And have you ever observed any fear which fears itself and the other fears, but has no fear of a single dreadful thing?
No, I have not, he replied.
Or an opinion which is an opinion of opinions and of itself, but without any opinion such as the other opinions have?
By no means.
But it is apparently a science of this kind that we are assuming—one that is a science of no branch of study, but a science of itself and of the other sciences.
So we are.
And it is a strange thing, if it really exists? For we should not affirm as yet that it does not exist, but should still consider whether it does exist. You are right.
Well now, this science is a science of something, that is, it has a certain faculty whereby it can be a science of something, has it not?
Certainly.
For, you know, we say the greater has a certain faculty whereby it can be greater than something? Footnote 1At this point Socrates adduces the relation of greater to smaller (τινὸς εἶναι μεῖζον) to suggest a difficulty in conceiving a science to be a science of itself: in so doing he draws a false analogy between two quite different uses of the genitive in Greek, represented in English by the comparative than
and the objective of.
Quite so.
That is, than something smaller, if it is to be greater.
Necessarily.
So if we could find a greater which is greater than other greater things, and than itself, but not greater than the things beside which the others are greater, I take it there can be no doubt that it would be in the situation of being, if greater than itself, at the same time smaller than itself, would it not?
Most inevitably, Socrates, he said.
Or again, if there is a double of other doubles and of itself, both it and the others must of course be halves, if it is to be their double; for, you know, a double cannot be of
anything else than its half.
True.
And what is more than itself will also be less, and the heavier will be lighter, and the older younger, and so on with everything else: whatever has its own faculty applied to itself will have also the natural quality to which its faculty was applicable, will it not? For instance, hearing is, as we say, just a hearing of sound, is it not?Yes.
So if it is to hear itself, it will hear a sound of its own; for it would not hear otherwise.
Most inevitably.
And sight, I suppose, my excellent friend, if it is to see itself, must needs have a color; for sight can never see what is colorless.
No more it can.
Then do you perceive, Critias, in the various cases we have propounded, how some of them strike us as absolutely impossible, while others raise serious doubts as to the faculty of the thing being ever applicable to itself? For with magnitudes, numbers, and the like it is absolutely impossible, is it not?
Certainly.