Author manuscript, published in "Hypatia 15, 4 (2000) 97120"

Barbara Cassin
Who's Afraid of the Sophists?
Against Ethical Correctness
SOPHISTIQUE, subst. A. Ensemble des doctrines, ou lus e!actement attitude
intellectuelle commune des rinciau! sohistes grecs "Protagoras, #orgias,
Prodicus, Hiias, etc.$. B. "%om commun.$ Se dit d&une hilosohie de
raisonnement 'erbal, sans solidit( et sans s(rieu!.
SOPHISTICS, substanti'e noun. A. The set o) doctrines, or more recisel*, the
shared intellectual attitude o) the main #ree+ sohists "Protagoras, #orgias,
Prodicus, Hiias, etc.$. B. "Common noun.$ Used to re)er to a hilosoh* o)
'erbal reasoning, lac+ing solidit* or seriousness.
"A. ,alande, ed., Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie$.
I. The Occasion
The set o) doctrines or teachings associated -ith the indi'iduals +no-n as the sohists
is termed sophistike, in .rench, sophistique. The e!ression is lac+ing in English, -hich uts
one in the osition o) either using the ad/ecti'es &sohistic&, &sohistical&, or o) using the
dismissi'e e!ression &sohistr*&. As I shall be arguing )or a s*stematic role o) these doctrines,
I -ill as+ *our indulgence and introduce the neologism &sohistics& )or no-. The 0uestion is,
-h* should one be interested in sohistics toda*1
As occasional causes are b* )ar the most signi)icant and the most e))icient, I -ould
li+e to e!lain )irst o) all -here m* o-n interest in sohistics stems )rom. It arose )rom the
encounter o) t-o tra/ectories -hich -ere ri'als in all senses o) the -ord. The )irst hase o)
stud*, both triumhant and con)used, too+ lace under the sign o) Heidegger. Because
e'er*thing ossessed a rene-ed intelligibilit*, e'er*thing also )it neatl* into the alm o) one&s
hand. The histor* o) hilosoh* -as hilosoh* itsel), -hich the 0uestion o) Being enabled
one to scan and re-or+ into eochs and turnings, -ith a hitherto une0ualed s+ill -hich +ne-
-hen to be sel)2e))acing. It is 'er* di))icult to rid onesel) o) the idea that hilosohers toda*
do an*thing else besides re-or+ Heidegger&s gesture, e'en the anti2Heideggerians -ho sought
their training in 3ant, -ith a di))erent oint o) entr* than the Kantbuch. In order to mo'e out
)rom this circumscribed territor*, no less is re0uired, doubtless, than "a$ a rede)inition o)
hilosoh* throughout its histor*, in such a -a* that this -idening o) the scoe does not
roduce a mere anal*tic restriction or moral rigidit* -hich can immediatel* be traced bac+
destinall* to the technical and technological nature o) our eoch, and "b$ robabl* some ne-
concetual characters, to use 4eleu5e&s e!ression. But the most )re0uent aroach, -hich
4eleu5e himsel) initiated or at least made use o) contemoraneousl* "using the Stoics,
Sino5a and Bergson$, is to dra- attention to the readings Heidegger )ailed to er)orm, or did
not er)orm, inasmuch as the* are held to be strategicall* imossible.
6* o-n gro-ing rigid, in this conte!t, has to do -ith the determination o) the origin
and the da-n. The #ree+ morning -hich Heidegger arranged )or us is a monomaniac and a
+letomaniac. It robs an entire arra* o) te!ts and ossibilities so that the* ma* )it under the
aegis o) Parmenides& oem, such that the Parmenides o) 789:2789; reads polis merel* as
pelein, the old #ree+ 'erb )or einai< i) the polis in itsel) is onl* the =ole o) pelein,= then =it is
onl* because the #ree+s are an absolutel* non2olitical eole= that the* could )ound the
polis, and did. The )irst reading that I )ound imossible to er)orm using Heidegger alone, in
the trul* grandiose ersecti'e o) Parmenides& un'eiling, -as #orgias& Treatise of Non-Being,
a treatise -hich, aro!imatel* a hal)2centur* a)ter the da-n, ro'ides a )ull2)ledged
demonstration o) the mechanisms or strategies than+s to -hich the Poem con)orms to
Heidegger&s dream> it is a te!t -hich criticall* e!ceeds ontolog* in its nascent state. Thus
there -as a di))erent -a* o) being Pre2Socratic.
The teachings o) the sohists ser'e as a good tool, ma*be e'en the best o) the
a'ailable tools, to roduce something li+e a ne- narrati'e o) the histor* o) hilosoh* 22 the
tale o) a ne- morning -hich ma+es one -ant to count the )ingers o) the da-n 22. as -ell as a
ne- delimitation o) the entit* called &hilosoh*& in relation to the other entities it constructs
"sohistics as rhetoric, and then as literature$.
The )ollo-ing remar+s, then, -ill ta+e the )orm o) a hilosohical and literar* stroll,
-hich resonds to an asect o) things that does not belong to our ordinar* habits "but -hich,
once one resonds to it, is as good as the* are at monooli5ing our attention$, a stroll -hich
gi'es itsel) the right to sto, along the course o) time, and collect te!ts o) a di))erent lineage
than that -hich runs )rom Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle, to Hegel, Heidegger, or
Habermas. Once these te!ts ha'e been gathered u, the* begin to resonate -ith one another.
:
This should surel* enable us to glimse ho- arti)icial the border bet-een the rational and the
irrational is, and erhas to reorgani5e the cosmos o) hilosoh*, starting )rom a richer, more
comlete, more contemorar*, or other-ise e))ecti'e oint o) 'ie-.
II. Sohistics as Historical .act and Structural E))ect
As the state o) the corus o) translations and stubborn retranslations o) the same
ancient te!ts re'eals, -e ha'e until 0uite recentl*, in .rance in an* case, been risoners o) the
image that anti0uit* sought to ro/ect o) itsel), namel*, a succession o) moments o)
e!cellence. ?et m* choice o) sohistical doctrine as an ob/ect o) research does not, at least
initiall* or not solel*, stem )rom an anti0uarian 5eal )or ill2+no-n te!ts -hich re0uire a great
deal o) hilological and historical -or+. %or, thereb*, does it originate in an interest in the
margin -here these roughl* crossed2out te!ts lie, an interest -hich -ould ma+e the margin
into an area o) research, legitimi5ing a militant athos in )a'our o) accursed thin+ers, against
debarments and e!clusion. Hence I -ill not be roosing a =rehabilitation,= and eseciall* not
one o) these rehabilitations -hich are grounded, b* means o) a circular argument, in the
modi)ications and imro'ements the* enable one to introduce into the ersistent )rame o) the
most traditional o) all histories.
Indeed, the singularit* o) sohistical doctrine is to alread* be, inasmuch as it is a
historical )act, a structural e))ect, that is, an e))ect o) the structure< the =doctrine o) the
sohists= is a hilosohical concet, -hose model is trul* ro'ided b* the real ractice o)
those -ho called themsel'es, and -ere called, sohists "indi'iduals such as Protagoras,
#orgias, and Antihon$ 22 this is de)inition A in ,alande&s Vocabulaire 22 but it is also used in
hilosoh* to re)er to one o) the ossible modalities o) non2hilosoh* 22 this is de)inition B,
-hich is as magisterial as it is m*sterious< =a hilosoh* o) verbal reasoning, lac+ing an*
solidit* or seriousness.= I -ill )re0uentl* return to this de)inition.
This is Plato&s starting2oint, and the oint -here he -elds together the t-o hal'es o)
the roblem< sohistic doctrine, -hich is a historical realit*, is at the same time arti)iciall*
roduced b* hilosoh*. The essence o) this arte)act is siml* to construct the sohist as the
;
negati'e alter ego o) the hilosoher< his bad Other. The* ha'e resembled each other e'er
since the Stranger&s comment in the Sophist that the sohist resembles the hilosoher =as the
-ol) does the dog, as the most sa'age resembles the most tame= ":;7b$. The* are so much
ali+e that e'en -hen one reaches out -ith both hands to catch one, one catches the other.
Socrates&s cathartic mid-i)er* "maieutics$, his ractice o) re)utation end u belonging to the
genei gennaia sophistik "-hich one translates as =the genuine and trul* noble art o)
sohistics,= ignoring the emhasis -hich cements the bond$. Con'ersel*, at the end o) the
dialogue, -hen all dichotomies must be recaitulated, the )inal arborescence ro'ides us -ith
the same air, -hen the issue is ho- to describe the demagogue or seech2ma+er< =-ise man
or sohist1= The decision is onl* reached -hen Theatetus states a thesis< =@e osited him as
not +no-ing= ":ABc$. In an* case, the sohist, -ho is an =imitator o) the -ise man,= is his
aron*m to e!actl* the same e!tent as the hilosoher himsel) is.
I) -e consider the Platonic dialogues as a -hole, -e can indeed discern the )igure o)
sohistics, -hich -ill hence)orth belong to the tradition. It is de'alued on all grounds>
ontologicall*, because the sohist is not concerned -ith being, but see+s re)uge in non2being
and -hat is accidental> logicall*, because he is not in ursuit o) truth or dialectical rigor, but
merel* oinion, seeming coherence, ersuasion and 'ictor* in the oratorical /oust> ethicall*,
edagogicall*, and oliticall*< his goal is not -isdom and 'irtue, )or the indi'idual or )or the
cit*, but rather ersonal o-er and gain> the sohist is e'en de'alued on literar* grounds,
since the )igures o) seech he ma+es use o), his st*le, are merel* the bulges o) an
enc*cloedic 'acuit*. I) one ma+es use o) the standard o) being and truth in order to /udge the
teaching o) the sohist, it must be condemned as seudo2hilosoh*< a hilosoh* o)
aearances and a mere aearance o) hilosoh*.
On this basis, ho-e'er, another dimension o) the Sophist comes to light -hich sha+es
u its strict organi5ation< the arte)act itsel) becomes a roducer o) hilosoh*. The sohist is
the other o) the hilosoher, -hom hilosoh* ne'er ceases to e!el )rom its domain, and
e'en )rom humanit* itsel), as -e -ill see -ith Aristotle, because the hilosoher in turn
de)ines himsel) as "merel*$ the other o) the sohist, an other -hom he ushes )urther and
)urther into a corner. Philosoh* is the child o) -onder, and, according to the )irst sentence o)
9
the etaph!sics, =all humans naturall* -ish to +no-.= ?et =those -ho as+ i) one should
honour the gods and lo'e one&s arents, or not, siml* need a good lesson, and those -ho as+
i) sno- is -hite or not onl* need to loo+= "Aristotle, Topics$. The sohist e!aggerates, as
Protagoras does regarding the gods, Antihon regarding the )amil*, and #orgias regarding that
-hich is and that -hich one ercei'es. He al-a*s as+s one 0uestion too man*, he al-a*s
deri'es one conse0uence too man*. 4ue to this insolence, hilosoh* is literall* beside itsel),
the lo'e o) -isdom is )orced to transgress the limits that it assigned itsel), and to ma+e
gestures -hich surel* do not belong to the rest o) its rocedure, such as ulling out the stic+.
In -hat )ollo-s, I should li+e to anal*5e some o) these gestures, as a goal o) m* research. The
doctrine o) the sohists is indeed an oerator -hich ser'es to circumscribe and de)ine the
scoe o) hilosoh*.
Thus the oint o) 'ie- I ha'e chosen ma+es use o) a hilosohico2sohistical
ercetion "%o'alis, in his "ogological #ragments, suggested the term =hilosohisti5e=$, the
nature o) -hich ma* be con'e*ed b* the term &e))ect&. It is an e))ect, )irst o) all, because
sohistics is an arti)icial creation, a b*2roduct o) hilosoh* Cas the difficult! $ith
terminolog! itself sho$sD. But it is an e))ect, second, because sohistics, a )iction o)
hilosoh*, re'erses the direction o) things and shoc+s hilosoh*, ne'er ceasing to ha'e an
e))ect on it. This sums u the structural 'ersion o) an in)initel* comle! histor* o) ideas
-hich, in m* 'ie-, historians o) hilosoh* are -rong to ignore.
III. The Sohistical E))ect
6* -or+ o'er the last ten *ears has )ocused on sho-ing ho- sohistical doctrine
obliges hilosoh* to re)lect on itsel), and re)lect itsel), starting )rom three moments, three
ri'ileged bodies o) te!t, -hich enable one to e!ress the sohistical e))ect, and reconstitute a
histor* o) the limit.
% Treatise %gainst a Poem
E
The con)rontation bet-een Parmenides& &n Nature' or &n the (ntit! and #orgias& &n
)hat is Not "or' &n Nature$ shall ro'ide us -ith our rimal scene. As Heidegger has sho-n,
but not onl! as he has sho-n, e'er*thing hangs on the -a* in -hich being and sa*ing are
connected "recall ,alande&s de)inition< =a hilosoh* o) 'erbal reasoning=$.
=%othing is> i) it is, it is un+no-able> i) it is and it is +no-able, it cannot be said FF
communicated.= The three theses o) the Treatise resent themsel'es as a re'ersal o)
Parmenides& Poem, -hich, )rom Plato to the resent da*, has been ta+en to sa*, )irstl*, that
there is being, since =Being is= and =non2Being is not,= secondl*, that this Being is essentiall*
+no-able, since =being and thin+ing are one and the same.= Thereb* hilosoh* -as able to
embar+ on the right ath, to +no- being qua being, and di'ersi)* itsel) commerciall* itsel)
into doctrines, disciles and schools. This series o) re'ersals should not, ho-e'er, be 'ie-ed
as an idle little game, )or it is a radical criti0ue o) ontolog*.
#orgias&s strateg*, as disla*ed in his )irst thesis, is to ha'e us reali5e that Being,
-hich is the Parmenidean hero /ust as Ul*sses is the Homeric hero, is ne'er an*thing besides
an e))ect o) the Poem. B* )ollo-ing the -a* in -hich, at the starting2oint o) the Poem, the
=-ord o) the ath= "*s$ su))ices to secrete the )ull sub/ect, -hich is identi)ied therea)ter as the
article "the entit!$, b* means o) a series o) in)initi'es and articiles, the sohist dissects the
-a* in -hich s*nta! creates semantics. I) there is a =sohism,= it resides in the =is= and its
ontological treatment, since the mere statement o) the identit* o) being, -hich leads one to
con)use the coula -ith e!istence, deri'es its entire -orth )rom an amhibol* and a
homon*m*.
The second ostulate o) the oem 22 -hich Heidegger translates aratacticall* as
=being, thin+ing, the same= ")ragment ;$ 22 mar+s the mooring2oint o) truth as
unconcealment, and then as ade0uation. Here the catastrohe is er)ect. It is enough )or me to
thin+ something, and moreo'er, to sea+ it, )or that thing to be, b* that to+en< i) I sa* =tan+s
battle in the oen sea,= then tan+s are battling in the oen sea. There is no room )or non2being,
or )or errors and lies. It is Parmenides&s ontolog* alone, ta+en at )ace 'alue and ushed to the
limit, -hich guarantees the in)allibilit* and e))icaciousness o) the discourse, -hich thereb* is
sohistical.
A
That being is a seech e))ect no- ta+es on a t-o)old meaning< -e are not siml* )aced
-ith a criti0ue o) ontolog* 22 *our urorted being is nothing but an e))ect o) the -a* *ou
sea+ 22, but -ith a claim -hich is characteristic o) =logolog*,= to use a term o) %o'alis "and
also o) 4ubu))et$. @hat matters )rom no- on is not a being -hich -ould suosedl* be
alread* there, but the being roduced b* the discourse> one must assess the magnitude o) the
shi)t in landscae, )rom the rimal scene on-ards. The sa)est identit* rincile is no longer
)ormulated as &Being is&, or &The entit* is&, but, to 0uote another sentence )rom the treatise, =he
-ho sea+s, sea+s.= The resence o) Being, the immediac* o) %ature and the e'idence o) a
seech -hich aims to e!ress them ade0uatel* all 'anish at the same time> the h*sics
disco'ered b* seech ma+es -a* )or the olitics created b* discourse. Indeed, it is here,
than+s to the sohists, that -e reach the dimension o) the olitical as agora )or an ag+n< the
cit* as the continuous creation o) language. The discourse o) the sohists is to the soul -hat
the pharmakon "oison and remed*$ is to the bod*< it induces a change o) state, )or better or
)or -orse. But the sohist, li+e the doctor, +no-s ho- to use the pharmakon, and can transmit
this +no-ledge> he +no-s and teaches ho- to mo'e, not, according to the bi'alenc* o) the
rincile o) non2contradiction, )rom error to truth or )rom ignorance to -isdom, but,
according to the inherent luralit* o) comarison, )rom a lesser state to a better state. In the
Theatetus, Protagoras, -ho ro)esses 'irtue, states this through the mouthiece o) Socrates,
-ho then de)ends him< =one has to e))ect a change )rom another condition to the better. But
the h*sician e))ects a change b* drugs, the sohist b* seeches= "7AGa$, and -ise and good
orators li+e him =ma+e cities be o) the oinion that the good things in lace o) the oor things
are /ust= "7AGc$. The entire rhetoric o) the sohists is thus a 'ast er)ormance -hich, time
a)ter time, b* means o) raise and counsel, roduces the consensus re0uired )or the social
bond. This consensus is minimal, e'en minimalist, because )ar )rom re0uiring a uni)orm unit*,
the sohistical consensus does not e'en re0uire that e'er*one thin+ the same thing
"homonoia$, but onl* that e'er*one sea+s "homologia$ and lends their ear "homoph+nia$. In
this -a*, it is hinted that the )inal motor CressortD o) olitical discourse is homon*m* "=that
G
the sentence ha'e a meaning )or each o) the meanings o) each o) its terms=$, -hich alone can
ha'e an e))ect on =the metah*sician= as much as on =the coo+,= to sea+ -ith Ponge.
7
At this oint, the distance that has been achie'ed )rom the Heideggerian da-n begins
to sin+ in. In the hilosohi5ing #reece o) altheia, the in'ention o) the cit* is non2olitical,
because the olitical qua olitical is in no -a* olitical> rather, it is al-a*s subordinate to
Being, the True, and the #ood. But in a hilosohistici5ing #ree+, -here the ontological
immediatel* re'erts to, bac+trac+s to-ards the logological, the logos enables us to gras the
'er* immanence o) the olitical, in its condition o) ossibilit*, in a ercetion -hich is more
Aristotelian and Arendtian than it is Platonic and Heideggerian. =Humans li'e together
according to the mode o) seech=
:
< the seci)icit* o) the olitical lies in the cometition o) the
logoi, go'erned b* the norm o) taste "in the sense this term has had since 3ant$, -hich =see+s
to obtain the consent o) the other,= in the midst o) a lural condition. Arendt emhasi5es that
this is -h* doing =olitical hilosoh*,= that is, =to loo+ uon olitics )rom the ersecti'e o)
truth C...D means to ta+e one&s stand outside the olitical realm.= Under the aegis o) the )irst
statement, namel*, Antihon&s assertion in &n Truth that =one citi5ens= "politeuetai tis$ no
longer re)ers to nature e!cet as something that has escaed )rom a ri'ate cre'ice into the
ublic realm, the autonom* o) the logos -hich creates the legal shere and the autonom* o)
the olitical are hence)orth intert-ined.
The ,ogos of a Plant
All o) Aristotle&s regulation o) language, in -hich modernit* is in'ented, ma*
/usti)iabl* be seen as a re/oinder to sohistics< ho- can language be tamed, ho- can it be
rendered ethical, both rior to and during its rhetorical2olitical li)e1
The resonse or come2bac+ to the rimal scene can easil* be located< it is the
demonstration o) the rincile o) non2contradiction -hich is er)ormed at the beginning o)
7
I am arahrasing .rancis Ponge&s )ormidabl* dr* statement, in Pratiques d,-criture ou
l,inach.vement perp-tuel "Paris< Hermann, 78B9$, . 9H.
:
These 0uotations are dra-n )rom =Philosohie et oliti0ue,= "es /ahiers du 0riph ;;
"Printems 78BA$, and =I(rit( et oliti0ue,= in "a crise de la culture "Paris< #allimard, 78G:$>
the original o) the second 0uotation is )rom =Truth and Politics,= in Bet$een Past and #uture
"%e- ?or+< Ii+ing Press, 78AB$, . :E8.
B
0amma 9, a demonstration -hich is scienti)icall* imossible, since the issue is the )irst
rincile, *et can be carried out dialecticall*, in the shae o) a re)utation o) the oonents -ho
claim to den* it. %o-, re)utation is the aramount -eaon o) the sohists> Aristotle, )ollo-ing
Socrates, borro-s it here )or the occasion. I) #orgias&s treatise is read in the -a* -e /ust did, it
stands in toto as a re)utation o) Parmenides&s oem. It starts -ith the seech o) the other, as
enunciati'e rocedure and thematic statement, and brings to light its catastrohic conse0uence
22 ontolog* ta+en literall* means logolog*, or in other -ords, i) Parmenides, then #orgias.
Quite s*mmetricall*, the demonstration b* re)utation starts -ith the oonent&s statement o)
the rincile, i) onl* so as to e!ress his denial, and brings to light the unsettling conse0uence
that the oonent obe*s the rincile at the 'er* moment he denies it. Sohistics ta+en
literall* is Aristotelian> i) Protagoras sea+s "-hich sohists normall* do$, he can onl* sea+
the -a* Aristotle does.
The real d*namic o) the re)utation lies in a series o) e0ui'alent relations -hich, once
the* are stated, are as sel)2e'ident as ontolog* itsel)< to sea+ is to sa* something that has a
meaning, and this meaning is the same )or onesel) and )or another. Therea)ter, indeed, I need
onl* sea+ "=Hello=$ )or the rincile o) non2contradiction to be ro'en and instantiated in the
rocess< it is imossible )or the same "-ord$ to ha'e and not ha'e the same "meaning$, at the
same time. All I need to do is sea+, or, alternatel*, =so long as the oonent sa*s something=<
Aristotle )inali5es the rocedure b* ensuring that this necessar* and su))icient condition is
resent in the 'er* de)inition o) man, and e!cluding all those -ho do not )all under his
demonstration )rom humanit*, )rom the outset, =)or such a man, as such, is li+e a lant, )rom
the outset.= The re0uirement o) meaning, once it is e0uated -ith the aim o) uni'ocit* in this
)ashion, is )irst o) all a )ormidable -ar machine against homon*m*. All those -ho re)use to
submit to this re0uirement ha'e been reduced to so much silence or noise, something rior to
language, e'er since Aristotle. The* are )ree to in0uire into =-hat is in the sounds o) the 'oice
and in -ords,= to dri'el or nonsense "blabla$, or in other -ords, into the signi)ier inasmuch as
it does not signi)*. This )reedom -ill not e'en e!tend to the con'entional shere o) human
language.
8
.rom Parmenides to #orgias, and )rom #orgias to Aristotle, let us grant that the
sohist has been chec+2mated. But much is to be learned )rom the game, u until the resent
da*.
It is u to us, in articular, to deciher the ambiguous status o) s*choanal*sis in light
o) this teaching 22 this seech -hich one a*s )or, this pharmakon -hich is bought and sold,
/ust as the sohist -ere reroached )or. .or it is ob'ious that .reud, then ,acan, occu* the
site that Aristotle assigned to the recalcitrant sohists, the site o) the signi)ier. ?et there is a
crucial di))erence, -hich changes e'er*thing< the* occu* this site as Aristotelians. Than+s to
s*choanal*sis, e'en dri'el, e'en homon*m* )all into the embrace o) meaning. .reud&s
de)inition o) the =un= "one o) the categories o) -hich, let&s not )orget, is the =sohism=$ as
=sense -ithin non2sense= stands as su))icient -itness that sea+ing )or one&s leasure or, as
,acan uts it, =sea+ing to no end= "parler en pure perte$ is toda* a sohistical acti'it* -hich
has been embraced or ta+en o'er b* Aristotelianism.
It is also u to us to gras in -hat -a* Aristotle&s gesture in the etaph!sics is
reeated in )ront o) our o-n e*es. 6eaning, consensus and e!clusion is recisel* the structure
o) -hat 3arl2Otto Ael calls =the a priori o) the communicati'e communit*.= The basic
0uestion )or Ael, -ho 'ie-s himsel) as )ollo-ing in the )ootstes o) @ittgenstein and Peirce,
but is reall* the )ollo-er o) Aristotle, is =the condition o) ossibilit* o) meaning)ul discourse
or meaning)ul argumentation.= It is the same roblemati5ation o) the notion o) an ultimate
ground> /ust li+e -ith the rincile o) all rinciles, one must both ground and cease to
ground. The resolution o) the aoria is also the same< one ta+es a ste bac+, a regress to-ards
the transcendental condition o) human language. The roo)2strateg* is the same< an oonent
is re0uired, be it Poer or Protagoras, -ho is re)uted b* sho-ing him that =the rules o) the
transcendental language2game= are such that he has =al-a*s alread* imlicitl* ac+no-ledged
their 'alidit*.=
;
In other -ords 22 those o) Aristotle, recisel* 22< =I) one is to destro* the logos,
one must surel* ha'e a logos o) one&s o-n.= ,astl*, and abo'e all, one )inds the same
e!clusion o) the radical, e'il other, -ho ersists in den*ing the =meta2institution o) all
;
=,a 0uestion d&une )ondation ultime de la raison,= trans. S. .ois* J K. Poulain, /ritique
"octobre 78B7$.
7H
ossible human institutions,= -hether it is termed language2game or decision o) meaning, and
must a* )or this re)usal b* =losing his o-n identit* as a meaning)ul agent,= namel*, suicide
or dementia. In short, Aristotle&s lants toda* -ould be headed )or the morgue or the as*lum.
But, as *ou -ill ha'e understood, the oint o) contention o) this e!clusion remains the same<
b* ma+ing an entire dimension o) seech hilosohicall* and ethicall* inaudible, one has
con)used otherness -ith nothingness.
