Deciphering the Process of Learning in Response to Meno's Paradox
In Plato's Meno, Meno questions how a person can learn. Socrates responds by presenting his recollection theory, which states that we have all the knowledge of the world within us, but that this knowledge has been recollected and brought to the surface. In this paper I will: (1) show that knowledge is acquired through experience, (2) show that experiential knowledge dodges Meno's paradox, as one is never at a zero state of knowledge, (3) agree with Socrates that we are never at a state of zero knowledge, but deny that this knowledge is in our soul at all times, and (4) show that Socrates is guiding the slave boy in a geometrical experience, which ultimately ends with the slave boy acquiring knowledge.
All knowledge is acquired through experience, i.e. through the use of at least one of our five senses; thus, if a person does not have any senses, then he or she does not have, nor can acquire knowledge. Although I find it quite impossible to argue for an experiential theory of knowledge in a few paragraphs, I will at least present the basic argument that is most relevant to Meno's paradox. To begin, All physical objects can be directly sensed. For instance, a rock is a physical object that can be seen, touched, tasted, and smelt, and if the rock hits another object, can be heard. Abstract ideas are grounded in the physical; thus, one must have some knowledge of the physical world to have knowledge of the abstract. For instance, numbers are abstract ideas. One cannot conceive of a number if he or she does not see the relation of the number to the physical world. I can conceive of the number two if I can understand that an object and an object is the physical equivalent of the number two. Thus, abstract ideas are grounded in the physical.
One may then ask how a person can conceive of infinity if one is not present to experience infinity (i.e. he or she dies, or loses all sensory capacity). I will argue that the concept of infinity is a result of a combination of experiences. For example, I have experienced the sun rising and setting for my entire life. I know of others who are much older than I who have articulated similar experiences. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the sun will rise and set forever, i.e. infinity. Thus, the concept of infinity is derived from the individual's personal experience, as well as from a collection of other individual experiences.
A singular experience is no good in and of itself; rather, several singular experiences must be compared if any future inferences are to occur. Let us say I reach into a bag, in a dark room, without any prior knowledge of what is inside the bag. I feel something, but I am not sure what it is. The object that I feel is round, I assume it is something like a ball, but the ball is not solid it feels squishy and grainy, and the outside of the ball like thing has a cloth texture. Now the adjectives I have used to explain this unknown object are taken from experiences in the past. I use my past experiences to gain knowledge of unknown objects. When I pull the object out of the bag and turn the lights on I confirm, through a combination of visual observation and touch, that the object I am holding is a hacky sac. Thus, knowledge is acquired through a combination of sensory experiences.
If knowledge is acquired through sensory experience then it could be said that one is never without some sort of knowledge; thus, my argument dodges Meno's paradox. Roochnik says of Meno's paradox, “ . . . if someone does not know what X is, she cannot learn what it is. The movement from ignorance, which can be conceived as a zero state of knowledge, to positive knowledge is impossible” (Roochnik 120). So, Roochnik understands that part of Meno's paradox requires one to go from a state of zero knowledge to an absolute state of knowledge. I will argue that one is never at a state of zero knowledge as one, who has at least one sensory capacity, has some form of experiential knowledge that one can use to conceive of a previously unperceived thing. For example, let's say I, who has all five senses, has no concept of calculus. But upon observation of a calculus problem I realize that it involves numbers, and is somewhat similar to algebra. By using past experiences with numbers and algebra I can somewhat conceive of what calculus is. I then take a course in calculus where I am shown the inner workings. I realize that calculus takes my previous knowledge of numbers, multiplication, division, and algebra and combines these ideas into a unique method for solving the problems of physics. The method is what is new and different to me, and not the founding principles. In order to learn calculus, I have to have a concept of algebra. In order to learn algebra, I have to have a concept of multiplication and division. In order to have a concept of multiplication and division, I have to have a concept of adding and subtracting. In order to have a concept of adding and subtracting, I have to have a concept of numbers. In order to have a concept of numbers, I have to have a concept of objects. And, in order to have a concept of objects, I have to have senses. Learning is not about going from zero to one, it's about going from one to 100. We can only learn as much as we can experience. Thus, an experiential account of knowledge works around Meno's paradox.
