|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 1:04 am
Thoughts and ideas?
Sophism claims to derive some wisdom from its thought process and use rhetoric to demonstrate a truth / idea. Though if the purpose is first thought of, does this make the proof bias? Is employing wisdom for something that will harm really wisdom?
More modern point of view: Ancient Lawyers?
Please add any comment, I am fairly new to the idea.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:48 am
lizzy033 Thoughts and ideas?
Do you really believe that out of a fallacy something true can arise? Is this any way of making a good base for an argument?
Because apperantly some Greeks did it.
Please add any comment, I am fairly new to the idea. Well, but "sophistry" way back then didn't mean the heavy use of confusing, fallacious, illogical, or insincere arguments to deceive. A "sophist" was someone who dispensed "sophia," or wisdom, and used rhetoric to persuade people to his way of thinking. The sophists, someone of them, taught their rhetorical skills, often for a fee and it was this taking of money that got them a bad name. In the time of Socrates, Plato and Arostotle (I know that covers a good 100 years or more) the Sophists were the Athenian equivalent of ... I don't know, maybe Deepak Chopra or one of the guys we have now who do TV infomercials promising to teach you how to make millions or improve your life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In media res Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 1:19 pm
Remember, Socrates was not a sophist. To be a sophist one had to be payed to teach the art of rhetoric. Socrates frowned on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:52 pm
DeeFarnham lizzy033 Thoughts and ideas?
Do you really believe that out of a fallacy something true can arise? Is this any way of making a good base for an argument?
Because apperantly some Greeks did it.
Please add any comment, I am fairly new to the idea. Well, but "sophistry" way back then didn't mean the heavy use of confusing, fallacious, illogical, or insincere arguments to deceive. A "sophist" was someone who dispensed "sophia," or wisdom, and used rhetoric to persuade people to his way of thinking. The sophists, someone of them, taught their rhetorical skills, often for a fee and it was this taking of money that got them a bad name. In the time of Socrates, Plato and Arostotle (I know that covers a good 100 years or more) the Sophists were the Athenian equivalent of ... I don't know, maybe Deepak Chopra or one of the guys we have now who do TV infomercials promising to teach you how to make millions or improve your life. ...grr, I do believe your right...thanks.
I guess I will change the question a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 1:44 am
Much of what we know about the Sophist comes from writings by their opponents. That being said:
The Sophist only claimed wisdom, and demanded fees to teach how to be wise. In Truth, the Sophist were Not concerned with the Truth of a preposition, but only with making a judge (or audience) perceive it as a truth.
Appeals to Emotion, Intellectual dishonesty, and Mental Masturbation are not uncommon traits to a Sophist's argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:25 am
Rookherst[KOS] Much of what we know about the Sophist comes from writings by their opponents. That being said: The Sophist only claimed wisdom, and demanded fees to teach how to be wise. In Truth, the Sophist were Not concerned with the Truth of a preposition, but only with making a judge (or audience) perceive it as a truth. Appeals to Emotion, Intellectual dishonesty, and Mental Masturbation are not uncommon traits to a Sophist's argument. That's as may be, but it always seems to me that the principal objection was that they charged their pupils a fee. Making money had a faint odor of disreputableness even back in ancient times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 10:32 pm
DeeFarnham That's as may be, but it always seems to me that the principal objection was that they charged their pupils a fee. Making money had a faint odor of disreputableness even back in ancient times. That may have been the principle objection, but surly we can't cant let them slide on their other offences simply because Socrates and Plato did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:47 pm
Making the lesser cause appear the greater!
That's what Sokrates was accused of.
And sophists in general, though it is true Sokrates did not charge money to teach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:32 am
Socrates was just a philosopher.He didn't write anything at all, but he uncovered knowledge that anyone had in his mind, but he didn't know by regular speeches, answers and questions. I think Gorgias, from Syracousai first introduced and developed sophisty in Athens. He was the greatest rhetor...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![Rookherst[KOS]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/1c/32/2b1f6af436321c_flip.png?t=1193918574_6.00_11)
