phaedo-第10章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




raft　upon　which　he　sails　through　life…not　without　risk；　as　I　admit；　if



he　cannot　find　some　word　of　God　which　will　more　surely　and　safely



carry　him。　And　now；　as　you　bid　me；　I　will　venture　to　question　you；



as　I　should　not　like　to　reproach　myself　hereafter　with　not　having　said



at　the　time　what　I　think。　For　when　I　consider　the　matter　either



alone　or　with　Cebes；　the　argument　does　certainly　appear　to　me；



Socrates；　to　be　not　sufficient。



　　Socrates　answered：　I　dare　say；　my　friend；　that　you　may　be　right；　but



I　should　like　to　know　in　what　respect　the　argument　is　not　sufficient。



　　In　this　respect；　replied　Simmias：　Might　not　a　person　use　the　same



argument　about　harmony　and　the　lyre…might　he　not　say　that　harmony　is　a



thing　invisible；　incorporeal；　fair；　divine；　abiding　in　the　lyre



which　is　harmonized；　but　that　the　lyre　and　the　strings　are　matter



and　material；　composite；　earthy；　and　akin　to　mortality？　And　when



someone　breaks　the　lyre；　or　cuts　and　rends　the　strings；　then　he　who



takes　this　view　would　argue　as　you　do；　and　on　the　same　analogy；　that



the　harmony　survives　and　has　not　perished；　for　you　cannot　imagine；



as　we　would　say；　that　the　lyre　without　the　strings；　and　the　broken



strings　themselves；　remain；　and　yet　that　the　harmony；　which　is　of



heavenly　and　immortal　nature　and　kindred；　has　perished…and　perished



too　before　the　mortal。　The　harmony；　he　would　say；　certainly　exists



somewhere；　and　the　wood　and　strings　will　decay　before　that　decays。　For



I　suspect；　Socrates；　that　the　notion　of　the　soul　which　we　are　all　of



us　inclined　to　entertain；　would　also　be　yours；　and　that　you　too



would　conceive　the　body　to　be　strung　up；　and　held　together；　by　the



elements　of　hot　and　cold；　wet　and　dry；　and　the　like；　and　that　the　soul



is　the　harmony　or　due　proportionate　admixture　of　them。　And；　if　this　is



true；　the　inference　clearly　is　that　when　the　strings　of　the　body　are



unduly　loosened　or　overstrained　through　disorder　or　other　injury；　then



the　soul；　though　most　divine；　like　other　harmonies　of　music　or　of



the　works　of　art；　of　course　perishes　at　once；　although　the　material



remains　of　the　body　may　last　for　a　considerable　time；　until　they　are



either　decayed　or　burnt。　Now　if　anyone　maintained　that　the　soul；　being



the　harmony　of　the　elements　of　the　body；　first　perishes　in　that



which　is　called　death；　how　shall　we　answer　him？



　　Socrates　looked　round　at　us　as　his　manner　was；　and　said；　with　a



smile：　Simmias　has　reason　on　his　side；　and　why　does　not　some　one　of



you　who　is　abler　than　myself　answer　him？　for　there　is　force　in　his



attack　upon　me。　But　perhaps；　before　we　answer　him；　we　had　better



also　hear　what　Cebes　has　to　say　against　the　argument…this　will　give　us



time　for　reflection；　and　when　both　of　them　have　spoken；　we　may



either　assent　to　them　if　their　words　appear　to　be　in　consonance　with



the　truth；　or　if　not；　we　may　take　up　the　other　side；　and　argue　with



them。　Please　to　tell　me　then；　Cebes；　he　said；　what　was　the



difficulty　which　troubled　you？



　　Cebes　said：　I　will　tell　you。　My　feeling　is　that　the　argument　is



still　in　the　same　position；　and　open　to　the　same　objections　which　were



urged　before；　for　I　am　ready　to　admit　that　the　existence　of　the　soul



before　entering　into　the　bodily　form　has　been　very　ingeniously；　and；



as　I　may　be　allowed　to　say；　quite　sufficiently　proven；　but　the



existence　of　the　soul　after　death　is　still；　in　my　judgment；



unproven。　Now　my　objection　is　not　the　same　as　that　of　Simmias；　for　I



am　not　disposed　to　deny　that　the　soul　is　stronger　and　more　lasting



than　the　body；　being　of　opinion　that　in　all　such　respects　the　soul



very　far　excels　the　body。　Well；　then；　says　the　argument　to　me；　why



do　you　remain　unconvinced？　When　you　see　that　the　weaker　is　still　in



existence　after　the　man　is　dead；　will　you　not　admit　that　the　more



lasting　must　also　survive　during　the　same　period　of　time？　Now　I；



