Philebus
Plato (428–347 BC)
Plato's Philebus in the Greek text edited by John Burnet, with Harold North Fowler's English translation.
Section 11
Section 12
Section 13
Section 14
Section 15
Section 16
Section 17
Section 18
Section 19
Section 20
Section 21
Section 22
Section 23
Section 24
Section 25
Section 26
Section 27
Section 28
Section 29
Section 30
Section 31
Section 32
Section 33
Section 34
Soc. Instead of saying that the soul forgets, when it is unaffected by the vibrations of the body, apply the term want of perception to that which you are now calling forgetfulness.
Pro. I understand.
Soc. And the union of soul and body in one common affection and one common motion you may properly call perception.
Pro. Very true.
Soc. Then do we now understand what we mean by perception?
Pro. Certainly.
Soc. I think, then, that memory may rightly be defined as the preservation of perception.
Pro. Quite rightly.
Soc. But do we not say that memory differs from recollection?
Pro. Perhaps.
Soc. And is this the difference?
Pro. What?
Soc. When the soul alone by itself, apart from the body, recalls completely any experience it has had in company with the body, we say that it recollects do we not?
Pro. Certainly.
Soc. And again when the soul has lost the memory of a perception or of something it has learned and then alone by itself regains this, we call everything of that kind recollection.
Pro. You are right.
Soc. Now my reason for saying all this is—
Pro. What?
Soc. That henceforth we may comprehend as completely and clearly as possible the pleasure of the soul, and likewise its desire, apart from the body; for both of these appear to be made plain by what has been said about memory and recollection.
Pro. Let us, then, Socrates, discuss the next point.
Soc. We must, it seems, consider many things in relation to the origin and general aspect of pleasure; but now I think our first task is to take up the nature and origin of desire.
Pro. Then let us examine that; for we shall not lose anything.
Soc. Oh yes, Protarchus, we shall lose a great deal! When we find what we are seeking we shall lose our perplexity about these very questions.
Pro. That is a fair counter; but let us try to take up the next point.
Soc. Did we not say just now that hunger, thirst, and the like were desires?
Pro. They are, decidedly.
Soc. What sort of identity have we in view when we call these, which are so different, by one name?
Pro. By Zeus, Socrates, that question may not be easy to answer, yet it must be answered.
Soc. Let us, then, begin again at that point with the same examples.
Pro. At what point?
Soc. We say of a thing on any particular occasion, it’s thirsty, do we not?
Pro. Of course.
Soc. And that means being empty?
Pro. Certainly.
Soc. And is thirst, then, a desire?
Pro. Yes, of drink.