[Free Ebook] ☦ Σοφιστής ♁ Tyrakel.de

A Sophist is a hunter of young boys by the way. Clearly I ll have to read this again I suspect God kills a kitten every time Theaetetus says clearly definitely, of course BECAUSE NONE OF THAT IS CLEAR AT ALL.I became interested in Sophist through Heidegger I ve read a bunch of Plato s dialogues before, I can t remember which, I read them without any guide they impressed me as mildly amusing, beyond that it s completely mysterious to me how anyone can walk away with any sort of certainty, or conclusion Plato always leaves me feeling trolled The nice thing about reading backwards from modern signposts is that I get to appreciate other people s interpretive efforts I don t think I could have taken this dialogue very seirously if I didn t know it inspired so many generations of philosophers, and now I m burning with desire to read Heidegger s lecture on Sophist, and his investigation of beings, even though I ll have to learn to read Greek first And I suspect that s the whole point not to indoctrinate readers with any kind of solidified knowledge, but to inspire dialogues, investigations, contemplations.I don t usually rate books I don t understand, but I think, for the psychological effect it created bafflement commingled with desires to dig deeper it s justifiable to give it. [Free Ebook] ⚕ Σοφιστής ⚖ A Fluent And Accurate New Translation Of The Dialogue That, Of All Plato S Works, Has Seemed To Speak Most Directly To The Interests Of Contemporary And Analytical Philosophers White S Extensive Introduction Explores The Dialogue S Central Themes, Its Connection With Related Discussions In Other Dialogues, And Its Implicaiton For The Interpretation Of Plato S Metaphysics Sophist is one of the few Platonic dialogues which don t have Socrates as the main character all are from the late period This seems to offer Plato some advantages, especially for this book s purposes Using the Eleatic Visitor as the main speaker allows Plato to make sustained arguments consisting of series of positive statements as opposed to the Socratic character s standard approach, claiming to know nothing and play the midwife of others thoughts asking questions, testing answers, usually showing their inadequacy, and typically ending inconclusively Arguably Plato could have used Socrates the same way he used the Visitor, but that would have been odd as Socrates is the main speaker in the Theaetetus, Sophist s predecessor in a trilogy, in which Socrates is true to his old form Sophist is an attack on Plato s adversaries, the sophists, and on some of their most important and to Plato, very dangerous word or logic puzzles His animus towards sophists, and towards poets, might seem excessive, but we should remember that he saw both as educators offering falsehoods, in some cases in the guise of truth and in others with a relativistic view of truth And this was at a time when disinterested, rational investigation into truth was new and insecure For some it was seen as impious, probably for others a potential threat to society and the state Another danger that seems to have been quite real was the conflating of philosophy and sophistry as we see in Aristophanes Clouds, and as Plato s Apology seems to suggest, though in reality they were perhaps less distinct than Plato might have us believe Regarding at least some sophists, the main issue was the reality and importance of truth and the importance of pursuing truth regardless of outcome as opposed to developing and teaching skill in persuasion regardless of truth The sophists puzzles posed serious problems for Plato, causing fundamental aspects of existence being and non being, rest and motion, one and many, etc to appear hopelessly mired in contradictions and confusions, leading among other things to relativism about truth and morality.Primary among these problems was confusion about being i.e the word is and manipulation of the confusion of is as denoting existence with its denoting a thing s having particular qualities With this difference long clear to us, it s hard to understand how the brightest minds in ancient Greece were stumped by it, but it was a major problem that Plato seems to have effectively clarified in Sophist Another main problem in sophistical arguments was the equation of not being x with being the opposite of x Plato pretty effectively clarifies that not indicates difference but not necessarily contrariety He also, very importantly, believes he establishes that we can talk about things that don t exist without necessarily contradicting ourselves I m not sure he established this in a way that would decisively undermine the sophists, but this issue was central to Plato s problem with them Some sophists claimed there couldn t be false belief or speech because no one could think or say that which is not since that which is not has no share in being this picks up an issue from the Theaetetus, while Sophist in general is largely directed against Parmenides, with some mostly indirect connection to the dialogue named after him We might say that Plato demonstrated, or believed he demonstrated, that at least some things which don t exist e.g things that are false are nevertheless available to thought and speech.Another main issue Plato tackles, also without the greatest clarity, is that qualities possibly the Forms or Ideas from his earlier works can blend with each other this revisits a central problem from the Parmenides, at least if we take it as dealing with the Forms He doesn t provide much of an account of how this works, but in a proto Aristotelian manner he doesn t seem to need to so he doesn t bother he gives some examples which appear to adequately demonstrate that this blending happens in at least some situations and then forgoes further proof as he s achieved his primary objectives demonstrating that things can either be in the sense that they exist or they can be possessors of qualities they can not be in possession of quality x but this doesn t mean they have or are its opposite they can not be something without meaning they don t exist we can discuss things that are not without contradicting ourselves or saying nothing and things can possess a multiplicity of differing qualities, blending with each other, without this being inherently contradictory or problematic At least this is my understanding of what I take to be the main points of the dialogue The first third of the book is an entertaining search for a definition of sophist, in which we also meet the Eleatic Visitor and are introduced to his method of division The Visitor seems to speak for Plato much clearly than the character Socrates elsewhere, and it s hard to imagine Plato taking on the tasks of this dialogue with the usual Socratic limitations and dialectical method Decisively refuting the sophists on the points addressed was critical to Plato s project there is truth, it s absolute and unchanging, and it very possibly can be discovered and understood by man there also must be falsehood both deceit and misunderstanding or ignorance similarly, justice and knowledge are real, and attempting to pursue and understand them is not necessarily destined to be fruitless But we also find the Visitor as the main speaker in Statesman, while Parmenides had been the main speaker in that dialogue with a young Socrates largely on the defensive , and Socrates doesn t even appear in The Laws Timaeus and Critias are essentially monologues by those characters, and even in Philebus, with Socrates as the main speaker, he asserts positive doctrine rather than questioning others and demolishing their definitions and arguments It seems Plato in his late period needed something his earlier Socratic character and method could no longer provide him with the exception of the Theaetetus, perhaps acting as a coda for the old Socrates and an introduction to the trilogy which apparently was to include Sophist, Statesman, and the unwritten Philosopher.I mentioned a proto Aristotelian aspect in this dialogue it seems there are several of these in the Parmenides and Theaetetus Sophist Statesman trilogy The logic puzzles in Parmenides almost demand an analysis and categorization of logical fallacies, for which a formal logic would be a prerequisite The Eleatic Visitor s method of division used in Sophist and Statesman is a step away from Socratic dialectic and a step towards Aristotelian logic The Visitor also insists on differentiation between general and specific, and seems to be moving towards something like Aristotle s genus and species The unmoved mover makes a very brief appearance in Statesman s cosmological myth, which also includes something like an initial abstract of Aristotle s Politics i.e a survey and critique of existing political systems And there s also something similar to Aristotle s beloved doctrine of the mean in Statesman To be fair to Aristotle, no one else in the Academy took these hints or produced the remarkable body of work he did, and there are plenty of things in Aristotle, e.g his causality, which don t seem to have any obvious precedents in Plato Certainly Aristotle s formal logic was one of history s great intellectual achievements, regardless of the extent of the foundation Plato provided And of course the mindsets of the two men were very different, not least in the place or lack thereof of empiricism in their respective worlds of thought.Perhaps it should be noted that our view of the sophists may be excessively negative and otherwise unbalanced largely due to Plato s well preserved and brilliant dialogues which so often savage the group It s unlikely we ll ever have adequate knowledge of them to be able to independently assess Plato s characterizations But perhaps it s worth keeping in mind Plato s harsh view of the poets, who we do know, when considering his even harsher view of the sophists. Bilmek ve bilinmek sizce etki midir, etkilenme midir yoksa her ikisi birden midir Platon, Sofist.s.80Antik a n lanetli biraderleri olan sofistler, ilk ba ta, bilgiyi sorgulayarak ve pheyi d nceye sokarak felsefe sahnesine nefis bir giri yapm lard Pek k sa bir zaman i erisinde bu sorgulama ve phe tehlikeli bir ak l y r tmeye ve sonra da kullan l , kaypak bir ilkeye d n t D nmek, var olan bir eyi d nmektir Yanl d nmek ise var olmayan bir eyi d nmektir Var olmayan bir ey d n lemez O halde yanl d nmek ve dolay s yla yanl konu mak m mk n de ildir Bu ilkeden hareketle k lan yolda Sofistler, sanatlar ve hatta erdemleri, kendileri bunlara h kim olmasalar bile dil becerisiyle ba kalar na para kar l nda retmeye ba lad lar Sonunda Protagoras, i i Atina n n pek sevgili tanr lar n n ger ekte var olup olmad klar n n bilinemeyece ine kadar vard r nca ehirden s r ld ve eserleri yak ld Sofistlerin eserlerinin yak lmas i ini bizzat Platon un idare etti i s ylenir sa dan nce 365 y l nda yaz ld d n len Sofist, Platon un ya l l k d nemine denk gelir ve tahminen Theaitetos tan sonra, Politeia dan nce yaz lm t r Yani asl nda, bu s rayla yap lacak bir okuman n daha faydal ve anla l r olaca s ylenebilir Buna ra men Sofist, sade ve keskin yap s ile tek ba na dahi, d nce ile ilgilenen ve bu yolda susam lar bekleyen sakin ama derin bir p nar gibi.Platon, Sofist in ilk b l m nde Sherlock Holmes aratmayan, incelikli bir mant k y r tme ve ba d nd ren keskin bir dikotomi ile sofistin pe ine d yor Bu takip esnas nda Platon, nce sofist ve avc aras nda bir benzerlik kuruyor Bu k s mlar kitab n en e lenceli k s mlar Bu esnada anlat lan, takip etmesi keyifli o temel dikotomiyi buraya aktarmaya al ay m Avc Deniz avc s Kara avc s ,Kara Avc s Yabani hayvan avlayan