“A horrible and shocking thing
has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy lies,
the priests rule by their own authority,
and my people love it this way."
Jer. 5:30-31

And you make the OP's point.

lol yup

I think that sophistry is a big problem in the modern world and I’m wondering how it should be combated. — Average

Care to explain? Can you provide examples?

I'm interested in how marketing seems to have superseded sophistry in taking false arguments and adding scientism, technology, research and public relations psychology to the mix.

Care to explain? Can you provide examples? — Tom Storm

I tried to give the example of the nazis but if I’m being honest the multi billion dollar industries you mentioned are good examples in my opinion. Edward bernays kind of turned sophistry into a science. But I’ll try to think of some good examples. Off the top my head I think that televangelists and mega churches might fall into this category. But there is also the question of psychological warfare and psychological operations to contend with.

I tried to give the example of the nazis but if I’m being honest the multi billion dollar industries you mentioned are good examples in my opinion. Edward bernays kind of turned sophistry into a science. But I’ll try to think of some good examples. Off the top my head I think that televangelists and mega churches might fall into this category. But there is also the question of psychological warfare and psychological operations to contend with. — Average

Ok The Nazi's are not really current - unless you are referring to the neos.

Is sophistry the issue? Or are you really talking about choreographed lies and propaganda used to convince people of things which are untrue? Maybe I'm wrong but I consider sophistry is a bit more subtle and nuanced.

Apart from the people who fall for conspiracies or evangelical religions - most people seem to be apathetic and uber-skeptical rather then credulous. They don't believe anyone any more.

most people seem to be apathetic and skeptical rather then credulous. They don't believe anyone any more. — Tom Storm

Lol

I think I’m more sympathetic to the Machiavellian position on the question of incredulity. He said:

Men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes.

He also said:

Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are.

Is sophistry the issue? Or are you really talking about choreographed lies and propaganda used to convince people of things which are untrue? Maybe I'm wrong but I consider sophistry is a bit more subtle and nuanced. — Tom Storm

You have my undivided attention if you’d like to delineate sophistry from choreographed lies and propaganda used to convince people of things which are untrue. I’d love to read your argument in favor of that position.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps, since you initiated the OP, you can define sophistry - but if it is just a synonym for organized deception, I'm not sure that the word is all that useful. I think sophistry generally refers to a clever argument designed to win a point by rhetorical deception.

You mentioned that it is a 'big problem in the modern world' - I still don't feel I understand how you mean. You mentioned televangelism. But is the problem there sophistry or religion?

Is sophistry just an old fashioned term for bullshit, perhaps? When someone is taken in by 'sophistry' is this a hallmark of a skilled persuader or is it a product of unsophisticated credulity?

Perhaps, since you initiated the OP, you can define sophistry — Tom Storm

I’ll do my best Tom. I’d like to start off with what I said at the beginning when I characterized sophistry As an art of persuasion which is separated and disconnected from the truth. Some of the original sophists didn’t even seem to think that the truth existed and advocated relativism. So I guess I would say that sophistry is a lot like a skilled lawyer who will defend his client even if he is guilty. So a sophist might defend a position even if it is false or teach others how to do the same thing. Essentially it is unethical persuasion.

I think sophistry generally refers to a clever argument designed to win a point by rhetorical deception. — Tom Storm

Could you give me an example?

When someone is taken in by 'sophistry' is this a hallmark of a skilled persuader or is it a product of unsophisticated credulity? — Tom Storm

I don’t think that these things are necessarily mutually exclusive.

But is the problem there sophistry or religion? — Tom Storm

I don’t think that these things are necessarily mutually exclusive.

You mentioned that it is a 'big problem in the modern world' - I still don't feel I understand how you mean. — Tom Storm

Maybe the example of some unscrupulous politicians and their political campaigns might illustrate my notion better.

Essentially it is unethical persuasion. — Average

How do we determine when it is unethical? Is advertising in general ok?

Could you give me an example? — Average

Don't have anything in hand, but in essence I think sophistry is a skillful argument put forward that looks convincing but is actually false. As per what you said below.

Maybe the example of some unscrupulous politicians and their political campaigns might illustrate my notion better. — Average

A lot of marketing and lying today is not presenting a skillful argument, it is much cruder and less rhetorical. It's often down to the use of images. E.g., 'Buy this product and you'll get laid.'

