Sophisticated Skepticism
On Nature
Parmenides was a sophist albeit by current definitions. He is less like the other sophists as sophists were challenging and questioning the phenomena around them while he had a set stance. His interest in the metaphysical and cosmological aligns him with sophists but he is less of a skeptic. His interest in the world and cosmos gave rise to his only work, On Nature. The poem is fragmented but we have enough pieces to derive some meaning from it. To discover objective truth, he must pass two phases, the way of objectivity (Altheia) and the way of subjectivity (Doxa).* The Goddess then explains how things came to be.
However, I became a bit frustrated that the Goddess mentioned in the poem was glazed over by the translators. The Goddess is unnamed, but as someone somewhat familiar with pagan and Greek mythology, I have every reason to believe it is Nyx, the Goddess of Night. For example, "after leaving the House of Night for the light" has two meanings from my interpretation. As Nyx is associated with darkness and the underworld, it would stand that this is a reference to leaving the darkness of the Underworld (the darkness itself comes from Nyx). It also refers to the Underworld being ruled by Hades and Persephone as Nyx resided with them. Together, they make up the House of Night (plus Nyx's children). One could also draw the conclusion of leaving the Underworld from "the gates of the paths of Night and Day" which is both literal and metaphorical (death vs. life). It is even more confirmed as Nyx as she had daughters that represented day and is referenced as "Daughters of the Sun." An additional child is confirmed which is Nemesis who is described as "much-avenging Justice holds the keys of retribution."
Here's a Wikipedia snippet from Nyx's page before I continue: Nyx is the offspring of Chaos, alongside Erebus (Darkness), by whom she becomes the mother of Aether and Hemera (Day).[6] Without the assistance of a father, Nyx produces Moros (Doom, Destiny), Ker (Destruction, Death), Thanatos (Death), Hypnos (Sleep), the Oneiroi (Dreams), Momus (Blame), Oizys (Pain, Distress), the Hesperides, the Moirai (Fates), the Keres, Nemesis (Indignation, Retribution), Apate (Deceit), Philotes (Love), Geras (Old Age), and Eris (Strife).
My interpretation is relevant to the poem as it relates to the cosmos and reality. There is no better Goddess to greet him and tell him of the objective truth than the mother of night. Her parent, Chaos, is the absence of everything before creation. Her children are often the negative aspects of humanity, from death to fate to love. She is part of the cosmos and part of reality.
In the Standford Encyclopedia, it mentions “As yet a single tale of a way/ remains, that it is; and along this path markers are there/ very many, that What Is is ungenerated and deathless,/ whole and uniform, and still and perfect” (fr. 8.1–4). Through my interpretation, this mention brings some new meaning. To be deathless and to be whole and to be still, it seems like part of Nyx's revelation is for Parmenides to understand her father, the being before human's understanding of "reality" existed.
Nyx is also a primordial Goddess meaning she is the beginning of creation along with her siblings. She and the others contribute and shape reality which humans cannot comprehend. They are part of the natural and celestial and earthliness humans live within.
Nyx being the one to guide Parmenides makes much sense as she would understand reality in a way the Gods of Olympus or even the Titans could not.
*I am pretty sure Altheia relates to Athena, Goddess of Wisdom.
**Nyx has a few different depictions in modern media and is still relevant to Pagans. If you want to know a fictionalized (but heavily inspired by her mythology), I recommend Hades the video game.
Pericles's Funeral Oration
Thucydides would recount speeches that were spoken before battles between the Athenians and Spartans.* Some consider him among the first historians.** The speech given by Pericles, Pericles's Funeral Oration, is considered his most famous by historians and Dr. Pullman. The point of the speech was to mourn the deaths and energize the troops into action.***
"Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few." This line serves to bring up the superiority of Athens compared to the other city-states. It also serves as a reminder that the core of Athens is their democracy, unlike the Spartans who uphold oligarchy. "Athens crowns her sons living and dead, after a struggle like theirs. For where the rewards of virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are enlisted in the service of the state." This is to praise the dead so those mourning feel pride in their sons, brothers, or fathers' sacrifice to their great Athens. He also mentions virtue (a big thing among Greeks) and encourages enlistment. By bringing the uniqueness of Athens, it tightens the reason to stay strong during the struggles of war. By encouraging virtue and noble actions, it shifts thoughts from the scariness of death and hesitancy to join to the honorable action of serving one's city and joining the fight even with the threat of death (which is seen as a virtuous sacrifice).
Dr. Pullman makes a comparison that this speech held a similar weight and popularity to Greeks as MLK Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech has to us. In terms of controlling public sentiment, there is a reason MLK Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" is remembered more than his other speeches and writings or even other civil rights movement leaders. His speech was easier to swallow than his other beliefs. When he was alive, there was a lot of vitriol from the American public opinion. His death energized the civil rights movement and thus he became a martyr to be used by the right. To control public sentiment for those hungry for justice, the idea of MLK Jr. wanting peaceful change was pushed. To the average person and right-winger, MLK Jr. was preferable to figures like Malcome X.****
*Another difference between the two city-states was their values. Athens emphasized knowledge while Spartans emphasized strength. Spartans would chuck babies off cliffs if they were seen as unfit or deformed and training through their teens would be dangerous and sometimes fatal. This feeds into their political ideology Spartans - ruled by the strong few and Athens - for the people (if they were Greek, male, and free, of course).
**I wondered if this is for strictly early Western culture.
***Low morale is dangerous in times of war.
****If you want to thwart a right winger, I suggest reading his Birmingham letter and bringing up the "white moderate." If you really want to push their buttons, bring up the fact MLK Jr. said, "a riot is the language of the unheard.”
Protagoras: Fragments
While a sophist, his skepticism can be called into question (similarly to Parmenides). For one, he states, "Man is the measure of all things." Doesn't seem quite that skeptical or pushing the boundaries. He seems set on the position of humans being the center of reality and how it should be perceived. This is even more emphasized by his agnostic view on whether Gods exist or not. I think his agnosticism influences his humanistic stance. If there is no discernable way to understand Gods and to know if they exist, then man's perspective and judgment become the center. Reality is how we choose and can understand.
His humanism and agnosticism, from my interpretation, then lead to his other pillar of logic, perspectivism. "Every issue there are two arguments opposed to each other; these he made use of in arguing by the method of questioning, a practice he originated." By seeing different perspectives, one becomes a stronger rhetorician and does not constrain himself to one form of language or logic. I do disagree with the two sides' argument, as often there are multiple sides, and not all sides are completely opposing one another.
On Being or On Nature
Since On Being or On Nature is written in summary from a modern interpretation and from Sextus Empirics', we never get the actual words of Gorgias. A man known for his strong rhetorical skill and style. Like other sophists, he ponders the relation between words and reality. In a way, words mold our perception of reality. He is also concerned with existence and non-existence.
I tend to agree with the idea that words create, mold, and destroy how we perceive the world (along with memory and experience). Language and linguistics are so complicated and so influential, yet it is often glossed over by the average person (unless you are studying it for a course or degree or learning a new language). Each language has differentiations, limits, geographical and cultural relevancy, and range.*
"If anything exists, it is incomprehensible." Since we are restrained by our senses, we cannot possibly comprehend true reality. Not only this but "If anything is comprehensible, it is incommunicable." As our senses blind us from true reality (if even such a thing exists), we are bound by our languages. Even if we could understand specks of reality, how would one communicate such a thing? I'd liken it to a vague and obscure dream someone had the other night and trying to explain it to a friend. Without the friend also experiencing the dream, they are stuck trying to piece together what the other friend is saying and simultaneously being influenced by their own thoughts.**
*For example, some Native American languages have multiple tenses. For Native Americans in Canada and Alaska, some have multiple words that differentiate between types of snow and ice while we think of snow as snow and ice as ice.
**For example, I may say I saw a fluffy black cat with green eyes in a dream. My friend will then try to visualize what I am saying from the description and also base it on their own experiences. They may think of the cat being a lighter shade of black than what I mean. They may think the cat has medium-long hair while I meant a fur ball. They may think the cat's green eyes are a sharp emerald while I remember them as a soft and muted green. Even if we provide visuals and try to bring other senses like smell, it will be painstaking and overall, never coming to the full representation of the dream.
Gorgias' Encomium of Helen
This work of Gorgias focuses on the Helen of Troy event instead of pondering over what is reality or existence and nonexistence. A more concrete reading, if you will. The purpose is to push back against the hatred and blame on Helen that she has been battered with and free her of the accusations. Because of Gorgias' intentions, I'd argue this as a feminist piece.*
"God is a stronger force than man in might and in wit and in other ways. If then one must place blame on Fate and on a god, one must free Helen from disgrace." Predetermination is a tricky defense, but I understand it is used in this instance.** Since many Greeks believed in fate being unavoidable and controlled by their Gods, someone like Helen could not change what occurred to her. "But if she was raped by violence and illegally assaulted and unjustly insulted, it is clear that the raper, as the insulter, did the wronging, and the raped, as the insulted, did the suffering." This line is for the audience to sympathize with Helen and see her again as a victim forced into a situation.*** Last but not least, "But if it was speech which persuaded her and deceived her heart, not even to this is it difficult to make an answer and to banish blame as follows. Speech is a powerful lord." Again, he wants the audience to see her not at fault but wholly Paris. As sophists understand the importance and power of words, they would be more likely to be persuaded by this logic. If words can literally shape our reality and how we understand the world, surely words can deceive a person. He even likens persuasion to drugs. It can affect us in numerous ways.
