Socrates friend tells him that Protagoras is in town and that he wants to ask Protagoras to teach him, but Socrates tells him to take caution, casting doubt on what you can learn from sophists. Protagoras teaches citizenship (or virtue), which Socrates disagrees can be teached. All knowledge has an expert, like doctors for medicine. But there is no profession for citizenship. And to prove that you cannot teach virtue Socrates brings up that many legendary virtous people, like Pericles, failed to pass their virtue to their children. In response Protagoras tells a creation myth about citizenship: The titan Epimetheus was responsible for bestowing abilities upon all animals such as wings for flying or thick hides but forgot to give any to humans. Prometheus then gave them wisdom and fire. Zeus then gave man a sense of shame and justice to learn the art of politics. This gift, unlike the other arts, is one that everyone shares. «One must have some trace of [justice] or not be human.» Protagoras explains how we treat citizenship as teachable, in how we send kids to be education for example (but does not prove it is teachable). Everyone can improve their sense of justice and one who has been educated no matter their original talent is superior to the uneducated.

The discussion then switches to the multiplicity of virtue, justice and piety are both part of virtue, but are they the same or separate? Protagoras says they are similar but distinct. Socrates then asks him whether things can only have one opposite. They then agree that folly is the opposite of wisdom but also that folly is the opposite of temperance, which conflicts with their previous agreement. At this point Socrates loses patience for Protagoras long speeches, but he refuses to cut down on his answers. As Socrates starts to leave the others intervene and they reach a compromise that Protagoras should ask the questions instead.

Protagoras starts by stating that he thinks poetry is the most important part of one's education, the ability to understand, analyze and discuss works of poetry. He brings up a poem from Simonides and points out that its contradictory in first calling becoming good hard and then saying being good is hard. If you cannot be good, then how can you become it? Socrates asks Prodicus, a sophist from the same town as Simonides, for help. Together they point out that Simonides is in fact correcting another poet and that Protagoras misunderstood the poem because of the dialect it was written in. The poem says its hard to be good but its not hard to become it. Only the gods can be good. A bad man cannot become bad for he already is, but he can become good and vice versa.

Back to virtues and its components. Protagoras says that virtues has several components such as wisdom, temperance, justice, piety and courage which are all similar but distinct, except for courage which is completely different from the others. For a person can be foolish and unjust but still courageous. Socrates asks if all brave people are confident. But are all confident people brave then? No, fools are confident without knowledge. Then courage requires knowledge, like the other virtues. Virtue and all its components are in fact knowledge.

The discussion then switches to the role that pain and pleasure take in good and bad. Protagoras takes the position that life is about avoiding pain but not all pains are bad and not all pleasures are good. Some pains can be beneficial like medicine and some can be neutral, from his own experience. They both disagree that anything but wisdom can be the guide of human activity, that people are not ruled by pleasure. It takes expertise to separate the good from the bad pain and pleasures, so here again we see knowledge. When a person is overcome by pleasure it is in fact ignore that rules them.

At this point Socrates and Protagoras have arrived at the opposite positions they started out at. Socrates now claims that virtue must be knowledge and therefore teachable. Protagoras opposses that virtue is knowledge and therefore cannot be teachable.

Observations: This dialogue is in a first person perspective where socrates retells his discussion with Protagoras.

Socrates says he is a student of Prodicus, who specializes in separating wanting and desire.

Socrates says spartans are secretely well-educated about philsophy. I remember there are other dialogues where Sparta has been regarded positively. I think this is more of Plato's position than Socrates, but maybe they both admired the state.

Students of Protagoras can either pay the full fee or go to a temple and swear what they consider it worth and pay that amount.

Protagoras claims that sophistry was practiced by many famous people but that they disguised their works as poetry, music and others to avoid the shame and consequences of being a sophist. He brings up Homer as an example. I know Homer's poetry was regarded in ancient greece as displaying many virtues of man, since sophists have a very negative reputation i can see the parallell where those who disguise their moral lessons in poetry fare better than those who openly preach (and demand compensation).

Protagoras is definitely more prideful than Gorgias, another sophist with an eponymous dialogue. Gorgias agreed to keep his answers short, but Protagoras definitely wants to utilize oratory skill and long speeches to win the discussion. But he can still partake in a dialected, albeit with some peer pressure. He is definitelly not like Callicles who constantly goes on long tirades and switches positions as it suits him than a dedication to truth.

This dialogue contradicts the Meno dialogue on whether virtue can be taught.