Protagorean Relativism

Protagorean Relativism
1. Protagorean relativism states that "If each person is the determiner of truth and falsity, then any
judgement any person makes is true." (McKirahan, 389). This means that regardless if two people
have opposing opinions on a matter they are both correct in their opinion, and this is due to
perception. If someone perceives something differently there is very little that will change that.
Perception is based on sensation and science so even though two perceptions about a single matter
may seem contrary, both are correct meaning they cannot contradict. Protagoras uses the example of
taste in a healthy person and a sick person to make his case. Honey will generally taste sweet, but if
you are sick it will more than likely taste bitter instead (390). It is the same honey in each scenario,
so knowing that one tongue belongs to someone in good health and the other to one in bad health
how can you say that either if them is wrong? This does not mean that someone who perceives
honey as bad should remain in the state they are in, if someone is sick they should seek treatment. In
that same vein, though opposing perceptions are all equally true, they are not all equally good or
beneficial (392). If one opposing opinion is more beneficial than the rest, something should be done
to change them. This is where Protagoras' view on wisdom comes in. I believe it follows the
sickness analogy well, If a doctor successfully treats your sickness and you can now perceive honey
as sweet, they
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Plato 's Views On Morality And Virtue
In this dialogue we see Socrates in intellectual argument with a fellow philosopher: Protagoras who
claims to be Sophists (professional expert in wisdom) they both use various arguments and counter
arguments to prove their arguments on the topic of piety and virtue. Socrates believed that Virtues is
something that could not be taught or learned, where Protagoras claimed that he can teach people
"good judgement" in both personal affairs, civil issues and teach political science so that his students
will become good citizens.
The argument begins with Protagoras claiming that he can teach Hippocrates "good judgement" in
both personal affairs and civic issues. He also claims to be able to teach political science in a way so
that his students will become good citizens. To this Socrates replies that he did not know this was
something that could be taught and in consequence he poses one of the central questions of this
dialogue: is virtue teachable? Socrates' reason for doubting that virtue can be taught is that virtuous
parents often have unvirtuous children.
Socrates explains this argument by illustrating many examples in which this has been proven to be
true. Pericles was a leading figure for Athens, a good and a virtuous citizen. However when Clinias
(the brother to Alcibades) was placed into Pericles' care in an attempt to separate him from negative
influences, and to teach him how to be a good virtuous citizen of Athens, he was returned after six
months in Pericles' care

Protagoras' Answer to How Virtue Can be Taught by a Story...
Protagoras responds to Socrates's challenge (how can virtue be taught) by telling a story about the
creation of the animals by the gods. The gods entrust Prometheus and Epimetheus to distribute to
these animals their appropriate capabilities. Epimetheus goes first, and doles out various attributes to
defend each species from the predations of the others. Next, he provides the animals with different
methods of protection from environmental elements and with different sources of food. Finally, he
establishes the fertility rate of each animal to be consistent with all these qualities. By distributing
different characteristics and faculties to the animals, Epimetheus distributes the different kinds of
animals so as to ensure the survival of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The notion that civic virtue is teachable therefore lies at the foundation of the Greek social order, in
the institutional form of the principle that citizens can be changed for the better.
Finally, Protagoras responds to Socrates's claim that virtuous fathers do not teach their sons how to
be virtuous. Socrates is factually incorrect, Protagoras asserts: all familial discipline aims at
instilling virtue, and this process continues once the child enters formal schooling. The educational
mechanism of the system of criminal justice is also at work in these more intimate domains. Civic
virtue is like one's mother tongue: one does not need to be taught it, because it is learnt through
living within a community. Some, however, are better than others at "showing the way to virtue"
(328a); and Protagoras claims that he is one of these people who can show the way.
Analysis
When he asks them whether they want to hear him argue in the mode of a story or of a logical
argument, Protagoras relinquishes an important choice to his listeners in formulating his
demonstration that virtue is teachable. In separating so sharply what he wishes to argue from the
rhetorical form of that argument (thus divorcing his theory from the expression of that theory)
Protagoras embodies an attitude of unconcern and disregard for the true importance of philosophy.
This attitude is characteristic of the Sophists, at least as

Can Virtue Be Acquired? An Examination of the Laches, Meno...
Can Virtue be Acquired?
An Examination of the Laches, Meno, and Protagoras
In the Socratic dialogues of Plato, Socrates often argues against the pretence of knowledge in his
interlocutors. In the case of the Laches, Meno, and Protagoras dialogues, the pretence is the
knowledge of virtue, among other things. The Laches seeks a definition of arête (virtue), the Meno
examines the teaching of virtue, and the Protagoras offers a known expert the chance to defend that
virtue can, indeed, be taught. Using these dialogues as a backdrop, I will provide an analysis of the
arguments and comment on the acquisition of virtue in Platonic dialogue. The process of analysis
shall move from each individual dialogue followed by commentary informed by secondary works.
The Laches, the most basic of the dialogues, will precede the Meno, and finally the Protagoras until
each text has been examined. The final section will include concluding arguments and affirmatively
answer the question regarding virtue acquisition. What arguments do Socrates and his interlocutors
provide in these dialogues and what does their discussion suggest about the way in which virtue is in
fact acquired? Socrates initiates the inquiries into this problem in each dialogue the same way, that
is, to admit no knowledge of the subject at hand. He further admits that he could not possibly teach
virtue without knowing what virtue is, "if I do not know what a thing is, how could I know what to
teach?" (ho de me oida ti estin,

A Review Of Protagoras ' Epistemology
Phillips !1
Miki Phillips
PHIL1050
November 19th, 2016
A Review of Protagoras' Epistemology in the Theaetetus
Plato's Theaetetus is the transcription of a dialogue between Socrates and a philosophical prodigy:
the 15 year old Theaetetus. Socrates, on the eve of his trial and eventual execution, talks with
Theaetetus after being told of their resemblance by mathematician Theodorus of Cyrene.
Socrates' purpose in the dialogue becomes a discussion of epistemology, or the theory of knowledge
and how it is obtained. Socrates begs an answer for the question: "what is knowledge?" Theaetetus
is understandably reluctant to give an answer, yet eventually responds as follows:
At any rate, Socrates, after such an exhortation I should be ashamed of not trying to do my best.
Now he who knows perceives what he knows, and, as far as I can see at present, knowledge is
perception.1
Socrates applauds the young Theaetetus for his bravery in positing a solution. He also makes a
connection between Theaetetus' answer and the answer of an earlier Sophist:
Well, you have delivered yourself of a very important doctrine about knowledge; it is indeed the
opinion of Protagoras, who has another way of expressing it. Man, he says, is the measure of all
things, of the existence of things that are, and of the non–existence of things that are not.2
1 Plato, Theaetetus, 151d.
2 Plato, Theaetetus,, 151d.
Phillips !2
Socrates, never a fan of the Sophists, sought to address the intrinsic flaws underlying the

