Alcibiades 2

[144] Soc. Let us take another case. Suppose that you were suddenly to get into your head that it would be a good thing to kill Pericles, your kinsman and guardian, and were to seize a sword and, going to the doors of his house, were to enquire if he were at home, meaning to slay only him and no one else:—the servants reply, ‘Yes’: (Mind, I do not mean that you would really do such a thing; but there is nothing, you think, to prevent a man who is ignorant of the best, having occasionally the whim that what is worst is best?

Al. No.)

Soc. —If, then, you went indoors, and seeing him, did not know him, but thought that he was some one else, would you venture to slay him?

Al. Most decidedly not [it seems to me].

Soc. For you designed to kill, not the first who offered, but Pericles himself?

Al. Certainly.

Soc. And if you made many attempts, and each time failed to recognize Pericles, you would never attack him?

Al. Never.

Soc. Well, but if Orestes in like manner had not known his mother, do you think that he would ever have laid hands upon her?

Al. No.

Soc. He did not intend to slay the first woman he came across, nor any one else’s mother, but only his own?

Al. True.

Soc. Ignorance, then, is better for those who are in such a frame of mind, and have such ideas?

Al. Obviously.

Soc. You acknowledge that for some persons in certain cases the ignorance of some things is a good and not an evil, as you formerly supposed?

Al. I do.

Soc. And there is still another case which will also perhaps appear strange to you, if you will consider it?

Al. What is that, Socrates?

Soc. It may be, in short, that the possession of all the sciences, if unaccompanied by the knowledge of the best, will more often than not injure the possessor. Consider the matter thus:—Must we not, when we intend either to do or say anything, suppose that we know or ought to know that which we propose so confidently to do or say?

Al. Yes, in my opinion.