按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
geometry； and in other things too。 But the doctrine of knowledge and
recollection has been proven to me on trustworthy grounds； and the
proof was that the soul must have existed before she came into the
body； because to her belongs the essence of which the very name
implies existence。 Having； as I am convinced； rightly accepted this
conclusion； and on sufficient grounds； I must； as I suppose； cease
to argue or allow others to argue that the soul is a harmony。
Let me put the matter； Simmias； he said； in another point of view：
Do you imagine that a harmony or any other composition can be in a
state other than that of the elements out of which it is compounded？
Certainly not。
Or do or suffer anything other than they do or suffer？
He agreed。
Then a harmony does not lead the parts or elements which make up the
harmony； but only follows them。
He assented。
For harmony cannot possibly have any motion； or sound； or other
quality which is opposed to the parts。
That would be impossible； he replied。
And does not every harmony depend upon the manner in which the
elements are harmonized？
I do not understand you； he said。
I mean to say that a harmony admits of degrees； and is more of a
harmony； and more completely a harmony； when more completely
harmonized； if that be possible； and less of a harmony； and less
completely a harmony； when less harmonized。
True。
But does the soul admit of degrees？ or is one soul in the very least
degree more or less； or more or less completely； a soul than another？
Not in the least。
Yet surely one soul is said to have intelligence and virtue； and
to be good； and another soul is said to have folly and vice； and to be
an evil soul： and this is said truly？
Yes； truly。
But what will those who maintain the soul to be a harmony say of
this presence of virtue and vice in the soul？…Will they say that there
is another harmony； and another discord； and that the virtuous soul is
harmonized； and herself being a harmony has another harmony within
her； and that the vicious soul is inharmonical and has no harmony
within her？
I cannot say； replied Simmias； but I suppose that something of
that kind would be asserted by those who take this view。
And the admission is already made that no soul is more a soul than
another； and this is equivalent to admitting that harmony is not
more or less harmony； or more or less completely a harmony？
Quite true。
And that which is not more or less a harmony is not more or less
harmonized？
True。
And that which is not more or less harmonized cannot have more or
less of harmony； but only an equal harmony？
Yes； an equal harmony。
Then one soul not being more or less absolutely a soul than another；
is not more or less harmonized？
Exactly。
And therefore has neither more nor less of harmony or of discord？
She has not。
And having neither more nor less of harmony or of discord； one
soul has no more vice or virtue than another； if vice be discord and
virtue harmony？
Not at all more。
Or speaking more correctly； Simmias； the soul； if she is a
harmony； will never have any vice； because a harmony； being absolutely
a harmony； has no part in the inharmonical？
No。
And therefore a soul which is absolutely a soul has no vice？
How can she have； consistently with the preceding argument？
Then； according to this； if the souls of all animals are equally and
absolutely souls； they will be equally good？
I agree with you； Socrates； he said。
And can all this be true； think you？ he said； and are all these
consequences admissible…which nevertheless seem to follow from the
assumption that the soul is a harmony？
Certainly not； he said。
Once more； he said； what ruling principle is there of human things
other than the soul； and especially the wise soul？ Do you know of any？
Indeed； I do not。
And is the soul in agreement with the affections of the body？ or
is she at variance with them？ For example； when the body is hot and
thirsty； does not the soul incline us against drinking？ and when the
body is hungry； against eating？ And this is only one instance out of
ten thousand of the opposition of the soul to the things of the body。
Very true。
But we have already acknowledged that the soul； being a harmony； can
never utter a note at variance with the tensions and relaxations and
vibrations and other affections of the strings out of which she is
composed； she can only follow； she cannot lead them？
Yes； he said； we acknowledged that； certainly。
And yet do we not now discover the soul to be doing the exact
opposite…leading the elements of which she is believed to be composed；
almost always opposing and coercing them in all sorts of ways
throughout life； sometimes more violently with the pains of medicine
and gymnastic； then again more gently； threatening and also
reprimanding the desires； passions； fears； as if talking to a thing
which is not herself； as Homer in the 〃Odyssey〃 represents Odysseus
doing in the words；
〃He beat his breast； and thus reproached his heart：
Endure； my heart； far worse hast thou endured！〃
Do you think that Homer could have written this under the idea that
the soul is a harmony capable of being led by the affections of the
body； and not rather of a nature which leads and masters them； and
herself a far diviner thing than any harmony？
Yes； Socrates； I quite agree to that。
Then； my friend； we can never be right in saying that the soul is
a harmony； for that would clearly contradict the divine Homer as
well as ourselves。
True； he said。
Thus much； said Socrates； of Harmonia； your Theban goddess； Cebes；
who has not been ungracious to us； I think； but what shall I say to
the Theban Cadmus； and how shall I propitiate him？
I think that you will discover a way of propitiating him； said
Cebes； I am sure that you have answered the argument about harmony
in a manner that I could never have expected。 For when Simmias
mentioned his objection； I quite imagined that no answer could be
given to him； and therefore I was surprised at finding that his
argument could not sustain the first onset of yours； and not
impossibly the other； whom you call Cadmus； may share a similar fate。
Nay； my good friend； said Socrates； let us not boast； lest some evil
eye should put to flight the word which I am about to speak。 That；
however； may be left in the hands of those above； while I draw near in
Homeric fashion； and try the mettle of your words。 Briefly； the sum of
your objection is as follows： You want to have proven to you that
the soul is imperishable and immortal； and you think that the
philosopher who is confident in death has but a vain and foolish
confidence； if he thinks that he will fare better than one who has led
another sort of life； in the world below； unless he can prove this；
and you say that the demonstration of the strength and divinity of the
soul； and of her existence prior to our becoming men； does not
necessarily imply her immortality。 Granting that the soul is
longlived； and has known and done much in a former state； still she is
not on that account immortal； and her entrance into the human form may
be a sort of disease which is the beginning of dissolution； and may at
last； after the toils of life are over； end in that which is called
death。 And whether the soul enters into the body once only or many
times； that； as you would say； makes no difference in the fears of
individuals。 For any man； who is not devoid of natural feeling； has
reason to fear； if he has no knowledge or proof of the soul's
immortality。 That is what I suppose you to say； Cebes； which I
designedly repeat； in order that nothing may escape us； and that you
may； if you wish； add or subtract anything。
But； said Cebes； as far as I can see at present； I have nothing to
add or subtract； you have expressed my meaning。
Socrates paused awhile； and seemed to be absorbed in reflection。
At length he said： This is a very serious inquiry which you are
raising； Cebes； involving the whole question of generation and
corruption； about which I will； if you like； give you my own
experience； and you can apply this； if you think that anything which I
say will avail towards the solution of your difficulty。
I should very much like； said Cebes； to hear what you have to say。
Then I will tell you； said Socrates。 When I was young； Cebes； I
had a prodigious desire to know that department of philosophy which is
called Natural Science； this appeared to me to have lofty aims； as
being the science which has to do with the caus