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！
opposites are inherent and which are called after them； but now
about the opposites which are inherent in them and which give their
name to them； these essential opposites will never； as we maintain；
admit of generation into or out of one another。 At the same time；
turning to Cebes； he said： Were you at all disconcerted； Cebes； at our
friend's objection？
That was not my feeling； said Cebes； and yet I cannot deny that I am
apt to be disconcerted。
Then we are agreed after all； said Socrates； that the opposite
will never in any case be opposed to itself？
To that we are quite agreed； he replied。
Yet once more let me ask you to consider the question from another
point of view； and see whether you agree with me： There is a thing
which you term heat； and another thing which you term cold？
Certainly。
But are they the same as fire and snow？
Most assuredly not。
Heat is not the same as fire； nor is cold the same as snow？
No。
And yet you will surely admit that when snow； as before said； is
under the influence of heat； they will not remain snow and heat； but
at the advance of the heat the snow will either retire or perish？
Very true； he replied。
And the fire too at the advance of the cold will either retire or
perish； and when the fire is under the influence of the cold； they
will not remain； as before； fire and cold。
That is true； he said。
And in some cases the name of the idea is not confined to the
idea； but anything else which； not being the idea； exists only in
the form of the idea； may also lay claim to it。 I will try to make
this clearer by an example： The odd number is always called by the
name of odd？
Very true。
But is this the only thing which is called odd？ Are there not
other things which have their own name； and yet are called odd；
because； although not the same as oddness； they are never without
oddness？…that is what I mean to ask…whether numbers such as the number
three are not of the class of odd。 And there are many other
examples： would you not say； for example； that three may be called
by its proper name； and also be called odd； which is not the same with
three？ and this may be said not only of three but also of five； and
every alternate number…each of them without being oddness is odd；
and in the same way two and four； and the whole series of alternate
numbers； has every number even； without being evenness。 Do you admit
that？
Yes； he said； how can I deny that？
Then now mark the point at which I am aiming： not only do
essential opposites exclude one another； but also concrete things；
which； although not in themselves opposed； contain opposites； these； I
say； also reject the idea which is opposed to that which is
contained in them； and at the advance of that they either perish or
withdraw。 There is the number three for example； will not that
endure annihilation or anything sooner than be converted into an
even number； remaining three？
Very true； said Cebes。
And yet； he said； the number two is certainly not opposed to the
number three？
It is not。
Then not only do opposite ideas repel the advance of one another；
but also there are other things which repel the approach of opposites。
That is quite true； he said。
Suppose； he said； that we endeavor； if possible； to determine what
these are。
By all means。
Are they not； Cebes； such as compel the things of which they have
possession； not only to take their own form； but also the form of some
opposite？
What do you mean？
I mean； as I was just now saying； and have no need to repeat to you；
that those things which are possessed by the number three must not
only be three in number； but must also be odd。
Quite true。
And on this oddness； of which the number three has the impress；
the opposite idea will never intrude？
No。
And this impress was given by the odd principle？
Yes。
And to the odd is opposed the even？
True。
Then the idea of the even number will never arrive at three？
No。
Then three has no part in the even？
None。
Then the triad or number three is uneven？
Very true。
To return then to my distinction of natures which are not opposites；
and yet do not admit opposites： as； in this instance； three；
although not opposed to the even； does not any the more admit of the
even； but always brings the opposite into play on the other side； or
as two does not receive the odd； or fire the cold…from these
examples （and there are many more of them） perhaps you may be able
to arrive at the general conclusion that not only opposites will not
receive opposites； but also that nothing which brings the opposite
will admit the opposite of that which it brings in that to which it is
brought。 And here let me recapitulate…for there is no harm in
repetition。 The number five will not admit the nature of the even； any
more than ten； which is the double of five； will admit the nature of
the odd…the double； though not strictly opposed to the odd； rejects
the odd altogether。 Nor again will parts in the ratio of 3：2； nor
any fraction in which there is a half； nor again in which there is a
third； admit the notion of the whole； although they are not opposed to
the whole。 You will agree to that？
Yes； he said； I entirely agree and go along with you in that。
And now； he said； I think that I may begin again； and to the
question which I am about to ask I will beg you to give not the old
safe answer； but another； of which I will offer you an example； and
I hope that you will find in what has been just said another
foundation which is as safe。 I mean that if anyone asks you 〃what that
is； the inherence of which makes the body hot；〃 you will reply not
heat （this is what I call the safe and stupid answer）； but fire； a far
better answer； which we are now in a condition to give。 Or if anyone
asks you 〃why a body is diseased；〃 you will not say from disease；
but from fever； and instead of saying that oddness is the cause of odd
numbers； you will say that the monad is the cause of them： and so of
things in general； as I dare say that you will understand sufficiently
without my adducing any further examples。
Yes； he said； I quite understand you。
Tell me； then； what is that the inherence of which will render the
body alive？
The soul； he replied。
And is this always the case？
Yes； he said； of course。
Then whatever the soul possesses； to that she comes bearing life？
Yes； certainly。
And is there any opposite to life？
There is； he said。
And what is that？
Death。
Then the soul； as has been acknowledged； will never receive the
opposite of what she brings。 And now； he said； what did we call that
principle which repels the even？
The odd。
And that principle which repels the musical； or the just？
The unmusical； he said； and the unjust。
And what do we call the principle which does not admit of death？
The immortal； he said。
And does the soul admit of death？
No。
Then the soul is immortal？
Yes； he said。
And may we say that this is proven？
Yes； abundantly proven； Socrates； he replied。
And supposing that the odd were imperishable； must not three be
imperishable？
Of course。
And if that which is cold were imperishable； when the warm principle
came attacking the snow； must not the snow have retired whole and
unmelted…for it could never have perished； nor could it have
remained and admitted the heat？
True； he said。
Again； if the uncooling or warm principle were imperishable； the
fire when assailed by cold would not have perished or have been
extinguished； but would have gone away unaffected？
Certainly； he said。
And the same may be said of the immortal： if the immortal is also
imperishable； the soul when attacked by death cannot perish； for the
preceding argument shows that the soul will not admit of death； or
ever be dead； any more than three or the odd number will admit of
the even； or fire or the heat in the fire； of the cold。 Yet a person
may say： 〃But although the odd will not become even at the approach of
the even； why may not the odd perish and the even take the place of
the odd？〃 Now to him who makes this objection； we cannot answer that
the odd principle is imperishable； for this has not been acknowledged；
but if this had been acknowledged； there would have been no difficulty
in contending that at the approach of the even the odd principle and
the number three took up their departure； and the same argument
would have held good of fire and heat and any other thing。
Very true。
And the