/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13153308]

Were/are the Sophists right?

[Anonymous No.13153322]

>>13153308
no, they were left

[Anonymous No.13153425]

About what? Method? Doctrine? What the fuck are you asking?

[Anonymous No.13153495]

>WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF JUSTICE HAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAHHHHHHHHH TELL ME HAAAAHHHHH YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT RETARD, THIS FAGGOT DOES NOT KNOW WHAT JUSTICE IS HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.13153575]

Weren’t they all different philosophers with the rethoric teachings of sophism just being a common thing among them?
If I am a brainlet and they did have one single philosophy around sophism (which I thought was just art of mastering speech) where can I read about it from the perspective of one of them?

[卐 No.13153684]

>>13153308
According to the dialogue called The Sophist, ahem, a Sophist is an imitator. He imitates being smart for financial gain. He doesn’t know this, because he has to trick himself into believing what he thinks he knows. Which is why/how philosophy started. Socrates goes around asking these sophists questions, and by drawing out their answers he’s able to point out their inconsistencies, and what’s more, how oblivious they are to their own incoherence. What’s ironic is that Socrates is the only one not getting money from this. Maybe that’s why the oracle of delphi said he was the wisest man of Athens. The sophists literally corroded the infrastructure of Athens by making everyone corrupt and after their own gain, this led up to the 30 tyrants taking power and the fall of Athens. This is what Socrates was trying to fight against. If people read Plato they would understand the Philosophy is literally the heritage of men and women who were unwilling to let their communities get corrupted by fraudulent powers. The sophists were wrong then as they are now. The Statesman, the other dialogue, talks about the nature of a king, very interesting. Both of these dialogues have one thing in common, they are told by the Eleatic stranger. Elea is, as the perceptive reader would know, the place of Parmenides. These dialogues are magical because they are the only explanatory demonstration of “the dialectic” at work. The eleatic stranger is treated as if he were a god. The Statesman is interesting because it shows how a king’s work is unlike any other work, and yet rests on knowledge of kingship. Again, a nod to true knowledge as the bond to a successful reign. The Sophist is a false adviser, who would/does lead Statesmen/King’s to their ruin by advising on false knowledge. The King is dependent on knowledge, and who else is interesting in correct knowledge? The philosopher. A lesson we have yet to learn/appreciate. Hence why the oracle said Socrates was the wisest. Second wisest was Lycurgus, the king of Sparta, who had created the first legitimate communist state. Notice that tho, first was a Philosopher, second was a King/Statesmen. The sophists literally destroyed their own cities and ruined themselves by their stupidity. No, the sophists were/are wrong.

[卐 No.13153697]

According to the dialogue called The Sophist, a Sophist is an imitator. He imitates being smart for financial gain. He doesn’t know this, because he has to trick himself into believing what he thinks he knows. Which is why/how philosophy started. Socrates goes around asking these sophists questions, and by drawing out their answers he’s able to point out their inconsistencies, and what’s more, how oblivious they are to their own incoherence. What’s ironic is that Socrates is the only one not getting money from this. Maybe that’s why the oracle of delphi said he was the wisest man of Athens. The sophists literally corroded the infrastructure of Athens by making everyone corrupt and live solely after their own gain, this led up to the 30 tyrants taking power and the fall of Athens. This is what Socrates was trying to fight against. If people read Plato they would understand that Philosophy is literally the heritage of men and women who were unwilling to let their communities get corrupted by fraudulent powers. The sophists were wrong then as they are now. The Statesman, the other dialogue, talks about the nature of a king, very interesting. Both of these dialogues have one thing in common, they are told by the Eleatic stranger. Elea is, as the perceptive reader would know, I’d the place of Parmenides. These dialogues are magical because they are the only explanatory demonstration of “the dialectic” at work. The eleatic stranger is treated as if he were a god. The Statesman is interesting because it shows how a king’s work is unlike any other work in that it rests on accurate knowledge of kingship. Again, a nod to true knowledge as the bond to a successful reign. The Sophist is a false adviser, who would/does lead Statesmen/King’s to their ruin by advising with false knowledge. The King is dependent on knowledge, and who is interested in accurate knowledge? The philosopher. A lesson we have yet to learn/appreciate. Hence why the oracle said Socrates was the wisest. Second wisest was Lycurgus, the king of Sparta, who had created the first legitimate communist state. Notice that tho, first was a Philosopher, second was a King/Statesmen. The sophists literally destroyed their own cities and ruined themselves by their stupidity. No, the sophists were/are wrong.

[Anonymous No.13153700]

>>13153308
>Were/are the Sophists right?
>Were/are the Sophists
>Were are the Sophists?

[Anonymous No.13153825]

>>13153697
Are modern jude the ultimate sophists, or is there another level higher than them?

[Anonymous No.13153833]

>>13153825
Modern academics are sophists.

[Anonymous No.13154006]

Glaukon was for sure more right than Sokrates on the definition of justice.

[Anonymous No.13154011]

We are the Sophists, right?