WI: Socrates forgotten, sophists triumphant?

[Alkahest]

Here's an idea for a very ambitious TL: What if Socrates had either been reduced to obscurity or if he simply never existed at all, and sophists like Protagoras, Gorgias and Thrasymachus had taken his place as the "founders" of Western philosophy? We'll assume that the obscurity or non-existence of Socrates either causes or is caused by Plato not showing the slightest interest in philosophy, which I think would also allow us to get rid of Aristotle. We could go on even further than that as we could wipe away a good portion of all Western philosophers in this chain reaction, but I trust you get the picture.

As a result of a relative lack of trustworthy sources, it's a bit hard to piece together exactly what the sophists thought, but it seems that they were far more skeptical and relativistic as well as far more interested in the material here and now (they had the audacity of demanding payment for teaching) than a person influenced by the Platonian metaphysical quest for Good, Truth and whatnot in a reality beyond the material.

What would religion be without Plato? What would science be without Aristotle? What would Western thought be if it was built by rhetoricians who scoffed at the idea of objective truth and metaphysics?

 

[Socrates]

I don't like this timeline.

 

[St. Just]

The entirety of Western thought would have to be rebuilt, piece by piece. Plato's Republic is the cornerstone and the genesis of all modern Western secular thought, and provides a large philosophical basis of religious thought as well. Without Neo-Platonism, there is no basis for a large clergy interpreting God.

Of course, I am a relativist, so I would certainly like the world a lot better. But Socrates and Plato were almost as important, if not more important, than Jesus Christ in the development of Western thought and thusly Western civilization.

 

[CandyDragon]

I don't like this timeline.

I wonder why!

 

[MAlexMatt]

It's important to distinguish between the pre-Socratics and the sophists: The sophists were essentially rhetoricians, who specialized in teaching people how to speak and argue effectively. The entire point of the Socratic reaction to the Sophists was push back against what was a growing movement towards the idea that 'truth is whatever I can convince a large group of people of'.

The pre-Socratics, on the other hand, were more properly philosophers. Guys like Pythagoras or Empedocles were important philosophers even with Socrates.

However, one important thing we'll be missing is an actual formalization of logic as we got from Aristotle. That is, ultimately, going to be huge. I don't think we'll see science develop like it did in the West. It might be up to China or India to do so, and both were missing some key elements between them.

 

[Aranfan]

Protagoras was the only relativist among the "Sophists" that we know anything about. The rest took definite stances on issues and said that people who took different stances were wrong.


The biggest loss from this is Aristotle's systematization of logic.

 

[Midas]

Well, not to be a jackass but Socrates was forgotten. All we have of him is Plato and some scattered other records.

 

[Alkahest]

I don't like this timeline.

The entirety of Western thought would have to be rebuilt, piece by piece. Plato's Republic is the cornerstone and the genesis of all modern Western secular thought, and provides a large philosophical basis of religious thought as well. Without Neo-Platonism, there is no basis for a large clergy interpreting God.

Neat, right?

Of course, I am a relativist, so I would certainly like the world a lot better. But Socrates and Plato were almost as important, if not more important, than Jesus Christ in the development of Western thought and thusly Western civilization.

Doesn't "rebuild all Western thought from scratch" sound like a fun project?

It's important to distinguish between the pre-Socratics and the sophists: The sophists were essentially rhetoricians, who specialized in teaching people how to speak and argue effectively. The entire point of the Socratic reaction to the Sophists was push back against what was a growing movement towards the idea that 'truth is whatever I can convince a large group of people of'.

The pre-Socratics, on the other hand, were more properly philosophers. Guys like Pythagoras or Empedocles were important philosophers even with Socrates.

I don't think it's entirely fair to characterize the sophists as not being proper philosophers, they were philosophers who also happened to be rhetoricians and lawyers, that is, philosophers who also had an honest day job. To be honest I see the disdain philosophers like Plato held sophists in as similar to the dislike an unsuccessful writer may feel for Stephen King or J. K. Rowling.

However, one important thing we'll be missing is an actual formalization of logic as we got from Aristotle. That is, ultimately, going to be huge. I don't think we'll see science develop like it did in the West. It might be up to China or India to do so, and both were missing some key elements between them.

Agreed. The development of logic and science would be very different from how it was IOTL. I wonder if some Pythagorean or sophist could fill the hole Aristotle would leave, or if logic ITTL would even be similar to the one we have IOTL. I'll return to my thoughts about the development of logic and science in a bit.

Protagoras was the only relativist among the "Sophists" that we know anything about. The rest took definite stances on issues and said that people who took different stances were wrong.

Well, what do we know about the ideas the sophists had? Going by Wikipedia's "Category:Sophists", we get the following gentlemen:
Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things", famous for his relativism. Student of Democritus the atomist and proto-scientist. Also an agnostic.
Antiphon: Had quite a few ideas similar to many Enlightenment thinkers, talked about what we today might call liberty, equality and natural rights. Also a mathematician.
Bryson: Mathematician who rubbed Aristotle the wrong way. Don't know a lot about his philosophy, to be honest.
Callicles: According to Plato, proto-Stirnerian egoist who believed that might made right and that laws were made up by people looking out for themselves. It should be noted that Plato really didn't like the guy.
Corax: Possibly non-existing rhetorician famous for his lawyerly shenanigans.
Diagoras: Known as "the Atheist", his non-belief is his major claim to fame.
Euenus: Who? If this guy had any thoughts of his own that survived, I'm not aware of them. I guess he wrote poems about nymphs and stuff? Maybe?
Gorgias: Student of Empedocles, one of the bigger names on this list. Even more relativistic than Protagoras, he believed that arete itself was relative to different situations. Took pleasure in defending absurd and impossible positions, just to show that he could. Big believer in the power of words. Might or might not be a nihilist, depending on if his "nothing exists"-argument was meant to be taken seriously or if he just wanted to show that one can prove practically anything. Also rich enough to commission a golden statue of himself.
Hippias: If Plato is to be believed, a stupid fop whose professions seems to have been professional straw man for Socrates to beat on.
Lycophron: Saw the law as "a guarantor of mutual rights", had ideas similar to later social contract theories. Saw laws as means to an end.
Prodicus: A naturalist who may or may not have been an atheist. Also an ethicist, but I'm not sure what he actually believed. He was apparently rich, too.
Stesimbrotos: Who?
Theodorus: Rhetorician... I barely know anything about this guy, and Wikipedia isn't helping me much.
Thrasymachus: Everyone's favorite social Darwinist from The Republic, he argued that "justice" simply is what the stronger force the weaker to accept as just. How much of his argument is a straw man for Socrates to defeat is unknown.
Tisias: May or may not be the same guy as Corax. Also known for lawyerly shenanigans.

Well, not to be a jackass but Socrates was forgotten. All we have of him is Plato and some scattered other records.

We know him as "that guy Plato had a huge crush on".

 

[Alkahest]

Here are some of my thoughts about how the world would develop without the philosophical heritage of Socrates and Plato.

Political thought: Plato was highly critical of the Athenian democracy while it was the livelihood of the sophists, so I imagine that it will be more fondly remembered than IOTL. The POD would also allow us to let the butterflies deal with Alexander of Macedon. I'm not sure what would happen with the Roman Republic ITTL, but so far it seems that the Athenian democracy will be stronger both as a polity and as an idea. Getting rid of Jesus and Neoplatonism will allow us to eradicate the Christian “divine right of kings”, though the idea of the monarch getting his power from the divine realm is of course very widespread even in cultures not influenced by Christianity.

Still, I believe that we ITTL might see democratic ideas becoming more popular and dominant earlier than IOTL. Naturally, a democracy more directly modeled after the Athenian system will be very different from the representative democracy we are used to. Those who embrace such a democracy would probably see no trouble with slavery, but at the same time they might view the concept of “elections” as deeply anti-democratic.

An interesting question is how well the Athenian system would work in a polity larger than a city-state. Could an empire like the Roman Republic work with something similar to Athenian democracy?

Religion: No Christianity, no Islam. The very idea of the soul and the afterlife would be very different in a world without Platonic thought. If agnostics like Protagoras and atheists like Diagoras became more influential, their ideas about the divine might become more accepted and widespread. Humans being what they are, I doubt we'd get a Dawkinite secular paradise, but perhaps non-belief could become a respectable or at least tolerated idea along with belief in whatever gods this TL will give us. In any case, I think people will stay more interested in the material here and now and be less inclined to wait for otherworldly rewards in the afterlife.

Science: Tough one. One the one hand, we'll have no Aristotle, which means no formalization of logic, no phusikes and so forth. Clearly a big loss in the science column. On the other hand, I believe that Democritus would be far more highly regarded ITTL. In many ways, I think a science based on the strict materialism of Democritus would be superior to a science based on the weird teleology of Aristotle. Could the legacy of a more highly valued Democritus compensate for the loss of Aristotelean thought? I'm far from sure, but I find it likely. The loss of formalized logic is still a hard blow to take, though.

Ethics: Relativism is the name of the game here. The Platonic obsession with finding Good with a capital G would disappear in favor of a far more flexible view. Moral realism and absolutism might not be entirely discredited, but I think more relativistic and nihilistic ideas would find a stronger philosophical foundation ITTL.

Combine this with the changes to religious thought and I think the very subject of ethics will become more separated from religion. If it's philosophically suspect to believe that moral rules come from divine sources, there's little reason to have priests speaking of Good and Evil.

Those are just the first few changes that pop up in my head. Feel free to criticize and add to this list.

 

[jabberwoky]

I like this

 

[AtriumCarceris]

Back in my very first Philosophy course my professor said something. It was a generalisation, but as such I think it's rather accurate.

In the West, Philosophy ultimately has come to us as a reaction against the Sophists. In the East, Philosophy came to us sprung out of Sophists.

In the end, a West without Socrates is going to probably end up more Eastern-like. More systematic than the East, but with many more interesting parallels.

Of the Sophists themselves, generally they could be viewed as early sceptics. They did think and write about real "philosophical" issues and were not merely rhetoricians. As to Gorgias specifically, he did not believe that nothing existed. He was merely attacking the Parmenidean viewpoint and claiming that given the properties of what exists according to the Parmenidean view, nothing exists, as there is nothing that has those properties. It is not a particularly new thing, as Anaxemander came under similar criticism when he spoke of the Apeiron.

It is that they were concerned about teaching others to live a "good" life in the city that they taught and were concerned with rhetoric, as rhetoric was very useful for life at the time. It is also from them that we have schools like we do. Before them, a young child learned from simple observance of the adults around him. There was no real formal education. The Sophists changed that, offering structured lessons to anyone regardless of background or status, so long as they could pay.

And on one last thing, while they could be said to be sceptics, they were not universally relativists. Sophists did think about morality and question if it was a matter of simple laws and thus convention, or if it came from nature. This questioning would remain, so there's no reason to assume a more moral-relativist line of thought.

 

[Alkahest]

I like this

Why thank you! I might try to make it into a proper timeline one day, but that may hinge on me having more free time than God.

Back in my very first Philosophy course my professor said something. It was a generalisation, but as such I think it's rather accurate.

In the West, Philosophy ultimately has come to us as a reaction against the Sophists. In the East, Philosophy came to us sprung out of Sophists.

In the end, a West without Socrates is going to probably end up more Eastern-like. More systematic than the East, but with many more interesting parallels.

Could you elaborate? The idea of "easternized" Western philosophy without all the Buddhistic and Daoistic ideas sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I understand why Western thought would develop that way.

Of the Sophists themselves, generally they could be viewed as early sceptics. They did think and write about real "philosophical" issues and were not merely rhetoricians. As to Gorgias specifically, he did not believe that nothing existed. He was merely attacking the Parmenidean viewpoint and claiming that given the properties of what exists according to the Parmenidean view, nothing exists, as there is nothing that has those properties. It is not a particularly new thing, as Anaxemander came under similar criticism when he spoke of the Apeiron.

I'm aware that Gorgias was probably not a complete nihilist, but if he was more influential I think skeptical arguments against various metaphysical and ontological ideas would be more common. It seems to me that Western thought has been far too eager to encourage discussions about mystical realms beyond the material and that a bit more philosophical skepticism would be healthy, but it might be wishful thinking from me to believe that a more influential Gorgias would lead to more skeptic philosophers.

It is that they were concerned about teaching others to live a "good" life in the city that they taught and were concerned with rhetoric, as rhetoric was very useful for life at the time. It is also from them that we have schools like we do. Before them, a young child learned from simple observance of the adults around him. There was no real formal education. The Sophists changed that, offering structured lessons to anyone regardless of background or status, so long as they could pay.

They became filthy rich holding lectures about philosophy and rhetoric. Maybe that's why so many college professors seem to hate them!

And on one last thing, while they could be said to be sceptics, they were not universally relativists. Sophists did think about morality and question if it was a matter of simple laws and thus convention, or if it came from nature. This questioning would remain, so there's no reason to assume a more moral-relativist line of thought.

There's a big difference between "this is good to do because we live in specific social circumstances where doing this leads to good consequences" and "this is Good to do because there's a big glowing Good in some world of perfect ideas and abstract objects". I don't claim that to be a good explanation of Plato's theory of Forms, but I trust you get my point that ethics would look very different ITTL.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

Could you elaborate? The idea of "easternized" Western philosophy without all the Buddhistic and Daoistic ideas sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I understand why Western thought would develop that way.

Understand the motivations of the Sophists, to live properly in the city, to function in the city, to be successful in the city. The city is a (Greek) democracy, so one has to learn these things because a democracy requires active participation of all citizens.

Essentially that's a strange, Western Legalism right there. Of course it's also nothing like Legalism for a variety of reasons, but it shares enough similarities (They also focus significantly on the state and how to work properly within it) that I can believe that thought risen out of Sophists will probably vaguely echo Eastern thought.

In previous threads on this subject, I've also suggested a weird Eastern-like early Stoicism as a possible thing that might come out of Sophists. After all, Stoicism has similar goals to Confucianism. This ATL Stoicism will lack the influence of Plato and Aristotle, and instead focus on the cultivation of virtue merely as to conduct proper life in the city, and will probably disagree strongly with the Sophists on their scepticism, advocating knowable truths and ethics. At its possible best, it'll replace Aristotle as the creators of a good systematised logic, and will either not comment on physics and metaphysics, or be Parmenidean in that regard. Or possibly Atomist I suppose. Those are the only three choices I can see without creating something completely new.

You can even have a Taoism analogue that grows out of Parmenidean and Hereclitian ideas. Lots of possibilities there.

I'm aware that Gorgias was probably not a complete nihilist, but if he was more influential I think skeptical arguments against various metaphysical and ontological ideas would be more common.

How more common can you get? In the Hellenistic period there were already two Sceptic Schools, the Academy (which became Sceptic long after Plato when Arcesilaus became head) and the actual Sceptics. I doubt you'd get more than this.

There's a big difference between "this is good to do because we live in specific social circumstances where doing this leads to good consequences" and "this is Good to do because there's a big glowing Good in some world of perfect ideas and abstract objects". I don't claim that to be a good explanation of Plato's theory of Forms, but I trust you get my point that ethics would look very different ITTL.

Again, Sophists were not completely averse to the idea of ethics coming from nature.

 

[Alkahest]

Understand the motivations of the Sophists, to live properly in the city, to function in the city, to be successful in the city. The city is a (Greek) democracy, so one has to learn these things because a democracy requires active participation of all citizens.

Essentially that's a strange, Western Legalism right there. Of course it's also nothing like Legalism for a variety of reasons, but it shares enough similarities (They also focus significantly on the state and how to work properly within it) that I can believe that thought risen out of Sophists will probably vaguely echo Eastern thought.

Huh! I've never thought about it that way. Of course, the difference between a "Legalism" developed for a direct democracy and a Legalism developed for a monarchy would be significant. But you're right that the sophistic focus on the issues of everyday political life does share more than a passing resemblance to the principles of Chinese Legalism.

In previous threads on this subject, I've also suggested a weird Eastern-like early Stoicism as a possible thing that might come out of Sophists. After all, Stoicism has similar goals to Confucianism. This ATL Stoicism will lack the influence of Plato and Aristotle, and instead focus on the cultivation of virtue merely as to conduct proper life in the city, and will probably disagree strongly with the Sophists on their scepticism, advocating knowable truths and ethics. At its possible best, it'll replace Aristotle as the creators of a good systematised logic, and will either not comment on physics and metaphysics, or be Parmenidean in that regard. Or possibly Atomist I suppose. Those are the only three choices I can see without creating something completely new.

The POD would probably butterfly away Zeno and quite possibly even the ideas of Antisthenes, so not only Stoicism but also Cynicism rests on shaky ground ITTL. We mustn't forget the influence Socrates had on those schools of thought. Remember that Antisthenes was a student of Gorgias before Socrates snatched him away and filled his head with ethics. The thought of Antisthenes continuing the work of Gorgias instead of being his opponent and using his wit and intelligence in the service of relativism and his own wealth instead of ethics and asceticism is certainly amusing.

But something similar to Cynicism or Stoicism may certainly arise, it just won't be using the same intellectual paths as IOTL. Perhaps a schism will develop in sophism between more "extroverted" and relativistic rhetoricians and more contemplative, ethical pseudo-Stoicists who nonetheless stay active in political life?

You can even have a Taoism analogue that grows out of Parmenidean and Hereclitian ideas. Lots of possibilities there.

We can leave the real asocial navel-gazing to these guys. Misanthropic Heracliteans hermits would be fun.

How more common can you get? In the Hellenistic period there were already two Sceptic Schools, the Academy (which became Sceptic long after Plato when Arcesilaus became head) and the actual Sceptics. I doubt you'd get more than this.

Weren't most of their philosophy swept away when Christianity moved into the neighborhood?

Again, Sophists were not completely averse to the idea of ethics coming from nature.

We shouldn't downplay the relativism of sophists like Protagoras and Gorgias. Also, there's a big difference between believing in ethics coming from nature and believing ethics to be coming from some ultimate idea of Good in a realm beyond the material.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

The POD would probably butterfly away Zeno and quite possibly even the ideas of Antisthenes, so not only Stoicism but also Cynicism rests on shaky ground ITTL. We mustn't forget the influence Socrates had on those schools of thought. Remember that Antisthenes was a student of Gorgias before Socrates snatched him away and filled his head with ethics. The thought of Antisthenes continuing the work of Gorgias instead of being his opponent and using his wit and intelligence in the service of relativism and his own wealth instead of ethics and asceticism is certainly amusing.

But something similar to Cynicism or Stoicism may certainly arise, it just won't be using the same intellectual paths as IOTL. Perhaps a schism will develop in sophism between more "extroverted" and relativistic rhetoricians and more contemplative, ethical pseudo-Stoicists who nonetheless stay active in political life?

That what my meaning, yes. These ATL Stoics would be "Stoics" in that their principle ethics will be cultivation of Virtue, and that they would be dogmatic instead of sceptic, but I figure they'd be more politically tied (even more than OTL) and would also lack the specific metaphysics OTL Stoics had.

I figure this possible because Confucianism rose out of Legalism and opposed it.

Weren't most of their philosophy swept away when Christianity moved into the neighborhood?

Not that I know of no. The Academy stopped being majority Sceptic before Jesus Christ, and the actual Pyrrhonian sceptics survived long past that.

We shouldn't downplay the relativism of sophists like Protagoras and Gorgias.

Perhaps not Protagoras but Gorgias wasn't quite so relativist as that.

Also, there's a big difference between believing in ethics coming from nature and believing ethics to be coming from some ultimate idea of Good in a realm beyond the material.

There is no difference for a Greek, as the Forms are natural, and coming "from nature" can thus be a comment attributed to ethics derived from them.

All that I am saying is that while, without Socrates, we most certainly would probably not have the idea of Platonic Forms, that doesn't mean we wouldn't have other things that are deemed as part of nature where one is to get their Ethics.

 

[Max Sinister]

Who says the sophists weren't triumphant? Maybe they all emigrated to Rome and became successful lawyers. (Not completely serious.)

 

[Alkahest]

That what my meaning, yes. These ATL Stoics would be "Stoics" in that their principle ethics will be cultivation of Virtue, and that they would be dogmatic instead of sceptic, but I figure they'd be more politically tied (even more than OTL) and would also lack the specific metaphysics OTL Stoics had.

I figure this possible because Confucianism rose out of Legalism and opposed it.

So basically a more politically influential, less metaphysically suspect form of Stoicism? I like it.

Not that I know of no. The Academy stopped being majority Sceptic before Jesus Christ, and the actual Pyrrhonian sceptics survived long past that.

What I meant was that they had little lasting influence in the religious world that developed. What was the pre-Enlightenment legacy of people like Pyrrho, Arcesilaus and Sextus Empiricus in Christendom? Surely not widespread religious skepticism and a distrust of metaphysical flights of fancy.

