Part 120

Socr. O beloved Pan, and all ye other gods of this place, grant me to become beautiful in the inner man, and that whatever outward things I have may be at peace with those within. May I deem the wise man rich, and may I have such a portion of gold as none but a prudent man can either bear or employ.

Do we need any thing else, Phædrus? for myself I have prayed enough.

Phæ. Make the same prayer for me, too; for the possessions of friends are common.

Socr. Let us depart.

INTRODUCTION TO THE THEÆTETUS.

Theodorus, a famous geometrician of Cyrene and a follower of Protagoras, is represented to have met Socrates at Athens, and to have been asked by him whether among his pupils there were any who promised to become eminent. Theodorus particularizes one above all the rest, who, while he is speaking, is seen approaching. His name is Theætetus. Socrates, having heard him so highly spoken of by Theodorus, at once opens upon the subject which he wishes to discuss, and asks What science is. Theætetus, in answer, enumerates several particular sciences, but is soon led to understand that the question is not, how many sciences there are, but what science itself is; and by an instance in point shews that he does so. Still he doubts his own ability to answer the question proposed, but is at length induced to make the attempt by Socrates pleasantly describing himself as inheriting his own mother’s skill in midwifery, by which he is able to bring to the birth and deliver the mental conceptions of those whose souls are pregnant with ideas.

-----

Footnote 134:

§ 1-22.

-----

Theætetus, then, first of all says that science is nothing else than perception. This, Socrates observes, is the opinion of Protagoras, differently expressed; for he said, that man is the measure of all things, in other words that all things are such as they appear to each person. In order to examine the truth of this doctrine Socrates begins by stating it more fully. Protagoras asserts that nothing exists of itself, nor can any thing be designated by any quality, for what we call great will, in reference to something else, be also small, and what we call heavy, light, and so on, so that nothing ever exists but is always becoming. Consequently all things spring from motion, and the relation that they bear to each other. Thus, with respect to colour, it does not actually exist, it is neither in the object seen nor in the eye itself, but results from the application of the eye to the object, and so is the intermediate production of both. Again if you compare six with four they appear to be half as many again, but if with twelve, only the half, whence it appears that the same number is at one time great, at another small, which would not be the case if numbers had a fixed and determined magnitude. The principle then on which all things depend is this, That the universe is nothing but motion, of which there are two species, the one active, the other passive, by the union of which that which is perceivable and perception itself consist. Thus when the eye and a corresponding object, meeting together, produce whiteness and its connate perception, the eye sees, and becomes not vision, but a seeing eye, and the object itself becomes not whiteness but white: so that nothing is essentially one, but is always being produced by something else, and therefore the word “being” must be entirely done away with. But here it may be objected that the perceptions produced in persons who dream, or are diseased or mad, are utterly false, and so far are the things that appear to them from existing, that none of them have any real existence at all; how then can it be said that perception is science, and that things which appear to every one are to that person what they appear to be? The answer is, that the things which appear are most certainly true to the percipient; just as if wine appears bitter to a sick person, to him it is certainly bitter; and again with regard to dreams, there is no certain way of distinguishing a state of being awake from dreaming; and as the object perceived and the percipient exist or are produced by relation to each other, neither exists or is produced of itself, but the object perceived does exist in relation to the percipient and to him is true, so that he has a scientific knowledge of what he perceives.

-----

Footnote 135:

§ 23-46.

-----

Socrates then proposes to examine the correctness of Protagoras’s theory. If what he says is true, a pig or any other creature that possesses perception will be the measure of all things, as well as a man, and man himself will be equal in wisdom to the gods. To which Protagoras is supposed to answer, that the gods are not to be brought into the question at all, for that it does not appear whether they exist or not; and as to brute creatures, it would be strange if every man did not excel them in wisdom, and besides no argument deduced from them can be conclusive but rests only on probability, which cannot be allowed in a discussion respecting science. Well then, when we hear barbarians speak, whose language we have not learnt, are we to say that we both hear and know what they say? to which the answer is, that we both hear and know the sounds, but not the meaning of the words. Again it is objected, if perception is science, a person may remember a thing and not know it, for instance he may obtain a knowledge of a thing by seeing it, and then shut his eyes, in that case he remembers it, but does not see it, but inasmuch as sight is perception and perception knowledge, he cannot know it, because he does not see it, and yet he remembers it; which is absurd. But Protagoras will not admit this conclusion, but will say that memory is very different from perception, and that the things which we appear to remember are not the same as those that we formerly perceived. Still, though all things are as they appear to each person, it must be admitted that there is such a thing as wisdom and a wise man, and he is wise who changes the aspect of objects to another, and causes things that appear and are evil to any one, to appear and be good; just as a physician by means of medicine changes the habit of the body from bad to good.

-----

Footnote 136:

§ 47-65.

-----

Thus far Socrates had carried on the discussion with Theætetus, adducing the answers which Protagoras himself would have given to the objections brought against his theory, but expressing no opinion of his own. He now persuades Theodorus to advocate the cause of Protagoras, and himself undertakes to refute it. Protagoras, then, maintains that what appears to each person exists to him to whom it appears; now all men think themselves in some respects wiser than others, and others wiser than themselves, so that all admit that there is wisdom and ignorance among themselves. Now is not wisdom true opinion, and ignorance false opinion? If so, some men form false opinions, and yet that could not be if man is the measure of all things. Again, according to his doctrine, the same thing will be both true and false; for instance, Protagoras’s own theory will be true to himself, but false to all who do not agree with him, and by how many more they are to whom it does not appear to be true than those to whom it does so appear, by so much the more it is not than it is: and so in admitting that the opinion of those who differ from him is true he admits that his own opinion is false. Moreover, in political matters Protagoras will admit that things honourable and base, just and unjust, are such to each city as each city considers them; but he will allow that one counsellor excels another, and that all laws are not equally expedient, though the city that enacts them thinks them so.

-----

Footnote 137:

§ 66-75.

-----

The mention of political matters leads Socrates to interrupt the course of the argument, and to contrast the life of a politician with that of a philosopher, in which he shews how far more exalted are the views of the latter than of the former. The digression, however, has this connexion with the subject in hand, that it exposes the utter worthlessness of political expediency, which depends on appearances only, and vindicates the aspirations of philosophers, who devote themselves to the contemplation of wisdom and true virtue.

-----

Footnote 138: