Menexenus featured earlier in the Lysis dialogue and ended up a student oF Socrates. In this dialogue he encounters Socrates they discuss who will become the chosen funerary orator. Socrates thinks that the funerary orations are not very impressive, that it is trivial to get your speech received well if you are praising your very audience. To praise one people in front of another would be a feat though. He says that the speeches are not improvised as Menexenus thought and are in fact prepared. Socrates has been learning oratory from Aspasia, the famed wife of Pericles. He retells a speech that she had him memorize.

The dialogue is odd since it is mostly only an admittedly fine speech. You could interpret it as a jab against the oratory sophists and the superior ability of the philsophers, but that still leaves with with meagre content. But since Aristotle cites it multiple times it is solidly attributed to Plato.

Speech: The speech commences with it's purpose, to praise the dead the and urge the living to live as bravely and virtously. To honor the dead the speech will first go through their origin, then their upbringing and finally their deeds.

The lands of Athens are bountiful with grain and blessed with olive oil, the dispute between Athena and Neptune of ownership is brought up. The supremacy of man over all other animals is stated. No matter their origins or status, the government of Athens selects the best of merit to lead. Unlike in other states, all citizens are equal and none may enslave the other. Once it was a monarchy, now it is a democracy.

Athens stood up for the freedom of Greeks and was willing to fight both barbarians and other Greeks to free them from enslavement.

Together with Eretria Athens fought against Persia. At the battle of Marathon Athens alone beat them, with the Spartans arriving the day after the battle. At Plataea the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians jointly secured victory.

Then the Peloponnesian War broke out where the Delian League led by Sparta fought the Peloponnesian League led by Athens.

At the naval battle of Arginusae the Athenians won, but shamefuly failed to retrieve the dead and wounded from the sea.

After the war Athens had a civil war where the Thirty Tyrants oligarchy imposed by Sparata were ousted.

What differs Athens from the other Greek state is its xenophobia and lack of foreigners.

Any gifts of riches, beauty and strength are wasted if not you are virtous. The parents of the dead should bear their grief and be proud of the glorious lives of their sons.

nothing too much, adage of temperance and self-reliance

Observations:

Socrates learned music from Laprus and oratory from Antiphon.

To truly be able to tell lies a liar needs to know the truth and intentionally evade it. In this manner they have greater abilities than those who can only tell the truth. Socrates gives an example that only someone that really knows math would be able to lie about what the product of two numbers are, without unintentionally telling the truth. In my own understanding you can compare an ignorant liara and knowledgeable liar by a broken clock and a functioning but incorrectly set clock. The first will be wrong all but one second of the day. The second will never tell the right time as it's hands keep moving at the same pace of a correctly set clock but will never intersect.

Hippias accuses Socrates of arguing unfairly, Socrates says that he only argues so dilligently as to reach the truth of a debate. He will never shy from learning and will not be too ashamed to admit when someone has teached him something.

It's clear that Hippias and Socrates are both defining "better" in different terms, the first in a manner of morality and virtue, the other in terms of ability. At the end they are both perplexed and while neither has conceded their point they do not feel sure.

Observations: I would almost expect a moral denounciation of the act of lying no matter the circumstances. Though that was not a concern in Euthydemus. Would the Socrates of the Gorgias dialogue really agree with lying?

If Hippias really is skilled in so many areas as Socrates (ironically) says it would be very impressive.

Even though it is a very short dialogue I felt it dragged out too much, Socrates repeatedly states examples of restrained ability being superior unrestrained disability to Hippias.

First Socrates and Hippias discuss why previous intellectuals did not involve themselves in public affairs. Hippis thinks that the new generation of thinkers have improved their skill over their predecessors. They were simply unable to participate in public affairs like the sophists. In fact the large sums of money that they are making is a testament to their abilities. Hippias claims to have made more money than any other two sophists together.

Strangely though Hippias has visited Sparta the most of any city but has not made any money from his visits. The law is that the Spartans cannot get an education that goes agains their customs. The law is mean to be beneficial, and if the Spartans will not get an education from the most brilliant teacher, then they are lawbreakers. I suspect this part is meant to hint that the Spartans were clever enough to not get educated by Hippias.

