{"id":449,"date":"2019-04-23T01:23:05","date_gmt":"2019-04-23T01:23:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stacycacciatore.com\/?p=449"},"modified":"2019-04-23T01:23:05","modified_gmt":"2019-04-23T01:23:05","slug":"the-sophists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stacycacciatore.com\/index.php\/2019\/04\/23\/the-sophists\/","title":{"rendered":"The Sophists"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Sophists<\/strong><\/h1>\n

By Stacy Cacciatore<\/em><\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The readings this week centered on the exploration of the Sophists and the debate regarding if they existed, if they did exist, what did they stand for, and why it matters. Schiappa and Poulakos engage in a fiery debate on the topic of Sophists and they go back in forth in several papers refuting each other\u2019s arguments. Poulakos (1983) strongly believes \u201c\u2026without the Sophists, our picture of the rhetoric that came out of the Greek experience is incomplete\u201d(35)[1]<\/a>. In his essay, Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric, <\/em>Poulakos applauds the Sophists for their contribution to rhetoric and Greek culture and history. He defines the characteristics of the Sophists, who he says, \u201cas a group, the Sophists are known to have been the first to say or do a number of things (44). This presupposes that the Sophists, as a group, have common characteristics. He states, \u201cthe \u2018sophistic\u2019 definition of rhetoric is founded on and consistent with the notions of rhetoric as art, style as personal expression, the timely, the appropriate, and the possible. This definition posits that man is driven primarily by his desire to be other, the wish to move from the sphere of actuality to that of possibility (45). This is an important statement about the theory of rhetoric that the Sophists developed.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Schiappa (1990), however, strongly disagrees. He states that Plato was the first to use the term rhetoric, making it impossible for the Sophists to have clearly conceptualized this term[2]<\/a>. He provides evidence supporting his claim that there was a lack of attestation of the term in fifth- and fourth-century texts prior to Gorgias. However, Pendrick (1998) found fault in Schiappa\u2019s logic, relating to how he defined rhetoric. He states, \u201cPart of the difficulty with Schiappa’s position is terminological. Following George Kennedy, he distinguishes two senses of the word ‘rhetoric’: (1) persuasive speaking or oratory; and (2) rhetorical theory or “conceptual or meta-rhetoric that attempts to theorize about oratory,\u201d (11)[3]<\/a>. This rebuttal inserts weakness into Schiappa\u2019s argument. O\u2019Sullivan (1993) also doesn\u2019t agree with Schiappa\u2019s claims that Plato was the first to use the word \u2018rhetoric\u2019[4]<\/a>. He brings up an extremely interesting point, which is that the lack of the word \u2018rhetoric\u2019 in 5th<\/sup>century texts is not an effective argument, as there is almost a total disappearance of all the writings of the Sophists. As we learned previously, the majority of the work of the Sophists exists in fragments. Therefore, we don\u2019t have a full picture of the terms they used.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Schiappa (1990) writes another paper stressing the difference between appreciating<\/em>sophistic thinking as a contribution to contemporary theory and developing \/ reconstructing sophistic theories or doctrines (192)[5]<\/a>. (As VV would say, the emphasis in italics is mine). Schiappa fires back at Poulakos, saying basically that while many of his works are \u201cpraiseworthy examples of neo-sophistic rhetorical criticism\u201d, this back-handed compliment is couched with the caveat that his work requires correction \u201cif viewed from the standpoint of historical reconstruction\u201d (198). He is basically saying that while the work of the Sophists can be appreciated, there is a historically significant difference between the early sophistic efforts, which pontificate theories about the world and how it works, and the later efforts that are a part of clearly conceptualized \u201cart of rhetoric\u201d.\u00a0 This phrase \u201cart\u201d is also important to note because Poulakos claims that rhetoric = art, but Schiappa states that \u201cart of rhetor\u201d didn\u2019t occur until the 4th<\/sup>century. This isn\u2019t the only argument that Schiappa uses in disputing Poulakos\u2019 claims. He also discusses how one cannot classify the Sophists as \u201chighly accomplished linguistic craftsmen\u201d as Poulakos does. Rather, that is how everyone spoke back then\u2026in this rhythmic fashion. Therefore, it\u2019s doesn\u2019t mean anything significant to claim this is a \u201cSophist style\u201d when in fact, it was the style of the time. Schiappa states that there is no single doctrine of theory of any subject for the Sophists. He then goes out to define the style of each of the Sophists individually, which also becomes a hot button between Schiappa and Poulakos. Poulakos claims that Schiappa is ridiculous for saying that the Sophists can only be studied independently because he is contradicting himself. First, he says that they can\u2019t be defined, then he says, well they can, but they are different. Schiappa (1990) defined the Sophists as follows:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n