The goal of this dialogue is to define the Sophist. We’ve seen the Sophist pop up in Greek Tragedy and Comedy and it’s never a pretty picture. They are often contrasted with the Philosopher, the true lover of wisdom, and are denigrated as those who have the appearance of wisdom. They are known for charging money to teach their students how to argue a point, irrespective of its truth.
In attempting to define the Sophist, Plato must overcome a snag put forward by the philosopher Parmenides. Parmenides has stated that false statements are impossible:
“This should not ever prevail in your thought: that the things that are not, are; rather do you keep your mind well shut off from just this way of searching.”
Basically, don’t think or talk about things that have no being; things that don’t exist. However, if that is the case, there is nothing false and everything a person says is true. Everything is relative.
In order to define the Sophist, Plato must show that something that is not, is. He does this by saying that the false is something other than or different from the true. Plato’s Forms must be true. Do things that are false also have Forms? No, they are simply other than or different from Forms.
Therefore, the Sophist is one who makes false imitations of true things. He is not a philosopher.
This dialogue hurt by brain. I read it three times using different translations in an attempt to struggle through it and try and understand it. I share what I learned in this episode and I hope the work makes it so that you see the dialogue in a fresh way. As always, if I’ve gotten anything incorrect, please help me learn by commenting below.
Show Notes:
Book Versions I Read:
Plato Complete Works - edited by John M. Cooper - translated by Nicholas P. White
Plato: Collected Dialogues - edited by Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns - translated by F.M. Cornford
Plato Sophist: The Professor of Wisdom by Eva Brann, Peter Kalkavage, Eric Salem
The Division Thicket (from the introduction in Plato Sophist: The Professor of Wisdom):
