- Sep 2013
Good and bad are distinct, separate though they can both be inherent in people or circumstances
Reference to gods shows that this principle reaches every level. Even with gods there is no universal or absolute good/truth.
This idea has important implications for community. It creates a circular and perpetual cycle of dependence.
Some of the popular orators say that offices should be assigned by lot
Question of clarification: to "be assigned by lot" is a kind of pulling-names-out-of-a-hat method of assigning? I'm fairly certain this is what is meant, I just wanted some outside confirmation.
Therefore things both are and are not.
This comment would make Aristotle roll over in his grave! For Aristotle, the firmest axiom of metaphysics (of everything, really) in the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC).
But there is another argument which says that the good is one thing and the bad another, and that as the name differs, so does the thing named
Beginning of second argument: the problem of differentiation with respects to good an bad.
but others say that they are the same, and a thing might be good for some persons but bad for others, or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person. (2) I myself side with those who hold the latter opinion
outline of the first of two arguments in this section: good and bad are relative terms; something good for one may be bad for another.
But to this too an opposite argument is put forward: that the just and the unjust are different things, and that as the name differs, so does the thing named
2nd opposing argument
And some say that the just is one thing and the unjust another, and others that the just and the unjust are the same. And I shall try to support this latter view
1st of two arguments in sec. III: just and unjust are relative, interchangeable terms.
This is the first step: if you focus your attention, your mind, making progress by this means, will perceive more. (3) Th
This section is instructional, more like a "lesson", and differs from the "Two-fold arguments" in that way - less persuasive and more instructional rhetoric.
It follows that he will know everything. (5) The reason for this is that he knows the art of all forms of speech, and all forms of speech (have for their subject matter) everything that (exists). (
It is interesting to notice that people tend to infer that someone who speaks well is also knowledgeable on the matters they speak of, though it might not be true at all. These early arguments shine a light on ways our "natural instincts" may have been shaped by developments in rhetoric throughout history.
Thus my argument is complete, and you have its beginning, middle and end. And I don't say that wisdom and virtue are teachable, but that these proofs do not satisfy me.
It is incredible to think that these arguments had to be made at some time, that the idea of "teaching", and of learning were things to be proved and persuaded, in order to be accepted into main stream culture and developed into standardized teaching institutions.
This entire section arguing for the relativism of good and bad (and most of the entire article) reminds me of sophist philosophies.
To sum up, everything done at the right time is seemly and everything done at the wrong time is disgraceful. What have I then worked out?
Conclusion: seemliness or disgracefulness is dependent on temporal circumstance. This could also be said about labeling something as good or bad, but perhaps a bit looser.
Therefore it must be that he knows everything.
A message for rhetoricians?
I think it belongs to (the same man) and to the same art to be able to discourse in the brief style and to understand (the) truth of things and to know how to give a right judgment in the law courts and to be able to make public speeches and to understand the art of rhetoric and to teach concerning the nature of all things, their state and how they came to be.
The author's conclusion.
even if a particular man did not teach, this would not prove anything, but if a single man did teach, this would be evidence that teaching is possible.
I think this statement is very simple-minded
Refers to (1).
"Does he exist with respect to some particular thing, or just in general?" Then if someone denies that the man exists, he is mistaken, because he is treating (the particular and) universal senses as being the same. Because everything exists in some sense.
An important point: particular vs. general
the wise speak at the right moment and the demented at the wrong one. (10) And in saying this, they appear to be making a small addition, "(the) right moment" or "the wrong one," so that the situation is no longer the same.
Thought this is important for rhetoric.
Therefore things both are and are not.
The author's point.
And the same man is both alive and not alive
As a result of the argument they say that if a thing comes to pass, the statement they make is true, but if it does not, then the statement is false. If so, it isn't the name that differs in these cases but the thing named.
An interesting point.
suppose one's father or mother ought to drink or eat a remedy and is unwilling to do so, isn't it just to give the remedy in a gruel or drink and to deny that it is in it ? (3) Therefore from this one example it is just to tell lies and to deceive one's parents.
Not quite convincing. There's no agreement between the parents and the person here. Can we still say the lie is just?
Do they then take away seemly things in exchange for disgraceful ones ? Now really, if anyone had brought an ugly (man), would he take him away handsome?
An interesting example.
nothing is always seemly or always disgraceful, but the right occasion takes the same things and makes them disgraceful and then alters them and makes them seemly.
Convincing to me.
I am not saying what the good is, but I am trying to explain that the bad and the good are not the same but that each is distinct from the other.
The author's point of this section.
I think it would not be clear what was good and what was bad if they were just the same and one did not differ from the other
Two-fold arguments concerning the good and the bad are put forward in Greece by those who philosophize
I shall go through the individual cases, beginning with eatiing, drinking and sexual pleasures.
logos: organized logically. and, appealing to common place things one can easily identify with: ethos?
I don't think I understand what we are doing with this reading.
Please forgive any typos in the text. I had to encode in a rush and I'm afraid I missed a few things.