In “Against the Sophists”, Isocrates seems to be trying to distance himself from previous teachers of rhetoric, or “sophists” by going for the outright kill in his arguments against sophistry. First, Isocrates makes the claim that the sophists are not interested in their students discovering truth, but are instead interested in teaching deception. As Isocrates points out, “[a]s it is now, those who dare to make boasts with too little caution have made it appear that those who choose to take it easy are better advised than those who apply themselves to philosophy. Who would not hate and despise first and foremost those who spend their time in disputes, pretending to seek the truth but attempting form the beginning of their lessons to lie”( 62). Isocrates then attacks the sophists for making their students pay for their teachings, but he does not criticize the act of payment but instead chastises them for selling virtue at too low of a cost. (Here I think is a very interesting transition from Plato who, if you remember, was chastising the sophists for receiving payment.) According to Isocrates, “[i]f [the sophists] were selling some other property for such a small fraction of its worth, they would not dispute that their reasoning is faulty. And although they value all of moral excellence and happiness so little, nevertheless they still claim to be sensible teachers of others. They say they have no need for money, disparaging wealth as ‘mere silver and gold,’ but in their desire for a little profit they almost promise to make their students immortal” (62). So his argument here is that sophists claim to teach virtue, which is according to Isocrates a very valuable thing, or the most important thing, and by charging their students such a low rate they are really making the claim that virtue is itself not valuable or has a low value association.
Isocrates then returns to the idea of truth and makes the claim that the sophists have no concern for it. He also makes the claim that all speeches or discourses should be individualized and prepared for each specific topic being discussed, rather than trying to make or using the same arguments work in any situation (another way of saying it would be that studying a list of topics is bad because you eventually just keep repeating the same arguments over and over again). Instead, according to Isocrates, philosophy should be the student’s pursuit. Isocrates even states that, in some cases, the sophistic style of education is unneeded and “that every reasonable person would agree with me that many philosophers have remained private citizens, while others have become skilled speakers and politicians without ever having visited the sophists” (64). Isocrates then establishes his vision of rhetoric’s proper form. According to Isocrates, it is not the study of the forms of speech that is important, “[b]ut to choose from these necessary forms for each subject, and then, not to mistake the circumstances (Kairos) but to embellish the entire speech properly with considerations (enthymemata) and to speak the words rhythmically and musically, these things require much study and are the work of a brave and imaginative soul” (65). Isocrates then concludes his argument by claiming, “Nevertheless, those who wish to follow the prescriptions of my philosophy may he helped more quickly to fair-mindedness than to speechmaking […] I contend that there is no sort of art that can convert those who by nature lack virtue to soundness of mind and a sense of justice. But I certainly do think that the study of political speeches can assist in encouraging and training theses faculties” (66). So, in the end, Sophistry still bad and Isocrates’ philosophy good.
So the question becomes, did Isocrates take the time and energy to belittle the sophists, who were teachers? Part of the answer, I think, is the fact that Isocrates is a teacher who, like the sophists of an early age, acknowledges receiving payment for his services. But, for Isocrates’ teachings to have value, or to claim that he is the superior educator in Greek culture, he must prove to be teaching something different than the sophists. And as Isocrates points out in the “Antidosis,” he is concerned with “virtue and justice” (218). Later in the speech, Isocrates hints toward how his teaching is different from other Greek instructors by claiming:
Sensible men must be concerned about both Athens and Greece, but of the two, they should prefer the greater and wealthier. Second, they should recognize that countless Greeks and non-Greeks are able to write laws, but few have the ability to speak about what is beneficial in a manner that Athens and Greece deserve. For these reasons, we should value those who make it their business to write speeches of this kind more than those who legislate and inscribe laws, insomuch as their products are rarer, more difficult to create, and require a more acute mind, especially at the present time(220).
In the end then, teaching should be concerned with cultivating the virtue of one’s soul, somewhat similar to Plato’s big argument, but a student of “philosophy” should use their skill to help make Athens a better place rahter than wandering around using your skill of oratory to to convince other they are wrong.