statesman-第8节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


following：…

　　Y。　Soc。　What？

　　　Str。　Length　and　shortness；　excess　and　defect；　with　all　of　

these　the

art　of　measurement　is　conversant。

　　Y。　Soc。　Yes。

　　Str。　And　the　art　of　measurement　has　to　be　divided　into　two　parts；

with　a　view　to　our　present　purpose。

　　Y。　Soc。　Where　would　you　make　the　division？

　　Str。　As　thus：　I　would　make　two　parts；　one　having　regard　to　the

relativity　of　greatness　and　smallness　to　each　other；　and　there　is

another；　without　which　the　existence　of　production　would　be

impossible。

　　Y。　Soc。　What　do　you　mean？

　　Str。　Do　you　not　think　that　it　is　only　natural　for　the　greater　to

be　called　greater　with　reference　to　the　less　alone；　and　the　less

reference　to　the　greater　alone？

　　Y。　Soc。　Yes。

　　Str。　Well；　but　is　there　not　also　something　exceeding　and　

exceeded　by

the　principle　of　the　mean；　both　in　speech　and　action；　and　is　not

this　a　reality；　and　the　chief　mark　of　difference　between　good　and

bad　men？

　　Y。　Soc。　Plainly。

　　Str。　Then　we　must　suppose　that　the　great　and　small　exist　and　are

discerned　in　both　these　ways；　and　not；　as　we　were　saying　before；

only　relatively　to　one　another；　but　there　must　also　be　another

comparison　of　them　with　the　mean　or　ideal　standard；　would　you　like

to　hear　the　reason　why？

　　Y。　Soc。　Certainly。

　　Str。　If　we　assume　the　greater　to　exist　only　in　relation　to　

the　less；

there　will　never　be　any　comparison　of　either　with　the　mean。

　　Y。　Soc。　True。

　　Str。　And　would　not　this　doctrine　be　the　ruin　of　all　the　arts　and

their　creations；　would　not　the　art　of　the　Statesman　and　the

aforesaid　art　of　weaving　disappear？　For　all　these　arts　are　on　the

watch　against　excess　and　defect；　not　as　unrealities；　but　as　real

evils；　which　occasion　a　difficulty　in　action；　and　the　excellence　of

beauty　of　every　work　of　art　is　due　to　this　observance　of　measure。

　　Y。　Soc。　Certainly。

　　Str。　But　if　the　science　of　the　Statesman　disappears；　the　search

for　the　royal　science　will　be　impossible。

　　Y。　Soc。　Very　true。

　　Str。　Well；　then；　as　in　the　case　of　the　Sophist　we　extorted　the

inference　that　not…being　had　an　existence；　because　here　was　the

point　at　which　the　argument　eluded　our　grasp；　so　in　this　we　must

endeavour　to　show　that　the　greater　and；　less　are　not　only　to　be

measured　with　one　another；　but　also　have　to　do　with　the　production

of　the　mean；　for　if　this　is　not　admitted；　neither　a　statesman　nor

any　other　man　of　action　can　be　an　undisputed　master　of　his　science。

　　Y。　Soc。　Yes；　we　must　certainly　do　again　what　we　did　then。

　　Str。　But　this；　Socrates；　is　a　greater　work　than　the　other；　of

which　we　only　too　well　remember　the　length。　I　think；　however；　that

we　may　fairly　assume　something　of　this　sort…

　　Y。　Soc。　What？

　　Str。　That　we　shall　some　day　require　this　notion　of　a　mean　with　a

view　to　the　demonstration　of　absolute　truth；　meanwhile；　the　argument

that　the　very　existence　of　the　arts　must　be　held　to　depend　on　the

possibility　of　measuring　more　or　less；　not　only　with　one　another；

but　also　with　a　view　to　the　attainment　of　the　mean；　seems　to　afford

a　grand　support　and　satisfactory　proof　of　the　doctrine　which　we　are

maintaining；　for　if　there　are　arts；　there　is　a　standard　of　measure；

and　if　there　is　a　standard　of　measure；　there　are　arts；　but　if　either

is　wanting；　there　is　neither。

　　Y。　Soc。　True；　and　what　is　the　next　step？

　　Str。　The　next　step　clearly　is　to　divide　the　art　of　measurement

into　two　parts；　all　we　have　said　already；　and　to　place　in　

the　one　part

all　the　arts　which　measure　number；　length；　depth；　breadth；　swiftness

with　their　opposites；　and　to　have　another　part　in　which　they　are

measured　with　the　mean；　and　the　fit；　and　the　opportune；　and　the　due；

and　with　all　those　words；　in　short；　which　denote　a　mean　or　standard

removed　from　the　extremes。

　　Y。　Soc。　Here　are　two　vast　divisions；　embracing　two　very　different

spheres。

　　Str。　There　are　many　accomplished　men；　Socrates；　who　say；　believing

themselves　to　speak　wisely；　that　the　art　of　measurement　is

universal；　and　has　to　do　with　all　things。　And　this　means　what　we　are

now　saying；　for　all　things　which　come　within　the　province　of　art　do

certainly　in　some　sense　partake　of　measure。　But　these　

persons；　because

they　are　not　accustomed　to　distinguish　classes　according　to　real

forms；　jumble　together　two　widely　different　things；　relation　to　one

another；　and　to　a　standard；　under　the　idea　that　they　are　the　

same；　and

also　fall　into　the　converse　error　of　dividing　other　things　not

according　to　their　real　parts。　Whereas　the　right　way　is；　if　a　man

has　first　seen　the　unity　of　things；　to　go　on　with　the　enquiry　and

not　desist　until　he　has　found　all　the　differences　contained　in　it

which　form　distinct　classes；　nor　again　should　he　be　able　to　rest

contented　with　the　manifold　diversities　which　are　seen　in　a

multitude　of　things　until　he　has　comprehended　all　of　them　that　have

any　affinity　within　the　bounds　of　one　similarity　and　embraced　them

within　the　reality　of　a　single　kind。　But　we　have　said　enough　on　this

head；　and　also　of　excess　and　defect；　we　have　only　to　bear　in　

mind　that

two　divisions　of　the　art　of　measurement　have　been　discovered　

which　are

concerned　with　them；　and　not　forget　what　they　are。

　　Y。　Soc。　We　will　not　forget。

　　Str。　And　now　that　this　discussion　is　completed；　let　us　go　on　to

consider　another　question；　which　concerns　not　this　argument　only　but

the　conduct　of　such　arguments　in　general。

　　Y。　Soc。　What　is　this　new　question？

　　Str。　Take　the　case　of　a　child　who　is　engaged　in　learning　his

letters：　when　he　is　asked　what　letters　make　up　a　word；　should　we　say

that　the　question　is　intended　to　improve　his　grammatical　knowledge

of　that　particular　word；　or　of　all　words？

　　Y。　Soc。　Clearly；　in　order　that　he　may　have　a　better　

knowledge　of　all

words。

　　Str。　And　is　our　enquiry　about　the　Statesman　intended　only　

to　improve

our　knowledge　of　politics；　or　our　power　of　reasoning　generally？

　　Y。　Soc。　Clearly；　as　in　the　former　example；　the　purpose　is　general。

　　Str。　Still　less　would　any　rational　man　seek　to　analyse　the　

notion　of

weaving　for　its　own　sake。　But　people　seem　to　forget　that　some　things

have　sensible　images；　which　are　readily　known；　and　can　be　easily

pointed　out　when　any　one　desires　to　answer　an　enquirer　without　any

trouble　or　argument；　whereas　the　greatest　and　highest　truths　have　no

outward　image　of　themselves　visible　to　man；　which　he　who　wishes　to

satisfy　the　soul　of　the　enquirer　can　adapt　to　the　eye　of　sense；　and

therefore　we　ought　to　train　ourselves　to　give　and　accept　a　rational

account　of　them；　for　immaterial　things；　which　are　the　noblest　and

greatest；　are　shown　only　in　thought　and　idea；　and　in　no　

other　way；　and

all　that　we　are　now　saying　is　said　for　the　sake　of　them。　Moreover；

there　is　always　less　difficulty　in　fixing　the　mind　on　small　matters

than　on　great。

　　Y。　Soc。　Very　good。

　　Str。　Let　us　call　to　mind　the　bearing　of　all　this。

　　Y。　Soc。　What　is　it？

　　Str。　I　wanted　to　get　rid　of　any　impression　of　tediousness　which　we

may　have　experienced　in　the　discussion　about　weaving；　and　

the　reversal

of　the　universe；　and　in　the　discussion　concerning　the　Sophist　and

the　being　of　not…being。　I　know　that　they　were　felt　to　be　too　

long；　and

I　reproached　myself　with　this；　fearing　that　they　might　be　not　only

tedious　but　irrelevant；　and　all　that　I　have　now　said　is　only

designed　to　prevent　the　recurrence　of　any　such　disagreeables　for　the

future。

　　Y。　Soc。　Very　good。　Will　you　proceed？

　　Str。　Then　I　would　like　to　observe　that　you　and　I；　remembering　what

has　been　said；　should　praise　or　blame　the　length　or　shortness　of

discussions；　not　by　comparing　them　with　one　another；　but　with　what

is　fitting；　having　regard　to　the　part　of　measurement；　which；　as　we

said；　was　to　be　borne　in　mind。

　　Y。　Soc。　Very　true。

　　Str。　And　yet；　not　everything　is　to　be　judged　even　with　a　view　to

what　is　fitting；　for　we　should　only　want　such　a　length　as　is　

suited　to

give　pleasure；　if　at　all；　as　a　secondary　matter；　and　reason　tells

us；　that　we　should　be　contented　to　make　the　ease　or　rapidity　of　an

enquiry；　not　our　first；　but　our　second　object；　the　first　and　highest

of　all　being　to　assert　the　great　method　of　division　according　to

species…whether　the　discourse　be　shorter　or　longer　is　not　to　the

point。　No　offence　should　be　taken　at　length；　but　the　longer　and

shorter　are　to　be　employed　indifferently；　according　as　either　of

them　is　better　calculated　to　sharpen　the　wits　of　the　auditors。

Reason　would　also　say　to　him　who　censures　the　length　of　discourses

on　such　occasions　and　cannot　away　with　their　circumlocution；　that　he

should　not　be　in　such　a　hurry　to　have　done　with　them；　when　

he　can　only

complain　that　they　are　tedious；　but　he　should　prove　that　if　they　had

been　shorter　they　would　have　made　those　who　took　part　in　them　better

dialecticians；　and　more　capable　of　expressing　the　truth　of　things；

about　any　other　praise　and　blame；　he　need　not　trouble　himself…he

should　pretend　not　to　hear　them。　But　we　have　had　enough　of　this；　as

you　will　probably　agree　with　me　in　thinking。　Let　us　return　to　our

Statesman；　and　apply　to　his　case　the　aforesaid　example　of