Democritus and Protagoras

CEU eTD Collection

In partial fulfillment of the of fulfillment In partial Values and Beliefs on Naturalism Beliefson and Values “Man is the measurecosmos” of isthe “Man Democritus and Protagoras: Protagoras: Democritus and Central European University European Central Department ofPhilosophy Supervisor: Supervisor: Anastasia Theologou Anastasia Budapest, Hungary requirements the degree for of Submitted to Submitted 2015 By Istvan Bodnar Istvan

Master ofA

rts

CEU eTD Collection 1. Introduction ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT References 4. 3. 2.

3.2. 3.1. 2.7. 2.6. 2.5. 2.4. 2.3. 2.2. 2.1. 1.9. 1.8. 1.7. 1.6. 1.5. 1.4. 1.3. 1.2. 1.1. Conclusion on Considerations CosmogonyJustice and the in Democritus’ Siculus Diodorus in philosophy

Protagoras’ mora Democritus morality: The power of individual The myth ofCronusinthe Statesman Providence ofNature orDivine providence inthe myth? Morality: the bondof Nature and Nurture. Is morality Protagoras’ agnosticism and thesymbolism ofgods themyth in Beresford’s defence ofnaturalism theProtagoras in The myth ofPrometheus inthe Protagoras Macrocosm andMicrocosm Diodorus Siculus in Necessity and arts An Experience Language Fear Living thebestial life The primary state ofhuman beings Democritus’ cosmogony

......

...... chinoia and Logos

......

...... nomoi naturalistic ethics: individual vs. socialvirtues vs. naturalistic ethics: individual lity as social virtue

...... or Table of contents Table of physei

......

...... ? Protagoras Protagoras ......

......

...... vs

......

the era Zeus the of in ......

......

...... Politicus ......

...... 46 39 33 28 27 23 20 19 18 14 14 12 12 11 10 10 .

8 6

56 51 39 17

iii iv

4 1

CEU eTD Collection

To my Father .

CEU eTD Collection crucial ideas of naturalism and humanism, they differ significantly in their in significantly differ they humanism, and naturalism of ideas crucial share them of both although that is claim main Mymorality. and beings living of origins the regarding Protagoras and Democritus by views naturalistic the explore I thesis my Ιn nature praises theuniversal character ofdemocracy. human of theorizing be Protagoras’ while to law, and state authority higher ideal have an to unnecessary and autonomy individual absolute for room leaves humanism Democr that is reach I that conclusions The philosophy. Plato’s with antithesis their and Protagoras and Democritus in humanism of link coherent the explore in Prometheus of myth prehistoryProtagoras,accountof the andDiodorus themyth Siculus in theStatesman, in I the from evidence Drawing interaction. political and emotions social of importance the stresses Protagoras while the individual, the of power emphasizes and physics of theory his on based is thought Democritus’ morality. ABSTRACT iii

itus’ conception of conception itus’ conception of conception

Plato’s Plato’s

CEU eTD Collection

at u nt es I m rtfl o rfso Nks aelpuo, who not been able toaccomplish my master studies. Kanellopoulos, Nikos professor to would I help grateful his Without father.my being as me supported and me encouraged am I least not but Last discussions. our and support ethical their for Vlassopoulos Kostas and Jovchevski Perica friends my to especially and persons, loved my to express I gratitude Personal for hisconstan and expertise his sharing for Studies Medieval of Department the from Perzcel Istvan professor to gratitude my express I and indebted much very feel also I my research. broaden me helped and me encouraged who Betegh, Gabor professor to also H. and Weberman goes appreciation greatMy year. D. difficult this over support their for Griffin, Benyami, M. professors especially and Department, philosophy the of members faculty the all thank to opportunity this take also I me made corrections and approach thesubject fr comments my numerous to His considerably experience. added graduate patience, and understanding, expertise, whose IstvanBodnar,professormy supervisor, my to gratitude express to like would I me made corrections and approach thesubject from adeeper comments my numerous to His considerably experience. added graduate patience, and understanding, expertise, whose IstvanBodnar,professormy supervisor, my to gratitude express to like would I

t encouragement. ACKNOWLEDGEME om adeeper perspective.

perspective. iv

NTS

CEU eTD Collection The general idea behind the inquiry of Democritus’ and Protagoras’ views, is to defend to is views, Protagoras’ and Democritus’ of inquiry the behind idea general The f the within Protagoras and Democritus conn is text the in nature human the and cosmogony the of description the that claim Ι precisely, More society. first the and beings living the cosmos, the regarding views original Democritus’ on based is Siculus Diodorus in found the ethical andpoliticalofthese implications views. of nature the b) and society of birth the and species the of differentiation the cosmogony, resist could to creationism able were Socratic/Platonic who Protagoras, and Democritus which in ways the a) examine Plato’s of the account ofprehistory inDiodorusSicul the accounts for individual in morality their views, support political and ethical Socrates’ and Plato’s Protagoras to opposition in terms, naturalistic and Democritus although that argue to is intention inclusiv an with compatible is imply claimed butratherPlato itdid, asnot thatit amoralism,does naturalismancient that Protagoras Here is how I will proceed: in the first chapterIfirst the argueIproceed:in how that will is Here in Plato that Prometheus storyof the be will myproject to importanceparticular Of by presented naturalism of arguments early the investigate I thesis, this In

Statesman,

attributes to Protagoras, its connection to the teachings of Democritus and Democritus of teachingsthe to connection its Protagoras, to attributes to shed light to Plato’s intentions against the humanism. I intend to intend I humanism. the against intentions Plato’s to light shed to and social morality are distinctive. e conception of morality connected to humanism. My main My humanism. to connectedmorality of conception e Introduction tl peet oplig ruet explaining arguments compelling present still aeok f cmo attd t hmn life. human to attitude common a of ramework us. I also make use ofthe argument inthe myth 1

ected with the notion of microcosm of notion the with ected

the account of prehistoryaccountof the

CEU eTD Collection Democritus. I first present Prometheus’ myth in the in myth Prometheus’ present first I Democritus. opennaturalism. will thepath assumption thesecond This to chapter ofmy thesis. a works ethics, Democritus’ that and suggestion physics the reinforcing regarding passages related the from evidence bring and Siculus Diodorus fragments.Therefore,Iin keyanalyzeDemocritus’ terms the in macrocosm and anfor indivi possible is it that of notion the is life ordered the to importance particular Of society.ordered an establish to features that support to statements ethical his with Siculus Diodorus in society his first the and connect nature human about I conception Then, individual. the of improvement the for allows it because crucial body the of importance the stress and physics his to combined first views ethical IDemocritus’ present morality. of conception their in significantly differ they naturalism, in ground the views of a naturalistic tradition shared by Democritus. transmits Protagoras historical way this Inmetaphorically. rather but literally, interpreted of Plato’s myth in the Cronus employ I argument, my For mechanism. of favour in and interpretation teleological the against arguefinally and myth the of interpretations possible the all chart mechanis in or teleological in either interpreted is myth Protagoras’ on based is argument myth.allegorythe presencethe divineAccordingthe inscholarsthe to of and agnosticism My prehistory. of account Siculus’ Diodorus Finally, in the last chapter I argue that though the two intell two the though that argue I chapter last the in Finally, and Protagoras between connection the of favour in argue I chapter second the In - soul interaction in his theorizing of the ideal hu ideal the of theorizing his in interaction soul aidos

(shame) that functions as the practical reason in Kant. Democritus implies implies DemocritusKant. reasonin practical the as functions that (shame) Statesman logos

dual be to autonomous and inthe same way for ispossible it o li ta gods that claim to

(reason) and (reason) 2

anch peec i the in presence ’ inoia Prota e ikd ihn h faeok of framework the within linked re tic terms. My main intention is to is intention main My terms. tic

man nature. This combination is combination This nature. man

(sagacity of soul) are the main the are soul) of (sagacity goras

and then combine it with it combine then and ectuals share common share ectuals Protagoras

ant be cannot

CEU eTD Collection es o fins. Only fairness. of sense the feature innate an as have to beings human fornecessary is it and morality for enough toestablis impossible higher have to unnecessary authorityand laws. But scenario this isextremely demanding for humannature and almost be to citizens, autonomous of consisting state, ideal an with the noti his and relativism his to relevant is best the for choose to opportunity Protagoras’ progress. have can people best, the for always decide h atraie pin cnee b Poaoa, rspoe that presupposes Protagoras, by conveyed option, alternative The

on of advantageous life, which can fully flourisha in democratic state. h justiceand inthe individual correspondingly inthe society.

hog te mtos of emotions the through 3

homo mensura homo aidos

and dike

thesis and it is consistent is it and thesis

n te potnt to opportunity the and aidos

s not is CEU eTD Collection a they that and nature in beings human of role the in interested were Protagoras and Democritusthatstresses she withaddition, fragmentsIn eponymousDemocritusethicalgeneral. dialogue in not does she but evolution natural cc of model a with consistent are views Protagoras’ that claims Osborne 3 ( fragments” Democritean surviving in exists warrant independent some which for ideas out filled “are that Democritus. of doctrine 2 the contain pre be they then must theDiels attributes famous it account byDiodorus that that claims and concluded attribution this against argues He ff.) 23 492ff.). pp. (1928, Dahlmann pp. back (1912, go but Abdera Epicurean not of are sections Hecateus these that out pointed Reinhardt sections. these of origins the 1 Darwinian a on exegesis ofhuman progress (Beresford, 2013:1). depends interpretation Beresford’s society; first the of creation the beingsandliving of origins concerningthe account naturalistic same the shareProtagoras of myth the with it Plato’s combined in Prometheus and Siculus Diodorus in story the of interpretation of examination closer Democritus’ doctrines reflects theideas articula a that appears it views, Democritus’ present not does source Democritus. de This society. human first the and beings living of

Vlastos, 1946: 59). 59). 1946: Vlastos, The evidence for Democritus as source of Diodorus Siculus is not certain. There is quite a debate about about debate a quite is There certain. not is Siculus Diodorus of source as Democritus for evidence The Gregory Vlastos assumed that these fragments (1.7 fragments these that assumed Vlastos Gregory Another option is presented by Catherine Osborne in her book book her in Osborne Catherine by presented is option Another ee t Doou’ etos as sections Diodorus’ to refer 1.

On the On the for accounts different defended have scholars assumption, this on Based origins the of description a find we history Siculus’ Diodorus of book first the In Democritus’ philosophy in Diodorus Siculus inDiodorus philosophy Democritus’ 1

Notwithstanding the criticisms of those scholars who believe that Diodorus’ believethat who scholars those of criticisms the Notwithstanding other hand, Gregory Vlastos much earlier in his article, his in earlier much GregoryVlastos hand, other

Protagoras

prle. son’ apoc cnet Poaoa’ iw i the in views Protagoras’ connects approach Osborne’s parallel. a . Adam Beresford has advocat has Beresford Adam . Siculus to Democritus (DK 68B5). Naddaj SiculusDemocritus to 68B5). (DK 4 - 1.8) have their origins to Democritus’ doctrines and and doctrines Democritus’ to origins their have 1.8)

ted inDiodorus’ sections (1.7 3

cito i uuly trbtd to attributed usually is scription Dumb beasts and dead philosophers. philosophers. dead and beasts Dumb ed that Democritus and Democritus that ed On the pre the On re ih certain with gree , 156 - 1.8).

- Atomistic. - 2 history history

to to CEU eTD Collection 4 ( animals to compared p.34). man2007, of inferiority the regarding B21) (DK Anaxagoras with namely Presocratics, this of elaboration an b) and physics and ethics Democritus’ with correspondence their and Siculus Diodorus in prehistory of account the of 1.8 and 1.7 in found ideas key the switch from religion science, to from divinity tohumanism. the namely necessity, natural and experience human of terms in world the comprehend of praise the implies society and nature human life. social of idea his on individualism imposes theory atomistic his that case the not be might it different in presented thoughts the between fragments link coherent a is there that case the support b) and Protagoras, and Democritus between difference the thesis my of chapter basi the be a) will approach This fragments. as other in presented views his with society human and cosmogony regarding conception Democritus’ o mode the explanation about silent is itself account the but terms, mechanistic or teleological in description the of reader the that argues Prot Plato’s in account the and presented explicitly are doctrines naturalistic where Diodorus, Diodorus, in Furley,1987 agoras Methodologically speaking, my task in this chapter is a) to establish an a an establish to a) is chapter this Methodologicallyin myspeaking,task of connection the examine to first is aim my suggestion, last the from Starting –

4 , , where these doctrines might be inferred, but are not explicitly stated. Vlastos explicitlystated. not are but inferred,be might doctrines these where ,

including the description of the human, primiti human, the of description the including (Vlastos, 1946:57). p. 167. p. oee, t s oeoty ht i ntrlsi cneto o te universe, the of conception naturalistic his that noteworthy is it However,

olwd nte pt, n hc h dsigihs ewe te con in account the between distinguishes he which in path, another followed

Protagoras Protagoras

ua rao ( reason human ve stage in Diodorus stagevein

a udrtn i i either in it understand can s for clarifying at the last the at clarifying for s logos , h atmt to attempt the ),

– nalysisof

although f

CEU eTD Collection 1967). (Cole a without arise institutions human how show can that account an of development the in important are alone chance by occur would that arrangements and combinations 6 transmitted98. theirfeatures theirinheritors. Furley, to 1987, organisms fittest the that reference no is there d) and species fittest the of survival the on is theory ch ancient adaptive the to and species of variety the the from different quite is the have not did a) theory intellectuals ancient The theory. evolutionary Darwinian early this However, thought. Epicurus’ and Democritus’ 5 de the “embryos”and with appeared pustules wet land, the of nourishment the the explains phase last The life. of bearers original the as membranes, of surface the on and place takes landandseparationinto seathe Then, whirl. fierya their into wereintermixed compound, of because stars, the and sun the while lightness), and gravity of appearance the notes phenome (this regions highest the towards together ran cosmos the of part fiery The motion. continuous and heat air, of help the with state ordered an into get and disjointed heaven procedure.mechanistica of merelyresult asthe Anaxagoras), in Mind the or Plato, of Demiurgeagencyany (theother of intervention the theory ofevolution. embraces humanism indispensably thedemand of a genetic theory, an early account ofthe Democritus’ that argue to be will concern my least, not but Last, life. social to leads that nature human of conception Democritus’ understand to order in analysis

It has been s been has It h ie o a hoy f vlto i frt niae i Epdce’ rget (K 2 bt lo in also but 62) (DK fragments Empedocles’ in indicated first is evolution of theory a of idea The 1.1.

