DIALECTICS AND LOGIC. 431 render to himself an acccunt of what it meant. Having got this answer, Sokrates put fresh questions, applying i; to specific cases, to which the respondent was compelled to give answers incon sistent with the first ; thus showing that the definition was either too narrow, or too wide, or defective in some essential condition. The respondent then amended his answer ; but this was a prelude to other questions, which could only be answered in ways incon- sistent with the amendment ; and the respondent, after many attempts to disentangle himself, was obliged to plead guilty to the inconsistencies, with an admission that he could make no satisfac- tory answer to the original query, which had at first appeared so easy and familiar. Or, if he did not himself admit this, the hearers at least felt it forcibly. The dialogue, as given to us, commonly ends with a result purely negative, proving that the respondent was incompetent to answer the question proposed to him, in a manner consistent and satisfactory even to himself. Sokrates, as he pro- fessed from the beginning to have no positive theory to support, so he maintains to the end the same air of a learner, who would be glad to solve the difficulty if he could, but regrets to find himself disappointed of that instruction which the respondent had promised. We see by this description of the cross-examining path of this remarkable man, how intimate was the bond of connection between the dialectic method and the logical distribution of par- ticulars into species and genera. The discussion first raised by Sokrates turns upon the meaning of some large generic term , the queries whereby he follows it up, bring the answer given into collision with various particulars which it ought not to compre- hend, yet does ; or with others, which it ought to comprehend, but does not. It is in this manner that the latent and undefined cluster of association, which has grown up round a familiar term, is as it were penetrated by a fermenting leaven, forcing it to expand into discernible portions, and bringing the appropriate function which the term ought to fulfil, to become a subject of distinct consciousness. The inconsistencies into which the hearer is betrayed in his various answers, proclaim to him the fact that he has not yet acquired anything like a clear and full conceptior of the common attribute which binds together the various par- ticulars embraced under some term which is ever upon his lips or perhaps enable him to detect a differcLt fact, not -less impon
