On Plato's "Sophist" Author(s): Seth Benardete Reviewed work(s): Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Jun.

, 1993), pp. 747-780 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20129415 . Accessed: 31/10/2011 06:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics.

http://www.jstor.org

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
SETH BENARDETE

I
Unce of and the stranger takes agrees over the discussion the at the beginning

the Sophist,1 and the philosopher, with after

to discuss

it is hard Theodorus, he had

to remember Theaetetus, left Theaetetus

the statesman, sophist, that Socrates had ar and young Socrates at

to meet ranged once more, even least

temporarily, in any part to his further participation of a single day could not, it seems, have intrusion The Stranger's 7; 183c5-d5). the only group would only kinds without. and his that that

and had

encountered

barren, completely a resistance on Theodorus's which the interval

argument overcome

169c6 (Theaetetus us fail to notice thus makes

interest Socrates could have had in the same possible in young have been about whom he knows Socrates, a way he developed with Theaetetus of classifying two those with had integral square or cube Socrates way roots and those If Socrates Euclides with in a discussion, as he had reported

of number:

informed discussion

young engaged about it in the same and

clides course sition

we know that Eu Theaetetus, could not have into direct Socrates' dis transposed report and omitted "I said" and "He said." Socrates' A transpo Theodorus Euclides in the Theaetetus would have practiced of the two Socrateses, since each would as Socrates, and there is no reason to would have consistently belonged not the to

of the kind

led to the have believe only at one The dawn

indiscernability the other addressed that the wiser

answers

of them. dialogue on the between day after the two Socrateses, which does Socrates' before appearance occur king

archon, would
1 All Oxford
Review Metaphysics

not perhaps

be of any

interest

if it did not call

references

University
of Metaphysics

Press,
46

are to John Burnet, Platonis Opera, vols. 1,2,4 (Oxford: are my own. the translations 1900-1902);
(June 1993): 747-780. Copyright ? 1993 by the Review of

748
attention the Stranger to the characterization both agree:

SETH BENARDETE
on which of thinking and Socrates is the silent of the conversation thinking

A soul with itself (Theaetetus 189e4-190a7; Sophist 263e3-264a3). double negation is assigned to thinking. Thinking is dependent in
its presentation for conversation: On the hand, it consonants combination with one on the denial of two things that and are it must it must to another, of its vocalic strip speaking and thus to deny themselves by even of elements, the though is that which alone be before indispensable be spoken. is to

character

assign of any overcome other

it the possibility of combination to

consonants

vowels

makes

the and falsehood of nonbeing the problem in the conver of a second to strip speaking participant hand, who into a double the single sation is to transform thinker, speaker and the singular of the speaker, in his doubleness retains identity in cannot the split he needs control in going who by the same name himself. cannot favoring The rates the and same Whatever test his thought one self gives birth it "objectively" own thoughts intrusion and must because thus self to, the other as fathers do, to for both Soc

it possible On (253a4-6).

Stranger's Plato. caliber has is not

succumb, they are his own. looks like a godsend since

It is a godsend can as Socrates

for Plato, continue

a philosopher of in a form the discussion

that Plato since he

no trouble forced

transcribing. to face the true

It is a godsend for Socrates, of his own revision difficulty

Protagoras in becoming if whatever no time

if the thinker is thinking How possible raises, namely, a double and a double becomes patient, agent thereby a multiplicative is in effect that he thinks experiences Socrates young that failure at the proposes as a means Socrates or not he could could Plato not have

beginning for his own have shown

out of his control? completely to examine of the Statesman self-knowledge in such his in either (257dl-258a6). a task, we know success form or his

Whether Plato had and

succeeded him

continued

to preserve

the nonnarrated

of the Sophist are

the Statesman.

The missing
of which never

dialogue Philosopher,

which would have been the truth

two phantom reversion Plato's to conceive narrated through Plato's images, to Socrates' of Theodorus in dialogue, and by Socrates could or

and Statesman the Sophist without have been written narration we are of back it. with

Theodorus's as narrator, which

If it is hard a Socratically Socrates

the representation two the

of young

would have effectively

has aspects:

concealed
impossibility

the true difficulty.

of

This difficulty
presenting non

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
imagistically that Socrates as soon as way cannot of the philosopher, and the paradox reality his own thinking takes an imagistic necessarily can think it. he begins to think about Socrates the

749
for form in a

genuine then,

philosopher,

as long as he does not think about thinking. Socrates, have self-knowledge. cannot be a Socrates, therefore, not an impos and the missing represents Philosopher

sibility for Plato the poet but an impossibility simply. The death of Socrates thus looks like the suicide of philosophy itself.
Plato has it ends paths conversation between ter Theodorus's so arranged that his story through in silence. One path of silence is that Socrates with and young the Socrates return two mathematicians. two not divergent taken: the af other

immediately The

is taken, but only partway. The Stranger proposes path of silence but he delivers three discourses, The third would only two of them. a speech have been either in which he would have pre by himself, sented the Eleatic of the philosopher his own version and concealed a speech about the philosopher without the direct of the philosopher, since his discourse being presentation as any other others would be before and as audible As an speech. it would have been in image of thinking (cf. Theaetetus 206dl-6), of getting around itself. It seems, that something capable then, the Sophist that makes the Stranger abandon his happens during view; have been original plan his and that allows Socrates to take over from him and intention to talk with young Socrates. of the day before in clearing the way return for the silent rid of the two phantom of Socrates, images to which the moralist, he assigns the names The we Sophist and a Socrates the Statesman who harnesses are or it would

complete The Stranger succeeds of Socrates by getting the logic-chopper and

and "statesman." "sophist" two portraits of the Socrates the quibble who in the Socrates does service

recognize of Plato, crates there self he

know, of morality. That we do not at once in his split form testifies to the persuasiveness not let the seams show. So Once, however,

is split, is nothing

it seems

inadvertently has the art

to put him together for impossible again, real beyond his double As Socrates him image. in his portrait as midwife, reveals of himself the young be in aborting since Socrates for or giving birth to

to assist

their thoughts, and he has the art to test the truth of their progeny;
but these two arts cannot The natural, one, no woman is refuted Socrates gives birth to phantom image. offspring. It is only singular therefore, by his own to suggest at

750
the beginning of the Sophist that the Stranger

SETH BENARDETE
has come as a god

to punish him. He is finished. This gloomy reading of the setting of the Sophist matches
mood of Theaetetus, the Stranger's face who and is only saved from seeing, Theaetetus without according reads his

the

come to he will what argument maintain. His thus reproduces the problem of thinking, reading as another for in his unthinking of the Stranger while acceptance re the Stranger is in fact nothing but his future self, Theaetetus accepts in time the problem produces is particularly it, the problem he opposes nature irrational asserts of mind. the that Theaetetus's This irrational procedure of thinking. acute, since As the Stranger presents it is immediately after to rational that the Stranger creation nature will on its own accept the creativity path of to reason the seems to be who the climax of is going to lead of nonbeing to an understanding of account

destiny (265dl-e2). er's face, and thus

into despair by looking to the Stranger, his own own nature in the Strang

unreasonable without

Theaetetus (234e5-6). the sophist

Theaetetus without

experience is supposed ever having by reason.

Stranger, to a rational to come

seen

to be deduced is going to be deduced is going own. is to be reason's In the first half

out of reason,

a sophist The sophist (239el). we can only guess, The sophist, he represents and the nonbeing

of the Sophist, the Stranger himself presents as a hunter has an art of of the hunter and if the Stranger sophist; to the class of acquisitive arts. it too must hunting, belong Once, however, Stranger the had sophist originally The is reassigned opposed to the to that art of making, which the seem of acquisition, it would

that the Stranger

is the original

of which

the sophist

is the copy

sophist duplicates (265a4-10). Far from being the Stranger. acquisitor, the model for the sophist. of the sophist, the Stranger is himself ways seems This is not exact. The Stranger's way turnaround, however,

in the mode

the real of nonbeing a copycat of the acquisitive

to diverge from the sophist's at the division between the hunting of in lifeless things and the hunting of animals (219e4-7). Hunting or elusive beings, and itself is the hidden hunting of the hidden
applies with does. conceals across the board to what the philosopher as ontologist what at does;

but the hunting by the sophist of rich young men has nothing
what The the Stranger divergence the divergence everything of the Stranger and the sophist of the Stranger and Socrates: does and to do with this

to do
point is

Socrates

Socrates

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
the hidden

751

of the Stranger's Socrates quarry If, however, pursuit. is a philosopher, the Stranger is in pursuit of one of his own kind, who not only does not imitate the Stranger's the way but practices in the hunting of the beings of men. Socrates hunting Stranger's seems calls that to have a double the second name for this twofold erotic. the same four Socrates same; for or five him. and but the pursuit. leads often are The first he us to believe the same for flits but himself thus

dialectic, they are mysteriously Socrates, they are not the from genus to genus does search not in the the Stranger in his double

if they Stranger.

Socrates of acquisition,

varieties He

accompany

is not

for Socrates

the sophist. catches Socrates

seeking There would

be a split in philosophy
and Socrates. him before of by a more The way the one The the royal

itself?a

split represented
Stranger

by the Stranger
Socrates and sets is to be disposed art. conclusions. On

Parmenidean speech

comprehensive of the Stranger

(235bl0-c2). and less idiosyncratic seems to lead to two

so certain as not to mistake it is not a way the ap hand, art for the sophist's manifold of the sophist's paritional art, and as not to get the sophist's art right only on the second try, and even

then at the high price of bewilderment before the problem of nonbe ing, which the Stranger had not recognized when he noticed the
resemblance of the way Stranger's not be unified shows up to the angler. On the other hand, the sophist leaves Socrates behind in fragments, since if he can of production, the notion the philosopher through of acquisition. a critique to require cannot His initial give. his initial failure the art This of the success the

in a genuine within manifold seem conclusion would unsatisfactory Stranger's at catching way which Socrates the Stranger is worse than

to catch

sophist.
being for either. that

The nonbeing
showed up

that lurked in his failure coincides with

in his success. The Stranger is not

the

prepared

The fifth or sixth division, which sits uneasily between the Stranger's original insight into the sophist as acquisitor and his
second view of the sophist as maker, has no standing in his almost

(ax^ov) perfect division of the arts in two (219a8). In the sixth division he finds Socrates in the last cut, but he puts himself in the first cut. The sixth division thus has at the top the Stranger as the
kolt e?oxw, as the purifier. and at the bottom Socrates separator The divider of the beings at the end the cleanser discovers of souls. A diacritical a psychology. subsumes under itself This ontology

752
distinction cannot but remind us of the Sophist is the philosopher and

SETH BENARDETE
and Statesman re

the Stranger Socrates the states spectively: man. no need for the third dialogue, There since as the is, then, to Theaetetus, remarks he and Theaetetus have Stranger already in the course fallen of their into philosophy of the examination sophist (253a6-9). and of Socrates Aristotle's The view Stranger's an interpretation would entail the demotion the elevation the Stranger of the Stranger: adopts of Socrates before the fact. (Metaphysics 987bl-4) Such subordination of Socrates to himself, along with

the implicit claim that his diacritical

quisition does not Socrates. namesake eluded any

ontology

is the unity of ac

one wonder and production, makes the alternative whether conversation and young lie in the thwarted between Socrates In that his true conversation successor, who The only the Socrates despite could have found in his his reality would have not of the Stranger would which is compatible with live over against from insofar the

representation.

triumph

be a true writing

but triumph, institutions. and

triumph Socrates would

Academy.
Socrates trap. Theaetetus final

This possibility
dead

suggests

that the Stranger

slipped to Theaetetus from a sophist, away that

has not got

the as

to rights, but that The admits Stranger tell Socrates

Socrates

cannot

apart

the Stranger's

sixth division vindicates

is a phantom image is necessary. mistake

Socrates' view (231a4-b2) that the sophist;

true

and that Theaetetus's philosopher, can isolate at any point the Stranger if Indeed, from the philosopher for the nonphilosopher the sophist Theaetetus, as if the is Socrates It looks, then refuted. then and only then, to the mode must confinement of the sophist of production give way to the establishment that is, to the necessity of the being of nonbeing, of being with nonbeing. seen a sophist has never and nevertheless be

of the

of the

intertwining Theaetetus that

Since lieves

of soul-cathartics resembles the sophistic the description must for not only does take Socrates for a sophist; art, Theaetetus to soul-cathartics, but maieutics Socrates' fairly closely correspond Theaetetus's agrees with own of his ignorance experience the Stranger's account, particularly state of moderation of the highest to one so purified echoes Socrates' at the end of the condition The through since Socrates Theaetetus's

attribution

e?eo?v avrrj) moderate tetus's 230d5; extent

(aouc/ypoveararrj t??v about Theae claim Theaetetus (Sophist to some discussed

Theaetetus the Sophist,

then, parallels 210c3). Theaetetus, would have been and if the philosopher

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST

753

then the Stranger's and young third discourse Socrates, by Socrates as Socrates' in its absence is the same second in its conversation absence. The situation, then, is this:

Theaetetus u

Sophist

Statesman

Socrates young If this diacritical alectic

and Socrates

I '

= 1

I IPhilosopher the

(Socrates must

and young have

Socrates) his di two

scheme

is right,

Stranger The

the ontology, of the Theaetetus. of the

(maieutic-erotic) Sophist What, and

unity

split, through of the Socratic are the

Statesman is the

phantasmata

Theaetetus. an

then,

Theaetetus?

Why

isn't it the missing

but as much

Philosopher
image

all by itself?

If it is not the
is of Socrates,

Philosopher,

of it as Theaetetus

how does it differ as an image from its twofold image, the Sophist If Socrates is sitting for his portrait in the Sophist and Statesman?
and Statesman, what is missing from the portrait in the Theaetetus? If Euclides had preserved Socrates' the Theaetetus original narrative, a self-portrait. like Do the Sophist would have been something and Statesman perspective? transformation utors? make up for Euclides' decision If they do, why into different do "I said" to get rid and "he said" of Socrates' the undergo two different interloc

dialogues as rationalism If the Sophist is to the Statesman is to em the sense that the sophist is to be deduced in the former piricism?in without the intervention of experiences, of particularly experiences the statesman is to be induced in the latter from young sight?and Socrates' in which endurance Theaetetus's of logos of political practice, there of false births experience as that which sets apart knowledge of the Statesman and a way is obviously in the context of from true

with

the discovery opinion matized Socrates

reproduces

the duality the this

the Sophist.

If the philosopher
by another, as to how must says that

cannot thematize
Stranger can be done. up in seems

himself
initially

but must

be the

Socrates

to disagree with says that his own

thematization Stranger

show the

school

the separated apparitions; of Parmenides holds that a separate

two

754
account tells us of the that have philosopher the Stranger done is possible. is mistaken. The If he

SETH BENARDETE
evidence realized Plato left us

his mistake, the he sophist is about or to at the is to

he must the

statesman.

so during the discussion of either of his admission On the basis that (241d3-8), cannot tell must be he realizes

commit the point

patricide philosophical Theaetetus where and therefore

his mistake from error

sophist, nonbeing more in something be grounded than an accidental to believe, It is hard that the Stranger has however, this crisis from the start, since he declares that

Socrates apart if Theaetetus's

inadvertence. not foreseen

he had

long broken

with the Parmenidean

Stranger, then,

doctrine of his youth (239bl-3; 242a7-8).

sets out on a path of illusion;

The

deliberately

he knows

that his diairesis will not give a logos of the sophist.

The Stranger

error an indispensable He makes into error. proceeds deliberately of the way of truth. This way of truth consists in the apparent part so that it necessarily term "hunting," of the thematized borrowing as parasitic while it is in fact the original host. As appar appears it cannot be thematized; ently parasitic a special case it can. Is this, however, or do such inversions hold everywhere? er's and as apparently of the inversion If they do, then nonparasitic of priority, the Strang

be the schematism?simple complex copy?must paradigm must the paradigm for any philosophical break procedure: paradigm it has broken down and only after does "true" down, philosophy begin. necessary, Sophist, matization The the true The "True" must be bracketed because if such is part the "false" then, a procedure of philosophy. is

paradigmatic beginning as closely as possible if it approaches to the the must of philosophy, late in its examination. do so very his of philosophy discussion is precisely of Presocratic at that point where and

beginning ends Stranger the Stranger until actual the

philosophers forward

begins again with

where in step The crateses Theodorus

the problem of logos (251e7).

and end Socrates merge and proceed of the Statesman. for the conversation up, with but

It is at that point
thence

conditions

between the

the

two So

its being written precludes not bring the Stranger did

alternative?that to allow for

him?seems

a Socratically

narrated dialogue

in which

philosophy would be the

have If we should then ask what occasion would led to subject. seem at first that we cannot dictate such a topic, it would whatever On reflection, Plato would have found most however, appropriate. start would from which the germ Socrates could most be a plainly

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
discussion most of Theaetetus's errors

755
in the Theaetetus, the two of which to see how to generalize his first his failure is measurable is knowledge of whatever

were conspicuous answer?that knowledge and numerable?and the answer soul handle

his

failure

to see

that

"through Through

to the question Socrates raised, (185c9-e2). being and nonbeing? How can

speeches" what does first

is the fail

Theaetetus's

ure blinded him to the issue that lay behind Socrates'

of soul-maieutics: knowledge of number

description
be

and measure

put together with

him kind to the manner

knowledge
in which

of soul?
the

His
were Socrates

second failure blinded

of speech omitted the employing and young would in the dis Socrates, phi

discussion

of speech Socrates A conversation, cussion. if it began losophy. rates, tetus, with This the

and Theaetetus then, between

failure

of the Theaetetus, had in fact

thematize

thematization

in narrating the dialogue have thematized would

since Soc occurred, already and Theae he had with Theodorus inasmuch himself as had his

representation Theaetetus

of Theaetetus put out that in the proper Euclides had wiped perspective. as soon as he wiped Euclides away all traces of perspective: perspective a position for himself cut himself out of the picture and thus claimed he could survey else of space and time from which outside everyone and then as cast no shadow on his own. If this the missing dialogue Philosopher This it is in all other dialogues. argument is as latent cannot is found plausible, in the Theaetetus be developed in every other in

philosophy, Socrates through

latency

the light directly; itmust undergo a split along the lines of the Sophist
are in turn present which Statesman, in each Whether they are present dialogue. omission the most perplexing Perhaps and the point art?by that the where means the Stranger, of which all after things at other least question. occurs in the Sophist at an account of the painter's giving are imitated, and in being exhib to make the painter competent to agree that there could is another

ited to the foolish young at a distance deceive them into the belief
the paintings are the beings and beings themselves?gets art in speech, be a parallel phantoms (ei? Xa Xeyo/xeva) Theaetetus so that

in showing sophist spoken are still at a distance to the young, who

the

from the truth of things (r? irpay/xara), would be believed speaking the truth and be the wisest in everything (234c2-e4).
apart from the the distance of the young

to be Even

in the parallel?such that of the inversion puzzle from the paintings of the young becomes the distance from the truth of things and Theaetetus has to agree

