Is a sophist a philosopher? — Fooloso4

(Sorry I missed to reply on this)

I'm surprised that you are using present time ... I couldn't think that sophists have survived to this day! :grin:
(Except for the term "sophism", which we know more or less what it means.)

Regarding philosophy always, I always --since school-- connected "sophists" to pre-Socratic philosophers, represented mainly by Protagoras. As I didn't care much about the subject --I still don't :smile:-- I allowed it to remain as such in my mind. But thanks to your bringing it up, I found the occasion to refresh my memory and acquire some further knowlede on it.

What I realized is that there's a lot of disagreement between the opinions on whether sophists were philosophers (among other things) or not. Yet, one cannot deny that e.g. Protagoras and other known philosophers were and are still considered "sophist" philosophers!

So, my answer to your question --asuming always that you are referring to ancient philosophy-- is "Yes".

Anyway, my interest on the subject is consumed at this point! :smile:

I am a philosopher by profession — Fooloso4

Very good. Among other things, this proves that philosophy can indeed be a profession! :grin: (There are some doubts about that in this thread; I can't remember from whom.)

I used to say that philosophy was a transformative practice, but unfortunately that has become hackneyed — Fooloso4

Why do you 1) refer to the past and 2) consider that "unfortunate"?
For me it has always been --since College-- a 100% transformative practice!

Anyway, my interest on the subject is consumed at this point! — Alkis Piskas

My response will be addressed to anyone who might be interested:

I'm surprised that you are using present time ... I couldn't think that sophists have survived to this day! — Alkis Piskas

I use the present tense for two reasons. One, I do not regard the issues raised as simply of historical importance. If we are to understand Socratic philosophy, which I regard as no less relevant today than it was then, we need to consider the question of the relationship between the philosopher and the sophist. Second, although we may not typically use the term 'sophist', it is evident that those who "make the weaker argument stronger" are still around.

Socrates criticized the sophists for requiring pay for their services. Professional philosophers do the same. Are the really professional sophists then? Is pay what distinguishes the philosopher and the sophist, or is the no clear distinction? Plato raises the question, but the answer he provides is not so clear cut.

Regarding philosophy always, I always --since school-- connected "sophists" to pre-Socratic philosophers, represented mainly by Protagoras. — Alkis Piskas

Plato identifies Protagoras as a sophist, but we should not take this to mean that he simply rejected his teaching. Protagoras' influence on Plato was considerable.

Very good. Among other things, this proves that philosophy can indeed be a profession! :grin: (There are some doubts about that in this thread; I can't remember from whom.) — Alkis Piskas

I think you mistook a remark by me to mean that. My point was that we should not consider the profession as a necessary condition for being a philosopher. The profession is a relatively recent invention.

Why do you 1) refer to the past and 2) consider that "unfortunate"? — Alkis Piskas

What is unfortunate is that the phrase has become hackneyed. We now find it just about everywhere. All kinds of ordinary things are proclaimed to be transformative. It is part of the hyperbolization of language. Ordinary things are now "awesome", "amazing", "incredible". It's linguistic inflation.

Nietzsche says that the "real philosophers are commanders and law-givers." (Beyond Good and Evil, "We Scholars")
— Fooloso4

Yes, he did. And in his time, he had good reason for saying so. However, in the spirit of Nietszche, I would the real philosopher is he who realizes the that only alternative to a value for value trade of the products of one's mind, is the rule of commanders and law-givers. And I'd say in my own time I have good reason for saying so. But, that's just saying as much in the same spirit. The acual philosopher is the one has developed enough virtue within the domain to discuss, generate, and teach within the domain with proficient command. And I think I'm closer to the mark than Nietszche. — Garrett Travers

The real philosopher is a he? You haven't heard my mum and wife talking! True philosophical riddles!

What's a value to value trade?

