Compare And Contrast The Moral Position
Compare and contrast the moral position of Socrates and the Sophists.
The sophists and Socrates shared a mutual interest in morality although their views on the matter where the opposite of one another. Socrates believed in one universal truth and was an absolutist whereas the Sophists were subjectivists or relativists and believed that there was no such thing as a universal truth but a subjective truth for every individual. Socrates never wrote anything whilst the Sophists used their skills in argument know as rhetoric in exchange for payment. In this essay I shall therefore contrasts the moral positions of both Socrates and the Sophists.
Socrates believed that there is an absolute truth with it being universal to every person, which is one of the many things him and the Sophists did not agree on. Socrates believed in an absolute definition of goodness and claims that to know the good and to do the good but first one must know the distinction between good and bad; one must act it out in their life. Socrates uses dialectic methods which meant he never wrote anything down but instead used dialogue to allow people to fully understand a universal truth. His form of dialogue consisted of him repeatedly asking questions ironically to try and establish the truth of the matter. The people he would be conversing with would eventually realise that they were ignorant or oblivious to the true idea of Goodness. Through dialectic Socrates longed for stability in universal truths, through the study of the nature of the human psyche. The Oracle at Delphi was purported to have said that there is no one wiser than Socrates. Socrates took this to mean that he is wise because he recognizes his own ignorance. What he knows is that he knows nothing. One of his many aims in life was to achieve certainty; this came about due to his commitment for pursuing the truth. Socrates’ love for the truth would eventually cost him his life as he was accused of corrupting the youth and offending
The sophists and Socrates shared a mutual interest in morality although their views on the matter where the opposite of one another. Socrates believed in one universal truth and was an absolutist whereas the Sophists were subjectivists or relativists and believed that there was no such thing as a universal truth but a subjective truth for every individual. Socrates never wrote anything whilst the Sophists used their skills in argument know as rhetoric in exchange for payment. In this essay I shall therefore contrasts the moral positions of both Socrates and the Sophists.
Socrates believed that there is an absolute truth with it being universal to every person, which is one of the many things him and the Sophists did not agree on. Socrates believed in an absolute definition of goodness and claims that to know the good and to do the good but first one must know the distinction between good and bad; one must act it out in their life. Socrates uses dialectic methods which meant he never wrote anything down but instead used dialogue to allow people to fully understand a universal truth. His form of dialogue consisted of him repeatedly asking questions ironically to try and establish the truth of the matter. The people he would be conversing with would eventually realise that they were ignorant or oblivious to the true idea of Goodness. Through dialectic Socrates longed for stability in universal truths, through the study of the nature of the human psyche. The Oracle at Delphi was purported to have said that there is no one wiser than Socrates. Socrates took this to mean that he is wise because he recognizes his own ignorance. What he knows is that he knows nothing. One of his many aims in life was to achieve certainty; this came about due to his commitment for pursuing the truth. Socrates’ love for the truth would eventually cost him his life as he was accused of corrupting the youth and offending