按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Yes。
And therefore is and is not in the same state？
Yes。
Thus the one that is not has been shown to have motion also； because
it changes from being to not…being？
That appears to be true。
But surely if it is nowhere among what is； as is the fact； since
it is not； it cannot change from one place to another？
Impossible。
Then it cannot move by changing place？
No。
Nor can it turn on the same spot； for it nowhere touches the same；
for the same is； and that which is not cannot be reckoned among things
that are？
It cannot。
Then the one； if it is not； cannot turn in that in which it is not？
No。
Neither can the one； whether it is or is not； be altered into
other than itself； for if it altered and became different from itself；
then we could not be still speaking of the one； but of something else？
True。
But if the one neither suffers alteration； nor turns round in the
same place； nor changes place； can it still be capable of motion？
Impossible。
Now that which is unmoved must surely be at rest； and that which
is at rest must stand still？
Certainly。
Then the one that is not； stands still； and is also in motion？
That seems to be true。
But if it be in motion it must necessarily undergo alteration； for
anything which is moved； in so far as it is moved； is no longer in the
same state； but in another？
Yes。
Then the one； being moved； is altered？
Yes。
And； further； if not moved in any way； it will not be altered in any
way？
No。
Then； in so far as the one that is not is moved； it is altered；
but in so far as it is not moved； it is not altered？
Right。
Then the one that is not is altered and is not altered？
That is clear。
And must not that which is altered become other than it previously
was； and lose its former state and be destroyed； but that which is not
altered can neither come into being nor be destroyed？
Very true。
And the one that is not； being altered； becomes and is destroyed；
and not being altered； neither becomes nor is destroyed； and so the
one that is not becomes and is destroyed； and neither becomes nor is
destroyed？
True。
And now； let us go back once more to the beginning； and see
whether these or some other consequences will follow。
Let us do as you say。
If one is not； we ask what will happen in respect of one？ That is
the question。
Yes。
Do not the words 〃is not〃 signify absence of being in that to
which we apply them？
Just so。
And when we say that a thing is not； do we mean that it is not in
one way but is in another？ or do we mean； absolutely； that what is not
has in no sort or way or kind participation of being？
Quite absolutely。
Then； that which is not cannot be； or in any way participate in
being？
It cannot。
And did we not mean by becoming； and being destroyed； the assumption
of being and the loss of being？
Nothing else。
And can that which has no participation in being； either assume or
lose being？
Impossible。
The one then； since it in no way is； cannot have or lose or assume
being in any way？
True。
Then the one that is not； since it in no way partakes of being；
neither nor becomes？
No。
Then it is not altered at all； for if it were it would become and be
destroyed？
True。
But if it be not altered it cannot be moved？
Certainly not。
Nor can we say that it stands； if it is nowhere； for that which
stands must always be in one and the same spot？
Of course。
Then we must say that the one which is not never stands still and
never moves？
Neither。
Nor is there any existing thing which can be attributed to it； for
if there had been； it would partake of being？
That is clear。
And therefore neither smallness； nor greatness； nor equality； can be
attributed to it？
No。
Nor yet likeness nor difference； either in relation to itself or
to others？
Clearly not。
Well； and if nothing should be attributed to it； can other things be
attributed to it？
Certainly not。
And therefore other things can neither be like or unlike； the
same； or different in relation to it？
They cannot。
Nor can what is not； be anything； or be this thing； or be related to
or the attribute of this or that or other； or be past； present； or
future。 Nor can knowledge； or opinion； or perception； or expression；
or name； or any other thing that is； have any concern with it？
No。
Then the one that is not has no condition of any kind？
Such appears to be the conclusion。
Yet once more； if one is not； what becomes of the others？ Let us
determine that。
Yes； let us determine that。
The others must surely be； for if they； like the one； were not； we
could not be now speaking of them。
True。
But to speak of the others implies difference…the terms 〃other〃
and 〃different〃 are synonymous？
True。
Other means other than other； and different； different from the
different？
Yes。
Then； if there are to be others； there is something than which
they will be other？
Certainly。
And what can that be？…for if the one is not； they will not be
other than the one。
They will not。
Then they will be other than each other； for the only remaining
alternative is that they are other than nothing。
True。
And they are each other than one another； as being plural and not
singular； for if one is not； they cannot be singular but every
particle of them is infinite in number； and even if a person takes
that which appears to be the smallest fraction； this； which seemed
one； in a moment evanesces into many； as in a dream； and from being
the smallest becomes very great； in comparison with the fractions into
which it is split up？
Very true。
And in such particles the others will be other than one another；
if others are； and the one is not？
Exactly。
And will there not be many particles； each appearing to be one；
but not being one； if one is not？
True。
And it would seem that number can be predicated of them if each of
them appears to be one； though it is really many？
It can。
And there will seem to be odd and even among them； which will also
have no reality； if one is not？
Yes。
And there will appear to be a least among them； and even this will
seem large and manifold in comparison with the many small fractions
which are contained in it？
Certainly。
And each particle will be imagined to be equal to the many and
little； for it could not have appeared to pass from the greater to the
less without having appeared to arrive at the middle； and thus would
arise the appearance of equality。
Yes。
And having neither beginning； middle； nor end； each separate
particle yet appears to have a limit in relation to itself and other。
How so？
Because； when a person conceives of any one of these as such；
prior to the beginning another beginning appears； and there is another
end； remaining after the end； and in the middle truer middles within
but smaller； because no unity can be conceived of any of them； since
the one is not。
Very true。
And so all being； whatever we think of； must be broken up into
fractions； for a particle will have to be conceived of without unity？
Certainly。
And such being when seen indistinctly and at a distance； appears
to be one； but when seen near and with keen intellect； every single
thing appears to be infinite； since it is deprived of the one； which
is not？
Nothing more certain。
Then each of the others must appear to be infinite and finite； and
one and many； if others than the one exist and not the one。
They must。
Then will they not appear to be like and unlike？
In what way？
Just as in a picture things appear to be all one to a person
standing at a distance； and to be in the same state and alike？
True。
But when you approach them； they appear to be many and different；
and because of the appearance of the difference； different in kind
from； and unlike； themselves？
True。
And so must the particles appear to be like and unlike themselves
and each other。
Certainly。
And must they not be the same and yet different from one another；
and in contact with themselves； although they are separated； and
having every sort of motion； and every sort of rest； and becoming
and being destroyed； and in neither state； and the like； all which
things may be easily enumerated； if the one is not and the many are？
Most true。
Once more； let us