Phaedrus — Plato

p. 59cannot be made to understand the nature of intermediates.

For all persons or things, which are intermediate between two other things, and participant of them — if one of these ^ two things is good and the other evil, are better than the one and worse than the other; but if they are in a mean between two good things which do not tend to the same end, they fall short of either of their component elements in the attainment of their ends.

Only in the case when the two component elements which do not tend to the same end are evil is the participant better than either.

Now if philosophy and poUtical action are both good, but tend to different ends, and they perticipate in both, and are in a mean between them, then they are talking nonsense; for they are worse than either; or, if the one be good and the other evil, they are better than the one and worse than the other; only on the supposition that they are both evil could there be any truth in what they say.

I do not think that they will admit that their two pursuits are either wholly or partly evil; but the truth is, that these philosopher-politicians who aim at both fall short of both in the attainment of their respective ends, and are really third, although they would like to stand first.

There is no need, however, to be angry at this ambition of theirs — they may be forgiven that; for every man ought to be loved who says and manfully pursues and works out anything which is at all like wisdom : at the same time we shall do well to see them as they really are. Cri. I have often told you, Socrates, that I am in a constant difficulty about my two sons. What am I to do with them ?

There is no hurry about the younger one, who is only a child ; but the other, Critobulus, is getting on, and needs some one who will improve him. I cannot help thinking, when I hear you talk, that there is a sort of madness in many of our anxieties about our children : in the first place, about marrying a wife of good family to be the mother of them, and then about heaping up money for them — and yet taking no care about their education.

But then again, when I contemplate any of those who pretend to educate others, I am amazed. They all seem to me to be such outrageous beings, if I am to confess the truth : so that I do not know how I can advise the youth to study philosophy. Soc. Dear Crito, do you not know that in every profession

6o PLATO THE TEACHER the inferior sort are numerous and good for nothing, and the good are few and beyond all price : for example, are not gymnastic and rhetoric and money-making and the art of the general, noble arts ? Cri, Certainly they are, in my judgment. Soc, Well, and do you not see that in each of these arts the many are ridiculous performers ? Cri. Yes, indeed, that is very true. Soc, And will you on this account shun all these pursuits 'yourself and refuse to allow them to your son? Cri, That would not be reasonable, Socrates. Soc. Do you then be reasonable, Crito, and do not mind whether the teachers of philosophy are good or bad, but think only of Philosophy herself. Try and examine her well and truly, and if she be evil seek to turn away all men from her, and not your sons only ; but if she be what I believe that she is, then follow her and serve her, you and your house, as the saying is^ and be of good cheer.

PROTAGORAS

•7^

^ / ■ ,

INTRODUCTIQN ,, The Eufhydemus shows Socrates in cbntrast with the baser sort of sophists ; the Protagoras shows him in contrast with the higher sort,* The points of contrast between the philosopher and the Sophists are, however, by no means so clear in the latter diaJogue.

A fundamental docility in the interpretation of this dialogue lies in the fact that one can not always be sure what Plato's own opinion is about the views expressed by the different speakers. Protagoras and his fellow Sophists are made to speak effectively, sometimes nobly. Socrates is sometimes deeply in earnest, sometimes deeply ironical.

To decide just what Plato himself believes on every question discussed is therefore difficult and sometimes impossible. The dialogue is in fact deeply dramatic. The Sophists here portrayed are not * men of straw labelled with opinions which are to be destroyed in the conclusion. These men have dramatic if not aJso historic vitality.

They are exhibited as scholars and gentlemen, whose views are at any rate worth serious attention. (Consider for example the views of Protagoras on the treatment of animals, on the capacity of man for improvement as compared with the lower animals, and on the influence of civilized as compared with savage life upon the individual.) The main contentions of Protagoras that virtue can be taught, and tl^ there are * See General Introduction, pages xviii, xx, and xxvii. 63