Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Nihilism and the Law of the Stronger vs. Law-Abidingness in the Sophists' Teachings

100%
Mielczarski C.
Archiwum Historii Filozofii i Mysli Spolecznej (Archives of the History of Philosophy and of Social Thought)
|
2007
|
vol. 52
3-31
EN
The opposition between Socrates' views and the sophists' teachings reflects the conflict of ethics and politics and of philosophy and democracy, the form of state regarded by Plato as an outcome of sophistical relativism. Socrates saw the task of a politician in betterment of his own soul and of the citizens' characters while the sophists taught their disciples utilitarian efficacy in politics and everyday life, essential to achieve success in the system of direct democracy. Cognitive nihilism was created by Gorgias who pointed out the difference between logos, that is, thought and word, and the reality, and, using his dialectical method, criticised the whole previous Greek cultural tradition. The proper ability needed in life was, according to him, rhetorical skill, which however should be used only to achieve just goals. A product of sophists' education is Callicles, the fictitious personage created by Plato. As an opponent of education based on self-restraint and as an adherent of the theory that according to the laws of nature stronger individuals should rule over weaker ones, he symbolises the negative moral and political consequences of relativism. Moreover, he criticises philosophy as an activity contrary to his pragmatic notion of excellence in public and private life. The law of the stronger was also upheld by Thrasymachus of Chalcedon who claimed that justice is always in agreement with the interest of the mighty. Another disciple of the sophists, Critias, famous for his ruthlessness as an oligarch, was convinced that people obey the laws thanks to their faith in the gods. That faith, according to him, was invented by eminent lawgivers. A negation of immoralism can be found in a treatise by an anonymous sophist, quoted by Iamblichus (3rd/4th century A.D.). Its author glorifies law-abidingness of great men and their devotion in the service of the state and the laws. That text should be regarded as a synthesis of the sophists' pedagogical views, based on the cult of the society as a community.
2

Social and Political Thought of Sophists - Protagoras, Prodicus, Hippias, and Antiphon

100%
Mielczarski C.
Archiwum Historii Filozofii i Mysli Spolecznej (Archives of the History of Philosophy and of Social Thought)
|
2006
|
vol. 50-51
25-50
EN
By emphasising the role of the social factor in the human life, the sophists created the foundations of European sociopolitical thought which arose from the spirit of criticism, pervading the Athenian democratic culture in the second half of the 5th century B.C. They gave rise to the first anthropological breakthrough in the history of our civilisation by treating philosophy, education and upbringing as preparation for life in a free civil society. They also had their share in depriving the laws of their sacral status since they treated the state and the law as results of a social contract dictated by utilitarian reasons. Therefore they should be regarded as the inventors of legal-political conventionalism and utilitarianism which have formed the basis for today's democracy. Protagoras was the author of the notion of social evolution. That notion was later to become the foundation of leftist, liberal and conservative sociopolitical attitudes. According to Protagoras, education is preparation for life in the society, and thus he might be called a patron of the modern 'education for democracy'. Prodicus put forward the ideal of an individual sacrificing his interests for the sake of the community and showed the social function of work. He also regarded religion as a human invention, acquiring its shape in the course of history. Hippias and Antiphon created the notion of the law of nature and the idea of social egalitarianism, since they claimed that all human beings are naturally equal. Moreover, they formulated and contrasted the two notions: nature (phýsis) and legal convention (nómos). Later this opposition became a fundamental question of the European philosophy of law and politics.The sophists of the classical period, though they propagated relativism and epistemological sensualism, were far from preaching antisocial and immoral individualism. Their teachings were based on antihedonistic ethical restraint. They all recognised primacy of the community over an individual which was the most important foundation of the Greek political culture in that period. They were also forerunners of those tendencies in the modern pedagogy that aim at endowing the pupil or student first of all with social and professional efficiency.
3

DEMOCRACY AND PHILOSOPHY. FROM PLATO TILL POSTMODERNISTS

100%
Mielczarski C.
Edukacja Filozoficzna
|
2005
|
issue 40
39-54
EN
The author presents the essence and ancient origin of the controversy between the idealistic and normative principles of philosphy and utilitarian attitude of democracy. This opposition is universal and can be seen on many levels in education (both in schools and universities), ethics, politics, and relations between technology and axiology. The conflict arose in the period of the Athenian democracy. According to Plato the democratic constitution is totally opposed to truth, values and knowledge, because it is based on opinions (doxai). The spirit of democracy is reflected in the relativistic and pragmatic art of persuasion, taught by the sophists and contrary to rational philosophical analysis leading to cognition of good and evil. Plato and sophists gave rise to the opposition to the theory and praxis, emphasized by the classical philosophy. The fundamental aspect of that opposition is the contrast beween a philosophical theoretical model of a constitution and the requirements imposed by political and legal realities. The communication contains the general comparison of several philosopher's views on that subject. Among others, the author discusses the opinions of Burke, Montesquieu, Mill, Tocqueville, Nietzsche, and the contemporary liberals and postmodernistic pragmaticists who are convinced that democracy needs no philosophical justfication because all systems and paradigms created by moral and rationalistic thinking are 'irrerelevant' (Rorty) in regard to democracy. Life in democracy will be always the meeting point of various incompatible, and often contrary, normative ideas. Habermas, on the other hand, sees the task of philosophy, adjusted to the requirements of our times, in investigatig acts that produce agreement, cooperation, influence and dialogue, and not in creating epistemological, methaphilosophical and axiological systems that would serve as the basis for politics.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.