UNIT 3 THE SOPHISTS

Contents

3.0. Objectives
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Protagoras
3.3. Prodicus
3.4. Hippias
3.5. Gorgias
3.6. The Lesser Sophists
3.7. Let Us Sum Up
3.8. Key Words
3.9. Further Readings and References
3.10. Answers to Check Your Progress

3.0. OBJECTIVES

In this Unit we explain in detail the Sophist movement and their philosophical insights that
abandoned all abstract, metaphysical enquiries concerning the nature of the cosmos and
focused on the practical issues of life.

By the end of this Unit you should know:

Their foul or fair argumentation
Epistemological and ethical skepticism and relativism of the Sophists
The differentiation between the early philosophers and Sophists
The basic philosophical positions of Protagoras, Prodicus, Hippias and Gorgias

3.1. INTRODUCTION

Sophist movement flourished in 5th century B.C., shortly before the emergence of the Socratic
period. Xenophon, a historian of 4th century B.C., describes the Sophists as wandering teachers

1
who offered wisdom for sale in return for money. The Sophists were, then, professional teachers,
who travelled about, from city to city, instructing people, especially the youth. They were paid
large sums of money for their job. Until then teaching was considered something sacred and was
not undertaken on a commercial basis. The Sophists claimed to be teachers of wisdom and
virtue. These terms, however, did not have their original meaning in sophism. What they meant
by these terms was nothing but a proficiency or skillfulness in practical affairs of daily life. This,
they claimed, would lead people to success in life, which, according to them, consisted in the
acquisition and enjoyment of material wealth as well as positions of power and influence in
society.

THE INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT

The epistemological and ethical skepticism and relativism of the Sophists reflected a reaction
against the abstract and metaphysical philosophy of the pre-Socratic thinkers. The earlier Greek
philosophers had been chiefly interested in investigating the ultimate nature of the cosmos. Their
systems excluded one another. In fact the Sophists’ attention was diverted from the problem of
Nature to problem of Man by the diversity of opinions found among the early Greek
philosophers. Faced with this baffling array of conflicting theories of the world, the Sophists
came to the conclusion that the lack of agreement among nature philosophers was due to the
inherent limitations of the human reason. The Sophists however subjected the human reason to a
searching criticism. As a result they came to a thoroughly relativistic conclusion, denying all
objectivity to knowledge and thus paving the way for skepticism.

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT

Political life gained momentum in Greece after the Persian Wars (500 – 449 BC) and this was
particularly the case in democratic Athens which became the centre of intense political, cultural
and economic activity in the region. The free citizen was expected to play an active role in the
affairs of the state, and so he had to be trained to share greater political responsibilities. Mastery
of rhetoric and oratory was of considerable importance in building up a political career. In fact
the Sophists considered speech as a powerful weapon with which the speaker might bewitch his
audience and induce them to accept his views. In a Greek democracy, there was money to be
made by winning lawsuits, and the Sophists claimed to be able to teach the right way of winning
lawsuits. By instructing the youth in political eristic skills, the Sophists helped create a new
aristocracy of intellect and ability, naturally frowned upon by the older aristocracy that lived by
conventional wisdom in knowledge and conduct.

SOPHIST TEACHINGS: MAIN FEATURES

As has been pointed out, the Sophists were concerned to explore problems of knowledge and
conduct rather than the structure of the universe or the ultimate constituents of reality. Their
acquaintance with earlier philosophers had convinced them that it was impossible ever to attain

2
certain knowledge of external reality, that human reason could not solve the riddle of the
universe. The more pertinent, therefore, was an enquiry into the very nature of human knowledge
and the practical rules of moral conduct. Thus, the chief contribution of sophist thought concerns
basic questions in ethics and epistemology as well as the proper method and goal of rational
enquiry. This represented a major change of philosophical interest from the problems of nature to
the problem of man though this change is best seen in the philosophy of Socrates.

