Theaetetus

Plato

Theaetetus

Plato (428–347 BC)

Plato's Theaetetus in the Greek text edited by John Burnet, with Harold North Fowler's English translation.


Section 142

Section 143

Section 144

Section 145

Section 146

Section 147

Section 148

Section 149

Section 150

Section 151

Section 152

Section 153

Section 154

Section 155

Section 156

Section 157

Section 158

Section 159

Section 160

Section 161

Section 162

Section 163

Section 164

Section 165

Section 166

Section 167

Section 168

Section 169

Section 170

Section 171

Section 172

Section 173

Section 174

Section 175

Section 176

Section 177

Section 178

Section 179

Section 180

Section 181

Section 182

Section 183

Section 184

Section 185

Section 186

Section 187

Section 188

Section 189

Section 190

Section 191

Section 192

Section 193

Section 194

Section 195

Section 196

Section 197

Section 198

Section 199

Section 200

Section 201

Section 202

Section 203

SOC. Let us, then, take them up and examine them, or rather, let us examine ourselves and see whether it was in accordance with this theory, or not, that we learned letters. First then, the syllables have a rational explanation, but the letters have not?

THEAET. I suppose so.

SOC. I think so, too, decidedly. Now if anyone should ask about the first syllable of Socrates; Theaetetus, tell me, what is SO? What would you reply?

THEAET. I should say S and O.

SOC. This, then, is your explanation of the syllable?

THEAET. Yes.

SOC. Come now, in the same manner give me the explanation of the S.

THEAET. How can one give any elements of an element? For really, Socrates, the S is a voiceless letter, a mere noise, as of the tongue hissing; B again has neither voice nor noise, nor have most of the other letters; and so it is quite right to say that they have no explanation, seeing that the most distinct of them, the seven vowels, have only voice, but no explanation whatsoever.

SOC. In this point, then, my friend, it would seem that we have reached a right conclusion about knowledge.

THEAET. I think we have.

SOC. But have we been right in laying down the principle that whereas the letter is unknowable, yet the syllable is knowable?

THEAET. Probably.

SOC. Well then, shall we say that the syllable is the two letters, or, if there be more than two, all of them, or is it a single concept that has arisen from their combination?

THEAET. I think we mean all the letters it contains.

SOC. Now take the case of two, S and O. The two together are the first syllable of my name. He who knows it knows the two letters, does he not?

THEAET. Of course.

SOC. He knows, that is, the S and the O.

THEAET. Yes.

SOC. How is that? He is ignorant of each, and knowing neither of them he knows them both?

THEAET. That is monstrous and absurd, Socrates.

SOC. And yet if a knowledge of each letter is necessary before one can know both, he who is ever to know a syllable must certainly know the letters first, and so our fine theory will have run away and vanished!

THEAET. And very suddenly, too.

SOC. Yes, for we are not watching it carefully. Perhaps we ought to have said that the syllable is not the letters, but a single concept that has arisen from them, having a single form of its own, different from the letters.

THEAET. Certainly; and perhaps that will be better than the other way.

SOC. Let us look into that; we must not give up in such unmanly fashion a great and impressive theory.

THEAET. No, we must not.

Section 204

Section 205

Section 206

Section 207

Section 208

Section 209

Section 210

↑ Top of work