The Portable Plato - Protagoras Symposium Phaedo The Republic

Home > Nonfiction > The Portable Plato - Protagoras Symposium Phaedo The Republic > Page 56
The Portable Plato - Protagoras Symposium Phaedo The Republic Page 56

by Plato

Reason, with whom, as we were saying, the decision ought to rest.

  Yes.

  And reasoning is peculiarly his instrument?

  Certainly.

  If wealth and gain were the criterion, then the praise or blame of the lover of gain would surely be the most trustworthy?

  Assuredly.

  Or if honour or victory or courage, in that case the judgment of the ambitious or pugnacious would be the truest?

  Clearly.

  But since experience and wisdom and reason are the judges—

  The only inference possible, he replied, is that pleasures which are approved by the lover of wisdom and reason are the truest.

  And so we arrive at the result, that the pleasure of the intelligent part of the soul is the pleasantest of the three, and that he of us in whom this is the ruling principle has the pleasantest life.

  Unquestionably, he said, the wise man speaks with authority when he approves of his own life.

  And what does the judge affirm to be the life which is next, and the pleasure which is next?

  Clearly that of the soldier and lover of honour; who is nearer to himself than the money-maker.

  Last comes the lover of gain?

  Very true, he said.

  Twice in succession, then, has the just man overthrown the unjust in this conflict; and now comes the third trial, which is dedicated to Olympian Zeus the saviour: a sage whispers in my ear that no pleasure except that of the wise is quite true and pure—all others are a shadow only; and surely this will prove the greatest and most decisive of falls?

  Yes, the greatest; but will you explain yourself?

  I will work out the subject and you shall answer my questions.

  Proceed.

  Say, then, is not pleasure opposed to pain?

  True.

  And there is a neutral state which is neither pleasure nor pain?

  There is.

  A state which is intermediate, and a sort of repose of the soul about either—that is what you mean?

  Yes.

  You remember what people say when they are sick?

  What do they say?

  That after all nothing is pleasanter than health. But then they never knew this to be the greatest of pleasures until they were ill.

  Yes, I know, he said.

  And when persons are suffering from acute pain, you must have heard them say that there is nothing pleasanter than to get rid of their pain?

  I have.

  And there are many other cases of suffering in which the mere rest and cessation of pain, and not any positive enjoyment, is extolled by them as the greatest pleasure?

  Yes, he said; at the time they are pleased and well content to be at rest.

  Again, when pleasure ceases, that sort of rest or cessation will be painful?

  Doubtless, he said.

  Then the intermediate state of rest will be pleasure and will also be pain?

  So it would seem.

  But can that which is neither become both?

  I should say not.

  And both pleasure and pain are motions of the soul, are they not?

  Yes.

  But that which is neither was just now shown to be rest and not motion, and in a mean between them?

  Yes.

  How, then, can we be right in supposing that the absence of pain is pleasure, or that the absence of pleasure is pain?

  Impossible.

  This then is an appearance only and not a reality; that is to say, the rest is pleasure at the moment and in comparison of what is painful, and painful in comparison of what is pleasant; but all these representations, when tried by the test of true pleasure, are not real but a sort of imposition?

  That is the inference.

  Look at the other class of pleasures which have no antecedent pains and you will no longer suppose, as you perhaps may at present, that pleasure is only the cessation of pain, or pain of pleasure.

  What are they, he said, and where shall I find them?

  There are many of them: take as an example the pleasures of smell, which are very great and have no antecedent pains; they come in a moment, and when they depart leave no pain behind them.

  Most true, he said.

  Let us not, then, be induced to believe that pure pleasure is the cessation of pain, or pain of pleasure.

  No.

  Still, the more numerous and violent pleasures which reach the soul through the body are generally of this sort—they are reliefs of pain.

  That is true.

  And the anticipations of future pleasures and pains are of a like nature?

  Yes.

  Shall I give you an illustration of them?

  Let me hear.

  You would allow, I said, that there is in nature an upper and lower and middle region?

  I should.

  And if a person were to go from the lower to the middle region, would he not imagine that he is going up; and he who is standing in the middle and sees whence he has come, would imagine that he is already in the upper region, if he has never seen the true upper world?

  To be sure, he said; how can he think otherwise?

  But if he were taken back again he would imagine, and truly imagine, that he was descending?

  No doubt.

  All that would arise out of his ignorance of the true upper and middle and lower regions?

  Yes.

  Then can you wonder that persons who are inexperienced in the truth, as they have wrong ideas about many other things, should also have wrong ideas about pleasure and pain and the intermediate state; so that when they are only being drawn towards the painful they feel pain and think the pain which they experience to be real, and in like manner, when drawn away from pain. to the neutral or intermediate state, they firmly believe that they have reached the goal of satiety and pleasure; they, not knowing pleasure, err in contrasting pain with the absence of pain, which is like contrasting black with grey instead of white—can you wonder, I say, at this?

  No, indeed; I should be much more disposed to wonder at the opposite.

  Look at the matter thus:—Hunger, thirst, and the like, are inanitions of the bodily state?

  Yes.

  And ignorance and folly are inanitions of the soul?

  True.

  And food and wisdom are the corresponding satisfactions of either?

  Certainly.

  And is the satisfaction derived from that which has less or from that which has more existence the truer?

  Clearly, from that which has more.

  What classes of things have a greater share of pure existence in your judgment—those of which food and drink and condiments and all kinds of sustenance are examples, or the class which contains true opinion and knowledge and mind and all the different kinds of virtue? Put the question in this way:—Which has a more pure being—that which is concerned with the invariable, the immortal, and the true, and is of such a nature, and is found in such natures; or that which is concerned with and found in the variable and mortal, and is itself variable and mortal?

  Far purer, he replied, is the being of that which is concerned with the invariable.

  And does the essence of the invariable partake of knowledge in the same degree as of essence?

  Yes, of knowledge in the same degree.

  And of truth in the same degree?

  Yes.

  And, conversely, that which has less of truth will also have less of essence?

  Necessarily.

  Then, in general, those kinds of things which are in the service of the body have less of truth and essence than those which are in the service of the soul?

  Far less.

  And has not the body itself less of truth and essence than the soul?

  Yes.

  What is filled with more real existence, and actually has a more real existence, is more really filled than that which is filled with less real existence and is less real?

  Of course.

  And if there be a pleasure in being
filled with that which is according to nature, that which is more really filled with more real being will more really and truly enjoy true pleasure; whereas that which participates in less real being will be less truly and surely satisfied, and will participate in an illusory and less real pleasure?

  Unquestionably.

  Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they taste of pure and abiding pleasure. Like cattle, with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth, that is, to the dining-table, they fatten and feed and breed, and, in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron; and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust. For they fill themselves with that which is not substantial, and the part of themselves which they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent.

  Verily, Socrates, said Glaucon, you describe the life of the many like an oracle.

  Their pleasures are mixed with pains—how can they be otherwise? For they are mere shadows and pictures of the true, and are coloured by contrast, which exaggerates both light and shade, and so they implant in the minds of fools insane desires of themselves; and they are fought about as Stesichorus says that the Greeks fought about the shadow of Helen at Troy in ignorance of the truth.

  Something of that sort must inevitably happen.

  And must not the like happen with the spirited or passionate element of the soul? Will not the passionate man who carries his passion into action, be in the like case, whether he is envious and ambitious, or violent and contentious, or angry and discontented, if he be seeking to attain honour and victory and the satisfaction of his anger without reason or sense?

  Yes, he said, the same will happen with the spirited element also.

  Then may we not confidently assert that the lovers of money and honour, when they seek their pleasures under the guidance and in the company of reason and knowledge, and pursue after and win the pleasures which wisdom shows them, will also have the truest pleasures in the highest degree which is attainable to them, inasmuch as they follow truth; and they will have the pleasures which are natural to them, if that which is best for each one is also most natural to him?

  Yes, certainly; the best is the most natural.

  And when the whole soul follows the philosophical principle, and there is no division, the several parts are just, and do each of them their own business, and enjoy severally the best and truest pleasures of which they are capable?

  Exactly.

  But when either of the two other principles prevails, it fails in attaining its own pleasure, and compels the rest to pursue after a pleasure which is a shadow only and which is not their own?

  True.

  And the greater the interval which separates them from philosophy and reason, the more strange and illusive will be the pleasure?

  Yes.

  And is not that farthest from reason which is at the greatest distance from law and order?

  Clearly.

  And the lustful and tyrannical desires are, as we saw, at the greatest distance?

  Yes.

  And the royal and orderly desires are nearest?

  Yes.

  Then the tyrant will live at the greatest distance from true or natural pleasure, and the king at the least?

  Certainly.

  But if so, the tyrant will live most unpleasantly, and the king most pleasantly?

  Inevitably.

  Would you know the measure of the interval which separates them?

  Will you tell me?

  There appear to be three pleasures, one genuine and two spurious: now the transgression of the tyrant reaches a point beyond the spurious; he has run away from the region of law and reason, and taken up his abode with certain slave pleasures which are his satellites, and the measure of his inferiority can only be expressed in a figure.

  How do you mean?

  I assume, I said, that the tyrant is in the third place from the oligarch; the democrat was in the middle?

  Yes.

  And if there is truth in what has preceded, he will be wedded to an image of pleasure which is thrice removed as to truth from the pleasure of the oligarch?

