[Footnote 108: Plato, Parmenid. p. 166 A-B. [Greek: E(\n a)/ra ei) mê\ e)/sti, ta)/lla ou)/te e)/stin ou)/te doxa/zetai e(\n ou)/te polla/. . . . Ou)/d' a)/ra o(/moia ou)de\ a)no/moia. . . . Ou)de\ mê\n ta\ au)ta/ ge ou)d' e(/tera, ou)de\ a(pto/mena ou)de\ chôri/s, _ou)de\ a)/ll' o(/sa e)n toi=s pro/sthen diê/lthomen_] (compare [Greek: dielthei=n], p. 165 E) [Greek: _ô(s phaino/mena au)ta/, tou/tôn ou)/te ti e)/stin ou)/te phai/netai ta)/lla, e(\n ei) mê\ e)/stin_.]] [Side-note: Concluding words of the Parmenides--Declaration that he has demonstrated the Both and the Neither of many different propositions.] Here we find ourselves at the close of the Parmenides. Plato announces his purpose to be, to elicit contradictory conclusions, by different trains of reasoning, out of the same fundamental assumption.[109] He declares, in the concluding words, that--on the hypothesis of _Unum est_, as well as on that of _Unum non est_--he has succeeded in demonstrating the Both and the Neither of many distinct propositions, respecting Unum and respecting Cætera. [Footnote 109: Compare, with the passage cited in the last note, another passage, p. 159 B, at the beginning of Demonstration 5. [Greek: Ou)kou=n tau=ta me\n ê)/dê e)ô=men ô(s phanera/, e)piskopô=men de\ pa/lin, e(\n ei) e)/stin, a)=ra _kai\ ou)ch ou(/tôs e)/chei ta)/lla tou= e(no\s ê)\ ou(/tô mo/non_?] Here the purpose to prove [Greek: _ou)ch ou(/tôs_], immediately on the heels of [Greek: _ou(/tôs_], is plainly enunciated.] [Side-note: Comparison of the conclusion of the Parmenides to an enigma of the Republic. Difference. The constructor of the enigma adapted its conditions to a foreknown solution. Plato did not.]