Then now let us return to the previous discussion. Is that idea or
essence, which in the dialectical process we define as essence or true
existence--whether essence of equality, beauty, or anything else--are
these essences, I say, liable at times to some degree of change? or
are they each of them always what they are, having the same simple
self-existent and unchanging forms, not admitting of variation at all,
or in any way, or at any time?
They must be always the same, Socrates, replied Cebes.
And what would you say of the many beautiful--whether men or horses or
garments or any other things which are named by the same names and may
be called equal or beautiful,--are they all unchanging and the same
always, or quite the reverse? May they not rather be described as almost
always changing and hardly ever the same, either with themselves or with
one another?
The latter, replied Cebes; they are always in a state of change.
And these you can touch and see and perceive with the senses, but
the unchanging things you can only perceive with the mind--they are
invisible and are not seen?
That is very true, he said.
Well, then, added Socrates, let us suppose that there are two sorts of
existences--one seen, the other unseen.
Let us suppose them.
The seen is the changing, and the unseen is the unchanging?
That may be also supposed.
And, further, is not one part of us body, another part soul?
To be sure.
And to which class is the body more alike and akin?
Clearly to the seen--no one can doubt that.
And is the soul seen or not seen?
Not by man, Socrates.
And what we mean by 'seen' and 'not seen' is that which is or is not
visible to the eye of man?
Yes, to the eye of man.
And is the soul seen or not seen?
Not seen.
Unseen then?
Yes.
Then the soul is more like to the unseen, and the body to the seen?
That follows necessarily, Socrates.
And were we not saying long ago that the soul when using the body as an
instrument of perception, that is to say, when using the sense of sight
or hearing or some other sense (for the meaning of perceiving through
the body is perceiving through the senses)--were we not saying that the
soul too is then dragged by the body into the region of the changeable,
and wanders and is confused; the world spins round her, and she is like
a drunkard, when she touches change?
Very true.
But when returning into herself she reflects, then she passes into the
other world, the region of purity, and eternity, and immortality, and
unchangeableness, which are her kindred, and with them she ever lives,
when she is by herself and is not let or hindered; then she ceases
from her erring ways, and being in communion with the unchanging is
unchanging. And this state of the soul is called wisdom?
That is well and truly said, Socrates, he replied.
And to which class is the soul more nearly alike and akin, as far as may
be inferred from this argument, as well as from the preceding one?
I think, Socrates, that, in the opinion of every one who follows the
argument, the soul will be infinitely more like the unchangeable--even
the most stupid person will not deny that.
And the body is more like the changing?
Yes.
Yet once more consider the matter in another light: When the soul and
the body are united, then nature orders the soul to rule and govern, and
the body to obey and serve. Now which of these two functions is akin to
the divine? and which to the mortal? Does not the divine appear to you
to be that which naturally orders and rules, and the mortal to be that
which is subject and servant?
True.
And which does the soul resemble?
The soul resembles the divine, and the body the mortal--there can be no
doubt of that, Socrates.
Then reflect, Cebes: of all which has been said is not this the
conclusion?--that the soul is in the very likeness of the divine,
and immortal, and intellectual, and uniform, and indissoluble, and
unchangeable; and that the body is in the very likeness of the human,
and mortal, and unintellectual, and multiform, and dissoluble, and
changeable. Can this, my dear Cebes, be denied?
It cannot.
But if it be true, then is not the body liable to speedy dissolution?
and is not the soul almost or altogether indissoluble?
Certainly.
And do you further observe, that after a man is dead, the body, or
visible part of him, which is lying in the visible world, and is
called a corpse, and would naturally be dissolved and decomposed and
dissipated, is not dissolved or decomposed at once, but may remain for a
for some time, nay even for a long time, if the constitution be sound at
the time of death, and the season of the year favourable? For the body
when shrunk and embalmed, as the manner is in Egypt, may remain almost
entire through infinite ages; and even in decay, there are still
some portions, such as the bones and ligaments, which are practically
indestructible:--Do you agree?
Yes.
And is it likely that the soul, which is invisible, in passing to the
place of the true Hades, which like her is invisible, and pure, and
noble, and on her way to the good and wise God, whither, if God will, my
soul is also soon to go,--that the soul, I repeat, if this be her nature
and origin, will be blown away and destroyed immediately on quitting the
body, as the many say? That can never be, my dear Simmias and Cebes.
The truth rather is, that the soul which is pure at departing and draws
after her no bodily taint, having never voluntarily during life had
connection with the body, which she is ever avoiding, herself gathered
into herself;--and making such abstraction her perpetual study--which
means that she has been a true disciple of philosophy; and therefore
has in fact been always engaged in the practice of dying? For is not
philosophy the practice of death?--