756
to his being the believer in the sophist's phantom

SETH BENARDETE
speeches before

he has been disillusioned

Stranger through gets Theaetetus without moreover, speeches

by direct contact with

the beings?the

phantom. When, of image-making the basis

on a possible to agree art of imitation ever giving a single of a spoken example the Stranger to divide the art proceeds and phantastics, not stop, before so again he plunges into he does on

into eikastics

of painting and does the of being and nonbeing, to illustrate the difference between problem an eikastic seem to be left on our own and phantastic We speech. to devise er's a sense el?ccXa Xey?fxeva that would the Strang ground a sense made Our task is in easy by the existence a case it was what of phantom speech, it by eikastics by calling for

argument. of the Sophist. The Sophist is obviously we have no way of knowing but whether or phantastics unless we can determine an

produced we mean

as the master imitation. Plato and emerges If, however, sophist, if the philosopher as the nonphiloso Plato shows up apparitionally as his finest product, is the how pher and the philosopher Stranger whole of the sophist not undermined? In looking outside argument we detect the dialogue the (?yavraariKos Plato; in looking into the we find the philosopher pure and simple. dialogue, Once, however, we incorporate we gained the perspective from the outside into the or sophist, who catches the Stranger is a phantom inside, philosopher the pseudo-sophist, that is, the sophist who is not an apparition of the philosopher. the impersonator whether god Theaetetus of the wise at any rate declares the and (268bl0), or the wise he simply, cannot be thematized of itself. whoever is not to be sophist the wise is,

the maker

the philosopher.

The difficult position

be a proof that a transformation dicates Socrates' and was philosophy into an view denies asked

inwhich Plato put the Stranger

without Plato

seems to

apparition of the relation any validity to expound.

thereby

undergoing vin and which claim to

the sophist the Stranger Plato has

the philosopher to the Parmenidean view Before, however, we

between

find the truth about the sophist

not the problem

solely

in the form of the Sophist,

of exemplifying is put in the follow Up in except to the point hunting times

left the Stranger without his own way even of spoken if Theaetetus phantoms, he cannot in deed.

an argument of following funny position the image of spoken phantoms?images where the Stranger turns to the analysis

of image-making,

and pursuit dominate

what the sophist does.

his language and align what he is doing with

Words with -dnp- are found forty-seven

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST in the Sophist before 235all

instances, the sophist summarizes the first was the occurs hard kinds to catch

757 and twice afterward.

the Stranger recalls and he the and

Of the latter two

his remark when that he first second Theaetetus

when

(?vadrjpevrov), arts of acquisitive

assigned
course

to the sophist

(261a5; 265a7).

What

happens
point is thus

then in the
in the dou

of the Sophist The

is a reflection

on its starting

bling of the image of hunting

Stranger. Stranger's

in the action of the sophist and the

paradigm subject to

controlling

a double critique: What grounds his discovery of the kinship between

and what and sophist, angler same terms? is doing in the grounds Theaetetus of what he his understanding to admit is at first reluctant

that there is a hunting

while the

of men

(222b6), but he does not notice that

hunt the beast he and the Stranger hunts men, sophist on the level of the literal is more of hunting The image sophist. thus denies The Stranger than on the sophist's. method Stranger's men are tame and there is a what Theaetetus had accepted?that of them?by making hunting are to turn over to the royal If, then, the sophist a wild animal which they

speech. an example is that of the sophist of a spoken phantom as hunters, in generalizing is asking, the Stranger and the Stranger in speech necessarily whether the issue of his own language, images or the nonbeing false of spoken entails involve images deception, in one's understanding to proceed it is not possible recourse to images. the Stranger When any began having was to grasp not the easiest that the sophist saying and whether that he believed the genus of the was to hard sophist of no easier way (bdbs) subject to gal

hood,

without by

(avXXa?elp), hunt down than

(?vaOripevTov), and that he knew to practice the sophist's pursuit (?l'edobos) on an easier was no reason for Theaetetus there (218c6; 218d3; 218d6-7), his back language of expressions of the into life and he could

vanize

ploitation in the course seem

to be a difficulty he has to face the problem does not, since the

ex the Stranger's anticipate have as easily let fade away that in speech thus Phantom discussion. images so that whereas own creation, of the Stranger's of image-making after all does The in speech, the sophist not have to accept the can go about his business

picture Stranger's ever entangling without that his own spuriousness and idence has the Stranger that the sophist

sophist of himself.

himself arises to account ever

sophist in an image. He would thus argue of the Stranger, from the invention a shred of ev for himself without to images in speech. How easy

resorts

758
it would seen have been to dispense with on the structure falls into

SETH BENARDETE
can be the Stranger's language of his first example, the art of with three sections, three items in the manner the of the object of art: the it is a art? the been

if one

reflects The

angling. The each. kind

division section The third line.

first

establishes second

of hunting. the and

establishes the means

fish?and fish?hook

establishes The

employed

to catch could have

then, example, Stranger's art determined the sophist's by its manner, generalized have been no need to bring hunt and there would and means, object, or the Stranger's The the sophist's to bear on either activity. ing at once, and paradigm Stranger's any loss threefold could sophist, Socrates, then, which, does he have of the angler allowed is based or any had for scaffolding to be dismantled from it. straight-on with this the on which without the either

image-making to the the inquiry sophist

distraction been confronted

If, then,

and by what means?the what, sophist question?how, means of speeches. The been said to lure young men by but been distinguished from thereby to Socrates, is as it should be. Why, that, according in a series of definitions involved the Stranger get himself of cannot the notion be unified through except claims, could have explanation never seen that speeches. represents comes can be found in the has no a sophist and from experience not

to be sure,

phantom observation

A possible speeches? that Theaetetus has

of the disillusionment experience of phantom in the world living he of language, literalization phantom realizes which speeches, the impossibility

after

the Through to Theaetetus as recognizes the sophist's such

Stranger's a world of when he

Theaetetus of discovering

unity an

in the

manifold
experience in speech illusionment Stranger most which

of his different
in speech of what reality thus alone, is entailed

arts.

Within

the dialogue
gives Theaetetus

and through
image dis The

the Stranger in the

experience

occasions that

implies men undergo

is presented the fundamental experience distance their initial after

The of things. an in image. from

of the beings, them, is

the discovery nothing else.

that which speech This are does

is just what it is and of this principle: Everything This principle is enshrined in the formula: a being is
not stand in need of another. as soon or links The ones to be phantoms material It thus as they submit ideal, has as its corollary up, at least in part, of phantom to analysis. that the with

shown

atomism, to be is to be countable.

whether

implicit definition of knowledge which Theaetetus

first offered Soc

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
rates. The starting point of the Theaetetus who count

759
of the Stranger thus reaches back to the to his examination and goes forward of

beginning the philosophers which one comes

re stable of the beings, counting is to be only one or more. gardless every Initially, manifold that was designated the presence by a single name betrayed of appearance to get at what and the failure is; and the something of whether there

to light if nonbeing only turns out that there

the beings. The problem of nonbeing, a manifold that can be shown to be through leads to the problem of being, in which it is, can be no

impossibility of keeping to the original count in the case of the beings entailed that itwas not appearance that multiplied unity, but being
itself was er's being solution as the infected to this other. with the same multiplicative virus. crisis is to incorporate ontological The is no other longer is designed to cure Strang into nonbeing three si things The

being multaneously: it is and nothing else; being; other and false

or nothing is just what countable, are a reflection of nonunitary appearances still consists in saying what is not, even speech

though it is always speaking of that which

does solve all three problems, phantom covery where sophist, Stranger image of the manifold each art of the sophist beneath

is. Whether

in fact the

it puts the Stranger's artificial in speech in a new The dis light. one of the sophistic the illusory art, The The truth

is just what being

in his had

always us for this prepared the young

it is, is the inverse of the truth. is the mark the other, of what is. inversion by speaking of the

of things
as that

(r? irp?y^ara)

and not the truth of the beings

stand far removed (234c4). experiences

(r? bvra)

from which

the beings in all their vividness through to grasp the truth of the beings. sarily

To grasp is not neces

If the sophist is the sign of being as the other, and if therefore it is not inappropriate for the Stranger to be the philosopher in being his hunter, he still is not the only other in the Sophist. The
to coincide not only with happens can recite off the top of his head, but three discourses the Stranger also with the question and young Socrates Theodorus, Theaetetus, asked the Stranger sometime between the end of the Theaetetus and question raises their this from tetus's an meeting Socrates futile with Socrates coincidence?Theodorus's (Theaetetus answers, about (217b4-8). distress Whatever at the going as it was reinforced prompted that neither him we may think of over he received by Theae to question the Stranger threefold Socrates

169a6-c6), well have might

authority

Socrates?we

know

760
nor Theodorus came to the

SETH BENARDETE

in the same way as Socrates question into the question did. Socrates' with his way begins tweaking as a god Theodorus for his possible to recognize failure the Stranger in disguise. In reply, Theodorus between distinguishes "godlike" and "god," or between and god (216b9-cl). Phi (delos) philosopher losopher and Socrates that god are not two of a kind. replies or that "philosopher-like" too has his apparitions, to sophist than to statesman. citations his Homeric Since, even the ap

plies

philosopher no less continues denial, follow

to employ

Socrates however, after Theodorus's

he implies that "philosopher" and "god" are the same, or, to more that the philosopher Socrates to the exactly, belongs was to which Socrates led to this possibility genus god belongs.2 by as a nameless of a philosopher Theodorus's introduction stranger. He turns a typical piece of indifference to the human-all-too-human could possibly be part into a general question?Who of necessity forever nameless and a stranger??and the answer, gives can never become our acquaintances "a god." Gods (yvupiiLoi); they or small, we be must remain outside whatever group, always large is the other as such. As the other, he is not long to. "God," then, else something merely is the other because he to a wholly subject is the other of that man constitute are (aXXos ns), but he he is the other. is attached As the too to that of which is not for he and the The on Theodorus's

negative other. one same

theology; The indeterminate wonder whether in its

man

other, god is the other,

makes not the

pair which the Sophist

god and

Statesman

Statesman

pair apparitional the politician without him separating from god the ruler and from man the political and the Sophist animal, in his place the sophist the notion of god the puts only through as efficient cause as the ap rational maker. Mind thus emerges cannot determine of god as the other. parition is divorced from the structure God sets the structure at of acquisition, of the philosopher. ignorance and he is other than sophist, Socrates had opposed of making but the head of which God, then, is

form.

would

the knowing as apparitional as the he appears that

be

when

as maker.

the philosopher the Stranger

as

a punishing
the Statesman

god to himself.
there cannot

The Stranger
be a punishing

asserts
god;

in the myth
indeed, he denies

of

rb rov deov (Sophist 216c4-5) is an odd expression unless Socrates im plies that beings other than god belong to the same genus; Cobet's correction r v de?v is certainly what one would have expected.

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
that time Zeus with Zeus when is a name the age of Zeus stands for god, since and it is on let go of the universe has for

761
the

the god it means is a concealed negation; He a name designates not-god.

its own. God

or without god. not-god of the other. is the other

The one yet cover

and the Stranger as god, one as beast. are not apart is.

for the title compete sophist are outside the circle Both man. Indeed, would if man as

of the other, of man, such and a is not

they all

from

third between
and e&xw, is anything being later being behind once says,

beast and god, then the Stranger

Man, then, emerge

and the sophist

as the other Kar

that man

that there for the denial the primary piece of evidence of it is. Man becomes is just what which exemplary is a defective the highest being, and, as the Stranger being there is no part That man question of nonbeing is an issue, any even the issue, and perhaps in the Theaetetus. foreshadowed that is any less than

(258a7-b3). Socrates'

is already

Socrates

there tried to get at the question

of philosophy
for

through

The is knowledge? What the question, that knowledge if it can be shown emerges an obstacle to wisdom for man as man. consists apparitional is knowledge. to the

necessity or wisdom

philosophy is impossible

(Theaetetus 145e5); and it can be shown to be impossible

This obstacle form: knowledge the following as an be understood cannot what measure" enigmatic tetus with together Socrates it is even is not each though an answer of two or more manifold. Protagoras's

if there is
must take which is just the

kinds Each

"Man

representation. his are together because first there formulates

its but of knowledge question and Theae his knowledge with Socrates be but they cannot the same enigma; "vocalic" bond between them. When

is no

he a version of the Protagorean thesis, that whatever it state "Does its meaning: about asks two questions that's the sort they are for me, to me, sort things appear severally of that sort to you, and you and I sort to you, they're and whatever answers and does not the first question Theaetetus [are] man?" does not no Theaetetus In particular, the second notice (152a6-9). tice that in Socrates' and but there second question, is no copula. are not anything bond between a plural has subject Socrates and Theaetetus a singular are sev

predicate,

they erally man, as the vocalic of man

The determination together. and god can be said to be beast

the theme of the Sophist and the Statesman. In the course of his setting out his model
Stranger consistently presents the undivided

for definition,
as suffixed

the
with

class

762
-lk'ov but never with -lkt], with occurs thus which

SETH BENARDETE
is either rexvy a class has or expressed been divided. development know occurred

The implied. The Stranger's of the suffix

-lktj suffix language being that

from

only the historical duplicates an ethnic to a skill, which we there is no class. of its art There two for the is no

after

very rapidly
indicates but only

toward the end of the fifth century.3

atomic but only art

The Stranger
species hooking and rptobovria to the that "art," do all artisan neces of

thereby the for

undivided

(?yKiarpevrlk'ov),

oLGiraXievrLKr). Art implies smallest division of labor lurks in any general for the manifold action. if one

species, one gets and until specialization, there is an element of inexpertness The

is misleading, the but things the

Stranger's starting-point, looks to the man who could possibly of arts do, one would not find the "Sophist," the arts have or "Mr. Know-it-all"

sarily Socrates

jack-of-all-trades. once looks spurious assumes soon and they gives so forth.

have way

housebuilder blacksmith, that there spearing real.

in the way that developed in the Republic, where the original to the lumberman, the carpenter, the Stranger, is going in implying, (irXriKrLKrj), from which against the truth for example, the arts of of the arts

The

is an art and angling

of striking split off,

and laying himself

open to the charge of making

phantoms

of the

the Stranger sets the sophist in the class of image Long before the art of image-making in making, then, he has been employing to establish order the kinship the various we arts to which among The way of discovery is productive give the same label, sophistic. of acquisition, and the Stranger in being the hunter of uses as his nets those made the hunter-sophist art. up by the poetic The Stranger, versions of the sophist's two ways, but then, practises in neither version does he duplicate the sophist. For the exactly Stranger, beings hunting are not out them is a way in the of understanding; open, and the way it assumes to bring them that out the is to in the class

of images. art of the The Stranger's to be eikastics, for he is not setting out to show image things them as beautiful: he says, serves as well as generalship lice-hunting, for hunting The Stranger's art of hunting, (227a9-b6). however, seems does seem to be due who Theaetetus, to phantastics, for it seems is to pass for manly and brave to be adjusted in following to the

illuminate

in a series

3 Cf. Pierre Chantraine, La formation Librairie Champion, 1933), 385-93.

des noms

en grec ancien

(Paris:

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
track of the sophist. Eikastics, then, is to phantastics takes after

763
as ontology

the Stranger's If philosophy is to psychology. is not guided in its ontological double by aspect way, philosophy in are of its own devising and not grounded Its images anything. in general the nature of Theaetetus, corrective, just of things. which In its psychology, in its moderation Socrates' art of weaving. Socrates and calls there is the nature however, on its own for its proper demands domestication

as young

boldness

and the sophist together in the Stranger of making, in the class the sophist his isolating a classification of arts that puts him and Socrates serts together a set with this classification He begins the sophist. and excludes arts of several to the actions of verbs which (226b5-c9). belong In labeling their common action dividing, he shows us what he

the womanly through Between his catching

himself

has been doing all along, collecting

and dividing; but it is

is stressed, counterpart Stranger is done applies in sifting dia practices he into are same an proceeds the light the time first to and is

that the diacritical of the Sophist typical its that the Statesman it is not until mentioned the flour critics (282b7). name of wool. only in two. two However the diacritical No the specialist Stranger The Stranger ^LvyKpiveiv that art

function

syncritical may be, the to what art,

single or carding

in itself; class first

does

however, so whenever partly

to cut any in these verbs which

comes and

steps.

in being actions.

particular of the arts of the ethnic

comprehensive The undivided but an art the art

biaKpivtiv at the refer is no

in its subsets suffix

species in its own suffix

-ik'ov into

image longer The collapse right. and -1*77 is comparable,

in refus Socrates' with identical, persistence ultimately perhaps sur It is therefore from ?LaXeKriKrj. to separate ?LctXeyeadai ing a version can discover di of Socratic the Stranger that prising which it from descent in a genealogical alectics biaKpiriKr\ with does not At cathartics sons. link up the to the in any art obvious of his way. dividings that discovered who the Stranger fathers opposes on practice soul their conclusion

of admonition those

Since, however, art rejected?that a premise that the admonitory every kind in art had long been was the admonitory of folly involuntary?and education of soul-cathartics, the discovery before (i^aib?a) place an artless form. and an artful cannot be split between If, however, from soul-cathartics moves up a level and becomes identical with

soul-cathartics

started

764
education, Theaetetus must be mistaken

SETH BENARDETE
in labeling a Socratic in

sight an Athenian practice (229d2). Theaetetus calls education that art which gets rid of the belief on the part of one who does not know that he knows; but the fact that bo?oaocfria is the peculiar obstacle
to learning in common smart." of to soul-cathartics belongs a father's with rebuke If now, however, it is not Socrates' obvious and has to his way that but language nothing so "You think you're son, takes over as the true form the art of instruction since every be dis the

education,

two different kinds (bibao-KaXiKrj) treats the premise of the psychic counterpart

of ignorance to gymnastics

(ayvoia), is that

soul is involuntarily
distinction maintained tinction ordinary ugliness illness in the between if the seems

ignorant of everything
education basis of the and

(228c7-9).

