Myth vs. Logos: Sophists, Socrates, and the Pursuit of Truth
Myth vs. Logos
Myth vs. Logos: “Myth” designates a particular type of speech that tells the stories of the gods, in contrast to ‘Logos,’ which designates speech that is explained and demonstrated. The meaning of the word ‘logos’ is quite broad, including: count (tell), reason, and counting (calculating). From this area, we generalize the word ‘logos’ as a concept opposed to ‘myth’.
Logos, as ‘science’ or philosophy, is the knowledge that rests on foundation and proof (deduction). Although we know that ‘logos’ in Heraclitus designates the logic of contradiction, ‘logos’ as thought is the discovery of the contradiction of reality and how all things and beings become through contradiction.
The Sophists and Socrates
The context in which the Sophists and Socrates appear is that of democratic Athens in the 5th century BC, during the struggle for hegemony between Athens and Sparta. “Sophists” literally means wise, and it was the title they gave themselves. These thinkers flourished in the second half of the 5th century and shared two characteristics:
- They were the first professional educators.
- Their teachings included humanities (rhetoric, law, morality, politics, etc.), useful for the exercise of power, because their teachings were usually directed to children of wealthy merchants who wanted to succeed in politics.
Famous Sophists
Two of the most famous sophists were:
- Gorgias: His philosophy is considered an example of skepticism (the theory that the truth does not exist or cannot be reached). He stated: “Being there. If there were, we could not know it. If we knew it, we could not communicate it through language.”
- Protagoras: A representative of relativism, the theory that truth is not unique but is related to or dependent upon every person (subjective relativism or subjectivism), every era (historical relativism), and every culture (cultural relativism). His most famous statement is: “Man is the measure of all things.”
The appearance of the Sophists, their defense of skepticism, and their focus on man rather than nature (as the pre-Socratics had done) is due to both philosophical reasons (such as the proliferation of inconsistent theories and approaches on the Presocratics physis developed without being able to decide which of them was true) and political and social reasons (the need for a new type of knowledge such as public speaking, law, logic, etc., that the rich merchants and traders were willing to pay for so their children could succeed in politics).
Socrates’ Approach
Socrates left no writings, but we know his ideas through Plato, who makes him the main character of most of his dialogues, and Aristotle. Despite the rise of the Sophists, Socrates had a different approach:
- He did not charge for his teachings.
- He did not like to make long speeches like the Sophists, but engaged in dialogues, welcoming questions and comments.
Socrates argued that happiness depends on virtue, so only the truly virtuous man is happy. In turn, virtue depends upon knowledge of virtue, so, for example, only he who knows what justice is can be fair and do justly. This moral theory is known as intellectualism. So radically opposed to the relativism of the Sophists, Socrates maintained that there are absolute moral norms and values, independent of the beliefs and conventions that each community adopts.
The fundamental task of the thoughtful man will, therefore, be the identification of these rules to properly order their life and behavior and thereby achieve a full and satisfying life, that is, a happy life. The Socratic method to knowledge is maieutics, the art of helping to bring forth the truth that lies at the bottom of the soul of each. We can distinguish two parts:
- Irony: Through a series of questions, Socrates confused the speaker, leading to contradiction and leading him to accept their ignorance. (“I only know that I know nothing.”)
- Maieutics: After acceptance of ignorance, Socrates makes the listener discover the truths that he holds within himself. He urges them to think and create universal moral concepts, and, therefore, valid for everyone.