eryxias-第4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！



of　such　coins　he　would　be　no　wealthier　than　if　he　had　so　many　pebbles　from

the　mountain。　　At　Lacedaemon；　again；　they　use　iron　by　weight　which　has　been

rendered　useless：　　and　he　who　has　the　greatest　mass　of　such　iron　is　thought

to　be　the　richest；　although　elsewhere　it　has　no　value。　　In　Ethiopia

engraved　stones　are　employed；　of　which　a　Lacedaemonian　could　make　no　use。　

Once　more；　among　the　Nomad　Scythians　a　man　who　owned　the　house　of　Polytion

would　not　be　thought　richer　than　one　who　possessed　Mount　Lycabettus　among

ourselves。　　And　clearly　those　things　cannot　all　be　regarded　as　possessions；

for　in　some　cases　the　possessors　would　appear　none　the　richer　thereby：　

but；　as　I　was　saying；　some　one　of　them　is　thought　in　one　place　to　be　money；

and　the　possessors　of　it　are　the　wealthy；　whereas　in　some　other　place　it　is

not　money；　and　the　ownership　of　it　does　not　confer　wealth；　just　as　the

standard　of　morals　varies；　and　what　is　honourable　to　some　men　is

dishonourable　to　others。　　And　if　we　wish　to　enquire　why　a　house　is　valuable

to　us　but　not　to　the　Scythians；　or　why　the　Carthaginians　value　leather

which　is　worthless　to　us；　or　the　Lacedaemonians　find　wealth　in　iron　and　we

do　not；　can　we　not　get　an　answer　in　some　such　way　as　this：　　Would　an

Athenian；　who　had　a　thousand　talents　weight　of　the　stones　which　lie　about

in　the　Agora　and　which　we　do　not　employ　for　any　purpose；　be　thought　to　be

any　the　richer？



ERASISTRATUS：　　He　certainly　would　not　appear　so　to　me。



SOCRATES：　　But　if　he　possessed　a　thousand　talents　weight　of　some　precious

stone；　we　should　say　that　he　was　very　rich？



ERASISTRATUS：　　Of　course。



SOCRATES：　　The　reason　is　that　the　one　is　useless　and　the　other　useful？



ERASISTRATUS：　　Yes。



SOCRATES：　　And　in　the　same　way　among　the　Scythians　a　house　has　no　value

because　they　have　no　use　for　a　house；　nor　would　a　Scythian　set　so　much

store　on　the　finest　house　in　the　world　as　on　a　leather　coat；　because　he

could　use　the　one　and　not　the　other。　　Or　again；　the　Carthaginian　coinage　is

not　wealth　in　our　eyes；　for　we　could　not　employ　it；　as　we　can　silver；　to

procure　what　we　need；　and　therefore　it　is　of　no　use　to　us。



ERASISTRATUS：　　True。



SOCRATES：　　What　is　useful　to　us；　then；　is　wealth；　and　what　is　useless　to　us

is　not　wealth？



But　how　do　you　mean；　Socrates？　said　Eryxias；　interrupting。　　Do　we　not

employ　in　our　intercourse　with　one　another　speech　and　violence　（？）　and

various　other　things？　　These　are　useful　and　yet　they　are　not　wealth。



SOCRATES：　　Clearly　we　have　not　yet　answered　the　question；　What　is　wealth？　

That　wealth　must　be　useful；　to　be　wealth　at　all；thus　much　is　acknowledged

by　every　one。　　But　what　particular　thing　is　wealth；　if　not　all　things？　　Let

us　pursue　the　argument　in　another　way；　and　then　we　may　perhaps　find　what　we

are　seeking。　　What　is　the　use　of　wealth；　and　for　what　purpose　has　the

possession　of　riches　been　invented；in　the　sense；　I　mean；　in　which　drugs

have　been　discovered　for　the　cure　of　disease？　　Perhaps　in　this　way　we　may

throw　some　light　on　the　question。　　It　appears　to　be　clear　that　whatever

constitutes　wealth　must　be　useful；　and　that　wealth　is　one　class　of　useful

things；　and　now　we　have　to　enquire；　What　is　the　use　of　those　useful　things

which　constitute　wealth？　　For　all　things　probably　may　be　said　to　be　useful

which　we　use　in　production；　just　as　all　things　which　have　life　are　animals；

but　there　is　a　special　kind　of　animal　which　we　call　'man。'　　Now　if　any　one

were　to　ask　us；　What　is　that　of　which；　if　we　were　rid；　we　should　not　want

medicine　and　the　instruments　of　medicine；　we　might　reply　that　this　would　be

the　case　if　disease　were　absent　from　our　bodies　and　either　never　came　to

them　at　all　or　went　away　again　as　soon　as　it　appeared；　and　we　may　therefore

conclude　that　medicine　is　the　science　which　is　useful　for　getting　rid　of

disease。　　But　if　we　are　further　asked；　What　is　that　from　which；　if　we　were

free；　we　should　have　no　need　of　wealth？　can　we　give　an　answer？　　If　we　have

none；　suppose　that　we　restate　the　question　thus：If　a　man　could　live

without　food　or　drink；　and　yet　suffer　neither　hunger　nor　thirst；　would　he

want　either　money　or　anything　else　in　order　to　supply　his　needs？



ERYXIAS：　　He　would　not。



SOCRATES：　　And　does　not　this　apply　in　other　cases？　　If　we　did　not　want　for

the　service　of　the　body　the　things　of　which　we　now　stand　in　need；　and　heat

and　cold　and　the　other　bodily　sensations　were　unperceived　by　us；　there

would　be　no　use　in　this　so…called　wealth；　if　no　one；　that　is；　had　any

necessity　for　those　things　which　now　make　us　wish　for　wealth　in　order　that

we　may　satisfy　the　desires　and　needs　of　the　body　in　respect　of　our　various

wants。　　And　therefore　if　the　possession　of　wealth　is　useful　in　ministering

to　our　bodily　wants；　and　bodily　wants　were　unknown　to　us；　we　should　not

need　wealth；　and　possibly　there　would　be　no　such　thing　as　wealth。



ERYXIAS：　　Clearly　not。



SOCRATES：　　Then　our　conclusion　is；　as　would　appear；　that　wealth　is　what　is

useful　to　this　end？



Eryxias　once　more　gave　his　assent；　but　the　small　argument　considerably

troubled　him。



SOCRATES：　　And　what　is　your　opinion　about　another　question：Would　you　say

that　the　same　thing　can　be　at　one　time　useful　and　at　another　useless　for

the　production　of　the　same　result？



ERYXIAS：　　I　cannot　say　more　than　that　if　we　require　the　same　thing　to

produce　the　same　result；　then　it　seems　to　me　to　be　useful；　if　not；　not。



SOCRATES：　　Then　if　without　the　aid　of　fire　we　could　make　a　brazen　statue；

we　should　not　want　fire　for　that　purpose；　and　if　we　did　not　want　it；　it

would　be　useless　to　us？　　And　the　argument　applies　equally　in　other　cases。



ERYXIAS：　　Clearly。



SOCRATES：　　And　therefore　conditions　which　are　not　required　for　the

existence　of　a　thing　are　not　useful　for　the　production　of　it？



ERYXIAS：　　Of　course　not。



SOCRATES：　　And　if　without　gold　or　silver　or　anything　else　which　we　do　not

use　directly　for　the　body　in　the　way　that　we　do　food　and　drink　and　bedding

and　houses；if　without　these　we　could　satisfy　the　wants　of　the　body；　they

would　be　of　no　use　to　us　for　that　purpose？



ERYXIAS：　　They　would　not。



SOCRATES：　　They　would　no　longer　be　regarded　as　wealth；　because　they　are

useless；　whereas　that　would　be　wealth　which　enabled　us　to　obtain　what　was

useful　to　us？



ERYXIAS：　　O　Socrates；　you　will　never　be　able　to　persuade　me　that　gold　and

silver　and　similar　things　are　not　wealth。　　But　I　am　very　strongly　of

opinion　that　things　which　are　useless　to　us　are　not　wealth；　and　that　the

money　which　is　useful　for　this　purpose　is　of　the　greatest　use；　not　that

these　things　are　not　useful　towards　life；　if　by　them　we　can　procure　wealth。



SOCRATES：　　And　how　would　you　answer　another　question？　　There　are　persons；

are　there　not；　who　teach　music　and　grammar　and　other　arts　for　pay；　and　thus

procure　those　things　of　which　they　stand　in　need？



ERYXIAS：　　There　are。



SOCRATES：　　And　these　men　by　the　arts　which　they　profess；　and　in　exchange

for　them；　obtain　the　necessities　of　life　just　as　we　do　by　means　of　gold　and

silver？



ERYXIAS：　　True。



SOCRATES：　　Then　if　they　procure　by　this　means　what　they　want　for　the

purposes　of　life；　that　art　will　be　useful　towards　life？　　For　do　we　not　say

that　silver　is　useful　because　it　enables　us　to　supply　our　bodily　needs？



ERYXIAS：　　We　do。



SOCRATES：　　Then　if　these　arts　are　reckoned　among　things　useful；　the　arts

are　wealth　for　the　same　reason　as　gold　and　silver　are；　for；　clearly；　the

possession　of　them　gives　wealth。　　Yet　a　little　while　ago　we　found　it

difficult　to　accept　the　argument　which　proved　that　the　wisest　are　the

wealthiest。　　But　now　there　seems　no　escape　from　this　conclusion。　　Suppose

that　we　are　asked；　'Is　a　horse　useful　to　everybody？'　will　not　our　reply　be；

'No；　but　only　to　those　who　know　how　to　use　a　horse？'



ERYXIAS：　　Certainly。



SOCRATES：　　And　so；　too；　physic　is　not　useful　to　every　one；　but　only　to　him

who　knows　how　to　use　it？