Philosophy versus Sophistry

This is an age old conflict, first documented by the Greek philosophers.

Simply put, philosophers are searching for the 'truth'. They don't care if your point of view is 'better' or 'superior'. They will embrace it if it is closer to the 'truth'. They are not out to gain glory for themselves. Philosophers can be maddening because they seem to ask the tough questions that have no answers and seem to have no interest in the practical realities that making the search so difficult. Above all, they are dismissed because of their lack of interest in incremental improvement, its all or nothing!

In the corporate world, the further away you are from the customer, the more inclined you may be to search for 'truth' as an end in itself. Hence, sometimes, technical staff and corporate planners are looked upon as 'ivory tower thinkers'.

Sophists on the other hand are more interested in convincing the audience about a point of view. To them success is if the audience buys into their arguments. Proximity to the truth seems less interesting to them. For this reason, the sophists have been viewed with suspicion as they seem to have no hesitation in manipulating the facts to suit their purpose. Sophists do not necessarily succeed all the time, but they are viewed as energetic, go-getters, preferring to act rather than think. These are the 'smart talkers' in the corporate environment, high on confidence, low on substance.

The closer you are to the customer, the more flexible you need to be, hence the tendency to talk fast and distract the audience while looking for an answer that will work for both parties.

Obviously these are very broad generalizations. But the point is to warn against getting caught in either extreme. There are times when being at one extreme may be a practical necessary, watch out for when that happens and move to a more balanced thought process.