When therefore we characterise the Sophist as one who builds up phantasms for realities--who presents to us what is not, as being like to what _is_, and as a false substitute for what _is_--he will ask us what we mean? If, to illustrate our meaning, we point to images of things in mirrors or clear water, he will pretend to be blind, and will refuse the evidence of sense: he will require us to make out a rational theory explaining Non-Ens or Nothing.[36] But when we try to do this, we contradict ourselves. A phantasm is that which, not being a true counterpart of reality, is yet so like it as to be mistaken for reality. _Quatenus_ phantasm, it is Ens: _quatenus_ reality, it is Non-Ens: thus the same thing is both Ens, and Non-Ens: which we declared before to be impossible.[37] When therefore we accuse the Sophist of passing off phantasms for realities, we suppose falsely: we suppose matters not existing, or contrary to those which exist: we suppose the existent not to exist, or the non-existent to exist But this assumes as done what cannot be done: since we have admitted more than once that Non-Ens can neither be described in language by itself, nor joined on in any manner to Ens.[38] [Footnote 36: Plato, Sophist. pp. 239-240. [Greek: katagela/setai/ sou tô=n lo/gôn, o(/tan ô(s ble/ponti le/gê|s au)tô=|, prospoiou/menos ou)/te ka/toptra ou)/te u(/data gignô/skein, ou)/te to\ para/pan o)/psin; to\ d' e)k tô=n lo/gôn e)rôtê/sei se mo/non.]] [Footnote 37: Plato, Sophist. p. 240 B.] [Footnote 38: Plato, Sophist. p. 241 B. [Greek: tô=| ga\r mê\ o)/nti to\ o)\n prosa/ptein ê(ma=s polla/kis a)nagka/zesthai, diomologêsame/nous nu=n dê/ pou tou=to ei)=nai pa/ntôn a)dunatô/taton.]] Stating the case in this manner, we find that to suppose falsely, or affirm falsely, is a contradiction. But there is yet another possible way out of the difficulty (the Eleate continues). [Side-note: The Eleate turns from Non-Ens to Ens. Theories of various philosophers about Ens.] Let us turn for a moment (he says) from Non-Ens to Ens. The various physical philosophers tell us a good deal about Ens. They differ greatly among themselves. Some philosophers represent Ens as triple, comprising three distinct elements, sometimes in harmony, sometimes at variance with each other. Others tell us that it is double--wet and dry--or hot and cold. A third sect, especially Xenophanes and Parmenides, pronounce it to be essentially One. Herakleitus blends together the different theories, affirming that Ens is both many and one, always in process of disjunction and conjunction: Empedokles adopts a similar view, only dropping the _always_, and declaring the process of disjunction to alternate with that of conjunction, so that Ens is sometimes Many, sometimes One.[39] [Footnote 39: Plato, Sophist. p. 242 D-E.] [Side-note: Difficulties about Ens are as great as those about Non-Ens.]