بیشترتوضیحاتافزودن یادداشت جدید Str.But if the science of the Statesman disappears, the searchfor the royal science will be impossible.Y. Soc.Very true.Str.Well, then, as in the case of the Sophist we extorted theinference that not-being had an existence, because here was thepoint at which the argument eluded our grasp, so in this we mustendeavour to show that the greater and, less are not only to bemeasured with one another, but also have to do with the productionof the mean; for if this is not admitted, neither a statesman norany other man of action can be an undisputed master of his science.Y. Soc.Yes, we must certainly do again what we did then.Str.But this, Socrates, is a greater work than the other, ofwhich we only too well remember the length.I think, however, thatwe may fairly assume something of this sort- Y. Soc.What? Str.That we shall some day require this notion of a mean with aview to the demonstration of absolute truth; meanwhile, the argumentthat the very existence of the arts must be held to depend on thepossibility of measuring more or less, not only with one another,but also with a view to the attainment of the mean, seems to afforda grand support and satisfactory proof of the doctrine which we aremaintaining; for if there are arts, there is a standard of measure,and if there is a standard of measure, there are arts; but if eitheris wanting, there is neither.Y. Soc.True; and what is the next step? Str.The next step clearly is to divide the art of measurementinto two parts, all we have said already, and to place in the one partall the arts which measure number, length, depth, breadth, swiftnesswith their opposites; and to have another part in which they aremeasured with the mean, and the fit, and the opportune, and the due,and with all those words, in short, which denote a mean or standardremoved from the extremes.Y. Soc.Here are two vast divisions, embracing two very differentspheres.Str.There are many accomplished men, Socrates, who say, believingthemselves to speak wisely, that the art of measurement isuniversal, and has to do with all things.And this means what we arenow saying; for all things which come within the province of art docertainly in some sense partake of measure.But these persons, becausethey are not accustomed to distinguish classes according to realforms, jumble together two widely different things, relation to oneanother, and to a standard, under the idea that they are the same, andalso fall into the converse error of dividing other things notaccording to their real parts.Whereas the right way is, if a manhas first seen the unity of things, to go on with the enquiry andnot desist until he has found all the differences contained in itwhich form distinct classes; nor again should he be able to restcontented with the manifold diversities which are seen in amultitude of things until he has comprehended all of them that haveany affinity within the bounds of one similarity and embraced themwithin the reality of a single kind.But we have said enough on thishead, and also of excess and defect; we have only to bear in mind thattwo divisions of the art of measurement have been discovered which areconcerned with them, and not forget what they are.Y. Soc.We will not forget.Str.And now that this discussion is completed, let us go on toconsider another question, which concerns not this argument only butthe conduct of such arguments in general.Y. Soc.What is this new question? Str.Take the case of a child who is engaged in learning hisletters: when he is asked what letters make up a word, should we saythat the question is intended to improve his grammatical knowledgeof that particular word, or of all words? Y. Soc.Clearly, in order that he may have a better knowledge of allwords.Str.And is our enquiry about the Statesman intended only to improveour knowledge of politics, or our power of reasoning generally? Y. Soc.Clearly, as in the former example, the purpose is general.Str.Still less would any rational man seek to analyse the notion ofweaving for its own sake.But people seem to forget that some thingshave sensible images, which are readily known, and can be easilypointed out when any one desires to answer an enquirer without anytrouble or argument; whereas the greatest and highest truths have nooutward image of themselves visible to man, which he who wishes tosatisfy the soul of the enquirer can adapt to the eye of sense, andtherefore we ought to train ourselves to give and accept a rationalaccount of them; for immaterial things, which are the noblest andgreatest, are shown only in thought and idea, and in no other way, andall that we are now saying is said for the sake of them.Moreover,there is always less difficulty in fixing the mind on small mattersthan on great.Y. Soc.Very good.Str.Let us call to mind the bearing of all this.Y. Soc.What is it? Str.I wanted to get rid of any impression of tediousness which wemay have experienced in the discussion about weaving, and the reversalof the universe, and in the discussion concerning the Sophist andthe being of not-being.I know that they were felt to be too long, andI reproached myself with this, fearing that they might be not onlytedious but irrelevant; and all that I have now said is onlydesigned to prevent the recurrence of any such disagreeables for thefuture.Y. Soc.Very good.Will you proceed? Str.Then I would like to observe that you and I, remembering whathas been said, should praise or blame the length or shortness ofdiscussions, not by comparing them with one another, but with whatis fitting, having regard to the part of measurement, which, as wesaid, was to be borne in mind.Y. Soc.Very true.Str.And yet, not everything is to be judged even with a view towhat is fitting; for we should only want such a length as is suited togive pleasure, if at all, as a secondary matter; and reason tellsus, that we should be contented to make the ease or rapidity of anenquiry, not our first, but our second object; the first and highestof all being to assert the great method of division according tospecies-whether the discourse be shorter or longer is not to thepoint.No offence should be taken at length, but the longer andshorter are to be employed indifferently, according as either ofthem is better calculated to sharpen the wits of the auditors.Reason would also say to him who censures the length of discourseson such occasions and cannot away with their circumlocution, that heshould not be in such a hurry to have done with them, when he can onlycomplain that they are tedious, but he should prove that if they hadbeen shorter they would have made those who took part in them betterdialecticians, and more capable of expressing the truth of things;about any other praise and blame, he need not trouble himself-heshould pretend not to hear them.But we have had enough of this, asyou will probably agree with me in thinking.Let us return to ourStatesman, and apply to his case the aforesaid example of weaving.Y. Soc.Very good;-let us do as you saY. Str.The art of the king has been separated from the similar arts ofshepherds, and, indeed, from all those which have to do with herdsat all.There still remain, however, of the causal and co-operativearts those which are immediately concerned with States, and which mustfirst be distinguished from one another.Y. Soc.Very good.Str.You know that these arts cannot easily be divided into twohalves; the reason will be very: evident as we proceed.Y. Soc.Then we had better do so.Str.We must carve them like a victim into members or limbs, sincewe cannot bisect them.For we certainly should divide everythinginto as few parts as possible.Y. Soc.What is to be done in this case? Str.What we did in the example of weaving-all those arts whichfurnish the tools were regarded by us as co-operative.Y. Soc.Yes.Str.So now, and with still more reason, all arts which make anyimplement in a State, whether great or small, may be regarded by us asco-operative, for without them neither State nor Statesmanship wouldbe possible; and yet we are not inclined to say that any of them isa product of the kingly art.Y. Soc.No, indeed.Str.The task of separating this class from others is not an easyone; for there is plausibility in saying that anything in the world isthe instrument of doing something.But there is another dass ofpossessions in, a city, of which I have a word to saY. Y. Soc.What class do you mean? Str.A class which may be described as not having this power; thatis to say, not like an instrument, framed for production, but designedfor the preservation of that which is produced.
لطفا منتظر باشید ...
