Gimnazjum: Mai 2008

Samstag, 31. Mai 2008

Argumenty

Motto : IUNCTIS VIRIBUS
-------
Sprawa Gimnazjum toczy sie na wielu płaszczyznach . Obserwujemy rozwoj , przebieg , kierunek etc. - jednak nie możemy na bieżąco relacjonować . Strona przeciwna , także ma dostep do Sieci - i oto , mogłoby sie okazać , że działamy przeciw Gimnazjum .
-------
Jednak pisma - właściwie już archiwalne - to czemu nie umieścić w naszej kronice ?
Pismo datowne 14 maja 2008 - ale doreczone PT Adresatowi - jak wynika z pieczeci , dopiero .. 28 maja 2008 .
---------
Pan
Krzysztof Słoń Przewodniczący
Rady Miejskiej
w Kielcach

Nauczyciele Gimnazjum Nr 1 w Kielcach wyrażają sprzeciw wobec planow przeniesienia Szkoły Podstawowej Nr 7 do budynku Gimnazjum Nr 1.
Pragniemy przedstawić argumenty uzasadniające nasze stanowisko .

1.Nasza szkoła ma wieloletnią tradycje .Powstała w 1918 roku jako SP Nr.3 im.St.Konarskiego, po wprowadzeniu reformy oświaty została przekształcona w Gimnazjum Nr.1.
2.Zgodnie z uchwałą nr XVI.285.2007 Rady Miejskiej w sprawie nadania imienia, Gimnazjum nr 1 ,Gimnazjum Nr 1przejeło imie ks.Stanisława Konarskiego, kontynuując
tradycje SP 3. Obecność władz miasta na tej doniosłej uroczystości pozwoliły nam sądzić, że Gimnazjum Nr 1 ma przed sobą szerokie perspektywy rozwoju.
Tym wieksze jest nasze rozgoryczenie z powodu propozycji połączenia.

3.Obecnie Gimnazjum liczy 287 uczniow.
Pomimo niekorzystnej sytuacji, spowodowanej nieoczekiwanymi planami włodarzy MIASTA, W TOKU REKRUTACJI NA ROK SZKOLNY 2008/09- podania o przyjecie do klas I złożyło 134 uczniow , co świadczy o doskonałej opinii szkoły.

4. Duża popularność szkoły , wśrod uczniow spoza rejonu , jest wynikem efektywnej pracy dydaktycznej, wychowawczej oraz w pełni wykorzystanej bazy lokalowej.

5.Gimnazjum Nr 1 posiada doskonale wyposażone pracownie przedmiotowe oraz Centrum Multimedialne, ktore są efektem starań i zabiegow ze strony dyrekcji i nauczycieli
tej szkoły.

6.Nasza szkoła tetni życiem . Lekcje kończą sie o 14.05 i wowczas uczniowie mogą uczestniczyć w licznych zajeciach pozalekcyjnych. Są to :
- Historia w jezyku angielskim
- Fizyka w jezyku angielskim,
- Literatura angielska i amerykańska w jezyku angielskim,
- Piłka siatkowa dziewcząt i chłopcow.
- Tenis stołowy dziewcząt i chłopcow.
- Piłka nożna dziewcząt.
- Młodzieżowy klub teatralny.
- Kołko matematyczne.
-Zajecia przygotowujące do egzaminu gimnazjalnego.
- Zajecia w ramach Swietlicy Plus ( zajecia komputerowe, kawiarenka internetowa,
matematyka w praktyce, zajecia dziennikarskie , aerobik.
- Koło biblioteczne.
- Zajecia Internetowego Centrum Informacji Multimedialnej w czytelni szkolnej.

7-Tradycją naszej szkoły jest organizowanie :
- Wszystkich etapow Wojewodzkiego Konkursu Jezyka Rosyjskiego.
- Miedzyszkolnego Konkursu Piosenki Angielskiej.
- Miedzyszkolnego Konkursu Grafiki Komputerowej.
- Turnieju Piłki SDiatkowej o Puchar Dyrektora Szkoły.
- Finału Wojewodzkiego Tenisa Stołoweo ( indywidualnego i zespołowego).

8.Gimnazjum wspołpracuje ze środowiskiem lokalnym. Przygotowuje dla mieszkańcow Osiedla artystyczne wystepy takie jak ; Jasełka, spektakle teatralne - obecnie poświecone pamieci Jana Pawła II . Uczniowskie wystepy artystyczne były prezentowane
w Domu Opieki Społecznej przy ul. Jagiellońskiej oraz w Szpitalu Wojewodzkim .

9.We wrześniu 2007 r. na tewrenie szkoły zostało powołane Bractwo Swietokrzyskie, ktorego członkowie - uczniowie naszego Gimnazjum rozwijają tematyke "małej ojczyzny".

10. Na terenie szkoły realizowane są liczne programy profilaktyczne skierowane do wszystkich uczniow naszej szkoły, jak rownież do rodzicow i nauczycieli.
Został rownież opracowany program wraz z harmonogramem poprawy efektywności pracy wychowawczej Gimnazjum Nr 1.

11. We wszystkich klasach jest realizowany program orientacji i poradnictwa zawodowego.

12.W godzinach popołudniowych odbywają sie zebrania Rad Pedagogicznych, praca w Zespołach Przedmiotowych, konsultacje społeczne nauczycieli kursy warsztaty oraz zajecia przygotowujące uczniow do egzaminow gimnazjalnych.

13. Wiekszość nauczycieli Gimnazjum nr 1 pracuje od wielu lat, co wiąże sie z dobrą znajomością środowiska lokalnego swoich wychowankow. Dzieki temu dzieci są obkete zindywidualizowaną opieką wychowawczą. Nie wystepuje zjawisko anonimowości i mamy możliwość dokonywania stałej diagnozy wychowawczej.
Potrafimy skutecznie zapobiegać negatywnym postawom uczniow, przeciwdziałać objawom niedostosowania społecznego.
Dzieci z rożnymi problemami emocjonalnymi dobrue czują sie w naszej szkole.

14.Stłoczenie tak dużej ilości dzieci w wieku od 6 do 16 lat w jednym budynku spowoduje nasilenie agresji, przemocy i innych niepożądanych zachowań .
Jak to sie ma do ogolnopolskich akcji walki o bezpieczną szkołe ?

Połączenie SP 7 z naszym Gimnazjum drastycznie wpłynie na możliwości edukacyjne, bezpieczeństwo i rozwoj uczniow. Nie jest możliwe normalne i bezpieczne funkcjonowanie dzieci w wieku 6 17 lat w jednym nieprzystosowanym do tego budynku.
Oznaczałoby to dramatyczną sytuacje wychowawczą i edukacyjną oraz godziłoby to bezpośrednio w dobro dzieci , za ktore jesteśmy odpowiedzialni.
-----------
Na piśmie około 40 czytelnych podpisow .
------------
Można było jeszcze wspomnieć po prostu , że zabroniono administracyjnie ralizować rekrutacje uczniow spoza rejonu : co w oczywisty sposob zmierza do likwidacji Gimnazjum.
Połączenie dwoch roznych szkoł jest sprzeczne z celami reformy edukacji z 1998 r : kiedy utworzono odrebne gimnazja . Brak drog ewakuacyjnych i wąskie przejścia komunikacyjne - brak sanitariatow oddzielnych etc - dopełniają reszty .
-----------
Ciekawsze jest jednak , że powołano Stowarzyszenie Rozwoju Gimnazjum im.St.Konarskiego i nawiązano kontakt z podobnym stowarzyszeniem , bodajże we Włodawie . Przedstawicielki tego Stwoarzyszenia ,były na Sesji RM w miniony czwartek i bardzo optowały za sprawą Gimnazjum .
Były też na jakiejś uroczystości tego dnia w WDK - ale nie wiem nic bliższego.
-----------
Podobno zamowiły też msze św.w intencji Gimnazjum - musze ustalić kiedy - bo jeśli. to z pewnością w Kościołku Najświetszej Marii Panny .
Osobiście zalecałbym jeszcze pielgrzymke na Jasną Gore , albo do Łagiewnik .
Trzeba po prostu wykorzystać wszelkie argumenty i przedstawić je , gdzie tylko możliwe.

Sonntag, 11. Mai 2008

Kielce , miasto prywatne ( 2 )

Probuje przenieść tekst z Pralni w Onet :

Blog w kategorii: Jeden worek Następny ? Szukaj bloga: Pisz bloga Wyloguj się 11 maja 2008 Kielce,miasto prywatne ( 2) Zaloguj się E-mail OnetHasło Niepoprawne dane Objaśnienia Loguj się bezpiecznie Zapomniałem hasła Wczoraj udało sie wkleić do posta artykuł o Gimnazjum z Gazety Wyborczej - za to znikł moj tekst wcześniej , ktory uzasadniał cytowanie . Trudno.
---------
Chodzi o to , że zupełnie nie rozumiem, dlaczego mowi sie ciągle o "przenosinach SP 7 do Gimnazjum 1" - a nie o likwidacji tego Gimnazjum ?- Sprobowałbym wkleić nastepny artykuł z wczorajszego Echa Dnia na ten temat ,ale nie widze tego w internecie .Trzeba wiec odnotować odrecznie . Autor :Marek Maciągowski - maciagowski@echodnia.eu Tytuł :Radni nic nie wiedzieli O zamiarze połączenia Szkoły Podstawowej numer 7 z Gimnazjum numer 1 dowiedzieli sie z ...prasy obok zdjecie Andrzeja Syguta wiceprezydenta - z miną pokerzysty i petitem jego wypowiedż : Radni nic nie wiedzieli, ponieważ na razie tylko dyrektorzy obu szkoł dostali zadanie przygotowania dokumentacji. Jak bedzie wiadomo, jakie połaczenie szkoł przyniesie skutki, bedzie można ich o tym poinformować. -------- Tresć art.:Przeciw temu pomysłowi protestują rodzice uczniow i nauczyciele obu szkoł. Tymczasem, jak sie okazało o planach władz miasta nic nie wiedzieli radni z Komisji Edukacji i Kultury. O problemie pisaliśmy już wcześniej na łamach Echa Dnia. O sprawie dyskutowano podczas ostatniej Komisji Edukacji i Kultury Rady Miasta Kielce . Do tej pory wprawdzie mowiono o konieczności poprawy warunkow szkoły specjalnej z ulicy Urzedniczej (to ona ma zostać przeniesiona do budynku Szkoły Podstawowej Nr 7), ale nie było mowy o żadnych konkretach. Do radnych dotarli jednak rodzice uczniow obu szkoł, ktorzy nie chcą pogorszenia warunkow nauki ich dzieci. O wyjaśnienie radni poprosili wiec wiceprezydenta Andrzeja Syguta. Dopiero początek Marek Wołowiec zapytał wprost, czemu radni nie wiedzą nic o pomyśle, na ktory bedą musieli znaleść pieniądze i dziwił sie, że szkoły chce sie połączyć już od września, skoro nic nie jest przygotowane. Prezydent tłumaczył,że od pomysłu do realizacji droga daleka.A radni nic nie wiedzieli, ponieważ na razie tylko dyrektorzy obu szkoł dostali zadanie przygotowania dokumentacji zmian. I dopiero jak bedzie wiadomo, jakie połączenie szkoł przyniesie skutki, bedzie można poinformować o tym radnych. Ta odpowiedż nie zadowoliła członkow komisji, ktorzy chcieli znać konkrety, bo to do nich przyszli najpierw protestujący rodzice . TO NIE MOJ POMYSŁ Radna Alicja Obara, nauczyciel w szkole specjalnej, przypomniała,że niegdy nie sugerowała,że polepszenie warunkow pracy jej szkoły ma sie odbyć poprzez połączenie podstawowki i gimnazjum. Uważa jednak, że dzieciom ze szkoły specjalnej należą sie lepsze warunki nauki i bedzie o to walczyć. Radna Regina Zapała powiedziała, że nikt nie neguje konieczności poprawy warunkow szkoły specjalnej, ale nie godzi sie na pogorszenie warunkow pracy innych szkoł. PRZYGOTUJCIE SIE Radny Adam Jaskoła oświadczył.że warunki nauki dzieci i młodzieży nie mogą w żadnym przypadku pogorszyć sie,bo jeżeli nauka miałaby sie odbywać do godziny 18, to całe założenie jest bezsensu. Zwrocił sie do wiceprezydenta Syguta i dyrektora Wydziału Edukacji Tomali, by najpierw przygotowali kilka waruiantow z uzasadnieniem, powiedzieli o tym radnym i dyskutowali o nich z rodzicami i nauczycielami. O potrzebie rozmowy i konsultacji mowił radny Jacek Wołowiec, a radny Marek Wołowiec podsumował : - Nie akceptujemy sytuacji, że najpierw rzuca sie pomysł, a potem sie patrzy jaka bedzie reakcja. Na wniosek przewodniczącego Komisji Edukacji i Kultury radni zobowiązali wiceprezydenta do przygotowania uzasadnienia swojego pomysłu i analizy sytuacji demograficznej na osiedlu Czarnow.Ma je przedstawić radnym na nastepnym posiedzeniu komisji. ( koniec cytatu art.) ----------- Konkluzje ; Wszyscy kłamią.Radni udają , że nic nie wiedzieli - ale podjeli wcześniej uchwałe o polepszenie warunkow Szkoły Specjalnej w najbliższym otoczeniu . Tak sie stało , że to było przygotowane , nawet sformułowanie uchwały "w pobliżu" - bo SP 7 jest w odległości ok.300 m od Szkoły Specjalnej .Analiza sytuacji demograficznej na Czarnowie ? Uczniowie Gimnazjum są w połowie z całych Kielc .Zatem chodzi o likwidacje Gimnazjum. Sygut na spotkaniu z pedagogami Gimnazjum przedstawiał sprawe jako postanowioną i że "musimy słuchać tych co wybraliśmy " Zlecił sporządzenie kosztorysu..nauczycielom (kolaborującym dwom czy trzem)- co do kosztow przebudiowy budynku Gimnazjum ! I one dokonywały już pomiarow ! A pani dyreektor Gimnazjum - ktora tak zdradziła swojłą placowke i całą społeczność obuiecano..stanowisko dyrektora nowego tworu . To znaczyi Gimnazjum iSP 7 - mają utworzyć zespoł w tym budynku . Tenże sam Sygut kilka lat wcześniej - ale jako Kurator Oświaty w Kielcach spowodował zlikwidowanie SP 3 - w budynku ktorego powołano Gimnazjum - właśnie argumentując , że nie może być młodzuież razem z dziećmi , że to sprzeczne z podstawowymi założeniami reformy oświaty , a tam nie ma warunkow (pawilonow) dla rozdzielenia obu szkoł . ------- Chodzi tutaj o poprawe warunkow 160 uczniow Szkoły Specjalnej ? Kłamstwo. Połowe budynku tejże szkoły już użytkują prywatne firmy i przychodnie - coż prostszego byłoby : wyrzucić te firmy ! Jednak tam gdzieś czai sie kolejny "właściciel" - protegowany tej koterii - i nie może sie doczekać tytułu własności. Jeszcze ciekawszy jest początek łańcucha całej sprawy : budynek byłego Internatu Elektryka - skąd chcą usunąć Poradnie Psychologiczną (na Urzedniczą) - a budynek przeznaczyć na hotel .Kolejna sprawa ! LISTA. Podobnie jak kiedyś - w 1993-1995 wygaszono internat Zespołu Szkoł Spożywczych i wywołano decyzje o złych warunkach etc(Sanepid) młodzież rozparcelowano po istniejących wtedy bursach - a budynki (rozległe!) chcieli "komercjalizować - za zgodą i wrecz inicjatywą Kuratorium Oświaty , ktore systematycznie od początku lat 1990 - ograniczało środki na utrzymanie i odmawiało remontow tego internatu (.Postepując akurat odwrotnie z budynkiem Liceum Sciegiennego - ktory miał już upatrzonego właściciela nowego i za friko !) Tak sie akurat składa ,że Kuratorem Oświaty był Andrzej Sygut, a jak sądze motorem przedsiewziecia jego zastepca Janusz Korczyński . Plan jednak sie nie powiodł , bo w 1996 r.miasto Kielce przejeło obiekt i przeznaczyło na swoje biura .Teraz mieści sie tam połowa Urzedu Miasta. Akurat te sprawe znam dokładnie : byłem na kontroli w " Garach" w lutym i marcu 1996, bo mnie nieopacznie skierowali do Urzedu Miasta - dla kontroli. Poddając te idee przeniesienia cześci biur UM z budynku Nidy - na Szymanowskiego - udało sie powstrzymać te zapedy . Teraz z najwiekszym zainteresowaniem obserwujemy sprawe Gimnazjum,Szymanowskiego, Urzedniczej..i garażu (podziemnego ?) Na Placu Konstytucji i Hali Targowej na Placu Zabaw i skwerku przy Plantach i.. i wiele innych poczynań już dokonanych, jak też zamierzanych jak też takich , o ktorych powszechnie nie wiadomo, bo są tak starannie zakrywane - zatem trzeba być bardzo ostrożnym : ja nie stawiam zarzutow ! Ja tylko opisuje sytuacje zgodnie ze stanem faktycznym . Czy nie byłem ponad dwadzieścia lat zawodowym kontrolerem ? Powiem wiecej : byłem dobrym i wnikliwym i wytrwałym . ale teraz jestem w tym jeszcze lepszy. język2 Ponieważ nie służe idiotom Protagoras , tylko prawdzie ; jeśli w ogole jest coś takiego? kotek Stajemy sie tacy , jak sprawa ktorej służymy, prawda ? ------- ..ach Blaise Pascal ! Jakże trudno nie stać sie idiotom ,gdy sie służy idiotom , albo być uczciwym wśrod obłąkanych żądzą zysku, manią władzy , albo jakiejś misji ,albo wszystkiego naraz, albo tego starannego zakrywania TAMTYCH i dekretowania na każdym kroku pozorow. papa Pascal
------------------
(09:41)
----------
0 maja 2008 Kielce, miasto prywatne ( 1)

