Plato's Sophist is one of the only dialogues in which Socrates isn't the main character. This makes for an interesting question: why? Why would Plato stray from the norm of making his teacher the main focus of this dialogue? As I've thought about this I've come up with three possible explanations that may explain Plato's decision. It is impossible to come up with a definitive answer, but using my skills as an English major I hope to shed some light on the subject.
             My first thought was that perhaps Plato thought that Socrates wouldn't agree with the argument being made in Sophist, this means that Socrates wouldn't admit to the possibility of false knowledge. I find this possibility hard to believe since Socrates was around and encountered people who made their living by arguing for others. Also, this theory doesn't explain why he would be encouraging the visitor to make the argument in the first place.
             Another issue with this first theory is the fact that Plato has pretty much always agreed with Socrates' teachings before this dialogue, why would he start to contradict him here? I have no answer to that question, but it seems a little absurd to me. It would also make more sense for him to be more vocal about disagreeing with his teacher. He makes sure that we know when he disputes someone else, Parmenides for example. Plato makes it perfectly clear, even announces the fact that he is disagreeing with Parmenides in Sophist. On page 31 Plato states, through the visitor, that "In order to defend ourselves we're going to have to subject father Parmenides' saying to further examination, and insist by brute force both that that which is not somehow is, and then again that that which is somehow is not." Plato has always defended Parmenides, and in Sophist he makes absolutely sure, at least twice, that everyone knows he is dis
             ...