Access Provided by University of California @ Berkeley at 06/18/10 9:03PM GMT Symposium: A “Dictatorship of ”?

THE SCANDAL OF SOPHISM

On the Epistemological Seriousness of Relativism

Daniel Boyarin

As its subtitle indicates, my essay concerns the epistemological seriousness of relativism, a mode of thought whose seriousness is often — much too often — in question. To begin, I would like to quote a statement of received opinion about ’s dialogue . In an essay purporting to advise students on how to get the most out of college, the conservative pundit David Brooks wrote recently:

Read Plato’s “Gorgias.” As Robert George of Princeton observes, “The explicit point of the dialogue is to demonstrate the superiority of phi- losophy (the quest for wisdom and truth) to rhetoric (the art of per- suasion in the cause of victory). At a deeper level, it teaches that the worldly honors that one may win by being a good speaker . . . can all too easily erode one’s devotion to truth — a devotion that is critical to our integrity as persons. So rhetorical skills are dangerous, potentially soul-imperiling gifts.” Explains everything you need to know about politics and punditry.1

Despite a century of research findings and explication to the contrary (since Nietzsche!), this way of thinking about the place of Gorgias (and of Sophism

1. David Brooks, “Harvard-Bound? Chin Up.” New York Times, March 2, 2006.

Common Knowledge 13:2-3 DOI 10.1215/0961754X-2007-009 © 2007 by Duke University Press

315 (Columbia: University of Press, South Carolina Consigny, Porter Scott see 2 . C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e 316 For a good summary of what we aboutFor know a summary good morally dangerous. The closest he comes, in his preelection homily, to discussing nal Ratzinger todismiss relativism summarily as intellectually contemptible and power and pleasure). own adept’s the of service in (and truth for regard without debate, in victory who awarewas cynically that what he taught was nothing but a means to achieve charlatan a as Gorgias able only seemunderstand toPlato, Brooks and George dominant. still is culture our in generally) perspective, that is because he was wrong, then as now; wepresent our know from better false, noware that what things said if that own, our in true is Aristotle’s in time age whatto from age, that true was isunchanging truth that andProtagoras.” that the great philosophers of Antiquity were not Plato and Aristotle, but Gorgias there are great sophists great the considers even it often, Most sophists. modern of face rhetoric:“Philosophy today, caught the weak in is very its malaise, historicist in ofplace isnot the of much Ratzinger’sits understanding more in nuanced than Badiou French of the view philosopher Alain manner,morea the sophisticated is endemic even to the most respectable academic philosophy. Although stated in contemporaryepigones of Plato, forGeorge and instance Brooks. The problem is a key technique of Plato’s dialogues, notably the practice of slandering adversaries as seekers after egocentric pleasure and power Plato’s.precedent: The distinguished a following itis critique, ofmode this in (I hope it is not too to disrespectful say) slanders nothing at all to do with ego or desires. The cardinal’s homily caricatures mitment to “recognizing something as definitive,” which he valorizes, could have having no goal but to satisfy “one’s own ego and desires.” And it is not as if a com ing and status presenting a philosophical position in competition with his own as proliferating. It is a remarkable thing to find a scholar of JosephRatzinger’s learn aworldcopious are in fast and orindecisiveness wherelack of an will doctrines there, about carried by of every wind doctrine’ “Relativism, that is” (he begins his definition), “letting oneself be ‘tossed hereand astance,relativism is for evidence him of a character flaw, orthe elseflaw itself. intellectual integrity. Rathera setthan of arguments or aof kind ortheory even characterization is oflife respect his to relativismintellectual with it asa lack of The same precedents that motivated Cardinal Ratzinger motivate other other motivate Ratzinger Cardinal motivated that precedents same The Cardi motivated that me, to seems it , of genre same this is It Gorgias: and Artist and Sophist Gorgias: 3 Badiou’s “historicist phrase malaise” is for shorthand view his

— 2001 Gorgias

as great philosophers. Exactly as if we were to consider ). , sity sity of New York Press, Univer State (Albany: Madarasz Norman trans. and ed. of Philosophy “Definition and of Philosophy(Re)Turn Itself” in 3 .

Manifesto for Philosophy Followed by Two Essays: “The “The Essays: Two by Followed Philosophy for Manifesto Alain Badiou, “The (Re)Turn of Philosophy Philosophy of (Re)Turn “The Badiou, Alain 2 Accepting the caricature drawn by by drawn caricature the Accepting

” is not itself but a doctrine, only

—

its intellectual opponents, but Gorgias 1999 ), . 116 .

— —

Itself even for ,” - - - ” - TheGreek Sophistsmay well offer alternative an us to Hobson’s the Choice (or tagoras, so slandered by Plato and centuries of Platonists, have to teach us today. Pro and ofGorgias likes the that wonderwell notis something whetherthere agreement with a Christian Platonist like Ratzinger. In the circumstance, wefull in may himself find can Badiou like Platonist atheistic an point, general the on But knew. rationalists Greek greatest the even than more know now we that tradition or teaching church and revelation of because itis him for that except he did.homily, Ratzinger’s his than in outlook,expressed as same, is the istrue And in this sense coincides justice the overcoming in this with ofAnd rhetoric. violeit that dom. is preeminently It is for this free this corrupting in diplomacy,etc.) consists flattery, propaganda, rhetoric (ofof nature specific the But . . . discourse. resists overcome, to seeks discourse philosophical which and discourse, no from absent or is discourse, Rhetoric, defined.philosophical tion truth, concerning ofart the sophist is a referencetheme with conversato which the true tion of him who approaches his neighbor is with And ruse. this why the Our pedagogical or psychagogical discourse is rhetoric, the taking posi and Infinity philoso to approachesof Platonistic classically most the takes indeed Levinas oppositionforclassicus this is also common. afam certainly is philosophy and rhetoric between splitting This discourse. philosophical properly might be understood critique ofas the rhetoric and its separation from philosophy of task The double. its as it within residing philosophy of tates, haunts, and would supplant being or As such, truth. it is the other imi that speech with knack shadowy and illusory an considered is ric comments on Plato’s Levinas’s earlyelucidate writings the deceptiveness of rhetoric through the Sophists is, importantly, Emmanuel Levinas. As Susan Shapiro writes of him: hedonistic, egotistical “dictatorship of relativism.” Hobbesianchoice) no hears voice absolutism that an a but and between own its phy Press, Press, CT: YaleUniversity Haven, (New WendyOlmsted and tion New and Perspectives Religious Inquiry: in Levinas,” of Emmanuel Writings the 4 Duquesne University Press, Press, University Duquesne Exteriority on 5 . .

Susan Susan E. Shapiro, Ideology,“Rhetoric, and Idolatry in Emmanuel Levinas, Levinas, Emmanuel

— 2000 Among otherAmong whocontemporary buy wholesalethinkers Plato’s slander of

and to rhetoric and Sophism, philosophy’s “others.” In his book book his “others.” philosophy’s In Sophism, and rhetoric to and ), 254 , trans. Alphonso Lingis (Pittsburgh, PA: PA: (Pittsburgh, Lingis Alphonso trans. , , Levinas argues: , Levinas

–

78 ; here at Gorgias Totality and In and Totality 1969 254. , Phaedrus iliar gesture and citing Plato as the locus locus Plato the as citing and gesture iliar ), 72

–

74 Rhetorical Inven Rhetorical fi , ed. Walter Jost . It to needs be nity: An Essay Essay An nity: , and Republic 4 nce, that is, injustice. . . . injustice. is, nce,that - . In this view, rheto Robert Bernasconi (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, University Indiana (Bloomington: Bernasconi Robert Writings in Proximity,” and the subject. See, in Emmanuel particular, “PeaceLevinas, rhetoric and Sophism hardly encompass all their views on Cardinal Ratzinger as well) that these crude ofcaricatures perhaps (and Levinas and Badiou both of however, said, 1996 , ed. Adriaan T. Peperzak, Simon Critchley, and T. and Critchley, Simon Peperzak, , Adriaan ed. ), 161 5

– - - - - -

69 Emmanuel Levinas: Basic Philosophical Philosophical Basic Levinas: Emmanuel . Totality - -

Boyarin • A “Dictatorship of Relativism”? 317 ous book brought to my attention by Sheila Davaney. In a Hill: University of North Carolina Press, son, S. Levin Henry See, for ofdiscussion. text instance, this one, is away particular of reading the Sophists in the con along these lines for some time. My contribution, if I have ers, notably in the pragmatist tradition, have been working 7 ponents and many opponents of religion. 6 . .

