Plato’s deep hatred of the Sophists is based on the behavior that these teachers portrayed in their teaching, which was largely based on the hunt for wealth, fame and social status. Plato noted that the sophists were nothing more than paid hunters whose aim was to make money. Plato further describes the sophists as merchants of knowledge, “purgers of human soul” or “athletes in a sport of words”. Why was did he hate their teachings?
The best answer is based on the method of teaching that the sophists portrayed in Athens. From Plato’s arguments, it is worth noting that the sophists did not teach knowledge because their interest was not to build knowledge or share it with others, but rather to make money. Their teaching was based on opinions of things, which Plato thought was ‘rhetoric’ rather than philosophy.
…show more content…
For instance, the sophists based their teachings on issues such as power, relationships, truth and manipulation. On the other hand, Plato’s view was that rhetoric had the potential for causing both good and harm to people. However, he believed that there was a sense of moral responsibility. He thought that the morality was the most important and essential aspect, which was the universal good that humans must discover through language.
Plato’s criticism of the sophists is based on three questions he formulated. First, he questions what rhetoric was. Then, he wonders whether rhetoric, by the virtue of its nature, misleads humans. Finally, he wonders what would happen to the society when the sophists successfully use persuasions to form the basis of justice and
Rhetoric is a course in which students are taught the values of persuasion. And yet, behind this course is the utmost power to corrupt the world, changing it into a world of our own policies. This power, even though seldom discussed, has lead to many intriguing discoveries. One such discovery is how people are able to shape the world they live in simply by choosing the right words. Therefore those who would want the world to be a better place must protect this power. If in the wrong hands this power could cause serious damage. Several authors have striven to protect rhetoric and its power. Few agree on the matter of defining rhetoric, but they know that they must protect rhetoric from dark souls. A single definition of rhetoric must maintain a simplistic nature while incorporating every aspect of rhetoric. However, I argue that rhetoric is a means of persuading audiences of a situation and a particular reality through language and personal appeal. In order to prove this definition I will discuss how rhetoric creates a situation, the shaping of a different reality, the audience, the use of language, and the personal appeal. Finally, I will demonstrate the absolute need for rhetoric.
Although Bitzer continues in the third section of his essay, by outlining the general characteristics or features of a rhetorical situation, it is his discussion of sophistical rhetoric that is most interesting. (11) He notes that a sophistic situation is one where a contrived exigence is, “asserted to be real... alleged constituents are due to error or ignorance,... and [it derives] from fantasy in which exigence, audience, and constraints may all be imaginary objects of a mind at play”. (11) He concludes that, “rhetoric is distinguished from the mere craft of persuasion which, although it is a legitimate object of scientific investigation, lacks philosophical warrant as a practical discipline”. (14)
Plato is a philosopher; however, in “Plato’s Republic,” Plato’s view on philosophers within society is rather unorthodox compared with others who study philosophy. This is due to Plato’s views of individuals each having different skills they are naturally good at; he states that only true philosophers will be fit to rule. All others who attempt to rule will create terrible consequences for a city. The people shun philosophers because they are lovers of knowledge and are perceived to be different from them. The majority of people in a city are not lovers of knowledge but rather lovers of beauty.
He writes, “when turned towards the twilight of becoming and perishing, then [the soul] has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and seems to have no intelligence” (Book VI, p. 25). By establishing opinion as the opposite to the ultimate good, and by definition, the ultimate evil, he criticizes the use of rhetoric and persuasion while praising to his long-winded, circuitous form of writing. By continually asking questions and telling parables, Plato avoids direct advocation of his beliefs and allows his readers to discover the truth for themselves, rather than to be coerced through eloquent language.
Just as the opposite of up is down, the opposite of right is wrong, and the opposite of good is evil, the opposite of the Sophists was Plato. Plato and his philosophies were also rooted in ancient Greece at the same time as the Sophists. Plato studied under Socrates, another famous ancient philosopher, and started the very first center for learning which he called the Academy. Plato was not what you would call a relativist though. He was exactly the opposite. He was opposed to all the beliefs of the Sophists, believing them to be only concerned with the manipulative aspects of how humans attain knowledge. He argued that they taught people how to persuade people into believing they heard the truth, even if it wasn’t in fact the truth. Plato believes that true rhetoric is where philosophers and their pupils become free from all worldly encumbrances and all conventional beliefs in the pursuit of a transcendent absolute truth. (Bizzell P. & Herzberg, B., 2001, pg. 29) Plato believes that there is in fact absolute truth and contends that discourse is necessary to uncover it. He feels that false rhetoric is Sophist rhetoric and that with their vast knowledge of rhetoric, they should be using it to find absolute truth, not teaching people how to convince people that
Socrates is accused of being a sophist. A sophist is someone who teaches people to be cleaver speakers, sophist’s charge money. Socrates claims that he is not wise enough to be a sophist, he merely speaks out about his thoughts and beliefs and if the youth of Athens listen and are intrigued, it is not his fault. In fact, Socrates mocks sophists saying that they almost brain wash young men, “to leave the company of their fellow citizens, with any of whom they can associate for nothing, attach themselves to him, pay money for the privilege, and be grateful into the bargain" (19e-20a) Socrates thinks that it is intriguing that
Initially, the word sophist implied a positive association with wisdom and an individual. This seemed to shift after the late 5th century when being called a sophist had its own negative connotation. If a student was aiming to follow the a sophistical teacher, “the would-be student’s ardor” (Soupios, page 263) quickly became discouraged and dampened by how sophists were viewed. Even though these two ways of living had their differences in ideas, there were situations where the two sides seemed to overlap in several ways. Both philosophers and sophists “tended to challenge received opinions and traditional perspectives” (Soupios, 273), holding the ability to impact society by devising “a new moral compass for the Greeks” (Soupios, 298).
