sophist   

in which he has learned by habit to feel about, and cannot be
discovered because of the darkness of the place. is not that true?
Theaet. It seems to be so.
Str. And the philosopher, always holding converse through reason
with the idea of being, is also dark from excess of light; for the
souls of the many have no eye which can endure the vision of the
divine.
Theaet. Yes; that seems to be quite as true as the other.
Str. Well, the philosopher may hereafter be more fully
considered by
us, if we are disposed; but the Sophist must clearly not be
allowed to
escape until we have had a good look at him.
Theaet. Very good.
Str. Since, then, we are agreed that some classes have a communion
with one another, and others not, and some have communion with a few
and others with many, and that there is no reason why some should
not have universal communion with all, let us now pursue the
enquiry, as the argument suggests, not in relation to all ideas,
lest the multitude of them should confuse us, but let us select a
few of those which are reckoned to be the principal ones,
and consider
their several natures and their capacity of communion with one
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.