Socrates also believes that humans are never at a zero state of knowledge, but his argument posses a few fundamental problems. Socrates believes that knowledge is hidden within our souls and must be brought to the fore front of our consciousness if we are to utilize it in our present existence (81c). What is even more interesting is that Socrates also requires the soul, which is the carrier of knowledge, to have experienced the world before it has learned anything. He says, “As the soul is immortal, has been born often and has seen all things here and in the underworld, there is nothing which it has not learned . . .” (81c). Thus, the soul must have first experienced the world/underworld before it has learned anything. However, Socrates' argument causes some difficulty. For instance, if a soul must acquire knowledge through experience, then a person with a new soul, which is in the process of acquiring experience, would not have knowledge of the world or the underworld. Thus, Socrates' argument is faulty in that it requires knowledge to be innate within the soul, but also requires the soul to have acquired knowledge through experience.
Now that I have shown that knowledge is acquired through the comparison of two or more experiences, I will show that Socrates, in Plato's anamnesis experiment, is creating a mathematical experience for the slave boy, which allows the slave boy to answer the problem.
By using only yes or no questions, Socrates is able to guide the slave boy towards the correct answer. To begin, Socrates asks, “A square then is a figure in which all these four sides are equal” (82c). The slave boy, who is uneducated, most likely has a concept of a square, as he has probably come into contact with similar objects before. However, the slave boy may not have, up until this discussion with Socrates, realized that a square had four equal sides. So, when Socrates asks if this is true, the slave boy, by understanding what a square is and what is meant by equal sides, puts the two concepts together and can then conceive of a square having four equal sides. If Socrates had simply asked the slave boy to define a square, then the slave boy may not have been able to identify a square as an object with four equal sides. Thus, by using yes or no questions, Socrates is able to guide the slave boy towards the correct answer.
Socrates' question format, which he uses throughout the anamnesis, explains why Socrates has to restart his argument when the slave boy answers one of the few questions, which do not require a yes or no answer, wrong. As I have mentioned before, Socrates uses questions to suggest a possible answer, which the slave boy is then able to confirm through a comparison with his past experiences. However, the boy eventually fails to answer the question correctly (82d). This is either due to the boy's lack of experience or to Socrates' inability to word the question correctly. At this point Socrates back tracks and words the question differently and incorporates a drawing which explicates what Socrates is trying to show the slave boy (82c). When Socrates rewords the question and utilizes his drawings, the slave boy is able to answer the question correctly. Thus, Socrates has set up an experience which guides the slave boy towards the correct answer. After all, the slave boy would not be able to solve the geometry problem if he did not have this discussion with Socrates.
I have shown that learning is not about going from 0 to 1, but from a few pieces of knowledge to a plethora of knowledge through the comparison of our experiences. By showing this, I have shown a way around Meno's paradox and the problems with Socrates' recollection theory. I have also attempted to show that Socrates created an experience in his anamnesis experiment, which allowed the boy to acquire new concepts.
All knowledge is acquired through experience, i.e. through the use of at least one of our five senses; thus, if a person does not have any senses, then he or she does not have, nor can acquire knowledge. Although I find it quite impossible to argue for an experiential theory of knowledge in a few paragraphs, I will at least present the basic argument that is most relevant to Meno's paradox. To begin, All physical objects can be directly sensed. For instance, a rock is a physical object that can be seen, touched, tasted, and smelt, and if the rock hits another object, can be heard. Abstract ideas are grounded in the physical; thus, one must have some knowledge of the physical world to have knowledge of the abstract. For instance, numbers are abstract ideas. One cannot conceive of a number if he or she does not see the relation of the number to the physical world. I can conceive of the number two if I can understand that an object and an object is the physical equivalent of the number two. Thus, abstract ideas are grounded in the physical.
One may then ask how a person can conceive of infinity if one is not present to experience infinity (i.e. he or she dies, or loses all sensory capacity). I will argue that the concept of infinity is a result of a combination of experiences. For example, I have experienced the sun rising and setting for my entire life. I know of others who are much older than I who have articulated similar experiences. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the sun will rise and set forever, i.e. infinity. Thus, the concept of infinity is derived from the individual's personal experience, as well as from a collection of other individual experiences.
A singular experience is no good in and of itself; rather, several singular experiences must be compared if any future inferences are to occur. Let us say I reach into a bag, in a dark room, without any prior knowledge of what is inside the bag. I feel something, but I am not sure what it is. The object that I feel is round, I assume it is something like a ball, but the ball is not solid it feels squishy and grainy, and the outside of the ball like thing has a cloth texture. Now the adjectives I have used to explain this unknown object are taken from experiences in the past. I use my past experiences to gain knowledge of unknown objects. When I pull the object out of the bag and turn the lights on I confirm, through a combination of visual observation and touch, that the object I am holding is a hacky sac. Thus, knowledge is acquired through a combination of sensory experiences.
