Everything about Sophist Dialogue totally explained
The
Sophist (
Greek:
Σοφιστής) is one of the late Dialogues of
Plato, which was written much later than the
Parmenides and the
Theaetetus, probably in 360 BC. After he criticized his own
Theory of Forms in the
Parmenides,
Plato proceeds in the
Sophist with a new conception of the
Forms, more mundane and down-to-earth, and makes more clear the
epistemological and metaphysical puzzles of the
Parmenides; thus, he refers to that dialogue between
Parmenides and young
Socrates, which was written probably much earlier than the
Sophist. Furthermore, he shows his expertise in
Dialectic, as he applies it in this
Dialogue in order to define the Sophist. Moreover, he solves the puzzle of the
false and the
right opinion, as well as of the
justified true belief that had been inquired in the
Theaetetus.
Synopsis
Introduction
The Dialogue is considered to have been written long after the
Parmenides and the
Theaetetus, and aims at defining the Sophist. The participants are
Socrates, who plays a minor role, the highly promising young student
Theaetetus, and a Visitor from
Elea, the hometown of
Parmenides, who plays the major role in the conversation. Plato probably replaces Socrates with the Visitor from Elea, because he plans to criticize Parmenides’ notion that ‘we can't speak or think of what is not’ (reference to the dialogue
Parmenides between
Parmenides and young
Socrates). Here
Plato's strategy is to distinguish the negation of the being from the not-being, and to define the
right and the
false opinion by the use of
Dialectic.
The Stranger sets out to define the
Sophist, the
Statesman and the
Philosopher, claiming that they're three distinct kinds. The definition of the Sophist aims at verbal explanation and requires knowledge of the nature of the kinds, as well as of their ability of blending.
Method of definition
In this Dialogue
Plato follows a new method of definition by the use of a model, comparison of the model with the target kind,
division (
diairesis), collection, and
deduction from the collected kinds. At first he starts with the use of a mundane model (
Angler), which shares some qualities in common with the target kind (
Sophist). This common quality is the certain expertise (
techne) at one subject. Then through the method of collection of different kinds (farming, caring for mortal bodies, for things that are put together or fabricated and imitation) he tries to bring them together (
deduction) into one kind, which he calls
productive art. The same is true with the collection of learning, recognition, commerce, combat and hunting, which can be deduced into the kind of
acquisitive art.
After these two collections he proceeds to the division of the expertise into
production and
acquisition, and then he tries to find out to which of these two sub-kinds the angler belongs (classification), which means acquisition. By following the same method, deduction through collection, he divides the acquisition in
possession taking and
exchanging goods, to which sophistry belongs. After many successive collections and divisions he finally arrives at the definition of the model (Angler). Throughout this process Plato discovers many kinds and sub-kinds (hunting, aquatic-hunting, fishing, strike-hunting).
After the verbal explanation of the model (definition), he tries to find out what the model and the target kind share in common (sameness) and what differentiates them (difference). Through this comparison, and after having been aware of the different kinds and sub-kinds, he can classify sophistry also among the other branches of the ‘tree’ of division of expertise as follows:
1.production, hunting by persuasion and money-earning, 2.acquisition, soul wholesaling, 3. soul retailing, retailing things that others make, 4. soul retailing, retailing things that he makes himself, 5. possession taking, competition, money-making expertise in debating.
Throughout the process of comparison of the deduced kinds through his method of collection,
Plato discovers some attributes in relation to which the kinds can be divided (difference in relation to something). These are similar to the
Categories of
Aristotle, so to say: quantity, quality, relation, location, time, position, end etc.
After having failed to define sophistry, he attempts a final deduction through the collection of the five definitions of sophistry. Since these five definitions share in common one quality (sameness), which is the
imitation, he finally qualifies sophistry as
imitation art. Following the division of the imitation art in
copy-making and appearance-making, he discovers that sophistry falls under the
appearance-making art, namely the Sophist imitates the wise man. However, in order that his conclusion is irrefutable
Plato has to examine first
Parmenides’ notion, namely ‘it is impossible that things that are not are’, in comparison with his conclusion, that's to say ‘
those which are not (appearing and seeming) somehow are’.
Puzzles of being and not-being, great kinds
Plato, before proceeding to the final definition of sophistry, has to make clear the concepts that he used throughout the procedure of definition. In other words he's to clarify what is the nature of the
Being (
that which is), Not-Being, Sameness, Difference, Motion and Rest, and how they're interrelated. Therefore he examines
Parmenides’ notion in comparison with
Empedocles and
Heraclitus’ in order to find out whether Being is identical with
Change or
Rest or both.
The conclusion is that
Rest and
Change both
are, which means both are beings, and not only
Rest as
Parmenides said. Furthermore,
Being is a distinct kind, which all existing things share in common.
Sameness is a distinct kind that all things, which belong to the same kind or genera share with reference to a certain attribute, and due to which deduction through collection is possible.
Difference is a distinct kind that makes things of the same kind not to be identified, therefore it enables us to proceed to their division. The knowledge of these five Great Kinds and their ability of blending is the characteristic of the Philosopher, since it's equivalent to expertise in
Dialectic. Finally, so-called
Not-Being isn't the opposite of
Being but simply different from it; for instance, the statement
this isn't black doesn't necessarily indicate whiteness-- it asserts no preference among non-black colors. Therefore the negation of
Being is identified with the
Difference, since negative predication indicates something different (an unlimited range) from the predicate. Not-being is difference, it isn't the opposite of Being.
Following these conclusions, the ‘true statement’ can be distinguished from the ‘false’ one, since each statement consists of a verb and a name. The name refers to the subject, namely the statement is about something, because a thought or a speech is always about something, and it can't be about nothing (
Not-Being). The verb is the sign of the action that the subject performs (
poiein) or the action being performed to or on the subject (
paschein). When the verb states something that's about the subject, namely one of his properties, then the statement is true. While when the verb states something that's
different (
it is not) from the properties of the subject, then the statement is false. In this way
Plato associates the Non-Identity (NI) premise with Negative Predication (NP).
‘
Theaetetus is flying’ is false while ‘
Theaetetus is sitting’ is true, because the predicate ‘flying’ is different from the actual predicate of Theaetetus, which is ‘sitting’. Therefore, in order to examine whether a statement is false or true, we simply need to find at least one property which the subject possesses, and which is different from the one that the predicate specifies . It is plausible then, that ‘
things which are not (appearing and seeming) somehow are’, and so it's also plausible that the sophist produces false appearances and imitates the wise man.
Final definition
After having solved all these puzzles, that's to say the interrelation between being, not-being, difference and negation, as well as the possibility of the ‘appearing and seeming but not really being’,
Plato can finally proceed to define sophistry. In other words,
sophistry is a productive art, human, of the imitation kind, copy-making, of the appearance-making kind, uninformed and insincere in the form of contrary-speech-producing art.
Interpretations
Since Plato wrote the
Statesman after the
Sophist, while he never wrote the Dialogue
Philosopher, many scholars argue that Plato challenges the audience to search for the definition of the philosopher themselves, by applying the method of inquiry and definition shown in those two Dialogues. However, this doesn't mean that one can simply extend the method in a mechanical way to the investigation of the philosopher, but he only shows us how one can proceed in such philosophical enquiries.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Sophist Dialogue'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://sophist__dialogue.totallyexplained.com">Sophist (dialogue) Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
