In his comedy, Clouds, Aristophanes portrays Socrates as a Sophist: aduplicitous charlatan eager to take peoples' money for teaching them to floutthe laws and defy moral norms. The conflation of Socrates with the Sophists isbased on a superficial similarity between the interests of Socrates and thesophists concerning education and virtue, but which fails to distinguish betweenthe moral relativism of the Sophists and the belief in absolute moral standardsheld by Socrates (and his puppet-master Plato).
The term "sophist"" is derived from the Greek words sophosand sophia which are usually translated as "wise" and"wisdom". The Sophists were itinerant teachers who claimed to teachwisdom; more specifically, Protogoras, one of the first to willingly identifyhimself as a Sophist, stated that he taught one how to take "proper care ofhis personal affairs, so that he may be manage his own household, and also ofthe State's affairs, so as to become a real power in the city, both as speakerand man of action." (Protogoras 318e-319a). Socrates reinterpretsProtogoras' statement as a claim to make students into good citizens, andProtogoras readily agrees.
Socrates then presents two objections to the claim that one can learn how tobe a good citizen by studying with a teacher. First, Socrates notes that, whilean expert is consulted in technical matters such as architecture orshipbuilding, no special expertise is demanded in order to participate ingovernment. Second, Socrates observes that "the wisest and best of ourcountrymen are unable to hand on to others the virtue which they posses." (Protogoras319e). Even Pericles, great as he was, seemed unable to teach virtue tohis own sons. Although Socrates shifts the subject of the debate fromcitizenship to virtue, Protogoras does not object; for the Greeks, citizenshipand virtue were synonymous.
Protogoras then relates a story, the point of which is that virtue isinherent in everyone. Obviously, however, if everyone is virtuous, the educationoffered by Sophists is useless, so Protogoras makes it clear that only thecapacity for virtue is present in everyone. As with any talent or skill, thiscapacity must be developed. Music masters help students develop skills inplaying the lyre, while Sophists help students develop skills of citizenship andvirtue.
Protogoras also points to the role of social pressure in the development ofvirtue. Furthermore, the very existence of laws presupposes tht virtue can betaught: laws provide a positive model for appropriate behavior, and laws operatenegatively by punishing inappropriate behavior. According to Protogoras,deterrence rather than retribution is the purpose of the laws, and deterrence isan educational function. Since so much effort, both public and private, isdirected towards the encouragement of virtue, Protogoras declares that "thewonder would be if [virtue] were not teachable." (Protogoras 326e).
Protogoras' arguments evidently did not convince Socrates; virtue and whetheror not it could be taught is the central subject of a later dialogue, the Meno.The dialogue opens with Meno's question: "Can you tell me Socrates, canvirtue be taught? Or is it not teachable but the result of practice, or is itneither of these, but men possess it by nature or in some other way?" (Meno70a). Socrates replies that he must first know what virtue is before he cananswer Meno's question. Socrates claims complete ignorance of virtue;furthermore, Socrates has never met anyone who could give an adequate definitionof virtue.
The discussion of virtue in the Meno illustrates some of Socrates'argumentative methods. First, Socrates emphasizes the necessity of adequatedefinitions. Socrates says he cannot determine if virtue can be taught since hedoes not know what virtue is, and he asks Meno to give a definition. Meno beginsby describing the virtue applicable to a man, a woman, a slave, and so forth.Socrates rejects the particularized definitions and presses Meno for acharacteristic common to the particular manifestations. Socrates also exposesMeno's attempts to use the term to be defined with the definition.
The most prominent feature of Socrates' argumentative technique is elenchus.After a provisional definition is formulated, Socrates asks questions which drawout the consequences of the definition. In addition, Socrates persuades hisinterlocutor to accept other premises, from which another series of consequencesis drawn, always with the interlocutor's assent. Then Socrates springs his trap,as it were, and points out that the consequences of the definition contradictthe consequences of a secondary premise, and therefore at least one must beabandoned or revised. The technique of elenchus induces a state ofperplexity and confusion in Meno: "both my mind and my tongue are numb, andI have no answer for you." (Meno 80b).
This numbness is precisely the result Socrates intends. In order to acquireknowledge, the detritus of false opinions must be discarded, and the very firstprecept which must go is the belief that one holds accurate knowledge. Accordingto Socrates, the realization that one's beliefs are false is also motivation toseek true knowledge. Therefore elenchus does not merely eradicate falsebeliefs, it also stimulates a quest for knowledge.
The attempt in the Meno to determine whether virtue is inconclusive.Socrates provisionally adopts the hypothesis that virtue is knowledge; since,generally, knowledge can be taught, virtue must also be teachable. However,Socrates then questions the validity of his provisional hypothesis by raisingthe same issue he had during the discussion with Protogoras: the virtuous seemto be unable to foster virtue in their children. The dialogue concludes with thesomewhat ironic suggestion that virtue is a gift from the gods.
In the Apology, Socrates emphatically denies being a teacher:
However, we know this claim is false: Socrates demonstrated his proficiencyas a teacher in showing the boy how to double a square in the Meno(82b-85b). Socrates even contradicts himself later in the Apology when hestates "I do not believe it right to supplicate the jury ... but to teachand persuade them." (35b-c). Socrates emphasizes the negative aspect of hisencounters with Athenians -- he seeks to make them aware of their lack ofknowledge; it then becomes their responsibility to fill the void exposed bySocrates. But Socrates' view of himself as a positive moral example becomesquite clear when he cites his actions in refusing to try the generals after thebattle of Arginusae, or assist the Thirty Tyrants in a murder, or even to make asentimental appeal to the jurors in his own trial. Despite his disingenuousdisclaimers, Socrates consciously sought to teach virtue. Unlike the Sophists,however, he did not earn any income from his activities, and he was much moreindirect in his instructional methods.
One very striking difference between Socrates can be seen by comparing the Apologyand Gorgias' Encomium of Helen. Of course, in the Apology,Socrates' life is at stake, while the Encomium is nothing more than a display ofits author's cleverness, but the different purposes alone do not account for thestylistic differences.
The style of the Encomium demands attention. The construction of thespeech is as important as its message. The speech is highly wrought; it seems tohave been fussed over as much as a poem, yet it is not at all poetic. A highproportion of the words are adjectives; comparatives and superlativespredominate. The use of parallel structures and antitheses is excessive.
The Apology, on the other hand, is plain and unaffected. The languageof the speech does not call attention to itself, nor doe it interfere with themessage of the speech. Simple sentence structures are used. As noted above,Socrates recognized the necessity of precision in language, but the Apologyshows that precision does not require an ornate style.
The Encomium also illustrates the predilection of the Sophists formaking the weaker argument the stronger one. Although prevailing Greek opinioncondemned Helen for her role in the Trojan War, Gorgias absolves Helen of anyblame by asserting that any of the four possible forces which brought Helen toTroy -- divine intervention, force, speech, or love -- exceeded Helen's abilityto resist. Thus, one of these other forces must be blamed, since Helen cannot beheld responsible for yielding to a superior force.
The Sophists were often condemned for this tactic of making the weakerargument the stronger one, and it was one of the charges brought againstSocrates. Interestingly, however, Socrates never defends himself against thischarge anywhere in the Apology. Socrates may have considered this chargeinsignificant or not worth defending, but it is far more likely that thisparticular argument was too weak to be made into a stronger one by any amount ofsophistry.
In the Republic, after Thrasymachus is subdued by Socrates, Glauconand Adeimantus take up the argument Thrasymachus abandoned and restate it insuch a way as to make it as strong as possible. They then challenge Socrates torefute the argument, and the remainder of the Republic involves Socrates'circuitous assault on Thrasymachus' position. Socrates evidently had the weakercase, or he would have been able to dispose of Thrasymachus' strengthenedargument more directly.
The theme of the Republic is the nature of justice. As usual, thediscussion begins with an attempt to define justice. Polemarchus offers theconventional definitions, but Socrates reduces him to silence by means of elenchus.Thrasymachus, a Sophist, then joins the discussion. Thrasymachus' firstdefinition of justice, the advantage of the stronger, represents theconventionalist perspective. According to conventionalist ideas, justice is notmore than something agreed upon and then labeled "justice". Theconventionalist perspective is an aspect of the nomos-physiscontroversy.
Physis is usually translated as "nature", and nomosis usually translated as "law", "convention" or"custom". According to the conventionalist perspective, since justiceis nomos it has no real existence. Socrates attempts to apply elenchusto Thrasymachus, but Thrasymachus is a wily opponent. When he seems to becornered by Socrates, he shifts to the immoralist position which maintains thatjustice does actually exist, but one's advantage is furthered by actingunjustly. In other words, the natural (physis) is opposed to theconventional (nomos), although Thrasymachus claims that the two positionshe has proposed are consistent.
Glaucon makes this antithesis explicit in the reformulation of Thrasymachus'argument at the beginning of Book II (359c). The remainder of the Republicattempts to characterize physis in such a way that it does not conflictwith ideals of justice or virtue.
The conflation of Socrates with the Sophists is based on superficialresemblances, and Socrates himself (that is, as portrayed by Plato) isresponsible for much of the confusion. The Sophists were teachers primarily, andSocrates also pursued an educational agenda. Socrates method of elenchusoften produced the same state of confusion generated by the argumentativetechniques used by the Sophists.
Virtue played a central role for the Sophists and Socrates, although eachdeveloped different interpretations. The Sophists subscribed to a relativisticphilosophy expressed by Protogoras' statement "Man is the measure of allthings." Protogoras' use of "man" refers to each individualrather than humanity; application of his doctrine means that if the water feelscool to you but warm to me, the water is cool for you and warm for me.The result of the Sophists' extension of this analysis to ethics is moralrelativism for individuals, cultures and governments. Such an idea was anathemato Plato, so we see the most radical difference between Socrates and theSophists in moral theory. Despite similar interests and methodologies, thefundamental disagreement over the nature of virtue makes any conflation ofSocrates and the Sophists completely untenable.