Freitag, 9. Mai 2008

Re: [Forum Pascala PRALNIA] Re: Polecany serwis: Los SP nr 7 przesądzony. Będzie ...

2008/5/9 Pascal Alter <pascal.alter@gmail.com>:

Ciekawa akcja toczyła sie 8.maja 2008 na Zbożowej ,gdzie akurat było posiedzenie (sesja?) Rady Miejskiej .
Np.dyrektorka Gimnazjum nie potrafiła wyjaśnić dlaczego zleciła opracowanie zaufanym nauczycielom kosztorysu przebudowy budynku gimnazjum - a Pan Sygut , sie zarzekał - to nie ja kaazałem ! Kłamca ,czy nie ?
Zresztą jaki kosztorys mogą opracować nauczyciele : przebudowy ?
Dziś natomiast 9 maja 2008 - mamy w Gimnazjum wielką fete - na cześć naszego Patrona Ks.Stanisława Hieronima Konarskiego.
Jak wiadomo Ruscy w 1832 (?) z furii zniszczyli grob SP.Ksiedza Stanisława - a prochy gdzieś ukryli .
Teraz , by sie przewrocił w grobie - gdyby widział jak likwiduje sie Gimnazjum , jak wcześniej zlikwidowali tam SP Nr 3 ktorej patronował od przed wojny - czego nawet komuniści nie dokonali - to zrobi i wykona żądza zysku .

2008/5/9 Gazeta.pl <zobacz@poczta.gazeta.pl>:
Witaj,

Polecam Ci stronę WWW, która znajduje się pod adresem:

http://miasta.gazeta.pl/kielce/1,35255,5194491.html

Co tu jest przesądzone ?
Walka i opis sytuacji Kielc - jako miasta prywatnego tej
koterii. Lista !

--
pascal.alter@gazeta.pl z portalu www.gazeta.pl

Odpisując na ten list zwróć uwagę na to, że adres nadawcy podany jest
jedynie w podpisie a mail został wysłany z adresu portalu Gazeta.pl

---
Wiadomość została wysłana z serwisu bezpłatnych kont pocztowych portalu Gazeta.pl. Agora SA nie odpowiada za sposób wykorzystywania tych kont przez użytkowników.

--
Autor: Pascal Alter , blog: Forum Pascala PRALNIA , 5/09/2008 02:34:00 AM

Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2008

Kielce miasto prywatne

Motto; Gdy nie wiadomo o co chodzi - chodzi na pewno o pieniądze
( obserwacja tubylcza )
-----------
Odbyło sie na terenie Gimnazjum spotkanie z PT prasą : rodzice nauczyciele etc .
Jak sądze relacjonowano wczorajsze - to znaczy wtorkowe spotkanie z Panem Andrzejem Sygutem i Panem Mieczysławem Tomalą .Mam swoje relacje na ten temat , wiec chetnie porownam .
-----------
Odbyła sie sesja Rady Miejskiej - gdzieś na Zbożowej . Pojechały tam matki uczniow i prosiły o interwencje radną Obare , radziła , aby siedziały cicho i potwierdziła , że nie wolno przyjmować dzieci z Malikowa , Slichowic etc. - do Gimnazjum .To oznacza , że orzeczono już wyrok na terenie Rady Miejskiej - nie mowiąc o Komisji Oświaty.
Co o tym napisze prasa - zobaczymy .
------------
Tutaj można teraz powiedzieć , że sprawa Gimnazjum daleko wykracza poza tą szkołe , jest o wiele ważniejsza niż samo Gimnazjum - choć ono też jest ważne : pojawia sie złowrogi
układ radnych z urzednikami i jeszcze kimś . Koteria ta poczyna sobie w Kielcach coraz śmielej - i uwłaszcza sie , nazwijmy to tak : nachalnie .
--------------
Zwracam honor Echu Dnia i musze przyznać , że sie myliłem w ocenie ; oto wczoraj i dziś piszą o sprawie zasadniczej . Piszą może nie wprost , bo nie można rzeczy nazwać po imieniu : jednak gazeta to nie blog w internecie , ale my też jesteśmy ostrożni.Jak daleko można nazwać coś po imieniu ? Jeśli np.jakiś urzednik na stanowisku zachowuje sie po chamsku i słysze dziesiątki podobnych opinii na jego temat , gdy wreszcie jedna z tych osob , ktore mi opowiadały swoją udreke - popełnia samobojstwo ! - to nie mam żadnych wątpliwości z kim mam do czynienia . i jak takiego kogoś nazwać - wszedzie !
--- Tutaj jest jmimo wszystko organ władzy , usankcjonowany wyborami : czyli samorząd .
Zatem bądżmy spokojni ; nie trzeba żadnych epitetow - wystarczą fakty , ktore określają dokładnie rodzaj i charakter tych działań .Działań ludzi tego organu.
----------------
Chodzi o zadziwiającą uchwałe RM , upoważniającą prezydenta miasta do sprzedaży bez przetargu dzierżawcom , wynajmowanych przez nich lokali : niekoniecznie użytkowych - ale głownie. Echo Dnia właśnie wczoraj opisało przypadek sprzedaży najemcy-dzierżawcy lokalu 160 m kw. za poł darmo - w najatrakcyjniejszym punkcie miasta . Tenże właściciel kilkunastu firm pod egidą Piekarnia Pod Telegrafem - prowadził tam...kawiarnie Wiedenską . Na początku stał jakiś stary samochod , ogrodek zrobili , ładny wystroj - i nazwa ł -powiało Europą .
Kiedy lokal sprzedano - za poł ceny - właściciel przystąpił do likwidacji kawiarni - bo wynajem pomieszczeń dla jakiegoś banku jest opłacalniejsza : zysk ! Dziś na drzwiach tego lokalu przeczytałem : kawiarnia czynna do 18 maja ).
----------------
W dzisiejszym Echu Dnia - prezydent miasta przyznaje , że to jego porażka - i drugi raz , by tej kawiarni już nie sprzedał .Natomiast Rada Miasta zapowiada , że powoła komisje dla zbadania wszystkich prywatyzacji dokonanych na podstawie własnej uchwały przez urzednikow .
Znamy to : badanie przez komisje radnych w Kielcach.
-------------------
Podobnie to działa z Gimnazjum .upatrzono sobie obiekty i postanowiono komuś przekazać .
Reszta jest tylko uprzątnieciem kilku szkoł . kilkuset dzieci - i nadanie jeszcze pozorow legalności .
-------------------
Kielce są okropnym miastem - właściwie traktowanym jak folwark przez władze i wyśmiewanych
z zewnątrz i słusznie pomijanych: ale to kleska całej idei samorządności , demokracji,religijności - a nawet powiedziałbym - polskości .Tutaj dobrze widać te porażającą wersje kapitalizmu , żerującego na najniższych instynktach . Tutaj widać dobrze jak wszystko jest pozorne . to co istnieje jest starannie zakrywane , przez to czego nie ma , a co jest na każdym kroku deklarowane , epatowane, propagowane .
Tylko co są temu winni mieszkańcy ?
..a dlaczego milczą ?
-------
Przecież suma wiedzy , choćby kilkuset osob - o przypadku Gimnazjum, Kawiarni Wiedeńska , proby likwidacji MPK, zamiaru prywatyzacji PKS ,sprzedaży setki obiektow(np.kino Romantica,Szpitali ,Przychodni,iluś szkoł- i czego tam jeszcze - wystarczyłaby - do zarządu komisarycznego .
---------
Przecież opis sytuacji , sam opis - stwarza całkowicie nową sytuacje - a druga strona - lokalna...władza,zostanie określona konkretnie i faktami..
--------
Troche szkoda tych Kielc , mimo wszystko .

Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2008

Protagoras !! - nareszcie dotarłeś

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •

Jump to: navigation, search

Western Philosophy Pre-Socratic philosophy
Bust of Protagoras
Name	Protagoras (Πρωταγόρας)
Birth	ca. 490
Death	420 BC
School/tradition	Ionian Philosophy
Main interests	language, semantics, relativism
Notable ideas	The "Antilogies", which consists of two premises: the first is "Before any uncertainty two opposite theses can validly be confronted", the second is its complement: the need to "strengthen the weaker argument".
Influenced	Plato

Protagoras (Greek: Πρωταγόρας) (ca. 490– 420 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and is numbered as one of the sophists by Plato. In his dialogue Protagoras, Plato credits him with having invented the role of the professional sophist or teacher of virtue.

Protagoras was born in Abdera, Thrace, in Ancient Greece. "In Plato's Protagoras, before the company of Socrates, Prodicus, and Hippias, he states that he is old enough to be the father of any of them. This suggests a date of not later than 490 B.C." ^[1] In the Meno (91e) he is said to have died at about the age of seventy after forty years as a practicing Sophist. His death, then, may be assumed to have occurred circa 420." ^[2] He was well-known in Athens and became a friend of Pericles. Plutarch relates a story in which the two spend a whole day discussing an interesting point of legal responsibility, that probably involved a more philosophical question of causation.^[3] "In an athletic contest a man had been accidentally hit and killed with a javelin. Was his death to be attributed to the javelin itself, to the man who threw it, or to the authorities responsible for the conduct of the games?"^[4] Protagoras was also renowned as a teacher who addressed subjects connected to virtue and political life. He was especially involved in the question of whether virtue could be taught, a commonplace issue of 5th Century B.C. Greece (and related to modern readers through Plato's dialogue). Rather than educators who offered specific, practical training in rhetoric and public speaking, Protagoras attempted to formulate a reasoned understanding, on a very general level, of a wide range of human phenomena (for example, language and education). He also seems to have had an interest in orthoepeia, or the correct use of words (a topic more strongly associated with his fellow-sophist Prodicus).

His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not" ^[5] Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase has been passed down to us without any context, and its meaning is open to interpretation. Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and uses his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to objective and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes to Protagoras an early form of phenomenalism,^[6] in which what is or appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual.

Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism. In his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life" (80B4 DK).

Very few fragments from Protagoras have survived, though he is known to have written several different works: Antilogiae and Truth. The latter is cited by Plato, and was known alternatively as 'The Throws' (a wrestling term referring to the attempt to floor an opponent). It began with the "man the measure" pronouncement.

The Protagoras crater on the Moon was named in his honor.

[edit] Protagoras and the scientific method

Even though Protagoras was a contemporary of Socrates, the philosopher of Abdera is considered a presocratic thinker. He followed the Ionian tradition that distinguishes the School of Abdera. The distinctive note of this tradition is criticism, a systematic discussion that can be identified as "presocratic dialectic", an alternative to the Aristotelian demonstrative method which, according to Karl Popper, has the fault of being dogmatic. The main contribution of Protagoras was perhaps his method of finding a better argument by discarding the less viable one. This is known as "Antilogies", and consists of two premises; the first is "Before any uncertainty two opposite theses can validly be confronted", the second is its complement: the need to "strengthen the weaker argument".

Protagoras knew that the less appealing argument could hide the best answer, which is why he stated that it was constantly necessary to strengthen the weakest argument. Having been born before Socrates himself, this progressive viewpoint in the development of consensual truth could conceivably have contributed to the progressive styles of many of the other great minds which followed him. His most recent defender is Joseph Margolis, especially in the latter's The Truth About Relativism (Blackwell's, 1991).

[edit] Notes

^ Guthrie, Williams. The Sophists. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1971. ISBN 0521096669. p. 262-3.
^ Ibid.
^ Ibid. p. 263.
^ Plutarch. "Pericles." Lives. p. 36.
^ (80B1 DK). This quotation is recapitulated in Plato's Theaetetus, section 152a. [1] Sextus Empiricus (Adv. math. 7.60) gives a direct quotation, πάντων χρημάτων μέτρον ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τῶν μὲν ὄντων ὡς ἔστιν, τῶν δὲ οὐκ ὄντων ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν. The translation "Man is the measure..." has been familiar in English since before the rise of gender-neutral language; in Greek, Protagoras makes a general statement, not about men, but about human beings (his word is anthrōpos).
^ See e.g. John Wild, "On the Nature and Aims of Phenomenology," Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 3 (1942), p. 88: "Phenomenalism is as old as Protagoras."

