Abstract

In the paper contemporary approaches to argumentation are compared with a number of ways of understanding sophistic including ancient, medieval and contemporary ‘faces’ of the latter. It is argued that the current stage is characterized by a negative evaluative understanding of sophistic which is taken mostly as sophistry. In the paper, I also show how these different approaches to sophistic such as illegitimate argumentation, particular illegitimate arguments and scholastic method of formulating and solving tasks grow out of its ancient and medieval historical forms, found in Aristotle, Plato, the Sophists and the Medieval thinkers. To illustrate this distinction I use a medieval sophism combined with a famous ancient anecdote. The distinction between three contemporary approaches which is set forward in the paper is based on semantic, procedural, pragmatic, communicative and speech-oriented criteria, and develops logical and cognitive approaches to argumentation.