The Sophists Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Introduction / Recap From Thales to Aristotle, we have seen that philosophers are concerned with explaining nature in a way that is communicable, verifiable, thorough, and useful. At the same time that many of the Presocratics were interested in developing new and better ways of explaining natural phenomena, there was also increased interest in explaining other aspects of human life: purpose, meaning, action, goodness, and so on. Aristotle suggests that some things must be explained in terms of final causes that is, their purposes. Plato speaks of the Good as a Form, which participates in all good things. But there are other ancient Greeks who taught what they thought was wise (sophos), particularly regarding virtue and the good life.
Who are the Sophists? The Sophists are a group of teachers from a variety of Greek cities. They include: Protagoras Gorgias Prodicus Hippias Antiphon One general question: what distinguishes these Sophists from Philosophers? As with one of the first questions we asked in this class, the answer isn t clear.
What did the Sophists teach? Protagoras Plato claims that Protagoras taught young men Good counsel concerning personal affairs and also concerning the city s affairs, so that he may be most powerful in acting and in speaking. (Plato, Protagoras, 318e-319a) This sounds like rhetoric or persuasive speech. Clearly this is connected to politics. Is rhetoric of this kind compatible with, or part of, philosophy? Protagoras is also reputed to have said that A person is the measure of all things of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not. (Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians 7.60) What does this mean for things like Truth? Aristotle accuses Protagoras of making the weaker argument stronger. He further notes that people were rightly annoyed at Protagoras promise. (Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.24 14022a24-26)
Speaking of Rhetoric Gorgias Gorgias of Leontini describes himself as a teacher of rhetoric. So the persuasive purpose of his teaching is not disguised, but intentional. As with Protagoras, we should ask how this focus on the persuasive power of speech relates to philosophy and explanation. Gorgias tells us Logos [speech] is a powerful master, which by means of the smallest and most invisible body accomplishes most divine deeds. For it can put an end to fear, remove grief, instill joy, and increase pity. I will prove how this is so. (RAGP 108, #14.8) The connection to emotion here seems to be key to the ability of speech to persuade in this rhetorical manner. But Gorgias acknowledges that his claims about this need to be proven. Does Gorgias use rhetoric to teach rhetoric?
The Power of Speech Gorgias has some very interesting claims about the power of Logos / Speech. A potential answer to our question about whether Philosophy can be done in verse: I both consider and define all poetry to be speech (logos) with meter. (14.9) All who have persuaded or who persuade anyone of anything do so by fashioning false logos (14.11) Therefore, the one who persuaded, since he compelled, is unjust, and the one who was persuaded, since she was compelled by logos, is wrongly blamed. (14.12) The power of logos has the same relation (logos) to the order of the soul as the order of drugs has to the nature of bodies. (14.14)
Some other Sophist claims Prodicus is said to have denied the reality of the Gods, but more interestingly, he also apparently claims that contradiction is impossible. Why? He says that only the one who speaks the truth is reporting the fact as it is, while the person who contradicts him does not state the fact. (RAGP 112, 16) Hippias suggests that because manmade laws are often repealed or substituted or replaced, they are not a serious matter. (RAGP 113, 20) Antiphon distinguishes nomoi (laws) from phusis (physics). Why? Nomoi are extra additions; the laws of phusis are necessary. He suggests a very interesting connection between the two, however: Living and dying are matters of phusis, and living results for them from what is advantageous, dying from what is not advantageous. But the advantages that are established by the nomoi are bonds on phusis, and those established by phusis are free. (RAGP 114)
Rhetoric v. Philosophy; Morality v. Nature A basic question for us is: what distinguishes philosophy from other things? E.g., religion, science, poetry, and now rhetoric. The Sophists sometimes speak about Logos / Speech as if it is the most important tool for humans. But, given that our sources may be hostile to the Sophists, we should ask whether, from what we have seen, the Sophists are merely persuading, in the way that they describe, or are they also doing philosophy? One of the major questions for the Sophists is, ultimately, whether laws and morality are grounded in nature, or in convention. What do you think?
Some Updates / Corrections I will hand back the tests on Friday. There is a mistake in the Writing Assignment handout I emailed: Question 4 should refer to Aristotle s Physics not Metaphysics. I will post a corrected version of this on the website and send out another email. The handout itself has been corrected. Writing Assignment #1 Deadline Extension: March 11! Next week I will be presenting a paper at the American Philosophical Association Central Division meeting in Chicago, so I have enlisted two guest lecturers, Omar and Elyse, to take you through Plato and Aristotle on the Soul / Psychology. These are very interesting texts, and you will be in excellent hands for these lectures. I realized I forgot to include an important reading on the syllabus, but it isn t long. So, in addition to Republic V for next Wednesday, please read Republic IV 434d 445e (RAGP 471 482). This will give you a better sense of what is going on in Republic V.