And then if 5 is true that the soul is really invisible, we are entitled to conclude 6 The soul can't be destroyed.

然后如果5正确,即灵魂确实无形，我们有资格得出6这个结论6,灵魂不会毁灭。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

it's not really invisible in the relevant sense.

根据相关定义它就不是完全无形的。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

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？

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选