Sophists--teachers of rhetoric or mental prostitutes?

I always interpreted 'sophist' to be one who argued on a basis favorable to his point of view at expense of extinuating or qualifying information that would require a different conclusion. I don't think I ever looked it up until now however.

From the AOL on line dictionary:

Main Entry: soph·ist
Pronunciation: 'sä-fist
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin sophista, from Greek sophistEs, literally, expert, wise man, from sophizesthai to become wise, deceive, from sophos clever, wise
Date: 1542
1 : capitalized : any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the 5th century B.C. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning
2 : PHILOSOPHER, THINKER
3 : a captious or fallacious reasoner

Good morning, foxfyre. It's amazing the things that we think we know only to find out the origins are quite different. I imagine that the word sophisticated comes from this early movement. In researching, I found that the early sophists were somewhat akin to our modern day PR people, hence the "mercenary" interp. Guess that's where the specious part come in <smile>

I watched a news item on our local station the other night. It was called "The Truth About Lying". The sum and substance of the broadcast stated that in business, folks do what they feel they must do in order to keep the business alive. Sound familiar?

But can we characterize sophistry so broadly, as any manipulation of words to defeat opponents or sway public opinion? I think this negative label is intended more narrowly. To me it refers to a thinker for whom the means, logic in particular, is more important than the end (a true or valid conclusion). For the sophist the thinking process is something to relish. He may not convince himself or the other of the truth of his statements, but he hopes to overwhelm them, and himself, with the brilliance of his thinking. I, of course, am not trying to do that now. I'm just speculating.

As was I, JL. I always thought of the word in a positive light. Still do, sorta. In my mind it was taking both sides of an issue and arguing from the opposite viewpoint, which I think is a good thing. Obviously the early sophists were paid to do this, which makes it a little less desirable; however, if it's genuine, it's rather like a don in English Universities, no?

Thanks, JL, for responding.

Should anyone care for a link to the data, I will provide it.

The less mercenary view of Sophistry is illustrated by this Google reference to Protagoras:

<<Protagoras was the author of the famous saying, "Man is the measure of all things, of what is, that it is, of what is not, that it is not." What he meant by this was that every person is the standard of what is true to himself. "Antilogic" was a thesis to prove this>>

Protagoras' view was rejected by his former pupil Socrates who seems to have sought "universal truths" but the postion is perhaps reflected in the later Wittgenstein who argued that "meaning is use".

But of course, Fresco. <smile> Reminds me of that sentence:

That that is, is; that is not, is not. Is not that it? It is.

Thanks, Buddy. Trying to convince JL to express philosophy through his poetry. Need to post a link here to your latest.

Back later, folks....

I had a vague working definition that Sophists thought/ deconstructed an issue to death....wasteful, show-offy, tearing some plain subject all to smithereens, more for the sound of their own voice than to reach any useful 'truth'.

I think it was Julian I read that gave me this idea--it may have been the book's learned narrator (forget?), who held this opinion. Seemed a reasonable one at the time...

I think when Sophists arrived on the scene, their ruminations thrilled and brought change in thinking and identifying truths and myths around them--and then, it became tedious.

Wittgenstein at the Airport.

Is this a dagger I see before me ?
....Well not so much a dagger but a knife
Stainless steel - not sharp I agree
....But it could perhaps take a life.

No, Not a knife. Its a nail-file, You know ?
....But in the hands of an expert - a threat !
Hmm. These hands on their own if placed just so
....Could do greater damage I'll bet !


That settles it.!

Your baggage is clear
But the hands stay here !

The only place I had seen the word referenced was in an exegesis and commentary on the Corinthian Greeks of the New Testament. Described as 'sophists' (little 's'), the Corinthian Christians self-elevated themselves through thought and reason and presumed an elite status because of the excellence they achieved. While the Apostle Paul praised their efforts in intellectual exercises, he thoroughly trounced them for ignoring realities that would require different conclusions as well as for thinking themselves superior for their abilities.

But, after looking up the word, the definition kind of fits in with the commentary.

Fresco, that was wonderful.

Good morning all. Had a house full of company and couldn't get back as promptly as I would have liked.

Sophia, Sounds about right to me, based on what I read.

Fresco, Don't know who Wittgenstein is, but I love, not only your allusion to Shakespeare, but your airport security funny. Obviously, JL liked it also

Foxfyre, I was particularly appreciative of your thorough defining, and as I mentioned earlier, often we think that we know something and then we find that we don't have the complete panorama.

Soooooo. Even today I suppose we can classify sophists as those who get paid for being a mentor, and teaching us how to put a spin on stuff.

