• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

True.

But neither can like be the friend of like, as we were just now saying.

True.

And if so, that which is neither good nor evil can have no friend which isneither good nor evil.

Clearly not.

Then the good alone is the friend of that only which is neither good norevil.

That may be assumed to be certain.

And does not this seem to put us in the right way? Just remark, that thebody which is in health requires neither medical nor any other aid, but iswell enough; and the healthy man has no love of the physician, because heis in health.

He has none.

But the sick loves him, because he is sick?

Certainly.

And sickness is an evil, and the art of medicine a good and useful thing?

Yes.

But the human body, regarded as a body, is neither good nor evil?

True.

And the body is compelled by reason of disease to court and make friends ofthe art of medicine?

Yes.

Then that which is neither good nor evil becomes the friend of good, byreason of the presence of evil?

So we may infer.

And clearly this must have happened before that which was neither good norevil had become altogether corrupted with the element of evil--if itselfhad become evil it would not still desire and love the good; for, as wewere saying, the evil cannot be the friend of the good.

Impossible.

Further, I must observe that some substances are assimilated when othersare present with them; and there are some which are not assimilated: take,for example, the case of an ointment or colour which is put on anothersubstance.

Very good.

In such a case, is the substance which is anointed the same as the colouror ointment?

What do you mean? he said.

This is what I mean: Suppose that I were to cover your auburn locks withwhite lead, would they be really white, or would they only appear to bewhite?

They would only appear to be white, he replied.

And yet whiteness would be present in them?

True.

But that would not make them at all the more white, notwithstanding thepresence of white in them--they would not be white any more than black?

No.

But when old age infuses whiteness into them, then they become assimilated,and are white by the presence of white.

Certainly.

Now I want to know whether in all cases a substance is assimilated by thepresence of another substance; or must the presence be after a peculiarsort?

The latter, he said.

Then that which is neither good nor evil may be in the presence of evil,but not as yet evil, and that has happened before now?

Yes.

And when anything is in the presence of evil, not being as yet evil, thepresence of good arouses the desire of good in that thing; but the presenceof evil, which makes a thing evil, takes away the desire and friendship ofthe good; for that which was once both good and evil has now become evilonly, and the good was supposed to have no friendship with the evil?

None.

And therefore we say that those who are already wise, whether Gods or men,are no longer lovers of wisdom; nor can they be lovers of wisdom who areignorant to the extent of being evil, for no evil or ignorant person is alover of wisdom. There remain those who have the misfortune to beignorant, but are not yet hardened in their ignorance, or void ofunderstanding, and do not as yet fancy that they know what they do notknow: and therefore those who are the lovers of wisdom are as yet neithergood nor bad. But the bad do not love wisdom any more than the good; for,as we have already seen, neither is unlike the friend of unlike, nor likeof like. You remember that?

Yes, they both said.

And so, Lysis and Menexenus, we have discovered the nature of friendship--there can be no doubt of it: Friendship is the love which by reason of thepresence of evil the neither good nor evil has of the good, either in thesoul, or in the body, or anywhere.

They both agreed and entirely assented, and for a moment I rejoiced and wassatisfied like a huntsman just holding fast his prey. But then a mostunaccountable suspicion came across me, and I felt that the conclusion wasuntrue.