Authors/Aristotle/metaphysics/l11/c6

Chapter 6

Greek	Latin	English
παραπλήσιον δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ λεχθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πρωταγόρου: καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἔφη πάντων εἶναι χρημάτων μέτρον ἄνθρωπον, οὐδὲν ἕτερον λέγων ἢ τὸ δοκοῦν ἑκάστῳ [15] τοῦτο καὶ εἶναι παγίως: τούτου δὲ γιγνομένου τὸ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει καὶ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι, καὶ κακὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι, καὶ τἆλλα τὰ κατὰ τὰς ἀντικειμένας λεγόμενα φάσεις, διὰ τὸ πολλάκις τοισδὶ μὲν φαίνεσθαι τόδε εἶναι καλὸν τοισδὶ δὲ τοὐναντίον, μέτρον δ᾽ εἶναι τὸ φαινόμενον ἑκάστῳ.	Simile autem dictis est et quod dictum est a Protagora. et enim ille dixit omnium esse rerum mensuram hominem, ↵ nihil aliud dicens quam quod videtur unicuique hoc et esse firmiter. Hoc autem facto idem accidit et esse et non esse, et malum et bonum esse, et alia secundum oppositas dictiones dicta, propter multotiens hiis quidem videri hoc esse bonum hiis autem contrarium, mensuram autem esse quod videtur uni↵cuique.	Chapter 6. The saying of Protagoras is like the views we have mentioned; he said that man is the measure of all things, meaning simply that that which seems to each man also assuredly is. If this is so, it follows that the same thing both is and is not, and is bad and good, and that the contents of all other opposite statements are true, because often a particular thing appears beautiful to some and the contrary of beautiful to others, and that which appears to each man is the measure.
[20] λύοιτο δ᾽ ἂν αὕτη ἡ ἀπορία θεωρήσασι πόθεν ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ἀρχὴ [21] τῆς ὑπολήψεως ταύτης:	Solvetur autem utique haec dubitatio considerantibus unde venit principium existimationis huius.	This difficulty may be solved by considering the source of this opinion.
ἔοικε γὰρ ἐνίοις μὲν ἐκ τῆς τῶν φυσιολόγων δόξης γεγενῆσθαι, τοῖς δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ταὐτὰ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἅπαντας γιγνώσκειν ἀλλὰ τοῖσδε μὲν ἡδὺ τόδε φαίνεσθαι τοῖσδε δὲ τοὐναντίον.	Videtur enim quibusdam quidem ex phisiologorum opinione, aliis autem ex non eadem de eisdem omnes cognoscere, sed hiis quidem delectabile ↵ hoc videri hiis autem contrarium.	It seems to have arisen in some cases from the doctrine of the natural philosophers, and in others from the fact that all men have not the same views about the same things, but a particular thing appears pleasant to some and the contrary of pleasant to others.
τὸ γὰρ μηδὲν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος [25] γίγνεσθαι, πᾶν δ᾽ ἐξ ὄντος, σχεδὸν ἁπάντων ἐστὶ κοινὸν δόγμα τῶν περὶ φύσεως: ἐπεὶ οὖν οὐ λευκὸν γίγνεται λευκοῦ τελέως ὄντος καὶ οὐδαμῇ μὴ λευκοῦ [νῦν δὲ γεγενημένον μὴ λευκόν], γίγνοιτ᾽ ἂν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος λευκοῦ τὸ γιγνόμενον [μὴ] λευκόν: ὥστε ἐκ μὴ ὄντος γίγνοιτ᾽ ἂν κατ᾽ ἐκείνους, εἰ μὴ [30] ὑπῆρχε λευκὸν τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ μὴ λευκόν. οὐ χαλεπὸν δὲ διαλύειν τὴν ἀπορίαν ταύτην: εἴρηται γὰρ ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς πῶς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γίγνεται τὰ γιγνόμενα καὶ πῶς ἐξ ὄντος.	Nihil enim ex non ente fieri, omne autem ex ente, fere omnium est commune dogma eorum qui de natura. Quoniam igitur non album fit ex albo perfecte existente et nequaquam ex non albo, nunc autem factum non album, fiet utique ex non ente non albo quod fit non album; ↵ quare ex non ente fiet utique secundum illos, si non extitit non album idem et album. Non difficile autem dissoluere dubitationem hanc. Dictum est enim in phisicis quomodo ex non ente fiunt quae fiunt et quomodo ex ente.	That nothing comes to be out of that which is not, but everything out of that which is, is a dogma common to nearly all the natural philosophers. Since, then, white cannot come to be if the perfectly white and in no respect not-white existed before, that which becomes white must come from that which is not white; so that it must come to be out of that which is not (so they argue), unless the same thing was at the beginning white and not-white. But it is not hard to solve this difficulty; for we have said in our works on physics in what sense things that come to be come to be from that which is not, and in what sense from that which is.
