Here's another problem: reason loses all its power if it can't work without passion. If that's true, then reason becomes just like passion. What's the difference between them if passion without reason is reckless, but reason without passion is useless? They're on equal footing if neither can exist without the other. But who could accept that passion should be equal to reason? "Well then," our opponent says, "passion is useful as long as it's moderate." No — only if it's naturally useful. But if passion rebels against authority and reason, then all we gain from moderating it is less harm. A moderate passion is just a moderate evil.
Then, too, reason ceases to have any power if she can do nothing without passion, and begins to be equal and like unto passion; for what difference is there between them if passion without reason be as rash as reason without passion is helpless? They are both on the same level, if one cannot exist without the other. Yet who could endure that passion should be made equal to reason? "Then," says our adversary, "passion is useful, provided it be moderate." Nay, only if it be useful by nature: but if it be disobedient to authority and reason, al that we gain by its moderation is that the less there is of it, the less harm it does: wherefore a moderate passion is nothing but a moderate evil.