Crucial in understanding the development of Aristotle's substance/accident differentiation. Should be taught in every ancient philosophy course.

Platon babanın Sokrates'i konuşturmadığı bir kitabı,
Sofistlerin yanlışlarını aradığı, felsefi yönden de oldukça eksik ve yanlış olduklarını ispatlamaya çalıştığı bir eser,
Önceliği var olmayanın varlığı üzerine olan felsefi düşünceler silsilesini açıklaması,
Kendini açıkça ifade ettiği, felsefeyi düz insana bile anlatabileceğini gösterdiği bir eser daha, okunmalı okutulmalı

Surprisingly unsophisticated

Dari zaman dahulu kala sudah mengenal penyetaraan pengetahuan, dialektika dan ketajaman pemikiran, tidak salah karya plato ini banyak menjadi landasan bacaan untuk orang orang yang ingin belajar lebih

Plato as a Sophist

Plato really shows his artistic side with his cunning wit and word play. Don't try to view this dialogue as a way to understand Platonic thought. Just enjoy his clever sophistry as a kind of logical word game.

As a rule, I like Plato, but this felt, well… a bit overdone.

It’s all the rhetoric between being and nonbeing that got me. The first half was excellent.

Loved this quote particularly:

“May there not be supposed to be an imitative art of reasoning? Is it not possible to enchant the hearts of young men by words poured through their ears, when they were still at a distance from the truth of facts, by exhibiting to them fictitious arguments, and making them think that they are true, and that the speaker is the wisest man in all things?”

Boom. Social media.

And I did appreciate the final conclusion.

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.

Indeed.

Sophist is a dialogue between the "Stranger" from the famed philosophical city of Elea and the mathematician Theaetetus, a friend of Socrates. The Stranger leads Theaetatus in a discussion as they seek to define what a sophist is. This dialogue is interesting in that Socrates only has a couple of opening lines before the Stranger takes on Socrates's role of questioner. It's also notable for its description and practice of the philosophical art of division - διαίρεσις - which is really at the center of the entire dialogue. By dividing all manner of occupations, skills, and activities, the Stranger gets Theaetatus to see that a Sophist is a kind of mimic lacking actual knowledge who presents a "shadow play of words."

Following Lloyd Gerson, it's important to note the several metaphysical statements or arguments that the Stranger makes. In other words, Sophist is not merely a dialogue about διαίρεσις, about dividing and defining accurately as part of a philosophical method; there is, indeed, a primary metaphysic (Plato's system) which lies behind it. The entire dialogue is an opportunity for the men to deny that "naturalism" has any truth to it, as naturalism denies the divine mind, forms, and the Good itself as cause. Naturalism also seeks to continually separate things from other things - striking a "discordant note with the Muse" - and abolishing all discourse because it's only the intermingling of forms which allows discourse to take place (e.g. "difference" mixing with "sameness," "being" with "non-being," etc.).

Towards the end the Stranger notes that, "[T]hinking and discourse are the same thing, except that what we call thinking is, precisely, the inward dialogue carried on by the mind with itself without spoken sound," a major Platonic doctrine of thought. The Stranger also makes an important assertion about the demiurge or divine craftsman which Theaetetus is so moved by, that he cannot disavow; the dialogue goes like this:

Theaetatus: What belief [of naturalists] do you mean?

Stranger: That nature gives birth to them as a result of some spontaneous cause that generates without intelligence. Or shall we say that they come from a cause which, working with reason and art, is divine and proceeds from divinity?

Theaetetus: Perhaps because I am young, I often shift from one belief to the other, but at this moment, looking at your face and believing you to hold that these things have a divine origin, I too am convinced.

Throughout the dialogue, the διαίρεσις truly advances Plato's metaphysics of the Forms, demonstrating that, without such Forms, classifications become meaningless or impossible, and and end is swiftly put to all thinking and discoursing (which are the same thing).

Overall, this dialogue may not be as interesting as some of Plato's others, but because of it so clearly demolishes Plato's chief opponents, the Sophists, and because it continues to add more light to Plato's doctrines of the Good and of the Forms, it's valuable to read.

This one had a little bite to it

Ahmet İnsel'in sonsözü olmasa, bence 3, belki 2 *
peki neden?
fikirlere katılıp katılmadığımdan bağımsız, bir iddaayı kanıtlamaya çalışırken -veya çürütmeye- bence çok dolambaçlı yollar seçilmiş. tabii okuyucunun konuya aşinalığı ile de alakalı mutlaka. yine de, Plato'nun başka eserleri gibi, argümantasyon görmek için decent bi kitap, her ne kadar biraz yokuşlu olsa da.
ha bir de şu dikotomi konusu var: bilemiyorum! DE, binlerce yıl sonra bunu söylemek kolay, bunu o zaman söyleyebilmekse...

J'ai détesté.

Un clásico...

Interesting. Plato is one of the best thinkers to have lived on this planet. I liked a lot his description of charlatans (sophists) and their word-playing.
Probably worth reading for people who are into classics, philosophy or the sort.

platão tardio é muito superior deixa a república no chinelo