PERSUASION AND AGREEMENT IN PLATO'S PROTAGORAS

Öz

An investigation of the dialogue form is vital for understanding Plato’s philosophical arguments. Recent studies related to the dialogical aspects of Plato’s writings have underlined the significance of dramatis personae and their role in defining the philosophical content. This paper examines the roles played by Socrates and Protagoras in Plato’s Protagoras. This study concludes that the way in which Socrates and Protagoras examine the nature of excellence offers some norms of the correct philosophical argument, such as careful checking and philosophical humility. The findings can contribute to a better grasp of Plato’s metaphilosophical thoughts on agreement and epistemic development.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Plato,Protagoras,epistemic norms,philosophical humility

PLATON'UN PROTAGORAS'INDA İKNA ETME VE ANLAŞMA SAĞLAMA

Öz

Diyalog formunun incelenmesi Platon’un felsefi argümanlarını anlamak için son derece önemlidir. Yakın zamanda yapılmış çalışmalar dramatik karakterlerin ve bu karakterlerin felsefi içeriğini belirlemedeki rolünün öneminin altını çizmektedir. Bu yazı Sokrates ve Protagoras’ın Platon’un Protagoras eserinde oynadıkları rolü irdelemektedir. Bu çalışmada şu sonuca ulaşılmıştır: Sokrates ve Protagoras’ın erdemin doğasını araştırırken izledikleri yol doğru felsefi konuşma yapmak için gerekli bazı normları, örneğin dikkatli denetleme ve felsefi tevazu gibi, ortaya koymaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular Platon’un anlaşma ve epistemik gelişme üzerine meta-felsefi düşüncelerinin daha iyi anlaşılmasına katkı sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Platon,Protagoras,epistemik normlar,felsefi tevazu

Kaynakça

1. Burnyeat, Myles Fredric. "Dramatic Aspects of Plato's Protagoras." The Classical Quarterly 63.1 (2013): 419-422.
2. Christensen, David. "Epistemic Modesty Defended 1." The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays. Ed. David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. 76-96.
3. Cohen, Stewart. "A Defence of the (Almost) Equal Weight View." The Epistemology of Disagreement. Ed. David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. 98-120.
4. Cooper, James M and D S Hutchinson, Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.
5. Elga, Adam. "How to Disagree about How to Disagree." Ed. Richard Feldman and Ted A. Warfield. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. 175-186.
6. Elgin, Catherine. "Persistent Disagreement." Disagreement. Ed. Richard Feldman and Ted A. Warfield. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. 53-68.
7. Evnine, Simon J. Learning From One's Mistakes: Epistemic Modesty and the Nature of Belief. Vol. 82. 2001.
8. Gagarin, M. "The Purpose of Plato's Protagoras." Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969. 133-164.

9. Long, Alex G. Conversation and Self-Sufficiency in Plato. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
10. McCabe, Mary Margaret. Platonic Conversation. New York: Oxford, 2015.
11. Morrow, Glenn R. "Plato's Conception of Persuasion." The Philosophical Review 62.2 (1953): 234-250.
12. Nehamas, Alexander. "Eristic, Antilogic, Sophistic, Dialectic: Plato's Demarcation of Philosophy from Sophistry." History of Philosophy Quarterly 7.1 (1990): 3-16.
13. Sidwell, Keith. "Some thoughts on the sophist in bed." Hermathena (2005): 67-76.
14. Warman, M S. "Plato and Persuasion." Greece & Rome 30.1 (1983): 48-54.
15. Wolfsdorf, David. "The Historical Reader of Plato's Protagoras." The Classical Quarterly 48.1 (1998): 126-133.