 The natural way to try to choose between these two interpretations is to see which of them fits best with the logic of the passage as a whole. Unfortunately, a neutral decision on this does not seem be possible. According to the manuscripts, the phrase that follows the words we have been discussing reads “for this reason (dia touto) neither our sensations nor our opinions tell the truth or lie”. On the metaphysical interpretation, the idea would be that, since things are in their real nature indeterminate, our sensations and opinions, which represent things as having certain determinate features, are neither true nor false. They are not true, since reality is not the way they present it as being. It might then seem that they are false. But if reality is indeterminate because it is constantly changing (as the sensible world is sometimes portrayed, for example, in Plato), then one might say that our perceptions of the fleeting, temporary features of things are not simply false. Because these features are temporary and fleeting, they do not belong to the real nature of things, so the perceptions do not qualify as true; but (assuming our senses are functioning normally) they are features the things do actually manifest on particular occasions.