Of course it is the same.

  And is not "other" a name given to a thing?

  Certainly.

  Whenever, then, you use the word "other," whether once or oftener,
you name that of which it is the name, and to no other do you give the
name?

  True.

  Then when we say that the others are other than the one, and the one
other than the others, in repeating the word "other" we speak of
that nature to which the name is applied, and of no other?

  Quite true.

  Then the one which is other than others, and the other which is
other than the one, in that the word "other" is applied to both,
will be in the same condition; and that which is in the same condition
is like?

  Yes.

  Then in virtue of the affection by which the one is other than the
others, every thing will be like every thing, for every thing is other
than every thing.

  True.

  Again, the like is opposed to the unlike?

  Yes.

  And the other to the same?

  True again.

  And the one was also shown to be the same with the others?

  Yes.

  And to be, the same with the others is the opposite of being other
than the others?

  Certainly.

  And in that it was other it was shown to be like?

  Yes.

  But in that it was the same it will be unlike by virtue of the
opposite affection to that which made it and this was the affection of
otherness.

  Yes.

  The same then will make it unlike; otherwise it will not be the
opposite of the other.

  True.

  Then the one will be both like and unlike the others; like in so far
as it is other, and unlike in so far as it is the same.

  Yes, that argument may be used.

  And there is another argument.

  What?

  In so far as it is affected in the same way it is not affected
otherwise, and not being affected otherwise is not unlike, and not
being unlike, is like; but in so far as it is affected by other it
is otherwise, and being otherwise affected is unlike.

  True.

  Then because the one is the same with the others and other than
the others, on either of these two grounds, or on both of them, it
will be both like and unlike the others?

  Certainly.

  And in the same way as being other than itself, and the same with
itself on either of these two grounds and on both of them, it will
be like and unlike itself.

  Of course.

  Again, how far can the one touch or not touch itself and
others?-Consider.

  I am considering.

  The one was shown to be in itself which was a whole?

  True.