Not a single scientific debate is complete without clear evidence of the chosen position. But is everything said based on facts? Sophistry in philosophy provides an opportunity for thinkers to convince opponents that they are right. Philosophers have to think out, invent, assume. Does this mean science is a lie? No, this fact confirms the quote: “truth is born in dispute.”

Where does the concept of “sophistry” originate?

Sophistry has Ancient Greek origins, literally translated as “wisdom.” It was originally thought to be applied to musicians. The origin of the concept dates back to the 5th century BC in Athens, and later it spread throughout the country.

When in Greece the governance of an aristocratic country was replaced by a slave-owning democracy, there was an urgent need for wise men and orators. stood before them difficult task– influence the mood of the public with the help of words: inspire soldiers going to war; make a friendly meeting with delegates of other states interesting; educate the people; organize holidays. Rhetors had to be able to convince, prove, explain, have diplomacy, knowledge of political subtleties, and a general worldview.

That period was marked by the flowering of eloquence. The speaker had to attract attention with the help of the ability to beautifully express his thoughts and beliefs in order to win a trial or solve a political dilemma.

Sophistry, or sophistry, is a method of drawing conclusions that go against the laws of logic, do not have scientific justification, provability, but are presented as true. Sophistry uses deliberate violation of logical chains, substitution, polysemy of concepts, and verbal tricks to mislead the enemy and gain superiority over him.

Sophistry - a direction of philosophical thought

Sophistry, as a multifaceted way of thinking, acquired a complete form at the end of the 5th century BC, becoming a subjective idealistic philosophical direction - sophism. Now sophistry has a completely different concept - intellectual fraud. In antiquity, it was associated with special wisdom and the ability to convey scientific knowledge for money. Representatives of the movement were excellent teachers, early scientists, and professors. Philosophers called themselves sophists. Their appearance led to the birth of the Sophia school.

Type of activity of the Sofia school

Schools of oratory were first mentioned in the 5th century in Sicily. But it was Athens that became the public arena for the educational activities of the Sophists. The doctrine touched upon the epistemological problem of philosophy. Adherents of the ancient school tried to teach followers to refute the conclusions of political opponents with the help of evidence and reasoning. In this endeavor, they encountered socio-political problems, for the sake of solving which they dealt with general questions of truth and falsity. It follows from this that philosophy, represented by the teachings of the Sophists, is an important direction in the science of thought in general.

Leading a traveling lifestyle, the sophists performed in front of everyone who wanted to learn eloquence. They “toured” cities, using pedagogical rhetoric to unite groups of people differing in age, gender, and social status. The sages made a huge contribution to the development of society - they cultivated an understanding of the importance of not only physical and spiritual education, but also mental education. Education acquired the highest value and became widespread. “An educated person is confident in himself, able to withstand the crowd, strong in thought, his weapon is the word,” thinkers were guided by this motto.

Due to their “wandering” lifestyle, the Sophists did not have a developed system of knowledge. The manuscripts have not survived to our time; we can study sophiology only on the basis of the works of philosophers of the late period.

Features of the thinking of the “senior sophists”

The older group of sophists studied languages, dealt with ethical, political, legal, and state issues, and absolutized the relativity of knowledge, as they questioned all previously existing truths.

The idea of ​​studying the problem of being with the “elders” opened up from a new perspective - not in oneself, but for oneself.

They doubted the existence of gods, believing that the latter were an object of human imagination, and criticized religious belief. The sophists did not deny the inhabitants of Olympus, they only looked for arguments for and against.

The "Senior Sophists" are divided into three categories:

• the first speakers who respect the rules of morality and ethics;
• debaters (“erists”) who defend the formal aspect of the method. They exaggerated the content of concepts, erased the moral context, which aroused the anger of the public;
• politicians in sophistry, reducing the ideology of the doctrine to the theorization of immorality.

A prominent representative of the senior sophists was ancient philosopher Protagoras. Among like-minded people, the sage had bright philosophical thinking. Being a materialist, he talked about matter, the equivalence of existence and non-existence. Protagoras believed:

• a person is a person because he has character, positions his own “I”;
• being has essence;
• truth is a phenomenon of consciousness;
• a person positions meaning as a measure of being.
• man is the measure of all things, as he sees the world as he is.

Protagoras denies absolute truths, emphasizing relativity. In the thinker's opinion, there is something more appropriate and useful. A sage is one who recognizes relative usefulness, acceptability; he is able to convince others of this, to bring the appropriateness to life.

The philosopher put forward the idea of ​​a democratic society in which free people would be equal.

Protagoras argued that every opinion is opposed by a contradictory opinion. The contrast of statements opened the concept of “philosophical dialogue”.

The “Senior Sophist” taught how to defeat a strong argument with a weak argument, using noble methods, utilizing lawlessness and wrongness; showed how to methodically win a victory with a weak argument.

He was a student of Protagoras. The master's philosophy seemed erroneous, so Socrates and the other sophists became opponents in the knowledge of existence. The Sophists insisted on the privilege of man to evaluate the truth with my own feelings, rejected absolute truth. Socrates argued that the foundation of existence is the divine essence, since this is the only way to study the purpose of man in the world. The Socratic principle clearly argues for the unrealization of Sophia's denial of truth, its objective, significant qualities.

The next sophist of the senior group was Gorgias. He is considered the creator of rhetoric and situation ethics. In his opinion, one and the same action is both good and bad, depending on what moment it relates to. Gorgias identified three paradoxical rules:

• nothing exists;
• even if something existed, people could not know it;
• but even if they knew it, they could not describe it in words, explain it to others.

The most erudite, versatile sophist was Protagoras's contemporary, Hippias. The power of his words lay in naturalness; he knew how to captivate his listeners. The thinker disseminated information about history, politics, genealogy, mathematics, and poetry among the masses. He wrote poetry and prose, was fond of music, and was a versatile person. Hippias drew positive conclusions and became rich doing what he loved.

Another sophist philosopher, Prodicus, studied verbal semantics and delved into the correctness of speech. The sage contrasted virtue with vice, pushing people to choose good between them, as a real benefit, a true benefit.

The calling of the "minor sophists"

Little reliable information has survived about the “younger sophists.” They represent the teachings of Lycophron and Alcidamantus. Speaking briefly about the main ideas of philosophers, we can highlight ethical and social directions:

• breaking down the barrier between social classes;
• elite is an invention of an interested group of people;
• nature created everyone free, without slavery.

Thrasymachus talked about the usefulness for the powerful of this world. He believed that each government creates its own set of laws: democracy - free, tyranny - oppressive. The philosopher criticizes religion and justifies atheism. He says: “If the deities observed the actions of people, they would see the treasure - justice. And people notice that they hardly use it themselves.”

Methodological principle of the Sophists

The syllogism examines the principle of three methods. Sophia goes against this statement by practicing the methodological principle of sophistry “quadruplement,” that is, the use of four terms. If you evaluate it logically, this is a play on words. It is not the identity of similar concepts that is used: “Men are people. Many people are women. Then it is permissible to say that many men are women.” Is there any truth to this statement? Doubtful, but difficult to argue.

