parmenides-第5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！
being to the one？
Impossible。
Thus； each of the parts also has in turn both one and being； and
is at the least made up of two parts； and the same principle goes on
for ever； and every part whatever has always these two parts； for
being always involves one； and one being； so that one is always
disappearing； and becoming two。
Certainly。
And so the one； if it is； must be infinite in multiplicity？
Clearly。
Let us take another direction。
What direction？
We say that the one partakes of being and therefore it is？
Yes。
And in this way； the one； if it has being； has turned out to be
many？
True。
But now； let us abstract the one which； as we say； partakes of
being； and try to imagine it apart from that of which； as we say； it
partakes…will this abstract one be one only or many？
One； I think。
Let us see：…Must not the being of one be other than one？ for the one
is not being； but； considered as one； only partook of being？
Certainly。
If being and the one be two different things； it is not because
the one is one that it is other than being； nor because being is being
that it is other than the one； but they differ from one another in
virtue of otherness and difference。
Certainly。
So that the other is not the same either with the one or with being？
Certainly not。
And therefore whether we take being and the other； or being and
the one； or the one and the other； in every such case we take two
things； which may be rightly called both。
How so。
In this way…you may speak of being？
Yes。
And also of one？
Yes。
Then now we have spoken of either of them？
Yes。
Well； and when I speak of being and one； I speak of them both？
Certainly。
And if I speak of being and the other； or of the one and the
other…in any such case do I not speak of both？
Yes。
And must not that which is correctly called both； be also two？
Undoubtedly。
And of two things how can either by any possibility not be one？
It cannot。
Then； if the individuals of the pair are together two； they must
be severally one？
Clearly。
And if each of them is one； then by the addition of any one to any
pair； the whole becomes three？
Yes。
And three are odd； and two are even？
Of course。
And if there are two there must also be twice； and if there are
three there must be thrice； that is； if twice one makes two； and
thrice one three？
Certainly。
There are two； and twice； and therefore there must be twice two； and
there are three； and there is thrice； and therefore there must be
thrice three？
Of course。
If there are three and twice； there is twice three； and if there are
two and thrice； there is thrice two？
Undoubtedly。
Here； then； we have even taken even times； and odd taken odd
times； and even taken odd times； and odd taken even times。
True。
And if this is so； does any number remain which has no necessity
to be？
None whatever。
Then if one is； number must also be？
It must。
But if there is number； there must also be many； and infinite
multiplicity of being； for number is infinite in multiplicity； and
partakes also of being： am I not right？
Certainly。
And if all number participates in being； every part of number will
also participate？
Yes。
Then being is distributed over the whole multitude of things； and
nothing that is； however small or however great； is devoid of it？ And；
indeed； the very supposition of this is absurd； for how can that which
is； be devoid of being？
In no way。
And it is divided into the greatest and into the smallest； and
into being of all sizes； and is broken up more than all things； the
divisions of it have no limit。
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 no
