Socrates, Critias.Without this no other science can be of much avail.
whether the art of the pilot will not equally save our lives at sea, and the art of the general in war?
Quite so.
And yet, my dear Critias, none of these things will be well or beneficially done, if the science of the good be wanting.
True.
But that science is not wisdom or temperance, but a science of human advantage; not a science of other sciences, or of ignorance, but of good and evil: and if this he of uc;e, then wisdom or temperance will not be of use.
This science of good or advantage is aflfirmed by Critias and denied by Socrates to be wisdom. And why, he replied, will not wisdom he of use? For, however much we assume that wisdom is a science of sciences, and has a sway over other sciences, surely she will have this particular science of the good under her control, and in this w.iy will benefit us.
And will wisdom give health? I c;aid; is not this rather the effect of tnf'dicine? Or does wi5dom do the work of any of the other arts,-do they not each of them do their own work? Have we not long ago asseverated that wisdom is only the knowledge of knowledge and of ignorance, and of nothing else?
That is obvious.
Then wisdom will not be the producer of health. Certainly not.
The art of health is different. Yes, different.
Nor does wisdom give advantage, my good friend; for that again we have just now been attributing to another art.
Very true.
How then can wisdom be advantageous, when giving no advantage?
That, Socrates, is certainly inconceivable.
Recapitulation: The argument says 'No' to all our definitions. You see then, Critias, that I was not far wrong in fearing that I could have no sound notion about wisdom; I was quite right in depreciating myself; for that which is admitted to be the best of all things would never have seemed to us useless, if I had been good for anything at an enquiry. But now I have been utterly defeated, and have failed to
