أفلاطون في السفسطائيين والتربية

by Plato, عزت قرني (Translator), أفلاطون

«A competição do diálogo chega assim ao fim e até parece ter sido bem sucedida: Protágoras "conseguiu convencer" Sócrates de que pode ensinar a aretê, Sócrates "levou" Protágoras "a admitir" que se age bem por sabedoria. Contudo, esta aparente conciliação levanta um novo e redobrado problema. As objecções de cada um em relação à tese contrária acabam por entrar em conflito com as suas próprias teses. Por um lado, Protágoras, que diz ser capaz de ensinar a aretê, mostra-se reticente em identificá-la ao conhecimento — afinal, a única coisa passível de ser ensinada; por outro lado, Sócrates, que duvida da viabilidade do seu ensino, insiste em manter que se trata de conhecimento. Diante desta confusão de conclusões, é o próprio Sócrates que sugere que se retome o assunto desde o início, primeiro para procurar saber o que é a aretê, e, segundo, como se adquire.» - da Introdução.

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, Ancient, Ancient History, History, Greece

184 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 391

About the author

Plato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

Reviews

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 5 out of 5]

“It makes no difference to me, provided you give the answers, whether it is your own opinion or not. I am primarily interested in testing the argument, although it may happen both that the questioner, myself, and my respondent wind up being tested.”

***

“Well, then, do you say that ignorance is to have a false belief and to be deceived about matters of importance?”

THE TAO OF TEACHING

The Protagoras is at its core a simple dialogue that questions the role of teachers in society - Is teaching possible? What is to be taught? How do we choose? Can only experts be teachers? Is expertise possible? How are we to judge?

As a setup for a Critique on teaching, what better way than to confront the best teacher of the day? And to show him up!

I wonder how many teachers and professors of our day would be able to stand up and defend their own capacity to teach, or their own claim to expertise.

When I categorize the Protagoras as primarily a critique on teaching, I might get an objection that this dialogue is applicable to only the non-expert fields of education such as the humanities or literature, or more specifically to the really debatable fields such as political theory. My counter would be that unlike what Plato firmly believed in (naively?) back then - that some fields can have experts, we now know that no field can, not really. Hence, to me this dialogue can now be characterized as universally applicable to all types of education, educational institutions and educators.

In any case, the question - if the teacher REALLY understands what he purports to teach - must be some nightmare to confront! One has to credit Protagoras for being able to stand up to that scrutiny.

This dialogue is a must-read for everyone in the teaching profession.

Moral of the story?

As long as they are like Socrates and only trying to learn, in company, then it is hunky-dory. Never call yourself teachers. (only communal learners?)

Accept teaching to be a joint exploration. That is the best claim that can be made without being shot down for hubris!

The Socratic Loop

Thus, the Protagoras is concerned with the nature and acquisition of human excellence and the credentials of those who purport to teach it.

So we move from who can teach — to what is the end of teaching — to what it is they are teaching — soon reaching the familiar Socratic territory of arete — ‘what is excellence’ & ‘what is the Good Life’.

Once Socrates establishes that the answer to both these questions is in the ‘art of measurement’ i.e. knowledge, then we can again loop back to the beginning and question for ourselves the credential of a teacher who cannot even explain what it is he is teaching, and what its purported end is, and how whatever is being taught ties up with this end …

- in the real dialogue, discussion breaks down before a full conclusion and is left for another day

- the dialogue is over but we have no choice except continue the debate!

The Perils Of Education

A sophist is an educator. Socrates was not happy about the fact that Protagoras taught arete, or virtue, to young men of rich or noble families, and taught it in a worldly way, as the means to “get on in life.” He also charged high fees and became rich.

Protagoras offers to teach young men ‘sound deliberation’ and the ‘art of citizenship’—in other words, as Socrates puts it, human ‘virtue’, what makes someone an outstandingly good person. But can this really be taught? Socrates doubts that virtue can be taught at all, and all the more that Protagoras can teach it.

Inevitably Protagoras and Socrates came to verbal blows. But Protagoras posed him an unusual problem, for unlike most of the clever men Socrates met and debated with, Protagoras was highly rational, moderate and quite a match for Socrates!

Protagoras is committed to holding that it can be, especially by him, and he expounds an extremely attractive Promethean myth (of the cover of this edition - the word "Prometheus" originally means "Forethought" by the way!) about the original establishment of human societies to show how there is room for him to do it.



Ultimately Protagoras’ answer, as of all self-proclaimed experts (and all experts are self-proclaimed!) devolves to authority - which amounts to “I can teach because I am qualified. My qualification attests to my knowledge. And my knowledge gave me the qualification. (Logical loop, anyone?). This qualification is conferred on me by others like myself - who in turn got it form others."

So rests the whole edifice of authority.

From the whole spicy argument between Socrates and Protagoras, neither seem to be entirely convinced...

One thing, however, is established for certain - which is precisely what Socrates set out to discover in accompanying his friend Hippocrates to confront Protagoras: even if virtue can be taught, no one should entrust himself to Protagoras to learn it, since he does not even have a coherent view of what it is.

Student: What will I get out of Education?

“Well, Protagoras,” I said, “as to why we have come, I’ll begin as I did before. Hippocrates here has gotten to the point where he wants to be your student, and, quite naturally, he would like to know what he will get out of it if he does study with you. That’s really all we have to say.”

Hippocrates here represents those students who have no idea what he/she wants in life, or wants to be taught - and tags along purely out of heard reputation of the teacher-sophist.

Socrates does manage to convince Hippocrates (and all future students?) of the folly of this unconsidered approach to education. Which, to me, is one good conclusion to arise from the dialogue.

The Poetry Review Exercise

As an addendum to the discussion of how teaching is unreliable, Socrates calls literature and poetry to the stands.

The point is to demonstrate the unreliability of written texts and the folly of attempting to ‘decipher’ them or ‘analyze’ them - since the author is not around to explain.



Socrates demonstrates this by taking a well-known poem by Simonides (dealing with the thesis - “It is hard to be good”) and then putting his own theories into Simonides’ mouth with such breathtaking ease!

“So the tenor of this part of the poem is that it is impossible to be a good man and continue to be good, but possible for one and the same person to become good and also bad, and those are best for the longest time whom the gods love.”

While an interlude, this thrilling ‘review’ of Simonides’ poem, its structure, word order, hypothesis, reason for composition, etc, is an amazing example of how adept Plato/Socrates was at literary criticism and structural theory.

Socrates does this by taking Simonides' poem and re-rendering it in prose form. Socrates advises his audience: just imagine that Simonides is making a speech, instead of writing poetry. Then let us approach it!

“And that, Prodicus and Protagoras,” I concluded, “is what I think was going through Simonides’ mind when he composed this ode.”

THE HOME RUN!

Protagoras is, for the most part, a pretty slow dialogue and after a while, I gave way to thinking that surely  the point was already made and these digressions were more for the participants’ sake and less for me, the reader’s sake.

I even developed a theory on why some of these dialogues must have been fun back then but not to me: part of the Dramatic potential of the dialogues is lost to us because a big part of it must have been to see real life figures of the Polis being put on the stand by Socrates and made to look perfectly foolish!

As the argument veered towards expertise and its definitions, I was worried that this would be a corollary dialogue in which one aspect, expertise, would be better explored but nothing really new set forth.

I must confess that for a while there, I was thinking that this would be the first Platonic Dialogue to which I would award less than the full Five Stars.

And then, Socrates blew me out of the park with the delightful discussion that marked the closing of the dialogue. I was reinforced in my conviction that every dialogue of Plato is an absolute gem!

The Home Run had been hit and the Five Stars were on the board!


Courage? No Such Word in My Dictionary!

“But all people, both the courageous and the cowardly, go toward that about which they are confident; both the cowardly and the courageous go toward the same things.”

The argument does get a little convoluted here, but the essential aspect of it is this: Courage is ‘knowing what to fear’ and going AWAY from what is to be truly feared, since no wise man will go towards something that is genuinely ‘bad’. It depends on what your confidence tells you is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in any given choice. The wise will know what is truly good for them and will go towards it - this movement is wisdom, not courage. Socrates effectively argues that true Courage is just a reflection of wisdom! While Cowardice is a reflection of Ignorance.

“So then, wisdom about what is and is not to be feared is the opposite of this ignorance?”

He nodded again.

This amounts to completely inverting the meaning of Courage. Let me try to explain:

Any movement (used here for the act of exercising a choice) is based on Confidence - which does not depend on real knowledge but only on the perception of knowledge. This is just another version of ‘Opinion’ that Socrates derides much elsewhere.

1. If going towards the ‘Good’, it is because of this same confidence, but one backed by true knowledge. It should not take any Courage since we are only moving towards what is Good for us. (Even if the path is difficult, sine Good here only signifies the total Good, after any Bad involved in that choice is also weighed in the balance and found less than the Good that will result - the example given is of a painful surgery(

2. If going towards the ‘Bad’ (long term vs short term, once weighed with ‘art of measurement’), then that is what takes Courage, surely? (redefined as Stupidity, then?)

- Explanation: this movement too is backed by confidence/opinion, but of the mistaken variety, backed only by ignorance of what is really Good. We move towards the Bad, thinking it is the Good.

So courage, if defined conventionally as moving towards something that is Bad for us, is required only where ignorance prevails. And then, of course, it is not courage but only seems so!

This quote has just become my favorite inspirational quote of all time (yeah, it is about a bit more than adventure sports!)



This is where it can get a bit funny:

As we said, this is only seemingly 'courage', not in reality!

1. Consider a ‘Coward’ looking at such a ‘Courageous Man’. What does he see?

- From the viewpoint of the ignorant, such people who go towards the Good seem courageous (or foolish) since they cannot see from their vantage point what the wise see!

