Two summary of two different essay

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 1 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

History of the name

The 5th-century Sophists

Nature of Sophistic thought

Writings

Particular doctrines

The Second Sophistic movement

Sophist Sophist, any of certain Greek lecturers, writers, and teachers in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, most of

whom traveled about the Greek-speaking world giving

instruction in a wide range of subjects in return for fees.

History of the name The term sophist (Greek sophistes) had earlier

applications. It is sometimes said to have meant

originally simply “clever” or “skilled man,” but the list of

those to whom Greek authors applied the term in its

earlier sense makes it probable that it was rather more

restricted in meaning. Seers, diviners, and poets predominate, and the earliest Sophists

probably were the “sages” in early Greek societies. This would explain the subsequent

application of the term to the Seven Wise Men (7th–6th century BCE), who typified the

highest early practical wisdom, and to pre-Socratic philosophers generally. When

Protagoras, in one of Plato’s dialogues (Protagoras) is made to say that, unlike others, he is

willing to call himself a Sophist, he is using the term in its new sense of “professional

teacher,” but he wishes also to claim continuity with earlier sages as a teacher of wisdom.

Plato and Aristotle altered the meaning again, however, when they claimed that

professional teachers such as Protagoras were not seeking the truth but only victory in

debate and were prepared to use dishonest means to achieve it. This produced the sense

“captious or fallacious reasoner or quibbler,” which has remained dominant to the present

day. Finally, under the Roman Empire the term was applied to professors of rhetoric, to

orators, and to prose writers generally, all of whom are sometimes regarded as

constituting what is now called the Second Sophistic movement (see below The Second

Sophistic movement).

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 2 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

Plato and Aristotle

Plato (left) and Aristotle, detail from School of Athens, fresco by Raphael, 1508–11; in the Stanza della Segnatura, the Vatican.

Plato pointing to the heavens and the realm of forms, Aristotle to the earth and the realm

of things. Album/Oronoz/SuperStock

The 5th-century Sophists The names survive of nearly 30 Sophists properly so

called, of whom the most important were Protagoras,

Gorgias, Antiphon, Prodicus, and Thrasymachus. Plato

protested strongly that Socrates was in no sense a

Sophist—he took no fees, and his devotion to the truth

was beyond question. But f rom many points of view

he is rightly regarded as a rather special member of

the movement. The actual number of Sophists was

clearly much larger than 30, and for about 70 years,

until c. 380 BCE, they were the sole source of higher

education in the more advanced Greek cities.

Thereafter, at least at Athens, they were largely

replaced by the new philosophical schools, such as

those of Plato and Isocrates. Plato’s dialogue

Protagoras describes something like a conference of

Sophists at the house of Callias in Athens just before

the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE). Antimoerus of Mende, described as one of the most

distinguished of Protagoras’s pupils, is there receiving professional instruction in order to

become a Sophist, and it is clear that this was already a normal way of entering the

profession.

Most of the major Sophists were not Athenians, but they made Athens the centre of their

activities, although travelling continuously. The importance of Athens was doubtless due

in part to the greater f reedom of speech prevailing there, in part to the patronage of

wealthy men like Callias, and even to the positive encouragement of Pericles, who was

said to have held long discussions with Sophists in his house. But primarily the Sophists

congregated at Athens because they found there the greatest demand for what they had

to offer, namely, instruction to young men, and the extent of this demand followed f rom

the nature of the city’s political life. Athens was a democracy, and although its limits were

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 3 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

Pericles, detail of a marble herm; in the Vatican Museum

Anderson—Alinari/Art Resource, New York

such that Thucydides could say it was governed by one man, Pericles, it nonetheless gave

opportunities for a successful political career to citizens of the most diverse backgrounds,

provided they could impress their audiences sufficiently in the council and the assembly.

After Pericles’ death this avenue became the highroad to political success.

The Sophists taught men how to speak and what

arguments to use in public debate. A Sophistic

education was increasingly sought after both by

members of the oldest families and by aspiring

newcomers without family backing. The changing

pattern of Athenian society made merely traditional

attitudes in many cases no longer adequate.

