Having been exposed to the discussion between Socrates and Hippias on the fine and what is fine, my friend and I sought to expound on our own understanding of the concept. The following dialogue is an exchange between us in relation to aspects we consider pertinent to understanding of the fine.
Me: “I have noted that discussions on philosophical concepts tend to attract substantial criticism and others qualify to be defined as controversial. My view is that you might already know, and share similar sentiments about this observation. One such discussion, whose authenticity continues to be questioned is the dialogue between Hippias and Socrates regarding “the fine”, and what is the fine?”
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Friend: “From my own observation of the dialogue, Hippias is straightforward in his arguments about the fine. I believe most critics of the dialogue notice this.”
Me : “I concur with you because the two philosophers open their dialogue by presenting a basic and contemporary definition as per the modern English language.”
Friend: “Indeed, looking at the definitions proffered by Hippias, he cannot be faulted for his perceptions. The most logical definition of the fine is from a utilitarian perspective, which Socrates appears to denounce.”
Me: “In my view, Hippias adopts a general definition of the fine as representative of most of the good things that we interact with in our daily lives.
“Therefore, Socrates criticism and contention against Hippias’ perception of the fine relates to what he considers a superficial approach devoid of philosophical foundations.”
Friend: “I understand that the definitions offered by Hippias are open to interpretation. I argue that to understand the dialogue between Hippias and Socrates we need to adopt a philosophical view of the concept and phenomenon of the fine.
“Only then can we say the definition is credible.
Me: “Exactly, but in the spirit of Socrates’ quest to seek first to understand, what fine is before giving credence to Hippias’ contentions, we cannot refuse the argue to examine Plato’s own allusion of the concept.
“While reading through the text, In Plato’s republic, I noticed that the concept of the fine originated from discussion on fine art.”
Friend: “I made a similar observation. Though there is minimal reference by Plato to the subject of fine arts, he did recognize the presence of these objects.”
Me: “I believe that is the reason modern critics of Plato’s republic contend that humanity continues to experience fragments of the fine arts, which serve as the standard truth and beauty.”
Friend: “I think you are right because these critics also recognize that Plato did not endorse the definition of the fine that links it to the objects. Neither did he distinguish the fine from the mechanical arts.”
Me: “I wonder why he decided to be silent about the whole concept, his insights would have been invaluable.”
Friend: “Plato’s approach raises pertinent questions, particularly their silence on the concept of the fine at a time when fine arts were conveyed by moralists ideas about measure, order, equality, unity, and proportion rather than superlatives.
“In my opinion, the observation that we can make from the initial arguments advanced in Plato’ republic is that of the fine being related to virtue ethics. The fine might have had a strong association to fine arts.”
Me: “That is a fantastic observation. Indeed, the fines appears to allude to the harmony of the soul and the body, and among the components of the soul; harmony that is fairer than musical notes, and offers a true Hellenic approach to the conceptualization of the perfection of human nature.”
Friend: “It is important to understand that you have identified assertions raised that had no empirical foundations.”
Me: “Definitely, it is evident that early philosophers chose to maintain silence over the matter of defining the fine despite knowledge of its influence in all aspects of life. The lack of empirical evidence was thus a defining factor.”
Friend: “Can we therefore, say that the dialogue between Hippias and Socrates is a clash of perceptions?”
Me: “That is right! You may have noted that Hippias is vocal about the definition of the fine, while Socrates prefers to maintain the status quo by reserving his opinions of the concept.”
Friend: “I too noted that Socrates rejects Hippias’ definition of the fine, but maintains remarkable silence, a common feature that marked the eras of great perfection in fine arts as per the observers.”
Me: “However, we can agree that Hippias’ proffered definition of the fine is what majority of the populace would endorse – a worldview of phenomena from the fine arts’ perspective.
“Every object, person, deed, or thought, when looked at from the fine art perspective, qualifies to be described as either bad or good based on the entrenched moral and virtue ethics.”
Friend: “ From the perspective you have advanced, there is no doubt that fine is synonymous with good and beautiful, terms that are apparently describe very subjective conclusions.”
Me: “I agree with you. However, since beauty is an individual perception, the proposition that it is summative of virtue is contended.
“In my view, Hippias and Socrates dialogue is an outcome of the need to integrate the definition of the fine into ethics – exploration of the beneficence aspect of the fine.”