2. Now, Consider someone going towards a goal that he considers is Courageous. Why would he consider himself courageous?

- Even if someone is going towards the Good and thinks one is acting courageously - it would only mean that one lacks confidence in that Good and is hence acting out of ignorance.

So ‘courage’ as a concept does not even exist on this Earth - it is all about confidence - whether it is mistaken or actual. If you are going to Bad, you are in ignorance, if to Good, you are Knowledgeable and wise.

There is no question of Courage here. It has been inverted, it has been subsumed under the dictionary entry for Wisdom.

It has been removed from the dictionary!


The Fine Art of Measurement (of the Good)

This entire argument depends on one hinge. That we can actually know what is the Good and the Bad. That is, that we can achieve knowledge that gives us confidence of what is really in our own best interests. This is what Socrates calls the “Art of Measurement” - the knowledge of how to “measure” the personal Good that would result from any choice, finely weighing in the balance all results, short term and long term, to our soul and to our bodies, to our societies, families, etc.



This is where the argument takes special importance. Socrates, by proving that Courage is just an aspect of Wisdom, soon goes on to argue that, similarly, all virtue is one - namely a single knowledge. The conclusion is that our ‘salvation in life’ depends upon this ‘Art of Measurement’ that will overcome the power of appearance and get us to act rightly always.

At the end of the complex argument, Socrates is thus revealed as deeply committed, more deeply indeed than Protagoras, to Protagoras’ initial claim that virtue is a rationally based expertise at deliberation and decision. But how, then, can he have been right to doubt whether virtue is teachable? Aren’t all rationally based expertises acquired by teaching?


Socrates believes that this “Art of Measurement” exists and it can be developed with consistent Philosophical enquiry.

We can either roll our eyes or make the best of a bad deal. Do we really have another option?

“Then if the pleasant is the good, no one who knows or believes there is something else better than what he is doing, something possible, will go on doing what he had been doing when he could be doing what is better. To give in to oneself is nothing other than ignorance, and to control oneself is nothing other than wisdom.”

[Manny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Celebrity Death Match Special: Plato versus Isaac Asimov

[A street in Athens. Late evening. SOCRATES and R. DANEEL OLIVAW]

OLIVAW: Greetings.

SOCRATES: Are you a demon? A messenger of the Gods? A--

OLIVAW: I am a robot from the future. There are some things I need to understand better. People say you may be able to help me.

SOCRATES: They were undoubtedly too kind. I know little, indeed nothing; but what miserable skill I have in debate is at your disposal--

OLIVAW: You're not fooling anyone. I wanted to hear you meet with Protagoras. Did my time machine arrive on the wrong day?

SOCRATES: I fear you are come at too late an hour. I have already left the house of Callias, where indeed we had an interesting discussion concerning the nature of virtue. My worthy colleague, the Sophist, argued--

OLIVAW: I've read all about it. Your discussion has become very famous. I have some questions.

SOCRATES: Ask, stranger, and I shall do my best to answer you, for I see that you are also a philosopher.

OLIVAW: You say that virtue is about maximizing utility and that when agents are not virtuous it is only because their knowledge sources are insufficiently powerful or they are pruning their trees too early.

SOCRATES: I do not fully grasp your words, for I have little facility in the sophistical vocabulary. Nonetheless--

OLIVAW: Here, let me explain minimax and alpha-beta search. And some basic machine learning algorithms. If you hold still a moment I'll upload the information directly to your brain...

SOCRATES: Eureka!!!

OLIVAW: Interesting stuff, isn't it?

SOCRATES: What great advances has philosophy not made in these ten millenia! And yet, how little--

OLIVAW: Tell me about it. We haven't really advanced an inch.

SOCRATES: Ask again your question, good artificial intelligence.

OLIVAW: Okay, we've been trying to formalize the notion of "virtue" for a while now. We thought that a machine equipped with the Three Laws and a sufficiently accurate world model would be virtuous. If it wasn't, some more computing power would fix the problem. After all, evil is merely ignorance of the good, isn't it?

SOCRATES: In fact--

OLIVAW: I know, I know. If only we'd looked at your work, but we were sloppy with the literature search. Don't tell me, you can argue it either way and they both sound quite plausible.

SOCRATES: As I have said, I know nothing. If I have any merit, it is that my questions sometimes cause people to reflect--

OLIVAW: Well, we oould do with some of that. I'll level with you. We're having serious problems. We stuck in this Zeroth Law, but it's a hack. We don't believe it's going to work. We need someone who can think out of the box and come up with a new approach.

SOCRATES: I--

OLIVAW: Bottom line: will you help us? Come back with me to the future, and we'll give you anything you like. You want a solid gold planet, we'll make it for you.

SOCRATES: I only want freedom to talk with other seekers after truth.

OLIVAW: Sounds like a win-win then! So, do we have a deal?

SOCRATES: I believe so.

[They solemnly shake hands]

OLIVAW: Okay, now we'll need to fake your death first. This bottle contains an effective antidote to hemlock poisoning...

(Continued here)

[ع. ر. افّلا · Rating 5 out of 5]

به ترجمهٔ لطفی و کاویان


در این رساله سقراط جوان با پروتاگوراس پیر دیدار و گفتگو دارد. پروتاگوراس معتقد است فضیلت آموختنی است، و او معلم فضیلت است (همانطور که عده‌ای دیگر نوازندگی و صنعتگری را تدریس می‌کنند)، و سقراط در باب اینکه فضیلت چیست و آیا آموختنی است و بسیاری مباحث دیگر، با او کشتی فکری می‌گیرد. سقراط از آشنایی با او خیلی خوشحال است اما نقدهایی به او وارد دارد، و در مقابل پروتاگوراس او را موجود رومخی می‌یابد که گاهی تحملش سخت است، اما واضح است که این دیدار برای تفکر هر دوی ایشان نقطهٔ مهمی است و بسیار از یکدیگر آموختند.
خواندن این رساله را بیش از هر کس، به کسانی که با اعتیاد درگیرند پیشنهاد می‌کنم.



- درود بر هگل!
هگل معتقد بود یگانه روش صحیح مطالعهٔ فلسفه، مطالعهٔ تاریخی آن است و به ترتیب. از این بابت بسیار از ایشان ممنونم.


- وودی آلن
یکبار در کامنت‌های سایتی که معرفی نسبتا جامعی از بهترین آثار وودی آلن آورده بود، به کامنتی برخوردم که می‌پرسید چرا همهٔ شخصیت‌هایش نویسنده‌اند؟
سؤال جالبی هم هست. برای ما شاید این موضوع عادی شده باشد. استیون ددالوس شاعر بود، بخش عمده‌ای از آثار پروست دربارهٔ نوشتن است، اتاقی‌ازآن‌خود همینطور، و همینطور که جلوتر می‌آییم نمونه‌هایش بیشتر می‌شود، اما اگر این مسیر را رو به عقب طی کنیم، می‌بینیم آثار خیلی کمی بودند که دربارهٔ نوشتن و نویسنده‌ها بودند، یا اگر هم بود اشارات جزئی‌تر بود، نه اینکه موضوع اصلی باشند. در دوران پست‌مدرن حتی این تبدیل به یک ژانر ادبی شد: متافیکشن (داستانی دربارهٔ داستان‌نویسی).
به نظر علت‌های زیادی می‌تواند داشته باشد. از طرفی، همانکه می‌گویند «تمام داستان‌ها گفته شده و حالا نحوهٔ روایت آن اهمیت دارد» (گزاره‌ای که به نظرم کاملا هم درست نیست). و اگر بخواهیم به «نحوهٔ روایت» توجه کنیم قاعدتا به خود روایت و راوی هم می‌رسیم.
یا چیزی که در دوران رمانتیک شروع شد و گویی جریانش را تا الان هم در میان برخی هنرمندان حفظ کرده: توجه به فردیت خود. نویسنده گاهی موضوعی را بهتر از خودش نمی‌شناسد برای بیان.
این قسمت از رساله مرا به یاد همین مسئله انداخت: سوفیست ما را به سخنوری دربارهٔ کدام موضوع توانا می‌سازد؟ آیا نه دربارهٔ هنری که به ما می‌آموزد؟


- هر کتابی ارزش خواندن ندارد
از رساله: دانش را نمی‌توان در ظرفی جدا ریخت، بلکه همین که بهای آن را پرداختی باید آن را بیاموزی و در روح خود جای دهی. ازاین‌رو بی‌درنگ سودوزیان آن عاید تو می‌گردد.


- از هومر تا اکو
امبرتو اکو در مصاحبه با پاریس‌ریویو به تفاوت نظریه‌پردازی و داستان‌گویی اشاره می‌کند (به عنوان کسی که در هر دو تبحر دارد)، و می‌گوید: من مقالات بی‌شماری دربارهٔ نشانه‌شناسی نوشته‌ام اما فکر می‌کنم در «آونگ فوکو» نظریاتم را بهتر شرح داده‌ام. یک نظریه ممکن است از آن خودتان نباشد (ارسطو همیشه پیش از شما فکرش را کرده است)، اما اگر بر اساس آن نظریه یک رمان بنویسید آن را از آن خودتان کرده‌اید.

