Can you provide a good explanation of Socrate's theory on memory?
A combination of Isaac Newton's and Kant's opinion corresponds to the following worldview: God communicates with us by means of two sources of information the Bible and Nature. The knowledge we acquire from these sources is based on concepts and intuition of the senses. Both depend on the structure of our intelligence, which has some innate fundamental, innate concepts built in a priori, that is even before our senses actually experience them. When we have the impression that we really grasped something this simply means that there is a perfect fit between our a priori concepts and experience. That is why Socrates called his way of teaching the art of the midwife (mayeutics): everything is already inside you in the form of concepts. These concepts are empty and meaningless to you without the impressions of the senses. You give birth to them so that you can become aware of them, precisely by the experience of the senses. When there is a good match you have the impression that you have grasped it. In fact, Plato would say that you just remembered what was innate in you. A materialist would say that it was impressed in your genes.
The idea of Socrates that knowledge is recollection makes no sense when you think it through. If knowledge is recalling what we already know, how did we learn it in the first place in order to recollect it? The "aha" of insight is not sense perception but is also not recollection (although once we have it we can recall it). Recollection is not a bad model for insight; it can take us a long way before it breaks down. Seeing insight as the perception of eternal forms (which are more real than the entities that embody them) is also not a bad model. These two models and their inadequacies may perhaps lead us to realize that in the last analysis we do not have enough insight into insight to know what it is. This understanding makes us wiser than those who believe the models.
Socrates' theory (which is really only a literary attribution by Plato, who is believed as the author of the dialogue) depends on the fact that knowledge is learned a priori and not a posteriori, which, if you read the Meno - (wikipedia here the dialogue where the theory is mentioned - he attempts to prove from the slave that he turned within himself to learn and not from outside.
The defense of this thesis requires lengthy analysis on certain sections of the Theaetetus, Republic, Phaedo, and Timaeus among other dialogues written by Plato
Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:
Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them