Sophists' understanding of knowledge and being: An ontological and an epistemological study

In this thesis, sophists? understanding of existence and knowledge between B.C. 450-380 is examined. As sophists? view on existence and knowledge are directly related to their views on practical subjects such as the state, education, virtue (arete) and religion, their views on these subjects are examined in detail. First, philosophical, political and sociological conditions which affected sophists and sophism are examined. It is pointed out that philosophers of nature came to various incoherent conclusions about the very first principle of existence (arkhe). It?s also interpreted that the requirements of Greek political life of that period and the problem of how virtuous (arete) citizens should be raised was one other factor why sophists had such an impact. Sophists distinguished between the laws of nature and laws which came from traditions, religion and ethics. They claimed that obligatory laws belonged only to nature (physis) whereas other laws (nomos) were just man-made. This paper explains how the split between nomos and physis came to happen. secondly, the fact that sophists shared no common ground on any subjects and the mutually contradictory answers offered by the sophists as to the nature of the same subjects necessitated tackling their views individually. Only a handful of sophistic texts have survived to this day. Hence, what?s written here about Sophists is drawn from the books by Plato and Aristotle.The following are the sophists that are mentioned in this text: Protagoras, Gorgias, Hippias, Prodicus, Antiphon, Thrasymachus, Callicles, Critias, Anonymous Iamblichus, Lycophron, Xeniades, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus.Last, Plato?s and Aristotle?s criticism of sophistic understanding of existence and knowledge are explained. Particularly, it is discussed that the criticism directed against Sophists on the subjects like the state, education, law, language and virtue was directly related to the criticism directed to the sophistic understanding of knowledge and existence.In conclusion, it is claimed that sophists? relativistic and agnostic views contributed to the development of new philosophical approaches about knowledge and existence.Secondly, the fact that sophists shared no common ground on any subjects and the mutually contradictory answers offered by the sophists as to the nature of the same subjects necessitated tackling their views individually. Only a handful of sophistic texts have survived to this day. Hence, what?s written here about Sophists is drawn from the books by Plato and Aristotle.The following are the sophists that are mentioned in this text: Protagoras, Gorgias, Hippias, Prodicus, Antiphon, Thrasymachus, Callicles, Critias, Anonymous Iamblichus, Lycophron, Xeniades, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus.Last, Plato?s and Aristotle?s criticism of sophistic understanding of existence and knowledge are explained. Particularly, it is discussed that the criticism directed against Sophists on the subjects like the state, education, law, language and virtue was directly related to the criticism directed to the sophistic understanding of knowledge and existence.In conclusion, it is claimed that sophists? relativistic and agnostic views contributed to the development of new philosophical approaches about knowledge and existence.Keywords: Sophists, knowledge, being, arkhe, virtue (arete), nomos/physis, education, language, rhetoric