Cephalos Ceph. In so far as the one is other than the others and the others are other than the one, the one and the others are not in different states, but in the same state; but whatever is in the same state is like, is it not? Yes. Then in so far as the one is in the state of being other than the others, just so far everything is like all other things; for everything is other than all other things. So it appears. But the like is opposed to the unlike. Yes. And the other to the same. That is also true. But this, too, was shown, that the one is the same as the others. 148b Yes, it was. And being the same as the others is the opposite of being other than the others. Certainly. In so far as it was other it was shown to be like. Yes. Then in so far as it is the same it will be unlike, since it has a quality which is the opposite of the quality which makes it like, for the other made it like. Yes. Then the same will make it unlike; otherwise the same will not be the opposite of the other. 148c So it appears. Then the one will be both like and unlike the others, like in so far as it is other, unlike in so far as it is the same. Yes, that sort of conclusion seems to be tenable. But there is another besides. What is it? In so far as it is in the same state, the one is not in another state, and not being in another state it is not unlike, and not being unlike it is like but in so far as it is in another state, it is of another sort, and being of another sort it is unlike. True. Then the one, because it is the same as the others and because it is other than the others, for both these reasons or for either of them would be both like and unlike the others. 148d Certainly. And likewise, since it has been shown to be other than itself and the same as itself, the one will for both these reasons or for either of them be both like and unlike itself. That is inevitable. Now, then, consider the question whether the one touches or does not touch itself and other things. I am considering. The one was shown, I think, to be in the whole of itself. Right. And the one is also in other things? Yes. Then by reason of being in the others 148e it would touch them, and by reason of being in itself it would be prevented from touching the others, but would touch itself, since it is in itself. That is clear. Thus the one would touch itself and the other things. It would. But how about this? Must not everything which is to touch anything be next to that which it is to touch, and occupy that position which, being next to that of the other, touches it? It must. Then the one, if it is to touch itself, must lie next to itself and occupy the position next to that in which it is. Yes, it must.

Ceph. The one, then, might do this if it were two, and might be in two places at once; but so long as it is one, it will not? No, it will not. The one can no more touch itself than it can be two. No. Nor, again, will it touch the others. Why not? Because, as we agreed, that which is to touch anything must be outside of that which it is to touch, and next it, and there must be no third between them. True. Then there must be two, at least, if there is to be contact. There must. And if 149b to the two a third be added in immediate succession, there will be three terms and two contacts. Yes. And thus whenever one is added, one contact also is added, and the number of contacts is always one less than the number of terms; for every succeeding number of terms exceeds the number of all the contacts just as much as the first two terms exceeded the number of their contacts. 149c For after the first every additional term adds one to the number of contacts. Right. Then whatever the number of terms, the contacts are always one less. True. But if only one exists, and not two, there can be no contact. Of course not. We affirm that those things which are other than one are not one and do not partake of oneness, since they are other. They do not. Then there is no number in others, if one is not in them. Of course not. Then the others are neither one nor two, 149d nor have they the name of any other number. No. The one is, then, only one, and there can be no two. That is clear. There is no contact if there are no two terms. No, there is none. Then the one does not touch the others, nor the others the one, since there is no contact. No, certainly not. Thus on all these grounds the one touches and does not touch itself and the others. So it appears.

And is the one both equal and unequal to itself and the others? How is that? If the one were greater or less than the others, 149e or, again, the others greater or less than the one, is it not true that the one, considered merely as one, and the others, considered merely as others, would be neither greater nor less than one another, so far as their own natures are concerned; but if in addition to their own natures, they both possessed equality, they would be equal to one another or if the others possessed greatness and the one smallness, or vice versa, that class to which greatness was added would be greater, and that to which smallness was added would be smaller? Certainly.

Ceph. These two ideas, greatness and smallness, exist, do they not? For if they did not exist, they could not be opposites of one another and could not come into being in things. That is obvious. 150a Then if smallness comes into being in the one, it would be either in a part or in the whole of it. Necessarily. What if it be in the whole of one? Will it not either be on an equality with the one, extending throughout the whole of it, or else contain it? Clearly. And if smallness be on an equality with the one, will it not be equal to the one, and if it contain the one, greater than the one? Of course. But can smallness be equal to anything or greater than anything, performing the functions of greatness or equality and not its own functions? 150b No, it cannot. Then smallness cannot exist in the whole of the one, but, if at all, only in a part of it. Yes. And neither can it exist in a whole part, for then it will behave just as it did in relation to the whole; it will be equal to or greater than the part in which it happens to exist. Inevitably. Then smallness will never exist in anything, either in a part or in a whole, nor will anything be small except absolute smallness. So it appears. Nor will greatness exist in the one. 150c For in that case, something other than absolute greatness and differing from it, namely that in which greatness exists, would be greater, and that although there is no smallness in it, which greatness must exceed, if it be great. But this is impossible, since smallness exists nowhere. True. But absolute greatness is not greater than anything but absolute smallness, and absolute smallness is not smaller than anything but absolute greatness. No. Then other things are neither greater nor smaller than the one, if they have neither greatness nor smallness, 150d nor have even these two the power of exceeding or being exceeded in relation to the one, but only in relation to each other, nor can the one be greater or less than these two or than other things, since it has neither greatness nor smallness. Evidently not. Then if the one is neither greater nor smaller than the others, it can neither exceed them nor be exceeded by them? Certainly not. Then that which neither exceeds nor is exceeded must be on an equality, and being on an equality, must be equal. Of course. 150e And the one will be in the same relation to itself also; if it have in itself neither greatness nor smallness, it cannot be exceeded by itself or exceed itself; it would be on an equality with and equal to itself. Certainly. The one is, then, equal to itself and to the others. Evidently.