Dialogue

  1 Intro|     Hegelian identity of Being and Not-being. Nor will the great importance
  2 Intro|         denial of the existence of Not-being, and of the connexion of
  3 Intro|       understood their doctrine of Not-being; but now he does not even
  4 Intro|         enquiry into the nature of Not-being, which occupies the middle
  5 Intro|      middle part of the work. For ‘Not-being’ is the hole or division
  6 Intro|            communion, we discover ‘Not-being’ to be the other of ‘Being.’
  7 Intro|        nature of the puzzle about ‘Not-being:’ (IV) the battle of the
  8 Intro|          away into the darkness of Not-being. Upon the whole, we detect
  9 Intro|             III. The puzzle about ‘Not-being’ appears to us to be one
 10 Intro|           if reality was denied to Not-being: How could such a question
 11 Intro|            were comprehended under Not-being. Nor was any difficulty
 12 Intro|         the categories of Being or Not-being to mind or opinion or practical
 13 Intro|         the existence of Being and Not-being, as two spheres which exclude
 14 Intro|         reality can be ascribed to Not-being, and therefore not to falsehood,
 15 Intro|         the image or expression of Not-being. Falsehood is wholly false;
 16 Intro|      negative.~The theory is, that Not-being is relation. Not-being is
 17 Intro|        that Not-being is relation. Not-being is the other of Being, and
 18 Intro|           negation is distinction. Not-being is the unfolding or determining
 19 Intro|            not identify Being with Not-being; he has no idea of progression
 20 Intro|   altogether of the other sense of Not-being, as the negative of Being;
 21 Intro|            consistent in regarding Not-being as one class of Being, and
 22 Intro|       arrived at his conception of Not-being.~In all the later dialogues
 23 Intro|            to the difficulty about Not-being.~The answer is, that in
 24 Intro|          we are attributing to it ‘Not-being.’ We went in search of Not-being
 25 Intro|   Not-being.’ We went in search of Not-being and seemed to lose Being,
 26 Intro|       after Being we recover both. Not-being is a kind of Being, and
 27 Intro|           are as many divisions of Not-being as of Being. To every positive
 28 Intro|     Hegelian identity of Being and Not-being, at all touch the principle
 29 Intro|           asserted about Being and Not-Being only relates to our most
 30 Intro|           in the concrete. Because Not-being is identified with Other,
 31 Intro|          with Other, or Being with Not-being, this does not make the
 32 Intro|         positive, and ‘Being’ and ‘Not-being’ are inextricably blended.~
 33 Intro|        restricts the conception of Not-being to difference. Man is a
 34 Intro|          Nor is it easy to see how Not-being any more than Sameness or
 35 Intro|      rather than classes of Being. Not-being can only be included in
 36 Intro|     Hegelian identity of Being and Not-being is a more apt and intelligible
 37 Intro|            Being which is prior to Not-being, and the Being which is
 38 Intro|           which is the negation of Not-being (compare Parm.).~But he
 39 Intro|        says that Being comprehends Not-being. Again, we should probably
 40 Intro|         exercised over him. Under ‘Not-being’ the Eleatic had included
 41 Intro|        should have made classes of Not-being. It is observable that he
 42 Intro|         not expressed by the term ‘Not-being.’~On the whole, we must
 43 Intro|            not his explanation of ‘Not-being’ as difference. With this
 44 Intro|       certainly laid the ghost of ‘Not-being’; and we may attribute to
 45 Intro|           the different classes of Not-being with the abstract notion.
 46 Intro|          by him on his account of ‘Not-being,’ is independent of it.
 47 Intro|            could be any reality in Not-being. In the Sophist the question
 48 Intro|            up again; the nature of Not-being is detected, and there is
 49 Intro|         asserting the existence of not-being. And this is what the great
 50 Intro|        never find,’ he says, ‘that not-being is.’ And the words prove
 51 Intro|            words prove themselves! Not-being cannot be attributed to
 52 Intro|            cannot be attributed to not-being. Therefore not-being cannot
 53 Intro|            to not-being. Therefore not-being cannot be predicated or
 54 Intro|     greatest difficulty of all. If not-being is inconceivable, how can
 55 Intro|          is inconceivable, how can not-being be refuted? And am I not
 56 Intro|          to find an expression for not-being which does not imply being
 57 Intro|          complication of being and not-being, in which the many-headed
 58 Intro|   ourselves, by affirming being of not-being. I think that we must cease
 59 Intro|            show that in some sense not-being is; and if this is not admitted,
 60 Intro|          in asserting the being of not-being. But if I am to make the
 61 Intro|       young, that I knew all about not-being, and now I am in great difficulties
 62 Intro|       nature of being, and becomes not-being. Nor can being ever have
 63 Intro|       quite as great as that about not-being. And we may hope that any
 64 Intro|         away into the obscurity of not-being, the philosopher is dark
 65 Intro|          find out a sense in which not-being may be affirmed to have
 66 Intro|            we have discovered that not-being is the principle of the
 67 Intro|          being’ is one thing, and ‘not-being’ includes and is all other
 68 Intro|           is all other things. And not-being is not the opposite of being,
 69 Intro|     opposition and negation is the not-being of which we are in search,
 70 Intro|             but also the nature of not-being—that nature we have found
 71 Intro|       longer deny the existence of not-being, may still affirm that not-being
 72 Intro|   not-being, may still affirm that not-being cannot enter into discourse,
 73 Intro|         there was no such thing as not-being, he may continue to argue
