Part 133

That is to say, the relation between agent and patient is so close that neither can be what it is, under that particular aspect, without the other.

-----

Theæ. Certainly not.

Socr. But it is necessary that I, when I become percipient, should become so in relation to something: for it is impossible to become percipient, and yet percipient of nothing: and it is likewise necessary, when any thing becomes sweet or bitter, or any thing of the kind, that it should become so in relation to some one; for it is impossible for a thing to become sweet, and yet sweet to no one.

Theæ. Assuredly.

45. Socr. It remains, I think, that we, if we are, should be, or if we are produced, should be produced, by relation to each other; since necessity unites our existence together, and unites it to no other thing, nor even to ourselves. It remains, therefore, that we are united to each other. So that, if any one says that any thing exists, he must say that it exists for something, or of something, or in relation to something, and in like manner of any thing said to be produced: but he must not say, nor must he allow any one else to say, that any thing exists or is produced of itself, as the argument we have deduced clearly proves.

-----

Footnote 154:

“We,” that is, the agent and patient.

-----

Theæ. Assuredly, Socrates.

Socr. Since, then, that which affects me is relative to me and not to another, do not I perceive it, and another not perceive it?

Theæ. How not?

Socr. My perception, therefore, is true to me; for it always belongs to my existence. And I, according to Protagoras, am a judge of things that exist in relation to me, that they do exist, and of things that do not so exist, that they do not exist.

Theæ. It seems so.

46. Socr. How then, since I am not deceived and do not falter in my mind about things that exist or are produced, can I fail to have a scientific knowledge of things which I perceive?

Theæ. It cannot fail to be so.

Socr. It was, therefore, very finely said by you, that science is nothing else than perception; and all come to the same result, the doctrine of Homer and Heraclitus and all that tribe, that all things are in motion like streams, and that of the very wise Protagoras, that man is the measure of all things, and that of Theætetus, that, if this is the case, perception must be science. Is it not so, Theætetus? Shall we say that this is your new-born infant as it were, delivered by my midwifery? How say you?

Theæ. It is necessary to say so, Socrates.

47. Socr. This, then, as it appears, we have with much difficulty produced, whatever it may turn out to be. But after the birth, we must, in truth, perform the ceremony of running round in argument, and consider whether, without our perceiving it, that which is produced is not unworthy of being reared, but empty and false. Do you think that we ought by all means to rear your offspring, and not expose it? and will you endure to see it refuted, and not be very much offended if any one should take it away from you, as having been delivered for the first time?

-----

Footnote 155:

On the fifth day after the birth of a child the midwives, having purified their hands, ran with it round the hearth, so Socrates proposes that the bantling of Theætetus should run the gauntlet of discussion.

-----

Theo. Theætetus will endure this, Socrates, for he is not at all morose. But, by the gods, say whether it is not so.

Socr. You are really very fond of discussion, Theodorus, and pleasant, in thinking that I am a sack full of arguments, and that I can easily pick one out and prove that these things are not so. But you do not observe how the case stands, that no argument proceeds from me, but always from the person who is conversing with me, and that I know nothing but a very little, just enough to apprehend and examine moderately well an argument advanced by another who is wise. And now I will endeavour to do this from him, without saying any thing of myself.

48. Theo. You say well, Socrates; then do so.

Socr. Do you know, Theodorus, what I wonder at in your friend Protagoras?