phaedo-第14节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




opposites　are　inherent　and　which　are　called　after　them；　but　now



about　the　opposites　which　are　inherent　in　them　and　which　give　their



name　to　them；　these　essential　opposites　will　never；　as　we　maintain；



admit　of　generation　into　or　out　of　one　another。　At　the　same　time；



turning　to　Cebes；　he　said：　Were　you　at　all　disconcerted；　Cebes；　at　our



friend's　objection？



　　That　was　not　my　feeling；　said　Cebes；　and　yet　I　cannot　deny　that　I　am



apt　to　be　disconcerted。



　　Then　we　are　agreed　after　all；　said　Socrates；　that　the　opposite



will　never　in　any　case　be　opposed　to　itself？



　　To　that　we　are　quite　agreed；　he　replied。



　　Yet　once　more　let　me　ask　you　to　consider　the　question　from　another



point　of　view；　and　see　whether　you　agree　with　me：　There　is　a　thing



which　you　term　heat；　and　another　thing　which　you　term　cold？



　　Certainly。



　　But　are　they　the　same　as　fire　and　snow？



　　Most　assuredly　not。



　　Heat　is　not　the　same　as　fire；　nor　is　cold　the　same　as　snow？



　　No。



　　And　yet　you　will　surely　admit　that　when　snow；　as　before　said；　is



under　the　influence　of　heat；　they　will　not　remain　snow　and　heat；　but



at　the　advance　of　the　heat　the　snow　will　either　retire　or　perish？



　　Very　true；　he　replied。



　　And　the　fire　too　at　the　advance　of　the　cold　will　either　retire　or



perish；　and　when　the　fire　is　under　the　influence　of　the　cold；　they



will　not　remain；　as　before；　fire　and　cold。



　　That　is　true；　he　said。



　　And　in　some　cases　the　name　of　the　idea　is　not　confined　to　the



idea；　but　anything　else　which；　not　being　the　idea；　exists　only　in



the　form　of　the　idea；　may　also　lay　claim　to　it。　I　will　try　to　make



this　clearer　by　an　example：　The　odd　number　is　always　called　by　the



name　of　odd？



　　Very　true。



　　But　is　this　the　only　thing　which　is　called　odd？　Are　there　not



other　things　which　have　their　own　name；　and　yet　are　called　odd；



because；　although　not　the　same　as　oddness；　they　are　never　without



oddness？…that　is　what　I　mean　to　ask…whether　numbers　such　as　the　number



three　are　not　of　the　class　of　odd。　And　there　are　many　other



examples：　would　you　not　say；　for　example；　that　three　may　be　called



by　its　proper　name；　and　also　be　called　odd；　which　is　not　the　same　with



three？　and　this　may　be　said　not　only　of　three　but　also　of　five；　and



every　alternate　number…each　of　them　without　being　oddness　is　odd；



and　in　the　same　way　two　and　four；　and　the　whole　series　of　alternate



numbers；　has　every　number　even；　without　being　evenness。　Do　you　admit



that？



　　Yes；　he　said；　how　can　I　deny　that？



　　Then　now　mark　the　point　at　which　I　am　aiming：　not　only　do



essential　opposites　exclude　one　another；　but　also　concrete　things；



which；　although　not　in　themselves　opposed；　contain　opposites；　these；　I



say；　also　reject　the　idea　which　is　opposed　to　that　which　is



contained　in　them；　and　at　the　advance　of　that　they　either　perish　or



withdraw。　There　is　the　number　three　for　example；　will　not　that



endure　annihilation　or　anything　sooner　than　be　converted　into　an



even　number；　remaining　three？



　　Very　true；　said　Cebes。



　　And　yet；　he　said；　the　number　two　is　certainly　not　opposed　to　the



number　three？



　　It　is　not。



　　Then　not　only　do　opposite　ideas　repel　the　advance　of　one　another；



but　also　there　are　other　things　which　repel　the　approach　of　opposites。



　　That　is　quite　true；　he　said。



　　Suppose；　he　said；　that　we　endeavor；　if　possible；　to　determine　what



these　are。



　　By　all　means。



　　Are　they　not；　Cebes；　such　as　compel　the　things　of　which　they　have



possession；　not　only　to　take　their　own　form；　but　also　the　form　of　some



opposite？



　　What　do　you　mean？



　　I　mean；　as　I　was　just　now　saying；　and　have　no　need　to　repeat　to　you；



that　those　things　which　are　possessed　by　the　number　three　must　not



only　be　three　in　number；　but　must　also　be　odd。



　　Quite　true。



　　And　on　this　oddness；　of　which　the　number　three　has　the　impress；



the　opposite　idea　will　never　intrude？



　　No。



　　And　this　impress　was　given　by　the　odd　principle？



　　Yes。



　　And　to　the　odd　is　opposed　the　even？



　　True。



　　Then　the　idea　of　the　even　number　will　never　arrive　at　three？



　　No。



　　Then　three　has　no　part　in　the　even？



　　None。



　　Then　the　triad　or　number　three　is　uneven？



　　Very　true。



　　To　return　then　to　my　distinction　of　natures　which　are　not　opposites；



and　yet　do　not　admit　opposites：　as；　in　this　instance；　three；