Philosophy In Seven Sentences By Douglas Groothuis
Philosophy in Seven Sentences written by Douglas Groothuis is a selective evaluation of seven
philosophers and the consequences of their philosophies. It addresses both accuracies and flaws in
these philosophers' theories and, in part, what it means to philosophize. It gives a concise and
accurate explanation of the seven philosophies and strong justification for the agreement or
dismissal of these views.
Book Summary
Protagoras' core teachings were, "Man is the measure of all things." and, brought to its logical
conclusion, "error is impossible". Groothuis evaluates it as the concept that all things in the natural
and so forth are measured by each individual, and are fully justified based upon how they feel.
Groothuis emphasizes that this philosophy is built upon the foundation that perception is reality. He
advises the readers to reject this philosophy because, "Statements cannot be true unless it ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Through his "Phenomenology" he concludes that "All our vices are virtues found in God".
Augustine uses this to present the argument that "Humans possess knowledge of... moral law... and
their inability to obey it" producing "guilt over sin". "God is the best explanation for the awareness"
and by sending a mediator, Christ, enables "our hearts [to] find rest in the grace offered by God
alone".
Descartes philosophy is expressed by Groothuis as being taken greatly out of context by the
majority. The text describes Descartes as being an "earnest and humble seeker of truth" and it was
this seeking of truth that caused Descartes to "test all that can be doubted" by doubting even his
existence. This leads him to the realization that if there is a doubt there must be a doubter to suggest
the questioning. This ultimately produced the philosophy, "I think, therefore I

Is Man The Measure Of All?
Barrett Kitterman
Philosophy 3001
Paper 2, Question 1
Is Man the Measure of All?
What does Protagoras mean when he states that "Man is the measure of all things," and why does
Plato reject such a notion? Before we answer these questions, we must first ask ourselves, what is
reality? Does the world have a reality independent of the one you and I perceive? Are qualities such
as right and wrong, correct and incorrect entirely subjective? Or are they objective properties of
people, places, and things? The answers to these questions are what's at stake for both Protagoras
and Plato, and both offer significantly different perspectives. We will analyze what Protagoras
proffers about the nature of reality, touching upon the Measure Doctrine, his conception ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
What does he mean when he states that "...a human being is the measure of all things–of things that
are, how they are, and of things that are not, how they are not"? (Irwin, p. 97, box 158). By "things,"
Protagoras is referring to the properties of people, places, objects, and processes in the universe, and
perhaps even referring to the people, places, objects, and processes themselves; we will examine the
implications of both interpretations. By calling humans "measure[s]," Protagoras means our
perceptions dictate how people, places, objects, processes, and their properties seem to us. That is,
"things that are, [and] how they are" are relative to individuals' unique perceptions of those things;
the things and their qualities, in and of themselves, do not exist. Take temperature, or hotness, as an
example of a thing (or a property of one); in Protagoras' view, there is no objective or universal
hotness, rather, there is only the perception of hotness. Moreover, the perception of hotness may
vary, or be unique to every individual perceiver. Let's be concrete by considering the temperature of
a hypothetical cup of coffee. A cup of coffee that I perceive to be hot may not feel hot to you. I feel
the cup and immediately recoil,

Difference Between Socrates And Protagoras
In his dialogue Protagoras, Plato relays to his audience a debate between the philosopher Socrates
and the renowned sophist Protagoras. Throughout the course of their interaction, it becomes clear
that the two men differ in more ways than simply their opinions on the topic at hand. Not only are
philosophers and sophists inherently different in nature, but these differences are illuminated
specifically when analyzing Socrates's and Protagoras's motives for entering their intellectual
discussion. Moreover, when considering the qualities embodied by both a sophist and a philosopher,
it can be argued that to be a philosopher, rather than a sophist, would prove to be most beneficial for
oneself and the community at large. While some may ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
According to these defining qualities, it was clear that, for the most part, Protagoras lived up to his
title as a sophist, while Socrates embodied the characteristics of a philosopher. Their respective
occupational qualities were contributing factors as to why each man initially engaged in the debate.
Socrates yearned to determine the truth of that which constitutes virtue, which would have allowed
him to ascertain whether Protagoras would be a suitable teacher for his friend Hippocrates. That is,
if their debate proved that the constituents of virtue could be readily taught by a sophist, then it
would prove worthwhile for Protagoras to impart upon Hippocrates his teachings and wisdom. For
this reason, Socrates could be considered a philosopher. His ultimate goal in engaging with
Protagoras was to find truth and to gain knowledge through the employment of solid arguments and
strong evidence from both parties. Toward the end of their debate, Protagoras accuses Socrates of
arguing for the sake of winning. To this, Socrates replied that he was "...not asking these things...for
anything other than my wish to investigate how in the world things stand in regard to virtue and
what in the world virtue is" (Plato 65). Socrates battled with Protagoras not to better his name or his
financial standing, but simply because he was eager to learn.
Protagoras, on the other hand, took part in this debate for self–interested

Platos View on Virtue
Virtue is the conformation of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles. Virtue is a trait
that many people would see as good. This word means many different things to many different
people as described in this paper. I will be describing The Sophists, Socrates, and my own view on
virtue and what it is means in all of our minds. Back in the fifth century B.C.E. (Before Common
Era) many Athenians such as Socrates believed that there was a basis for stable and certain
knowledge. They believed that by arguing and trying to figure out life's true meaning he would be
able to understand the concept of truth. He also believe that goodness and knowledge were derived
from the very same thing. He believed that if a person committed a ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Last but not least there was Thrasymacus. He believed that unjust person was superior in character
and in intelligence to the just persons. He believes that if a person only believes in justice in their
life then it only leads to weakness in their minds. I believe, just as Socrates does, that knowledge is
virtue. In life you make choices that make you happy

Should Plato Have Lumped All Sophists
Plato was not praising Socrates as the only real philosopher, but rather, he was attempting to elevate
the identity of his master, ironically by means of a rhetorical strategy of dissociation. Plato derides
all sophists, and does not distinguish between a neo–sophist and a sophist. He makes a distinction
between a sophist and a philosopher; sophists were deceivers who only seek to influence others by
the use of rhetoric and does not offer true knowledge, and the philosopher was a lover of wisdom
who sought truth (Plato Sophist, 233c; Plato Phaedrus, 278d). I argue that Plato was wrong in
making this distinction. Plato should not have lumped all sophists into the neo–sophistic basket. He
should have recognised that not all sophists during ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Plato never does this directly, as it would destroy his argument for disposing of the sophists. But
when paying close attention to Plato's dialogues, you can see a much lighter tone is being taken
towards some sophistic thinkers, something close to admiration (Plato Protagoras, 337a– 337d;
318d–319b). These thinkers include Protagoras and Prodicus, both of which were classed as
'sophists'. I refrain from labeling them neo–sophists, as I do think what they were doing was a kind
of philosophy. Protagoras focused on a variety of topics, including truth, and relativism (Plato,
Protagoras 319a; Plato, Theaetetus, 152a). While Prodicus was concerned with linguistics and
ethical theory (Xenophon, Memorabilia 2. 1.21). A definitive answer is difficult to achieve, as the
evidence of what remains today is largely based off writing from both Plato and Aristotle, both of
whom were bias towards sophists. Nevertheless, they are definitely portrayed with much greater
respect by Plato then the other neo–sophists who he derides. Whether or not Plato secretly
considered them real philosophers is difficult to say, but I do not think Plato regarded them as petty
and hungry for power like the

