meno-第7部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！




gentlemen；　and　in　the　second　place；　he　is　of　opinion　that　he　is　one　of



them　himself。　But　some　day　he　will　know　what　is　the　meaning　of



defamation；　and　if　he　ever　does；　he　will　forgive　me。　Meanwhile　I



will　return　to　you；　Meno；　for　I　suppose　that　there　are　gentlemen　in



your　region　too？



　　Men。　Certainly　there　are。



　　Soc。　And　are　they　willing　to　teach　the　young？　and　do　they　profess　to



be　teachers？　and　do　they　agree　that　virtue　is　taught？



　　Men。　No　indeed；　Socrates；　they　are　anything　but　agreed；　you　may　hear



them　saying　at　one　time　that　virtue　can　be　taught；　and　then　again



the　reverse。



　　Soc。　Can　we　call　those　teachers　who　do　not　acknowledge　the



possibility　of　their　own　vocation？



　　Men。　I　think　not；　Socrates。



　　Soc。　And　what　do　you　think　of　these　Sophists；　who　are　the　only



professors？　Do　they　seem　to　you　to　be　teachers　of　virtue？



　　Men。　I　often　wonder；　Socrates；　that　Gorgias　is　never　heard　promising



to　teach　virtue：　and　when　he　hears　others　promising　he　only　laughs



at　them；　but　he　thinks　that　men　should　be　taught　to　speak。



　　Soc。　Then　do　you　not　think　that　the　Sophists　are　teachers？



　　Men。　I　cannot　tell　you；　Socrates；　like　the　rest　of　the　world；　I　am



in　doubt；　and　sometimes　I　think　that　they　are　teachers　and　sometimes



not。



　　Soc。　And　are　you　aware　that　not　you　only　and　other　politicians



have　doubts　whether　virtue　can　be　taught　or　not；　but　that　Theognis　the



poet　says　the　very　same　thing？



　　Men。　Where　does　he　say　so？



　　Soc。　In　these　elegiac　verses：







　　Eat　and　drink　and　sit　with　the　mighty；　and　make　yourself　agreeable



to　them；　for　from　the　good　you　will　learn　what　is　good；　but　if　you　mix



with　the　bad　you　will　lose　the　intelligence　which　you　already　have。







Do　you　observe　that　here　he　seems　to　imply　that　virtue　can　be　taught？



　　Men。　Clearly。



　　Soc。　But　in　some　other　verses　he　shifts　about　and　says：







　　If　understanding　could　be　created　and　put　into　a　man；　then　they　＇who



were　able　to　perform　this　feat＇　would　have　obtained　great　rewards。







And　again：…







　　Never　would　a　bad　son　have　sprung　from　a　good　sire；　for　he　would



have　heard　the　voice　of　instruction；　but　not　by　teaching　will　you　ever



make　a　bad　man　into　a　good　one。







And　this；　as　you　may　remark；　is　a　contradiction　of　the　other。



　　Men。　Clearly。



　　Soc。　And　is　there　anything　else　of　which　the　professors　are　affirmed



not　only　not　to　be　teachers　of　others；　but　to　be　ignorant



themselves；　and　bad　at　the　knowledge　of　that　which　they　are　professing



to　teach？　or　is　there　anything　about　which　even　the　acknowledged



〃gentlemen〃　are　sometimes　saying　that　〃this　thing　can　be　taught；〃



and　sometimes　the　opposite？　Can　you　say　that　they　are　teachers　in



any　true　sense　whose　ideas　are　in　such　confusion？



　　Men。　I　should　say；　certainly　not。



　　Soc。　But　if　neither　the　Sophists　nor　the　gentlemen　are　teachers；



clearly　there　can　be　no　other　teachers？



　　Men。　No。



　　Soc。　And　if　there　are　no　teachers；　neither　are　there　disciples？



　　Men。　Agreed。



　　Soc。　And　we　have　admitted　that　a　thing　cannot　be　taught　of　which



there　are　neither　teachers　nor　disciples？



　　Men。　We　have。



　　Soc。　And　there　are　no　teachers　of　virtue　to　be　found　anywhere？



　　Men。　There　are　not。



　　Soc。　And　if　there　are　no　teachers；　neither　are　there　scholars？



　　Men。　That；　I　think；　is　true。



　　Soc。　Then　virtue　cannot　be　taught？



　　Men。　Not　if　we　are　right　in　our　view。　But　I　cannot　believe；



Socrates；　that　there　are　no　good　men：　And　if　there　are；　how　did　they



come　into　existence？



　　Soc。　I　am　afraid；　Meno；　that　you　and　I　are　not　good　for　much；　and



that　Gorgias　has　been　as　poor　an　educator　of　you　as　Prodicus　has



been　of　me。　Certainly　we　shall　have　to　look　to　ourselves；　and　try　to



find　some　one　who　will　help　in　some　way　or　other　to　improve　us。　This　I



say；　because　I　observe　that　in　the　previous　discussion　none　of　us



remarked　that　right　and　good　action　is　possible　to　man　under　other



guidance　than　that　of　knowledge　（episteme）；…and　indeed　if　this　be



denied；　there　is　no　seeing　how　there　can　be　any　good　men　at　all。



　　Men。　How　do　you　mean；　Socrates？



　　Soc。　I　mean　that　good　men　are　necessarily　useful　or　profitable。　Were



we　not　right　in　admitting　this？　It　must　be　so。



　　Men。　Yes。



　　Soc。　And　in　supposing　that　they　will　be　useful　only　if　they　are　true



guides　to　us　of　action…there　we　were　also　right？



　　Men。　Yes。



　　Soc。　But　when　we　said　that　a　man　cannot　be　a　good　guide　unless　he



have　knowledge　（phrhonesis）；　this　we　were　wrong。



　　Men。　What　do　you　mean　by　the　word　〃right〃？



　　Soc。　I　will　explain。　If　a　man　knew　the　way　to　Larisa；　or　anywhere



else；　and　went　to　the　place　and　led　others　thither；　would　he　not　be



a　right　and　good　guide？



　　Men。　Certainly。



　　Soc。　And　a　person　who　had　a　right　opinion　about　the　way；　but　had



never　been　and　did　not　know；　might　be　a　good　guide　also；　might　he　not？



　　Men。　Certainly。



　　Soc。　And　while　he　has　true　opinion　about　that　which　the　other　knows；



he　will　be　just　as　good　a　guide　if　he　thinks　the　truth；　as　he　who



knows　the　truth？



　　Men。　Exactly。



　　Soc。　Then　true　opinion　is　as　good　a　guide　to　correct　action　as



knowledge；　and　that　was　the　point　which　we　omitted　in　our



speculation　about　the　nature　of　virtue；　when　we　said　that　knowledge



only　is　the　guide　of　right　action；　whereas　there　is　also　right



opinion。



　　Men。　True。



　　Soc。　Then　right　opinion　is　not　less　useful　than　knowledge？



　　Men。　The　difference；　Socrates；　is　only　that　he　who　has　knowledge



will　always　be　right；　but　he　who　has　right　opinion　will　sometimes　be



right；　and　sometimes　not。



　　Soc。　What　do　you　mean？　Can　he　be　wrong　who　has　right　opinion；　so



long　as　he　has　right　opinion？



　　Men。　I　admit　the　cogency　of　your　argument；　and　therefore；



Socrates；　I　wonder　that　knowledge　should　be　preferred　to　right



opinion…or　why　they　should　ever　differ。



　　Soc。　And　shall　I　explain　this　wonder　to　you？



　　Men。　Do　tell　me。



　　Soc。　You　would　not　wonder　if　you　had　ever　observed　the　images　of



Daedalus；　but　perhaps　you　have　not　got　them　in　your　country？



　　Men。　What　have　they　to　do　with　the　question？



　　Soc。　Because　they　require　to　be　fastened　in　order　to　keep　them；



and　if　they　are　not　fastened　they　will　play　truant　and　run　away。



　　Men。　Well。　what　of　that？



　　Soc。　I　mean　to　say　that　they　are　not　very　valuable　possessions　if



they　are　at　liberty；　for　they　will　walk　off　like　runaway　slaves；　but



when　fastened；　they　are　of　great　value；　for　they　are　really



beautiful　works　of　art。　Now　this　is　an　illustration　of　the　nature　of



true　opinions：　while　they　abide　with　us　they　are　beautiful　and



fruitful；　but　they　run　away　out　of　the　human　soul；　and　do　not　remain



long；　and　therefore　they　are　not　of　much　value　until　they　are　fastened



by　the　tie　of　the　cause；　and　this　fastening　of　them；　friend　Meno；　is



recollection；　as　you　and　I　have　agreed　to　call　it。　But　when　they　are



bound；　in　the　first　place；　they　have　the　nature　of　knowledge；　and；



in　the　second　place；　they　are　abiding。　And　this　is　why　knowledge　is



more　honourable　and　excellent　than　true　opinion；　because　fastened　by　a



chain。



　　Men。　What　you　are　saying；　Socrates；　seems　to　be　very　like　the　truth。



　　Soc。　I　too　speak　rather　in　ignorance；　I　only　conjecture。　And　yet



that　knowledge　differs　from　true　opinion　is　no　matter　of　conjecture



with　me。　There　are　not　many　things　which　I　profess　to　know；　but　this



is　most　certainly　one　of　them。



　　Men。　Yes；　Socrates；　and　you　are　quite　right　in　saying　so。



　　Soc。　And　am　I　not　also　right　in　saying　that　true　opinion　leading　the



way　perfects　action　quite　as　well　as　knowledge？



　　Men。　There　again；　Socrates；　I　think　you　are　right。



　　Soc。　Then　right　opinion　is　not　a　whit　inferior　to　knowledge；　or　less



useful　in　action；　nor　is　the　man　who　has　right　opinion　inferior　to　him



who　has　knowledge？



　　Men。　True。



　　Soc。　And　surely　the　good　man　has　been　acknowledged　by　us　to　be



useful？



　　Men。　Yes。



　　Soc。　Seeing　then　that　men　become　good　and　useful　to　states；　not　only



because　they　have　knowledge；　but　because　they　have　right　opinion；



and　that　neither　knowledge　nor　right　opinion　is　given　to　man　by　nature



or　acquired　by　him…（do　you　imagine　either　of　them　to　be　given　by



nature？



　　Men。　Not　I。）



　　Soc。　Then　if　they　are　not　given　by　nature；　neither　are　the　good　by



nature　good？



　　Men。　Certainly　not。



　　Soc。　And　nature　being　excluded；　then　came　the　question　whether



virtue　is　acquired　by　teaching？



　　Men。　Yes。



　　Soc。　If　virtue　was　wisdom　＇or　knowledge＇；　then；　as　we　thought；　it



was　taught？



　　Men。　Yes。



　　Soc。　And　if　it　was　taught　it　was　wisdom？



　　Men。　Certainly。



　　Soc。　And　if　there　were　teachers；　it　might　be　taught；　and　if　there



were　no　teachers；　not？



　　Men。　True。



　　Soc。　But　surely　we　acknowledged　that　there　were　no　teachers　of



virtue？



　　Men。　Yes。



　　Soc。　Then　we　acknowledged　that　it　was　not　taught；　and　was　not



wisdom？



　　Men。　Certainly。



　　Soc。　And　yet　we　admitted　that　it　was　a　good？



　　Men。　Yes。



　　Soc。　And　the　right　guide　is　useful　and　good？



　　Men。　Certainly。



　　Soc。　And　the　only　right　guides　are　knowledge　and　true



opinion…these　are　the　guides　of　man；　for　things　which　happen　by　chance



are　not　under　the　guidance　of　man：　but　the　guides　of　man　are　true



opinion　and　knowledge。



　　Men。　I　think　so　too。



　　Soc。　But　if　virtue　is　not　taught；　neither　is　virtue　knowledge。



　　Men。　Clearly　not。



　　Soc。　Then　of　two　good　and　useful　things；　one；　which　is　knowledge；



has　been　set　aside；　and　cannot　be　supposed　to　be　our　guide　in



political　life。



　　Men。　I　think　not。



　　Soc。　And　therefore　not　by　any　wisdom；　and　not　because　they　were



wise；　did　Themistocles　and　those　others　of　whom　Anytus　spoke　govern