3. Philosophical views of the Sophists and Socrates

The appearance of the sophists on the philosophical horizon was accompanied by a clear formulation of the question of the role of the subject (man) in the process of cognition. Thus, the Sophists for the first time put forward the epistemological problem of the reliability of human knowledge and the possibility of objective truths. It cannot be said that this problem was completely alien to previous thinkers, say, Heraclitus, Parmenides or Democritus. Although Heraclitus and Parmenides emphasized the fundamental difference between “truth” and “opinion”, and Democritus - “light” knowledge from “dark”, nevertheless, none of them doubted that objective knowledge, reliable truth, is available to man. The Sophists, for the first time, strongly criticized the widespread belief in the possibility of reliable knowledge and put forward ideas about the subjective nature of human ideas and assessments, the idea according to which truth (the good, the beautiful, etc.) exists only for us, people. From this point of view, there is and cannot be anything true, fair or beautiful outside and independently of man and society. But since different people, nations and groups of society have different ideas about the true, just and beautiful, it follows that, as many people as there are, there are so many truths, so many assessments and opinions about the just and beautiful.

This pattern of thought is also characteristic of Protagoras. In his reasoning, he proceeds from the thesis of the Heraclitian Cratylus, who argued that nothing definite can be said about things involved in the universal process of movement and change. And if we nevertheless assert something about things, then it does not follow from this fact that our judgments have objective value and are not subjective: we must remember that the properties and qualities of things are relationships and they arise as a result of the interaction of things, their movement and changes. Therefore, we cannot talk about the existence of properties of things in themselves. This also means that the sensations themselves, which appear as a result of the interaction of the perceived object and the perceiving sense organ, exist as long as the said interaction exists. And therefore, if there is no simultaneous interaction between an object and a subject, then there is no object itself and its sensory perceptible properties (Plato. Theaetetus. 157 a-d). The subjective nature of our knowledge about things and the world is also determined by the psychological organization of the perceiving subject, his state and his relationship to the environment.

From the above it follows that there is no objective knowledge, there are only “opinions”. Every opinion is equally true and false: about each thing one can make simultaneously different and, moreover, contradictory judgments, and they will be equally convincing. For “how each person feels something is how it most likely will be for everyone (152 c), that is, everything that seems to someone is so. Hence the principle: “The measure of all things is man...” (152a). That is, the world of things is as it appears to our senses; knowledge about the world does not go beyond the sensations and experiences of the subject. The final conclusion is that objective truth, in the strict sense of the word, is impossible.

But if there is no objective truth, and a person is the measure (criterion) of all things in his imagination, then he is the measure of all norms in his behavior. And if for everyone what is true (moral, legal, etc.) is what seems so to him, then we are not guaranteed from the resulting conclusion that everyone, in the words of F. M. Dostoevsky, “everything is allowed.”

Further, if there is no truth, but only opinions as descriptions of the psychological experiences of the subject, then how to distinguish an enlightened person from an ignorant one and a smart person from a stupid one? And what about generally binding judgments, if any, as well as legal and moral norms adopted in a particular state? Taking into account the possibility of such questions, Protagoras established a difference in the value of certain opinions: those opinions that are useful to people are “true”. For example, medicine is true because it is useful to people. The same can be said about agriculture and any useful craft. The task of the sophist, as a teacher, is, according to Protagoras, to help the student do right choice, choose an opinion that is beneficial and avoid an opinion that is harmful. In the field of generally binding legal and moral standards Protagoras, avoiding the extremes of individualism and utilitarianism, tried to limit his relativism: he replaced the subjective judgments of individual people with the collective subjective opinion of the majority of people according to the principle of democratic voting. In other words, Protagoras proposed to consider as a criterion of the “truth” of an opinion the opinion (judgment) that is currently shared by the majority of citizens (Plato. Theaetetus. 167 p.).

But in this case, the question of the gods, of their objective existence, clearly arose. From Protagoras’s reasoning it followed that “gods exist not by nature, but as a result of art and by virtue of certain laws” (Plato. Laws. X. 889 p.).

To the question of whether gods exist on their own (“by nature”) and regardless of the agreed “opinion” of the majority of people, Protagoras gave a somewhat evasive answer: not daring to openly atheist, he put forward a skeptical thesis: “I don’t know about gods.” say whether they exist or not, and what they look like. After all, there are many obstacles to knowledge - the ambiguity of the matter and the brevity of human life” (80, B 4 DK). It is known that Protagoras' skepticism regarding the objective existence of the gods was qualified public opinion Athens as "wickedness". Moreover, the philosopher was prosecuted; he was sentenced to death, but escaped from Athens. His book "On the Gods" was publicly burned.

Starting from the idea of ​​the conditional (contractual) nature of legal and moral norms, as well as religious ideas, the sophist Critias came to the conclusion about religion as an invention of an intelligent legislator (88, B 25 DK). According to Critias, religion was introduced as an additional measure to the laws. Since the law has the power to prevent only the commission of obvious injustices, a wise legislator replaces the truth with a useful lie and convinces people of the existence of an all-seeing and all-hearing being who punishes unjust actions and deeds; Having instilled fear of the deity, the wise legislator places the fictitious creature of God in the sky, where flashes of lightning, thunderclaps, rain, stars, sunrise and sunset captivate the imagination of people and instill constant awe in their hearts.

Although Protagoras' theory of knowledge suffered from one-sidedness (it did not go beyond the framework of psychology and psychologism, that is, it was limited to the description of the sensations and perceptions of the subject, his experience), nevertheless, it was a significant achievement of theoretical thought. Protagoras' thesis about man as the "measure" of things represented the discovery of the human individual, a concrete and indivisible individuality (personality). It will not be an excessive exaggeration if we say that, just as Leucippus and Democritus in the field of cosmogony proclaimed atoms to be those further indivisible particles of which all things are composed, Protagoras in the field of anthropology recognized individual individuals as those “atoms” from the totality of which society is formed , human team.

The attention of Protagoras and the Sophists was directed to individual individuals and to the diversity of forms of social life - to the motley variety of customs, mores and ways of life of people, to the mobile and changeable nature of social phenomena. Everything that is unchangeable and permanent was declared fiction. They declared all general definitions and concepts fictitious. From this point of view, it is impossible to talk, for example, about the essence of man in general. The search for “man in general” (the “universal” man of philosophers) was recognized as a futile exercise. They proclaimed the same activity as the search for “truth in general,” “justice in general,” and anything “in general.” According to the logic of the reasoning of Protagoras and his followers, it makes no sense to assume the existence of abstract truth, truth as such, as an abstraction (i.e., regardless of a living person and specific peoples, regardless of their aspirations, interests, needs at a given time and in given circumstances). In terms of modern philosophy what has been said means: there is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete. What has been said regarding truth is fully applicable to people’s ideas (assessments) about what is fair, beautiful, and the like.

The sophists quite convincingly substantiated their relativism and subjectivism in the striking divergence of moral (aesthetic, etc.) assessments and legal norms of different societies, countries and peoples, arguing that it is pointless to talk about good and evil, justice and injustice, praiseworthy and shameful and etc., regardless of people, nations and states. Thus, the legitimacy of the search for any moral (legal, aesthetic, etc.) definition was called into question, and the futility of any distinction between opposites (truth and lies, good and evil, etc.) was declared.

It is obvious that the logic of the reasoning of Protagoras and the Sophists led them to complete relativism in all areas of knowledge and culture, for their individualistic attitude in understanding society and public life crushed society into separate “atoms”, highlighted the individual, specific and special, while the general (universal), declared a fiction, was forgotten.

Socrates spoke out decisively against the individualism, subjectivism and relativism of the Sophists, but from positions that differed significantly from the positions of a wide circle of his fellow citizens. The deep gulf that separated the Sophists and Socrates would seem to exclude the presence of elements of commonality in their views. However, this is not entirely true. Suffice it to say that for both the Sophists and Socrates, the fundamental problem of philosophy was not a cosmological problem, as with their predecessors, but an anthropological problem, not the world and world order, but man and his life. All natural philosophical (cosmological and ontological) problems were declared by them to be secondary and of little significance. “What can we learn from trees?” - asks Socrates (Plato. Phaedr. 230 p.). The Sophists and Socrates did not share the ideas of their predecessors about man only as a part of the cosmos; they proclaimed man to be the center of the universe. We can say that Protagoras’ thesis about man as the “measure” of all things is, in a certain sense, shared by Socrates. Ultimately, what the Sophists and Socrates have in common is that they oriented philosophy towards posing the question of the essence of man, his place and purpose in the world. In this way they seemed to “humanize” philosophy, put before it humanistic goals and tasks. But behind this common understanding of the main goals and objectives of philosophy lie fundamental differences. First of all, they relate to the interpretation of the concept of “person”. It is clear that the merit of the sophists in the history of philosophical thought lies in their discovery of the role of the subject and the subjective moment in knowledge. However, the priority they gave to the subject over the object (and the associated absolutization of the subjective moment) led them to deny the possibility of any objective knowledge, a more or less unified understanding of the objectively given, really existing.

The sophists, referring to the individual, pointed out the differences between people. The sophist Gorgias went so far in this regard that he spoke of the impossibility of a unified understanding of any subject by different persons in different conditions. He believed that the single object expressed by this term, constituting the single content of thought, in the process of its perception by people breaks up into many contents of thought and loses its unity. From this point of view, the object will not be identical to itself and for the same person, because in different times and in different conditions his capabilities and abilities of perception will be different.

Unlike the Sophists, Socrates was convinced that with all the diversity of people, with all the differences in their lifestyle, behavior and experiences, there is always something that unites them and can be expressed by a single concept or idea. Therefore, different people can have a common understanding of something. So, if, say, we are talking about virtue and the multitude of its manifestations, then it is quite possible to talk about a single virtue in itself, regardless of its parts (manifestations). In Plato's dialogue "Protagoras" (329 d et seq.), Socrates says that the existence of virtue as a single whole is analogous to the existence of the human face, which connects its parts into a single whole: mouth, nose, eyes and ears. No matter how different the parts of the face may be in appearance and function, and no matter how similar they may be in some way, taken separately, they will not make up the whole face. The face is something common, united and whole; it is inseparable into parts, although it consists of parts. It unites the parts, embraces them all and forms a whole from them.

According to Socrates, the same can be said about virtue. It has many manifestations: courage, justice, piety, restraint, etc. But this does not yet give the right to dismember a single virtue into many pieces (into its many manifestations) and deny the existence of virtue as an integrity or structure, in modern language. The unity of virtue as integrity constitutes a single content of thought, identical to the content of the concept in the process of reasoning by different persons in different conditions about virtue. What has been said can also be attributed to such concepts as truth, beauty, fairness, etc.

There were also significant differences in the attitude of Socrates and the Sophists to myth, to mythological images and legends. The sophists strove for an allegorical interpretation of myths and tried to find reasonable meaning in mythical ideas. Thus, according to Prodicus, religious and mythological images of gods arose as a result of the deification of everything that is useful to man: ancient people deified the sun, moon, rivers, springs and in general everything that supports human life; for this reason, the goddess of agriculture was Demeter, the god of wine was Dionysus, the god of water was Poseidon, and fire was identified with Hephaestus.

Considering attempts to interpret myths about gods and heroes to be a useless exercise, Socrates called for turning to the study of ourselves in order to find out what people are by nature and purpose, what a person is in essence and what he is worth in general (Plato. Phaedr. 230 a) . Socrates considered this question to be the only important and serious one, one in comparison with which all others lose their value. The method proposed by Socrates for solving this fundamental problem is the method of self-knowledge. This is how one of them understood and interpreted important points the teachings of Socrates, his brilliant student is Plato.

Sophists(literally: σοφιστης - inventor, sage) - sages who taught philosophy and other disciplines in Ancient Greece for money. The main provisions of the philosophy of the Sophists, which differ from the teachings of philosophers of other schools who taught for free, are often distinguished by the absurdity of the dialectical-logical rules generally accepted at that time.

The teachings of the sophists, as well as the origin of the general movement of sophistry and the decline of their activity, date back to the 5th-4th centuries. BC – to the 4th century AD.

School of Sophists. Representatives

The most prominent representatives of sophistry are:

1. Protagoras Abdersky (from Abdera) is one of the senior sophists, the most prominent representative of the school of sophistry, from among its founders. Itinerant teacher, skeptic and materialist. He owns the thesis: “Man is the measure of all things.” Analysts claim that even Socrates was sometimes afraid to discuss with Protagoras. Died during a shipwreck.
2. Gorgias. student of Empedocles. Wandering famous teacher and theorist of eloquence. He is famous for his Olympic speech at the games of 392, in which he called on all those present to fight the barbarians.

More details about the activities of these persons can be found in Plato’s dialogues “Protagoras” and “Gorgias”. By the way, it is from such works of Plato as “Apology of Socrates”, “Symposium”, “Republic”, “Meno”, “Sophist” that one can derive the assumption that the Sophists extremely disliked, but feared and respected the outstanding “Lone Philosophers” such as including. Because many young men preferred to learn intelligence from people like Socrates. The Sophists opposed their teaching to the teaching of Socrates, and Socrates himself constituted extremely strong competition with the current and teachings of the Sophists.

Researchers of ancient philosophy classify the era of the sophists into three periods:

1. Classical period dated from the beginning of the 5th to the first half of the 4th centuries. Representatives, the so-called senior sophists: Protagoras, Gorgias, Hippias, Prodicus, etc.
2. Second period– II – early III century AD.
3. Third period– III – ΙV century AD.

Philosophical ideas of the Sophists

From the point of view of philosophy, the statements of the sophists and the direction of sophistry were a set of selective, versatile concepts, theories and ideological systematics. In general, the movement of sophistry only at first creates its own teachings, but later produces a fairly small number of its theories, selecting, absorbing, modernizing, modifying the philosophical views of other movements, representatives of philosophical thought, and bright periods of philosophical life.

Features of the philosophy of the Sophists

The norms of morality and ethics among the sophists are absolutely arbitrarily displayed depending on the time frame. These norms are interpreted from the point of view of the concept of relativism (i.e., the theory of relativity), in other words, the sophists argued that the same person is capable of perceiving the same phenomenon differently, depending on the many factors influencing him (mood, condition, etc.).

The philosophical views of the sophists and sophistry were criticized by such outstanding thinkers as Socrates and. Also, the number of critics includes representatives of Socratic schools, such as, and. Later, gradually, there were fewer and fewer constructive philosophical concepts in the teachings of the sophists. Over time, sophistry began to reach the level of “quality rhetoric,” that is, only rhetoric and the art of winning arguments remained, but it would not be entirely correct to call this art the art of thinking. Although, of course, at the most banal and ordinary level, this can definitely be done.

Religious views of the Sophists

A significant number of sophists, most of them, by definition, were adherents of agnosticism or atheism.

So, for example, the famous Protagoras, being an agnostic, gained fame as a representative of militant atheism and a complete atheist. Here it is necessary to emphasize the fact that charges of atheism and blasphemy were brought against Socrates, for which the latter was executed (although not only for this).

In his work “On the Gods” Protagoras wrote about the following:

I cannot know about the gods whether they exist or not, because too many things prevent such knowledge - and the question is dark and human life is short.

