Ath.Then,by Heaven,we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators;and I would have you examine their arguments with the utmost care,for their impiety is a very serious matter;they not only make a bad and mistaken use of argument,but they lead away the minds of others:that is my opinion of them.
Cle.You are right;but I should like to know how this happens.
Ath.I fear that the argument may seem singular.
Cle.Do not hesitate,Stranger;I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation.But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods,of whom the law is said now to approve,let us take this way,my good sir.
Ath.Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions;they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things,to be not first,but last,and that which is last to be first,and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods.
Cle.Still I do not understand you.
Ath.Nearly all of them,my friends,seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul,especially in what relates to her origin:they do not know that she is among the first of things,and before all bodies,and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions.And if this is true,and if the soul is older than the body,must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body?
Cle.Certainly.
Ath.Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light;and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art;they will be the first,and after them will come nature and works of nature,which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them;these will follow,and will be under the government of art and mind.
Cle.But why is the word "nature"wrong?
Ath.Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power;but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element,and not fire or air,then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature;and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body,but not otherwise.
Cle.You are quite right.
Ath.Shall we,then,take this as the next point to which our attention should be directed?
Cle.By all means.
Ath.Let us be on our guard lest this most deceptive argument with its youthful looks,beguiling us old men,give us the slip and make a laughing-stock of us.Who knows but we may be aiming at the greater,and fail of attaining the lesser?Suppose that we three have to pass a rapid river,and I,being the youngest of the three and experienced in rivers,take upon me the duty of ****** the attempt first by myself;leaving you in safety on the bank,I am to examine whether the river is passable by older men like yourselves,and if such appears to be the case then I shall invite you to follow,and my experience will help to convey you across;but if the river is impassable by you,then there will have been no danger to anybody but myself-would not that seem to be a very fair proposal?I mean to say that the argument in prospect is likely to be too much for you,out of your depth and beyond your strength,and I should be afraid that the stream of my questions might create in you who are not in the habit of answering,giddiness and confusion of mind,and hence a feeling of unpleasantness and unsuitableness might arise.I think therefore that I had better first ask the questions and then answer them myself while you listen in safety;in that way I can carry on the argument until I have completed the proof that the soul is prior to the body.
Cle.Excellent,Stranger,and I hope that you will do as you propose.
Ath.Come,then,and if ever we are to call upon the Gods,let us call upon them now in all seriousness to come to the demonstration of their own existence.And so holding fast to the rope we will venture upon the depths of the argument.When questions of this sort are asked of me,my safest answer would appear to be as follows:-Some one says to me,"O Stranger,are all things at rest and nothing in motion,or is the exact opposite of this true,or are some things in motion and others at rest?-To this I shall reply that some things are in motion and others at rest."And do not things which move a place,and are not the things which are at rest at rest in a place?"Certainly."And some move or rest in one place and some in more places than one?"You mean to say,we shall rejoin,that those things which rest at the centre move in one place,just as the circumference goes round of globes which are said to be at rest?