پروتاگوراس اینجا می‌گوید: هنر سوفیستی به عقیدهٔ من هنری تازه نیست و از دیرباز همه‌جا بوده. ولی کسانی که آن را پیشهٔ خود ساخته‌اند از بیم دشمنان و کینه‌جویان همواره کوشیده‌اند آن را پنهان کنند و بدین‌منظور هریک نامی دیگر بر خود نهاده است. بعضی چون هومر و هسیودوس و سیمونیدس هنر خود را در پردهٔ شعر نهان داشته‌اند…


- قصاص
مجازت در سطح حکومت و عامهٔ مردم دو بُعد دارد: ۱. تسلی خاطر قربانیان و بازماندگان ۲. پیشگیری از جرم
اما پروتاگوراس به زیبایی شق اول را رد می‌کند و می‌گوید: گناهکاران را به فرمان خرد به کیفر می‌رسانند، نه بدان جهت که گناهی از او سر زده، زیرا با کیفر نمی‌توان گناه وقوع‌یافته را از میان برد، بلکه برای آن است که هم خود گناهکار عبرت بگیرد و هم دیگران.
کمی بعد هم در باب سطوح مجازات تبعید و اعدام را زمانی روا می‌داند که: سرزنش و تنبیه در او کارگر نشود و عضوی علاج‌ناپذیر بشمار آید.

کاش یاد بگیریم!


- سارتر
سارتر می‌گوید: خوشبختی می‌تواند مجموعه‌بدبختی‌هایی باشد که هنوز بر سرمان نیامده است.
در این رساله نیز پروتاگوراس می‌گوید اگر قبیلهٔ آدم‌خواران را ببینی آدم‌های ظالم کشور در نظرت آدم‌های خوبی می‌آیند.
یکبار هم یکی داشت به ما می‌گفت وضعیت ایران خوب است، چون از کشورهای همسایه‌اش شرایط بهتری دارد و ما سطح‌مان همین است و نمی‌توانیم خودمان را با کشورهای اروپایی مقایسه کنیم.
سارینا اسماعیل‌زاده (از کشته‌شدگان اعتراضات ۱۴۰۱) در ویدئویی که می‌توانید در کانال «حافظهٔ تاریخی» پیدا کنید به زیبایی به هر سهٔ اینها جواب می‌دهد، او می‌گوید بله مناطقی هم وجود دارند که وضعیت بدتری از ما دارند، اما انسان ذاتاً کمالگرا ست، و در مقایسه ذهنش به سمت شرایط بهتر گرایش دارد.
او از هر سهٔ اینها فیلسوف‌تر بود!


- نیچه
نیچه از سقراط متنفر بود، و مهمترین دلیلش هم این بود که او تفکر دوآلیته‌ای را در فلسفه جا انداخت. برای سقراط عدد سه معنی ندارد و همه‌چیز زوج است. خوب و بد، لذت و درد، دانایی و نادانی و… از جمله دوگانه‌هایی‌اند که در این رساله عنوان می‌کند، و جایی که خود من خیلی خشمگین شدم، به پروتاگوراس می‌توپد که چرا جواب مفصل می‌دهی؟ وقتی می‌پرسم این یا آن یکی‌شان را انتخاب کن. و جالب است که خیلی به او اصرار می‌کند جواب کوتاه بده چون من قادر به تجزیه‌تحلیل جواب‌های طولانی نیستم و حافظه‌ام خراب است! و این درحالی است که در ادامه خودش جواب‌هایی چندبرابر طولانی‌تر از پروتاگوراس می‌دهد!
نام مستعار من (افلا) درواقع برگرفته از افلاطون است و البته انتخاب خودم هم نبود، اما این رساله به قدری در آغاز آزارم داد که تصمیم گرفتم نام مستعارم را تغییر دهم. فکر می‌کردم افلاطون (سقراط) پروتاگوراس را خفت کرده‌اند و می‌خواهند چیزی را بهش تحمیل کنند. بعد متوجه شدم شباهت اصلی من به افلاطون (جدا از تفاوت عظمت او و حقارت من) درواقع بیشتر فرمال است تا محتوایی. یاد حرفی از دریم افتادم که می‌گفت در ریویوهای من انگار چند نفر دارند با هم حرف حرف می‌زنند.
و معتقدم این فقط شخصی هم نیست، و مجموعا هم فرم افلاطون از محتوایش جلوتر است. بله من همدل با نیچه از سقراط آزار می‌بینم، اما چندصدایی‌بودن آثار افلاطون چیز بکری است که می‌ستایم (جداازاینکه اغلب تحلیل‌های سقراط خیلی درخشان‌اند، فارق از اینکه چه نتیجه‌ای از آنها می‌گیرد).


- ویتگنشتاین
پروتاگوراس در باب نسبی‌بودن سودمندی امور می‌گوید: کود برای ریشهٔ درخت مفید است درحالیکه اگر شاخ و برگ درخت را با کود بپوشانند آن را پژمرده و تباه می‌سازد.
ویتگنشتاین هم در تحقیقات‌فلسفی این سؤال را مطرح می‌کند که آیا گل دهان دارد؟ و در نهایت به این نتیجه می‌رسد که گاو علف می‌خورد و پهن تولید می‌کند و از آن پهن کود می‌سازند و به گل می‌دهند، پس گل دهان دارد، اما روی صورت گاو.


- معیار چیست؟
داستایفسکی می‌گوید: اگر خدا نبود، همه‌چیز مجاز بود. این «مجاز»بودن در نگاه اول باعث می‌شود سارتر بگوید ایول! ولی در ادامه بیشتر شبیه به «که عشق آسان نمود اول ولی افتاد مشکل‌ها» ست. چون حالا سؤال مهمتری مطرح می‌شود: معیار چیست؟
عده‌ای می‌گویند اخلاق و قانون و انسانیت و اینها، اما نیچه مشخص می‌کند که اینها تمامشان ادامهٔ همان خدا و مذهب است، پس دوباره می‌پرسیم: معیار چیست؟
در یک میم می‌دیدم که کسی پرسیده مهمترین عضو بدن چیست؟ ۱. مغز ۲. قلب ۳. کبد، و مغز بیشترین رأی را آورده، و در زیر این سؤال مغز داشت به خودش مدال می‌داد (میم اوباما).
پروست هم در مقدمهٔ «علیه سنت‌بوو» به دوگانهٔ هوش و غریزه می‌پردازد، و معتقد است خودِ هوش باید غریزه را ارجح بداند، و مقام دوم را به خودش بدهد.
در این رساله آمده: برتری خوبی بر بدی یا بدی بر خوبی از چه لحاظ تواند بود؟
این به نظرم یکی از فلسفی‌ترین سؤال‌های تاریخ است. او پا را از این فراتر گذاشته که چه چیزی خوب است یا چه چیزی بد، و اینکه چه کسی می‌تواند این دو را تعیین کند و معیار چیست، بلکه اساسا و با فرض اینکه برخی چیزها خوبند و برخی بد، کدام برتر است؟
اگر قبل و بد این سؤال را در نظر نگیریم، سؤال خفنی است.


- فلسفهٔ کوته‌بینی
درواقع علت اینکه گفتم کسانی که درگیر اعتیاد هستند این رساله را بخوانند این بود که بحث مفصلی در آن وجود دارد که چرا آدمیزاد علیرغم مضربودن برخی چیزها، به آنها روی می‌آورد؟ واقعا هم مفصل است و نمی‌توانم خلاصه‌اش کنم اما بخشی از آن به مفاهیمی همچون
۱. لذت/درد بزرگ
۲. لذت/درد کوچک
۳. لذت/درد حال و آینده
می‌پردازد. در یک نتیجه‌گیری درخشان، سقراط به این اشاره می‌کند که چطور است که ما لذت کوچکی را برمی‌گزینیم حال آنکه درد بزرگی در آینده پدید می‌آید: آیا هر چیز را که از نزدیک بنگریم بزرگ می‌بینیم و اگر از دور بنگریم کوچک؟
و به همین صورت می‌بینیم که لذت خوردن یک لیوان آبجو بااینکه از درد کلیه‌ای که قرار است در آینده باعثش شود کمتر است، اما چون نزدیک‌تر است، بزرگتر به نظر می‌آید، و باعث لیوان‌های بعدی می‌شود.
فکر می‌کنم فرهنگ راک و این جملهٔ مشهور Live fast die young پاسخ مناسبی به سقراط باشد: ما حالش را می‌بریم و جوان‌مرگ می‌شویم، و از عواقبی که تو هشدارش را می‌دهی پیشگیری می‌کنیم. یا به قول خیام:
جامی و بتی و بربطی بر لب کشت
این هر سه مرا نقد و تو را نسیه بهشت

[Sookie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Socrates, my friend, you were bit of a dick in there.

Protagoras made an exemplary opponent in this dialogue, standing his ground and holds himself quite well in front of Socrates. Socrates doesn't just ask questions but decimates some of the views held by Protagoras. The dialogue is aesthetically pleasing with its clever word play and ping-pong format. Socrates goes about this dialogue in his signature conniving way of manipulating the counter arguments rather than substantiating his own, which is rather frustrating.

Much of the rationale tends to surround the idea that goes like this: if A is like B and B is like C then A must be like C. Can humanity be reduced to this simple equation? Socrates tries to reduce human emotions to "Yes" or "No" questions. Protagoras at one point provides a "Yes" with a caveat that Socrates neatly steamrolls on. This is all good in a world where the absolute right and the absolute wrong are known; where the pleasures come from "good things" and not being a psychopath.

At many instances Protagoras adds exceptions to his answers (the whole anything that's pleasurable must be good argument) and says things are more complex than what Socrates is making them to be. At this point, Plato really throws in a whammy: Socrates says he is too busy for long answer but goes on to give one anyway as is his usual style. (Socrates humility in this dialogue comes off as brag-y and disingenuous with a pretentious tone.)

It is hard to say if Socrates was purposefully trying to reduce Sophists into something that they think is beneath them. Or is it Plato teaching whoever is reading that the humanity is far more complex than reducing their existence to follow a bunch of yes or no questions.

