من لە بەینی هێز و توانای ئەفڵاتوون سەرم سووڕماوە

.
.
پرسی سەرەکی ئەفڵاتون وەکو ناوی دەمەتەقێکە بریتیە لە دیاریکردنی سۆفیست
چ جۆرە کەسێکە ؟ کاری چییە ؟ چییە ؟
کە ئەگاتە ئەو قەناعەتەی سۆفیست بریتیە لە
" لاساییکردنەوەی دروستکردنی ئاخاوتنی ناکۆک،
چەشنێکی ناذڵسۆز و نەزانی سەر بە چەشنی ڕووکەشدروستکەری جۆرە کۆپیدروستەرێکی
وشەسازی سەر بە دروستکراوێکی مرۆیی، نەک یەزدانیە. "

I´m confident, you have never, in your life met someone like Plato, this is just beyond anything I thought a human mind could accomplish. Let alone to say he is a master of patience, throughout his dialogues, sophists have been continuously condemned, we are talking decades running into the same problems again and again, but not rightfully so; until now. The whole exposition feels different, specially prepared, it seems like the culmination of some great Olympic hustle Plato had on two fronts: with poets, illusionists, and all sorts of charlatanry on one side, and with the ancient Ionian, Sicilian and Greek philosophers on another.

As if he had learned enfleurage from J.B.Grenouille, Plato is resolute to distill the essence from the flesh of the sophist. 100+ pages to hunt the hunter, not even a sentence waisted as we delve so deep into our minds as to trying to define what is real, what is being, what it is not, what is an is-not, truth, language, technique, knowledge, imitation, discourse, thoughts, reason, imagination; a synthesis of Heraclitus, Parmenides, Orphism, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Anaximander´s thought: a Masterpiece in all it´s words!

In the Theaetetus, Socrates had tried to educate a new philosopher and failed in so doing -- it appeared that Theaetetus was not possessed of the proper disposition, but it also appeared that Socrates himself was incapable of generating the proper type of riddles, which all pointed to contradictions within the Socratic metaphysics and the ultimate supremacy of the everyman's political opinions against which Socrates had always defined himself. Now arrived is the Eleatic Stranger. Who is he? Nobody really knows. Away from his own project of philosophic irony within Elea, the Stranger is apparently capable of delivering the explicit, off-the-cuff explication of philosophy at the highest order that Socrates refused to (although seemed to do, away from his own city, in the Phaedrus). Unlike Socrates, in political trouble at this time, the Stranger is entirely at the leisure Socrates had always demanded for philosophy, as though freed to complete the ultimate metaphysic: he begins, almost peripatetically, with orderly divisions of genus, as though this casual demonstration of logical division were sufficient, but eventually must provide a full account of Being, Seeming and Nothing in order to explain the nature of the Sophist, whose practice of deceit is defined by his lies about himself (and perhaps to himself). The interlocutor is the naive mathematician Theatetus, whom the Stranger does not resemble and with whom he is not in love; being polite and speaking as he likes: he is free to say of what is, that it is.

As such, the metaphysics that follow are something of a hidden core to the Platonic corpus, as it would seem -- Parmenides, in his dialogue, had provided a convincing account of a world made of self-generating forms and souls, but his student the Stranger casually decides to slay his antecedent's metaphysics in a radical act called 'parricide', at risk of seeming insane -- such are the things one can do, when away from those with whom one lives. The world is not a single egg, instantiated out to souls; the world is the infinitely many and shifting river of the Herakleiteans all the way to its most metaphysical level, where tout-le-monde is in motion save for the mind (but not the soul), for whom logos is a contradistnictly static image made tangible by passing differentiations; as such, the Sophist is a making and self-made image acting in ignorance, and the philosopher who does the same is an ironist.

Is this the secret behind Plato's works? Theaetetus is not astute enough an observer to question the stranger's declaration in speech that all speech is an image, or this proof through chaotic and constantly shifting paradigms that all speech is totally static. It is not clear the meaning of this metaphysic, which intrudes upon the political question of sophistry and ends with an ultimate appeal to God, somehow the divine intelligence behind the waking world -- what is clear that Socrates, who sat silently listening through this entire speech, willfully committed suicide not long after.

What, then, of this mystery about the praxis of the philosopher and the sophist? The stranger does not present a complete metaphysics, and indeed Plato never did throughout his life -- indeed, in Athens, Plato had, perhaps from political pressure, provided a mathematical metaphysics in a speech entitled "On The Good", had written a letter in similarly political circumstances to the Sicilians advocating a peripatetic metaphysics, and provided a competing image in the Parmenides. Contemporaries who received any of these explications had called him insane, and all of his students, who had been given this same information and more, continued on to espouse contradictory, wildly diverging and radically simplified theories -- which the dialogues themselevs often very clearly refute ... it is not even clear that he had ever really wanted to really educate anyone in these matters.

I'm not going to read this book again for at least five years, for my health on all levels.

Plato is always a must to read, this dialogue is inccredible, puts us at the edge of rational thinking, it’s very interesting in many ways enjoyable, but hard to understand the last 10 pages, it gets very tricky. Funny although.

8/10.

Plato is an excellent writer, and the dialogue format teaches one how to properly dispute. Socratic debate tests one's ideas in the furnace of argument, where only the best comes out unscathed. I wanted to test out ChatGPT's powers of Socratic dialogue, so I asked it to write a dialogue in Socratic format discussing discipline. Check out what it created:

The scene opens in a grand hall, where Socrates is engaged in a lively debate with the sophist Protagoras. The room is filled with various members of the community, each with their own opinions on the topic at hand.

Socrates: "My dear Protagoras, I must say that your arguments for a life of pleasure and leisure do not hold up to scrutiny. Surely, there is more to life than simply indulging our every whim and desire."

Protagoras: "Ah, Socrates, always the philosopher. But what could be more important than seeking pleasure and avoiding pain? That is the essence of the good life."

Socrates: "Ah, but pleasure is fleeting, my friend. It is a fickle mistress, and one that will abandon you in times of struggle and hardship. No, I believe there is something more important than mere pleasure. Something that gives life meaning and purpose."

At that moment, one of the members of the community speaks up.

Member: "Speaking of struggle and hardship, have you not heard of the heroism of the Spartans in the Battle of Thermopylae? They faced insurmountable odds, but still stood their ground and fought for what they believed in. Surely, they are a model for all of us in our own struggles."

Socrates: "Indeed, my friend. The Spartans showed us the importance of discipline and strength in the face of adversity. But they were not the only ones to exhibit such courage. What of Charles Martel, who defended Europe against the Muslim invaders? Or the Germans, who fought to the bitter end against the encroaching Soviet army?"

Protagoras: "But what good did it do them? They died in the end, did they not? What is the point of all that struggle and sacrifice?"

Socrates: "The point, my dear Protagoras, is that they lived with honor and virtue. They did not cower in fear, but instead faced their challenges head-on. And in doing so, they achieved a greatness that will be remembered for centuries to come."

Another member of the community speaks up.

Member: "And let us not forget the explorers who ventured into the unknown, facing all manner of dangers and hardships in the pursuit of knowledge and discovery. They too exhibited great courage and strength."

Socrates: "Yes, the explorers showed us that even the fear of the unknown can be overcome with discipline and determination. They were willing to risk everything in order to expand the boundaries of human knowledge."

Protagoras: "But what does all of this have to do with me, or with anyone living in the modern world?"

Socrates: "Everything, my friend. The struggles of our ancestors are a reminder that we too must face our own challenges with courage and determination. We must submit ourselves to a higher standard, and in doing so, we will find meaning and purpose in our lives."

At that moment, the doors to the hall swing open, and in strides Alexander the Great, his armor gleaming in the light.

Alexander: "My friends, forgive me for interrupting your discussion. But I could not help but overhear what you were saying. And I must say, I agree with Socrates. I myself was once a weak and fickle boy, who did not accept the obligations my father placed upon me. But I learned better. I learned to do my duty, and in doing so, I gained in strength and willpower. And with that strength, I conquered all of the known world."

Socrates nodded in agreement. "Indeed, the life of Alexander is a testament to the power of duty and discipline," he said. "He was not born a great man, but he chose to become one through his actions and his commitment to his obligations."

Protagoras scoffed. "But what if one does not have great obligations, or what if one's duties go against their own desires and beliefs? Should they still submit to them?"

Socrates raised an eyebrow. "Are you suggesting that one should only do what they want to do, regardless of any external obligations or responsibilities they may have?"

Protagoras shrugged. "Why not? What is the point of living a life that is not enjoyable or fulfilling?"

Socrates shook his head. "But true fulfillment comes not from indulging in pleasure or following one's whims, but from living a life of purpose and virtue. And sometimes, that requires sacrifice and discipline."

Protagoras frowned. "But what if one's obligations go against their own moral code? What if they are asked to do something they believe is wrong?"

Socrates considered this for a moment. "It is true that there may be times when our obligations conflict with our beliefs. In those cases, we must use reason and wisdom to determine the best course of action. But even then, we cannot simply disregard our duties altogether. We must find a way to fulfill them while still staying true to our principles."

Alexander, who had been listening silently to the conversation, spoke up. "I have faced such conflicts many times in my life," he said. "But I have learned that it is possible to balance duty and morality. One must simply have the courage to do what is right, even in the face of opposition or adversity."

