Socrates and the Sophists

When I am home alone and having some lunch, I am in the habit of turning to an easily laid-open old book that was a textbook from my college days, The Western Heritage of Faith and Reason. After not looking at it for decades, I started reading it again this way since the month of March. It never ceases to amaze me how a secular textbook about philosophy can often say truer things about spiritual, even Christian, life than books that are dedicated to the subject. The passage I am quoting here is not exactly of this sort, but it is still very illuminating. As Qoheleth says, “What was will be again; what has been done will be done again; and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9 JB).

The passage reminds me of modern day conditions so much. I only wish we had someone like Socrates to add to today’s mix. I guess it’s up to each of us to be, perhaps not Socrates, but at least (as Jesus says) “the salt of the earth” (cf. Matthew 5:13), and as Martin Luther commented, “what is the good of salt if it does not bite?” I entitle this excerpt, Socrates and the Sophists.

Some of the Sophists were quick to point out that laws, in the legal sense, were human contrivances, frequently enacted in the interest of influential groups. They were not absolute things which represented absolute values, good for all men at all times. If this was true in the legal sense of the term, it might also apply to moral law. In short, some of the Sophists became complete individualists in their interpretation of laws, legal and moral. What men call justice may be merely a fiction to serve the interests of those in power. Even if there were such things as absolute justice and virtue and goodness, how should we ever be able to determine what they are? A thorough skepticism about man’s ability to answer such questions as these led many of the Sophists to reject any notion of absolute morality. Each man alone was to be the measure of what was and what was not good. Likewise, in metaphysics, each man was to be the measure of what was and what was not real, for why should any one man’s interpretation of such matters be any better than another’s? All this suggests some kind of intellectual and moral anarchy.

The threat to Greek life posed by the Sophists was far-reaching. Had they been content to challenge the metaphysical views of certain of their predecessors, it would not have been serious, for then new views might have been suggested in their place; but the Sophists challenged the very foundation of knowledge, even denying the possibility of knowing truth. When this is done the universe must remain a mystery to man, and, more important still, sincerity, integrity, honor, and all the other virtues that hold human society together are in danger of being undermined. How were these critics of the status quo to be answered? There was one man among the Greeks during the 5th century B.C. who, while not concerned with defending authority itself, was able and willing to attack the Sophists in the intellectual arena. That man was Socrates. He was the first Athenian philosopher of note, and his chief interest was in opposing relativism in ethics.

Like Jesus, Socrates wrote nothing, as far as we know. His personal impact was such that, again as with Jesus, many turned against him in bitter anger and eventually brought him to his death, while many others experienced a kind of “conversion” which made them look to him in memory as the greatest man they had known. He was a strange man, first of all in his personal appearance. He had a snub nose and strangely protruding eyes. His gait was peculiar, being likened to that of a waterfowl. He was compared in appearance to a silenus or a satyr. He always went barefoot. But far more striking than his physical appearance was his personality. In no sense was he an ordinary man, although he did marry and have children. He gave up his family profession of statue-making and spent his time in discussion, regarding it as his divine mission to seek for truth.

…He was admired by other men for his disregard of hardship, his self-control, and his ability to refrain from the use of wine, or, when joining in the drinking, to remain sober. But these personal characteristics are still not the basis of Socrates’ great reputation, even while they helped build it and manage to give some sense of the kind of man he was. More importantly, he has been designated a prophet and rationalist. He called men of his day to inner change, a kind of conversion to righteousness, and so reminds us of the great Hebrew prophets. In addition, he advised all men to follow reason, for it is reason that leads to truth and one must live by truth if he is to live well.

— The Western Heritage of Faith and Reason, pp. 264-267.