PHILEBUS by Plato, Part 11
Soc. Then mind and science when employed about such changing things do not attain the highest truth?
Pro. I should imagine not.
Soc. And now let us bid farewell, a long farewell, to you or me or Philebus or Gorgias, and urge on behalf of the argument a single point.
Pro. What point?
Soc. Let us say that the stable and pure and true and unalloyed has to do with the things which are eternal and unchangeable and unmixed, or if not, at any rate what is most akin to them has; and that all other things are to be placed in a second or inferior class.
Pro. Very true.
Soc. And of the names expressing cognition, ought not the fairest to be given to the fairest things?
Pro. That is natural.
Soc. And are not mind and wisdom the names which are to be honoured most?
Soc. And these names may be said to have their truest, and most exact application when the mind is engaged in the contemplation of true being?
Soc. And these were the names which I adduced of the rivals of pleasure?
Pro. Very true, Socrates.
Soc. In the next place, as to the mixture, here are the ingredients, pleasure and wisdom, and we may be compared to artists who have their materials ready to their hands.
Soc. And now we must begin to mix them?
Pro. By all means.
Soc. But had we not better have a preliminary word and refresh our memories?
Pro. Of what?
Soc. Of that which I have already mentioned. Well says the proverb, that we ought to repeat twice and even thrice that which is good.
Soc. Well then, by Zeus, let us proceed, and I will make what I believe to be a fair summary of the argument.
Pro. Let me hear.
Soc. Philebus says that pleasure is the true end of all living beings, at which all ought to aim, and moreover that it is the chief good of all, and that the two names "good" and "pleasant" are correctly given to one thing and one nature; Socrates, on the other hand, begins by denying this, and further says, that in nature as in name they are two, and that wisdom partakes more than pleasure of the good. Is not and was not this what we were saying, Protarchus?
Soc. And is there not and was there not a further point which was conceded between us?
Pro. What was it?
Soc. That the good differs from all other things.
Pro. In what respect?
Soc. In that the being who possesses good always everywhere and in all things has the most perfect sufficiency, and is never in need of anything else.
Soc. And did we not endeavour to make an imaginary separation of wisdom and pleasure, assigning to each a distinct life, so that pleasure was wholly excluded from wisdom, and wisdom in like manner had no part whatever in pleasure?
Pro. We did.
Soc. And did we think that either of them alone would be sufficient?
Pro. Certainly not.
Soc. And if we erred in any point, then let any one who will, take up the enquiry again and set us right; and assuming memory and wisdom and knowledge and true opinion to belong to the same class, let him consider whether he would desire to possess or acquire-I will not say pleasure, however abundant or intense, if he has no real perception that he is pleased, nor any consciousness of what he feels, nor any recollection, however momentary, of the feeling,-but would he desire to have anything at all, if these faculties were wanting to him? And about wisdom I ask the same question; can you conceive that any one would choose to have all wisdom absolutely devoid of pleasure, rather than with a certain degree of pleasure, or all pleasure devoid of wisdom, rather than with a certain degree of wisdom?
Pro. Certainly not, Socrates; but why repeat such questions any more?
Soc. Then the perfect and universally eligible and entirely good cannot possibly be either of them?
Soc. Then now we must ascertain the nature of the good more or less accurately, in order, as we were saying, that the second place may be duly assigned.
Soc. Have we not found a road which leads towards the good?
Pro. What road?
Soc. Supposing that a man had to be found, and you could discover in what house he lived, would not that be a great step towards the discovery of the man himself?
Soc. And now reason intimates to us, as at our first beginning, that we should seek the good, not in the unmixed life but in the mixed.
Soc. There is greater hope of finding that which we are seeking in the life which is well mixed than in that which is not?
Pro. Far greater.
Soc. Then now let us mingle, Protarchus, at the same time offering up a prayer to Dionysus or Hephaestus, or whoever is the god who presides over the ceremony of mingling.
Pro. By all means.
Soc. Are not we the cup-bearers? and here are two fountains which are flowing at our side: one, which is pleasure, may be likened to a fountain of honey; the other, wisdom, a sober draught in which no wine mingles, is of water unpleasant but healthful; out of these we must seek to make the fairest of all possible mixtures.
Soc. Tell me first;-should we be most likely to succeed if we mingled every sort of pleasure with every sort of wisdom?
Pro. Perhaps we might.
Soc. But I should be afraid of the risk, and I think that I can show a safer plan.
Pro. What is it?
Soc. One pleasure was supposed by us to be truer than another, and one art to be more exact than another.
Soc. There was also supposed to be a difference in sciences; some of them regarding only the transient and perishing, and others the permanent and imperishable and everlasting and immutable; and when judged by the standard of truth, the latter, as we thought, were truer than the former.
Pro. Very good and right.
Soc. If, then, we were to begin by mingling the sections of each class which have the most of truth, will not the union suffice to give us the loveliest of lives, or shall we still want some elements of another kind?
Pro. I think that we ought to do what you suggest.
