meno   

Men. I should.

Soc. And if he similarly asked what colour is, and you answered

whiteness, and the questioner rejoined, Would you say that whiteness

is colour or a colour? you would reply, A colour, because there are

other colours as well.

Men. I should.

Soc. And if he had said, Tell me what they are?-you would have

told him of other colours which are colours just as much as whiteness.

Men. Yes.

Soc. And suppose that he were to pursue the matter in my way, he

would say: Ever and anon we are landed in particulars, but this is not

what I want; tell me then, since you call them by a common name, and

say that they are all figures, even when opposed to one another,

what is that common nature which you designate as figure-which

contains straight as well as round, and is no more one than the

other-that would be your mode of speaking?

Men. Yes.

Soc. And in speaking thus, you do not mean to say that the round

is round any more than straight, or the straight any more straight

than round?

Men. Certainly not.

Soc. You only assert that the round figure is not more a figure than

the straight, or the straight than the round?

Men. Very true.

Soc. To what then do we give the name of figure? Try and answer.

Suppose that when a person asked you this question either about figure

or colour, you were to reply, Man, I do not understand what you

want, or know what you are saying; he would look rather astonished and

say: Do you not understand that I am looking for the "simile in

multis"? And then he might put the question in another form: Mono,

he might say, what is that "simile in multis" which you call figure,

and which includes not only round and straight figures, but all? Could