Part 136

Theo. It is not I, Socrates, but rather Callias son of Hipponicus who is guardian of his doctrine; for I very quickly turn aside from mere disputations to geometry. Nevertheless, I shall be obliged to you if you will assist him.

Socr. You say well, Theodorus. Observe, then, what assistance I give. For any one would make more strange admissions than those just now, if he did not attend carefully to the meaning of words, in what way we are generally accustomed to employ them in affirming and denying. Shall I tell you or Theætetus, in what way?

Theo. Tell us both together, but let the younger answer. For if he makes a mistake, it will be less disgraceful.

58. Socr. I am going to propose then a very strange question; it is, I think, something of this kind: Is it possible that he who knows any thing should not know the thing that he knows?

Theo. What shall we answer, Theætetus?

Theæ. Impossible without doubt, I think.

Socr. Not so, if you maintain that to see is to know. For how will you deal with this inexplicable question, as the saying is, you will be caught in a well, if an imperturbable opponent should ask you, closing one of your eyes with his hand, whether you see his dress with the closed eye?

Theæ. I should say, I think, Not with this, but I do with the other.

Socr. Would you not, therefore, see, and not see the same thing at the same time?

Theæ. In some respects.

Socr. I do not require this, he will say, nor did I ask in what respect, but whether, what you know, this you also do not know. But now what you do not see, you are found to see: and you have already admitted, that to see is to know, and not to see, not to know. Infer then, what conclusion follows from this.

Theæ. I infer the very contrary to what I supposed.

59. Socr. But perhaps, my admirable youth, many things of this kind would happen to you, if any one should further ask you whether it is possible to know sharply and dully, and near, but not at a distance, intensely and slightly as well, and ten thousand other questions, which a cunning mercenary light-armed combatant would put to you in discussion, when you asserted science and perception to be the same, attacking the hearing, smelling, and such other channels of perception, and he would confute you, keeping you to it and not letting you off, until through admiration of his exquisite wisdom you are completely caught in his toils, from whence, after he had conquered and bound you, he would at length set you free on payment of such a ransom as you and he could agree on. What argument, should you probably say, would Protagoras adduce in support of his own opinions? Shall we endeavour to say?

Theæ. By all means.

60. Socr. He will, then, both say all that we have said in his defence, and besides, I think, he will come to the encounter, despising us and saying; “This fine fellow Socrates, because a boy, when asked by him, whether it were possible for the same person to remember the same thing, and at the same time not to know it, was frightened, and being frightened, answered in the negative, through being unable to look on to results, has made me appear ridiculous by his arguments. But, most stupid Socrates, the case is thus, when you examine any of my opinions by questioning, if he to whom the questions are put gives the same answers that I should give and is proved wrong, I am confuted, but if he gives different answers, then he that is questioned is confuted. For, to the point, do you think that any one would grant you, that memory is present to any one, of the things by which he has been affected, as if memory were such an affection as he then experienced, though now he experiences it no longer? Far from it. Do you think, again, that he would hesitate to allow, that it is possible for the same person to know and not to know the same thing? or if he should be afraid to say this, do you think he would ever grant that a person who has become changed is the same as he was before he was changed? but rather that he is one person, and not several, and those infinite in number, since change is constantly going on, for we must beware of catching at one another’s words. 61. But my good sir,” he will say, “attack my system in a more generous spirit, confute what I say, if you can, and shew that we have not perceptions peculiar to each of us, or that, if they are peculiar, it does not follow that what appears to any one becomes, or if we must use the word existence, exists to him alone to whom it appears. But when you speak of pigs and cynocephali, you not only act like a pig yourself, but you persuade those that hear you to treat my writings in the same way, herein not doing well. For I affirm that the truth is, as I have written; for that each of us is the measure both of things that do and do not exist; though there is an infinite difference between one man and another, in this very circumstance, that they are and appear different to one person from what they are and do to another. And I am far from denying that there is such a thing as wisdom and a wise man, but I call that man wise, who, changing the aspect of objects to any of us, to whom they appear and are evil, causes them to appear and to be good. 62. But do not, again, follow out my arguments, attending to the words only, but thus in a still clearer manner understand what I mean. For call to mind what was said in a former part of the discussion, that to a sick man what he eats appears and is bitter, but to a man in health it is and appears the contrary. But there is no need to make either of them wiser than the other; for that is not possible; nor must we allege that the sick man is ignorant, because he is of a different opinion, and that he who is in health is wise, because he thinks differently; but we must endeavour to make him change over to the other side; for the other habit is better. In like manner, in education, we should endeavour to make a man change from one habit to a better. But the physician effects a change by medicines, and the sophist by arguments. 63. For no one ever makes one who entertains false opinions, afterwards entertain true ones; for it is not possible for a man to have an opinion on things that do not exist, or on any others than those by which he is affected, and these are always true. And I think that a man, who from a depraved habit of soul forms opinions corresponding to it, a good habit causes to form different opinions of the same character, but these appearances some people, through ignorance, call true, but I say that some things are better than others, but not at all more true. Moreover, my dear Socrates, I am far from calling the wise, frogs, but as regards bodies, I call them physicians, and as regards plants, husbandmen. For I say that these last produce in plants, when they are at all diseased, instead of depraved perceptions, good and wholesome perceptions and truths, and that wise and good orators cause good instead of depraved things to appear to be just to states. For whatever things appear just and honourable to each city, these are so to that city, so long as it thinks them so; but a wise man, instead of the several depraved things that they have, makes good things to be and to appear. 64. By the same reason a sophist, who is thus able to instruct his pupils, is wise, and deserves large pay from those whom he instructs. And thus some are wiser than others, and yet no one entertains false opinions, and you must admit, whether you will or not, that you are the measure of things; for this principle is maintained throughout, if then you are able to controvert this from the beginning, do so, by answering it in a consecutive speech, or if you had rather by questioning, do it by questioning; for neither is this to be avoided, but most of all pursued by a man of sense. However do it thus; don’t act unfairly in your questions. For it is a great inconsistency for one who pretends to be a lover of virtue, to persevere in doing nothing else but act unfairly in argument. But it is to act unfairly in a matter of this kind, when a man does not make a difference between disputation and discussion, and in the former jests and leads into error as far as he can, but in the latter speaks seriously, and sets the person with whom he is conversing right, pointing out to him those errors only into which he has been led by himself and his former conversations. 65. If, then, you act thus, those who converse with you will have to blame themselves for their own confusion and perplexity, but not you, and they will follow and love you, but hate themselves, and fly from themselves to philosophy, that, becoming different, they may be changed from what they formerly were: but if you act the contrary to this, as most men do, the very contrary will befal you, and you will make those who associate with you, instead of being philosophers, hate this pursuit, when they are more advanced in life. If, then, you will be persuaded by me, as I said before, applying yourself to it not hostilely or pugnaciously, but in a favourable spirit, you will truly consider what I have said, in maintaining that all things are moved, and that whatever appears to every one, also exists, both to an individual and a city; and from hence you will further consider, whether science and perception are the same or different, and you will not, as just now, depart from the usual meaning of words and names, which most men forcing wherever it suits them, occasion one another all kinds of perplexity.” 66. These things, Theodorus, I have advanced by way of assistance to your friend, according to my ability, trifling from trifling means; but, if he were alive, he would defend his own opinions in a more noble manner.

Theo. You are joking, Socrates: for you have defended the man very vigorously.

Socr. You say well, my friend. But tell me: did you observe that Protagoras said just now and reproached us, that in arguing with a boy, we took advantage of the boy’s fear to oppose his principles, and giving it the contemptuous name of cavilling, and vaunting his measure of all things, he exhorted us to be serious in examining his doctrine?

Theo. How should I not have observed it, Socrates?

Socr. What then? Do you require us to obey him?

Theo. By all means.

Socr. Do you see, then, that all these, except you, are boys? If then we are to obey him, it is requisite that you and I, questioning and answering each other, should be serious in examining his doctrine, that he may not have this to object to us that we have discussed this question again jesting with youths.

67. Theo. But what? Would not Theætetus follow this investigation much better than many who have long beards?

Socr. But not better than you, Theodorus. Do not, therefore, think that I ought in every way to defend your deceased friend, but you not at all. But come, my good sir, follow me a little, just so far as to enable us to see whether it is right that you should be the measure of diagrams, or whether all men equally with you are sufficient for themselves in astronomy, and the other things in which you have the reputation of excelling.

Theo. It is not easy, Socrates, for one who is sitting by you, to refuse to answer you. But I was just now trifling when I said that you would permit me not to strip myself, and that you would not compel me like the Lacedæmonians. But you appear to me to resemble Sciron rather. For the Lacedæmonians bid us either depart or strip; but you seem to me to act rather like Antæus, for you do not let any one go who approaches you until you have compelled him to strip and wrestle with you in argument.

-----

Footnote 156:

A noted robber between Megara and Corinth, who used to throw all travellers whom he fell in with into the sea. He was slain by Theseus.

Footnote 157: