Complete Works (88 page)

“Furthermore, because the parts are parts of a whole, the one, as the
[145]
whole, would be limited. Or aren’t the parts contained by the whole?”—“Necessarily.”—“But surely that which contains would be a limit.”—“Doubtless.”—“So the one that is is surely both one and many, a whole and parts, and limited and unlimited in multitude.”—“Apparently.”

“So, since in fact it is limited, does it not also have extremities?”—“Necessarily.”—“And again: if it is a whole, would it not have a beginning, a middle, and an end? Or can anything be a whole without those three? And if any one of them is missing from something, will it still consent to be a whole?”—“It won’t.”—“The one, as it seems, would indeed have [b] a beginning, an end, and a middle.”—“It would.”—“But the middle is equidistant from the extremities – otherwise, it wouldn’t be a middle.”—“No, it wouldn’t.”—“Since the one is like that, it would partake of some shape, as it seems, either straight or round, or some shape mixed from both.”—“Yes, it would partake of a shape.”

“Since it is so, won’t it be both in itself and in another?”—“How so?”—“Each of the parts is surely in the whole, and none outside the whole.”—[c] “Just so.”—“And are all the parts contained by the whole?”—“Yes.”—“Furthermore, the one is all the parts of itself, and not any more or less than all.”—“No, it isn’t.”—“The one is also the whole, is it not?”—“Doubtless.”—“So if all its parts are actually in a whole, and the one is both all the parts and the whole itself, and all the parts are contained by the whole, the one would be contained by the one; and thus the one itself would, then, be in itself.”—“Apparently.”

[d] “Yet, on the other hand, the whole is not in the parts, either in all or in some one. For if it were in all, it would also have to be in one, because if it were not in some one, it certainly could not be in all. And if this one is among them all, but the whole is not in it, how will the whole still be in all?”—“In no way.”—“Nor is it in some of the parts: for if the whole were in some, the greater would be in the less, which is impossible.”—“Yes, impossible.”—“But if the whole is not in some or one or all the parts, must it not be in something different or be nowhere at all?”—“Necessarily.”—[e] “If it were nowhere, it would be nothing; but since it is a whole, and is not in itself, it must be in another. Isn’t that so?”—“Certainly.”—“So the one, insofar as it is a whole, is in another; but insofar as it is all the parts, it is in itself. And thus the one must be both in itself and in a different thing.”—“Necessarily.”

“Since that is the one’s natural state, must it not be both in motion and at rest?”—“How?”—“It is surely at rest, if in fact it is in itself. For being
[146]
in one thing and not stirring from that, it would be in the same thing, namely, itself.”—“Yes, it is.”—“And that which is always in the same thing must, of course, always be at rest.”—“Certainly.”—“What about this? Must not that which is always in a different thing be, on the contrary, never in the same thing? And since it is never in the same thing, also not at rest? And since not at rest, in motion?”—“Just so.”—“Therefore the one, since it is itself always both in itself and in a different thing, must always be both in motion and at rest.”—“Apparently.”

“Furthermore, it must be the same as itself and different from itself, [b] and, likewise, the same as and different from the others, if in fact it has the aforesaid properties.”—“How so?”—“Everything is surely related to everything as follows: either it is the same or different; or, if it is not the same or different, it would be related as part to whole or as whole to part.”—“Apparently.”

“Is the one itself part of itself?”—“In no way.”—“So neither could it be a whole in relation to itself as part of itself, because then it would be a part in relation to itself.”—“No, it could not.”—“But is the one different [c] from one?”—“No indeed.”—“So it couldn’t be different from itself.”—“Certainly not.”—“So if it is neither different nor whole nor part in relation to itself, must it not then be the same as itself?”—“Necessarily.”

“What about this? Must not that which is in something different from itself – the self that is in the same thing as itself – be different from itself, if in fact it is also to be in something different?”—“It seems so to me.”—“In fact the one was shown to be so, since it is, at the same time, both in itself and in a different thing.”—“Yes, it was.”—“So in this way the one, as it seems, would be different from itself.”—“So it seems.” [d]

“Now, if anything is different from something, won’t it be different from something that is different?”—“Necessarily.”—“Aren’t all the things that are not-one different from the one, and the one from the things not-one?”—“Doubtless.”—“Therefore the one would be different from the others.”—“Different.”

