RHETORIC II PROTAGORAS. Friday, Feb. 26, 2016

Transcription

1 RHETORIC II PROTAGORAS Friday, Feb. 26, 2016

2 Plato s Protagoras is a dialogue between Socrates and the Sophist, Protagoras. We saw last class, in a fragment from Plato, that Protagoras is concerned with teaching people how to be powerful actors and speakers both personally and politically. We have already looked at the question of whether this focus on persuasive speech is compatible with philosophy, but now we can see it play out in detail. In this dialogue, Plato has Socrates interrogate a (presumably) fictional version of Protagoras about virtue, or excellence. PROTAGORAS

3 The key question Socrates asks Protagoras: If Hippocrates studies with Protagoras, exactly how will he go away a better man and in what will he make progress each and every day he spends with you? (318d) How does Protagoras answer Socrates? What I teach is sound deliberation, both in domestic matters-how best to manage one's household, and in public affairs-how to realize one's maximum potential for success in political debate and action. He clarifies that bby this he means to make good citizens. SOCRATES S QUERY

4 Socrates responds to Protagoras s answer to his query by admitting The truth is, Protagoras, I have never thought that this [virtue/good citizenship] could be taught (319b) He gives an explanation for why he thinks this. What does he say? He offers an analogy to other crafts, in which we look to experienced experts for advice, and would not take seriously those without experience. SOCRATES S SCEPTICISM

5 Conversely, when it is a matter of deliberating on city management, anyone can stand up and advise them, carpenter, blacksmith, shoemaker, merchant, ship-captain, rich man, poor man, wellborn, low-born-it doesn't matter-and nobody blasts him for presuming to give counsel without any prior training under a teacher. (319d) Why doesn t it matter? Because we don t think good counsel can be taught. Socrates also suggests that because so many great people exist who are good themselves but have never succeeded in making anyone else better I just don t think that virtue can be taught. (320b) Is this a good argument? SOCRATES S SCEPTICISM

6 After Socrates defends his scepticism he asks Protagoras to provide an explanation. Protagoras asks whether he should provide an argument or a story, choosing to tell a story. The story of Prometheus is famous he steals fire from Hephaestus. But Protagoras adds wisdom in the practical arts for staying alive, stolen from Athena. But not for living together in society, or political wisdom, because this wisdom comes from Zeus. (321d) Notice that Plato has Protagoras offer not a philosophical argument, but a story, which sounds very much like the sort of thing we saw the early presocratics react against in Homer and Hesiod a genealogical explanation, rather than a natural one. PROTAGORAS S STORY

7 Ultimately, Protagoras tells us that justice and shame should be distributed to everyone, rather than just a few. Accordingly, Protagoras agrees with Socrates that the Athenians don t think that political virtue is specialized in a few individuals, but is, rather shared. But this is part of the reason Socrates thought civic virtue couldn t be taught. So how can Protagoras defend his view? He says that this is just his first point: everyone can be an advisor on civic virtue because everyone has some share of it. (323c) PROTAGORAS S CONCLUSION

8 Protagoras second point: The key, Socrates, to the true significance of punishment lies in the fact that human beings consider virtue to be something acquired through training. (324b) So, while everyone shares in civic virtue, because punishment is the way societies enact justice (and therefore maintain civic virtue), and punishment wouldn t make sense if it couldn t train people to be virtuous, it must be that people actually believe that virtue can be taught. This view of punishment is actually quite remarkable. It is effectively the origin of the moral education and deterrence views of punishment. Protagoras also suggests, quite reasonably, that punishment for mere revenge would be the mindless vindictiveness of a beast. PROTAGORAS S CONCLUSION

9 Finally, Protagoras gives a long speech to counter Socrates s other point about virtuous people. This argument suggests that it would be strange if virtue were not teachable because so much care and attention is paid to it. Protagoras draws an analogy to other skillful actions (like fluteplaying) and to the children of skillful parents. He concludes that It would be difficult to produce someone who could continue their education, whereas it would be easy to find a teacher for the totally unskilled. It is the same with virtue and everything else. If there is someone who is the least bit more advanced in virtue than ourselves, he is to be cherished. (328a) Should we agree with this last claim? PROTAGORAS S CONCLUSION

10 After hearing Protagoras long story and argument about why virtue can be taught, Socrates, in typical Socratic fashion, responds with another, very difficult, question: Is virtue a single thing, with justice and temperance and piety its parts, or are the things I have just listed all names for a single entity? (329d) Protagoras responds immediately: This is an easy question to answer, Socrates," he replied. "Virtue is a single entity, and the things you are asking about are its parts (329d) Should we agree with Protagoras? SOCRATES S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION

11 Once Protagoras says that virtue is a single entity and justice, temperance, piety, etc. are its parts, Socrates then asks what kind of parts they are. Protagoras responds as the parts of the face are to the whole face. But after Socrates pushes, he admits that each of the parts is unlike the others. Once Protagoras admits this, Socrates seems to have won the argument, because if each of the parts of virtue are unlike the others, then how could we say that, for example justice is pious and piety is just? These seem like perfectly reasonable claims, and so Protagoras s argument appears to have a false premise. SOCRATIC COMPLICATIONS

12 Socrates further pushes Protagoras to admit that for each thing there is only one opposite: e.g., folly is the opposite of temperance. But Socrates reminds Protagoras that he had already agreed that folly was the opposite of wisdom. So this argument no longer works! So, either: 1. Things can have more than one opposite, or 2. Wisdom and temperance are not totally separate. To make progress in the argument, Protagoras is now forced to abandon a premise. But which one? Apparently the second one. THE SOLUTION: ABANDON A PREMISE

13 Ultimately, Protagoras gives in, but attacks Socrates method: For the rest of the dialogue, what ensues is Socrates pushing Protagoras even more on several points relating to the previous arguments. Socrates tells Protagoras that he has only one more question: Do you still believe, as you did at first, that some men are extremely ignorant and yet still very courageous? "I think that you just want to win the argument, Socrates, and that is why you are forcing me to answer. So I will gratify you and say that, on the basis of what we have agreed upon, it seems to me to be impossible. (360e) But Socrates responds: "I have no other reason for asking these things than my desire to answer these questions about virtue, especially what virtue is in itself. For I know that if we could get clear on that, then we would be able to settle the question about which we both have had much to say, I -that virtue cannot be taught, you-that it can. (361a) MORE COMPLICATIONS

14 Protagoras summarizes the argument as follows: Socrates, you said earlier that virtue cannot be taught, but now you are arguing the very opposite and have attempted to show that everything is knowledge-justice, temperance, courage-in which case, virtue would appear to be eminently teachable. On the other hand, if virtue is anything other than knowledge, as Protagoras has been trying to say, then it would clearly be unteachable. But, if it turns out to be wholly knowledge, as you now urge, Socrates, it would be very surprising indeed if virtue could not be taught. Now, Protagoras maintained at first that it could be taught, but now he thinks the opposite, urging that hardly any of the virtues turn out to be knowledge. On that view, virtue could hardly be taught at ali: SO CAN VIRTUE BE TAUGHT?

15 Socrates concludes by saying that they should keep going until they figure out what virtue is. Protagoras commends Socrates enthusiasm but appears to give up. The dialogue ends on the unsatisfying note: Our conversation was over, and so we left. What does this mean for this core practice of the Sophists teaching civic virtue? If it can t be taught, then the Sophists are taking money to do something impossible. But has Socrates really succeeded in showing that it can t be taught? Is Socrates method of leading questions more philosophical than Protagoras s story, or his argument? SOME CONCLUDING QUESTIONS