[hide]

v • d • e

Pre-Socratic philosophers

Milesian School: Thales • Anaximander • Anaximenes of Miletus
Pythagoreans: Pythagoras • Philolaus • Alcmaeon • Archytas • Timaeus
Ephesian School: Heraclitus — Eleatic School: Xenophanes • Parmenides • Zeno of Elea • Melissus of Samos
Pluralist School: Anaxagoras • Empedocles — Atomist School: Leucippus • Democritus
Sophism: Protagoras • Gorgias • Prodicus • Hippias
Diogenes of Apollonia • Pherecydes

Template:Ancient Olive Garden

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

Protagoras

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras"

Views

Personal tools

Search

Toolbox

Protagoras !

Perseus · TuftsAll Greek and Roman Mate

Collections: Classics · Papyri · Renaissance · London · California · Upper Midwest · Chesapeake · Boyle · Tufts History
Configure display · Help · Tools · Copyright · FAQ · Publications · Collaborations · Support Perseus
Classics:
Classics collection contents
About the Classics collection
Greek Hist. Overview
Art & Arch. Catalogs

Other Tools & Lexica
Plot:
# sites in this text
# sites in this document
# dates in this document
Display text chunked by:
text
page
section (default)
Contents:
# Euthydemus
# Protagoras
# Gorgias
# Meno

Plato, Euthydemus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno
Protagoras
Editions and translations: Greek | English
Your current position in the text is marked in red. Click anywhere on the line to jump to another position.

Table of Contents Go to Previous Next

[309a] Friend

Where have you been now, Socrates? Ah, but of course you have been in chase of Alcibiades and his youthful beauty! Well, only the other day, as I looked at him, I thought him still handsome as a man--for a man he is, Socrates, between you and me, and with quite a growth of beard.
Socrates

And what of that? Do you mean to say you do not approve of Homer,1

1 Hom. Il. 24.348
There are a total of 7 comments on and cross references to this page.

Further comments from James A. Towle, Commentary on Plato: Protagoras:
section 309a: phainei
section 309a: dêla
section 309a: kunêgesiou
section 309a: kalos anêr
section 309a: hôs . . . eirêsthai
section 309a: autois
section 309a: ti touto
section 309a: ou . . . mentoi

Cross references from Raphael Kühner, Bernhard Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache (ed. Ildar Ibraguimov):
500 [Konfirmatives dê.]
538 [a) Disjunktives ê, oder, ê . . ê, entweder . . oder.]

Cross references from R. G. Bury, The Symposium of Plato:
* [Commentary]

Cross references from James A. Towle, Commentary on Plato: Protagoras:
337c
339e

Cross references from J. Adam, A. M. Adam, Commentary on Plato, Protagoras:
XXVI, 339E [CHAPTER XXVI]

Preferred URL for linking to this page: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plat.+Prot.+309a

The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.

This text is based on the following book(s):
Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 3 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1967.
OCLC: 384709, 377367
ISBN: 0674991834, 0674991842

Buy a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com: vol. 1; vol. 2

Previous Next

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Protagoras (c. 490 - c. 420 BCE)

Protagoras of Abdera was one of several fifth century Greek thinkers (including also Gorgias, Hippias, and Prodicus) collectively known as the Older Sophists, a group of traveling teachers or intellectuals who were experts in rhetoric (the science of oratory) and related subjects. Protagoras is known primarily for three claims (1) that man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted as a sort of radical relativism) (2) that he could make the "worse (or weaker) argument appear the better (or stronger)" and (3) that one could not tell if the gods existed or not. While some ancient sources claim that these positions led to his having been tried for impiety in Athens and his books burned, these stories may well have been later legends. Protagoras' notion that judgments and knowledge are in some way relative to the person judging or knowing has been very influential, and is still widely discussed in contemporary philosophy.

Table of Contents (Clicking on the links below will take you to those parts of this article)

1. Life
2. Career
3. Doctrines
a. Orthoepeia
b. Man-Measure Statement
c. Agnosticism
4. Social Consequences and Immediate Followers
5. Influence
6. Bibliography

1. Life

Surprising little is known of Protagoras' life with any certainty. Our main sources of information concerning Protagoras are:

1. Plato (427-347 BCE): Protagoras is a leading character in Plato's dialogue Protagoras and Protagoras' doctrines are discussed extensively in Plato's Theaetetus. Plato's dialogues, however, are a mixture of historical account and artistic license, much in the manner of the comic plays of the period. Moreover, Protagoras died when Plato was quite young and Plato may have depended on not entirely reliable second-hand evidence for his understanding of Protagoras.
2. Diogenes Laertius (third century CE): Diogenes' Lives of the Philosophers is probably our single most extensive source for many early Greek philosophers' works and biographies. Unfortunately, his work was compiled over six hundred years after Protagoras' death and is an uncritical compilation of materials from a wide variety of sources, some reliable, some not, and many hopelessly garbled
3. Sextus Empiricus (fl. late 2nd century CE): Sextus Empiricus was a skeptic of the Pyrrhonian school. Sextus wrote several books criticizing the dogmatists (non-skeptics). His treatment of Protagoras is somewhat favorable, but since his purpose is to prove the superiority of Pyrrhonism to all other philosophies,we cannot trust him to be "objective" in a modern sense; moreover, like Diogenes, he wrote several hundred years after Protagoras' death and may not have had completely reliable sources.

The first step in understanding Protagoras is to define the general category of "sophist," a term often applied to Protagoras in antiquity. In the fifth century, the term referred mainly to people who were known for their knowledge (e.g. Socrates, the seven sages) and those who earned money by teaching advanced pupils (e.g. Protagoras, Prodicus) and seemed to be a somewhat neutral term, although sometimes used with pejorative overtones by those who disapproved of the new ideas of the so-called "Sophistic Enlightenment". By the fourth century the term becomes more specialized, limited to those who taught rhetoric, specifically the ability to speak in assemblies or law courts. Because sophistic skills could promote injustice (demagoguery in assemblies, winning unjust lawsuits) as well as justice (persuading the polis to act correctly, allowing the underprivileged to win justice for themselves), the term "sophist" gradually acquired the negative connotation of cleverness not restrained by ethics. Conventionally, the term "Older Sophist" is restricted to a small number of figures known from the Platonic dialogues (Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Euthydemus, Thrasymachus and sometimes others). Whether these figures actually had some common body of doctrines is uncertain. At times scholars have tended to lump them together in a group, and attribute to them all a combination of religious skepticism, skill in argument, epistemological and moral relativism, and a certain degree of intellectual unscrupulousness. These characteristics, though, were probably more typical of their fourth century followers than of the Older Sophists themselves, who tended to agree with and follow generally accepted moral codes, even while their more abstract speculations undermined the epistemological foundations of traditional morality.

When we separate Protagoras from general portraits of "sophistic", as most scholars (e.g. the ones listed below in the bibliography) recommend, our information about him is relatively sparse. He was born in approximately 490 B. C. E. in the town of Abdera in Thrace and died c. 420 B. C. E. (place unknown). He traveled around Greece earning his living primarily as a teacher and perhaps advisor and lived in Athens for several years, where he associated with Pericles and other rich and influential Athenians. Pericles invited him to write the constitution for the newly founded Athenian colony of Thurii in 444 B. C. E. Many later legends developed around the life of Protagoras which are probably false, including stories concerning his having studied with Democritus, his trial for impiety, the burning of his books, and his flight from Athens.
Back to Table of Contents

2. Career

If our knowledge of Protagoras' life is sparse, our knowledge of his career is vague. Protagoras was probably the first Greek to earn money in higher education and he was notorious for the extremely high fees he charged. His teaching included such general areas as public speaking, criticism of poetry, citizenship, and grammar. His teaching methods seemed to consist primarily of lectures, including model orations, analyses of poems, discussions of the meanings and correct uses of words, and general rules of oratory. His audience consisted mainly of wealthy men, from Athens' social and commercial elites. The reason for his popularity among this class had to do with specific characteristics of the Athenian legal system.

Athens was an extremely litigious society. Not only were various political and personal rivalries normally carried forward by lawsuits, but one special sort of taxation, know as "liturgies" could result in a procedure known as an "antidosis" (exchange). A liturgy was a public expense (such as providinga ship for the navy or supporting a religious festival) assigned to one of the richest men of the community. If a man thought he had been assigned the liturgy unfairly, because there was a richer man able to undertake it, he could bring a lawsuit either to exchange his property with the other man's or to shift the burden of the liturgy to the richer man. Since Athenians had to represent themselves in court rather than hiring lawyers, it was essential that rich men learn to speak well in order to defend their property; if they could not do so, they would be at the mercy of anyone who wanted to extort money from them. While this made the teachings of Protagoras extremely valuable, it also led a certain conservative faction (e.g. the comic playwright Aristophanes) to distrust him, in the same way that people now might distrust a slick lawyer.
Back to Table of Contents

3. Doctrines

Protagoras' doctrines can be divided into three groups:

1. Orthoepeia: the study of the correct use of words
2. Man-measure statement: the notion that knowledge is relative to the knower
3. Agnosticism: the claim that we cannot know anything about the gods

Back to Table of Contents

a. Orthoepeia

Perhaps because the practical side of his teaching was concerned with helping students learn to speak well in the courtroom, Protagoras was interested in "orthoepeia" (the correct use of words). Later sources describe him as one of the first to write on grammar (in the modern sense of syntax) and he seems interested in the correct meaning of words, a specialty often associated with another sophist, Prodicus, as well. In the Protagoras, the Platonic dialogue named after the famous sophist which has both Protagoras and Prodicus as participants, Protagoras is shown interpreting a poem of Simonides, with special concern for the issue of the relationship between the writer's intent and the literal meanings of the words. This method of interpretation was one which would be especially useful in interpreting laws and other written witnesses (contracts, wills, etc.) in the courtroom. Unfortunately, we don't have any actual writings by Protagoras on the topic.
Back to Table of Contents

b. Man-Measure Statement

Of the book titles we have attributed to Protagoras, only two, "Truth" (or "Refutations") and "On the Gods" are probably accurate. Of Protagoras' works, only a few brief quotations embedded in the works of later authors have survived. (The quotations of and reports about Protagoras below are referred to by their 'Diels-Kranz,' or 'DK' number, the usual way of referring to such fragments and testimonia. The Diels-Kranz numbering system is explained here.) Of Protagoras' ipsissima verba (actual words, as opposed to paraphrases), the most famous is the homo-mensura (man-measure) statement (DK80b1): "Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"] they are not." This precise meaning of this statement, like that of any short extract taken out of context, is far from obvious, although the long discussion of it in Plato's Theaetetus gives us some sense of how ancient Greek audiences interpreted it. The test case normally used is temperature. If Ms. X. says "it is hot," then the statement (unless she is lying) is true for her. Another person, Ms. Y, may simultaneously claim "it is cold." This statement could also be true for her. If Ms. X normally lives in Alaska and Ms. Y in Florida, the same temperature (e. g. 25 Celsius) may seem hot to one and cool to the other. The measure of hotness or coldness is fairly obviously the individual person. One cannot legitimately tell Ms. X she does not feel hot -- she is the only person who can accurately report her own perceptions or sensations. In this case, it is indeed impossible to contradict as Protagoras is held to have said (DK80a19). But what if Ms. Y, in claiming it feels cold, suggests that unless the heat is turned on the pipes will freeze? One might suspect that she has a fever and her judgment is unreliable; the measure may still be the individual person, but it is an unreliable one, like a broken ruler or unbalanced scale. In a modern scientific culture, with a predilection for scientific solutions, we would think of consulting a thermometer to determine the objective truth. The Greek response was to look at the more profound philosophical implications.

Even if the case of whether the pipes will freeze can be solved trivially, the problem of it being simultaneously hot and cold to two women remains interesting. If this cannot be resolved by determining that one has a fever, we are presented with evidence that judgments about qualities are subjective. If this is the case though, it has alarming consequences. Abstractions like truth, beauty, justice, and virtue are also qualities and it would seem that Protagoras' dictum would lead us to conclude that they too are relative to the individual observer, a conclusion which many conservative Athenians found alarming because of its potential social consequences. If good and bad are merely what seem good and bad to the individual observer, then how can one claim that stealing or adultery or impiety or murder are somehow wrong? Moreover, if something can seem both hot and cold (or good and bad) then both claims, that the thing is hot and that the thing is cold, can be argued for equally well. If adultery is both good and bad (good for one person and bad for another), then one can construct equally valid arguments for and against adultery in general or an individual adulterer. What will make a case triumph in court is not some inherent worth of one side, but the persuasive artistry of the orator. And so, Protagoras claims he is able to "make the worse case the better" (DK80b6). The oratorical skills Protagoras taught thus had potential for promoting what most Athenians considered injustice or immorality.
Back to Table of Contents

c. Agnosticism

While the pious might wish to look to the gods to provide absolute moral guidance in the relativistic universe of the Sophistic Enlightenment, that certainty also was cast into doubt by philosophic and sophistic thinkers, who pointed out the absurdity and immorality of the conventional epic accounts of the gods. Protagoras' prose treatise about the gods began "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be. Many things prevent knowledge including the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life." (DK80b4)
Back to Table of Contents

4. Social Consequences and Immediate Followers

As a consequence of Protagoras' agnosticism and relativism, he may have considered that laws (legislative and judicial) were things which evolved gradually by agreement (brought about by debate in democratic assemblies) and thus could be changed by further debate. This position would imply that there was a difference between the laws of nature and the customs of humans. Although Protagoras himself seemed to respect, and even revere the customs of human justice (as a great achievement), some of the younger followers of Protagoras and the other Older Sophists concluded that the arbitrary nature of human laws and customs implies that they can be ignored at will, a position that was held to be one of the causes of the notorious amorality of such figures as Alcibiades.

Protagoras himself was a fairly traditional and upright moralist. He may have viewed his form of relativism as essentially democratic -- allowing people to revise unjust or obsolete laws, defend themselves in court, free themselves from false certainties -- but he may equally well have considered rhetoric a way in which the elite could counter the tendencies towards mass rule in the assemblies. Our evidence on this matter is unfortunately minimal.

The consequences of the radical skepticism of the sophistic enlightenment appeared, at least to Plato and Aristophanes, among others, as far from benign. In Aristophanes' play, the Clouds, a teacher of rhetoric (called Socrates, but with doctrines based to a great degree on those of the Sophists, and possibly directed specifically at Protagoras or his followers) teaches that the gods don't exist, moral values are not fixed, and how to make the weaker argument appear the stronger. The result is moral chaos -- the main characters (Strepsiades and his son Pheidippides) in Clouds are portrayed as learning clever tricks to enable them to cheat their creditors and eventually abandoning all sense of conventional morality (illustrated by Pheidippides beating his father on stage and threatening to beat his mother). Although no one accused Protagoras himself of being anything other than honest -- even Plato, who disapproved of his philosophical positions, portrays him as generous, courteous, and upright -- his techniques were adopted by various unscrupulous characters in the following generation, giving sophistry the bad name it still has for clever (but fallacious) verbal trickery.
Back to Table of Contents

5. Influence

Protagoras' influence on the history of philosophy has been significant. Historically, it was in response to Protagoras and his fellow sophists that Plato began the search for transcendent forms or knowledge which could somehow anchor moral judgment. Along with the other Older Sophists and Socrates, Protagoras was part of a shift in philosophical focus from the earlier Presocratic tradition of natural philosophy to an interest in human philosophy. He emphasized how human subjectivity determines the way we understand, or even construct, our world, a position which is still an essential part of the modern philosophic tradition.
Back to Table of Contents

6. Bibliography

Primary sources

Aristophanes. Clouds. Intro. and trans. by Carol Poster. In Aristophanes 3, ed. David Slavitt and Palmer Bovie. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999: 85-192.

