I was fascinated by this idea that knowledge cannot be given, but must be unearthed from the soul. We are taught in physics that matter and mass are constant and can change shape, but can neither be created nor destroyed. So, is knowledge its own type of matter? Neither created nor destroyed, simply changing shape as it is reformed from one body and lifetime to the next? Given today's revolutions in technology, were the inventors of these "revolutionary" items creating something that they had had knowledge of lifetimes ago?
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Mind Over Matter
Plato emphasizes an interesting concept in the Socratic dialog Meno; the idea of "learning" as mere recollections from a previous life. Socrates describes to Meno that knowledge is not simply passed on from a teacher to a student, rather, it is unearthed from the recollections of a student's soul, who had gained that knowledge in a previous life. This idea is continued in Plato's Phaedo and how knowledge of these supra-sensible realities must necessarily come from our soul.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That is really interesting, I hadn't actually realised that aspect of the dialogue while I was reading it.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Menos, I thought it was strange that Socrates was so intent on finding the right and accurate definition of virtue. And also on determining if it can indeed be taught. Every definition that he, in general, guided Menos towards, he rejected. Arguing the technicalities until he determined the definition was too flawed to be used. I thought it was absurd at first, the way he couldn't accept a general definition or an idea or concept without a precise and non-loophole definition. But then I realised the point he was trying to make; that a lot of times we base our 'knowledge' on assumptions. In a way, Socrates was saying that the most virtuous man is a man who admits/says he knows nothing. Such a man would not assume he understands a concept or assume the words he uses in a definition are infallible against logic.
In a way, it also seems that Socrates was breaking down the assumptions society holds in regards to knowledge and the teaching of knowledge. However, I don't believe that all knowledge is reformed from one body to the next, but rather that there is some human collective inborn knowledge that can be evoked with the right questions. In the example with the house boy, the boy went to the incorrect conclusion at first and had to be led to the right answer through very specific questions. While he came to that conclusion on his own, he could not have done so without the guidance of Socrates. I would argue then, that the boy was awakening the ability to think critically and logically based on the information he had available and not unearthing an innate knowledge. True, the boy was not taught the answer or taught how to think (directly at least) so I do agree that maybe the teaching system as we know it, does not truly promote 'learning'.
There was another dialogue by Plato that I think also feeds well into this general topic; its called Euthyphro. This dialogue also challenges the assumptions and notions of humanity. Although in that dialogue, Socrates is in a polytheistic culture and critiquing it but I think it can also apply to modern society in more ways than just religion. Here is the link to it: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
I do not think I would call knowledge matter, in the context that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. What about the sharing of knowledge? You still hold onto your knowledge and yet someone else now has it as well. That to me seems that you are creating knowledge out of nothing, unless you lose previous knowledge to replace your new found knowledge. I also do not like the idea that knowledge can neither be created nor destroyed because it implies that knowledge is finite, and there is only so much knowledge that I personally can attain and hold within myself.
ReplyDeleteYour question, "Given today's revolutions in technology, were the inventors of these 'revolutionary' items creating something that they had had knowledge of lifetimes ago?" reminds me of the concept that there are no new ideas, but only borrowed and transformed ones. How can this be?! An android phone for example is a reworked idea from the iPhone, but I can't say that the iPhone is not a new idea. Sure it came from the idea for computers which can be traced through many previous ideas, but does that mean it is not a new idea? I would argue that it is a new idea, that adding onto an idea to create a new form of technology is revolutionary and not simply an idea from a previous life. To say that an idea is a remembrance from a previous life makes it seem as if the person that unearthed that remembered idea was destined to carry out that plan, a thought which I cannot get on board with.
While reading the discussion between Socrates and Meno, I was under the impression that Socrates knew what he was doing the entire time. He had stated right away that he could not give a simple definition of virtue, and added that he knew of no man that could. His questions toward Meno were not so much for his own benefit, but to guide Meno, as he did the servant boy, to understand why he said he could not give the definition of virtue.
ReplyDeleteKayla, I really like what you said about the teaching system not promoting "learning". After reading the posts in this stream, I've come to the conclusion that our teaching system promotes "thinking", rather than "learning". I do believe that teaching others to think was the end that Socrates was working toward in this dialogue. He did not want to simply tell them his opinion of virtue, or the correct answer to his geometry problem in the case of the servant boy, but rather asked a series of questions which would lead them in the right direction as you said, while forcing the others to think for themselves. This emphasis put on the act of "thinking" rather than learning was exhibited by both Socrates and Arendt, which I believe has much to do with the impact they have made over the years. If every person in the world were taught to think, rather than just learn, where could we go?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to your question lies well within the lines of the problem of determining whether things like calculus, or algebra were invented to describe observable natural phenomenon (nominalism) or discovered because they exist objects independent of human existence (platonism). I am inclined to believe for reasons I will not discuss here that mathematics do not exist within space time as objects and that the same would be true for non-intuitive knowledge like history or philosophy. Knowledge is not discovered and it does not remain after a persons death except in the minds of those that have learned the same concepts either through memorization or logical/empirical deduction. I think it is tempting for us to view knowledge as a physical object because our brains are capable of storing and accessing ideas and memories much like you would put a beer in the fridge to drink later. We should remember that at the end of the day everything going on in our heads is a product of changing electrochemical potential.
ReplyDelete