"Sophists and Sophistry"

Introduction

In the 5th century BC e. In many Greek cities, slave-owning democracy was established, replacing the ancient aristocracy in power. New elected institutions arose: popular assemblies and courts, which were of great importance in the struggle of classes and parties of the free population. There was a need for people who mastered the art of speech to participate in judicial and political affairs. They had to be able to convince, prove, understand legal issues, know the subtleties political life, master diplomatic practice. Some of them, who successfully completed their tasks (lawyers, diplomats, masters of eloquence), became teachers of rhetoric and political knowledge. Their training in legal and political activity was closely connected with general questions of philosophy and worldview.

Special prerequisites were created for the flourishing of eloquence. The speaker needed to attract attention and present his ideas and beliefs in an attractive way. In public decisions on political and judicial issues, the one who had the gift of eloquence and the ability to win over listeners often won. It was necessary to speak beautifully and convincingly at the People's Assembly, in front of soldiers, as well as at crowded festivals and friendly meetings. Therefore, there was a need for people who taught eloquence and composed texts of speeches. They became sophists - philosophers-educators, excellent in the art of oratory, the laws of logic and able to influence the assembled listeners with their words.

Sophists - a symbol for a group of ancient Greek thinkers. V - 1st floor. IV centuries BC e. It's their time active work often called the Age of Greek Enlightenment. Initially, the word was synonymous with the word (“wise”) and denoted a person with authority in various matters of private and public life. From the middle of the 5th century. Sophists began to be called the paid teachers of eloquence and all kinds of knowledge that appeared at that time, considered necessary for active participation in civil life, who themselves often actively participated in political life.

2. Sophistry as a phenomenon of ancient Greek culture and philosophy

.1 Interpretation of the concept of “sophistry”

The terms “sophistry” and “sophists” come from the ancient Greek word for “wisdom.” Literally translated, the word “sophist” means “sage, master, expert.”

Sophistry -

) the teaching of representatives that developed in Athens in the second half of the 5th century. BC schools of sophists - educational philosophers who gravitated towards relativism, the first professional teachers of general education.

) (Greek sophisma - fabrication, cunning) - the deliberate use in a dispute and in evidence of false arguments based on a deliberate violation of logical rules (sophisms); misleading verbal tricks.

The first schools of oratory arose in the cities of Sicily, and development in the 5th century. BC e. democracy in Athens and connections with other Greek cities made Athens a public arena for the performances and teaching activities of the sophists.

Sophistic teachers were very popular in Ancient Greece. They went on trips throughout the country on diplomatic missions, engaged government activities, speaking in front of people and teaching those who wish the basics of eloquence.

“Wandering teachers of eloquence”, “the first European intellectuals”, as A.F. called the sophists. Losev, were engaged in rhetorical pedagogy - the practice of mastering speech skills. Their didactic activities united heterogeneous groups of people both in age and social status. In the process of upbringing, not only physical and spiritual perfection was now important, but also education, which led to its widespread spread. The gift of speech began to be perceived as a sign and an indispensable condition for a full, good education. A truly educated person, “best educated for philosophy and literature,” “suddenly, at any point in his speech, will throw... like a mighty shooter, some wonderful saying, short and concise, and the interlocutor will turn out to be no better than a child,” says Plato's famous dialogue Protagoras.

The sophists first spoke in Greece about the power of words and built a theory of this power. Many of them were virtuosos in using the theory of words in life, they created treatises on this topic. Plato, in his treatise Gorgias, argued that the art of the Sophists is a greater good than all other arts; considering that the sophist is “a master of persuasion: this is his whole essence and all his concern,” who ... “has the ability to convince with words both judges in court, ... and in any other assembly of citizens, ... and as for our businessman, it turns out that he is not making money for himself, but for someone else and for you, who has a command of the word and the ability to convince the crowd.”

It is believed that the sophists did not have a complete, defined system of knowledge. Sophistry did not represent a single circle of thinkers. Sophistry of the 5th century - “a complex of efforts independent from each other, satisfying identical requests by appropriate means.” Almost no works of theirs have survived. most information about the works of the sophists is contained in the works of philosophers of later times.

2.2 Philosophical views of the Sophists

To justify their practical activities, the sophists relied on philosophy. Characteristic feature their philosophy is the affirmation of the relativity of all human concepts, ethical standards and ratings. They introduced relativism into the theory of knowledge, which led the sophists to deny objective truth. Therefore, an objective truth common to everyone is impossible. There is no objective criterion of good and evil: what benefits someone is good for him: “Disease is evil for the sick, but good for doctors. Death is evil for those who are dying, but for sellers of things needed for funerals and for gravediggers it is good.”

The sophists understood perfectly well that everything could be proven purely formally. The main goal of the sophists in their didactic activities was to teach students how to argue. Therefore, during the preparation process, much attention was paid to rhetoric. Students learned methods of proof and refutation and became familiar with the rules of logical thinking.

The philosophy of the Sophists was humanistic. It is important to emphasize that the sophists paid a lot of attention to social issues, man and communication problems, teaching eloquence and political activity, as well as scientific and philosophical knowledge. Some sophists used techniques and forms of persuasion and evidence, regardless of the question of the truth of the propositions being proven. But in their desire to convince their interlocutor, the sophists reached the idea that it was possible to prove and disprove anything, depending on interest and circumstances, which sometimes led to a distortion of the truth in proofs and refutations. Gradually, methods of thinking emerged that came to be called sophistry.

The Sophists paid almost no attention to the study of nature. But they were the first to distinguish between the laws of nature, as something unshakable, and the laws of society, which arise by human institution.

The Sophists found beauty in the endlessly varied phenomena of human life. But these phenomena were contradictory. To use eloquent words, to amaze the listener with unexpected metaphors and oratorical techniques in general, to arouse anger and indignation both in an individual and in a crowd, and at the same time, with the help of convincing artistry, to calm human suffering and free him from vain complaints - these are the new ways along which the aesthetics of the Sophists followed.

2.3 “Senior” sophists as teachers and researchers of the art of speech

Some researchers of the activities of ancient Greek philosophers distinguish three groups of sophists:

) major famous masters of the first generation, not at all devoid of moral restrictions;

) so-called “erists”, i.e. disputants who insisted on the formal aspect of the method, which aroused indignation, because, losing interest in the content of concepts, they inevitably lost the moral context;

) “sophist-politicians” who utilized sophistic ideas, in modern expression, into an ideological complex, and therefore fell into excesses of various kinds, which often ended in direct theorization of immoralism.

Taking into account the historical sequence in the history of Russian philosophical thought, two groups of sophists are distinguished: “senior” and “younger”.

The “senior sophists” explored political, ethical, state, and legal problems, and studied linguistics. They questioned all the principles existing before their time, and declared the truths relative. In the concept of the “senior” sophists, the subjective nature and relativity of knowledge are absolutized.

The sophists studied the problem of being not as a problem of matter: they started talking about being for themselves, but earlier being was developed - in itself. In the Sophists, the ancient spirit first turns to itself, within itself.

Many sophists doubted the existence of gods or even denied them, considering them a human invention. Sophistry by its nature is anti-dogmatic, and any religion is built on dogma. The Sophists played important role in the destruction of traditional religious dogmas.

The older group of sophists tried to critically examine religious beliefs. It is known that Protagoras said: “About the Gods I have no opportunity to assert either that they exist or that they do not exist.” The basis of his method was the ability to demonstrate both arguments in favor of the existence of Gods and against it. This does not mean that he is an atheist, as they already concluded about him in ancient times, but only that he was an agnostic.

Protagoras's work on the gods, despite the extremely careful formulation of religious skepticism, was publicly burned and became the reason for the philosopher's expulsion from Athens.

Prodicus, developing the views of Anaxagoras and Democritus, began to interpret religious myths as the personification of the forces of nature.

