What was antilogic in Sophistic argument?

In the context of Sophistic philosophy, antilogic refers to the practice of assigning a counterargument to any given proposition, with the implication that both the original argument and its negation are equally true.1

While often conflated with eristic—which Plato defined as argumentation aimed solely at victory rather than truth—antilogic is distinct in its methodology. It was particularly associated with the Sophist Protagoras. Plato frequently criticized the use of antilogic, viewing it as evidence that Sophists lacked a genuine regard for truth.1

However, modern perspectives offer a more nuanced view:
* Analytical Utility: When used to analyze complex situations or reveal the inherent contradictions within a subject, antilogic was not necessarily inconsistent with a devotion to truth.1
* Philosophical Context: Some scholars note that Plato himself acknowledged the phenomenal world as essentially antilogical, as statements about it often possess no greater truth than their contradictions.1

Ultimately, while the temptation to use antilogic irresponsibly for success in debate was a common critique, its application could also serve as a tool for exploring the subjective and relativistic elements of human knowledge.1