Skip to main content

What is teachable?- 1st Protagoras dialogue

This blog is inspired by Socrates questioning if wisdom of word can be taught, in other words if being a good citizen can be taught? We find this in his first dialogue with Protagoras, the sophist. Socrates first critiques Hippocrates for wanting to pay money to Protagoras to teach him how to become better. He then confronts Portagoras himself and asks him why he is teaching the not teachable.  For socrates the non teachable is something that can't "be imparted from one human being to another" (Plato, Prot. 319b). For him it is clear that knowledge is not something to purchase.

Protagoras' reason for teaching wisdom, specifically the art of politics which requires reason, is because human beings were not made with this type of talent when the gods were making them, they ran out of talents for human beings and had to borrow from the gods, so they borrowed from Athena and Hephaestus wisdom of the practical arts.  Human beings were being killed by wild animals because they were lacking the art of politics. So they had to merge together in cities to survive. But because they still lacked the art of politics they would argue and cities would separate and human beings again would get killed. Zeus decided to send justice to instal order and bonds of friendship. Zeus ordered to distribute justice to all equally becuase Protagoras explains that without justice cities cannot happen and cities are necessary for survival. By us gin the gods, Protagoras is clearly trying to explain in an Athenian style.

It seems that Protagoras considers something to be teachable when there is a universal belief about the matter being taught. In the case of political virtue, all humans have a share of justice; this includes any other social virtue. It is important to note that for him there are certain things that happen due to nature and these are not teachable. But there are things that through practice and training a person can achieve. Another way of explaining virtues as being taught is the using the model of Athenian punishing. You do not punish someone to fix what they have done, because the event cannot be erased. But you punish someone so that they can change their ways. Theirs ways can be changed by teaching them justice and the rest of the virtues. This is another way Protagoras explains why virtues are teachable.

But can we really have virtue through training? If this was true then another question we should be asking is how are we guaranteeing future generations to develop their civic virtues? How is virtue better learned, through a one on one mentor like Protagoras or through experience?
It is interesting to see that Plato initiates his dialogue about Protagoras by asking questions about virtue. Maybe this is an indication that virtue is really important for Plato, suggesting that all we do evolves around virtue, and most importantly how do we acquire virtue.

Comments

  1. Really good blog Mariela. I would personally say that virtue is cultivated through training but it is not only training.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle- The Politics Book 1

The Politics is a book dedicated to concepts of state, political communities. Aristotle starts his writing by defining state as a community of communities. All communities  aim for a good. The state is the largest community and embraces the rest. Because of this relationship, it aims at a deeper and larger good. Aristotle debunks the qualifications and conceptions people have for rulers of a certain community (king, statesman, householder, master). The mistake he identifies is people differentiating between rulers by the number of their subjects. Aristotle suggests politics should not be viewed this way but rather as a compound composed of elements. This statement sets the tone for book 1. His mission now is to reveal these elements.  According to Aristotle, looking at the origin will reveal "the clearest view" of the essence of a state. Family is first elements identified. Family is the union of people, starting with that of man and woman, who need each...

Studying the Beginning of Philosophy through the Milesians

Learning about the first philosophers like the Milesians was important to me for understanding the characteristics of the history of philosophy. The school of thought of the Milesians taught that the explanation to their questions and inquiries were found in the principles of matter. The three Milesians Patricia Curd talks about in her book A Presocratics Reader are Thales (the founder), Anaximander (his pupil), Anaximenes (the youngest). It was helpful for me to compare them to understand the nature of the beginnings of philosophy. Previously, it was implied that philosophy surged from the mytho-poetic traditions that inspired the earliest philosophers. Can we say that this is true from Thales, the “founder of philosophy”? The three Milesians knew that the question to all their answers relied on a principle. The principle is differently defined per each philosopher. Thales’ principle is that water is the basic unit of life, the arkhÄ“, the beginning and origin. This sounds like ...

Xenophanes a Reformer?

As we progress on our studies of the Presocratics, I am starting to see a deviation from the traditional thinking of the greeks. Homer presents us with gods who are human like and to some extent mundane, that do the same things as humans. I have a feeling that the Milesians' quest for an arche  based on matter, physical things that are unique and "pure" like the water, air, and infinity, reflects the search for an origin different than the Homeric gods. An origin that is different from the human nature, savage and mundane. According to A Presocratic Reader , Xenophanes rejected the Homeric Olympian gods. Although the book suggests that it is unclear if he agreed on one god or a god superior to all gods, he is the first philosopher to suggest a non-anthropomorfic god. A god that is unique for itself. Was he inspired by Anaximander's principle of the apeiron, that which is the boundless and mystical? I feel the he was indeed, because Anaximander's principle is the...