Dialogue

 1 Parme| Parmenides. How then, without a word of explanation, could Plato
 2 Parme|      relative, neither name nor word nor idea nor science nor
 3 Parme|       than the other, this very word other (eteron), which is
 4 Parme|    parts. And each part, as the word ‘each’ implies, is also
 5 Parme|      series of propositions the word ‘is’ is really the copula;
 6 Parme|       some curious puzzle, each word is exactly fitted into every
 7 Parme|     which says, ‘Can there be a word devoid of meaning, or an
 8 Parme|       too great importance to a word or idea. The philosophy
 9 Parme|       we had ‘interrogated’ the word substance, as Plato has
10 Parme|        himself by analyzing the word ‘cause’ into uniform sequence.
11 Parme|     various senses in which the word ‘cause’ or ‘substance’ may
12 Parme|    matter.’ This poor forgotten word (which was ‘a very good
13 Parme|          which was ‘a very good word’ to describe the simplest
14 Parme|        the use of the favourite word ‘law,’ which is sometimes
15 Parme|       some of these uses of the word are confusing, because they
16 Parme|          Thus in the use of the word ‘substance’ we are far from
17 Parme|        one. Still we retain the word as a convenient generalization,
18 Parme|       being and not-being. In a word, when you suppose anything
19 Parme|      called a part, or must the word ‘part’ be relative to the
20 Parme|        part’ be relative to the word ‘whole’?~The latter.~Then
21 Parme|     Whenever, then, you use the word ‘other,’ whether once or
22 Parme|        others, in repeating the word ‘other’ we speak of that
23 Parme|       than the one, in that the word ‘other’ is applied to both,
24 Parme|        sum up the argument in a word and say truly: If one is