Then it is in some region like this that we shall always, both now and hereafter, discover the philosopher, if we look for him;
he also is hard to see clearly, but the difficulty is not the same in his case and that of the sophist.
How do they differ?
The sophist runs away into the darkness of not-being, feeling his way in it by practice, By practice, i.e., by empirical knowledge as opposed to reason. and is hard to discern on account of the darkness of the place. Don’t you think so?
It seems likely.
But the philosopher, always devoting himself through reason to the idea of being, is also very difficult to see on account of the brilliant light of the place; for the eyes
of the soul of the multitude are not strong enough to endure the sight of the divine.
This also seems no less true than what you said about the sophist.
Now we will make more accurate investigations about the philosopher hereafter, if we still care to do so; but as to the sophist, it is clear that we must not relax our efforts until we have a satisfactory view of him.
You are right.
Since, therefore, we are agreed that some of the classes will mingle with one another, and others will not, and some will mingle with few and others with many, and that
there is nothing to hinder some from mingling universally with all, let us next proceed with our discussion by investigating, not all the forms or ideas, lest we become confused among so many, but some only, selecting them from those that are considered the most important; let us first consider their several natures, then what their power of mingling with one another is, and so, if we cannot grasp being and not-being with perfect clearness, we shall at any rate not fail to reason fully about them, so far as the method of our present inquiry permits. Let us in this way see whether it is, after all,
permitted us to say that not-being really is, although not being, and yet come off unscathed.
Yes; that is the proper thing for us to do.
The most important, surely, of the classes or genera are those which we just mentioned; being itself and rest and motion.
Yes, by far.
And further, two of them, we say, cannot mingle with each other.
Decidedly not.
But being can mingle with both of them, for they both are.
Of course.
Then these prove to be three.
To be sure.
Each of them is, then, other than the remaining two, but the same as itself.