well, sure, philosophers argue against the sophists,
or what they deem: the art of rhetoric,
the act of speaking persuasively -
             and that's grand, it really is... but then
some sophist comes along, say antiphon,
   and he says: i have an argument against
                               the anti-rhetoric of philosophers,
i have an answer against thinkers.
  a sophist's argument against philosophers is tiny,
like an atom, it's tiny, because it's but a single word;
now words are atoms, and letters aren't,
       in the same way that chemists see elements
as if atoms, and do not go beyond Fe (iron), Pb (lead),
        Xe (xeron)             N (nitrogen) -
because then their main endeavour is lost,
                        as would be the case in metallurgy -
i.e. there's nothing practical to do with the concept
atom in their field; given the chemical alphabet of
concerns and mandible parts is based on the system of
elements -
                     e.g.      a + b + e + g + i = being
        alt.          c + h + o (quantity of each) = ethanol (2c, 6h, 1o);

oh i'm pretty sure sophists have an argument against
philosophers, because what that argument is?
                              a *******                         thesaurus;
that's what i've noticed philosophers do,
       they engage in applying thesaurus rex in their
rhetoric... a sophist would apply rhetoric to mean one
thing, but actually another, which is called subversion
rather than rhetoric...
       he'll say one thing, but mean another, that's beyond
rhetoric, that's subversion -
                  that's how sophistry evolved over the years,
rhetoric (a), sure, but "rhetoric" (b)? that's the art of subverting
your eloquence at a persuasive argument;
       which leads into: **** sapiens? really? such a thing exists?
i'm inclined into **** schizoi - a split man,
                                           a multiplication of gemini.
but why philosophers and a ****** thesaurus?
well, they're using a rhetorical approach based on that ****** book,
they're juggling their arguments via synonyms,
they're not exactly genius alchemists in that respect,
first they say concept, then they say idea, then they might
say inspiration, or they then might say idealisation,
      and then they go bonkers and say talk about a chair,
and say: chairness       or chairiness
             they go beyond standard adjectives -
  and given that, look at the close proximity of what they're
trying to say, and the nearest possible "puzzle", like the word:
                                                  cheeriness;
cheer,        chair,                                 cherry!
                   trying to expand on the word chair can be
rather misguiding, considering you can very literally have oak,
and that's it!
                          there really have to be literal cul de sac
moments in philosophy, where a proper use of coherent language
can become manifest; which alligns itself with the zeitgeist
debacle of "proper" pronoun usage.