Philebus
SocratesObserve, Protarchus, the nature of the position which you are now going to take from Philebus, and what the other position is which I maintain, and which, if you do not approve of it, is to be controverted by you. Shall you and I sum up the two sides?
SocratesPhilebus was saying that enjoyment and pleasure and delight, and the class of feelings akin to them, are a good to every living being, whereas I contend, that not these, but wisdom and intelligence and memory, and their kindred, right opinion and true reasoning, are better and more desirable than pleasure for all who are able to partake of them, and that to all such who are or ever will be they are the most advantageous of all things. Have I not given, Philebus, a fair statement of the two sides of the argument?
PhilebusNothing could be fairer, Socrates.
SocratesAnd do you, Protarchus, accept the position which is assigned to you?
ProtarchusI cannot do otherwise, since our excellent Philebus has left the field.
SocratesSurely the truth about these matters ought, by all means, to be ascertained.
SocratesShall we further agree—
ProtarchusTo what?
SocratesThat you and I must now try to indicate some state and disposition of the soul, which has the property of making all men happy.
ProtarchusYes, by all means.
SocratesAnd you say that pleasure, and I say that wisdom, is such a state?
SocratesAnd what if there be a third state, which is better than either? Then both of us are vanquished—are we not? But if this life, which really has the power of making men happy, turn out to be more akin to pleasure than to wisdom, the life of pleasure may still have the advantage over the life of wisdom.
SocratesOr suppose that the better life is more nearly allied to wisdom, then wisdom conquers, and pleasure is defeated;—do you agree?
SocratesAnd what do you say, Philebus?
PhilebusI say, and shall always say, that pleasure is easily the conqueror; but you must decide for yourself, Protarchus.
ProtarchusYou, Philebus, have handed over the argument to me, and have no longer a voice in the matter?
PhilebusTrue enough. Nevertheless I would clear myself and deliver my soul of you; and I call the goddess herself to witness that I now do so.
ProtarchusYou may appeal to us; we too will be the witnesses of your words. And now, Socrates, whether Philebus is pleased or displeased, we will proceed with the argument.
SocratesThen let us begin with the goddess herself, of whom Philebus says that she is called Aphrodite, but that her real name is Pleasure.
SocratesThe awe which I always feel, Protarchus, about the names of the gods is more than human—it exceeds all other fears. And now I would not sin against Aphrodite by naming her amiss; let her be called what she pleases. But Pleasure I know to be manifold, and with her, as I was just now saying, we must begin, and consider what her nature is. She has one name, and therefore you would imagine that she is one; and yet surely she takes the most varied and even unlike forms. For do we not say that the intemperate has pleasure, and that the temperate has pleasure in his very temperance,—that the fool is pleased when he is full of foolish fancies and hopes, and that the wise man has pleasure in his wisdom? and how foolish would any one be who affirmed that all these opposite pleasures are severally alike!
ProtarchusWhy, Socrates, they are opposed in so far as they spring from opposite sources, but they are not in themselves opposite. For must not pleasure be of all things most absolutely like pleasure,—that is, like itself?
SocratesYes, my good friend, just as colour is like colour;—in so far as colours are colours, there is no difference between them; and yet we all know that black is not only unlike, but even absolutely opposed to white: or again, as figure is like figure, for all figures are comprehended under one class; and yet particular figures may be absolutely opposed to one another, and there is an infinite diversity of them. And we might find similar examples in many other things; therefore do not rely upon this argument, which would go to prove the unity of the most extreme opposites. And I suspect that we shall find a similar opposition among pleasures.
ProtarchusVery likely; but how will this invalidate the argument?
SocratesWhy, I shall reply, that dissimilar as they are, you apply to them a new predicate, for you say that all pleasant things are good; now although no one can argue that pleasure is not pleasure, he may argue, as we are doing, that pleasures are oftener bad than good; but you call them all good, and at the same time are compelled, if you are pressed, to acknowledge that they are unlike. And so you must tell us what is the identical quality existing alike in good and bad pleasures, which makes you designate all of them as good.
ProtarchusWhat do you mean, Socrates? Do you think that any one who asserts pleasure to be the good, will tolerate the notion that some pleasures are good and others bad?
SocratesAnd yet you will acknowledge that they are different from one another, and sometimes opposed?
ProtarchusNot in so far as they are pleasures.
