Socrates, Critias.It is not supported by the analogy of sense or of the affections;
Or take all the senses: can you imagine that there is any sense of it<;elf and of other senses, but which is incapable of perceiving the objects of the senses?
I think not.
Could there be any desire which is not the desire of any pleasure, but of itself, and of all other desires?
Certainly not.
Or can you imagine a wish which wishes for no good, but only for itsPlf and all other wishes?
I should answer, No.
Or would you say that there is a love which is not the love of beauty, but of itself and of other loves?
I should not.
SS Or did you ever know of a fear which fears itself or other fears, but has no object of fear?
] never did, he said.
Or of an opinion which is an opinion of itself and of other opinions, and which has no opinion on the subjects of opinion in general?
Cntainly not.
But surely we are assuming a science of this kind, which, having no subject-matter, is a science of itself and of the other sciences?
Yes, that is what is affirmed.
But how strange is this, if it be indeed true: we must not however as yet absolutely c;Ieny the possibility of such a science; let us rather consider the matter.
You are quite right.
and involves a contradiction in the case of comparative terms. Well then, this science of which we are speaking is a science of something, and is of a nature to be a science of something?
Yes.
Just as that which is greater is of a nature to be greater than something else? [1]
- ↑ Socrates is intending to show that science differs from the object of science, as any other relative differs from the object of relation. But where there is comparison-greater, less, heavier, lighter, and the like-a relation to self as well as to other things involves an absolute contradiction; and in other cases, as in the case of the senses, is hardly conceivable. The use of the genitive after the comparative in Greek, μεῖζόν τινος, creates an unavoidable obscurity in the translation.
