And that which moves in a circle must rest upon a centre; and that
which goes round upon a centre must have parts which are different
from the centre; but that which has no centre and no parts cannot
possibly be carried round upon a centre?
But perhaps the motion of the one consists in change of place?
Perhaps so, if it moves at all.
And have we not already shown that it cannot be in anything?
Then its coming into being in anything is still more impossible;
is it not?
I do not see why.
Why, because anything which comes into being in anything, can
neither as yet be in that other thing while still coming into being,
nor be altogether out of it, if already coming into being in it.
And therefore whatever comes into being in another must have
parts, and then one part may be in, and another part out of that
other; but that which has no parts can never be at one and the same
time neither wholly within nor wholly without anything.
And is there not a still greater impossibility in that which has
no parts, and is not a whole, coming into being anywhere, since it
cannot come into being either as a part or as a whole?
Then it does not change place by revolving in the same spot, not
by going somewhere and coming into being in something; nor again, by
change in itself?
Then in respect of any kind of motion the one is immoveable?