The origin of origin The and the earth and their mixed synthesis. During the second phase, the bodies are bodies the phase, second the During synthesis. mixed their and earth the and

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/#8 uggested that the sheer infinite size of the atomist universe and thus the number of possible possible of number the thus and universe atomist the of size infinite sheer the that uggested Democritus’ cosmogony spontaneous 5

the world described in 1.7 is explained by natural causes, without without causes, natural by explained is 1.7 in described world the

generation of living beings from earth. Each one of these of one Each earth. from beings living of generation ne f h caatr f cran id c te tes f the of stress the c) kind, certain a of character the of ange 6

The first phase describes the unitydescribesphasethe the first of The .

knowledge of genes b) they referred only to to only referred they b) genes of knowledge smn tlooia o telgcl origins theological or teleological ssuming

and the process the and licate non

CEU eTD Collection 1 (Loeb, beings human and universe must of he origins thetreatise to medical refers his first compose to order in that out points author the There, “Fleshes”. entitled text Evid p.18. 2001, medicine: and philosophybetween connection close cosmology;is and there rhetoric in studies definitelythe physicianincluded a of education 11 144 theembryological P. text inHippocrates. 10 9 t and sun the universal of whirl” cause the is this and upward; moves light, being nature, thisanything of for regions, highest the into gathered air) the of (sc. part fiery "The atomistic: that 7) 4. Censorinus, cf. 8 4: 19. in engendered the wet element in spiny enclosed membrane” v. (Aetius, Anaximander of theory Anaximande reflects 1.7 in cosmos of description 7 his interaction contemporary withhis Hippocrates. embryology. on and medicine treatise ancient of knowledge Democritus’ of little indication an be might resemblance Hippocratic the with similarities many has atomists the byembryo an as cosmos of description the that remarkable quite is It 67A). “A Leucippus: to attributed Laertius, Diogenes by given cosmogony the resembles text the 1.7.10). συστρεφόμενον και συνεχώς εαυτ? th 13). 1.7, δίνη π?ση whirl universal the in involved became stars other of multitude the and sun the that passage the of cosmos. of origins the about postulation Anaximander’s element them” (birds within tothe sky, fishes tothesea etc.). the to “according place appropriate the to live to went beings living Furley, 1987, 142 Furley,1987, pre a to refers Siculus Diodorus that argues Morrison John

lso srse t stresses Vlastos e world by forming among themselves a circular pattern of motion (ε?λούμενον δ??ν δ??ν (ε?λούμενον motion of pattern circular a themselves among forming by world e Jouan Furley, traces the analogy between the description of the birth o f cosmos, attributed to Leucippus, and and Leucippus, to attributed cosmos, f o birth the of description the between analogy the traces Furley,

sort of membrane comes apart from this, containing in itself bodies of all kinds” (DK kinds” all of bodies itself in containing this, from apart comes membrane of sort na refers to Democritus and Hippocrates as contemporaries and friends. He also stresses that the that stresses also He friends. and contemporaries as Hippocrates and Democritus to refers na h mi ie o csooy n hs rget em t rfet significantly reflect to seems fragment this in cosmogony of idea main The ;

ibid makes clear the reference to atomistic vocabulary: atomistic to reference the clear makes .

a ti i te rca psae wih nacs ht h rfrne o omgn is cosmogony to reference the that enhances which passage, crucial the is this hat ,

58 8

. According to the atomistic theory, the atoms of the bodies compose bodies the of atoms the theory, atomistic the to According

r’s theory: “The Diodorian zoogony recalls the famous the recalls zoogony Diodorian “The theory: r’s ence for this connection we find also in the Hippocratic Hippocratic the in also findwe connection this for ence

7 9

In addition, the reference to membranes in membranes to reference the addition, In ; 11

Morrison, 1941 Morrison, e et f h sas en cuh u it the into up caught being stars the of rest he

- tmsi suc ad e ugss ht the that suggests he and source atomistic - 4). Furley also states th states also Furley 4). 7

However, a closer examination examination closer a However,

“ h frt iig raue were creatures living first the , p.17 and it is for this reason this for is it and .

mut f each of amount at during the fifth the during at 10

This

(τ? (τ? CEU eTD Collection another” one with breeding by begotten now was creatures living of kind each but animals, larger generatethe to able longer no finally was it winds, the of and fire sun’s the of action the through more solid grew constantly earth the since And animals. water of name the receiving them, to congenial region those while animals, land other the of and things creeping of class the in numbered be to came consistency earthy an retained as such and thesOf life. animalof formevery produced was there open, broken and thoroughly heated been membranes had the and development full their attained had embryos thewhen finally, and heat; intense the by solid made were day nourishmenttheir mistforthwithfelthingsfrom livingthethatreceived the 14 13 perceivingthe human nature in similar way as t p.157 1987, Furley, organisms. living the and e that of history the in model mechanical and 12 biological a between cosmology”143). p. (ibid, distinction “sharp no was there century cosmos phase theprimitive ofliving beings follows. the earth on becomes universe the of pr change perpetual The approach. mechanistic biological a of terms in progress human of description also mobilising universe the of account mechanistic the same development ofthepattern’s structure. universe, the of rest the as constituents same the fromformed is he b) universe the of those bodies the as rules natural same the obeys man a) that meaning cosmos, little a is man that idea the had that “m and analogy“macrocosm”between the also “…while the wet was being impregnated with life by reason of warmth in the manner described, by night by described, manner the inwarmth of reason by life with impregnated being was wet the “…while p.251. Le Blay, 2012, Frédéric Democritus considered human being as the “little cosmos” or “microcosm”. Perhaps he wants to stress to wants he Perhaps “microcosm”. or cosmos” “little the as being human considered Democritus 1.2. ither men take part to the ordered state of the cosmos, or that atoms and void compose the universe the compose void and atoms that or cosmos, the of state ordered the to part take men ither As it is described, the first human beings came out from the earth like worms. In worms. like earth the from out came beings human first the described, is it As a have we Diodorus: in passages relevant the to also fits analogy this Apparently, reveals which biology, and mechanism between analogy an is there Therefore,

e, such as had partaken of the mostwarmththe of setoffpartaken the higherto had regions, having as suchbecome winged,e, The primary 13

c) he is c is he c)

whose composition part composition whose onceived as the same example of the pattern and d) he has he d) and pattern the of example same the as onceived state state of human beings . necessity heuniverse Aristotle criticizes the physicists, included Democritus, for Democritus, included physicists, the criticizes Aristotle 8

ook the most of the wet element gathered into the into gathered element wet the of most the ook icrocosm”.

. for human progress. After the ‘birth” of ‘birth” the After progress. human for Parts of Animals of Parts

Democritus was the first one first the was Democritus l fromthe l

(1.640b4

enveloping air, and by and air, enveloping – 12). ocesses

n a and

any of any

CEU eTD Collection 15 ofSicily, trans.Oldfather) (Diodorus I.7; creation of thefirst society. progress human of contributors and reason hands, to emphasis gives history, Diodorus’ in found fragment, this of end the at Democritus civilisation. their develop n The ?φελ?σαι). βίον κοινόν τον δυνάμενα τα discoveringandfire “other things” and they established their (καί first communities τ?λλα were they Gradually, themselves. secure to people helped and διδασκόμενοι) πείρας τ?ς conditions). climatological hard food, and dwelling, clothes, of (lack conditions the survival inopportune of because extinction, from suffering were they meanwhile, the In conventions). l different to consented and groups different to belonged them of one each (σποράδην), way unordered an in together assembled they that fact the of Becauselanguage. first their create to order in σύμβολα), τιθέντας ?λλήλους (πρός made they then and gestures and sounds with communicate to way a speech, developed they contact their Through protection. gatheringstarted men διδασκομένους), togethersought and mutual συμφέροντος το? (?πό fea of emotion the triggered danger of feeling The dangers. bestial, a in living started theybeginning the Guthrie, 1957, p 18 p Guthrie,1957, that stresses Democritus However,

, . but also point also but

conventions expe 9 15

unordered state of life, exposed to several to exposed life, of state unordered anchinoia s out the importance of necessity for the for necessity of importance the out s rience

x se ws o icvr rs n to and arts discover to was step ext

for ever for becomes the greatest teacher (?πό (?πό teacher greatest the becomes anguage (having also different also (having anguage sgct o su) s h main the as soul) of (sagacity r and because of expediency of because and r y object among themselves among object y

CEU eTD Collection knowledge: to senses of role the stressing for mindthe and senses the personifies verb the choose (eyewitness)Democritus in learning.B125 for perception (fear) Indeed, sense experience and of wouldimportance knowledge for crucial γιγνώσκω are senses that believes who 16 ( process ( other each join to motivated cogn are of people fragment process the by controlled is In fear situations. threatening humans, to mechanism a as responds and danger of perception the involves which man, including animals, all for emotion basic the is Fear fear. of power is state forbidden andreveals prohibition this thestrong antithesis between animal law and nature. the to back returning Therefore, crimes. commit and life ordered the to fail who people to refer “animals” these Apparently life. “bestial” the choose who beings human from animals”, “specific from protected be must life ordered the that out points B259 and B258 fragment in Democritus speaking,Strictly civi the of threatbecamethe later state animal However, this animals. βίω θηριώδη και bythreatenedActually,beasts.and the weak they as presentedlivingwere also peop that is note to thing first the story the Analysingfragments. other in conveyed ?πιγιγνώσκω ?πιγιγνώσκω 1.4. 1.3. In the text, this process, from the primary state t state primary the from process, this text, the In views Democritus’ with Siculus Diodorus in account the trace now me Let Hr, iul ecpin otiue t a cognitiv a to contributes perception visual Here, .

φόβον ?πιγιγνώσκειν φόβον means that I am aware of something from being an eyewitness. I suggest that only someone only that suggest I eyewitness.an being fromsomething of aware am I that means Fear the bestiallife Living , which means that at this phase human beingswereactinghuman phase similarly this atwith that meanswhich ,

) takes place, which is which place, takes 10

poes Dmciu akolde the acknowledges Democritus process. e

connected with the emotion of fear of emotion the with connected ?θροίζοντες ition o civilization, is triggered by the by triggered is civilization, o

n learning. and comply with the dictates of dictates the with comply , eas a cognitive a because ), “ Miserable Mind, you get you Mind, Miserable ?πιγιγνώσκω lized human beings. lized

n Diodorus’ In ?ν ?τάκτω ?τάκτω ?ν

nta of instead

le are le CEU eTD Collection p.51 suggested. Philippson 1946, Vlastos, 21 conventional qualitiesare “Colour exists by convention, sweet bybyconvention, bitter convention” 20 19 18 ofexperiencing fearwould similar be cognitive to Konstan, deficit. p.130 the that and inference” knowledge and involves“fear that remarks also Konstan David together. all theysurviveiflive to manage canthey that hope they also but threatened feelthey because cooperation and Similarly, prosperity. possibilityof the and fear of emotion 17 yo that Democritus thehidden is bearer of Diodorus views in1.7and 1.8. meaningful into sounds their articulate who people from consent rather but ability, intelligible innate, an of derivation objects. physical conventions, view iscompatiblewith Democritus’ this thesis aboutbeingsand names. human in essential not language.Languagespecificis a have to consentthey sounds, and A communication. of method first the create that thepower of emotionled humanbeings this to o “end the be can injustice of fear the that verifies Democritus when B215 in supported also is claim This it. of awarebeing of advantage take people and behaviour adaptive the triggers which fear, is it Therefore other the of case the h not theytheythreatened,do whenfeel animals, In fear. own their observe to able were People causes. its and lso hr rfts h agmn ta te rget 1. fragments the that argument the refutes here Vlastos In contendsthat language Epicuruslater Incontrast systemisa p.53 of1946, nature. Vlastos, In urfromevidence you us, do and try overthrowoverthrow to The will us? your be downfall

In 1.5. Cratylus, B26 Democritus defends also the convetionalist view of names: In B125 Democritus also claims that claims also Democritus B125 In names: of view convetionalist the also defends Democritus B26 Rhetoric The desire of people to have prosperity drove them to assemble together and to and together assemble to them drove prosperity have to people of desire The

Hermogenes 19

(

1382b Language eut o coincidenc of results 20 As Vlastos correctly points out, in Diodorus Siculus language is not a not is language Siculus Diodorus in out, points correctly Vlastos As - 1383a8

assertsthe conventionalist view(383a

)

rsol ses o onc a connect to seems Aristotle

words. . f calamity” (? calamity” f

21 ad o o hv ntrl orsodne with correspondence natural have not do and e

This indication in the text enhances the possibility the enhances text the in indication This 11 fter expressing themselves through gestures through themselves expressing fter

δικίης δε?μα ξυμφοράς τέρμα) meaning τέρμα) ξυμφοράς δε?μα δικίης ave the cognitive grasp of their emotion. their of graspcognitive the ave in Diodorus fragment people seek for protection protection for seek fragment people Diodorus in

7 desire - . drvd rm n pcra suc, as source, Epicurean an from derived 1.8 desire - b).

to live inanto live ordered state

o sft ad eieain ih the with deliberation and safety for - 134 .

Names are just . ”

absence absence 17 .

