, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 59–70 | Cite as

Sophistry In and As Its Course



Although sophistry has been characterized as separable from real philosophy, formal analysis does not work without it and one cannot always identify just where philosophy leaves off and sophistry begins. Whether sophistry offers anything to thinking reason has to do with what parties in dialogue do with sophistries. Sophistries can close down or open up philosophical perspectives, depending on the local work that sophistic strategies accomplish. Such local work of philosophers is rarely available to analyses of docile texts, but they can be furthered by ethnomethodological studies of illustrative philosophical argumentation presented and analyzed in videotaped format.


Tibetan debating Ethnomethodology Sophistry Philosophy 


  1. Jetsun Chogyi Gyaltsen. 1997. (Se ra rJe btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan [1469–1546]). dBu ma’i spyi don skal bzang mgul rgyan. Bylakuppe (India): Sera Je Computer Project.Google Scholar
  2. Plato. 1961. Euthedymus. In The collected dialogues of Plato, ed. Edith Hamilton, Huntington Cairns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Yongdzin. 1979. (Yongs ‘dzin Phur bu lcog Byams pa tshul khrims rgya mtsho [1825–1901]). Tshad ma’i gzhung don ‘byed pa’i bsdus grva’i rnam bzhag rigs lam ‘phrul gyi lde mig ces bya ba las rigs lam che ba’i skor gyi rnam par bshad pa zhugs so. Bylakuppe (India): Sera Monastic University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations