This paper examines the terms ‘elenchos’ and ‘elenchō’ as they occur in the Sophist in order to reveal a refined view of elenchos as a philosophical method. The explicit discussion of elenchos as a method in 226a6–231b8 must be read together with other passages described by these terms. Once this is done, it shall be seen that there are two types of elenchus employed in several ways. The first type, which I identify with the familiar Socratic elenchus, is used to purge false opinions or to arrive at plausible answers to philosophical difficulties. The second type, which appears to be the Stranger’s own method, is used to positively disclose relations between Forms. On this reading, elenchos is not merely destructive or preparatory for dialectic; it also forms a part of it.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
[Plato.] Platonis Opera. Vol. 1: Euthyphro, Apologia Socratis, Crito, Phaedo, Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophista, Politicus. Burnet, J. (ed.), 1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alieva, O. 2010. Elenchus and Diaeresis in Plato’s Sophist. Hermathena 189, 71–92.
Ambuel, D. 2007. Image and Paradigm in Plato’s Sophist. Las Vegas: Parmenides Publishing.
Benardete, S. 1984. The Being of the Beautiful: Plato’s Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman. Chicago – London: University of Chicago Press.
Benson, H.H. 2015. Clitophon’s Challenge. Dialectic in Plato’s Meno, Phaedo, and Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bluck, R.S. 1975. Plato’s Sophist. Neal, G.C. (ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Bostock, D. 1984. Plato on ‘Is Not’ (Sophist 254–259). Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2, 89–119.
Brown, L. 1998. Innovation and Continuity. The Battle of Gods and Giants, Sophist 245–249. In: Gentzler, J. (ed.), Method in Ancient Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 181–207.
Cornford, F. 1935. Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd.
Dorter, K. 1994. Form and Good in Plato’s Eleatic Dialogues, the Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giannopoulou, Z. 2001. The ‘Sophistry of Noble Lineage’ Revisited: Plato’s Sophist 226b1–231b8. Illinois Classical Studies 26, 101–124.
Heidegger, M. 1997. Plato’s Sophist. Rojcewicz, R. & Schuwer, A. (trs.). Indiana University Press.
Howland, J. 1987. Philosophy and Politics in the Philosophic Trial of Socrates. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
Kerferd, G. B. 1954. Plato’s Noble Art of Sophistry (Sophist 226a–231b). The Classical Quarterly 4(1–2), 84–90.
Klein, J. 1977. Plato’s Trilogy: Theaetetus, the Sophist, and the Statesman. Berkeley: University of Chicago Press.
Kostman, J. 1973. False logos and Not-being in Plato’s Sophist. In: Moravcsik, J.M.E. (ed.), Patterns in Plato’s Thought. Dordrecht: Reidel, 192–212.
Larsen, K. 2007. The Soul of Sophistry. Plato’s “Sophist” 226a9–231b9 Revisited. Filosofiske Studier 102, 1–14.
Larsen, K. 2015. The Virtue of Power. The Gigantomachia in Plato’s Sophist 245e6–249d5 Revisited. The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy, Vol. XIII. London: Routledge, 306–317.
Leigh, F. 2010. Being and Power in Plato’s Sophist. Apeiron 43(1), 63–85.
Miller, M. 2016. What the Dialectician Discerns: A New Reading of Sophist 253d–e. Ancient Philosophy 36(2), 321–352.
Notomi, N. 1999. The Unity of Plato’s Sophist: Between the Sophist and the Philosopher. Cambridge University Press.
Rosen, S. 1983. Plato’s Sophist. The Drama of Original and Image. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Robinson, R. 1941. Plato’s Earlier Dialectic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Robinson, D.B. 1999. Textual Notes on Plato’s Sophist. The Classical Quarterly (49)1, 139–160.
Rodriguez, E. 2020. ‘Pushing Through’ in Plato’s Sophist: A New Reading of the Parity Assumption. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 102(2), 159–188.
Scodel, H.R. 1987. Diaeresis and Myth in Plato’s Statesman. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Solana, J. 2013. Socrates and ‘Noble’ Sophistry (Sophist 226b–231c). In: Bossi, B. & Robinson, T.M. (eds.), Plato’s “Sophist” Revisited. Berlin: De Gruyter, 71–85.
Stenzel, J. 1940. Plato’s Method of Dialectic. Allan, D.J. (ed., tr.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vlastos, G. 1994. Socratic Studies. Burnyeat, M. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 451 | 166 | 0 |
Full Text Views | 110 | 104 | 26 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 142 | 124 | 17 |
This paper examines the terms ‘elenchos’ and ‘elenchō’ as they occur in the Sophist in order to reveal a refined view of elenchos as a philosophical method. The explicit discussion of elenchos as a method in 226a6–231b8 must be read together with other passages described by these terms. Once this is done, it shall be seen that there are two types of elenchus employed in several ways. The first type, which I identify with the familiar Socratic elenchus, is used to purge false opinions or to arrive at plausible answers to philosophical difficulties. The second type, which appears to be the Stranger’s own method, is used to positively disclose relations between Forms. On this reading, elenchos is not merely destructive or preparatory for dialectic; it also forms a part of it.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 451 | 166 | 0 |
Full Text Views | 110 | 104 | 26 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 142 | 124 | 17 |