Customer Reviews

Plato's Sophist

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I think the previous reviewer owes me a 'treat'-I have read this a few times, having spent the past few months working on the Sophist, as well as the Theaetetus. I quite agree that it is not the most accessible of Plato's dialogues, but I disagree with the view that it is not worth our trouble. Plato's work on logos in the closing sections of the dialogue, as well as his work on the probems of not-being are amongst the greatest pieces of analysis in the history of philosophy, in my opinion. Perhaps, though, if we are to gain a full appreciation of what Plato is doing here, a look at the problems as raised by Parmenides is necessary first.

This translation is excellent. Bernadette's insightful commentary is a real help to those just starting the plunge into Platonic thought, as well as providing a new and fresh analysis for those veterans of the dialogue. The word choice of the translator really complements an in-depth reading of arguably the most solidifying distinction between Platonic thought and the supposed errors of the Sophists.

First, the commentary of this work is superb, but, second, the translator made the translation unnecessarily complex and it makes this book hard to understand. I will comment on both.
First, I was disappointed that the translation of this work is - I would say -- unncessarily complex and it makes Sophist very convulated. The translator chose to use the term "what it is" and what it is not" to mean "being" and non-being". Perhaps the earlier is closer to the original Greek term, but you can imagine that when you use "what it is" and "what it is not" in long sentences, they tend to get mixed up with the regular word "is", and it renders the whole sentence unreadable. Here are 3 examples: I am comparing Benardete's translation (this book), with Harold N. Fowler's translation from 1921.

Benardete:
[257c]"So we'll not concede the point, whenever it is said that a negative indicates a contrary, but only so much, that the prepositioning of "not", general and particular, something of everything else than the names that come after it, or rather than the things, whatever they are, for which the names uttered after the negative are laid down."

Fowler:
[257c]"Then when we are told that the negative signifies the opposite, we shall not admit it; we shall admit only that the particle "not" indicates something different from the words to which it is prefixed, or rather from the things denoted by the words that follow the negative."
--
Benardete:
[257b]"Whenever we say "that which is not", we are not saying, it seems, something contrary to "that which is" but only other."

Fowler:
[257b]"When we say not-being, we speak, I think, not of something that is the opposite of being, but only of something different."
--

Benardete:
[244b]"And what of this? Do you call "that which is" something?"

Fowler:
[244b]"Well then, do you give the name of being to anything?"

---
As you can see, Fowler's translation is more straight forward, less ambiguous, and shorter. I have to read Benardete's translation a few times to understand the meaning. Based on this, I will not recommend this translation to a beginner student of Plato.

Now, on the commentary: the commentary is very extensive and full of insights. For example, his comment on the opening scene of the book is worth purchasing this book it self. Benardete went through a detail interpretation of why Socrates asks Theodorus if the Stranger might not very well have been God himself. Worth reading just for that.

Benardete has either absorbed so much of the Platonic rhetorical structure that he has truly seduced Socrattic irony into an intelligible light , or is lost amongst the labyrinthine ways of post straussian scholars. Nobody, undergrad, or grad, knows for sure.

Okay to start off, I'll give anybody who read this book EVEN ONCE a treat.

It's probably the most dense reading of all time; and the identity of the Sophista is really unknown, as the only reason it's attributed to Plato is because Socrates appears as a character.

I admire the translator (he does his best with questionable material, as every clear-headed classicist does) and The University of Chicago Press, which has published some of the best translations of Greek stuff (especially of the Greek tragedies) in the 20th century.

Maybe a philosophy major who has read all of Plato's other stuff might be more prepeared to read this, get it, and enjoy it--but I didn't.

One last thing: A Professor, educated and classically trained at Columbia and himself a Classics professor for 35 years, told me--off campus--that he's never been able to get the Sophist, and he's not going to waste the precious remainder of his years attempting to do so.

We laughed, and to ward off the depression of a 15 page paper I had to write on Sophista the next week, we went to a bar and drank some beers. I'd assume Plato would drink the beer because it tasted great, and Aristotle because it's less filling.