As intelligent beings, humans always are fascinated about how to acquire true knowledge.
I found some interesting ideas while I was reading The Republic. In one particular chapter, Meno taunts Socrates for his role as a “torpedo-fish,” in which he always paralyzes his addressees by cruelly attacking their perplexed beliefs and never rendering any solid conclusions. In response to Meno’s critique, Socrates points out that he simply makes use of the “torpedo shock” to motivate the listeners to think by themselves; based on their contemplations, those inspired individuals would have the chance to retain the knowledge that has been covered with dust in the corner or their souls for centuries. Then, Socrates tries to elaborate his idea by presenting questions to a servant boy, who has never studied math before, in an attempt to direct him to learn the mathematical principles. Socrates believes: “The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist…has knowledge of them all…for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection. Thus, there is no teaching…this spontaneous recovery of knowledge in him is recollection…But if he did not acquire the knowledge in this life then he must have had and learned it at some other time, which must have been the time when he was not a man…soul.”
In perspective of Socrates, since he solely guides the attendant boy by asking questions, rather than by directly teaching him about the mathematical principle, Socrates claims that the boy obtains the new material all by himself. In other words, after the boy is stimulated by Socrates’s inquiries to think about the new knowledge, he seems to get the new idea on his own. If Socrates is not the source that causes the boy to gain the new knowledge, the only feasible way for the boy to acquire the mathematical principle is by recalling what he has already known. It was not a learning, but a recollection process. Furthermore, if the boy didn’t have the knowledge while he was alive, then he must get the knowledge beyond his living time as a human, the period when he existed in the form a soul. Hence, it is the soul that collects all the truth and knowledge in the world. Therefore, the soul must be immortal and permanent.
The words of Socrates gave me a “torpedo shock,” as well. However, as I carefully examined his ideas, I didn’t find that what he claims is justified. As far as I am concerned, the ability to learn new knowledge rather than knowledge itself is what truly innate to human beings. I plan to demonstrate my points by explaining the nature of inquiry and method to achieve real knowledge.
I will begin by illustrating that asking questions is an implicit teaching technique, which serves to lead students to the thinking path created deliberately by the inquirer. In this case, the boy obtains the new principle because he is taught by Socrates and not because he recollects the knowledge independently. Inquiries don’t just act as assisting hints to stimulate the boy to recall knowledge autonomically. Inquiries act as powerful influences to manipulate the boy intentionally down to the clearly curved course and to make him come to the exact conclusion the inquirer predicts. The boy is nothing but a puppet; Socrates, who had a great impact to shape the boy’s thoughts, was the true dominant force. I can verify my ideas with an example: if an evil person inquired the boy to “help” him to recollect his knowledge, what would happen was that the boy could be easily misdirected to a wrong answer so long as the ill-spirited premediated a false thinking course for the boy on purpose. Hence, the boy should acquire the knowledge through the learning process, not the recollection experience.
The boy can’t assert that he truly possessed the knowledge until he fully understands it. Even though Socrates imparts knowledge to the boy straightforwardly, if the boy doesn’t perceive the concepts first, but merely embeds the ideas within his mind from rote memorization, which is dramatically distinct from real comprehension, he doesn’t truly learn the knowledge yet. Based on the standard purpose of school exams, only when students can apply what they have learned to novel situations, namely, test questions, can they prove to have thoroughly comprehended the knowledge by getting good grades, which will never be achieved by simply memorizing definitions of concepts. Furthermore, it is well-known that to think critically is quite important for students to understand new materials. From this, the ability of logical thinking comes before understanding. To illustrate, if the critical thinking process is required whenever people try to learn, then new-born infants, who know nothing, should know how to think logically to gain their very first knowledge, as well. The capacity to think critically is the foundation of learning new knowledge. Consequently, critically or logical thinking capability, the ability to learn knowledge, is inherent to human beings.
By contrast, some people may argue that babies are not born with logical thinking ability, for they acquire these skills later from their empirical experiences. Doubtless, newborns don’t have any knowledge or experiences; it seems like babies are not capable of thinking logically. Yet, it is not convincing to confirm that a machinist doesn’t know how to assemble a car when there are no machine parts for him to demonstrate his ability. A scientific study showed that when a five-month-old was given that A was taller than B and B was taller than C, the baby had the cognition to figure out that A was taller than C. Therefore, when infants don’t have the prerequisite knowledge, the machine elements, to form any arguments, it is not justified to conclude that babies can’t think critically at the beginning. The more background knowledge or experiences people have, the more intelligent and logical they will be. Sometimes, humans are unable to penetrate some concepts or ideas, because they don’t go through any alternative circumstances before, which means that they don’t see the possibilities. A little portion of key knowledge can totally overthrow the way we look at the world.