C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e

I claim no originality in making this claim. Many oth claim. this in Imaking noclaim originality 318 This position is, interestingly, that of both many pro many of both that interestingly, is, position This Santayana, Pragmatism, and the Santayana, LifePragmatism, Spiritual most intractable ethico-political dilemmas. We seem to feel that, in context,this commitment. religious for basis a as or knowledge religious as count doubt)no can (andbrooks lutely (andmany others) that only religious knowledge abso itsthat knows truth own Ratzinger Cardinal by made claim the tradition same the in as consider might lutely (and brooks not a moment of doubt) is qualified forthe name “justice.” We abso truth own its knows that justice a holds only , that as early as open questions important to attheir culture large. aboutvoices differing among discussion of maintenance the but thing), a such to all. The Sophists’ goal was not the discovery of objective truth (even were there according to which the access to knowledge was equally open (or equally closed) human-centeredand ahumane championing worldview, wereoras intellectuals skill, as Plato claimed) but an epistemology. Sophists such as Gorgias and Protag rhetoric. and Sophism, relativism, of suggest that justice may coincide the with their own beliefs. and second, not doomed to be overrun by polities more absolutely committed to values, to commitment of lack a of the effect not first, is, pluralism liberal that Exploring an alternative epistemological position might help us to recoverabsolute. be to known a sense abouttruths certainty on based life of form a to contest ofliberal religion and, more generally, liberal pluralism) ultimately offer can no Ameaningfulness. pallid live-and-let-live form of life (as offered by most versions are palpable, while the latter seems to involve an evacuation of both meaning and offormer The dangers others. the possibility the incommensurablewith truth, versionof own its claims ofwhich each subgroups, ofindifferent society a into ofwill one passionate group, when in power, on all others, or ( open possibilities to us: ( two thereonly are particular notion of particular philosophy Reversing Levinas, then, I would like, though with some hesitations, to to hesitations, some with though like, would I then, Levinas, Reversing begin to said be might which Sophism, understanding of tradition This 1992 ), a marvel 6 These parallel notions, I think, underlie some of our our of some underlie think, I notions, parallel These (Chapel - - - - -

—

and with a andreinhabitation with of theuncertainties ists ists and Relativism,” contribution to the debate. See Richard Bett, “The Soph quite different from that of Bett and perhaps, therefore, a is texts ofrelevant the My reading relativists. as Sophists the measure” offragment underlies all understanding the is ’s human “the that claim further onised his now.of until scholars Bett’s contention, is though, prem majority vast the by held been has that characterization a relativists, as Sophists the of characterization the tion celebrated into ques called justly has essay, Bett Richard 7 Rhetoric is not merely a a merely not is Rhetoric overcoming of philosophy 1 ) the determined imposition determined of )the the Phronesis

34 . 2 2 ( ) the retreat of all 1989

— techn ):

or, at least, a 139 e ¯ (a verbal (averbal

–

69 . - - - ­ - - understood the contrast that we make between them. rhetoric and Sophism. not if philosophy, of fathers the of one be to generally taken is former The “pre-Platonics”). be to ought term the because only not (and misnomer a is Gorgias, classification the and though Parmenides were “pre-Socratics” important most the Among Gorgias vs. Parmenides Press, Press, theLogicians Against who Gorgias, ed., of Bett, Richard rhetoric. “invented” teacher supposed the , 8 not (for that is impossible), nor could you point it out. for neither could you what-is- know you,wholly is a path unthinkable, [ for ofTruth it persuasion, Objective [ accompanies path the is forit This notit impossible itbe. to is and is one: The that and of the erroneous opinions that human beings found upon them: world the itself with cerns of illusion or theworld cusses of “truth” or “reality,” of therealm way that rhetoric is), but rather persuasion. rationalcompulsion of notion the promulgate to first the perhaps was Parmenides words, other In of reason. the on the twist cial the latter she says is deceptive and should be avoided. Parmenides’ spe of way who a presentswith choice him the waybetween of persuasion and the agoddess by tohim revealed is towhich way the mortals, ordinary by In his poem, Parmenides lays claim to a kind of knowledge not attained pulsion is clear. Mi-KyoungAs Lee puts it: are wrong. That Parmenides makes this distinction between persuasion and com (as it were) to believe what is right, Heclaims, as Platofurther do,will that while that which is true or real ( between distinction a make to appears he work, his of fragments extant the in doxa .

According to other doxological traditions, it was was it traditions, doxological other to According ]: that it is not and it necessarily must not be. That, I point out Ipoint to not must That, be. it]: not is it that and necessarily 2005 What What is meant in saying that Parmenides was already a philosopher is that, Parmenides’s little work δ o 9 ξα ), 4 or ordinary human opinion (DK (DK opinion human ordinary or ; Sextus, ; Sextus, (Cambridge: Cambridge University University Cambridge (Cambridge: me is that truth must be attained by the active use use active the by attained be must truth methat is and itthat to it argue effect in is not compulsion at (inthe all Against the Logicians the 8 Neither, of course, would have recognized these terms or father; while the latter is claimed as the progenitor of progenitor the as claimed is latter the while father; aletheis On On Nature : Empiricus: Sextus ) and our perceptions or received opinions ( I. doxa 6 . virtually forces us to that believe virtually things kosmos is divided into The two parts. dis first 28 B aletheia 1 aletheis . , which is the realm of senses the realm ,iswhichthe 28 Clarendon, and Aristotle, Plato, in Relativism to 9 .

– Mi-Kyoung Lee,

30 ]. The other logos persuades us automatically , B. , 2 ,while thesecond con

2005 4

–

8 ), ); ); - 39 Epistemology Epistemology After Protagoras: Responses . doxa ). - - - (Oxford: (Oxford:

Boyarin • A “Dictatorship of Relativism”? 319 Their Successors 10

. C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e 320

Robert Wardy, (New York:(New Routledge, it depends. andwhich on refers, it which to [Being], what-is without thought find of that and toit something thing, to think think The ofissame therething and forfor thinking being. . . . It is the same is expressed by Parmenides way: in this The foundation for philosophy, as it would be understood and practiced by Plato, speak of an equally persuasive falsehood that persuades by the same means in the when its such as everyonewould immediately that recognize absolute ofan truth speaks (whichis to say, Parmenides’s) position becomes apparent. On theone hand, she ment,outdono sobeliefthat mortal will you.” Now contradictionaAthena’s in hoods, for constructing such a own tion, a in Athena’s words, “stunningly complex and complete” but nevertheless a fabrica philosophical positions held by Parmenides’s contemporaries. The construction is, is a construction that would have been familiar to anyone who knew the “orthodox” appearance of superficial orderessential incoherence.” masking kosmos a that possibility disturbing the suggests goddess’s phrase onlooker,the so the Robert Wardy comments aptly on this passage that, “just as a painted face deceives listen to the deceptive ordering of my words [ Truth.Objective From here of beliefs subjective the on, mortals; learn Here I stop my speech trustworthy [ our word isadorned that (compare isordered byextension,anything and, or harmonious against the ( truth of character rational logical, exclusively the contrast orderto in between ever).distinguishes She even or often, very persuade andcompletely but does not always do so (and perhaps, does she not adds, truth or ought real what istrue to persuadeanyone simply establishing argument nal universe. ofthought Being and real, the objective structure rational between seem, would it correspondence, perfect a be should There The Birth of Rhetoric: Gorgias, Plato, and logos The goddess goes on, then, to describe such a ratio a that recognizes Parmenides to (Athena)who speaks goddess The of words . . . might mislead precisely in that these words wear an attractive kosmos logos ) must be. The reasons, according to the goddess, for uttering such false cosmetics kosmos is laid out by rational argument; but, on the other hand, she seems to of mere words, as any account of the world (other than the goddess’s of the words expressing it. The Greek ). The goddess says: 1996 ), 13 . kosmos logos ] to you and [my] thought about , is “so that no one will outstrip you in judg kosmos is , since you never will ].

— kosmos

of“what-is” the the we call kosmos , and what she describes means that which 10 logos and and logos kosmos ) as as ) - - - -

contradiction, chose to live within it rather than seek an escape. and another. Parmenides found a worthy opponent in Gorgias,terion who,has beenperceiving offered forthis telling the difference between one persuasive argumentis persuasive, but the power of absence of a criterion to tell the difference. While Parmenides is insisting that the havedescribed themnonsenseas and “sophistry.” able to the next person. that third, ev being; notit apprehensiblehuman is a by [something], is there if even main points one after the other: thatfirst, there is second, nothing; that Forwork the entitled in but notcriterion, the approach byway same of Protagoras. the as with ofbelongedGorgias Leontini to the same troop as those who did away are traditionally described as threefold. Here Empiricus’sis Sextus summary: grounds of something we might commoncall sense. Gorgias’s tenets text in this Nature; or On What Is ofas that-which-is. Indeed, Parmenides’s pupil Melissus wrote a book called entitled ofMacDowell form (Douglas athe text cleverlyin amodern analogue suggests Gorgias’s title, On Nature; or, What Is Not it so, he puts this argument into the mouth of a goddess no less 12 Bett. ed.Richard and trans. I cite Empiricus, for Sextus Finally, Press, Bristol las M. Classical MacDowell (Bristol: and for Gorgias’s Press, Carolina South of University (Columbia: Rosamond Kent Sprague, and Diels Hermann with well as consulted closely ing (Cambridge:rin Cambridge University Press, cal Thought from Homer to the Sophists and Paul Woodruff, Gagarin, Michael 1966 Vorsokratiker, Deutsch und Griechisch Kranz, Walther and Diels Hermann 11 . .

For the Greek texts of Gorgias and Protagoras, I cite and Protagoras, For of Gorgias Greek texts the Gorgias, Gorgias, ). For translation, I am citing the excellent work of work excellent the citing am I Fortranslation, ). The interpretation of these sentences has been much contested, and many

— Thirteenth Night; or, What You or,Won’t What Night; Thirteenth

logos thereby belying his claim. Moreover, truth/reality is defined asthat which Encomium ofEncomium Helen en if it is apprehensible, it is notstill expressible or explain as truth is so transparent that it needs no force, no authority, to make Encomium Encomium of Helen On What Is Not; or On Nature On or Not; Is What On 13 kosmos The Older Sophists The Older . Gorgias sets out, it seems, to Parmenidesoverturn on the On What Is Not Is What On , 11 , being deceptive, is also likely to persuade; and no cri . (Zurich: Weidmann, Weidmann, (Zurich: , , ed. and Gaga trans. Against theAgainst Logicians the the edition of Die Fragmente der der Fragmente Die Early Greek Politi , ed. Sprague , ed. Sprague or 1995 On Nature On Doug ), hav 1972 1982 ); ); ). - - - - , , is parodic of Parmenides’sparodic is, title. .) 12 he sets up three up three he sets quite recently. A Revised Text trans., and ed. Dodds, R. (such E. as philosophy of historians most by “sophistry” or nonsense as taken 14 issues are notrelevant. tual directly tex these here, advanced interpretation general Forthe totle’s as citedEmpiricus, here,Sextus and from (pseudo-) Aris sources: ancient two from known lems the with text of to work,the testimonia this which is 13 Nature was generally thought thought generally was Nature 14 . .

Sextus, Sextus, Richard Enos, the historian Enos, historian the Richard Sextus, Sextus, Melissus, , and Gorgias and Xenophanes, Melissus,

—

the goddess of wisdom, Against the Logicians Against the Logicians [ 1959 - ; Oxford: Clarendon, , , 15 15 . There are many prob Against the Logicians Against n. On On 35 11 -

. They have been 979 2004

a 11 ], 7

–

–

Gorgias: Gorgias: 980

8 ) until b 21 of - - - . Boyarin • A “Dictatorship of Relativism”? 321 (Prospect Heights, (Prospect IL: Waveland Press, 15

. C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e 322

Richard Leo Enos, Enos, Leo Richard the physical that reality we see and touch: sense (Parmenidean) philosophical the in existents is denying is he What world. cal Enos’srather, account, is asserting, Gorgias but there that is nothing physi the would contradict elseeverything we know about Gorgias’s thought. According to empirical, physical world; not only would be absurd an position, this however, it the of theexistence is denying Gorgias that glance, It ling. wouldat seem, first of rhetoric, has offered an interpretation that renders them coherent and compel which was a signifying practicewhich thenwas in aits signifying youth. premises.” in whichany social inherentlycircumstances, lack ‘ideal’ or affirmed universally allow “for the contingencies of must interpretation we that and human understand nature to that us areleads inherentthought Gorgias’s situations. or hearers, discover,would that be always true truths philosophy which leads. in Plato todesireddiscover, he believedand that could rhetorical,or Sophistic, thought leads different very directions from those in us Gorgias’s Obviously, divine. to plausibility) to contrary able(again, been have cate even sense perceptions, let alone whatever about that it truths reality might tenet statement is a further about of to the inability language communi human system similar in that respect to those that de Saussure describes. Gorgias’s third or significationin exceptwhich exists thatnothing ofvirtue by which it is not, a tions” put on limits the extent of human knowing. we have here a statement that the “ there is no way that humans could perceive and understand them. In other words, even senseperceptions,that, if there were argues Gorgias essences or idealities, on understanding fundamental thathis the only objects of human cognition are personal experiences. form can no ideal at since all eachpredicated individual ideals based on out orantithesis a anti-model.manufactured By their very they nature, referenti the upon dependent are and mind the of extrapolations the through only Accordingly, existence of thinker. mind the the idealsfrom attain pass they instant the “existence” their lose that ideas manufacturing world everand an changing in functioning as He humans viewed gias. Platonic notions of ontological “essences” . . . were to Gor absurdities ence of liehumans only extrapolations of the mind

— The latter two of Gorgias’s three points are closely related to the first. Based Greek Rhetoric Before Aristotle Before Rhetoric Greek al al perceptions of their creator. As such, they cannot exist with

essences,ideas, thator no claims forms. Gorgias essences but exist only 17 Gorgias’s views reflect a strongtheoretical opposition to philosophy, 1993 15 ), 81

–

82 .

human media 17 the original. 16 . .

Enos, Enos, Enos, Enos,

— Greek Before Aristotle Rhetoric Greek Rhetoric Before Aristotle Before Rhetoric Greek

true without reference true to speakers, of understanding 16

— Beyond the positive experi

a system of representation - -

— ,

sense percep 73 , 82 . ; emphasis in in emphasis ; - - - - - have the capacity to know it. finally, And where Parmenides concludesthat even tothereifwere doknow,counters notthat, beings something gias human that says Parmenides there that tains Parmenides holds that Where affirmations. three Parmenides’s of each of reversals exact are denials how precisely Gorgias’s three points dog the steps of Parmenides. Gorgias’s three Deipnosophistae voiced any of the never sentiments had he or sentenceshim, assignedafter to named him in that text Plato’sdialogue (Atheneaus, enjoyed he while that, say to choseandthought. his man the to later caricature In tradition, is Gorgias given of choosing to argue with them rationally via his own methods of dialectic, Plato Plato was in serious theoretical disagreement with Gorgias’s positions, but instead mate. Rather impugning theirthan results, he chose to impugn their characters. legiti was truth ofseeking way his only that absolute conviction ofhis service his opponents were not charlatans, he nevertheless portrayed them as such, in the to dialectic. that leads path the on step first the is antilogic so, say to notlike does as truth the with werenot concerned concern not were they because was this that suppose to begin may we truth, the with concerned not were sophists the that repeatedly, does he as Platonic famous the . . forms. . Indeed, when elsewhere Plato suggests, entities, reliable and secure permanent, more to go to have we causes and its flux of the understanding even for and the knowledge, true the the story to that the flux failure understand their of phenomenais notthe end of take issue Gorgias with and the other Sophists was that of understood them. As George Kerferd observes, the field on which Plato chose to to Parmenidean philosophy have seemed down the centuries, it is clear that Plato pressibleand inexplicable. However elusive grounds ofthe Gorgias’s opposition concludes that (which is “what-is-not”) is both “wholly unthinkable” and inexpressible, Gorgias Studies ( of Kerferd her review in point ofthis 19 Cambridge University Press, 18 . .

G. B. Kerferd, Kerferd, B. G. See, however, Rosemarie Kent Sprague’s discussion discussion Sprague’s Kent Rosemarie however, See,

I think that it has not been emphasized enough, in the critical literature, literature, critical the in enough, emphasized notbeen ithas that think I This analysis suggests a kind of bad faith on Plato’son ofbadfaith kind apart. suggests analysis This 103 ed whatwith

— [ 1983

18 one must look elsewhere for which the istruth the object of ]:

189 logos 11 The Sophistic Movement Sophistic The is .

nothing – 113

90 he , even if it were apprehensible (which it is not), would be inex regarded as rather because the than they truth, ). . 2 logos logos ). 1981 20

is persuasively true and objectively knowable, Gor knowable, objectively and true persuasively is — “is and it is impossible for it not to be,” Gorgias main ), 67

nothing . Journal of Hellenic Hellenic of Journal they (Cambridge: (Cambridge: in Parmenides’s in of sense saw it. Forit. saw he Plato, though gias, gias, (Gor truth” “gospel as Gorgias of to’scharacterization Dowell, on the page words, these quoting after Pla takes 20 .

