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.
|Published (Last):||14 October 2004|
|PDF File Size:||17.28 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.17 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Perhaps the reason he resists this further application is that the only thing he regards as genuine virtue is ruling others and having power and money, and not whatever it is that women, old men, children, and slaves might have that goes by that name. I wonder, though, whether Meno’s responses are really poor enough to motivate this contrast of levels. Here, too, Scott adopts a kind of middle ground, recognizing that viewing the Meno in this way can be illuminating but noting that this approach has made it difficult for scholars to appreciate the work’s integrity.
Landry – – Philosophia Mathematica 20 2: Monthly downloads Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart. Indeed, it is just before the alleged change in Meno that Socrates is at pains to emphasize that Meno has not changed, that, on the contrary, wishing to hold onto his freedom cf. It is evident that he is troubled by young people’s viewing his serious work as amusement and practicing it as sport.
R. Dancy, Dominic Scott, Plato’s Meno – PhilPapers
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? Dancy – – Philosophy in Review 27 4: Thus “the dialogue operates at two levels” This glum assessment feeds into the notion that the challenges issued by Meno to various Socratic assumptions are made “in spite of himself”, It is only when Meno is made to venture an answer which is then subjected to intense scrutiny–that is, when he is made to look like a fool–that he becomes belligerent and offensive.
Scott so inflates what is involved in “following a proof” that it becomes comparable for him to how people discover “new geometrical proofs that no one had ever taught them” Scott also strikes a balance between two other extremes: Scott is surely right to describe the question of virtue’s acquisition as one of “urgency” for Platobut it is unclear why one should not regard it as similarly urgent for Meno.
Socrates is portrayed as making a concession to Meno that he would rather not make.
Dominic Scott: Plato’s Meno.
The charge seems particularly harsh given that elsewhere Scott condemns Meno for being “peremptory” One should at least entertain the possibility that Socrates’ playing of the character card at this point is meant to say more about him than about Meno.
Scott refuses to recognize even the slightest irony or hyperbole in Socrates’ response to Meno’s challenges, and rules out in advance the possibility that the dialogue might contain “self-consciously bad argument” 4. 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. 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.
Plato’s Meno // Reviews // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame
Scott has written very much in this spirit, and I would like to focus here on two related aspects of the way he sees continuity within the dialogue. The Meno then turns out to be yet another instance in which we are shown that Socrates, no matter how hard he tries to improve his interlocutor, fails time and again.
Sign in to use this feature. Thus in none of the four examples of challenges to Socratic assumptions that he identifies does Scott seem to me to make a domibic case for regarding Meno as displaying significant moral or intellectual deficiencies as an interlocutor.
One of the clearest examples of Scott’s charitable reading of the Meno is his interpretation of recollection. Virtue, Practice, and Perplexity in Plato’s Meno.
With the exception of the paradox, Meno is not in mmeno business of issuing serious philosophical challenges, though he would need to be for the nicely dramatic idea that Socrates is standing trial to carry real weight. Most notably, he dares playo specify the views of the historical Socrates and vigorously defends the contention that the Meno predates the Gorgias. Scott contends that once Socrates takes up the question of virtue’s teachability, Meno shows signs of having improved: By “Socratic” here Scott is clear that he means what pertains to that elusive figure, the historical Socrates.
Mill’s assessment of the Meno as a philosophical “gem. More in line with the text is to read Socrates’ remark less as a rebuke than a caution to Dpminic and the reader alike not to be tempted down the point-scoring path. But, indeed, this is something we should expect since Socrates says at 98a5: We require a Meno with enough about him to suggest material that sophisticates can engage with, but not enough to suggest that he belongs with them. Not a very exciting conclusion, perhaps, but truer, I think, than the version Scott has on offer.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University’s proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy.
It is no straightforward exercise to extract the views of the historical Socrates from the Platonic dramatizations and fictionalizations of Socratic conversations. Indeed one wonders why Meno would ask the question sscott the first place in his “peremptory” fashion if not because he regards it as of pressing practical importance.
Bryn Mawr Classical Review None of this is tantamount to denying that the dialogue places certain Socratic assumptions, including those that Scott highlights, under critical scrutiny. 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.
Scott is surely incorrect to understand “would be able to do the same” as “would be able scottt become as expert as anyone” . Science Logic and Mathematics. Scott’s clear analysis and considered judgments illuminate mfno dark corners of the dialogue.
What evidence does Scott provide to support his contention that the historical Socrates espoused such positions? William Wians – – Plato: It is likely that Plato already knew when he wrote the Meno that Meno had become a villainous and unrestrained man. Yet Meno is in live dialogue — is it really lpato of him not to dive in straightaway?