Socrates?

蘇格拉底

Among those who served in the Athenian heavy infantry was Socrates the son of Sophroniscus, who was thirty-eight when the war began. He was present at three of the important battles in the earlier years of the war and won a reputation for bravery.?

在雅典重步兵中服役的人中有一位是Sophroniscus之子蘇格拉底，他在戰(zhàn)爭開始時已經三十八歲了。他參加了戰(zhàn)爭早期的三場重要戰(zhàn)役，并贏得了勇敢的聲譽。

Back in Athens in 406, he held office in the Assembly at a time when a group of generals was put on trial for abandoning the bodies of the dead at the sea-battle of Arginusae. It was illegal to try the generals collectively rather than individually, but Socrates was the only person to vote against doing so, and they were executed.?

回到406年的雅典，他在議會中擔任職務，當時一群將軍因為在阿爾吉努薩海戰(zhàn)中棄尸而受審。集體審判而非單獨審判將軍是非法的，但蘇格拉底是唯一反對這樣做的人，而他們被處決了。

When the war ended in 404, the Spartans replaced the Athenian democracy with an oligarchy known as the Thirty Tyrants, who instituted a reign of terror. Socrates was ordered to arrest an innocent man, but disregarded the order. He would soon pay the price of the uprightness which had made him unpopular now with both democrats and aristocrats.?

當戰(zhàn)爭在404年結束時，斯巴達人用一個被稱為三十暴君的寡頭政治取代了雅典的民主制度，他們實行了一場恐怖統(tǒng)治。蘇格拉底被命令逮捕一個無辜的人，但他無視了命令。他很快就要為他的正直付出代價，這使他現在在民主派和貴族派中都不受歡迎。

Socrates’ importance in the development of philosophy is such that all the philosophers we have considered hitherto are lumped together by historians under the title ‘Pre-Socratics’. Yet he left no written work, and the details of his life, apart from its main dramatic events, remain obscure, a subject of controversy among scholars. He did not lack biographers, and indeed many of his contemporaries and successors wrote dialogues in which he took the leading part. The difficulty is to sort out sober fact from admiring fiction. His biographers all tell us that he was shabby and ugly, pot-bellied and snub-nosed; but agreement goes little further than that. The two authors whose works survive intact, the military historian Xenophon and the idealist philosopher Plato, paint pictures of Socrates which differ from each other as much as the picture of Jesus given by St Mark differs from that given by St John.?

蘇格拉底在哲學發(fā)展中的重要性是如此之大，以至于我們迄今為止所考慮過的所有哲學家都被歷史學家歸為“蘇格拉底之前”的哲學家。然而，他沒有留下任何書面作品，除了他生活中的主要戲劇性事件之外，他的生平細節(jié)仍然模糊不清，是學者們爭論的話題。他并不缺乏傳記作者，事實上，他的許多同時代人和后繼者都寫了對話，其中他扮演了主導角色。困難在于如何從虛構的褒揚中分辨出明確的事實。他的傳記作者都告訴我們，他衣衫襤褸，丑陋不堪，肚子大鼻子扁；但除此之外，他們幾乎沒有什么一致之處。兩位作品完整保存下來的作者，軍事史學家澤諾芬和理型論哲學家柏拉圖，描繪了蘇格拉底的形象，這些形象彼此之間的差異就像圣馬可給出的椰絲的形象與圣約翰給出的形象的差異一樣大。

In his lifetime, Socrates was mocked by the comic dramatist Aristophanes, who portrayed him as a bumbling and corrupt eccentric, pursuing scientific curiosities with his head literally in the clouds. But rather than a natural philosopher, Socrates seems to have been a sophist of an unusual kind.?

在他的一生中，蘇格拉底被喜劇作家阿里斯托芬嘲笑，他把蘇格拉底描繪成一個笨拙而腐敗的怪人，追求科學的奇聞異事，頭腦里充滿了空想。但蘇格拉底似乎不是一個自然哲學家，而是一種不尋常的智者。

Like the sophists, he spent much of his time in discussion and debate with rich young men (some of whom came to positions of power when oligarchy replaced democracy). But unlike others he charged no fees, and his method of education was not to instruct but to question; he said that he drew out, like a midwife, the thoughts with which his young pupils were pregnant. Unlike the sophists he made no claim to the possession of any special knowledge or expertise.?

像其他智者一樣，他花了很多時間和富有的年輕人討論和辯論（其中一些人在寡頭政治取代民主制度時獲得了權力）。但他不像其他人那樣收取費用，他的教育方法不是教導而是質疑；他說他像一個助產士一樣，把他的年輕學生孕育的思想助產出來。不像其他智者，他沒有聲稱擁有任何特殊的知識或技能。

In classical Greece great attention was paid to the oracles uttered in the name of the god Apollo by the entranced priestesses in the shrine of Delphi. When asked if there was anyone wiser than Socrates, a priestess replied that there was no one. Socrates professed to be puzzled by this oracle, and questioned, one after another, politicians, poets, and experts claiming to possess wisdom of various kinds. None of them were able to defend their reputation against his crossquestioning, and Socrates concluded that the oracle was correct in that he alone realized that his own wisdom was worth nothing.?

在古希臘，人們非常重視在德爾斐神廟中被神魂附體的女祭司以阿波羅神的名義發(fā)出的神諭。當有人問是否有比蘇格拉底更智慧的人時，一位女祭司回答說沒有。蘇格拉底聲稱對這個神諭感到困惑，并一個接一個地質問那些聲稱擁有各種智慧的政治家、詩人和專家。他們沒有一個能夠抵擋住他的盤問，蘇格拉底得出結論，神諭是正確的，因為只有他自己意識到自己的智慧一文不值。

It was in matters of morality that it was most important to pursue genuine knowledge and to expose false pretensions. For according to Socrates moral knowledge and virtue were one and the same thing. Someone who really knew what it was right to do could not do wrong; if anyone did what was wrong, it must be because he did not know what was right. No one goes wrong on purpose, since everyone wants to lead a good life and thus be happy. Those who do wrong unintentionally are in need of instruction, not punishment. This 26 remarkable set of doctrines is sometimes called by historians ‘The Socratic Paradox’.?

在道德問題上，追求真正的知識和揭露虛假的騙術是最重要的。因為根據蘇格拉底的說法，道德知識和美德是一回事。一個真正知道什么是正確的人不會做錯事；如果有人做了錯誤的事，那一定是因為他不知道什么是正確的。沒有人故意做錯事，因為每個人都想過好生活，從而快樂。那些無意中做錯事的人需要的是教導，而不是懲罰。這套引人注目的教義有時被歷史學家稱為“蘇格拉底悖論”。

Socrates did not claim to possess himself the degree of wisdom which would keep him from wrongdoing. Instead, he said that he relied on an inner divine voice, which would intervene if ever he was on the point of taking a wrong step. Authorities who disagree about the content of Socrates’ teaching agree about the manner of his death. The enemies whom he had made by his political probity, and his gadfly-like puncturing of reputations, ganged together to bring against him, at the age of seventy, a series of capital charges, accusing him of impiety, the introduction of strange gods, and the corruption of Athenian youth. Plato, who was present at his trial, wrote, after his death, a dramatized version of his speech in his defence, or Apology.?

蘇格拉底沒有聲稱自己擁有能夠使他免于做錯事的智慧水準。相反，他說他依賴于一種內在的神圣之聲，如果他即將邁出錯誤的一步，這種聲音就會干預。對蘇格拉底教導內容有分歧的權威們卻對他死亡的方式達成了一致。他因為自己的政治清廉和犀利揭穿虛假而結下的仇敵們聯合起來，在他七十歲時，對他提出了一系列死刑指控，指責他不敬神、引入奇怪的神靈和腐化雅典青年。柏拉圖在他的審判中在場，在他死后寫了一個戲劇化的版本，作為他的辯護演說，或者說《蘇格拉底辯護篇》。

His accuser, Meletus, claims that he corrupts the young. Who then are the people who improve the young? In answer Meletus suggests, first, the judges, then the members of the legislative council, then the members of the assembly, and finally every single Athenian except Socrates. What a surprising piece of good fortune for the city’s young people! Socrates goes on to ask whether it is better to live among good men than among bad men? Anyone would obviously prefer to live among good men, since bad men are likely to do him harm; if so he himself can have no motive for corrupting the young on purpose, and if he is doing so unwittingly, he should be educated rather than prosecuted.?

他的控告者邁雷托士聲稱他腐化了年輕人。那么，是誰在改善年輕人的狀況呢？作為回答，邁雷托士先是提到了法官，然后是立法委員會的成員，接著是大會的成員，最后是除了蘇格拉底以外的每一個雅典人。這對城市的年輕人來說是多么令人驚訝的好運氣?。√K格拉底繼續(xù)問，與壞人相處比與好人相處更好嗎？任何人顯然都更喜歡與好人相處，因為壞人可能會傷害他；如果是這樣，他自己就沒有故意腐化年輕人的動機，如果他是無意中這樣做的，他應該受到教育而不是起訴。

Socrates turns to the charge of impiety. Is he being accused of atheism, or of introducing strange gods? The two charges are not consistent with each other; and in fact, Meletus seems to be confusing him with Anaxagoras who said the sun was made of stone and the moon of earth. As for the charge of atheism, Socrates can reply that his mission as a philosopher was given him by God himself, and his campaign to expose false wisdom was waged in obedience to the Delphic oracle.?

蘇格拉底轉向不敬神的指控。他是被指控為無神論者，還是引入奇怪的神靈？這兩個指控是不一致的；事實上，邁雷托士似乎把他和阿那克薩哥拉混淆了，后者說太陽是由石頭組成的，月亮是由土壤組成的。至于無神論的指控，蘇格拉底可以回答說，他作為一個哲學家的使命是由上帝親自賦予他的，他揭露虛假智慧的運動是服從于德爾斐神諭的。

What would really be a betrayal of God would be to desert his post through fear of death. If he were told that he could go free on condition of abandoning philosophical inquiry, he would reply, ‘Men of Athens, I honour and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy’.?

真正背叛神的事情將是因為害怕死亡而放棄自己的使命。如果有人告訴他，只要放棄哲學探究，他就可以自由地走，他會回答說，“雅典人啊，我尊敬并愛你們；但我將服從神而不是你們，只要我還有生命和力量，我就永遠不會停止哲學的實踐和教導?！?/p>

Socrates concludes his defence by pointing to the presence in court of many of his pupils and their families, none of whom has been called on to testify for the prosecution. He refuses to do as others and produce in court his weeping children as objects of compassion: at the hands of the judges he seeks justice and not mercy.?

蘇格拉底以指出法庭上許多他的學生和他們的家人的存在來結束他的辯護，他們中沒有一個被要求為控方作證。他拒絕像其他人那樣，在法庭上展示他哭泣的孩子，作為同情的對象：在法官的權柄下，他尋求的是正義而不是憐憫。

When the verdict was delivered, he was condemned by a slender majority of the 501 judges. The prosecution called for the death penalty; it was for the accused to propose an alternative sentence. Socrates considered asking for an honourable pension, but was willing to settle for a moderate fine – one too large for him to pay himself, but which Plato and his friends were willing to pay on his behalf. The judges regarded the fine as unrealistically small, and passed sentence of death.?

當判決結果宣布時，他被501名法官中的微弱多數判處有罪。控方要求判處死刑；被告則要提出一個替代的刑罰。蘇格拉底考慮過要求卑微而低薪的降職 處罰，但他愿意接受一個適度的罰款——對他自己來說數目太大了，但柏拉圖和他的朋友們愿意代他支付。法官們認為罰款太小，不切實際，于是判處了死刑。

In his speech after sentence, Socrates told the judges that it would not have been difficult for him to frame a defence which would have secured acquittal; but the kind of tactics required would have been beneath him. ‘The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death’.?

在被判決后發(fā)表演說時，蘇格拉底告訴法官們，如果他想要構造一個能夠使自己無罪釋放的辯護并不困難；但那種所需的策略對他來說太卑鄙了?！拔业呐笥褌?，最難的事情并不在于避免死亡，而在于避免不義；因為那比死亡跑得更快?！?/p>

Socrates, old and slow, has been overtaken by the slower runner; his sprightly accusers have been overtaken by the faster. During the trial his divine voice has never once spoken to him to hold him back, and so he is content to go to his death.?

蘇格拉底，一個年老而不機智的人，被更慢的跑者所超越，這是不義或不公正的隱喻。年盛力強的控告者，他們聰明而雄辯，被更快的跑者所超越，這是死亡或命運的隱喻。在審判期間，他的神圣之聲，也就是他的內在指引或良心，從未警告他停止或改變他的行動方向，所以他滿意地接受他的死亡是神的旨意。

Is death a dreamless sleep? Such a sleep is more blessed than most nights and days in the life of even the most fortunate mortal. Is death a journey to another world? How splendid, to be able to meet the glorious dead and to converse with Hesiod and Homer! ‘Nay. if this be true, let me die again and again.’ He has so many questions to put to the great men and women of the past: and in the next world no one will be put to death for asking questions. ‘The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways – I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.’?

死亡是一種無夢的睡眠嗎？這樣的睡眠比即使是最幸運的凡人生活中的大多數夜晚和日子都更加幸福。死亡是一次前往另一個世界的旅行嗎？多么壯觀啊，能夠遇見榮死亡是一次前往另一個世界的旅行嗎？多么壯觀啊，能夠遇見榮耀的亡者，和赫西俄德和荷馬交談！“不，如果這是真的，讓我一次又一次地死去吧?！彼心敲炊鄦栴}要向過去的偉大男女提出：在來世，沒有人會因為提問而被處死。“離別的時刻到了，我們各走各的路——我去死，你們去活。哪個更好，只有神知道?！?/p>

After the trial portrayed in the Apology, there was a delay before sentence of death was carried out. A sacred ship had set out on its annual ceremonial voyage to the island of Delos, and until it returned to Athens the taking of human life was taboo. Plato has represented these days between condemnation and execution in a pair of unforgettable dialogues, the Crito and the Phaedo. No one knows how much in these dialogues is history, and how much invention; but the picture which they paint has fired the imagination of many who lived centuries and millennia after Socrates’ death.?

在《蘇格拉底辯護篇》中描繪的審判之后，執(zhí)行死刑之前有一段延遲。一艘神圣的船出發(fā)了，進行它的一年一度的儀式性航行，到德洛斯島去，直到它返回雅典，才能夠奪取人的生命。柏拉圖用一對令人難忘的對話，即《克里托篇》和《費多篇》，來表現這些被判決和執(zhí)行之間的日子。沒有人知道這些對話中有多少是歷史，有多少是虛構；但他們所描繪的畫面激發(fā)了許多在蘇格拉底死后幾個世紀和幾千年后生活的人的想象力。

Before considering these works, we should turn to a short dialogue, the Euthyphro, which Plato situates immediately before the trial. However fictional in detail, this probably gives a fair picture of Socrates’ actual methods of discussion and cross-examination.?

在考慮這些作品之前，我們應該轉向一部短篇對話，《尤提弗羅篇》，柏拉圖把它安置在審判之前。無論細節(jié)上有多少虛構，這可能給了我們一個公正的畫面，關于蘇格拉底實際的討論和盤問的方法。

Socrates, awaiting trial outside the courthouse, meets young Euthyphro from Naxos, who has come to bring a private prosecution. Euthyphro’s father had apprehended a farm-labourer who had killed a servant in a brawl; while sending to Athens for an authoritative ruling about his punishment, he had had him tied up and thrown into a ditch, where he died of hunger and exposure. The son had now come to Athens to prosecute a charge of murder against his father.?

蘇格拉底，在法院外等待審判，遇見了來自納克索斯島的年輕人尤提弗羅，他來提起一項私人起訴。尤提弗羅的父親曾經逮捕了一個農場工人，他在一場爭吵中殺死了一個仆人；在派人去雅典尋求一個權威的裁決關于他的懲罰時，他讓他被捆綁起來并扔進了一個溝里，在那里他死于饑餓和暴露。兒子現在來到雅典，控告他父親謀殺。

The case is obviously intended by Plato to be a difficult one: did the father really kill the labourer? If he did, is killing a murderer really murder? If it is, is a son a proper prosecutor of a father? But Euthyphro has no doubts, and regards 28 his action as the performance of a religious duty. The case provides the setting for a discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro on the relation between religion and morality. The nature of piety, or holiness, is of keen interest to Socrates who is himself about to stand trial on a charge of impiety. So he asks Euthyphro to tell him the nature of piety and impiety.?

這個案件顯然是柏拉圖故意設計的一個困難的案件：父親真的殺了那個工人嗎？如果他殺了，殺一個兇手真的是謀殺嗎？如果是，一個兒子是不是一個合適的對父親起訴的人？但尤提弗羅沒有任何疑問，他認為他的行為是履行宗教義務的表現。這個案件為蘇格拉底和尤提弗羅之間關于宗教和道德之間的關系的討論提供了背景。虔誠或圣潔的本質對蘇格拉底來說非常有興趣，因為他自己即將因為不敬神而受審。所以他要求尤提弗羅告訴他虔誠和不敬神的本質。

Piety, replies Euthyphro, is doing as I am doing, prosecuting crime; and if you think I should not take my father to court, remember that the supreme god Zeus punished his own father, Cronos. Socrates expresses some distaste for such stories of conflicts between the gods, and takes a while to ascertain that Euthyphro really believes them. But his real difficulty with Euthyphro’s account of piety or holiness is that it merely gives a single example, and does not tell us what is the standard by which actions are to be judged pious or impious.?

虔誠，尤提弗羅回答說，是像我所做的一樣，起訴犯罪；如果你認為我不應該把我父親告上法庭，那就記住，至高無上的神宙斯懲罰了他自己的父親克洛諾斯。蘇格拉底對這些關于神之間的沖突的故事表示了一些厭惡，花了一段時間來確定尤提弗羅真的相信它們。但他對尤提弗羅關于虔誠或圣潔的說法的真正困難是，它只給出了一個例子，并沒有告訴我們判斷行為是虔誠還是不敬神的標準是什么。

Euthyphro obliges with a definition: holiness is what the gods love, and unholiness is what they hate.?

尤提弗羅給出了一個定義：圣潔是神所愛的，不圣潔是神所恨的。

Socrates points out that, given the stories about quarrels between the gods, it may not be easy to secure a consensus about what the gods love; if something is loved by some gods and hated by others, it will turn out to be both holy and unholy. Such may be the case with Euthyphro’s own action of prosecuting his father. But let us waive this, and amend the definition so that it runs: what all the gods love is holy, and what all the gods hate is unholy. A further question arises: do the gods love what is holy because it is holy, or is it holy because the gods love it??

蘇格拉底指出，鑒于關于神之間爭吵的故事，要達成關于神所愛的東西的共識可能不容易；如果有些東西被一些神所愛，而被另一些神所恨，它就會變成既圣潔又不圣潔。尤提弗羅自己起訴他父親的行為可能就是這樣的情況。但讓我們放過這個，改正這個定義，讓它變成：所有神都愛的東西是圣潔的，所有神都恨的東西是不圣潔的。一個進一步的問題出現了：神之所以愛圣潔的東西，是因為它是圣潔的，還是因為神愛它而使它成為圣潔的？

In order to get Euthyphro to grasp the sense of this question, Socrates offers a number of examples which turn on points of Greek grammar. His point could be made in English by saying that in a criminal case, ‘the accused’ is so called because someone accuses him; it is not that people accuse him because he is the accused. Now is the holy, similarly, so called because the gods love it? Once he understands the question, Euthyphro rejects it: on the contrary, the gods love what is holy because it is holy.?

為了讓尤提弗羅理解這個問題的意義，蘇格拉底提供了一些基于希臘語語法要點的例子。他的觀點可以用英語這樣說：在一個刑事案件中，“被告”之所以這樣稱呼，是因為有人指控他；不是因為他是被告，人們才指控他。那么，圣潔的東西，同樣地，之所以這樣稱呼，是因為神愛它嗎？一旦他理解了這個問題，尤提弗羅拒絕了它：相反，神之所以愛圣潔的東西，是因為它是圣潔的。

Socrates now slyly offers ‘godly’ as an abbreviation for ‘what is loved by the gods’. Since Euthyphro maintains that holiness and godliness are the same, we can substitute ‘godly’ for ‘holy’ in Euthyphro’s thesis that what is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy. We get this result:

(A) The godly is loved by the gods because it is godly?

