Plato’s Protagoras, Writing, and the Comedy of Aporia

  • Marina McCoyEmail author
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 125)


Plato’s Protagoras plays off the genre of Greek comedy in its expression of its philosophical meaning. This dialogue at points invites us to re-envision Socrates against the backdrop of Aristophanes’ criticisms of Socrates and the sophists. The Protagoras follows some of the conventions of Greek comedy but interrupts its form with moments of lengthier rational discussion absent in Greek comedy. The dialogue’s logos and antilogos lead to aporia, but this aporia shows a limit to reason that recognizes human incompleteness without leading to misology. In contrast to performed drama, the written form of the dialogue both engages its audience’s emotions while allowing the reader to return to the text and to continue their rational assessment of the arguments.


Epistemic Uncertainty Weak Argument Dramatic Action Epic Poetry Philosophical Meaning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Burgess, Watson S. 2014. Living Poets. Durham.,_Iphigenia_at_Aulis_1211-1215. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
  2. Capra, Andrea. 2001. Il “Protagora” di Platone tra eristica e commedia, Il Filarete: Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università degli Studi di Milano, 197. Milan: LED, Edizioni Universitarie di Lettere Economia Diritto.Google Scholar
  3. Dyson, M. 1976. Knowledge and Hedonism in Plato’s Protagoras. Journal of Hellenic Studies 96: 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gonzalez, Francisco J. 2014. The Virtue of Dialogue: Dialogue as Virtue in Plato’s Protagoras. Philosophical Papers 43: 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Griswold, Charles. 1999. Relying on Your Own Voice: An Unsettled Rivalry of Moral Ideals in Plato’s Protagoras. Review of Metaphysics 53: 283–307.Google Scholar
  6. Grote, George. 1973. Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates, vol. 2. London: J. Murray. reprint New York: Ben Franklin.Google Scholar
  7. Hackforth, R. 1928. The Hedonism in Plato’s Protagoras. Classical Quarterly 22: 38–42.Google Scholar
  8. Hemmenway, Scott R. 1996. Sophistry Exposed: Socrates on the Unity of Virtue in the Protagoras. Ancient Philosophy 16: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Henderson, Jeffrey. 1990. The Demos and Comic Competition. In Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context, ed. John J. Winkler and Froma I. Zeitlin, 271–313. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Irwin, Terence. 1977. Plato’s Moral Theory: The Early and Middle Dialogues. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. McCoy, Marina. 1998. Protagoras on Human Nature, Wisdom, and the Good: The Great Speech and the Hedonism of Plato’s Protagoras. Ancient Philosophy 18: 21–39.Google Scholar
  12. McCoy, Marina. 1999. Socrates on Simonides: The Use of Poetry in Socratic and Platonic Rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric 32: 349–367.Google Scholar
  13. Nightingale, Andrea. 2000. Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Nussbaum, Martha. 2001. The Fragility of Goodness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robinson, David. 1912. The Life of the Ancient Greek. Classical Weekly 5(8): 59.Google Scholar
  16. Russell, Daniel. 2000. Protagoras and Socrates on Courage and Pleasure: Protagoras 349d ad Finem. Ancient Philosophy 20: 311–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schultz, Ann-Marie. 2013. Plato’s Socrates as Narrator: A Philosophical Muse. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  18. Weiss, Roslyn. 1990. Hedonism in the Protagoras and the Sophist’s Guarantee. Ancient Philosophy 10: 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boston CollegeNewtonUSA

Personalised recommendations