Philosophy Now Forum

Hi,
Was just wondering if anyone could shed some light on Aristotle's solution to Meno's paradox for me? i am failing to see how it solves either the problem of how to know what to look for when you dont know what youre inquiring into or how you will know when you have found the object of inquiry since you dont know what it is. he seems to claim that there is not a distinction between knowing a universal and knowing every particular instance which falls under that universal; this makes sense however surely the paradox still applies to knowing the universal in the first place?
Thanks

This is a good example why philosophy is outdated.

Neither Meno nor Socrates really know what they are talking about.

Neither account for human analytic ability, that humans can assert situations and objects and may guess it's purpose and functionality.

They have an overly simplistic prejudice approach to reality and therefore might have a wrong impression of how reality really is, that's a typically thing for politicians, that they have a distorted view on how their laws affect the people, economy ..etc.

People may not know what they're missing in their life, but people may recognize it when they see it, like a cellphone, washing machine, car, airplane, they will understand it's benefit and purpose, but they can't know it before hand, before the discovery, how to solve their problem, or even know they have a problem.

Never mind.

lilly wrote:Hi,
Was just wondering if anyone could shed some light on Aristotle's solution to Meno's paradox for me? i am failing to see how it solves either the problem of how to know what to look for when you dont know what youre inquiring into or how you will know when you have found the object of inquiry since you dont know what it is. he seems to claim that there is not a distinction between knowing a universal and knowing every particular instance which falls under that universal; this makes sense however surely the paradox still applies to knowing the universal in the first place?
Thanks

Before going into Aristotle's solution it is might be useful to understand the background to the argument. Socrates position in relation to knowledge is to always claim we can never know anything with certainty. Plato disagrees and tells us that we do have certain knowledge because understanding is not a process of discovery it is something we already know and it is just a matter of recollection. I would argue that Plato has set the groundwork for the modern distinction between apriori and aposteriori knowledge.

Ginkgo wrote:Before going into Aristotle's solution it is might be useful to understand the background to the argument. Socrates position in relation to knowledge is to always claim we can never know anything with certainty. Plato disagrees and tells us that we do have certain knowledge because understanding is not a process of discovery it is something we already know and it is just a matter of recollection. I would argue that Plato has set the groundwork for the modern distinction between apriori and aposteriori knowledge.

Let me say, there is a huge difference: for Platone we can recollect knowledge of reality as it actually is; while for apriorism not the reality in its entirety we have, but only thanks to functions and cathegories we already have since our birth we may elaborate concepts of the data we experience from our sensations.

Ginkgo wrote:

lilly wrote:Hi,
Was just wondering if anyone could shed some light on Aristotle's solution to Meno's paradox for me? i am failing to see how it solves either the problem of how to know what to look for when you dont know what youre inquiring into or how you will know when you have found the object of inquiry since you dont know what it is. he seems to claim that there is not a distinction between knowing a universal and knowing every particular instance which falls under that universal; this makes sense however surely the paradox still applies to knowing the universal in the first place?
Thanks

Before going into Aristotle's solution it is might be useful to understand the background to the argument. Socrates position in relation to knowledge is to always claim we can never know anything with certainty. Plato disagrees and tells us that we do have certain knowledge because understanding is not a process of discovery it is something we already know and it is just a matter of recollection. I would argue that Plato has set the groundwork for the modern distinction between apriori and aposteriori knowledge.

I have always been fascinated with the notion of knowledge as recollection. Most people today, I think, believe in some sort of 'innate' knowledge or, as you say, a priori knowledge. With mathematics we often ask whether mathematical 'truths' are discovered or created by the mathematician. Knowledge as recollection is a sort of mixture of these two. The modern conception is not much more satisfactory - we think that certain notions or ideas or abilities are 'programmed' into us via evolution or something of that sort. The source of knowledge remains a mystery. The theory of knowledge as recollection is a fable giving a fanciful, though somewhat plausible, scenario in which the soul survives death. I don't know of any other (though there may be) arguments for immortality that don't rely on appeal to the existence of God.

