---
# System prepended metadata

title: Philosophy

---

# Philosophy

### Introduction

In the given dialogue there are three characters: Socrates, Hippias and Eudicus, where Socrates and Hippias are main ones, but Eudicus just an introductor. Dialogue starts after the exhibition of Hippias, from the question by Socrates about what Hippias thinks about those two heroes: Achilles and Odysseus, who is better.

### Translation

1. After the 

После речи Гиппия, посвященной тому, что Ахилл более достойный (ἄριστον), чем Одиссей, Сократ пытается разобраться в основаниях этого тезиса. Гиппий ссылается на Гомера, который изобразил Ахилла доблестным, Нестора мудрым, а Одиссея хитроумным (πολυτροπώτατον — 364с), т.е. способным на обман.

### Characters
**Socrates** - was a classical Greek philosopher credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy, and as being the first moral philosopher of the Western ethical tradition of thought.
**Eudicus** - ry of Socrates. With an assurance characteristic of the later sophists, he claimed to be regarded as an authority on all subjects, and lectured on poetry, grammar, history, politics, mathematics, and much else. Most of our knowledge of him is derived from Plato, who characterizes him as vain and arrogant.



## Script

### Yuriy
* This is a quick rundown on Hippias Minor, a dialogue by Plato. Let us introduce the characters...
#### Hippias
* Hippias is a sophist, who claims himself far superior in all the disciplines, like math, geometry, prose and so on. Philosophy included. 
* When he enters the discussion, he feels like a professor, teaching the class of younglings
* Opponent of the Socrates
#### Socrates
* (A person we all know and love) Famous philosopher, but instead of being boastful, claims himself to be a "simple man", not the best of the best

#### Eudicus
* Just a middleman, not much to say.

#### Setup
* What could possibly go wrong in this setup? 
* Arrogant person on the one side
* And master of dialectics on the other side

* Intense stuff should happen, I guess!
    * What is your opinion?
    * Drop it into the comments down bellow
* Meanwhile, we will proceed
* The dialogue takes place after an exhibition, where Hippias had given a lecture and spoke about how Homer intended Achilles to be simple and true, and Odysseus wily and false.


#### Dialogue
* Hippias defines Achilles as the true and simple
    * Because he always says what he thinks, and hate those who's words and thoughts diverge
*  and Odysseys to be false and wily
    *  As the opposite of the Achilles
*  Extending this contradistinction to a broader case, Hippias claims that true man is the opposite of the false
*  And false those are who are wise and willing to tell lie


### Alexander

In this part Socrates tries to understand Hippias' definition of the true and false men in order to understand Hippias' judgement of Homer's characters, and then he shows that there is no difference between the true and the false man as Hippias thought.

First, Socrates recalls Hippias' statement that a wily man is false, and thus the false men are those who are wise and powerful in telling lies. Vice versa, a man who has not the power of speaking falsely and is ignorant cannot be false.

Using Hippias' ability in calculations, as an example, he derives that the only person who is good at something has an ability to be false in that, as well as true, in the same matter.

At the same time, if a person is bad at something, he cannot be neither false nor true in it.

Thus, the the same man is both false and true in respect to these matters, and the true is in no wise better than the false, because they are the same man indeed, concludes Socrates.

However, we would like to note that there is a logical fallacy in Socrates' thinking, that Aristotle himself had mentioned. He considers a person who is false, and a person who just has an ability to be false, to be the same person, which is in fact not true.

### Ilshat
Then, they return to the question of who is better: Achilles or Odysseus.

Socrates disagrees with Hipias. First of all, he says that Odysseus is nowhere found to have spoken falsely. Then he claims that Achilles satisfies to definition of wily man stated by Hipias before and provides an example from "Iliad" of Achilles being a deceiver when he first says that he hates liars but then acts as one:
He says he would not stay at Troy at all but then acts completly opposite.

Socrates claims that both Achilles and Odysseus are similar in this matter in regard to falsehood and truth and to virtue in general.

After that, Hippias notes that Achilles deceives unintentionally, against his will, when Odysseus lies voluntarily and by design.

Finally, Socrates referring to his previous statement about man being both false and true, concludes that Odysseus is better than Achilles.


### Rim
In the next part Socrates examines the question which has been raised in the previous section: "Which are the better -- those who err voluntarily or involuntarily?".

The main example in this part consists of comparison of good and bad runners. "The good runner is the one who runs quickly, while the bad runner is the one who runs slowly," - they both agree. Socrates asks Hippias, which of the two is a better runner, he who runs slowly voluntarily, or he who runs slowly involuntarily? The answer to this question is obvious for Hippias: "He who runs slowly voluntarily", - he answers.

<!-- At the same time, in a race he who runs badly, which is the same as runs slowly, does a bad and dishonorable action, claims Socrates. -->

As a consequence of the arguments above, Socrates concludes that he who involuntarily does evil actions, is worse in a race than he who does them voluntarily. It seems to be true in a race for Hippias.

However, Socrates continues to generalize the same principle and spreads it into not only sport events, but also arts, music, medicine, parts of the body. While it seems possible for Hippias to agree with Socrates with these arguments, Socrates logically infers that "our minds will be better if they do wrong and make mistakes voluntarily rather than involuntarily", Hippias is terrified: "O, Socrates, it would be a monstrous thing to say that those who do wrong voluntarily are better than those who do wrong involuntarily!".

### Farhad

Socrates then turns to concept of justice. He asks Hippias if the power to do justice lies in ability - either strength or knowledge, or both, and that the better one at them, the more just they can be, the better men they are, with which Hippias, once again, agrees.

However, when Socrates therefore mentions that such wise and powerful man, who does injustice voluntarily, is still a better man, Hippias, naturally, disagrees. Socrates concludes that he himself does not know how to agree with the final statement, but that is the logical result of their dialogue. 

Finally, he then proceeds to shame Hippias by saying that if wise men like him cannot guide ordinary folk in their thinking, it would be a terrible thing for them both.

<!-- However, we would like to note that there is a logical fallacy in Socrates' thinking, that Aristotle himself had mentioned. He only assumes that this able man is the better one because of his potential to be true. -->

#### Conclusion

In conclusion, we want to say that Lesser Hippias is as much about lies, as it is about satire on Hippias and sophists as a whole.

Although, paradoxicality of Socrates' train of thought often is the cause of doubts of the true authorship of the dialogue. If those thoughts belonged to Hippias instead, it would be a good example of sophism.

