Dialogue

 1 Intro|        of humour and satire. The language is less fanciful and imaginative
 2 Intro|   impress of the great master of language. But the equably diffused
 3 Intro|         is made to the technical language of Aristotle, in the frequent
 4 Intro|       solved; the answer, in the language of the Republic, appears ‘
 5 Intro|     Being.’ Transferring this to language and thought, we have no
 6 Intro|       and imagination and common language to that of opinion and reflection
 7 Intro|        speak in the metaphorical language of Plato, became in turn
 8 Intro|        asserted in every form of language, the sensible world and
 9 Intro|      Eleatics. To the passionate language of Parmenides, Plato replies
10 Intro|   repugnant to the common use of language.~The ordinary logic is also
11 Intro|         and by the common use of language, which has been already
12 Intro|      over-accuracy in the use of language; 3. they deny predication;
13 Intro|        not-being has no place in language. Hence arises the necessity
14 Intro| attributes was implied in common language; that heat and cold, day
15 Intro|       them (Republic). In modern language they might be said to come
16 Intro|        justify the use of common language and of ordinary thought
17 Intro|        the ordinary mechanism of language and logic is carried by
18 Intro|        by the use of a technical language. The saying of Socrates
19 Intro|      live and are mighty; in the language of the Greek poet, ‘There
20 Intro|      distinctions of thought and language had no existence.~Of the
21 Intro|       due to the imperfection of language or the limitation of human
22 Intro|     discovery which, in Platonic language, may be termed a ‘most gracious
23 Intro|          human ideas, or, in the language of logicians, they have
24 Intro|       made by himself out of the language of common life. He uses
25 Intro|         Bible was written in the language of the common people, so
26 Intro|       student has to learn a new language of uncertain meaning which
27 Intro|        same extent as Hegel. The language of Plato or even of Aristotle
28 Intro|          series of thinkers: the language of the scholastic logic
29 Intro|      against the Hegelian use of language as mechanical and technical.~
30 Intro|      element of chance either in language or thought; and perhaps
31 Intro|        want of a sound theory of language. He speaks as if thought,
32 Intro|          of being identical with language, was wholly independent
33 Intro|       hardly any basis either in language or philosophy, while others,
34 Intro|          a corrective of popular language or thought, but should still
35 Intro| philosophy which, in Hegel’s own language, ‘does not allow the individual
36 Intro|          categories derived from language and invented by the genius
37 Intro|     stripped of the disguises of language and custom. He will not
38  Soph|         mingles with opinion and language.~THEAETETUS: How so?~STRANGER:
39  Soph|           and some not, and that language and opinion are of the non-partaking
40  Soph|         he will say, opinion and language do not partake of not-being,
41  Soph|     enquiring into the nature of language, opinion, and imagination,
42  Soph|          exists in the sphere of language and opinion, and there will
43  Soph|       all obtain a conception of language and opinion, in order that
44  Soph|        combination of them forms language, and is the simplest and
45  Soph|        STRANGER: And seeing that language is true and false, and that
46  Soph|           since they are akin to language, should have an element