PHILEBUS by Plato, Part 10
Soc. One is the generation of all things, and the other is essence.
Pro. I readily accept from you both generation and essence.
Soc. Very right; and would you say that generation is for the sake of essence, or essence for the sake of generation?
Pro. You want to know whether that which is called essence is, properly speaking, for the sake of generation?
Pro. By the gods, I wish that you would repeat your question.
Soc. I mean, O my Protarchus, to ask whether you would tell me that ship-building is for the sake of ships, or ships for the sake of ship-building? and in all similar cases I should ask the same question.
Pro. Why do you not answer yourself, Socrates?
Soc. I have no objection, but you must take your part.
Soc. My answer is, that all things instrumental, remedial, material, are given to us with a view to generation, and that each generation is relative to, or for the sake of, some being or essence, and that the whole of generation is relative to the whole of essence.
Soc. Then pleasure, being a generation, must surely be for the sake of some essence?
Soc. And that for the sake of which something else is done must be placed in the class of good, and that which is done for the sake of something else, in some other class, my good friend.
Pro. Most certainly.
Soc. Then pleasure, being a generation, will be rightly placed in some other class than that of good?
Pro. Quite right.
Soc. Then, as I said at first, we ought to be very grateful to him who first pointed out that pleasure was a generation only, and had no true being at all; for he is clearly one who laughs at the notion of pleasure being a good.
Soc. And he would surely laugh also at those who make generation their highest end.
Pro. Of whom are you speaking, and what do they mean?
Soc. I am speaking of those who when they are cured of hunger or thirst or any other defect by some process of generation are delighted at the process as if it were pleasure; and they say that they would not wish to live without these and other feelings of a like kind which might be mentioned.
Pro. That is certainly what they appear to think.
Soc. And is not destruction universally admitted to be the opposite of generation?
Soc. Then he who chooses thus, would choose generation and destruction rather than that third sort of life, in which, as we were saying, was neither pleasure nor pain, but only the purest possible thought.
Pro. He who would make us believe pleasure to be a good is involved in great absurdities, Socrates.
Soc. Great, indeed; and there is yet another of them.
Pro. What is it?
Soc. Is there not an absurdity in arguing that there is nothing good or noble in the body, or in anything else, but that good is in the soul only, and that the only good of the soul is pleasure; and that courage or temperance or understanding, or any other good of the soul, is not really a good?-and is there not yet a further absurdity in our being compelled to say that he who has a feeling of pain and not of pleasure is bad at the time when he is suffering pain, even though he be the best of men; and again, that he who has a feeling of pleasure, in so far as he is pleased at the time when he is pleased, in that degree excels in virtue?
Pro. Nothing, Socrates, can be more irrational than all this.
Soc. And now, having subjected pleasure to every sort of test, let us not appear to be too sparing of mind and knowledge: let us ring their metal bravely, and see if there be unsoundness in any part, until we have found out what in them is of the purest nature; and then the truest elements both of pleasure and knowledge may be brought up for judgment.
Soc. Knowledge has two parts-the one productive, and the other educational?
Soc. And in the productive or handicraft arts, is not one part more akin to knowledge, and the other less; and may not the one part be regarded as the pure, and the other as the impure?
Soc. Let us separate the superior or dominant elements in each of them.
Pro. What are they, and how do you separate them?
Soc. I mean to say, that if arithmetic, mensuration, and weighing be taken away from any art, that which remains will not be much.
Pro. Not much, certainly.
Soc. The rest will be only conjecture, and the better use of the senses which is given by experience and practice, in addition to a certain power of guessing, which is commonly called art, and is perfected by attention and pains.
Pro. Nothing more, assuredly.
Soc. Music, for instance, is full of this empiricism; for sounds are harmonized, not by measure, but by skilful conjecture; the music of the flute is always trying to guess the pitch of each vibrating note, and is therefore mixed up with much that is doubtful and has little which is certain.
Pro. Most true.
Soc. And the same will be found to hold good of medicine and husbandry and piloting and generalship.
Pro. Very true.
Soc. The art of the builder, on the other hand, which uses a number of measures and instruments, attains by their help to a greater degree of accuracy than the other arts.
Pro. How is that?
Soc. In ship-building and house-building, and in other branches of the art of carpentering, the builder has his rule, lathe, compass, line, and a most ingenious machine for straightening wood.
Pro. Very true, Socrates.
Soc. Then now let us divide the arts of which we were speaking into two kinds-the arts which, like music, are less exact in their results, and those which, like carpentering, are more exact.
Pro. Let us make that division.
Soc. Of the latter class, the most exact of all are those which we just now spoke of as primary.
Pro. I see that you mean arithmetic, and the kindred arts of weighing and measuring.
