PLATO. Hoshang Khambatta

the same consequences as Protarchus’ arguments? Protarchus asks how this could be so? Socrates answers that branches of knowledge seem to be a plurality, but then some branches turn out to be opposites. Socrates notes that if he were to deny such a distinction, the whole discussion would be an absurdity. Protarchus agrees that they can not let such a contradiction occur. He also agrees that there are many different types of both pleasures and knowledge. In this fashion they hold a lengthy discussion of the knowledge of letters, numbers and music. They include a discussion of the metaphysics of unity and plurality and of sameness and opposites. Protarchus suggests that Socrates has plunged them into a considerable problem by leading them around in circles. Socrates seems to be asserting that there are different kinds of pleasures. Furthermore, Socrates has not elucidated how many or what sort of pleasures do exist and that there are, he claims, similar sets of questions about knowledge. All present would like to have Socrates complete the discussion. Socrates says that he suddenly remembers something from the past. He had a dream that neither pleasure nor knowledge leads to the good life, but that there is a third concept that is different from and superior to both. If this is so, and the three people involved in the discussion consider that pleasure is not good, then pleasure is no longer the victor. Thus they will not have to consider different kinds of pleasures. Protarchus urges them to continue this discussion. Socrates says that they must first decide whether good is perfect or imperfect and whether it is sufficient for the good life. Socrates suggests that to resolve the question, they should put “a life of pleasure” and “a life of knowledge” on trial and reach a verdict by looking at each of them separately. Protarchus is confused about how to conduct such a trial. Socrates suggests that there is either no knowledge in the life of pleasure or no pleasure in the life of knowledge. Therefore, if either one provides for a good life, nothing additional will be necessary. Both discussants agree with this conclusion.

      Socrates continues by asking Protarchus if he would find it acceptable to live his whole life in enjoyment of pleasures? Protarchus replies with a definite affirmative. Socrates asks again if Protarchus would have any need for knowledge? Protarchus replies that if he has pleasure, he has all he needs. But then Socrates points out that, if he has no knowledge, memory, or reason, how can he know whether he is happy when he is devoid of all intelligence? Socrates continues in this same direction. He points out that with a lack of memory he would never remember that he had enjoyed himself or that he had pleasure. Likewise, by not possessing judgment he would not realize that he was enjoying himself. Furthermore, being unable to calculate, he would not be able to figure out future pleasures. In the end, lacking such characteristics would be like leading the life of a mollusk that lives in the sea. Finally, Socrates asks again whether such a life is worth choosing? Protarchus admits that after hearing these arguments he is left speechless. Socrates now poses a deeper question. Suppose a person chooses a life that is in possession of every kind of knowledge, reason, memory, intelligence, and all similar concepts, but is without pleasure or pain? Protarchus replies that neither of these two offered states seems to be a worthy choice. Socrates asks whether a combination of both would be preferable? Protarchus agrees that this possibility does seem to be a worthy choice. Socrates admits that this turn of events has upended their whole discussion. Protarchus agrees that of the three choices of life offered so far, two of them – namely either a life of pleasure only or a life of knowledge and reason only, are not worthy of or sufficient for man.

      Thus, having decided that the first choice for a good life should go to the combination of knowledge and pleasure. They then address the matter of which of the two choices with which they started should get second place. Socrates proposes that knowledge be given this position, whereas Protarchus proposes that pleasure should be the choice. As they have failed to agree on this ordering, Socrates suggests that they should restart the discussion with a new starting point. Protarchus asks for a clarification of this suggestion. Socrates responds that everything that exists can be divided into two categories: limited and unlimited. In this fashion, Socrates continues the divisions and subdivisions, but after considerable effort he fails to reach any agreement with Protarchus.

      Socrates then suggests yet another approach. He states that they did agree that a life that combines knowledge with pleasure is to be preferred. Therefore they should look to see what life is. Protarchus agrees with this notion that the choice of life be assigned to a third category, the other two categories being life of pleasure and life of knowledge. He points out that life is just not a mixture of pleasure and knowledge, but also includes the idea that all that is unlimited is also tied down by limits.

      Socrates asks, whether pleasure and pain have limits? Philebus replies that pleasure has no limit, it is so good that by nature it is boundless. Socrates continues this line of questioning by asking in which category the qualities of knowledge, reason and intelligence should be? Socrates and Protarchus agree that neither reason nor pleasure has beginning, middle, or end.

      The discussion continues and turns to what causes pain and how the relief of pain leads to pleasure. Socrates says that it seems that pleasure and pain arise together. He observes that by continuing this discussion, they would end up with three types of life, namely a life of pleasure, a life of pain, and a neutral life. However, to be free of pain would not be the same as to have pleasure. Socrates asks, what happens if someone says that the most pleasant thing of all is to live life without pain? Protarchus replies that such a person would experience pleasure from the absence of pain. Socrates objects, saying that this approach creates a false conclusion that pleasure is freedom from pain. Both pleasure and pain, each have a nature of their own. Socrates next poses the question of what they should decide, as people with a reputation in natural science say that everything called pleasure is freedom from pain? Socrates thinks that this point of view rests upon a hatred of the power of pleasure, which he would now like to discuss. Protarchus agrees with this observation. They then discuss the force and intensity of pleasure. Protarchus says that moderate people follow the maxim, “nothing in excess and the foolish give into debauchery.” Socrates replies that if that is the case, then it is a certain state of soul and body and not nature that is the source of pleasure and pain. They then decide to look into the characteristics of pleasure and pain, and to continue their discussion. They talk about lamentations and longings when pleasure is mixed with pain.

      Socrates suggests that they should similarly discuss knowledge, as there are differences amongst different kinds of knowledge just as there are differences amongst different kinds of pleasures. Protarchus says that while discussing knowledge, he has heard Gorgias insist that the art of persuasion is superior to all other arts. This outcome is because a persuasive argument enslaves others with their own consent. This outcome is not accomplished by force, and is therefore the best of all arts. Socrates cautions this conclusion b pointing out that their job is not to find which art is the greatest but the knowledge of which art aims best for clarity.

      Socrates tries to sum up the discussion. According to Philebus, he notes, pleasure is the best goal for all living beings and at the same time it is good for all things. So good and pleasant are really the same thing. Socrates continues saying that he believes that good and pleasure have different natures, with intelligence having a greater share in good than in pleasure. Protarchus disagrees with Socrates about this belief. Socrates adds that they should not seek the good in an unexamined life, but rather in a life that includes the consideration of numerous facets. He then queries whether mixing every kind of pleasure with every kind of intelligence would lead to an amalgam that would be as good as it can be? Protarchus answers with an ambiguous: “Maybe.” They then discuss, at length, the admixture of the two viewpoints. Socrates says that any type of mixture that does not explain the proportions of each viewpoint would just be an unconnected medley. Protarchus agrees and they discuss various proportions in the admixture.

      Socrates repeats that he maintains that reason is far superior to pleasure and is more beneficial to human life. However, he agrees that both reason and pleasure have lost any claim to being good in and of themselves as each lacks self-sufficiency and perfection. At this point, Socrates asks whether they should now end the discussion? Protarchus claims that something still is missing and that their discussion is not over. He promises to remind them later of what is left to discuss.