FREE ESSAY ON PLATO'S MENO AND THE ERISTIC PARADOX

PLATO'S MENO AND THE ERISTIC PARADOX

The Erisitic Paradox and The Slave Boy
Throughout history, philosophers have sought to understand the nature of true knowledge
and how to achieve it. Most believe that true knowledge is acquired empirically, and not
latent in our minds from birth. In Plato's Meno, Socrates argues in favour of the
pre-natal existence of knowledge, the opposite of this proposal: that knowledge is
essentially latent, and is brought to light through questioning. The erisitic paradox,
which stems from this view of knowledge, states that if you know what it is you are
inquiring about, you need not inquire, for you already know. If, however, you do not know
what it is you are inquiring about, you are unable to inquire, for you do not know what
it is into which you are inquiring. One consequence of this view is Plato's rejection of
empiricism, the claim that knowledge is derived from sense experience. However, when one
examines the scene in the Meno between Socrates and the slave boy in greater depth, one
can see the flaws in this paradox. Plato uses Socrates' experiment, in which he draws one
of Meno's slaves out from the gathered crowd and proceeds to demonstrate the theory of
recollection using geometry; however, this experiment's purpose tests the credulity of
the reader; and in some cases Socrates' questions are blatantly leading. Socrates merely
places obvious propositions in front of the boy that can be immediately recognised. Also,
contrary to what Plato asserts, knowledge can be obtained by other means, and not
exclusively through intellectual inquiry and questioning. It is far too difficult to
dismiss, as Plato does, any and all claims or assertions about the physical or visible
world, including both common-sense observations and the propositions of science, as mere
opinions. Furthermore, the interpretation of the experiment with the slave boy can be
expanded to suggest yet another position: that Plato is demonstrating the flawed nature
of sophistry by showing that what on the surface appears to be Socratic dialectic is
really Sophistic practice. In light of all of these factors, it becomes clear that the
eristic paradox is, in fact, flawed.
In the experiment, Socrates guides a slave through a series of geometric proofs in an
effort to illustrate that the slave already possessed this knowledge and, therefore, that
"learning" is not acquisition but recollection. Plato maintains that the slave is simply
recalling knowledge learned in a former incarnation. The main question that enters the
reader's mind regarding the experiment with the slave boy is the role of Socrates, and
how he facilitates the slave boy's production of the answer; that is, how he 'teaches'
him. Among the myriad of different possibilities by which Socrates achieved this
teaching, only four are plausible, and of these only two appear realistic enough to be
considered in the scope of this essay. The first possibility is that Socrates played no
role at all in helping the slave boy produce the answer. This possibility must be
rejected because there is no way the series of questions and answers, both correct and
incorrect, could not have been of importance in helping the boy find the correct answers.
The second possibility is that Socrates merely engaged in "mental midwifery," bringing to
light the knowledge which was latent in the boy's mind. This is what Plato would like us
to believe. However, this would also mean believing in the ante-natal existence of the
human psyche, meaning the boy had already learned this information in another life. This
would also mean that the erisitic paradox would have been a problem in the other life; if
learning is not possible for us now, it would not have been possible in a previous life.
The third possibility, however, is one that most tend to believe: that Socrates taught
the boy the answers, and that the boy believed him due to Socrates' authority. This
possibility appears plausible because the boy seems to be inclined to accept Socrates'
every word. Even though we can see that the boy does not agree simply because Socrates
presents him with a proposition, the logical and visual nature of geometry allows it to
be understood without prior knowledge of the subject. If, say, biology were used instead
of geometry, the slave boy would have had little chance in recognising the correct
answer. He also would not have been able to see why any incorrect answers were incorrect,
and therefore would have been forced to rely on authority. In the case of geometry,
though, this is not true: correct answers can be recognised by someone who had not
previously been exposed to them. This brings us to the fourth possibility explaining
Socrates' role: that Socrates placed obvious truths before the boy, which he could
recognise on sight. In this case, though, one must ask how the boy, who did not have any
prior familiarity with the matter, was able to recognise these geometric proofs. We must
believe that the slave boy, in a way, already possessed the answers somewhere in his
mind, otherwise the boy could not have confidently realised that the suggested answer is
right and the others wrong. Even though Socrates' questions are indeed blatantly leading,
we must believe that the boy says yes to the correct answers not merely to please
Socrates, but because he sees that it is the obvious answer. It is easier to believe this
when recognising the right answers requires only ordinary intelligence, as in this case.
Furthermore, what aids the boy in seeing the right answers and realising his incorrect
answers are incorrect are Socrates' diagrams. As such, though not geometrically accurate,
they accurately represent the ideas and concepts Socrates tries to put forth.
The process of Socratic refutation or elenchus is a method of teaching that, according to
Socrates, is supposed to clear away the arrogance of false knowledge and instil the urge
to learn as a consequence of recognising one's own ignorance. This method came about as
the result of Socrates' belief that knowledge cannot be obtained by empirical means: that
knowledge essentially comes only from logical deduction. According to Plato, "knowledge
will not come from teaching but from questioning." (85d) Though it is Plato that
discovers the existence of a priori knowledge: essentially, any knowledge that has not
been acquired by experience and is latent in one's mind. However, he makes the oversight
of applying this concept to all knowledge in general. This means the dismissal of any and
all propositions made concerning the physical or visible world, including both
common-sense observations and scientific data, as opinions only. Science, naturally, has
long since proven otherwise: the quality of life in our society rests on the application
of the empirical findings made by science. If the gathering of these empirical findings
cannot be called learning and the existence of these findings in our minds cannot be
classified as knowledge, then what can? Drafting, for example, is a skill that one must
learn in school from a teacher. In order to put these drafting skills to use, one needs
to use knowledge acquired from the teacher. Another example would be the physical
gathering of genetic material, a process as complex as its name suggests. The successful
execution of this process is achieved under controlled laboratory conditions by
technicians who need to under and follow certain steps in a certain order so as to
facilitate an accurate DNA fingerprint. The very concept of DNA, let alone the process of
genetic fingerprinting, is one that is the result of our accumulation of vast amounts of
empirical, scientific knowledge. Socrates may well have been able to teach a slave boy
basic geometric proofs using representative drawings in the sand, but the teaching of any
other subject stemming from the acquisition of empirical data would have required the
passing on of knowledge that could not possibly have been 'recalled' by the boy. The boy
would have had no way of recognising the answer even if Socrates had devised a method of
"mental midwifery" for such a subject. The fact is, no matter what method Socrates used,
there is no way that such a topic can be taught by means of the Socratic elenchus.
The traditional interpretation of the conversation between Socrates and the slave boy
(81e-86c) states that the conversation expounds Plato's belief that knowledge can be
'recollected'. The validity of this point is put into question by the suggestion of a
very different position: that Socrates' blatantly leading questions, while superficially
exemplifying a Socratic dialectic, actually display an example of sophistry. The kinds of
responses Socrates elicits are merely factual and come about from empirical demonstration
rather than from rational means. The slave boy is only marginally perceptive; not only is
he not trying to seek truth, he always responds affirmatively. These concerns overlap and
are better explained by recalling the text of the experiment with the slave boy. In the
scene (81e-86c), Socrates draws one of Meno's slaves out from the gathered crowd. He then
proceeds to demonstrate the Theory of Recollection (and ultimately the erisitic paradox)
by showing that all nature is interconnected such that if one learns one point, it is
possible to 'recover' all of the rest. Yet, if the dialectic is reread in light of
sophistic procedures and the narrowly focused content, the scene offers a new point: with
Socrates' part edited out, the dialectic demonstrates sophistry. If one reads all of the
slave boy's lines, one sees that the slave boy never disagrees. The answers Socrates
elicits are specific, data-oriented (eight, four, double, etc.) and are factual. He seeks
dimensions and measurements, and while the example is a theorem, Socrates reduces
theorizing to a practical answer-giving exercise based on empirical drawings in the sand.
As a result, Socrates demonstrates the limits of sophistry: because we now perceive the
dialectic as being questionable in intent, we must also look at Plato's belief that all
knowledge can be recollected in a questioning light. Recollection is the reminiscence of
prior and personal experience. When Socrates attempts to demonstrate the Theory of
Recollection, he says to Meno of the slave boy, Observe, Meno, the stage he has reached
on the path of recollection. At the beginning he did not know the side of the square of
eight feet. Nor indeed does he know it now, but then he thought he knew it and answered
boldly, as was appropriate - he felt no perplexity. Now however he does feel perplexed.
Not only does he not know the answer; he doesn't even think he knows. (84a-b). This
sentence touches on the eristic paradox, but it also contains an important irony
typically overlooked; this irony of the section is illustrative of sophistry. Socrates
has as his subject a slave boy. The confident answer to which Socrates refers is the same
kind of confidence a primary school student would have when he or she affirmatively
responds to leading questions about geometric proofs. Not only is there no personal
interest on the part of the boy, and hence no recollection, but there is such an emphasis
on empirical demonstration of technical characteristics that those whom Socrates is
persuading are too set in sophistic ways to see the problems inherent therein. It is
possible that the slave boy realizes that he doesn't know, which clears his mind of any
predisposition that would hinder true learning. His state is one in which he may now be
persuaded; as such, Socrates can now lead to questions which, when repeated, define the
search for knowledge. Indeed, the mark of sophistry, as demonstrated by the experiment,
is that the form is present in the material, not in the boy. A slave to Meno, the boy is
also a slave to the material. Thus, the boy actually illustrates the limitation of
sophistry: because sophists do not have cleared minds, they ask the kinds of questions
that presuppose specific answers.
Despite his ostensibly narrow views of what knowledge is and how it can be acquired,
Plato must be given considerable credit for disguising Socratic dialectic as Sophistic
practice, giving us yet another interpretation of the experiment with the slave boy.
However, Plato still makes the mistake of discrediting any experience or empirical data
as not having the form of what he defines as knowledge; he claims that 'true knowledge'
can be obtained only through questioning and merely thinking. The experiment, too, tests
the faith of the reader: in order to believe Socrates' assertions regarding the
experiment, one must believe in the reincarnate existence of knowledge in the human mind.
Socrates attempts to show that, if one masters one point, 'recalling' the remaining
points is then possible. Plato's rejection of empiricism is the result of the eristic
paradox, which in essence, says that we never actually learn anything - this, in turn,
accounts for Plato's belief in the ante-natal existence of knowledge. However, this
concept of knowledge - both the eristic paradox and the concept of pre-natal knowledge -
are disproved by simple examination of the application of acquired empirical knowledge in
our society. Thus, both the eristic paradox and the concept of pre-natal knowledge are
ultimately flawed. 
Bibliography
Plato - Meno