Diels, Hermann. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Rev. Walther Kranz. Berlin: Weidmann, 1972-1973.

Diogenes Laertius. Lives Of Eminent Philosophers. Trans. R. D. Hicks. 2 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Plato. Plato II: Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus. Trans. W. R. M. Lamb. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.

---. Plato VII: Theaetetus, Sophist. Trans. H. N. Fowler. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.

Sextus Empiricus. Sextus Empiricus. Trans. R. G. Bury. 4 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1953-59.

Sprague, Rosamund Kent, ed. The Older Sophists: A Complete Translation by Several Hands. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1972.

Secondary sources

Guthrie, W. K. C. The Sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971

de Romilly, Jaqueline. The Great Sophists In Periclean Athens. Trans. Janet Lloyd. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992.

Kennedy, George. The Art Of Persuasion In Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963.

Kerferd, G. B. The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Rankin, H. D. Sophists, Socratics & Cynics. London: Croom Helm, 1983.

Schiappa, Edward. Protagoras and Logos. Columbia SC: University. of South Carolina Press 1991.

Back to Table of Contents

Author Information:

Carol Poster
Email: cposter@english.fsu.edu
English Department
Florida State University
Tallahassee FL 32306

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

© 2006

Protagoras

By Plato

Commentary: Several comments have been posted about Protagoras. Read them or add your own.

Reader Recommendations: Recommend a Web site you feel is appropriate to this work, list recommended Web sites, or visit a random recommended Web site.

Download: A 121k text-only version is available for download.

Protagoras

By Plato

Written 380 B.C.E

Translated by Benjamin Jowett

Persons of the Dialogue
SOCRATES, who is the narrator of the Dialogue to his Companion
HIPPOCRATES
ALCIBIADES
CRINAS
PROTAGORAS, HIPPIAS, PRODICUS, Sophists
CALLIAS, a wealthy Athenian
Scene
The House of Callias.

Com. Where do you come from, Socrates? And yet I need hardly ask the question, for I know that you have been in chase of the fair Alcibiades. I saw the day before yesterday; and he had got a beard like a man-and he is a man, as I may tell you in your ear. But I thought that he was still very charming.

Soc. What of his beard? Are you not of Homer's opinion, who says

Youth is most charming when the beard first appears? And that is now the charm of Alcibiades.

Com. Well, and how do matters proceed? Have you been visiting him, and was he gracious to you?

Soc. Yes, I thought that he was very gracious; and especially to-day, for I have just come from him, and he has been helping me in an argument. But shall I tell you a strange thing? I paid no attention to him, and several times I quite forgot that he was present.

Com. What is the meaning of this? Has anything happened between you and him? For surely you cannot have discovered a fairer love than he is; certainly not in this city of Athens.

Soc. Yes, much fairer.

Com. What do you mean-a citizen or a foreigner?

Soc. A foreigner.

Com. Of what country?

Soc. Of Abdera.

Com. And is this stranger really in your opinion a fairer love than the son of Cleinias?

Soc. And is not the wiser always the fairer, sweet friend?

Com. But have you really met, Socrates, with some wise one?

Soc. Say rather, with the wisest of all living men, if you are willing to accord that title to Protagoras.

Com. What! Is Protagoras in Athens?

Soc. Yes; he has been here two days.

Com. And do you just come from an interview with him?

Soc. Yes; and I have heard and said many things.

Com. Then, if you have no engagement, suppose that you sit down tell me what passed, and my attendant here shall give up his place to you.

Soc. To be sure; and I shall be grateful to you for listening.

Com. Thank you, too, for telling us.

Soc. That is thank you twice over. Listen then:-
Last night, or rather very early this morning, Hippocrates, the son of Apollodorus and the brother of Phason, gave a tremendous thump with his staff at my door; some one opened to him, and he came rushing in and bawled out: Socrates, are you awake or asleep?

I knew his voice, and said: Hippocrates, is that you? and do you bring any news?

Good news, he said; nothing but good.
Delightful, I said; but what is the news? and why have you come hither at this unearthly hour?

He drew nearer to me and said: Protagoras is come.
Yes, I replied; he came two days ago: have you only just heard of his arrival?

Yes, by the gods, he said; but not until yesterday evening.
At the same time he felt for the truckle-bed, and sat down at my feet, and then he said: Yesterday quite late in the evening, on my return from Oenoe whither I had gone in pursuit of my runaway slave Satyrus, as I meant to have told you, if some other matter had not come in the way;-on my return, when we had done supper and were about to retire to rest, my brother said to me: Protagoras is come. I was going to you at once, and then I thought that the night was far spent. But the moment sleep left me after my fatigue, I got up and came hither direct.

I, who knew the very courageous madness of the man, said: What is the matter? Has Protagoras robbed you of anything?

He replied, laughing: Yes, indeed he has, Socrates, of the wisdom which he keeps from me.

But, surely, I said, if you give him money, and make friends with him, he will make you as wise as he is himself.

Would to heaven, he replied, that this were the case! He might take all that I have, and all that my friends have, if he pleased. But that is why I have come to you now, in order that you may speak to him on my behalf; for I am young, and also I have never seen nor heard him; (when he visited Athens before I was but a child) and all men praise him, Socrates; he is reputed to be the most accomplished of speakers. There is no reason why we should not go to him at once, and then we shall find him at home. He lodges, as I hear, with Callias the son of Hipponicus: let us start.

I replied: Not yet, my good friend; the hour is too early. But let us rise and take a turn in the court and wait about there until daybreak; when the day breaks, then we will go. For Protagoras is generally at home, and we shall be sure to find him; never fear.

Upon this we got up and walked about in the court, and I thought that I would make trial of the strength of his resolution. So I examined him and put questions to him. Tell me, Hippocrates, I said, as you are going to Protagoras, and will be paying your money to him, what is he to whom you are going? and what will he make of you? If, for example, you had thought of going to Hippocrates of Cos, the Asclepiad, and were about to give him your money, and some one had said to you: You are paying money to your namesake Hippocrates, O Hippocrates; tell me, what is he that you give him money? how would you have answered?

I should say, he replied, that I gave money to him as a physician.
And what will he make of you?
A physician, he said.
And if you were resolved to go to Polycleitus the Argive, or Pheidias the Athenian, and were intending to give them money, and some one had asked you: What are Polycleitus and Pheidias? and why do you give them this money?-how would you have answered?

I should have answered, that they were statuaries.
And what will they make of you?
A statuary, of course.
Well now, I said, you and I are going to Protagoras, and we are ready to pay him money on your behalf. If our own means are sufficient, and we can gain him with these, we shall be only too glad; but if not, then we are to spend the money of your friends as well. Now suppose, that while we are thus enthusiastically pursuing our object some one were to say to us: Tell me, Socrates, and you Hippocrates, what is Protagoras, and why are you going to pay him money,-how should we answer? I know that Pheidias is a sculptor, and that Homer is a poet; but what appellation is given to Protagoras? how is he designated?

They call him a Sophist, Socrates, he replied.
Then we are going to pay our money to him in the character of a Sophist?

Certainly.
But suppose a person were to ask this further question: And how about yourself? What will Protagoras make of you, if you go to see him?

He answered, with a blush upon his face (for the day was just beginning to dawn, so that I could see him): Unless this differs in some way from the former instances, I suppose that he will make a Sophist of me.

By the gods, I said, and are you not ashamed at having to appear before the Hellenes in the character of a Sophist?

Indeed, Socrates, to confess the truth, I am.
But you should not assume, Hippocrates, that the instruction of Protagoras is of this nature: may you not learn of him in the same way that you learned the arts of the grammarian, musician, or trainer, not with the view of making any of them a profession, but only as a part of education, and because a private gentleman and freeman ought to know them?

Just so, he said; and that, in my opinion, is a far truer account of the teaching of Protagoras.

I said: I wonder whether you know what you are doing?
And what am I doing?
You are going to commit your soul to the care of a man whom you call a Sophist. And yet I hardly think that you know what a Sophist is; and if not, then you do not even know to whom you are committing your soul and whether the thing to which you commit yourself be good or evil.

I certainly think that I do know, he replied.
Then tell me, what do you imagine that he is?
I take him to be one who knows wise things, he replied, as his name implies.

And might you not, I said, affirm this of the painter and of the carpenter also: Do not they, too, know wise things? But suppose a person were to ask us: In what are the painters wise? We should answer: In what relates to the making of likenesses, and similarly of other things. And if he were further to ask: What is the wisdom of the Sophist, and what is the manufacture over which he presides?-how should we answer him?

How should we answer him, Socrates? What other answer could there be but that he presides over the art which makes men eloquent?

Yes, I replied, that is very likely true, but not enough; for in the answer a further question is involved: Of what does the Sophist make a man talk eloquently? The player on the lyre may be supposed to make a man talk eloquently about that which he makes him understand, that is about playing the lyre. Is not that true?

Yes.
Then about what does the Sophist make him eloquent? Must not he make him eloquent in that which he understands?

Yes, that may be assumed.
And what is that which the Sophist knows and makes his disciple know?

Indeed, he said, I cannot tell.
Then I proceeded to say: Well, but are you aware of the danger which you are incurring? If you were going to commit your body to some one, who might do good or harm to it, would you not carefully consider and ask the opinion of your friends and kindred, and deliberate many days as to whether you should give him the care of your body? But when the soul is in question, which you hold to be of far more value than the body, and upon the good or evil of which depends the well-being of your all,-about this never consulted either with your father or with your brother or with any one of us who are your companions. But no sooner does this foreigner appear, than you instantly commit your soul to his keeping. In the evening, as you say, you hear of him, and in the morning you go to him, never deliberating or taking the opinion of any one as to whether you ought to intrust yourself to him or not;-you have quite made up your mind that you will at all hazards be a pupil of Protagoras, and are prepared to expend all the property of yourself and of your friends in carrying out at any price this determination, although, as you admit, you do not know him, and have never spoken with him: and you call him a Sophist, but are manifestly ignorant of what a Sophist is; and yet you are going to commit yourself to his keeping.

When he heard me say this, he replied: No other inference, Socrates, can be drawn from your words.

I proceeded: Is not a Sophist, Hippocrates, one who deals wholesale or retail in the food of the soul? To me that appears to be his nature.

And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul?
Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul; and we must take care, my friend, that the Sophist does not deceive us when he praises what he sells, like the dealers wholesale or retail who sell the food of the body; for they praise indiscriminately all their goods, without knowing what are really beneficial or hurtful: neither do their customers know, with the exception of any trainer or physician who may happen to buy of them. In like manner those who carry about the wares of knowledge, and make the round of the cities, and sell or retail them to any customer who is in want of them, praise them all alike; though I should not wonder, O my friend, if many of them were really ignorant of their effect upon the soul; and their customers equally ignorant, unless he who buys of them happens to be a physician of the soul. If, therefore, you have understanding of what is good and evil, you may safely buy knowledge of Protagoras or of any one; but if not, then, O my friend, pause, and do not hazard your dearest interests at a game of chance. For there is far greater peril in buying knowledge than in buying meat and drink: the one you purchase of the wholesale or retail dealer, and carry them away in other vessels, and before you receive them into the body as food, you may deposit them at home and call in any experienced friend who knows what is good to be eaten or drunken, and what not, and how much, and when; and then the danger of purchasing them is not so great. 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; and therefore we should deliberate and take counsel with our elders; for we are still young-too young to determine such a matter. And now let us go, as we were intending, and hear Protagoras; and when we have heard what he has to say, we may take counsel of others; for not only is Protagoras at the house of Callias, but there is Hippias of Elis, and, if I am not mistaken, Prodicus of Ceos, and several other wise men.

To this we agreed, and proceeded on our way until we reached the vestibule of the house; and there we stopped in order to conclude a discussion which had arisen between us as we were going along; and we stood talking in the vestibule until we had finished and come to an understanding. And I think that the doorkeeper, who was a eunuch, and who was probably annoyed at the great inroad of the Sophists, must have heard us talking. At any rate, when we knocked at the door, and he opened and saw us, he grumbled: They are Sophists -he is not at home; and instantly gave the door a hearty bang with both his hands. Again we knocked, and he answered without opening: Did you not hear me say that he is not at home, fellows? But, my friend, I said, you need not be alarmed; for we are not Sophists, and we are not come to see Callias, but we want to see Protagoras; and I must request you to announce us. At last, after a good deal of difficulty, the man was persuaded to open the door.

When we entered, we found Protagoras taking a walk in the cloister; and next to him, on one side, were walking Callias, the son of Hipponicus, and Paralus, the son of Pericles, who, by the mother's side, is his half-brother, and Charmides, the son of Glaucon. On the other side of him were Xanthippus, the other son of Pericles, Philippides, the son of Philomelus; also Antimoerus of Mende, who of all the disciples of Protagoras is the most famous, and intends to make sophistry his profession. A train of listeners followed him; the greater part of them appeared to be foreigners, whom Protagoras had brought with him out of the various cities visited by him in his journeys, he, like Orpheus, attracting them his voice, and they following. I should mention also that there were some Athenians in the company. Nothing delighted me more than the precision of their movements: they never got into his way at all; but when he and those who were with him turned back, then the band of listeners parted regularly on either side; he was always in front, and they wheeled round and took their places behind him in perfect order.

After him, as Homer says, "I lifted up my eyes and saw" Hippias the Elean sitting in the opposite cloister on a chair of state, and around him were seated on benches Eryximachus, the son of Acumenus, and Phaedrus the Myrrhinusian, and Andron the son of Androtion, and there were strangers whom he had brought with him from his native city of Elis, and some others: they were putting to Hippias certain physical and astronomical questions, and he, ex cathedra, was determining their several questions to them, and discoursing of them.

Also, "my eyes beheld Tantalus"; for Prodicus the Cean was at Athens: he had been lodged in a room which, in the days of Hipponicus, was a storehouse; but, as the house was full, Callias had cleared this out and made the room into a guest-chamber. Now Prodicus was still in bed, wrapped up in sheepskins and bed-clothes, of which there seemed to be a great heap; and there was sitting by him on the couches near, Pausanias of the deme of Cerameis, and with Pausanias was a youth quite young, who is certainly remarkable for his good looks, and, if I am not mistaken, is also of a fair and gentle nature. I thought that I heard him called Agathon, and my suspicion is that he is the beloved of Pausanias. There was this youth, and also there were the two Adeimantuses, one the son of Cepis, and the other of Leucolophides, and some others. I was very anxious to hear what Prodicus was saying, for he seems to me to be an all-wise and inspired man; but I was not able to get into the inner circle, and his fine deep voice made an echo in the room which rendered his words inaudible.

No sooner had we entered than there followed us Alcibiades the beautiful, as you say, and I believe you; and also Critias the son of Callaeschrus.

On entering we stopped a little, in order to look about us, and then walked up to Protagoras, and I said: Protagoras, my friend Hippocrates and I have come to see you.

Do you wish, he said, to speak with me alone, or in the presence of the company?

