David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (3):241-257 (2010)
The dispute over Socrates’ apparent endorsement of hedonism in the Protagoras has persisted for ages among scholars and students of Plato’s work. The solution to the query concerning the seriousness and sincerity of Socrates’ argument from hedonism established in the dialogue is of considerable importance for the interpretation of Plato’s overall moral theory, considering how blatantly irreconcilable the defense of this doctrine is with Plato’s other early dialogues. In his earlier works, Socrates puts supreme importance on virtue and perfection of the soul, so the puzzle apparent in the Protagoras merits a thorough examination. Several scholars have argued that, since Socrates’ defense of hedonism in this work clashes significantly with his views on morality in other dialogues, Socrates must only have been defending hedonism ironically, or with the intention of “diagnosing” his opponent’s point of view. In this paper, I examine the approaches according to which Socrates didn’t in fact mean to defend hedonism, but merely used it as a diagnostic tool; I argue that there is no compelling evidence for this resolution of Socrates’ defense of hedonism, and that the views that attempt to defend it really have no convincing grounds for it apart from the desire to reconcile the Protagoras with other Socratic dialogues
|Keywords||Socrates Protagoras Hedonism Diagnostic Tool Incommensurability|
|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
George Rudebusch (1999). Socrates, Pleasure, and Value. Oxford University Press.
Shigeru Yonezawa (2012). Socratic Courage in Plato's Socratic Dialogues. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (4):645-665.
Michael Morris (2006). Akrasia in the "Protagoras" and the "Republic". Phronesis 51 (3):195-229.
Donald J. Zeyl (1980). Socrates and Hedonism: "Protagoras" 351b-358d. Phronesis 25 (3):250 - 269.
Donald J. Zeyl (1980). Socrates and Hedonism: Protagoras 351b-358d. Phronesis 25 (3):250-269.
Mary Bloodsworth (1999). The Implications of Consistency. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 6 (3/4):15-20.
Nicholas Denyer (ed.) (2008). Plato: Protagoras. Cambridge University Press.
Marina Berzins McCoy (2005). Reason and Dialectic in the Argument Against Protagoras in the Theaetetus. International Philosophical Quarterly 45 (1):21-39.
Kristian Urstad (2012). Hedonism - Some Aspects and Insights. Canadian Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
Dale Dorsey (2011). The Hedonist's Dilemma. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (2):173-196.
Gabriela Roxana Carone (2000). Hedonism and the Pleasureless Life in Plato's Philebus. Phronesis 45 (4):257-283.
Gregory Vlastos (1980). The Philosophy of Socrates: A Collection of Critical Essays. University of Notre Dame Press.
Avi I. Mintz (2011). Four Educators in Plato's Theaetetus. Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 (4):657-673.
Catherine Osborne (2006). Socrates in the Platonic Dialogues. Philosophical Investigations 29 (1):1–21.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads33 ( #145,678 of 1,924,985 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #308,471 of 1,924,985 )
How can I increase my downloads?