句子中的as such 指代的是什么，句子有必要讲的这么麻烦吗？

To say a thing is better or worse implies some standard, which obviously is not there as such in the thing being evaluated.

中文翻译为：说一个东西较好或较坏，这暗示了某种标准，很明显，这标准本身并不存在于正在被评价的事物中。

出自撒穆尔•伊诺克•斯通普夫《西方哲学史:从苏格拉底到萨特及其后》

第一个问题：非限制性定语从句修饰的先行词是standard, 那as such 指代的又是什么呢，前文好像并没有提示，还是只是虚指被评价事物中的某样东西？as such 是以下几种用法的一种吗，还是有另外的意思？

as such 有以下几种用法：

　1.“像这样的人或事”“像这样的情况”

She' is a competent leader and has always been regarded as such by her colleagues.

　　这句话中的as such的such代指前文的a competent leader，整理后就是She' is a competent leader and has always been regarded as a competent leader by her colleagues.他是一位有能力的领导并且一直被同事视为有能力的领导。

　2.置于名词后面，表示in the exact sense of the word ，意为“就本身而论”、“…… 本身”，大概等于itself或者themselves。

I do not object taxes as such， but do object when taxation is justified on spurious or dishonest grounds.

　　这里的as such等同于前面的taxes，翻译为我不是反对税收本身，但我确实反对莫名的或不正当的理由的税收。

　　同义替换可以写成I am not against taxes as such， but I am against levying taxes on spurious or dishonest grounds.

　3.有时用于否定句表示“算不上……”、“并不真是……”的意思。

　　I can't call my book a best seller as such， but it's very popular.

　　我不敢说我的书是畅销书，但可以说很受欢迎。

　　同义替换可以写成I dare not say that my book is a best seller as such， but it really enjoys great popularity.

第二个问题：原句如果改成 To say a thing is better or worse implies some standard, which obviously is not in the thing being evaluated.

删除了 there as such，是不是原句会更通顺合理，容易理解呢？句子意义可以理解，但我不明白的就是明明可以说清楚，为什么要绕一圈讲话呢？

下面贴出来的是原文具体语境和翻译，求大神解答

The doctrine of Forms leaves many questions as well as problems. Plato’s language gives the impression that there are two distinct worlds, but the relationship of these worlds is not easily conceived. Nor is the relation between Forms and their corresponding objects as clear as one would wish. Still, his argument is highly suggestive, particularly as he seeks to account for our ability to make judgments of value. To say a thing is better or worse implies some standard, which obviously is not there as such in the thing being evaluated. The doctrine of the Forms also makes possible scientific knowledge, for clearly the scientist has let go of actual visible particulars and deals with essences or universals, that is, with "laws." The scientist formulates "laws" and these laws tell us something about all things, not only the immediate and particular things. Although this whole doctrine of the Forms rests upon Plato’s metaphysical views, that ultimate reality is non-material, it goes a long way toward explaining the more simple fact of how it is possible for us to have ordinary conversation. Any discourse between human beings, it would seem, illustrates our independence from particular things. Conversation, Plato would say, is the clue that leads us to the Forms, for conversation involves more than seeing. The eye can see only the particular thing, but the thinking that animates conversation departs from specific things as thought "sees" the universal, the Form. There is in the end a stubborn lure in Plato’s theory, even though it ends inconclusively.