| | |
| Paragraph 1 |
We must inquire generally, whether eternal things can consist of
elements. |
| Paragraph 2 |
There are some who describe the element which acts with the One as
an indefinite dyad, and object to 'the unequal', reasonably enough,
because of the ensuing difficulties; |
| Paragraph 3 |
There are many causes which led them off into these explanations,
and especially the fact that they framed the difficulty in an obsolete
form. |
| Paragraph 4 |
"'For never will this he proved, that things that are not are.' |
| Paragraph 5 |
They thought it necessary to prove that that which is not is; |
| Paragraph 6 |
But, first, if 'being' has many senses (for it means sometimes substance,
sometimes that it is of a certain quality, sometimes that it is of
a certain quantity, and at other times the other categories), what
sort of 'one', then, are all the things that are, if non-being is
to be supposed not to be? |
| Paragraph 7 |
Secondly, of what sort of non-being and being do the things that
are consist? |
| Paragraph 8 |
The question evidently is, how being, in the sense of 'the substances',
is many; |
| Paragraph 9 |
They should have asked this question also, how relative terms are
many and not one. |
| Paragraph 10 |
It is necessary, then, as we say, to presuppose for each thing that
which is it potentially; |
| Paragraph 11 |
But further, if the 'this' and the quantitative are not the same,
we are not told how and why the things that are are many, but how
quantities are many. |
| Paragraph 12 |
One might fix one's attention also on the question, regarding the
numbers, what justifies the belief that they exist. |
HTML by 
created 1996/11/25 modified 2009/04/26