Dialogue

 1 Intro|  Theaetetus does (Theaet.), is a contradiction in terms. The fallacy to
 2 Intro|       the validity of the law of contradiction. Thirdly, he seems to confuse
 3 Intro|       take away the principle of contradiction. Plato, as far as we know,
 4 Intro|    negative and the principle of contradiction. Neither the Platonic notion
 5 Intro|       all touch the principle of contradiction. For what is asserted about
 6 Intro| interferes with the principle of contradiction employed in the concrete.
 7 Intro|        not eaten’ any the less a contradiction of ‘All have eaten.’~The
 8 Intro|           without falling into a contradiction. You observe how unwilling
 9 Intro|       part of itself. The law of contradiction is as clearly laid down
10 Intro|      been accustomed to regard a contradiction in terms as the end of strife;
11 Intro|          strife; to be told that contradiction is the life and mainspring
12 Intro|        we analyze them involve a contradiction, such as ‘beginning’ or ‘
13 Intro|       divine and human nature, a contradiction appears to be unavoidable.
14  Soph|          avoid being caught in a contradiction? Indeed, Theaetetus, the
15  Soph|       art without falling into a contradiction.~THEAETETUS: How do you
16  Soph|         who is sceptical of this contradiction, must think how he can find