Meno's Theory Of Virtue Essay

In this paper, I will be arguing that to learn something you have to know what you are looking for and if you know what to look for you already know something; yet there is still something to learn. I am going to show exactly why know why what you are looking does not mean there is no reason to go looking for the answer. In Plato’s: Meno, Meno asks Socrates, is it possible to teach virtue or is it something that can be learned through practice. On the other hand is it just something that people just posses or is it just learned through some other way. Now the argument goes as follows:
If you know what to look for to learn something, then there is no reason to learn it: If virtue is taught, then there must be a teacher of virtue. Virtue is taught Therefore, there is a teacher of virtue
If one would want to start to understand this argument. You would first need to know what “virtue” is. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. This is the definition of virtue but this definition of virtue on really applies to moral
Which basically means this occurs when a key term of the argument is a little shaking making it open to more than one interpretation. Having two parts of the arguments, having different meanings. For example, loud noises cause headaches. Tylenol helps to relieve headaches. Therefor Tylenol helps relieve loud noises. This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation. So how it works exactly is it uses association to prove two parts of the to be. The first part of the argument is loud noises and the second part of the argument is headaches. Now we all know that Tylenol helps to relieve headaches but we also know that it does not help to relieve loud noises. That is how the fallacy works, it proves one part of the argument to be solved by something and therefore assumes that, that something can be used to solve the other part of the