Criticizing such attitudes and replacing them by

rational arguments held special attraction for the

young, and it explains the violent distaste which they

aroused in traditionalists. Plato thought that much of

the Sophistic attack upon traditional values was unfair

and unjustified. But even he learned at least one thing

f rom the Sophists—if the older values were to be

defended, it must be by reasoned argument, not by

appeals to tradition and unreflecting faith.

Seen f rom this point of view, the Sophistic movement

performed a valuable function within Athenian democracy in the 5th century BCE. It

offered an education designed to facilitate and promote success in public life. All of the

Sophists appear to have provided a training in rhetoric and in the art of speaking, and the

Sophistic movement, responsible for large advances in rhetorical theory, contributed

greatly to the development of style in oratory. In modern times the view occasionally has

been advanced that this was the Sophists’ only concern. But the range of topics dealt with

by the major Sophists makes this unlikely, and even if success in this direction was their

ultimate aim, the means they used were surely as much indirect as direct, for the pupils

were instructed not merely in the art of speaking, but in grammar; in the nature of virtue

(aretē) and the bases of morality; in the history of society and the arts; in poetry, music,

and mathematics; and also in astronomy and the physical sciences. Naturally the balance

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 4 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

La Hire, Laurent de: Rhetoric

Rhetoric, oil on canvas by Laurent de La Hire, 1650. 102.5 × 119.5 cm.

In a private collection

and emphasis differed f rom Sophist to Sophist, and some offered wider curricula than

others. But this was an individual matter, and attempts by earlier historians of philosophy

to divide the Sophistic movement into periods in which the nature of the instruction was

altered are now seen to fail for lack of evidence. The 5th-century Sophists inaugurated a

method of higher education that in range and method anticipated the modern

humanistic approach inaugurated or revived during the European Renaissance.

Nature of Sophistic thought A question still discussed is whether the Sophists in

general had any real regard for truth or whether they

taught their pupils that truth was unimportant

compared with success in argument. Plato’s hostile

judgment on both counts is still f requently repeated

without question. The Platonic writings make

f requent reference to what Plato calls “eristic”

(eristikos, “fond of wrangling”) and “antilogic”; the two

often have been incorrectly treated as identical. Eristic, for Plato, consists in arguments

aimed at victory rather than at truth. Antilogic involves the assignment to any argument

of a counterargument that negates it, with the implication that both argument and

counterargument are equally true. Antilogic in this sense was especially associated with

Protagoras; but Plato, no doubt correctly, attributes its use to other Sophists as well. He

regards the use of antilogic as essentially eristic, whether it be used to silence an

opponent by making his position seem self-contradictory, or whether it be used

mechanically to negate any proposition put forward in debate. He concludes that the

widespread use of antilogic is evidence that Sophists had no real regard for the truth,

which must itself be f ree f rom antilogic.

But Plato himself believed, for much or possibly all of his life, that the phenomenal world

was essentially antilogical inasmuch as no statement about it could be made possessing a

greater degree of truth than the contradictory of that statement. For example, if a person

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 5 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

Plato conversing with his pupils

Plato conversing with his pupils, mosaic from Pompeii, 1st century

BCE

; in the National Archaeological Museum, Naples.

C. M. Dixon/Heritage-Images

is tall in relation to one object, he will be short in

relation to another object. In so characterizing the

phenomenal world, Plato certainly did not wish to be

called eristic—he regarded the application of antilogic

to the description of the phenomenal world as an

essential preliminary to the search for the truth

residing in the Platonic forms, which are themselves

f ree f rom antilogic.

