Paragraph

 1 5 |        not a particular kind of being, e.g. if it is not a man."
 2 7 |       to divide, e.g. "unity", "being", and "sameness"), while
 3 7 |         and we understand it as being one with the thing: and
 4 7 |        that "individually" and "being" are deemed to belong in
 5 9 |         merely apparent without being real, and, if it be real,
 6 10| meaning-as e.g. it may be that "Being" and "One" have many meanings,
 7 10|       against the thought. Such being the meanings of the phrases
 8 10|     whatsoever; for the fact of being directed against the thought
 9 10|         is a figure through its being a cycle it lies in the proof.
10 11|       with any definite kind of being, nor does it show anything,
11 11|       the general philosophy of being. For all beings are not
12 11|       i.e. a particular kind of being, but are like negative terms,
13 13|       in their definition, they being predicated of these things.
14 14|     should be "he", while with "being" it should be "him": e.g. "
15 14|   Coriscus (Kopiskos) is", but "being Coriscus" (Kopiskon). It
16 14|       with "is" (esti) or with "being" (to einai). Also, Solecism
17 15|     when they are in process of being confuted, draw a distinction,
18 15|         if a man perceives this being done beforehand, he should
19 16|          viz. the reputation of being well trained in everything,
20 16|        to meet it quickly while being subjected to questions:
21 17|       have to beware of, is not being refuted, but seeming to
22 17|       for an answerer to escape being refuted in a sense: for
23 17|       might have asked if they, being different, had had one name?
24 17|      that way the likelihood of being refuted on a side issue
25 17|        avoids the impression of being either refuted or paradoxical.
26 18|        solving an argument when being subjected to questions and
27 20|   division of the words: "Was X being beaten with that with which
28 20|     that with which you saw him being beaten?" and "Did you see
29 20|   beaten?" and "Did you see him being beaten with that with which
30 20|     with that with which he was being beaten?" This fallacy has
31 22|        see" is surely a form of being struck by a sensible object;
32 22|        he has not got?" and, on being given the answer "No", were
33 22|        it quickly, and, on this being granted, were to conclude
34 22|      particular quality, or the being related to something in
35 24|       knowing something, but to being, or to being is a in a certain
36 24|  something, but to being, or to being is a in a certain state,
37 24|   whereas no one speaks of A as being "B's child" in the literal
38 24|      good" and be "X's" without being at the same time "X's good".
39 25|      something, despite its not being." Likewise also, Being will
40 25|      not being." Likewise also, Being will not be; for it will
41 25|         some particular form of being. Is it possible for the
42 25|       Or isn’t it the case that being something in particular
43 25|     something in particular and Being are not the same? On the
44 25|         not also have absolute "being" as well. Nor if a man keeps
45 25|      nothing to prevent it from being false absolutely, though
46 25|       respect or relation, i.e. being true in some things, though
47 25|         though good absolutely, being not good to a particular
48 25|         to a particular man, or being good to a particular man,
49 25|    prevent the speaking of them being just: for because to speak
50 30|         two unequal things each being equal to itself, it will
51 33|         whether the meaning of "Being" and "One" is the same in
52 33| different; for some think that "Being" and "One" mean the same;
53 33|       asserting that "One" and "Being" are used in a number of
54 34|       only the aforesaid aim of being able to exact an account
55 34|     after inspection that, such being the situation as it existed