Geoffrey Canada, an education reformer, once expressed in the documentary Waiting for Superman: “One of the saddest days of my life was when my mother told me Superman did not exist” (Internet Movie Database). Born and raised out of hardship and poverty, Geoffrey and thousands of other children with similar background know exactly who this fictional figure simply is: a good and dedicated teacher. It may be surprising to many that these children know precisely how education can transform their lives, lift them and their family out of poverty and privilege them with the powers to pursue what they love. Sadly, the current education systems and the so-called “supermen” are failing these innocent minds. A relevant question arises out of this context: “Who is truly a teacher and how important is this figure to the essence of a society?” Many of Plato and Aristotle’s works can point to the right answer to this question, in particularly Plato’s Theaetetus, Apology and Sophist as well as Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In these works, Plato argues only a philosopher can possess enough qualities to take on such an important task as education, but unfortunately, the world is filled with sophists who are disguised as dedicated teachers, and thus, lead society into more and more disarray. Particularly, sophists are materially-driven individuals who master the art of imitation to lure the youth and wealthy people into their teachings, while philosophers possess an endless will to follow what they believe in, even when facing deaths. Thus, in this paper, I will first examine qualities distinguishing a philosopher from a sophist by evidence from Plato’s Sophist, Apology, Theaetetus and then a look into Aristotle’s Metaphysics will further enlighten the role and essence of a philosopher.
First, Plato himself hints in Sophist that a sophist can simply be a degraded form of a philosopher: “As philosophers look down from above at the lives of those below them, some people think they’re worthless and others think they’re worth everything in the world. Sometimes they take on the appearances of statesmen, and sometimes of sophists” (Plato, Sop. 237 216c). Right after, Plato goes to the heart of the problem by asking “did they think that sophists, statesmen, and philosophers make up one kind of thing or two? Or did they divide them up into three kinds corresponding to the three names and attach one name to each of them” (237 217a). This statement implies the distinct line between a philosopher and a sophist is not as clear as day and night, and may easily trick one into believing that one is another (usually a sophist is thought to be a philosopher). Another reason why it is confusing is the fact that the Greek root for “sophist” stems from sophos, or sophia, meaning “wisdom.” Also, the direct translation for “philosopher” in Greek is “lover of wisdom.”[1] Therefore, the art of sophistry itself is not necessarily harmful, but the practitioner is. This confusion can lead to detrimental effects on the education system. Therefore, who exactly is a sophist?
In Republic, Plato introduces the idea of the tripartite soul, and ranks the appetitive soul, or the money-loving soul at the lowest level. In Sophist, Plato first describes a sophist as hired hunter of rich young men: “This sort of expertise belongs to appropriation, taking possession, hunting, animal-hunting, hunting on land, human hunting, hunting by persuasion, hunting privately, and money-earning. It’s the hunting of rich, prominent young men. And according to the way our account has turned out, it’s what should be called the expertise of the sophist” (243 223b). Thus, Plato condemns that a sophist’s motive behind education is purely materialistic. A sophist, therefore, tends to provide education only to those who can afford it.
Moreover, using the method of division, the visitor and Theaetetus in Sophist arrive at another conclusion that a sophist has many appearances.[2] Subsequently, a sophist is “[a] hired hunter of rich young men,” “wholesaler of learning about the soul,” “retailer of the same things,” “seller of his own learning,” “an athlete in verbal combat, distinguished by his expertise in debating” and “he [who] cleanses the soul of beliefs that interfere with learning” (252 231d). Here, a problem arises when the visitor questions the possibility of a sophist taking so many appearances:
Well then, suppose people apply the name of a single sort of expertise to someone, but he appears to have expert knowledge of lots of things. In a case like that don’t you notice that something’s wrong with the way he appears? Isn’t it obvious that if somebody takes him to be an expert at many things, then that observer can’t be seeing clearly what it is in his expertise that all of those many pieces of learning focus on—which is why he calls him by many times instead of one? (252 232a)
Certainly it is doubtful that a person can possess so much knowledge of everything, and those who claim they do should be suspected. Moreover, Plato points out that if a sophist excels in any arts, it will be the art of deception by tricking people to believe they know more than they actually do: “How the sophists can ever make young people believe they’re wiser than everyone else about everything. It’s obvious that they didn’t make correct objections against anyone, or didn’t appear so to young people” (253 233b). From here, Plato concludes that sophists simply employ the art of imitation, with superior eloquence, to their advantages:
So think about the man who promises he can make everything by means of a single kind of expertise. Suppose that by being an expert at drawing he produces things that have the same names as real things. Then we know that when he shows his drawings from far away he’ll be able to fool the more mindless young children into thinking that he can actually produce anything he wants to. (255 234b, emphasis added)