They then start discussing the main subject of the dialogue, what the fine is. There are many fine things, but what is it that makes them all fine? As in Euthyphro, Hippias will give an answer and continue to change it when Socrates asks him. Hippias seems to struggle with conceiving of a central concept that all fine things have in common and will frequently continue to give examples of things that are fine, instead of defining the fine.

First, Hippias says a fine girl is a fine thing. But what is it that makes things fine? What is added to them? Then gold is fine. But there are fine things without gold, such as statues by master craftsmen that use other materials such as ivory. Then ivory is also fine. Maybe what is appropriate for a thing is fine. Then there are cases when wood is more fine than gold, such as spoons for stirring a pot.

Then fine is in comparison. One is more fine than the other. Then all is foul in comparison with the gods.

But we want to find what is fine in everything at all times. Hippias says to be honored, healthy, to reach old age, to make a memorial to your parents at their death and be honored by your children at your death, that is a fine thing for everyone at all times. Is it fine for the gods to die and be buried by their children? No, then it's not fine for everyone.

The fine is what when added to things make them seem fine. But there are times when we consider things fine only when they actually are so and are not just perceived as. Are there even any qualities that are always perceived and cannot be percepted erronously? Things in themselves?

Perhaps the fine is ability to do things. What about the ability to do bad things? The fine is the ability to do good things, it is the beneficial.

What is pleasant in sight and sound is a fine thing. This combination of perceptions has Socrates explain to Hippias the difference between union and intersection which he struggles with. Two numbers can each be odd but both even.

Finally, Hippias goes back to simply giving an example of a thing he considers fine, making a well and fine speech. Socrates says if he gave this answer then his debater would mock him, how could he tell if a speech is fine if he cannot explain what the fine is?

Observations: Hippias is the first person to express heterosexual sentiment "a fine girl is a fine thing" in all my readings of Plato, does his portrayal mean something? This another fault of the sophists, the lack of appreciation for the aesthethics of young men? Maybe when I read Symposium I will find out more.

Even Euthydemus and Dionysodorus were portrayed as more clever than Hippias.

In this dialogue and many others Socrates will stress the difference between the effect a thing causes and the thing itself. Plato thinks this is an important concept to keep in mind.

As with any dialogue where Socrates debates a fool, I think it should be stressed that mocking them is a grave mistake, it should instead be taken as a warning of the mistakes we can make.

Socrates starts with asking Lysis about how his parents restrict him. They love him, but they prevent him from doing as he wants and desires. This is because they trust the experts above Lysis, at least for the moment. To get the best outcome we defer to those with expertise in all matters, such as health, ship piloting and so on. A common idea in the dialogues is that the worse should submit and learn from the better, maybe this is the perspective how Lysis restrictions by his family should be viewed from. The ideas in this first discussion does not seem to show picked up later on, is it to bring up the question to how trust to experts and trust to friends conflict?

Directionality of love in friendship. Do both love each other or just on the other? What about those who cannot love back like children and animals?

First the idea that friendship is the attraction of like to like is explored. But a bad person in the company of another bad person will make the other worse, which is not friendship. The bad cannot be friend with the bad which refutes the similarity attraction hypothesis. But good people can be friends peerhaps? But what can a good person offer another? A good person is self-sufficient and does not desire others, which means they do not desire friends and must be enemies to everyone. A silly conclusion.

Hesiod says that the similar are actually in conflict with each other, is it instead that the different are drawn to each other, like hot and cold? But the good and bad cannot go together. What about the neutral? The neutral can love the good and hate the bad. The body is declared neutral, and it loves health to ward off disease. Socrates brings up the distinction between loving a thing and loving the effect that comes with a thing. We love the effect of medicine, not medicine in itself. But can you love anything but effects then, is it possible to love a thing? Friendship is then the love of good. But what if the bad disappeared, without disease the body would have no love of health. You love what you lack.

But how does the love of lack theory address the directionality aspect brought up earlier? Is it a friendship only of both has something the other lacks?

Observations: Socrates says the body is neutral in this dialogue. In Phaedo I got the impression that the body is steadily corrupting the soul with desires and wants to distract it from the truth.

This dialogue and Charmides shows Socrates popularity with the young men and boys of Athens which is mentioned in Laches and Apology. As in Alcibiades and Charmides, Socrates fondness of beautiful boys is featured. This relationship between old and young men in Ancient Greece is complicated and debated.

It's said that all of Western philosophy can be summarized as footnotes of Plato. This dialogue shows that even pickup artistry as an art was founded by the great thinker. Socrates advices Hippothales on how to best charm and keep his lover. If you praise the one you love you end up magnifying your failure if you fail to catch them, and if you lose them the loss will be even sourer. You should keep your boyfriend down so that their confidence does not swell.

Socrates proclaims to value friendship and companions highly above material things. He would rather have a friend than all of Darius gold.

They start out with the idea that learning to fight in heavy armor will be good for the children. It's great physical training and should make them braver in battle. However, one remarks that those who are dedicated to this art rarely become accomplished. Either this art is of little value or not an art at all.

Socrates clarifies that they should not focus so much on the art of heavy armor fighting. It is the effect of it that is desired, not the thing bringing the effect. What is it exactly they want for the children? Socrate says it is the cultivation of their souls. I think everyone is a little quick to accept this, not one remark about whether the body or the souls is fundamental to man.

They debate about who knows virtue and can teach it. Socrates puts forward a common standard by Plato for knowledge whether someone has knowledge: if you cannot say when you learned it or from whom then you probably don't know it. Self-taught people must make demonstrations of their expertise to prove their worth, interestingly Socrates professes to be self-taught since he could not afford lessons from the sophists. But didn't he say he was taught by Prodicus in Protagoras?

Learning what virtue really is is difficult, they decide to focus on finding a part of virtue, courage (manliness).

The first answer is the simplest, courage is to fight without running away. However there are many fighting styles that include running away and turning back to fight, such as cavalry and sometimes the Spartans. What is the common courage for everyone?

Is courage the endurance of the soul? It cannot be in all cases, such as endurance with folly which is not admireable. It is endurance with wisdom. But only in some circumstances like war, endurance with wisdom in money making is not courage.

Is a man fighting with knowledge that that he has an advantage more brave than someone fighting without knowing of an advantage? No, but then we have disqualified wise endurance in favor of foolish endurance.

Finaly answer, courage is wisdom, the knowledge of what is fearful and hopeful in war. To tell good and bad in the past, present and future. But this "courage" is not a part of virtue, it is all of virtue!

Aporia, the definition of courage is not found at the end of the dialogue.

Observations: Maybe Plato it felt too easy to mention Pericles in this dialogue about the transferability of virtue to offspring.

The dialogue ends with a citation of Homer that made an appearance in Protagoras: "Modesty is not a good mate of a needy man."

First Socrates establishes Alcibiades's ignorance. They agree that an important skill of a politician is to lead the city to take just actions. But when did he learn what the less and more just is, and from whom? Alcibiades is asked these questions about many matters and finds himself in a state of confusion when he cannot answer. You can learn things in general from people, like your language, but there are many matters where people disagree on where you must defer to expertise such as health or shipmaking. And since Alcibiades has not learned how to tell the less and more just apart from an expert he must be ignorant. Justice is one subject that people have plenty of disagreements on, such as the Illiad and the Oddyssey, it requires expertise to learn.

One important lesson on knowledge that this dialogue imparts is the levels of competence:

1. Unknown Incompetence

2. Known Incompetence

3. Known Competence

4. Unknown Competence

Socrates explains the step from 1 to 3 to Alcibiades. Plato might not agree on the 4th one, to know something without knowing it. After all you can't teach what you aren't aware of. But it's still not ignorance, maybe the conclusions of the Ion dialogue about inspiration could fit here.

The dialogue explores the relation between what is good, just, admireable and advantageous. At first Alcibiades posits that some sactions are admireable but bad, such as risking your life. Then he agrees that death is preferable to cowardice. What is just is also admireable and advantages and therefore good. Like in most dialogues it is established that all virtues go together.

