'How do you mean ?' Must not that which is moved by others finally depend upon that which is moved by itself?
Nothing can be affected by any transition prior to self-motion.

Then the first and eldest principle of motion, whether in things at rest or not at rest, will be the principle of self-motion; and that which is moved by others and can move others will be the second.

'True.' Let me ask another question: What is the name which is given to self-motion when manifested in any material substance?
'Life.' And soul too is life?
'Very good.' And are there not three kinds of knowledge--a knowledge (1) of the essence, (2) of the definition, (3) of the name?
And sometimes the name leads us to ask the definition, sometimes the definition to ask the name.

For example, number can be divided into equal parts, and when thus divided is termed even, and the definition of even and the word 'even' refer to the same thing.

'Very true.' And what is the definition of the thing which is named 'soul'?
Must we not reply, 'The self-moved'?
And have we not proved that the self-moved is the source of motion in other things?
'Yes.' And the motion which is not self-moved will be inferior to this?
'True.' And if so, we shall be right in saying that the soul is prior and superior to the body, and the body by nature subject and inferior to the soul?
'Quite right.' And we agreed that if the soul was prior to the body, the things of the soul were prior to the things of the body?
'Certainly.' And therefore desires, and manners, and thoughts, and true opinions, and recollections, are prior to the length and breadth and force of bodies.