How Do We Learn, Can It Be Considered Recollection As Plato And Socrates Suggest?

I don't think that learning can be considered recollection as Plato and Socrates suggest. I think that we learn through experience, practice, reading, research, and discussion with others. The only way to learn is to be taught through one of the mediums I have suggested. (I am not assuming that everything can be taught, but I will argue that what cannot be taught are instincts.) In Plato's dialogue between Socrates and Meno about the uneducated slave doing geometry, the conclusion that recollection from the soul, is how learning occurs is made. The thought behind this assertion being that the soul is separate from the body. They believed that the soul must have learned, in this case geometry, in a previous existence separate from the current one of the slave. There may be some truth here about recollection, but I have a hard time believing the idea of it being from the soul's "other life." In the example Socrates prompts the slave to draw a square and then double the area of that square. Through the questions Socrates asks the slave, the square's area is eventually doubled. The question then was how did the slave do it without knowing geometry? The answer seems obvious, Socrates taught the slave through the questions he asked. That's not to say that there was no recollection at all, but I would argue that the recollection came from the slave's experiences, not the soul's "other life." For instance, if a question were asked relating to the idea of enlarging the square, the slave could have put together that increasing the length of the sides would make the square larger and, by default, increase the area of the square. It is through trial and error that the slave was able to reach the desired result of doubling the area of the square.

Response to Ama's Post, "The Question of How We Should Live"

The idea of there being one answer to the question of "how should I live," cannot exist. I think that the only way to decide how you should live is to, as you said, "piece together for yourself how you should live." This idea means that there are many ways to answer the question; each no more correct than the last, but none considered completely wrong. With the differences in where people live, what living standards they abide to, and what practices they follow, it is no wonder there is not and cannot be, a universal standard for how one should live. You simply cannot tell people of an industrialized country to live a certain way and expect the people of an underdeveloped country to live the same way. There is no way to conceptualize a universal way of how life should be lived because the influences of the societies people live in and the religions or traditions they follow will always be an unavoidable influence of how people will live. The only way to answer "how should I live," is to answer it for yourself.





(Link to Ama's blog: http://the-writing-junkie-school.blogspot.com)

Is Socrates’ Idea that Every “Evil” Act is Committed Involuntarily True?

I don't think that Socrates is correct in asserting that every "evil" action is committed involuntarily. I think that "evil" actions can be committed voluntarily. The question then is, what are we considering "evil?" Something sinister like murder? Or something more small scale like bullying? Either way whether or not you act upon these things is a choice and once choice is involved, the action cannot be anything but voluntary. One of the first things you learn as a child is right from wrong. Once the understanding is there you have the ability to think over what ever it is you plan to do, regardless of its intention to be good or evil, and then execute it. Looking back at the terrible occurrences of the past, there is no way to say that they happened involuntarily. In there somewhere someone made the voluntary choice to set things rolling. From there the choices of those participating and joining in sharing the same ideas, voluntarily continued these events. For example the Holocaust, seen as one of the most evil of acts in the human history. How is it possible to argue that that was started involuntarily? I don't think it is possible, even if you were to argue that the personal thought of Hitler was that he was not doing anything evil. However, in a society where majority rules, irregardless of personal belief, if the majority thinks the actions taken were evil, it is ruled evil. Every action you make is voluntary, regardless of whether or not you intend it to be evil. The only involuntary aspect about the action you take is how others will see it. I would say it is possible to unintentionally commit an evil act, but it is not correct in any way to say that every evil act is committed involuntarily.