diff options
Diffstat (limited to '1735-h/1735-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 1735-h/1735-h.htm | 7357 |
1 files changed, 7357 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/1735-h/1735-h.htm b/1735-h/1735-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3a05b1a --- /dev/null +++ b/1735-h/1735-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,7357 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> + +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en"> + <head> + <title> + Sophist, by Plato + </title> + <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve"> + + body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify} + P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} + div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } + div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; } + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} + .pagenum {display:inline; font-size: 70%; font-style:normal; + margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%; + text-align: right;} + pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} + +</style> + </head> + <body> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Sophist, by Plato + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Sophist + +Author: Plato + +Translator: Benjamin Jowett + +Release Date: November 7, 2008 [EBook #1735] +Last Updated: January 15, 2013 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOPHIST *** + + + + +Produced by Sue Asscher, and David Widger + + + + + +</pre> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <h1> + SOPHIST + </h1> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h2> + By Plato + </h2> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <h3> + Translated by Benjamin Jowett + </h3> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <h3> + Contents + </h3> + <table summary="" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto"> + <tr> + <td> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_INTR"> INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0002"> SOPHIST </a> + </p> + </td> + </tr> + </table> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> <a name="link2H_INTR" id="link2H_INTR"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <h2> + INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS. + </h2> + <p> + The dramatic power of the dialogues of Plato appears to diminish as the + metaphysical interest of them increases (compare Introd. to the Philebus). + There are no descriptions of time, place or persons, in the Sophist and + Statesman, but we are plunged at once into philosophical discussions; the + poetical charm has disappeared, and those who have no taste for abstruse + metaphysics will greatly prefer the earlier dialogues to the later ones. + Plato is conscious of the change, and in the Statesman expressly accuses + himself of a tediousness in the two dialogues, which he ascribes to his + desire of developing the dialectical method. On the other hand, the + kindred spirit of Hegel seemed to find in the Sophist the crown and summit + of the Platonic philosophy—here is the place at which Plato most + nearly approaches to the Hegelian identity of Being and Not-being. Nor + will the great importance of the two dialogues be doubted by any one who + forms a conception of the state of mind and opinion which they are + intended to meet. The sophisms of the day were undermining philosophy; the + denial of the existence of Not-being, and of the connexion of ideas, was + making truth and falsehood equally impossible. It has been said that Plato + would have written differently, if he had been acquainted with the Organon + of Aristotle. But could the Organon of Aristotle ever have been written + unless the Sophist and Statesman had preceded? The swarm of fallacies + which arose in the infancy of mental science, and which was born and bred + in the decay of the pre-Socratic philosophies, was not dispelled by + Aristotle, but by Socrates and Plato. The summa genera of thought, the + nature of the proposition, of definition, of generalization, of synthesis + and analysis, of division and cross-division, are clearly described, and + the processes of induction and deduction are constantly employed in the + dialogues of Plato. The 'slippery' nature of comparison, the danger of + putting words in the place of things, the fallacy of arguing 'a dicto + secundum,' and in a circle, are frequently indicated by him. To all these + processes of truth and error, Aristotle, in the next generation, gave + distinctness; he brought them together in a separate science. But he is + not to be regarded as the original inventor of any of the great logical + forms, with the exception of the syllogism. + </p> + <p> + There is little worthy of remark in the characters of the Sophist. The + most noticeable point is the final retirement of Socrates from the field + of argument, and the substitution for him of an Eleatic stranger, who is + described as a pupil of Parmenides and Zeno, and is supposed to have + descended from a higher world in order to convict the Socratic circle of + error. As in the Timaeus, Plato seems to intimate by the withdrawal of + Socrates that he is passing beyond the limits of his teaching; and in the + Sophist and Statesman, as well as in the Parmenides, he probably means to + imply that he is making a closer approach to the schools of Elea and + Megara. He had much in common with them, but he must first submit their + ideas to criticism and revision. He had once thought as he says, speaking + by the mouth of the Eleatic, that he understood their doctrine of + Not-being; but now he does not even comprehend the nature of Being. The + friends of ideas (Soph.) are alluded to by him as distant acquaintances, + whom he criticizes ab extra; we do not recognize at first sight that he is + criticizing himself. The character of the Eleatic stranger is colourless; + he is to a certain extent the reflection of his father and master, + Parmenides, who is the protagonist in the dialogue which is called by his + name. Theaetetus himself is not distinguished by the remarkable traits + which are attributed to him in the preceding dialogue. He is no longer + under the spell of Socrates, or subject to the operation of his midwifery, + though the fiction of question and answer is still maintained, and the + necessity of taking Theaetetus along with him is several times insisted + upon by his partner in the discussion. There is a reminiscence of the old + Theaetetus in his remark that he will not tire of the argument, and in his + conviction, which the Eleatic thinks likely to be permanent, that the + course of events is governed by the will of God. Throughout the two + dialogues Socrates continues a silent auditor, in the Statesman just + reminding us of his presence, at the commencement, by a characteristic + jest about the statesman and the philosopher, and by an allusion to his + namesake, with whom on that ground he claims relationship, as he had + already claimed an affinity with Theaetetus, grounded on the likeness of + his ugly face. But in neither dialogue, any more than in the Timaeus, does + he offer any criticism on the views which are propounded by another. + </p> + <p> + The style, though wanting in dramatic power,—in this respect + resembling the Philebus and the Laws,—is very clear and accurate, + and has several touches of humour and satire. The language is less + fanciful and imaginative than that of the earlier dialogues; and there is + more of bitterness, as in the Laws, though traces of a similar temper may + also be observed in the description of the 'great brute' in the Republic, + and in the contrast of the lawyer and philosopher in the Theaetetus. The + following are characteristic passages: 'The ancient philosophers, of whom + we may say, without offence, that they went on their way rather regardless + of whether we understood them or not;' the picture of the materialists, or + earth-born giants, 'who grasped oaks and rocks in their hands,' and who + must be improved before they can be reasoned with; and the equally + humourous delineation of the friends of ideas, who defend themselves from + a fastness in the invisible world; or the comparison of the Sophist to a + painter or maker (compare Republic), and the hunt after him in the rich + meadow-lands of youth and wealth; or, again, the light and graceful touch + with which the older philosophies are painted ('Ionian and Sicilian + muses'), the comparison of them to mythological tales, and the fear of the + Eleatic that he will be counted a parricide if he ventures to lay hands on + his father Parmenides; or, once more, the likening of the Eleatic stranger + to a god from heaven.—All these passages, notwithstanding the + decline of the style, retain the impress of the great master of language. + But the equably diffused grace is gone; instead of the endless variety of + the early dialogues, traces of the rhythmical monotonous cadence of the + Laws begin to appear; and already an approach is made to the technical + language of Aristotle, in the frequent use of the words 'essence,' + 'power,' 'generation,' 'motion,' 'rest,' 'action,' 'passion,' and the + like. + </p> + <p> + The Sophist, like the Phaedrus, has a double character, and unites two + enquirers, which are only in a somewhat forced manner connected with each + other. The first is the search after the Sophist, the second is the + enquiry into the nature of Not-being, which occupies the middle part of + the work. For 'Not-being' is the hole or division of the dialectical net + in which the Sophist has hidden himself. He is the imaginary impersonation + of false opinion. Yet he denies the possibility of false opinion; for + falsehood is that which is not, and therefore has no existence. At length + the difficulty is solved; the answer, in the language of the Republic, + appears 'tumbling out at our feet.' Acknowledging that there is a + communion of kinds with kinds, and not merely one Being or Good having + different names, or several isolated ideas or classes incapable of + communion, we discover 'Not-being' to be the other of 'Being.' + Transferring this to language and thought, we have no difficulty in + apprehending that a proposition may be false as well as true. The Sophist, + drawn out of the shelter which Cynic and Megarian paradoxes have + temporarily afforded him, is proved to be a dissembler and juggler with + words. + </p> + <p> + The chief points of interest in the dialogue are: (I) the character + attributed to the Sophist: (II) the dialectical method: (III) the nature + of the puzzle about 'Not-being:' (IV) the battle of the philosophers: (V) + the relation of the Sophist to other dialogues. + </p> + <p> + I. The Sophist in Plato is the master of the art of illusion; the + charlatan, the foreigner, the prince of esprits-faux, the hireling who is + not a teacher, and who, from whatever point of view he is regarded, is the + opposite of the true teacher. He is the 'evil one,' the ideal + representative of all that Plato most disliked in the moral and + intellectual tendencies of his own age; the adversary of the almost + equally ideal Socrates. He seems to be always growing in the fancy of + Plato, now boastful, now eristic, now clothing himself in rags of + philosophy, now more akin to the rhetorician or lawyer, now haranguing, + now questioning, until the final appearance in the Politicus of his + departing shadow in the disguise of a statesman. We are not to suppose + that Plato intended by such a description to depict Protagoras or Gorgias, + or even Thrasymachus, who all turn out to be 'very good sort of people + when we know them,' and all of them part on good terms with Socrates. But + he is speaking of a being as imaginary as the wise man of the Stoics, and + whose character varies in different dialogues. Like mythology, Greek + philosophy has a tendency to personify ideas. And the Sophist is not + merely a teacher of rhetoric for a fee of one or fifty drachmae (Crat.), + but an ideal of Plato's in which the falsehood of all mankind is + reflected. + </p> + <p> + A milder tone is adopted towards the Sophists in a well-known passage of + the Republic, where they are described as the followers rather than the + leaders of the rest of mankind. Plato ridicules the notion that any + individuals can corrupt youth to a degree worth speaking of in comparison + with the greater influence of public opinion. But there is no real + inconsistency between this and other descriptions of the Sophist which + occur in the Platonic writings. For Plato is not justifying the Sophists + in the passage just quoted, but only representing their power to be + contemptible; they are to be despised rather than feared, and are no worse + than the rest of mankind. But a teacher or statesman may be justly + condemned, who is on a level with mankind when he ought to be above them. + There is another point of view in which this passage should also be + considered. The great enemy of Plato is the world, not exactly in the + theological sense, yet in one not wholly different—the world as the + hater of truth and lover of appearance, occupied in the pursuit of gain + and pleasure rather than of knowledge, banded together against the few + good and wise men, and devoid of true education. This creature has many + heads: rhetoricians, lawyers, statesmen, poets, sophists. But the Sophist + is the Proteus who takes the likeness of all of them; all other deceivers + have a piece of him in them. And sometimes he is represented as the + corrupter of the world; and sometimes the world as the corrupter of him + and of itself. + </p> + <p> + Of late years the Sophists have found an enthusiastic defender in the + distinguished historian of Greece. He appears to maintain (1) that the + term 'Sophist' is not the name of a particular class, and would have been + applied indifferently to Socrates and Plato, as well as to Gorgias and + Protagoras; (2) that the bad sense was imprinted on the word by the genius + of Plato; (3) that the principal Sophists were not the corrupters of youth + (for the Athenian youth were no more corrupted in the age of Demosthenes + than in the age of Pericles), but honourable and estimable persons, who + supplied a training in literature which was generally wanted at the time. + We will briefly consider how far these statements appear to be justified + by facts: and, 1, about the meaning of the word there arises an + interesting question:— + </p> + <p> + Many words are used both in a general and a specific sense, and the two + senses are not always clearly distinguished. Sometimes the generic meaning + has been narrowed to the specific, while in other cases the specific + meaning has been enlarged or altered. Examples of the former class are + furnished by some ecclesiastical terms: apostles, prophets, bishops, + elders, catholics. Examples of the latter class may also be found in a + similar field: jesuits, puritans, methodists, and the like. Sometimes the + meaning is both narrowed and enlarged; and a good or bad sense will + subsist side by side with a neutral one. A curious effect is produced on + the meaning of a word when the very term which is stigmatized by the world + (e.g. Methodists) is adopted by the obnoxious or derided class; this tends + to define the meaning. Or, again, the opposite result is produced, when + the world refuses to allow some sect or body of men the possession of an + honourable name which they have assumed, or applies it to them only in + mockery or irony. + </p> + <p> + The term 'Sophist' is one of those words of which the meaning has been + both contracted and enlarged. Passages may be quoted from Herodotus and + the tragedians, in which the word is used in a neutral sense for a + contriver or deviser or inventor, without including any ethical idea of + goodness or badness. Poets as well as philosophers were called Sophists in + the fifth century before Christ. In Plato himself the term is applied in + the sense of a 'master in art,' without any bad meaning attaching to it + (Symp.; Meno). In the later Greek, again, 'sophist' and 'philosopher' + became almost indistinguishable. There was no reproach conveyed by the + word; the additional association, if any, was only that of rhetorician or + teacher. Philosophy had become eclecticism and imitation: in the decline + of Greek thought there was no original voice lifted up 'which reached to a + thousand years because of the god.' Hence the two words, like the + characters represented by them, tended to pass into one another. Yet even + here some differences appeared; for the term 'Sophist' would hardly have + been applied to the greater names, such as Plotinus, and would have been + more often used of a professor of philosophy in general than of a + maintainer of particular tenets. + </p> + <p> + But the real question is, not whether the word 'Sophist' has all these + senses, but whether there is not also a specific bad sense in which the + term is applied to certain contemporaries of Socrates. Would an Athenian, + as Mr. Grote supposes, in the fifth century before Christ, have included + Socrates and Plato, as well as Gorgias and Protagoras, under the specific + class of Sophists? To this question we must answer, No: if ever the term + is applied to Socrates and Plato, either the application is made by an + enemy out of mere spite, or the sense in which it is used is neutral. + Plato, Xenophon, Isocrates, Aristotle, all give a bad import to the word; + and the Sophists are regarded as a separate class in all of them. And in + later Greek literature, the distinction is quite marked between the + succession of philosophers from Thales to Aristotle, and the Sophists of + the age of Socrates, who appeared like meteors for a short time in + different parts of Greece. For the purposes of comedy, Socrates may have + been identified with the Sophists, and he seems to complain of this in the + Apology. But there is no reason to suppose that Socrates, differing by so + many outward marks, would really have been confounded in the mind of + Anytus, or Callicles, or of any intelligent Athenian, with the splendid + foreigners who from time to time visited Athens, or appeared at the + Olympic games. The man of genius, the great original thinker, the + disinterested seeker after truth, the master of repartee whom no one ever + defeated in an argument, was separated, even in the mind of the vulgar + Athenian, by an 'interval which no geometry can express,' from the + balancer of sentences, the interpreter and reciter of the poets, the + divider of the meanings of words, the teacher of rhetoric, the professor + of morals and manners. + </p> + <p> + 2. The use of the term 'Sophist' in the dialogues of Plato also shows that + the bad sense was not affixed by his genius, but already current. When + Protagoras says, 'I confess that I am a Sophist,' he implies that the art + which he professes has already a bad name; and the words of the young + Hippocrates, when with a blush upon his face which is just seen by the + light of dawn he admits that he is going to be made 'a Sophist,' would + lose their point, unless the term had been discredited. There is nothing + surprising in the Sophists having an evil name; that, whether deserved or + not, was a natural consequence of their vocation. That they were + foreigners, that they made fortunes, that they taught novelties, that they + excited the minds of youth, are quite sufficient reasons to account for + the opprobrium which attached to them. The genius of Plato could not have + stamped the word anew, or have imparted the associations which occur in + contemporary writers, such as Xenophon and Isocrates. Changes in the + meaning of words can only be made with great difficulty, and not unless + they are supported by a strong current of popular feeling. There is + nothing improbable in supposing that Plato may have extended and envenomed + the meaning, or that he may have done the Sophists the same kind of + disservice with posterity which Pascal did to the Jesuits. But the bad + sense of the word was not and could not have been invented by him, and is + found in his earlier dialogues, e.g. the Protagoras, as well as in the + later. + </p> + <p> + 3. There is no ground for disbelieving that the principal Sophists, + Gorgias, Protagoras, Prodicus, Hippias, were good and honourable men. The + notion that they were corrupters of the Athenian youth has no real + foundation, and partly arises out of the use of the term 'Sophist' in + modern times. The truth is, that we know little about them; and the + witness of Plato in their favour is probably not much more historical than + his witness against them. Of that national decline of genius, unity, + political force, which has been sometimes described as the corruption of + youth, the Sophists were one among many signs;—in these respects + Athens may have degenerated; but, as Mr. Grote remarks, there is no reason + to suspect any greater moral corruption in the age of Demosthenes than in + the age of Pericles. The Athenian youth were not corrupted in this sense, + and therefore the Sophists could not have corrupted them. It is + remarkable, and may be fairly set down to their credit, that Plato nowhere + attributes to them that peculiar Greek sympathy with youth, which he + ascribes to Parmenides, and which was evidently common in the Socratic + circle. Plato delights to exhibit them in a ludicrous point of view, and + to show them always rather at a disadvantage in the company of Socrates. + But he has no quarrel with their characters, and does not deny that they + are respectable men. + </p> + <p> + The Sophist, in the dialogue which is called after him, is exhibited in + many different lights, and appears and reappears in a variety of forms. + There is some want of the higher Platonic art in the Eleatic Stranger + eliciting his true character by a labourious process of enquiry, when he + had already admitted that he knew quite well the difference between the + Sophist and the Philosopher, and had often heard the question discussed;—such + an anticipation would hardly have occurred in the earlier dialogues. But + Plato could not altogether give up his Socratic method, of which another + trace may be thought to be discerned in his adoption of a common instance + before he proceeds to the greater matter in hand. Yet the example is also + chosen in order to damage the 'hooker of men' as much as possible; each + step in the pedigree of the angler suggests some injurious reflection + about the Sophist. They are both hunters after a living prey, nearly + related to tyrants and thieves, and the Sophist is the cousin of the + parasite and flatterer. The effect of this is heightened by the accidental + manner in which the discovery is made, as the result of a scientific + division. His descent in another branch affords the opportunity of more + 'unsavoury comparisons.' For he is a retail trader, and his wares are + either imported or home-made, like those of other retail traders; his art + is thus deprived of the character of a liberal profession. But the most + distinguishing characteristic of him is, that he is a disputant, and + higgles over an argument. A feature of the Eristic here seems to blend + with Plato's usual description of the Sophists, who in the early + dialogues, and in the Republic, are frequently depicted as endeavouring to + save themselves from disputing with Socrates by making long orations. In + this character he parts company from the vain and impertinent talker in + private life, who is a loser of money, while he is a maker of it. + </p> + <p> + But there is another general division under which his art may be also + supposed to fall, and that is purification; and from purification is + descended education, and the new principle of education is to interrogate + men after the manner of Socrates, and make them teach themselves. Here + again we catch a glimpse rather of a Socratic or Eristic than of a Sophist + in the ordinary sense of the term. And Plato does not on this ground + reject the claim of the Sophist to be the true philosopher. One more + feature of the Eristic rather than of the Sophist is the tendency of the + troublesome animal to run away into the darkness of Not-being. Upon the + whole, we detect in him a sort of hybrid or double nature, of which, + except perhaps in the Euthydemus of Plato, we find no other trace in Greek + philosophy; he combines the teacher of virtue with the Eristic; while in + his omniscience, in his ignorance of himself, in his arts of deception, + and in his lawyer-like habit of writing and speaking about all things, he + is still the antithesis of Socrates and of the true teacher. + </p> + <p> + II. The question has been asked, whether the method of 'abscissio + infinti,' by which the Sophist is taken, is a real and valuable logical + process. Modern science feels that this, like other processes of formal + logic, presents a very inadequate conception of the actual complex + procedure of the mind by which scientific truth is detected and verified. + Plato himself seems to be aware that mere division is an unsafe and + uncertain weapon, first, in the Statesman, when he says that we should + divide in the middle, for in that way we are more likely to attain + species; secondly, in the parallel precept of the Philebus, that we should + not pass from the most general notions to infinity, but include all the + intervening middle principles, until, as he also says in the Statesman, we + arrive at the infima species; thirdly, in the Phaedrus, when he says that + the dialectician will carve the limbs of truth without mangling them; and + once more in the Statesman, if we cannot bisect species, we must carve + them as well as we can. No better image of nature or truth, as an organic + whole, can be conceived than this. So far is Plato from supposing that + mere division and subdivision of general notions will guide men into all + truth. + </p> + <p> + Plato does not really mean to say that the Sophist or the Statesman can be + caught in this way. But these divisions and subdivisions were favourite + logical exercises of the age in which he lived; and while indulging his + dialectical fancy, and making a contribution to logical method, he + delights also to transfix the Eristic Sophist with weapons borrowed from + his own armoury. As we have already seen, the division gives him the + opportunity of making the most damaging reflections on the Sophist and all + his kith and kin, and to exhibit him in the most discreditable light. + </p> + <p> + Nor need we seriously consider whether Plato was right in assuming that an + animal so various could not be confined within the limits of a single + definition. In the infancy of logic, men sought only to obtain a + definition of an unknown or uncertain term; the after reflection scarcely + occurred to them that the word might have several senses, which shaded off + into one another, and were not capable of being comprehended in a single + notion. There is no trace of this reflection in Plato. But neither is + there any reason to think, even if the reflection had occurred to him, + that he would have been deterred from carrying on the war with weapons + fair or unfair against the outlaw Sophist. + </p> + <p> + III. The puzzle about 'Not-being' appears to us to be one of the most + unreal difficulties of ancient philosophy. We cannot understand the + attitude of mind which could imagine that falsehood had no existence, if + reality was denied to Not-being: How could such a question arise at all, + much less become of serious importance? The answer to this, and to nearly + all other difficulties of early Greek philosophy, is to be sought for in + the history of ideas, and the answer is only unsatisfactory because our + knowledge is defective. In the passage from the world of sense and + imagination and common language to that of opinion and reflection the + human mind was exposed to many dangers, and often + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + 'Found no end in wandering mazes lost.' +</pre> + <p> + On the other hand, the discovery of abstractions was the great source of + all mental improvement in after ages. It was the pushing aside of the old, + the revelation of the new. But each one of the company of abstractions, if + we may speak in the metaphorical language of Plato, became in turn the + tyrant of the mind, the dominant idea, which would allow no other to have + a share in the throne. This is especially true of the Eleatic philosophy: + while the absoluteness of Being was asserted in every form of language, + the sensible world and all the phenomena of experience were comprehended + under Not-being. Nor was any difficulty or perplexity thus created, so + long as the mind, lost in the contemplation of Being, asked no more + questions, and never thought of applying the categories of Being or + Not-being to mind or opinion or practical life. + </p> + <p> + But the negative as well as the positive idea had sunk deep into the + intellect of man. The effect of the paradoxes of Zeno extended far beyond + the Eleatic circle. And now an unforeseen consequence began to arise. If + the Many were not, if all things were names of the One, and nothing could + be predicated of any other thing, how could truth be distinguished from + falsehood? The Eleatic philosopher would have replied that Being is alone + true. But mankind had got beyond his barren abstractions: they were + beginning to analyze, to classify, to define, to ask what is the nature of + knowledge, opinion, sensation. Still less could they be content with the + description which Achilles gives in Homer of the man whom his soul hates— + </p> + <p> + os chi eteron men keuthe eni phresin, allo de eipe. + </p> + <p> + For their difficulty was not a practical but a metaphysical one; and their + conception of falsehood was really impaired and weakened by a metaphysical + illusion. + </p> + <p> + The strength of the illusion seems to lie in the alternative: If we once + admit the existence of Being and Not-being, as two spheres which exclude + each other, no Being or reality can be ascribed to Not-being, and + therefore not to falsehood, which is the image or expression of Not-being. + Falsehood is wholly false; and to speak of true falsehood, as Theaetetus + does (Theaet.), is a contradiction in terms. The fallacy to us is + ridiculous and transparent,—no better than those which Plato + satirizes in the Euthydemus. It is a confusion of falsehood and negation, + from which Plato himself is not entirely free. Instead of saying, 'This is + not in accordance with facts,' 'This is proved by experience to be false,' + and from such examples forming a general notion of falsehood, the mind of + the Greek thinker was lost in the mazes of the Eleatic philosophy. And the + greater importance which Plato attributes to this fallacy, compared with + others, is due to the influence which the Eleatic philosophy exerted over + him. He sees clearly to a certain extent; but he has not yet attained a + complete mastery over the ideas of his predecessors—they are still + ends to him, and not mere instruments of thought. They are too rough-hewn + to be harmonized in a single structure, and may be compared to rocks which + project or overhang in some ancient city's walls. There are many such + imperfect syncretisms or eclecticisms in the history of philosophy. A + modern philosopher, though emancipated from scholastic notions of essence + or substance, might still be seriously affected by the abstract idea of + necessity; or though accustomed, like Bacon, to criticize abstract + notions, might not extend his criticism to the syllogism. + </p> + <p> + The saying or thinking the thing that is not, would be the popular + definition of falsehood or error. If we were met by the Sophist's + objection, the reply would probably be an appeal to experience. Ten + thousands, as Homer would say (mala murioi), tell falsehoods and fall into + errors. And this is Plato's reply, both in the Cratylus and Sophist. + 'Theaetetus is flying,' is a sentence in form quite as grammatical as + 'Theaetetus is sitting'; the difference between the two sentences is, that + the one is true and the other false. But, before making this appeal to + common sense, Plato propounds for our consideration a theory of the nature + of the negative. + </p> + <p> + The theory is, that Not-being is relation. Not-being is the other of + Being, and has as many kinds as there are differences in Being. This + doctrine is the simple converse of the famous proposition of Spinoza,—not + 'Omnis determinatio est negatio,' but 'Omnis negatio est determinatio';—not, + All distinction is negation, but, All negation is distinction. Not-being + is the unfolding or determining of Being, and is a necessary element in + all other things that are. We should be careful to observe, first, that + Plato does not identify Being with Not-being; he has no idea of + progression by antagonism, or of the Hegelian vibration of moments: he + would not have said with Heracleitus, 'All things are and are not, and + become and become not.' Secondly, he has lost sight altogether of the + other sense of Not-being, as the negative of Being; although he again and + again recognizes the validity of the law of contradiction. Thirdly, he + seems to confuse falsehood with negation. Nor is he quite consistent in + regarding Not-being as one class of Being, and yet as coextensive with + Being in general. Before analyzing further the topics thus suggested, we + will endeavour to trace the manner in which Plato arrived at his + conception of Not-being. + </p> + <p> + In all the later dialogues of Plato, the idea of mind or intelligence + becomes more and more prominent. That idea which Anaxagoras employed + inconsistently in the construction of the world, Plato, in the Philebus, + the Sophist, and the Laws, extends to all things, attributing to + Providence a care, infinitesimal as well as infinite, of all creation. The + divine mind is the leading religious thought of the later works of Plato. + The human mind is a sort of reflection of this, having ideas of Being, + Sameness, and the like. At times they seem to be parted by a great gulf + (Parmenides); at other times they have a common nature, and the light of a + common intelligence. + </p> + <p> + But this ever-growing idea of mind is really irreconcilable with the + abstract Pantheism of the Eleatics. To the passionate language of + Parmenides, Plato replies in a strain equally passionate:—What! has + not Being mind? and is not Being capable of being known? and, if this is + admitted, then capable of being affected or acted upon?—in motion, + then, and yet not wholly incapable of rest. Already we have been compelled + to attribute opposite determinations to Being. And the answer to the + difficulty about Being may be equally the answer to the difficulty about + Not-being. + </p> + <p> + The answer is, that in these and all other determinations of any notion we + are attributing to it 'Not-being.' We went in search of Not-being and + seemed to lose Being, and now in the hunt after Being we recover both. + Not-being is a kind of Being, and in a sense co-extensive with Being. And + there are as many divisions of Not-being as of Being. To every positive + idea—'just,' 'beautiful,' and the like, there is a corresponding + negative idea—'not-just,' 'not-beautiful,' and the like. + </p> + <p> + A doubt may be raised whether this account of the negative is really the + true one. The common logicians would say that the 'not-just,' + 'not-beautiful,' are not really classes at all, but are merged in one + great class of the infinite or negative. The conception of Plato, in the + days before logic, seems to be more correct than this. For the word 'not' + does not altogether annihilate the positive meaning of the word 'just': at + least, it does not prevent our looking for the 'not-just' in or about the + same class in which we might expect to find the 'just.' 