Plato - Protagoras Flashcards
(16 cards)
What are the main 7 themes of Plato’s Protagoras?
Virtue - Knowledge - Dialogue/Dialectic -
Sophistry - Best Philosophical Method -
Education - Politics/Democracy -
Protagoras openly considers himself to be a __________? The others who teach like him do not openly say that they are a _________ because many Greeks frown upon this type of teacher for charging such a large fee to their students-so they are more secretive about their profession than Protagoras.
Sophist
What are the main questions posed in Plato’s Protagoras?
What is virtue? - Can one learn/teach virtue? - Is virtue divisible into separate parts, such as justice, temperance, wisdom, holiness, and courage, or are all of these words just another name for virtue? - What is knowledge? - Is obtaining knowledge ever possible/completed? - To whom should one trust his education? - What is the best philosophical method for becoming wise? - What is the value and nature of a teacher’s method? - What determines if an action is good or evil? - What is pleasure? - What is pain?How can one achieve the art of moral measurement?
Who is most likely to be the representative of the unknown person Socrates is talking to in the beginning of Protagoras? Why is this significant?
It is possible that the unknown person refers to Plato’s theory of recollection, that Socrates is recollecting the story to his own soul and reconsidering the dialogue between him and Protagoras in order to recall more knowledge through rationalistic philosophy which Plato believed to be a continual process guided by reason. This unknown person may also refer the reader himself, which would suggest that Plato is inviting the reader in to consider the dialogue and enter the conversation as well in order that they can fully or at least more satisfyingly answer the philosophical questions posed in Protagoras.
Who’s is the most famous [and thought to be the wisest] of all the Sophist?
Protagoras
Who journey’s to Callias’ house in Protagoras?
Socrates & Hippocrates
Whose house do Socrates and Hippocrates journey to?
Callias’ house
What pupils are inside Callias’ house when Socrates and Hippocrates enter after convincing the eunuch doorman to let them in because they were not sophists?
Protagoras, Prodicus, Hippias, Critias, & Alcibiades
What is the significance of Socrates saying in the beginning of the story that Alcibiades’ outward appearance, beautiful as it is, is not as beautiful as an inward sound mind of wisdom?
It sets up the whole dialogue to compare sophistry which is outwardly beautiful, with its rhetorical flourishes, against the dialectic/Socratic method of philosophy which may not be as outwardly beautiful as sophistry. But none the less it is more beautiful because it is a better way of gaining true wisdom, or as Plato believed, recollecting it from one’s immortal soul.
What are some examples of what some may say are ‘modern day sophists’? Is sophistry more prevalent in society today than Plato’s more serious Dialectic method of doing philosophy?
Lawyers, Politicians, or anyone who claims to have knowledge, and gives it for a fee. They are often people in the ‘spotlight’. Their ‘knowledge’ is only a means for one to gain wealth and power, usually in society, culture, or the political arena. the main importance is to convince or swoon people into following them so they can gain social and economic power. Deception is ok if it leads to the gain of the sophist into a higher position whatever he or she may believe that is. Therefore it is not primarily concerned with gaining true wisdom. Instead, anyone who believes “man is the measure of all things” may be considered a sophist because they believe whatever anyone believes is true (at least to that particularly person or situation), and that there is no absolute wisdom to be gained. These people are relativistic in their Epistemological beliefs…
It may be argued that in the primarily relativistic society of the 21st century in particular, that sophistry in reality has influenced society and culture more than Plato’s Dialectic method of philosophy and his belief that we can actually gain wisdom through discussion and reason. It seems it is more important for someone to be voted right by the many, even if he is wrong, than to actually know he is right in the wisdom he possesses and not changing his opinion merely because society says he is wrong and he doesn’t want to create conflict by claiming he actually has knowledge on a subject. Rarely does one argue his side against the many even if he knows he is write due to the pressure and culture of society which seems almost to deem absolute knowledge as a offensive idea even though no one can really explain why this is, it is mostly an effect of the enlightenment and naturalism which is grounded in science and theory and which believes nothing is true unless it can be scientifically proven, therefore absolute knowledge of something such as words is not possible. Although there has been progress in analytic philosophies belief that words have no real meaning and they actually may have some meaning after all.
Who does Protagoras say is ‘the measure of all things’? What is relativism?
Protagoras says that ‘man is the measure of all things’ meaning that what ever man believes in is the truth. Today relativism basically means that truth may vary in different circumstances and from person to person and that there is not a real absolute truth.
In other words people can determine the truth by their own genuine opinions or unfortunately attempt to manipulate the truth to their own ends
[e.g. Lawyers, Politicians, Entertainers, etc.].
What is the only ‘ill fare’ according to Socrates
The depravation of knowledge
According to Socrates, can one knowingly commit evil? Do you think Jesus Christ would agree with this statement?
No, according to Socrates it is only because of ignorance that one commits evil, because if one really had the wisdom to know the effect of their actions they would not willingly do an evil action.
It may be that Jesus would agree with the logic of Socrates because it seems that wisdom given from God influences the Christian believer not to commit sinful acts of evil and that the only reason they keep committing them is because they do not understand the truth or the good actions that they should take instead or even the consequences of their actions. Jesus says ‘forgive them, for they know not what they do’ when he is being crucified. And although the great early church apostle Paul said “I do that which I do not want to do”, maybe the truth of the situation is that he did not fully understand the consequences of his actions and IF he did then he would not do what he did not want to do. Paul says to do the good thing one must focus only on the good things of God all the time and to be transformed [from being a evildoer to good doer] by the renewing of ones mind, placing the importance on knowledge [God’s absolute and perfect knowledge that is] as the basis for becoming good. He believed that the Holy Spirit of Jesus gave one this absolute knowledge or truth if one totally put all his or her trust in Him. Jesus himself said that first one must love God with all his heart, mind, soul, & strength in order that then he may love his neighbor as himself. Heart, mind, soul, and strength here would be synonyms with the mind or spirit or soul. And being the knowledge in the unseen world as opposed to the physical world the Christian doctrine is also comparable or possibly relatable to Plato’s idea of the immortal soul which recollects knowledge. So where these two doctrines are similar they also each have their own theologies within themselves as to create differences. Overall it may be that the evil nature of man is not that he would knowingly choose evil, but instead that he does not really know the right thing to choose, and lacking this Godly wisdom he goes on sinning and this is in essence his “sinful/evil nature”. For according to the bible “All have fallen short of the glory of God”. Seeing things in this light you can see striking similarities between the thinking of Jesus and Socrates even though each doctrine developed separately from each other, one in Plato’s philosophies and one in the Bible itself [the philosophy, If you will, of Jesus].
What is Socrates advice on understanding writing or anything else for that matter?
He notes not to take the writing at surface level only, but to consider the context, and also if the writing refers syntopically to any other writings.
If one doesn’t initially understand something it doesn’t mean that thing is nonsensical and you should give up any understanding of it. On the contrary, instead it means that the philosopher should dig deeper through the dialectic method and whatever the best means necessary for finding out what the truth or meaning of something is.
What is the Socratic/Dialectic method and how should one go about trying to use its approach to measure truth and the right actions to take or even to defend the truth from a sophist or opponent who may be caught in logical error?
aUse concise dialogue to control the discussion at hand, but also to leave enough flexibility for the conversation to breath naturally.
bFormulate a number of syllogisms from questioning by which the opponent accepts the premises, but in which the conclusions are inconsistent with the opponents theory, catching them in a logical fallcy
cUse Analogous illustrations to deeply express arguments, understanding, and insight in order to answer and/or explain answers to inquiries.
dInquire deeper into what one means by a word, virtue, or term in order to show they do not really know what it means or the nature of it. Then propose, if you can, a healthier theory which will stand up to logical criticism.
eFind out what is behind mere appearances and dig deeper and deeper until the truth is attend-this may take many, multiple, or continuous debates, recitations, and reflections on the issue of wisdom at hand.
What is the general story outline of Plato’s Protagoras?
Part I: Socrates discusses with unknown person his chance meeting with Protagoras.
-Socrates talks with this person about how inward beauty is more beautiful than outward beauty
Part II: Socrates is woken by Hippocrates and they both travel to Callias house where Protagoras & company resides.
- He warns Hippocrates to be wary of what he is taught by certain teachers for they may, unknowingly to him, damage his soul
- Socrates agreed to accompany Hippocrates to meet Protagoras at Callias house.
Part 3: A dialogue, namely about the nature of virtue & knowledge ensure between the wise sophist Protagoras and the young yet wise philosopher Socrates.
- Socrates begins dialogue with the only openly proud sophist known in Athens,Protagoras. Socrates wonders what good things Protagoras teaches using the analogous illustrations of other professions. Protagoras says he can teach Hippocrates good judgement in personal life and civic affairs.
- Socrates challenges this idea that virtue can be taught [specifically focusing on political science and ignoring the claim of teaching wisdom in one’s personal affairs.
- Protagoras tells a myth about how Prometheus and Hermes gave fire, justice, & sustenance [civic virtue] to mankind. He then adds how Greek social order was of the belief that punitive justice and family wisdom which was handed down to the youth is clear evidence that virtue can be taught.
- Socrates continues the conversation saying that all ‘the virtues’ (justice, wisdom, courage, holiness, temperance) are actually one in the same.
- Then abruptly they begin to argue about the best mode of argument they should take after a flourishing and rather long speech by Protagoras which to Socrates is hard to follow, yet strangely sensational, but in a deceptive kind of way. Everyone democratically votes Socrates and Protagoras should continue in a Q & A method of discussion.
- Protagoras then questions Socrates concerning virtue in the poem of a poet named Simonides. They argue extensively.
- Socrates, in a side note, says it is impossible for one to knowingly do evil and that the only I’ll-fare one could face is the depravation of knowledge.
- Returning to the poem he says that poems are too ambiguous and impossible to interpret virtue through. Then he proposes that they get back to talking about the original issue of virtue directly which would produce ‘a trial of the truth and ourselves’. [He thus believes bringing the knowledge into the real life of conversation a important part of philosophy.] Before returning to this direct speech he also notes that context and other syntopical writings on a subject must be considered before claiming a writing to be contradictory. We should not simply be satisfied with surface level knowledge. But systematically dig to the deepest level of knowledge so we can be sure as to what the truth is exactly.
- They then continue the dialogue about the nature of virtue being divisible or not, Socrates interrupts the subject for a moment to talk about the nature of pain and pleasure and how they relate to good and evil. Pleasure comes from wisdom, but pain comes from evil, and evil is do solely to ignorance of wisdom or the right action. Socrates speaks of a need for a measuring system of the right action [which he may be indirectly and ironically referring to the dialectic method].
- Socrates states that boldness/cowardice is the ignorance of the dreadful things and it is the opposite of courage.
- Socrates suddenly becomes aware of the fact that their positions in the argument have switched.
- Socrates states virtue is knowledge, but that they must reexamine and continue this dialogue at a future time, noting the importance of further inquiry as long as it takes to get to the truth. Specifically he wants to inquire into the nature of knowledge at a future date. He concludes that virtue is teachable, but it is not necessarily as simple as Protagoras initially was arguing. The dialogue comes full circle.
- Overall the dialogue is left open for the reader to further reflect/dialogue in a challenge to attain truth.
