Dissoi logoi
In ancient Greece, students of rhetoric would be asked to speak and write for both sides of a controversy. All surviving manuscript copies of are appended to manuscripts of the works of the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus, whose works describe the use of arguments for both sides of a controversy for generating epoche, suggesting a strong connection with Pyrrhonist thought. History. The composition date of the work is unknown; scholars have historically looked to the text itself for clues as to its origin, a method that produces only ambiguous results at best. One possible clue as to the  date of the work is the mention of the offspring of Polyclitus, a well-known Greek sculptor. In the (section 6.8), it is stated that Polyclitus taught his son (singular) virtue, or . However, in "Protagoras" 328c, the usually attentive Plato claims Polyclitus to have in fact two sons, not just one. The "Protagoras" dramatic events are conventionally dated to between 429 and 422 BC, so either one of the authors made a mistake in listing the genealogy of Polyclitus, or the was written before Polyclitus had another son, thus dating it to before the 420s BC. Another interesting reference possibly  dating the text is its mention of a victory of Sparta over Athens and her allies in section 1.8. At face value, most tend to accept this as a reference to the Peloponnesian War, and thus claim that the must have been written after this war's terminal date, 404 BC. While this is most probably true, it is by no means sure, because there are other instances of Spartan victory over Athens which add uncertainty to this dating, such as the Battle of Tanagra in 457 BC. Thus the is generally dated to between the 5th and early 4th  centuries BC. The work is largely written in the Doric dialect, but contains small examples of the Attic and Ionian dialects as well. One possible author is the Pyrrhonist philosopher Zeuxis. Diogenes Laërtius reported that Zeuxis was a friend of Aenesidemus and that he wrote a work titled . Interpretation. , also called , is a two-fold argument, which considers each side of an argument in hopes of coming to a deeper truth. The doctrine provides historical insight into early sophistic rhetoric. Silvermintz notes that while the purports to offer a consideration of both the absolutist and relativist positions, the latter chapters  defending the sophists demonstrate its allegiance to the relativist position. It is similar to a form of debate with oneself and holds that contradiction is an inevitable consequence of discourse. Rhetorician John Poulakos sees the concept of as the ability or practice of providing a contrary argument at any point on any issue. He says that people must be persuaded to one side or the other in order to act, and this is accomplished through . The exercise considers demonstrating contrasting arguments in a single oration a method of demonstrating skill. Protagoras stated that every argument had two contradicting sides, both  of which could be argued. This idea emphasizes the power and versatility of language. A definite parallel can be drawn between the thoughts of Protagoras as recounted by Plato, and the rhetorical methods used in the . Aristotle supported this idea by stating that it is necessary to think in opposites to anticipate counterarguments and to arrive at the true state of an idea, object, etc. He also states that what is beneficial for one group might not necessarily be advantageous for another. considers that rhetoric can be situational. In regards to Gorgias, the persuasive argument is dependent upon what seems  logical according to the situation at any given time. Both good and bad are relative to context, point of view, time, place, etc. Edward Schiappa further simplified the concept of dissoi logoi by putting the concept into the following form: "X can be Y and not-Y." What cannot be denied is the confounding nature with which the conveys its message. For instance, in the very first chapter, the author states "some say that what is good and what is bad are two different things, others that they are the same thing..I myself side with the latter group , yet by the end of this chapter, it has changed I am trying rather to point out that it is not the same thing which is bad and good, but that each is different from the other Rosamond Sprague argues that good and bad cannot be the same and are, in fact, different from each other, exemplifying this by examining the concept of war; if both good and bad were the same, then by doing a great deal of harm, one would also be doing the opposing side the greatest of good. On the true purpose of the , one  scholar writes "it could be a serious, and hence disappointingly bad treatise; a heavy-handed spoof of such (Sophist) works; a workbook for dialecticians...It is almost impossible to say anything about the that goes beyond mere conjecture." Related works. There are many 5th and 4th century BC works that touch upon similar concepts mentioned in the . The 's attempt to argue and issue from both sides is reminiscent of Plato's "Protagoras", which was presumably written after the . It could be that the could have been derived from Protagoras himself, and may have even been an influence on Plato  while he was writing his "Protagoras". The speaks in detail about the acquisition of language in humans, which is ultimately determined to be learned, not inherent (6.12). The author comes to this conclusion through the question, "What if a Greek child is born in Greece and immediately sent to live in Persia?", with the answer being that the child would speak Persian, not Greek, and therefore language must be learned. A similar debate is waged in Herodotus's Histories 2.2, where an Egyptian king, Psammetichus, attempts to determine the world's first language by raising two newborns completely in lack  of language. The children independently begin to speak Phrygian, which is then determined to be the first language of man. Both Herodotus, and the author of the seem to have invested thought into the developments of language.