MUSINGS ON THE MENO

MARTINUS NIJHOFF CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHY

LIBRARY

VOLUME 1

2. MILLER, Mitchell H., Jr. The Philosopher in Plato's Statesman. 1980, xx + 144. ISBN-13: 978-90-247-2210-5

MUSINGS ON THE MENO

A New Translation

with

Commentary

by

JOHN E. THOMAS

1980

MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS

THE HAGUE / BOSTON / LONDON

Distrihutors:

for the United SWIrS and Camufa

Kluwer Boston, Inc. 160 Old Derby Street Hingham, MA 02043 USA

for all other COUn/TieS

Kluwer Academic Publishers Group Distribution Center P.O. Box 322 3300 AH Dordm:ht The Netherlands

Ubr.1')' of Congress Cal.loging in Publ ic.tion 0.1.

Thomas, John Edward, 1926. Musings on the Meno.

Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. I. Plato. Meno. 2. Virtue. 3. Socrates.

I. Plato. Meno. English. 1978. II. Title. B377.T48 170 79-11763

ISBN-13: 978-90-247-2 121-4 e-ISBN- 13: 978-94-009-8783-8 001: 10.1007/978-94-009-8783-8

Copyright Q) 1980 by Mortinus Nijhojf Publishers bv, The Hague.

All righu reserved. No fHJrI of this pubiication may be reprodul'ed, slOred in a retrie ,·u/ system, or tronsmilled in any form or by any means, meclumicul, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior wrillenpermissiOIl of the publisher, Morlinus Nijhojf Publishers bv, P.O. Box 566.2501 eN The Hague, The Netherlands.

For

MOREEN

Till a' the seas gang dry my Dear And the rocks melt wi' the sun; And I willluve thee still, my Dear, While the sands 0' life shall run.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface IX

Acknowledgements XIII

INTRODUCTION TO THE MEND 1

A. Plato, the Man 3 B. Plato's Use of Dialogue Form 6 C. The Meno as a Transitional Dialogue 10 D. Plato on Socrates and Sophistry 16 E. The Date of the Meno 22 F. The Characters of the Meno 23

TRANSLATION OF THE MEND 25

COMMENTARY

PART I. SOCRATES' ELENCHDS AT WORK (70a1~81a7)

1. The Opening Conversation: The Relevance of the Ti-Poion Distinction (70al-71b7) 73

2. Lesson One: Definition Is Not Enumeration (71e-73cS) 81

3. Lesson Two: Correct Form Isn't Everything (73c8-75a9) 91

4. Models for Muddles (75bl-77a5) 96

5. Digression on the Logic of the What-is-X Question 105

6. Lesson Three: You Can't Teach an Old Dog New Tricks (77a5-7ge4) 114

7. Perplexity and Paradox (7ge5-81a7) 122

VIII T ABLE OF CONTENTS

PART II. ANAMNESIS (81a10-86c6)

1. Knowledge as Recollection: (i) Narration (81a10-82a6) 127

A. The Mythical-Religious View 127 B. Vlastos: Anamnesis as Inference 131 C. Hare: Anamnesis as a Dimension of Meaning 134 D. Moravcsik: The Entitative Aspect of Remembering 136 E. Chomsky on Innate Ideas 139 F. The Enigma of "the Knowledge That Is in Us·· 144

2. Knowledge as Recollection: (ii) Demonstration (82a8-86c6)

A. The Slave-Boy Interview 148 B. Stages of Recollection 153 C. The Slave-Boy Interview as a Mini-Meno 156

PART III. THE METHOD OF HYPOTHESIS (86c7-100c2)

1. Introduction of the Method: The Geometrical Example

148

(86c7-87b2) 165

2. Application of the Method: 'Virtue is Knowledge' Estab-lished (87b2-89c4) 171

3. Ramification of the Method: 'Virtue is Knowledge' Chal-lenged (89c5-96c1O) 179

4. True Opinion versus Knowledge (96d1-100c2) 201

Bibliography 211

Name Index 217

Subject Index 221

PREFACE

The objectives of this book are to provide a new translation of Plato's M eno together with a series of studies on its philcisophical argument in the light of recent secondary literature.

