Chapter 9 Volume 5-2

G: I don't think it's necessary. SOCRATES: Again, let us repeat here some of the things I have said elsewhere.If the guardian wholeheartedly pursues a happy life that is not what a true guardian should have, and is not satisfied with a moderately stable life, which is the best life in our opinion, it will instead be troubled by a naive and stupid concept of happiness. Dominate, and even use power to harm public benefit, harm others and benefit oneself, then sooner or later he will find that Hesiod's saying "in a certain sense half is more than all" is indeed a wise saying!

G: If he listens to my advice, he'll still be living his old life. SOCRATES: So you agree that women also live the kind of life we ​​describe? —— Women and men have a common education, common children, and common protection of other citizens; whether at home or abroad, women and men should be like hunting dogs, guard and chase together; and, in all ways possible, share all thing?Do you agree that it is only in this way that they can do things best, without violating either the different natural characteristics of women and men, or the natural partnership between women and men? G: I agree.

SOCRATES: The question that remains to be studied is: Can such a common relationship really be established between man and man, as in other animals?If possible, ask, how can it be possible? G: I'm about to ask this question, so I'll tell you first. SOCRATES: I think it is obvious what they will do in war. G: How to do it? Su: They will set off in a team with the men, and bring their able-bodied children to let them see what they will do when they grow up, just like taking children to see in other industries.In addition to watching, these children help their parents with various military duties and wait on their parents.Have you ever seen children of craftsmen (such as potters) have a long process of observation and help before they officially do it themselves?

G: I've seen it. Su: Should potters pay more attention to educating their children than guardians, let them experience and practice with them, so that they can do their jobs well in the future? G: This idea is ridiculous. Su: Besides, human beings are like animals. The more they face offspring, the more valiant they are in fighting against the enemy. G: Exactly.But Socrates, the risk is not small!Victory and defeat are commonplace.If they lose the battle, their descendants will suffer huge losses just like themselves, making it impossible for the survivors to revive the motherland after the catastrophe.

Sue: You are right.But do you want to never put them in any danger? G: Absolutely not. SOCRATES: If danger must be taken, then is it not that those who take risks and win can be improved through exercise? G: Apparently so. Su: A person who wants to be a soldier when he grows up does not go to practice wars when he is a teenager, thinking that the risk is not worth taking, or that it makes little difference whether he takes the risk or not. Do you think this idea is right? Greg: No.There is a big difference between taking this risk and not taking it. For those who want to be soldiers. Su: Then, as a premise, we must let the children learn about warfare from an early age, and at the same time, we must also take necessary measures to avoid danger, so that we can have the best of both worlds.Yes or no?

Greg: Yes. Su: Then, first of all, their parents may not have any experience in military affairs, right?Always know which battles are dangerous and which ones are not, right? G: They should know. SOCRATES: So they can take their children to battles that are not dangerous, and not take them to battles that are dangerous. Grid: Yes. SOCRATES: They will put the children in the hands of officers who are qualified in age and experience to be leaders and teachers of the children, not just officers. G: That's very appropriate. Su: But we must also see that it is not uncommon for people to encounter accidents.

G: Exactly. SOCRATES: So I think, in order to prevent accidents, we should give children wings from the beginning, so that they can fly high if necessary. G: What do you mean? Su: We must let the children learn to ride horses from an early age, and then take them to the battlefield to observe the battle, but not let them ride the bad war horses, but let them ride the horses that are fast and easy to control. Taming horses.In this way, they can see well what they are going to do in the future, and if there is danger, they can quickly evacuate as long as they follow the elder leaders. G: I think you are right.

Su: Then, how should military discipline be regulated?How should soldiers treat their own people and how should they treat their enemies?I don't know what I think, right? G: Please tell me what you think. SOCRATES: If any soldier deserts, or throws away his arms, or commits some other similar mistake out of cowardice, shall such soldier be sent down to work as a craftsman or a farmer? G: Absolutely. Su: If any soldier is captured alive by the enemy and made a prisoner of war, we agree to disagree, give him as a gift to the enemy, and let the enemy deal with him? G: Totally agree. Su: If a soldier is brave and famous on the battlefield, he should first be saluted by his comrades on the battlefield, and then by teenagers and children.Do you agree or not?