CEU eTD Collection advantageous progress. ability as isknown sagacity ofthe ( soul time each choose to ability innate an experiencing, before have, must people here: missing is something However, experience. of character beneficial the to due attitude “bestial” cha can to similar is that asserts Democritus B33In nature. of power transformative the also becomes fo nightingale, and swan songsters, the and building, for swallow the mending, and spinning for spider the things: important most the in animals the of pupils are “we animals: different of example in Democritus Similarly, acknowledg B154 fragment experience. and observation of process the through learn and animals like more actbeings analysis,human this of beginning the at mentioned I As ( beings human of “teacher” mut the to contributes certainly 1.7. 1.6.

ht s et o te, tews teewudb opors. hs aua human natural This progress. no be would there otherwise them, for best is what eorts ees o h sgct o su a te infcn assat f human of assistant significant the as soul of sagacity the to refers Democritus it but progress, big make to people for enough not is language of invention The nge. Hence, one can possibly assume that the first human beings changed their changed beings human first the that assume possibly can one Hence, nge.

Anchinoia physis.

Anchinoia andLogos Anchinoia Experience ah ie o a aet Aitte n the in Aristotle agent. an for time each r singing, by way of imitation”. Furthermore learning from experience from learning Furthermore imitation”. of wayby singing, r

Instruction reforms men and through this transformation their nature their transformation this through and men reforms Instruction s h aiiy f ua mn t fn ot ht s et wa is what best, is what out find to mind human of ability the is es the importance of observing nature and learning from the from learning and nature observing of importance the es ? πό τ?ς πείρας διδασκόμενοι πείρας τ?ς πό

ual understanding of experience. Experience is the great the is Experience experience. of understanding ual anchinoia 12

) during this pre this during ) ioaha Ethics Nicomachean - political stage. political

didache defines CEU eTD Collection something,onreflect and request deliberates my transl.) 22 reasonable make to how learnt they Gradually, experiences. their and to advantage according always towards inclination natural their to due improved was ability mental mentali their of because teacher of men. theprimitive the becomes which tendency same very the is It reflection. or excellence mental require a enjoyment), of lack and enjoyment is disadvantageous for choiceand advantageous the of criterion advantageousthe (B188: pleasant is what An to identical is Democritus life. towards attitude advantageous an to contributes shrewdness. only using contingent remains transformation and experience from learning of result successful the Hence, because (ε?βουλία), excellence αγχίνοιαν).quickness Itψυχής wo ofmind that seems και λόγον(καί beings human characteristicof natural another also as mentioned is reason in respe immediatelyand act to readiness their to due conditions, their improve to ability intrinsic the had beings human first the quickly.Therefore, decisions their of execution to proceed (?στιν conjecture” ?γχίνοια ? τις of δ?ε?στοχία skill “important the as soul, of sagacity or mind, of quickness As Aristotle once points out points once Aristotle As shrewdness However, ct ofvariety oftheir experiences. Thus, for Democritus, human beingswerenot superiorhuman Democritus,for compared Thus, toother animals

y ta i wy hy r peetd iig bsil ie Their life. bestial a living presented are they why is that ty: euboulia euboulia 1142β5), which means that people, equipped with this skill, can skill, this with equippedpeople, that meanswhich 1142β5),

is not the only contributor to human growth. In the text, text, the In growth. human to contributor only the not is infers reason because because reason infers anchinoia 22

Reason functions Reason

; ucin wtot osiu calculation. conscious without functions N.E . 1142b βουλόμενος ζητε? και λογίζεται και ζητε? βουλόμενος uld not assureuld not alone the deliberating supplementary to shrewdness and shrewdness to supplementary

nd this innate tendency does not does tendency innate this nd

(the one who one (the CEU eTD Collection 24 23 social life istheresult b) and laws same the to subjected are Democritus for “microcosm” and “macrocosm” nature, tofulfil art Therefore, needs. and bodylackswhat to connected contraryis the it on need,bodily human the from irrelevant outco the as medicine of art the conceived authors wayHippocratic the to similar is it but universe, the of process the in place takes claiming.However, of kind necessitythis withthe mechanical similar isnot necessity that me to gift divine a is art that belief the from position his necessityof Inresult music. of (ανάγκη)art way, this the except Democritus distinguishes the are arts all that clearly states 144 fragment Similarly, activity. every for teacher the choices

For the view that Democritus influenced the Hippocratic viewHippocratic Democritustheinfluencedthethat For Actuallyhe says: in B76 the foolish,but for advantage isnot reason the teacher. 1.9. 1.8. a) a) that show to aimed 1.8 and 1.7 sections the of analysis previous The necessity( to refers Democritus or Diodorus 1.8 fragment of end the At 23

Democritus’ description of cosmogony corresponds with the seed, the nurture, the seed, the with corresponds cosmogony of description Democritus’ and finally est Macrocosm andMicrocosm Siculus in Diodorus andarts Necessity

what needed is tobe

of necessity and convention. ablished their social life.

creation can be defined as man’s ultimate attemp ultimate man’s as defined be can creation

done infavor of hisadvantage.

e f necessity. of me

authors See, Miller, 1949, p. 192 and Schiefsky and 192 p. , 1949, Miller, authors See,

a te le taiin was tradition older the as n 24

r i nt something not is Art

t, imposed by imposed t, χρείαν) as χρείαν)

CEU eTD Collection end achievementthe of endthis towards progress the then cheerfulness of end the state ideal the as defines Democritus otherwisecannot su because ofthe thesocietycreation needed people are and changeof process beings human 25 of that and corpus Hippocratic necessitytheof inanalogynotion betweenthe the points also Miller p.77 2005, social man’s of theorizing development r Democritus’ that advocates More Beresford progress. Adam human the precisely for theory genetic a advocates Democritus that suggest of human evolutionthe framework within of natural necess outcome an was society political that presupposes Democritus they speech. finally and developed other each know to and together gather to started they then danger, a political their of beginning the was that and names 55 1946, (Vlastos language of use political the on based was out, points correctly Vlastos as association, first The associate. to beings human soulgiveatoms inhuman life and transform human beings. of pattern circular a themselves among forming by void the the atoms oftheas bodiescompose change progress.to subjectedand Just (microcosm)is necessity because state ordered an presupposes beings human of stage primitive Accordingly,the world. ordered the of emergence the and foetus, a of birth the I suggest that I can use the term necessity, not necessity, term the use can I that suggest I chreia chreia Beresford bases his argument on the following suggestion: the story of Diodorus of story the suggestion: following the on argument his bases Beresford to scholars triggered Siculus Diodorus of prehistory the in marked stages The b) in 1.8 in Diodorus Siculus. Ibid, 190 Siculus. in Diodorus Ibid, in 1.8 Js a te nvre mcoom mvs otnal, n h sm wy man way same the in continually, moves (macrocosm) universe the as Just . As far as society is concerned, it was the force of force the was it concerned, is society as far As akd f humanness of lacked eveals anearly account ofsomething like theDarwinian theory. -

isnecessity imposed by nature.

bsil ie te what then life) (bestial

as mechanical, but as natural necessity. If at the first stage first the at If necessity. natural as but mechanical, as 15

a needed was greement. People were alone and in and alone were People greement. ity. - 56). People consent in giving in consent People 56). 25

motion, in the same way the way same the in motion,

χρείαs,

was to be human beings. The The beings. human be to was f h fre f h same the of force the of which lead the first the lead which

rvive.Since - if not the not if

CEU eTD Collection early account ofthe evolutionary theory. an serve them of both that hypothesis the on based views Protagoras’ and Democritus’ myths, c) theclose relation between Democritus and Protagoras (Beresford, 2013,2 self of because processes cultural through phy through world the of creation the a) from evidenceprecisely bringsBeresford More account. naturalistic same the of proponents are Democritus and Protagoras Therefore, adaptation. natural Protagoras. Plato’s in myth Prometheus the of version literal a is it and Democritus to attributed is In the following the In

The myth The ia ad aeilsi ncsiy n te tay ua evolution human steady the and necessity materialistic and sical hides the real views of Protagoras about human progress through progress human about Protagoras of views real the hides chapter I will expand this view and argue for the connection of connection the for argue and view this expand will I chapter

- 16 rsrain )cmo oauayi both in vocabulary common b) preservation,

- 8).

CEU eTD Collection the Statesman of perspective philosophical the connecting suggestion, teleological this argue against I Finally, myth. the of reading teleological the on light sheds which approach, pre then I naturalism; of favour in Osborne, Catherine by suggested conne the naturalism Democritus’ with account ofthe (1.7& cosmos inDiodorus Siculus 1.8). out points also He myth. the in theory contract early antraces of interpretation,thereareno his earlyAccordingto an theoryDarwinism. on of basedsociety, first the and cosmos the of origins the about views naturalistic genuine his t of veil the under conveys, Protagoras that advocates Beresford affairs. human in intervention or causation divine refutes and concern human exclusively an as morality treats Humanism humanism. to connected consequences moral major has which theory, latter the to biolo a on based is Prometheus of myth the Accordingthat claims Beresford Adam suggestion, terms. mechanistic or teleological under either interpreted 2.

Justice and Cosmogony in the in the Cosmogony and Justice In this chapter, I first outline Beresford’s interpretation and a similar position, position, similar a and interpretation Beresford’s outline first I chapter, this In the in Prometheus of myth the that argues Vlastos Gregory with that ofthe era of Zeus era of in Protagoras Protagoras respectively. 17

the the

Politicus Protagoras Protagoras to o Protagoras’ of ction

Protagoras Protagoras et n alternative an sent vs he myth, he

a be can the the

gical CEU eTD Collection controversy can be settledinterms ofan organized society. give to decided gods The disorder. by dominated (321d), from Athena and Hephaestus toendow man. wisdom practical their art, and fire the steal to Prometheus, brother, his leads he survival except species, other all of protection the for cares diligently who Epimetheus, to distribution the over hands Prometheus Epimetheus. and Prometheus demigods, two into divided is features these are they why is this appropriate the with andendowed danger under living were They earth. from life into came and gods the by created are species animal the and race human The condition. human focuswill onthe myth. (320c Prometheus of Myth the of combination a is which speech, Great the forth sets arguments, Socrates’ the that believes latter the while teachable, not is virtue that view the defends one first TheProtagoras. and Socrates 2.1. the in justice no was there endowment, this Despite myth Prometheus’ In The

Protagoras The myth of – 324d) and the Logosand 324d) (324d2

ua big. huhlsl trwn ncsay qimn of equipment necessary throwing Thoughtlessly beings. human

deals with the teachability of virtue. The main interlocutors are interlocutors main The virtue. of teachability the with deals oiie arete politike Protagoras refers to a hypothetical construction of the early the of construction hypothetical a to refers Protagoras features in order to survive. The task of the distribution of distribution the of task The survive. to order in features

Prometheus in the Protagoras a b ta be can 18

– 328c2). For the purposes chapter ofthis I aidos aidos

gt Poaoa, n re t refute to order in Protagoras, ught.

and human species and men were men and species human dike

o hm s ta the that so them, to

CEU eTD Collection 28 ofthe obscuritythebecause and brevity ofthe subject, ofhuman life 27 in byhis later eponymous Plato dialogue. 26 Thus, Democritus. is Siculus Diodorus of source the probably, most that, out points also Great world. the understanding kind this for of proponents were source Protagoras, including intellectuals, main the as nature about inquiry the century,concerningfifth the and sixth the during minds, thoughtful the among consensus considered as a sample ofIonian rationalism. usually is which myth, the of form the of part as interpreted is gods the of presence the P out point to and 1.8, Protagoras the in myththe connect to him leads suggestion This humanity. of progress the regarding t in Gods the of presence the first the and beings society. living of origins the about opinions genuine Protagoras’ bears provi divine praises which view, Plato’s against humanism defends Protagoras which to according scenario detailed a Beresfordoffers Adam life. social of birth the cosmogonyand the of exegesis naturalistic Beresford, 2013, 140. 2013, Beresford, " n his to refers Condition” Original the “On treatise lost Protagoras’ Probably Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may theybe, whatsort of or not or existtheyknowing whether of means no have I gods, the Concerning 2.2. oe rcsl, eefr are wt Wlim Gut William with agrees Beresford precisely, More the in Prometheus of myth The 26

aig no osdrto Poaoa’ agnosticism, Protagoras’ consideration into Taking

with the description of prehistory in Diodorus Siculus, described in 1.7 and 1.7 in described Siculus, Diodorus in prehistory of description the with Beresford’s defenceBeresford’s ofnaturalism in the Protagoras

rotagoras’ influence by certain Presocratics and atomists. In short, In atomists. and Presocratics certain by influence rotagoras’

he myth serves a symbolism of naturalistic explanations explanations naturalistic of symbolism a serves myth he dence. Beresford’s first step is to assume that the myth the that assume to is step first Beresford’s dence.

