Part 17 (1/2)
”I entirely agree with you,” he said, ”and follow you.”
”Tell me again, then,” he said, ”from the beginning; and do not answer me in the terms in which I put the question, but in different ones, imitating my example. For I say this because, besides that safe mode of answering which I mentioned at first,[39] from what has now been said, I see another no less safe one. For if you should ask me what that is which, if it be in the body, will cause it to be hot, I should not give you that safe but unlearned answer, that it is heat, but one more elegant, from what we have just now said, that it is fire; nor, if you should ask me what that is which, if it be in the body, will cause it to be diseased, should I say that it is disease, but fever; nor if you should ask what that is which, if it be in number, will cause it to be odd, should I say that it is unevenness, but unity; and so with other things. But consider whether you sufficiently understand what I mean.”
125. ”Perfectly so,” he replied.
”Answer me, then,” he said, ”what that is which, when it is in the body, the body will be alive?”
”Soul,” he replied.
”Is not this, then, always the case?”
”How should it not be?” said he.
”Does the soul, then, always bring life to whatever it occupies?”
”It does indeed,” he replied.
”Whether, then, is there any thing contrary to life or not?”
”There is,” he replied.
”What?”
”Death.”
”The soul, then, will never admit the contrary of that which it brings with it, as has been already allowed?”
”Most a.s.suredly,” replied Cebes.
”What, then? How do we denominate that which does not admit the idea of the even?”
”Uneven,” he replied.
”And that which does not admit the just, nor the musical?”
”Unmusical,” he said, ”and unjust.”
”Be it so. But what do we call that which does not admit death?”
”Immortal,” he replied.
”Therefore, does not the soul admit death?”
”No.”
”Is the soul, then, immortal?”
”Immortal.”
126. ”Be it so,” he said. ”Shall we say, then, that this has been now demonstrated? or how think you?”