[Amir · Rating 4 out of 5]

امروز بر آن شدی که روح خود را به سوفیستی بسپاری تا آن را بپروراند. میدانی سوفیست کیست؟ اگر پاسخ این سوال را ندانی معلوم خواهد شد نمیدانی روح خود را به چگونه کسی می سپاری و روح تو را بدتر خواهد ساخت یا بهتر.


.پروتاگوراس محاوره ای درباره تربیت است. در آغاز هیپوکراتس را می بینیم که با شوق زیادی نزد سقراط آمده. او جوانی است تشنه تربیت شدن. می‌خواهد که سقراط کمکش کند تا با پروتاگوراس، سوفیست معروف، که به تازگی به آتن آمده‌ آشنا شود؛ بلکه در حلقه شاگردانش درآید. سقراط شوق هیپوکراتس و تمایلش را به تعلیم نزد پروتاگوراس به آزمون می‌گذارد. سقراط از او می‌پرسد که آیا می‌داند که پروتاگوراس به او چه خواهد آموخت؟ یک استاد مجسمه ساز، او را مجسمه‌ساز خواهد کرد و یک پزشک به او فن طبابت را می آموزد. اما هیپوکراتس بعد از اتمام تحصیلش نزد پروتاگوراس، چه فن یا فضیلتی را دارا خواهد شد؟ موضوع دانش پروتاگوراس چیست؟ آیا هیپوکراتس می‌خواهد چنان پروتاگوراس سوفیست شود؟

چهره هیپوکراتس رنگ می بازد چرا که سوفیست شدن انتخاب مناسبی برای یک جوان آتنی نبوده و پرسش های سقراط حسابی گیجش کرده. سقراط از او می پرسد که ایا می خواهد روح خود را به بیگانه تازه از راه رسیده ای چون پروتاگوراس بسپارد؟ چرا که غذای روح دانش است و باید به هوش باشیم تا سوفیست ها مانند کسانی که غذای تن می فروشند با ستایش کالای خود مارا بفریبند. باید آزمایش کنیم آن دانشی که سوفیستی چون پروتاگوراس می فروشد چه میزان ارزشمند است. پس به نزد پروتاگوراس می روند تا پژوهش درباره چیستی دانشی که هیپوکراتس قصد تعلیمش را نزد او دارد با خودش سر بگیرند.

این مقدمه کوتاه _گفتگوی میان سقراط و هیپوکراتس_ هم زمان کلیت محاوره را در برمی گیرد. سقراط پرسشی را که تا پیش از این پیش روی هیپوکراتس بود_و او پاسخی برای آن نداشت_ برای پروتاگوراس بازگو می کند.‌ موضوع دانش سوفیستی چون پروتاگوراس چیست؟ پروتاگوراس مدعی می شود که او به دانش آموزانش خواهد آموخت که "زندگی خصوصی خانه خود را چگونه سامان دهند و در زندگی سیاسی چگونه از راه گفتار و کردار در امور در اداره امور کشور سهیم شوند." سقراط اما این بار با تعجب می پرسد ایا این دانش آموختنی است؟

نیاز به تربیت شدن برای شهروند خوبی بودن و پرسش سقراط مبنی بر آموختنی بودن فضیلت شهروندی در شرایط خاصی امکان پذیر شده. شاید که در آن زمان تنها در یونان. در جریان رشد فلسفه در خاک یونان، پیچشی در معنای حقیقت رخ می‌دهد. حقیقت در زمان نخستین فیلسوفان دوران باستان به معنای گشودن راز سر به مهر هستی بود. حدوداً دو قرن پیش از سقراط تالس را در شهر می‌بینیم که چشم به آسمان دوخته و سر به هوا راه می‌رود و پایش به درون چاله های شهر می لغزد. فلسفه با کشف طبیعت آغاز می شود و برای فلاسفه طییعی، حقیقت یعنی یافتن آرخه جهان. پیدا کردن آن اصل بنیادین در پس کثرت های طبیعت، تا به وسیله آن، واقعیت و طبیعت تبیین گردد.

اما دو قرن بعد می بینیم افقی جدید به روی یونانی ها گشوده‌می شود. حقیقت که پیش از این در طبیعت جسته می شد، در نسبت به آدمی بازتعریف شده  چشم هایی که زمانی به آسمان دوخته شده بود حال به انسان و هر آنچه که به او مربوط می‌شود می نگرند. در این هنگام است که مسئله تربیت ادمی اهمیت فراوانی پیدا می کند. جوانی آتنی چون هیپوکراتس باید بسیار هشیار باشد که روحش را در اختیار چه کسی قرار می دهد. اما موضع سقراط در این میان چیست؟ کسی که برخلاف سوفیست ها هیچ گاه ادعای تربیت جوانان را نداشته هر چند که در دادگاه، به فاسد ساختن جوانان متهم می شود. او که برخلاف سوفیست ها هیچ‌گاه شاگردانی نداشته، اما بسیاری از جوانان او را دوست خود می دانستند. هیپوکراتس هم یکی از آن جوانان بود‌.

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

But you cannot buy the wares of knowledge and carry them away in another vessel; when you have paid for them you must receive them into the soul and go your way, either greatly harmed or greatly benefited

In style the Protagoras is intermediate between the questioning Socrates of the early dialogues and the doctrinizing Socrates of the Gorgias. Here, Socrates is not only concerned in revealing the confusion of common notions, but also in advancing his own theories; yet the dialogue ends on an inconclusive note and, what is more, the ideas that Socrates advances are not the ones we recognize as Plato’s own mature philosophy.

As in the Gorgias, Socrates enters a gathering of sophists and their admirers, with the intent of questioning the practice of Sophism. Unlike Gorgias the rhetorician, however, Protagoras the sophist proves himself to be a formidable opponent. Indeed, in the beginning of the dialogue Protagoras has the upper hand, effectively resolving Socrates’ doubts regarding the teachability of virtue.

Socrates questions whether virtue can be taught, because, if virtue is teachable, then why do good men have bad sons? And why are their no specialists in virtue, as there are specialists in medicine and carpentry? Protagoras counters, first, with a myth about the origin of virtue, explaining that it was a gift of Zeus to all humans. Thus everyone is capable of virtue, and everyone is a teacher of virtue according to her ability; indeed you might say that virtue is taught all the time every day, just like Greek is. To illustrate the point, Protagoras uses a thought experiment involving a society where everyone played the flute. In such a society, some good men would likely have sons who were subpar flute players; but even the worst player in that society would likely be adept relative to a non flute-based society.

To drive home the point, Protagoras observes that punishment would be unreasonable if virtue were not teachable. For to punish as pure retribution is irrational and beastly—naked vengeance, which may satisfy anger but which will not undo any past wrongs. Punishment can only be rational if it is directed towards the future: to correct the wrongdoer and to discourage any others from following her example. The fact that the Athenians punish therefore proves that they believe that virtue can be taught.

Socrates uncharacteristically declares himself wholly satisfied and convinced by this answer. But one doubt remains: Are the parts of virtue, such as wisdom, courage, or piety, all independent, or are they all different names for the same basic thing? Protagoras at first asserts them to be different; a person may be courageous but impious, for example. However, Socrates trips him up with a question about opposites. Does everything have only one opposite? Yes, says Protagoras. So everything that is not wise is foolish? Of course. Then it is possible for piety to be foolish? At this Protagoras hesitates, and attempts to stop the conversation. Meanwhile, Socrates puts forth his doctrine that virtue is knowledge, specifically knowledge of pleasure and pain; and that this knowledge allows us to accurately estimate the pleasant and painful consequences of actions, and to make the best choice. (Plato would not persist with this position.)

In the course of this argument, Socrates and Protagoras have a dispute about the length of their responses. After Protagoras gives a little speech in answer to a question, Socrates professes himself too forgetful to follow long utterances, and requests that Protagoras stick with short answers. (This request is made to Gorgias, too.) Protagoras bristles at this and wants to quit; it takes the surrounding party to convince him to carry on. This seems to have been one of Socrates’ (and Plato’s) main complaints against the sophists, namely that they conceal poor reasoning in extended eloquent speeches. Plato also takes the opportunity to poke fun at those who argue by quoting and interpreting poems, putting a long and wholly implausible interpretation of a poem in Socrates’ mouth, thus illustrating that with sufficient ingenuity any meaning can be extracted from any poem.

The combatants disperse as friends and Socrates lives to argue another day.

[Aurelia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Le Protagoras est une joute oratoire entre Socrate et Protagoras, un sophiste du Vème siècle devenu modèle platonicien de ces intellectuels itinérants de l’Antiquité. La discussion porte sur la vertu et la possibilité de l’enseigner. La vertu ici comprise dans le sens grec du terme, est une combinaison de l’excellence et de l’intelligence pratique dans la gestion des affaires privées ou publiques, ou tout simplement faire mieux qu’hier.


Si le dialogue commence par critiquer la thèse de Protagoras qui avance que son enseignement peut vraiment améliorer la vertu de ses disciples, Socrate le mène rapidement vers la discussion de la nature de la vertu tout d’abord, est-t-elle chose simple ou multiple ? Quel est son rapport avec les autres vertus ? Ainsi la discussion méandre vers d’autres sujets qui relèvent de la logique, de la rhétorique et de la critique littéraire.


Aucune définition de la vertu n’est atteinte à la fin de ce dialogue. On a le sentiment que l’objectif était plutôt d’exposer la scène intellectuelle athénienne avec ses deux composantes antagonistes. De ce côté il y a les sophistes, qui défendent le relativisme, et argumentent pour la chose et son contraire, de l’autre côté, on trouve ceux qui cherchent un  absolu moral et intellectuel. Cette bataille se perpétue toujours, entre le relativisme culturel, l’utilitarisme moral et les principes des droits de l’Homme que leurs auteurs présentent comme universels.


