Sophistry

Use in the book

The sophist’s relation to philosophy is compared with the declaimer’s relation to eloquence: speaking takes the place of thinking. Another note makes displayed knowledge, wit and doctrine a parade motivated by pride, opposed to the scholar’s good faith. Sophistiqué is then glossed through disguise, adornment, paint and adulteration. Literary sophistry applies cosmetics with words, granting brilliance without beauty; necessary stylistic luster is carefully distinguished as cleanliness. The final discussion complicates a simple condemnation of apparent reasoning. Beginning from a sophism as phantom and a reported remark by Frizel, Joubert judges philosophy through its aim and effect, then adds means: a good intention does not save a path that leads astray.

Places to read

1. I, p. 156, entry 7, ¶1Philosophical speaking can substitute for philosophical thinking.
2. I, p. 408–409, entry 9, ¶1The sophist displays knowledge as a parade.
3. I, p. 409, entry begun p. 408, no. 9, ¶2The related adjective carries cosmetic and adulterating senses.
4. II, p. 723, entry 1, ¶1Literary cosmetics differ from necessary cleanliness.
5. II, p. 871, entry 6, ¶1Philosophy is tested by aim, effect and means.

Translation in this edition

The English translation uses sophistry, sophist and sophism; sophisticated in the explicit gloss carries the historical sense given there, not modern praise for cultivation. Monstre is show, not monster. In the cosmetic passage [adding] and [not] disclose contextual completions. Frizel remains as printed and the quotation is not independently authenticated.