Pre-Socratics and Sophists PDF

1 PRE-SOCRATICS AND SOPHISTS Unit Structure : 1.0 Objective 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Natural Philosophers (Thales, Anaximander And Anaxtmenes) 1.3 The problem of change (Parmenides and Heraclitus) 1.4 Pluralists (Democritus) 1.5 Sophists (Protagoras) 1.6 The Sophist...

1 PRE-SOCRATICS AND SOPHISTS Unit Structure : 1.0 Objective 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Natural Philosophers (Thales, Anaximander And Anaxtmenes) 1.3 The problem of change (Parmenides and Heraclitus) 1.4 Pluralists (Democritus) 1.5 Sophists (Protagoras) 1.6 The Sophist Epistemology 1.7 The Sophist Theory Of Morality 1.8 Summary 1.9 Unit and questions 1.0 OBJECTIVE After going through the unit, you will be able to know :  The beginning of philosophy in the ancient times (Greek Philosophy)  Natural Philosophers  Problem of Change  To understand the pre Socratic Philosophy with its emphasis on Man as the central theme.  To know about Sophists Epistemology and Ethics. 1.1 INTRODUCTION Western Philosophical beginswith the speculations of the Greeks. The ancient Greek philosophical traditional broke away from a mythological approach to explaining the world, and it intialated an approach based on reason and evidence. Freed from religious bias, the Greek thinkers supported science and are called as the foundersn of Philosophy and science in the west. In the early Greek thought science means an independent and free enquiry into natural events, systematically and methodically without being burdened with religious requirement. The early Greek thinkers tried to give rational explaination of natural phenomena. It is also interesting to note that these early thinkers tried to 1 Western Philosophy grapple with the whole reality with their limited resources. Initially concerned with explaining the entire cosmos, the Presocratic philosophers strived to identify its single underlying principle. The sophists were concerned about man himself. Their questions were not related about the object or content of knowledge but about knowledge itself. The Sophists asked questional about the origin, nature and the kind ofcertainty which human knowledge can yield. If looked closely, we find that this kind of question is not about knowing any object but about knowing itself. The following chapter will give us a brief idea idea about sophist’s Epistemology and Ethics. 1.2 NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS (THALES, ANAXIMANDER AND ANAXTMENES) The Western philosophical traditiona began in ancient Greece in the 6th century BCE. The first philosophers are called “Presocratics” with designates that they came before Socrates.’ The Pre-Socratic’s from either the eastern or western regions of the Greek world. The Pre-Socratic’s most distinguishing feature is emphasis on questions of physics; indeed, Artistotle refers to them as “Investigators of Nature”. Their scientific interests included mathematics, as tronomy, and biology. As the first philosophers, thought, they emphasized the rational unity of things, and rejected mythological explanations of the world. Only fragments of the original writings of the Presocratics survive, in some cases merely a single sentence. The knowledge we have of them derives from accounts of early philosophers, such as Aristotle’s Physrbs and Metaphysics, The Opinions of the Physicists by Aristotle’s pupil Theophratus, and Simplicius, a Neoplatonist who compiled existing quotes. The first group of Presocratic philosophers were from Lonia. The lonian philosophers sought the single principle of things, and tile mode of their origin and disappearance. 1.2.1 Thales of Miletus (c.624 BC – c.BGE): Thales was a pre-socratic Greek philosopher from Miletus in Asia Minor. And one of the Seven Sages of Greece. Many most notably Aristotle, regard him as the first philosopher in the tradition. According to Berteand Russell, “Western philosophy begins with Thales.” Thales attempted to explain natural phenomena without reference to mythology and was tremendously influential in this respect. Almost all of the Pre-Socreatic philosophers follow him in attempting to provide an explanation of ultimate substance, change and the existence of the world-without reference to mythology. Those philosopjers were also an essential idea for the scientific revolution. He was also the first to define general principles and set forth hypotheses,and as a result has been 2 dubbed the “first man of science,” as he gave a naturalistic explanation of Pre-Socratics and the cosmos and supported it with reasons. Sophists Water as the First Principle: Thales most famous philosophical position was his cosmological thesis, which comes down to use through a passage from Aristole’s Metaphysics. The chief aim of Thales was to account for the fundamental stuff of which the universe is made. Hence according to him the universe is fundamentally water, because water admits of being vaporous, liquid and solid. When water heated