The correct answer to this question is the historical method. This set of rules and guidelines help historians place arguments in historical context. Thank you for posting your question. I hope this answer helped you. Let me know if you need more help.
1&7
2&5
3&6
4&8
9&other
or write as differnt ways
Both sophists and philosophers were well trained and highly educated, but the main difference was that a sophist taught others and they got paid for that. It is said that their own wealth was their only goal.
Philosophers, such as Socrates, refused to get paid.
Throughout history, the sophists have had a reputation as professionally amoral, . They would help people to attain any goal, regardless of what it was. They would take any case, promote any cause, and empower any person, if the money was right.
Philosophers, for the most part, have walked on the side of the angels. They may sometimes have had reputations as prolix and obscure, complex and abstract, out of touch, but they have, for the most part, seemed to be purer souls in their focus and work.
In other words, the sophists were much more concerned about how than about why. The philosophers have always been more cautious.
Even though the study of these artifacts was important to better understand ancient civilization, I believe they should be in their original place. With the artifacts in different places it seems that the history of that country is being taken from it.
Answer: The Girondists and the Jacobins were the two of the most important clubs during the revolution. The Girondins were a more moderate thinking group.The Jacobins were the most radical and ruthless of the political groups formed in the wake of the French Revolution, and in association with Robespierre they instituted the Terror of 1793–4..i think
(I am sorry if i'm wrong)
:)
:(
