Paperback ¶ Sophist ePUB Á

Paperback  ¶ Sophist ePUB Á
  • Paperback
  • 144 pages
  • Sophist
  • Plato
  • English
  • 20 July 2018
  • 087220202X

Sophist[PDF / Epub] ☆ Sophist Author Plato – Essayreview.co.uk A fluent and accurate new translation of the dialogue that, of all Plato s works, has seemed to speak most directly to the interests of contemporary and analytical philosophers White s extensive intro A fluent and accurate new translation of the dialogue that, of all Plato s works, has seemed to speak most directly to the interests of contemporary and analytical philosophers White s extensive introduction explores the dialogue s central themes, its connection with related discussions in other dialogues, and its implicaiton for the interpretation of Plato s metaphysics.


About the Author: Plato

Greek Arabic Alternate Spelling Platon, Plat n, Platone Plato is a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, student of Socrates, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and sciencePlato is one of the most important Western philosophers, exerting influence on virtually every figure in philosophy after him His dialogue The Republic is known as the first comprehensive work on political philosophy Plato also contributed foundationally to ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology His student, Aristotle, is also an extremely influential philosopher and the tutor of Alexander the Great of Macedonia.


10 thoughts on “Sophist

  1. says:

    By the middle of the book here s what I really wanted to see happen STRANGER There are some who imitate, knowing what they imitate, andsome who do not know And what line of distinction can there possibly be greater than that which divides ignorance from knowledge THEAETETUS There can be no greater.STRANGER Was not the sort of imitation of which we spoke just now theimitation of those who know For he who would imitate you would surelyknow you and your figure THEAETETUS Naturally.STRANGER By the middle of the book here s what I really wanted to see happen STRANGER There are some who imitate, knowing what they imitate, andsome who do not know And what line of distinction can there possibly be greater than that which divides ignorance from knowledge THEAETETUS There can be no greater.STRANGER Was not the sort of imitation of which we spoke just now theimitation of those who know For he who would imitate you would surelyknow you and your figure THEAETETUS Naturally.STRANGER And what would you say of the figure or form of justice or ofvirtue in general Are we not well aware that many, having no knowledgeof either, but only a sort of opinion, do their best to show that thisopinion is really entertained by them, by expressing it, as far as theycan, in word and deed PUNCH STRANGER OW STRANGER STRANGER Did you just punch me in the face THEAETETUS Yes, in the nose.STRANGER That REALLY hurt THEAETETUS Sorry, but I had a justified true belief that punching you in the face would finally make this interesting I ve been saying yes , and very true for over an hour now and you haven t communicated anything of testable value You ve assumed a definition of knowledge and seem to be under the impression that through deduction you can arrive at an absolute truth that would somehow settle all further inquiry You ve provided not a single conjecture that I, or anyone listening, could ever evaluate, test, or even attempt to falsify.STRANGER AGH, my nose is bleedingTHEAETETUS You re right, that was uncalled for Please, go on using sophistry to tell me why sophistry is bad But that never happened.Here s something fun, filter out everything Theaetetus says, it goes like this,THEAETETUS Yes.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS Certainly.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS What do you mean, and how do you distinguish them THEAETETUS Very true.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS Yes.THEAETETUS Yes, it is often called so.THEAETETUS By all means.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS Most true.THEAETETUS Certainly.THEAETETUS To be sure.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS Granted.THEAETETUS Very trueTHEAETETUS There are certainly the two kinds which you describe.THEAETETUS Very good.THEAETETUS By all means.THEAETETUS Undoubtedly.And so on for the entire dialogue.Perhaps out of boredom, or perhaps trying to distract myself from hoping the stranger gets punched in the face, I wondered if every True and Very true could be deciphered as some kind of code or riddle maybe there is a hidden message encoded in repetitive affirmations Or maybe I m just desperately looking for something of value in this textAnyway, this is not a dialogue as we use the word , but instead a diatribe against sophists ironically characterizing sophists for doing exactly what Plato, as the stranger , was doing via this dialectic approach.At one point I had to stop because I thought maybe I was reading a farcical comedy I kept an open mind, but every page became harder and harder to get through Hours of dialectic glop and semantic entanglements I ll assume some of that was a problem of translation, but still, a punch in the face would have made the whole thing muchinteresting

  2. says:

    Sophist is one of the few Platonic dialogues which don t have Socrates as the main character all are from the late period This seems to offer Plato some advantages, especially for this book s purposes Using the Eleatic Visitor as the main speaker allows Plato to make sustained arguments consisting of series of positive statements as opposed to the Socratic character s standard approach, claiming to know nothing and play the midwife of others thoughts asking questions, testing answers, usu Sophist is one of the few Platonic dialogues which don t have Socrates as the main character all are from the late period This seems to offer Plato some advantages, especially for this book s purposes Using the Eleatic Visitor as the main speaker allows Plato to make sustained arguments consisting of series of positive statements as opposed to the Socratic character s standard approach, claiming to know nothing and play the midwife of others thoughts asking questions, testing answers, usually showing their inadequacy, and typically ending inconclusively Arguably Plato could have used Socrates the same way he used the Visitor, but that would have been odd as Socrates is the main speaker in the Theaetetus, Sophist s predecessor in a trilogy, in which Socrates is true to his old form Sophist is an attack on Plato s adversaries, the sophists, and on some of their most important and to Plato, very dangerous word or logic puzzles His animus towards sophists, and towards poets, might seem excessive, but we should remember that he saw both as educators offering falsehoods, in some cases in the guise of truth and in others with a relativistic view of truth And this was at a time when disinterested, rational investigation into truth was new and insecure For some it was seen as impious, probably for others a potential threat to society and the state Another danger that seems to have been quite real was the conflating of philosophy and sophistry as we see in Aristophanes Clouds, and as Plato s Apology seems to suggest, though in reality they were perhaps less distinct than Plato might have us believe Regarding at least some sophists, the main issue was the reality and importance of truth and the importance of pursuing truth regardless of outcome as opposed to developing and teaching skill in persuasion regardless of truth The sophists puzzles posed serious problems for Plato, causing fundamental aspects of existence being and non being, rest and motion, one and many, etc to appear hopelessly mired in contradictions and confusions, leading among other things to relativism about truth and morality.Primary among these problems was confusion about being i.e the word is and manipulation of the confusion of is as denoting existence with its denoting a thing s having particular qualities With this difference long clear to us, it s hard to understand how the brightest minds in ancient Greece were stumped by it, but it was a major problem that Plato seems to have effectively clarified in Sophist Another main problem in sophistical arguments was the equation of not being x with being the opposite of x Plato pretty effectively clarifies that not indicates difference but not necessarily contrariety He also, very importantly, believes he establishes that we can talk about things that don t exist without necessarily contradicting ourselves I m not sure he established this in a way that would decisively undermine the sophists, but this issue was central to Plato s problem with them Some sophists claimed there couldn t be false belief or speech because no one could think or say that which is not since that which is not has no share in being this picks up an issue from the Theaetetus, while Sophist in general is largely directed against Parmenides, with some mostly indirect connection to the dialogue named after him We might say that Plato demonstrated, or believed he demonstrated, that at least some things which don t exist e.g things that are false are nevertheless available to thought and speech.Another main issue Plato tackles, also without the greatest clarity, is that qualities possibly the Forms or Ideas from his earlier works can blend with each other this revisits a central problem from the Parmenides, at least if we take it as dealing with the Forms He doesn t provide much of an account of how this works, but in a proto Aristotelian manner he doesn t seem to need to so he doesn t bother he gives some examples which appear to adequately demonstrate that this blending happens in at least some situations and then forgoes further proof as he s achieved his primary objectives demonstrating that things can either be in the sense that they exist or they can be possessors of qualities they can not be in possession of quality x but this doesn t mean they have or are its opposite they can not be something without meaning they don t exist we can discuss things that are not without contradicting ourselves or saying nothing and things can possess a multiplicity of differing qualities, blending with each other, without this being inherently contradictory or problematic At least this is my understanding of what I take to be the main points of the dialogue The first third of the book is an entertaining search for a definition of sophist, in which we also meet the Eleatic Visitor and are introduced to his method of division The Visitor seems to speak for Plato muchclearly than the character Socrates elsewhere, and it s hard to imagine Plato taking on the tasks of this dialogue with the usual Socratic limitations and dialectical method Decisively refuting the sophists on the points addressed was critical to Plato s project there is truth, it s absolute and unchanging, and it very possibly can be discovered and understood by man there also must be falsehood both deceit and misunderstanding or ignorance similarly, justice and knowledge are real, and attempting to pursue and understand them is not necessarily destined to be fruitless But we also find the Visitor as the main speaker in Statesman, while Parmenides had been the main speaker in that dialogue with a young Socrates largely on the defensive , and Socrates doesn t even appear in The Laws Timaeus and Critias are essentially monologues by those characters, and even in Philebus, with Socrates as the main speaker, he asserts positive doctrine rather than questioning others and demolishing their definitions and arguments It seems Plato in his late period needed something his earlier Socratic character and method could no longer provide him with the exception of the Theaetetus, perhaps acting as a coda for the old Socrates and an introduction to the trilogy which apparently was to include Sophist, Statesman, and the unwritten Philosopher.I mentioned a proto Aristotelian aspect in this dialogue it seems there are several of these in the Parmenides and Theaetetus Sophist Statesman trilogy The logic puzzles in Parmenides almost demand an analysis and categorization of logical fallacies, for which a formal logic would be a prerequisite The Eleatic Visitor s method of division used in Sophist and Statesman is a step away from Socratic dialectic and a step towards Aristotelian logic The Visitor also insists on differentiation between general and specific, and seems to be moving towards something like Aristotle s genus and species The unmoved mover makes a very brief appearance in Statesman s cosmological myth, which also includes something like an initial abstract of Aristotle s Politics i.e a survey and critique of existing political systems And there s also something similar to Aristotle s beloved doctrine of the mean in Statesman To be fair to Aristotle, no one else in the Academy took these hints or produced the remarkable body of work he did, and there are plenty of things in Aristotle, e.g his causality, which don t seem to have any obvious precedents in Plato Certainly Aristotle s formal logic was one of history s great intellectual achievements, regardless of the extent of the foundation Plato provided And of course the mindsets of the two men were very different, not least in the place or lack thereof of empiricism in their respective worlds of thought.Perhaps it should be noted that our view of the sophists may be excessively negative and otherwise unbalanced largely due to Plato s well preserved and brilliant dialogues which so often savage the group It s unlikely we ll ever have adequate knowledge of them to be able to independently assess Plato s characterizations But perhaps it s worth keeping in mind Plato s harsh view of the poets, who we do know, when considering his even harsher view of the sophists

