§4.4#3τοῖν γὰρ δυοῖν δύο ἀποφάσεις, εἰ δὲ μία ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἐκείνη, καὶ αὕτη μία ἂν εἴη ἀντικειμένη. —ἔτι ἤτοι περὶ ἅπαντα οὕτως ἔχει, καὶ ἔστι καὶ λευκὸν καὶ οὐ λευκὸν καὶ ὂν καὶ οὐκ ὄν, καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας φάσεις καὶ ἀποφάσεις ὁμοιοτρόπως, ἢ οὒ ἀλλὰ περὶ μέν τινας, περί τινας δʼ οὔ.
For of the two there are two negations, and if that one is one composed of both, this one would also be one opposite negation. — Furthermore, either it is so about all things, and a thing is both white and not-white, and being and non-being, and similarly for other assertions and negations, or it is not so, but about some things it is, and about others it is not.
καὶ εἰ μὲν μὴ περὶ πάσας, αὗται ἂν εἶεν ὁμολογούμεναι· εἰ δὲ περὶ πάσας, πάλιν ἤτοι καθʼ ὅσων τὸ φῆσαι καὶ ἀποφῆσαι καὶ καθʼ ὅσων ἀποφῆσαι καὶ φῆσαι, ἢ κατὰ μὲν ὧν φῆσαι καὶ ἀποφῆσαι, καθʼ ὅσων δὲ ἀποφῆσαι οὐ πάντων φῆσαι.
And if not about all, these would be admitted; but if about all, again either of whatever one can assert, one can also deny, and of whatever one can deny, one can also assert; or, of those of which one can assert, one can also deny, but of those of which one can deny, one cannot assert of all of them.
καὶ εἰ μὲν οὕτως, εἴη ἄν τι παγίως οὐκ ὄν, καὶ αὕτη βεβαία δόξα, καὶ εἰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι βέβαιόν τι καὶ γνώριμον, γνωριμωτέρα ἂν εἴη ἡ φάσις ἡ ἀντικειμένη·
And if in this way, there would be something that is fixedly non-being, and this would be a stable belief; and if not-being is something stable and knowable, the opposite assertion would be more knowable.
εἰ δὲ ὁμοίως καὶ ὅσα ἀποφῆσαι φάναι, ἀνάγκη ἤτοι ἀληθὲς διαιροῦντα λέγειν, οἷον ὅτι λευκὸν καὶ πάλιν ὅτι οὐ λευκόν, ἢ οὔ.
But if equally also whatever one can deny, one can also assert, then it is necessary either to speak truly when dividing them—for example, saying that it is white, and again that it is not white—or not.
καὶ εἰ μὲν μὴ ἀληθὲς διαιροῦντα λέγειν, οὐ λέγει τε ταῦτα καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐθέν (τὰ δὲ μὴ ὄντα πῶς ἂν φθέγξαιτο ἢ βαδίσειεν; ), καὶ πάντα δʼ ἂν εἴη ἕν, ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον εἴρηται, καὶ ταὐτὸν ἔσται καὶ ἄνθρωπος καὶ θεὸς καὶ τριήρης καὶ αἱ ἀντιφάσεις αὐτῶν (εἰ γὰρ ὁμοίως καθʼ ἑκάστου, οὐδὲν διοίσει ἕτερον ἑτέρου· εἰ γὰρ διοίσει, τοῦτʼ ἔσται ἀληθὲς καὶ ἴδιον)· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰ διαιροῦντα ἐνδέχεται ἀληθεύειν, συμβαίνει τὸ λεχθέν, πρὸς δὲ τούτῳ ὅτι πάντες ἂν ἀληθεύοιεν καὶ πάντες ἂν ψεύδοιντο, καὶ αὐτὸς αὑτὸν ὁμολογεῖ ψεύδεσθαι.
And if it is not true to speak by dividing them, he does not say these things and nothing exists (and how could things that do not exist speak or walk?), and all things would be one, as was said before, and the same thing will be man and god and trireme and their contradictions (for if it is equally of each, one thing will differ in no way from another; for if it differs, this will be true and peculiar); and similarly, even if it is possible to speak truly when dividing them, what has been said follows, and in addition to this, everyone would speak truly and everyone would speak falsely, and he himself confesses that he speaks falsely.
