The 9 characteristics of the sophists in Philosophy (explained)

The Sophists were philosophers focused on teaching the art of oratory and persuasion in the context of Ancient Greece. They considered important the participation of citizens, who were formed, in politics, through parliamentary democracy.

They show different characteristics that distinguish them from previous currents, presenting themselves contrary to the thought of other renowned philosophers such as Socrates. They propose subjectivism, understood as a philosophical position that gives special importance to the subject.

In this article we will talk about the sophists and their characteristics, explaining who they were, at what time they emerged, who were the most recognized and what way of thinking they held.

• Related article: "The 15 Most Important and Famous Greek Philosophers"

Who were the sophists?

The sophists were philosophers and teachers of the teaching of wisdom, who mastered the art of oratory and rhetoric. They emerged in the 5th century BC. C., in classical Greece, specifically in the city of Athens. Despite initially considering themselves intellectual and wise men, their speech was far from being true, they used fallacies, lies, to influence the decision-making of the adversary.

In this way, the bad reputation they had caused the term sophist to be used to refer to manipulative and phony people, with an oratory that moved away from the truth. Likewise, they had different detractors, among which Socrates and later Plato stand out.

We must bear in mind that in this historical period, in Greece, a parliamentary democracy had been established, where laws were accepted through debate among citizens. For this reason, mastering rhetoric was a key point to influence politics and influence others. His speech was persuasive, which is the art of convincing someone about a topic or issue.

Thanks to the skills that the Sophists displayed in discourse, they had a remarkable command of oratory, and This allowed them to teach other people this ability and thus become the first professional philosophers, in the first to charge for transmitting their knowledge.

• You may be interested: "The 8 branches of Philosophy (and its main thinkers)"

Main Characteristics of the Sophists

Thus, the sophists were professionals of rhetoric, whose professional practice consisted in transmitting the art of discourse. Human beings, men living in society and culture were the topics of interest to these philosophers, whose main objective was to achieve success in debate, win and influence the opponent.

There are other remarkable characteristics of the sophists. Let's see what features were noteworthy and defining of them.

1. The use of rhetoric

As we have already mentioned, the most used way by the sophists to transmit their knowledge was the rhetoric, which consists of a set of techniques that allow the subject to express themselves and communicate better. The way of imparting his teaching was unidirectional and closed, that is, only they spoke and their listeners could not interrupt them. In the same way, his speech transmitted a lot of information but in a synthesized way.

• Related article: "The 10 basic communication skills"

2. subjectivist current

The sophists were the first thinkers to posit subjectivism, current that stands out for giving greater importance to the subjects with respect to the objects. In this way, they affirm that there is not a single reality and that knowledge of it depends on each subject, on their experiences, values, beliefs and emotions. In other words, they believed that reality does not exist without the subject, without the intervention of his mind.

• You may be interested: "The 7 differences between objectivism and subjectivism"

3. moral relativism

Related to the previous point, the non-existence of reality without the subject, the same thing happens with the distinction between good and bad. One of the characteristics of the sophists is that for them there is no universal regulation that dictates what is right and what is wrong, but it will depend on each individual, on his values ​​and morals. Thus, there will be different opinions of what is good and bad, all of them being equally valid.

• Related article: "Moral Relativism: Definition and Philosophical Principles"

4. The instrumental purpose of philosophy

We have already seen that the sophists were professional philosophers who were paid to teach their knowledge; understanding philosophy as a way of transmitting the necessary techniques to be a good speaker, a trait that they valued as essential to succeed in politics and manage to influence opponents, which was the purpose of their actions.

5. The purpose of the speech

As we have already advanced, the ultimate purpose of the speech was to convince, regardless of the strategies used or the veracity or meaning of the speech. The sophists taught the technique of persuasion and their students passively assimilated the information, that is, they could not make counterarguments or question the knowledge raised, it was not debated during the lessons.

6. The importance of democracy

The system of parliamentary democracy allowed the sophists to put their skills to use and participate in politics. Citizen intervention in political issues benefited these philosophers whose role was to train citizens in persuasion and debate.

Of course, they believed that only people who were trained and had knowledge of the appropriate strategies could participate in the democratic debate. We see again how this statement relates to its function.

7. The happiness of the individual

Assessing the most characteristic features that we know about the sophists, the need to succeed, to stand out, to be able to defeat their opponents stands out in them... goals linked to being the best.

Thus, it is not surprising that their way of achieving happiness, of being happy, was linked to achieving success, fame, influencing others and being recognized by them.

The purpose is not to present a valid or coherent discourse, which is useful in the field of politics, but to achieve success through the discourse. This is the reason for happiness.

8. Laws can be changed

The defense of democracy proposed by this group of philosophers is related to the affirmation of being able to change the laws. In other words, to be able to apply their knowledge and teaching, to be able to participate in politics, it is It is necessary that this can be modified and is variable and that it is not established permanently throughout the history.

Just as there is no single, true reality, there can be no single, universal policy or law.. For this reason, as society progresses and changes, so must the laws.

9. Study of the individual

Philosophers prior to the sophists had focused especially on studying the nature, creation and origin of the cosmos. Instead, the new thinkers, the sophists, broke with that theme and focused on the study and knowledge of man and society, and of the different related factors, such as politics or education.

sophistical thought

Two are the most outstanding sophists: Gorgias (483-375 a. C.) and Protagoras (485-411 a. C.), who presents some of the most relevant and outstanding ideas of this philosophical current. They believe in the relativism of thought, which, as we have already mentioned, affirms that truth, morality and the distinction between good and bad depend on each individual or society. For them there is no universal truth, for everyone, and as such we cannot establish a correct mode of action for everyone.

Before the idea of ​​a god or several gods they are agnostic; that is, they do not deny its existence but state that they cannot confirm it either. Likewise, they highlight the differences of gods present in each culture or society, thus supporting the idea of ​​the variation of thought, ideas and even beliefs according to the individual and his environment.

Another remarkable feature of the sophists is pragmatism, understood as the performance of a conduct, of an action, in order to obtain one's own benefit, that is, for the interest of oneself. As we already know, they state that what is good and what is bad is relative, and will vary according to the interpretation or assessment made by each individual. In this way, we cannot guide or act according to this distinction, the only reason that should move us is to achieve our goals, our happiness.

His skeptical stance about reality or what is true is also characteristic. Reality, being changing and depending on who discovers or knows it, on the point of view we choose, makes it impossible for us to believe that there is a single absolute truth for everyone. For this reason they are skeptical about the truth, since it will depend on who interprets it, nothing assures us that it cannot be a lie if we value another perspective.

We thus see a clear difference with another school of thought that will emerge later, objectivism, which believes in a single reality, true and universal for all subjects.