THEÆTETUS, OR ON SCIENCE. (continued 3)

Socr. I do mean that.

Theæ. By Jupiter, I do not forget, nor do I think that they have knowledge who are in this condition.

Socr. What then? when a person at that time of life writing the name Theætetus, thinks that he ought to write and does write Th and e, and again attempting to write Theodorus, thinks that he ought to write and does write T and e, shall we say that he knows the first syllable of your names?

Theæ. We have just now admitted, that a person in this condition does not yet know.

Socr. Does any thing, then, hinder the same person from being in this condition with respect to the second, third, and fourth syllable?

Theæ. Nothing.

153. Socr. Will he not then have the description by means of the elements, and write Theætetus with correct judgment, when he writes it in its proper order?

Theæ. Clearly.

Socr. Will he not still be void of science, though he judges correctly, as we said?

Theæ. Yes.

Socr. And yet he has logos together with correct judgment; for he wrote it knowing the order of the elements, which we allowed to be logos.

Theæ. True.

Socr. There is, therefore, my friend, correct judgment accompanied with logos which must not yet be called science.

Theæ. It seems so.

Socr. We have been enriched then, as it appears, in a dream, in thinking that we possess the truest definition of science: or shall we not condemn it yet? For perhaps some one may not define logos in this manner, but may consider it to be the remaining species of the three, one of which we said would be adopted by him who defined science to be correct judgment accompanied with logos.

Theæ. You have rightly reminded me; for there is still one left. For the first was an image of the thought as it were expressed 453by the voice: and that just now mentioned was a proceeding to the whole by means of the elements: but what do you say the third is?

Socr. That which most men would say it is, the being able to mention some mark by which the object of enquiry differs from all other things.

Theæ. Can you give me a logos of any thing by way of example?

154. Socr. For instance, if you please, with respect to the sun, I think it would be sufficient for you to admit, that it is the most luminous of the heavenly bodies that move round the earth.

Theæ. Certainly.

Socr. Observe then why this was said. It is that which we just now mentioned, that when you find the difference of each thing, by which it differs from all others, you will find, as some say, the logos; but as long as you lay hold of some common quality, you will have the logos of those things to which this common quality belongs.

Theæ. I understand; and it appears to me very proper to call such a thing logos.

Socr. He, therefore, who together with correct judgment respecting any thing whatever can find out its difference from all other things, will have arrived at the knowledge of that of which he before only formed a judgment.

Theæ. We say it certainly is so.

Socr. Now, however, Theætetus, since I have come near what has been said, as if it were a picture in perspective, I find that I do not understand it in the least, but while I stood at a distance it appeared to me to have some meaning.

155. Theæ. How is this?

Socr. I will tell you, if I can. If, when I have a correct judgment respecting you, I likewise find your logos, then I know you, but if not, I only form a judgment.

Theæ. Yes.

Socr. But logos was the explanation of your difference.

Theæ. It was.

Socr. When, therefore, I formed a judgment only, is it not true that I reached by my thought none of those things by which you differ from others?

Theæ. It seems that you did not.

454Socr. I, therefore, thought of some common qualities, none of which belong to you more than to any one else.

Theæ. Necessarily so.

Socr. Come, then, by Jupiter, how in such a case did I form a judgment of you rather than of any one else? For suppose me to be thinking that this is Theætetus, who is a man, and has nose, eyes, a mouth, and so on with each several member. Will this thought cause me to think of Theætetus rather than of Theodorus, or, as the saying is, the last of the Mysians?

Theæ. How should it?

156. Socr. But if I not only think of one who has nose and eyes, but also of one who has a snub nose and prominent eyes, shall I in that case think of you rather than of myself, or any other persons of that description?

Theæ. Not at all.

Socr. But I think I shall not form the image of Theætetus in my mind, until his snubbiness shall have impressed on me and left with me some mark different from all other instances of snubbiness that I have seen, and so with respect to the other parts of which you are made up; which, if I should meet you to-morrow, would recal you to my mind, and make me form a correct judgment respecting you.

Theæ. Most true.

Socr. Right judgment, therefore, respecting each object has to do with difference.

Theæ. It appears so.

Socr. What then will become of adding logos to correct judgment? For if it means that we should moreover form a judgment of the manner in which any thing differs from others, the injunction will be very ridiculous.

Theæ. How so?

Socr. It bids us add a right judgment of the manner in which things differ from others, when we have a right judgment of the manner in which they differ from others. And thus the turning round of a scytala, or a pestle, or any other proverb of the kind, would be nothing compared with this injunction, though it might more properly be called the advice of a blind man; for to bid us add those things that we already have, in order that we may learn what we already have formed judgments about, seems remarkably suited to one who is utterly blind.

455Theæ. Tell me, then, what did you mean by asking me just now?

157. Socr. If, O boy, in bidding us add logos it bids us know, but not form a judgment of the difference, this most beautiful of all the definitions of science would be a delightful thing: for to know, surely, is to acquire science. Is it not?

Theæ. Yes.

Socr. When asked, therefore, as it appears, what science is,is, he will answer, that it is correct judgment with the science of difference. For, according to him, this will be the addition of logos.

Theæ. It seems so.

Socr. But it is altogether foolish, when we are searching for science, to say that it is correct judgment with science, either of difference or any thing else. Neither perception, therefore, Theætetus, nor true judgment, nor logos united with true judgment, can be science.

Theæ. It seems not.

Socr. Are we, then, still pregnant and in labour, my friend, with reference to science, or have we brought forth every thing?

Theæ. And by Jupiter, with your help, I have said more than I had in myself.

Socr. Does not, then, our midwife’s art pronounce that all these things are empty, and not worth rearing?

Theæ. Assuredly.

158. Socr. If, therefore, after this you should wish to become pregnant with other things, Theætetus, and if you do become so, you will be full of better things by means of the present discussion; but if you should be empty, you will be less troublesome to your companions, and more meek through modesty, in not thinking that you know what you do not know. For thus much only my art is able to accomplish, but nothing more, nor do I know any of the things which others do who are and have been great and wonderful men. But this midwife’s art I and my mother received from the deity; she about women, and I for young and noble men and such as are beautiful. Now, however, I must go to the king’s porch, to answer the indictment which Melitus has preferred against me: to-morrow, Theodorus, let us meet here again.

456