more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
You cannot divide anything (such as the decad) into many parts, because as soon as you separate the first part, you are no longer dividing the original.
Gist of Idea
You cannot divide anything into many parts, because after the first division you are no longer dividing the original
Source
Sextus Empiricus (Outlines of Pyrrhonism [c.180], II.215)
Book Ref
Sextus Empiricus: 'Outlines of Pyrrhonism', ed/tr. Bury,R.G. [Prometheus 1990], p.168
| 648 | Socrates began the quest for something universal with his definitions, but he didn't make them separate [Socrates, by Aristotle] |
| 166 | A speaker should be able to divide a subject, right down to the limits of divisibility [Plato] |
| 16123 | Whenever you perceive a community of things, you should also hunt out differences in the group [Plato] |
| 2083 | Either a syllable is its letters (making parts as knowable as whole) or it isn't (meaning it has no parts) [Plato] |
| 2086 | Understanding mainly involves knowing the elements, not their combinations [Plato] |
| 12274 | Begin examination with basics, and subdivide till you can go no further [Aristotle] |
| 1484 | We should say nothing of the whole if our contact is with the parts [Epicurus, by Plutarch] |
| 1887 | You cannot divide anything into many parts, because after the first division you are no longer dividing the original [Sext.Empiricus] |
| 8014 | Resolve a complex into simple elements, then reconstruct the complex by using them [Hobbes, by MacIntyre] |
| 13099 | Analysing right down to primitive concepts seems beyond our powers [Leibniz] |