sophist   

Str. Then we must not assert that motion, any more than rest, is
either the same or the other.
Theaet. No; we must not.
Str. But are we to conceive that being and the same are identical?
Theaet. Possibly.
Str. But if they are identical, then again in saying that
motion and
rest have being, we should also be saying that they are the same.
Theaet. Which surely cannot be.
Str. Then being and same cannot be one.
Theaet. Scarcely.
Str. Then we may suppose the same to be a fourth class,
which is now
to be added to the three others.
Theaet. Quite true.
Str. And shall we call the other a fifth class? Or should we
consider being and other to be two names of the same class?
Theaet. Very likely.
Str. But you would agree, if I am not mistaken, that existences
are relative as well as absolute?
Theaet. Certainly.
Str. And the other is always relative to other?
Theaet. True.
Str. But this would not be the case unless being and the other
entirely differed; for, if the other, like being, were absolute as
well as relative, then there would have been a kind of other
which was
not other than other. And now we find that what is other must of
necessity be what it is in relation to some other.
Theaet. That is the true state of the case.
Str. Then we must admit the other as the fifth of our selected
classes.
Theaet. Yes.
Str. And the fifth class pervades all classes, for they all differ
from one another, not by reason of their own nature, but because
they partake of the idea of the other.
Theaet. Quite true.
Str. Then let us now put the case with reference to each of the
five.
Theaet. How?
Str. First there is motion, which we affirm to be
absolutely "other"
than rest: what else can we say?
Theaet. It is so.
Str. And therefore is not rest.
Theaet. Certainly not.
Str. And yet is, because partaking of being.
Theaet. True.
Str. Again, motion is other than the same?
Theaet. Just so.
Str. And is therefore not the same.
Theaet. It is not.
Str. Yet, surely, motion is the same, because all things partake
of the same.
Theaet. Very true.
Str. Then we must admit, and not object to say, that motion is the
same and is not the same, for we do not apply the terms "same" and
"not the same," in the same sense; but we call it the "same," in
relation to itself, because partaking of the same; and not the same,
because having communion with the other, it is thereby severed from
the same, and has become not that but other, and is therefore
rightly spoken of as "not the same."
Theaet. To be sure.
Str. And if absolute motion in any point of view partook of rest,