Protagoras 19 28

is usually interpreted as a sample of sample a as interpreted usually is " (DK 80b4) (DK 27

re wo tess the stresses who hrie, eefr sget that suggests Beresford

f uaim Guthrie humanism. of . aturalistic views presented presented views aturalistic

CEU eTD Collection in na of Aristotle terms the contingency. under morality that show to Plato for opportunity an is dialogue The instructions. philosophical his from view ethical opposite the impose and universe the to explanations 32 31 ofDemocritus biography. Mi See 30 29 of a naturalist pre certain of views the expose to excuse an is Prometheus of myth the that and dialogue the in Protagoras to is claim this for ethics. human also concerningargument naturalistic a give to attempt and c) the close relation between Democritus and Protagoras self of becauseprocesses cultural through evolution human steady the and necessity materialistic and physical through Democritus, of Evidence myth. views a through naturalistic the transmits Protagoras that assumes Beresford 139. ibid, protégé a Protagoras and whichProtagoras than makes tradition, Democritus older biographical a is There 140 ibid, Plato probably finds in the face of Prot of face thein finds probably Plato 2.3. Furthermore, the symbolism of Gods and their role in the myth and shed light on light shed and myth the in role their and Gods of symbolism the Furthermore, an as seen be can myth the Protagoras, of agnosticism the account into Taking in the myth

141.

ic tradition, whichiscompletely teleology toPlato’s opposite and morality. Protagoras’ agnosticism andthe symbolismProtagoras’ ofgods - Socratics. Therefore, Beresford asserts that Protagoras is a proponenta is Protagorasthat Therefore,BeresfordassertsSocratics. sue ht lt hs reasons has Plato that assume Metaphysics

29 -

KyoungLee, 2005,182. for this connection focuses on a) the a) on focuses connection this for

- 8b calls 986b preservation, b) the common vocabulary of both myths,vocabularyboth common of the b) preservation, agoras the wholeofthe thetradition agoras 20 physiologous

hs wo nur ntr, o instance, for nature, inquire who those o er h gnie pnos of opinions genuine the bear to 30 physiologoi, physiologoi, .

creation of the world the of creation turalism leaves room for room leaves turalism 31

The starting point point starting The whogive naturalistic

CEU eTD Collection 34 33 Anaximander, Thales, Anaxagoras, Anaximenes, Archelaus Diogenes and ofApollonia. tool. a as merely developed is intelligence human that and animals, other to superior not are beings human state primary the in that to need we that develop order in tosurvive. ability an rather but god, by us to given gift a not is ahead’ think to ability our foresight, and intelligence own ‘our that is story the of moral The providence. distribution. for uses also Epimetheus that criterion the is survival Their survive. to need they everything with nature by equipped the in presented animals The Lucretius. in providence of absence Democritus.atomist the to closer is which process,species, of evolution biological the of theory,that opposite plan, divine any necessitate neither does view this and survive, nature in organisms hardest monstrosities, the nature, of accidents the r important Lucretius in find later we argument the anticipate to taken maybe mistakes, his from learns carelesslyand acts who someone of lines the (along Epimetheus that suggests Beresford story. the of implication evolutionary the

Beresford, Beresford, ibid,145.

o ay omc rvdne hwvr i rvas rtgrs cmimn t the to commitment Protagoras’ reveals it however, providence; cosmic any nor According to Beresfor to According co is myth the in Epimetheus of symbolism the hand, other the On h eyooy f i nm, hc mas fetogt, h i peetd as presented is who afterthought), means which name, his of etymology the

2013 emarks. On the one hand, using his allegorical language, Protagoras explains explains Protagoras language, allegorical his using hand, one the On emarks. ,

144.

d’s interpretation of the myth, Protagoras attempts to show to attempts Protagoras myth, the of interpretation d’s e eu Natura Rerum De 34 21 33

But neither does Prom does neither But In contrast to the animals, whose particular whose animals, the to contrast In

n te rcs o ntrl eeto. The selection. natural of process the and

Hs ruet s ae o two on based is argument His . etheus stand for divine for stand etheus De Rerum Natura Rerum De

nsidered as nsidered

the are

CEU eTD Collection For relativism. ontological his with incompatible are dialogue but views the Protagoras inDemocritus’ view B26 see with mentions affinity never close Plato have language. of Her for allows conventionalismstatement This na Democritus’ the regarding ground common 37 36 35 philosopher. ord rational his follow to order in man creates Demiurge superior a there, think to order in ‘ we view, Plato’s In principles. moral to commitment our on turns which argument, laws. and customs communication, linguistic its developed nation each that account into take conventi a as language of theory the also is life to attitude advantageous the to Linked survival. for best is what choosing of idea the conveys Siculus Diodorus in story the seen, have can realization as any other animal does. the is “man meas that claim the in expressed relativism Protagoras’ with in ties idea This live’. to order in ‘think we that idea the involves which choice, free of possibility the them enable tools ibid. 1 ibid, The same thesis we find also in the in also find we thesis same The ure of all things”. We adopt a way of thinking in our pursuit, that is to survive, just just survive, to is that pursuit, our in thinking of way a adopt We things”. all of ure 37

deontologica Plato’s to opposed certainly is life to attitude this Furthermore, this relativism; of form a thus implies intelligence of instrumentality The

47. on presented in Diodorus’ text; this link enhances the faith in relativism, if we if relativism, in faith the enhances link this text; Diodorus’ in presented on

also be combined with Democritus’ view of the advantageous life. As we As life. advantageous the of view Democritus’ with combined be also ’. 38 to act in specific ways, the particular human tool of intelligence createsintelligence of tool human particularways,specific the in act to

First, we get a clear illustration in Plato’s cosmology in the cosmologyin Plato’s in illustration clear a get we First,

The theprimary pursuit in state survival. isour Cratylus. Cratylus. mogenes to be an advocate of Democritus’ doctrines, which doctrines, Democritus’ of advocate an be to mogenes In 385d In 22

- e I suggest that suggest I e

Hermogenes

shares Democritus’ shares

ers to live as a as live to ers Timaeus live 36 ; l

CEU eTD Collection 38 Callicles In morality. conventional express traditionally which Plato, of dialogues other two consideration into take we if obvious, than more is this and terms biological imply contract. social the of foundation the and give them the opportunity for mutual understanding and toestablishthe social order. with people endow to decide Zeus myth the of framework the Within value. cognition have that responses psychological are emotions social The agent. guilty the to anger with or victim the to pity with manifested is It unjustly. treated is someone control. becan also active, it after thebut personalemotion process ofreflection, and creates self respons respect. and understanding mutual in contribute them of Both together and notbeing inastate of disorder. (322c: justice and shame with them provides Zeus cities. no werethere phase this atHowever, needs. basic satisfytheir to order in arts pre a entered humans Protagoras.of doctrine According tothe story, after stealing thepractical ofgods, wisdom

ibid, 147. ibid, 2.4. Here is the key point where scholars remark the constitution of political society political of constitution the remark scholars where point key the is Here Aidos ethical the out point to myth the of point crucial most the to return now me Let e of feeling embarrassed or guilt when I act inappropriately. It is mainly passive mainly is It inappropriately. act I when guilt or embarrassed feeling of e

Dike

eed te aua aoaiy f ua big ad stres and beings human of amorality natural the defends

and r utc i te es o fins, hc tks lc we w f we when place takes which fairness, of sense the is justice or Is moralityIs dike - oiia sae Te fud eiin n dvlpd agae and language developed and religion found They stage. political r sca eoin bcue hy eed n oil neato . interaction social on depend they because emotions social are

nomoi

or or 23 39

physei

oee, oil otat th contract social However, α?δ?

κα? ?

ίη) eas men because δίκην) Aidos e te tyrannical the ses a s h emotional the is idos

oy os not does eory

and seek Gorgias, e that eel dike

o be to to -

CEU eTD Collection view 107 the and opposite Denyer, see, 2008, p.90 1988, Farrar, see, distributes Zeus whenagreement social the places is suggestion Denyer’s then, But agreement. the to people lead that emotions natural that and Hume in find we one the like theory contract social a is this that supported physis betweenantithesis an no is there here Therefore affairs. social their arrange to beings human of 42 41 40 39 is it aspect, this of continuation In abilities. rational than their rather dispositions and emotional unjust or just be to tendency the have men short, In calculation.‘rational’ of outcome an not and process biological a to analogous something of result a was constitution this that claim I However, foundations. political constitute πάλιν σκεδαννύμενοι διεφθείροντο. ?θροισθε?εν, ο?ν ?τ? our against nat laws of oppression the to compact, social the after reference, no is there and state primary the in character human immoral or aggressive or selfish a to refer not social the to nature human A of compact. contrast the for evidence find must we then Denyer claims, Nicolas as this, of example typical a is Protagoras in myth the if and theory, political society onan antithesis between Republic laws. of character

Plato, Plato, Plato Denyer, ?δίκουν ?δίκουν ure. Instead,words:ure. the find we wih s eesr cniin for condition necessary is which , , The Republic, Republic, The Gorgias, I do not deny that this passage (322b) implies human beings’ natural beings’ human implies (322b) passage this that deny not do I If Protagoras , does not mean necessarily that human nature is aggressive or selfish. It may stress the lack of art art of lack the maystress It selfish. or aggressive is humannature thatnecessarily mean not does

hs nihss s eesr t asm a ery ruet o sca contract social for argument early an assume to necessary is antithesis this supporting the selfish human conduct. human selfish the supporting closer examination of the myth leads us to the conclusion that the text does text the that conclusion the to us leads myth the of examination closer 483 b 4 b 483 40 , commentary , C 3 320 on 358 e 3 e 358

A similar position is adopted by Glaucon by adopted is position similar A – c 8. c ?δίκουν

– 359b 5 . 5 359b 42

λήος τ οκ χνε τν οιι? τχη, ?στε τέχνην, πολιτικ?ν τ?ν ?χοντες ο?κ ?τε ?λλήλους

( ?

Protagoras, Protagoras, a social contract theory like Plato had in mind. It might be be might It mind. in had Plato like theory contract social a ζήτουν δ? ?θροιζεσθαι κα? σ?ζεσθαι κτίζοντες πόλεις· – 328 D 2. D 328 nomos aidos 24

and and 322b) and 41

dike. dike. Both examples base the foundation of foundation the base examples Both physis.

For a Humean interpretation of the myththe of interpretation Humean a For - 108

in the second book of the of book second the in

uvvl s ae on based is survival aidos not sound because he because sound not

and and

necessity to necessity dike dike nomos are the are

and and

CEU eTD Collection 43 evolution; rational our meaning development, cultural our of inference an not is moralityTherefore, dividing the marks spontaneity this and reactions spontaneous activate them of Both treatment. unfair as perceived is othertreatwe people unjustly. Similarly, waysame clevernessasbefore. way morality metaphorically governs our conduct. who gods, other the rep all commands he As authority. internal our ourselves, govern capacityinner to our representsZeus race. human the save to order in justice distribute to responsible for delivering justice. also be would Prometheus then ability rational our with with linked was us morality If provides justice. who god the not is he why is that aspect; moral humans’ donating to according myth the in Beresford’s interpretation. characters of symbolism the explain further to essential

Beresford, Beresford, resent human characteristics (Athens, Aphrodite, Hephaestus and so on), in the same the in on), so and Hephaestus Aphrodite, (Athens, characteristics human resent ln tee ie, hm n utc r nesoda tos o uvvl n the in survival for tools as understood are justice and shame lines, these Along b) a) rmtes ersns u abili our represents Prometheus Zeus 43 2013,

rather it is developed through natural aptitude: our natural instincts are the are instincts natural our aptitude: natural through developed is it rather

is the god attributed with the highest authority; he takes the responsibility the takes he authority; highest the with attributed god the is

159.

Aidos line from a rational plan, which serves our self our serves which plan, rational a from line

sig nifies our consciousness turned on byon turnedconsciousnesswhen our guilt nifies dike y o ivnig bt e s o i cag of charge in not is he but inventing, for ty 25

represents annoyance our provoked by what

- interest. CEU eTD Collection 45 natureallows thefor existence ofindividuals lackingthis capacity. 44 Democritus’ follow naturalism Protagoras’ m that assumes he because teleology, to something is this and refer just not does BeresfordIndeed, ones. future the to generations more past the from transmitted and more moral, more and more become people huma the for scenario hopeful optimistic, an reveals interpretationBeresford’s that transformation ofbestial men toanew species, thehumanbeings. civilized featu cultural and natural of transition gradual This morality. of principles fundamental the biologically inherited species human the time, of process the through generation, to generation from and humanness their enhanced that conduct) moral their changesdangersoccurredresistancecooperation,to by(theirtheir ar theirinventing Minor threats. they to resistant more experiences, became they and common morality of and form basic a dispositions developed natural their of because course, due dangerwerepeoplein and and subjected man, toextincti beginningto “hostile”was the at environment natural The life. their started beasts, other the all asequally, men first accoun the of case the physiology. in as just procedure natural the follows conduct moral our Thus, perish. n we endowments

ibid 155. ibid echanistic views, so there is no room leftthereis no for teleology. so echanisticviews, But I suggest might thatit bethe h ter o ntrl selecti natural of theory The One might suggest that this approach leaves room for determinism. It seems to me Itdeterminism.to forseems leavesroom approach this suggestthat might One of myththe in evolution theoryof the Hence,

t of prehistory in Diodorus Siculus, describes the process according to which to according process the describes Siculus, Diodorus in prehistory of t 45

eed in order to survive. Those men who do not have them by nature by them have not do who men Those survive. to order in eed

on allows also mistakes in nature. Similarly attributing this endowment to to endowment this attributing Similarly nature. in mistakes also allows on

Prometheus

, and correspondinglyin and ,

res led to the to led res n race: n ts and ts on. In 44

CEU eTD Collection 46 human’s a in education of importance the stress to life political and socialordinary, from conceives employsreasonheguidance. ratherthan Forthis examples (?ξις) habituation as education Protagoras that claims Beresford childhood. their from citizens all connected and bothofthemactively encourage ourmoral progress asa whole. natu that understand we if pointless is distinction this But ones. social to second the while endowments, natural to refer would one first The separated. Speech, Great the of parts two the that be would scenario vir of teachability the defends Protagoras that account into Taking automatically. conduct moral into change to insufficient is it disposition, natural our from derives morality our if Even developme ethical our for education of role the is what is, it if And subjects? moral become to order in sufficient disposition natural our is However, conventions. of product our nature law. imposesits because moral be necessaryto is It world. better a to lead will which necessity, of notion

α?τ?ν ο? φ?σει ?γο?νται ε?ναι ο?δ?από το? α?τομάτου α?τομάτου το? ο?δ?από ε?ναι ?γο?νται φ?σει ο? α?τ?ν 2.5. The holistic view of human progress presupposes that education is accessible to accessible is education that presupposes progress human of view holistic The a than rather instinct, natural a is morality that shown been has it now, to Up

Morality: the ofNatureNurture. bond and Morality:

It is an inclination subjected to further cultural processes. cultural further to subjected inclination an is It 27

Plato, 323c Plato, .

mythos e n euain are education and re and u, h plausible the tue, logos

would be would

moral nt? nt? CEU eTD Collection 50 Thourioi. 49 48 mightthat Protagoras possible influence151 Aristotle’s Ibid, moral doctrines. 47 of concept the in interest broader the of part as seen be can snakes these concerning account detailed The offspring. other have to not order in mothers their injure didn’t and males, kill didn’t females nature, their of account on if, humans trees. from frankincense gather and snakes winged like look which Arabia, in animals mythical some of nume example particular being without disappear, not do species these that fact the Prometheus. of Histories story the as tradition same the to belong to seems parallel. a as nature about view justice inhuman nature. life.

is mentioned interpretation This b lt, 325c Plato, hs s o surp not is This H erodotus 3.107 erodotus 2.6. 47

osqety fr rtgrs oa isrcin s h practi the is instruction moral Protagoras for Consequently, nte atraie o h Poaoa’ yh s o ae no con Herodotus’ account into take to is myth Protagoras’ the to alternative Another

myth?

