DM> 1. General moral excellence; right action and thinking, GOODNESS or
 DM> morality . . . . . . etc.
 DM> In perusing Plato, the concerning about one's "virtue" seems to have
 DM> been of considerable importance. I believe this question is still an
 DM> awkward point of both historical and present contention. Some make the
 DM> understanding and maintenance of "virtue" most difficult outside of "God
 DM> system" guidance and inspiration. Others can see it across any span of
 DM> being, independent of systems and isms. It seems a very flexible
 DM> characteristic of mind in that it can be retroactively applied to those
 DM> we come to love and wish to deify.... We reach back and clean up our
 DM> heroes ....even Gods (Jesus: "Don't call me good, only God is good!).
 DM> There are questions (as asked in "primary colors"). If one NOT VIRTUOUS
 DM> produces a good, and is compared to one VIRTUOUS that produces a bad,
 DM> then is not a concern twinkling in some corner of inquiry? Then, the non
 DM> virtuous, who tries mightily to be virtuous but cannot quite make it
 DM> ....compared with one that is naturally virtuous and wouldn't know how
 DM> to be otherwise. True it is not judgement that counts ...but then what
 DM> does?  Are we approaching an adult historical plateau whereby real
 DM> people  can be seen as both good and bad among their flaws n wings,  OR
 DM> does "virtue" stand epic as an absolute measure?  I am not particularly
 DM> virtuous , (just an old derelict grandfather) so I may be in a
 DM> partisan capacity to judge.  You being, more, a "lover of truth"
 DM> (philosopher), might approach the subject (at least) from another point
 DM> of view......! Is it even an important consideration and WHY? Plato
 DM> (quotes) accepted as witness and support.....
   David, I sense that what you're searching for is some one moral compass or
guidebook (almost a set of doctrines or dogma) wrapping up the question of
virtue and knowledge that seems so to have preoccupied Socrates and his
mouthpiece, Plato.
   What I think you must not overlook is that the philosophers of ancient
Greece in its high period of development did not condemn the Sophists in
general because it was the Sophists who brought Hellas to the position where
later on it could become the educator even of its conquerors, Alexander and
Rome.  What was being criticized in some of the leading Sophists (Protagoras,
Gorgias, etc.) was their assumption that "virtue" had little meaning and that
all that people needed to know for a life of eudamonia was the dynamic of
rhetoric (how to defend themselves in court, etc) and the elements of viewing
the concrete physical world.  Hence the engaging of this viewpoint by
Plato-Socrates and the hearty debates as to whether or not virtue is 
nowledge
and if so, can it be taught.  If you read the deadly debate between Socrates
and Callicrates (pupil of Gorgias) carefully you can see the weaknesses
Socrates points out to Callicrates in the latter's argument that "virtue" is
just something that the "young man on the way up" adopts as a set of "mere
CONVENTIONS" because they sound good and then in the real workaday world 
rops
(ceases to occupy himself with philosophy) as of no consequence.  
   I will leave you to read the Gorgias with that in mind rather than to try
to sketch out the debate.  Note that the opening words of the treatise is 
War
and Battle..." thus setting the tone as Plato, the comsumate artist, could do
so well.  Socrates eventually points out to Callicrates that if it becomes
noised around that everything Callicrates subscribes to before the masses he
so loves is "mere convention" then it may not be too long before they'll 
egin
to believe him and since they are greater in number and pressure than the
"smart politician" he might need to pay careful attention to his own doxa.
The philosopher has nothing really to offer except the Socratic "Follow my
persuasion" and so far as the salvation of the Greek poleis is concern we
already know their collective history in going down to defeat and rule by
Alexander the Great as the center of an ecumenic empire. 
   These old philosophers were not trying to match the relativism of many of
the Sophists with some truths that were lying around somewhere to be stumbled
upon by some righteous souls!!  They were engaged in sometimes murderous
dialogues in defense of reason as the only guide man has to living in harmony
with himself and other people.  Socrates argued in some places that the
virtuous man, even though he might have to sacrifice SOME things would still
come out the winner in a life lived in constant critique of itself
(immortalizing - or life lived under the aspect of death).  Every individual
with his conscience must decide that for her/himself, I think but society
needs to pay it some attention also if man (as they said) is worth a little
consideration.  
   Philosophy, David, ORIGINATED, as a counter force to "Philodoxy."  It is
love of the divine sophon rather than love of doctrine.  In his dialogues 
rom
the Republic to the Laws Plato is not offering some NEW doctrine to be
substituted for older doctrines.  He is calling for the application of reason
to the problems of the polis.  To be sure, he is fascinated with numbers as 
n
the pythagorean system and with the vocabularies of such as Hippocrates and
the dramatists who wrote of conficts in body and soul and the remedical
efforts in resolving them.  
   That is why, although there is agreement on some issues between a Paul who
comes on the scene centuries later and Plato, the latter is protected by the
very reason that is revealed to him against eschatological extravaganzas that
would destroy the balance of consciousness and stop the search that never
ceases as long as man continues to me man.  If man becomes a robot, the 
earch
will stop.  In some ways it is just that simple.  Or, at least, that is the
way I see it.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------