If so, why did you call him a man? Do we judge everything by looks alone? If that's how it works, then we could say a wax figure is an apple just because it looks like one and smells like one. But appearance isn't enough. Having a nose and eyes doesn't make someone a man — he must think like a man. Here's someone who won't listen to reason and can't tell when he's wrong: he's a donkey. Here's another person whose sense of shame has died: he's worthless, anything but a man. This person looks for people to attack and hurt, so he's not even a sheep or donkey — he's more like a wild animal.
(If so), why then did you say that he is a man? Is everything judged (determined) by the bare form? If that is so, say that the form in wax is an apple and has the smell and the taste of an apple. But the external figure is not enough: neither then is the nose enough and the eyes to make the man, but he must have the opinions of a man. Here is a man who does not listen to reason, who does not know when he is refuted: he is an ass; in another man the sense of shame is become dead: he is good for nothing, he is anything rather than a man. This man seeks whom he may meet and kick or bite, so that he is not even a sheep or an ass, but a kind of wild beast.