[11] [237b] So that is his testimony, and a reasonable examination of the statement itself would make it most absolutely clear. Let us then consider this matter first, if it’s all the same to you.
Theaet. Assume my consent to anything you wish. Consider only the argument, how it may best be pursued; follow your own course, and take me along with you.
Str. Very well, then. Now tell me; do we venture to use the phrase absolute not-being?
Theaet. Of course.
Str. If, then, not merely for the sake of discussion or as a joke, but [237c] seriously, one of his pupils were asked to consider and answer the question “To what is the designation “not-being” to be applied?” how do we think he would reply to his questioner, and how would he apply the term, for what purpose, and to what object?
Theaet. That is a difficult question; I may say that for a fellow like me it is unanswerable.
Str. But this is clear, anyhow, that the term “not-being” cannot be applied to any being.
Theaet. Of course not.
Str. And if not to being, then it could not properly be applied to something, either.
Theaet. How could it?
[237d] Str. And this is plain to us, that we always use the word “something” of some being, for to speak of “something” in the abstract, naked, as it were, and disconnected from all beings is impossible, is it not?
Theaet. Yes, it is.
Str. You assent because you recognize that he who says something must say some one thing?
Theaet. Yes.
Str. And you will agree that “something” or “some” in the singular is the sign of one, in the dual of two, and in the plural of many.
Theaet. Of course.
[237e] Str. And he who says not something, must quite necessarily say absolutely nothing.
Theaet. Quite necessarily.
Str. Then we cannot even concede that such a person speaks, but says nothing? We must even declare that he who undertakes to say “not-being” does not speak at all?
Theaet. The argument could go no further in perplexity.