What do you think?
Rate this book
Plato: Theaetetus and Sophist
Plato's Theaetetus and Sophist are two of his most important dialogues, and are widely read and discussed by philosophers for what they reveal about his epistemology and particularly his accounts of belief and knowledge. Although they form part of a single Platonic project, these dialogues are not usually presented as a pair, as they are in Christopher Rowe's new and lively translation. Offering a high standard of accuracy and readability, the translation reveals the continuity between these dialogues and others in the Platonic corpus, especially the Republic. The supporting introduction and notes help the reader to follow the arguments as they develop, explaining their structure, context and interpretation. This new edition challenges current scholarly approaches to Plato's work and will pave the way for fresh interpretations both of Theaetetus and Sophist and of Plato's writings in general.
227 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 371
32 people are currently reading
403 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Rowe
40 books24 followersFor the Greek classicist, see Christopher J. Rowe
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
October 9, 2016
Francis Cornford does a decent job of presenting these dialogues; and, as the name indicates, these dialogues are dedicated to Plato's philosophy regarding knowledge, and elucidates his theory of forms. I have read Cornford's translation and commentary on Plato's Timaeus and thought Cornford had a very good understanding of the text; although, I didn't always agree with his conclusions. Like that commentary, I don't necessarily agree with all of Cornford's conclusions here either; but, over all, I think he has a pretty good grasp of the text.
There are some other dialogues that round out the information Plato presents here. Along with the Theaetetus and the Sophist, the dialogues: Philebus, Timaeus, Parmenides, Meno, the Republic and to a degree, Phaedrus, Phaedo and the Symposium can be included and do present further important aspects of Plato's philosophy of forms and/or knowledge. I do like the fact that Cornford regularly supplies the Greek text in footnotes and in the commentary; so one knows when Plato is using terms like ousias, eidolas, ontos, genos etc. That is a complaint I have with many translations where the subject matter can often be ambiguous. It is great to have the underlying text so one can gain a little bit better comprehension.
In the Theaetetus, Plato refutes Protagoras' relativistic philosophy (i.e. that man is the measure); and in the Sophist he largely refutes Parmenides' ideas regarding absolute unity and non-being equaling non-existence. I did find Plato's insistence that non-being equates simply to difference, not to non-existence, to be incredibly interesting. You find similar notions later on in idealists like Schelling. Plato also breaks down existence into distinct categories -not in the Aristotelian sense, however. Categories have regard to "kind", "sameness", "difference" etc. Plato is seeking to find the underlying form as a means of determining the source of division in these categories. His main objective seems to be to deduce what forms are basic and can either be joined to, or are absolutely distinct from and opposed to, other forms. He also investigates perception in these dialogues and refutes it's reliability as a source of knowledge.
As it stands, these are essential dialogues in the Platonic canon, and as such, well worth reading.
There are some other dialogues that round out the information Plato presents here. Along with the Theaetetus and the Sophist, the dialogues: Philebus, Timaeus, Parmenides, Meno, the Republic and to a degree, Phaedrus, Phaedo and the Symposium can be included and do present further important aspects of Plato's philosophy of forms and/or knowledge. I do like the fact that Cornford regularly supplies the Greek text in footnotes and in the commentary; so one knows when Plato is using terms like ousias, eidolas, ontos, genos etc. That is a complaint I have with many translations where the subject matter can often be ambiguous. It is great to have the underlying text so one can gain a little bit better comprehension.
In the Theaetetus, Plato refutes Protagoras' relativistic philosophy (i.e. that man is the measure); and in the Sophist he largely refutes Parmenides' ideas regarding absolute unity and non-being equaling non-existence. I did find Plato's insistence that non-being equates simply to difference, not to non-existence, to be incredibly interesting. You find similar notions later on in idealists like Schelling. Plato also breaks down existence into distinct categories -not in the Aristotelian sense, however. Categories have regard to "kind", "sameness", "difference" etc. Plato is seeking to find the underlying form as a means of determining the source of division in these categories. His main objective seems to be to deduce what forms are basic and can either be joined to, or are absolutely distinct from and opposed to, other forms. He also investigates perception in these dialogues and refutes it's reliability as a source of knowledge.
As it stands, these are essential dialogues in the Platonic canon, and as such, well worth reading.
October 20, 2010
Again - this is the book to read on Plato's Theaetetus and Sophist. There is also a very brilliant essay by Father Diès (who was a great Platonist) in the Budé editions:
http://www.lesbelleslettres.com/livre...
http://www.lesbelleslettres.com/livre...
One of the best essays on Plato's epistemology (which is as realistic as is his metaphysics: knowledge and opinion differing from one another by virtue of their OBJECTS), is in this collection:
http://www.amazon.fr/autour-platon-2-...
http://www.lesbelleslettres.com/livre...
http://www.lesbelleslettres.com/livre...
One of the best essays on Plato's epistemology (which is as realistic as is his metaphysics: knowledge and opinion differing from one another by virtue of their OBJECTS), is in this collection:
http://www.amazon.fr/autour-platon-2-...
November 1, 2021
Lessons on The Worst: the pessimist expects it, the cynic needs it, the sophist
is
it.
November 7, 2007
Plato's most technical work.... In this work, apparently Plato intends on giving us a theory of perception and knowledge that weaves some of the predeceasing theories of his time into his modified creation… Now Cornford suggests that he does this as means to give us a negative argument that may give credence to his theory of forms… So he is acknowledging a possible opposition argument to knowledge that is not via the forms, however as I think is evident the argument that is made is one that leads to paradox… and ultimately is not sufficient for knowledge. He starts with Theaetetus saying simply that perception equals knowledge… so long as you perceive something than that thing is knowledge be it hot, cold, tall, short, big, small, “beautiful”, and “good”. So then if you are a perceiver you have knowledge and whatever you perceive in your own subjective personal reality as far as perceptions is knowledge. This sense in which I am the judge of my perceptions and what is true for me in my world and not yours is the sense that “man is the measure of all things”, as Protagoras holds. Now this “flux doctrine” by “Heraclitus” is a completely different physicalist theory that Plato intends on conjoining with the other mentioned theory. This Theory is the idea that all sensible things are in motion and continually changing.
July 26, 2025
Socrates: "I have no wisdom of my own. I'm just a midwife." [Proceeds to do 95% of the talking for the rest of the dialogue.] I haven't been at many births, but I've never seen the midwife do 95% of the labor.
In The Sophist, with the stuff about non-being, you can see what happens when you assume every word you dream up is a real thing. They get all tripped up. Sometimes word games are just word games. You can predicate things about not-being without conjuring it into existence. But Plato reifies everything.
Along these lines, I was surprised/pleased to find at least an implicit acknowledgement of the arbitrariness of forms: "Then he who is able to do this [divide things by classes] has a clear perception of one form or idea extending entirely through many individuals each of which lies apart, and of many forms differing from one another but included in one greater form, and again of one form evolved by the union of many wholes, and of many forms entirely apart and separate." And so I raise my glass to nominalism (when talking about objects).
In The Sophist, with the stuff about non-being, you can see what happens when you assume every word you dream up is a real thing. They get all tripped up. Sometimes word games are just word games. You can predicate things about not-being without conjuring it into existence. But Plato reifies everything.
Along these lines, I was surprised/pleased to find at least an implicit acknowledgement of the arbitrariness of forms: "Then he who is able to do this [divide things by classes] has a clear perception of one form or idea extending entirely through many individuals each of which lies apart, and of many forms differing from one another but included in one greater form, and again of one form evolved by the union of many wholes, and of many forms entirely apart and separate." And so I raise my glass to nominalism (when talking about objects).
