The Sophists: The “Sellers of Words” that Socrates and Plato Fought Against (and why they were right)

In the 5th century BC, Athens was experiencing the height of direct democracy. Any citizen (a free man) could step up to the podium and influence the city's destiny. It was the paradise of the spoken word. And, at exactly that moment, a new “profession” emerged: the sophists.

They were not philosophers in the sense we understand today. They were itinerant teachers, masters of rhetoric (the art of persuasion). They charged high fees, sometimes fortunes, to teach wealthy young men how to win debates, court cases, and elections. Their motto? “Man is the measure of all things” (Protagoras). In other words: there is no absolute truth. What matters is what convinces the audience at the moment. Right and wrong? Relative. Justice? A social convention. Virtue? It can be taught just as one teaches cooking or fighting.

For the sophists, philosophy was not the pursuit of wisdom: it was a technique of power. Whoever mastered words would master the polis.

Why did Socrates and Plato declare war on the sophists?

Socrates, the man who said “I know that I know nothing,” was the complete opposite. He walked through the streets and squares of Athens doing one thing only: asking questions. He questioned politicians, poets, and craftsmen. He wanted definitions. What is justice? What is courage? What is piety? For him, truth existed, was objective and universal. And it could only be found through rigorous dialogue and reason, never through emotional manipulation.

Plato, his disciple, went even further. In the dialogues Gorgias, Protagoras, and The Sophist, he portrays the sophists as hunters of wealthy young men, sellers of a “false wisdom” that inflates the ego and empties the soul. For Plato, the sophist does not seek the Good, the True, and the Beautiful; he seeks profit and applause. He is the direct ancestor of the advertiser, the image consultant, and the influencer who sells narrative instead of reality.

Why were the sophists dangerous?

1. In politics: Athens was democratic, but fragile. The sophists taught how to turn the assembly into a spectacle of emotions. Instead of defending what was just, they taught how to defend what was advantageous. The result? Catastrophic decisions, such as the disastrous Sicilian expedition that helped lose the Peloponnesian War. Modern demagogues invented nothing — they merely update the sophistic technique.

2. In religion: The sophists relativized the gods. If truth is subjective, then piety is too. This eroded the city's moral foundations. Socrates, by contrast, argued that there was a divine and rational order in the universe. He was accused of “impiety” precisely because he questioned traditional religion, but he did so in the name of the honest search for God, not to destroy it.

3. In philosophy: They transformed the love of wisdom (philosophia) into the love of victory (philoneikia). Debate ceased to be a joint search for truth and became a competition of egos. Plato saw in this the greatest danger: a society that loses respect for objective truth also ends up losing the ability to be free.

The death of Socrates: the price of telling the truth

In 399 BC, Socrates was tried and sentenced to death for “corrupting the youth” and “not believing in the gods of the city.” Who accused him? A mediocre poet, a resentful politician, and an orator, three typical figures of the Sophist environment or influenced by it. Socrates was not a Sophist, but he was perceived as a threat because he exposed their sham. His method of questioning showed that the “experts” of the time truly knew nothing.

He could have fled. His friends arranged his escape. But Socrates chose to die. Why? Because fleeing would be admitting that the truth is worth less than life itself. He drank the hemlock with serenity, discussing the immortality of the soul until the end. It was the final act of consistency by a man who devoted his life to proving that there is something greater than the opinion of the majority.

Plato never forgot. He founded the Academy and spent the rest of his life fighting relativism. And he was right.

And today? The Sophists never died — they just changed clothes

Look around. Social media, fake news, “narratives,” cancel culture, politicians who change their positions according to opinion polls, influencers who sell “personal truths” as if they were merchandise. The sophisticated relativism of the 21st century (“my truth,” “your truth”) is the old Sophism with an Instagram filter.

When someone says that “there is no truth, only interpretations,” they are repeating Protagoras. When a leader manipulates emotions to gain power, they are applying Sophist rhetoric. When education becomes training in “persuasive communication” skills instead of the formation of character, the Sophists win.

Socrates and Plato remind us that a society that abandons the pursuit of objective truth and virtue is doomed to chaos. It is not an exaggeration: it is history.

That is why I defend Socrates with all my strength. He did not die for “corrupting the youth.” He died because he refused to corrupt them. He preferred the hemlock to betraying what he considered the highest good: reason and truth.

And as long as there are people willing to question, to engage in dialogue, and to seek what is truly just, rather than merely what is convenient, the spirit of Socrates remains alive.

And the Sophists, well… they are still selling words. But now we know the price they carry.

By Ketty Williams