>>2058309"Suppose there are two doctors. One of them can talk about medical matters as if he had the greatest possible acquaintance with them, but has never actually cared for sick people. The other is not able to talk about medical matters but is experienced in healing in accordance with medical theory. Which one would you choose as your doctor if you were ill?"
"'Isn't it terrible for an educated man—one who is able to introduce young people to philosophy—to work the land and engage in manual labor like country people?' Yes, this would really be terrible if working the land prevented him from doing philosophy or helping others to do philosophy. But I think that young people would benefit less by being with their teacher in the city or by listening to him speak in a formal presentation than they do by watching him work in the country and actually do what reason teaches us to do—namely, to work and endure pain ourselves rather than ask someone else to support us. What, after all, prevents the pupil who is working with his teacher from simultaneously listening to him speak about self-control, justice, or bravery? Those who want to do philosophy properly do not need many words. Nor do young people need to absorb the multitude of theories that we see sophists inflating themselves with—theories that truly are enough to consume a man's life. Those who do farm work can learn the most time but can take some breaks. I fully realize that few people will want to learn this way, but it is better for most of the young people who claim to be studying philosophy not to go near a philosopher—at least not those philosophers who are decadent and soft, and by whom, when they come near, philosophy is tainted…
