Abstract

The dialogue Protagoras revolves around the great sophist after whom it is named, and his first exchange of words with Socrates. As it will turn out, this debate marks the beginning of a continual discussion that is to pervade the philosophical life of Socrates. The Protagoras centres on the art of sophistry. In it Socrates and Protagoras meet and engage in discussion, and for a large part their conversation focuses on their inability to agree even on the way in which to speak to each other. Socrates wants to have a dialogue through short questions and answers, whereas Protagoras argues the importance of being able to make longer speeches. Through these disagreements some differences between the rhetoric of sophistry and the dialectic of philosophy emerge. However, the dialogue also shows the difficulties involved in making the distinction between the two. As Marina McCoy points out “the contrast here [in the Protagoras] between Socratic questioning and sophistic rhetoric is not so straightforward.” This becomes apparent both in the discussion between Socrates and the great sophist and within the story about their meeting. Sometimes Protagoras sounds quite Socratic, and sets forth arguments that resemble what have been termed Socratic doctrines. At other times Socrates sounds like a combative, rhetorically deft sophist, discoursing in an argumentative way often associated with the rhetorical art the sophists offered to teach. It may be no accident that Plato in the Protagoras has Socrates recount how he is mistaken for a sophist by the door-man when he arrives at the house of Callias. This article looks at the manner in which the relation between the sophist and the philosopher is reflected also in the dramaturgy of the Protagoras. To this end it will examine some of the transitions that are set in motion from visible to audible movement. It will also attempt to indicate some distinctions that are made within the realm of the audible, and argue that in these distinctions some clues to the difference between sophistry and philosophy may be found. The article claims that these transitions and distinctions are relevant to shedding light upon the difficulties involved in distinguishing easily and clearly between the rhetoric of sophistry and the dialectic of philosophy.