Changes

In either case it can always be said, though without contributing anything of substance to the understanding of the problem, that it is their very property of ''virtuosity'' or their very quality of ''excellence'' that distinguishes the virtues from the teachings, whether this character appears to do nothing but add specificity to what can be actualized through learning alone, or solely through teaching, or whether it requires a nature that transcends the level of what can be achieved through any learning or teaching at all.  But this sort of answer only begs the question.  The real question is whether this mark is apparent or real, and how it ought to be analyzed and construed.

In either case it can always be said, though without contributing anything of substance to the understanding of the problem, that it is their very property of ''virtuosity'' or their very quality of ''excellence'' that distinguishes the virtues from the teachings, whether this character appears to do nothing but add specificity to what can be actualized through learning alone, or solely through teaching, or whether it requires a nature that transcends the level of what can be achieved through any learning or teaching at all.  But this sort of answer only begs the question.  The real question is whether this mark is apparent or real, and how it ought to be analyzed and construed.

Assuming a tentative understanding of the categories that I indicated in the above terms, the questions that I am worried about are these:

Assuming a tentative understanding of the categories that I indicated

 

in the above terms, the questions that I am worried about are these:

 

    1.  Did Socrates assert or believe that virtue can be taught, or not?

<li>Did he think that:</li>

        In symbols, did he assert or believe that V => T, or not?

    2.  Did he think that:

<ol style="list-style-type:lower-latin">

        a.  knowledge is virtue, in the sense that U => V ?

<li>knowledge is virtue, in the sense that <math>U \Rightarrow V</math>?</li>

        b.  virtue is knowledge, in the sense that U <=  V ?

<li>virtue is knowledge, in the sense that <math>U \Leftarrow V</math>?</li>

        c.  knowledge is virtue, in the sense that U <=> V ?

<li>knowledge is virtue, in the sense that <math>U \Leftrightarrow V</math>?</li></ol>

    3.  Did he teach or try to teach that knowledge can be taught?

<li>Did he teach or try to teach that knowledge can be taught?<br>In symbols, did he teach or try to teach that <math>U \Rightarrow T</math>?</li></ol>

        In symbols, did he teach or try to teach that U => T ?

My current understanding of the record that is given to us

My current understanding of the record that is given to us in Plato's Socratic Dialogues can be summarized as follows:

in Plato's Socratic Dialogues can be summarized as follows:

At one point Socrates seems to assume the rule that

At one point Socrates seems to assume the rule that

knowledge can be taught (U => T), but simply in order

knowledge can be taught (U => T), but simply in order