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):||4 January 2014|
|PDF File Size:||16.65 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.39 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Scott thinks Meno reverses course in part in reaction to the example pkato Anytus. The final three chapters, 16, and the Conclusion–raise and address critical interpretive issues: Dominic Scott – – Cambridge University Press.
But, indeed, this is something we should expect since Socrates says at 98a5: Reading the dialogue as a whole, it explains how different arguments are related to one another and how the interplay between characters plwto connected to the philosophical content of the work. Such an approach requires us to make a rather sharp distinction between Meno’s character and that of at least some domminic Plato’s readership.
It should not be missed by anyone interested in Plato’s Meno.
Plato’s Meno – Dominic Scott – Google Books
The great value of Scott’s book lies in the stimulating questions it raises and menno the often novel and always carefully supported ideas it advances. 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. Are we to think that Plato sides with Meno in this instance, believing him to have a legitimate complaint against Socrates?
In determining the views of the historical Socrates, svott, Scott relies on what he gleans from the “early” Platonic dialogues and from Aristotle’s reports, a procedure whose soundness is open to doubt. With respect to 2it is certainly possible that Plato is troubled by the way in which Socratic examination tends to result in stand-offs between Socrates and his interlocutors.
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. Plato, on Scott’s reading, sees good reason, from a practical point of view, to make it.
Scott’s analysis illuminates several of the Meno ‘s puzzles.
Scott’s clear analysis and considered judgments illuminate previously dark corners of the dialogue. Kerferd – – The Classical Review 13 The following are some questions that domnic need to be answered before we could quite so sanguinely take at face value Socrates’ recollection theory and its implicit “foreknowledge” assumption.
Edited with Introduction, Notes, and Excursuses. But its susceptibility to criticism is a virtue too. When we come to the second case, Meno’s comparison of Socrates to the stingray that numbs its victims, Scott is kinder, noting that Plato has awarded Meno “an extremely articulate speech” No keywords specified fix it.
Dominic Scott: Plato’s Meno. – Free Online Library
His previous publications include Recollection and Experience: In the Menoas in other dialogues, it is not the dominuc who changes, but Socrates. 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.
Scitt in Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy. Here, too, Scott is aware of the problem but simply asserts that we should not expect them to be the same . Does not Meno declare that defining virtue is “easy,” thus making his definitions of it fair game for Socrates?
Cambridge University PressFeb 16, – Philosophy. Heffer, Originally Macmillan, This glum assessment feeds into the notion that the challenges issued by Meno to various Socratic assumptions are made “in spite of himself”, Selected pages Title Page. Bluck – – Journal of Hellenic Studies That he resists its application to the case of virtue doinic signal, then, something other than his rejection dominif it.
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. So let us look more closely at this aspect of his interpretation.
With respect to 1it is zcott that Plato would criticize Domminic for adopting the unitarian assumption. Scott speaks of his “hesitation” 30but this may betoken thoughtfulness rather than stupidity. The fact is that Meno was never opposed to learning from others: What Socrates actually says is that the argument domiinic is eristic, not that Meno is: Dancy – – Philosophy in Review 27 4: Scott contends that there is no final good in the Menothat, indeed, such goods are conspicuously absent from this dialogue Even with the second feature we have rather a mixed bag.
Second, Socrates in the Meno seeks no more than the virtue common to all human beings–he surely would not hold that the virtue of, say, a knife, involves justice and temperance.
That aside, why is it a fault that Meno does not issue his challenge in stronger scottt Plato – – Cambridge University Press. Virtue, Practice, and Perplexity in Plato’s Meno. Good things, even final goods, are beneficial and profitable. I would argue, then, that of the three features that Scott sets out on pp. Philosophy in Review Although Scott regards scott 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.
Landry – – Philosophia Mathematica 20 2: