And the good is loved for the sake of the evil? Let me put the case in
this way: Suppose that of the three principles, good, evil, and that
which is neither good nor evil, there remained only the good and the
neutral, and that evil went far away, and in no way affected soul or
body, nor ever at all that class of things which, as we say, are neither
good nor evil in themselves;--would the good be of any use, or other
than useless to us? For if there were nothing to hurt us any longer,
we should have no need of anything that would do us good. Then would
be clearly seen that we did but love and desire the good because of the
evil, and as the remedy of the evil, which was the disease; but if there
had been no disease, there would have been no need of a remedy. Is not
this the nature of the good--to be loved by us who are placed between
the two, because of the evil? but there is no use in the good for its
own sake.