A man came hurrying up to the old philosopher in the street with the particular energy of someone who has just been given something to carry.
He had heard a thing about one of the philosopher's friends. He wanted to say it immediately, and he had the opening line ready, and he was already leaning in.
The old man stopped him and said that before he heard anything, he would like the man to put it through three sieves.
The man said he did not know what that meant.
The first sieve, said the philosopher, is truth. Are you certain that what you are about to tell me is true? Did you see it, or did somebody tell you?
The man admitted he had not seen it. He had heard it from someone who had heard it, and he supposed that was not quite the same thing, and now that he said it aloud it sounded thinner than it had in his head.
Then the second sieve, said the philosopher. Goodness. Even if it is not true, is it something good? Does it credit the man?
The man said no, plainly the opposite, that was rather the point of it.
Two sieves gone and the story had lost nothing, because the story had never been carrying anything except the pleasure of moving it.
Then the third, said the philosopher. Useful. Is it something I need? Will knowing it let me do anything, or protect anyone, or change what I would otherwise do tomorrow?
The man thought about it properly this time, and said that he supposed not.
Then, said the philosopher, if it is not true, and it is not good, and it is not useful to me, why would either of us want to be carrying it around.
And he went on his way, and the man stood in the street holding it.
The Lesson of the Three Sieves
Most of what we pass on fails the first test on its own. Not because we lie, but because we drop the words that would make it honest. Someone said, apparently, I heard. Those words go missing between the second telling and the third, and after that it is simply a fact about a person.
The pleasure is in the passing, not in the information. That is the uncomfortable part. If the point were the content, we would be satisfied knowing it privately. The reason it feels urgent is that it is a thing to give somebody, and it buys a moment of closeness at the expense of a person who is not in the room.
Useful is the strictest of the three. Almost everything real and unflattering about other people is also true and arguably worth knowing. The question that actually stops you is what you would do differently tomorrow, and the honest answer is usually nothing at all.
Where this actually comes from
Everywhere you find this, it is attributed to Socrates, usually with confident staging in an Athenian street.
He almost certainly never said it. It does not appear in Plato, or in Xenophon, or in Diogenes Laertius, or anywhere else in the ancient record of his life and conversation. Classicists asked about it have consistently reported that there is no source. The earliest versions anyone can locate are from European moral instruction of the nineteenth century, where the same three tests appear in stories about various wise men and no particular philosopher.
The same tale also circulates attributed to Rumi, and to the Buddha, and to a range of Sufi teachers, which is itself the tell. When one story has four famous authors, it usually has none.
There is a real irony in it, and we would rather point at it than pretend not to see it. A story about verifying what you repeat has spent two hundred years being repeated by people who did not verify it, and it has still not failed the third sieve, which is why it survives.
The rest is for seekers
Keep reading free. Log in and every article on Reality Awake opens for you.
