The Nature of Sophism and its Effects - Admission/Application Essay Example

Sophism Sophism is a term that has different meaning from the traditional and the modern times. In ancient Greece, it refers to a practice that was undertaken by sophists, who were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric (Aristotle and Stephen, 21). In modern day, this term refers to a confusing argument, which is normally incorrect that is used to deceive an individual (). This term was applied in ancient Greece to refer to someone who is wise or an individual who makes a business out of his wisdom. This has changed over time to refer to an act of deceiving someone in debt or in a conversation, where one uses difficult and complex terms and statements to intimidate his audience in to agreeing with his argument (Plutarch, 29). The intention of using sophism in modern day is wrong. In ancient Greece, sophism was applied to teach young statesmen and the nobility the art of excellence and virtue. This was actually an art of charging money for education and predominantly providing education to those who can manage to pay for it. Sophists applied their knowledge and wisdom in a deceptive way to teach the rich members of the ancient Greece society, in return for acquiring money from them. Therefore, sophism as a system of education was only accessible by the ancient political elite and the nobility, excluding all the other members of the society, in that money was the basis of attaining this wisdom. This is the reason as to why the term is applied in modern day to refer to the art of deception or luring one to an agreement through intimidation of terms and complex words. Sophism compares with the traditional aristocratic training in many ways. Both systems of education entailed the provision of education to the statesmen, nobility, and the highly ranked members of the society. Both systems of education entailed the offer of education to those who were highly ranked members of the society, in return for money and fame (Aristotle and Stephen, 34). Thus, both systems of education involved the support of the nobility to continue their dominance and rule over the peasants and the slaves, as well as the middle level cadres of the society. A great comparison between sophism and traditional aristocratic training is in the subject and content of the education they gave to their students. Their education entailed teaching the art of reading and writing, and more especially rhetoric, virtues and excellence. This was meant to enhance the ability of the nobility and political elite class to influence the rest of the citizenry in meetings and gathering through the use of rhetoric. Both systems of education entailed the disbursement of practical know-how and the prudence in the application of poetic ability and knowledge to influence the people in public affairs issues (Plutarch, 81). The reasoning behind these two systems of education was to enhance the perspective of the nobility and the statesmen as wise men in the society, whose viewpoints and opinions regarding the public affairs were excellent and unquestionable. There were major themes and subjects that were taught by sophism system of education. One of the subjects that sophists taught was rhetoric, language, and reality (Plato and Crito, 116). Sophism put a great emphasis on language use and communication, as a tool of influence. The role of speech and poetry in communication for influence was the subject matter of sophism, to enhance the application of persuasion in making the political subjects and the citizenry conform to the desires of the nobility and the statesmen. This system emphasized on the application of a language in a complex manner that would make it difficult to distinguish between opinions and reality in any speech given. The rhetorical techniques taught by the system were very useful to any nobility or statesmen seeking public office, since it enhanced their communication and influence of the citizenry through the perception of the politician as a wise man. Another subject taught by the sophism education system was basic moral, virtues and excellence. This greatly emphasized on the need for the nobility and the statesmen to be people of high moral character. This was meant to match their language application portraying them as wise men with their personal and moral character. This way, it would become very easy for them to persuade, convince, and influence the subjects and the citizenry (Aristotle and Stephen, 52). Education was an essential element of ones identity in the ancient society, in that it created a disparity between the rich nobility and political elite’s class from the middle, the peasants, and the slaves. Nature and convention is yet another subject that was taught by the sophism system of education. The distinction between nature, custom, and laws was emphasized by the education system. This subject handled the nature of origin and the principles of change (Plutarch, 77). The subject also involved teaching the application of human laws and custom in the process of leadership. This served to prepare the nobility and the political elites to subject the citizenry to their laws and opinions, through integrating them with the people’s customs. The distinction between the notion of justice and injustice was taught under this subject. The subject underlined the possibility of applying justice to ones advantage, by applying the laws when it is possibly inevitable but disregarding them on the event than a person can do away with it (Thucydides, 48). The essence of the subject was to emphasize on the notion that the strong should prevail over the weak. This subject was meant to match the provisions of the application of language to influence others, so that both would promote the desire of having more than others in the nobility and the political elites, something that would effectively enhance the domination of these high class of society over the others (Plato, 195). The subjects emphasized the use of complex arguments and the art of deception to persuade and convince other to conform to the opinions and the ways of thinking of a particular individual. This way, it would be easier to exercise authority over others without much resistance. The relative loss of power by the aristocrats after Cleisthenes led them to take up sophism in that they had the desire to continue their domination over the other social classes who were below them in societal ranking. This way, they indentified sophism as a platform they would use, since the sophism created a good platform for dominance of the higher classes of society over the lower cadres, through acquisition of education only to those who could afford to pay for it (Aristotle and Stephen, 76). The subjects taught changed the view of the aristocrats in customs, nature, and religion. Since this system applied these elements as the basis of dominance by the nobility over the subjects and the citizenry. The aristocrats learnt that religion and customs could effectively be integrated into the laws and opinions, and serve as a tool for them to continue exercising their authority and rules over the other classes of the society. The reaction of peasants to sophism was hostile and unfriendly. The fact that the sophists offered their education to others for fees meant that the peasants could not access this education. The education was then left as a preserve for the nobility and the political elites. This way, the peasants perceived sophism as a system meant to support their subjection to authority and rule by the nobility and the political class, and as such they resented it (Plato and Crito, 178). Since the skills obtained from sophism were highly regarded in society at those times, the practitioners often charged very high fees. Consequently, the sophists garnered allot of wealth and became popular, a fact that served to make the peasants perceive them as oppressors and thus resent them greatly. The peasants thus highly resented the ideas associated with sophism and the writings they applied. A further point of contention that made the peasants resent the sophism system was the fact that the sophists questioned the existence and the role of the traditional deities. This, to the peasants was intolerable. The sophists also engaged into the practice of investigating the nature of heaven and earth. This made the peasants observe that the sophists were in to challenge their religious beliefs regarding the deities, the heaven, and earth. This further served to create a resentment of the peasants against the sophist, their ideas, and writings (Aristotle and Stephen, 80). Additionally, some of the followers of the sophism system attacked Socrates on his system of providing education. This served to strain further the relationship between the peasants and the sophists, since the peasants perceived the Socrates as their allies, in that he engaged in education provision without a call for pay. This was most convenient to the peasants. Thus, the attack of Socrates by the followers of the sophists made the peasants further resent the sophists, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist. Thus, the reaction of peasants to sophism was that of resentment and hostility, in that to the peasants, sophism was perceived as a system against them, meant for the benefit of the nobility and the political class. Even though there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist, there were comparative differences between him and the other sophists. Socrates accepted no fees, and he had no oppositional attitude towards the sophists (Thucydides, 69). Therefore, the only difference in practice between Socrates and the sophists was in the practice of charging fees for the educational services. Thus, Socrates can be effectively referred to as a sophist, in that he professed that sophists were better educators than he was, and went ahead to send one of his students to be taught by the sophists (Plutarch, 57). His admiration for the sophists was open. Therefore, Socrates can be effectively identified as a sophist. Sophism affected Athenian religion and decision making in various ways. Since the Athenians believed very much in Omens and Oracles, as they were interpreted as a message from gods due to their unnatural features, they feared the unknown. However, sophism affected this in that through the attainment of educational insights through the subjects of nature and conventions, and owing to the fact that sophists questioned the traditional deities, heaven and earth, the fear was eliminated (Aristotle and Stephen, 89). Thus, the religious practices and decision making by the Athenians, which was based on irrationality, was challenged by sophism. The sophists proved that the Omens and Oracles were not reliable. Thus, the sophists changed the religious decision making of the Athenians to have it include logical thinking and reasoning, as opposed to listening to what the oracles tell them. Works Cited Aristotle and Stephen, Everson. The Politics and the Constitution of Athens: Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Oxford, 1996. 15-96. Print. Plato. The Last Days of Socrates: Apology. Penguin classics, 1993. 1-272. Print. Plato, Crito. The Last Days of Socrates. Penguin classics, 1993. 1-272. Print. Plutarch, Alcibiades. The Rise and fall of Athens: Nine Greek Lives. Penguin. 1960. 29-60. Print. Plutarch. The Rise and fall of Athens: Nine Greek Lives: Translated with an Introduction. Penguin, 1964. 10-83. Print. Thucydides .The History of the Peloponnesian War. Penguin, 2010. 45-70. Print. Read More