Rhapsode

I'll have a go at that.

The Greek word, what does it mean? Rhapsode?

Yeah, so we've got several different words, but rhapsode is the word that is happening about the time where we've got these people who are performing kind of scripts of the versions of the text.

Rhapsodos in ancient Greek, and that means song-stitcher.

And given, you know, his depiction and does not actually know everything, even if, you know, all these topics come up in his own work.

The idea is that if the Rhapsode is going to have an art, if he's going to have a techne, then it can't be the case that he only can do it with Homer and not with Hesiod and others.

Because the art of the Rhapsode would involve... knowing all of the tech nays that Homer is talking about and being able to speak well about them and all of that stuff.

And it's, it's not entirely untrue.

I think of these novelists like Ian McEwan who, right.

Socrates.

My argument, Critias, I said, appears to have given you the same kind of pleasure which you might have derived from some Rhapsode's recitation of Homer.

For you do not believe a word of what has been said.

but come now give me an answer to this question are not certain things useful to the builder when he is building a house crit they are soc and would you say that those things are useful which are employed in house-building stones and bricks and beams and the like and also the instruments with which the builder built the house the beams and stones which they provided and again the instruments by which these were obtained crit it seems to me that they are all useful for building soc and is it not true of every art that not only the materials but the instruments by which we procure them and without which the work could not go on are useful for that art crit certainly soc and further the instruments by which the instruments are procured and so on going back from stage to stage ad infinitum are not all these in your opinion necessary in order to carry out the work crit we may fairly suppose such to be the case soc and if a man has food and drink and clothes and the other things which are useful to the body would he need gold or silver or any other means by which he could procure that which he now has crit i do not think so soc then you consider that a man never wants any of these things for the use of the body crit certainly not soc and if they appear useless to this end are they not always to appear useless for we have already laid down the principle that things cannot be at one time useful and at another time not in the same process crit but in that respect your argument and mine are the same for you maintain if they are useful to a certain end they can never become useless whereas i say that in order to accomplish some results bad things are needed and good for others soc but can a bad thing be used to carry out a good purpose crit i should say not soc and we call those actions good which a man does for the sake of virtue crit yes soc but can a man learn any kind of knowledge which is imparted by word of mouth if he is wholly deprived of the sense of hearing crit certainly not i think soc and will not hearing be useful for virtue if virtue is taught by hearing and we use the sense of hearing in giving instruction crit yes soc and since medicine frees the sick man from his disease that art too may sometimes appear useful in the acquisition of virtue e g when hearing is procured by the aid of medicine crit very likely soc but if again we obtain by wealth the aid of medicine shall we not regard wealth as useful for virtue crit true soc and also the instruments by which wealth is procured crit certainly soc then you think that a man may gain wealth by bad and disgraceful means and having obtained the aid of medicine which enables him to acquire the power of hearing may use that very faculty for the acquisition of virtue crit yes i do soc but can that which is evil be useful for virtue crit no soc it is not therefore necessary that the means by which we obtain what is useful for a certain object should always be useful for the same object for it seems that bad actions may sometimes serve good purposes the matter will be still plainer if we look at it in this way if things are useful towards the several ends for which they exist which ends would not come into existence without them how would you regard them can ignorance for instance be useful for knowledge or disease for health or vice for virtue crit never soc and yet we have already agreed have we not that there can be no knowledge where there has not previously been ignorance nor health where there has not been disease nor virtue where there has not been vice crit i think that we have soc but then it would seem that the antecedents without which a thing cannot exist are not necessarily useful to it otherwise ignorance would appear useful for knowledge disease for health and vice for virtue critias still showed great reluctance to accept any argument which went to prove that all these things were useless i saw that it was as difficult to persuade him as according to the proverb it is to boil a stone so i said let us bid good-bye to the discussion since we cannot agree whether these things are useful and a part of wealth or not but what shall we say to another question which is the happier and better man he who requires the greatest quantity of necessaries for body and diet or he who requires only the fewest and least the answer will perhaps become more obvious if we suppose some one comparing the man himself at different times to consider whether his condition is better when he is sick or when he is well crit that is not a question which needs much consideration soc probably i said every one can understand that health is a better condition than disease but when have we the greatest and the most various needs when we are sick or when we are well crit when we are sick soc and when we are in the worst state we have the greatest and most especial need and desire of bodily pleasures crit true soc and seeing that a man is best off when he is least in need of such things does not the same reasoning apply to the case of any two persons of whom one has many and great wants and desires and the other few and moderate for instance some men are gamblers some drunkards and some gluttons and gambling and the love of drink and greediness are all desires crit certainly soc but desires are only the lack of something and those who have the greatest desires are in a worse condition than those who have none or very slight ones certainly i consider that those who have such wants are bad and that the greater their wants the worse they are soc and do we think it possible that a thing should be useful for a purpose unless we have need of it for that purpose crit no soc then if these things are useful for supplying the needs of the body we must want them for that purpose crit that is my opinion soc and he to whom the greatest number of things are useful for his purpose will also want the greatest number of means of accomplishing it supposing that we necessarily feel the want of all useful things crit it seems so soc the argument proves then that he who has great riches has likewise need of many things for the supply of the wants of the body for wealth appears useful towards that end and the richest must be in the worst condition since they seem to be most in want of such things and ever by plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett.