And, if we don't know it and should have ever so much knov^^ledgeof the rest without this, you know that it's no profit to us, just as therewould be none in possessing something in the absence of the good.
I find this passage interesting but hard to follow. Is he claiming there is no way to have knowledge of good without having the knowledge of bad? In the sentence before he claims that we don't have sufficient knowledge of whats good. If this is what he is saying it makes sense to me that it would be impossible to know whats good without having the knowledge of whats bad. I think that this can be related to many things in life when comparing things. It can be compared to a claim about darkness. Without the experience of light we would know no difference meaning that it wouldn't be dark. Same with good and bad, with no bad there can be no good.