 74 Intro|            and phantastic, because not-being has no place in language.
 75 Intro| abstractions of one, other, being, not-being, rest, motion, individual,
 76 Intro|        answer of common sense—that Not-being is the relative or other
 77 Intro|          the many from the one and Not-being from Being, and yet shows
 78 Intro|      included in the one, and that Not-being returns to Being.~In several
 79 Intro|       conception of Being involved Not-being, the conception of one,
 80 Intro|            opposition of Being and Not-being projected into space became
 81 Intro|       system, and the terms Being, Not-being, existence, essence, notion,
 82 Intro|        that the union of Being and Not-being gave birth to the idea of
 83 Intro|          Hegel), or the ‘Being and Not-being’ of Heracleitus as the same
 84  Soph|    audacity to assert the being of not-being; for this is implied in
 85  Soph|           never will you show that not-being is.’~Such is his testimony,
 86  Soph|          utter the forbidden word ‘not-being’?~THEAETETUS: Certainly
 87  Soph|       asked, ‘To what is the term “not-being” to be applied?’—do you
 88  Soph|         seeing that the predicate ‘not-being’ is not applicable to any
 89  Soph|         says nothing, he who says ‘not-being’ does not speak at all.~
 90  Soph|            attempt to attribute to not-being number either in the singular
 91  Soph|           attributing plurality to not-being?~THEAETETUS: Certainly.~
 92  Soph|          not to attribute being to not-being?~THEAETETUS: Most true.~
 93  Soph|             Do you see, then, that not-being in itself can neither be
 94  Soph|         would refute the notion of not-being is involved. For he is compelled
 95  Soph|           For I, who maintain that not-being has no part either in the
 96  Soph|           and am still speaking of not-being as one; for I say ‘not-being.’
 97  Soph|       not-being as one; for I say ‘not-being.’ Do you understand?~THEAETETUS:
 98  Soph|       little while ago I said that not-being is unutterable, unspeakable,
 99  Soph|           verb, did I not speak of not-being as one?~THEAETETUS: Yes.~
100  Soph|      STRANGER: And when I spoke of not-being as indescribable and unspeakable
101  Soph|       singular, did I not refer to not-being as one?~THEAETETUS: Certainly.~
102  Soph|       unequal to the refutation of not-being. And therefore, as I was
103  Soph|        right way of speaking about not-being; but come, let us try the
104  Soph|         all your might to speak of not-being in a right manner, without
105  Soph|          or other who can speak of not-being without number, we must
106  Soph|          complication of being and not-being we are involved!~STRANGER:
107  Soph|          to admit the existence of not-being.~THEAETETUS: Yes, indeed,
108  Soph|           again to assert being of not-being, which we admitted just
109  Soph|            that in a certain sense not-being is, and that being, on the
110  Soph|        what was meant by the term ‘not-being,’ which is our present subject
111  Soph|      although we do not know about not-being. But we may be; equally
112  Soph|       defect of being, will become not-being?~THEAETETUS: True.~STRANGER:
113  Soph|    thinkers who treat of being and not-being. But let us be content to
114  Soph|           to comprehend as that of not-being.~THEAETETUS: Then now we
115  Soph|          assign the appellation of not-being, we were in the greatest
116  Soph|       difficulty; and as being and not-being are involved in the same
117  Soph|          away into the darkness of not-being, in which he has learned
118  Soph|           the notions of being and not-being, we may at least not fall
119  Soph|           to assert the reality of not-being, and yet escape unscathed.~
120  Soph|            plainer.~STRANGER: Then not-being necessarily exists in the
121  Soph|           of being and infinity of not-being.~THEAETETUS: So we must
122  Soph|           things as there are; for not-being these it is itself one,
123  Soph|         STRANGER: When we speak of not-being, we speak, I suppose, not
124  Soph|           it?~THEAETETUS: Clearly, not-being; and this is the very nature
125  Soph|           say with confidence that not-being has an assured existence,
126  Soph|  not-beautiful, in the same manner not-being has been found to be and
127  Soph|            been found to be and is not-being, and is to be reckoned one
128  Soph|             Why, because he says—~‘Not-being never is, and do thou keep
129  Soph|           shown what form of being not-being is; for we have shown that
130  Soph|           we have ventured to call not-being.~THEAETETUS: And surely,
131  Soph|        affirming the opposition of not-being to being, we still assert
132  Soph|          still assert the being of not-being; for as to whether there
133  Soph|    touching our present account of not-being, let a man either convince
134  Soph|           clearly a necessity that not-being should be. And again, being,
135  Soph|        What explanation?~STRANGER: Not-being has been acknowledged by
136  Soph|       arises the question, whether not-being mingles with opinion and
137  Soph|   THEAETETUS: How so?~STRANGER: If not-being has no part in the proposition,
138  Soph|        things must be true; but if not-being has a part, then false opinion
139  Soph|     uttered falsehood, inasmuch as not-being did not in any way partake
140  Soph|           True.~STRANGER: And now, not-being has been shown to partake
141  Soph|         that some ideas partake of not-being, and some not, and that
142  Soph|         language do not partake of not-being, and unless this participation
143  Soph|           they have communion with not-being, and, having made out the
144  Soph|        first defence, which is the not-being of not-being, and lo! here
145  Soph|          which is the not-being of not-being, and lo! here is another;
146  Soph|           for determining, whether not-being has any concern with them,
147  Soph|            of you as the same, and not-being as being, such a combination