Philosopher = Sophist - Payment
Sophist
[quote=Wikipedia]Few writings from and about the first sophists survive. The early sophists charged money in exchange for education and providing wisdom, and so were typically employed by wealthy people. This practice resulted in the condemnations made by Plato through Socrates in his dialogues, as well as by Xenophon in his Memorabilia and, somewhat controversially, by Aristotle. As a paid tutor to Alexander the Great, Aristotle could be accused of being a sophist.[/quote]
Philosopher
[quote=Wikipedia]A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy.[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]Philosophy (from Greek: ?????????, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]The attacks of some of their followers against Socrates prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist. For example, in the comic play The Clouds, Aristophanes criticizes the sophists as hairsplitting wordsmiths, and makes Socrates their representative.[/quote]
We first take note of the fact that both sophists and philosophers were in search of and became purveyors of wisdom; this in itself should be enough to my point but let's take it one step further.
Socrates, the father of western philosophy, was also accused of Sophistry.
What more need be said about how Philisophy and Sophistry were so alike that they could be and were mistaken for each other? Nevertheless, there was a way for people to know who was a sophist and who a philosopher - money/payment/fee. A sophist charges a fee for his wisdom, a philosopher doesn't.
Thus,
Philosopher = Sophist - Payment!
Money, what it stands for, is an old enemy!
[quote=Wikipedia]Few writings from and about the first sophists survive. The early sophists charged money in exchange for education and providing wisdom, and so were typically employed by wealthy people. This practice resulted in the condemnations made by Plato through Socrates in his dialogues, as well as by Xenophon in his Memorabilia and, somewhat controversially, by Aristotle. As a paid tutor to Alexander the Great, Aristotle could be accused of being a sophist.[/quote]
Philosopher
[quote=Wikipedia]A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy.[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]Philosophy (from Greek: ?????????, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]The attacks of some of their followers against Socrates prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist. For example, in the comic play The Clouds, Aristophanes criticizes the sophists as hairsplitting wordsmiths, and makes Socrates their representative.[/quote]
We first take note of the fact that both sophists and philosophers were in search of and became purveyors of wisdom; this in itself should be enough to my point but let's take it one step further.
Socrates, the father of western philosophy, was also accused of Sophistry.
What more need be said about how Philisophy and Sophistry were so alike that they could be and were mistaken for each other? Nevertheless, there was a way for people to know who was a sophist and who a philosopher - money/payment/fee. A sophist charges a fee for his wisdom, a philosopher doesn't.
Thus,
Philosopher = Sophist - Payment!
Money, what it stands for, is an old enemy!
Comments (30)
:up: Well said. But what about philosophers that accept donations? :smile:
Throughout the ages the question has remained - how can an ordinary, perhaps foolish person tell the difference between the two? This can be an issue even in cases where the differences are more apparent.
You seem to be implying that only intellectually-challenged people can't tell the difference between Sophists and Philosophers, fixated on money, not a good sign by some accounts, and using that to make the distinction between the two.
However, sources indicate philosophers distanced themselves from sophist by not asking for a fee when sharing what they knew.
So yeah, money was the distinguishing feature that helped the common man and the philosopher decide who was a sophist and who was a philosopher.
Quoting Apollodorus
Irrelevant as sophists too would be happy to receive financial assistance, no strings attached (donations).
Was I that unclear? My point was how is an ordinary person expected to tell the difference between bullshit and acuity? Much of the time I can't even tell the difference between good and bad products, let alone metaphysics.
So, you're equating bullshit with sophistry and "acuity" with philosophy and what's being implied (by you) is that ordinary people can't tell the difference between bullshit and truth.
Indeed, some folks, like me for instance, don't have a working bullshitometer or its counterpart, a truthometer. However, sophists and philosophers both are, for real, genuinely so, about the same issues that have been bothering the thinkers in every generation of humanity. What sets them apart is moolah as in who demands it and who doesn't. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is a sophist or a philosopher, one has to know whether money's involved or not.
Why should asking money for wisdom make the widom less wise? I rather pay some money for good wisdom than getting bad for bad.
(thats 5 dollar please)
Explain the logic/rationale behind what is essentially dislike, perhaps even hatred, for sophists back when they were part of Greek culture, about 2000 years ago. Money still has a bad rep - money can't buy everything! (false but humor me).
I dunno whats the reason behind hatred or essential dislike. Why do you ask this? Whats the connection with the old Greek. Money cant buy anything but you CAN buy a book that contains wisdom.
Quoting Prishon
Kindly explain yourself.
Explain what?
What I gathered from how sophists and philosophers were treated back when they were part of the Greek cultural scene is that money, not money per se but accumulating it to the point of becoming filthy rich like the sophists, was viewed as morally dubious, perhaps mixed as it were with hidden envy. This generally dim view of money still persists - money can't buy everything (myth).
