Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next page
And has not-being also, if it is not?
But can anything which is in a certain state not be in that state
Then everything which is and is not in a certain state, implies
And change is motion-we may say that?
And the one has been proved both to be and not to be?
And therefore is and is not in the same state?
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?
Then it cannot move by changing place?
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
Then the one, if it is not, cannot turn in that in which it is not?
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?
But if the one neither suffers alteration, nor turns round in the
same place, nor changes place, can it still be capable of motion?
Now that which is unmoved must surely be at rest, and that which
is at rest must stand still?
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?
Then the one, being moved, is altered?
And, further, if not moved in any way, it will not be altered in any
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?
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?
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
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
Do not the words "is not" signify absence of being in that to
which we apply them?
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?
Then, that which is not cannot be, or in any way participate in
And did we not mean by becoming, and being destroyed, the assumption
of being and the loss of being?
And can that which has no participation in being, either assume or
The one then, since it in no way is, cannot have or lose or assume
being in any way?
Then the one that is not, since it in no way partakes of being,
neither nor becomes?
Then it is not altered at all; for if it were it would become and be
But if it be not altered it cannot be moved?
Nor can we say that it stands, if it is nowhere; for that which
stands must always be in one and the same spot?