<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="188"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="188"/><milestone n="188a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Then this, at any rate, is possible for us, is it not, regarding all things collectively and each thing separately, either to know or not to know them?  For learning and forgetting, as intermediate stages, I leave out of account for the present, for just now they have no bearing upon our argument.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Certainly, Socrates, nothing is left in any particular case except knowing or not knowing it.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Then he who forms opinion must form opinion either about what he knows or about what he does not know?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Necessarily.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> And it is surely impossible that one who knows a thing does not know it, or that one who does not know it
<milestone n="188b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
knows it.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Then does he who forms false opinions think that the things which he knows are not these things, but some others of the things he knows, and so, knowing both, is he ignorant of both?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> That is impossible, Socrates.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Well then, does he think that the things he does not know are other things which he does not know—which is as if a man who knows neither Theaetetus nor Socrates should conceive the idea that Socrates is Theaetetus or Theaetetus Socrates?</said></p><milestone n="188c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> That is impossible.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> But surely a man does not think that the things he knows are the things he does not know, or again that the things he does not know are the things he knows.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> That would be a monstrous absurdity.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Then how could he still form false opinions?  For inasmuch as all things are either known or unknown to us, it is impossible, I imagine, to form opinions outside of these alternatives, and within them it is clear that there is no place for fake opinion.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Very true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Had we, then, better look for what we are seeking, not by this method of knowing and not knowing, but by that of being
<milestone n="188d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
and not being?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> What do you mean?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> We may simply assert that he who on any subject holds opinions which are not, will certainly think falsely, no matter what the condition of his mind may be in other respects.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> That, again, is likely, Socrates.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Well then, what shall we say, Theaetetus, if anyone asks us, <q type="spoken">Is that which is assumed in common speech possible at all, and can any human being hold an opinion which is not, whether it be concerned with any of the things which are, or be entirely independent of them?</q>  We, I fancy,
<milestone n="188e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
shall reply, <q type="spoken">Yes, when, in thinking, he thinks what is not true,</q> shall we not?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> And is the same sort of thing possible in any other field?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> What sort of thing?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> For instance, that a man sees something, but sees nothing.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> How can he?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Yet surely if a man sees any one thing, he sees something that is.  Or do you, perhaps, think <q type="emph">one</q> is among the things that are not?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> No, I do not.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Then he who sees any one thing, sees something that is.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> That is clear.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>