with which the philosophising mind is filled and satisfied, comes from the everlasting and unchangeable Ideas and is thus more akin to true essence and reality, than the perishable substances which relieve bodily hunger and thirst.[44] [Footnote 42: Plato, Republic, ix. p. 581 C-D.] [Footnote 43: Plato, Republic, ix. pp. 582-583.] [Footnote 44: Plato, Republic, ix. pp. 585-586.] [Side-note: His arguments do not go to the point which he professes to aim at.] It is by these two lines of reasoning, and especially by the last, that Plato intends to confirm and place beyond dispute the triumph of the just man over the unjust.[45] He professes to have satisfied the requirement of Glaukon, by proving that the just man is happy by reason of his justice--_quand même_--however he may be esteemed or dealt with either by Gods or men. But even if we grant the truth of his premisses, no such conclusion can be elicited from them. He appears to be successful only because he changes the terminology, and the state of the question. Assume it to be true, that the philosopher, whose pleasures are derived chiefly from the love of knowledge and of intellectual acquisitions, has a better chance of happiness than the ambitious or the money-loving man. This I believe to be true in the main, subject to many interfering causes--though the manner in which Plato here makes it out is much less satisfactory than the handling of the same point by Aristotle after him.[46] But when the point is granted, nothing is proved about the just and the unjust man, except in a sense of those terms peculiar to Plato himself. [Footnote 45: Plato, Republic, ix. p. 583 B. [Greek: Tau=ta me\n toi/nun ou)/tô du/' e)phexê=s a)\n ei)/ê kai\ di\s nenikêkô\s o( di/kaios to\n a)/dikon; to\ de\ tri/ton . . . tou=t' a)\n ei)/ê me/gisto/n te kai\ kuriô/taton tô=n ptôma/tôn.]] [Footnote 46: Aristot. Ethic. Nikom. i. 5, p. 1095 b, 1096 a, x. 6-9, pp. 1176-1179.] Nor indeed is Plato's conclusion proved, even in his own sense of the words. He identifies the just man with the philosopher or man of reason--the unjust man with the pursuer of power or wealth. Now, even in this Platonic meaning, the just man or philosopher cannot be called happy _quand même_: he requires, as one condition of his happiness, a certain amount of service, forbearance, and estimation, on the part of his fellows. He is not completely self-sufficing, nor can any human being be so. [Side-note: Exaggerated parallelism between the Commonwealth and the individual man.]