Grid: Agreed. SOCRATES: Should he still be greeted by their right hand extended to him? Grid: Yes. Sue: But I don't think you will agree with me any more. G: What are you talking about? SOCRATES: He should kiss everybody, and be kissed by everybody.Do you agree? G: Totally agree.I would add one more thing to this decree: he was not allowed to refuse anyone he wanted to love during the campaign.The reason is: if he is in love with someone (male or female), he will be more eager to win glory. Sue: Excellent.We have already said that the opportunity of marriage should be as good as possible for good people, so that they can have as many children as possible.

G: Yes, we have said so. SOCRATES: But Homer also says that it is also justified to honor the brave among the young in the following way.Homer tells us that Ajas was so valiant in battle that he was rewarded at a feast with a full loin; this honored the young warriors and strengthened them. Grid: Exactly. S: Well, here we can at least take Homer as our model.In ceremonies and other similar occasions, we praise those excellent people who have made great achievements, wisdom and courage, sing hymns to them, give them the special courtesy just mentioned, and give the Lord, the Lamb, wine, which strengthens the strength of these brave men and women. Their physique also gave them honor.

G: You are very good. SOCRATES: Well, then, those who died in battle—if someone dies and becomes famous, shouldn't we first be sure that he is the golden seed of a famous family? G: Absolutely. Su: Shall we believe that the golden seed mentioned in Hesiod's poem ① becomes "the elf in the river mountain, the savior who protects the people" after death? ① "Work and Farming Time" below 191. G: Of course. Su: Shall we ask Apollo, and then bury these warrior gods in the grand way he instructed? G: Is there any other way we can do it? Su: Moreover, in the future, we will sweep their graves on time and respect the dead as if they were gods.The same honor shall be accorded to those who have died of old age or otherwise, and who, in the normal course of life, have performed eminently well.right? G: Absolutely. Su: Besides, how should our soldiers treat the enemy? G: Where? Su: First of all, in terms of turning the defeated into slaves.Do you think it was just for the Greeks to conquer other Greek city-states and make slaves of their own race?Or--not only not myself, but also trying to prevent other city-states from doing so, so that everyone can see the danger of being conquered by barbarians, so that Greeks can unite with Greeks, and it is common practice not to hurt each other. — Or is it just? G: The Greeks are united as one. SOCRATES: Then they themselves do not want the Greeks to be their slaves, and at the same time they advise other Greeks not to have the Greeks as their slaves either? G: Of course.In any case, then everyone would rather fight the barbarians outside and seek unity inside. Su: As a victor on the battlefield, it is better not to strip the dead of anything other than weapons from the killed enemy. Isn't it better?Searching and stripping the enemy's corpses and belongings seemed to be doing something indispensable. This did not allow some cowards who were greedy for life and fear of death to find an excuse. Could they stop chasing the living enemy?Have not many armies been lost to this plunder? G: Exactly. Su: Don't you think that robbing dead bodies is a despicable and nasty act?Isn't it a sign of the narrow-mindedness of women to regard the corpse of the dead as an enemy and let the real enemy drop their weapons and fly away?How is this behavior any different from dogs barking at stones that hit them, but not going to bite the person who threw them? G: No difference at all. SOCRATES: Therefore, we must prohibit looting of dead bodies, and we must bury the dead. G: Really, we have to do this. SOCRATES: Besides, we do not send captured weapons to the temple as offerings, and out of concern for maintaining friendly relations with other Greeks, especially do not send Greek weapons.We should really be afraid to send these weapons of the same kind to the temple as sacrifices, so as to desecrate the sanctity, unless God directs it to do so. G: Couldn't be more correct. SOCRATES: How should your soldiers deal with the question of ravaging the land and burning the houses of the enemy Greeks? G: I'd be happy to hear your opinion on this issue. SOCRATES: In my opinion, they should neither ravage the land nor burn houses against the Greek enemies.They should be limited to carrying away a year's crop.Shall I tell you why? Grid: Yes. SOCRATES: My opinion is this: just as we have two