The interpretation of moral excellence varies according to the personality and beliefs of an individual. It can be described as the knowledge and act of doing the right things and avoiding the bad ones. People might have different reasons for justifying something bad they have done, and claim that what is essential, is the purpose of the actions, and its impact.
In this paper, the focus is on Socrates’ interpretation of matters involving moral excellence. There are contradictions on how the two philosophers, Socrates and Plato, handle the issue. An excellent example is Plato’s dialogue, Meno. It is one of his earliest, which vividly shows the varying views between the philosophers. Virtue is the key subject in their dialogue, where Meno questions Socrates on whether it can be taught, and the two give contradicting opinions. At first, they both agree that virtue is unique and most people, even themselves, cannot give a clear definition. Socrates argues that moral excellence is different from knowledge and that it cannot be taught. He even termed it as a gift from God. In the dialogue, Socrates asks Meno to define virtue, and the answers given are not satisfying, and in the end concluded that it is not possible to impart knowledge to others on something that one is not familiar with, thus unteachable (Jowett 886). In justifying his claims, Meno uses a young boy, and the fact that he is unable to solve the complex mathematics problem, makes Socrates conclude that the child used the knowledge in the previous life. In concluding this dialogue, the two philosophers agree that the only way virtue can be taught first by understanding its meaning, and then educating others. Meno asks for further clarification, and Socrates describes that the only thing that can be taught is knowledge, and because moral excellence is not one, then it is hard to educate other people. There is a little clarification on the matter, wherein the dialogue, Socrates indicates that he is certain that people can learn virtue, but it cannot be taught, and there are many people with the qualities but are unable to pass it to others. Throughout the dialogue, all the definitions of Plato’s Meno are dismantled by Socrates and a counter explanation given.
Therefore, I agree with Socrates on the argument that virtue cannot be taught because it is not knowledge. In learning institutions, teachers educate the learners on the ideas, Socrates they are familiar with, thus making the learners understand the concept. A trait cannot be taught but can be learned. People might desire something that is within their reach and works hard towards achieving the target. It is interpreted as learning, which is possible when it comes to the moral excellence.
On the other hand, teaching virtue is a task that is not achievable. The fact that most people know morality but cannot explain or describe it proves that it is hard to the others. Socrates argues that the key is how one applies knowledge, and not the concept is known. There are people in the present world with vast experience and skills but are not able to use it and solve problems that come on their way. We can relate the issue to an employee, specialized in a particular field, and has an excellent qualification in the production process. If that person is unable to use his or her skills to solve problems that might arise during the work, he or she is not virtuous.
Moreover, people might have information about something, but cannot be able to act towards the achievement of a particular goal or task. Another situation is when dealing with trainees. Staffs might undergo the program to improve their skills, but the application of the concept is essential than the knowledge. Therefore, Socrates was right indicating that virtue is a gift from God, and cannot be taught, but willing people can learn.
Some people might agree with Plato’s Meno, that virtue can be acquired, which is somehow true, because the determination is critical in learning traits. On the other hand, the argument is lame, indicating that oral excellence can be taught. It is essential to consider the fact that the philosopher, together with Socrates, was unable to give the actual and justifying meaning and description of the word virtue. When relating the issue to the learning institutions, parents take their children to acquire knowledge, the majority of which is provided by the teachers. It is impossible for a tutor to educate learners on matters which he or she is unfamiliar with, thus supporting Socrates’ ideal (Diogenes and Robin 164). It is clear that without sufficient information about virtue, one cannot be able to teach other people, therefore, differentiating it from knowledge. At some extent, familiarity and virtue are related, where to acquire them, one must be willing to sacrifice his or her time and work hard towards the achievement. But when it comes to teaching others, the two differ where knowledge can be passed, but virtue cannot, and it is regarded as a Gift from God, as indicated by Socrates in the Meno’s dialogue. In his entire teaching career, Socrates focused on the method to find answers rather than giving the students the solutions to their questions. He taught them ways to analyze and come up with a convincing answer to their problems.
Some people might agree with the third definition of virtue in the Meno’s dialogue, but it is essential to analyze the matter before making judgments. Those who are for the description says that people desire things and when they work hard and achieve them, it can be regarded as a virtue. I contradict the opinion and support Socrates’ statement that people desire something they don’t know its impact on their lives, thus hard to term it good or bad. Besides, the philosopher argues says that there is not a person in the right state of mind who can dream of having things that can harm him or her. Therefore, the ideal and the definition of virtue by Plato’s Meno is not satisfying, which implies that it cannot be taught.
Symposium s another dialogue by Plato that talks about knowledge. The philosopher corrects Agathon’s statement by indicating that there is a need to focus on love itself other than viewing it as an object. He termed love as a longing for knowledge or beauty. The conversation relates to love and desires with the real-life situations. In the end, Agathon and Socrates agree that love is not beautiful nor good. In this dialogue, Socrates exchanges ideas with Diotima and asks her if love is ugly and evil (Brunschwig, Jacques and Pierre 49). As a wise philosopher, she answers that everything cannot be said to be the opposite because it does not meet the qualifications of a certain level or name. She convinces Socrates that beasty is a spirit and a person seeking it in its definitive form is likely to live a good life and will produce true virtues, later than fake ones (images.)
I agree with this decision because the majority of people claim to be virtuous, but it is not revealed in their actions. As the general definition states, it is the act of knowing what is good and bad, and choosing the former and refraining from the latter. Today society is full of people who can fake their identity, and pretend to be kind, but deep inside they are violent. Virtues cannot be put on the same level as knowledge. Love involves a relationship between two or more parties. Love for something can be related to the desire for knowledge. When one needs something or someone, he or she is willing to go an extra mile, even pretend to make sure the wish is fulfilled. Socrates agrees with Diotima in the Symposium dialogue, where Plato indicates that they came into a conclusion that the person who seeks beauty in ultimate for is likely to discover the happiness in life. Initially, the philosopher had some doubts and thought that if something is not good, then it is bad. In this section, I agree with Socrates because one cannot have both traits or hang in the middle.
Diotima explains that beauty is neither bad nor ugly, and adds that every individual who seeks it in ultimate form will be glad of the outcomes. I can say that Socrates was correct in his initial justification of virtues (love), that it is either good or bad. It helps differentiate people who are virtuous from those who are not, and prevent fake images (traits). The reality can only be seen when the person is evaluated and his or her actions monitored. Some people can argue that there are not good or bad virtues. They should know that human beings are good in pretending, and there is a need to evaluate and discover the reality before getting into a relationship with the individuals. Socrates was right indicating that one cannot be in the middle of good or bad, and must possess either of the two traits. The individual’s actions are the ones that help determine if he or she is of moral excellence. Moreover, virtues are different from knowledge and cannot be taught. I agree with Socrates’ idea that kids are born with attributes, and that when they attain a certain age, it is evident in their behavior. It is hard to train children nor grownups virtues because it is not like knowledge, which one learns and grasps the concept.
In conclusion, moral Excellency cannot be taught, as indicated in the two Plato’s dialogues above. As Socrates stated, it can be learned through dedication and willingness, but the majority of people do not know its meaning, thus hard it is hard to understand. Children are born and raised in different environments, a period which they acquire moral excellence and become important people in the community. It is crucial to ensure that a child grows in a friendly atmosphere, with people who can inspire the kid to be morally upright during the development period. People vary in how they inter[ret things, just like the philosophers discussed above, but it is crucial to understand the meaning of something before claiming that you have sufficient knowledge to pass to others.
Work Cited
Brunschwig, Jacques, G E. R. Lloyd, and Pierre Pellegrin. Greek Thought: A Guide to Classical Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000. Print.
Diogenes, , and Robin Hard. Sayings and Anecdotes: With Other Popular Moralists. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
THE DIALOGUES OF PLATO TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH ANALYSES AND INTRODUCTIONS BY B. JOWETT, M.A. Master of Balliol College Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford Doctor in Theology of the University of Leyden .
