在西方哲学史上黑格尔是第一个公开出来为诡辩术唱赞歌的。他在《哲学史讲义》中说：“希腊应该为这个（诡辩）文化感谢诡辩术师，因为是他们教导人们如何具有权威性地运用思考，因此他们的文化对于哲学来说就如同对于如何流畅地表达一样（Greece has to thank the Sophists for this culture, because they taught men to exercise thought as to what should have authority for them, and thus their culture was culture in philosophy as much as in eloquence.）”在他的《历史哲学讲义》中，他更是作进一步讴歌诡辩术师：“正是诡辩术师 –‘智慧之师‘智慧之师’ –首先引入主观反思以及教导人们应该按照自己的意愿行事的教义。一旦反思发挥效用，真正的探索才得以开始，不论作为法则的原则是否能得到改进（It was the Sophists — the “Teachers of Wisdom” — who first introduced subjective reflection, and the new doctrine that each man should act according to his own conviction. When reflection once comes into play, the inquiry is started whether the Principles of Law (das Recht) cannot be improved.）”
他而且是明知故犯，也就是说他明知诡辩术的负面性，仍然推崇诡辩术。他说（《哲学史讲义》）：“诡辩术当然是个恶名昭彰的词，实际上，特别是通过与苏格拉底和柏拉图的对立，诡辩术师们已经声名狼藉，这个词现在通常表明，通过错误的推理，使得真理被驳回或被质疑，或者某些错误被证明是合理的。 我们必须把这一邪恶的意义放在一边，而忘记它。 另一方面，我们现在希望从积极和适当的科学角度进一步考虑诡辩术师们在希腊具有什么样的地位。（Sophistry is certainly a word of ill-repute, and indeed it is particularly through the opposition to Socrates and Plato that the Sophists have come into such disrepute that the word usually now signifies that, by false reasoning, some truth is either refuted and made dubious, or something false is proved and made plausible. We have to put this evil significance on one side and to forget it. On the other hand, we now wish to consider further from the positive and properly speaking scientific side, what was the position of the Sophists in Greece.）”
With such reasoning men can easily get so far as to know (where they do not, it is owing to the want of education — but the Sophists were very well educated) that if arguments are relied upon, everything can be proved by argument, and arguments for and against can be found for everything…In the crime of desertion in time of war, there is, for example, the duty of self-preservation. Similarly in more modern times the greatest crimes, assassination, treachery, &c., have been justified.
另一方面他又用今天的人们（他那个时候的今天，比2019年的今天要保守得多）的行为来替他们辩护：
If sophistry is bad in the sense that it signifies a quality of which only bad men are guilty, it is at the same time much more common than this would imply; for all argumentative reasoning, adducing of arguments and counterarguments, bringing into prominence particular points of view, is sophistry. And just as utterances of the Sophists are adduced against which nothing can be said (as they are by Plato), men of our day are urged to all that is good for the very reasons that are reasons to the Sophists. Thus it is said, “do not cheat, else you lose your credit, hence your wealth,” or, “be temperate, or you will spoil your appetite and have to suffer.” Or for punishment men give the external reasons of improvement, &c.; or else an action is defended on external grounds taken from the result.。。。Sophistry thus does not lie so far from us as we think. When educated men discuss matters now-a-days, it may seem all very good, but it is in no way different from what Socrates and Plato called sophistry — although they themselves have adopted this standpoint as truly as did the Sophists.
1）对于原文中的“When reflection once comes into play, the inquiry is started whether the Principles of Law (das Recht) cannot be improved.”这段话里的“Principles of Law”，直译可以是“律法原则”，我不知他人是如何翻译的，我将之译为“作为法则的原则”，因为从他的通篇讨论我感觉是在矮化作为我们文明的基本准则的东西的重要性，而在强调说，如果没有反思，根本就不会有真正的探索，所以也谈不上对那些准则的提高。。。他这是在诡辩与柏拉图的对立中明确选边站。
