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！
Very true。
Very true。
Nor are the others altogether without the one； but in a certain
way they participate in the one。
In what way？
Because the others are other than the one inasmuch as they have
parts； for if they had no parts they would be simply one。
Right。
And parts； as we affirm； have relation to a whole？
So we say。
And a whole must necessarily be one made up of many； and the parts
will be parts of the one； for each of the parts is not a part of many；
but of a whole。
How do you mean？
If anything were a part of many； being itself one of them； it will
surely be a part of itself； which is impossible； and it will be a part
of each one of the other parts； if of all； for if not a part of some
one； it will be a part of all the others but this one； and thus will
not be a part of each one； and if not a part of each； one it will
not be a part of anyone of the many； and not being a part of any
one； it cannot be a part or anything else of all those things of
none of which it is anything。
Clearly not。
Then the part is not a part of the many； nor of all； but is of a
certain single form； which we call a whole； being one perfect unity
framed out of all…of this the part will be a part。
Certainly。
If； then； the others have parts； they will participate in the
whole and in the one。
True。
Then the others than the one must be one perfect whole； having
parts。
Certainly。
And the same argument holds of each part； for the part must
participate in the one； for if each of the parts is a part； this
means； I suppose； that it is one separate from the rest and
self…related； otherwise it is not each。
True。
But when we speak of the part participating in the one； it must
clearly be other than one； for if not； it would merely have
participated； but would have been one； whereas only the itself can
be one。
Very true。
Both the whole and the part must participate in the one； for the
whole will be one whole； of which the parts will be parts； and each
part will be one part of the whole which is the whole of the part。
True。
And will not the things which participate in the one； be other
than it？
Of course。
And the things which are other than the one will be many； for if the
things which are other than the one were neither one nor more than
one； they would be nothing。
True。
But； seeing that the things which participate in the one as a
part； and in the one as a whole； are more than one； must not those
very things which participate in the one be infinite in number？
How so？
Let us look at the matter thus：…Is it not a fact that in partaking
of the one they are not one； and do not partake of the one at the very
time。 when they are partaking of it？
Clearly。
They do so then as multitudes in which the one is not present？
Very true。
And if we were to abstract from them in idea the very smallest
fraction； must not that least fraction； if it does not partake of
the one； be a multitude and not one？
It must。
And if we continue to look at the other side of their nature；
regarded simply； and in itself； will not they； as far as we see
them； be unlimited in number？
Certainly。
And yet； when each several part becomes a part； then the parts
have a limit in relation to the whole and to each other； and the whole
in relation to the parts。
Just so。
The result to the others than the one is that of themselves and
the one appears to create a new element in them which gives to them
limitation in relation to one another； whereas in their own nature
they have no limit。
That is clear。
Then the others than the one； both as whole and parts； are infinite；
and also partake of limit。
Certainly。
Then they are both like and unlike one another and themselves。
How is that？
Inasmuch as they are unlimited in their own nature； they are all
affected in the same way。
True。
And inasmuch as they all partake of limit； they are all affected
in the same way。
Of course。
But inasmuch as their state is both limited and unlimited； they
are affected in opposite ways。
Yes。
And opposites are the most unlike of things。
Certainly。
Considered； then； in regard to either one of their affections；
they will be like themselves and one another； considered in
reference to both of them together； most opposed and most unlike。
That appears to be true。
Then the others are both like and unlike themselves and one another？
True。
And they are the same and also different from one another； and in
motion and at rest； and experience every sort of opposite affection；
as may be proved without difficulty of them； since they have been
shown to have experienced the affections aforesaid？
True。
Suppose； now； that we leave the further discussion of these
matters as evident； and consider again upon the hypothesis that the
one is； whether opposite of all this is or is not equally true of
the others。
By all means。
Then let us begin again； and ask； If one is； what must be the
affections of the others？
Let us ask that question。
Must not the one be distinct from the others； and the others from
the one？
Why so？
Why； because there is nothing else beside them which is distinct
from both of them； for the expression 〃one and the others〃 includes
all things。
Yes； all things。
Then we cannot suppose that there is anything different from them in
which both the one and the others might exist？
There is nothing。
Then the one and the others are never in the same？
True。
Then they are separated from each other？
Yes。
And we surely cannot say that what is truly one has parts？
Impossible。
Then the one will not be in the others as a whole； nor as part； if
it be separated from the others； and has no parts？
Impossible。
Then there is no way in which the others can partake of the one；
if they do not partake either in whole or in part？
It would seem not。
Then there is no way in which the others are one； or have in
themselves any unity？
There is not。
Nor are the others many； for if they were many； each part of them
would be a part of the whole； but now the others； not partaking in any
way of the one； are neither one nor many； nor whole； nor part。
True。
Then the others neither are nor contain two or three； if entirely
deprived of the one？
True。
Then the others are neither like nor unlike the one； nor is likeness
and unlikeness in them； for if they were like and unlike； or had in
them likeness and unlikeness； they would have two natures in them
opposite to one another。