[MD] The trouble with Sophists

[X Acto]

DmB:
The sophists as rationalists? That's hard to believe. Plato is considered to be 
the father of rationalism. You seem to be claiming the opposite of what Pirsig 
said and I never ran into anyone who disagreed with him. I'm skeptical ... but I 
am also quite curious. Could you dish up some specifics, some excepts or 
something?




Visitor. How do the Sophists make young men believe in their supreme and 
universal wisdom? For if they neither disputed nor were thought to dispute 
rightly, or being thought to do so were deemed no wiser for their controversial 
skill, then, to quote your own observation, no one would give them money or be 
willing to learn their art. 


Theaet. They certainly would not. 

Visitor. But they are willing. 

Theaet. Yes, they are. 

Visitor. Yes, and the reason, as I should imagine, is that they are supposed to 
have knowledge of those things about which they dispute? 


Theaet. Certainly. 

Visitor.And they dispute about all things? 

Theaet. True. 

Visitor. And therefore, to their disciples, they appear to be all-wise? 

Theaet. Certainly. 

Visitor. But they are not; for that was shown to be impossible. 

Theaet. Impossible, of course. 

Visitor. Then the Sophist has been shown to have a sort of conjectural or 
apparent knowledge only of all things, which is not the truth? 


Theaet. Exactly; no better description of him could be given. 

Ron:
Here is one of the passages that seem to cast the Sophist as a generalizer, 
adept at the art of persuasion
who chiefly persuades youths to pay for their services by demonstrating a sort 
of "conjectural knowledge"
making them apear wise. The allusion to reification I feel begins to be explored 
in these following lines:

Visitor. We know, of course, that he who professes by one art to make all things 
is really a painter, and by the painter's art makes resemblances of real things 
which have the same name with them; and he can deceive the less intelligent sort 
of young children, to whom he shows his pictures at a distance, into the belief 
that he has the absolute power of making whatever he likes. 


Theaet. Certainly. 

Visitor. And may there not be supposed to be an imitative art of reasoning? Is 
it not possible to enchant the hearts of young men by words poured through their 
ears, when they are still at a distance from the truth of facts, by exhibiting 
to them fictitious arguments, and making them think that they are true, and that 
the speaker is the wisest of men in all things? 


Theaet. Yes; why should there not be another such art? 

Visitor. But as time goes on, and their hearers advance in years, and come into 
closer contact with realities, and have learnt by sad experience to see and feel 
the truth of things, are not the greater part of them compelled to change many 
opinions which they formerly entertained, so that the great appears small to 
them, and the easy difficult, and all their dreamy speculations are overturned 
by the facts of life? 


Ron:
Which smacks of the way an empiricist would criticize a rationalist. But it 
becomes a bit more complex
I think Socrates was baiting the visitor from Elea knowing he was a disciple of 
Parmenides
and touted the name of a true "Philosopher". Certainly one of descriptions of a 
sophist was 

their use of elenchus or "refutation"  that purges one of prejudices the most 
formidable
quality of the sophist, becomes cherry picked by Socrates as he willingly 
admits:

"Theodorus. Here we are, Socrates, true to our agreement of yesterday;
and we bring with us a stranger from Elea, who is a disciple of Parmenides
and Zeno, and a true philosopher. 

Socrates. Is he not rather a god, Theodorus, who comes to us in the
disguise of a stranger? For Homer says that all the gods, and especially
the god of strangers, are companions of the meek and just, and visit
the good and evil among men. And may not your companion be one of
those higher powers, a cross-examining deity, who has come to spy
out our weakness in argument, and to cross-examine us? 

Theod. Nay, Socrates, he is not one of the disputatious sort-he is
too good for that. And, in my opinion, he is not a god at all; but
divine he certainly is, for this is a title which I should give to
all philosophers. 

Soc. Capital, my friend! and I may add that they are almost as hard
to be discerned as the gods. For the true philosophers, and such as
are not merely made up for the occasion, appear in various forms unrecognized
by the ignorance of men, and they "hover about cities," as Homer declares,
looking from above upon human life; and some think nothing of them,
and others can never think enough; and sometimes they appear as statesmen,
and sometimes as sophists; and then, again, to many they seem to be
no better than madmen."

Ron:
So clearly Socrates envisions the Philosopher as employing the best qualities
of each, the statesmen and the sophist and whomever the best appears in.
Plato was using the method of collection and division to explore the what-it-is
and what-it-is-not of a subject matter in a question and answer series of 
dialectic
a radically empirical method of forming a definintion from as many relational
aspects as possible then employing elenchus, refute it. Getting a sense of both 
better understanding
but with the caveat that you in no way have come to any sort of definite 
knowledge
on the subject.

The damning criticism of the sophist, is that he runs off into the darkness of 
"what-is-not"
dare I mention "neti-neti" in the context? he gets lost in a relativism of sorts 
and a pure
and just love of wisdom simply does not assign itself to it.


I'll dig into "Phaedrus" next and tie the two together, but if you would like a 
bit more explanation
quotes and reasons, I'll stop here for now and we can delve a bit deeper into 
the interpretation
at the points you feel I need to clarify.

thx Dave

--