Theaetetus's
cannot for the

instruction demiurgic latter is mathematics, with education

to be equally or Socratic sense.

at home

in either

of soul per soul of soul, since a source

now treats the If, then, soul-cathartics it cannot be kept out of the treatment of the se, the Stranger to the conflict ascribes of opinions of its illness and assigns to soul-cathartics the

task of bringing
4; 230b5-8). of soul, for

to light the conflict of opinions

in the soul (228bl

Soul-cathartics, then, takes over as the entire treatment the Stranger's divisions have been in accordance with and therefore incoherent. cannot opinion Soul-cathartics, however, be pegged at this point for in order to get to the soul the either, has to separate the soul from the body, of Stranger regardless whether soul the body is ensouled; but such a separation of the the body is nothing other than the practice of dying and is another name for philosophy. if we grant Even being dead, which the Stranger's cut between soul and body as nothing more than a from "theoretical" division, he cannot go on to split the vices of soul on or not

the basis of a split in the vices of body without

in its apartness from soul, ture of soul. The Stranger, a theoretical moreover, between counterparts identifies

granting
the soul

the body,
struc in its sep

determination

of this

aration
be

from body as thought

to a distinction the Stranger's

(biavoia; 227c4); and thought cannot

moral and intellectual to medicine virtue, and gymnastics

subject upon which

depend.4
4 Note

There is the further difficulty that though the soul is sup

that r?adrj^eda (222b4) is used of the Stranger's and Theaetetus's of the conflicts in moral vice, and lajiev (228c7) of their knowl "knowledge" edge of the soul's involuntary ignorance.

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
to have an posed the soul has either to accept wholly most should subject the in terms

765

is no argument that there toward truth, impulse a natural to attain truth or the capacity strength soul-cathartics is described of art. steroids Indeed, of medicine and not as capable of instilling beauty

and strength
moderate be the

of soul.
of contrary punishing

Theaetetus
but of

indeed said that it produced the

to Theaetetus (??KoXaala) moderation and therefore

states,

according

the If, then, (228el-229a7). cannot stand as he phrased body Stranger's separation the division in the arts of pu is now threatening it, soul-cathartics now have a diacritical must function for soul-cathartics rification, to the of soul and if it is to understand first division in the soul by itself before art had diacritical like and it treats been it. The between Stranger's an unnamed

intemperance art of Alkt]

art of separating

like from

the purificatory with that what

art of separating soul-cathartics rather than

better from worse

Stranger's must also own

(226dl-5).

This unnamed art is nothing but the

Socrates,

and identical procedure out It thus turns practice.

the Stranger's role and of the Stranger, usurps being a subordinate in light of his own resolution of corrects divisions the Stranger's at the heart of the Stranger's diacritical the contradictory opinions of spoken It now turns out that the example phantoms ontology. he and Socrates both are. of the Stranger's is that division where to Theaetetus It character. Its plausibility is a sign of its phantom insists that the Stranger's after fear of is Theaetetus, all, who confusing Socrates the be a for semblance through sophistry roiovrco rivX r? vvv eLpv/xeva; 231a4-5). (aXX? ?jl?jvirpoaeoLKe ye the most curious of the Stranger's consequence Perhaps analysis is that Socrates' is correctly characterized but falsely way catego The and sophist condemned the philosopher be set aside and that

a false structure. truth is hit upon in and through This is the Stranger's which the philosopher in way, produced a setting that gave him the appearance of the sophist. It is, then, the Stranger's which way fyavraoriKr). fully exemplifies Previously rized. structure we had classes that the thought he had found were Stranger's the products way was of his since the eikastic, own image-making;

but now,

in involving

himself

in his

own classification
the

of an

of art?biocKpiriKT)?he adopts simultaneously perspective Theaetetus and betrays cor Socrates. The Stranger's fyavraariKr) to the one he ascribes rather to painting, for in responds exactly that case the painter makes the image ugly in order for it to appear

766
beautiful, everyone (230b8-9). self-defeating; but sophist Theaetetus crates. The and angry The here only Socrates at appears

SETH BENARDETE
as completely successful, and tame toward everyone of Socrates from that being Socrates seems identified with else to be as a

themselves

Stranger's it does not convinces tell

beautification keep Socrates

rather cannot eikastics

Theaetetus

the elusive from the sophist of the Stranger's first divisions shows

is a sophist. beautiful So are in agree

ment with
rejected same rejected identified; Socrates himself

the phantastics

of his last: the Socrates who

up finally as

lurks in the
the money in the

species as his own

of acquisition?he

losing chatterbox

(225d7-10)?comes
As apparition. of the Stranger's as long way,

into the light of opinion as the

as Socrates he is safe is hidden from

species but as soon is like contrives the

being mis the Stranger sets out to stalk him alone? at home retailer who and sells what he stays cannot distinctions show him as he that Socrates is. really becomes

It is through as pretty as a picture.

(224d4-e4)?he a set of un-Socratic

II At the very moment that the Stranger will the sophist in the exploitation abandon as the image be of

of hunting?he has comes particularly

just exuberant

established

imitator?he of the

image

hunting:
on the

"It is our job from this point forward no longer to let up

beast nearly encompassed rivi) (a?^i?XnarpiK!^ a spoken of image,

have pretty (Oripa), for we in a certain him of net kind (TrepuLXr)<j)aii v)

that is instrumental
It seems, then, b2). the Stranger before be overstressed

in speeches
that we confronts

for things of this kind" (235al0

phantom just but it cannot

are being given the problem

are given it: Theaetetus Xa Xeyb?xeva without of elb any clue plunges having as to what are. are there in the Stranger's no they They language, are in Theaetetus's, less than they but they are never brought up to con the level of the argument. to this blanket The one exception and not Theaetetus into a discussion cealment proves that it is not an exception. "It replies, \oiKtv without The Stranger remarks

that we

that the sophist

sight caught The Stranger is what makes him and does

is really
on

(ovroos) amazing
this

and very difficult

seems" ever

to be

of, and pounces him not

Theaetetus

(eocKev; 236d4). that that saying

suspect really

that Theaetetus recognize the

is just going along with The Stranger is problem.

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
that unless saying ure to understand. words Are are we taken then their use betrays literally to understand the Stranger's If we

767
a fail "en

compassed" (nepieiX^aiitv) with who the body-people not get both their hands

TrepiXajjL?avopres; 246a8; it was that truly said that the as the saying to be seized goes, "Then their we have to with both"

literally? that deny wer pas kol bpvs on (ra?s xePGLV ?rexv?s cf. 265al0). When the Stranger remarks was and not, complex sophist-beast one hand, Theaetetus's with reply, must be literal, and again (226a8),

agrees do, the Stranger is which anything they can

is not just a manner of speaking but down of Socrates hunting means arrest It is possible, to read execution. his and then, truly as the execution in deed of Socrates' the Sophist that premonition the Stranger and it is no has less come to punish him for the poorness of his speeches, to read the problem of spoken possible phantoms

as implicitly claiming a privileged

with which

position

to the identity of being

but which away time. of all Soc

as a relic in any language is preserved body, is still capable the pruning of being recovered through excrescences assumes over that a language the idealistic therefore, stands immediate be the would or falls

rates, ophy" An would about

since his "philos be the appropriate target, or nonpriority the priority of soul to body. by to reading in this way the Sophist advantage for the Stranger's Xeybp,eva away to the silence would from be its Et?coXa

it would offer explanation of elb Xa Xeyb/ieva. the meaning which would be constantly

itself, language roots and literal of bodies. The

adding

philosopher, in short who grained habits

sophist, from Parmenides claims of the either

thereby then, would that or

images be each

expanding of bodies and every of the

language nonmaterialist ideas?anyone, other than

to the virtue

friends

that To give to the body use of hunting a significant role would be pointless: almost Stranger's its own corporeal basis. The Stranger's any speech would betray of image-making in the painting elaboration done by eikastics and would thus represent the real part of imitation; all the phantastics rest would Indeed, be derivative the Stranger from could it and as such not get at a sign of its spuriousness. re soul-cathartics without

is something numbers exist.

in

turning to the difference between the health and beauty of the body,
as a way and he only confused of accounting the issue for what by interpolating he meant by the araacs illness of the city (228a4-9). reinforce the

The reductionist
gests cannot, I think,

program that this reading of the Sophist sug

stand up to scrutiny; but it does

768
of the dialogue, where the Stranger's peculiarity the difference between eikastic and phantastic

SETH BENARDETE
failure speech what he to explicate us to entices

a reading of everything

he says in light of the body.