although　not　opposed　to　the　even；　does　not　any　the　more　admit　of　the



even；　but　always　brings　the　opposite　into　play　on　the　other　side；　or



as　two　does　not　receive　the　odd；　or　fire　the　cold…from　these



examples　（and　there　are　many　more　of　them）　perhaps　you　may　be　able



to　arrive　at　the　general　conclusion　that　not　only　opposites　will　not



receive　opposites；　but　also　that　nothing　which　brings　the　opposite



will　admit　the　opposite　of　that　which　it　brings　in　that　to　which　it　is



brought。　And　here　let　me　recapitulate…for　there　is　no　harm　in



repetition。　The　number　five　will　not　admit　the　nature　of　the　even；　any



more　than　ten；　which　is　the　double　of　five；　will　admit　the　nature　of



the　odd…the　double；　though　not　strictly　opposed　to　the　odd；　rejects



the　odd　altogether。　Nor　again　will　parts　in　the　ratio　of　3：2；　nor



any　fraction　in　which　there　is　a　half；　nor　again　in　which　there　is　a



third；　admit　the　notion　of　the　whole；　although　they　are　not　opposed　to



the　whole。　You　will　agree　to　that？



　　Yes；　he　said；　I　entirely　agree　and　go　along　with　you　in　that。



　　And　now；　he　said；　I　think　that　I　may　begin　again；　and　to　the



question　which　I　am　about　to　ask　I　will　beg　you　to　give　not　the　old



safe　answer；　but　another；　of　which　I　will　offer　you　an　example；　and



I　hope　that　you　will　find　in　what　has　been　just　said　another



foundation　which　is　as　safe。　I　mean　that　if　anyone　asks　you　〃what　that



is；　the　inherence　of　which　makes　the　body　hot；〃　you　will　reply　not



heat　（this　is　what　I　call　the　safe　and　stupid　answer）；　but　fire；　a　far



better　answer；　which　we　are　now　in　a　condition　to　give。　Or　if　anyone



asks　you　〃why　a　body　is　diseased；〃　you　will　not　say　from　disease；



but　from　fever；　and　instead　of　saying　that　oddness　is　the　cause　of　odd



numbers；　you　will　say　that　the　monad　is　the　cause　of　them：　and　so　of



things　in　general；　as　I　dare　say　that　you　will　understand　sufficiently



without　my　adducing　any　further　examples。



　　Yes；　he　said；　I　quite　understand　you。



　　Tell　me；　then；　what　is　that　the　inherence　of　which　will　render　the



body　alive？



　　The　soul；　he　replied。



　　And　is　this　always　the　case？



　　Yes；　he　said；　of　course。



　　Then　whatever　the　soul　possesses；　to　that　she　comes　bearing　life？



　　Yes；　certainly。



　　And　is　there　any　opposite　to　life？



　　There　is；　he　said。



　　And　what　is　that？



　　Death。



　　Then　the　soul；　as　has　been　acknowledged；　will　never　receive　the



opposite　of　what　she　brings。　And　now；　he　said；　what　did　we　call　that



principle　which　repels　the　even？



　　The　odd。



　　And　that　principle　which　repels　the　musical；　or　the　just？



　　The　unmusical；　he　said；　and　the　unjust。



　　And　what　do　we　call　the　principle　which　does　not　admit　of　death？



　　The　immortal；　he　said。



　　And　does　the　soul　admit　of　death？



　　No。



　　Then　the　soul　is　immortal？



　　Yes；　he　said。



　　And　may　we　say　that　this　is　proven？



　　Yes；　abundantly　proven；　Socrates；　he　replied。



　　And　supposing　that　the　odd　were　imperishable；　must　not　three　be



imperishable？



　　Of　course。



　　And　if　that　which　is　cold　were　imperishable；　when　the　warm　principle



came　attacking　the　snow；　must　not　the　snow　have　retired　whole　and



unmelted…for　it　could　never　have　perished；　nor　could　it　have



remained　and　admitted　the　heat？



　　True；　he　said。



　　Again；　if　the　uncooling　or　warm　principle　were　imperishable；　the



fire　when　assailed　by　cold　would　not　have　perished　or　have　been



extinguished；　but　would　have　gone　away　unaffected？



　　Certainly；　he　said。



　　And　the　same　may　be　said　of　the　immortal：　if　the　immortal　is　also



imperishable；　the　soul　when　attacked　by　death　cannot　perish；　for　the



preceding　argument　shows　that　the　soul　will　not　admit　of　death；　or



ever　be　dead；　any　more　than　three　or　the　odd　number　will　admit　of



the　even；　or　fire　or　the　heat　in　the　fire；　of　the　cold。　Yet　a　person



may　say：　〃But　although　the　odd　will　not　become　even　at　the　approach　of



the　even；　why　may　not　the　odd　perish　and　the　even　take　the　place　of



the　odd？〃　Now　to　him　who　makes　this　objection；　we　cannot　answer　that



the　odd　principle　is　imperishable；　for　this　has　not　been　acknowledged；



but　if　this　had　been　acknowledged；　there　would　have　been　no　difficulty



in　contending　that　at　the　approach　of　the　even　the　odd　principle　and



the　number　three　took　up　their　departure；　and　the　same　argument



would　have　held　good　of　fire　and　heat　and　any　other　thing。



　　Very　true。



　　And　the