Plato believed there to be a sharp distinction between the world of perceivable objects and the world of forms. A form is what makes something to be that of what it is, or its essence. The form is that in which all members of the same kind have in a common type class. For example; if we were talking about pencils, a pencil would be an individual while pencil would be a form. In the dialogue “Meno,” Socrates opens not with the question of “what is virtue?” but rather “how and if virtue can be taught.” He then attempts to discover an exact definition of virtue because before one can discuss the subsequent questions about it, one must have an exact definition. Plato brings forth the idea of anamnesis, which states the soul is eternal and already knows everything, and in order to learn one must simply recollect what they already know. Throughout the dialogue Meno proposes many definitions of virtue, all of which are turned down by Socrates because he tends to use the word he is defining in the definition. As a result, the question is raised of whether it is even possible to seek for something one does not know yet, attempting to find a definition of virtue. By the end of the dialogue the two come to the conclusion that they still do not have a clear definition; however, they do not now that they do not know. This introduces the objection proposed by Meno discussing the entire definitional search in the form of what has been called “The Paradox of Inquiry.” The argument appeared to be very mature and developed, but Plato critiqued it harshly. His response to the objection is as follows, one cant come to know something that they did not already know; inquiry never produces new knowledge, but only recalls things that it already knows. The objection made by Meno can be restated as if one knows what they’re looking for, inquiry is unnecessary; if one does not know what they’re looking for, inquiry is impossible; therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. In simpler words, either one knows what they’re looking for or one doesn’t know what they’re looking for. There is one ambiguity in Meno’s objection to “The Paradox of Inquiry” and that is it commits fallacy of equivocation. The fallacy of equivocation is defined as the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense. To see the ambiguity one must consider the question “Is it possible of one to know what they don’t know?” On one hand the answer to this question is yes because one can know the questions they don’t know the answers to, but on the other hand the answer is no because one can’t both know and not know the same thing. With this, one can see how the Paradox of Inquiry is possible because you know what question you want to answer and the question you don’t know the answer to yet. You follow some steps in order to answer the question and come to know the answer of the question that you did not previously know. This shows how the argument made by Meno is flawed due to the fallacy of equivocation. As a result of this, the theory of Recollection is born. The Theory of Recollection in a sense says the inquiry is impossible. It states that what appears to be learning something new is really recollecting something that one already knows. Plato’s theory goes onto discuss that we already have the answers to all questions within our souls and finding the answers to questions is just a matter of retrieving them from within. We recognize the answers as correct when we confront them.