ω 1 Encomium ofEncomium Helen ς καλ y ς ο | δε Πλ is 19

— Knowing that that Knowing h

, at all. Where Where atall. των ιαμβ 10 ). r ζειν doxa . Remarkably, Mac - - - -

- - - Boyarin • A “Dictatorship of Relativism”? 323 encomium) and the encomiumfirst of a woman. an “truly” not was it that claimed who Isocrates, turbed dis (which encomium prose first the both is Gorgias’s gias, 21 .

C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e 324 Diels and Kranz, Diels and Kranz, Encomium of Helen of Encomium speech or (as it laterwill be called) rhetoric toanother, nor that it represents respectprogress to with what came before and onestate from transitional actually it is that not mean does way this in liminal as Gorgias’s text, great especially and Sophists, of the discourse the seeing that guage and on stands and frontier the prose, between and poetry betweenalso lan magical opmentof Greek (and Western) thus, and discourse textuality. Gorgias’s most famous text, the The this process is not guided by the “rational” intellect. In his story of of story Helen’s his In abduction, language is parallel with forces intellect. of violence, love,“rational” and the by guided not is process this a public impact.” Jarratt’s most significant pointthat, is according toGorgias, private, internal process of granting assent to thethe deceptionsthat ofsuggests he language can blame, havefrom exonerate to Helen choosing In democracy. of scene rhetorical the in participates who individual the for assent of ditions con psychological the into inquires and “recognizes Gorgias writes, Jarratt as nevertheless believes that we do communicate with each other. “In other words,” denies the possibility of discovery and communication of any objective he truth, bring death and disease or life and health. While Gorgias, in his text physical violence in its power. Greek century mid-fifth po the of exploration the In ation. suasion was beforeeffected the audience itself as a subject for consider amoral of per which under conditions the it wouldneedbring to accusation manipulation, the escape to rhetoric Gorgias’s for order In Thus,effects. as Jarratt says: moral their on especially and operations its of conditions the on reflect to had agency,persuasion, seduction, example and force. an of As to solutions found or from nothave escaped yet we that dilemmas philosophical of set a expressed it that however, in dational, underdevelopment with respect to what would come later. The Fragmente Vorsokratiker der Encomium of Helen Jarratt reads Gorgias as saying that ). To the best of my knowledge, knowledge, my of best To ). the techn Encomium of Helen of Encomium e ¯ . 22 It is important to emphasize, as Susan Jarratt eloquently does, wer of of wer polis , 3 logos 23 as rivaling the fate of the gods or even even or gods the of fate the rivaling as (Gor , Gorgias engages in just such a public public a such just in engages Gorgias ,

— - - Encomium of Helen

a force coming to be seen in the the in seen be to coming force a dale: Southern Illinois dale:University Press, Southern Illinois Rereading Jarratt, the Classical C. Sophists: Rhetoric Refigured Susan equation. this from desire erotic out 23 16 Greece 22 . . .

It is interesting, and perhaps telling, that Jarratt leaves Jacqueline de Romilly, Romilly, de Jacqueline (Cambridge, University Harvard MA: Press, logos

—

— is a drug and, like other can drugs,

meaning, in this case, persuasive

— , stands at in athe develcrux

dilemmas having to do with with doto having dilemmas Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Ancient in Rhetoric and Magic techn - - Encomium 21 e ¯ The ,Gorgias’s text 1991 On On Nothing Encomium ), is foun 57 (Carbon . 1975 ), - - - - - ,

of Gorgias’s text. She begins by showing that most interpreters (whatever mostinterpreters that their showing by She ofGorgias’sbegins text. empties it of its moral charge, like Nietzsche in his ofredefinition “lies.” surability between word and thing will interpret this term pejoratively, Gorgias guage “deception” ( lan and reality between space the in experience emotional that calls Gorgias containment. rational of bounds the exceed which of all fate, 147 Gorgias’ 25 Apate and Aeschylus, “Gorgias, Rosenmeyer, G. Thomas also 24 logic can compel assent or belief. The question that Gorgias raises, the dilemma that notion the of critique a second, and, compulsion, and persuasion between menides.The pretation of it as being Gorgias’s(like text problem forever us. with a of appreciation our deepen to out sets Gorgias so. doing of impossibility the itexposes , rather, via problembutthat, the solutionittoa poses, pose Gorgias’s meto that ( onopinion( rests deception,it as that does not necessarily art nor own see his does he think the in that view: opposite the argue will “I Plato: virtual a in itself deception. But Valiavitcharska, Segal, wants unlike Gorgias tointo turn (shared tion Valiavitcharska)by that Platonicassump quite the from listener.readerorMoreover,writes the Segal that truth knowing others’,it seems to representsme his with that He extreme. Gorgias an charges hadit.” πλε of which is is“art his that wrote Gorgias of this approach to Gorgias, she adduces Charles Segal, who in a famous paper on reality and, at worst, is bound to work in concert with deception.” logos Gorgias’s otherpositions vis-à-vis thought) agreement “forin are Gorgias that, Valiavitcharska is right j . .

ληθ

τ . Vessela Valiavitcharska, “Correct “Correct Vessela Valiavitcharska, Jarratt, Jarratt, r \ ,” (including his own) ishis at (including incapable best or of ofrepresenting sort any truth στοι χνη Vessela Valiavitcharska has recently contributed a new and original reading I would like to build on these readings of the ofthe readings these on build to like would I American Journal of Journal Philology American T Encomium Encomium of Helen 26 ς λ ς ) possess and communicate only τ not because he necessarily spurns the truth, but because most men truth, ( the not spurns because he necessarily Although Valiavitcharska tends toValiavitcharska lump Segal’s Although together reading with Rereading the Sophists \ o χν γος δ 0 η o Encomium

ξα ) and correct speech ( speech correct and ) γραφε apate ), but he sees an intrinsic connection between truthful speech speech truthful between connection ),but intrinsic he an sees is Encomium ,” , that there is truth, and thus with “deliberately” and ,with thus that there is truth, deceiving r ). ς

Rhetorica — Though once again a Plat , ο appears to me, critique a first, opposition theof binary

Gorgias does not see his art as deception , e 55 κ

, emphasis added. See

76 j

24 deliberately Logos . ληθε 3 does not, as Valiavitcharska would haveproit, Valiavitcharska not,as does ( . 2 1955 (Spring and Truth in Truth and in r 0 α ): J doxa

225 λεχθε ρθ 2006

opposedproduces and to ‘truth’ a – p δ ,received orheld generally is opinion,

60 ς λ ς On On Nature o onic concept of commen ξα . r ): ς o ; but the rhetor uses the deception and would not if know they truth γος 27 112 Logos,” 26 . ).” .

; emphasis added. Valiavitcharska, “Correct Valiavitcharska, Charles Segal, “Gorgias and the Psychology of the the of Psychology the and “Gorgias Segal, Charles 27 Encomium ) a parodic response to Par In one sense, I think that that think I one sense, In Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Classical in Studies Harvard 24 Encomium - - toward an inter an toward 25 As an example

—

but it seems Gorgias Gorgias Logos ,” logos 149 ο - - - - w

.

66 ( 1962

): ): Boyarin • A “Dictatorship of Relativism”? 325 raised byraised texts. these of Palamedes text rhetorical important other Gorgias’s discuss will also I where progress, in book a of chapter 28

. C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e 326

This discussion will be developed further in the first first the in be developed further will discussion This

—

and consider further the issues of genderissues the considerand further love, I shall not say. For to tell those who know something they know carries carries know they something know who those tell say. Forto not shall I love, his oritwhyorhow was he Helentook fulfilled obliquely: and “Who question question of her culpability is obviously raised by the epic itself. Gorgias puts the ofoutsetthe the atTroy in already is Helen that Given paradox. elegant an of form the takes rendering audience thus the subject to moral andlegal judgment. Gorgias’s test rhetorica be opposedleavespositions, audienceitsthat tobetween choose free that he sets, is whether persuasion differs from force [ [ desire ineluctable by persuaded by speeches [ ( ( from blame, Gorgias intends to produce a speech that has the [ speech lying untrue, an Helen be would blaming speech any that asserts furthermore kosmos by the end of theparagraph, first weare enjoined to praise thata speechthe has excellence of action) that he lists. The text becomes quickly more complicated as, kosmos the false or merely decorative ( use, being deliberately this in provocative: Parmenides had used term the uses he that Note speech, the very text that we are reading, must be adorned with totruth be good. [ truth and action, to ornament is excellence mind, to ornament is wisdom that of list a in sentence, first a “single-voiced, single-minded conviction.” attached to her person and name, and he calls the attitude of those who blame her notbe let slide. (and especially raped women; Lucretia is another example)women of bodies the on antiquity in debated are culpability and will of tions ques fundamental that Troy.to characteristic Itis journeying for motivations conviction,but it does not pleasure.” bring investigates Helen’s Gorgias Instead 1 2 6 j Αν ) She may have been forced by gods, onacting (in service to) their own desires. ) She may have been being forced (raped) by a man. ( man. a by (raped) forced being been have may She ) λ h R θεια κης To accomplish this purpose, he adduces four possible causes for her actions. the In “truth.” mentions twice Gorgias text, his of paragraph first the In in this negative sense, given the other examples of of truth το ], which even on Parmenides’s view would free a person from respon from person a free would Parmenides’son view even ],which ] is ornament to speech. Given these parallels, then, Gorgias’s own own Gorgias’s then, parallels, these Given speech. to ornament is ] X ςδ l

— 28 μεμφομ Gorgias wishes to Gorgias exonerate Helen of any blame that has been Iliad

Gorgias had just listed truth as the the as truth listed had just Gorgias

— and that Homer notthat howdoes the show and sheus gotthere,

his defense defense his k λ \ ρωτι o νουςψσευδομ γοις πεισθε what counts as “ornament” as counts what kosmos K cosm λο g to refer to the truthfulness of a of truthfulness the to refer to etic) aspect of rhetoric. Gorgias cannot mean σα v σα ]. The first two are cases of compulsion compulsion of cases are two first The ]. \ νους ]. And ( ].slandered the By woman freeing 4 ) she may have been captivated

— [ kosmos

whether, that is, there can κ o kosmos σμος 3

) She may have been been have may She ) — of speech

a point that should kosmos (wisdom of mind, ] ] to what to kosmos of truth. logos

— to name , he says says he , and is, is, and

and he and - -

a powerful master and achieves the most divine feats with the small the with feats divine most the achieves and master powerful a is speech follows: as blame, from her free or her defend to hard not is [ speech If by speech is identical compulsion:with Menelausfor wouldParis condemn her. rather, argues, persuasion Gorgias that Helen’s case which choiceleaveto in compulsion, free from different is speech is whethersibility. interests Gorgias persuasion by The question especially that even though they construe the sentence differently in in as other I respects, have noted.already differently sentence the construe they though even translations, their in Gagarin/Woodruff and Sprague 30 29 is important (though perhaps not crucial) for my argument, because this interpre already believe. listeners”) my to opinion “through literally, (more listeners my of opinion the via so do moreover, and, this, prove must I two clauses, namely that the second clause explicates Gorgiasthe first. is saying: accuse Gorgias of insincerity. who those wordsto wouldlend ofthe support interpretation This them. suade he butthat absolute must knows deceive also the truth is there that knows Gorgias that position his justifying thus passage, the reads other the hand, prove it by way of opinion. seems toThis be how Charles Segal two separate things: prove the matter by means of logic, on the one hand, and, on my purposes here. Gorgias seems to be saying, at first glance,that he needs to do seems to me an attractive option, if not an ineluctable one, and I acceptwill it for must “I prove it byopinion to my hearers.” dativeinstrumentally: MacDowell’s object, isindirect as Douglas cast MacDowell, on other the the hand, translates nearlyworddativewhich the the in unambiguously.as of Instead taking which, to be sure, yields the sense of Gagarin and Woodruff’s translation, but not more literally, offers, “it is necessary to offer proof to the opinion of my hearers,” Kent translating Sprague, smoothes overonly ambiguity.Rosemary phrase the and Paul Woodruff take the last clause to mean “change their opinion,” this para k ingly puzzling and exceedingly significant.The Greek reads: to my audience to opinion. their change pity. show; increase is so, Iand I mustHow shall demonstrate this this body.evident least and s est It can χειδε . .

Gorgias, Gorgias, This construal of the syntax is accepted by both both by accepted is syntax the of construal This Iwould to asuggestdifferent interpretation like of relationship the of the Thatsentence,last glossed over usually by commentators, exceed is both r ξω logos , Encomium ofEncomium Helen δε ] persuaded and deluded her mind, even against this it this against even mind, her deluded and persuaded ] v δ 30 l This reading, which in any case makes better sense of the text, κα s δ o , ξ 8 0 η δειη

–

9 . top fear, relieve pain, createjoy, topfear, pain, relieve and v ξαιτο 29 v ς j κο b

— ουσι

i.e., by using what my listeners listeners my what using by i.e., . Although Michael Gagarin Gagarin Michael Although . hoipolloi τα - g in order in to per τα δ l

ως ο 1 opinion d τως - - - -

Boyarin • A “Dictatorship of Relativism”? 327 102 31

. C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e 328

. Segal, “Gorgias and the Psychology of the Logos,” Logos,” the of Psychology the and “Gorgias Segal, cess. And since, in the case of Paris and Helen, “persuasion expelled sense; and and sense;Helen, and ofexpelled Paris “persuasion case the in since, And cess. j [ unconfirmed and precarious is belief since that then, and foreknowledge of the they future, cannot but depend on opinion. He argues, do not and cannot possess memory of the past and understanding of the present it best, seems to me,interpretation. on this since beings He human that, argues exalted sense) and opinion. The proof that Gorgias goes on followsto construct tation has Gorgias refusing to make a distinction between Truth (in Parmenides’s from antiquity, yet its approach is via a paradox that swallows its own tale [ Encomiumof Helen The notit,though enterprise. he notbecause is his he deadlyas seriouscalls in rather than persuasion. His text is thus a self-consuming artifact rhetoric is a drug, the use of which constitutes coercion (whether for good or ill), the display to hewishes former.that said the He achieve has to as aim muchGorgias’s stated as is latter the accomplish to yet rhetoric;of value moral the for advertisement However, just insofar as the text succeeds as a defense of Helen, it must fail as an mium of enco an Helenof butalso encomium an is text the that argues Segal paradox. the reframe clarity, of sake the for me, letBut logic. by as much as opinion or seducer himself, he must, on his own admission, prove his point by way of belief powerexonerate,an toits be to also thus and claim can persuasion of art the of practice own his that force moral any undermines he point, this on us persuades successfully Gorgias if But rape. a is Helen) of seduction the (including seduction every itsharply,put to that, and does force ence, that rhetoric disables the power to make decisions as completely as physical he means a paradox. [ speech a produced has he says, he so process, the In belief.” of ignorance and announces that he has succeeded in his original aim: “to dispel injustice of blame force can be. that arguing desireAfter sexual can be compulsive as well, Gorgias physical waythat the just compulsivein be same:exonerationlogos can the are seduced is as blameless as she would be had she been raped. The grounds for her persuasion is mere compulsion by other means. In which case, Helen as a woman isParmenides’s “rational compulsion” compulsionjust lenge to Parmenides’s betweendistinction persuasion and compulsion. Not only power,” Helen is blameless ( indeed persuasion, though not having an appearance of compulsion, has the same λογος β \ βαιοςο The paradox is formed step by step. First, Gorgias persuades us, his audi Theparadoxhis us, persuadesisformed step Gorgias by step. First, ] and a plaything [ ] and a plaything logos F (rhetoric) and thus a of“kind advertisement of [Gorgias’s] skills.” σα κοσμος ], those who employ it have precarious and unconfirmed suc unconfirmed and precarious have it employ who those ], is among greatest the extant and of political inquiries ethical truthfulness its speech, of πα 12 r γνιον ). This argument appears intended as a direct chal ]

—

by which term, I would cautiously suggest, — having already argued that that argued already having encomium simpliciter N δ \ δ o , at all. For, ata ,all. like ξασφαλερ