'Not-just is + not-honourable' is neither a false nor an unmeaning proposition. The + reason is that the negative proposition has really passed into an + undefined positive. To say that 'not-just' has no more meaning than + 'not-honourable'—that is to say, that the two cannot in any degree + be distinguished, is clearly repugnant to the common use of language. + </p> + <p> + The ordinary logic is also jealous of the explanation of negation as + relation, because seeming to take away the principle of contradiction. + Plato, as far as we know, is the first philosopher who distinctly + enunciated this principle; and though we need not suppose him to have been + always consistent with himself, there is no real inconsistency between his + explanation of the negative and the principle of contradiction. Neither + the Platonic notion of the negative as the principle of difference, nor + the Hegelian identity of Being and Not-being, at all touch the principle + of contradiction. For what is asserted about Being and Not-Being only + relates to our most abstract notions, and in no way interferes with the + principle of contradiction employed in the concrete. Because Not-being is + identified with Other, or Being with Not-being, this does not make the + proposition 'Some have not eaten' any the less a contradiction of 'All + have eaten.' + </p> + <p> + The explanation of the negative given by Plato in the Sophist is a true + but partial one; for the word 'not,' besides the meaning of 'other,' may + also imply 'opposition.' And difference or opposition may be either total + or partial: the not-beautiful may be other than the beautiful, or in no + relation to the beautiful, or a specific class in various degrees opposed + to the beautiful. And the negative may be a negation of fact or of thought + (ou and me). Lastly, there are certain ideas, such as 'beginning,' + 'becoming,' 'the finite,' 'the abstract,' in which the negative cannot be + separated from the positive, and 'Being' and 'Not-being' are inextricably + blended. + </p> + <p> + Plato restricts the conception of Not-being to difference. Man is a + rational animal, and is not—as many other things as are not included + under this definition. He is and is not, and is because he is not. Besides + the positive class to which he belongs, there are endless negative classes + to which he may be referred. This is certainly intelligible, but useless. + To refer a subject to a negative class is unmeaning, unless the 'not' is a + mere modification of the positive, as in the example of 'not honourable' + and 'dishonourable'; or unless the class is characterized by the absence + rather than the presence of a particular quality. + </p> + <p> + Nor is it easy to see how Not-being any more than Sameness or Otherness is + one of the classes of Being. They are aspects rather than classes of + Being. Not-being can only be included in Being, as the denial of some + particular class of Being. If we attempt to pursue such airy phantoms at + all, the Hegelian identity of Being and Not-being is a more apt and + intelligible expression of the same mental phenomenon. For Plato has not + distinguished between the Being which is prior to Not-being, and the Being + which is the negation of Not-being (compare Parm.). + </p> + <p> + But he is not thinking of this when he says that Being comprehends + Not-being. Again, we should probably go back for the true explanation to + the influence which the Eleatic philosophy exercised over him. Under + 'Not-being' the Eleatic had included all the realities of the sensible + world. Led by this association and by the common use of language, which + has been already noticed, we cannot be much surprised that Plato should + have made classes of Not-being. It is observable that he does not + absolutely deny that there is an opposite of Being. He is inclined to + leave the question, merely remarking that the opposition, if admissible at + all, is not expressed by the term 'Not-being.' + </p> + <p> + On the whole, we must allow that the great service rendered by Plato to + metaphysics in the Sophist, is not his explanation of 'Not-being' as + difference. With this he certainly laid the ghost of 'Not-being'; and we + may attribute to him in a measure the credit of anticipating Spinoza and + Hegel. But his conception is not clear or consistent; he does not + recognize the different senses of the negative, and he confuses the + different classes of Not-being with the abstract notion. As the + Pre-Socratic philosopher failed to distinguish between the universal and + the true, while he placed the particulars of sense under the false and + apparent, so Plato appears to identify negation with falsehood, or is + unable to distinguish them. The greatest service rendered by him to mental + science is the recognition of the communion of classes, which, although + based by him on his account of 'Not-being,' is independent of it. He + clearly saw that the isolation of ideas or classes is the annihilation of + reasoning. Thus, after wandering in many diverging paths, we return to + common sense. And for this reason we may be inclined to do less than + justice to Plato,—because the truth which he attains by a real + effort of thought is to us a familiar and unconscious truism, which no one + would any longer think either of doubting or examining. + </p> + <p> + IV. The later dialogues of Plato contain many references to contemporary + philosophy. Both in the Theaetetus and in the Sophist he recognizes that + he is in the midst of a fray; a huge irregular battle everywhere surrounds + him (Theaet.). First, there are the two great philosophies going back into + cosmogony and poetry: the philosophy of Heracleitus, supposed to have a + poetical origin in Homer, and that of the Eleatics, which in a similar + spirit he conceives to be even older than Xenophanes (compare Protag.). + Still older were theories of two and three principles, hot and cold, moist + and dry, which were ever marrying and being given in marriage: in speaking + of these, he is probably referring to Pherecydes and the early Ionians. In + the philosophy of motion there were different accounts of the relation of + plurality and unity, which were supposed to be joined and severed by love + and hate, some maintaining that this process was perpetually going on + (e.g. Heracleitus); others (e.g. Empedocles) that there was an alternation + of them. Of the Pythagoreans or of Anaxagoras he makes no distinct + mention. His chief opponents are, first, Eristics or Megarians; secondly, + the Materialists. + </p> + <p> + The picture which he gives of both these latter schools is indistinct; and + he appears reluctant to mention the names of their teachers. Nor can we + easily determine how much is to be assigned to the Cynics, how much to the + Megarians, or whether the 'repellent Materialists' (Theaet.) are Cynics or + Atomists, or represent some unknown phase of opinion at Athens. To the + Cynics and Antisthenes is commonly attributed, on the authority of + Aristotle, the denial of predication, while the Megarians are said to have + been Nominalists, asserting the One Good under many names to be the true + Being of Zeno and the Eleatics, and, like Zeno, employing their negative + dialectic in the refutation of opponents. But the later Megarians also + denied predication; and this tenet, which is attributed to all of them by + Simplicius, is certainly in accordance with their over-refining + philosophy. The 'tyros young and old,' of whom Plato speaks, probably + include both. At any rate, we shall be safer in accepting the general + description of them which he has given, and in not attempting to draw a + precise line between them. + </p> + <p> + Of these Eristics, whether Cynics or Megarians, several characteristics + are found in Plato:— + </p> + <p> + 1. They pursue verbal oppositions; 2. they make reasoning impossible by + their over-accuracy in the use of language; 3. they deny predication; 4. + they go from unity to plurality, without passing through the intermediate + stages; 5. they refuse to attribute motion or power to Being; 6. they are + the enemies of sense;—whether they are the 'friends of ideas,' who + carry on the polemic against sense, is uncertain; probably under this + remarkable expression Plato designates those who more nearly approached + himself, and may be criticizing an earlier form of his own doctrines. We + may observe (1) that he professes only to give us a few opinions out of + many which were at that time current in Greece; (2) that he nowhere + alludes to the ethical teaching of the Cynics—unless the argument in + the Protagoras, that the virtues are one and not many, may be supposed to + contain a reference to their views, as well as to those of Socrates; and + unless they are the school alluded to in the Philebus, which is described + as 'being very skilful in physics, and as maintaining pleasure to be the + absence of pain.' That Antisthenes wrote a book called 'Physicus,' is + hardly a sufficient reason for describing them as skilful in physics, + which appear to have been very alien to the tendency of the Cynics. + </p> + <p> + The Idealism of the fourth century before Christ in Greece, as in other + ages and countries, seems to have provoked a reaction towards Materialism. + The maintainers of this doctrine are described in the Theaetetus as + obstinate persons who will believe in nothing which they cannot hold in + their hands, and in the Sophist as incapable of argument. They are + probably the same who are said in the Tenth Book of the Laws to attribute + the course of events to nature, art, and chance. Who they were, we have no + means of determining except from Plato's description of them. His silence + respecting the Atomists might lead us to suppose that here we have a trace + of them. But the Atomists were not Materialists in the grosser sense of + the term, nor were they incapable of reasoning; and Plato would hardly + have described a great genius like Democritus in the disdainful terms + which he uses of the Materialists. Upon the whole, we must infer that the + persons here spoken of are unknown to us, like the many other writers and + talkers at Athens and elsewhere, of whose endless activity of mind + Aristotle in his Metaphysics has preserved an anonymous memorial. + </p> + <p> + V. The Sophist is the sequel of the Theaetetus, and is connected with the + Parmenides by a direct allusion (compare Introductions to Theaetetus and + Parmenides). In the Theaetetus we sought to discover the nature of + knowledge and false opinion. But the nature of false opinion seemed + impenetrable; for we were unable to understand how there could be any + reality in Not-being. In the Sophist the question is taken up again; the + nature of Not-being is detected, and there is no longer any metaphysical + impediment in the way of admitting the possibility of falsehood. To the + Parmenides, the Sophist stands in a less defined and more remote relation. + There human thought is in process of disorganization; no absurdity or + inconsistency is too great to be elicited from the analysis of the simple + ideas of Unity or Being. In the Sophist the same contradictions are + pursued to a certain extent, but only with a view to their resolution. The + aim of the dialogue is to show how the few elemental conceptions of the + human mind admit of a natural connexion in thought and speech, which + Megarian or other sophistry vainly attempts to deny. + </p> + <p> + ... + </p> + <p> + True to the appointment of the previous day, Theodorus and Theaetetus meet + Socrates at the same spot, bringing with them an Eleatic Stranger, whom + Theodorus introduces as a true philosopher. Socrates, half in jest, half + in earnest, declares that he must be a god in disguise, who, as Homer + would say, has come to earth that he may visit the good and evil among + men, and detect the foolishness of Athenian wisdom. At any rate he is a + divine person, one of a class who are hardly recognized on earth; who + appear in divers forms—now as statesmen, now as sophists, and are + often deemed madmen. 'Philosopher, statesman, sophist,' says Socrates, + repeating the words—'I should like to ask our Eleatic friend what + his countrymen think of them; do they regard them as one, or three?' + </p> + <p> + The Stranger has been already asked the same question by Theodorus and + Theaetetus; and he at once replies that they are thought to be three; but + to explain the difference fully would take time. He is pressed to give + this fuller explanation, either in the form of a speech or of question and + answer. He prefers the latter, and chooses as his respondent Theaetetus, + whom he already knows, and who is recommended to him by Socrates. + </p> + <p> + We are agreed, he says, about the name Sophist, but we may not be equally + agreed about his nature. Great subjects should be approached through + familiar examples, and, considering that he is a creature not easily + caught, I think that, before approaching him, we should try our hand upon + some more obvious animal, who may be made the subject of logical + experiment; shall we say an angler? 'Very good.' + </p> + <p> + In the first place, the angler is an artist; and there are two kinds of + art,—productive art, which includes husbandry, manufactures, + imitations; and acquisitive art, which includes learning, trading, + fighting, hunting. The angler's is an acquisitive art, and acquisition may + be effected either by exchange or by conquest; in the latter case, either + by force or craft. Conquest by craft is called hunting, and of hunting + there is one kind which pursues inanimate, and another which pursues + animate objects; and animate objects may be either land animals or water + animals, and water animals either fly over the water or live in the water. + The hunting of the last is called fishing; and of fishing, one kind uses + enclosures, catching the fish in nets and baskets, and another kind + strikes them either with spears by night or with barbed spears or barbed + hooks by day; the barbed spears are impelled from above, the barbed hooks + are jerked into the head and lips of the fish, which are then drawn from + below upwards. Thus, by a series of divisions, we have arrived at the + definition of the angler's art. + </p> + <p> + And now by the help of this example we may proceed to bring to light the + nature of the Sophist. Like the angler, he is an artist, and the + resemblance does not end here. For they are both hunters, and hunters of + animals; the one of water, and the other of land animals. But at this + point they diverge, the one going to the sea and the rivers, and the other + to the rivers of wealth and rich meadow-lands, in which generous youth + abide. On land you may hunt tame animals, or you may hunt wild animals. + And man is a tame animal, and he may be hunted either by force or + persuasion;—either by the pirate, man-stealer, soldier, or by the + lawyer, orator, talker. The latter use persuasion, and persuasion is + either private or public. Of the private practitioners of the art, some + bring gifts to those whom they hunt: these are lovers. And others take + hire; and some of these flatter, and in return are fed; others profess to + teach virtue and receive a round sum. And who are these last? Tell me who? + Have we not unearthed the Sophist? + </p> + <p> + But he is a many-sided creature, and may still be traced in another line + of descent. The acquisitive art had a branch of exchange as well as of + hunting, and exchange is either giving or selling; and the seller is + either a manufacturer or a merchant; and the merchant either retails or + exports; and the exporter may export either food for the body or food for + the mind. And of this trading in food for the mind, one kind may be termed + the art of display, and another the art of selling learning; and learning + may be a learning of the arts or of virtue. The seller of the arts may be + called an art-seller; the seller of virtue, a Sophist. + </p> + <p> + Again, there is a third line, in which a Sophist may be traced. For is he + less a Sophist when, instead of exporting his wares to another country, he + stays at home, and retails goods, which he not only buys of others, but + manufactures himself? + </p> + <p> + Or he may be descended from the acquisitive art in the combative line, + through the pugnacious, the controversial, the disputatious arts; and he + will be found at last in the eristic section of the latter, and in that + division of it which disputes in private for gain about the general + principles of right and wrong. + </p> + <p> + And still there is a track of him which has not yet been followed out by + us. Do not our household servants talk of sifting, straining, winnowing? + And they also speak of carding, spinning, and the like. All these are + processes of division; and of division there are two kinds,—one in + which like is divided from like, and another in which the good is + separated from the bad. The latter of the two is termed purification; and + again, of purification, there are two sorts,—of animate bodies + (which may be internal or external), and of inanimate. Medicine and + gymnastic are the internal purifications of the animate, and bathing the + external; and of the inanimate, fulling and cleaning and other humble + processes, some of which have ludicrous names. Not that dialectic is a + respecter of names or persons, or a despiser of humble occupations; nor + does she think much of the greater or less benefits conferred by them. For + her aim is knowledge; she wants to know how the arts are related to one + another, and would quite as soon learn the nature of hunting from the + vermin-destroyer as from the general. And she only desires to have a + general name, which shall distinguish purifications of the soul from + purifications of the body. + </p> + <p> + Now purification is the taking away of evil; and there are two kinds of + evil in the soul,—the one answering to disease in the body, and the + other to deformity. Disease is the discord or war of opposite principles + in the soul; and deformity is the want of symmetry, or failure in the + attainment of a mark or measure. The latter arises from ignorance, and no + one is voluntarily ignorant; ignorance is only the aberration of the soul + moving towards knowledge. And as medicine cures the diseases and gymnastic + the deformity of the body, so correction cures the injustice, and + education (which differs among the Hellenes from mere instruction in the + arts) cures the ignorance of the soul. Again, ignorance is twofold, simple + ignorance, and ignorance having the conceit of knowledge. And education is + also twofold: there is the old-fashioned moral training of our + forefathers, which was very troublesome and not very successful; and + another, of a more subtle nature, which proceeds upon a notion that all + ignorance is involuntary. The latter convicts a man out of his own mouth, + by pointing out to him his inconsistencies and contradictions; and the + consequence is that he quarrels with himself, instead of quarrelling with + his neighbours, and is cured of prejudices and obstructions by a mode of + treatment which is equally entertaining and effectual. The physician of + the soul is aware that his patient will receive no nourishment unless he + has been cleaned out; and the soul of the Great King himself, if he has + not undergone this purification, is unclean and impure. + </p> + <p> + And who are the ministers of the purification? Sophists I may not call + them. Yet they bear about the same likeness to Sophists as the dog, who is + the gentlest of animals, does to the wolf, who is the fiercest. + Comparisons are slippery things; but for the present let us assume the + resemblance of the two, which may probably be disallowed hereafter. And + so, from division comes purification; and from this, mental purification; + and from mental purification, instruction; and from instruction, + education; and from education, the nobly-descended art of Sophistry, which + is engaged in the detection of conceit. I do not however think that we + have yet found the Sophist, or that his will ultimately prove to be the + desired art of education; but neither do I think that he can long escape + me, for every way is blocked. Before we make the final assault, let us + take breath, and reckon up the many forms which he has assumed: (1) he was + the paid hunter of wealth and birth; (2) he was the trader in the goods of + the soul; (3) he was the retailer of them; (4) he was the manufacturer of + his own learned wares; (5) he was the disputant; and (6) he was the purger + away of prejudices—although this latter point is admitted to be + doubtful. + </p> + <p> + Now, there must surely be something wrong in the professor of any art + having so many names and kinds of knowledge. Does not the very number of + them imply that the nature of his art is not understood? And that we may + not be involved in the misunderstanding, let us observe which of his + characteristics is the most prominent. Above all things he is a disputant. + He will dispute and teach others to dispute about things visible and + invisible—about man, about the gods, about politics, about law, + about wrestling, about all things. But can he know all things? 'He + cannot.' How then can he dispute satisfactorily with any one who knows? + 'Impossible.' Then what is the trick of his art, and why does he receive + money from his admirers? 'Because he is believed by them to know all + things.' You mean to say that he seems to have a knowledge of them? 'Yes.' + </p> + <p> + Suppose a person were to say, not that he would dispute about all things, + but that he would make all things, you and me, and all other creatures, + the earth and the heavens and the gods, and would sell them all for a few + pence—this would be a great jest; but not greater than if he said + that he knew all things, and could teach them in a short time, and at a + small cost. For all imitation is a jest, and the most graceful form of + jest. Now the painter is a man who professes to make all things, and + children, who see his pictures at a distance, sometimes take them for + realities: and the Sophist pretends to know all things, and he, too, can + deceive young men, who are still at a distance from the truth, not through + their eyes, but through their ears, by the mummery of words, and induce + them to believe him. But as they grow older, and come into contact with + realities, they learn by experience the futility of his pretensions. The + Sophist, then, has not real knowledge; he is only an imitator, or + image-maker. + </p> + <p> + And now, having got him in a corner of the dialectical net, let us divide + and subdivide until we catch him. Of image-making there are two kinds,—the + art of making likenesses, and the art of making appearances. The latter + may be illustrated by sculpture and painting, which often use illusions, + and alter the proportions of figures, in order to adapt their works to the + eye. And the Sophist also uses illusions, and his imitations are apparent + and not real. But how can anything be an appearance only? Here arises a + difficulty which has always beset the subject of appearances. For the + argument is asserting the existence of not-being. And this is what the + great Parmenides was all his life denying in prose and also in verse. 'You + will never find,' he says, 'that not-being is.' And the words prove + themselves! Not-being cannot be attributed to any being; for how can any + being be wholly abstracted from being? Again, in every predication there + is an attribution of singular or plural. But number is the most real of + all things, and cannot be attributed to not-being. Therefore not-being + cannot be predicated or expressed; for how can we say 'is,' 'are not,' + without number? + </p> + <p> + And now arises the greatest difficulty of all. If not-being is + inconceivable, how can not-being be refuted? And am I not contradicting + myself at this moment, in speaking either in the singular or the plural of + that to which I deny both plurality and unity? You, Theaetetus, have the + might of youth, and I conjure you to exert yourself, and, if you can, to + find an expression for not-being which does not imply being and number. + 'But I cannot.' Then the Sophist must be left in his hole. We may call him + an image-maker if we please, but he will only say, 'And pray, what is an + image?' And we shall reply, 'A reflection in the water, or in a mirror'; + and he will say, 'Let us shut our eyes and open our minds; what is the + common notion of all images?' 'I should answer, Such another, made in the + likeness of the true.' Real or not real? 'Not real; at least, not in a + true sense.' And the real 'is,' and the not-real 'is not'? 'Yes.' Then a + likeness is really unreal, and essentially not. Here is a pretty + complication of being and not-being, in which the many-headed Sophist has + entangled us. He will at once point out that he is compelling us to + contradict ourselves, by affirming being of not-being. I think that we + must cease to look for him in the class of imitators. + </p> + <p> + But ought we to give him up? 'I should say, certainly not.' Then I fear + that I must lay hands on my father Parmenides; but do not call me a + parricide; for there is no way out of the difficulty except to show that + in some sense not-being is; and if this is not admitted, no one can speak + of falsehood, or false opinion, or imitation, without falling into a + contradiction. You observe how unwilling I am to undertake the task; for I + know that I am exposing myself to the charge of inconsistency in asserting + the being of not-being. But if I am to make the attempt, I think that I + had better begin at the beginning. + </p> + <p> + Lightly in the days of our youth, Parmenides and others told us tales + about the origin of the universe: one spoke of three principles warring + and at peace again, marrying and begetting children; another of two + principles, hot and cold, dry and moist, which also formed relationships. + There were the Eleatics in our part of the world, saying that all things + are one; whose doctrine begins with Xenophanes, and is even older. Ionian, + and, more recently, Sicilian muses speak of a one and many which are held + together by enmity and friendship, ever parting, ever meeting. Some of + them do not insist on the perpetual strife, but adopt a gentler strain, + and speak of alternation only. Whether they are right or not, who can say? + But one thing we can say—that they went on their way without much + caring whether we understood them or not. For tell me, Theaetetus, do you + understand what they mean by their assertion of unity, or by their + combinations and separations of two or more principles? I used to think, + when I was young, that I knew all about not-being, and now I am in great + difficulties even about being. + </p> + <p> + Let us proceed first to the examination of being. Turning to the dualist + philosophers, we say to them: Is being a third element besides hot and + cold? or do you identify one or both of the two elements with being? At + any rate, you can hardly avoid resolving them into one. Let us next + interrogate the patrons of the one. To them we say: Are being and one two + different names for the same thing? But how can there be two names when + there is nothing but one? Or you may identify them; but then the name will + be either the name of nothing or of itself, i.e. of a name. Again, the + notion of being is conceived of as a whole—in the words of + Parmenides, 'like every way unto a rounded sphere.' And a whole has parts; + but that which has parts is not one, for unity has no parts. Is being, + then, one, because the parts of being are one, or shall we say that being + is not a whole? In the former case, one is made up of parts; and in the + latter there is still plurality, viz. being, and a whole which is apart + from being. And being, if not all things, lacks something of the nature of + being, and becomes not-being. Nor can being ever have come into existence, + for nothing comes into existence except as a whole; nor can being have + number, for that which has number is a whole or sum of number. These are a + few of the difficulties which are accumulating one upon another in the + consideration of being. + </p> + <p> + We may proceed now to the less exact sort of philosophers. Some of them + drag down everything to earth, and carry on a war like that of the giants, + grasping rocks and oaks in their hands. Their adversaries defend + themselves warily from an invisible world, and reduce the substances of + their opponents to the minutest fractions, until they are lost in + generation and flux. The latter sort are civil people enough; but the + materialists are rude and ignorant of dialectics; they must be taught how + to argue before they can answer. Yet, for the sake of the argument, we may + assume them to be better than they are, and able to give an account of + themselves. They admit the existence of a mortal living creature, which is + a body containing a soul, and to this they would not refuse to attribute + qualities—wisdom, folly, justice and injustice. The soul, as they + say, has a kind of body, but they do not like to assert of these qualities + of the soul, either that they are corporeal, or that they have no + existence; at this point they begin to make distinctions. 'Sons of earth,' + we say to them, 'if both visible and invisible qualities exist, what is + the common nature which is attributed to them by the term "being" or + "existence"?' And, as they are incapable of answering this question, we + may as well reply for them, that being is the power of doing or suffering. + Then we turn to the friends of ideas: to them we say, 'You distinguish + becoming from being?' 'Yes,' they will reply. 'And in becoming you + participate through the bodily senses, and in being, by thought and the + mind?' 'Yes.' And you mean by the word 'participation' a power of doing or + suffering? To this they answer—I am acquainted with them, + Theaetetus, and know their ways better than you do—that being can + neither do nor suffer, though becoming may. And we rejoin: Does not the + soul know? And is not 'being' known? And are not 'knowing' and 'being + known' active and passive? That which is known is affected by knowledge, + and therefore is in motion. And, indeed, how can we imagine that perfect + being is a mere everlasting form, devoid of motion and soul? for there can + be no thought without soul, nor can soul be devoid of motion. But neither + can thought or mind be devoid of some principle of rest or stability. And + as children say entreatingly, 'Give us both,' so the philosopher must + include both the moveable and immoveable in his idea of being. And yet, + alas! he and we are in the same difficulty with which we reproached the + dualists; for motion and rest are contradictions—how then can they + both exist? Does he who affirms this mean to say that motion is rest, or + rest motion? 'No; he means to assert the existence of some third thing, + different from them both, which neither rests nor moves.' But how can + there be anything which neither rests nor moves? Here is a second + difficulty about being, quite as great as that about not-being. And we may + hope that any light which is thrown upon the one may extend to the other. + </p> + <p> + Leaving them for the present, let us enquire what we mean by giving many + names to the same thing, e.g. white, good, tall, to man; out of which + tyros old and young derive such a feast of amusement. Their meagre minds + refuse to predicate anything of anything; they say that good is good, and + man is man; and that to affirm one of the other would be making the many + one and the one many. Let us place them in a class with our previous + opponents, and interrogate both of them at once. Shall we assume (1) that + being and rest and motion, and all other things, are incommunicable with + one another? or (2) that they all have indiscriminate communion? or (3) + that there is communion of some and not of others? And we will consider + the first hypothesis first of all. + </p> + <p> + (1) If we suppose the universal separation of kinds, all theories alike + are swept away; the patrons of a single principle of rest or of motion, or + of a plurality of immutable ideas—all alike have the ground cut from + under them; and all creators of the universe by theories of composition + and division, whether out of or into a finite or infinite number of + elemental forms, in alternation or continuance, share the same fate. Most + ridiculous is the discomfiture which attends the opponents of predication, + who, like the ventriloquist Eurycles, have the voice that answers them in + their own breast. For they cannot help using the words 'is,' 'apart,' + 'from others,' and the like; and their adversaries are thus saved the + trouble of refuting them. But (2) if all things have communion with all + things, motion will rest, and rest will move; here is a reductio ad + absurdum. Two out of the three hypotheses are thus seen to be false. The + third (3) remains, which affirms that only certain things communicate with + certain other things. In the alphabet and the scale there are some letters + and notes which combine with others, and some which do not; and the laws + according to which they combine or are separated are known to the + grammarian and musician. And there is a science which teaches not only + what notes and letters, but what classes admit of combination with one + another, and what not. This is a noble science, on which we have stumbled + unawares; in seeking after the Sophist we have found the philosopher. He + is the master who discerns one whole or form pervading a scattered + multitude, and many such wholes combined under a higher one, and many + entirely apart—he is the true dialectician. Like the Sophist, he is + hard to recognize, though for the opposite reasons; the Sophist runs away + into the obscurity of not-being, the philosopher is dark from excess of + light. And now, leaving him, we will return to our pursuit of the Sophist. + </p> + <p> + Agreeing in the truth of the third hypothesis, that some things have + communion and others not, and that some may have communion with all, let + us examine the most important kinds which are capable of admixture; and in + this way we may perhaps find out a sense in which not-being may be + affirmed to have being. Now the highest kinds are being, rest, motion; and + of these, rest and motion exclude each other, but both of them are + included in being; and again, they are the same with themselves and the + other of each other. What is the meaning of these words, 'same' and + 'other'? Are there two more kinds to be added to the three others? For + sameness cannot be either rest or motion, because predicated both of rest + and motion; nor yet being; because if being were attributed to both of + them we should attribute sameness to both of them. Nor can other be + identified with being; for then other, which is relative, would have the + absoluteness of being. Therefore we must assume a fifth principle, which + is universal, and runs through all things, for each thing is other than + all other things. Thus there are five principles: (1) being, (2) motion, + which is not (3) rest, and because participating both in the same and + other, is and is not (4) the same with itself, and is and is not (5) other + than the other. And motion is not being, but partakes of being, and + therefore is and is not in the most absolute sense. Thus we have + discovered that not-being is the principle of the other which runs through + all things, being not excepted. And 'being' is one thing, and 'not-being' + includes and is all other things. And not-being is not the opposite of + being, but only the other. Knowledge has many branches, and the other or + difference has as many, each of which is described by prefixing the word + 'not' to some kind of knowledge. The not-beautiful is as real as the + beautiful, the not-just as the just. And the essence of the not-beautiful + is to be separated from and opposed to a certain kind of existence which + is termed beautiful. And this opposition and negation is the not-being of + which we are in search, and is one kind of being. Thus, in spite of + Parmenides, we have not only discovered the existence, but also the nature + of not-being—that nature we have found to be relation. In the + communion of different kinds, being and other mutually interpenetrate; + other is, but is other than being, and other than each and all of the + remaining kinds, and therefore in an infinity of ways 'is not.' And the + argument has shown that the pursuit of contradictions is childish and + useless, and the very opposite of that higher spirit which criticizes the + words of another according to the natural meaning of them. Nothing can be + more unphilosophical than the denial of all communion of kinds. And we are + fortunate in having established such a communion for another reason, + because in continuing the hunt after the Sophist we have to examine the + nature of discourse, and there could be no discourse if there were no + communion. For the Sophist, although he can no longer deny the existence + of not-being, may still affirm that not-being cannot enter into discourse, + and as he was arguing before that there could be no such thing as + falsehood, because there was no such thing as not-being, he may continue + to argue that there is no such thing as the art of image-making and + phantastic, because not-being has no place in language. Hence arises the + necessity of examining speech, opinion, and imagination. + </p> + <p> + And first concerning speech; let us ask the same question about words + which we have already answered about the kinds of being and the letters of + the alphabet: To what extent do they admit of combination? Some words have + a meaning when combined, and others have no meaning. One class of words + describes action, another class agents: 'walks,' 'runs,' 'sleeps' are + examples of the first; 'stag,' 'horse,' 'lion' of the second. But no + combination of words can be formed without a verb and a noun, e.g. 