The Republic. Plato

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ I were to answer, you would be quite certain to accuse me of haranguing; therefore either permit me to have my say out, or if you would rather ask, do so, and I will answer 'Very good,' as they say to story-telling old women, and will nod 'Yes' and 'No.'

      Certainly not, I said, if contrary to your real opinion.

      Yes, he said, I will, to please you, since you will not let me speak.

       What else would you have?

      Nothing in the world, I said; and if you are so disposed I will ask and you shall answer.

      Proceed.

      Then I will repeat the question which I asked before, in order that our examination of the relative nature of justice and injustice may be carried on regularly. A statement was made that injustice is stronger and more powerful than justice, but now justice, having been identified with wisdom and virtue, is easily shown to be stronger than injustice, if injustice is ignorance; this can no longer be questioned by any one. But I want to view the matter, Thrasymachus, in a different way: You would not deny that a state may be unjust and may be unjustly attempting to enslave other states, or may have already enslaved them, and may be holding many of them in subjection?

      True, he replied; and I will add the best and perfectly unjust state will be most likely to do so.

      I know, I said, that such was your position; but what I would further consider is, whether this power which is possessed by the superior state can exist or be exercised without justice.

      If you are right in you view, and justice is wisdom, then only with justice; but if I am right, then without justice.

      I am delighted, Thrasymachus, to see you not only nodding assent and dissent, but making answers which are quite excellent.

      That is out of civility to you, he replied.

      You are very kind, I said; and would you have the goodness also to inform me, whether you think that a state, or an army, or a band of robbers and thieves, or any other gang of evil-doers could act at all if they injured one another?

      No indeed, he said, they could not.

      But if they abstained from injuring one another, then they might act together better?

      Yes.

      And this is because injustice creates divisions and hatreds and fighting, and justice imparts harmony and friendship; is not that true, Thrasymachus?

      I agree, he said, because I do not wish to quarrel with you.

      How good of you, I said; but I should like to know also whether injustice, having this tendency to arouse hatred, wherever existing, among slaves or among freemen, will not make them hate one another and set them at variance and render them incapable of common action?

      Certainly.

      And even if injustice be found in two only, will they not quarrel and fight, and become enemies to one another and to the just.

      They will.

      And suppose injustice abiding in a single person, would your wisdom say that she loses or that she retains her natural power?

      Let us assume that she retains her power.

      Yet is not the power which injustice exercises of such a nature that wherever she takes up her abode, whether in a city, in an army, in a family, or in any other body, that body is, to begin with, rendered incapable of united action by reason of sedition and distraction; and does it not become its own enemy and at variance with all that opposes it, and with the just? Is not this the case?

      Yes, certainly.

      And is not injustice equally fatal when existing in a single person; in the first place rendering him incapable of action because he is not at unity with himself, and in the second place making him an enemy to himself and the just? Is not that true, Thrasymachus?

      Yes.

      And O my friend, I said, surely the gods are just?

      Granted that they are.

      But if so, the unjust will be the enemy of the gods, and the just will be their friend?

      Feast away in triumph, and take your fill of the argument; I will not oppose you, lest I should displease the company.

      Well then, proceed with your answers, and let me have the remainder of my repast. For we have already shown that the just are clearly wiser and better and abler than the unjust, and that the unjust are incapable of common action; nay ing at more, that to speak as we did of men who are evil acting at any time vigorously together, is not strictly true, for if they had been perfectly evil, they would have laid hands upon one another; but it is evident that there must have been some remnant of justice in them, which enabled them to combine; if there had not been they would have injured one another as well as their victims; they were but half—villains in their enterprises; for had they been whole villains, and utterly unjust, they would have been utterly incapable of action. That, as I believe, is the truth of the matter, and not what you said at first. But whether the just have a better and happier life than the unjust is a further question which we also proposed to consider. I think that they have, and for the reasons which to have given; but still I should like to examine further, for no light matter is at stake, nothing less than the rule of human life.

      Proceed.

      I will proceed by asking a question: Would you not say that a horse has some end?

      I should.

      And the end or use of a horse or of anything would be that which could not be accomplished, or not so well accomplished, by any other thing?

      I do not understand, he said.

      Let me explain: Can you see, except with the eye?

      Certainly not.

      Or hear, except with the ear?

      No.

      These then may be truly said to be the ends of these organs?

      They may.

      But you can cut off a vine-branch with a dagger or with a chisel, and in many other ways?

      Of course.

      And yet not so well as with a pruning-hook made for the purpose?

      True.

      May we not say that this is the end of a pruning-hook?

      We may.

      Then now I think you will have no difficulty in understanding my meaning when I asked the question whether the end of anything would be that which could not be accomplished, or not so well accomplished, by any other thing?

      I understand your meaning, he said, and assent.

      And that to which an end is appointed has also an excellence? Need I ask again whether the eye has an end?

      It has.

      And СКАЧАТЬ