November 12, 2013
I read this for Reginald Allen's Parmenides course during the first semester of 1981/82 at Loyola University Chicago. Allen, a member of the Northwestern University faculty, was preparing his own book on the Parmenides at the time and was using us, his graduate students, as a sounding-board for his own ideas. The class was inconclusive. Although I got some insight into Parmenides himself, based on the fragments of his purported work, I did not reach any firm conclusions about Plato's representation of him and its place in the Platonic corpus.
Cornford's editions of Plato are usually, like this one, more Cornford than Plato, the bulk of the text being his commentary. Read any one of them and you get a sense for all of them. In my opinion, the commentaries are pretty good as starting points.
Cornford's editions of Plato are usually, like this one, more Cornford than Plato, the bulk of the text being his commentary. Read any one of them and you get a sense for all of them. In my opinion, the commentaries are pretty good as starting points.
June 11, 2019
These 2, part of a trilogy Plato wrote, are exceptionally subtle and in-depth looks at his views on epistemology and metaphysics. They go well past the Republic, and make Plato ultimately much more interesting than his more "mainstream" views passed around standard undergrad courses.
The Sophist is far more worth reading than is first apparent - I will have to check again for its subtleties!
The Sophist is far more worth reading than is first apparent - I will have to check again for its subtleties!
January 30, 2024
Sólo decir que ha entrado en mi Top 3 diálogos junto con Fedro y Banquete (a falta de leer mas en el futuro).
Magnifico, de verdad. Si bien no es el Platón "poeta" de los diálogos de madurez, sigo encontrando fascinantes los de la etapa de revisión crítica. Me ha gustado mucho más que el Timeo, y me parece que es así porque en este texto se hace una cosa que a veces se echa en falta en esta literatura: ir al grano. Lo hace a través de las sucesivas diairesis y un largo diálogo entre sólo dos personajes (y de estar en la piel de Teeteto, hubiese necesitado un Gelocatil a la mitad seguro)... pero va al grano. Por ello se aprecia en este texto más que en ningún otro que haya leído de esta etapa, ese afán de revisionar su pensamiento y esa necesidad de autocrítica que Platón sintió tras las críticas a sus teorías "maduras".
Además, ese toque lúdico de ir "a la caza del sofista" siendo sincero, me enganchó.
Tal vez sea un diálogo mucho más denso que un Fedón o un Banquete... pero ver en tiempo real como discurre el pensar de Platón a través del Extranjero es bellísimo. Es un diálogo donde se aprecia muy bien esa pasión desmedida de Platón por pensar la verdad.
Por cierto, la introducción no me la esperaba tan buena. Realmente aporta con rigor y consigue allanar el camino hacia la comprensión del texto original, y eso es de agradecer.
Lo recomiendo sin duda a todos los que hayan leído algún diálogo previo, desde luego que no es un diálogo propedéutico, ni muchísimo menos. De todos modos, dadle una oportunidad, que es de estos diálogos que imponen y luego te vuelan la cabeza... porque ¿a quién demonios se le ocurre plantar cara a Parménides?
Magnifico, de verdad. Si bien no es el Platón "poeta" de los diálogos de madurez, sigo encontrando fascinantes los de la etapa de revisión crítica. Me ha gustado mucho más que el Timeo, y me parece que es así porque en este texto se hace una cosa que a veces se echa en falta en esta literatura: ir al grano. Lo hace a través de las sucesivas diairesis y un largo diálogo entre sólo dos personajes (y de estar en la piel de Teeteto, hubiese necesitado un Gelocatil a la mitad seguro)... pero va al grano. Por ello se aprecia en este texto más que en ningún otro que haya leído de esta etapa, ese afán de revisionar su pensamiento y esa necesidad de autocrítica que Platón sintió tras las críticas a sus teorías "maduras".
Además, ese toque lúdico de ir "a la caza del sofista" siendo sincero, me enganchó.
Tal vez sea un diálogo mucho más denso que un Fedón o un Banquete... pero ver en tiempo real como discurre el pensar de Platón a través del Extranjero es bellísimo. Es un diálogo donde se aprecia muy bien esa pasión desmedida de Platón por pensar la verdad.
