Part 22

“However, from these equal things,” he said, “which are different from that abstract equality, have you not formed your idea and derived your knowledge of it?”

“You speak most truly,” he replied.

“Is it not, therefore, from its being like or unlike them?”

“Certainly.”

“But it makes no difference,” he said. “When, therefore, on seeing one thing, you form, from the sight of it, the notion of another, whether like or unlike, this,” he said, “must necessarily be reminiscence.”

“Certainly.”

52. “What, then, as to this?” he continued; “are we affected in any such way with regard to logs and the equal things we have just now spoken of? and do they appear to us to be equal in the same manner as abstract equality itself is, or do they fall short in some degree, or not at all, of being such as equality itself is?”

“They fall far short,” he replied.

“Do we admit, then, that when one, on beholding some particular thing, perceives that it aims, as that which I now see, at being like something else that exists, but falls short of it, and cannot become such as that is, but is inferior to it, do we admit that he who perceives this must necessarily have had a previous knowledge of that which he says it resembles, though imperfectly?”

“It is necessary.”

“What then? are we affected in some such way, or not, with respect to things equal and abstract equality itself?”

“Assuredly.”

“It is necessary, therefore, that we must have known abstract equality before the time when on first seeing equal things, we perceived that they all aimed at resembling equality, but failed in doing so.”

“Such is the case.”

53. “Moreover, we admit this too, that we perceived this, and could not possibly perceive it by any other means than the sight, or touch, or some other of the senses: for I say the same of them all.”

“For they are the same, Socrates, so far as our argument is concerned.”

“However, we must perceive by means of the senses, that all things which come under the senses aim at that abstract equality, and yet fall short of it: or how shall we say it is?”

“Even so.”

“Before, then, we began to see, and hear, and use our other senses, we must have had a knowledge of equality itself, what it is, if we were to refer to it those equal things that come under the senses, and observe that all such things aim at resembling that, but fall far short of it.”

“This necessarily follows, Socrates, from what has been already said.”

“But did we not, as soon as we were born, see and hear, and possess our other senses?”

“Certainly.”

“But, we have said, before we possessed these, we must have a knowledge of abstract equality?”

“Yes.”

“We must have had it, then, as it seems, before we were born.”

“It seems so.”

54. “If, therefore, having this before we were born, we were born possessing it, we knew both before we were born, and as soon as we were born, not only the equal and the greater and smaller, but all things of the kind; for our present discussion is not more respecting equality than the beautiful itself, the good, the just, and the holy, and in one word, respecting every thing which we mark with the seal of existence, both in the questions we ask, and the answers we give. So that we must necessarily have had a knowledge of all these before we were born.”

“Such is the case.”