ON PHILOSOPHY AND SOPHISTRY
I believe this is the difference between a philosopher and a sophist. The Greek word “philosopher” (philosophos, φιλόσοφος) literally means “lover of wisdom”. The true philosopher studies for the sake of knowledge, wisdom and ultimate truth, not making any difference whether he or she ends up receiving any retribution or recognition at all. In the sense of the original meaning of the word, a true philosopher is an amateur per necessity, but not taken as “somebody unskilled or unprofessional”, as the scurrilous and degenerate materialist society of this age would like to have it, but according to its true etymological meaning: “amateur” as meaning “impelled by love” instead of by money, fame or anything else.
Because of their very own inner tendencies for truth, true philosophers are always endowed with an inherent integrity in their pursuits in wisdom and the arts; while sophists, not being impelled by the love for wisdom or the arts, but by the acquisition of honour or mere monetary compensation, are endowed with less or no integrity at all. When putting their efforts on learning, teaching or performing only those things that can afford them renown or wealth, sophists are automatically shunned from truth. And how could it be otherwise? Their very own interests and drive put them in a situation where they cannot perceive reality objectively but only through the subjective lenses or their coveted social or economic status.
In a few words: while the priority of the true philosopher is Ultimate Truth; the true priority of the sophist is honour, influence, power, fame, manipulation or just bare monetary compensation, and in case of success each will receive exactly what truly pursued. This is why rarely will the sophist obtain wisdom comparable to the philosopher’s, and rarely will the philosopher attain wealth or renown comparable to the sophist’s.
I also believe it was because of this that the ancient Greek philosophers retrieved the prefix “philo”—meaning “lover”—from the sophist denomination, forming therefore the word philosopher or sophist. The reason seems clear in the light of this: those approaching wisdom or the arts as a means to an end, as a mere utility for gross materialist endeavours, are insulting Sophia—the inherent wisdom and creativity of the human soul—by treating Her as a harlot. And when this is considered, it is rather plain why sophists should be unworthy of the prefix “philo” (love) in their denomination. Sophists are the procurers and madams of the human soul, and procurers and madams are not precisely defined by their love towards their prostitutes.
ON PHILOSOPHY AND SOPHISTRY
I believe this is the difference between a philosopher and a sophist. The Greek word “philosopher” (philosophos, φιλόσοφος) literally means “lover of wisdom”. The true philosopher studies for the sake of knowledge, wisdom and ultimate truth, not making any difference whether he or she ends up receiving any retribution or recognition at all. In the sense of the original meaning of the word, a true philosopher is an amateur per necessity, but not taken as “somebody unskilled or unprofessional”, as the scurrilous and degenerate materialist society of this age would like to have it, but according to its true etymological meaning: “amateur” as meaning “impelled by love” instead of by money, fame or anything else.
Because of their very own inner tendencies for truth, true philosophers are always endowed with an inherent integrity in their pursuits in wisdom and the arts; while sophists, not being impelled by the love for wisdom or the arts, but by the acquisition of honour or mere monetary compensation, are endowed with less or no integrity at all. When putting their efforts on learning, teaching or performing only those things that can afford them renown or wealth, sophists are automatically shunned from truth. And how could it be otherwise? Their very own interests and drive put them in a situation where they cannot perceive reality objectively but only through the subjective lenses or their coveted social or economic status.
In a few words: while the priority of the true philosopher is Ultimate Truth; the true priority of the sophist is honour, influence, power, fame, manipulation or just bare monetary compensation, and in case of success each will receive exactly what truly pursued. This is why rarely will the sophist obtain wisdom comparable to the philosopher’s, and rarely will the philosopher attain wealth or renown comparable to the sophist’s.
I also believe it was because of this that the ancient Greek philosophers retrieved the prefix “philo”—meaning “lover”—from the sophist denomination, forming therefore the word philosopher or sophist. The reason seems clear in the light of this: those approaching wisdom or the arts as a means to an end, as a mere utility for gross materialist endeavours, are insulting Sophia—the inherent wisdom and creativity of the human soul—by treating Her as a harlot. And when this is considered, it is rather plain why sophists should be unworthy of the prefix “philo” (love) in their denomination. Sophists are the procurers and madams of the human soul, and procurers and madams are not precisely defined by their love towards their prostitutes.