Plato's Interpretation Of Apology By Socrates

The question of whether Socrates was the only real philosopher comes from one interpretation of Plato’s writings, namely Apology. Written after Socrates was tainted with the sophistic brush, scorned by society and brought to trial. In this interpretation, it is believed that Plato derided all sophists and recognised Socrates as the only real philosopher among his contemporaries, and knew of no other who could be considered as such. I however, argue that Plato never regarded, nor defended, Socrates as the only real philosopher. Rather, he presented Socrates as one of the many ‘real’ philosophers. Plato does so by making a distinction between a sophist and a philosopher. Furthermore, given Plato’s definition of what a philosopher is, there

Thus, I would argue that Plato was simply defending Socrates from the ‘sophistic shadow’, by praising him as a philosopher.
To first understand my interpretation of Plato’s defense, one must understand the development of the word ‘sophist’ and how it became a derogatory term. Before Plato the word ‘sophist’ was a well-respected title. However, as this definition changes, from here onwards ‘sophist’ will refer to a pre-Socratic sophist, a wise man. While a ‘neo-sophist’ shall hereafter refer to the men who use rhetoric and false arguments to sway others, something prominent during Plato’s time.
The Greek word sophistēs (formed from the adjective sophos ‘wise’) originally meant ‘expert’ or ‘sage’; thus, the Seven Sages were referred to as the ‘Seven Sophistai’. The ‘Seven Sages’ were men whose identity is greatly disputed, but were praised across Greece for their

I contend that the negative development of the word ‘sophist’, was in part, a result of the structure of Athenian Society. In Athenian democracy, most free individuals had an opportunity for their voice to be considered by the public audience, it gave the demos (the common people of Athens) kratos (power or following). It logically follows, that if an aristocrat wished to be powerful, and have a high standing in society, then the best way to do so would be getting the demos on their side. This ipso facto paved the way for the rise in neo-sophism, as there was a growing need for persuasive language and rhetoric in Athens. The historical context provides evidence for their influence, as Athens became increasingly more democratic during the period in which the neo-sophists were most active. The neo-sophists capitalized quite literally on the growing need for rhetorical skills in the litigious social life of Athens. Neo-sophists would charge very high fees for their teachings, resulting in only wealthy aristocrats being able to afford lessons. The neo-sophists were eventually met with opposition due to their high fees and radical challenges to convention, coupled with aristocrats employing their newly learnt rhetoric to manipulate the public by conforming to the popular opinion, rather than discussing the truth of the matter (Plato The Republic, 493a-e; Isocrates Antidosis 4,