Plato: Diversity and the Problem of Non-Being

Metaphysics as ontology is the doctrine that studies the fundamental characteristics of being: those traits that every being cannot fail to possess.

Ontology, the science of being as such—that is, the theory of substance—examines what "a being cannot fail to be," meaning the necessary essence or necessity of being. It is grounded on a fundamental principle which, for Aristotle, is "the most certain principle of all things": the principle of non-contradiction. Only this principle allows the substantial being to be delineated and recognized.

Substance is defined by what makes a thing what it is. For this reason, a thing exists in its identity and in its movement, in its form and its matter, in its essence and in its becoming.

Substance, while not opposed to movement, is a substantial unity—a whole that cannot be divided except theoretically, at the cost of losing its ontological essence.

INTERESTINGLY, THIS LEADS TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM OF NON-BEING IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID.

Plato's dialogue The Sophist has become well-known in the history of ontology, primarily for its discussion of being and the so-called "Parricide of Parmenides," a resolution rather than a reversal of the fundamental thesis of Eleatic philosophy.

Plato begins with the following ideas: being, sameness, difference, rest, and motion. While the latter two do not partake of one another, being partakes in all of them, just as the ideas of sameness and difference partake of the others, which must each be distinct from one another and simultaneously identical to themselves.

Non-being, therefore, as the opposite of being, cannot exist, as it would have to negate being, which is impossible. Consequently, non-being is, if it is understood in the sense of difference (Sophist 241d–242a).

Plato starts this journey with the hypothesis that falsehood and semblance exist, introducing a consideration that violates Parmenides’ principle of the impossibility of non-being. The sophist becomes the target of capture because, paradoxically, to avoid being accused of spreading mere doxa, he denies the possibility of error and falsehood. Plato, with a masterful play of irony, appears to take the Eleatic perspective and its accompanying sophistic aporia seriously, only to dismantle them through an extended ontological excursus. He ultimately demonstrates that non-being is and is inextricably linked to being, just as difference is to identity.

Plato distinguishes between non-being as opposition and non-being as otherness from being.

The non-being in question is not the impossible negation of being but rather otherness, which is not falsehood but simply difference. However, the mere fact that non-being is does not yet justify error or the false, which is necessary to capture the sophist.

To achieve this, Plato must also demonstrate the reality of the non-being of the false. Only then can sophistry be defined as the art of deception and the production of semblances.

Plato reaches the conclusion he sought: non-being is a genus in which all other genera participate, just as they participate in being. Without this, none of them could be distinguished from the others.

One could also say that there is being in a narrow sense, which has non-being as its counterpart, and being in a broader sense, which applies even to non-being and to the function of being-different.

In The Sophist, Plato thus develops an ontological theory that redefines the relationship between being and non-being, placing the concept of otherness at the center of his reflection. Through the dialogue of the Eleatic Stranger, non-being is no longer conceived as the absolute negation of being (in line with Parmenidean monism) but as a relational modality—that which is other than being. This conceptual shift opens a perspective in which diversity is understood as a constitutive element of ontology, rather than an accidental negation of it.

Otherness as a Structure of Being

In Plato’s system, otherness emerges as one of the fundamental categories structuring the multiplicity of reality. Every entity, as such, is what it is (through participation in being), but it is also defined by its relationship of difference with other entities. Being is not, therefore, a static, monolithic unity but a dynamic horizon articulated through the interplay of relations between identity and otherness.

This conceptualization finds a paradigmatic expression in the theory of forms. Each Platonic form is what it is in and of itself but is also determined in its being-other than other forms. For instance, the form of justice is defined not only positively but also by its otherness from the forms of beauty or wisdom. Such plurality does not dissolve the unity of being but enriches it, illustrating how ontological diversity is coessential to the possibility of thought and language.

Platonic Diversity and Contemporary Relevance

This notion of otherness as internal difference within being can be reinterpreted in contemporary terms as a reflection on diversity and its structuring role in modern societies. In today’s context, recognizing the plurality of cultural, social, and individual identities challenges the traditional search for homogenizing unity while offering an opportunity to reconceptualize unity itself in terms of relation and integration.

1. Ontology of Plurality: Plato’s ontology of non-being as other provides a theoretical framework for understanding diversity not as a negation of identity but as that which enables its articulation. Every identity is constituted in relation to what is different from itself. Thus, otherness is a positive condition for identity itself. In contemporary contexts, this principle translates into acknowledging that cultural and social differences are not obstacles to unity but its prerequisites.

2. Ethics of Otherness: Plato’s notion of otherness also grounds an ethics of recognition. Non-being as other implies that every relationship with the other is not a confrontation with nothingness but with an existence fully defined in its diversity. This call to internalize otherness as an integral part of reality can inspire contemporary practices of intercultural dialogue and inclusion.

3. Politics of Difference: In Plato, the multiplicity of entities and forms finds harmony in the higher order of the Good. Similarly, a contemporary society that values diversity must integrate differences into a common project without reducing or homogenizing them. This vision entails a politics that not only tolerates but promotes plurality as a resource for the common good.

The Relevance of Ontological Diversity

Plato’s reinterpretation of non-being as otherness offers a lesson that resonates deeply with contemporary philosophical and social challenges. Just as for Plato, being is intelligible only in its relationship to what is different from itself, so too contemporary societies can be conceived as dynamic fabrics of differential relations. Diversity, far from being an obstacle, becomes the condition for constructing a shared reality founded on the appreciation of differences as expressions of the ontological richness of the real.

In conclusion, the relationship between being and non-being in The Sophist, reinterpreted through the categories of otherness and diversity, invites us to conceive plurality not as a threat to unity but as its foundational condition. Plato thus provides a theoretical paradigm for rethinking contemporary reality: a relational ontology in which the other, the different, not only enriches the horizon of being but makes it intelligible and livable, constituting its very foundation.

18-Dec-2024 by Beatrice