Whichever you please, I said; you shall determine when you have heard the purpose of our visit.

And what is your purpose? he said.
I must explain, I said, that my friend Hippocrates is a native Athenian; he is the son of Apollodorus, and of a great and prosperous house, and he is himself in natural ability quite a match for anybody of his own age. I believe that he aspires to political eminence; and this he thinks that conversation with you is most likely to procure for him. And now you can determine whether you would wish to speak to him of your teaching alone or in the presence of the company.

Thank you, Socrates, for your consideration of me. For certainly a stranger finding his way into great cities, and persuading the flower of the youth in them to leave company of their kinsmen or any other acquaintances, old or young, and live with him, under the idea that they will be improved by his conversation, ought to be very cautious; great jealousies are aroused by his proceedings, and he is the subject of many enmities and conspiracies. Now the art of the Sophist is, as I believe, of great antiquity; but in ancient times those who practised it, fearing this odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names, some under that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides, some, of hierophants and prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus, and some, as I observe, even under the name of gymnastic-masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the odium which they would incur. But that is not my way, for I do not believe that they effected their purpose, which was to deceive the government, who were not blinded by them; and as to the people, they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them. Now to run away, and to be caught in running away, is the very height of folly, and also greatly increases the exasperation of mankind; for they regard him who runs away as a rogue, in addition to any other objections which they have to him; and therefore I take an entirely opposite course, and acknowledge myself to be a Sophist and instructor of mankind; such an open acknowledgement appears to me to be a better sort of caution than concealment. Nor do I neglect other precautions, and therefore I hope, as I may say, by the favour of heaven that no harm will come of the acknowledgment that I am a Sophist. And I have been now many years in the profession-for all my years when added up are many: there is no one here present of whom I might not be the father. Wherefore I should much prefer conversing with you, if you want to speak with me, in the presence of the company.

As I suspected that he would like to have a little display and glorification in the presence of Prodicus and Hippias, and would gladly show us to them in the light of his admirers, I said: But why should we not summon Prodicus and Hippias and their friends to hear us?

Very good, he said.
Suppose, said Callias, that we hold a council in which you may sit and discuss.-This was agreed upon, and great delight was felt at the prospect of hearing wise men talk; we ourselves took the chairs and benches, and arranged them by Hippias, where the other benches had been already placed. Meanwhile Callias and Alcibiades got Prodicus out of bed and brought in him and his companions.

When we were all seated, Protagoras said: Now that the company are assembled, Socrates, tell me about the youngman of whom you were just now speaking.

I replied: I will begin again at the same point, Protagoras, and tell you once more the purport of my visit: this is my friend Hippocrates, who is desirous of making your acquaintance; he would like to know what will happen to him if he associates with you. I have no more to say.

Protagoras answered: Young man, if you associate with me, on the very first day you will return home a better man than you came, and better on the second day than on the first, and better every day than you were on the day before.

When I heard this, I said: Protagoras, I do not at all wonder at hearing you say this; even at your age, and with all your wisdom, if any one were to teach you what you did not know before, you would become better no doubt: but please to answer in a different way-I will explain how by an example. Let me suppose that Hippocrates, instead of desiring your acquaintance, wished to become acquainted with the young man Zeuxippus of Heraclea, who has lately been in Athens, and he had come to him as he has come to you, and had heard him say, as he has heard you say, that every day he would grow and become better if he associated with him: and then suppose that he were to ask him, "In what shall I become better, and in what shall I grow?"-Zeuxippus would answer, "In painting." And suppose that he went to Orthagoras the Theban, and heard him say the same thing, and asked him, "In what shall I become better day by day?" he would reply, "In flute-playing." Now I want you to make the same sort of answer to this young man and to me, who am asking questions on his account. When you say that on the first day on which he associates with you he will return home a better man, and on every day will grow in like manner,-In what, Protagoras, will he be better? and about what?

When Protagoras heard me say this, he replied: You ask questions fairly, and I like to answer a question which is fairly put. If Hippocrates comes to me he will not experience the sort of drudgery with which other Sophists are in the habit of insulting their pupils; who, when they have just escaped from the arts, are taken and driven back into them by these teachers, and made to learn calculation, and astronomy, and geometry, and music (he gave a look at Hippias as he said this); but if he comes to me, he will learn that which he comes to learn. And this is prudence in affairs private as well as public; he will learn to order his own house in the best manner, and he will be able to speak and act for the best in the affairs of the state.

Do I understand you, I said; and is your meaning that you teach the art of politics, and that you promise to make men good citizens?

That, Socrates, is exactly the profession which I make.
Then, I said, you do indeed possess a noble art, if there is no mistake about this; for I will freely confess to you, Protagoras, that I have a doubt whether this art is capable of being taught, and yet I know not how to disbelieve your assertion. And I ought to tell you why I am of opinion that this art cannot be taught or communicated by man to man. I say that the Athenians are an understanding people, and indeed they are esteemed to be such by the other Hellenes. Now I observe that when we are met together in the assembly, and the matter in hand relates to building, the builders are summoned as advisers; when the question is one of shipbuilding, then the ship-wrights; and the like of other arts which they think capable of being taught and learned. And if some person offers to give them advice who is not supposed by them to have any skill in the art, even though he be good-looking, and rich, and noble, they will not listen to him, but laugh and hoot at him, until either he is clamoured down and retires of himself; or if he persist, he is dragged away or put out by the constables at the command of the prytanes. This is their way of behaving about professors of the arts. But when the question is an affair of state, then everybody is free to have a say-carpenter, tinker, cobbler, sailor, passenger; rich and poor, high and low-any one who likes gets up, and no one reproaches him, as in the former case, with not having learned, and having no teacher, and yet giving advice; evidently because they are under the impression that this sort of knowledge cannot be taught. And not only is this true of the state, but of individuals; the best and wisest of our citizens are unable to impart their political wisdom to others: as for example, Pericles, the father of these young men, who gave them excellent instruction in all that could be learned from masters, in his own department of politics neither taught them, nor gave them teachers; but they were allowed to wander at their own free will in a sort of hope that they would light upon virtue of their own accord. Or take another example: there was Cleinias the younger brother of our friend Alcibiades, of whom this very same Pericles was the guardian; and he being in fact under the apprehension that Cleinias would be corrupted by Alcibiades, took him away, and placed him in the house of Ariphron to be educated; but before six months had elapsed, Ariphron sent him back, not knowing what to do with him. And I could mention numberless other instances of persons who were good themselves, and never yet made any one else good, whether friend or stranger. Now I, Protagoras, having these examples before me, am inclined to think that virtue cannot be taught. But then again, when I listen to your words, I waver; and am disposed to think that there must be something in what you say, because I know that you have great experience, and learning, and invention. And I wish that you would, if possible, show me a little more clearly that virtue can be taught. Will you be so good?

That I will, Socrates, and gladly. But what would you like? Shall I, as an elder, speak to you as younger men in an apologue or myth, or shall I argue out the question?

To this several of the company answered that he should choose for himself.

Well, then, he said, I think that the myth will be more interesting.
Once upon a time there were gods only, and no mortal creatures. But when the time came that these also should be created, the gods fashioned them out of earth and fire and various mixtures of both elements in the interior of the earth; and when they were about to bring them into the light of day, they ordered Prometheus and Epimetheus to equip them, and to distribute to them severally their proper qualities. Epimetheus said to Prometheus: "Let me distribute, and do you inspect." This was agreed, and Epimetheus made the distribution. There were some to whom he gave strength without swiftness, while he equipped the weaker with swiftness; some he armed, and others he left unarmed; and devised for the latter some other means of preservation, making some large, and having their size as a protection, and others small, whose nature was to fly in the air or burrow in the ground; this was to be their way of escape. Thus did he compensate them with the view of preventing any race from becoming extinct. And when he had provided against their destruction by one another, he contrived also a means of protecting them against the seasons of heaven; clothing them with close hair and thick skins sufficient to defend them against the winter cold and able to resist the summer heat, so that they might have a natural bed of their own when they wanted to rest; also he furnished them with hoofs and hair and hard and callous skins under their feet. Then he gave them varieties of food-herb of the soil to some, to others fruits of trees, and to others roots, and to some again he gave other animals as food. And some he made to have few young ones, while those who were their prey were very prolific; and in this manner the race was preserved. Thus did Epimetheus, who, not being very wise, forgot that he had distributed among the brute animals all the qualities which he had to give-and when he came to man, who was still unprovided, he was terribly perplexed. Now while he was in this perplexity, Prometheus came to inspect the distribution, and he found that the other animals were suitably furnished, but that man alone was naked and shoeless, and had neither bed nor arms of defence. The appointed hour was approaching when man in his turn was to go forth into the light of day; and Prometheus, not knowing how he could devise his salvation, stole the mechanical arts of Hephaestus and Athene, and fire with them (they could neither have been acquired nor used without fire), and gave them to man. Thus man had the wisdom necessary to the support of life, but political wisdom he had not; for that was in the keeping of Zeus, and the power of Prometheus did not extend to entering into the citadel of heaven, where Zeus dwelt, who moreover had terrible sentinels; but he did enter by stealth into the common workshop of Athene and Hephaestus, in which they used to practise their favourite arts, and carried off Hephaestus' art of working by fire, and also the art of Athene, and gave them to man. And in this way man was supplied with the means of life. But Prometheus is said to have been afterwards prosecuted for theft, owing to the blunder of Epimetheus.

Now man, having a share of the divine attributes, was at first the only one of the animals who had any gods, because he alone was of their kindred; and he would raise altars and images of them. He was not long in inventing articulate speech and names; and he also constructed houses and clothes and shoes and beds, and drew sustenance from the earth. Thus provided, mankind at first lived dispersed, and there were no cities. But the consequence was that they were destroyed by the wild beasts, for they were utterly weak in comparison of them, and their art was only sufficient to provide them with the means of life, and did not enable them to carry on war against the animals: food they had, but not as yet the art of government, of which the art of war is a part. After a while the desire of self-preservation gathered them into cities; but when they were gathered together, having no art of government, they evil intreated one another, and were again in process of dispersion and destruction. Zeus feared that the entire race would be exterminated, and so he sent Hermes to them, bearing reverence and justice to be the ordering principles of cities and the bonds of friendship and conciliation. Hermes asked Zeus how he should impart justice and reverence among men:-Should he distribute them as the arts are distributed; that is to say, to a favoured few only, one skilled individual having enough of medicine or of any other art for many unskilled ones? "Shall this be the manner in which I am to distribute justice and reverence among men, or shall I give them to all?" "To all," said Zeus; "I should like them all to have a share; for cities cannot exist, if a few only share in the virtues, as in the arts. And further, make a law by my order, that he who has no part in reverence and justice shall be put to death, for he is a plague of the state."

And this is the reason, Socrates, why the Athenians and mankind in general, when the question relates to carpentering or any other mechanical art, allow but a few to share in their deliberations; and when any one else interferes, then, as you say, they object, if he be not of the favoured few; which, as I reply, is very natural. But when they meet to deliberate about political virtue, which proceeds only by way of justice and wisdom, they are patient enough of any man who speaks of them, as is also natural, because they think that every man ought to share in this sort of virtue, and that states could not exist if this were otherwise. I have explained to you, Socrates, the reason of this phenomenon.

And that you may not suppose yourself to be deceived in thinking that all men regard every man as having a share of justice or honesty and of every other political virtue, let me give you a further proof, which is this. In other cases, as you are aware, if a man says that he is a good flute-player, or skilful in any other art in which he has no skill, people either laugh at him or are angry with him, and his relations think that he is mad and go and admonish him; but when honesty is in question, or some other political virtue, even if they know that he is dishonest, yet, if the man comes publicly forward and tells the truth about his dishonesty, then, what in the other case was held by them to be good sense, they now deem to be madness. They say that all men ought to profess honesty whether they are honest or not, and that a man is out of his mind who says anything else. Their notion is, that a man must have some degree of honesty; and that if he has none at all he ought not to be in the world.

I have been showing that they are right in admitting every man as a counsellor about this sort of virtue, as they are of opinion that every man is a partaker of it. And I will now endeavour to show further that they do not conceive this virtue to be given by nature, or to grow spontaneously, but to be a thing which may be taught; and which comes to a man by taking pains. No one would instruct, no one would rebuke, or be angry with those whose calamities they suppose to be due to nature or chance; they do not try to punish or to prevent them from being what they are; they do but pity them. Who is so foolish as to chastise or instruct the ugly, or the diminutive, or the feeble? And for this reason. Because he knows that good and evil of this kind is the work of nature and of chance; whereas if a man is wanting in those good qualities which are attained by study and exercise and teaching, and has only the contrary evil qualities, other men are angry with him, and punish and reprove him-of these evil qualities one is impiety, another injustice, and they may be described generally as the very opposite of political virtue. In such cases any man will be angry with another, and reprimand him,-clearly because he thinks that by study and learning, the virtue in which the other is deficient may be acquired. If you will think, Socrates, of the nature of punishment, you will see at once that in the opinion of mankind virtue may be acquired; no one punishes the evil-doer under the notion, or for the reason, that he has done wrong, only the unreasonable fury of a beast acts in that manner. But he who desires to inflict rational punishment does not retaliate for a past wrong which cannot be undone; he has regard to the future, and is desirous that the man who is punished, and he who sees him punished, may be deterred from doing wrong again. He punishes for the sake of prevention, thereby clearly implying that virtue is capable of being taught. This is the notion of all who retaliate upon others either privately or publicly. And the Athenians, too, your own citizens, like other men, punish and take vengeance on all whom they regard as evil doers; and hence, we may infer them to be of the number of those who think that virtue may be acquired and taught. Thus far, Socrates, I have shown you clearly enough, if I am not mistaken, that your countrymen are right in admitting the tinker and the cobbler to advise about politics, and also that they deem virtue to be capable of being taught and acquired.

There yet remains one difficulty which has been raised by you about the sons of good men. What is the reason why good men teach their sons the knowledge which is gained from teachers, and make them wise in that, but do nothing towards improving them in the virtues which distinguish themselves? And here, Socrates, I will leave the apologue and resume the argument. Please to consider: Is there or is there not some one quality of which all the citizens must be partakers, if there is to be a city at all? In the answer to this question is contained the only solution of your difficulty; there is no other. For if there be any such quality, and this quality or unity is not the art of the carpenter, or the smith, or the potter, but justice and temperance and holiness and, in a word, manly virtue-if this is the quality of which all men must be partakers, and which is the very condition of their learning or doing anything else, and if he who is wanting in this, whether he be a child only or a grown-up man or woman, must be taught and punished, until by punishment he becomes better, and he who rebels against instruction and punishment is either exiled or condemned to death under the idea that he is incurable-if what I am saying be true, good men have their sons taught other things and not this, do consider how extraordinary their conduct would appear to be. For we have shown that they think virtue capable of being taught and cultivated both in private and public; and, notwithstanding, they have their sons taught lesser matters, ignorance of which does not involve the punishment of death: but greater things, of which the ignorance may cause death and exile to those who have no training or knowledge of them-aye, and confiscation as well as death, and, in a word, may be the ruin of families-those things, I say, they are supposed not to teach them-not to take the utmost care that they should learn. How improbable is this, Socrates!

