fancying that we are quite clear about them。
Theaet。 Say more distinctly what you mean。
Str。 I think that Parmenides； and all ever yet undertook to
determine the number and nature of existences； talked to us in
rather a light and easy strain。
Theaet。 How？
Str。 As if we had been children； to whom they repeated each his
own mythus or story；…one said that there were three principles； and
that at one time there was war between certain of them； and
then again
there was peace； and they were married and begat children；
and brought
them up； and another spoke of two principles；…a moist and a dry； or
a hot and a cold； and made them marry and cohabit。 The Eleatics；
however； in our part of the world； say that things are many in name；
but in nature one； this is their mythus； which goes back to
Xenophanes； and is even older。 Then there are Ionian； and in more
recent times Sicilian muses； who have arrived at the conclusion that
to unite the two principles is safer； and to say that being
is one and
many； and that these are held together by enmity and friendship；
ever parting； ever meeting； as the…severer Muses assert； while the
gentler ones do not insist on the perpetual strife and peace； but
admit a relaxation and alternation of them； peace and unity
sometimes prevailing under the sway of Aphrodite； and then again
plurality and war； by reason of a principle of strife。 Whether any
of them spoke the truth in all this is hard to determine； besides；
antiquity and famous men should have reverence； and not be liable to
accusations； so serious； Yet one thing may be said of them without
offence…
Theaet。 What thing？
Str。 That they went on their several ways disdaining to notice
people like ourselves； they did not care whether they took us with
them； or left us behind them。
Theaet。 How do you mean？
Str。 I mean to say； that when they talk of one； two； or more
elements； which are or have become or are becoming； or again of heat
mingling with cold； assuming in some other part of their works
separations and mixtures；…tell me； Theaetetus； do you understand
what they mean by these expressions？ When I was a younger man； I
used to fancy that I understood quite well what was meant by the
term 〃not…being；〃 which is our present subject of dispute；
and now you
see in what a fix we are about it。
Theaet。 I see。
Str。 And very likely we have been getting into the same perplexity
about 〃being；〃 and yet may fancy that when anybody utters
the word； we
understand him quite easily； although we do not know about
not…being。 But we may be； equally ignorant of both。
Theaet。 I dare say。
Str。 And the same may be said of all the terms just mentioned。
Theaet。 True。
Str。 The consideration of most of them may be deferred； but we had
better now discuss the chief captain and leader of them。
Theaet。 Of what are you speaking？ You clearly think that we must
first investigate what people mean by the word 〃being。〃
Str。 You follow close at heels； Theaetetus。 For the right method；
I conceive； will be to call into our presence the dualistic
philosophers and to interrogate them。 〃Come；〃 we will say； 〃Ye； who
affirm that hot and cold or any other two principles are the
universe；
what is this term which you apply to both of them； and what do you
mean when you say that both and each of them 'are'？ How are we to
understand the word 'are'？ Upon your view； are we to suppose that
there is a third principle over and above the other two…three in
all； and not two？ For clearly you cannot say that one of the two
principles is being； and yet attribute being equally to both of
them； for； if you did； whichever of the two is identified with
being； will comprehend the other； and so they will be one and not
two。〃
Theaet。 Very true。
Str。 But perhaps you mean to give the name of 〃being〃 to both of
them together？
Theaet。 Quite likely。
Str。 〃Then； friends；〃 we shall reply to them； 〃the answer
is plainly
that the two will still be resolved into one。〃
Theaet。 Most true。
Str。 〃Since then； we are in a difficulty； please to tell
us what you
mean； when you speak of being； for there can be no doubt that you
always from the first understood your own meaning； whereas we once
thought that we understood you； but now we are in a great strait。
Please to begin by explaining this matter to us； and let us no
longer fancy that we understand you； when we entirely misunderstand
you。〃 There will be no impropriety in our demanding an answer to
this question； either of the dualists or of the pluralists？
Theaet。 Certainly not。
Str。 And what about the assertors of the oneness of the all…must
we not endeavour to ascertain from them what they mean by 〃being〃？
Theaet。 By all means。
Str。 Then let them answer this question： One； you say； alone is？
〃Yes；〃 they will reply。
Theaet。 True。
Str。 And there is something which you call 〃being〃？
Theaet。 〃Yes。〃
Str。 And is being the same as one； and do you apply two
names to the
same thing？
Theaet。 What will be their answer； Stranger？