  He will.

  And the oligarch is third from the royal; since we count as one royal and aristocratical?

  Yes, he is third.

  Then the tyrant is removed from true pleasure by the space of a number which is three times three?

  Manifestly.

  The shadow then of tyrannical pleasure determined by the number of length will be a plane figure.

  Certainly.

  And if you raise the power and make the plane a solid, there is no difficulty in seeing how vast is the interval by which the tyrant is parted from the king.

  Yes; the arithmetician will easily do the sum.

  Or if some person begins at the other end and measures the interval by which the king is parted from the tyrant in truth of pleasure, he will find him, when the multiplication is complete, living 729 times more pleasantly, and the tyrant more painfully by this same interval.

  What a wonderful calculation! And how enormous is the distance which separates the just from the unjust in regard to pleasure and pain!

  Yet a true calculation, I said, and a number which nearly concerns human life, if human beings are concerned with days and nights and months and years.146

  Yes, he said, human life is certainly concerned with them.

  Then if the good and just man be thus superior in pleasure to the evil and unjust, his superiority will be infinitely greater in propriety of life and in beauty and virtue?

  Immeasurably greater.

  Well, I said, and now having arrived at this stage of the argument, we may revert to the words which brought us hither: Was not some one saying that injustice was a gain to the perfectly unjust who was reputed to be just?

  Yes, that was said.

  Now then, having determined the power and quality of justice and injustice, let us have a little conversation with him.

  What shall we say to him?

  Let us make an image of the soul, that he may have his own words presented before his eyes.

  Of what sort?

  An ideal image of the soul, like the composite creations of ancient mythology, such as the Chimera or Scylla or Cerberus, and there are many others in which two or more different natures are said to grow into one.

  There are said to have been such unions.

  Then do you now model the form of a multitudinous, many-headed monster, having a ring of heads of all manner of beasts, tame and wild, which he is able to generate and metamorphose at will.

  You suppose marvellous powers in the artist; but, as language is more pliable than wax or any similar substance, let there be such a model as you propose.

  Suppose now that you make a second form as of a lion, and a third of a man, the second smaller than the first, and the third smaller than the second.

  That, he said, is an easier task; and I have made them as you say.

  And now join them, and let the three grow into one.

  That has been accomplished.

  Next fashion the outside of them into a single image, as of a man, so that he who is not able to look within, and sees only the outer hull, may believe the beast to be a single human creature.

  I have done so, he said.

  And now, to him who maintains that it is profitable for the human creature to be unjust, and unprofitable to be just, let us reply that, if he be right, it is profitable for this creature to feast the multitudinous monster and strengthen the lion and the lion-like qualities, but to starve and weaken the man, who is consequently liable to be dragged about at the mercy of either of the other two; and he is not to att
empt to familiarize or harmonize them with one another—he ought rather to suffer them to fight and bite and devour one another.

  Certainly, he said; that is what the approver of injustice says.

  To him the supporter of justice makes answer that he should ever so speak and act as to give the man within him in some way or other the most complete mastery over the entire human creature. He should watch over the many-headed monster like a good husbandman, fostering and cultivating the gentle qualities, and preventing the wild ones from growing; he should be making the lion-heart his ally, and in common care of them all should be uniting the several parts with one another and with himself.

  Yes, he said, that is quite what the maintainer of justice will say.

  And so from every point of view, whether of pleasure, honour, or advantage, the approver of justice is right and speaks the truth, and the disapprover is wrong and false and ignorant?

  Yes, from every point of view.

  Come, now, and let us gently reason with the unjust, who is not intentionally in error. “Sweet sir,” we will say to him, “what think you of things esteemed noble and ignoble? Is not the noble that which subjects the beast to the man, or rather to the god in man; and the ignoble that which subjects the man to the beast?” He can hardly avoid saying Yes—can he now?

  Not if he has any regard for my opinion.

  But, if he agree so far, we may ask him to answer another question: “Then how would a man profit if he received gold and silver on the condition that he was to enslave the noblest part of him to the worst? Who can imagine that a man who sold his son or daughter into slavery for money, especially if he sold them into the hands of fierce and evil men, would be the gainer, however large might be the sum which he received? And will any one say that he is not a miserable caitiff who remorselessly sells his own divine being to that which is most godless and detestable? Eriphyle took the necklace as the price of her husband’s life, but he is taking a bribe in order to compass a worse ruin.”

  Yes, said Glaucon, far worse—I will answer for him.

  Has not the intemperate been censured of old, because in him the huge multiform monster is allowed to be too much at large?

  Clearly.

  And men are blamed for pride and bad temper when the lion and serpent element in them disproportionately grows and gains strength?

  Yes.

 

‹ Prev