In the Protagoras, both Socrates and Protagoras make an argument as to whether or not virtue can or cannot be taught. The story begins with a young man, who is a friend of Socrates to want to learn from Protagoras who happens to be quite a well-known and knowledgably person. In order to receive this lesson the young man must pay Protagoras in order to learn from him, this causes Socrates to become concerned as he does not like the idea of paying someone to teach them ideas or thoughts. This causes the main argument for the debate between Socrates and Protagoras as Socrates is sceptical on whether or not Protagoras can teach someone to be good or virtuous.
During the beginning of the debate Protagoras states that virtue can be taught, while Socrates made statements as to whether or not Protagoras can actually teach political virtue challenging the idea. This battle raises some questions as what virtue is and how to define it. It also raised the question if people can be taught to be good citizens, which led to the question: What is a good citizen? They both have different views as to what a good citizen is, creating a much more complex problem than what they started with originally.
During the debate, questions arose as to if citizenship is simply obeying the laws that are created within the city or if it is
…show more content…
The story begins with a young man, who is a friend of Socrates to want to learn from Protagoras who happens to be quite a well-known and knowledgably person. In order to receive this lesson the young man must pay Protagoras in order to learn from him, this causes Socrates to become concerned as he does not like the idea of paying someone to teach them ideas or thoughts. This causes the main argument for the debate between Socrates and Protagoras as Socrates is sceptical on whether or not Protagoras can teach someone to be good or
(160d) Socrates points out the contradicting beliefs that Protagoras would have had in maintaining relative truths, for to do so would be to remove the ability for one man to know more/better than another (161). It seems strange to say then, again coming from Protagoras, that one is more knowledgeable than another, and is worthy of payment to teach men who are less knowledgeable. In addition to this, as discussed above, Protagoras’ account is based on future possibility and thus has no place in discussing what actually is or in the process of becoming. To claim truth based on a future event (that which has not yet come to pass) fails requirement (1) of any definition of knowledge. Similar issues are faced in theories of knowledge and justification that rely heavily on probability. Mainly that the probability of a claim being true cannot provide actual, instant, justification for a belief (which in turn makes the theory that K=JTB
...ledge above everything else, Socrates put an emphasis on the quality of knowledge and the quality of teaching thereafter. To this day, the seeking of knowledge and the eventual passing it on are revered tasks. It is said that teachers are among the wisest people on the land not only for their knowledge but their experience in handling different personalities. They are also respected for their grasp of the facts of life and what goes on around us. They explain life and make it worth living. No wonder Socrates said, “The unexplained life is not worth living” (Brisson 90).
...h Protagoras uses to attack Socrates's assertion that civic aptitude is like other skills, and can therefore only be practiced at any level of excellence by a few. Protagoras devotes the second half of his speech to refuting directly the notion that these civic aptitudes cannot be taught; this argument is not framed as a story, but as a systematic analysis of punishment. His long speech (though very different to Socrates's primary method of dialectic argumentation) actually does contain an element of internal dialogue: myth is contrasted to logical reasoning, and the two forms respond and counter each other. While Socrates will attempt to demolish Protagoras's arguments, Protagoras's double-nature suggests, perhaps, that we should not side completely with Socrates. There is merit in what Protagoras says, even if this merit must first be salvaged from his sophistry.
The following essay aims to discuss the opinion that Socrates should not be considered a Sophist, with one’s chosen focal point to be how although he may have shared many qualities, it is his differences from this group which set him apart in a group of his own. The ideas one shall go on to discuss include how Socrates can be equated with the Sophists, as he too saw the importance of this discussion and education of the moral society, the pursuit of such education lead to hostility towards both the Sophists and Socrates, both of whom were accused of impiety and corruption of the youth.One shall go on to argue against this interpretation however, presenting ideas around Socrates methods and
Socrates attempts to make other people reason well and therefore be virtuous by performing their human function; I believe that this action inwardly reflects Socrates’s own virtue. For example, if a professor can effectively teach mathematics to his students, then he most likely holds knowledge of the subject within himself. In a similar way, Socrates instills virtue in other people, which shows that he himself is a virtuous being. Although some people criticize him, evidence of his positive impact is reinforced by the approval and support of his friends in the Apology. While promoting virtue when alive, Socrates wishes to continue to encourage virtue even after death. For example, at the onset of his death, Socrates asks the jurors to ensure that his sons are given grief if they care for anything else more than virtue (Plato and Grube 44). While Socrates could have been thinking about himself or other things at that moment, he is thinking of how to guide people towards living virtuously. Both his actions while living and his intentions after death reveal that Socrates wished to aid people in living virtuous lives, which highlight his own state of
The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. As the dialogue begins, Socrates notes that his accusers have cautioned the jury against Socrates' eloquence, according to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that Socrates speaks the truth. Socrates distinguished two groups of accusers: the earlier and the later accusers. The earlier group is the hardest to defend against, since they do not appear in court. He is all so accused of being a Sophist: that he is a teacher and takes money for his teaching. He attempts to explain why he has attracted such a reputation. The oracle was asked if anyone was wiser than Socrates was. The answer was no, there was no man wiser. Socrates cannot believe this oracle, so he sets out to disprove it by finding someone who is wiser. He goes to a politician, who is thought wise by him self and others. Socrates does not think this man to be wise and tells him so. As a consequence, the politician hated Socrates, as did others who heard the questioning. "I am better off, because while he knows nothing but thinks that he knows, I neither know nor think that I know" (Socrates). He questioned politicians, poets, and artisans. He finds that the poets do not write from wisdom, but by genius and inspiration. Meletus charges Socrates with being "a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own."
