Republic

No. “Is it, then, music, so far as we have already described it?[*](The ordinary study of music may cultivate and refine feeling. Only the mathematics of music would develop the power of abstract thought.)” “Nay, that,” he said, “was the counterpart of gymnastics, if you remember. It educated the guardians through habits, imparting by the melody a certain harmony of spirit that is not science,[*](Knowledge in the true sense, as contrasted with opinion or habit.) and by the rhythm measure and grace, and also qualities akin to these in the words of tales that are fables and those that are more nearly true. But it included no study that tended to any such good as you are now seeking.” “Your recollection is most exact,” I said; “for in fact it had nothing of the kind. But in heaven’s name, Glaucon, what study could there be of that kind? For all the arts were in our opinion base and mechanical.[*](Cf. ibid, p. 49 note e on 495 E. This idea is the source of much modern prejudice against Plato.)” “Surely; and yet what other study is left apart from music, gymnastics and the arts?” Come, said I, “if we are unable to discover anything outside of these, let us take something that applies to all alike.[*](Cf. Symp. 186 B ἐπὶ πᾶν τείνει.)” What? “Why, for example, this common thing that all arts and forms of thought[*](διάνοιαι is not to be pressed in the special sense of 511 D-E.) and all sciences employ, and which is among the first things that everybody must learn.” What? he said. “This trifling matter,[*](A playful introduction to Plato’s serious treatment of the psychology of number and the value of the study of mathematics.)” I said, “of distinguishing one and two and three. I mean, in sum, number and calculation. Is it not true of them that every art and science must necessarily partake of them?” “Indeed it is,” he said. “The art of war too?” said I. “Most necessarily,” he said. “Certainly, then,” said I, “Palamedes[*](Palamedes, like Prometheus, is a culture hero, who personifies in Greek tragedy the inventions and discoveries that produced civilization. Cf. the speech of Prometheus in Aesch. Prom. 459 ff. and Harvard Studies, xii. p. 208, n. 2.) in the play is always making Agamemnon appear a most ridiculous[*](Quoted by later writers in praise of mathematics. Cf. Theo Smyrn. p. 7 ed. Gelder. For the necessity of mathematics Cf. Laws 818 C.) general. Have you not noticed that he affirms that by the invention of number he marshalled the troops in the army at Troy in ranks and companies and enumerated the ships and everything else as if before that they had not been counted, and Agamemnon apparently did not know how many feet he had if he couldn’t count? And yet what sort of a General do you think he would be in that case?” “A very queer one in my opinion,” he said, “if that was true.” “Shall we not, then,” I said, “set down as a study requisite for a soldier the ability to reckon and number?” “Most certainly, if he is to know anything whatever of the ordering of his troops—or rather if he is to be a man at all.[*](Cf. Laws 819 D.)” “Do you observe then,” said I, “in this study what I do?” What?

“It seems likely that it is one of those studies which we are seeking that naturally conduce to the awakening of thought, but that no one makes the right use[*](Plato’s point of view here, as he will explain, is precisely the opposite of that of modern educators who would teach mathematics concretely and not puzzle the children with abstract logic. But in the Laws where he is speaking of primary and secondary education for the entire population he anticipates the modern kindergarten ideas (819 B-C).) of it, though it really does tend to draw the mind to essence and reality.” “What do you mean?” he said. “I will try,” I said, “to show you at least my opinion. Do you keep watch and observe the things I distinguish in my mind as being or not being conducive to our purpose, and either concur or dissent, in order that here too we may see more clearly[*](For σαφέστερον cf. 523 C. Cf. Vol. I. p. 47, note f, on 338 D, and What Plato Said, p. 503, on Gorg. 463 D.) whether my surmise is right.” “Point them out,” he said. “I do point them out,” I said, “if you can discern that some reports of our perceptions do not provoke thought to reconsideration because the judgement[*](Cf. Phileb. 38 C. Unity of Plato’s Thought, n. 337.) of them by sensation seems adequate,[*](ἱκανῶς is not to be pressed here.) while others always invite the intellect to reflection because the sensation yields nothing that can be trusted.[*](For οὐδὲν ὑγιές cf. 496 C, 584 A, 589 C, Phaedo 69 B, 89 E, 90 E, Gorg. 524 E, Laws 776 E, Theaet. 173 B, Eurip. Phoen. 201, Bacch. 262, Hel.. 746, etc.)” “You obviously mean distant[*](The most obvious cause of errors of judgement. Cf. Laws 663 B.) appearances,” he said, “and shadow-painting.[*](Cf. Vol. I. p. 137 on 365 C.)” “You have quite missed my meaning,[*](The dramatic misapprehension by the interlocutor is one of Plato’s methods for enforcing his meaning. Cf. on 529 A, p. 180, note a, Laws 792 B-C.)” said I. “What do you mean?” he said. “The experiences that do not provoke thought are those that do not at the same time issue in a contradictory perception.[*](Cf. Jacks, Alchemy of Thought, p. 29: The purpose of the world, then, being to attain consciousness of itself as a rational or consistent whole, is it not a little strange that the first step, so to speak, taken by the world for the attainment of this end is that of presenting itself in the form of contradictory experience? αἴσθησις is not to be pressed. Adam’s condescending apology for the primitive character of Plato’s psychology here is as uncalled-for as all such apologies. Plato varies the expression, but his meaning is clear. Cf. 524 D. No modern psychologists are able to use sensation, perception, judgement, and similar terms with perfect consistency.) Those that do have that effect I set down as provocatives, when the perception no more manifests one thing than its contrary, alike whether its impact[*](For προσπίπτουσα Cf. Tim. 33 A, 44 A, 66 A, Rep. 515 A, 561 C, Laws 791 C, 632 A, 637 A, Phileb. 21 C; also accidere in Lucretius, e.g. iv. 882, ii. 1024-1025, iv. 236 and iii. 841, and Goethe’s Das Blenden der Erscheinung, die sich an unsere Sinne drängt.) comes from nearby or afar. An illustration will make my meaning plain. Here, we say, are three fingers, the little finger, the second and the middle.” “Quite so,” he said. “Assume that I speak of them as seen near at hand. But this is the point that you are to consider.” What? “Each one of them appears to be equally a finger,[*](This anticipates Aristotle’s doctrine that substances do not, as qualities do, admit of more or less.) and in this respect it makes no difference whether it is observed as intermediate or at either extreme, whether it is white or black, thick or thin, or of any other quality of this kind. For in none of these cases is the soul of most men impelled to question the reason and to ask what in the world is a finger, since the faculty of sight never signifies to it at the same time that the finger is the opposite of a finger.” “Why, no, it does not,” he said. Then, said I, “it is to be expected that such a perception will not provoke or awaken[*](We should never press synonyms which Plato employs for ποικιλία of style or to avoid falling into a rut of terminology.) reflection and thought.” “It is.” “But now, what about the bigness and the smallness of these objects? Is our vision’s view of them adequate, and does it make no difference to it whether one of them is situated[*](κεῖσθαι perhaps anticipates the Aristotelian category.) outside or in the middle; and similarly of the relation of touch, to thickness and thinness, softness and hardness? And are not the other senses also defective in their reports of such things?

Or is the operation of each of them as follows? In the first place, the sensation that is set over the hard is of necessity related also to the soft,[*](Cf. Theaet. 186 ff., Tim. 62 B, Taylor, Timaeus, p. 233 on 63 D-E, Unity of Plato’s Thought, nn. 222 and 225, Diels, Dialex. 5 (ii.3 p. 341). Protag. 331 D anticipates this thought, but Protagoras cannot follow it out. Cf. also Phileb. 13 A-B. Stallbaum also compares Phileb. 57 D and 56 C f.) and it reports to the soul that the same thing is both hard and soft to its perception.” “It is so,” he said. Then, said I, “is not this again a case where the soul must be at a loss[*](Plato gives a very modern psychological explanation. Thought is provoked by the contradictions in perceptions that suggest problems. The very notion of unity is contradictory of uninterpreted experience. This use of ἀπορεῖν (Cf. 515 D) anticipates much modern psychology supposed to be new. Cf. e.g. Herbert Spencer, passim, and Dewey, How We Think, p. 12 we may recapitulate by saying that the origin of thinking is some perplexity, confusion, or doubt; also ibid, p. 62. Meyerson, Déduction relativiste p. 142, says Mais Platon . . . n’avait-il pas dit qu’il était impossible de raisonner si ce n’est en partant d’une perception? citing Rep. 523-524, and Rodier, Aristot. De anima, i. p. 191. But that is not Plato’s point here. Zeller, Aristot. i. p. 166 (Eng.), also misses the point when he says Even as to the passage from the former to the latter he had only the negative doctrine that the contradictions of opinion and fancy ought to lead us to go further and to pass to the pure treatment of ideas.) as to what significance for it the sensation of hardness has, if the sense reports the same thing as also soft? And, similarly, as to what the sensation of light and heavy means by light and heavy, if it reports the heavy as light, and the light as heavy?” “Yes, indeed,” he said, “these communications[*](For ἑρμηνεῖαι Cf. Theaet. 