-
As long as that is true, we can't continue to believe that invisible things can't be destroyed.
只要这是正确的,就不能相信无形的东西不能毁灭。
-
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。
-
So the crucial point right now is that, thinking about harmony is offered as a counterexample to the generalization that invisible things can't be destroyed.
所以现在的重要问题是，和声的例子现在作为,灵魂不可毁灭,这一概括说法的反例。
-
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。
-
They are not seen but aren't invisible.
你看不见他们，但是他们不是无形的。
-
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。
-
You don't get the more modest conclusion invisible things can't be destroyed or it's a whole lot harder to destroy them.
不是得出个更谦虚的结论,无形的东西不会毁灭或者,要毁灭它是不容易的。
-
And the way to tell it doesn't have parts is because it's invisible, because invisible things can't have parts.
辨别它是否有部分的方法,是因为它是无形的，因为无形的东西没有部分。
-
We have to ask, when we say invisible things can't be destroyed, what did we mean by invisible?
我们要问，当我们说无形的东西不可毁灭，我们所说的无形是什么意思？
-
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。
-
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。
-
So Plato could still insist things that are invisible in the sense of undetectable can't be destroyed.
所以柏拉图仍旧可以坚持说无形的东西,无形这里指不能检测到,是不能毁灭的。
-
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。
-
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。
-
When he talks about the soul being invisible, and invisible things being indestructible, maybe he means things that can't be observed through any of your five senses.
他谈到灵魂是无形的,无形的东西不会毁灭，也许他指的无形是通过五官,都无法觉察到的东西。
-
So you are wrong, Socrates, when you say invisible things can't be destroyed.
所以苏格拉底你错了，无形的东西不可毁灭并不对。
-
So 1, 2 and 3 got us 4 Invisible things can't be destroyed.
所以一二和三可以得出四4,无形的东西不会毁灭。
-
But is it still invisible if by invisibility we mean can't be detected?
但是如果无形是指不能检测,灵魂还是不是无形呢？
-
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。
-
Harmony was invisible when we mean definition No. 1- can't be seen.
我们取第一种定义的时候,和声是无形因为它是看不见的。
-
But if invisible things can't be destroyed, the soul can't be destroyed.
但如果无形的东西不会毁灭，那灵魂就不会毁灭。
-
Simmias doesn't merely assert boldly invisible things can be desytroyed.
西米亚斯并非冒失地提出,无形的东西可以毁灭。
-
Is it true that the invisible things can't be destroyed.
无形的东西不能毁灭,这个说法是不是正确的。
-
So when we say, he says invisible things can't be destroyed, he means the things that you can't see or touch or hear or feel, whatever it is, see, touch, smell, taste.
所以当我们说，他说无形的东西不可毁灭，他的意思是你看不见摸不着,听不见也感觉不到的东西，看，摸，问，尝所有这些。
-
Invisible means One, here's one possibility, can't be seen.
无形的意思是,第一个可能的解释是，看不见的。
-
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。
-
Three, different possible interpretation of invisible, can't be detected.
第三个，对无形不同的解释是，检测不到的。
-
Invisible things don't change follows 4.
无形的东西是不变的，接下来是。
-
Invisible things can't be destroyed. Period.
无形的东西不会毁灭，句号。
-
So I think it's pretty clear when Socrates starts talking about what's visible versus what's invisible, he doesn't limit himself to vision, he means to be talking about all of the 5 senses.
所以我认为很清楚的是，苏格拉底,在谈论何为有形,何为无形的时候，并没有局限在看这一种感官上,他要谈的是所有的五种感官。
应用推荐