Every once in a while, a teacher comes along who inspires, challenges, intrigues, and forever changes the lives with whom they reach. Two universities, taught by the Sophists and the Stoics, greatly influenced Greek and Roman culture. In order to gain a full view of what the Sophists and Stoics taught, one must first learn who they were, then what they taught, how they taught it, and how the mass public received them. So, as one embarks upon the wide world of philosophy, it is important to maintain an open mind to the ideas and ways of life from long, long ago.
Just as important as the idea itself, are the people behind it. Sophists of the fifth-century B.C.E. were a “group of itinerant professional teachers, lecturers, and writers prominent in Greece” (“Sophists”). The first and most famous Sophist may have been Protagoras. This Sophist is most known for these three revolutionary ideas: “man is the measure of all things, that he could make the worse (or weaker) appear the better (or stronger), and that one could not tell if the gods existed or not” (Poster). Unfortunately, many works from individual Sophists have been lost, so much of what is known is up to the soul whom is speculating the possibilities.
What makes the Sophists so important is what was taught to the paying students who sought the Sophists knowledge. Sophistry is the art of rhetoric, or the art of public speaking (Walden 202). One might wonder why the art of public speaking was something that would be sought after voluntarily. Sophists would give public debates and speeches in which the audience was mystified by the speaker’s words and ability to speak impromptu on any topic (Sprague 31). If one could gain the very same abilities it would bring on unlimited opportunities within the community’s most desired duty: politics. As democracy grew in fifth-century Athens, so did the need for higher education. The Sophists provided a form of teaching which would educate young men and prepare him for a life within the upper-class community (Kerford 15). The craft of public speaking became the key to success in the public life of fifth-century Athens (Kerford 17). However, the student must undergo training and payments before he can fully capture his audience and his position within the community.
Public speaking seems to be a fairly simple concept; however, in fifth-century Athens one would complete a course which consisted of many relentless theories. The first task would be to learn the different types of rhetoric, both the names and the meanings (Walden 203). As the students would study the different types of rhetoric, discussions about the language, topics, and styles would occur (Walden 204). This provided the students with an even more in-depth understanding of the art of rhetoric.
Once a firm grasp of the different styles of rhetoric was reached, the Sophists would begin to teach the students how to write effective speeches (Walden 203). One must first know how to organize a speech before giving impromptu speeches; which is what the Sophists were famous for. The instructor would present the students with many examples of speeches from ancient authors. Eventually, the students would gain independence from the authors being studied and the instructor would focus on topic choice, proofs, when to introduce new ideas, and when to expand on existing ones (Walden 204).
When it came time to grading the speeches, the Sophists would focus on clarity, dignity, consistency, order, and relevancy (Walden 208). The Sophists found it best to not correct every little mistake all at once. Instead, focus was put on correcting the significant mistakes first and then including the smaller mistakes as the students skills improved (Walden 206). Once the students knew how to organize a speech properly, the instructor would guide the students on to the next equally important step.
Along with learning the different types of rhetoric and how to organize a speech, refutation and construction were a heavily emphasized step in the learning process. The Sophists thought that refutation, meaning the attacking augment, and construction, meaning the supporting argument, were two of the most important elements of rhetoric. The students were taught strict rules in order to make ones arguments strong and believable (Walden 209). The main aim of the Sophists during this section of training was “to teach appropriateness and orderliness of thought and purity and elegance of language” (Walden 211).
The students would also be trained in memory. Memorizing many authors compositions, the instructor’s compositions, and compositions that were unique to the students career choice were also memorized (Walden 214). Having the ability to recall facts and ideas regarding ones career profoundly aided the students when faced with problems once out of school. The Sophists seemed to have helped many students achieve their goals and also provided a form of secondary education where it was previously nonexistent; however, where there is good, bad may follow.
Although the Sophists shared their insight and knowledge with students, many people were also unsure of them. The Sophists were “criticized by Plato and Aristotle for their emphasis on rhetoric rather than on pure knowledge and for their acceptance of money” (“Sophists” 41955). Since the Sophists received payment for the services provided, only the wealthy could afford to learn from a Sophist. This made the lower class angry because one desperately needed help from the Sophists in order to make a descent living and improve ones situation (Swartz 82). Another major factor in resistance towards the Sophists was that they were foreigners and Athens did not trust foreigners (Swartz 82). If one reflects upon the common view of philosophers, it is easy to grow distain for the Sophists. When one thinks about philosophy one usually concludes that the philosopher is doing it in order to better mankind. If one was just trying to help mankind they would not charge for the services provided. One would also try to help the lower class first, instead of helping the rich get richer. Along with the Sophists, the Stoics also played a major role in Geek and Roman culture.
Stoicism was another school of philosophy. “The first Stoics were so called because they met in the stoa poecile [ar. = painted porch] at Athens, a colonnade near the agora, to hear their master, Zeno lecture” (“Stoicism”44794). Out of many Stoics, Zeno of Citium was one of the most prominent. Zeno was also the founder of Stoicism (“Zeno of Citium”51352). “Zeno divided philosophy into logic, physics, and ethics, and thought that the first two must serve the last” (“Zeno of Citium”51352). As with the Sophists, many of the Stoic works have been lost, which means that the works of others will suffice the need of learning the ideas and teachings of the stoics.
A major teaching of the Stoics was the conception of good, or virtue. The Stoics believed that “in order to achieve true well-being, in order to have a good life, one needs a certain competence which we may call virtue” (Barnes, et all, 71). However, one must posses various skills to become virtuous, among them are: “One must be good at taking care of oneself, at dealing with the kinds of situations and problems one encounters in life” (Barnes, et all, 71). When one thinks of virtue many things may come to mind, a prominent one may be that virtue is unattainable. Another may be that if one has not lead a perfect life then there is no hope in striving for virtue. For those whom think in similar ways, there is hope. The Stoics believed that virtue is not something one is born with, but something that one must work at to obtain. However, Stoics believed that by nature one is virtuous and that if nothing ever went wrong in ones life, they would become virtuous (Barnes, et all, 71). It seems to be a little confusing that one would become virtuous by not having anything bad happen at all. In order to be virtues one must have a high level of ethics, this would lead into another major aspect of Stoicism: ethics.
Ethics may include many things such as: appropriate language, chastity, addictions, and even clothing. The Stoics believed in a high level of ethics, if one could abide by these ethical rules, then virtue may be an outcome. “Stoic ethics is often criticized for is impractical rigidity and pointless idealism” (Barnes, et all, 95). One example of this is that they believed “that all moral errors were equal, that only the wise man is free, and that all human passions should be eliminated rather than moderated” (Barnes, et all, 95). As if that was not bad enough, Stoics also left no room for wavering; they demanded that all humans act in the ethical ways which were laid before them by the Stoics. If one did not comply, complete unhappiness would result for that person (Barnes, et all, 95). The idea of complete unhappiness based upon the ethics that others hold may be startling, but the idea of living a virtuous life out weighed the consequences for many of the Stoic’s students; whom followed their teachings religiously.
The Stoics believed that a major key to living ethically was consistency. As well as self-consistency, one also needed to be consistent with nature; with out it one would fall out of harmony with oneself (Inwood 106). This makes perfect since, one cannot be truly consistent with oneself if every other part of ones world is inconsistent. However, “the Stoics would not share the normal feelings of mankind. He would not sorrow at the loss of a friend or pity another’s misfortunes; such feelings were both irrational and inconsistent with his constancy and self-control” (Clarke 36). This idea may seem a bit over-the-top, but one must remember that the Stoics lived in a much different time period; one with different laws, different language, and different values. Along with virtue and ethics, a key component to Stoicism was natural law.