#rom the 1eer-0oat to the Novel
The conse0uence o) the decision o) meaning is t-o)old. .irst, and most radicall*, as
-e ha'e seen, there is the e!clusion )rom the communit* o) all those -ho =sea+ )or the
leasure o) sea+ing,= in the terms o) 0amma E. The sohist, -hom Aristotle and Ael )ind so
disagreeable, is not human. But there is a second conse0uence -hich is more subtle, that has
to do -ith the toolog* o) meaning s+etched out b* Aristotle&s statement o) e0ui'alence. To
sea+ is to sa* being> such -as Parmenides&s thesis, and such, again, mutatis mutandis, is the
ordinar* regime or dail* lot o) Aristotelian language. Ordinaril*, indeed, -hen one sea+s, the
meaning o) the -ord e!resses the essence o) the thing. This is the case -hen the thing e!ists>
the essence o) the entities is the meaning o) the -ord that re)ers to them 22 i) =man= means
=animal -ith t-o )eet,= then, ro'iding man e!ists, man is an t-o2)ooted animal 22, and it is
recisel* in this that the ontological necessit* o) e!cluding =idle tal+= is rooted, all the -a* to
Heidegger. %o-, )aced -ith the sohist, the Aristotelian resonse in +ind oens u a radicall*
ne- ossibilit*. One is no longer )orced to sea+ o) something -hich e!ists in order to mean
something> one can 'er* -ell sea+ o) the =deer2goat= "-hich is the great e!amle in 1e
*nterpretatione$ -ithout utting ontolog* at ris+. One can sea+ non-being because one can
speak non2being, because -ith the language o) ossibilit* comes a meaning -hich is no
longer bound to re)erence. This is in )act -h* truth 'alues are nothing more than a 0uestion o)
sun, s*nta! and s*nthesis, bet-een a sub/ect -ho is or is not, and a redicate -hich is or is
not. Thus -e ma* utter the truth -hen -e sea+ about things -hich do not e!ist "the
statement &A deer2goat is not a co-& is true$, things -hich, -hen one sea+s about them,
continue not to e!ist. Aristotelian semantics, on its art, roduces arallel -orlds in -hich
77
true sentences assign non2e!istent redicates to non2beings 22 stemming not )rom the )alse
-hich is, but )rom the true -hich is not. .rom the ontolog* -hich has thus been reassured b*
Aristotle, the ossibilit* )lo-s o) an assumtion o) logolog*< b* sea+ing o) things -hich
ha'e no e!istence, and there)ore, in Aristotle&s terminolog*, no essence or de)inition, b*
discarding the h*sical or henomenal re)erence, one has oened u the ossibilit* o)
romoting meaning alone, meaning itsel). Kust as Parmenidean ontolog* had al-a*s alread*
become sohistical logolog*, here, on Aristotelian ground, sohistical logolog* is assigned to
a ne- d-elling2oint< literature, as a case -hich is legitimi5ed b* the interretation o) the
legein ti as smainein ti.
In the -a+e o) rhetoric, -hich had alread* chosen the e!ression =to sea+ to= o'er
the e!ression =to sea+ o),= it is an entirel* di))erent corus -hich becomes more
intelligible, that o) the second -a'e o) the sohists, still #ree+ *et alread* ,atin, and this
mar+s the incetion o) the no'el. I) the no'el is considered in this light, it sho-s itsel) to be an
e!tremel* original resonse to hilosohical rohibition. .or the no'el is sel)2consciousl* a
pseudos, and resents itsel) as such> it is a discourse -hich )orgoes an* ontological
ade0uation and )ollo-s its o-n demiurgical ath, namel*, sea+ing )or the leasure o)
sea+ing rather than sea+ing in order to mean something, and thus roducing a -orld2e))ect,
a no'elistic =)iction.= And the oularit* o) no'els, -hich resumes the )oundational tradition
o) the Homeric oems, ends u constituting the cultural a'atar o) a olitical consensus,
e!tended to the limits o) the inhabited -orld b* means o) the pa2 3omana. As 4ion said, not
e'er*one sees the same s+*, but e'en the Indians +no- Homer.
Thus the aradigm o) truth has been trans)ormed. .rom no- on, sohistics no longer
has to do battle -ith hilosohical authenticit*, but rather -ith the e!actness o) historical )act.
It is no- the ga5e o) the historian -hich brings the accusation o) the pseudos to bear against
sohistics, and its literar* +in. ,ucian&s 4o$ to )rite 4istor!, in articular, bears -itness to
the e!istence o) this ne- con)lict< the historian as mirror is comletel* oosed to the oet,
-ho is entitled to =o'erthro- the )ortress o) the Eioles -ith a stro+e o) the en,= and
de)ines himsel) b* not being a no'elist. Ho-e'er, ,ucian ractices the art o) the sohists on
sohistics itsel)> in The 0enuine 4istor!, his iron* ends u /eoardi5ing his o-n ractice< =I
7:
-ill tell the truth on one oint, -hich is that I tell lies.= Here, =genuine= histor* ta+es u the
liar&s arado! again, and against the histor* o) the chroniclers and the )aith)ul account o)
e'ents, it resonds -ith the unmatchable o-er o) in'ention.
@hen con)ronted -ith hilosoh*, the earl* sohists re)erred a consensus2building
discourse to that -hich sought to con)orm to the entit*, or to the being o) the entit*. This 'er*
shi)t )rom ade0uation to olitical and cultural consensus also imacts on the shi)t in the
rele'ant oosition< the later sohists had to con)ront histor* rather than hilosoh*. @e ha'e
thus mo'ed )rom ontolog* to the human sciences, and )rom the art o) the sohists to literature.
IV. Ethical Correctness
The eicentre o) the histor* o) hilosoh*, once it is re-ritten under the in)luence o)
sohistics as the histor* o) the delimitation o) hilosoh*, becomes the roblem o) the
regulation o) language. Ordinar* hilosoh* "o) -hich I sea+ -ith the same resect as o)
ordinar* language$ musters u all its )orces, at all le'els and b* all the means at its disosal
22Platonic, Aristotelian, 3antian, Heideggerian, ,e'inasian, anal*tic, Habermasian,
.oucauldian and e'en Perelmanian 22 to rein)orce this regulation ethicall*. As ideolog* is
lac+ing, -e are gi'en moral lectures instead. As a result, )rom Allan Bloom to Iacla' Ha'el,
the consensus that sohistics should be the rime target has reached remar+able dimensions,
e!tending as )ar as olitics.
Allo- me to return once more to the mutual demarcation o) the sace bet-een the
hilosoher and his bad other. Its most tangible e))ect is to relin0uish the distinction bet-een
good and e'il, the )oundation o) ethics, and hand it o'er to the most slier* genre, that o)
resemblance> as %iet5sche noted, =the border bet-een good and e'il disaears 22 that is
sohistics.= As a result, the t-o ma/or themes -hich hilosoh* de'elos in order to
distinguish the good side )rom the bad side o) resemblance are cancelled out b* sohistics, in
such a -a* that ethics is dislaced.