Petty--

Wittgenstein; one of my favorites.
Also like Schopenhauer, and blocking on my religious, conflicted Dutchman--

Wasn't patient enough to read their stuff--as Wittgenstein put forward--it's all bullshit anyway... But, their biographies and leanings were really cool to me.
----
Ludwig Wittgenstein was one of the most original and influential philosophers of the 20th century. He was by birth an Austrian of Jewish descent. He received most of his early education at home before studying engineering at Berlin and Manchester, which led to an interest in pure mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics, and in 1912 he moved to Cambridge to become a pupil of Bertrand Russell. His work from 1914-18 led to the writing of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, which was published in Germany in 1921 and in London in 1922. Wittgenstein served in the Austrian army in World War I and was captured in Italy, and on his release after the war he gave away a considerable fortune he had inherited. From 1920-26 he went to work as an elementary schoolmaster in Austria, then returned to Cambridge in 1929. During the next few years he came to a new position in philosophy, which was first stated in the Blue and Brown Books, a set of lecture notes from 1933-35 and published posthumously in 1958, and later in his Philosophical Investigations (published 1953). He became Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge in 1939, succeeding G. E. Moore. In 1947 he resigned to devote himself to research, but his health soon deteriorated and he died of cancer in 1951.

The Tractatus, the definitive account of his earlier views, is a modern classic of philosophy. He states that the world consists entirely of independent, simple facts out of which complex ones are constructed. Language has as its purpose the stating of facts by picturing these facts. Thus an informative statement pictures a state of affairs as a sketch pictures furniture in a room. The nature of the picturing relationship cannot be stated because it is not a fact or an object, it can only be shown. Even though the relation cannot be articulated, it is possible to see it, and it must hold if language is to represent the way the world is. Language can also state tautologies as in logic and mathematics which are vacuously true. Beyond picturing facts and stating tautologies there is no legitimate use of language; any other attempt will be nonsensical, in particular ethical and metaphysical statements will be pseudo-propositions since they are neither empirical nor tautologies. This led Wittgenstein to denounce his own theory of language in the Tractatus as nonsense, for to say that language pictures facts is to try to give a picture of the pictorial relation which holds between statement and fact, which is absurd since this pictorial relation shows itself, and what shows itself cannot be said. He called his metaphysics important nonsense which helped one to recognize it as nonsense, and thought that philosophers tend to talk nonsense because of the untidy character of ordinary language, and he devoted much attention to the problem of constructing an ideal language which would never tempt anyone to talk nonsense. Once the Tractatus is understood there will be no more concern for philosophy, which is neither empirical likes science nor tautological like mathematics. The traditional problems of philosophy ask for answers to questions that are nonsensical. Once the nature of meaning is grasped, the problems cease to exist. One will then abandon philosophy which is rooted in confusion, which is what Wittgenstein did for many years.
---
Hence fresco's really cool poem.

Are you mixing together early and later Wittgenstein?

Was Kierkeggard (sp?) a Dutchman? His was the name that wouldn't come...

I liked Wittgenstein's later revelation that the whole mess was a waste of time.

From the biography above--
He called his metaphysics important nonsense which helped one to recognize it as nonsense, and thought that philosophers tend to talk nonsense because of the untidy character of ordinary language, and he devoted much attention to the problem of constructing an ideal language which would never tempt anyone to talk nonsense.
(...)
The traditional problems of philosophy ask for answers to questions that are nonsensical. Once the nature of meaning is grasped, the problems cease to exist. One will then abandon philosophy which is rooted in confusion, which is what Wittgenstein did for many years
---
I can't emphasize my appreciation for the dire importance of the first philosophers--but it seems somewhere along the way--it just became silly and tedious. Philosophy, to me, changed when it was expanded and waffled around into other subjects, unbound from the first Sophists' discipline... and gave lesser men an air of self-importance to wrangle a thing far past its' usefulness.

Sometimes, when I'm here debating, or doing my own interpretation of debate , and someone throws out a tangential "point", I am reminded of the 'later' sophists, who IMO didn't really want to address the issue, but to talk all around it, to no useful, or pertinent end.

I used to hate to see it, but have practiced it a couple of times, after seeing it modelled so successfully by opponents.

I repented.

Hey, we can put an end to the question right now ... just lemme know what it is you wanna hear, and I'll tell you how much it'll cost you to get me to say that for you.

Cash only, up front, please, and lets be discreet about it ... no tellin' who might be watchin'; this is a tough neighborhood.

Gasp! Are you saying that politicians are sophists Timber? They accept bribes for their opinions all the time. Maybe we've been making a definition of this term harder than it had to be.

Who you callin' a politician? I'm a commentator, dammit! There's a difference!

<melting witch>

"What a world....what a woooorrrlllldddd..."

Still believe that the simplest things are sought and found in the words of children and fools. Ever listen?

Timber, as to commentator, that make YOU a common tater.

Hmmmm. Sofia. There is a song about Sofia. Must search it out.