parmenides-第13章
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！
it would at once be and be like them in virtue of the equality； but if
one has no being； then it can neither be nor be like？
It cannot。
But since it is not equal to the others； neither can the others be
equal to it？
Certainly not。
And things that are not equal are unequal？
True。
And they are unequal to an unequal？
Of course。
Then the one partakes of inequality； and in respect of this the
others are unequal to it？
Very true。
And inequality implies greatness and smallness？
Yes。
Then the one； if of such a nature； has greatness and smallness？
That appears to be true。
And greatness and smallness always stand apart？
True。
Then there is always something between them？
There is。
And can you think of anything else which is between them other
than equality？
No； it is equality which lies between them。
Then that which has greatness and smallness also has equality； which
lies between them？
That is clear。
Then the one； which is not； partakes； as would appear； of
greatness and smallness and equality？
Clearly。
Further； it must surely in a sort partake of being？
How so？
It must be so； for if not； then we should not speak the truth in
saying that the one is not。 But if we speak the truth； clearly we must
say what is。 Am I not right？
Yes。
And since we affirm that we speak truly； we must also affirm that we
say what is？
Certainly。
Then； as would appear； the one； when it is not； is； for if it were
not to be when it is not； but were to relinquish something of being；
so as to become not…being； it would at once be。
Quite true。
Then the one which is not； if it is to maintain itself； must have
the being of not…being as the bond of not…being； just as being must
have as a bond the not…being of not…being in order to perfect its
own being； for the truest assertion of the being of being and of the
not…being of not being is when being partakes of the being of being；
and not of the being of not…being…that is； the perfection of being；
and when not…being does not partake of the not…being of not…being
but of the being of not…being…that is the perfection of not…being。
Most true。
Since then what is partakes of not…being； and what is not of
being； must not the one also partake of being in order not to be？
Certainly。
Then the one； if it is not； clearly has being？
Clearly。
And has not…being also； if it is not？
Of course。
But can anything which is in a certain state not be in that state
without changing？
Impossible。
Then everything which is and is not in a certain state； implies
change？
Certainly。
And change is motion…we may say that？
Yes； motion。
And the one has been proved both to be and not to be？
Yes。
And therefore is and is not in the same state？
Yes。
Thus the one that is not has been shown to have motion also； because
it changes from being to not…being？
That appears to be true。
But surely if it is nowhere among what is； as is the fact； since
it is not； it cannot change from one place to another？
Impossible。
Then it cannot move by changing place？
No。
Nor can it turn on the same spot； for it nowhere touches the same；
for the same is； and that which is not cannot be reckoned among things
that are？
It cannot。
Then the one； if it is not； cannot turn in that in which it is not？
No。
Neither can the one； whether it is or is not； be altered into
other than itself； for if it altered and became different from itself；
then we could not be still speaking of the one； but of something else？
True。
But if the one neither suffers alteration； nor turns round in the
same place； nor changes place； can it still be capable of motion？
Impossible。
Now that which is unmoved must surely be at rest； and that which
is at rest must stand still？
Certainly。
Then the one that is not； stands still； and is also in motion？
That seems to be true。
But if it be in motion it must necessarily undergo alteration； for
anything which is moved； in so far as it is moved； is no longer in the
same state； but in another？
Yes。
Then the one； being moved； is altered？
Yes。
And； further； if not moved in any way； it will not be altered in any
way？
No。
Then； in so far as the one that is not is moved； it is altered；
but in so far as it is not moved； it is not altered？
Right。
Then the one that is not is altered and is not altered？
That is clear。
And must not that which is altered become other than it previously
was； and lose its former state and be destroyed； but that which is not
altered can neither come into being nor be destroyed？
Very true。
And the one that is not； being altered； becomes and is destroyed；
and not being altered； neither becomes nor is destroyed； and so the
one that is not becomes and is destroyed； and neither becomes nor is
destroyed？
True。
And now； let us go back once more to the beginning； and see
whether these or some other consequences will follow。
Let us do as you say。
If one is not； we ask what will happen in respect of one？ That is
the question。
Yes。
Do not the words 〃is not〃 signify absence of being in that to
which we apply them？
Just so。
And when we say that a thing is not； do we mean that it is not in
one way but is in another？ or do we mean； absolutely； that what is not
has in no sort or way or kind participation of being？
Quite absolutely。
Then； that which is not cannot be； or in any way participate in
being？
It cannot。
And did we not mean by becoming； and being destroyed； the assumption
of being and the loss of being？
Nothing else。
And can that which has no participation in being； either assume or
lose being？
Impossible。
The one then； since it in no way is； cannot have or lose or assume
being in any way？
True。
Then the one that is not； since it in no way partakes of being；
neither nor becomes？
No。
Then it is not altered at all； for if it were it would become and be
destroyed？
True。
But if it be not altered it cannot be moved？
Certainly not。
Nor can we say that it stands； if it is nowhere； for that which
stands must always be in one and the same spot？
Of course。
Then we must say that the one which is not never stands still and
never moves？
Neither。
Nor is there any existing thing which can be attributed to it； for
if there had been； it would partake of being？
That is clear。
And therefore neither smallness； nor greatness； nor equality； can be
attributed to it？
No。
Nor yet likeness nor difference； either in relation to itself or
to others？
Clearly not。
Well； and if nothing should be attributed to it； can other things be
attributed to it？
Certainly not。
And therefore other things can neither be like or unlike； the
same； or different in relation to it？
They cannot。
Nor can what is not； be anything； or be this thing； or be related to
or the attribute of this or that or other； or be past； present； or
future。 Nor can knowledge； or opinion； or perception； or expression；
or name； or any other thing that is； have any concern with it？
No。
Then the one that is not has no condition of any kind？
Such appears to be the conclusion。
Yet once more； if one is not； what becomes of the others？ Let us
determine that。
Yes； let us determine that。
The others must surely be； for if they； like the one； were not； we
could not be now speaking of them。
True。
