The Megarics and Eretrians, as far as we know them, turned their speculative activity altogether in the logical or intellectual direction, paying little attention to the ethical and emotional field. Both Antisthenes and Aristippus, on the contrary, pursued the ethical path. To the Sokratic question, What is the Bonum? Eukleides had answered by a transcendental definition: Antisthenes and Aristippus each gave to it an ethical answer, having reference to human wants and emotions, and to the different views which they respectively took thereof. Antisthenes declared it to consist in virtue, by which he meant an independent and self-sufficing character, confining all wants within the narrowest limits: Aristippus placed it in the moderate and easy pleasures, in avoiding ambitious struggles, and in making the best of every different situation, yet always under the guidance of a wise calculation and self-command. Both of them kept clear of the transcendental: they neither accepted it as Unum et Omne (the view of Eukleides), nor as Plura (the Eternal Ideas or Forms, the Platonic view). Their speculations had reference altogether to human life and feelings, though the one took a measure of this wide subject very different from the other: and in thus confining the range of their speculations, they followed Sokrates more closely than either Eukleides or Plato followed him. They not only abstained from transcendental speculation, but put themselves in declared opposition to it. And since the intellectual or logical philosophy, as treated by Plato, became intimately blended with transcendental hypothesis--Antisthenes and Aristippus are both found on the negative side against its pretensions. Aristippus declared the mathematical sciences to be useless, as conducing in no way to happiness, and taking no account of what was better or what was worse.[27] He declared that we could know nothing except in so far as we were affected by it, and as it was or might be in correlation with ourselves: that as to causes not relative to ourselves, or to our own capacities and affections, we could know nothing about them.[28] [Footnote 27: Aristotel. Metaph. B. 906, a. 32. [Greek: ô(/ste dia\ tau=ta tô=n _sophistô=n tines_ oi(=on A)ri/stippos proepêla/kizon au)ta\s (ta\s mathêmatika\s te/chnas);--e)n me\n ga\r tai=s a)/llais te/chnais, kai\ tai=s banau/sois, oi(=on e)n tektonikê=| kai\ skutikê=|, dio/ti be/ltion ê)\ chei=ron le/gesthai pa/nta, ta\s de\ mathêmatika\s ou)the/na poiei=sthai lo/gon peri\ a)gathô=n kai\ kakô=n.] Aristotle here ranks Aristippus among the [Greek: sophistai/]. Aristippus, in discountenancing [Greek: phusiologi/an], cited the favourite saying of Sokrates that the proper study of mankind was [Greek: o(/tti toi e)n mega/roisi kako/n t' a)gatho/n te te/tuktai]. Plutarch, ap. Euseb. Præp. Evang. i. 8.] [Footnote 28: Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vii. 191; Diog. L. ii. 92.] [Side-note: Preponderance of the negative vein in the Platonic age.]