What Is Protagorean Relativism?
Many different ideas have been given the name 'relativism', and the term has been used to pillory all
sorts of views (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad ones). It is mere posturing to say that
you are for or against "relativism" unless you say what you mean by the term. Here I want mainly to
discuss (and to criticize) a view I have encountered among students in philosophy courses, who say
things like this: "What anyone believes is true for that person. What you believe is true for you, what
I believe is true for me." We can call the view expressed in such statements 'relativism' because it
denies that there is any such thing as "absolute" truth, holds that all truth is relative to the person
who believes it.
1. Protagorean relativism ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The principal exception to this last claim is Protagoras of Abdera (c. 485–410 B.C.), a Greek
philosopher who apparently put forward a version of relativism in a treatise entitled Truth.
Protagoras traveled to many city–states, taught many influential people, and became very wealthy.
He was possibly the most successful of the teachers in fifth century Greece who were known as
'sophists'. None of Protagoras' writings have come down to us, but his views are reported by others,
chiefly by Plato in the dialogues Protagoras and

Example Of Protagorean Relativism
Relativism
Various thoughts have been given the name " Relativism ", and the term has been utilized to pillory
a wide range of perspectives (some of the time for good reasons , infrequently for awful ones ). It is
insignificant acting to say that you are for or against "relativism" unless you say what you mean by
the term. Here I need chiefly to talk about (and to condemn) a perspective I have experienced among
students in theory courses, who say things like this : " What anybody accepts is valid for that
individual. What you accept is valid for you? , what I accept is valid for me ?" We can call the
perspective communicated in such proclamations "Relativism" in light of the fact that it denies that
there is any such thing as " outright " truth, holds that all truth is with respect to the individual who
trusts it.
1. Protagorean relativism
In spite of the fact that relativism is oddly alluring to a few apprentices in theory, there are
essentially no relativists among huge figures ever. The primary special case to this last claim is
Protagoras of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Parmenides' perspective was: What is, is; what is not, will be most certainly not. What falls under
the faculties, notwithstanding, is continually changing, constantly not quite the same as what went
before and will come after, and precedes us just by appearing thusly or that approach to us. What
genuinely is can't get to be or change, can't be not quite the same as anything it is not, and can't be
seen by the faculties. The main the truth is Being or the One. What simply shows up is nothing by
any means. In the event that the unimportant appearing of sense recognition misses the mark
regarding aggregate Being, it can have no reality

Plato's Theory of Knowledge
Plato's Theory of Knowledge
What appears to be so to me is true for me, and what appears to be so to you is true for you. It
follows that everyone's perceptions are equally true. This of course is the extreme form of relativism
that Protagoras claims when he asserts that man is the measure of all things in regards to truth. It
seems that if all perceptions (e.g. judgments and beliefs) are equally true, there can be no room for
expertise. But what is Protagoras to say of our natural inclination that such things as wisdom and the
wise really do exist among individuals? If Protagoras' relativism is to be accepted, he must explain
how expertise is possible. Protagoras does not deny that some men are wiser than others, but he
disagrees that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In this picture we do not say that the new state of mind (healthy Socrates) once the drugs have been
administered is truer or wiser than the original state of mind (sick Socrates), rather we say it is
better. It is our common misconception of equating good states with true things, rather than equating
good states as better (not truer); as Socrates puts it in behalf of Protagoras, "...The [good] things
which appear to [one] are what some people, who are still at a primitive stage, call 'true'; my
position however, is that the one kind are better than the others, but in no way truer" (167b). It
seems that we are able to allow expertise in light of the Measure Doctrine simply by arguing that the
doctor's wisdom does not have any command of objective truth, rather what he is doing is simply
affecting change for the better or good with respect to the perceiver. This is controversial, and we
will see why later when Socrates brings up the kind of role expertise plays in emergency situations
and judgments about the future. But for now, we will look at another example that is meant to
bolster Protagoras' defense.
The wise politician is said to be the one who affects change by making wholesome things seem just
and instead of pernicious. "Whatever in any city is regarded as just and admirable is just and
admirable,

The View Of The Nature Of Reality
1. Explain (the main ideas and views) and evaluate (by giving arguments) the view of Heraclitus
regarding the nature of reality? A: Heraclitus nature of reality was based on the fact that the universe
was always changing. He thought that there was no reality, according to Heraclitus everything was
based on fire because like our lives fire also changes every single second. His famous quote "You
can't step in the same river twice" represents the change that we sometimes don't see, because in his
quote the fact that the rivers water is constantly flowing shows the change over time; Where when
you want to step in it again is going to be different water from the one you steeped initially. I also
think that Heraclitus is talking about how we ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As Empedocles also sees the change in the universe he also wanted to know why it was happening.
He thought that the two forces of the cosmos love and strife had an influence of the natural world
and he envision these as the forces of attraction and discomposing because for example when
different roots are harmonious and come together they form love however with strife roots are
repelled and seek their own kind bringing decomposition. 3. Explain and evaluate the view of
Anaximander? A: Anaximander theory about the different substances explains how he believes that
they came from more simple form that just water. He thought the basic substance must be ageless,
boundless and indeterminate. He knew things were made from smaller particles that we were not
visible. His interest in the fundamental substance that constitutes everything or in determining what
the most important feature of reality was. He though what happen in the universe came from natural
powers and processes for example how the seasons changed from heat,cold,wetness,dryness it all
alternate to create our seasons. 4.Explain, evaluate and compare (by stating how they are similar or
different) the views of Parmenides and Heraclitus. A: In comparison to Heraclitus theory of constant
change in the universe Parmenides thought that there was no change only permanence. He believes
that reality was changeless and that the

Presocratics Opened A Period Of Creative Thinking To Which
Presocratics opened a period of creative thinking to which succeeded a period of skeptical
reflection. It is with the Sophists that this era of the critical reflection started. They were paid
teachers in the ancient Greece who moved from city to city according to people demand. They
developed some theories that were criticized, especially by Socrates (470 BC). One of their big
differences concerns the essence of Truth. Whereas Socrates endeavored to find true and universal
definitions of virtues such as justice; The sophists, on the contrary, maintained that "truth" is
relative, believing that all opinions are valid, since they all reflect in their own way a complex and
peculiar set of what is lived; for the sophists that the truth does ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Killing an innocent man is wrong, killing a killer is good. This assumption is based on the sophists'
practice of reducing the truth to what is, persuaded that appearance hides nothing.
The Sophists, from the nihilism of Gorgias to the pessimism of Protagoras, will trigger an
intellectual revolution. The ideas emitted by them shaken certainties like traditional moral and
religious values which will create doubt in people's mind starting with Socrates.
Socrates is a philosopher like no other. It is the symbol of Western philosophy. He holds the
exceptional place of the founder of philosophical ethics, even though it is very hard to create an
actual and error–free biography of Socrates since he left no writing. We reach Socrates only
indirectly by Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. Yet he represents such a revolution that all the
others before him are called Presocratics. Almost all the later philosophical systems – no matter how
divergent they may be – refer to him. According to Plato, Socrates stood up against the Sophists '
excesses. He tirelessly denounced the inconsistencies and foolishness of common opinion, provoked
those who posed as promoters of thought; sophists. He was not fond of the way they used rhetoric.
"For Socrates, on the other hand, the arts of communication, argument, and persuasion have a
different goal. His practice of them is designed not to win a victory over his opponent but to advance
toward the truth." (65). Socrates