Common features in the philosophy of the “senior” sophists:

· the movement of philosophical interests from the sphere of natural philosophy to the field of ethics, politics, and theory of knowledge;

· the study of the person himself and his subjective characteristics.

2.3.1 Protagoras as "teacher of wisdom"

The “elder” group includes the ancient Greek philosopher-sophist Protagoras from Abdera in Thrace (c. 481 - c. 411 BC), whose teachings were based on the teachings of Democritus, Heraclitus, Parmenides and Empedocles, revised in the spirit of relativism. He was the first to call himself a “sophist” - “a teacher of the science of virtue.” It is known that Protagoras wrote the books “On the Gods”, “On Truth”, “The Science of Dispute”, “On the Original Order of Things”, “On the State”, “On the Virtues”, “On Existence”.

Protagoras had the most pronounced philosophical thinking among the Sophists. It is believed that Protagoras was a materialist, arguing about the fluidity of matter, the relativity of perception, and the equal reality of existence and non-existence. According to Protagoras, matter flows and changes, and with its variability and fluidity, something comes to the place of what has gone, and accordingly they are transformed according to the age or state of the bodies of perception. The essence of all phenomena is hidden in matter, and matter can be everything that it appears to everyone. According to Protagoras, the initial metaphysical attitudes can be distinguished:

· by determining the nature and method of which “self”

(person) is a person;

· essential interpretation of the being of beings;

· the project of truth as a phenomenon of knowledge;

· the sense in which a person turns out to be a measure in relation to being and in relation to truth.

According to Protagoras, everything is relative: there is no absolute truth and there are no absolute moral values ​​or good. However, there is something that is more useful, more acceptable, and therefore more appropriate. A sage is one who understands the usefulness of the relative, acceptable and appropriate, knows how to convince others of this and actualize this usefulness.

The sophist-philosopher Protagoras argued: “Man is the measure of all things: existing - in the fact that they exist - and non-existent - in that they do not exist,” believing that every person existing on earth has his own special truth (the principle of man -measures). By measure, Protagoras understood a certain “norm of judgment,” and by things, facts and experience in general. With this famous axiom, Protagoras negated the absolute criterion that distinguished being from non-being, truth from falsehood. The criterion is only a person, an individual: “as individual things appear before me, such they are for me, as before you, such they are for you.” Is the wind blowing, for example, warm or cold? The answer, in the spirit of Protagoras, should be: “Whoever is cold is cold, whoever is not is warm.” And if so, then neither one nor the other is false, everything is true, i.e. true in its own way.

Protagoras talked about the democratic system of government and substantiated the idea of ​​equality of free people. In 444 or 443 BC. e. Protagoras visited Athens and, at the request of Pericles, wrote a code of laws for a new Greek colony called Thurii in southern Italy. It is interesting that these laws did not change for a long time, because Protagoras introduced a trick: if a person wants to change or abolish an old law, or come up with a new one, he must present his reasons and, putting a noose around his neck, await the decision of the citizens. The proposal is accepted - everything is in order, if the changes are rejected, then... Well.... He chose his fate by wearing a rope with a noose around his neck.

Protagoras argued: every statement is opposed by a statement that contradicts it (about every thing, every object, “there are two opinions opposite to each other”). Using such opposing opinions, the sophist philosopher created the art of philosophical dialogue, which was later given special brilliance by Socrates and Plato. Protagoras’ idea about the deep origin of dialogue is interesting. “He was the first to say that about every thing there are two opinions that are opposite to each other. He composed a dialogue from them, being the first to use this method of presentation.” According to Protagoras, it is clear that the dialogic artistic form arises from the contradictions that lie in the depths of things themselves.

The skill that Protagoras taught lay precisely in this ability to give weight and meaning to any point of view, as well as the one opposing it. And his success is due to the fact that his students, trained in this ability, mastered ever new possibilities in public tribunals, assemblies and political life in general.

It is believed that Protagoras taught how one can “beat a stronger one with a weaker argument.” But this does not mean that the goal was to overwhelm justice and rightness with lawlessness and injustice. He demonstrated how technically and methodologically it is possible to strengthen positions and achieve victory using an initially weak argument.

According to Diogenes Laertius (3rd century BC), Protagoras “was the first to use arguments in disputes”, “began to organize competitions in disputes and came up with tricks for the litigants; he didn’t care about thoughts, he argued about words.” Eloquence requires a lot of work. Protagoras explains this beautifully: “Labour, work, learning, education and wisdom form the crown of glory, which is woven from the flowers of eloquence and placed on the heads of those who love it. It is true that language is difficult, but its flowers are rich and always new, and spectators applaud and teachers rejoice when students make progress, and fools get angry - or maybe sometimes they don’t get angry, because they are not insightful enough.”

Protagoras saw in the word the main basis for human power, believing that it is possible “with the power of words to transform a bad deed into a valiant one.”

In Protagoras, every speech is divided into four separate parts: request, question, answer and command. These are attempts at a separate aesthetic assessment of human speech, which will later play a large role in ancient rhetoric, and then in world grammar and stylistics.

2.3.2 "Father of Sophistry" Gorgias

Gorgias of Leontina (presumably 485-380 BC) is considered the creator of rhetoric. The sophist-philosopher defined rhetoric as the art of speeches and worked a lot on the theory of judicial and political eloquence. A true orator, according to Gorgias, must be able to both praise and blame the same thing.

Gorgias himself became famous for a speech delivered before the People's Assembly of Athens in 427 BC. e. Warning the Athenians about the danger looming over their homeland, he surprised the citizens with skillfully spoken words and skillfully selected examples.

Gorgias, in his essay “On the Non-Existent, or On Nature,” declared that “nothing exists at all,” including nature itself. He argued that being does not exist, that even if we assume being to exist, it still cannot be known, that even if we recognize being as existing and knowable, it is still impossible to communicate what is known to other people. In this philosophical work, Gorgias substantiated three paradoxical theses:

· nothing exists;

· even if something existed, a person could not know it;

· even if he could know, he would not be able to express it in words and prove it to other people.

Having destroyed the very possibility of achieving absolute truth, Gorgias was in search of the path of reason, limited to illuminating facts, circumstances, situations in the lives of people and the city. According to the sophist, this is “not a science that gives definitions and absolute rules, and not wandering individualism... This is an analysis of situations, a description of what should and should not be done... Gorgias is one of the first representatives of the ethics of situations, the essence of which in that responsibilities depend on the moment, era, social characteristics; the same action is both good and bad, depending on what it relates to.”

Separately, there is a curious judgment of Gorgias about beauty and art: “The outstanding beauty of something hidden is revealed when wise artists cannot paint it with their tried and tested colors. For their enormous work and great tireless labor provides satisfactory proof of how beautiful it is in its mystery. And if individual stages of their work have reached the end, then they silently give him again a wreath of victory. And what no one’s hand grasps and no one’s eye sees, how can the tongue express it or perceive the listener’s ear?” Gorgias wants to say here that true beauty is inexpressible by any means, even artistic, but always remains something mysterious; its artistic expression, no matter how perfect it may be, only confirms its mysterious nature. The possibility of such reasoning for Gorgias follows from the very great sensitivity of the sophists to the phenomenon of all beauty in general (According to Losev).

Gorgias's position on rhetoric was also new. If there is no absolute truth and everything is false, the word has almost limitless power, as long as it is not connected with being. The theoretical discovery of Gorgias consists in the discovery of the word as a carrier of persuasion, belief and suggestion, regardless of its truth. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, i.e. that which uses the possibilities of the word. This art in Greece of the 5th century was a true “steering wheel in the hands of a statesman.” The politician was therefore called a rhetorician, capable of persuading judges in tribunals, advisers in the Council, members of the people's assembly, his citizens in any community. The significance of rhetoric is obvious, just as the unprecedented success of Gorgias is clear to us. Thus, Gorgias, in his speech “Praise to Helen,” writes: “The Word is a great ruler who, possessing a very small and completely invisible body, performs the most wonderful deeds. For it can instill fear, destroy sadness, instill joy, and awaken compassion.”