Education and admonition commence in the first years of childhood, and last to the very end of life. Mother and nurse and father and tutor are vying with one another about the improvement of the child as soon as ever he is able to understand what is being said to him: he cannot say or do anything without their setting forth to him that this is just and that is unjust; this is honourable, that is dishonourable; this is holy, that is unholy; do this and abstain from that. And if he obeys, well and good; if not, he is straightened by threats and blows, like a piece of bent or warped wood. At a later stage they send him to teachers, and enjoin them to see to his manners even more than to his reading and music; and the teachers do as they are desired. And when the boy has learned his letters and is beginning to understand what is written, as before he understood only what was spoken, they put into his hands the works of great poets, which he reads sitting on a bench at school; in these are contained many admonitions, and many tales, and praises, and encomia of ancient famous men, which he is required to learn by heart, in order that he may imitate or emulate them and desire to become like them. Then, again, the teachers of the lyre take similar care that their young disciple is temperate and gets into no mischief; and when they have taught him the use of the lyre, they introduce him to the poems of other excellent poets, who are the lyric poets; and these they set to music, and make their harmonies ana rhythms quite familiar to the children's souls, in order that they may learn to be more gentle, and harmonious, and rhythmical, and so more fitted for speech and action; for the life of man in every part has need of harmony and rhythm. Then they send them to the master of gymnastic, in order that their bodies may better minister to the virtuous mind, and that they may not be compelled through bodily weakness to play the coward in war or on any other occasion. This is what is done by those who have the means, and those who have the means are the rich; their children begin to go to school soonest and leave off latest. When they have done with masters, the state again compels them to learn the laws, and live after the pattern which they furnish, and not after their own fancies; and just as in learning to write, the writing-master first draws lines with a style for the use of the young beginner, and gives him the tablet and makes him follow the lines, so the city draws the laws, which were the invention of good lawgivers living in the olden time; these are given to the young man, in order to guide him in his conduct whether he is commanding or obeying; and he who transgresses them is to be corrected, or, in other words, called to account, which is a term used not only in your country, but also in many others, seeing that justice calls men to account. Now when there is all this care about virtue private and public, why, Socrates, do you still wonder and doubt whether virtue can be taught? Cease to wonder, for the opposite would be far more surprising.

But why then do the sons of good fathers often turn out ill? There is nothing very wonderful in this; for, as I have been saying, the existence of a state implies that virtue is not any man's private possession. If so-and nothing can be truer-then I will further ask you to imagine, as an illustration, some other pursuit or branch of knowledge which may be assumed equally to be the condition of the existence of a state. Suppose that there could be no state unless we were all flute-players, as far as each had the capacity, and everybody was freely teaching everybody the art, both in private and public, and reproving the bad player as freely and openly as every man now teaches justice and the laws, not concealing them as he would conceal the other arts, but imparting them-for all of us have a mutual interest in the justice and virtue of one another, and this is the reason why every one is so ready to teach justice and the laws;-suppose, I say, that there were the same readiness and liberality among us in teaching one another flute-playing, do you imagine, Socrates, that the sons of good flute players would be more likely to be good than the sons of bad ones? I think not. Would not their sons grow up to be distinguished or undistinguished according to their own natural capacities as flute-players, and the son of a good player would often turn out to be a bad one, and the son of a bad player to be a good one, all flute-players would be good enough in comparison of those who were ignorant and unacquainted with the art of flute-playing? In like manner I would have you consider that he who appears to you to be the worst of those who have been brought up in laws and humanities, would appear to be a just man and a master of justice if he were to be compared with men who had no education, or courts of justice, or laws, or any restraints upon them which compelled them to practise virtue-with the savages, for example, whom the poet Pherecrates exhibited on the stage at the last year's Lenaean festival. If you were living among men such as the man-haters in his Chorus, you would be only too glad to meet with Eurybates and Phrynondas, and you would sorrowfully long to revisit the rascality of this part of the world. you, Socrates, are discontented, and why? Because all men are teachers of virtue, each one according to his ability; and you say, Where are the teachers? You might as well ask, Who teaches Greek? For of that too there will not be any teachers found. Or you might ask, Who is to teach the sons of our artisans this same art which they have learned of their fathers? He and his fellow-workmen have taught them to the best of their ability,-but who will carry them further in their arts? And you would certainly have a difficulty, Socrates, in finding a teacher of them; but there would be no difficulty in finding a teacher of those who are wholly ignorant. And this is true of virtue or of anything else; if a man is better able than we are to promote virtue ever so little, we must be content with the result. A teacher of this sort I believe myself to be, and above all other men to have the knowledge which makes a man noble and good; and I give my pupils their money's-worth, and even more, as they themselves confess. And therefore I have introduced the following mode of payment:-When a man has been my pupil, if he likes he pays my price, but there is no compulsion; and if he does not like, he has only to go into a temple and take an oath of the value of the instructions, and he pays no more than he declares to be their value.

Such is my Apologue, Socrates, and such is the argument by which I endeavour to show that virtue may be taught, and that this is the opinion of the Athenians. And I have also attempted to show that you are not to wonder at good fathers having bad sons, or at good sons having bad fathers, of which the sons of Polycleitus afford an example, who are the companions of our friends here, Paralus and Xanthippus, but are nothing in comparison with their father; and this is true of the sons of many other artists. As yet I ought not to say the same of Paralus and Xanthippus themselves, for they are young and there is still hope of them.

Protagoras ended, and in my ear

So charming left his voice, that I the while
Thought him still speaking; still stood fixed to hear. At length, when the truth dawned upon me, that he had really finished, not without difficulty I began to collect myself, and looking at Hippocrates, I said to him: O son of Apollodorus, how deeply grateful I am to you for having brought me hither; I would not have missed the speech of Protagoras for a great deal. For I used to imagine that no human care could make men good; but I know better now. Yet I have still one very small difficulty which I am sure that Protagoras will easily explain, as he has already explained so much. If a man were to go and consult Pericles or any of our great speakers about these matters, he might perhaps hear as fine a discourse; but then when one has a question to ask of any of them, like books, they can neither answer nor ask; and if any one challenges the least particular of their speech, they go ringing on in a long harangue, like brazen pots, which when they are struck continue to sound unless some one puts his hand upon them; whereas our friend Protagoras can not only make a good speech, as he has already shown, but when he is asked a question he can answer briefly; and when he asks he will wait and hear the answer; and this is a very rare gift. Now I, Protagoras, want to ask of you a little question, which if you will only answer, I shall be quite satisfied. You were saying that virtue can be taught;-that I will take upon your authority, and there is no one to whom I am more ready to trust. But I marvel at one thing about which I should like to have my mind set at rest. You were speaking of Zeus sending justice and reverence to men; and several times while you were speaking, justice, and temperance, and holiness, and all these qualities, were described by you as if together they made up virtue. Now I want you to tell me truly whether virtue is one whole, of which justice and temperance and holiness are parts; or whether all these are only the names of one and the same thing: that is the doubt which still lingers in my mind.

There is no difficulty, Socrates, in answering that the qualities of which you are speaking are the parts of virtue which is one.

And are they parts, I said, in the same sense in which mouth, nose, and eyes, and ears, are the parts of a face; or are they like the parts of gold, which differ from the whole and from one another only in being larger or smaller?

I should say that they differed, Socrates, in the first way; they are related to one another as the parts of a face are related to the whole face.

And do men have some one part and some another part of virtue? Of if a man has one part, must he also have all the others?

By no means, he said; for many a man is brave and not just, or just and not wise.

You would not deny, then, that courage and wisdom are also parts of virtue?

Most undoubtedly they are, he answered; and wisdom is the noblest of the parts.

And they are all different from one another? I said.
Yes.
And has each of them a distinct function like the parts of the face;-the eye, for example, is not like the ear, and has not the same functions; and the other parts are none of them like one another, either in their functions, or in any other way? I want to know whether the comparison holds concerning the parts of virtue. Do they also differ from one another in themselves and in their functions? For that is clearly what the simile would imply.

Yes, Socrates, you are right in supposing that they differ.
Then, I said, no other part of virtue is like knowledge, or like justice, or like courage, or like temperance, or like holiness?

No, he answered.
Well then, I said, suppose that you and I enquire into their natures. And first, you would agree with me that justice is of the nature of a thing, would you not? That is my opinion: would it not be yours also?

Mine also, he said.
And suppose that some one were to ask us, saying, "O Protagoras, and you, Socrates, what about this thing which you were calling justice, is it just or unjust?"-and I were to answer, just: would you vote with me or against me?

With you, he said.
Thereupon I should answer to him who asked me, that justice is of the nature of the just: would not you?

Yes, he said.
And suppose that he went on to say: "Well now, is there also such a thing as holiness? "we should answer, "Yes," if I am not mistaken?

Yes, he said.
Which you would also acknowledge to be a thing-should we not say so?
He assented.
"And is this a sort of thing which is of the nature of the holy, or of the nature of the unholy?" I should be angry at his putting such a question, and should say, "Peace, man; nothing can be holy if holiness is not holy." What would you say? Would you not answer in the same way?

Certainly, he said.
And then after this suppose that he came and asked us, "What were you saying just now? Perhaps I may not have heard you rightly, but you seemed to me to be saying that the parts of virtue were not the same as one another." I should reply, "You certainly heard that said, but not, as you imagine, by me; for I only asked the question; Protagoras gave the answer." And suppose that he turned to you and said, "Is this true, Protagoras? and do you maintain that one part of virtue is unlike another, and is this your position?"-how would you answer him?

I could not help acknowledging the truth of what he said, Socrates.
Well then, Protagoras, we will assume this; and now supposing that he proceeded to say further, "Then holiness is not of the nature of justice, nor justice of the nature of holiness, but of the nature of unholiness; and holiness is of the nature of the not just, and therefore of the unjust, and the unjust is the unholy": how shall we answer him? I should certainly answer him on my own behalf that justice is holy, and that holiness is just; and I would say in like manner on your behalf also, if you would allow me, that justice is either the same with holiness, or very nearly the same; and above all I would assert that justice is like holiness and holiness is like justice; and I wish that you would tell me whether I may be permitted to give this answer on your behalf, and whether you would agree with me.

He replied, I cannot simply agree, Socrates, to the proposition that justice is holy and that holiness is just, for there appears to me to be a difference between them. But what matter? if you please I please; and let us assume, if you will I, that justice is holy, and that holiness is just.

Pardon me, I replied; I do not want this "if you wish" or "if you will" sort of conclusion to be proven, but I want you and me to be proven: I mean to say that the conclusion will be best proven if there be no "if."

Well, he said, I admit that justice bears a resemblance to holiness, for there is always some point of view in which everything is like every other thing; white is in a certain way like black, and hard is like soft, and the most extreme opposites have some qualities in common; even the parts of the face which, as we were saying before, are distinct and have different functions, are still in a certain point of view similar, and one of them is like another of them. And you may prove that they are like one another on the same principle that all things are like one another; and yet things which are like in some particular ought not to be called alike, nor things which are unlike in some particular, however slight, unlike.

And do you think, I said in a tone of surprise, that justice and holiness have but a small degree of likeness?

Certainly not; any more than I agree with what I understand to be your view.

Well, I said, as you appear to have a difficulty about this, let us take another of the examples which you mentioned instead. Do you admit the existence of folly?

I do.
And is not wisdom the. very opposite of folly?
That is true, he said.
And when men act rightly and advantageously they seem to you to be temperate?

Yes, he said.
And temperance makes them temperate?
Certainly.
And they who do not act rightly act foolishly, and in acting thus are not temperate?

I agree, he said.
Then to act foolishly is the opposite of acting temperately?
He assented.
And foolish actions are done by folly, and temperate actions by temperance?

He agreed.
And that is done strongly which is done by strength, and that which is weakly done, by weakness?

He assented.
And that which is done with swiftness is done swiftly, and that which is done with slowness, slowly?

He assented again.
And that which is done in the same manner, is done by the same; and that which is done in an opposite manner by the opposite?

He agreed.
Once more, I said, is there anything beautiful?
Yes.
To which the only opposite is the ugly?
There is no other.
And is there anything good?
There is.
To which the only opposite is the evil?
There is no other.
And there is the acute in sound?
True.
To which the only opposite is the grave?
There is no other, he said, but that.
Then every opposite has one opposite only and no more?
He assented.
Then now, I said, let us recapitulate our admissions. First of all we admitted that everything has one opposite and not more than one?

We did so.
And we admitted also that what was done in opposite ways was done by opposites?

Yes.
And that which was done foolishly, as we further admitted, was done in the opposite way to that which was done temperately?

Yes.
And that which was done temperately was done by temperance, and that which was done foolishly by folly?

He agreed.
And that which is done in opposite ways is done by opposites?
Yes.
And one thing is done by temperance, and quite another thing by folly?

Yes.
And in opposite ways?
Certainly.
And therefore by opposites:-then folly is the opposite of temperance?

Clearly.
And do you remember that folly has already been acknowledged by us to be the opposite of wisdom?

He assented.
And we said that everything has only one opposite?
Yes.
Then, Protagoras, which of the two assertions shall we renounce? One says that everything has but one opposite; the other that wisdom is distinct from temperance, and that both of them are parts of virtue; and that they are not only distinct, but dissimilar, both in themselves and in their functions, like the parts of a face. Which of these two assertions shall we renounce? For both of them together are certainly not in harmony; they do not accord or agree: for how can they be said to agree if everything is assumed to have only one opposite and not more than one, and yet folly, which is one, has clearly the two opposites wisdom and temperance? Is not that true, Protagoras? What else would you say?

He assented, but with great reluctance.
Then temperance and wisdom are the same, as before justice and holiness appeared to us to be nearly the same. And now, Protagoras, I said, we must finish the enquiry, and not faint. Do you think that an unjust man can be temperate in his injustice?

I should be ashamed, Socrates, he said, to acknowledge this which nevertheless many may be found to assert.

And shall I argue with them or with you? I replied.
I would rather, he said, that you should argue with the many first, if you will.

Whichever you please, if you will only answer me and say whether you are of their opinion or not. My object is to test the validity of the argument; and yet the result may be that I who ask and you who answer may both be put on our trial.

Protagoras at first made a show of refusing, as he said that the argument was not encouraging; at length, he consented to answer.

Now then, I said, begin at the beginning and answer me. You think that some men are temperate, and yet unjust?

Yes, he said; let that be admitted.
And temperance is good sense?
Yes.
And good sense is good counsel in doing injustice?
Granted.
If they succeed, I said, or if they do not succeed?
If they succeed.
And you would admit the existence of goods?
Yes.
And is the good that which is expedient for man?
Yes, indeed, he said: and there are some things which may be inexpedient, and yet I call them good.

I thought that Protagoras was getting ruffled and excited; he seemed to be setting himself in an attitude of war. Seeing this, I minded my business, and gently said:-

When you say, Protagoras, that things inexpedient are good, do you mean inexpedient for man only, or inexpedient altogether? and do you call the latter good?