Philosophy Essay
Relativism
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The first clear statement of relativism comes with the Sophist Protagoras, as quoted by Plato,
"The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to
you, in that way they exist for you" (Theaetetus 152a). Thus, however I see things, that is
actually true –– for me. If you see things differently, then that is true –– for you. There is no separate
or objective truth apart from how each individual happens to see things. Consequently, Protagoras
says that there is no such thing as falsehood. Unfortunately, this would make Protagoras's own
profession meaningless, since his business is to teach people how ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
And even if we can identify opposing views –– taking contradiction and falsehood seriously –– what
is "better" supposed to mean? Saying that one thing is "better" than another
is always going to involve some claim about what is actually good, desirable, worthy, beneficial, etc.
What is "better" is supposed to produce more of what is a good, desirable, worthy,
beneficial, etc.; but no such claims make any sense unless it is claimed that the views expressed
about what is actually good, desirable, worthy, beneficial, etc. are true. If the claims about value are
not supposed to be true, then it makes no difference what the claims are: they cannot exclude their
opposites.
It is characteristic of all forms of relativism that they wish to preserve for themselves the very
principles that they seek to deny to others. Thus, relativism basically presents itself as a true
doctrine, which means that it will logically exclude its opposites (absolutism or objectivism), but
what it actually says is that no doctrines can logically exclude their opposites. It wants for itself the
very thing (objectivity) that it denies exists. Logically this is called "self–referential
inconsistency," which means that you are inconsistent when it comes to considering what you
are actually doing yourself. More familiarly, that is called wanting to "have your cake and eat
it too." Someone who advocates relativism,

Plato's Critique Of Rhetoric
Through the figure of the sophist, I aim to explore Plato's critiques of rhetoric by looking at two
dialogues in particular, Apology and Gorgias. Using these dialogues as well as references to other of
his dialogues including Phaedrus, Protagoras, and Sophist, I will argue that while Plato critiques the
role of rhetoric in sophist arguments, he does not present the philosopher as free of rhetoric either, as
he himself uses elements derived from the rhetoric he critiques in his arguments. This will then be
argued to be problematic to the traditional conception of the distinction between the sophist and the
philosopher, as well as his overall view of the sophist through his work as a whole. Firstly, I will
consider Apology in the context of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Instead question me if you can, and prove that I'm wrong. Otherwise you must answer me."15 This
quote is found in a section where he again incorporates rhetoric into his argument. This is another
example of times where Socrates incorporates rhetoric into his argumentative discourse. For this
reason some argue that at times, Socrates is admitting the need of rhetoric in philosophy. In this way,
Socrates is also seen as admitting the power of rhetoric.16 Two more arguments for this regarding
Plato's writing of the work in the context of his oeuvre: the strength of the arguments presented by
Callicles and Gorgias. Gorgias, for example, offers a distinction to separate rhetoric and other areas
of knowledge, which would be a significant detriment to Socrates' argument were it accepted.17
Callicles is also seen as providing a strong argument, and many authors have argued that Socrates'
attempt to refute him fails.18 This is also connected in a way to the ultimate outcome of Gorgias;
Socrates fails to persude any of his opponents and ends up confronting Callicles in a rather nasty
manner. These are ultimately written dialogues where Socrates is the protagonist, so it is interesting
that the ending is as such. There are naturally many

The, By Plato, The Question, What Is Virtue?
In Protagoras by Plato, the question "what is virtue?" is being assessed. They come to many
definitions of virtue but one definition that is being discussed is that virtue has five different
components, this can be seen on page 46 at 349d of Plato's Protagoras. Protagoras states, "What I
am saying to you, Socrates, is that all these are parts of virtue, and that while four of them are
reasonably close to each other, courage is completely different from all the rest. The proof that what
I am saying is true is that you will find many people who are extremely unjust, impious,
intemperate, and ignorant, and yet exceptionally courageous" (Plato 46). In order to understand this
quote we need to assess: why it is significant, how courage is ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
By the end of the book, Protagoras actually changes his thinking. He now believes that virtue can't
be taught. This comes as a shock. Up until this point, Protagoras claims that he can teach something
that he himself said was unteachable. At this point in the story, Socrates is now trying to figure out
why Protagoras is saying that courage is different from the other parts of virtue that he listed.
Courage differs from the other parts of virtue that are listed in the sense that courage is
psychological, controllable, and it has the ability to be changed, whereas the other parts are
something that you are born with. Courage can be changed and controlled because you can learn or
push yourself to do things that you were once scared to do. This also bring in the fact of courage
being a psychological force. Courage can be considered psychological because it is something that
is going on in someone's head that he/ she believes cannot be changed, but with effort and multiple
attempts it could possibly become something that he/ she enjoys doing on a daily basis. For
example, if you're are scared of heights you could talk yourself into going to the top of a mountain
and then you might find out that you enjoy going hiking. When it comes to the other four parts
however, this isn't the case. For example, with impiety if you don't think the Gods deserve respect
you're not going to wake up one morning and respect

Protagoras And Moral Relativism
Protagoras is one of the leading Sophists and is most famous for the saying "Man is the measure of
all things; of those that are, that they are, of those that are not, that they are not." His statement
claims that all truths are relative to the individual who hold them and that there is no absolute truth.
Judgements and truths change from one person to another as the environment, the norms, and the
culture change. According to Protagoras, even morality is relative and the truth of moral judgments
is limited to the context in which they are affirmed. In other words, moral relativism is the view that
moral judgements are true or false only relative to a particular society, situation or individual.
Therefore, there is no universal principle ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, it is true that sometimes we can mistake about what is right or wrong as we are human
and mistake is human. I think that most of us had encountered times when we did what we thought
was right and later realized that we did was wrong. That is the reason why we should agree on what
is bad or good after a deep reflexion. As a result, we all need some moral judgements that we all
should respect if we are in the wrong path. This should be a common foundations of absolutes and
truths that will represent universal principles for all humanity and can be set up and determined by
the majority. Because we are different and have different way of thinking, we should rely on free
speech and democracy as they are key to our being closest to an accurate perception of what is
moral and what is not. Democracy enables us to have all sides of an issue and it is a key in giving us
the power to act in a moral way. Furthermore, in a democracy system, it is the majority who rules
for the interest of the majority. It is true that the majority might be wrong, but it is more likely that
an individual will be wrong. Moreover, it is more likely that the majority will be more concerned
with their welfare than an individual will