The body is

is saying. It at the end the Stranger an impersonator to being the sophist in his body of what confines to know. he seems The sophist is the sophist the because precisely is made and passed off as noncorporeal. The noncorporeal corporeal in its truth cannot embodies what He is be embodied. sophist merely The a higher version of vulgar or political virtue, which mistakes

we understand the background which against is therefore of the highest that importance

images of the body for traits of the soul (cf. Republic

then, give Stranger, ultimately so that the nonliteral down, language upside of its literal meaning. stand independently in something the phantastics of speech ground of body. If fails the argument can do so, we not to exemplify his meaning, of this beautiful must an argument

518d9-e2).
for

turning of soul can language must The argument other than then the being the say that it is plain in

can

Stranger

because

everything
says. "The plainly The bodiless only In order and

he says but because

Sophist things, is a vindication most being in speeches and to solve phantastic The the

it is truly hidden
remark

in everything
in the Statesman: are

he

in nothing

and greatest, else" (286a5-7). distinction has recourse and

shown

specific

problem?the Stranger false

between to well

eikastic known

philosophic

(236el-237al). er's review perience Theaetetus's failure that

opinion, nonbeing seems to get lost in the Strang specific problem answers ex to the philosophic His of various issues. over from and nonbeing takes of the perplexity of being innocence, the the and difference from his unawareness Socrates that it was his and the sophist in speech and supplied <\>avraoriKr) in speech was made series of divisions of between

speech?the issues: appearance,

to detect confirmed

existence A

the evidence

of its power.

by way of images that led to the impossibility

from nonbeast (nonbeast covers discernability of (fravraariKr). argument Theaetetus is nothing but The Stranger was the

of telling apart beast

detected that he

both god and man); but their in an exemplification the sophist's art of he knows that the being claims his but he cannot convince philosopher, from

the previous series of atomic in deed and painting The very parallel between painting species. seems to imply that experience, which the dis diminishes in speech cannot in the beings, be duplicated tance from the young stand is any different

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST

769

of innocence, the distance in fact overcome If speech could speech. one could speak of speeches in deed: "the hard facts of life" would that tragedy in speech. We know does have have their equivalent this effect with there such whether were to the passions; regard is a rational counterpart. we know, If the Platonic do not however,

speeches ments.

a counterpart, that be necessary it would a turnaround one would of their experience The Platonic dialogues we of which would be

dialogues their through several argu by a

would get beings c?avraarLKrj by means the ever abandoning For the Stranger, the level of speech. without all the speeches of philosophers and ultimately Parmenidean speech, at a distance from the beings in speech to now, are <\>avr?o\iara up Theaetetus to narrow stands the distance He proposes in speech.

governed nearer to the

from the beings by leading him from on high to where

himself is, but all within version that the element of speech. second This the Stranger's the realization deeds. Socrates' of Socrates'

the Stranger
movement is in

are plainer the beings The autobiography of the Stranger or causality; for becoming does are

consists sailing, which to us in speeches than in for being what records despite this difference, estab about

the same experientially. however, they of nonbeing, In order to get at the problem of being and lishes the arithmetical character being. dition." that show the The characteristic prefix of his is countable; nonbeing Being structure of Xbyos arithmetical

the Stranger of any speech

is wpbs-, "in ad argument is not. It turns out, however, forbids the use treat of Xbyos to

the nonsense

if it does shows

since Xbyos cannot of nonbeing, nonbeing an arithmetical structure which it then not give nonbeing if he is who The he is cannot have. then, sophist, being immune to have from attack. recourse however, Why, to nonbeing? The of everything. Theae to know everything of a proof two or more,

is always nonbeing, through must the sophist be assumed is that he has claim sophist's tetus believes that the issue

a single science the sophist's claim is it would have

(233a3-4); his denial of that claim is not backed up by any argument.

If there were that an argument, to take the form we are aware are the parts of knowledge of which two or more sets of principles; with different and that essentially is involved and image-making his assim the sophist in nonbeing by to one part with ilation of every other part of knowledge its unique or by the comprehension set of principles, of all the parts of knowl edge to some unknown knowledge with an unknown set of principles.

770
The ways of assimilation Theaetetus paintings, does the likened not blind to and is asked and comprehension an image what The

SETH BENARDETE
image of images is; he speaks asks him to imag Stranger both involve

making. in mirrors,

statues.

ine that the sophist

image in satisfying that

is blind and that he wants

appeal the to sight. Theaetetus whatever sophist: true is an image His criterion phantom. erepov roiovrov entails, the does rest

a characteristic
has no such trouble

of

is another (240a7-8). for an

roiovrov) makes up a spoken in speech, is an image

(erepov Theaetetus

in sight image as he says, a weaving

together

of being and nonbeing

(240cl).

Through

this "weaving

together" (avfurXoKT]) he anticipates Not finale of the Statesman. only

of the Sophist and the itself crop up in gviiitXokt) avvsubject is

two characterizations of Xbyos, but the prefix the Stranger's to take over from the Stranger's destined irpbs-. 2i>*>- is not to an arithmetical account.5 If and that for false erepov roiovrov has no is the characteristic in supplying it up with follow speech. Theaetetus nonbeing of any eikastic

Theaetetus

trouble

it, it might a comparable Instead, agrees, he

speech, seem odd demand turns to the

the

does not the Stranger of a phantastic characteristic whose characteristic, opinion, conjunction of being

involves This

re (241a3-b3). of phantastic however, speech by false speech and opinion placement, false opinion is nothing but phantastic does not occur; rather, speech, of the soul that is due to an eikastic is an experience for false opinion impossible and speech.6 There are that not one two kinds speech to make and how speech which of falsity, but of speech, or there appears, for two speeches. that the there is the The is only one

experience experience

seems

of falsity

is thus to be explained
opinion and consists that?this Nonbeings

by the being of nonbeing

new?the however, that art

in the

image. are the beings, images

False

in the belief is something are,

images of beings are the beings images of beings. im

of nonbeings. but

False opinion holds that the images of the images of the beings are
the beings; (?>avraariKr] was precisely that produced

ages of images of the beings

so adjusted

to the perspective

of the

5 occurs at 238cl and 239b9; avvrWeadai at 252bl, 252b3, UpoariS?vai in at 252b6 and occurs four and 268d3; and gv lively vvaBai comes 262el2, more times (cf. 264b2). 6 of false opinion points to of the problem The Stranger's phrasing
this: orav irepl rb (j)avraala avrbv aicar?v . (fr fjiev . . , rbre irbrepov

(t>rjo-o?ev(240dl-3). \[/ev?ri bo^??eiv rrjv ypvxw r]ixC?v

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
observer Stranger and has caught tastic the that he would take them the for the beings. with problem final

771
the Accordingly, which he started

has merely not altered Socrates, was at

enlarged it. The Stranger's in itself an eikastic moment

speech

the very

in which he division, a phan it became speech; it described Theaetetus believed as for its own of in

as well for that mistake geared we accomplished which back by tracing dismantling, in the Stranger. to his origin Socrates His projection sophist. another sophist; his image. The (Socrates) appeared was Socrates but to Theaetetus the same as as another the

It was

the descent of himself such

of the not

Stranger who

and

impasse

that

nonbeing shared

makes

for anyone

attempts

to

deny that it is suggests

understanding of being,

to the Stranger

that the fault lies with an

a contrary to being generated an arithmetical about itself. The Stranger gives he shows that those misunderstanding, whereby any one, sives them. two

which has by all the philosophers, out of a fundamental lack of clarity character who to this is to

or more, are forced to reduce their number, one in turn cannot and Parmenides' be meaningful least two. The

say being manifold unless

there

are at

(245e6-246a2), The Stranger their

are opposed to the comprehen precise people the beings who do not count but characterize shows, that the comprehensives must however, own in order to find room for their do compromise?either must of soul?they he had in the direction declare that

principles and once they understanding, or in the direction of nonbody is two, and fall into the

compromise

being the precise sprung already on the sophistic This argument in the claim people. directly it supplies the proof that there is not a single science way: following of everything, for if there were, there would to be a coherent have set of principles which determine the number would of beings. If trap bears for the number one and two, there of beings about between is jumps is recalcitrant to the unity in being that of the science

something

of being.
keeping

The simplest
the count

example,

perhaps,

of the impossibility
one starts with

of

of the beings does not allow

down

to the number

is to be found in atomism.
Body, however, therefore kind of

Its principle
for motion

is, to be is to be body.
unless there is space. to obtain

Space is absolutely
They any have structure. less

nonbeing
to weaken This

if the atomists
their

hold to their principle.

are to atomism. one man-one

It shows

up no

if they principle is not confined difficulty in the Republic, where the principle

772
art cannot establish where the class the first structure law of motion are not of the city, assumes subject the case

SETH BENARDETE
than in Newtonian frames? which

mechanics, that is, there the principle If this the case

inertial

are bodies of gravity is the general sophist

which denies.7

to acceleration,

strategy by ruining of which digression.

of the

of the

Stranger?to strengthen of the philosophers?it

still does not tie in directly with

speech, sumably a count losopher or for for an the explication indispensable

the doublet
the discussion The

eikastic-phantastic
of being says is pre that the

Stranger

philosophers
who

tell stories
with the tells

(242c8-243bl).
an

A typical story combines

the phi Stranger

of the beings

story

in which image of becoming is not part of the story. The

does not criticize this type of philosopher

either for talking in images

himself he out, but in the case of the comprehensives leaving tells the story which their being puts them into one story and makes are to the com It thus looks as if the precise the issue. ontologists as countable "to be "to be The or psychology, for is to epistemology being is to be body" really means "to be is to be touch is to be an idea" really means "to be is to be in

prehensives the formula able," and

telligible." that eikastic Stranger's can then discovered number

are presented in such a way then, philosophers, to phantastic is opposed and the speech, speech is itself eikastic. We of phantastic presentation speech that the Socratic of the Stranger, which in the opposition between reappears psychology, is at first resolved This the through opposition diacritical ontology that this rest pair and motion both must both be one are; and but he immedi be one. cannot

say and

soul.