Por cierto, la introducción no me la esperaba tan buena. Realmente aporta con rigor y consigue allanar el camino hacia la comprensión del texto original, y eso es de agradecer.
Lo recomiendo sin duda a todos los que hayan leído algún diálogo previo, desde luego que no es un diálogo propedéutico, ni muchísimo menos. De todos modos, dadle una oportunidad, que es de estos diálogos que imponen y luego te vuelan la cabeza... porque ¿a quién demonios se le ocurre plantar cara a Parménides?
February 16, 2023
Sophist is kind of fine, but it's missing Socrates and so everything feels a bit tame in terms of style. Theaetetus goes hard. Socrates, in his quest to get to the root of epistemology, emerges like some sort of philosophical Patrick Bateman, slaying other philosophers left, right, and centre. Also I can't get over the bit where he compares himself to a midwife, because he says something like, "Now that we've got the birth out of the way, we can't just be running around the hearth with the baby, we must do things properly".
Read
June 15, 2019Read Plato for the first time. Confusing at the beginning, hard to pay attention to every detail and argument. Enjoyed reading disregarding the difficulties, guess I need to read more Plato's work to get used to it.
August 9, 2023
Theaetetus definitely one of Plato’s best dialogues. Sophists discussion of being and non-being at the end of the dialogue is good. Beginning of meontic philosophy. Neo-Platonists would certainly use this later.
January 26, 2023
only read theatetus. epistemology focus, translation can be a bit dense at times
May 13, 2024
The Sophist dialogue feels like being trapped in an elevator with someone who is passionately talking to himself about a problem he is encountering. Looking forward to the next one!
December 21, 2024
This is a reread, best translation so far
August 15, 2025
Read Theaetetus.
August 22, 2025
The stranger could be the best philosopher of all time.
May 6, 2023
What is knowledge? What does it mean to be wise? Are there different fields of knowledge, and how do we distinguish the difference between knowledge and wisdom? Carl Jung stated, “We have become rich in knowledge, but poor in wisdom.” When I first read this saying, I was a bit stunned and disappointed. Initially I was disappointed with me not being able to know everything, fully, due to not thinking about this statement. What does it mean to be wise? I believe that it is wise when one reaches enlightenment. What happens after enlightenment, acceptance and moving forward. There is one cannot do but self improve. Nietzsche emphasized that one should become the Ubermensch; an ideal god in the realm of no gods.
The Buddha said one can be wise through gaining enlightenment and removing themselves from their cravings and desires. It is an often saying that, “Attachment leads to suffering.” What does this quote mean, to attach oneself unto an other is to lose one’s individuality.
In the introduction it states;
“The confusion between knowledge and various kinds or applications of knowledge is first cleared up, and then the discussion centres upon three definitions: 1. Knowledge is sensible perception; 2. Knowledge is true opinion; 3. Knowledge is true opinion with reasoned explanation.” (p. 3)
Here it is said that the confusion between knowledge and various kinds of application is first cleared, the discussion centers on three definition: Knowledge is perception. What does this mean? How can knowledge be perception when perception isn’t always reliable such as a soldier losing his limb but yet still feels the sensations of having once have a hand? Perception is not perception due to the limits of our senses. This relates to “ I think, therefore I am” by Descartes who said whenever we are thinking we can’t doubt the one thinking, the origin of our thoughts.
Next, Knowledge is opinion. Now, I am more likely to believe that knowledge is true opinion with explanation. Are things in the world subjective, can things such as the laws of the universe, whether it be the laws of thermodynamics or something else.
On page 19 of Theatetus, Socrates asks Theatetus “Tell me, is not learning growing wiser about that which one learns?” (p.19)
The question of importance to take away from this dialogue Is: What does it mean to be wise? Is accumulating knowledge about different fields of knowledge wise, is wisdom derived from life experience? I believe that wisdom is derived from both life experience and wisdom learned from intellectual pursuits, one is not complete without the other, it is not separate from another, but a synthesis of both.
Socrates later says to Theatetus “motion is of becoming.’ (p. 45)
What is the difference of becoming and being, or being from Being? In Abraham Maslow’s work: “Towards A Psychology Of Being” that there is a difference between being, Being, and Becoming. In my interpretation, being that which you are, becoming that which you could be or are on the journey of being.
Overall, this was a excellent read.
The Buddha said one can be wise through gaining enlightenment and removing themselves from their cravings and desires. It is an often saying that, “Attachment leads to suffering.” What does this quote mean, to attach oneself unto an other is to lose one’s individuality.
In the introduction it states;
“The confusion between knowledge and various kinds or applications of knowledge is first cleared up, and then the discussion centres upon three definitions: 1. Knowledge is sensible perception; 2. Knowledge is true opinion; 3. Knowledge is true opinion with reasoned explanation.” (p. 3)
Here it is said that the confusion between knowledge and various kinds of application is first cleared, the discussion centers on three definition: Knowledge is perception. What does this mean? How can knowledge be perception when perception isn’t always reliable such as a soldier losing his limb but yet still feels the sensations of having once have a hand? Perception is not perception due to the limits of our senses. This relates to “ I think, therefore I am” by Descartes who said whenever we are thinking we can’t doubt the one thinking, the origin of our thoughts.
Next, Knowledge is opinion. Now, I am more likely to believe that knowledge is true opinion with explanation. Are things in the world subjective, can things such as the laws of the universe, whether it be the laws of thermodynamics or something else.
On page 19 of Theatetus, Socrates asks Theatetus “Tell me, is not learning growing wiser about that which one learns?” (p.19)
The question of importance to take away from this dialogue Is: What does it mean to be wise? Is accumulating knowledge about different fields of knowledge wise, is wisdom derived from life experience? I believe that wisdom is derived from both life experience and wisdom learned from intellectual pursuits, one is not complete without the other, it is not separate from another, but a synthesis of both.
Socrates later says to Theatetus “motion is of becoming.’ (p. 45)
What is the difference of becoming and being, or being from Being? In Abraham Maslow’s work: “Towards A Psychology Of Being” that there is a difference between being, Being, and Becoming. In my interpretation, being that which you are, becoming that which you could be or are on the journey of being.
Overall, this was a excellent read.
December 28, 2019
From what I know of him, which isn't much, it seems that Cornford was a late developer, which can give us all hope! It seems after a long career as an academic, he blossomed forth in his sixties or so with one brilliant book after another about Plato. This is one of those brilliant books. If you are interested in Plato in particular, or just the theory of knowledge from a philosophical point of view in general, this is the book for you! For example, the Theaetetus starts off with Socrates asking the brilliant young mathematician Theatetus what he thinks knowledge is; well, says T., it's perception. I see something and I know I see it. Many of us give much the same answer. We bang a table with our fist and declare that we know the table exists and is present. Socrates shoots this theory down in barely two pages of dialogue and they're off to discuss the next hypothesis. Cornford's commentary is excellent, and really helps the reader get to grips with the development of the arguments.
February 10, 2017
2.75 overall. I was most interested in the Forms. This probably wasn't the best book to start off with reading philosophy though.
2 stars for the Theaetetus, because they never came to any conclusions and mostly just talked themselves in circles.
3.5 stars for the Sophist, because here we learned a bit about the forms and ACTUALLY created a formal definition of a Sophist.
2 stars for the Theaetetus, because they never came to any conclusions and mostly just talked themselves in circles.
3.5 stars for the Sophist, because here we learned a bit about the forms and ACTUALLY created a formal definition of a Sophist.
August 14, 2020
The Sophist is the best thing I've read by Plato (and at times the funniest thing I've read by him) ...this seems like the most crucial book of his to read and re-read before diving into the work of Wilfrid Sellars or Ray Brassier (and to a lesser extent Sartre & Badiou)
August 25, 2016
Plato is my chum.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews