Comparing Meno And The Republic

Platonic literatures seem to hold many ideologies in common that are often briefly discussed throughout his writings. Plato, being the pupil of Socrates, felt his ideas were important and documented them in both the Meno and The Republic. In doing so, we now have some of the most influential ideas of Socrates to study. Although the Meno and The Republic are two unequivocal different literary works from Plato, they bear superficial similarities in the dissecting of Epistemology and the sacredness of one’s knowledge while differing in the utilization of the soul as a knowledge-bearing fruit or just as another tool used to aid in learning, or rather the origination of knowledge in itself.
Epistemology is a stem of philosophy in which we must
study and understand the difference between knowing and not knowing something, or many things.
It is concerned with how our minds are related to reality, and whether or not these relationships are valid or invalid. Epistemology is the explanation of how we think and is required in order to determine the true from the false. While these two dialogues may differ in some ways, they both show an intense understanding of the meaning of epistemology and the value of coming to knowledge with oneself. In the Meno, epistemology is the baseline at which Socrates allows Meno to understand that knowledge is of great importance, but to get to the full awareness of knowledge you have to study further into things to get to their true meaning and rise above not truly knowing, or your opinion. On page 88 of our text in the Meno, Socrates states, “The opinions have just been stirred up like a dream, but if he were repeatedly asked these same questions in various ways, you know that in the end his knowledge about these things would be as accurate as anyone’s.” (85d) Meno simply agrees with him in that going from not truly knowing something to knowing is an arduous task, however it is possible through the repetition of the outward opinion. Similarly, The Republic Book VII gives an example of human beings living underground with substantiating surroundings. Chained to the floor, these
persons have been there in the cave since childhood and have associated many ideas and actual meanings to the shadows of things that they see on the walls in front of them and the sounds at which echo around them. But Plato brings upon a valid point when it is asked in the dialogue, what if one of the cave dwellers was taken away from what he thought he knew was realistic and true? By showing us through example that education takes advantage of our sight, Plato explains that although it is a tedious, irritating and diverse process of always wanting to go back to the “known”, ascending to a higher level of understanding of how things work allows us to gain knowledge ourselves through experience. On page 177 of the text, it says, “the power to learn is present in everyone’s soul,” (517c) and this statement elaborates that we can all obtain knowledge if we ourselves open up and see the divide between what we think we know and what we actually know through rationalization. Granted that epistemology and the strenuous study of it are similar in these two dialogues, the actual process of obtaining knowledge differs between the works.
In The Republic, Plato expresses that knowledge is something gained by a learning experience and also that you are required to rationalize and think-through the teachings you come across to truly apprehend something. On page 177 it is written, “… the virtue of reason seems to belong above all to something more divine, which never loses its power but is either useful and beneficial or useful and harmful, depending on the way it is turned.” (518e). Although it is known that knowledge is not easy to obtain, it truly depends on the “way that you are turned,” or rather the way that you are taught equaling the amount of knowledge you possess through a given amount of time. Opposed to that idea is the writing in the Meno, which is where we are told that knowledge is not quite something that is learned, but that it is innate in all of us. This dialogue is expressing that in order to learn something, you are only recollecting from what you have known in a past life, and that you don’t necessarily have to be taught but rather just reminded through rigorous questioning and thought process. In the reading, Socrates says, “… he will know it without having been taught but only questioned…” in response to Meno as he claimed that knowledge must be something taught by a certain specified teacher. (Page 89, 85d) As he says this, he
elaborates by explaining that a person who has never been taught can certainly have their opinions about a subject and they may very well be correct. To truly find out the accuracy of our opinions, we have to enter a process of maximal questioning of the matter to remember the things we may have previously known as a different body. The soul may be the root of all knowledge in both of these works, yet it is used in two different ways such as either holding onto things known in the past as well as learning new things through turning towards something you do not know. I feel that the both of these philosophical works were didactics, and created an immense amount of curiosity as to what you believe. The similarities and differences provide us with rigorous understanding as to how literary works connect with one another through time or through different subject matters. While both the Meno and The Republic address the main subject of epistemology, we can clearly see how the ideas relate with one another using different perspectives. Yet, in resilient reflection we can clearly conclude that there were distinct differences between the two works when it came to the subject of where knowledge derives from.