About midway through Friday’s class, Dr. Layne introduced two different forms of argument: Sophistic and Socratic. I left class rather unsure as to whether I could differentiate the two, so I decided to do a bit of my own research to help my situation. I then decided I would share what I found to help anyone else who shared my same confusion or interest in the elaboration of these two forms of argument. What I found was that the main difference between the Sophists and Socrates in ancient Greece was their views on absolute truth. Now although Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all based their rhetoric searching for and convincing the public of the truth, the Sophists based theirs on convincing the public of whatever there was to prove. So in other words Sophists believed there was no absolute truth and therefore the truth was whatever one chose to make of it. For that exact reason, Sophists are considered the original devil’s advocate. Sophists, quite frankly, didn’t have to believe in the premises nor the conclusions of the argument (Hence the “Arguing on Both Sides” definition from our notes). According to this website, “One merely had to argue well and establish a coherent counter position using logic and rhetoric to gainsay an opponent rather than mere contradiction.” Socratic argument on the other hand, is all about analyzing the validity of the premises involved in the opponent’s argument. Socrates “would demand that his opponents define the meaning of the terms used in their argument in the hopes of evidencing that they hold contradictory opinions concerning the terms in question”.
No comments:
Post a Comment