Thoughts on Sophist and Statesman

              Plato’s dialogues Sophist and Statesman are the only two works that seem to be part of a planned trilogy. In the very beginning of Sophist, it is asked whether the sophist, statesman, and philosopher are 3 different things or 3 different names of the same thing. It is easily decided that they are different, and the project is to define each to see in which way they differ. There is no dialogue entitled Philosopher, so either Plato wanted to write it and never got around to it, he did write it and it is lost to antiquity, or he left it open for us to explore on our own. I am no scholar, so my opinion here is laughably weak, but the most likely scenario seems to be the last one to me. These two dialogues are very heavy on metaphysics and tackle some big problems in philosophy under the innocent guise of merely attempting to define two terms. The problem is that these words are much more difficult to define than one would initially think. The difficulty with defining the sophist lies in the fact that “he is a many-sided animal and not to be caught with one hand” (226a). The stranger from Elea, who takes the dominant role as teacher in these two dialogues, keeps finding new definitions that seem to fit the sophist; he has a hard time whittling them down to just one. The trouble with defining the statesman is the polar opposite – he finds one definition, but it fits more people than just the statesman. Instead of multiple definitions that apply to one subject, the obstacle here is one definition that applies to multiple subjects. These two problems force the investigators to use different methods.

            I haven’t finished reading all the dialogues yet, but I’m fairly certain these are the only two where the Eleatic stranger is the main pedagogical figure. I’m unsure of why this is and I have a sneaking suspicion that everyone else is too, though I’d love to read speculation as to why in the secondary literature. As an Elean, he is a follower of Parmenides, yet he succeeds in taking down major tenets of the Parmenidean worldview, albeit in a very respectful and cautionary manner (241d and 243d in Sophist), so he does seem to be a sort of fill in for Socrates. Yet, dramatically, he does seem subtly different from Socrates, although the character of Socrates isn’t exactly stable over all the dialogues. He seems much more like someone who has the answers and is imparting them to a student rather than a mere searcher for truth. He doesn’t really seem like he takes his reasoning from divine initiative in the way Socrates does and in general, just seems like a colder and more insipid version of him, though that could just be me.

            As I mentioned, the Eleatic stranger is trying to define the sophist. He does this by a method that is also used in the sequel Statesman. The method by which to define things in these works is successive dichotomization. You take a very general class of things and divide that into 2 and seeing in which one the subject belongs and then do this over and over again until you are satisfied. It is a very top down approach, which is emblematic of Plato. The stranger uses an analogy – it’s like when hunting an animal, you should cordon off the area slowly until he is penned in and then capture him. In Statesman we learn more about this method. It is not something that just anyone can use anyway they want. Young Socrates (NOT the same as the Socrates you’re thinking of) makes the error of making an incorrect division. This method of analysis has to mirror reality – we are often tempted to cut corners and make haste to reach a goal through laziness. The Eleatic stranger will have none of this. We have to divide things according to REALITY or real forms. He gives the example that it would be wrong to divide humanity into Greeks and everyone else (barbarians) since everyone else isn’t a real class. A more authentic division is male and female. An even more absurd example would be splitting all numbers into the number 10,000 and every other number. If your goal is to define the number 10,000 then you got it right out of the gate, but that comes at the expense of ditching reality. A better division to start off with would be even and odd numbers. This is a good reminder in our age where relativism and procrastination are dominant (as in almost every other age).

            In fact, this method is so important that the stranger says that dividing according to real forms is THE philosophical method itself and that expertise in this area, probably among others, is what makes one a philosopher. In fact, the initial purported goals of these dialogues as attempts to define specific words is explicitly contradicted by the stranger. He states that the true purpose of these exercises lies beyond them – it is to help us learn general principles of the method in order to be better philosophers and to be able to tackle any question. A funny remark is even made to that effect – who in their right mind would spend so much time and effort to define such a thing as weaving! I think this lends credence to the idea that we are to try to define the philosopher on our own according to this method, hence why Plato didn’t write it. Another component of this method is the practical use of easier to understand examples to illustrate a more abstract and difficult to understand subject. The most concrete, material, and simple things require less words to describe them. In fact, the most concrete things require none at all, you point, and understanding is instant. As you go up in importance among the things that exist, the ability to perceive them with the sense goes down. The most important and lofty of all existing things are completely invisible to all sense data and accessible only via rational demonstration. This makes sense to me, given my own experience in college. As you advance in math and science the reason things get harder is that reality gets weirder and harder to picture in your mind and all you have are strange, long, equations and abstract information to process.

            As in any other discipline it is best to start where you are and go to harder and harder examples as you get more proficient. The stranger uses the easier to understand example of weaving to see if that will shed light on what the definition of the statesman – which it does. It shows him why his definition kept fitting the description of so many other people besides the statesman. He defines weaving as the art of making clothes, but obviously there are other people who contribute to that than just the weaver. There are the people who only contribute to the process of clothes production but don’t do the actual work of clothes production. There are also people whose job it is to separate things out in the process, rather than positively to produce the clothes. This leads him to the idea that this is the same for the others who claim to help humanity as well like doctors and teachers, generals, and engineers etc. The difference is in the fact that the statesman possesses the higher order skill of knowing which skills should or should not be pursued the prudence to know when to do it. For example, the statesman isn’t an expert on warfare – he delegates that to his generals, but he knows if his country should go to war and if so, when. He also isn’t an expert on how to persuade the public, but he is an expert on whether or not the public should be told something or not and if so, when. He is like the weaver – he unites all the threads of society together into a beautiful tapestry. The stranger singles out two personality types that the statesman is good at making more well-rounded and at combining and using at the appropriate moments. Some people are too gentle, and some are too aggressive. The statesman is the one who can unite the gentle and the brave in peaceful harmony in a way that also makes sure other nations can’t take advantage of his. He has the will and knowledge to implement policies that ensure diversity and balance in the population, so the nation doesn’t get too extreme and unbalanced.

            This is in sharp contrast to the definition of the sophist as an expert in the art of insincere, unknowing contradiction making who only is familiar with appearances and not reality – they are shadow players of words in private. Tell us how you really feel Plato! He apparently didn’t like imitators who pretend they are good at something while having no knowledge and making a ton of money scamming people, but who does? In fact, Plato’s dislike of these people is so strong it steers the direction of the Sophist dialogue into a metaphysical direction for the principal purpose of showing how they must be liars! To set the stage, a little background is necessary. In a beautiful seaside town named Elea, there was a thriving philosophical community that including such illustrious company as “father” Parmenides and Zeno, that witty lover of paradox. It is even thought that the renowned Xenophanes of Colophon started this school. Anyways, they and Parmenides in particular had the belief that all was one and change was an illusion. As such, it is impossible that anything could be unreal and concomitantly that it is impossible to utter a false statement. When you think someone is speaking falsely, what they are really doing is not saying anything at all. Plato could not have this since he thought the Sophists were cold-blooded liars.

            What’s the logic behind the impossibility of a false statement? When you are saying something false what you are doing is saying something that “is not.” This seems to be an impossible contradiction. Here’s an example. There is a unicorn here. Since unicorns don’t exist this is a false statement and is tantamount to saying, “there is a thing that is not here.” How can a thing which “is not” be referred to as “is”? We often, in common speech, also say that “these things” (plural) don’t exist and that “this thing” (singular) doesn’t exist. Both plurality and unity belong to the realm of existing things so we would again be saying “this or these existing thing(s) don’t exist.” Doesn’t seem to make much sense. In fact, nothing is ultimately unthinkable. Even the sentence I just made doesn’t make sense. To say nothing IS unthinkable is to ascribe to nothing (that which doesn’t exist) the property of existing since it “IS” unthinkable. Nothing isn’t anything – it doesn’t exist. We can’t refer to nothing as any thing, as many, one, or even as it because a thing that is referred to as ‘it” would have to be something that exists and nothing doesn’t exist. So it truly does seem like either everything everyone says must be true or that if they are not true, it must be just gibberish and there are no such things as lies.