Socrates nodded approvingly. "Indeed, it is the mark of a truly virtuous person to uphold their obligations while still staying true to their own moral code. This is the path to true excellence and greatness."

Protagoras looked contemplative, as if he were considering Socrates' words. "Perhaps there is some merit to what you say," he said at last. "But I still believe that one should prioritize their own happiness and fulfillment above all else."

Socrates smiled. "And I believe that true happiness and fulfillment come not from pleasure-seeking and self-indulgence, but from living a life of purpose and virtue. It is only by submitting ourselves to a higher standard that we can truly reach our full potential."

Alexander nodded in agreement. "Indeed, it is through our obligations and responsibilities that we find our true strength and greatness. And it is through our virtues and discipline that we make the most of the time we have been given."

Protagoras looked somewhat defeated, as if he were realizing that his beliefs were perhaps not as sound as he had thought. "I suppose there may be some truth to what you say," he said at last. "Perhaps I have been too focused on my own desires and pleasures, and not enough on my duties and obligations."

Socrates smiled warmly. "It is never too late to start living a life of purpose and virtue," he said. "And I believe that if you do, you will find that the rewards are far greater than any fleeting pleasures or indulgences."

Pretty confusing, but I can tell that this has important part of Plato's metaphysical system. I will be coming back to this for sure.

A finely correspondence following the dialogue 'Thaetetus' between Socrates (here known as the Visitor) and Thaetetus, mathematician. It is a careful unravelling of what a sophist is. All is revealed at the end in the last few lines. An enjoyable dialogue revealing the emptiness of a sophist.

مكالمه ى سوفيست، به شناخت ماهيت سوفيست مى پردازد. سقراط در اين گفتگو ساكت است و بيگانه اى الئايى صحبت مى كند.


خلاصه ى مباحث


افلاطون ابتدا مى گويد عدم مضاف غير از عدم مطلق است، و عدم مضاف در حقيقت موجود است.
سپس بيان مى دارد كه "معرفت خلاف واقع" و "استدلال نادرست" قسمى از عدم مضاف هستند، و در نتيجه وجود دارند؛ پس سخن سوفيست هايى كه مى گويند "استدلال نادرست" امرى عدمى است (نا+درست)، پس وجود ندارد، مغالطه است و اينان عدم مطلق را با عدم مضاف خلط كرده اند.

در نهايت، سوفيست به عنوان كسى معرفى مى شود كه در كار استدلال نادرست است، و خودش بر اين نادرستى واقف است. واژه ى "سوفسطايى" و "سفسطه" امروزه از همين تعريف گرفته شده اند.



از كتاب

سوفيست به ظلمات "نيستى" پناه مى برد و همه ى زواياى تاريكى را مى شناسد؛ از اين رو شناختن او در آن تاريكى بسيار دشوار است.

ولى فيلسوف سرگرم تحقيق در باره ى "هستى" است، و روشنايى خيره كننده اى كه او را احاطه كرده مردمان را از شناختن او باز مى دارد؛ زيرا چشم درونى بيشتر مردمان نمى تواند زمانى دراز در روشنايى خدايى نظر كند.

Great book. Being gives being to motion and rest. So motion and rest are different, except in their participation from being.

Also, the sofists are those hiding in non-being. Are the apophatic theologians then sofists?

Platon öncesi dönemde savunulan var olan ve var olmayan düşüncesine yeni bir bakış açısı. Felsefenin temel taşlarından. Felsefeyle ilgilenen herkesin okuması gerekir. “Sofist”in kim olduğuna dair bir araştırmayla başlıyor daha sonrasındaysa varlık tartışmasına geçiyor. Önemli olan aralarda yaptığı gönderimleri kavramak. Şahsen ben kitabı okurken birden fazla kaynak kullandım, daha iyi oturması amacıyla. Her ne kadar ingilizcesini kavramları açısındandan tercih etsem de, çok detaylı bir okuma yapmıyorsanız, türkçesi gayet güzel.

2024:
3 Stars

As always there are interesting tidbits here that give an insight into the time. The dialogue itself I think flew a little over my head. I still struggle a little with some of the concepts; the one and the many and being/not being. Will return to it later I think.

I really enjoyed this one icl. The idea of what is & what is not both having an “equal being”. I.e large & not-large are from my understanding of the dialogue both equally valid metaphysical beings. It’s just that one is different from the other. so we have a “what is” and a million different things that it’s different to except the thing itself. The way the dialogue lays it out seems very convincing to me & well explained.

The sophists believe “that which is not” is unknowable so everything is “that which is” and so everything is verbally true. The sophist would say there is only speech while Plato would say there is speech & non speech (sounds that don’t form a coherent sentence).