it assumes the form of vapour; when chiled it becomes solid and when it is allowed in its natural course then it is a flowing stream. Hence water succeeds in explaining all the possible states of being solid, liquid and vaporous. For this reason water can be said to be fundamental stuff of the universe. Even the earth, according to Thales, is a disc floating on water. Aristotle the biologist conjectured that Thales chose water to be the ultimate stuff, for food is always wet and this liquid food nourishes the body, even the generating seeds are wet. The most important thing about Thales is that he gave birth to scientific way of thinking. It is said that he predicted the eclipse which took place in 585 B.C. According to Russell Thales discovered how to calculate the distance of a ship at sea with the help of observations taken at two points to calculate the height of a tree or pyramid from the length of its shadow. However, he regarded magnet as something living for it attracts things towards itself. Again Thales is said to have said that all things are full of gods. Hence Windelband holds that the philosophy of Thales and of other Milesians to be hylozoistic (those who think matter is alive). The phitosophy and science of Thales may appear to us to be very crude, but he laid down the foundation of scientific worldview in the sense that his speculation was wholly naturalistic. It was neither anthropomorphic nor theocentric. The most important thing about Thales is that he gave birth to scientific way of thinking. The philosophy and science of Thales may appear to us to be very crude, but he laid down the foundation of science worldview in the sense that his speculation was wholly naturalistic. It was neither anthropomorphic nor theocentric. Check your progress : 1) Who are the Presocratic philosophers ? 2) What did the First Philosophers emphasise upon and rejected at ? 3) The first group of Presoscratic philosophers were from 4) How did Thales attempt to explain natural phenomena ? 3 Western Philosophy 5) According to Thales, the universe is fundamentally water, because water admits of being………….., liquid and …………. 1.2.2 Anaximander (611-547 BCE) : Anaximander also belonged to Miletus. He was a man of daring venture of thought. Anaximander was the first writer on philosophy. He was a cosmologist like Thales. However for him the primary substance was ‘boundless something’ – a formless, infinite and eternal mass not yet parted into particular kinds of matter. In positing ‘boundless mass’ as the fundamental stuff of which the world is constituted, he indirectly lays down an important principle, namely, a formless general principle can account for the particulars, but not vice-versa. For example, formless earth mass can be converted into particularised things like pitchers, bricks, tiles, etc. But the earthen pitchers cannot be directly shaped into tiles or goblets. In order to give rise to tiles or bricks, the earthen pitcher has to be reduced again to the formless mass of earth, this distinction of formless matters and particulars will be like found again the theory of Aristotle known as the doctrine of matter and form. Anaximander appears to have stated that the world is governed by the opposities like hot and gold, wetand dry it is by the working of the opposites that the world goes on. In this context it can be said that the earth, air, water and fire cannot be the ultimate stuff of the universe, for they have opposite characters. For example, fire burns and water dampenes. If any one of them be allowed to work unfetteredly then the world would become either dry or watery and the world as such would cease to be. According to Anaximander the world has evolved in due course. At one time there was water everywhere. There were only watery creatures. By drying up of water, land appeared and, creatures of the sea were left on the dry hand. Those creatures from the sea which could adapt themselves to the dry hand alone have survived. One can easily seem the germ of the organic evalution in the speculative adventure of Anaximander. Anaxirnander held that the earth is cylindrical in shape and moves freely in the space is once again a foreshadow of the theory of gravitation. Anaximander calls his infinite boundless matter ‘God’. This is the first philosophical concept of God. This God, no doubt, is matter. But it is not mythological or anthropomorphic. Clearly it maintains monism. Beside, the the doctrine of creation of the universe by god has been completely ignored. The ‘boundless reality’ is not the Creator-God. 1.2.3 Anaximenes (588-524 BCE) : Like Thales and Anaximander, Anaximenes belonged to Miletus. Like Thales, Anaximenes regards ‘air’ as the primary stuff of the universe. Why air, and not water? It is only a matter of conjecture. Most probably Anaximenes paid more attention to the living than to any other things. Here breath, i.e., air is the predominant thing. Therefore for Anaximanes 4 air is the predominant thing. Therefore for