HIPPARCHUS, OR ON GREED.

A division is made so that from the divided parts he may gather a definition of profit.

...or to suffer, are they opposites? HIP. Not even that. SO. But perhaps that which is to gain, insofar as it is the opposite of evil, is good? HIP. Do not take that back either. SO. It seems to you then, as it appears, that some profit is good, and some is truly evil? HIP. To me, indeed. SO. I take this back for you then. For let one profit be good and another evil; yet is this one any more a profit than that one? HIP. Why do you ask? SO. I will tell you: food is both good and bad. HIP. It is. SO. Is one any more food than the other? Or are they both similarly food, not differing insofar as one is food from the other, but insofar as one is indeed good and the other truly bad? HIP. It is as you say. SO. Is it not the same for drink and all other things, which, existing in the same species, are such that they are partly good and partly bad, yet do not differ among themselves according to that by which they are the same? Just as one man is good and another bad? HIP. It is so. SO. But neither of them, I think, is more or less a man than the other; neither the good than the bad, nor the bad than the good. HIP. You speak the truth. SO. Shall we not judge similarly concerning profit: that both good and bad are equally profit? HIP. It is necessary. SO. Therefore, he who attains a good profit gains no more than he who attains an evil one, nor does either of these appear to be a "greater" profit, as has now been agreed. HIP. Certainly. SO. Is "more" or "less" present in either? HIP. In neither. SO. But in such a matter, where neither of these applies, how could anyone do or even suffer anything "more" or "less"? HIP. Impossible. SO. Since both profits and useful things are similar, this remains to be considered next: for what reason do you call both of them "profit"? What same thing do you see in both? Just as if you had asked me, why do I call food—whether good or bad—similarly "food"? I would have answered
The nature of food is dryness. The nature of drink is moisture. Referring to the four humors/qualities theory where food was classified as 'dry' nourishment.

surely, because both are dry nourishment for the body; therefore I name both "food," which you would indeed grant us, would you not? HIP. I admit it. SO. And concerning drink, the same reasoning for an answer would return: that because it is liquid nourishment for the body—whether it be good or bad—the name "drink" is applied; and in other things in the same way. Strive then to imitate me in answering thus: what same thing do you perceive in good and bad profit, because of whose presence you name both "profit"? And if you lack an answer for me, pay attention to what I say.
In the definition of profit is included acquired possession.

Do you call "profit" every possession which one has acquired, either by spending nothing, or by spending little while receiving more? HIP. I seem to call that profit. SO. Do you mean it in this way: as if someone, spending nothing, has feasted abundantly, and from the feast has acquired a disease? HIP. No, by Jove!
Likewise, it includes a good acquisition.

SO. But if one obtained good health from a feast, would he have obtained a profit or a loss? HIP. A profit. SO. It is not, therefore, profit to acquire just anything. HIP. Certainly not. SO. Is it not the case, then, that he does not "profit" who attains just anything, whether good or evil? HIP. It appears so. SO. Nor does he incur a "loss" who incurs just anything, whether good or evil? HIP. So it seems to me. SO. Do you see then that you are revolving around the same point? For profit appears to be good, and loss truly evil. HIP. I do not know what to say. SO. And rightly so. But answer me this further: if someone, spending less, receives more, would you say this man profits? HIP. I do not call it evil, truly, if by paying out less gold or silver, he receives more.
From this, see that individual portions of gold were then worth twelve weights of silver. A marginal note on the historical exchange rate of 1:12.

SO. Indeed, I will ask this in addition: if someone, paying out half a pound of gold, received double in silver, would it be profit or loss? HIP. A loss surely, O Socrates; for instead of the twelve-fold value original: "duodecuplo", he receives only double. SO. Nevertheless, he received "more." Is not double more than half? HIP. Silver is not of the same dignity and price as gold. SO. Therefore, it is necessary to add this to profit: namely, estimation and price. Now you say that silver, though being "more" than gold, is not to be estimated as equally precious, and gold, though being "less," is both precious and worthy. HIP. Most certainly, for that is how the matter stands.
Likewise, in profit there is estimation.

SO. Therefore, the estimation and dignity itself constitutes profit, whether the thing be small or great; but that which is unworthy of estimation is without profit? HIP. Certainly. SO. That which is precious and worthy, do you call it "worthy" in any other way than "worthy of being acquired"? HIP. Worthy of acquisition. SO. But is that which is worthy of acquisition useful or useless? HIP. Useful. SO. Is not the useful good? HIP. It is.
Likewise, in profit there is being good.

SO. O bravest of all men, has it not now been concluded by us a third and fourth time that profit is good? HIP. It seems so. SO. Do you remember where this conversation began? HIP. I think so. SO. But if you remember it less well, I will bring it back to your memory. It began from the fact that you doubted whether good men would be willing to accept any profits whatever; but rather only good profits, and evil ones not at all. HIP. Rightly so. SO. Does not reason compel us to confess that all profits are good, whether they be great or small? HIP. It has certainly compelled me, O Socrates, more than it has persuaded me; but perhaps it will persuade me.
Conclusion: that all men are seekers of profit.

SO. Now, however, whether you have been persuaded or are in whatever other way affected, do you agree with us that all profits, both large and small, are good? HIP. I agree. SO. And do you confess that all good men want all good things, or not? HIP. I confess it. SO. But you were saying that bad men desire all profits, both small and great. Therefore, according to your own speech, would not all men, both good and bad alike, be seekers of profit? HIP. It seems so. SO. Therefore, no one shall rightly reproach those who are seekers of profit, since he himself is also a seeker of profit.

The Argument of Marsilio Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499), the famous Renaissance translator of Plato. on the Book of Plato concerning Philosophy, or The Lovers.

what the duty of philosophy is

The sum of this dialogue is to define what the duty of a philosopher is and of what kind. Now, the duty of a philosopher is to know divine things and to govern human things; in the former, contemplative philosophy is included, and in the latter, active philosophy. Thus, the philosopher first contemplates divine things: that is, the absolute nature of the Good itself through wisdom. Then, directing human operations toward that Good as toward an end, he governs human affairs. This governance, however, requires two things. First: that he knows what human nature is, and by what means it is led toward the good and removed from evil; which the philosopher indeed does through prudence. Second: that he thus instructs both the affections and...