The real philosopher is a he? You haven't heard my mum and wife talking! True philosophical riddles! — Schootz1

For the most part, yes. However, the greatest of them wasn't. But, they are not common, women philosophers. And none exist right now in the public worth mentioning. But, if it makes you feel better, I can rearrange my statement to he/she.

What's a value to value trade? — Schootz1

There are many possible value for value trades. For example, I recognize your sovereign human consciousness as the source of all possible moral actions by dint of its nature. Meaning, for me to assume that I have any right to impede your expressions or desires, that do not impede mine or another's, is the first example of interpersonal immorality. Meaning, for us to interact, we must provide value between eachother, in whatever form that may be. To interact, we have to have a proposition of interaction, be it services, a philosophical conversation, a product. The only alternative is asymmetrical value of consciousness, which is where the psychopaths play.

My point was that we should not consider the profession as a necessary condition for being a philosophe — Fooloso4

I see. OK.

Are the really professional sophists then? Is pay what distinguishes the philosopher and the sophist, or is the no clear distinction? Plato raises the question, but the answer he provides is not so clear cut. — Fooloso4

You are right. I also find that Plato's answer is not so clear.
I have already said that I am not interested in the subject of sophism and sophists, but I have to add an important element about sophists that was missed from my last comment on them: deception or an attempt to deceive. From what I know, sophists used good rhetoric and apparently logical statements or arguments that were based on fallacies. However, they managed to "pass the message" to the other side. That's why the term "sophism" today is connected to that element. Ofxford LEXICO defines "sophism" as "A clever but false argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive." And this is exactly how I always undestood that word. I personally don't use it, but statments like "Thus is just a sophism", are not uncommon at all. In fact, in Greek it is quite common. Naturally, since the word comes from ancient Greek "sophia" (= wisdom). We use it though more in the form of "sophsitry": "I wonder what kind of sophistry will you come up with this time!", "What you are telling us are all sophistries!" and so on.

Do we have proffesional sophists today? Such a thing makes you only lauph. But we have lawyers! :grin:

Plato identifies Protagoras as a sophist, but we should not take this to mean that he simply rejected his teaching. Protagoras' influence on Plato was considerable. — Fooloso4

Maybe so. I have no idea! :grin:

I'm curious if academic philosophers get seriously involved with issues like

What's the big mystery about time?

?

Some do. It might be addressed in a course on metaphysics, or philosophy of science, or in a course on a particular philosopher who talks about it. I would not be surprised to find graduate level courses specifically on time.

Some do. — Fooloso4

I'm familiar only with Bergson and his debate with Einstein. The amateur, Peter Lynds, brought this into modern times with his controversial article about the nature of time in Foundations of Physics Letters in 2003. But he didn't question an underlying nature of time, only that it occurred in intervals and not instants.

I have not read the thread on time, but I assume it includes such things as the block theory of time, McTaggart's A series and B series, which are discussed not only here but in some philosophy classes.

I assume it includes such things as . . . . . . — Fooloso4

The thread goes well beyond recognized perspectives into imaginative realms.

Philosophy & the philosopher, if they're any good, embody an important sub-division under the rubric of entertainment.

The philosopher, if s/he's any good, entertains the general public with explorations of the deep & intriguing questions.

Nietzsche is a name that rings loud & long within the public's imagination because he is a very entertaining writer. The drama, the emotionalism, the sweep & direction of human history and the high stakes of the Ubermensch gambit have many of us enthralled. Moreover, the fact he was a handsome man who cut a dashing figure didn't hurt.

The deep shade covering part of Nietzsche's character & legacy embellish his memory with a frisson of darkness & evil. Was he the metaphysician who empowered Nazism?

Entertainment is, arguably, the most important human behavior of them all.

Three of the perennial questions posed by philosophy are: What's the meaning of life? What's the purpose of life? What makes the good life?

Oftentimes, the big three questions are used as hammers to bash philosophy. Pie in the sky! Pretensions of the leisure class! Ivory tower speculations entertained by eggheads! Now that you've solved the problems of the world, can you come down from Mt. Olympus and get a real job?

Not to worry fellow travelers. Philosophy has a simple, one-word, unpretentious answer to the big three questions.

Entertainment. Yeah. That's what we're supposed to be doing whilst we live. Telling stories to each other & keeping ourselves entertained. And that is what we're doing, most of the time.

Gather a bunch of folks into a great hall & make them wait for something, say, an important event of some kind or other. Before long, the great hall is buzzing with exchange of narratives flying about every which way.

We must fill up our time with entertainment!

As a human being, it is your duty to be entertaining!

The successful performing artist lives as a god because s/he brings interest, excitement & diversion into the lives of others.

To be entertaining is to be noble.

A philosopher fails not when s/he embraces wacky concepts supported by faulty logic, but rather whenever s/he is dull, boring & sleep-inducing.

Who are the great philosophers? They're the one's who get read by the general public, generation after generation.

Great ideas & great philosophy are two different things because great ideas presented in a bland, dull, impenetrable narrative IS NOT READ. So who knows about it? No one. Philosophy is not great until it is read about & known by the general public.

Question - What is entertainment? It is education in its highest manifestation. Public, formal education, alas, all too often is NOT entertaining. Ever had a good teacher? They were entertaining!

The above statement is the popular definition. Below lies the boring definition. (Forgive me.)

Entertainment is the bi-directional -which is to say, dualistic - experience of the witness to a transformative - which is to say, life-changing - narrative.

Here's what I mean by bi-directional: when you entertain me, I have a simultaneous experience of two opposing connections: a) I'm drawn out of myself by interest in the life of the main character of the story (that's you); AT THE SAME TIME b) I'm pushed into myself by self-identification with the life of the main character of the story (that's me).

Simultaneous bi-directionality leads to TRANSPORT. When I experience transport in response to a narrative, I'm de-localized by interest in the other person, but at the same time I'm centered within myself by interest in my identification with the other person.

We're not happy when we're just ourselves. We're happy when we're just ourselves, and at the same time, paradoxically, not just ourselves. That's entertainment! That's sex!

People my age have Beatlemania for an example of transport. The four mop tops pulled us out of ourselves with their difference, la (that's supposed to be French). Also, they pushed us more vividly into ourselves through our identification with their difference, la

An earlier generation had Elvis. A later generation had Michael Jackson.

Question - Who's transporting today's young people?

What is entertainment? It is education in its highest manifestation. Public, formal education, alas, all too often is NOT entertaining. Ever had a good teacher? They were entertaining! — ucarr

Firstly, fellow traveller, let me start by saying: thank you for the entertainmaint. This was one of the more, perhaps the most even, unique responses I've been provided on this subject, and I enjoyed it very much, even found myself agreeing in places where there was no reason to. You are correct in many assertions, as I've been known to tell people, education is an art form, not a job. A profession, not a practice. There's more magic to it than simple data relay, or, in the case of our public schools, critical compulsion relay.

It's not a simple to task to teach people how to emerge from and as themselves in a manner appropriate to the nature of the world and their place in it, while also eqipping them with the necessary skills to equip themselves with the necessary knowledge and virtue they will need to navigate it. In fact, that's due in no small reason to the fact that most primary curricula are entirely devoid of the philosophical arts altogether, without which, the glue that holds all fields of study in coherence is not recognized, or noticed, and thereby neglected.

However, I'm afraid, interesting as it was, that I must disagree with your post, kindly, of course. You see, what you described was a philosopher, but only a certain type of philosopher. There have been many who were entertaining, who were also not very good philosophers, such as Voltaire, Frank Herbert, or C.S. Lewis, all of which were great in the authoring division of relaying philosophical information, but not really strong philosophers themselves. There have also been many, considered great, philosophers who were not very entertaining, such as Kant, Wittgenstein, even Nietszche himself is hard to drudge through some times.

