I need to read more philosophy before confirming this but I think my goal in life is to revive and redefine sophism. The appearances society does champion and advocate for are truly devoid of meaning. Politicians with completely opposite views are expected to dress identical to each other. Minimalism has reached a point where parents need to be reminded that children should experience colors. And when a fashion designer does create something that could carry a message it's put on a model whose business card reads "professional blank canvas."
Aesthetics carry ideas. We all admit the importance of a first impression, as shallow as it seems. For too long the perceived correct answer to this phenomenon has been to offer a first impression that is well put together, but fails to impart any information about yourself. The safe first impression is truly acceptable; acceptable clothing, acceptable levels of makeup, acceptable topics and mannerisms. Pushed to be the standard for all people (Not to forget that this is, in itself, a way to other and isolate those who cannot meet these standards), this method of interacting with each other is understood to be meaningless because of it.
Let's turn our attention to children's sports. A fine way to get kids outside, to get them exercise and teach them the logic behind strategic thinking. But they also must be taught sportsmanship; and it is here where I declare most coaches and parents failures. Too often does the adult rely on social expectations and coercion for the child to truly understand why graciousness is important in sport. Teams of kids are instructed to line up and congratulate each other's efforts. This practice is built entirely off of the word "should." An exercise of the body moves the body and will have physical proof of its work. An exercise of the mind will put ones train of thought in motion, and grant the mind new ideas or better understanding. A social exercise, then, should be one where the person moves their own social mass and experiences the motion of other people. Instead we put children on a closed course where there is only one action to take. A correct behavior is then learned but never understood; only endlessly mimicked until it is time to force it on the next generation of athletes. I know nothing about the kids from other teams I had played against my youth besides the fact that they could say the words "Good game." This method of forced polite interaction is more isolating than if players were allowed to not talk to each other at all. If it was politely encouraged to address the opposing team, but ultimately a decision the child had to make themselves, the risk of doing it wrong exists. This risk is where knowledge is gained.
To use mind exercises as an example, think about giving a kid a sheet of paper with math problems. Every inch of the paper can be written on, and anything can be written on the paper. If instead any attempt to write on the sheet in a location besides the labeled correct spot for an answer to go failed, and the pencil would not work if you tried to put in a wrong answer, no thinking can actually be done. There is a single correct action to take, and that is the only thing such an exercise can teach. Socially, our world is one where we fear wrong answers or showing our work in the margins more than we wish to gain understanding.
Anybody versed in sophism will have noticed that I have walked myself into a circle. The oldest and most damning criticism of the original movement is that a sophist prioritizes the single correct answer I claim to hold disdain for. By putting emphasis on aesthetics and the form of an argument (supposedly in opposition to the logic of the argument), the image of a sophist is one who seeks to "win" by following the "rules" of debate. But here I am, opposing the current rulebook while claiming to be a burgeoning post-sophist.
I will borrow the image of the ouroboros in order to make these opposite ends meet. The function of an argument is limited by the form of its speaker. This reads differently on text than it would sound if I were speaking it. The message would similarly be impacted by my appearance. Contemporary debate has a singular acceptance appearance; whose singularity renders the appearance meaningless. Sophism may not be the correct word for my school of thought. I picked it because it sounded good in the moment. Recognizing this of myself grants me the ability to meet people whose appearances are different from my own with graciousness; which in turn enables understanding. I do not intentionally wear flaws. I do not hide in my dressing room until I am certain the clothes are correct.