Simon Roig Philosophy 1301-024 Fall 09

Plato on Recollection

Plato strives to discover the truth about virtue: what it is, whether it is profitable, and

whether it can be taught. While in the Meno he assigns certain qualities to virtue that he deems

to be true, he makes it clear through Socrates’ narration that he is at least partially ignorant of the

true nature of virtue. One of the characteristics of virtue that he ascertains is that it is found

throughout all professions of men, and that it does not vary from one to the other but is the

common denominator by which people seek to be good, prosperous, and admirable. Socrates

and Meno arrive at the conclusion that what all professions have in common in regards to virtue

is that it is the means by which something is done justly, honorably, and with temperance.

Whenever something is done in this fashion it is done virtuously and with the purpose of

attaining good. Socrates believes all men desire good, whether they are conscious of it or not,

for many desire evil and are deceived in thinking that it will not bring them misery and ill-fate.

Virtue, then, is a tool by which only good, not evil, can be achieved. Since all men essentially

desire good equally, the difference between them lies in their ability to attain and retain the good.

Socrates poses the question of whether virtue can be classified as knowledge, supposing

that if it is it would be possible to teach or learn it. He goes on to explain how to attain

knowledge through recollection. Recollection is a process that is only possible if our souls,

which make part of us immortal and have lived many lives exist within us and allow us to access

knowledge that we always possessed but were unaware of. The geometry example serves to

prove that we can recollect information if showed how to arrive at a certain conclusion. Socrates

believes that there is a difference between gaining true opinions through memorization, blind

faith, or divination, and recollecting through the process of answering questions which cause us

to search for new answers based on previous knowledge. Recollection builds on preexisting

knowledge to arrive at what Socrates calls abiding knowledge. Conversely, while one may be
shown and feel certain of a truth through indirect learning, the witness to this truth might soon

forget how he arrived at a conclusion.

The most important aspect of recollection is that it makes the subject aware of his own

ignorance at realizing that he did not truly know, but may have had a right opinion about

something. The latter would be gained not through first-hand experience but through learning via

other people’s accounts of their opinions. This ignorance is crucial in developing virtue because

once one is aware of the ignorance, he will try to remedy it and thus begins the quest for truth.

This realization of ignorance sheds light on the fact that what we thought we knew is often based

on assumptions and second-hand opinions. In trying to fix this, we begin enquiring into the true

nature of things and scrutinizing hypotheses according to standards such as consistency,

permanence, and universality.

Towards the end of the Meno Socrates argues that true opinions and truth are no different

in practical purposes because they both serve the same function, given that they are both accurate

and will prove equally effective to carry out a goal. It is implied that truth would be superior to

true opinion, and when Meno raises this question forward, Socrates explains that truth is superior

in the sense that it stays fastened to the soul through recollection and is far more lasting than

right opinion. Right opinion can be used to achieve the same goals but is only temporary and

will flee from us in due time.

Attaining knowledge that is learned indirectly is easily achieved and results in the learner

adopting an opinion which may be true or false. More often than not, men tend to rely on this

kind of knowledge because it requires less exploration and effort. It is also often accompanied

by a stubborn, false sense of certainty, which has been seen throughout history in the

indoctrination of inaccurate beliefs deemed false by science.

Plato makes a distinction between attaining and retaining good. The former being the

kind that we experience simply by being exposed to our surroundings and reacting to them
almost impulsively by our sense of expectation, and the latter through recollection.

The recollection that Socrates talks about that is confirmed by the soul and abides in it

can only be achieved when one reaches a state of perplexity and proceeds to enquire into that

which he does not know. Meno asks how it can be possible for one to enquire into something

which he does not know to which Socrates replies by referencing priests and poets when they say

that the soul lives and dies many lives but is never destroyed and has the power to call forth all

the knowledge that abides within it through recollection. While one may hardly know about a

topic, he might have an idea of its contents and if there is a willingness to reduce his ignorance,

he will enquire onto the details and perhaps experience the truth of said topic in a way that will

bind the knowledge to the soul.

