Virtue: Plato\'s Meno an Introduction

¶ … Virtue: Plato's Meno

An Introduction to Virtue in Plato's Meno

Virtue, according to Plato, is a multi-faceted knowledge of the correct or virtuous actions and the ability or power to act upon it. The question of whether virtue, as defined by Plato in his work Meno (380 BCE) can be learned or if it is something innate within the human organism is answered by Plato himself. Since Plato's writing nearly 2000 years ago, the Meno has been the focus of many sociologists, political scientists, and scholars based upon the arguments contained within it relative to the nature of human beings. For Plato, the question of what virtue is and whether or not it can be learned is of great importance. He writes the Meno as a response to this most basic, rock bottom question relative to human behavior and morality. For Socrates, who was also concerned with the idea of virtue, it was a means to happiness, but not something that a person could be handed or gifted. The person had to work to understand what virtue meant to them and their position in the world. Once a human understands how virtuous actions affect their life, they can begin to gain knowledge about virtue itself.

An Exploration of Virtue

Virtue is something that is different for every person. It is the ability to recognize good, and the power to act upon this knowledge. One of the most puzzling paradoxes related to the idea of virtue is the idea that Socrates poses. He argues that even if someone came into contact with the virtuous, they would not be able to recognize it since they are ignorant of the appearance and recognition of virtue itself (Santas, 1969, pp. 445). This paradox of recognition has troubled philosophers for centuries, and is an excellent example of how Plato asks his readers to begin to look inside themselves for answers. Inside the book, Socrates was intelligent enough to tell Meno that he did not truly know anything. He states that knowledge, like virtue, is something that is nearly indefinable and different for every person. In the Meno (380 BCE), according to Socrates, knowledge is no further than the answer to a question posed by a curious scholar (Plato, 380 BCE).

Plato's Meno (380 BCE) is a catalogue of humankind's worth and limitations presented as a conversation between Meno and Socrates. When asked what virtue is, Plato begins to offer insight into the nature of virtue and the implications for acting virtuously. The Meno begins with Plato asking Socrates, in typical Socratic form if virtue can be learned. According to Socrates', he is clueless about what virtue is and whether or not it can be learned or even taught. He also believes that all other men have no clue as to what virtue is. Socrates responds to Meno's prompts by stating that virtue is something different for different people. "When you say, Meno, that there is one virtue of a man, another of a woman, another of a child, and so on, does this apply only to virtue, or would you say the same of health, and size, and strength? Or is the nature of health always the same, whether in man or woman?" (Plato, 380 BCE) the goal of this definition is to provide a description of virtue as it applies in a general form, not in terms of a particular action as well as to argue the point that virtue is amorphous in nature. Humans that can ascribe themselves to virtuous acts have begun to understand the overarching consequences and responsibilities laid out by Meno. Plato finally puts the question of whether virtue can be taught to rest be letting Socrates come to the conclusion that it can.

Can Virtue Be Learned?

Meno, in his own words opens the conversation up to Socrates about whether or not virtue can be learned by asking, "Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?" (Plato, 380 BCE). Socrates responds by asking Meno another question regarding his own knowledge of virtue, stating, "…and I confess with shame that I know literally nothing about virtue; and when I do not know the "quid" of anything how can I know the "quale"? How, if I knew nothing at all of Meno, could I tell if he was fair, or the opposite of fair; rich and noble, or the reverse of rich and noble? Do you think that I could?" (Plato, 380, BCE). This statement offers an amazing amount of insight into what virtue represents for Socrates and how Plato categorizes it as a learned concept.

Socrates tells Meno that he can never truly know anything except for that which he experiences through his own set of lenses and with his own knowledge base being used to interpret the new knowledge (Deveraux, 1978, pp. 121). In this way, no one can ever really "know" anything at all. But interestingly enough, Socrates is showing, through his set of questions for Meno, that virtue can in fact only be "learned" on an individual basis through what Socrates calls "recollection," and cannot be taught from human to human (Plato, 380 BCE). Socrates goes on to state, "I told you, Meno, just now that you were a rogue, and now you ask whether I can teach you, when I am saying that there is no teaching, but only recollection." (Plato, 380 BCE). While initially confusing, this "recollection" referred to by Socrates is a concept similar to the idea that nothing is truly known from birth, only recollected through wisdom passed down from person to person. But this does not suggest that virtue can be passed down with this wisdom, only that knowledge can.

