The Meno Problem is retarded

Kinda. if its in the nature and essence of the restaurant to be always open, and you have grasped that by inquiring into its form, then it would be knowledge.

If you THINK it's open because it's 4 o clock on a Friday and you went there at the same time on the same day over the past 10 years to it, then it's true belief. As the essence of the restaurant doesn't necessary pertain to you being there at 4 o clock every Friday as your experience might lead to you to think. Far as you might know, someone could've bombed it at 3:30. Knowledge is understanding the limit and nature of a form

>>8819419

Why does this mean that the Meno problem is retarded?

>>8819419
True belief becomes knowledge if you can work out why it is true. If you ‘have learned the axiomatic structure of the system in question
and can prove any one of its elements', you understand it and convert it into knowledge. You make it stable too, because your understanding makes it impossible for you to
have your mind changed by someone else.

>>8819675
the value of knowledge over true beliefs is evident

>>8821141

Epistemic minimalists think that knowledge IS true belief. It's not that self evident.

>>8819419
Have you actually considered the Way to Larissa analogy? It's about whether true belief can guide just as well as knowledge, which it can, but knowledge (at least in the Meno) must be fettered to some account. That's the epistemological distinction, not the results.

>>8821141
Again, Plato agrees with you. Knowledge is superior because it is bound to the soul. You can lose a true belief because there is no justification.

>>8821357
However, to say that Plato regards knowledge as justified true belief is specious. His account of knowledge in the Republic makes the three core analogies in the Meno appear highly figurative. At least in order to reconcile they must be interpreted that way.

>>8821350
knowledge is more stable
imagine while on your way to larissa you meet a friend that is also a trickster. he tries to convince you the directions you have are actually wrong. if you held a true belief about the initial directions to larissa you might get easily bamboozled by him since he's a friend and reliable source, whether if you actually _knew_ the directions to larissa the attempt at deception would be evident
it has been a long while since I've read the dialogue but I think plato makes a similar point

>>8821444

Right, but what is knowledge /adding/ to true belief?

>>8822859
what do you mean?

>>8822859
justification, more or less

(don't worry about Gettier cases today)

>epistemology
literally the most useless branch of philo

>>8823782
>not ethics

>>8823237

>(don't worry about Gettier cases today)

Said every epistemological philosopher, while ignoring the giant hole in the bottom of their boat.

File: 120816-Jowett-Meno-Figure.jpg (35KB, 498x388px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 498x388px

>>8823237

Why do you say justification? In the case of Meno's slaveboy, Socrates didn't provide the boy with justification for the geometrical solution that the boy was brought to understand. Rather, Socrates was demonstrating that the slaveboy really did have the knowledge the whole time -- it just needed to be educed. This is how the slave eventually came to solution.

Plato's theory of knowledge, after all, is the theory of recollection.

The meno paradox is actually literally a fallacy

It's a false equivalence between what you want to know (the answer to your inquiry) and the question, which you do know

Plato was a fucking hack

>>8824358

Nice non-answer, pseud. How about some reasons for your view instead of just memery?

>>8819419
>believing you can argue over semantics in a Plato text when you don't know Greek.

File: Wekapipo_young.png (177KB, 295x331px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 295x331px

"moral is wisdom"

only this words from Meno is better than all religion books nowadays

>>8824458

wat

>>8822859
Knowledge does not "add" to true belief. Knowledge is what results when true belief is combined with some element X which will lock down that true belief and make it consistently true.

What that element X is, is not resolved. A few suggestions are offered in I think Theaeteus (e.g., X is a distinction; X is an account/logos), but none are conclusive. That's part of the point; your question is basically "what is the answer to epistemology?"

Look up "aporia" before you look down on any more Platonic dialogues, as though you deserve to be spoonfed answers in spite of Plato's very methodology of how philosophy is taught and learned. Your confusion is intended to be part of the learning process.

>>8819419
You can never know the restaurant is open unless you're there. Its usual hours, other people's claims, past experience, none of that can give you certainty. It could have a bomb scare and close up at any moment, for instance.

>>8825362

>Knowledge does not "add" to true belief
>Knowledge is what results when true belief is combined with [i.e.: ADDED TO] some element X

Come on, pseud. How could you think that was even an answer? You just said what I said, and still gave no answer.

Yes, it is asking, "What is the answer to epistemology?" effectively what the Meno was pursuing.

jesus..

>>8825523
your question is too misleading 2bh

>>8827005
How so?