On the other hand it seems clear that?

(B) The godly is godly because it is loved by the gods since ‘godly’ was introduced precisely as a synonym for ‘loved by the gods’.?

蘇格拉底現在狡猾地提出“神圣”作為“被神所愛的東西”的縮寫。既然尤提弗羅堅持認為圣潔和神圣是一樣的，我們可以用“神圣”來代替“圣潔”，在尤提弗羅的論題中，即被神所愛的東西之所以被神所愛，是因為它是圣潔的。我們得到這樣的結果：

（A）神圣的東西之所以被神所愛，是因為它是神圣的。

另一方面，似乎很清楚

（B）神圣的東西之所以是神圣的，是因為它被神所愛，因為“神圣”正是“被神所愛”的同義詞。

Socrates claims to have reduced Euthyphro to inconsistency, and urges him to withdraw his claim that godliness and holiness are identical.?

蘇格拉底聲稱他已經把尤提弗羅歸謬到了不一致的地步，并敦促他撤回他關于神圣和圣潔是相同的說法。

Euthyphro in the dialogue concedes that his definitions have not turned out as he wished. We may well think, however, that he should have stood his ground, and pointed out that Socrates was equivocating with the word ‘because’, using it in two different senses. If we say that the godly is the godly because it is loved by the gods, we are talking about the word ‘godly’; the ‘because’ invokes our stipulation about its meaning. If we say that the gods love the holy because it is holy, the ‘because’ introduces the motive of the gods’ love, and we are not talking about the meanings of words. In fact, once we realize the ambiguity of ‘because’ there is no conflict between (A) and (B). The point can be made in English by pointing out that it is true both that?

（C） A judge is a judge because he judges (that is why he is called a judge); and also that （D）?A judge judges because he is a judge (he does it because it is his job).?

對話中的尤提弗羅承認他的定義沒有達到他的期望。然而，我們可能會認為，他應該堅持自己的立場，并指出蘇格拉底在使用“因為”這個詞時有歧義，用了兩種不同的意義。如果我們說神圣的東西是神圣的，因為它被神所愛，我們是在談論“神圣”這個詞；“因為”引出了我們對它的意義的規(guī)定。如果我們說神之所以愛圣潔的東西，是因為它是圣潔的，“因為”引入了神之愛的動機，我們不是在談論詞語的意義。事實上，一旦我們意識到“因為”的歧義，（A）和（B）之間就沒有沖突了。這一點可以用英語來說明，既是真的

（C）一個法官是一個法官，因為他審判（這就是他被稱為法官的原因）；也是真的

（D）一個法官審判，因為他是一個法官（他這樣做是因為這是他的工作）。

So Euthyphro should not have been checkmated so easily. However, even if Socrates was persuaded to agree that there was nothing inconsistent in saying that what is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy, he could still go on to say, as he does in the dialogue, that even if that is so, being loved by the gods is only something that happens to what is holy: it does not tell us the essential nature of holiness in itself.?

所以尤提弗羅不應該那么容易地被駁倒。然而，即使蘇格拉底被說服同意說圣潔的東西之所以被神所愛，是因為它是圣潔的，并沒有什么不一致的地方，他仍然可以繼續(xù)說，正如他在對話中所做的那樣，即使是這樣，被神所愛只是發(fā)生在圣潔的東西身上的一件事：它并沒有告訴我們圣潔本身的本質特征。

Instead of godliness, should holiness be identified with justice? Socrates and Euthyphro agree that holiness seems to be only one part of justice, and Euthyphro suggests that it is justice in the service of the gods, rather than justice in the service of humans. Socrates latches onto the word ‘service’. When we take care of horses, or dogs, or oxen, we do them various services which improve their condition. Can we in a similar way do services to the gods? Can we make them any better than they are? Euthyphro points out that servants do not necessarily aim to improve their masters by serving them, but simply to assist them in their work. What then, Socrates asks, is the gods’ work, in which we can offer service??

與其說是神圣，不如說是圣潔應該與正義相等同嗎？蘇格拉底和尤提弗羅同意，圣潔似乎只是正義的一部分，尤提弗羅建議，它是為神服務的正義，而不是為人服務的正義。蘇格拉底抓住了“服務”這個詞。當我們照顧馬、狗或牛時，我們?yōu)樗鼈兲峁┝烁鞣N服務，改善了它們的狀況。我們能否以類似的方式為神提供服務？我們能否使他們比他們現在更好？尤提弗羅指出，仆人們并不一定是為了通過服侍他們而改善他們的主人，而只是為了幫助他們完成他們的工作。那么，蘇格拉底問，神的工作是什么，我們可以在其中提供服務？

Euthyphro is unable to reply, and falls back on a definition of holiness as divine service in the form of prayer and sacrifice.?

尤提弗羅無法回答，退回到以祈禱和犧牲的形式作為神圣服務的圣潔定義。

So then, Socrates says, holiness is giving things to the gods in the hope of getting something back from them; a kind of trade. But a trader can only hope to strike a bargain by offering his customer something which he needs or wants; so we must ask what good the gods gain from our gifts? Euthyphro cannot answer except by falling back on his earlier claim that holiness is something which the gods love. He refuses to take the discussion further, and hastens on to his self-appointed task.?

那么，蘇格拉底說，圣潔就是給神一些東西，希望從他們那里得到一些東西；一種交易。但一個商人只有通過提供他的顧客需要或想要的東西才能希望達成一筆交易；所以我們必須問，神從我們的禮物中得到了什么好處？尤提弗羅除了退回到他早先的說法，即圣潔是神所愛的東西之外，無法回答。他拒絕進一步討論，并匆匆趕往他自己指定的任務。

The Euthyphro probably gives a realistic picture of the strengths and weaknesses of Socrates’ methods of cross-examination. It also, whether this was Plato’s intention or not, enables us to understand why religious folk in Athens might in good faith regard Socrates as a danger to the young and a purveyor of impiety.?

《尤提弗羅篇》可能給出了一個關于蘇格拉底盤問方法的優(yōu)缺點的現實的畫面。它也使我們能夠理解，無論這是否是柏拉圖的意圖，在雅典的宗教人士為什么可能會真誠地認為蘇格拉底是對年輕人的危險和不敬神者的傳播者。

The Crito

《克里托篇》

The Crito is a much easier dialogue to read. Socrates is now in prison, waiting for the execution of his sentence. A number of his friends, led by Crito, have devised a plan for him to escape and flee to Thessaly. The plan had a good chance of success, but Socrates would have no part in it. Life was only worth striving for if it was a good life; and life purchased by disobedience to the laws was not a life worth living. Even if he has been wronged, he should not render evil for evil. But in fact he has been condemned by due process, and he should remain obedient to the law.?

《克里托篇》是一部更容易閱讀的對話。蘇格拉底現在在監(jiān)獄里，等待著他的判決執(zhí)行。他的一些朋友，由克里托領導，為他設計了一個逃跑并逃往色薩利的計劃。這個計劃有很大的成功機會，但蘇格拉底不想參與。生命只有在是美好的生活時才值得追求；而用違抗法律的方式換來的生命不是值得活的生命。即使他受到了不公正的對待，他也不應該以惡報惡。但事實上，他已經被正當的程序判決了，他應該繼續(xù)服從法律。

Socrates imagines the laws of Athens addressing him. ‘Did we not bring you into existence? By our aid your father married your mother and begat you.’ We also commanded your father to educate you in body and mind. ‘Has a philosopher like you failed to discover that our country is more precious and higher and holier far than mother or father or any ancestor? . . . Having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good which we had to give, we further proclaim to any Athenian by the liberty which we allow him, that if he does not like us, the laws, when he has become of age and seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him.’?

蘇格拉底想象著雅典的法律對他說話。“難道不是我們讓你存在嗎？在我們的幫助下，你父親娶了你母親，生了你。”我們還命令你父親在身體和心靈上教育你。“像你這樣的哲學家難道沒有發(fā)現，我們的國家比母親或父親或任何祖先都更珍貴、更高貴、更神圣嗎？……我們把你帶到這個世界上，養(yǎng)育和教育你，并給你和每一個公民分享我們所能給予的一切美好，我們還向任何雅典人宣告，憑借我們給予他的自由，如果他不喜歡我們，法律，當他成年并看到城市的道路，并與我們相識時，他可以去他想去的地方，并帶走他的財物?！?/p>

By remaining in Athens continuously through his long life Socrates has entered into an implied contract that he will do as the laws command. By refusing at his trial to accept exile rather than death, he has renewed that commitment. Will he now, at the age of seventy, turn his back on the covenants he has made and run away? ‘Think not of life and children first, and of justice afterwards, but of justice first; for if you leave the city, returning evil for evil and breaking the contracts you have made with us, our brethren, the laws in the world below, will give you no friendly welcome.’ Crito has no answer and Socrates concludes, ‘Let us fulfil the will of God and follow whither he leads’.?

通過他漫長的一生不斷地留在雅典，蘇格拉底已經進入了一個暗示的契約，他將按照法律的命令行事。通過在他的審判中拒絕接受流放而不是死亡，他已經更新了那個承諾。他現在，七十歲了，會背棄他所做的契約，逃跑嗎？“不要先想生命和孩子，然后再想正義，而是先想正義；因為如果你離開這個城市，以惡報惡，破壞你和我們所做的契約，我們的兄弟，下面的世界的法律，不會給你友好的歡迎?！笨死锿袥]有回答，蘇格拉底總結說，“讓我們履行神的旨意，跟隨他所引導的地方?！?/p>

The Phaedo?

《斐多篇》

The dialogue with which Plato concludes his account of Socrates’ last days is called the Phaedo, after the name of the narrator, a citizen of Parmenides’ city of Elea, who claims, with his friends Simmias and Cebes, to have been present with (Naples, Museo Nazionale; photo: Alinari Archives, Florence) Socrates at his death. The drama begins as news arrives that the sacred ship has returned from Delos, which brings to an end the stay of execution. Socrates’ chains are removed, and he is allowed a final visit from his weeping wife Xanthippe with their youngest child in her arms. After she leaves, the group turns to a discussion of death and immortality.?

柏拉圖用這部對話結束了他關于蘇格拉底最后幾天的敘述，它被稱為《斐多篇》，以敘述者的名字命名，他是帕門尼德斯的城市埃利亞的一個公民，他聲稱和他的朋友西米亞斯和塞貝斯一起，在蘇格拉底死時在場。戲劇開始于消息傳來，神圣的船從德洛斯返回，這結束了執(zhí)行的停留。蘇格拉底的鎖鏈被解開，他被允許最后一次拜訪他哭泣的妻子桑西皮，她懷里抱著他們最小的孩子。在她離開后，這群人轉向了關于死亡和不朽的討論。

A true philosopher, Socrates maintains, will have no fear of death; but he will not take his own life, either, even when dying seems preferable to going on living. We are God’s cattle, and we should not take ourselves off without a summons from God. Why, then, ask Simmias and Cebes, is Socrates so ready to go to his death??

一個真正的哲學家，蘇格拉底堅持，不會害怕死亡；但他也不會自殺，即使死亡看起來比繼續(xù)活著更好。我們是神的牲畜，我們不應該在沒有神的召喚的情況下離開自己。那么，西米亞斯和塞貝斯問，蘇格拉底為什么這么愿意去死呢？

In response Socrates takes as his starting point the conception of a human being as a soul imprisoned in a body. True philosophers care little for bodily pleasures such as food and drink and sex, and they find the body a hindrance rather than a help in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. ‘Thought is best when the mind is gathered into itself, and none of these things trouble it – neither sounds nor sights nor pain, nor again any pleasure – when it takes leave of the body and has as little as possible to do with it.’ So philosophers in their pursuit of truth continually try to keep their souls detached from their bodies. But death is the full separation of soul from body: hence, a true philosopher has, all life long, been in effect seeking and craving after death.?

作為回應，蘇格拉底以一個人作為一個被囚禁在身體里的靈魂的概念為出發(fā)點。真正的哲學家對身體的快樂，如食物、飲料和性，不太在乎，他們認為身體是追求科學知識的障礙而不是幫助?！爱斝撵`聚集在思想里面，這是最好的，沒有這些東西困擾它——既沒有聲音，也沒有視覺，也沒有痛苦，也沒有任何快樂——當它離開身體，并盡可能少地與它有關時。”所以哲學家在追求真理的過程中，不斷地試圖讓他們的靈魂脫離他們的身體。但死亡是靈魂和身體的完全分離：因此，一個真正的哲學家，在他一生中，實際上一直在尋求和渴望死亡。

Hunger and disease and lust and fear obstruct the study of philosophy. The body is to blame for faction and war, because the body’s demands need money for their satisfaction, and all wars are caused by the love of money. Even in peacetime the body is a source of endless turmoil and confusion. ‘If we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body – the soul by itself must behold things by themselves: and then we shall attain that which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers – wisdom; not while we live but, as the argument shows, only after death.’ A true lover of wisdom, therefore, will depart this life with joy.?

饑餓、疾病、欲望和恐懼阻礙了哲學的研究。身體應該為紛爭和戰(zhàn)爭負責，因為身體的需求需要金錢來滿足，所有的戰(zhàn)爭都是由對金錢的愛所引起的。即使在和平時期，身體也是無盡的動蕩和混亂的源泉。“如果我們想要對任何事物有純粹的認識，我們必須擺脫身體——靈魂本身必須直接觀察事物本身：然后我們才能得到我們所渴望的，我們所說的我們是愛好者的東西——智慧；不是在我們活著的時候，而是，正如論證所顯示的，只有在死后?！币虼?，一個真正的智慧之愛者，會歡喜地離開這個生活。

So far, it is fair to say, Socrates has been preaching rather than arguing. Cebes brings him up short by saying that most people will reject the premiss that the soul can survive the body. They believe rather that on the day of death the soul comes to an end, vanishing into nothingness like a puff of smoke. ‘Surely it requires a great deal of proof to show that when a man is dead his soul yet exists, and has any strength or intelligence.’ So Socrates proceeds to offer a set of proofs of immortality.?

