Rhetorical Analysis

The Sophists were an influential group of educators that traveled to teach people, who could afford it, how to argue effectively and deliver a speech. Among these first public speaking teachers were three sophists, Thrasymachus, Protagoras, and Gorgias. These sophists were opposed to Socrates’ Socratic Method since, they believed that the “truth” stood relative and they did not attempt to produce “truth” because they argued that the “truth” didn’t actually exist. The Sophists believed that they could win every argument without using justice and the truth because they used trickery and rhetorical techniques to win at all cost. Socrates, known as the gadfly of Athens, used the Socratic Method to take away false ideas to acquire at a universal

“truth”. Sophists depended on context and “knowledge” merely a matter of opinion, and thought about humanity, but did not believe there was “truth” in it. Also, Sophists were focused on human affairs, though they maintained relativism about them. Socrates’ problem with the Sophists is that they lack respect for Truth.
As the oldest Sophist, Protagoras, he remained to be considered as the greatest Sophist.

Protagoras is best known for saying the quote, “ Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not.” Protagoras is trying to explain that there is not a settled truth or just one truth, since everything that happens is individually linked to an individual’s experience. Each individual’s opinion, perspective, judgment, and knowledge would be different as what is true for one person may not be true to another. Protagoras believed that although an individual may be correct about something, they could always improve themselves with his teachings. Furthermore, Protagoras believed that without knowledge society would turn into chaos. On the other hand, Socrates believed that Protagoras remained contradicting himself, as he thought that morality was mostly a relationship between an individual and its soul; whereas, Protagoras saw morality as to assist social

cooperation.
Alongside the great Protagoras, Gorgias as follows, was a Greek philosopher whom explained, “If reason can prove ‘nothing exists’ then it can prove anything. So, no point in seeking objective truth.” Gorgias believed that nothing existed, the world was beyond to complex to understand, and that truth is non-existent. It was hard, almost impossible; to disprove this argument as he used it to show individual’s his skills as a philosopher. Although, he was perceived as someone that only wanted to make money with his teachings, just to be passed off as a wise person. Alike Protagoras, Gorgias believes that the “truth” is not there, that it is not settled. Gorgias also believed that rhetoric was the leading of all sciences as it was a great tool of persuasion.
Thrasymachus, one of the leading Sophists, was a formidable opponent for Socrates.

Thrasymachus was portrayed by Plato as loud, sarcastic, and insulting, often on the verge of physical violence. Thrasymachus believed that “justice” came out to those who had the stronger party, they people who have the authority to command what is believed as “just”. Those with the advantage of having “justice” appeared stronger because, those individuals create the laws and the power in a way to only benefit themselves. Thrasymachus believed that an individual must carry out justice in a way they can use it to their own benefit. However, Socrates forced Thrasymachus to acknowledge his view of justice as two contradicting definitions: “Justice is doing what is in the best interest of the stronger,” and “Justice is the doing what is not in the interest of the stronger.” It seems that Socrates believed that the one’s in power do not always benefit from making laws, but Thrasymachus saw it as the stronger party ruling over the weaker party. People should not follow the laws by other individuals, but rather the natural laws that bring people towards the pursuit of

happiness.
Protagoras, Gorgias, and Thrasymachus had their ways of winning arguments but with the same concept that the truth does not exist and winning at all costs. These methods opposed Socrates method for that fact that Socrates believed knowledge can lead you to the truth.