<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.tlg010.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="31"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> We have now, then, my friend, pretty clearly shown to what class mind belongs
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="31"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="31a"/>and what power it possesses.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And likewise the class of pleasure was made clear some time ago.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, it was.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Let us, then, remember concerning both of them that mind was akin to cause and belonged more or less to that class, and that pleasure was itself infinite and belonged to the class which, in and by itself, has not and never will have either beginning or middle or end.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="31b"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> We will remember that, of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Our next task is to see in what and by means of what feeling each of them comes into being whenever they do come into being.  We will take pleasure first and discuss these questions in relation to pleasure, as we examined its class first.  But we cannot examine pleasure successfully apart from pain.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> If that is our proper path, let us follow it.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Do you agree with us about the origin of pleasure?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="31c"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What do you think it is?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> I think pain and pleasure naturally originate in the combined class.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Please, my dear Socrates, remind us which of the aforesaid classes you mean by the combined class.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> I will do so, as well as I can, my brilliant friend.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Thank you.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> By combined class, then, let us understand that which we said was the third of the four.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> The one you mentioned after the infinite and the finite, and in which you put health and also, I believe, harmony?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="31d"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> You are quite right.  Now please pay very close attention.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> I will.  Say on.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> I say, then, that when, in us living beings, harmony is broken up, a disruption of nature and a generation of pain also take place at the same moment.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What you say is very likely.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> But if harmony is recomposed and returns to its own nature, then I say that pleasure is generated, if I may speak in the fewest and briefest words about matters of the highest import.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="31e"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> I think you are right, Socrates;  but let us try to be more explicit.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> It is easiest to understand common and obvious examples, is it not?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What examples?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Is hunger a kind of breaking up and a pain?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And eating, which is a filling up again, is a pleasure?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="32"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Thirst again is a destruction and a pain, but the filling with moisture
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="32"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="32a"/>of that which was dried up is a pleasure.  Then, too, the unnatural dissolution and disintegration we experience through heat are a pain, but the natural restoration and cooling are a pleasure.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And the unnatural hardening of the moisture in an animal through cold is pain;  but the natural course of the elements returning to their place and separating is a pleasure.  See, in short, if you think it is a reasonable statement that whenever in the class of living beings,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="32b"/>which, as I said before, arises out of the natural union of the infinite and the finite, that union is destroyed, the destruction is pain, and the passage and return of all things to their own nature is pleasure.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Let us accept that;  for it seems to me to be true in its general lines.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then we may assume this as one kind of pain and pleasure arising severally under the conditions I have described?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Let that be assumed.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Now assume within the soul itself the anticipation of these conditions,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="32c"/>the sweet and cheering hope of pleasant things to come, the fearful and woful expectation of painful things to come.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, indeed, this is another kind of pleasure and pain, which belongs to the soul itself, apart from the body, and arises through expectation.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> You are right.  I think that in these two kinds, both of which are, in my opinion, pure, and not formed by mixture of pain and pleasure, the truth about pleasure will be made manifest,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="32d"/>whether the entire class is to be desired or such desirability is rather to be attributed to some other class among those we have mentioned, whereas pleasure and pain, like heat, cold, and other such things, are sometimes desirable and sometimes undesirable, because they are not good themselves, though some of them sometimes admit on occasion the nature of the good.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> You are quite right in saying that we must track our quarry on this trail.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> First, then, let us agree on this point:  If it is true,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="32e"/>as we said, that destruction is pain and restoration is pleasure, let us consider the case of living beings in which neither destruction nor restoration is going on, and what their state is under such conditions.  Fix your mind on my question:  Must not every living being under those conditions necessarily be devoid of any feeling of pain or pleasure, great or small?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, necessarily.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="33"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Have we, then, a third condition,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="33"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="33a"/>besides those of feeling pleasure and pain?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well then, do your best to bear it in mind;  for remembering or forgetting it will make a great difference in our judgement of pleasure.  And I should like, if you do not object, to speak briefly about it.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Pray do so.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> You know that there is nothing to hinder a man from living the life of wisdom in this manner.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="33b"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> You mean without feeling pleasure or pain?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Yes, for it was said, you know, in our comparison of the lives that he who chose the life of mind and wisdom was to have no feeling of pleasure, great or small.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, surely, that was said.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Such a man, then, would have such a life;  and perhaps it is not unreasonable, if that is the most divine of lives.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly it is not likely that gods feel either joy or its opposite.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> No, it is very unlikely;  for either is unseemly for them.  But let us reserve the discussion of that point
