Contrasting Perspectives: Plato and the Sophists
Plato vs. Sophists: A Comparison of Philosophical Views
Reality (Ontology)
Sophist Position
There is no objective reality independent of the knowing subject. Being is constantly flowing and changing, reduced to its various appearances or statements to the subjects (phenomenalism).
Platonic Position
Ontological dualism exists (division of sensible and intelligible being). True reality is intelligible because it is universal, necessary, immutable, and independent of the subject (idealism). This reality derives its being from the right, therefore, only what is good can exist. The sensible world is secondary, derived from the intelligible essence through participation.
Knowledge (Epistemology)
Sophist Position
Absolutely true knowledge doesn’t exist; it depends on the subject and comes from sensory experience, which is always particular and private (subjectivism). It also depends on sociocultural and historical contexts (relativism). Even if objective reality existed, it would be inaccessible, as sensory knowledge only offers a limited aspect of that reality (phenomenon). Therefore, knowledge, understood as something necessary and universal, is impossible (skepticism).
Platonic Position
Truth is universal and necessary. Knowledge of intelligible beings is possible as they are truly real (idealism), attainable only through the rational soul. The sensible world only allows for opinion, not true knowledge.
Man (Anthropology)
Sophist Position
There is no universal human nature. Each human is a product of their sociocultural context, which shapes their personality. There is no inherent “man.”
Platonic Position
Anthropological dualism exists. Man’s true identity is his tripartite soul. The rational soul is immortal, the source of true knowledge, and must combat the body and senses. Life is a journey of separation from the corporeal.
Ethics
Sophist Position
Ethical relativism and conventionalism. There is no absolute good. Moral norms and values differ across cultures, resulting from human agreement, culture, and history. There’s no single definition of a virtuous man, justice, or happiness.
Platonic Position
Good exists objectively. Actions are good only if aligned with the right, which is universal. The soul’s good is to return to its intelligible state, separate from the body. To achieve this, a man must be just, and every part of his soul must be virtuous. Each man, and his place within the state, will be dominated by a particular virtue. When man knows his role, he does good (moral intellectualism) and achieves happiness.
Politics
Sophist Position
The state should reflect human nature, but as this doesn’t exist, its laws and structure are the result of agreements between citizens, leading to conventional approaches.
Platonic Position
Justice is the chief political virtue. A just state requires just citizens and rulers. Citizens must submit to the state (closed society). Those who don’t are not ethically virtuous, thus linking politics and ethics. Laws and state structure are just when every citizen follows their natural virtue. The state should be structured according to human nature.
Further Considerations
Education
The discussed fragments focus on education, particularly of rulers. Plato emphasizes education as the best way to improve humanity and end social inequality, focusing on values education, including ethical values and the knowledge of good.
Duty of Politics
Plato is concerned with the ruler’s role in improving citizens and criticizes those who use politics for personal gain. He highlights the separation between politics and ethical commitment, relevant to contemporary issues like corruption, political party crises, and the rise of fundamentalist or right-wing positions.
Media Criticism
Plato’s distinction between the world of shadows and the real world resonates with criticisms of media, especially television, for presenting a distorted reality. This raises questions about the models and values presented, and the lack of space for reflective analysis and alternative perspectives, echoing Emilio Lledó’s anthropological reading of the myth of the cave.