Quite a dense text whilst it being a thin book. I might reread it at one point because I can see how every time you read it again, your mind can wander off to new ideas. Next time I'll read it with Wittgenstein's Tractatus next to me.

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 took in the story. One imagines being in the place of Callicles and debate or being in the area 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 had persuaded that committing a crime is worse than suffering. Of course, this fact is a point of view, but I find it slightly reductive and should have been more thorough. Moreover, the dialogue lacks repetition since Plato would have transcribed in writing from the oral to the base. Indeed, during Socrates's recapitulations, he repeated what he had already said several times, 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, Plato's dialogue is not perfect, but it is dragging with suspense, very well written, and could be read in one afternoon. Despite its defects, it is incredible to read urgently to have a good time!

Leave it to Plato to ask a simple question - Who is the sophist? - and create an entire ontology as a bi-product.

behold, your argument is bad, for i have drawn you as a wojak - plato, probably

Was not expecting to enjoy this as much as I did

O diálogo começa bem na busca "conjunta" do Estrangeiro com Teeteto para definir o Sofista, no entanto se torna maçante e altamente entediante com rodeios e discussões sobre o não-ser. Como outro usuário comentou, talvez fosse melhor simplesmente ter excluído as afirmações de Teeteto ("Certo", "Sem dúvida", "Como assim?", etc), e deixar o Estrangeiro fazer seu discurso sem interrupções.

Not as good as otros diálogos pero muy bueno igualmente. Platón es inteligentísimo. Coño es que traza una puta red de caza para atrapar al sofista.

Hasta 7 veces se le escapa entre definiciones pero cuando llega el momento del paréntesis ontológico, el diálogo escala mucho. Si bien no creo que sea de los mejores, puesto que peca de repetitivo; lo considero bastante bueno, la verdad.

On the one hand, I'm finding Plato/Socrates much easier to read and understand. On the other hand, I'm finding it easier to understand why Socrates was asked to kill himself.

Highly complex, but also highly entertaining -- like an Ancient Greek "Waiting for Godot," with two hapless guys endlessly rehashing unknowable subtleties of existence.

" L'ÉTRANGER : Qu'on ne nous vienne donc point dire que c'est au moment où nous dénonçons, dans le non-être, le contraire de l'être, que nous avons l'audace d'affirmer qu'il est. Pour nous, à je ne sais quel contraire de l'être, il y a beau temps que nous avons dit adieu, n'ayant cure de savoir s'il est ou non, s'il est rationnel ou totalement irrationnel. Quant à la définition que nous avons donnée du non-être, ou bien qu'on nous convainque de sa fausseté en la réfutant, ou, tant qu'on ne le pourra, qu'on accepte de dire ce que nous-mêmes disons. Il y a mélange mutuel des genres. L'être et l'autre pénètrent à travers tous et se compénètrent mutuellement. Ainsi l'autre, participant de l'être, du fait de cette participation, est ; il est, toutefois, non point ce dont il participe, mais autre, et, parce qu'il est autre que l'être, il est, par la plus manifeste nécessité, non-être. L'être, à son tour, participant de l'autre, sera donc autre que le reste des genres. Autre que tous, il n'est donc ni aucun d'eux pris à part, ni la totalité des autres moins lui-même ; de sorte que l'être, incontestablement encore, des milliers et milliers de fois n'est point, et que les autres, soit individuellement, soit en leur totalité, sous de multiples rapports, sont, et, sous de multiples rapports, ne sont point.

THÉÉTÈTE : C'est vrai. "

Drags in the middle. In chasing down the definition of a Sophist, the Visitor's investigation is both exhaustive and exhausting. Sophistry abounds. An issue Plato himself actually acknowledges in the text:

Visitor: We should leave pointless things like this alone. Instead we should be able to follow what a person says and scrutinize it step by step. When he says that what's different is the same in a certain way or that what's the same is different in a certain way, we should understand what he means, and the precise respect in which he's saying that the thing is the same or different. But when someone makes that which is the same appear different in just any old way, or vice versa, or when he makes what's large appear small or something that's similar appear dissimilar--Well, if someone enjoys constantly trotting out contraries like that in discussion, that's not true refutation. It's only the obvious new-born brain-child of someone who just came into contact with those which are
Theaetetus: Definitely.
Visitor: In fact my friend, it's inept to try to separate everything from everything else. It's the sign of a completely unmusical and unphilosophical person.

Engaging directly with the unmusical and unphilosophical can be tedious. Completion, however, rewards perseverance; for The Sophist has the best book-ends of any of the Platonic dialogues I have read thus far.

Not very interesting