“My listener, before going further, if it seems right to you, we shall look at the course our talk has taken up to this point. For the talk, too, has its laborious development, and it is only when this is completed in the necessary slowness that we may come to an understanding with each other about what the talk presupposes. Only at that point can the talk, being then secure, make use of the agreeable speed that is properly the very life of conversation. Thus, purity of heart is to will one thing, but to will one thing could not mean to will the world’s pleasure and what belongs to it, even if a person only named one thing as his choice, since this one thing was only one by a deception. Nor could willing one thing mean willing it in the vain sense of mere bigness, which only to a man in a state of giddiness appears to be one. For in truth to will one thing, a man must will the Good. This was the first, the possibility of being able to will one thing. But in order genuinely to will one thing, a man must in truth will the Good. On the other hand, as for each act of willing the Good which does not will it in truth, it must be declared double-mindedness. Then there was a type of double-mindedness that in a more powerful and active sort of inner coherence seemed to will the Good, but deceptively willed something else. It willed the Good for the sake of reward, out of fear of punishment, or as a form of self-assertion. But there was another kind of double-mindedness born of weakness, that is commonest of all among men, that versatile double-mindedness that wills the Good in a kind of sincerity, but only wills it ‘to a a certain degree.’”