The claim that the soul is eternal, first off, seems to be a relatively religious view of life. Socrates endorses this idea and does acknowledge that it comes from the priests and priestesses of his time. But the connection he makes between an eternal soul to learning and our attempt to figure the definition of good is quite an amazing one.
Socrates brings up this idea to answer Meno’s question: “how can you put before your mind a thing that you have no knowledge of, in order to try to find out about it?” (100) His subsequent proving of his eternal soul idea presents the value of curiosity and determination to discover the unknown and undiscovered. One must not only be willing to look for different answers, but also determined to find such an answer. The slave Socrates uses in his example highlights these aspects; although the slave, devoid of any education in geometry, was certain of his original answer, he still was willing to try again and seek a different and the correct answer, which he did entirely by himself.
If we are to become better learners and, in Socrates’ and Meno’s situation, answer a question as simple yet complex as “what does it mean to be good”, we must relentlessly pursue such actions with an active curiosity until we reach our goals. And in the end, since such an answer is unknown to us as a modern society of humans, we might just have to draw from the infinite knowledge that Socrates claims we have in our eternal souls. For a question that we cannot answer with machines and experiments and mathematical equations and chemicals, we must be willing to find new avenues of approach towards these questions.
“The idea that we’d be better people – more energetic, less lazy – if we felt that it was our duty to try to find out whatever we don’t know, instead of thinking that discovering what we don’t know isn’t even possible, and that there’s no point in even trying – that’s a claim I will keep fighting for” (113)
“This should have helped him towards discovering the truth. Because now he’ll be happy to try and find out what he doesn’t know…” (108)
Oh what marvelous quotes!
I find Socrates’ argument strange. He claims that learning is just remembering past knowledge, but how does that work if the soul is not immortal? I’m of the belief that such is the case. Could you not use prior bits of knowledge to create new ones?
Say, for example, that you know that a given amount of ice has a greater volume than an amount of water with equal mass. You also know that when an object’s volume increases relative to its mass, its density decreases. You could then use those two facts to create a third one: Ice is less dense than water since it has greater volume at an equal mass.
You can also gain knowledge empirically. I know that touching a hot stove is painful not because of any deduction on my part, but because I actually have touched a hot stove by accident, and it hurt when I did so.
I guess I forgot to bring this up.
Socrates believe the soul never dies but is reborn over and over again, which has allowed the soul to see all that is in this world and beyond (page 101, lines 81c4-6).
Socrates argues that all learning is merely realizing what our soul has already known. Since the soul knows everything, it should be our duty as the hosts of these souls to learn what they hold. And we can learn all we can by maintaining an active curiosity and actively searching for answers.
I understand Socrates’ point of view but I did not quite agree with his method of proving it. The scene with the slave honestly seemed like he was teaching though he was trying not to. He only asked questions but by explaining to the slave that he is wrong, is that not teaching? Socrates did not blatantly provide an answer however he did explain which answers were wrong. This just rules out one possibility and the slave just needs to use inductive reasoning a few times before he can understand the pattern. Though Socrates does not tell him exactly what the answer is, he tells him what the answer is not and to me that seems like it would be a type of teaching.
I do understand Socrates’ method of proving his point. Although it may seem like he is teaching the slave math through inducing a trial-and-error of sorts, I see this interaction as a guiding process, and I believe this guiding process, which was so vital for the slave, is just as vital in finding what we do not know, whether it is what our soul possesses, or what the definition of good actually is.
As for Socrates’ leading the slave towards the answer, and the apparent difference in ability between the two (since one is guiding and the other is following), Socrates merely knew how to simplify the problem and present it to the slave so that the slave could answer it. Socrates gives very little effort to solve the problem. He does not use his skills to answer the problem.
Likewise, we can very possibly connect this to finding the definition of good. All it takes to find the answer is to have somebody break down its components in such a way that somebody with no apparent knowledge can figure it out.
The questions now are: What are/How does one determine such parts? Is there someone capable of such actions?