Soc. Let us suppose a man who understands justice, and has reason as well as understanding about the true nature of this and of all other things.
Pro. We will suppose such a man.
Soc. Will he have enough of knowledge if he is acquainted only with the divine circle and sphere, and knows nothing of our human spheres and circles, but uses only divine circles and measures in the building of a house?
Pro. The knowledge which is only superhuman, Socrates, is ridiculous in man.
Soc. What do you mean? Do you mean that you are to throw into the cup and mingle the impure and uncertain art which uses the false measure and the false circle?
Pro. Yes, we must, if any of us is ever to find his way home.
Soc. And am I to include music, which, as, I was saying just now, is full of guesswork and imitation, and is wanting in purity?
Pro. Yes, I think that you must, if human life is to be a life at all.
Soc. Well, then, suppose that I give way, and, like a doorkeeper who is pushed and overborne by the mob, I open the door wide, and let knowledge of every sort stream in, and the pure mingle with the impure?
Pro. I do not know, Socrates, that any great harm would come of having them all, if only you have the first sort.
Soc. Well, then, shall I let them all flow into what Homer poetically terms "a meeting of the waters"?
Pro. By all means.
Soc. There-I have let him in, and now I must return to the fountain of pleasure. For we were not permitted to begin by mingling in a single stream the true portions of both according to our original intention; but the love of all knowledge constrained us to let all the sciences flow in together before the pleasures.
Pro. Quite true.
Soc. And now the time has come for us to consider about the pleasures also, whether we shall in like manner let them go all at once, or at first only the true ones.
Pro. It will be by far the safer course to let flow the true ones first.
Soc. Let them flow, then; and now, if there are any necessary pleasures, as there were arts and sciences necessary, must we not mingle them?
Pro. Yes, the necessary pleasures should certainly be allowed to mingle.
Soc. The knowledge of the arts has been admitted to be innocent and useful always; and if we say of pleasures in like manner that all of them are good and innocent for all of us at all times, we must let them all mingle?
Pro. What shall we say about them, and what course shall we take?
Soc. Do not ask me, Protarchus; but ask the daughters of pleasure and wisdom to answer for themselves.
Soc. Tell us, O beloved-shall we call you pleasures or by some other name?-would you rather live with or without wisdom? I am of opinion that they would certainly answer as follows:
Soc. They would answer, as we said before, that for any single class to be left by itself pure and isolated is not good, nor altogether possible; and that if we are to make comparisons of one class with another and choose, there is no better companion than knowledge of things in general, and likewise the perfect knowledge, if that may be, of ourselves in every respect.
Pro. And our answer will be:-In that ye have spoken well.
Soc. Very true. And now let us go back and interrogate wisdom and mind: Would you like to have any pleasures in the mixture? And they will reply:-"What pleasures do you mean?"
Pro. Likely enough.
Soc. And we shall take up our parable and say: Do you wish to have the greatest and most vehement pleasures for your companions in addition to the true ones? "Why, Socrates," they will say, "how can we? seeing that they are the source of ten thousand hindrances to us; they trouble the souls of men, which are our habitation, with their madness; they prevent us from coming to the birth, and are commonly the ruin of the children which are born to us, causing them to be forgotten and unheeded; but the true and pure pleasures, of which you spoke, know to be of our family, and also those pleasures which accompany health and temperance, and which every Virtue, like a goddess has in her train to follow her about wherever she goes,-mingle these and not the others; there would be great want of sense in any one who desires to see a fair and perfect mixture, and to find in it what is the highest good in man and in the universe, and to divine what is the true form of good-there would be great want of sense in his allowing the pleasures, which are always in the company of folly and vice, to mingle with mind in the cup."-Is not this a very rational and suitable reply, which mind has made, both on her own behalf, as well as on the behalf of memory and true opinion?
Pro. Most certainly.
Soc. And still there must be something more added, which is a necessary ingredient in every mixture.
Pro. What is that?
Soc. Unless truth enter into the composition, nothing can truly be created or subsist.
Soc. Quite impossible; and now you and Philebus must tell me whether anything is still wanting in the mixture, for to my way of thinking the argument is now completed, and may be compared to an incorporeal law, which is going to hold fair rule over a living body.
Pro. I agree with you, Socrates.
Copyright 2000-2014, GreekMythology.comTM.
For more general info on Greek Gods, Greek Goddesses, Greek Heroes, Greek Monsters and Greek Mythology Movies visit Greece.com Mythology.
All information in this site is free for personal use. You can freely use it for
term papers, research papers, college essays, school essays.
Commercial use, and use in other websites is prohibited.
If you have your own Greek Mythology stories, free research papers, college term papers, college essays, book reports, coursework, homework papers and you want to publish them in this site please contact us now at:
Griyego mitolohiya, 그리스 신화, 希腊神话, griekse mythologie, mythologie grecque, griechischen Mythologie, ギリシャ神話, Греческая мифология, mitología griega, ग्रीक पौराणिक कथाओं, الأساطير اليونانية, Grekisk mytologi