The Sophists were public speakers and talented orators proficient in oral culture. Speech mastery came as a gift to them while they possessed the unique skill of Rhetoric. Public both respected and feared them, while they also received much hatred. Being gifted and skilled they were often prone to rage and ire from society. While they questioned and challenged common truths and complex issues even without arriving at the very best solutions, sophists won public speaking contests, were unbeatable in debates, and led lawsuits by charging fees for teaching their mastery to others.
At that time, being able to speak well was worth much. Given the absence of writing and documents, people settled all matters and disputes by virtue of contest of words. This means that said word was invaluable. The masters of the best speeches prevailed over their counterparts and rivals. Hence, the Sophists led the trend convincing crowds with unthinkable maneuvers and manipulations. They often proved the rightness of controversial issues and people believed them due to the power of their persuasive words. Sophists usually grounded their speeches on popular quotations to prove the correctness of their arguments. As proven masters and manipulators of quotations, sophists usually won the debates, disputes, public contests, discussions, and lawsuits. The Sophists won many public prizes, though the highest reward was an opportunity to teach the mastery of public instruct to the sons of the wealthy citizens. That was then an essential skill for everyone who wanted to defend oneself against lawsuits. The sophists taught others how to win hopeless cases, get friends and influence people, make up a successful businessman, behave in public, play to win, and succeed in life.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Sophists vs Socrates".
Winning and succeeding were the core values the sophists pursued. While they did not believe in the Greek myths, though applied ancient texts to refer to quotations and make the most use of them. Sophists were relativists and secular atheists cynical about traditions and religious beliefs. Instead, they held that ‘might makes right’ (Poulakos 22). Thus, they perceived the reality from pragmatic view and emphasized only on things that brought the desired outcomes. While making their own business out of oral skills and education and profiting from it, sophists were strategically concerned with practical knowledge rather than the truth. The ultimate goal of practicing rhetoric consisted in convincing others rather than uncovering the truth.
In their approach, sophists challenged moral foundations and traditions, as well as social order without offering alternatives. Instead, Socrates pursued eternal truths and unlike sophists rejected subjectivism and relativism. Unlike Socrates, sophists claimed that every person had the right to decide about true, good and beautiful things. Such approach much favored the crowds made up mostly of the unthinking people and served the foundations of a common life. At that, sophists emphasized on the power of conflicts claiming that ‘might makes right’.
However, society required wider knowledge and wisdom than the approach offered by the sophists. Providing relevant opposition, Socrates forwarded an alternative approach to oppose the sophists at the cost of his life. Socrates came as a genuine challenge to Sophists by countering their arguments in a well-reasoned manner. He grounded his thoughts and arguments on a dialectical process. Socrates and later Plato speculated with thought processes, while sophists took the opposing set of questions entirely. Sophists hated Socrates as top philosopher and global thinker who dared to challenge their reality and the ‘truths’ they disseminated among people. Only the dramatic Death of Socrates had put an end to the lasting conflict.
- Poulakos, John, Sophistical Rhetoric in Classical Greece, University of South Carolina Press, 1995. Print.
