sophist   

Str. And yet we say that, strictly speaking, it should not be
defined as one or many, and should not even be called "it," for the
use of the word "it" would imply a form of unity.
Theaet. Quite true.
Str. How, then, can any one put any faith in me? For now,
as always,
I am unequal to the refutation of not-being. And therefore, as I was
saying, do not look to me for the right way of speaking about
not-being; but come, let us try the experiment with you.
Theaet. What do you mean?
Str. Make a noble effort, as becomes youth, and endeavour with all
your might to speak of not-being in a right manner, without
introducing into it either existence or unity or plurality.
Theaet. It would be a strange boldness in me which would
attempt the
task when I see you thus discomfited.
Str. Say no more of ourselves; but until we find some one or other
who can speak of not-being without number, we must acknowledge that
the Sophist is a clever rogue who will not be got out of his hole.
Theaet. Most true.
Str. And if we say to him that he professes an art of making
appearances, he will grapple with us and retort our argument upon
ourselves; and when we call him an image-maker he will say,
"Pray what
do you mean at all by an image?" -and I should like to know,
Theaetetus, how we can possibly answer the younker's question?
Theaet. We shall doubtless tell him of the images which are
reflected in water or in mirrors; also of sculptures, pictures, and
other duplicates.
Str. I see, Theaetetus, that you have never made the
acquaintance of
the Sophist.
Theaet. Why do you think so?
Str. He will make believe to have his eyes shut, or to have none.
Theaet. What do you mean?
Str. When you tell him of something existing in a mirror, or in
sculpture, and address him as though he had eyes, he will
laugh you to
scorn, and will pretend that he knows nothing of mirrors and
streams, or of sight at all; he will say that he is asking about an
idea.
Theaet. What can he mean?
Str. The common notion pervading all these objects, which you
speak of as many, and yet call by the single name of image, as
though it were the unity under which they were all included. How
will you maintain your ground against him?
Theaet. How. Stranger, can I describe an image except as something
fashioned in the likeness of the true?
Str. And do you mean this something to be some other true thing,
or what do you mean?
Theaet. Certainly not another true thing, but only a resemblance.
Str. And you mean by true that which really is?
Theaet. Yes.
Str. And the not true is that which is the opposite of the true?
Theaet. Exactly.
Str. A resemblance, then, is not really real, if, as you say, not
true?
Theaet. Nay, but it is in a certain sense.
Str. You mean to say, not in a true sense?
Theaet. Yes; it is in reality only an image.
Str. Then what we call an image is in reality really unreal.
Theaet. In what a strange complication of being and
not-being we are
involved!