You will not answer, he said, according to your view of the meaning,
because you will be prating, and are an ancient.
Now I saw that he was getting angry with me for drawing distinctions,
when he wanted to catch me in his springes of words. And I remembered
that Connus was always angry with me when I opposed him, and then
he neglected me, because he thought that I was stupid; and as I was
intending to go to Euthydemus as a pupil, I reflected that I had better
let him have his way, as he might think me a blockhead, and refuse
to take me. So I said: You are a far better dialectician than myself,
Euthydemus, for I have never made a profession of the art, and therefore
do as you say; ask your questions once more, and I will answer.
Answer then, he said, again, whether you know what you know with
something, or with nothing.
Yes, I said; I know with my soul.
The man will answer more than the question; for I did not ask you, he
said, with what you know, but whether you know with something.
Again I replied, Through ignorance I have answered too much, but I hope
that you will forgive me. And now I will answer simply that I always
know what I know with something.
And is that something, he rejoined, always the same, or sometimes one
thing, and sometimes another thing?
Always, I replied, when I know, I know with this.
Will you not cease adding to your answers?
My fear is that this word 'always' may get us into trouble.
You, perhaps, but certainly not us. And now answer: Do you always know
with this?