FORE:Sandy, helpless to interfere, heard Dick give the substance of what they had learned from the superstitious pilot. The man continued: FORE:In shading drawings, be careful not to use too deep tints, and to put the shades in the right place. Many will contend, and not without good reasons, that working drawings require no shading; yet it will do no harm to learn how and where they can be shaded: it is better to omit the shading from choice than from necessity. Sections must, of course, be shaded��not with lines, although I fear to attack so old a custom, yet it is certainly a tedious and useless one: sections with light ink shading of different colours, to indicate the kind of material, are easier to make, and look much better. By the judicious arrangement of a drawing, a large share of it may be in sections, which in almost every case are the best views to work by. The proper colouring of sections gives a good appearance to a drawing, and conveys an idea of an organised machine, or, to use the shop term, "stands out from the paper." In shading sections, leave a margin of white between the tints and the lines on the upper and left-hand sides of the section: this breaks the connection or sameness, and the effect is striking; it separates the parts, [85] and adds greatly to the clearness and general appearance of a drawing. FORE:After resolving virtue into knowledge of pleasure, the next questions which would present themselves to so keen a thinker were obviously, What is knowledge? and What is pleasure? The Theaet��tus is chiefly occupied with a discussion of the various answers already given to the first of these enquiries. It seems, therefore, to come naturally next after the Protagoras; and our conjecture receives a further confirmation when we find that here also a large place is given to the opinions of the Sophist after whom that dialogue is named; the chief difference being that the points selected for controversy are of a speculative rather than of a practical character. There is, however, a close connexion between the argument by which Protagoras had endeavoured to prove that all mankind are teachers of virtue, and his more general principle that man is the measure of all things. And perhaps it was the more obvious difficulties attending the latter view which led Plato, after some hesitation, to reject the former along206 with it. In an earlier chapter we gave some reasons for believing that Protagoras did not erect every individual into an arbiter of truth in the sweeping sense afterwards put upon his words. He was probably opposing a human to a theological or a naturalistic standard. Nevertheless, it does not follow that Plato was fighting with a shadow when he pressed the Protagorean dictum to its most literal interpretation. There are plenty of people still who would maintain it to that extent. Wherever and whenever the authority of ancient traditions is broken down, the doctrine that one man��s opinion is as good as another��s immediately takes its place; or rather the doctrine in question is a survival of traditionalism in an extremely pulverised form. And when we are told that the majority must be right��which is a very different principle from holding that the majority should be obeyed��we may take it as a sign that the loose particles are beginning to coalesce again. The substitution of an individual for a universal standard of truth is, according to Plato, a direct consequence of the theory which identifies knowledge with sense-perception. It is, at any rate, certain that the most vehement assertors of the former doctrine are also those who are fondest of appealing to what they and their friends have seen, heard, or felt; and the more educated among them place enormous confidence in statistics. They are also fond of repeating the adage that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory, without considering that theory alone can furnish the balance in which facts are weighed. Plato does not go very deep into the rationale of observation, nor in the infancy of exact science was it to be expected that he should. He fully recognised the presence of two factors, an objective and a subjective, in every sensation, but lost his hold on the true method in attempting to trace a like dualism through the whole of consciousness. Where we should distinguish between the mental energies and the physical processes underlying them, or between the207 elements respectively contributed to every cognition by immediate experience and reflection, he conceived the inner and outer worlds as two analogous series related to one another as an image to its original.