SocratesThat is a return to the old position, Protarchus, and so we are to say (are we?) that there is no difference in pleasures, but that they are all alike; and the examples which have just been cited do not pierce our dull minds, but we go on arguing all the same, like the weakest and most inexperienced reasoners? (Probably corrupt.)
ProtarchusWhat do you mean?
SocratesWhy, I mean to say, that in self-defence I may, if I like, follow your example, and assert boldly that the two things most unlike are most absolutely alike; and the result will be that you and I will prove ourselves to be very tyros in the art of disputing; and the argument will be blown away and lost. Suppose that we put back, and return to the old position; then perhaps we may come to an understanding with one another.
ProtarchusHow do you mean?
SocratesShall I, Protarchus, have my own question asked of me by you?
ProtarchusWhat question?
SocratesAsk me whether wisdom and science and mind, and those other qualities which I, when asked by you at first what is the nature of the good, affirmed to be good, are not in the same case with the pleasures of which you spoke.
ProtarchusWhat do you mean?
SocratesThe sciences are a numerous class, and will be found to present great differences. But even admitting that, like the pleasures, they are opposite as well as different, should I be worthy of the name of dialectician if, in order to avoid this difficulty, I were to say (as you are saying of pleasure) that there is no difference between one science and another;—would not the argument founder and disappear like an idle tale, although we might ourselves escape drowning by clinging to a fallacy?
ProtarchusMay none of this befal us, except the deliverance! Yet I like the even-handed justice which is applied to both our arguments. Let us assume, then, that there are many and diverse pleasures, and many and different sciences.
SocratesAnd let us have no concealment, Protarchus, of the differences between my good and yours; but let us bring them to the light in the hope that, in the process of testing them, they may show whether pleasure is to be called the good, or wisdom, or some third quality; for surely we are not now simply contending in order that my view or that yours may prevail, but I presume that we ought both of us to be fighting for the truth.
ProtarchusCertainly we ought.
SocratesThen let us have a more definite understanding and establish the principle on which the argument rests.
ProtarchusWhat principle?
SocratesA principle about which all men are always in a difficulty, and some men sometimes against their will.
ProtarchusSpeak plainer.
SocratesThe principle which has just turned up, which is a marvel of nature; for that one should be many or many one, are wonderful propositions; and he who affirms either is very open to attack.
ProtarchusDo you mean, when a person says that I, Protarchus, am by nature one and also many, dividing the single ‘me’ into many ‘me’s,’ and even opposing them as great and small, light and heavy, and in ten thousand other ways?
SocratesThose, Protarchus, are the common and acknowledged paradoxes about the one and many, which I may say that everybody has by this time agreed to dismiss as childish and obvious and detrimental to the true course of thought; and no more favour is shown to that other puzzle, in which a person proves the members and parts of anything to be divided, and then confessing that they are all one, says laughingly in disproof of his own words: Why, here is a miracle, the one is many and infinite, and the many are only one.
ProtarchusBut what, Socrates, are those other marvels connected with this subject which, as you imply, have not yet become common and acknowledged?
SocratesWhen, my boy, the one does not belong to the class of things that are born and perish, as in the instances which we were giving, for in those cases, and when unity is of this concrete nature, there is, as I was saying, a universal consent that no refutation is needed; but when the assertion is made that man is one, or ox is one, or beauty one, or the good one, then the interest which attaches to these and similar unities and the attempt which is made to divide them gives birth to a controversy.
ProtarchusOf what nature?
SocratesIn the first place, as to whether these unities have a real existence; and then how each individual unity, being always the same, and incapable either of generation or of destruction, but retaining a permanent individuality, can be conceived either as dispersed and multiplied in the infinity of the world of generation, or as still entire and yet divided from itself, which latter would seem to be the greatest impossibility of all, for how can one and the same thing be at the same time in one and in many things? These, Protarchus, are the real difficulties, and this is the one and many to which they relate; they are the source of great perplexity if ill decided, and the right determination of them is very helpful.
ProtarchusThen, Socrates, let us begin by clearing up these questions.
SocratesThat is what I should wish.
ProtarchusAnd I am sure that all my other friends will be glad to hear them discussed; Philebus, fortunately for us, is not disposed to move, and we had better not stir him up with questions.
SocratesGood; and where shall we begin this great and multifarious battle, in which such various points are at issue? Shall we begin thus?
ProtarchusHow?