Anaximenes air is the Pre-Socratics and fundamental stuff of which the world is composed. Sophists Anaximenes chose air as the first substance because of its mobility, change ability and inner vitality. As a matter of fact air was considered to be the breath of the universe. Hence this breathing universe was considered to be a living organism for this reason Anaximenes is really a hylozoist. Hyle is the living matter. For Anaximenes, this primary air is regulated by the opposed principles of condensation and rarefaction. Condensation simply means compression of the air in a narrow space and rarefaction means expansion of the air in the greater space. By rarefaction air assumes the form of fire, and, by successive condensation it gives rise to water, earth and stone. Anaximenes accounts for all the important elements and states of material things through his fundamental stuff of air. Further, the world is not annoy vaporous, liquid and solid, but is also sound, colour rough smooth etc. how to explain this world of quality ? the principles of condensation and the rarefaction admit of quantitative differences. Hence, here is involved the principle that quantity can explain the quality. Later on Pythagoras laid down his famous statement ‘what exists, exists is number’. In the modern times no scientific explanation is considered reliable unless it is put into quantitive formulae. Hence, the thinking of Anaximenes is a step forward towards the scientific worldview. Check your progress : 1) Anaximander was the first writer on ……….. 2) A formless general principle can account for the ………….. 3) What is the view Anaximander with regard to earth ? 4) Who gave the first philosophical concept of God. 5) For Anaximenes what is the fundamental stuff of which the world is composed ? 6) Why did Anaximenes chose air ? 5 Western Philosophy 1.3 THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE (PERMENIDES AND HERACLTTUS) 1.3.1 Heraclitus : Heraclitus of Ephesus was a contemporary of Parmenides. But their philosophies were opposed. According to Parmenides reality is one, eternal and unchangeable being. For Heraclitus, reality is change, flux, and Becoming. The main teaching of Heraclitus is that everything is in constant flux. Riverse and mountains and all seemingly permanent things are in constant flux. All is flow and becoming. No one can step into the same river twice, for when a man enter into a river, then he meets one stream of water and the next moment the first stream passes away, yielding to a newer stream of water. One can easily see that no man can ever remain the same for even two moments. Man keeps on changing from moment and moment. The doctrine of flus will remind the teaching of lord Buddha relating to momentariness. Heraclitus : From fire all things originate, and return to it again by a never-resting process of development. all things, therefore, are in a perpetual flux. Constitutes reality. Yet, there is an abiding order in the ever-changing fire. All things come from fire and return to fire. There is the downward way and also the upward way.According to the downward way, through condensation fire changes into water and earth. And according to the upward way, though rarefaction, water and earth give way to fire. This order of succession produces the illusion of permanence. He also extended the teaching seeming opposites in fact are manifestations of a common substrate to good and evil itself. 1.3.2 Parmenides : Parmenides was the founder of the School of EIea. Parmenides had a large influence on Plato, who not only named a dialogue, Parmenides, after him, but always spoke of him with veneration. The single known work of Parmenides is a poem. On Nature, which has survived only in fragmentary form. His own philosophy has been presented in ‘the way to truth’. Xenophanes had declared ‘All is one’. This was the starting point of Parmenides. How could he establish this truth ? He like the rest of the people found that the world of sensible things is always becoming. Thinking come into the world and the next moment they perish. They are as much are as they are not. What can we say about this flux ? Heraclitus declared that flux alone is real. 6 To Permenides it appeared impossible. For him, real is eternal, Pre-Socratics and unchangeable and indestructible. For him it appeared self contradictory to Sophists hold that a thing which is passing away to be real. What is the point involved in saying that the real is permanent and unchangeable ? For Parmenides, One alone is real, and manyness and changes are unreal. This distinction is a matter of intuition and at most a postulate of his philosophy. But in real life changes and plurality of things are palpable. What can we say about them ? for Parmenides plurality and changes are given by the senses. At most they can be called ‘mere appearances’. But what is the reason for regarding them as ‘appearances’. Quite obviously they are and yet they cease to be. If the world of senses is illusory, then how do we know the One ? Of course, through throught. Hence, Parmenides makes a distinction between the appearance and reality, sense and thought. He gives predominance to thought. The above interpretation of Parmenides as the identity of thought and being is essentially the tenet of Idealism. These ideas strongly influenced the whole of Western philosophy, perhaps most notably through their effect on plato. Parmenides holds that reality is one, enternal and indestructible. Parmenides explains how reality (coined as “what – is) is one, Change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, Necessary and unchanging. He explains the world of appearances, in which one’s sensory faculties lead to conception which are false and deceitful. Check your progress : 1) What is reality according to Heraclitus ? 2) No one can step into the same river…………… 3) what is the nature of reality according to Parmenides ? 1.4 PLURALISTS DEMOCRITUS Leucippus and Democritus are widely regarded as the first atomists in the Greek tradition. Little is known about Leucippus, while the ideas of his student Democritus – who is said to have taken over and systematized his teacher’s theory – are known from a large number of reports. These ancient atomists theorized that the two fundamental and oppositely characterized constituents of the natural world indivisible bodiesatoms- and void. The latter is described simply as nothing, or the negation of body. Atoms are by their nature intrinsically unchangeable; they can only 7 Western Philosophy move abot in the void and combine into different clusters. Since the atoms are separated by void, they cannot fuse, but must rather bounce off one another when they collide. Because all macroscopic objects are in fact combinations of atoms, everything in the macroscopic world is subject to change, as their constituent atoms shift or move away. Thus, while the atoms themselves persist through all time, everything in the world of our experience is transitory and subject to dissolution. According to Aristole’s presentation (On generation and Corruption I 8), the motivation for the first postulation of indivisible bodies is to answer a metaphysical puzzle about the possibility of change and multiplicity. Parmenides had argued that any differentiation or change in Being implies that ‘what is not either is or comes to be. Althought there are problems in interpreting Parmenides precise meaning, he was understood to have raised a problem about how change can be possible without something coming from nothing. Several Presocratics formulated, in response, philosophical system in which change is not considered to required something coming into being from complete nonexistence, but rather the arrangement of preexisting elements into new combinations. The atomists held that, like Being, as conceived by Parmenides, the atoms are unchangeable and contain no internal differentiation of a sort that would allow for division. But there are many beings, not just one, which are separated from another by nothing, i.e. by void. By positing indivisible bodies, the atmists were also thought to be answering Zeno’s paradoxes about the impossibility of motion. Zeno had argued that, if magnitudes can be divided to infinity, it would be impossible for motion to occur. The problem seems to be that a body moving would have to traverse an infinite number of spaces in a finite time. By supposing that the atoms form the lowest limit to division, the atomists escape from this dilemma : a total space traversed has only a finite number of parts. As it is unclear whether the earliest atomists understood the atmos to be physically or theoretically indivisible, they may not have made the distrinction. The changes in the world of macroscopic objects are caused by rearrangements of the atomic clusters. Atoms can differ in size, shape, oprder and order and position (the way they are turned) ; they move about in the void, and – depending on their shape – some can temporarily bond with one another by means of tiny hooks and barbs on their surfaces. Thus the shape of individual atmos affects the macroscopic texture of clusters of atoms, which may be fluid and yielding or firm and resistant, depending on the amount of void space between and the coalescence of the atomic shapes. The texture of surfaces and the relative density and fragility of different materials are also accounted for by the same means. The atomists accounted for perception by means of films of atmos sloughed off from their surfaces by external objects, and entering and impacting the sense organs. They tried to account for all sensible effects by means of cantact, and regarded all sense perceptions as caused by the properties of the atmos making up the films acting on the atmos of 8 animals’ sense organs. Perceptions of color are caused by the ‘turning’ or Pre-Socratics and position of the atmos; tastes are caused by the texture of atmos on the Sophists tongue, e.g., bitter tastes by the tearing caused by sharp atmos; feeling of heat are ascribed to friction. Democritus was taken by Aristole to have considered thought to be a materiamaterial process involving the local rearrangement of bodies, just as much as is perception. A famous quotation from Democritus distinguishes between perceived properties like colors and tastes, which exist only ‘by convention,’ in contrast to the reality, which is atmos and void. However, he apparently recognized an epistemological problem for an empiricist philosophy that nonetheless regards the obkects of sense as unfreal. In another famous quotation, the senses accuse the mind of overthrowing them, although mind is dependent on the sense. The accusation is that, by developing an atomist theory that undermines the basis for confidence in sense perception, thought has in effect undercut its own foundation on knowledge gained through the senses. Democritus sometimes seems to doubt or deny the possibility of knowledge. The early atomists try to account for the formation of the natural world by means of their simple ontology of atoms and void alone. Leucippus held that there are an infinite number of atmos moving for all time in an infinite void and that these can form into cosmic systems or kosmoi by means of a whirling motion which randomly establishes itself in a large enough cluster of atoms. It is controversial whether atmos are thought to have weight as an intrinsic property, causing them all to fall in some given direction, or whether weight is simply a tendency for atoms (which otherwise move in any and every direction, except when struck) to move towards the centre of a system, created by the whirling of the cosmic vortices. When a vortex is formed, it creates a membrane of atoms at its outer edge, and the outer band of atoms catches fire, forming a sun and stars. These kosmoi are impermanent and are not accounted for by purpose or design. The earth is described as a flat cylindrical drum at the center of our cosmos. Species are not regarded as permanent abstract forms, but as the result of chance combinations of atoms. Living things are regarded as having a psyche or principle of life; this is identified with fiery atoms. Organisms are thought to reproduced by means of seed : Democritus seems to have held that both parents produce seeds composed of fragments from each organ of their body. Whichever of the parts drawn from the relevant organ of the parents predominates in the new mixture determines which characteristics are inherited by the offspiring. Democritus is reported to have given an account of the origin of human beings from the earth. He is also said to be the founder of a kind of cultural anthropology, since his account of the origin of the cosmos includes an account of the origin of human institutions, including language and social and political organization. A large group of reports about Democritu’s views concern ethical maxims : some schlors have tried to regard these as systematic or depedent 9 Western Philosophy on atomist physics, while others doubt the closeness of the connection. Because several maxims stress the value of ‘cheerfulness,’ Democritus is sometimers portrayed as ‘the laughing philosopher.’ 1.5 SOPHIST The practice of charging money for education and Providing wisdom only to those who could pay led to the condemnations made by Socrates, through Plato in his dialogues, as well as Xenophone’s Memorabilia. The Greek word sophist (sophistis) derives from the world sophin, and sophos, meaning “wisdom” or “wise” since the time of Homer and was originally used to describe expertise in a particular knowledge or craft. Gradually, however the word also came to denote general wisdom arid especially wisdom about human affairs (for example, in politics, ethics, or household management). In ancient Greece, sophists were a category of philosopher-teachers who travelled around Greek cities and specialized in using the techniques of philosophy and ehetoric for the purpose of teaching arête-excellence, or virtuepredominantly to young statemens and nobility. These were useful skills in Athens, where being persuasive could lead to political power and economics wealth. Although there were numerous differences among Sophist teachings, a prominent element in their philosophy was skepticism. Sophists taught their beliefs for a considerable price. Overall, Sophists identified as either agnostic or atheistic. Sophists become popular following the development of thought and society in Athens, Greece in the fifth centuary B.C. They offered practical education with teaching that included speculation of the nature of the universe as well as the art of life and politics. They believed that law was an agreement between people and that justice is nonexistent. Among the Sophists, Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasymachus, Lycophron, Callicles, Antiphone, and Crytylus are the most well-known. Most Sophists claimed to teach arête excellence in the management of one’s own affairs and