Complete Works

by Plato, Cooper, John M. , Hutchinson, D. S.

  [d] “Furthermore, whenever each part comes to be one part, the parts then have a limit in relation to each other and in relation to the whole, and the whole has a limit in relation to the parts.”—“Quite so.”—“Accordingly, it follows for things other than the one that from the one and themselves gaining communion with each other, as it seems, something different comes to be in them, which affords a limit for them in relation to each other; but their own nature, by themselves, affords unlimitedness.”—“Apparently.”—“In this way, indeed, things other than the one, taken both as wholes and part by part, both are unlimited and partake of a limit.”—“Certainly.”

  [e] “Well, aren’t they both like and unlike each other and themselves?”—“In what way?”—“On the one hand, insofar as they are all unlimited by their own nature, they would in this way have a property the same.”—“Certainly.”—“Furthermore, insofar as they all partake of a limit, in this way, too, they would all have a property the same.”—“Doubtless.”—“On the other hand, insofar as they are both limited and unlimited, they have [159] these properties, which are opposite to each other.”—“Yes.”—“And opposite properties are as unlike as possible.”—“To be sure.”—“So in respect of either property they would be like themselves and each other, but in respect of both properties they would be utterly opposite and unlike both themselves and each other.”—“It looks that way.”—“Thus the others would be both like and unlike themselves and each other.”—“Just so.”

  “And indeed we will have no further trouble in finding that things other than the one are both the same as and different from each other, both in motion and at rest, and have all the opposite properties, since in fact they [b] were shown to have those we mentioned.”—“You’re right.”

  “Well, then, suppose we now concede those results as evident and examine again, if one is: Are things other than the one also not so, or only so?”—“Of course.”—“Let’s say from the beginning, what properties things other than the one must have, if one is.”—“Yes, let’s do.”—“Must not the one be separate from the others, and the others separate from the one?”—“Why?”—“Because surely there is not something else in addition to them [c] that is both other than the one and other than the others; for all things have been mentioned, once the one and the others are mentioned.”—“Yes, all things.”—“So there is no further thing, different from them, in which same thing the one and the others could be.”—“No, there isn’t.”—“So the one and the others are never in the same thing.”—“It seems not.”—“So they are separate?”—“Yes.”

  “Furthermore, we say that what is really one doesn’t have parts.”—“Obviously not.”—“So the one could not be in the others as a whole, nor could parts of it be in them, if it is separate from the others and doesn’t have parts.”—“Obviously not.”—“So the others could in no way partake [d] of the one, if they partake neither by getting some part of it nor by getting it as a whole.”—“It seems not.”—“In no way, then, are the others one, nor do they have any oneness in them.”—“Yes, you’re quite right.”

  “So the others aren’t many either; for each of them would be one part of a whole, if they were many. But as it is, things other than the one are neither one nor many nor a whole nor parts, since they in no way partake of the one.”—“That’s right.”—“Therefore, the others are not themselves two or three, nor are two or three in them, if in fact they are entirely [e] deprived of the one.”—“Just so.”

  “So the others aren’t themselves like and unlike the one, and likeness and unlikeness aren’t in them. For if they were themselves like and unlike, or had likeness and unlikeness in them, things other than the one would surely have in themselves two forms opposite to each other.”—“Apparently.”—“But it was impossible for things that couldn’t partake even of one to partake of any two.”—“Impossible.”—“So the others are neither like nor unlike nor both. If they were like or unlike, they would partake [160] of one of the two forms, and if they were both, they would partake of two opposite forms. But these alternatives were shown to be impossible.”—“True.”

  “So they are neither the same nor different, neither in motion nor at rest, neither coming to be nor ceasing to be, neither greater nor less nor equal. Nor do they have any other such properties. For if the others submit to having any such property, they will partake of one and two and three and odd and even, of which it was shown they could not partake, since [b] they are in every way entirely deprived of the one.”—“Very true.”

  “Thus if one is, the one is all things and is not even one, both in relation to itself and, likewise, in relation to the others.”17 “Exactly.”

  “So far so good. But must we not next examine what the consequences must be, if the one is not?”—“Yes, we must.”—“What, then, would this hypothesis be: ‘if one is not’? Does it differ at all from this hypothesis: ‘if not-one is not’?”—“Of course it differs.”—“Does it merely differ, or is saying ‘if not-one is not’ the complete opposite of saying, ‘if one is not’?”—[c] “The complete opposite.”—“What if someone were to say, ‘if largeness is not’ or ‘if smallness is not’ or anything else like that, would it be clear in each case that what he is saying is not is something different?”—“Certainly.”—“So now, too, whenever he says, ‘if one is not,’ isn’t it clear that what he says is not is different from the others, and don’t we recognize what he means?”—“We do.”—“So he speaks of something, in the first place, knowable, and in the second, different from the others, whenever [d] he says ‘one,’ whether he attaches being or not-being to it; for we still know what thing is said not to be, and that it is different from the others. Isn’t that so?”—“Necessarily.”

  “Then we must state from the beginning as follows what must be the case, if one is not. First, as it seems, this must be so for it, that there is knowledge of it; otherwise we don’t even know what is meant when someone says, ‘if one is not’.”—“True.”—“And it must be the case that the others are different from it – or else it isn’t said to be different from them?”—“Certainly.”—“Therefore difference in kind pertains to it in addition [e] to knowledge. For someone doesn’t speak of the difference in kind of the others when he says that the one is different from the others, but of that thing’s difference in kind.”—“Apparently.”

  “Furthermore, the one that is not partakes of that and of something, this, to this, these, and so on; for the one could not be mentioned, nor could things be different from the one, nor could anything belong to it or be of it, nor could it be said to be anything, unless it had a share of something and the rest.”—“That’s right.”—“The one can’t be, if in fact it is not, but nothing prevents it from partaking of many things. Indeed, it’s even [161] necessary, if in fact it’s that one and not another that is not. If, however, neither the one nor that is not to be, but the account is about something else, we shouldn’t even utter a sound. But if that one and not another is posited not to be, it must have a share of that and of many other things.”—“Quite certainly.”

  “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 liken
ess 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 n
o 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.”