#267 - Sophist by Plato

Nov 7, 2025

Explore Plato's quest to define the Sophist, a figure often mistaken for a true philosopher. Delve into the challenging paradox posed by Parmenides, questioning the nature of non-being and falsehood. Unravel how the Sophist, through imitation, creates deceptive appearances of wisdom. Erik shares his struggles with the text, highlighting Plato's intricate method of division and the implications of distinguishing true Forms from false ones. Gain insights into the importance of clear definitions in philosophy and the enduring quest for objective truth.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Books

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Sophist Defined Against Parmenides

Defining the sophist requires overcoming Parmenides' claim that non-being cannot be discussed.
Plato argues non-being is 'otherness', allowing falsehoods and imitations to be meaningfully described.

ANECDOTE

A Stranger From Elea, Not Socrates

The dialogue's participants are a visitor from Elea and Theaetetus, not Socrates.
The visitor learned from Parmenides, which shapes the argument against Parmenides' view.

INSIGHT

Hunting Via Division

Plato uses the method of division to 'hunt' for definitions by splitting terms into pairs.
This thicket of divisions aims to isolate the sophist by progressively narrowing categories.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

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):

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.booksoftitans.com/subscribe