Gorgias was the first philosopher who sought the theoretical meaning of what is now called the aesthetic value of words and the essence of poetry. “Poetry in its various forms,” he said, “I call a certain dimensional judgment, and the one who listens is captured, trembling with fear, compassion, shedding tears, trembling with grief, his soul suffers from the action of words, happiness and the misfortunes of others become his own.”

Gorgias is famous for creating artistic means of expression - tropes and figures of speech as exquisite decorations for what is said. He used all sorts of artificial, pretentious and subtle expressions, which later became known as the “Gorgian style.” Gorgias invented the colon - a rhythmic-intonation unit of speech: the number of words pronounced in one breath. He is considered the creator of artistic prose: he combined poetic style with prose. The golden statue of Gorgias, which was erected in Delphi, confirms the services of this sophist to Greek culture, as well as the significant role that Gorgias played in the historical fate of Athens. Here is how A.F. Losev writes about the rhetorical activity of Gorgias, relying on ancient sources: “He was the first to introduce the type of education that prepares orators, special training in the ability and art of speaking, and he was the first to use tropes, metaphors, allegories, and the misuse of words in improper sense, inversions, secondary doublings, repetitions, apostrophes...". Being himself a virtuoso of brevity, Gorgias taught everyone to speak well so that they would be able to conquer people, “to make them their slaves of their own free will, and not by force. By the power of his conviction, he forced the patients to drink such bitter medicines and undergo such operations that even doctors could not force them to do.”

2.3.3 Hippias as one of the representatives of the Greek Enlightenment

Hippias (?????)from Elis (470s - after 399 BC), Greek sophist, younger contemporary of Protagoras. He is considered one of the most erudite and versatile representatives of the Greek Enlightenment.

Hippias paid a lot of attention to rhetoric. The naturalness and entertaining nature of the story were his main strength; he more than once went to different cities with large political assignments and always performed successfully. He traveled throughout Greece as a teacher and speaker, thus amassing a large fortune. He took an active part in government affairs, traveled with embassies to Athens, Sparta and other cities, gave public lectures on the genealogies of heroes and local noble families, and on the founding of cities in ancient times. Hippias wrote works on mathematics, astronomy, meteorology, grammar, poetry, music, mythology and history. He worked on the creation of epics, tragedies and dithyrambs. He wrote poems, songs, a variety of prose and was an expert in rhythm, harmony, spelling and mnemonics. Despite the diversity of his interests, Hippias basically remained a sophist, since he sharply contrasted the tyrannical law with supposedly free nature. He taught the science of the nature of legislation, believing that knowledge about nature is indispensable for success in life, that in life one should be guided by the laws of nature, and not by human institutions. Nature unites people, but law rather separates them. The law is devalued to the extent that it is opposed to nature. A distinction emerges between law and the law of nature, natural and positive law. The natural is eternal, the second is accidental. Thus, the beginning appears for the subsequent desacralization of human laws that require examination. However, Hippias draws more positive conclusions than negative ones. He finds, for example, that, based on natural law, it makes no sense to separate the citizens of one city from the citizens of another, or to discriminate against citizens within the same city.

2.3.4 Prodicus's interest in language

The Sophists dealt a lot with the theory of words, so they can be considered the first Greek philologists. Prodicus especially delved into verbal semantics.

Prodicus of Keos (c. 470-after 400 BC) - Greek sophist. In 431 or 421 BC. e. received great acclaim in Athens. He developed the doctrine of Protagoras about correct speech. Prodicus worked on synonymy, emphasizing the differences between words with similar lexical meanings. The only work of Prodicus that is known reliably is “The Seasons,” the name of which he associated with the goddesses of the seasons, revered on Keos.

The philosopher-sophist argued that the emergence of agriculture led to the development of human culture. He presented a theory of the origin of religion. Protagoras proclaimed a theory of divine honors for things useful to people (a type of fetishism) and for their inventors (a theory later called euphemerism). He was the first to explain the origin of religion by psychological reasons (feelings of gratitude). His understanding of the gods is original. According to Prodicus, the gods are nothing more than a “hypostatization of the useful and beneficial”: “The ancients invented the gods due to the superiority and redundancy that flowed from them: the sun, the moon, the sources of all the forces that influence our lives, such as the Nile on life of the Egyptians."

In ethics, he became famous for his interpretation of sophistic doctrine using the example of the familiar myth of Hercules, who at the crossroads makes a choice between virtue and vice, where virtue was interpreted as suitable remedy achieving true benefit and real benefit.

2.3.5 Proclamation of the idea of ​​equality of people in the writings of Antiphon

Antiphon from Athens (2nd half of the 5th century BC) is an ancient Greek sophist philosopher of the older generation who wrote the works: “Truth”, “On Concord”, “Speech on the State”, “Interpretation of Dreams”.

The main philosophical work “Truth” consisted of two books: 1 - general principles and theory of knowledge; 2- physics, anthropology, ethics. He argued that the antithesis of truth - opinion correlates with the antithesis of nature - law. As a result, all socio-legal “establishments”, laws and “generally accepted norms” of morality turn out to be a conventional fiction, “hostile” to human nature. Nature is understood as natural inclinations, biological instincts and declares itself in the well-known hedonistic postulate: maximum pleasure, minimum suffering. “Justice” is hypocritical and forced observance of laws; therefore, “for a person, the most beneficial way of using justice is this: in the presence of witnesses, respect the laws, and without witnesses, the requirements of nature. The superiority of “nature over “law”” leads Antiphon to the idea of ​​​​the equality of all people and the untruth of class and racial privileges: “By nature, we are all built the same in everything - both barbarians and Hellenes,” “we all breathe air through our mouth and nose and eat with our hands "

Antiphon placed nature above the law and opposed it state power and social institutions. He not only developed a materialistic explanation of the principles of nature and the origin of its bodies and elements, but also tried to criticize cultural phenomena, defending the advantages of nature over the institutions of culture and over art.

In his essay “Truth,” Antiphon set forth astronomical and meteorological views (the doctrine of the origin of the world from a vortex) and argued that “everything is one.” He denied the objective existence of individual things and time. He understood ethics as “the art of being carefree.”

2.4 General characteristics of the “younger” sophists

In the teachings of the younger sophists (4th century BC), about which extremely scanty information has been preserved, their ethical and social ideas are especially prominent.

· Lycophron and Alcidamant opposed the barriers between social classes: Lycophron argued that nobility is a fiction, and Alcidamant argued that nature did not create anyone as slaves and that people are born free. Lycophron, speaking out against the aristocracy, put forward the thesis that “nobility” is only a fiction, it by nature does not reveal itself in any way, but is based only on opinion; “In truth, the ignoble and the noble are no different from each other.”

· Thrasymachus extended the doctrine of relativity to social and ethical norms and reduced justice to what is useful for the strong, arguing that each power establishes laws useful to itself: democracy - democratic, and tyranny - tyrannical, etc. Following Prodicus, who is natural In this way he tried to explain the emergence of religion (“the sun, the moon, rivers, springs and in general everything that is useful to our life, the ancestors considered deities, like the Egyptians - the Nile”), Thrasymachus openly comes out on the side of atheism. He says “that the gods do not see human affairs: for they could not fail to notice the greatest asset of people - justice; What we see is that people don’t resort to it.”

