The Dialectical Function of Names in the Sophist
-
Anna Pavani
Abstract
Language plays a pivotal role in Plato’s Sophist. Scholarly attention has focused primarily on verbs, especially the verb “to be,” and on statements. In this paper, I take a step back and focus on names (onomata) to argue that the very act of attributing a name (onomazein) plays a crucial role in the dialectical enterprise. Specifically, I argue that in the so-called Outer Part of the Sophist, names (onomata) contribute (i) to determining the project of the Sophist, (ii) to understanding how the interlocutors aim to track down the sophist, and (iii) to making sense of the whole development of the search for the sophist. (i) I shall defend the claim that the Sophist and Statesman are to be understood as one answer to Socrates’ opening question as to whether each of the three terms “sophist,” “statesman,” and “philosopher” picks out a distinct genos (217a7–9). (ii) In order to distinguish each of the three terms from the others, the interlocutors employ the Method of Collection and Division, which has been variously interpreted in the secondary literature. By means of a close reading of a largely overlooked passage (i.e., Sph. 227a7–c6), I shall show that the act of naming has a unifying function and that Collection and Division aim to apprehend what is akin and what is not by considering all possible objects under scrutiny as equally worthy of investigation. I shall further show that we can rightly speak of Division and Collection, since there is Collection in the Outer Part of the Sophist. (iii) Finally, I shall show that the pattern that develops through the sequence of the Divisions moves backwards, making us go back to what has been said to be the only common ground of the joint inquiry, namely the name “sophist,” and to the very first assumption this name reveals, namely that the sophist must possess a technê because of his name.
References
Editions, Translation, and Commentaries
Brann, E., P. Kalkavage, and E. Salem. 1996. Plato. Sophist. The Professor of Wisdom (transl., with Introduction and Glossary). Indianapolis: Hackett.Suche in Google Scholar
Cornford, F. M. 1935. Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. The Theaetetus and the Sophist of Plato Translated with Running Commentary. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Suche in Google Scholar
Crivelli, P. 2012. Plato’s Account of Falsehood: A Study of the Sophist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Duke, E. A., W. F. Hicken, W. S. M. Nicoll, D. B. Robinson, and J. C. C. Strachan. 1995. Platonis Opera. Vol. 1. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Rijk, de L. M. 1986. Plato’s Sophist: A Philosophical Commentary. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Rowe, C. J. 2015. Plato: Theaetetus and Sophist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Secondary Literature
Ambuel, D. 2007. Image & Paradigm in Plato’s Sophist. Las Vegas-Zurich-Athens: Parmenides Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Balansard, A. 2001. Technè dans les Dialogues de Platon. L’empreinte de la sophistique. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.Suche in Google Scholar
Bluck, R. S. 1975. In Plato’s Sophist: A Commentary, edited by G. C. Neal. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Brancacci, A. 1990. OIKEIOS LOGOS. La filosofia del linguaggio di Antistene. Napoli: Bibliopolis.Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, L. [1986] (1999). “Being in the Sophist: A Syntactical Enquiry.” In Plato 1. Metaphysics and Epistemology, edited by G. Fine, 455–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Cavini, W. 1995. “Naming and Argument: Diaeretic Logic in Plato’s Statesman.” In Reading the Statesman. Proceedings of the Third Platonicum, edited by C. J. Rowe, 123–38. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.Suche in Google Scholar
Cavini, W. 2009. “L’ordito e la trama: il Sofista platonico e la tessitura del λόγος.” Dianoia 14: 9–25.Suche in Google Scholar
Dorter, K. 1999. “The Clash of Methodologies in Plato’s Statesman.” In Plato and Platonism. Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, Vol. 33, edited by J. M. van Ophuijsen, 198–217. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Dorter, K. 2013. “The Method of Division in the Sophist: Plato’s Second Deuteros Plous.” In Plato’s Sophist Revisited, edited by B. Bossi, and T. M. Robison, 87–99. Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar
Fossheim, H. 2012. “Division as a Method in Plato.” In The Development of Dialectic from Plato to Aristotle, edited by J. L. Fink, 91–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Franklin, L. 2011. “Dichotomy and Platonic Diairesis.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 28: 1–20.Suche in Google Scholar
Gill, M. L. 2012. Philosophos: Plato’s Missing Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Giorgini, G. 2020. “The Power of Speech: The Influence of the Sophists on Greek Politics.” In Philosophy and Political Power in Antiquity, edited by C. Arruzza, and D. Nikulin, 9–40. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Suche in Google Scholar
Giovannetti, L. 2021. “Between Truth and Meaning. A Novel Interpretation of the Symploke in Plato’s Sophist.” Elenchos 42 (2): 261–90. https://doi.org/10.1515/elen-2021-0015.Suche in Google Scholar
Grams, L. W. 2011. “The Eleatic Visitor’s Method of Division.” Apeiron 45: 130–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2011-0007.Suche in Google Scholar
Granieri, R. 2023. “Being and the Philosopher’s Object in Plato’s Sophist.” Apeiron 56: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2023-0045.Suche in Google Scholar
Guthrie, W. K. C. 1977. A History of Greek Philosophy (6 vols.), Vol. III: The Sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Henry, D. 2011. “A Sharp Eye for Kinds: Plato on Collection and Division.” Oxford Studies Ancient Philosophy 41: 229–55.Suche in Google Scholar
Hoekstra, M., and F. Scheppers. 2003. “O´´νομα, ῥῆμα et λόγος dans le Cratyle at le Sophiste de Platon. Analyse du lexique et analyse du discours.” L’Antiquité Classique 72: 55–73. https://doi.org/10.3406/antiq.2003.2507.Suche in Google Scholar
Ionescu, C. 2013. “Dialectic in Plato’s Sophist: Division and the Communion of Kinds.” Arethusa 46: 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/are.2013.0003.Suche in Google Scholar
Klein, J. 1977. Plato’s Trilogy: Theaetetus, the Sophist, and the Statesman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lane, M. S. 1998. Method and Politics in Plato’s ‘Statesman’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Larsen, K. 2020. “Differentiating Philosopher from Statesman According to Work and Worth.” Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek and Roman Political Thought 37: 550–66. https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340300.Suche in Google Scholar
Moravcsik, J. M. E. 1962. “Being and Meaning in the Sophist.” Acta Philosophica Fennica XIV: 23–78.Suche in Google Scholar
Moravcsik, J. M. E. 1973. “Plato’s Method of Division.” In Patterns in Plato’s Thought, edited by J. M. E. Moravcsik, 158–80. Dordrecht (Holland)-Boston: Reidel Publishing Company.Suche in Google Scholar
Muniz, F., and G. H. Rudebusch. 2018. “Dividing Plato’s Kinds.” Phronesis 63: 392–407. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685284-12341355.Suche in Google Scholar
Nehamas, A. 1982. “Self-Predication and Plato’s Theory of Forms.” American Philosophical Quarterly 16/2: 93–103.Suche in Google Scholar
Notomi, N. 1999. The Unity of Plato’s ‘Sophist’: Between the Sophist and the Philosopher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Owen, G. E. L. [1970] (1999). “Plato on Not-Being.” In Plato 1. Metaphysics and Epistemology, edited by G. Fine, 416–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Pavani, A. 2022. “Forms and Names. On Cratylus, 389a5–390a10.” In Plato’s Cratylus. Proceedings of the Eleventh Symposium Platonicum Pragense, edited by V. Mikeš, 90–106. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Suche in Google Scholar
Pavani, A. 2023. “On Plato’s Late Dialectic: The Methods of Collection and Division.” In Ancient Greek Dialectic. Ancient Greek Dialectic and its Reception, edited by M. Mouzala, 189–210. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar
Smyth, H. W. 1984. Greek Grammar. Revised by G. M. Messing in 1956. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Galen’s Typology of Organs
- Doing and Being Done: The Definitional Primacy of the Active Power in Metaphysics Θ 1
- The Dialectical Function of Names in the Sophist
- Proclus: Counting the Hypotheses as Nine, Eight, or Twenty-Four?
- Beyond Rustic and Urbane: A Unified Reading of the Pyrrhonist’s Assent to Appearances
- About the Meaning of Φάντασμα in Aristotle
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Galen’s Typology of Organs
- Doing and Being Done: The Definitional Primacy of the Active Power in Metaphysics Θ 1
- The Dialectical Function of Names in the Sophist
- Proclus: Counting the Hypotheses as Nine, Eight, or Twenty-Four?
- Beyond Rustic and Urbane: A Unified Reading of the Pyrrhonist’s Assent to Appearances
- About the Meaning of Φάντασμα in Aristotle
