Dialectic in the Sophist: A reply to Waletzki

TLDR: In this paper, the authors present a set of criteria which would have to be satisfied by a correct interpretation of the disputed passage, which is unsatisfactory, thus vitiating Waletzki's specific claims.

Abstract: In "Platons ldeenlehre und Dialektik im Sophistes 253d" (Phronesis 24 (1979) 241-252) Wolfgang Waletzki has criticized an earlier article of mine on that passage (Phronesis 22 (1977) 29-47). Although I have benefitted from a number of his observations, I am not in a position to accept his interpretation as a whole. Instead of arguing piecemeal against each of his claims, I would here like to embark first on a task which I believe to be more rewarding: the working out of criteria which would have to be satisfied by a correct interpretation of the disputed passage. In the light of these criteria I hope to show that Waletzki's approach is unsatisfactory, thus vitiating his specific claims. In order to avoid unnecessary printing costs, I would ask the reader to turn either to p. 30 of my article or to p. 242 of Waletzki's where the text and the system of references appear. Waletzki however does not print the lines which I originally called "The Epilogue" (253d9-e2), a detail of some importance, as I shall try to show. Sophist 253d is a rather confusing passage due to the fact that it contains references to Ideas both in the singular and the plural and it is not at first clear what sort of Ideas the Eleatic Visitor has in mind. The several instances in which the term "Idea" occurs (253 d 5) or is implied (cf. 'noXX4is 253 d 7 and 9, viro IILs if it is not, then they can introduce further confusion. Hence, the nature of dialectic as described in 253 d has to be determined prior to any appeal to material from other dialogues. Our first attempt must be to illustrate Sophista ex Sophista. If we appeal to the evidence provided by the Sophist itself, we seem to have a choice between the next two alternatives: (2) One can relate 253 d to those passages at the beginning and at the end of the dialogue which illustrate the actual practice of the dialectic of Division. On this assumption one is led to consider 253 d as a description of the method of Division, a