nd the Socratics, Isocrates considered himself as somewhat separate from the general run of Sophists.) These Sophists believed in a relational world of being: in their worldview, there is no way for humans to obtain absolute knowledge, so they concern themselves only with probabilities. Truth, from their perspective, "shifts" according to the context of the situation. Plato, on the contrary, insists upon there being an ideal "Form," or Truth, underlying everything - even if the exterior manifestation of that Truth may be less than clear.
It is a very major shift in emphasis. Although both Plato and the Sophists might agree on the appearance of a particular Truth, they would approach it - and use it - from opposite rhetorical perspectives. For Plato, the ultimate goal of rhetoric would be to use its techniques to uncover the ideal, absolute Truth within the Appearance [this writer's emphasis upon the word]. The Sophists, oriented to real-world uses of rhetoric, would take the Apparent and construct their subsequent evolutions of argument, debate or discovery upon the Apparent's approximation of Truth.
As can be imagined of one who believes in absolutes, Plato was appalled by the dishonesty of the Sophists' approach - a dishonesty that, if not intended, was nevertheless the potential implication of the Sophist rhetorical method. It was with this basic concern i
...