parmenides-第1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！










　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　370　BC



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PARMENIDES



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　by　Plato



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　translated　by　Benjamin　Jowett



PARMENIDES







　　PERSONS　OF　THE　DIALOGUE：　CEPHALUS；　ADEIMANTUS；　GLAUCON；　ANTIPHON；



PYTHODORUS；　SOCRATES；　ZENO；　PARMENIDES；　ARISTOTELES。　Cephalus



rehearses　a　dialogue　which　is　supposed　to　have　been　narrated　in　his



presence　by　Antiphon；　the　half…brother　of　Adeimantus　and　Glaucon；　to



certain　Clazomenians。







　　We　had　come　from　our　home　at　Clazomenae　to　Athens；　and　met



Adeimantus　and　Glaucon　in　the　Agora。　Welcome；　Cephalus；　said



Adeimantus；　taking　me　by　the　hand；　is　there　anything　which　we　can　do



for　you　in　Athens？



　　Yes；　that　is　why　I　am　here；　I　wish　to　ask　a　favour　of　you。



　　What　may　that　be？　he　said。



　　I　want　you　to　tell　me　the　name　of　your　half　brother；　which　I　have



forgotten；　he　was　a　mere　child　when　I　last　came　hither　from



Clazomenae；　but　that　was　a　long　time　ago；　his　father's　name；　if　I



remember　rightly；　was　Pyrilampes？



　　Yes；　he　said；　and　the　name　of　our　brother；　Antiphon；　but　why　do



you　ask？



　　Let　me　introduce　some　countrymen　of　mine；　I　said；　they　are　lovers　of



philosophy；　and　have　heard　that　Antiphon　was　intimate　with　a　certain



Pythodorus；　a　friend　of　Zeno；　and　remembers　a　conversation　which



took　place　between　Socrates；　Zeno；　and　Parmenides　many　years　ago；



Pythodorus　having　often　recited　it　to　him。



　　Quite　true。



　　And　could　we　hear　it？　I　asked。



　　Nothing　easier；　he　replied；　when　he　was　a　youth　he　made　a　careful



study　of　the　piece；　at　present　his　thoughts　run　in　another



direction；　like　his　grandfather　Antiphon　he　is　devoted　to　horses。　But；



if　that　is　what　you　want；　let　us　go　and　look　for　him；　he　dwells　at



Melita；　which　is　quite　near；　and　he　has　only　just　left　us　to　go　home。



　　Accordingly　we　went　to　look　for　him；　he　was　at　home；　and　in　the



act　of　giving　a　bridle　to　a　smith　to　be　fitted。　When　he　had　done



with　the　smith；　his　brothers　told　him　the　purpose　of　our　visit；　and　he



saluted　me　as　an　acquaintance　whom　he　remembered　from　my　former　visit；



and　we　asked　him　to　repeat　the　dialogue。　At　first　he　was　not　very



willing；　and　complained　of　the　trouble；　but　at　length　he　consented。　He



told　us　that　Pythodorus　had　described　to　him　the　appearance　of



Parmenides　and　Zeno；　they　came　to　Athens；　as　he　said；　at　the　great



Panathenaea；　the　former　was；　at　the　time　of　his　visit；　about　65



years　old；　very　white　with　age；　but　well　favoured。　Zeno　was　nearly



40　years　of　age；　tall　and　fair　to　look　upon；　in　the　days　of　his



youth　he　was　reported　to　have　been　beloved　by　Parmenides。　He　said　that



they　lodged　with　Pythodorus　in　the　Ceramicus；　outside　the　wall；



whither　Socrates；　then　a　very　young　man；　came　to　see　them；　and　many



others　with　him；　they　wanted　to　hear　the　writings　of　Zeno；　which　had



been　brought　to　Athens　for　the　first　time　on　the　occasion　of　their



visit。　These　Zeno　himself　read　to　them　in　the　absence　of　Parmenides；



and　had　very　nearly　finished　when　Pythodorus　entered；　and　with　him



Parmenides　and　Aristoteles　who　was　afterwards　one　of　the　Thirty；　and



heard　the　little　that　remained　of　the　dialogue。　Pythodorus　had　heard



Zeno　repeat　them　before。



　　When　the　recitation　was　completed；　Socrates　requested　that　the　first



thesis　of　the　first　argument　might　be　read　over　again；　and　this　having



been　done；　he　said：　What　is　your　meaning；　Zeno？　Do　you　maintain　that



if　being　is　many；　it　must　be　both　like　and　unlike；　and　that　this　is



impossible；　for　neither　can　the　like　be　unlike；　nor　the　unlike　like…is



that　your　position？



　　Just　so；　said　Zeno。



　　And　if　the　unlike　cannot　be　like；　or　the　like　unlike；　then　according



to　you；　being　could　not　be　many；　for　this　would　involve　an



impossibility。　In　all　that　you　say　have　you　any　other　purpose　except



to　disprove　the　being　of　the　many？　and　is　not　each　division　of　your



treatise　intended　to　furnish　a　separate　proof　of　this；　there　being



in　all　as　many　proofs　of　the　not…being　of　the　many　as　you　have



composed　arguments？　Is　that　your　meaning；　or　have　I　misunderstood　you？



　　No；　said　Zeno；　you　have　correctly　understood　my　general　purpose。



　　I　see；　Parmenides；　said　Socrates；　that　Zeno　would　like　to　be　not



only　one　with　you　in　friendship　but　your　second　self　in　his　writings



