If your introductory composition student says, "Gee, this was a great class because I learned a lot about manipulating people and getting what I want."
You might be sophist.
One of my office mates has a "You might be a Redneck if..." calendar on the wall and after reading Isocrates I was wondering if Jeff Foxworthy would be open to marketing a new product along those same lines.
Like many of you have already noted, Isocrates hits the sophists hard with arguments that equate them to money-grubbing scoundrels as opposed to "real" teachers. In this sense, he seems to be a lot like Plato and Socrates.
What gets me though is that shift in terms of episteme, and what I think I can call arete. In Plato's work, we had a definition of episteme that centered around physis. My mind is immediately called back to the chariots flying up to the heavens to get a glimpse of the Truth and the quality of a soul defined by the "memory" of that Truth when it comes back down to earth.
While Isocrates seems to have the same general definition of arete in that philosophy is still concerned with doing good, the episteme part seems to shift from physis to nomoi. The introduction to the Antidosis explains that Isocrates sees philosophy as "the ability to speak, to reason, and to act" (203). It "does not rely on a fixed body of knowledge but on the ability to guess and conjecture at the right opportunities" (203). Therefore, it seems like Isocrates is perhaps a more ethical version of Callicles.
What I wonder about is the effect this has on the "discipline," if you will. Whereas Socrates seems to stick to his guns in terms of Truth, no matter what. Isocrates creates space for relativism and probability of truth. In other words, does Isocrates create space for pandering?
Something else occurs to me that might be more to the point. If Isocrates redefines episteme outside of a "fixed body of knowledge" that means that what counts as knowledge is more malleable. Maybe that also means that change (for better or worse I suppose) is possible.
I'm just not sure what to say that student. Normally it boils down to "Well, I hope you know better than that."
I think that Isocrates is still on a pretty big physis kick. On 241 he hits the natural ability pretty hard, and in other spaces as well. But he also talks about how someone can be a little slow as a kid, and if they work hard (have a real work ethic) they are teachable. That seems to be pretty important to his overall philosophy about... philosophy. If someone wants to do good and is inclined toward truth (and are willing to work hard to get it) then they will. People who want a short cut to success (see sophists) can get it, but not well, not excellently.
For me the gap comes in people taking the time to really think about what is important rather than fighting for the sake of fighting. He talks repeatedly about how he is not interested in a little litigation--he is talking about nations, and philosophy, and chatting with the king on behalf of the people. I have to assume that there are some people in Athens that are selling "teaching" in a pretty crappy way. Even the "sophist" that we heard from the most, Protagoras, is saying that there needs to be a balance in how teaching happens. Everyone seems to refer to these charlatans: people who are taking the youth, teaching them a couple of tricks about turning words around and being able to talk it up, and then letting them loose on the courts with out a second thought.
It feels to me what we are talking about is the difference between a student learning to critically think with language, and the relationship of critical thinking (I know that it a weak term... you know what I mean though) to language and writing, and a student who has "learned how to manipulate people". Its different. In one you are showing people what you are thinking about, and you are talking about it because it feels important to you... in the other you are convincing people because you can, not cause you care. We don't get to hand pick our students... and we don't get payed as much as Isocrates, and I think that you are right that, for now, it boils down to "Well, I hope you know better then that."
Morgan,
Thanks for writing your comment. I find it much easier to engage with these texts in a meaningful way when talking about them with someone.
I'm wondering if you think that Isocrates is using physis differently here than we're used to. My impression from Socrates was that physis had to do with natural law whereas Isocrates refers to physis in terms of natural ability. Both consider nature, but perhaps in very different ways.
In the passage I think you're referring to above, Isocrates writes that "someone must have a mind capable of inventing, learning, working hard, and memorizing; a voice and clarity for speech that has the capacity to persuade audiences not only by what he says but also by his harmonious diction." Therefore he doesn't seem as concerned with Truth as with "what the good lord gave ya."
Is this a fair distinction. I'd love to know what you think?