[Yuri] This is a quick rundown on Hippias Minor, a dialogue by Plato.
Let us introduce the characters…
First of them is Hippias,
he 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.
He is the opponent of Socrates.
Speaking of whom, Socrates is a person we all know and love.
Famous philosopher, but instead of being boastful,
he claims himself to be a “simple man”, not the best of the best.
Eudicus - he is just a middleman, not much to say.
So, what could possibly go wrong in this setup?
Arrogant person on the one side, and a master of dialectics on the other side.
Intense stuff shall happen, I reckon!
Meanwhile, we shall 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.
[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 had 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 Hippias.
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 Hippias 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 completely opposite.
Socrates claims that both Achilles and Odysseus are similar in this matter
in regards 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.
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 for 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.
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.
