phaedo-第12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！




from　this　that　the　soul　must　have　previously　existed　somewhere　else



before　she　was　enclosed　in　the　body？　Cebes　said　that　he　had　been



wonderfully　impressed　by　that　part　of　the　argument；　and　that　his



conviction　remained　unshaken。　Simmias　agreed；　and　added　that　he



himself　could　hardly　imagine　the　possibility　of　his　ever　thinking



differently　about　that。



　　But；　rejoined　Socrates；　you　will　have　to　think　differently；　my



Theban　friend；　if　you　still　maintain　that　harmony　is　a　compound；　and



that　the　soul　is　a　harmony　which　is　made　out　of　strings　set　in　the



frame　of　the　body；　for　you　will　surely　never　allow　yourself　to　say



that　a　harmony　is　prior　to　the　elements　which　compose　the　harmony。



　　No；　Socrates；　that　is　impossible。



　　But　do　you　not　see　that　you　are　saying　this　when　you　say　that　the



soul　existed　before　she　took　the　form　and　body　of　man；　and　was　made　up



of　elements　which　as　yet　had　no　existence？　For　harmony　is　not　a　sort



of　thing　like　the　soul；　as　you　suppose；　but　first　the　lyre；　and　the



strings；　and　the　sounds　exist　in　a　state　of　discord；　and　then



harmony　is　made　last　of　all；　and　perishes　first。　And　how　can　such　a



notion　of　the　soul　as　this　agree　with　the　other？



　　Not　at　all；　replied　Simmias。



　　And　yet；　he　said；　there　surely　ought　to　be　harmony　when　harmony　is



the　theme　of　discourse。



　　There　ought；　replied　Simmias。



　　But　there　is　no　harmony；　he　said；　in　the　two　propositions　that



knowledge　is　recollection；　and　that　the　soul　is　a　harmony。　Which　of



them；　then；　will　you　retain？



　　I　think；　he　replied；　that　I　have　a　much　stronger　faith；　Socrates；　in



the　first　of　the　two；　which　has　been　fully　demonstrated　to　me；　than　in



the　latter；　which　has　not　been　demonstrated　at　all；　but　rests　only



on　probable　and　plausible　grounds；　and　I　know　too　well　that　these



arguments　from　probabilities　are　impostors；　and　unless　great　caution



is　observed　in　the　use　of　them　they　are　apt　to　be　deceptive…in



geometry；　and　in　other　things　too。　But　the　doctrine　of　knowledge　and



recollection　has　been　proven　to　me　on　trustworthy　grounds；　and　the



proof　was　that　the　soul　must　have　existed　before　she　came　into　the



body；　because　to　her　belongs　the　essence　of　which　the　very　name



implies　existence。　Having；　as　I　am　convinced；　rightly　accepted　this



conclusion；　and　on　sufficient　grounds；　I　must；　as　I　suppose；　cease



to　argue　or　allow　others　to　argue　that　the　soul　is　a　harmony。



　　Let　me　put　the　matter；　Simmias；　he　said；　in　another　point　of　view：



Do　you　imagine　that　a　harmony　or　any　other　composition　can　be　in　a



state　other　than　that　of　the　elements　out　of　which　it　is　compounded？



　　Certainly　not。



　　Or　do　or　suffer　anything　other　than　they　do　or　suffer？



　　He　agreed。



　　Then　a　harmony　does　not　lead　the　parts　or　elements　which　make　up　the



harmony；　but　only　follows　them。



　　He　assented。



　　For　harmony　cannot　possibly　have　any　motion；　or　sound；　or　other



quality　which　is　opposed　to　the　parts。



　　That　would　be　impossible；　he　replied。



　　And　does　not　every　harmony　depend　upon　the　manner　in　which　the



elements　are　harmonized？



　　I　do　not　understand　you；　he　said。



　　I　mean　to　say　that　a　harmony　admits　of　degrees；　and　is　more　of　a



harmony；　and　more　completely　a　harmony；　when　more　completely



harmonized；　if　that　be　possible；　and　less　of　a　harmony；　and　less



completely　a　harmony；　when　less　harmonized。



　　True。



　　But　does　the　soul　admit　of　degrees？　or　is　one　soul　in　the　very　least



degree　more　or　less；　or　more　or　less　completely；　a　soul　than　another？



　　Not　in　the　least。



　　Yet　surely　one　soul　is　said　to　have　intelligence　and　virtue；　and



to　be　good；　and　another　soul　is　said　to　have　folly　and　vice；　and　to　be



an　evil　soul：　and　this　is　said　truly？



　　Yes；　truly。



　　But　what　will　those　who　maintain　the　soul　to　be　a　harmony　say　of



this　presence　of　virtue　and　vice　in　the　soul？…Will　they　say　that　there



