Zbigniew Nerczuk

The paper discusses the debate on the human nature in the sophistic thought. Focusing on the "nature-culture" controversy it presents the evolution of the views of the sophists: from Protagoras' optimistic contention of the progress of mankind and his appraisal of culture to its criticism and the radical turn to nature in Antiphon, Hippias, Trasymachos, and Callicles. The paper aims at presenting the analysis of the ongoing discussion, with the stress laid on reconstruction of the arguments and concepts as well as the attitudes that are associated with various positions of this debate.

The article discusses the sophistic method of “antilogic” (“double arguments”, “contrasting arguments”, “opposed speeches”, “two-fold arguments”). The main goal is to show that it is a method that, in the light of the doctrine presented in Plato’s Theaetetus, is based on philosophical foundations. The work of G.B. Kerferd was crucial for the research on the art of antilogic, as it broke with the unequivocally negative understanding of this method adopted by the earlier research tradition. Late testimonies of Diogenes Laertius, Clement of Alexandria, Seneca and Eudoxus point to Protagoras of Abdera as the creator and promoter of the antilogic. These testimonies are confirmed by references to the method of “opposed speeches” contained in the comedies of Aristophanes, in the tragedies of Euripides and in the anonymous treatise Dialexeis. Plato’s report on the doctrine attributed to Protagoras in the Theaetetus reveals the philosophical context of the antilogic. The so- -called “secret doctrine”, based on the acceptance of appearances and of the privacy of perceptions (man-measure doctrine), the rejection of truth and falsehood, and acceptance of the contradictory judgments results from the new vision of reality in flux. Therefore, the “secret doctrine” presents a consistent and coherent project leading to a new concept of logic and language and lays the foundations for the method of “double arguments”.

The paper is devoted to the sophistic method of "two-fold arguments" (antilogic). The traditional understanding of antilogic understood as an expression of agonistic and eristic tendencies of the sophists has been in recent decades, under the influence of G.B. Kerferd, replaced by the understanding of antilogic as an independent argumentative technique, having its own sources, essence, and goals. Following the interpretation of G.B. Kerferd, according to which the foundation of the antilogic is the opposition of two logoi resulting from contradictions or opposites, necessarily associated with the contradictory character of the sensual world, in the paper it is argued that the philosophical basis of antilogic should be sought in the presentation of the views attributed to Protagoras and "adherents of flux" in Plato's dialogue Theaetetus.

Este texto argumenta que el discurso de Sócrates, que constituye un compendio de su discusión con el rétor Gorgias acerca la retórica (464b2-466e3), forma parte de la estrategia polémica empleada por Platón, en la que el humor juega un papel fundamental. Con ayuda del método de la división, Sócrates desacredita la retórica (tal y como la presenta Gorgias), comparándola con la sofística, la cosmética y la cocina, y llamándolas a todas adulaciones. El propósito del presente escrito es mostrar la complejidad de la crítica platónica y de su dimensión intertextual, en tanto que contiene notables referencias a diferentes conceptos del “arte” [τέχνη], del “placer” [ἡδονή], de la “ilusión” [ἀπατη] y del “simulacro” [εἴδωλον] empleados los textos de Gorgias.

The text was originally a conference speech. In principle, it was prepared for teachers of philosophy and people interested in philosophy, therefore it has the character of an essay and only to a small extent refers to the literature of the subject. However, I am deeply convinced of the validity of the thesis that I propose in it, even if they may seem only to a small extent supported by references to the state of research. Synthetical studies take a special place in the research on the history of ancient philosophy. They demonstrate the existing perspective by performing a selection and arrangement of the material, presenting the periodisation, accentuating and determining what is “philosophically significant.” This article points out that despite the great progress made in detailed research that has taken place over the last few decades, the general framework of development of philosophy, derived from Hegel’s thought, has remained unchanged for two centuries. Hegel’s perspective has instilled a certain pattern that encompasses a whole series of debatable solutions. These include (1) development of a certain understanding of what “philosophy” is and thus separating it from a wide spectrum of literature, rhetoric, medicine, and religion; (2) introduction of a dubious periodisation (e.g. the distinction between the Presocratic period and Socrates’ breakthrough in the form of a departure from the philosophy of nature and return to ethical considerations; (3) adoption of philosophy of Plato and Aristotle as the apex of thought. The author highlights the need to change the approach to the history of ancient philosophy and modify the existing paradigm. He calls for paying greater attention to the intertextual element and to the fact that the assessment of originality and relevance of preserved works is falsified due to the disappearance of comparative material. The proposal to establish a new reconstructive paradigm is based on the belief that during further research on ancient philosophy it would be advisable (1) to expand the research perspective and enrich it with the fields of education, medicine, the great sphere of literature, the spheres of fine arts and music, (2) to focus more on the issue of transmission and reception of texts thanks to which it is possible to deepen and extend the reconstructed context of philosophical discussions, (3) to come to the realisation that the abstract character of description, connected with all the syntheses of the philosophical thought in antiquity lead to its oversimplification and impoverishment by presenting it out of the context and depriving of what is individual and specific for a particular thinker.