Evcil hayvan, insan avlayan,Evcil hayvan, insan avlayan Silahla kna ederek, kna ederek Topluluk i inde Bire bir g r erek,Bire bir g r erek Hediye almak i in Kazan sa lamak i in,Kazan sa lamak i in Ge im i in Dalkavuk Para i in Sofist te Platon ele ge mesi zor Sofist i bu ekilde derdest ediyor ama g lgelerde dola may seven Sofist yine de elinden kurtulmay ba ar yor Eser boyunca bu dikotomiyi ba ka dallar ndan budakland ran Platon, Sofist in pe ini b rakm yor Platon un as l meselesi Sofist i ele ge irmek de de il zaten O, sofist av n bahane ederek aslen Parmenides in var olmayan n var olmamas eklinde ifade edebilece imiz tezini r tmeye al yor Kitab n ikinci k sm bu metafizik konuya ayr lm Platon var g c yle yanl n m mk nl n ispat etmeye al yor ve sofistlerin en temel ilkesini diyalektik modeli kullanarak r t yor leti im Yay nlar n n Siyaset Felsefesi Klasikleri serisi i inde 2016 da ilk bask s n yapan bu yeni eviriyi ben ok be endim Kitaba Emile Chambry nin vaziyeti g zel zetleyen bir ns z ve Ahmet nsel in sofistleri a c c k da olsa savunan sons z de eklenmi Bunlar ho detaylar Eseri okumak i in temel bir felsefe altyap s gerekiyor zellikle de ikinci b l mde yer alan var olmayan ile ilgili metafizik diyaloglar anlamland rabilmek i in Ama bu basit e ik a l rsa, Cenap Karakaya n n duru, okuyana yard m eden evirisi ile Sofist eker gibi bir okumaya d n yor. O.k Since now, whenever somebody asks me what s the point of reading Plato after nearly 2500 years, I can laught earnestly.This was a truly extraordinary experience Plato is quite regardful writer, he makes sure everybody s got the point before he moves on Trying to define and succeding in it which is a nice change from Hippias Major the concept of Sophist, he manage to designate a neat classification of all human activity, prove that Non Being exists, define the concepts of Being, Not Being, Sameness, Difference, Motion and Rest and just along the way find the definition of Philosophist Time good spend. 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. Not very interesting By the middle of the book here s what I really wanted to see happen STRANGER There are some who imitate, knowing what they imitate, andsome who do not know And what line of distinction can there possibly be greater than that which divides ignorance from knowledge THEAETETUS There can be no greater.STRANGER Was not the sort of imitation of which we spoke just now theimitation of those who know For he who would imitate you would surelyknow you and your figure THEAETETUS Naturally.STRANGER And what would you say of the figure or form of justice or ofvirtue in general Are we not well aware that many, having no knowledgeof either, but only a sort of opinion, do their best to show that thisopinion is really entertained by them, by expressing it, as far as theycan, in word and deed PUNCH STRANGER OW STRANGER STRANGER Did you just punch me in the face THEAETETUS Yes, in the nose.STRANGER That REALLY hurt THEAETETUS Sorry, but I had a justified true belief that punching you in the face would finally make this interesting I ve been saying yes , and very true for over an hour now and you haven t communicated anything of testable value You ve assumed a definition of knowledge and seem to be under the impression that through deduction you can arrive at an absolute truth that would somehow settle all further inquiry You ve provided not a single conjecture that I, or anyone listening, could ever evaluate, test, or even attempt to falsify.STRANGER AGH, my nose is bleedingTHEAETETUS You re right, that was uncalled for Please, go on using sophistry to tell me why sophistry is bad But that never happened.Here s something fun, filter out everything Theaetetus says, it goes like this,THEAETETUS Yes.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS Certainly.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS What do you mean, and how do you distinguish them THEAETETUS Very true.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS Yes.THEAETETUS Yes, it is often called so.THEAETETUS By all means.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS Most true.THEAETETUS Certainly.THEAETETUS To be sure.THEAETETUS True.THEAETETUS Granted.THEAETETUS Very trueTHEAETETUS There are certainly the two kinds which you describe.THEAETETUS Very good.THEAETETUS By all means.THEAETETUS Undoubtedly.And so on for the entire dialogue.Perhaps out of boredom, or perhaps trying to distract myself from hoping the stranger gets punched in the face, I wondered if every True and Very true could be deciphered as some kind of code or riddle maybe there is a hidden message encoded in repetitive affirmations Or maybe I m just desperately looking for something of value in this textAnyway, this is not a dialogue as we use the word , but instead a diatribe against sophists ironically characterizing sophists for doing exactly what Plato, as the stranger , was doing via this dialectic approach.At one point I had to stop because I thought maybe I was reading a farcical comedy I kept an open mind, but every page became harder and harder to get through Hours of dialectic glop and semantic entanglements I ll assume some of that was a problem of translation, but still, a punch in the face would have made the whole thing much interesting. Being and Non BeingPlato begins his dialogue with the purpose of defining what is the sophist In its various partial investigations, I believe that all of the most important is that the accounts of the nature of the non being Contrary to what we can intuit the non being is not necessarily the opposite of being , but only something other than being In my view, this is the central argument that allows the philosopher continue and correctly complete their investigation into the being of the sophist.Lisbon Book Fair 2016.