David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Phronesis 51 (3):195 - 229 (2006)
Although it is a commonplace that the "Protagoras" and the "Republic" present diffent views of akrasia, the nature of the difference is not well understood. I argue that the logic of the famous argument in the "Protagoras" turns just on two crucial assumptions: that desiring is having evaluative beliefs (or that valuing is desiring), and that no one can have contradictory preferences at the same time; hedonism is not essential to the logic of the argument. And the logic of the argument for the division of the soul in the "Republic" requires the rejection of just the second of these assumptions, but not the evaluative conception of desire. I also maintain that Plato was aware, at the time of composition, of these features of the argumentation of his dialogues. Finally, I argue that there is reason to think that, even at the time of the "Protagoras," Plato held the conception of the soul expressed in the "Republic," and not anything like that expressed in the famous argument of the "Protagoras." The Protagoras view, even without hedonism, is a poor expression of the thesis that virtue is knowledge
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Rik Peels (2011). Tracing Culpable Ignorance. Logos and Episteme 2 (4):575-582.
Luca Castagnoli (2004). Protagoras Refuted: How Clever is Socrates' "Most Clever" Argument at Theaetetus 171a–C?'. Topoi 23 (1):3-32.
Marina Berzins McCoy (2005). Reason and Dialectic in the Argument Against Protagoras in the Theaetetus. International Philosophical Quarterly 45 (1):21-39.
Nicholas Denyer (ed.) (2008). Plato: Protagoras. Cambridge University Press.
T. D. J. Chappell (2006). Reading the Περιτροπή: "Theaetetus" 170c-171c. Phronesis 51 (2):109 - 139.
Tea Logar (2010). “Diagnostic Hedonism” and the Role of Incommensurability in Plato's Protagoras. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (3):241-257.
Raphael Woolf (2002). Consistency and Akrasia in Plato's Protagoras. Phronesis 47 (3):224-252.
Michael Morris (2006). Akrasia in the Protagoras and the Republic. Phronesis 51 (3):195-229.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads70 ( #19,251 of 1,096,616 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #30,160 of 1,096,616 )
How can I increase my downloads?