---
title: "Parmenides · Παρμενίδης"
author: "Plato"
translator: "Harold North Fowler"
languages: [grc, en]
shelf: "Philosophy"
section: 4 of 4
url: https://scriptura.si/works/plato-parmenides/4/
cite: "Plato, tr. Harold North Fowler, Parmenides · Παρμενίδης, section 4. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/plato-parmenides/4/"
---

# Parmenides · Παρμενίδης

*Plato, tr. Harold North Fowler*

The young Socrates meets old Parmenides, who takes the theory of Forms apart.

> Greek: ed. John Burnet, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-greekLit, tlg0059.tlg009, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Harold North Fowler, from the Perseus Digital Library (tlg0059.tlg009.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 4. Sections 156d–166c

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/plato-parmenides/4/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/plato-parmenides/4/#p-N

[¶0] 156d. No, it does not. Does this strange thing, then, exist, in which it would be at the moment when it changes? What sort of thing is that? The instant. For the instant seems to indicate a something from which there is a change in one direction or the other. For it does not change from rest while it is still at rest, nor from motion while it is still moving; but there is this strange instantaneous nature, something interposed between motion and rest, not existing in any time, and into this and out from this that which is in motion changes into rest and that which is at rest changes into motion.

> Greek: 156d. οὐ γὰρ οὖν. ἆρʼ οὖν ἔστι τὸ ἄτοπον τοῦτο, ἐν ᾧ τότʼ ἂν εἴη, ὅτε μεταβάλλει; τὸ ποῖον δή; τὸ ἐξαίφνης. τὸ γὰρ ἐξαίφνης τοιόνδε τι ἔοικε σημαίνειν, ὡς ἐξ ἐκείνου μεταβάλλον εἰς ἑκάτερον. οὐ γὰρ ἔκ γε τοῦ ἑστάναι ἑστῶτος ἔτι μεταβάλλει, οὐδʼ ἐκ τῆς κινήσεως κινουμένης ἔτι μεταβάλλει· ἀλλὰ ἡ ἐξαίφνης αὕτη φύσις ἄτοπός τις ἐγκάθηται μεταξὺ τῆς κινήσεώς τε καὶ στάσεως, ἐν χρόνῳ οὐδενὶ οὖσα, καὶ εἰς ταύτην δὴ καὶ ἐκ ταύτης τό τε κινούμενον μεταβάλλει ἐπὶ τὸ ἑστάναι καὶ τὸ ἑστὸς ἐπὶ τὸ κινεῖσθαι.

[¶1] 156e. Yes, that must be so. Then the one, if it is at rest and in motion, must change in each direction; for that is the only way in which it can do both. But in changing, it changes instantaneously, and when it changes it can be in no time, and at that instant it will be neither in motion nor at rest. No.

> Greek: 156e. κινδυνεύει. καὶ τὸ ἓν δή, εἴπερ ἕστηκέ τε καὶ κινεῖται, μεταβάλλοι ἂν ἐφʼ ἑκάτερα—μόνως γὰρ ἂν οὕτως ἀμφότερα ποιοῖ—μεταβάλλον δʼ ἐξαίφνης μεταβάλλει, καὶ ὅτε μεταβάλλει, ἐν οὐδενὶ χρόνῳ ἂν εἴη, οὐδὲ κινοῖτʼ ἂν τότε, οὐδʼ ἂν σταίη. οὐ γάρ.

[¶2] 157. Ceph. And will the case not be the same in relation to other changes? When it changes from being to destruction or from not being to becoming, does it not pass into an intermediate stage between certain forms of motion and rest, so that it neither is nor is not, neither comes into being nor is destroyed?

> Greek: 157. ἆρʼ οὖν οὕτω καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἄλλας μεταβολὰς ἔχει, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι εἰς τὸ ἀπόλλυσθαι μεταβάλλῃ ἢ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι εἰς τὸ γίγνεσθαι, μεταξύ τινων τότε γίγνεται κινήσεών τε καὶ στάσεων, καὶ οὔτε ἔστι τότε οὔτε οὐκ ἔστι, οὔτε γίγνεται οὔτε ἀπόλλυται;

[¶3] 157a. Yes, so it appears. And on the same principle, when it passes from one to many or from many to one, it is neither one nor many, is neither in a process of separation nor in one of combination. And in passing from like to unlike or from unlike to like, it is neither like nor unlike, neither in a process of assimilation nor in one of dissimilation;

> Greek: 157a. ἔοικε γοῦν. κατὰ δὴ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς ἐπὶ πολλὰ ἰὸν καὶ ἐκ πολλῶν ἐφʼ ἓν οὔτε ἕν ἐστιν οὔτε πολλά, οὔτε διακρίνεται οὔτε συγκρίνεται. καὶ ἐξ ὁμοίου ἐπὶ ἀνόμοιον καὶ ἐξ ἀνομοίου ἐπὶ ὅμοιον ἰὸν οὔτε ὅμοιον οὔτε ἀνόμοιον, οὔτε ὁμοιούμενον οὔτε ἀνομοιούμενον· καὶ ἐκ σμικροῦ ἐπὶ μέγα καὶ ἐπὶ ἴσον καὶ εἰς τὰ ἐναντία ἰὸν οὔτε σμικρὸν οὔτε μέγα οὔτε ἴσον, οὔτε αὐξανόμενον οὔτε φθῖνον οὔτε ἰσούμενον εἴη ἄν.

[¶4] 157b. and in passing from small to great and to equal and vice versa, it is neither small nor great nor equal, neither in a process of increase, nor of diminution, nor of equality. Apparently not. All this, then, would happen to the one, if the one exists. Yes, certainly. Must we not consider what is likely to happen to the other things, if the one exists? We must. Shall we tell, then, what must happen to the things other than one, if one exists? Let us do so. Well, since they are other than the one, the other things are not the one for if they were, they would not be other than the one. True.

> Greek: 157b. οὐκ ἔοικε. ταῦτα δὴ τὰ παθήματα πάντʼ ἂν πάσχοι τὸ ἕν, εἰ ἔστιν. πῶς δʼ οὔ;τί δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις προσήκοι ἂν πάσχειν, ἓν εἰ ἔστιν, ἆρα οὐ σκεπτέον; σκεπτέον. λέγωμεν δή, ἓν εἰ ἔστι, τἆλλα τοῦ ἑνὸς τί χρὴ πεπονθέναι; λέγωμεν. οὐκοῦν ἐπείπερ ἄλλα τοῦ ἑνός ἐστιν, οὔτε τὸ ἕν ἐστι τἆλλα· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἄλλα τοῦ ἑνὸς ἦν.

[¶5] 157c. And yet surely the others are not altogether deprived of the one, but they partake of it in a certain way. In what way? Because the others are other than the one by reason of having parts; for if they had no parts, they would be altogether one. True. But parts, we affirm, belong to that which is a whole. Yes, we affirm that they do. But the whole must be one composed of many and of this the parts are parts. For each of the parts must be a part, not of many, but of a whole. How is that? If anything is a part of many, and is itself one of the many, it will be a part of itself, which is impossible, and of each one of the others, if it is a part of all.

> Greek: 157c. ὀρθῶς. οὐδὲ μὴν στέρεταί γε παντάπασι τοῦ ἑνὸς τἆλλα, ἀλλὰ μετέχει πῃ. πῇ δή; ὅτι που τὰ ἄλλα τοῦ ἑνὸς μόρια ἔχοντα ἄλλα ἐστίν· εἰ γὰρ μόρια μὴ ἔχοι, παντελῶς ἂν ἓν εἴη. ὀρθῶς. μόρια δέ γε, φαμέν, τούτου ἐστὶν ὃ ἂν ὅλον ᾖ. φαμὲν γάρ. ἀλλὰ μὴν τό γε ὅλον ἓν ἐκ πολλῶν ἀνάγκη εἶναι, οὗ ἔσται μόρια τὰ μόρια· ἕκαστον γὰρ τῶν μορίων οὐ πολλῶν μόριον χρὴ εἶναι, ἀλλὰ ὅλου. πῶς τοῦτο; εἴ τι πολλῶν μόριον εἴη, ἐν οἷς αὐτὸ εἴη, ἑαυτοῦ τε δήπου μόριον ἔσται, ὅ ἐστιν ἀδύνατον, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὴ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου, εἴπερ καὶ πάντων.

[¶6] 157d. For if it is not a part of some particular one, it will be a part of the rest, with the exception of that one, and thus it will not be a part of each one, and not being a part of each one, it will not be a part of any one of the many. But that which belongs to none cannot belong, whether as a part or as anything else, to all those things to none of which it belongs. That is clear. Then the part is a part, not of the many nor of all, but of a single form and a single concept which we call a whole, a perfect unity created out of all this it is of which the part is a part.

