philosopher. Meno questions him, and inquires whether or not virtue is learned or rather something that is instilled within men by nature. Yet, Socrates rejects this question, claiming that the answer is unattainable, since virtue cannot be defined. This is when the two begin their quest for the meaning of virtue and how it can be acquired. At first, the two come to the conclusion that virtue is a form of knowledge. At this point Socrates decides that if virtue is a form of knowledge, then it can therefore be taught. But who can teach virtue? Are there people who learn to teach it? So they are back where they started, and it cannot be taught. They later determine that virtue is a wisdom that is “neither an inborn quality nor taught, but comes to those who possess it as a gift from the gods” (Meno 100). This is an example of the process of division. In philosophy, knowledge, virtue, truth, etc., are discussed, but what exactly are we discussing? This is what is so amusing about philosophy, you can have a long discussion with someone about whether or not virtue can be taught, when you are not even clear on what it means to you, or the next person. I think that Socrates cheats, because he sets Euthyphro up into making a mistake. He knows that Euthyphro cannot answer his question, but he tells him he will be his pupil. This is letting Euthyphro think that Socrates is at the mercy of his knowledge, when in reality, it is reversed. Socrates is too smart, and he sets up traps for Euthyphro to blunder in, which is why I sympathize, and say that Socrates is cheating. For example, he asks Euthyphro if he agrees that "all that is pious is of necessity just." Euthyphro agrees to this but then is confused when Socrates turns it around and asks if all that is just is necessarily pious. Socrates illustrates his point very effectively by making Euthyphro agree. In my opinion, Socrates is right, that it is hard to define something, ...
