← Plato

Theaetetus

§208

Rejection of the Second Meaning of Logos and Differences

Socrates shows through a spelling example that having a correct opinion with an account (elemental analysis) is still not enough for knowledge, rejecting the second definition of 'account'. He then introduces the third definition, which defines 'account' as stating the differentiating sign of a thing.

View ▾
View
Translation
Typeface
AI ↗
← PrevNext →
§208

ΣΩ. τί οὖν; ὅταν ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ καιρῷ Θεαίτητον γράφων τις θῆτα καὶ εἶ οἴηταί τε δεῖν γράφειν καὶ γράψῃ, καὶ αὖ Θεόδωρον ἐπιχειρῶν γράφειν ταῦ καὶ εἶ οἴηταί τε δεῖν γράφειν καὶ γράψῃ, ἆρʼ ἐπίστασθαι φήσομεν αὐτὸν τὴν πρώτην τῶν ὑμετέρων ὀνομάτων συλλαβήν; ΘΕΑΙ. ἀλλʼ ἄρτι ὡμολογήσαμεν τὸν οὕτως ἔχοντα μήπω εἰδέναι. ΣΩ. κωλύει οὖν τι καὶ περὶ τὴν δευτέραν συλλαβὴν καὶ τρίτην καὶ τετάρτην οὕτως ἔχειν τὸν αὐτόν; ΘΕΑΙ. οὐδέν γε. ΣΩ. ἆρʼ οὖν τότε τὴν διὰ στοιχείου διέξοδον ἔχων γράψει Θεαίτητον μετὰ ὀρθῆς δόξης, ὅταν ἑξῆς γράφῃ; ΘΕΑΙ. δῆλον δή. ΣΩ. οὐκοῦν ἔτι ἀνεπιστήμων ὤν, ὀρθὰ δὲ δοξάζων, ὥς φαμεν; ΘΕΑΙ. ναί. ΣΩ. λόγον γε ἔχων μετὰ ὀρθῆς δόξης. τὴν γὰρ διὰ τοῦ στοιχείου ὁδὸν ἔχων ἔγραφεν, ἣν δὴ λόγον ὡμολογήσαμεν. ΘΕΑΙ. ἀληθῆ. ΣΩ. ἔστιν ἄρα, ὦ ἑταῖρε, μετὰ λόγου ὀρθὴ δόξα, ἣν οὔπω δεῖ ἐπιστήμην καλεῖν. ΘΕΑΙ. κινδυνεύει. ΣΩ. ὄναρ δή, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐπλουτήσαμεν οἰηθέντες ἔχειν τὸν ἀληθέστατον ἐπιστήμης λόγον. ἢ μήπω κατηγορῶμεν; ΣΩ. ἴσως γὰρ οὐ τοῦτό τις αὐτὸν ὁριεῖται, ἀλλὰ τὸ λοιπὸν εἶδος τῶν τριῶν, ὧν ἕν γέ τι ἔφαμεν λόγον θήσεσθαι τὸν ἐπιστήμην ὁριζόμενον δόξαν εἶναι ὀρθὴν μετὰ λόγου.1 ΘΕΑΙ. ὀρθῶς ὑπέμνησας· ἔτι γὰρ ἓν λοιπόν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἦν διανοίας ἐν φωνῇ ὥσπερ εἴδωλον, τὸ δʼ ἄρτι λεχθὲν διὰ στοιχείου ὁδὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ὅλον· τὸ δὲ δὴ τρίτον τί λέγεις; ΣΩ. ὅπερ ἂν οἱ πολλοὶ εἴποιεν, τὸ ἔχειν τι σημεῖον εἰπεῖν ᾧ τῶν ἁπάντων διαφέρει τὸ ἐρωτηθέν. ΘΕΑΙ. οἷον τίνα τίνος ἔχεις μοι λόγον εἰπεῖν; ΣΩ. οἷον, εἰ βούλει, ἡλίου πέρι ἱκανὸν οἶμαί σοι εἶναι ἀποδέξασθαι, ὅτι τὸ λαμπρότατόν ἐστι τῶν κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἰόντων περὶ γῆν. ΘΕΑΙ. πάνυ μὲν οὖν. ΣΩ. λαβὲ δὴ οὗ χάριν εἴρηται. ἔστι δὲ ὅπερ ἄρτι ἐλέγομεν, ὡς ἄρα τὴν διαφορὰν ἑκάστου ἂν λαμβάνῃς ᾗ τῶν ἄλλων διαφέρει, λόγον, ὥς φασί τινες, λήψῃ· ἕως δʼ ἂν κοινοῦ τινος ἐφάπτῃ, ἐκείνων πέρι σοι ἔσται ὁ λόγος ὧν ἂν ἡ κοινότης ᾖ.2 ΘΕΑΙ. μανθάνω· καί μοι δοκεῖ καλῶς ἔχειν λόγον τὸ τοιοῦτον καλεῖν. ΣΩ. ὃς δʼ ἂν μετʼ ὀρθῆς δόξης περὶ ὁτουοῦν τῶν ὄντων τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν ἄλλων προσλάβῃ, αὐτοῦ ἐπιστήμων γεγονὼς ἔσται οὗ πρότερον ἦν δοξαστής. ΘΕΑΙ. φαμέν γε μὴν οὕτω. ΣΩ. νῦν δῆτα, ὦ Θεαίτητε, παντάπασιν ἔγωγε, ἐπειδὴ ἐγγὺς ὥσπερ σκιαγραφήματος3 γέγονα τοῦ λεγομένου, συνίημι οὐδὲ σμικρόν· ἕως δὲ ἀφειστήκη πόρρωθεν, ἐφαίνετό τί μοι λέγεσθαι. ΘΕΑΙ. πῶς τί τοῦτο;

​SOCRATES: What then? When in such a situation someone, writing “Theaetetus”, thinks that he ought to write theta and epsilon and actually writes them, and again, when attempting to write “Theodorus”, thinks he ought to write tau and epsilon and actually writes them, shall we say that he knows the first syllable of your names? THEAETETUS: No, we have just agreed that one in this condition does not yet know. SOCRATES: Is there anything, then, to prevent the same person from being in this state regarding the second, third, and fourth syllables? THEAETETUS: Not at all. SOCRATES: Will he then, possessing the way through the element, write “Theaetetus” with correct opinion, when he writes them in order? THEAETETUS: Clearly so. SOCRATES: Is he not, then, still without knowledge, yet holding correct opinions, as we say? THEAETETUS: Yes. SOCRATES: And indeed possessing an account along with correct opinion. For he wrote having the way through the element, which we agreed is “account”. THEAETETUS: True. SOCRATES: There is, then, my friend, correct opinion with an account, which we must not yet call knowledge. THEAETETUS: It seems so. SOCRATES: It seems we have become rich in a dream, thinking we have the truest account of knowledge. Or should we not yet condemn it? SOCRATES: For perhaps one will not define it this way, but as the remaining form of the three, one of which we said anyone defining knowledge as correct opinion with an account would posit as “account”. THEAETETUS: You have rightly reminded me; for there is still one remaining. The first was a sort of image of thought in voice, and the one just mentioned was the way through the element to the whole; but what do you say the third is? SOCRATES: What the many would say: to be able to state some sign by which the thing asked about differs from all others. THEAETETUS: For example, what account of what thing can you tell me? SOCRATES: For example, if you like, about the sun, I think it is sufficient for you to accept that it is the brightest of the things that go across the heaven around the earth. THEAETETUS: Absolutely so. SOCRATES: Grasp then why this is said. It is what we were just saying: that if you grasp the difference of each thing by which it differs from others, you will grasp the “account”, as some say; but as long as you touch upon something common, your account will be about those things to which the commonness belongs. THEAETETUS: I understand; and it seems well to me to call such a thing an account. SOCRATES: And whoever, along with correct opinion about any of the things that are, adds the difference from other things, will have become a knower of that of which he was previously a mere opiner. THEAETETUS: We certainly say so. SOCRATES: Now indeed, Theaetetus, since I have got close to what has been said, as if to a shadow-painting, I understand not even a little; but while I stood far off, it seemed to me to make some sense. THEAETETUS: How so? What do you mean by this?

Syntax notes3 items
  1. 208cὧν ἕν γέ τι ἔφαμεν λόγον θήσεσθαι τὸν ἐπιστήμην ὁριζόμενον δόξαν εἶναι ὀρθὴν μετὰ λόγου

    This long infinitive construction is part of the accusative and infinitive dependent on the main verb ἔφαμεν. The relative pronoun ὧν refers back to the antecedent τριῶν (three classes) in the preceding clause and functions as a genitive of the whole (partitive genitive) modifying ἕν γέ τι. The subject of the infinitive θήσεσθαι (to posit) is τὸν ὁριζόμενον (the one who defines), which in turn takes the accusative and infinitive ἐπιστήμην ... εἶναι as its object. The term λόγον functions as the predicate accusative to ἕν γέ τι.

  2. 208dἐκείνων πέρι σοι ἔσται ὁ λόγος ὧν ἂν ἡ κοινότης ᾖ

    The genitive pronoun ἐκείνων is governed by the postposed preposition πέρι, and the relative pronoun ὧν (with ἐκείνων as its antecedent) functions as a possessive genitive with the subject ἡ κοινότης in the relative clause. Thus, it means 'your account will be about those things to which the commonness belongs.'

  3. 208eσκιαγραφήματος

    In Platonic dialogues, 'skiagraphia' (shadow-painting or scene-painting) is a metaphor for an optical illusion that seems to have depth and reality from a distance, but turns out to be nothing but coarse lines or patches of color upon closer inspection. Here, it illustrates how the definition of 'account', which seemed plausible from afar, loses its substance and becomes unintelligible when examined closely.

Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-05-22)urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg006.humanitext-grc2:208