philebus-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！




　　Soc。　And　no　one　can　deny　that　all　percipient　beings　desire　and



hunt　after　good；　and　are　eager　to　catch　and　have　the　good　about



them；　and　care　not　for　the　attainment　of　anything　which　its　not



accompanied　by　good。



　　Pro。　That　is　undeniable。



　　Soc。　Now　let　us　part　off　the　life　of　pleasure　from　the　life　of



wisdom；　and　pass　them　in　review。



　　Pro。　How　do　you　mean？



　　Soc。　Let　there　be　no　wisdom　in　the　life　of　pleasure；　nor　any



pleasure　in　the　life　of　wisdom；　for　if　either　of　them　is　the　chief



good；　it　cannot　be　supposed　to　want　anything；　but　if　either　is　shown



to　want　anything；　then　it　cannot　really　be　the　chief　good。



　　Pro。　Impossible。



　　Soc。　And　will　you　help　us　to　test　these　two　lives？



　　Pro。　Certainly。



　　Soc。　Then　answer。



　　Pro。　Ask。



　　Soc。　Would　you　choose；　Protarchus；　to　live　all　your　life　long　in　the



enjoyment　of　the　greatest　pleasures？



　　Pro。　Certainly　I　should。



　　Soc。　Would　you　consider　that　there　was　still　anything　wanting　to　you



if　you　had　perfect　pleasure？



　　Pro。　Certainly　not。



　　Soc。　Reflect；　would　you　not　want　wisdom　and　intelligence　and



forethought；　and　similar　qualities？　would　you　not　at　any　rate　want



sight？



　　Pro。　Why　should　I？　Having　pleasure　I　should　have　all　things。



　　Soc。　Living　thus；　you　would　always　throughout　your　life　enjoy　the



greatest　pleasures？



　　Pro。　I　should。



　　Soc。　But　if　you　had　neither　mind；　nor　memory；　nor　knowledge；　nor



true　opinion；　you　would　in　the　first　place　be　utterly　ignorant　of



whether　you　were　pleased　or　not；　because　you　would　be　entirely



devoid　of　intelligence。



　　Pro。　Certainly。



　　Soc。　And　similarly；　if　you　had　no　memory　you　would　not　recollect



that　you　had　ever　been　pleased；　nor　would　the　slightest　recollection



of　the　pleasure　which　you　feel　at　any　moment　remain　with　you；　and　if



you　had　no　true　opinion　you　would　not　think　that　you　were　pleased　when



you　were；　and　if　you　had　no　power　of　calculation　you　would　not　be　able



to　calculate　on　future　pleasure；　and　your　life　would　be　the　life；



not　of　a　man；　but　of　an　oyster　or　pulmo　marinus。　Could　this　be



otherwise？



　　Pro。　No。



　　Soc。　But　is　such　a　life　eligible？



　　Pro。　I　cannot　answer　you；　Socrates；　the　argument　has　taken　away　from



me　the　power　of　speech。



　　Soc。　We　must　keep　up　our　spirits；…let　us　now　take　the　life　of　mind



and　examine　it　in　turn。



　　Pro。　And　what　is　this　life　of　mind？



　　Soc。　I　want　to　know　whether　any　one　of　us　would　consent　to　live；



having　wisdom　and　mind　and　knowledge　and　memory　of　all　things；　but



having　no　sense　of　pleasure　or　pain；　and　wholly　unaffected　by　these



and　the　like　feelings？



　　Pro。　Neither　life；　Socrates；　appears　eligible　to　me；　or　is　likely；



as　I　should　imagine；　to　be　chosen　by　any　one　else。



　　Soc。　What　would　you　say；　Protarchus；　to　both　of　these　in　one；　or



to　one　that　was　made　out　of　the　union　of　the　two？



　　Pro。　Out　of　the　union；　that　is；　of　pleasure　with　mind　and　wisdom？



　　Soc。　Yes；　that　is　the　life　which　I　mean。



　　Pro。　There　can　be　no　difference　of　opinion；　not　some　but　all　would



surely　choose　this　third　rather　than　either　of　the　other　two；　and　in



addition　to　them。



　　Soc。　But　do　you　see　the　consequence？



　　Pro。　To　be　sure　I　do。　The　consequence　is；　that　two　out　of　the



three　lives　which　have　been　proposed　are　neither　sufficient　nor



eligible　for　man　or　for　animal。



　　Soc。　Then　now　there　can　be　no　doubt　that　neither　of　them　has　the



good；　for　the　one　which　had　would　certainly　have　been　sufficient　and



perfect　and　eligible　for　every　living　creature　or　thing　that　was



able　to　live　such　a　life；　and　if　any　of　us　had　chosen　any　other；　he



would　have　chosen　contrary　to　the　nature　of　the　truly　eligible；　and



not　of　his　own　free　will；　but　either　through　ignorance　or　from　some



unhappy　necessity。



　　Pro。　Certainly　that　seems　to　be　true。



　　Soc。　And　now　have　I　not　sufficiently　shown　that　Philebus；　goddess　is



not　to　be　regarded　as　identical　with　the　good？



　　Phi。　Neither　is　your　〃mind〃　the　good；　Socrates；　for　that　will　be



open　to　the　same　objections。



　　Soc。　Perhaps；　Philebus；　you　may　be　right　in　saying　so　of　my



〃mind〃；　but　of　the　true；　which　is　also　the　divine　mind；　far　otherwise。



However；　I　will　not　at　present　claim　the　first　place　for　mind　as



against　the　mixed　life；　but　we　must　come　to　some　understanding　about



the　second　place。　For　you　might　affirm　pleasure　and　I　mind　to　be　the



cause　of　the　mixed　life；　and　in　that　case　although　neither　of　them



would　be　the　good；　one　of　them　might　be　imagined　to　be　the　cause　of



the　good。　And　I　might　proceed　further　to　argue　in　opposition　to



Phoebus；　that　the　element　which　makes　this　mixed　life　eligible　and



good；　is　more　akin　and　more　similar　to　mind　than　to　pleasure。　And　if



this　is　true；　pleasure　cannot　be　truly　said　to　share　either　in　the



first　or　second　place；　and　does　not；　if　I　may　trust　my　own　mind；



attain　even　to　the　third。



　　Pro。　Truly；　Socrates；　pleasure　appears　to　me　to　have　had　a　fall；



in　fighting　for　the　palm；　she　has　been　smitten　by　the　argument；　and　is



laid　low。　I　must　say　that　mind　would　have　fallen　too；　and　may



therefore　be　thought　to　show　discretion　in　not　putting　forward　a



similar　claim。　And　if　pleasure　were　deprived　not　only　of　the　first　but



of　the　second　place；　she　would　be　terribly　damaged　in　the　eyes　of



her　admirers；　for　not　even　to　them　would　she　still　appear　as　fair　as



before。



　　Soc。　Well；　but　had　we　not　better　leave　her　now；　and　not　pain　her



by　applying　the　crucial　test；　and　finally　detecting　her？



　　Pro。　Nonsense；　Socrates。



　　Soc。　Why？　because　I　said　that　we　had　better　not　pain　pleasure；　which



is　an　impossibility？



　　Pro。　Yes；　and　more　than　that；　because　you　do　not　seem　to　be　aware



that　none　of　us　will　let　you　go　home　until　you　have　finished　the



argument。



　　Soc。　Heavens！　Protarchus；　that　will　be　a　tedious　business；　and



just　at　present　not　at　all　an　easy　one。　For　in　going　to　war　in　the



cause　of　mind；　who　is　aspiring　to　the　second　prize；　I　ought　to　have



weapons　of　another　make　from　those　which　I　used　before；　some；　however；



of　the　old　ones　may　do　again。　And　must　I　then　finish　the　argument？



　　Pro。　Of　course　you　must。



　　Soc。　Let　us　be　very　careful　in　laying　the　foundation。



　　Pro。　What　do　you　mean？



　　Soc。　Let　us　divide　all　existing　things　into　two；　or　rather；　if　you



do　not　object；　into　three　classes。



　　Pro。　Upon　what　principle　would　you　make　the　division？



　　Soc。　Let　us　take　some　of　our　newly…found　notions。



　　Pro。　Which　of　them？



　　Soc。　Were　we　not　saying　that　God　revealed　a　finite　element　of



existence；　and　also　an　infinite？



　　Pro。　Certainly。



　　Soc。　Let　us　assume　these　two　principles；　and　also　a　third；　which



is　compounded　out　of　them；　but　I　fear　that　am　ridiculously　clumsy　at



these　processes　of　division　and　enumeration。



　　Pro。　What　do　you　mean；　my　good　friend？



　　Soc。　I　say　that　a　fourth　class　is　still　wanted。



　　Pro。　What　will　that　be？



　　Soc。　Find　the　cause　of　the　third　or　compound；　and　add　this　as　a



fourth　class　to　the　three　others。



　　Pro。　And　would　you　like　to　have　a　fifth　dass　or　cause　of



resolution　as　well　as　a　cause　of　composition？



　　Soc。　Not；　I　think；　at　present；　but　if　I　want　a　fifth　at　some



future　time　you　shall　allow　me　to　have　it。



　　Pro。　Certainly。



　　Soc。　Let　us　begin　with　the　first　three；　and　as　we　find　two　out　of



the　three　greatly　divided　and　dispersed；　let　us　endeavour　to　reunite



them；　and　see　how　in　each　of　them　there　is　a　one　and　many。



　　Pro。　If　you　would　explain　to　me　a　little　more　about　them；　perhaps



I　might　be　able　to　follow　you。



　　Soc。　Well；　the　two　classes　are　the　same　which　I　mentioned　before；



one　the　finite；　and　the　other　the　infinite；　I　will　first　show　that　the



infinite　is　in　a　certain　sense　many；　and　the　finite　may　be　hereafter



discussed。



　　Pro。　I　agree。