Dunno.. how far you guys are on the readings... but I've gotten myself bogged into a few pages... so here goes the start of some idea sharing...
It seems to me that Meno is not as concerned about what virtue is but rather on how the answer sounds... the words are what give Meno his convictions of truth and knowledge where as Socrates seems to be searching for something beyond the words. It seems to be almost a case of attitude, Meno approaches it with the attitude of one who already knows versus Socrates' attitude of skepticism (maybe too harsh a word... but what exactly seperates a skeptic from socrates? The way I see it Socrates - questioning what we know -> questioning what can be known -> questioning whether we know what we know. Skeptics - doubt - which entails questioning what one knows. Skeptic as used here: not to be confused with one who thinks nothing can really be known.) Meno starts with the assumptions that (1)things can be known through conversation and that (2) he knows or can know. Socrates seems to have the assumptions: 1)things may be knowable but 2) at any point of time he may never fully know/understand something.
I don't know if this makes any sense, but I just watched Hotel Rwanda and draw a parallel here that might be far fetched... The main character, Paul, starts of with the assumption that he knows how the world works... but through the course of the movie realizes his knowledge of humans, politics, hatred, life... are drastically narrow... he never expects the people he lives amoungst would ever commit genocide... never expects the international community to remain silent...never expects racial/ethnic discrimination for whose lives are quote on quote "more worth saving." In many ways a Meno in terms of approach...
Now comparing Paul to teh journalists of the bbc... who starts off with an attitude of cynicism seems actually to have a better understanding of people and politics than Paul... was it the cynicim that allowed him to see the worst?
and finally tying it back up to virtue, did Paul have the better set of virtues? which is clearly what the movie is aiming for... it is hard to say that he did not have the best set of virtues in the movie... but he had it without really knowing anything about people and politics... versus the journalist who had the knowledge but seemed lacking in virtue...
would it be a correct inference to make that one does not need to know what virtue is to be virtuous?
and does knowing anything about virtue change/make you more virtuous?
Hope this makes some sense... I am all about a movie marathon...
I hope some of you have seen the movie...