Chapter 10 Volume VI-1

SOCRATES: Then, Glaucon, after such a long and tiring discussion, we have finally figured out who is a true philosopher and who is not. Ge: You know, haste makes waste. Sue: I don't think so.I still think that if we only discuss this one question, if there are not many other questions that need to be discussed at the same time (these are the questions that a person who wants to know the difference between the life of the just and the life of the unjust must be studied), we may have made this problem clearer. G: Now, what should we discuss next? SOCRATES: Yes, we should consider the question to be discussed next.Since philosophers are people who can grasp the eternal and unchanging things, and those who cannot do this and are lost by the diversity of different things are not philosophers, then, which of the two kinds of people should we let What about being the leader of a city-state?

G: What do you think we should answer? SOCRATES: I think that whoever seems to be the best defender of the laws and customs of the city-state shall be the guardian of the city-state. Grid: Yes. SOCRATES: Besides, should a man who guards anything be a blind man or a sighted man?The answer to this question should be obvious, right? G: Of course it's obvious. SOCRATES: Do you think that people who are blind are different from those who do not know the reality of everything, who do not have any clear archetypes in their minds, and therefore cannot look at what a painter looks at what he is about to paint? Absolutely true, constantly engaged in the work of restoration, and, when necessary, beholding as truly as it is, also making and guarding the laws of beauty, justice, and goodness here with us?

G: Really, such a person is not much different from a blind person. SOCRATES: There is another class of men who know the reality of everything, and who are not less like the above-mentioned man in experience, nor in any of the virtues, so we shall not appoint Is this kind of person appointed as a guardian instead of the above-mentioned blind person as a guardian? G: Indeed, it would be absurd not to choose such persons as guardians, if they are not inferior in experience and other virtues, since their knowledge of the reality of things is perhaps the greatest of all virtues. Su: Shouldn't we now discuss such a question: How can the same person really have these two advantages?

G: Of course it should. SOCRATES: Well, as we said at the beginning of this discussion, we must first understand the nature of philosophers; On the other hand, it is agreed that it is possible for the same people to possess both qualities; and that it is this kind of people and not others that should be the rulers of the city. G: Really? SOCRATES: Let us agree that this is something of the philosopher's nature: That is, to always love that knowledge that enables them to see eternal entities unaffected by the process of birth and death. G: Let's take that as our consensus. SOCRATES: Again let us agree that they love the knowledge of the substance in its entirety, and will not willingly reject a part of it, whether greater or lesser, greater or lesser in honor.This is all as we said before when we spoke of lovers and lovers of honor. ①

①Below 474C. G: You're right. SOCRATES: Then proceed to the next question: If they must be what we have said, must no other quality be necessary in their nature? G: Which quality? Su: A "true" word.They never want to agree with a "fake" word, they hate fake, they love true. G: Probably yes. SOCRATES: My friend, it is not just "possible" but "absolutely certain" that what a man naturally loves he will cherish everything that is like it. Grid: Yes. SOCRATES: Can you find anything closer than truth to wisdom? Greg: I can't. SOCRATES: Can the same nature then love both wisdom and falsehood?

G: It is impossible anyway. SOCRATES: Therefore, the true Aichi should have been seeking the whole truth from childhood. G: Undoubtedly. Su: Besides, we know from experience that when a person's desire is strong in one aspect, it will be weak in other aspects. This is exactly like water being guided to a certain place. Greg: Yes. SOCRATES: When a man's desires are directed towards knowledge and all such things, I think he takes part in the pleasures of his own soul, and pays no attention to the pleasures of the flesh, if he is not a counterfeit but a true philosophy words at home.

G: It is absolutely inevitable. Su: This kind of person must be temperate, and will never be greedy for money under any circumstances; For the ends to which other men zealously pursue wealth and great expense are not regarded by them as a matter of importance. ① Refers to material enjoyment and physical pleasure. G: That's right. Su: There is another point that needs attention when distinguishing between the nature of philosophers and the nature of non-philosophers. G: Which point? Su: Don't neglect any narrow-mindedness.Because philosophers always pursue completeness and completeness in matters whether they are gods or humans, and there is nothing more contrary to the spiritual quality of philosophers than narrow-mindedness.

G: Absolutely. Su: A person with a broad horizon, who observes and studies all realities in all ages, do you think he can take his own life very seriously? G: Impossible. SOCRATES: Therefore, such a person would not regard death as a terrible thing, would he? G: Absolutely not. SOCRATES: Then timidity and narrow-mindedness do not seem to belong to the nature of a true philosopher. G: I don't think so. Su: A person with a harmonious personality, who is neither greedy for money nor narrow-minded, neither boastful nor timid, would this kind of person treat others harshly and behave improperly?

G: No way. SOCRATES: So this is what you look for when you identify a philosopher or a non-philosopher's soul: Is this person from childhood just and gentle, or violent and cruel? ① ① Compare and read 375B-C. Greg: Indeed. Su: I don't think you will overlook this point. G: Which point? Su: Are you smart or slow in learning?If a person does something unpleasant and spends a lot of effort but has little success, do you think he can really love this work? G: No way. Su: Also, if a person is forgetful and cannot remember what he has learned, can he still be a person with an empty mind?

G: How could it not be? SOCRATES: Therefore, a man who labors in vain must end up hating himself and the work he has done. G: How can you not? SOCRATES: Therefore a forgetful soul cannot be counted among the natures of true philosophers, and we insist that philosophers have a good memory. G: Exactly. SOCRATES: We should also insist that disharmony and inappropriateness of nature can only lead to disproportion and nothing else. G: Definitely. SOCRATES: Do you think truth is closer to being measured or not being measured? Ge: It is similar to being measured. SOCRATES: Therefore, among other qualities, we have to look for a naturally measured and gentle mind, which is instinctively and easily directed to the idea of ​​everything.

G: Of course you have to pay attention to this quality. Su: So how?Haven't we proved to you in some way that the qualities listed above are necessary and interrelated for a soul to fully comprehend the reality of things? Grid: is the most necessary. Su: To sum up, if a person is not endowed with a good memory, quick understanding, open-mindedness, gentleness and elegance, love and closeness to truth, justice, courage and temperance, he cannot study philosophy well. .Now, if a man possessed of these good qualities engages in this study, can you have anything to blame for it? G: Even Mammoth can't fault it. ①OωIμB, a god in Greek mythology, loves to find fault with the gods. SOCRATES: So people like this—when they have completed their education and reached maturity—are they not the only people you would entrust the country to? Ademantus: Socrates, although no one can refute what you have said above, yet those who have been listening to what you have just said feel that because of their lack of experience in the question-and-answer method, Be led astray by your arguments little by little after each question, and these little mistakes accumulate, and by the time the discussion reaches its conclusion, they find that the mistake has been great, and the conclusion has been contrary to their original opinion They feel that this is like two people playing chess, and the poor player is finally trapped by the master, unable to move a piece, so they are also finally forced in this game not using chess pieces but using language. speechless; but the truth is not changed by eloquence.I noticed the discussion just now and said this.Because now people may say that although they are not eloquent enough to refute you on every question, but as a matter of fact, they see that those who love philosophy don't learn a little philosophy just to finish their education and are still young put it down at the moment, but put off learning it so long that most of them become eccentrics (let's not say they become villains), and those who are considered the best of them are still This study, which you praise, becomes useless to the city. SOCRATES: [I said after hearing what he said]: Do you think what they say is wrong? A: I don't know, I'd be happy to hear your opinion. Sue: The opinion you can hear is probably: "I think they're right." A: Since we ① agree that philosophers are useless to the city-state, how can your assertion that "the city-state cannot be rid of evil until the philosopher rules the city-state"-how can it stand? ① Refers to both sides of the interlocutor. S: This question of yours must be answered with an analogy. A: Ah, I think, you are certainly not used to speaking in metaphors! SOCRATES: You have put me in such a dilemma, and now you are laughing at me again.However, please listen to my analogy, and then you can see more clearly how difficult it is for me to compare.Because the feelings of the best people in their relationship with the city-state are very unpleasant, and there is no single thing in the world that resembles this feeling, so in order to compare them and achieve the purpose of defending them, Many things need to be put together to make one thing, just like painters do when they paint monsters such as deer and sheep.Well, imagine a fleet or a ship, and this thing happens on board: There is a captain on board, who is much taller and stronger than all the crew on board, but is a little deaf, his eyes are not very good, and his knowledge of navigation is not very good. clever.The sailors on board were all clamoring to replace him as captain, all saying they had a right to steer, though they had never been taught seamanship, and could not tell when or with whom they had learned it.Moreover, they asserted that seamanship could not be taught at all, and that whoever said it could be taught they were ready to tear him to pieces.At the same time, they surrounded the captain to force him, and even tricked him to hand over the rudder to them by all means; sometimes they failed, and others were agreed to take command by the captain, so they killed or drove others out of the ship, and then used narcotics or alcohol to take the rudder. Such things trap the noble captains; they take the command of the ships, and then use up their stocks, eat, drink, and merry, and sail as they wish.Not only that, anyone who participated in the conspiracy and cunningly helped them seize power from the captain, no matter whether they had ideas or efforts, were awarded honorary titles such as navigator, pilot, and captain of the ship. Those who are not in the same group, they call them trash.In fact, the true navigator must pay attention to the year, the seasons, the sky, the stars, the wind and clouds, and everything connected with navigation, if he is to be the real master of the ship; will be a navigator.If this were not the case, it probably would never have occurred to those people that it was possible to master and practice the art while learning nautical science.Tell me again, what will a true navigator be thought of among these usurped sailors on a ship after such an accident?Wouldn't they call him a nag, a fanboy, or a big piece of shit? A: Exactly. SOCRATES: Then I think you no longer need to hear me explain this parable, because you already understand that I use it to illustrate the situation of a true philosopher in a city-state. A: Indeed. SOCRATES: Well, if you come across anyone who is surprised by the disrespect of philosophers in our cities, first give him this analogy, and then try to convince him that if philosophers are respected, That's even more outrageous! A: OK, that's it. SOCRATES: You also tell him that he is right when he says that the best philosophers are useless to the world; but at the same time make it clear to him that the responsibility for the uselessness of the best philosophers is not philosophy itself, but others. Without philosophers.For it is not natural for a captain to ask his sailors to be under his command, or for a wise man to attend the court of a rich man. The quip that "the wise should go to the rich" is wrong.What is really natural should be this: When a man is sick, whether he is rich or poor, he should go to the doctor's house to find him, and anyone who wants to be governed should go to the door of those who are able to govern. Those who govern them govern them. If the ruler is a useful ruler, it is unnatural for him to demand that the ruled be ruled by him.You will not be mistaken if you compare our present political rulers to sailors of the kind we have just spoken of, and to true helmsmen what they call scumbags and stargazing philosophers. ①Meaning: the educated pay respect to the uneducated rich. A: Absolutely. SOCRATES: From these facts, therefore, it appears that among such persons, philosophy, the noblest science, is unlikely to be respected by its opponents; yet it is those who profess to be philosophists who inflict the greatest and most serious vilification on philosophy. People—they are the ones you have in mind when you point out that the opponents of philosophy say that most philosophists are bad and that the best of them are useless; correct. ①Is that so? ① See 487D-E. A: Yes. Su: Have we explained the reason why the excellent ones are useless? A: It has been explained clearly. SOCRATES: Let us proceed, then, to point out that the deterioration of most philosophers is inevitable, and, if we can, let us try to show that this too cannot be blamed on philosophy.Can we do this yet? A: OK. Su: Let us ask and answer, starting from recalling the nature we described earlier that a person who wants to be a beautiful and good person must have from childhood.Truth, if you remember, was the leader he had to follow everywhere, otherwise he was a charlatan who had nothing to do with true philosophy. A: I remember saying that. SOCRATES: Isn't this just the opposite of what people think of philosophers today? A: Yes. SOCRATES: Are we not quite justified in defending him by saying: It is the nature of the true lover to seek the real; The sharpness is not blunted, the passion of love is not diminished, until that part of his soul that grasps the real, that is, that is near to the real, touches the real substance of each thing, and through this part of the soul communicates with the real reality of things. Approaching, mating, giving birth to reason and truth, he has true knowledge, and he is truly living and growing; then, and only then, will he stop his arduous pursuit? A: The reason could not be more sufficient. Su: Would such a person love falsehood?Or on the contrary, would he hate it? A: He will hate it. Su: Truth leads the way. I think we can probably say that no evil will follow in this team. A: How is it possible? SOCRATES: In the ranks of truth there is a healthy and just heart, accompanied by temperance. A: Yes. SOCRATES: There is no need to prove the nature of a philosopher all over again, is there?For, you must remember, bravery, generosity, intelligence, and rote memory are the necessary qualities of this gift.You have objected that, while all are compelled to agree with what we have said, if one puts aside the words and concentrates on the people to whom the words are spoken, they will say that what they see is: Some of those people are useless, most of them have done all kinds of bad things.So we began to study the causes of bad reputation, and we have now come to this point in this regard①: ①It means: the problem that some people who study philosophy are useless in the world has already been discussed. A: It is indeed rare. Next to study, why do most of them go bad?To this end we have reopened the question of the nature of the true philosopher and determined what it must be. A: That's right. SOCRATES: We have to deal next with the corruption of the philosopher's nature: why this nature is corrupted in the majority of men and not in the few; and these few are those who are not called villains, but are said to be useless.Then let's examine those people who pretend to be philosophers and claim to be studying philosophy, take a look at their spiritual talents, and see how such people hope for a research job that they cannot and are not worthy of , and by his own lack of consistent principles, has brought philosophy everywhere that bad name of which you speak. A: What do you mean by corruption? SOCRATES: I'll try to explain it to you to the best of my knowledge.I think everyone will agree with us that such a gift as we have just demanded of a perfect philosopher is rarely, if ever, developed in man.Don't you think so? SOCRATES: Notice how many and powerful the factors that corrupt it are! A: What are the factors? SOCRATES: The most astonishing thing of all is that each of those natural gifts we praise can corrupt the soul to which it belongs, and pull it away from philosophy; By this I mean courage, temperance, and other such qualities which we have enumerated. A: That sounds absurd. SOCRATES: And all the so-called perks of life—beauty, wealth, physical strength, high family connections in the city, and everything connected with it— These factors also have this effect, I think you know what I mean. A: I understand; but it would be nice to hear your more detailed exposition. S: You have to understand the problem correctly as a whole.Then you will find it easy to understand, and you will not think that what I have said is absurd. A: So how do you want me to understand? SOCRATES: We know that any seed or germ (whether vegetable or animal) is not properly nourished, seasoned, and placed, the stronger it is, the farther it will be from its proper development and growth, because, Evil is a greater opposing force to good than to bad. A: Yes. SOCRATES: So I think it's also quite reasonable that the best talents will have worse results than the worst talents if they are brought up inappropriately. A: Yes. SOCRATES: Therefore, O Ademantus, may we not equally say: The best-endowed soul, with a bad education, becomes worse than all others?Or do you think that great crimes and pure evils come from the poorly gifted, not from the well-endowed but corrupted by education?Remember that a poorly endowed man will never do anything great (whether good or bad). A: No, you are still right. SOCRATES: Then what we suppose to be the gift of the philosopher, if properly taught, must grow to the perfection of perfection.But if he is like a plant, if he is not sown and cultivated in the required environment, he will grow into a completely opposite thing, unless there is some divine power.Or do you believe, as many do, that there are any young people who are corrupted by so-called sophists, that there are any private sophists who can be said to have corrupted young people?Those who say these things are really the greatest sophists themselves!Are they not the ones who most successfully educate men and women, old and young, and mold them to their own purposes? ①Plato here refers to private teachers like Socrates and himself, as opposed to so-called public sophists.The latter refers to those political activists or careerists who use eloquent speeches to influence public opinion in public places. A: When? SOCRATES: Whenever many people gather together for a meeting, or attend a court hearing, or go to a theater, or go to a barracks to live military life, or take part in any other public event, they take advantage of these occasions to yell or accuse Or applaud something that is being done or something that is being said, whether they blame or approve, they are all exaggerated; they clap and clap, causing echoes from the rock wall and the venue, and the clamor echoes the mutual support and becomes redoubled.How do you think the heart of a young listener, as said, would behave on such occasions?What instruction was given to him privately that could stand against being carried away by the flood of reproach or approbation of all?Could he not therefore talk to everyone, say good when everyone says good, say bad when everyone says bad, and even act like everyone, and then become like them? A: Socrates, it is absolutely necessary. Su: Is there one most important "necessity" that we have never mentioned? A: Which one? SOCRATES: These educators and sophists impose with deeds what they cannot convince with words.Haven't you heard that they punish disobedience with disenfranchisement, fines, and death? A: That's exactly what they did. SOCRATES: Well, what other sophist or private tutor do you think can hope to prevail in such a confrontation of such disparities of strength? ① Sophists were professional teachers who taught rhetoric and debate in the early days. They did not mean to be derogatory, and they were also translated as "wise men".Later, it gradually degenerated into a group of people who called black and white. A: I don't think there is any. SOCRATES: It is a great folly to even conceive such a thought.Because virtue education is used against the power of public education to create a kind of virtue. There is no such thing now, it has never happened in the past, and it will never happen in the future.Friends, I am of course referring to human power and not to divine power, which (as the saying goes) is not the same thing.You can definitely believe that under the current political situation, if any virtue can be saved and a good result can be obtained, then you will not be wrong to say that it is a blessing from the gods. A: I have no objection. Su: Well, I hope you have no objection to another point. A: Which point? SOCRATES: These fee-charging private tutors, whom politicians call sophists and hate, teach nothing but what the crowd says in assembly, and call it wisdom.This is exactly like a person who raises wild animals understands the habits and requirements of wild animals in the process of raising them.He knew how to approach it, when and what would make it most fearful or most docile, what sounds it used to make in each case, what would make it docile and what would make it wild. .This person has mastered all this knowledge in the process of continuous feeding and contact, called it wisdom, formed a set of skills, and used it to teach people.As to the truth of these opinions and demands, what is beautiful and what is ugly, what is good and what is evil, what is just and what is unjust in them, he knows nothing.He only knows how to use all these terms according to the opinion of the beast, and what the beast likes he calls good, and what the beast dislikes he calls evil.He has no other reason than to call what is necessary just and beautiful.He has never seen, nor has he been able to explain to others how vastly different the nature of the necessary and the good actually is.Seriously, don't you think such a person is a ridiculous teacher? ①PιBμδJιαM'Lαγη ("Diomedes' must" or, "Diomedes' compulsion") is a colloquial saying alluding to Diomedes, king of the Bistonians in Phragia s story.Legend has it that the king forced his captives to live with his daughters. M'LM'γη can be translated as "necessary", "must", or "must", which means the same thing. A: Yes. Su: Some people think that whether in painting, music, or even politics, his wisdom lies in knowing how to distinguish the joy and anger displayed by colorful people gathering, so what do you think is the difference between him and the above-mentioned kind of person who raises wild animals? Woolen cloth?If a man gets involved with such a crowd, and puts before them his poems or some other work of art or service to the city, and listens to their criticism, he does not necessarily recognize the authority of the crowd over him, Then this so-called "need of Diomedes" ① will make him create (do) things (things) they like.But have you ever heard of any reason he gave to justify the goodness and beauty of these things which the masses love, which is not entirely absurd? A: I haven't heard of it in the past, and I don't think I'll hear it in the future. SOCRATES: Then, please keep all these words in your mind, and then go back to the previous question.Can there be many who admit or believe that there is only beauty in itself, and not many beautiful things, or that there is anything in itself, and not many particular things? ① The Greek word αH'EK' (itself), as a philosophical term, often refers to something understood in a general and abstract sense, that is, the "essence", "substance" or "idea" of a thing. A: Absolutely impossible. SOCRATES: So can many people become philosophers? A: Impossible. SOCRATES: Therefore, it is inevitable and unavoidable that people who study philosophy are criticized by them. A: It is inevitable. SOCRATES: It is inevitable that the tutors, who mingle with the crowd and seek their approval, criticize the philosophers. A: Obviously yes. Su: From these situations, do you see any way for a born philosopher to persevere in his research to the end?Please do not stray from what we have said before when you consider this question.We have agreed that quick learning is better than memory, bravery, and generosity are the talents of philosophers. A: Yes. SOCRATES: Hasn't such a man always been the best of the boys from childhood, especially if his physical qualities are matched by his spiritual gifts? A: Why not? Su: I think his relatives, friends and compatriots in this city-state will plan to use him for their own affairs when he grows up. A: Of course. SOCRATES: So they will kneel at his feet, pray to him, pay homage to him, measure his future power, flatter him. A: This phenomenon is common. SOCRATES: In these circumstances, what do you think the young man will do, especially if he is a citizen of a large state, rich in property, of noble birth, handsome in character and tall in stature?Would he not be so ambitious and irresistible, that he would fancy himself capable not only of governing the affairs of the Greeks, but of the affairs of the extra-Greek world, so that he would become vainly proud and complacent? A: He certainly will. SOCRATES: If someone in this state of mind comes up gently to him and tells him the truth: he is muddled, and needs reason, which can only be acquired by slavish toil, do you think Can he easily listen to different words in this harsh environment? A: Absolutely not. SOCRATES: Even if we assume that this young man, because of his quality, finally accepts advice, understands a little, is moved, and is led to the path of philosophy, we can imagine that at this time the people in his original circle have a premonition that they will not How would they act if they could get his help again?Did they say nothing and do nothing to prevent him from being persuaded and to render powerless whoever tried to persuade him—by both private intrigue and public accusation? A: This is absolutely inevitable. SOCRATES: Then, can this man continue to study philosophy? A: It's impossible. SOCRATES: So you see that we are right in saying that the very qualities which constitute the genius of a philosopher, if they are affected by bad education or bad environment, are the cause of a certain departure from philosophical research, which has nothing to do with so-called beauty, wealth, and all. The same kind of life benefits? A: That's right. SOCRATES: That, my good friend, is the reason for the demise of the best gift for the best learning—which, as we have said, is in any case rare.Of this class are those who do great evil to cities and individuals; In the same way the man who does great good to the state and to the individual—if the current happens to carry him in that direction—comes from this class; whereas a man of mediocre talent can do little to the state or to the individual. here. A: Absolutely. SOCRATES: Those who are most worthy of philosophy have thus deserted it, leaving her alone and desolate, and thus leading unsuitable and unreal lives themselves; kinship protection, taking advantage of it, defiled her, and caused her to suffer (as you pointed out) the bad name that her opponents put her in - that some of her spouses were useless, and many were coping with many evils Responsible. ① Compare philosophy to a woman. A: Yes, these words have indeed been said. Su: These words are very reasonable.For there is also a kind of villain who finds that this place has no master, but is full of good names and honorary titles. They are like some prisoners who have escaped from prison and entered the temple. Perhaps it was a coincidence in terms of craftsmanship), entered the temple of philosophy.It should be noted that philosophy, in spite of its present unfavorable condition, still retains a higher reputation than other arts.Many men of imperfect endowment were thus drawn, though their souls were crippled and deformed by their low arts and trades, as their bodies were marred by them. Wasn't it inevitable that they were drawn to philosophy? A: Yes. SOCRATES: Aren't they all like a rag-headed coppersmith who has just been released from prison and has had a good fortune: he has a bath, puts on a new coat, dresses up like a bridegroom, and goes to meet his master's daughter— —a girl deprived of care, poor and lonely—to marry? A: Exactly the same. Su: What kind of offspring can such a pair produce?Isn't it an inferior scumbag? A: It must be. SOCRATES: So what thoughts and opinions shall we say "beget" those who are unworthy of philosophy, when they are disproportionately associated with it?Would they not "bring forth" what may indeed be properly called sophistry, in which there is nothing true, worthy, or near knowledge? A: Indeed. SOCRATES: Therefore, Ademanthus, only a tiny fraction of those who are left worthy of philosophy: they are either well-born and well-educated in exile, and thus uncorrupted, still in the To be really engaged in philosophy; or a great soul born in a small city, which he disdains to attend to the affairs of this small country; a few, perhaps by virtue of talent, study philosophy from other arts which he justly despises; and Some, perhaps, were bound by the imperfection of our friend Sejagus, for whom all other conditions for departure from philosophy were present, but his infirmity detached him from politics, Can not deviate from the philosophy.In my own case, which was quite the exception, it was a miracle which few other people had ever experienced before, or which no one at all had experienced.Already belonged to this very small number of Taoist people, who have tasted the sweetness and happiness of possessing philosophy, have seen enough of the madness of the masses, and know that in the current affairs of the city nothing can be said to be healthy, and no one can do anything. Be an ally of the righteous fighters, aid them and save them from destruction.These few true philosophers are all like a man in a herd of wild beasts, unwilling to share in evil, and unable to fight all the beasts single-handedly, so they probably have to help themselves before they can help the city or friends. Died early without contributing to anyone. —For all these reasons, philosophers remain silent and attend to their own affairs.他们就象一个在暴风卷起尘土或雨雪时避于一堵墙下的人一样，看别人干尽不法，但求自己得能终生不沾上不正义和罪恶，最后怀着善良的愿望和美好的期待而逝世，也就心满意足了。 ①塞亚格斯其人另见于柏拉图的《苏格拉底的申辩》33E，及伪托的《塞亚格斯》篇对话。他是苏格拉底的学生。 阿：噢，他生前的成就不算最小呀！ 苏：〔不是最小，但也不算最大。〕要不是碰巧生活在一个合适的国度里，一个哲学家是不可能有最大成就的，因为只有在一个合适的国家里，哲学家本人才能得到充分的成长，进而能以保卫自己的和公共的利益。 哲学受到非议的原因以及非议的不公正性，我觉得我已经解释得很充分了。你还有什么话要说的吗？ 阿：关于这个问题我再没有什么要说的了。但是你看当今的政治制度哪一种适合于哲学呢？ 苏：一个也没有。现行的政治制度我所以怨它们，正是因为其中没有一种是适合哲学本性的。哲学的本性也正是由于这个缘故而堕落变质的。正如种子被播种在异乡土地上，结果通常总是被当地水土所克服而失去本性那样，哲学的生长也如此，在不合适的制度下保不住自己的本性，而败坏变质了。 哲学如果能找到如它本身一样最善的政治制度，那时可以看得很明白，哲学确实是神物，而其他的一切，无论天赋还是学习和工作，都不过是人事。到此我知道下面你要问，这个最善的政治制度是什么了。 阿：你猜错了；我要问的是另一个问题，即，它是不是我们在描述“建立”的这个城邦？ 苏：从别的方面看，它就是我们的那一个；但是还有一点我们以前曾说过，即，在这样一个国家里必须永远有这样一个人物存在：他对这个国家的制度抱有和你作为一个立法者在为它立法时一样的想法。 阿：是的，那一点曾经说过的。 苏：但是，对它的解释还不充分；你的插言反驳曾使我们害怕，而这些反驳也的确表明：这一讨论是漫长的和困难的；单是剩下来要解释的这个部分也绝不是容易的。 阿：剩下来要解释的是什么呢？ 苏：是这样一个问题：一个受哲学主宰的城邦怎样可以不腐败呢？一切远大目标沿途都是有风险的，俗话说得对：好事多磨嘛。 阿：还是让我们把这个问题弄清楚了，以结束这一解释工作吧。 苏：不是我缺少愿望，如果说缺少什么的话，是缺少能力——只有这一点可能妨碍我。但是你会亲眼看到我的热忱的。还要请你注意到，我将多么热忱和勇敢地宣称，这个城邦应该用和当前完全相反的做法来从事哲学研究。 阿：怎么做法？ 苏：当前，人们研究哲学时还是少年，他们在童年和成家立业之间这个阶段学习哲学。他们在刚刚开始接触到它的最困难部分（我指的是推理论证）时放弃了学习，他们这就被认为是一个完全的哲学家了。以后，如果他们有机会应邀去听一次别人的哲学辩论，就认为这是件大事了。他们认为这种事是应该在业余的时间做的。到了老年，他们很少例外地比赫拉克利特的太阳熄灭得更彻底①，以致再也不能重新亮起来了。 ①见第尔斯辑录i、3，原书78页，残篇6。参见，亚里士多德《气象学》ii、2、9；卢克莱修《物性论》第V卷662行，中译本306页注①。