Parmenides

Ceph.Moreover, being of such a nature, it cannot be anywhere, for it could not be either in anything else or in itself.How is that?If it were in something else, it would be encircled by that in which it would be and would be touched in many places by many parts of it; but that which is one and without parts and does not partake of the circular nature cannot be touched by a circle in many places.No, it cannot.But, furthermore, being in itself it would also be surrounding with itself naught other than itself, if it were in itself; for nothing can be in anything which does not surround it.No, it cannot.Then that which surrounds would be other than that which is surrounded; for a whole cannot be both active and passive in the same action; and thus one would be no longer one, but two.True.Then the one is not anywhere, neither in itself nor in something else.No, it is not.This being the case, see whether it can be either at rest or in motion.Why not?Because if in motion it would be either moving in place or changing; for those are the only kinds of motion.Yes.But the one, if changing to something other than itself, cannot any longer be one.It cannot.Then it is not in motion by the method of change.Apparently not.But by moving in place?Perhaps.But if the one moved in place, it would either revolve in the same spot or pass from one place to another.Yes, it must do so.And that which revolves must rest upon a center and have other parts which turn about the center; but what possible way is there for that which has no center and no parts to revolve upon a center?There is none.But does it change its place by coming into one place at one time and another at another, and move in that way?Yes, if it moves at all.Did we not find that it could not be in anything?Yes.And is it not still more impossible for it to come into anything?I do not understand why.If anything comes into anything, it must be not yet in it, while it is still coming in, nor still entirely outside of it, if it is already coming in, must it not?It must.Now if anything goes through this process, it can be only that which has parts; for a part of it could be already in the other, and the rest outside; but that which has no parts cannot by any possibility be entirely neither inside nor outside of anything at the same time.True.But is it not still more impossible for that which has no parts and is not a whole to come into anything, since it comes in neither in parts nor as a whole?Clearly.