The )irst theme is that o) the mas+ o) =h*o2cris*= -hich one slis on. @e are )amiliar
-ith the accusation o) )latter* and deceit -hich runs throughout the 0orgias< rhetoric and
7;
sohistr* are eid+la -hich =sli beneath= /ustice and legislation. But generall* one )ails to
notice that Protagoras, -ho roudl* describes himsel) as sho-ing his )ace, literall* undoes
this accusation, -hen he sho-s, at the end o) his m*th, -h* the onl* mas+ one need -ear is
indeed that o) /ustice<
As )or the other e!cellences C...D i) one someone -ishes, )or instance, to be good
at la*ing the )lute or some other art, -hile he is not, he is moc+ed and
becomes angr*, and those -ho are close to him come and reroach him )or his
)oll*. I), on the contrar*, the issue is /ustice and the olitical 'irtue in general,
-hen a man -ho is +no-n to be un/ust, -hen this man ends u sa*ing the truth
about himsel) in ublic, this )ran+ness -hich re'iousl* -as 'ie-ed as -isdom,
is in the resent case considered to be madness, and one states that all must
declare themsel'es to be /ust, -hether the* are or not, and that he -ho does not
ut on the mas+ o) /ustice is mad.
The social bond is created b* retending it e!ists, and -hen hilosoh* reroaches the
sohists )or being h*ocritical, this h*ocris* is none other than the essence o) olitical
'irtue. Hence the sohistical alter ego is the one -ho drags ethics onto the olitical terrain.
The second elaboration in lieu o) a distinction is, in Aristotelian terms, that ertaining
to intention, proairesis. The sohists once again =sli= into =the same )orm as the
hilosoher,= but this time, the di))erence bet-een the t-o has to do -ith =their choice o) a
-a* o) li)e.= The intimate character o) intention ma+es it e'en harder to gras the di))erence.
This is sei5ed uon b* ,atin rhetoric and the second -a'e o) sohistics, in order to lead the
moral roblematic to its other oint o) re'ersal. =Philosohia enim simulari otest, elo0uentia
non otest= "Quintilian, &ratorical *nstitution$. In the second art o) the sentence, Quintilian
)orces one to de)initi'el* ree'aluate the )irst art> he lea'es the 0uestion o) intention to
hilosoh*, both as regards its contestable criterial status, and its concretel* or e))ecti'el*
ungrasable CinassignableD character "this is -h* hilosoh* =al-a*s resents simulations FF
counter)eit material=$, -hereas elo0uence, once again, as al-a*s, roduces the e))ect -hich is
un)ailingl* inde2 sui. Philosoh* ne'er relin0uishes its claim to unmas+ sohistics, b*
ban+ing on the concet o) intention> sohistics ne'er ceases to distinguish itsel) )rom
hilosoh* b* emhasi5ing the accounting o) e))ects. The consideration o) e))ects can match
that o) intention because the e))ect is no longer at the merc* o) a dichotom*< )aced -ith the
olari5ed dulicit* o) intention, there is or there is not an e))ect, de facto, recisel*. @hen one
79
resonds to the 0uestion o) intention -ith the e))ect, one has shi)ted the grounds o) the ethical
roblematic, the de)initional shield o) hilosoh*, onto another terrain, that o) aesthetics.
This t-o)old destabili5ation or usetting o) ethics is ob'iousl* -hat leads one to cr*
-ol). The most common name )or the -ol) toda* is =relati'ism.= This underscores in
eminentl* hilosohical, that is, Platonic )ashion that the ethical uset is deendent on the
re)usal to sub/ect discourse to the criterial 'erdict CinstanceD o) truth. Un)ortunatel* )or
-hoe'er ends u reeating him, Koseh 6oreau is one o) those -ho has maintained this most
consistentl*, )or e!amle -hen, regarding the media in articular, he denounces =the great
)ailing o) a sohistical ci'ili5ation,= one de)ined "li+e ours$ b* =technological o-er and the
o-er o) the -ord=< =the absence o) a )unction -hich can regulate the usage o) technolog*
and o) logos, -ithout -hich the one is in the ser'ice o) boundless aetites, and the other
consents to /usti)* undisclosable interests.=
9
This should be ta+en 0uite literall*, )or =sohistic
reason= is resonsible in articular )or the demise o) the gold standard, in economics< =To be
sure, gold is /ust an idol, but one -hich -as indisensable )or lac+ o) uni'ersal good )aith. @e
are merel* beginning to see the damage that this sohistic challenge to common sense and
honest* can cause.=
@hat is interesting in 6oreau&s argument is that he is intelligent enough to lead
guilt* at the right moment, thereb* /usti)*ing the imression one might ha'e )rom the outset<
one )eels anno*ed, but also sti)led b* his osition, -hich I -ould 'enture to term &ethical
correctness&. As he -rites, =one cannot a'oid being accused o) intolerance, -hen one in'o+es
the right o) truth, )aced -ith those -ho roclaim the so'ereignt* o) oinion. Ho-e'er, the
accusation o) intolerance is un/usti)ied, )or i) I assert that truth must li'e u to absolute
demands, o) -hich one must ta+e account, I do not thereb* claim that I am in ossession o) it,
or that I must imose m* 'ie- at an* cost.= This re)lection enables one to distinguish t-o
-a*s o) being an anti2relati'ist, in the current debate. One is more =crude= or unbearable than
the other, because it is dogmatic and non2critical. A osition is dogmatic -hen it oerates as i)
truth -ere not merel* a regulati'e idea, a site, but also a content that must be resected, that
9
Koseh 6oreau, Platon devant les sophistes "Paris< Irin2Lerise, 78BG$, eseciall* the 78G8
article =Qu&est2ce 0u&un sohiste 1=.