Another, and may be most famous teaching of the Stoics was that of natural law. “The stoics believed that the fundamental moral principles that underlie all the legal systems of different nations were reducible to that dictates of natural law (“Natural Law”33001). This can be seen as saying that natural laws, meaning undisturbed or even God given laws, are so natural that they exists in almost every form of government. Natural rights, which are interchangeable with natural laws, are a “Political theory that maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights” (“Natural Rights”33003). Another way of conveying what natural rights are would be to say that they are “the belief that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature or God” (“Natural Rights”33003). Although, many of the Stoics writings were lost, one could conclude that three of the natural rights, or laws, may have been: freedom of worship, rights to a voice in ones own government, and the right to property (“Natural Rights”33003). The idea that just by being born one is allowed certain rights that are undeniable seems to be simple enough; however, not all Stoic ideas are this simple.
One Stoic idea, which is extremely complex, is that of social contract versus a utopia. Social contract is “presenting an account of the origins of society” (Barnes, et all, 178). The social contract usually deals with the past (Barnes 178). Social contract “clearly passes a fiction off as a fact, it is usually accorded the status of respectable theory in politics, for the reason that the emphasis in the contract myth falls on the present facts of society” (Barnes, et all, 179). The idea of social contract is a bit confusing, but basically it is accepted as a theory in politics because it is based upon past historical clues.
The concept of utopia is “an imaginative vision of the way social life might be or even aim at, but is fundamentally not” (Barnes, et all, 179). “The idea of Utopia, or ideal model state, is purely speculative” (Barnes, et all, 179). The word utopia basically means perfection. One may believe that perfection is unachievable; therefore, a utopia would be unachievable. For this reason, utopia usually deals with the future (Barnes, et all, 178). However, “unlike the social contract, the function of the utopia is not normally to explain anything about existing society or politics, with which it is rather meant simply to contrast or displace” (Barnes, et all, 179). The Stoics also created an idea for a utopia. It was an “idea of the universe as a city and its development as a utopian political model” (Barnes, et all, 1979). The Stoics called this the Cosmic City (Barnes, et all, 179). Just as important as what one teaches, is how it is taught.
There are many ways of teaching; hands-on, book work, and maybe the use of videos. The stoics choose to use lectures as the vehicle of education (“Stoicism”). When one thinks of a university, tall buildings come into play, maybe even a library stacked with volumes upon volumes of information. However, the Stoics did not even have a “local habitation” (Walden 28). The stoics “frequented, in the earlier part of its career, the Painted Stoa, but it acquired no private property and was not incorporated” (Walden 28). Although, it seems as though the Stoics had many great ideas concerning many different subjects and taught those ideas to the public, many people grew distain for the Stoics.
As with many great things, great ideas, and great improvements, criticism usually finds a way to leak in. The Stoics were no different. Many citizens thought that the Stoics “were tedious, unattractive writers, with a taste for uncouth technical terms and relentless logic-chopping, and a man of taste might well revolt from them” (Clarke 33). Seeing how humans enjoy easy tasks, beauty, and of course understanding what is being said, this seems to be a credited assumption. The Stoics “set up the impossible figure of the ideal wise man free form all emotions and branded all other as fools and madman” (Clarke 33). A third cause of citizen’s distain for the stoics was that “they disregarded most things that people held closely as unimportant (Clarke 33). All things considered, the citizens had many reasons to despise the Stoics.
One can now see why both the Sophists and the Stoics were important to Greek and Roman culture. The Sophists, being teachers of rhetoric, were an essential ingredient to aspiring political figures. The students were taught the history of rhetoric, how to create an effective speech, the complexities of refutation and construction, and how to use ones memory to store facts important to ones career choice. Equally as important to Greek and Roman culture, were the Stoics. The Stoics taught students about the conception of good, ethics, ideals of natural law, and social contract versus utopia. While many of these concepts may be overwhelming, they are nonetheless important and pivotal to the time period in which they were taught.