What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Studies in the Dialogues of Plato
Plato's Meno
Given its brevity, Plato's Meno covers an astonishingly wide array of topics: politics, education, virtue, definition, philosophical method, mathematics, the nature and acquisition of knowledge and immortality. Its treatment of these, though profound, is tantalisingly short, leaving the reader with many unresolved questions. This book confronts the dialogue's many enigmas and attempts to solve them in a way that is both lucid and sympathetic to Plato's philosophy. Reading the dialogue as a whole, it explains how different arguments are related to one another and how the interplay between characters is connected to the philosophical content of the work. In a new departure, this book's exploration focuses primarily on the content and coherence of the dialogue in its own right and not merely in the context of other dialogues, making it required reading for all students of Plato, be they from the world of classics or philosophy.
- GenresPhilosophyClassics
252 pages, Paperback
First published February 28, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 2, 2021
First for a humorous review:
Meno: Socrates, can virtue can be taught? Socrates: dunno, I can't even say what virtue is, nor have I ever met someone who knew what it was. Meno: like, omg, you're so dumb, I know what virtue is. Socrates: oh ok wise one, go ahead and drop some knowledge, I'm so glad that you're about to enlighten me. Meno: virtue is different for men and women and children. Socrates: that's not the same as giving a definition of what virtue itself is. If I asked you what the concept of "shape" is, you wouldn't tell me that it is different for squares and circles...you would tell me what squares and circles have in common, dumbass. Meno: oh ok, hold up...virtue is knowing what is beautiful and being able to acquire it. Socrates: ok first of all, by beautiful you just mean good right? (ok yeah fine). And second, so if someone acquires wealth at any cost that's virtuous? Meno: no, no...they have to acquire it in a virtuous way... Socrates: so you see your reasoning is circular right? Meno: dammit Socrates, you've got me all confused now. You're like this electric fish that benumbs things that get near it. Socrates: anyways let me go through a long process of teaching a random slave of yours some basic geometry, but check it out, I'm going to teach without teaching, by just asking questions. At first the slave thinks he knows something and then realizes he's totally wrong. Look Meno, the slave clearly is better off now than before right? So I'm not like a fish that benumbs people with electricity. Meno: damnit ok fine.
Now for a more serious review.
Socrates is brilliantly witty as usual. This dialogue starts with Meno asking Socrates whether virtue can be taught, and Socrates countering that he doesn't know what virtue is. Socrates invites Meno to tell him what virtue is, and as is the norm with Socrates' foils, Meno falls completely into the trap of arrogance, thinking he can describe it to Socrates. He quickly ends up in circular reasoning and says that Socrates makes him feel confused, benumbed, as if stung by an electric fish.
This dialogue also contains an explanation, in the middle, of why learning is actually recollection, which is very useful as it is referenced in other dialogues as well. To illustrate the point, Socrates has Meno take a random person from the crowd (one of Meno's slaves I think) and Socrates proceeds to go through some basic geometry with him--but only by asking leading questions, never by teaching. He shows that the slave at first thinks he knows something, and then is confused (by Socrates showing his is wrong), and then thinks he knows again, and then is confused again. By asking questions, Socrates teaches him some basic principles of geometry and says that he must have known these things all along since the slave is coming up with these opinions on his own, which must have existed prior. I thought this was interesting, and I would have countered that the slave was coming up with his opinions on the spot.
Next it goes into what I think is the main point of Meno: can virtue be taught? Socrates shows how many men are virtuous and yet their sons are not, and surely this shows that these men didn't know how to teach it, for if they did know, they would have gladly taught it to their sons, the same way that they taught their sons horsemanship and cobbling and other things. So it's shown that virtue isn't mere knowledge and in the end virtue is compared to how a prophet knows something (has a correct opinion) but does not know how he knows it (true knowledge). So those who are virtuous have a correct opinion without the knowledge of why it is correct (without the proof).
This was intriguing as always and I greatly enjoyed it. I wish I could be there and try out on Socrates my own definition of virtue and see how he would tear it apart. I would posit a definition that virtue is taking actions of loves towards others, and love is treating others better than one's self. I think I might argue that moderation is not one of the virtues, but I would probably keep the other set of virtues that the Greeks mentioned. It would be an interesting debate. Maybe I would have been obliterated. But it would have been enlightening, I'm sure. Socrates was a brilliant man.