different names—"war" and "infighting"—so we have two different things.The so-called two different things, one refers to the internal, our own people; the other refers to the foreign, the enemy.Internal conflicts can be called "internal strife" and external conflicts can be called "wars". G: Your words are very to the point. SOCRATES: If I say that all relations between Greeks and Greeks are internal and belong to one's own family; relations between Greeks and barbarians are external and are enemies; do you think my words are equally pertinent? ? G: Very pertinent. SOCRATES: Then, when the Greeks resist the barbarians, or the barbarians invade the Greeks, they are natural enemies, and their conflict must be called "war"; If the Greeks are in conflict with the Greeks, they are natural friends, but the Greek nation is unfortunately sick, and brothers are at odds. This kind of conflict must be called "internal strife." G: I totally agree with you. SOCRATES: Well, let's examine what we now call "infighting."When civil strife occurs, a country is divided into two, ravaging each other's land and burning their houses. This kind of absurd action makes people feel that neither side is a true patriot; otherwise, why would they cruelly hurt their own food and clothing parents? What about the motherland?But we believe that if the victors are limited to taking away the crops harvested by their opponents, and their behavior shows that they still hope to make peace in the future and stop the endless civil war, then their behavior is still appropriate and understandable. . G: Yes, this kind of thinking is more civilized and more humane. Su: Good.So, is the city-state you want to create a Greek city-state? G: Definitely. SOCRATES: Then, aren't the citizens of this city-state all civilized gentlemen? G: Exactly. SOCRATES: Would they love Greeks of the same race?Do you want to love the rivers and mountains of the motherland of Greece?Do you want to love the common religious beliefs of the Greeks? G: Of course. SOCRATES: Would they not regard discord among Greeks of the same race as an internal conflict, calling it "infighting" instead of calling it "war"? G: Of course it will. Su: Although they quarreled, did they still hope that one day they would reconcile? G: Exactly. Su: Then, their purpose is to admonish in good faith, not to enslave and destroy maliciously.They are teachers, not enemies. G: Exactly. SOCRATES: Well, since they are Greeks, they will not ravage Greek lands and burn Greek houses.Nor would they regard the Greeks of the cities (except for a few culprits), men, women and children, as enemies; .They fought the war as innocents just to put pressure on the other side to make them realize that they regretted their mistakes and apologized. G: I agree with you.This is how our citizens should treat their Greek counterparts.As for the barbarians, they should do what the Greeks do with the Greeks at present. SOCRATES: Shall we then enact another law for our defenders: -- no trampling of land, no burning of houses? G: Yes.Let us consider these words and those that have been said before to be true. But if we let you go on like this, my dear Socrates, I am afraid you will never come up with the question you promised to answer.The question is: Is such a state as we have described possible?If possible, how can it be achieved?I admit that if your country can be realized, it is very ideal; what you have not described, I can also make up for you.I saw that the citizens of the whole country did not abandon each other in the war, and treated each other as brothers, fathers, and sons, making them invincible in the world; They are invincible.I also saw the various benefits of being in China that you didn't mention.I admit it all.If this kind of country is realized, there are other indescribable benefits, and you don't need to go into details.But let's just state the question right away: is it possible?If possible, how is it possible?We will not talk about the rest. Su: This is a sudden attack on my argument, and you don't understand my slight hesitation at all.You probably don't know that I've managed to escape the first two waves, and now you're throwing a third wave at me, the biggest and most powerful one.When you see and hear this wave, you will forgive me and admit that my apprehension and slight hesitation were natural, since the argument to be brought up is so peculiar. G: The more you prevaricate, the more we cannot let you go; in any case, you must tell us how this political system can be realized.So go ahead and don't waste any more time. S: Well, first of all, we have to remember that we came here from the study of "what is