205–206
Socrates
SOC. Do you remember, then, my friend, that we admitted a little while ago, on what we considered good grounds, that there can be no rational explanation of the primary elements of which other things are composed, because each of them, when taken by itself, is not composite, and we could not properly apply to such an element even the expression be or this, because these terms are different and alien, and for this reason it is irrational and unknowable?
15
Theaetetus
THEAET. I remember.
Socrates
SOC. And is not this the sole reason why it is single in form and indivisible? I can see no other.
Theaetetus
THEAET. There is no other to be seen.
Socrates
SOC. Then the syllable falls into the same class with the letter, if it has no parts and is a single form?
Theaetetus
THEAET. Yes, unquestionably.
20
Socrates
SOC. If, then, the syllable is a plurality of letters and is a whole of which the letters are parts, the syllables and the letters are equally knowable and expressible, if all the parts were found to be the same as the whole.
Theaetetus
THEAET. Certainly.
Socrates
SOC. But if one and indivisible, then syllable and likewise letter are equally irrational and unknowable; for the same cause will make them so.
Theaetetus
THEAET. I cannot dispute it.
Socrates
SOC. Then we must not accept the statement of any one who says that the syllable is knowable and expressible, but the letter is not.
25
Theaetetus
THEAET. No, not if we are convinced by our argument.
Socrates
SOC. But would you not rather accept the opposite belief, judging by your own experience when you were learning to read?
Theaetetus
THEAET. What experience?
