Compare Nature Philosophy and Sophistry, highlighting relevant similarities and differences in their respective ways of thinking.
Introduction
Nature Philosophy is simply the study of the physical universe that was in control before the coming and involvement of modern science. The term is used to define the study of nature since back in the 19th century (Burnyeat, 88). On the other hand, Sophistry is the use arguments that sound true or correct but in the real sense, those arguments are not correct. This reasoning sounds totally correct and has stated reasonable but the reality of these arguments is false. Under sophistry there existed sophists the main idea behind it is the use of language so as to persuade others and mostly the persuasion happens to be false. How does Sophistry compare to natural philosophy when both are compared to each other.
Under natural philosophy, some things are observed while in sophistry the same things may also be observed or not hence leading to the similarities and differences. In both cases, there is involvement of experts who use persuasive language so as to persuade use. Both are used for the same purpose which is to enlighten us on matters that we don't know hence a similarity but the difference comes in where when we look at Sophistry most of the information that is used may be false hence not accurate but how it is placed in front of use may end up confusing us. But on the other hand, natural philosophy is information that has a reliable source hence its originality can be evidence of its truth, unlike Sophistry. In both cases, there is the use of facts which helps prove more the whole idea behind the facts but when we look closely to Sophistry these facts are not true but are more of made up facts unlike for the case of natural philosophy. Facts in relation to natural philosophy are real others even happen to have backed up evidence (Cunningham, 155).
Another similarity is that both have a purpose on a goal to achieve but the difference comes in with what these goals are for example the main goals that Sophistry was used was to persuade people into something like in politics back in Athens on to help people win during court proceedings but when we cross over to the other hand we find that the goals of natural philosophy were to acquire knowledge, learn new things and find out the truth about other things. This is a similarity between the two but also a difference emerges from further expounding the similarity (Bartlett, 16). Also, we find out that in the field of Sophistry there were personal motives like in the case of selling of snake oil to customers persuading them to buy the snake oil while clearly they know it has no value but the intention being to make money out of the customer via persuasion. On the other hand, it completely has nothing to do with other people level of believing or not if someone decides to be persuaded to believe the philosophy or not.
Under natural philosophy Aristotle shows the nature of natural philosophy which includes a few things like materials from which things come from this is one thing which is not found in Sophistry also the immediate origin or the father of a certain philosophy also another thing that is not found in Sophistry (Burnyeat,14). Come to think of it a false argument or reasoning can hardly have its origin because it has no form of originality.
There are a few similarities between the two studies Sophistry and Natural philosophy respectively but the differences between the two also clearly stand out. The paper has clearly drawn a line between the two majors after a serious study of the two issues.
References
Bartlett, Robert C. "Sophistry as a Way of Life." Political Philosophy Cross-Examined. Palgrave Macmillan US, 2013. 5-16.
Burnyeat, Myles F. "Enthymeme: Aristotle on the logic of persuasion." (2015).
Cunningham, Andrew, Sachiko Kusukawa, and Richard Oosterhoff. "Natural Philosophy Epitomised: A Translation of Books 8-11 of Gregor Reisch's Philosophical Pearl (1503)." Aestimatio: Critical Reviews in the History of Science 8 (2015): 149-161.
