The goal of this dialogue is to define the Sophist. We’ve seen the Sophist pop up in Greek Tragedy and Comedy and it’s never a pretty picture. They are often contrasted with the Philosopher, the true lover of wisdom, and are denigrated as those who have the appearance of wisdom. They are known for charging money to teach their students how to argue a point, irrespective of its truth.

In attempting to define the Sophist, Plato must overcome a snag put forward by the philosopher Parmenides. Parmenides has stated that false statements are impossible:

“This should not ever prevail in your thought: that the things that are not, are; rather do you keep your mind well shut off from just this way of searching.”

Basically, don’t think or talk about things that have no being; things that don’t exist. However, if that is the case, there is nothing false and everything a person says is true. Everything is relative.

In order to define the Sophist, Plato must show that something that is not, is. He does this by saying that the false is something other than or different from the true. Plato’s Forms must be true. Do things that are false also have Forms? No, they are simply other than or different from Forms.

Therefore, the Sophist is one who makes false imitations of true things. He is not a philosopher.

This dialogue hurt by brain. I read it three times using different translations in an attempt to struggle through it and try and understand it. I share what I learned in this episode and I hope the work makes it so that you see the dialogue in a fresh way. As always, if I’ve gotten anything incorrect, please help me learn by commenting below.

Show Notes:

Book Versions I Read:

* Plato Complete Works - edited by John M. Cooper - translated by Nicholas P. White

* Plato: Collected Dialogues - edited by Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns - translated by F.M. Cornford

* Plato Sophist: The Professor of Wisdom by Eva Brann, Peter Kalkavage, Eric Salem

The Division Thicket (from the introduction in Plato Sophist: The Professor of Wisdom):

The goal of this dialogue is the definition of a statesman. Can Plato show us the essence or nature of the statesman? This dialogue is a sequel to Sophist. In each dialogue, an attempt at a definition is sought through the method of division. For example, Statesman begins with Knowledge, which is divided into practical and theoretical knowledge. The statesman would be on the theoretical side.

This division occurs until the discussion partners Visitor from Elea and Socrates the Younger describe the statesman as a shepherd or herder of humans. That doesn’t work, and so a Deus Ex Machina of sorts jumps in through the telling of a myth. In the myth, the ages of Cronus and Zeus are contrasted and the dialog is set on a different path. That path leads to a definition or essence of the statesman as more of a weaver of disparate parts.

The dialogue then gets into different types of governments and the role of law within each set. It posits the best form of government (rule by statesman through special, expert knowledge) but admits that such a person is unlikely. The next best thing is the rule by imitator (Sophist?) who rules by the existing set of laws, despite the likelihood of injustice.

I loved this dialogue. The surprise appearance of the myth was so delightful and the discussion about law, types of government, courage, and governance utterly fascinating. In this episode, In this episode, I give an overview of the arguments and take a look at the myth and it’s relation to the definition of the statesman.

Show Notes:

* Want to discuss White Nights by Fyodor Dostoevsky? Simply become a paid subscriber here on the Books of Titans Substack and you’ll receive details about our November 12th Zoom call to discuss this short novel.

I finished reading Man’s Search for Meaning as the fireworks announced the start of 2018. I was closing out my first year of this reading project with my final book of the year and was trying to finish it before the clock struck 12. I didn’t make it, but I was close.

That book ended up being my favorite for many years. Here was a man claiming that it was possible to develop a spiritual life amidst hell on earth. Amidst hunger, torture, unbearable loss, and despair. There was a flicker of hope.

Last week, I led a reading group through Man’s Search for Meaning. It was my first time re-reading it since late 2017. It was startling to see how I’ve changed in that time, both personally and in my reading life. I mark up my books and use different color pens on re-reads, so it was clear what stuck out the first time and what stuck out these 8 years later.

I’ve also read a number of books I hadn’t read before my first Frankl reading. Those books have impacted me, have deepened my convictions, and have perhaps provided another angle on Frankl. One of those books, The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, was life-altering. I read that one late 2019. In re-reading Man’s Search for Meaning, I see a number of similarities between these two books.

In this podcast episode, I share some things that stuck out to 2025 Erik that didn’t stick out as much to 2017 Erik. I also share some important similarities between Man’s Search for Meaning and The Gulag Archipelago.

If you’d like to listen to the original podcast episode after the 2017 reading of the book, you can do so here: