Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Rooney <rooney-AT-tiger.cc.oxy.edu>
Subject: Re: Sophists



In the interests of economy, I'll reply to both Dan
and Jean in one message.

On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Jean M Hazell wrote:

> 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.

Okay -- though such implications are not far off (cf.
Foucault's remark about the laughter of the sophists
exploding the mask of dialectic, or Lyotard's logic of
the occasion).  But my earlier query remains: if, as
the "re-thinkers" say, the Platonic (and Aristotelian,
not to mention the Aristophanean) assessment of 
sophistry is wanting, how so?


> 
> 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. 

Well, aside from the fact that Poulakis's definition 
encompasses all forms of fly-fishing (and not just the 
political kind), I don't find much novelty here.  It
is well-known that the arch-sophist Socrates tailored
his style to his interlocutors.  My reference to Strauss
seems all the more appropriate.


> 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.

No apology needed.


Cordially,

M.