Because if it were in another, it would be encircled by that in
which it was, and would touch it at many places and with many parts;
but that which is one and indivisible, and does not partake of a
circular nature, cannot be touched all round in many places.
But if, on the other hand, one were in itself, it would also be
contained by nothing else but itself; that is to say, if it were
really in itself; for nothing can be in anything which does not
But then, that which contains must be other than that which is
contained? for the same whole cannot do and suffer both at once; and
if so, one will be no longer one, but two?
Then one cannot be anywhere, either in itself or in another?
Further consider, whether that which is of such a nature can have
either rest or motion.
Why, because the one, if it were moved, would be either moved in
place or changed in nature; for these are the only kinds of motion.
And the one, when it changes and ceases to be itself, cannot be
any longer one.
It cannot therefore experience the sort of motion which is change of
Then can the motion of the one be in place?
But if the one moved in place, must it not either move round and
round in the same place, or from one place to another?