especially in the administration of the affairs of the city. Up to the fifth century B.C. it was the common belief that arête was inborn and that aristocratic birth alone qualified a person for politics, but Protagoras taught that arête is the result of training and not innate. The Sophists claimed to be able to help their students better themselves through the acquisition of certain practical skills, especially rhetoric (the art of persuasion). Advancement in politics was almost entirely depedent upon rhetorical skills. The Anthenian democracy with its assembly (ekklesia), in which any citizen could speak on demostic and foreign affairs, and the council of five hundred (boule), on which every Athenian citizen got a chance to serve, required an ability to speak persuasively. The Sophists filled this need for rhetorical training and by their teaching proved that education could make an individual a more effective citizen and improve his status in Anthnian society. 10 Check your Progress. Pre-Socratics and Sophists 1) Who were the Sophists ? 1.6 THE SOPHIST EPISTEMOLOGY 1.6.1 Protagoras : Protogoras of Abdera (c. 4gO-420 B.C.E.) was the most prominent member of the sophistic movement and Plato reports he was the first to change fees using that title. From a philosophical perspective, Protagoras is most famous for his relativistic account of truth-in particular the claim that ‘man is the measure of all things’ –and his agnosticism concerning the Gods. Protagoras was one of the most well-known and successful teachers. He taught his students the necessary skills and knowledge for a successful life, particularly in politics, rather than philosophy. He trained his pupils to argue from both points of view because he believed that truth could not be limited to just one side of the argument. Therefore, he taught his students to praise andblame the same things and to strengthen the weaker argument so that it might appear the stronger. These techniques are based on the belief that truth is relative to the individual. Arguments on both sides of a question are equally true because those debating a question can only truly know those things which exist in their own mind and therefore cannot make a definitely true statement about objective realities the mind (phenomenalism). Truth is what it appears to be to the individual. Protagoras wrote about a variety of subjects and some fragments of his work survived. He is the author of the famous saying, “man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are and things that are not, that they not”, ‘Which is the opening sentence of a work called Truth. However, the question which arises is what is meant by knowledge ? Knowledge means that which is true for all and for all the moments of human life. Is Perception knowledge in that sense ? No. But it is nonetheless knowledge of the object as it appears to a percipient at a particular moment and true for him at that moment alone. Is is true for another ? no, for perception of one true to him alone at one particular moment of time, and a thing is what appears to another moment of time. It appears then no two perceptions of the same man are the same, and not two perceptions of two men are quite the same. And yet for all practical purpose perception alone is knowledge. This knowledge is relative to different times. Hence the famous saying of Protagoras Homo Mensura, i.e. man is the measure of all things. In other words; what appears to me is true for me and what appears to you is true for you. Is there no knowledge which is valid and acceptable to all men universally ? NO. Then the conclusion of 11 Western Philosophy homo mensura not only shows the relativism of knowledge but also its universality as impossibility. This is known as skepticism. In other respects, it also means all statements are true and none are false. Goorgias another Sophist holds that based on this perception, no knowledge is possible, and even if knowledge be available. It cannot be communicated to others. Few thinkers pointout that Protagoras used the term man not as an individual men but universal man, the rational man. It is reason which is one and the same in all andwhat reason tells us is universal and valid for all. In this sense, man taken as a rational being is certainly the measures of all things. But on close analysis of Protogoras philosophy. We know that he does not uphold the claims of thought or reason in constituting knowledge. For him, knowledge is perception. Against this view. Socrates maintained that knowledge is thought. Hence the Protogoras dphorism of homo mensura necessarily leads to skepticism and nihilism. Here ‘man’ really means men for Protagoras. 1.6.2 Gorgias : Gorgias is another well-known Sophist. Gorgias writings showcase his ability of making ridiculous and unpopular positions appear stronger. Gorgias authored a lost work known as On Nature of the Non-Existent, in this book he laid down three of his tenets, namely, 1) There is nothing 2) Even if there be anything, it cannot be known. 