Seen in this perspective, the Sophistic use of antilogic

must be judged less harshly. To the extent that it was

used irresponsibly to secure success in debate it was

eristic, and the temptation so to use it must often

have arisen. But where it was invoked in the sincere

belief that antilogic elements were indeed involved, or

where it was used for analyzing a complex situation in

order to reveal its complexity, then antilogic was in no

way inconsistent with devotion to truth. This raises the

question to what extent the Sophists possessed any general view of the world or gave

expression to any genuine philosophical views, whether original or derived. Ancient

writers, influenced by Plato and Aristotle, seem to have excluded the Sophists, apart f rom

Protagoras, f rom their schematized accounts of early Greek thinkers. Modern writers have

f requently maintained that, whatever else they were, the Sophists were in no sense

philosophers. Even those who acknowledge the philosophical interest of certain particular

doctrines attributed to individual Sophists often tend to regard these as exceptions and

claim that, inasmuch as the Sophists were not a school but only independent teachers

and writers, as a class they were not philosophers. Two questions are involved: whether the

Sophists held common intellectual doctrines and whether some or all of these could

actually be termed philosophical.

Among moderns, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was one of the first to reinsert the

Sophists into the history of Greek philosophy. He did so within the f ramework of his own

dialectic, in which every thesis invokes its own opposite, or antithesis; thus, he treated the

Sophists as representing the antithesis to the thesis of the group of philosophers known

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 6 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

collectively as the pre-Socratics. Pre-Socratics such as Thales, Heracleitus, and Parmenides

sought the truth about the external world with a bold enthusiasm that produced a series

of explanations, each claiming to be correct. None of these explanations of the physical

world paid attention to the observer and each was driven to reject more and more of the

phenomenal world itself as unreal. Finally, with the Eleatics, a 5th-century school at Elea in

Italy that held that reality is a static one, of which Parmenides and Zeno are

representatives, little or nothing of the phenomenal world was left as real. This trend in

turn produced a growing distrust of the power of human beings to attain knowledge of

the ultimate basis of natural phenomena. Philosophy had reached an impasse, and there

was a danger of complete skepticism. Such an extreme position, according to Hegel’s

view, provoked the “antithesis” of the Sophistic movement, which rejected the “thesis” of

the objectivists and concentrated attention upon humankind rather than upon nature. To

Hegel, the Sophists were subjective idealists, holding that reality is only minds and their

contents, and so philosophy could move forward by turning its attention to the subjective

element in knowing. Reflection upon the contrast between the thought of the Sophists

and that of their predecessors produced the “syntheses” of Plato and Aristotle.

Whether any of the Sophists actually were subjective idealists may be doubted. The

conclusion depends in part on whether Protagoras held that phenomena had subjective

existence only, or whether he thought that all things perceived had objective existence

but were perceived differently according to the nature of the percipient and their relation

to him—i.e., whether he interpreted phenomena subjectively or relativistically. It is fairly

clear, however, that the Sophists did concentrate very largely upon human beings and

human society, upon questions of words in their relations to things, upon issues in the

theory of knowledge, and upon the importance of the observer and the subjective

element in reality and in the correct understanding of reality.

This emphasis helps to explain the philosophical hostility of Plato and Aristotle. Particularly

in the eyes of Plato, anyone who looks for the truth in phenomena alone, whether he

interprets it subjectively or relativistically, cannot hope to find it there; and his persistence

in turning away f rom the right direction virtually amounts to a rejection of philosophy and

of the search for truth. Many a subsequent thinker for whom metaphysics, or the

investigation of the deepest nature of reality, was the crowning achievement of philosophy

has felt with Plato that the Sophists were so antimetaphysical that they have no claim to

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 7 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

rank as philosophers. But since the mid-19th century there has been growing appreciation

of a number of problems and doctrines recurring in the discussions of the Sophists in the

5th and 4th centuries BCE. In the 18th and early 19th centuries the Sophists were

considered charlatans. Their intellectual honesty was impugned, and their doctrines were

blamed for weakening the moral fibre of Greece. The charge was based on two

contentions, both correct: first, that many of the Sophists attacked the traditionally

accepted moral code; and second, that they explored and even commended alternative

approaches to morality that would condone or allow behaviour of a kind inadmissible

under the stricter traditional code.

