238
Str. Why, my dear fellow, don’t you see, by the very arguments we have used, that not-being reduces him who would refute it to such difficulties that when he attempts to refute it he is forced to contradict himself?
238
Theaet. What do you mean? Speak still more clearly.
238
Str. You must not look for more clearness in me; for although I maintained that not-being could have nothing to do with either the singular or the plural number, I spoke of it just now, and am still speaking of it, as one; for I say that which is not. You understand surely?
238
Theaet. Yes.
238
Str. And again a little while ago I said it was inexpressible, unspeakable, irrational. Do you follow me?
238
Theaet. Yes, of course.
239
Str. Then when I undertook to attach the verb to be to not-being I was contradicting what I said before.
239
Theaet. Evidently.
239
Str. Well, then; when I attached this verb to it, did I not address it in the singular?
239
Theaet. Yes.
239
Str. And when I called it irrational, inexpressible, and unspeakable, I addressed my speech to it as singular.
239
Theaet. Of course you did.
239
Str. But we say that, if one is to speak correctly, one must not define it as either singular or plural, and must not even call it it at all; for even by this manner of referring to it one would be giving it the form of the singular.
239
Theaet. Certainly.
239
Str. But poor me, what can anyone say of me any longer? For you would find me now, as always before, defeated in the refutation of not-being. So, as I said before, we must not look to me for correctness of speech about not-being. But come now, let us look to you for it.
239
Theaet. What do you mean?
239
Str. Come, I beg of you, make a sturdy effort, young man as you are, and try with might and main to say something correctly about not-being, without attributing to it either existence or unity or plurality.
239
Theaet. But I should be possessed of great and absurd eagerness for the attempt, if I were to undertake it with your experience before my eyes.
