[256a]
Stranger
But it exists, by reason of its participation in being.Theaetetus
Yes, it exists.Stranger
Now motion again is other than the same.Theaetetus
You're about right.Stranger
Therefore it is not the same.Theaetetus
No, it is not.Stranger
But yet we found it was the same, because all things partake of the same.Theaetetus
Certainly.Stranger
Then we must admit that motion is the same and is not the same, and we must not be disturbed thereby; for when we say it is the same and not the same, we do not use the words alike. When we call it the same, we do so because it partakes [256b] of the same in relation to itself, and when we call it not the same, we do so on account of its participation in the other, by which it is separated from the same and becomes not that but other, so that it is correctly spoken of in turn as not the same.Theaetetus
Yes, certainly.Stranger
Then even if absolute motion partook in any way of rest, it would not be absurd to say it was at rest?Theaetetus
It would be perfectly right, if we are to admit that some of the classes will mingle with one another, and others will not. [256c] Stranger
And surely we demonstrated that before we took up our present points; we proved that it was according to nature.1Theaetetus
Yes, of course.Stranger
Then let us recapitulate: Motion is other than the other, just as we found it to be other than the same and than rest. Is that true?Theaetetus
Inevitably.Stranger
Then it is in a sense not other and also other, according to our present reasoning.Theaetetus
True.Stranger
Now how about the next point? Shall we say next that motion is other than the three, but not other than the fourth,—that is, if we have agreed that the classes [256d] about which and within which we undertook to carry on our inquiry are five in number?Theaetetus
How can we say that? For we cannot admit that the number is less than was shown just now.Stranger
Then we may fearlessly persist in contending that motion is other than being?Theaetetus
Yes, most fearlessly.Stranger
It is clear, then, that motion really is not, and also that it is, since it partakes of being?Theaetetus
That is perfectly clear.Stranger
In relation to motion, then, not-being is. That is inevitable. And this extends to all the classes; for in all of them [256e] the nature of other so operates as to make each one other than being, and therefore not-being. So we may, from this point of view, rightly say of all of them alike that they are not; and again, since they partake of being, that they are and have being.Theaetetus
Yes, I suppose so.Stranger
And so, in relation to each of the classes, being is many, and not-being is infinite in number.2Theaetetus
So it seems.
But it exists, by reason of its participation in being.Theaetetus
Yes, it exists.Stranger
Now motion again is other than the same.Theaetetus
You're about right.Stranger
Therefore it is not the same.Theaetetus
No, it is not.Stranger
But yet we found it was the same, because all things partake of the same.Theaetetus
Certainly.Stranger
Then we must admit that motion is the same and is not the same, and we must not be disturbed thereby; for when we say it is the same and not the same, we do not use the words alike. When we call it the same, we do so because it partakes [256b] of the same in relation to itself, and when we call it not the same, we do so on account of its participation in the other, by which it is separated from the same and becomes not that but other, so that it is correctly spoken of in turn as not the same.Theaetetus
Yes, certainly.Stranger
Then even if absolute motion partook in any way of rest, it would not be absurd to say it was at rest?Theaetetus
It would be perfectly right, if we are to admit that some of the classes will mingle with one another, and others will not. [256c] Stranger
And surely we demonstrated that before we took up our present points; we proved that it was according to nature.1Theaetetus
Yes, of course.Stranger
Then let us recapitulate: Motion is other than the other, just as we found it to be other than the same and than rest. Is that true?Theaetetus
Inevitably.Stranger
Then it is in a sense not other and also other, according to our present reasoning.Theaetetus
True.Stranger
Now how about the next point? Shall we say next that motion is other than the three, but not other than the fourth,—that is, if we have agreed that the classes [256d] about which and within which we undertook to carry on our inquiry are five in number?Theaetetus
How can we say that? For we cannot admit that the number is less than was shown just now.Stranger
Then we may fearlessly persist in contending that motion is other than being?Theaetetus
Yes, most fearlessly.Stranger
It is clear, then, that motion really is not, and also that it is, since it partakes of being?Theaetetus
That is perfectly clear.Stranger
In relation to motion, then, not-being is. That is inevitable. And this extends to all the classes; for in all of them [256e] the nature of other so operates as to make each one other than being, and therefore not-being. So we may, from this point of view, rightly say of all of them alike that they are not; and again, since they partake of being, that they are and have being.Theaetetus
Yes, I suppose so.Stranger
And so, in relation to each of the classes, being is many, and not-being is infinite in number.2Theaetetus
So it seems.
