Plato's Meno

All of the grades from Quiz #2 are now posted on WebCT, and can be checked at any time. If there are any serious and specific issues about how a particular question was graded, send me an email and include a detailed description of what you believe that I missed, and I will take a second look at it. I know you take your marks seriously, so I make sure that I do as well.

There is one particular issue that came up in the quiz, which is the notion of 'virtue'. There were very few people who were able to clearly articulate Meno's idea of what virtue is, partly, I suspect, because it is not a concept that we deal with on a regular basis. The further you get into ancient philosophy (Aristotle and Plato in particular), and even some modern philosophy, the more important it will become.
A common error on the first question of the quiz was explaining that Meno describes virtue as, "a list of virtues". This is not quite correct. Meno does not intend to describe "managing public affairs and in so doing benefiting his friends and harming his enemies" as a virtue. Rather, this is how the virtue of a man is expressed. Meno describes the outward manifestations of virtue, while Socrates is looking for the essence of virtue.
The ancients thought of virtue as the excellence of something. For example, the excellence of an eye, is sight (or, to see). Meno understood this much, and therefore did not believe that "to be submissive to one's husband" was a virtue. Rather, it was a manifestation of the virtue of a woman. This was certainly a difficult concept to grasp, but I believe it will become more clear as we get into Aristotle. For more on virtue, it is worth checking out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which can be found here.

Alright, enough about the quiz. There are a couple of other things that have come up over the week that I would like to mention. First of all, introductory philosophy courses will likely be the lightest courses you have in terms of volume of reading. Volume, mass and dimensions. Don't let it fool you. If it is one third the length of your biology reading, it is only because you'll have to read it three times. My first time reading through a piece usually ends up looking something like the monkeys trying to figure out the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Start reading over these texts two or three times, it will pay off. Just wait until we get to Kant.

The last thing is, I would like to point out that Prof. Sismondo has put together a great cross-section of philosophy for Phil111a. At the same time, I suspect that even those of you who are seriously interested in pursuing philosophy will not find every philosopher that we read to be your cup of tea. Don't despair. And more importantly, don't dismiss them too quickly. Ideas like the Socratic Teacher, which we talked about in class last week, come up again and again throughout literature and philosophy. Kierkegaard uses him to argue forcefully for the existence of God. Nietzsche uses him to explain the death of tragedy. Aristotle remains a massive influence on everything from religion to bioethics. Mill's utilitarianism is a pillar (or punching bag) of modern political philosophy and economics.

The upshot? Although you may not have come to philosophy to read about Socrates verbally undressing poor Meno, there is a point to it all.


Oh yes, one more thing. I highly, highly recommend this book as a guide to keep very close to you while writing essays, quizzes, and letters to your grandmother. It's cheap, and will save me from pulling out my hair come essay season.

Have a great weekend!

JSY