— , even ordinary ,even ordinary

a “plaything,” i sic κα ]. 31 - - - - s

paradox (and the paradox is the therapy of is deceit is speech all that and lie, a was intent of statement first his that deceiver, a is he less); and ( by was it (and reliable falsehood;( that the excellence of speechand thatis he truth, intends toand dispeltell truth incompatible: ( mutually seem that ofsetaassertions ion.makes For Gorgias sense(as do, many to be sure), needs text fash paradoxical his to be read this in 1419 Aristotle, right.” was he which in earnestness; opponents’ with and jesting earnestness their with jesting vice in controversy. Gorgias said that you should your kill 33 32 unpaid, Protagoras leaving thus career, legal a pursue to unwilling eventually the studentcase. Since seemed court first his lessons but winning his after only for pay to promised who rhetoric in pupil a on took Protagoras story, the to doxical law case says that Aulus Gellius was brought by Protagoras. of familiar Zeno’s. a course of was Gorgias and liar,” the of “paradox the or Zeno’s to to an epistemological principle. precedence poleovereverother. Gorgias, takes by the raised, isSelf-refutation in which each calls the other into question, leaving both forever in place. Neither relation arenot a dialectical in leading but toward rather synthesis, a relation in He thus shows the way toward a kind of dialogism in which a thesis and antithesis humorby seriousness,” he dialectic but is this in their humor,and by “demolishone’s seriousness to opponents’ advice own his Gorgias’s text makes a brilliant case for undecidability. compatible that fully text of making with and eventruth, if something nothing truth; Weknow guilty. cannot be well based on opinion or belief, equally and and thus equally compulsion unreliable.of In matter which a case, Helenequally be may then must case the is this that been persuaded compulsion. as same the isBut having persuasion own that our If Gorgias’s text persuades us that Helen is innocent, it does so by convincing us evenparadox, the . .

Regarding parody,Regarding see Consigny, “As to jests. These are supposed to be of some ser some of be to supposed are These jests. to “As b 4 If we are not to take Gorgias as a moral nihilist or a cynic in the modern modern the in cynic ora nihilist moral a as Gorgias nottake to weare If From a generic point of view, then, Gorgias’s text seems most closely related the of reading this alia, Inter

–

5

. — 4

as many interpreters, most notably Segal, would have it have would Segal, notably most interpreters, many as ) that he has succeeded Ifhe task. his in is not simply conceding that 2 )that he must prove argument by his using 34 aporia An even An stronger comparison would be to the famous para doxa , of the relation of speech to truth is ,ofrelation the of totruth speech that Helen was compelled and is therefore blame therefore is and compelled was Helen that was Gorgias , we could not communicate that to others. , Encomium of Helen of Encomium 30 . Rhetoric

— On NatureOn

- not an antidote for

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Press, 1 University Harvard MA: (Cambridge, Rolfe, Carew John trans. 35 Sorites,” the and Eubulides “Aristotle, Jon see Moline, argument, 34 is : bothprotagonist and antagonist 405 . . ; and even if we did know the the know wedid if even and ;

For an example of the use of paradox in in paradox of use the of example Foran Aulus Gellius, Gellius, Aulus

. Through parody both and –

409 32 has the beneficial effect effect beneficial the has Mind He is, I following think, doxa ).

78 ;( thepoint ofthe text , n.s. 3

— )that h Atc ihs f uu Gellius Aulus of Nights Attic The

311 the orthodox), 35 (July (July

3 — According vols., Loeb Classical Library Library Classical Loeb vols., doxa

then the the then 1969 is not ): . 1 33 393 - - - ) .

–

407 philosophical . 1967 ), ), , Boyarin • A “Dictatorship of Relativism”? 329 Rhetorica gias’ himself and for Poulakos, (John rhetorical “Gor training ing its ofpossibility service simply as an advertisement for a speech 37 1961 sical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Morales 36 .

. C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e 330

John Poulakos has already noted that by calling the the calling by that noted already has Poulakos John Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Seneca, Annaeus Lucius ), Encomium 2 , trans. Richard M. Richard Gummere, , trans. : 375

1 paignion [Spring . to Helen and the Defense of Rhetoric,” Rhetoric,” of Defense the and Helen to tation,Protagoras’sscheme wily and collect case wasnot the this to win in goal to some reports, retired and did not return for a hundred years. On one interpre lost, the contractual terms would release him from paying. The court, according not have to pay; for if he won, the court would absolve him of payment;he would either case, in counteredwhile that, Euathlus basis. ifonpaytothat required he andif he thethewon, terms withof Protagoras contractheand wouldbe fulfill fee. If the student, Euathlus by name, lost the case, he would by law havehis to pay; collect would he lose, or win that, claimed and pupil the sued teacher the other great Sophist of century, the fifth to whose Iwritings nowturn. the ofof Abdera, Protagoras thinking the with would contiguous be relativism of sort That circumstances. current under best seems them of which choosing have a relativist notion of “true there is no betweendistinction persuasion and force. Gorgias himself appears to is itself a coercion; for if it persuades automatically, as Parmenides claimed, then against Parmenides, Gorgias is suggesting that Truth, in the Parmenidean sense, brought it to perfection. the of evidence the on and any case, Demetrius reports the existence in Gorgias’s time of a seriocomic style; ness,”and that these cuse, one of the early Cynics, wrote “trifles [ about the meaning of force. and persuasion between Parmenides, toy) his plaything, thedeeply to paradoxical so of nature crucial thedistinction, of his means by demonstrates of Protagoras, contemporary a gias, whether every subject can be debated from either point of view.” success equal debateitwith and question any on that, as Seneca paraphrased it, “Protagoras declares that one take can either side his fees but something much more important; namely, to demonstrate his finding , Gorgias would have been undermin been have would Gorgias , 1983 In his antiphilosophical discourse, his parodic and paradoxical campaign campaign paradoxical and parodic his discourse, antiphilosophical his In ]: 3 ). Ad Lucilium Epistulae Epistulae Lucilium Ad 3 vols., Loeb Clas paignia paignion 39 Encomium of Helen of Encomium were “early examples of the‘seriocomic’ style.” may be found in the report that Monimus of Syra - - - logos Germany: G. Olms, Germany: Elocutione, De trius 39 (Berkeley: Press, University of California Legacy Its and uity to introduction 38 ” as the product of weighing alternatives and . .

Demetrius, Bracht R. Branham, and Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile and Branham, R. Bracht paignia 37 Some support for this conjecture conjecture forthis Somesupport , we might well say that Gorgias Gorgias that say well might we , Demetrius Demetrius on Style: The Greek Text of Deme The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiq The Movement Cynic The Cynics:

, Hellenistic Culture and Society Society and Culture Hellenistic , — ] blended with covert serious ed. W. R W. ed. 1969

even on this very question, question, very this on even ), 151 hys Roberts (Hildesheim, (Hildesheim, Roberts hys . 36 Likewise Gor paignion 1997 ), 10

– 38 (his (his

11 In In 23 . ------

the worse the decision considered. being ofof or better seemtwo course action the motives, byrhetorical cynical from andbeen interpretedmeans ally making, as uted, being surely legendary). “Making the weaker cause the stronger” has gener tagoras’s formulation (Corax and Tisias, to whom the phrase is sometimes attrib cause the stronger” relativist of the sort to which Joseph Ratzinger condescends. “Making the weaker antiphilosopherexplicit mocked ofsort an Protagoras was byBadiou, the a and Protagoras’s Pragmatism University University Press, Oxford York: (New Kennedy Alexander George trans. 40 weaker cause the ing practice of rhetoric is said to consist of slyly overturning the truth with a lie, mak the Sophist or rhetor also knows which is the better cause; and thus it is that the well that as mustassume better. the is Aristotle causes of which advance two in of authoritarian philosophy generally does, is to assume that we can and do know cause or case the stronger is a kind of lie. To assume so, however, as the tradition pathetic reading of the topos that he assaults. For Aristotle, rendering the weaker Aristotle’s at Bypassage, against glossinga we morearrive, grain, this can sym exceptart rhetoric and [ eristic. ras; for it is a lie and not true but a f of Protago at declaration the cause.”people Thus, wereangry rightly better the seem weaker the “make to is this And mentioned. stances circum the in only generally, not so other the probable, is really one butprobable, seem alternatives Both charge. a for suspect likely nota larly in other forcases; necessarily, a person is either ora suspect likely fight]the forthat reasonvery it was going to seem probable.And simi [he should bealso acquitted]; for it is not [thatlikely he the would start attack another]. And if he is a likely forsuspect, example, if he is would strong, man weak a [that probable not is it for charge; the for suspect alikely not as being he acquitted should be assault, with werecharged The entire rhetorical, Sophistic, eristic enterprise: production of Aristophanes’ play. wasacharge major of aonly orSocratesyear socause after ofthis that trial the portrayed as precisely a Sophist). There is more than a hint in Plato’s charge his against in it made Aristophanes that become term this had fraudulence with fraught So .

