Protagoras

but Protagoras declared himself in doubt, while Diagoras of Melos and Theodorus of Cyrene held that there are no gods at all.

Nor does Protagoras, who says he has nothing clear to declare about the gods, whether they exist, do not exist, or what they are like, seem to have any conjecture about the nature of the gods.

I should not think even Protagoras, who was free to say neither that the gods exist nor that they do not.

Well then, if Protagoras, or anyone else, ask you, Theaetetus, can anything become greater or more in any other way than by being increased?

And, indeed, if I may venture to say so, it is not a bad description of knowledge that you have given, but one which Protagoras also used to give.

I wonder if Protagoras, who was a very wise man, did not utter this dark saying to the common herd like ourselves, and tell the truth in secret to his pupils.

and since the Greeks say that, Protagoras having led the way, to every argument an argument is opposed, it is fitting that he be prepared even against such arguments.

Hearers of Democritus were Protagoras of Abdera and Metrodorus of Chios, whose pupil was Diogenes of Smyrna, whose pupil Anaxarchus, and of him Pyrrho, of whom Nausiphanes.

This we are told was the practice of Protagoras;

in Thrasymachus assailing his boldness and rashness, in Hippias the lightness and emptiness of his mind, and in Protagoras his arrogance and pomposity.

Different is the criterion of Protagoras, who thinks that to each that is true which seems so to each;

but as it is, who is so backward in learning as not to know that Protagoras and the sophists of his time have left to us compositions of similar character and even far more overwrought than these?

They are the sophists, of Protagoras altogether, should desire what is said in such a Truth, as if it were of any value.

Now if Protagoras is right and the truth is as he says, that all things are to each person as they seem to him, is it possible for some of us to be wise and some foolish?

And you are, I imagine, strongly of the opinion that if wisdom and folly exist, it is quite impossible that Protagoras is right, for one man would not in reality be at all wiser than another if whatever seems to each person is really true to him.

For, to be plain with you, this argument, though I have heard it from many people on various occasions, never fails to set me wondering—you know the followers of Protagoras made great use of it, as did others even before his time, but to me it always seems to have a wonderful way of upsetting not merely other views but itself also—and I believe I shall learn the truth of it from you far better than from anyone else.

Were there not some similar inventions of Protagoras, Socrates?

Yes, my boy, correctness of diction, and many other fine things.

Protagoras come to town!

Then Protagoras answered at once, saying:

I admit that I am a sophist and that I educate men;

But are we to believe that while Protagoras of Abdera and Prodicus of Ceos and many others are able by private teaching to impress upon their contemporaries the conviction that they will not be capable of governing their homes or the city unless they put them in charge of their education, and make themselves so beloved for this wisdom that their companions all but carry them about on their shoulde …

You seem to refer to the text-books of Protagoras on wrestling and the other arts.

If I believe Protagoras, there is nothing in the nature of things but the doubtful;

Protagoras says that on every matter one can argue on either side with equal force, and on this very point, whether every matter is debatable on either side.

‘For in man the blood about the heart is perception.

for you have yourself paid a good deal of money for wisdom to Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, and many others, while you see that we are what you might call amateurs in philosophy;