Soc. Certainly, Protarchus; but are not these also distinguishable into two kinds?
Pro. What are the two kinds?
Soc. In the first place, arithmetic is of two kinds, one of which is popular, and the other philosophical.
Pro. How would you distinguish them?
Soc. There is a wide difference between them, Protarchus; some arithmeticians reckon unequal units; as for example, two armies, two oxen, two very large things or two very small things. The party who are opposed to them insist that every unit in ten thousand must be the same as every other unit.
Pro. Undoubtedly there is, as you say, a great difference among the votaries of the science; and there may be reasonably supposed to be two sorts of arithmetic.
Soc. And when we compare the art of mensuration which is used in building with philosophical geometry, or the art of computation which is used in trading with exact calculation, shall we say of either of the pairs that it is one or two?
Pro. On the analogy of what has preceded, I should be of opinion that they were severally two.
Soc. Right; but do you understand why I have discussed the subject?
Pro. I think so, but I should like to be told by you.
Soc. The argument has all along been seeking a parallel to pleasure, and true to that original design, has gone on to ask whether one sort of knowledge is purer than another, as one pleasure is purer than another.
Pro. Clearly; that was the intention.
Soc. And has not the argument in what has preceded, already shown that the arts have different provinces, and vary in their degrees of certainty?
Pro. Very true.
Soc. And just now did not the argument first designate a particular art by a common term, thus making us believe in the unity of that art; and then again, as if speaking of two different things, proceed to enquire whether the art as pursed by philosophers, or as pursued by non philosophers, has more of certainty and purity?
Pro. That is the very question which the argument is asking.
Soc. And how, Protarchus, shall we answer the enquiry?
Pro. O Socrates, we have reached a point at which the difference of clearness in different kinds of knowledge is enormous.
Soc. Then the answer will be the easier.
Pro. Certainly; and let us say in reply, that those arts into which arithmetic and mensuration enter, far surpass all others; and that of these the arts or sciences which are animated by the pure philosophic impulse are infinitely superior in accuracy and truth.
Soc. Then this is your judgment; and this is the answer which, upon your authority, we will give to all masters of the art of misinterpretation?
Pro. What answer?
Soc. That there are two arts of arithmetic, and two of mensuration; and also several other arts which in like manner have this double nature, and yet only one name.
Pro. Let us boldly return this answer to the masters of whom you speak, Socrates, and hope for good luck.
Soc. We have explained what we term the most exact arts or sciences.
Pro. Very good.
Soc. And yet, Protarchus, dialectic will refuse to acknowledge us, if we do not award to her the first place.
Pro. And pray, what is dialectic?
Soc. Clearly the science which has to do with all that knowledge of which we are now speaking; for I am sure that all men who have a grain of intelligence will admit that the knowledge which has to do with being and reality, and sameness and unchangeableness, is by far the truest of all. But how would you decide this question, Protarchus?
Pro. I have often heard Gorgias maintain, Socrates, that the art of persuasion far surpassed every other; this, as he says, is by far the best of them all, for to it all things submit, not by compulsion, but of their own free will. Now, I should not like to quarrel either with you or with him.
Soc. You mean to say that you would like to desert, if you were not ashamed?
Pro. As you please.
Soc. May I not have led you into a misapprehension?
Soc. Dear Protarchus, I never asked which was the greatest or best or usefullest of arts or sciences, but which had clearness and accuracy, and the greatest amount of truth, however humble and little useful an art. And as for Gorgias, if you do not deny that his art has the advantage in usefulness to mankind, he will not quarrel with you for saying that the study of which I am speaking is superior in this particular of essential truth; as in the comparison of white colours, a little whiteness, if that little be only pure, was said to be superior in truth to a great mass which is impure. And now let us give our best attention and consider well, not the comparative use or reputation of the sciences, but the power or faculty, if there be such, which the soul has of loving the truth, and of doing all things for the sake of it; let us search into the pure element of mind and intelligence, and then we shall be able to say whether the science of which I have been speaking is most likely to possess the faculty, or whether there be some other which has higher claims.
Pro. Well, I have been considering, and I can hardly think that any other science or art has a firmer grasp of the truth than this.
Soc. Do you say so because you observe that the arts in general and those engaged in them make use of opinion, and are resolutely engaged in the investigation of matters of opinion? Even he who supposes himself to be occupied with nature is really occupied with the things of this world, how created, how acting or acted upon. Is not this the sort of enquiry in which his life is spent?
Soc. He is labouring, not after eternal being, but about things which are becoming, or which will or have become.
Pro. Very true.
Soc. And can we say that any of these things which neither are nor have been nor will be unchangeable, when judged by the strict rule of truth, ever become certain?
Soc. How can anything fixed be concerned with that which has no fixedness?
Pro. How indeed?