Dialogue of moderate length which first methodically defines a sophist through metaphorical comparisons defining genus and the species. Serves as a precursor to Aristotle's Organon, especially Categories. The sophist is defined throughout the dialogue as being predatory, persuasive, concerned with profit and recognition, a flatterer who is the mere imitation of the philosopher. The second part of the dialogue dives into an ontological discussion (which I'll probably re-read at some point) not nearly as difficult to follow as in the Parmenides. The conclusion is reached that Not-Being is not separate from Being, but a species of Being. Not-Being as an independent genus, that is Not-Being as an idea in and of itself, cannot exist.

If a person speaks that which is not, do they speak?

Sophist poses this question, the only thing that caught and sustained my interest in this dialogue. The rest of it is a thinly-veiled hit piece against the sophists who were opposed by Socrates, Plato, and his academy (the victors that history remembers).

But back to the first question. My answer to it would be - a person who speaks “that which is not” speaks, but their words are empty of meaning, as they signify no thing. “Nothing” is emptiness, so a person that speaks of that which is not still speaks, but speaks empty words.

At another place, I feel like this dialogue ignores the implications of an earlier dialogue, the Parmenides. The Visitor says -

Surely it’s absurd for someone to agree that there are two names when he maintains that there’s only one thing.

This ignores the idea of names and (worldly) forms being illusional — I assume that this idea could be derived from Plato's own Parmenides and don't understand why this was not taken up as a rebuttal to what the Visitor says here.

The attempt at universal separation is the final annihilation of all reasoning; for only by the union of conceptions with one another do we attain to discourse of reason”

Contains a very solid introduction and lucid translation of a potentially challenging dialogue.

Opposites time all the time in this dialogue. Trying to break down in the most tedious line of questions of what is being and what is non being. This dialogue was dragging for a while near the end and then it wraps up without much of a conclusion in a matter of phrases. Certainly didn’t feel conclusive to me. Nothing particularly reflective for me with this dialogue and it neither impressed me nor offended.

First of all, I would like to point out that I read this for a “Comparative Literature” class and so I did not read all of “Sophist”. But I would like to comment the parts that I did read and that are related to the art of copy. I would also like to say that I am very influenced in my opinions by “The Decay of Lying” by Oscar Wilde who also used dialogue to speak of lying and copying in art. I do not agree with Plato, who also in “The republic” tries to diminish imaginative art (specifically poetry), but that does not mean that I don’t think he has a brilliant brain. I enjoyed reading some of it, but personally it is not something I usually read and so I feel like I could have appreciated it more than I did. Back to my main point, I think imitation is inherent to human beings. How do we learn things when we are younger? Imitating. Where do we come from? From copies of cells. Any art we see is lying in some way. But art is necessary to life. And so is lying (in aesthetic terms, not concerning morality). Therefore, even when we speak of realistic art, it is still not our reality, it is still some sort of lie, some sort of copy. It is life that imitates art and not the contrary. On that note, since we are very influences by art, I do agree with Plato when he says children should not be starting with Homer, because it is true that gods practice lying and do a lot of wrong things. However, Homer, for example, is necessary to us because it makes life less boring. We can admit then that there is some beauty in lying. But lying in art should not be associated to “sophists” and politicians that foolish people and decieve them. One has nothing to do with the other. We have to separate aesthetics and morals.
Well, I am sure I have more to say, but I can’t think of anything more right now.
(Also, excuse any mistakes I did concerning my english skills because it is not my first language).

Leitura necessária nessa época de verdades relativizadas e mentiras descaradas travestidas de (falsa) liberdade de expressão.

Uno dei dialoghi più interessanti di Platone, non pensavo fosse così interessante. Nel Sofista il procedimento della diairesi è la struttura predominante, e conferisce un ritmo al dialogo stesso che permette di raggiungere in poco tempo varie definizioni. Ce ne sono varie per il Sofista: cacciatore di giovani ricchi, mercante di cose che riguardano l’anima, rivenditore al dettaglio di concetti , colui che purifica l’anima dal sapere apparente, imitatore delle cose con parole secondo apparenza..

Reaching back a few years as I read this during my undergrad, but I remember struggling to get into this. It was interesting, just hard to make progress through.

Iniz. 8/10

Naprijed, ZGB. 1975.
Preveo Milivoj Sironić. Sironić je super dopunio prijevod fusnotama u kojima je ukazao na dvosmislenosti i problematici određenih mjesta u tekstu. Primjerice;
"Teetet- Uistinu se, stranče, čini da je istinito ono u početku rečeno o sofisti da je to vrsta ljudi koju je teško uloviti. Čini se da je on pun zaklona..."
Riječ "zaklona" u matičnom jeziku posjeduje duhovitu crtu dvosmislenosti,"problema" na starogrčkom označava i "zaklon", "zid", "barijera" ali također i "prijeporno pitanje" odnosno "problem".
Srpski lokativ, "o sofisti", je zanimljiv jer Sironić prevodi (i)jekavštinom te inače ne baca srbizme. Simpatični su ti jezični pulsevi bivše države u jugoslavenskim izdanjima.
Srboliki su također oblici nominativa "vrst" i "osnov" te je srbolika riječ "protivurječje" koja se javlja usporedno s riječju "proturječenje".
U vezi samog djela valja istaknuti da je vođa dijaloga nazvan misteriozno, "Stranac". Platon u svojim djelima inače uvijek navodi Sokrata kao najveću facu u raspravi.
Cijelo djelo je napisano protiv sofizma.
U vezi sadržaja izdvojio bih par zanimljivosti.
Prva je;
"Stranac- Kažem da što god ima neku snagu da ili djeluje na bilo koju drugu stvar ili da trpi i najmanje djelovanje od najneznatnije stvari, pa bilo to i samo jedanput, kažem da sve to zaista ima bitak. Postavljam definiciju bića da ono nije ništa drugo osim mogućnost."
Bačeni citat baca na egzistencijalizam, bivstvovanje je mogućnost, kretanje, promjena koja može biti aktivna.
Kul je također kada Stranac baca ove umovitosti;
"I mi smo tijelom putem osjeta u vezi s postojanjem, a dušom putem mišljenja s pravom egzistencijom, za koju kažete da je uvijek ista i nepromjenjiva, a postojanje da je svaki čas drukčije."

Platon se u "Sofistu" dotiče i jezikoslovlja govoreći, kroz Stranca, da je niz sastavljen od isključivo glagola ili isključivo imenica neskladan odnosno besmislen. Govor sačinjavaju glagoli i imenice u skladu.
Sociološki, a i kulturološki, je zanimljivo kada Stranac govori da pučka vjerovanja zastupaju da priroda stvara sva smrtna bića te "tjelesa bez života topiva i netopiva" za razliku od umnih koji tvrde da navedno nastade od boga (str.186). Bog se javlja u jednini, da li su to kršćani kasnije izmijenili? Zanimljivo je također da pučka vjerovanja vjeruju prirodi a ne bogu.
Pročitajte "Sofista"!

Seems like this method of dividing is a way I/we define objects in the world. "It's not X, so it must be Y...but it's not really Y so it must be Z..." Sophist illustrates some reasons why his might not be the best way of defining something, since the Sophist then pops up eveywhere. But idk how else to define things. Does it reflect the weird nature of the sophist or does it show a flaw in this method of reasoning?