According to Aristotle, Heraclitus claims that “the same...
According to Aristotle, Heraclitus claims that "the same thing both is and is not," and this would
imply that contraries belong to the same subject simultaneously. Heraclitus denies our ability to
establish truth, and questions the reliability of knowledge: for Aristotle; serious philosophical
consideration must be given to such skepticism, because the logical conclusion of this position has
undesirable effects on metaphysical discussion. First philosophy (or metaphysics) investigates the
system of principles underlying the study of being (viz. beings as being), and the philosopher should
be able to state the principle that permits the education of all things. According to Aristotle, the
principle of demonstration must first be examined, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In any event, the act of showing someone that something is (or is not) reduces the argument to the
basic source for any demonstration, that is, any proof is reduced to the ultimate position (i.e. the
initial cause for demonstration). In essence, the principle cannot be demonstrated by virtue of
deduction; if it could be deduced from another axiom, then it would not be the first principle.
Moreover, if the principle could be demonstrated, then "all things" would be subject to
demonstration, as Heraclitus seems to believe. However, to demand demonstration (in the strict
sense) would beg the question, because it would lead to an infinite regress and there would still be
no demonstration.
If the same thing both is and is not, then, for instance, a being can both exist and not exist
simultaneously, and the same thing can both be true and not be true simultaneously. To say that the
same thing both is and is not is to deny the first principle, and to refuse to be consistent (or follow
any logical truth). According to Aristotle, Heraclitus' way of thinking is marked by circular
reasoning inasmuch as any rational being implicitly recognize the principle as self–evident, and to

Relativism Is Relative
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.[1]" Hamlet: Act 2, Scene 2.
Contemplating this interesting idea, severe doubt shall rise. Is good relative?. How do we define
good ?. Is not good based on facts?. Are facts themselves relative?. If facts are relative, does this
whole life make sense?. To get some adequate answers, we should take a look on relativism, a
criticizing look in fact. In this paper, I will argue that relativism can not be true. I shall also try to
disprove relativism using one of the arguments by Plato. It was first noted in his book Theaetetus in
which Socrates had great debates with the relativists. The argument goes as follows:
Protagoras holds a contradiction
1: Protagoras believes truth is a matter of opinion
2: I believe relativism is false
3: If p2 then a relativist should believe my idea regarding his belief is true First of all, a definition of
relativism should be introduced. Relativism is the philosophical view that no universal truth exists.
Every fact and opinion are true within themselves relative to their holder [2]. This very doctrine
started with Protagoras, the well known for his achievements in mathematics. Protagoras held some
interesting views. His famous quote "Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that
they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not" sums it all [3]. He believed that truth is a
matter of opinion and a man is not entitled to his only opinion but to other men's opinions despite
contradicts may exist [4]. This philosophical view, held also by sophists, stated that truth may not be
relative to human only but to different cultures, societies or different ages. This became very clear
when Thermasys defined justice as only doing what is in the interest of the strongest, a definition
refuted easily by Socrates [5]. To be clearer, relativism holds no universals but things relative to
them it measures. Through this paper, I shall break the whole case into fragments.
Back to our first premise, I should try to explain why a relativist could hold such a view. Most of the
relativists, including Protagoras, believed that knowledge is gathered by experience, a doctrine they
share with empiricists [6].

Socrates vs Protagoras
Philosophy
Socrates a sophist? Or just sophisticated?
Plato goes a long way in attempting to distinguish Socrates from the likes of Protagoras, a self
admitted sophist. In Protagoras, Socrates is depicted as a street smart, wisdom dispensing young
man, brash with confidence and a bit of arrogance that goes a long way when confronted with the
old school rhetoric of Protagoras. Plato begins to separate the two at the hip right from the get go.
The dialogue between Socrates and his inquisitive friend Hippocrates went a long way to show that
Socrates had more questions than answers about Protagoras, the sophist, especially when it came to
talk about what it is exactly that he offers. Socrates' companion is eager to hear the words of ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He preferred those who wish to learn from him, to come to him. The other sophist of the times
traveled through the towns teaching anyone at arms length, a method that was in much higher
danger of criticism than the one adopted by Protagoras.
A sophist would speak, a sophist would teach, a sophist would use language and words to
manipulate a situation to fit his point. A sophist would engulf you in his words and make the
impossible seem possible. A sophist would share his views on the world, life, and the future with
you; he would make you see the light of day even if it was night. A sophist was a wise man who had
the gift of gab, the ability to influence, the ability to sway, the ability to teach the young how to be
better speakers. All of the qualities that Socrates claimed he did not possess. Socrates was depicted
as a clever man, yet one who never taught, never persuaded, never tried to make his thoughts shared
by others. He was not a sophist, not a teacher, not a "wise man". "A wise man knows that he knows
nothing". Socrates always spoke of the fact that he was not a sophist because he was only out for the
truth. He never wanted you to believe his words just because they came out of his mouth, he only
asked the questions that were necessary to draw out the map to the truth buried down below the
layers of rhetoric.

Morality In Plato's Euthyphro
Morality in Euthyphro
To reach an understanding whether acts are immoral or moral we must ask ourselves what we
consider to be immoral or moral. According to Protagoras' first claim on moral relativism, he states
"Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not,
that they are not." The way something appears to me, is true to me and the way something appears
to you, is true to you. Consequently, meaning there is no absolute truth. Aristotle and Plato, both
argue holding that the view on moral objectivism is that there is a reality or realm of object and facts
existing independent of the mind. What actions are right to some, might be wrong to others.
Essentially, morality is arbitrary.
It ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Morality intakes are relative to an individual's beliefs. If Euthyphro thinks punishing his father for
unmoral acts is moral than that is right for him. Both Plato and Aristotle would think that
Protagoras's claims are contradicting because if he says that relativism is truth for him than it would
be false for those who don't believe in relativism. Aristotle and Plato believe that there must be an
objective truth, something that is true for everyone at any given place or time. Taking an objective
approach may not always be relevant, particularly in cases where it is impossible to be objective
because of the relevant facts and viewpoints. In this case, how can someone know for sure that there
is universal truth? Not everyone is going to believe in the same principles as others, regardless of
time, culture, place, etc. Therefore, I believe there is no objective truth to

Socrates Claim That Courage Is Knowledge Of What To Fear...
Question 1
In paragraph 3 Socrates repeats Protagoras's claim that there are courageous men "who are
irreligious, unjust, intemperate and ignorant"(Plato, Protagoras 358e–360e) by paragraph 23
Socrates thinks he has refuted the last part of this claim that a courageous man can be ignorant and
by doing so inferring that courage is a form of knowledge.
Question 2
By establishing that those who display the opposite to courage are cowards Socrates leads
Protagoras to the conclusion that cowardice is bad. From here he refers back to Protagoras's
agreement with the argument in paragraph 1 that no one willingly performs a bad act that it is
performed in error as the person believes it to be good. With this established Socrates is then able to
conclude his argument that cowardice is the error of what to fear (Plato, Protagoras 358e–360e).
Question 3
Now that Socrates has convinced Protagoras that cowardice is the result of an error in what to fear
he is able to follow this with the argument that error is the opposite of knowledge. Then that if error
is absence of knowledge then courage is knowledge of what to fear (Plato, Protagoras 358e–360e).
Question 4 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
When an individual puts the needs of others over the needs of themselves one could say this requires
courage, particularly if the act puts them in mortal danger. To be categorised as a selfless act the
individual must have weighed the needs of the group or individual and found them to be of greater
importance than their own needs. To make this judgment would require that person to understand
the consequences of their actions. In order to understand this they would need to know the outcome
before the act took place. Therefore the action comes from a position of knowledge and if a selfless
act is classed as courageous then courage must involve knowledge of what to

Difference Between Socrates And Protagoras
In his dialogue Protagoras, Plato presented to his audience a debate between the wise philosopher
Socrates and the renowned sophist Protagoras. Throughout the course of their interaction, it became
clear that the two great thinkers differed in more ways than simply their opinions on the topic at
hand. Not only were philosophers and sophists inherently different in nature, but these differences
were specifically illuminated when analyzing Socrates's and Protagoras's motives for entering their
intellectual discussion. Moreover, when considering the qualities embodied by both a sophist and a
philosopher, it is better to be a philosopher if knowledge and morality are one's priorities. While
some may mistakenly believe that the terms "sophist" and "philosopher" can be used
interchangeably, the two professions were, in fact, quite distinct and unique. For one, society often
perceived sophists as masters of the art of deception and manipulation. True charlatans of the time,
sophists held false beliefs or manipulated their beliefs to serve their purposes. And yet, they did not
hesitate to share their "knowledge" with others–especially when clients promised a hefty sum of
money in return. Though their teachings were rarely based on solid evidence, sophists, like
Protagoras, gained a rather substantial following due to their expertise in manipulation. They may
not have possessed the knowledge or skills necessary to perform their job effectively, but their
clients were surely

Protagoras
Can Virtues be Taught? Protagoras is a famous Greek wise man. He is known is the wisest man and
he is from Abider. Protagoras was a sophist who moves from a city to another and give lessons.
Young men liked him and wanted to be his students; however the Greek families did not like him
because they think that he takes their sons from them and teaches them things that might not be
compatible with the families' traditions in the ancient Greece. Socrates meets Protagoras when his
friend Hippocrates visit him and ask him to go with him to see the wise man in order to be his
student. Socrates was shocked to be visited in the early morning. At first he thought that there is
something bad happened, but the he found out that it is just his friend Hippocrates ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Socrates show that the reason he is there is only because Hippocrates wants to gain knowledge and
whether Protagoras will help him to achieve his goal or no. After that Socrates doubts that virtue
cannot be taught, so he asks him how virtue can be taught? Then, Protagoras start explaining to
them. In this paper, I will provide an analytic summary of Protagoras' great speech. Protagoras
answers him with a myth about how human being came to life. Prometheus and Epimetheus are two
brothers who were responsible for distributing power among the mortal beings. Epimetheus, who is
not the wisest, distributes the power and his brother checks after him. He distributed the power
among the animals. He gave them the various capacities to help them stay alive. He wanted
everyone to survive and no one to be wiped out. For example, some animals have speed in order to
run from danger and others have thick furs to protect them from the hard weather. Moreover, he also
provided them with supply of food. The animals who depend on eating other animals to survive
were less than the ones who are eaten, so no one was wiped out. Epimetheus noticed that he has
divided all the

Socrates And Sophists
Merriam–Webster's dictionary defines a Sophist as "any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of
rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the fifth century
B.C. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning," meaning that they were subtle in
their language and their reasoning was often filled with fallacies. The Sophists were rhetoricians;
speakers and orators concerned with winning the hearts and ears of their people, much like a
politician. Plato (427–347 B.C.) deals greatly with the ideas of sophists in his writings, particularly
Gorgias, Protagoras and The Republic, through the idealized character Socrates. Plato was not a
Sophist, nor was he a rhetorician. He was a logistician and geometer, concerned, not with persuasion
and followers, but with Truth and its methodical pursuit. This put him at odds with many of the
Sophists, who often shunned the truth to gain popularity and who often created flawed morals and
skewed senses of Justice based on this basic lack of Truth. Three main Sophists of Plato's and
Socrates' days were Gorgias, Thrasymachus and Protagoras. Each one had his own ideas which were
dangerous to society because of their lack of a base in Truth, and Socrates and Plato fought the ideas
of each heartily. But what was so dangerous about the ideas of the sophists? Each one was different.
For Gorgias, he attempted to destroy the idea of Reality with his philosophy on non–existence.

Elenctic Examination Of Socrates
HW 6 In Plato's Republic, Socrates discusses the definition of justice with three different men. First,
he talks to Cephalus, followed by Polemarchus his son, and ending with Thrasymachus. Throughout
their conversations, Socrates subjects each individual to an elenctic examination. I will argue that
none of the three individuals were suitable candidates for an elenctic examination. To argue this, one
must first understand want an elenchus is. An elenchus is the method Socrates uses to further
analyze the definition of virtue. It starts out by Socrates suggesting a thesis to another individual,
that they both agreed on, followed by Socrates providing more premises that support the original
thesis. After providing supporting premises, Socrates and the other individual agree on the terms,
which end up contradicting the first thesis that they both agreed on. A Socratic elenchus is typically
used against an individual who has made a claim to be an expert in something. It is also typically
used against someone who has a pre–existing point, in which case Socrates goes out of his way to
prove that the individual does not actually know what they claim to know. For example, in Plato's
Euthyphro, Euthyphro made a claim that he could prosecute his father, because he was an expert in
all things pious and impious. Socrates followed up with these assumptions, and provided several
elenchi. One was that "for all x, x is holy if and only if x is loved by all of the gods" (Line

Greek Philosophy : The And The Sophists
Devyn K. Smith
Greek Philosophy
Henry Schuurman
I.D Number:130010
Mailbox Number: 621
Protagoras and the Sophists Throughout the history of the world, philosophy has been at the
forefront of the human search for knowledge, but there is no other philosophy like ancient Greek
philosophy. Ancient Greek philosophy roughly began in the sixth century BCE and continued on up
until ancient Greece became apart of the Roman Empire. The great Greek philosophers of the time,
like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle focused their study of philosophy in subjects like political
philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, ontology, logic, biology, and rhetoric to name a few. Even today
many philosophers agree that ancient Greek philosophy has influenced much of today's Western
culture. Among the broad subject of ancient Greek philosophy there were many sub–forms of Greek
philosophy like the Pre–Socratic philosophy, which involves the Milesian school, and
Pythagoreanism, and classical Greek philosophy, which involves Socrates', Plato's, and Aristotle's
teachings; and then there was sophism and the sophists. Who are the sophists and why/how are their
teachings relevant with the rest of ancient Greek philosophy?
The word sophist is a collaboration of two Greek words sophia, meaning wisdom, and sophos,
meaning wise. The age of the Sophists began in the fifth century B.C.E in ancient Greek cities like
Athens. They were travelling professional teachers who taught young, wealthy, Greek men (women
were of no