Herodotus draws attention to the variety of natural species. He is impressed by impressed is He species. natural of variety the to attention draws Herodotus - Aitte lo b also Aristotle d Providence ofN Providence - iig sne rtgrs n Hrdts ee otmoais u as co also but contemporaries were Herodotus and Protagoras since rising, 109 109

elieves that moral progress is a combination of nature and practice. It is It practice. and nature of combination a is progress moral that elieves y Vlastos (1945, 57) ,see also Osborne (2007) Osborne also ,see 57) y(1945, Vlastos

I would like to turn to a passagefr a to turn to like Iwould 50 ature or Divine providence in the Divineprovidence ature or

hs, n ag nmes wud e tra to threat a be would numbers, large in These, 28

e wih establishes which ce, om Herodotus, which Herodotus, om os H gvs the gives He rous. 49

f on infants young if

n ok I of III book In - ones of founders CEU eTD Collection race, human the of superiority the of favor 78 puttingitsFestugiere,the at serviceand natural entire 1990, environment. 82 Sedley, See, 2007, in works which providence and intelligence Divine of result p Socrates being.human the of advantage the to serve products their and they that extent the to evaluated is nature, of creatures as importance, Their survival. human to contributes withi intelligence cosmic of favor 51 equipping provident, as “Nature of conception early an to attention draws Osborne Herodotus, to is Protagoras Comparing beings, injustice. the human of unprotected because justified the of favour in action, selfish and aggressive every «brutal» normal his to according acts man case first the In case. each in means survival what and strive to learn whypeople explain suggestionsunfairly. Both mankind treats «stepmother»and a as but like act not does nature that or animal, other any like just is man and nature equalitythereis suggestsOsborneProtagorasthat eitherin Catherinethat assumes nature, to compared superior not ani are beings human Therefore, story. the of beginning the at least at beasts, the than weaker and neglected as described is man because greatness, not but rather an indication of the survival of all species. comfort, and help mankind’s to conduces providence Nature’s that implication an not species. unprolific the and prolific the concerning examples detailed give they and animals of fertility the to refer texts Both species. the of economy the concerningstriking, is Protagoras of myth the with similarity the theory,evolutionary physis

Xenophon mals, even if they are endowed with reason. According to the role of human beings in beings human of role the to According reason. with endowed arethey if even mals,

to human status compared with animals with compared status human to

In contrast to Herodotus’ description, which refers only to nature’s economy and economy nature’s to only refers which description, Herodotus’ to contrast In ht ak Ina rtoaim Atog Hrdts os not does Herodotus Although rationalism. Ionian marks that in Memorabilia physis

4.3.10 n an anthropocentric, early teleological approach. The genesis of animals of genesis The approach. teleological early anthropocentric, an n , while in the second human strife b strife human second the in while ,

- 11 presents Socrates as a supporter of divine providence, arguing in arguing providence, divine of supporter a as Socrates presents 11 29 , Protagoras’ myth does not present Nature’s present not does myth Protagoras’ ,

resents the world’s perfection as a as perfection world’s the resents Obviously, this reference is reference this Obviously, ecomes necessary and necessary ecomes

s l aie with alike all us

ie s an us give a «mother»,a .

CEU eTD Collection 55 54 5). deifyusefulall and 84B. thelife. crops (DK, for 53 52 his employedliteraryin technique a pattern, Plato’s is this and dialogue the of moral the of role causal the serves light, this under myth, The myth. affinity interpretation teleological God’s omnipotence.of scholarsresult Some the defendedorderedis the lifethe that show Corre nature. in argument an offers latter the only since Protagoras, and Herodotus between distance important certainlthereis But art. and literature from have might Herodotus influences possible the further pursuing worth is It species. the of economy the concerning observations providence, divine of presence the suggesting non earlier an on drawing be may Herodotus that me to seems It exposed). washe elaborate whichmoreargument a drawing to on be could (he Herodotus He Nevertheless, misleading. probably is account an such though issue, the complicates survival factors ina “world ofunrivalled beauty, artistry, and balance”.

Thein 20 Osborne, This may be what Prodicus has in mind when he says that Gods do not exist and that people in the past past the in people that and exist not do Gods that says he when mind in has Prodicus what be may This lt ue mts ihn i eooy In economy. his within myths uses Plato rodotus and Protagoras clearly presuppose a common tradition, there is no argumentin no thereis tradition, common clearlyProtagorasaand presuppose rodotus , 2003, p.64. 2003, ,

hdig ih o ti ve i i iprat rmrl t epan h rl o the of role the explain to primarily important is it view this on light Shedding canone possibly hand,other the On assume isGodbehind thatit the arrangements προν ? θείου (το? providence to reference Herodotus’ However, with Gods with ,

which does rest not providence on ordivine intervention. 07 p.37 . p.37 07 spondingly, the myth in myth the spondingly,

(322a3

- 54 8)

. n the in

Protagoras Phaedo Phaedo Protagoras

mil bsd n h rfrne to reference the on based mainly , e ie te esch the gives he 53

hc h cmie wt sm early some with combines he which

might be seen as Plato’s attempt to attempt Plato’s as seen be might dialogues. tlgcl yh o ugs the suggest to myth atological - philosophical traditi philosophical

55 52

Hence, in order to order in Hence,

ο η somehow ίη) man’s yan on CEU eTD Collection teleological a offer to world the of creation 56 the describes he Timaeus argument throughmyth.a 61. p. Ibid, the In live. to way appropriate Ze extinction. possible the from beings human beginamongmen. The intervention of thegods necessary, is again, order in toprevent the fights and inclinations, individual and body on dependent are elements these because dist Prometheus Yet, menaces. the from beings arts. other exercise they before statues, in presented gods, the of images create to tendency the God to owe people because myth, the in communicate. to starting even before them, with affinity bodily their of because Gods, to pray to motivated are people therefore, This 74c). συνέστησεν, Protagorasthe as the in explained also is formation μαλακήν και ?γχυμον σάρκα συναρμόσας, και συμμείξας γ? και πυρί και μεν ?δάτι κηροπλάστης ο διανοηθείς ?μ?ν (τα?τα body human the form th of process Gods bythe moulded end the story of necessaryaim the and plot the for captureis society time beings. the Thecreationprimaryhuman of the first and the of state life, social of framework the within teleology defend

ibid p.63. ibid

the political entity. oee, h afnt wt te iie etrs s o eog t poet human protect to enough not is features divine the with affinity the However, life into came beings living that way the account into taking Moreover,

Dmug. n the In Demiurge. e -

we can assume that the creation of men is similar with the creativethe with similar is men of creation the that assume can we

Timaeus

h Catmn ie erh fr ad ae to water and fire earth, mixes Craftsman the 31 56 : the brutal being iscreated tobecome

The religious art precedes all the other arts other the all precedes art religious The us and Hermes offer universallyoffer Hermes and us r xsec. hr i a int human innate an is There existence. ir

theomorphic view of thehuman body; ributes unequally fire and wisdom, wisdom, and fire unequally ributes Protagoras

ut tr fo the from start must

aidos aidos - man is man at the and

CEU eTD Collection th the in thought his to oppose refutes to reasons human higher which in faith cycle the praises which intellectual self religiosity,goodness, like of values certain kind another a in believes and to Gods of belongs conception he actually, public; Athenian 58 258 DK justice 57 beings and thesocial life inanother dialogue, namely the off to need Plato’s is assumption this vocabulary. religious the of veil the under views naturalistic his cover to intention Protagoras’ explains rather but myth,the through scenario teleological a give to Plato’s of examination closer aHowever, for evidence story. the bringinterpret to like not would he way which does in reader the own on depends It its naturalism. on Prometheus of myth the that suggestion the end of theprimordial first,men. the in only develop and character educational need beings human why, is That injustice. from protect to enough not is nature just, be to potentiality the have all although that stresses also He them. to respect their of because and Gods the the others. to example an as punished are and life bestial a stayin values two obeythese not do who dike

Thein rtgrs ss h rlgos oauay any eas h de nt at o rvk dsie o the to dislike provoke to want not does he because mainly vocabulary religious the uses Protagoras to balance the inequality and to establish friendly bonds among the people. Forthose people. the amongfriendly bonds establish to inequalityand the balance to

th suggests Theiler here connects the theory of punishment in the Protagoras with D with Protagoras the in punishment of theory the connects here oh nepeain (auaitc n teleo and (naturalistic interpretations Both 57

260 ibid. p. 68. 68. p. ibid. 260 oiia itrcin n pnsmn; n tee w atvte have activities two these and punishment; and interaction political - sufficiency, etc. According to this view one might suppose that Plato has many has Plato that suppose might one view this to According etc. sufficiency,

at Zeus gives Zeus at

the myth of myth the

r frhr xlnto aot h brh f living of birth the about explanation further a er Statesman. Statesman. aidos oeuvre 32

polis and

does For the view of the “religious agnosticism”, see agnosticism”,“religious the of view the For dike . Hence, the state of citizens become citizens of state the Hence, . oia) o ul utc t Vlastos’ to justice full do logical) not justify his supposed motivation motivation justifysupposed not his

because of people’ affinity with affinity people’ of because Statesman. emocritus’ fragments related to to related fragments emocritus’

Evidence for Evidence eomorphic CEU eTD Collection truth to knowledge and See person. is the noble 59 264. Bolonyai,2007, goingwithout through reproduction. sexual earth the from born were they beings; human of generation the about is one third the reigndescribesof the partsecond The East. to West fromreverse, the to West, to East from is, that one; previous the from universe the of revolution the changethe stressesin opposition This orbits. usual their to opposition in move to and rise s the and sun the orders Zeus which Thyestes,in and Atreus of that is one first The parts. three in divided is which myth, a to refers Stranger Eleatic the this, do to order In f to attempt they Hence, herd. the of raiser the be to endowment the have cannot shepherd this but They division. agreeshepherd, the of about method the through him theydefinetry So, to TheyaryoungSocrates. naturalistic vocabulary iscontained within anon an Siculus the in Statesman life their and beings living first the to refers Plato beings. human of condition the in However

Truth for Plato is identical to knowledge and knowledge is similar to to similarknowledge is knowledge and to identical is Plato for Truth 2.7. is, h mt i pr o te icsin ewe te lai Srne ad the and Stranger Eleatic the between discussion the of part is myth the First, the in elaborated highly is world the of creation the of story the Indeed,

. But while he employs naturalistic terms similar to those found in Diodorus in found those to similar terms naturalistic employs he while But . i te yh f rmtes n the in Prometheus of myth the in d ind the “one” who has the distinguished feature ( feature distinguished the has who “one” the ind The myth inthe of Cronus Statesman

Timaeus

e looking for the definition of the of definition the for looking e

hr i n mnin bu te pre the about mention no is there Laches

199a and and 199a - naturalistic modeof explanation.

Protagoras Protagoras true arete episteme 59 - oiia ad h political the and political

. Thus, the one who has access haswho one the Thus, .

360d. i the in , statesman or of the king. the of or statesman

Cronus on Earth, while Earth, on Cronus

) for being the king. the being for ) Statesman

Timaeus.

tars to tars

this this

CEU eTD Collection 60 by beings human helped and them for pity felt gods some until arts, and fire have not survival their of care take to obliged were People men. for threat a became king the as governing was Zeus while condition: life wealthy men’s changed reversal The abundance. of state a in living the and Cronus, of authority the under all were herds The daemon. heavenly a changesemerged.that Before reversal, everythe creatureslivingprotectedby of washerd presentin our otherepoch manner that andin inthe othe now living and born being time, all through follow and imitate we which universe, whole the themselves,like of care take and lives own their direct to had they and men failed had th ago, moment a said I as since, life, human constitutes that all arisen fellow his is who goddess wit instruction, and us information needful given were traditions old the in of told are that gods the of gifts the why reason the is that and straits; great in were they accounts these all On them. compelled th and them, failed had freely itself offered formerly had which food the skill; or resources without beasts andwereages still inthethe first byravaged wereunprotected, and feeble wh beasts the men, deprivedFor ofthe care ofthe deity hadpossessed who andtended us,since mostof

Plato, Plato, ey did not yet know how to provide for themselves, because no necessity had hitherto had necessity no because themselves, for provide to how know yet not did ey Statesman, hs yh eae te eesl f h mvmns f evn n erh n the and earth and heaven of movements the of reversal the relates myth This wr b ntr ufinl hdgonfec,adte hmevs were themselves they and fierce, grown had unfriendly nature by were o

274b - d, transl.Fowler. d,

- artisan, seeds and plants by other deities. other by plants and seeds artisan,

- God, the daemons left the human herds and wild beasts wild and herds human the left daemons the God,

— fire by Prometheus, the arts by Hephaestus and the and Hephaestusby arts the Prometheus,by fire 34

r manner . 60

And from these has these from And e care of the gods the of care e . Yet, theydid Yet, . were y the h CEU eTD Collection 63 62 1995. byDillon, See, world the paganphilosophers. advocated automaticallyargue meansalso That theylife.thatcan ofcycle the interventionto social 61 their after noble be to going are they whether doubtful is it nature, from just a to Protagoras,by conveyed account, naturalistic interestPlato’s society the and men first the of origins the about tradition naturalistic the of relation the present to aim: pre a of description stat political the of framework the within virtue of teachability the for argues (318e citizens good be to them nurse can he that and students his of inquiry the in have we what to foil a as assessed be could politics. and ethics with deals which dialogue, to the cycle of cosmic life. intervenes and activitychange a has God Consequently, one. previous the from direction universe the of revolution order of state a to it sets and disorder giving themthefire and thearts.

