Here is much confusion, partly real but principally verbal, about Ens. Plato proceeds to affirm, that the difficulty about Non-Ens is no greater, and that it admits of being elucidated. The higher Genera or Forms (he says) are such that some of them will combine or enter into communion with each other, wholly or partially, others will not, but are reciprocally exclusive. Motion and Rest will not enter into communion, but mutually exclude each other: neither of them can be predicated of the other. But each or both of them will enter into communion with Existence, which latter may be predicated of both. Here are three Genera or Forms: motion, rest, and existence. Each of them is the _same_ with itself, and _different_ from the other two. Thus we have two new distinct Forms or Genera--_Same_ and _Different_--which enter into communion with the preceding three, but are in themselves distinct from them.[112] Accordingly you may say, motion _partakes_ of (or enters into communion with) Diversum, because motion differs from rest: also you may say, motion _partakes_ of Idem, as being identical with itself: but you cannot say, motion _is_ different, motion _is_ the same; because the subject and the predicate are essentially distinct and not identical.[113] [Footnote 112: In the Timæus (pp. 35-36-37), Plato declares these three elements--[Greek: Tau)to/n, Tha/teron, Ou)si/a]--to be the three constituent elements of the cosmical soul, and of the human rational soul.] [Footnote 113: Plato, Sophist. p. 255 B. [Greek: Mete/cheton mê\n a)/mphô (ki/nêsis kai\ sta/sis) tau)tou= kai\ thate/rou. . . .] [Greek: Mê\ toi/nun le/gômen ki/nêsin g' _ei)=nai_ tau)to\n ê)\ tha/teron, mêd' au)= sta/sin.] He had before said--[Greek: A)ll' ou)/ ti mê\n ki/nêsi/s ge kai\ sta/sis ou)th' e(/teron ou)/te tau)to/n _e)stin_] (p. 255 A). Plato here says, It is true that [Greek: ki/nêsis _mete/chei_ tau)tou=], but it is not true that [Greek: ki/nêsi/s e)sti tau)to/n]. Again, p. 259 A. [Greek: to\ me\n e(/teron metascho\n tou= o)/ntos _e)/sti_ me\n dia\ tau/tên tê\n me/thexin, ou) mê\n e)kei=no/ ge ou)= mete/schen a)ll' e(/teron.] He understands, therefore, that [Greek: e)sti], when used as copula, implies identity between the predicate and the subject. This is the same point of view from which Antisthenes looked, when he denied the propriety of saying [Greek: A)/nthrôpo/s _e)stin_ a)gatho/s--A)/nthrôpo/s _e)sti_ kako/s]: and when he admitted only identical propositions, such as [Greek: A)/nthrôpo/s _e)stin_ a)/nthrôpos--A)/gatho/s _e)stin_ a)gatho/s.] He assumed that [Greek: e)sti], when intervening between the subject and the predicate, implies identity between them; and the same assumption is made by Plato in the passage now before us. Whether Antisthenes would have allowed the proposition--[Greek: A)/nthrôpos _mete/chei_ kaki/as], or other propositions in which [Greek: e)sti] does not appear as copula, we do not know enough of his opinions to say.