μήτοι
has been doubted, and is not, apparently, elsewhere so used in Plato (Kugler
de part.
τοί etc. p. 11), though often in Tragedy. Here too it strikes, I think, a lofty note ‘Wherefore let not any’ etc.
θορυβήσῃ is also highly dramatic. All this parade is affected because it is a deduction from one of his own favourite commonplaces which Socrates is about to parry: see next note.
πάντες γὰρ κτλ.
γὰρ ἄρα—a rare combination—occurs also in
Prot. 315 D
,
Symp. 205 B
(according to Ven. T, but the Bodleian reads
γάρ),
Laws 698 D.
ἄρα indicates that the objector is quoting another man's view (II 358 C note), and the doctrine that all men desire the good was in point of fact a commonplace in the Platonic school. See for example
Gorg. 468 A
,
Men. 77 C
ff.,
Symp. 204 E
and
Rep. III 413 A, VI 505 D. Here, as always, Socrates would of course concede that all men desire the good; but we need the
λογιστικόν in each act of desire to specify what the good really is (437 D note). Moreover, according to our present theory, the desire of good drink is the product of
two desires, viz. (1) thirst or the desire of drink, and (2) the desire of good. That (2) is in a certain sense universal, does not alter the fact that the two desires are logically distinct. See on
τοῦ δὲ—προσγιγνόμενα 437 E.
αὐτὰ ἕκαστα
. αὐτά is
ipsa, i.e. by themselves, alone, without qualification: cf.
αὐτὰ—μόνα αὐτῶν μόνων in D and
αὐτοῦ πώματος etc. 437 E. Plato now proceeds to establish the universality of his rule. It is obvious that the reasons for believing the rule true of
ἐπιθυμία are confirmed if we can shew that it is true universally. The phraseology of this passage—
πλήθους παρουσία, αὐτὰ ἕκαστα, αὐτὴ ἐπιστήμη— is no doubt interesting for the light which it throws on the origin of the terminology adopted in the Theory of Ideas (cf. VI 507 B note): but we could make no greater mistake than to suppose that Plato is here speaking of hypostasized Ideas. Cf. Pfleiderer
Zur Lösung etc. p. 19.
τὸ μεῖζον ‐‐ μεῖζον
. Cf. (with Stallbaum)
Charm. 168 B
ff., where the nature of relative notions is similarly defined: also
Gorg. 476 B
ff.
τὰ βραδύτερα
. Stallbaum and others read
βραδύτερα without the article (on slight MS authority), but
praestat lectio difficilior. Cf.
εἴτε ἐγγείων εἴτε τῶν ζῴων VI 491 D.
τά is certainly not wrong, and the variety of expression is pleasing: ‘and heavier also to lighter, and swifter to that which is slower—do they not stand to one another in this relation?’ i.e. such that if
βαρύτερα, for example, is qualified,
κουφότερα is qualified too.
ἐπιστήμη μὲν αὐτή
. ‘Knowledge and nothing more,’ as opposed to knowledge plus some specification, e.g. astronomical knowledge, literary knowledge etc. It is interesting and instructive to study
Parm. 134 A
ff. side by side with this passage. There
αὐτὴ ἐπιστήμη has for its object
τῆς ὃ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια, i.e. the Ideas; here we do not soar so high, for
μαθήματος αὐτοῦ is only ‘learning and nothing more’ )( e.g. physical learning, classical learning, etc.
ἐπειδὴ ‐‐ κληθῆναι
. Plato's theory is very clearly conceived.
οἰκοδομικὴ ἐπιστήμη is a combination of
αὐτὴ ἐπιστήμη and
οἰκοδομία:
ἐπιστήμη correlates with
μάθημα, οἰκοδομία with
οἰκίας ἐργασία, so that
ἐπιστήμη οἰκοδομική is
ἐπιστήμη οἰκίας ἐργασίας μαθήματος: it is therefore
ποίου τινός (i.e. in this case
οἰκοδομικοῦ)
μαθήματος. Cf. note on
τοῦ δὲ—προσγιγνόμενα in 437 E.
τῶν ὑγιεινῶν καὶ νοσωδῶν
. If we carry the analysis less far than Plato, we can still make the added determinants the same by saying that
ἰατρικὴ ἐπιστήμη is of
ἰατρικὸν μάθημα. But this will not suit with
κακή, for ‘bad knowledge’ is not ‘knowledge of bad things’; nor does it—in many cases— apply to desires. Cf. 437 E note
αὐτοῦ οὗπερ ‐‐ ἐστίν
: i.e.
μαθήματος αὐτοῦ. αὐτοῦ is emphatic and contrasted with
ποιοῦ τινός.
τὸ δὲ δὴ δίψος κτλ.
Here begins the application of the argument on Relativity.