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.

The dialogue is named after the famous sophist orator Gorgias with whom and his students Socrates debates the nature of oratory with. Other prominent ideas are whether its better to do as one pleases without consequence or to suffer what is due. The dialogue starts out with Socrates discussing with Gorgias, then his student Polus and finally Callicles. Gorgias was mentioned previously in the [[Meno dialogue]] as the one who teached Meno about what virtue is.

Orators are not the only ones convincing people through speeches, most professions also make speeches and attempts at conviction using their knowledge of a subject. An orator can better convince someone to take their medicine than a doctor. The orators conviction must be less based on knowledge than the doctor. If oratory is not intrinsically tied to truth, does that mean it is an unjust profession? Gorgias disagrees and says it is like a martial skill where the responsibility lies with the practicioner, not the teacher or the skill itself. Gorgias still holds that oratory is just. At this point Polus takes over the conversation and disagrees over Socrates judgement of what oratoryis .

Socrates makes the case that oratory is in fact not a skill like shoemaking and is instead a knack like flattery. While a skill relies on knowledge to produce effects and understands their causes, a knack instead relies on experiences, guesses, hunches, to produce effects. Oratory is grouped together with sophistry and cosmetics. However he is not sure that Gorgias practices oratory in this way.

Polus claims that oratory is a great skill as it can give you the power to do as you see fit. Socrates disagrees on the benefits of power and goes so far as to claim that even the most powerful tyrants are the most miserable, as their power to do as they see fit misleads them dong what they really want which is to live justly and be good. Archelaus, the king of Macedon is brought up as an example. Starting out as a slave, he schemed, murdered and committed other unjust acts in order to become a tyrannt. Archelaus's riches and power should make him the happiest person in the kingdom, but Socrates disagrees with Polus and makes the opposite case that he should in fact be the most miserable due to having committed these unjust acts without consequence. It is in fact better to suffer what is due for ones actions instead of committing injustice without any consequences.

Education and justice determines a person's happiness, not power and richness. With power you can do as you see fit, which is different from doing what you want, which is to be good and just. Socrates says the powerful are in fact the most powerless as they are ruled by their desires without inhibition.

Suffering due punishment is good as it cleanses the soul from corruption, i.e injustice. We should welcome it like medicine, something which is painful but preferable to being sick.

The debate with Polus is concluded by Socrates saying that if you really wanted to hurt your enemies, you would do everything in your power to ensure that they would never get their due punishment and become as corrupt as possible.

At this moment another student of Gorgias, Callicles takes over. He vehemently disagrees with Socrates and says he tricked Polus into agreeing that commiting injustice is more shameful than undue suffering, distinguishing between whats shameful under law and nature. Callicles takes a hedonist might is right position where the strong are right to rule over the weak and take what they desire where pleasures are the key to being good. Constantly through their dialogue Callicles will change his position after Socrates points out a flaw. In comparison with Polus, he is much more belligerent in his argumentation and goes on the offensive against Socrates. By the end of their debate he stops responding to Socrates questions, leading to Socrates having to monologue to finish the investigation. Callicles is not characterized as someone that holds himself to positions based on principles, Socrates accuses him of constantly bending to please the crowd in his speeches.

Initially declaring that law is made by the weak to restrain the strong from taking whats their right by nature, Callicles has to agree that the many are stronger than the one and that further they have to be better and worthier than just physically overpowering.

Socrates attacks might makes right hedonism on two points: First that weak and strong both feel pain and pleasure the same which disqualifies pain and pleasures as measures on good and bad. Furthermore a person can both feel pain and pleasure at the same time, like a hungry person eating. But a person cannot be both good and bad simultaneously. Secondly that not just any pleasure is good and that expertise is necessary to separate good pleasures from bad pleasures, which leads back to self-discipline and regulation. Once again we see the flattery and knack vs skill distinction. The history of politicians in Athens is brought up as an example of flattery. Legendary leaders like Pericles are brought up as having served the desires of the city to please it, but they did not improve its character and did not leave it in a better state.

