Law (nomoi) and nature (physis):
With democracy, economic and cultural splendor and political dominance in Greece (Sparta is the only rival), the situation in Athens creates new problems: democracy, freedom and the law.
The law, the only permanent sovereign, since the magistratures are scattered and ephemeral, will be the center of most discussions. In earlier times, the unwritten laws (thesmoi) were considered of divine origin as opposed to the written nomoi, or human laws. Now the value of the law, as the foundation of democracy and the only barrier to individualism and the ambition for power, will be discussed and examined in depth.
The sophists will consider nomoi to be merely conventional and that since each people have their own, they lack absolute value, which contradict the universal and permanent character of natures. This contrast between law and nature becomes the big theme.
The word “sophist” (sophistés) was, at first, a synonym for “sage” (sophós), Herodotus for example, I would use it to refer to Solon and Pythagoras. Only later would he acquire through Platonic dialogues the pejorative sense of skillful deceiver.
The sophists did not form a school, nor did they defend a doctrine of common traits. However, it is possible to point out some coincidences between them:
a. They represent a remarkable philosophical turn as a result of the new intellectual needs posed by democracy. They thus focused on practical problems such as politics, morality, religion, education, language, etc.
b. They adopt a relativistic and skeptical attitude. This is reflected in the abandonment of physis... Why continue to argue about what will never be known in terms of truth? But in addition, they are relativistic in relation to human problems because they observe that different peoples have different laws and customs.
c. They do not represent a systematic set of thinkers, nor do they seek universal principles to operate in a deductive manner in the style of Parmenides.
d. They have had enormous influence on Athenian life. They called into question polis in its traditional sense, doing critical work on the part of institutions and promoting new ideas. These ideas (and the instruments taught by the sophists, the oratory and the art of discussion) lent themselves to all sorts of manipulations by the ambitious of the time. The figure of the sophist appears accordingly, with remarkable ambiguity.
“ Man is the measure of all things”Fr.1
Although the interpretation of this memorable fragment is often discussed, it seems to indicate that Protagoras defended a relativism of sensitive qualities and values.
Most likely, in its context, Protagoras understood “man” in a collective sense, which suggests a relativism of a cultural nature: each people has different customs and laws and considers their own to be the best. The law is not something given by nature but thought by legislators.
In the famous “myth of Prometheus” that appears in Plato's dialogue dedicated to this sophist, Protagoras defends the value of culture as that which differentiates man from animal: only thanks to it can man survive, being as he is a helpless animal. But in addition, it needs a sense of justice and political virtue, without which the stability of the city would be impossible.
Apparently, Gorgias had been a disciple of Empedocles and perhaps to defend his master from Zeno's attacks he wrote a treatise About Nature or the Non-Ent, which states that:
Nothing exists.
If anything existed, it couldn't be known.
If it could be known, it could not be explained or communicated to others.
This could well be taken by absolute Nihilism but more presumably by the intention of bringing Zeno's philosophy to absurdity. Indeed, with great skill, Gorgias tries to demonstrate the coincidence between being, thinking and word by destroying the fundamental principle of that school: identity between being and thinking.
However, Gorgias renounced objective knowledge and said goodbye to philosophy to engage in oratory.
He became famous for his pessimistic attitude to life, saying that an early death was a gift from the gods. Like other sophists, he defended ethical relativism and developed a psychological theory about the origin of religion: primitive men revered what their lives depended on: the sun, water, fire; but when they began to develop the techniques, they went to worship the inventors of them, for example, worshiping Dionysus. as the inventor of wine.
This sophist stood out for the encyclopedic of his knowledge. He considered the law not only as conventional but even went further: he claimed that it was contrary to nature, calling for the autarchy of the individual and rebellion against the laws that always overrule the weakest. Ace + o. Hippies oppose Protagoras in the sense that for him the law is a consequence of nature, whereas for Hippias, the law goes against it, because it becomes necessary to return to nature.
At the death of Pericles, discussions about law and law intensified markedly. Some defended the doctrine of natural law of the strongest.
Calicles claimed that the law had been given to protect the weak; but nature (both in animals and humans) makes the strong dominate the weak, which is just right.
He defended the natural right of the weak, declaring the natural equality of all men, considering the aristocracy of birth as something unjustifiable. He claimed that “nature has made no one a slave” and is believed to have initiated a women's culture and political emancipation movement (some of this is mentioned in the comedies of Aristophanes).