It is evident, then, from what we have said, that a city is not naturally unified in the way that some claim it is and that the unity alleged to be the greatest good for cities in fact destroys them, whereas a thing's good pre-serves it.

Our decision is to study the best political community for those who are 1260b capable of living, as far as possible, in the conditions they would aspire to live in; hence we must also investigate the political systems that are found 30 in cities said to be well governed

And for the same reason everyone says 25 the gods are ruled by a king; it is because we were all ruled by kings in ancient times, and some still are, and human beings ascribe to the gods a human way of life, as well as a human form

But they do not all agree about the number or type of this material principle.

From everything that has been said, then, we find that the name under discussion, <Le., 'wisdom'>, applies to the same science; for we find that wisdom must study the first principles and causes, and the good, the end, is 10 one of the causes.

Later on, as more crafts were discovered-some related to necessities, others to <leisuretime> pursuits-those who discovered these latter crafts were in every case judged to be 20 wiser than the others, because their sciences did not aim at practical utility.

The same is true of everything else that is produced, since no such thing has within itself the principle of its own production.

Now a doctor builds a house, not insofar as he is a doctor, but insofar as 5 he is a housebuilder; and he becomes pale, not insofar as he is a doctor, but insofar as he is dark. But he practices medicine, or loses his medical knowl-edge, insofar as he is a doctor.

For in a way the musical man is composed from man and musical, since you will analyze him into their accounts. It is clear, then, that whatever comes to be does so from these things.

hat is mortalshares in immortality, whether it is a body or anything else, while theimmortal has another way. So don’t be surprised if everything naturallyvalues its own offspring, because it is for the sake of immortality thateverything shows this zeal, which is Love.”

hen don’t force whatever is not beautiful to be ugly, or whatever isnot good to be bad. It’s the same with Love: when you agree he is neithergood nor beautiful, you need not think he is ugly and bad; he could besomething in between

Whenever you say, Idesire what I already have, ask yourself whether you don’t mean this: I wantthe things I have now to be mine in the future as well.’ Wouldn’t he agree?”

Such is the power of Love—so varied and great that in all cases it mightbe called absolute. Yet even so it is far greater when Love is directed, intemperance and justice, toward the good

It is a well-known fact that Love and Aphrodite are inseparable. If,therefore, Aphrodite were a single goddess, there could also be a singleLove; but, since there are actually two goddesses of that name, there alsoare two kinds of Love.

We are resolved to force no oneto drink more than he wants.

“Welcome, Aristodemus! Whatperfect timing! You’re just in time for dinner! I hope you’re not here for anyother reason—if you are, forget it. I looked all over for you yesterday, so Icould invite you, but I couldn’t find you anywhere. But where is Socrates?How come you didn’t bring him along?”

In fact, Simmias, he said, those who practice philosophy in the right wayare in training for dying, and they fear death least of all men. Consider itfrom this point of view: if they are altogether estranged from the body anddesire to have their soul by itself, would it not be quite absurd for them tobe afraid and resentful when this happens? If they did not gladly set out fora place, where, on arrival, they may hope to attain that for which they hadyearned during their lifetime, that is, wisdom, and where they would be68rid of the presence of that from which they are estranged?

That is why I am not so resentful, because I have good hope that somefuture awaits men after death, as we have been told for years, a muchbetter future for the good than for the wicked.

“Socrates,” it said, “practice and cultivate the arts.” In the past I imaginedthat it was instructing and advising me to do what I was doing, such asthose who encourage runners in a race, that the dream was thus bidding61me do the very thing I was doing, namely, to practice the art of philosophy,this being the highest kind of art, and I was doing that.

"Eat and drink with these men, and keep their company. Please those whose power is great, for you will learn goodness from the e good. If you mingle with bad men you will lose even what wit you pos-sess." You see that here he speaks as if virtue can be taught

So we can say about virtue also, since we do not know either what it is or what qualities it possesses, let us investigate whether it is teachable by means of a hypothesis, and say this: If among the things existing in the soul virtue has a certain quality, would it be teachable or not? Or, as we were saying just now, can it be recollected? First then, if it is other than knowledge--for let it make no difference to us whichever term c we use-but can it be taught? Or is it plain to anyone that men cannot be taught anything but knowledge7

If he always had it, he would always have known. If he acquired it, he e cannot have done so in his present life. Or has someone taught him geome-try? For he will perform in the same way about all geometry, and all other knowledge. Has someone taught him everything? You should know, es-pecially as he has been born and brought up in your house.

I think, Socrates, that virtue is, as the poet says, "to find joy in beautiful things and have power." So I say that virtue is to desire beautiful things and have the power to acquire them.

Then surely, my good sir, you must not think, while the nature of virtue as a whole is still under inquiry; that by answering in terms of the parts of virtue you can make its nature clear to anyone or make anything else clear by speaking in this way; but only that the same question must be put to you again-what do you take the nature of virtue to be when you say what you e say? Or do you think there is no point in what I am saying?-I think what you say is right.

Yo u’d choose death before exile

hen, my very good friend, we should not give so muchthought to what the majority of people will say about us, but think insteadof what the person who understands just and unjust things will say—theone man and the truth itself. So your first claim—that we should givethought to the opinion of the majority about what’s just, fine, good, andtheir opposites—isn’t right

What’s more I think you’re alsobetraying those sons of yours by going away and deserting them whenyou could bring them up and educate them.

It’s not from wealth that virtue comes, but from virtue comesmoney, and all the other things that are good for human beings, bothin private and in public life.

And when I examined him andtalked with him, men of Athens, my experience was something like this: Ithought this man seemed wise to many people, and especially to himself,but wasn’t. Then I tried to show him that he thought himself wise, butwasn’t.

esides, they also spoke to you at that age when youwould most readily believe them, when some of you were children oryoung boys. Thus they simply won their case by default, as there was nodefense.

For one of them is lovable because it’s loved,whereas the other is loved because it’s lovable.

Come on, then, let’s examine what it is we’re saying. A god-loved thing or a god-loved person is pious, whereas a god-hated thing or agod-hated person is impious. And the pious isn’t the same as the impious,but its exact opposite. Isn’t that what we’re saying?

If he did, let him go, if he didn’t, prosecute—if, that is to say,the killer shares your own hearth and table.11 For the pollution’s the sameif you knowingly associate with such a person and don’t cleanse yourselfcand him by bringing him to justice.

t existed before it was named. Then it was named. For air was a thing thatis before the things that are now were formed, and it always will be.

Now the things from whichthe nomoi deter humans are no more in accord with or suited to phusisthan the things that they promote.

He says that the gods worshipped by men neither exist nor haveknowledge, but that the ancients exalted crops and everything elsethat is useful for life.

, place and body (for “that inwhich” is place, and “that in it” is body). But this is absurd, so what-isis not in itself, either. And so, if what-is is eternal it is unlimited, but ifit is unlimited it is nowhere, and if it is nowhere it is not. So if what-is iseternal, it is not at all.(7

Second, when a logos is spoken, if eventshave occurred the way the logos is spoken, the logos is true, but if theyhave not occurred, the same logos is false. (3) Suppose it accuses some-one of sacrilege. If the deed took place, the logos is true, but if it did nottake place, it is false

The goal of life is cheerfulness, which is not the same as plea-sure . . . but the state in which the soul continues calmly and stably,disturbed by no fear or superstition or any other emotion. He also callsit “well-being” and many other names

it. As these whirl aroundby virtue of the resistance of the center, the surrounding membranebecomes thin, since the adjacent atoms join the motion when theycome into contact with the vortex.

These men [Leucippus and Democritus] say that the atomsmove by hitting and striking against each other, but they do not spec-ify the source of their natural motion. For the motion of striking eachother is compelled and not natural, and compelled motion is posteriorto natural motion.

All things are unlimited and they allturn around one another; the all [the universe] is both the empty[void] and the full.

If place exists, where is it? For everything that exists is in aplace. Therefore if place exists, then place is in a place. This goes on toinfinity. Therefore, place does not exist.

Now to say this once is the same thing as to keepsaying it forever. For no such part of it will be the last or unrelated toanother. Therefore if there are many things, they must be both smalland large; so small as not to have size, but so large as to be infinite.

At this point, I end for you my reliable account and thought 50about truth.

They are borne alongdeaf and blind alike, dazed, hordes without judgmentfor whom to be and not to be are thought to be the sameand not the same, and the path of all is backward-turning.

) If there were no sun, as far as concerns all the other stars it wouldbe night.

All that can be seen, heard, experienced—these are what I prefer.

A fool is excited by every word

Divine things for the most part escape recognition because of un-belie

Xenophanes,who was the first of these to preach monism (Parmenides is said tohave been his student) made nothing clear . . . but looking off to thewhole heaven he declares that the one is god.

city will find little joy in a person 20who wins in the contests by the banks of Pisa,since this does not fatten the city’s storerooms.

they supposed the elements of numbers to be the elements ofall things that are.

The philosophy of the akousmatikoi consistsof unproved and unargued akousmata to the effect that one must act inappropriate ways, and they also try to preserve all the other sayings ofPythagoras as divine dogma.

Their original insight seemed to be that theapparent chaos of sound can be brought into rational, hence knowable, order bythe imposition of number. They reasoned that the entire universe is aharmonious arrangement (kosmos in Greek), ordered by and so knowable

Anaximander says that these [thunder, lightning, thunder-bolts, waterspouts, and hurricanes] all result from wind.

Or as Anaximenes of old believed, let us leave neither the coldnor the hot in the category of substance, but <hold them to be> com-mon attributes of matter, which come as the results of its changes. Forhe declares that the contracted state of matter and the condensed stateis cold, whereas what is fine and “loose”