<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="55"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="55"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="55a"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> That seems to be their view.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> We should all agree that the opposite of generation is destruction, should we not?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Inevitably.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And he who chooses as they do would be choosing destruction and generation, not that third life in which there was neither pleasure nor pain, but only the purest possible thought.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> It is a great absurdity, as it appears, Socrates, to tell us that pleasure is a good.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Yes, a great absurdity, and let us go still further.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> How?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="55b"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Is it not absurd to say that there is nothing good in the body or many other things, but only in the soul, and that in the soul the only good is pleasure, and that courage and self-restraint and understanding and all the other good things of the soul are nothing of the sort;  and beyond all this to be obliged to say that he who is not feeling pleasure, and is feeling pain, is bad when he feels pain, though he be the best of men, and that he who feels pleasure is,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="55c"/>when he feels pleasure, the more excellent in virtue the greater the pleasure he feels?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> All that, Socrates, is the height of absurdity.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Now let us not undertake to subject pleasure to every possible test and then be found to give mind and knowledge very gentle treatment.  Let us rather strike them boldly everywhere to see if their metal rings unsound at any point;  so we shall find out what is by nature purest in them, and then we can make use of the truest elements of these and of pleasure to form our judgement of both.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Right.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="55d"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well, then, one part of knowledge is productive, the other has to do with education and support.  Is that true?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> It is.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Let us first consider whether in the manual arts one part is more allied to knowledge, and the other less, and the one should be regarded as purest, the other as less pure.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, we ought to consider that.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And should the ruling elements of each of them be separated and distinguished from the rest?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What are they, and how can they be separated?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="55e"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> For example, if arithmetic and the sciences of measurement and weighing were taken away from all arts, what was left of any of them would be, so to speak, pretty worthless.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, pretty worthless.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>