Then everything which is and is not in a certain state, implies
change?
Certainly.
And change is motion-we may say that?
Yes, motion.
And the one has been proved both to be and not to be?
Yes.
And therefore is and is not in the same state?
Yes.
Thus the one that is not has been shown to have motion also, because
it changes from being to not-being?
That appears to be true.
But surely if it is nowhere among what is, as is the fact, since
it is not, it cannot change from one place to another?
Impossible.
Then it cannot move by changing place?
No.
Nor can it turn on the same spot, for it nowhere touches the same,
for the same is, and that which is not cannot be reckoned among things
that are?
It cannot.
Then the one, if it is not, cannot turn in that in which it is not?
No.
Neither can the one, whether it is or is not, be altered into
other than itself, for if it altered and became different from itself,
then we could not be still speaking of the one, but of something else?
True.
But if the one neither suffers alteration, nor turns round in the
same place, nor changes place, can it still be capable of motion?
Impossible.
Now that which is unmoved must surely be at rest, and that which
is at rest must stand still?
Certainly.
Then the one that is not, stands still, and is also in motion?
That seems to be true.
But if it be in motion it must necessarily undergo alteration, for
anything which is moved, in so far as it is moved, is no longer in the
same state, but in another?
Yes.
Pages:
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68