Monday, 4/18
Choose ONE to answer. Support your answer with analysis. Write at least 1 paragraph please.
1. Were the Sophists wrong to teach Greeks how to use speaking skills to achieve success? Should philosophy be used only for higher things, or are practical uses appropriate as well?
2. Plato hated the Sophists. How might the relativism they introduced have contributed to the decline in society that led to the execution of Socrates (Plato's theory)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
FIRST!
1) I don't think it was necessarily wrong of them to teach Greeks how to use speaking skills to achieve success, but I think the way they did it was wrong. When the Sophists were teaching others, it was almost manipulative. Philosophy can be used in any situation, whether it's for higher level thinking or practical everyday questions. Philosophy is meant to allow people to question each other, so they can figure out what their own personal beliefs are at any time.
1. I don't think the Sophists were wrong in teaching the Greeks how to use speaking skills in order to achieve success. In fact, I think that speaking, and communication skills are the most important attributes a successful person can have. Being able to speak well allows a person to clearly express their beliefs, opinions, and philosophies. Some world leaders were only successful because of their speaking skills, take HItler for example; he was charismatic, and could manipulate his words to make people believe in his theory. Having good speaking skills makes a person more credible, and helps build their ethos. The Greeks were right in wanting to learn to use speaking skills, and there is no reason that the Sophists had to believe that helping the Greeks was wrong.
I think that the Sophists, based on what I’ve learned, were wrong to teach their practice of rhetoric to the Greeks. I think the Socratic method of dialectic was much more genuine in striving for higher knowledge through questioning then the Sophist method. Saying that, I don’t think the art of rhetoric is still necessarily a bad thing. I would respect it as a form of communication, and often a necessary tool to relaying ideas. I think that the intentions of the Sophists were wrong. It seems, from what I’ve learned, that money motivates then much more then understanding and wisdom does. Yes, philosophy can be used for practical uses but it depends on the intention of the philosopher, in my opinion.
I think that it was a good idea for the Sophists to teach the Greeks about speaking skills. Speaking skills are vital to communicate ideas. This is very relevant today. Scientists can't only be good at science and proving theories, but they have to be able to get their ideas and findings across to other people and scientists. Philosophy is a very important thing. It has not only higher purposes, but practical purposes as well. Teaching the Greeks good speaking skills was their way of helping them further develop as philosophers, and as a society as well.
I think that the Sophists helped society in becoming smarter, but they did it for wrong reasons. Like money, and the people who wanted to learn was for there own personal benefit. Philosophy is supposed to be about making and answering questions, coming to a real truth. Not just being able persuade someone that your being truthful. Getting to a real truth helps human kind progress as a whole.
The Sophists were not philosophers. Their usage of language to persuade and gain advantage was a great skill, yet it was not philosophy, nor should it be recognized as such. Thus, it was not wrong for them to teach their skills in exchange for power and currency, yet it was a travesty to claim to be on the same level as Socrates. Philosophy can be used for practical purposes, however, do not misinterpret the meaning of the word. Though scientists were originally philosophers as well, the paths have diverged. As a philosopher you seek the truth, you are not expelling your skills for money and then discrediting the name of philosophers.
Sophists are equivalent to modern day lawyers. By teaching the Greeks to bend the truth for personal success, it led to misuse and abuse for those who understood words’ power. Philosophy should be left to deal with higher order thought, not for personal gain. It’s fine to be used for everyday commonalities so long as the commonality is peace of mind. Although it is fun to ridicule an opposing point, especially when you’re wrong and know it, but philosophy shouldn’t be used for being a tool, only as a tool for improvement of self.
The Sophists were not in the wrong. Teaching speaking skills would help out the community. Philosophy can be used for everyday things. It does not have to be used for some other higher purpose. Not to say that it cant be used for that but i can also be used for other things. The way i view it philosophy helps us make practical decisions in our everyday life.
1) I think everyone has a right to know how to speak for themselves and defend their beliefs. It isn't in our control to keep the skill of persuasive speech only for people whom we think deserve the knowledge. The concept of philosophy is suppose to be flexible and worldly. It starts at the basis; acknowledging the definition or the form of a tree, or telling the difference between a dog and a cat. It becomes more complicated, but you grasp the general idea.
1. Were the Sophists wrong to teach Greeks how to use speaking skills to achieve success? Should philosophy be used only for higher things, or are practical uses appropriate as well?
The Sophists were only as wrong as one can be for using one's skill to make a living, which, I would argue, is not very. The argument that they degraded philosophy and critical thinking with their preaching of relativism and selling of their skills as speakers isn't without merit but I would say that, as philosophy is unarguably a subjective field, this was just their take on it, which must be as good as any other. On the topic of philosophy as only for the "higher things," I would argue that it unnecessarily narrows the scope philosophy has. If it has practical application outside of the "higher things" there's no reason that potential should go untapped but for ridiculous elitism.
The Sophists were not doing the wrong thing by teaching the Greeks to use speaking skills. Political debates flow better and have better discussions when the debaters know speaking and arguing techniques. Philosophy is not just for higher things, it also has practical uses. Discussing philosophy can be used in political and social debates to compare theories and promote discussion. By having an advanced grasp of speaking skills, people can reach a higher level of understanding on basic principles as well as become open to new and different ideas. The Sophists ideas to teach public speaking skills to the wealthy class and politicians in Greece was beneficial for stimulating the political climate and policies. When used correctly to promote discussion, speaking skills can be beneficial. However, limiting these skills to just the affluent groups in society prevents the smaller and under-represented groups from representing their views.
Prompt 1:
The Sophists had every right to teach to art of persuasion to achieve success. It doesn't really constitute as higher learning nor does it help us find ultimate truth in the universe but persuasion and speaking skills have huge benefits both then and today. In today's world persuasion plays a vital role in political campaigns, advertising, and even everyday conversations. I would say persuasion has more practical uses in todays society than Socrates' dialectic and the search for reality. Philosophy is most useful when it can be applied to our real lives. Questioning reality doesn't serve as much of a purpose in my life as using persuasion to achieve success, and I can only assume the Sophists felt the same way.
I think speaking skills are important but they could be used negatively and for personal gain. For example a politician convincing the public that he supports their needs when he actually has personal motives that go against the public.
I think philosophy is a way for people to think outside the box instead of accepting what they see. Philosophy would be very useful to come up with inventions and think of new ways to go about doing everyday things.
According to relativism, points of view have no absolute truth because they have only subjective value due to differences in perception and consideration. The Sophists, who specialized in rhetoric for the purpose of teaching virtue, scared Socrates. The Sophists, who believed in relativism, probably had Socrates put to death because of his creation of the "Socratic Method". His student, Plato, created the theory of forms, which if it is true, proves, relativism wrong.
The Sophists were like any other business people: they exploited their skills for profit. Such business was frowned upon by philosophers like Socrates and Plato because they believed that the Sophists gave power to the weaker or false argument. I disagree with the two philosophers. Philosophy should not be reserved for just professionals or for unraveling complex issues. It should be applicable to everyday life. If philosophy is too far away from common people and doesn't have a place in ordinary life, then conclusions drawn through philosophizing will be harder to accept. There is no loss in learning how to speak powerfully and persuade successfully.
I do not believe the sophists were wrong to teach greeks how to use speaking skills to achieve success. What ever the greeks did with these speaking skills the sophists did this act for the better interests of the greek people. I believe philosophy has all kinds of uses and would be appropriate for regular use as well. Philosophy helps to make people creative and if it is used for higher use only only the high use would be creative and that is wrong.
1. Were the Sophists wrong to teach Greeks how to use speaking skills to achieve success? Should philosophy be used only for higher things, or are practical uses appropriate as well?
The Sophists filled a need in society generated by the political setup which required persuasion. Their teaching of persuasive rhetoric merely taught politicians an advantage that some had through natural skill anyway. I think that the Sophists were less philosophers: they were more like today’s political strategists who coach politicians on how to pitch an idea. It isn’t necessarily wrong to promote your ideas or to be paid promoting ideas that aren’t, in your opinion, correct. It’s simply not philosophy. The Sophists were philosophers only to the extent that they shared in a particular philosophy of moral relativism; their activities that helped to advance political goals are a professional result of their philosophy more akin to political strategy.
1) That bring up a good question, is it wrong to profit from a skill when it isn’t through original purpose? Initially I want to say yes. The sophists were prostituting themselves for personal gain and ignoring the search for knowledge that defines philosophy. But then look at society today, being a prospective college student I will eventually need to declare a major. From there I’ll need to take advantage of the skills I’ve picked up so I can make money. There’s nothing surprising about this, we just accept it as a reality of life. Now say I wanted to major in philosophy and I applied those skills in a job. That is exactly what the sophists did. I think that while philosophy should be enlightening there is no reason not to apply that enlightenment to real world practices, in fact it would be a waste not to. The difference between that and what the sophists were doing is they used their skills to manipulate instead of a lens to guide by.
I don't think that the application of philosophical concepts towards persuasion can really be labeled as right or wrong. Opponents of the Sophists accused them of being manipulative but all persuasion is manipulation on a certain level, so you can't really say they were right or wrong to teach their methods. Philosophy purists might disagree but the practice is overall morally ambiguous in my opinion.
In my opinion, the sophists were morally wrong to only use their skills for profit instead of trying to forward the world. Although they believed that there is no objective truth or morality, that does not mean that there are not subjective truths and morals. Everyone has their own sets of ideas on what is true and moral, but it seems odd that the sophists seem to not even have subjective views of morality. They seem to be only driven by profits, selling their skills to the highest bidders no matter what the person is trying to do or stands for. Their philosophy seems to be created just so they can justified their amoral profit-making. I don’t think anything could be more practical than philosophy. What could possibly more important than figuring out why things are the way they are, how they came to be that way, and what the point of everything is? Some people might say that it is a waste of time, but I see Philosophy as a way to figure out what is a waste of time.
1. I don't believe that the Sophists were wrong for doing what they did, but to call it philosophy is simply wrong. While rhetoric is important, all they did was provide a service, demanding payment in return for "philosophy." When there is that type of financial incentive, people do whatever they have to. Philosophy in my opinion represents something sacred and reserved for people to learn more about the world that we live in and what it means to live in that world; that is not the driving force behind the Sophists' work.
1. It was not wrong to teach them how to use their speaking skills, but they used it for the wrong reason. They were just doing it for personal gain, not to teach others. Philosophy should be used everywhere to find a moral balance in political views and every day thinking. It's not for gain of money or status.
1. Well, I wouldn't really call speaking skills a philosophy, really. There are speaking coaches, something you can see in a lot of people; it's a practice of presidents to get coaching in body language and speaking. Watch closely enough, and people tell weird stories with their body, tell of lies, and tell of feeling not evident in the way they are speaking. I wouldn't call that philosophy.
Seems to me that the Sophists were of a type of freelance educator collective; they had their philosophy, they had their own ideas and so on and so on, but they are essentially just people teaching other people for money. Teachers. These practices follow their philosophy, though. They go about teaching items that, well, they are payed for, and it's perfectly reasonable. Philosophy should be used on anything the philosopher wants it to, his decision to think about things. The idea of philosophy isn't some higher idea of order that can't be used on the dirty trivialities of our lives.
Post a Comment