is　another　harmony；　and　another　discord；　and　that　the　virtuous　soul　is



harmonized；　and　herself　being　a　harmony　has　another　harmony　within



her；　and　that　the　vicious　soul　is　inharmonical　and　has　no　harmony



within　her？



　　I　cannot　say；　replied　Simmias；　but　I　suppose　that　something　of



that　kind　would　be　asserted　by　those　who　take　this　view。



　　And　the　admission　is　already　made　that　no　soul　is　more　a　soul　than



another；　and　this　is　equivalent　to　admitting　that　harmony　is　not



more　or　less　harmony；　or　more　or　less　completely　a　harmony？



　　Quite　true。



　　And　that　which　is　not　more　or　less　a　harmony　is　not　more　or　less



harmonized？



　　True。



　　And　that　which　is　not　more　or　less　harmonized　cannot　have　more　or



less　of　harmony；　but　only　an　equal　harmony？



　　Yes；　an　equal　harmony。



　　Then　one　soul　not　being　more　or　less　absolutely　a　soul　than　another；



is　not　more　or　less　harmonized？



　　Exactly。



　　And　therefore　has　neither　more　nor　less　of　harmony　or　of　discord？



　　She　has　not。



　　And　having　neither　more　nor　less　of　harmony　or　of　discord；　one



soul　has　no　more　vice　or　virtue　than　another；　if　vice　be　discord　and



virtue　harmony？



　　Not　at　all　more。



　　Or　speaking　more　correctly；　Simmias；　the　soul；　if　she　is　a



harmony；　will　never　have　any　vice；　because　a　harmony；　being　absolutely



a　harmony；　has　no　part　in　the　inharmonical？



　　No。



　　And　therefore　a　soul　which　is　absolutely　a　soul　has　no　vice？



　　How　can　she　have；　consistently　with　the　preceding　argument？



　　Then；　according　to　this；　if　the　souls　of　all　animals　are　equally　and



absolutely　souls；　they　will　be　equally　good？



　　I　agree　with　you；　Socrates；　he　said。



　　And　can　all　this　be　true；　think　you？　he　said；　and　are　all　these



consequences　admissible…which　nevertheless　seem　to　follow　from　the



assumption　that　the　soul　is　a　harmony？



　　Certainly　not；　he　said。



　　Once　more；　he　said；　what　ruling　principle　is　there　of　human　things



other　than　the　soul；　and　especially　the　wise　soul？　Do　you　know　of　any？



　　Indeed；　I　do　not。



　　And　is　the　soul　in　agreement　with　the　affections　of　the　body？　or



is　she　at　variance　with　them？　For　example；　when　the　body　is　hot　and



thirsty；　does　not　the　soul　incline　us　against　drinking？　and　when　the



body　is　hungry；　against　eating？　And　this　is　only　one　instance　out　of



ten　thousand　of　the　opposition　of　the　soul　to　the　things　of　the　body。



　　Very　true。



　　But　we　have　already　acknowledged　that　the　soul；　being　a　harmony；　can



never　utter　a　note　at　variance　with　the　tensions　and　relaxations　and



vibrations　and　other　affections　of　the　strings　out　of　which　she　is



composed；　she　can　only　follow；　she　cannot　lead　them？



　　Yes；　he　said；　we　acknowledged　that；　certainly。



　　And　yet　do　we　not　now　discover　the　soul　to　be　doing　the　exact



opposite…leading　the　elements　of　which　she　is　believed　to　be　composed；



almost　always　opposing　and　coercing　them　in　all　sorts　of　ways



throughout　life；　sometimes　more　violently　with　the　pains　of　medicine



and　gymnastic；　then　again　more　gently；　threatening　and　also



reprimanding　the　desires；　passions；　fears；　as　if　talking　to　a　thing



which　is　not　herself；　as　Homer　in　the　〃Odyssey〃　represents　Odysseus



doing　in　the　words；







　　　　　〃He　beat　his　breast；　and　thus　reproached　his　heart：



　　　　　Endure；　my　heart；　far　worse　hast　thou　endured！〃







Do　you　think　that　Homer　could　have　written　this　under　the　idea　that



the　soul　is　a　harmony　capable　of　being　led　by　the　affections　of　the



body；　and　not　rather　of　a　nature　which　leads　and　masters　them；　and



herself　a　far　diviner　thing　than　any　harmony？



　　Yes；　Socrates；　I　quite　agree　to　that。



　　Then；　my　friend；　we　can　never　be　right　in　saying　that　the　soul　is



a　harmony；　for　that　would　clearly　contradict　the　divine　Homer　as



well　as　ourselves。



　　True；　he　said。



　　Thus　much；　said　Socrates；　of　Harmonia；　your　Theban　goddess；　Cebes；



who　has　not　been　ungracious　to　us；　I　think；　but　what　sh