Beware the Sophist (learning)

Sophist or Socrates? Making your way through life

Worki inprogress ..

Interestingly many of the arguments defining the difference are focused around the sophists being paid and Socrates not. This makes a difference? Are those educated elites suggesting it is therefore wrong to pay teachers? And does such payment therefore inevitably result in corruption? As teachers themselves, are they therefore corrupting?

• It seems to me this is a distraction.

It is left almost exclusively to Socretes and Plato (who is often the mouthpiece, as Socrates left no written records) to highlight the difference between philosophy and sophist thinking. Remember, at that time, 400BC apx, there was so such subject as science, science was seen as, and indeed is, the laws of Nature (and the gods).

Scientific method wasn’t developed until the Renaissance. Finding truth fell to ‘logical’ argument, the application of logic having been developed by the Greeks long before. Basically, if it “stands to reason”, it feels correct, then it must be true.

• This rather begs the term “common logic”

Socretes challenged sophist logical explanation by asking a myriad of questions. He would famously announce “I ask because I know nothing (but wish to learn)”. Thus the sophist had to prove that in all ways and under all circumstances, their arguments still applied.

• Isn’t this the verbal equivalent of laboratory experiment?

Scientific method and thinking however, the bedrock of the “illuminated” western world, challenges the acceptance of “standing to reason” by requiring experiment to prove not only that the theory cannot be disproved but also that the anticipated result does indeed always happen. In other words, modern science is about failing to disprove what is believed, not by accepting beliefs.

To do this one must:

• be able to accept they could be wrong
• realise reality may not be to their liking
• overcome their personal beliefs
• accept tomorrow may disprove what is understood today

It must be observed that in the absence of experimental data, we have no option but to rely on logical explanation to fill in the gaps. Hopefully these explanations are based on other scientifically proven metaphors, not convenient fantasy.

I would like to keep an external source as an independent reference (otherwise I’m a sophist!), which curiously seems very sophist positive. Extracted from Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/sophist. Edits & highlights are mine

---

Before Plato, the word “sophist” could be used as either a respectful or contemptuous title. It was in Plato’s dialogue, Sophist, that the first record of an attempt to answer the question “what is a sophist?” is made. Plato described sophists as paid hunters after the young and wealthy, as merchants of knowledge, as athletes in a contest of words, and purgers of souls. From Plato’s assessment of sophists it could be concluded that sophists do not offer true knowledge, but only an opinion of things. Plato describes them as shadows of the true, saying, “the art of contradiction making, descended from an insincere kind of conceited mimicry, of the semblance-making breed, derived from image making, distinguished as portion, not divine but human, of production, that presents, a shadow play of words – such are the blood and the lineage which can, with perfect truth, be assigned to the authentic sophist”. Plato sought to distinguish sophists from philosophers, arguing that a sophist was a person who made his living through deception, whereas a philosopher was a lover of wisdom who sought the truth

Democracy

The sophists’ rhetorical techniques were useful for any young nobleman seeking public office. The societal roles the sophists filled had important ramifications for the Athenian political system. The historical context provides evidence for their considerable influence, as Athens became more and more democratic during the period in which the sophists were most active.^[19]

Even though Athens was already a flourishing democracy before their arrival, the cultural and psychological contributions of the sophists played an important role in the growth of Athenian democracy. Sophists contributed to the new democracy in part by espousing expertise in public deliberation, the foundation of decision-making, which allowed—and perhaps required—a tolerance of the beliefs of others. This liberal attitude would naturally have made its way into the Athenian assembly as sophists began acquiring increasingly high-powered clients.^[20] Continuous rhetorical training gave the citizens of Athens “the ability to create accounts of communal possibilities through persuasive speech”.^[21] This was important for the democracy, as it gave disparate and sometimes superficially unattractive views a chance to be heard in the Athenian assembly.

In addition, sophists had a great impact on the early development of law, as the sophists were the first lawyers in the world. Their status as lawyers was a result of their highly developed skills in argument.

Education

Athens

The sophists were the first formal teachers of the art of speaking and writing in the Western world. Their influence on education in general, and medical education in particular, has been described by Seamus Mac Suibhne.^[23] The sophists “offer quite a different epistemic field from that mapped by Aristotle”, according to scholar Susan Jarratt, writer of Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured.

For the sophists, the science of eloquence became a method to earn money. In order to teach their students the art of persuasion and demonstrate their thoughts, they focused on two techniques: dialectics and rhetoric. The sophists taught their students two main techniques: the usage of sophisms and contradictions. These means distinguished the speeches of the sophists from the other speakers. Contradictions (antithesis ^[24]) were important to the Sophists because they believed that a good rhetorician should be able to defend both his own opinion and the exact opposite one. In this way, was developed the ability to find clear, convincing arguments for any thesis. For the sophists, the primary purpose was to win the dispute in order to prove their excellence in word usage. They were convinced that there was no verity, but there were different opinions, equal in importance, and the “verity” was the only one that would be more convincingly demonstrated by the rhetorician.

Sophists were not limited in their speeches only to topics in which they were aware. For them, there were no topics they could not dispute, because their skill reached such a level that they were able to talk about completely unknown things to them and still impress upon listeners and the opponent. The main purpose was to pick an approach to the audience, to please it and to adapt the speech to it. Unlike Plato‘s approach, the Sophist rhetoricians did not focus on identifying the truth, but the most important thing for them was to prove their case (by common logic)

The first sophist whose speeches are a perfect example of a sophisticated approach is Gorgias. One of his most famous speeches is the “Praise of Helen”, which has made a significant contribution to rhetorical art. In this speech, Gorgias aims to make something almost impossible – to justify Helen, about whom the people have already had a negative opinion. By methods of double oppositions, stringing of repetitive positive qualities and insightful consistent arguments, Gorgias Leontynets gradually purifies the poor reputation of a woman. Later, Aristotle described the means used in Gorgias’ speech as “Gorgias figures”. All of these figures create the most accessible path for the audience to the argument offered, varying depending on the type of speech and audience.

Rome

During the Second Sophistic, the Greek discipline of rhetoric heavily influenced Roman education. During this time Latin rhetorical studies were banned for the precedent of Greek rhetorical studies. In addition, Greek history was preferred for educating the Roman elites above that of their native Roman history.^[25]

Many rhetoricians during this period were instructed under specialists in Greek rhetorical studies as part of their standard education. Cicero, a prominent rhetorician during this period in Roman history, is one such example of the influence of the Second Sophistic on Roman education. His early life coincided with the suppression of Latin rhetoric in Roman education under the edicts of Crassus and Domitius. Cicero was instructed in Greek rhetoric throughout his youth, as well as in other subjects of the Roman rubric under Archias. Cicero benefited in his early education from favorable ties to Crassus.^[25]

In his writings, Cicero is said to have shown a “synthesis that he achieved between Greek and Roman culture” summed up in his work De Oratore. Despite his oratorical skill, Cicero pressed for a more liberal education in Roman instruction which focused more in the broad sciences including Roman history. He entitled this set of sciences as politior humanitas(2.72). Regardless of his efforts toward this end, Greek history was still preferred by the majority of aristocratic Romans during this time.

Modern usage

Look up sophism, sophist, or sophistry in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are used disparagingly. A sophism, or sophistry, is a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.^[27][28] A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.^[29][30]

---

In contrast, the entry on Socrates https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

..