Much less weight is now attached to these charges. First, many of the attacks on the

traditional morality were in the name of a new morality that claimed to be of greater

validity. Attacks upon particular doctrines often claimed that accepted views should be

abandoned as morally defective. Furthermore, even when socially disfavoured action

seemed to be commended, this was f requently done to introduce a principle necessary in

any satisfactory moral theory. Thus, when Thrasymachus in the first book of Plato’s

Republic argues that justice is unwarranted when it merely contributes to another’s good

and not to the good of the doer, Plato agrees. Finally, there is no evidence that any of the

Sophists were personally immoral or that any of their pupils were induced to immoral

actions by Sophistic teaching. The serious discussion of moral problems and the theory of

morality tends to improve behaviour, not to corrupt it.

Writings In addition to their teaching, the Sophists wrote many books, the titles of which are

preserved by writers such as Diogenes Laërtius, who probably derived them f rom library

catalogues. It has usually been supposed that the writings themselves hardly survived

beyond the period of Plato and Aristotle, but this view requires modification in the light of

papyrus finds, admittedly few, that were copied f rom Sophistic writings in the early

Common Era. It also has been possible to identify in the works of later writers certain

imitations or summaries of 5th-century Sophistic writers, whose names are unknown. The

most important of these are the discussion of law in the Protrepticus, or “Exhortation to

Philosophy,” by the 3rd-century-CE Syrian Neoplatonist Iamblichus, and the so-called

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 8 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

Grote, detail of an oil painting by Sir John Everett Millais, 1870; in the Senate House,

University of London Courtesy of the Senate House, University of

London

Dissoi logoi found in the manuscripts of Sextus Empiricus (3rd century CE). This evidence

suggests that while most later writers took their accounts of the Sophists f rom earlier

writers, especially f rom Plato, the original writings did in many cases survive and were

consulted.

Particular doctrines As part of his defense of the Sophists against the charge of immoral teachings, the English

historian George Grote (1794–1871) maintained that they had nothing in common with

each other except their profession, as paid teachers qualifying young men to think, speak,

and act with credit to themselves as citizens. This denial of common doctrines cannot be

sustained—the evidence is against it. While the Sophists were not a sect, with a set of

obligatory beliefs or doctrines, they had a common interest in a whole series of questions

to which they sought to apply solutions along certain clearly defined lines.

There are great difficulties, however, in the precise

reconstruction of individual Sophistic doctrines. No

complete writings survive f rom any of the Sophists to

check the accounts found in Plato, and later writers

were often, but not always, dependent upon what

they found in Plato. Plato doubtless knew well the

doctrines of individual Sophists; but he was writing for

those to whom these doctrines were already well

known, and he was always more interested in

following the argument where it led than in providing

precise statements of other people’s views for the sake

of posterity. Consequently, almost everything that is

said about particular Sophistic doctrines is subject to

controversy.

Theoretical issues

Relativism and skepticism have often been regarded

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 9 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

as common features of the Sophistic movement as a whole. But it was early pointed out

that only in Protagoras and Gorgias is there any suggestion of a radical skepticism about

the possibility of knowledge; and even in their case Sextus Empiricus, in his discussion of

skepticism, is probably right when he declares that neither was really a skeptic. Protagoras

does seem to have restricted knowledge to sense experience, but he believed

emphatically that whatever was perceived by the senses was certainly true. This led him to

assert that the tangent does not touch the circle at a point only but along a definite

length of the circumference; clearly he was referring to human perception of drawn

tangents and circles. Gorgias, who claimed that nothing exists, or if it does exist it cannot

be known, or if it exists and is knowable it cannot be communicated to another, has often

been accused of denying all reality and all knowledge. Yet he also seems to have appealed

in his very discussion of these themes to the certainty of perceived facts about the

physical world; e.g., that chariots do not race across the sea. Others dismiss his whole

thesis as a satire or joke against philosophers.

