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！
Then in what way； Socrates； will all things participate in the
ideas； if they are unable to participate in them either as parts or
wholes？
Indeed； he said； you have asked a question which is not easily
answered。
Well； said Parmenides； and what do you say of another question？
What question？
I imagine that the way in which you are led to assume one idea of
each kind is as follows： …You see a number of great objects； and
when you look at them there seems to you to be one and the same idea
（or nature） in them all； hence you conceive of greatness as one。
Very true； said Socrates。
And if you go on and allow your mind in like manner to embrace in
one view the idea of greatness and of great things which are not the
idea； and …to compare them； will not another greatness arise； which
will appear to be the source of all these？
It would seem so。
Then another idea of greatness now comes into view over and above
absolute greatness； and the individuals which partake of it； and
then another； over and above all these； by virtue of which they will
all be great； and so each idea instead of being one will be infinitely
multiplied。
But may not the ideas； asked Socrates； be thoughts only； and have no
proper existence except in our minds； Parmenides？ For in that case
each idea may still be one； and not experience this infinite
multiplication。
And can there be individual thoughts which are thoughts of nothing？
Impossible； he said。
The thought must be of something？
Yes。
Of something which is or which is not？
Of something which is。
Must it not be of a single something； which the thought recognizes
as attaching to all； being a single form or nature？
Yes。
And will not the something which is apprehended as one and the
same in all； be an idea？
From that； again； there is no escape。
Then； said Parmenides； if you say that everything else
participates in the ideas； must you not say either that everything
is made up of thoughts； and that all things think； or that they are
thoughts but have no thought？
The latter view； Parmenides； is no more rational than the previous
one。 In my opinion； the ideas are； as it were； patterns fixed in
nature； and other things are like them； and resemblances of
them…what is meant by the participation of other things in the
ideas； is really assimilation to them。
But if； said he； the individual is like the idea； must not the
idea also be like the individual； in so far as the individual is a
resemblance of the idea？ That which is like； cannot be conceived of as
other than the like of like。
Impossible。
And when two things are alike； must they not partake of the same
idea？
They must。
And will not that of which the two partake； and which makes them
alike； be the idea itself？
Certainly。
Then the idea cannot be like the individual； or the individual
like the idea； for if they are alike； some further idea of likeness
will always be coming to light； and if that be like anything else；
another； and new ideas will be always arising； if the idea resembles
that which partakes of it？
Quite true。
The theory； then that other things participate in the ideas by
resemblance； has to be given up； and some other mode of
participation devised？
It would seem so。
Do you see then； Socrates； how great is the difficulty of
affirming the ideas to be absolute？
Yes； indeed。
And； further； let me say that as yet you only understand a small
part of the difficulty which is involved if you make of each thing a
single idea； parting it off from other things。
What difficulty？ he said。
There are many； but the greatest of all is this：…If an opponent
argues that these ideas； being such as we say they ought to be； must
remain unknown； no one can prove to him that he is wrong； unless he
who denies their existence be a man of great ability and knowledge；
and is willing to follow a long and laborious demonstration； he will
remain unconvinced； and still insist that they cannot be known。
What do you mean； Parmenides？ said Socrates。
In the first place； I think； Socrates； that you； or any one who
maintains the existence of absolute essences； will admit that they
cannot exist in us。
No； said Socrates； for then they would be no longer absolute。
True； he said； and therefore when ideas are what they are in
relation to one another； their essence is determined by a relation
among themselves； and has nothing to do with the resemblances； or
whatever they are to be termed； which are in our sphere； and from
which we receive this or that name when we partake of them。 And the
things which are within our sphere and have the same names with
them； are likewise only relative to one another； and not to the
ideas which have the same names with them； but belong to themselves
and not to them。
What do you mean？ said Socrates。
I may illustrate my meaning in this way； said Parmenides：…A master
has a slave； now there is nothing absolute in the relation between
them； which is simply a relation of one man to another。 But there is
also an idea of mastership in the abstract； which is relative to the
idea of slavery in the abstract。 These natures have nothing to do with
us； nor we with them； they are concerned with themselves only； and
we with ourselves。 Do you see my meaning？
Yes； said Socrates； I quite see your meaning。
And will not knowledge…I mean absolute knowledge…answer to
absolute truth？
Certainly。
And each kind of absolute knowledge will answer to each kind of
absolute being？
Yes。
But the knowledge which we have； will answer to the truth which we
have； and again； each kind of knowledge which we have； will be a
knowledge of each kind of being which we have？
Certainly。
But the ideas themselves； as you admit； we have not； and cannot
have？
No； we cannot。
And the absolute natures or kinds are known severally by the
absolute idea of knowledge？
Yes。
And we have not got the idea of knowledge？
No。
Then none of the ideas are known to us； because we have no share
in absolute knowledge？
I suppose not。
Then the nature of the beautiful in itself； and of the good in
itself； and all other ideas which we suppose to exist absolutely；
are unknown to us？
It would seem so。
I think that there is a stranger consequence still。
What is it？
Would you； or would you not say； that absolute knowledge； if there
is such a thing； must be a far more exact knowledge than our
knowledge； and the same of beauty and of the rest？
Yes。
And if there be such a thing as participation in absolute knowledge；
no one is more likely than God to have this most e