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="33c"/>for another time, if it is appropriate, and we will give mind credit for it in contending for the second place, if we cannot count it for the first.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Quite right.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Now the other class of pleasure, which we said was an affair of the soul alone, originates entirely in memory.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> How is that?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> We must, apparently, first take up memory, and perception even before memory, if these matters are to be made clear to us properly.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="33d"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What do you mean?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Assume that some of the affections of our body are extinguished in the body before they reach the soul, leaving the soul unaffected, and that other affections permeate both body and soul and cause a vibration in both conjointly and in each individually.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Let us assume that.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Shall we be right in saying that the soul forgets those which do not permeate both, and does not forget those which do?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="33e"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Do not in the least imagine that when I speak of forgetting I mean that forgetfulness arises in this case;  for forgetfulness is the departure of memory, and in the case under consideration memory has not yet come into being;  now it is absurd to speak of the loss of that which does not exist and has not yet come into being, is it not?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then just change the terms.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> How?</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="34"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Instead of saying that the soul forgets, when it is unaffected by the vibrations of the body,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="34"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="34a"/>apply the term want of perception to that which you are now calling forgetfulness.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> I understand.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And the union of soul and body in one common affection and one common motion you may properly call perception.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Very true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then do we now understand what we mean by perception?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> I think, then, that memory may rightly be defined as the preservation of perception.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="34b"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Quite rightly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> But do we not say that memory differs from recollection?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Perhaps.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And is this the difference?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> When the soul alone by itself, apart from the body, recalls completely any experience it has had in company with the body, we say that it recollects do we not?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And again when the soul has lost the memory of a perception or of something it has learned and then alone by itself regains this,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="34c"/>we call everything of that kind recollection.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> You are right.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Now my reason for saying all this is—</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> That henceforth we may comprehend as completely and clearly as possible the pleasure of the soul, and likewise its desire, apart from the body;  for both of these appear to be made plain by what has been said about memory and recollection.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Let us, then, Socrates, discuss the next point.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> We must, it seems, consider many things in relation to the origin and general aspect of pleasure;
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="34d"/> but now I think our first task is to take up the nature and origin of desire.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Then let us examine that;  for we shall not lose anything.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Oh yes, Protarchus, we shall lose a great deal!  When we find what we are seeking we shall lose our perplexity about these very questions.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> That is a fair counter;  but let us try to take up the next point.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Did we not say just now that hunger, thirst,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="34e"/>and the like were desires?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> They are, decidedly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> What sort of identity have we in view when we call these, which are so different, by one name?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> By Zeus, Socrates, that question may not be easy to answer, yet it must be answered.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Let us, then, begin again at that point with the same examples.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> At what point?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> We say of a thing on any particular occasion, <q type="emph">it’s thirsty,</q> do we not?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And that means being empty?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And is thirst, then, a desire?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, of drink.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="35"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="35"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="35a"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Of drink, or of being filled with drink?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of being filled, I suppose.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> The man, then, who is empty desires, as it appears, the opposite of what he feels for, being empty, he longs to be filled.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> That is very plain.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well then, is there any source from which a man who is empty at first can gain a comprehension, whether by perception or by memory, of fulness, a thing which he does not feel at the time and has never felt before?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> It cannot be done.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="35b"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And yet he who desires, desires something, we say.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And he does not desire that which he feels;  for he is thirsty, and that is emptiness, but he desires fulness.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then somehow some part of him who is thirsty can apprehend fulness.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, obviously.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> But it cannot be the body, for that is empty.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> True.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> The only remaining possibility is that the soul apprehends it,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="35c"/>which it must do by means of memory;  for what other means could it employ?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> No other, I should say.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And do we understand the consequences of this argument?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What are the consequences?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> This argument declares that we have no bodily desire.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> How so?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Because it shows that the endeavor of every living being is always towards the opposite of the actual conditions of the body.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And the impulse which leads towards the opposite of those conditions shows that there is a memory of the opposite of the conditions.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="35d"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And the argument, by showing that memory is that which leads us towards the objects of desire, has proved that all the impulse, the desire, and the ruling principle in every living being are of the soul.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Quite right.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> So the argument denies utterly that the body hungers or thirsts or has any such affection.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Very true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Let us consider a further point in connection with those very affections.  For I think the purpose of the argument is to point out to us a state of life existing in them.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="35e"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of what sort of life are you speaking, and in what affections does it exist?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> In the affections of fulness and emptiness and all which pertain to the preservation and destruction of living beings, and I am thinking that if we fall into one of these we feel pain, which is followed by joy when we change to the other.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> That is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And what if a man is between the two?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> How between them?</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>