Plato and the Sophists: A Comparison of Philosophical Views
Plato and the Sophists
A Comparison of Philosophical Views
Reality (Ontology)
Sophist Position
There is no objective reality independent of the knowing subject. Being is true only when it is perceived. Being is constantly flowing and changing, and is reduced to its various manifestations to the subjects.
Platonic Position
Ontological dualism (division and separation of sensible and intelligible being). The only true reality is intelligible because it is the only universal, necessary, immutable, and independent of the subjects. This reality derives its being from the Good. The sensible world is a secondary reality, a consequence of receiving intelligible essence.
Knowledge (Epistemology)
Sophist Position
There is no absolutely true knowledge. Knowledge depends on the subject and comes from sensory experience, which is always private and personal. It also depends on sociocultural and historical characteristics. Objective reality is impossible to grasp, since sensory knowledge only offers the subject one aspect of that objective reality (phenomenon). Therefore, knowledge cannot be understood as necessary.
Platonic Position
Truth is universal and necessary. True knowledge is possible only of intelligible beings, as they are the only true beings. This knowledge is reached only through the rational soul. The sensible world is only accessible through opinion, not true knowledge, which leads to error.
Man (Anthropology)
Sophist Position
There is no common or universal nature to all human beings. Each human being is the fruit of education within their sociocultural context. Each person has their own personality and becomes a unique individual.
Platonic Position
Anthropological dualism. The true identity of man is his soul, which has a tripartite structure. The rational soul is immortal and the source of true knowledge. It is forced to fight against the body and the senses. After life, it enters into a stage of separation from the body.
Ethics
Sophist Position
Ethical relativism and conventionalism versus Platonic absolutism. There is no absolute good valid for all. Moral standards are distinct in every culture. They are the result of agreements between people within their history and culture. There is no single definition of a virtuous person, justice, or happiness.
Platonic Position
Good exists objectively. Actions and decisions are good only if they adhere to the Good. The good of the soul is to return to its intelligible life, separate from the body. To achieve this, a person must be just, and every part of their soul must be virtuous. When a person knows their role, they will act accordingly (moral intellectualism) and achieve happiness.
Politics
Sophist Position
The state must respond to the nature of man, but since there is no universal human nature, the state’s laws and structure are a result of agreements between citizens. Therefore, the state is conventional.
Platonic Position
The chief political virtue is justice. Only if citizens and rulers are just can a just state be achieved. Citizens must submit their lives to the functioning of the state. Those who are not ethically virtuous cannot govern, which is why politics and ethics are inseparable. Therefore, the state must be structured according to the nature of man.
Further Reflections
The fragments discussed revolve around education, especially the education of the rulers of the state. Plato’s concern about this issue highlights the importance he places on education in his philosophy. Education is the best way to improve humankind and to end social inequality. This emphasizes the importance of values education. Plato believed that the ultimate step in education is the knowledge of the Good. Ethical values are paramount; understanding the Good is essential for human flourishing.
Closely connected to education is Plato’s reflection on politics. Plato is concerned with the qualities of a good ruler, who must strive to improve citizens. He criticizes those who use politics for social advancement. Good rulers should be those who have best understood ethical values. Plato’s distinction between a world of shadows and the real world can be seen in the criticisms leveled against the media.
Emilio Lledó’s interpretation of the myth of the cave offers an anthropological perspective, where we can see ourselves as prisoners of our own cultural and historical limitations.