<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="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></body></text></TEI>