51. But you laugh at our
reply, because, while we deny that souls are of royal descent, we do
not, on the other hand, say in turn from what causes and beginnings
they have sprung. But what kind of crime is it either to be
ignorant of anything, or to confess quite openly that you do not know
that of which you are ignorant? or whether does he rather seem to you
most deserving of ridicule who assumes to himself no knowledge of some
dark subject; or he who thinks that he3756
| 3756
The ms. reads se esse,
without meaning, from which LB., followed by Hildebrand, and Oehler
derived se ex se—“himself of himself.”
The rest simply omit esse as above. |
knows most clearly that which
transcends human
knowledge, and which has been involved in
dark
obscurity? If the
nature of everything were thoroughly
considered, you too are in a position like that which you censure in
our case. For you do not say anything
which has been
ascertained and set most clearly in the
light of
truth, because you say
that
souls descend from the
Supreme Ruler Himself, and enter into the
forms of men. For you conjecture, do not perceive
3757
this;
surmise, do not actually know
it; for if to know is to retain in
the
mind that which you have yourself seen or known, not one of those
things which you
affirm can you say that you have ever seen—that
is, that
souls descend from the abodes and
regions above. You are
therefore making use of conjecture, not
trusting clear
information. But what is conjecture, except a doubtful imagining
of things, and directing of the
mind upon nothing accessible? He,
then, who conjectures, does not comprehend,
3758
nor does he
walk in the
3759
light of
knowledge. But if this is true and certain in the opinion of
proper and very wise judges, your conjectures, too, in which you trust,
must be regarded as
showing your ignorance.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
