Superphysics
Protagoras' Use of Words
4 minutes • 710 words
Now then, you think that some men are temperate, and yet unjust? And temperance is good sense? And good sense is good counsel in doing injustice if the injustice succeeds?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Do you believe the gods exist? And is the good that which is expedient for man?
Yes. There are some things which may be inexpedient, and yet I call them good.
I thought that Protagoras was getting ruffled and excited; he seemed to be setting himself in an attitude of war. Seeing this, I minded my business, and gently said:—
When you say that things inexpedient are good, do you mean inexpedient for man only, or inexpedient altogether? and do you call the latter good?
Certainly not the last. I know of many things—meats, drinks, medicines, and ten thousand other things, which are inexpedient for man, and some which are expedient;
Some which are neither expedient nor inexpedient for man, but only for horses; and some for oxen only, and some for dogs; and some for no animals, but only for trees; and some for the roots of trees and not for their branches, as for example, manure, which is a good thing when laid about the roots of a tree, but utterly destructive if thrown upon the shoots and young branches;
or I may instance olive oil, which is mischievous to all plants, and generally most injurious to the hair of every animal with the exception of man, but beneficial to human hair and to the human body generally; and even in this application (so various and changeable is the nature of the benefit), that which is the greatest good to the outward parts of a man, is a very great evil to his inward parts: and for this reason physicians always forbid their patients the use of oil in their food, except in very small quantities, just enough to extinguish the disagreeable sensation of smell in meats and sauces.
When he had given this answer, the company cheered him.
I have a wretched memory. When any one makes a long speech to me I never remember what he is talking about.
As then, if I had been deaf, and you were going to converse with me, you would have had to raise your voice; so now, having such a bad memory, I will ask you to cut your answers shorter, if you would take me with you.
What do you mean? Should I shorten my answers as I see fit or as you see fit?
You can speak and teach others to speak about the same things at such length that words never seemed to fail, or with such brevity that no one could use fewer of them.
Please therefore, if you talk with me, to adopt the latter or more compendious method.
I have fought many battles of words. If I had followed the method of disputation which my adversaries desired, as you want me to do, I should have been no better than another, and the name of Protagoras would have been nowhere.
Protagoras:
- was not satisfied with his previous answers
- would not play the part of answerer any more if he could help
I thought that it was useless to continue the conversation.
Protagoras, I do not wish to force the conversation upon you if you had rather not, but when you are willing to argue with me in such a way that I can follow you, then I will argue with you.
Now you, as is said of you by others and as you say of yourself, are able to have discussions in shorter forms of speech as well as in longer, for you are a master of wisdom; but I cannot manage these long speeches: I only wish that I could.
You, on the other hand, who are capable of either, ought to speak shorter as I beg you, and then we might converse. But I see that you are disinclined, and as I have an engagement which will prevent my staying to hear you at greater length (for I have to be in another place), I will depart; although I should have liked to have heard you.
