Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 18.djvu/398

* SOPHIOLOGY. 344 SOPHOCLES. of the principal divisions of anthropology. All peoples in every stage of development produce philosophies, or general systems of thought de- signed to explain the phenomena coming within their observation. To some extent these sj-stems are the product of individual minds, yet each philosophy is in no small measure a collective product. The development of philosophic systems is outlined in the article Man, Science of. SOPHISTS (Lat. sop?n'sfo, from Gk. ffotpurrvt, sopJiislcs, wise man, teacher of arts and sciences for miiney, sophist, from aotpij^av, sophizein, to make wise, from <roc#)6s, sophos, wise ) . A class of thinkers and teachers who appeared in the fifth century B.C. in Greece, and especially at Athens. Unfortunatel}', we have little informa- tion concerning them except such as has come to us from their opponents. We can perhaps form a fair estimate of the character and significance of their work if we keep in mind the fact that much of what is said of them in extant Greek writings is extravagant satire. The change of political in- stitutions following upon the Persian and Cartha- ginian wars, the growth of democracy with an increasing opportunity for the orator, the inevit- able distrust in the inviolable character of social rules which were now seen to differ in various countries, all conspired to create a demand for up-to-date instruction which should qualifj' men for life under the new conditions. The Sophists arose to meet this demand. They popularized the results of the investigations of previous phil- osophers. Of the earlier Sophists some were Elea- tic, some Heraclitean, some Pythagorean, and some atomistic in their views, but they laid more emphasis on equipping their pupils for the tasks of public life than for philosophic or scientific work. Philological studies, rhetoric, and argu- mentation by which the worse could be made to appear the better reason, were their leading inter- ests. In the history of philosophy their signifi- cance, apart from the fact tlwit their activity called forth the philosophical activity of Socra- tes, and through him that of Plato and Aristotle, is mainly epistemological and ethical. The readi- ness with which all their arguments were re- ceived t)y their listeners made them distrustful of human knowledge. They came to believe that any proposition could be proved as satisfactorily as any other. When every statement is demon- strable none can command absolute credence, and skepticism (q.v. ) is the foregone conclu- sion. Tliis skepticism found a theoretical con- firmation in views then becoming current as to the origin of knowledge. Against the older ra- tionalism (q.v.), which distinguished between sense and thought, Protagoras, the leading Soph- ist, maintained that sensations were the sole con- tent of consciousness. But if this is true and if sense impressions of one and the same object vary, there is no court to which appeal can be made to ad-just the disputes of sense. One sensa- tion is as good as another; everything is just what it appears to be at the moment. There is no ascertainable identity imderlying the differ- ences of appearance. The unity of phenomena in their laws is lo.st sight of, and each individual man becomes the measure of the universe. Op- posite conclusions have been drawn from this sensationalism. Gorgias argued that nothing is, inasmuch as everything is full of contradictions. Euthydemus, on the contrary, denied that there can be contradiction. If subject and predicate mean different things, then what seems to be contradiction is mere difference. Lycophon went so far as to advise the omission of the copula in propositions, presumably because all judgments are supposed to be mere unrelated sequences of words. In ethics the upshot of the sophistic teaching was an ultra-individualism with con- sequent license in practical life. But this re- sult was only gradually reached. At first the distinction was made between the natural and the conventional in human usages; but when the distinction was once made gradually everything institutional and social came to be regarded as conventional, with nothing natural left except unscrupulous self-seeking. Protagoras recognized the rationality of justice and of regard for so- cial approval ( ctiScis ). But other Sophists were not so conservative. Callicles, in Plato, is made to say that all laws are created by the strong and enforced on the weak, while Thrasy- maehus contends that no man but a fool is will- ingly just. It is obvious that where the whole of morality is brushed aside as a trit-k whereljy the strong make the weak do their will, religion can- not stand imtouched. Protagoras prudently claimed that he knew nothing about the gods, while his successors ran the whole gamut from skepticism to avowed atheism. It is interesting to note the unanimity with which Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle condemned the Sophists for accepting pay for their teaching. The reason for this is no doubt the same reason which nowadays makes some conservative educa- tors look with apprehension upon large endow- ments given by living benefactors to colleges and universities. Fear is expressed that in such in- stitutions not what is true, but what is pleasing to the donor, will be taught. In like manner, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle doubtless had ap- prehension for the cause of what, to use a mod- ern phrase, w'e may call academic freedom. And it was with them in many cases something more than a mere apprehension. The truth was that by many of the Sophists learning was prosti- tuted; and yet no universal condemnation may properl.v be passed on the Sophists as a class, as was done by modern historians till the appear- ance of Hegel's Historj/ of PhiJosophy. On the other hand, Grote in his nislorij of Greece, vol. viii., has gone to the other extreme and has failed to appreciate the subversive tendency of much of the sophistic activity. Among the Sophists are to be mentioned Protagoras. Gorgias, Prodi- cus, Hippias, Polus. Thrasymachus. Euthydemus, Dionysodorus. Callicles. and Antiphon. Consult: Grote. Bistorii of Greece; Sidgwick. Journnl of Philoloriji, vols. iv. and v.: and the histories of philosophy by Ueberweg-Heinze. Windelband, Erdmann, Zcller, Gomperz, Benn, and Schwegler (for titles and dates of these works, see article on PiiiLOSOPHT) ; also Schanz. Die Sophisten (Gr.ttingen, 1867). SOPHOCLES, sof'S-klez (Lat., from Gk. ^o<Pokvs, SophokU-s) (c.496-406 B.C.). An .thcnian dramatist, horn of a prosperous family at Colonus. a beautiful suburb of Athens. His long and happy life coincided with the period of the Imperial greatness of Athens. His dramas are the most perfect exemplars of Attic art. His statue in the Lateran is the ideal type of Greek manhood. All the prizes of youth, maturity, and J