Plato’s Sophist is not only an important Platonic dialog, it is a major turn of events in philosophical progress. The Sophist is the second in a trilogy chronicling the last three days before Socrates is put to death, the Theatetus, the Sophist, and the Statesman. These then, supposedly, are three of the last philosophical discussions of Socrates, the father western philosophy.
The Sophist is a strange work, and one must wonder why, in his last days, Socrates was so concerned with defining the Sophist. Also, Socrates himself only speaks a few lines, the work of defining the Sophist is actually done by a foreigner, the Eleatic stranger. In addition to that, this is one of Plato’s least dramatic dialogs, very little goes on other than a complex logical discussion. It makes the work not only dry, but more obscure and difficult than usual.
However, deeply embedded in the definition of the Sophist, the Stranger comes to realize that it necessary to commit “philosophical parricide” against his teacher, Parmenides. This is where the work becomes most pivotal. Parmenides was extremely influential philosopher, an continues to this day, even with only a few fragments of his writing in existence, to be the most written about philosopher in history. In the Sophist, Plato has his Eleatic stranger logically destroy the old philosophy. It is nothing short of a revolution in the science of ontology.
The problem of the Sophist and the ontology of the day are connected in an almost comic way. In order to disgrace the Sophist by defining as maker of images, a person who claims that what is not is and what is is not, Plato first has to prove that such a thing is possible. Parmenides said that it is impossible to say or even think what is not...in other words, that it is impossible to speak of something that does not exist. This was the argument of the “sophist” to defend himself against being a manipulative force in society.
To prove him able to tell lies, Plato must prove that non-being, in fact, exists. To do this, the Stranger goes through a complex analysis of relations and language. He introduces the concept of Other, which allows him to come to the conclusion that non being not only exists, but exits necessarily.
Thus the Sophist is able to speak of false things, and lies in opposition, undoing the work of the philosopher.
This is an incredibly difficult dialog of dry epistemology and ontology. It is not a good introduction to Plato. I don’t recommend it to anyone does not have a strong interest in Plato, or who is not familiar with a large number of Platonic dialogs, especially the Pheadrus.
However, if you want to understand Plato, you must read more than the Meno, the Symposium, and the Republic. This work is very important and often overlooked; to the person who puts the effort into understanding it, it yields a wealth of understanding. Ideas progress through time, and following them and their arguments is the best way to cultivate a truly educated mind. Because this dialog addresses a belief formerly held to be philosophically true, and supersedes it, it is a rare philosophical lesson from early thought.
And, of course, it is just as riddled with that viciously intellectual Socratic spirit that characterizes Platonic dialogs.
This particular translation, by Seth Bernardete, is good one. It is true the greek and conveys even the idioms and puns faithfully. The book also contains notes on the text and translation and about a hundred pages of in depth criticism and interpretation, explaining the confusing title, “the Being of the Beautiful.” However, it should not be the only interpretation explored as it focuses much on the definition of Non-being, and little on the meaning of the dialog as a whole. I recommend reading all three dialogs in the trilogy by Seth Bernadete, though I warn that The Statesman is out of print and can be hard to find.
I recommend this dialog and translation as pivotal for anyone who wants to understand Plato, the philosopher, and his work. But I feel I must stress that this is not for the person who just wants the general gist of Plato’s ideas. If you have read and enjoyed the Pheadrus, this dialog explores further some of the same ideas, but it is much more heavy and epistemological. . .
I have no doubt that the Sophist is on some level, devoted to the beauty of the love of wisdom. But I warn that this delightful sentiment is only a subtle vein that takes the background here. The main focus, two days before Socrates is put to death, is on the force that destroys the true love of wisdom...the phenomenon of the Sophist.
Recommended:
