a. 7. rbv ahbv 84 rpdmv dp~dvrov hspor dre‘pas Zpxouuiv a‘pxds.
I) The equalisation of rulers and ruled is attained in two ways :
a) by succession; 6) by the variety of offices which the same
person may hold,-that is to say, instead of going out of office, he
may pass from one office to another, from higher to lower and
conversely; the alderman may become a common councillor or
the common councillor an alderman. Or, 2) the words are a pass-
ing thought suggested by a‘hXor ycvdpcvoi, confirmatory of the view
that the State consists of dissimilars. There is a further variety;
not only do they come into and go out of office, as if they were
no longer the same persons, but they have different offices.’
- ci piv otv 6s IKacrros, rdx’ bv €17 p2Xhov 8 $oI;XETai nor& d ZUK~~T~S
... Uh 6’ OdX &To $1))VOVULY K.7.h.
- n’hen each man can speak of his own wife. his own son, or his
own property, the clear conviction which he entertains may tend to
produce unity, but this is not the meaning of those .she would have
all things In common ; they mean ‘(all,” not ii each.” ’
- rb yhp H~VTCS KU~ dp+6rcpa KU~ mpirrb KU~ Bprra 8rh rb 81n-bv Kai iv
TO^ Xdyorp ~piuTlKDiE nor& uuXXoy~upo~s~ 6d iur‘r rb P~VTU~ rb ah6
h+rv 081 ptv xaXdv, ah’ 06 Guuarcb, &Si 8’ o;eaw dpOWOgrlKliV.
The absolute unity of ‘ all’ in the sense of ‘each ’ is not what
Plato intended, and is in fact impracticable. The unity of all
in the abstract, i.e. of the whole state, excluding individuals,
does not tend to harmony. Such a unity is really inconceivable ; a
state without individuals is a pdrurov &os. (Nic. Eth. i. 6. $, IO.)
The term ‘ all,* like the term ‘ one,’ is ambiguous, and has a different
meaning when applied to the state and to the individuals of whom
the state is composed.
~rcivrw xai &p$&po. The fallacy is that these words may mean
‘ all ’ or both,’ either in a collective or individual sense.
mprrrh xa‘r +ria. The fallacy consists in assuming that odd and
even are the same because two odd numbers when added together
