[238a]
Stranger
Boast not too soon! For there still remains, my friend, the first and greatest of perplexities. It affects the very beginning of the matter.Theaetetus
What do you mean? Do not hesitate to speak.Stranger
To that which is may be added or attributed some other thing which is?Theaetetus
Of course.Stranger
But shall we assert that to that which is not anything which is can be attributed?Theaetetus
Certainly not.Stranger
Now we assume that all number is among the things which are. [238b] Theaetetus
Yes, if anything can be assumed to be.Stranger
Then let us not even undertake to attribute either the singular or the plural of number to not-being.Theaetetus
We should, apparently, not be right in undertaking that, as our argument shows.Stranger
How then could a man either utter in speech or even so much as conceive in his mind things which are not, or not-being, apart from number?Theaetetus
Tell me how number is involved in such conceptions.Stranger
When we say “things which are not,” do we not attribute [238c] plurality to them?Theaetetus
Certainly.Stranger
And in saying “a thing which is not,” do we not equally attribute the singular number?Theaetetus
Obviously.Stranger
And yet we assert that it is neither right nor fair to undertake to attribute being to not-being.Theaetetus
Very true.Stranger
Do you see, then, that it is impossible rightly to utter or to say or to think of not-being without any attribute, but it is a thing inconceivable, inexpressible, unspeakable, irrational?Theaetetus
Absolutely. [238d] Stranger
Then was I mistaken just now in saying that the difficulty I was going to speak of was the greatest in our subject.Theaetetus
But is there a still greater one that we can mention?Stranger
Why, my dear fellow, don't you see, by the very arguments we have used, that not-being reduces him who would refute it to such difficulties that when he attempts to refute it he is forced to contradict himself?Theaetetus
What do you mean? Speak still more clearly.Stranger
You must not look for more clearness in me; [238e] for although I maintained that not-being could have nothing to do with either the singular or the plural number, I spoke of it just now, and am still speaking of it, as one; for I say “that which is not.” You understand surely?Theaetetus
Yes.Stranger
And again a little while ago I said it was inexpressible, unspeakable, irrational. Do you follow me?Theaetetus
Yes, of course.Stranger
Then when I undertook to attach the verb “to be” to not-being
Boast not too soon! For there still remains, my friend, the first and greatest of perplexities. It affects the very beginning of the matter.Theaetetus
What do you mean? Do not hesitate to speak.Stranger
To that which is may be added or attributed some other thing which is?Theaetetus
Of course.Stranger
But shall we assert that to that which is not anything which is can be attributed?Theaetetus
Certainly not.Stranger
Now we assume that all number is among the things which are. [238b] Theaetetus
Yes, if anything can be assumed to be.Stranger
Then let us not even undertake to attribute either the singular or the plural of number to not-being.Theaetetus
We should, apparently, not be right in undertaking that, as our argument shows.Stranger
How then could a man either utter in speech or even so much as conceive in his mind things which are not, or not-being, apart from number?Theaetetus
Tell me how number is involved in such conceptions.Stranger
When we say “things which are not,” do we not attribute [238c] plurality to them?Theaetetus
Certainly.Stranger
And in saying “a thing which is not,” do we not equally attribute the singular number?Theaetetus
Obviously.Stranger
And yet we assert that it is neither right nor fair to undertake to attribute being to not-being.Theaetetus
Very true.Stranger
Do you see, then, that it is impossible rightly to utter or to say or to think of not-being without any attribute, but it is a thing inconceivable, inexpressible, unspeakable, irrational?Theaetetus
Absolutely. [238d] Stranger
Then was I mistaken just now in saying that the difficulty I was going to speak of was the greatest in our subject.Theaetetus
But is there a still greater one that we can mention?Stranger
Why, my dear fellow, don't you see, by the very arguments we have used, that not-being reduces him who would refute it to such difficulties that when he attempts to refute it he is forced to contradict himself?Theaetetus
What do you mean? Speak still more clearly.Stranger
You must not look for more clearness in me; [238e] for although I maintained that not-being could have nothing to do with either the singular or the plural number, I spoke of it just now, and am still speaking of it, as one; for I say “that which is not.” You understand surely?Theaetetus
Yes.Stranger
And again a little while ago I said it was inexpressible, unspeakable, irrational. Do you follow me?Theaetetus
Yes, of course.Stranger
Then when I undertook to attach the verb “to be” to not-being
