283
Str. But must we not also assert the real existence of excess beyond the standard of the mean, and of inferiority to the mean, whether in words or deeds, and is not the chief difference between good men and bad found in such excess or deficiency?
283
Y. Soc. That is clear.
283
Str. Then we must assume that there are these two kinds of great and small, and these two ways of distinguishing between them; we must not, as we did a little while ago, say that they are relative to one another only, but rather, as we have just said, that one kind is relative in that way, and the other is relative to the standard of the mean. Should we care to learn the reason for this?
283
Y. Soc. Of course.
284
Str. If we assert that the greater has no relation to anything except the less, it will never have any relation to the standard of the mean, will it?
284
Y. Soc. No.
284
Str. Will not this doctrine destroy the arts and their works one and all, and do away also with statesmanship, which we are now trying to define, and with weaving, which we did define? For all these are doubtless careful about excess and deficiency in relation to the standard of the mean; they regard them not as non-existent, but as real difficulties in actual practice, and it is in this way, when they preserve the standard of the mean, that all their works are good and beautiful.
284
Y. Soc. Certainly.
284
Str. And if we do away with the art of statesmanship, our subsequent search for the kingly art will be hopeless, will it not?
284
Y. Soc. Certainly.
