Complete Works (91 page)

“So it has unlikeness, too, in relation to the others. For things other than the one, since they are different, would also be different in kind.”—“Yes.”—“And aren’t things different in kind other in kind?”—“Doubtless.”—[b] “Aren’t things other in kind unlike?”—“Unlike, certainly.”—“Well, then, if in fact they are unlike the one, clearly things unlike would be unlike an unlike.”—“Clearly.”—“So the one would also have unlikeness, in relation to which the others are unlike it.”—“So it seems.”

“But, then, if it has unlikeness to the others, must it not have likeness to itself?”—“How so?”—“If the one has unlikeness to one, the argument would surely not be about something of the same kind as the one, nor would the hypothesis be about one, but about something other than one.”—[c] “Certainly.”—“But it must not be.”—“No indeed.”—“Therefore the one must have likeness of itself to itself.”—“It must.”

“Furthermore, it is not equal to the others either; for if it were equal, it would then both be, and be like them in respect of equality. But those are both impossible, if in fact one is not.”—“Impossible.”—“Since it is not equal to the others, must not the others, too, be not equal to it?”—“Necessarily.”—“Aren’t things that are not equal unequal?”—“Yes.”—“And aren’t things unequal unequal to something unequal?”—“Doubtless.”—“So the one partakes [d] also of inequality, in relation to which the others are unequal to it.”—“It does.”

“But largeness and smallness are constitutive of inequality.”—“Yes, they are.”—“So do largeness and smallness, too, belong to this one?”—“It looks that way.”—“Yet largeness and smallness always stand apart from each other.”—“Certainly.”—“So there is always something between them.”—“There is.”—“Then can you mention anything between them other than equality?”—“No, just that.”—“Therefore whatever has largeness and smallness also has equality, since it is between them.”—“Apparently.”—“The one, if it is not, would have, as it seems, a share of equality, largeness, [e] and smallness.”—“So it seems.”

“Furthermore, it must also somehow partake of being.”—“How is that?”—“It must be in the state we describe; for if it is not so, we wouldn’t speak truly when we say that the one is not. But if we do speak truly, it is clear that we say things that are. Isn’t that so?”—“It is indeed so.”—“And since we claim to speak truly, we must claim also to speak of things
[162]
that are.”—“Necessarily.”—“Therefore, as it seems, the one
is
a not-being; for if it is not to
be
a not-being, but is somehow to give up its being in relation to not-being, it will straightway be a being.”—“Absolutely.”—“So if it is not to be, it must have
being
a not-being as a bond in regard to its not-being, just as, in like manner, what is must have
not-being
what is not, in order that it, in its turn, may completely be. This is how what is would most of all be and what is not would not be: on the one hand, by what is, if it is completely to be, partaking of being in regard to being a being [b] and of not-being in regard to being a not-being; and, on the other hand, by what is not, if in its turn what is not is completely not to be, partaking of not-being in regard to not-being a not-being and of being in regard to being a not-being.”
¹⁸
—“Very true.”—“Accordingly, since in fact what is has a share of not-being and what is not has a share of being, so, too, the one, since it is not, must have a share of being in regard to its not-being.”—“Necessarily.”—“Then the one, if it is not, appears also to have being.”—“Apparently.”—“And of course not-being, if in fact it is not.”—“Doubtless.”

“Can something that is in some state not be so, without changing from that state?”—“It cannot.”—“So everything of the sort we’ve described, [c] which is both so and not so, signifies a change.”—“Doubtless.”—“And a change is a motion – or what shall we call it?”—“A motion.”—“Now wasn’t the one shown both to be and not to be?”—“Yes.”—“Therefore, it appears both to be so and not so.”—“So it seems.”—“Therefore the one that is not has been shown also to move, since in fact it has been shown to change from being to not-being.”—“It looks that way.”

“Yet, on the other hand, if it is nowhere among the things that are – as it isn’t, if in fact it is not – it couldn’t travel from one place to another.”—[d] “Obviously not.”—“So it couldn’t move by switching place.”—“No, it couldn’t.”—“Nor could it rotate in the same thing, because it nowhere touches the same thing. For that which is the same is a being, and what is not cannot be in anything that is.”—“No, it can’t.”—“Therefore the one, if it is not, would be unable to rotate in that in which it is not.”—“Yes, you’re quite right.”—“And, surely, the one isn’t altered from itself either, whether as something that is or as something that is not. For the argument would no longer be about the one, but about something else, if in fact the one were altered from itself.”—“That’s right.”—“But if it isn’t altered and doesn’t rotate in the same thing or switch place, could it still move [e] somehow?”—“Obviously not.”—“Yet what is unmoved must enjoy repose, and what reposes must be at rest.”—“Necessarily.”—“Therefore the one, as it seems, since it is not, is both at rest and in motion.”—“So it seems.”

[163]
“Furthermore, if in fact it moves, it certainly must be altered; for however something is moved, by just so much it is no longer in the same state as it was, but in a different state.”—“Just so.”—“Then because it moves, the one is also altered.”—“Yes.”—“And yet, because it in no way moves, it could in no way be altered.”—“No, it couldn’t.”—“So insofar as the one that is not moves, it is altered, but insofar as it doesn’t move, it is not altered.”—“No, it isn’t.—”Therefore the one, if it is not, is both altered and not altered.”—“Apparently.”

“Must not that which is altered come to be different from what it was [b] before, and cease to be in its previous state; and must not that which is not altered neither come to be nor cease to be?”—“Necessarily.”—“Therefore also the one, if it is not, comes to be and ceases to be, if it is altered, and does not come to be or cease to be, if it is not altered. And thus the one, if it is not, both comes to be and ceases to be, and does not come to be or cease to be.”—“Yes, you’re quite right.”

“Let’s go back again to the beginning to see whether things will appear [c] the same to us as they do now, or different.”—“Indeed, we must.”—“Aren’t we saying, if one is not, what the consequences must be for it?”—“Yes.”—“When we say ‘is not,’ the words don’t signify anything other than absence of being for whatever we say is not, do they?”—“Nothing other.”—“When we say that something is not, are we saying that in a way it is not, but in a way it is? Or does this ‘is not’ signify without qualification that what is not is in no way at all and does not in any way partake of being?”—“Absolutely without qualification.”—“Therefore what is not [d] could neither be nor partake of being in any other way at all.”—“No, it couldn’t.”

“Can coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be possibly be anything other than getting a share of being and losing it?”—“Nothing other.”—“But what has no share of being could neither get nor lose it.”—“Obviously not.”—“So the one, since it in no way is, must in no way have, release, or get a share of, being.”—“That’s reasonable.”—“So the one that is not neither ceases to be nor comes to be, since in fact it in no way partakes of being.”—“Apparently not.”—“So it also isn’t altered in any way. For if it were to [e] undergo this, it would then come to be and cease to be.”—“True.”—“And if it isn’t altered, it must not move either?”—“Necessarily.”—“And surely we won’t say that what in no way is is at rest, since what is at rest must always be in some same thing.”—“In the same thing, no doubt.”—“Thus, let’s say that what is not is, in turn, never at rest or in motion.”—“Yes, you’re quite right.”

“But in fact nothing that is belongs to it; for then, by partaking of
[164]
that, it would partake of being.”—“Clearly.”—“So neither largeness nor smallness nor equality belongs to it.”—“No, they don’t.”—“Furthermore, it would have neither likeness nor difference in kind in relation to itself or in relation to the others.”—“Apparently not.”

“What about this? Can the others be related to it, if, necessarily, nothing belongs to it?”—“They can’t.”—“So the others are neither like nor unlike it, and they are neither the same as nor different from it.”—“No, they aren’t.”—“And again: will
of that
,
to that
,
something
,
this
,
of this
,
of another
,
to another
, or time past, hereafter, or now, or knowledge, opinion, perception, [b] an account, a name, or anything else that is be applicable to what is not?”—“It will not.”—“Thus one, since it is not, is not in any state at all.”—“At any rate, it certainly seems to be in no state at all.”

“Let’s go on and say what properties the others must have, if one is not.”—“Yes, let’s do.”—“They must surely be other; for if they weren’t even other, we wouldn’t be talking about the others.”—“Just so.”—“But if the argument is about the others, the others are different. Or don’t you apply the names ‘other’ and ‘different’ to the same thing?”—“I [c] do.”—“And surely we say that the different is different from a different thing, and the other is other than another thing?”—“Yes.”—“So the others, too, if they are to be other, have something they will be other than.”—“Necessarily.”—“What would it be then? For they won’t be other than the one, if it is indeed not.”—“No, they won’t.”—“So they are other than each other, since that alternative remains for them, or else to be other than nothing.”—“That’s right.”

“So they each are other than each other as multitudes; for they couldn’t be so as ones, if one is not. But each mass of them, as it seems, is unlimited [d] in multitude, and if you take what seems to be smallest, in an instant, just as in a dream, instead of seeming to be one, it appears many, and instead of very small, immense in relation to the bits chopped from it.”—“That’s quite right.”—“The others would be other than each other as masses of this sort, if they are other, and if one is not.”—“Quite so.”

“Well then, won’t there be many masses, each appearing, but not being, one, if in fact one is not to be?”—“Just so.”—“And there will seem to be a number of them, if in fact each seems to be one, although being many.”—[e] “Certainly.”—“And among them some appear even and some odd, although not really being so, if in fact one is not to be.”—“Yes, you’re quite right.”

“Furthermore, a smallest too, we say, will seem to be among them; but
[165]
this appears many and large in relation to each of its many, because they are small.”—“Doubtless.”—“And each mass will be conceived to be equal to its many small bits. For it could not, in appearance, shift from greater to less, until it seems to come to the state in between, and this would be an appearance of equality.”—“That’s reasonable.”

“Now won’t it appear to have a limit in relation to another mass, but itself to have no beginning, limit, or middle in relation to itself?”—“Why is that?”—“Because whenever you grasp any bit of them in thought as [b] being a beginning, middle, or end, before the beginning another beginning always appears, and after the end a different end is left behind, and in the middle others more in the middle than the middle but smaller, because you can’t grasp each of them as one, since the one is not.”—“Very true.”—“So every being that you grasp in thought must, I take it, be chopped up and dispersed, because surely, without oneness, it would always be grasped as a mass.”—“Of course.”—“So must not such a thing appear one to a person [c] dimly observing from far off; but to a person considering it keenly from up close, must not each one appear unlimited in multitude, if in fact it is deprived of the one, if it is not?”—“Indeed, most necessarily.”—“Thus the others must each appear unlimited and as having a limit, and one and many, if one is not, but things other than the one are.”—“Yes, they must.”

“Won’t they also seem to be both like and unlike?”—“Why is that?”—“Just as, to someone standing at a distance, all things in a painting,
¹⁹
appearing one, appear to have a property the same and to be like.”—[d] “Certainly.”—“But when the person comes closer, they appear many and different and, by the appearance of the different, different in kind and unlike themselves.”—“Just so.”—“So the masses must also appear both like and unlike themselves and each other.”—“Of course.”

“Accordingly, if one is not and many are, the many must appear both the same as and different from each other, both in contact and separate from themselves, both moving with every motion and in every way at rest, both coming to be and ceasing to be and neither, and surely everything [e] of that sort, which it would now be easy enough for us to go through.”—“Very true indeed.”

“Let’s go back to the beginning once more and say what must be the case, if one is not, but things other than the one are.”—“Yes, let’s do.”—“Well, the others won’t be one.”—“Obviously not.”—“And surely they won’t be many either, since oneness would also be present in things that are many. For if none of them is one, they are all nothing – so they also couldn’t be many.”—“True.”—“If oneness isn’t present in the others, the others are neither many nor one.”—“No, they aren’t.”

“Nor even do they appear one or many.”—“Why?”—“Because the others
[166]
have no communion in any way at all with any of the things that are not, and none of the things that are not belongs to any of the others, since things that are not have no part.”—“True.”—“So no opinion or any appearance of what is not belongs to the others, nor is not-being conceived in any way at all in the case of the others.”—“Yes, you’re quite right.”—“So if one is not, none of the others is conceived to be one or many, since, without [b] oneness, it is impossible to conceive of many.”—“Yes, impossible.”—“Therefore, if one is not, the others neither are nor are conceived to be one or many.”—“It seems not.”

“So they aren’t like or unlike either.”—“No, they aren’t.”—“And indeed, they are neither the same nor different, neither in contact nor separate, nor anything else that they appeared to be in the argument we went through before. The others neither are nor appear to be any of those things, if one is not.”—“True.”—“Then if we were to say, to sum up, ‘if one is [c] not, nothing is,’ wouldn’t we speak correctly?”—“Absolutely.”