Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 05:35:59 -0700 (MST)
From: Jean M Hazell <jhazell-AT-U.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sophists


On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Dan Smith wrote:

> leaving aside the questions as to whether or not
> euthymedos or gorgias were con artists, i don't think
> it was implied that the recent rethinking of the sophists
> role/s in ancient greece (contra plato's narratives)
> vindicated either one of them.
> 
> dan s.

Agreed. The recent rethinking of the sophists' role/s has not so much
vindicated any specific sophist, but has brought forward for examination
other elements of rhetoric. Poulakis in "Toward a Sophistic Definition of
Rhetoric" _Philosophy and Rhetoric_, Vol 16, No 1, 1983, proposes the
following definition:

"Rhetoric is the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that
which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible." 

Poulakis' work, only one reconceptualization, does not focus on Gorgias,
nor any other singularly defined sophist, but places the early contempt
associated with 'the non-essentials' of rhetoric such as style, kairos, to
prepon (appropriateness).  His work recovers a consideration of many
sophistic texts and their place in the historical development of novel
elements of rhetoric. The notion that novelty impacts how an
audience receives a speech (one of Aristotle's remarks) is traced to
several fragments by Xenophon about Hippias and Aristotle reference of
Prodicus. These men have been labeled sophists in other fragments (re:
Schiappa's earlier referenced article).


Dan, thanks for elaborating on what I did wish to highlight.

M, because of personal upheaval I am without time and mental energy to
respond as thoroughly as what this thread deserves. I'll be pleased to dig
it up in the future, but must apologize for needing to drop it currently.

Jean