Stranger's proposal that concludes ately The

ends up by counting Stranger into account what does not take the two are not parts, necessarily be for

his the beings; he is counting.

however, counting, It assumes that they would body-people

not

if they were parts of one whole The what together they are apart.

7 The Science Cf. Derek J. Raine and Michael Heller, of Space-Time 26: "The force-free motions, the Pachart Publishing House, 1981), (Tucson: is asserted of which existence by the Law of Inertia, play a fundamental It is by means of these privileged role in the theory [of Newton]. trajec of space-time. Newton did tories that we map out the structure certainly success. a space not take this next step with much For, in constructing to the idea of a kinematical de he reverts time arena for his dynamics, In doing so, . . . he arrives at a space-time of inertial motions. scription with his Law of Inertia." structure which is not strictly consistent

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
are by body-people a story they become to be nameless gods. when We they absence once themselves; giants. when the puts Stranger the friends of the them

773
into

ideas cease Likewise, too are parts of the same story: they become they to motion and rest do not know what therefore happens we do know, however, are together; that the being of the that is not the being of rest. must have a cause of rest in the Stranger's of any causality juxtaposition if he is to go on, must find a tells us that the Stranger, to speeches turns out to be the A recourse causality. out for the Stranger. under myth, all of philosophical groups thought a or by telling of storytelling the precise people gods and giants. He leaves myth behind when

nonbeing The and motion way

of motion

around way

Socratic The either story

Stranger

by accusing about himself

he turns to Xbyos,which

is to be discussed

in light of its apparently

a one as subject which the manifold way of postulating contradictory It is not immediately obvious denies of its predicates (251a5-6). and his predicates?is that the Stranger's significant; example?man we cannot is not a connection whether there but wonder, however, between since first the recourse appear up as to speeches after together and his the the citation own of man, especially Man had had made

they shown

in the

between

body

separation that by means and soul as

gigantomachy. of the ideas friends we

of which that

through perception, some partnership with had then shown up elicited perfectly Theaetetus's and

as

being through a possible rival is must have

assent

Man (248al0-13). to god when the Stranger to the proposition that the being which mind and life in soul

by means calculation

in becoming partake we are in of which

(248e6 soul entailed had not gone on to ask whether the Stranger 249bl); of the discussion of is at least in the background then, Man, body. to the letters His is prior The Xbyos is man's speech Xbyos. Xbyos. are not of his speech his speech. The consonants which make up but in his of the phabet speech what they are in the alphabet: is the "ensouled of "body" consonant is the consonant to the al prior own alphabet by a procedure into sounds: its

completely

alphabet, of the friends

body" the ideas.

is very misleading accordingly us how to which informs ?(t> va into observation ovp,<\)(?va. that The one

The Stranger's if it is not accompanied its letters

translate

only rest, and motion, Being, about them further revealed

is provided key to this procedure by the of his alphabet is explained. of the letters the same are manipulated, but nothing is through their manipulations. Only

774
the other alphabet. sounds. emerges The with other a trait thus turns it did not out have

SETH BENARDETE
as an element a letter of the the

to be not

at all but

operator which
Nonbeing at at the the

is designed
as the

to transform
other makes for

all the other letters

the possibility

into the

of Xbyos. of his image

In his autobiography
looking cessors sun beings during directly,

in the Phaedo,
an

Socrates
looking at the

compared

the eclipse with and the looking

prede of the

eclipsed sun in water with his looking at the beings in speeches If the Stranger, in his turn from myth to Xbyos, is (99d5-100a3).
going must over be the the Socratic region bv has revolution, of nonbeing, that the region for nonbeing seems he is now looking of necessity at belongs

to Xbyos. Any something

alteration: bv 1X7] has a referent submitted

looks as if it is taken up into speech without

to be outside but discourse, to an operation of Xbyos before it enters names? tells Polyphemus?he of many un has prepared the way for its being ovrls ovns as blind ?ie Krelvei, of a referent. as "None kills makes me."8 the Nega The

already Odysseus Xbyos. When is Ovns, that his name he in the Cyclops' derstood speech any The syntax of Xbyos strips of Polyphemus bears the mark then, however, extends

neighbors tion,

as Odysseus of man's presence to all speech

Speech made him.9

in discourse. regardless

Stranger,

this

of whether

it has a negative or not. He does this by denying that any letter of his original alphabet is what it is by itself. Motion is not the
same as itself on account in the same denies the of its own nature but on account of any whatever of element its participation in anything (256bl). The participation of the element with

it par identity or of partial takes in. But the principle of participation is sharing for nothing the other, is other than any other on account of its own nature in the idea of the other but on account of its partaking (255e3 6). The other, however, for something say, man would or the principle of participation, makes it as the to be said of something, for otherwise, be only man and good only good. The other

possible eristical

therefore de-idealizes every being and makes it not just itself but puts it in relation with other things. The other is that which adds
the vocalic element to the silent consonants of being. The Sophist

8 9.408. Homer, Odyssey 9 It is striking that the absence of a referent for ovns makes the neigh it is impossible to avoid; Odyssey bors speak at once of Zeus, whose afflictions
9.409.

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
began with Socrates' he suggestion in the implied with its vocalic god was of argument that that the philosopher. was the Stranger, attached. The

lib
The the true he is.

philosopher, consonantal philosopher He therefore being taken

being is the only being cannot but not to be thus like bears

glide already as just what enters speech as he is, for he cannot appear other

avoid The who

philosopher

every an uncanny

a being in itself. being, to the lover, resemblance

despite his being equally defective

complete.10 It is not surprising,

comes to light as perfect

that Theaetetus ends

and
up

therefore,

the wise that the sophist (268cl). impersonates by saying two prior stages of the to link the other with It is now possible is due to Theaetetus, the other to the Stranger. One stage argument. The as erepov roiovrov?or, image of being and nonbeing?is together the the things which are; rather, by everyone?the formula testifies outside speech, is not to it?as as Theaetetus no longer is that image which said, a marginal class the weaving class among

knowledged the proper are within the

ease with

ac of things Theaetetus discovered

counterparts Within speech. and "that doubletalk. step

not being it is. They just what of what is of speech "philosopher" double: "that the image is necessarily The image into the creates other non itself. the way

is so-and-so" contradictory The second from his

so-and-so."

It is thus

on that way easier

"To be the

attempt, is to be an agent of the knowing that

friends

paradox was not ideas

ideas, could

it comes is the Stranger's contribution; in speech than in deed, to tame the giants. or a patient to power" was not acceptable The who it to becoming. tried to restrict not be either and least seemed without an agent or patient to leave the friends ideas that can power of the

however, resolved, without ideas, or at It is true agency of the that and

be known

(248d4-e5). is split between as any

the definition

being

a power cannot be an agent unless since for is a patient. thus sets the stage The definition something The other is the logical equivalent of the other. the final emergence It too makes to the dynamical relational of being. every being pair else

counting is relational,

patiency, but beings;

as power, once it of being suffers from the same defect definition does state that

the

insofar as it is in speech; but it overcomes the difficulty of power by getting rid of the contrary and including within itself a two. The
is the gist the Symposium. 10 This of the argument between Agathon and Socrates in

776
not the big is the the

SETH BENARDETE
the not beautiful the equal and the small, not Greek In the barbarian and barbaric. barbarian and does away not from barbaric, it from brings savagery. ugly and last case, "Greek" The

just, in cutting the other, over to "not Greek" designation ian"), not because The

"stranger" only because "not

Stranger

likewise designation ("barbar the Spartans call barbarians but strangers,11 includes the acquaintance and the savage. stranger" at any rate, that not to comply with the com says,

exempt bears on this

to him ??evov The Stranger will appears request (217e6). pany's not be a stranger The while the Stranger. remaining Strang even young status for what er's double the way shocks prepares is to be outside the law and "To be lawless Socrates. [?vo/iov]" above the law. It is to be either tyrant or philosopher (Statesman

301bl0-c4). two kinds of weaving to The Stranger between distinguishes nouns of species, the other of One is the weaving gether. together

and verbs
weaving of Xbyos; distinguishes distinction

(259e5-6; 262c5-7).
that we have Xbyos, but

It is on account of the first kind of

it is the second kind that consti

tutes the structure

it allows between

of Xbyos. The first establishes

for

the possibility

primarily agent, whether

to enter The second, however, things Xbyos. the agent and the action of a Xbyos. This own divisions us realize were makes that the Stranger's verbs of action, and the sets of discriminations among

or sophist, was defined Socrates, angler, by a pred to which he could be attached. The verbs were icate or predicates so determinative could be plausibly of the agents that whoever said to do some action was Socrates Accordingly, ipso facto that agent. took on the guise of the there in the verb nothing was or not. Indeed, spurious that he and assertion initial was

for sophist, the agent whether that could declare the Stranger's from this perspective, Theaetetus had

meant in common that they had an only a name to an action The which had to be hooked up agent-noun (218cl-5). To move of an action he there of was deed (irp??is). spoke (epyov) to discover In dissolving to deed was the verb. from word simply

the subject
which formed the

into the verb, the verb was put in the third person,
concealed a he or she this that action suited was, anyone who per action. Whatever knowledge

in
had

form was

11 Herodotus,

Histories

9.11.2.

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
nothing artless to do with and artful its character. form of

111
an the split between Although was contradiction impossible strictly in "to haggle" that denied it was nothing than the there label. was The in its counter emergence if truth action, difference. and of or the

there was (225bl2-c9), not fully informed by art, any more except part any trace of knowledge we are not is something the agent falsity is now to be found in the

prepared

compound

for, of agent

since

Stranger
ferent Socrates After false

is admitting
might his

that Socrates

and the sophist do not do dif

things,

and no division be as much characterization the Stranger

off their by itself can mark as the sophist. a maker of Xbyos and his

illustration

of a

speech,

thought (263d6-264b8). that thought is the ?i?Xoyos within the soul before except are the same, sound. itself without and speech If, then, thought is dialogue. had not been dialogue but speech however, Speech, now calls opinion, or denial what the Stranger the assertion of a phantasia the same, thought. he had remark, and by second the The Stranger had in his with indeed example whom anticipated of a false I am now for revision, a dialogic speech conversing, flies" this

quickly dispatches He asserts that

thought,

and opinion, and Xbyos are

interpolated "Theaetetus,

(263a8). What
Stranger, fly," which or

he had called speech involved two agents,

of dialogue; the however, in Greek if Theaetetus is not agent Xbyos has the is being "Theaetetus built becomes ending. into

the first
flies" the but verb, the

persons

addressed

"you minimal

irereaai,

if contracted, is the speech

nerrj. Once speech verb with its proper he it.

dialogue,

the Stranger that expects to decide on whether

is addressing Theaetetus, answer will Theaetetus his own state. Whether an

is asking Theaetetus he

If, however, a question and is called upon

about the

Stranger speaks if it is an image it is an Socrates, calls philosophers; not and we would one of them his answer However to the this

is right or not depends or not for, according to image Theodorus image of those whom expect that if Theaetetus be as true were would

question may be,

(Theaetetus

173e5; 175e2). the issue of predication. their elimination through

"I" and verbal

speech seem "you" action, an art for at

alters dialogue to be resistant to first glance that there

seems to be no verb which

"hunts" nalizes icated or "sifts" does, On such let the human. of man as

specifies what we do in the way

alone or science the verb which its scientific

that
ratio

reflection, however, is biaX'eyeaOai and

is pred form is

778
oiaXeKriKt).12 to a structure are "man" characterization Stranger's the explicit of Xbyos in which and "Theaetetus"?contains The

SETH BENARDETE
of Xbyos, agent?his then, points two examples if the ex "you"

another, is "you." These is "I," or "I" if the explicit agent agent are present of whether in any dialogue agents regardless they are of Socrates' soul-cathartics They are the object part of any Xbyos. in the double form of self-knowledge. plicit The ture within Stranger concludes perception. structure his account with cfravraa?a. It is a mix if it is to stay has to be un and of opinion the dialogic as the of the is soon

derstood in light answer

formulation interlocutor's to be given will on both believe

however, Qavraaia, of speech and thought, in answer of an opinion perception by Theaetetus. The

to a question of the questioner. Such an Stranger will ask

him whether
nature, often and have

everything
opinions you remark

is the handicraft
say: sides; things absence "I, perhaps now,

of a god or of thoughtless
on account of my with age, a in looking at you

and Theaetetus

supposing

however, are made in conformity

god, I too hold in this way"

Theaetetus's absence fore viction reading our is what eyes is the his makes

(265dl-4).
remark

The most

revealing

thing in

Theaetetus he builds

which

of the word <f>a?verai, for its Be the example of a (fravraaiia. a con it with doubt and replaces banishes of the Stranger's This out of a reading face. Regardless face, Theaetetus conclusion has of whether this is a correct else is now something no weight unless Socratic is this time Theaetetus all, is something. Theaetetus's appar exercise

reading than a verbal cathartics

is a spoken phantom. of the Stranger's action. His

and can test whether is possible a wind-egg. The soul, after with not pregnant we are to ascribe We do not know whether ition that the

of (pavraariKr); the Stranger's

are of divine making to the Stranger's things but we do know that Theaetetus's apparition reattachment of eikastics sets and up the no artful kind is

As the Stranger making. there and human making,

precedes to image phantastics between divine distinction of divine image-making,

12 of verbs but the Stranger's it is just an accident, examples Perhaps a Xbyos are all in the active voice constitute that do not in succession true and false speech (?aoiCei, rp?xei, Ka?ev?ei), and the two that illustrate voice is strictly are both in the middle (K?drjrai and ir'ererai). The middle occur within cf. the sphere of the subject; used for those actions which Klinck vol. 2 (Paris: Librairie Grammaire Pierre Chantraine, hom?rique, sieck, 1953), 174-6.

ON PLATO'S SOPHIST
for though he alludes to

779
his of the god's dreams, examples or mirror-images There shadows (266b9-c4). are anything but automatic consequences

(?>avr?(Tixara are either is no suggestion that they allows

of the bodies the god makes

Stranger 5); there

directly.

Indeed, the bodies that the

(265cl cosmos

to be the god's work are all on or in the earth an ordered nor stars, let alone heaven is neither

are animals but there There and soulless things, (cf. 233e5-234a4). once the of soul; neither is no mention \pvxv nor e/xxl/vxov reappears are to iroirjriKr) (xf/vxv appears last at 264a9). We returns Stranger the god practices left in the dark, then, as to whether phantastics either Stranger (?)?vraapa in deed or is a god, was due was if Socrates in speech; and we are in the dark as to whether to the that the right Theaetetus's

(?yavraaixa was

Theaetetus's

art. the If, as it seems, Stranger's own offspring, there would be no divine

of the Stranger's in deed; but if it was after all a product phantastics still be no divine of a god, there would the product skill, as if it were in speech. of a divine The Stranger's impersonation phantastics to come across not require more than a question craftsman would as an answer; either of divine it would in the making, not form entail of laws then, an elaborate or of Socrates' the stress account of divine The body.

revelation, function

is to put

haipbviov. on the

That

the body
as

is paramount

is shown

by the double

use
as

of
the

art of elbooXa, and then the comprehensive pi?rjriKr), first own body or voice someone to represent art of using one's

else's

(265al0; 267a7).
for he separates he was though Though nothing

At this point the Stranger's

impersonators with dealing is said into knowers

divisions break down,

and

even nonknowers, art kinds of productive (267b7-8). seem to this effect, it does that explicitly (Theaetetus, and ignorant of virtue. The the for example) are those those who

knowledgeable who imitate imitate try

impersonators those they know and the rest

impersonators impersonators they virtue.

justice to make appear else have occurred opinion

of virtue and This almost kind of

in themselves about virtue.

opinion

everyone embodiment between calls

long before

They embody men became aware

of the difference

now and knowledge What the Stranger (267d4-8). as aperrj. to its sincere It is known practitioners oo^opi?rjriKrj can appear: Theaetetus on the belief is based that virtue represents the Stranger's face as betraying that belief when he reads his con about It seems divine at first Does production. as if the Stranger's the Stranger analysis then of Xbyos look up? into agent

viction

780

SETH BENARDETE

and action is designed solely for finding truth or falsity in the correct
or incorrect attachment of an action to impersonation, and as not independent it is understood know what to a known striction of imitation however, of what he does.13 in opinion, agent; by his re the agent becomes The his soph sus

in himself significant ist embodies virtue picion that he does

this perfectly, Gorgias exemplifies and refute the opinions about virtue tains and believes the he sees

despite he knows. axviJia declares but what he does is to contradict his the interlocutor in the What, at any rate sophist. then, found from himself The main

impersonates He is not an faced,

opinions

represented he refutes. Theodorus out what of a

sophist of Socrates? him his poker totally

impersonator. and could not figure

Socrates

believed

presentation Protagorean position (Theaetetus Does his claim to ignorance is ironical. Socrates, however, 161a6). come across as knowledge in light of his capacity to show up the More of others? the incoherence does in ignorance particularly, once Socrates a virtue, has exposed about the induce opinion it, that impression seem impossible Socrates that himself possesses display seems that virtue? virtue It would without Socrates could

convincing

popular

its inconsistencies
Socrates Abyos agent where the

while

bringing
moralist

to light its inconsistencies,

to be doing exactly as the problem of Socrates

but
that. the

logic-chopping as dialogue thus comes can in his action. We

to light say that

to treat up

the problem has been uncovered, Socratic Socrates the agent, cannot show agency. however, in himself; he shows up in the patient, Socrates. young instead,

the Sophist ends at that point and the Statesman is designed

New

York University

In the summary the Stranger gives of the sophist's genealogy (268c8 can be rephrased as a verb: the d4), all but one of his lines of descent imitation resists such a rephrasing. between divine and human difference

13