*I vaguely remember a similar style of writing used as a defense for Monica Lewinsky as a modern-day version and feminist piece.
**Predetermination or fate is a gray area. Some could argue that fate can be changed if the Gods allow it so fate is not always set in stone. Also, a point can be argued that Gods can at times have a hands-off approach which can make things go astray or give humans some free will.
***The next line casts Paris as a barbarian. Barbarian is often used against non-Greeks. So, by saying he is behaving as a barbarian, he is acting not like a Greek and is unhonorable.
The First Tetralogy
As people from democratic Greece could be accused of crimes at any time, it was good to know how to defend oneself. This is where Antiphon, the first speechwriter, stepped in. He wrote a format of speeches that could be used in court. Antiphon, comparatively to the previous sophists, was focused more on the practical and day-to-day application of rhetoric instead of the philosophical. In a bit of irony, the well-established and well-spoken sophist lost his own trial and was executed.*
One of the defenses that piqued my interest was "(7) Why must the evidence of the servant be regarded as more trustworthy than a free man?" His argument is that a free man has a lot more to lose than a servant or slave who may not be punished by the court. It makes sense to argue that the one who has more to lose would be less likely to commit a crime. However, human history has proven that that is not often the case. A person can have everything and blow it for nothing.
"(10) They pretend to use probabilities to convict me" is a great rebuttal. Probability has to factor in a lot but can be twisted by the lawyers who are seeking punishment against the accused. A judge or jury could be persuaded by a faked probability such as he was there the night of the murder so it must be him.**
*If fate is truly predetermined, the Gods have a dark sense of humor.
**For a more American example, many black people were accused of crimes they did not commit throughout history. Because of prejudices, lawyers (if a proper trial took place) could use racist probability such as he is a poor black man, of course, he stole that lollipop. With probability persuading the minds of the jury, they would then convict the accused of a crime and often give them a disproportionate sentencing.
Dissoi Logoi: Two-Fold or Contrasting Arguments
Dissoi Logoi is a sophist text by an unknown author which does detract some meaning from the text as we have less context. However, there is still a great deal of argumentation we can dissect. The unknown author argues that there is contextual relativism. What is good in this situation may be bad in another. This viewpoint allows for someone to see different sides to an argument and not restrain themselves to one framework (which through contextual relativism reveals how logic breaks if one is absolute on everything or narrow-minded). I do want to add an extension to this argument as seeing opinions on a spectrum or sliding scale (such as democracy to fascism) is another framework to use.
Context provides a better understanding of a situation. For example, "Contrasting arguments are also put forward on what is seemly and shameful. For some say that what is seemly and what is shameful are two different things; as the name differs, so likewise does the reality." Cultural differences prove that what is shameful and what is seemly are not agreed upon. If one were only to look at a Greek standpoint, they would limit themselves by what is considered seemly or shameful. "(20) To put the matter generally, all things are seemly when done at the right moment, but shameful when done at the wrong moment." Not only can culture affect one's view, but so does time. This is showcased in their example, "For whenever one asks them, they say that the two groups say the same things, only the wise say them at the right moment and the demented at moments when it is not proper." The author utilizes this thinking as well through the other sections' topics.
A final point I want to make is in regard to this quote, "What in that case do the sophists teach, if not wisdom and moral excellence?" The free men of Athens really had a superiority complex when it came to wisdom and virtue. They saw it as innate (after all, if you are seen as gifted and among few, you see the many as lower). If any could be taught, wisdom becomes common and not unique. If knowledge is wide, power is shared. This was threatening to the "democratic" men at the time, so it was better to hold an iron grip on the belief that wisdom and moral excellence are simply unteachable so why try? The author points out this falsehood. If such a thing were innate, sophists and teachers need not exist.
*Yes, yes, I should have been a historian. I'm sure some of my history teachers and professors would gasp at me being in the English department. (What betrayal!)