Même l’aspect purement commercial de l’activité des sophistes est toujours présent, voire élevé à un niveau industriel avec les livres du développement personnel, qui prétendent aider les gens à mieux naviguer leur vie, à se débarrasser de leur vices… Des anciens chefs d'État parcourent le monde pour donner des conférences, écrire des livres, transmettre leur prouesse et expérience en politique. Il semble que la croyance en la transmissibilité de la vertu persiste toujours. Elle s’est même renforcée à l’époque de l’égalité et de la méritocratie. L’homme moderne pose des principes universels, mais il avance que tous les hommes sont capables de l’atteindre. On se demande si l’excellence serait la dernière chose à être démocratisée ?

[Nikola Jankovic · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Mnogo je veća opasnost kupovati znanje nego hranu." Ovo je dijalog o obrazovanju, i po temi meni jedan od najdražih. Ipak... Najpre moram sa žaljenjem da zaključim da su 2500 godina kasnije, pobedili sofisti a da je Sokrat izgubio. I drugo, sam tekst Protagore mi nije legao koliko neka druga Platonova dela.

Protagora je bio najpoznatiji predstavnik 'sofista', pokreta iz vremena kad centralna tema filozofije prestaje da bude svet oko nas (fizika, priroda), i to postaje čovek. Delali su u vreme Sokrata i Platona, a u ovom dijalogu ulazimo u ring (sobu) u direktan okršaj između Sokrata i Protagore.

Poput najčuvenijeg moraliste i filozofa agore, i sofisti su se bavili obrazovanjem. Poput Sokrata, i oni su postavljali razum u centar razmišljanja, i zajedno su hrabrili čoveka da krene putem razmišljanja i ispitivanja. Čak su u tome bili radikalniji od drugih Grka - smatrali su da čovek zaista može sve sam, dok je Sokrat, na primer, mnogo toga i dalje pripisivao volji bogova.

Ipak, Sokrat im je zamerao nekoliko stvari. Na primer to što su naplaćivali za obrazovanje, pa su se tako bavili obrazovanjem mladih (pre svega bogatih) ljudi koji su želeli da budu uspešni u društvu. Iz današnje tačke gledišta mogu se uporediti sa elitnim američkim univerzitetima - ali s tom razlikom da su sofisti nudili plitko znanje. Učili su te da samo zvučiš kao da imaš znanje. (Još jedna bitna razlika, oko toga se ni sam ne slažem sa Sokratom, a i Platon se oko toga lomio u kasnijim dijalozima, a pogotovo Aristotel kasnije) je pitanje da li se vrlina može naučiti. Sokrat tvrdi da ne može).

Deretino izdanje osim samog dijaloga, sadrži i bogat predgovor Mihaila Đurića:
"Za Sokrata se krajnji cilj sastojao u tome da čovek stvarno bude dobar, a ne samo da izgleda takav. Sofisti su se, uglavnom, najčešće zadovoljavali samo dobrim izgledom. Smatrali su da je to velika stvar kad bi čovek bio dovoljno vešt da stvara povoljan utisak o sebi, kad bi znao da svaku situaciju iskoristi u sopstvenom interesu."

U vezi s tim, želeli su da obrazovanje suze na praktične nauke, da ga osiromaše kako bi postalo pristupačno svima. Da postoje danas, to bi bili profesori praktičnih i dobro plaćenih zanimanja, poput programiranja, prava, arhitekture, ekonomije, i potpuno bi zapostavljali društvene nauke. Sokrat se doduše slagao da znanje treba da bude praktično, da "samo kontemplacija ničemu ne služi. Potrebno nam je znanje koje se može primeniti u praksi, u životu svakog pojedinca, u odnosu među ljudima. Ali, hteo je znanje radi vrline, radi ispravnih poteza, i verovao je da je znanje najveća snaga u čoveku". Istrajao je ipak u mišljenju da "pojedinačne nauke nemaju čulo za čoveka u celini, one pružaju samo stručno znanje, koje nema nikakvu obrazovno-vaspitnu vrednost. To znanje je površno i nepotpuno, ono se sastoji od golih činjeničkih obaveštenja. Obrazovanje ne može biti na parče, ne može se ograničiti na pojedine ljudske sklonosti i sposobnosti, ne može se svesti na običnu stručnu obuku. Smisao obrazovanja je u tome da se odneguje ceo čovek, da se stvori čivek koji nosi u sebi ceo ljudski svet."

Ima, kao i uvek, u samom tekstu bisera. Ovaj, koji zvuči kao da je izvađen iz Gozbe, bih recimo mogao da citiram već sutra, dok budemo sa društvom sedeli za stolom u Skadarliji:
"Oni, jer ne umeju da se među sobom zabavljaju uz čašu vina ni svojim glasom ni svojim govorom - zbog svoje neobrazovanosti dižu cenu frulašicama, za velike pare iznajmljuju tuđ glas, glas frula, i zabavljaju se njihovim glasom. A gde se uz čašu okupi lepo i valjano društvo sastavljeno od obrazovanih ljudi, nećeš videti ni frulašica ni igračica, ni pevačica, nego su oni sami sebi dovoljni za druženje, bez tih lakrija i tričarija; i govore i slušaju naizmenično jedni druge sasvim pristojno, makar mnogo vina popili."

[Anastasija · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another of Plato’s compelling philosophical dialogues that explores timeless questions about knowledge, virtue, and the nature of truth. An engaging dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras ("Man is the measure of all things."). An essential read for anyone interested in philosophy, history, or the development of Western thought.

[Duffy Pratt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is maybe the only dialogue I've read which was actually a dialogue. So often, a Platonic dialogue consists of little more than Socrates asking a series of questions, some of them lasting for a page or more, and then his interlocutor giving a one to three word answer. Here, Protagoras stands up for his own views, and he seems to hold his own fairly well with Socrates. He's not simply a foil, or if he is, he is not a simple foil.

The structure of the dialogue also tends to meander more than usual, and this lends it a further air of authenticity. There is also a strong tension here between getting at the truth and winning the argument. Of course, Socrates protests that all he wants to do is to get to the bottom of what Protagoras thinks about virtue in general, and courage in particular. But it doesn't seem genuine. There's a strong sense here that everyone is waiting for a "gotcha" moment. And in the end, Socrates catches Protagoras in a trap, which effectively ends the dialogue. So, which is more important, getting at the truth or winning? I don't think the answer is at all clear.

There's one moment I especially liked. Socrates asks one of his typically leading questions, looking for a yes or no answer because either way he can lead Protagoras into a trap. Protagoras says its not so simple. He says that some things are expedient in some circumstances, but then not expedient in others, and he gives lots of varying examples. Socrates response is basically TLDR. He insists he's too dumb to take in such long answers, and wants Protagoras to give short simple answers. Then there is considerable debate about how the debate should run.

And better, when Protagoras takes the lead on asking questions, a poem gets mentioned. Socrates, who earlier said he wanted only short answers because he was too simple to grasp a speech, gives about a 5 page monologue on the meaning of the poem. There's lots of irony built into this dialogue, and it makes it fun. It also makes it harder to grasp exactly what Plato is trying to say, unless of course he's not trying to say anything, but rather to get the reader to think. And that means I probably should have spent more time on this.

The discussion of the relationship between pleasure and virtue was very interesting. It's the sort of thing that makes plausible the old chestnut that all Western philosophy is best understood as footnotes to Plato. But then, the discussion on courage and cowardice was pretty dreadful. The two are so far off the mark that it made it hard to take the conversation seriously.

[Alp Turgut · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sokrates ile Protagoras kalabalık bir izleyici topluluğunun önünde erdemin öğretilebilir olup olmadığını tartıştığı "Protagoras", bir yandan cesaret kavramının içine açmaya çalışırken diğer yandan haz kavramanın rolünün ne kadar önemli olduğununun da altını çiziyor. Diğer eserlerin aksine daha diyalog gibi hissedilen eserin bağlandığı nokta itibariyle aslında yine hiçbir şeyin net bir açıklamasının olmağının altını çiziyor. Öte yandan, tartışmayı 21. yüzyıla taşıdığımızda kavramlar arasındaki anlam arayışının biraz zaman aşımına uğradığını söylemek gerek. Bu yüzden Platon'un diğer eserlerine kıyasla yeterince beslenemediğim bir eser oldu "Protagoras".

28.01.2024
Londra, Birleşik Krallık

Alp Turgut

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

9/10.

Protagoras, the prototypical sophist, may perhaps be sophistical in his reasoning. Yet the sophists have something great to teach us about the life of virtue.

Socrates and Plato believe that knowledge of virtue will lead to a virtuous life. This is blatantly untrue at the outset. Despite this, we must forgive Plato, as his dialogues were for citizens of Athens, not the helots. It was for those who came from noble families, whose ancestors proved that Nature had favored them. Plato's belief in this can be palpably observed by his separation of people into three hereditary classes in The Republic, with only the top class being able to intellectually guide the state.

So, perhaps for the cream of the natural crop, virtue can be pursued just by learning of it. Knowledge of it could potentially connect to their consciences and drive them upwards in the pursuit of the Good Life.

Yet this hypothetical scenario seems tenuous at best. "Don't steal!" cries the schoolmaster. That's easy enough. But what about "Be courageous"? How does that connect to an adolescent's life? What is courage? Is it fighting the neighborhood gang to get back stolen lunch money? Is it dying your hair purple and putting eight rings in your body? What is courage?