You, on the other hand, have made it clear that you believe money doesn't have/shouldn't be taken that way - money, to you, is either good or is morally neutral.
Explain that!
I didnt speak about the amounts of money. There are people who own 100 million euros while on the other hand there are people struggling to make ends meet. Thats immoral!
You're barking up the wrong tree.
I know it is off topic but I liked this phrase. Again, we can get into philosophy of language.
Barking up the wrong tree it is related to a dog who is wrongly breaking at something meaning that a person is saying arguments against the wrong listener or context.
I have in my language a similar phrase with the same meaning: ¡a otro perro con ese hueso!
(give that bone to another dog!)
Another thing we learned today. Cheers!
:up: At least one person - you - is learning. I'm an old dog and they say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks! :sad:
Well, I doubt anyone would refuse if the donation was generous enough and could be used in a good cause.
But would your equation be "Philosopher + Donation = Sophist"?
Plato was an aristocrat, and quite well off. Not for nothing did Diogenes the Dog mock him for his vainglory (and other things), trampling on the carpets of Plato's house.
A person who has no need to make money often looks down upon those who must make money. We pay people for their knowledge all the time, and have always done so. For example teachers, doctors, lawyers are all paid for using what they know to the advantage of their students, patients and clients. It would be wonderful if we didn't have to pay for anything, but the idea that philosophy is a "higher knowledge" they shouldn't be paid for is silly, for more than one reason.
Three dialogues often referred to as the trilogy, Sophist, Statesman, and Theaetetus (the subject is knowledge) address the differences between the sophist and statesman. It should be noted that the third in the trilogy is not named Philosopher, but all three deal with the question of who the philosopher is and how he differs from the sophist and statesman. As is typical the dialogues end in aporia.
Sophists were known for teaching how to make the weaker argument stronger. The sophist's concern is with persuasion without regard for the truth. Socrates not charging money speaks to the issue of benefit. He did not teach in order to benefit himself, and did not refuse to teach those who could not pay.
There seems to be a contradiction between placing a lot of value on higher knowledge and expecting to acquire it for nothing. Teachers of higher knowledge should not abuse their position but nor should their students demand free tuition.
I have mixed feelings about what you said here. First, donations are usually money but then it differs from a fee in that the former isn't asked for but is given but the latter is asked for and given. Yet, both are money in the end.
Given how similar they (donations & payment) are, a prudent philosopher should refuse donations because it could easily be misinterpreted by people. However, they also differ enough to allow a philosopher to claim that fae accepts donations but not payments.
Notice how the gist of the OP, the difference between sophists and philosopher, parallels the difference between donations and payments. In one case it's wisdom that's common to both sides, sophists and philosophers, and in the other, it's money that's in the overlap zone of donations and payment.
Good point!
I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that Greeks didn't approve of wisdom and money being exchanged for each other. I suppose they thought selling stuff was what ordinary people would do and so when the sophists asked for fees when imparting wisdom, they lost their distinctiveness as sages. Sages (wise folks) weren't supposed to care about dough!
There seems to be a difference between knowledge and wisdom. You can mint money out of the former and no one will bother but if you try and mix wisdom with money, people will immediately condemn it.
I take that as a good sign though - people, despite being materialistic themselves, recognize some things can't be reduced to dollars.
Sages don't ask for wages. Sophists do.
All this reminds me of Lucian's "Philosophies for Sale" (links to an easy to read PDF of it I found online). It gave me really good laughs back in the day. In it, "Zeus puts various philosophers up for sale in a slave market." Anybody ever read it?
You, my friend, have finally given me the clue that I needed to solve this mystery. You said, "...philosophers need to put food on the table too..." and you're absolutely right about that. Earning a living isn't something people would begrudge - everyone's got to eat.
The problem is excess wealth. Sophists, because their fees were so high only consorted with rich folks, themselves becoming affluent in the process. As we all know - the Delphic oracle agreed (nothing to excess) and so did Aristotle (the golden mean) and the Buddha (the middle path) - a lack of self-restraint, which super rich people typify, is not exactly a sign of wisdom...or is it?
Good day!
True. But I would say there is an additional aspect to this. If the philosopher were to charge a fee for his knowledge, he would place himself in a seller-buyer relation that may imply that he sells whatever the student wants to hear and this would compromise the image of incorruptibility associated with genuine higher knowledge.
However, as charging a fee and accepting donations appear to be two different things, maybe the teacher should be allowed to accept donations but only use a minimum of that for basic personal needs such as food and clothing, and use the bulk of it for the advancement of knowledge, e.g., building a school with library, lodgings for students and visitors, a park with a sanctuary for animals, and other things conducive to higher knowledge and contemplation of metaphysical realities ....
I suspect most politicians, philosophers, religious leaders, the news, media, is run by sophists. In other words, its all propaganda.