My translation is based mainly on the Oxford Classical Text, 1. Burnet's Platonis Opera (Oxford Clarendon Press 1900) Vol. III. In conjunction with this I have made extensive use of R.S. Bluck's Plato's Meno (Cam­bridge University Press, 1964). At critical places in the dialogue I have also consulted A. Croiset's Gorgias, Menon (Bude text). My debt ~o two other sources will be clearly in evidence. They are E.S. Thompson's Plato's Meno (London, MacMillan 1901), and St. George Stock's The Meno of Plato (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1894).

One of the greatest difficulties facing a translator is to achieve a balance between accuracy and elegance. Literal translations are more likely to be accurate, but, alas, they also tend to be duller. Free translations run into the opposite danger of paying for elegance and liveliness with the coin of inaccuracy. Another hurdle, for a translator of a Platonic dialogue, is posed by the challenge to maintain the conversational pattern and fast­moving character of the discussion. This is easier where the exchang~s are short, but much more difficult where Socrates gets somewhat long-winded. Even more difficult to capture by means of the written word are the nuances provided by the tone of voice, a flicker of the eyes, a shrug of the shoulders, or a wave of the hand. A string of exclamation or question marks on the written page is a pathetic substitute for physical mannerisms. One is frequently at a loss to locate appropriate words to convey "body language." I mention these things not merely to register the difficulties I have encountered, but also to indicate the goal I have sought to achieve in this translation of the Meno. My aim is to produce for the Greekless reader an accurate but readable translation of the dialogue that preserves the liveliness of the original exchanges.

I have discovered that copious notes on the translation are of most help to those who least need it. Rather than burden the general reader with

x PREFACE

additional critical baggage, I have opted to mention a few of the problem areas. The rest I shall leave unsaid for the purposes of the present book.

(1) The cluster of terms "episteme," "phronesis," "nous" and "sophia," while adding variety to the dialogue do complicate the argument in some places. The most glaring case occurs at 88b8--c3 where nous occurs in the premisses and phronesis in the conclusion. Since these terms are used interchangeably in the Meno, doubtless, it would have been simpler to have translated them all by the term "knowledge." Since Plato resisted the temptation to make such an antiseptic use oflanguage, I have mirrored his own variety of expression by translating "episteme," knowledge, "ph­ronesis," wisdom, and "nous," intelligence. The tidying-up of the argu­ment I have postponed to the Commentary.

(2) "Aitias logismo(i)" at 98a3-4 is a perennial source of difficulty. The usual rendition "causal reasonings" is not particularly enlightening to the modem reader. What does it mean to "make fast an opinion" by "tether­ing it by causal reasonings"? One thing is clear, Plato could not have meant by "aitias" here "efficient cause." Looking to the Phaedo 100c6-7ff., the notion of "formal cause" holds more promise. Although, as it will become clear from the Commentary, the doctrine of Forms presents as many problems as it was designed to solve. Looking to Socrates' method, rather than to his pronouncements, one learns that the tying down of opinions by "causal reasoning" is exemplified, if not characterized or defined, in his exchanges. Hence, I have rendered "fastened down by causal reasoning" as "confirmed by further inquiry." Granted that fails to do full justice to the locution, but it does zero in on an important aspect of it basic to the introduction of hypothetical method in the Meno.

(3) My difficulties with "theious" at 99c6, cll, d8 will be apparent. I have rendered it "inspired" at 99c6 and cll and "godly" at d8 where 'character' rather than 'clairvoyant powers' is at issue. The Spartan eulogy, "theios aner," I have simply rendered "superhuman" (99d9). Another term in this section also presents difficulties for the translator. I refer to the term "enthousiazein" at 99d3. If I could have taken for granted the general reader's acquaintance with the etymology of the English word "enthusiasm" (en, in + theos, god) I would have used it to translate "enthousiazein." Granted, this would not have rendered the whole passage any more lucid, but it would have confined the difficulties to the same family of terms. I have opted for "zealous" recognizing that it fails to do full justice to what Plato seems to be driving at here.