ἅμα δὲ φανερὸν ὅτι περὶ οὐθενός ἐστι πρὸς τοῦτον ἡ σκέψις· οὐθὲν γὰρ λέγει.
And at the same time it is clear that with such a person our inquiry is about nothing; for he says nothing.
οὔτε γὰρ οὕτως οὔτʼ οὐχ οὕτως λέγει, ἀλλʼ οὕτως τε καὶ οὐχ οὕτως· καὶ πάλιν γε ταῦτα ἀπόφησιν ἄμφω, ὅτι οὔθʼ οὕτως οὔτε οὐχ οὕτως· εἰ γὰρ μή, ἤδη ἄν τι εἴη ὡρισμένον. —ἔτι εἰ ὅταν ἡ φάσις ἀληθὴς ᾖ, ἡ ἀπόφασις ψευδής, κἂν αὕτη ἀληθὴς ᾖ, ἡ κατάφασις ψευδής, οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὸ αὐτὸ ἅμα φάναι καὶ ἀποφάναι ἀληθῶς.
For he says neither "it is so" nor "it is not so", but "it is so and it is not so"; and again he denies both of these, saying "neither is it so nor is it not so"; for if he did not, there would already be something definite. — Furthermore, if whenever the assertion is true, the negation is false, and if the latter is true, the affirmation is false, it would not be possible to assert and deny the same thing truly at the same time.
ἀλλʼ ἴσως φαῖεν ἂν τοῦτʼ εἶναι τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς κείμενον. —ἔτι ἆρα ὁ μὲν ἢ ἔχειν πως ὑπολαμβάνων ἢ μὴ ἔχειν διέψευσται, ὁ δὲ ἄμφω ἀληθεύει;
But perhaps they would say that this is the very thing laid down from the beginning. — Furthermore, is he who thinks that a thing is in a certain state or is not in that state deceived, while he who thinks both speaks truly?
εἰ γὰρ ἀληθεύει, τί ἂν εἴη τὸ λεγόμενον ὅτι τοιαύτη τῶν ὄντων ἡ φύσις;
For if he speaks truly, what would be the meaning of saying that such is the nature of beings?
εἰ δὲ μὴ ἀληθεύει, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀληθεύει ἢ ὁ ἐκείνως ὑπολαμβάνων, ἤδη πως ἔχοι ἂν τὰ ὄντα, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἀληθὲς ἂν εἴη, καὶ οὐχ ἅμα καὶ οὐκ ἀληθές.
But if he does not speak truly, but he who thinks in that way speaks more truly, then beings would already be in some state, and this would be true, and not at the same time also not true.
εἰ δὲ ὁμοίως ἅπαντες καὶ ψεύδονται καὶ ἀληθῆ λέγουσιν, οὔτε φθέγξασθαι οὔτʼ εἰπεῖν τῷ τοιούτῳ ἔσται· ἅμα γὰρ ταῦτά τε καὶ οὐ ταῦτα λέγει.
But if all equally both lie and speak the truth, such a person can neither articulate nor say anything; for he says at the same time both these things and not these things.
εἰ δὲ μηθὲν ὑπολαμβάνει ἀλλʼ ὁμοίως οἴεται καὶ οὐκ οἴεται, τί ἂν διαφερόντως ἔχοι τῶν γε φυτῶν;
And if he has no belief but equally thinks and does not think, how would he differ from plants?
ὅθεν καὶ μάλιστα φανερόν ἐστιν ὅτι οὐδεὶς οὕτω διάκειται οὔτε τῶν ἄλλων οὔτε τῶν λεγόντων τὸν λόγον τοῦτον.
Whence it is also most obvious that no one is actually so disposed, neither of others nor of those who state this argument.
διὰ τί γὰρ βαδίζει Μέγαράδε ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἡσυχάζει, οἰόμενος βαδίζειν δεῖν;
For why does he walk to Megara and not stay still, thinking that he ought to walk?
οὐδʼ εὐθέως ἕωθεν πορεύεται εἰς φρέαρ ἢ εἰς φάραγγα, ἐὰν τύχῃ, ἀλλὰ φαίνεται εὐλαβούμενος, ὡς οὐχ ὁμοίως οἰόμενος μὴ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν καὶ ἀγαθόν;
Nor straightway at dawn does he go into a well or a ravine, if it happens to be there, but he is seen to be careful, as not thinking that falling in is equally not good and good?
