What do you think?
Rate this book
Plato's trilogy: Theaetetus, the Sophist, and the Statesman
Klein, Jacob. Plato's Trilogy. Theatetus, the Sophist and the Statesman. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1977. 15 cm x 23 cm. 200 Pages. Original Softcover. Excellent condition with only very minor signs of external wear. Includes for example the following The First Four Divisions for Catching the Sophist / The Fifth Division / The Sophist as an Image-Maker / The True Face of the Stranger / The Commingling of Intelligence. The Emergence of the Philosopher / Falsehood in Speech and Thought / The Progress of Theodorus / Knowing is Not Sensing / The Weaving in Speech of the Weaving in Deed / Due Measure of the Precise Itself / The Contributory Causes in the Art of Statemanship / etc.
200 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1977
2 people are currently reading
52 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 1, 2023
Klein's summary of the three dialogues is easy to follow and engaging. His analysis, where it exists, is lacking and facile. Definitely recommended as a supplement for Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman if (like me) you found these three dialogues somewhat hard to follow.
January 3, 2011
Comment:
Nomos, Technos, Phronesis; and they all fight it out to see who should rule the City. - Welcome to Hell. ...The Eleatic Stranger (Visitor/Guest) appears in only two Platonic Dialogues; The Statesman and the Sophist. But never forget, Socrates is going to die. No matter who rules. His coming condemnation, and the subterranean critique of Socrates by the Stranger need to be seen together. Are Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher one or two or three? A not unrelated question, btw: Are the Stranger, Socrates and Plato one or two or three? That is: Is Socrates, or is it the Stranger, or is it perhaps Plato himself that is a Sophist, a Statesman, or a Philosopher, or a mixture of these? (Keep in mind that Nietzsche, in "Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks' called Plato the first 'mixed type".) The question do the Sophist, Statesman, Philosopher "constitute a triad, may be considered as answered. They are but two." Or so old Jacob Klein here maintains; but in the extraordinary exchange of letters between Kojeve and Leo Strauss (in 'On Tyranny') Kojeve maintains that the Stranger is merely a Sophist while Strauss doubts this pointing out that the Stranger is no mere parrot (of the Parmenidean ONE) when he maintains that Philosopher-Sophist-Stateman are three. But perhaps Strauss will forgive us for thinking that the gist of his remarks (and the Strangers) lead one to think that our Philosopher is a Triad, i.e., a One-in-Three. As Stanley Rosen pointed out, regarding Tejera, "I found more difficult his claim that the Stranger is intended to represent sophistry. The thesis would have been more persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy." I continue to think that the Stranger = Sophist view is wrong, but I also think it needs to be addressed in a book length essay.
Nomos, Technos, Phronesis; and they all fight it out to see who should rule the City. - Welcome to Hell. ...The Eleatic Stranger (Visitor/Guest) appears in only two Platonic Dialogues; The Statesman and the Sophist. But never forget, Socrates is going to die. No matter who rules. His coming condemnation, and the subterranean critique of Socrates by the Stranger need to be seen together. Are Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher one or two or three? A not unrelated question, btw: Are the Stranger, Socrates and Plato one or two or three? That is: Is Socrates, or is it the Stranger, or is it perhaps Plato himself that is a Sophist, a Statesman, or a Philosopher, or a mixture of these? (Keep in mind that Nietzsche, in "Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks' called Plato the first 'mixed type".) The question do the Sophist, Statesman, Philosopher "constitute a triad, may be considered as answered. They are but two." Or so old Jacob Klein here maintains; but in the extraordinary exchange of letters between Kojeve and Leo Strauss (in 'On Tyranny') Kojeve maintains that the Stranger is merely a Sophist while Strauss doubts this pointing out that the Stranger is no mere parrot (of the Parmenidean ONE) when he maintains that Philosopher-Sophist-Stateman are three. But perhaps Strauss will forgive us for thinking that the gist of his remarks (and the Strangers) lead one to think that our Philosopher is a Triad, i.e., a One-in-Three. As Stanley Rosen pointed out, regarding Tejera, "I found more difficult his claim that the Stranger is intended to represent sophistry. The thesis would have been more persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy." I continue to think that the Stranger = Sophist view is wrong, but I also think it needs to be addressed in a book length essay.
August 15, 2014
Not as stunning as Klein's commentary on Meno, but still worth reading. Much of it is a summary of what is spoken in the dialogue. On one hand this provides a nice recapitulation of the text and Klein often points out details that are too easily missed; on the other hand, it gets a bit repetitive for the reader who has Plato's text firmly in hand.
Klein is always aware of the background drama in Plato, so his commentary is more than outline of theories or a learned exegesis. He wants the reader to see the characters themselves as an integral element. He begins with the Sophist (rather than Theaetetus, which would be chronologically more correct) because Socrates sets out the question he wants to explore at the beginning of the dialogue: are the sophist, the statesman, and the philosopher, one, two, or three distinct men? Isn't there something of the philosopher in the statesman, as we might suppose in the case of a Philosopher King? But isn't there something also of the sophist in the statesman, and in the philosopher as well, as we see employed with the Noble Lie? (Used widely and to great effect in both philosophy and politics.) And along the way there is the complicated question of how being and non-being relate and commingle, and how the sophist escapes detection.
A thoughtful examination, a worthy companion to these challenging dialogues. Klein doesn't answer all the questions -- not even his own -- but by the end we get a better idea of why these particular questions are being asked in the first place.
Klein is always aware of the background drama in Plato, so his commentary is more than outline of theories or a learned exegesis. He wants the reader to see the characters themselves as an integral element. He begins with the Sophist (rather than Theaetetus, which would be chronologically more correct) because Socrates sets out the question he wants to explore at the beginning of the dialogue: are the sophist, the statesman, and the philosopher, one, two, or three distinct men? Isn't there something of the philosopher in the statesman, as we might suppose in the case of a Philosopher King? But isn't there something also of the sophist in the statesman, and in the philosopher as well, as we see employed with the Noble Lie? (Used widely and to great effect in both philosophy and politics.) And along the way there is the complicated question of how being and non-being relate and commingle, and how the sophist escapes detection.
A thoughtful examination, a worthy companion to these challenging dialogues. Klein doesn't answer all the questions -- not even his own -- but by the end we get a better idea of why these particular questions are being asked in the first place.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews