The sophists (wise men) were teachers who, for a price, lent their wisdom to the new, affluent classes of Athens in a time of higher learning, culture, and social mobility. As the Athenians opened up to foreign cultures, new professions and new classes emerged. Athens became a melting pot of cultures and ideas. In this Athens, education — rather than noble birth or blood rights — was viewed as a means to social mobility. The modern view of these men has them penned as masters of rhetoric; they were indeed teachers and practitioners of this art, but their interests and teachings varied widely. One could say the sophists brought philosophy back down to earth, though they still developed on the methods and ideas of the pre-Socratics. Figures such as Plato and Aristotle, however, held that they weren’t philosophers at all! They were also reviled by the population at large, but especially the upper classes.

Table of Contents

The Origins of the Sophists

Politically, culturally, and socially, the city of Athens was quite chauvinistic around the time of Socrates. Citizenship, for instance, was only for males from certain select families. Many residents were simply slaves. This oligarchy, however, would be challenged as the city opened up to the world. The Athenians viewed themselves as superior to the barbarian foreigners immigrating to their city, and this view would become harder to hold with time. Social mobility was restricted for these immigrants, but those special individuals with business savvy, charisma, and work ethic were able to rise. This new middle class created a new set of values, and alongside increasing wealth and cultural sophistication, brought demand for higher education.

The sophists fulfilled this demand. Their function could be seen as succeeding that of the Athenian rhapsode, who performed prominent Greek poems — especially those of Homer. It comprised new fields as well, in line with the new professions emerging — letters, rhetoric, science, statesmanship, philosophy, and so on. The core of the syllabus was rhetoric. As Athens was a democracy (not as we would know one, still), the ability to persuade the crowds was essential to political success. Furthermore, as seen in the trial of Socrates, rhetoric was essential in defending yourself against lawsuits.

The sophists were viewed quite dimly by Athens at large. Part of the reason Socrates was sentenced to death was because he was seen as a sophist himself; even though he charged no fees, and famously professed that ‘All I know is that I know nothing’. The upper classes especially hated them. Part of this was plain old elitism, since educating the immigrants and other lower classes generated competition to their stature. The sophists also attracted young men of these upper classes away from their families, as the first sophist Protagoras himself points out:

For when one goes as a stranger into great cities, and there tries to persuade the best of the young men to drop their other connexions, either with their own folk or with foreigners, both old and young, and to join one’s own circle, with the promise of improving them by this connexion with oneself, such a proceeding requires great caution; since very considerable jealousies are apt to ensue, and numerous enmities and intrigues. Now I tell you that sophistry is an ancient art, and those men of ancient times who practised it, fearing the odium it involved, disguised it in a decent dress… (Protagoras, 316c-e)

Relativism

A human being is the measure of all things, of those things that are, that they are, and of those things that are not, that they are not (DK, 80B1).

The greatest, and first, of the sophists was Protagoras of Abdera. Plato was generally hostile to the sophists, but he depicted Protagoras in a namesake work quite favorably. He was a well-traveled man, and over the course of encountering many cultures, was left wondering which culture was ‘right’. So many cultures lived so differently to each other, and yet each believed their ways were correct and the others were simply barbarians. Is there even a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in matters of culture?

This was also part of a broader philosophical concern at the time: are moral and other social concerns matters of nomos (convention), or are they matters of physis (nature). Are there absolutes in social mores, such that we can judge them objectively like nature? Or can we only compare different cultures and their different mores, like convention? Are there any absolutes in matters such as these?

This is an important question because nature, at the time, was seen as an authority on most matters. We can not see or talk to the gods, and thus we can not consult them frequently on what is best and worst. The same is not true of nature. We still believe to an extent that what is ’natural’ is what is best. Therefore, if morality is natural and not a matter of convention, then we ought to follow it; otherwise, while we can still follow it, no one is obligated to do so (for the Greeks, at least).

For Protagoras, the answer was a conservative no. He proclaimed that ‘man is the measure of all things’, a view espousing relativism. Morals, ethics, and all sorts of other things are simply different amongst different cultures — matters of convention, not nature — and no one is right or wrong on such issues. This holds true at even the lowest levels of human experience, as Plato explains:

Is it not true that sometimes, when the same wind blows, one of us feels cold and the other does not? Or one feels slightly, and the other exceedingly, cold? […] Then, in that case, shall we say that the wind is in itself cold or not cold; or shall we accept Protagoras’ saying that it is cold for him who feels cold, [and] not for him who does not? (Theat, 40-41)

So how then are we supposed to judge these things, if we can’t classify them as wrong or right? In this regards, Protagoras was a pragmatist, in the sense that we should judge these beliefs on how well they work and produce practical results. We ought to follow the beliefs of our cultures, use them, but not allow ourselves to be used by them; understanding that they aren’t absolutes will help in creating such an attitude.

One of the ironies of Protagoras is captured in an anecdote about his death: Protagoras was at the house of a conservative friend of his, when the topic turned to religion. If you’ve understood Protagoras, then you would predict he’d just repeat the prevailing Athenian view of religion at the time — it would certainly be the pragmatic relativist thing to do. However, he was notably an agnostic, as shown in this quote of his:

Concerning the gods, I am not in a position to know either that [or how] they are or that [or how] they are not, or what they are like in appearance; for there are many things that prevent knowledge: the obscurity of the matter, and the brevity of human life (DK, 80B4)

The story goes that his friend took such offense to his views that he had him indicted in the courts for impiety. His works were burnt, and he was to either be executed or exiled; he chose the latter option, but drowned at sea.

Moral Realism

Callicles was not a sophist, and even held disdain towards sophists. Nevertheless, he draws heavily upon sophist thought and is thus included in discussions of the subject. If he was a sophist, he would easily be the most influential one.

In a debate with Socrates, as written by Plato, Socrates argues that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice. To Callicles, however, Socrates argument presumes too much of a definition of justice. In fact, Callicles argues, justice is the exact opposite of how Socrates perceives it. Justice is used by the many to chain the few, superior individuals; a sort of slave morality, as Nietzche would say. In nature, we find man and animal unchained by this justice in his natural and better, more desirable form. He lays out his views in two passages:

For to suffer wrong is not the part of a man at all, but that of a slave for whom it is better to be dead than alive, as it is for anyone who is unable to come either to his own assistance when he is wronged or mistreated or to that of anyone he cares about. I can quite imagine that the manufacturers of laws and conventions are the weak, the majority, in fact. It is for themselves and their own advantage that they make their laws and distribute their praises and their censures. It is to frighten men who are stronger than they and able to enforce superiority that they keep declaring, to prevent aggrandizement, that this is ugly and unjust, that injustice consists in seeking to get the better of one’s neighbor. They are quite content, I suppose, to be on equal terms with others since they are themselves inferior.

This, then, is the reason why convention declares that it is unjust and ugly to seek to get the better of the majority. But my opinion is that nature herself reveals it to be only just and proper that the better man should lord it over his inferior: It will be the stronger over the weaker. Nature, further, makes it quite clear in a great many instances that this is the true state of affairs, not only in the other animals, but also in whole states and communities. This is, in fact, how justice is determined: The stronger shall rule and have the advantage over his inferior …

Now, my dear friend, take my advice: Stop your [philosophy], take up the Fine Art of Business, and cultivate something that will give you a reputation for good sense. Leave all these over-subtleties to someone else. Should one call them frivolities or just plain nonsense? They’ll only land you in a house where you’ll be the only visitor! You must emulate, not those whose very refutations are paltry, but men of substance and high repute and everything else that is good