The description of the elenctic method in the Sophist (230a–e) is often believed to be merely retrospective. However, some parallels with Aristotle’s Sophistical refutations suggest that the dialogue as a whole has a clear elenctic dimension. Having faced an apparent refutation (falsehood paradox), the interlocutors find themselves in an impasse. According to Aristotle, to solve such aporiai one must eliminate ambiguity and homonymy by making distinctions, i.e. recur to the diairesis. The same tactics is applied by the Stranger and Theaetetus.
The paper offers an interpretation of Plato’s dialogue Gorgias in the context of post- Nietzschean political thought (M. Heidegger, L. Strauss, H. Arendt, G. Deleuze, M. Foucault). Each interlocutor of the dialogue claims that his speech is free. Two different political logics are introduced: «geometrical» (as in the conversation between Socrates and Polus) and «erotic» (as in the conversation between Socrates and Kallikles). The philosopher is able to make use of both languages. In the end, it is only Socrates who truly speaks freely, because philosophy doesn’t seek to be loyal to any of these two logics as it only aspires to solve a political collision between freedom and justice.
The surge of interest in philosophy in Russia throughout the first decades of the last century and the ensuing publishing activity showed great promise for the translations of philosophical classics as well: there was every reason to hope that the nearest future would see the Russian translations of the works of Plato achieve the same refreshing diversity as it came to be the fact with the English, German, French and, slightly later, the Italian and Spanish Plato. The break in this development brought about by the October revolution had a fatal effect on the prospects of the “Russian Plato”: the very manner in which publishing process became organized under the new regime meant that the new strategy was to undertake a collective translation of every major author which was to remain for decades as a “standard” reference work. This is why we have the four familiar volumes of Plato's dialogues where the better and finer translations are printed alongside those that are total failure. Even the best and most successful translations among these, however, inevitably suffer from not relying on a long tradition of attempts to interpret and render in Russian the subtleties of Plato's thought. This paper demonstrates the latter point by submitting to examination the passage from Plato's Republic containing the simile of the Cave as translated by A.N. Egunov, one of the greatest connoisseurs of Greek to be born in Russia. The results are discouraging: it turns out that Egunov fails to convey some of the most important images and metaphors present in the simile. It is obvious that this situation can be overcome only by building a solid tradition by producing more different translations of the same key philosophical.