Perhaps not Protagoras but Gorgias wasn't quite so relativist as that.

I admit to being far from an expert on Gorgias, but the little I've learned about the man suggests that he wasn't all that interested in ethics in the first place and that the views he did express were rather relativistic. Where has he expressed arguments that might come from an ethical realist?

There is no difference for a Greek, as the Forms are natural, and coming "from nature" can thus be a comment attributed to ethics derived from them.

All that I am saying is that while, without Socrates, we most certainly would probably not have the idea of Platonic Forms, that doesn't mean we wouldn't have other things that are deemed as part of nature where one is to get their Ethics.

Agreed, I don't think just getting rid of Socrates will usher in an age of ethical relativism and nihilism. But I do think that philosophers and people in general will simply not care that much about the metaphysical foundations of ethics and instead focus on the kinds of virtues necessary to live a happy and successful life. Our focus on the differences between ethical realism and ethical relativism might simply confuse thinkers ITTL. Who cares if this "really" is good in some abstract sense, what matter is if it works or not, might be their reply to our endless discussions about the reality or non-reality of moral propositions. That sophistic attitude about ethics might very well be what causes the pseudo-Stoics to rebel.

Another interesting development would be if most philosophers didn't believe in literal gods walking around handing out rewards and punishments, but their belief in the necessity of religion for social harmony would lead them to not pushing their atheistic views. Of course, this is hard to combine both with the outspoken criticism of religion coming from many sophists IOTL as well as the democratic system in Athens, it's easier to uphold these "noble lies" in a society where the masses and the elite are clearly divided. On the other hand, making atheism respectable in the ancient world might require more than the complete eradication of all Western thought. What are your thoughts on how religious thought might develop?

Who says the sophists weren't triumphant? Maybe they all emigrated to Rome and became successful lawyers. (Not completely serious.)

We didn't see Plato commissioning any golden statues of himself, so maybe my definition of "triumphant" might need a little work.

 

[CivisOccidensSum]

Religion: No Christianity, no Islam. The very idea of the soul and the afterlife would be very different in a world without Platonic thought. If agnostics like Protagoras and atheists like Diagoras became more influential, their ideas about the divine might become more accepted and widespread. Humans being what they are, I doubt we'd get a Dawkinite secular paradise, but perhaps non-belief could become a respectable or at least tolerated idea along with belief in whatever gods this TL will give us. In any case, I think people will stay more interested in the material here and now and be less inclined to wait for otherworldly rewards in the afterlife.

What you're forgetting, is that neither Christianity, nor islam, is a product of Greek thought. Christianity came out of Judaism, and islam is the product of an Arabic merchant going "Heeey....I can found a religion too!"
Though Christianity has certainly been INFLUENCED by Greek thought, it didn't spring from it. So we'd still have Christianity. And as there'd be fewer similarities between Christianity and Greek thought if you eliminate the concept of "Objective truth" from the latter, we'd probably see a more "Jewish Christianity", or rather: A Christendom staying closer to its Jewish roots.

 

[Alkahest]

What you're forgetting, is that neither Christianity, nor islam, is a product of Greek thought. Christianity came out of Judaism, and islam is the product of an Arabic merchant going "Heeey....I can found a religion too!"
Though Christianity has certainly been INFLUENCED by Greek thought, it didn't spring from it. So we'd still have Christianity. And as there'd be fewer similarities between Christianity and Greek thought if you eliminate the concept of "Objective truth" from the latter, we'd probably see a more "Jewish Christianity", or rather: A Christendom staying closer to its Jewish roots.

The only thing that could give us Christianity with a POD several hundred years before the birth of Jesus would be a miracle, and I would prefer to keep divine intervention out of this TL.

 

[Fiver]

Here's an idea for a very ambitious TL: What if Socrates had either been reduced to obscurity or if he simply never existed at all, and sophists like Protagoras, Gorgias and Thrasymachus had taken his place as the "founders" of Western philosophy?

That takes more than eliminating Socrates you also need to eliminate the pre-Socratics - Thales, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides.

What would Western thought be if it was built by rhetoricians who scoffed at the idea of objective truth and metaphysics?

That requires not just the Sophists winning out, but the views of certain of the Sophists winning out.