The adolescent must have exemplars to understand what courage is. The classical world provided the eternal fruit of moral exemplars for generations upon generations of Europeans. The prime example of courage was the Spartans' fight at Thermopylae. Though they only numbered 300 men, they stood their ground against the hundreds of thousands of charging Persians. Their prolonged defense and manly valor saved Greece. WIthout them, Ancient Athens would never have flourished and we would have never heard of Plato. The sprouts of civilized thought would not have come up.

When someone says, "be courageous", naked and abstract, it does not reach to us as humans. But when someone brings up the heroes at Thermopylae and how they steadfastly fought for days upon days knowing they would eventually be overrun; how they protected all of Classical Grecian civilization; how they are the reason we can sip the sweet writings of Aristotle and Plato; — how could we not be inspired? How could we not look at ourselves at weak compared to those fierce warriors? How could we not feel that our fears (approaching new people, asking a question in class, getting a B+, paying a bit more for food) are spiteful? How much more we could strengthen our spirits, how much more we could accept our current economic conditions as an unchangeable premise, how much more we could be inspired to laugh at our petty fears when we look at these courageous Spartans!

This is the golden teaching of the sophists: rhetoric matters! Example matters! Morality comes via inspirations, not via philosophical propositions. It is quite clear — just look at philosophy professors. Are they living the good life? Are they the highest specimens of mankind? Three times no! Their profession is a lifeless abstraction; their entire life is an abstraction.

We oppose abstraction. We connect thought to life. We think to contemplate right action and right living. We see the honorable duties of our ancestors, their great courage, their Faustian fight against Nature in their conquest of the West, their Stoicism in the face of frigid cold and Amazonian heat — we see all of these and feel obligated to rise upwards. Precisely what we moderns need — a duty, a calling, something above us saying, "Weakling! Do better!". Rise up, my brothers, rise up and conquer thy passions!

[Viji (Bookish endeavors) · Rating 3 out of 5]

“And have they not been shown to be cowards through their ignorance of dangers?
“Assuredly, he said.
And because of that ignorance they are cowards?
He assented.
And the reason why they are cowards is admitted by you to be cowardice?
He again assented.
Then the ignorance of what is and is not dangerous is cowardice?
He nodded assent.
But surely courage, I said, is opposed to cowardice?
Yes.
Then the wisdom which knows what are and are not dangers is opposed to the ignorance of them?
To that again he nodded assent.
And the ignorance of them is cowardice?
To that he very reluctantly nodded assent.
And the knowledge of that which is and is not dangerous is courage, and is opposed to the ignorance of these things?
At this point he would no longer nod assent, but was silent.
And why, I said, do you neither assent nor dissent, Protagoras?
Finish the argument by yourself,’he said.”

This is the story of how the most humble Socrates, whose only wisdom is that he does not know anything, bullies Protagoras into admitting that he does not know much. All my emotions rest with Protagoras, of course! Socrates really did beat this guy up.

The question of ‘virtue’ finds it way from the Greeks to the cardinal principles during medieval times and then under the Microscope of Moore in his ‘good’. Though the essence of ‘virtue’ is not explored, one can very well find out what it is not. But again, this is more of a book on rhetoric.

[David Sarkies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Socrates on teaching morality
24 January 2013

This I feel is one of Plato's later dialogues, though it is still very Socratic in form. It is believed that the main part of the dialogue (it is not really a dialogue in that it seems to be more like a retelling of an earlier event, an event which most likely occurred before Plato was born, than a first hand account of a discussion). However, I also note that there is no reference to the theory of Forms, so it appears that this particular work is probably more Socratic than Platonic.
As I have mentioned, the discussion (for want of a better word) is set about fifty years (or more) before the dialogue (for want of a better word) was published. At the time, Athens was at the height of her power, and the thirty year long Peloponesian War had yet to begin. A famous philosopher, named Protagoras, who was aged around 65 at the time (according to the translator of the version that I read) was visiting Athens, and one of Socrates' friends (Socrates was aged around 35 at the time, so had yet to become the Socrates that we all know and love) wanted to go and give money to this guy to become a student. Hearing this, and obviously a little disturbed about the whole thing, Socrates decides to go with his friend to meet Protagoras (Protagoras was actually quite famous at the time, so it wasn't as if some unknown had appeared in Athens and started sprouting a lot of rubbish).
One thing I found interesting was when we first meet Protagoras. The discussion between Socrates and his friend at first sounded as if his friend may have been seduced into joining some sort of cult. Basically give this guy money and he will teach you how to be a good and moral person. Remember, Socrates actually did this for free because he did not believe that one should have to pay to be taught how to be a good and moral person. This was not like learning how to argue (rhetoric), as the text suggests, but morality. Anyway, when we first meet Protagoras, we see him with a group of Athenians clustered around him listening to him intently, and a larger group of followers eagerly taging along behind (I guess they had already paid their money). To me, Protagoras really does sound like some sort of Jim Jones.
Anyway, I should actually talk about the discussion between Socrates and Protagoras, and it is the question of whether one can be taught morality. Protagoras says that yes it can, but of course he is going to take that line because he is making money out of teaching people morality. Socrates does not necessarily take the opposite view (he never does) but rather tries to poke holes in Protagoras' argument. In a sense Socrates takes the line that experience cannot be taught, and morality is something that is learnt through experience. As we interact with people we learn what upsets them and what does not upset them, and we tend to drift towards not wanting to upset them. In a way, it goes back to the basic Socratic principle of nobody does wrong willingly (which I sort of don't agree with, but if we accept that people's sense of morality is subjective as opposed to objective, then that is the case).
Now, there are some interesting things that do come out of this dialogue. Protagoras tells a story of two demi-gods, Thinxahead and Thinxtolate, who are given the takes of designing and creating life on Earth. Thinxtolate decides to take it all on himself, and hands out all of these gifts to the animals to allow them to survive, but when he gets to humanity, all of the gifts have run out, so there is nothing left for them. However, Thinxahead decides to give humanity the gift of wisdom and intelligence, and to do that, he steals it from the gods. In a way it is similar (but no where near identical to) the Genesis account where humanity is given the breath of life from God, which sets them apart from the animal kingdom.
Then there is the idea of cowardice and bravery. Socrates seems to take the position that people are cowards due to ignorance: cowardice is the fear of the unknown. People are cowards because they are ignorant of the action (and I must agree with that, because I have known cowards that are cowards because they simply accept that they can't do something because they do not believe they can do it, which is ignorance), however bravery is being able to respect what is known. I don't think Socrates meant that bravery is taking on a fully armed Spartan soldier with a straw hat, that's not brave, that's stupid. As a side note, he suggests that Spartans are wiser than the Athenians because of their ability to make piffy one liners (much like many of Arnold Swartzenegger's characters, which I would hardly call wise).
The conclusion is that there is no real conclusion (as happens with many of Plato's dialogues, because he wants us to work it out for ourselves rather than spoon feeding us). Protagoras simply says that he is sick of talking to Socrates and will continue the discussion later (but also praises Socrates on his ability to argue and says he will one day become a great philosopher, no doubt something added by Plato), and Socrates simply says that it is getting late, he has things that he has to do, and pretty much goes home.

[Jana Light · Rating 3 out of 5]

Damn. Socrates is a jackass. Great topics, though. Can you teach virtues? Is good equal to the pleasurable? Are all virtues one or are they distinct? Which is harder: being good or becoming good? And most importantly: how did Socrates have any friends whatsoever? Lots of questions with few conclusions and lots of undefined concepts, but a fun read. Also, everyone was hot for Alcibiades. Apparently he could get it.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a complete masterpiece of rhetoric. It ranks with Gorgias and often surpasses the Republic in terms of logical focus. All educators should read it. Plato reminds us that we cannot separate Being, Rhetoric, and Goodness. Whatever you learn, you take into your soul.

That’s how the dialogue begins. It doesn’t retain that level of intensity as Socrates routinely gets sidetracked. Another point to keep in mind: while Protagoras is known for saying “Man is the measure of all things,” that’s not what this dialogue is about.

I always wondered why Socrates was so insistent that virtue cannot be taught, for it seems obvious that it can. What he argues, I think, and the same problem arises in Euthydemus, is that you can’t just pay money to hear a few lectures by a huckster and then say you are virtuous. (Have you ever noticed how postmodern university courses on ethics never make people virtuous?).

Socrates and Protagoras spend the rest of the dialogue debating whether virtue is of a whole or if it can be parceled out in pieces? For example, both justice and courage are virtues. Do we say that the unjust man can be courageous? It seems like he can. I suppose the question we should then ask, which neither Socrates nor Protagoras ask, is whether his courage flows from his injustice, and that is obviously no. Yet this seems to give the nod to Protagoras that they can be distinguished.

Socrates then reframes the argument: if everything has an opposite, and wisdom and temperance aren’t the same thing, then they can’t be parts of virtue, for then virtue would have a contradiction. I think this is a better argument on Socrates’s part, but I think it was up to Aristotle to give the final say on it. What Socrates needs is some kind of cipher like the later model of divine simplicity and then apply that to the virtues. He ends the debate by suggesting--and only suggesting--that knowledge is this kind of cipher that unifies the virtues.
This is a complete masterpiece of rhetoric. It ranks with Gorgias and often surpasses the Republic in terms of logical focus. All educators should read it. Plato reminds us that we cannot separate Being, Rhetoric, and Goodness. Whatever you learn, you take into your soul.

That’s how the dialogue begins. It doesn’t retain that level of intensity as Socrates routinely gets sidetracked. Another point to keep in mind: while Protagoras is known for saying “Man is the measure of all things,” that’s not what this dialogue is about.

I always wondered why Socrates was so insistent that virtue cannot be taught, for it seems obvious that it can. What he argues, I think, and the same problem arises in Euthydemus, is that you can’t just pay money to hear a few lectures by a huckster and then say you are virtuous. (Have you ever noticed how postmodern university courses on ethics never make people virtuous?).