Str。 It is clear； Theaetetus； that he who asserts the
unity of being
will find a difficulty in answering this or any other question。
Theaet。 Why so？
Str。 To admit of two names； and to affirm that there is nothing
but unity； is surely ridiculous？
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 And equally irrational to admit that a name is anything？
Theaet。 How so？
Str。 To distinguish the name from the thing； implies duality。
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 And yet he who identifies the name with the thing will be
compelled to say that it is the name of nothing； or if he
says that it
is the name of something； even then the name will only be the name
of a name； and of nothing else。
Theaet。 True。
Str。 And the one will turn out to be only one of one； and being
absolute unity； will represent a mere name。
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 And would they say that the whole is other than the one that
is； or the same with it？
Theaet。 To be sure they would； and they actually say so。
Str。 If being is a whole； as Parmenides sings；…
Every way like unto the fullness of a well…rounded sphere；
Evenly balanced from the centre on every side；
And must needs be neither greater nor less in any way；
Neither on this side nor on that…
then being has a centre and extremes； and； having these； must also
have parts。
Theaet。 True。
Str。 Yet that which has parts may have the attribute of
unity in all
the parts； and in this way being all and a whole； may be one？
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 But that of which this is the condition cannot be absolute
unity？
Theaet。 Why not？
Str。 Because； according to right reason； that which is truly one
must be affirmed to be absolutely indivisible。
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 But this indivisible； if made up of many parts； will
contradict
reason。
Theaet。 I understand。
Str。 Shall we say that being is one and a whole； because it has
the attribute of unity？ Or shall we say that being is not a whole at
all？
Theaet。 That is a hard alternative to offer。
Str。 Most true； for being； having in a certain sense the attribute
of one； is yet proved not to be the same as one； and the all is
therefore more than one。
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 And yet if being be not a whole； through having the attribute
of unity； and there be such a thing as an absolute whole； being
lacks something of its own nature？
Theaet。 Certainly。
Str。 Upon this view； again； being； having a defect of being； will
become not…being？
Theaet。 True。
Str。 And； again； the all becomes more than one； for being and the
whole will each have their separate nature。
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 But if the whole does not exist at all； all the previous
difficulties remain the same； and there will be the further
difficulty； that besides having no being； being can never have come
into being。
Theaet。 Why so？
Str。 Because that which comes into being always comes into being
as a whole； so that he who does not give whole a place among beings；
cannot speak either of essence or generation as existing。
Theaet。 Yes； that certainly appears to be true。
Str。 Again； how can that which is not a whole have any
quantity？ For
that which is of a certain quantity must necessarily be the whole of
that quantity。
Theaet。 Exactly。
Str。 And there will be innumerable other points； each of them
causing infinite trouble to him who says that being is either； one
or two。
Theaet。 The difficulties which are dawning upon us prove this； for
one objection connects with another； and they are always involving
what has preceded in a greater and worse perplexity。
Str。 We are far from having exhausted the more exact thinkers who
treat of being and not…being。 But let us be content to leave
them； and
proceed to view those who speak less precisely； and we shall find as
the result of all； that the nature of being is quite as difficult to
comprehend as that of not…being。
Theaet。 Then now we will go to the others。
Str。 There appears to be a sort of war of Giants and Gods going on
amongst them； they are fighting with one another about the nature of
essence。
Theaet。 How is that？
Str。 Some of them are dragging down all things from heaven and
from the unseen to earth； and they literally grasp in their hands
rocks and oaks； of these they lay hold； and obstinately
maintain； that
the things only which can be touched or handled have being
or essence；
because they define being and body as one； and if any one else says
that what is not a body exists they altogether despise him； and will
hear of nothing but body。
Theaet。 I have often met with such men； and terrible fellows they
are。
Str。 And that is the reason why their opponents cautiously defend
themselves from above； out of an unseen world； mightily contending
that true essence consists of certain intelligible and incorporeal
ideas； the bodies of the materialists； which by them are
maintained to
be the very truth； they brea