Certainly not the last, he replied; for I know of many things-meats, drinks, medicines, and ten thousand other things, which are inexpedient for man, and some which are expedient; and some which are neither expedient nor inexpedient for man, but only for horses; and some for oxen only, and some for dogs; and some for no animals, but only for trees; and some for the roots of trees and not for their branches, as for example, manure, which is a good thing when laid about the roots of a tree, but utterly destructive if thrown upon the shoots and young branches; or I may instance olive oil, which is mischievous to all plants, and generally most injurious to the hair of every animal with the exception of man, but beneficial to human hair and to the human body generally; and even in this application (so various and changeable is the nature of the benefit), that which is the greatest good to the outward parts of a man, is a very great evil to his inward parts: and for this reason physicians always forbid their patients the use of oil in their food, except in very small quantities, just enough to extinguish the disagreeable sensation of smell in meats and sauces.

When he had given this answer, the company cheered him. And I said: Protagoras, I have a wretched memory, and when any one makes a long speech to me I never remember what he is talking about. As then, if I had been deaf, and you were going to converse with me, you would have had to raise your voice; so now, having such a bad memory, I will ask you to cut your answers shorter, if you would take me with you.

What do you mean? he said: how am I to shorten my answers? shall I make them too short?

Certainly not, I said.
But short enough?
Yes, I said.
Shall I answer what appears to me to be short enough, or what appears to you to be short enough?

I have heard, I said, that you can speak and teach others to speak about the same things at such length that words never seemed to fail, or with such brevity that no one could use fewer of them. Please therefore, if you talk with me, to adopt the latter or more compendious method.

Socrates, he replied, many a battle of words have I fought, and if I had followed the method of disputation which my adversaries desired, as you want me to do, I should have been no better than another, and the name of Protagoras would have been nowhere.

I saw that he was not satisfied with his previous answers, and that he would not play the part of answerer any more if he could help; and I considered that there was no call upon me to continue the conversation; so I said: Protagoras, I do not wish to force the conversation upon you if you had rather not, but when you are willing to argue with me in such a way that I can follow you, then I will argue with you. Now you, as is said of you by others and as you say of yourself, are able to have discussions in shorter forms of speech as well as in longer, for you are a master of wisdom; but I cannot manage these long speeches: I only wish that I could. You, on the other hand, who are capable of either, ought to speak shorter as I beg you, and then we might converse. But I see that you are disinclined, and as I have an engagement which will prevent my staying to hear you at greater length (for I have to be in another place), I will depart; although I should have liked to have heard you.

Thus I spoke, and was rising from my seat, when Callias seized me by the right hand, and in his left hand caught hold of this old cloak of mine. He said: We cannot let you go, Socrates, for if you leave us there will be an end of our discussions: I must therefore beg you to remain, as there is nothing in the world that I should like better than to hear you and Protagoras discourse. Do not deny the company this pleasure.

Now I had got up, and was in the act of departure. Son of Hipponicus, I replied, I have always admired, and do now heartily applaud and love your philosophical spirit, and I would gladly comply with your request, if I could. But the truth is that I cannot. And what you ask is as great an impossibility to me, as if you bade me run a race with Crison of Himera, when in his prime, or with some one of the long or day course runners. To such a request I should reply that I would fain ask the same of my own legs; but they refuse to comply. And therefore if you want to see Crison and me in the same stadium, you must bid him slacken his speed to mine, for I cannot run quickly, and he can run slowly. And in like manner if you want to hear me and Protagoras discoursing, you must ask him to shorten his answers, and keep to the point, as he did at first; if not, how can there be any discussion? For discussion is one thing, and making an oration is quite another, in my humble opinion.

But you see, Socrates, said Callias, that Protagoras may fairly claim to speak in his own way, just as you claim to speak in yours.

Here Alcibiades interposed, and said: That, Callias, is not a true statement of the case. For our friend Socrates admits that he cannot make a speech-in this he yields the palm to Protagoras: but I should be greatly surprised if he yielded to any living man in the power of holding and apprehending an argument. Now if Protagoras will make a similar admission, and confess that he is inferior to Socrates in argumentative skill, that is enough for Socrates; but if he claims a superiority in argument as well, let him ask and answer-not, when a question is asked, slipping away from the point, and instead of answering, making a speech at such length that most of his hearers forget the question at issue (not that Socrates is likely to forget-I will be bound for that, although he may pretend in fun that he has a bad memory). And Socrates appears to me to be more in the right than Protagoras; that is my view, and every man ought to say what he thinks.

When Alcibiades had done speaking, some one-Critias, I believe-went on to say: O Prodicus and Hippias, Callias appears to me to be a partisan of Protagoras: and this led Alcibiades, who loves opposition, to take the other side. But we should not be partisans either of Socrates or of Protagoras; let us rather unite in entreating both of them not to break up the discussion.

Prodicus added: That, Critias, seems to me to be well said, for those who are present at such discussions ought to be impartial hearers of both the speakers; remembering, however, that impartiality is not the same as equality, for both sides should be impartially heard, and yet an equal meed should not be assigned to both of them; but to the wiser a higher meed should be given, and a lower to the less wise. And I as well as Critias would beg you, Protagoras and Socrates, to grant our request, which is, that you will argue with one another and not wrangle; for friends argue with friends out of goodwill, but only adversaries and enemies wrangle. And then our meeting will be delightful; for in this way you, who are the speakers, will be most likely to win esteem, and not praise only, among us who are your audience; for esteem is a sincere conviction of the hearers' souls, but praise is often an insincere expression of men uttering falsehoods contrary to their conviction. And thus we who are the hearers will be gratified and not pleased; for gratification is of the mind when receiving wisdom and knowledge, but pleasure is of the body when eating or experiencing some other bodily delight. Thus spoke Prodicus, and many of the company applauded his words.

Hippias the sage spoke next. He said: All of you who are here present I reckon to be kinsmen and friends and fellow-citizens, by nature and not by law; for by nature like is akin to like, whereas law is the tyrant of mankind, and often compels us to do many things which are against nature. How great would be the disgrace then, if we, who know the nature of things, and are the wisest of the Hellenes, and as such are met together in this city, which is the metropolis of wisdom, and in the greatest and most glorious house of this city, should have nothing to show worthy of this height of dignity, but should only quarrel with one another like the meanest of mankind I pray and advise you, Protagoras, and you, Socrates, to agree upon a compromise. Let us be your peacemakers. And do not you, Socrates, aim at this precise and extreme brevity in discourse, if Protagoras objects, but loosen and let go the reins of speech, that your words may be grander and more becoming to you. Neither do you, Protagoras, go forth on the gale with every sail set out of sight of land into an ocean of words, but let there be a mean observed by both of you. Do as I say. And let me also persuade you to choose an arbiter or overseer or president; he will keep watch over your words and will prescribe their proper length.

This proposal was received by the company with universal approval; Callias said that he would not let me off, and they begged me to choose an arbiter. But I said that to choose an umpire of discourse would be unseemly; for if the person chosen was inferior, then the inferior or worse ought not to preside over the better; or if he was equal, neither would that be well; for he who is our equal will do as we do, and what will be the use of choosing him? And if you say, "Let us have a better then,"-to that I answer that you cannot have any one who is wiser than Protagoras. And if you choose another who is not really better, and whom you only say is better, to put another over him as though he were an inferior person would be an unworthy reflection on him; not that, as far as I am concerned, any reflection is of much consequence to me. Let me tell you then what I will do in order that the conversation and discussion may go on as you desire. If Protagoras is not disposed to answer, let him ask and I will answer; and I will endeavour to show at the same time how, as I maintain, he ought to answer: and when I have answered as many questions as he likes to ask, let him in like manner answer me; and if he seems to be not very ready at answering the precise question asked of him, you and I will unite in entreating him, as you entreated me, not to spoil the discussion. And this will require no special arbiter-all of you shall be arbiters.

This was generally approved, and Protagoras, though very much against his will, was obliged to agree that he would ask questions; and when he had put a sufficient number of them, that he would answer in his turn those which he was asked in short replies. He began to put his questions as follows:-

I am of opinion, Socrates, he said, that skill in poetry is the principal part of education; and this I conceive to be the power of knowing what compositions of the poets are correct, and what are not, and how they are to be distinguished, and of explaining when asked the reason of the difference. And I propose to transfer the question which you and I have been discussing to the domain of poetry; we will speak as before of virtue, but in reference to a passage of a poet. Now Simonides says to Scopas the son of Creon the Thessalian:

Hardly on the one hand can a man become truly good, built four-square in hands and feet and mind, a work without a flaw. Do you know the poem? or shall I repeat the whole?

There is no need, I said; for I am perfectly well acquainted with the ode-I have made a careful study of it.

Very well, he said. And do you think that the ode is a good composition, and true?

Yes, I said, both good and true.
But if there is a contradiction, can the composition be good or true?

No, not in that case, I replied.
And is there not a contradiction? he asked. Reflect.
Well, my friend, I have reflected.
And does not the poet proceed to say, "I do not agree with the word of Pittacus, albeit the utterance of a wise man: Hardly can a man be good"? Now you will observe that this is said by the same poet.

I know it.
And do you think, he said, that the two sayings are consistent?
Yes, I said, I think so (at the same time I could not help fearing that there might be something in what he said). And you think otherwise?

Why, he said, how can he be consistent in both? First of all, premising as his own thought, "Hardly can a man become truly good"; and then a little further on in the poem, forgetting, and blaming Pittacus and refusing to agree with him, when he says, "Hardly can a man be good," which is the very same thing. And yet when he blames him who says the same with himself, he blames himself; so that he must be wrong either in his first or his second assertion.

Many of the audience cheered and applauded this. And I felt at first giddy and faint, as if I had received a blow from the hand of an expert boxer, when I heard his words and the sound of the cheering; and to confess the truth, I wanted to get time to think what the meaning of the poet really was. So I turned to Prodicus and called him. Prodicus, I said, Simonides is a countryman of yours, and you ought to come to his aid. I must appeal to you, like the river Scamander in Homer, who, when beleaguered by Achilles, summons the Simois to aid him, saying:

Brother dear, let us both together stay the force of the hero. And I summon you, for I am afraid that Protagoras will make an end of Simonides. Now is the time to rehabilitate Simonides, by the application of your philosophy of synonyms, which enables you to distinguish "will" and "wish," and make other charming distinctions like those which you drew just now. And I should like to know whether you would agree with me; for I am of opinion that there is no contradiction in the words of Simonides. And first of all I wish that you would say whether, in your opinion, Prodicus, "being" is the same as "becoming."

Not the same, certainly, replied Prodicus.
Did not Simonides first set forth, as his own view, that "Hardly can a man become truly good"?

Quite right, said Prodicus.
And then he blames Pittacus, not, as Protagoras imagines, for repeating that which he says himself, but for saying something different from himself. Pittacus does not say as Simonides says, that hardly can a man become good, but hardly can a man be good: and our friend Prodicus would maintain that being, Protagoras, is not the same as becoming; and if they are not the same, then Simonides is not inconsistent with himself. I dare say that Prodicus and many others would say, as Hesiod says,

On the one hand, hardly can a man become good,
For the gods have made virtue the reward of toil,
But on the other hand, when you have climbed the height,
Then, to retain virtue, however difficult the acquisition, is easy.

Prodicus heard and approved; but Protagoras said: Your correction, Socrates, involves a greater error than is contained in the sentence which you are correcting.

Alas! I s
Ihre Spenden helfen, Wikipedia zu betreiben.
Protagoras
aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie
Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche
Dieser Artikel befasst sich mit dem Sophisten Protagoras von Abdera. Den gleichnamigen platonischen Dialog siehe unter Protagoras (Platon).

Protagoras, gr. Πρωταγόρας, aus Abdera in Thrakien (* 490; † 411 v. Chr.) war ein vorsokratischer Philosoph der griechischen Antike und zählt zu den bedeutendsten Sophisten. Er verbrachte den Großteil seines Lebens in Athen, fiel später wegen seiner Lehren bei der Volksversammlung in Ungnade und wurde verbannt. Auf der Flucht nach Sizilien starb Protagoras, seine Schriften wurden vernichtet.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
[Verbergen]

* 1 Lehre
* 2 Rezeption
* 3 Siehe auch
* 4 Literatur
* 5 Anmerkungen
* 6 Weblinks

Lehre [Bearbeiten]

Protagoras lehrte, dass der Mensch zwar von Natur aus danach strebe, eine Religion auszuüben und einer staatlichen Gemeinschaft anzugehören, aber deren Gestaltung ihm selbst überlassen sei. Für Protagoras gab es keine allgemein gültige und verbindliche, sondern nur eine subjektive Wahrheit.

Er prägte den berühmten Satz: Der Mensch ist das Maß aller Dinge, der Seienden, dass sie sind, und der Nichtseienden, dass sie nicht sind (auch bekannt als Homo-Mensura-Satz). Der Homo-mensura-Satz des Protagoras wurde bereits von seinen zeitgenössischen religiösen Widersachern als Ausdruck eines extremen epistemischen Relativismus gedeutet. Außerdem beschäftigte er sich mit dem Sein der Menschen: Das Sein der Menschen ist subjektiv und wandelbar.

Seine zahlreichen von antiken Autoren erwähnten Schriften sind heute verloren. Unser Wissen über Protagoras' Lehre beruht daher nur auf Berichten anderer antiker Quellen. Einer dieser Berichte stammt von Sextus Empiricus, welcher den Homo-mensura-Satz folgendermaßen erläutert (ob diese Erläuterung von Protagoras selbst stammt ist umstritten, dennoch gibt sie wichtige Hinweise zur Interpretation des Satzes): Protagoras meine, dass sich "die Begriffe (logoi) von allen Erscheinungen in der Materie fänden, so dass die Materie als solche alles sein könne, was sie allen scheine. Die Menschen indes erfassten bald dieses, bald jenes, entsprechend ihren verschiedenen Zuständen." Laut Sextus' Bericht ist Protagoras zwar ein Vertreter des Subjektivismus und Relativismus, doch der Einfluss des Eleatismus, der eine objektive Wahrheit annimmt, ist deutlich, da die Spanne aller Erscheinungsmöglichkeiten eines Objektes in diesem selbst (d.h. in dessen Materie) angelegt ist. Der Mensch nimmt (wie durch einen Filter) aber nur eine Erscheinungsmöglichkeit wahr. So ist der gleiche Wind für den einen kalt, für den anderen warm. Wärme und Kälte liegen aber im Wind begründet, nicht im Menschen.

Protagoras ist einer der ersten prominenten Vertreter des Skeptizismus bzw. des Agnostizismus. In seiner um 415 v. Chr. geschriebenen Abhandlung Über die Götter schreibt er: Was die Götter angeht, so ist es mir unmöglich, zu wissen, ob sie existieren oder nicht, noch, was ihre Gestalt sei. Die Kräfte, die mich hindern, es zu wissen, sind zahlreich, und auch ist die Frage verworren und das menschliche Leben kurz.

Rezeption [Bearbeiten]

Aufgrund seines Bekenntnisses, nichts über die Götter wissen zu können, ist es Protagoras auch unmöglich, irgendwelche göttlichen Maße oder Bewertungen göttlichen Ursprungs anzugeben. Darum ist sein Homo-mensura-Satz der Ausdruck menschlicher Bescheidenheit, als Mensch nicht über göttliche Maßstäbe verfügen zu können, sondern ausschließlich über menschliche. Protagoras wurde seine Bescheidenheit von der Antike an bis heute als Überheblichkeit ausgelegt, allerdings von solchen Denkern, die der Ansicht waren, dass ihnen sicheres Wissen zugänglich sei. Dies gilt für Platon und Aristoteles ebenso wie für ungezählte christliche Theologen.[1]

Platon erwähnt ihn im „Theaitetos“ (152a) und widmet ihm den Dialog Protagoras, in dem er im Gespräch mit Sokrates einen Schöpfungsmythos der Menschheit formuliert, der als mythische Einkleidung einer Demokratietheorie verstanden werden kann.

