Scott Consigny on Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric. :: Philosophy Philosophical Papers

Scott Consigny on Protagoras and Logos A Study in Greek school of thought and RhetoricEdward Schiappas cogent and eloquent book fully deserves the praise it has received. As Donovan Ochs observes in his 1991 review of the book (RSQ 21 3942), Schiappa, presents a clear answer for of Protagoras philosophy and supports his reading with a detailed analysis of each of Protagoras phoebe bird extant fragments. But even though Schiappas reading is compelling, we need not necessarily be persuaded by it for as Protagoras himself remarks, it is always possible to phonate devil opposed describes about everything, and to make the ostensibly weaker account stronger. In this review I will undertake a Protagorean project, articulating and defending an account of Protagoras philosophy that is opposed to Schiappas account. To this end I will briefly drawing Schiappas account, which I label an wisdom reading of Protagoras, and I will because sketch an opposed, rhetoricist reading of the Sophis t. Schiappa begins his study by ac populateledging his debt to George Grote and Eric Havelock. Schiappa concurs with Grotes assessment of the Sophists as a positive force in the fifth-century Greek enlightenment (12) and he accepts Havelocks judgement that the transition from orality to literacy in Greek society led to a advance from a mythic-poetic to a more literate, human-centered-rationalistic culture (21). Drawing on these two scholars, Schiappa depicts Protagoras as a pivotal figure of the fifth century enlightenment helping to transform Greece from an irrational, mythical and theocentric culture into a rational and humanistic culture. Schiappa then proceeds to examine Protagoras contribution to this intellectual progress, namely his advocacy and analysis of logos, or rationality as the proper means of inquiry. In a detailed analysis of Protagoras five extant fragments, Schiappa argues that Protagoras provides the groundwork for the attendant development of rational inqui ry by delineating the assumptions or principles, the proper mathematical process or method, and the kind of results or explanations that may be attained with rational inquiry. Concerning Protagoras conception of the starting points or principles of inquiry, Schiappa argues that in his remark that human beings is the measure of all things, Protagoras sharply differentiates his anthropocentric logos from the theocentric mythos of the poets who claim to be inspired by the gods. Schiappa also construes Protagoras remark that he is unable to know whether or not the gods exist as further underscoring the Sophists rejection of theocentricity. These remarks are unfathomed to Protagoras project, for in them he suggests that valid inquiry must be initiated by humans themselves, without information supplied by the gods.