Euthydemus
    Part
  1 Intro|           as the Eleatic Being and Not-being, alike admit of being regarded


Parmenides
    Part
  2 Intro|     Hegelian identity of Being and Not-being. The Being and Not-being
  3 Intro|           Not-being. The Being and Not-being of Plato never merge in
  4 Intro|            into and from being and not-being, the one and the others.
  5 Intro|        nothing else; but if all is not-being there is nothing which can
  6 Intro|         being implies the being of not-being, and being the not-being
  7 Intro|           not-being, and being the not-being of not-being; or more truly
  8 Intro|         and being the not-being of not-being; or more truly being partakes
  9 Intro|            and not of the being of not-being, and not-being of the being
 10 Intro|            being of not-being, and not-being of the being of not-being
 11 Intro|          not-being of the being of not-being and not of the not-being
 12 Intro|           not-being and not of the not-being of not-being. And therefore
 13 Intro|            not of the not-being of not-being. And therefore the one which
 14 Intro|          is not has being and also not-being. And the union of being
 15 Intro|         And the union of being and not-being involves change or motion.
 16 Intro|      change or motion. But how can not-being, which is nowhere, move
 17 Intro|          other, such as, being and not-being, one and many, are conceived
 18 Intro|            6) The idea of being or not-being is identified with existence
 19 Intro|          in the Sophist: Being and Not-being are no longer exhibited
 20 Intro|             and the true nature of Not-being is discovered and made the
 21 Text |          all as many proofs of the not-being of the many as you have
 22 Text | destruction, and even of being and not-being. In a word, when you suppose
 23 Text |      either of the being or of the not-being of one?~By all means, said
 24 Text |        cessation of being, or from not-being into becoming —then it passes
 25 Text |          predicate of one being or not-being, for that which is said ‘
 26 Text |           existence in relation to not-being.’) were to relinquish something
 27 Text |          of being, so as to become not-being, it would at once be.~Quite
 28 Text |             must have the being of not-being as the bond of not-being,
 29 Text |           not-being as the bond of not-being, just as being must have
 30 Text |            must have as a bond the not-being of not-being in order to
 31 Text |            a bond the not-being of not-being in order to perfect its
 32 Text |          being of being and of the not-being of not-being is when being
 33 Text |            and of the not-being of not-being is when being partakes of
 34 Text |            and not of the being of not-being—that is, the perfection
 35 Text |      perfection of being; and when not-being does not partake of the
 36 Text |            does not partake of the not-being of not-being but of the
 37 Text |        partake of the not-being of not-being but of the being of not-being—
 38 Text |      not-being but of the being of not-being—that is the perfection of
 39 Text |          that is the perfection of not-being.~Most true.~Since then what
 40 Text |           then what is partakes of not-being, and what is not of being,
 41 Text |            being?~Clearly.~And has not-being also, if it is not?~Of course.~
 42 Text |           it changes from being to not-being?~That appears to be true.~
 43 Text |         communion with any sort of not-being, nor can anything which
 44 Text |       opinion or any appearance of not-being in connexion with the others,
 45 Text |            with the others, nor is not-being ever in any way attributed


The Republic
    Book
 46 5    |          ignorance of necessity to not-being, for that intermediate between
 47 5    |     intermediate between being and not-being there has to be discovered
 48 5    |     something else. Well, then, is not-being the subject-matter of opinion?
 49 5    |            an opinion at all about not-being? Reflect: when a man has
 50 5    |         some one thing? ~Yes. ~And not-being is not one thing, but, properly
 51 5    |      speaking, nothing? ~True. ~Of not-being, ignorance was assumed to
 52 5    |          either with being or with not-being? ~Not with either. ~And
 53 5    |            pure being and absolute not-being; and that the corresponding
 54 5    |            the nature of being and not-being, and cannot rightly be termed
 55 5    |           mind, either as being or not-being, or both, or neither. ~Then
 56 5    |       place than between being and not-being? For they are clearly not
 57 5    |          darkness or negation than not-being, or more full of light and
 58 5    |        between pure being and pure not-being? ~We have. ~Yes; and we


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


The Statesman
    Part
206 Intro|  demonstration of the existence of not-being which we proved in our discussion
207 Intro|   discussion about the Sophist and not-being, were tedious and irrelevant.
208 Intro|            the nature of Being and Not-being, but concerning the king
209 Text |        extorted the inference that not-being had an existence, because
210 Text |           Sophist and the being of not-being. I know that they were felt


Theaetetus
    Part
211 Intro|           and (4) the inquiry into not-being in the Sophist supplements
212 Intro|         notions, such as Being and Not-being, sameness and difference,
213 Intro|     parallel difficulty respecting Not-being. Men had only recently arrived
214 Intro|           sphere of opinion and of Not-being should be a dusky, half-lighted
215 Intro|        ancient philosophy, as ‘the Not-being’ of objects. It is a negative
216 Text |        becoming, and inactivity of not-being and destruction; for fire
217 Text |         which are called being and not-being, and those others about
218 Text |             into that of being and not-being.~THEAETETUS: What do you


Timaeus
    Part
219 Intro|           the mystery of being and not-being, or to the great political
220 Intro|         the world to the sphere of not-being, he admits creation to have
221 Intro|         also denies the reality of not-being (Aristot. Metaph.). But