Plato’s use of ‘sophistēs’: neither novel nor distinct nor derogatory

Q3 Arts and Humanities Byzantion Nea Hellas Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.4067/s0718-84712021000100101
T. Silva
{"title":"Plato’s use of ‘sophistēs’: neither novel nor distinct nor derogatory","authors":"T. Silva","doi":"10.4067/s0718-84712021000100101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": In this paper I would like to challenge the received account according to which Plato’s conception of the sophist is either novel, distinct or derogatory. I propose that Plato uses common conceptions of the intellectual to create a rather loose identity for the sophist. Through the available evidence, I hope to show that Plato does not assign a new meaning to the label, but rather uses conventional conceptions of the sophist to create his main argument. I claim that apart from the Sophist , in other dialogues there is no clear conception of what and who the sophist is, no clarity as to what their activity is, and therefore (although there are reasons to suspect about them and their activity), there are no grounds to condemn them. Stemming from a conceptualization of σοφία in terms of knowledge, the σοφιστής is mainly described as someone who knows many things, or an expert in ‘all matters’—a description, we shall see, that precludes finding a single definition. My proposal is that Plato does not construct the hostility against sophists, as some accounts claim, but rather represents this hostility against experts and intellectuals by appealing to popular attitudes against the σοφοί. Importantly, Plato is critical of popular representations of sophists mainly because they are the result of people’s misjudgement or ignorance, from which the prejudice against philosophers also stems.","PeriodicalId":37902,"journal":{"name":"Byzantion Nea Hellas","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Byzantion Nea Hellas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-84712021000100101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: In this paper I would like to challenge the received account according to which Plato’s conception of the sophist is either novel, distinct or derogatory. I propose that Plato uses common conceptions of the intellectual to create a rather loose identity for the sophist. Through the available evidence, I hope to show that Plato does not assign a new meaning to the label, but rather uses conventional conceptions of the sophist to create his main argument. I claim that apart from the Sophist , in other dialogues there is no clear conception of what and who the sophist is, no clarity as to what their activity is, and therefore (although there are reasons to suspect about them and their activity), there are no grounds to condemn them. Stemming from a conceptualization of σοφία in terms of knowledge, the σοφιστής is mainly described as someone who knows many things, or an expert in ‘all matters’—a description, we shall see, that precludes finding a single definition. My proposal is that Plato does not construct the hostility against sophists, as some accounts claim, but rather represents this hostility against experts and intellectuals by appealing to popular attitudes against the σοφοί. Importantly, Plato is critical of popular representations of sophists mainly because they are the result of people’s misjudgement or ignorance, from which the prejudice against philosophers also stems.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
柏拉图对sophistēs的使用:既不新颖,也不独特,也不贬损
在本文中,我想挑战公认的说法,即柏拉图的诡辩家概念要么是新颖的,独特的,要么是贬损的。我认为柏拉图用知识分子的一般概念来为诡辩家创造一个相当松散的身份。通过现有的证据,我希望表明柏拉图并没有赋予这个标签新的含义,而是使用传统的诡辩家概念来创建他的主要论点。我认为,除了诡辩家,在其他对话会中,对诡辩家是什么和谁没有明确的概念,他们的活动是什么也没有明确的概念,因此(尽管有理由怀疑他们和他们的活动),没有理由谴责他们。从知识的角度出发,σοφ στ ς主要被描述为知道很多事情的人,或者是“所有事情”的专家——我们将看到,这种描述排除了找到单一定义的可能性。我的建议是,柏拉图并没有像某些人所说的那样,构建对诡辩家的敌意,而是通过诉诸大众对σο ο的态度,来表达对专家和知识分子的敌意。重要的是,柏拉图对诡辩家的流行表述持批评态度,主要是因为它们是人们误判或无知的结果,而对哲学家的偏见也源于此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Byzantion Nea Hellas
Byzantion Nea Hellas Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Byzantion Nea Hellás, is yearly journal of Greek, Byzantine and Neohellenic studies, founded in 1970. It publishes original scientific research articles pertaining to the domain of Greek studies, in Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English. The aim of the journal is to foster the publication of works by national and foreign researchers working in the three main areas of Greek culture, as well as the academic interchange between researchers and teaching staff who deal with these subjects.
期刊最新文献
La guerra con palabras: “mêtis”, “agón” y “erística” en la Tragedia de Esquilo La Oda a Salinas de Fray Luis de León a la luz del orfismo Relaciones y diferencias entre el amor conyugal en Homero y Hesíodo Λόγων στεφάνοισ, οἷα τιμίοισ Λίθοισ. Procedimientos retóricos y discursivos en el calendario yámbico de Cristóforo Mitileneo Algunas observaciones sobre la estructura y el contenido del πονημα ιατρικον de Miguel Pselo
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1