Thus, a sophist is simply one who masters the art of imitation to the point that he or she can skillfully employ this art and lure people into thinking a sophist is a true “lover and pursuer of wisdom.” Contrary to this art, Plato introduces the idea of dialectic and proposes that this is the only way to grasp knowledge and a true practitioner of dialectic must be able to distinguish one from multiple forms: “So if a person can do that [dialectic], he’ll be capable of adequately discriminating a single form spread out all through a lot of other things, each of which stands separate from the others. In addition he can discriminate forms that are different from each other but are included within a single form that’s outside them” (276 253d). Plato unhesitantly assigns the master of “dialectical activity only to someone who has a pure and just love of wisdom,” (276 253e) which apparently a sophist is not, as he or she “runs off into the darkness of that which is not, which he’s had practice dealing with, and he’s hard to see because the place is so dark” (276 254a). It is worth noting Parmenides of Elea testifies a focus on the what-is-not should be avoided for this is not the true path in his famous prose: “Never shall this force itself on us, that that which is not may be;/ While you search, keep your thought far away from this path” (257 237a). Thus, so far, I have examined that a sophist is essentially a figure whose end goal is purely materialistic, who practices the art of imitation so skillfully that he appears to master limitless knowledge and one who focuses on the what-is-not, which is a clear violation of the Parmenidean principle. At the end of Sophist, Plato also concludes the image of a sophist: “Imitation of the contrary-speech-producing, insincere and unknowing sort, of the appearance-making kind of copy-making, the word-juggling part of production that’s marked off as human and not divine. Anyone who says the sophist is of this “blood and family” will be saying, it seems, the complete truth” (293 268d).
Ironically, in Plato’s Apology, Socrates is accused of practicing the art of sophistry to confuse the youth and wealthy individuals. In defending Socrates, Plato makes some convincing arguments. First, borrowing the allegory of a horse-trainer, Plato argues that if one corrupts and harms the horses, the rest of the horse-trainers must be able to improve their welfare, which is less likely the case than vice versa, which means that the majority has harmed the horses and the few, including Socrates, actually improves its well-being:
Tell me: does this also apply to horses do you think? That all men improve them and one individual corrupts them? Or is quite the contrary true, one individual is able to improve them, or very few, namely, the horse breeders, whereas the majority, if they have horses and use them, corrupt them … It would be a very happy state of affairs if only one person corrupted our youth, while the others improved them. (Apo. 24 25b)
Clearly, if Socrates is indeed the only one who corrupts the youth, then the Athenian society must be better-off, for the rest of the people all commit to the improvement and well-being of the youth, which, unfortunately, is not the case. Second, Plato compares the act of corrupting the youth as harming himself, for if Socrates corrupts the youth willingly, he will definitely suffer the revenge later. [3] This is the age-old idea of evil begetting evil:
If I make one of my associates wicked I run the risk of being harmed by him so that I do such a great evil deliberately … Either I do not corrupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly, and you are lying in either case. Now if I corrupt them unwillingly, the law does not require you to bring people to court for such unwilling wrongdoings, but to get hold of them privately, to instruct them and exhort them (24 25e).
However, the most dramatic argument Plato makes in defending Socrates is his attitude towards death, for pursuing what he truly believes in. Truly, the following account may arguably be one of the most powerful, moving and eloquent oratories ever produced: “To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils. And surely it is the most blameworthy ignorance to believe that one knows what one does not know” (27 29b). Clearly, for a money-loving soul like that of a sophist, his or her attitude towards death will never be able to face death the same way Socrates does.[4]
Next, I will examine Theaetetus to better understand the image of a philosopher. After a long discussion about the topic of knowledge, both Socrates and Theaetetus still do not explicitly come to a clear conclusion as for a true definition of knowledge. However, one will be naïve in concluding that they have not achieved anything and that this is a clear dead end; for the process of practicing dialectic itself may have pushed both Socrates and Theaetetus to a horizon that no one has been able to achieve when learning about the topic of knowledge. This is also the point Plato would like to make: the pursuit of knowledge itself has no end. This is also known as the art of midwifery: “You will be modest and not think you know what you don’t know. This is all my art can achieve—nothing more. I do not know any of the things that other men know … But this art of midwifery my mother and I had allotted to us by God; she to deliver women, I to deliver men that are young and generous of spirit, all that have any beauty” (The. 234 210cd). This is absolutely contradicting to a sophist, who abuses the art of imitation to appear to have deep understanding about a variety of knowledge and trick others into believing so. Here, it is clear that Socrates successfully defends himself using solid reasons and the art of dialectics, and also expresses himself as a true pursuer of wisdom for he does not fear death nor any punishments.
Finally, in Metaphysics, as in this work, Aristotle directly supports the superiority of philosophy over any other sciences known to men. He first points out the differences between all the sciences:
Mathematics also, however, is theoretical; but whether its objects are immovable and separable from matter, is not as present clear; still, it is clear that some mathematical theorems consider them qua immovable and qua separable from matter. But if there is something which is eternal and immovable and separable, clearly the knowledge of it belongs to a theoretical science- not, however, to physics (for physics deals with certain moveable things) nor to mathematics, but to a science prior to both. (Aristotle, Met. 779 1026a 8-14)
Afterwards, he then goes on to conclude that philosophy, or theology, according to Aristotle, is the most desired[5] of all the sciences, and henceforth, the ultimate level of education and knowledge: “There must, then, be three theoretical philosophies, mathematics, physics, and what we may call theology, since it is obvious that if the divine is present anywhere, it is present in things of this sort … Thus, while the theoretical sciences are more to be desired than the other sciences, this is more to be desired than the other theoretical sciences” (779 1026b 19-26). Therefore, this implies that only a philosopher, who I have established as the true lover of wisdom, can possibly affiliate with the highest-level of science and of education.Building upon this idea, Aristotle clearly paints in Book XII a remarkable figure: “the unmoved mover,” and deems this being as the source of all motions: “And since that which is moved and moves is intermediate, there is something that which moves without being moved, being eternal, substance, and actuality. And the object of desire and the object of thought move in this way; they move without being moved” (879 1072a 23-27, emphasis added). Thus, only philosophers, or lovers of the highest science, as I established earlier, pursue and desire the path to become enchanted with that which is purest, most actual and eternal in this universe.
Undoubtedly, a philosopher is in every way superior to a sophist. First, a sophist possesses many qualities that are harmful to a society, especially in the quest of teaching the youth. He or she is materially-driven and constantly uses the art of imitation to trick the youth into deception. Furthermore, a sophist also seeks the path of the what-is-not, which is a clear violation of the Parmenidean principle. In contrast, a philosopher is above all who possesses not even the slightest fear of death nor punishment upon following what they believe. In addition, a true philosopher is one who masters the art of humility and who always strives to learn more. Finally, only a philosopher can reach the highest-level of education, as Aristotle proposes in Metaphysics. Therefore, it is no surprising that most teachers in the world fall into being sophists rather than philosophers, for the path to become a philosopher is arduous and challenging while human nature simply prefers comfort to sacrifices. Indisputably, this is a clear threat to the overall education of the youth, a warning Plato raised thousands of years ago. Clearly, this is another reason why the world is ruled by the appetitive souls, and not the rational souls. Thus, Plato concludes in Republic: “Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide … cities will have no rest from evils … nor, I think, will the human race” (Plato, Rep. 1100 473de).[6]
“I pledge my honor that I have neither received nor provided unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.”
Works Cited
Aristotle. Metaphysics. Trans. W.D. Ross. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 2001. 689-926. Print.
Plato. Apology. Trans. G.M.A Grube. Plato Complete Works. Ed. John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett, 1997. 17-36. Print.
———. Republic. Trans. G.M.A Grube; rev. C.D.C Reeve. Plato Complete Works. Ed. John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett, 1997. 971-1224. Print.
———. Sophist. Trans. Nicholas P. White. Plato Complete Works. Ed. John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett, 1997. 235-294. Print.
———. Theaetetus. Trans. M. J. Levett; rev. Myles Burnyeat. Plato Complete Works. Ed. John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett, 1997. 457-505. Print.
[1] The author would like to express his gratitude towards Professor Waite for clarifying the Greek roots.
[2] Heraclitus of Elea once said: ‘It is impossible to step twice into the same river.’ Even though it may not be clear to many, he only points out to the variety of appearances in the world.
[3] Socrates does not charge any fees for his teachings, which, is completely different from a sophist, who is driven to teach only by material means.
[4] Socrates vows also in Apology to become a “gadfly” that will irritate and challenge politicians in Athens to pursue the truth.
[5] The opening line of Aristotle’s Physics is: “All men by nature desired to know.”
[6] The author would like to express his gratitude towards Professor Ronald Waite’s assistance towards the completion of this work.
