The Skepticism of the Greek Sophists by Leonard Peikoff, 7 of 50

Sophists: The Professional Class of the Fifth Century BC

Overview of Sophists

• The Sophists were not a formal school but a professional class in the fifth century BC, known for their teachings on wisdom (Sophia).

• They focused on skills to gain political power, teaching aspiring politicians how to win friends and manipulate public opinion.

• Their reputation suffered due to their association with unscrupulous tactics and acceptance of payment for philosophical teachings.

Key Figures

• Prominent Sophists included Protagoras (480–410 BC), Gorgias (483–375 BC), Thrasymachus, and Callicles.

• Protagoras is often regarded as the father of sophism, emphasizing skepticism about knowledge.

Philosophical Skepticism

• The Sophists are recognized as the first avowed skeptics in history, arguing that objective or certain knowledge is unattainable.

• Their skepticism was rooted in an all-out attack on sensory perception, claiming that all sense perceptions are inherently invalid.

Arguments Against Sensory Perception

• While they acknowledged common arguments like illusions and hallucinations, their main argument was broader: every sense perception is flawed.

• They posited that perception depends on two factors: the object being perceived and the nature of one's sensory apparatus.

Examples Illustrating Perceptual Variability

• Different individuals can perceive the same object differently based on their sensory capabilities; e.g., colorblindness affects color perception.

• Experiences vary even with identical stimuli; for instance, temperature sensations differ based on prior exposure to extreme temperatures.

Conclusion on Perception

• The Sophists concluded that no one can claim absolute truth since reality is processed through individual sensory experiences.

• They argued against majority rule in epistemology; just because more people perceive something one way does not make it true.

Understanding Subjectivism and Reality

The Nature of Perception

• All knowledge is limited to how reality appears through our senses; different sensory experiences lead to different perceptions of reality.

• We can only express our understanding with phrases like "it seems to me" or "it appears to me," emphasizing the subjective nature of experience.

• Some philosophers argue that the concept of an objective reality may be discarded since it cannot be perceived directly.

Historical Philosophical Perspectives

• This argument against the validity of sensory perception was notably accepted by Plato but rejected by Aristotle, influencing many modern philosophers.

• Kant's philosophy is heavily based on this skepticism regarding sensory perception and its implications for understanding reality.

Critique of Protagoras' Argument

• Protagoras concludes that we can never perceive reality due to the limitations imposed by our sensory organs, which affects our experiences.

• The Sophists challenge whether reason can provide knowledge if senses are deceptive, asserting that rational conclusions are also subjective.

Subjectivism in Modern Thought

• A key marker of subjectivist thought is the use of qualifiers like "true for me," indicating a belief in individual realities rather than a shared objective truth.

• This perspective leads to a fragmented view where personal beliefs about existence vary widely among individuals.

Arguments Against Rationality

• The argument from disagreement posits that widespread disagreement about rationality indicates an inability to arrive at universal truths.

• Influential thinkers like Heraclitus contribute to this skepticism by suggesting constant change undermines any absolute truths.

Key Statements on Subjectivism

• Protagoras famously stated, "Man is the measure of all things," encapsulating complete subjectivism and relativism in philosophical discourse.

• Gorgias furthered this skepticism with three propositions: nothing exists, if anything existed it couldn't be known, and if it could be known it couldn't be communicated.

Skepticism and Ethics in Philosophy

The Nature of Skepticism

• The speaker discusses the futility of asking a skeptic about existence, as they would respond with a highly probable assertion that nothing exists.

• Sophists, representing skeptics, pride themselves on their enlightenment and rejection of past dogmas, claiming to know that one cannot truly know anything.

• Historical cycles in philosophy are noted: constructive eras often collapse into skepticism, leading to deeper levels of doubt over time.

• This cyclical pattern mirrors economic trends where periods of growth are followed by downturns; philosophy experiences similar booms and busts.

• The 20th century is highlighted as having reached unprecedented levels of skepticism, suggesting an impending new constructive philosophical era.

Ethical Perspectives of the Sophists

• The Sophists argue that ethics cannot stem from reason or God; they claim there is no objective basis for morality.

• They identify themselves as agnostics rather than atheists, asserting uncertainty about God's existence which undermines ethical foundations.

• Their position leads to complete ethical subjectivism; man becomes the measure of all things good or bad based on arbitrary desires.

• Virtue is seen as an arbitrary social convention; any desire can be deemed good if one feels it is right, regardless of its nature (e.g., ice cream vs. violence).

• Rationality in desires is dismissed; what’s rational varies per individual, leading to a subjective view on ethics.

Implications for Morality and Society

• The later Sophists advocate for living by one's desires without regard for societal norms or intellectual reasoning—termed "whim worship."

• They suggest that intense passions should guide life choices, viewing traditional reasoning as artificial constructs imposed by society.

• When conflicts arise between desires, the solution proposed is brute force rather than rational discourse—highlighting a might-makes-right mentality.

• This perspective dismisses moral arguments against actions like lying or stealing unless one gets caught; virtue can be feigned through social appearances.

• A veneer of respectability can mask immoral behavior while allowing individuals to pursue self-interest without genuine ethical considerations.

The Nature of Human Behavior and Egoism

The Dichotomy of Virtue and Vice

• Discussion on the allure of living a dual life, where one can enjoy both virtue's rewards and vice's pleasures. The suggestion is made to become a dictator to avoid societal repercussions.

Society's Hypocrisy

• The argument posits that society is hypocritical; individuals secretly desire a life of vice but refrain due to fear of retaliation from others who would do the same if given the chance.

Compromise Among Individuals

• It is suggested that people compromise their ideal desires out of fear, agreeing to follow societal rules as a means to prevent mutual harm.

Plato’s Allegory: The Ring of Gyges

• Reference to Plato’s story illustrating human nature: with the power of invisibility (the ring), individuals would act immorally without fear of consequences, suggesting that morality exists only under compulsion.

Insights on Justice and Morality

• Plato argues through Symmachus that no individual possesses the strength to resist wrongdoing when they have absolute power, indicating that justice may be an illusion maintained by societal constraints.

Conceptualizing Egoism

• Introduction of egoism as a philosophical stance advocating for self-interest over altruism. This view is criticized for being associated with relativism and subjectivism, leading to misconceptions about selfishness in modern discourse.

Historical Context and Misinterpretations

• Discussion on how egoism has been misrepresented historically, particularly by Christianity which favored presenting Sophist views over Aristotle’s more rational approach.

Philosophical Perspectives: Rationalists vs. Empiricists

• Examination of Greek philosophy's preference for rationalist perspectives over empiricism, highlighting the false dichotomy between reason and senses while asserting both are essential for understanding reality.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism: A Philosophical Debate

The Superiority of Rationalism

• The speaker argues for the rationalist perspective over empiricism, suggesting that if one must be wrong, being a rationalist is preferable due to its potential for intellectual development.

• Citing David Hume's skepticism, the speaker notes that denying the validity of reason leads to a dead end in knowledge acquisition, equating such a stance with animalistic ignorance.

Consequences of Skepticism

• The speaker reflects on humanity's philosophical journey, indicating that starting with an acceptance of reason was crucial despite leading to primitive conclusions that dismissed sensory evidence.

• It is emphasized that rationalists maintain philosophical superiority over skeptics because abandoning thought halts intellectual progress; thus, rationalists have historically influenced mankind positively or negatively.

Historical Influence and Patterns

• The discussion highlights how skeptics inadvertently pave the way for future rationalists; examples include Sophists leading to Plato and later thinkers like Descartes and Kant emerging from skepticism.

• The speaker critiques skeptics for disqualifying themselves philosophically by claiming knowledge is unattainable while acknowledging their role in setting up subsequent rationalist thought.

Inconsistency Among Skeptics

• A question arises regarding the Sophists' claim about knowledge; the speaker points out their inconsistency—if they assert nothing can be known, it contradicts their understanding of desires.

• Modern followers of skepticism are noted as more consistent in their claims about desires being unknowable, raising further questions about self-awareness and perception.