I, at least, would consider this a disgrace.” For he knew, I reckon, “that the knowledge of many things does not educate the mind,”[974] according to Heraclitus. And in the fifth book of the _Republic_, he says, “‘Shall we then call all these, and the others which study such things, and those who apply themselves to the meaner arts, philosophers?’ ‘By no means,’ I said, ‘but like philosophers.’ ‘And whom,’ said he, ‘do you call true?’ ‘Those,’ said I, ‘who delight in the contemplation of truth. For philosophy is not in geometry, with its postulates and hypotheses; nor in music, which is conjectural; nor in astronomy, crammed full of physical, fluid, and probable causes. But the knowledge of the good and truth itself are requisite,--what is good being one thing, and the ways to the good another.’”[975] So that he does not allow that the curriculum of training suffices for the good, but co-operates in rousing and training the soul to intellectual objects. Whether, then, they say that the Greeks gave forth some utterances of the true philosophy by accident, it is the accident of a divine administration (for no one will, for the sake of the present argument with us, deify chance); or by good fortune, good fortune is not unforeseen. Or were one, on the other hand, to say that the Greeks possessed a natural conception of these things, we know the one Creator of nature; just as we also call righteousness natural; or that they had a common intellect, let us reflect who is its father, and what righteousness is in the mental economy. For were one to name “prediction,”[976] and assign as its cause “combined utterance,”[977] he specifies forms of prophecy. Further, others will have it that some truths were uttered by the philosophers, in appearance.