Aristotle, Aristotle, Art For Aristotle, “making the weaker cause the stronger” is synecdochic of the of Corax is made up of this topic; for example, if a weak man man weak a if example, for topic; ofupthis made is ofCorax On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse Civic of Theory A Rhetoric: On 1991 ), 210

— seem

. that classic (and scandalous) term of Sophistic art the better one. better the 1402 TheClouds allacious allacious probability and a part of no a] 40 (and, of course, that play in Socrates is 41 It is this understanding of Sophistic of Sophistic understanding It this is , Trinity Press International, Trinity Press International, Rome and Greece in Deception and ning, Mark Douglas Given, 41 .

Cf. the discussion of epistemological confidence in confidence epistemological of discussion the Cf. - - - Paul’s True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cun Apology 2001

—

is Pro ), ( 34 18 . b) (Harrisburg, PA: (Harrisburg, - - - - -

- Boyarin • A “Dictatorship of Relativism”? 331 bia: University of South Press, Carolina and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric to reason about confidently”(Edward Schiappa, number of reasons why the gods are a ‘subject’ too obscure the dark about, or not evident to sense. One can imagine a in be to uncertainty, imply also can ‘obscurity,’ as above say. to difficult is subject’ the of rity appa writes: Protagoras “What had in mind as ‘the obscu 43 42 . .

C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e 332 Regarding Regarding the phrase “obscurity of the subject,” Schi Aristotle, Aristotle, Rhetoric affords only an allusion or quotationpartial [ but these of earliest the is (Plato witnesses ancient of host a and Laertius enes sentence opening of Protagoras’s lost treatise the (in)famous is pair this of here.first exploration myThe further whole,will piecestogether as of atheoretical two butthe them, reading between choosing tion of Protagoras’s that could have aroused the ire of the Athenian the weaker cause the stronger. that is associated (orwith productive of, or derived from) the practice of making Protagoras. Presumably, then, Aristotle refers to some declaration, of Protagoras and moreover it is attributed by (orAristotle so it seems) to Corax rather to than death.However, would cause of the as Laertius Protagoras’snarrate deportation andconsequent later, of Protagoras,”referenceincidenttion that, in an apparentlyto Corax. But then Aristotle speaks of “people” being “rightly at angry the declara by formulated allegedly enthymeme, or topos a discusses he beginning, the In to the present. Plato’s from forSophism day disdain philosophical motivated has rhetoric that ‘gods’ is epistemologically irrelevant as far as he is concerned, this cannot but cannot this concerned, is he as far as irrelevant epistemologically ‘gods’is Mansfield’sinsight that, “as soonasan that importantsaysthinker the notion of ters. mat philosophical deciding for useful knowledge provides theology that only statement of a human-centered (or anthropological) for origin religion, denying statement of agnosticism or atheism, as it is frequently taken to be, but rather the Moreover, he demonstrates (following Werner Jaeger) that fragmentthis is not a story. however, Schiappa, Edward reasontocreditthis little is there shows that precisely wasowing statement to this thatProtagoras was from Athens. exiled man’sof life.” shortness the and subject the of obscurity the one’sprevent knowing: to much is there for have, not know either that they exist or that they do not exist, or what form they might of the statement, as formulated in Diogenes, reads: “Concerning the gods I can , 45 210 As George Kennedy points out, there are two candidates for a declara a for candidates two are there out, points Kennedy George As However, Aristotle’s statement contains a bit of an interpretive puzzle. puzzle. interpretive an of bit a contains statement Aristotle’s However, In the literature on this fragment, most to the point (or to my point) is Jaap n. 254 . Adêlotês τ p 1991 Πρωταγ ], , translated translated , 143 Protagoras [Colum ). Diels o ρου - - - 43 m According to Diogenes (and Philostratus), it (andDiogenesPhilostratus), to According 45 44 “the whole.” Schiappa, of knowledge to acquire short too is life that claim ocles’ last “thephrase ofthis shortness man’s life” Emped with Sprague, and π h . .

γγελμα Schiappa, Schiappa, Diels and Sprague, Thaetetus isnot a declaration; it is a practice, Older Sophists Older On the On Gods Protagoras and Logos Protagoras and Logos

Older Sophists Older 162 , d]). The fullest version ,reported as by Diog 20 . Schiappa has compared compared has Schiappa . , 144 , 4

– ,

48 6 demos . , . 143 . . 42 Not 44 ­ - - - - -

ως ο is, that it is, and of that which is not, that it is not.” notorious fragment reads: “Of all things, the human is the measure; of that which ofstatements the attributed thatcould to him have The angered Athenians. the Badiou’s terms, the statement must involve aprocedure.” “truth of “man” involved also must have to do with human knowing or not-knowing. In content notionthe the of Protagoras’sin statement shift epistemological,is the haveconsequences far-reaching for notion his of ‘man’.” 48 and Kranz, Diels principle. of the citation Platonic earlier an well as τ 47 Verlag, Steiner Franz Germany: (Wiesbaden, Kerferd B. G. ed. Persons,”in and Obstacles 46 Dzialo’sof Michael formulation In ofindeterminacy. canon legal” “critical the ments opposed to each other.” clear why Protagoras “was the first to saythat onevery issuethere aretwo argu bytruth means of logic alone. Understanding these two statements together,absolute of it determination is no be can there truth, of measure the is experience ( since inquiry, metaphysical or toward avowal of a kind of indeterminacy principle. In any given forensic contest of each of Protagoras’s two most famous statements is epistemological and moves human perception by which judgments can be made. gods, but we do not know aboutanything them emerge. Since the gods are epistemologically irrelevant wesee epistemological can an theory, though perhaps inchoate an one, to begin knowledge. for criterion only perceptionthe is or relativehuman subjective that insistence the hand, the denial that there is human knowledge of gods and, on the other hand, heremy argument to only note it a closeis crucial relation onone the between, passageproperly. involvedare issues this philosophical interpreting in low other religious observances: one might imagine, imagine, if but wager; ofPascal’s version early an might atAthens, then, one observances: religious other low 50 Logos 49 issues in detail. these into go will subject this on progress in book My 1 p . ν . . . .

κα H For which, see Schiappa, e Protagoras continued to worship the gods and fol and gods the worship to continued Protagoras For this distinction, see Schiappa, Schiappa, see distinction, this For Jaap Mans Jaap , κ νθρωπον τ 129 s k Which Which brings us to Protagoras’s “man is the measure” fragment, the second It is worth risking anachronism to observe how close this position is to to is position this close how observe to anachronism risking worth is It

1981 ç στιν Π. δ

–

30 Fragmente der Vorsokratiker ), , in Sextus’s formulation. Once again, we have l . 43 βο fi y . eld, “Protagoras on Epistemological Epistemological on “Protagoras eld, ν μ b λεται π 49 l If we take the two statements together (which is rarely done), rarely is (which together statements two the take we If ν ν οντων 62 h The Sophists and Their Legacy Their and Sophists The ντων χρημ Protagoras and Logos ως 1 k στιν h 51 , , 258 τ των ε y 1 ) we know nothing of the gods and ( and gods the of nothing know we ) Protagoras and and Protagoras ν δ . @ l ναι μ ο , e 117 κ \ οντων 62 τρων

–

33 - , .

— menides (Schiappa, also findsProtagoras onthe side of against Par (Schiappa, point ras’s statement is shown to Protago make it a of profound end philosophical the by that say to it suffice but sion, discus compelling Schiappa’s of complexity the reduce to notwant do I arguable. is assertion any maintain that rhetoric” (Schiappa, lem reduces that translation this “all sophistic toteaching 9 αλλ δ 51 152 to according Plato, see dictum Protagorean the to relation its and knowledge as perception On Pascal’s. than sophisticated more been have to seem would it so, means rhetoric as sort of a charter for debating soci debating for charter ofa sort as rhetoric means ú .

51 there is no criterion other than 47 . ολ A R ) is traditional. Schiappa discusses ) at is Schiappa discusses the length traditional. prob A myriad of philological and The translation I have provided of of provided have I translation The

– λοις o 50

160 γουςε In other words, the focus

— (Diels and Kranz, Kranz, and (Diels D. 46

there may very well be Moreover, giventhat | ναιπερ Protagoras and Logos and Protagoras Protagoras and Logos Protagoras and Logos s παντ p 2 48 Fragmente der Vorsokratiker der Fragmente ςπρ ) human human ) But for h γματος , 91 , - , Κα 92

– 90

100 j ). ), by which he s ντικειμ πρ ). Schiappa ).Schiappa y Thaetetus τος \ νους e k ties ties φη - - - - , Boyarin • A “Dictatorship of Relativism”? 333 to deceive to motivation well-defined of but the a mark audiences, ing done so is not a sign of questionable designs on unsuspect argument weaker the make could they that only argument; stronger the argument weaker the that claim not warranted. did they seems Indeed, skill performative and prose icized depiction “the offamiliar the sophists as teachers of poet 53 12 At the Line Where the Two Become One,” 52 . . . C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e 334

2

Michael G. Dzialo, “Legal and Philosophical Fictions: (May Thus, I disagree with Poulakos when he writes that that writes he when Poulakos with disagree I Thus,

1998 — a motivation tied to the pleasure of speak of pleasure the to tied motivation a ): is that entailment? I want to answer this question in a way that credits, rather rather credits, that way a in question this answer to want I entailment? that is Protagoras’sepistemology generally a weaker cause and a stronger, and he sees a direct entailment between is there ForAristotle, canon. modern this embraced have not would Aristotle ment.” counterargu valid equally an met with be outcome can favorofparticular a in neverit, can “legal doctrine determine a legal outcome because argument every Followingreasoning, there this is no need to suppose “weaker thatthe cause” is skills.” argumentative better opponent has the because itnotoracceptdo ity values ofargument be can weaker the arguments. An simply because the major Johan Vos has shown, Sophistic practice “says nothing about As the true or situation. intrinsic given a in probabilities about made being judgment educated an educated an of perspective the from seen as truth or real, really the truth, real the Plato, or Parmenides for be would it as not, however, is Protagoras reveal, would that truth The truth. a be, not well may but be, to appears what ethical and political force to this Protagorean practice, for it can bring into doubt κα δο which, “by introducing some reasoning into the debate” [ of the two under consideration. a practiced,cause makes that is at least as likely, and probably more likely, to have meant that rhetoric, properly obvious reading of Protagoras’s remark about strong and weak causes. Protagoras strength and one may sideother disagreement, orthe given any in that, say would presumably Sophist A Sophism. discredits, than ing outset. Aristotle does outset.not Aristotle acknowledge problem the of appearance 217 appear X s

. —

ς ç ], seeks to overturn the “single-voiced, single-minded conviction [ An excellent An example practice would of this be Gorgias’s defense of Helen μ

and the Sophistic practice ofthe weakermaking cause the stronger. What stronger. That they should have stronger. they That 52 o Risking anachronism, Risking again, in a good cause, I itthink is safe to say that ψυχος apparent ] [that has] arisen about this woman.” this about arisen has] [that ] Argumentation weakness in arguments; hence he misses what should be an episteme

—

orrather, snippetswe two have the been consider appears is - - - 53

. The truth that a Sophist labors to reveal is is reveal to labors Sophist a that truth The . tional, tional, Walter Übelacker (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press Interna lical Texts Letter to the Romans,” in Defeat the Stronger’: in Argumentation Sophistical Paul’s 55 54 protesting. tagoras likeWith friends this, who needs enemies [Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, Poulakos, ing” (John weak . .

Gorgias, Gorgias, Johan S. Vos, “ Vos, S. Johan 2002 appear , ed. Thomas H. Anders Eriksson, Olbricht, and atfirst ), Encomium ofEncomium Helen 217 to have the stronger case at the at the case stronger havetothe

– seem, in the end,seem, the in stronger the

18

. ‘To Make the Weaker Argument Argument Weaker the Make ‘To Sophistical Rhetoric in Rhetoric Sophistical GreeceClassical doxa 54 Rhetorical Rhetorical Argumentation in Bib We can ascribe serious serious ascribe Wecan λογισμ and in the interest of interest the in and , 2 . o , I Pro can imagine ν τινα τ

—

of ç μ apparent 1995 o ] φωνος λ ], o 45 γ ω 0 55 ). ------

ward have done, that rhetoric makes for a fancy and fallacious defense of inferior Plato for and inferior.To Aristophanes from cally commentators say,as then, weakerone, let onealone the philosophically ethi the cause”notis necessarily The “weakerneutral. argumentation), itself ethically isin dialectical (including of other practice speech any like economics. Rhetoric, ofcause the laissez-faire of asituation one. epistheologically, less worthy ethically, In the or politically 57 56 able outcomes of any group discourse.” Protagoras in Or as Jarratt puts roughly the same point: “Under the epistemology attributed to of rhetoric.sophistic tivism rela the in “deception” inherent the and virtue to leading knowledge unbr an saw Plato 262 ( truth seeks and deception avoids which philosophy, of “art” the of that with compare way no in could rhetoric of worth inherent ( ofvirtue realization a as knowledge did not seek rhetoricinquiries such that concentrated charge upon the of Plato’s Gorgias’sreality. implications philosophical to the objection knowledge ( prompted Plato tosuch notionsdismiss as avoiding a quest for absolute The apparent incompatibility of strength. these paradoxical and positions of antithetical degrees relative in positions contradictory expose of Plato dialectic ( the to contrary Thus, positions. probable of choice a in result sions conclu the upon; not agreed are that premises from proceeds inquiry Phaedrus Laertius (Diogenes positions contrary from shared premises and conclusions established the method dialectical of from arguing contrary securing of notion the formalized Zeno port of anti-Platonichis view of rhetoric. A generationsup beforefor Gorgias, tenets establish would that tradition philosophical a of also but probability of theory the of only not beneficiary the was Gorgias by Richard Enos: Sophists, as I have called it, is that they have been so consistently slandered. the of scandal The practice. and theory Sophistic of parodic best, at is, causes poverty temological uncertainty, the weaker cause . .

Jarratt, Jarratt, B,C) by examining knowledge of first principles ( principles first of knowledge examining by B,C) Enos, Enos, Relativism, it Relativism, should brief glancebe clear ateven this from its intellectual Thepractice of Sophism Platonicand the reaction to it are well described

— Greek Before Aristotle Rhetoric 261 Rereading the Sophists

might demand the attentions of a rhetorician to make it stronger than Phaedrus D; Thaetetus Aristotle Parmenides idgeable gap between the examination of certain certain of examination the between gap idgeable

261 , D) and attempting to confuse appearance with Rhetoric and revealed by other fragments, 56 ,

128 49 . A; A;

1355 , 77 Phaedrus Gorgias

– A

78 8

– .

. 57 B, B, 57 . 9

Topica

261 455 . 25

— ; Plato Plato ; D,E, ff.), D,E, conclusions A). Consequently the the A).Consequently

for instance, raising the poor out of ff.). This system of system ff.).This Phaedrus Sophista Phaedrus

272

dissoi logoi 216 D). A, A, - - -

are unavoid - - - -

Boyarin • A “Dictatorship of Relativism”? 335 C o m m o n K n o w l ed g e 336 doing that weighing and taking those pains. If asked to advise undergraduates undergraduates advise to asked If pains. those taking and weighing that doing lutely buttrue, because it seems the best to the good,careful, and serious people andalternatives then choose painstakingly the best one competing weigh to counsel a is relativism caricature), rather or acterization, to follow every wind that blows (which is the basic metaphor in Ratzinger’s char absolute that mobilize attackhis truth on it. Moreover, fromfar being a counsel allowsit. appears,indeed, Relativism Ratzinger to antedate dinal notions the of has aorigins, much more ancient and pedigreeandthan Car dignified purpose many varieties on offer of the One and Only Absolute Truth. of commitment alternativeto tyrannies an time, same atthe provides, that yet passion, and commitment all over tyranny notdoes devolvemodelthat of intoSophistic aan relativism assumption butof absolute we a What hindrance. be need can anything is truth none the ofin which elections, papal indeed debates,and legislative trials, jury like Ilive.processes mean typically beings human which in all, after situations, the are which uncertainty, of situations in processes deliberative carefully and Protagoras), developwhose texts fragmentary rationales for broadly cooperative with (along himself Gorgias read to better much do would undergraduate An rhetoric). own its of example the (through slander and arguments) rational its the reading does, how to get the most out of their educations, I would not suggest, as David Brooks Gorgias of Plato

—

a text that teaches absolutism (by means of teaches means that absolutism atext (by

—

of commitment ofto very any the

—

not because it is abso I’m OK, you’re OK, I’m OK - - -