Probably neither view is correct. What Gorgias seems to have been attacking was not

perceived reality nor one’s power to perceive it but the attempt to assign existence or

nonexistence (with the metaphysical implications of such an operation) to what one

perceives. There is evidence that other Sophists (e.g., Hippias) were interested in questions

of this kind, and it is likely that they were all concerned to some degree with rejecting

claims of any nonsensible existence, such as those of the Eleatics. The Sophists, in fact,

were attempting to explain the phenomenal world without appealing to any principles

outside phenomena. They believed that this could be done by including the observer

within the phenomenal world. Their refusal to go beyond phenomena was, for Plato, the

great weakness in their thinking.

A second common generalization about the Sophists has been that they represent a revolt

against science and the study of the physical world. The evidence is against this, inasmuch

as for Hippias, Prodicus, Gorgias, and Protagoras there are records of a definite interest in

questions of this kind. The truth is rather that they were in revolt against attempts to

explain the physical world by appeals to principles that could not be perceived by the

senses; and instead of f raming new “objective” explanations, they attempted to explain

things, where explanation was required, by introducing the perceiver as one element in

the perceptual situation.

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 10 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

One of the most famous doctrines associated with the Sophistic movement was the

opposition between nature and custom or convention in morals. It is probable that the

antithesis did not originate in Sophistic circles but was rather earlier; but it was clearly very

popular and figured largely in Sophistic discussions. The commonest form of the doctrine

involved an appeal f rom conventional laws to supposedly higher laws based on nature.

Sometimes these higher laws were invoked to remedy defects in actual laws and to

impose more stringent obligations; but usually it was in order to f ree the individual f rom

restrictions unjustifiably imposed by human laws that the appeal to nature was made. In

its extreme form the appeal involved the throwing off of all restraints upon self-interest

and the desires of the individual (e.g., the doctrine of Callicles in Plato’s Gorgias that might,

if one possesses it, is actually right), and it was this, more than anything else, that gave

support to charges against the Sophists of immoral teaching. On other occasions the

terms of the antithesis were reversed and human laws were explicitly acclaimed as

superior to the laws of nature and as representing progress achieved by human

endeavour. In all cases the laws of nature were regarded not as generalized descriptions of

what actually happens in the natural world (and so not like the laws of physics to which no

exceptions are possible) but rather as norms that people ought to follow but are f ree to

ignore. Thus, the appeal to nature tended to mean an appeal to human nature treated as a

source for norms of conduct. (See also natural law.)

To Greeks this appeal was not very novel. It represented a conscious probing and

exploration into an area wherein, according to their whole tradition of thought, lay the true

source for norms of conduct. If Plato’s Callicles represents a position actually held by a

living Sophist when he advocates f ree rein for the passions, then it was easy for Plato to

argue in reply that human nature, if it is to be fulfilled, requires organization and restraint

in the license given to the desires of particular aspects of it; otherwise the interests of the

whole will be f rustrated. Both Plato and Aristotle, in basing so much of their ethics on

human nature, are only following up the approach begun by the Sophists.

Humanistic issues

The Sophists have sometimes been characterized by their attacks on the traditional

religious beliefs of the Greeks (see Greek religion). It is true that more than one Sophist

seems to have faced prosecution for impiety, as did Socrates also. Protagoras wrote

“concerning the gods, I cannot know either that they exist or that they do not exist nor

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 11 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

what they are like in form,” and Prodicus offered a sociological account of the

development of religion. Critias went further when he supposed that the gods were

deliberately invented to inspire fear in the evildoer. It is thus probably correct to say that

the tendency of much Sophistic thought was to reject the traditional doctrines about the

gods. Indeed, this follows almost inevitably if the supposition is correct that all the Sophists

were attempting to explain the phenomenal world f rom within itself, while excluding all

principles or entities not discernible in phenomena. But in their agnostic attitudes toward

the Olympian deities, the Sophists were probably at one with most of the pre-Socratic

philosophers of the 6th and 5th centuries and also with most thinking people living

toward the end of the 5th century. It is thus probably misleading to regard them as

revolutionary in their religious beliefs.

