Here is what I hope to be a collection of some of the more reasonable statements that can be made of sophism, as seen in perspective of philosophy. To say the sophist is reasonable, is of course, already to make a defense, but I would not say I am particularly bent on arguing for sophism. I think it is a concern. I would say, it is more like we are sometimes faced with trying to give sophistry the most reasonable and explicit consideration we can.
However we think of it, sophism, or sophistry, derived from sophia means "wisdom", and it is the same word we use to construct the word philosophia, a "love of wisdom" by. This is at the very least, an interesting point of etymological relevance, considering that philosophy has been set out so much against sophists, in Plato's and Socrates' testaments.
If anyone stood for sophism, Protagoras may be considered exemplary. There are just two existing fragments of the sophist Protagoras' writings.
Quote:
1. Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not.
4. About the gods, I am not able to know whether they exist or do not exist, nor what they are like in form; for the factors preventing knowledge are many: the obscurity of the subject, and the shortness of human life.
These are general statements. What sophists taught in particular, is always the question.
I guess at face value anyone could say what a sophist taught was rhetoric, or being able to convince people of something. This was also understood (not just by philosophers, but even by the common Athenian) in terms of rigor, as the ability "to make the weaker argument win". For instance, if rhetoric was a rigor, wouldn't it be expressed that way?
This meaning could also be drawn from Protagoras's proposition as mentioned; that man or human communities, in their basis, are the measure of everything. Maybe it is better to step back to such a general statement than consider rhetoric a rigor of the humanities, if the sophist is to seem at all reasonable. We no doubt construct a human "community".
As a general structure, our politics and jurisprudence works, and functions more or less in this way. As much as we may hate a lawyer or politician for just playing the game and trying to convince the jury of something, regardless of the truth, their place in things is essential to our western philosophical values, as democracy.
Perhaps aside from the way the sophist arrives at truths either in particular, or in general in this way, he is also on the face of it a relativist. That is what I would come to. Again this is no less controversial, and yet in his most general statements, Protagoras does not seem so unreasonable. Many of us are quite agnostic to the gods, and moreover, find that most philosophical prerogatives for meaning are provisional, in one way or another. I think a "relativism" such as Protagoras's could aside from any mode of rhetorical strategy, be considered as the face value mode belonging to propositions and arguments themselves. Is this philosophical blasphemy? Perhaps we may consider any proposition in respect to individual experience, to existence, to culture (etc) by some provision. Perhaps relativism belongs to the standing of statements about nature? I think that would be another way to put a sophist's position, and again I don't think it is necessarily reasonable or unreasonable.
Here I am talking about the reasonable possibility, because there is no point in going in an unreasonable direction...
In fact, historically, the greek sophists were itinerant philosophers, traveling the Greek world, and beyond it. The Greek world consisted in city states, and so they were constantly stepping in and out of city walls, through the very outwardly apparent differences in values of the "polis" or city.
So for example, Socrates - a great and idolized name in western philosophy - was born, and died in Athens. He approached people in the marketplace, but notably did not charge money for dialogue. He did not write, or take students. And rather than to having students and schools and tuition, within the city like such illustrious figures as Plato and Aristotle, the sophists would charge money directly for what they taught. That was said to be the basic thing about sophists.
Now, finally, was any wisdom sold this way, indicative that the sophist was a Charlatan, peddling his snake oil? Or was this transaction perhaps indicative that the traveling sophist had access to a worldliness and wisdom that was due to its commodity, easy to sell like some exotic silk, or some other item, that could be really valued as it was as a rare commodity? I think probably both kinds of exchanges were possible.
Personally I think I would recognize some relativistic prerogatives. I think if you study philosophy beyond its traditional western structures, you will come face to face, with the burden of relativism, and cultural philosophical exchanges, where basic assumptions about the world are just fundamentally different. They do not always meet in the ideal dialectic of thesis and antithesis. If you study philosophy sincerely, I think anyone can see that. Culture is not a fact, exactly, but it'd might as well be called one, and holds as much. For instance "orientalism" (cases of being enamoured with the exotic as well as prejudicially fearing it) is the main complex issue to the western world today, politically and philosophically.
I think the sophist is a relativist. Relativity, is not so much a proposition, in the ordinary sense, but an active reconciling of the world, that can be considered objectively as part of human way of existence. So that is my case, for the reason of the itinerant philosopher, the sophist.
The image, at the top,Anonymous Venetian Orientalist painting, The Reception of the Ambassadors in Damascus, 1511, the Louvre. The deer with antlers in the foreground is not known ever to have existed in the wild in Syria. This was actually on my world history textbook in college. This was not so long ago, maybe about 8 or 9 years ago...
Would anyone express their concerns to any of these points, or to sophism? I think sophistry can be a problem but can't be just thrown out or ejected. I would argue it is literally part of the general concern of those who "love wisdom"...
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale
Kurt 
Buster_Brown 
Edit 
Reply 
xFrockx
1 2 3 4 all )
Alan Stone
Divided_Sky
Silversoul
Cognitive_Shift
Mufungo
SneezingPenis
Malachi