Since Socrates argues that virtue can in fact be taught on an individual basis, then it would seem logical to assume that Plato's own beliefs on the subject would mirror Meno's, given that Men ends up convincing Socrates that virtue is learned. But Socrates is not completely convinced that all virtue is learned. He argues to Meno that some virtue is self-evident in all humans, or that at the very least, people can recognize "good" and virtuous acts apart from evil acts (Deveraux, 1978, pp. 124). These basic levels of virtue present themselves as concepts like justice and fairness. While these topics present themselves as basic human knowledge, true moral knowledge, according to Plato, is not human knowledge but instead is wisdom greater than human wisdom (Weiss, 2001). The ability to completely understand the implications of actions is beyond all humans. But the ability to act in the best interest and with the best possible intentions and truth at heart is not. This is a big part of what virtue is, and why it has to be learned through experience.

Virtue and Morality

From a completely epistemological standpoint, virtue represents the highest individual potential in a human being (Nehamas, 1999). The awareness that the potential even exists is something that a person needs to learn, as they are not born with the knowledge that they have a particular potential and are able to live up to that potential through knowledge and learning. Moral knowledge however, according to Plato's Meno (380 BCE), is impossible to quantify or learn. This form of virtue is subjective, and from a completely objective ethical standpoint, it is totally impossible to understand morality as it applies to all of humanity from a knowledge-based perspective. The idea that there are inherently good and evil people in the world is also one that is brought up time and time again in Meno. Socrates states, "Is it not obvious that those who are ignorant of their nature do not desire them (evils); but they desire what they suppose to be goods although they are really evils; and if they are mistaken and suppose the evils to be good they really desire goods?" (Plato, 380 BCE). This statement suggests the Socrates believes that some people know they are doing evil, and are not acting virtuously, while others are unaware that they are perpetrating evil upon others, and think they are acting virtuously instead. Socrates does not fault this latter group of people except for their own ignorance of good and evil. He concludes then, that these people who do not know good from evil also are incapable of truly "knowing" virtue or acting virtuously.

The exploration of moral questions is spurred by the desire to know something that is impossible to know. Yet this does not deter the common person from the pursuit of knowledge. This is the point where belief and knowledge intersect, and for many people, belief satisfies the part of them that yearns for the type of knowledge that is unknowable, whether moral or technical in nature. It is impossible for a human to know something and to know virtue through the actions of a teacher or mentor. Socrates, in the Meno, states this and follows up this argument with the assertion that only through individual inquiry and growth can a person truly know what virtue is as applied to their own unique and individual situation and life (Plato, 380 BCE).

The Political Ramifications of Virtue

The universality of virtue, or as Plato referred to it "arete" or human excellence, lends credence to the idea that while there are specific forms of virtue that certain people can live up to, there is an overarching or universal form of virtue that people are born with no matter where they live in the world. In the modern sense, this idea suggests that everyone has the potential to learn about virtue as it applies to them and they also have the ability or potential to live a virtuous life. The concept of excellence and virtue does not hold up the same way in the modern world as it did in the ancient world. Plato's concepts, according to Meno and Socrates, paint virtue as an undemocratic knowledge of good and evil. In today's world, where most people feel that a democracy is the highest form of government, it is rare to see an appeal to virtue instead of to the voters.

Socrates argued that virtue, and not the vote, should be the deciding factor for leaders of all nations. Both Socrates and Plato believed in a philosopher-king, or someone who had virtue and the power to act upon it. The knowledge of good and evil, as evidenced by a personal undertaking of the exploration of virtue, was to these philosophers, man's best hope for fair and excellent governance. If virtue is the basic knowledge of good and evil, then it would only make sense to be governed by those people who could see the difference between the two and act according to everyone's best interests. This is a very difficult concept for many Americans to understand after being brought up with the assumption that the democratic American political system is the best system in the world and is the high point of political history and philosophy. Meno states, "If you want to have one definition of them all, I know not what to say, but that virtue is the power of governing mankind." (Plato, 380 BCE). Socrates' response is somewhat predictable, given his nature, but it also highlights the idea that politically as well as socially, every human being must recognize their place or role and learn to become excellent in their role. Socrates says in response, "And does this definition of virtue include all virtue? Is virtue the same in a child and in a slave, Meno? Can the child govern his father, or the slave his master; and would he who governed be any longer a slave?" (Plato, 380 BCE)

The Unity of Virtue

The unity of virtue is another piece of the conceptual puzzle concerning Plato's Meno and the discussion of the nature of arete, or excellence. The Socratic insistence that practical knowledge is akin to scientific knowledge, in that it must be explored and learned through experimentation and experience is indicative of an attitude that everyday practical problems can be solved by appeal to knowledge (Weiss, 2001). The unification of virtue under the heading of knowledge can be undertaken after understanding that Socrates' and Plato's arguments about virtue all pertain to the same act or idea, that knowledge is the only truth and through it, virtue or excellence can be obtained. In this way, virtue is unified as a particular knowledge set, and a person can become virtuous through their own studies of knowledge.