女神电子书 > 浪漫言情电子书 > sophist >

第14部分

sophist-第14部分

小说: sophist 字数: 每页4000字

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!



non…fusile; shall we say that they come into existence…not having

existed previously…by the creation of God; or shall we agree with

vulgar opinion about them?

  Theaet。 What is it?

  Str。 The opinion that nature brings them into being from some

spontaneous and unintelligent cause。 Or shall we say that they are

created by a divine reason and a knowledge which comes from God?

  Theaet。 I dare say that; owing to my youth; I may often waver in

my view; but now when I look at you and see that you incline to

refer them to God; I defer to your authority。

  Str。 Nobly said; Theaetetus; and if I thought that you were one of

those who would hereafter change your mind; I would have 

gently argued

with you; and forced you to assent; but as I perceive that you will

come of yourself and without any argument of mine; to that belief

which; as you say; attracts you; I will not forestall the work of

time。 Let me suppose then; that things which are said to be made by

nature are the work of divine art; and that things which are made by

man out of these are work of human art。 And so there are two kinds

of making and production; the one human and the other divine。

  Theaet。 True。

  Str。 Then; now; subdivide each of the two sections which we have

already。

  Theaet。 How do you mean?

  Str。 I mean to say that you should make a vertical division of

production or invention; as you have already made a lateral one。

  Theaet。 I have done so。

  Str。 Then; now; there are in all four parts or segments…two of

them have reference to us and are human; and two of them have

reference to the gods and are divine。

  Theaet。 True。

  Str。 And; again; in the division which was supposed to be made in

the other way; one part in each subdivision is the making of the

things themselves; but the two remaining parts may be called the

making of likenesses; and so the productive art is again divided

into two parts。

  Theaet。 Tell me the divisions once more。

  Str。 I suppose that we; and the other animals; and the elements

out of which things are made…fire; water; and the like…are 

known by us

to be each and all the creation and work of God。

  Theaet。 True。

  Str。 And there are images of them; which are not them; but which

correspond to them; and these are also the creation of a wonderful

skill。

  Theaet。 What are they?

  Str。 The appearances which spring up of themselves in sleep or by

day; such as a shadow when darkness arises in a fire; or the

reflection which is produced when the light in bright and smooth

objects meets on their surface with an external light; and creates a

perception the opposite of our ordinary sight。

  Theaet。 Yes; and the images as well as the creation are equally

the work of a divine hand。

  Str。 And what shall we say of human art? Do we not make 

one house by

the art of building; and another by the art of drawing; which is a

sort of dream created by man for those who are awake?

  Theaet。 Quite true。

  Str。 And other products of human creation are twofold and go in

pairs; there is the thing; with which the art of making the thing is

concerned; and the image; with which imitation is concerned。

  Theaet。 Now I begin to understand; and am ready to acknowledge

that there are two kinds of production; and each of them two fold;

in the lateral division there is both a divine and a human 

production;

in the vertical there are realities and a creation of a kind of

similitudes。

  Str。 And let us not forget that of the imitative class the one

part to have been likeness making; and the other phantastic; if it

could be shown that falsehood is a reality and belongs to 

the class of

real being。

  Theaet。 Yes。

  Str。 And this appeared to be the case; and therefore now; without

hesitation; we shall number the different kinds as two。

  Theaet。 True。

  Str。 Then; now; let us again divide the phantastic art。

  Theaet。 Where shall we make the division?

  Str。 There is one kind which is produced by an instrument; and

another in which the creator of the appearance is himself the

instrument。

  Theaet。 What do you mean?

  Str。 When any one makes himself appear like another in his 

figure or

his voice; imitation is the name for this part of the phantastic art。

  Theaet。 Yes。

  Str。 Let this; then; be named the art of mimicry; and this the

province assigned to it; as for the other division; we are weary and

will give that up; leaving to some one else the duty of making the

class and giving it a suitable name。

  Theaet。 Let us do as you say…assign a sphere to the one and leave

the other。

  Str。 There is a further distinction; Theaetetus; which is worthy

of our consideration; and for a reason which I will tell you。

  Theaet。 Let me hear。

  Str。 There are some who imitate; knowing what they 

imitate; and some

who do not know。 And what line of distinction can there possibly be

greater than that which divides ignorance from knowledge?

  Theaet。 There can be no greater。

  Str。 Was not the sort of imitation of which we spoke just now the

imitation of those who know? For he who would imitate you 

would surely

know you and your figure?

  Theaet。 Naturally。

  Str。 And what would you say of the figure or form of justice or of

virtue in general? Are we not well aware that many; having no

knowledge of either; but only a sort of opinion; do their 

best to show

that this opinion is really entertained by them; by expressing it;

as far as they can; in word and deed?

  Theaet。 Yes; that is very common。

  Str。 And do they always fail in their attempt to be thought just;

when they are not? Or is not the very opposite true?

  Theaet。 The very opposite。

  Str。 Such a one; then; should be described as an imitator…to be

distinguished from the other; as he who is ignorant is distinguished

from him who knows?

  Theaet。 True。

  Str。 Can we find a suitable name for each of them? This is clearly

not an easy task; for among the ancients there was some confusion of

ideas; which prevented them from attempting to divide genera into

species; wherefore there is no great abundance of names。 Yet; for

the sake of distinctness; I will make bold to call the 

imitation which

coexists with opinion; the imitation of appearance…that 

which coexists

with science; a scientific or learned imitation。

  Theaet。 Granted。

  Str。 The former is our present concern; for the Sophist was

classed with imitators indeed; but not among those who have 

knowledge。

  Theaet。 Very true。

  Str。 Let us; then; examine our imitator of appearance; and see

whether he is sound; like a piece of iron; or whether there is still

some crack in him。

  Theaet。 Let us examine him。

  Str。 Indeed there is a very considerable crack; for if you 

look; you

find that one of the two classes of imitators is a simple creature;

who thinks that he knows that which he only fancies; the other sort

has knocked about among arguments; until he suspects and 

fears that he

is ignorant of that which to the many he pretends to know。

  Theaet。 There are certainly the two kinds which you describe。

  Str。 Shall we regard one as the simple imitator…the other as the

dissembling or ironical imitator?

  Theaet。 Very good。

  Str。 And shall we further speak of this latter class as having one

or two divisions?

  Theaet。 Answer yourself。

  Str。 Upon consideration; then; there appear to me to be two; there

is the dissembler; who harangues a multitude in public in a long

speech; and the dissembler; who in private and in short speeches

compels the person who is conversing with him to contradict himself。

  Theaet。 What you say is most true。

  Str。 And who is the maker of the longer speeches? Is he the

statesman or the popular orator?

  Theaet。 The latter。

  Str。 And what shall we call the other? Is he the philosopher or

the Sophist?

  Theaet。 The philosopher he cannot be; for upon our view he is

ignorant; but since he is an imitator of the wise he will have a

name which is formed by an adaptation of the word sothos。 What shall

we name him? I am pretty sure that I cannot be mistaken in 

terming him

the true and very Sophist。

  Str。 Shall we bind up his name as we did before; making a 

chain from

one end of his genealogy to the other?

  Theaet。 By all means。

  Str。 He; then; who traces the pedigree of his art as follows…who;

belonging to the conscious or dissembling section of the art of

causing self…contradiction; is an imitator of appearance; and is

separated from the class of phantastic which is a branch of

image…making into that further division of creation; the juggling of

words; a creation human; and not divine…any one who affirms the real

Sophist to be of this blood and lineage will say the very truth。

  Theaet。 Undoubtedly。





                           …THE END…




返回目录 上一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的