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！
carry on the argument in the best way； and that you should take me
with you。
Str。 Very good； and now say； do we venture to utter the forbidden
word 〃not…being〃？
Theaet。 Certainly we do。
Str。 Let us be serious then； and consider the question neither in
strife nor play： suppose that one of the hearers of Parmenides was
asked； 〃To is the term 'not…being' to be applied？〃…do you know what
sort of object he would single out in reply； and what answer he
would make to the enquirer？
Theaet。 That is a difficult question； and one not to be answered
at all by a person like myself。
Str。 There is at any rate no difficulty in seeing that the
predicate
〃not…being〃 is not applicable to any being。
Theaet。 None； certainly。
Str。 And if not to being； then not to something。
Theaet。 Of course not。
Str。 It is also plain； that in speaking of something we speak of
being； for to speak of an abstract something naked and isolated from
all being is impossible。
Theaet。 Impossible。
Str。 You mean by assenting to imply that he who says something
must say some one thing？
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 Some in the singular （ti） you would say is the sign of one；
some in the dual （tine） of two； some in the plural （tines） of many？
Theaet。 Exactly。
Str。 Then he who says 〃not something〃 must say absolutely nothing。
Theaet。 Most assuredly。
Str。 And as we cannot admit that a man speaks and says nothing； he
who says 〃not…being〃 does not speak at all。
Theaet。 The difficulty of the argument can no further go。
Str。 Not yet； my friend； is the time for such a word； for there
still remains of all perplexities the first and greatest；
touching the
very foundation of the matter。
Theaet。 What do you mean？ Do not be afraid to speak。
Str。 To that which is； may be attributed some other thing which is？
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 But can anything which is； be attributed to that which is not？
Theaet。 Impossible。
Str。 And all number is to be reckoned among things which are？
Theaet。 Yes； surely number； if anything； has a real existence。
Str。 Then we must not attempt to attribute to not…being number
either in the singular or plural？
Theaet。 The argument implies that we should be wrong in doing so。
Str。 But how can a man either express in words or even conceive in
thought things which are not or a thing which is not without number？
Theaet。 How indeed？
Str。 When we speak of things which are not attributing plurality
to not…being？
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 But； on the other hand； when we say 〃what is not；〃 do we not
attribute unity？
Theaet。 Manifestly。
Str。 Nevertheless； we maintain that you may not and ought not to
attribute being to not…being？
Theaet。 Most true。
Str。 Do you see； then； that not…being in itself can neither be
spoken； uttered； or thought； but that it is unthinkable；
unutterable； unspeakable； indescribable？
Theaet。 Quite true。
Str。 But； if so； I was wrong in telling you just now that the
difficulty which was coming is the greatest of all。
Theaet。 What！ is there a greater still behind？
Str。 Well； I am surprised； after what has been said already； that
you do not see the difficulty in which he who would refute the
notion of not…being is involved。 For he is compelled to contradict
himself as soon as he makes the attempt。
Theaet。 What do you mean？ Speak more clearly。
Str。 Do not expect clearness from me。 For I； who maintain that
not…being has no part either in the one or many； just now
spoke and am
still speaking of not…being as one； for I say 〃not…being。〃 Do you
understand？
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 And a little while ago I said that not…being is unutterable；
unspeakable； indescribable： do you follow？
Theaet。 I do after a fashion。
Str。 When I introduced the word 〃is；〃 did I not contradict what I
said before？
Theaet。 Clearly。
Str。 And in using the singular verb； did I not speak of
not…being as
one？
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 And when I spoke of not…being as indescribable and
unspeakable and unutterable； in using each of these words in the
singular； did I not refer to not…being as one？
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 And yet we say that； strictly speaking； it should not be
defined as one or many； and should not even be called 〃it；〃 for the
use of the word 〃it〃 would imply a form of unity。
Theaet。 Quite true。
Str。 How； then； can any one put any faith in me？ For now；
as always；
I am unequal to the refutation of not…being。 And therefore； as I was
saying； do not look to me for the right way of speaking about
not…being； but come； let us try the experiment with you。
Theaet。 What do you mean？
Str。 Make a noble effort； as becomes youth； and endeavour with all
your might to speak of not…being in a right manner； without
introducing into it either existence or unity or plurality。
Theaet。 It would be a strange boldness in me which would
attempt the
task when I see you thus discomfited。
Str。 Say no more of ourselves； but until we find some one or other
who can speak of not…being without number； we must acknowledge that
the Sophist is a clever rogue who will not be got out of his hole。
Theaet。 Most true。
Str。 And if we say to him that he professes an art of making
appearances； he will grapple with us and retort our argument upon
ourselves； and when we call him an image…maker he will say；
〃Pray what
do you mean at all by an image？〃 …and I should like to know；
Theaetetus； how we can possibly answer the younker's question？
Theaet。 We shall doubtless tell him of the images which are
reflected in water or in mirrors； also of sculptures； pictures； and
other duplicates。
Str。 I see； Theaetetus； that you have never made the
acquaintance of
the Sophist。
Theaet。 Why do you think so？
Str。 He will make believe to have his eyes shut； or to have none。
Theaet。 What do you mean？
Str。 When you tell him of something existing in a mirror； or in
sculpture； and address him as though he had eyes； he will
laugh you to
scorn； and will pretend that he knows nothing of mirrors and
streams； or of sight at all； he will say that he is asking about an
idea。
Theaet。 What can he mean？
Str。 The common notion pervading all these objects； which you
speak of as many； and yet call by the single name of image； as
though it were the unity under which they were all included。 How
will you maintain your ground against him？
Theaet。 How。 Stranger； can I describe an image except as something
fashioned in the likeness of the true？
Str。 And do you mean this something to be some other true thing；
or what do you mean？
Theaet。 Certainly not another true thing； but only a resemblance。
Str。 And you mean by true that which really is？
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 And the not true is that which is the opposite of the true？
Theaet。 Exactly。
Str。 A resemblance； then； is not really real； if； as you say； not
true？
Theaet。 Nay； but it is in a certain sense。
Str。 You mean to say； not in a true sense？
Theaet。 Yes； it is in reality only an image。
Str。 Then what we call an image is in reality really unreal。
Theaet。 In what a strange complication of being and
not…being we are
involved！
Str。 Strange！ I should think so。 See how； by his reciprocation of
opposites； the many…headed Sophist has compelled us； quite
against our
will； to admit the existence of not…being。
Theaet。 Yes； indeed； I see。
Str。 The difficulty is how to define his art without falling into
a contradiction。
Theaet。 How do you mean？ And where does the danger lie？
Str。 When we say that he deceives us with an illusion； and that
his art is illusory； do we mean that our soul is led by his art to
think falsely； or what do we mean？
Theaet。 There is nothing else to be said。
Str。 Again； false opinion is that form of opinion which thinks the
opposite of the truth：…You would assent？
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 You mean to say that false opinion thinks what is not？
Theaet。 Of course。
Str。 Does false opinion think that things which are not are