For more on the Sophists, see the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sophists/

I'd also recommend the HoP episode:

https://historyofphilosophy.net/sophists
Audio: https://hopwag.podbean.com/mf/feed/6qa8mu/HoP_014_Making_the_Weaker_Argument_the_Stronger___the_Sophists.mp3

References:
J.M. Dillon and T. Gergel, The Greek Sophists (London: 2003).

G.B. Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement (Cambridge: 1981).

#sophists #sophistry #philosophy #HistoryOfPhilosophy #podcasts

Followup:

• I generally detest horse race, ideological, and outrage topics or discussion.
• Procedure, law, precedent, rules, and convention are spot on.
• I'm mixed on identity politics. I feel much of this in reality addresses the two elephants in the room, class and power.
  
• I absolutely acknowledge that badges which cannot be removed influence lived experience and opportunities profoundly, including ethnicity, gender, physical attributes, speech, and deeper signifiers such are religion, culture, and belief. #manifestation or #cognizability of social and political signifiers occupies much of my thinking.
• I draw sharp lines at beliefs or advocacy in which identity is the sole or primary signifier, most especially of inclusion or exclusion from basic rights. And absolutely as a basis for oppression or violence. Individual character matters far more, and for any generally-acknowledged identity there are excellent and abysmal exemplars. Neither makes the other.
• A specific Identity-orientation doesn't make you a good person. Being a good person makes you a good person. MLK was right, it is about content of character.
• Everyone has flaws.
• We're products of, but not slaves to, our environments).
• Some flaws are forgivable or excusable. Some are not. Drawing boundaries can be dificult, but this doesn't mean it cannot or should not be done.
• If at all possible punch up, protect the vulnerable or oppressed, speak truth to power, and hold it to account.
• Be inclusive to the extent possible, but ...
• Be absolutely intolerant of intolerance.
• The ultimate service of a polity is to its own common weal.

I think on these (and far too many other) points constantly. My understanding has evolved considerably, much of it recently, in middle life.

Max Weber defined government, in a much misinterpreted prase, as "the only human community which lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimated use of physical force". ALL TERMMS ARE SIGNIFICANT. Far too many readers focus on "use of physical force", but any playground bully, mean drunk, or capricious idiot can use violence. Government requires legitimacy, typically only bequeathed by the governed, and a monopoly on that legitimacy, meaning no other agent can make a countering claim within a given region.

The definition is reflexive and tautological:

• An entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is a government or state, regardless of what it calls itself.
• A region with no monopoly on legitimacy is ungoverned.
• An entity lacking legitimacy, regardless of what it calls itself, is not a government.

Rather than casting this as a monopoly on force, it's far more useful to consider this a monopoly on legitimacy.

The model is, as all models are, wrong. But it is, as some models are, also useful, in two principle ways.

One is that it provides a useful lens through which to consider govenment, governance, and polity, stripped of most ideological or structural biases. We can ask how, or whether, a democracy, personality cult, autonomous collective, theocracy, dictatorship, representational republic, monarchy, company town, oligarchy, or other forms have legitimacy and/or monopoly over use of force.

The other is that in being so widely misquoted, misinterpreted, and misrepresented, it is a highly useful bullshit filter for identifying those who are either ignorant of what they speak, or are intentionally attempting to mislead, in discussions of governance.

This includes virtually all Rothbardian/Randian/Misian Libertarians and their "nonaggression principle", notably Charles Koch and Penn Gilette, both of whom explicitly cite this as the foundation of their belief. From a false premise all that follows is false.

#MaxWeber #government #MonopolyOnViolence #MonopolyOnLegitimacy #libertarianism #nap

There's much else, of couse, to consider, and this includes pointing out omissions and issues with the definition.

Legitimacy in general cannot be merely asserted but is conferred, though not always willingly or consciously. Warlords and tyrants are conferred power through threats of or actual violence. Democracies and republics through will of the people expressed through votes. Theocracies based on the interplay of beliefs, rituals, and often, coercion, convincing, voting, or affirmation. Family and tribal units through birth or marriage into, tradition, and often simple acceptance. Sortition systems are based on chance, practice, and assent to both.

There's also the questions of what governments do, to what ends, by what means, how consistently or coherently, and with what effect, which go beyond Weber's definition. But he does establish the basis on which this occurs.

And of course, the mechanisms and consequences of loss or transfer of legitimacy, monopoly, or capacity to impose will.

#MonopolyOnLegitimacy #government #MaxWeber

Common Weal, often written as one word, commonweal, but which I separate to highlight both elements. The notions are not frequently encountered and may seem old-fashioned. They are to me the essence of community.

The common element is clear.

Weal has connotations of both health and wealth, in the sense of overall welfare, sharing roots with will, "to wish, desire; be willing; be used to".

https://www.etymonline.com/word/weal

Common weal is the sense of a shared interest, striving, and achievement of health, weaalth, and prosperity within a society, that very real thing Margaret Thatcher so famously and falsely claimed did not exist. The only way a society can not exist is if it is not defined by a common weal.

The alternatives are a mob, separate factions, host-parasite, or predator-prey relationships

#CommonWeal #government #etymology #Thatcherism

But common weal is the critical and essential requirement for any viable governance, and in very substantial if not wholly the foundation of legitimacy.

#Thatcherism #etymology #government #CommonWeal

@dredmorbius While you correct misunderstandings of Weber, perhaps it would not be amiss to correct a (common) misunderstanding of what #MargaretThatcher said: her argument was not to deny the existence of society, but to point out that it doesn't exist separate from individual men and women.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/context-for-margaret-thatchers-there-is-no-such-thing-as-society-remarks

@dredmorbius Well... I'd say "from a false premise, we cannot assume the conclusion is true" (although it still could be, e.g. "the sun will rise tomorrow because the giant white stallions which pull it around the earth are very very reliable, believe me" proceeds from numerous false premises through questionable logic to a true conclusion) -- i.e. it does not at all establish the truth of the conclusion -- but I think that's probably what you meant.

[/nitpick]

On your actual point: YES.