What, then, does Socrates' _reaction_ mean, which recommended dialectics as the way to virtue, and which was charmed when morality was unable to justify itself logically? But this is precisely what proves its _superiority_--without unconsciousness _it is worth nothing_! In reality it means _the dissolution of Greek instincts,_ when _demonstrability_ is posited as the first condition of personal excellence in virtue. All these great "men of virtue" and of words are themselves types of dissolution. In practice, it means that moral judgments have been torn from the conditions among which they grew and in which alone they had some sense, from their Greek and Græco-political soil, in order to be _denaturalised_ under the cover of being _made sublime._ The great concepts "good" and "just" are divorced from the first principles of which they form a part, and, as "ideas" _become free,_ degenerate into subjects for discussion. A certain truth is sought behind them; they are regarded as entities or as symbols of entities: a world is _invented_ where they are "at home," and from which they are supposed to hail. _In short_: the scandal reaches its apotheosis in Plato.... And then it was necessary to invent the _perfectly abstract_ man also:--good, just, wise, and a dialectician to boot--in short, the _scarecrow_ of the ancient philosopher: a plant without any soil whatsoever; a human race devoid of all definite ruling instincts; a virtue which "justifies" itself with reasons. The perfectly absurd "individual" _per se_! the highest form of _Artificiality...._ Briefly, the denaturalisation of moral values resulted in the creation of a degenerate _type of man_--"the good man," "the happy man," "the wise man."--Socrates represents a moment of the most _profound perversity_ in the history of values. 431.