too；　he　puts　what　you　say　in　another　way；　and　would　fain　make



believe　that　he　is　telling　us　something　which　is　new。　For　you；　in　your



poems；　say　The　All　is　one；　and　of　this　you　adduce　excellent　proofs；



and　he　on　the　other　hand　says　There　is　no　many；　and　on　behalf　of



this　he　offers　overwhelming　evidence。　You　affirm　unity；　he　denies



plurality。　And　so　you　deceive　the　world　into　believing　that　you　are



saying　different　things　when　really　you　are　saying　much　the　same。　This



is　a　strain　of　art　beyond　the　reach　of　most　of　us。



　　Yes；　Socrates；　said　Zeno。　But　although　you　are　as　keen　as　a



Spartan　hound　in　pursuing　the　track；　you　do　not　fully　apprehend　the



true　motive　of　the　composition；　which　is　not　really　such　an　artificial



work　as　you　imagine；　for　what　you　speak　of　was　an　accident；　there



was　no　pretence　of　a　great　purpose；　nor　any　serious　intention　of



deceiving　the　world。　The　truth　is；　that　these　writings　of　mine　were



meant　to　protect　the　arguments　of　Parmenides　against　those　who　make



fun　of　him　and　seek　to　show　the　many　ridiculous　and　contradictory



results　which　they　suppose　to　follow　from　the　affirmation　of　the



one。　My　answer　is　addressed　to　the　partisans　of　the　many；　whose　attack



I　return　with　interest　by　retorting　upon　them　that　their　hypothesis　of



the　being　of　many；　if　carried　out；　appears　to　be　still　more　ridiculous



than　the　hypothesis　of　the　being　of　one。　Zeal　for　my　master　led　me



to　write　the　book　in　the　days　of　my　youth；　but　some　one　stole　the



copy；　and　therefore　I　had　no　choice　whether　it　should　be　published



or　not；　the　motive；　however；　of　writing；　was　not　the　ambition　of　an



elder　man；　but　the　pugnacity　of　a　young　one。　This　you　do　not　seem　to



see；　Socrates；　though　in　other　respects；　as　I　was　saying；　your



notion　is　a　very　just　one。



　　I　understand；　said　Socrates；　and　quite　accept　your　account。　But　tell



me；　Zeno；　do　you　not　further　think　that　there　is　an　idea　of　likeness



in　itself；　and　another　idea　of　unlikeness；　which　is　the　opposite　of



likeness；　and　that　in　these　two；　you　and　I　and　all　other　things　to



which　we　apply　the　term　many；　participate…things　which　participate



in　likeness　become　in　that　degree　and　manner　like；　and　so　far　as



they　participate　in　unlikeness　become　in　that　degree　unlike；　or　both



like　and　unlike　in　the　degree　in　which　they　participate　in　both？　And



may　not　all　things　partake　of　both　opposites；　and　be　both　like　and



unlike；　by　reason　of　this　participation？…Where　is　the　wonder？　Now　if　a



person　could　prove　the　absolute　like　to　become　unlike；　or　the　absolute



unlike　to　become　like；　that；　in　my　opinion；　would　indeed　be　a



wonder；　but　there　is　nothing　extraordinary；　Zeno；　in　showing　that



the　things　which　only　partake　of　likeness　and　unlikeness　experience



both。　Nor；　again；　if　a　person　were　to　show　that　all　is　one　by



partaking　of　one；　and　at　the　same　time　many　by　partaking　of　many；



would　that　be　very　astonishing。　But　if　he　were　to　show　me　that　the



absolute　one　was　many；　or　the　absolute　many　one；　I　should　be　truly



amazed。　And　so　of　all　the　rest：　I　should　be　surprised　to　hear　that　the



natures　or　ideas　themselves　had　these　opposite　qualities；　but　not　if　a



person　wanted　to　prove　of　me　that　I　was　many　and　also　one。　When　he



wanted　to　show　that　I　was　many　he　would　say　that　I　have　a　right　and



a　left　side；　and　a　front　and　a　back；　and　an　upper　and　a　lower　half；



for　I　cannot　deny　that　I　partake　of　multitude；　when；　on　the　other



hand；　he　wants　to　prove　that　I　am　one；　he　will　say；　that　we　who　are



here　assembled　are　seven；　and　that　I　am　one　and　partake　of　the　one。　In



both　instances　he　proves　his　case。　So　again；　if　a　person　shows　that



such　things　as　wood；　stones；　and　the　like；　being　many　are　also　one；　we



admit　that　he　shows　the　coexistence　the　one　and　many；　but　he　does



not　show　that　the　many　are　one　or　the　one　many；　he　is　uttering　not　a



paradox　but　a　truism。　If　however；　as　I　just　now　suggested；　some　one



were　to　abstract　simple　notions　of　like；　unlike；　one；　many；　rest；



motion；　and　similar　ideas；　and　then　to　show　that　these　admit　of



admixture　and　separation　in　themselves；　I　should　be　very　much



astonished。　This　part　of　the　argument　appears　to　be　treated　by　you；



Zeno；　in　a　very　spirited　manner；　but；　as　I　was　saying；　I　should　be　far



more　amazed　if　any　one　found　in　the　ideas　themselves　which　are



apprehended　by　reason；　the　same　puzzle　and　entanglement　which　you　have



shown　to　exist　in　visible　objects。



　　While　Socr