Meno: Socrates, can virtue can be taught? Socrates: dunno, I can't even say what virtue is, nor have I ever met someone who knew what it was. Meno: like, omg, you're so dumb, I know what virtue is. Socrates: oh ok wise one, go ahead and drop some knowledge, I'm so glad that you're about to enlighten me. Meno: virtue is different for men and women and children. Socrates: that's not the same as giving a definition of what virtue itself is. If I asked you what the concept of "shape" is, you wouldn't tell me that it is different for squares and circles...you would tell me what squares and circles have in common, dumbass. Meno: oh ok, hold up...virtue is knowing what is beautiful and being able to acquire it. Socrates: ok first of all, by beautiful you just mean good right? (ok yeah fine). And second, so if someone acquires wealth at any cost that's virtuous? Meno: no, no...they have to acquire it in a virtuous way... Socrates: so you see your reasoning is circular right? Meno: dammit Socrates, you've got me all confused now. You're like this electric fish that benumbs things that get near it. Socrates: anyways let me go through a long process of teaching a random slave of yours some basic geometry, but check it out, I'm going to teach without teaching, by just asking questions. At first the slave thinks he knows something and then realizes he's totally wrong. Look Meno, the slave clearly is better off now than before right? So I'm not like a fish that benumbs people with electricity. Meno: damnit ok fine.
Now for a more serious review.
Socrates is brilliantly witty as usual. This dialogue starts with Meno asking Socrates whether virtue can be taught, and Socrates countering that he doesn't know what virtue is. Socrates invites Meno to tell him what virtue is, and as is the norm with Socrates' foils, Meno falls completely into the trap of arrogance, thinking he can describe it to Socrates. He quickly ends up in circular reasoning and says that Socrates makes him feel confused, benumbed, as if stung by an electric fish.
This dialogue also contains an explanation, in the middle, of why learning is actually recollection, which is very useful as it is referenced in other dialogues as well. To illustrate the point, Socrates has Meno take a random person from the crowd (one of Meno's slaves I think) and Socrates proceeds to go through some basic geometry with him--but only by asking leading questions, never by teaching. He shows that the slave at first thinks he knows something, and then is confused (by Socrates showing his is wrong), and then thinks he knows again, and then is confused again. By asking questions, Socrates teaches him some basic principles of geometry and says that he must have known these things all along since the slave is coming up with these opinions on his own, which must have existed prior. I thought this was interesting, and I would have countered that the slave was coming up with his opinions on the spot.
Next it goes into what I think is the main point of Meno: can virtue be taught? Socrates shows how many men are virtuous and yet their sons are not, and surely this shows that these men didn't know how to teach it, for if they did know, they would have gladly taught it to their sons, the same way that they taught their sons horsemanship and cobbling and other things. So it's shown that virtue isn't mere knowledge and in the end virtue is compared to how a prophet knows something (has a correct opinion) but does not know how he knows it (true knowledge). So those who are virtuous have a correct opinion without the knowledge of why it is correct (without the proof).
This was intriguing as always and I greatly enjoyed it. I wish I could be there and try out on Socrates my own definition of virtue and see how he would tear it apart. I would posit a definition that virtue is taking actions of loves towards others, and love is treating others better than one's self. I think I might argue that moderation is not one of the virtues, but I would probably keep the other set of virtues that the Greeks mentioned. It would be an interesting debate. Maybe I would have been obliterated. But it would have been enlightening, I'm sure. Socrates was a brilliant man.
April 27, 2025
Prof Scott presents us a nice introduction and explanation of Plato's Meno, often seen as a transitional dialogue between Plato's 'early' and 'middle' dialogue. Its special place in Plato's corpus means it raises important issues that stride acorss the historical Socrates' thoughts and Plato's innovative exploration of his own. The main issues are: Socratic definition, theory of learning and recollection, true belief and knowledge, all of which have seminal influence on the later philosophies. Scott explains, analyses, interprets, and comments on the text chronologically. The division of this book into three parts parallels the scholarly division of the Meno into three parts, corresponding to the three issues I mentioned above respectively. It's a well-organised, accessible, and comprehensive introduction to the dialogue.