SocratesWe say that the one and many become identified by thought, and that now, as in time past, they run about together, in and out of every word which is uttered, and that this union of them will never cease, and is not now beginning, but is, as I believe, an everlasting quality of thought itself, which never grows old. Any young man, when he first tastes these subtleties, is delighted, and fancies that he has found a treasure of wisdom; in the first enthusiasm of his joy he leaves no stone, or rather no thought unturned, now rolling up the many into the one, and kneading them together, now unfolding and dividing them; he puzzles himself first and above all, and then he proceeds to puzzle his neighbours, whether they are older or younger, or of his own age—that makes no difference; neither father nor mother does he spare; no human being who has ears is safe from him, hardly even his dog, and a barbarian would have no chance of escaping him, if an interpreter could only be found.
ProtarchusConsidering, Socrates, how many we are, and that all of us are young men, is there not a danger that we and Philebus may all set upon you, if you abuse us? We understand what you mean; but is there no charm by which we may dispel all this confusion, no more excellent way of arriving at the truth? If there is, we hope that you will guide us into that way, and we will do our best to follow, for the enquiry in which we are engaged, Socrates, is not unimportant.
SocratesThe reverse of unimportant, my boys, as Philebus calls you, and there neither is nor ever will be a better than my own favourite way, which has nevertheless already often deserted me and left me helpless in the hour of need.
ProtarchusTell us what that is.
SocratesOne which may be easily pointed out, but is by no means easy of application; it is the parent of all the discoveries in the arts.
ProtarchusTell us what it is.
SocratesA gift of heaven, which, as I conceive, the gods tossed among men by the hands of a new Prometheus, and therewith a blaze of light; and the ancients, who were our betters and nearer the gods than we are, handed down the tradition, that whatever things are said to be are composed of one and many, and have the finite and infinite implanted in them: seeing, then, that such is the order of the world, we too ought in every enquiry to begin by laying down one idea of that which is the subject of enquiry; this unity we shall find in everything. Having found it, we may next proceed to look for two, if there be two, or, if not, then for three or some other number, subdividing each of these units, until at last the unity with which we began is seen not only to be one and many and infinite, but also a definite number; the infinite must not be suffered to approach the many until the entire number of the species intermediate between unity and infinity has been discovered,—then, and not till then, we may rest from division, and without further troubling ourselves about the endless individuals may allow them to drop into infinity. This, as I was saying, is the way of considering and learning and teaching one another, which the gods have handed down to us. But the wise men of our time are either too quick or too slow in conceiving plurality in unity. Having no method, they make their one and many anyhow, and from unity pass at once to infinity; the intermediate steps never occur to them. And this, I repeat, is what makes the difference between the mere art of disputation and true dialectic.
ProtarchusI think that I partly understand you Socrates, but I should like to have a clearer notion of what you are saying.
SocratesI may illustrate my meaning by the letters of the alphabet, Protarchus, which you were made to learn as a child.
ProtarchusHow do they afford an illustration?
SocratesThe sound which passes through the lips whether of an individual or of all men is one and yet infinite.
SocratesAnd yet not by knowing either that sound is one or that sound is infinite are we perfect in the art of speech, but the knowledge of the number and nature of sounds is what makes a man a grammarian.
SocratesAnd the knowledge which makes a man a musician is of the same kind.
ProtarchusHow so?
SocratesSound is one in music as well as in grammar?
SocratesAnd there is a higher note and a lower note, and a note of equal pitch:—may we affirm so much?
SocratesBut you would not be a real musician if this was all that you knew; though if you did not know this you would know almost nothing of music.
ProtarchusNothing.
SocratesBut when you have learned what sounds are high and what low, and the number and nature of the intervals and their limits or proportions, and the systems compounded out of them, which our fathers discovered, and have handed down to us who are their descendants under the name of harmonies; and the affections corresponding to them in the movements of the human body, which when measured by numbers ought, as they say, to be called rhythms and measures; and they tell us that the same principle should be applied to every one and many;—when, I say, you have learned all this, then, my dear friend, you are perfect; and you may be said to understand any other subject, when you have a similar grasp of it. But the infinity of kinds and the infinity of individuals which there is in each of them, when not classified, creates in every one of us a state of infinite ignorance; and he who never looks for number in anything, will not himself be looked for in the number of famous men.
ProtarchusI think that what Socrates is now saying is excellent, Philebus.
PhilebusI think so too, but how do his words bear upon us and upon the argument?
