The 9 Characteristics Of Sophists In Philosophy (explained)
The sophists were philosophers focused on teaching the art of oratory and persuasion in the context of Ancient Greece. They considered important the participation of citizens, who were trained, in politics, through parliamentary democracy.
They show different characteristics that distinguish them from previous currents, presenting themselves as contrary to the thought of other renowned philosophers such as Socrates. They propose subjectivism, understood as a philosophical position that gives special importance to the subject.
In this article we will talk about the sophists and their characteristics explaining who they were, when they emerged, who were the most recognized and what way of thinking they held.
The sophists were philosophers and teachers of the teaching of wisdom, who mastered the art of oratory and rhetoric They emerged in the 5th century BC, in classical Greece, specifically in the city of Athens. Despite initially considering themselves intellectual and wise men, their speech was far from being true, they used fallacies and lies to influence the opponent’s decision-making.
Thus, The bad reputation they had caused the term sophist to be used to refer to manipulative and fake people, with oratory that was far from the truth. Likewise, they had different detractors, among which Socrates and later Plato stand out.
We must keep in mind that in this historical period, in Greece, a parliamentary democracy had been established, where laws were accepted through debate among citizens. For this reason, mastering rhetoric was a key point to have influence in politics and influence others. His speech was persuasive, which is the art of convincing someone about a topic or issue.
Thanks to the skills that the sophists showed in speech, they had a remarkable command of oratory, and this allowed them to teach other people this aptitude and thus become the first professional philosophers, in the first to charge for transmitting their knowledge
Thus, the sophists were professional rhetoricians, whose professional practice consisted of transmitting the art of speech. Human beings, men living in society and culture were the topics of interest of these philosophers, whose main objective was to achieve success in debate, win and influence the opponent.
There are other notable characteristics of the sophists. Let’s see what traits were notable and defining of them.
1. The use of rhetoric
As we have already mentioned, the way most used by the sophists to transmit their knowledge was rhetoric, which consists of a set of techniques that allow the subject to express themselves and communicate better. The way of teaching was unidirectional and closed, that is, only they spoke and their listeners could not interrupt them. Likewise, his speech conveyed a lot of information but in a synthesized way.
2. Subjectivist current
The sophists were the first thinkers to propose subjectivism, a current that stands out for giving greater importance to subjects compared to objects. In this way, they affirm that there is no single reality and that knowledge of it depends on each subject, on their experiences, values, beliefs and emotions. In other words, they believed that reality does not exist without the subject, without the intervention of his mind.
3. Moral relativism
Related to the previous point, the nonexistence of reality without the subject, the same thing happens with the distinction of good and bad. One of the characteristics of the sophists is that For them there is no universal norm that dictates what is right and what is wrong, but it will depend on each individual, their values and morals. Thus, there will be different opinions of what is good and bad, all of them being equally valid.
4. The instrumental purpose of philosophy
We have already seen that the sophists were professional philosophers who were paid to teach their knowledge; understanding philosophy as a way of transmitting the necessary techniques to be a good speaker a trait that they valued as essential to succeed in politics and influence their adversaries, which was the purpose of their actions.
5. The purpose of the speech
As we have already advanced, the ultimate purpose of the speech was to convince, regardless of the strategies that were used or the truthfulness or meaning of the speech. The sophists taught the technique of persuasion and their students assimilated the information passively that is, they could not make counterarguments or question the knowledge presented, it was not debated during the lessons.
The system of parliamentary democracy allowed the sophists to put their skills into practice and participate in politics The intervention of citizens in political issues benefited these philosophers whose function was to train citizens in persuasion and how to debate.
Of course, they believed that only people who were trained and had knowledge of the appropriate strategies could participate in the democratic debate. We see again how this statement relates to its function.
7. The happiness of the individual
Assessing the most characteristic traits that we know about the sophists, the need to succeed, to stand out, to be able to defeat their opponents stands out in them… objectives linked to being the best
Therefore, it is not surprising that their way of achieving happiness, of being happy, was linked to achieving success, fame, influencing others and being recognized by them.
The purpose is not to present a valid or coherent speech that is useful in the field of politics, but to achieve success through the speech. This is the reason for happiness.
8. Laws can be modified
The defense of democracy proposed by this group of philosophers is related to the assertion of being able to change laws. In other words, in order to apply their knowledge and teaching, to be able to participate in politics it is necessary that it can be modified and be variable and that it is not established permanently throughout history.
In the same way that there is no single and true reality, there cannot be a single, universal policy or laws For this reason, as society progresses and changes, so must the laws.
9. Study of the individual
The philosophers before the sophists had focused especially on studying nature, the creation and origin of the cosmos. On the other hand, the new thinkers, the sophists, broke with that theme and They focused on the study and knowledge of man and society and the different linked factors, such as politics or education.
There are two most prominent sophists: Gorgias (483-375 BC) and Protagoras (485-411 BC), who presents some of the most relevant and notable ideas of this philosophical current. They believe in the relativism of thought, which, as we have already mentioned, affirms that truth, morality and the distinction between good and bad depends on each individual or society. For them there is no universal truth, for everyone, and as such we cannot establish a correct way of acting for everyone.
When faced with the idea of a god or several gods, they are agnostic ; That is, they do not deny its existence but they say that they cannot confirm it either. Likewise, they highlight the differences in gods present in each culture or society, thus supporting the idea of variation in thought, ideas and even beliefs depending on the individual and their environment.
Another notable feature of the sophists is pragmatism, understood as the performance of a behavior, an action, with the purpose of obtaining one’s own benefit, that is, for one’s own interest. As we already know, they propose that good and bad are relative, and will vary depending on the interpretation or assessment made by each individual. In this way, we cannot guide ourselves or act according to this distinction, the only motive that should move us is to achieve our objectives, our happiness.
Also characteristic is his skeptical stance on reality or what is true. Reality being changing and depending on who discovers or knows it, on the point of view we choose, makes it impossible for us to believe that there is a single absolute truth for everyone. For this reason they are skeptical of the truth, since it will depend on who interprets it, nothing assures us that it cannot be a lie if we value another perspective.
We thus see a clear difference with another current of thought that will emerge later, objectivism, which believes in a single reality, true and universal for all subjects.