Good citizenduring the fifth Good century was similarnob to Recentthat scholarshiphastheis dialoguemainly defended 160. Rowe, See, 1996, political. ethical and hita Paoit ltr rud ht h mt i the in myth the that argued later Platonists Christian utemr, lt i aae f i opnns n gvs h bs vrin f the of version best the gives and opponents his of aware is Plato Furthermore, Ne from Universe the creates Demiurge the that believes Stranger Eleatic The vertheless it is worth inquiring what the cosmological myth has to do within a within do to has myth cosmological the what inquiring worth is it vertheless arete -

- with the failure ofthepoliticalsystem existent educate to noble citizens. an issue which was mainstream to the inte the to mainstream was which issue an . In the Protagoras the sophist defends that he can teach prudence to prudence teach can he that defends sophist the Protagoras the In . - political, primordial stage. I argue that the dialogue serves Plato’s Plato’s serves dialogue the that argue I stage. primordial political,

n lt i fe we h decides he when free it lets and

61 . Th . 35 en, he revolves it revolves he en,

the le person. le

Statesman Statesman I suggest that the myth in the in myth the that suggest I rgue that, even if people are potentially are people if even that, rgue Protagoras. Protagoras.

yblzs h cetr o ad his and God creator the symbolizes llectual circles and triggered and circles llectual -

– and this consists the first the consists this and Both dialogues deal with deal dialogues Both

that is, in the opposite opposite the in is, that

against theagainsteternity ofthe - 319a). 63 e, using the using e,

Protagoras Statesman

CEU eTD Collection the and order the of explanation the serve cosmogony and cosmology Prometheus: of cosmos and themorality. of origins the about view naturalistic the to respond to Plato to pretext the gives absence the dialectic process yet not is second and view, opposite the express to was dialogue the of purpose the hand one the the in process such no was There division). of route the (through knowledge; they but donotdefine what knowledge is.) the in that (note students his of evidence: following the bring I thesis my support To norms. social and ethical of reconsideration in humanism, in believed who opponents his of all to disorder political of cause the and beings human the dialogue ends with that fact the by affirmed is Protagoras doubt This system. political existing the in education politi c) b) a) the in Plato that suggest I Now, d) ke techne ke The best statesman cannot be found among the existing people, because this this because people, existing the among found be cannot statesman best The the In bes the of definition The

Plato uses similar analogies similar uses Plato does not give an answer an give not does

Statesman h priiain f h mjrt t pltcl eieain n the and deliberation political to majority the of participation the . It is obvious that Protagoras did not convince that he can teachcanhe convincethat not Protagorasthat did obvious Itis . aporia

Socrates searches for the best the for searches Socrates

Protagoras, Protagoras, .

developed inthefirst dialogues.

saemn s n ucm o a ilci process dialectic a of outcome an is statesman t to the m the to

to those found in Diodorus Siculus and in the myththe in and Siculus Diodorus in found those to Protagoras and Socrates both agree that agree both Socrates and Protagoras Statesman 36 ain question whether the whether question ain

ie te nwr o te rgn of origins the for answer the gives

politicus politicus

who has the knowledgethe has who Protagoras arete

is teachable; is

because on because arete arete

to is CEU eTD Collection that is suggestion My decadence. of framework the within leader perfect the find to contradictoryis it because issue the complicates statesman ideal the of quest the addition, wor the accordingly and universe the of decay d1) (274c5 continuous the reveals text the of examination closer A view. overoptimistic an is this However, life. earthy the of laws the affect universe the of laws the that meaning cosmologicalautonomyarrangeintelligence the to polit has also the myth the in reaso Protagoras established. inj is there and absent is God where place take politics that entails connotation This universe. the of rotation the of charge in was God because happiness, enjoying were men Cronus, of era releases God because suffer Zeus, of era the is that era, present the in living People existence. of level lower a to stage, secondary a to subversion the as but beings, living of state primary the as not the refute to cosmology of vocabulary and universe the the of process mechanistic uses Plato life. social the in disorder ns. Let me now turn to the discussion of the scholarship about the interpretation of interpretation the about scholarship the of discussion the to turn now me Let ns. It is supported by the scholars that Plato implies that the universe during its its during universe the that implies Plato that scholars the by supported is It the dialogues, two the that scenario the reinforce suggestions above the All

sie Wie h uies hs uooy pltcl ie a rao t be to reason has life political autonomy, has universe the While ustice. and the and Statesman Statesman his government of the universe. During the Golden age, that is the is that age, Golden the During universe. the of government his .

correspond to each other and serve Plato’s philosophical Plato’s serve and other each to correspond then he refers to the bestial life of human beings human of life bestial the to refers he then 37

t cnro o te oiia lf. In life. political the for scenario st ical issues in social life, in issues ical 64 -

CEU eTD Collection 64 Plato’s than sense another in philosophy imposes. “religious” deeply are they accounts different serve Protagoranalyseexplicitlyand Democritus will Iprovidence. divine of absence the of outcome the decayis moral that suggestion Plato’s the inference ofnaturalistic causes rath but the and misfortune be cannot life social unjust the in and man of striving the and birth, earthly the for explanation unprotected weak, as presented are people Therefore, an teleology be cannot there Demiurge Without own. its on moving is universe the and godless is Zeus of era the that stresses he why non the refute to cle makes Plato scholars. other and Vlastos bysuggested Prometheus, of myth the of interpretation teleological the excludes dialogue latter the the end, theproper l at become, to and nature divine the with mortal our affiliate to opportunity the is method dialecticof path the justice, in expert an now not is there if even that Or laws.obey the to find cannot we period Godless the during

Lane, 1998, 103 Lane,1998, Prompted by this challenge, in the third chapter of my thesis I will argue against argue will I thesis my of chapter third the in challenge, this by Prompted analogy this to crucialpoint betweenThethe - 104. - teleological approach defended by the proponents of naturalism. That is That naturalism. of proponents the bydefended approach teleological

eader

- philosopher togovern.

the best “shepherd”: that is why we are obligedwhyare we is that “shepherd”: best the er an absence ofGod’s Providence. 38

as moral views arguing that although theyalthough arguingthat views moral as

a otmsi seai fr h world. the for scenario optimistic an d

Protagoras Protagoras ar in the in ar and the Statesman Statesman

his intention intention his

is that

CEU eTD Collection 65 doctrines moral his considers he which on basis some be must there him, to attributed are that fragments are there since But theory. naturalistic and psychological anthropological, of kind some cons must we whether doubtful is it reason this collective deliberation. infe it case Protagoras’ self of strength the implies morality case Democritus’ results; in suggestsdistinctive morality.pragmaticupon aof differentiationviewlies This doctrin moral Democritus’ that claim I Iintellectuals, two arguethey that More precisely defendhumanism. differentaccountsof the between connection the traced have scholars Although naturalism. Protagoras’ and 3. uhi hs one ot ht eorts ifune s biu i Aittes tis lhuh Aristotle although ethics Aristotle’s in obvious is influence Democritus’ that out pointed has Guthrie

3.1. Considerations on naturalistic ethics: individual ethics:individual naturalistic on Considerations Unfortunately, Democritus’ ethical work has not been preserved as a whole. For whole. a as preserved been not has work ethical Democritus’ Unfortunately, light shed to is chapter this in aim My

Democritus ofindividual morality: Thepower 65 . As I tried to sh to tried I As .

s h pwr f h avnaeu coc ad h ipc of impact the and choice advantageous the of power the rs

vs. social virtues social vs. ow in the first chapter, Democritus conceives human conceives Democritus chapter, first the in ow es relate to his physical theory, while Protagoras while theory, physical his to relate es 39

on the moral consequences of Democritus’ of consequences moral the on ider his ethical statements constituting to constituting statements ethical his ider - reliance and autonomy, while in while autonomy, and reliance

CEU eTD Collection system". physical the with way any in up it link to or basis philosophical firm a on man 'cheerful' the of picture the set to effort no is there theory; moral a to amounts hardly 'ethic'Democritus’ words: these in Baile against argues Vlastos’ issue. the for scholars the among debate quite a is 67 reductionism,determ withDemocritus’ notimplythat theoryagree does Cynthia I Farrar demeaned. be to themimproveor selves to choice their in is it but change to determined are People choice. of freedom the in consists and progress c the determinism, to which ofconnected Democritusimplies,is kind misleading.The 66 ethics.S of founder the as Socrates recognizes Aristotle sciences. natural of philosopher the as Democritus to refers relation thesignificant to ofshame notion as self morality, individual Cy follow will Iargument my of purpose the For individual. the to biology and psychologybetween interaction the of importance the and morality human of creation the to soul of role the is what explain to necessary the or improvement the decadence ofhuman character isanoutcome of man’s free choice. However, soul. human the in atoms of quality the degrade his implies and presupposes adaptation, capacityfor his man, of plasticity the atoms, by formed soul a of case the in Indeed, versa. vice and state bodily the affect can soul the of condition human deterministicallyto the that expect would one Hence, changes. of effects physics: th and body the including nature, human of conception mechanistic This universe. the “macrocosm”, to similar is who man the is “microcosm” universe; the of mechanism bigger the of “micrograph” a as nature

Farrar (1988) follows Vlastos’ view that Democritus’ ethics are depended on his theory of physics. There There physics. of theory his on depended are ethicsDemocritus’ viewthat followsVlastos’ (1988) Farrar o hs nitne o eest, pcrs a acsd i fr aaim Bt tik ht hs on is point this that think I But fatalism. for him accused has Epicurus necessity, to insistence his For ee, Guthrie, 1969, p. 492. Against 492. thisp. view 373 Guthrie, 1969, ee, Dudley,see 1981, eoe cniu wt te oa i moral the with continue I Before 66

men are naturally subjected to change and act in order to adapt each time to the to each adapttime orderto in act changeand naturallyto aresubjected men

ability to ability inismskepticism. or of thisthe details For view p200. Farrar, see 67 reform

n I il xed e ve o sca ehc ad atclry in particularly and ethics social on view her extend will I and

moral behaviour. But this interaction is more complicated: the complicated: more is interaction this But behaviour. moral

also soul’s physiology; human deliberation can improve or improve can deliberation human physiology; soul’s also mtra su, mle te oncin f tis to ethics of connection the implies soul, material e nthia Farrar’s suggestion regarding Democritus’regarding suggestion Farrar’s nthia 40

frne o Dmciu’ otie i is it doctrines Democritus’ of nferences - sanction.

necessary

natural laws would act would laws natural ys’ view which is expressed expressed ys’viewwhichis

ontinuous and change

CEU eTD Collection treatises These treatises. medical the by influenced that assumed Democritus much was h mental that recommended Democritus suggestion, Vlastos’ 69 68 1945 Vlastos, and wellbeing (ε?+’έστω=ε?εστώ). (ε?+θυμός=ε?θυμία) The dimension. temporal a has and soul of sagacity the and experience the through mainly ν?σαι το? ?χουσαν ?ργανον fear and of themotivation self of emotion the reaction: behavioural instinctive, the accordinglyto leads atoms qualityof “rough” the Therefore, understanding). and (perception intellectual the of compounds the has soul The soul. the of atoms unrefined as identified primitiveness, this biologically; psychologicallylifeand of level bestial a in are beings human stage, primitive the during o prehistory of account the in described is it As developed. the of creature cosmos. as and individual as distinctiveness his of realization the processes: whole a as identified is man Therefore, being. human qua man of characteristics distinguished the also but person each of uniqueness the understands Democritus individual, As individual. the of welfare the reason: one for mainly system

ibid, p. 227. p. ibid, The first is the ideal state of the soul while the second reflects the best quality of the atoms. According to to According atoms. the of quality best the reflects second whilethe soul the of state ideal the is first The

n o ti rfnmn i we te ol ece te tt o cheerfulness of state the reaches soul the when is refinement this of end However, the soul has also the ability of ability the also has soul the However, steadily are and soul the of reform the on based are realizations these of Both cru is life social and moral to soul human of importance The

, 578. 578. ,

logos logos ealth is connected to the balance of the elements of the body. Correspondingly, body. the of elements the of balance the to connected is ealth

is more important to the soul though any bodily disturbance can also affect also can disturbance bodily any though soul the to important more is - λεπτότερον inter est.

