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！
they both participate in being； you declare that they are。
Theaet。 Truly we seem to have an intimation that being is
some third
thing； when we say that rest and motion are。
Str。 Then being is not the combination of rest and motion； but
something different from them。
Theaet。 So it would appear。
Str。 Being； then； according to its own nature； is neither in
motion nor at rest。
Theaet。 That is very much the truth。
Str。 Where； then； is a man to look for help who would have
any clear
or fixed notion of being in his mind？
Theaet。 Where； indeed？
Str。 I scarcely think that he can look anywhere； for that which is
not in motion must be at rest； and again； that which is not at rest
must be in motion； but being is placed outside of both these
classes。 Is this possible？
Theaet。 Utterly impossible。
Str。 Here； then； is another thing which we ought to bear in mind。
Theaet。 What？
Str。 When we were asked to what we were to assign the
appellation of
not…being； we were in the greatest difficulty：…do you remember？
Theaet。 To be sure。
Str。 And are we not now in as a difficulty about being？
Theaes。 I should say； Stranger； that we are in one which is； if
possible； even greater。
Str。 Then let us acknowledge the difficulty； and as being and
not…being are involved in the same perplexity； there is hope
that when
the one appears more or less distinctly； the other will equally
appear； and if we are able to see neither there may still be a
chance of steering our way in between them； without any great
discredit。
Theaet。 Very good。
Str。 Let us enquire； then； how we come to predicate many names of
the same thing。
Theaet。 Give an example。
Str。 I mean that we speak of man； for example； under many
names…that
we attribute to him colours and forms and magnitudes and virtues and
vices； in all of which instances and in ten thousand others we not
only speak of him as a man； but also as good； and having number…less
other attributes； and in the same way anything else which we
originally supposed to be one is described by us as many； and under
many names。
Theaet。 That is true。
Str。 And thus we provide a rich feast for tyros； whether young or
old； for there is nothing easier than to argue that the one cannot
be many； or the many one； and great is their delight in
denying that a
man is good； for man； they insist； is man and good is good。
I dare say
that you have met with persons who take…an interest in such
matters…they are often elderly men； whose meagre sense is thrown
into amazement by these discoveries of theirs； which they believe to
be the height of wisdom。
Theaet。 Certainly； I have。
Str。 Then； not to exclude any one who has ever speculated at all
upon the nature of being； let us put our questions to them as well
as to our former friends。
Theaet。 What questions？
Str。 Shall we refuse to attribute being to motion and rest； or
anything to anything； and assume that they do not mingle； and are
incapable of participating in one another？ Or shall we
gather all into
one class of things communicable with one another？ Or are some
things communicable and others not？…Which of these alternatives；
Theaetetus； will they prefer？
Theaet。 I have nothing to answer on their behalf。 Suppose that you
take all these hypotheses in turn； and see what are the consequences
which follow from each of them。
Str。 Very good； and first let us assume them to say that nothing
is capable of participating in anything else in any respect； in that
case rest and motion cannot participate in being at all。
Theaet。 They cannot。
Str。 But would either of them be if not participating in being？
Theaet。 No。
Str。 Then by this admission everything is instantly overturned； as
well the doctrine of universal motion as of universal rest； and also
the doctrine of those who distribute being into immutable and
everlasting kinds； for all these add on a notion of being； some
affirming that things 〃are〃 truly in motion； and others that they
〃are〃 truly at rest。
Theaes。 Just so。
Str。 Again； those who would at one time compound； and at another
resolve all things； whether making them into one and out of one
creating infinity； or dividing them into finite clements； and
forming compounds out of these； whether they suppose the processes
of creation to be successive or continuous； would be talking
nonsense in all this if there were no admixture。
Theaet。 True。
Str。 Most ridiculous of all will the men themselves be who want to
carry out the argument and yet forbid us to call anything； because
participating in some affection from another； by the name of that
other。
Theaet。 Why so？
Str。 Why； because they are compelled to use the words 〃to be；〃
〃apart；〃 〃from others。 〃in itself；〃 and ten thousand more； which
they cannot give up； but must make the connecting links of
discourse； and therefore they do not require to be refuted by
others； but their enemy； as the saying is； inhabits the same house
with them； they are always carrying about with them an
adversary； like
the wonderful ventriloquist； Eurycles； who out of their own bellies
audibly contradicts them。
Theaet。 Precisely so； a very true and exact illustration。
Str。 And now； if we suppose that all things have the power of
communion with one another …what will follow？
Theaet。 Even I can solve that riddle。
Str。 How？
Theaet。 Why； because motion itself would be at rest； and rest
again in motion； if they could be attributed to one another。
Str。 But this is utterly impossible。
Theaet。 Of course。
Str。 Then only the third hypothesis remains。
Theaet。 True。
Str。 For； surely； either all things have communion with all； or
nothing with any other thing； or some things communicate with some
things and others not。
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 And two out of these three suppositions have been found to be
impossible。
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 Every one then； who desires to answer truly； will adopt the
third and remaining hypothesis of the communion of some with some。
Theaet。 Quite true。
Str。 This communion of some with some may be illustrated
by the case
of letters； for some letters do not fit each other； while others do。
Theaet。 Of course。
Str。 And the vowels； especially； are a sort of bond which pervades
all the other letters； so that without a vowel one consonant
cannot be
joined to another。
Theaet。 True。
Str。 But does every one know what letters will unite with what？ Or
is art required in order to do so？
Theaet。 What is required。
Str。 What art？
Theaet。 The art of grammar。
Str。 And is not this also true of sounds high and low？…Is
not he who
has the art to know what sounds mingle； a musician； and he who is
ignorant； not a musician？
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 And we shall find this to be generally true of art or the
absence of art。
Theaet。 Of course。
Str。 And as classes are admitted by us in like manner to be some
of them capable and others incapable of intermixture； must not he
who would rightly show what kinds will unite and what will not；
proceed by the help of science in the path of argument？ And will he
not ask if the connecting links are universal； and so capable of
intermixture with all things； and again； in divisions； whether there
are not other universal classes； which make them possible？
Theaet。 To be sure he will require science； and； if I am not
mistaken； the very greatest of all sciences。
Str。 How are we to call it？ By Zeus； have we not lighted
unwittingly
upon our free and noble science； and in looking for the Sophist have
we not entertained the philosopher unawares？
Theaet。 What do you mean？
Str。 Should we not say that the division according to
classes； which
neither makes the same other； nor makes other the same； is the
business of the dialectical science？
Theaet。 That is what we should say。
Str。 Then； surely； he who can divide rightly is able to see
clearly one form pervading a scattered multitude； and many different
forms conta