Siehe auch [Bearbeiten]

* Euathlon
* Relativismus
* Subjekt
* Radikaler Konstruktivismus

Literatur [Bearbeiten]

* Wilhelm Capelle: Die Vorsokratiker. Fragmente und Quellenberichte.
* Hermann Diels, Walther Kranz: Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und Deutsch. 3 Bände.

Anmerkungen [Bearbeiten]

1. ↑ Wolfgang Deppert: Relativität und Sicherheit, in: Michael Rahnfeld (Hrsg.): Gibt es sicheres Wissen?, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, Leipzig 2006, ISBN 3-86583-128-1, S. 90-188.

Weblinks [Bearbeiten]
Wikiquote
Wikiquote: Protagoras – Zitate

* Literatur von und über Protagoras im Katalog der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
* Carol Poster: Eintrag in der Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (englisch, inkl. Literaturangaben)
* Der Protagoras-Dialog Platons in der Übersetzung von F. Schleiermacher
* Gottwein, Textauswahl zur Vorsokratischen Philosophie

Personendaten
NAME Protagoras
KURZBESCHREIBUNG Sophist
GEBURTSDATUM 490 v. Chr.
STERBEDATUM 411 v. Chr.
Von „http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras“
Kategorien: Philosoph (Antike) | Mann
Ansichten

* Artikel
* Diskussion
* Seite bearbeiten

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* Diese Seite wurde zuletzt am 12. April 2008 um 06:29 Uhr geändert.
* Ihr Text steht unter der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation.
Wikipedia® ist eine eingetragene Marke der Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
* Datenschutz
* Über Wikipedia
* Impressum

Protagoras
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •
Jump to: navigation, search
Western Philosophy
Pre-Socratic philosophy
Bust of Protagoras
Name
Protagoras (Πρωταγόρας)
Birth ca. 490
Death 420 BC
School/tradition Ionian Philosophy
Main interests language, semantics, relativism
Notable ideas The "Antilogies", which consists of two premises: the first is "Before any uncertainty two opposite theses can validly be confronted", the second is its complement: the need to "strengthen the weaker argument".
Influenced Plato

Protagoras (Greek: Πρωταγόρας) (ca. 490– 420 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and is numbered as one of the sophists by Plato. In his dialogue Protagoras, Plato credits him with having invented the role of the professional sophist or teacher of virtue.

Protagoras was born in Abdera, Thrace, in Ancient Greece. "In Plato's Protagoras, before the company of Socrates, Prodicus, and Hippias, he states that he is old enough to be the father of any of them. This suggests a date of not later than 490 B.C." [1] In the Meno (91e) he is said to have died at about the age of seventy after forty years as a practicing Sophist. His death, then, may be assumed to have occurred circa 420." [2] He was well-known in Athens and became a friend of Pericles. Plutarch relates a story in which the two spend a whole day discussing an interesting point of legal responsibility, that probably involved a more philosophical question of causation.[3] "In an athletic contest a man had been accidentally hit and killed with a javelin. Was his death to be attributed to the javelin itself, to the man who threw it, or to the authorities responsible for the conduct of the games?"[4] Protagoras was also renowned as a teacher who addressed subjects connected to virtue and political life. He was especially involved in the question of whether virtue could be taught, a commonplace issue of 5th Century B.C. Greece (and related to modern readers through Plato's dialogue). Rather than educators who offered specific, practical training in rhetoric and public speaking, Protagoras attempted to formulate a reasoned understanding, on a very general level, of a wide range of human phenomena (for example, language and education). He also seems to have had an interest in orthoepeia, or the correct use of words (a topic more strongly associated with his fellow-sophist Prodicus).

His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not" [5] Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase has been passed down to us without any context, and its meaning is open to interpretation. Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and uses his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to objective and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes to Protagoras an early form of phenomenalism,[6] in which what is or appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual.

Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism. In his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life" (80B4 DK).

Very few fragments from Protagoras have survived, though he is known to have written several different works: Antilogiae and Truth. The latter is cited by Plato, and was known alternatively as 'The Throws' (a wrestling term referring to the attempt to floor an opponent). It began with the "man the measure" pronouncement.

The Protagoras crater on the Moon was named in his honor.

[edit] Protagoras and the scientific method

Even though Protagoras was a contemporary of Socrates, the philosopher of Abdera is considered a presocratic thinker. He followed the Ionian tradition that distinguishes the School of Abdera. The distinctive note of this tradition is criticism, a systematic discussion that can be identified as "presocratic dialectic", an alternative to the Aristotelian demonstrative method which, according to Karl Popper, has the fault of being dogmatic. The main contribution of Protagoras was perhaps his method of finding a better argument by discarding the less viable one. This is known as "Antilogies", and consists of two premises; the first is "Before any uncertainty two opposite theses can validly be confronted", the second is its complement: the need to "strengthen the weaker argument".

Protagoras knew that the less appealing argument could hide the best answer, which is why he stated that it was constantly necessary to strengthen the weakest argument. Having been born before Socrates himself, this progressive viewpoint in the development of consensual truth could conceivably have contributed to the progressive styles of many of the other great minds which followed him. His most recent defender is Joseph Margolis, especially in the latter's The Truth About Relativism (Blackwell's, 1991).

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Guthrie, Williams. The Sophists. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1971. ISBN 0521096669. p. 262-3.
2. ^ Ibid.
3. ^ Ibid. p. 263.
4. ^ Plutarch. "Pericles." Lives. p. 36.
5. ^ (80B1 DK). This quotation is recapitulated in Plato's Theaetetus, section 152a. [1] Sextus Empiricus (Adv. math. 7.60) gives a direct quotation, πάντων χρημάτων μέτρον ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τῶν μὲν ὄντων ὡς ἔστιν, τῶν δὲ οὐκ ὄντων ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν. The translation "Man is the measure..." has been familiar in English since before the rise of gender-neutral language; in Greek, Protagoras makes a general statement, not about men, but about human beings (his word is anthrōpos).
6. ^ See e.g. John Wild, "On the Nature and Aims of Phenomenology," Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 3 (1942), p. 88: "Phenomenalism is as old as Protagoras."

[hide]
v • d • e
Pre-Socratic philosophers
Milesian School: Thales • Anaximander • Anaximenes of Miletus
Pythagoreans: Pythagoras • Philolaus • Alcmaeon • Archytas • Timaeus
Ephesian School: Heraclitus — Eleatic School: Xenophanes • Parmenides • Zeno of Elea • Melissus of Samos
Pluralist School: Anaxagoras • Empedocles — Atomist School: Leucippus • Democritus
Sophism: Protagoras • Gorgias • Prodicus • Hippias
Diogenes of Apollonia • Pherecydes

Template:Ancient Olive Garden
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Protagoras
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras"
Categories: 490 BC births | 420 BC deaths | Ancient Greek philosophers | Presocratic philosophers | Ancient Greek rhetoricians | Sophists | Relativism | Abderites | Ancient Thracian Greeks | Metics in Athens
Views

* Article
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History

Personal tools

* Log in / create account

Navigation

* Main Page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article

Interaction

* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help

Search

Toolbox

* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page

Languages

!
Protagoras
From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
There are two sides to every question.
There are two sides to every question.

Protagoras (c. 481 BC - c. 420 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher. He was a pre-Socratic philosopher and is numbered as one of the sophists by Plato, who in his dialogue of the same name credits him with having invented the role of the professional sophist or teacher of "virtue".

[edit] Sourced

* Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not.
o As quoted in Theaetetus by Plato section 152a

* There are two sides to every question.
o As quoted in Lives of Eminent Philosophers, by Diogenes Laertius, Book IX, Sec. 51

[edit] Unsourced

* As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist, or what they are like.

* Let us hold our discussion together in our own persons, making trial of the truth and of ourselves.

* No intelligent man believes that anybody ever willingly errs or willingly does base and evil deeds; they are well aware that all who do base and evil things do them unwillingly.

* The art of measurement, by showing us the truth would have brought our soul into the repose of abiding by the truth, and so would have saved our life.

* The Athenians are right to accept advice from anyone, since it is incumbent on everyone to share in that sort of excellence, or else there can be no city at all.

* When it comes to consideration of how to do well in running the city, which must proceed entirely through justice and soundness of mind.

* You, Socrates, began by saying that virtue can't be taught, and now you are insisting on the opposite, trying to show that all things are knowledge, justice, soundness of mind, even courage, from which it would follow that virtue most certainly can be taught.

[edit] External links
Wikipedia
Wikipedia has an article about:
Protagoras
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Protagoras"
Categories: Philosophers | Greeks | Deaths BCE
Views

* Page
* Discussion
* Edit
* History

Personal tools

* Log in / create account

Navigation

* Main Page
* Community portal
* Village pump
* Recent changes
* Random page
* Help
* Donate
* Contact Wikiquote

Wikiquote links

* People
* Literary works
* Proverbs
* Films
* TV shows
* Themes
* Categories

Search

Toolbox

* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link

In other languages

* Česky
* Deutsch
* Ελληνικά
* Hrvatski
* Nederlands
* 日本語
* Polski
* Português
* Slovenčina
* Türkçe

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* This page was last modified 15:23, 16 January 2008.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
Wikiquote is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikiquote
* Disclaimers

Protagoras
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Have questions? Find out how to ask questions and get answers. •
Jump to: navigation, search
Western Philosophy
Pre-Socratic philosophy
Bust of Protagoras
Name
Protagoras (Πρωταγόρας)
Birth ca. 490
Death 420 BC
School/tradition Ionian Philosophy
Main interests language, semantics, relativism
Notable ideas The "Antilogies", which consists of two premises: the first is "Before any uncertainty two opposite theses can validly be confronted", the second is its complement: the need to "strengthen the weaker argument".
Influenced Plato

Protagoras (Greek: Πρωταγόρας) (ca. 490– 420 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and is numbered as one of the sophists by Plato. In his dialogue Protagoras, Plato credits him with having invented the role of the professional sophist or teacher of virtue.

Protagoras was born in Abdera, Thrace, in Ancient Greece. "In Plato's Protagoras, before the company of Socrates, Prodicus, and Hippias, he states that he is old enough to be the father of any of them. This suggests a date of not later than 490 B.C." [1] In the Meno (91e) he is said to have died at about the age of seventy after forty years as a practicing Sophist. His death, then, may be assumed to have occurred circa 420." [2] He was well-known in Athens and became a friend of Pericles. Plutarch relates a story in which the two spend a whole day discussing an interesting point of legal responsibility, that probably involved a more philosophical question of causation.[3] "In an athletic contest a man had been accidentally hit and killed with a javelin. Was his death to be attributed to the javelin itself, to the man who threw it, or to the authorities responsible for the conduct of the games?"[4] Protagoras was also renowned as a teacher who addressed subjects connected to virtue and political life. He was especially involved in the question of whether virtue could be taught, a commonplace issue of 5th Century B.C. Greece (and related to modern readers through Plato's dialogue). Rather than educators who offered specific, practical training in rhetoric and public speaking, Protagoras attempted to formulate a reasoned understanding, on a very general level, of a wide range of human phenomena (for example, language and education). He also seems to have had an interest in orthoepeia, or the correct use of words (a topic more strongly associated with his fellow-sophist Prodicus).

His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not" [5] Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase has been passed down to us without any context, and its meaning is open to interpretation. Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and uses his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to objective and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes to Protagoras an early form of phenomenalism,[6] in which what is or appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual.

Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism. In his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life" (80B4 DK).

Very few fragments from Protagoras have survived, though he is known to have written several different works: Antilogiae and Truth. The latter is cited by Plato, and was known alternatively as 'The Throws' (a wrestling term referring to the attempt to floor an opponent). It began with the "man the measure" pronouncement.

The Protagoras crater on the Moon was named in his honor.

[edit] Protagoras and the scientific method

Even though Protagoras was a contemporary of Socrates, the philosopher of Abdera is considered a presocratic thinker. He followed the Ionian tradition that distinguishes the School of Abdera. The distinctive note of this tradition is criticism, a systematic discussion that can be identified as "presocratic dialectic", an alternative to the Aristotelian demonstrative method which, according to Karl Popper, has the fault of being dogmatic. The main contribution of Protagoras was perhaps his method of finding a better argument by discarding the less viable one. This is known as "Antilogies", and consists of two premises; the first is "Before any uncertainty two opposite theses can validly be confronted", the second is its complement: the need to "strengthen the weaker argument".

Protagoras knew that the less appealing argument could hide the best answer, which is why he stated that it was constantly necessary to strengthen the weakest argument. Having been born before Socrates himself, this progressive viewpoint in the development of consensual truth could conceivably have contributed to the progressive styles of many of the other great minds which followed him. His most recent defender is Joseph Margolis, especially in the latter's The Truth About Relativism (Blackwell's, 1991).

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Guthrie, Williams. The Sophists. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1971. ISBN 0521096669. p. 262-3.
2. ^ Ibid.
3. ^ Ibid. p. 263.
4. ^ Plutarch. "Pericles." Lives. p. 36.
5. ^ (80B1 DK). This quotation is recapitulated in Plato's Theaetetus, section 152a. [1] Sextus Empiricus (Adv. math. 7.60) gives a direct quotation, πάντων χρημάτων μέτρον ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τῶν μὲν ὄντων ὡς ἔστιν, τῶν δὲ οὐκ ὄντων ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν. The translation "Man is the measure..." has been familiar in English since before the rise of gender-neutral language; in Greek, Protagoras makes a general statement, not about men, but about human beings (his word is anthrōpos).
6. ^ See e.g. John Wild, "On the Nature and Aims of Phenomenology," Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 3 (1942), p. 88: "Phenomenalism is as old as Protagoras."

[hide]
v • d • e
Pre-Socratic philosophers
Milesian School: Thales • Anaximander • Anaximenes of Miletus
Pythagoreans: Pythagoras • Philolaus • Alcmaeon • Archytas • Timaeus
Ephesian School: Heraclitus — Eleatic School: Xenophanes • Parmenides • Zeno of Elea • Melissus of Samos
Pluralist School: Anaxagoras • Empedocles — Atomist School: Leucippus • Democritus
Sophism: Protagoras • Gorgias • Prodicus • Hippias
Diogenes of Apollonia • Pherecydes

Template:Ancient Olive Garden
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Protagoras
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras"
Categories: 490 BC births | 420 BC deaths | Ancient Greek philosophers | Presocratic philosophers | Ancient Greek rhetoricians | Sophists | Relativism | Abderites | Ancient Thracian Greeks | Metics in Athens
Views

* Article
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History

Personal tools

* Log in / create account

Navigation

* Main Page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article

Interaction

* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Cite this page

*
* 中文

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* This page was last modified on 12 April 2008, at 04:27.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikipedia
* Disclaimers

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!

Gimnazjum