-
but it's not invisible if we mean definition No. 2 can't be sensed. Can't be observed.
但如果取第二个定义它就不再无形2,无法感知，不能观察。
-
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。
-
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。
-
Let's call someting invisible not only it can't be seen, not only it can't be observed, but it can't be detected at all.
让我们把一些不仅是看不见的,不仅是观察不到的，而且是完全检测不到的，东西称为无形的。
-
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。
-
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。
-
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。
-
But maybe that's not what Socrates means by invisible.
但是这可能并非苏格拉底,所说的无形的意思。
-
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。
-
So even if we grant that what Socrates meant by invisible was can not be observed, we still have to say with Simmias , you know, fourth is just not true.
所以即使我们认同苏格拉底,指的无形是不能被感知，我们仍旧站在西米亚斯这边，第四点是不正确的。
-
it's not really invisible in the relevant sense.
根据相关定义它就不是完全无形的。
-
They are not seen but aren't invisible.
你看不见他们，但是他们不是无形的。
-
Now the answer seems to me, the only answer I can imagine Socrates and Plato are giving at this point is to say, look, I need a different 3 definition of invisible, not 2 but 3.
我认为答案是，我所能想到的唯一答案是,在这点上苏格拉底和柏拉图,给出的答案是，我需要一个,无形的不同定义，不是2而是。
-
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