D B1. hs rcs o clue emerges culture of process This B11). DK , 41 lack

main capacity of diffusion of capacity main

refining of humanness, is the implication of the of implication the is humanness, of 69

its constituents (? γνησίη ?άτε ?άτε γνησίη (? constituents its Doou Scls (1.8), Siculus Diodorus f hog to definite two through cial in Democritus’ in cial

to the other the to

CEU eTD Collection 70 they moved"moistened and outtheir oforder flow intothe (Theophrastus belly" astray" "leads and "disturbs" flavor sweet the instance, For soul. the perceived Protagoras society. the and of individual the in role justice of establishment the stresses Protagoras chapter, second the in seen while being under the self distance”. “moderate a also accordingly other each interact keeping psyche of atoms the addition, In extreme. emotionally being of desires the from resignation accuratethe fragmentwell“path”astowardsmoderation refers to This mind: one's in them on dwelling not and admired, and envied things to heed little paying has, attainabl is what on mind one's keep must one Therefore cheerful. nor stable neither aredivergences, great by stirred are which Souls, soul. the in in excessare lacking or changethat are aptto andcause Things great disturbance life. of state of equanimity and self of the The individual. idealbiologicalstatus human balancethe isconsidered as thestable iden also is it (?θαμβία); state fearless a Cheerfulness is created for men through moderation of enjoyment and enjoyment of moderation through men for created is Cheerfulness

Ibid, 227. Ibid,

DK B191. Self connectedwith process,is culturethe of end final the as happiness, individual The

- control is accomplished through the powerful emotion of shame. As we have we As shame. of emotion powerful the through accomplished is control

- control. - sufficiency:

that gives rise to individual’s well individual’s to rise gives that

tified as the equilibrium in the psychologicaland the in equilibrium the as tified

oy mn ad ol a b content be can soul and mind Body,

e, and be content with what one what with content be and e, atoms with which it comes in contact; contact; in comes it whichwith atoms - being, but the avoidance the but being, aidos De Sensu De -

being. It is not the being.Itnot is

and harmoniousness

, Par. 65). 65). Par. dike aido

o the to

s as

CEU eTD Collection enjoyment of lack and enjoyment is disadvantageous and advantageous is what of (?ρος) “the boundaryadds: and lifepleasant advantageous to the considersequalDemocritus life acquies uncritical the by caused soul, human the of disturbances towhatsimilar advantageous is for them. environment external the with interaction their of because only not moral be to learn beings Human void and atoms by constructed also is Democritus for mentality and deliberation this addition, In soul. soul refinementof the of outcome the is response human emotional of ability rational the and physiology the on based is establish theinternal law intheindividual soul. emotions, basic these of Both unjustly. act who those to anger as or state painful a in are who people to empathy of notion the introduce to needs Protagoras others; the to harm doing from you preserve to enough you accordingyourestimated reaction is not to However,is of valuethis personalattitude. social cost the environment; social your of rules accustomed the with compromise to failure your of because embarrassed, or guilt feel to is ashamed be social To interaction. the on depended and factors external by triggered response psychological the h ntrl edny oad avnae s ikd o h aodne f big of avoidance the to linked is advantage towards tendency natural The D of case the In dike, , but also because of their inner tendency to choose what is best, which is which best, is what choose to tendency inner their of because also but ,

as the supplementary disposition to supplementary disposition the as xeine I ut tes ht h hrce fti poes s mental is process this of character the that stress must I experience. emocritus aidos aidos aidos and dike,

has a completely differentcompletely a has

obnd ih h aporae education, appropriate the with combined

aidos . Dike - atoms through the processof throughthe atoms

is manife is -

terminus a quo, a terminus ec t eey desire. every to cence and mainly cognitive. mainly and sted as a form of form a as sted which - r CEU eTD Collection 72 theofstatecheerfulness. p.176. Annas, 2002, sug 71 just and secure become people humanness; in faith Democritus’ stresses but heavens, not promise a does salvation of connotation coursethe Oflife”. and life, human of manifestation self is shame power: its describes and well in relation heteronomy. to duty( interaction social virtue it since Protagoras, in than system finer, the more self become quality atoms’ as much as place: takes procedure opposite the simultaneously, atoms; soul of refinement the to contributes and process, intellectual and cognitive a is what to advantageous, and ontheother hides theobjective character ofthe moral truth. access to potentiality the hand one the on reveals choice beneficial 74).” DK ?τερπίη, καί (τέρψις world the of translation the for debate much is There ibid, p. ibid, gestion that Democritus with this term wants to discriminate among the pleasures rather than defining than rather pleasures the among discriminate to wants term this with Democritus that gestion - ordered status of life. of status ordered . deon). Let me now explain the relation of relationthe Letexplain now me of role the approach, this to According w law, internal the for accounts Democritus for shame Therefore, hs id f ite os o pas te oiia eclec ad s n is and excellence political the praise not does virtue of kind This

The definition of definition The 72

- but rather it implies the active, moral behaviour derived from what is what from derived behaviour moral active, the implies it rather but sanction, intelligence and temperance isfor

In B41, B42 and B43 Democritus praises the value of shame of value the praises Democritus B43 and B42 B41, In

aidos 71 repentance of shameful actions can be the “salvation of “salvation the be can actions shameful of repentance

u ti dsrmnto of discrimination this But as self as s ocie rmrl s self as primarily conceived is

- acin eie fo dt, uy s h greatest the is duty duty, from derived sanction aidos aidos - 44 authority stresses the importance of autonomyof importance the authoritystresses

aidos with autonomysignificancewith its to the and ?ρος ?ρος

seems more superior in Democritus’ in superior more seems mn te coas I ge wt Annas’ with agree I scholars. the among tified.

post mortem post h dltros n the and deleterious the - respect and personal and respect

hich is related to related is hich , better life in ot based on based ot

truly

CEU eTD Collection 78 thisgrasp reality through senses. through reality of laws the understand can 77 76 The politically. and individually autonomy to identical and ordered well and strong feel would They excellent. be would condition organic their and state fearless a in live would people phase: ideal the c) and heteronomy D atoms. soul their experience improved Their emotions. interaction social and also developed have they but fear feel still people (humanness): phase hum 75 74 und 73 and justice,neglects who man the But care. from free and strong is and night, by and day “ eudaimonia dist and fear Democritus fear by not and individual the of interest personal the by motivated power, stable a aim, personal the is it and achievement personal a as primarily happiness considers Democritus interaction, social on based is contentment human that claims who Protagoras, or society, the of end the as eudaimonia “eudaimonia”. called Democritus that end potential the till Siculus, Diodorus in described stage progress, primordial the from human starting about conception Democritus’ step by step consideration into take them and gives an value intrinsic tohumancharacter law external o reform the of because The cheerful man, who is impelled towards works that are just and lawful, rejoices by rejoices lawful, and just are that works towards impelled is who man, cheerful The Fear depends on external factors, on others’externalonon factors, reaction. depends Fear knowledge.Humanbeings to access the viewDemocritus’about by explained is state this of stability The eudaimonia 'The good is not just to abstainfrom is to not just thinkinjustice,but even not good 'Theto of62). it' (B SummarizingDemocritus’view humanabout we progress, the “bestial”phases:three stage:can discern a) I have in mind Antiphon and not Protagoras. As I suggest at the second half of this chapter Pr chapter this of half second the at suggest I As Protagoras. not and Antiphon mind in have I erstands justice as theinner, justice erstands an soul is full of fear and the quality of its atoms is poor. The first men lived disorderly b) the social social the b) disorderly lived men first The poor. is atoms its of quality the and fear of full is soul an The importance of the internal law in human character human in law internal the of importance The includescheerfulness both welfare. and

has a direct connection withjustice and - conventions, like the claim advocated by the Sophists. the by advocated claim the like conventions, eudaimonia

ress is related to the existence of some kind of injustice, while injustice, of kind some of existence the to related is ress tesle, n nt eas te rcnie o dpn on depend or reconsider they because not and themselves, f

social emotion. social

h rfnmn o ter nelcul tm ee i te cannot they if even atoms intellectual their of refinement the rn ti pae hy salse pltcl re, hy have they order, political established they phase this uring

n otat ih Ar with contrast In

tt, whic state, freedom: 74 .

h depends on individual’s on depends h becomes quite clear, if we if clear, quite becomes sol, h defines who istotle,

The law is inside is law The liae tt is state ultimate 78 . In case of case In . otagoras otagoras 75

CEU eTD Collection wants Plato stress thatto the conventions failestablishin justice theto individual soul. probably but Protagoras historical of view original an is this that doubt I (327c) just. be to pretend must he what on focuses justice in faith his but say to that even duty.presentsProtagoras if thesomeonenot on personal and definesPlato does order social the disturbs he because death to condemned 79 authority isthepower of humannature. t faith his for atomism of ground safe the offers Democritus Protagoras, to appeals criticism this Although values. in relativism alwaysthe implies convention social that and authority highest the from derive must dictates moral the that argument Plato’s soul material the of excellence of framework the within individual the of freedom the praises he Plato, to opposition In physics. of theory disturbance and soul inthedisorder individual tothe ordered social state (B258) causes injustice that explicit it makes Democritus retribution, mutual of value the hides The punishment B260). (B259, exception without punished be must he and interest personal the of threat as considered is injustice to apt is or crimes commits who everyone Therefore, them, torments andhe himself isafraid he when disagreeable things such all finds ought, he what do not does

Protagoras also states, at the end of the myththe of of end the at states, also Protagoras 3.2. h ms fmu tei b rtgrs s rsne n the in presented is Protagoras by thesis famous most The D

Protagoras’ moralityvirtue social Protagoras’ as mciu’ nhoooia ad oa sse ses el salse i his in established well seems system moral and anthropological emocritus’ of a criminal is self is criminal a of

- defence and self and defence

Prometheus, that everyone who does not obey the lawisthe obey not everyonewho thatPrometheus,does .” DK 174. 46

80 - duty (B256); although it seems that this this that seems it although (B256);duty

and his moral theory is able to resist to resist to able theorymoralis his and

Theaetetus

remembers any of any remembers hat the highest the hat , the , 79 not feel just .

homo nomos

CEU eTD Collection 80 is Prudence society. the in morality of establishment the regarding perspective human of about finallyargue way,will I this morality.In conception their establish Democritus and Protagoras which on difference the Protagora while (1.8), focuses of onthe notion soul rational the of activities the on is Democritus by given emphasis the However, agent. the of interest personal the serves mind of readiness this who of case the In readiness. mind’s of charisma natural and well the with citizen good the assimilates consequently and prudence to similar art political Pr (318e action” and speech in excel to civic how regards teaches he as affairs, and, concerns, domestic one's manage best may one how business, chal for inappropriate was who teaching character unstable the as Protagoras own present his to had reasons Plato However, relativism. and subjectivism Protagoras’ of statement mensura Farrar, 1988, 245 1988, Farrar, otagoras theteacher is of political art andmakes thestudentsgood citizens. lenged by Socrates to define what he teaches: “I teach prudence (ε?βουλία) in private in (ε?βουλία) prudence teach“I teaches: he what define to bySocrates lenged - anchinoia ordered symbolizes the forethought. In addition both Protagoras and Democritus stress that stress Democritus and Protagoras both addition In forethought. the symbolizes Let me first explain the relation of prudence with self prudenceof with relation the explain first Letme the considers Protagoras sophistry, of definition previous the to According thesis. This claim, which is transmitted by Plato, is often interpreted as interpreted often is by Plato, transmitted is which claim, This thesis. arete

man. As we have seen in the first chapter, prudence is the synthesisof the is prudencechapter, first the in seen have we As man. . The first men in the account of prehistory of Diodorus Siculus have the have Siculus Diodorus of prehistory of account the in men first The .

o on pol. hs i te pnmu daou, rtgrs is Protagoras dialogue, eponymous the in Thus, people. young to aidos aidos

and dike.

that Protagoras serves the best possible scenario possible best the serves Protagoras that 47

Protagoras’ - interest and then distinguish then andinterest - 1a. orts ds that adds Socrates 319a).

myth it is Prometheus is it myth

the main the logos s

CEU eTD Collection well become and themselves understand to order in fellowships their of understanding intuitive deep and accurate an gain to capable be to need Theycooperate. to need people stress orhisconception of morality based onphysics does require not tostress. to misses Democritus that something is this and just potentially, all, are people justice: uni the implies men, first the all to equally distributed disposition, innate ( shame and justice of sense the deliberation: rational their follow emotions, fundamental two with by endowed were to people first the reason reason, this of for own; weakness its on the morality establish to clearly refers Protagoras intellect. the of product the asmyth the in considered not was humanness that indication an is this and beings human o abilities rational the of because established not is society ordered the Diodorus, in experience and their rational they abilities, found justice. t and fear of because interacted and gathering started People morality. of establishment the of theorizing Democritus’ in clear also is this and of reality; order wise the grasp to capable was atoms soul of refinement The intellect. the of self if Thus, decision. noble the of judgement the in it defines Aristotle As case. each in choice best the deliberating of ability rational the - interest identical what is to noble. is ihmcen Ethic Nichomachean h eul n uiesl hrce o jsie trs rm rtgrs f Protagoras’ from starts justice of character universal and equal The prehistorythe with many similarities hasProtagoras the in myththe that Although the on based advantageouswas is what Democritus of case the In s 14b i i te etl process mental the is it (1142b) aidos aidos

and euboulia 48

dike.

aims to what is best for us, then our then us, for best is what to aims hy ed n nae ipsto to disposition innate an need They

e, any ae o the on based mainly hen, , hc ifr te good the infers which dike

and atomic structure atomic aidos eslt of versality

ih that aith ). This ). nature - f CEU eTD Collection 81 route towards financial and scientific progress. factothe of flourishingaffects the most option, Accordingthis fields. to social the all of improvement and individual the between dynamiccourse a is it power; individual the of bounds the in kept not is process educative the because improvement, personal of theorizing Democritus for encouragement The society. a knowledge in culture for esteem the encourages actively and persons competent less the to knowledge available best the provides it reasons; two for du their that rather but (326c) nature by talented more men some are there that deny not does Protagoras because oftheir equal access education. to inter their of because efficiently or successfully something do social the from excellence. educationpersonal the for teacher best the the is environment and activities social to participation the that claims eff individual’s on depends soul human the of fulfilment the that defends who Democritus to opposition In existence. human of contentment the secure people, to start people socially essentially when place takes Protagoras for humanness Thus, ordered.

t em ta Pr that seems It the society, which aims totransform the person intoanoble citizen. In addition, the enhancement of general education broadens the possibilities for possibilities the broadens education general of enhancement the addition, In Thus, rs that conducethat inthe welfarers ofthe majority ofthe people. theshortest This is nd culture are not restricted to the personal sphere of the individual, as in as individual, the of sphere personal the to restricted not are culture nd arete tgrs a te ae iw ih rsol ta mn s sca aia. However, animal. social a is man that Aristotle with view same the has otagoras 81 ty is to contribute to polis. In this way, their contribution is beneficial is contribution their way, this In polis. to contribute to is ty becomes feasible, because it is defined as social virtue. In this sense this In virtue. social as defined is it because feasible, becomes . In addition Protagoras implies that the bonds, developed among the among developed bonds, the that implies Protagoras addition In .