7E
one must ma+e eole resect. .ranMois .uret&s reaction against the =denunciation o)
Euroean culture= he )inds characteristic o) olitical correctness most li+el* )alls under this
categor*. .uret regrets that this ne- olitical 'ulgate leads one, on the intellectual le'el, to
=relati'i5e all -or+s o) art and o) the sirit, to -rec+ the idea o) the uni'ersalit* o) truth,
-ithout -hich the notion o) education itsel) loses its meaning.=
E
The second +ind o) anti2relati'ist ta+es care to lea'e the site o) truth emt*.
4ogmatism and relati'ism then become s*mmetrical dangers )or him. Allan Bloom, -aging
-ar against olitical correctness, thus seci)ies that =there are t-o threats to reason, the
oinion that one +no-s the truth about the most imortant things, and the oinion that there is
no truth in these matters> the )irst one asserts that the 0uest )or truth is unnecessar*, and the
second one asserts that it is imossible.=
A
Hence the right attitude, -ith due classicism, is the
Socratic +no-ledge o) ignorance. Alain Badiou&s modalit* o) anti2relati'ism ma+es )or a
radicall* di))erent ersecti'e, inso)ar as he stri'es both to demarcate himsel) )rom the
consensual discourse on ethics and to ma+e room )or a structural ercetion o) sohistics.
%otice in assing that it is hardl* inconse0uential )or such di))erent standoints to come
together on this issue. In /onditions,
G
Alain Badiou reenacts a Platonic gesture, )aced -ith
=modern sohistr*= "%iet5sche and @ittgenstein$ and its =contemorar*= )orm ",*otard,
Lort*, Iattimo and 4errida$. There is no hilosoh* -ithout sohistics, and no hilosoher
-ho does not de)ine himsel) as an oonent o) the sohist "=e'er* de)inition o) hilosoh*
must distinguish it )rom sohistics=$. Ho-e'er, it is not onl* the de)inition o) hilosoh* in
general -hich is deendent on sohistics, but also the distinction bet-een good and bad
hilosoh*<
Philosoh* must ne'er gi'e -a* to anti2sohistical e!tremism. @hen it
nourishes the dar+ desire to do a-a* -ith the sohist once and for all,
hilosoh* goes astra*. This is recisel* -hat de)ines dogmatism, in m* 'ie-<
claiming that the sohist should not e!ist, siml* because he is a er'erse t-in
o) the hilosoher. %o, the sohist must simpl! be assigned to his place.
E
=,&utoie d(mocrati0ue N l&am(ricaine,= "e 1-bat A8 "mars2a'ril 788:$.
A
0iants and 1$arfs "Touchstone, 788H$> the 0uotation is )rom the re)ace, =@estern Ci'.=
G
"Paris< Seuil, 1$. See also anifeste pour la philosophie "Paris< Seuil, 78B8$.
7A
.aced -ith =disaster,= -ith =dogmatic terror,= -hich lies in declaring that =the sohist must
not be,= and hence decreeing the =eradication o) its other,= the =ethics o) hilosoh*,= on the
contrar*, maintains =the sohist as its oonent,= and =reser'es the polemos=< =At all times,
the sohist is re0uired )or hilosoh* to +ee hold o) its ethics. .or the sohist is the one -ho
reminds us that the categor* o) Truth is emt*. To be sure, he onl* does so in order to den*
truths, and in this regard he must be )ought. But this )ight ta+es lace on the ground o) ethical
norms.= .or a dogmatic Platonism, the )irst t*e o) anti2relati'ism, the sohist as such is a
danger to ethics> )or a =Platonism o) the mani)old,= -hich re)uses to gi'e u the categor* o)
truth as understood through sohistics "-hich then becomes ethicall* necessar*, as
=oeration= and as ='oid=$, to +ee a )irm hold on hilosoh* can onl* mean to -ithdra- the
mani)old =)rom the authorit* o) language,= to not be obliged to =recogni5e the constituti'e
character o) linguistic 'ariation.=
In m* oinion, it is e!actl* at this oint that a more intelligent )orm o) terror rears its
head, i) -e are to belie'e the hilosohistical re-riting o) the histor* o) hilosoh*. Indeed, it
teaches us that the margin, the degree o) )reedom searating the act o) eradication )rom that o)
assigning a lace, is erilousl* slim. Ho- might one searate the initial gesture, -hich is
good, )rom its chain o) e))ects, -hich are bad, -hen )rom Plato to Habermas, the issue is
al-a*s Boo+ O o) the "a$s, -here the lace that is assigned to those -ho sea+ as atheists is
rison, )ollo-ed b* death -ithout burial, and boo+ 0amma o) the etaph!sics, in -hich he
-ho denies the rincile o) non2contradiction is a lant, -hose lace is outside o) humanit*1
The di))erence bet-een morals and moralism, or ethics and morals, regardless o) the chiasmas
-ith added 'alue, has *et to be )ul)illed, )rom this standoint.
Anti2Platonism seems li+e such an outdated notionP Anti2sohistics, too, seems so
outdatedP Ha'en&t -e mo'ed be*ond these e!changes o) threats long ago1 @ell, neither a
Heideggerian roblematic, nor the return to 3ant aear to be su))icient to me. The* )ail, in
an* case, to re'ent the .rench scene, -ithin hilosoh* and -ithout, )rom reducing ethical
discourse to something dangerousl* inane.
7G