George to George

August 12, 2002

            I have a peculiar talent.  I can rattle off the first names of all the presidents the United States has had, from George to George.  I picked up this ability by memorizing a song by comedian Heywood Banks and adding names at the end when new presidents come along.  The trick to that kind of memorization, I learned, is to memorize small chunks of the list phonetically.  Rather than delving into their meanings, I just memorized short phonetic syllable sequences like georgejohntomasjames and jamesjohnandrewmartin.  Protagoras might say that I know the first names of all the former presidents.  Socrates, however, would say that I do not.

            Protagoras believed the virtues to be many separate entities that, while similar in most respects, are clearly distinguishable from one another.  Furthermore, Protagoras believed that the virtues could be taught and that he was the person to teach them.  Protagoras and his friends got together, dubbed themselves sophists, and started a roaming school of virtue, which would teach anyone willing to pay.  The sophists taught political theory, history, arithmetic, rhetoric, and the like.  They were the first to instruct the liberal arts and sciences.  They also claimed to teach virtues; namely courage, justice, temperance, piety, and wisdom.  These virtues were deemed social skills and, thus, necessary for their students to be active political members of society. 

            Socrates took issue with the teaching of multiple virtues.  He believed in only one:  wisdom.  He reasoned that all other so-called virtues are various expressions of wisdom.  Temperance is wisdom expressed in a way that is different from courage.  Just wisdom is different from pious wisdom.  Just as a tree is always wood, virtue is always wisdom, be it in one form or another.  Protagoras responds to Socrates’ singular wisdom theory with the idea that virtues, while similar, and while sometimes overlapping, are still separate entities, and wisdom is the highest of them.

            Socrates also believed that no one could teach wisdom, that it is innate in all people, and, rather than learning wisdom, it has to be awakened by a person’s intuitive intellect (nous).  What Protagoras was teaching was not virtue, merely the imitation of virtue, a list of virtuous-sounding syllables, so to speak.

            Protagoras only saw the virtues as a set of social skills.  He believed that a person trained to act virtuously must have virtue.  Socrates, on the other hand, believed that, while acting virtuously may be useful, it does not imply true virtue, as true virtue only comes from within. 

            Protagoras’ view is based largely on behavior.  He saw the virtues as mere skills that could be memorized and practiced until they are done right.  His students learned how to act in certain situations, how to argue certain ways, and how to appear wise.  The basis of sophists’ curriculum was not to inform or enlighten, but to train.  Just as a sergeant trains his soldiers in combat, and how a college student trains himself in useless presidential recital skills, the sophists trained their students to look and act virtuous.  The sophists could not teach understanding, and understanding is vital to virtue.

            Socrates’ view is based on understanding and nous.  He saw the virtues as a singular, internal awakening that gains knowledge through experience, not training.  This experience gives the person a deeper understanding of things.  While the soldier knows how to kill, it is unlikely that he understands the effect the bullet has on the human anatomy.  While the college student can list names, his intuitive intellect is unaware of the identity or even the existence of the 27^th president.  Nous is the key to wisdom.  

            The argument in the Protagoras boils down to two sets of opposing views:  Protagoras’ view that the virtues are many and can be taught versus Socrates’ view that the virtues are one and cannot be taught.  When it comes to the number and nature of virtues, both Socrates and Protagoras are right in some ways.  One could say that temperance, piety, justice, and courage are all different aspects of wisdom.  After all, a person can be just and courageous without being pious.  A person can have wisdom in the ways of philosophy, but not in science, and still be considered wise. 

            When it comes to the teaching of virtue, Socrates is closest to the truth.  No one can teach true virtue.  Virtue is an innate part of each person that can only be awakened by that person.  While it is impossible to teach virtue, it is possible, and vital to the wellness of one’s soul, to awaken and nurture one’s own virtues within.

            Protagoras’ view, on the other hand, still has its merits.  While the sophists only taught what they believed was virtue, rather than true virtue itself, they were very successful in teaching important social skills.  Their curriculum was solid and practical, and the students who studied under the sophists used their new skills to the best of their abilities.  While they were not wise, according to Socrates, they did what they could do well.  And, while listing the first names of the presidents, past and present, is completely useless, has no philosophical value, and is not at all an exercise in wisdom, it is still an impressive trick.