The dialogues of Plato in five volumes, Vol. 2 (of 5) : $b Translated into English with analyses and introductions
Plato · en
And the uncompounded may be assumed to be the same
and unchanging, whereas the compound is always changing
and never the same.
I agree, he said.
[Sidenote: The soul and the ideas belong to the class of the unchanging,
which is also the unseen.]
Then now let us return to the previous discussion. Is
that idea or essence, which in the dialectical process we
define as essence or true existence—whether essence of
equality, beauty, or anything else—are these essences, I say,
liable at times to some degree of change? or are they each
of them always what they are, having the same simple self-existent
and unchanging forms, not admitting of variation at
all, or in any way, or at any time?
They must be always the same, Socrates, replied Cebes.
And what would you say of the many beautiful—whether
men or horses or garments or any other things which are
named by the same names and may be called equal or
beautiful,—are they all unchanging and the same always, or
quite the reverse? May they not rather be described as
almost always changing and hardly ever the same, either
with themselves or with one another?
The latter, replied Cebes; they are always in a state of
change.
And these you can touch and see and perceive with the 79
senses, but the unchanging things you can only perceive
with the mind—they are invisible and are not seen?
That is very true, he said.
Well then, added Socrates, let us suppose that there are
two sorts of existences—one seen, the other unseen.
Let us suppose them.
The seen is the changing, and the unseen is the unchanging?
That may be also supposed.
And, further, is not one part of us body, another part
soul?
To be sure.
And to which class is the body more alike and akin?
Clearly to the seen—no one can doubt that.
And is the soul seen or not seen?
Not by man, Socrates.
And what we mean by ‘seen’ and ‘not seen’ is that which
is or is not visible to the eye of man?
[Sidenote: _The nature of the soul._]
Yes, to the eye of man.
And is the soul seen or not seen?
Not seen.
Unseen then?
Yes.
Then the soul is more like to the unseen, and the body to
the seen?
That follows necessarily, Socrates.
[Sidenote: The soul which is unseen, when she makes use of the bodily
senses, is dragged down into the region of the changeable, and must
return into herself before she can attain to true wisdom.]