Yes，allthings。
　　Thenwecannotsupposethatthereisanythingdifferentfromtheminwhichboththeoneandtheothersmightexist？
　　Thereisnothing。
　　Thentheoneandtheothersareneverinthesame？
　　True。
　　Thentheyareseparatedfromeachother？
　　Yes。
　　Andwesurelycannotsaythatwhatistrulyonehasparts？
　　Impossible。
　　Thentheonewillnotbeintheothersasawhole，noraspart，ifitbeseparatedfromtheothers，andhasnoparts？
　　Impossible。
　　Thenthereisnowayinwhichtheotherscanpartakeoftheone，iftheydonotpartakeeitherinwholeorinpart？
　　Itwouldseemnot。
　　Thenthereisnowayinwhichtheothersareone，orhaveinthemselvesanyunity？
　　Thereisnot。
　　Noraretheothersmany;foriftheyweremany，eachpartofthemwouldbeapartofthewhole;butnowtheothers，notpartakinginanywayoftheone，areneitheronenormany，norwhole，norpart。
　　True。
　　Thentheothersneitherarenorcontaintwoorthree，ifentirelydeprivedoftheone？
　　True。
　　Thentheothersareneitherlikenorunliketheone，norislikenessandunlikenessinthem;foriftheywerelikeandunlike，orhadinthemlikenessandunlikeness，theywouldhavetwonaturesinthemoppositetooneanother。
　　Thatisclear。
　　Butforthatwhichpartakesofnothingtopartakeoftwothingswasheldbyustobeimpossible？
　　Impossible。
　　Thentheothersareneitherlikenorunlikenorboth，foriftheywerelikeorunliketheywouldpartakeofoneofthosetwonatures，whichwouldbeonething，andiftheywereboththeywouldpartakeofoppositeswhichwouldbetwothings，andthishasbeenshowntobeimpossible。
　　True。
　　Thereforetheyareneitherthesame，norother，norinmotion，noratrest，norinastateofbecoming，norofbeingdestroyed，norgreater，norless，norequal，norhavetheyexperiencedanythingelseofthesort;for，iftheyarecapableofexperiencinganysuchaffection，theywillparticipateinoneandtwoandthree，andoddandeven，andinthese，ashasbeenproved，theydonotparticipate，seeingthattheyarealtogetherandineverywaydevoidoftheone。
　　Verytrue。
　　Thereforeifoneis，theoneisallthings，andalsonothing，bothinrelationtoitselfandtootherthings。
　　Certainly。
　　Well，andoughtwenottoconsidernextwhatwillbetheconsequenceiftheoneisnot？
　　Yes;weought。
　　Whatisthemeaningofthehypothesis—Iftheoneisnot;isthereanydifferencebetweenthisandthehypothesis—Ifthenotoneisnot？
　　Thereisadifference，certainly。
　　Isthereadifferenceonly，orratherarenotthetwoexpressions—iftheoneisnot，andifthenotoneisnot，entirelyopposed？
　　Theyareentirelyopposed。
　　Andsupposeapersontosay:—Ifgreatnessisnot，ifsmallnessisnot，oranythingofthatsort，doeshenotmean，wheneverheusessuchanexpression，that"whatisnot"isotherthanotherthings？
　　Tobesure。
　　Andsowhenhesays"Ifoneisnot"heclearlymeans，thatwhat"isnot"isotherthanallothers;weknowwhathemeans—dowenot？
　　Yes，wedo。
　　Whenhesays"one，"hesayssomethingwhichisknown;andsecondlysomethingwhichisotherthanallotherthings;itmakesnodifferencewhetherhepredicateofonebeingornotbeing，forthatwhichissaid"nottobe"isknowntobesomethingallthesame，andisdistinguishedfromotherthings。
　　Certainly。
　　ThenIwillbeginagain，andask:Ifoneisnot，whataretheconsequences？Inthefirstplace，aswouldappear，thereisaknowledgeofit，ortheverymeaningofthewords，"ifoneisnot，"
　　wouldnotbeknown。
　　True。
　　Secondly，theothersdifferfromit，oritcouldnotbedescribedasdifferentfromtheothers？
　　Certainly。
　　Difference，then，belongstoitaswellasknowledge;forinspeakingoftheoneasdifferentfromtheothers，wedonotspeakofadifferenceintheothers，butintheone。
　　Clearlyso。
　　Moreover，theonethatisnotissomethingandpartakesofrelationto"that，"and"this，"and"these，"andthelike，andisanattributeof"this";fortheone，ortheothersthantheone，couldnothavebeenspokenof，norcouldanyattributeorrelativeoftheonethatisnothavebeenorbeenspokenof，norcouldithavebeensaidtobeanything，ifitdidnotpartakeof"some，"oroftheotherrelationsjustnowmentioned。