> Greek: 157d. ἑνὸς γὰρ μὴ ὂν μόριον, πλὴν τούτου τῶν ἄλλων ἔσται, καὶ οὕτως ἑνὸς ἑκάστου οὐκ ἔσται μόριον, μὴ ὂν δὲ μόριον ἑκάστου οὐδενὸς τῶν πολλῶν ἔσται. μηδενὸς δὲ ὂν πάντων τούτων τι εἶναι, ὧν οὐδενὸς οὐδέν ἐστι, καὶ μόριον καὶ ἄλλο ὁτιοῦν ἀδύνατον [εἶναι]. φαίνεταί γε δή. οὐκ ἄρα τῶν πολλῶν οὐδὲ πάντων τὸ μόριον μόριον, ἀλλὰ μιᾶς τινὸς ἰδέας καὶ ἑνός τινος ὃ καλοῦμεν ὅλον, ἐξ ἁπάντων ἓν τέλειον γεγονός, τούτου μόριον ἂν τὸ μόριον εἴη.

[¶7] 157e. Certainly. If, then, the others have parts, they will partake of the whole and of the one. True. Then the things which are other than one must be a perfect whole which has parts. Yes, they must.

> Greek: 157e. παντάπασι μὲν οὖν. εἰ ἄρα τἆλλα μόρια ἔχει, κἂν τοῦ ὅλου τε καὶ ἑνὸς μετέχοι. πάνυ γε. ἓν ἄρα ὅλον τέλειον μόρια ἔχον ἀνάγκη εἶναι τἆλλα τοῦ ἑνός. ἀνάγκη.

[¶8] 158. Ceph. And the same reasoning applies to each part for the part must partake of the one. For if each of the parts is a part, the word “each” implies that it is one, separated from the rest, and existing by itself; otherwise it will not be “each.”

> Greek: 158. καὶ μὴν καὶ περὶ τοῦ μορίου γε ἑκάστου ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος· καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο ἀνάγκη μετέχειν τοῦ ἑνός.

[¶9] 158a. True. But its participation in the one clearly implies that it is other than the one, for if not, it would not partake of the one, but would actually be one; but really it is impossible for anything except one itself to be one. Yes, it is impossible. And both the whole and the part must necessarily participate in the one; for the one will be a whole of which the parts are parts, and again each individual one which is a part of a whole will be a part of the whole. Yes.

> Greek: 158a. εἰ γὰρ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν μόριόν ἐστι, τό γε ἕκαστον εἶναι ἓν δήπου σημαίνει, ἀφωρισμένον μὲν τῶν ἄλλων, καθʼ αὑτὸ δὲ ὄν, εἴπερ ἕκαστον ἔσται. ὀρθῶς. μετέχοι δέ γε ἂν τοῦ ἑνὸς δῆλον ὅτι ἄλλο ὂν ἢ ἕν· οὐ γὰρ ἂν μετεῖχεν, ἀλλʼ ἦν ἂν αὐτὸ ἕν. νῦν δὲ ἑνὶ μὲν εἶναι πλὴν αὐτῷ τῷ ἑνὶ ἀδύνατόν που. ἀδύνατον. μετέχειν δέ γε τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνάγκη τῷ τε ὅλῳ καὶ τῷ μορίῳ. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἓν ὅλον ἔσται, οὗ μόρια τὰ μόρια· τὸ δʼ αὖ ἕκαστον ἓν μόριον τοῦ ὅλου, ὃ ἂν ᾖ μόριον ὅλου.

[¶10] 158b. And will not the things which participate in the one be other than the one while participating in it? Of course. But the things which are other than the one will be many; for if they were neither one nor more than one, they would not be anything. No. But since the things which participate in the one as a part and the one as a whole are more than one, must not those participants in the one be infinite in number? How so? Let us look at the question in this way. Is it not true that at the moment when they begin to participate in the one they are not one and do not participate in one?

> Greek: 158b. οὕτως. οὐκοῦν ἕτερα ὄντα τοῦ ἑνὸς μεθέξει τὰ μετέχοντα αὐτοῦ; πῶς δʼ οὔ; τὰ δʼ ἕτερα τοῦ ἑνὸς πολλά που ἂν εἴη· εἰ γὰρ μήτε ἓν μήτε ἑνὸς πλείω εἴη τἆλλα τοῦ ἑνός, οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη. οὐ γὰρ οὖν.ἐπεὶ δέ γε πλείω ἑνός ἐστι τά τε τοῦ ἑνὸς μορίου καὶ τὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς ὅλου μετέχοντα, οὐκ ἀνάγκη ἤδη πλήθει ἄπειρα εἶναι αὐτά γε ἐκεῖνα τὰ μεταλαμβάνοντα τοῦ ἑνός; πῶς; ὧδε ἴδωμεν. ἄλλο τι οὐχ ἓν ὄντα οὐδὲ μετέχοντα τοῦ ἑνὸς τότε, ὅτε μεταλαμβάνει αὐτοῦ, μεταλαμβάνει; δῆλα δή.

[¶11] 158c. Clearly. Then they are multitudes, in which the one is not, are they not? Yes, they are multitudes. Well, then, if we should subtract from them in thought the smallest possible quantity, must not that which is subtracted, if it has no participation in one, be also a multitude, and not one? It must. And always when we consider the nature of the class, which makes it other than one, whatever we see of it at any time will be unlimited in number, will it not? Certainly. And, further, when each part becomes a part, straightway the parts are limited in relation to each other and to the whole, and the whole in relation to the parts.

> Greek: 158c. οὐκοῦν πλήθη ὄντα, ἐν οἷς τὸ ἓν οὐκ ἔνι; πλήθη μέντοι. τί οὖν; εἰ ἐθέλοιμεν τῇ διανοίᾳ τῶν τοιούτων ἀφελεῖν ὡς οἷοί τέ ἐσμεν ὅτι ὀλίγιστον, οὐκ ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸ ἀφαιρεθὲν ἐκεῖνο, εἴπερ τοῦ ἑνὸς μὴ μετέχοι, πλῆθος εἶναι καὶ οὐχ ἕν; ἀνάγκη. οὐκοῦν οὕτως ἀεὶ σκοποῦντες αὐτὴν καθʼ αὑτὴν τὴν ἑτέραν φύσιν τοῦ εἴδους ὅσον ἂν αὐτῆς ἀεὶ ὁρῶμεν ἄπειρον ἔσται πλήθει; παντάπασι μὲν οὖν. καὶ μὴν ἐπειδάν γε ἓν ἕκαστον μόριον μόριον γένηται, πέρας ἤδη ἔχει πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, καὶ τὸ ὅλον πρὸς τὰ μόρια.

[¶12] 158d. Undoubtedly. The result, then, to the things which are other than one, that from the one and the union of themselves with it there arises, as it appears, something different within themselves which gives them a limitation in relation to one another; but their own nature, when they are left to themselves, gives them no limits. So it appears. Then the things which are other than one, both as wholes and as parts, are both unlimited and partake of limitation. Certainly.

> Greek: 158d. κομιδῇ μὲν οὖν. τοῖς ἄλλοις δὴ τοῦ ἑνὸς συμβαίνει ἐκ μὲν τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ ἐξ ἑαυτῶν κοινωνησάντων, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἕτερόν τι γίγνεσθαι ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, ὃ δὴ πέρας παρέσχε πρὸς ἄλληλα· ἡ δʼ ἑαυτῶν φύσις καθʼ ἑαυτὰ ἀπειρίαν. φαίνεται. οὕτω δὴ τὰ ἄλλα τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ ὅλα καὶ κατὰ μόρια ἄπειρά τέ ἐστι καὶ πέρατος μετέχει. πάνυ γε.

[¶13] 158e. And are they also both like and unlike one another and themselves? How is that? Inasmuch as they are all by their own nature unlimited, they are all in that respect affected in the same way. Certainly. And surely inasmuch as they all partake of limitation, they are all affected in the same way in that respect also. Obviously.

> Greek: 158e. οὐκοῦν καὶ ὅμοιά τε καὶ ἀνόμοια ἀλλήλοις τε καὶ ἑαυτοῖς; πῇ δή; ἧι μέν που ἄπειρά ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν πάντα, ταὐτὸν πεπονθότα ἂν εἴη ταύτῃ. πάνυ γε. καὶ μὴν ᾗ γε ἅπαντα πέρατος μετέχει, καὶ ταύτῃ πάντʼ ἂν εἴη ταὐτὸν πεπονθότα. πῶς δʼ οὔ;

[¶14] 159. Ceph. And inasmuch as they are so affected as to be both limited and limitless, they are affected by affections which are the opposites of one another.

> Greek: 159. ᾗ δέ γε πεπερασμένα τε εἶναι καὶ ἄπειρα πέπονθεν, ἐναντία πάθη ἀλλήλοις ὄντα ταῦτα τὰ πάθη πέπονθεν.

[¶15] 159a. Yes. But opposites are as unlike as possible. To be sure. Then with regard to either one of their two affections they are like themselves and each other, but with regard to both of them together they are utterly opposed and unlike. Yes, that must be true. Therefore the others are both like and unlike themselves and one another. So they are. And they are the same as one another and also other than one another, they are both in motion and at rest, and since we have proved these cases, we can easily show that the things which are other than one experience all the opposite affections.

