Socrates vs Sophism: Uncovering Immutable Truth Beyond Relativism

Extract

[...] Socrates does not limit himself to a simple criticism of relativism, he actually proposes to replace it. It is above all the greed of the sophists that deeply disturbs the philosopher. For Socrates, philosophical knowledge should not be monetized. We can suppose that this opinion finds its origin in his own childhood, when, from a poor family, he did not have the means to travel or pay for the lessons of a sophist (from which he still attended the free sessions). [...]

[...] Socrates, going to consult the oracle of Delphi, is told that he is the wisest man in Athens. Dubious, he goes to question different people before realizing the obvious: if he is the wisest man in Athens, it is precisely because he admits that he does not know everything, unlike others. This ignorance is impossible to fill: there is always something that one ignores. It is, however, possible to strive towards the truth, by two main means. The first is dialogue. [...]

[...] It is indeed part of the training for this profession to defend theses considered as indefensible. But if the purpose of this method in the context of modern law is obvious (everyone, even the worst criminals, has the right to be defended), what is that of the sophists of Antiquity? Greek democracy, and particularly Athenian, is based on debate and therefore requires the direct oral intervention of citizens. However, eloquence is an art and must be learned. It is here that the sophists intervene: traveling from city to city, they teach citizens the art of speaking and convincing, thus revitalizing democracy and bringing dynamism to public debate, for a fee. [...]

[...] What form of truth does Socrates seek to establish, one that goes beyond the relativism defended by the sophists? Socratic Methods: Rationality The dialogue The Maieutics Personal Position In his work The Meno, Plato presents his theory of reminiscence, which can be summarized as follows: to know is to remember. Thus, knowledge would not be acquired through a long and tedious accumulation of various knowledge; on the contrary, it would slumber in each person and only need a small push to be revealed. [...]

[...] Socrates calls maieutics the practice of 'birth of souls', which aims to bring forth certain facts in the mind. It appears, therefore, that Socrates' vision is the opposite of the exaggerated skepticism of the sophists, since he relies on the idea that there are immutable truths. I personally find the philosophical contribution of both camps to be extremely important, but I cannot fully adhere to one of these two visions. Socrates' vision is indeed based on a spirituality that is too marked to my taste (which explains, incidentally, its recovery by medieval Christian philosophers, infesting Western philosophy until Nietzsche), while the quasi-nihilism of the sophists, although it deserves credit for pushing everything to be questioned, remains too vague and lacks humanism. [...]