One such controversial topic of importance was the Sophistic view on logos, language and rhetoric. Their views on such topics were the core for their skeptical nature as well as the foundation for the rest of their beliefs. The basis of their profession and critical technique lied in their opinion that two opposite logoi of equal truth can be created. This implied that both a statement and it’s contradiction can both be stated as truth. Furthermore, it was implied by Protagoras that either side could be argued successfully using orthos logos. This technique involved taking any argument, possibly even a weaker one than your opponent’s, and using rhetoric to create a superior (and victorious) argument. There are, however, several important contradictions from within their techniques. For instance, the Sophists cannot logically argue their cas

The last paradox to be covered is the nature of virtue. As shown by the debate between Protagoras and Socrates, there were differing opinions as to whether virtue can be taught. To raise this question would be to inquire about the legitimacy of the Sophist’s profession. The Sophists were paid in turn for their teachings, which included (but were not limited to) instructing their students in the subject of virtue. The Sophists, obviously, believed that virtue could be passed from one person to another. Their opponents (including Socrates) felt otherwise. The paradox in this argument comes from the discussion between Meno and Socrates. From their collaboration it can be affirmed that virtue is not easily definable. The issue arises, if virtue isn’t god given and you must somehow consciously assimilate it, then you cannot initially know what virtue is. If you do not know what virtue is, then the question surfaces “how do you look for it?” Considering this, when someone offers to teach you virtue, you cannot verify it’s accuracy. There is no way for you to know whether you are learning virtue or something else instead.

e since their dual logoi premise is in direct contradiction with logic. In logic, if something is true, then it’s contradiction must be false. The opposite is true with the sophistic beliefs as the concept, that there is only one correct answer, is rejected. Taking this one step further, it can be logically proven that the argument works to invalidate itself. For instance if one was to believe the idea of dual logos to be true, then under sophistic principles the opposite can also hold true. In this case, the contradiction of the original premise would be that the concept of dual logos would be false, thus denying it’s own existence.

This paradox is important both philosophically and politically. Philosophically, an agreement is reached that superior education allows for a greater number of individuals to achieve virtuosity, despite the disagreement on whether it is ascertained at a subconscious or conscious level. Another important philosophical outcome was Protagoras’ theory on punishment. Protagoras initiates the belief that punishment is a form of education rather than vengeance. This helps gives hold to the principle of reformation in an effort to help bestow virtue on an individual. As for the political consequences, it helped raise the question of whether or not the average Athenian should have the right to participate in politics. Socrates’ position indicates that not everyone can achieve the moral and political excellence needed to be worthy of politica

Some topics in this essay:
Sophistic Paradoxes, Despite Sophistic, Meno Socrates, Nomos Physis, Protagoras Socrates, Physis Nomos, Contrary Nomos, Nick SUNYSB, dual logoi, concept dual, sophistic relativism, common law, concept dual logoi, natural law, importance paradox, greek philosophy, laws benefit, paradox philosophically, orthos logos,