Socrates arrives at conclusions led by a series of deductions that he appears to be quite

sure of, so I will venture to put forth my doubts in his reasoning. Socrates enquires into whether

knowledge is good and goes on to say “knowledge embraces all good” by which one can infer

that he means that knowledge leads to nothing but good. I will venture to enquire as to whether

it is impossible to arrive at anything bad with the aid of knowledge. Since we can be certain of

some knowledge, it is evident that we possess only a part of knowledge and not the whole.

While Socrates claims that our soul possesses all the knowledge, the practical, concrete,

irrefutable knowledge gained through science that helps us to be prosperous in every day

situations is limited. Having partial knowledge can sometimes lead us to make assumptions

about the whole, and then make judgments and decisions based on those assumptions.

Sometimes those decisions can be imprudent and unjust, and this leads us to bad. The leader of

an empire may decide to attack a weaker nation (based on the assumption or pretext that said

nation is a threat) if he has the knowledge that the undertaking will be profitable for the empire’s

economy, but whether that knowledge led to good or bad is open to interpretation and
subjectivity. It may be good for the invader, but bad for the subjugated. In this case it would be

fair to say that the assumptions we make from partial knowledge can sometimes lead to bad.

Socrates presents the inference that because all good things are profitable, then we must

be profitable if we are good, and that virtue must also be profitable. As time has repeatedly

shown, bad things happen to good people. The premise that all good things are profitable does

not necessarily mean that if we are good we will also be profitable. One may argue that the

sense of good or bad, just or unjust is subjective to each person and rarely finds any true

consistency. Socrates continues to say that if virtue is profitable, then one would think

prosperous things such as health, courage, and wealth are virtuous, yet what makes them

profitable is the way in which they are used, rightly or wrongly. That leaves Socrates only one

candidate left to which he can assign a black-and-white, dictionary definition of virtue: wisdom.

The next assumption we can make is that since good things are only good when done

virtuously, good men are not good by nature but through instruction, which would indicate the

necessity for teachers of virtue. Meno has followed Socrates down this path to attest that virtue is

knowledge and can be taught, to which Socrates replies that he is unsure that such is the case. He

gives examples of great men in Athens who possessed many great qualities but were unable to

instruct their children and impart the same level of virtue they possessed.

From this he infers that virtue, if said man were truly virtuous and good and wanted the

same for their offspring, would be incapable of being taught. I doubt whether a man being

virtuous and possessing knowledge of virtue would be incapable of imparting this gift to another

given that in order for teaching to occur, the teacher must be adept at teaching and the pupil at

learning. Without both factors being present, the knowledge will not be passed on. It may be

fair to say that a son is unlikely to learn virtue from a father if he is unwilling or incapable of

doing so. Socrates establishes that the men who governed the state and were unable to pass on
this skill to others did not governby knowledge but by virtue. There would be no reason to doubt

this if every time a wise man spoke, a foolish one listened.

He argues that because virtue is not knowledge, then knowledge cannot be used as a

guide for political life, although he had previously stated that the guides of man are true opinion

and knowledge. If the two goods described are knowledge and true opinion, and we cannot use

knowledge to govern (for reasons omitted), the “only alternative” must be right opinion. Cannot

true opinion be taught and learned? Is it not easier for a man to attain true opinion than

knowledge? If this right opinion which is a sort of divination by which politicians govern the

state comes from god and is not fastened to the soul, should men blindly rely on their leaders’

“virtue” to account for their wellbeing? Are leadersaccountable to their peers by god or their

fellow man, which rule by knowledge? It seems likely to me that no man will ever overcome

life’s hurdles unless he gains the knowledge of the forms and ideas that stay constant through

time. Right opinion might serve one purpose and fail at another, which can be used to one’s

advantage in deceiving for personal profit. Knowledge, when perceived circumspectly and from

all angles leads us to the virtue of becoming prosperous. When applied in this way, thorough,

not partial knowledge, seems to eclipse subjectivity and bring forth good to all parties involved.

It seems to me that we all possess a sense of virtue to some degree, as well as the ability

to learn virtue from others to varying degrees. Every skill and virtue can be assignedone man

that has excelled more so than any other, just as well with a race that can only have one winner,

but there is no virtue known to me that has only been possessed by one man and no other. If a

luthier crafts an instrument that had previously not existed, and he is the only one with the

knowledge to play it, will a pupil not be able to learn how to play it if given the right instruction

and has the willingness and capability to do so?