Studium poświęcone jest specyfice warsztatu tłumacza antycznych tekstów filozoficznych. Wszelką pracę translatorską, o ile ma ona na celu rekonstrukcję kontekstu językowego i historycznego, muszą poprzedzać zrozumienie i interpretacja tekstu. W celu rekonstrukcji kontekstu niezbędne jest odniesienie tekstu do prowadzonych ówcześnie dyskusji filozoficznych, odtworzenie siatki pojęciowej oraz wskazanie zapożyczeń oraz odesłań do innych tekstów. Realizacja tych zadań napotyka w przypadku prac z zakresu filozofii starożytnej na wiele przeszkód wynikających z wielowiekowej ewolucji języka greckiego, mglistości terminu ‘filozofia’, zaginięcia większości dzieł filozoficznych, zróżnicowania terminologii filozoficznej poszczególnych filozofów czy nurtów, a także przenikania się wzajemnego tekstów. The paper is concerned with the characteristic of the translation of ancient philosophical texts. The work of the translation of a philosophical writing, as long as its goal is to reconstruct the philosophical context, must be preceded by understanding and interpretation of that text. In order to achieve this goal it is necessary to refer the writing to the ongoing philosophical discussions of that time, as well as to restore the conceptual grid and indicate the borrowings and references to other works. In the case of writings in the field of ancient philosophy these tasks encounter a lot of obstacles resulting from the evolution of Greek, from ambiguity of the term 'philosophy', from the loss of the most of the philosophical works, from the diversity of philosophical terminology, as well as from the intertextuality of the ancient philosophical literature.

The paper discusses the problem of the source of the analogies between philosophical outlook of the Sophists and the skeptical tradition of Pyrrho and his successors. Its main objective is to point out that the similarities in standpoints, arguments and methods between these philosophical phenomena result from the transmission of Plato’s Theaetetus. It is argued that main ideas (phenomenalism, subjectivism, relativity and indeterminacy of things, rejection of being and acceptance of becoming and constant flux, antilogical position consisting in opposing two contradictory statements etc.) which in Theaetetus constituted so called “Secret Doctrine” (attributed by Plato to Protagoras and disciples of Heraclitus), after being criticized by Aristotle in his discussion about the principle of contradiction in Metaphysics (books IV and XI), were acknowledged by Pyrrho and, revived by Aenesidemus, can be found incorporated into the skeptical tradition in the works of Sextus Empiricus.

The paper aims at reconstructing the fundamentals of the sophistic anthropology. Contrary to the recognized view of the humanistic shift which took place in the sophistic thought, there is evidence that the sophists were continuously concerned with the problems of philosophy of nature. The difference between the sophists and their Presocratic predecessors was that their criticism of the philosophical tradition and the transformative answers given to the old questions were the basis and the starting point of the " ethical " and " rhetorical " part of their intellectual activity. This natu-ralistic perspective is reflected in their research in the field of medicine and biology, in the discussion about " the human nature " , and in their interest in the individual physiological and mental conditions, which determine the state of the human body and the behaviour of a man. The sophists pioneered in linguistic, rhetorical, and philological studies. To enhance the power of persuasion, they investigated how various mental conditions influenced cognitive processes and physiological reactions. Thus they started a thorough examination of the human psyche, initiating the field of psychology.

The paper is concerned with the role of the logos in the sophistic thought. The author argues that the importance of logos is a result of the conviction that according to the Sophists human reality is somehow „created” through words in the process of constant communication and interpretation. This idea inspires the Sophists to research on the particular conditions of the process of persuasion and to analyze the factors which determine the persuasive power of speech. This interest in the power of "logos" leads the Sophists such as Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiphon to develop the techniques which aim at increasing the persuasive power of speech by addressing both rational and emotional part of the soul.

Protagoras u Sekstusa Empiryka (PH I 216) a platoński Teajtet Dzieła Sekstusa Empiryka stanowią ważne źródło doksograficzne, zawierając m. in. fragmenty i przekazy poświęcone sofistyce. Są wśród nich omówienia poglądów Protagorasa. W świetle problemów, jakie stwarza rekonstrukcja myśli tego sofisty, warto poddać badaniu źródła i perspektywę Sekstusa, zwracając szczególną uwagę na krótkie przedstawienie tez Protagorasa zawarte w Zarysach Pyrrońskich (PH I 216). Porównując omówienie Sekstusa i przedstawienie Platona w Teajtecie, dostrzec możemy podobieństwo prezentowanych poglądów. W przekazie Seksusa podobnie jak w Teajtecie główny akcent położony jest na tezę homo-mensura, z którą wiąże się dwa inne podstawowe dla platońskiego dialogu wątki: zmienności rzeczy oraz "prywatności" spostrzeżeń. Mimo charakterystycznej dla sceptycyzmu modyfikacji strony pojęciowej, nadinterpretacji oraz wyrwania tez z dialogowego kontekstu przedstawienia obu wątków wykazują daleko idące paralele z Teajtetem. Bez względu na to, czy omówienie to jest dziełem samego Sekstusa, czy zaczerpnięte zostało z jakiegoś wcześniejszego źródła mającego charakter sceptycznej "ściągawki", możemy na jego podstawie wnioskować, że dialog Teajtet uważany był w późnej starożytności za wiarygodne źródło informacji na temat poglądów Protagorasa. Należy jednak podkreślić, że przekaz Sekstusa stanowi jedynie interpretację treści zawartych w platońskim Teajtecie i – wbrew praktyce wielu uczonych - nie może być brany pod uwagę jako niezależne źródło wiedzy o myśli Protagorasa.