Being entertaining in one's work, philosophical or otherwise, is an individual trait that comes as a result of enjoying one's work, as well as being proficient at relaying it. Much like professor Sugrue, whom you can find on youtube with a very high recommendation from me, or Alan Watts, with the same recommendation.

What is entertainment? Loving life in whatever manner that love comes to you. For the philosopher, the love of life induced by the pursuit of knowledge, and the helpless expression that emerges of it thereafter. But, yes, I've had a couple great teachers, all were incredibly entertaining.

Who's transporting today's young people? — ucarr

This is a deeper question than what a post of the nature from that which it comes lets on. To put this into perspective, I have a buddy that I've known for almost a year. I was speaking to him the other day, just about music, but think about this. We were speaking about music and he says, "Drake is the G.O.A.T." Of course, my initial, internal response was nauseous recoil, but I asked to clarify, "What do you mean?" To which he simply responded with the same assertion of Drake and goats. It occured to me at that moment, almost by reflex, that, no, Joseph Haydn is actually the G.O.A.T. in all manners technical, or otherwise, but also that this young man of 28 has probably never heard a single concerto, or symphony of his.

The point: Entertainment is transporting them. Hijacking their cognitive ins-and-outs, as if through some sort of Barney-level, low-resolution default mode relaying coaxial cable, and throttling their natural ability to recognize beautiful patterns, exchanging Sgt. Pepper for Keeping up with the Kardashians. Why? Probably for the same reason the controllers left philosophy out the primary curricula: ensured lack of awareness. Perhaps I am mistaken, though. I leave that to the imagination of my fellow travellers, like you.

Nonetheless, great post, friend!

-G

This notion of philosophy as entertainment troubles me.

A philosopher fails not when s/he embraces wacky concepts supported by faulty logic, but rather whenever s/he is dull, boring & sleep-inducing. — ucarr

Sleep deprived students with an attention span that can be measured in seconds may find something dull, boring & sleep-inducing that requires alertness, attention, and hard work.

Who are the great philosophers? They're the one's who get read by the general public, generation after generation. — ucarr

The general public has never been equipped to read or understand great philosophy. The demand to be entertained is one of, but certainly not the only reason they are ill-equipped.

Being entertaining in one's work, philosophical or otherwise, is an individual trait... — Garrett Travers

I think you’re saying for any philosopher, being able to entertain the audience with emotional gratification coupled with the excitement of learning is an added-value attribute that serves the mission of philosophy (as well as education in general) as a grace note, lovable, but non- essential.

This argument is formidably sound; it’s familiar to most us.

I have a lament, probably familiar to you. It concerns the package in which the contents are delivered.

In the performing arts, delivery is critically important, even if not of the same status as content. Consider the standup comic. If s/he flubs a line reading of a joke – especially if it be the punchline (barring a great ad lib) – the joke (and sometimes the comic) is dead.

Even with a letter-perfect delivery, sans great timing – sometimes improved for the audience of the moment – the joke might very well land with a thud.

Likewise the singer. On paper, more than one great song looks like next to nothing. Why is it a great song & perennial favorite? It’s the packaging, the delivery by the performing artist.

Here’s an ad lib question from me. Considering the importance of delivery, which is to say, packaging, in the performing arts, is there an existential difference between storytelling for entertainment and storytelling for science (i.e., philosophy)?*

*Might this be a serious question under aesthetics?

How come the scientists & the philosopher-royals get to stand up there in lecture hall and drone on in monotone as s/she slogs through bland techno-babble, devoid of enlightening metaphors, and permanently divorced from anything resembling wit?

This brings us to another familiar argument: the dialectic of form vs. content.

There’s evidence science does have an aesthetic standard. We’ve all heard about the elegance of simplicity pertaining to equations & theories.

Seems to me the reason is obvious why everyone knows Einstein’s equation, whereas Schrödinger’s equation?

Sleep deprived students with an attention span that can be measured in seconds may find something dull, boring & sleep-inducing that requires alertness, attention, and hard work. — Fooloso4

There’s an important distinction needing to be made here, as the difficult & the boring are very different things.

Just now, we’re evaluating the boring, not the difficult.

The general public has never been equipped to read or understand great philosophy. The demand to be entertained is one of, but certainly not the only reason they are ill-equipped. — Fooloso4

I suspect you proceed from the premise that entertainment has no truck with communication of important (and therefore serious) ideas & information.

Sam Beckett’s Godot, when performed in prisons, usually lands forcefully with audiences there; they enjoy it as much as other audiences. Given that prison audiences oftentimes include some of our most educationally-deprived citizens, this tells us something important about capacity of comprehension by the general public.

Most everyone has heard, and enjoyed, Gershwin’sRhapsody In Blue. It’s everywhere because the public likes it. No need to be a chamber music habitue to appreciate Gershwin’s sublimities.

Is the demand for entertainment a matter of indifference to the cognoscenti?

I say meeting the demands of the general public, in any field, establishes the most correct yardstick for measuring success.

Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist who focused on spacetime, quantum mechanics & black holes, would seem to be a poster boy for the difficult. True enough. If the general public is ill-equipped for the difficult, how come A Brief History of Time was a best seller?

From the cognoscenti to the skid row bum, and all points in-between, people are the same.

So why not talk to everybody, if you have something to say? Doing that successfully, however, entails being interesting, as in being entertaining.

From the cognoscenti to the skid row bum, and all points in-between, people are the same.
So why not talk to everybody, if you have something to say? Doing that successfully, however, entails being interesting, as in being entertaining — ucarr

It also entails that everybody has the same capacity to grasp the essential content of the ideas. They don’t. We live in different worlds. Put differently, we interpret ideas
in accordance with a larger worldview that each of us carry around with us. A given culture consists of many worldviews that often don’t understand each other, as our politically polarized times demonstrates. If a philosopher or writer or scientist offers an idea that we cannot assimilate within our worldview we will reject or misinterpret that idea, or it may simply be invisible to us.
It does t matter how many ways you try and package the content of a given philosophy. You could translate it into poetry, have it delivered by a stand-up
comedian or by corporate-style bullet point presentation. The central problem won’t be the delivery or language or style, but the readiness of the recipient to assimilate it into their worldview.

The ‘everybody’ you talk about is a fiction. It can take hundreds of years for segments of a given culture to grasp the ideas of a certain era of philosophy. Conservative America is a long way from understanding post-Hegelian thought, which is already 200 years old, and you can’t blame it on the messenger.

There’s an important distinction needing to be made here, as the difficult & the boring are very different things. — ucarr

They are, but it is often that case that because a work is difficult the reader finds it boring because they are not persuaded that it is worth the effort.

I suspect you proceed from the premise that entertainment has no truck with communication of important (and therefore serious) ideas & information. — ucarr

It is not that it one or the other but that the demand to be entertained may disqualify a book or lecture or discussion of works that are not found to be entertaining from the get go.

Is the demand for entertainment a matter of indifference to the cognoscenti? — ucarr

Doesn't that depend on what one finds entertaining?

I say meeting the demands of the general public, in any field, establishes the most correct yardstick for measuring success. — ucarr

Should we stop assigning Plato or Aristotle in philosophy classes because most students do not find them entertaining and will not read them? Perhaps a more important measure of their success is that they are still read and written about thousands of years later. That only a few students in class

If the general public is ill-equipped for the difficult, how come A Brief History of Time was a best seller? — ucarr

Do you think everyone who had a copy read it let alone understand it? Such a work may spark an interest in someone who goes on the pursue such matters, but a popular presentation should not be mistaken for the work of theoretical physics.

From the cognoscenti to the skid row bum, and all points in-between, people are the same. — ucarr

And yet only a small percentage will read philosophy. Do you think that is the fault of the author or those who teach the texts? People are not the same with regard to what they find entertaining or interesting. Are you a teacher? A student? Does everyone in your classes find this stuff as entertaining as you do?