Wyman wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Before going into Aristotle's solution it is might be useful to understand the background to the argument. Socrates position in relation to knowledge is to always claim we can never know anything with certainty. Plato disagrees and tells us that we do have certain knowledge because understanding is not a process of discovery it is something we already know and it is just a matter of recollection. I would argue that Plato has set the groundwork for the modern distinction between apriori and aposteriori knowledge.

I have always been fascinated with the notion of knowledge as recollection. Most people today, I think, believe in some sort of 'innate' knowledge or, as you say, a priori knowledge. With mathematics we often ask whether mathematical 'truths' are discovered or created by the mathematician. Knowledge as recollection is a sort of mixture of these two. The modern conception is not much more satisfactory - we think that certain notions or ideas or abilities are 'programmed' into us via evolution or something of that sort. The source of knowledge remains a mystery. The theory of knowledge as recollection is a fable giving a fanciful, though somewhat plausible, scenario in which the soul survives death. I don't know of any other (though there may be) arguments for immortality that don't rely on appeal to the existence of God.

Wy and Gin
This is pure nonsense and babble as usual.

My assertion is correct, yours are merely medieval superstition.

HexHammer wrote:

Wyman wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Before going into Aristotle's solution it is might be useful to understand the background to the argument. Socrates position in relation to knowledge is to always claim we can never know anything with certainty. Plato disagrees and tells us that we do have certain knowledge because understanding is not a process of discovery it is something we already know and it is just a matter of recollection. I would argue that Plato has set the groundwork for the modern distinction between apriori and aposteriori knowledge.

I have always been fascinated with the notion of knowledge as recollection. Most people today, I think, believe in some sort of 'innate' knowledge or, as you say, a priori knowledge. With mathematics we often ask whether mathematical 'truths' are discovered or created by the mathematician. Knowledge as recollection is a sort of mixture of these two. The modern conception is not much more satisfactory - we think that certain notions or ideas or abilities are 'programmed' into us via evolution or something of that sort. The source of knowledge remains a mystery. The theory of knowledge as recollection is a fable giving a fanciful, though somewhat plausible, scenario in which the soul survives death. I don't know of any other (though there may be) arguments for immortality that don't rely on appeal to the existence of God.

Wy and Gin
This is pure nonsense and babble as usual.

My assertion is correct, yours are merely medieval superstition.

Give me credit - I did call it a 'fable' and 'fanciful.'

When you solve a problem - whether mathematical, computer, or some other - where you suddenly find the answer as if a light bulb turned on in you r brain, what do you think is the cause of it? I am not talking about memorizing something or doing something by rote.

Wyman wrote:Give me credit - I did call it a 'fable' and 'fanciful.'

When you solve a problem - whether mathematical, computer, or some other - where you suddenly find the answer as if a light bulb turned on in you r brain, what do you think is the cause of it? I am not talking about memorizing something or doing something by rote.

No, everybody can call it "'fable' and 'fanciful.'", but it requires high intellect to reason why, which you haven't.

HexHammer wrote:

Wyman wrote:Give me credit - I did call it a 'fable' and 'fanciful.'

When you solve a problem - whether mathematical, computer, or some other - where you suddenly find the answer as if a light bulb turned on in you r brain, what do you think is the cause of it? I am not talking about memorizing something or doing something by rote.

No, everybody can call it "'fable' and 'fanciful.'", but it requires high intellect to reason why, which you haven't.

That doesn't make sense in English - what do you mean 'to reason why' - reason why what? Why is it fanciful?

Wyman wrote:I have always been fascinated with the notion of knowledge as recollection. Most people today, I think, believe in some sort of 'innate' knowledge or, as you say, a priori knowledge. With mathematics we often ask whether mathematical 'truths' are discovered or created by the mathematician. Knowledge as recollection is a sort of mixture of these two.

