(1)What is Meno’s Paradox? Please explain.
(2)What is the Doctrine of Recollection? Please describe the features of the doctrine.
(3)What is the line of argumentation that is supposed to prove that the Doctrine of Recollection is true? Please set out the argument.
Special Instructions: You should write the argument out in ordinary English prose. To do this effectively, you need to understand the basic functional relationships between premises and conclusions in argumentation in general, as well as inter terms of the particular premises and conclusions of this argument in particular. It is best to use premise and conclusion indicator words as appropriate in order to make clear to your reader (i.e. your instructor) how the argument works. You can use diagrams to supplement your prose or to help you keep track of things if you want—but I am really looking to see whether you can set the argument out in prose. In doing that, you do not need to indicate whether a given premise plays the role of data or warrant. You only need to show relationships between premises and conclusions. Remember, once you have given the argument for a conclusion, that conclusion might then be used as a premise for the next piece of reasoning in the line of argumentation.
(4)How is the Doctrine of Recollection supposed to solve Meno’s Paradox? Please explain. (5) Suppose Socrates is claiming that we learned in a previous lifetime. What is the objection to Doctrine of Recollection, in terms of it being a proposed solution to Meno’s Paradox? Please explain. (We discussed this objection in class. The relevant objection is the one that uses the concept of a vicious infinite regress. To give that