|
The
Philosophy of the Sophists
I.
Background Information
The second period of Greek philosophy occupies
the entire fourth century before Christ. The
problem which claims the interest of thinkers
during this period is no longer the cosmological
question, but man in his concreteness, namely, in
his knowledge, his morality, his rights.
The causes which determined the above passage
were many, and the most important of these were the
following: (1) The Greek victory over the Persian
army, which showed how much a small but cultured
people can do against a numberless but disordered
multitude of barbarians; (2) Contact with other
populations living in different countries and
practicing different customs, and the resultant
investigation of the real value of morality and
justice; (3) The democratic constitution of Athens,
by virtue of which every citizen could aspire to
some position in public administration and, with
this end in view, the necessity of everyone's
developing his personality through culture and
education.
These facts determined a crisis in Greek life at
the end of the fifth century before Christ. The
exponents of this crisis were the Sophists,
molders of thought who, distrusting the results of
the preceding thinkers, intended to educate youth
according to the new exigencies of the times.
The Sophists centered their efforts on the
problem of knowledge as well as on the problem of
morality and justice. This is why Socrates
rose against them and established once and for all
the fact that true knowledge means knowing through
concepts. Never, perhaps, had the human mind made a
greater advance in the philosophical field than
that which was achieved after Socrates had shown in
what true knowledge consists.
First, Plato
developed the Socratic concept, and finally
Aristotle systematized the entire body of Greek
thought. The results obtained in this period were
to influence all subsequent ages.
The teaching of Socrates was to give rise to the
Minor Socratic Schools, which in turn were to give
origin to Stoicism
and Epicureanism.
The thought of Plato was revived in the later
Academies, and in particular in the last important
movement of Greek thought, Neo-Platonism. The
philosophy of Aristotle
was later enriched by Medieval thought, and is
still accepted as the traditional philosophy or
perennial philosophy even in this contemporary
age.
II.
General Notions
Those who impersonated this new state of mind
were the Sophists, philosophers from all parts of
the Grecian world in search of fortune. They were
said to possess and encyclopedic knowledge, and
they offered, at a price (for the first time
requested for teaching the liberal arts), to
instruct youth in the art of governing.
The means was oratory, in which some (such as
Protagoras, and above all Gorgias) became most
highly admired. In fine, it was the aim of the
Sophists to create in youth the ability to argue
over the proper use of words (Eristic Method), or
their misuse (Sophistic Method). Plato,
implacable enemy of these philosophers, was the
first to call them by the name of Sophists, which
has remained their title in history.
In the picture of history, Sophistic thought
can be considered as a transition from the old
cosmological concepts to the new ideas about
man. Its importance is slight in so far as,
both in the problem of knowledge and in that of
morals and justice, it logically resulted in
Skepticism, as we shall soon see. However, one
cannot deny the Sophists the merit of having
recalled philosophy to an analysis of the subject;
and though Sophism remained incipient, it would in
the immediate process of time culminate in the high
speculations of Plato and Aristotle.
III.
Theory of Knowledge
The
Pre-Socratics had turned all their attention to
the physical world (cosmology) and in a diversity
of opinions they (with the exception of Democritus)
had shown that the world has a divine origin. In
this search, man, even if he had not been
completely passed over, had been considered as one
of the many phenomena of the physical world.
The disagreement among philosophers who had not
succeeded in establishing what had been the germ
element or elements of the world, and the changed
conditions of the time combined to direct the
attention of philosophers away from the object and
toward the subject, from the world to man, from
cosmology to psychology.
The Sophists were the first to show complete
indifference to the problem of the world of matter
and to center their efforts upon man. But man
can be an object of study in his sense knowledge as
well as in that more profound one of reason. The
Sophists stopped at the first, at the immediacy of
sense impressions. (The analysis of reason was
reserved to Socrates and his disciples.)
The Sophists stopped at the data of experience,
at empirical and not rational knowledge, and from
this point of view they wished to judge the world
of reality. With them was born relativism of
knowledge and Skepticism: the man-measure of
Protagoras, and the "nothing exists" of
Gorgias.
In the fragment of Protagoras which Plato has
preserved for us, it is stated:
"Man is the measure of all things, of
those that are in so far as they are,
and those that are not in so far as they are
not."
From this he deduces that the subjective
phenomena of our sensations become judges of
reality. There is no reality of itself, but only
reality as it appears to us:
"Man is the measure of what
exists."
Thus to two different individuals the same
reality can appear in opposite aspects; e.g., air
is hot for one, cold for another; both sensations
are true and both denote states of reality.
Everything is relative. Reality being thus reduced
to the subjectivism of experience, it was easy to
make the transition of Gorgias to complete
Skepticism.
"Nothing exists," said Gorgias; "if something
does exist, we cannot know it; if we come to know
it, we cannot teach it to others." This transition
from the relativism of Protagoras to Skepticism
seems logical. If reality is relative to the
knowledge of empirical data, there is no reality of
itself. Hence nothing exists. If it should exist,
it would be impossible for it to be known by us as
it is in itself, because we can be witnesses only
of the impressions in their sensible immediacy, and
no one assures us that this is representative of
reality. Nor can we teach others what we know,
since everyone has a different manner of feeling,
and the manner of feeling of the master is not the
same as that of his students.
Hence the only thing remaining is the use of the
word, and Gorgias affirmed that all things can
appear true and just, if oratorical power is
capable of revealing things as true and just,
beyond every pretension of reality of content.
IV.
Ethics and Right
The traditional belief of the Greeks had been
that their cities had received their laws from some
divinity, protector of the city, and that
good (happiness) consists in conforming
one's life to these laws, accepted as divine and
eternal. The Sophists shook this faith to its very
roots.
As in the case of the problem of knowledge, by
defending relativism they ended in Skepticism; so
also in the question of morals, by the same
subjectivist prejudice they end in utilitarianism
and hedonism. Thus, that is good which satisfies
one's instincts and passions.
The belief in immutable principles upon which
ethics may be founded is a prejudice and often an
impediment which it is necessary to remove. The
good, as experience shows, consists in securing for
oneself the greatest possible quantity of
possessions, without regard for the means used to
attain them; for these goods can satisfy the
instincts and the passions in which happiness
consists. To strive to strengthen one's personality
in order to surpass others in violence and in the
contest or struggle for earthly goods -- this is
the moral ideal of the Sophist.
The Sophist also violently attack the
traditional belief about right -- that derivation
from principles based on justice -- and they
substitute the concept of force for that of
justice. From the moment changed political
conditions and the participation of the people in
democratic power began to bring about the change of
many laws, the Sophists profited from the situation
not only to discredit positive and political right,
but by nature they did not mean the rational part
of man, but his instincts and passions. Hence for
them right is that which succeeds in imposing
itself through force, or an imposition established
by force and violence.
Men by nature are not equal; there are the
strong and the weak, and the moment right consists
in force it becomes the office of the strong to
command and make laws; the weak must obey. The
Sophist Thrasymachus, in the first book of Plato's
Republic, maintains that natural law "is the
right of the stronger." It is the strong man who,
despising all laws advanced by the weak in the name
of justice, imposes his will, which becomes right,
as Callicles maintains in Plato's
Gorgias.
Here we are at the same extremism that we noted
in the Sophists' doctrine. Such extremism must have
been pleasing to the youth of Athens in the time of
Pericles. All young men were anxious to obtain
offices which would assure them wealth and
pleasure. Sophistic teaching, by battering all the
orders of ethics and justice, opened up to men a
way that made possible and justified the use of all
deception and the most violent passions. Thus is
explained the popular favor that surrounded certain
Sophists, such as Protagoras, who was received with
triumph and entertained as a guest in the homes of
the most noted Athenians.
So also is explained the noble mission of
Socrates who, to restore the values of a morality
sacred and inviolable because based upon reason and
not unruly passions, spent his entire existence,
and not in vain. See: The
Philosophy of Socrates.
In The Radical
Academy
Elsewhere On the
Internet
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy
Magazine...
|