Socrates’ Method and the Sophists: A Philosophical Contrast
Socrates’ Method
Socrates had a very peculiar method that aimed to make people think, leading them to expose their own thoughts. (His father was a potter and sculptor, and his mother a midwife; in both offices, something is given birth to from the inside.) Socrates believed in the knowledge that each person possesses. He did not have to teach them things, but rather help them discover the truth that is inside.
His method has three stages:
The Irony
This is the starting point. You have to bring the listener to the conviction that they know nothing by asking questions to break the dogma. Thus, without telling them directly, Socrates makes a man discover his own ignorance, makes him doubt, leads him to investigate and criticize the views of others, and admit his own ignorance. Only then can he get to the truth. “I just know that I know nothing” exemplifies Socratic irony.
Mayeutics
This means birth, bringing forth the truth. The dialogue has to bring the truth to light (with the help of others to reach the truth).
Definition
This is getting to the bottom of things. The definition is the uncovering of the truth that has been discovered in the dialogue.
Moral Intellectualism
Faced with the disappointment of the diversity of opinions of ancient philosophers (physicists), Socrates replaced the concern for the cosmos with the genuine concern for man: his moral nature. Wisdom does not come to man from without but from within. The wise man is not the one living in securities, but the one who doubts and questions. Moral intellectualism is a doctrine that equates virtue with knowledge. The virtuous person knows that he who does evil is ignorant because the good, which is useful for the individual and for the city, influences the understanding of those who know. Once known, it determines the will, which cannot stop wanting it and practicing it. He who has not practiced good is because he has not known it, that is, he does not know what is good. “But knowing what justice is, one can be fair, just knowing what good is, one can do good.”
Paradox: Is it better to have a shoemaker who knows how to make good shoes but makes bad ones, than one who doesn’t know how to make shoes but makes them good (even if by chance)? “He who sins, therefore, does not do so out of malice, but ignorance. There should not be punishment but a statement, and instead of prisons, schools.”
The Sophists
Political Engagement
The Sophists were engaged in politics. They led a wandering life, were men of action and initiative, with political ambitions and a willingness to influence public life. Sophistry means training, but they sought political empowerment rather than virtue. This training is done with the “brilliant word.” They look for the “art of persuasion,” not truth. They call their art “driving souls,” but for Plato, it was rather “catching souls.”
Skepticism, Relativism, Individualism
The Sophists doubted the ability of human reason to arrive at the truth. Protagoras says that there are no universal, objective truths, that truth depends not on the object but on the subject. Gorgias ensures that the truth does not exist, and if it did, it could not be known, and if it were known, it could not be communicated (paradoxically, he affirms this as true, categorically).
Physis and Nomos, Nature and Convention
The nomos, or law, is not eternal or of universal validity, but conventional in nature. Antiphon proclaims that it is lawful to break the law so that no one notices. Alcidamante appeals to the relativity of human laws to ensure that slaves have the same rights. Relativism reaches even religious beliefs. Antiphon says there is a natural justice that cannot be broken, unlike the nomos. Hippias also speaks of a certain unwritten natural law. In the end, it seems the right or natural law of sophistry coincides with desire or appetite. It also attaches to natural law the idea of appealing to the law of the jungle.