SOC. Because I have a reverential fear of examining in a flippant manner Melissus and the others who teach that the universe is one and motionless, and because I reverence still more one man, Parmenides. Parmenides seems to me to be, in Homer’s words, one to be venerated and also awful. Il. 3.172; Od. 8.22; xiv. 234 For I met him when I was very young and he was very old, and he appeared to me to possess an absolutely noble depth of mind. 

 
So I am afraid we may not understand his words and may be still farther from understanding what he meant by them; but my chief fear is that the question with which we started, about the nature of knowledge, may fail to be investigated, because of the disorderly crowd of arguments which will burst in upon us if we let them in; especially as the argument we are now proposing is of vast extent, and would not receive its deserts if we treated it as a side issue, and if we treat it as it deserves, it will take so long as to do away with the discussion about knowledge. Neither of these things ought to happen, but we ought to try by the science of midwifery to deliver Theaetetus of the thoughts
 
about knowledge with which he is pregnant. THEO. Yes, if that is your opinion, we ought to do so. SOC. Consider, then, Theaetetus, this further point about what has been said. Now you answered that perception is knowledge, did you not? THEAET. Yes. SOC. If, then, anyone should ask you, By what does a man see white and black colors and by what does he hear high and low tones? you would, I fancy, say, By his eyes and ears. THEAET. Yes, I should. SOC. The easy use of words and phrases and the avoidance of strict precision is in general a sign of good breeding; indeed, the opposite is hardly worthy of a gentleman, but sometimes it is necessary, as now it is necessary to object to your answer, in so far as it is incorrect. Just consider; which answer is more correct, that our eyes are that by which we see or that through which we see, and our ears that by which or that through which we hear? THEAET. I think, Socrates, we perceive through, rather than by them, in each case. SOC. Yes, for it would be strange indeed, my boy, if there are many senses ensconced within us, as if we were so many wooden horses of Troy , and they do not all unite in one power, whether we should call it soul or something else, by which we perceive through these as instruments the objects of perception. THEAET. I think what you suggest is more likely than the other way. SOC. Now the reason why I am so precise about the matter is this: I want to know whether there is some one and the same power within ourselves by which we perceive black and white through the eyes, and again other qualities
 
through the other organs, and whether you will be able, if asked, to refer all such activities to the body. But perhaps it is better that you make the statement in answer to a question than that I should take all the trouble for you. So tell me: do you not think that all the organs through which you perceive hot and hard and light and sweet are parts of the body? Or are they parts of something else? THEAET. Of nothing else.