> Greek: 159a. ναί. τὰ δʼ ἐναντία γε ὡς οἷόν τε ἀνομοιότατα. τί μήν; κατὰ μὲν ἄρα ἑκάτερον τὸ πάθος ὅμοια ἂν εἴη αὐτά τε αὑτοῖς καὶ ἀλλήλοις, κατὰ δʼ ἀμφότερα ἀμφοτέρως ἐναντιώτατά τε καὶ ἀνομοιότατα. κινδυνεύει. οὕτω δὴ τὰ ἄλλα αὐτά τε αὑτοῖς καὶ ἀλλήλοις ὅμοιά τε καὶ ἀνόμοια ἂν εἴη. οὕτως. καὶ ταὐτὰ δὴ καὶ ἕτερα ἀλλήλων, καὶ κινούμενα καὶ ἑστῶτα, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐναντία πάθη οὐκέτι χαλεπῶς εὑρήσομεν πεπονθότα τἆλλα τοῦ ἑνός, ἐπείπερ καὶ ταῦτα ἐφάνη πεπονθότα.

[¶16] 159b. You are right. Then what if we now drop these matters as evident and again consider whether, if one is, the things other than one are as we have said, and there is no alternative. Certainly. Let us then begin at the beginning and ask, if one is, what must happen to the things which are other than one. By all means. Must not the one be separate from the others, and the others from the one? Why is that? Because there is nothing else besides these, which is other than one and other than the others.

> Greek: 159b. ὀρθῶς λέγεις.οὐκοῦν, εἰ ταῦτα μὲν ἤδη ἐῷμεν ὡς φανερά, ἐπισκοποῖμεν δὲ πάλιν ἓν εἰ ἔστιν, ἆρα καὶ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει τὰ ἄλλα τοῦ ἑνὸς ἢ οὕτω μόνον; πάνυ μὲν οὖν. λέγωμεν δὴ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἓν εἰ ἔστι, τί χρὴ τὰ ἄλλα τοῦ ἑνὸς πεπονθέναι. λέγωμεν γάρ. ἆρʼ οὖν οὐ χωρὶς μὲν τὸ ἓν τῶν ἄλλων, χωρὶς δὲ τἆλλα τοῦ ἑνὸς εἶναι; τί δή; ὅτι που οὐκ ἔστι παρὰ ταῦτα ἕτερον, ὃ ἄλλο μέν ἐστι τοῦ ἑνός, ἄλλο δὲ τῶν ἄλλων·

[¶17] 159c. For when we have said “one and the others” we have included all things. Yes, all things. Then there is nothing other than these, in which both the one and the others may be. No. Then the one and the others can never be in the same. Apparently not. Then they are separate? Yes. And surely we say that what is truly one has no parts. How can it have parts? Then the one cannot be in the others as a whole, nor can parts of it, if it is separate from the others and has no parts. Of course not.

> Greek: 159c. πάντα γὰρ εἴρηται, ὅταν ῥηθῇ τό τε ἓν καὶ τἆλλα. πάντα γάρ. οὐκ ἄρα ἔτʼ ἔστιν ἕτερον τούτων, ἐν ᾧ τό τε ἓν ἂν εἴη τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ τἆλλα. οὐ γάρ. οὐδέποτε ἄρα ἐν ταὐτῷ ἐστι τὸ ἓν καὶ τἆλλα. οὐκ ἔοικεν. χωρὶς ἄρα; ναί. οὐδὲ μὴν μόριά γε ἔχειν φαμὲν τὸ ὡς ἀληθῶς ἕν. πῶς γάρ; οὔτʼ ἄρα ὅλον εἴη ἂν τὸ ἓν ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις οὔτε μόρια αὐτοῦ, εἰ χωρίς τέ ἐστι τῶν ἄλλων καὶ μόρια μὴ ἔχει. πῶς γάρ;

[¶18] 159d. Then the others cannot partake of the one in any way; they can neither partake of any part of it nor of the whole. No, apparently not. The others are, then, not one in any sense, nor have they in themselves any unity. No. But neither are the others many; for if they were many, each of them would be one part of the whole; but actually the things that are other than one are not many nor a whole nor parts, since they do not participate in the one in any way. Right. Neither are the others two or three, nor are two or three in them, if they are entirely deprived of unity.

> Greek: 159d. οὐδενὶ ἄρα τρόπῳ μετέχοι ἂν τἆλλα τοῦ ἑνός, μήτε κατὰ μόριόν τι αὐτοῦ μήτε κατὰ ὅλον μετέχοντα. οὐκ ἔοικεν. οὐδαμῇ ἄρα ἓν τἆλλά ἐστιν, οὐδʼ ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἓν οὐδέν. οὐ γὰρ οὖν. οὐδʼ ἄρα πολλά ἐστι τἆλλα· ἓν γὰρ ἂν ἦν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν μόριον τοῦ ὅλου, εἰ πολλὰ ἦν· νῦν δὲ οὔτε ἓν οὔτε πολλὰ οὔτε ὅλον οὔτε μόριά ἐστι τἆλλα τοῦ ἑνός, ἐπειδὴ αὐτοῦ οὐδαμῇ μετέχει. ὀρθῶς. οὐδʼ ἄρα δύο οὐδὲ τρία οὔτε αὐτά ἐστι τὰ ἄλλα οὔτε ἔνεστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς, εἴπερ τοῦ ἑνὸς πανταχῇ στέρεται.

[¶19] 159e. True. Nor are the others either themselves like and unlike the one, nor are likeness and unlikeness in them; for if they were like and unlike or had likeness and unlikeness in them, the things which are other than the one would have in them two elements opposite to one another. That is clear. But it is impossible for that to partake of two things which does not even partake of one. Impossible.

> Greek: 159e. οὕτως.οὐδὲ ὅμοια ἄρα καὶ ἀνόμοια οὔτε αὐτά ἐστι τῷ ἑνὶ τὰ ἄλλα, οὔτε ἔνεστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς ὁμοιότης καὶ ἀνομοιότης· εἰ γὰρ ὅμοια καὶ ἀνόμοια αὐτὰ εἴη ἢ ἔχοι ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ὁμοιότητα καὶ ἀνομοιότητα, δύο που εἴδη ἐναντία ἀλλήλοις ἔχοι ἂν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὰ ἄλλα τοῦ ἑνός. φαίνεται. ἦν δέ γε ἀδύνατον δυοῖν τινοῖν μετέχειν ἃ μηδʼ ἑνὸς μετέχοι. ἀδύνατον.

[¶20] 160. Ceph. The others are, then, not like nor unlike nor both.

> Greek: 160. οὔτʼ ἄρα ὅμοια οὔτʼ ἀνόμοιά ἐστιν οὔτʼ ἀμφότερα τἆλλα.

[¶21] 160a. For if they were like or unlike, they would partake of one of the two elements, and if they were both, of the two opposites and that was shown to be impossible. True. They are, then, neither the same nor other, nor in motion nor at rest, nor becoming nor being destroyed, nor greater nor less nor equal, and they experience no similar affections; for if the others are subject to such affections, they will participate in one and two and three and odd and even, in which we saw that they cannot participate, if they are in every way utterly deprived of unity.

> Greek: 160a. ὅμοια μὲν γὰρ ἂν ὄντα ἢ ἀνόμοια ἑνὸς ἂν τοῦ ἑτέρου εἴδους μετέχοι, ἀμφότερα δὲ ὄντα δυοῖν τοῖν ἐναντίοιν· ταῦτα δὲ ἀδύνατον ἐφάνη. ἀληθῆ.οὐδʼ ἄρα τὰ αὐτὰ οὐδʼ ἕτερα, οὐδὲ κινούμενα οὐδὲ ἑστῶτα, οὐδὲ γιγνόμενα οὐδὲ ἀπολλύμενα, οὐδὲ μείζω οὐδὲ ἐλάττω οὐδὲ ἴσα· οὐδὲ ἄλλο οὐδὲν πέπονθε τῶν τοιούτων· εἰ γάρ τι τοιοῦτον πεπονθέναι ὑπομένει τὰ ἄλλα, καὶ ἑνὸς καὶ δυοῖν καὶ τριῶν καὶ περιττοῦ καὶ ἀρτίου μεθέξει, ὧν αὐτοῖς ἀδύνατον ἐφάνη μετέχειν τοῦ ἑνός γε πάντῃ πάντως στερομένοις.

[¶22] 160b. Very true. Therefore if one exists, the one is all things and nothing at all in relation both to itself and to all others. Perfectly true. Well, and ought we not next to consider what must happen if one does not exist? Yes, we ought. What, then, is the sense of this hypothesis—if one does not exist? Is it different in any way from this—if not one does not exist? Certainly it is different. Is it merely different, or are the two expressions—if not one does not exist and if one does not exist—complete opposites?

> Greek: 160b. ἀληθέστατα. οὕτω δὴ ἓν εἰ ἔστιν, πάντα τέ ἐστι τὸ ἓν καὶ οὐδὲ ἕν ἐστι καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὸ καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα ὡσαύτως. παντελῶς μὲν οὖν.εἶεν· εἰ δὲ δὴ μὴ ἔστι τὸ ἕν, τί χρὴ συμβαίνειν ἆρʼ οὐ σκεπτέον μετὰ τοῦτο; σκεπτέον γάρ. τίς οὖν ἂν εἴη αὕτη ἡ ὑπόθεσις, εἰ ἓν μὴ ἔστιν; ἆρά τι διαφέρει τῆσδε, εἰ μὴ ἓν μὴ ἔστιν; διαφέρει μέντοι. διαφέρει μόνον, ἢ καὶ πᾶν τοὐναντίον ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν εἰ μὴ ἓν μὴ ἔστι τοῦ εἰ ἓν μὴ ἔστιν;

[¶23] 160c. They are complete opposites. Now if a person should say “if greatness does not exist”, “if smallness does not exist,” or anything of that sort, would he not make it clear that in each case the thing he speaks of as not existing is different? Certainly. And in our case does he not make it clear that he means, when he says “if one is not,” that the thing which is not is different from other things, and do we not know what he means? Yes, we do know. In the first place, then, he speaks of something which is known, and secondly of something different from other things, when he says “one,” whether he adds to it that it is or that it is not;

> Greek: 160c. πᾶν τοὐναντίον. τί δʼ εἴ τις λέγοι εἰ μέγεθος μὴ ἔστιν ἢ σμικρότης μὴ ἔστιν ἤ τι ἄλλο τῶν τοιούτων, ἆρα ἐφʼ ἑκάστου ἂν δηλοῖ ὅτι ἕτερόν τι λέγοι τὸ μὴ ὄν; πάνυ γε. οὐκοῦν καὶ νῦν δηλοῖ ὅτι ἕτερον λέγει τῶν ἄλλων τὸ μὴ ὄν, ὅταν εἴπῃ ἓν εἰ μὴ ἔστι, καὶ ἴσμεν ὃ λέγει; ἴσμεν. πρῶτον μὲν ἄρα γνωστόν τι λέγει, ἔπειτα ἕτερον τῶν ἄλλων, ὅταν εἴπῃ ἕν, εἴτε τὸ εἶναι αὐτῷ προσθεὶς εἴτε τὸ μὴ εἶναι·

[¶24] 160d. for that which is said to be non-existent is known none the less, and is known to be different from other things, is it not? Certainly. Then we should begin at the beginning by asking: if one is not, what must follow? In the first place this must be true of the one, that there is knowledge of it, or else not even the meaning of the words “if the one does not exist” would be known. True. And is it not also true that the others differ from the one, or it cannot be said to differ from the others? Certainly. Then a difference belongs to the one in addition to knowledge; for when we say that the one differs from the others, we speak of a difference in the one, not in the others.

> Greek: 160d. οὐδὲν ⟨γὰρ⟩ ἧττον γιγνώσκεται, τί τὸ λεγόμενον μὴ εἶναι, καὶ ὅτι διάφορον τῶν ἄλλων. ἢ οὔ; ἀνάγκη. ὧδε ἄρα λεκτέον ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἓν εἰ μὴ ἔστι, τί χρὴ εἶναι. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν αὐτῷ τοῦτο ὑπάρχειν δεῖ, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἶναι αὐτοῦ ἐπιστήμην, ἢ μηδὲ ὅτι λέγεται γιγνώσκεσθαι, ὅταν τις εἴπῃ ἓν εἰ μὴ ἔστιν. ἀληθῆ. οὐκοῦν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἕτερα αὐτοῦ εἶναι, ἢ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο ἕτερον τῶν ἄλλων λέγεσθαι; πάνυ γε. καὶ ἑτεροιότης ἄρα ἐστὶν αὐτῷ πρὸς τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ.

[¶25] 160e. That is clear. And the non-existent one partakes of “that” and “some” and “this” and “relation to this” and “these” and all notions of that sort; for the one could not be spoken of, nor could the things which are other than one, nor could anything in relation to the one or belonging to it be or be spoken of, if the one did not partake of the notion some or of those other notions. True.

> Greek: 160e. οὐ γὰρ τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ἑτεροιότητα λέγει, ὅταν τὸ ἓν ἕτερον τῶν ἄλλων λέγῃ, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκείνου. φαίνεται. καὶ μὴν τοῦ γε ἐκείνου καὶ τοῦ τινὸς καὶ τούτου καὶ τούτῳ καὶ τούτων καὶ πάντων τῶν τοιούτων μετέχει τὸ μὴ ὂν ἕν· οὐ γὰρ ἂν τὸ ἓν ἐλέγετο οὐδʼ ἂν τοῦ ἑνὸς ἕτερα, οὐδʼ ἐκείνῳ ἄν τι ἦν οὐδʼ ἐκείνου, οὐδʼ ἄν τι ἐλέγετο, εἰ μήτε τοῦ τινὸς αὐτῷ μετῆν μήτε τῶν ἄλλων τούτων. ὀρθῶς.

[¶26] 161. Ceph. It is impossible for the one to be, if it does not exist, but nothing prevents its partaking of many things; indeed it must do so, if that one of which we are speaking, and not something else, is not.

> Greek: 161. εἶναι μὲν δὴ τῷ ἑνὶ οὐχ οἷόν τε, εἴπερ γε μὴ ἔστι, μετέχειν δὲ πολλῶν οὐδὲν κωλύει, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνάγκη, εἴπερ τό γε ἓν ἐκεῖνο καὶ μὴ ἄλλο μὴ ἔστιν.

[¶27] 161a. But if neither the one, nor “that,” is not, but we are speaking of something else, there is no use in saying anything at all; but if non-existence is the property of that one, and not of something else, then the one must partake of “that” and of many other attributes. Yes, certainly. And it will possess unlikeness in relation to other things for the things which are other than one, being different, will be of a different kind. Yes. And are not things which are of a different kind also of another kind? Of course. And things which are of another kind are unlike, are they not?

> Greek: 161a. εἰ μέντοι μήτε τὸ ἓν μήτʼ ἐκεῖνο μὴ ἔσται, ἀλλὰ περὶ ἄλλου του ὁ λόγος, οὐδὲ φθέγγεσθαι δεῖ οὐδέν· εἰ δὲ τὸ ἓν ἐκεῖνο καὶ μὴ ἄλλο ὑπόκειται μὴ εἶναι, καὶ τοῦ ἐκείνου καὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν ἀνάγκη αὐτῷ μετεῖναι. καὶ πάνυ γε.καὶ ἀνομοιότης ἄρα ἐστὶν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα· τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα τοῦ ἑνὸς ἕτερα ὄντα ἑτεροῖα καὶ εἴη ἄν. ναί. τὰ δʼ ἑτεροῖα οὐκ ἀλλοῖα; πῶς δʼ οὔ; τὰ δʼ ἀλλοῖα οὐκ ἀνόμοια;

[¶28] 161b. Yes, they are unlike. Then if they are unlike the one, the one is evidently unlike the things which are unlike it. Evidently. Then the one possesses unlikeness in relation to which the others are unlike. So it appears. But if it possesses unlikeness to the others, must it not possess likeness to itself? How is that? If the one possesses unlikeness to the one, our argument will not be concerned with that which is of the nature of the one, and our hypothesis will not relate to the one, but to something other than one.

> Greek: 161b. ἀνόμοια μὲν οὖν. οὐκοῦν εἴπερ τῷ ἑνὶ ἀνόμοιά ἐστι, δῆλον ὅτι ἀνομοίῳ τά γε ἀνόμοια ἀνόμοια ἂν εἴη. δῆλον. εἴη δὴ ἂν καὶ τῷ ἑνὶ ἀνομοιότης, πρὸς ἣν τὰ ἄλλα ἀνόμοια αὐτῷ ἐστιν. ἔοικεν. εἰ δὲ δὴ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνομοιότης ἔστιν αὐτῷ, ἆρʼ οὐκ ἀνάγκη ἑαυτοῦ ὁμοιότητα αὐτῷ εἶναι; πῶς; εἰ ἑνὸς ἀνομοιότης ἔστι τῷ ἑνί, οὐκ ἄν που περὶ τοῦ τοιούτου ὁ λόγος εἴη οἵου τοῦ ἑνός, οὐδʼ ἂν ἡ ὑπόθεσις εἴη περὶ ἑνός, ἀλλὰ περὶ ἄλλου ἢ ἑνός. πάνυ γε.

[¶29] 161c. Certainly. But that is inadmissible. It certainly is. Then the one must possess likeness to itself. It must. And neither is the one equal to the others; for if it were equal, then it would both be and be like them in respect to equality, both of which are impossible, if one does not exist. Yes, they are impossible. And since it is not equal to the others, they cannot be equal to it, can they? Certainly not. And things which are not equal are unequal, are they not?

> Greek: 161c. οὐ δεῖ δέ γε. οὐ δῆτα. δεῖ ἄρα ὁμοιότητα τῷ ἑνὶ αὐτοῦ ἑαυτῷ εἶναι. δεῖ.καὶ μὴν οὐδʼ αὖ ἴσον γʼ ἐστὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις· εἰ γὰρ εἴη ἴσον, εἴη τε ἂν ἤδη καὶ ὅμοιον ἂν εἴη αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἰσότητα. ταῦτα δʼ ἀμφότερα ἀδύνατα, εἴπερ μὴ ἔστιν ἕν. ἀδύνατα. ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τοῖς ἄλλοις ἴσον, ἆρα οὐκ ἀνάγκη καὶ τἆλλα ἐκείνῳ μὴ ἴσα εἶναι;
ἀνάγκη. τὰ δὲ μὴ ἴσα οὐκ ἄνισα;

[¶30] Yes. And things which are unequal are unequal to something which is unequal to them? Of course. Then the one partakes of inequality, in respect to which the others are unequal to it?

> Greek: ναί. τὰ δὲ ἄνισα οὐ τῷ ἀνίσῳ ἄνισα; πῶς δʼ οὔ; καὶ ἀνισότητος δὴ μετέχει τὸ ἕν, πρὸς ἣν τἆλλα αὐτῷ ἐστιν ἄνισα;

[¶31] 161d. Yes, it does. But greatness and smallness are constituents of inequality. Yes. Then the one, such as we are discussing, possesses greatness and smallness? So it appears. Now surely greatness and smallness always keep apart from one another. Certainly. Then there is always something between them. There is. Can you think of anything between them except equality? No, only equality. Then anything which has greatness and smallness has also equality, which is between the two. That is clear.

> Greek: 161d. μετέχει. ἀλλὰ μέντοι ἀνισότητός γε ἐστὶ μέγεθός τε καὶ σμικρότης. ἔστι γάρ. ἔστιν ἄρα καὶ μέγεθός τε καὶ σμικρότης τῷ τοιούτῳ ἑνί; κινδυνεύει. μέγεθος μὴν καὶ σμικρότης ἀεὶ ἀφέστατον ἀλλήλοιν. πάνυ γε. μεταξὺ ἄρα τι αὐτοῖν ἀεί ἐστιν. ἔστιν. ἔχεις οὖν τι ἄλλο εἰπεῖν μεταξὺ αὐτοῖν ἢ ἰσότητα; οὔκ, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο. ὅτῳ ἄρα ἔστι μέγεθος καὶ σμικρότης, ἔστι καὶ ἰσότης αὐτῷ μεταξὺ τούτοιν οὖσα.

[¶32] 161e. Then the non-existent one, it appears, partakes of equality and greatness and smallness. So it appears. And it must also, in a way, partake of existence. How is that? It must be in such conditions as we have been saying; for if it were not, we should not be speaking the truth in saying that the one is not. And if we speak the truth, it is clear that we say that which is. Am I not right? You are.

> Greek: 161e. φαίνεται. τῷ δὴ ἑνὶ μὴ ὄντι, ὡς ἔοικε, καὶ ἰσότητος ἂν μετείη καὶ μεγέθους καὶ σμικρότητος. ἔοικεν.καὶ μὴν καὶ οὐσίας γε δεῖ αὐτὸ μετέχειν πῃ. πῶς δή; ἔχειν αὐτὸ δεῖ οὕτως ὡς λέγομεν· εἰ γὰρ μὴ οὕτως ἔχει, οὐκ ἂν ἀληθῆ λέγοιμεν ἡμεῖς λέγοντες τὸ ἓν μὴ εἶναι· εἰ δὲ ἀληθῆ, δῆλον ὅτι ὄντα αὐτὰ λέγομεν. ἢ οὐχ οὕτως; οὕτω μὲν οὖν.

[¶33] 162. Ceph. Then inasmuch as we assert that we are speaking the truth, we necessarily assert that we say that which is.

> Greek: 162. ἐπειδὴ δέ φαμεν ἀληθῆ λέγειν, ἀνάγκη ἡμῖν φάναι καὶ ὄντα λέγειν.

[¶34] 162a. Necessarily. Then, as it appears, the non-existent one exists. For if it is not non-existent, but gives up something of being to not-being, then it will be existent. Certainly. Then if it does not exist and is to continue to be non-existent, it must have the existence of not-being as a bond, just as being has the non-existence of not-being, in order to attain its perfect existence. For in this way the existence of the existent and the non-existence of the non-existent would be best assured, when the existent partakes of the existence of being existent and of the non-existence of not being non-existent, thus assuring its own perfect existence, and the non-existent partakes of the non-existence of not being existent and the existence of being non-existent, and thus the non-existent also secures its perfect non-existence.

> Greek: 162a. ἀνάγκη. ἔστιν ἄρα, ὡς ἔοικε, τὸ ἓν οὐκ ὄν· εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἔσται μὴ ὄν, ἀλλά πῃ τοῦ εἶναι ἀνήσει πρὸς τὸ μὴ εἶναι, εὐθὺς ἔσται ὄν. παντάπασι μὲν οὖν. δεῖ ἄρα αὐτὸ δεσμὸν ἔχειν τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸ εἶναι μὴ ὄν, εἰ μέλλει μὴ εἶναι, ὁμοίως ὥσπερ τὸ ὂν τὸ μὴ ὂν ἔχειν μὴ εἶναι, ἵνα τελέως αὖ [εἶναι] ᾖ· οὕτως γὰρ ἂν τό τε ὂν μάλιστʼ ἂν εἴη καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν οὐκ ἂν εἴη, μετέχοντα τὸ μὲν ὂν οὐσίας τοῦ εἶναι ὄν, μὴ οὐσίας δὲ τοῦ ⟨μὴ⟩ εἶναι μὴ ὄν, εἰ μέλλει τελέως εἶναι, τὸ δὲ μὴ ὂν μὴ οὐσίας μὲν τοῦ μὴ εἶναι [μὴ] ὄν, οὐσίας δὲ τοῦ εἶναι μὴ ὄν, εἰ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν αὖ τελέως μὴ ἔσται.

[¶35] 162b. Very true. Then since the existent partakes of non-existence and the non-existent of existence, the one, since it does not exist, necessarily partakes of existence to attain non-existence. Yes, necessarily. Clearly, then, the one, if it does not exist, has existence. Clearly. And non-existence also, if it does not exist. Of course. Well, can anything which is in a certain condition be not in that condition without changing from it? No, it cannot. Then everything of that sort—if a thing is and is not in a given condition—signifies a change.

> Greek: 162b. ἀληθέστατα. οὐκοῦν ἐπείπερ τῷ τε ὄντι τοῦ μὴ εἶναι καὶ τῷ μὴ ὄντι τοῦ εἶναι μέτεστι, καὶ τῷ ἑνί, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἔστι, τοῦ εἶναι ἀνάγκη μετεῖναι εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι. ἀνάγκη. καὶ οὐσία δὴ φαίνεται τῷ ἑνί, εἰ μὴ ἔστιν. φαίνεται. καὶ μὴ οὐσία ἄρα, εἴπερ μὴ ἔστιν. πῶς δʼ οὔ;οἷόν τε οὖν τὸ ἔχον πως μὴ ἔχειν οὕτω, μὴ μεταβάλλον ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ἕξεως; οὐχ οἷόν τε. πᾶν ἄρα τὸ τοιοῦτον μεταβολὴν σημαίνει, ὃ ἂν οὕτω τε καὶ μὴ οὕτως ἔχῃ.

[¶36] 162c. Of course. But change is motion; we agree to that? It is motion. And did we not see that the one is and is not? Yes. Then we see that it both is and is not in a given condition. So it appears. And we have seen that the non-existent one has motion, since it changes from being to not-being. There is not much doubt of that. But if it is nowhere among existing things—and it is nowhere, if it does not exist—it cannot move from any place to another. Of course not. Then its motion cannot be change of place. No, it cannot.

> Greek: 162c. πῶς δʼ οὔ; μεταβολὴ δὲ κίνησις· ἢ τί φήσομεν; κίνησις. οὐκοῦν τὸ ἓν ὄν τε καὶ οὐκ ὂν ἐφάνη; ναί. οὕτως ἄρα καὶ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχον φαίνεται. ἔοικεν. καὶ κινούμενον ἄρα τὸ οὐκ ὂν ἓν πέφανται, ἐπείπερ καὶ μεταβολὴν ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι ἐπὶ τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἔχον. κινδυνεύει. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ μηδαμοῦ γέ ἐστι τῶν ὄντων, ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν εἴπερ μὴ ἔστιν, οὐδʼ ἂν μεθίσταιτό ποθέν ποι. πῶς γάρ; οὐκ ἄρα τῷ γε μεταβαίνειν κινοῖτʼ ἄν.

[¶37] 162d. Nor surely can it turn in the same spot, for it nowhere touches the same for the same is existent, and the non-existent cannot be in any existent thing. No, it is impossible. Then the one, being non-existent, cannot turn in that in which it is not. No. And the one, whether existent or non-existent, cannot change into something other than itself; for if it changed into something other than itself, our talk would no longer be about the one, but about something else. Quite right. But if it neither changes into something else, nor turns in the same spot, nor changes its place, can it still move in any way?

> Greek: 162d. οὐ γάρ. οὐδὲ μὴν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἂν στρέφοιτο· ταὐτοῦ γὰρ οὐδαμοῦ ἅπτεται. ὂν γὰρ ἐστὶ τὸ ταὐτόν· τὸ δὲ μὴ ὂν ἔν τῳ τῶν ὄντων ἀδύνατον εἶναι. ἀδύνατον γάρ. οὐκ ἄρα τὸ ἕν γε μὴ ὂν στρέφεσθαι ἂν δύναιτο ἐν ἐκείνῳ ἐν ᾧ μὴ ἔστιν. οὐ γὰρ οὖν. οὐδὲ μὴν ἀλλοιοῦταί που τὸ ἓν ἑαυτοῦ, οὔτε τὸ ὂν οὔτε τὸ μὴ ὄν· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἦν ὁ λόγος ἔτι περὶ τοῦ ἑνός, εἴπερ ἠλλοιοῦτο αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλὰ περὶ ἄλλου τινός. ὀρθῶς. εἰ δὲ μήτʼ ἀλλοιοῦται μήτε ἐν ταὐτῷ στρέφεται μήτε μεταβαίνει, ἆρʼ ἄν πῃ ἔτι κινοῖτο;

[¶38] 162e. No how can it? But surely that which is without motion must keep still, and that which keeps still must be at rest. Yes, it must. Then the non-existent one is both at rest and in motion. So it appears.

> Greek: 162e. πῶς γάρ; τό γε μὴν ἀκίνητον ἀνάγκη ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν, τὸ δὲ ἡσυχάζον ἑστάναι. ἀνάγκη. τὸ ἓν ἄρα, ὡς ἔοικεν, οὐκ ὂν ἕστηκέ τε καὶ κινεῖται. ἔοικεν.

[¶39] 163. Ceph. And if it is in motion, it certainly must change in its nature;

> Greek: 163. καὶ μὴν εἴπερ γε κινεῖται, μεγάλη ἀνάγκη αὐτῷ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι·

[¶40] 163a. for if anything is moved in any way, in so far as it is moved it is no longer in its former condition, but in a different one. True. Then in moving, the one changes in nature. Yes. And yet when it does not move in any way, it will not change its nature in any way. No. Then in so far as the non-existent one moves, it changes, and in so far as it does not move, it does not change. True. Then the non-existent one both changes and does not change. So it appears. And must not that which changes come into a state of being other than its previous one, and perish, so far as its previous state is concerned;

> Greek: 163a. ὅπῃ γὰρ ἄν τι κινηθῇ, κατὰ τοσοῦτον οὐκέθʼ ὡσαύτως ἔχει ὡς εἶχεν, ἀλλʼ ἑτέρως. οὕτως. κινούμενον δὴ τὸ ἓν καὶ ἀλλοιοῦται. ναί. καὶ μὴν μηδαμῇ γε κινούμενον οὐδαμῇ ἂν ἀλλοιοῖτο. οὐ γάρ. ἧι μὲν ἄρα κινεῖται τὸ οὐκ ὂν ἕν, ἀλλοιοῦται· ᾗ δὲ μὴ κινεῖται, οὐκ ἀλλοιοῦται. οὐ γάρ. τὸ ἓν ἄρα μὴ ὂν ἀλλοιοῦταί τε καὶ οὐκ ἀλλοιοῦται. φαίνεται. τὸ δʼ ἀλλοιούμενον ἆρʼ οὐκ ἀνάγκη γίγνεσθαι μὲν ἕτερον ἢ πρότερον, ἀπόλλυσθαι δὲ ἐκ τῆς προτέρας ἕξεως·

[¶41] 163b. whereas that which does not change neither comes into being nor perishes? That is inevitable. Then the non-existent one, when it is changed, comes into being and perishes, and when it is not changed, neither comes into being nor perishes and thus the non-existent one both comes into being and perishes and neither comes into being nor perishes. Quite true. Let us now go back again to the beginning and see whether the conclusions we reach will be the same as at present, or different. Yes, we should do that. We ask, then, if the one is not, what will be the consequences in regard to it?

> Greek: 163b. τὸ δὲ μὴ ἀλλοιούμενον μήτε γίγνεσθαι μήτε ἀπόλλυσθαι; ἀνάγκη. καὶ τὸ ἓν ἄρα μὴ ὂν ἀλλοιούμενον μὲν γίγνεταί τε καὶ ἀπόλλυται, μὴ ἀλλοιούμενον δὲ οὔτε γίγνεται οὔτε ἀπόλλυται· καὶ οὕτω τὸ ἓν μὴ ὂν γίγνεταί τε καὶ ἀπόλλυται, καὶ οὔτε γίγνεται οὔτʼ ἀπόλλυται. οὐ γὰρ οὖν.αὖθις δὴ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἴωμεν πάλιν ὀψόμενοι εἰ ταὐτὰ ἡμῖν φανεῖται ἅπερ καὶ νῦν ἢ ἕτερα. ἀλλὰ χρή. οὐκοῦν ἓν εἰ μὴ ἔστι, φαμέν, τί χρὴ περὶ αὐτοῦ συμβαίνειν;

[¶42] 163c. Yes. Does the expression “is not” denote anything else than the absence of existence in that of which we say that it is not? No, nothing else. And when we say that a thing is not, do we mean that it is in a way and is not in a way? Or does the expression “is not” mean without any qualifications that the non-existent is not in any way, shape, or manner, and does not participate in being in any way? Without any qualifications whatsoever. Then the non-existent cannot be and cannot in any other way partake of existence.

> Greek: 163c. ναί. τὸ δὲ μὴ ἔστιν ὅταν λέγωμεν, ἆρα μή τι ἄλλο σημαίνει ἢ οὐσίας ἀπουσίαν τούτῳ ᾧ ἂν φῶμεν μὴ εἶναι; οὐδὲν ἄλλο. πότερον οὖν, ὅταν φῶμεν μὴ εἶναί τι, πὼς οὐκ εἶναί φαμεν αὐτό, πὼς δὲ εἶναι; ἢ τοῦτο τὸ μὴ ἔστι λεγόμενον ἁπλῶς σημαίνει ὅτι οὐδαμῶς οὐδαμῇ ἔστιν οὐδέ πῃ μετέχει οὐσίας τό γε μὴ ὄν; ἁπλούστατα μὲν οὖν. οὔτε ἄρα εἶναι δύναιτο ἂν τὸ μὴ ὂν οὔτε ἄλλως οὐδαμῶς οὐσίας μετέχειν.

[¶43] 163d. No. But were coming into being and perishing anything else than receiving and losing existence. No, nothing else. But that which has no participation in it can neither receive it nor lose it. Of course not. Then the one, since it does not exist in any way, cannot possess or lose or share in existence at all. That is reasonable. Then the non-existent one neither perishes nor comes into being, since it participates in no way in existence. No; that is clear. Then it is not changed in nature at all;

> Greek: 163d. οὐ γάρ. τὸ δὲ γίγνεσθαι καὶ τὸ ἀπόλλυσθαι μή τι ἄλλο ἦν ἢ τὸ μὲν οὐσίας μεταλαμβάνειν, τὸ δʼ ἀπολλύναι οὐσίαν; οὐδὲν ἄλλο. ὧι δέ γε μηδὲν τούτου μέτεστιν, οὔτʼ ἂν λαμβάνοι οὔτʼ ἀπολλύοι αὐτό. πῶς γάρ; τῷ ἑνὶ ἄρα, ἐπειδὴ οὐδαμῇ ἔστιν, οὔτε ἑκτέον οὔτε ἀπαλλακτέον οὔτε μεταληπτέον οὐσίας οὐδαμῶς. εἰκός. οὔτε ἄρα ἀπόλλυται τὸ μὴ ὂν ἓν οὔτε γίγνεται, ἐπείπερ οὐδαμῇ μετέχει οὐσίας. οὐ φαίνεται. οὐδʼ ἄρʼ ἀλλοιοῦται οὐδαμῇ·

[¶44] 163e. for such change involves coming into being and perishing. True. And if it is not changed, it cannot move, either, can it? Certainly not. And we cannot say that that which is nowhere is at rest; for that which is at rest must always be in some place which is the same. Yes, of course, the same place. Thus we shall say again that the non-existent one is neither at rest nor in motion. No, neither.

> Greek: 163e. ἤδη γὰρ ἂν γίγνοιτό τε καὶ ἀπολλύοιτο τοῦτο πάσχον. ἀληθῆ. εἰ δὲ μὴ ἀλλοιοῦται, οὐκ ἀνάγκη μηδὲ κινεῖσθαι; ἀνάγκη. οὐδὲ μὴν ἑστάναι φήσομεν τὸ μηδαμοῦ ὄν· τὸ γὰρ ἑστὸς ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τινι δεῖ ἀεὶ εἶναι. τῷ αὐτῷ· πῶς γὰρ οὔ; οὕτω δὴ αὖ τὸ μὴ ὂν μήτε ποτὲ ἑστάναι μήτε κινεῖσθαι λέγωμεν. μὴ γὰρ οὖν.

[¶45] 164. Ceph. Nor can anything which exists pertain to it for the moment it partook of anything which exists it would partake of existence.

> Greek: 164. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ἔστι γε αὐτῷ τι τῶν ὄντων· ἤδη γὰρ ἂν τούτου μετέχον [ὄντος] οὐσίας μετέχοι.

[¶46] 164a. That is plain. Then neither greatness nor smallness nor equality pertains to it. No. Nor likeness nor difference, either in relation to itself or to other things. Clearly not. And can other things pertain to it, if nothing pertains to it? Impossible. Then the other things are neither like it nor unlike it, nor the same nor different. No. Well, then, will the notions “of that” or “to that” or “some,” or “this” or “of this” or “of another” or “to another” or past or future or present or knowledge or opinion or perception or definition or name or anything else which exists pertain to the non-existent?

> Greek: 164a. δῆλον. οὔτε ἄρα μέγεθος οὔτε σμικρότης οὔτε ἰσότης αὐτῷ ἔστιν. οὐ γάρ. οὐδὲ μὴν ὁμοιότης γε οὐδὲ ἑτεροιότης οὔτε πρὸς αὑτὸ οὔτε πρὸς τἆλλα εἴη ἂν αὐτῷ. οὐ φαίνεται. τί δέ; τἆλλα ἔσθʼ ὅπως ἂν εἴη αὐτῷ, εἰ μηδὲν αὐτῷ δεῖ εἶναι; οὐκ ἔστιν. οὔτε ἄρα ὅμοια οὔτε ἀνόμοια οὔτε ταὐτὰ οὔθʼ ἕτερά ἐστιν αὐτῷ τὰ ἄλλα. οὐ γάρ. τί δέ; τὸ ἐκείνου ἢ τὸ ἐκείνῳ ἢ τὸ τὶ ἢ τὸ τοῦτο ἢ τὸ τούτου ἢ ἄλλου ἢ ἄλλῳ ἢ ποτὲ ἢ ἔπειτα ἢ νῦν ἢ ἐπιστήμη ἢ δόξα ἢ αἴσθησις ἢ λόγος ἢ ὄνομα ἢ ἄλλο ὁτιοῦν τῶν ὄντων περὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν ἔσται;

[¶47] 164b. No. Then the non-existent one has no state or condition whatsoever. It appears to have none whatsoever. Let us then discuss further what happens to the other things, if the one does not exist. Let us do so. Well, they must exist; for if others do not even exist, there could be no talking about the others. True. But if we talk about the others, the others are different. Or do you not regard the words other and different as synonymous?

> Greek: 164b. οὐκ ἔσται. οὕτω δὴ ἓν οὐκ ὂν οὐκ ἔχει πως οὐδαμῇ. οὔκουν δὴ ἔοικέν γε οὐδαμῇ ἔχειν.ἔτι δὴ λέγωμεν, ἓν εἰ μὴ ἔστι, τἆλλα τί χρὴ πεπονθέναι. λέγωμεν γάρ. ἄλλα μέν που δεῖ αὐτὰ εἶναι· εἰ γὰρ μηδὲ ἄλλα ἐστίν, οὐκ ἂν περὶ τῶν ἄλλων λέγοιτο. οὕτω. εἰ δὲ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁ λόγος, τά γε ἄλλα ἕτερά ἐστιν. ἢ οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ καλεῖς τό τε ἄλλο καὶ τὸ ἕτερον;

[¶48] 164c. Yes, I do. And we say that the different is different from the different, and the other is other than the other? Yes. Then if the others are to be others, there must be something of which they will be others. Yes, there must be. Now what can that be? For they cannot be others of the one, if it does not exist. No. Then they are others of each other; for they have no alternative, except to be others of nothing. True. They are each, then, others of each other, in groups; for they cannot be so one at a time, if one does not exist.

> Greek: 164c. ἔγωγε. ἕτερον δέ γέ πού φαμεν τὸ ἕτερον εἶναι ἑτέρου, καὶ τὸ ἄλλο δὴ ἄλλο εἶναι ἄλλου; ναί. καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄρα, εἰ μέλλει ἄλλα εἶναι, ἔστι τι οὗ ἄλλα ἔσται. ἀνάγκη. τί δὴ οὖν ἂν εἴη; τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔσται ἄλλα, μὴ ὄντος γε. οὐ γάρ. ἀλλήλων ἄρα ἐστί· τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἔτι λείπεται, ἢ μηδενὸς εἶναι ἄλλοις. ὀρθῶς. κατὰ πλήθη ἄρα ἕκαστα ἀλλήλων ἄλλα ἐστί· κατὰ ἓν γὰρ οὐκ ἂν οἷά τε εἴη, μὴ ὄντος ἑνός. ἀλλʼ ἕκαστος, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὁ ὄγκος αὐτῶν ἄπειρός ἐστι πλήθει, κἂν τὸ σμικρότατον δοκοῦν εἶναι λάβῃ τις, ὥσπερ ὄναρ ἐν ὕπνῳ φαίνεται ἐξαίφνης ἀντὶ ἑνὸς δόξαντος εἶναι πολλὰ καὶ ἀντὶ σμικροτάτου παμμέγεθες πρὸς τὰ κερματιζόμενα ἐξ αὐτοῦ.

[¶49] 164d. But each mass of them is unlimited in number, and even if you take what seems to be the smallest bit, it suddenly changes, like something in a dream that which seemed to be one is seen to be many, and instead of very small it is seen to be very great in comparison with the minute fractions of it. Very true. Such masses of others would be others of each other, if others exist and one does not exist. Certainly. There will, then, be many masses, each of which appears to be one, but is not one, if one does not exist? Yes.

> Greek: 164d. ὀρθότατα. τοιούτων δὴ ὄγκων ἄλλα ἀλλήλων ἂν εἴη τἆλλα, εἰ ἑνὸς μὴ ὄντος ἄλλα ἐστίν. κομιδῇ μὲν οὖν. οὐκοῦν πολλοὶ ὄγκοι ἔσονται, εἷς ἕκαστος φαινόμενος, ὢν δὲ οὔ, εἴπερ ἓν μὴ ἔσται; οὕτω. καὶ ἀριθμὸς δὲ εἶναι αὐτῶν δόξει, εἴπερ καὶ ἓν ἕκαστον, πολλῶν ὄντων.

[¶50] 164e. And they will seem to possess, number, if each seems to be one and they are many. Certainly. And some will seem to be even and others odd, but all that will be unreal, if the one does not exist. True.

> Greek: 164e. πάνυ γε. καὶ τὰ μὲν δὴ ἄρτια, τὰ δὲ περιττὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὄντα οὐκ ἀληθῶς φαίνεται, εἴπερ ἓν μὴ ἔσται. οὐ γὰρ οὖν.

[¶51] 165. Ceph. And there will, we assert, seem to be a smallest among them but this proves to be many and great in comparison with each of the many minute fractions.

> Greek: 165. καὶ μὴν καὶ σμικρότατόν γε, φαμέν, δόξει ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐνεῖναι· φαίνεται δὲ τοῦτο πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα πρὸς ἕκαστον τῶν πολλῶν ὡς σμικρῶν ὄντων.

[¶52] 165a. Of course. And each mass will be considered equal to the many minute fractions for it could not appear to pass from greater to smaller, without seeming to enter that which is between them; hence the appearance of equality. That is reasonable. And although it has a limit in relation to another mass, it has neither beginning nor limit nor middle in relation to itself? Why is that? Because whenever the mind conceives of any of these as belonging to the masses, another beginning appears before the beginning, another end remains after the end, and in the middle are other more central middles than the middle, but smaller, because it is impossible to conceive of each one of them, since the one does not exist.

> Greek: 165a. πῶς δʼ οὔ; καὶ ἴσος μὴν τοῖς πολλοῖς καὶ σμικροῖς ἕκαστος ὄγκος δοξασθήσεται εἶναι· οὐ γὰρ ἂν μετέβαινεν ἐκ μείζονος εἰς ἔλαττον φαινόμενος, πρὶν εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ δόξειεν ἐλθεῖν, τοῦτο δʼ εἴη ἂν φάντασμα ἰσότητος. εἰκός. οὐκοῦν καὶ πρὸς ἄλλον ὄγκον πέρας ἔχων, αὐτός γε πρὸς αὑτὸν οὔτε ἀρχὴν οὔτε πέρας οὔτε μέσον ἔχων; πῇ δή; ὅτι ἀεὶ αὐτῶν ὅταν τίς τι λάβῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ ὥς τι τούτων ὄν, πρό τε τῆς ἀρχῆς ἄλλη ἀεὶ φαίνεται ἀρχή, μετά τε τὴν τελευτὴν ἑτέρα ὑπολειπομένη τελευτή, ἔν τε τῷ μέσῳ ἄλλα μεσαίτερα τοῦ μέσου, σμικρότερα δέ, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι ἑνὸς αὐτῶν ἑκάστου λαμβάνεσθαι, ἅτε οὐκ ὄντος τοῦ ἑνός.

