Memo to Socrates on Socrates to Memo

I

Fledgling Philosophies

Memo to Socrates on Socrates to Memo

1968

  Socrates attempted to show that knowledge is but recollection in his Memo. He appeared to succeed, but it can be asked whether he actually did.  He supported his theory by using a young slave boy to demonstrate what he was attempting to prove, but did this create a fallacy in his argument.  Just how cooperative was the slave to the two men who were his masters?  When the boy did what Socrates asked of him was it proof of Socrates’ theory of knowledge as recollection, or was it simply the slave’s attempt to please his masters?  This unanswerable question weakens Socrates method.  A second problem exists in the method itself.  Although Socrates denied any interference with the lad’s thinking; throughout, he led the boy along.

“Was this not so?”

“Yes, Socrates, it was.”

“Then was it not?”

“Yes, Socrates, it was.”

“And, then would not this be the case?”

“Oh indeed, Socrates, it shall be.”

         Socrates got to where he wished to go, but did the boy lead him or did he lead the boy?  Because of this question Socrates’ method is weakened, for it is impossible to say if Socrates really succeeded in his proof.  And, of course, if his proof is weakened, it also weakens his idea of a soul existing before and after death, or at least, before life.

         Still, there is another argument being considered in his dialogue: whether or not knowledge can be pursued.  After all, Memo asked at the beginning if it could. He said, if you know, you need not inquire, but if you do not know, you cannot inquire.  Socrates really set out to show Memo why this statement was wrong.  In this he did succeed.  It was not that the slave knew geometry from recollection at all, but that he knew a little about the subject and that he did agree with Socrates to please his masters; and thus, Socrates made the lad realize what he did not know, while at the same time, showed him he could learn if he tried.

         In essence, Socrates showed that to know about something and to not know something, does not mean you know everything or are unable to know anything.  In fact, he showed you must first know what you do not know about something before you can begin to try to know it. And in this argument, Socrates succeeded.

(Click on the title of this post for more on Socrates.)