The fundamental rivalry between Socrates and the sophists could be summarized as a testimony of faith. While the first thought that there are moral criteria on which to make a foundation, the latter were quite the opposite since they maintain their positions based on skepticism and is posited as the moral terrorists willing to undermine traditional values.
Both were the result of the time. An era in which people were unanswered after feeling dissatisfied with the first naturalistic philosophy that had fallen into a dead end, with traditional religious beliefs and, as Thucydides says, with great moral crisis resulting from war, fever, and the warring factions of power. Parallels that illustrate some of the ways couples have been both the example we can see that to some extent they shared the teaching of virtue or "arete" or that they were also looking teaching and learning primarily through spoken dialogue, in the case of Socrates was a famous Mayeutica.
One of the most relevant reports of the Sophists was for the social contract (a sort of precedent that centuries later would speak Rousseau). His tendencies were focused on the idea that there is a weak majority to fend off has created a strong set of laws for their own interest and therefore did not come from the gods. Protagoras and Callicles are good representatives of this position. Antiphon points out as the supreme principle of "life" and designated as irrelevant so far against him.
With everything mentioned above we have implicitly a reversal of traditional concepts of good and bad. While Socrates was worse to do injustice to suffer, now we have a group of people who say that it is logical that the strongest prevail by whatever means necessary.
In addition to unseat the gods as the foundation of justice, legal advocated that did not have to agree with the right (this position clearly influenced by his anthropological observations of other cultures), and that right and wrong have no objective existence. The last sentence especially want to stay.
Protagoras said the man as the measure of all things, so that an object can be cold for one to another can be hot and, as quoted above, this means that there is no external objective reality. Transferred this to the moral (as did Archelaus) we have no objective existence of justice. At this point it is easy to deduce that if there is no justice, then there is the objectively right and wrong. This leaves the door open to many things. If there is no objective morality, everything is permitted.
Both were the result of the time. An era in which people were unanswered after feeling dissatisfied with the first naturalistic philosophy that had fallen into a dead end, with traditional religious beliefs and, as Thucydides says, with great moral crisis resulting from war, fever, and the warring factions of power. Parallels that illustrate some of the ways couples have been both the example we can see that to some extent they shared the teaching of virtue or "arete" or that they were also looking teaching and learning primarily through spoken dialogue, in the case of Socrates was a famous Mayeutica.
One of the most relevant reports of the Sophists was for the social contract (a sort of precedent that centuries later would speak Rousseau). His tendencies were focused on the idea that there is a weak majority to fend off has created a strong set of laws for their own interest and therefore did not come from the gods. Protagoras and Callicles are good representatives of this position. Antiphon points out as the supreme principle of "life" and designated as irrelevant so far against him.
With everything mentioned above we have implicitly a reversal of traditional concepts of good and bad. While Socrates was worse to do injustice to suffer, now we have a group of people who say that it is logical that the strongest prevail by whatever means necessary.
In addition to unseat the gods as the foundation of justice, legal advocated that did not have to agree with the right (this position clearly influenced by his anthropological observations of other cultures), and that right and wrong have no objective existence. The last sentence especially want to stay.
Protagoras said the man as the measure of all things, so that an object can be cold for one to another can be hot and, as quoted above, this means that there is no external objective reality. Transferred this to the moral (as did Archelaus) we have no objective existence of justice. At this point it is easy to deduce that if there is no justice, then there is the objectively right and wrong. This leaves the door open to many things. If there is no objective morality, everything is permitted.
This entry was published on
08 September 2009
and is archived under the sections
Sophists
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
comments feed
Posts