[¶53] 165b. Very true. So all being which is conceived by any mind must, it seems to me, be broken up into minute fractions; for it would always be conceived as a mass devoid of one. Certainly. Now anything of that sort, if seen from a distance and dimly, must appear to be one, but if seen from close at hand and with keen vision, each apparent one must prove to be unlimited in number, if it is really devoid of one, and one does not exist.

> Greek: 165b. ἀληθέστατα. θρύπτεσθαι δὴ οἶμαι κερματιζόμενον ἀνάγκη πᾶν τὸ ὄν, ὃ ἄν τις λάβῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ· ὄγκος γάρ που ἄνευ ἑνὸς ἀεὶ λαμβάνοιτʼ ἄν. πάνυ μὲν οὖν. οὐκοῦν τό γε τοιοῦτον πόρρωθεν μὲν ὁρῶντι καὶ ἀμβλὺ ἓν φαίνεσθαι ἀνάγκη, ἐγγύθεν δὲ καὶ ὀξὺ νοοῦντι πλήθει ἄπειρον ἓν ἕκαστον φανῆναι, εἴπερ στέρεται τοῦ ἑνὸς μὴ ὄντος;

[¶54] 165c. Am I right? That is perfectly conclusive. Therefore the other things must each and all appear to be unlimited and limited and one and many, if the things other than one exist and one does not. Yes, they must. And will they not also appear to be like and unlike? Why? Just as things in a picture, when viewed from a distance, appear to be all in one and the same condition and alike.

> Greek: 165c. ἀναγκαιότατον μὲν οὖν. οὕτω δὴ ἄπειρά τε καὶ πέρας ἔχοντα καὶ ἓν καὶ πολλὰ ἕκαστα τἆλλα δεῖ φαίνεσθαι, ἓν εἰ μὴ ἔστιν, τἆλλα δὲ τοῦ ἑνός. δεῖ γάρ. οὐκοῦν καὶ ὅμοιά τε καὶ ἀνόμοια δόξει εἶναι; πῇ δή; οἷον ἐσκιαγραφημένα ἀποστάντι μὲν ἓν πάντα φαινόμενα ταὐτὸν φαίνεσθαι πεπονθέναι καὶ ὅμοια εἶναι. πάνυ γε.

[¶55] 165d. Certainly. But when you come close to them they appear to be many and different, and, because of their difference in appearance, different in kind and unlike each other. Yes. And so the groups of the other things must appear to be like and unlike themselves and each other. Certainly. And also the same and different, and in contact with one another and separated, and in all kinds of motion and in every sort of rest, and coming into being and perishing, and neither of the two, and all that sort of thing, which we can easily mention in detail, if the many exist and the one does not.

> Greek: 165d. προσελθόντι δέ γε πολλὰ καὶ ἕτερα καὶ τῷ τοῦ ἑτέρου φαντάσματι ἑτεροῖα καὶ ἀνόμοια ἑαυτοῖς. οὕτω. καὶ ὁμοίους δὴ καὶ ἀνομοίους τοὺς ὄγκους αὐτούς τε αὑτοῖς ἀνάγκη φαίνεσθαι καὶ ἀλλήλοις. πάνυ μὲν οὖν. οὐκοῦν καὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς καὶ ἑτέρους ἀλλήλων, καὶ ἁπτομένους καὶ χωρὶς ἑαυτῶν, καὶ κινουμένους πάσας κινήσεις καὶ ἑστῶτας πάντῃ, καὶ γιγνομένους καὶ ἀπολλυμένους καὶ μηδέτερα, καὶ πάντα που τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἃ διελθεῖν εὐπετὲς ἤδη ἡμῖν, εἰ ἑνὸς μὴ ὄντος πολλὰ ἔστιν.

[¶56] 165e. Very true. Let us, then, go back once more to the beginning and tell the consequences, if the others exist and the one does not. Let us do so. Well, the others will not be one? Of course not. Nor will they be many for if they were many, one would be contained in them. And if none of them is one, they are all nothing, so that they cannot be many. True. If one is not contained in the others, the others are neither many nor one.

> Greek: 165e. ἀληθέστατα μὲν οὖν.ἔτι δὴ ἅπαξ ἐλθόντες πάλιν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἴπωμεν, ἓν εἰ μὴ ἔστι, τἆλλα δὲ τοῦ ἑνός, τί χρὴ εἶναι. εἴπωμεν γὰρ οὖν. οὐκοῦν ἓν μὲν οὐκ ἔσται τἆλλα. πῶς γάρ; οὐδὲ μὴν πολλά γε· ἐν γὰρ πολλοῖς οὖσιν ἐνείη ἂν καὶ ἕν. εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἕν, ἅπαντα οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὥστε οὐδʼ ἂν πολλὰ εἴη. ἀληθῆ. μὴ ἐνόντος δὲ ἑνὸς ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις, οὔτε πολλὰ οὔτε ἕν ἐστι τἆλλα. οὐ γάρ. οὐδέ γε φαίνεται ἓν οὐδὲ πολλά.

[¶57] 166a. No. Ceph. And they do not even appear to be one or many. Why is that? Because the others have no communion in any way whatsoever with anything which is non-existent, and nothing that is non-existent pertains to any of the others, for things that are non-existent have no parts. True. Nor is there any opinion or appearance of the non-existent in connection with the others, nor is the non-existent conceived of in any way whatsoever as related to the others. No. Then if one does not exist, none of the others will be conceived of as being one or as being many, either; for it is impossible to conceive of many without one.

> Greek: 166a. τί δή; ὅτι τἆλλα τῶν μὴ ὄντων οὐδενὶ οὐδαμῇ οὐδαμῶς οὐδεμίαν κοινωνίαν ἔχει, οὐδέ τι τῶν μὴ ὄντων παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων τῴ ἐστιν· οὐδὲν γὰρ μέρος ἐστὶ τοῖς μὴ οὖσιν. ἀληθῆ. οὐδʼ ἄρα δόξα τοῦ μὴ ὄντος παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐστὶν οὐδέ τι φάντασμα, οὐδὲ δοξάζεται οὐδαμῇ οὐδαμῶς τὸ μὴ ὂν ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων. οὐ γὰρ οὖν. ἓν ἄρα εἰ μὴ ἔστιν, οὐδὲ δοξάζεταί τι τῶν ἄλλων ἓν εἶναι οὐδὲ πολλά·

[¶58] 166b. True, it is impossible. Then if one does not exist, the others neither are nor are conceived to be either one or many. No so it seems. Nor like nor unlike. No. Nor the same nor different, nor in contact nor separate, nor any of the other things which we were saying they appeared to be. The others neither are nor appear to be any of these, if the one does not exist.

> Greek: 166b. ἄνευ γὰρ ἑνὸς πολλὰ δοξάσαι ἀδύνατον. ἀδύνατον γάρ. ἓν ἄρα εἰ μὴ ἔστι, τἆλλα οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε δοξάζεται ἓν οὐδὲ πολλά. οὐκ ἔοικεν. οὐδʼ ἄρα ὅμοια οὐδὲ ἀνόμοια. οὐ γάρ. οὐδὲ μὴν τὰ αὐτά γε οὐδʼ ἕτερα, οὐδὲ ἁπτόμενα οὐδὲ χωρίς, οὐδὲ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν διήλθομεν ὡς φαινόμενα αὐτά, τούτων οὔτε τι ἔστιν οὔτε φαίνεται τἆλλα, ἓν εἰ μὴ ἔστιν. ἀληθῆ. οὐκοῦν καὶ συλλήβδην εἰ εἴποιμεν, ἓν εἰ μὴ ἔστιν, οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὀρθῶς ἂν εἴποιμεν;

[¶59] 166c. True. Then if we were to say in a word, “if the one is not, nothing is,” should we be right? Most assuredly. Then let us say that, and we may add, as it appears, that whether the one is or is not, the one and the others in relation to themselves and to each other all in every way are and are not and appear and do not appear. Very true.

> Greek: 166c. παντάπασι μὲν οὖν. εἰρήσθω τοίνυν τοῦτό τε καὶ ὅτι, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἓν εἴτʼ ἔστιν εἴτε μὴ ἔστιν, αὐτό τε καὶ τἆλλα καὶ πρὸς αὑτὰ καὶ πρὸς ἄλληλα πάντα πάντως ἐστί τε καὶ οὐκ ἔστι καὶ φαίνεταί τε καὶ οὐ φαίνεται. ἀληθέστατα.