True.
The corruption of philosophy due to many causes. Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to [E]the charge of philosophy any more than the other?
By all means.
And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the [490]description of the gentle and noble nature. Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy.
Yes, that was said.
Well, and is not this one quality, to mention no others, greatly at variance with present notions of him?
Certainly, he said.
But before considering this, let us re-enumerate the qualities of the philosopher: And have we not a right to say in his defence, that the true lover of knowledge is always striving after being—that is his nature; he will not rest in the multiplicity of individuals [B] which is an appearance only, but will go on—the keen edge will not be blunted, nor the force of his desire abate until he have attained the knowledge of the true nature of every essence by a sympathetic and kindred power in the soul, and by that power drawing near and mingling and becoming incorporate with very being, having begotten mind and truth, he will have knowledge and will live and grow truly, and then, and not till then, will he cease from his travail.
Nothing, he said, can be more just than such a description of him.
his love of essence, of truth, of justice, besides his other virtues and natural gifts. And will the love of a lie be any part of a philosopher’s nature? Will he not utterly hate a lie?