Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:58:19.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socrates, the primary question, and the unity of virtue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Justin C. Clark
Justin C. Clark*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For Socrates, the virtues are a kind of knowledge, and the virtues form a unity. Sometimes, Socrates suggests that the virtues are all ‘one and the same’ thing. Other times, he suggests they are ‘parts of a single whole.’ I argue that (i) the ‘what is x?’ question is sophisticated, it gives rise to two distinct kinds of investigations into virtue, a conceptual investigation into the ousia and a psychological investigation into the dunamis, (ii) Plato recognized the difference between definitional accounts of the ousia and a psychological accounts of the dunamis, and (iii) the distinction between these two investigations can effectively resolve various interpretive puzzles regarding the unity of the virtues. It is argued that the virtues are ‘one and the same’ psychologically, while they are ‘parts of a single whole’ conceptually.

Keywords

PlatoSocratesunityvirtueknowledgeProtagorasLachesEuthyphroMeno
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , August 2015 , pp. 445 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, R. E. 1970. Plato’s Euthyphro and the Earlier Theory of Forms. New York: Humanity Press.Google Scholar
Benson, Hugh. 2013. “The Priority of Definition.”; In Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates, edited by Bussanich, John and Smith, Nicolas, 135–154. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Brickhouse, Thomas, and Smith, Nicholas. 1997. “Socrates and the Unity of Virtues.”; The Journal of Ethics 1 (4): 311–324.10.1023/A:1009710215472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brickhouse, Thomas, and Smith, Nicholas. 2010. Socratic Moral Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511776946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, David. 2006. “Types of Definition in Meno.”; In Remembering Socrates, edited by Judson, L. and Karasmanis, V., 110–128. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dancy, R. M. 2004. Plato’s Introduction of Forms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Devereux, Daniel. 1992. “The Unity of the Virtues in Plato’s Protagoras and Laches.”; The Philosophical Review 101 (4): 765–789.10.2307/2185924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, Michael. 1982. “The Unity of Virtue and the Objects of Socratic Inquiry.”; Journal of the History of Philosophy 20 (1): 1–21.10.1353/hph.1982.0014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, Michael. 1984. “Socratic Virtue as the Parts of Itself.”; Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 44 (3): 377–388.10.2307/2107690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, Michael. 2013. Formal Causes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695300.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Gail. 2010. “Signification, Essence, and Meno’s Paradox: A Reply to David Charles’s Types of Definition in the Meno.”; Phronesis: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy 55 (2): 125–152.10.1163/156852810X489030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Gail. 2014. The Possibility of Inquiry: Meno’s Paradox from Socrates to Sextus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577392.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidlander, Paul. 1964. Plato, ii. The Dialogues: Early Period. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Irwin, Terence. 1996. Plato’s Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karasmanis, Vasilis. 2006. “Definition in Plato’s Meno.”; In Remembering Socrates, edited by Judson, L. and Karasmanis, V., 129–141. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Charles. 1996. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of Literary Form. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Jacob. 1965. A Commentary on Plato’s Meno. Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press.Google Scholar
McPherran, Mark. 2000. “Piety, Justice, and the Unity of Virtue.”; Journal of the History of Philosophy 38 (3): 299–328.10.1353/hph.2005.0057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, Terry. 1973. “The Unity of Virtue.”; The Philosophical Review 82 (1): 35–68.10.2307/2184238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, Terry. 1997. “Socrates on the Strength of Knowledge: Protagoras 351B-357E.”; Archiv fur Geschichte dir Philosophie 79 (2): 117–149.Google Scholar
Robinson, Richard. 1953. Plato’s Earlier Dialectic. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, Dominic. 2006. Plato’s Meno. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, David, and Long, Alex. 2010. Plato: Meno and Phaedo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511780653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharples, R. W. 1985. Plato: Meno. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. C. W. 1982. “The End of the Euthyphro.”; Phronesis. 27 (1): 109–118.10.1163/156852882X00087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. E. 1980. Musings on the Meno. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-009-8783-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuozzo, Thomas. 2007. “Why Are There Two Definitions of Shape in Plato’s Meno?”; Southwest Philosophy Review 19 (1): 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlastos, Gregory. 1972. “The Unity of the Virtues in the Protagoras.”; Review of Metaphysics 25 (3): 415–458.Google Scholar
Weiss, Roslyn. 2001. Virtue in the Cave: Moral Inquiry in Plato’s Meno. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195140761.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfsdorf, David. 2005. “ΔΥΝΑΜΙΣ in Laches.”; Pheonix 9 (3/4): 324–347.Google Scholar
Woodruff, Paul. 1977. “Socrates and the Parts of Virtue.”; Candadian Journal of Philosophy 2: 101–119.Google Scholar