Greek Gods Versus Sophists Inpericlean Athens

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Sophists History
Sophists’ teachings
Sophists’ participation in democracy
Conclusion
Bibliography
Footnotes

Introduction

Sophists were teachers who traveled around the world and there teachings were considered to have greatly influenced the thought of the fifth century B.C. They were the educated offspring of Presocratic philosophers. The Sophists deferred from the Prestocratics due to the contradictory statements offered by the prestocratics regarding the nature of the universe; the sophists were not concerned with the theoretical science practiced by the Prestocratics but on the normal assessment of human beings relationships for practical gain of human life. There approach began to de value the mythological vision of the world that was obvious in Poetry. The Sophist approach view was that divine causation was not the only explanation of natural phenomena and human actions.

Sophists History

Most Sophists were not like the Athenians who attracted large followings and received enormous payments for their services their main aim was to spread their philosophical ideas all over Greece. Sophists relocated to Athens due to the favorable treatment they received from Pericles. Pericles was an Athenian leader who was a strong rationalist. He received education on music and political affairs from the Sophists and he even developed a great relationship with one of the greatest Sophist known as Protagoras of Abdera and two other essential prestocratics known as Zeno of Elea and Anaxagoras of Abdera. The three taught that the world was managed by pure intelligence, and that the sun, moon and stars were red hot stones and not Gods wrath for sinfulness as viewed by many Greeks at that time. Pericles balanced approach to life and of his close allies was not popular as compared to his democratic politics among traditional groups in Athens; this is one of the reasons that played a big role in attracting Sophists all over Greek to migrate to Athens as a potential place for their teachings¹.

Sophists’ teachings

Many Sophists claimed that they taught excellence in administration of an individual affair and especially in management of the cities affairs. Before the Sophists introduced their teachings, many Greeks believed that excellence was God given and that aristocratic birth was the only qualification for an individual to participate in politics. Protagoras who was a sophist introduced the idea that excellence was obtained through training and was not a god given thing as perceived by the ancient Greeks. Sophists claimed to teach their students excellence by coaching them on practical skills and rhetoric skills which were necessary for an individual who was interested in pursuing a career in politics. The Athenian democracy required an individual to be equipped with the knowledge and ability to speak in front of the Athenian assembly on matters relating to domestic and foreign affairs and also be able to address a council made up of five hundred members known as boule. The Sophists taught all this rhetorical lessons and they were able to prove that training would make an individual an effective member of the society².

Although there are many differences in teachings that occurred among the Sophists, it can be clearly seen that they had one common philosophy which they shared and made their teachings relevant. One of the most common elements of their teachings was skepticism. There skepticism took diverse forms; Phenolism is one of the forms and it was mainly concerned with the belief that an individual can only be aware of the ideas present in his mind, but cannot be aware of objects of perception that reside outside his mind; empiricism, experience, usually of the senses is the only foundation of information. And finally relativism which is a theory that states that truth does not exist absolutely but depends on an individual and the situation he finds himself in. Protagoras rhetorical teaching was based on the relativity of the truth. He taught his students to argue on both sides of a matter because he believed that the whole truth was based on two sides of a situation. The techniques he taught were based on the fact that the truth of a matter is relative to an individual. Protagoras insisted that man is the measure of all things, and since there is no way to figure out the absolute truth then there was only one standard left known as advantage that could be used to determine the correct action to carry out, that is if an action is advantageous to an individual he considers it as good ³.

The sophists were also concerned with the cultural development of Man. They considered man as a natural product of nature while they regarded society and civilization as artificial products of nature. They taught that man is a natural creature and is subject to certain rules of nature which he had to obey and that man lived in a society that has no roots in nature but is based on custom. The major controversy that the sophists created was that whether the gods, society and distinctions among human beings were the result of either custom or nature. Earlier on before the Sophists introduced their beliefs, the Greeks believed that human institutions and customs were handed down by God, but contact with the other civilizations made them change their mind and believe that they were different among individuals⁴.

The sophists believed that the idea of gods’ existence was a human creation designed to serve mans particular needs. Their ideologies led to the creation of two types of laws which were namely man made law and natural law. An example of man made law in today’s society is the consensus that red traffic light means stop while green traffic light means go. An example of natural law is the law of gravity which states that all objects on Earth are subjected to a force that tends to pull them downwards. Man made laws can be ignored by human beings while natural laws cannot be ignored by man as they compel obedience by themselves. Although the teachings of nature and customs were common, sophists teachings about the two varied widely. Some sophists believed that not all human beings had the same nature by clearly distinguishing between the Hellene and Barbarians and Masters and slaves. Other Sophists on the other hand believed that human nature was an aggregate inclination to hostility and command by physical strength.