EPISTEMOLOGY
Pre-Socratic philosophers, while investigating the nature of reality, had taken for granted the
competence of human reason to attain truth. It never occurred to them to criticize the intellect
itself. It was this very assumption that the Sophists called in question; for, why else should these
great thinkers arrive at conflicting, even contradictory, conclusions about the nature of reality
since they all were investigating the same object? The conclusion arrived at by the Sophists was
that knowledge depends upon the particular knower, that what seems true to him is true for him,
that there is no objective truth, but only subjective opinion. Protagoras’ famous dictum, namely,
‘Man is the measure of all things’ is a repudiation of the paradoxical conclusions of the nature
philosophers in favour of the common sense judgments of the individual man. Such a view
would make the individual a law unto himself in matters of knowledge. There may be as many
views of the same thing as there are individuals, yet all will be true. Likewise, two opposite
statements on the same subject may both be true, each relative to the individual making it. This
being so, there is no point in attempting to demonstrate the truth of a statement that is acceptable
to all; rather, it is the business of the Sophist to persuade people to embrace one of the two
opposing statements rather than the other.

ETHICS
The ethical views of the Sophists are of a piece with their epistemology in that these views
follow natural from the subjectivism and relativism of their theoretical position. If knowledge of
reality is impossible, then knowledge of right and wrong is impossible; there is no universal right
and wrong so that each person is free to make ethical choices according to his conscience. If it
was conflicting cosmologies of early Greek thought that generated the Sophists’ epistemological
skepticism, it was the diversity of customs, morals and traditions prevailing in various nations
that led them to question the validity of absolute, objective standards of action and value.
Sophism differed from the early Greek philosophy not only in regard to subject matter, namely,
metaphysics and epistemology, but also in the method and the proper goal of philosophical
investigation.

METHOD OF ENQUIRY
The method of the Sophists was “emperico-inductive” while that of the early philosophers
was, in the main, deductive. The latter would typically start with a general principle, and then
proceed to explain the phenomena in accordance with that principle. The Sophists, on the other
hand, started with particular observations and facts. They would have collected a plentiful store
of them from their travels. From these they would draw their conclusions, partly theoretical and
3
partly practical. For instance, having studied a store of facts concerning differences of opinion
and belief, they would come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have any certain knowledge
universally valid for all.

THE GOAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL ENQUIRY

Because they were knowledge skeptics, the Sophists did not aim to establish objective norms
or discover necessary truths from their investigations. Here, again, they differed from the early
Greek philosophers whose primary aim was finding out the truth. The cosmologists wanted to
find out the objective truth about the world. The Sophists, on the other hand did not expect to
reach objective truth, but only relative, subjective truth. They set themselves the modest task of
teaching the art and control of life. In other words, their goal was practical, not speculative.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SOPHIST THOUGHT

The sophistic movement of 5th century BC represents a phase of transition. It reveals a
growing distrust of the power of human reason to solve the riddle of the universe and a
consequent lack of faith in traditional values and institutions. This movement is radically
skeptical and revolutionary; it is indifferent and even hostile to metaphysical speculation; in
calling attention to the problem of man, however, it necessitates a thorough examination of the
problem of human knowledge and conduct, and ushers in the Socratic period.

On the positive side, we might note that the Sophists made philosophy accessible to the
common man, turned attention away from the contemplation of external nature to man himself.
Secondly, they fostered the spirit of critical reflection on all fields of human life and thought.
They compelled philosophers to examine the thinking process itself and this led to the
formulation of a theory of knowledge. Likewise, their use of logical fallacies and sophisms made
it necessary to study the correct laws of thought. In time, this led to the development of dialectic
(Plato) and logic (Aristotle). In the same way radical criticism of the common notions of right
and wrong, of public and private justice compelled a reexamination of the foundations of ethics
and politics.

On balance, then, it must be conceded that the Sophists were a great educative force in Hellas.
They forced philosophy to be built upon more solid foundations, to examine more closely the
fundamental concepts of knowledge, truth, right and wrong, the meaning and purpose of human
institutions and religion.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of the unit.

4
 1) Explain the epistemological position of Sophists.

………………………………………………………………………………………...………
………………………………………………………………………………...…………………
…………………………………………………………………

2) Writer a short note on Sophist’s ethics.

………………………………………………………………………………………...………
………………………………………………………………………………...…………………
…………………………………………………………………

MAJOR SOPHIST THINKERS

3.2. PROTAGORAS
LIFE
Protagoras was born about 481 BC at Abdera in Thrace. He is believed to have come to
Athens sometime by the middle of the century. Pericles entrusted him with the task of drawing
up a constitution for the colony of Thurio, founded in 444 BC. He was back at Athens in 431 and
during the plague in 430 which killed two of Pericles’ sons. The story goes that Protagoras was
charged with blasphemy because of his book on the gods, fled the country before trial, and was
drowned on the crossing to Sicily.

TEACHINGS

EPISTEMOLOGY
Protagoras is best known for his dictum: “Man is the measure of all things, of things that are
that they are, of things that are not that they are not”. Controversy surrounded the precise
signification of the terms ‘man’ and ‘things’. Does ‘man’ refer to individual man or man in the
specific sense? Does ‘things’ mean physical objects only or does it include objects of thought
(eg. ethical values) as well? In Plato’s Theaetetus, the above saying of Protagoras is interpreted
in the individualistic sense in regard to sense perception. When the same wind is blowing, one
may feel chilly, another not. Socrates asks if we should agree with Protagoras and say that the
wind is cold to the one who feels chilly and not to the other. From this it is clear that Protagoras
is taken to mean the individual man, and not man in the specific sense. Moreover, it is to be

5
noted that the Sophist does not mean that the wind appears cold, but that it is cold to one man’s
sense perception, while to another’s it is not.

ETHICS
Against this interpretation it is pointed out that in the Protagoras of Plato, the Sophist is not
represented as applying his dictum to ethical values in the individualistic sense. One might say,
in answer to this objection, that what is true of objects of sense perception need not necessarily
be true of ethical values. If, however, it is further objected that since Protagoras uses the term ‘all
things’, he must be taken to mean both objects of sense perception and objects of abstract,
conceptual thought and intuition (= values). This objection can be countered in two ways. First, it
is far from clear whether Protagoras intended to bring together both material and spiritual objects
under the term ‘all things’. Secondly, objects of sense perception (= material objects) are of a
kind that cannot become the subject of true and universal knowledge whereas ethical values are
of a kind that can become the subject of true and universal knowledge. This was the view of
Plato himself. Not that Protagoras subscribed to such a view; he did not. But point is that sense
perception, and intuition of values do not stand or fall together in relation to certain knowledge
and truth for all.

We still have to find out Protagoras’ actual teaching in regard to ethical judgments and values.
In the Theaetetus he does set forth a relativistic view of ethical judgments that is characteristic of
his theory of knowledge: he declares that whatever practices seem right and praiseworthy to any
particular State are so for that State. At the same time, he also urges that the wise man should
attempt to substitute sound practices for unsound. In other words, all kinds of ethical views are
true relatively, yet some may be ‘sounder’ (= more useful, expedient) than others and it is beauty
of the wise man to promote these sounder practices. When we come to the Protagoras we find
in the Sophist’s words hints of a natural law common to all men. Plato depicts him as saying that
the gods have bestowed on all men a proper sense of righteousness, moderation and respect for
others, which are absolutely necessary for the existence and functioning of the State; otherwise
the State would not exist at all. This is a peculiar domain of human activity that is quite different
from all others. For instance, a city could function properly even if only a few possessed musical
skills, but it would not, if only a few citizens possessed a proper sense of rights and obligations
enjoined by just laws. Now, does this contradict the relativism of Theaetetus? What Protagoras
seems to mean is this: law in general is founded on certain ethical tendencies implanted in all
men, but that the differences of law found in individual States are relative. On this view, the law
of one State will not be ‘truer’ than the law of another State, but it may be ‘sounder’. The State
of city community would be the determiner of law, and not the individual. Yet, its laws will only
be relatively true with reference to the legal code of another State, no more true or no less. Now,
Protagoras was an upholder of tradition and social convention. He laid great emphasis on the
importance of education, of imbibing the ethical traditions of the State while admitting that the
wise man may lead the State to the formulation of ‘better’ laws. As far as the individual citizen is
concerned, the proper course is to be faithful to tradition, to the accepted code of the community.
This is so because no one ‘way’ is ‘truer’ than another. It is as though Protagoras would say: do
not set up your private judgment against the law of the State, for no one code is ‘truer’ than

6
another. In this way, Protagoras is able to reconcile his relativism with respect for tradition and
custom, a relativism that had seemed to many to be intentionally revolutionary.

RELIGION

Of Protagoras’ work On the gods only a fragment has come down to us. In this extract he
expresses a characteristic skepticism regarding the existence and nature of gods. Such a
statement may easily be interpreted as subversive of faith in religion. In fact, however, this is not
so. In the Protagoras the Sophist recommends submission to one’s inherited faith just as he
advocated obedience to the laws of the State and for much the same reason: if we cannot be
certain of absolute truth, why throw out the religion of our fathers! At any rate, Protagoras’
attitude is not really so destructive as believers of a dogmatic faith might suppose. The fact of the
matter is that Greek religion was not based on a reasoned faith; its main thrust was worship
rather than dogmatic affirmations and negations. Although the general tendency of sophist
thought was to weaken men’s trust in tradition, Protagoras personally was a conservative in
temper and had no intention of educating revolutionaries. On the contrary he claimed that his
task was to educate good citizens. Ethical tendencies innate in all men can only come to fruition
in organized societies. A good citizen should, therefore, strive to realize this aim by absorbing
the social tradition. This tradition is not absolute truth, but it is the norm for a good citizen.

ERISTIC
As regards eristic practices, Protagoras’ views stem directly from his relativistic theory. On
every subject, he argued, it was possible to have more than one opinion. The dialectician and
rhetorician would do well to develop different opinions and arguments. He would shine best
when he made the weaker side appear the better. Enemies of sophism have interpreted this to
mean making the morally worse cause appear the better. However, by ‘weaker side’, Protagoras
did not necessarily mean a morally worse side. In a court case this could mean presenting the
case of a man who is too weak to defend himself, or presenting a case the justice of which it is
difficult to establish with hard evidence. It is true that in the hands of unscrupulous rhetoricians
and lawyers, this principle easily degenerated into unscrupulous advocacy; but such a motive
could not be attributed to Protagoras.

LINGUISTICS
Protagoras led the way in the study of the science of grammar. His distinctive contribution
relates to classification of different kinds of sentence and the terminology of genders of nouns.

Check Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

7
 b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) Explain the epistemological position of Protagoras.

………………………………………………………………………………………...………
………………………………………………………………………………...…………………
…………………………………………………………………

2) Write a short note on the ethical philosophy of Protagoras.

………………………………………………………………………………………...………
………………………………………………………………………………...…………………
…………………………………………………………………

3.3. PRODICUS
Prodicus was a native of the island of Ceos in the Aegean. Like most of his compatriots, he is
said to have possessed a pessimistic disposition. In the pseudo-Platonic dialogue Axiochus it is
said that he considered death desirable as it afforded an escape from the evils of life. Fear of
death, he argued, is irrational because death concerns neither the living nor the dead. The basis of
this argument is the notion that life and death are mutually exclusive.

Prodicus’ chief contribution was in the area of theogony. In the beginning men worshipped
natural objects – sun, moon, rivers, lakes, fruits etc. - as gods because these were useful to them.
The cult of the Nile in Egypt was an example of this practice. The next stage was worship of
inventors of various arts and crafts – agriculture, viniculture, metal work etc. So they had such
deities like Demeter, Dionysus, Hephaestus. This view rendered prayer superfluous and for this
reason, Prodicus got into trouble with authorities at Athens. Like Protagoras, Prodicus too was
interested in the study of language. He wrote a treatise on synonyms. His style was markedly
pedantic.

3.4. HIPPIAS
A younger contemporary of Protagoras, Hippias of Elis was a polymath, being well versed in
mathematics, astronomy, grammar and rhetoric, music, literature, history and mythology. He
prided himself on his sartorial skills. His list of the Olympic victors paved the way for the later
Greek system of dating by means of the Olympiads. In the Protagoras, Plato attributes to him the
view that law is the tyrant of men, which forces them to do many things contrary to nature. It
appears that Hippias wanted to draw attention to laws of the city state that were at variance with
natural laws.

8
 3.5. GORGIAS
A Sicilian by birth, Gorgias came to Athens in 427 BC as ambassador of his native State. He
was a champion of panhellenism.

METAPHYSICS
Gorgias’ early interests were the philosophy of Empedocles and natural sciences. It is
generally believed that he wrote a book on Optics. Later, he was attracted to skepticism by the
dialectic of Zeno and published a book entitled On Not-being or Nature. It is learned from this
work that Gorgias reacted to the Eleatic dialectic differently from Protagoras. While the latter
held that everything is true, Gorgias asserted an absolute nihilism. The three cardinal
propositions of this doctrine are the following: (1) Nothing exists; (2) If there were anything,
then it could not be known; (3) Even if there were knowledge of being, this knowledge could not
be imparted.

It need hardly be said that these ideas struck one as being provocative in the extreme. But did
Gorgias seriously offer it as his metaphysics? Some thought he did. Others took it as a joke
intended to show what can be done by a clever use of words. It may well being that Gorgias
wished to employ the Eliatic dialectic in order to render Eliatic philosophy meaningless.
Afterwards, Gorgias renounced philosophy and turned to rhetoric.

RHETORIC
Gorgias saw that to master rhetorical art one had to master the art of persuasion and this
required a close study of practical psychology. He deliberately practiced the art of suggestion
which could be used for both practical and artistic ends. With regard to artistic use Gorgias
proposed the concept of justifiable deception, of which tragedy was an obvious example.
Tragedy’s power over the spectator is compared to the effect of purgatives which reminds one of
Aristotle’s theory of Katharsis.

3.6. THE LESSER SOPHISTS

Amongst the lesser figures of the Sophist movement one might mention Callimachus who put
forward the ‘might is right’ doctrine; Lycophron who asserted that nobility is a sham, that all
men are equal; Thrasymachus of Chalcedon who figures in the Republic as the brutal champion
of the rights of the stronger; and Antiphon of Athens who denounced the distinction between
nobles and commons, Greeks and barbarians as itself a barbarism.
Check Your Progress III

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of the unit.

9
 1) State the philosophical thoughts of Prodicus.

……………………………………………………………………………………….................
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................…………………………………………………
……………...

2) What are the philosophical contributions of Hippas and Gorgias?

………………………………………………………………………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………...

1.7. LET US SUM UP

We have already seen how some of the sophists held a relativistic view on cognition and
knowledge. Their philosophy contains criticism of religion, law, and ethics. Though many
sophists were apparently as religious as their contemporaries, some held atheistic or agnostic
views.In some cases, such as Gorgias, there are original rhetorical works that are fortunately
extant, allowing the author to be judged on his own terms. In most cases, however, knowledge of
sophist thought comes from fragmentary quotations that lack context. Many of these quotations
come from Aristotle, who seems to have held the sophists in slight regard, notwithstanding his
other disagreements with Plato. Owing largely to the influence of Plato and Aristotle, philosophy
came to be regarded as distinct from sophistry, the latter being regarded as rhetoric, a practical
discipline. Thus, by the time of the Roman Empire, a sophist was simply a teacher of rhetoric
and a popular public speaker.

3.8. KEY WORDS

Judgment: Judgment is an act of the intellect in which we say something of an object by way of
affirmation or denial
Rhetoric: Rhetoric is the art of using language as a means to persuade. Along with grammar and
logic or dialectic, rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. From ancient Greece to
the late 19th Century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public
speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments.

10
 3.9. FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Barnes, Jonathan. Early Greek Philosophy. London: Penguin Books, 1987.

Borchert, Donald M. ed. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vols. 4, 8 & 9. New York: Thomson Gale,
2006.
Burnet, John. Early Greek Philosophy. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1930.
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. Vo. I. New York: Image Books, Doubleday,
London, 1993.
Craig, Edward, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vols. 4, 7 & 9. (London and New
York: Routledge, 1998.
Gomperz, Theodore. Greek Thinker: A History of Ancient Philosophy. Tr. Laurie Magnus.
London: John Murray Publishers, 1980.
Marias, Julian. History of Philosophy. New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1967.
Roochnik, David. Retrieving the Ancients: An Introduction to Greek Philosophy.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Company, 2004.
Sedley, David, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Thilly, Frank. A History of Philosophy. Allahabad: Central Book Depot, 1981.
Walsh, Martin. A History of Philosophy. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1985.

3.10. ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress I
1) Knowledge depends upon the particular knower, that what seems true to him is true for
him, that there is no objective truth, but only subjective opinion. There may be as many
views of the same thing as there are individuals, yet all will be true. Thus, there is no
point in attempting to demonstrate the truth of a statement that is acceptable to all. To fix
a truth that is valid for all and for all times is to go against the very nature of reality
which is in constant flux. Thus anything and everything can be equally true or false at the
same time depending on the experience of various individuals.

For Protagoras, two mutually contradictory statements might be equally true. But one
might be ‘better’ than the other - one view might be more normal or natural than the
other. For Gorgias, in any case of conflict of opinions, none is true. He supports this in
three paradoxical statements: (1) there is nothing; (2) even if there were something, we
could not know it; (3) even if it existed and we could know it, we could not communicate
this knowledge to others.

11
2) If knowledge of reality is impossible, then knowledge of right and wrong is impossible;
there is no universal right and wrong so that each person is free to make ethical choices
according to his conscience.

The older Sophist Protagoras declared all institutions, including law and morality, to
be merely conventional. However, he recognized the necessity of legal and moral rules
for social order.

The younger Sophists argued that the foundation of ethics is mere convention and
arbitrary agreement among men. Some maintained that laws were made by the “weak” in
order to prevent the “best” from getting their due. Others held that laws were made to
subserve class interests, to promote the interests of minority of privileged individuals.

Check Your Progress II

1) The epistemological position of Protagoras can be presented in his won saying: “Man is
the measure of all things, of things that are that they are, of things that are not that they
are not”. But the questions are: Does ‘man’ refer to individual man or man in the specific
sense? Does ‘things’ mean physical objects only or does it include objects of thought (eg.
ethical values) as well?
For example, When the same wind is blowing, one may feel chilly, another not. This
means the wind is cold to the one who feels chilly and not to the other. From this it is
clear that Protagoras is taken to mean the individual man, and not man in the specific
sense. Moreover, the Sophist does not mean that the wind appears cold, but that it is cold
to one man’s sense perception, while to another’s it is not.

2) In the Theaetetus he does set forth a relativistic view of ethical judgments. He declares
that whatever practices seem right and praiseworthy to any particular State are so for that
State. At the same time, he also urges that the wise man should attempt to substitute
sound practices for unsound. In other words, all kinds of ethical views are true relatively,
yet some may be ‘sounder’ (= more useful, expedient) than others and it is beauty of the
wise man to promote these sounder practices.

What Protagoras seems to mean is this: law in general is founded on certain ethical
tendencies implanted in all men, but that the differences of law found in individual States
are relative. On this view, the law of one State will not be ‘truer’ than the law of another
State, but it may be ‘sounder’. The State of city community would be the determiner of
law, and not the individual. Yet, its laws will only be relatively true with reference to the
legal code of another State, no more true or no less. As far as the individual citizen is
concerned, the proper course is to be faithful to tradition, to the accepted code of the
community. This is so because no one ‘way’ is ‘truer’ than another. In this way,
Protagoras is able to reconcile his relativism with respect for tradition and custom.

12
Check Your Progress III
1) Prodicus considered death desirable as it afforded an escape from the evils of life. Fear of
death, he argued, is irrational because death concerns neither the living nor the dead. The
basis of this argument is the notion that life and death are mutually exclusive.

His chief contribution was in the area of theogony. In the beginning men worshipped
natural objects – sun, moon, rivers, lakes, fruits etc. - as gods because these were useful
to them. The next stage was worship of inventors of various arts and crafts – agriculture,
viniculture, metal work etc. So they had such deities like Demeter, Dionysus,
Hephaestus.

2) For Hippias, law is the tyrant of men, which forces them to do many things contrary to
nature. It appears that Hippias wanted to draw attention to laws of the city state that were
at variance with natural laws.

Gorgias proposed absolute nihilism. The three cardinal propositions of this doctrine are
the following: (1) Nothing exists; (2) If there were anything, then it could not be known;
(3) Even if there were knowledge of being, this knowledge could not be imparted.

13