1st noticed that debate was becoming performative rather than substantive in academia 40 years ago. The goal was no longer to humble you with superior arguments, but rather to intimidate you into silence. Social media has only exacerbated the problem.
The major recent change is the widespread adoption of propaganda. Yes, sophistry existed in antiquity but it didn't scale. In the 20th century propaganda was first developed by governments who had major resources and unusual contexts (pliant media in wartime) where it could spread easily. You only see the development of propaganda at industrial scale in the last few decades given the growth of large, powerful companies/political interests able to invest in "communications programs." The traditional media/academic/legal "gatekeeper" function that used to limit the flow of corporate/political propaganda has not only eroded but has often been totally corrupted.
While the term "propaganda" is often misused a proper definition is consistent with the description of sophistry here--e.g. argumentation designed to shift listeners focus from evidence and logic to highly emotive (often tribal) themes that reframe complex issues where there is considerable uncertainty into simplistic black/white us-versus-them terms. "Agnotology" is the form of propaganda (the tobacco industry's war on scientific evidence is a classic example) where large numbers of purported "experts" use massive amounts of complicated unverifiable claims to overwhelm public discussion.
So "sophistry" in private discussion was converted into industrial scale corporate/political "propaganda". Social media helped shift the poisonous practices of propaganda back into widespread private discussion.
Truly excellent article. Can I suggest a followup at some point concerning WHY we're seeing so much of this now? Increasingly I notice a kind of sense of entitlement to being right. Whereas once most intelligent people understood that it took hard work- reading, thinking, debating, thoroughly understanding opposing positions- even to get into the game, let alone claim superior understanding of anything, there now seem to be a great many people that believe merely showing up and asserting themselves is enough.
Yes, I think you're exactly right, postmodernism basically just books down to modern day sophistry and it's out of control as a trend influencing what passes for discourse. There are heavy prices to be paid for it.
Appreciate reading your naming and cogent analysis /historical context of this issue which seems responsible for the back drop of dreariness and dread in current life. Since, as Joni Mitchell noted, ‘Everything comes and goes, marked by lovers and styles of clothes’, I’m curious if you know how past societies have outrun/survived/(battled and won???) against this enemy?
That’s a big question. It’s almost like asking how we turn our whole sick society around, and get on a better track. I can only share how I operate personally. This is my own rule book for my anti-fight-club: (1) I resist the temptation to respond to sophists with an opposed sophistry (this happens frequently and degrades everything it touches); (2) I strive to speak honestly, even if that means admitting to weaknesses and blind spots on my own side; (3) I value having a positive impact over slick talking points; (4) I stand up for my core values over rigid political alliances, and accept that candidates or public figures can only be temporary allies and never replace or supersede my most deeply held values—because I’ve learned painfully that people let you down, but your core values can continue to guide you reliably over the course of decades.
I know other people disagree with this approach, and prefer a more confrontational attitude with a full-scale immersion into the political battlefield. But my view of political discourse and political operatives in the current moment is similar to Don Corleone’s attitude to the drug trade in The Godfather (“It doesn't make any difference to me what a man does for a living, but your business is dirty business….”). My considered judgment is that decent, reasonable people have to create completely different rules of engagement from what’s happening right now—of which the starting point is setting a personal example that is more than just another sophistical gang fight. I know this isn’t much, and won’t appeal to everyone. But this is the path I take, and the approach I genuinely believe has the greatest upside for all of us.
I appreciate this generous and personal reply. Folks who can both talk AND walk their talk are a balm in these dark times.
The curiosity that prompted the original question was also anthropological in nature - whether you have any knowledge downstream of these disastrous junctures in past cultures - if / how they survived or emerged from the cycles of sophistry or did it so decimate the societies it infected that they just had to watch it destroy everything and then start over. (Germany after the Second World War comes to mind). In your observation does sophistry act as one of the ‘horseman of the apocalypse’ signaling the fall of that culture, or are there societies we can look to that were able to course correct? This may be the subject for another blog but your post certainly got me wondering. That said, your original response is a repair manual that I know will be personally effective. Onward and upward!
That's a good point. I actually have written something related to this subject—about cycles of decline and recovery in cultural history—but I've been reluctant to publish it for a variety of reasons. But I might eventually do just that. Thanks for giving me a nudge in that direction.
“Amitav Ghosh writes so poignantly, “The planet will never come alive for you unless your songs and stories give life to all the beings, seen and unseen, that inhabit a living Earth.” This is the world that is waiting for us, a fully animate Earth, alive with the songs and stories we tell our children and grandchildren: the true heritage we can pass down through the generations. We always belonged to this mystery, and maybe we can begin to find our way back, even if it means following an almost hidden path, unrecognized by our rational selves. Despite the growing darkness and images of destruction, the gate to this garden is always open, and if we listen carefully, we may hear the many voices that still beckon us.”
I am amazed that you have been able to so clearly put into words what I have (sadly) observed myself but (also sadly) lacked the ability to articulate. Thank you so much for that. I no longer speak with anyone where I live due to fear of death by gunshot. I suppose there are others like me where I live, but I don't know who they are. So I have now become the exception to the rule which posits that no man is an island, due to being surrounded by an ocean of heavily armed extremists, and my unwillingness to swim among the sharks in search of specks of civility which may not even exist. About 25 years ago when I read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death, I started noticing the shift away from dissemination of information by printed media towards broadcast media and the simultaneous shift towards extremist punditry and away from discussion based on objectively factual information.
Splendid, spot on piece. Should be taught at schools along with Umberto Eco's famous quote “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots” and yes, I'm referring to the public idiocy amplified by social media scourge, it goes hand in glove with sophistry.
Re: the following sentence (a eureka moment for me): "You might even say that the sophists were laying the groundwork for our post-truth society. And they were doing it 2,500 years ago." One of the most striking demonstrations of that very groundwork and its connection to present-day thought can be found in Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." The significant conflict in the book is not between father and son but between the narrator-father and his U. of Chicago graduate committee that had denied him the Ph.D. in philosophy because of his misreading of Plato. The narrator sublimates his personal conflict into a 2500-year battle between A. "Reason" (which he calls "dialectic") and B. "Sophistical," or pre-Socratic, thought (which he calls "rhetoric"). Of course, he defends the pre-Socratics in a struggle in which B prevails--i.e., rhetoric ultimately triumphs over truth.
Your comment took me back 40+ years to when I first read Zen and the Art. I remember at the time thinking the graduate committee seemed right to reject the thesis but wondering if I was missing something truly profound - which the rest of the book sadly didn't manage to illuminate. Wikipedia now reports it 'has become the best-selling philosophy book of all time'. Well I never.
I sensed the book had staying power but didn't realize it had struck home with so many readers--apparently a profound impact. I've attended classes and seminars at the U. of Chicago and can attest that it's a liberal haven compared with the novel's academic world, in which an ultra-conservative Committee is dogmatic and, to the narrator, "oppressive" in its insistence on reading Plato the "right" way. There's certainly a case to be made on behalf of the pre-Socratics, but I agree that the novel is not consistent or complete in laying out the narrator's conflicts and resolutions. (I frequently lose patience with the last half of the novel.) I think Nietzsche, esp. in "The Birth of Tragedy," presents a more compelling argument on behalf of pre-Socratic thought (deemed "romantic" by Pirsig's narrator, as I recall)).
I enjoyed reading your article, and the comments here. What's important to me is that people participate in the discussion. Otherwise, it's just big heads talking down to you, from some lofty plane they think they're on. Thank-you, hopefully your ideas make it to the larger public. Even if it confuses some people - that is the beginning of a change in thinking.
"What's important to me is that people participate in the discussion"
Well, sorry - I am SO tired of all of this ... Bullshit (as Dr Bob commented earlier), that I just don't participate in much anymore because, as so many of you seem to say - it has permeated society these days ( Social Media, "Modern" - sure - conversation ). It's no FUN & it's Bullshit - hence very very tiring. Also the absolutely mind numbing Neediness of so many.
I'm not a philosopher, but I think they are important. Higher thinking is what is needed. It seems what you're referring to is chit chat, and biased reporting. Those things are worse than tiring.
Not even one whole day as a member, and I get to see the word(sophist(ry)) I've used for the last 10 years, or so, more than any other time in my life. Ted! The article is great!
I like the more vulgar (and widely understood) term - bullshit 🎯💩
Amen, Dr Bob!
1st noticed that debate was becoming performative rather than substantive in academia 40 years ago. The goal was no longer to humble you with superior arguments, but rather to intimidate you into silence. Social media has only exacerbated the problem.