like　Simmias；　must　employ　a　figure；　and　I　shall　ask　you　to　consider



whether　the　figure　is　to　the　point。　The　parallel　which　I　will



suppose　is　that　of　an　old　weaver；　who　dies；　and　after　his　death



somebody　says：　He　is　not　dead；　he　must　be　alive；　and　he　appeals　to　the



coat　which　he　himself　wove　and　wore；　and　which　is　still　whole　and



undecayed。　And　then　he　proceeds　to　ask　of　someone　who　is



incredulous；　whether　a　man　lasts　longer；　or　the　coat　which　is　in　use



and　wear；　and　when　he　is　answered　that　a　man　lasts　far　longer；



thinks　that　he　has　thus　certainly　demonstrated　the　survival　of　the



man；　who　is　the　more　lasting；　because　the　less　lasting　remains。　But



that；　Simmias；　as　I　would　beg　you　to　observe；　is　not　the　truth；



everyone　sees　that　he　who　talks　thus　is　talking　nonsense。　For　the



truth　is　that　this　weaver；　having　worn　and　woven　many　such　coats；



though　he　outlived　several　of　them；　was　himself　outlived　by　the



last；　but　this　is　surely　very　far　from　proving　that　a　man　is



slighter　and　weaker　than　a　coat。　Now　the　relation　of　the　body　to　the



soul　may　be　expressed　in　a　similar　figure；　for　you　may　say　with　reason



that　the　soul　is　lasting；　and　the　body　weak　and　short…lived　in



comparison。　And　every　soul　may　be　said　to　wear　out　many　bodies；



especially　in　the　course　of　a　long　life。　For　if　while　the　man　is　alive



the　body　deliquesces　and　decays；　and　yet　the　soul　always　weaves　her



garment　anew　and　repairs　the　waste；　then　of　course；　when　the　soul



perishes；　she　must　have　on　her　last　garment；　and　this　only　will



survive　her；　but　then　again　when　the　soul　is　dead　the　body　will　at



last　show　its　native　weakness；　and　soon　pass　into　decay。　And　therefore



this　is　an　argument　on　which　I　would　rather　not　rely　as　proving　that



the　soul　exists　after　death。　For　suppose　that　we　grant　even　more



than　you　affirm　as　within　the　range　of　possibility；　and　besides



acknowledging　that　the　soul　existed　before　birth　admit　also　that　after



death　the　souls　of　some　are　existing　still；　and　will　exist；　and　will



be　born　and　die　again　and　again；　and　that　there　is　a　natural



strength　in　the　soul　which　will　hold　out　and　be　born　many　times…for



all　this；　we　may　be　still　inclined　to　think　that　she　will　weary　in　the



labors　of　successive　births；　and　may　at　last　succumb　in　one　of　her



deaths　and　utterly　perish；　and　this　death　and　dissolution　of　the



body　which　brings　destruction　to　the　soul　may　be　unknown　to　any　of　us；



for　no　one　of　us　can　have　had　any　experience　of　it：　and　if　this　be



true；　then　I　say　that　he　who　is　confident　in　death　has　but　a　foolish



confidence；　unless　he　is　able　to　prove　that　the　soul　is　altogether



immortal　and　imperishable。　But　if　he　is　not　able　to　prove　this；　he　who



is　about　to　die　will　always　have　reason　to　fear　that　when　the　body



is　disunited；　the　soul　also　may　utterly　perish。



　　All　of　us；　as　we　afterwards　remarked　to　one　another；　had　an



unpleasant　feeling　at　hearing　them　say　this。　When　we　had　been　so



firmly　convinced　before；　now　to　have　our　faith　shaken　seemed　to



introduce　a　confusion　and　uncertainty；　not　only　into　the　previous



argument；　but　into　any　future　one；　either　we　were　not　good　judges；



or　there　were　no　real　grounds　of　belief。



　　Ech。　There　I　feel　with　you…indeed　I　do；　Phaedo；　and　when　you　were



speaking；　I　was　beginning　to　ask　myself　the　same　question：　What



argument　can　I　ever　trust　again？　For　what　could　be　more　convincing



than　the　argument　of　Socrates；　which　has　now　fallen　into　discredit？



That　the　soul　is　a　harmony　is　a　doctrine　which　has　always　had　a



wonderful　attraction　for　me；　and；　when　mentioned；　came　back　to　me　at



once；　as　my　own　original　conviction。　And　now　I　must　begin　again　and



find　another　argument　which　will　assure　me　that　when　the　man　is　dead



the　soul　dies　not　with　him。　Tell　me；　I　beg；　how　did　Socrates



proceed？　Did　he　appear　to　share　the　unpleasant　feeling　which　you



mention？　or　did　he　receive　the　interruption　calmly　and　give　a



sufficient　answer？　T