Part 129

Theæ. Yes.

Socr. But does not the habit of the soul acquire and retain learning and become better by study and practice, which are motions, but by rest, which is want of practice and ignorance, it neither learns any thing, and forgets what it has learnt?

Theæ. Assuredly.

27. Socr. Motion, therefore, is good both for the soul and the body; but rest, the contrary.

Theæ. It seems so.

Socr. Shall I add further, with respect to stillness of the air, and calms and things of that kind, that rest corrupts and destroys, but the contrary preserves. And besides this shall I put the finishing stroke to my argument by compelling you to admit, that by the golden chain Homer meant nothing else than the sun, and intimated that as long as the universe and the sun are moved, all things exist, and are preserved, both amongst gods and amongst men; but if they were to stand still, as it were bound, all things would be destroyed, and, as the saying is, turned upside down.

Theæ. He appears to me too, Socrates, to intimate what you say.

Socr. Then put the argument thus, my excellent friend: first with respect to the eyes, suppose that what you call white colour is not any thing different, external to your eyes, nor in your eyes; nor can you assign it any place; for then it would have a fixed position, and would continue, and not be liable to production.

28. Theæ. But how?

Socr. Let us follow our late principle, and lay it down that there is nothing which is of itself one thing; and thus black and white, and every other colour, will appear to us to be produced by the application of the eyes to a corresponding movement, and each thing that we say is colour, will neither be that which is applied, nor that to which it is applied, but some intermediate production peculiar to each. Would you positively maintain, that what each colour appears to you, such it also appears to a dog, and every other animal?

Theæ. Not I, by Jupiter.

Socr. But what? Does any thing appear similar to another man and to you? are you positive about this, or rather that it does not appear the same even to you, because you are never identical with yourself?

Theæ. The latter seems to me to be the case rather than the former.

Socr. If, therefore, that which we measure by comparison, or which we touch, were great, or white, or warm, it would never, by coming in contact with any thing else, become different, for it would not be in any respect changed. But if that which measures or touches were some one of these things, it could not, in consequence of something else approaching it or being affected in any way, become any thing else, because it would not itself be in any respect affected. 29. For now, my friend, we are in a manner compelled to assert things altogether wonderful and ridiculous, as Protagoras would acknowledge, and every one who supports his opinions.

Theæ. How and what do you mean?

Socr. Take a trifling example, and you will understand all that I wish. Six dice for instance, if you should put four by them, we say are more than the four and half as many again, but if twelve we say they are fewer, and the half; nor would it be allowable to say otherwise. Would you allow it?

Theæ. Not I, indeed.

Socr. What then? If Protagoras or any one else should ask, “Theætetus, is it possible for any thing to become greater or more otherwise than by being increased? What would you answer?

Theæ. If, Socrates, I should answer what appears to me to be the case with reference to the present question, I should say that it is not possible; but if with reference to the former question, to avoid contradicting myself, I should say that it is possible.

Socr. By Juno, well and divinely said, my friend. But, as it seems, if you should answer that it is possible, something like that saying of Euripides will happen; for the tongue will be blameless, but the mind not blameless.

-----

Footnote 149:

See Eurip. Hippol. l. 612.

-----

Theæ. True.

30. Socr. If, therefore, you and I were skilful and wise, after we had thoroughly examined our minds, we should then, out of mere wantonness, make trial of each other’s strength, and engaging in such a contest after the manner of the sophists, should mutually parry argument with argument: but now, as being novices, we shall desire first of all, to examine what the things themselves are which we have in our minds, whether they accord with each other, or not at all.

Theæ. I should certainly desire this.

Socr. And so do I. But since this is the case, shall we not quietly, seeing we have abundance of leisure, again consider, not feeling any annoyance, but really examining ourselves, in order to see what those appearances in us are. And on considering them, we shall say in the first place, I think, that nothing ever becomes greater or less, either in bulk, or number, as long as it continues equal to itself. Is it not so?