The major recent change is the widespread adoption of propaganda. Yes, sophistry existed in antiquity but it didn't scale. In the 20th century propaganda was first developed by governments who had major resources and unusual contexts (pliant media in wartime) where it could spread easily. You only see the development of propaganda at industrial scale in the last few decades given the growth of large, powerful companies/political interests able to invest in "communications programs." The traditional media/academic/legal "gatekeeper" function that used to limit the flow of corporate/political propaganda has not only eroded but has often been totally corrupted.
While the term "propaganda" is often misused a proper definition is consistent with the description of sophistry here--e.g. argumentation designed to shift listeners focus from evidence and logic to highly emotive (often tribal) themes that reframe complex issues where there is considerable uncertainty into simplistic black/white us-versus-them terms. "Agnotology" is the form of propaganda (the tobacco industry's war on scientific evidence is a classic example) where large numbers of purported "experts" use massive amounts of complicated unverifiable claims to overwhelm public discussion.
So "sophistry" in private discussion was converted into industrial scale corporate/political "propaganda". Social media helped shift the poisonous practices of propaganda back into widespread private discussion.
Truly excellent article. Can I suggest a followup at some point concerning WHY we're seeing so much of this now? Increasingly I notice a kind of sense of entitlement to being right. Whereas once most intelligent people understood that it took hard work- reading, thinking, debating, thoroughly understanding opposing positions- even to get into the game, let alone claim superior understanding of anything, there now seem to be a great many people that believe merely showing up and asserting themselves is enough.
Yes, I think you're exactly right, postmodernism basically just books down to modern day sophistry and it's out of control as a trend influencing what passes for discourse. There are heavy prices to be paid for it.
The beauty of this argument is painful.
Appreciate reading your naming and cogent analysis /historical context of this issue which seems responsible for the back drop of dreariness and dread in current life. Since, as Joni Mitchell noted, ‘Everything comes and goes, marked by lovers and styles of clothes’, I’m curious if you know how past societies have outrun/survived/(battled and won???) against this enemy?
That’s a big question. It’s almost like asking how we turn our whole sick society around, and get on a better track. I can only share how I operate personally. This is my own rule book for my anti-fight-club: (1) I resist the temptation to respond to sophists with an opposed sophistry (this happens frequently and degrades everything it touches); (2) I strive to speak honestly, even if that means admitting to weaknesses and blind spots on my own side; (3) I value having a positive impact over slick talking points; (4) I stand up for my core values over rigid political alliances, and accept that candidates or public figures can only be temporary allies and never replace or supersede my most deeply held values—because I’ve learned painfully that people let you down, but your core values can continue to guide you reliably over the course of decades.
I know other people disagree with this approach, and prefer a more confrontational attitude with a full-scale immersion into the political battlefield. But my view of political discourse and political operatives in the current moment is similar to Don Corleone’s attitude to the drug trade in The Godfather (“It doesn't make any difference to me what a man does for a living, but your business is dirty business….”). My considered judgment is that decent, reasonable people have to create completely different rules of engagement from what’s happening right now—of which the starting point is setting a personal example that is more than just another sophistical gang fight. I know this isn’t much, and won’t appeal to everyone. But this is the path I take, and the approach I genuinely believe has the greatest upside for all of us.
I appreciate this generous and personal reply. Folks who can both talk AND walk their talk are a balm in these dark times.
The curiosity that prompted the original question was also anthropological in nature - whether you have any knowledge downstream of these disastrous junctures in past cultures - if / how they survived or emerged from the cycles of sophistry or did it so decimate the societies it infected that they just had to watch it destroy everything and then start over. (Germany after the Second World War comes to mind). In your observation does sophistry act as one of the ‘horseman of the apocalypse’ signaling the fall of that culture, or are there societies we can look to that were able to course correct? This may be the subject for another blog but your post certainly got me wondering. That said, your original response is a repair manual that I know will be personally effective. Onward and upward!
That's a good point. I actually have written something related to this subject—about cycles of decline and recovery in cultural history—but I've been reluctant to publish it for a variety of reasons. But I might eventually do just that. Thanks for giving me a nudge in that direction.
Is this your piece on hot and cool cycles, by the way?
“Amitav Ghosh writes so poignantly, “The planet will never come alive for you unless your songs and stories give life to all the beings, seen and unseen, that inhabit a living Earth.” This is the world that is waiting for us, a fully animate Earth, alive with the songs and stories we tell our children and grandchildren: the true heritage we can pass down through the generations. We always belonged to this mystery, and maybe we can begin to find our way back, even if it means following an almost hidden path, unrecognized by our rational selves. Despite the growing darkness and images of destruction, the gate to this garden is always open, and if we listen carefully, we may hear the many voices that still beckon us.”
From Darkness Rising by Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee,
https://emergencemagazine.org/op_ed/darkness-rising/
I am amazed that you have been able to so clearly put into words what I have (sadly) observed myself but (also sadly) lacked the ability to articulate. Thank you so much for that. I no longer speak with anyone where I live due to fear of death by gunshot. I suppose there are others like me where I live, but I don't know who they are. So I have now become the exception to the rule which posits that no man is an island, due to being surrounded by an ocean of heavily armed extremists, and my unwillingness to swim among the sharks in search of specks of civility which may not even exist. About 25 years ago when I read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death, I started noticing the shift away from dissemination of information by printed media towards broadcast media and the simultaneous shift towards extremist punditry and away from discussion based on objectively factual information.
One of the best kicks to the anthill I've seen in a long time......
Splendid, spot on piece. Should be taught at schools along with Umberto Eco's famous quote “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots” and yes, I'm referring to the public idiocy amplified by social media scourge, it goes hand in glove with sophistry.
See also The Revolt of the Masses (Ortega y Gasset).
Re: the following sentence (a eureka moment for me): "You might even say that the sophists were laying the groundwork for our post-truth society. And they were doing it 2,500 years ago." One of the most striking demonstrations of that very groundwork and its connection to present-day thought can be found in Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." The significant conflict in the book is not between father and son but between the narrator-father and his U. of Chicago graduate committee that had denied him the Ph.D. in philosophy because of his misreading of Plato. The narrator sublimates his personal conflict into a 2500-year battle between A. "Reason" (which he calls "dialectic") and B. "Sophistical," or pre-Socratic, thought (which he calls "rhetoric"). Of course, he defends the pre-Socratics in a struggle in which B prevails--i.e., rhetoric ultimately triumphs over truth.
Your comment took me back 40+ years to when I first read Zen and the Art. I remember at the time thinking the graduate committee seemed right to reject the thesis but wondering if I was missing something truly profound - which the rest of the book sadly didn't manage to illuminate. Wikipedia now reports it 'has become the best-selling philosophy book of all time'. Well I never.
I sensed the book had staying power but didn't realize it had struck home with so many readers--apparently a profound impact. I've attended classes and seminars at the U. of Chicago and can attest that it's a liberal haven compared with the novel's academic world, in which an ultra-conservative Committee is dogmatic and, to the narrator, "oppressive" in its insistence on reading Plato the "right" way. There's certainly a case to be made on behalf of the pre-Socratics, but I agree that the novel is not consistent or complete in laying out the narrator's conflicts and resolutions. (I frequently lose patience with the last half of the novel.) I think Nietzsche, esp. in "The Birth of Tragedy," presents a more compelling argument on behalf of pre-Socratic thought (deemed "romantic" by Pirsig's narrator, as I recall)).
I enjoyed reading your article, and the comments here. What's important to me is that people participate in the discussion. Otherwise, it's just big heads talking down to you, from some lofty plane they think they're on. Thank-you, hopefully your ideas make it to the larger public. Even if it confuses some people - that is the beginning of a change in thinking.
"What's important to me is that people participate in the discussion"
Well, sorry - I am SO tired of all of this ... Bullshit (as Dr Bob commented earlier), that I just don't participate in much anymore because, as so many of you seem to say - it has permeated society these days ( Social Media, "Modern" - sure - conversation ). It's no FUN & it's Bullshit - hence very very tiring. Also the absolutely mind numbing Neediness of so many.
I'm not a philosopher, but I think they are important. Higher thinking is what is needed. It seems what you're referring to is chit chat, and biased reporting. Those things are worse than tiring.
Truth. Honesty. Clarity. Kindness. Rules to live by.
It’s fun to ponder the sophists who don’t share my politics. It’s more fun to ponder the sophists who do share my politics.
Not even one whole day as a member, and I get to see the word(sophist(ry)) I've used for the last 10 years, or so, more than any other time in my life. Ted! The article is great!
Insightful, incisive, and true