2.5 Evaluation of the activities of the sophists

The sophists paid great attention not only to the practice, but also to the theory of eloquence. They taught that “speeches should be neither long nor short, but in moderation”, they used antithesis and consonance of endings; they paid attention to the conciseness and roundness of thought, the rhythm of speech, studied oratorical vocabulary, as well as the impact of speech on feelings. The sophists knew how to destroy an opponent's argument with ridicule, and to respond to his ridicule with dignity.

Initially, the word “sophist” was used to describe people skilled in any task - poets, musicians, legislators, sages. Subsequently, those who, in speeches addressed to listeners, sought not to clarify the truth, but to present lies as truth, opinions as reliable truth, superficiality as knowledge.

The sophists laid the foundations of rhetoric as the science of oratory. To master eloquence, certain techniques were proposed. According to the sophists, the goal of the speaker is not to reveal the truth, but to be persuasive. The task of the sophist is to teach “to make a weak opinion strong.” Hence the meaning of the word sophistry - a deliberately false conclusion. The one who makes a speech, by the power of his word, must make “small things seem big, and big things small, new things seem ancient, and ancient things new,” he can make people “his slaves of their own free will, and not by force.”

Sophistry (from Greek s ó phisma - trick, trick, invention, puzzle) a conclusion or reasoning that substantiates some deliberate absurdity, absurdity or paradoxical statement that contradicts generally accepted ideas. Aristotle called sophisms “imaginary proofs,” in which the validity of the conclusion is apparent and is due to a purely subjective impression caused by a lack of logical or semantic analysis.

Here is one example of the sophism of the ancients, attributed to Eubulides: “What you have not lost, you have. You didn't lose your horns. So you have horns." This is where ambiguity is masked. If it is thought of as universal: “Everything you haven’t lost...”, then the conclusion is logically flawless; if it is thought of as private, then the conclusion does not follow logically. But here is a modern sophism that substantiates that with age, “years of life” not only seem to be, but are actually shorter: “Every year of your life is its 1/n part, where n is the number of years you have lived. But n + 1>n. Therefore, 1/(n + 1)<1/ n».

It is impossible to talk about the unambiguous characterization of the activities of the sophists. Evaluating the sophists as philosophers, modern researchers determine the negative and positive sides of their actions:

Accusations against the Sophists “Defense” (a positive result of the activities of the Sophists) 1. They pursued purely practical goals, and for them it was essential to look for students for “profit” They brought to the fore the problem of education, and pedagogical activity acquired a new meaning They argued that virtue is not given by birth and does not depend on the nobility of blood, but is based only on knowledge. For the Sophists, the study of truth was tantamount to its dissemination.2 They charged a fee for teaching, because knowledge was understood as a product of disinterested spiritual communication, the occupation of rich and noble people who had already solved their life problems. The Sophists destroyed the old social scheme , which made culture accessible only to select layers, opening up the possibility of cultural penetration into other layers of society. Sophists engaged in knowledge as a craft and therefore had to demand payment in order to live, to travel. 3. Sophists were reproached for vagrancy, for disrespect for their hometown, to which they were attached was a kind of ethical dogma for the Greeks until that time. The Sophists were aware of the narrow boundaries of the polis; pushing them apart, they became bearers of the pan-Hellenic principle, they felt themselves not only citizens of their city, but also of Hellas. 4. They violated traditions, norms and codifications. The Sophists proclaimed freedom of spirit and demonstrated unlimited faith in reason. Earned the title of Greek “enlightenment”

“Sophist” - this term, in itself positive, meaning “wise”, sophisticated, expert of knowledge, later began to be used as negative, especially in the context of the polemics between Plato and Aristotle.

After all, in the beginning the sophists

· taught the correct methods of proof and refutation,

· discovered a number of rules of logical thinking,

· but they soon moved away from the logical principles of its organization and focused all their attention on the development of logical tricks based on the external similarity of phenomena, on the fact that an event is extracted from the general connection of events, on the polysemy of words, on the substitution of concepts, etc.

Some, like Socrates, considered the knowledge of the sophists to be superficial and ineffective, since they lacked the disinterested goal of seeking truth as such, but in modern conditions their true historical significance was determined.

Conclusion

The historical significance of sophistry for the development of philosophy and culture.

Most importantly, the sophists shifted the axis of philosophical research from space to man. The grandeur of space receded into the background. Human life and the human personality with their endless chaos and diversity, with their inconstancy, far from cosmic greatness, came to the fore.

The old image of man in the pre-philosophical poetic tradition was destroyed by the Sophists, but a new one has not yet appeared:

· Protagoras associated man mainly with sensuality,

· Gorgias thought of man as a subject of mobile emotions, moving in any direction.

The sophists spoke about nature, about man as a biological animal nature, while keeping silent about his spiritual nature. In order to find himself again, a person had to find a more solid foundation.

The Sophists rejected the old Gods, but, abandoning the search for the beginning, they moved towards the denial of the divine in general:

· Protagoras settled on agnosticism,

· Prodicus already sees the Gods as an exaggeration of benefits,

· Critias - as an ideological image of politicians.

It is clear: in order to think about the divine, it was necessary to look for a different, higher sphere.

The same can be said about truth:

· Protagoras divided logos into “two arguments” and revealed that logos posits and opposes.

· Gorgias rejected logos as thinking, and retained it only as a magical word, but he also found that the word, with the help of which one can say everything and also refute everything, does not truly express anything. Thought and word have lost their subject and their order, being and truth have been lost. Word and thought had to restore themselves to a higher level.

The significance of sophistry for the history of philosophical thought is the opening up for critical discussion of new topics in epistemology, philosophy of language, ethics, sociology and political theory:

· the reliability of sensory ideas and judgments of the mind, as well as their expression in language,

· the relativity of truth in relation to various subjects, circumstances of place and time, ethnic characteristics,

· the relationship between universal principles and norms established by people in the field of ethics, language, public institutions,

· criteria for choice in the moral field (the influence of pleasure on behavior, the nature of utilitarian calculation in the choice of actions),

· the principles on which social life is based,

· the motives that led to the emergence of society, the essence of the gods and the origin of religion.

Thus, the Greek sophists are “deep thinkers” who contributed to changing the philosophy of the teaching of nature into the field of ethics and theory of knowledge. Denying absolute truth, they for the first time paid significant attention to the study of the subjective world of man.

List of used literature

oratory art philosophical

1.Ancient philosophy: Encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Progress-Tradition. P. P. Gaidenko, M. A. Solopova, S. V. Mesyats, A. V. Seregin, A. A. Stolyarov, Yu. A. Shichalin. 2008

2.Asmus V.F. Ancient philosophy (history of philosophy). - M.: Higher. School, 2003

3.Akhmanov A. S., Aristotle’s logical doctrine, M., 1960.

4.Akhmanov A.S. Aristotle's logical doctrine. - M., 1960

5.Belkin M.V., O. Plakhotskaya. Dictionary "Ancient Writers". St. Petersburg: Lan Publishing House, 1998

6.Bogomolov A.S. Ancient philosophy. - M., 1985

7.Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969 -1978

8.Bradis V.M., Minkovsky V.L., Kharcheva L.K. Errors in mathematical reasoning. - M., 1967

V. S. Stepina. 2001

9.Grinenko G.V. History of philosophy. - M.: 2004. - 688 p.

