DOMINIC SCOTT PLATO MENO PDF

Virtue, Practice, and Perplexity in Plato’s m Wians – – Plato: The Internet Journal of the International Plato Society (Plato 12 ()). Dominic Scott has produced a monograph on the Meno that in its fluency and succinctness does justice to its subject and, like its subject. Buy [(Plato’s Meno)] [Author: Dominic Scott] published on (March, ) by Dominic Scott (ISBN:) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free.

Author: Kalkis Kajijin
Country: Andorra
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Spiritual
Published (Last): 18 February 2015
Pages: 230
PDF File Size: 11.91 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.82 Mb
ISBN: 891-1-49945-262-5
Downloads: 34404
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Fenrit

Scptt is surely incorrect to understand “would be able to do the same” as “would be able to become as expert as anyone” []. The absence of explicit methodological justification for treating some, but only some, of Plato’s dialogues as reliable sources for the views of the historical Socrates makes it hard to place much credence on the contention that the historical figure is a specific target of examination in the Meno.

First, according to Aristotle, as well as to a widespread and fairly standard reading of Plato’s Theory of Forms, Plato himself subscribes to this principle. Philosophy in Review Reviewed by Roslyn Weiss, Lehigh University rw03 lehigh. It is no straightforward exercise to extract the views of the historical Socrates from the Platonic dramatizations and fictionalizations of Socratic conversations.

The Introduction is followed by fourteen rather short chapters that track the course of the dialogue sequentially. Scott dominid prone to making this latter move; I discuss a further example three paragraphs below. Scott contends that once Socrates takes up the question of virtue’s teachability, Meno shows signs of having improved: History of Western Philosophy.

Rightly or wrongly, Meno just wants to get on with investigating how virtue is acquired. In the case of elenchus as beneficial procedure, it is likewise a stretch to classify Meno’s stingray speech as a serious philosophical challenge, wonderfully vivid though it is in pronouncing that the effects of elenchus can feel far from positive. Dancy Florida State University.

Such an approach requires us to make a rather sharp distinction between Meno’s character and that of at least some of Plato’s readership. Scott speaks of his “hesitation” 30but this may betoken thoughtfulness rather than stupidity. Scott indeed acknowledges that there can be no teaching, not even of the “maieutic” kind, unless the teacher has knowledge [].

  BOBCAT T3071 PDF

Reading the dialogue as a whole, meo explains how different arguments are related to one another and how the interplay between characters is connected to the philosophical content of the work. Scott’s refusal to acknowledge any irony in the Meno is responsible, too, for his interpretation of the dialogue’s end.

Indeed one wonders why Meno would ask the question in the first place in his “peremptory” fashion if not because he regards it as of pressing practical importance.

domjnic The assumption that we should determine what virtue is before asking whether it is teachable is not made the subject of a serious philosophical challenge either. His previous publications include Recollection and Experience: Although Scott regards the drama in a Platonic dialogue as more than mere window-dressing, he nevertheless makes it quite clear that what is “philosophical” in it are its doctrines and the arguments that support them.

Does not Meno declare that defining virtue is “easy,” thus making his definitions of vominic fair game for Socrates? Is this mere coincidence?

Dominic Scott: Plato’s Meno.

Plato’s Meno Dominic Scott No preview available – With regard to 3Scott admits the difficulty of discovering which of the views of the historical Socrates is being challenged by Meno’s “discovery problem” and settles, rather conservatively, on the Socratic insistence that inquiry is a duty Dancy – – Philosophy in Review 27 4: The Meno then turns out to be yet another instance in which we are shown that Socrates, no matter how hard he dkminic to improve his interlocutor, fails time and again.

So let us look more closely at this aspect of his interpretation. But, indeed, this mwno something we should expect since Socrates says at 98a5: Thus “the dialogue operates mdno two levels” As early as the Apology Socrates is aware that he is alienating those he scogt and even entertains the possibility that he is corrupting the young, albeit unintentionally.

Does the demonstration not in fact suggest that, in the absence of a teacher who knows, recollection is insufficient to yield knowledge, yet that recollection is hardly needed at all if such a teacher is present?

  FSV CONFIGURATION IN SAP PDF

Bryn Mawr Classical Review

Sign in Create an account. For his latter three examples of Socrates on trial this is the only type of evidence that Scott cites; in the former case he adduces in addition a single text of Aristotle, whose reference to the historical Socrates rather than Plato’s character is not beyond doubt Scott defends its bona fides on p.

The book concludes with three appendices, the first concerned with the compatibility of Meno 77bb with Rep. The Legacy of the Meno Paradox: It seems mere prejudice to deem Meno incapable of having a serious and sincere concern in raising and then not retreating from the issue.

Find it on Scholar. But if Plato’s criticism of Socrates amounts to little more than that Socratic inquiry is not always beneficial, that it is at domini even counterproductive, it is hardly new to the Meno. In the main sections of the dialogue where Scott detects Socrates being put on philosophical trial, Meno’s own character is variously “undisciplined … obtuse … resentful … and obstructive” — quite a litany.

But even if this critique is apt, it is hard to see what alternatives to elenchus Socrates has–if indeed he is as lacking in wisdom as he claims to be. Landry – – Philosophia Mathematica 20 2: This book confronts the dialogue’s many enigmas and attempts to solve them in a way that is both lucid and sympathetic to Plato’s philosophy.

This supposedly demonstrates his “obtuseness” ibid. The Meno of Plato. Rather, as we saw above and as Scott is keen enough to emphasizeMeno expresses hesitancy about endorsing its application to virtue. Whereas Scott suggests that all Socrates is less than confident about is that he has provided sufficient support for recollection [], it is surely surprising that, in the final analysis, Socrates affirms the moral value of inquiry as the only thing that has been established and that he would fight for in both word and deed [86b7-c3].