A philosopher is anyone who examines the nature of life and metaphysics

Should we stop assigning Plato or Aristotle in philosophy classes because most students do not find them entertaining and will not read them? — Fooloso4

I think history will take care of Plato and Aristotle for good or ill, regardless of anything else. Perhaps 'entertainment' was the wrong word? I think @ucarr might mean 'engaging'. Some philosophy can be highly engaging, which for me seems a more redeemable and useful term.

A philosopher is anyone who examines the nature of life and metaphysics — CallMeDirac

Anyone? Is there no question about the quality or level of sophistication? Is my illiterate cousin Tony a philosopher? He often ponders the meaning of life and wonders if he's in the matrix... as he packs another bong.

Why does there need to be a minimum level of sophistication of thought?
Your cousin tony is no less a philosopher than anyone else who contemplates life.

Simply because you see no value in another's ideas, or see their ideas as completely incorrect does not make them any less deserving of some consideration. Whether the consideration is simply to disprove them or demonstrate their incompetence is irrelevant.

I was asking you that question and you answered it. :wink: Personally I think almost every human engages in such questions - with or without the bong. To call this philosophy means every human is a philosopher (except perhaps for the brain dead) which makes the title almost meaningless as far as I can tell.

I apologize, my definition was incomplete. A philosopher is anyone who contemplates the meaning of life and metaphysical questions for enjoyment. Anyone whose hobby is contemplation.

This reminds me a bit of people saying they are a writer simply because they have written something. There needs to be a degree of understanding and ability within a certain area to claim reasonable ownership of the label.

There are situations where someone with no formal training in something are particularly good at it - say a mechanic. In those circumstances I have no issue with calling someone a mechanic if they can fix several broken cars without any issues. In terms of philosophy I wouldn't call someone who has literally never read a single work of philosophy from cover to cover a philosopher under any circumstances just like I wouldn't call someone a mechanic merely if they have only read books about how to fix cars.

This may seem contradictory in some terms, but to someone who has read enough philosophy and/or has a reasonably decent analytic mind they can see what I am getting at here. That is the 'practice' of philosophy requires engagement with current ideas be they oppositional or otherwise (oppositional is likely more fruitful though).

Contemplating the meaning of life is nothing at all if there is no give and take. For two people in a room discussing such we could say what they are doing is 'philosophical' but that doesn't make them philosophers. Perhaps they are on their way to becoming more involved with philosophy but the threshold from not being a philosopher to being one is not really a line at all any more than we can say with any conviction that x amount of water molecules are needed for water to be considered 'wet'.

(2 water molecules)

Just writing doesn't make one a writer, writing as a hobby and writing simply because one enjoys writing makes one a writer. There needn't be any level of aptitude or knowledge, just as we call one who enjoys playing video games a gamer whether or not they are good at it. The act of enjoying and practicing philosophy makes one a philosopher.

As an example, I use myself. I have never read a full work of philosophy, by your standards, I am not a philosopher. I, however, would call myself a philosopher as I philosophize as a hobby and enjoy thinking about philosophical concepts. (And not to sound egotistical, but I would say I have a better understanding of philosophy and a better ability to analyze something philosophically than most)

A philosopher is anyone who contemplates the meaning of life and metaphysical questions for enjoyment. Anyone whose hobby is contemplation. — CallMeDirac

No. Many serious philosophers do not enjoy the work. They are compelled to enquire and may in fact find the work hard and frustrating.

Just writing doesn't make one a writer, writing as a hobby and writing simply because one enjoys writing makes one a writer. — CallMeDirac

In one way yes. In another no. If no one reads it then you're not really much of a writer and people would probably say that you think you're a writer rather than actually call you a writer.

I would still say of such a person that they enjoy writing though and encourage them to do what they enjoyed. That doesn't make them a writer in everyone's view though unless we're talking on a superficial level.

If no one sees one's work is that work any less impressive or important, is an artist whose art is only discovered after their death only an artist after the discovery?