Essay about Oppositional World Views: Plato & The Sophists

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.

The sophists were rhetoric teachers in Athens who lived at the same the as Socrates. They were major intellectual figures, and the term “sophist” means “wise person.” At that time “sophistry” was roughly equivalent to “rhetoric,” and rhetoric is the art of persuasion using language. However, the term ‘sophistry’ is now generally used to refer to manipulative forms of rhetoric.

Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own

Our country is built on a set of values derived from ancient civilizations, individuals, and city-states; both negative and positive attributes of these relics can be proven to have assisted in molding our government into a unique and prized entity. Never would one imagine that western civilization is actually inclined by theories of truth and the human beings perception of it. Few would have thought that a primitive concept could be linked to the setbacks of other societies and their forms of socialization, as well as to the success to ours. The basic concept of truth and our natural response to socialization developed an ideal image of our current day country, long before our country existed. In ancient Greece, a great philosopher named

Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Questioned if you are completely able to see from the outside looking in? Philosopher Plato, presents his view of reality through an allegory to explain the concept, and how we gain knowledge of our reality. Two other philosophers that I will mention both touch base with their description of reality and how it relates to Plato’s conception. All three of these philosophers believe knowledge is attainable through acts of realization and simple knowledge, and each philosopher presents his/her main point of reality through different ways of attaining it. I will further mention the relevance of Plato’s theory in today’s world and why I believe it to be valuable.

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.

In this essay I would like to talk about the nature of sophism and how it changes religion, politics and education. In the first part of my essay I am going to define the meaning of sophism, in the second part I am going to talk about the connection of sophism and aristocrats, in the third part of my essay I am going to talk about the changes in religion with the help of sophism; in the fourth part I will examine the changes in decision-making and in last part I will talk about Socrates use of cross-examination to find out the meaning of the oracle’s message. As a source of information I am going to use Plutarch’s essays Pericles and Alcibiades, Plato’s Apology and Crito, and Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War.

I am now going to define some terms that pertain to the argument between Thrasymachus and Socrates. The Sophists were a presocratic group that earned a living by teaching young Greek men lessons in excellence and to speak intelligently and persuasively. Sophists, like Thrasymachus, believed in subjective truth. Subjective truths are truths that in some way depend on us. How we think or feel on a matter is a

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

However, Petruzzi explains that Plato's dialogical strategy leads to an assumption of the indeterminate nature of truth and a “philosophical rhetor who "knows" that she is not able to know with any certainty” (Petruzzi 16). He insists that the primary quality of Plato's texts is “that dialogue and dialectic express neither a technical skill nor a method, but rather a mode of being-in-the-world: Dialectic is not so much a techne-that is, an ability and knowledge-as a way of being" (Petruzzi 17). For Plato, rhetoric is is agreement between participants where its success is reliant upon them presenting opposing sides or bringing a problem under consideration. Petruzzi explains that Plato searched for a stable definition that would anchor a concept in “"one" unified and temporary intellectual position.” However, he struggled because the disclosure of truth, through dialogue and dialectic, “explicitly contains the perspectival and relational quality of aletheia, or unconcealment” (Petruzzi 17). As we see, Plato strove for truth, but his error with in thinking that there were absolute truths that don’t change. William Benoit said that Plato’s views stand in sharp relief against those of the Sophists because he believed in certain knowledge, for he declares rather bluntly in the Gorgias that "truth, you see, can never be refuted." In the Phaedrus, he

Philosophy is a Greek word meaning "love of wisdom." Throughout Plato's Republic, wisdom plays an important role. According to Plato, education is wisdom. In the passage, 518d, Plato discusses the true meaning of education vicariously through Socrates. Some literary mechanisms can be found in the passage and I will show how they fit in the text and how they contribute to the main themes of Plato's Republic.

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.

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

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 having and doing of one’s own and what belongs to one would be agreed to