parmenides-第7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！
True。
Then it has the greatest number of parts？
Yes； the greatest number。
Is there any of these which is a part of being； and yet no part？
Impossible。
But if it is at all and so long as it is； it must be one； and cannot
be none？
Certainly。
Then the one attaches to every single part of being； and does not
fail in any part； whether great or small； or whatever may be the
size of it？
True。
But reflect：…an one in its entirety； be in many places at the same
time？
No； I see the impossibility of that。
And if not in its entirety； then it is divided； for it cannot be
present with all the parts of being； unless divided。
True。
And that which has parts will be as many as the parts are？
Certainly。
Then we were wrong in saying just now； that being was distributed
into the greatest number of parts。 For it is not distributed into
parts more than the one； into parts equal to the one； the one is never
wanting to being； or being to the one； but being two they are co…equal
and coextensive。
Certainly that is true。
The one itself； then； having been broken up into parts by being；
is many and infinite？
True。
Then not only the one which has being is many； but the one itself
distributed by being； must also be many？
Certainly。
Further； inasmuch as the parts are parts of a whole； the one； as a
whole； will be limited； for are not the parts contained the whole？
Certainly。
And that which contains； is a limit？
Of course。
Then the one if it has being is one and many； whole and parts；
having limits and yet unlimited in number？
Clearly。
And because having limits； also having extremes？
Certainly。
And if a whole； having beginning and middle and end。 For can
anything be a whole without these three？ And if any one of them is
wanting to anything； will that any longer be a whole？
No。
Then the one； as appears； will have beginning； middle； and end。
It will。
But； again； the middle will be equidistant from the extremes； or
it would not be in the middle？
Yes。
Then the one will partake of figure； either rectilinear or round； or
a union of the two？
True。
And if this is the case； it will be both in itself and in another
too。
How？
Every part is in the whole； and none is outside the whole。
True。
And all the parts are contained by the whole？
Yes。
And the one is all its parts； and neither more nor less than all？
No。
And the one is the whole？
Of course。
But if all the parts are in the whole； and the one is all of them
and the whole； and they are all contained by the whole； the one will
be contained by the one； and thus the one will be in itself。
That is true。
But then； again； the whole is not in the parts…neither in all the
parts； nor in some one of them。 For if it is in all； it must be in
one； for if there were any one in which it was not； it could not be in
all the parts； for the part in which it is wanting is one of all；
and if the whole is not in this； how can it be in them all？
It cannot。
Nor can the whole be in some of the parts； for if the whole were
in some of the parts； the greater would be in the less； which is
impossible。
Yes； impossible。
But if the whole is neither in one； nor in more than one； nor in all
of the parts； it must be in something else； or cease to be anywhere at
all？
Certainly。
If it were nowhere； it would be nothing； but being a whole； and
not being in itself； it must be in another。
Very true。
The one then； regarded as a whole； is in another； but regarded as
being all its parts； is in itself； and therefore the one must be
itself in itself and also in another。
Certainly。
The one then； being of this nature； is of necessity both at rest and
in motion？
How？
The one is at rest since it is in itself； for being in one； and
not passing out of this； it is in the same； which is itself。
True。
And that which is ever in the same； must be ever at rest？
Certainly。
Well； and must not that； on the contrary； which is ever in other；
never be in the same； and if never in the same； never at rest； and
if not at rest； in motion？
True。
Then the one being always itself in itself and other； must always be
both at rest and in motion？
Clearly。
And must be the same with itself； and other than itself； and also
the same with the others； and other than the others； this follows from
its previous affections。
How so？
Every thing in relation to every other thing； is either the same
or other； or if neither the same nor other； then in the relation of
a part to a whole； or of a whole to a part。
Clearly。
And is the one a part of itself？
Certainly not。
Since it is not a part in relation to itself it cannot be related to
itself as whole to part？
It cannot。
But is the one other than one？
No。
And therefore not other than itself？
Certainly not。
If then it be neither other； nor a whole； nor a part in relation
to itself； must it not be the same with itself？
Certainly。
But then； again； a thing which is in another place from 〃itself；〃 if
this 〃itself〃 remains in the same place with itself； must be other
than 〃itself；〃 for it will be in another place？
True。
Then the one has been shown to be at once in itself and in another？
Yes。
Thus； then； as appears； the one will be other than itself？
True。
Well； then； if anything be other than anything； will it not be other
than that which is other？
Certainly。
And will not all things that are not one； be other than the one； and
the one other than the not…one？
Of course。
Then the one will be other than the others？
True。
But； consider：…Are not the absolute same； and the absolute other；
opposites to one another？
Of course。
Then will the same ever be in the other； or the other in the same？
They will not。
If then the other is never in the same； there is nothing in which
the other is during any space of time； for during that space of
time； however small； the other would be in the game。 Is not that true？
Yes。
And since the other…is never in the same； it can never be in anything
that is。
True。
Then the other will never be either in the not one； or in the one？
Certainly not。
Then not by reason of otherness is the one other than the not…one；
or the not…one other than the one。
No。
Nor by reason of themselves will they be other than one another；
if not partaking of the other。
How can they be？
But if they are not other； either by reason of themselves or of
the other； will they not altogether escape being other than one
another？
They will。
Again； the not…one cannot partake of the one； otherwise it would not
have been not…one； but would have been in some way one。
True。
Nor can the not…one be number； for having number； it would not
have been not…one at all。
It would not。
Again； is the not…one part of the one； or rather； would it not in
that case partake of the one？
It would。
If then； in every point of view； the one and the not…one are
distinct； then neither is the one part or whole of the not…one； nor is
the not…one part or whole of the one？
No。
But we said that things which are neither parts nor wholes of one
another； nor other than one another； will be the same with one
another： …so we said？
Yes。
Then shall we say that the one； being in this relation to the
not…one； is the same with it？
Let us say so。
Then it is the same with itself and
