|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
OriginsThe meaning of the word "sophist" has changed considerably. Its earliest meaning seems to have been someone who gave sophia to his students, i.e., wisdom made from knowledge. It was a highly complimentary term, applied to early philosophers such as the Seven Sages of Greece. In the second half of the 5th century B.C., and especially at Athens, "sophist" came to be applied to a group of thinkers and speakers who employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others. Many of them taught their skills, apparently often for a fee. Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners of such skills often commanded very high fees. The practice of taking fees, coupled with the willingness of many sophists to use their rhetorical skills to pursue unjust lawsuits, eventually led to a decline in respect for practitioners of this form of teaching and the ideas and writings associated with it. Protagoras is generally regarded as the first of these sophists. Others included Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasymachus, Lycophron, Callicles, Antiphon, and Cratylus. Socrates was once a sophist but would opt out after ideological differences. Unlike the Sophists, Socrates did not charge for his teaching, or claim wisdom he could pass to others. He engaged men in conversations about assorted topics often ending up in a discussion of justice. Socrates claimed to have a daimonion, a small daemon, that warned him against mistakes but never told him what to do or coerced him into following it. He claimed that his daimon exhibited greater accuracy than any of the forms of divination practised at the time.
Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as someone who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. In short, as someone not concerned with truth and justice. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all challenged the philosophical foundations of sophism. It seems that some of the sophists held a relativistic view on cognition and knowledge. Their philosophy contains criticism of religion, law and ethics. Though many sophists were apparently as religious as their contemporaries, some held atheistic or agnostic views. Unfortunately most of the original texts written by the sophists have been lost, and modern understanding of sophistic movement is largely from analysis of Plato's writings. It is necessary to keep in mind that Plato and the sophists had severe ideological differences, and Plato may have modified or slanted actual sophist arguments when he presented them in his writings (ironically, a sophistic technique, in his view), or may even not have fully understood their arguments. Because of Plato's dominance of western philosophy, his negative characterizations of the Sophists have led to the modern, derogatory meaning of the word "sophistry". In the Roman Empire, sophists were teachers of rhetoric. For instance, Libanius, Himerius, Aelius Aristides and Fronto were sophists in this sense. Modern usageIn traditional logical argument, a set of premises are connected together according to the rules of logic and lead therefore to some conclusion. We can also argue this backward in order to explain ideas. For example, you think of something based on a series of conclusions. A conclusion is a premise, i.e. a statement, based on an inference, that is, a piece of information. If the inference is a fact, then the conclusion has a factual base. When someone criticizes the argument, they do so by pointing out either falsehoods among the premises or logical fallacies, flaws in the logical scaffolding. These criticisms may be subject to counter-criticisms, which in turn may be subject to counter-counter-criticisms, etc. Generally, some judge or audience eventually either concurs with or rejects the position of one side and thus a consensus opinion of the truth is arrived at. The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determines whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true. The philosophical Sophist goes one step beyond that and claims that since it was traditionally accepted that the position ruled valid by the judges was literally true, any position ruled true by the judges must be considered literally true, even if it was arrived at by naked pandering to the judges' prejudices — or even by bribery. Critics would argue that this claim relies on a straw man caricature of logical discourse and is, in fact, a self-justifying act of sophistry. References
See also
|
Sites |
Searched sites for "Sophism" |
|
No sites found. |
Sorry, no matching site records were found. |
Want your site listed here?
|
||||||||||||||
|
Submit
your site |
|
Relevant quality search results and fast easy navigation throughout the
different sections of the site, make Americola.com |