And when anything is in the presence of evil, not being as yet evil, the presence of good arouses the desire of good in that thing; but the presence of evil, which makes a thing evil, takes away the desire and friendship of the good; for that which was once both good and evil has now become evil only, and the good was supposed to have no friendship with the evil?英文原著 · 《Lysis》
Then he who is punished is delivered from the evil of his soul? And is he not then delivered from the greatest evil? Look at the matter in this way:-In respect of a man's estate, do you see any greater evil than poverty? There is no greater evil. Again, in a man's bodily frame, you would say that the evil is weakness and disease and deformity? I should. And do you not imagine that the soul likewise has some evil of her own? Of course.英文原著 · 《Gorgias》
Yes, indeed, he said; and they speak evil of evil men. And if I may give you a piece of advice, you had better take care that they do not speak evil of you, since I can tell you that the good speak evil of the evil.英文原著 · 《Euthydemus》
And would you still say that the evil are evil by reason of the presence of evil? I should. Then those who rejoice are good, and those who are in pain evil? The degrees of good and evil vary with the degrees of pleasure and of pain? Have the wise man and the fool, the brave and the coward, joy and pain in nearly equal degrees? or would you say that the coward has more? I should say that he has. Help me then to draw out the conclusion which follows from our admissions; for it is good to repeat and review what is good twice and thrice over, as they say.英文原著 · 《Gorgias》
Thus we arrive at the conclusion that like is not the friend of like, nor unlike of unlike; and therefore good is not the friend of good, nor evil of evil, nor good of evil, nor evil of good. What remains but that the indifferent, which is neither good nor evil, should be the friend (not of the indifferent, for that would be 'like the friend of like,' but) of the good, or rather of the beautiful?英文原著 · 《Lysis》
And neither is the good the friend of the good, nor the evil of the evil, nor the good of the evil;--these alternatives are excluded by the previous argument; and therefore, if there be such a thing as friendship or love at all, we must infer that what is neither good nor evil must be the friend, either of the good, or of that which is neither good nor evil, for nothing can be the friend of the bad.英文原著 · 《Lysis》