δῆλον ἄρα ὅτι τὸ μὲν βέλτιον ὑπολαμβάνει τὸ δʼ οὐ βέλτιον.
It is clear, then, that he thinks one thing is better and another not better.
εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἄνθρωπον τὸ δʼ οὐκ ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὸ μὲν γλυκὺ τὸ δʼ οὐ γλυκὺ ἀνάγκη ὑπολαμβάνειν.
And if this is so, he must also think that one thing is man and another not-man, and one sweet and another not-sweet.
οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἴσου ἅπαντα ζητεῖ καὶ ὑπολαμβάνει, ὅταν οἰηθεὶς βέλτιον εἶναι τὸ πιεῖν ὕδωρ καὶ ἰδεῖν ἄνθρωπον εἶτα ζητῇ αὐτά· καίτοι ἔδει γε, εἰ ταὐτὸν ἦν ὁμοίως καὶ ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἄνθρωπος.
For he does not seek and think all things equally, when, having thought it better to drink water and to see a man, he then seeks these things; yet he ought to, if man and not-man were equally the same.
ἀλλʼ ὅπερ ἐλέχθη, οὐθεὶς ὃς οὐ φαίνεται τὰ μὲν εὐλαβούμενος τὰ δʼ οὔ· ὥστε, ὡς ἔοικε, πάντες ὑπολαμβάνουσιν ἔχειν ἁπλῶς, εἰ μὴ περὶ ἅπαντα, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὸ ἄμεινον καὶ χεῖρον.
But as was said, there is no one who does not appear to avoid some things and not others; so that, as it seems, all think things are unconditionally in a certain state, if not about everything, at least about the better and the worse.
εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐπιστάμενοι ἀλλὰ δοξάζοντες, πολὺ μᾶλλον ἐπιμελητέον ἂν εἴη τῆς ἀληθείας, ὥσπερ καὶ νοσώδει ὄντι ἢ ὑγιεινῷ τῆς ὑγιείας· καὶ γὰρ ὁ δοξάζων πρὸς τὸν ἐπιστάμενον οὐχ ὑγιεινῶς διάκειται πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. —ἔτι εἰ ὅτι μάλιστα πάντα οὕτως ἔχει καὶ οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ τό γε μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον ἔνεστιν ἐν τῇ φύσει τῶν ὄντων· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ὁμοίως φήσαιμεν εἶναι τὰ δύο ἄρτια καὶ τὰ τρία, οὐδʼ ὁμοίως διέψευσται ὁ τὰ τέτταρα πέντε οἰόμενος καὶ ὁ χίλια.
And if they do so not knowing but opining, they ought to care much more for the truth, just as a sick person rather than a healthy one ought to care for health; for he who opines, compared to him who knows, is not in a healthy state in relation to the truth. — Furthermore, even if to the highest degree all things are both "so" and "not so", yet the "more" and "less" are present in the nature of beings; for we would not say that two and three are equally even, nor is he who thinks four is five equally deceived as he who thinks it is a thousand.
εἰ οὖν μὴ ὁμοίως, δῆλον ὅτι ἅτερος ἧττον, ὥστε μᾶλλον ἀληθεύει.
If then they are not equally deceived, it is clear that the one is less so, and thus speaks more truly.
εἰ οὖν τὸ μᾶλλον ἐγγύτερον, εἴη γε ἄν τι ἀληθὲς οὗ ἐγγύτερον τὸ μᾶλλον ἀληθές.
If then the "more" is closer, there would indeed be something true to which the "more true" is closer.
κἂν εἰ μὴ ἔστιν, ἀλλʼ ἤδη γέ τι ἔστι βεβαιότερον καὶ ἀληθινώτερον, καὶ τοῦ λόγου ἀπηλλαγμένοι ἂν εἴημεν τοῦ ἀκράτου καὶ κωλύοντός τι τῇ διανοίᾳ ὁρίσαι.
And even if there is not, yet at least there is already something more secure and more true, and we would be freed from the unmixed doctrine which prevents the intellect from defining anything.