Memorabilia

How shall we describe it? Tell me, does it seem to you that the wise are wise about what they know, or are some wise about what they do not know?About what they know, obviously; for how can a man be wise about the things he doesn’t know?The wise, then, are wise by knowledge?How else can a man be wise if not by knowledge?Do you think that wisdom is anything but that by which men are wise?No.It follows that Wisdom is Knowledge?I think so.Then do you think it possible for a man to know all things?Of course not — nor even a fraction of them.So an all-wise man is an impossibility?Of course, of course.Consequently everyone is wise just in so far as he knows?I think so.

Now to seek the Good, Euthydemus: is this the way?What do you mean?Does it seem to you that the same thing is useful to everyone?No.In fact, what is useful to one may sometimes be hurtful to another, don’t you think?Assuredly.Should you call anything good except what is useful?No.Consequently what is useful is good for him to whom it is useful?I think so.

Consider the Beautiful: can we define it in any other way? Or is it possible to name a beautiful body, for instance, or vessel, or anything else that you know to be beautiful for all purposes?Of course not.Then does the beauty in using anything consist in using it for just that purpose for which that particular thing is useful?Certainly.And is a thing beautiful for any other purpose than that for which it is beautiful to use that particular thing?For no other purpose whatever.The useful, then, is beautiful for any purpose for which it is useful?I think so.Next comes Courage, Euthydemus.

Do you think it a beautiful thing?I prefer to say very beautiful.So you think Courage useful for no mean purposes?Of course — or rather, for the greatest.Then do you think that in the pressure of terrors and dangers it is useful to be ignorant of them?By no means.So those who feel no fear of such things because they are ignorant of them are not courageous?Of course not, for in that case many madmen and cowards would be courageous.What of those who are afraid when there is no ground for fear?Still less, of course.Then do you think that those who are good in the presence of terrors and dangers are courageous, and those who are bad are cowards?Certainly.

And do you think that any are good in the presence of such things, except those who can deal with them well?None but these.And bad, except such as deal badly with them?These and none others.Then do both classes behave as they think they must?How can they behave otherwise?Then do those who cannot behave well know how they must behave?Surely not.So those who know how they must behave are just those who can?Yes, only they.Well now, do those who are not utterly mistaken deal badly with such things?I think not.So those who behave badly are utterly mistaken?Presumably.It follows that those who know how to deal well with terrors and dangers are courageous, and those who utterly mistake the way are cowards?That is my opinion.

Kingship and despotism, in his judgment, were both forms of government, but he held that they differed. For government of men with their consent and in accordance with the laws of the state was kingship; while government of unwilling subjects and not controlled by laws, but imposed by the will of the ruler, was despotism. And where the officials are chosen among those who fulfil the requirements of the laws, the constitution is an aristocracy: where rateable property is the qualification for office, you have a plutocracy: where all are eligible, a democracy.