Plato. Sophist 234 - 240.

Post Reply
User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Plato. Sophist 234 - 240.

Post by Jason » Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:56 pm

Stranger: . . . So the Sophist seems to be some kind of wizard, one who can conjure real knowledge from imaginary things?

Thaetetus: No, I think his knowledge belongs to the play of imagination, not the knowledge of reality.

Stranger: We've still made progress toward understanding the difference, I think. In his kind of illusion, among every kind of image, there must be some logical connection. So let's arrest him as our subject, under suspicion for ruining our our discussion with his arguments.

Thaetetus: Where shall we draw the line, then, between fantasy and reality?

Stranger: In the likeness, I think, unlike the copy. By its colors, not the object. Have you noticed how little he defines before he explains? I think this kind of "sophistication" must leave the truth out of knowledge. He makes us react to things without figuring out the ideas there: the information, apart from the data.

Thaetetus: Which color is that?

Stranger: Those which reveal the true proportions, unlike the way shadows lie. The sophist only allows the light and dark, you see, on the surface. Then he sort of casts this play in certain stages of a specious argument. If we insist that he appear in three dimensions, the fabulous direction would probably just disappear from our meridian altogether.

Thaetetus: Then we've already finished the investigation. The whole idea was to realize what we couldn't imagine. All we need is depth, as you and the Sophist appeared: both right there.

Stranger: But you're ignoring the whole problem, aren't you? I mean, how do we know the scale, given the extent of these proportions? It's the same riddle sculptors face, who try to model the perfect image from every possible viewpoint. That's what happens to teaching where the Sophist assumes his subject: it sounds elegant, but then someone thinks: hey, wait! All this flowery speech was only painted on a blank surface, really.

Thaetetus: I see. Then beauty poses a more primary likeness than simple words, it follows, having no real image in reality. Shall everything beautiful guide our senses or our appetites, then, in order to create things more fairly?

Stranger: I have no reason to argue the point, but let's return to our subject: if the sculptor learns to like his art, can't this idea of beauty be the basis of its own, real likeness? If the art exists, his truth gets realized. It's really that simple.

Thaetetus: For paintings or sculptures? I'm not sure I ever really like something I sense simply because it's already finished. How can you compare the difference between true beauty and the false copy without knowing both images as some whole idea, at the same time?

Stranger: Creatively. There's beautiful art and crafty skills, similar in some ways, distinct in others. While the Sophist preaches his own truth, some people might like the fantastic teaching, but others won't even know what the words actually refer to, if anything. Then conversely: if wisdom is more real than speaking can seem, doesn't the ideal become objective. What good can our sculptor surround, that wasn't already inspiring for him? It's probably some plot to distract us from our search for the truth, obviously, that the ignorant will say about being.

Thaetetus: We can be sure the art exists, at least, without also knowing its title. We can suppose what's obvious before we need to explain everything. By your analogy, similarly, the Sophist must belong in a class by himself. That's "distinguished," isn't it?

Stranger: Not enough. How does he create without reflection? Where is the mirror which turns the ideal into the art, not some object? From deep inside, it seems this voice only sounds sophisticated, so long as we rank it by the audience's size. Sounds great, then? Maybe; compelling, pleasant, probably--but also shallow as the time he wastes. I don't look for gold in the lowest common denominator.

Thaetetus: But any conviction begins with a sentence or two. So obviously, nothing "really" follows from philosophy but theory. And most theories begin with contradictions. If that's truly a problem for us, still the practice only produces absurd principles, simply by calling these theorems "science." While the definitions are still up for grabs, what can their students really grasp, then?

Stranger: Let's keep it simple. Without dividing the likeness from its appearance in the first place, perhaps we need a second idea, not the same theme. I might start with some "number" of things, logically speaking; then, assuming some "one" must be real, assume yet an "other" will present this likeness. The likeness is what really joins the ideal image with the pronounced word. It doesn't happen all at once, does it? With "three" of the "same thing," the relation makes a difference, that we point out as a plane. So the surface unfolds, perhaps, before it must imply any unit's existence between two random points. But beyond the surface, something solid also perfects a circle in this sense. We can start to describe the truth before we profess to know the thing.

Thaetetus: How so?

Stranger: With the center of a sphere--unlike the motion of worlds--where the greatest circle divides it by once. It's like the diameter evenly, which divides the circle in pairs, then the square into right angles. We assume something parallel, not anything true at these center, or else we must return the figure into itself. Something perfect emerges from this kindness, not the thing; so ideally, the prime numbers are simply odd in this way, since the even ones only measure the same difference.

Thaetetus: For factors or remainders? What difference does it make, then, among so many primes?

Stranger: The subject of grammar, unlike the power of rhetoric, might explain it more rationally. We insist on the difference between singular and plural--we have agreed, that is--on forms prior to words, inflections affecting their meanings. In the real world, therefore, I don't see how language must always follow from speech, nor words prove true beyond their world. Yet the Sophists run wild with their images in order to avoid the wonder of it all: how everything moves through some spin, that geometry can't really reckon the course very reasonably. Maybe beauty moves the same way, except it proves its value by longing for truth, too. If speeches goes on and on, and audiences only pass between distractions, no one will describe what this means.

Thaetetus: So like grammar, the even and odd simply become masculine and feminine; never quite combined completely, since this symbolic subject must divide them all into parts of speech.

Stranger: And the verb is always some objection? Something sounds more lasting than long in this process, and more fairly: what proves a living for the teacher doesn't show the sex of the speaker.

Thaetetus: I'm afraid I don't share your description, having already surrounded the copy. How can this one sculpture prove singular and plural all the time? Words fail me.

Stranger: But not the Sophist, don't you see? As they fail to grasp any absolute truth or supreme being, doesn't the time pass simply through the senses of a crowd, with numbers uninformed? The paradox has a great quantity, but not the true substance, which works well for them. The greater the riddle, the larger grows their following--but the correct answers only show the right doctrine, not the true image or the natural reason. "Who needs science?" the parents will proclaim after having enough sex: keep the crowd quiet, even entertained, since the questions are driving us crazy.

Thaetetus: I suppose. But I can't be sure that some endless dialectic can mean something just, really. I'm not sure that beauty forms a wise alternative to truth, either. Don't these ideals prove abstract, ideally speaking?

Stranger: At least we grasp the likeness in our logic, like the subject of information in this first-class, more elementary subject: what does sex DO, that sexes AREN'T. If only we assumed some study of grammar somewhere, we might distinguish our subjects from our arguments better.

Thaetetus: Then when shall we do the math?

Stranger: At the same time. If we teach how "the" defines something before "three" mean the same, I think the likeness might seem rarer inside the second.

Thaetetus: And in the first place? What does a circle describe, then, that your corners must inform somehow.

Stranger: I'd show the contrast at that point, as "a" line is "an" idea because that sounds better, not because either became more definite than the other. If my students agreed with this reasoning, I might go on to show how "the" circle gets caused by "a" point of description. Then shadows would start to find their causes, not the lies, and paradox no longer dwell on something absurd in order to show that anything exists. Without leading a larger herd of purely rational animals toward a flatter planet, I'd let two circles join for the edge of a pyramid instead, then by finding its size, realize the cube really appears in a ratio, not out of the square there. Perhaps the proper depth belongs along the edges, not among these odd ones. Surely the number of surfaces do prove primary to the solid whole.

Thaetetus: But currently these same proportions seem distorted by "what" things mean, not "which" thing is true. What more shall philosophers dispute? I also know how water affects my senses beyond its surface, past its shape. We don't need to swim in order to grasp the difference, meanwhile. We should truly start to grasp the essential facts, then grow wiser with the experience.

Stranger: Between the even and odd, then, by extension? No, really: I'm sure the right measure doesn't mean simply more contradictions between endless primes and proper units. Something must have joined the proportion with the harmony--and long before either idea appeared "on the whole". The painter learns to use his brush before pointing his thumb; the sculptor should find his soul before his work. I've studied the still truth in order to grasp it once. I haven't found that beauty which will enlist many believers. I don't confuse the sharp with the crowded, nor the copy with the original from time to time. The higher level must result from same ideas, not opposite senses. Opposite sexes, like even points, don't really turn into diagonals diametrically.

Thaetetus: And where will that lead Astronomy?

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Plato. Sophist 234 - 240.

Post by Jason » Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:58 pm

That's a repost from Google+. (They've really improved those algorithms). Let's talk about Seth baby. Or, you know, just some like reading for the Socratics.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60732
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Plato. Sophist 234 - 240.

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:00 pm

I'm surprised Seth didn't post in here, given how much he bangs on about "Socratic dialogue".
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests