APA style format with Time-Roman Font size 11. FIVE PAGES MAXIMUM excluding cover page and source page

I want you to rewrite this essay for me. It cannot be similar in any ways, because that is plagiarism. I will withdraw if there any percent of plagiarism

Perhaps you want to know what a “resume” is. That is an analysis of the readings (not merely a summary) setting forth the principle arguments of each and their relationships to one another.

The task is very specific: Identify the MAIN ARGUMENTS in the materials read in that section, and ANALYZE those arguments. NOTHING else is to be done!!!!!!!! It is NOT a reaction essay, and it is NOT an essay on political or social questions in general. No material outside of the assigned texts is called for. DO NOT USE ANY OTHER SOURCE BESIDE THE ONE I HAVE PROVIDED (LINK). The focus is on your ability to read and understand argument, and then to demonstrate your understanding in writing. FOCUS ON ARGUMENTS BEING MADE.

think its all about identifying the main argument in the paper and then analyzing it.

Here is the link to the article( dialogue) and THIS MUST BE THE ONLY SOURCE USED!! Look into it source to get a better idea of what the essay is about

https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/joel.wallenberg/Contex…

An Introduction to Virtue in Plato’s Meno

Virtue, according to Plato, is a multi-faceted knowledge of the correct or virtuous actions and the ability or power to act upon it. The question of whether virtue, as defined by Plato in his work Meno (380 BCE) can be learned or if it is something innate within the human organism is answered by Plato himself. Since Plato’s writing nearly 2000 years ago, the Meno has been the focus of many sociologists, political scientists, and scholars based upon the arguments contained within it relative to the nature of human beings. For Plato, the question of what virtue is and whether or not it can be learned is of great importance. He writes the Meno as a response to this most basic, rock bottom question relative to human behavior and morality. For Socrates, who was also concerned with the idea of virtue, it was a means to happiness, but not something that a person could be handed or gifted. The person had to work to understand what virtue meant to them and their position in the world. Once a human understands how virtuous actions affect their life, they can begin to gain knowledge about virtue itself.

An Exploration of Virtue

Virtue is something that is different for every person. It is the ability to recognize good, and the power to act upon this knowledge. One of the most puzzling paradoxes related to the idea of virtue is the idea that Socrates poses. He argues that even if someone came into contact with the virtuous, they would not be able to recognize it since they are ignorant of the appearance and recognition of virtue itself (Santas, 1969, pp. 445). This paradox of recognition has troubled philosophers for centuries, and is an excellent example of how Plato asks his readers to begin to look inside themselves for answers. Inside the book, Socrates was intelligent enough to tell Meno that he did not truly know anything. He states that knowledge, like virtue, is something that is nearly indefinable and different for every person. In the Meno (380 BCE), according to Socrates, knowledge is no further than the answer to a question posed by a curious scholar (Plato, 380 BCE).

Plato’s Meno (380 BCE) is a catalogue of humankind’s worth and limitations presented as a conversation between Meno and Socrates. When asked what virtue is, Plato begins to offer insight into the nature of virtue and the implications for acting virtuously. The Meno begins with Plato asking Socrates, in typical Socratic form if virtue can be learned. According to Socrates’, he is clueless about what virtue is and whether or not it can be learned or even taught. He also believes that all other men have no clue as to what virtue is. Socrates’s response to Meno’s prompts by stating that virtue is something different for different people. “When you say, Meno, that there is one virtue of a man, another of a woman, another of a child, and so on, does this apply only to virtue, or would you say the same of health, and size, and strength? Or is the nature of health always the same, whether in man or woman?” (Plato, 380 BCE) the goal of this definition is to provide a description of virtue as it applies in a general form, not in terms of a particular action as well as to argue the point that virtue is amorphous in nature. Humans that can ascribe themselves to virtuous acts have begun to understand the overarching consequences and responsibilities laid out by Meno. Plato finally puts the question of whether virtue can be taught to rest be letting Socrates come to the conclusion that it can.

Can Virtue Be Learned?

Meno, in his own words opens the conversation up to Socrates about whether or not virtue can be learned by asking, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” (Plato, 380 BCE). Socrates responds by asking Meno another question regarding his own knowledge of virtue, stating, “…and I confess with shame that I know literally nothing about virtue; and when I do not know the “quid” of anything how can I know the “quale”? How, if I knew nothing at all of Meno, could I tell if he was fair, or the opposite of fair; rich and noble, or the reverse of rich and noble? Do you think that I could?” (Plato, 380, BCE). This statement offers an amazing amount of insight into what virtue represents for Socrates and how Plato categorizes it as a learned concept.

Socrates tells Meno that he can never truly know anything except for that which he experiences through his own set of lenses and with his own knowledge base being used to interpret the new knowledge (Deveraux, 1978, pp. 121). In this way, no one can ever really “know” anything at all. But interestingly enough, Socrates is showing, through his set of questions for Meno, that virtue can in fact only be “learned” on an individual basis through what Socrates calls “recollection,” and cannot be taught from human to human (Plato, 380 BCE). Socrates goes on to state, “I told you, Meno, just now that you were a rogue, and now you ask whether I can teach you, when I am saying that there is no teaching, but only recollection.” (Plato, 380 BCE). While initially confusing, this “recollection” referred to by Socrates is a concept similar to the idea that nothing is truly known from birth, only recollected through wisdom passed down from person to person. But this does not suggest that virtue can be passed down with this wisdom, only that knowledge can.

Since Socrates argues that virtue can in fact be taught on an individual basis, then it would seem logical to assume that Plato’s own beliefs on the subject would mirror Meno’s, given that Men ends up convincing Socrates that virtue is learned. But Socrates is not completely convinced that all virtue is learned. He argues to Meno that some virtue is self-evident in all humans, or that at the very least, people can recognize “good” and virtuous acts apart from evil acts (Deveraux, 1978, pp. 124). These basic levels of virtue present themselves as concepts like justice and fairness. While these topics present themselves as basic human knowledge, true moral knowledge, according to Plato, is not human knowledge but instead is wisdom greater than human wisdom (Weiss, 2001). The ability to completely understand the implications of actions is beyond all humans. But the ability to act in the best interest and with the best possible intentions and truth at heart is not. This is a big part of what virtue is, and why it has to be learned through experience.

Virtue and Morality

From a completely epistemological standpoint, virtue represents the highest individual potential in a human being (Nehamas, 1999). The awareness that the potential even exists is something that a person needs to learn, as they are not born with the knowledge that they have a particular potential and are able to live up to that potential through knowledge and learning. Moral knowledge however, according to Plato’s Meno (380 BCE), is impossible to quantify or learn. This form of virtue is subjective, and from a completely objective ethical standpoint, it is totally impossible to understand morality as it applies to all of humanity from a knowledge-based perspective. The idea that there are inherently good and evil people in the world is also one that is brought up time and time again in Meno. Socrates states, “Is it not obvious that those who are ignorant of their nature do not desire them (evils); but they desire what they suppose to be goods although they are really evils; and if they are mistaken and suppose the evils to be good they really desire goods?” (Plato, 380 BCE). This statement suggests the Socrates believes that some people know they are doing evil, and are not acting virtuously, while others are unaware that they are perpetrating evil upon others, and think they are acting virtuously instead. Socrates does not fault this latter group of people except for their own ignorance of good and evil. He concludes then, that these people who do not know good from evil also are incapable of truly “knowing” virtue or acting virtuously.

The exploration of moral questions is spurred by the desire to know something that is impossible to know. Yet this does not deter the common person from the pursuit of knowledge. This is the point where belief and knowledge intersect, and for many people, belief satisfies the part of them that yearns for the type of knowledge that is unknowable, whether moral or technical in nature. It is impossible for a human to know something and to know virtue through.