true nature that which is not his true nature at all. He thinks that his true nature centres in his sensations, appetites, and desires; hence he conceives that his true wellbeing will be promoted by an indulgence in these as unlimited as can be procured. Hence he falls into vicious courses. But this happens in consequence of his ignorance; of his ignorance of what constitutes his true nature, and of his consequent ignorance as to the means by which the wellbeing of that nature should be promoted. Thus, as all virtue has its origin in knowledge, in a knowledge of what our true nature is, so all vice has its origin in ignorance, in an ignorance of what the nature of ourselves really and truly is. This farther may be said: whatever man pursues, he pursues in the idea that it is good for him. When he pursues evil, therefore, he does so because he mistakes it for good; in other words, he does so in ignorance of its true nature. Had he distinctly known what this, its true nature, was, he would have avoided the evil after which he is running. More shortly stated, no man runs after evil viewed as evil, but viewed as good: he embraces evil under the disguise of good; that is to say, he embraces it unwillingly. This doctrine is in keeping with the Socratic position, that all vice is a sort of madness, and that the perfection of virtue is the perfection of sanity, or reason, or wisdom. Aristotle has objected to Socrates, that, in reducing virtue to knowledge, he has emptied our virtuous affections of that warmth and heartiness by