If knowledge is acquired through sensory experience then it could be said that one is never without some sort of knowledge; thus, my argument dodges Meno's paradox. Roochnik says of Meno's paradox, “ . . . if someone does not know what X is, she cannot learn what it is. The movement from ignorance, which can be conceived as a zero state of knowledge, to positive knowledge is impossible” (Roochnik 120). So, Roochnik understands that part of Meno's paradox requires one to go from a state of zero knowledge to an absolute state of knowledge. I will argue that one is never at a state of zero knowledge as one, who has at least one sensory capacity, has some form of experiential knowledge that one can use to conceive of a previously unperceived thing. For example, let's say I, who has all five senses, has no concept of calculus. But upon observation of a calculus problem I realize that it involves numbers, and is somewhat similar to algebra. By using past experiences with numbers and algebra I can somewhat conceive of what calculus is. I then take a course in calculus where I am shown the inner workings. I realize that calculus takes my previous knowledge of numbers, multiplication, division, and algebra and combines these ideas into a unique method for solving the problems of physics. The method is what is new and different to me, and not the founding principles. In order to learn calculus, I have to have a concept of algebra. In order to learn algebra, I have to have a concept of multiplication and division. In order to have a concept of multiplication and division, I have to have a concept of adding and subtracting. In order to have a concept of adding and subtracting, I have to have a concept of numbers. In order to have a concept of numbers, I have to have a concept of objects. And, in order to have a concept of objects, I have to have senses. Learning is not about going from zero to one, it's about going from one to 100. We can only learn as much as we can experience. Thus, an experiential account of knowledge works around Meno's paradox.
Socrates also believes that humans are never at a zero state of knowledge, but his argument posses a few fundamental problems. Socrates believes that knowledge is hidden within our souls and must be brought to the fore front of our consciousness if we are to utilize it in our present existence (81c). What is even more interesting is that Socrates also requires the soul, which is the carrier of knowledge, to have experienced the world before it has learned anything. He says, “As the soul is immortal, has been born often and has seen all things here and in the underworld, there is nothing which it has not learned . . .” (81c). Thus, the soul must have first experienced the world/underworld before it has learned anything. However, Socrates' argument causes some difficulty. For instance, if a soul must acquire knowledge through experience, then a person with a new soul, which is in the process of acquiring experience, would not have knowledge of the world or the underworld. Thus, Socrates' argument is faulty in that it requires knowledge to be innate within the soul, but also requires the soul to have acquired knowledge through experience.
Now that I have shown that knowledge is acquired through the comparison of two or more experiences, I will show that Socrates, in Plato's anamnesis experiment, is creating a mathematical experience for the slave boy, which allows the slave boy to answer the problem.
By using only yes or no questions, Socrates is able to guide the slave boy towards the correct answer. To begin, Socrates asks, “A square then is a figure in which all these four sides are equal” (82c). The slave boy, who is uneducated, most likely has a concept of a square, as he has probably come into contact with similar objects before. However, the slave boy may not have, up until this discussion with Socrates, realized that a square had four equal sides. So, when Socrates asks if this is true, the slave boy, by understanding what a square is and what is meant by equal sides, puts the two concepts together and can then conceive of a square having four equal sides. If Socrates had simply asked the slave boy to define a square, then the slave boy may not have been able to identify a square as an object with four equal sides. Thus, by using yes or no questions, Socrates is able to guide the slave boy towards the correct answer.
Socrates' question format, which he uses throughout the anamnesis, explains why Socrates has to restart his argument when the slave boy answers one of the few questions, which do not require a yes or no answer, wrong. As I have mentioned before, Socrates uses questions to suggest a possible answer, which the slave boy is then able to confirm through a comparison with his past experiences. However, the boy eventually fails to answer the question correctly (82d). This is either due to the boy's lack of experience or to Socrates' inability to word the question correctly. At this point Socrates back tracks and words the question differently and incorporates a drawing which explicates what Socrates is trying to show the slave boy (82c). When Socrates rewords the question and utilizes his drawings, the slave boy is able to answer the question correctly. Thus, Socrates has set up an experience which guides the slave boy towards the correct answer. After all, the slave boy would not be able to solve the geometry problem if he did not have this discussion with Socrates.
I have shown that learning is not about going from 0 to 1, but from a few pieces of knowledge to a plethora of knowledge through the comparison of our experiences. By showing this, I have shown a way around Meno's paradox and the problems with Socrates' recollection theory. I have also attempted to show that Socrates created an experience in his anamnesis experiment, which allowed the boy to acquire new concepts.
posted by Karen Jarboe at
9:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home