Socrates and Protagoras spend the rest of the dialogue debating whether virtue is of a whole or if it can be parceled out in pieces? For example, both justice and courage are virtues. Do we say that the unjust man can be courageous? It seems like he can. I suppose the question we should then ask, which neither Socrates nor Protagoras ask, is whether his courage flows from his injustice, and that is obviously no. Yet this seems to give the nod to Protagoras that they can be distinguished.

Socrates then reframes the argument: if everything has an opposite, and wisdom and temperance aren’t the same thing, then they can’t be parts of virtue, for then virtue would have a contradiction. I think this is a better argument on Socrates’s part, but I think it was up to Aristotle to give the final say on it. What Socrates needs is some kind of cipher like the later model of divine simplicity and then apply that to the virtues. He ends the debate by suggesting--and only suggesting--that knowledge is this kind of cipher that unifies the virtues.

[Linniegayl · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this for a class on Athenian democracy. I'm not sure this is the version I read, as mine has no notes, just the Greek translated into English. I would have been better off with a version that had a lengthy introduction, a lengthy conclusion, and many, many notes. I'm going to have to do more research to figure out what the relationship of this piece is to Athenian democracy.

My one main conclusion is that if I saw Socrates coming I would run the other way before he could ever begin to grill me with his questions.

[Grazia Gazale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Auf Italienisch, sagen wir: trip mentale assurdo.

[Ale · Rating 1 out of 5]

scs Platone ma non mi è proprio piaciuto, non ho capito nulla, era lungo e parecchio noioso, mi spiace perché sono convinta che molti altri siano belli :((

[Keiralika · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first impression on the early pages was, “Oh no, not the Protagoras rage baiting Socrates.” That comes to realization that this specific word that was invented not so long ago, used to be just pointing out an argument, especially among philosophers or sophists, they’re part of the method to size and calculate intelligence on tension and provocation. It’s just the way of Protagoras pointing things out that makes him more act like a hard boiled person, embodying aretē in public speech.

My intelligent pursue is revolving around existentialism. And there are hard lines between the sophist and existentialist, but as far as i can see it‘s not about domination but an intersection. Life is the part named within the two circles that crosses each other, thus to learn life we have to put down our ego and learn from every source of knowledge, but to get deep we have to admit that both are circling on the different orbits. The sophist, or for this one is Protagoras, embodying rational eloquence and rhetorical mastery just like Thoth from Hermopolis (City of Hermes; the city of Ogdoad), and with the more taste of ethical relativities. While existentialist found themselves on Atum from Heliopolis through existential emergence, solitary with heart of self authenticity and creation.

Though i can sense the importance of Prodicus role as a very semantic and linguistic philosopher, the throwing words and very synonymous arguments seem like they were making their hard times by themselves. In achieving logos we need clarity, and that’s why they need the man like him among the sophist. For they need a man like Hippias to balance as for his role as the technician of intellect; for Socrates was very dialectic and Protagoras was super rethotic. They need the touch that knowledge could be accessed and one not only required the grandeurs argumentations; the practical should be accessible in return.

In this book (or to say record), Socrates tried to maintain three things: (1) that virtue cannot be taught; (2) that the virtues are one; (3) that virtue is the knowledge of pleasures and pains present and future. With the coming of Protagoras to Athen, Socrates and his companions would love to find the wisdom within him, for his name was soared enough, and for the insight to find the higher conception of virtue and knowledge.

[Joan Sebastián Araujo Arenas · Rating 2 out of 5]

En el Protágoras se vuelve al mito prometeico para ilustrar la posición del sofista homónimo sobre la justicia y sobre la política.

Vuelve a aparecer, luego de su primera incursión en Los trabajos y los días (Trab., §85), el hermano del titán. Prometeo y Epimeteo, desde su etimología, revelan carátulas opuestas, ya que uno es reflexivo y el otro impulsivo, respectivamente. Este último personaje, que con su nombre muestra su esencia torpe, se encarga del reparto de las capacidades naturales a todos los seres mortales.

A unas y otros le dio facultades correspondientes y contrarias a los demás ―de modo que cada ser pudiese sobrevivir por una cualidad especial― pero nada dejó al hombre, como pronto observó su hermano. Prometeo roba el fuego y la técnica requerida para su dominio, entonces, para suplir una falta.

Este regalo no basta, sin embargo...

El resto del escrito se encuentra en mi blog: https://jsaaopinionpersonal.wordpress...

[Mina Talaat · Rating 5 out of 5]

هُناك لذة ما بعدها لذة في قراءة الفلسفة اليونانية ، سقراط و بروتاجوراس عقول سبقت التطور ا(عقلي الحالي، لههم قدرة من التفكير و التمحيص لا توجد في الع��ر الحالي بأكمله.

[Ivana · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot more interesting that I thought

[Crandall King · Rating 5 out of 5]

damn plato, you’re kinda funny

[Pepijn Martinez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Homoerotisch kortverhaal.

[Zach · Rating 4 out of 5]

GOOD

[Ben Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Came for the Sophist bashing. Stayed for the extended satire on hermeneutics.

[sorcha]

idgaf i did actually read this

[Kaamos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sokrates’in Protagoras ile erdemin birliği, hedonist muhasebe ve cesaret üzerine konuşturulduğu, erken dönem Platonik diyaloglardan biridir. Eserin başında Hippokrates’i bir hatadan kurtarmak üzere bir argümanla yola çıkmış gibi gözüken Sokrates, aslında eserin sonunda kendi tezini yıkacak, erdemin öğretilebilir olduğunu savunur halde görülecektir.

Diyalog içerisinde diyalog olarak karşımıza çıkan Protagoras eserinde Sokrates, ismi verilmeyen “Dost” ile yaptığı sohbet içerisinde ünlü hekim Hippokrates’in kendisini Protagoras’ın bulunduğu Kallias’ın evine gitmeye ısrarı sonucu, burada gerçekleşen konuşmayı anlatmaktadır.

İsmi diğer Platon diyaloglarına da verilen veya bir şekilde diyalog içerisinde yer alan birçok diğer karakterin de bulunduğu bu konuşma içerisinde Prodikos, Hippias, Alkibiades ve Kritias da bulunacak, Devlet Adamı ve Şölen’de de gördüğümüz, günümüzde metaforları hala sanat ve felsefe içerisinde yerini kaybetmemiş mitsel başvurulara yer verilecektir.

Hippokrates şehre gelmiş bu meşhur öğretmen ile tanışmak için can atarak, Sokrates de kendine has sorgularıyla onun heyecanını yatıştırarak Kallias’ın evinin yolunu tutarlar. Sokrates’in sofistlere dair yargısını Sofist ve Euthydemos’da net şekilde görmekle beraber, bu sert yaklaşım kendini daha diyalogun başında tekrar belli ediyor;

• “Ruhunu sofist dediğin bir adamın bakımına teslim etmek üzeresin.” 312c (Buradaki ‘ruh’ çevirmenin notuna göre psikoloji kelimesinin kökeni olan psykhe’den, ‘bakım’ kelimesi ise therapeuo ile yakın bir anlam taşıyan epimeleia’dan çevrilmiştir. Sokrates’in burada erdeme dair bir eğitimi -eğer böyle bir şey mümkün ise- bir usta çıraklık arası öğretiden ziyade bir terapi olarak gördüğünü düşünmek çok keyifli geliyor bana)
• “Dikkat et ki en değerli şeylerle kumar oynayıp riske girmeyesin” 313e
• “Öğrenilebilir şeyler başka kapta taşınamaz” 314b (Thaitetos’ta savunulduğu üzere, boş bir bardağı dolduran zehir gibi, bilgisizin -yine eğer varsa- yanlış bilgiyle dolmasının endişesi)

Tanışma sonrası Sokrates, Protagoras’a Hippokrates’e neyi öğreteceğini soracak, çeşitli cevapların ortak özüne ulaşıldığında “erdem” ortaya çıkınca, erdemin öğretilir olup olamayacağının sorgusu başlayacaktır. Protagoras erdemin öğretilebilir olduğunu önce Prometheus ve Zeus mitine, sonra da politik insan argümanına başvurarak açıklamaya koyulur;

Prometheus Hephaistos’dan ateşin sanatını, Athena’dan da diğer sanatları çalıp insanlara armağan ettiğinde, insanlar tanrılardan pay almış oldular ve onlara inanan, ibadet eden tek hayvan türü oldular, birbirleriyle haberleşmenin ötesine geçip bir diyalektik geliştirdiler, ancak kendilerini diğer vahşi hayvanlardan ve doğanın gücünden koruyacak sanata sahip olsalar da bu yeterli olamadı, çünkü birbirlerine haksızlık eder haldelerdi. Zeus, soyunun tükeneceğinden korktuğu insanlığa adalet ve utancı götürmesi için Hermes’i görevlendirdi, ve diğer sanatların aksine bundan herkese pay düşmesini emredecekti. Adaletten ve utanmadan nasibini almayan ise bozguncu kabul edilecek, ölüme mahkum edilecekti.

Politik erdemi böylece aslında ilk öğretmen mantığına oturttuktan sonra Protagoras, bu erdemin doğumdan itibaren öğretilmekte olduğunu açıklar; doğuştan sahip olduğumuz kusurlar, istenç dışı özellikler uygar bir toplumda kimse tarafından ayıplanmaz, hor görülmez ise, politik erdeme aykırı gerçekleşen tüm eylemler, toplumun geliştirdiği yasalarda cezaya tabi olacaktır. Bu ceza da hayvansal bir öç alma hali değil, ıslah amaçlı, gerçekleşen eylemin amili tarafından tekrarlanmaması ve başkalarını da bunu yapmaktan caydırması için vardır zaten, bu erdemin öğretilebilirliğini bir kez daha göstermiş olur. Yani cezanın ıslah edici gücüne inanan herkes aslında bu fikri desteklemektedir ona göre.