            Plato does not buy this, and neither should we, so he spends the whole second half of Sophist trying to figure out how to refute this and the answer is pretty good. Unlike other philosophers of his day he thinks it is impossible that all things are one – if all is one but also real it seems like “real” and “one” are at least two things. Can reality be only two things as in Manicheanism? Many philosophers of his day said that at bottom there was only rest and motion, but if both of these are identical to existence then that would mean rest is motion which is a contradiction and therefore there must be at least 3 “great kinds.” He notices that what is often considered one thing is also many. For example, a man is a man, but can also be athletic, blonde, tall, etc. But how can one be many, and many be one? Plato’s answer is that one is many by participation. One thing can participate in other things and not be identical to them. This is the crux of the answer. Finally, the answer is arrived at that there must be at the absolute minimum 5 “great kinds” These are being, becoming, reality, sameness, and difference. All of these are all different from each other by means of participating in the kind “difference.” This, it turns out is the key. When we speak falsely, we are not speaking of “that which doesn’t exist” or nothing, we are saying something DIFFERENT than what is true. Plato must have really hated these guys to come up with all that insanely complicated stuff just to prove that they were liars! That is dedication and is proof that haters hating on you can be a powerful motivator.

            In Statesman, Plato also takes a turn into left field, but it isn’t quite so metaphysical and is much more relevant to the ostensible task at hand. His discussion leads to a need to define the different types of government. He divides it into 3 kinds with 2 subdivisions each. There is government where the leader is one person, a few people, and many people. Each has a good and bad form. So, the six types are tyranny, monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and good/bad democracy. There is a 7^th form that is kind of like a good monarchy except in this case the leader is a quasi-infallible person who governs so well that the law is not even needed. This leads to the Eleatic stranger excoriating legalism – he says the problem with the law is that it is inflexible and not conducive to change. I am reminded of St. Paul’s dictum that the letter kills, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6). Humans come with an extremely wide variety of life experiences, personalities, and manners of life and it is impossible to judge them correctly based on a one size fits all general-purpose rule. He goes so far to say that the law is “like a self-willed, ignorant man who lets no one do anything but what he has ordered” (294c). He also says that people who stick stubbornly to laws and rules and refuse to adapt to new info and changing situations are ridiculous and like quack doctors who refuse to change their prescription when the patient starts doing poorly (295d). At the same time, he notes it comes from good intentions to make sure people are treated fairly, but he notes that this is the one thing it cannot do. In fact if the same laws applied in society were applied to the arts they would be annihilated and “life, which is hard enough as it is, would be quite impossible then and not to be endured” (299e). Nevertheless, if a society is run by a rigid code, it is an even worse state of affairs to let people flout the rules wantonly. The proper thing to do would be to change them, and Plato seems to add that if force is necessary, then so be it.

            Another wonderful thing about reading these dialogues is the little tidbits of wisdom sprinkled throughout. Over and over, Plato reminds us that if we begin our investigation based on a false opinion, we will not understand anything at all. We also learn something we should already know that what matters most is what someone actually knows and not a piece of paper or a title. Also, we shouldn’t bicker over differences in naming conventions (261e). Something I truly believe is evoked by the Eleatic stranger, “Every one of us is like a man who sees things in a dream and thinks that he knows them perfectly and then wakes up, as it were, to find that he knows nothing” (277d). I also really like the ending that shows that we all make up a great big tapestry, as it were, and so the contemplative and active lives are not opposed. We all have different God-given strengths and should be allowed to pursue them in order to add to the beauty of this tapestry. Another thing that shows Plato was far from just a cold-blooded logician is his insistence that we should change people’s minds, not so that they agree with us, but so that they can share in the beauty of the truth. The best way, he says, to win over an opponent is not by argument – that is second best – the best way, is to change their heart. This really is key. Philosophy is not just abstract arguments about the nature of reality – it is a way of life that is supposed to instill in us a change of heart so we become more loving since the ultimate nature of reality is grounded in the God who is love.