The Timaeus of Plato

INTRODUCTION. 43
in terms of the visible of the invisible, in terms of space and
time of the spaceless and timeless, in terms of Becoming of
Being. All sensible Nature is a symbol of the intelligible, and
she is what she symbolises. So are all things at last resolved
into an ultimate unity, which yet contains within itself all"
possible multiplicity ;
and Plato's philosophy, shaking off the
last remnants of duality, reaches its final culmination in an absolute
idealism.
43. But is the cosmic soul herself percipient of matter,
The cosmic
or is such perception confined to limited intelligences ? I think Material
the true answer is that the cosmic soul is percipient of matter perception.
through the finite souls into which she evolves herself. We may
regard her elements, TavroV, Odrcpov, owi'a, either as modes of her
existence or as modes of her activity. As a mode of her existence,
Odrepov signifies the multitude of finite souls in which she is pluralised.
As a mode of her activity, Odrepov is sensible perception.
But both modes must belong to the same sphere, so that perception
of matter must belong to that phase of the universal soul
which appears as a number of finite souls. Thus then the aggregate
of perceptions experienced by all finite souls constitute the
perception of matter in the cosmic soul there is no such perception
by the cosmic soul apart from the perceptions of : finite
souls. We must observe that in the region which is Odrepov relatively
to the tyvxj TOV Kou/iov, TO.VTOV and ovcria reappear relatively
to the finite souls which constitute that region. Each separate
soul must have ravrov also, else it would not have ovaia, it would
not substantially exist : and hence the element of Bdrepov in the
cosmic soul, and by consequence the cosmic soul herself, would
be nonexistent. So each finite soul is a complete miniature copy
of the great soul. Accordingly in Plato's similitude we find that
the Circle of the Other is constructed of soul which is
composed
both of Same and of Other.
44. There is yet another question,
the answer to which Relation
is indeed to be inferred from what has been already said, but
which ought perhaps to receive explicit treatment : how are the soul and
.
^ the ideas.
ideas related to the cosmic soul ?
Since we have seen our way to identifying the Srjfjuovpyos both
with the avTo dyaOov and with one element of the ^xn T0" KOO-/AOV,
the simple unity of thought, conceived as still undifferentiated,
it follows that whatever relation we have established between the
avro dyaOoy and the other ideas will hold good as between the