Is Virtue Knowledge Or Teachable Philosophy Essay

Is faithfulness Knowledge Or Teachable Philosophy EssayPlato presents Socrates views on the question whether sexual morality is noesis and whether it provide be taught in several dialogues, most notably in Meno. In this dialogue, Socrates makes many an(prenominal) different arguments on the subject of virtue. These arguments include how virtue is defined and whether or not people mass acquire it. He examines the ways that virtue bunghole be attained whether or not nonpareil is born being virtuous, whether virtue can be taught or it is an some other factor for virtues people cod. In this essay I allow focus on the question of whether virtue can be taught. Platos act is that virtue cannot be taught. In this essay I will suggest that Plato could hurl framed the questions a bit differently, which would have probably given him a different answer. In particular I will argue that Plato power have d unity better to ask whether virtue could be learned quite of intercommunicate whether virtue can be taught.The Meno begins with Meno asking Socrates whether virtue can be taught. The argument whence is drifted and so to another question, what is knowledge. Then Meno proposed an interesting paradox whiz can never find divulge anything new either one knows it already, in which case in that respect is no need to find it out, or else one does not, and in that case there is no means of recognizing it when found (Plato 1997, 80d-e.). In other terminology if one does not already know what arte (virtue) is, he cant dismantle seem for it, because if he does not know what it is already, then even h he searches, he wont be able to know when one has found it. Socrates suggests a way to solve this dilemma which is based on the Pythagorean view of the immortal soul. According to that notion, the soul, after the physical body dies, is reincarnated and thus never destroyed. If one can never acquire any new knowledge and at the same time it is transparent we are alw ays schooling new things, then it is be concluded that learning must be a matter of recollection of past life experiences and knowledge. In other words there is no such thing as discovering, yet only remembering.In the Meno he demonstrated with a youthful slave male child who apparently didnt have any knowledge of geometry. By asking the young boy questions he managed to show that the boy had knowledge of certain mathematical theorems.Meno asks again his original question, that is whether one can be taught virtue, or one gets virtue by nature or in some other way. Socrates consents to proceed but argues that they need a common ground due to the fact that neither of them can say at this point what virtue is. Then Meno is made agree that if virtue is not knowledge then it cannot be taught, and if a knowledge then it can be taught. He points out that one can teach something only if one knows what it is that he is teaching. Someone who does not know himself how to drive a car seems unlikely to be able to teach someone else how to. Socrates and Meno much agree that there is no one that truly knows what is meant by virtue and because of this reason cannot be taught.According to Socrates, If virtue could be taught, we should be able to know not only those who teach it but also those who learn from them, which in loyalty we cannot easily do (Plato 1997, 96c). Socrates claims that teachers for horsemanship, medicine, etc. exist and everybody recognizes these as genuine teachers, whereas people dont agree about whether the Sophists real do teach virtue. Socrates goes one to speak of Thucydides, who had two sons, neither of which was considered to be virtuous. However, it is said that Thucydides educated his children in many different disciplines, but it seems that he could not find a teacher of virtue even though he found teachers for other aspects of life he found valuable. He could not teach it himself either, even though he himself was known to be virtuous. Th erefore it seems virtue cannot be a work out of knowledge. In order for something to be knowledge, someone must be able to teach it to others. Socrates concludes that virtue cannot be taught and that there is no means or method by which virtue can be acquired. Virtue is simply shown as coming to us, whenever it comes, by divine dispensation (reference?)In my view, if Plato had framed the questions somewhat differently, he might have gotten a different answer. That is Plato could have better asked whether virtue could be learned kinda of asking whether virtue can be taught. What I mean to say is that asking whether one can be taught something entails that the relationship of a student and a teacher, whereas asking whether something can be learned implies only that there is a student (whose life experiences might be said to be a teacher.) For example, to ask whether I was taught geometry is to ask whether a teacher taught me geometry. Whereas to ask whether I learned geometry is sim ply to ask whether I learned it, whether or not I was taught it by a geometry teacher or learned geometry myself either from (lets say) a book or by some other means.Learning can come in confused diversitys. In order to learn something, one does not require a teacher in the uncompromising sense. For instance, learning can be achieved from studying people who have virtue and yet the latter whitethorn not be aware that they are studied. So a man may be learning virtue, and his teachers may be virtuous, even though the teachers might not even be alive. Another form of learning is experience. Virtue may be learned through personal experience. In this example, the teacher would be both life experiences and the reflective nature of the learner. There is still another form of learning. A man can learn, even if he cannot maintain an explanation of how he learned or of what he just knows. For instance, after someone has been through a particular problem in his life, he can then detect th at a relative of his is going through the same problem. And although he can know it, he cannot give an explanation of how he recognized it. Another example is that of the musicians or painters who have learned their maneuver and are able to perform well, but find it almost im manageable to give an explanation of what they have learned.So the question whether virtue can be taught is a much different, and narrower, than whether virtue can be learned. Plato is right in suggesting that virtue cannot be taught. I believe that we all know or have heard of people who recite rules of virtue (such us be compassionate or be honest,) but find it impossible to put them into practice. Certainly in this sense virtue cannot be taught. A mentioned above, having the aptitude to be virtuous is like having the ability to be musical, which is to some extent instinctual. So, for example, it could be argued that knowing when, for example, to offer help to a friend when he needs it, is a matter of insti nct or judgment. alone of this means that although virtue may not be taught, this is not to say that virtue cant be learned. Plato suggests the notion that virtue is inborn. Certainly this is to some degree true. There are some people with an exceeding capacity for virtues like compassion, etc. since they were born. Yet others look as if they are born with little to no moral conscience, which seems to be necessary for virtue to exist. However what this means is just that the foundation of virtue is inborn, not that it cant be learned.In the same way that we comprehend the fact that one can be preached how to be virtuous but fail to be virtuous in practice, the converse is also possible people can refine the ways they understand virtue, they may become more(prenominal) virtuous by reflective practice, and their views of how to act in a virtuous way changes significantly as they grow up. In my view, if Plato put his questions in a different way (that is if he had asked whether virtu e can be learned, instead of whether virtue can be taught) he might have found a much more affirmative answer.Bibliography