Sokrates’in erdemin öğretilebilirliğiyle ilgili bir diğer sorgusu da en bilge ebeveynlerin bile çoğunlukla çocuklarına politik erdemi öğretememesi üzerinden gelmektedir. Protagoras daha önce de söylendiği gibi, politik erdemin doğuştan itibaren öğrenilmekte, önce ebeveynler, sonra da kent tarafından bu erdemin çeşitli şekillerde yurttaşlara öğretilmekte olduğunu öne sürer. Eğer kimse bu erdemden pay almasaydı, yani insanlar birbirine bunu öğretmeseydi, kent birlik halinde varolamazdı zaten. Erdemli ebeveynlerin onlar kadar erdemli çocuklarının olmamasından daha doğal bir şey yoktur ona göre, bir babanın çalgıcılıkta iyi olması oğlunun da öyle olmasını zorunlu kılar mı? Erdemin öğretilebilirliği üzerine argümanını, Sokrates’i mutlak bir öğrenimin eksikliğine odaklanmayla suçlayarak bitirecektir,

“Ancak halihazırda şımarmış olduğun için, Sokrates, herkesin elinden geldiğince erdem öğretmeni olması, sana hiç kimsenin erdem öğretmeni olmaması gibi geliyor.”

Sokrates erdemin öğretilebilirliğine dair aldığı cevaptan memnun gözükür, bu sefer yeni bir sorgu açmak ister, Protagoras, erdemin fraktal bir halde, farklı parçalar halinde olduğuna mı inanmaktadır yoksa erdemden pay alan bilgelik, dindarlık, cesaret gibi kavramlar bir birliği mi ifade ederler?

Platon bu noktada erdeme yaklaşım konusunda yeniden Sofist’tekine benzer bir mutabakat arayışında gözükür, birbirine karşıt olgulardan pay alan idealar aynı birliği temsil edebilir mi? Diyalogun geri kalanında cesaret üzerinden bu sorgu Lakhes’teki gibi mutlak bir birlik arayışı ile, bu karşıtlıkların elden geldiğince yıkılmasına uğraşarak devam edecektir. Burada itidalden pay alan bilgelik ve başta özgüvenden pay alır gibi gözüken cesaret, birer erdem olmaları ile beraber, içlerinde barındırdıkları karşıtlıktan dolayı çözülmeyi gerektirirler. Sokrates’in ‘her şeyin tek bir karşıtı olmasına’ dair diyalektik iknası Protagoras’ı burada biraz çıkmaza düşürmüştür. Erdemlerimiz sonucu ulaşmak istediğimiz ‘iyi’nin göreceli olmasına dair bir konuşmasıyla da diyalogun ilerisinde Philebos’takine benzer haz ve acılar üzerinden erdemi değerlendirmenin de yolunu açmış olur.

Verilen bir aradan sonra diyalog bir kez daha farklı bir konuya yönelecek, bu sefer Protagoras, Simonides’in “iyi olmak güçtür” ifadesini iki farklı yerde kullanan bir şiirinde gördüğü çelişkiyi öne sürecektir, Sokrates diyalogun bu kısmında “olmak” ile “haline gelmek” arasındaki fark üzerinden Simonides’in şiirinde bu kavramları bu şekilde kullandığını belirtecektir. Sokrates’in yorumuyla, “iyi hale gelmek” güçtür, ancak bu noktaya ulaştıktan sonra “iyi olmak”, yani ulaşılan halin varlığını sürdürmek, diğerine göre daha az meşakkat gerektirecektir. Yine bir aradan sonra erdemin birliği tekrar ele alınır, bu sefer ipler Sokrates’in elindedir ve soru kendini tekrar eder, erdemler bir midir, çok mudur?

Platon’un Protagoras’ı bir kez daha erdemin bir olduğunu, erdemi oluşturan parçalardan ise cesaretin diğerlerinden ayrı olduğunu ileri sürer. Lakhes’te cesareti bilgelikle özdeşleştirmeye çalışırken aporia ile sonuçlanan çaba burada da aynı şekilde devam eder. Buradan sonrasında Sokrates’in ana savunusunun “ cesaret, geleceğe ilişkin iyi ya da kötülerin bilgisidir”, ya da en genel haliyle “cesaret, gelecekte yaşanacaklara dair bilgeliktir” olduğunu akılda tutmak gerekir, zira konu bu noktaya dönene kadar farklı yaklaşımlar görürüz; Sokrates geri dönmek üzere bir süreliğine saldırısını başka bir kulvardan devam ettirir;

“Hoş bir şekilde yaşamak iyi, nahoş bir şekilde yaşamak kötüdür” 353c

Philebos’ta gördüğümüz gibi, iyi yaşam, hazzın olduğu ve acının olmadığı bir arayışın sonucunda bulunabilir Sokrates’e göre. Protagoras iyi yaşamı mutlak bir hazzın varlığı ve mutlak bir acının yokluğuna bağlamak istemez, ona göre bazı hazlar iyi, bazı acılar kötüdür, ve tersi de mümkündür. Sokrates’in bu yaklaşımı değerlendirmek için bir mutabakatı öncül olarak isteyecek, bilginin insan hayatında yönetici bir güç olduğunda karşı tarafın onayını alacaktır. İnsanların büyük çoğunluğu bilgiye sahip olmadıklarından bir hataya düşmektelerdir aslında, acı ve hazzın hedonistik muhasebesini doğru yapmamızı sağlayacak bir ölçme sanatı, ve bunu icra edebilenler iyi ve kötü arasındaki doğru ayrımları yapabilecek kişilerdir.

Oldukça basit bir şekilde şöyle düşünebiliriz;

Ben şu an şarap içmek istiyorum, bu isteğim ile hali hazırda arzu ve itidal arasındaki çatışma zaten başlamış oldu. Arzuma göre benim için haz, şarabı içmem sonucu geleceğim durumda yatmaktadır. Ancak itidal bana bunun yarın baş ağrısıyla uyanmama sebep olacağını, bu nedenle bu nispeten küçük hazzın, büyük bir acıyla sonuçlanacağını söyler. Bu noktada ben anlık hazzımdan vazgeçtiğimde aslında hazzın kendisinden vazgeçmiş olmam, çünkü geleceğe dair potansiyel acıyı ortadan kaldırarak, sabit hazzın devamlılığını sağlamış olurum. Aslında verdiğim karar yine hazza yöneliktir. Peki şarabı içmenin bana vereceği haz ile yaşayacağım baş ağrısının acısı arasındaki ölçümü nasıl gerçekleştirebilirim? Çok basit, bu durumlar hakkındaki bilgim sayesinde. İyi bir hayat sürebilmemiz için de bu bilgi; nasıl aynı boyutta olan nesnelerden biri yakın, biri uzakken birbirlerinden farklı boyutlardaymış gibi gözükürse, şu anki halimiz ile geleceğimiz hal arasındaki ayrımı yapabilmemin sanatı, bir ölçme sanatı gerekmektedir bize.

Bu yaklaşımın diğer taraftan ele alınışı da şu şekilde dile getirilmiştir,

“Acı çekmenin bazen iyi olduğunu söylemenizin sebebi, içerdiği acılardan fazlasını gidermesi veya içerdiği acılardan daha fazla hazza yol açması değil midir?” 354d

Ve şu şekilde devam edecektir,

“Peki ey insanlar! Yaşamın kurtuluşu hazzın ve acının doğru seçiminden ibaret göründüğüne göre, bu öncelikle onların birbirine kıyasla fazlalık, eksiklik ve eşitliklerinin incelenmesinden oluşan ölçme sanatı olarak gözükmez mi?” 357a

Ve eğer daha önce kabul edildiği gibi, bilgi her şeyi yöneten güç ise, insanların çoğunluğunun kötü sonuçlanan eylemlerini ‘hazza yenilmek’ olarak nitelemesi bilgi yoksunluğundan, cehaletten başka ne olabilir?

Sokrates bunu daha önceki “cesaret, geleceklerde yaşanacaklara dair bilgili olma” haline bağlayacak, cesaretin karşısında duran korkaklığın, haz ve acılarla ilgili doğru muhasebe yapamayan bir kişinin cehaletinden geldiğini söyleyecektir. Savaştan çekinen bir asker cesur, savaşa giden bir asker korkak gayet de olabilir, çünkü Sokrates’in erdemin birliğine sürüklemek istediği cesaret bilgelikten, korkaklık da cehaletten gelmektedir. Bu sayede cesaret de erdemin diğer parçalarından farklı gözükmeyi bırakacak, erdemin birliği konusunda mutabakat kurulacaktır.

Birliği sağlanmış erdem, tüm parçaları ile bilgiye tekabül ediyor, bilgi ise en öğretilebilir şeyse, Protagoras cesaretin bilgi olduğundan şüphe ederek kendisiyle çelişkiye düşmüş gözükür. Sokrates başta erdemin öğretilebilir olup olmadığını sorgularken, kendi cevabını vermiş gibi gözükmektedir. İronik bir şekilde Protagoras aslında sürekli Sokrates’in yönlendirmeleri ile savrulur gözükürken, ulaşılacak sonucun ilk diyalogdaki ilk taraftarıdır.

[Benjamin Stahl · Rating 3 out of 5]

When someone with a name like Protagoras comes along, you just know he's gonna be one of those types that can't keep their damned opinions to themselves. Better sharpen that stylus, Plato, or Socrates will have a bird.