“Consider this: aren’t the same itself and the different opposite to each other?”—“Doubtless.”—“Then will the same ever consent to be in the different, or the different in the same?”—“It won’t.”—“So if the different is never to be in the same, there is no being that the different is in for any time; for if it were in anything for any time whatsoever, for that time the [e] different would be in the same. Isn’t that so?”—“Just so.”—“But since it is never in the same, the different would never be in any being.”—“True.”—“So the different wouldn’t be in the things not-one or in the one.”—“Yes, you’re quite right.”—“So not by the different would the one be different from the things not-one or they different from it.”—“No, it wouldn’t.”—“Nor by themselves would they be different from each other, if they don’t
[147]
partake of the different.”—“Obviously not.”—“But if they aren’t different by themselves or by the different, wouldn’t they in fact entirely avoid being different from each other?”—“They would.”—“But neither do the things not-one partake of the one; otherwise they would not be not-one, but somehow one.”—“True.”—“So the things not-one could not be a number either; for in that case, too, they would not be absolutely not-one, since they would at least have number.”—“Yes, you’re quite right.”—“And again: are the things not-one parts of the one? Or would the things not-one in that case, too, partake of the one?”—“They would.”—“So if it is in [b] every way one, and they are in every way not-one, the one would be neither a part of the things not-one nor a whole with them as parts; and, in turn, the things not-one would be neither parts of the one nor wholes in relation to the one as part.”—“No, they wouldn’t.”—“But in fact we said that things that are neither parts nor wholes nor different from each other will be the same as each other.”—“Yes, we did.”—“So are we to say that the one, since it is so related to the things not-one, is the same as they are?”—“Let’s say so.”—“Therefore the one, as it seems, is both different from the others and itself, and the same as the others and itself.”—“It certainly looks that way from our argument.”

[c] “Would the one then also be both like and unlike itself and the others?”—“Perhaps.”—“At any rate, since it was shown to be different from the others, the others would surely also be different from it.”—“To be sure.”—“Wouldn’t it be different from the others just as they are different from it, and neither more nor less?”—“Yes, why not?”—“So if neither more nor less, in like degree.”—“Yes.”—“Accordingly, insofar as it has the property of being different from the others and they, likewise, have the property of being different from it, in this way the one would have a property the same as the others, and they would have a property the same as it.”—“What do you mean?”

[d] “As follows: don’t you apply to something each name you use?”—“I do.”—“Now, could you use the same name either more than once or once?”—“I could.”—“So if you use it once, do you call by name that thing whose name it is, but not that thing, if you use it many times? Or whether you utter the same name once or many times, do you quite necessarily always also speak of the same thing?”—“To be sure.”—“Now ‘different’ [e] in particular is a name for something, isn’t it?”—“Certainly.”—“So when you utter it, whether once or many times, you don’t apply it to another thing or name something other than that thing whose name it is.”—“Necessarily.”—“Whenever we say ‘the others are different from the one’ and ‘the one is different from the others,’ although we use ‘different’ twice, we don’t apply it to another nature, but always to that nature whose name it is.”—“Of course.”—“So insofar as the one is different from the others, and the others from the one, on the basis of having the property difference
[148]
itself, the one would have a property not other, but the same as the others. And that which has a property the same is surely like, isn’t it?”—“Yes.”—“Indeed, insofar as the one has the property of being different from the others, owing to that property itself it would be altogether like them all, because it is altogether different from them all.”—“So it seems.”

“Yet, on the other hand, the like is opposite to the unlike.”—“Yes.”—“Isn’t the different also opposite to the same?”—“That too.”—“But this was shown as well: that the one is the same as the others.”—“Yes, it [b] was.”—“And being the same as the others is the property opposite to being different from the others.”—“Certainly.”—“Insofar as the one is different, it was shown to be like.”—“Yes.”—“So insofar as it is the same, it will be unlike, owing to the property opposite to that which makes it like. And surely the different made it like?”—“Yes.”—“So the same will make it unlike; otherwise it won’t be opposite to the different.”—“So it [c] seems.”—“Therefore the one will be like and unlike the others – insofar as it is different, like, and insofar as it is the same, unlike.”—“Yes, it admits of this argument too, as it seems.”

“It also admits of the following.”—“What is that?”—“Insofar as it has a property the same, it has a property that is not of another kind; and if it has a property that is not of another kind, it is not unlike; and if not unlike, it is like. But insofar as it has a property other, it has a property that is of another kind; and if it has a property that is of another kind, it is unlike.”—“That’s true.”—“So because the one is the same as the others and because it is different, on both grounds and either, it would be both [d] like and unlike the others.”—“Certainly.”