SocratesPhilebus is right in asking that question of us, Protarchus.
ProtarchusIndeed he is, and you must answer him.
SocratesI will; but you must let me make one little remark first about these matters; I was saying, that he who begins with any individual unity, should proceed from that, not to infinity, but to a definite number, and now I say conversely, that he who has to begin with infinity should not jump to unity, but he should look about for some number representing a certain quantity, and thus out of all end in one. And now let us return for an illustration of our principle to the case of letters.
ProtarchusWhat do you mean?
SocratesSome god or divine man, who in the Egyptian legend is said to have been Theuth, observing that the human voice was infinite, first distinguished in this infinity a certain number of vowels, and then other letters which had sound, but were not pure vowels (i.e., the semivowels); these too exist in a definite number; and lastly, he distinguished a third class of letters which we now call mutes, without voice and without sound, and divided these, and likewise the two other classes of vowels and semivowels, into the individual sounds, and told the number of them, and gave to each and all of them the name of letters; and observing that none of us could learn any one of them and not learn them all, and in consideration of this common bond which in a manner united them, he assigned to them all a single art, and this he called the art of grammar or letters.
PhilebusThe illustration, Protarchus, has assisted me in understanding the original statement, but I still feel the defect of which I just now complained.
SocratesAre you going to ask, Philebus, what this has to do with the argument?
PhilebusYes, that is a question which Protarchus and I have been long asking.
SocratesAssuredly you have already arrived at the answer to the question which, as you say, you have been so long asking?
PhilebusHow so?
SocratesDid we not begin by enquiring into the comparative eligibility of pleasure and wisdom?
PhilebusCertainly.
SocratesAnd we maintain that they are each of them one?
PhilebusTrue.
SocratesAnd the precise question to which the previous discussion desires an answer is, how they are one and also many (i.e., how they have one genus and many species), and are not at once infinite, and what number of species is to be assigned to either of them before they pass into infinity (i.e. into the infinite number of individuals).
ProtarchusThat is a very serious question, Philebus, to which Socrates has ingeniously brought us round, and please to consider which of us shall answer him; there may be something ridiculous in my being unable to answer, and therefore imposing the task upon you, when I have undertaken the whole charge of the argument, but if neither of us were able to answer, the result methinks would be still more ridiculous. Let us consider, then, what we are to do:—Socrates, if I understood him rightly, is asking whether there are not kinds of pleasure, and what is the number and nature of them, and the same of wisdom.
SocratesMost true, O son of Callias; and the previous argument showed that if we are not able to tell the kinds of everything that has unity, likeness, sameness, or their opposites, none of us will be of the smallest use in any enquiry.
ProtarchusThat seems to be very near the truth, Socrates. Happy would the wise man be if he knew all things, and the next best thing for him is that he should know himself. Why do I say so at this moment? I will tell you. You, Socrates, have granted us this opportunity of conversing with you, and are ready to assist us in determining what is the best of human goods. For when Philebus said that pleasure and delight and enjoyment and the like were the chief good, you answered—No, not those, but another class of goods; and we are constantly reminding ourselves of what you said, and very properly, in order that we may not forget to examine and compare the two. And these goods, which in your opinion are to be designated as superior to pleasure, and are the true objects of pursuit, are mind and knowledge and understanding and art, and the like. There was a dispute about which were the best, and we playfully threatened that you should not be allowed to go home until the question was settled; and you agreed, and placed yourself at our disposal. And now, as children say, what has been fairly given cannot be taken back; cease then to fight against us in this way.
SocratesIn what way?
PhilebusDo not perplex us, and keep asking questions of us to which we have not as yet any sufficient answer to give; let us not imagine that a general puzzling of us all is to be the end of our discussion, but if we are unable to answer, do you answer, as you have promised. Consider, then, whether you will divide pleasure and knowledge according to their kinds; or you may let the matter drop, if you are able and willing to find some other mode of clearing up our controversy.
SocratesIf you say that, I have nothing to apprehend, for the words ‘if you are willing’ dispel all my fear; and, moreover, a god seems to have recalled something to my mind.
PhilebusWhat is that?
SocratesI remember to have heard long ago certain discussions about pleasure and wisdom, whether awake or in a dream I cannot tell; they were to the effect that neither the one nor the other of them was the good, but some third thing, which was different from them, and better than either. If this be clearly established, then pleasure will lose the victory, for the good will cease to be identified with her:—Am I not right?