People acquire the ability to ability the acquire People cin n h Assembly, the in action

orts, Protagoras orts,

interact CEU eTD Collection 82 thatAristotlethe aspect for holds the notshareteleological does Protagoras assimilating thein Hence, fordemocratic allows environmentthe in conditions Protagoras,political accordingthe to interaction. social the through inequalities social and financial the absorbing well a bybeing interests own his serves Protagoras However,society. in individual the of role the consideration serious into take not does he that argued be might it Therefore, benefit. arg rather but individuality the to emphasize to not is intention Protagoras’ hand, other the On decay. their or improvement their for choose to appear people individualism, of conception Democritus In freedom. individual h of perspective social the of defence Protagoras’

Farrar, 1988, 94. 1988, Farrar, - paid sophist, while defendin while sophist, paid towards raised be might objection possible one debate the of sake the For

dividual to thesocialdividual to interest

g that the character of the democratic polis is capable of capable is polis democratic the of character the that g 50

e i fvu o te omn te social the common, the of favour in ues 82 .

mn aue n i i bsd n the on based is it and nature uman polis.

CEU eTD Collection naturalistic tradition I offered an account oftheir differences inmoral in Plato’s teleolog and theprehistory favour in inDiodorusSiculus of an early evolutionary theory. anthropology original views ofanthropology and Democritus by conveyed naturalism, of Protagoras, I investigated the following aspe ideas the explore to order In thesis. e c) The interpretations possible ofthe myth by Beresford, Vlastos, Theiler the in Prometheus of myth The b) Democritus’ for evidence an as Siculus Diodorus in prehistory of account The a) myof conclusions and arguments main the reviewbriefly I chapter closing this In

d ical interpretation of the myththe the interpretationof in ical ) I fee m on ruet gis Vats ad hie’ tei fr the for thesis Theiler’s and Vlastos’ against argument own my offered I ) After identifying that Democritus and Protagoras were proponents of the same the of proponents were Protagoras and Democritus that identifying After Statesman .

I argued in favour of the connection between the myth in myth the between connection the of favour in argued I

Conclusion 51 cts: Protagoras

Protagoras , drawingevidence, from the myth

s ln t Democritus’ to link a as ity.

the Protagoras the

CEU eTD Collection ref just Herodotus because in history description Herodotus’ the as read be might myth the that suggested hand one the on Vlastos ofathe text strong antithesis between law and nature. the resultbe ofcoercioncannot state orof mere self natura a is morality social that believe to reasons political has Protagoras that a) were Denyer against arguments main My Denyer. Nicholas by myth the in located theory, contract ar my of importance particular Of relationship. close their and stories both in vocabulary common the in theory evolutionary of account claim. Osborne and Beresford as Siculus, Diodorus in prehistory of account the of version allegorical my arguments for thefollowing chapters ofmy thesis. o basis the became conclusion This progress. of theory genetic a follows his with continuity in prehistorythe that Beresford’sthesis and Vlastos’ Iarguedfor and thought, philosophical across come naturalism Democritus’ that concluded I way, theo ethical his and physical his from evidence drawing by thesis this support bytreatisecosmology aboutDemocritus progress. human lost Ithe to and trieda of views disposition l c b a ) ) ) uet fr h booia ter ws h rftto o te hoy f social of theory the of refutation the was theory biological the for guments Then, I presented the presentedI Then, In the second chapter I argued that the myth in Plato’s Plato’s mythin the Iarguedthat chapter second the In I tried to show that the Prehistory in Diodorus Siculus transmits the original the transmits Siculus Diodorus in Prehistory the that show to tried I hs I tesd h smlrte i bt wrs n age fr n early an for argued and works both in similarities the stressed I Thus, , ,

hc gos ih h pltcl neato ad ht wl ordered well a that and interaction political the with grows which hc pass aue r o’ poiec. u ti cam s weak is claim this But providence. God’s or nature praises which ers to the economy of species without giving an argument for argument an giving without species of economy the to ers

teleological interpretations of the myth in the mythin the of interpretations teleological Protagoras 52

based on Protagoras’ agnosticism, the agnosticism, Protagoras’ on based - interest andb) I found noevidence in

Protagoras n which I built built I which n , serves as an as serves , Protagoras ry. In this this In ry. . CEU eTD Collection aidos of notion the to emphasis gave physicsand and ethics from fragments various with thesis my support also I character. human the of improvement the and soul and body between interactio the into was stress main My physics. on theory his on based is Democritus by seen progress human the that argued I suggestions. Farrar’s and Vlastos on based cha last the in ethics naturalistic of defence my to proceed to challenge my was thesis This authority. God’s under welfare in before living were people that asserts he Furthermore my the in clearly claims to he because Protagoras view, teleological present a not support did Plato This that dialogues. argue to both point key of my was correspondence correspondence the reveal dialogues both in similarities the in naturalism of proponents the to answer an give to and Protagoras the in account naturalistic a present to reasons philosophical and political had Plato that Statesman the dialogue, another examined I argument my of part second the For views. own his 2 societyand his but Plato’s that advocated Theiler hand, other the On society. first the or beings living of origins the h n h Poaoa rfet te ea o hmn ens n gdes world. godless a in beings human of decay the reflects Protagoras the in th pter.

as self as

e d Protagoras

argum ) ) In the last chapter of my thesis I first presented Democritus’ moral doctrines moral Democritus’ presented first I thesis my of chapter last the In

I employed the myth in the in myth the employed I - ) Plato did not have reasons to present the myth in the Protagorasmyththe the expressingin present to reasonshave not did Plato ) sanction. I argued that according to Democritus the human progresshuman the Democritus accordingto arguedthat I sanction. n i as wa bcue 1 because weak also is ent

stresses the affinity with Gods and brings evidence from the fromevidence brings and Gods affinitywith the stresses Statesman the ) 53

Timaeus as a foil to Protagoras’ myth. I argued I myth. Protagoras’ to foil a as os o refe not does Statesman t te political the to r

Statesman ht h ea of era the that Timaeus is a free a is . T . he n , CEU eTD Collection implies this result a improvement as a as nature: human universal our to due but nature, seeking self our of because not interest moral our define to us permits perspective This equally. can morality social and Personal diversity. in right the disrespecting without progress social and moral to citizens all of access the allows democracy,which of view political his with authorityabsolute some of commands the on or Forms on or Mathematics as principles stable on based refutingforth stands the in indicates Plato as motivations selfish or corruption imply necessarily not do factors social and natural on based principles moral that suggests Protagoras that argued I Thus, education. fairness of sense the is morality for ground safe Protagoras’ that claimed I chapter this of part last the In interaction. with anarchy. absol of state the in believed Democritus that infer self be will citizens the all which in state, ideal an of possibility the and role educational an serve laws The society. the in then and soul human the in established first Democ to According happiness. personal find to power individual’s the self the of importance The atomism. of ground stable the on based simultaneously but choice

- be achieved in different ways within the framework of regarding social opportunities social regarding of framework the within waysdifferent in achieved be rule as an inner, active force led me to the conclusion that Democritus’ believed in believed Democritus’ that conclusion the to me led force active inner, an as rule I cnrs, rtgrs defends Protagoras contrast, n

Gorgia totality. such as the Demiurge of the universe. His moral doctrine is compatible is doctrinemoral His universe.the Demiurgeof the as such e power of social interaction; Protagoras s

n i te eulc Nihr h agmn i the in argument the Neither Republic. the in and

( aidos

ht esnl n sca hpies s identified is happiness social and personal that

and 54

dike ad h eul ces o h political the to access equal the and ) t self ute - rejects anethical instruction oto, sae f political of state a control, iu, utc is justice ritus, - ruled might ruled Statesman our - CEU eTD Collection

In respect this H umanity can be theMeasure ofC 55

osmos.

CEU eTD Collection Uni Cole Burnet, J. Bolonyai ,G. (200 Marlein vanRaalte Peter in wrong” Fairness:“Fangs,&Feathers, (2013), Beresford,A. Routledge. Clarendon Press. (2001), Aristotle, University Press. (1934), Aristotle, Aristotle (1926), England. J. Annas, any R (2003), R. Barney, versity. ,

(1967),

(1903), (2002)

Protagoras of Abdera: The Man, His Measure. His Man, The Abdera: of Protagoras

, Rhetoric. Democrit

7), “Protagoras theAtheist”, Plato. Platonis Opera Platonis Plato. Nicomachean Ethics. Nicomachean “Democritus and Eudaimonism” in Eudaimonism” and “Democritus n h Prs f Animals. of Parts the On ae ad Na and Names . Boston: Brill 139

us and the S the and us Transl. by H.Freese. J. Cambridge: H References ue n lt’ Cratylus Plato’s in ture

ources of Greek Anthropology. Greek of ources . Oxford: Oxford University Oxford . Oxford: Press. Translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge: Harvard Cambridge: Rackham. H. by Translated - 56 162.

Rhizai

Transl. by James G. Lennox, Oxford: Oxford: Lennox, G. James by Transl.

Protagoras on the origins of rightand of origins the on Protagoras

vol 2,247

Presocratic Philosophy Presocratic

Edit. : J. : Edit. . - e Yr ad London: and York New 269 arvard University Press. .

M. van Ophuijsen, van M. Western Reserve Western

, Ashgate:

CEU eTD Collection (1957), W.K.C. Guthrie, Hippocrates. (2005), Pres (1987), D. Furley, University Press; London, Heinemann William Ltd. Fowler, H. Festugiere, A. Cambridge Farrar, C. International Democritean Foundation First J. Dudley, Augustin: Akademie (ed.). Ne “The (1995), J. Dillon, Weidmann. Diels ori (1928), H. J. Dahlmann, ginem pertinentibus capitaduo s. ,

nentoa Cnrs o Democritus, on Congress International edn te ttsa: rceig o te I Smoim Platonicum Symposium III the of Proceedings Statesman: the Reading . 15) (eie b W Kranz.), W. by (revised (1952), H.

(1988),

. N. (1921), 18) “h ehc o Dmciu ad rsol” n the in Aristotle” and Democritus of ethics “The (1983),

- J. (1990), J.

The origins of democratic of The origins thinking The Greek Cosmologists. Cosmologists. Greek The

On Ancient Medecine Verlag

Plato La revelation HermesLa d' Tri

In the Beginning; the In . Plato inTwelve. Plato Volumes, Vol.12Cambridge, MA,Harvard the of Exegesis oplatonic e hlspiou Gacrm etnis d loquellae ad sententiis Graecorum philosophicorum De , D iss. Leipzig.iss.

transl. Schiefsky Mark, Brill: Boston. J. 57

some G some i Famne e Vorsokratiker der Fragmente Die

o 1 Vol

ati 6 Xanthi

reek views on the origins of life and life of origins the on views reek . Cambridge University Press: smegistes

abig: abig University Cambridge Cambridge: Statesman - Otbr 1983, October 9 , Les belles lettres: Paris Myth”

rceig o the of Proceedings

in Rowe, C. J. J. C. Rowe, in 371 Berlin: . Sankt .

- 385,

CEU eTD Collection 202. Association Philological American the of Proceedings and Transactions H. Miller, Vol. 26,No.4 E Lowell, Tyne 27 upon Newcastle of University Colloquium Hippocrates International XIth the at read an thought Hippocratic Blay, Le Lane, M. Press. (2006), D. Konstan, Press: London. (2001), J. Jouanna Boston, Leiden. (2012), J. Jouanna, Press: Cambridge. (196 C. K. W. Guthrie, the early state ofman

–

31 August S. . F

(05, Mcoom n Mcoom Te dua The Macrocosm: and “Microcosm (2005), . (1972), . 14) “n nin Mdcn ad h Oii o Mdcn” n the in Medicine” of Origin the and Medicine Ancient “On (1949), W. (1998) ,

342

Hippocrates. Transl. Hippocrates. - Methods Statesman. inPlato’s andPolitics Greek MediGreek Brill: Leiden, Boston, Britain. 357 Ncsiy Cac, and Chance, “Necessity, The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks. Ancient the of Emotions The . New Y d the metereological tradition” in tradition” metereological the d

9 ), Hsoy f re Philosophy Greek of History A ork: Cornell University Press. cine from Hippocrates to Galen to Hippocrates from cine

M. B. DeBevoise, The Johns Hopkin Johns TheDeBevoise, B. M. 58 Atomists”, Early the in Freedom

Hippocrates in context. in Hippocrates Toronto: University of Toronto Universityof Toronto:

1 Cmrde University Cambridge 11, Cambridge: London. drcin f nlg in analogy of direction l . Transl. Neil Allies Brill: Allies Neil Transl. . , Vol. 80 Vol. , s Universitys

Phoenix

Papers ,

187 - ,

CEU eTD Collection Philology G. Vlastos, Vlastos, G.(1945), “Ethics and Physics inDemocritus.” Filip Karfik: Prague. Pr The Taylor, (1999), C.C.W. London. Sedley,(2007), D. (1996 Rowe, J C. Reinhardt K.(1912), “Hekataeus vonAbdera Oxford. (2007), C. Osborne, Oldfather, trans. C.H. (193 Naddaf, G. (2006), (460 Quarterly Classical Life Public Athenian in Protagoras of Place “The S., J. Morrison, oceedings of the third symposium Platonicum Pragence Platonicum symposium third the of oceedings i n K. ,

, Vol.67,No.1,

20) Tlooy n yh n the in myth an “Teleology (2003)

14) “n h Pre the “On (1946), ), Creationism and its critics in Antiquity in critics its and Creationism Plato Statesman Plato The Greek concept nature. of , Vol.35,

ub ess n da philosophers dead and beasts Dumb

The Atomists: LeucippusThe Atomists: andDemocritus

51 5), -

No. 1/2 (Jan. No. 1/2(Jan. 59. Diodorus of Sicily Diodorus of

, Warminste - itr i Diodorus”. in History - 59

Apr., 1941),

und Demokritus”,

r. . London: Heinneman.

U.S.A: New York Press

Protagoras” Protagoras” Philosophical Review

1 . University. Press: California of - 16. , edit. By Alex Havlicek and Havlicek Alex By edit. , Ofr Uiest P University Oxford . h America The

Hermes . in

Toronto.

lt’ Protagora Plato’s

47: 492

Junl of Journal n - 1 B C.)” B. 415

54, - 513.

578 ress:

- 92 s .