The relevance of sophistry

Maria Bonomi, Girl with a Trombuda, woodcut, 50 x 25 cm, 1964.
Whatsapp
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Telegram

By BENTO PRADO JR.*

Commentary on the book “Sophistic Essays”, by Barbara Cassin

“True philosophy laughs at philosophy” (Pascal).

under the title of Sophistic Essays, Barbara Cassin offers us four essays that do not limit themselves to restoring, with the finest instruments of philology, the style and vocation of sophistic in the Greek classical age or towards the end of Antiquity. Her essays do, it is certain, also, a work of history, returning sophistry to its native horizon. They also do so by suggesting a different reading from the one we are led to, without reflecting, by the inertia of an ancient tradition: the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition, which expels the sophist beyond the limits of sense and humanity.

But it is not just a question of doing justice to the sophists, or of generously adding one more dossier to the long process of “recovery”, now doubly secular, triggered by lawyers such as Hegel, Burkhardt, Grote, Gomperz, Dupréel and Untersteiner. It is, rather, the most perverse and subtle way, of showing the permanence of the old mechanisms of exclusion, between the lines of more or less recent texts, which promote the restoration of the dignity of the sophist and sophistic.

Let us reflect on the title of this beautiful book. The adjective “sophistic” does not only qualify the most visible object of the essays. Suggestion that could anger the reader: “But, how! So the author confesses, already on the cover of his book, that he is the work of a sophist? Yes and no, dear reader. Let's understand each other: more than a philological work, this book is the work of a philosophy that operates within the limits of philosophy itself, there where she communicates with her other or with non-philosophy (politics, literature, psychoanalysis and, at the limit, the real world).

The object of the essays is not just “historical sophistics”, so far removed from us in time, but above all sophistics understood as the “structural effect” of philosophy itself. If the Platonic-Aristotelian definition of philosophy, in the Parmenidian wake, as the “logical” capture of being, was able to keep itself alive through the centuries, it is not surprising that it has kept its other or your enemy (defined, from the outset, as nicknames, that is, lie, falsehood, simulacrum, ghost), something like a central “blind spot”, without which the philosopher’s clear gaze loses its lucidity or the limits of its field of vision.

In reality, the aim of this book is the division or separation between the rational and the irrational, coextensive with the entire history of philosophy. Everything happens as if classical Greek philosophy had forever imposed a conception decisive of reason, which transforms it into a cutting instrument. Let us remember that Plato already defined dialectics or philosophy (as opposed to sophistics) in comparison with the good butcher: one cuts the ox according to its “natural articulations”, the other divides ideas (or the real world) according to a mute syntax, older than our all-too-human language.

But, to cut things honestly with the use of logical-linguistic scissors, it is necessary to assume a clear and absolute cut, prior to any question, between words and things. For words to adequately describe things, without ambiguity or contradiction, they need to be placed as if at a distance from things, something like a logical-linguistic sky needs to provide the cohesion that our poor sublunary earth essentially lacks.

A requirement that somehow steals the thickness of our earthly speech. That same thickness that is revealed in the Nomos or in the political consensus that lacks any “natural” basis, in the productivity of the novel and poetry that freely constitute the world, or in the productivity of the pure signifier of the “logic of desire” (in Lacan, certainly, if not in Freud).

Recognizing the effectiveness of language, or the effectiveness of its materiality (beyond its semantic dimension) does not necessarily mean diving into the external darkness of unreason. It means placing oneself between philosophy and non-philosophy, between the philosopher and his shadow, in the transition between day and night, recognizing, with Plato himself, that there are similarities that endanger the identity of essences, “as that between the wolf and the dog, the wildest and the most domesticated”. A “family air” visible in the faces of the philosopher and the sophist.

*Bento Prado Jr. (1937-2007) was professor of philosophy at the Federal University of São Carlos. Author, among other books, of some essays (Peace and Earth).

Published in the newspaper Folha S Paulo, on March 30, 1991.

Reference


Barbara Cassin. sophistic essays. Translation: Ana Lúcia de Oliveira and Lúcia Cláudia Leão. Sao Paulo, Sicilian, 1990.

See this link for all articles

10 MOST READ IN THE LAST 7 DAYS

______________
  • About artificial ignoranceEugenio Bucci 15/06/2024 By EUGÊNIO BUCCI: Today, ignorance is not an uninhabited house, devoid of ideas, but a building full of disjointed nonsense, a goo of heavy density that occupies every space
  • Franz Kafka, libertarian spiritFranz Kafka, libertarian spirit 13/06/2024 By MICHAEL LÖWY: Notes on the occasion of the centenary of the death of the Czech writer
  • The society of dead historyclassroom similar to the one in usp history 16/06/2024 By ANTONIO SIMPLICIO DE ALMEIDA NETO: The subject of history was inserted into a generic area called Applied Human and Social Sciences and, finally, disappeared into the curricular drain
  • Impasses and solutions for the political momentjose dirceu 12/06/2024 By JOSÉ DIRCEU: The development program must be the basis of a political commitment from the democratic front
  • Strengthen PROIFESclassroom 54mf 15/06/2024 By GIL VICENTE REIS DE FIGUEIREDO: The attempt to cancel PROIFES and, at the same time, turn a blind eye to the errors of ANDES management is a disservice to the construction of a new representation scenario
  • Introduction to “Capital” by Karl Marxred triangular culture 02/06/2024 By ELEUTÉRIO FS PRADO: Commentary on the book by Michael Heinrich
  • Hélio Pellegrino, 100 years oldHelio Pellegrino 14/06/2024 By FERNANDA CANAVÊZ & FERNANDA PACHECO-FERREIRA: In the vast elaboration of the psychoanalyst and writer, there is still an aspect little explored: the class struggle in psychoanalysis
  • The strike at federal Universities and Institutescorridor glazing 01/06/2024 By ROBERTO LEHER: The government disconnects from its effective social base by removing those who fought against Jair Bolsonaro from the political table
  • Volodymyr Zelensky's trapstar wars 15/06/2024 By HUGO DIONÍSIO: Whether Zelensky gets his glass full – the US entry into the war – or his glass half full – Europe’s entry into the war – either solution is devastating for our lives
  • PEC-65: independence or patrimonialism in the Central Bank?Campos Neto Trojan Horse 17/06/2024 By PEDRO PAULO ZAHLUTH BASTOS: What Roberto Campos Neto proposes is the constitutional amendment of free lunch for the future elite of the Central Bank

AUTHORS

TOPICS

NEW PUBLICATIONS