Sophist (257-259)

Str. Then being itself must also be said to be other than all other things.

Theaet. Yes, it must.

Str. And we conclude that whatever the number of other things is, just that is the number of the things in relation to which being is not; for not being those things, it is itself one, and again, those other things are not unlimited in number.

Theaet. That is not far from the truth.

Str. Then we must not be disturbed by this either, since by their nature the classes have participation in one another. But if anyone refuses to accept our present results, let him reckon with our previous arguments and then proceed to reckon with the next step. [*]

Theaet. That is very fair.

Str. Then here is a point to consider.

Theaet. What is it?

Str. When we say not-being, we speak, I think, not of something that is the opposite of being, but only of something different.

Theaet. What do you mean?

Str. For instance, when we speak of a thing as not great, do we seem to you to mean by the expression what is small any more than what is of middle size?

Theaet. No, of course not.

Str. Then when we are told that the negative signifies the opposite, we shall not admit it; we shall admit only that the particle not [*] indicates something different from the words to which it is prefixed, or rather from the things denoted by the words that follow the negative.

Theaet. Certainly.

Str. Let us consider another point and see if you agree with me.

Theaet. What is it?

Str. It seems to me that the nature of the other is all cut up into little bits, like knowledge.

Theaet. What do you mean?

Str. Knowledge, like other, is one, but each separate part of it which applies to some particular subject has a name of its own; hence there are many arts, as they are called, and kinds of knowledge, or sciences.

Theaet. Yes, certainly.

Str. And the same is true, by their nature, of the parts of the other, though it also is one concept.

Theaet. Perhaps; but let us discuss the matter and see how it comes about.

Str. Is there a part of the other which is opposed to the beautiful?

Theaet. There is.

Str. Shall we say that this is nameless or that it has a name?

Theaet. That it has one; for that which in each case we call not-beautiful is surely the other of the nature of the beautiful and of nothing else.

Str. Now, then, tell me something more.

Theaet. What?

Str. Does it not result from this that the not-beautiful is a distinct part of some one class of being and also, again, opposed to some class of being?

Theaet. Yes.

Str. Then, apparently, it follows that the not-beautiful is a contrast of being with being.

Theaet. Quite right.

Str. Can we, then, in that case, say that the beautiful is more and the not-beautiful less a part of being?

Theaet. Not at all.

Str. Hence the not-great must be said to be no less truly than the great?

Theaet. No less truly.

Str. And so we must recognize the same relation between the just and the not-just, in so far as neither has any more being than the other?

Theaet. Of course.

Str. And we shall, then, say the same of other things, since the nature of the other is proved to possess real being; and if it has being, we must necessarily ascribe being in no less degree to its parts also.

Theaet. Of course.

Str. Then, as it seems, the opposition of the nature of a part of the other, and of the nature of being, when they are opposed to one another, is no less truly existence than is being itself, if it is not wrong for me to say so, for it signifies not the opposite of being, but only the other of being, and nothing more.

Theaet. That is perfectly clear.

Str. Then what shall we call this?

Theaet. Evidently this is precisely not-being, which we were looking for because of the sophist.

Str. And is this, as you were saying, as fully endowed with being as anything else, and shall we henceforth say with confidence that not-being has an assured existence and a nature of its own? Just as we found that the great was great and the beautiful was beautiful, the not-great was not-great and the not-beautiful was not-beautiful, shall we in the same way say that not-being was and is not-being, to be counted as one class among the many classes of being? Or have we, Theaetetus, any remaining distrust about the matter?

Theaet. None whatever.

Str. Do you observe, then, that we have gone farther in our distrust of Parmenides than the limit set by his prohibition?

Theaet. What do you mean?

Str. We have proceeded farther in our investigation and have shown him more than that which he forbade us to examine.

Theaet. How so?

Str. Because he says somewhere:

Never shall this thought prevail, that not-being is;

Nay, keep your mind from this path of investigation,

Parmenides Fr. 7.1

Theaet. Yes, that is what he says.

Str. But we have not only pointed out that things which are not exist, but we have even shown what the form or class of not-being is; for we have pointed out that the nature of the other exists and is distributed in small bits throughout all existing things in their relations to one another, and we have ventured to say that each part of the other which is contrasted with being, really is exactly not-being.

Theaet. And certainly, Stranger, I think that what we have said is perfectly true.

Str. Then let not anyone assert that we declare that not-being is the opposite of being, and hence are so rash as to say that not-being exists. For we long ago gave up speaking of any opposite of being, whether it exists or not and is capable or totally incapable of definition. But as for our present definition of not-being, a man must either refute us and show that we are wrong, or, so long as he cannot do that, he too must say, as we do, that the classes mingle with one another, and being and the other permeate all things, including each other, and the other, since it participates in being, is, by reason of this participation, yet is not that in which it participates, but other, and since it is other than being, must inevitably be not-being. But being, in turn, participates in the other and is therefore other than the rest of the classes, and since it is other than all of them, it is not each one of them or all the rest, but only itself; there is therefore no doubt that there are thousands and thousands of things which being is not, and just so all other things, both individually and collectively, in many relations are, and in many are not.

Theaet. True.

Str. And if any man has doubts about these oppositions, he must make investigations and advance better doctrines than these of ours; or if he finds pleasure in dragging words about and applying them to different things at different times, with the notion that he has invented something difficult to explain, our present argument asserts that he has taken up seriously matters which are not worth serious attention; for this process is neither clever nor difficult, whereas here now is something both difficult and beautiful.

Theaet. What is it?

Str. What I have spoken of before—the ability to let those quibbles go as of no account and to follow and refute in detail the arguments of a man who says that other is in a sense the same, or that the same is other, and to do this from that point of view and with regard for those relations which he presupposes for either of these conditions. But to show that in some sort of fashion the same is the other, and the other the same, and the great small, and the like unlike, and to take pleasure in thus always bringing forward opposites in the argument,—all that is no true refutation, but is plainly the newborn offspring of some brain that has just begun to lay hold upon the problem of realities.

Theaet. Exactly so.

Str. For certainly, my friend, the attempt to separate everything from everything else is not only not in good taste but also shows that a man is utterly uncultivated and unphilosophical.

Theaet. Why so?

Str. The complete separation of each thing from all is the utterly final obliteration of all discourse. For our power of discourse is derived from the interweaving of the classes or ideas with one another. [*]

Theaet. True.