Cephalos Ceph. The others are, then, not like nor unlike nor both. 160a For if they were like or unlike, they would partake of one of the two elements, and if they were both, of the two opposites and that was shown to be impossible. True.

They are, then, neither the same nor other, nor in motion nor at rest, nor becoming nor being destroyed, nor greater nor less nor equal, and they experience no similar affections; for if the others are subject to such affections, they will participate in one and two and three and odd and even, 160b in which we saw that they cannot participate, if they are in every way utterly deprived of unity. Very true. Therefore if one exists, the one is all things and nothing at all in relation both to itself and to all others. Perfectly true.

Well, and ought we not next to consider what must happen if one does not exist? Yes, we ought. What, then, is the sense of this hypothesis—if one does not exist? Is it different in any way from this—if not one does not exist? Certainly it is different. Is it merely different, 160c or are the two expressions—if not one does not exist and if one does not exist—complete opposites? They are complete opposites. Now if a person should say “if greatness does not exist”, “if smallness does not exist,” or anything of that sort, would he not make it clear that in each case the thing he speaks of as not existing is different? Certainly. And in our case does he not make it clear that he means, when he says “if one is not,” that the thing which is not is different from other things, and do we not know what he means? Yes, we do know. In the first place, then, he speaks of something which is known, and secondly of something different from other things, when he says “one,” whether he adds to it that it is or that it is not; 160d for that which is said to be non-existent is known none the less, and is known to be different from other things, is it not? Certainly. Then we should begin at the beginning by asking: if one is not, what must follow? In the first place this must be true of the one, that there is knowledge of it, or else not even the meaning of the words “if the one does not exist” would be known. True. And is it not also true that the others differ from the one, or it cannot be said to differ from the others? Certainly. Then a difference belongs to the one in addition to knowledge; for when we say that the one differs from the others, 160e we speak of a difference in the one, not in the others. That is clear. And the non-existent one partakes of “that” and “some” and “this” and “relation to this” and “these” and all notions of that sort; for the one could not be spoken of, nor could the things which are other than one, nor could anything in relation to the one or belonging to it be or be spoken of, if the one did not partake of the notion some or of those other notions. True.

Ceph. It is impossible for the one to be, if it does not exist, 161a but nothing prevents its partaking of many things; indeed it must do so, if that one of which we are speaking, and not something else, is not. But if neither the one, nor “that,” is not, but we are speaking of something else, there is no use in saying anything at all; ¹ but if non-existence is the property of that one, and not of something else, then the one must partake of “that” and of many other attributes. Yes, certainly.

And it will possess unlikeness in relation to other things for the things which are other than one, being different, will be of a different kind. Yes. And are not things which are of a different kind also of another kind? Of course. And things which are of another kind are unlike, are they not? 161b Yes, they are unlike. Then if they are unlike the one, the one is evidently unlike the things which are unlike it. Evidently. Then the one possesses unlikeness in relation to which the others are unlike. So it appears. But if it possesses unlikeness to the others, must it not possess likeness to itself? How is that? If the one possesses unlikeness to the one, our argument will not be concerned with that which is of the nature of the one, and our hypothesis will not relate to the one, but to something other than one. 161c Certainly. But that is inadmissible. It certainly is. Then the one must possess likeness to itself. It must.

And neither is the one equal to the others; for if it were equal, then it would both be and be like them in respect to equality, both of which are impossible, if one does not exist. Yes, they are impossible. And since it is not equal to the others, they cannot be equal to it, can they? Certainly not. And things which are not equal are unequal, are they not? Yes. And things which are unequal are unequal to something which is unequal to them? Of course. Then the one partakes of inequality, in respect to which the others are unequal to it? 161d Yes, it does. But greatness and smallness are constituents of inequality. Yes. Then the one, such as we are discussing, possesses greatness and smallness? So it appears. Now surely greatness and smallness always keep apart from one another. Certainly. Then there is always something between them. There is. Can you think of anything between them except equality? No, only equality. Then anything which has greatness and smallness has also equality, which is between the two. That is clear. 161e Then the non-existent one, it appears, partakes of equality and greatness and smallness. So it appears.

And it must also, in a way, partake of existence. How is that? It must be in such conditions as we have been saying; for if it were not, we should not be speaking the truth in saying that the one is not. And if we speak the truth, it is clear that we say that which is. Am I not right? You are.

Ceph. Then inasmuch as we assert that we are speaking the truth, 162a we necessarily assert that we say that which is. Necessarily. Then, as it appears, the non-existent one exists. For if it is not non-existent, but gives up something of being to not-being, ² then it will be existent. Certainly. Then if it does not exist and is to continue to be non-existent, it must have the existence of not-being as a bond, just as being has the non-existence of not-being, in order to attain its perfect existence. For in this way the existence of the existent and the non-existence of the non-existent would be best assured, when the existent partakes of the existence of being existent and of the non-existence of not being non-existent, 162b thus assuring its own perfect existence, and the non-existent partakes of the non-existence of not being existent and the existence of being non-existent, and thus the non-existent also secures its perfect non-existence. Very true. Then since the existent partakes of non-existence and the non-existent of existence, the one, since it does not exist, necessarily partakes of existence to attain non-existence. Yes, necessarily. Clearly, then, the one, if it does not exist, has existence. Clearly. And non-existence also, if it does not exist. Of course.

Well, can anything which is in a certain condition be not in that condition without changing from it? No, it cannot. Then everything of that sort—if a thing is and is not in a given condition—signifies a change. 162c Of course. But change is motion; we agree to that? It is motion. And did we not see that the one is and is not? Yes. Then we see that it both is and is not in a given condition. So it appears. And we have seen that the non-existent one has motion, since it changes from being to not-being. There is not much doubt of that. But if it is nowhere among existing things—and it is nowhere, if it does not exist—it cannot move from any place to another. Of course not. Then its motion cannot be change of place. No, it cannot. 162d Nor surely can it turn in the same spot, for it nowhere touches the same for the same is existent, and the non-existent cannot be in any existent thing. No, it is impossible. Then the one, being non-existent, cannot turn in that in which it is not. No. And the one, whether existent or non-existent, cannot change into something other than itself; for if it changed into something other than itself, our talk would no longer be about the one, but about something else. Quite right. But if it neither changes into something else, 162e nor turns in the same spot, nor changes its place, can it still move in any way? No how can it? But surely that which is without motion must keep still, and that which keeps still must be at rest. Yes, it must. Then the non-existent one is both at rest and in motion. So it appears.