But of these matters let us speak at some other time. Now there is
plainly a loophole to object to what has been advanced, on the plea that
the theory I have attacked is not by its advocates applied to all good:
but those goods only are spoken of as being under one [Greek: idea],
which are pursued, and with which men rest content simply for their own
sakes: whereas those things which have a tendency to produce or preserve
them in any way, or to hinder their contraries, are called good because
of these other goods, and after another fashion. It is manifest then
that the goods may be so called in two senses, the one class for their
own sakes, the other because of these.

Very well then, let us separate the independent goods from the
instrumental, and see whether they are spoken of as under one [Greek:
idea]. But the question next arises, what kind of goods are we to call
independent? All such as are pursued even when separated from other
goods, as, for instance, being wise, seeing, and certain pleasures and
honours (for these, though we do pursue them with some further end in
view, one would still place among the independent goods)? or does it
come in fact to this, that we can call nothing independent good except
the [Greek: idea], and so the concrete of it will be nought?

If, on the other hand, these are independent goods, then we shall
require that the account of the goodness be the same clearly in all,
just as that of the whiteness is in snow and white lead. But how stands
the fact? Why of honour and wisdom and pleasure the accounts are
distinct and different in so far as they are good. The Chief Good then
is not something common, and after one [Greek: idea].

But then, how does the name come to be common (for it is not seemingly a