Isocrates
I’m glad we took a full week focusing primarily on Isocrates, because I personally find his work very unique compared to the readings from last week. My first read through of “Against the Sophists” left me quite a bit surprised, because he feels slightly hypocritical. Isocrates is so vehemently against the sophists who make their living by educating others in schools, yet he had his own practice where he taught his form of rhetoric and political discourse to a very small selection of the Greek community for a price (likely all rich white males with time to spare). Of course, he does explain that it is not the fact that the sophists wish to educate others that is the issue, but that the sophists believe “if they [students] will only study under them they will know what to do in life and through this knowledge will become happy and prosperous” (3). I do find it dangerous to claim certain knowledge gives you happiness, because I don’t think that is a viable promise for all people. Additionally, how can one be sure their beliefs are the whole truth of the universe and the right way to view things based solely on their own single experience/perspective? I find it to be arrogant if a philosopher cannot admit that they do not know all, because I think every intellectual, truthful human being should be able to acknowledge this objective truth of humanity's ignorance (nobody knows all). Another important note I took from the text was when Isocrates stated, “they do not attribute any of this power either to the practical experience or to the native ability of the student, but undertake to transmit the science of discourse as simply as they would teach the letters of the alphabet, not having taken trouble to examine into the nature of each kind of knowledge,” (9). It is naïve to think that one’s own knowledge is so enlightening, that it could epitomize a student’s entire academic and professional background. Additionally, teaching is a mutually beneficial act, and I think teachers can find much to learn from their prodigies through academic discourse, so no teacher should ever expect their teachings alone to be able to create active citizens of society. They must learn to engage their students in a way so that they can be participants rather than simply passive followers, which I believe is at the heart of Isocrates’ argument here.
“Antidosis” by Isocrates also shares the same argument (anti-sophist), but with the structure of legal writing at the time (a rebuttal is in place for the sophists). However, “Antidosis” does focus more on defending Isocrates’ personal pedagogies and his way of living against his critics. This piece in particular does give an air of arrogance and hypocrisy as he deduces the sophists' criticisms of HIM as foolish and idiotic. Nevertheless, he does make some good points here on how to view the academic world and rhetoric. One quotation that I found very enlightening was, “we shall find that none of the things which are done with intelligence take place without the help of speech, but that in all our actions as well as in all our thoughts speech is our guide, and is most employed by those who have the most wisdom” (8). Words have great power, as they lead to the formation of great ideas which can transform society in the hands of those whose words can be heard by many. He acknowledges this power structure by stating his own ideas, “are so contrary to popular belief and so very far removed from the opinions of the rest of the world, that I am afraid lest when you first hear them you will fill the whole court-room with your murmurs and your cries” (8). In this case, his opinion differs SO much from the general narrative, that he fears to share his ideas. Words alone can cause chaos, and this power of a figurative entity like thoughts and ideas can be quite startling, and is easily forgotten in America today. Especially with the over saturation of biased news networks, it is easy to forget the way rhetoric that is popular and easily accessible can shape our minds, and thus, shape our world/perspective.
Lastly, Isocrates’ “Ecomium of Helen” is again very anti-sophist, yet the argument stands not only in recognizing objective truths, but in valuing practical politics. This particular piece is a response to Gorgias’ “Ecomium of Helen” (although, I do agree that “defense” would have been a better word for Gorgias to use for his work). He first sets the tone of his argument by explaining that the sophists focused too much on impractical knowledge, and that they were wasting their lives hypothesizing certain beliefs of our universe and existence which could not benefit society. I can understand this perspective, because philosophy does appear on the outside to be something only the privileged can attempt, as they have the time, the wealth, and the means to study philosophy, while practical politics are utilized every single day in the legal system and in general daily life by the majority of the population. However, I would argue in defense of the sophists that it is vital to also contemplate our existence and to attempt a grasp of why and how we exist, although these skills may not be as useful in our day-to-day lives, but they would benefit and could even enlarge our outlooks. Therefore, the sophists are not wasting their time, unlike what Isocrates would like you to believe.
Additionally, Isocrates does argue in favor of Helen of Troy's innocence. He does so by utilizing the good reputation of Theseus and his strong opinion of Helen: “For we shall never be able to produce a more trustworthy witness or a more convincing authority upon the good qualities of Helen than the judgment of Theseus” (38). He also acknowledges that this debate for who was deserving of Helen’s hand would be guaranteed to cause general strife, due to her multitude of good qualities and her lineage to Zeus. Isocrates argues that beauty is the most powerful force in the universe (and virtue encapsulates beauty), which is why this feud was bound to happen. I agree that beauty is beyond powerful, according to humanity. We desire to embody and to obtain beauty in all things, and this desire for one of the greatest forces can also lead to the greatest disasters (Helen being the prime example). It is not her fault that she was so beautiful and charming, but it is humanity’s fault for causing such a war because of our value of beauty.
On the other hand, Alcidamas wrote “On The Sophists" in response to Isocrates’ work of the same name. Alcidamas places power of communication not necessarily in the words, as anyone can reiterate good ideas, but in the rhetorical elements of the oral speech itself. He recognizes that a good example of a wise thinker is, “To speak extemporaneously, and appropriately to the occasion, to be quick with arguments, and not to be at a loss for a word, to meet the situation successfully, and to fulfil the eager anticipation of the audience and to say what is fitting to be said, such ability is rare, and is the result of no ordinary training” (3). I whole-heartedly agree with this. Although Isocrates is right that power comes with thoughts/ideas, it is MORE powerful to be a good speaker. If you are not confident or well-spoken, the general public will not listen to your ideas. Ideas, generally, are more powerful in human society if they are accepted by the whole, so they must be conveyed well in order to implement their full power. A good writer does not always equate to a good speaker, and it is imperative to notice this difference. Alcidamas values the impromptu, yet knowledgeable speaker over the well-practiced writer, because speaking 1) is easier to deliver information in a shorter amount of time 2) allows addition of brand new arguments within the discourse 3) conveys more to an audience who may not want to or be able to dissect complicated readings.