The works of Plato · Plato
ARGUMENT.
I could wish, said I, both that I were able to oblige you by explaining that, and not as now the offspring only and interest of my debt.[208] This child and offspring of the good itself, pray receive;—but still take due care that I deceive you nowise unwillingly by paying my account of this offspring in base coin. We will take care of that, said he, as far as we can:—only do you tell us. I will then, said I, when we are once thoroughly agreed, and I have reminded you of what was before mentioned, and has been often said on other occasions. What is that? said he. That there are many things beautiful, said I, and many good also; and each of these we declare to be so, and so define them in our argument. Yes, so we say. But as to the beautiful itself and the good itself, and similarly as to all those things which we then considered as of various natures, we are now again establishing them according to the unity of the general idea, to which we conceive each related; and these indeed, we say, are observed by the eye, but are not objects of intellectual perception; whereas the ideas are perceived by the intellect, not seen by the eye. Assuredly.
By what part then of ourselves do we see things visible? By the sight, said he. And is it not, said I, by hearing, that we perceive what is heard; and by the other senses, all the other objects of sense? Of course. But have you not perceived, said I, as regards the artificer of the senses, with what perfect skill he has formed the power of seeing, and being seen? Not quite, he replied. But consider it thus:—is there a third kind of faculty required by the hearing and voice, in order that the one may hear and the other be heard, in the absence of which the one will not hear, and the other not be heard? There is not, said he. I conceive, said I, that many others also (not to say, none at all) require no such thing:—can you name any one that does? Not I, he replied. But with reference to the sense of seeing and the object of sight, do you not perceive that they require something? How? When there is sight in the eyes, and when he who has it attempts to use it, and when there is colour in the objects before him, unless there concur some third kind of medium naturally formed for the purpose,—the sight, you are aware, will see nothing, and colours will be invisible. What is this of which you are now speaking? inquired he. What you call light, said I. Your remark is true, replied he. This sense of seeing then, and power of being seen, are no unimportant ideas, and are connected by a bond more precious than all other bonds, if light be not valueless. But it is far, said he, from being valueless.
CHAP. XIX.—Whom then of the gods in heaven can you assign as the cause of this,—that light makes our sight to see, and visible objects to be seen, in the best manner? The same, he replied, as you and others do; for it is evident that you mean the sun. Does not sight then derive its nature through its relation to this god? How?—The sight is not the sun, nor is that the sun, in which sight is engendered,—which we call the eye. It is not. But yet, methinks, this at least of all the organs of sense is most sun-like? Very much so. And the power which it possesses, does it not possess, as dispensed and emanating hence? Certainly. Is not the sun then, though not sight itself, but the principle thereof, seen by sight itself? It is so, said he. This then, said I, be assured, is what I called the offspring of _the good_, which _the good_ generates, analogous to itself; and what this is in the sphere of intelligence, with reference to intellect, and the objects of intellect, that the sun is in the visible [world] with reference to sight and visible things. How is that? said he: pray further explain it.
You are aware, that the eyes, said I, when directed towards objects, whose colours are no longer visited by the light of day,[209] but by the glimmerings of the night, grow dim and appear almost blind, as if they had in them no pure vision. Just so, said he. But when they turn to objects which the sun illuminates, then, methinks, they see clearly, and in those very eyes there now appears vision. There does. Understand the same, then, to be the case with reference to the soul.—When it firmly adheres to what is enlightened by truth and real being, then it understands and knows it, and appears to possess intellect; but when it adheres to what is blended with darkness, and is subject to generation and destruction, it then has to do with opinion, and is dull, wandering from one opinion to another, like one without intellect. So it seems. That therefore which imparts truth to what is known, and dispenses the faculty of knowledge to him who knows, you may call the idea of _the good_ and the principle of science and truth, as being known through intellect. And as both these,—knowledge and truth, are so beautiful, you will be right in thinking that the good is something different, and still more beautiful than these.
Science and truth here are as light and sight there, which we rightly judged to be sun-like, but yet did not think them to be the sun:—so here it is right to hold, that both of them partake of the form of _the good_,—but yet not right to suppose that either of them is _the good_, inasmuch as _the good itself_ is worthy of still greater honour. You speak, said he, of some inestimable idea of “the beautiful,” which exhibits science and truth, and yet is itself their superior in beauty;—for you have nowhere said, that it was pleasure. Hope better things, said I; but thus rather consider its image still further. How? You will say, I think, that the sun imparts to things which are seen, not only their visibility, but likewise their generation, growth, and nourishment, though not itself generation?[210] Of course. We may say, therefore, as to things cognizable by the intellect, that they become cognizable not only from _the good_, by which they are known, but likewise that their being and essence are thence derived, while _the good_ itself is not essence, but beyond essence, and superior to both in dignity and power. ----- Footnote 209: The words φῶς and φέγγος are here opposed,—the first referring to the original and primary light of the sun, the latter to the inferior and borrowed light of the moon and stars.
