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！
Str。 Then； surely； he who can divide rightly is able to see
clearly one form pervading a scattered multitude； and many different
forms contained under one higher form； and again； one form knit
together into a single whole and pervading many such wholes； and
many forms； existing only in separation and isolation。 This is the
knowledge of classes which determines where they can have communion
with one another and where not。
Theaet。 Quite true。
Str。 And the art of dialectic would be attributed by you
only to the
philosopher pure and true？
Theaet。 Who but he can be worthy？
Str。 In this region we shall always discover the philosopher； if
we look for him； like the Sophist； he is not easily discovered； but
for a different reason。
Theaet。 For what reason？
Str。 Because the Sophist runs away into the darkness of not…being；
in which he has learned by habit to feel about； and cannot be
discovered because of the darkness of the place。 is not that true？
Theaet。 It seems to be so。
Str。 And the philosopher； always holding converse through reason
with the idea of being； is also dark from excess of light； for the
souls of the many have no eye which can endure the vision of the
divine。
Theaet。 Yes； that seems to be quite as true as the other。
Str。 Well； the philosopher may hereafter be more fully
considered by
us； if we are disposed； but the Sophist must clearly not be
allowed to
escape until we have had a good look at him。
Theaet。 Very good。
Str。 Since； then； we are agreed that some classes have a communion
with one another； and others not； and some have communion with a few
and others with many； and that there is no reason why some should
not have universal communion with all； let us now pursue the
enquiry； as the argument suggests； not in relation to all ideas；
lest the multitude of them should confuse us； but let us select a
few of those which are reckoned to be the principal ones；
and consider
their several natures and their capacity of communion with one
another； in order that if we are not able to apprehend with perfect
clearness the notions of being and not…being； we may at
least not fall
short in the consideration of them； so far as they come within the
scope of the present enquiry； if peradventure we may be allowed to
assert the reality of not…being； and yet escape unscathed。
Theaet。 We must do so。
Str。 The most important of all the genera are those which we were
just now mentioning…being and rest and motion。
Theaet。 Yes； by far。
Str。 And two of these are； as we affirm； incapable of
communion with
one another。
Theaet。 Quite incapable。
Str。 Whereas being surely has communion with both of them； for
both of them are？
Theaet。 Of course。
Str。 That makes up three of them。
Theaet。 To be sure。
Str。 And each of them is other than the remaining two； but the
same with itself。
Theaet。 True。
Str。 But then； what is the meaning of these two words； 〃same〃 and
〃other〃？ Are they two new kinds other than the three； and yet always
of necessity intermingling with them； and are we to have five kinds
instead of three； or when we speak of the same and other； are we
unconsciously speaking of one of the three first kinds？
Theaet。 Very likely we are。
Str。 But； surely； motion and rest are neither the other nor the
same。
Theaet。 How is that？
Str。 Whatever we attribute to motion and rest in common； cannot be
either of them。
Theaet。 Why not？
Str。 Because motion would be at rest and rest in motion； for
either of them； being predicated of both； will compel the other to
change into the opposite of its own nature； because partaking of its
opposite。
Theaet。 Quite true。
Str。 Yet they surely both partake of the same and of the other？
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 Then we must not assert that motion； any more than rest； is
either the same or the other。
Theaet。 No； we must not。
Str。 But are we to conceive that being and the same are identical？
Theaet。 Possibly。
Str。 But if they are identical； then again in saying that
motion and
rest have being； we should also be saying that they are the same。
Theaet。 Which surely cannot be。
Str。 Then being and same cannot be one。
Theaet。 Scarcely。
Str。 Then we may suppose the same to be a fourth class；
which is now
to be added to the three others。
Theaet。 Quite true。
Str。 And shall we call the other a fifth class？ Or should we
consider being and other to be two names of the same class？
Theaet。 Very likely。
Str。 But you would agree； if I am not mistaken； that existences
are relative as well as absolute？
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 And the other is always relative to other？
Theaet。 True。
Str。 But this would not be the case unless being and the other
entirely differed； for； if the other； like being； were absolute as
well as relative； then there would have been a kind of other
which was
not other than other。 And now we find that what is other must of
necessity be what it is in relation to some other。
Theaet。 That is the true state of the case。
Str。 Then we must admit the other as the fifth of our selected
classes。
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 And the fifth class pervades all classes； for they all differ
from one another； not by reason of their own nature； but because
they partake of the idea of the other。
Theaet。 Quite true。
Str。 Then let us now put the case with reference to each of the
five。
Theaet。 How？
Str。 First there is motion； which we affirm to be
absolutely 〃other〃
than rest： what else can we say？
Theaet。 It is so。
Str。 And therefore is not rest。
Theaet。 Certainly not。
Str。 And yet is； because partaking of being。
Theaet。 True。
Str。 Again； motion is other than the same？
Theaet。 Just so。
Str。 And is therefore not the same。
Theaet。 It is not。
Str。 Yet； surely； motion is the same； because all things partake
of the same。
Theaet。 Very true。
Str。 Then we must admit； and not object to say； that motion is the
same and is not the same； for we do not apply the terms 〃same〃 and
〃not the same；〃 in the same sense； but we call it the 〃same；〃 in
relation to itself； because partaking of the same； and not the same；
because having communion with the other； it is thereby severed from
the same； and has become not that but other； and is therefore
rightly spoken of as 〃not the same。〃
Theaet。 To be sure。
Str。 And if absolute motion in any point of view partook of rest；
there would be no absurdity in calling motion stationary。
Theaet。 Quite right； …that is； on the supposition that some
classes mingle with one another； and others not。
Str。 That such a communion of kinds is according to nature； we had
already proved before we arrived at this part of our discussion。
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 Let us proceed； then。 we not say that motion is other than
the other； having been also proved by us to be other than
the same and
other than rest？
Theaet。 That is certain。
Str。 Then； according to this view； motion is other and also not
other？
Theaet。 True。
Str。 What is the next step？ Shall we say that motion is other than
the three and not other than the fourth…for we agreed that there are
five classes about and in the sphere of which we proposed to make
enquiry？
Theaet。 Surely we cannot admit that the number is less than it
appeared to be just now。
Str。 Then we may without fear contend that motion is other than
being？
Theaet。 Without the least fear。
Str。 The plain result is that motion； since it partakes of being；
really is and also is not？
Theaet。 Nothing can be plainer。
Str。 Then not…being necessarily exists in the case of motion and
of every class； for the nature of the other entering into them all；
makes each of them other than being； and so non…existent； and
therefore of all of them； in like manner； we may truly say that they
are not…and again； inasmuch as they partake of being； that they are
and are existent。
Theaet。 So we may assume。
Str。 Every class； then； has plurality