A lot of marketing and lying today is not presenting a skillful argument, it is much cruder and less rhetorical. It's often down to the use of images. E.g., 'Buy this product and you'll get laid.' — Tom Storm

LoL

How do we determine when it is unethical? Is advertising in general ok? — Tom Storm

It would depend on the product. If you’re advertising a product that will destroy someone’s life and you either don’t care or aren’t aware then I would say that it is unethical. But the way I measure morality is based on its actual relationship to results that are desirable and necessary. If you’re selling snake oil or are engaging in other forms of medical malpractice knowingly or unknowingly then I would say that it is unethical because your actions aren’t actually going to produce results. I hope that I haven’t gone on a tangent.

I think sophistry is a skillful argument put forward that looks convincing but is actually false. — Tom Storm

I think what we’re basically discussing is whether or not sophistry is misinformation, disinformation, or both. I think that it is probably both.

“From Plato's assessment of sophists it could be concluded that sophists do not offer true knowledge, but only an opinion of things”. This is the notion of sophistry I have in mind. — Average

But Socrates too offered only opinion, including the opinion that knowledge of divine things is not something he found in human beings. His criticism of the Sophists is that their concern is with persuasion rather than an attempt to determine the truth.

Socrates believes that people need philosophy to teach them what is right, — Average

The philosopher teaches those who would be philosophers to inquire via an examination of opinions in order to determine what seems good, and just, and beautiful/noble. In the case of Plato he also tells those who are interested in such things but not well suited for philosophy by temperament and intelligence what opinions to hold as true.

The art of persuasion which is separated and disconnected from the truth.

But there is a connection. Socrates employed sophistic arguments in order to persuade, but persuasion was not divorced from what he thought best for those he was persuading.

His criticism of the Sophists is that their concern is with persuasion rather than an attempt to determine the truth. — Fooloso4

I think that his criticism is what I have in mind when I mention sophistry.

Socrates employed sophistic arguments in order to persuade, but persuasion was not divorced from what he thought best for those he was persuading. — Fooloso4

Could you refer me to a specific dialogue?

The definition of sophistry used in the OP is a little vague. What is meant exactly by an "opinion of things" ?

Plato thought that “Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance“

I think that his criticism is what I have in mind when I mention sophistry. — Average

Well, that settles it!



Here is one that highlights Socrates' irony and irreverence. In the Apology the oracle says that no one is wiser than Socrates. Socrates changes this into the claim that the oracle said 'Socrates is the wisest' (21c). The two statements are not the same. It is like the difference between 'no one scored higher than Sally on the test' and 'Sally scored higher than everyone else on the test'. It may be that several students have the same high score, and so it is true that no one scored higher that Sally, but it is not true that Sally scored higher than everyone else.

In the Apology Socrates distinguishes between human wisdom and divine wisdom. His human wisdom consists in his knowing that he does not know. In the Symposium the philosopher is a lover of wisdom, but does not possess wisdom. In the Republic, however, the philosopher is not someone who desires wisdom but one who possesses it, and it is for this reason that the philosopher should rule. The wisdom the philosopher is said to possess in the Republic is the wisdom that Socrates elsewhere denies that anyone possesses.

I'm interesting in how marketing seems to have superseded sophistry in taking false arguments and adding scientism, technology, research and public relations psychology to the mix. — Tom Storm

Big time!

As for me, sophistry has to be differentiated from rhetoric. The former is deception - a Pandora's box - the latter is beautification - beauty/aesthetics is legit, philosophically speaking.

For sophists, rhetoric is primary, but for philosophers it's an adjunct, accessory, secondary. Sophists want to fool you with flowery language, philosophers want only to make the truth pleasing to behold.

1. Verum (truth)
2. Bonum (good)
3. Pulchrum (beauty)

Philosophers seek the truth, the goodness in truth, and the beauty in truth. Sophists are interested in beauty alone, neither truth nor benevolence feature among their desiderata/objectives.

Why has sophistry that negative load? Why is falsehood emphasized? Does philosophistry exist?

Sophists want to fool you with flowery language, philosophers want only to make the truth pleasing to behold. — Agent Smith

I don't think this is the case. As Plato demonstrated, through the actions of Socrates, the sophist most often truly believes oneself to be doing the right thing, professing the truth. The problem is that the sophist is not properly educated in the true nature of right and wrong, good and bad. This means that the sophist's attempt to persuade, through the use of rhetoric, can be in the wrong direction, while the sophist truly believes it is the right direction.

There is no necessity for intent within this form of deception. The sophist simply attempts to, and claims to, teach what is beyond one's qualifications. Misinformation, is not necessarily disinformation. And there is a form of deception, like when a person deceives oneself, which does not require malintent.

Sophistry is rather rampant in our society, because mass media and an abundance of information, has turned us all into "know-it-alls", and we will go around showing off our knowledge in subjects which we are really quite ignorant of.