The importance the Sophists attached to human beings meant that they were extremely

interested in the history and organization of human societies. Here again most is known

about Protagoras, and there is a danger of treating his particular doctrines as typical of the

Sophistic movement as a whole. In the 5th century, human history was very commonly

seen in terms of a decline f rom an earlier golden age. Another view supposed that there

were recurring cycles in human affairs according to which a progression f rom good to bad

would give way to one f rom bad to good. The typical Sophistic attitude toward society

rejected both of these views in favour of one that saw human history in terms of progress

f rom savagery to civilization. In a famous myth, Protagoras explained how humans

achieved civilized society first with the aid of arts and crafts and then by gaining a sense of

respect and justice in the ordering of their affairs. The general thinking of most of the

Sophists seems to have been along similar lines.

One of the most distinctive Sophistic tenets was that virtue can be taught, a position

springing naturally f rom the Sophists’ professional claim to be the teachers of young men.

But the word virtue (aretē) implied both success in living and the qualities necessary for

achieving such success, and the claim that aretē could be taught by the kind of teaching

that the Sophists offered had far-ranging implications. It involved the rejection of the view

that aretē came only by birth—for example, by being born a member of a noble family—

and it involved also the rejection of the doctrine that aretē was a matter of the chance

occurrence of specified qualities in particular individuals. Aretē, in the Sophists’ view, was

the result of known and controllable procedures, a contention of profound importance for

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 12 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

the organization of society. Moreover, what can be taught has some relation to what can

be known and understood. The belief that teaching of a high intellectual calibre could

produce success both for the individual and for governments has had a profound

influence upon the subsequent history of education. Once again, it is through the

acceptance of this doctrine by Plato and Aristotle that the Sophistic position came to be

part of subsequent humanist tradition.

The Second Sophistic movement It is a historical accident that the name “Sophist” came to be applied to the Second

Sophistic movement. Greek literature underwent a period of eclipse during the 1st century

BCE and under the early Roman Empire. But Roman dominance did not prevent a growing

interest in sophistic oratory in the Greek-speaking world during the 1st century CE. This

oratory aimed merely at instructing or interesting an audience and had of necessity no

political function. But it was based on elaborate rules and required a thorough knowledge

of the poets and prose writers of antiquity. Training was provided by professional teachers

of rhetoric who claimed the title of Sophists, just as the 5th-century Sophists had adopted

a name already used by others.

The revival of the Greek spirit under Hadrian and other Roman emperors in the 2nd

century CE who were also admirers of Greek culture found expression in a f resh flowering

of Greek prose following principles developed and applied by the professors of rhetoric in

the 1st century CE. Hence, a group of Greek prose writers in the 2nd century CE were

regarded as constituting the Second Sophistic movement. This was a backward-looking

movement that took as its models Athenian writers of the 5th and 4th centuries BCE;

hence, the label “Atticists” (Greek Attikos, “Athenian”) was applied to some of its leading

members. The limits of the movement were never clear. It is usually taken to include

Polemon of Athens, Herodes Atticus, Aelius Aristides, Maximus of Tyre, and the group of

Philostrati (each of whom bore the name Philostratus). Dio Chrysostom of Prusa is often

included, although others would regard him as preparing the way for the main period.

Other writers, like Lucian, Aelian, and Alciphron, were influenced by the movement even if

not properly members of it; and the writers of prose romances, such as Longus and

Heliodorus, and the historians Dio Cassius and Herodian are also associated with the

11/3/19, 6(23 AMSophist -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 13 of 13https://www.britannica.com/print/article/554705

White marble statue of the Roman emperor Hadrian, from an excavation at Sagalassos

in southwest Turkey. Marc Waelkens/Sagalassos Archaeological

Research Project

general trend. By the 3rd century CE, however, its impulse was weakening, and it was

shortly no longer distinguishable within the general stream of Greek literature.

George Briscoe Kerferd

CITATION INFORMATION

ARTICLE TITLE: Sophist

WEBSITE NAME: Encyclopaedia Britannica

PUBLISHER: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

DATE PUBLISHED: 19 May 2019

URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sophist-philosophy

ACCESS DATE: November 03, 2019