another；　in　order　that　if　we　are　not　able　to　apprehend　with　perfect
  clearness　the　notions　of　being　and　not…being；　we　may　at
  least　not　fall
  short　in　the　consideration　of　them；　so　far　as　they　come　within　the
  scope　of　the　present　enquiry；　if　peradventure　we　may　be　allowed　to
  assert　the　reality　of　not…being；　and　yet　escape　unscathed。
  Theaet。　We　must　do　so。
  Str。　The　most　important　of　all　the　genera　are　those　which　we　were
  just　now　mentioning…being　and　rest　and　motion。
  Theaet。　Yes；　by　far。
  Str。　And　two　of　these　are；　as　we　affirm；　incapable　of
  communion　with
  one　another。
  Theaet。　Quite　incapable。
  Str。　Whereas　being　surely　has　communion　with　both　of　them；　for
  both　of　them　are？
  Theaet。　Of　course。
  Str。　That　makes　up　three　of　them。
  Theaet。　To　be　sure。
  Str。　And　each　of　them　is　other　than　the　remaining　two；　but　the
  same　with　itself。
  Theaet。　True。
  Str。　But　then；　what　is　the　meaning　of　these　two　words；　〃same〃　and
  〃other〃？　Are　they　two　new　kinds　other　than　the　three；　and　yet　always
  of　necessity　intermingling　with　them；　and　are　we　to　have　five　kinds
  instead　of　three；　or　when　we　speak　of　the　same　and　other；　are　we
  unconsciously　speaking　of　one　of　the　three　first　kinds？
  Theaet。　Very　likely　we　are。
  Str。　But；　surely；　motion　and　rest　are　neither　the　other　nor　the
  same。
  Theaet。　How　is　that？
  Str。　Whatever　we　attribute　to　motion　and　rest　in　common；　cannot　be
  either　of　them。
  Theaet。　Why　not？
  Str。　Because　motion　would　be　at　rest　and　rest　in　motion；　for
  either　of　them；　being　predicated　of　both；　will　compel　the　other　to
  change　into　the　opposite　of　its　own　nature；　because　partaking　of　its
  opposite。
  Theaet。　Quite　true。
  Str。　Yet　they　surely　both　partake　of　the　same　and　of　the　other？
  Theaet。　Yes。
  Str。　Then　we　must　not　assert　that　motion；　any　more　than　rest；　is
  either　the　same　or　the　other。
  Theaet。　No；　we　must　not。
  Str。　But　are　we　to　conceive　that　being　and　the　same　are　identical？
  Theaet。　Possibly。
  Str。　But　if　they　are　identical；　then　again　in　saying　that
  motion　and
  rest　have　being；　we　should　also　be　saying　that　they　are　the　same。
  Theaet。　Which　surely　cannot　be。
  Str。　Then　being　and　same　cannot　be　one。
  Theaet。　Scarcely。
  Str。　Then　we　may　suppose　the　same　to　be　a　fourth　class；
  which　is　now
  to　be　added　to　the　three　others。
  Theaet。　Quite　true。
  Str。　And　shall　we　call　the　other　a　fifth　class？　Or　should　we
  consider　being　and　other　to　be　two　names　of　the　same　class？
  Theaet。　Very　likely。
  Str。　But　you　would　agree；　if　I　am　not　mistaken；　that　existences
  are　relative　as　well　as　absolute？
  Theaet。　Certainly。
  Str。　And　the　other　is　always　relative　to　other？
  Theaet。　True。
  Str。　But　this　would　not　be　the　case　unless　being　and　the　other
  entirely　differed；　for；　if　the　other；　like　being；　were　absolute　as
  well　as　relative；　then　there　would　have　been　a　kind　of　other
  which　was
  not　other　than　other。　And　now　we　find　that　what　is　other　must　of
  necessity　be　what　it　is　in　relation　to　some　other。
  Theaet。　That　is　the　true　state　of　the　case。
  Str。　Then　we　must　admit　the　other　as　the　fifth　of　our　selected
  classes。
  Theaet。　Yes。
  Str。　And　the　fifth　class　pervades　all　classes；　for　they　all　differ
  from　one　another；　not　by　reason　of　their　own　nature；　but　because
  they　partake　of　the　idea　of　the　other。
  Theaet。　Quite　true。
  Str。　Then　let　us　now　put　the　case　with　reference　to　each　of　the
  five。
  Theaet。　How？
  Str。　First　there　is　motion；　which　we　affirm　to　be
  absolutely　〃other〃
  than　rest：　what　else　can　we　say？
  Theaet。　It　is　so。
  Str。　And　therefore　is　not　rest。
  Theaet。　Certainly　not。
  Str。　And　yet　is；　because　partaking　of　being。
  Theaet。　True。
  Str。　Again；　motion　is　other　than　the　same？
  Theaet。　Just　so。
  Str。　And　is　therefore　not　the　same。
  Theaet。　It　is　not。
  Str。　Yet；　surely；　motion　is　the　same；　because　all　things　partake
  of　the　same。
  Theaet。　Very　true。
  Str。　Then　we　must　admit；　and　not　object　to　say；　that　motion　is　the
  same　and　is　not　the　same；　for　we　do　not　apply　the　terms　〃same〃　and
  〃not　the　same；〃　in　the　same　sense；　but　we　call　it　the　〃same；〃　in
  relation　to　itself；　because　partaking　of　the　same；　and　not　the　same；
  because　having　communion　with　the　other；　it　is　thereby　severed　from
  the　same；　and　has　become　not　that　but　other；　and　is　therefore
  rightly　spoken　of　as　〃not　the　same。〃
  Theaet。　To　be　sure。
  Str。　And　if　absolute　motion　in　any　point　of　view　partook　of　rest；
  there　would　be　no　absurdity　in　calling　motion　stationary。