The biggest merit of this book--also the biggest problem--is Scott's difficult undertaking to explain all these profound issues to a reasonably diverse readership. On the one hand, we see a comprehensive, accessible exposition friendly to beginners, and on the other, it can get sometimes wordy.
Importantly, this book is primarily Scott's own considered interpretation, with other scholars' occasionally and briefly mentioned. His own interpretation is for most of the time brilliant, though I'd hope for more exploration of others' interpretations too. This means its own helpfulness stops at a certain level, though it is a good starting point for further readings.
Overall, I think Scott does a great job in bringing out the hidden gems of the Meno for complete beginners who would have failed to recognise them by reading the text itself and would have been baffled if going directly to reading other scholars' works. It is a good starting point.
The biggest merit of this book--also the biggest problem--is Scott's difficult undertaking to explain all these profound issues to a reasonably diverse readership. On the one hand, we see a comprehensive, accessible exposition friendly to beginners, and on the other, it can get sometimes wordy.
Importantly, this book is primarily Scott's own considered interpretation, with other scholars' occasionally and briefly mentioned. His own interpretation is for most of the time brilliant, though I'd hope for more exploration of others' interpretations too. This means its own helpfulness stops at a certain level, though it is a good starting point for further readings.
Overall, I think Scott does a great job in bringing out the hidden gems of the Meno for complete beginners who would have failed to recognise them by reading the text itself and would have been baffled if going directly to reading other scholars' works. It is a good starting point.
November 20, 2019
An excellent deconstruction of the concept of truth the Thessalians established and were spreading.
The universal element is how we take a series of assumptions and run with them without having properly grounded them and therefore our weak foundation can only ever generate weak constructions of our arguments, in this case of Truth itself.
There are some fun moments when Meno shows his hand about embarrassing Socrates. Showing that Meno and by extension the culture he's from is more interested in the appearance of being intelligent rather than obtaining "true knowledge."
I enjoyed this because of my disgust with the Aesthetic of Smart (as I call it).
Socrates lays out the trouble of defining concepts and shows how they seem to necessitate a kind of simple-sounding but nonetheless cryptic definition for a simple concept: Shape.
Socrates here shows how we need to have something more complete than a bunch of examples of something such as "goodness" and says when we do that we have a whole, broken into a multitude of pieces and suggests it should be whole, solid. I found this interesting when we consider Derrida's contributions. Is this related? I'm uncertain but inspired.
The universal element is how we take a series of assumptions and run with them without having properly grounded them and therefore our weak foundation can only ever generate weak constructions of our arguments, in this case of Truth itself.
There are some fun moments when Meno shows his hand about embarrassing Socrates. Showing that Meno and by extension the culture he's from is more interested in the appearance of being intelligent rather than obtaining "true knowledge."
I enjoyed this because of my disgust with the Aesthetic of Smart (as I call it).
Socrates lays out the trouble of defining concepts and shows how they seem to necessitate a kind of simple-sounding but nonetheless cryptic definition for a simple concept: Shape.
Socrates here shows how we need to have something more complete than a bunch of examples of something such as "goodness" and says when we do that we have a whole, broken into a multitude of pieces and suggests it should be whole, solid. I found this interesting when we consider Derrida's contributions. Is this related? I'm uncertain but inspired.
December 31, 2019
Scott goes in to heavy detail in this short (and relatively unread) work of Plato. It is also a very good resource to first understanding Plato's style of argumentation through Socrates in his dialogues (using the elenchus, the concept of recollection, what is knowledge compared to true belief etc.)
February 13, 2019
The question in arguments and or debates are fantastically, extraordinarily beautiful . I can't wait to give an extensive commentary on the conversations
December 18, 2021
Good translation of the Meno
December 29, 2022
A very dense read, but worth every minute
August 18, 2013
A nice unified analysis of the dialogue on it's own terms. A great source for all the non-Straussian scholarship of the last century. At times Scott delves into more literary topics than philosophical; what's missing is a clear sense of the connection between the two topics.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews