Plato | Gorgias - Full audiobook with accompanying text (AudioEbook)

this they say is how you're supposed to do your part in a war or a battle Socrates oh did we arrive when the feast was over as the saying goes are we late yes and a very urbane one it was gorgeous gave us an admirable varied presentation just a short while ago but that's kara funds for calories he kept us loitering about in the marketplace that's no problem Socrates I'll make up for it too gugus is a friend of mine so he'll give us a presentation now if you see fear or some other time if

you like what's this Kara Phan is Socrates eager to hear gorg yes yes that's the very thing we're here for well then come to my house anytime you like gorg s is staying with me and we'll give you a presentation there very good kalloch leads but would he be willing to have a discussion with us I'd like to find out from the man what his craft can accomplish and what it is that he both makes claims about and teaches as for the other thing the presentation let him put that on another time as you suggest

there's nothing like asking him with Socrates this was in fact one part of his presentation just now he invited those inside to ask him any question they liked and he said it answered them all an excellent idea ask him Kyra fun ask him what what he is what do you mean well if he were a maker of shoes he'd answer that he was a cobbler wouldn't he or don't you see what I mean I do I'll ask him tell me Gorgas is kelly's right in saying that you make claims about answering any question anyone might

put to you he is Kyra fond in fact I just now made that very clean and I say that no one has asked me anything new in many a year in that case I'm sure you'll answer this one quite easily Gorgas is your chance to try me Kara fun by Zeus Kara fun try me if you like I think Gorgas is quite worn out he's only just now finished a long discourse really Paulus do you think you'd give more admirable answers than Gorgas what does it matter as long as they're good enough for you nothing

at all you aren't trust them since that's what you want ask your questions I will suppose that goal guess were knowledgeable in his brother herodicus craft what would be the right name for us to call him by then isn't it the same one as his brothers yes it is so we'd be writing saying that he's a doctor yes and if he were experienced in the craft of arista phone the son of Anglophone or his brother what would be the correct thing to call him a painter obviously now then since he's knowledgeable in a craft what

is it and what would be the correct thing to call him many among men are the crafts experientially devised by experience kara phone yes it is experience that causes our times to march along the way or of craft whereas inexperience causes them to march along the way of chance of these various crafts various men partake in various ways the best men partaking of the best of them our Gorgas is indeed in this group he partakes of the most admirable of the crafts Paulo certainly appears to have prepared himself admirably for giving speeches Gorgas but he's

not doing what he promised kara fond how exactly isn't he Socrates he hardly seems to me to be answering the question why don't you question him then if you like no I won't not as long as you use self may want to answer I'd much rather ask you it's clear to me especially from what he has said that polish has devoted himself more to what is called oratory than to discussion why do you say that Socrates because polis when Kyra fawn asked you what craft Gorgas is knowledgeable in you sing its praises as though someone

were discrediting it but you haven't answered what it is didn't I answer that it was the most admirable one very much so no one however asked you what Gorgas is craft is like but what craft it is and what one ought to call Gorgas so just as when Kara fawn put his earlier questions to you and you answered him in such an admirably brief way tell us now in that way to what his craft is and what we're supposed to call gorgeous or rather gorgeous why don't you tell us yourself what the craft you're knowledgeable

in is and hence what we're supposed to call you it's oratory Socrates so we're supposed to call you an orator yes and a good one Socrates if you really want to call me what I boast myself to be as Homer puts it of course I do call me that then aren't we to say that you're capable of making others or ATO's - that's exactly the claim I make not only here but elsewhere - well now Gorgas will you be willing to complete the discussion the way we're having it right now that of alternately asking questions

and answering them and to put aside for another time this long style of speech making like the one polish began with please don't go back on your promise but be willing to give a brief answer to what you're asked there are some answers Socrates that must be given by way of long speeches even so I'll try to be as brief as possible this - in fact is one of my claim there's no one who can say the same things more briefly than I that's what we need gorg s do give me a presentation of this

very thing the short style of speech and leave the long style for some other time very well I'll do that you'll say you've never heard anyone makes shorter speeches come then you claim to be knowledgeable in the craft of oratory and to be able to make someone else an orator - with which of the things there are is oratory concerned weaving for example is concerned with the production of clothes event it yes and so - music is concerned with the composition of tunes yes by Hera Gorgas I do like your answers they couldn't be shorter

yes Socrates I dare say I'm doing it quite nicely and so you are come and answer me then that way about oratory - about which of the things there are is it knowledge about speeches what sort of speeches gorgeous those that explain how sick people should be treated to get well know so oratory isn't concerned with all speeches oh no but it does make people capable of speaking yes and also to be wise in what they're speaking about of course now does the medical craft the one we were talking about just now make people able

both to have wisdom about and to speak about the sick necessarily this crafton is evidently concerned with speeches - yes speeches about diseases that is exactly isn't physical training also concerned with speeches speech is about good and bad physical condition yes it is in fact oh yes the same is true of the other crafts to eat each of them is concerned with those speeches that are about the object of the particular craft apparently then why don't you call the other crafts oratory since you call any craft whatever that's concerned with speeches oratory they're concerned with

speeches to the reason Socrates is that in the case of the other crafts the knowledge consists almost completely in working with your hands and activities of that sort in the case of oratory on the other hand there isn't any such manual work it's activity and influence depend entirely on speeches that's the reason I consider the craft of oratory to be concerned with speeches and I say that I'm right about this I'm not sure I understand what sort of craft you want to call it I'll soon know more clearly tell me this there are crafts for

us to practice aren't there yes of all the crafts there are I take it that there are those that consist for the most part of making things and that call for little speech and some that call for none at all ones whose task could be done even silently take painting for instance or sculpture or many others when you say that oratory has nothing to do with other crafts its crafts of this sort I think you're referring to or aren't you yes Socrates you take my meaning very well and then there are other crafts the ones

that perform their whole tasks by means of speeches and that called for practically no physical work besides or very little of it take arithmetic or computation or geometry even checkers and many other crafts some of these involve speeches to just about the same degree as they do activity while many involve speech is more all their activity and influence depend entirely on speeches I think you mean that oratory is a craft of this sort true but you certainly don't want to call any of these crafts oratory do you even though as you phrase it oratory is

the craft that exercises its influence through speech somebody might take you up if you wanted to make a fuss in argument and say so you're saying that arithmetic is oratory are you gorgeous I'm sure however that you're not saying that either arithmetic or geometry is oratory yes you're quite right Socrates you take my meaning rightly come on then please complete your answer in the terms of my question since oratory is one of those crafts which mostly uses speech and since there are also others of that sort try to say what it is that oratory which

exercises it its influence through speeches is about imagine someone asking me about any of the crafts I mentioned just now Socrates what is the craft of arithmetic I'd tell him just as you told me that it's one of those that exercise their influence by means of speech and if he continued what are they crafts about I'd say that there are about even and odd however many of each there might be if he then asked what is the craft you call computation I'd say that this one too is one of those that exercise their influence entirely

by speech and if you then continued what is it about our answer in the style of those who draw up motions in the assembly that in other respects computation is like arithmetic for it's about the same thing even an odd yet it differs from arithmetic insofar as computation examines the quantity of odd and even both in relation to themselves and in relation to each other and if someone asked about astronomy and I replied that it two exercises influenced by means of speech then if he asked what are the speeches of astronomy about Socrates I'd say

that there are about the motions of the stars the Sun and the moon and their relative velocities and you'll be quite right to say so Socrates calm Gorgas you take your turn for oratory is in fact one of those crafts that carry out and exercise their influence entirely by speech isn't it that's right tell us then what are they crafts about of the things there are which is the one that these speech is used by oratory are concerned with the greatest of human concerns Socrates and the best but that statement too is debatable Gore guess

it isn't at all clear yet either I'm sure that you've heard people at drinking parties singing that song in which they count out as they sing that to enjoy good health is the best thing second is to have turned out good looking and third so the writer of the song puts it is to be honestly rich yes I've heard it why do you mention it suppose that the producers of the things the songwriter praised were here with you right now a doctor a physical trainer and a financial expert suppose that first the doctor said Socrates

Gorgas is telling you a lie it isn't his craft that is concerned with the greatest good for humankind but mine if I then asked him what are you to say that I suppose he'd say that he's a doctor what's this you're saying is the product of your craft really the greatest good of course Socrates I suppose he'd say seeing that it's product his health what greater good for humankind is there than Health and supposed that next in his turn the trainer said I too would be amazed Socrates if gorgets could present you with a greater

good derived from his craft than the one I could provide from mine I'd ask this man - what are you sir and what's your product I'm a physical trainer he'd say and my product is making people physically good-looking and strong and following the trainer the financial expert would say I'm sure with an air of considerable scorn for all consider Socrates whether you know of any good Gore guesses or anyone else's that's a greater good than wealth we'd say to him really is that what you produce he'd say yes as what as a financial expert well

we'll say is wealth in your judgment the greatest good for humankind of course he'll say but Gore guess he disputes that he claims that his craft is the source of a good that's greater than yours we'd say and it's obvious what question here Darce next and what is this good please let Gorgas answer me that so come on gorgeous consider yourself questioned by both these men and myself and give us your answer what is this thing that you claim is the greatest good for humankind a thing you claim to be a producer of the thing

that is an actual fact the greatest good Socrates it is the source of freedom for humankind itself and at the same time it is for each person the source of rule over others in one's own City and what is this thing you're referring to I'm referring to the ability to persuade by speeches judges in a local councillors in a council meeting and assembly men in an assembly or in any other political gathering that might take place in point of fact with this ability you'll have the doctor for your slave and the physical trainer too as

for this financial expert of yours he'll turn out to be making more money for somebody else instead of himself for you in fact if you've got the ability to speak and to persuade the crowds now I think you've come closest to making clear what craft do you take oratory to be Gorgas if I follow you at all you're saying that oratory is a producer of persuasion it's whole business comes to that and that's the long and short of it or can you mention anything else oratory can do besides instilling persuasion in the souls of an

audience none at all Socrates I think you're defined in it quite adequately that is indeed the long and short of it listen then Gorgas you should know that I'm convinced I'm one of those people who in a discussion with someone else really want to have knowledge of the subject the discussions about and I consider you one of them too well what's the point Socrates let me tell you now you can know for sure that I don't know what this persuasion derives from oratory that you're talking about is or what subjects it's persuasion about even though

I do have my suspicions about which persuasion I think you mean and what it's about I'll still ask you just the same what you say this persuasion produced by oratory is and what it's about and why when I have my suspicions though I ask you and refrain from expressing them myself it's not you I'm after it's our discussion to have it proceed in such a way as to make the thing we're talking about most clear to us consider then whether you think I'm being fair and resuming my questions to you suppose I were to ask

you which of the painters uses is if you told me that he's the one who paints pictures would it be fair for me to ask of what sort of pictures is he the painter and where yes it would and it's the reason for this fact that there are other painters too who paint many other pictures yes but if no one besides the exes were a painter your answer would have been a good one of course come then and tell me about oratory do you think that oratory alone instills persuasion or do other crafts do so

to this is the sort of thing I mean does a person who teaches some subject or other persuade people about what he's teaching or not he certainly does Socrates he persuades most of all let's talk once more about the same crafts we were talking about just now doesn't arithmetic or the arithmetician teach us everything that pertains to number yes he does and he also persuades yes so arithmetic is also a producer of persuasion apparently now if someone asks us what sort of persuasion it produces and what its persuasion about I suppose would answer him that

it's the persuasion through teaching about the extent of even and odd and we'll be able to show that all the other crafts we were just now talking about are producers of persuasion as well as what the persuasion is and what it's about isn't that right yes so oratory isn't the only producer of persuasion that's true in that case since it's not the only one to produce this product but other crafts do it too we do right to repeat to our speaker the question we put next in the case of the painter of what sort of

persuasion is oratorio craft and what is its persuasion about or don't you think it's right to repeat that question yes I do well dangle guess since you think so too please answer the persuasion I mean Socrates is the kind that takes place in law courts and in those other large gatherings as I was saying a moment ago and it's concerned with those matters that are just and unjust yes Gorgas I suspected that this was the persuasion you meant and that these are the matters its persuasion about but so you won't be surprised if in a

moment I asked you again another question like this about what seems to be clear and yet I go on with my questioning as I say I'm asking questions so that we can conduct an orderly discussion it's not you I'm after it's to prevent our getting in the habit of second-guessing and watching each other's statements away ahead of time needs to allow you to work out your assumption in any way you want to yes I think that you're quite right to do this Socrates come then and Lex examine this point is there something you call to

have learned there is very well and also something you call to be convinced yes there is now do you think that to have learned and learning are the same as to be convinced and conviction or different I certainly suppose that they're different Socrates you suppose rightly this is how you can tell if someone asked you is there such a thing as true and false conviction Gorgas you would say yes I'm sure yes well now is there such a thing as true and false knowledge not at all so it's clear that they're not the same that's

true but surely both those who have learned and those who are convinced have come to be persuaded that's right would you like us then to posit two types of persuasion one providing conviction without knowledge the other providing knowledge yes I would now which type of persuasion does oratory produce in law courts and other gatherings concerning things that are just and unjust the one that results in being convinced without knowing or the one that results in knowing it's obvious surely that it's the one that results in conviction so evidently oratory produces the persuasion that comes from

being convinced and not the persuasion that comes from teaching concerning what's just and unjust yes and so an orator is not a teacher of law courts and other gatherings about things that are just and unjust either but merely a persuader for I don't suppose that he could teach such a large gathering about matters so important in a short time no he certainly couldn't well now let's see what we really saying about oratory for mind you even I myself can't get clear yet about what I'm saying when the city holds a meeting to appoint doctors or

shipbuilders or some other variety of craftsmen that surely not the time when the orator will give advice is it for obviously it's the most accomplished craftsman who should be appointed in each case nor will the orator be the one to give advice as a meeting that concerns the building of walls or the equipping of harbours or dock yards but the master builders will be the ones and when there is a deliberation about the appointment of generals or an arrangement of troops against the enemy or an occupation of territory it's not the orator 'z but the

generals who will give advice then what do you say about such cases Gorgas since you yourself claim both to be an orator and to make others orator will do well to find out from you the characteristics of your craft you must think of me now as eager to serve your interests who perhaps there's actually someone inside who wants to become your pupil I noticed some in fact a good many and they may well be embarrassed to question you so while you're being questioned by me consider yourself being questioned by them as well what will we

get if we associate with you Gor guess what will we be able to advise the city on only about what's just and unjust or also about the thing Socrates was mentioning just now try to answer them well Socrates I'll try to reveal to you clearly everything oratory can accomplish you yourself led the way nicely for you do know don't you that these doctors and Wars of the Athenians and the equipping of the harbor came about through the advice of Themistocles and in some case through that of Pericles but not through that of the craftsmen that's

what they say about for mr. Cleves Gorgas I myself heard Pericles when he advised us on the middle wall and whenever those craftsmen you were just now speaking of her appointed Socrates you see that the orators are the ones who give advice and whose views on these matters prevail yes Gorgas my amazement that led me long ago to ask what it is that Ora T oratory can accomplish for as I look at it it seems to me to be something supernatural in scope oh yes Socrates if only you knew all of it that it encompasses

and subordinates to itself just about everything that can be accomplished and I'll give you ample proof many a time I've gone with my brother or with other doctors to call on some sick person who refuses to take his medicine or allow the doctor to perform surgery or cauterization on him and when the doctor failed to persuade him I succeeded by means of no other craft than oratory and I maintained to that if an orator and a doctor came to any city anywhere you like and had to compete in speak and in the assembly or some

other gathering over which of them should be appointed doctor the doctor wouldn't make any shown at all but the one who had the ability to speak would be appointed if he so wished and if he were to compete with any other craftsmen whatever the orator more than anyone else would persuade them that they should appoint him for there isn't anything that the orator couldn't speak more persuasively about to a gathering then could any other Crossman whatever that's how great the accomplishment of his craft is and the sort of accomplishment it is one should however use

oratory like any other competitive skill Socrates in other cases to one or not to use a competitive skill against any and everybody just because he has learned boxing or books in him wrestling combined or fighting in armor so as to make himself be superior to his as well as to his enemies there's no reason to strike stab or kill one's own friends imagine someone who after attending wrestling school getting his body into good shape and becoming a boxer went on to strike his father and mother or any other family member or friend by Zeus that's

no reason to hate physical trainers and people who teach fighting in armor and to exile them from their cities for while these people imparted their skills to be used justly against enemies and wrongdoers and in defense not aggression their pupils pervert their strength and skill and misused them so it's not their teachers who are wicked nor does that make the craft guilty or wicked those who must use it surely are the wicked ones and the same is true for oratory as well the orator has the ability to speak against everyone on every subject so as

in gatherings to be more persuasive in short about anything he likes but the fact that he has the ability to rob doctors or other craftsmen of their reputations doesn't give him any more of a reason to do it he should use oratory justly as he would any competitive skill and I suppose that if a person who has become an orator goes on with this ability and this craft to commit wrongdoing we shouldn't hate his teacher and exile him from our cities for while the teacher imparted it to be used justly the pupil is making the

opposite use of it so it's the Mis user whom it's just to hate and exile or to put to death not the teacher Gorgas I take it that you like me have experienced many discussions and that you've observed this sort of thing about them it's not easy for the participants to define jointly what they're undertaken to discuss and so having learned from and taught each other to conclude their session instead if they're disputing some point and one maintains that the other isn't right or isn't clear they get irritated each thinking the other is speaking out

of spite they become eager to win instead of investigating the subject under discussion in fact in the end some have a most shameful parting of the ways abuse heaped upon them having given and gotten to hear such things that make even the bystanders upset with themselves for having thought it worth while to come to listen to such people what's my point in saying this is that I think you're now saying things that aren't very consistent or compatible with what you were first saying about oratory so I'm afraid to pursue my examination of you for fear

that you should take me to be speaking with eagerness to win against you rather than to have our subject become clear for my part I'd be pleased to continue questioning you if you're the same kind of man I am otherwise I would drop it and what kind of man am I one of those who would be pleased to be refuted if I say anything untrue and who would be pleased to refute anyone who says anything untrue one who however wouldn't be any less pleased to be refuted than to refute for I count being refuted a

greater good insofar as it is a greater good for oneself to be delivered from the worst thing there is then to deliver someone else from it I don't suppose there's anything quite so bad for a person as having false belief about the things we're discussing right now so if you say you're this kind of man too let's continue the discussion but if you think we should drop it let's be done with it and break off oh yes Socrates I say that I myself too and the sort of person you described still perhaps we should keep

in mind the people who are present here too for quite a while ago now even before you came I gave them a long presentation and perhaps we'll stretch things out too long if we continue the discussion we should think about them too so as not to keep any of them who want to do something else you yourselves hear the commotion these men are making Gorgas and Socrates they want to hear anything you have to say and as for myself I hope I'll never be so busy the odd for go discussions such as this conducted in

the way this one is because I find it more practical to do something else by the gods care ofin as a matter of fact I too though I've been present at many a discussion before now don't know if I've ever been so pleased as I am at the moment so if you're willing to discuss even if it's all day long you will be gratifying me for my part there's nothing stopping me Calla Cleese as long as Gorgas is willing it will be to my shame ever after Socrates if I weren't willing when I myself have

made the claim that anyone may ask me anything he wants all right if it suits these people carry on with the discussion and ask what you want well then Gorgas let me tell you what surprises me and the things you've said it may be that what you said was correct and that I'm not taking your meaning correctly do you say that you're able to make an orator out of anyone who wants to study with you yes so that he'll be persuasive in a gathering about all subjects not by teaching but by persuading yes that's right

you were saying just now mind you that the orator will be more persuasive even about health than the doctor yes I was more persuasive in a gathering anyhow and doesn't in a gathering just mean among those who don't have knowledge for among those who do have it I don't suppose that he'll be more persuasive than the doctor that's true now it will be more persuasive than a doctor doesn't he prove to be more persuasive than one who has knowledge yes that's right even though he's not a doctor right yes and a non doctor I take

it isn't knowledgeable in the thing in which a doctor is knowledgeable that's obvious so when an orator is more persuasive than a doctor an on NOAA will be more persuasive than a NOAA among non NOAA's isn't that exactly what follows yes it is at least in this case the same is true about the orator and oratory relative to the other crafts to then oratory doesn't mean to have any knowledge of the state of their subject matters it only needs to have discovered some device to produce persuasion in order to make itself appear to those who

don't have knowledge that it knows more than those who actually do have it well Socrates aren't things made very easy when you come off no worse than the craftsman even though you haven't learned any other craft but this one whether the orator does or does not come off worse than the others because of this being so we'll examine in a moment if it has any bearing on our argument for now let's consider this point first is it the case that the orator is in the same position with respect to what's just and unjust what shameful

and admirable what's good and bad as he is about what's healthy and about the subjects of the other crafts does he lack knowledge that is of what these are of what is good or what is bad of what is admirable or what is shameful or just or unjust does he employ devices to produce persuasion about them so that even though he doesn't know he seems among those who don't know either to know more than someone who actually does know or is it necessary for him to know and must the prospective student of oratory already be

knowledgeable in these things before coming to you and if he doesn't will you the oratory teacher not teach him any of these things when he comes to you for that's not your job and will you make him seem among most people to have knowledge of such things when in fact he doesn't have it and to seem good when in fact he isn't or won't you were to teach him oratory at all unless he knows the truth about these things to begin with how the must matters such as the Stan Gorgas yes by Zeus do give

us your revelation and tell us what oratory can accomplish just as you just now said you would well Socrates I suppose that if he really doesn't have this knowledge who'll learn these things from me as well hold it there you're right to say so if you make someone an orator it's necessary for him to know what's just on what's unjust Ivor beforehand or by learning it from you afterwards yes it is well a man who has learned carpentry is a carpenter isn't he yes and isn't a man who has learned music a musician yes and

a man who has learned medicine a doctor and isn't this so - by the same reasoning with the other crafts isn't a man who has learned a particular subject the sort of man his knowledge makes him yes he is and by this line of reasoning isn't a man who has learned what just the just man - yes absolutely and a just man does just things I take it yes now isn't an orator unnecessarily just and doesn't a just man necessarily want to do just things apparently so therefore an orator will never want to do what's

unjust no apparently not do you remember saying a little earlier that we shouldn't complain against physical trainers or exile them from our cities if the boxer uses his boxing skill to do what's unjust and that similarly if an orator uses his oratorical skill and justly we shouldn't complain against his teacher or banish him from the city but do so to the one who does what's unjust the one who doesn't use his oratorical skills properly was that said or not yes it was but now it appears that this very man the orator would never have done

what son just doesn't it yes it does and at the beginning of our discussion Gorgas it was said that oratory would be concerned with speeches not those about even and odd but about what's just and unjust right yes well at the time you said that I took it that oratory would never be an unjust thing since it always makes its speeches about justice but when a little later you were saying that the orator could also use oratory unjustly I was surprised and thought that your statements weren't consistent and so I made that speech in which

I said that if you like me think that being refuted is a profitable thing it would be worthwhile to continue the discussion but if you don't do let it drop but now as we subsequently examine the question you see for yourself too they agreed they're quite to the contrary the orator is incapable of using oratory unjustly and of being willing to do what's unjust by the dolt Gorgas it will take more than a short session to go through an adequate examination of how these matters stand really Socrates is what you're now saying about oratory what

you actually think of it or do you really think just because Gorgas was too ashamed not to concede you're further claimed that the orator also knows what just what's admirable and what's good and that if he came to him without already having this knowledge to begin with he said that he would teach him himself and then from this admission maybe some inconsistency crept into his statements just the thing that gives you delight you're the one who leads him on to face such questions who do you think would deny that he himself knows what's just and

would teach others to lead your argument so such an outcome is a sign of great rudeness most admirable polis it's not for nothing that we get ourselves companions and sons and so that when we ourselves have grown older and stumble you younger men might be on hand to straighten our lives up again both in what we do and what we say and if Gorgas and i are stumbling now and what we say well you're on hand to straighten us up again that's only right and if you think we are wrong to agree on it I'm

certainly willing to retract any of our agreements you liked provided that you're careful about just one thing what do you mean that you curb your long style of speech Pulis the star you tried using at first really won't I be free to say as much as I like you'd certainly be in a terrible way my good friend if upon coming to Athens where there's more freedom of speech than anywhere else in Greece you alone should miss out on it here but look at it the other way if you spoke at length and were unwilling to

answer what your ass wouldn't I be in a terrible way if I'm not to have the freedom to stop listening to you and leave but if you care at all about the discussion we've had and want to straighten it up please retract whatever you think best as I was saying just now take your turn in ask in and be and ask questions the way Gorgas and I did and subject me and yourself to refutation you say I take it that you know the same craft that Gorgas knows well don't you yes I do and don't

you also invite people to ask you each time whatever they like because you believe you're Lancer as one who has knowledge certainly so now please do whichever of these you like either ask questions or answer them very well I shall tell me Socrates since you think Gorgas is confused about oratory what do you say it is are you asking me what craft I say it is yes I am to tell you the truth Paulus I don't think it's a craft at all well then what do you think oratory is in the treatise that I read

recently is the thing that you say has produced craft what do you mean I mean a knack so you think oratory zanac yes I do unless you say it's something else a knack for what for producing a certain gratification and pleasure don't you think that oratory is an admirable thing then to be able to give gratification to people really polis have you already discovered from me what I say it is so that you go on to ask me next weather I don't think it's admirable haven't I discovered that you say it's a knack since you

value gratification would you like to gratify me on a small matter certainly ask me now what craft I think pastry bacon is all right I will what craft is pastry baking it is a monitory policy now say what is it then alright it's a knack say a knack for what alright for producing gratification and pleasure Pulis so oratory is the same thing as pastry baking oh no not at all although it is a part of the same practice what practice do you mean I'm afraid it may be rather crude to speak the truth I hesitate

to do so for Gorgas is sake for fear that he may think um satirizing what he practices i don't know whether this is the kind of oratory that Gorgas practices in fact in our discussion a while ago we didn't get it all clear on just what he thinks it is but what I call oratory is a part of some business that isn't admirable at all which ones that Socrates say it and don't spare my feelings world and Gorgas I think there's a practice that's not craft like but one that a mine given to making hunches

takes to a mind that's bold and naturally clever at dealing with people I call it flattery basically I think that this practice has many other parts as well and pastry baking too is one of them this part seems to be a craft but in my account of it it isn't a craft but a knack and a routine I call oratory a part of this too along with cosmetics and sophistry these are four parts and they're directed to four objects so if polish wants to discover them let him do so he hasn't discovered yet what sort

of part of flattery I say oratory is instead it's escaped him that I haven't answered that question yet and so he goes on to ask whether I don't consider it to be admirable and I won't answer him whether I think it's admirable or shameful until I first tell what it is that wouldn't be right pull us if however you do want to discover this ask me what sort of part of flattery I say oratory is I shall tell me what sort of part it is would you understand my answer by my reasoning oratory is an

image of a part of politics well are you saying that it's something admirable or shameful I'm saying that it's a shameful thing I call bad things shameful since I must answer you as though you already know what I mean by Zeus Socrates I myself don't understand what you mean either reasonably enough Gorgas I'm not saying anything clear yet this coat here is youthful and impulsive never mind him please tell me what you mean by saying that oratory is an image of a part of politics all right I've tried to describe my view of oratory if

this isn't what it actually is policy will refute me there is I take it something you call body and something you called soul yes of course and do you also think that there's a state of fitness for each of these yes I do all right is there also an apparent state of fitness one that isn't real the sort of thing I mean is this there are many people who appear to be physically fit and unless one is a doctor or one of the fitness experts one wouldn't readily notice that they're not fit that's true I'm

saying that this sort of thing exists in the case of both the body and the soul a thing that makes the body and the soul seem fit when in fact they aren't and even more so that's so come then and I'll show you more clearly what I'm saying if I can I'm saying that of this pair of subjects there are two crafts the one for the soul like all politics the one for the body though it is one I can't give you a name for offhand but while the care of the body is a single

craft I'm saying it has two parts gymnastics and medicine and in politics the counterpart of gymnastics is legislation and the part that corresponds to medicine is justice each member of these pairs has features in common with the other medicine with gymnastics and justice with the legislation because they're concerned with the same thing they do however differ in some way from each other these then are the four parts and they always provide care in the one case for the body in the other for the soul with a view to what's best now flattery takes notice of

them and I won't say by knowing but only by guessing divides itself into four masks itself with each of the parts and then pretends to be the characters of the masks it takes no thought at all of whatever is best with the law of what's most pleasant at the moment it sniffs out folly and hoodwink see today it gives the impression of be most deserving pastry bacon has put on the mask of medicine and pretends to know the foods that are best for the body so that if a pastry Baker in a doctor had to

compete in front of children or in front of men just as foolish as children to determine which of the two the doctor or the pastry baker had expert knowledge of good food and bad the doctor would die of starvation I'll call this flattery and I say that such a thing is shameful Polo's it's you I'm saying this too because it guesses at what's pleasant with no consideration for what's best and I say that it isn't a craft but a knack because it has no account of the nature of whatever things it applies by which it

applies them so that it's unable to state the cause of each thing and I refuse to call anything that lack such an account of craft if you have any quarrel with these claims I'm willing to submit them for discussion so pastry bacon as I say is the flattery that wears the mask of Medicine Cosmetics is the one that wears that of gymnastics in the same way a mischievous deceptive disgraceful an ill-bred thing one that perpetrates deception by means of shaping and coloring smoothing out and dressing up so as to make some people assume an alien

beauty and neglect their own which comes through gymnastics said I won't make a long style speech I'm willing to put it to you the way the geometers do for perhaps you follow me now that what cosmetics is to gymnastics pastry bacon is to medicine or rather like this what cosmetics is to gymnastics sophistry is to legislation and what pastry bacon is to medicine oratory is to justice however as I was saying although these activities are naturally distinct in this way yet because they are so close Sophists and auratus tend to be mixed together as people

who work in the same area and concern themselves with the same things they don't know what to do themselves and other people don't know what to do with them in fact if the soul didn't govern the body but the body governed itself and if pastry bacon and medicine weren't kept under observation and distinguished by the soul but the body itself made judgments about them making its estimates by reference to the gratification it receives then the world according to annex a giris would prevail or polish my friend you're familiar with these views all things would be

mixed together in the same place and there would be no distinction between matters of medicine and health and matters of pastry bacon you've now heard what I say oratory is it's the counterpart in the soul to pastry bacon its counterpart in the body perhaps I've done an absurd thing I wouldn't let you make long speeches in here I've just composed a lengthy one myself I deserve to be forgiven though for when I made my statement short she didn't understand and didn't know how to deal with the answers I gave you but you needed a narration

so if I don't know how to deal with your odds as either you must spin out a speech too but if I do let me deal with them that's only fair and if you know how to deal with my answer please deal with it what is it you're saying in them you think oratory is flattery I said that it was a part of flattery don't you remember Paulus young as you are what's to become of you do you think that good orator czar held in low regard in their cities as flatterers is this a question

you're asking or some speech your beginning I'm asking a question I don't think they're held in any regard at all what do you mean they're not held in any regard don't they have the greatest power in their cities no if by having power you mean something that's good for the one who has the power that's just what I mean in that case I think that orator z' have the least power of any in the city really don't they like tyrants put to death anyone they want and confiscate the property and banished from their cities anyone

they see fit by the dog Pulis I can't make out one way or the other with each thing you're saying whether you're saying these things for yourself and revealing your own view or whether you're questioning me I'm questioning you very well my friend in that case are you asking me two questions at once what do you mean - weren't you just now saying something like don't auratus like tyrants put to death anyone they want don't they confiscate the property of anyone they see fit and don't they banish them from their cities yes I was in

that case I say that these are two questions and I'll answer you both of them I say polish that both orators and tyrants have the least power in their cities as I was saying just now for they do just about nothing they want to though they certainly do whatever they see most fit to do well isn't this having great power no at least polish says it isn't I say it isn't I certainly say it is by you certainly don't since you say that having great power is good for the one who has it yes I

do say that don't you think it's good then if a person does whatever he sees most fit to do when he lacks intelligence don't you call this having great power - no I do not will you refute me then and prove that aura ters do have intelligence and the oratory is a craft and not flattery if you leave me unrefuted then the orators who do what they see fit in their cities and the tyrants too won't have gained any good by this power is a good thing you say but you agree with me that doing

what one sees fit without intelligence is bad or don't you yes I do how then could it be the auditors or tyrants have great power in their cities so long as Socrates is not refuted by Pallas to show that they do what they want this fellow denies that they do what they want go ahead and refute me then you just now agree that they do what they see fit yes and I still do don't they do what they want them I say they don't even though they do what they see fit that's what I say

one that rages thing to say Socrates perfectly monstrous don't attack me my peerless polis to address you in your own style instead question me if you can and prove that I'm wrong otherwise you must answer me all right I'm willing to answer to get some idea of what you're saying do you think that when people do something they want the thing they're doing at the time or the thing for the sake of which they do what they're doing do you think that people who take medicines prescribed by their doctors for instance want what they're doing

the act of taking the medicine with all its discomfort or do they want to be healthy the thing for the sake of which they're taking it obviously they want their being healthy with seafarers too and those who make money in other ways the thing they're doing at the time is not the thing they want for who wants to make dangerous and troublesome sea voyages what they want is their being wealthy the thing for the sake of which I suppose they make their voyages it's for the sake of wealth that they make them yes that's right

isn't it just the same in all cases in fact if a person does anything for the sake of something he doesn't want this thing that he's doing but the thing for the sake of which he's doing it yes now is there anything that isn't either good or bad or what is in between these neither good nor bad there can't be Socrates do you say that wisdom health wealth and the like are good and they're opposites bad yes I do and by things which are neither good nor bad do you mean things which sometimes partake of

what's good sometimes of what's bad and sometimes of neither such as sitting or walking running or making sea voyages or stones and sticks and the like aren't these the ones you mean or are there any others that you call things neither good nor bad no these are the ones now whenever people do things did I do these intermediate things for the sake of good ones or the good things for the sake of the intermediate ones the intermediate things for the sake of the good ones surely so it's because we pursue what's good that we walk

whenever we walk we suppose that it's better to walk and conversely whenever we stand still we stand still for the sake of the same thing what's good isn't that so yes and then we also put a person to death if we do or banish him or confiscate his property because we suppose that doing these things is better for us they're not doing them that's right hence it's for the sake of what's good that those who do these things do them I agree now they don't we agree that we want not those things that we do

for the sake of something but that's thing for the sake of which we do them yes very much so hence we don't simply want to slaughter people or exile them from their cities and confiscate their property as such we want to do these things if they are beneficial but if they're harmful we don't for we want things that are good as you agree and we don't want those that are neither good nor bad nor those that are bad right do you think that what I'm saying is true Paulo sore don't you why don't you answer

I think it's true since we're in agreement about that then if a person who's a tyrant or an orator puts somebody to death or excels him or confiscates his property because he supposes that doing so is better for himself when actually it's worse this person I take it is doing what he sees fit isn't he yes and is he also doing what he wants if these things are actually bad why don't you answer all right I don't think he's doing what he wants can such a man possibly have great power in that city if in

fact having great power is as you agree something good he cannot so what I was saying is true when I said that it is possible for a man who does in his city what he sees fear not to have great power nor to be doing what he wants really Socrates as if you wouldn't welcome being in a position to do what you see fit in the city rather than not as if you wouldn't be envious whenever you'd see anyone putting to death some person he saw fit or confiscating his property or tying him up justly

you mean or unjustly whichever way he does it isn't he to be envied either way oh hush Pallas what for because you're not supposed to Envy the unenviable or the miserable you're supposed to pity them really is this how you think it is with people I'm talking about of course so you think that a person who puts to death anyone he sees fit and does so justly is miserable and to be pitied no I don't but I don't think he's to be envied either weren't you just now saying that he's miserable yes the one who

put someone to death unjustly is my friend and he's to be pitied besides but the one who does so justly isn't to be envied surely the one who's put to death unjustly is the one who's both to be pitied and miserable less so than the one putting him to death polis and less than the one who's justly put to death how can that be Socrates it's because doing what's unjust is actually the worst thing there is really is that the worst isn't suffering what's unjust still worst no not in the least so you'd rather want

to suffer what's unjust then do it for my part I wouldn't want either but if it had to be one or the other I would choose suffering over doing what's unjust you wouldn't welcome being a tyrant then no if by being a tyrant you mean what I do I mean just what I said a while ago to be in a position to do whatever you see fit in the city whether it's putting people to death or exiling them or doing any and everything just as you see fit well my wonderful fellow I'll put you a

case and you criticize it imagine me in a crowded marketplace with the dagger up my sleeve saying to you Paulus I've just got myself some marvelous tyrannical power so if I see fit to have any one of these people you see here put to death right on the spot to death he'll be put and if I see fit to have one of them have his head bashed in bashed in it will be right away if I see fit to have his coat ripped apart ripped it will be that's how great my power in this city

is suppose you didn't believe me and I showed you the dagger on seeing it you'd be likely to say but Socrates everybody could have great power that way for this way anyhow you see fit might be burned down and so might the dockyards and ty reams of the Athenians and all their ships both public and private well then that's not what having great power is doing what one sees fit or do you think it is no at least not like that can you tell me what your reason is for objecting to this sort of power

yes I can what is it tell me is that the person who hacks this way is necessarily punished and isn't being punished a bad thing yes it really is well then my surprising fellow here again you take the view that as long as acting as one sees fit coincides with acting beneficially it is good and this evidently is having great power otherwise it is a bad thing and is having little power let's consider this point - do we agree that sometimes it's better to do those things we were just now talking about putting people to

death and banishing them and confiscating their property and at other times it isn't yes we do this point is evidently agreed upon by you and me both yes when do you say that it's better to do these things then tell me where you draw the line why don't you answer that question yourself Socrates well then polis if you find it more pleasing to listen to me I say that when one does these things justly it's better but when one does them unjustly it's worse how hard it is through a few you Socrates why even a

child could refute you and show that what you're saying isn't true in that case I'll be very grateful to the child and just as grateful to you if you refute me and rid me of this nonsense please don't falter now in doing a friend a good turn refute me surely Socrates we don't need to refer to ancient history to refute you why current events quite suffice to do that and to prove that many people who behave unjustly are happy what sorts of events are these you can picture this man ARCA Laius the son of purchase

ruling Macedonia I take it well if I can't picture him I do hear things about him do you think he's happy or miserable I don't know Pulis I haven't met the man yet really you'd know this if you had met him but without that you don't know straight off that he's happy no I certainly don't by Zeus it's obvious Socrates that you won't even claim to know that the great king is happy yes and that would be true for I don't know how he stands in regard to education and justice really is happiness determined entirely

by that yes Paulus so I say anyway I say that the admirable and good person man or woman is happy but that the one who's unjust and wicked is miserable so when you're reasoning this man arc Elias is miserable yes my friend if he is in fact unjust why of course he's unjust the sovereignty which he now holds doesn't belong to him at all given the fact that his mother was a slave of alka toss her de Casas brother by rights you were this was a slave of alka tests and if he wanted to do

what just he'd still be a slave to our curtis and on your reasoning would be happy as it is how marvelously miserable he's turned out to be now that he's committed the most heinous crimes first he sends for this man is very own master an uncle on the pretext of restoring him the sovereignty that Perdiccas had taken from him he entertains him gets him drunk both him and his son Alexander his own cousin and a boy about his own age he then throws them into a wagon drives it away at night and slaughters and disposes

of them both and although he's committed these crimes he remains unaware of how miserable he's become and feels no remorse either he refuses to become happy by justly bringing up his brother and conferring the sovereignty upon him the legitimate son of Perdue casts a boy of about seven to whom the sovereignty was by rights due to come instead not long afterward he throws him into a well and drowns him telling the boy's mother Cleopatra that he fell into the world chasing a goose and lost his life for this very reason now because he's committed the

most terrible of crimes of any in Macedonia he's the most miserable of all Macedonians instead of the happiest and no doubt there are some in Athens beginning with yourself who prefer being any other Macedonian to at all to being arc Elias already at the start of our discussion Paulist I praised you because I thought you were well educated in oratory but I also thought that you had neglected the practice of discussion and now is this all there is to the argument which even a child could refute me and do you suppose that when I say

that a person who acts unjustly is not happy I now stand refuted by you by means of this argument where did you get that idea my good man as a matter of fact I disagree with every single thing you say you're just unwilling to admit it you really don't think it's the way I say it is my wonderful man you're trying to refute me an oratorical style the way people in law courts do when they think they're refuting some claim they're to one side thinks it's refuting the other when it produces many reputable Witnesses on

behalf of the arguments it represents while the person who asserts the opposite produces only one witness or none at all this refutation is worthless as far as truth is concerned for it might happen sometimes that an individual is brought down by the force testimony of many reputable people now to nearly every Athenian and alien will take your side and the things you're saying if his witnesses you want to produce against me to show that what I say isn't true Nicky astir son of nicorette aswer testify for you if you like and his brothers along with

him the ones whose tripods are standing in a row in the precinct of Dionysus aristocracy's the son of Silius will too if you like the one to whom that handsome votive offering in the precinct of Pythian apollo belongs and so will the whole house of pericles if you like or any other local family you care to choose nevertheless though i'm only one person i don't agree with you you don't compel me instead you produce many false witnesses against me and try to banish me from my property the truth for my part if I don't produce

you as a single witness to agree with what I'm saying then I suppose I've achieved nothing worth mentioning concerning these things we've been discussing and I suppose you have an either if I don't testify on your side though I'm just one person you disregard all these other people there is them this style of refutation the one you and many others accept there's also another one that I accept let's compare the one with the other and see if they'll differ in any way it's true after all that the matters in dispute between us are not at

all insignificant ones but pretty nearly those it's most admirable to have knowledge about and most shameful not to for the heart of the matter is there of recognizing or failing to recognize who is happy and who is not to take first the immediate question our present discussions about you believe that it's possible for a man who behaves unjustly and who is unjust to be happy since you believe our Callias to be both unjust and happy are we to understand that this is precisely your view that's right and I say that that's impossible this is one

point in dispute between us fair enough although he acts unjustly he'll be happy that is if he gets his due punishment oh no certainly not that's how he'd be the most miserable but if a man who acts unjustly doesn't get his due then on your reasoning he'll be happy that's what I say on my view of it Paulus a man who acts unjustly a man who is unjust is thoroughly miserable the more so if he doesn't get his due punishment for the wrongdoing he commits the less so if he pays and receives what is due

at the hands of both gods and men what an absurd position you're trying to maintain Socrates yes and I'll try to get you to take the same position - my good man for I consider you a friend for now these are the points we different please look at them with me I said earlier didn't I that doing what unjust is worse than suffering it yes you did and you said that suffering it is worse yes and I said that those who do what's unjust are miserable was refuted by you you certainly were by Zeus so

you think polis so I truly think perhaps and again you think that those who do what's unjust are happy so long as they don't pay what is do I certainly do whereas I say that they're the most miserable why those who pay their due are less so would you like to refute this too why that's even more difficult to refute than the other claim Socrates not difficult surely pull us it's impossible what's true is never refuted what do you mean take a man who's caught doing something unjust say plotting to set himself up as a

tyrant suppose that he's caught put on the rack castrated and has his eyes burned out suppose that he's subjected to a host of other abuses of all sorts and then made to witness his wife and children undergo the same in the end he's impaled or Todd will he be happier than if he hadn't got caught and set himself up as a tyrant and lived out his life ruling in his City and doing whatever he liked a person envied and counted happy by fellow citizens and aliens alike is this what you say is impossible to refute

this time you're spooking me Pulis instead of refuting me just before you were arguing by testimony still refresh my memory on a small point if the man plots to set himself up as tyrant unjustly you said yes I did in that case neither of them will ever be the happier one neither the one who gains tyrannical power unjustly nor the one who pays what his due for of two miserable people one could not be happier than the other but the one who avoids getting caught and becomes a tyrant is the more miserable one what's this

Paulus you're laughing is this now some further style of refutation to laugh when somebody makes a point instead of refuting him don't you think you've been refuted already Socrates when you're saying things the likes of which no human being would maintain just ask one of these people Paulus I'm not one of the politicians last year I was elected to the council by lot and when our tribe was presiding and I had to call for a vote I came in for a laugh I didn't know how to do it so please don't tell me to call

for a vote from the people present here if you have no better refutations than these to offer do as I suggest it just now let me have my turn and you tried the kind of refutation I think is called for for I do know how to produce one witness to whatever I'm saying and that's the man I'm having a discussion with the majority I disregard and I do know how to call for a vote from one man but I don't even discuss things with the majority see if you'll be willing to give me a refutation

then by answering the questions you're asked for I do believe that you and I and everybody else consider doing what's unjust worse than suffering it and not paying what is jus worse than paying it and I do believe that I don't and that no other person does either so you'd take suffering what's unjust overdoing it would you yes and so would you and everyone else far from it I wouldn't you wouldn't and nobody else would either why don't you answer me then I certainly will I'm eager to know what you'll say in fact so that

you'll know answer me as though this were my first question to you which do you think is worse Pulis doing what's unjust or suffering it I think suffering it is you do which do you think is more shameful doing what's unjust or suffering it tell me doing it now if doing it is in fact more shameful isn't it also worse no not in the least I see evidently you don't believe that admirable and good are the same or there bad and shameful or no I certainly don't well what about this when you call all admirable

things admirable bodies for example or colors shapes and sounds or practices is it with nothing in view that you do so each time take admirable bodies first don't you call them admirable either in virtue of their usefulness relative to whatever it is that each is useful for or else in virtue of some pleasure if it makes the people who look at them get enjoyment from looking at them in the case of the Admiralty of a body can you mention anything other than these no I can't does the same hold for all the other things don't

you call shapes and colours admirable on account of either some pleasure or benefit or both yes I do doesn't this also hold for sounds and all things musical yes and certainly things that pertain to laws and practices the admirable ones that is don't fall outside the limits of being either Pleasant or beneficial or both I take it no I don't think they do doesn't the same hold for the Admiralty of the fields of learning - yes indeed yes Socrates your present definition of the admirable in terms of pleasure and good is an admirable one and

so is my definition of the shameful in terms of the opposite pain and bad isn't it necessarily so therefore whenever one of two admirable things is more admirable than the other it is so because it surpasses the other either in one of these pleasure or benefit or in both yes that's right and whenever one of two shameful things is more shameful than the other it will be so because it surpasses the other in pain or in badness isn't that necessarily so yes well now what were you saying a moment ago about doing what's unjust and

suffering it weren't you saying that suffering it is worse but doing it more shameful I was now--if doing what unjust is in fact more shameful than suffering it wouldn't it be so either because it is more painful and surpasses the other in pain or because it surpasses it in bad missile both isn't that necessarily so - of course it is let's look at this first does doing what's unjust surpass suffering it in pain and do people who do it hurt more than people who suffer it no Socrates that's not the case at all so it

doesn't surpass it in pain anyhow certainly not so if it doesn't surpass it in pain it couldn't at this point surpass it in both apparently not this leaves it surpassing only and the other thing yes in badness evidently so because it surpasses it in badness doing what unjust would be worse than suffering it that's clear now didn't the majority of mankind and you earlier agree with us that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it yes and now at least it's turned out to be worse evidently would you then welcome what's worse and what's

more shameful over what is less so don't shrink back from answering Paulus you won't get hurt in any way submit yourself nobly to the argument as you would to a doctor and answer me say yes or no to what I ask you no I wouldn't Socrates and would any other person no I don't think so not on this reasoning anyhow I was right then when I said that neither you nor I nor any other person would take doing what's unjust over suffering it for it really is something worse so it appears so you see polis

that when the one refutation is compared with the other there is no resemblance at all whereas everyone but me agrees with you you are all I need although you're just a party of one for your agreement and testimony it's you alone whom I call on for a vote the others I disregard let this be our verdict on this matter then let's next consider the second point in dispute between us that is whether a wrongdoers paying what his due is the worst worst thing there is as you were supposing or whether he's not paying it is

even worse as I was let's look at it this way are you saying that paying what is jus and being justly disciplined for wrongdoing are the same thing yes I do can you say then that all just things aren't admirable insofar as they are just think carefully and tell me yes I think they are consider this point too if somebody acts upon something there also has to be something that has something done to it by the one acting upon it yes I think so and that it has done to it what the thing acting upon

it does and in the sort of way this thing acting upon it does it I mean for example that if somebody hits there has to be something that's being hit there has to be and if the hitter hits hard or quickly the thing being hit is hit that way too yes so the thing being hit it gets acted upon in whatever way the hitting thing acts upon it yes that's right so too if somebody performs surgical burning then there has to be something that's being burned of course and if you burn severely or painfully the

thing that's being burned is burned in whatever way the burning thing burns it that's right doesn't the same account also hold if a person makes a surgical cut for something is being cut yes and if the cut is large or deep or painful thing being cut is cut in whatever way the cutting thing cuts it so it appears summing it up see if you agree with what I was saying just now that in all cases in whatever way the thing acting upon something acts upon it the thing acted upon is acted upon in just that

way yes I do agree taking this has agreed is paying what is jus a case of being acted upon or of acting upon something it must be a case of being acted upon Socrates by someone who acts of course by the one administering discipline now one who disciplines correctly disciplines justly yes thereby acting justly or not yes justly so the one being disciplined is being acted upon justly when he pays what is due apparently and it was agreed I take it that just things are admirable that's right so one of these men does admirable things

and the other the one being discipline has admirable things done to him yes if they're admirable then aren't they good for their either Pleasant or beneficial necessarily so hence the one paying what his due has good things being done to him evidently hence he's being benefited yes in this case the one I take it to be does his soul under goal improvement if he's just Li disciplined yes that's likely hence one who pays what is due gets rid of something bad in his soul yes now is the bad thing he gets rid of the most

serious one consider it this way in the matter of a person's financial condition do you detect any bad thing other than poverty no just poverty what about that of a person's physical condition would you say that what is bad here consists of weakness disease ugliness and the like yes I would do you believe that there's also some corrupt condition of the soul of course and don't you call this condition injustice ignorant cowardice and the like yes certain of these three things one's finances one's body and one soul you there are three states of corruption namely

poverty disease and injustice yes which of these states of corruption is the most shameful isn't it injustice and corruption of one's soul in general very much so and if it's the most shameful it's also the worst what do you mean Socrates I mean this what we agreed on earlier implies that what's most shameful is so always because it's the source either of the greatest pain or of harm or of both very much so and now we've agreed that injustice and corruption of soul as a whole is the most shameful thing so we have so either

it's most painful and is most shameful because it surpasses the others in pain or else in harm or in both necessarily so now is being unjust undisciplined cowardly and ignorant more painful than being poor or sick no I don't think so Socrates given what we've said anyhow so the reason that corruption of one soul is the most shameful of them all is that it surpasses the others by some monstrously great harm and astounding badness since it doesn't surpass them in pain according to your reason so it appears but what is surpassing in greatest harm would

I take it certainly be the worst thing there is yes injustice then lack of discipline and all other forms of corruption of soul are the worst thing there is apparently so now what is the craft that gets rid of poverty isn't it that of financial management yes what's the one that gets rid of disease isn't it that of medicine necessarily what the one that gets rid of corruption and injustice if you're stuck logically look at it this way we're into whom do we take people who are physically sick to doctors Socrates where do we take

people who behave unjustly and without discipline - judges you mean isn't it so they'll pay what's due yes I agree now don't those who administer discipline correctly employer cut employer kind of justice in doing so that's clear it's financial management then that gets rid of poverty medicine that gets rid of disease and justice that gets rid of injustice and indisciplined apparently which of these now is the most admirable of which do you mean or financial management medicine and justice justice is by far socrates doesn't it in the case provide either the most pleasure or benefit

or both if it really is the most admirable yes now is getting medical treatment something pleasant the people who get it enjoy getting it no I don't think so but it is beneficial isn't it yes because they're getting rid of something very bad so that it's worth their while to enjoy the pain and so get well of course now would a man be happiest as far as his body goes if he's under treatment or if he weren't even sick to begin with if he weren't even sick obviously because happiness evidently isn't a matter of getting

rid of something bad it's rather a matter of not even contracting it to begin with that's oh very well of two people each of whom has something bad in either body or soul which is the more miserable one the one who is treated and gets rid of the bad thing or the one who doesn't but keeps him the one who isn't treated it seems to me now wasn't paying what's due getting rid of the worst thing there is corruption it was yes because such injustice makes people self-control die take it and more just it proves

to be a treatment against corruption yes the happiest man then is the one who doesn't have any badness in his soul that this has been shown to be the most serious kind of badness that's clear and second I suppose is the man who gets rid of it evidently this is the man who gets lectured and lashed the one who pays what his do yes the man who keeps hidden and who doesn't get rid of it is the one whose life is the worst apparently isn't this actually the man who although he commits the most serious

crimes and uses methods that are most unjust succeeds in avoiding being lectured and disciplined and paying his due as our coleus according to you and the other tyrants orators and potentates have put themselves in a position to do evidently yes my good man I take it that these people have managed to accomplish pretty much the same thing as a person who has contracted very seriously illnesses but by avoiding treatment manages to avoid paying what's due to the doctors for his bodily faults fearing as would a child cauterization or surgery because their painful don't you think

so too yes I do it's because he evidently doesn't know what health and bodily excellence are liked from the basis of what we're now agreed on it looks as though those who avoid paying what is Jew also did the same sort of thing policy they focus on its painfulness but are blind to its benefit and are ignorant of how much more miserable it is to live with an unhealthy soul than with an unhealthy body a soul that's rotten with injustice and impiety this is also the reason they go to any lengths to avoid paying what

is due and getting rid of the worst thing there is they find themselves funds and Friends and ways to speak as persuasively as possible now with what we're agreed in is true Pulis are you aware of what things follow from our argument or would you like us to set them out yes if you think we should anyhow does it follow that injustice and doing what is uncharged is the worst thing there is yes apparently and it has been shown that paying what is jus is what gets rid of this bad thing so it seems and

that if it isn't paid the bad thing is retained yes so doing what's unjust is the second worst thing not paying what's jus and one has done what's unjust is by its nature the first worst thing the very worst of all evidently now wasn't this the point in dispute between us my friend you considered our Kalle as happy a man who committed the gravest crimes without paying what was jus whereas I took the opposite view that whoever avoids paying his Jew for his wrongdoing whether he's Ark Elias or any other man is and deserves to

be miserable beyond all other men and that one who does what's unjust is always more miserable than the one who suffers it and the one who avoids paying what's due always more miserable than the one who does pay it weren't these the things I said yes hasn't it been proved that what was said is true apparently fair enough if these things are true then Pulis what is the great use of oratory from the basis of what we're agreed on now what a man should guard himself against most of all is doing what's unjust knowing that

he will have trouble enough if he does isn't that so yes that's right and if he or anyone else he cares about acts unjustly he should voluntarily go to the place where he'll pay his due as soon as possible he should go to the judge as though he were going to a doctor anxious that the disease of injustice should be protracted and cause his soul to fester incurably what else can we say pull us if our previous agreements really stand on these statements necessarily consistent with our earlier ones in only this way well yes Socrates

what else are we to say so if orator is used to defend injustice polis one's own or that of one's relatives companions or children or that of one's country when it acts on justly it is of no use to us at all unless one takes it to be useful for the opposite purpose that he should accuse himself first and foremost and then to his family and anyone else dear to him who happens to behave unjustly at any time and that he should not keep his wrongdoing hidden but bring it out into the open so that

he may pay his due and get well and compel himself and the others not to play the coward but to grit his teeth and present himself with grace and courage as to a doctor for cauterization and surgery pursuing what's good and Amaral without taking any account of the pain and if his unjust behavior merits flogging he should present himself to be whipped if it merits imprisonment to be imprisoned if a fine to pay it if exile to be exiled and if execution to be executed he should be his own chief accuser and the accuser of

other members of his family and use his oratory for the purpose of getting rid of the worst thing there is injustice as the unjust acts are being exposed are we to affirm or deny this polis I think these statements are absurd Socrates don't no doubt you think they agree with those expressed earlier then either we should abandon those or else these necessarily follow yes that's how it is and on the other hand to reverse the case suppose a man had to harm someone an enemy or anybody at all provided that he didn't suffer anything unjust

from this enemy himself for this is something to be on guard against if the enemy did something unjust against another person then our man should see to it in every way both in what he does and what he says his enemy does not go to the judge and pay his due and if he does go he should scheme to get his enemy off without paying what Jew if he stolen a lot of gold he should scheme to get him not to return it but to keep it and spend it in an unjust and godless way

both on himself and his people and if his crimes merit the death penalty he should scheme to keep him from being executed preferably never to die at all but to live forever in corruption but failing that to have him live as long as possible in that condition yes this is a sort of thing I think oratory is useful for Paulus since for the person who has no intention of behaving unjustly it doesn't seem to me to have much use if in fact it has any use at all since its usefulness hasn't in any way become

apparent so far tell me Carl Orff on his Socrates in earnest about this or is he joking I think he's in dead earnest about this color Cleese there's nothing like asking him though by the gods just the thing I'm eager to do tell me Socrates are we to take you as being an earnest now or joking for if you are in earnest and these things you're saying are really true won't this human life of ours be turned upside down and want everything we do evidently be the opposite of what we should do well Kelly Cleese

if human beings didn't share common experiences some sharing one others sharing another but one of us had some unique experience not shared by others it wouldn't be easy for him to communicate what he experienced to the others I say this because I realized that you and I are both now actually sharing a common experience each of the two of us is a lover of two objects I of alka by our days clinical son and of philosophy and you of the day mass of Athens and the Dame us who's the son of Pyrrha Lumpy's I noticed

that in each case you're unable to contradict your beloved although you are no matter what he says or what he claims is so you keep shifting back and forth if you say anything in the assembly and the Athenian day must denies it you shift your ground and say what it wants to hear other things like this happen to you when you're with that good-looking young man the son of pure Lumpy's you're unable to oppose what your beloved say or propose so that if someone heard you say what you do on their account and was amazed

at how absurd that is you'll probably say if you're minded to tell him the truth that unless somebody stops your beloved's from saying what they say you'll never stop saying these things either in that case you must believe that you're bound to hear me say things like that too and instead of being surprised at my saying them you must stop my beloved philosophy from saying them for she always says what you now hear me say my dear friend and she's by far less fickle than my other beloved as for that son of cleanliness what he

says differs from one time to the next but what philosophy says always stays the same and she's saying things that now astound you although you were present when they were said so either refute her and show that doing what's unjust without paying what his due for it is not the ultimate of all bad things as I just now was saying it is or else if you leave this unrefuted then by the dog the God of the Egyptians Kelly Cleese will not agree with you Kelly Cleese but will be dissonant with you all your long life

and yet for my part my good man I think it's better to have my lyre or a chorus that I might lead out of tune and dissonant and have the vast majority of men disagree with me and contradict me than to be out of harmony with myself to contradict myself though I'm only one person Socrates I think you're grandstanding in these speeches acting like a true crowd-pleaser here you are playing to the crowd now that Paulus has had the same thing happened to him that he accused Gorgas of letting you to him for he said

didn't he that when Gorgas was asked by you whether he would teach anyone who came to him wanting to learn oratory but without expertise in what's just Gorgas was ashamed and out of deference to human custom since people would take it ill if a person refused said that he'd teach them and because Gorgas agreed on this point he said he was forced to contradict himself just the thing you like he ridiculed you at the time and rightly so as I think anyhow and now the very same thing has happened to him and for this same

reason I don't approve of Paulus he agreed with you that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it as a result of this admission he was bound and gagged by you in the discussion too ashamed to say what he thought although you claim to be pursuing the truth you're in fact bringing the discussion around to the sort of crowd-pleasing vulgarities that are admirable only by law and not by nature and these nature and law are for the most part of posed to each other so if a person is ashamed and doesn't dare say what

he thinks he's forced to contradict himself this is in fact the clever trick you've thought of with which you work mischief in your discussions if a person makes a statement in terms of law you slyly question him in terms of nature if he makes in terms of nature you question him in terms of law that's just what happened here on the question of doing what unjust versus suffering it while polis meant that doing it is more shameful by law you pursued the argument as though he meant by nature for by nature all that is worse

is also more shameful like suffering what's unjust whereas by law doing it is more shameful no no man would put up with suffering what's unjust only a slave would do so one who is better dead than alive who when he's treated unjustly and abused can't protect himself or anyone else he cares about I believe that the people who Institute our laws are the week and the many so they Institute laws and assigned praise and blame with themselves and their own advantage in mind as way of frightening the more powerful among men the ones who are

capable of having a greater share out of getting a greater share than they they say that getting more than one share is shameful and unjust and that doing what's unjust is nothing but trying to get more than one share I think they like getting an equal share since they are inferior these are the reasons why trying to get a greater share than most is said to be unjust and shameful by law and why they call it doing what's unjust but I believe that nature itself reveals that it's adjusting for the better man and the more

capable man to have a greater share than the worst man and the less capable man nature shows this is so in many places both among the other animals and in whole cities and races of men it shows that this is what justice has been decided to be that the superior all the inferior and have a greater share than they for what sort of justice desert sees go by when he campaigned against Greece or his father when he campaigned against ski theá-- countless other such examples could be mentioned I believe that these men do these things

in accordance with the nature of what's just yes by Zeus in accordance with the law of nature and presumably not with the one we Institute we mode the best and the most powerful among us taking them while they're still young like lion cubs and with charms and incantations we subdue them into slavery telling them that one is supposed to get no more than his fair share and that that's what's admirable and just but surely if a man whose nature is equal to it arises he will shake off tear apart and escape all this he would

trample underfoot our documents our tricks and charms and all our laws that violate nature he the slave will rise up and be revealed as our master here the justice of nature will shine forth I think Pindar too refers to what I'm saying in that song in which he says Lord the king of all of mortals and the immortal gods this he says brings on and renders just what is most violent with towering hand I take as proof of this the deeds of Heracles for he unborn his words are something like that I don't know this

song well he says that Heracles drove off Garen's cattle even though he hadn't paid for them and Garin hadn't given them to him on the ground that this is what's just by nature and that cattle and all the other possessions of those who are worse and inferior belong to the one who's better and superior this is the truth of the matter as you will acknowledge if you abandon philosophy and move on to more important things philosophy is no doubt a delightful thing Socrates as long as one is exposed to it in moderation at the appropriate

time of life but if one spends more time with it than he should it's a man's undoing for even if one is naturally well favored but engages in philosophy far beyond that appropriate time of life he can't help but turn out to be inexperienced in everything a man who's to be admirable and good and well thought of is supposed to be experienced in such people turn out to be inexperienced in the laws of their City or in the kind of speech one must use to deal with people on matters of business whether in public or

private inexperienced also in human pleasures and appetites and ensure inexperienced in the ways of human beings altogether so when they venture into some cry for political activity they become a laughingstock as I suppose men in politics do when they venture into your pursuits and your kind of speech what results is Euripides saying where he says that each man shines in this and presses on to this allotting the greatest part of the date of this where he finds himself at his best and whatever a man's inferior in he avoids and rails against while he praises the

other thing thinking well of himself and supposing that in this way he's praising himself I believe however that it's most appropriate to have a share of both to partake of as much philosophy as your education requires is an admirable thing and it's not shameful to practice philosophy while you're a boy but when you still do it after you've grown older and become a man the thing gets to be ridiculous Socrates my own reaction to men who philosophize is very much like - like that - men who speak haltingly and play like children when I see

a child for whom it's still quite proper to make conversation this way halting in its speech and playing like a child I'm delighted I find it a delightful thing a sign of good breeding an appropriate for the child's age and when I hear a small child speaking clearly I think it's a harsh thing it hurts my ears I think it is something fit for a slave but when one hears a man speaking haltingly or sees him playing like a child it strikes me as ridiculous and unmanly deserving of a flogging now I react in the

same way to men who engage in philosophy - when I see philosophy and a young boy I approve of it I think is appropriate and consider such a person well-bred whereas I consider one who doesn't engage in philosophy ill-bred one who will never cut himself deserving of any admirable or noble thing but when I see an older man still engaging in philosophy and not giving it up I think such a man by this time needs a flogging for as I was just now saying it's typical that such a man even if he's naturally very well

favored becomes unmanly and avoids the centres of his City and the market places in which according to the poet men attained preeminence and instead lives the rest of his life high whispering in a corner with three or four boys never uttering anything well-bred important or apt Socrates I do have a rather warm regard for you I find myself feeling what Zeze thooose whose words I record just now felt toward Amphion in Euripides play in fact the sorts of things he said to his brother come to my mind to say to you you're neglecting the things

you should devote yourself to Socrates and though your spirits nature is so noble you show yourself to the world in the shape of a boy you couldn't put a speech together correctly before counsels of justice or utter any plausible or persuasive sound nor could you make any bold proposal on behalf of anyone else and so then my dear Socrates please don't be upset with me for it's with goodwill towards you that I'll say this don't you think it's shameful to be the way I take you to be and others who ever press on too far

in philosophy as it is if someone got hold of you or of anyone else like you and took you off to prison on the charge that you're doing something unjust when in fact you are be assured that you wouldn't have any use for yourself you'd get dizzy your mouth would hang open and you wouldn't know what to say you had come up for trial and faced some no-good wretch of an accuser and be put to death if death is what he'd want to condemn you to and yet Socrates how can this be a wise thing

the craft which took a well favored man and made him worse able neither to protect himself nor to rescue himself or anyone else from the gravest dangers to be robbed of all his property by his enemies and to live a life with absolutely no rights in his City such a man one could knock on the jaw without paying what's due for it to put it rather crudely listen to me my good man and stop this refuting practice the sweet music of an active life and do it where you'll get a reputation for being intelligent leave

these subtleties to others whether we should call them just silly or outright nonsense which will cause you to live in empty houses and envy not those men who refute such trivia but those who have life and renown and many other good things as well if I actually had a soul made of gold Kelly Cleese don't you think I'd be pleased to find one of those stones on which they test gold and if this stone to which I intended to take my soul where the best stone and it agreed that my soul had been well cared

for don't you think I could know well at that point that I'm in good shape and need no further tests what's the point of your question Socrates I'll tell you I believe that by running into you I've run into just such a piece of luck why do you say that I know well that if you concur with what my soul believes then that is the very truth I realize that a person who is going to put a soul to an adequate test to see whether it lives rightly or not must have three qualities all of

which you have knowledge good will and frankness I run into many people who aren't able to test me because they're not wise like you others are wise but they're not willing to tell me the truth because they don't care for me the way you do as for these two visitors Gorgas and Paulus they're both wise and fond of me but rather more lacking in frankness and more ashamed and they should be no wonder they've come to such a depth of shame that because they are ashamed each of them dares to contradict himself face to face

with many people and on topics of the greatest importance you have all these qualities which the others don't you're well enough educated as many of the Athenians would attest and you have good will toward me what's my proof of this I'll tell you I know Kelly Cleese that there are four of you who've become partners in wisdom you tesander of a fydd knee under on the son of and Roshan and no Saku days of collages once I overheard you deliberating on how far one should cultivate wisdom and I know that some such opinion as this

was winning out among you you called on each other not too enthusiastically pursue philosophizing to the point of pedantry but to be careful not to become wiser than necessary and so inadvertently bring yourselves to ruin so now that I hear you giving me the same advice you gave your closest companions I have sufficient proof that you really do have goodwill toward me and as to my claim that you're able to speak frankly without being ashamed you yourself say so and the speech you gave a moment ago bears you out it's clear then that this is

how these matters stand at the moment if there is any point in our discussion on which you agree with me then that point will have been adequately put to the test by you and me and it will not be necessary to put it to any further tests for you'd never have concealed the point through lack of wisdom or excess of shame and you wouldn't do so by lying to me either you are my friend as you yourself say - so our mutual agreement will really lay hold of truth in the end most admirable of all

Cal achlys is the examination of those issues about which you took me to task that of what a man is supposed to be like and of what he's supposed to devote himself to and how far when he's older and when he's young for my part if I engage in anything that's improper in my own life please know well that I do not make this mistake intentionally but out of my ignorance so don't leave off lecturing me the way you began but show me clearly what it is I'm to devote myself to and in what way

I might come by it if you catch me agreeing with you now but at a later time not doing the very things I've agreed upon then take me for a very stupid fellow and don't bother ever afterward with lecturing me on the I'm a worthless fellow please restate your position for me from the beginning what is it that you and Pindar hold to be true of what's just by nature that the superior should take by force what belongs to the inferior that the better should rule the worse and the more worthy have a greater share

than the less worthy you're not saying anything else are you I do remember correctly yes that's what I was saying then and I still say so now too is the same man you called both better and superior I wasn't able then either to figure out what you meant is it the stronger ones you call superior and should those who are weaker take orders from the ones who's stronger that's what I think you were trying to show then also when you said that large cities attack small ones according to what's just by a nature because they're

superior and stronger assuming that superior stronger and better are the same or is it possible for one to be better and also inferior and weaker or greater but more wretched or do better and superior have the same definition please define this for me clearly our superior better and stronger the same or are they different very well I'm telling you clearly that they're the same now aren't the many superior by nature to the one they're the ones who in fact imposed the laws upon the one as you were saying yourself a moment ago of course so

the rules of the many are the rules of the superior yes they are aren't they the rules of the better for by your reasoning I take it the superior are better yes and aren't the rules of these people admirable by nature seeing that they're the superior ones that's my view now isn't it a rule of the many that it's just to have an equal share and that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it as you yourself were saying just now is this so or not be careful that you in your turn don't get

caught being ashamed now do the many observe or do they not observe the rule that it's just to have an equal and not a greater share and that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it don't grudge me your answer to this Kelly Cleese so that if you agree with me I may have my confirmation from you seeing that it's the agreement of a man competent to pass judgment all right that many do have that rule it's not only by law then that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it or just to

have an equal share but it's so by nature to so it looks as though you weren't saying what's true earlier and weren't right to accuse me when you said that nature and law were opposed to each other and that I well aware of this a making mischief in my statements taking any statement someone makes meant in terms of nature in terms of law and any statement meant in terms of law in terms of nature this man will not stop talking nonsense tell me Socrates aren't you ashamed at your age of trying to catch people's words

and of making hay out of someone's tripping on a phrase do you take me to mean by people being superior anything else then there being better haven't I been telling you all along that by better and superior I mean the same thing or do you suppose that I'm saying that if a rubbish heap of slaves and motley men worthless except perhaps in physical strength gets together and makes any statements then these are the rules fair enough wisest Cal achlys is this what you're saying it certainly is well my marvelous friend I guess some time ago

they did some such thing you mean by superior and I'm questioning you because I'm intent upon knowing clearly what you mean I don't really suppose that you think two are better than one or that your slaves are better than you just because they're stronger than you tell me once more from the beginning what do you mean by the better seeing that it's not the stronger and my wonderful man go easy on me in your teaching so that I won't quit your school you're being ironic Socrates no I'm not kal achlys by they'l by Zaius the

character you were invoking and be and I run it with me so often just now but come and tell me whom do you mean by the better I mean the worthier so do you see that you yourself are uttering words without making anything clear won't you say whether by the better and the superior you mean the more intelligent or some others yes by Zeus they're very much the ones I mean so on your reason it will often be the case that a single intelligent person is superior to countless unintelligent ones that this person should rule

and they should be ruled and that the one ruling should have a greater share than the ones being ruled this is the meaning I think you intend and I'm not trying to catch you with a phrase if the one is superior to these countless others yes that's what I do mean this is what I take the just by nature to be that the better one the more intelligent one that is both rules over and has a greater share than his inferiors hold it right there what can your meaning be this time suppose you were assembled

together in great numbers in the same place as we are now and we held in common a great supply of food and drink and suppose we were a motley group some strong and some weak but one of us being a doctor was more intelligent about these things he would very likely be stronger than some and weaker than others now this man being more intelligent than we are will certainly be better and superior in these matters yes he will so should he have a share of this food greater than ours because he's better or should he

be the one to distribute everything because he's in charge but not to get a greater share to consume and use up on his own body if he's to escape being punished or shouldn't he instead have a greater share than some and a lesser one than others and if he should happen to be the weakest of all shouldn't the best man have the least share of all calories isn't this so my good man you keep talking of food and drink and doctors and such nonsense that's not what I mean don't you mean that the more intelligent

one is the better one say yes or no yes I do but not that the better should have a greater share not with food or drink anyhow I see of cloves perhaps shouldn't the Weaver have the biggest garment and go about wearing the greatest number and the most beautiful clothes what do you mean clothes but when it comes to shoes obviously the most intelligent the best man in that area should have the greater share perhaps the cobbler should walk around with the largest and greatest number of shoes on what do you mean shoes you keep

on with this nonsense well if that's not the sort of thing you mean perhaps it's this take a farmer am an intelligent and admirable and good about land perhaps he should have the greater share of seed and used the largest possible quantity of it on his own land how you keep on saying the same thing Socrates yes Cala Cleese not only the same things but also about the same subjects by the gods you simply don't let up on your continual talk or shoemakers and cleaners cooks and doctors as if our discussion were about them won't

you say whom it's about then what does the superior the more intelligent man have a greater share of and have it justly will you neither bear with my promptings nor tell me yourself I've been saying it all along first of all by the ones who are the superior I don't mean cobblers or cooks but those who are intelligent about the affairs of the city about the way it's to be well managed and not only intelligent but also brave competent to accomplish whatever they have in mind without slacking off because of softness of spirit do you

see my good color Cleese that you and I are not accusing each other of the same thing you claim that I'm always saying the same things and you criticize me for it whereas I just the opposite of you claim that you never say the same things about the same subjects at one time you were defining the better in the superior as the stronger then again as the more intelligent and now you've come up with something else again whose appear and the better are now said by you to be the braver but tell me my good

fellow once and for all whom you mean by the better and the superior and what their better and superior in but I've already said that I mean those who are intelligent in the affairs of the city and brave too it's fitting that they should be the ones who rule their cities and what's just is that they as the rulers should have a greater share than the others the rule but what of themselves my friend what of what ruling or being ruled what do you mean I mean each individual ruling himself or is there no need

at all for him to rule himself but only to rule others what do you mean rule himself nothing very subtle just what the many mean being self controlled and master of oneself ruling the pleasures and appetites within oneself how delightful you are by the self control do you mean the stupid ones how so there's no one who'd failed to recognize that I mean no such thing yes you do Socrates very much so how could a man prove to be happy if he's enslaved to anyone at all rather this is what's admirable and just by Nature

and I'll say it to you now with all frankness that the man who lived correctly ought to allow his own appetites to get as large as possible and not restrain them and when they are as large as possible he ought to be competent to devote himself to them by virtue of his bravery and intelligence and to fill them with what we may have an appetite for at the time but this is impossible for the many I believe hence they become detractors of people like this because of the shame they feel while they conceal their own

impotence and they say that lack of discipline is shameful as I was saying earlier and so they enslave men who are better by Nature and while they themselves lack the ability to provide for themselves fulfillment for their pleasures their own lack of courage leads them to praise self-control and justice as for all those who were either sons of kings to begin with or else naturally competent to secure some position of rule for themselves as tyrants or potentates what in truth could be more shameful and worse than self-control and justice for these people who although they

are free to enjoy good things without any interference should bring as master upon themselves the law of the many their talk and their criticism or how could they exist without becoming miserable under that admirable regime of justice and self-control a lot in no greater share to their friends than to their enemies and in this way rule in their cities rather the truth of it Socrates the thing you claim to pursue is like this wantonness lack of discipline and freedom if available in good supply our excellence and happiness as for these other things these fancy phrases

these contracts of men that go against nature they're worthless nonsense the way you pursue your argument speaking frankly as you do certainly does you credit Cal achlys for you are now saying clearly what others are thinking but are unwilling to say I beg you they're not to relax in any way so that it may really become clear how we're to live tell me are you saying that if a person is to be the kind of person he should be he shouldn't restrain his appetites but let them become as large as possible and then should procure

their fulfilment from some source or other that this is excellence yes that's what I'm saying so then those who have no need of anything are wrongly said to be happy yes for in that case stones and corpses would be happiest but then the life of those people you call happiest is a strange one too I shouldn't be surprised that Euripides lines are true when he says but who knows whether being alive is being dead and being dead is being alive perhaps in reality we're dead once I even heard one of the wise men say that

we are now dead and that our bodies are our tombs and that the part of our souls in which our appetites reside is actually the sort of thing to be open to persuasion and to shift back and forth and hence some clever man a teller of stories a Sicilian perhaps or an Italian named this part of a jar on account of its being a persuadable and suggestible thing thus slightly changing the name and fools he named uninitiated suggesting that that part of the souls of fools where their appetites are located is their undisciplined part one

not tightly closed a leaking jar as it were he based the image on its insatiability now this man Kelley is quite to the contrary of your view shows that the people in Hades meaning the unseen these the uninitiated ones would be the most miserable they would carry water into the leaking jar using another leaky thing a sieve that's why by the sieve he means the soul as the man who talked with me claimed and because they leak he likened the souls of fools to sieves for their untrustworthiness and forgetfulness makes them unable to retain anything

this account is on the whole a bit strange but now that I've shown it to you it does make clear what I want to persuade you to change your mind about if I can to choose the orderly life the life that is - and satisfied with its circumstances at any given time instead of the insatiable undisciplined life though I persuade you at all and are you changing your mind to believe that those who are orderly are happier than those who are undisciplined or even if I tell you many other such stories will you change it

nonetheless a thing you said is the truest Socrates come then and let me give you another image one from the same school as this one consider whether what you're saying about each life the life of the self-controlled man and that of the undisciplined one is like this suppose there are two men each of whom has many jars the jars belonging to one of them are sound and fooled one with wine and other with honey a third with milk and many others with lots of other things and suppose that the sources of each of these things

are scarce and difficult to come by procurable only with much toil and trouble now the one man having filled up his jaws doesn't pour anything more into them and gives them no further thought he can relax over them as for the other one he too has resources that can be procured though with difficulty but his containers are leaky and rotten he's forced to keep on filling them day and night or else he suffers extreme pain now since each life is the way I describe it are you saying that the life of the undisciplined man is

happier than that of the oddly man when I say this do I at all persuade you to concede that the orderly life is better than the undisciplined one or do I not you do not Socrates the man who has filled himself up has no pleasure anymore and when he's been filled up and experiences neither joy nor pain that's living like a stone as I was saying just now rather living pleasantly consists in this humming as much as possible flow in isn't it necessary then that if there's a lot of flowing in there should also be

a lot going out and that there should be big holes for what's passed out certainly now you're talking about the life of a stone colo instead of that of a corpse or a stone tell me do you say that there is such a thing as hunger and eating when one is hungry yes there is and thirst and drinking when one is thirsty yes and also having all other appetites and being able to fill them and enjoy it and so live happily very good my good man do carry on the way you've begun and take care

not to be ashamed and I evidently shouldn't shrink from being ashamed Iver tell me now first whether a man who has an itch and scratches it and can scratch to his heart's content scratch his whole life long can also live happily What nonsense Socrates you're a regular crowd pleaser that's just how I shocked policin Gorgas and made them be ashamed you certainly won't be shocked however will be ashamed if you're a brave man just answer me please I say that even the man who scratches would have a pleasant life and if a pleasant one a

happy one too yes indeed what if he scratches only his head or what am I to ask you further see what your answer if somebody asked you one after the other every question that comes next and isn't the climax of this sort of thing the life of a catamite a frightfully shameful a miserable one or will you have the nerve to say that they are happy as long as they have what they need to their heart's content aren't you ashamed Socrates to bring our discussion to such matters is the I who bring them they're my

splendid fellow or is it the man who claims just like that that those who enjoy themselves however they may be doing it are happy and doesn't discriminate between good kinds of pleasures and bad tell me now - whether you say that the pleasant and the good are the same or whether there is pleasure that isn't good well to keep my argument from being inconsistent if I say that they're different I say they're the same you're wrecking your earlier statements Kelly Cleese and you'd no longer be adequately inquiring into the truth of the matter with me

if you speak contrary to what you think and you're wrecking yours to Socrates in that case isn't it right for me to do it if it's what I do or for you either but consider my marvelous friend surely the good isn't just unrestricted enjoyment for both those many shameful things hint at it just now obviously follow if this is the case and many others as well that's your opinion Socrates do you really assert these things Kelly Cleese yes I do so we're to undertake the discussion on the assumption that you're in earnest most certainly all

right since that is what you think distinguish the following things for me there is something you call knowledge I take it yes weren't you also saying just now that there is such a thing as bravery with knowledge yes I was was it just on the assumption that bravery is distinct from knowledge that you are speaking of them as - yes very much so well now do you say that pleasure and knowledge are the same or different different of course you wisest of men and surely that bravery is different from pleasure - of course alright let's

put this on the record Cala Cleese from a karne says that Pleasant and good are the same and that knowledge and bravery are different both from each other and from what's good and Socrates from allopathy doesn't agree with us about this or does he he does not and I believe that Keller Cleese doesn't either when he comes to see himself rightly tell me don't you think that those who do well have the opposite experience of those who do badly yes I do now since these experiences are the opposites of each other isn't it necessary that

it's just the same with them as it is with health and disease for a man isn't both healthy and sick at the same time I take it nor does he get rid of both health and disease at the same time what do you mean take any part of the body you like for example and think about it a man can have a disease of the eyes carne - which we give the name eye disease of course but then surely his eyes aren't also healthy at the same time no not in any way what if he

gets rid of his eye disease does he then also get rid of his eyes health and so in the end he's rid of both at the same time no not in the least for that I suppose is an amazing and unintelligible thing to happen isn't it yes it very much is but he acquires and loses each of them successively I suppose yes I agree isn't it like this with strength and weakness - yes and with speed and slowness yes that's right now does he acquire and get rid of good things and happiness and their opposites

bad things and misery successively - no doubt he does so if we find things that a man both gets rid of and keeps at the same time it's clear that these things wouldn't be what's good and what's bad are we agreed on that think very carefully about it and tell me yes I agree most emphatically go back now to what we've agreed on previously you mentioned hunger as a pleasant or painful thing I mean the hunger itself as a painful thing but for a hungry man to eat is pleasant I agree I understand but the

hunger itself is painful isn't it so I say and thirst is too very much so am I to ask any further or do you agree that every deficiency and is painful I do no need to ask fair enough wouldn't you say that for a thirsty person to drink is something pleasant yes I would and in the case you speak of a thirsty person means a person's who's in pain I take it yes and drinking is a filling of the deficiency and is a pleasure yes now don't you mean that insofar as a person is drinking

he's feeling enjoyment very much so even though he's thirsty yes I agree even though he's in pain yes do you observe the result that when you say that a thirsty person drinks you're saying that a person who's in pain simultaneously feels enjoyment or doesn't this happen simultaneously in the same place in the soul or in the body as you like I don't suppose it makes any difference which is this so or not it is but you do say that it's impossible for a person who's doing well to be doing badly at the same time yes

I do yet you did agree that it's possible for a person in pain to feel enjoyment apparently so feeling enjoyment isn't the same as doing well and being in pain isn't the same as doing badly and the result is that what's pleasant turns out to be different from what's good I don't know what your clever remarks amount to Socrates you do know you're just pretending you don't color Cleese go just a bit further ahead why do you keep up this nonsense so you'll know how wise you are in scolding me doesn't each of us stop

being thirsty and stop feeling pleasure at the same time as a result of drinking I don't know what you mean don't do that Kelly Cleese answer him for our benefit too so that the discussion may be carried through but Socrates is always like this gorgeous he keeps questioning people on matters that are trivial hardly worthwhile and refused them what difference does that make to you it's none of your business to appraise them Cala Cleese you promised Socrates that he could try to refute you in any way he liked go ahead there and ask these trivial

petty questions since that's what please is gorgeous you're a happy man Kelly Cleese in that you've been initiated into the greatest mysteries before the lesser I didn't think it was permitted so aren't the way he left off and tell me whether each of us stops feeling pleasure at the same time as he stops being firstly that's my view and doesn't he also stop having pleasure at the same time as he stops being hungry or stops having the other appetites that so doesn't he then also stop having pains and pleasures at the same time yes but

he certainly doesn't stop having good things and bad things at the same time as you agree don't you still agree yes I do why because it turns out that good things are not the same as pleasant ones and bad things are not the same as painful ones for pleasant and painful things come to a stop simultaneously whereas good things and bad ones do not because they are in fact different things how then could Pleasant things be the same as good ones and painful things the same as bad ones look at it this way too if

you like for I don't suppose that you agree with that argument either consider this don't you call men good because of the presence of good things in them just as you call them good-looking because of the presence of good looks yes I do well then do you call foolish and cowardly men good you didn't a while ago you were then calling brave and intelligent ones good or don't you call these men good oh yes I do well then have you ever seen a foolish child feel enjoyment yes I have but you've never yet seen a

foolish man feel enjoyment yes I suppose I have what's the point nothing just answer me yes I've seen it well now have you ever seen an intelligent man feel pain or enjoyment yes I daresay I have now who feels pain or enjoyment more intelligent men or foolish ones I don't suppose there's a lot of difference good enough have you ever seen a cowardly man in combat of course I have well then when the enemy retreated who do you think fell enjoyment more the cowards or the brave men both felt it I think maybe the cowards

felt it more but if not they felt it too pretty much the same degree it makes no difference so cowards feel enjoyment too oh yes very much so fools do too evidently yes now when the enemy advances are the cowards the only ones to feel pain or do the brave men do so too they both do to the same degree maybe the cowards feel it more and when the enemy retreats don't they feel enjoyment more maybe so don't foolish men and intelligent ones and cowardly men and brave ones feel enjoyment and pain to pretty much

the same degree as you say or cowardly men feel they're more than brave ones that's my view but surely the intelligent and brave men are good and the cowardly and foolish are bad yes hence the degree of enjoyment and pain that good and bad men feel is pretty much the same no I agree now all good and bad men pretty much equally both good and bad or other bad ones even better by Zeus I don't know what you mean don't you know that you say that the good men are good and the bad men bad

because of the presence of good or bad things in them and that the good things are pleasures and the bad ones pains yes I do aren't good things pleasures present in men who feel enjoyment if in fact they do feel it of course now aren't men who feel enjoyment good men because good things are present in them yes well then aren't bad things pains present in men who feel pain they are and you do say that it's because of the presence of bad things that bad men are bad or don't you say this anymore yes

I do so all those who feel enjoyment are good and all those who feel pain are bad yes that's right and those feeling them more are more so those feeling them less are less so and those feeling them too pretty much the same degree or good or bad - pretty much the same degree yes now aren't you saying that intelligent men and foolish ones and cowardly and courageous ones experience pretty much the same degree of enjoyment and pain or even that cowardly ones experience more of it yes I am join me then in adding up

what follows for us from our agreements they say it's an admirable thing to speak of and examine what's admirable twice and even thrice we say that the intelligent and brave man is good don't we yes and that the foolish and cowardly man is bad yes that's right and again that the man who feels enjoyment is good yes and the one experiencing pain is bad necessarily and that the good and the bad man feel pain and enjoyment the same degree and that perhaps the bad man fills them even more yes doesn't it then turn out that

the bad man is both good and bad to the same degree as the good man or even that he's better isn't this what follows along with those earlier statements if one holds that Pleasant things are the same as good things isn't this necessarily the case Cala Cleese I've been listening to you for quite some time now Socrates and agreeing with you while thinking that even if a person grants some point to you in jest you gladly fasten on it the way boys do as though you really think that I or anyone else at all don't

believe that some pleasures are better and others worse ohoo Cala Cleese what a rascal you are you treat me like a child at one time you say the things are one way and at another that the same things are another way and you deceived me and yet I didn't suppose at the beginning that I'd be deceived intentionally by you because I assumed you were a friend now however I've been misled and evidently have no choice but to make the best with what I have as the ancient proverb has it and to accept what I'm given

by you the thing you're saying now evidently is that some pleasures are good while others are bad is that right yes all good ones the beneficial ones and the bad ones the harmful ones yes that's right and the beneficial ones are the ones that produce something good while the bad ones are those that produce something bad that's my view now do you mean pleasures like the ones we were just now mentioning in connection with the body those of eating and drinking do some of these produce health in the body or string or some other bodily

excellence and are these pleasures good while those that produce the opposites of these things are bad that's right and similarly on some pains good and others bad too of course now shouldn't we both choose an act to have the good pleasures and pains yes we should but not the bad ones obviously no for policy and I both thought if you recall that we should surely do all things for the sake of what's good do you also think as we do that the end of all action is what's good and that we should do all other

things for its sake but not it for their sake are you voting on our side to make it 3 yes I am so we should do the other things including Pleasant things for the sake of good things and not good things for the sake of Pleasant thing that's right now is it for every man to pick out which kinds of pleasures are good ones and which are bad ones or does this require a craftsman in each case it requires a craftsman let's recall what I was actually saying to policin Gorgas I was saying if you

remember that there are some practices that concern themselves with nothing further than pleasure and procure only pleasure practices that are ignorant about what's better and worse while there are other practices that do know what's good and what's bad and I place the neck not the craft of pastry bacon among those that are concerned with pleasure and the medical craft among those concerned with what's good and by Zeus the god of friendship calories please don't think that you suggest with me either or answer anything that comes to mind contrary to what you really think and please

don't accept what you get from me as though I'm Justin for you see don't you that our discussion about this and what would even a man of little intelligence take more seriously than this about the way we're supposed to live is it the way you urge me toward to engage in these manly activities to make speeches among the people to practice oratory and to be active in the sort of politics you people engage in these days or is it the life spent in philosophy and in what way does this latter way of life differ from

the former perhaps it's best to distinguish them as I tried to do having done that and having agreed that these are two distinct lives is best to examine how they differ from each other and which of them is the one we should live now perhaps you don't yet know what I'm talking about no I certainly don't well I'll tell you more clearly given that we are agreed you and I that there is such a thing as good and such a thing as pleasant and that pleasant is different from the good and that there's a practice

of each of them and a procedure for obtaining it the quest for the pleasant on the one hand and that for the good on the other give me first your assent at this point or withhold it do you assent to it yes I do come then and agree further with me what I was saying to them too if you think that what I said then was true I was saying wasn't I that I didn't think that pastry baking a craft but a knack whereas medicine is a craft I said that the one medicine has investigated

both the nature of the object it serves and the cause of the things it does and is able to give an account of each of these the other the one concerned with pleasure to which the whole of its service is entirely devoted proceeds toward its object in a quite uncraft light way without having at all considered either the nature of pleasure or its cause it does so completely irrationally with virtually no discrimination through routine and knack it merely preserves the memory of what customarily happens and that's how it also supplies its pleasures so consider first

of all whether you think that this account is an adequate one and whether you think that there are also other similar preoccupations in the case of the soul do you think that some of the latter are of the order of crafts and possess fourth or about what's best for the soul while others like this and had investigated only as in the other case the souls way of getting its pleasure without considering which of the pleasures is better or worse and without having any concerns about anything but Mia gratification whether for the better or for the

worse for my part Cala Cleese I think there are such preoccupations and I say that this sort of thing is flattery both in the case of the body and that of the soul and in any other case in which a person may wait upon a pleasure without any consideration of what's better or worse as for you do you join us in subscribing to the same opinion on these matters or do you dissent from it no I won't dissent I'm going along with you both to expedite your argument and to gratify Olga's here now is this

the case with one soul only and not with two or many no it's also the case with two or many isn't it also possible to gratify a group of souls collectively at one in the same time without any consideration for what's best yes I suppose so can you tell me which ones are the practices that do this better yet if you like I'll ask you and you say yes for any whip to think falls in this group and no for any which you think doesn't let's look at flute playing first don't you think that it's

one of this kind color Cleese that it merely aims at giving us pleasure without giving thought to anything else yes I think so don't all such practices do that to lyre playing at competitions for example yes what about training choruses and composing difference doesn't that strike you as being something of the same sort do you think that Synesius the son of melees gives any thought to saying anything of a saw that might lead to the improvement of his audience or to what is likely to gratify the crowd of spectators clearly the latter Socrates at least

in Sinise's case what about his father melis do you think he's sound to the lyre with a regard for what's best or did he fail to regard even what's most pleasant for he inflicted pain upon his spectators with his sin e'en or consider whether you don't think that all singing to the lyre and composing of difference has been invented for the sake of pleasure yes I do think so and what about that majestic or inspiring practice the composition of treaded tragedy what is it after is the project the intent of tragic composition merely the gratification

of spectators as you think or does it also strive valiantly not to say anything that is corrupt though it may be pleasant and gratifying to them and to utter in both speech and so on anything that might be unpleasant but beneficial whether the spectators enjoy it or not in which of these ways do you think tragedy is being composed this much is obvious Socrates that it's more bent upon giving pleasure and upon gratifying the spectators and weren't we saying just now that this soft thing is flattery yes we were well then if one stripped away

from the whole composition both melody rhythm and meter doesn't turn out that what's left is only speeches necessarily and aren't these speeches given to a large gathering of people I agree so poetry is a kind of popular harangue apparently and such popular harangue would be oratory then or don't you think that poets practice oratory in the theatres yes I do so now we've discovered a popular oratory of a kind that's addressed to men women and children slave and free alike we don't much like it we say that it's a flattering sort yes that's right very

well what about the oratory addressed to the Athenian people and to those in other cities composed of freemen what is our view of this kind do you think that orators always speak with regard to what's best do they always set their sights on making the citizens as good as possible through their speeches or are they too bent upon the gratification of the citizens and slighting the common good for the sake of their own private good but I treat the people like children their sole attempt being to gratify them this issue you're asking about isn't just

a simple one so there are those who say what they do because they do care for the citizens and there are also those like the ones you're talking about that's good enough for if this matter really has two parts to it then one part of it would be flattery I suppose and shameful public hirin while the other that of getting the souls of the citizens to be as good as possible and obstruent lee to say what is best whether the audience will find it more pleasant or more unpleasant is something admirable but you've never seen

this type of oratory or if you can mention any orator of this saw why haven't you let me also know who he is know by Zeus I certainly can't mention any of our contemporary orators to you well then can you mention anyone from former times through whom the Athenians are reputed to have become better after he began his public address when he went previously they had been worse I certainly don't know who this could be what don't they tell you that for mr. keys proved to be a good man and so did Simon Milty iadies

and Pericles who died just recently and whom you've heard speak to yes Kelly Cleese if the excellence you were speaking of earlier the filling up of appetites both ones own and those of others is the true kind but if this is not and if what we were compelled to agree on in our subsequent discussion is the true kind instead that a man should satify those of his appetites that when they are filled up make him better and not those that make him worse and that this is a matter of craft I don't see how I

can say that any of these men has proved to be such a man but if you look carefully you'll find that they were let's examine the matter calmly and see whether any of these men has proved to be like that well then won't the good man the man who speaks with regard to what's best say whatever he says not randomly but with a view to something just like the other craftsmen each of whom keeps his own product in view and so does not select and apply randomly what he applies but so that he may give

his product some shape take a look at painters for instance if you would or house builders or ship rights or any other of the craftsmen you like and see how each one places what he does into a certain organization and compels one thing to be suited for another and to fit to it until the entire object is put together in an organized and orderly way the other craftsman to include in the ones we are mentioning just lately the ones concerned with the body physical trainers and doctors no doubt give order and organization to the body

do you agree that this is so or not let's take it that way so if a house gets to be organized and orderly it would be a good one and if it gets to be disorganized it would be a terrible one I agree this holds true for a boat too yes and we surely take it to hold true for our bodies too yes we do what about the soul will it be a good one if it gets to be disorganized or if it gets to have a certain organization and order given what we said before

we must agree that this is so - what name do we give to what comes into being in the body as a result of organization and order you mean health and strength presumably yes I do and which one do we give to what comes into being in the soul a result of organization and order try to find and tell me its name as in the case of the body why don't you say it yourself Socrates all right if that pleases you more I'll do so and if you think I'm right give your assent if not

refute me and don't give way I think that the name for the states of organization of the body is healthy as a result of which health and the rest of bodily excellence comes into being in it is this so or isn't it it is and the name for the states of organization and order of the soul is lawful and law which lead people to become law-abiding and orderly and these are justice and self-control do you ascend to this or not let it be so so this is what the skilled and good orator will look to

when he applies to people's souls whatever speeches he makes as well as of his actions and any gift he makes or any confiscation he carries out he will always give us a ten to how justice may come to exist in the souls of his fellow citizens and injustice be gotten rid of how self-control may come to exist there and lack of discipline be gotten rid of and how the rest of excellence may come into being there and badness may depart do you agree or not I do yes for what benefit is there pellicle ease in

giving a body that's sick an enriched in shape lots of very pleasant food or drink or anything else when it won't do the man a bit more good or quiet to the country when by a fair reckoning it'll do him less good is that so let it be so yes for I don't suppose that a prophets a man to be alive with his body in a terrible condition for this way his life too would be necessarily a wretched one or wouldn't it be yes now isn't it also true that doctors Jam will allow person to

fill up his appetites to eat when he's hungry for example or drink when he's thirsty as much as he wants to when he's in good health but when he's sick they practically never allow him to fill himself with what he has an appetite for do you also go along with this point at least yes I do and isn't it just the same way with the soul my excellent friend as long as it's corrupt in that it's foolish undisciplined unjust and empire's it should be kept away from its appetites and not being permitted to do anything

other than what will make it better do you agree or not I agree for this is no doubt better for the soul itself yes it is now isn't keeping it away from what it has an appetite for discipline it yes so to be disciplined is better for the soul than lack of discipline which is what you yourself were thinking just now I don't know what in the world you mean Socrates or somebody else this fellow won't put up with being benefited and with his undergoing the very thing the discussions about with being disciplined and I

couldn't care less about anything you say Iver Gaming these answers just for Gorgas is sake very well what will we do now are we breaking off in the midst of the discussion that's for you to decide they say that it isn't permitted to give up in the middle of telling stories either ahead must be put on it so it won't go about headless please answer the remaining questions too so that our discussion may get its head how unrelenting you are Socrates if you'll listen to me you'll drop this discussion or carry it through with someone

else who else is willing surely we mustn't leave the discussion and complete couldn't you go through the discussion by yourself either by speaking in your own person or by answering your own question in that case epic Armas is saying applies to me I proved to be sufficient being one man for what two men were saying before but it looks as though I have no choice at all let's by all means do it that way then I suppose that all of us ought to be contentiously eager to know what's true and what's false about the things

we're talking about that it should become clear is a good common to all I'll go through the discussion then and say how I think it is and if any of you thinks that what I agreed to with myself isn't so you must object and refute me for the things I say I certainly don't say with any knowledge at all no I'm searching together with you so that if my opponent clearly has a point I'll be the first to concede it I'm saying this however in case you think the discussion ought to be carried out to

the end if you don't want it to be then let's drop it now and leave no Socrates I don't think we should leave yet you must finish the discussion it seems to me that the others think so too I myself certainly want to hear you go through the rest of it by yourself or are Gorgas I myself would have been glad to continue my discussion with Kelly Cleese here until I returned him anthe on speech for that of Zaius well Kelly Cleese since you're not willing to join me in Carrie the discussion through to the

end please do listen to me and interrupt if you think I'm saying anything wrong and if you refute me I shan't be upset with you as you were with me instead you'll go on record as my greatest benefactor speak on my good friend and finish it up by yourself listen then as I pick up the discussion from the beginning is the pleasant the same as the good it isn't as calories and I have agreed is the pleasant to be done for the sake of the good or the good for the sake of the pleasant the

pleasant for the sake of the good and pleasant is that by which when it comes to be present in us we feel pleasure and good that by which when its present in us we are good that's right well surely we are good both we and everything else that's good when some excellence has come to be present in us yes I do think that's necessarily socal achlys but the best way in which the excellence of each thing comes to be present in it whether it's that of an artifact or of a body or a soul as

well or in or of any animal is not just any old way but is due to whatever organization correctness and craftsmanship is bestowed on each of them is that right yes I agree so it's due to organization that the excellence of each thing is something which is organized and has order yes I'd say so so it's when a certain order the proper one for each thing comes to be present in it there it makes each of the things there are good yes I think so so also a soul which has its own order is better

than a disordered one necessarily so but surely one that has order is an orderly one of course it is and an orderly soul is a self controlled one absolutely so a self controlled soul is a good one I for one can't see anything else before beyond that color Klee is my friend if you can please teach me say on my good man I say that if the self controlled soul is a good one than a soul that's been affected the opposite way of the self-controlled one is a bad one and this it's turned out is

the foolish and undisciplined one that's right and surely a self controlled person would do what's appropriate to both God's and human beings for if he does what's inappropriate he wouldn't be self-controlled that's necessarily how it is and of course if he did what's appropriate with respect to human beings he would be doing what's just and with respect to gods he would be doing what's pious and one who does what's just them pious must necessarily be just them pious that's so yes and he would also necessarily be brave for it's not like a self controlled man

to either pursue or avoid what isn't appropriate but to avoid and pursue what he should whether these are things to do or people or pleasures and pains and to stand fast and enjoy them where he should so it's necessarily very much the case Cala Cleese that the self controlled man because he's just them brave and pious as we've recounted is a completely good man that the good man does well and admirably whatever he does and that the man who does well is blessed and happy while the corrupt man the one who does badly is miserable

and this would be the one who's in the condition opposite to that of the self controlled one the undisciplined one whom you were praising so this is how I set down the matter and I say that this is true and if it is true then a person who wants to be happy must evidently pursue and practice self control each of us must flee away from lack of discipline as quickly as his feet will carry him and must above all make sure that he has no need of being discipline but if he does have that need

either he himself or anyone in his house either a private citizen or a whole city he must pay his due and must be disciplined if he is to be happy this is the target which I think one should look - in living and in his actions he should direct all of his own affairs and those of his city to the end that justice and self-control will be present in one who is to be blessed he should not allow his appetites to be undisciplined or undertake to fill them up that's interminably bad and lived the life

of a marauder such a man could not be dear to another man nor to a god for he cannot be a partner and where there's no partnership there's no friendship yes Kelly Kelly's wise men claimed that partnership and friendship orderliness self-control and justice hold together heaven and earth and gods and men and that is why they call this universe a world order my friend and not an undisciplined world disorder I believe that you don't pay attention to these facts even though you're a wise man in these matters you fail to notice that proportionate equality has

great power among both gods and men and you suppose that you oughta practice getting the greater share that's because you neglect geometry very well we must either refute this argument and show that it's not the possession of justice and self-control that makes happy people happy and the possession of badness that makes miserable people miserable or else if this is true we must consider what the consequences are these consequences are all those previous things Kelly's the ones about which you asked me whether I was speaking in earnest when I said that a man should be his

own accuser or his sons or his friends if he's done anything unjust and should use oratory for that purpose also what you thought polis was ashamed to concede is true after all then doing what unjust is as much worse than suffering it as it is more shameful and that a person who is to be an orator the right way should be just and be knowledgeable in what is just the point pull us in his turn claim Gorgas - ever agreed to out of shame that being so let's examine what it is you're taking me to

task for and whether it's right or not you say that i'm unable to protect either myself or any of my friends or relatives or rescue them from the gravest dangers and that i am at the mercy of the first comer just as people without rights are whether he wants to knock me on the jaw to use that forceful expression of yours or confiscate my property or exile me from the city or ultimately put me to death to be in that position is by your reason the most shameful thing of all as for my own reasoning

is that's been told many times by now but there's nothing to stop it being told once again I deny calories that being knocked on the door and justly is the most shameful thing or that having my body or my purse cut is and I affirm that to knock or cut me or my possessions unjustly is both more shameful and worse and at the same time that to rob or enslave me or to break into my house or to sum up to commit any unjust act at all against me and my possessions is both worse and

more shameful for the one who does these unjust acts than it is for me the one who suffers them these conclusions at which we arrived earlier in our previous discussions are I'd say held down and bound by arguments of iron and adamant even if it's rather rude to say so so it would seem anyhow and if you or someone more forceful than you won't undo them then anyone who says anything other than what I'm saying now cannot be speaking well and yet for my part my account is ever the same I don't know how these

things are but no one I've ever met as in this case can say anything else without being ridiculous so once more I set it down that these things are so and if they are if injustice is the worst thing there is for the person committing it and if that person's failure to pay what's due is something even worse if possible than this one that's the greatest what is the protection which would make a man who's unable to provide it for himself truly ridiculous isn't the one that will turn away what harms us most yes it's

necessarily very much the case that this is the most shameful kind of protection not to be able to provide either for oneself or for one's friends or relatives and the second kinds the one that turns away the second worst thing the third kind the one against the third worst and so on the greater by its nature each bad thing is the more admirable it is to be able to provide protection against it to and the more shameful not to be able to is this the way it is calloc lee's or is it some other way

no it's not any other way of these two things then of doing what's unjust and suffering it we say that doing it is worse and suffering it is less bad with what then might a man provide himself to protect himself so that he has both these benefits the one that comes from not doing what's unjust and the one that comes from not suffering it is it power or wish what I mean is this is it when a person does wish to suffer what's unjust that he will avoid suffering it or when he procures a power

to avoid suffering it when he procures a power that is obvious at least and what about doing what's unjust is it when he doesn't wish to do it is that sufficient for he won't do it or should he procure a power and a craft for this too so that unless he learns and practices it he will commit injustice why don't you answer at least this question calories do you think polis and I were or were not correct and being compelled to agree in our previous discussion when we agreed that no one does what's unjust because

he wants to but that all who do so do it unwillingly let it be so so so you can finish up your argument so we should procure a certain power and craft the gayness against this - evidently so that we won't do what's unjust that's right what then is the craft by which we make sure that we don't suffer anything unjust or as little as possible consider whether you think it's the one I do this is what I think it is that one ought either to be a ruler himself in his City or even be

a tyrant or else to be a partisan of the regime in power do you see Sakura tease how ready I am to applaud you whenever you say anything right I think that this statement of yours is right on the mark well consider whether you think that the following statement of mind is a good one - I think that the one man who's a friend of another most of all is the one whom the men of old and the wise call a friend the one who's like the other don't you think so - yes I do

now if in the case of a tyrant who's a savage uneducated ruler there were in his City someone much better than he wouldn't the tyrant no doubt be afraid of him and never be able to be a friend to him with all his heart that so nor would he the tyrant be a friend to a man much his inferior if there were such a man for the tyrant would despise him and would never take a serious interest in him as a friend that's true - this leaves only a man of light character one who approves

and disapproves of the same thing and who is willing to be ruled by and be subject to the ruler to be - such a man a friend worth mentioning this man will have great power in that city and no one will do him any wrong and get away with it isn't that so yes so if some young person in that city were to reflect in what way would I be able to have great power and no one treat me unjustly this evidently would be his way to go to get himself accustomed from childhood on to

like and dislike the same same things as the master and to make sure that he'll be as like him as possible isn't that so yes now won't this man have achieved the immunity to unjust treatment and great power in his city as you people say oh yes and also immunity to unjust action or is that far from the case since he'll be like the ruler who's unjust and he'll have his great power at the rulers side for my part I think that quite to the country in this way he'll be making sure he'll have the

ability to engage in as much unjust action as possible and to avoid paying what's due for acting so right apparently so he'll have incurred the worst thing there is when his soul is corrupt and mutilated on account of his imitation of the master and on account of his power I don't know how you keep twisting our discussion in every direction Socrates or don't you know that this imitator will put to death if he likes your non imitator and confiscate his property I do know that Keller Cleese I'm not deaf I hear you say it and

heard polish just now say it many times and just about everyone else in the city but now you listen to me too I say that yes he'll kill him if he likes but it will be a wicked man killing one who's admirable and good and isn't that just the most irritating thing about it no not for an intelligent person anyway as our discussion points out or do you think that a man ought to make sure that his life be as long as possible and that he practiced those crafts that ever rescue us from dangers like

the oratory that you tell me to practice the kind that preserves us in the law courts yes and by Zeus that sound advice for you well my excellent fellow do you think that expertise in swimming is a grand thing no by Zeus I don't but it certainly does save people from death whenever they fall into the kind of situation that requires this expertise but if you think this expertise is a trivial one I'll give you one more important than then it that of helmsman ship which saves not only souls but also bodies and valuables from

the utmost dangers just as oratory does this expertise is unassuming and orderly and does not make itself grand posturing as though its accomplishment is so magnificent but while its accomplishment is the same as that of the expertise practiced in the courts it has earned two Oh balls I suppose if it has brought people safely here from a jina and if it has brought them here from Egypt or the pontus then for that great service having giving safe passage to those I was mentioning just now the man himself his children valuables and womenfolk and setting them

ashore in the harbor it has earned to Jack as if that much and the man who possesses the craft and who has accomplished these feats disembarks and goes for a stroll along the seaside and beside his ship with a modest air for he's enough of an expert I suppose to conclude that isn't clear which one's of his fellow voyagers he has benefited by not letting them drown in the deep and which ones he is harmed knowing that they were no better in either body or soul when he set them ashore than they were when they

embarked so he concludes that if a man afflicted with serious incurable physical disease did not drown this man is miserable for not dying and has gotten no benefit from him but if a man has many incurable diseases in what is more valuable than his body his soul life for that man is not worth living and he won't do him any favor if he rescues him from the sea or from prison or from anywhere else he knows that for a corrupt person it's better not to be alive for he necessarily lives badly that is why it's

not the custom for the helmsman to give himself glory even though he preserves us and not the engineer IVA who sometimes can preserve us no less well than a general or anyone else not to mention a helmsman for there are times when he preserves entire cities you don't think that he's on a level with the Advocate do you and yet if he wanted to say what you people do Cala Cleese glorifying his occupation he would smother you with the speeches telling you urgently that people should become engineers because nothing else amounts to anything and the

speech would make his point but you nonetheless despise him and his craft and you'd call him engineer as a term of abuse you'd be unwilling either to give your daughter to his son or take his daughter yourself and yet given your grounds for applauding your own activities what just reason do you have for despising the engineer and the others whom I was mentioning just now I know you'd say that you're a better man one from better stock but if better does not mean what I take it to mean and if instead to preserve yourself and

what belongs to you no matter what sort of person you happen to be is what excellence is then your reproach against engineer doctor and all the other crafts which have been devised to preserve us will prove to be ridiculous but my blessed man please see whether what's Noble and what's good isn't something other than preserving and being preserved perhaps one who is truly a man should stop thinking about how long he will live he should not be attached to life but should commit these concerns to the God and believe the woman who say that not

one single person can escape fate you should thereupon give consideration to how he might live the part of his life still before him as well as possible should it be by becoming like the regime under which he lives in that case you should now be making yourself much like the Athenian people as possible if you expect to endear yourself to them and have great power in the city please see whether this profits you and me my friend so that what they say happens to this facili witches when they pull down the moon won't happen to

us our choice of this kind of civic power will cost us what we hold most dear if you think that some person or other will hand you a craft of the sort that will give you great power in this city while you are unlike the regime whether for better or for worse then in my opinion Cala Cleese you're not well advised you mustn't be their imitator but be naturally like them in your own person if you expect to reduce any genuine result toward winning the friendship of the Athenian people and yes by Zeus of damos

the son of Perl Anthes to boot whoever then turns you out to be most like these men he'll make you a politician in the way you desire to be one and a Norris or two for each group of people takes delight in speeches that are given in its own character and resents those given in an alien manner unless you say something else my dear friend can we say anything in reply to this quell achlys I don't know Socrates in a way you seemed to me to be right but the thing that happens to most people

has happened to me I'm not really persuaded by you it's your love for the people Kelly's existing in your soul that stands against me but if we closely examine these same matters often and in a better way you'll be persuaded please recall that we said there are two practices for caring for a particular thing whether it's the body or the soul one of them deals with pleasure and the other with what's best and doesn't gratify it but struggles against it isn't this how we distinguish them then yes that's right now one of them the one

dealing with pleasure is ignoble and is actually nothing but flattery right let it be so if you like whereas the other one the one that aims to make the thing we're caring for whether it's a body or a soul as good as possible is the more noble one yes that so shouldn't we then attempt to care for the city and its citizens with the aim of making the citizens themselves as good as possible for without this as we discovered earlier it does no good to provide any other service if the intention of those who are

likely to make a great deal of money or take a position of rule over people or some other position of power aren't admirable and good are we to put this down is true certainly if that pleases you more suppose then collect Lee's that you and I were about to take up the public business of the city and we call on each other to carry out building products the major works of construction wolves or ships or temples would we have to examine it and check ourselves closely first to see if we are or are not experts

in the building craft and whom we've learned it from would we have to or wouldn't we yes we would and second would have to check wouldn't we whether we've ever built a work of construction and private business for a friend of ours say or for ourselves and whether this structure is admirable or disgraceful and if we discovered on examination that our teachers have proved to be good and reputable ones and that the works of construction built by us under their guidance were numerous and admirable and those built by us on our own after we left

our teachers were numerous too then if that were our situation would be wise to proceed to public projects if we could point out neither teacher nor construction works either none at all or else many worthless ones it would surely be stupid to undertake public projects and to call each other onto them shall we say that this point is right or not yes we shall isn't it so in all cases especially if we attempted to take up public practice and called on each other thinking we were capable doctors I'd have examined you and you me no

doubt well now by the gods what what is Socrates his own physical state of health has there ever been anyone else slave or free man whose deliverance from illness has been due to Socrates and I'd be considering other similar questions about you I suppose and if we found no one whose physical improvement has been due to us among either visitors or townspeople either a man or a woman then by Zeus Cala Cleese wouldn't it be truly ridiculous that people should advance to such a height of folly laughs before producing many mediocre as well as many

successful results in private practice and before having had sufficient exercise at the craft they should attempt to learn pottery on a big jar as the saying goes and attempt both to take up public practice themselves and to call on others like them to do so as well don't you think it would be stupid to proceed like that yes I do but now my most excellent fellows seem that you yourself are just now beginning to be engaged in the business of the city and you call on me and take me to task for not doing so

shall we not examine each other well now has Cal achlys ever improved any of the citizens is there anyone who was wicked before unjust undisciplined and foolish a visitor or townswoman a slave or free man who because of Cala Cleese has turned out admirable and good tell me Cala Cleese what will you say if somebody asks you these scrutinizing questions whom will you say you've made a better person through your association with him do you shrink back from answering if there even is anything you produced while still in private practice before attempting a public career

you love to win Socrates but it's not for love of winning that I'm asking you it's rather because I really do want to know the way whatever it is in which you suppose the city's business ought to be conducted among us now that you're advanced to the business of the city are we to conclude that you're devoted to some objective other than that we the citizen should be as good as possible haven't we agreed many tons already that this is what a man active in politics should be doing have we or haven't we please answer

me yes we have I'll answer for you so if this is what a good man should make sure about for his own City think back now to those men whom you were mentioning a little earlier and tell me whatever you still think that Pericles Simon Milty our days and Themistocles have proved to be good citizens yes I do so if they were good ones each of them was obviously making the citizens better than they were before was he or wasn't he yes so when Pericles first began giving speeches among the people the Athenians were worse

than when he gave his last one presumably not presumably my good man it necessarily follows from what we've agreed if he really was a good citizen so what nothing but tell me this as well are the Athenian said to have become better because of Pericles or quite to the contrary are they said to have been corrupted by him that's what I hear anyhow that Pericles made the Athenians idle and cowardly chatterers and money grabbers since he was the first to Institute wages for them the people you hear say this have cauliflower ears Socrates here though

is something I'm not just hearing I do know clearly a new due to that at first Pericles had a good reputation and when they were worse the Athenians never voted to convict him in any shameful deposition but after he had turned them into admirable and good people near the end of his life they voted to convict Pericles of embezzlement and came close to condemning him to death because they thought he was a wicked man obviously well did that make Pericles a bad man a man like that who cared for donkeys or horses or cattle would

at least look bad if he showed these animals kicking busting and biting him because of their wildness when they had been doing none of these things when he took over them or don't you think that any caretaker of any animal was a bad one who will show his animals to be wilder than when he took them over when they were gentler do you think so or not oh yes so I may gratify you in that case gratify me now with your answer to his man one of the animals - of course he is wasn't Pericles

a caretaker of men yes well shouldn't he according to what we agreed just now have turned them out more just instead of more unjust if while he cared for them he really was good at politics yes he should have now as Homer says they just are gentle what do you say don't you say the same yes but Pericles certainly showed them to be wilder than they were when he took them over and that toward himself the person he at least want this to happen to do you want me to agree with you yes if you

think that what I say is true so be it Lynn and if wilder than both more unjust and worse so be it so when this reasoning Pericles wasn't good at politics you at least deny that he was by Zeus you do to give him what you were agreeing to let's go back to Simone tell me didn't the people he was serving ostracize him so that they wouldn't hear his voice for 10 years and didn't they do the very same thing to Themistocles punish him him with exile besides and didn't they vote to throw me retirees

of Marathon Fame into the pit and if it hadn't been for the fruitiness he would have been thrown in and yet these things would not have happened to these men if they were good men as you say they were Elise it's not the case that good drivers are the ones who at the start don't fall out of their chariots but who do fall out after they've cared for their forces and become better drivers themselves this doesn't happen either in driving or in any other work or do you think it does no I don't so it

looks as though our earlier statements were true that we don't know any man who has proved to be good at politics in this city you were agreeing that none of our present day ones has though you said that some of those of times past head and you gave preference to these men but these have been shown to be on equal footing with the men of today the result is that if these men were orators they practiced neither the true oratory for in that case they wouldn't have been thrown out nor the flattering kind both surely

Socrates any accomplishment that any of our present-day men produces is a far cry from the sorts of accomplishments produced by any one of the others you choose no my strange friend I'm not criticizing these men either insofar as they were servants of the city I think rather that they proved to be better servants than the men of today and more capable than they of satisfying the city's appetites but the truth is that in redirecting its appetites and not giving into them using persuasion or constraint to get the citizens to become better they were really not

much different from our contemporaries that alone is the task of a good citizen yes I too agree with you that they were more clever than our present leaders at supplying ships and walls and dock yards and many other things of the sort now you and I are doing an odd thing in our conversation the whole time we've been discussing we constantly keep drifting back to the same point neither of us recognize and what the arthur is saying for my part I believe you've agreed many times and recognize that after all this subject of ours has

two parts both in the case of the body and the soul the one part of it is the servant one enabling us to provide our bodies with food whenever they're hungry or with drink whenever they're firstly and whenever they're cold with cloves wrap shoes and other things our bodies come to have an appetite for I'm purposely using the same examples and speaking to you so that you'll understand more easily for these I think you agree are the very things a shoe keeper importer or producer can provide a bread baker or pastry chef a weaver or

cobbler or tanner so it isn't at all surprising that such a person should think himself and be thought by others to be a caretaker of the body by everyone who doesn't know that over and above all these practices there's a craft that of gymnastics and medicine that really does care for the body and is entitled to rule all these crafts and use their products but could of its knowledge of what food or drink is good or bad for bodily excellence and knowledge which all of the others lack that's why the other crafts are slavish and

