Module 3: Sophist

Objectives:
By the end of this module, you should be able to:
 Know and appreciate the contentions of Socrates and the Sophists
concerning the necessity of virtue;
 Understand the Socratic critique on pleasure as ultimate good.

Sophist
As early Greek civilization grew more complex, mythology and religion began to
develop into philosophy (and later into science). As part of this development, a new
kind of thinker emerged known as a Sophos, from the Greek word for ―wise.‖ A
although the ancient Greek’s mythological accounting of events ultimately failed, it
established two crucial principles: (1) There is a difference between the way the
things appear and the way they really are. (2) There are unseen causes of events;
things happen as they do for some reason. These first philosophers were noted for
their attempts to use reason and observation to ―figure out‖ how the world works.

The first Western philosophers, known as the Pre- Socratics, searched for rational
explanations to questions that mythology could not adequately answer. This interest
in explanations played a vital role in the development of reason and rational
discourse, the use of reason to order, clarify, and identify reality and truth according
to agreed-upon standards of verification. This in turn triggered questions of logical
consistency, rules of thinking, and standards of knowledge that led to a radical
separation or dissociation of theoretical knowledge from practical wisdom.

As Athens grew in influence it attracted more and more people from other city-states
and countries. Opportunities for a growing number of Athenians to speak before the
Assembly created a demand for specialized education in subjects such as letters,
rhetoric, science, statesmanship, and philosophy.

Those who considered themselves original, true Athenians became increasingly

ethnocentric. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to consider one‘s own customs and
values as superior to all others.

3. The Sophists
The Sophists were the first professional educators, a group of wandering teachers
who charged a fee to teach anyone who wished to study with them. Sophists argued
that the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is custom and
individual preference.

According to Aristotle, the art of the Sophist is the semblance of wisdom without the
reality, and the Sophist is one who makes money from an apparent but unreal
wisdom.

+ Relativism

The Sophists believed that virtually nothing is good or bad by nature, but only by
custom and preference. They argued that truth is relative and that knowledge is
determined by specific qualities of the observer. Cultural relativism is the belief that
all values are culturally determined. Individual relativism is the belief that even in
the same place and time, right and wrong are relative to the unique experiences and
preferences of the individual.
Relativism is the belief that knowledge is determined by specific qualities of the
observer including age, ethnicity, gender, cultural conditioning.

The consequences: If no ultimate truth exists, no moral code is universally correct or

absolutely superior to any other.
Protagoras

Protagoras of Abdera (481– 411 b.c.e.). was one of the most influential of the
Sophists. He said that morals are nothing more than the social traditions, or mores,
of a society or group and that following local mores is the best way to live
successfully and well—in that place. Hence his famous remark: Man is the measure
of all things.

Based on his observations and travels, Protagoras concluded that morals are nothing
more than the social traditions, or mores, of a society or group. It is utterly impossible
to form a culture-free or context-free belief.
The task of the truly wise observer is to record accurately and describe without
bias what works and what does not work

Well, is not this what [Protagoras] means, that individual things are for me such as
they appear to me, and for you in turn such as they appear to you— you and I being
―man‖? . . . Is it not true that sometimes, when the same wind blows, one of us feels
cold and the other does not? or one feels slightly and the other exceedingly cold? . . .
Then in that case, shall we say that the wind is in itself cold or not cold; or shall we
accept Protagoras‘ saying that it is cold for him who feels cold, not for him who does
not?

Pragmatism

From the Greek for ―deed‖; ideas have meaning or truth value to the extent that
they produce practical results and effectively further our aims; empirically based
philosophy that defines knowledge and truth in terms of practical consequences.

A. Moral Realism

In contrast to Protagoras, the next generation of Sophists carried moral relativism to

the more radical level of moral realism, a pragmatic social philosophy unfettered
by any moral considerations expressed in the formula ―might makes right.‖ Moral
realism is the belief that all values reflect the interests of the strong. Certain values
dominate because they are the views preferred by the most powerful individual or
group, not because they are in some absolute sense ―right. Sophist named Callicles
(c. 435 b.c.e.). associated with an aspect of moral realism known as the doctrine of
the superior individual, which holds that nature dictates that the strong should
dominate the weak.

Callicles distinguished what is right by nature from what is right by convention. In

nature, the survival of the fittest is the rule: the superior and powerful individual has a
natural right to dominate others. All people are no more created equal than all
animals are.

Callicles asserts:
For to suffer wrong is not the part of a man at all, but that of a slave for whom it is
better to be dead than alive, as it is for anyone who is unable to come either to his
own assistance when he is wronged or mistreated or to that of anyone he cares
about. I can quite imagine that the manufacturers of laws and conventions are the
weak, the majority, in fact. It is for themselves and their own advantage that they
make their laws and distribute their praises and their censures. It is to frighten men
who are stronger than they and able to enforce superiority that they keep declaring,
to prevent aggrandizement, that this is ugly and unjust, that injustice consists in
seeking to get the better of one‘s neighbor. They are quite content, I suppose, to be
on equal terms with others since they are themselves inferior.
This, then, is the reason why convention declares that it is unjust and ugly to seek to
get the better of the majority. But my opinion is that nature herself reveals it to be
only just and proper that the better man should lord it over his inferior: It will be the
stronger over the weaker. Nature, further, makes it quite clear in a great many
instances that this is the true state of affairs, not only in the other animals, but also in
whole states and communities. This is, in fact, how justice is determined: Th e
stronger shall rule and have the advantage over his inferior. . . . . . . Now, my dear
friend, take my advice: Stop your [philosophy], take up the Fine Art of Business, and
cultivate something that will give you a reputation for good sense. Leave all these
over-subtleties to someone else. Should one call them frivolities or just plain
nonsense? They‘ll only land you in a house where you‘ll be the only visitor! You must
emulate, not those whose very refutations are paltry, but men of substance and high
repute and everything else that is good.

1. The Ring of Gyges

The technical name for the view that all morality reduces to self-interest is
egoism. It is usually associated with moral skepticism, since it is the only source of
values left for the moral skeptic. One of the earliest and most interesting
presentations of the egoist‘s position occurs in Plato‘s Republic:

Even those who practise justice do so against their will because they lack the power
to do wrong. This we would realize if we clearly imagined ourselves granting to both
the just and the unjust the freedom to do whatever they liked. We could then follow
both of them and observe where their desires led them, and we would catch the just
man red handed travelling the same road as the unjust. The reason is the desire for
undue gain which every organism by nature pursues as good, but the law forcibly
side tracks him to honour equality. The freedom I just mentioned would most easily
occur if these men had the power which they say the ancestor of the Lydian Gyges
possessed. The story is that he was a shepherd in the service of the ruler of Lydia.
There was a violent rainstorm and an earthquake which broke open the ground and
created a chasm at the place where he was tending sheep. Seeing this and
marvelling, he went down into it. He saw, besides many other wonders of which we
are told, a hollow bronze horse. There were window-like openings in it; he climbed
through one of them and caught sight of a corpse which seemed of more than human
stature, wearing nothing but a ring of gold on its finger. This ring the shepherd put on
and came out.

He arrived at the usual monthly meeting which reported to the king on the state of the
flocks, wearing the ring. As he was sitting among the others he happened to twist the
hoop of the ring towards himself, to the inside of his hand, and as he did this he
became invisible to those sitting near him and they went off talking as if he had gone.
He marvelled at this and, putting in the ring, turned the hoop outward again and
became visible. Perceiving this he tested whether the ring had this power and so it
happened: if he turned the hoop inwards he became invisible, but he was visible
when he turned it outwards. When he realized this, he at once arranged to become
one of the messengers of the king. He went, committed adultery with the king‘s wife,
attacked the king with her help, killed him, and took over the kingdom. Now if there
were two such rings, one worn by the just man, the other by the unjust, no one, as
these people think, would be so incorruptible that he would stay on the path of justice
or bring himself to keep away from other people‘s property and not touch it, when he
could with impunity take whatever he wanted from the market, go into houses and
have sexual relations with anyone he wanted, kill anyone, free all those he wished
from prison, and do other things which would make him like a god among men.