SocratesAnd there will cease to be any need of distinguishing the kinds of pleasures, as I am inclined to think, but this will appear more clearly as we proceed.
ProtarchusCapital, Socrates; pray go on as you propose.
SocratesBut, let us first agree on some little points.
ProtarchusWhat are they?
SocratesIs the good perfect or imperfect?
ProtarchusThe most perfect, Socrates, of all things.
SocratesAnd is the good sufficient?
ProtarchusYes, certainly, and in a degree surpassing all other things.
SocratesAnd no one can deny that all percipient beings desire and hunt after good, and are eager to catch and have the good about them, and care not for the attainment of anything which is not accompanied by good.
ProtarchusThat is undeniable.
SocratesNow let us part off the life of pleasure from the life of wisdom, and pass them in review.
ProtarchusHow do you mean?
SocratesLet there be no wisdom in the life of pleasure, nor any pleasure in the life of wisdom, for if either of them is the chief good, it cannot be supposed to want anything, but if either is shown to want anything, then it cannot really be the chief good.
SocratesAnd will you help us to test these two lives?
SocratesThen answer.
ProtarchusAsk.
SocratesWould you choose, Protarchus, to live all your life long in the enjoyment of the greatest pleasures?
ProtarchusCertainly I should.
SocratesWould you consider that there was still anything wanting to you if you had perfect pleasure?
SocratesReflect; would you not want wisdom and intelligence and forethought, and similar qualities? would you not at any rate want sight?
ProtarchusWhy should I? Having pleasure I should have all things.
SocratesLiving thus, you would always throughout your life enjoy the greatest pleasures?
ProtarchusI should.
SocratesBut if you had neither mind, nor memory, nor knowledge, nor true opinion, you would in the first place be utterly ignorant of whether you were pleased or not, because you would be entirely devoid of intelligence.
SocratesAnd similarly, if you had no memory you would not recollect that you had ever been pleased, nor would the slightest recollection of the pleasure which you feel at any moment remain with you; and if you had no true opinion you would not think that you were pleased when you were; and if you had no power of calculation you would not be able to calculate on future pleasure, and your life would be the life, not of a man, but of an oyster or ‘pulmo marinus.’ Could this be otherwise?
ProtarchusNo.
SocratesBut is such a life eligible?
ProtarchusI cannot answer you, Socrates; the argument has taken away from me the power of speech.
SocratesWe must keep up our spirits;—let us now take the life of mind and examine it in turn.
ProtarchusAnd what is this life of mind?
SocratesI want to know whether any one of us would consent to live, having wisdom and mind and knowledge and memory of all things, but having no sense of pleasure or pain, and wholly unaffected by these and the like feelings?
ProtarchusNeither life, Socrates, appears eligible to me, nor is likely, as I should imagine, to be chosen by any one else.
SocratesWhat would you say, Protarchus, to both of these in one, or to one that was made out of the union of the two?
ProtarchusOut of the union, that is, of pleasure with mind and wisdom?
SocratesYes, that is the life which I mean.
ProtarchusThere can be no difference of opinion; not some but all would surely choose this third rather than either of the other two, and in addition to them.
SocratesBut do you see the consequence?
ProtarchusTo be sure I do. The consequence is, that two out of the three lives which have been proposed are neither sufficient nor eligible for man or for animal.
SocratesThen now there can be no doubt that neither of them has the good, for the one which had would certainly have been sufficient and perfect and eligible for every living creature or thing that was able to live such a life; and if any of us had chosen any other, he would have chosen contrary to the nature of the truly eligible, and not of his own free will, but either through ignorance or from some unhappy necessity.
ProtarchusCertainly that seems to be true.
SocratesAnd now have I not sufficiently shown that Philebus’ goddess is not to be regarded as identical with the good?
PhilebusNeither is your ‘mind’ the good, Socrates, for that will be open to the same objections.
SocratesPerhaps, Philebus, you may be right in saying so of my ‘mind’; but of the true, which is also the divine mind, far otherwise. However, I will not at present claim the first place for mind as against the mixed life; but we must come to some understanding about the second place. For you might affirm pleasure and I mind to be the cause of the mixed life; and in that case although neither of them would be the good, one of them might be imagined to be the cause of the good. And I might proceed further to argue in opposition to Philebus, that the element which makes this mixed life eligible and good, is more akin and more similar to mind than to pleasure. And if this is true, pleasure cannot be truly said to share either in the first or second place, and does not, if I may trust my own mind, attain even to the third.