'A man + learns'; the simplest sentence is composed of two words, and one of these + must be a subject. For example, in the sentence, 'Theaetetus sits,' which + is not very long, 'Theaetetus' is the subject, and in the sentence + 'Theaetetus flies,' 'Theaetetus' is again the subject. But the two + sentences differ in quality, for the first says of you that which is true, + and the second says of you that which is not true, or, in other words, + attributes to you things which are not as though they were. Here is false + discourse in the shortest form. And thus not only speech, but thought and + opinion and imagination are proved to be both true and false. For thought + is only the process of silent speech, and opinion is only the silent + assent or denial which follows this, and imagination is only the + expression of this in some form of sense. All of them are akin to speech, + and therefore, like speech, admit of true and false. And we have + discovered false opinion, which is an encouraging sign of our probable + success in the rest of the enquiry. + </p> + <p> + Then now let us return to our old division of likeness-making and + phantastic. When we were going to place the Sophist in one of them, a + doubt arose whether there could be such a thing as an appearance, because + there was no such thing as falsehood. At length falsehood has been + discovered by us to exist, and we have acknowledged that the Sophist is to + be found in the class of imitators. All art was divided originally by us + into two branches—productive and acquisitive. And now we may divide + both on a different principle into the creations or imitations which are + of human, and those which are of divine, origin. For we must admit that + the world and ourselves and the animals did not come into existence by + chance, or the spontaneous working of nature, but by divine reason and + knowledge. And there are not only divine creations but divine imitations, + such as apparitions and shadows and reflections, which are equally the + work of a divine mind. And there are human creations and human imitations + too,—there is the actual house and the drawing of it. Nor must we + forget that image-making may be an imitation of realities or an imitation + of appearances, which last has been called by us phantastic. And this + phantastic may be again divided into imitation by the help of instruments + and impersonations. And the latter may be either dissembling or + unconscious, either with or without knowledge. A man cannot imitate you, + Theaetetus, without knowing you, but he can imitate the form of justice or + virtue if he have a sentiment or opinion about them. Not being well + provided with names, the former I will venture to call the imitation of + science, and the latter the imitation of opinion. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> +The latter is our present concern, for the Sophist has no claims to +science or knowledge. Now the imitator, who has only opinion, may be +either the simple imitator, who thinks that he knows, or the dissembler, +who is conscious that he does not know, but disguises his ignorance. And +the last may be either a maker of long speeches, or of shorter speeches +which compel the person conversing to contradict himself. The maker of +longer speeches is the popular orator; the maker of the shorter is +the Sophist, whose art may be traced as being the + + / contradictious + / dissembling + / without knowledge + / human and not divine + / juggling with words + / phantastic or unreal + / art of image-making. +</pre> + <p> + ... + </p> + <p> + In commenting on the dialogue in which Plato most nearly approaches the + great modern master of metaphysics there are several points which it will + be useful to consider, such as the unity of opposites, the conception of + the ideas as causes, and the relation of the Platonic and Hegelian + dialectic. + </p> + <p> + The unity of opposites was the crux of ancient thinkers in the age of + Plato: How could one thing be or become another? That substances have + attributes was implied in common language; that heat and cold, day and + night, pass into one another was a matter of experience 'on a level with + the cobbler's understanding' (Theat.). But how could philosophy explain + the connexion of ideas, how justify the passing of them into one another? + The abstractions of one, other, being, not-being, rest, motion, + individual, universal, which successive generations of philosophers had + recently discovered, seemed to be beyond the reach of human thought, like + stars shining in a distant heaven. They were the symbols of different + schools of philosophy: but in what relation did they stand to one another + and to the world of sense? It was hardly conceivable that one could be + other, or the same different. Yet without some reconciliation of these + elementary ideas thought was impossible. There was no distinction between + truth and falsehood, between the Sophist and the philosopher. Everything + could be predicated of everything, or nothing of anything. To these + difficulties Plato finds what to us appears to be the answer of common + sense—that Not-being is the relative or other of Being, the defining + and distinguishing principle, and that some ideas combine with others, but + not all with all. It is remarkable however that he offers this obvious + reply only as the result of a long and tedious enquiry; by a great effort + he is able to look down as 'from a height' on the 'friends of the ideas' + as well as on the pre-Socratic philosophies. Yet he is merely asserting + principles which no one who could be made to understand them would deny. + </p> + <p> + The Platonic unity of differences or opposites is the beginning of the + modern view that all knowledge is of relations; it also anticipates the + doctrine of Spinoza that all determination is negation. Plato takes or + gives so much of either of these theories as was necessary or possible in + the age in which he lived. In the Sophist, as in the Cratylus, he is + opposed to the Heracleitean flux and equally to the Megarian and Cynic + denial of predication, because he regards both of them as making knowledge + impossible. He does not assert that everything is and is not, or that the + same thing can be affected in the same and in opposite ways at the same + time and in respect of the same part of itself. The law of contradiction + is as clearly laid down by him in the Republic, as by Aristotle in his + Organon. Yet he is aware that in the negative there is also a positive + element, and that oppositions may be only differences. And in the + Parmenides he deduces the many from the one and Not-being from Being, and + yet shows that the many are included in the one, and that Not-being + returns to Being. + </p> + <p> + In several of the later dialogues Plato is occupied with the connexion of + the sciences, which in the Philebus he divides into two classes of pure + and applied, adding to them there as elsewhere (Phaedr., Crat., Republic, + States.) a superintending science of dialectic. This is the origin of + Aristotle's Architectonic, which seems, however, to have passed into an + imaginary science of essence, and no longer to retain any relation to + other branches of knowledge. Of such a science, whether described as + 'philosophia prima,' the science of ousia, logic or metaphysics, + philosophers have often dreamed. But even now the time has not arrived + when the anticipation of Plato can be realized. Though many a thinker has + framed a 'hierarchy of the sciences,' no one has as yet found the higher + science which arrays them in harmonious order, giving to the organic and + inorganic, to the physical and moral, their respective limits, and showing + how they all work together in the world and in man. + </p> + <p> + Plato arranges in order the stages of knowledge and of existence. They are + the steps or grades by which he rises from sense and the shadows of sense + to the idea of beauty and good. Mind is in motion as well as at rest + (Soph.); and may be described as a dialectical progress which passes from + one limit or determination of thought to another and back again to the + first. This is the account of dialectic given by Plato in the Sixth Book + of the Republic, which regarded under another aspect is the mysticism of + the Symposium. He does not deny the existence of objects of sense, but + according to him they only receive their true meaning when they are + incorporated in a principle which is above them (Republic). In modern + language they might be said to come first in the order of experience, last + in the order of nature and reason. They are assumed, as he is fond of + repeating, upon the condition that they shall give an account of + themselves and that the truth of their existence shall be hereafter + proved. For philosophy must begin somewhere and may begin anywhere,—with + outward objects, with statements of opinion, with abstract principles. But + objects of sense must lead us onward to the ideas or universals which are + contained in them; the statements of opinion must be verified; the + abstract principles must be filled up and connected with one another. In + Plato we find, as we might expect, the germs of many thoughts which have + been further developed by the genius of Spinoza and Hegel. But there is a + difficulty in separating the germ from the flower, or in drawing the line + which divides ancient from modern philosophy. Many coincidences which + occur in them are unconscious, seeming to show a natural tendency in the + human mind towards certain ideas and forms of thought. And there are many + speculations of Plato which would have passed away unheeded, and their + meaning, like that of some hieroglyphic, would have remained undeciphered, + unless two thousand years and more afterwards an interpreter had arisen of + a kindred spirit and of the same intellectual family. For example, in the + Sophist Plato begins with the abstract and goes on to the concrete, not in + the lower sense of returning to outward objects, but to the Hegelian + concrete or unity of abstractions. In the intervening period hardly any + importance would have been attached to the question which is so full of + meaning to Plato and Hegel. + </p> + <p> + They differ however in their manner of regarding the question. For Plato + is answering a difficulty; he is seeking to justify the use of common + language and of ordinary thought into which philosophy had introduced a + principle of doubt and dissolution. Whereas Hegel tries to go beyond + common thought, and to combine abstractions in a higher unity: the + ordinary mechanism of language and logic is carried by him into another + region in which all oppositions are absorbed and all contradictions + affirmed, only that they may be done away with. But Plato, unlike Hegel, + nowhere bases his system on the unity of opposites, although in the + Parmenides he shows an Hegelian subtlety in the analysis of one and Being. + </p> + <p> + It is difficult within the compass of a few pages to give even a faint + outline of the Hegelian dialectic. No philosophy which is worth + understanding can be understood in a moment; common sense will not teach + us metaphysics any more than mathematics. If all sciences demand of us + protracted study and attention, the highest of all can hardly be matter of + immediate intuition. Neither can we appreciate a great system without + yielding a half assent to it—like flies we are caught in the + spider's web; and we can only judge of it truly when we place ourselves at + a distance from it. Of all philosophies Hegelianism is the most obscure: + and the difficulty inherent in the subject is increased by the use of a + technical language. The saying of Socrates respecting the writings of + Heracleitus—'Noble is that which I understand, and that which I do + not understand may be as noble; but the strength of a Delian diver is + needed to swim through it'—expresses the feeling with which the + reader rises from the perusal of Hegel. We may truly apply to him the + words in which Plato describes the Pre-Socratic philosophers: 'He went on + his way rather regardless of whether we understood him or not'; or, as he + is reported himself to have said of his own pupils: 'There is only one of + you who understands me, and he does NOT understand me.' + </p> + <p> + Nevertheless the consideration of a few general aspects of the Hegelian + philosophy may help to dispel some errors and to awaken an interest about + it. (i) It is an ideal philosophy which, in popular phraseology, maintains + not matter but mind to be the truth of things, and this not by a mere + crude substitution of one word for another, but by showing either of them + to be the complement of the other. Both are creations of thought, and the + difference in kind which seems to divide them may also be regarded as a + difference of degree. One is to the other as the real to the ideal, and + both may be conceived together under the higher form of the notion. (ii) + Under another aspect it views all the forms of sense and knowledge as + stages of thought which have always existed implicitly and unconsciously, + and to which the mind of the world, gradually disengaged from sense, has + become awakened. The present has been the past. The succession in time of + human ideas is also the eternal 'now'; it is historical and also a divine + ideal. The history of philosophy stripped of personality and of the other + accidents of time and place is gathered up into philosophy, and again + philosophy clothed in circumstance expands into history. (iii) Whether + regarded as present or past, under the form of time or of eternity, the + spirit of dialectic is always moving onwards from one determination of + thought to another, receiving each successive system of philosophy and + subordinating it to that which follows—impelled by an irresistible + necessity from one idea to another until the cycle of human thought and + existence is complete. It follows from this that all previous philosophies + which are worthy of the name are not mere opinions or speculations, but + stages or moments of thought which have a necessary place in the world of + mind. They are no longer the last word of philosophy, for another and + another has succeeded them, but they still live and are mighty; in the + language of the Greek poet, 'There is a great God in them, and he grows + not old.' (iv) This vast ideal system is supposed to be based upon + experience. At each step it professes to carry with it the 'witness of + eyes and ears' and of common sense, as well as the internal evidence of + its own consistency; it has a place for every science, and affirms that no + philosophy of a narrower type is capable of comprehending all true facts. + </p> + <p> + The Hegelian dialectic may be also described as a movement from the simple + to the complex. Beginning with the generalizations of sense, (1) passing + through ideas of quality, quantity, measure, number, and the like, (2) + ascending from presentations, that is pictorial forms of sense, to + representations in which the picture vanishes and the essence is detached + in thought from the outward form, (3) combining the I and the not-I, or + the subject and object, the natural order of thought is at last found to + include the leading ideas of the sciences and to arrange them in relation + to one another. Abstractions grow together and again become concrete in a + new and higher sense. They also admit of development from within their own + spheres. Everywhere there is a movement of attraction and repulsion going + on—an attraction or repulsion of ideas of which the physical + phenomenon described under a similar name is a figure. Freedom and + necessity, mind and matter, the continuous and the discrete, cause and + effect, are perpetually being severed from one another in thought, only to + be perpetually reunited. The finite and infinite, the absolute and + relative are not really opposed; the finite and the negation of the finite + are alike lost in a higher or positive infinity, and the absolute is the + sum or correlation of all relatives. When this reconciliation of opposites + is finally completed in all its stages, the mind may come back again and + review the things of sense, the opinions of philosophers, the strife of + theology and politics, without being disturbed by them. Whatever is, if + not the very best—and what is the best, who can tell?—is, at + any rate, historical and rational, suitable to its own age, unsuitable to + any other. Nor can any efforts of speculative thinkers or of soldiers and + statesmen materially quicken the 'process of the suns.' + </p> + <p> + Hegel was quite sensible how great would be the difficulty of presenting + philosophy to mankind under the form of opposites. Most of us live in the + one-sided truth which the understanding offers to us, and if occasionally + we come across difficulties like the time-honoured controversy of + necessity and free-will, or the Eleatic puzzle of Achilles and the + tortoise, we relegate some of them to the sphere of mystery, others to the + book of riddles, and go on our way rejoicing. Most men (like Aristotle) + have been accustomed to regard a contradiction in terms as the end of + strife; to be told that contradiction is the life and mainspring of the + intellectual world is indeed a paradox to them. Every abstraction is at + first the enemy of every other, yet they are linked together, each with + all, in the chain of Being. The struggle for existence is not confined to + the animals, but appears in the kingdom of thought. The divisions which + arise in thought between the physical and moral and between the moral and + intellectual, and the like, are deepened and widened by the formal logic + which elevates the defects of the human faculties into Laws of Thought; + they become a part of the mind which makes them and is also made up of + them. Such distinctions become so familiar to us that we regard the thing + signified by them as absolutely fixed and defined. These are some of the + illusions from which Hegel delivers us by placing us above ourselves, by + teaching us to analyze the growth of 'what we are pleased to call our + minds,' by reverting to a time when our present distinctions of thought + and language had no existence. + </p> + <p> + Of the great dislike and childish impatience of his system which would be + aroused among his opponents, he was fully aware, and would often + anticipate the jests which the rest of the world, 'in the superfluity of + their wits,' were likely to make upon him. Men are annoyed at what puzzles + them; they think what they cannot easily understand to be full of danger. + Many a sceptic has stood, as he supposed, firmly rooted in the categories + of the understanding which Hegel resolves into their original nothingness. + For, like Plato, he 'leaves no stone unturned' in the intellectual world. + Nor can we deny that he is unnecessarily difficult, or that his own mind, + like that of all metaphysicians, was too much under the dominion of his + system and unable to see beyond: or that the study of philosophy, if made + a serious business (compare Republic), involves grave results to the mind + and life of the student. For it may encumber him without enlightening his + path; and it may weaken his natural faculties of thought and expression + without increasing his philosophical power. The mind easily becomes + entangled among abstractions, and loses hold of facts. The glass which is + adapted to distant objects takes away the vision of what is near and + present to us. + </p> + <p> + To Hegel, as to the ancient Greek thinkers, philosophy was a religion, a + principle of life as well as of knowledge, like the idea of good in the + Sixth Book of the Republic, a cause as well as an effect, the source of + growth as well as of light. In forms of thought which by most of us are + regarded as mere categories, he saw or thought that he saw a gradual + revelation of the Divine Being. He would have been said by his opponents + to have confused God with the history of philosophy, and to have been + incapable of distinguishing ideas from facts. And certainly we can + scarcely understand how a deep thinker like Hegel could have hoped to + revive or supplant the old traditional faith by an unintelligible + abstraction: or how he could have imagined that philosophy consisted only + or chiefly in the categories of logic. For abstractions, though combined + by him in the notion, seem to be never really concrete; they are a + metaphysical anatomy, not a living and thinking substance. Though we are + reminded by him again and again that we are gathering up the world in + ideas, we feel after all that we have not really spanned the gulf which + separates phainomena from onta. + </p> + <p> + Having in view some of these difficulties, he seeks—and we may + follow his example—to make the understanding of his system easier + (a) by illustrations, and (b) by pointing out the coincidence of the + speculative idea and the historical order of thought. + </p> + <p> + (a) If we ask how opposites can coexist, we are told that many different + qualities inhere in a flower or a tree or in any other concrete object, + and that any conception of space or matter or time involves the two + contradictory attributes of divisibility and continuousness. We may ponder + over the thought of number, reminding ourselves that every unit both + implies and denies the existence of every other, and that the one is many—a + sum of fractions, and the many one—a sum of units. We may be + reminded that in nature there is a centripetal as well as a centrifugal + force, a regulator as well as a spring, a law of attraction as well as of + repulsion. The way to the West is the way also to the East; the north pole + of the magnet cannot be divided from the south pole; two minus signs make + a plus in Arithmetic and Algebra. Again, we may liken the successive + layers of thought to the deposits of geological strata which were once + fluid and are now solid, which were at one time uppermost in the series + and are now hidden in the earth; or to the successive rinds or barks of + trees which year by year pass inward; or to the ripple of water which + appears and reappears in an ever-widening circle. Or our attention may be + drawn to ideas which the moment we analyze them involve a contradiction, + such as 'beginning' or 'becoming,' or to the opposite poles, as they are + sometimes termed, of necessity and freedom, of idea and fact. We may be + told to observe that every negative is a positive, that differences of + kind are resolvable into differences of degree, and that differences of + degree may be heightened into differences of kind. We may remember the + common remark that there is much to be said on both sides of a question. + We may be recommended to look within and to explain how opposite ideas can + coexist in our own minds; and we may be told to imagine the minds of all + mankind as one mind in which the true ideas of all ages and countries + inhere. In our conception of God in his relation to man or of any union of + the divine and human nature, a contradiction appears to be unavoidable. Is + not the reconciliation of mind and body a necessity, not only of + speculation but of practical life? Reflections such as these will furnish + the best preparation and give the right attitude of mind for understanding + the Hegelian philosophy. + </p> + <p> + (b) Hegel's treatment of the early Greek thinkers affords the readiest + illustration of his meaning in conceiving all philosophy under the form of + opposites. The first abstraction is to him the beginning of thought. + Hitherto there had only existed a tumultuous chaos of mythological fancy, + but when Thales said 'All is water' a new era began to dawn upon the + world. Man was seeking to grasp the universe under a single form which was + at first simply a material element, the most equable and colourless and + universal which could be found. But soon the human mind became + dissatisfied with the emblem, and after ringing the changes on one element + after another, demanded a more abstract and perfect conception, such as + one or Being, which was absolutely at rest. But the positive had its + negative, the conception of Being involved Not-being, the conception of + one, many, the conception of a whole, parts. Then the pendulum swung to + the other side, from rest to motion, from Xenophanes to Heracleitus. The + opposition of Being and Not-being projected into space became the atoms + and void of Leucippus and Democritus. Until the Atomists, the abstraction + of the individual did not exist; in the philosophy of Anaxagoras the idea + of mind, whether human or divine, was beginning to be realized. The + pendulum gave another swing, from the individual to the universal, from + the object to the subject. The Sophist first uttered the word 'Man is the + measure of all things,' which Socrates presented in a new form as the + study of ethics. Once more we return from mind to the object of mind, + which is knowledge, and out of knowledge the various degrees or kinds of + knowledge more or less abstract were gradually developed. The threefold + division of logic, physic, and ethics, foreshadowed in Plato, was finally + established by Aristotle and the Stoics. Thus, according to Hegel, in the + course of about two centuries by a process of antagonism and negation the + leading thoughts of philosophy were evolved. + </p> + <p> + There is nothing like this progress of opposites in Plato, who in the + Symposium denies the possibility of reconciliation until the opposition + has passed away. In his own words, there is an absurdity in supposing that + 'harmony is discord; for in reality harmony consists of notes of a higher + and lower pitch which disagreed once, but are now reconciled by the art of + music' (Symp.). He does indeed describe objects of sense as regarded by us + sometimes from one point of view and sometimes from another. As he says at + the end of the Fifth Book of the Republic, 'There is nothing light which + is not heavy, or great which is not small.' And he extends this relativity + to the conceptions of just and good, as well as to great and small. In + like manner he acknowledges that the same number may be more or less in + relation to other numbers without any increase or diminution (Theat.). But + the perplexity only arises out of the confusion of the human faculties; + the art of measuring shows us what is truly great and truly small. Though + the just and good in particular instances may vary, the IDEA of good is + eternal and unchangeable. And the IDEA of good is the source of knowledge + and also of Being, in which all the stages of sense and knowledge are + gathered up and from being hypotheses become realities. + </p> + <p> + Leaving the comparison with Plato we may now consider the value of this + invention of Hegel. There can be no question of the importance of showing + that two contraries or contradictories may in certain cases be both true. + The silliness of the so-called laws of thought ('All A = A,' or, in the + negative form, 'Nothing can at the same time be both A, and not A') has + been well exposed by Hegel himself (Wallace's Hegel), who remarks that + 'the form of the maxim is virtually self-contradictory, for a proposition + implies a distinction between subject and predicate, whereas the maxim of + identity, as it is called, A = A, does not fulfil what its form requires. + Nor does any mind ever think or form conceptions in accordance with this + law, nor does any existence conform to it.' Wisdom of this sort is well + parodied in Shakespeare (Twelfth Night, 'Clown: For as the old hermit of + Prague, that never saw pen and ink, very wittily said to a niece of King + Gorboduc, "That that is is"...for what is "that" but "that," and "is" but + "is"?'). Unless we are willing to admit that two contradictories may be + true, many questions which lie at the threshold of mathematics and of + morals will be insoluble puzzles to us. + </p> + <p> + The influence of opposites is felt in practical life. The understanding + sees one side of a question only—the common sense of mankind joins + one of two parties in politics, in religion, in philosophy. Yet, as + everybody knows, truth is not wholly the possession of either. But the + characters of men are one-sided and accept this or that aspect of the + truth. The understanding is strong in a single abstract principle and with + this lever moves mankind. Few attain to a balance of principles or + recognize truly how in all human things there is a thesis and antithesis, + a law of action and of reaction. In politics we require order as well as + liberty, and have to consider the proportions in which under given + circumstances they may be safely combined. In religion there is a tendency + to lose sight of morality, to separate goodness from the love of truth, to + worship God without attempting to know him. In philosophy again there are + two opposite principles, of immediate experience and of those general or a + priori truths which are supposed to transcend experience. But the common + sense or common opinion of mankind is incapable of apprehending these + opposite sides or views—men are determined by their natural bent to + one or other of them; they go straight on for a time in a single line, and + may be many things by turns but not at once. + </p> + <p> + Hence the importance of familiarizing the mind with forms which will + assist us in conceiving or expressing the complex or contrary aspects of + life and nature. The danger is that they may be too much for us, and + obscure our appreciation of facts. As the complexity of mechanics cannot + be understood without mathematics, so neither can the many-sidedness of + the mental and moral world be truly apprehended without the assistance of + new forms of thought. One of these forms is the unity of opposites. + Abstractions have a great power over us, but they are apt to be partial + and one-sided, and only when modified by other abstractions do they make + an approach to the truth. Many a man has become a fatalist because he has + fallen under the dominion of a single idea. He says to himself, for + example, that he must be either free or necessary—he cannot be both. + Thus in the ancient world whole schools of philosophy passed away in the + vain attempt to solve the problem of the continuity or divisibility of + matter. And in comparatively modern times, though in the spirit of an + ancient philosopher, Bishop Berkeley, feeling a similar perplexity, is + inclined to deny the truth of infinitesimals in mathematics. Many + difficulties arise in practical religion from the impossibility of + conceiving body and mind at once and in adjusting their movements to one + another. There is a border ground between them which seems to belong to + both; and there is as much difficulty in conceiving the body without the + soul as the soul without the body. To the 'either' and 'or' philosophy + ('Everything is either A or not A') should at least be added the clause + 'or neither,' 'or both.' The double form makes reflection easier and more + conformable to experience, and also more comprehensive. But in order to + avoid paradox and the danger of giving offence to the unmetaphysical part + of mankind, we may speak of it as due to the imperfection of language or + the limitation of human faculties. It is nevertheless a discovery which, + in Platonic language, may be termed a 'most gracious aid to thought.' + </p> + <p> + The doctrine of opposite moments of thought or of progression by + antagonism, further assists us in framing a scheme or system of the + sciences. The negation of one gives birth to another of them. The double + notions are the joints which hold them together. The simple is developed + into the complex, the complex returns again into the simple. Beginning + with the highest notion of mind or thought, we may descend by a series of + negations to the first generalizations of sense. Or again we may begin + with the simplest elements of sense and proceed upwards to the highest + being or thought. Metaphysic is the negation or absorption of physiology—physiology + of chemistry—chemistry of mechanical philosophy. Similarly in + mechanics, when we can no further go we arrive at chemistry—when + chemistry becomes organic we arrive at physiology: when we pass from the + outward and animal to the inward nature of man we arrive at moral and + metaphysical philosophy. These sciences have each of them their own + methods and are pursued independently of one another. But to the mind of + the thinker they are all one—latent in one another—developed + out of one another. + </p> + <p> + This method of opposites has supplied new instruments of thought for the + solution of metaphysical problems, and has thrown down many of the walls + within which the human mind was confined. Formerly when philosophers + arrived at the infinite and absolute, they seemed to be lost in a region + beyond human comprehension. But Hegel has shown that the absolute and + infinite are no more true than the relative and finite, and that they must + alike be negatived before we arrive at a true absolute or a true infinite. + The conceptions of the infinite and absolute as ordinarily understood are + tiresome because they are unmeaning, but there is no peculiar sanctity or + mystery in them. We might as well make an infinitesimal series of + fractions or a perpetually recurring decimal the object of our worship. + They are the widest and also the thinnest of human ideas, or, in the + language of logicians, they have the greatest extension and the least + comprehension. Of all words they may be truly said to be the most inflated + with a false meaning. They have been handed down from one philosopher to + another until they have acquired a religious character. They seem also to + derive a sacredness from their association with the Divine Being. Yet they + are the poorest of the predicates under which we describe him—signifying + no more than this, that he is not finite, that he is not relative, and + tending to obscure his higher attributes of wisdom, goodness, truth. + </p> + <p> + The system of Hegel frees the mind from the dominion of abstract ideas. We + acknowledge his originality, and some of us delight to wander in the mazes + of thought which he has opened to us. For Hegel has found admirers in + England and Scotland when his popularity in Germany has departed, and he, + like the philosophers whom he criticizes, is of the past. No other thinker + has ever dissected the human mind with equal patience and minuteness. He + has lightened the burden of thought because he has shown us that the + chains which we wear are of our own forging. To be able to place ourselves + not only above the opinions of men but above their modes of thinking, is a + great height of philosophy. This dearly obtained freedom, however, we are + not disposed to part with, or to allow him to build up in a new form the + 'beggarly elements' of scholastic logic which he has thrown down. So far + as they are aids to reflection and expression, forms of thought are + useful, but no further:—we may easily have too many of them. + </p> + <p> + And when we are asked to believe the Hegelian to be the sole or universal + logic, we naturally reply that there are other ways in which our ideas may + be connected. The triplets of Hegel, the division into being, essence, and + notion, are not the only or necessary modes in which the world of thought + can be conceived. There may be an evolution by degrees as well as by + opposites. The word 'continuity' suggests the possibility of resolving all + differences into differences of quantity. Again, the opposites themselves + may vary from the least degree of diversity up to contradictory + opposition. They are not like numbers and figures, always and everywhere + of the same value. And therefore the edifice which is constructed out of + them has merely an imaginary symmetry, and is really irregular and out of + proportion. The spirit of Hegelian criticism should be applied to his own + system, and the terms Being, Not-being, existence, essence, notion, and + the like challenged and defined. For if Hegel introduces a great many + distinctions, he obliterates a great many others by the help of the + universal solvent 'is not,' which appears to be the simplest of negations, + and yet admits of several meanings. Neither are we able to follow him in + the play of metaphysical fancy which conducts him from one determination + of thought to another. But we begin to suspect that this vast system is + not God within us, or God immanent in the world, and may be only the + invention of an individual brain. The 'beyond' is always coming back upon + us however often we expel it. We do not easily believe that we have within + the compass of the mind the form of universal knowledge. We rather incline + to think that the method of knowledge is inseparable from actual + knowledge, and wait to see what new forms may be developed out of our + increasing experience and observation of man and nature. We are conscious + of a Being who is without us as well as within us. Even if inclined to + Pantheism we are unwilling to imagine that the meagre categories of the + understanding, however ingeniously arranged or displayed, are the image of + God;—that what all religions were seeking after from the beginning + was the Hegelian philosophy which has been revealed in the latter days. + The great metaphysician, like a prophet of old, was naturally inclined to + believe that his own thoughts were divine realities. We may almost say + that whatever came into his head seemed to him to be a necessary truth. He + never appears to have criticized himself, or to have subjected his own + ideas to the process of analysis which he applies to every other + philosopher. + </p> + <p> + Hegel would have insisted that his philosophy should be accepted as a + whole or not at all. He would have urged that the parts derived their + meaning from one another and from the whole. He thought that he had + supplied an outline large enough to contain all future knowledge, and a + method to which all future philosophies must conform. His metaphysical + genius is especially shown in the construction of the categories—a + work which was only begun by Kant, and elaborated to the utmost by + himself. But is it really true that the part has no meaning when separated + from the whole, or that knowledge to be knowledge at all must be + universal? Do all abstractions shine only by the reflected light of other + abstractions? May they not also find a nearer explanation in their + relation to phenomena? If many of them are correlatives they are not all + so, and the relations which subsist between them vary from a mere + association up to a necessary connexion. Nor is it easy to determine how + far the unknown element affects the known, whether, for example, new + discoveries may not one day supersede our most elementary notions about + nature. To a certain extent all our knowledge is conditional upon what may + be known in future ages of the world. We must admit this hypothetical + element, which we cannot get rid of by an assumption that we have already + discovered the method to which all philosophy must conform. Hegel is right + in preferring the concrete to the abstract, in setting actuality before + possibility, in excluding from the philosopher's vocabulary the word + 'inconceivable.' But he is too well satisfied with his own system ever to + consider the effect of what is unknown on the element which is known. To + the Hegelian all things are plain and clear, while he who is outside the + charmed circle is in the mire of ignorance and 'logical impurity': he who + is within is omniscient, or at least has all the elements of knowledge + under his hand. + </p> + <p> + Hegelianism may be said to be a transcendental defence of the world as it + is. There is no room for aspiration and no need of any: 'What is actual is + rational, what is rational is actual.' But a good man will not readily + acquiesce in this aphorism. He knows of course that all things proceed + according to law whether for good or evil. But when he sees the misery and + ignorance of mankind he is convinced that without any interruption of the + uniformity of nature the condition of the world may be indefinitely + improved by human effort. There is also an adaptation of persons to times + and countries, but this is very far from being the fulfilment of their + higher natures. The man of the seventeenth century is unfitted for the + eighteenth, and the man of the eighteenth for the nineteenth, and most of + us would be out of place in the world of a hundred years hence. But all + higher minds are much more akin than they are different: genius is of all + ages, and there is perhaps more uniformity in excellence than in + mediocrity. The sublimer intelligences of mankind—Plato, Dante, Sir + Thomas More—meet in a higher sphere above the ordinary ways of men; + they understand one another from afar, notwithstanding the interval which + separates them. They are 'the spectators of all time and of all + existence;' their works live for ever; and there is nothing to prevent the + force of their individuality breaking through the uniformity which + surrounds them. But such disturbers of the order of thought Hegel is + reluctant to acknowledge. + </p> + <p> + The doctrine of Hegel will to many seem the expression of an indolent + conservatism, and will at any rate be made an excuse for it. The mind of + the patriot rebels when he is told that the worst tyranny and oppression + has a natural fitness: he cannot be persuaded, for example, that the + conquest of Prussia by Napoleon I. was either natural or necessary, or + that any similar calamity befalling a nation should be a matter of + indifference to the poet or philosopher. We may need such a philosophy or + religion to console us under evils which are irremediable, but we see that + it is fatal to the higher life of man. It seems to say to us, 'The world + is a vast system or machine which can be conceived under the forms of + logic, but in which no single man can do any great good or any great harm. + Even if it were a thousand times worse than it is, it could be arranged in + categories and explained by philosophers. And what more do we want?' + </p> + <p> + The philosophy of Hegel appeals to an historical criterion: the ideas of + men have a succession in time as well as an order of thought. But the + assumption that there is a correspondence between the succession of ideas + in history and the natural order of philosophy is hardly true even of the + beginnings of thought. And in later systems forms of thought are too + numerous and complex to admit of our tracing in them a regular succession. + They seem also to be in part reflections of the past, and it is difficult + to separate in them what is original and what is borrowed. Doubtless they + have a relation to one another—the transition from Descartes to + Spinoza or from Locke to Berkeley is not a matter of chance, but it can + hardly be described as an alternation of opposites or figured to the mind + by the vibrations of a pendulum. Even in Aristotle and Plato, rightly + understood, we cannot trace this law of action and reaction. They are both + idealists, although to the one the idea is actual and immanent,—to + the other only potential and transcendent, as Hegel himself has pointed + out (Wallace's Hegel). The true meaning of Aristotle has been disguised + from us by his own appeal to fact and the opinions of mankind in his more + popular works, and by the use made of his writings in the Middle Ages. No + book, except the Scriptures, has been so much read, and so little + understood. The Pre-Socratic philosophies are simpler, and we may observe + a progress in them; but is there any regular succession? The ideas of + Being, change, number, seem to have sprung up contemporaneously in + different parts of Greece and we have no difficulty in constructing them + out of one another—we can see that the union of Being and Not-being + gave birth to the idea of change or Becoming and that one might be another + aspect of Being. Again, the Eleatics may be regarded as developing in one + direction into the Megarian school, in the other into the Atomists, but + there is no necessary connexion between them. Nor is there any indication + that the deficiency which was felt in one school was supplemented or + compensated by another. They were all efforts to supply the want which the + Greeks began to feel at the beginning of the sixth century before Christ,—the + want of abstract ideas. Nor must we forget the uncertainty of chronology;—if, + as Aristotle says, there were Atomists before Leucippus, Eleatics before + Xenophanes, and perhaps 'patrons of the flux' before Heracleitus, Hegel's + order of thought in the history of philosophy would be as much disarranged + as his order of religious thought by recent discoveries in the history of + religion. + </p> + <p> + Hegel is fond of repeating that all philosophies still live and that the + earlier are preserved in the later; they are refuted, and they are not + refuted, by those who succeed them. Once they reigned supreme, now they + are subordinated to a power or idea greater or more comprehensive than + their own. The thoughts of Socrates and Plato and Aristotle have certainly + sunk deep into the mind of the world, and have exercised an influence + which will never pass away; but can we say that they have the same meaning + in modern and ancient philosophy? Some of them, as for example the words + 'Being,' 'essence,' 'matter,' 'form,' either have become obsolete, or are + used in new senses, whereas 'individual,' 'cause,' 'motive,' have acquired + an exaggerated importance. Is the manner in which the logical + determinations of thought, or 'categories' as they may be termed, have + been handed down to us, really different from that in which other words + have come down to us? Have they not been equally subject to accident, and + are they not often used by Hegel himself in senses which would have been + quite unintelligible to their original inventors—as for example, + when he speaks of the 'ground' of Leibnitz ('Everything has a sufficient + ground') as identical with his own doctrine of the 'notion' (Wallace's + Hegel), or the 'Being and Not-being' of Heracleitus as the same with his + own 'Becoming'? + </p> + <p> + As the historical order of thought has been adapted to the logical, so we + have reason for suspecting that the Hegelian logic has been in some degree + adapted to the order of thought in history. There is unfortunately no + criterion to which either of them can be subjected, and not much forcing + was required to bring either into near relations with the other. We may + fairly doubt whether the division of the first and second parts of logic + in the Hegelian system has not really arisen from a desire to make them + accord with the first and second stages of the early Greek philosophy. Is + there any reason why the conception of measure in the first part, which is + formed by the union of quality and quantity, should not have been equally + placed in the second division of mediate or reflected ideas? The more we + analyze them the less exact does the coincidence of philosophy and the + history of philosophy appear. Many terms which were used absolutely in the + beginning of philosophy, such as 'Being,' 'matter,' 'cause,' and the like, + became relative in the subsequent history of thought. But Hegel employs + some of them absolutely, some relatively, seemingly without any principle + and without any regard to their original significance. + </p> + <p> + The divisions of the Hegelian logic bear a superficial resemblance to the + divisions of the scholastic logic. The first part answers to the term, the + second to the proposition, the third to the syllogism. These are the + grades of thought under which we conceive the world, first, in the general + terms of quality, quantity, measure; secondly, under the relative forms of + 'ground' and existence, substance and accidents, and the like; thirdly in + syllogistic forms of the individual mediated with the universal by the + help of the particular. Of syllogisms there are various kinds,—qualitative, + quantitative, inductive, mechanical, teleological,—which are + developed out of one another. But is there any meaning in reintroducing + the forms of the old logic? Who ever thinks of the world as a syllogism? + What connexion is there between the proposition and our ideas of + reciprocity, cause and effect, and similar relations? It is difficult + enough to conceive all the powers of nature and mind gathered up in one. + The difficulty is greatly increased when the new is confused with the old, + and the common logic is the Procrustes' bed into which they are forced. + </p> + <p> + The Hegelian philosophy claims, as we have seen, to be based upon + experience: it abrogates the distinction of a priori and a posteriori + truth. It also acknowledges that many differences of kind are resolvable + into differences of degree. It is familiar with the terms 'evolution,' + 'development,' and the like. Yet it can hardly be said to have considered + the forms of thought which are best adapted for the expression of facts. + It has never applied the categories to experience; it has not defined the + differences in our ideas of opposition, or development, or cause and + effect, in the different sciences which make use of these terms. It rests + on a knowledge which is not the result of exact or serious enquiry, but is + floating in the air; the mind has been imperceptibly informed of some of + the methods required in the sciences. Hegel boasts that the movement of + dialectic is at once necessary and spontaneous: in reality it goes beyond + experience and is unverified by it. Further, the Hegelian philosophy, + while giving us the power of thinking a great deal more than we are able + to fill up, seems to be wanting in some determinations of thought which we + require. We cannot say that physical science, which at present occupies so + large a share of popular attention, has been made easier or more + intelligible by the distinctions of Hegel. Nor can we deny that he has + sometimes interpreted physics by metaphysics, and confused his own + philosophical fancies with the laws of nature. The very freedom of the + movement is not without suspicion, seeming to imply a state of the human + mind which has entirely lost sight of facts. Nor can the necessity which + is attributed to it be very stringent, seeing that the successive + categories or determinations of thought in different parts of his writings + are arranged by the philosopher in different ways. What is termed + necessary evolution seems to be only the order in which a succession of + ideas presented themselves to the mind of Hegel at a particular time. + </p> + <p> + The nomenclature of Hegel has been made by himself out of the language of + common life. He uses a few words only which are borrowed from his + predecessors, or from the Greek philosophy, and these generally in a sense + peculiar to himself. The first stage of his philosophy answers to the word + 'is,' the second to the word 'has been,' the third to the words 'has been' + and 'is' combined. In other words, the first sphere is immediate, the + second mediated by reflection, the third or highest returns into the + first, and is both mediate and immediate. As Luther's Bible was written in + the language of the common people, so Hegel seems to have thought that he + gave his philosophy a truly German character by the use of idiomatic + German words. But it may be doubted whether the attempt has been + successful. First because such words as 'in sich seyn,' 'an sich seyn,' + 'an und fur sich seyn,' though the simplest combinations of nouns and + verbs, require a difficult and elaborate explanation. The simplicity of + the words contrasts with the hardness of their meaning. Secondly, the use + of technical phraseology necessarily separates philosophy from general + literature; the student has to learn a new language of uncertain meaning + which he with difficulty remembers. No former philosopher had ever carried + the use of technical terms to the same extent as Hegel. The language of + Plato or even of Aristotle is but slightly removed from that of common + life, and was introduced naturally by a series of thinkers: the language + of the scholastic logic has become technical to us, but in the Middle Ages + was the vernacular Latin of priests and students. The higher spirit of + philosophy, the spirit of Plato and Socrates, rebels against the Hegelian + use of language as mechanical and technical. + </p> + <p> + Hegel is fond of etymologies and often seems to trifle with words. He + gives etymologies which are bad, and never considers that the meaning of a + word may have nothing to do with its derivation. He lived before the days + of Comparative Philology or of Comparative Mythology and Religion, which + would have opened a new world to him. He makes no allowance for the + element of chance either in language or thought; and perhaps there is no + greater defect in his system than the want of a sound theory of language. + He speaks as if thought, instead of being identical with language, was + wholly independent of it. It is not the actual growth of the mind, but the + imaginary growth of the Hegelian system, which is attractive to him. + </p> + <p> + Neither are we able to say why of the common forms of thought some are + rejected by him, while others have an undue prominence given to them. Some + of them, such as 'ground' and 'existence,' have hardly any basis either in + language or philosophy, while others, such as 'cause' and 'effect,' are + but slightly considered. All abstractions are supposed by Hegel to derive + their meaning from one another. This is true of some, but not of all, and + in different degrees. There is an explanation of abstractions by the + phenomena which they represent, as well as by their relation to other + abstractions. If the knowledge of all were necessary to the knowledge of + any one of them, the mind would sink under the load of thought. Again, in + every process of reflection we seem to require a standing ground, and in + the attempt to obtain a complete analysis we lose all fixedness. If, for + example, the mind is viewed as the complex of ideas, or the difference + between things and persons denied, such an analysis may be justified from + the point of view of Hegel: but we shall find that in the attempt to + criticize thought we have lost the power of thinking, and, like the + Heracliteans of old, have no words in which our meaning can be expressed. + Such an analysis may be of value as a corrective of popular language or + thought, but should still allow us to retain the fundamental distinctions + of philosophy. + </p> + <p> + In the Hegelian system ideas supersede persons. The world of thought, + though sometimes described as Spirit or 'Geist,' is really impersonal. The + minds of men are to be regarded as one mind, or more correctly as a + succession of ideas. Any comprehensive view of the world must necessarily + be general, and there may be a use with a view to comprehensiveness in + dropping individuals and their lives and actions. In all things, if we + leave out details, a certain degree of order begins to appear; at any rate + we can make an order which, with a little exaggeration or disproportion in + some of the parts, will cover the whole field of philosophy. But are we + therefore justified in saying that ideas are the causes of the great + movement of the world rather than the personalities which conceived them? + The great man is the expression of his time, and there may be peculiar + difficulties in his age which he cannot overcome. He may be out of harmony + with his circumstances, too early or too late, and then all his thoughts + perish; his genius passes away unknown. But not therefore is he to be + regarded as a mere waif or stray in human history, any more than he is the + mere creature or expression of the age in which he lives. His ideas are + inseparable from himself, and would have been nothing without him. Through + a thousand personal influences they have been brought home to the minds of + others. He starts from antecedents, but he is great in proportion as he + disengages himself from them or absorbs himself in them. Moreover the + types of greatness differ; while one man is the expression of the + influences of his age, another is in antagonism to them. One man is borne + on the surface of the water; another is carried forward by the current + which flows beneath. The character of an individual, whether he be + independent of circumstances or not, inspires others quite as much as his + words. What is the teaching of Socrates apart from his personal history, + or the doctrines of Christ apart from the Divine life in which they are + embodied? Has not Hegel himself delineated the greatness of the life of + Christ as consisting in his 'Schicksalslosigkeit' or independence of the + destiny of his race? Do not persons become ideas, and is there any + distinction between them? Take away the five greatest legislators, the + five greatest warriors, the five greatest poets, the five greatest + founders or teachers of a religion, the five greatest philosophers, the + five greatest inventors,—where would have been all that we most + value in knowledge or in life? And can that be a true theory of the + history of philosophy which, in Hegel's own language, 'does not allow the + individual to have his right'? + </p> + <p> + Once more, while we readily admit that the world is relative to the mind, + and the mind to the world, and that we must suppose a common or + correlative growth in them, we shrink from saying that this complex nature + can contain, even in outline, all the endless forms of Being and + knowledge. Are we not 'seeking the living among the dead' and dignifying a + mere logical skeleton with the name of philosophy and almost of God? When + we look far away into the primeval sources of thought and belief, do we + suppose that the mere accident of our being the heirs of the Greek + philosophers can give us a right to set ourselves up as having the true + and only standard of reason in the world? Or when we contemplate the + infinite worlds in the expanse of heaven can we imagine that a few meagre + categories derived from language and invented by the genius of one or two + great thinkers contain the secret of the universe? Or, having regard to + the ages during which the human race may yet endure, do we suppose that we + can anticipate the proportions human knowledge may attain even within the + short space of one or two thousand years? + </p> + <p> + Again, we have a difficulty in understanding how ideas can be causes, + which to us seems to be as much a figure of speech as the old notion of a + creator artist, 'who makes the world by the help of the demigods' (Plato, + Tim.), or with 'a golden pair of compasses' measures out the circumference + of the universe (Milton, P.L.). We can understand how the idea in the mind + of an inventor is the cause of the work which is produced by it; and we + can dimly imagine how this universal frame may be animated by a divine + intelligence. But we cannot conceive how all the thoughts of men that ever + were, which are themselves subject to so many external conditions of + climate, country, and the like, even if regarded as the single thought of + a Divine Being, can be supposed to have made the world. We appear to be + only wrapping up ourselves in our own conceits—to be confusing cause + and effect—to be losing the distinction between reflection and + action, between the human and divine. + </p> + <p> + These are some of the doubts and suspicions which arise in the mind of a + student of Hegel, when, after living for a time within the charmed circle, + he removes to a little distance and looks back upon what he has learnt, + from the vantage-ground of history and experience. The enthusiasm of his + youth has passed away, the authority of the master no longer retains a + hold upon him. But he does not regret the time spent in the study of him. + He finds that he has received from him a real enlargement of mind, and + much of the true spirit of philosophy, even when he has ceased to believe + in him. He returns again and again to his writings as to the recollections + of a first love, not undeserving of his admiration still. Perhaps if he + were asked how he can admire without believing, or what value he can + attribute to what he knows to be erroneous, he might answer in some such + manner as the following:— + </p> + <p> + 1. That in Hegel he finds glimpses of the genius of the poet and of the + common sense of the man of the world. His system is not cast in a poetic + form, but neither has all this load of logic extinguished in him the + feeling of poetry. He is the true countryman of his contemporaries Goethe + and Schiller. Many fine expressions are scattered up and down in his + writings, as when he tells us that 'the Crusaders went to the Sepulchre + but found it empty.' He delights to find vestiges of his own philosophy in + the older German mystics. And though he can be scarcely said to have mixed + much in the affairs of men, for, as his biographer tells us, 'he lived for + thirty years in a single room,' yet he is far from being ignorant of the + world. No one can read his writings without acquiring an insight into + life. He loves to touch with the spear of logic the follies and + self-deceptions of mankind, and make them appear in their natural form, + stripped of the disguises of language and custom. He will not allow men to + defend themselves by an appeal to one-sided or abstract principles. In + this age of reason any one can too easily find a reason for doing what he + likes (Wallace). He is suspicious of a distinction which is often made + between a person's character and his conduct. His spirit is the opposite + of that of Jesuitism or casuistry (Wallace). He affords an example of a + remark which has been often made, that in order to know the world it is + not necessary to have had a great experience of it. + </p> + <p> + 2. Hegel, if not the greatest philosopher, is certainly the greatest + critic of philosophy who ever lived. No one else has equally mastered the + opinions of his predecessors or traced the connexion of them in the same + manner. No one has equally raised the human mind above the trivialities of + the common logic and the unmeaningness of 'mere' abstractions, and above + imaginary possibilities, which, as he truly says, have no place in + philosophy. No one has won so much for the kingdom of ideas. Whatever may + be thought of his own system it will hardly be denied that he has + overthrown Locke, Kant, Hume, and the so-called philosophy of common + sense. He shows us that only by the study of metaphysics can we get rid of + metaphysics, and that those who are in theory most opposed to them are in + fact most entirely and hopelessly enslaved by them: 'Die reinen Physiker + sind nur die Thiere.' The disciple of Hegel will hardly become the slave + of any other system-maker. What Bacon seems to promise him he will find + realized in the great German thinker, an emancipation nearly complete from + the influences of the scholastic logic. + </p> + <p> + 3. Many of those who are least disposed to become the votaries of + Hegelianism nevertheless recognize in his system a new logic supplying a + variety of instruments and methods hitherto unemployed. We may not be able + to agree with him in assimilating the natural order of human thought with + the history of philosophy, and still less in identifying both with the + divine idea or nature. But we may acknowledge that the great thinker has + thrown a light on many parts of human knowledge, and has solved many + difficulties. We cannot receive his doctrine of opposites as the last word + of philosophy, but still we may regard it as a very important contribution + to logic. We cannot affirm that words have no meaning when taken out of + their connexion in the history of thought. But we recognize that their + meaning is to a great extent due to association, and to their correlation + with one another. We see the advantage of viewing in the concrete what + mankind regard only in the abstract. There is much to be said for his + faith or conviction, that God is immanent in the world,—within the + sphere of the human mind, and not beyond it. It was natural that he + himself, like a prophet of old, should regard the philosophy which he had + invented as the voice of God in man. But this by no means implies that he + conceived himself as creating God in thought. He was the servant of his + own ideas and not the master of them. The philosophy of history and the + history of philosophy may be almost said to have been discovered by him. + He has done more to explain Greek thought than all other writers put + together. Many ideas of development, evolution, reciprocity, which have + become the symbols of another school of thinkers may be traced to his + speculations. In the theology and philosophy of England as well as of + Germany, and also in the lighter literature of both countries, there are + always appearing 'fragments of the great banquet' of Hegel. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0002" id="link2H_4_0002"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + SOPHIST + </h2> + <p> + PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE: Theodorus, Theaetetus, Socrates. An Eleatic + Stranger, whom Theodorus and Theaetetus bring with them. The younger + Socrates, who is a silent auditor. + </p> + <p> + THEODORUS: Here we are, Socrates, true to our agreement of yesterday; and + we bring with us a stranger from Elea, who is a disciple of Parmenides and + Zeno, and a true philosopher. + </p> + <p> + SOCRATES: Is he not rather a god, Theodorus, who comes to us in the + disguise of a stranger? For Homer says that all the gods, and especially + the god of strangers, are companions of the meek and just, and visit the + good and evil among men. And may not your companion be one of those higher + powers, a cross-examining deity, who has come to spy out our weakness in + argument, and to cross-examine us? + </p> + <p> + THEODORUS: Nay, Socrates, he is not one of the disputatious sort—he + is too good for that. And, in my opinion, he is not a god at all; but + divine he certainly is, for this is a title which I should give to all + philosophers. + </p> + <p> + SOCRATES: Capital, my friend! and I may add that they are almost as hard + to be discerned as the gods. For the true philosophers, and such as are + not merely made up for the occasion, appear in various forms unrecognized + by the ignorance of men, and they 'hover about cities,' as Homer declares, + looking from above upon human life; and some think nothing of them, and + others can never think enough; and sometimes they appear as statesmen, and + sometimes as sophists; and then, again, to many they seem to be no better + than madmen. I should like to ask our Eleatic friend, if he would tell us, + what is thought about them in Italy, and to whom the terms are applied. + </p> + <p> + THEODORUS: What terms? + </p> + <p> + SOCRATES: Sophist, statesman, philosopher. + </p> + <p> + THEODORUS: What is your difficulty about them, and what made you ask? + </p> + <p> + SOCRATES: I want to know whether by his countrymen they are regarded as + one or two; or do they, as the names are three, distinguish also three + kinds, and assign one to each name? + </p> + <p> + THEODORUS: I dare say that the Stranger will not object to discuss the + question. What do you say, Stranger? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I am far from objecting, Theodorus, nor have I any difficulty in + replying that by us they are regarded as three. But to define precisely + the nature of each of them is by no means a slight or easy task. + </p> + <p> + THEODORUS: You have happened to light, Socrates, almost on the very + question which we were asking our friend before we came hither, and he + excused himself to us, as he does now to you; although he admitted that + the matter had been fully discussed, and that he remembered the answer. + </p> + <p> + SOCRATES: Then do not, Stranger, deny us the first favour which we ask of + you: I am sure that you will not, and therefore I shall only beg of you to + say whether you like and are accustomed to make a long oration on a + subject which you want to explain to another, or to proceed by the method + of question and answer. I remember hearing a very noble discussion in + which Parmenides employed the latter of the two methods, when I was a + young man, and he was far advanced in years. (Compare Parm.) + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I prefer to talk with another when he responds pleasantly, and + is light in hand; if not, I would rather have my own say. + </p> + <p> + SOCRATES: Any one of the present company will respond kindly to you, and + you can choose whom you like of them; I should recommend you to take a + young person—Theaetetus, for example—unless you have a + preference for some one else. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I feel ashamed, Socrates, being a new-comer into your society, + instead of talking a little and hearing others talk, to be spinning out a + long soliloquy or address, as if I wanted to show off. For the true answer + will certainly be a very long one, a great deal longer than might be + expected from such a short and simple question. At the same time, I fear + that I may seem rude and ungracious if I refuse your courteous request, + especially after what you have said. For I certainly cannot object to your + proposal, that Theaetetus should respond, having already conversed with + him myself, and being recommended by you to take him. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: But are you sure, Stranger, that this will be quite so + acceptable to the rest of the company as Socrates imagines? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You hear them applauding, Theaetetus; after that, there is + nothing more to be said. Well then, I am to argue with you, and if you + tire of the argument, you may complain of your friends and not of me. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I do not think that I shall tire, and if I do, I shall get my + friend here, young Socrates, the namesake of the elder Socrates, to help; + he is about my own age, and my partner at the gymnasium, and is constantly + accustomed to work with me. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Very good; you can decide about that for yourself as we proceed. + Meanwhile you and I will begin together and enquire into the nature of the + Sophist, first of the three: I should like you to make out what he is and + bring him to light in a discussion; for at present we are only agreed + about the name, but of the thing to which we both apply the name possibly + you have one notion and I another; whereas we ought always to come to an + understanding about the thing itself in terms of a definition, and not + merely about the name minus the definition. Now the tribe of Sophists + which we are investigating is not easily caught or defined; and the world + has long ago agreed, that if great subjects are to be adequately treated, + they must be studied in the lesser and easier instances of them before we + proceed to the greatest of all. And as I know that the tribe of Sophists + is troublesome and hard to be caught, I should recommend that we practise + beforehand the method which is to be applied to him on some simple and + smaller thing, unless you can suggest a better way. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Indeed I cannot. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then suppose that we work out some lesser example which will be + a pattern of the greater? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: What is there which is well known and not great, and is yet as + susceptible of definition as any larger thing? Shall I say an angler? He + is familiar to all of us, and not a very interesting or important person. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: He is not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yet I suspect that he will furnish us with the sort of + definition and line of enquiry which we want. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us begin by asking whether he is a man having art or not + having art, but some other power. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: He is clearly a man of art. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And of arts there are two kinds? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is agriculture, and the tending of mortal creatures, and + the art of constructing or moulding vessels, and there is the art of + imitation—all these may be appropriately called by a single name. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? And what is the name? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: He who brings into existence something that did not exist before + is said to be a producer, and that which is brought into existence is said + to be produced. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And all the arts which were just now mentioned are characterized + by this power of producing? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: They are. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then let us sum them up under the name of productive or creative + art. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Next follows the whole class of learning and cognition; then + comes trade, fighting, hunting. And since none of these produces anything, + but is only engaged in conquering by word or deed, or in preventing others + from conquering, things which exist and have been already produced—in + each and all of these branches there appears to be an art which may be + called acquisitive. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, that is the proper name. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Seeing, then, that all arts are either acquisitive or creative, + in which class shall we place the art of the angler? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Clearly in the acquisitive class. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the acquisitive may be subdivided into two parts: there is + exchange, which is voluntary and is effected by gifts, hire, purchase; and + the other part of acquisitive, which takes by force of word or deed, may + be termed conquest? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is implied in what has been said. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And may not conquest be again subdivided? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Open force may be called fighting, and secret force may have the + general name of hunting? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And there is no reason why the art of hunting should not be + further divided. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How would you make the division? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Into the hunting of living and of lifeless prey. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, if both kinds exist. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Of course they exist; but the hunting after lifeless things + having no special name, except some sorts of diving, and other small + matters, may be omitted; the hunting after living things may be called + animal hunting. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And animal hunting may be truly said to have two divisions, + land-animal hunting, which has many kinds and names, and water-animal + hunting, or the hunting after animals who swim? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And of swimming animals, one class lives on the wing and the + other in the water? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Fowling is the general term under which the hunting of all birds + is included. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The hunting of animals who live in the water has the general + name of fishing. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And this sort of hunting may be further divided also into two + principal kinds? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is one kind which takes them in nets, another which takes + them by a blow. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean, and how do you distinguish them? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: As to the first kind—all that surrounds and encloses + anything to prevent egress, may be rightly called an enclosure. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: For which reason twig baskets, casting-nets, nooses, creels, and + the like may all be termed 'enclosures'? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And therefore this first kind of capture may be called by us + capture with enclosures, or something of that sort? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The other kind, which is practised by a blow with hooks and + three-pronged spears, when summed up under one name, may be called + striking, unless you, Theaetetus, can find some better name? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Never mind the name—what you suggest will do very well. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is one mode of striking, which is done at night, and by + the light of a fire, and is by the hunters themselves called firing, or + spearing by firelight. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the fishing by day is called by the general name of barbing, + because the spears, too, are barbed at the point. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, that is the term. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Of this barb-fishing, that which strikes the fish who is below + from above is called spearing, because this is the way in which the + three-pronged spears are mostly used. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, it is often called so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then now there is only one kind remaining. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is that? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When a hook is used, and the fish is not struck in any chance + part of his body, as he is with the spear, but only about the head and + mouth, and is then drawn out from below upwards with reeds and rods:—What + is the right name of that mode of fishing, Theaetetus? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I suspect that we have now discovered the object of our + search. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then now you and I have come to an understanding not only about + the name of the angler's art, but about the definition of the thing + itself. One half of all art was acquisitive—half of the acquisitive + art was conquest or taking by force, half of this was hunting, and half of + hunting was hunting animals, half of this was hunting water animals—of + this again, the under half was fishing, half of fishing was striking; a + part of striking was fishing with a barb, and one half of this again, + being the kind which strikes with a hook and draws the fish from below + upwards, is the art which we have been seeking, and which from the nature + of the operation is denoted angling or drawing up (aspalieutike, + anaspasthai). + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: The result has been quite satisfactorily brought out. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And now, following this pattern, let us endeavour to find out + what a Sophist is. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: By all means. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The first question about the angler was, whether he was a + skilled artist or unskilled? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And shall we call our new friend unskilled, or a thorough master + of his craft? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly not unskilled, for his name, as, indeed, you imply, + must surely express his nature. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then he must be supposed to have some art. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What art? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: By heaven, they are cousins! it never occurred to us. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Who are cousins? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The angler and the Sophist. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: In what way are they related? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: They both appear to me to be hunters. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How the Sophist? Of the other we have spoken. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You remember our division of hunting, into hunting after + swimming animals and land animals? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And you remember that we subdivided the swimming and left the + land animals, saying that there were many kinds of them? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Thus far, then, the Sophist and the angler, starting from the + art of acquiring, take the same road? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: So it would appear. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Their paths diverge when they reach the art of animal hunting; + the one going to the sea-shore, and to the rivers and to the lakes, and + angling for the animals which are in them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: While the other goes to land and water of another sort—rivers + of wealth and broad meadow-lands of generous youth; and he also is + intending to take the animals which are in them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Of hunting on land there are two principal divisions. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: One is the hunting of tame, and the other of wild animals. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: But are tame animals ever hunted? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes, if you include man under tame animals. But if you like you + may say that there are no tame animals, or that, if there are, man is not + among them; or you may say that man is a tame animal but is not hunted—you + shall decide which of these alternatives you prefer. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I should say, Stranger, that man is a tame animal, and I admit + that he is hunted. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then let us divide the hunting of tame animals into two parts. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How shall we make the division? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us define piracy, man-stealing, tyranny, the whole military + art, by one name, as hunting with violence. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But the art of the lawyer, of the popular orator, and the art of + conversation may be called in one word the art of persuasion. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And of persuasion, there may be said to be two kinds? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: One is private, and the other public. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes; each of them forms a class. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And of private hunting, one sort receives hire, and the other + brings gifts. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I do not understand you. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You seem never to have observed the manner in which lovers hunt. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To what do you refer? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I mean that they lavish gifts on those whom they hunt in + addition to other inducements. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Most true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us admit this, then, to be the amatory art. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But that sort of hireling whose conversation is pleasing and who + baits his hook only with pleasure and exacts nothing but his maintenance + in return, we should all, if I am not mistaken, describe as possessing + flattery or an art of making things pleasant. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And that sort, which professes to form acquaintances only for + the sake of virtue, and demands a reward in the shape of money, may be + fairly called by another name? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And what is the name? Will you tell me? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: It is obvious enough; for I believe that we have discovered + the Sophist: which is, as I conceive, the proper name for the class + described. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then now, Theaetetus, his art may be traced as a branch of the + appropriative, acquisitive family—which hunts animals,—living—land— + tame animals; which hunts man,—privately—for hire,—taking + money in exchange—having the semblance of education; and this is + termed Sophistry, and is a hunt after young men of wealth and rank—such + is the conclusion. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Just so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us take another branch of his genealogy; for he is a + professor of a great and many-sided art; and if we look back at what has + preceded we see that he presents another aspect, besides that of which we + are speaking. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: In what respect? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There were two sorts of acquisitive art; the one concerned with + hunting, the other with exchange. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There were. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And of the art of exchange there are two divisions, the one of + giving, and the other of selling. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Let us assume that. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Next, we will suppose the art of selling to be divided into two + parts. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is one part which is distinguished as the sale of a man's + own productions; another, which is the exchange of the works of others. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And is not that part of exchange which takes place in the city, + being about half of the whole, termed retailing? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And that which exchanges the goods of one city for those of + another by selling and buying is the exchange of the merchant? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And you are aware that this exchange of the merchant is of two + kinds: it is partly concerned with food for the use of the body, and + partly with the food of the soul which is bartered and received in + exchange for money. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You want to know what is the meaning of food for the soul; the + other kind you surely understand. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Take music in general and painting and marionette playing and + many other things, which are purchased in one city, and carried away and + sold in another—wares of the soul which are hawked about either for + the sake of instruction or amusement;—may not he who takes them + about and sells them be quite as truly called a merchant as he who sells + meats and drinks? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure he may. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And would you not call by the same name him who buys up + knowledge and goes about from city to city exchanging his wares for money? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly I should. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Of this merchandise of the soul, may not one part be fairly + termed the art of display? And there is another part which is certainly + not less ridiculous, but being a trade in learning must be called by some + name germane to the matter? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The latter should have two names,—one descriptive of the + sale of the knowledge of virtue, and the other of the sale of other kinds + of knowledge. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The name of art-seller corresponds well enough to the latter; + but you must try and tell me the name of the other. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: He must be the Sophist, whom we are seeking; no other name can + possibly be right. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: No other; and so this trader in virtue again turns out to be our + friend the Sophist, whose art may now be traced from the art of + acquisition through exchange, trade, merchandise, to a merchandise of the + soul which is concerned with speech and the knowledge of virtue. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And there may be a third reappearance of him;—for he may + have settled down in a city, and may fabricate as well as buy these same + wares, intending to live by selling them, and he would still be called a + Sophist? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then that part of the acquisitive art which exchanges, and of + exchange which either sells a man's own productions or retails those of + others, as the case may be, and in either way sells the knowledge of + virtue, you would again term Sophistry? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I must, if I am to keep pace with the argument. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us consider once more whether there may not be yet another + aspect of sophistry. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is it? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: In the acquisitive there was a subdivision of the combative or + fighting art. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There was. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Perhaps we had better divide it. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What shall be the divisions? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There shall be one division of the competitive, and another of + the pugnacious. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: That part of the pugnacious which is a contest of bodily + strength may be properly called by some such name as violent. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And when the war is one of words, it may be termed controversy? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And controversy may be of two kinds. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When long speeches are answered by long speeches, and there is + public discussion about the just and unjust, that is forensic controversy. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And there is a private sort of controversy, which is cut up into + questions and answers, and this is commonly called disputation? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, that is the name. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And of disputation, that sort which is only a discussion about + contracts, and is carried on at random, and without rules of art, is + recognized by the reasoning faculty to be a distinct class, but has + hitherto had no distinctive name, and does not deserve to receive one from + us. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: No; for the different sorts of it are too minute and + heterogeneous. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But that which proceeds by rules of art to dispute about justice + and injustice in their own nature, and about things in general, we have + been accustomed to call argumentation (Eristic)? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And of argumentation, one sort wastes money, and the other makes + money. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Suppose we try and give to each of these two classes a name. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Let us do so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I should say that the habit which leads a man to neglect his own + affairs for the pleasure of conversation, of which the style is far from + being agreeable to the majority of his hearers, may be fairly termed + loquacity: such is my opinion. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is the common name for it. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But now who the other is, who makes money out of private + disputation, it is your turn to say. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There is only one true answer: he is the wonderful Sophist, of + whom we are in pursuit, and who reappears again for the fourth time. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes, and with a fresh pedigree, for he is the money-making + species of the Eristic, disputatious, controversial, pugnacious, + combative, acquisitive family, as the argument has already proven. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: How true was the observation that he was a many-sided animal, + and not to be caught with one hand, as they say! + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Then you must catch him with two. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes, we must, if we can. And therefore let us try another track + in our pursuit of him: You are aware that there are certain menial + occupations which have names among servants? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, there are many such; which of them do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I mean such as sifting, straining, winnowing, threshing. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And besides these there are a great many more, such as carding, + spinning, adjusting the warp and the woof; and thousands of similar + expressions are used in the arts. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of what are they to be patterns, and what are we going to do + with them all? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I think that in all of these there is implied a notion of + division. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then if, as I was saying, there is one art which includes all of + them, ought not that art to have one name? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: And what is the name of the art? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The art of discerning or discriminating. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Think whether you cannot divide this. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I should have to think a long while. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: In all the previously named processes either like has been + separated from like or the better from the worse. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I see now what you mean. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is no name for the first kind of separation; of the + second, which throws away the worse and preserves the better, I do know a + name. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is it? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Every discernment or discrimination of that kind, as I have + observed, is called a purification. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, that is the usual expression. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And any one may see that purification is of two kinds. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Perhaps so, if he were allowed time to think; but I do not see + at this moment. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There are many purifications of bodies which may with propriety + be comprehended under a single name. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they, and what is their name? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is the purification of living bodies in their inward and + in their outward parts, of which the former is duly effected by medicine + and gymnastic, the latter by the not very dignified art of the bath-man; + and there is the purification of inanimate substances—to this the + arts of fulling and of furbishing in general attend in a number of minute + particulars, having a variety of names which are thought ridiculous. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There can be no doubt that they are thought ridiculous, + Theaetetus; but then the dialectical art never considers whether the + benefit to be derived from the purge is greater or less than that to be + derived from the sponge, and has not more interest in the one than in the + other; her endeavour is to know what is and is not kindred in all arts, + with a view to the acquisition of intelligence; and having this in view, + she honours them all alike, and when she makes comparisons, she counts one + of them not a whit more ridiculous than another; nor does she esteem him + who adduces as his example of hunting, the general's art, at all more + decorous than another who cites that of the vermin-destroyer, but only as + the greater pretender of the two. And as to your question concerning the + name which was to comprehend all these arts of purification, whether of + animate or inanimate bodies, the art of dialectic is in no wise particular + about fine words, if she may be only allowed to have a general name for + all other purifications, binding them up together and separating them off + from the purification of the soul or intellect. For this is the + purification at which she wants to arrive, and this we should understand + to be her aim. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, I understand; and I agree that there are two sorts of + purification, and that one of them is concerned with the soul, and that + there is another which is concerned with the body. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Excellent; and now listen to what I am going to say, and try to + divide further the first of the two. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Whatever line of division you suggest, I will endeavour to + assist you. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Do we admit that virtue is distinct from vice in the soul? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And purification was to leave the good and to cast out whatever + is bad? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then any taking away of evil from the soul may be properly + called purification? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And in the soul there are two kinds of evil. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The one may be compared to disease in the body, the other to + deformity. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I do not understand. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Perhaps you have never reflected that disease and discord are + the same. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To this, again, I know not what I should reply. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Do you not conceive discord to be a dissolution of kindred + elements, originating in some disagreement? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Just that. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And is deformity anything but the want of measure, which is + always unsightly? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Exactly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And do we not see that opinion is opposed to desire, pleasure to + anger, reason to pain, and that all these elements are opposed to one + another in the souls of bad men? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And yet they must all be akin? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then we shall be right in calling vice a discord and disease of + the soul? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Most true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And when things having motion, and aiming at an appointed mark, + continually miss their aim and glance aside, shall we say that this is the + effect of symmetry among them, or of the want of symmetry? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Clearly of the want of symmetry. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But surely we know that no soul is voluntarily ignorant of + anything? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And what is ignorance but the aberration of a mind which is bent + on truth, and in which the process of understanding is perverted? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then we are to regard an unintelligent soul as deformed and + devoid of symmetry? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then there are these two kinds of evil in the soul—the one + which is generally called vice, and is obviously a disease of the soul... + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And there is the other, which they call ignorance, and which, + because existing only in the soul, they will not allow to be vice. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I certainly admit what I at first disputed—that there + are two kinds of vice in the soul, and that we ought to consider + cowardice, intemperance, and injustice to be alike forms of disease in the + soul, and ignorance, of which there are all sorts of varieties, to be + deformity. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And in the case of the body are there not two arts which have to + do with the two bodily states? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is gymnastic, which has to do with deformity, and + medicine, which has to do with disease. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And where there is insolence and injustice and cowardice, is not + chastisement the art which is most required? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That certainly appears to be the opinion of mankind. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Again, of the various kinds of ignorance, may not instruction be + rightly said to be the remedy? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And of the art of instruction, shall we say that there is one or + many kinds? At any rate there are two principal ones. Think. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I will. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I believe that I can see how we shall soonest arrive at the + answer to this question. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: If we can discover a line which divides ignorance into two + halves. For a division of ignorance into two parts will certainly imply + that the art of instruction is also twofold, answering to the two + divisions of ignorance. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Well, and do you see what you are looking for? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I do seem to myself to see one very large and bad sort of + ignorance which is quite separate, and may be weighed in the scale against + all other sorts of ignorance put together. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is it? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When a person supposes that he knows, and does not know; this + appears to be the great source of all the errors of the intellect. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And this, if I am not mistaken, is the kind of ignorance which + specially earns the title of stupidity. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: What name, then, shall be given to the sort of instruction which + gets rid of this? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: The instruction which you mean, Stranger, is, I should + imagine, not the teaching of handicraft arts, but what, thanks to us, has + been termed education in this part the world. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes, Theaetetus, and by nearly all Hellenes. But we have still + to consider whether education admits of any further division. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: We have. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I think that there is a point at which such a division is + possible. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Where? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Of education, one method appears to be rougher, and another + smoother. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How are we to distinguish the two? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is the time-honoured mode which our fathers commonly + practised towards their sons, and which is still adopted by many—either + of roughly reproving their errors, or of gently advising them; which + varieties may be correctly included under the general term of admonition. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But whereas some appear to have arrived at the conclusion that + all ignorance is involuntary, and that no one who thinks himself wise is + willing to learn any of those things in which he is conscious of his own + cleverness, and that the admonitory sort of instruction gives much trouble + and does little good— + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There they are quite right. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Accordingly, they set to work to eradicate the spirit of conceit + in another way. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: In what way? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: They cross-examine a man's words, when he thinks that he is + saying something and is really saying nothing, and easily convict him of + inconsistencies in his opinions; these they then collect by the + dialectical process, and placing them side by side, show that they + contradict one another about the same things, in relation to the same + things, and in the same respect. He, seeing this, is angry with himself, + and grows gentle towards others, and thus is entirely delivered from great + prejudices and harsh notions, in a way which is most amusing to the + hearer, and produces the most lasting good effect on the person who is the + subject of the operation. For as the physician considers that the body + will receive no benefit from taking food until the internal obstacles have + been removed, so the purifier of the soul is conscious that his patient + will receive no benefit from the application of knowledge until he is + refuted, and from refutation learns modesty; he must be purged of his + prejudices first and made to think that he knows only what he knows, and + no more. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is certainly the best and wisest state of mind. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: For all these reasons, Theaetetus, we must admit that refutation + is the greatest and chiefest of purifications, and he who has not been + refuted, though he be the Great King himself, is in an awful state of + impurity; he is uninstructed and deformed in those things in which he who + would be truly blessed ought to be fairest and purest. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And who are the ministers of this art? I am afraid to say the + Sophists. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Lest we should assign to them too high a prerogative. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yet the Sophist has a certain likeness to our minister of + purification. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes, the same sort of likeness which a wolf, who is the fiercest + of animals, has to a dog, who is the gentlest. But he who would not be + found tripping, ought to be very careful in this matter of comparisons, + for they are most slippery things. Nevertheless, let us assume that the + Sophists are the men. I say this provisionally, for I think that the line + which divides them will be marked enough if proper care is taken. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Likely enough. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us grant, then, that from the discerning art comes + purification, and from purification let there be separated off a part + which is concerned with the soul; of this mental purification instruction + is a portion, and of instruction education, and of education, that + refutation of vain conceit which has been discovered in the present + argument; and let this be called by you and me the nobly-descended art of + Sophistry. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very well; and yet, considering the number of forms in which + he has presented himself, I begin to doubt how I can with any truth or + confidence describe the real nature of the Sophist. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You naturally feel perplexed; and yet I think that he must be + still more perplexed in his attempt to escape us, for as the proverb says, + when every way is blocked, there is no escape; now, then, is the time of + all others to set upon him. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: First let us wait a moment and recover breath, and while we are + resting, we may reckon up in how many forms he has appeared. In the first + place, he was discovered to be a paid hunter after wealth and youth. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: In the second place, he was a merchant in the goods of the soul. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: In the third place, he has turned out to be a retailer of the + same sort of wares. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes; and in the fourth place, he himself manufactured the + learned wares which he sold. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Quite right; I will try and remember the fifth myself. He + belonged to the fighting class, and was further distinguished as a hero of + debate, who professed the eristic art. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The sixth point was doubtful, and yet we at last agreed that he + was a purger of souls, who cleared away notions obstructive to knowledge. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Do you not see that when the professor of any art has one name + and many kinds of knowledge, there must be something wrong? The + multiplicity of names which is applied to him shows that the common + principle to which all these branches of knowledge are tending, is not + understood. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I should imagine this to be the case. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: At any rate we will understand him, and no indolence shall + prevent us. Let us begin again, then, and re-examine some of our + statements concerning the Sophist; there was one thing which appeared to + me especially characteristic of him. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To what are you referring? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: We were saying of him, if I am not mistaken, that he was a + disputer? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: We were. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And does he not also teach others the art of disputation? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly he does. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And about what does he profess that he teaches men to dispute? + To begin at the beginning—Does he make them able to dispute about + divine things, which are invisible to men in general? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: At any rate, he is said to do so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And what do you say of the visible things in heaven and earth, + and the like? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly he disputes, and teaches to dispute about them. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, again, in private conversation, when any universal + assertion is made about generation and essence, we know that such persons + are tremendous argufiers, and are able to impart their own skill to + others. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Undoubtedly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And do they not profess to make men able to dispute about law + and about politics in general? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why, no one would have anything to say to them, if they did + not make these professions. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: In all and every art, what the craftsman ought to say in answer + to any question is written down in a popular form, and he who likes may + learn. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I suppose that you are referring to the precepts of Protagoras + about wrestling and the other arts? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes, my friend, and about a good many other things. In a word, + is not the art of disputation a power of disputing about all things? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly; there does not seem to be much which is left out. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But oh! my dear youth, do you suppose this possible? for perhaps + your young eyes may see things which to our duller sight do not appear. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To what are you alluding? I do not think that I understand + your present question. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I ask whether anybody can understand all things. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Happy would mankind be if such a thing were possible! + </p> + <p> + SOCRATES: But how can any one who is ignorant dispute in a rational manner + against him who knows? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: He cannot. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then why has the sophistical art such a mysterious power? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To what do you refer? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: How do the Sophists make young men believe in their supreme and + universal wisdom? For if they neither disputed nor were thought to dispute + rightly, or being thought to do so were deemed no wiser for their + controversial skill, then, to quote your own observation, no one would + give them money or be willing to learn their art. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: They certainly would not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But they are willing. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, they are. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes, and the reason, as I should imagine, is that they are + supposed to have knowledge of those things about which they dispute? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And they dispute about all things? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And therefore, to their disciples, they appear to be all-wise? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But they are not; for that was shown to be impossible. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Impossible, of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then the Sophist has been shown to have a sort of conjectural or + apparent knowledge only of all things, which is not the truth? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Exactly; no better description of him could be given. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us now take an illustration, which will still more clearly + explain his nature. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is it? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I will tell you, and you shall answer me, giving your very + closest attention. Suppose that a person were to profess, not that he + could speak or dispute, but that he knew how to make and do all things, by + a single art. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: All things? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I see that you do not understand the first word that I utter, + for you do not understand the meaning of 'all.' + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: No, I do not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Under all things, I include you and me, and also animals and + trees. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Suppose a person to say that he will make you and me, and all + creatures. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What would he mean by 'making'? He cannot be a husbandman;—for + you said that he is a maker of animals. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes; and I say that he is also the maker of the sea, and the + earth, and the heavens, and the gods, and of all other things; and, + further, that he can make them in no time, and sell them for a few pence. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That must be a jest. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And when a man says that he knows all things, and can teach them + to another at a small cost, and in a short time, is not that a jest? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And is there any more artistic or graceful form of jest than + imitation? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly not; and imitation is a very comprehensive term, + which includes under one class the most diverse sorts of things. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: We know, of course, that he who professes by one art to make all + things is really a painter, and by the painter's art makes resemblances of + real things which have the same name with them; and he can deceive the + less intelligent sort of young children, to whom he shows his pictures at + a distance, into the belief that he has the absolute power of making + whatever he likes. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And may there not be supposed to be an imitative art of + reasoning? Is it not possible to enchant the hearts of young men by words + poured through their ears, when they are still at a distance from the + truth of facts, by exhibiting to them fictitious arguments, and making + them think that they are true, and that the speaker is the wisest of men + in all things? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes; why should there not be another such art? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But as time goes on, and their hearers advance in years, and + come into closer contact with realities, and have learnt by sad experience + to see and feel the truth of things, are not the greater part of them + compelled to change many opinions which they formerly entertained, so that + the great appears small to them, and the easy difficult, and all their + dreamy speculations are overturned by the facts of life? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is my view, as far as I can judge, although, at my age, I + may be one of those who see things at a distance only. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the wish of all of us, who are your friends, is and always + will be to bring you as near to the truth as we can without the sad + reality. And now I should like you to tell me, whether the Sophist is not + visibly a magician and imitator of true being; or are we still disposed to + think that he may have a true knowledge of the various matters about which + he disputes? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: But how can he, Stranger? Is there any doubt, after what has + been said, that he is to be located in one of the divisions of children's + play? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then we must place him in the class of magicians and mimics. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly we must. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And now our business is not to let the animal out, for we have + got him in a sort of dialectical net, and there is one thing which he + decidedly will not escape. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is that? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The inference that he is a juggler. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Precisely my own opinion of him. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, clearly, we ought as soon as possible to divide the + image-making art, and go down into the net, and, if the Sophist does not + run away from us, to seize him according to orders and deliver him over to + reason, who is the lord of the hunt, and proclaim the capture of him; and + if he creeps into the recesses of the imitative art, and secretes himself + in one of them, to divide again and follow him up until in some + sub-section of imitation he is caught. For our method of tackling each and + all is one which neither he nor any other creature will ever escape in + triumph. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Well said; and let us do as you propose. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Well, then, pursuing the same analytic method as before, I think + that I can discern two divisions of the imitative art, but I am not as yet + able to see in which of them the desired form is to be found. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Will you tell me first what are the two divisions of which you + are speaking? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: One is the art of likeness-making;—generally a likeness of + anything is made by producing a copy which is executed according to the + proportions of the original, similar in length and breadth and depth, each + thing receiving also its appropriate colour. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Is not this always the aim of imitation? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Not always; in works either of sculpture or of painting, which + are of any magnitude, there is a certain degree of deception; for artists + were to give the true proportions of their fair works, the upper part, + which is farther off, would appear to be out of proportion in comparison + with the lower, which is nearer; and so they give up the truth in their + images and make only the proportions which appear to be beautiful, + disregarding the real ones. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And that which being other is also like, may we not fairly call + a likeness or image? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And may we not, as I did just now, call that part of the + imitative art which is concerned with making such images the art of + likeness-making? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Let that be the name. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And what shall we call those resemblances of the beautiful, + which appear such owing to the unfavourable position of the spectator, + whereas if a person had the power of getting a correct view of works of + such magnitude, they would appear not even like that to which they profess + to be like? May we not call these 'appearances,' since they appear only + and are not really like? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is a great deal of this kind of thing in painting, and in + all imitation. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And may we not fairly call the sort of art, which produces an + appearance and not an image, phantastic art? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Most fairly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: These then are the two kinds of image-making—the art of + making likenesses, and phantastic or the art of making appearances? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I was doubtful before in which of them I should place the + Sophist, nor am I even now able to see clearly; verily he is a wonderful + and inscrutable creature. And now in the cleverest manner he has got into + an impossible place. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, he has. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Do you speak advisedly, or are you carried away at the moment by + the habit of assenting into giving a hasty answer? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: May I ask to what you are referring? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: My dear friend, we are engaged in a very difficult speculation—there + can be no doubt of that; for how a thing can appear and seem, and not be, + or how a man can say a thing which is not true, has always been and still + remains a very perplexing question. Can any one say or think that + falsehood really exists, and avoid being caught in a contradiction? + Indeed, Theaetetus, the task is a difficult one. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: He who says that falsehood exists has the audacity to assert the + being of not-being; for this is implied in the possibility of falsehood. + But, my boy, in the days when I was a boy, the great Parmenides protested + against this doctrine, and to the end of his life he continued to + inculcate the same lesson—always repeating both in verse and out of + verse: + </p> + <p> + 'Keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that + not-being is.' + </p> + <p> + Such is his testimony, which is confirmed by the very expression when + sifted a little. Would you object to begin with the consideration of the + words themselves? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Never mind about me; I am only desirous that you should carry + on the argument in the best way, and that you should take me with you. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Very good; and now say, do we venture to utter the forbidden + word 'not-being'? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly we do. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us be serious then, and consider the question neither in + strife nor play: suppose that one of the hearers of Parmenides was asked, + 'To what is the term "not-being" to be applied?'—do you know what + sort of object he would single out in reply, and what answer he would make + to the enquirer? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is a difficult question, and one not to be answered at + all by a person like myself. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is at any rate no difficulty in seeing that the predicate + 'not-being' is not applicable to any being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: None, certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And if not to being, then not to something. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: It is also plain, that in speaking of something we speak of + being, for to speak of an abstract something naked and isolated from all + being is impossible. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Impossible. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You mean by assenting to imply that he who says something must + say some one thing? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Some in the singular (ti) you would say is the sign of one, some + in the dual (tine) of two, some in the plural (tines) of many? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Exactly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then he who says 'not something' must say absolutely nothing. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Most assuredly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And as we cannot admit that a man speaks and says nothing, he + who says 'not-being' does not speak at all. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: The difficulty of the argument can no further go. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Not yet, my friend, is the time for such a word; for there still + remains of all perplexities the first and greatest, touching the very + foundation of the matter. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? Do not be afraid to speak. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: To that which is, may be attributed some other thing which is? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But can anything which is, be attributed to that which is not? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Impossible. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And all number is to be reckoned among things which are? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, surely number, if anything, has a real existence. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then we must not attempt to attribute to not-being number either + in the singular or plural? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: The argument implies that we should be wrong in doing so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But how can a man either express in words or even conceive in + thought things which are not or a thing which is not without number? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How indeed? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When we speak of things which are not, are we not attributing + plurality to not-being? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But, on the other hand, when we say 'what is not,' do we not + attribute unity? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Manifestly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Nevertheless, we maintain that you may not and ought not to + attribute being to not-being? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Most true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Do you see, then, that not-being in itself can neither be + spoken, uttered, or thought, but that it is unthinkable, unutterable, + unspeakable, indescribable? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But, if so, I was wrong in telling you just now that the + difficulty which was coming is the greatest of all. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What! is there a greater still behind? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Well, I am surprised, after what has been said already, that you + do not see the difficulty in which he who would refute the notion of + not-being is involved. For he is compelled to contradict himself as soon + as he makes the attempt. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? Speak more clearly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Do not expect clearness from me. For I, who maintain that + not-being has no part either in the one or many, just now spoke and am + still speaking of not-being as one; for I say 'not-being.' Do you + understand? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And a little while ago I said that not-being is unutterable, + unspeakable, indescribable: do you follow? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I do after a fashion. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When I introduced the word 'is,' did I not contradict what I + said before? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Clearly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And in using the singular verb, did I not speak of not-being as + one? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And when I spoke of not-being as indescribable and unspeakable + and unutterable, in using each of these words in the singular, did I not + refer to not-being as one? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And yet we say that, strictly speaking, it should not be defined + as one or many, and should not even be called 'it,' for the use of the + word 'it' would imply a form of unity. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: How, then, can any one put any faith in me? For now, as always, + I am unequal to the refutation of not-being. And therefore, as I was + saying, do not look to me for the right way of speaking about not-being; + but come, let us try the experiment with you. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Make a noble effort, as becomes youth, and endeavour with all + your might to speak of not-being in a right manner, without introducing + into it either existence or unity or plurality. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: It would be a strange boldness in me which would attempt the + task when I see you thus discomfited. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Say no more of ourselves; but until we find some one or other + who can speak of not-being without number, we must acknowledge that the + Sophist is a clever rogue who will not be got out of his hole. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Most true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And if we say to him that he professes an art of making + appearances, he will grapple with us and retort our argument upon + ourselves; and when we call him an image-maker he will say, 'Pray what do + you mean at all by an image?'—and I should like to know, Theaetetus, + how we can possibly answer the younker's question? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: We shall doubtless tell him of the images which are reflected + in water or in mirrors; also of sculptures, pictures, and other + duplicates. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I see, Theaetetus, that you have never made the acquaintance of + the Sophist. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why do you think so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: He will make believe to have his eyes shut, or to have none. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When you tell him of something existing in a mirror, or in + sculpture, and address him as though he had eyes, he will laugh you to + scorn, and will pretend that he knows nothing of mirrors and streams, or + of sight at all; he will say that he is asking about an idea. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What can he mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The common notion pervading all these objects, which you speak + of as many, and yet call by the single name of image, as though it were + the unity under which they were all included. How will you maintain your + ground against him? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How, Stranger, can I describe an image except as something + fashioned in the likeness of the true? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And do you mean this something to be some other true thing, or + what do you mean? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly not another true thing, but only a resemblance. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And you mean by true that which really is? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the not true is that which is the opposite of the true? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Exactly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: A resemblance, then, is not really real, if, as you say, not + true? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Nay, but it is in a certain sense. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You mean to say, not in a true sense? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes; it is in reality only an image. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then what we call an image is in reality really unreal. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: In what a strange complication of being and not-being we are + involved! + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Strange! I should think so. See how, by his reciprocation of + opposites, the many-headed Sophist has compelled us, quite against our + will, to admit the existence of not-being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, indeed, I see. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The difficulty is how to define his art without falling into a + contradiction. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How do you mean? And where does the danger lie? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When we say that he deceives us with an illusion, and that his + art is illusory, do we mean that our soul is led by his art to think + falsely, or what do we mean? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There is nothing else to be said. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Again, false opinion is that form of opinion which thinks the + opposite of the truth:—You would assent? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You mean to say that false opinion thinks what is not? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Does false opinion think that things which are not are not, or + that in a certain sense they are? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Things that are not must be imagined to exist in a certain + sense, if any degree of falsehood is to be possible. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And does not false opinion also think that things which most + certainly exist do not exist at all? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And here, again, is falsehood? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Falsehood—yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And in like manner, a false proposition will be deemed to be one + which asserts the non-existence of things which are, and the existence of + things which are not. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There is no other way in which a false proposition can arise. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is not; but the Sophist will deny these statements. And + indeed how can any rational man assent to them, when the very expressions + which we have just used were before acknowledged by us to be unutterable, + unspeakable, indescribable, unthinkable? Do you see his point, Theaetetus? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course he will say that we are contradicting ourselves when + we hazard the assertion, that falsehood exists in opinion and in words; + for in maintaining this, we are compelled over and over again to assert + being of not-being, which we admitted just now to be an utter + impossibility. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: How well you remember! And now it is high time to hold a + consultation as to what we ought to do about the Sophist; for if we + persist in looking for him in the class of false workers and magicians, + you see that the handles for objection and the difficulties which will + arise are very numerous and obvious. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: They are indeed. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: We have gone through but a very small portion of them, and they + are really infinite. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: If that is the case, we cannot possibly catch the Sophist. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Shall we then be so faint-hearted as to give him up? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly not, I should say, if we can get the slightest hold + upon him. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Will you then forgive me, and, as your words imply, not be + altogether displeased if I flinch a little from the grasp of such a sturdy + argument? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure I will. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I have a yet more urgent request to make. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Which is—? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: That you will promise not to regard me as a parricide. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: And why? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Because, in self-defence, I must test the philosophy of my + father Parmenides, and try to prove by main force that in a certain sense + not-being is, and that being, on the other hand, is not. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Some attempt of the kind is clearly needed. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes, a blind man, as they say, might see that, and, unless these + questions are decided in one way or another, no one when he speaks of + false words, or false opinion, or idols, or images, or imitations, or + appearances, or about the arts which are concerned with them; can avoid + falling into ridiculous contradictions. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Most true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And therefore I must venture to lay hands on my father's + argument; for if I am to be over-scrupulous, I shall have to give the + matter up. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Nothing in the world should ever induce us to do so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I have a third little request which I wish to make. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is it? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You heard me say what I have always felt and still feel—that + I have no heart for this argument? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I did. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I tremble at the thought of what I have said, and expect that + you will deem me mad, when you hear of my sudden changes and shiftings; + let me therefore observe, that I am examining the question entirely out of + regard for you. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There is no reason for you to fear that I shall impute any + impropriety to you, if you attempt this refutation and proof; take heart, + therefore, and proceed. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And where shall I begin the perilous enterprise? I think that + the road which I must take is— + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Which?—Let me hear. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I think that we had better, first of all, consider the points + which at present are regarded as self-evident, lest we may have fallen + into some confusion, and be too ready to assent to one another, fancying + that we are quite clear about them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Say more distinctly what you mean. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I think that Parmenides, and all ever yet undertook to determine + the number and nature of existences, talked to us in rather a light and + easy strain. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: As if we had been children, to whom they repeated each his own + mythus or story;—one said that there were three principles, and that + at one time there was war between certain of them; and then again there + was peace, and they were married and begat children, and brought them up; + and another spoke of two principles,—a moist and a dry, or a hot and + a cold, and made them marry and cohabit. The Eleatics, however, in our + part of the world, say that all things are many in name, but in nature + one; this is their mythus, which goes back to Xenophanes, and is even + older. Then there are Ionian, and in more recent times Sicilian muses, who + have arrived at the conclusion that to unite the two principles is safer, + and to say that being is one and many, and that these are held together by + enmity and friendship, ever parting, ever meeting, as the severer Muses + assert, while the gentler ones do not insist on the perpetual strife and + peace, but admit a relaxation and alternation of them; peace and unity + sometimes prevailing under the sway of Aphrodite, and then again plurality + and war, by reason of a principle of strife. Whether any of them spoke the + truth in all this is hard to determine; besides, antiquity and famous men + should have reverence, and not be liable to accusations so serious. Yet + one thing may be said of them without offence— + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What thing? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: That they went on their several ways disdaining to notice people + like ourselves; they did not care whether they took us with them, or left + us behind them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I mean to say, that when they talk of one, two, or more + elements, which are or have become or are becoming, or again of heat + mingling with cold, assuming in some other part of their works separations + and mixtures,—tell me, Theaetetus, do you understand what they mean + by these expressions? When I was a younger man, I used to fancy that I + understood quite well what was meant by the term 'not-being,' which is our + present subject of dispute; and now you see in what a fix we are about it. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I see. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And very likely we have been getting into the same perplexity + about 'being,' and yet may fancy that when anybody utters the word, we + understand him quite easily, although we do not know about not-being. But + we may be; equally ignorant of both. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I dare say. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the same may be said of all the terms just mentioned. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The consideration of most of them may be deferred; but we had + better now discuss the chief captain and leader of them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of what are you speaking? You clearly think that we must first + investigate what people mean by the word 'being.' + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You follow close at my heels, Theaetetus. For the right method, + I conceive, will be to call into our presence the dualistic philosophers + and to interrogate them. 'Come,' we will say, 'Ye, who affirm that hot and + cold or any other two principles are the universe, what is this term which + you apply to both of them, and what do you mean when you say that both and + each of them "are"? How are we to understand the word "are"? Upon your + view, are we to suppose that there is a third principle over and above the + other two,—three in all, and not two? For clearly you cannot say + that one of the two principles is being, and yet attribute being equally + to both of them; for, if you did, whichever of the two is identified with + being, will comprehend the other; and so they will be one and not two.' + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But perhaps you mean to give the name of 'being' to both of them + together? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite likely. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: 'Then, friends,' we shall reply to them, 'the answer is plainly + that the two will still be resolved into one.' + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Most true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: 'Since, then, we are in a difficulty, please to tell us what you + mean, when you speak of being; for there can be no doubt that you always + from the first understood your own meaning, whereas we once thought that + we understood you, but now we are in a great strait. Please to begin by + explaining this matter to us, and let us no longer fancy that we + understand you, when we entirely misunderstand you.' There will be no + impropriety in our demanding an answer to this question, either of the + dualists or of the pluralists? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And what about the assertors of the oneness of the all—must + we not endeavour to ascertain from them what they mean by 'being'? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: By all means. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then let them answer this question: One, you say, alone is? + 'Yes,' they will reply. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And there is something which you call 'being'? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: 'Yes.' + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And is being the same as one, and do you apply two names to the + same thing? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What will be their answer, Stranger? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: It is clear, Theaetetus, that he who asserts the unity of being + will find a difficulty in answering this or any other question. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: To admit of two names, and to affirm that there is nothing but + unity, is surely ridiculous? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And equally irrational to admit that a name is anything? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: To distinguish the name from the thing, implies duality. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And yet he who identifies the name with the thing will be + compelled to say that it is the name of nothing, or if he says that it is + the name of something, even then the name will only be the name of a name, + and of nothing else. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the one will turn out to be only one of one, and being + absolute unity, will represent a mere name. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And would they say that the whole is other than the one that is, + or the same with it? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure they would, and they actually say so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: If being is a whole, as Parmenides sings,— + </p> + <p> + 'Every way like unto the fullness of a well-rounded sphere, Evenly + balanced from the centre on every side, And must needs be neither greater + nor less in any way, Neither on this side nor on that—' + </p> + <p> + then being has a centre and extremes, and, having these, must also have + parts. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yet that which has parts may have the attribute of unity in all + the parts, and in this way being all and a whole, may be one? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But that of which this is the condition cannot be absolute + unity? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why not? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Because, according to right reason, that which is truly one must + be affirmed to be absolutely indivisible. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But this indivisible, if made up of many parts, will contradict + reason. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I understand. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Shall we say that being is one and a whole, because it has the + attribute of unity? Or shall we say that being is not a whole at all? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is a hard alternative to offer. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Most true; for being, having in a certain sense the attribute of + one, is yet proved not to be the same as one, and the all is therefore + more than one. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And yet if being be not a whole, through having the attribute of + unity, and there be such a thing as an absolute whole, being lacks + something of its own nature? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Upon this view, again, being, having a defect of being, will + become not-being? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And, again, the all becomes more than one, for being and the + whole will each have their separate nature. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But if the whole does not exist at all, all the previous + difficulties remain the same, and there will be the further difficulty, + that besides having no being, being can never have come into being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Because that which comes into being always comes into being as a + whole, so that he who does not give whole a place among beings, cannot + speak either of essence or generation as existing. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, that certainly appears to be true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Again; how can that which is not a whole have any quantity? For + that which is of a certain quantity must necessarily be the whole of that + quantity. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Exactly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And there will be innumerable other points, each of them causing + infinite trouble to him who says that being is either one or two. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: The difficulties which are dawning upon us prove this; for one + objection connects with another, and they are always involving what has + preceded in a greater and worse perplexity. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: We are far from having exhausted the more exact thinkers who + treat of being and not-being. But let us be content to leave them, and + proceed to view those who speak less precisely; and we shall find as the + result of all, that the nature of being is quite as difficult to + comprehend as that of not-being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Then now we will go to the others. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There appears to be a sort of war of Giants and Gods going on + amongst them; they are fighting with one another about the nature of + essence. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How is that? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Some of them are dragging down all things from heaven and from + the unseen to earth, and they literally grasp in their hands rocks and + oaks; of these they lay hold, and obstinately maintain, that the things + only which can be touched or handled have being or essence, because they + define being and body as one, and if any one else says that what is not a + body exists they altogether despise him, and will hear of nothing but + body. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I have often met with such men, and terrible fellows they are. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And that is the reason why their opponents cautiously defend + themselves from above, out of an unseen world, mightily contending that + true essence consists of certain intelligible and incorporeal ideas; the + bodies of the materialists, which by them are maintained to be the very + truth, they break up into little bits by their arguments, and affirm them + to be, not essence, but generation and motion. Between the two armies, + Theaetetus, there is always an endless conflict raging concerning these + matters. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us ask each party in turn, to give an account of that which + they call essence. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How shall we get it out of them? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: With those who make being to consist in ideas, there will be + less difficulty, for they are civil people enough; but there will be very + great difficulty, or rather an absolute impossibility, in getting an + opinion out of those who drag everything down to matter. Shall I tell you + what we must do? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us, if we can, really improve them; but if this is not + possible, let us imagine them to be better than they are, and more willing + to answer in accordance with the rules of argument, and then their opinion + will be more worth having; for that which better men acknowledge has more + weight than that which is acknowledged by inferior men. Moreover we are no + respecters of persons, but seekers after truth. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then now, on the supposition that they are improved, let us ask + them to state their views, and do you interpret them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Agreed. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let them say whether they would admit that there is such a thing + as a mortal animal. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course they would. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And do they not acknowledge this to be a body having a soul? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly they do. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Meaning to say that the soul is something which exists? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And do they not say that one soul is just, and another unjust, + and that one soul is wise, and another foolish? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And that the just and wise soul becomes just and wise by the + possession of justice and wisdom, and the opposite under opposite + circumstances? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, they do. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But surely that which may be present or may be absent will be + admitted by them to exist? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And, allowing that justice, wisdom, the other virtues, and their + opposites exist, as well as a soul in which they inhere, do they affirm + any of them to be visible and tangible, or are they all invisible? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: They would say that hardly any of them are visible. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And would they say that they are corporeal? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: They would distinguish: the soul would be said by them to have + a body; but as to the other qualities of justice, wisdom, and the like, + about which you asked, they would not venture either to deny their + existence, or to maintain that they were all corporeal. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Verily, Theaetetus, I perceive a great improvement in them; the + real aborigines, children of the dragon's teeth, would have been deterred + by no shame at all, but would have obstinately asserted that nothing is + which they are not able to squeeze in their hands. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is pretty much their notion. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us push the question; for if they will admit that any, even + the smallest particle of being, is incorporeal, it is enough; they must + then say what that nature is which is common to both the corporeal and + incorporeal, and which they have in their mind's eye when they say of both + of them that they 'are.' Perhaps they may be in a difficulty; and if this + is the case, there is a possibility that they may accept a notion of ours + respecting the nature of being, having nothing of their own to offer. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is the notion? Tell me, and we shall soon see. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of + power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a + single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, + has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply + power. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: They accept your suggestion, having nothing better of their + own to offer. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Very good; perhaps we, as well as they, may one day change our + minds; but, for the present, this may be regarded as the understanding + which is established with them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Agreed. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us now go to the friends of ideas; of their opinions, too, + you shall be the interpreter. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I will. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: To them we say—You would distinguish essence from + generation? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: 'Yes,' they reply. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And you would allow that we participate in generation with the + body, and through perception, but we participate with the soul through + thought in true essence; and essence you would affirm to be always the + same and immutable, whereas generation or becoming varies? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes; that is what we should affirm. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Well, fair sirs, we say to them, what is this participation, + which you assert of both? Do you agree with our recent definition? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What definition? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: We said that being was an active or passive energy, arising out + of a certain power which proceeds from elements meeting with one another. + Perhaps your ears, Theaetetus, may fail to catch their answer, which I + recognize because I have been accustomed to hear it. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: And what is their answer? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: They deny the truth of what we were just now saying to the + aborigines about existence. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What was that? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Any power of doing or suffering in a degree however slight was + held by us to be a sufficient definition of being? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: They deny this, and say that the power of doing or suffering is + confined to becoming, and that neither power is applicable to being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: And is there not some truth in what they say? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes; but our reply will be, that we want to ascertain from them + more distinctly, whether they further admit that the soul knows, and that + being or essence is known. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There can be no doubt that they say so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And is knowing and being known doing or suffering, or both, or + is the one doing and the other suffering, or has neither any share in + either? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Clearly, neither has any share in either; for if they say + anything else, they will contradict themselves. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I understand; but they will allow that if to know is active, + then, of course, to be known is passive. And on this view being, in so far + as it is known, is acted upon by knowledge, and is therefore in motion; + for that which is in a state of rest cannot be acted upon, as we affirm. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And, O heavens, can we ever be made to believe that motion and + life and soul and mind are not present with perfect being? Can we imagine + that being is devoid of life and mind, and exists in awful unmeaningness + an everlasting fixture? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That would be a dreadful thing to admit, Stranger. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But shall we say that has mind and not life? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How is that possible? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Or shall we say that both inhere in perfect being, but that it + has no soul which contains them? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: And in what other way can it contain them? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Or that being has mind and life and soul, but although endowed + with soul remains absolutely unmoved? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: All three suppositions appear to me to be irrational. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Under being, then, we must include motion, and that which is + moved. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, Theaetetus, our inference is, that if there is no motion, + neither is there any mind anywhere, or about anything or belonging to any + one. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And yet this equally follows, if we grant that all things are in + motion—upon this view too mind has no existence. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Do you think that sameness of condition and mode and subject + could ever exist without a principle of rest? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Can you see how without them mind could exist, or come into + existence anywhere? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: No. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And surely contend we must in every possible way against him who + would annihilate knowledge and reason and mind, and yet ventures to speak + confidently about anything. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, with all our might. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then the philosopher, who has the truest reverence for these + qualities, cannot possibly accept the notion of those who say that the + whole is at rest, either as unity or in many forms: and he will be utterly + deaf to those who assert universal motion. As children say entreatingly + 'Give us both,' so he will include both the moveable and immoveable in his + definition of being and all. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Most true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And now, do we seem to have gained a fair notion of being? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes truly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Alas, Theaetetus, methinks that we are now only beginning to see + the real difficulty of the enquiry into the nature of it. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: O my friend, do you not see that nothing can exceed our + ignorance, and yet we fancy that we are saying something good? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I certainly thought that we were; and I do not at all + understand how we never found out our desperate case. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Reflect: after having made these admissions, may we not be + justly asked the same questions which we ourselves were asking of those + who said that all was hot and cold? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What were they? Will you recall them to my mind? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: To be sure I will, and I will remind you of them, by putting the + same questions to you which I did to them, and then we shall get on. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Would you not say that rest and motion are in the most entire + opposition to one another? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And yet you would say that both and either of them equally are? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I should. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And when you admit that both or either of them are, do you mean + to say that both or either of them are in motion? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Or do you wish to imply that they are both at rest, when you say + that they are? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then you conceive of being as some third and distinct nature, + under which rest and motion are alike included; and, observing that they + both participate in being, you declare that they are. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Truly we seem to have an intimation that being is some third + thing, when we say that rest and motion are. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then being is not the combination of rest and motion, but + something different from them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: So it would appear. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Being, then, according to its own nature, is neither in motion + nor at rest. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is very much the truth. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Where, then, is a man to look for help who would have any clear + or fixed notion of being in his mind? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Where, indeed? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I scarcely think that he can look anywhere; for that which is + not in motion must be at rest, and again, that which is not at rest must + be in motion; but being is placed outside of both these classes. Is this + possible? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Utterly impossible. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Here, then, is another thing which we ought to bear in mind. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When we were asked to what we were to assign the appellation of + not-being, we were in the greatest difficulty:—do you remember? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And are we not now in as great a difficulty about being? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I should say, Stranger, that we are in one which is, if + possible, even greater. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then let us acknowledge the difficulty; and as being and + not-being are involved in the same perplexity, there is hope that when the + one appears more or less distinctly, the other will equally appear; and if + we are able to see neither, there may still be a chance of steering our + way in between them, without any great discredit. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us enquire, then, how we come to predicate many names of the + same thing. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Give an example. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I mean that we speak of man, for example, under many names—that + we attribute to him colours and forms and magnitudes and virtues and + vices, in all of which instances and in ten thousand others we not only + speak of him as a man, but also as good, and having numberless other + attributes, and in the same way anything else which we originally supposed + to be one is described by us as many, and under many names. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And thus we provide a rich feast for tyros, whether young or + old; for there is nothing easier than to argue that the one cannot be + many, or the many one; and great is their delight in denying that a man is + good; for man, they insist, is man and good is good. I dare say that you + have met with persons who take an interest in such matters—they are + often elderly men, whose meagre sense is thrown into amazement by these + discoveries of theirs, which they believe to be the height of wisdom. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly, I have. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, not to exclude any one who has ever speculated at all upon + the nature of being, let us put our questions to them as well as to our + former friends. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What questions? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Shall we refuse to attribute being to motion and rest, or + anything to anything, and assume that they do not mingle, and are + incapable of participating in one another? Or shall we gather all into one + class of things communicable with one another? Or are some things + communicable and others not?—Which of these alternatives, + Theaetetus, will they prefer? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I have nothing to answer on their behalf. Suppose that you + take all these hypotheses in turn, and see what are the consequences which + follow from each of them. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Very good, and first let us assume them to say that nothing is + capable of participating in anything else in any respect; in that case + rest and motion cannot participate in being at all. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: They cannot. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But would either of them be if not participating in being? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: No. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then by this admission everything is instantly overturned, as + well the doctrine of universal motion as of universal rest, and also the + doctrine of those who distribute being into immutable and everlasting + kinds; for all these add on a notion of being, some affirming that things + 'are' truly in motion, and others that they 'are' truly at rest. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Just so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Again, those who would at one time compound, and at another + resolve all things, whether making them into one and out of one creating + infinity, or dividing them into finite elements, and forming compounds out + of these; whether they suppose the processes of creation to be successive + or continuous, would be talking nonsense in all this if there were no + admixture. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Most ridiculous of all will the men themselves be who want to + carry out the argument and yet forbid us to call anything, because + participating in some affection from another, by the name of that other. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Why, because they are compelled to use the words 'to be,' + 'apart,' 'from others,' 'in itself,' and ten thousand more, which they + cannot give up, but must make the connecting links of discourse; and + therefore they do not require to be refuted by others, but their enemy, as + the saying is, inhabits the same house with them; they are always carrying + about with them an adversary, like the wonderful ventriloquist, Eurycles, + who out of their own bellies audibly contradicts them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Precisely so; a very true and exact illustration. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And now, if we suppose that all things have the power of + communion with one another—what will follow? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Even I can solve that riddle. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: How? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why, because motion itself would be at rest, and rest again in + motion, if they could be attributed to one another. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But this is utterly impossible. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then only the third hypothesis remains. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: For, surely, either all things have communion with all; or + nothing with any other thing; or some things communicate with some things + and others not. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And two out of these three suppositions have been found to be + impossible. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Every one then, who desires to answer truly, will adopt the + third and remaining hypothesis of the communion of some with some. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: This communion of some with some may be illustrated by the case + of letters; for some letters do not fit each other, while others do. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the vowels, especially, are a sort of bond which pervades + all the other letters, so that without a vowel one consonant cannot be + joined to another. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But does every one know what letters will unite with what? Or is + art required in order to do so? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Art is required. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: What art? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: The art of grammar. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And is not this also true of sounds high and low?—Is not + he who has the art to know what sounds mingle, a musician, and he who is + ignorant, not a musician? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And we shall find this to be generally true of art or the + absence of art. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And as classes are admitted by us in like manner to be some of + them capable and others incapable of intermixture, must not he who would + rightly show what kinds will unite and what will not, proceed by the help + of science in the path of argument? And will he not ask if the connecting + links are universal, and so capable of intermixture with all things; and + again, in divisions, whether there are not other universal classes, which + make them possible? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure he will require science, and, if I am not mistaken, + the very greatest of all sciences. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: How are we to call it? By Zeus, have we not lighted unwittingly + upon our free and noble science, and in looking for the Sophist have we + not entertained the philosopher unawares? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Should we not say that the division according to classes, which + neither makes the same other, nor makes other the same, is the business of + the dialectical science? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is what we should say. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, surely, he who can divide rightly is able to see clearly + one form pervading a scattered multitude, and many different forms + contained under one higher form; and again, one form knit together into a + single whole and pervading many such wholes, and many forms, existing only + in separation and isolation. This is the knowledge of classes which + determines where they can have communion with one another and where not. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the art of dialectic would be attributed by you only to the + philosopher pure and true? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Who but he can be worthy? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: In this region we shall always discover the philosopher, if we + look for him; like the Sophist, he is not easily discovered, but for a + different reason. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: For what reason? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Because the Sophist runs away into the darkness of not-being, in + which he has learned by habit to feel about, and cannot be discovered + because of the darkness of the place. Is not that true? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: It seems to be so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the philosopher, always holding converse through reason with + the idea of being, is also dark from excess of light; for the souls of the + many have no eye which can endure the vision of the divine. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes; that seems to be quite as true as the other. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Well, the philosopher may hereafter be more fully considered by + us, if we are disposed; but the Sophist must clearly not be allowed to + escape until we have had a good look at him. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Since, then, we are agreed that some classes have a communion + with one another, and others not, and some have communion with a few and + others with many, and that there is no reason why some should not have + universal communion with all, let us now pursue the enquiry, as the + argument suggests, not in relation to all ideas, lest the multitude of + them should confuse us, but let us select a few of those which are + reckoned to be the principal ones, and consider their several natures and + their capacity of communion with one another, in order that if we are not + able to apprehend with perfect clearness the notions of being and + not-being, we may at least not fall short in the consideration of them, so + far as they come within the scope of the present enquiry, if peradventure + we may be allowed to assert the reality of not-being, and yet escape + unscathed. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: We must do so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The most important of all the genera are those which we were + just now mentioning—being and rest and motion. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, by far. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And two of these are, as we affirm, incapable of communion with + one another. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite incapable. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Whereas being surely has communion with both of them, for both + of them are? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: That makes up three of them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And each of them is other than the remaining two, but the same + with itself. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But then, what is the meaning of these two words, 'same' and + 'other'? Are they two new kinds other than the three, and yet always of + necessity intermingling with them, and are we to have five kinds instead + of three; or when we speak of the same and other, are we unconsciously + speaking of one of the three first kinds? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very likely we are. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But, surely, motion and rest are neither the other nor the same. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How is that? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Whatever we attribute to motion and rest in common, cannot be + either of them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why not? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Because motion would be at rest and rest in motion, for either + of them, being predicated of both, will compel the other to change into + the opposite of its own nature, because partaking of its opposite. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yet they surely both partake of the same and of the other? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then we must not assert that motion, any more than rest, is + either the same or the other. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: No; we must not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But are we to conceive that being and the same are identical? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Possibly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But if they are identical, then again in saying that motion and + rest have being, we should also be saying that they are the same. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Which surely cannot be. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then being and the same cannot be one. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Scarcely. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then we may suppose the same to be a fourth class, which is now + to be added to the three others. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And shall we call the other a fifth class? Or should we consider + being and other to be two names of the same class? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very likely. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But you would agree, if I am not mistaken, that existences are + relative as well as absolute? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the other is always relative to other? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But this would not be the case unless being and the other + entirely differed; for, if the other, like being, were absolute as well as + relative, then there would have been a kind of other which was not other + than other. And now we find that what is other must of necessity be what + it is in relation to some other. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is the true state of the case. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then we must admit the other as the fifth of our selected + classes. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the fifth class pervades all classes, for they all differ + from one another, not by reason of their own nature, but because they + partake of the idea of the other. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then let us now put the case with reference to each of the five. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: First there is motion, which we affirm to be absolutely 'other' + than rest: what else can we say? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: It is so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And therefore is not rest. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And yet is, because partaking of being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Again, motion is other than the same? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Just so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And is therefore not the same. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: It is not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yet, surely, motion is the same, because all things partake of + the same. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then we must admit, and not object to say, that motion is the + same and is not the same, for we do not apply the terms 'same' and 'not + the same,' in the same sense; but we call it the 'same,' in relation to + itself, because partaking of the same; and not the same, because having + communion with the other, it is thereby severed from the same, and has + become not that but other, and is therefore rightly spoken of as 'not the + same.' + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And if absolute motion in any point of view partook of rest, + there would be no absurdity in calling motion stationary. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite right,—that is, on the supposition that some + classes mingle with one another, and others not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: That such a communion of kinds is according to nature, we had + already proved before we arrived at this part of our discussion. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us proceed, then. May we not say that motion is other than + the other, having been also proved by us to be other than the same and + other than rest? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is certain. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, according to this view, motion is other and also not + other? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: What is the next step? Shall we say that motion is other than + the three and not other than the fourth,—for we agreed that there + are five classes about and in the sphere of which we proposed to make + enquiry? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Surely we cannot admit that the number is less than it + appeared to be just now. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then we may without fear contend that motion is other than + being? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Without the least fear. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The plain result is that motion, since it partakes of being, + really is and also is not? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Nothing can be plainer. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then not-being necessarily exists in the case of motion and of + every class; for the nature of the other entering into them all, makes + each of them other than being, and so non-existent; and therefore of all + of them, in like manner, we may truly say that they are not; and again, + inasmuch as they partake of being, that they are and are existent. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: So we may assume. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Every class, then, has plurality of being and infinity of + not-being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: So we must infer. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And being itself may be said to be other than the other kinds. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then we may infer that being is not, in respect of as many other + things as there are; for not-being these it is itself one, and is not the + other things, which are infinite in number. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is not far from the truth. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And we must not quarrel with this result, since it is of the + nature of classes to have communion with one another; and if any one + denies our present statement [viz., that being is not, etc.], let him + first argue with our former conclusion [i.e., respecting the communion of + ideas], and then he may proceed to argue with what follows. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Nothing can be fairer. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let me ask you to consider a further question. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What question? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When we speak of not-being, we speak, I suppose, not of + something opposed to being, but only different. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When we speak of something as not great, does the expression + seem to you to imply what is little any more than what is equal? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly not. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The negative particles, ou and me, when prefixed to words, do + not imply opposition, but only difference from the words, or more + correctly from the things represented by the words, which follow them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is another point to be considered, if you do not object. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is it? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The nature of the other appears to me to be divided into + fractions like knowledge. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Knowledge, like the other, is one; and yet the various parts of + knowledge have each of them their own particular name, and hence there are + many arts and kinds of knowledge. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And is not the case the same with the parts of the other, which + is also one? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very likely; but will you tell me how? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is some part of the other which is opposed to the + beautiful? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There is. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Shall we say that this has or has not a name? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: It has; for whatever we call not-beautiful is other than the + beautiful, not than something else. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And now tell me another thing. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Is the not-beautiful anything but this—an existence parted + off from a certain kind of existence, and again from another point of view + opposed to an existing something? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then the not-beautiful turns out to be the opposition of being + to being? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But upon this view, is the beautiful a more real and the + not-beautiful a less real existence? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Not at all. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the not-great may be said to exist, equally with the great? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And, in the same way, the just must be placed in the same + category with the not-just—the one cannot be said to have any more + existence than the other. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The same may be said of other things; seeing that the nature of + the other has a real existence, the parts of this nature must equally be + supposed to exist. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of course. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, as would appear, the opposition of a part of the other, + and of a part of being, to one another, is, if I may venture to say so, as + truly essence as being itself, and implies not the opposite of being, but + only what is other than being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Beyond question. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: What then shall we call it? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Clearly, not-being; and this is the very nature for which the + Sophist compelled us to search. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And has not this, as you were saying, as real an existence as + any other class? May I not say with confidence that not-being has an + assured existence, and a nature of its own? Just as the great was found to + be great and the beautiful beautiful, and the not-great not-great, and the + not-beautiful not-beautiful, in the same manner not-being has been found + to be and is not-being, and is to be reckoned one among the many classes + of being. Do you, Theaetetus, still feel any doubt of this? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: None whatever. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Do you observe that our scepticism has carried us beyond the + range of Parmenides' prohibition? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: In what? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: We have advanced to a further point, and shown him more than he + forbad us to investigate. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How is that? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Why, because he says— + </p> + <p> + 'Not-being never is, and do thou keep thy thoughts from this way of + enquiry.' + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, he says so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Whereas, we have not only proved that things which are not are, + but we have shown what form of being not-being is; for we have shown that + the nature of the other is, and is distributed over all things in their + relations to one another, and whatever part of the other is contrasted + with being, this is precisely what we have ventured to call not-being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: And surely, Stranger, we were quite right. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let not any one say, then, that while affirming the opposition + of not-being to being, we still assert the being of not-being; for as to + whether there is an opposite of being, to that enquiry we have long said + good-bye—it may or may not be, and may or may not be capable of + definition. But as touching our present account of not-being, let a man + either convince us of error, or, so long as he cannot, he too must say, as + we are saying, that there is a communion of classes, and that being, and + difference or other, traverse all things and mutually interpenetrate, so + that the other partakes of being, and by reason of this participation is, + and yet is not that of which it partakes, but other, and being other than + being, it is clearly a necessity that not-being should be. And again, + being, through partaking of the other, becomes a class other than the + remaining classes, and being other than all of them, is not each one of + them, and is not all the rest, so that undoubtedly there are thousands + upon thousands of cases in which being is not, and all other things, + whether regarded individually or collectively, in many respects are, and + in many respects are not. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And he who is sceptical of this contradiction, must think how he + can find something better to say; or if he sees a puzzle, and his pleasure + is to drag words this way and that, the argument will prove to him, that + he is not making a worthy use of his faculties; for there is no charm in + such puzzles, and there is no difficulty in detecting them; but we can + tell him of something else the pursuit of which is noble and also + difficult. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is it? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: A thing of which I have already spoken;—letting alone + these puzzles as involving no difficulty, he should be able to follow and + criticize in detail every argument, and when a man says that the same is + in a manner other, or that other is the same, to understand and refute him + from his own point of view, and in the same respect in which he asserts + either of these affections. But to show that somehow and in some sense the + same is other, or the other same, or the great small, or the like unlike; + and to delight in always bringing forward such contradictions, is no real + refutation, but is clearly the new-born babe of some one who is only + beginning to approach the problem of being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: For certainly, my friend, the attempt to separate all existences + from one another is a barbarism and utterly unworthy of an educated or + philosophical mind. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The attempt at universal separation is the final annihilation of + all reasoning; for only by the union of conceptions with one another do we + attain to discourse of reason. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And, observe that we were only just in time in making a + resistance to such separatists, and compelling them to admit that one + thing mingles with another. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Why so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Why, that we might be able to assert discourse to be a kind of + being; for if we could not, the worst of all consequences would follow; we + should have no philosophy. Moreover, the necessity for determining the + nature of discourse presses upon us at this moment; if utterly deprived of + it, we could no more hold discourse; and deprived of it we should be if we + admitted that there was no admixture of natures at all. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. But I do not understand why at this moment we must + determine the nature of discourse. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Perhaps you will see more clearly by the help of the following + explanation. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What explanation? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Not-being has been acknowledged by us to be one among many + classes diffused over all being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And thence arises the question, whether not-being mingles with + opinion and language. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: If not-being has no part in the proposition, then all things + must be true; but if not-being has a part, then false opinion and false + speech are possible, for to think or to say what is not—is + falsehood, which thus arises in the region of thought and in speech. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That is quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And where there is falsehood surely there must be deceit. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And if there is deceit, then all things must be full of idols + and images and fancies. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: To be sure. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Into that region the Sophist, as we said, made his escape, and, + when he had got there, denied the very possibility of falsehood; no one, + he argued, either conceived or uttered falsehood, inasmuch as not-being + did not in any way partake of being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And now, not-being has been shown to partake of being, and + therefore he will not continue fighting in this direction, but he will + probably say that some ideas partake of not-being, and some not, and that + language and opinion are of the non-partaking class; and he will still + fight to the death against the existence of the image-making and + phantastic art, in which we have placed him, because, as he will say, + opinion and language do not partake of not-being, and unless this + participation exists, there can be no such thing as falsehood. And, with + the view of meeting this evasion, we must begin by enquiring into the + nature of language, opinion, and imagination, in order that when we find + them we may find also that they have communion with not-being, and, having + made out the connexion of them, may thus prove that falsehood exists; and + therein we will imprison the Sophist, if he deserves it, or, if not, we + will let him go again and look for him in another class. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly, Stranger, there appears to be truth in what was + said about the Sophist at first, that he was of a class not easily caught, + for he seems to have abundance of defences, which he throws up, and which + must every one of them be stormed before we can reach the man himself. And + even now, we have with difficulty got through his first defence, which is + the not-being of not-being, and lo! here is another; for we have still to + show that falsehood exists in the sphere of language and opinion, and + there will be another and another line of defence without end. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Any one, Theaetetus, who is able to advance even a little ought + to be of good cheer, for what would he who is dispirited at a little + progress do, if he were making none at all, or even undergoing a repulse? + Such a faint heart, as the proverb says, will never take a city: but now + that we have succeeded thus far, the citadel is ours, and what remains is + easier. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, as I was saying, let us first of all obtain a conception + of language and opinion, in order that we may have clearer grounds for + determining, whether not-being has any concern with them, or whether they + are both always true, and neither of them ever false. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, now, let us speak of names, as before we were speaking of + ideas and letters; for that is the direction in which the answer may be + expected. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: And what is the question at issue about names? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The question at issue is whether all names may be connected with + one another, or none, or only some of them. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Clearly the last is true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I understand you to say that words which have a meaning when in + sequence may be connected, but that words which have no meaning when in + sequence cannot be connected? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are you saying? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: What I thought that you intended when you gave your assent; for + there are two sorts of intimation of being which are given by the voice. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: One of them is called nouns, and the other verbs. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Describe them. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: That which denotes action we call a verb. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the other, which is an articulate mark set on those who do + the actions, we call a noun. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: A succession of nouns only is not a sentence, any more than of + verbs without nouns. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I do not understand you. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I see that when you gave your assent you had something else in + your mind. But what I intended to say was, that a mere succession of nouns + or of verbs is not discourse. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I mean that words like 'walks,' 'runs,' 'sleeps,' or any other + words which denote action, however many of them you string together, do + not make discourse. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How can they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Or, again, when you say 'lion,' 'stag,' 'horse,' or any other + words which denote agents—neither in this way of stringing words + together do you attain to discourse; for there is no expression of action + or inaction, or of the existence of existence or non-existence indicated + by the sounds, until verbs are mingled with nouns; then the words fit, and + the smallest combination of them forms language, and is the simplest and + least form of discourse. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Again I ask, What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When any one says 'A man learns,' should you not call this the + simplest and least of sentences? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Yes, for he now arrives at the point of giving an intimation + about something which is, or is becoming, or has become, or will be. And + he not only names, but he does something, by connecting verbs with nouns; + and therefore we say that he discourses, and to this connexion of words we + give the name of discourse. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And as there are some things which fit one another, and other + things which do not fit, so there are some vocal signs which do, and + others which do not, combine and form discourse. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is another small matter. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is it? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: A sentence must and cannot help having a subject. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And must be of a certain quality. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And now let us mind what we are about. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: We must do so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I will repeat a sentence to you in which a thing and an action + are combined, by the help of a noun and a verb; and you shall tell me of + whom the sentence speaks. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I will, to the best of my power. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: 'Theaetetus sits'—not a very long sentence. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Not very. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Of whom does the sentence speak, and who is the subject? that is + what you have to tell. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Of me; I am the subject. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Or this sentence, again— + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What sentence? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: 'Theaetetus, with whom I am now speaking, is flying.' + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: That also is a sentence which will be admitted by every one to + speak of me, and to apply to me. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: We agreed that every sentence must necessarily have a certain + quality. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And what is the quality of each of these two sentences? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: The one, as I imagine, is false, and the other true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The true says what is true about you? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the false says what is other than true? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And therefore speaks of things which are not as if they were? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And say that things are real of you which are not; for, as we + were saying, in regard to each thing or person, there is much that is and + much that is not. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The second of the two sentences which related to you was first + of all an example of the shortest form consistent with our definition. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, this was implied in recent admission. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And, in the second place, it related to a subject? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Who must be you, and can be nobody else? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Unquestionably. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And it would be no sentence at all if there were no subject, + for, as we proved, a sentence which has no subject is impossible. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When other, then, is asserted of you as the same, and not-being + as being, such a combination of nouns and verbs is really and truly false + discourse. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Most true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And therefore thought, opinion, and imagination are now proved + to exist in our minds both as true and false. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How so? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You will know better if you first gain a knowledge of what they + are, and in what they severally differ from one another. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Give me the knowledge which you would wish me to gain. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Are not thought and speech the same, with this exception, that + what is called thought is the unuttered conversation of the soul with + herself? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But the stream of thought which flows through the lips and is + audible is called speech? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And we know that there exists in speech... + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What exists? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Affirmation. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, we know it. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When the affirmation or denial takes Place in silence and in the + mind only, have you any other name by which to call it but opinion? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There can be no other name. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And when opinion is presented, not simply, but in some form of + sense, would you not call it imagination? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And seeing that language is true and false, and that thought is + the conversation of the soul with herself, and opinion is the end of + thinking, and imagination or phantasy is the union of sense and opinion, + the inference is that some of them, since they are akin to language, + should have an element of falsehood as well as of truth? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Certainly. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Do you perceive, then, that false opinion and speech have been + discovered sooner than we expected?—For just now we seemed to be + undertaking a task which would never be accomplished. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I perceive. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then let us not be discouraged about the future; but now having + made this discovery, let us go back to our previous classification. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What classification? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: We divided image-making into two sorts; the one likeness-making, + the other imaginative or phantastic. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And we said that we were uncertain in which we should place the + Sophist. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: We did say so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And our heads began to go round more and more when it was + asserted that there is no such thing as an image or idol or appearance, + because in no manner or time or place can there ever be such a thing as + falsehood. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And now, since there has been shown to be false speech and false + opinion, there may be imitations of real existences, and out of this + condition of the mind an art of deception may arise. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite possible. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And we have already admitted, in what preceded, that the Sophist + was lurking in one of the divisions of the likeness-making art? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us, then, renew the attempt, and in dividing any class, + always take the part to the right, holding fast to that which holds the + Sophist, until we have stripped him of all his common properties, and + reached his difference or peculiar. Then we may exhibit him in his true + nature, first to ourselves and then to kindred dialectical spirits. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: You may remember that all art was originally divided by us into + creative and acquisitive. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And the Sophist was flitting before us in the acquisitive class, + in the subdivisions of hunting, contests, merchandize, and the like. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: But now that the imitative art has enclosed him, it is clear + that we must begin by dividing the art of creation; for imitation is a + kind of creation—of images, however, as we affirm, and not of real + things. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: In the first place, there are two kinds of creation. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: One of them is human and the other divine. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I do not follow. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Every power, as you may remember our saying originally, which + causes things to exist, not previously existing, was defined by us as + creative. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I remember. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Looking, now, at the world and all the animals and plants, at + things which grow upon the earth from seeds and roots, as well as at + inanimate substances which are formed within the earth, fusile or + non-fusile, shall we say that they come into existence—not having + existed previously—by the creation of God, or shall we agree with + vulgar opinion about them? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What is it? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The opinion that nature brings them into being from some + spontaneous and unintelligent cause. Or shall we say that they are created + by a divine reason and a knowledge which comes from God? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I dare say that, owing to my youth, I may often waver in my + view, but now when I look at you and see that you incline to refer them to + God, I defer to your authority. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Nobly said, Theaetetus, and if I thought that you were one of + those who would hereafter change your mind, I would have gently argued + with you, and forced you to assent; but as I perceive that you will come + of yourself and without any argument of mine, to that belief which, as you + say, attracts you, I will not forestall the work of time. Let me suppose, + then, that things which are said to be made by nature are the work of + divine art, and that things which are made by man out of these are works + of human art. And so there are two kinds of making and production, the one + human and the other divine. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, now, subdivide each of the two sections which we have + already. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: How do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I mean to say that you should make a vertical division of + production or invention, as you have already made a lateral one. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: I have done so. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, now, there are in all four parts or segments—two of + them have reference to us and are human, and two of them have reference to + the gods and are divine. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And, again, in the division which was supposed to be made in the + other way, one part in each subdivision is the making of the things + themselves, but the two remaining parts may be called the making of + likenesses; and so the productive art is again divided into two parts. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Tell me the divisions once more. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: I suppose that we, and the other animals, and the elements out + of which things are made—fire, water, and the like—are known + by us to be each and all the creation and work of God. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And there are images of them, which are not them, but which + correspond to them; and these are also the creation of a wonderful skill. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What are they? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The appearances which spring up of themselves in sleep or by + day, such as a shadow when darkness arises in a fire, or the reflection + which is produced when the light in bright and smooth objects meets on + their surface with an external light, and creates a perception the + opposite of our ordinary sight. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes; and the images as well as the creation are equally the + work of a divine hand. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And what shall we say of human art? Do we not make one house by + the art of building, and another by the art of drawing, which is a sort of + dream created by man for those who are awake? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Quite true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And other products of human creation are also twofold and go in + pairs; there is the thing, with which the art of making the thing is + concerned, and the image, with which imitation is concerned. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Now I begin to understand, and am ready to acknowledge that + there are two kinds of production, and each of them twofold; in the + lateral division there is both a divine and a human production; in the + vertical there are realities and a creation of a kind of similitudes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And let us not forget that of the imitative class the one part + was to have been likeness-making, and the other phantastic, if it could be + shown that falsehood is a reality and belongs to the class of real being. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And this appeared to be the case; and therefore now, without + hesitation, we shall number the different kinds as two. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Then, now, let us again divide the phantastic art. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Where shall we make the division? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is one kind which is produced by an instrument, and + another in which the creator of the appearance is himself the instrument. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What do you mean? + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: When any one makes himself appear like another in his figure or + his voice, imitation is the name for this part of the phantastic art. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let this, then, be named the art of mimicry, and this the + province assigned to it; as for the other division, we are weary and will + give that up, leaving to some one else the duty of making the class and + giving it a suitable name. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Let us do as you say—assign a sphere to the one and + leave the other. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There is a further distinction, Theaetetus, which is worthy of + our consideration, and for a reason which I will tell you. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Let me hear. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: There are some who imitate, knowing what they imitate, and some + who do not know. And what line of distinction can there possibly be + greater than that which divides ignorance from knowledge? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There can be no greater. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Was not the sort of imitation of which we spoke just now the + imitation of those who know? For he who would imitate you would surely + know you and your figure? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Naturally. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And what would you say of the figure or form of justice or of + virtue in general? Are we not well aware that many, having no knowledge of + either, but only a sort of opinion, do their best to show that this + opinion is really entertained by them, by expressing it, as far as they + can, in word and deed? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Yes, that is very common. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And do they always fail in their attempt to be thought just, + when they are not? Or is not the very opposite true? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: The very opposite. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Such a one, then, should be described as an imitator—to be + distinguished from the other, as he who is ignorant is distinguished from + him who knows? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: True. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Can we find a suitable name for each of them? This is clearly + not an easy task; for among the ancients there was some confusion of + ideas, which prevented them from attempting to divide genera into species; + wherefore there is no great abundance of names. Yet, for the sake of + distinctness, I will make bold to call the imitation which coexists with + opinion, the imitation of appearance—that which coexists with + science, a scientific or learned imitation. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Granted. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: The former is our present concern, for the Sophist was classed + with imitators indeed, but not among those who have knowledge. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Let us, then, examine our imitator of appearance, and see + whether he is sound, like a piece of iron, or whether there is still some + crack in him. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Let us examine him. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Indeed there is a very considerable crack; for if you look, you + find that one of the two classes of imitators is a simple creature, who + thinks that he knows that which he only fancies; the other sort has + knocked about among arguments, until he suspects and fears that he is + ignorant of that which to the many he pretends to know. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: There are certainly the two kinds which you describe. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Shall we regard one as the simple imitator—the other as + the dissembling or ironical imitator? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Very good. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And shall we further speak of this latter class as having one or + two divisions? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Answer yourself. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Upon consideration, then, there appear to me to be two; there is + the dissembler, who harangues a multitude in public in a long speech, and + the dissembler, who in private and in short speeches compels the person + who is conversing with him to contradict himself. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: What you say is most true. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And who is the maker of the longer speeches? Is he the statesman + or the popular orator? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: The latter. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: And what shall we call the other? Is he the philosopher or the + Sophist? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: The philosopher he cannot be, for upon our view he is + ignorant; but since he is an imitator of the wise he will have a name + which is formed by an adaptation of the word sophos. What shall we name + him? I am pretty sure that I cannot be mistaken in terming him the true + and very Sophist. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: Shall we bind up his name as we did before, making a chain from + one end of his genealogy to the other? + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: By all means. + </p> + <p> + STRANGER: He, then, who traces the pedigree of his art as follows—who, + belonging to the conscious or dissembling section of the art of causing + self-contradiction, is an imitator of appearance, and is separated from + the class of phantastic which is a branch of image-making into that + further division of creation, the juggling of words, a creation human, and + not divine—any one who affirms the real Sophist to be of this blood + and lineage will say the very truth. + </p> + <p> + THEAETETUS: Undoubtedly. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Sophist, by Plato + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOPHIST *** + +***** This file should be named 1735-h.htm or 1735-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/1/7/3/1735/ + +Produced by Sue Asscher, and David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + </body> +</html> |