#964;ό γε μὴν ὁμοίως προσέχειν ταῖς δόξαις καὶ ταῖς φαντασίαις τῶν πρὸς αὑτοὺς διαμφισβητούντων εὔηθες: δῆλον [35] γὰρ ὅτι τοὺς ἑτέρους αὐτῶν ἀνάγκη διεψεῦσθαι. φανερὸν δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἐκ τῶν γιγνομένων κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν: οὐδέποτε γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ φαίνεται τοῖς μὲν γλυκὺ τοῖς δὲ τοὐναντίον, [1063α] [1] μὴ διεφθαρμένων καὶ λελωβημένων τῶν ἑτέρων τὸ αἰσθητήριον καὶ κριτήριον τῶν λεχθέντων χυμῶν. τούτου δ᾽ ὄντος τοιούτου τοὺς ἑτέρους μὲν ὑποληπτέον μέτρον εἶναι τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους οὐχ [5] ὑποληπτέον. ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦτο λέγω καὶ ἐπὶ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ, καὶ καλοῦ καὶ αἰσχροῦ, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων. οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει τοῦτ᾽ ἀξιοῦν ἢ τὰ φαινόμενα τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν ὄψιν ὑποβάλλουσι τὸν δάκτυλον καὶ ποιοῦσιν ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς φαίνεσθαι δύο, δύο δεῖν εἶναι διὰ τὸ φαίνεσθαι τοσαῦτα, καὶ πάλιν ἕν: [10] τοῖς γὰρ μὴ κινοῦσι τὴν ὄψιν ἓν φαίνεται τὸ ἕν.	Sed et similiter attendere ƿ utrisque opinionibus et fantasiis ad ipsos dubitantium stultum; palam enim quod alteros ipsorum necesse mentiri. Palam autem ↵ hoc ex hiis quae fiunt secundum sensum. Numquam enim idem ↵ videtur hiis quidem dulce hiis autem contrarium, non corruptis et privatis alteris secundum organum sensus et iudicatorium dictorum saporum. Hoc autem existente tali, alteros quidem existimandum mensuram esse alteros autem non putandum, ↵ similiter autem hoc dico et in bono et malo et pulcro et turpi et aliis talibus. Nihil enim differt hoc dignificare quam quae apparent submittentibus sub visu digitum et facientibus ex uno videri duo oportere esse propter apparere tanta, et iterum unum; non moventibus enim visum unum apparet quod unum. ↵	But to attend equally to the opinions and the fancies of disputing parties is childish; for clearly one of them must be mistaken. And this is evident from what happens in respect of sensation; for the same thing never appears sweet to some [63a] and the contrary of sweet to others, unless in the one case the sense-organ which discriminates the aforesaid flavours has been perverted and injured. And if this is so the one party must be taken to be the measure, and the other must not. And say the same of good and bad, and beautiful and ugly, and all other such qualities. For to maintain the view we are opposing is just like maintaining that the things that appear to people who put their finger under their eye and make the object appear two instead of one must be two (because they appear to be of that number) and again one (for to those who do not interfere with their eye the one object appears one).
