How many ἀρεταί in Plato's Protagoras?

A large debate around Plato’s Protagoras concerns the so-called ‘unity of virtue’, namely Socrates’ ultimate position on the relation between ἀρετή and the five concepts (justice, piety, prudence, wisdom, and courage) connected with it. In this article, I will draw on the language and ideas of the dialogue to question the semantic presupposition which all the scholars involved in the debate, whatever their views, have been sharing, namely that the five concepts can be considered as ἀρεταί, and not just as ‘good qualities’ (τὰ καλά), or ‘parts’ (μόρια), or ‘names’ (ὀνόματα) of ἀρετή, as Plato terms them.

Richard Price on Virtue

This essay examines the position on virtue taken by the Welsh dissenting minister and philosopher Richard Price in his A Review of the Principal Questions in Morals, first published in 1758. Price speaks broadly of the ‘obligations of virtue’, seeing virtue as in effect equivalent to morality, obligation, or what is morally right; so an examination of his views on virtue will engage with his first-order or normative ethics as a whole. The essay reconstructs Price’s views on the nature and origin of virtue, virtue and the happiness of the agent, moral motivation, the role of the affections, consequentialism, and the unity of virtue. This reconstruction is compared with Terry Irwin’s interpretation and assessment of Price in The Development of Ethics.

Plato’s Protagoras: The Authority of Beginning an Education

Daniel Price’s “Plato’s Protagoras: The Authority of Beginning an Education” follows Derrida’s re-reading of Hegel’s framing of philosophical history through to Plato’s Protagoras. Price, seeking an alternative to the Hegelian frame, inquires into the place of the virtuous subject in Plato. In the Protagoras Price finds that the unity and goodness of virtue claims our subjectivity, not vice versa. This claim on our subjectivity orients us to the task of providing a ground for the unity of virtue. This does not concern the authority of a teacher, who demands that we reject any thought that is not owned, that does not pass through the lens of self-conscious self-appropriation. Instead it signifies the emergence of subjectivity through the claims that are made upon us by language.