Summary

This dialogue begins when Protagoras the sophist pays a visit to Athens. The  philosopher, Socrates looks forward to his arrival, and the insightful conversations his presence will bring. When his young friend, Hippocrates, wishes to become a student of Protagoras, Socrates begins to question what it is that such a man teaches. He then inquires this of Protagoras, who responds by claiming that he teaches politics and rhetoric, which rely on goodness and virtue,  and he claims that his student would become better and better after each class. All in all, he claims to ultimately be teaching one thing: virtue. After hearing this, Socrates slightly objects to this claim; he believes that good and virtue is not something which is taught in the same light as music or arithmetic. Protagoras contends to this statement by showing that the realm of politics is based upon virtue; it relies on everyone possessing it. When one is punished for an action, the purpose is not to get revenge on that person’s actions, but to correct them for future reference. The consequence teaches  him to be good. Protagoras then delivers a lengthy speech about how good is taught by everyone in everyday life, to which Socrates agrees. He explains that it is first taught by mothers and fathers, nurses and maids, from the youngest age which a child is able to understand discipline.  When a child is sent to school, he is expected to respect the rules and authorities, and his instructors  not only teach him the academics, but the right behaviors and good sense. Through means of poetry and music, which strengthens the soul in rhythm, harmony, and wisdom, he is taught virtue and is then able to attain it. Both parties are then satisfied at the conclusion that good is learned, and not within oneself by nature.

After the teachability of good is established to be possible, Socrates and Protagoras discuss the actual definition of good, along with its composition. Socrates states that it is composed of the virtues wisdom, courage, justice, piety,  and temperance; not so that good is its own entity and these virtues are simply parts, but so that these components make up good itself. This is contrary to what Protagoras believes, since good can supposedly be achieved in the absence of some of these things, especially since courage seems to differ greatly from the other virtues. But then Socrates presents an analogy: these separate virtues make up good just as very unsimilar faculties make up a whole face. In other words, the virtues do not have to be synonymous with each other to be necessary parts of good. Protagoras argues that many things contradict each other when it comes to good. Those things which are good for us may feel bad, and those which are considered bad may feel good. Goodness, then, is not found in physical pleasure of the moment, for ultimately it results in the opposite of virtue; rather, it is found in the wholeness of the soul, and it may take pain and hardship to get there. This is demonstrated in a poem which Protagoras cites. It appears to be contradicting itself, since one part expresses that becoming good is hard, and then another section expresses criticism in one who says that “being good is hard.” To this observation Socrates responds, and notes that being good is quite different than becoming good. Becoming good may be a hardship since there are many impulses and lusts that one feels driven to satisfy, and in order to attain goodness, one must fight those urges. But once good is achieved, it is hard to degenerate, since with good the soul is strengthened.

What keeps one from reverting to the original unvirtuous condition, or from feeding desires, is one thing: knowledge. Knowledge is the virtue that the philosophers discuss as the one which ties all the others together. That being said, they do work as a cooperative system. Bravery without knowledge is stupidity, and courage without wisdom is also idiocy. So with all of these conclusions, Socrates and Protagoras can come to the final consensus that Good is teachable, since knowledge is a very important virtue, and knowledge is most definitely teachable.  

Analysis

Socrates’s argument concerning the teachability of virtue is based on the notion that good is found within the individual, and each soul is born one way or another. If that were so, the condition of a nation would rely on each person being born with a righteous soul, since as Protagoras said, virtue is what is relied on for the wellbeing of a society. Protagoras shows how goodness is taught throughout everyday life; children are treated from a young age that they are bent and need to be straightened out by being disciplined and taught right from wrong, schoolboys are not only educated in the intellect but also taught good manners and how to behave in a functional way. People are always relying on each other to be respectful and good, so that the community may thrive. They are also always teaching each other of good, since it is best when all possess it. Those who do possess it feel the need to introduce it to their neighbors as well, and share it. All of these examples basically prove his point, and if one argues that “being a good person” is something psychological, and that some people simply cannot be good, this would not be valid, for virtue much of the time involves fighting strong human desires, and these psychological dispositions are desires and impulses which can be resisted by the right training in becoming good. Along with that, it is easy to find that nearly all cases of a bad individual involve one who is not willing to resist their desires, and they are led by their passions and lust for physical pleasure; and this is simply due to ignorance. They often have had a lack of teaching throughout their lives; either this or they have had a desire to rebel that was so strong it overpowered any kind of ideals they may have had (which obviously weren’t very sound, since good, when reached is the most pleasurable of all things). Either way, these desires are natural; it is the good that is taught that brings one away from such lusts.

Next, the question which comes into the discussion is whether virtue is composed of justice, temperance, courage, wisdom, and knowledge, or if it is its own entity and these other virtues are just parts of it.  Socrates claims the former, and Protagoras the latter. Protagoras simply argues that good is attainable even in the absence of some of these virtues, and that these virtues come with goodness itself, rather than make it up.  Socrates disagrees, and he persuades Protagoras by using opposites. He first shows that it is possible to act stupidly. When one acts stupidly, they are being stupid; so basically the adverb used in such a statement is a reflection of the state which the subject is in (one who is acting happily is usually being happy etc.). Now, the opposite of stupidity is knowledge, and knowledge is good. Which means that stupidity or lack of knowledge can be good, and it also means that when one is knowledgeable, they are being good. Likewise, a coward would be acting cowardly,  and the opposite of cowardice is courage. It is the coward who is acting stupidly, therefore, cowardice is also stupid, which already said to be opposite of good. It works in this fashion with the other virtues as well, and they all turn out to be of the same nature. They are very different and separate, but together, like the parts of a face, they comprise Virtue. These deductive inferences did very much good for Socrates’s argument, and it seems to present itself.  The only question one may ask is that concerning courage: couldn’t a brave or courageous man potentially be acting stupidly since he is facing what he should fear, although it may be too big of a threat? To this Socrates would respond by saying that courage too, must be guided by knowledge and wisdom, which are other components of Virtue. Each work in each other’s favor, and balance each other out. This idea is discussed in The Republic , when defining  the term “justice.” Each virtue which constitutes Good itself helps the other, and as a result they balance each other out, creating a just soul.

Once this harmony of the soul has been reached, one has now reached virtue, but getting there was no easy task. According to Socrates, becoming good and being good are completely different things. Protagoras briefly proposes that good can be considered pleasure, and bad can be considered pain, but then Socrates considers the circumstances in which pleasure leads to pain, and pain ultimately leads to good and pleasure. That which is considered good may be painful, but only because the pain which it takes to get to the result is lesser than the pain one would end up with if he lived only for pleasure.  This is a valid statement, since goodness is taught; one must resist his desires in order to learn it properly. Giving into these desires will only lead to a lost and confused life with no guidance. With that being said, besides Protagoras’s victory in the first part concerning the teachability of goodness, Socrates’s frequent questioning and deductive reasoning seems to have done him well in this whole discourse.

Leave a comment