Arete: The Role Of Virtue In Ancient Greece
Throughout history, various ideologies and approaches to life have held the ability to impact society
as a whole. This notion is evident in various civilizations of the Ancient World, one of which being
among the Ancient Greeks. At the time, certain Poleis had been known for an area where they
excelled. For example, while Sparta was notorious for its military prowess, Athens was recognized
for its emphasis on the importance of wisdom, scholastics, and the overall enlightenment of its
people. In order for one to fully comprehend the rich culture of those who inhabited Greece at the
time, it is important to focus on pivotal components, such as the role of philosophy and sophistry
among the citizens of these Poleis. Although both schools of thought ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Initially, the word sophist implied a positive association with wisdom and an individual. This
seemed to shift after the late 5th century when being called a sophist had its own negative
connotation. If a student was aiming to follow the a sophistical teacher, "the would–be student's
ardor" (Soupios, page 263) quickly became discouraged and dampened by how sophists were
viewed. Even though these two ways of living had their differences in ideas, there were situations
where the two sides seemed to overlap in several ways. Both philosophers and sophists "tended to
challenge received opinions and traditional perspectives" (Soupios, 273), holding the ability to
impact society by devising "a new moral compass for the Greeks" (Soupios, 298). Since the sophist
identity is somewhat difficult to define, there are times when "the lines of demarcation between
philosophy and sophistry" becomes "a more fluid boundary than typically conceived" (Soupios,
page 267). Moreover, there were certain depictions of philosophers and sophists that made it seem
as if "there was no fundamental difference between a Socrates and a Protagoras" (Soupios, page
267). Even if they didn't agree with one another on all aspects, the concepts Socrates and Protagoras
proposed and promoted were able to create a "moral earthquake that threatened the very foundations
of traditional beliefs" (Soupios, page 313). While this had a positive

Plato Protagoras Analysis
In Plato's Protagoras, the sophist Protagoras defends his philosophy of teaching excellence from
Socrates. Initially, Socrates states that the Athenians are wise, therefore they're wise enough to run a
government. With his trust in the Athenians, he proposes that virtue cannot be taught. Protagoras
however, argues that the five parts of excellence can be taught. I will argue that Socrates does not
believe in all the premises he puts forth, and that this reflects his opinion on the sophists,
particularly Protagoras. I will also argue that he specifically targeted Protagoras because if he
himself can take down the expert in virtue, anyone who follows his line of reasoning would also be
uncertain. In the beginning of Protagoras, Socrates rejects Protagoras's thesis that virtue is teachable
using the Athenians as an example. He states that "The Athenians are wise". Socrates seems to
suggest that the Athenians therefore can be trusted in the matter of running a government. Following
this, he states "on any subject which the Athenians think can be taught, they allow only experts to
speak, and on questions of running the city, they allow any citizen to speak". This seems to suggest
that either everyone is an expert on running the city, or no one is. The former suggestion can't be
true because an expert one that is better than the rest, so with this conclusion no one is an expert.
Following this assumed premise, he states "therefore, the Athenians consider that skill in running

Pericles And Protagoras Analysis
David Yerkanyan
Political Science 104
John Queen
29 April 2015
Prompt 1 There are many ways a government can be run, and within a government how the society
is and what concept the people believe in and follow also have many different views. All four
theorists, Pericles, Socrates, Protagoras, and Machiavelli have very good points on authority and
obligation, democracy, and freedom. Though the same concept, each has their own view on how
society and government should approach it.
When it comes to authority and obligation, Pericles and Protagoras have very similar viewpoints.
Pericles looks at this concept that authority should be with the many and that it is the duty of its
people to bring children and multiply, and Protagoras believes that ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Both believe in it, but Protagoras believes the people must first be taught virtue and therefore the
public will gain capacity for justice and respect, which he claims is the foundation of democracy.
Where as Socrates is completely against that form of governmental structure. Machiavelli's view on
democracy is very similar to that of his view on freedom and a republic. He says that liberty is the
engine for greatness, and it fuels increase in power and domination. Socrates believes that the
opinions of many are not be trusted and that the majority are ignorant. It is Pericles though that has
the best viewpoint on democracy. Pericles argues that Democracy makes Athens stronger and
provides it with a powerful military. Democracy should favor the many and provide social justice
for all. He makes Athens look strong by saying "Our constitution does not copy the laws of
neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration
favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy," (Cohen 14–15) because
he is praising Athens' form of government and shows that it does not copy other states and that they
influence others, making them special in a way. He continues by stating, that if one takes a look at
the laws, they give equal justice to all and therefore class considerations not being allowed to
interfere with one's accomplishments. He is praising Athens by claiming that regardless of ones
social status, everyone has freedom and justice, and that is to not interfere with ones
accomplishments. He also states that Athens' military is powerful because they "differ from our
[their] antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners
from any opportunity of learning or observing..." (Cohen 15) He continues by saying at Athens the
people live how they please and "yet are just

Theaetetus : An Analysis Of Plato's Definitions Of Knowledge
Plato's Theaetetus starts off with Euclid of Megara by speaking with his friend Terpsion about a
dialogue he has between Socrates and Theaetetus. He says, that the dialogue was from when
Theaetetus was young. Euclid of Megara's conversation with Terpsion acts as the structure for the
dialogue itself. The other participants of the dialogue are Socrates, Theodorus, and Theaetetus. The
question that the participants are asking is "what is knowledge?" Theaetetus gives four definitions to
the question "what is knowledge?" The first being that knowledge is arts and sciences, the second
being knowledge is sense–perception, the third that knowledge is true judgment, and the fourth
being knowledge is true judgment with an account. But Socrates was ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Socrates starts his introduction of Protagoras' view that things are to any person similarly as they
appear to that person by taking the case of a wind which influences two individuals in different
ways. He says that sometimes even though the same wind is blowing some people experience it in
different ways by one experiencing it cold and the other might experience the same wind as warm.
When this is said then the correct thing to say essentially, is that the wind is cold for one and warm
for the other. If we say that, considering the assertion composed by each person of their own
perception, neither person can be wrong. Socrates then shows that "it appears" means " he perceives
it" which in turn tells us that the appearing of things is the same as perception. And as a result,
things are for the individual such as he perceives it. Socrates goes ahead to state that this
Protagorean principle may also contain a reference to another tenet, a doctrine that comes from
Heraclitus who said that "all things are in flux." Socrates first introduces the Heracleitean theory in
(152d) by stating "... What is really true is this: the things of which we naturally say that they 'are',
are in the process of coming to be, as the result of movement and change and blending with one
another. We are wrong when we say they 'are', since nothing ever is, but everything is coming to be."
In (153a) it is expressed that this

The Pros And Cons Of Hippocrates
Socrates demonstrates that Hippocrates ought to engage in philosophical inquiry, especially if he is
to have such strong political ambitions. Socrates is engaging with Protagoras on behalf of
Hippocrates. Protagoras is also addressing Hippocrates, and his counterparts, in making his claims
about what he is able to teach. In this essay, I am concerned with reconstructing Socrates' reasoning
behind his conclusion that Hippocrates should not want to study under Protagoras. I will then offer
an objection for Hippocrates, and finally from this, drawing a conclusion as to whether or not
Hippocrates should pay to be a pupil of Protagoras. Socrates' main argument addressed to
Hippocrates, before arriving to question Protagoras at the house of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Every day, day after day, you will get better and better" (Prot. 318b). Socrates has two objections:
the first being that when the people of Athens meet at the Assembly to discuss certain issues, like
building a new ship, or architecture, they will ask an expert in this, but do not enact the opinions of
anyone besides these experts. However, in a situation where the discussion is in regard to the
politics of the city (i.e., a new law) they will consider the opinions of all citizens, despite not all
individuals learned about the subject discussed (Prot. 319b). The second objection raised by
Socrates is that he doesn't believe excellence can be taught because of the numerous examples of
good men who have bad kids (Prot. 320a). The main formal argument begins with Protagoras' great
speech. Before his great speech, Protagoras commits himself to the notion that virtue can be taught
(Prot. 319a), and Socrates, instead of refuting the point as he normally would, gives Protagoras the
chance to further make his argument through a great speech. The great speech is divided into two
parts: the myth (320d–324d) and the main argument (324d–328d). He maintains through both parts
of the speech that virtue is something that can be taught, and that

How Did Protagoras View Of Moral Truth
Protagoras, in Plato's dialogue, was a sophist who claimed that the man is the measure of all things,
meaning that anything is good if it is ultimately good for something. In other words, everything is
relative to the individual, the experiences, the judgment, and the interpretation. Ultimately, he
thought that there was no final truth. Protagoras defended the common sense to which he related
moral truth. He claimed that a common individual's idea of moral truth was most likely a correct
one. In addition, as a professional expert in wisdom, he believed that his teaching could help people
in perfecting their idea of moral truth. For instance, moral truth was already instilled in the common
people, and it only needed perfecting. Protagoras tried

Comparing Plato And Aristotle 's Idea Of Happiness
The very foundation of our domestic and international democracy is founded upon the basis of early
Athenian politics. Ancient Greeks created the very idea of democracy, which today seems so simple
but at this time, a complex and entirely new idea. They created the idea of citizenship, pathing the
way to for the representative democratic style of government that is practiced worldwide. At this
time, their ideas were not inherited by different cultures but by merely the ideas of philosophers.
Greek philosophers embark on a quest for "a good life" and the best political constitution to
accompany it. Although the main philosophers we've discussed have similar yet different ideas on
how to live a happy and fulfilling life, in turn, it has ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He sees the virtues of the soul parallel to the virtues of the city and one in which each of the parts
(reason, spirit, and appetite) perform its proper function. Plato argues that an orderly and just soul is
significant to living a happier life than anyone who lives a life of disorder and conflict with an
unjust soul. . Thrasymachus, a sophist of Ancient Greece, describes the connection between what is
"just" and "unjust" and how it relates to one's happiness. He teaches us that injustice brings about
what is of most value for an individual. Thus pursing, what one deems as justice, as leading to
unhappiness, "since it will limit one's ability to acquire external goods". We are taught that a
physically just person's soul acts in the psychological state of proper function. Thus one is
physically unjust when one of the parts of the soul fails to perform its proper function. Plato argues
that a just person with an orderly soul has a more fuller, better and happier life than anyone whose
soul is not in order; and one with a thoroughly unjust soul, a soul in disorder and conflict, is
miserable. Plato's underlying idea here is that although a kind of happy life is possible if each part of
the soul perform its function, they happiest life is one in which each part of the soul performs its
function with complete excellence if it is allowed to set the goals for the individual.
Plato continues his quest to find the true

Socrates And Protagoras On Virtue
Socrates and Protagoras on Virtue
This paper will be examining Plato's dialogue Protagoras. Specifically, it will provide insight into
Socrates' reasons for challenging the view that virtue can be taught. Protagoras' reply in his great
speech will also be deliberated. Finally, there will also be a discussion based on these differing
perspectives. Firstly, it is important to understand that Socrates was not merely arguing for virtue as
being something that was not able to be taught. Socrates instead challenges Protagoras' view on how
he believes that virtue can be taught. Socrates considers that there are reasons that are sufficient
enough to believe that virtue is not something someone can learn from someone else. In Athens at
the time, every single citizen was capable of having a say in politics and the decision–making
stemming from it. This meant that statesmanship was not akin to other skills that Socrates has
mentioned such as ship–building which was something that required extensive training. Therefore,
to Socrates this would mean that virtue is not something that one can learn or can provide to anyone
else. He gives an example of this by mentioning that even the most virtuous of citizens cannot
"transmit this excellence of theirs to others" (Protagoras 319e). From this one could gather that
virtue, specifically in this example in terms of civics, is not something Socrates believes to be
transferrable through teaching. Plato recognizes the taking account of the status

Hannibal And Hannibal: The Most Important Lessons Of The...
Perspective is one of the most important lessons of the cognitive disciplines. It also weighs heavily
in the balanced consideration of moral problems. What may seem to be one thing to one man, is
likely something else to another. It can be disquieting for us to see the world as others see it, for
every man's window overlooks his own tangled garden of direful secrets.
Several anecdotes illustrate this in amusing ways. The Roman writer Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticae
V.5) relates a conversation that took place between the Carthaginian general Hannibal and King
Antiochus of Syria, in whose court Hannibal had taken up residence after his defeat in the Second
Punic War.
Hannibal had been asked to be present at one of Antiochus's military parades and to review his
troops. The parade proceeded with much pomp and ceremony, with chariots, elephants, horsemen,
and infantry paraded magnificently before the reviewing stand, all accoutred in glittering yet
untested finery. Never was armor or blade so polished, and so unscratched.
Hannibal
The king turned to Hannibal and asked him, "Do you think that this is enough for the Romans to
deal with?" What he meant by this, of course, was whether Hannibal thought that the Romans would
ever be able ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Gellius thought as much when he first heard of it, and says so specifically in a complaining chapter
of Attic Nights (II.12). Why would any leader encourage a situation where a citizen was forced to
take a side in factionalism? But Solon saw things differently. With his unrivaled knowledge of
human nature and politics, he foresaw that civil disorder would be more speedily resolved if every
man in the polity had some stake in the outcome of a common discord. The good men on both sides
would encourage the equitable settlement of differences. Civil war and paralysis, he knew, were
actually prolonged by public apathy, not shortened by it. Equity demands that everyone should have
some "skin in the

The Idea Of University Anne Carson Analysis
While reading Anne Carson's "The Idea of University" I learned that it is a good idea to give
multiple examples and different people's ideas/ opinions to the subject that is being argued. Not only
will this make it inquiry based, but it will also engage the reader and mike them develop their own
personal thoughts on the subject. If I were to grade Carson's writing using the portfolios goal, I
would say she did a decent job. The only complaint I would have about her writing is that at times it
was hard to fallow. Carson's writing would jump from talking of one thing to suddenly we are
already reading about something different, thus causing confusion. Protagoras example was my
favorite in were his idea of university is where the student will

Protagorean Relativism

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Amy Alexander

More from Amy Alexander (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Protagorean Relativism