Friend: “In my view, the Socratic idea on ethics contends that Hippias; definition of the fine adopts a biased approach by exalting the positive aspects of phenomena while giving little attention to the bad side.
“For instance, Socrates calls to question the emphasis on the fine a general term of commendation meaning beautiful, amiable, or noble. The opposite is described as ugly, foul, disgusting, or shameful.”
Me: “I also noted what you have just highlighted. In fact, the definition fails to recognize that what is described as the fine may also have the opposite attributes – the unwanted or harmful side.
“The general conception of the fine from the dialogue, is that it refers to what is good, a definition whose origin has strong association to the perfection of fine arts.”
Friend: “I think Hippias’ conceptualization of the fine has historical connotations because it was a time during which phenomena were almost exclusively judged from the artistic perspective.” Me : “But, the dialogue depicts the evolution in the definition of the concept into a more philosophical perspective.”
Friend: “I agree, through the Socratic idea of ethics, Hippias proposition of the fine is refuted. The contention is that Hippias made critical categorical mistakes in his definition of the fine.”
Me: “I noted that Hippias identifies three phenomena he claims to fit the definition of fine – a particular such as a fine girl, a mass substance such as gold, and a universal such as a traditional good life.”
Friend: “Yes! The definitions are confounded in covetousness, the fulfillment of individual desires for pleasure. As a result, Hippias fails to acknowledge the prospects of the fine having undesirable attributes. For instance, its vulnerability to alien conditions that are likely to distort the finer nature.”
Me: “I believe it is justifiable to contend that the Socratic idea of ethics provides a different conceptualization of the fine.”
Friend: “I concur with your argument. We cannot purport to base the definition of the fine merely on extrinsic attributes while neglecting the intrinsic characteristics of the entity in question.
“For instance, going back to Hippias definition of the fine, a fine girl refers to the artistic perception, implying external beauty. This fails to recognize the moral or ethical implications of the girl her finesse notwithstanding. In relation to gold, Hippias errs by failing to recognize that despite its value, it has weaknesses as a metal.
“For example, it cannot be used to make cooking pots. Similarly, living a traditional good life fails the test of the fine from a moral and ethical point of view if one leads life of extravagance amidst suffering masses.”
Me: “It is apparent that Socrates disagreement with Hippias definitions is a result of the failure to explain all elements of the fine, an approach that further compliments understanding of the concept from a philosophical point.”
Friend: “From the dialogue between Socrates and Hippias, it is evident that the fine is defined based on artistic impression rather the characteristics that define utility of a given entity. The fine becomes ambiguous and lacks philosophical meaning if we focus on generalization of the qualities.”
Me: “But we cannot jump the gun in our own search for the definition of the concept. In the ancient societies, fine was the definitive word used to refer to all that was perceived to be good.
“There were fine men, fine women, fine horses, fine food, and many more, but the description is offered is inadequate because it does not capture the fallibilities of each of these entities.”
Friend: “Your argument is justified, but we need to understand that generalizability of the metaphysical as fine without offering sufficient explanatory power fails the definitive test.
“Even Socrates definition of the fine as what is appropriate, able, beneficial, and pleasurable, as perceived through sight and hearing, does not comprehensively address the weaknesses of Hippias’ claims.”
Me: “That was my implied meaning. We can see that Socrates re-establishes the link between what is fine and the artistic impression, an approach that contributes to fallibility of Hippias, definitions.”
Friend: “You might be right. Besides, the fine continues to draw significant disputes because philosophers shy off from presenting their views on the concept. The dialogue between Socrates and Hippias failed to resolve the matter, though it provided new insights on how the definition of what is fine should be reached.”
Me: “Indeed. Overall, the dialogue depicts a transition in the definition of the fine from an artistic perspective to a philosophical point of view that accounts for how the entity in question is beneficial - The shift from artistic impression based on sight and hearing, to the inclusion of moral and ethical paradigms, and the concept of utility.”
Friend: “I concur with your point of view, but it is important to reiterate that the dialogue does not offer a conclusive answer as to what the fine is, an observation attributable to the fact that entities proposed as qualifying to be the fine, have fallibilities that we may tend to ignore in our generalizations of the good.”
