Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

mere fallacious appearance and error must be admitted, and as what they are to be admitted, this part also is at an end, and the dialogue goes on into the investigation about the Sophist. Accordingly it would seem that with reference also to this part, what it begins and ends with, namely, the question relative to the non-existent and error, must obtain for the proper subject-matter; and on the other hand, that what is let in between the parts of this investigation and occupies the middle of it, must appear partly to be only a mean for reaching that end, partly a digression not unwillingly seized upon. But what reader, when

digression, will not be

he looks to the tenor of this compelled to apprehend in it immediately the most valuable and precious core of the dialogue, and that the more certainly, as here for the first time almost in the writings of Plato, the most inward sanctuary of philosophy is opened in a purely philosophical manner, and as, generally, existence is better and more noble than non-existence. For in the course of the investigation about the non-existent, exactly in the way in which this arose as a something higher in that about the Sophist, the question arises as to the community of ideas*, upon which all real thought and all life in knowledge depends; and the notion of the life of the existent, and of the necessary identity and reciprocality of existence and knowledge is most regularly disclosed. there is not anything within the sphere of philosophy

* P. 251. B.

And

— καὶ δή που χαίρουσιν οὐκ ἐῶντες ἄγαθον λέγειν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἀγαθὸν ἀγαθὸν, τὸν δὲ ἄνθρωπον ἄνθρωπον — Ε. καὶ τιθώμεν γε αὐτοὺς λέγειν, εἰ βούλει, πρῶτον μηδενὶ μηδὲν μηδεμ ίαν δύναμιν ἔχειν κοινωνίας εἰς μηδέν

more important, or any method peculiar to the views and method of Plato, more suitably adapted to conduct pupils and readers to the point than that which is here pursued. Let the reader but notice first how this the most inward, and, in point of extent, far from important kernel of the whole, exactly according to nature's method, forms itself into two halves externally, quite separate from one another, but quite grown together, and organically connected in the closest manner. For first, starting with the statement of the impossibility, that these persons should have reached the sphere of abstract existence who begin with mere unity, or they who continue to remain within the sphere of opposites; the real life of the existent, in which all opposites reciprocally penetrate and unite, is pointed out, and at the same time it is shown that knowledge can subsist neither without rest nor without motion, neither without station nor without flux, neither without constancy nor without progression, but in each pair requires a union of both. And let no one be misled by the apparently sceptical surprise at this required amalgamation of opposites, inasmuch as this is the last point at which the indirect method of demonstration, at the highest summit of which we here find ourselves, must terminate. And thus again, as if some quite new matter was arising, and without even the connection being pointed out, a descent is made from this sphere of the highest existence into that of opposites, which are here represented by the great one of motion and rest*, and it is shown that, first, community with opposites is founded upon the self-identity and diversity †

* P. 254. D.

† τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ θάτερον.

of the existent as common properties, and that in this sphere of diversity the existent exhibits itself necessarily, and in a variety of ways under the form of the non-existent, so that there can never be any opposite in respect of that highest existence itself considered as such, but he who has not penetrated to the light of true existence cannot, in general, advance further than to this non-existence of true knowledge, and the ignorance of true existence. That, therefore, the nature of all true philosophy is in fact here enunciated is a position requiring no further elucidation for him who is generally capable of apprehending it. Only let every reader notice the manner in which these conclusions are drawn, I mean, that Plato starts from the point at which every one necessarily finds himself, the sphere of conception, which is indeed at the same time that of contradictory opposites, showing that the establishment in this of any propositions respecting the existent carries with it exactly the same difficulties as the establishment of propositions respecting the non-existent, and that any one who thinks but to conceive or state anything, must first acquire a title of possession by virtue of which he can do so; and for this purpose the glance into that higher sphere of speculation is disclosed for all who can penetrate into it, as the only defence against the pretensions, not to be otherwise repulsed, of sophistical contentiousness. And because in our present dialogue the advance commences from this point, and presses forward up to that, the highest, immediately and without calling in the assistance of any mythical expedient, or otherwise deserting the course of the purest dialectics, we may fairly regard the Sophist as the inmost core of all indirect specula

tions of Plato, and to a certain degree as the first, and in its kind as a perfect image of the philosopher himself.

The latter moreover for the reason that as Plato himself grew as it were from the comprehensive survey and penetration of all earlier Grecian efforts in the province of philosophy, so also the inmost and most real substance of our dialogue results from a testing of the principles of all earlier philosophizing, of which we would here recall to the recollection of the reader as much as is necessary, and at the same time possible: for I regret that as to every point which it might be necessary and desirable to clear up, it does not also seem possible to do so. First of all then, that position which it is especially an object to refute, which asserts the utter impossibility of the non-existent, is referred to Parmenides as its most especial and pregnant source, and supported out of his own peculiar works, and it is accordingly demonstrated to him, with reference to existence, that it is not attainable under that higher potentiality of the unity of being and knowledge, by him who starts from simple unity without multiplicity, under the conditions of which the existent could not be under every form, not, consequently, both as a whole, and as in a state of progressiveness. It is in every way significant, that this refutation of Parmenides is put into the mouth of an Eleatic, and it might easily suggest itself that in what he here says, Plato only had in view a more correct explanation of the much misunderstood Parmenides; did not the expressions of the Stranger himself seem to oppose this view, and moreover he is not set up as a strict disciple of the Eleatic wisdom, but, as a dialogic personage, he forms in an extremely remarkable manner the trans

ition as it were, from Parmenides himself to the Pythagorean Timæus. We have, therefore, certainly in this dialogue the chief locus of the difference between the Platonic and Eleatic philosophers, though we could by no means maintain with Simplicius, who otherwise says here and there much that is instructive about our dialogue, that in the dialogue of the Parmenides Plato adopted the existent unit from the philosopher; and in the Sophist, contradicted him throughout. Only it is a pity that we have not, I fear, enough remaining of Parmenides to enable us to conceive Plato's opinion about the philosopher, and especially for the reason that Plato nowhere expresses himself decidedly upon the philosophy of Parmenides as to the sensible world, though we might really feel ourselves authorized to refer much upon this subject to the Eleatic philosopher, notwithstanding that he is not named as the author of it. What, for instance, are we to say of those friends of the ideal who are mentioned at the last, who conceive the possibility of an imperfect existence without that perfect existence and separate from it, and consider man as participating in both * ? It would not be surprising if many readers were to hit upon the idea that Plato here meant himself and his own doctrine; and when again, he involves this doctrine also in the perplexing contradiction in which the existent cannot be discovered, that this, on the other hand, is only pushing his indirect method to extremity.

*P. 248. B.

Γένεσιν, τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν χωρίς που διελόμενοι λέγετε, ἠγαρ ;

But

Καὶ σώματι μὲν ἡμᾶς γενέσει δι' αἰσθήσεως κοινωνεῖν, διὰ λογισμὸν δὲ ψυχῇ πρὸς τὴν ὄντως οὐσίαν, ἣν ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὡσαύτως ἔχειν φατέ, γένεσιν δὲ ἄλλοτε ἄλλως.

« EdellinenJatka »