  Theaet。　Quite　right；　…that　is；　on　the　supposition　that　some
  classes　mingle　with　one　another；　and　others　not。
  Str。　That　such　a　communion　of　kinds　is　according　to　nature；　we　had
  already　proved　before　we　arrived　at　this　part　of　our　discussion。
  Theaet。　Certainly。
  Str。　Let　us　proceed；　then。　we　not　say　that　motion　is　other　than
  the　other；　having　been　also　proved　by　us　to　be　other　than
  the　same　and
  other　than　rest？
  Theaet。　That　is　certain。
  Str。　Then；　according　to　this　view；　motion　is　other　and　also　not
  other？
  Theaet。　True。
  Str。　What　is　the　next　step？　Shall　we　say　that　motion　is　other　than
  the　three　and　not　other　than　the　fourth…for　we　agreed　that　there　are
  five　classes　about　and　in　the　sphere　of　which　we　proposed　to　make
  enquiry？
  Theaet。　Surely　we　cannot　admit　that　the　number　is　less　than　it
  appeared　to　be　just　now。
  Str。　Then　we　may　without　fear　contend　that　motion　is　other　than
  being？
  Theaet。　Without　the　least　fear。
  Str。　The　plain　result　is　that　motion；　since　it　partakes　of　being；
  really　is　and　also　is　not？
  Theaet。　Nothing　can　be　plainer。
  Str。　Then　not…being　necessarily　exists　in　the　case　of　motion　and
  of　every　class；　for　the　nature　of　the　other　entering　into　them　all；
  makes　each　of　them　other　than　being；　and　so　non…existent；　and
  therefore　of　all　of　them；　in　like　manner；　we　may　truly　say　that　they
  are　not…and　again；　inasmuch　as　they　partake　of　being；　that　they　are
  and　are　existent。
  Theaet。　So　we　may　assume。
  Str。　Every　class；　then；　has　plurality　of　being　and　infinity　of
  not…being。
  Theaet。　So　we　must　infer。
  Str。　And　being　itself　may　be　said　to　be　other　than　the　other　kinds。
  Theaet。　Certainly。
  Str。　Then　we　may　infer　that　being　is　not；　in　respect　of　as　many
  other　things　as　there　are；　for　not…being　these　it　is　itself　one；　and
  is：　not　the　other　things；　which　are　infinite　in　number。
  Theaet。　That　is　not　far　from　the　truth。
  Str。　And　we　must　not　quarrel　with　this　result；　since　it　is　of　the
  nature　of　classes　to　have　communion　with　one　another；　and　if　any　one
  denies　our　present　statement　＇viz。；　that　being　is　not；　etc。＇；　let
  him　first　argue　with　our　former　conclusion　＇i。e。；　respecting　the
  communion　of　ideas＇；　and　then　he　may　proceed　to　argue　with　what
  follows。
  Theaet。　Nothing　can　be　fairer。
  Str。　Let　me　ask　you　to　consider　a　further　question。
  Theaet。　What　question？
  Str。　When　we　speak　of　not…being；　we　speak；　I　suppose；　not　of
  something　opposed　to　being；　but　only　different。
  Theaet。　What　do　you　mean？
  Str。　When　we　speak　of　something　as　not　great；　does　the　expression
  seem　to　you　to　imply　what　is　little　any　more　than　what　is　equal？
  Theaet。　Certainly　not。
  Str。　The　negative　particles；　ou　and　me；　when　prefixed　to　words；　do
  not　imply　opposition；　but　only　difference　from　the　words；　or　more
  correctly　from　the　things　represented　by　the　words；　which
  follow　them。
  Theaet。　Quite　true。
  Str。　There　is　another　point　to　be　considered；　if　you　do　not　object。
  Theaet。　What　is　it？
  Str。　The　nature　of　the　other　appears　to　me　to　be　divided　into
  fractions　like　knowledge。
  Theaet。　How　so？
  Str。　Knowledge；　like　the　other；　is　one；　and　yet　the
  various　parts　of
  knowledge　have　each　of　them　their　own　particular　name；　and
  hence　there
  are　many　arts　and　kinds　of　knowledge。
  Theaet。　Quite　true。
  Str。　And　is　not　the　case　the　same　with　the　parts　of　the
  other；　which
  is　also　one？
  Theaet。　Very　likely；　but　will　you　tell　me　how？
  Str。　There　is　some　part　of　the　other　which　is　opposed　to　the
  beautiful？
  Theaet。　There　is。
  Str。　Shall　we　say　that　this　has　or　has　not　a　name？
  Theaet。　It　has；　for　whatever　we　call　not　beautiful　is
  other　than　the
  beautiful；　not　than　something　else。
  Str。　And　now　tell　me　another　thing。
  Theaet。　What？
  Str。　Is　the　not…beautiful　anything　but　this…an　existence　parted
  off　from　a　certain　kind　of　existence；　and　again　from　another　point
  of　view　opposed　to　an　existing　something？
  Theaet。　True。
  Str。　Then　the　not…beautiful　turns　out　to　be　the　opposition　of
  being　to　being？
  Theaet。　Very　true。
  Str。　But　upon　this　view；　is　the　beautiful　a　more　real　and　the
  not…beautiful　a　less　real　existence？
  Theaet。　Not　at　all。
  Str。　And　the　not…great　may　be　said　to　exist；　equally　with
  the　great？
  Theaet。　Yes。
  Str。　And；　in　the　same　way；　the　just　must　be　placed　in　the　same
  category　with　the　not…just　the　one　cannot　be　said　to　have　any　more
  existence　than　the　other。
  Theaet。　True。
  Str。　The　same　may　be　said　of　other　things；　seeing　that　the
  nature　of
  th