justice" and "what is injustice". G: Yes, so what? Sue: Oh, nothing.The problem is here.If we really find out what justice is, do we not expect a just man to be indistinguishable from justice itself, and identical in every respect?Or, as long as the just people can get as close to justice itself as possible and embody more justice than others, are we satisfied? ① "Itself", that is, Plato's idea. G: Oh, as close to the standard as possible is enough to satisfy us. SOCRATES: Well, when we first studied what justice itself is, what injustice itself is, and what an absolutely just man and an absolutely unjust man are like (assuming such a man exists), that is so that we can have A boilerplate.We look at these models so that we may judge our happiness or unhappiness, and the degree of our happiness or unhappiness, by the standards they embody. Our purpose is not to show that these templates can become something that actually exists. G: Your words are true. Su: If a painter paints an ideal handsome man, everything has been painted just right, but it has not been proved that such a handsome man can actually exist, will this painter become the worst painter because of this? G: No, my God, of course not. SOCRATES: So, do we say that we are not creating a good country here with words? G: Exactly. SOCRATES: So if we can't prove that a country can actually be run as well as we describe it, does it mean that our description is the worst theory possible? G: Of course not. Su: That's the reason.But if, to please you, I try to show you under what circumstances and in what respect these things which I have described are most likely to come to fruition.Please repeat what you agreed to earlier. G: What are you talking about? Su: Everything that has been said must be done. Is it possible?Or is the truth usually always less said than said?Maybe some people don't think so.But do you agree with me or not? G: Agreed. SOCRATES: Then don't you keep asking me to prove that what I describe in words can be done perfectly.No, if we can find a country governed very close to the way we describe it, you have to admit that what you want has been achieved, you are satisfied.Did you say you are satisfied? I am satisfied with it myself. G: I feel satisfied too. SOCRATES: The second thing to do would seem to be to try to find out and point out what specific defects in the existing legal system of the city-states prevent them from governing it according to the legal system we have described; To make what they want conform to our proposed law; if one change is enough, that is the best, if one is not enough, then two, in short, the less changes and smaller the better. G: Exactly. SOCRATES: Well, we can point out that there is a change that would give rise to the requested reform.This change will not be easy, but it is possible. G: So what's the change? Su: Oh!I think I'm approaching the biggest wave of paradoxes we've ever compared.Yet I will go on.Even for this I would drown myself in waves of ridicule and contempt.OK, now listen to me. G: Go ahead. SOCRATES: Unless philosophers become the kings of our countries, or what we presently call kings and rulers, can seriously pursue wisdom, and combine political power with intelligence; those who gain one and lose the other, The mediocre people who cannot have both must be excluded.Otherwise, my dear Glaucon, there will be endless disasters for the country and, I think, for all mankind, and there will never be peace.The kind of legal system we described earlier can only be Haike Tanying, and it will always be a castle in the air.That's why I hesitate to speak out, because I know that if I do, people will say I'm freaking out.Because it is not easy for ordinary people to realize that apart from this method, it is impossible to bring happiness to individuals or the public through other methods. G: Oh, Socrates, you are talking nonsense and talking about this whole set of truths in front of us. I am afraid that the adults and gentlemen will take off their clothes, go into battle naked, and pick up a weapon and attack you fiercely.If you can't find arguments to fortify your fortress, but just desert, then you will taste the ridicule of others. Su: You are the one who made me so embarrassed. G: I was right.But I will not stand by and do what I can to help you.I can help you with kindness and encouragement, and maybe I can answer your questions better than others.So, with my support, you go and try to convince the skeptics that the truth is indeed on your side. Su: With a strong friend like you, I will definitely try.It seems to me that if we are to avoid an attack of the kind you speak of, we must define exactly what kind of philosophers we dare to think should be our rulers.When the definition of the philosopher is clear, we can be fearless, because then we can point out to people that the study of philosophy and the art of politics naturally belongs to the philosopher-statesman who loves the wise.As for the rest, it is proper not to study philosophy but to follow the leader. G: It is not too late to give a clear definition. SOCRATES: Come with me, then, and we may have some way of explaining what we mean. G: Go ahead. SOCRATES: Well, I don't need to remind you, but you must remember that when we say that a man is a lover of something, if we call him a lover of that thing, it obviously means that he loves it. The whole of it, not just loving some of it and not loving the rest. G: It seems that I need your reminder, I really don't understand. SOCRATES: That answer of yours, Glaucon, suits others, but not you. A "lover" like yourself should not forget, should know that all young people in their prime can always touch the heartstrings of the child-loving person and make him feel lovable.Isn't that how you react to bishounen?When you see a person with a flat nose, you say he has a charming face; when you see a person with an eagle nose, you say he is handsome; when you see a person with a nose shape in between, you say he is well-proportioned; Said he was wonderful and elegant. The adjective "honey white" itself was invented by the lover to refer to the thin and white face.In a word, as long as it is on a rising star, there is no defect that you cannot tolerate, and there is no advantage that you will miss without being praised. G: If you must ask me to represent lovers of this inclination, I will, for the sake of argument. Sue: Besides, what about people who like to drink?Didn't you notice this happens to them too?They love every kind of wine, and for a reason. G: Exactly. Su: As for those who love honor, I think you have probably seen the same.They can't be generals, but they can be company commanders; they can't get the support of big people, but it's also enjoyable to be supported by small people.In any case, honoring them is indispensable. G: Yes, good. SOCRATES: Then, will you answer my question again:—When we say that so-and-so loves so-and-so, whatever it may be, does he love the whole thing, or just a part of it? ? Grid: All. SOCRATES: Well, can we not say the same about philosophers?A philosopher is a lover of wisdom, not just a part of it, but all of it. G: Yes, he loves them all. SOCRATES: Then, a person who does not love learning, especially if he is still young and cannot judge what is beneficial and what is not, we will not say that he is a person who loves learning, or a person who loves intelligence.Just as a person who is actually not hungry and therefore does not want to eat, we would not say that he has a good appetite, that he is a food lover. G: Exactly. SOCRATES: If there is a man who wants to dabble in any science, and is not satisfied--can we rightly call such a man a lover of wisdom or a philosopher? G: If curiosity can be called love of wisdom, then you will find that many absurd characters can be called philosophers.All those who love to watch love to learn, so they must be included, and those who always love to listen are also included. —People of this kind are never seen to take part in any serious debate, serious study; but, as if they had rented their ears out to the chorus, on Dionysus they go about everywhere, in town and country , as long as there is a chorus, they will always come.Shall we call these men, and those of similar tastes, and lovers of lesser arts, philosophers? Sue: Never.They're just a little like philosophers. G: So, who are the real philosophers? SOCRATES: Those whose eyes are on the truth. G: That's true, but what exactly do you mean by that? Su: It's hard to explain clearly to others, but I think you will agree with me when I talk to you. G: What argument? S: Beauty and ugliness are opposites, they are two. G: Oh, of course. SOCRATES: They are two, and each is one. Greg: Yes. SOCRATES: We can also say other opposites, justice and injustice, good and evil, and other similar ideas.This statement can also be expressed as follows: In themselves, they are one, but because they are combined with actions and objects, they are everywhere combined with each other. G: You're right. Su: Well, here I must draw a line to separate the two kinds of people.On that side are the theatre-goers, art-lovers, and practical people you spoke of; on this side are the kind of people we're talking about.Only these people here deserve to be called philosophers. G: What do you mean? Su: A kind of person is a lover of sensuality, who likes beautiful tones, beautiful colors, beautiful shapes and all the works of art composed of them.But their minds cannot know and love beauty itself. G: Exactly. Su: There is another kind of people who can understand beauty itself and appreciate beauty itself. Aren’t there few such people? G: Very little, very little. Su: Then, a person can know many beautiful things, but he cannot know beauty itself. He is always unable to keep up with others leading him to know beauty itself-do you think this kind of person lives like a dream or awake? What about?Please think about it, whether a person is asleep or awake, he regards similar things as things themselves, isn't he still in a dream? G: Of course I would say that his life was a dream. Su: Well, let’s talk about the opposite kind of people. This kind of people know beauty itself, can distinguish beauty itself from many specific things including beauty itself, and don’t confuse beauty itself with many individual things that contain beauty.Is this person's life, according to your opinion, awake or in a dream? G: He's wide awake. SOCRATES: Then we say that the minds of those capable of such knowledge possess "knowledge," while the former, since they can only have such "opinions," we say that their minds have nothing but opinions. Isn't that right? G: Of course you are. Su: If, as we said, a person who has only opinions but no knowledge loses his temper, refuses to accept our argument, and says that we are deceiving him, then should we comfort him and let him know in a tactful way? , Is his mind abnormal? G: We should gently let him know that. SOCRATES: Then let us think what to say to him.Shall we say this: instead of being jealous of their knowledge, we are very happy.Then ask him if he is willing to answer the following question: "Does a knowledgeable person always know a little bit or know nothing?" You can answer it for him. G: I'll reply like this - "The man always knows a little bit". Su: Is this "little bit" "yes" or "nothing"①? ① "Yes" and "Nothing" may be translated as "existence" and "non-existence". Ge: "A little bit" means "existence", how can we know "nothing"? SOCRATES: Therefore, even considering the matter from all sides, we can safely assert that what is completely there is completely knowable; what is completely impossible is completely unknowable. G: Yes, it is entirely possible to assert that. SOCRATES: Well, if there is such a thing, which is both being and nothing, can this thing be between total being and total non-existence? Grid: It can be. SOCRATES: Well, since knowledge is related to being, and ignorance is necessarily related to non-being, we must, therefore, find something corresponding to the situation between ignorance and knowledge, if there is such a thing. Greg: Yes. S: Isn't there something we call "opinion"? Grid: Yes. S: Is it the same ability as knowledge or is it another kind of ability? G: It's another ability. SO: Since opinion and knowledge are different capacities, they necessarily have different correlates. G: There must be. S: Therefore, knowledge is naturally related to being, and knowledge is the knowledge of being and the state of being of the being.But wait a minute, there's a difference here, and I think it has to be made clear. G: What's the difference? SOCRATES: Let me group together as a class the functions that we have, and everything else, that is, the "faculties" that enable us to do all kinds of work within our power.For example, seeing and hearing are the abilities we refer to, ① if you and I have the same understanding of the category I refer to. ① function. G: I understand that too. SUE: So let me give you my impression of these functions.I do not see that functions have colours, shapes, or other similar qualities, by which I can divide various kinds of things in many other cases.I only pay attention to one thing about a function, its relatives and effects.That is why I call various functions a function.When we are related to the same thing and accomplish the same thing, we say that the functions are the same function; when we are related to different things and accomplish different things, we say that the functions are different functions.What do you think?Did you do this? G: Same as you. SOCRATES: So, my good friend, let's get down to business.Please tell me, do you think "knowledge" is a kind of ability?Or, do you have another way of categorizing? G: There is no other way to categorize it. Ability is the most powerful of all functions. Su: How about "opinion"?Should we put it in something other than ability? Greg: No.For the power which enables us to have an opinion is nothing but the capacity to form an opinion. SOCRATES: But not long ago you agreed that knowledge and opinion are not the same thing. ①KnowledgeπισEμη, opinion δK′ξα. G: Yes, because no sensible person would confuse something that is absolutely infallible with something that is liable to be wrong. Sue: Excellent.We obviously see the same thing: opinion and knowledge are not the same thing. G: They are not the same thing. SOCRATES: Therefore, each of them has its own relative, since each has its own power. G: Surely so. Su: According to my opinion, knowledge is related to "being", and the purpose of knowledge is to understand the condition of "being". Greg: Yes. SOCRATES: As for opinions, we consider them to be nothing more than the formation of opinions. Greg: Yes. SOCRATES: The object of knowledge is the same as that of opinion, and will the knowable and the object of opinion be the same, or are they impossible to be the same? G: According to the principles we have agreed upon, they cannot be the same.If different faculties naturally have different objects, again, as we claim. Opinion and knowledge are different abilities, so the objects of knowledge and opinion are of course also different. Su: If "being" is the object of knowledge, then the object of opinion must not be being, but something else, right? G: Yes, it must be something else. SOCRATES: Is the object of opinion then nothing?Or is it not enough to even have an "opinion" about "nothing"?Think about it.Isn't a man of opinion his opinion about something?Or ask: Is it possible for a man to have an opinion, and yet have an opinion about nothing? G: No, it's impossible. S: So a person who has an opinion has an opinion about something? Greg: Yes. S: Since it is nothing, it cannot be said to be "something"—only calling it "nothing" is the most correct. Greg: Yes. SOCRATES: Then we must call ignorance what is about nothing, and knowledge what is about being. G: Exactly. SOCRATES: Then one has an opinion neither about being nor about nothing. G: Indeed, neither. SOCRATES: So opinion is neither ignorance nor knowledge. G: It seems so. SOCRATES: Is it then beyond them, is it brighter than knowledge and darker than ignorance? G: Neither. SOCRATES: Do you then regard opinion as darker than knowledge and brighter than ignorance? G: Exactly the idea. Su: Is it somewhere in between? Greg: Yes. SOCRATES: Opinion is therefore something between knowledge and ignorance. G: Absolutely. SOCRATES: We said earlier that if something appears to be both being and nothing, then it is between complete being and complete nothing, and the corresponding faculty is neither knowledge nor ignorance, but is between An ability between the two.Didn't we say so? Greg: Right. SOCRATES: We have just seen that between knowledge and ignorance there is something we call opinion. G: I see. S: Then what remains for us to do is to discover that which is both being and nothing, and which cannot be unconditionally said to be only being or nothing.If we can find it, we have a good reason to say that this is the object of opinion, and relate what is at the ends to the ends, and what is in the middle to the middle. Can you agree with me when I say this? G: Agreed. Su: These principles have already been affirmed.Now let the lover of sights have something to say, and I will let him answer my questions.他不相信有永远不变的美本身或美的理念，而只相信有许多美的东西，他绝对不信任何人的话，不信美本身是“一”，正义本身是“一”，以及其它东西本身是“一”，等等。我们问他：我的好朋友，在这许许多多美的东西里，难道没有一丁点儿丑的东西吗？在许许多多正义的东西里，难道没有一丁点儿不正义的东西吗？在许许多多虔诚的东西里，难道没有一丁点儿不虔诚的东西吗？ 格：不，必定有的。这许多美的东西都会以某种方式显得既是美的，又是丑的。你所问及的其它东西也无不如此。 苏：还有许多东西不是有些东西的双倍吗？它们显得是一样东西的双倍，难道不同样又显得是另一样东西的一半吗？ Greg: Yes. 苏：还有许多东西我们说它们是大的或小的，轻的或重的，难道不可以同样把大的看作小的，小的看作大的，轻的看作重的，重的看作轻的吗？ 格：都是可以的。彼此可以互通的。 苏：那么，这些多样性的东西中每一个是不是只能说是这样的而不能（如有些人主张的）是那样的呢？ 格：这很象那些在宴席上用模棱两可的话难人的把戏，或小孩子玩的猜那个含义模棱的谜语一样，——那个关于太监用什么东西打一只蝙蝠，蝙蝠停在什么东西上的谜语①。这些事物都太模棱，以至无法确切决定，究竟是它还是非它；还是，既是它又非它；或者还是，既不是它，也不是非它。 ①谜语是：一个男人（又非男人）见（又非见）鸟（又非鸟）停在一根树枝（又非树枝）上，用石块（又非石块）打它。谜底应是：太监瞥见一只蝙蝠停在一根芦苇上，用一块轻石片去打它。 苏：那么，你有没有对付它们的办法呢？除了在“是”和“不是”之间，你还能找到什么更好的地方去安置它们吗？须知，不可能找到比不存在更暗的地方，以致使它更不实在些，也不可能找到比存在有更明朗的地方，以致使它更实在些。 格：极是极是。 苏：因此看来，我们似乎已经发现到了：一般人关于美的东西以及其它东西的平常看法，游动于绝对存在和绝对不存在之间。 格：的确是的。 苏：但是我们在前面已一致同意：如果我们找到了这类东西，它应该被说成是意见的对象，而不应该被说成是知识的对象；这种东西游动于中间地区，且为中间的能力或官能所理解。 格：是的，我们同意过。 苏：因此，那些只看到许许多多·美·的·东·西，许许多多正义的东西，许许多多其它的东西的人，虽然有人指导，他们也始终不能看到·美·本·身，正义等等本身。关于他们我们要说，他们对一切都只能有意见，对于那些他们具有意见的东西谈不上有所知。 格：这是必定的。 苏：相反，关于那些能看到每一事物本身，甚至永恒事物的人们，我们该说什么呢？我们不应该说他们具有知识而不是具有意见吗？ 格：必定说他们具有知识。 苏：我们不想说，他们专心致志于知识的对象，而另一种人只注意于意见的对象吗？你还记得吗，我曾说过，后一种人专注意于声色之美以及其它种种，他们绝对想不到世上会有美本身，并且是实在的？ 格：是的，我们还记得。 苏：因此，如果我们称他们为爱意见者，而不称他们为爱智者，我们不会有什么冒犯他们吧？如果我们这样说，他们会对我们生气吗？ 格：他们如果相信我的劝告，是不会生气的。因为对真理生气是不对的。 苏：那些专心致志于每样东西的存在本身的人，我们是不是必须称他们为爱智者而不称他们为爱意见者呢？ 格：是的，当然是的。