  3. says:

    Clearly I ll have to read this again I suspect God kills a kitten every time Theaetetus says clearly definitely, of course BECAUSE NONE OF THAT IS CLEAR AT ALL.I became interested in Sophist through Heidegger I ve read a bunch of Plato s dialogues before, I can t remember which, I read them without any guide they impressed me as mildly amusing, beyond that it s completely mysterious to me how anyone can walk away with any sort of certainty, or conclusion Plato always leaves me feelin Clearly I ll have to read this again I suspect God kills a kitten every time Theaetetus says clearly definitely, of course BECAUSE NONE OF THAT IS CLEAR AT ALL.I became interested in Sophist through Heidegger I ve read a bunch of Plato s dialogues before, I can t remember which, I read them without any guide they impressed me as mildly amusing, beyond that it s completely mysterious to me how anyone can walk away with any sort of certainty, or conclusion Plato always leaves me feeling trolled The nice thing about reading backwards from modern signposts is that I get to appreciate other people s interpretive efforts I don t think I could have taken this dialogue very seirously if I didn t know it inspired so many generations of philosophers, and now I m burning with desire to read Heidegger s lecture on Sophist, and his investigation of beings, even though I ll have to learn to read Greek first And I suspect that s the whole point not to indoctrinate readers with any kind of solidified knowledge, but to inspiredialogues, investigations, contemplations.I don t usually rate books I don t understand, but I think, for the psychological effect it created bafflement commingled with desires to dig deeper it s justifiable to give it

  4. says:

    What is rhetoric Yes, the dialogue will turn around this issue, but not only I loved it The reflections are vivid, the text is dramatic, and one taken in the story One imagines being in the place of Callicles and debate or being in place of Socrates We speak here of the beautiful and the ugly, just and the unjust, injustice, power in many forms and even the soul Contrary to what one might think, the choice of subjects is very varied.In terms of injustice, I did not agree with Socrates Ind What is rhetoric Yes, the dialogue will turn around this issue, but not only I loved it The reflections are vivid, the text is dramatic, and one taken in the story One imagines being in the place of Callicles and debate or being in place of Socrates We speak here of the beautiful and the ugly, just and the unjust, injustice, power in many forms and even the soul Contrary to what one might think, the choice of subjects is very varied.In terms of injustice, I did not agree with Socrates Indeed, he persuaded that committing a crime is worse than suffering This fact is a point of view, but I find it slightly reductive and should have beenthorough Moreover, since it was from the oral to the base that Plato would have transcribed in writing, the dialogue includes the lack of being repetitive Indeed, during the recapitulations that Socrates did, he repeated several times what had already said, and it was embarrassing to follow the reasoning It was as if one had been arrested in a full circle to resume it after this recapitulation.In conclusion, it is a dialogue of Plato which is not perfect, but which is dragging with suspense, very well written and which could read in one afternoon Despite its defects, it is incredible to read urgently to have a good time

  5. says:

    Okay I know I know I know, I have said countless time that I don t like Plato and that I don t like dialogues Apparently, I do like the SophistI m not going to try to go into too much details about why I did like this book in contrast to my general opinion on Plato s dialogue, but I think it has something to do with the fact that this dialogue was so clearly rooted in issues of language, semantics and linguistics which is something that plays out best in the act of it I m still not comple Okay I know I know I know, I have said countless time that I don t like Plato and that I don t like dialogues Apparently, I do like the SophistI m not going to try to go into too much details about why I did like this book in contrast to my general opinion on Plato s dialogue, but I think it has something to do with the fact that this dialogue was so clearly rooted in issues of language, semantics and linguistics which is something that plays out best in the act of it I m still not completely sold on the idea of dialogue as a feasible philosophical method, but I do think it worked in this case And the fact that it was about Parmenides being and not being and how both being and negation work subjects I already found very interesting probably helped with me liking this one.Definitely recommend this to anyone interested in a dialogue about the meaning and expression of being and not being

  6. says:

    O.k Since now, whenever somebody asks me what s the point of reading Plato after nearly 2500 years, I can laught earnestly.This was a truly extraordinary experience Plato is quite regardful writer, he makes sure everybody s got the point before he moves on Trying to define and succeding in it which is a nice change from Hippias Major the concept of Sophist, he manage to designate a neat classification of all human activity, prove that Non Being exists, define the concepts of Being, Not Bein O.k Since now, whenever somebody asks me what s the point of reading Plato after nearly 2500 years, I can laught earnestly.This was a truly extraordinary experience Plato is quite regardful writer, he makes sure everybody s got the point before he moves on Trying to define and succeding in it which is a nice change from Hippias Major the concept of Sophist, he manage to designate a neat classification of all human activity, prove that Non Being exists, define the concepts of Being, Not Being, Sameness, Difference, Motion and Rest and just along the way find the definition of Philosophist Time good spend

  7. says:

    Opposites time all the time in this dialogue Trying to break down in the most tedious line of questions of what is being and what is non being This dialogue was dragging for a while near the end and then it wraps up without much of a conclusion in a matter of phrases Certainly didn t feel conclusive to me Nothing particularly reflective for me with this dialogue and it neither impressed me nor offended.

  8. says:

    Plato argues some things don t exist and some propositions are false Surprising as it might sound, those arguments still need to be made.

  9. says:

    Not very interesting

  10. says:

    A Sophist is a hunter of young boys by the way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *