Socrates Against the Sophists: Recovering the Original Unity of Mind and Being
In his battle with ancient relativism, Socrates brought to light the original unity of mind and reality, and in doing so, established the foundations of European philosophy.
“Man is the measure of all things. Of things that are, that they are. Of things that are not, that they are not.” Among the famous sayings of the ancient world, this thesis deserves special consideration, for it is like the opening salvo in a spiritual conflict that shaped the world as we know it. Attributed to the sophist teacher Protagoras, the thesis that man is the measure is a classical statement of the theory that truth is relative. This perspective was central to the practice of ancient rhetoric, and it remains an important epistemological option.
Protagoras was a sophist, a professional teacher of persuasive speech. These teachers claimed to make their students better (for a price), by instructing them in the methods of persuasion. Essentially this came down to an ancient form of winning friends and influencing others, that is, sophists made their student better by making them prowerul. How so? Well, ancient Athens was a democracy in two senses. First and foremost, supreme political power was wielded by the assembly and elected courts. And this was not a constitutional regime, which means that the courts and assembly wielded supreme, unchecked power. In such a set of circumstances those who can motivate others through speech, potentially wield great power. In addition, Athens was democratic in culture. Although not egalitarian in modern terms, Athens was remarkably open; it boasted a free and competitive marketplace of ideas — myths, diverse schools of philosophy, various ideas expressed in drama, political factions, etc. All of these voices competed with one another and no idea was given a privileged position. Again, in such circumstances the power of persuasive speech was especially potent; needless to say the sophists as teachers of rhetoric were in high demand.
Relativism and the Indifference of Reason
Underlying the Sophist’s rhetorical practice was the philosophical doctrine of relativism. Hence the saying of Protagoras, that man is the measure of all things. In this perspective, truth is relative to the man. Man is the standard and measure rather than being. The reason for this is that reason is indifferent to the truth; it cannot penetrate beyond appearances, which are all subjective. But if being is not accessible and appearances are subjective — rooted in the individual — then man is the measure of the truth. Why is this important to the practice of the sophists? If reason is irrelevant and truth is relative, then reason can be used to prove almost anything, and this exactly what the sophists taught. Under their tutelage a young man, aspiring to political power and wealth, could use his reason to prove anything in the assembly or courts. Indeed, these teachers of rhetoric believed that reason could demonstrate either side of a contradiction. But both sides of contradiction cannot be true. This means that reason is capable of demonstrating the true and false alike. In this perspective, rationality has no close connection to the truth.
Central importance of sophist doctrine is this: it separates language and thought from truth and reality. Once discourse — whether internal or external — is freed from the strict bounds of truth, it may be bent to whatever end we want. In doing so, we have essentially made reason into the slave of the passions (think David Hume); indeed, in such a case, language become nothing more than an instrument of power. And this was precisely the appeal of the sophists. Fundamentally, the sophist practice of rhetoric was not oriented towards the truth but power. Words without truth, empty words, become mere instruments of control and manipulation. If the courts and assembly are the sources of power in your society, and if your goal is power rather than truth, then the methods of sophistic rhetoric are highly desirable; they represent a flexible means for achieving power. Indeed, once power becomes the primary goal, the truth of things matters very little, as long as crowds are persuaded to follow the will of the ambitious. It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that European philosophy was born as a reaction to this movement, for it is exactly at this point that Socrates comes onto stage.
Enter Socrates
Of course, Socrates is not the first European philosopher, but his antiquity and influence are so great — along with that of his student Plato — that he rightly holds the title, father of European philosophy. Socrates confronted relativism with a blend of irony and dialectical refutation. Rather than directly arguing for the reality of absolute truth, Socrates delved deeper, by demonstrating that some arguments or theses are better (or worse) than others. This may seem like a modest gain, but it is actually pivotal, for in doing so he struck at the root of Sophistry. Remember that sophistic relativism is grounded in the conviction that reason cannot penetrate beneath appearances, and it is therefore indifferent to the truth. Reason can support both truth and falsehood with equal force. The Socratic response is perfectly placed to counter this thesis. Through his well know dialectical method, Socrates shows that contrary to sophistic indifference, reason is actually oriented towards the truth, that is, the consistent and valid use of reason leads to truth (or a close approximation of truth). How does he do this, and what role does the famous Socratic irony play in his approach?
Throughout many of the early dialogues, Socrates professes ignorance and critically questions those who profess knowledge. This is ironic because Socratic ignorance actually veils a kind of knowledge — the knowledge that I do not know and in some cases an approximation of the truth. Socrates uncovers negative and approximate truths by critically questioning his interlocutor. Inevitably, and ironically, it turns out that the one professing knowledge shows himself to be ignorant, and the one professing ignorance shows himself to be knowledgeable (in a certain respect). This is interesting for its own sake, but what is important is that Socrates is using reason to demonstrate that the interlocutor’s answer does not work and, at least in some cases, that there is a better answer. This being so, it become clear that reason is not indifferent to the truth. Indeed reason can transcend subjective appearances, and in doing so disproves the agnostic and sceptical foundations of the sophistic version of relativism.
The Foundations of European Realist Philosophy
Socrates’ overcoming of relativism holds several important lessons for those seeking logos. The Socratic case against relativism turns on the demonstration that some arguments are better than others, which means that some are closer to the truth than others. This is important because it opens up the methodology that will be used by European philosophy going forward, namely, the implementation of rational speech in the search for truth. Negative truth and approximate truth may sound like modest achievements, and we shall see that Plato aspires to something more. Nevertheless, even these modest achievements bring to light the deep connection of mind, speech, and reality. Beneath the changing phenomena of history and experience, mind and reality are united in a primordial embrace. There is simply no better explanation for the correlation of mind and being. Prior to all searching, prior to speech, perception, and change, mind is open to reality and reality bares itself to mind. Parmenides saw this vision; Plato enriches the picture; Aristotle, Plotinus, and Aquinas others perfect it. This is the foundation of the mind’s journey towards logos; the necessary condition, from which the European path could set out.
In addition to discovering the mind’s path to logos, Socrates demonstrated the method — or one method — for advancement. Through the process of critically questioning, one is testing the veracity and meaningfulness of a thesis. Given the connection of reason and reality, if a thesis falls short of the test of reason and critical thinking, then the thesis holds little in the way of truth. By contrast, if a thesis remains standing after the test of reason, then there are some good grounds to think that it is true. In contemporary epistemology this amounts to a form of falsification. Theses that are tested by reason and not shown to be false are least credible; one is not foolish for trusting in such matters. Indeed, if the testing is truly expansive then it would be unreasonable to withhold belief. This is a process of elimination that Socrates suggests in the Apology. Of course, the real point of such a practice is not primarily to test the beliefs of others, but to examine our own beliefs. Hence Socrates’ famous criticism of the unexamined life. Yet it must be admitted that such a method gives one certainty of the truth. Nevertheless, this approach is highly advantageous because it purifies the mind from error, draws the mind closer to reality, and strengthens the mind. These are praiseworthy benefits to be sure and commendable to all right-minded men. Nevertheless, the benefits fall short of achieving absolute truth or knowledge of the truth. This will be the ambition of Plato, Socrates’ greatest student.
For more philosophical insight from Dr. Smith see “Overcoming the Shadows” and consider purchasing Dr. Smith’s book Understanding Modern Political Ideas.
You may also in enjoy this provocative exploration of authoritarianism, The Authoritarian Option: Rethinking the Limits of Political Theory.