Abstract

At 236D-239C, Sophist presents three arguments to the conclusions, that the expression ›not-being‹ does not say or express anything, that we cannot even conceive of the alleged entity of notbeing and that we contradict ourselves when claiming that not-being is not and that the expression ›not being‹ does not express anything at all. I intend to answer five questions concerning these arguments: (Question 1) What does Plato mean when he says that the expression ›not-being‹ does not say anything at all? (Q2) What sort of semantic relation does he think the expression ›not-being‹ involves? (Q3) How couldhe possibly explain that ›not-being‹ is, after all, an expression? (Q4) What does he think we are to learn about the contradictions ensued by our talk of not-being? (Q5) And what does he think is the ontological status of notbeing? My motivation for consideringthese questions is that the arguments against not-being in Sophist 236D-239Chave not been charitably discussed and therefore have not been fully explored.