　　True。
　　Being，then，cannotbeascribedtotheone，sinceitisnot;buttheonethatisnotmayorrathermustparticipateinmanythings，ifitandnothingelseisnot;if，however，neithertheonenortheonethatisnotissupposednottobe，andwearespeakingofsomethingofadifferentnature，wecanpredicatenothingofit。Butsupposingthattheonethatisnotandnothingelseisnot，thenitmustparticipateinthepredicate"that，"andinmanyothers。
　　Certainly。
　　Anditwillhaveunlikenessinrelationtotheothers，fortheothersbeingdifferentfromtheonewillbeofadifferentkind。
　　Certainly。
　　Andarenotthingsofadifferentkindalsootherinkind？
　　Ofcourse。
　　Andarenotthingsotherinkindunlike？
　　Theyareunlike。
　　Andiftheyareunliketheone，thatwhichtheyareunlikewillclearlybeunlikethem？
　　Clearlyso。
　　Thentheonewillhaveunlikenessinrespectofwhichtheothersareunlikeit？
　　Thatwouldseemtobetrue。
　　Andifunlikenesstootherthingsisattributedtoit，itmusthavelikenesstoitself。
　　Howso？
　　Iftheonehaveunlikenesstoone，somethingelsemustbemeant;norwillthehypothesisrelatetoone;butitwillrelatetosomethingotherthanone？
　　Quiteso。
　　Butthatcannotbe。
　　No。
　　Thentheonemusthavelikenesstoitself？
　　Itmust。
　　Again，itisnotequaltotheothers;forifitwereequal，thenitwouldatoncebeandbeliketheminvirtueoftheequality;butifonehasnobeing，thenitcanneitherbenorbelike？
　　Itcannot。
　　Butsinceitisnotequaltotheothers，neithercantheothersbeequaltoit？
　　Certainlynot。
　　Andthingsthatarenotequalareunequal？
　　True。
　　Andtheyareunequaltoanunequal？
　　Ofcourse。
　　Thentheonepartakesofinequality，andinrespectofthistheothersareunequaltoit？
　　Verytrue。
　　Andinequalityimpliesgreatnessandsmallness？
　　Yes。
　　Thentheone，ifofsuchanature，hasgreatnessandsmallness？
　　Thatappearstobetrue。
　　Andgreatnessandsmallnessalwaysstandapart？
　　True。
　　Thenthereisalwayssomethingbetweenthem？
　　Thereis。
　　Andcanyouthinkofanythingelsewhichisbetweenthemotherthanequality？
　　No，itisequalitywhichliesbetweenthem。
　　Thenthatwhichhasgreatnessandsmallnessalsohasequality，whichliesbetweenthem？
　　Thatisclear。
　　Thentheone，whichisnot，partakes，aswouldappear，ofgreatnessandsmallnessandequality？
　　Clearly。
　　Further，itmustsurelyinasortpartakeofbeing？
　　Howso？
　　Itmustbeso，forifnot，thenweshouldnotspeakthetruthinsayingthattheoneisnot。Butifwespeakthetruth，clearlywemustsaywhatis。AmInotright？
　　Yes。
　　Andsinceweaffirmthatwespeaktruly，wemustalsoaffirmthatwesaywhatis？
　　Certainly。
　　Then，aswouldappear，theone，whenitisnot，is;forifitwerenottobewhenitisnot，butweretorelinquishsomethingofbeing，soastobecomenot—being，itwouldatoncebe。
　　Quitetrue。
　　Thentheonewhichisnot，ifitistomaintainitself，musthavethebeingofnot—beingasthebondofnot—being，justasbeingmusthaveasabondthenot—beingofnot—beinginordertoperfectitsownbeing;forthetruestassertionofthebeingofbeingandofthenot—beingofnotbeingiswhenbeingpartakesofthebeingofbeing，andnotofthebeingofnot—being—thatis，theperfectionofbeing;
　　andwhennot—beingdoesnotpartakeofthenot—beingofnot—beingbutofthebeingofnot—being—thatistheperfectionofnot—being。
　　Mosttrue。
　　Sincethenwhatispartakesofnot—being，andwhatisnotofbeing，mustnottheonealsopartakeofbeinginordernottobe？
　　Certainly。
　　Thentheone，ifitisnot，clearlyhasbeing？
　　Clearly。
　　Andhasnot—beingalso，ifitisnot？
　　Ofcourse。
　　Butcananythingwhichisinacertainstatenotbeinthatstatewithoutchanging？
　　Impossible。
　　Theneverythingwhichisandisnotinacertainstate，implieschange？
　　Certainly。
　　Andchangeismotion—wemaysaythat？
　　Yes，motion。