Plato encouraged in his writings that the view that sophists were concerned with was “the manipulative aspects of how humans acquire knowledge.” (Lecture) Sophists believed that only provisional or probable knowledge was available to humans but both Plato and Isocrates did not agree with a lot of what the Sophists had to say. They both believed in wisdom and having a connection with rhetoric but vary in defining wisdom in itself. Wisdom for Socrates and Plato is having an understanding of speech, knowledge of truth and being able to question the speaker in order to seek and reveal truth. Isocrates defined wisdom as having a sense of integrity and character along with the ambition and ability to speak well with others.
A sophist would speak, a sophist would teach, a sophist would use language and words to manipulate a situation to fit his point. A sophist would engulf you in his words and make the impossible seem possible. A sophist would share his views on the world, life, and the future with you; he would make you see the light of day even if it was night. A sophist was a wise man who had the gift of gab, the ability to influence, the ability to sway, the ability to teach the young how to be better speakers. All of the qualities that Socrates claimed he did not possess. Socrates was depicted as a clever man, yet one who never taught, never persuaded, never tried to make his thoughts shared by others. He was not a sophist, not a teacher, not a "wise man". "A wise man knows that he knows nothing". Socrates always spoke of the fact that he was not a sophist because he was only out for the truth. He never wanted you to believe his words just because they came out of his mouth, he only asked the questions that were necessary to draw out the map to the truth buried down below the layers of rhetoric.
The first chapter introduced the reader to the art of rhetoric. He describes how rhetoric works through real life examples. He demonstrates ways that rhetoric persuades us like, argument from strength, and seduction. He tells the reader that the sole purpose of arguing is to persuade the audience. He showed that the chief purpose of arguing is to also achieve consensus, a shared faith in a choice.
The Classical period was a time of intellectual growth and stimulus. The desire to learn brought about the need for a group of teachers to impart worldly wisdom unto their students. This new group of teachers that emerged were known as "Sophists", which means "those who are wise." Socrates, a great philosopher of the Classical period, challenged the assumed truths of his day in order to reconstruct Athenian life. Plato, Socrates' best student, in turn became a great philosopher
But between the Sophists and Socrates there was a fundamental difference. The Sophists showed that equally good arguments could be advanced on either side of any issue; they were skeptics who doubted that there could be any certain or reliable knowledge. On the other hand, Socrates was committed to the pursuit of truth and considered it his mission to seek out certain knowledge. Unlike philosophers before them, Sophists claimed to be wise enough to teach whatever you might want to know as long as you were willing to pay them the required fees. Sophists traveled more than ordinary Greeks and they learned that there is a real variety of correct ways to do things depending upon ones perspective. They believed there was no universally appropriate way of doing anything. Therefore there can be no absolutes of any kind. Appearances are reality, at least the only reality any of us can know. They were extremely doubtful about the possibility of discovering anything that was really true. Instead, they taught their followers how to get along in the world, without certain knowledge. They taught their followers how to win disputes, how to speak well and convincingly how to succeed. Their underlying theory developed from two remarks of two of the leading Sophists. Protagoras, perhaps the greatest of the Sophists, said Main is the measure of all things and Gorgias, another great sophist, proclaimed, Nothing exists, and if it did, no one could know it, and if they
I will first examine Plato’s ethics. Plato was a philosopher who was both a rationalist and absolutist. According to his view, people must be schooled to acquire certain kinds of knowledge i.e. mathematics, philosophy and so forth. This training will give them the capacity to know the nature of the good life. Since, evil is due to lack of knowledge.
Throughout the history of the world, philosophy has been at the forefront of the human search for knowledge, but there is no other philosophy like ancient Greek philosophy. Ancient Greek philosophy roughly began in the sixth century BCE and continued on up until ancient Greece became apart of the Roman Empire. The great Greek philosophers of the time, like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle focused their study of philosophy in subjects like political philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, ontology, logic, biology, and rhetoric to name a few. Even today many philosophers agree that ancient Greek philosophy has influenced much of today’s Western culture. Among the broad subject of ancient Greek philosophy there were many sub-forms of Greek philosophy like the Pre-Socratic philosophy, which involves the Milesian school, and Pythagoreanism, and classical Greek philosophy, which involves Socrates’, Plato’s, and Aristotle’s teachings; and then there was sophism and the sophists. Who are the sophists and why/how are their teachings relevant with the rest of ancient Greek philosophy?
Plato is remembered as one of the worlds best known philosophers who along with his writings are widely studied. Plato was a student of the great Greek philosopher Socrates and later went on to be the teacher of Aristotle. Plato’s writings such as “The Republic”, “Apology” and “Symposium” reveal a great amount of insight on what was central to his worldview. He was a true philosopher as he was constantly searching for wisdom and believed questioning every aspect of life would lead him to the knowledge he sought. He was disgusted with the common occurrence of Greeks not thinking for themselves but simply accepting the popular opinion also known as doxa. Plato believed that we ought to search for and meditate on the ideal versions of beauty, justice, wisdom, and other concepts which he referred to as the forms. His hostility towards doxa, theory of the forms, and perspective on reality were the central ideas that shaped Plato’s worldview and led him to be the great philosopher who is still revered today.