world believes in it. Hence this answer only caters towards a certain demographic, and especially since answers are a sort of truth, Socrates’ solution cannot really be accepted since truth must be objective and applicable to all.

But, let us proceed with the notion of metempsychosis and eternal knowledge, because there is a bit of a fallacy there. This theory would account for the fact that everybody is not equally smart, and everybody is skilled in different things. For, it could simply be said that the soul’s previous life is one where this particular life was garnered and it has carried onto the next life. But, if the soul is immortal, then where did it start and where will it end? Did it begin with the first human and will it end with the last? No, if the soul has a state beyond the human form, then it should not end with the last human. So then what happens to the soul and what happens to all the knowledge? Another point is that, it is not information and neither is it really knowledge that is imbued in the soul. Rather value, qualities, and general skills like dexterity, being more adept with the quantitative, being more adept with the qualitative. Because knowledge is built in the individual lifetime through year’s of experience and the resultant wisdom is not neatly packaged into a ‘hand me down’ gift for the next person. Skills and characteristics are inherent and thus they could come from the soul. But if they are inherent, then it would not have been gained in the previous lifetime, or in the previous lifetime to that, and so on and so on. So, how were these values gained? And also, what is really being passed on if it cannot be knowledge and is skill?

Lastly, is the question of why there must be the concept of an immortal soul to this situation. The attendant has not done something incredibly complex. Moreover, the attendant is uneducated, but not illiterate - though that is not mentioned. In any case, the attendant can parse all of the questions - can understand the numbers and the functions, why? Because it is logical, the answers can be reasoned towards, since they are not so complex that one actually requires to have some mathematical background. And that is the point. That humans are not a husk, but are actually capable of developing their mind on their own, through sense-perception. This concept was discusses in a video of mine on my YouTube channel, so check it out if you want more details about it. But, in short, the capacity for sense-perception helps build experience and knowledge which are written on the blank slate of a child’s mind. As more things are written, rules and concepts are formed which gives way to the building of logic and reason. Now, this notion created by the epicureans and augmented further by the stoics, is not as simple as this, so do check out the video, but this brief explanation should serve for now.

So, if humans can build logic and rational as they grow, then why can’t it be the case with this attendant? Why must there be an immortal soul? This aspect of epistemology was found during the times post Plato’s approximate death, so it’s not that this theory was around be socrates did not agree with it, its simply that it hadn’t been thought of yet. So, it is not a case of Socrates’ ignorance, but more an example of new triumphs in science disproving the erstwhile theories.

This was my interception of this part of the dialogue, Meno. My perspective is of course, not dogma, and I would guess that some disagree with me and if you do, do write it in the comments.

By Advik Lahiri

Image Credit: https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/contributors/plato