Serbian and ill-bred and why gymnastics and medicine are by rights mistresses over them now when I say that these same things hold true of the soul - I think you sometimes understand me and you agree as one who knows what I'm saying but then a little later you come along saying that there have been persons who've proved to be admirable and good citizens in the city and when I ask who they are you seem to me to produce people who in the area of politics are very much the same sort you would produce if I

ask you who have proved to be or are good caretakers of bodies and you reply in all seriousness three on the bread maker and mythicist the author of the book on Sicilian pastry bacon and ceramists the shopkeeper because these men have proved to be wonderful caretakers of bodies the first by providing wonderful loaves of bread the second pastry and the third wine perhaps you'd be upset if I said to you my man you don't have the slightest understanding of gymnastics the men you're mentioning to me our servant satisfies of appetites they have no understanding whatever

of anything that's admirable and good in these cases they'll feel and fatten people's bodies if they get the chance and besides they're destroy their original flesh as well all the while receiving their praise the latter in their turn thanks to their inexperience we'll lay the blame for their illnesses and the destruction of their original flesh not on those who threw the parties but on any people who happen to be with them at the time giving them advice yes when that earlier stuffing has come bringing sickness and it strain much later then because it's proved to

be unhealthy they'll blame these people and scold them and do something bad to them if they can and they'll sing the praises of those earlier the ones responsible for their ills right now you're operating very much like that two calories you sing the praise of those who threw parties for these people and who feasted them lavishly with what they had an appetite for and they say that they have made the city great but that the city is swollen and festering thanks to those early leaders that they don't notice for they filled the city with harbors

and dockyards walls and tribute payments and such trash as there but did so without justice and self-control so when that fit of sickness comes on they'll blame their advises of the moment and sing the praises of Themistocles and Simon and Pericles the ones who are to blame for their ills perhaps if you're not careful they'll lay their hands on you and on my friend Alka be our days when they lose not only what they gained but what they had originally as well even though you aren't responsible for their ills but perhaps accessories to them and

yet there's a foolish business to I for one both see happening now and here about in connection with our early leaders for I noticed that whenever the city lays its hands on one of the politicians because he does what's unjust they resent it and complain indignantly that they're suffering terrible things they've done many good things for the city and so they're being unjustly brought to ruin by it so their argument goes but that's completely false not a single city leader could ever be brought to ruin by the very city he's a leader of it looks

as though those who profess to be politicians are just like those who profess to be Sophists for Sophists too even though they're wise and other matters do this absurd thing while they claim to be teachers of excellence they frequently accuse their students of doing them wrong depriving them of their fees and withholding other forms of thanks from them even though the students have been well served by them yet what could be a more illogical business than this statement that people who've become good and just whose injustice has been removed by their teacher and who have

come to possess justice should wronged him something they can't do don't you think that's absurd my friend you've made me the liver a real popular harangue Keller Cleese because you aren't willing to answer and you couldn't speak unless somebody answered you evidently I could anyhow I am stretching my speeches out at length now since you're unwilling to answer me but my good man tell me by the god of friendship don't you think it's illogical that someone who says he's made someone else good should find fault with that person charging that he whom he himself made

to become and to be good is after all wicked yes I do think so don't you hear people who say they're educating people for excellent saying things like that yes I do but why would you mention completely worthless people why would you talk about these people who although they say they're the city's lead and devoted to making it as good as possible turn around and accuse it when the time comes of being the most wicked do you think they're any different from those others yes My blessed man they are one and the same the Sophists

and the orator or nearly so and pretty similar are as I was telling polis but because you don't see this you suppose that one of them oratory is something wonderful while you sneer at the other in actuality however sophistry is more to be admired than oratory insofar as legislation is more admirable than the administration of justice and gymnastics more than medicine and I for one should have supposed that public speakers and Sophists are the only people not in a position to charge the creature they themselves educate with being wicked to them or else they simultaneously

accused themselves as well by this same argument of having entirely failed to benefit those who they say they benefit isn't this soap yes it is and if what I was saying is true then they alone no doubt are in a position to offer on terms of Honor the benefit they provide without charge as is reasonable for somebody who had another benefit conferred on him one who for example had been turned into a fast runner by a physical trainer could perhaps deprive the man of his compensation if the trainer offered him that benefit on his honor

instead of agreeing on a fixed fee and taking his money as closely as possible to the time he imparts the speed for I don't suppose that it's by slowness that people act unjustly but by injustice right yes so if somebody removes that very thing in justice he shouldn't have any fear of being treated unjustly for him alone is it safe to offer this benefit on terms of Honor if it's really true that one can make people good isn't that so I agree this then is evidently why there's nothing shameful and taking money for given advice

concerning other matters such as house building or the other crafts yes evidently but as for this activity which is concerned with how a person might be as good as possible and manage his own house or his city in the best possible way is considered shameful to refuse to give advice concerning it unless somebody pays you money right yes for it's clear that what accounts for this is the fact that of all the benefits this one alone makes the one who has had good done to him have the desire to do good in return so that

we think it's a good sign of someone's having done good by conferring this benefit that he'll have good done to him in return and not a good sign if he won't is this how it is it is now please describe for me precisely the type of care for the city to which you are calling me is it that of striving valiantly with the Athenians to make them as good as possible like a doctor or is it like one ready to serve them and associate with them for their gratification tell me the truth Kelly Cleese well

just as you began by speaking candidly to me it's only fair that you should continue speaking your mind tell me now - well and nobly in that case I say it's like one ready to serve so noblest of men you're calling on me to be ready - flattered yes if you find it more pleasant not to mince words Socrates because if you don't do this I hope you won't say what you've said many times that anyone who wants to will put me to death that way I too won't repeat my claim that it would be

a wicked man doing this to a good man and don't say that he'll confiscate any of my possessions either so I won't reply that when he's done so he won't know how to use them rather just as he unjustly confiscated them from me so having gotten them he'll use them unjustly - and if I'm just leash aim fully and if shamefully badly how sure you seem to me to be Socrates that not even one of these things will happen to you you think that you live out of their way and that you wouldn't be brought

to court perhaps by some very corrupt and mean man in that case I really am a fool Kell achlys if I don't suppose that anything might happen to anybody in this city but I know this well that if I don't come into court involved in one of those perils which you mentioned the man who brings me in will be a wicked man for no good man would bring in a man who is not a wrongdoer and it wouldn't be at all strange if I were to be put to death would you like me to tell

you my reason for expecting this yes I would I believe that I'm one of a few Athenians so as not to say I'm the only one but the only one among our contemporaries to take up the true political craft and practice the true politics this is because the speech as I make on each occasion do not aim at gratification but what's best they don't aim at what's most pleasant and because I'm not willing to do those clever things you recommend I won't know what to say in court and the same account I applied to polis

comes back to me for I'll be judged the way a doctor would be judged by a jury of children if a pastry chef were to bring accusations against him think about what a man like that taken captive among these people could say in his defense if somebody were to accuse him and say children this man has worked many great evils on you yes and you he destroys the youngest among you by cutting and burning them and by slimming them down and choking them he confuses them he gives them the most best of potions to drink

and force his hunger and thirst on them he doesn't feast you on a great variety of sweets the way I do what do you think a doctor caught in such an evil predicament could say or if he should tell them the truth and say yes children I was doing all those things in the interest of health how big an uproar do you think such judges would make wouldn't it be a loud one perhaps oh I should think so don't you think he'd be at a total loss as to what he should say yes he would

that's the sort of thing I know would happen to me too if I came into court for I won't be able to point out any pleasures that have provided for them once they believe to be services and benefits while I envy neither those who provide them nor the ones for whom they're provided nor will I be able to say what's true if someone charges that I ruin younger people by confusing them or abuse older ones by speaking bitter words against them in public or private I won't be able to say that is yes I say

and do all these things in the interest of justice my honored judges to use that expression you people use nor anything else so presumably I'll get whatever comes my way do you think Socrates that a man in such a position in his city a man who's unable to protect himself is to be admired yes Keller Cleese as long as he has that one thing that you've often agreed he should have as long as he has protected himself against having spoken or done anything unjust relating to either men or gods for this is the self protection

that you and I often have agreed avails the most now if someone were to refute me and prove that I am unable to provide this protection for myself or for anyone else I would feel shame at being refuted whether this happened in the presence of many or of a few or just between the two of us and if I were to be put to death for lack of disability I really would be upset but if I came to my end because of a deficiency in flattering oratory I know that you'd see me bear my death

with it with ease for no one who isn't totally bereft of reason and courage is afraid to die doing what's unjust is what he's afraid of for to arrive in Hades with one soul stuff full of unjust action is the ultimate of all bad things if you like I'm willing to give you an account showing that this is so all right since you've gone through the other things go through this to give a then as they put it to a very fine account you'll think that it's a mere tail I believe although I think it's

an account for what I'm about to say I will tell you as true as Homer tells it after Zeus Poseidon and Pluto took over the sovereignty from their father they desire they divided it among themselves now there was a law concerning human beings during Cronus's time though one that gods even now continued to observe that when a man who has lived that just and pious life comes to his end he goes to the Isles of the blessed to make his abode in complete happiness beyond the reach of Evil's but when one who has lived in

an unjust and godless way dies he goes to the prison of payment and retribution the one they called Tartarus in Cronus's time and even more recently during Zeus's tenure of sovereignty these men faced living judges while they were still alive who judged them on the day they were going to die now the cases were badly decided so Pluto and the keepers from the Isles of the Blessed came to Zeus and told him that people were undeservedly making their way in both directions so as you said all right I'll put a stop to that the cases

are being badly decided at this time because those being judged on judged fully dressed they're being judged while they're still alive many he said who souls are wicked are dressed in handsome bodies good stock and wealth and when the judgement takes place they have many witnesses appear to testify that they have lived just lives now the judges are all struck by these things and passed judgment at a time when they themselves are fully dressed to have him put their eyes and ears and their whole bodies up his screens in front of their souls all these

things their own clothing and that of those being judged have proved to be obstructive to them what we must do first he said is to stop them from knowing their death ahead of time now they do have that knowledge this is something that chroma theas has already been told to put a stop to next they must be judged when they're stripped naked of all these things for they should be judged when they're dead the judge too should be naked and dead and with only his soul he should study only the soul of each person immediately

upon his death when he's isolated from all his kinsmen and has left behind on earth all their adornment so that the judgement may be a just one now i realizing this before you did have already appointed my sons as judges two from asia me- and Rhadamanthus and one from europe a curse after they've died they'll serve as judges in the meadow as the three-way crossing from which the two roads go on the one to the Isle of the Blessed and the other to Tartarus Rhadamanthus will judged the people from Asia and a 'thus from Europe

I'll give seniority to - to render the far no judgement if the other two are at all perplexed so that the judgment concerning the passage of humankind may be as just as possible this calories is what I've heard and I believe that it's true and on the basis of these accounts I conclude that something like this takes place death I think is actually nothing but the separation of two things from each other the soul and the body so after they're separated each of them stays in a condition not much worse than what it was in

when the person was alive the body retains its nature and the care it had received as well as the things that have happened to it are all evident if a man had a body for instance which was large either by nature or through nurture or both while he was alive his corpse after he has died is large - and if it was fat so is the corpse of the dead man and so on and if a man took care to grow his hair long his corpse will have long hair too and again if a man

had been a criminal width for his crime and showed scars traces of beatings on his body inflicted by whips or other blows while he was alive his body can be seen to have these marks too when he is dead and if a man's limbs were broken or twisted while he was alive these very things will be evident too when he is dead in a word however a man treated his body while he was alive all the marks of that treatment or most of them are evident for some time even after he is dead and I

think that the same thing therefore holds true so for the soul Kellie's all that's in the soul is evident after it has been stripped naked of the body both things that are natural to it and things that have happened to it things that the person came to have in his soul as a result of pursue of each objective so when they arrived before they're judged the people from Asia before Rhadamanthus Rhadamanthus brings them to a halt and studies each person's soul without knowing whose it is he's often gotten hold of the great king or some

other king or potentate and noticed that there's nothing sound in his soul but then it's been thoroughly whipped and covered with scars the result of acts of perjury and of injustice things that each of his actions has stamped upon his soul everything was warped as the result of deception and pretense and nothing was straight all because the soul had been nurtured without truth and when he saw the soul was full of distortions an ugliness due to license and luxury arrogance and incontinence in its actions and when he had seen it he dismissed this soul in

dishonour straight to the guardhouse where it went to await suffering it's appropriate fate it is appropriate for everyone who is subject as punishment rightly inflicted by another either to become better and profit from it or else to be made in exile for others so that when they see him suffering whatever it is he suffers they may be afraid and become better those who are benefited who are made to pay their due by gods and men are the ones whose errors are curable even so their benefit comes to them both here and in Hades by way

of pain and suffering for there is no other possible way to get rid of injustice from among those who have committed the ultimate wrongs and who because of such crimes have become incurable come the ones who are made examples of these persons themselves no longer derive any profit from their punishment because their incurable others however do profit from it when they see them undergoing for all time the most grievous intensely painful and frightening sufferings for their errors simply strung up there in the prison in Hades as examples visible warnings to unjust men who are ever

arriving I claim that Ark Elias 2 will be one of their number if what Paulo says is true and anyone else who's a tyrant like him I suppose that in fact the majority of these examples have come from the ranks of tyrants Kings potentates and those active in the affairs of cities for these people commit the most grievous and impious errors because they're in a position to do so Homer too is a witness on these matters for he has depicted those undergoing eternal punishment in Hades as kings and potentates Tantalus Sisyphus and Titus as for

30 days and any other private citizen who was wicked no one has depicted him as surrounded by the most grievous punishments as though he were incurable he wasn't in that position I suppose and for that reason he's also happier than those who were the fact is Cala Cleese that those persons who become extremely wicked do come from the ranks of the powerful although there's certainly nothing to stop good men from turning up even among the powerful and those who do turn up there deserve to be enthusiastically admired for it's a difficult thing calories and one

that merits much praise to live your whole life justly when you found yourself having ample freedom to do what's unjust few are those who prove to be like that but since there have proved to be such people both here and elsewhere I suppose that there will be others two men admirable and good in the excellence of justly carrying out whatever is entrusted to them one of these Arista T's the son of Lucilla coos has proved to be very illustrious indeed even among the rest of the Greeks but the majority of our potentates my good man

proved to be bad so as I was saying when Rena mentis the judge gets hold of someone like that he doesn't know a thing about him neither who he is nor who his people are except that he's somebody wicked and once he's noticed that he brands the man as either curable or incurable as he sees fit and dismisses the man to Tartarus and once the man has arrived there he undergoes the appropriate sufferings once in a while he inspects another soul one who has lived the pious life one devoted to truth the soul of a

private citizen or someone else especially an eye at any rate say this Kelly is that of a philosopher who has minded his own affairs and hasn't been meddlesome in the course of his life he admires the man and sends him off to the eyes of the Blessed and a curse to does the very same things each of them with staff in hand renders judgment and - is seated to oversee them he alone holds the golden scepter the way homeless Odysseus claims to have seen him holding his golden scepter the currying right among the dead for

my part Kell achlys I'm convinced by these accounts and I think about how I'll reveal to the judge a soul that's as healthy as it can be so I disregard the things held in honor by the Maggiore of people and by practice in truth I really tried to the best of my ability to be and to live as a very good man and when I die to die like that and I call on all other people as well as far as I can and especially you I call on in response to your call to this

way of life this contest that I hold to be worth all the other contests in this life and I take you to task because you won't be able to come to protect yourself when you appear at the trial and judgment I was just talking about now when you come before that judge the son of a Gina and he takes hold of you and brings you to trial your mouth will Han open and you'll get dizzy they're just as much as I will hear and maybe somebody will give you a demeaning knock on the door and

throw all sorts of dirt at you maybe you think this account is told as an old wives tale and you feel contempt for it and it certainly wouldn't be a surprising thing to feel contempt for it if we could look for and somehow find one better and truer than it as it is you see that there are three of you the wisest of the Greeks of today you polis and Gorgas and you're not able to prove that there's any other life one should live then the one which will clearly turn out to be advantageous in

that world too but among so many arguments this one alone survives refutation and remain steady that doing what's unjust is more to be guarded against and suffering it and that it's not seeming to be good but being good that a man should take care of more than anything both in his public and his private life and that if a person proves to be bad in some respect he's to be disciplined and that the second best thing after being justice to become just by paying one's do by being disciplined and every form of flattery both the

form concerned with oneself and not concerned with others whether they're few or many is to be avoided and that oratory and every other activity is always to be used in support of what's just so listen to me and follow me to where I am and when you've come here you'll be happy both during life and attics in as the account indicates let someone despise you as a fool and throw dirt on you if he likes and yes by Zeus confidently let him deal you that demeaning blow nothing terrible will happen to you if you really

are an admirable and good man one who practices excellence and then after we've practice it together then at last if we think we should we'll turn to politics or then were deliberate about whatever subject we please when we're better at deliberating than we are now for it's a shameful thing for us being in the condition we appear to be in at present when we never think the same about the same subjects the most important ones that they're to sound off as though we're somebody's that's how far behind in education we've fallen so let's use the

account that has now been disclosed to us as our guide one that indicates to us that this way of life is the best to practice justice and the rest of excellence both in life and in death let us follow it then and call on others to do so too and let's not follow the one that you believe in and call on me to follow for that one is worthless kal achlys