ὅλως δὲ ἄτοπον ἐκ τοῦ φαίνεσθαι τὰ δεῦρο μεταβάλλοντα καὶ μηδέποτε διαμένοντα ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς, ἐκ τούτου περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν κρίσιν ποιεῖσθαι: δεῖ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἐχόντων καὶ μηδεμίαν μεταβολὴν ποιουμένων τἀληθὲς θηρεύειν, [15] τοιαῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν κόσμον: ταῦτα γὰρ οὐχ ὁτὲ μὲν τοιαδὶ πάλιν δ᾽ ἀλλοῖα φαίνεται, ταὐτὰ δ᾽ ἀεὶ καὶ μεταβολῆς οὐδεμιᾶς κοινωνοῦντα.	Totaliter autem inconveniens ex videri presentia permutantia et numquam permanentia in eisdem, ex hoc de veritate iudicium facere. Oportet enim ex semper secundum eadem habentibus et neque unam permutationem facientibus verum venari. Talia ↵ autem sunt quae secundum mundum; haec enim non quandoque quidem talia iterum autem alia videntur, eadem autem semper et permutatione nulla participant.	In general, it is absurd to make the fact that the things of this earth are observed to change and never to remain in the same state, the basis of our judgement about the truth. For in pursuing the truth one must start from the things that are always in the same state and suffer no change. Such are the heavenly bodies; for these do not appear to be now of one nature and again of another, but are manifestly always the same and share in no change.
ἔτι δ᾽ εἰ κίνησις ἔστι, καὶ κινούμενόν τι, κινεῖται δὲ πᾶν ἔκ τινος καὶ εἴς τι: δεῖ ἄρα τὸ κινούμενον εἶναι ἐν ἐκείνῳ ἐξ οὗ κινήσεται καὶ οὐκ [20] εἶναι ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ εἰς τοδὶ κινεῖσθαι καὶ γίγνεσθαι ἐν τούτῳ, τὸ δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀντίφασιν μὴ συναληθεύεσθαι κατ᾽ αὐτούς.	Adhuc autem si motus est, et motum aliquid, movetur autem omne ex aliquo et ad aliquid; oportet igitur quod movetur esse adhuc in illo ex quo movebit, et non esse in ipso, et ad hoc moveri et fieri in hoc, ↵ secundum contradictionem autem non verificari secundum ipsos.	Further, if there is movement, there is also something moved, and everything is moved out of something and into something; it follows that that that which is moved must first be in that out of which it is to be moved, and then not be in it, and move into the other and come to be in it, and that the contradictory statements are not true at the same time, as these thinkers assert they are.
καὶ εἰ κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν συνεχῶς τὰ δεῦρο ῥεῖ καὶ κινεῖται, καί τις τοῦτο θείη καίπερ οὐκ ἀληθὲς ὄν, διὰ τί κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν οὐ μενεῖ; φαίνονται γὰρ οὐχ ἥκιστα τὰ κατὰ τὰς ἀντιφάσεις [25] ταὐτοῦ κατηγορεῖν ἐκ τοῦ τὸ ποσὸν ὑπειληφέναι μὴ μένειν ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων, διὸ καὶ εἶναι τετράπηχυ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ οὐκ εἶναι. ἡ δ᾽ οὐσία κατὰ τὸ ποιόν, τοῦτο δὲ τῆς ὡρισμένης φύσεως, τὸ δὲ ποσὸν τῆς ἀορίστου.	Et si secundum quantum continue presentia fluunt et moventur, et quis hoc ponat equidem non verum existens, propter quid secundum quale non manet? Videtur enim non minime quae secundum contradictiones eiusdem predicare ex existimare ↵ quantum non manere in corporibus, propter et esse quadricubitum idem et non esse. Substantia autem secundum quale; hoc quidem determinate nature, quantum autem indeterminate.	And if the things of this earth continuously flow and move in respect of quantity-if one were to suppose this, although it is not true-why should they not endure in respect of quality? For the assertion of contradictory statements about the same thing seems to have arisen largely from the belief that the quantity of bodies does not endure, which, our opponents hold, justifies them in saying that the same thing both is and is not four cubits long. But essence depends on quality, and this is of determinate nature, though quantity is of indeterminate.