ProtarchusTruly, Socrates, pleasure appears to me to have had a fall; in fighting for the palm, she has been smitten by the argument, and is laid low. I must say that mind would have fallen too, and may therefore be thought to show discretion in not putting forward a similar claim. And if pleasure were deprived not only of the first but of the second place, she would be terribly damaged in the eyes of her admirers, for not even to them would she still appear as fair as before.
SocratesWell, but had we not better leave her now, and not pain her by applying the crucial test, and finally detecting her?
ProtarchusNonsense, Socrates.
SocratesWhy? because I said that we had better not pain pleasure, which is an impossibility?
ProtarchusYes, and more than that, because you do not seem to be aware that none of us will let you go home until you have finished the argument.
SocratesHeavens! Protarchus, that will be a tedious business, and just at present not at all an easy one. For in going to war in the cause of mind, who is aspiring to the second prize, I ought to have weapons of another make from those which I used before; some, however, of the old ones may do again. And must I then finish the argument?
ProtarchusOf course you must.
SocratesLet us be very careful in laying the foundation.
ProtarchusWhat do you mean?
SocratesLet us divide all existing things into two, or rather, if you do not object, into three classes.
ProtarchusUpon what principle would you make the division?
SocratesLet us take some of our newly-found notions.
ProtarchusWhich of them?
SocratesWere we not saying that God revealed a finite element of existence, and also an infinite?
SocratesLet us assume these two principles, and also a third, which is compounded out of them; but I fear that I am ridiculously clumsy at these processes of division and enumeration.
ProtarchusWhat do you mean, my good friend?
SocratesI say that a fourth class is still wanted.
ProtarchusWhat will that be?
SocratesFind the cause of the third or compound, and add this as a fourth class to the three others.
ProtarchusAnd would you like to have a fifth class or cause of resolution as well as a cause of composition?
SocratesNot, I think, at present; but if I want a fifth at some future time you shall allow me to have it.
SocratesLet us begin with the first three; and as we find two out of the three greatly divided and dispersed, let us endeavour to reunite them, and see how in each of them there is a one and many.
ProtarchusIf you would explain to me a little more about them, perhaps I might be able to follow you.
SocratesWell, the two classes are the same which I mentioned before, one the finite, and the other the infinite; I will first show that the infinite is in a certain sense many, and the finite may be hereafter discussed.
ProtarchusI agree.
SocratesAnd now consider well; for the question to which I invite your attention is difficult and controverted. When you speak of hotter and colder, can you conceive any limit in those qualities? Does not the more and less, which dwells in their very nature, prevent their having any end? for if they had an end, the more and less would themselves have an end.
ProtarchusThat is most true.
SocratesEver, as we say, into the hotter and the colder there enters a more and a less.
SocratesThen, says the argument, there is never any end of them, and being endless they must also be infinite.
ProtarchusYes, Socrates, that is exceedingly true.
SocratesYes, my dear Protarchus, and your answer reminds me that such an expression as ‘exceedingly,’ which you have just uttered, and also the term ‘gently,’ have the same significance as more or less; for whenever they occur they do not allow of the existence of quantity—they are always introducing degrees into actions, instituting a comparison of a more or a less excessive or a more or a less gentle, and at each creation of more or less, quantity disappears. For, as I was just now saying, if quantity and measure did not disappear, but were allowed to intrude in the sphere of more and less and the other comparatives, these last would be driven out of their own domain. When definite quantity is once admitted, there can be no longer a ‘hotter’ or a ‘colder’ (for these are always progressing, and are never in one stay); but definite quantity is at rest, and has ceased to progress. Which proves that comparatives, such as the hotter and the colder, are to be ranked in the class of the infinite.
ProtarchusYour remark certainly has the look of truth, Socrates; but these subjects, as you were saying, are difficult to follow at first. I think however, that if I could hear the argument repeated by you once or twice, there would be a substantial agreement between us.
SocratesYes, and I will try to meet your wish; but, as I would rather not waste time in the enumeration of endless particulars, let me know whether I may not assume as a note of the infinite—
ProtarchusWhat?
SocratesI want to know whether such things as appear to us to admit of more or less, or are denoted by the words ‘exceedingly,’ ‘gently,’ ‘extremely,’ and the like, may not be referred to the class of the infinite, which is their unity, for, as was asserted in the previous argument, all things that were divided and dispersed should be brought together, and have the mark or seal of some one nature, if possible, set upon them—do you remember?
SocratesAnd all things which do not admit of more or less, but admit their opposites, that is to say, first of all, equality, and the equal, or again, the double, or any other ratio of number and measure—all these may, I think, be rightly reckoned by us in the class of the limited or finite; what do you say?
ProtarchusExcellent, Socrates.
SocratesAnd now what nature shall we ascribe to the third or compound kind?
ProtarchusYou, I think, will have to tell me that.
SocratesRather God will tell you, if there be any God who will listen to my prayers.
ProtarchusOffer up a prayer, then, and think.
SocratesI am thinking, Protarchus, and I believe that some God has befriended us.
ProtarchusWhat do you mean, and what proof have you to offer of what you are saying?
SocratesI will tell you, and do you listen to my words.
SocratesWere we not speaking just now of hotter and colder?
SocratesAdd to them drier, wetter, more, less, swifter, slower, greater, smaller, and all that in the preceding argument we placed under the unity of more and less.
ProtarchusIn the class of the infinite, you mean?
SocratesYes; and now mingle this with the other.
ProtarchusWhat is the other.
SocratesThe class of the finite which we ought to have brought together as we did the infinite; but, perhaps, it will come to the same thing if we do so now;—when the two are combined, a third will appear.
ProtarchusWhat do you mean by the class of the finite?
SocratesThe class of the equal and the double, and any class which puts an end to difference and opposition, and by introducing number creates harmony and proportion among the different elements.
ProtarchusI understand; you seem to me to mean that the various opposites, when you mingle with them the class of the finite, takes certain forms.
SocratesYes, that is my meaning.
SocratesDoes not the right participation in the finite give health—in disease, for instance?
SocratesAnd whereas the high and low, the swift and the slow are infinite or unlimited, does not the addition of the principles aforesaid introduce a limit, and perfect the whole frame of music?
ProtarchusYes, certainly.
SocratesOr, again, when cold and heat prevail, does not the introduction of them take away excess and indefiniteness, and infuse moderation and harmony?
SocratesAnd from a like admixture of the finite and infinite come the seasons, and all the delights of life?
SocratesI omit ten thousand other things, such as beauty and health and strength, and the many beauties and high perfections of the soul: O my beautiful Philebus, the goddess, methinks, seeing the universal wantonness and wickedness of all things, and that there was in them no limit to pleasures and self-indulgence, devised the limit of law and order, whereby, as you say, Philebus, she torments, or as I maintain, delivers the soul.—What think you, Protarchus?
ProtarchusHer ways are much to my mind, Socrates.
SocratesYou will observe that I have spoken of three classes?
ProtarchusYes, I think that I understand you: you mean to say that the infinite is one class, and that the finite is a second class of existences; but what you would make the third I am not so certain.
SocratesThat is because the amazing variety of the third class is too much for you, my dear friend; but there was not this difficulty with the infinite, which also comprehended many classes, for all of them were sealed with the note of more and less, and therefore appeared one.
SocratesAnd the finite or limit had not many divisions, and we readily acknowledged it to be by nature one?
SocratesYes, indeed; and when I speak of the third class, understand me to mean any offspring of these, being a birth into true being, effected by the measure which the limit introduces.
ProtarchusI understand.
SocratesStill there was, as we said, a fourth class to be investigated, and you must assist in the investigation; for does not everything which comes into being, of necessity come into being through a cause?
ProtarchusYes, certainly; for how can there be anything which has no cause?
SocratesAnd is not the agent the same as the cause in all except name; the agent and the cause may be rightly called one?
SocratesAnd the same may be said of the patient, or effect; we shall find that they too differ, as I was saying, only in name—shall we not?
ProtarchusWe shall.
SocratesThe agent or cause always naturally leads, and the patient or effect naturally follows it?
SocratesThen the cause and what is subordinate to it in generation are not the same, but different?
SocratesDid not the things which were generated, and the things out of which they were generated, furnish all the three classes?
SocratesAnd the creator or cause of them has been satisfactorily proven to be distinct from them,—and may therefore be called a fourth principle?
ProtarchusSo let us call it.
SocratesQuite right; but now, having distinguished the four, I think that we had better refresh our memories by recapitulating each of them in order.