<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg006.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="186"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="186"/><milestone n="186a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Well, I do think so.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> To which class, then, do you assign being;  for this, more than anything else, belongs to all things?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> I assign them to the class of notions which the soul grasps by itself directly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> And also likeness and unlikeness and identity and difference?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> And how about beautiful and ugly, and good and bad?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> I think that these also are among the things the essence of which the soul most certainly views in their relations to one another, reflecting within itself upon the past and present
<milestone n="186b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
in relation to the future.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Stop there.  Does it not perceive the hardness of the hard through touch, and likewise the softness of the soft?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> But their essential nature and the fact that they exist, and their opposition to one another, and, in turn, the essential nature of this opposition, the soul itself tries to determine for us by reverting to them and comparing them with one another.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Is it not true, then, that all sensations which reach the soul through the body,
<milestone n="186c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
can be perceived by human beings, and also by animals, from the moment of birth;  whereas reflections about these, with reference to their being and usefulness, are acquired, if at all, with difficulty and slowly, through many troubles, in other words, through education?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Assuredly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Is it, then, possible for one to attain <q type="emph">truth</q> who cannot even get as far as <q type="emph">being</q>?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> No.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> And will a man ever have knowledge of anything the truth of which he fails to attain?</said></p><milestone n="186d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> How can he, Socrates?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Then knowledge is not in the sensations, but in the process of reasoning about them;  for it is possible, apparently, to apprehend being and truth by reasoning, but not by sensation.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> So it seems.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Then will you call the two by the same name, when there are so great differences between them?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> No, that would certainly not be right.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> What name will you give, then, to the one which includes seeing, hearing, smelling, being cold, and being hot?</said></p><milestone n="186e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Perceiving.  What other name can I give it?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Collectively you call it, then, perception?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> By which, we say, we are quite unable to apprehend truth, since we cannot apprehend being, either.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> No;  certainly not.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Nor knowledge either, then.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> No.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Then, Theaetetus, perception and knowledge could never be the same.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Evidently not, Socrates;  and indeed now at last it has been made perfectly clear that knowledge is something different from perception.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>