Tindale Christopher: Tamni branitelji razuma

Christopher Tindale: Dark defenders of reason Sophists have always been the "bad guys". They were, at least, represented by the undoubtedly "good guys" Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and then by the whole army of those who, naturally, worshiped the "good guys". Namely, the sophists - witness the "good guys" - used all possible means, especially logical and rhetorical tricks, in order to win the debates in which, as skilled orators, they were happy to participate. According to tradition, the sophist Gorgias, for example, was able to appear in front of the assembly and enchant the delegates with his oratorical skills. Regardless of whether what he was talking about was true or not. The "good guys" did not like this state of affairs at all, and, of course, they started gossiping about the sophists. And they did well. Thousands of years later the "good guys" undoubtedly won the victory over the "bad guys" because even today "being a sophist" does not mean anything good. Quite the opposite. "To be a sophist" means to be sweet-talking and skilled in speech. One who, for personal or narrowly understood benefit, will advocate a story regardless of whether it is true or not. Lawyers can therefore be said to be sophists. After all, one of the more serious moral charges was that sophists, just like lawyers today, worked for money. They represented those who would offer them the appropriate amount. Whether that someone is a moral or immoral person, whether he is telling the truth or a lie, for the sophists, according to the interpretation of the "good guys", was irrelevant. However, during the last fifty years, significant works have appeared that strongly cast doubt on such a view. Canadian philosopher Christopher Tindale's book is undoubtedly one of the most significant and penetrating. Tindale wrote The Dark Defenders of Reason long and patiently. On the one hand, he engaged in a thorough analysis of Aristotle's "sophistic refutations", that famous text in which the teacher of Alexander the Great used logic to refute sophistic views. Tindale, however, does not take the great Aristotle at his word and relatively easily shows that he does nothing different from what the sophists do. The only thing is that, in certain sequences, he is perhaps more skilled than others. In addition, Tindale questions the specific weight of theoretical philosophy and opposes it to a philosophy that does not live in quiet forests, comfortable schools of philosophy or quiet chambers, but one that fights for life in the square, in the political arena or in the crowd. Sophists were philosophers who faced the masses, angry political opponents, people who did not listen to them patiently and full of good will, but interrupted them, shouted at them, argued, insulted them and tried to overcome them. In such situations, it made no sense to consider things from metaphysical heights. And, Tindale adds, this by no means means that the Sophists failed to demand truth or logic, but that they used other means than those favored by Plato and Aristotle. Ultimately, this does not mean that the philosophies of the "good guys" are more valuable, but only that, over time, they have prevailed. For this reason, suggests the Canadian philosopher, perhaps the time has come for the "bad guys" to be rehabilitated.