The Sophist School

Article 6. The Sophist School

A backward glance through the systems of doctrine already discussed makes three facts strikingly plain: i) There was disagreement among schools and teachers on the solution of problems discussed, chief of which were the questions of the original world-stuff and of the character of the visible world; 2) No single philosopher or school had proposed anything like a harmonious system of philosophy approximating completeness l 3) Doubt had been cast repeatedly upon the reliability of sense-knowledge.

There could be but one outcome of this condition of things. Persons given to thought and study despaired of achieving truth. They said, “Who can be sure of anything? Behold, the masters disagree! They tell us not to trust our senses; why, then, should we believe reason? No one can know anything with certainty.” This is the assertion of skepticism.

There existed at this time (5 century b. c.) no great mind, superior to the skeptical surrender, to lead men on in the work of thinking out a right and valid solution of the problems with which the schools had dealt. Even had there been such a mind, it is highly improbable that the temper of the times would have submitted to its influence. The intense physical and mental activity which had been a marked characteristic of Greek life in times past had given place to relaxation and inaction. The cities were at peace, the people in easy circumstances. Love of luxury prevailed—notably at Athens—and with the growing tendency towards ease and softness of living came mental debility and moral corruption. Skepticism spread like a contagion.

Then arose leaders suited to the mood of the times—smooth, plausible talkers; lovers of ease and indolence; exquisites, for the most part, in dress and manner; men with a ready cynical smile for the honest arguments of a sincere seeker after truth. These leaders of the fashionable thought asserted that wisdom is not a matter of truth as discerned from falsity. Truth and falsity, they said, are simply not discernible. He is wise, therefore, who seeks to achieve leadership of minds by his ability to argue plausibly and to convince an opponent in argument by any arts at his command, caring not a whit about the so-called truth or falsity of his argument. The teachers of this skepticism called themselves the true sophoi or wise men; and thus the word sophist has come to mean one who can offer glib argument, apparently valid, without regard for truth. The sophists of Greece cultivated the arts of dialectic and rhetoric as the only acquirements worth while. The philosophy of these men was skepticism; sophistry was their method.

a) Protagoras (Born about 480 b. c.)

Life: Protagoras was born at Abdera in Thrace, the native place of Democritus the Atomist. He lived in Sicily, and later at Athens. After teaching for a time in the latter city, he was accused of atheism, and was forced to flee. It is said that he met death in a shipwreck.

Works: Protagoras.wrote a book On That Which Is, of which a few fragments survive. Knowledge of the doctrines this philosopher comes to us largely from Plato (4-5 century b. c.) and Aristotle (4 century b. c.)

JJoctrine: Nothing is; all is becoming. Even becoming is relative. For example, the eye does not see unless a colored object acts upon it, nor is the object colored unless the eye sees it. Objects present themselves differently to different individuals; but each individual beholds them truly—for himself. What I behold in the world is true—for me. What you behold is true—for you. There is no truth to be had about any object as such; there is no state or condition of objects, no objective truth. What we call the truth of things is truth relative to each individual beholder (relative truth); that is true which each beholder subjectively accepts as the truth of the thing which he perceives (subjectivism). The individual is thus the measure of truth in the objects perceived or known. Man is the measure of all. Bv reason of this doctrine. Protagoras is sometimes called “The Individualist.”

Remarks: Protagoras adopted the doctrine of becoming which had been promulgated by Heraclitus, and developed the skepticism latent in it. If things are becoming, they are in a perpetual state of flux, and are not the same at any two consecutive moments nor from any two points of view. Thus objective truth is destroyed. Protagoras did not express doubt about the common principles of morality, yet such doubt belongs logically to his doctrine; for if nothing is certain, there can be no certain moral duties.

b) Gorgias (Born about 480 b. c.)

Life: Gorgias was born at Leontini in Sicily. He practised the art of eloquence (rhetoric) in various parts of Greece, carrying on meanwhile his teaching of sophism. He had at first adhered to the Eleatic philosophy, but threw this aside for skepticism.

WorksjL.Gorgias wrote a book On Nature or the Non-Ex-istina, which survives in the collection of Sextus Empiricus _(2-_ century after Christ).

Djoctrine: Nothing exists. If anything could exist, it could not be known as existing. If anything could be known as existing, the knowledge would not be communicable among men. Thus Gorgias bankrupts all knowledge, and, logically, all morality. This philosopher was deservedly called “The Nihilist/

Remarks: Like Protagoras, Gorgias was a destructive philosopher. He spun out arguments of sophistry (eristic method) to prove his impossible position. Like all skeptics, he is full of self-contradiction. Thus, he teaches with certainty that there is no certainty, and he uses reason in dialectic argument to prove that there is no use using reason.

c) Other Sophists worthy of mention were:

1— Hippias of Elis,

2— Prodicus of Ceos.

Remarks on the School of the Sophists. The Sophists turned the question of philosophy away from the objective world and investigated, or rather discussed, the validity of human knowledge. They served in this the development of philosophy, for, after all, the - conditions of human knowledge must be determined and vindicated before a system of knowledge—a philosophy—can be built up. Of course, the doctrine of the Sophists is not in itself a contribution to philosophy; on the contrary, it makes philosophy impossible. We may agree with all the harsh things that Plato and Aristotle said of the Sophists; but we must remember that—destructive and retrograde as their doctrine certainly was—they opened the critical question, i. e., the question of the nature, extent, and validity of human knowledge. This question received due attention in the Golden Age of Greek Philosophy, which followed hard upon the times of the Sophists.