phaedo- 第10部分

geometry；　and　in　other　things　too。　But　the　doctrine　of　knowledge　and



recollection　has　been　proven　to　me　on　trustworthy　grounds；　and　the



proof　was　that　the　soul　must　have　existed　before　she　came　into　the



body；　because　to　her　belongs　the　essence　of　which　the　very　name



implies　existence。　Having；　as　I　am　convinced；　rightly　accepted　this



conclusion；　and　on　sufficient　grounds；　I　must；　as　I　suppose；　cease



to　argue　or　allow　others　to　argue　that　the　soul　is　a　harmony。



　　Let　me　put　the　matter；　Simmias；　he　said；　in　another　point　of　view：



Do　you　imagine　that　a　harmony　or　any　other　composition　can　be　in　a



state　other　than　that　of　the　elements　out　of　which　it　is　compounded？



　　Certainly　not。



　　Or　do　or　suffer　anything　other　than　they　do　or　suffer？



　　He　agreed。



　　Then　a　harmony　does　not　lead　the　parts　or　elements　which　make　up　the



harmony；　but　only　follows　them。



　　He　assented。



　　For　harmony　cannot　possibly　have　any　motion；　or　sound；　or　other



quality　which　is　opposed　to　the　parts。



　　That　would　be　impossible；　he　replied。



　　And　does　not　every　harmony　depend　upon　the　manner　in　which　the



elements　are　harmonized？



　　I　do　not　understand　you；　he　said。



　　I　mean　to　say　that　a　harmony　admits　of　degrees；　and　is　more　of　a



harmony；　and　more　completely　a　harmony；　when　more　completely



harmonized；　if　that　be　possible；　and　less　of　a　harmony；　and　less



completely　a　harmony；　when　less　harmonized。



　　True。



　　But　does　the　soul　admit　of　degrees？　or　is　one　soul　in　the　very　least



degree　more　or　less；　or　more　or　less　completely；　a　soul　than　another？



　　Not　in　the　least。



　　Yet　surely　one　soul　is　said　to　have　intelligence　and　virtue；　and



to　be　good；　and　another　soul　is　said　to　have　folly　and　vice；　and　to　be



an　evil　soul：　and　this　is　said　truly？



　　Yes；　truly。



　　But　what　will　those　who　maintain　the　soul　to　be　a　harmony　say　of



this　presence　of　virtue　and　vice　in　the　soul？…Will　they　say　that　there



is　another　harmony；　and　another　discord；　and　that　the　virtuous　soul　is



harmonized；　and　herself　being　a　harmony　has　another　harmony　within



her；　and　that　the　vicious　soul　is　inharmonical　and　has　no　harmony



within　her？



　　I　cannot　say；　replied　Simmias；　but　I　suppose　that　something　of



that　kind　would　be　asserted　by　those　who　take　this　view。



　　And　the　admission　is　already　made　that　no　soul　is　more　a　soul　than



another；　and　this　is　equivalent　to　admitting　that　harmony　is　not



more　or　less　harmony；　or　more　or　less　completely　a　harmony？



　　Quite　true。



　　And　that　which　is　not　more　or　less　a　harmony　is　not　more　or　less



harmonized？



　　True。



　　And　that　which　is　not　more　or　less　harmonized　cannot　have　more　or



less　of　harmony；　but　only　an　equal　harmony？



　　Yes；　an　equal　harmony。



　　Then　one　soul　not　being　more　or　less　absolutely　a　soul　than　another；



is　not　more　or　less　harmonized？



　　Exactly。



　　And　therefore　has　neither　more　nor　less　of　harmony　or　of　discord？



　　She　has　not。



　　And　having　neither　more　nor　less　of　harmony　or　of　discord；　one



soul　has　no　more　vice　or　virtue　than　another；　if　vice　be　discord　and



virtue　harmony？



　　Not　at　all　more。



　　Or　speaking　more　correctly；　Simmias；　the　soul；　if　she　is　a



harmony；　will　never　have　any　vice；　because　a　harmony；　being　absolutely



a　harmony；　has　no　part　in　the　inharmonical？



　　No。



　　And　therefore　a　soul　which　is　absolutely　a　soul　has　no　vice？



　　How　can　she　have；　consistently　with　the　preceding　argument？



　　Then；　according　to　this；　if　the　souls　of　all　animals　are　equally　and



absolutely　souls；　they　will　be　equally　good？



　　I　agree　with　you；　Socrates；　he　said。



　　And　can　all　this　be　true；　think　you？　he　said；　and　are　all　these



consequences　admissible…which　nevertheless　seem　to　follow　from　the



assumption　that　the　soul　is　a　harmony？



　　Certainly　not；　he　said。



　　Once　more；　he　said；　what　ruling　principle　is　there　of　human　things



other　than　the　soul；　and　especially　the　wise　soul？　Do　you　know　of　any？



　　Indeed；　I　do　not。



　　And　is　the　soul　in　agreement　with　the　affections　of　the　body？　or



is　she　at　variance　with　them？　For　example；　when　the　body　is　hot　and



thirsty；　does　not　the　soul　incline　us　against　drinking？　and　when　the



body　is　hungry；　against　eating？　And　this　is　only　one　instance　out　of



ten　thousand　of　the　opposition　of　the　soul　to　the　things　of　the　body。



　　Very　true。



　　But　we　have　already　acknowledged　that　the　soul；　being　a　harmony；　can



never　utter　a　note　at　variance　with　the　tensions　and　relaxations　and



vibrations　and　other　affections　of　the　strings　out　of　which　she　is



composed；　she　can　only　follow；　she　cannot　lead　them？



　　Yes；　he　said；　we　acknowledged　that；　certainly。



　　And　yet　do　we　not　now　discover　the　soul　to　be　doing　the　exact



opposite…leading　the　elements　of　which　she　is　believed　to　be　composed；



almost　always　opposing　and　coercing　them　in　all　sorts　of　ways



throughout　life；　sometimes　more　violently　with　the　pains　of　medicine



and　gymnastic；　then　again　more　gently；　threatening　and　also



reprimanding　the　desires；　passions；　fears；　as　if　talking　to　a　thing



which　is　not　herself；　as　Homer　in　the　〃Odyssey〃　represents　Odysseus



doing　in　the　words；







　　　　　〃He　beat　his　breast；　and　thus　reproached　his　heart：



　　　　　Endure；　my　heart；　far　worse　hast　thou　endured！〃







Do　you　think　that　Homer　could　have　written　this　under　the　idea　that



the　soul　is　a　harmony　capable　of　being　led　by　the　affections　of　the



body；　and　not　rather　of　a　nature　which　leads　and　masters　them；　and



herself　a　far　diviner　thing　than　any　harmony？



　　Yes；　Socrates；　I　quite　agree　to　that。



　　Then；　my　friend；　we　can　never　be　right　in　saying　that　the　soul　is



a　harmony；　for　that　would　clearly　contradict　the　divine　Homer　as



well　as　ourselves。



　　True；　he　said。



　　Thus　much；　said　Socrates；　of　Harmonia；　your　Theban　goddess；　Cebes；



who　has　not　been　ungracious　to　us；　I　think；　but　what　shall　I　say　to



the　Theban　Cadmus；　and　how　shall　I　propitiate　him？



　　I　think　that　you　will　discover　a　way　of　propitiating　him；　said



Cebes；　I　am　sure　that　you　have　answered　the　argument　about　harmony



in　a　manner　that　I　could　never　have　expected。　For　when　Simmias



mentioned　his　objection；　I　quite　imagined　that　no　answer　could　be



given　to　him；　and　therefore　I　was　surprised　at　finding　that　his



argument　could　not　sustain　the　first　onset　of　yours；　and　not



impossibly　the　other；　whom　you　call　Cadmus；　may　share　a　similar　fate。



　　Nay；　my　good　friend；　said　Socrates；　let　us　not　boast；　lest　some　evil



eye　should　put　to　flight　the　word　which　I　am　about　to　speak。　That；



however；　may　be　left　in　the　hands　of　those　above；　while　I　draw　near　in



Homeric　fashion；　and　try　the　mettle　of　your　words。　Briefly；　the　sum　of



your　objection　is　as　follows：　You　want　to　have　proven　to　you　that



the　soul　is　imperishable　and　immortal；　and　you　think　that　the



philosopher　who　is　confident　in　death　has　but　a　vain　and　foolish



confidence；　if　he　thinks　that　he　will　fare　better　than　one　who　has　led



another　sort　of　life；　in　the　world　below；　unless　he　can　prove　this；



and　you　say　that　the　demonstration　of　the　strength　and　divinity　of　the



soul；　and　of　her　existence　prior　to　our　becoming　men；　does　not



necessarily　imply　her　immortality。　Granting　that　the　soul　is



longlived；　and　has　known　and　done　much　in　a　former　state；　still　she　is



not　on　that　account　immortal；　and　her　entrance　into　the　human　form　may



be　a　sort　of　disease　which　is　the　beginning　of　dissolution；　and　may　at



last；　after　the　toils　of　life　are　over；　end　in　that　which　is　called



death。　And　whether　the　soul　enters　into　the　body　once　only　or　many



times；　that；　as　you　would　say；　makes　no　difference　in　the　fears　of



individuals。　For　any　man；　who　is　not　devoid　of　natural　feeling；　has



reason　to　fear；　if　he　has　no　knowledge　or　proof　of　the　soul's



immortality。　That　is　what　I　suppose　you　to　say；　Cebes；　which　I



designedly　repeat；　in　order　that　nothing　may　escape　us；　and　that　you



may；　if　you　wish；　add　or　subtract　anything。



　　But；　said　Cebes；　as　far　as　I　can　see　at　present；　I　have　nothing　to



add　or　subtract；　you　have　expressed　my　meaning。



　　Socrates　paused　awhile；　and　seemed　to　be　absorbed　in　reflection。



At　length　he　said：　This　is　a　very　serious　inquiry　which　you　are



raising；　Cebes；　involving　the　whole　question　of　generation　and



corruption；　about　which　I　will；　if　you　like；　give　you　my　own



experience；　and　you　can　apply　this；　if　you　think　that　anything　which　I



say　will　avail　towards　the　solution　of　your　difficulty。



　　I　should　very　much　like；　said　Cebes；　to　hear　what　you　have　to　say。



　　Then　I　will　tell　you；　said　Socrates。　When　I　was　young；　Cebes；　I



had　a　prodigious　desire　to　know　that　department　of　philosophy　which　is



called　Natural　Science；　this　appeared　to　me　to　have　lofty　aims；　as



being　the　science　which　has　to　do　with　the　causes　of　things；　and　which



teaches　why　a　thing　is；　and　is　created　and　destroyed；　and　I　was　always



agitating　myself　with　the　consideration　of　such　questions　as　these：　Is



the　growth　of　animals　the　result　of　some　decay　which　the　hot　and



cold　principle　contracts；　as　some　have　said？　Is　the　blood　the



element　with　which　we　think；　or　the　air；　or　the　fire？　or　perhaps



nothing　of　this　sort…but　the　brain　may　be　the　originating　power　of　the



perceptions　of　hearing　and　sight　and　smell；　and　memory　and　opinion　may



come　from　them；　and　science　may　be　based　on　memory　and　opinion　when　no



longer　in　motion；　but　at　rest。　And　then　I　went　on　to　examine　the　decay



of　them；　and　then　to　the　things　of　heaven　and　earth；　and　at　last　I



concluded　that　I　was　wholly　incapable　of　these　inquiries；　as　I　will



satisfactorily　prove　to　you。　For　I　was　fascinated　by　them　to　such　a



degree　that　my　eyes　grew　blind　to　things　that　I　had　seemed　to



myself；　and　also　to　others；　to　know　quite　well；