FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   >>  
ngs was held by us to be impossible? Impossible. Then the others are neither like nor unlike nor both, for if they were like or unlike they would partake of one of those two natures, which would be one thing, and if they were both they would partake of opposites which would be two things, and this has been shown to be impossible. True. Therefore they are neither the same, nor other, nor in motion, nor at rest, nor in a state of becoming, nor of being destroyed, nor greater, nor less, nor equal, nor have they experienced anything else of the sort; for, if they are capable of experiencing any such affection, they will participate in one and two and three, and odd and even, and in these, as has been proved, they do not participate, seeing that they are altogether and in every way devoid of the one. Very true. Therefore if one is, the one is all things, and also nothing, both in relation to itself and to other things. Certainly. 2.a. Well, and ought we not to consider next what will be the consequence if the one is not? Yes; we ought. What is the meaning of the hypothesis--If the one is not; is there any difference between this and the hypothesis--If the not one is not? There is a difference, certainly. Is there a difference only, or rather are not the two expressions--if the one is not, and if the not one is not, entirely opposed? They are entirely opposed. And suppose a person to say:--If greatness is not, if smallness is not, or anything of that sort, does he not mean, whenever he uses such an expression, that 'what is not' is other than other things? To be sure. And so when he says 'If one is not' he clearly means, that what 'is not' is other than all others; we know what he means--do we not? Yes, we do. When he says 'one,' he says something which is known; and secondly something which is other than all other things; it makes no difference whether he predicate of one being or not-being, for that which is said 'not to be' is known to be something all the same, and is distinguished from other things. Certainly. Then I will begin again, and ask: If one is not, what are the consequences? In the first place, as would appear, there is a knowledge of it, or the very meaning of the words, 'if one is not,' would not be known. True. Secondly, the others differ from it, or it could not be described as different from the others? Certainly. Difference, then, belongs to it
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   >>  



Top keywords:

things

 

difference

 
Certainly
 

impossible

 

hypothesis

 

participate

 

meaning

 
unlike

partake
 

opposed

 

Therefore

 

suppose

 

greatness

 
person
 

smallness

 

expression


Secondly

 
knowledge
 

differ

 

belongs

 

Difference

 

predicate

 

distinguished

 

consequences


consequence

 

experiencing

 
affection
 

capable

 

experienced

 

altogether

 

proved

 

motion


opposites

 

natures

 

greater

 

destroyed

 

expressions

 

Impossible

 

devoid

 

relation