Footnote 210: The generation of things illuminated by the sun, shows that it is perfectly unbegotten; for, according to the Platonic philosophy, the sun alone of all the bodies in the universe is without generation, neither receiving any accession nor diminution; whereas all that it illuminates receives light, through the motion of the sun about its proper centre, which also at different times sends different rays to the heavenly bodies belonging to its system. So far therefore as the sun illuminates, it is unbegotten; and, on this principle only, and not as respects its corporeal shape, is it assimilated to _the good_. ----- CHAP. XX.—Here Glaucon, heartily laughing, said, By Apollo, here is a marvellous transcendency! You yourself, replied I, are the cause of it, by compelling me to relate what I think about it. And by no means stop, said he, unless there be some cause; from again discussing the analogy about the the sun, if you have omitted anything. Aye, I have omitted many things, replied I. Ah, but, replied he, pray do not omit the smallest particular. I think, said I, that much will be omitted: yet, as far as I can at present, I will not willingly omit anything. Do not, said he. Understand then, said I, that we allege these to be two; ruling—the one over the intelligible genus and place, and the other over the visible world,—not to say the heavens, lest I should seem to you to employ a sophistical expression: you understand then these two descriptions of being,—the visible and intelligible? I do. Supposing now you to take a line cut into two equal sections, then again cut each part according to the same ratio, both that of the visible and that of the intelligible species, you will then have them placed in contrast with each other, either in clearness or obscurity,—the second section in the visible species being images.
Now images I call, in the first place, shadows,—in the next, appearances in water, and such as subsist in opaque, polished and bright bodies, and all such-like representations, if you understand me. Yes, I understand. Consider now the other section of the visible which this resembles,—the animals around us, and all kinds of plants, and everything of an artificial nature. I do consider it, said he. Do you wish to assert, then, that this section is divided by truth and its opposite;—and just as the objects of opinion are opposed to the objects of true knowledge, so also that which is compared [is opposed] to that with which it is compared? Aye, indeed: I am quite willing. Consider once more about this section of the intelligible, how it is to be effected. How? That with respect to one part thereof, the soul uses the former sections as images, and is compelled to investigate by means of hypothesis, not going back to first principles, but advancing onward to conclusions; and the other part, again, is that where the soul proceeds from hypothesis to an unhypothetical principle, and makes its way even without those images by means of the ideas themselves. What you now say, rejoined he, I do not fully understand.
Once more, said I,—for you will more easily understand me, from what has been previously stated,—you are not unaware, methinks, that persons versed in geometry, and computations, and such-like, after laying down hypotheses of the odd and even, and figures, and three kinds of angles, and other similar matters, according to each method, proceed on them as known, after establishing them as mere hypotheses, and give no further reason about them, either to themselves or others, as being things obvious to all;—but, beginning with these, then directly discuss the rest, and end by meeting at the point where the inquiry set out? I know this, said he, perfectly well. And [do you not likewise know] that they use the visible species, and reason about them, not employing their intellect about these species, but about those of which they are the resemblances, arguing about the square itself, and the diameter itself, and not about what they describe;—and, so also, with reference to other particulars, those very things which they form and describe, among which are shadows and images in water, these they use as images, trying to behold those very things, which a man can only perceive by his intellect? You say true, he replied.
CHAP. XXI.—This then was what I meant by the idea of the intelligible; but [I said also,] that the soul was obliged to use hypotheses in its investigation, not going back to the principle, as though unable to ascend higher than hypotheses, and employed comparisons formed from things below, to lead to those above, as to clearly-seen objects of thought, distinct from the things themselves. I understand, said he, that you are speaking of what concerns geometry and its sister arts. By that other section of the intelligible, then, you must understand me to mean what reason itself attains by its dialectic faculty, forming hypotheses, not as principles, but really hypotheses, just like steps and starting-points, in order that by proceeding up to the unhypothetical,—[that is,] the principle of the universe, coming in contact therewith, and so again coming into union with what is united to it in principle, it may thus reach the end without making use of anything sensible, but only of ideas themselves, proceeding through some to others, and so ending in ideas.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.