Plato’s Meno offers a Socratic dialectic discussing the question of virtue between the philosopher Socrates and a young Thessalian aristocrat Meno. Meno asks the following question to be analyzed at length throughout the dialogue: Can virtue be taught? Using the Socratic process, Meno attempts to understand the various complexities associated with that question. In addition, another player, Anytus, an Athenian statesman, serves to not only offer a varying perspective on the matter of virtue, but also to act as a rhetorical opposite to both Socrates and Meno. Indeed, the presence of Anytus acts as a catalyst in the process of defining virtue, as well as in providing examples of opinion based knowledge and its consequences in Socrates’ philosophical
…show more content…
Socrates has spent the majority of the dialogue discussing the idea that we cannot know what we do not know, therefore leading the dialogue to define virtue before questioning its teachability. Anytus, however, offers a definition of virtue entirely influenced by opinion and without personal experience. While Anytus never explicitly defines virtue, we can see from the text in 92E-93A that Anytus considers all Athenian statesmen virtuous, and we can thereby infer his definition of virtue would include the ability to manage a state or a home well. This simple definition is heavily influenced by his personal connection to Athens and his beliefs in the virtuous men who have ruled his state in the past and future. This definition acts as a foil to Socratic dialogue because it is both too narrow and is based on opinion. Anytus offers opinion as knowledge at other times in the text, but most significantly at line [433], where he denounces all Sophists and philosophers and their inability to teach virtue or anything of merit. He goes so far as to state, “May such madness not seize any of my own people,” [91C], implying that the corruption of Sophists is too lewd for his own Athenian people, and reinforcing his belief that Athenians are too virtuous to entertain such foolish rhetoric. While his statement of opinion as fact serves to help push the dialogue along, it also serves to prove that the influence of human …show more content…
Socrates begins his interview of Anytus with probing questions, much like with Meno, in order to get a consensus on the difference between teaching something tangible (like the arts) with teaching wisdom or knowledge. Anytus succumbs to Socrates’ questions at first, agreeing with basic statements on the authorities of various types of knowledge and the people qualified to teach them. Based on his own experiences, he can agree that a self-proclaimed shoemaker can impart the knowledge of shoemaking upon others, or that a self taught doctor can teach medicine to a student, both of these measured tangibly by the generations before and after them, as well as the physical evidence of shoes and good human health, [90C-90E]. While Anytus agrees with this line of thinking, he vehemently disagrees that Sophists (many of whom claim the ability to teach virtue) have any legitimacy in teaching virtue, as “(these men) are the debasement and corruption of those who associate with them,” [91C]. When probed, it is revealed that Anytus has never interacted with a Sophist first hand, and is speaking based on social opinion, and not experience based knowledge. We can infer this hard opinion stems again from Anytus’ pride in Athenian
Socrates has spent the majority of the dialogue discussing the idea that we cannot know what we do not know, therefore leading the dialogue to define virtue before questioning its teachability. Anytus, however, offers a definition of virtue entirely influenced by opinion and without personal experience. While Anytus never explicitly defines virtue, we can see from the text in 92E-93A that Anytus considers all Athenian statesmen virtuous, and we can thereby infer his definition of virtue would include the ability to manage a state or a home well. This simple definition is heavily influenced by his personal connection to Athens and his beliefs in the virtuous men who have ruled his state in the past and future. This definition acts as a foil to Socratic dialogue because it is both too narrow and is based on opinion. Anytus offers opinion as knowledge at other times in the text, but most significantly at line [433], where he denounces all Sophists and philosophers and their inability to teach virtue or anything of merit. He goes so far as to state, “May such madness not seize any of my own people,” [91C], implying that the corruption of Sophists is too lewd for his own Athenian people, and reinforcing his belief that Athenians are too virtuous to entertain such foolish rhetoric. While his statement of opinion as fact serves to help push the dialogue along, it also serves to prove that the influence of human …show more content…
Socrates begins his interview of Anytus with probing questions, much like with Meno, in order to get a consensus on the difference between teaching something tangible (like the arts) with teaching wisdom or knowledge. Anytus succumbs to Socrates’ questions at first, agreeing with basic statements on the authorities of various types of knowledge and the people qualified to teach them. Based on his own experiences, he can agree that a self-proclaimed shoemaker can impart the knowledge of shoemaking upon others, or that a self taught doctor can teach medicine to a student, both of these measured tangibly by the generations before and after them, as well as the physical evidence of shoes and good human health, [90C-90E]. While Anytus agrees with this line of thinking, he vehemently disagrees that Sophists (many of whom claim the ability to teach virtue) have any legitimacy in teaching virtue, as “(these men) are the debasement and corruption of those who associate with them,” [91C]. When probed, it is revealed that Anytus has never interacted with a Sophist first hand, and is speaking based on social opinion, and not experience based knowledge. We can infer this hard opinion stems again from Anytus’ pride in Athenian