I’m going to go ahead and jump into the course I’ve exed out of a few times because it was so difficult- the one on the Sophist
Rosen and Benardete have studies on the Sophist as well, and unfortunately those were written before Heidegger’s course was published, so we can’t see how a couple of the nimblest classicists of recent times might have weighed in.
I highlight the terms above to emphasize that there is a political meaning to this dialogue which isn’t exactly on the surface. This isn’t navel-gazing- how does one determine what is true and what is a semblance of truth in the political realm? Most people don’t think about these things and thus the political realm is pervaded by non-being. Country-simple way to say it- you’re talkin crap outta your mouth. And this dialogue aims to formulate something approaching a science toward distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion.
You might miss this political interpretation because the Sophist is the middle of a trilogy and is followed by the Statesman which is usually taken to be the political side of the trilogy. This is late Plato, i.e. after the Republic.
If you’ve ever tried to read the direct text, the Sophist itself, you might have felt like you were a special ed. case, and that’s okay, it’s a forbidding dialogue. I think if the ordinary person strained themselves to understand it our political world would improve. It represents a declaration of war against non-being, or empty utterances.
Know what isn’t an empty utterance? Heidegger’s Being and Time, his chief text. This is the course he gave in the winter before presenting the manuscript of that to Husserl in the spring. And some may recall that the very first words of B&T are a quote from the Sophist.
I’m sure I’ve never made even one person feel like a sophist in my life before. I mean, if I have then that is some evidence that this is a genuinely scientific dialogue. What do you think?
Nonsense, that’s impossible for an animal-soul goy.
The Greeks had a counter-intuitive understanding of the word truth. It was a negation, similar to the word imperfect’s relation to the word perfect. So truth was something they presupposed was hidden, and had to be revealed. ἀλήθεια means that which was hidden that was revealed.
the world must be wrested, that it is initially and for the most part not available
The world is concealed- when it is disclosed it is concealed again. And for us humans, the most significant way this happens is through knowledge and mere opinion. Opinion is imperfect knowledge that is waiting to be revealed.
Sugrue has a more intro level talk on this dialogue that is pretty entertaining and goes over the elementary basis and dramatic structure and all that, if that’s more your cup of tea.
Remember I’m writing this in the context of my previous post- this is one of the 40 books of Heidegger’s that is necessary to understand in order to PREPARE for his Contributions. And above, so far, is only the slightest of glances at it. Sugrue-Sophist itself-Heidegger-secondary text on Heidegger – this pattern x40. And yeah for many of these primary texts you DO also need an elementary interpreter like Sugrue. This is the knowledge rather than mere opinion of what autodidacticism is. If our institutions were not so politically compromised we wouldn’t have to do this- and, alas.
The point of life is either to produce geniuses or learn from geniuses, and this is how you do that.
“No it’s not, the point of life is to lay on the beach!” A walrus can lay on a beach. What’s distinctive of human beings? “Smalltalk with friends!” Can’t birds do that pretty much? It is a very dirty bird I caught in this cage.
“The point of life is love!” You can love something that lays on the beach and smalltalks? Coulda fooled me.
Excuse me, sometimes I can’t help doing a Plato instead of talking about Plato. To be sure, the all-too-human world does not love you if you do that.
Just continuing to throw light on this Atlantean School- do you see why this book in particular has proven annoying to me? I think the editors could’ve made this simpler to follow
As you know I’m a thoroughly political person. This 1/40 books toward the Contributions I see as the path toward understanding the true essence of the axis powers, or of Old Europe before the Jews, Anglos, French, and other degenerates cast the world into illusion. I want knowledge of Old Europe rather than mere opinion about it. The postwar order is all made-up nonsense, you don’t know reality, sorry! It truly was sophistical niggers that designed it, and it would be beneath me to tolerate it. Anyone who does tolerate it is literally a species of animal.
“Why is this Nazi talking about this in the context of some of the greatest geniuses that ever lived, I think I’m going to CRY!”