-
They told her that a beautiful voice can be destroyed if it is not trained.
VOA: special.2009.01.18
-
Simmias says we can't conclude that the soul is indestructible because we should not believe the subconclusion 4 invisible things can't be destroyed.
他说我们不能得出结论说,灵魂不朽或几乎不朽或其他什么,因为我们不该相信,4这个结论4,即无形的东西不可毁灭。
-
Not the soul can't be destroyed or if it can be destroyed, it is very very hard and takes very very long time.
而不是灵魂不会毁灭，或者,如果可以毁灭，毁灭会很难,需要很长时间。
-
He should have said that you know what, harmony is not really invisible or can't be destroyed.
他应该说，知道么，和声并不是真的无形,并不是不可毁灭。
-
So the kinds of things that can be destroyed or the things would part and those sorts of things that change even it do not destroy.
但是能毁灭的东西,是能四分五裂的东西,即使不能破坏,但可以改变。
-
Socrates never says Simmias, here's what your objection goes wrong: harmony is not really invisible or can't be destroyed, whatever it is, so we don't have a counterexample.
苏格拉底从没说过，西米亚斯,你的观点在这里有错,和声并非无形或者不可毁灭，所以我们没有了反例。
-
And if it's not really invisible, even there is a notion of invisible such are the things that invisible in that sense can't be destroyed, souls are not invisible in that sense.
如果它不是完全无形的，即使有无形的定义,根据定义有些东西是无形的,无形的东西不可毁灭，但是灵魂在这个意义上不是无形的。
-
If he could show us, he could convince us that harmony is not really invisible, then we would no longer have a counterexample to the claim that the invisible can't be destroyed.
如果他可以说服我们,和声并非无形，那我们就没有了,灵魂不可毁灭,这一论断的反例。
-
Harmony is not invisible in the relevant sense, so it could still be true that invisible things can't be destroyed, since the soul is invisible in that sense, it would follow the soul can't be detroyed.
和声在这个意义上不是无形的，所以无形的东西不能毁灭,仍然可以是正确的，因为灵魂在这个意义上仍是无形的，你可以得出灵魂不能毁灭的结论。
-
If harmony really is invisible, and harmony really can be destroyed, that invisible things can be destroyed, even the soul is nothing like you know, that's not a good analogy for thinking of the physicalist position, have you? So what?
如果和声真的无形，而和声真的可以毁灭，那么无形的东西可以毁灭，即使灵魂不同于和声,如果从物理学家的观点来看,这不是个好的类比，那又如何？
应用推荐