His method is tested and explained in Plato’s Euthyphro and Meno.

In the discussion of the Fourth and Fifth Puzzles, Socrates andTheaetetus together work out the detail of two empiricist attempts toexplain just this. It then becomes clearer why Plato does not thinkthat the empiricist can explain the difference between fully explicitand not-fully-explicit speech or thought. Plato thinks that, toexplain this, we have to abandon altogether the empiricist conceptionof thought as the concatenation (somehow) of semantically inert simplemental images. Instead, we have to understand thought as the syntacticconcatenation of the genuine semantic entities, the Forms.Mistakes in thought will then be comprehensible as mistakes eitherabout the logical interrelations of the Forms, or about the correctapplication of the Forms to the sensory phenomena.

His views of this are apparent in the Meno.

Plato is one of the most influential thinkers in human history.

So read, the midwife passage can also tell us something importantabout the limitations of the Theaetetus' inquiry. Thelimitations of the inquiry are the limitations of the main inquirers,and neither (the historical) Socrates nor Theaetetus was acard-carrying adherent of Plato's theory of Forms. Perhaps thedialogue brings us only as far as the threshold of the theory of Formsprecisely because, on Socratic principles, one can get no further. Toget beyond where the Theaetetus leaves off, you have to be aPlatonist. (For book-length developments of this reading of theTheaetetus, see Sedley 2004 and Chappell 2005.)

Plato was at birth, named Aristolcles, and had the title of Plankton.

As before, there are two main alternative readings of 151–187: theUnitarian and the Revisionist. On the Unitarian reading, Plato'spurpose is to salvage as much as possible of the theories ofProtagoras and Heracleitus (each respectfully described as ouphaulon: 151e8, 152d2). Plato's strategy is to show that thesetheories have their own distinctive area of application, theperceptible or sensible world, within which they are true. However,the sensible world is not the whole world, and so these theories arenot the whole truth. We get absurdities if we try to take them asunrestrictedly true. To avoid these absurdities it is necessary toposit the intelligible world (the world of the Forms)alongside the sensible world (the world of perception). Whenthis is done, Platonism subsumes the theories of Protagoras andHeracleitus as partial truths. On this reading, the strategy of thediscussion of D1 is to transcend Protagoras andHeracleitus: to explain their views by showing how they are, not thetruth, but parts of a larger truth. In the process the discussionreveals logical pressures that may push us towards the two-worldsPlatonism that many readers, e.g., Ross and Cornford, find in theRepublic and Timaeus.

At the end of the Meno (86d-100b), Socrates attempts to answer the question.
The process involves Socrates purposefully contradicting himself to entice Meno’s focus.

In Plato s Meno, Socrates is ..

"But what did that mean -- everything?" (), because Descartes did not apply his method to examine the aspect of our life that Socrates called on every man to examine -- namely, the "no small matter, but how to live", or, ethics. Descartes' concern was not ethics, but metaphysics. Socrates, in contrast, hadn't time for metaphysical speculation -- with the questions that occupied Plato, whose interests in philosophy were much broader than those of either Socrates' or Descartes' -- because Socrates judged that he must first seek to "know himself" and therefore how he should live his life, as it was , who is the patron Greek god of philosophy, at Delphi.

“Can virtue be taught?” This is question Plato is trying to answer in Meno.

over Meno's head, as it were -- between Plato and his ..

[Note: this continues the discussion of "" in my comments to Plato's Gorgias and "we are discussing no small matter, but how to live" (Plato, Republic 344e, 352d).]

The reason for Plato making this question is related to his opposition to the wise men....

Plato’s Theory of Forms: A Further Examination - Noet …

Perhaps the Digression paints a picture of what it is like tolive in accordance with the two different accounts ofknowledge, the Protagorean and the Platonist, that Plato iscomparing. Thus the Digression shows us what is ethically at stake inthe often abstruse debates found elsewhere in the Theaetetus.Its point is that we can't make a decision about what account ofknowledge to accept without making all sorts of other decisions, notonly about the technical, logical and metaphysical matters that are tothe fore in the rest of the Theaetetus, but also aboutquestions of deep ethical significance. So, for instance, it canhardly be an accident that, at 176c2, the difference between justiceand injustice is said to be a difference between knowledge(gnôsis) and ignorance (agnoia).