Soc. Well, then, suppose you were on a campaign, with which kind of general would you prefer to share both the peril and the luck—a wise one, or an ignorant?

						 With a wise one. 

 Well then, supposing you were sick, with which kind of doctor would you like to venture yourself a wise one, or an ignorant?

							 With a wise one. 

 
						 And your reason, I said, is this, that you would fare with better fortune in the hands of a wise one than of an ignorant one?

 He assented.

 So that wisdom everywhere causes men to be fortunate: since I presume she could never err, but must needs be right in act and result; otherwise she could be no longer wisdom.

 We came to an agreement somehow or other in the end that the truth in general was this: when wisdom is present, he with whom it is present has no need of good fortune as well; and as we had agreed on this I began to inquire of him over again what we should think, in this case, of our previous agreements. For we agreed, said I, that if many goods were present to us we should be happy and prosper.

						 Yes, he said.

 Then would we be happy because of our present goods, if they gave us no benefit, or if they gave us some?

						 If they gave us benefit, he said.

 And would a thing benefit us if we merely had it and did not use it? For instance, if we had a lot of provisions, but did not eat them, or liquor, and did not drink it, could we be said to be benefited?

						 Of course not, he answered.

 Well then, if every craftsman found the requisites for his particular work all ready prepared for him, and then made no use of them, would he prosper because of these acquisitions, as having acquired all the things necessary for a craftsman to have at hand? For example, if a carpenter were furnished with all his tools and a good supply of wood, but did no carpentry, is it possible he could be benefited by what he had got?

						 By no means, he said.

 Well now, suppose a man had got wealth and all the goods that we mentioned just now, but made no use of them; would he be happy because of his possessing these goods?

							 Surely not, Socrates. 

 So it seems one must not merely have acquired such goods if one is to be happy, but use them too; else there is no benefit gained from their possession.

								 True. 

 Then have we here enough means, Cleinias, for making a man happy—in the possession of these goods and using them?

									 I think so. 

 Shall we say, I asked, if he uses them rightly, or just as much if he does not?

										 If rightly. Soc. Well answered, I said; for I suppose there is more mischief when a man uses anything wrongly than when he lets it alone. In the one case there is evil; in the other there is neither evil 

 nor good. May we not state it so?

 He agreed.

 To proceed then: in the working and use connected with wood, is there anything else that effects the right use than the knowledge of carpentry? 
						 Surely not, he said.

 Further, I presume that in the working connected with furniture it is knowledge that effects the right work.

 Yes, he said.

 Then similarly, I went on, in the use of the goods we mentioned at first—wealth and health and beauty—was it knowledge that showed the way to the right use of all those advantages and rectified their conduct, or was it something else?

 Knowledge, he replied.

 So that knowledge, it would seem, supplies mankind not only with good luck, but with welfare, in all that he either possesses or conducts.

 He agreed.

 Then can we, in Heaven’s name, get any benefit from all the other possessions without understanding and wisdom? Shall we say that a man will profit more by possessing much and doing much when he has no sense, than he will if he does and possesses little? Consider it this way: would he not err less if he did less; and so, erring less, do less ill; and hence, doing less ill, be less miserable?

 Certainly, he said.

 In which of the two cases, when one is poor or when one is rich, will one be more likely to do less?

 When one is poor, he said.

 And when one is weak, or when one is strong?

 Weak. 

 And when one has high position, or has none?

 None. 

 When one is brave and self-controlled, will one do less, or when one is a coward?

 A coward. 

 So too, when idle rather than busy?

 He agreed.

 And slow rather than quick, and dim of sight and hearing rather than sharp?

 We agreed with each other as to these and all such cases.

 To sum up then, Cleinias, I proceeded, it seems that, as regards the whole lot of things which at first we termed goods, the discussion they demand is not on the question of how they are in themselves and by nature goods, but rather, I conceive, as follows: if they are guided by ignorance, they are greater evils than their opposites, according as they are more capable of ministering to their evil guide; whereas if understanding and wisdom guide them, they are greater goods; but in themselves neither sort is of any worth.

 I think the case appears, he replied, to be as you suggest. 

 Now what result do we get from our statements? Is it not precisely that, of all the other things, not one is either good or bad, but of these two, wisdom is good and ignorance bad? 

 He agreed.