In this article I would like to share my vital observation related to people. Everything I am going to tell is subjective, thus detailed research may show it correct or wrong as well. But I suppose this observation is worth being written. Here we go!
I have talked to different people. With some of them we came to understanding sooner or later, even if our views seemed to be opposite at the beginning. And with the others longer discussions led to more points of incomprehension. This made me think that deep inside of each person there is an important principle responsible for the way this person analyses information. Partially this principle can be sensed through repeating the question "Why do you think so?". Sooner or later the person gets down to the answer like "I think so because I think so. Nuff said." or so. This just means he refuses to discuss it anymore because of the obviousness of the thought. Though the obviousness doesn't seem to be the same for every one.
Subjectively, analysing conversatoins with my friends I made a conclusion that there are strictly two sorts of people. For one of them, call them sophists, obviousness means material profit having different forms such as money, social status, subjects, power, etc. Everything that leads to material profit (no matter how long the chain leading to it is) is obviously true and forbidden to doubt. At best you can find a mistake in his logical chain discussing it with him but it doesn't change a thing because his chain is always bound to material profit.
The other sort of people, so-called socrateses, seeks for a truth. They want to understand more, to have more information. In very advanced cases they prefer mental things neglecting material ones. They can be interested in money or social status but as methods to reach what they find a truth. They are always ready to have long discussions and analysis in case of disagreeing with the opponent. According to my subjective research, these people are the minority.
The division into sophists and socrateses is strict. In other words, there's nobody who includes both sophists' and socrateses' features.
This point of view makes it obvious how interactions between people work. Two socrateses feel comfortable towards any sort of talks. Long discussions lead to experience exchange. A talk of two sophists is not bad too but there're nuances. If their material values are similar they understand each other easily, without any problem. If not, each of them stands by his opinion without a long discussion. But long interaction between a sophist and a socrates leads to growing misunderstanding, because they have completely different foundations. Socrates is not ready to take this limitation by material things, therefore he is inclined to express obvious silly thoughts from sophist's point of view.
Most likely the reader of this article is a socrates. Thus I want to give you a piece of advise. If you deal with a sophist, try to avoid long and deep discussions if you disagree. In most cases they would lead nowhere, but you would spend a lot of time and effort. And try to value another socrateses around you because they are the minority. If I've mistaken and you are a sophist, I also can recommend you something. If a socrates wants to prove you something, take it easy and try to avoid the empty talk with him. It saves kind and respectful relationships.
Beth
The article was interesting. Thank you for writing it. It seems to me that the division is much less strict. It can seem easier to view others from our own point of view if we were to see the distinction in ourselves as strict for example.
Your article's theme overlaps a bit with the concept of Maslow's hierarchy/ pyramid of needs. As you mentioned in your article there are people who value the material to seek more truth and than there are those who seem to seek more material possessions beyond what Maslow's concept explains. Than again people view the amount of necessary material possessions differently. How we treat what belongs to us and how well we are able to let go of it is deeply psychological and connected to many things like our childhoods, our core beliefs, our environment etc. A person who grows up in a social setting which requires them to "keep up" in order to be able to socially at least stay at the same level may feel differently about existential fears than a person who grew up eating at public shelters. Their level of perceived need for material possessions may differ greatly but the way how their brain is set up or their core beliefs may be much more similar. Every option is possible. It is possible for someone to be a sophist at one stage of their life and to be a socrates at another. It is possible for a person's outer perception to change depending on their circumstances and current behavior. It is also possible for someone to care about finding truth to a certain extent or in a certain field yet not to a full extent, in another field or under different circumstances. Am I a painter if I have painted it inside of my head? Am I a critical thinker if I have had important thoughts without speaking about them? Or do I need the social act of sharing my thoughts in order for me to be a Socrates? Do I need to materialize (lol) my need to be a sophist in order to be one or is it enough for me to wish for material possessions? If a person wishes to own a house but they also wish to improve the living conditions for millions free of charge by inventing a certain method which cleans toxins out of the air. Does that make them a sophist or a socrates?
Minimalism, classicism, abstract, modern, traditional...those terms and their modern interpretation in particular aren't too old yet. In regard to the existance of humanity our view on those subjects influences as well how we view people who we perceive to be materialistic, selfish, ruthless or selfless, idealistic, philosophical. I would argue that social, political, cultural, economical, philosophical as well as other areas are interconnected. University professors for example like to treat their own theories as the one and only truth which was birthed in a vacuum. But it isn't the case. Everything is connected in one way or another. Either in terms of being directly connected or in terms of filling space for something else to hold its spot. So the question if someone is a sophist or a socrates does not stand alone within the theory but borders with fields such as psychology, pedagogy, sociology, politics, art, economy etc.. Which means that you will likely be able to find many connecting points and prior research in close relation to your concept.
Марта
А разве типов только два? Вот, например, была такая прекрасная поэтесса Рената Муха ("Как-то раз в одной стране Все решили больше не"). Боюсь, что ее истина не очень интересовала, так же как и богатство, и статус. Ее скорее интересовало качество стихов и насыщенность общения...
Возможно, Вы написали эту статью до того, как познакомились с типологией Афанасьева?