How Is "meno's Paradox" Right?

[Wind]

"The argument known as “Meno's Paradox” can be reformulated as follows: If you know what you're looking for, inquiry is unnecessary. If you don't know what you're looking for, inquiry is impossible. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible."

I object this statement: "If you know what you're looking for, inquiry (=seeking truth/information) is unnecessary"

But maybe I don't understand it?

In my view, if I know that I'm looking for the information of when the party begins, for instance, I need to seek information of when the party begins. Right?

Or other example. I know that I'm looking for the fact that me as an entity does not exist. But to find out and experience that, I have to do self-inquiry.

I can't see how this statement is right, therefore how this paradox is right. How this is right?

Edited June 1, 2016 by Wind

[Grant6]

I see it as false. To me, saying, "If you know what you're looking for, inquiry is unnecessary," is like saying, "If you know you're trying to find the easter egg, there's no point in actually looking for it." But of course, even thought you know you're looking for the easter egg doesn't mean you stop there; you have to actually go FIND it, which is why inquiry IS necessary. THAT'S the looking part. However, I can see how it could be true as well. Perhaps if you truly knew what you were looking for, you wouldn't need to go FIND it, because you would already know where it is. Intuitively, I suppose. But I'm curious, why are you trying to convince yourself that it is right?

[99th_monkey]

knowing/experience no inquiry needed . "knowing"/belief inquiry very necessary

ill roll with @Grant6  easter eggs. 

To look for the egg without actually knowing there is an egg to find, a belief in an egg being there has to be in place, otherwise you wouldnt look for it. (not "knowing"/believing it's there would make an inquiry impossible)

if (just for example) you placed the egg there.(or went out and found it) you know/experienced that there really is an egg and where it is. no is inquiry necessary 

[Nahm]

On 6/1/2016 at 1:59 PM, Wind said:

"The argument known as “Meno's Paradox” can be reformulated as follows: If you know what you're looking for, inquiry is unnecessary. If you don't know what you're looking for, inquiry is impossible. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible."

I object this statement: "If you know what you're looking for, inquiry (=seeking truth/information) is unnecessary"

But maybe I don't understand it?

In my view, if I know that I'm looking for the information of when the party begins, for instance, I need to seek information of when the party begins. Right?

Or other example. I know that I'm looking for the fact that me as an entity does not exist. But to find out and experience that, I have to do self-inquiry.

I can't see how this statement is right, therefore how this paradox is right. How this is right?

It's not paradoxical, it just leaves out the variable of time of experience. It's one of those classic nonlinear's.