The Art of Philosophy: Sophists - Assignment Example

Did the sophists deserve their bad reputation? Debate has always raged between fantasy and reality, between idealism and pragmatism. Quite possibly, this debate began in 5 BC, for it was at this time that the Sophists asserted their revolutionary thinking to a seemingly established arena of Greek aristocracy. Of course initial opposition was acute. Challenge to the authority of the wealthy, to the traditions of education, to the origin of virtue and even to the nature of the human being itself was considered heretical and thus feared by the established society. Plato himself seemed to hold them in low esteem. Aristotle denigrated them for their lack of interest in pure knowledge. Later, self-professed Sophists seemed to pervert the basic tenets of the movement for personal gain. Because these itinerate teachers made money off what many perceived as deception and devaluation, the Sophist’s reputation has been viewed with distrust and scorn. Even today, their full contribution is not understood. The question is, “Did the Sophists deserve their bad reputation?” The answer lies in the examination of several areas. First, the emergence of the Sophists threatened the status quo and the reigning aristocracy. Because the word itself means clever, people were instantly suspicious of someone who might be too tricky or too smart, especially the wealthy and ruling classes. Because they were teachers that received fees for their educational services, the traditional Greeks were afraid that the lessons taught might conflict with their definition of virtuous and necessary education. They did, in a way. The idea of teaching virtue, for money, incensed the people of the time. They felt that the education of young men to be of wise judgment and upstanding character should be left to the church, not to traveling teachers who expected to be paid! Already the occupations of these mysterious travelers cause suspicion and anger among the people who had become very stable in their beliefs. Another area of teaching that the Sophists stressed was argument. As Greek history reports, the senators and other in positions of authority won favor with the public through their skills of oration. The forums for rhetoric and discussion among the Greeks has shaped government systems today and helped create a standard for organized debate. Yet, the Sophists also claimed to be great rhetoricians with a flair for disagreeing with current thought and encouraging cynicism in others. While the rhetoric of the senators had always been in supporting what is right and virtuous for individuals and societies, the Sophists were implying that rhetoric could be employed for any purpose, even those that were antithetical to common belief.. People were highly disturbed to realize that someone could use rhetoric to convince them of something untrue. After all, the Sophists were gaining a following of young men who were drawn to their ideas. Basically, the Sophists forced the question “What is right?” into the wide open public sphere. Instead of just accepting that right and virtue are always obvious and will always prevail, people could not avoid the new interpretations offered by the Sophists. Those that stood the most to lose, the wealthy and powerful, cried out against the heresy, but those that had little to lose could afford to listen with interest. The revolutionary new teachings spanned education, religion, politics and ethics, challenging the established beliefs held for centuries. This belief purported that people act in certain ways because that is how they ought to act. This prescribed action was based upon the will of the god or gods, or upon some other moral order. People generally believed that these moral tenets were a fixed and unchanging part of nature itself. The Sophists interjected that morals and ethics were not fixed by nature at all but were a dynamic part of society; codes of behaviors changed by the views of society. This conventionality meant that some people, some societies, might believe differently and be as certain of their beliefs as the first individuals were. Thus thoughts and actions could not be categorized as right or wrong without the input of society. It follows, then, that society can change these moral laws at whim. Frightening for the ancients, the ethical bond for the individual was loosened, and society was feared to be headed the way of Sodom and Gomorrah. Finally, the idea that society could be in such a state of flux opened the doors for the deceitful and tricky Sophists to use their art of rhetoric to change society for the worse. After all, the Sophists were involved with the creation of a grammar system; this intricate discipline would make it even easier for them to spread their lies. The question remains, did the Sophists deserve this horrible reputation; by examining the ideals that most people hold today, no. Of course, the above discussion paints the sophists as evil through the eyes of the ancient aristocracy, but through this very evolution of ideas, the thinking community has only benefited. First of all, the Sophists supported the idea that learning begins in youth. This idea is the basis for most educational systems. Children begin school at a very young age and continue much longer than did those of the ancients. Though few would doubt the inherent benefit of education, the Sophists argued that teaching included more than just letters, numbers and religious doctrine. They believed that values could also be taught. Rather than leave virtuous living in the hands of the genetics of the individual, the Sophists sought to teach virtue. Character education classes in schools support this idea as do pressures to improve parenting skills among those populations that appear to have more problems with crime. (Willis, 43) Furthermore, the Sophists felt that learning was life long. That once a gift is recognized and cultivated, it should be nurtured and practiced throughout life. Basically, they believed in recognizing a gift and making the most of it. Biblical research gives credence to this idea. One of the many parables condemns a person for hiding his talent under a bushel basket meaning that gifts of talent are given to be used. Today, individuals skilled in athletics and arts are praised for their gifts, yes, but also for their diligence to practice and development. If this were not the case, several professional athletes and artists would never mature beyond the elementary levels. Competitions also pushes this development forward, so the Sophists beliefs can be said to foster competition, a part of modern life that most agree to be beneficial. Of course, individuals who attempt to capitalize on a popular or profitable enterprise for purely personal gain. Some sophists did pervert the ideals of teaching rhetoric for pure profits, and in turn, some of the former students used this knowledge for evil. Unfortunately, not all human nature is virtuous, however it may be defined. As time progressed from the time before Christ, people gradually became able to turn their attentions away from their physical environment and to the intellectual. Discussions of politics, religion and ethics can only be beneficial to an open and intelligent society. Unfortunately, the times of the ancients did not permit that type of inquiry. In an era of war and survival, the ability to ponder questions of intellectual significance takes a back seat to questions of immediate needs and survival. (James, 228) This is the foundation of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, a type of guideline which indicates the ability of a person to move through levels of personal development. If one’s safety and security needs are not met, then it is impossible to consider the ethics of a situation. The emergence of the Sophists was at a time when the immediate needs of security had been established, thus allowing some individuals to consider higher level ideas. However, this consideration threatened those that had benefited from the previous establishment. With the need for security lessened, the power of the ruling body was also lessened. Universally, the free exchange of ideas is a privilege that not everyone is able to claim. Democracy is founded upon the freedom of speech. Beyond this, the concept of an intelligent debate on ideas is pivotal for problem solving. Governing bodies must be able to hear and consider all possibilities before making decisions. If nothing else, the power of debate is key to decision making and personal growth. At times, however, this personal growth is still restricted. Following the tragic events of 9/11, individuals were suddenly reacquainted with the fear of instability and of personal harm. What followed were attempts to reestablish a safe and strict government onto the freethinking individuals. The US Patriot Act was generally accepted immediately following 9/11, but when it came up for renewal, Americans felt more secure and opposed its renewal. Thus, history shows that as people progress through stages of stability and instability, their need for the protection of freedoms also vacillates. The Sophists were indeed groundbreakers. In the centuries before Christ, their reputation for being anti-state and anti-religion was understandable. It is not until years have passed and the effects can be observed and quantified that the contributions of the Sophists to debate, thinking, education and personal growth can be measured. While some vacillations will occur, the Sophists have certainly outgrown their poor reputation and understood for their part in the growth of the intellect. Referances: James, A. 2001. The art of philosophy. National Book Trust. Willis, D. 2004. Dark side, fair side. Liberty Book Corporation. . Read More