For no wise man, as I believe, will allow that any human being errs of his own accord, or of his own accord does any evil or mischief.
Context: Socrates states this fundamental tenet of Socratic intellectualism, arguing that all wrongdoing is due to ignorance rather than a willing desire for evil. This underpins his later argument about virtue being knowledge.
If then the good is pleasure, and the evil is pain, the only cause of our doing wrong is ignorance, and the art of measurement is the salvation of human life.
Context: Socrates proposes this 'art of measurement' as a way to calculate pleasures and pains, suggesting that a lack of this knowledge leads people to choose what appears good but is ultimately bad. This is central to his argument that virtue is knowledge.
And the result is that I, who said that virtue cannot be taught, am now striving to show that everything is knowledge, and Protagoras, who said that it could be taught, is now striving to show that it is anything but knowledge.
Context: Socrates concludes the dialogue by pointing out the ironic reversal of their initial positions. He, who doubted virtue's teachability, now argues it's knowledge, while Protagoras, who affirmed it, struggles to explain how knowledge alone makes one virtuous.
Is wisdom, then, temperance, courage, justice, piety—are these five names for the same thing, or is each name the name of a distinct essence?
Context: Socrates poses this crucial question to Protagoras, initiating a deep philosophical inquiry into the unity of virtues. He challenges Protagoras' initial assertion that these virtues are distinct parts of a whole.
And Zeus, fearing that the entire race would be extinguished, sent Hermes to bring reverence and justice to mankind.
Context: Protagoras recounts a myth to explain the origin and universal distribution of civic virtues among humans. He argues that these virtues are essential for the survival of human society and therefore must be teachable.
For justice, and temperance, and piety, are not like the parts of the face, which are different from one another... but rather like the parts of gold, which are alike and differ only in being larger or smaller.
Context: Protagoras uses this analogy to argue that virtues, while distinct, are fundamentally similar in nature, all being forms of knowledge or components of a single overarching virtue. This is a central point in the debate over the unity of virtues.
Many men are utterly unrighteous, and impious, and intemperate, and ignorant, and yet they are most courageous.
Context: Protagoras presents this argument to challenge Socrates' idea that all virtues are reducible to knowledge, specifically asserting that courage can exist independently of other virtues or wisdom.
Those who formerly practiced it, being afraid of odium, concealed and disguised themselves, some as poets, like Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides.
Context: Protagoras explains that the art of sophistry is ancient but that earlier practitioners hid their true profession to avoid public disapproval. He proudly proclaims himself an open Sophist and teacher of virtue.
The wise man will always call things by their right names.
Context: Prodicus, another Sophist present, emphasizes the importance of precise verbal distinctions and the correct use of words. This reflects a common concern among Sophists for rhetoric and linguistic clarity.
I flatter myself that I know a great deal about many things.
Context: Hippias, another Sophist at Callias's house, makes this characteristic boast. His statement reflects the general self-assuredness and broad claims of knowledge typical of many Sophists.