A Philosophy of Mind

[Barbara Brooks]

You tell me what is vague and maybe I can explain.

[Arising_uk]

That would be hard as its hard to understand what you are trying to describe in the first place. In your first post you said some think like 'come view the mind from the dialectic standpoint'. So far I understand a very one-way exposition about various subjects some including Mind.

I've said before, if this is your thesis then its a touch unclear. What is the antithesis and when will it appear? Is it possible to just jump to the synthesis?

[Barbara Brooks]

Sophistry is to deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in
reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone. Is that the kind of understanding that is clear language and communication you think is are important?

It is subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation. Also known to be a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning, false argument; that is sophism.

[Barbara Brooks]

You are willing to defend something you obviously know nothing about (sophistry) in order to knock my words. You were willing to support sophistry as clear and communicative language when they deliberately invalidate an argument by displaying mere cleverness in the hope of misleading someone.

Come on give me a break.

[Arising_uk]

But Thales was a Sophist?

Your modern definition is the slander of Plato and Aristotle in my opinion but I understand the resentment towards those who had to work for a living. The Sophists understood that its Philosophy and Discourse, i.e. logic, dialectic and rhetoric, as whats the use of having good ideas if you cannot explain and justify them?

[Barbara Brooks]

Your a slander .

[Arising_uk]

I think you'll find that's slander.

[Barbara Brooks]

Listen Thales was the first dialectic philosopher not a sophist get your facts right.

[bus2bondi]

edit

[Barbara Brooks]

Because, Lusia Mousky brought it up and I was discussing sophists with her then UK poped in with his mere opinion.

[Barbara Brooks]

ecause, Lusia Mousky brought it up and I was discussing sophists with her then UK popped in with his mere opinion.

[Psychonaut]

All depends on how we define Sophist or Philosopher; certainly, there is a precedent for calling Thales a philosopher:

Philosophy begins with Thales, who, fortunately, can be dated by the fact that he predicted an eclipse which, according to the astronomers, occured in the year 585 B.C

However, he goes on to say:

...Thales, who said that everything is made of water. This is discouraging to the beginner, who is struggling---perhaps not very hard---to feel that respect for philosophy which the curriculum seems to expect. There is, however, ample reason to feel respect for Thales, though perhaps rather as a man of science than as a philosopher in the modern sense of the word.

Unfortunately, as with all the Pre-Socratics, very little is known of him by which to judge his lifestyle or his character or that of his thinking.

A Sophist is generally taken to be someone who uses rhetoric and philosophy unscrupulously for their own personal benefit, rather than to advance thought, often by selling their methods to the highest bidder. What this means is that the true Philosopher's fortunes are determined by the willingness of the people in his time and place to give reward when it is not particularly sought after; Note that a sophist may very well advance thought, but only when it helps him, and certainly not when it hinders. Personally, I feel that the agenda of the Sophist may acceptably be non-material, such that if he bases his identity on some concept such as nationhood, if he unscrupulously serves his nation, even to his personal material detriment, he is still a Sophist and not a Philosopher. Others would say that Sophists must be after cold hard cash.

Was Thales a Sophist? Well, he was certainly well rewarded for his efforts, and went down in history as one of the seven great sages of Greece. Did he actively and unscrupulously seek after this reward? Possibly, as his prediction of an eclipse was not as impressive as it may sound, given that Miletus had contact with the Babylonians who had long known how to predict eclipses.

Russell, however, thinks that Thales, though crude, did much to get the ball rolling. Given the lack of records, we will never really know.
Is making an assertion in the lack of available facts a slander? Well, that depends on what facts and sources Arising has to draw from and how he personally defines sophist.

It is not unknown to claim that application of the term 'philosopher' to presocratics is retrospective and artificial. Certainly, it is common within the history of science to say that it began in the 1500s with the inception of the scientific method, and yet above we see Russell calling a man from 500BC a scientist. In this sense we would still need a term for wise people prior to Socrates, and perhaps Sophist may not be unsuitable, but it then should be delineated from the derogatory usage of Socrates when referring to his contemporaries.

[Arising_uk]

BB,
I think you'll find that your discussion is being held in public, something like two people discussing in loud voices across a crowded room. Want a quiet dialogue? Try using the PM feature as thats what it's for. Otherwise I'll reserve my right to pass mere opinion upon your lofty knowledge.

You use 'sophist' as a term of insult but no-one here is charging, or requesting a donation to their fav charity, for their wisdom or insight. To my knowledge we've only had one 'sophist' in this sense, he turned up by accident in the book club and did not stay long.

Your words have made the 'little grey cells' stir and my memory has Socrates much enjoying a conversation with a Sophist and their discourse employing logic, rhetoric and dialectic to great effect.

It may well be the case that the Sophists students used philosophy and rhetoric, i.e. sophistry, to successfully further their political and civil ambitions but think that this just points to what the Sophist teach as not being virtue.

Since I believe that a Sophist is someone who uses the techniques of Discourse to further their philosophy and were basically travelling teachers I consider Thales to be of their number but I'm willing to be corrected as its clear that he was a man of independent means and as such may have given his knowledge freely.

[Barbara Brooks]

The free encyclopedia states, that anyone can edit.the term sophistes was a synonym for "poet", and (by association with the traditional role of poets as the teachers of society) a synonym for one who teaches, in particular through the performance of prose works or speeches that impart practical knowledge. Richard Martin refers to the seven sages as "performers of political poetry."1

In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly at Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in "excellence" or "virtue," speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others. Sophists claimed that they could find the answers to all questions. Most of these sophists are known today primarily through the writings of their opponents (specifically Plato and Aristotle), which makes it difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs.

Many of them taught their skills for a price. Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners often commanded very high fees. The practice of taking fees, along with the sophists' practice of questioning the existence and roles of traditional deities (this was done to make "the weaker argument appear the stronger") and investigating into the nature of the heavens and the earth prompted a popular reaction against them. Their attacks against Socrates (in fictional prosecution speeches) prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist. Their attitude, coupled with the wealth garnered by many of the sophists, eventually led to popular resentment against sophist practitioners and the ideas and writings associated with sophism.

Protagoras is generally regarded as the first of the sophists. Others include Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasymachus, Lycophron, Callicles, Antiphon, and Cratylus.

In comparison, Socrates accepted no fee, instead adopting a self-effacing posture, which he exemplified by Socratic questioning (i.e. the Socratic method, although Diogenes Laertius wrote that Protagoras—a sophist—invented the “Socratic” method[1][2]). His attitude towards the Sophists was by no means oppositional; in one dialogue Socrates even stated that the Sophists were better educators than he was [3], which he validated by sending one of his students to study under a sophist.[4] W. K. C. Guthrie associated Socrates with the Sophists in his History of Greek Philosophy.[4]

Plato, the most illustrious student of Socrates, depicts Socrates as refuting the sophists in several Dialogues. These texts depict the sophists in an unflattering light, and it is unclear how accurate or fair Plato's representation of them may be; however, it is also suggested that such criticism was often ironic. Another contemporary, the comic playwright Aristophanes, criticizes the sophists as hairsplitting wordsmiths, yet suggests that Socrates was one of their number.

Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. In this view, the sophist is not concerned with truth and justice, but instead seeks power. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all challenged the philosophical foundations of sophism.

It seems that some of the sophists held a relativistic view on cognition and knowledge. Their philosophy contains criticism of religion, law, and ethics. Though many sophists were apparently as religious as their contemporaries, some held atheistic or agnostic views (for example, Protagoras and Diagoras of Melos).

In some cases, such as Gorgias, there are original rhetorical works that are fortunately extant, allowing the author to be judged on his own terms. In most cases, however, knowledge of sophist thought comes from fragmentary quotations that lack context. Many of these quotations come from Aristotle, who seems to have held the sophists in slight regard, notwithstanding his other disagreements with Plato.

[Barbara Brooks]

Sophist thinking stopped short of science.

The best way to persuade others is not rhetoric fancies, or the best poet’s embellishment and harmony but knowledge contributing to the advancement of sciences. It is only in modern times philosophy has been separated from the sciences.

Philosophy happens to be of a nature somewhat more divine than any other learning. There is a perfection, which all philosophers ought to reach, attain, and not to fall short of. When all these are reached not till then will the pursuit of science have any value or profit.

Thales thought the universe was all embracing whole developed microbe and water was all-powerful sustainer of life. He thought God was water. There called Thalassography, is a science that treats the sea, also, Thalassocracy the word means mastery of the sea.


A philosopher’s principles are regulated by words depend on an ordered mind. That is if philosophers are to do their work in life, grace and harmony must make these their continuous aim perceive the true nature of the beauty and grace; and receive the good and beauty in everything shall flow, like a gentle wind from a purer region, into likeness with reason.

When the Greeks were in a sate of confusion from a powerful system of kings into law and order Thales’s demonstrated a comprehensive universal significance to government affairs.