Human law limited such inclinations and was viewed as an artificial constraint rather than the natural order of things⁵. The view was the building block of the rhetorical argument that the stronger an individual is, the more he is likely to make things right. The sophists who supported this philosophy viewed human beings as animals, and always pictured that the animal world is a prototype of humans. The ideology stated that the attempt to restrict human beings aggression was wrong and useless. It also stressed that nature was stronger that no human constraints would stop it. Other sophists did not concur with this theory but believed that if men were left with there savage behavior they would eliminate one another. Their view was that although custom was a man made creation it had the powers to enable human beings survives and live a civilized life. The second group of Sophists also deferred with the advantage theory by stating their own theory of probability. The argument became essential especially in courts where the lack of evidence made it difficult for a judge to come up with a verdict⁶.

The Sophists were also able to affect the Greeks religion. Most sophists believed that the existence of God was a man made creation. They also saw that the universe was functioning on a natural principal rather than on godly causation. The Sophists did not have any belief on the old anthropomorphic gods. The believe of the Greeks on their gods did not disappear because of the sophists influence, this is because the sophists an their students formed a minute part of the whole Greek population and their views were also regarded as irreligious and impious⁷.

Protagoras who was a sophist claimed that he was not sure on whether the gods existed or not while some other sophist like Prodicus taught that Men seemed to idolize things that are essential on their lives. An example of those things included; the sun, moon, wine, bread, wine and water while at times they also idolized the discovers and providers of those things. This made Greeks believe in gods such as Demeter who was considered to be the provider of bread just as Dionysus and hephaistos who were regarde to be providers of wine and fire. The theory of the non existence of god was supported by Critias who was himself not a sophist but who supported some of the sophist views. He stated that the gods’ existence was a creation of the government who wanted to convince the citizens that any of their actions whether bad or good was being seen by god and that they will be judged by the gods for their actions. This was a move to ensure that the citizens adhered to the laws of the country. The move was thought to be a move to bring stability to the country (Rankin, 1983: 121).

Sophists’ participation in democracy

The rhetorical techniques taught by the sophists became useful for young people who wanted to pursue careers in politics. The societal roles taught by the sophists also became essential for the Athenian political system in general. This fact can be proved by looking at the time period that sophists activities had considerable amount of effect, it is true that the sophists were more active when the Athens were more democratic. The sophists’ cultural and physiological influences indirectly played a major role in the growth of Athens politics. They contributed to the democracy by exposing the truth that required the tolerance of the beliefs on other people. This attitude largely contributed to sophists acquiring high powered clients who had gone under their rhetorical training and obtained the skills of persuasive speech. This was important to democracy as it enabled various types of individuals and different state of social classes to be able to express their opinions in the Athenian assembly (Rankin, 1983: 123).

Conclusion

Sophists are known to have played a big role in some cultural, social, political, and religious changes in Greek in the 15^th century B.C. The sophists managed to influence the cultural believes of the Greeks by coming up with the ideology that man was a natural product of nature and that the society and civilization as artificial products of nature. Their main teaching about culture was that, man as a natural creature was subject to certain rules of nature which he had to obey and that he lived on a society that had no roots in nature but are based on custom. Regarding political influence, the sophists were able to impact the political situation in Greece by teaching rhetorical skills to numerous students. Rhetorical lessons taught individuals on skills of persuasively expressing themselves on the Athens assembly. The skills taught enabled the numerous students to obtain political posts in the Athens assembly. The sophists created a lot of controversies when it came to matters concerning religion. They did not believe in Greeks old anthropomorphic gods and spread their ideology of gods being a man made creation to the Greeks. However they were not successful in planting this idea into the peoples minds because they were a minute number of them who existed and the Greeks regarded their ideologies as irreligious and impious.

Bibliography

Diogenes, L, (1959), Lives of eminent philosophers, Harvard university press, pp 80.

Freeman, K, (1959), Ancilla to the pre-Socratic philosophers, Harvard University press, pp12.

Guthrie, K, (1983), The Sophists, Cambridge university press, pp 81.

Kennedy, G, (1963), the art of persuasion in Greece, Princeton university press, pp 25.

Kerferd, B, (1981), the sophistic movement, Cambridge university press, pp 29.

Rankin, H, (1983), sophists, Socratics and cynics, Croom Helm, pp 120-125.

Rommily, H, (1992), the great sophists in Periclean Athens, Clanderon press, pp 83.

Footnotes

Diogenes, L, (1959), Lives of eminent philosophers, Harvard university press, pp 80.
Freeman, K, (1959), Ancilla to the pre-Socratic philosophers, Harvard University press, pp12.
Guthrie, K, (1983), The Sophists, Cambridge university press, pp 81.
Kennedy, G, (1963), the art of persuasion in Greece, Princeton university press, pp 25.
Kerferd, B, (1981), the sophistic movement, Cambridge university press, pp 29.
Rankin, H, (1983), sophists, Socratics and cynics, Croom Helm, pp 120-125.
Rommily, H, (1992), the great sophists in Periclean Athens, Clanderon press, pp 83.

Click Here To Order Now!