(4) There are one or two other words that cry for comment. I know of no satisfactory rendition of "sophrosyne" so I have settled for the now

PREFACE XI

familiar "self-control." Doubtless some Platonic scholars will take um­bra,ge at my rendition of "truphontes" 76b8. I realize it does not mean "gay" in the current sense. I choose it, because at least within its own circle it is used with positive, rather than negative, emotive overtones.

The title Musings on the Meno is intended to reflect the nature and mood of the Commentary. It is not a commentary in the traditional classical sense that R.S. Bluck'sPlato's Menocan lay claim to be. Noris it a running commentary in the style of F.M. Cornford's Plato's Theory of Knowledge. Rather it is an album of studies on selected themes and arguments from the dialogue. While I have tried to correct any glaring imbalances imposed by this format, I acknowledge that the section covered by Stephanus' pages 81-86 does receive a fuller treatment than any other single section. But this is because anamnesis is so central to the dialogue, and the Slave-boy interview, in structure and method, mirrors the dialogue at large. The thoughtful reader will recognize that in the Commentary Part II, chapter I, a judicious employment of Kant's doctrine of the Categories would have served just as well as Chomsky'S 'rationalism' to bring out the distinction between form and content that characterizes the knowledge that is "in us." This acknowledgement amounts to an admission that there is another option open to those who would seek to demythologize certain elements in Plato's thought currently rejected as unacceptable, but who seek, at the same time, to preserve for posterity what is of perennial importance in his philosophy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When I embarked on this project it was to have been on the larger topic of Plato's dialectic. En route, I became so interested and absorbed in the Meno that I could not leave it. It is an occupational hazard of the teaching profession that periodically things get stale. The work I did on the Meno turned out to be the pause that refreshed me into a new interest in Plato's method.

Perhaps the most stimulating feature of the Meno lies in the view of teaching and learning it presents. The dialogue is a watershed dividing teaching in the sense of instruction from teaching in the sense of shared inquiry, and learning in the sense of the acceptance of authority from learning in the sense of thinking things through for oneself. And all of this in the context of a doctrine of anamnesis which is as baffling when demythologized as when taken literally. One cannot fail to be excited by the issues at stake. If ever there was an ancient document with contempo­rary relevance, the Meno is it.

I wish to acknowledge the Commonwealth Study Grant awarded to me by the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London. This award made it possible to enjoy an extended stay in London to begin work on the translation. Special thanks are due to Professor E.W. Handley and the members of the Institute for making my stay such a productive and profitable one. It was fitting that the first draft of the translation begun at the Institute of Classical Studies in London should be completed at the British School of Archeology in Athens - a bonus made possible through the hospitality of Professor H. W. Catling.

But for a publication grant from the Arts Research Board of McMaster University the manuscript for Musings . .. might still be gathering dust on my bookshelf. My sincere thanks to this Board of my Alma Mater for making its publication possible.

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Norman Gulley of Lampeter College, University of Wales for time spent in informal dis­cussion and for making available to me his own unpublished notes on the Meno.

xlV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Two of my own colleagues at McMaster deserve special mention - Dr. Constantine Georgiadis for his critical and constructive criticism of the translation and painstaking care in proofreading the manuscript, and Dr. David Hitchcock for his comments on individual arguments.

Special thanks are also due to Miss Debbie Jackson for the tedious work of seeing the manuscript through various drafts, and to Miss Doreen Robinson who assisted her with the typing of the final draft.

Finally to Moreen, who has helped in ways too numerous to mention, I owe my greatest debt of all.

JOHN E. THOMAS

Department of Philosophy McMaster University