Mathematics cannot be "truth" because it already is a method of representation of reality (and not of the truth). Besides through mathematics we can represent the "reality" outside, beyond the conditions that took its first use. It is a tool that can give a description, although approximate, quite faithful to the "observable" that is, all those natural phenomena that added together would represent an objective external reality. But since we were not able to have a unification of mathematics, I would not say that it is able to represent reality in toto, to the maximum of operating engines and electronic equipment, but does not give such a sense of unity to the objective reality, always absolutely not admitted but given that there is an external objective reality, since the only reality that we can trust is the one represented by our conscience, which is not external to us. The reality is that we can afford in our thinking, that is still subjective, our thinking has invented mathematics to study it, is not just a coincidence that we succeed, since it uses the same engine as "projection of repeatable" that is our brain: maths and "reality" reside in the same object (the brain) and use the same function (consciousness).

David Handeye wrote:

Wyman wrote:I have always been fascinated with the notion of knowledge as recollection. Most people today, I think, believe in some sort of 'innate' knowledge or, as you say, a priori knowledge. With mathematics we often ask whether mathematical 'truths' are discovered or created by the mathematician. Knowledge as recollection is a sort of mixture of these two.

Mathematics cannot be "truth" because it already is a method of representation of reality (and not of the truth). Besides through mathematics we can represent the "reality" outside, beyond the conditions that took its first use. It is a tool that can give a description, although approximate, quite faithful to the "observable" that is, all those natural phenomena that added together would represent an objective external reality. But since we were not able to have a unification of mathematics, I would not say that it is able to represent reality in toto, to the maximum of operating engines and electronic equipment, but does not give such a sense of unity to the objective reality, always absolutely not admitted but given that there is an external objective reality, since the only reality that we can trust is the one represented by our conscience, which is not external to us. The reality is that we can afford in our thinking, that is still subjective, our thinking has invented mathematics to study it, is not just a coincidence that we succeed, since it uses the same engine as "projection of repeatable" that is our brain: maths and "reality" reside in the same object (the brain) and use the same function (consciousness).

I don't know a definition of truth that philosophers would accept, but many people would accept something like the Pythagorean Theorem as a truth. Or the solution to a problem in number theory. Someone said that all knowledge is problem solving, I think; that's about as good a definition as I have found.

Wyman wrote:reason why what? Why is it fanciful?

Yes? That should be very apparent what I mean.

David Handeye wrote:Mathematics cannot be "truth" because it already is a method of representation of reality (and not of the truth). Besides through mathematics we can represent the "reality" outside, beyond the conditions that took its first use. It is a tool that can give a description, although approximate, quite faithful to the "observable" that is, all those natural phenomena that added together would represent an objective external reality. But since we were not able to have a unification of mathematics, I would not say that it is able to represent reality in toto, to the maximum of operating engines and electronic equipment, but does not give such a sense of unity to the objective reality, always absolutely not admitted but given that there is an external objective reality, since the only reality that we can trust is the one represented by our conscience, which is not external to us. The reality is that we can afford in our thinking, that is still subjective, our thinking has invented mathematics to study it, is not just a coincidence that we succeed, since it uses the same engine as "projection of repeatable" that is our brain: maths and "reality" reside in the same object (the brain) and use the same function (consciousness).

This is pure nonsense.

Ones has to be naïve to believe that math can represent truth, it often misrepresent truth, as most things in life are subjective and relative, often riddled with misunderstandings and lies.

Can you reveal if your wife has been unfaithful by math? No? ..ofc not!

Can we replace all judges in the justice system with computers that can calculate guilt? No! ..ofc not.

Math is good for calculating Chess, because it's linear logic, there's no subjective or relative values.

You have absolutely no idea what consciousness, truth and reality are, you just speak like a little child out of your ass.

HexHammer wrote:his is pure nonsense.

Ones has to be naïve to believe that math can represent truth, it often misrepresent truth, as most things in life are subjective and relative, often riddled with misunderstandings and lies.

Can you reveal if your wife has been unfaithful by math? No? ..ofc not!

Can we replace all judges in the justice system with computers that can calculate guilt? No! ..ofc not.

Math is good for calculating Chess, because it's linear logic, there's no subjective or relative values.

You have absolutely no idea what consciousness, truth and reality are, you just speak like a little child out of your ass.

but I wrote Not admitted but given that there is an external objective reality, since the only reality that we can trust is the one represented by our conscience, and also The reality is that we can afford in our thinking, that is still subjective, is this that I wrote pure nonsense?