Key Lessons From Plato’s Sophist
In Plato’s Late dialogue the “Sophist”, the main theme is to identify what a sophist is and how a sophist differs from a philosopher and statesman. Because each seems distinguished by a particular form of knowledge.
In attempting to define “sophist,” Plato makes use of the technique of classification by which he goes from the most general terms to the more specific. In their pursuit of the nature of Sophists, Socrates and the Eleatic stranger point out many facets of their character, especially concerning what they profess to know, which indicate to them that although a correct definition ought to point to that, and that alone, which is essential to the nature of Sophists, they find that they profess to be master of many arts.
Sophistry in the Modern World
Plato speaks of the Sophists as parasites upon wealthy young men, as men who commodify virtue, as mere “ retailers ”of virtue. They are presented as those who benefit off of the complexities of separating right from wrong. And, of course, to this day, there is the belief that the Sophists are falsified thinkers, fakes, wise-men who work with the duplicates of opinion rather than the genuine goods of reality.
Today, the sophist is a person who, without contemplating the extremes of their study, insists on signaling virtue. They prey on the undereducated or the underserved and disappear in the guise of the overload of knowledge found in the western world. For Plato and Socrates, Reality and Morality are pure and should not be proportional to the customs or circumstances of the person or society. While the Sophist only calls for spiritual and political order if it is to their “liking” and the findings are malleable much like their states of being.
In their interpretation of meanings, much to their fault, the sophist is not special. Everything can do the same, even very basic things, because individuals perceive them in multiple ways and so have differing conceptions of them. But something of some complexity, engaged in many tasks, is ideal for various persons to be conceived in different ways.
Some of these definitions which capture the object by a function or operation that is crucial to it, but many others may unintentionally capture it in some manner. The Division does not itself ensure that critical characteristics are attended to. In addition, there may be a controversy over practically any person, but in many situations, through perception or by a simple decision-procedure, we may work out conflicts (we may resolve quantity disputes by counting, scale or weight disputes by calculating or weighing).
There is no ready way to determine in other situations, as this is where the sophist lives, and this is why the strongest philosophies with the most of good intentions will contribute to their own downfall as they’re not built on structures of absolutes. In such a world, the ability to win arguments is more important the realizing the truth and no longer will philosophy and order be based on systematic thinking and the art of living as it will have been replaced by rhetoric, and speech will be valued above action.
