22
Well, do you know the meaning of “material” and “immaterial,” of ‘approved” and “disapproved”?Stoic technical terms: see vol. ii, p. 488. Stoa intends to prove that pleasure and pain are alike “immaterial,” and neither “approved” nor “disapproved,” because they neither help nor hinder the effort to attain Virtue.
22
Certainly.
22
Stoa, the jurors say they can’t understand these dissyllabic questions, so be silent; they are voting.
22
I should have won if I had put him a question in the form of the “third indemonstrable.”The five “indemonstrables” of Chrysippus, so called because they are self-evident and require no proof, were all hypothetical or disjunctive syllogisms; examples are: (1) “if it is day, it is light; it is light, —> it is day”; (2) “if it is day, it is light; it is dark, —> it is not day”; (3) “Plato is not both dead and alive; he is dead, —> he is not alive”; (4) “it is either day or night; it is day, —> it is not night”; (5) “it is either day or night; it is not night, —> it is day.” Cf. Diog. Laert. Vit, Phil. 7, 1, 49; Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 7.
22
Who won?
22
Pleasure, unanimously.
22
I appeal to Zeus!
22
Good luck to you! Hermes, call another case.
23
Virtue v. High-living, im re Aristippus. Let Aristippus appear in person.
23
I ought to speak first; I am Virtue, and Aristippus belongs to me, as his words and his deeds indicate. HIGH-LIVING No, indeed; I ought to speak first; I am High-living, and the man is mine, as you can see from his garlands, his purple cloak and his perfumes.
23
Do not wrangle; this case will stand over until Zeus decides the case of Dionysius, for this seems to be similar. Consequently, if Pleasure wins, Highliving shall have Aristippus, but if Stoa prevails, he shall be adjudged to Virtue. So let others appear. Look here, though—these jurors are not to get the fee, for their case has not come to trial.
23
Then are they to have come up here for nothing, old as they are, and the hill so high?
