Phaedo.
Socrates, Simmias.

compared to the ideal equality fall short of it, the ideal equality with which they are compared must be prior to them, though only known through the medium of them.being some other thing, but falls short of, and cannot be, that other thing, but is inferior, he who makes this observation must have had a previous knowledge of that to which the other, although similar, was inferior ? Certainly. And has not this been our own case in the matter of equals and of absolute equality ? Precisely. Then we must have known equality previously to the time when we first saw the material equals, and reflected that all ⁷⁵ these apparent equals strive to attain absolute equality, but fall short of it ? Very true. And we recognize also that this absolute equality has only been known, and can only be known, through the medium of sight or touch, or of some other of the senses, which are all alike in this respect ? Yes, Socrates, as far as the argument is concerned, one of .them is the same as the other. From the senses then is derived the knowledge that all sensible things aim at an absolute equality of which they fall short ? Yes. Then before we began to see or hear or perceive in any way, we must have had a knowledge of absolute equality, or we could not have referred to that standard the equals which are derived from the senses ? — for to that they all aspire, and of that they fall short. No other inference can be drawn from the previous state- ments. And did we not see and hear and have the use of our other senses as soon as we were born ? Certainly.

That higher sense of equality must have been known to us before we were born, was forgotten at birth, and Then we must have acquired the knowledge of equality at some previous time ? Yes. That is to say, before we were born, I suppose ? True. And if we acquired this knowledge before we were born,