the sophists they were widely criticized from Socrates to the mid-nineteenth century. Most of these thinkers were in the city of Athens, due to the political organization of that city-state in the 5th century BC. a., but they were not citizens. Per charge to teach, mainly rhetoric and grammar, were called by Plato of skillful deceivers, and by Henry Sidgwick of charlatans.
There are indications that the word sophist had a positive connotation in the writings of the great Greek poets and in Herodotus, the father of the story. The historical criticism of the sophists did not start with Socrates, however it is undeniable the influence of the writings of Plato and Aristotle in the characterization of these thinkers.
Characteristics of the sophists
The group of thinkers identified as sophists was mainly characterized by the absence of a common doctrine and by teaching aimed at an instrumental purpose
. They were seen as skillful speakers by the people, recognizing the importance of words and the use of logic. They can be considered traveling instructors hired to teach rhetoric for political purposes.What remained of his thoughts were few fragments and mentions in other texts. Much of what we know about these thinkers is contained in the platonic dialogues and in the writings of Aristotle, in which they are directly criticized. The criticisms contrast with the etymology of the word "sophist", whose origin is sophos and it means wise or skillful, but comes to denote those who appear to be wise, yet do not reach the truth.
The attempt to identify a thinker as a sophist is not a historiographical difficulty, but rather to indicate what would be common in these thinkers, as Plato states in his dialogue the sophist. Some researchers agree that this factor would be the belief that virtue is teachable, which is precisely the focus of the criticism of Socrates.
Read too: Aristotle's Metaphysics - set of Aristotelian treatises
leading sophists
Who was the first or main sophist? This answer cannot be easily affirmed, since Protagoras, considered the first sophist, would have affirmed, as we read in the dialogue Protagoras, from Plato, that others before him already practiced sophistry, but with different methods from his. already in the book the lives of the sophists, from the Greek Philostratus, written in the middle of the third century, this art is identified with the rhetoric.
Protagoras, from the ancient Greek city Abdera (in the region of Thrace), was born in 490 BC. Ç. and is considered the first sophist. He is appointed as a disciple of Democritus and known for asserting that "man is the measure of all things." A knowledge beyond opinions, in other words, appearances, would not be possible. Many philosophers indicate in this statement the basis of relativistic thought.
Hippias was a natural sophist from western Greece (present-day city of Elida) who attributed to himself the ability to talk about various subjects, fruit of his excellent memory, such as astronomy, mathematics, painting and poetry. Xenophon indicates that Hippias would have debated with Socrates about justice differentiating between natural and conventional laws.
Thrasymachus figures mainly at the beginning of the republic, in which he expresses the opinion that “justice would be only the advantage of the strongest”. There is only certainty that he was born in the ancient city of Chalcedon (now Kadıköy, in the province of Istanbul), and there is little information about his life and his possible writings.
Gorgias he was born in Leontinos, present-day Lentini (located in the Italian province of Syracuse), and is not introduced as a sophist by Socrates. This observation results from his refusal to believe that virtue is teachable. much of your book about what noté it has come to us and presents a problem: even if something existed, we could not know it and we cannot communicate what is not known. It would thus be presenting a criticism of Parmenides.
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
Socrates' critique
The negative aspect we attribute to the sophists is based on Socrates' criticism of this group of thinkers. We see in the Platonic dialogues, through Socrates, that the sophists propose only relative truths.. In the absence of absolute truth, it becomes easier to practice eristics, namely, trying to achieve success in any debate. One of the descriptions, which some sophists attributed to themselves, was the ability to refute any matter. His commendable oratory favored the appearance of sages, but interest in the truth was not present.
What the sophist offered, then, was a product to those who paid for his service. The Socratic proposal, on the other hand, aimed to transform those with whom he conversed, freeing them from the domain of shadows and leading them to real knowledge. Without this dialectical procedure, which includes the abandonment of opinions, any beautiful speech can convince both of falsehood and truth about a subject.
Read too: Pre-Socratics - Philosophers Who Initiated Western Philosophy
Importance of Sophists for Philosophy
Although the fragments that remain are very few, recent studies seek to observe the contributions of these thinkers to a culture that was beginning to question its religious values. The valorization of care with words and the distinction between natural and artificial laws are the most relevant proposals for the later periods of philosophy. It cannot be forgotten, either, that the rhetoric study it was largely motivated by these thinkers' use of discourse in Athenian politics.
What cannot be doubted, in any case, is that these thinkers were considered wise, in the proper sense of the word, and represented an important moment in the history of philosophy.
selected excerpts
about the truth, attributed to Antifont:
"Justice consists, then, in not transgressing the prescriptions of the city in which you are a citizen. That said, a man would use justice to its greatest advantage if, in the presence of witnesses, he would respect the laws, but, once only and without witnesses, if he would respect the prescriptions of nature; for the prescriptions of laws are imposed, while those of nature are necessary; and those of the law are the result of an agreement, not being produced naturally, while those of nature are produced naturally, not being the result of an agreement." |1|
praise from Helena, from Gorgias:
“[There is] the same relationship between the power of speech and the disposition of the soul, the device of drugs and the nature of bodies: just as such a drug causes such humor to leave the body, and that some make the illness, others life, so too, among the discourses, some afflict, others enchant, frighten, inflame the listeners, and some, by the effect of some bad persuasion, drug the soul and bewitch it." |1|
Grades
|1| CASSIN, Barbara. the sophistical effect: Sophistry, philosophy, rhetoric, literature. Translated by Ana Lúcia de Oliveira, Maria Cristina Franco Ferraz, Paulo Pinheiro. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2005.
By Marco Oliveira
Philosophy teacher