Thoughts on Plato's Sophist

I read the Nicolas P. White intro and dialogue. As usual, the introduction was a longer and more technical than I really wanted or needed, but there was a few page long very helpful summary. I have not complaints with the translation itself. I relied pretty heavily on this excellent website (http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80250/Plato/index.html) that I found which provides a summary of Sophist. As with so many of Plato’s dialogues, it REALLY helps to understand Plato’s goals before you start reading, because the actual topic of conversation is often not related to the point that Plato is trying to make. In addition, it can really help to understand why a particular point Plato wants to make is important. For example, I didn’t understand the obsession with understanding false belief until something I read somewhere made me realize that you can’t show there are universal truths for all men at all times unless you can prove that people can be wrong. This can get lost in the overly long introductions that some of these editions seem to feature, so a shorter but long enough summary like the one I linked is incredibly helpful. Sophist is not really about defining what a Sophist is and shitting on them, although Plato goes about making his point through that lens.

Based on my reading, as well as various secondary materials, Plato basically has three goals in the Sophist. First, he wants to solve the philosophical problem of that which is not and how we can even think about or speak about “that which is not.” Second, he wants to prove the existence and possibility of false belief. Third, he wants to bridge the gap between a purely materialist view of the world and a purely non-material view of the world—basically wants to combine Parmenides’ views and his own ideas about the Forms with the ideas of purely materialist pre-Socratics and Heraclitus to create a vision of reality that allows for universal truths and ideals but also for the material world of “becoming.” This also solves the problem of the Theaetetus, which basically concludes by deciding that the material world is not where true knowledge is found—with the more complete view of Sophist we have more we can look at.

The toughest aspect of this for me to grasp was actually the idea of why we can’t think about or speak about “that which is not.” I didn’t and at this point still barely understand why this is a paradox that needs fixing. Apparently though, this is something that has occupied philosophers right up until now. As best as I can understand it, the idea is that if something does not exist, then it should be impossible for us to think of it or express anything about it at all. So we run into an immediate problem when we say things like “it is not” or “they are not,” as we have already decided this non-existent thing is either plural or singular. This is the sort of thing that makes philosophy so difficult—everything is broken down to first principles.

Plato manages to defeat this issue by developing the forms into very basic components of existence, rest, motion, sameness, and difference and the explanation that all of the forms interact with each other in a way that allows for the existence of false statements or statements that something is not (e.g. rest and motion both exist, but rest is not motion), although I admittedly still find the whole necessity for this a bit pedantic. I really like Plato’s point that there basically have to be forms and they must interact or else we could not even communicate. Plato uses the same line of argument to solve the issue of the existence of false belief.

As I said above, Plato’s third goal (which he actually tackles first in the dialogue) is to find a way to reconcile the changing world of physical bodies and becoming and the changeless world of the forms to combine them for a full vision of reality. Plato discusses the fact that even for a purely material vision of reality, there are still concepts like justice and honor or good that demand the possibility of some sort of immaterial reality apart from the world of becoming. The Parmenidean side likewise has to admit (IMHO, maybe not in Plato’s) that treating all of physical reality and change as illusion is an intellectual dead end, although Plato’s argument runs along the lines that the Parm’s must concede that changeless forms undergo some sort of “change” when we our souls/intellect interact with them so that we become aware that they exist. I marked this quote that really sums up Plato’s whole goal: “The philosopher—the person who values these things the most absolutely has to refuse to accept the claim that everything is at rest, either from defenders of the One or friends of the many forms. In addition, he has to refuse to listen to people who say that that which is changes in every way. He has to be a child begging for both and say that that which is everything comprises both the unchanging and that which changes.” This is a pretty exhilarating passage, as it’s about the most clear, plain statement of Plato’s goal that you’re going to find anywhere.

The introduction points out that scholars have debated whether Sophist is consistent with the development of the Forms in the Republic and Phaedo or if it’s a new development in a different direction. I personally am not seeing a major inconsistency with the treatment here versus the other dialogues. It does develop some of the issues in more depth.

Overall, once I read some helpful summaries and with the help of various secondary sources, I was able to (pretty much) follow and enjoy this dialogue. On to the Parmenides, which I’ve seen described as the most difficult Platonic dialogue of all (gulp).