Callicles claims Socrates philosophy has made him defenseless and weak. Since he would rather suffer injustice he would be unable to defend himself and his friends from bad people. If a wicked accussor so wished he could sentence Socrates to death in court. Much like in Apology we see Socrates defends his position that its better to live good and just.

The dialogue ends with Socrates telling a myth of the after life in which people's souls are judged in Hades. The three judges Minos, Rhadamantus and Aeacus will see the souls for what actions they committed in life. For those that have lived a wicked life this has disastrous consequences where the corruption in their souls sentences them to the worst fate in the afterlife. We should leave fate to the gods and live a good and just life, not just seem to be good.

Observations:

Like in Phaedo there is a discussion around pain and pleasure and their connection to good and bad.

Like in Apology we see Socrates defending living the good life of a philosopher despite the consequences.

Callicles idea that the strong should rule over the weak and that what they command is just reminds me of Thrasymachus from Republic. I have not read any Nietsche but Callicles reminds me of what I've heard of his philosophy

Ironically, Socrates insists that the orators he debates to not do speeches, yet he himself has to go on long monologues.

One reason I started reading Plato was because his texts and philosophy are fundamental for abrahamic religions and their mysticist branches. In this dialogue I can really see the connection to Christian theology with the importance of living a good life and the consequences of your actions in the afterlife.

Socratic question: Unlike in Apology this Socrates is not unsure of the afterlife. Perhaps this is more Plato speaking than the historical Socrates.

Summary: Can virtue be taught or is it gained at birth? Or is it granted by gods? Meno and Socrates discuss whether virtue can be taught or not. Meno claims to have been taught what virtue is by the sophist Gorgias. Meno changes his answers constantly like Euthyphro, yet he claims to know what virtue is. Eventually Meno relents and admits he does not know. He is more humble than Euthyphro.

1st answer: To benefit friends and harm enemies. Virtue is different for different peoples, actions and times. 2nd answer: To find joy in beautiful things and have power. 3rd answer: The power of securing good things.

Meno gives examples of many virtuous actions, but Socrates asks for what makes them all virtuous, "is it a virtue, or virtue?". Socrates explainsthat virtue is not teachable by bringing up historical figures that were virtuous but failed to pass virtue to their offspring. They cared for their children and could teach them martial arts and other valuable knowledge, but not virtue. Like with Phaedo, the theory of recollection appears. Socrates proves that virtue is innate by demonstrating that one of Meno's slaves, who is uneducated, actually has knowledge of geometry but is not aware of it. With the demonstration Socrates shows how the slave "recollects" the knowledge he already possessed.

Observations:

Thessalians are reputed as wise for answering any questions, while Athenians will not answer questions that they do not know the answer to. Is this meant to be a sign of Socrates influence/corruption?

Plato/Socrates distinction: Like with many of the dialogues touching upon the soul and knowledge, it feels like this very much represents Plato's views than the historical Socrates.

Geometry example slave: In the first example Socrates uses geometry to ask a slave for the line (root) of a squarer. He starts with a square that is eight feet and wants the slave to find the line length of it. He demonstrates that the slave, despite not being trained in geometry, can find give the correct answer for the line of a square that is 4 and 9 feet. The slave answers that the answer must be that the line for the 8 feet square must be 3 as it is between the squares with the lines 2 and 4, but this is incorrect as 3*3 equals 9 and not 8. The slave didnt know the answer first, then he thought he knew, then once again he became perplexed.

For the second part the slave is asked about whether the corner square of a larger square has half the area of all the diagonals of the larger square's corner squares.

To me it seems that Socrates gives quite a lot of guidance to the slave in order get the correct answers. But then Socrates question would be very difficult to answer for the slave as it is a irrational number. Are these two things intentional and is there a message behind it that Plato wants to convey?

Anytus, one of Socrates to-be accusers, makes an appearance. He is disdainful of sophists and whatever they teach.

Perplexion: A portion of the dialogue is dedicated to explaining perplexion. Meno thought that the knew what virtue was at the start but at the end finds himself unsure and perplexed. Socrates has to explain to him that being perplexed is not a bad thing, and can actually be good as it is on the path to coming closer to the truth. Socrates is warned of the consequences of making people perplexed.

Summary: Unlike in other dialogues the interlocutor in this one is Phaedo who recaps his witness of Socrates death. This is the final dialogue in the (unofficial) collection describing the death of Socrates. Phaedo tells his audience how in his final moments Socrates discussed the immortality and existence of the soul. Discussion also goes into the body and its material desires and how philosophers relate to desire and death with their quest for truth. We learn more of Plato's conception of the realm where ideas reside, timeless and unchanging, separate from the material. At the end Socrates drinks the cup of poison and passses away.

Observations:

Phaedo and his audience are pythagoreans, a philosophy that influenced Plato.

Plato/Socrates distinction problem: It is hinted that this dialogue does not reflect the real Socrates. Plato is stated to not have been present for Socrates death and the story is told from a witness and not Socrates himself.

The body and betrayal of the senses / pain and pleasure connection: The dialogue makes an opposition between the soul and the body as respectively belonging to the ideal and material worlds. The body deceives the soul from perceiving the truth and instead misleads it with desires. Since philosophers are in search of truth they want to distance their soul from the body, free it from the passions and deceptions. Therefore death, with the emancipation from the body, is to be welcomed, but not hastened. The first thing Socrates remarks is that pain and pleasure are connected through his chained leg, the pain from restriction has now given to pleasure as he is free to walk.

One interesting idea is that the body can pollute the soul when after death it will trap/impede the soul from moving to higher planes or reincarnating.

You can master some pleasure because of another pleasure, but only wisdom should be gained at the expense of the other pleasures.

The theory of recollection proves that the soul lasts beyond the body.

Theory of recollection: Knowledge comes from recollection, all knowledge in the soul is gathered before birth. We then spend our lives recollecting this knowledge we forgot at birth. You can learn that X is smaller than Y, but you cannot learn the concept of magnitude, it was within you from the start.

This is probably one idea that has not aged as well. With modern neuroscience and pedagogy studies I assume we have a much stronger idea on how humans gain knowledge and apply them. Its probably a very muddy process of learning, applying and fine-tuning ones internal model until it more or less stays consistent with the external world.

Materialism/Idealism: Ideas are immutable, material things are mutable and ever changing.

The invisible (such as ideas) remains the same, are all invisible things ideas? Or is it a category with other overlaps? The soul should be immortal and immutable since it is invisible.

Divine: Socrates received a dream to cultivate the arts and started making poetry. Socrates servant of Apollo, alongside swans. Suicide is immoral as it goes against the wishes of the gods, unless they would command it?

Dualism: Pain comes from pleasure and vice versa. The dead come from the living, and thus the living must come from the dead. Forms, opposites never approach each other, but can come from each other. The small comes from the large, but the large and small cannot coexist in the same space. Opposites and processes go in both directions, the small come from the big. Therefore the soul should come from death? If the processes were not circular and symmetric, then everything with time would eventually end up the same. Heat death of the universe, entrophy. Anaxagoras nous connection.

Successor of Socrates: Just like in Apology, the idea of a successor to Socrates is mentioned. Remarkably Socrates says that his followers would have to look all over Greece and even in the foreign countries for a successor. What kind of successor is envisioned? How did the resulting philosophical schools take this idea? Or was it just resolved as Plato being the sucessor, then Aristotle?

Crito

Summary: Crito tries to convince Socrates to escape his prison and the sentencing. He argues that Socrates should consider the fate of his children as well as the shame that would fall on his friends for not helping him escape. Crito argues that Socrates friends will suffer reputationally if they do not help him, that its bad reputation that got him in the situation to begin with. As in Apology, living justly is more important than living longer, which is how Socrates refutes caring for his reputation.

Just as one should honor one's parents one should honour their state/city for caring for them (at least in the context of a state like Athens). Either convict them of changing their decision or hede its command. Socrates lived in Athens throughout his entire life and enjoyed its benefits, at any time he could have left if he did not agree with the "social contract" that comes with being an Athenian citizen. What would it say about him if he broke the law now that it doesnt benefit him.

Observations: Crete and Sparta are considered well governed by Socrates.

Greek motto of "Helping your friends and harming your enemies", refuted, you should never harm anyone, not in return. But Socrates was a soldier, what is his stance if your city goes to war, should you obey and participate?

One argument that Socrates makes against escaping is that he would gain an ill reputation for flouting the laws, is this consistent with his previous stance on reputation? Or is it within the context of prioritizing his life over living justly?

In accepting his execution, Socrates makes a mocking of Toby Fox's legendary ethos: «Don't kill and don't be killed».

Apology

Summary: Socrates defends himself against acussations of corrupting the youth and impiety. He chooses to make a logical appeal to the jury and reject emotional appeals such as bringing his children to cry for him on his behalf. Socrates makes out that he has become unpopular for questioning people and a following of young people have started to follow his example. The 3 accusers represents the people of different vocations he has questioned: Anytus (craftsmen and politicians), Meletus (poet), Lycon (orators) The notes mention historical circumstances could also be a reason for Socrates popularity. Ultimately Socrates does not succeed in defending himself, the jury judges him guilty and then sentences him to death.

Observations: Socrates claims that a divine voice is guiding him, telling him what actions to avoid, as well as that he has been given a divine sign to pursue philosophy and the truth. avoid politics He does not claim divine authority, only that as his motivation. It is however remarked that he was attached to the city by the god, indirectly noting that going against him goes against the god.

Social consequences of philosophy and pursuing truth: The risks of pursuing truth and living as a philosopher is clearly emphasised in this dialogue. Republic also refences the social risk a person takes from questioning everything.

Critic of rhetoric: Apparent through the defense that Socrates disdains emotional appeals and would rather take his execution than compromise logical reasoning in favor of rhetoric. This is further developed in Gorgias.

The idea of a successor to Socrates is brought up, also in Phaedo.

Hints of epistemology and art: Poets do not compose poems with knowledge, but with inborn talent and inspiration. Bystanders could explain their works better than the poets themselves.

Speculation on death: Socrates has no adequate knowledge of the afterlife, therefore he does not fear it. He however values living the good life over living a long life. This execution might be a good thing as the divine sign didnt oppose it, death might be a blessing This is starkly different from Phaedo, Gorgias and Republic where death is speculated on. Can this be how the actual Socrates viewed the afterlife while the other works reflect Plato's ideas?

Summary: Socrates has been accused of impiety and in order to prepare for the court he ask the prophet Euthyphro about the nature of piety. Euthyphro is sure of his knowledge of the gods and what piety is, he is even willing to persecute his own father because he believes it is what the gods demand. However, as Euthyphro answers what piety is and Socrates questions him, the answer for what piety is keeps on changing. Eventually the Socrates points out the dilemma of piety and it's circular definition: Is it pious because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is pious? At the end Euthyphro leaves as Socrates vows to continue asking until the truth is reached.

Quick Observations: We can be sure that we have knowledge of something, yet at the same time we can sometimes not express this knowledge. If we keep changing our answers to satisfy the question, then what does our confidence mean?

I notice a similar concept from Republic, a career is good when it improves the condition of its subject. A good doctor improves the health of the patient, a good king improves the prosperity of his people.

A thing is lifted because it is being lifted, it isn't lifted because it's property is being lifted. I think this concept popped up in Republic as well, an important distinction for Plato.

I imagine that in monoteistic religions the dilemma is avoided by making divinity and good inseparable, that God and good are the same thing/being.

My Own Take: I think we can recognize ourselves in Euthyphro. If he would admit to ignorance on piety, it would jeopardize his place in society as a prophet and his sense of self. Would he still have a reason to prosecute his father? Would he be ridiculed for then abandoning his prosecution? Only a select few scholars have any real expertise in an area and even then they are just as ignorant as you outside of it. But due to factors of ego, social pressure, lack of time and interest, we cannot admit ignorance on what we don't know.