Meno's Paradox Of Inquiry Summary

Meno's paradox challenges the concept of inquiry through three premises. The first two premises are often considered beliefs. Both premises assert that one either knows what something is or does not. If one knows what something is, there is no need to look. Socrates confirms this hypothesis by stating, "A man cannot inquire about what he already knows, as he has no need to do so if he does not know the very subject about which he is to inquire" (Meno, 80d). In this case, Socrates claims that he would not have to search for virtue if he knew it. In that respect, such a theory supposes that one seeks to find something only because of the lack of understanding thereof.

The third premise further reinforces this, stating that without prior knowledge, a person would not have been able to recognize something upon seeing it. Using the same analogy, someone who had never seen a lion would not be able to identify it in real life. Having said this, it appears that a prior knowledge element is necessary for the process of recognition. This paradoxical conclusion states that one cannot seek or acknowledge knowledge one does not already possess. Since these premises are true, then Meno's argument indicates that some
Amongst those differences, Socrates assumes a far more nurturing position. In the conversations with Meno and Euthyphro, Socrates challenges their definition of virtue and piety. Therefore, it proves that they do not really know what they thought they knew. The approach aims to expose their perceived ignorance. This approach undoubtedly confirms their reliance on assumptions rather than actual knowledge. By contrast, Socrates is less confrontational with the slave boy. Then, he introduces the technique of highlighting guided questioning and not debate. He does this to demonstrate that knowledge is not a matter of winning an argument, but rather a