Introduction Socrates made a claim in Theaetetus that “human nature is too weak to acquire skill where it has no experience” (Theaetetus, 149c). In section 1 I will point out the ambiguations made in the claim. In section 2 I will use specific reasons to object this claim and draw a conclusion.
Section 1: disambiguation The ambiguation lies within the word “weak”. On the one hand, “weak” refers to “not able or not having the ability to”. For example, we could say that a scrawny kid is too weak to carry a heavy log. In that sense, we are indicating that the kid does not have the ability to carry the log due to his physical limitations. Under such an implication, the claim means that without relevant experience, human nature does not …show more content…
The latter understanding is discarded because Plato had not touched upon too much on good/evil of human nature in Theaetetus.
Section 2: objection Socrates’ claim implied that one must acquire some former and relevant experience in a field before one is able to acquire skill in that field. However, with the fields of skills so wide and broaden, this claim becomes false when it is applied to certain areas of skills. There are situations where acquiring of skill does not require a former experience, either because such experiences would be impossible to obtain or unhelpful for learning the skill. For example, it would be absurd to anticipate that coroners need to experience death before they can acquire skill in examining deaths and carry on with their professions. If that were the case, then no one could ever make to be a coroner. This example illustrates a contradiction to the claim by illustrating that some experience is not possible to acquire before. Similarly, a doctor who specializes in treating lung cancer must be highly knowledgeable and skillful in the treatment of patients with lung cancers. But he does not necessarily need to have lung cancer to proceed with his profession. In fact, that situation must undermine his ability to treat patients
Section 1: disambiguation The ambiguation lies within the word “weak”. On the one hand, “weak” refers to “not able or not having the ability to”. For example, we could say that a scrawny kid is too weak to carry a heavy log. In that sense, we are indicating that the kid does not have the ability to carry the log due to his physical limitations. Under such an implication, the claim means that without relevant experience, human nature does not …show more content…
The latter understanding is discarded because Plato had not touched upon too much on good/evil of human nature in Theaetetus.
Section 2: objection Socrates’ claim implied that one must acquire some former and relevant experience in a field before one is able to acquire skill in that field. However, with the fields of skills so wide and broaden, this claim becomes false when it is applied to certain areas of skills. There are situations where acquiring of skill does not require a former experience, either because such experiences would be impossible to obtain or unhelpful for learning the skill. For example, it would be absurd to anticipate that coroners need to experience death before they can acquire skill in examining deaths and carry on with their professions. If that were the case, then no one could ever make to be a coroner. This example illustrates a contradiction to the claim by illustrating that some experience is not possible to acquire before. Similarly, a doctor who specializes in treating lung cancer must be highly knowledgeable and skillful in the treatment of patients with lung cancers. But he does not necessarily need to have lung cancer to proceed with his profession. In fact, that situation must undermine his ability to treat patients