“So, in the same way, it will be like and unlike itself as well. Since in fact it was shown to be both different from itself and the same as itself, on both grounds and either, won’t it be shown to be both like and unlike itself?”—“Necessarily.”

“And what about this? Consider the question whether the one touches or does not touch itself and the others.”—“Very well.”—“Surely the one was shown to be in itself as a whole.”—“That’s right.”—“Isn’t the one also in the others?”—“Yes.”—“Then insofar as it is in the others, it would [e] touch the others; but insofar as it is in itself, it would be kept from touching the others, and being in itself, would touch itself.”—“Apparently.”—“Thus the one would touch itself and the others.”—“It would.”

“And again, in this way: must not everything that is to touch something lie next to that which it is to touch, occupying the position adjacent to that occupied by what it touches?”—“Necessarily.”—“So, too, the one, if it is to touch itself, must lie directly adjacent to itself, occupying a place next to that in which it itself is.”—“Yes, it must.”—“Now if the one were two it could do that and turn out to be in two places at the same time; but
[149]
won’t it refuse as long as it is one?”—“Yes, you’re quite right.”—“So the same necessity that keeps the one from being two keeps it from touching itself.”—“The same.”

“But it won’t touch the others either.”—“Why?”—“Because, we say, that which is to touch must, while being separate, be next to what it is to touch, and there must be no third thing between them.”—“True.”—“So there must be at least two things if there is to be contact.”—“There must.”—“But if to the two items a third is added in a row, they themselves will [b] be three, their contacts two.”—“Yes.”—“And thus whenever one item is added, one contact is also added, and it follows that the contacts are always fewer by one than the multitude of the numbers. For in regard to the number being greater than the contacts, every later number exceeds all the contacts by an amount equal to that by which the first two exceeded [c] their contacts, since thereafter one is added to the number and, at the same time, one contact to the contacts.”—“That’s right.”—“So however many the things are in number, the contacts are always fewer than they are by one.”—“True.”—“But if there is only one, and not two, there could not be contact.”—“Obviously not.”—“Certainly the things other than the one, we say, are not one and do not partake of it, if in fact they are other.”—“No, they don’t.”—“So number is not in the others, if one is not in them.”—“Obviously not.”—“So the others are neither one nor two, nor do they [d] have a name of any other number.”—“No.”—“So the one alone is one, and there could not be two.”—“Apparently not.”—“So there is no contact, since there aren’t two items.”—“There isn’t.”—“Therefore, the one doesn’t touch the others nor do the others touch the one, since in fact there is no contact.”—“Yes, you’re quite right.”—“Thus, to sum up, the one both touches and does not touch the others and itself.”—“So it seems.”

“Is it then both equal and unequal to itself and the others?”—“How [e] so?”—“If the one were greater or less than the others, or they in turn greater or less than it, they wouldn’t be in any way greater or less than each other by the one being one and the others being other than one – that is, by their own being – would they? But if they each had equality in addition to their own being, they would be equal to each other. And if the others had largeness and the one had smallness, or vice versa, whichever form had largeness attached would be greater, and whichever had smallness attached would be less?”—“Necessarily.”

“Then aren’t there these two forms, largeness and smallness? For certainly, if there weren’t, they couldn’t be opposite to each other and couldn’t
[150]
occur in things that are.”—“No. How could they?”—“So if smallness occurs in the one, it would be either in the whole of it or in part of it.”—“Necessarily.”—“What if it were to occur in the whole? Wouldn’t it be in the one either by being stretched equally throughout the whole of it, or by containing it?”—“Quite clearly.”—“Wouldn’t smallness, then, if it were in the one equally throughout, be equal to it, but if it contained the one, be larger?”—“Doubtless.”—“So can smallness be equal to or larger than something, [b] and do the jobs of largeness and equality, but not its own?”—“It can’t.”—“So smallness could not be in the one as a whole; but if in fact it is in the one, it would be in a part.”—“Yes.”—“But, again, not in all the part. Otherwise, it will do exactly the same thing as it did in relation to the whole: it will be equal to or larger than whatever part it is in.”—“Necessarily.”—“Therefore smallness will never be in any being, since it occurs neither in a part nor in a whole. Nor will anything be small except smallness itself.”—“It seems not.”