10.Grinenko G.V. History of philosophy. 3rd edition. - M., 2011

.J. Reale and D. Antiseri. Western philosophy from its origins to the present day. I Antiquity. - TK Petropolis LLP, 1997

.Losev A.F. History of ancient aesthetics in 8 volumes. Volume 2: Sophists. Socrates. Platon. - M., 1969.

.Small academic dictionary. - M.: Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Evgenieva A. P., 1957-1984

.Minkovsky V.L., Kharcheva L.K., Errors in mathematical reasoning, 3rd ed., M., 1967

.Mikhalskaya A.K. Russian Socrates: Lectures on comparative historical rhetoric. M., 1996

.New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by

.Plato. - Folio, AST, 2000

.Plato. Collected works in 4 volumes. T. 1. - M.: Thought. - 1990.

.Spirkin A.G. Philosophy: textbook / A.G. Spirkin. - 2nd ed. M.: Gardariki, 2008

.Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. A.A. Ivina. - M.: Gardariki, 2004.

.Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F.V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Philosophy of the Sophists and Socrates

1. The general concept of sophistry and periodization of sophist schools.

Soffits is a philosophical school in ancient Greece that existed in the 5th - first half of the 4th centuries. BC Representatives of this philosophical school acted not so much as philosophical theorists, but as philosopher-educators who taught citizens philosophy, oratory and other types of knowledge (translated from Greek “sophists” - sages, teachers of wisdom). Among the sophists, the so-called groups stand out:

senior sophists (5th century BC) - Protagoras, Gorgias, Hippias, Prodicus, Antiphon, Critias; junior sophists - Lycophro, Alcidamantus, Trassimachus.

Socrates did not officially belong to these groups, but shared many of the ideas of the sophists and used sophistry in practical activities.

2. Characteristic features of the philosophy of the Sophists.

Sophists are characterized by: a critical attitude towards the surrounding reality; the desire to test everything in practice, to logically prove the correctness or incorrectness of a particular thought; rejection of the foundations of the old, traditional civilization; denial of old traditions, habits, rules based on unproven knowledge; the desire to prove the conventionality of the state and rights, their imperfection; perception of moral norms not as an absolute given, but as a subject of criticism; subjectivism in assessments and judgments, denial of objective existence and attempts to prove that reality exists only in human thoughts.

3. Sophistry as the main logical device of the sophists.

Representatives of this philosophical school proved their rightness with the help of sophisms - logical techniques, tricks, thanks to which a conclusion that was correct at first glance ultimately turned out to be false, and the interlocutor became confused in his own thoughts.

An example of this conclusion is the “horned” sophism: “What you haven’t lost, you have, you haven’t lost horns; that means you have them.”

This result is achieved not as a result of paradox, the logical difficulty of sophism, but as a result of incorrect use of logical semantic operations. In this sophism, the first premise is false, but is presented as correct, hence the result.

4. The significance of the activities of the sophists.

Despite the fact that the activities of the sophists caused disapproval of both the authorities and representatives of other philosophical schools, the sophists made a great contribution to Greek philosophy and culture. Their main merits include the fact that they:

took a critical look at the surrounding reality;

disseminated a large amount of philosophical and other knowledge among the citizens of Greek city-states (for which they were later called the ancient Greek enlighteners).

5. Philosophy of Protagoras.

A prominent representative of the senior sophists was Protagoras (5th century BC). Protagoras expressed his philosophical credo in the statement: “Man is the measure of all things that exist, that they exist, and non-existent, that they do not exist.” This means that as a criterion for assessing the surrounding reality, good and bad, the sophists put forward the subjective opinion of a person:

Nothing exists outside human consciousness; nothing is given once and for all;

what is good for a person today is good in reality; if tomorrow what is good today becomes bad, then it means that it is harmful and bad in reality; the entire surrounding reality depends on the sensory perception of a person (“What is good for a healthy person it will seem sweet, to the sick it will seem bitter"); the world around us is relative; objective (true) knowledge is unattainable; there is only a world of opinion.

One of Protagoras’ contemporaries is credited with creating the work “Double Speeches,” which also leads to the idea of ​​the relativity of being and knowledge (“Disease is evil for the sick, but good for doctors”; “Death is evil for the dying, but good for gravediggers and undertakers.” ) and teaches the young man to achieve victory in an argument in any situation.

Protagoras’s attitude towards the forests was also original and revolutionary for that time: “I cannot know about the gods whether they exist or not, because too many things hinder such knowledge - the question is dark, and human life is short.”

6. Philosophy of Socrates.

The most respected of the philosophers related to sophistry was Socrates (469 - 399 BC). Socrates did not leave significant philosophical works, but went down in history as an outstanding polemicist, sage, and philosopher-teacher. The main method developed and applied by Socrates was called “maieutics”. The essence of maieutics is not to teach the truth, but to, through logical techniques and leading questions, lead the interlocutor to independently find the truth.

Socrates conducted his philosophy and educational work in the midst of the people, in squares, markets in the form of an open conversation (dialogue, dispute), the topics of which were topical problems of that time, relevant today: good; evil; Love; happiness; honesty, etc. The philosopher was a supporter of ethical realism, according to which:

any knowledge is good;

any evil or vice is committed out of ignorance.

Socrates was not understood by the official authorities and was perceived by them as an ordinary sophist, undermining the foundations of society, confusing young people and not honoring the gods. For this he was in 399 BC. sentenced to death and took a cup of poison - hemlock.

The historical significance of Socrates' activities is that he:

contributed to the dissemination of knowledge and education of citizens;

looked for answers to the eternal problems of humanity - good and evil, love, honor, etc.;

discovered the maieutics method, widely used in modern education;

introduced a dialogical method of finding truth - by proving it in a free debate, and not declared, as a number of previous philosophers did;

He educated many students who continued his work (for example, Plato), and stood at the origins of a number of so-called “Socratic schools.”

7. “Socratic schools.”

“Socratic schools” are philosophical teachings that were formed under the influence of the ideas of Socrates and developed by his students. The “Socratic schools” include:

Plato's Academy; Cynic school; Cyrene school; Ligarian school; Elido-Erythrian school.

Plato Academy – religious and philosophical school, created by Plato in 385 BC, which aimed to study philosophical problems, venerate the gods and muses and existed until the 6th century. AD (about 1000 years).

The most famous representatives of the Cynics were Antisthenes, Diogenes of Sinope (nicknamed by Plato “Socrates gone mad”).

Cyrene school – founded in the 4th century BC Aristippus of Cyrene, student of Socrates. Representatives of this school (Cyrenaic):

opposed the study of nature;

pleasure was considered the highest good;

Accordingly, the goal of life was seen as pleasure, happiness was perceived as the totality of pleasure, and wealth as a means to achieve pleasure.

Megara school founded by Socrates' student Euclid of Megara in the 4th century. BC Representatives: Eubulides, Diodorus Cronus.

The Megarians believed that there was an abstract supreme good that defies precise description - God, reason, life energy. The opposite of the highest good (absolute evil) does not exist.

In addition to philosophical theoretical research, the Megarians carried out active practical activities (in fact, they were engaged in sophistry) and received the nickname “disputants.”

Representatives of the Megarian school (Eubulides) became the authors of well-known aporias, that is, paradoxes (not to be confused with sophisms) - “Heap” and “Bald”, with the help of which they tried to understand the dialectic of the transition of quantity into quality.

Aporia “Heap”: “If you throw grain on the ground and add one grain at a time, then at what point does a heap appear in this place? Can a collection of grains become a heap after adding one grain?”

Aporia “Bald”: “If one hair falls out of a person’s head, then at what point does he become bald? Is it possible to determine a specific hair, after the loss of which a person becomes bald? Is it possible to establish a line separating “not yet bald” and “already bald”?