Soc. Yes, we did not keep watch properly. Perhaps we ought to have maintained that a syllable is not the letters, but rather one single idea framed out of them, having a separate form distinct from them.
Theaet. Very true ; and a more likely notion than the other.
Soc. Take care ; let us not be cowards and betray a great and imposing theory.
Theaet. No, indeed.
Soc. Let us assume then, as we now say, that the syllable is a simple form arising out of the several combinations of harmonious elements — of letters or of any other elements.
Theaet. Very good.
Soc. And it must have no parts.
Theaet. Why ?
Soc. Because that which has parts must be a whole of all the parts. Or would you say that a whole, although formed out of the parts, is a single notion different from all the parts ?
Theaet. I should.
Soc. And would you say that all and the whole are the same, or different ?
Theaet. I am not certain ; but, as you like me to answer at once, I shall hazard the reply, that they are different.
Soc. I approve of your readiness, Theaetetus, but I must take time to think whether I equally approve of your answer.
Theaet. Yes ; the answer is the point.
Soc. According to this new view, the whole is supposed to differ from all ?
Theaet. Yes.
Soc. Well, but is there any difference between all [in the plural] and the all [in the singular] ? Take the case of number : — When we say one, two, three, four, five, six ; or when we say twice three, or three times two, or four and two, or three and two and one, are we speaking of the same or of different numbers ?
Theaet. Of the same.
Soc. That is of six ?
Theaet. Yes.
Soc. And in each form of expression we spoke of all the six ?
Theaet. True.
Soc. Again, in speaking of all [in the plural] is there not one thing which we express ?
Theaet. Of course there is.
Soc. And that is six ?
Theaet. Yes.
Soc. Then in predicating the word “all” of things measured by number, we predicate at the same time a singular and a plural ?
Theaet. Clearly we do.
Soc. Again, the number of the acre and the acre are the same ; are they not ?
Theaet. Yes.
Soc. And the number of the stadium in like manner is the stadium ?
Theaet. Yes.
Soc. And the army is the number of the army ; and in all similar cases, the entire number of anything is the entire thing ?
Theaet. True.
Soc. And the number of each is the parts of each ?
Theaet. Exactly.
Soc. Then as many things as have parts are made up of parts ?
Theaet. Clearly.
Soc. But all the parts are admitted to be the all, if the entire number is the all ?
Theaet. True.
Soc. Then the whole is not made up of parts, for it would be the all, if consisting of all the parts ?
Theaet. That is the inference.
Soc. But is a part a part of anything but the whole ?
Theaet. Yes, of the all.
Soc. You make a valiant defence, Theaetetus. And yet is not the all that of which nothing is wanting ?
Theaet. Certainly.
Soc. And is not a whole likewise that from which nothing is absent ? but that from which anything is absent is neither a whole nor all ; — if wanting in anything, both equally lose their entirety of nature.
Theaet. I now think that there is no difference between a whole and all.
Soc. But were we not saying that when a thing has parts, all the parts will be a whole and all ?
Theaet. Certainly.
Soc. Then, as I was saying before, must not the alternative be that either the syllable is not the letters, and then the letters are not parts of the syllable, or that the syllable will be the same with the letters, and will therefore be equally known with them ?
Theaet. You are right.
Soc. And, in order to avoid this, we suppose it to be different from them ?
Theaet. Yes.
Soc. But if letters are not parts of syllables, can you tell me of any other parts of syllables, which are not letters ?
Theaet. No, indeed, Socrates ; for if I admit the existence of parts in a syllable, it would be ridiculous in me to give up letters and seek for other parts.
Soc. Quite true, Theaetetus, and therefore, according to our present view, a syllable must surely be some indivisible form ?
Theaet. True.
Soc. But do you remember, my friend, that only a little while ago we admitted and approved the statement, that of the first elements out of which all other things are compounded there could be no definition, because each of them when taken by itself is uncompounded ; nor can one rightly attribute to them the words “being” or “this,” because they are alien and inappropriate words, and for this reason the letters or clements were indefinable and unknown ?
Theaet. I remember.
Soc. And is not this also the reason why they are simple and indivisible ? I can see no other.
Theaet. No other reason can be given.
Soc. Then is not the syllable in the same case as the elements or letters, if it has no parts and is one form ?
Theaet. To be sure.
Soc. If, then, a syllable is a whole, and has many parts or letters, the letters as well as the syllable must be intelligible and expressible, since all the parts are acknowledged to be the same as the whole ?
Theaet. True.
Soc. But if it be one and indivisible, then the syllables and the letters are alike undefined and unknown, and for the same reason ?
Theaet. I cannot deny that.
Soc. We cannot, therefore, agree in the opinion of him who says that the syllable can be known and expressed, but not the letters.
Theaet. Certainly not ; if we may trust the argument.