That is not so. You always lord it over us. I don’t know what makes you hate philosophy and mock philosophers.

What truth is, Hermotimus, you wise men can say better than I—you and your master I mean. For myself I know thus much: truth is not all pleasant to listen to; in estimation it is far outfamed by falsehood. Falsehood presents a fairer face, and is therefore more pleasant, while truth knows no deceit and speaks with freedom to men, and for this they take offence. Look at us: you now take offence with me for discovering the truth of these matters with your help and showing that what you and I are in love with is not easy at all. Suppose you had happened to be in love with a statue and, thinking it to be human, hoped to win it, and suppose I saw it was stone or bronze and told you out of friendship that your love was impossible, you would in that case too think that I was an enemy, because I had not let you be deceived when you hoped for what was monstrous and beyond your reach.

Then this is what you say, Lycinus, that we must not study philosophy, but give ourselves up to idleness and live out our lives as laymen?

When have you heard me say that? What I say is not that we must not study philosophy, but that since we must, and as there are many paths to philosophy and each one claims that it leads to virtue, and the true one is not clear, we must be careful in our choice. But with so many before us we saw it was impossible to choose the best unless we were to visit and test every path. Then the trial was seen to be somewhat lengthy. Now what do you think? I will ask you again—will you follow the first guide you light on and join him in his study while he takes you for a lucky gift from heaven?

What answer could I give you now, when you say that no one can judge for himself, unless he lives as long as a phoenix and goes the full round testing all the philosophers, and when you do not see fit to trust those who have made the test before you or the many who give their praise and their testimony?

Well, Lycinus, the obligation to go round them all, making trial of what they say, and the superiority of this method of choosing are perhaps reasonable, but it is quite ridiculous to spend so many years on each test, as if it were not possible to get a thorough knowledge of the whole from a scrutiny of a small part. This sort of thing seems to me to be quite easy, needing little time. At least, they say that some sculptor (Phidias, I think) saw only the claw of a lion and from it estimated the size of the whole animal on the assumption that it was modelled on the same scale as the claw. You too, if you were shown only the hand of a man, the rest of the body being hidden, would, I suppose, know at once that the hidden figure was a human being, even though you did not see the whole body. So in a fraction of a day it is easy to acquire a good knowledge of the essential points of all the systems, and this precise enquiry which calls for lengthy research is quite unnecessary for choosing that which is preferable. No, you can make a judgment from samples.

Goodness, Hermotimus, how sure you sound when you affirm that you can know the whole from the parts! And yet I remember hearing just the opposite, that if you know the whole you know the part as well, while if you know only the part, it does not follow now that you know the whole. Tell me this: would Phidias when he saw the lion’s claw ever have known that it belonged to a lion, if he had never seen a whole lion? If you saw a human hand, could you have said that it belonged to a man if you had not previously known or seen a man? Why do you not answer? Am I to give the only possible answer for you, that you could not have said it? It looks as though Phidias has retired unsuccessful and has modelled his lion in vain; clearly he is saying what has nothing to do with Dionysus! I.e., irrelevant. Epigenes of Sicyon, a tragic poet, is said to have been upbraided by his audience for introducing into the worship of Dionysus themes which had nothing to do with the god. Or what comparison is there? Both Phidias and you yourself had no other means of recognising the parts than your knowledge of the whole—I mean the whole man and lion; and in a philosophy (the Stoic, for instance) how can you by knowing a part see the rest as well? How can you prove the rest beautiful? You see, you do not know the whole of which they are parts.

As to your contention that it is easy in a small part of a day to hear the essentials of all philosophies (I suppose you mean their principles and ends, their views of the gods and the soul, who say that everything is corporeal, who assert that immaterial things also exist, the fact that some identify “pleasure,” others “the beautiful “with goodness and happiness, and so on), after a hearing of this sort it is easy and no trouble to state the facts; but to know which is the one that is telling the truth will surely require not part of a day but many days. If not, why on earth have they all written books by the hundreds and thousands on these very subjects, to prove the truth, I suppose, of these very parts, those few parts, which you think easy and soon learnt? Here too, I fancy, you will have need of a prophet to help you choose the best, unless you spend time on accurate selection and make a personal and detailed study of all and everything. It would certainly be a short cut with no complications or delays if you sent for a prophet, listened to the essentials of them all, and sacrificed for each one: the god will save you a great deal of trouble if he reveals in the victim’s liver the choice you must make..