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

Section 204

Section 205

Section 206

Section 207

Section 208

Section 209

SOC. I will tell you if I can. Assume that I have right opinion about you; if I add the explanation or definition of you, then I have knowledge of you, otherwise I have merely opinion.

THEAET. Yes.

SOC. But explanation was, we agreed, the interpretation of your difference.

THEAET. It was.

SOC. Then so long as I had merely opinion, I did not grasp in my thought any of the points in which you differ from others?

THEAET. Apparently not.

SOC. Therefore I was thinking of some one of the common traits which you possess no more than other men.

THEAET. You must have been.

SOC. For heaven’s sake! How in the world could I in that case have any opinion about you more than about anyone else? Suppose that I thought That is Theaetetus which is a man and has nose and eyes and mouth and so forth, mentioning all the parts. Can this thought make me think of Theaetetus any more than of Theodorus or of the meanest of the Mysians, as the saying is?

THEAET. Of course not.

SOC. But if I think not only of a man with nose and eyes, but of one with snub nose and protruding eyes, shall I then have an opinion of you any more than of myself and all others like me?

THEAET. Not at all.

SOC. No; I fancy Theaetetus will not be the object of opinion in me until this snubnosedness of yours has stamped and deposited in my mind a memorial different from those of the other examples of snubnosedness that I have seen, and the other traits that make up your personality have done the like. Then that memorial, if I meet you again tomorrow, will awaken my memory and make me have right opinion about you.

THEAET. Very true.

SOC. Then right opinion also would have to do with differences in any given instance?

THEAET. At any rate, it seems so.

SOC. Then what becomes of the addition of reason or explanation to right opinion? For if it is defined as the addition of an opinion of the way in which a given thing differs from the rest, it is an utterly absurd injunction.

THEAET. How so?

SOC. When we have a right opinion of the way in which certain things differ from other things, we are told to acquire a right opinion of the way in which those same things differ from other things! On this plan the twirling of a scytale or a pestle or anything of the sort would be as nothing compared with this injunction. It might more justly be called a blind man’s giving directions; for to command us to acquire that which we already have, in order to learn that of which we already have opinion, is very like a man whose sight is mightily darkened.

THEAET. Tell me now, what did you intend to say when you asked the question a while ago?

Section 210

↑ Top of work