1.8
Yes, and consequently if a man buys a horse and doesn’t know how to manage it, and so keeps on getting thrown and injuring himself by trying to ride it, the horse is not wealth to him, I presume? No, if we assume that wealth is a good thing. It follows that land is not wealth either to a man who works it in such a way that his work results in loss. To be sure: even land is not wealth if it makes us starve instead of supporting us.
1.9
And the same will hold good of sheep, will it not? if a man loses through ignorance of sheep farming, his sheep too will not be wealth to him? I think not. It seems, then, that your view is this: what is profitable is wealth, what is harmful is not wealth. Quite so.
1.10
That is to say, the same things are wealth and not wealth, according as one understands or does not understand how to use them. A flute, for example, is wealth to one who is competent to play it, but to an incompetent person it is no better than useless stones. True—unless he sells it.
1.11
We now see that to persons who don’t understand its use, a flute is wealth if they sell it, but not wealth if they keep it instead of selling. Yes, Socrates, and our argument runs consistently, since we have said that what is profitable is wealth. For a flute, if not put up for sale, is not wealth, because it is useless: if put up for sale it becomes wealth.
1.12
Yes, commented Socrates, provided he knows how to sell; but again, in case he sells it for something he doesn’t know how to use, even then the sale doesn’t convert it into wealth, according to you. You imply, Socrates, that even money isn’t wealth to one who doesn’t know how to use it.