209 A.) to the soul are strange and invite reconsideration.” “Naturally, then,” said I, “it is in such cases as these that the soul first summons to its aid the calculating reason[*](Cf. Parmen. 130 A τοῖς λογισμῷ λαμβανομένοις.) and tries to consider whether each of the things reported to it is one or two.[*](Cf. Theaet. 185 B, Laws 963 C, Sophist 254 D, Hipp. Major 301 D-E, and, for the dialectic here, Parmen. 143 D.)” Of course. “And if it appears to be two, each of the two is a distinct unit.[*](Or, as the Greek puts it, both one and other. Cf. Vol. 1. p. 516, note f on 416 A. For ἕτερον Cf. What Plato Said, pp. 522, 580, 587-588.)” Yes. “If, then, each is one and both two, the very meaning[*](γεvi termini Cf. 379 B, 576 C, Parmen. 145 A, Protag. 358 C.) of two is that the soul will conceive them as distinct.[*](κεχωρισμένα and ἀχώριστα suggest the terminology of Aristotle in dealing with the problem of abstraction.) For if they were not separable, it would not have been thinking of two, but of one.” Right. “Sight too saw the great and the small, we say, not separated but confounded.[*](Plato’s aim is the opposite of that of the modern theorists who say that teaching should deal integrally with the total experience and not with the artificial division of abstraction.) “Is not that so?” Yes. “And for[*](The final use of διά became more frequent in later Greek. Cf. Aristot. Met. 982 b 20, Eth. Nic. 1110 a 4. Gen. an. 717 a 6, Poetics 1450 b 3, 1451 b 37. Cf. Lysis 218 B, Epin. 975 A, Olympiodorus, Life of Plato,Teubner vi. 191, ibid. p. 218, and schol.passim, Apsines, Spengel i. 361, line 18.) the clarification of this, the intelligence is compelled to contemplate the great and small,[*](Plato merely means that this is the psychological origin of our attempt to form abstract and general ideas. My suggestion that this passage is the probable source of the notion which still infests the history of philosophy, that the great-and-the-small was a metaphysical entity or principle in Plato’s later philosophy, to be identified with indeterminate dyad, has been disregarded. Cf. Unity of Plato’s Thought, 84. But it is the only plausible explanation that has ever been proposed of the attribution of that clotted nonsense to Plato himself. For it is fallacious to identify μᾶλλον καὶ ἦττον in Philebus 24 C, 25 C, 21 E, and elsewhere with the μέγα καὶ σμικρόν. But there is no limit to the misapprehension of texts by hasty or fanciful readers in any age.) not thus confounded but as distinct entities, in the opposite way from sensation.” True. “And is it not in some such experience as this that the question first occurs to us, what in the world, then, is the great and the small?” “By all means.” “And this is the origin of the designation intelligible for the one, and visible for the other.” “Just so,” he said. “This, then, is just what I was trying to explain a little while ago when I said that some things are provocative of thought and some are not, defining as provocative things that impinge upon the senses together with their opposites, while those that do not I said do not tend to awaken reflection.” “Well, now I understand,” he said, “and agree.” “To which class, then, do you think number and the one belong[*](To waive metaphysics, unity is, as modern mathematicians say, a concept of the mind which experience breaks up. The thought is familiar to Plato from the Meno to the Parmenides. But it is not true that Plato derived the very notion of the concept from the problem of the one and the many. Unity is a typical concept, but the consciousness of the concept was developed by the Socratic quest for the definition.)?” “I cannot conceive,” he said. “Well, reason it out from what has already been said. For, if unity is adequately[*](Cf. 523 B. The meaning must be gathered from the context.) seen by itself or apprehended by some other sensation, it would not tend to draw the mind to the apprehension of essence, as we were explaining in the case of the finger.