Phaedrus — Plato

p. 330True, he said. Thbn if geometry compels us to view essence, it concerns us ; if generation only, it does not concern us ? Yes, that is what we assert.

Yet, at present, I said, the science is in flat contradiction to the language which geometricians use, as will hardly be denied by those who have any acquaintance with their ' study ; for they speak of finding the side of a square, and applying and adding as though they were doing something and had a practical end in view; their ** necessity" is the necessity to get a living, which is ridiculous ; whereas knowledge is the real object of the whole science.

Certainly, he said. Then must not a further admission be made ? What admission ? The admission that this knowledge at which geometry aims is of the eternal, and not of the perishing and transient. That, he replied, may be readily allowed, and is true. Then, my noble friend, geometry will draw the soul towards truth, and create the mind of philosophy, and raise up that which is now unhappily allowed to fall down. Nothing will be more effectual.

Then nothing should be more effectually enacted, than that the inhabitants of your fair city should learn goemetry. Moreover the science has indirect effects, which are not small. Of what kind are they ? he said. There are the military advantages of which you spoke, I said ; and in all departments of study, as experience proves, any one who has studied geometry is infinitely quicker of apprehension.

Yes, he said, the difference between a geometrician and one who is not a geometrician is very great indeed. Then shall we propose this as a second branch of knowledge which our youth will study ? Let us make the proposal, he replied. And suppose we make astronomy the third, — what do you say?

I am strongly inclined to that, he said ; the observation of the seasons and of months and years is quite essential to husbandry and navigation, and not less essential to military tactics. I am amused, I said, at your fear of the world, which makes 2p. 331you guard against the appearance of insisting upon useless studies ; and I quite admit the difficulty of convincing men that in every soul there is an organ which is purified and illumined by these studies, when by other pursuits lost and dimmed j and this eye of the soul is more precious far than ten thousand bodily ones, for this alone beholds the vision of truth.

Now there are two classes of persons : one class who will agree in this and will take your words as a revelation ; another class who have no perception of the thing meant, to whom they will naturally seem to be idle and unprofit- ^ able tales.

And you had better decide at once with which of the two you are arguing, or whether without regard to either you would not prefer to carry on the argument chiefly for your own sake ; not that you have any jealousy of others, who may benefit if they please. I think that I should prefer to carry on the argument on my own behalf. Then take a step backward, for we have gone wrong in the order of the sciences. What was the mistake ? he said.

After plane geometry, I said, we took solids in revolution, instead of taking solids in themselves ; whereas after the second dimension the third, which is concerned with cubes and dimensions of depth, ought to have followed. That is true, Socrates ; but these subjects seem to be as yet hardly explored.

Why, yes, I said, and for two reasons : in the first place, no government patronizes them, which leads to a want of energy in the study of them, and they are difficult ; in the second place, students cannot learn them unless they have a teacher. But then a teacher is hardly to be found, and even if one could be found, as matters now stand, the students" of these subjects, who are very conceited, would not mind him.

That, however, would be otherwise if the whole State patronized and honored them ; then they would listen, and there would be continuous and earnest search, and discoveries would be made ; since even now, disregarded as they are by the world, and maimed of their fair proportions, and although none of their votaries can tell the use of them, still these studies force their way by their natural charm, and very likely they may emerge into light. Yes, he said, there is a remarkable charm in them. B\|t I 3p. 332do not clearly understand the change in the order. First you began with a geometry of plane surfaces ? Yes, I said. And you placed astronomy next, and then you made a step backward ? Yes, I said, the more haste the less speed ; the ludicrous state of sohd geometry made me pass over this branch and go on to astronomy, or motion of solids. True, he said.

Then regarding the science now omitted as supplied, if only encouraged by the State, let us go on to astronomy. That is the natural order, he said. And now, Socrates, as you rebuked the vulgar manner in which I praised astronomy before, my praises shall accord with the method of your 5^^' inquiry. For every one, as I think, must feel that as- ^ tronomy compels the soul to look upwards, and leads us from this world to another.

I am an exception then, for I should rather say that those who elevate astronomy into philosophy make us look downwards and not upwards. Why, how is that ? he asked. You, I replied, have evidently a sublime conception of the knowledge of the things above. And I dare say that if a person were to throw his head back and study the fretted ceiling, you would still think that his mind was the percipient, and not his eyes.

And you are very likely right, and I may be a simpleton : for, in my opinion, only that knowledge which is of being and the unseen can make the soul look upwards, and whether a man gapes at the heavens or blinks on the ground, seeking to learn some particular of sense, I would deny that he can learn, for nothing of that sort is matter of science; his soul is looking, not upwards, but dowm^^-ards, whether his way to knowledge is by water or by land, and he may float on his back in either element.

I acknowledge, he said, the justice of wur rebuke. StiU, I should like to know how astronomy can be learned in any other way more conducive to that knowledge of which we speak? [The true object of astronomy is not the starry heavens, beautiful as they are to the eyes^ but the la^^ of pure