For centuries, Plato has dominated the narrative. In his dialogue Gorgias, he dismisses the Sophists as intellectual charlatans — mere peddlers of "knacks" (like flattery or cooking) rather than true "arts" grounded in knowledge and virtue. He accuses them of prioritising persuasion over truth, charging fees for wisdom, and making the weaker argument appear stronger.
But let's flip the script: If your freedom, reputation, or property hung in the balance in an Athenian courtroom — or if you needed to rally the Assembly to pass urgent legislation — who would you hire? A philosopher chasing the eternal "Form of the Good" through endless dialectic, or a master rhetorician like Gorgias or Protagoras who could sway a jury of 501 citizens with razor-sharp arguments?
It's time to rehabilitate the Sophists. They weren't failed philosophers; they were the architects of practical persuasion in a democracy. In many ways, they were the founding fathers of the legal profession, rhetoric as a civic tool, and the art of winning arguments in the real world.
The Art of the "Win" vs. The Quest for the "Why"
Plato's core complaint? The Sophists taught rhetoric for pay and focused on victory rather than absolute truth. To him, this commodified wisdom and risked misleading the polis. Yet the Sophists grasped a reality Plato often sidestepped: In democratic Athens, where ordinary citizens decided lawsuits and policy without professional judges or lawyers, persuasion was power. Truth alone rarely won the day — effective argument did.
They developed techniques that echo directly in modern advocacy:
Antilogic (Argumentative Flexibility) — Protagoras famously declared that on every issue, there are two opposing logoi (arguments), and he could make the weaker one appear stronger. This wasn't mere cynicism; it was a precursor to the adversarial system. Lawyers today must zealously represent their client, arguing the strongest possible case — even if they privately see merit on the other side. Protagoras trained students to argue both sides equally well, fostering empathy, thorough preparation, and the right to a robust defense.
Kairos (The Opportune Moment) — Sophists like Gorgias emphasised timing, audience psychology, and context — knowing when to deploy emotion, evidence, or humour. This "reading the room" is strategic communication, not manipulation. Gorgias' Encomium of Helen brilliantly demonstrates it: He argues Helen bore no blame for fleeing to Troy, attributing her actions to divine will, abduction by force, love's compulsion, or speech's irresistible power (comparing logos to a drug that bewitches the soul). It's a dazzling display of persuasion's force — proof that words can reshape perceptions.
Practical Civic Education — While Plato fantasised about philosopher-kings ruling an ideal state, the Sophists equipped real citizens to participate in the messy, debate-driven democracy of the polis. They taught young men (and sometimes others) rhetoric, politics, and ethics as tools for public life — not abstract ideals, but skills for influence and survival.
Why Lawyers Beat Philosophers (Almost) Every Time
Philosophers aim to uncover truth; lawyers aim to achieve results. The difference shows in practice:
| Feature | The Philosopher (Plato/Socrates) | The Sophist (The Lawyer) |
| Goal | Absolute Truth (Aletheia) | Persuasion and Practical Results (Peitho) |
| Method | Long, probing dialectic | Impactful, audience-tailored oratory |
| Focus | The "Ideal" World / Eternal Forms | The "Probable" World / Real Outcomes |
| Outcome | Enlightenment (or aporia) | A verdict, a passed law, a deal closed |
| Risk | Getting lost in definitions | Losing the jury's attention |
Philosophers can paralyse debate by fixating on "What is justice?" while the clock ticks. Sophists knew: In court or Assembly, you adapt to the probable, the timely, the persuasive. Language isn't just descriptive — it's a tool, even a weapon, for shaping consensus.
Redefining Their Legacy
Plato's Gorgias reads like a targeted takedown — Socrates dismantles rhetoricians as flatterers without true expertise. But Plato had skin in the game: He was defending his mentor Socrates (executed partly due to public suspicion of "sophistic" questioning) and carving out philosophy as a distinct, superior pursuit. His portrayal shaped Western history's view, turning "sophist" into a slur for deceptive reasoner.
Yet modern scholarship (from the Stanford Encyclopedia to classicists like G.B. Kerferd) recognizes the Sophists' contributions: They democratised education and power in Athens' direct democracy. By teaching rhetoric to citizens (not just elites), they empowered ordinary people to defend themselves, influence policy, and navigate disagreement. Without them, the courtroom, parliament, debate club, and even advertising might look very different.
The Sophists weren't anti-truth; they were pro-reality. In a world without absolute certainty (as Protagoras hinted with "Man is the measure of all things"), persuasion becomes the mechanism for justice, progress, and social order.
So next time you watch a skilled attorney dismantle a witness, a politician flip a room, or a negotiator close a deal — don't thank Plato. Thank the Sophists. They understood that in human affairs, the ability to argue effectively isn't a vice — it's civilisation's greatest tool.