/lit/ - Literature

>>18799523
>you can babble charmingly, right, anon?
sophistry is my specialty

>>16387661
If Plato's theory of Forms truly is true, then we are in no danger when we try to refute it. In fact, it would be a beneficial endeavour, for by the end of it our conviction in said theory will be stronger and less dogmatic than before.
Why are you so scared of the truth? Could it be that... dare i say it, the theory of the Forms might be wrong?

I just read the Protagoras dialogue and aent looking for commentary and analysis of it online. There is almost nothing written of it, and everything I have found written on it is just a brief summary. I have only read introductory dialogues so far, but this one seemed very good. The analysis of the unity of virtue in knowledge seems like the fundamental Socratic principle that knowledge = virtue = happieness. I thought the the dialogue was a little stilted and oft interrupted by digressions, which I suppose was done deliberately by Plato but I cannot figure out to what end. I also seem to think Socrates was being far too facetious and had a tendency to respond dishonestly or at least ironically.
Is this dialogue considered to be an important one among Plato's works? Why is there so little commentary on it? And what should I read next?

>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.

>CLEAN YOUR FUCKING ROOM.

Was Protagoras the ancient version of Jordan Peterson?

Does a good communicator decide what's right and wrong?

Would it be fair to say that the main idea of the Protagoras dialogue is that virtue is essentially wisdom? I would also like to know how Socrates’ thoughts on the pleasant and the painful relate to utilitarianism. Consider this passage

>Well then, I shall say, if you agree so far, be so good as to answer
me a question: Do not the same magnitudes appear larger to your
sight when near, and smaller when at a distance? They will acknowledge
that. And the same holds of thickness and number; also sounds, which
are in themselves equal, are greater when near, and lesser when at a
distance. They will grant that also. Now suppose happiness to
consist in doing or choosing the greater, and in not doing or in
avoiding the less, what would be the saving principle of human life?
Would not the art of measuring be the saving principle; or would the
power of appearance? Is not the latter that deceiving art which
makes us wander up and down and take the things at one time of which
we repent at another, both in our actions and in our choice of
things great and small? But the art of measurement would do away
with the effect of appearances, and, showing the truth, would fain
teach the soul at last to find rest in the truth, and would thus
save our life. Would not mankind generally acknowledge that the art
which accomplishes this result is the art of measurement?

If we could somehow measure all possible pleasure states, to derive what will be most good or most beneficial to us, then shouldn’t we aim for that goal? Isn’t it our own lack of knowledge that prevents us from attaining what is most good? As Socrates says, one does evil unwillingly, because he doesn’t know that any pleasures of his doing evil will be negated and even surpassed by the pain that follows. So it follows that we could eliminate evil and maximize the good if only we had the knowledge to do so. Should we focus on this goal in this era, or is still too far off?

Philosophy is just ever more elaborate failed attempts to get around skepticism.

When the sophists presented virtue as being what is advantageous for each person, and laws as "customs" which may or may not fit the natural order of things, were they pre-empting Stirner's "spook" meme?

What are some good works to learn more about the sophists?

What are some good works to read to further one's own sophistic capabilities?

>>>/int/39734793