Paragraph

  1 1 |     accomplish the task of a wise man rather than to accomplish
  2 1 |         to be able to show up the man who makes them; and of these
  3 1 |          of this kind will make a man seem to be wise, and this
  4 4 |          be". Moreover, "The same man is both seated and standing
  5 4 |      health: but it is the seated man who stood up, and the sick
  6 4 |        who stood up, and the sick man who was recovering". For "
  7 4 |        recovering". For "The sick man does so and so", or "has
  8 4 |           sometimes it means "the man who is sick or is seated
  9 4 |       seated now", sometimes "the man who was sick formerly".
 10 4 |         formerly". Of course, the man who was recovering was the
 11 4 |           recovering was the sick man, who really was sick at
 12 4 |         sick at the time: but the man who is in health is not
 13 4 |        same time: he is "the sick man" in the sense not that he
 14 4 |         such as the following: "A man can walk while sitting,
 15 4 |          thee a slave once a free man", and "God-like Achilles
 16 5 |       Coriscus be different from "man", he is different from himself:
 17 5 |         from himself: for he is a man": or "If he be different
 18 5 |       Socrates, and Socrates be a man, then", they say, "he has
 19 5 |      Coriscus is different from a man, because it so happens (
 20 5 |       Coriscus) is different is a man".~Those that depend on whether
 21 5 |        being, e.g. if it is not a man." For it is not the same
 22 5 |           any one, e.g. suppose a man were to secure the statement
 23 5 |  rhetoricians wish to show that a man is an adulterer, they take
 24 5 |    adulterous life, viz. that the man is smartly dressed, or that
 25 5 |         than it follows that if a man in a fever be hot, a man
 26 5 |          man in a fever be hot, a man who is hot must be in a
 27 5 | refutation. Thus "Is A and is B a man?" "Yes." "Then if any one
 28 5 |           and B, he will strike a man" (singular),"not men" (plural).
 29 5 |        refutation; e.g. suppose a man were to grant that the descriptions "
 30 6 |          absolutely". If, then, a man treats the admission that
 31 6 |          in Melissus’ argument, a man assumes that to "have been
 32 6 |          thing", simply, e.g. to "man" and to "one single man
 33 6 |           man" and to "one single man only" and likewise also
 34 7 |        kinds of expression: for a man who can do this is practically
 35 7 |            A special reason why a man is liable to be hurried
 36 7 |        object itself); secondly a man is liable to be deceived,
 37 8 |           these means: for what a man has not been asked but thinks
 38 8 |         only from this particular man.~
 39 9 |       also possible to refute the man who maintains the contradictory
 40 9 |           of the truth; e.g. if a man has stated that the diagonal
 41 9 |         make them apparent to the man in the street. Accordingly
 42 10|     except what occurs whenever a man does not in using the expression
 43 10|    against the thought whenever a man uses the expression in the
 44 10|     others are unknown". Thus the man who makes this claim seems
 45 11|          is the business not of a man who is showing something,
 46 11|           and has in view not the man who has knowledge, but the
 47 11|          for it does not permit a man to grant whichever he likes
 48 11|         geometry, but one which a man may possess, even though
 49 11|  attaching to the subject which a man may indeed know without
 50 12|    interest: e.g. they say that a man ought to die nobly rather
 51 12|          opposite. Accordingly, a man who speaks according to
 52 12|       Accordingly, they said, the man whose statement agrees with
 53 12|      standard of the law, but the man who agrees with the law
 54 12|       that of necessity the happy man is just, whereas it is paradoxical
 55 12|        should be happy. To lead a man into paradoxes of this sort
 56 14|     masculine: according to him a man who calls wrath a "destructress" (
 57 14|          come upon a verbal: for "man" is both a "matter" for
 58 15|       dealing with particulars, a man grants the individual case,
 59 15|      secure the admission that "A man should obey his father in
 60 15|        everything", ask "Should a man obey his parents in everything,
 61 15|          while in answering, if a man perceives this being done
 62 16|      personal researches; for the man who is easily committed
 63 17|          All the same, since if a man does not distinguish the
 64 17|          so that, even if not the man himself, at any rate his
 65 17|         other cases. But observe; man belongs to the animal kingdom,
 66 17|           doesn't he?" Yes. "Then man is the property of the animal
 67 17|          fallacy: for we say that man "belongs to" the animal
 68 20|           same as to say "I saw a man being-beaten-with-my-eyes".
 69 20|            and again, "Can a good man who is a cobbler be bad?" "
 70 20|           bad?" "No." "But a good man may be a bad cobbler: therefore
 71 22|         predications. For the one man, say, has granted, when
 72 22|       arguments. It is asked if a man has lost what he once had
 73 22|         afterwards has not: for a man will no longer have ten
 74 22|          to begin with, whether a man no longer having the number
 75 22|           is the argument that "a man may give what he has not
 76 22|          if he had asked "Could a man give what he has not got?"
 77 22|     answer "No", were to ask if a man could give a thing quickly
 78 22|          were to conclude that "a man could give what he had not
 79 22|           a certain manner; and a man could certainly give a thing
 80 22|          following kind: "Could a man strike a blow with a hand
 81 22|          solve this case, where a man has more than one eye, or
 82 22|          of the view that "what a man has, he has received": for
 83 22|       their solutions against the man, not against his argument.
 84 22|          learns it. Also, "Does a man tread upon what he walks
 85 22|   learning or by discovery that a man knows what he knows?" "Yes." "
 86 22|      proof that there is a "third man" distinct from Man and from
 87 22|          third man" distinct from Man and from individual men.
 88 22|           that is a fallacy, for "Man", and indeed every general
 89 22|          which creates the "third man", but the admission that
 90 22|        individual substance. For "Man" cannot be an individual
 91 22|         beside the many, just as "Man" was. It is evident then
 92 23|         be the solution. "Could a man give what he has not got? "
 93 23|        one die by itself." Does a man know either by learning
 94 23|      knows, collectively." Also a man treads, perhaps, on any
 95 24|          to ask you? you know the man who is approaching", or "
 96 24|          is approaching", or "the man in the mask"? "Is the statue
 97 24|    question; nor in the case of a man approaching, or wearing
 98 24|     Coriscus, but do not know the man who is approaching, it still
 99 24|          and do not know the same man; nor, again, if this is
100 24|          when they don’t know the man who is coming towards them,
101 24|          for it is possible for a man to show that a false conclusion
102 24|     meanings-for we also say that man is "of the animals", though
103 24|           Nor is the saying that "Man is of the animals" a phrase
104 25|          it possible for the same man at the same time to be a
105 25|          his oath?" "Can the same man at the same time both obey
106 25|         obey and disobey the same man?" Or isn’t it the case that
107 25|          being" as well. Nor if a man keeps his oath in this particular
108 25|            nor is the disobedient man "obedient", though he obeys
109 25|          problem whether the same man can at the same time say
110 25|          and not good to the same man." Or rather there is nothing
111 25|          not good to a particular man, or being good to a particular
112 25|        being good to a particular man, and yet not good or here. "
113 25|         Is that which the prudent man would not wish, an evil?" "
114 25|          But whatever decisions a man comes to on the strength
115 25|           that the opinion of the man who gave the decision supports:
116 26|       point of that kind. "Does a man who knows A to be A, know
117 28|             animal" follows from "man"-so does the particular
118 30|          the one to the many, the man who gives a simple answer
119 30|    anything else, inasmuch as the man who answers double questions
120 33|        some are clear even to the man in the street (for humorous
121 33|      depend on diction; e.g. "The man got the cart down from the
122 34|          were then not to teach a man the art of shoe-making or