158

Logic IV. 164

question is not whether the delightful would be satisfactory; but whether a degraded life, intellectually, is one that we should be content to take delight in. But that is too subtle a point for Plato. Still, it comes to the same thing, except that he does not see the rationale of the matter when he asks whether the life of an oyster would be "edible." [(ancient greek?)] On the other hand, neither would a life of knowledge wholly divorced from pleasure be so eligible as one in which the knowledge afforded pleasure. Plato fails to observe that, since pleasure is a species of recognition of something as good, this last state supposes more knowledge since it not only knows, but knows this knowledge to be good. For to suppose that one knows but takes no pleasure in knowing, supposes that one does not feel knowledge to be good.