Continuing in the vein of confusing and obscure Platonic dialogues, I also read the Sophist. The dialogue is an attempt to define what a Sophist is and what, if anything, he knows. This is the most interesting Platonic dialogue I have read in that it goes against what we traditionally deem Platonic thought as derived from the late to middle works like the Republic and the Phaedo. Here we see a criticism of the traditional concept of knowledge as defined through an experience of the forms. The dialogue also holds an interesting parallel to two earlier platonic dialogues, the Parmenides and the Theaetetus, one the subject of a previous entry and the other the subject of a future entry. The use of Theaetetus as a primary character in the Sophist indicates that the focus will be similar in focus to the dialogue of the same name whereas the Parmenides seems to be the driving force behind the self-criticism presented in Sophist.
While the content of the essay can be at times frustratingly deliberate in its advancement, I think the dialogue is noteworthy in that it shows a willingness of one of the great minds of all time to address the criticisms of his views and make revisions. Such a willingness is rare, though not totally absent, Wittgenstein comes to mind as another philosopher who criticized his own works. More than anyone else, it should be the intellectual responsibility of those endowed with great genius to avoid complacency and always be their own harshest critics as it is only in this way that great achievements can be reached.
No comments:
Post a Comment