Socrates was accused of being a sophist, a professional philosopher. Sophists were seen as corrupters of society and as generally bad men. Socrates says that every one of these accusations is false. He tells the Athenians a story where he asks a man who he would hire to educate his sons and how much that man's services would cost. The man replies that he would hire Evenus of Paros, and that he charges 500 drachmae. Socrates expresses his surprise that any man could be good enough to charge that much money. The man says that Evenus is the best tutor in the world. Socrates says that he does not posses the knowledge or wisdom to do anything even remotely close to what Evenus does. Socrates never charged money for his lessons, and he never really did any formal teaching. He had followers, and they claim that they learned a lot from him. But the fact is, Socrates never did any formal instruction, so he never told people what to believe. Therefore, Socrates could not have corrupted the youth with his teaching, because...
Socrates was wise men, who question everything, he was found to be the wise man in Athens by the oracle. Although he was consider of being the wises man alive in those days, Socrates never consider himself wise, therefore he question everything in order to learned more. Socrates lived a poor life, he used to go to the markets and preach in Athens he never harm anyone, or disobey any of the laws in Athens, yet he was found guilty of all charges and sentence to die.
Socrates lived such a private life that it lead to the most important revelation of his entire life. He would go about his life doing nothing but self-examination. In examining his life so strenuously others would come to him to be taught, or to have their children be taught by Socrates. They would offer him money and he would refuse. They would do whatever they could to learn anything Socrates had to teach. What they did not know is that Socrates was not teaching anyone he was simply going about his usual life and people just happened to learn from it. This was also why Socrates was put on trial. He was brought up on two charges, one of impiety and the other of corrupting the youth. These two charges set the course for the last month of his life.
Socrates challenges Protagoras if virtue is really something that can be taught and he continues to argue with Protagoras because he simply wants to understand the truth about virtue. He knows that Protagoras has the reputation as being the best and he wants to know the answer. Socrates wants to know if all parts of virtue are separate and distinct or all one and the same. As the argument progresses Protagoras does not give Socrates clear answers to his questions, and the conversation is not going where Socrates wished it would. Socrates continued to ask Protagoras questions, that was until Protagoras could no longer answer the questions, he gave up and realized that in the argument he turned into the answerer. This is probably due to the fact that Socrates wanted the answers, and who else go to for those answers than
Socrates and Plato were some of the world’s most famous philosophers. Yet, they caused much trouble in the midst of their philosophizing. These philosophers, in the view of the political elites, were threatening the Athenian democracy with their philosophy. But why did they go against the status quo? What was their point in causing all of this turmoil? Plato and Socrates threatened the democracy as a wake-up call. They wanted the citizens to be active thinkers and improve society. This manifested itself in three main ways: Socrates’ life, his student Plato’s life, and their legacy in our modern age.
The passage in question begins with a breakdown in the discussion between Socrates and Protagoras because of disagreement about what its ground rules will be and concludes with the discussion’s restoration. Though formally a mere hiatus from the main line of argument, this passage in fact contains a parable about politics, addressing the question, "How can people of differing abilities and preferences come together to form a community?" Since the passage appears in the middle of a dialogue explicitly concerned with education, the parable extends to education as well. The passage thus provides a springboard for insight into some essential interconnections between and among philosophy, education, and politics. On the one hand, a genuine practitioner of any of the three is ipso facto a engaged in the other two at the same time. And on the other hand, the three share an internal structure which is reflexive and transitive at the same time.
This new approach that is taken in their search for a definition of the statesman leads the stranger to use myth in order to show young Socrates what it is that the shepherd of the human flock does. It is in the development of this myth that it is shown why the statesman can be separated from many of those who would lay claim to his title. The myth that is used by Plato in this dialog revolves around the idea of the world as being a living creature.
However, Meno poses a question which Socrates classifies as the “debater’s argument”. The argument goes like this, “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know” (Plato 70)? Meno questions how will they know what they are looking for if they have no previous idea of what it is, and if they find it how will they know that. Because they have no idea of what it is that they are looking for Meno believes that even if they do come across the true meaning of virtue they will have no way of knowing that they have. Socrates counters this argument by inserting his idea of the immortal soul. Socrates states that we all have an immortal soul, which already has all the knowledge that we as man need. However, we as man simply need to discover the knowledge within us. As a result of this concept of the immortal soul, Socrates believes that once they encounter what they are looking for they will know they have found
In first part (Meno, 78-79, 86c-87c), because Socrates does not know what virtue is and Meno cannot answer it, Socrates says “we would not investigate whether virtue is teachable or not before we investigated what virtue itself is”. What Socrates means here is that, as both of them does not know what is virtue, Socrates uses the same logic as geometers do, when they are asked questions that they do not know, they will make an assumption to answer the questions. Socrates proposes a hypothesis “Among the things existing in the soul, of what sort is virtue, that it should be teachable or not”. Later, Socrates argues “men cannot be taught anything but knowledge?” Which means knowledge comes from teaching. Form this I can say according to virtue is knowledge and knowledge comes from teaching, virtue comes from teaching, because Socrates says “if it is of one kind it can be taught; if it is of a different kind, it cannot.” And both Socrates and Meno agree this.