The importance of education is stressed. Alcibiades claims that even though he is uneducated and ignorant, his noble origins and natural talents will outclass the other politicians in Athens. Socrates angrily rebukes him that he will never realise his ambitions by having such low intellectual ambitions. If he will measure himself with the idiots of the polis he will never rival the kings of Sparta and Persia who make his own origins look humble with their noble houses and access to education.

The inscription at the temple of Delphi, "Know thyself", is central to this dialogue. What is the self that must be cultivated? As the tools of a worker are separate from the worker that uses them, the body is separate of the self that uses it. The self is identified by ruling out all but one of three alternatives. It cannot be the body, as it is ruled by the soul. It cannot be the combination of soul and body, as the body does not partake in the ruling. Then the soul is the only candidate for what the self is. It is our souls that must be improved. This definition is important as it means material thing such as accumulating wealth and other tools does not count as cultivating yourself.

The question of whether virtue can be taught is brought up, as in other dialogues like Meno and Protagoras. Again Pericles and his inept sons are shown as an example of why virtue is not so easy to learn, however it does seem to imply that teachers with real knowledge of virtue can teach it, such as Zeno?

Whether a nod or a predessor to the philosopher-kings of Republic, virtue is established as the main skill of the statesman. Good is when everyone does their own work according to expertise, and politicians must impart virtue on a city to bring good and harmony.

Observations: This dialogue is supposed to be the origin behind Platonic love, where Socrates loves Alcibiades for his soul and not (necessarily?) sexually.

My Take: I really liked this dialogue and agree that its a good introduction to philosophy. It succinctly goes over a lot of important concepts to start out thinking about things and is not too technical or long for a beginner to start with.

Summary: Sophrosyne is a greek concept of excellent character and soundness of mind that is difficult to translate to english. The translation im using uses the word "temperance" which doesnt quite cover all it's meaning. The main participants in this dialogue are Charmides and Critias that discuss with Socrates what temperance can be defined as.

Charmides is a young man famous for his beauty and temperance. Critias is a person we have seen in previous dialogues who has influenced Charmides. These people are important as they later partake in the oligarchy imposed on Athens by Sparta, forming the Thirty Tyrannts. In the dialogue these people are reasonably and virtous but show hints of their authoritarianism. In Apology we learn that Socrates himself was against the oligarchy and would have suffered consequences had it not collapsed.

Starts with medicine analogy where Socrates explains how doctors never cure just one part of the body but restore health to it as a whole. the soul is the source of health and disease. Spiritual corruption brings bodily unhealth. In the Protagoras dialogue the conclusion seemed to be that temperance was ultimately knowledge like the other virtues, could it be a reference to this?

Throughout the dialogue they debate different possible anwers as to what temperance can be. First Charmides suggests that temperance ins a form of quieteness. Quietness also has a connotation of slowness in Greek. But this definition is disqualified, Socrates brings up examples of things we deem virtous that are not slow or quiet such as writing fast or a body being quick. Next Charmides suggests that it's modesty, as people are ashamed of not being temperate. But this is disqualified because Homer does not deem it suitable for all people? I do not quite understand the reasoning.

Finally, Critias suggests that temperance is minding one's own business. But good people can also do works for others. Such as doctors or craftsmen that do good works for others. Critias makes a distinction between doing and making, where making can never be bad, citing Hesiod. So a temperate person does good for himself and for others. But how does he know when he does good and when he does bad? If a doctor does not know when he does good for another, wouldn't that mean he is ignorant of his own temperance? But temperance ought to include knowing oneself. Is temperance then a science of sciences? The temperate man then knows what he knows and what he does not, in order to always do take the correct decision. They reach the conclusion that this is not temperance, but in fact the science of good and evil instead. Like with the Protagoras dialogue, virtue is always knowledge.

It's impossible to know what you do not know.

At the end Critias commands Charmides to learn from Socrates, and Charmides says that he will follow his command and that Socrates has no choice and the matter and should not oppose him. This can be seen as a nod to the fate of Critias and Charmides, that while they are virtous in the dialogue they will become tyrrants.

Observations:

The dialogue starts out with Socrates saying he will pretend to have a charm that can cure Charmides headaches. I am a bit surprised at this deception, from the Gorgias dialogue i would expect lying to be something Socrates would be against.

The dialogue mentions two mythical doctors (shamans?) named Zalmoxis the Thracian and Abaris the Hyperborean.

Summary: The dialogue starts with Socrates retelling to his friend Crito his encounter with Euthydemus an Dionysodorus. Euthydemus and Dionysodorus are two sophists that were previously occupied with the arts of war and laws but have taken up a new skill. Socrates wants them to teach him, but to he's cautious that the sophists wont teach him due to his old age. So he takes the young Clinias with him to the sophists and asks them to convince Clinias to pursue wisdom and philosophy. Ctessipus, a lover of Clinias, also partakes in the meeting with the sophists. Euthydemus starts by asking Clinias who learns, the wise or the ignorant? Clinias answers the first, after which he's asked whether teachers teach the learners and whether those who learn know what they are learning. He answers yes and that the learning do not know. Euthydemus then says that if the learners do not know then they are ignorant and Clinias was wrong about who learns. The sophists followers laugh at Clinias's mistake. During the questioning Dionysodorus tells Socrates that Clinias will be wrong no matter the answer.

This repeats throughout the entire dialogue, any questions and debate has the sophists employ wordplays exploiting the short and imprecise answers to make the questioned wrong and ridiculed every time. Ctessipus has a dog that is _his_, the dog is a father to puppies and Ctessipus beats the dog. Therefore the dog is _his_ father, Ctessipus is sibling with puppies and he beats his father. By the end Ctessipus has figured out their game and employs it against them.

In the ending conversation between Socrates and Crito the conclusion seems to be that even though the sophist's skill does not give deep insight or knowledge of a subject, one should still maintain curiosity for all things as a philosopher?

Overall this dialogue seems to be very sarcastic, Socrates constantly praises the skills of the sophists, but i doubt that this is Plato's sincere opinion. He must have had lots of fun writing it.

Observations:

The divine sign that Socrates has is mentioned in this dialogue, it's the first time outside of Apology that I've seen it mentioned. It tells him not to leave the Lyceum so that he can meet Clinias and the sophists.

What really is the difference between these word games of twisted logic and real philosophical investigations? It is just a matter of precise and thurough definitions of statements and definitions? Clearly simple answers are easy to manipulate, but these dialogues in general prefer short answers over long speeches.

Would Gorgias still defend oratory skill as just after reading this dialogue?

Socrates friend tells him that Protagoras is in town and that he wants to ask Protagoras to teach him, but Socrates tells him to take caution, casting doubt on what you can learn from sophists. Protagoras teaches citizenship (or virtue), which Socrates disagrees can be teached. All knowledge has an expert, like doctors for medicine. But there is no profession for citizenship. And to prove that you cannot teach virtue Socrates brings up that many legendary virtous people, like Pericles, failed to pass their virtue to their children. In response Protagoras tells a creation myth about citizenship: The titan Epimetheus was responsible for bestowing abilities upon all animals such as wings for flying or thick hides but forgot to give any to humans. Prometheus then gave them wisdom and fire. Zeus then gave man a sense of shame and justice to learn the art of politics. This gift, unlike the other arts, is one that everyone shares. «One must have some trace of [justice] or not be human.» Protagoras explains how we treat citizenship as teachable, in how we send kids to be education for example (but does not prove it is teachable). Everyone can improve their sense of justice and one who has been educated no matter their original talent is superior to the uneducated.

The discussion then switches to the multiplicity of virtue, justice and piety are both part of virtue, but are they the same or separate? Protagoras says they are similar but distinct. Socrates then asks him whether things can only have one opposite. They then agree that folly is the opposite of wisdom but also that folly is the opposite of temperance, which conflicts with their previous agreement. At this point Socrates loses patience for Protagoras long speeches, but he refuses to cut down on his answers. As Socrates starts to leave the others intervene and they reach a compromise that Protagoras should ask the questions instead.

