espond to the question posed of whether or not virtue could be taught.
             The true definition of virtue, according to Webster, is basically moral excellence, goodness, and right action thinking. Unfortunately the definition isn't quite that simple. To define virtue, one must consider what moral excellence, goodness, and right action thinking means. For example, if we look at moral excellence we really have to consider that what may be moralistic for one person may not be morally right for another. Therefore, it seems impossible to apply a universal definition of moral excellence that will encompass the whole of the world. In addition, if we were able to achieve the notion of defining moral excellence, how exactly would we teach it? Socrates is not saying that virtue cannot be learned, he is simply saying that a concept, such as virtue, can be learned, but it can't be taught.
             Our educational system today is based on the Socratic belief that we should allow our students to think clearly and be able to define what is presented to them. They, the students, should not be taught to simply regurgitate what their teacher says, but instead, they should be taught to apply reason and logic to questions posed to them. It must be reinforced that the students should not rely solely on their senses to help them learn, as our senses can trick us and lead us to believe something that is basically a sham. For example, when you submerge a stick in water it appears that the stick bends. If the students rely exclusively on their senses to obtain knowledge then they will be at an educational shortfall and their ability to learn will be halted. However, if they are taught to apply reason and logic then they will acquire the ability to learn and think using abstract. Th
             ...