Arguments In Meno And The Phaedo By Plato

622 Words3 Pages
Plato Plato makes many arguments in the Meno and the Phaedo. Some of his arguments are for the preexistence of a soul and that knowledge is gained as a result from recollection. Using the Cyclical argument, he says essentially that everything comes from their opposite state so the soul of a living must be a soul from someone who has died. The second argument is for Recollection and it claims that since we are able to see a lack of a given “thing”, then we must have a prior knowledge of what that “thing” should be. Closing with the Affinity Argument, it is reasoned that since there are two worlds; the changing world of our perception and the static world of the Forms; and the soul is more like that latter, than the soul must return to the world of Forms upon death. In the Meno, we are introduced to Socrates’ “paradox of inquiry.” It states that “if you know what you’re looking for, inquiry is unnecessary” and “if you don’t know what you’re looking for, inquiry is impossible.” He questions Meno on what Virtue is and after repeated inquiry he is unable to come up with a definition. He then calls upon…show more content…
In the cave are prisoners that are bound in a cave and can only see shadows on the wall. Eventually one of the prisoners breaks free and begins his ascension. When he escapes, he is marveled by the outside world, world of forms, that he did not even know existed. As he remains outside he goes on a journey of learning to acquire as much knowledge of the new reality as he can. He eventually returns to the cave and tries to inform the other and they threaten to kill him. So it can be claimed that knowledge gained through the sense is not as “real” as the knowledge gained through thinking. Without being enlightened by the Form of Good, sun outside the cave, the prisoner would still be someone who thinks true knowledge comes from our
Open Document