In Defence of the Sophists,was Re: A hostile review of A (hostile) review of Michael Perelman'slatest

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Fri Jun 16 10:20:43 PDT 2000


Overposting is imminent here, but Doug likes to see variety on his list.

Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:


> AtIs not it that all we know about Socrates comes from Plato's writings?
> Socrates left no writings of his own. Since Plato was such an idealistic
> and reactionary schmuck (he would certainly end up in a reeducation camp if
> I had my way), it is likely that he simply attributed his own thoughts to
> Socrates.

Probably -- but probably Socrates equally reactionary. He did hobnob with those who ran the brief tyranny after Sparta defeated Athens. And from what we can tell his "economic base" was much like that of a modern director of a large foundation like the Ford. I think one common view is that Socrates *did* pioneer in asking "What does [some ethical abstraction] mean?" but that it was Plato following Parmenides who developed that in any detail and drew out its implications.

Plato was the first deconstructionist. He deconstructed all the "slogans" around which the popular party in Athens organized themselves. That's the process one sees in the first book of the Republic re Thrasymachus.

The Sophists were not only the victims of the *first* smear campaign but one of the most successful right up to the present. Incidentally, while I know nothing of the history here, I've sometimes wondered if the "scribes and pharisees" were not also victims of a smear campaign.

Carrol



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list