到目前為止，公平地說，蘇格拉底一直在說教而不是在辯論。塞貝斯讓他停下來，說大多數人會拒絕靈魂可以存活于身體之外的前提。他們相信，在死亡的那一天，靈魂就結束了，像一縷煙一樣消失得無影無蹤?！耙C明一個人死了，他的靈魂還存在，并且有任何力量或智慧，肯定需要很多的證據。”所以蘇格拉底繼續(xù)提供一系列關于不朽的證明。

First, there is the argument from opposites. If two things are opposites, each of them comes into being from the other. If someone goes to sleep, she must have been awake. If someone wakes up, he must have been asleep. Again, if A becomes greater than B, then A must have been less that B. If A becomes better than B, then A must have been worse than B. Thus, these opposites, greater and less, plus better and worse, just like sleeping and waking, come into being from each other.?

首先，有來自對立面的論證。如果兩件事物是對立的，每一件都是從另一件產生的。如果有人準備去睡覺，她一定是醒著的。如果有人醒來了，他一定是剛剛睡著了。同樣，如果A變得比B大，那么A一定比B小。如果A變得比B好，那么A一定比B差。因此，這些對立面，大和小，好和壞，就像睡眠和清醒一樣，都是從彼此產生的。

但死亡和生命是對立的，這里也必須如此。那些死去的人，顯然是那些曾經活著的人；我們難道不應該得出這樣的結論，死亡之后是生命嗎？既然死后的生命是看不見的，我們必須得出結論，靈魂生活在另一個世界之下，也許會在某一天回到地球上。?

But death and life are opposites, and the same must hold true here also. Those who die, obviously enough, are those who have been living; should we not conclude that dying in its turn is followed by living? Since life after death is not visible, we must conclude that souls live in another world below, perhaps to return to earth in some latter day.

第二個論證試圖證明一個沒有身體的靈魂的存在，不是在它在身體中的生命之后，而是在之前。證明分為兩步：第一，蘇格拉底試圖證明知識是回憶；第二，他強調回憶涉及先前存在。?

The second argument sets out to prove the existence of a non-embodied soul not after, but before, its life in the body. The proof proceeds in two steps: first, Socrates seeks to show that knowledge is recollection; second, he urges that recollection involves pre-existence.

論證的第一步是這樣的。我們不斷地看到大小或多或少相等的東西。但我們從來沒有看到兩塊石頭或木頭或其他物質的東西是絕對相等的。因此，我們對絕對相等的概念不能從經驗中得出。我們看到的大約相等的東西只是讓我們想起絕對相等，就像一幅畫像可能讓我們想起一個不在場的愛人一樣。?

The first step in the argument goes like this. We constantly see things which are more or less equal in size. But we never see two stones or blocks of wood or other material things which are absolutely equal to each other. Hence, our idea of absolute equality cannot be derived from experience. The approximately equal things we see merely remind us of absolute equality, in the way that a portrait may remind us of an absent lover.

第二步是這樣的。如果我們被提醒了某件事，我們必須事先知曉它。所以如果我們回憶起了絕對相等，我們必須以前遇到過它。但我們沒有在我們現在的生活中用我們普通的視覺和觸覺這樣做。

The second step is this. If we are reminded of something, we must have been acquainted with it beforehand. So if we are reminded of absolute equality, we must have previously encountered it. But we did not do so in our present life with our ordinary senses of sight and touch.

所以我們必須在純粹的理智上，在我們出生之前的一個以前的生命中曾經認識過——除非，不太可能地，“絕對相等”的知識是在我們出生的那一刻注入到我們身上的。如果這個論證對絕對相等的概念有效，它同樣適用于其他類似的概念，如絕對善和絕對美。?

So we must have done so, by pure intellect, in a previous life before we were born – unless, improbably, we imagine that the knowledge of equality was infused into us at the moment of our birth. If the argument works for the idea of absolute equality, it works equally for other similar ideas, such as absolute goodness and absolute beauty.

蘇格拉底承認，這個第二個論證，即使成功地證明了靈魂在出生之前就存在，也不會顯示它在死后存活，除非它被第一個論證加強。所以他提出了一個第三個論證，基于可溶性和不可溶性的概念。?

Socrates admits that this second argument, even if successful in proving that the soul exists before birth, will not show its survival after death unless it is reinforced by the first argument. So he offers a third argument, based on the concepts of dissolubility and indissolubility.

如果某物能夠溶解和分解，就像身體在死亡時那樣，那么它必須是某種復合的和可變的東西。但靈魂所關心的對象，如絕對平等和美，是不可改變的，不像我們用身體的眼睛看到的美，它們會褪色和衰敗。可見的世界不斷地變化；只有不可見的東西保持不變。不可見的靈魂只有當被拖拽，通過身體的感官，進入流動的世界時，才會發(fā)生變化。?

If something is able to dissolve and disintegrate, as the body does at death, then it must be something composite and changeable. But the objects with which the soul is concerned, such as absolute equality and beauty, are unchangeable, unlike the beauties we see with the eyes of the body, which fade and decay. The visible world is constantly changing; only what is invisible remains unaltered. The invisible soul suffers change only when dragged, through the senses of the body, into the world of flux.

在那個世界里，靈魂像一個醉漢一樣搖搖晃晃；但當它回到自己里面時，它就進入了純潔、永恒和不朽的世界。這是它所屬的世界。

Within that world, the?soul staggers like a drunkard; but when it returns into itself, it passes?into the world of purity, eternity, and immortality. This is the world in which it is at home.

“靈魂是神圣、不朽、理性、統(tǒng)一、不可分解和不可改變的最近似之物，而身體是人類、可朽、非理性、多形態(tài)、可溶解和可改變的最近似之物?！币虼?，蘇格拉底總結說，身體容易分解，而靈魂幾乎完全不可溶解。如果即使身體，在埃及被木乃伊化后，可以存活很多年，那么靈魂在死亡的那一刻溶解和消失就完全不可能了。?

?‘The soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and rational, and uniform, and indissoluble and unchangeable, and the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and irrational, and multi-form, and dissoluble, and changeable.’ Hence, Socrates concludes, the body is liable to dissolution, while the soul is almost totally indissoluble. If even bodies, when mummified in Egypt, can survive for many years, it must be totally improbable that the soul dissolves and disappears at the moment of death.

The soul of the true philosopher will depart to an invisible world of bliss. But impure souls, who in life were nailed to the body by rivets of pleasure and pain, and are still wedded to bodily concerns at the moment of death, will not become totally immaterial, but will haunt the tomb as shadowy ghosts, until they enter the prison of a new body, perhaps of a lascivious ass, or a vicious wolf, or at best, a sociable and industrious bee.?

真正哲學家的靈魂將離開到一個看不見的幸福世界。但不純潔的靈魂，在生活中被快樂和痛苦的鉚釘釘在身體上，并且在死亡時仍然與身體的事情結合在一起，將不會變得完全無形，而是會像陰影般的幽靈一樣出沒在墓地里，直到他們進入一個新身體的監(jiān)獄，也許是一個淫蕩的驢子，或者一個邪惡的狼，或者最好是一個友好而勤奮的蜜蜂。

Simmias now undermines the basis of Socrates’ argument by offering a different, and subtle, conception of the soul. Consider, he says, a lyre made out wood and strings. The lyre may be in tune or out of tune, depending on the tension of the strings.?

西米亞斯現在通過提供一個不同的，微妙的靈魂的概念，破壞了蘇格拉底論證的基礎。想想看，他說，一把由木頭和弦組成的琴。琴可能是調好了音或者沒調好音，這取決于弦的緊張度。

A living human body may be compared to a lyre that is in tune, and a dead body to a lyre out of tune. Suppose someone were to claim that, while the strings and the wood were gross material composites, being in tune was something which was invisible and incorporeal. Would it not be foolish to argue that this attunement could survive the smashing of the lyre and the rending of its strings? Of course; and we must conclude that when the strings of the body lose their tone through injury or disease, the soul must perish like the tunefulness of a broken lyre.?

一個活著的人體可以比作一把調好了音的琴，而一個死去的身體可以比作一把沒調好音的琴。假設有人聲稱，雖然弦和木頭是粗糙的物質組合，但旋律是一種看不見的、無形的東西。那么，主張這種旋律能夠在琴被打碎和弦被撕裂時存活下來，難道不是愚蠢嗎？當然是；我們必須得出結論，當身體的弦因為受傷或疾病而失去了旋律時，靈魂必須像一把破碎的琴的旋律一樣消亡。

Cebes too still needs convincing that the soul is immortal, but his criticism of Socrates is less radical than that of Simmias. He is prepared to agree that the soul is more powerful than the body, and need not wear out when the body wears out.?

塞貝斯也仍然需要說服靈魂是不朽的，但他對蘇格拉底的批評不像西米亞斯那樣激進。他準備同意靈魂比身體更強大，而且不會在身體磨損時磨損。

In the normal course of life, the body suffers frequent wear and tear and needs constant restoration by the soul. But may not the soul itself eventually come to die in the body, just as a weaver, who has made and worn out many coats in his lifetime, may die and be survived by the last of them??

在正常的生活過程中，身體經常遭受磨損，并需要靈魂不斷地恢復。但靈魂本身最終不也可能在身體里死去嗎？就像一個織工，在他一生中制作和穿壞了許多外套，可能死去并被最后一件外套所繼承？

Even on the hypothesis of transmigration, a soul might pass from body to body, and yet not be imperishable but eventually meet its death. So, concludes Simmias, ‘he who is confident about death can have but a foolish confidence, unless he is able to prove that the soul is altogether immortal and imperishable’.?

即使在轉世的假設下，一個靈魂也可能從一個身體轉移到另一個身體，但它并不是不可毀滅的，而是最終會遇到死亡。所以，西米亞斯總結說，“不害怕死亡的人，只能有愚蠢的信心，除非他能夠證明靈魂是完全不朽和不可毀滅的?！?/p>

In response to Simmias, Socrates first falls back on the argument from recollection which required the soul’s pre-existence. This is quite unintelligible if having a soul is simply having one’s body in tune; a lyre has to exist before it can be tuned. More importantly, being in tune admits of degrees: a lyre can be more or less in tune. But souls do not admit of degrees; no soul can be more or less a soul than another soul.?

為了回應西米亞斯，蘇格拉底首先回到了要求靈魂先前存在的回憶的論證上。如果擁有靈魂只是讓自己的身體協(xié)調，這是完全不可理解的；一把琴必須在它被調音之前就存在。更重要的是，調音是有程度的：一把琴可以或多或少地調音。但靈魂不是有程度的；沒有一個靈魂可以比另一個靈魂更多或更少地是一個靈魂。

One might say that a virtuous soul was a soul in harmony with itself: but if so, it would have to be an attunement of an attunement. Again, it is the tension of the strings which causes the lyre to be in tune, but in the human case the relationship is the other way round: it is the soul which keeps the body in order. Under this battery of arguments, Simmias admits defeat.?

有人可能會說，一個善良的靈魂是一個與自己和諧的靈魂：但如果是這樣，它就必須是一個調音的調音。再者，是弦的緊張度使琴調音，但在人類的情況下，關系是相反的：是靈魂使身體保持秩序。在這一系列的論證下，西米亞斯承認失敗。

Before answering Cebes, Socrates offers a long narrative of his own intellectual history, leading up to his acceptance of the existence of absolute ideas, such as absolute beauty and absolute goodness.?

在回答塞貝斯之前，蘇格拉底提供了他自己的智力歷史的一個長篇敘述，導致他接受了絕對觀念的存在，如絕對美和絕對善。

Only by sharing in beauty itself can something be beautiful. The same goes for the tall and short: a tall man is tall through tallness, and a short man is short through shortness. An individual may grow or shrink, and indeed if he becomes taller he must have been shorter, as was agreed earlier; but though he is first short and then tall, his shortness can never become tallness, nor his tallness shortness. This is so even in the case of a person like Simmias, who, as it happens, is taller than Socrates and shorter than Phaedo.?

只有通過參與美本身，某物才能變得美麗。高和矮也是如此：一個高個子男人是通過高度而高，一個矮個子男人是通過矮度而矮。一個個體可能會長大或縮小，而且如果他變得更高，他必須曾經更矮，正如之前同意過的；但盡管他先矮后高，他的矮度永遠不能變成高度，高度也不會變成矮度。即使在像西米亞斯這樣的人的情況下也是如此，碰巧他比蘇格拉底高，比斐多矮。

The relevance of these remarks to immortality takes some time to become clear. Socrates goes on to make a distinction between what later philosophers would call the contingent and necessary properties of things. Human beings may or may not be 35 tall, but the number three cannot but be odd, and snow cannot but be cold: these properties are necessary to them, and not just contingent.?

這些話與不朽的關系需要一些時間才能變得清楚。蘇格拉底繼續(xù)做出了一個區(qū)別，后來的哲學家會稱之為事物的偶然屬性和必然屬性。人類可能是或不是35英尺高，但三這個數字必然是奇數，雪必然是冷的：這些屬性對它們來說是必然的，而不僅僅是偶然的。

Now just as coldness cannot turn into heat, so too snow, which is necessarily cold, must either retire or perish at the approach of heat; it cannot remain and become hot snow.?

現在，就像寒冷不能變成熱一樣，雪，它必然是冷的，必須在熱的接近時退縮或消亡；它不能維持自身并變成熱雪。

Socrates generalizes: not only will opposites not receive opposites, but nothing which necessarily brings with it an opposite will admit the opposite of what it brings.?

蘇格拉底概括說：不僅對立面不會接受對立面，而且任何必然帶來一個對立面的東西都不會接受它帶來的對立面。

Now Socrates draws his moral. The soul brings life, just as snow brings cold. But death is the opposite of life, so that the soul can no more admit death than snow can admit heat. But what cannot admit death is immortal, and so the soul is immortal. But there is a difference between the soul and snow: when heat arrives, the snow simply perishes. But since what is immortal is also imperishable, the soul, at the approach of death, does not perish, but retires to another world.?

現在蘇格拉底得出他的教益。靈魂帶來生命，就像雪帶來寒冷一樣。但死亡是生命的對立面，所以靈魂不能接受死亡，就像雪不能接受熱一樣。但不能接受死亡的東西是不朽的，所以靈魂是不朽的。但靈魂和雪之間有一個區(qū)別：當熱到來時，雪就簡單地消亡了。但既然不朽的東西也是不可毀滅的，靈魂在死亡的臨近時，不會消亡，而是退到另一個世界。

It is not at all clear how this is an answer to Cebes’ contention that the soul might be able to survive one or more deaths without being everlasting and imperishable. But in the dialogue Socrates’ conclusion that the soul is immortal and imperishable and will exist in another world is greeted with acclamation, and the audience settles down to listen to Socrates as he narrates a series of myths about the soul’s journeys in the underworld.?

如何回答塞貝斯的論點是不明晰的，塞貝斯認為靈魂可能能夠在沒有永恒和不可毀滅的情況下，經歷一次或多次死亡。但在對話中，蘇格拉底得出的結論是，靈魂是不朽的、不可毀滅的，并將存在于另一個世界，這得到了歡呼，觀眾安靜下來聽蘇格拉底講述了一系列關于靈魂在冥界中的旅程的神話。

The narration over, Crito asks Socrates whether he has any last wishes, and how he should be buried. He is told to bear in mind the message of the dialogue: they will be burying only Socrates’ body, not Socrates himself, who is to go to the joys of the blessed.?

敘述結束后，克里托問蘇格拉底是否有任何遺愿，以及他應該如何被埋葬。他被告知要記住對話的信息：他們只會埋葬蘇格拉底的身體，而不是蘇格拉底本人，他將去享受有福者的快樂。

Socrates takes his last bath, and says farewell to the women and children of his family. The gaoler arrives with the cup of the poison, hemlock, which was given to condemned prisoners in Athens as the mode of their execution. After a joke to the gaoler, Socrates drains the cup and composes himself serenely for death as sensation gradually deserts his limbs. His last words are puzzling: ‘Crito, I owe a cock to Aesculapius; will you remember to pay the debt’. Aesculapius was the god of healing. Perhaps the words mean that the life of the body is a disease, and death is its cure .?

蘇格拉底洗了最后一次澡，向他家的婦女和孩子告別。獄卒拿著毒藥的杯子，毒芹，這是在雅典作為判處死刑的囚犯的處決方式。在對獄卒開了一個玩笑后，蘇格拉底喝干了杯子，并且平靜地為死亡而安排自己，感覺逐漸離開了他的四肢。他最后的話很令人困惑：“克里托，我欠阿斯克勒庇俄斯一只公雞；你會記得還債嗎？”阿斯克勒庇俄斯是治療之神。也許這些話的意思是，身體的生命是一種疾病，而死亡是它的治愈。

The Phaedo is a masterpiece: it is one of the finest surviving pieces of Greek prose, and even in translation it moves and haunts the reader. Two questions arise: what does it tell us about Socrates? What does it tell us about the immortality of the soul??

《斐多》是一部杰作：它是希臘散文中最優(yōu)秀的幸存作品之一，即使在翻譯中也能打動和縈繞讀者的內心。兩個問題出現了：它告訴我們關于蘇格拉底的什么？它告訴我們關于靈魂不朽的什么？

The arguments for immortality, cut out of the pattern of ancient myth into which they are interwoven, are unlikely to convince a modern reader. But even in antiquity, counterarguments would come quickly to mind. Is it true that opposites always come from opposites? Did not Parmenides show that Being could not come from Unbeing? And even where opposites come from opposites, must the cycle continue for ever? Even if sleeping has to follow waking, may not one last waking be followed by everlasting sleep? And however true it may be that the soul cannot abide death, why must it retire elsewhere when the body dies, rather than perish like the melted snow??

為了不朽而進行的論證，從古代神話的模式中剪切出來，它們被編織在一起，不太可能說服現代的讀者。但即使在古代，反論證也會很快浮現在腦海中。對立面總是來自對立面嗎？巴門尼德不是證明了存在不能來自非存在嗎？即使對立面來自對立面，循環(huán)必須永遠繼續(xù)嗎？即使睡眠必須伴隨醒來，最后一次醒來不也可能被永恒的睡眠所伴隨嗎？無論靈魂不能忍受死亡是多么真實，為什么它必須在身體死去時退到別處，而不是像融化的雪一樣消亡呢？

The most interesting topics of the dialogue are the argument from recollection, and the criticism of the idea that the soul is an attunement of the body. Both of these themes have a long history ahead of them. But the first will be best pursued when we have examined its place in Plato’s own developed system, and the second is best evaluated when we consider the account of the soul given by Plato’s successor Aristotle.?

對話中最有趣的話題是回憶的論證，以及對靈魂是身體的旋律這一觀念的批評。這兩個主題都有著悠久的歷史。但是，當我們檢查了“回憶說”在柏拉圖自己發(fā)展的思想體系中的地位時，第一個將是最好的追求，而當我們考慮柏拉圖的繼承者亞里士多德給出的靈魂的說法時，第二個將是最好的評價。

In the works of philosophers through the ages, the name ‘Socrates’ occurs on many a page. More often than not, however, it is not a reference to the Athenian who drank the hemlock. It came into common use as a dummy name to be used in the formalization of arguments; as in the syllogism:?

All men are mortal?

Socrates is a man?

Therefore Socrates is mortal.?

在歷代哲學家的著作中，“蘇格拉底”這個名字出現在許多頁面上。然而，更多的時候，它不是指喝下毒藥的雅典人。它成為了一個常用的虛擬名字，用于論證的形式化；就像在三段論中：所有人都是會死的?

蘇格拉底是一個人?

因此 蘇格拉底是會死的。

Particularly in the Middle Ages the name was used daily by writers who knew very little of the story told in the Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. In this, as in more solemn ways, the mortality and death of Socrates has echoed through the philosophical literature of the West.?

特別是在中世紀，這個名字被那些對《申辯》、《克里托》和《斐多》中講述的故事知之甚少的作家每天使用。在這方面，就像在更莊嚴的方式中一樣，蘇格拉底的可朽和死亡在西方哲學文獻中回響。