3) Even if there be any knowledge of anything. It cannot be communicated. In explaining the first tenet Gorgias is said to have borrowed Zeno’s arguments leading to falsity of motion and plurality. If there be anything then it can be known only through perception. But perception tells us that things are many and the they are motion. Further, perception is the only knowledge. And perception tells us that everything has come into being from its earlier state. But this arising of things can be either from being or non-being. But quite obviously a world of becoming cannot come from an unchanging being. Again nothing can arise from non-being. Hence, there is nothing in the world. The second tenet of Gorgias is. ‘Even if there is anything, we cannot know it’. It means we do not know what the real object is. What we find here is that the sophists were interested in the refutation of the statements of their opponents. Naturally they concentrated on the logic of proof and contradiction. Naturally any judgement can really be tautology. The third tenet, ‘Even if we could know anything, we cannot communicate our knowledge to anyone else.’ Gorgia’s attempts to persuade his readers that thought and existence was different. Hence, whatever our knowledge be, it cannot be about things. Hence, what kind of knowledge can be 12 obtained to be communicated at all ? It further means. ‘My perception is Pre-Socratics and mine, and yours is yours’. There is nothing which two persons can Sophists perceive alike. Hence each man is shut up in his cocoon like existence from which nothing can go out and into which nothing can enter. Hence, no knowledge can ever be communicated. Here the theory of Gorgia’s refuted his practice, for he was teaching and communicating his knowledge to his pupils. Check your progress : 1) What was the prominent element in the philosophy of the Sophists ? 2) Protagoras taught that arefe is the result of ………and not innate. 3) Protagoras is most famous for his relativistic account of truth particular the claim that ……….. 4) Explain the reasoning of Protagoras to train his students to argue from both points of view ? 5) Explain skepticism that follows from the conclusion of homo mensura. 6) Mention any two tenets of gorgias. 1.7 THE SOPHIST THEORY OF MORALITY The Sophists held that morality consists in pleasure. What is pleasant, agreeable and desirable feeling for one is morally right for him, and what is agreeable and desirable for another is morally right for him. Here in morality the individual state becomes the measure of morality. As these states are relative to individuals, so morality differs from persons to persons. Therefore, the sophists were pragmatist and utilitarian in moral philosophy. What is true individuala is true also for justice, law and goodness of the State. For the sophists, the State law is based on customs and conventions. The law of one State is not the same as the law of other States. Even in the same State the law framed by one ruling party is changed by the next ruling party. Under the circumstances goodness and justice are relative. It is really based on the principle of ‘might is right’. The brute majority of the ruling party in the State frames the laws for the weaker ones. Hence justice is the right of the strong. Plato opposed the doctrine of ‘might is right’ and taught right is might’. In religion too the sophists were non-committal. Protagoras is supposed to have written a book called ‘On the Gods’ in which he states : With regard to gods, I cannot feel sure either that they are not or that they are not, now they are like in figure ; for there are many things that hinder sure knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the shortness of human life. Thus Protagoras was really skeptical about the existence of God. But he advised the traditional worship of gods, perhaps as a measure of prudence. 13 Western Philosophy Protagoras is said to have been charged for his irreverence because of his skepticism about the existence of gods. Check Your Progress : 1) The Sophists held that morality consists in ………….. 2) What is Protagoras view with regard to God ? 1.8 SUMMARY Early Greek thinkers were free thinkers. They tried to explain things according to natural causes like earth, water, fire and air’ Thinkers like Thales, Anaximander, Anzximenes, Heraclitues and Parmenides did not take help of supernatural Gods. Hence Greek philosophy is called scientific in spirit. 1.9 UNIT END QUESTIONS 1) Give a brief analysis of Pre Socratic Philosophy. 2) Thales is regarded as the first Philosopher in the Greek tradition, Comment. 3) Explain Anaximander’s cosmology in detail. 4) Why does Anaximenes regard air as the primary stuff of the universe ? 5) Explain Parmenides and Heraclitus’ view of change in detail. 6) Man is the measure of all things’, explain it with reference to Protagoras view point. 7) Briefly explain the epistemology of Sophists’ 8) Elicidate Sophists theory of Morality.  14