It's funny, I'm taking CAS 201 (Rhetorical Theory) in addition to PHIL 200 this semester. Needless to say, I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about rhetoric this semester. It's fascinating how, in one class, I'm reading about how deceiving and manipulative the Sophists were (that seems to be Plato/Socrates' point in Protagoras), yet in my other class, I'm reading about how brilliant and innovative the Sophists were in the history of rhetoric. I think it's worth exploring both views.
In "The History and Theory of Rhetoric" by James A. Herrick, the Sophists are described as "important intellectual figures who have received a somewhat unreservedly negative press" (36). Protagoras is described as an important figure in "developing the philosophy underlying rhetorical practices" (45). He sounds like a pretty swell guy.
Yet why, then, were the Sophists so controversial? My textbook gives 5 reasons: 1) Sophists taught for pay, threatening the power of aristocratic families to hog educators, 2) Sophists were wanderers, and people were suspicious of the "rootless individual", 3) The Sophists' cultural relativism clashed the Platonic ideas of universal forms and gods, 4) According to Sophists like Protagoras and Gorgias, truth emerged from a "clash of arguments" rather than from Gods or other transcendent forms 5) The Sophists' built a view of justice based on nomos, or social agreement. This, again, contradicted the Greek view that truths and laws should be derived from absolute authorities, like Gods or a king.
There has also apparently been a "long rivalry between rhetoric and philosophy" (57). We just began Chapter 3, which is "Plato Versus the Sophists: Rhetoric on Trial." It talks mostly about Gorgias, so I'll save that argument for when we start that dialogue.
But I just thought it'd be worthy to note in true Sophist fashion that there are always 2 sides to a story; Plato's disapproval of the Sophists is one side, but on the other side are historians who revel the Sophists' contributions to rhetorical theory.
In "The History and Theory of Rhetoric" by James A. Herrick, the Sophists are described as "important intellectual figures who have received a somewhat unreservedly negative press" (36). Protagoras is described as an important figure in "developing the philosophy underlying rhetorical practices" (45). He sounds like a pretty swell guy.
Yet why, then, were the Sophists so controversial? My textbook gives 5 reasons: 1) Sophists taught for pay, threatening the power of aristocratic families to hog educators, 2) Sophists were wanderers, and people were suspicious of the "rootless individual", 3) The Sophists' cultural relativism clashed the Platonic ideas of universal forms and gods, 4) According to Sophists like Protagoras and Gorgias, truth emerged from a "clash of arguments" rather than from Gods or other transcendent forms 5) The Sophists' built a view of justice based on nomos, or social agreement. This, again, contradicted the Greek view that truths and laws should be derived from absolute authorities, like Gods or a king.
There has also apparently been a "long rivalry between rhetoric and philosophy" (57). We just began Chapter 3, which is "Plato Versus the Sophists: Rhetoric on Trial." It talks mostly about Gorgias, so I'll save that argument for when we start that dialogue.
But I just thought it'd be worthy to note in true Sophist fashion that there are always 2 sides to a story; Plato's disapproval of the Sophists is one side, but on the other side are historians who revel the Sophists' contributions to rhetorical theory.