Protagoras starts by stating that he thinks poetry is the most important part of one's education, the ability to understand, analyze and discuss works of poetry. He brings up a poem from Simonides and points out that its contradictory in first calling becoming good hard and then saying being good is hard. If you cannot be good, then how can you become it? Socrates asks Prodicus, a sophist from the same town as Simonides, for help. Together they point out that Simonides is in fact correcting another poet and that Protagoras misunderstood the poem because of the dialect it was written in. The poem says its hard to be good but its not hard to become it. Only the gods can be good. A bad man cannot become bad for he already is, but he can become good and vice versa.

Back to virtues and its components. Protagoras says that virtues has several components such as wisdom, temperance, justice, piety and courage which are all similar but distinct, except for courage which is completely different from the others. For a person can be foolish and unjust but still courageous. Socrates asks if all brave people are confident. But are all confident people brave then? No, fools are confident without knowledge. Then courage requires knowledge, like the other virtues. Virtue and all its components are in fact knowledge.

The discussion then switches to the role that pain and pleasure take in good and bad. Protagoras takes the position that life is about avoiding pain but not all pains are bad and not all pleasures are good. Some pains can be beneficial like medicine and some can be neutral, from his own experience. They both disagree that anything but wisdom can be the guide of human activity, that people are not ruled by pleasure. It takes expertise to separate the good from the bad pain and pleasures, so here again we see knowledge. When a person is overcome by pleasure it is in fact ignore that rules them.

At this point Socrates and Protagoras have arrived at the opposite positions they started out at. Socrates now claims that virtue must be knowledge and therefore teachable. Protagoras opposses that virtue is knowledge and therefore cannot be teachable.

Observations: This dialogue is in a first person perspective where socrates retells his discussion with Protagoras.

Socrates says he is a student of Prodicus, who specializes in separating wanting and desire.

Socrates says spartans are secretely well-educated about philsophy. I remember there are other dialogues where Sparta has been regarded positively. I think this is more of Plato's position than Socrates, but maybe they both admired the state.

Students of Protagoras can either pay the full fee or go to a temple and swear what they consider it worth and pay that amount.

Protagoras claims that sophistry was practiced by many famous people but that they disguised their works as poetry, music and others to avoid the shame and consequences of being a sophist. He brings up Homer as an example. I know Homer's poetry was regarded in ancient greece as displaying many virtues of man, since sophists have a very negative reputation i can see the parallell where those who disguise their moral lessons in poetry fare better than those who openly preach (and demand compensation).

Protagoras is definitely more prideful than Gorgias, another sophist with an eponymous dialogue. Gorgias agreed to keep his answers short, but Protagoras definitely wants to utilize oratory skill and long speeches to win the discussion. But he can still partake in a dialected, albeit with some peer pressure. He is definitelly not like Callicles who constantly goes on long tirades and switches positions as it suits him than a dedication to truth.

This dialogue contradicts the Meno dialogue on whether virtue can be taught.

Summary: Ion is a famous rhapsode, a profession who recites poetry. He specializes in the works of Homer only whom he considers the greatest. Rhapsodes are experts of their poems that they recite, Ion claims that they are experts of their poems. But what about when a poem goes into a subject like warfare or medicine? Ion agrees that only an expert in a subject can make judgement, but still thinks rhapsodes know more than experts about the subjects in say Homers poetry. Socrates resolves this conondrum by claiming it is divine inspiration that leads the rhapsodes. He brings up an example of how when a magnet connects with iron the iron also gains the power to attract other metals. In the same manner the poets are inspired by the gods, and in turn the rhapsodes channel this influence and finaly the audience receives it. The rhapsodes speak not from knowledge but from divine inspiration.

Observations Nowdays we do not really attribute divine inspiration to people. What would be a modern example of this? Maybe with musicians without a formal education making genial music. The Beatles or Kurt Cobain in Nirvana for example.

The Gorgias dialogue explores how oratory, which persuays without knowledge, is a form of flattery that produces pleasure without any knowledge of what is good. How does poetry fit into this with how it substitutes knowledge with divine inspiration?

Republic makes a negative judgement of poetry, but I don't remember if it comments on any divine inspiration.

Is this conveying the views of Plato or the historic Socrates? It does remind me a lot of Euthyphro with its short length and simple argumentation, so maybe it is the later.