ἔτι διὰ τί προστάττοντος τοῦ ἰατροῦ τοδὶ τὸ σιτίον προσενέγκασθαι προσφέρονται; [30] τί γὰρ μᾶλλον τοῦτο ἄρτος ἐστὶν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν; ὥστ᾽ οὐθὲν ἂν διέχοι φαγεῖν ἢ μὴ φαγεῖν: νῦν δ᾽ ὡς ἀληθεύοντες περὶ αὐτὸ καὶ ὄντος τοῦ προσταχθέντος σιτίου τούτου προσφέρονται τοῦτο: καίτοι γ᾽ οὐκ ἔδει μὴ διαμενούσης παγίως μηδεμιᾶς φύσεως ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ πασῶν κινουμένων [35] καὶ ῥεουσῶν.	ƿ Adhuc propter quid iubente medico hunc cibum offerre, offe↵runt? Quid enim magis panis est aut non est? Quare nihil utique aliquid habebit comedere aut non comedere. Nunc autem ut verum dicentes circa ipsum et existente iusso cibo hoc, offerunt hunc; quamvis non oportebat, non permanente firmiter nulla natura in sensibilibus sed semper omnibus motis ↵ et fluentibus.	Further, when the doctor orders people to take some particular food, why do they take it? In what respect is this is bread truer than this is not bread ? And so it would make no difference whether one ate or not. But as a matter of fact they take the food which is ordered, assuming that they know the truth about it and that it is bread. Yet they should not, if there were no fixed constant nature in sensible things, but all natures moved and flowed for ever.
ἔτι δ᾽ εἰ μὲν ἀλλοιούμεθα ἀεὶ καὶ μηδέποτε διαμένομεν οἱ αὐτοί, τί καὶ θαυμαστὸν εἰ μηδέποθ᾽ ἡμῖν ταὐτὰ φαίνεται καθάπερ τοῖς κάμνουσιν [1063β] [1] (καὶ γὰρ τούτοις διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμοίως διακεῖσθαι τὴν ἕξιν καὶ ὅθ᾽ ὑγίαινον, οὐχ ὅμοια φαίνεται τὰ κατὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις, αὐτὰ μὲν οὐδεμιᾶς διά γε τοῦτο μεταβολῆς κοινωνοῦντα τὰ αἰσθητά, αἰσθήματα δ᾽ ἕτερα ποιοῦντα τοῖς κάμνουσι καὶ μὴ τὰ αὐτά: [5] τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ἔχειν καὶ τῆς εἰρημένης μεταβολῆς γιγνομένης ἴσως ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν); εἰ δὲ μὴ μεταβάλλομεν ἀλλ᾽ οἱ αὐτοὶ διατελοῦμεν ὄντες, εἴη ἄν τι μένον.	Adhuc si quidem alteramur semper et numquam permanemus iidem, quid mirabile si numquam nobis eadem videntur ↵ quemadmodum laborantibus? Et enim hiis propter non similiter disponi secundum habitum et quando sani erant, non similia videntur quae secundum sensus; ipsa tamen nulla propter hoc participantia permutatione sensibilia, impressiones autem alias ↵ facientia laborantibus et non eadem. Eodem itaque modo habere et dicta permutatione facta forte necessarium est. Si autem non permutamur sed iidem permanemus entes, erit utique aliquid manens.	Again, if we are always changing and never remain the same, what wonder is it if to us, as to the sick, things never [63b] appear the same? (For to them also, because they are not in the same condition as when they were well, sensible qualities do not appear alike; yet, for all that, the sensible things themselves need not share in any change, though they produce different, and not identical, sensations in the sick. And the same must surely happen to the healthy if the afore-said change takes place.) But if we do not change but remain the same, there will be something that endures.
πρὸς μὲν οὖν τοὺς ἐκ λόγου τὰς εἰρημένας ἀπορίας ἔχοντας οὐ ῥᾴδιον διαλῦσαι μὴ τιθέντων τι καὶ τούτου μηκέτι λόγον ἀπαιτούντων: [10] οὕτω γὰρ πᾶς λόγος καὶ πᾶσα ἀπόδειξις γίγνεται: μηθὲν γὰρ τιθέντες ἀναιροῦσι τὸ διαλέγεσθαι καὶ ὅλως λόγον, ὥστε πρὸς μὲν τοὺς τοιούτους οὐκ ἔστι λόγος, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς διαποροῦντας ἐκ τῶν παραδεδομένων ἀποριῶν ῥᾴδιον ἀπαντᾶν καὶ διαλύειν τὰ ποιοῦντα τὴν ἀπορίαν ἐν αὐτοῖς: δῆλον δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν [15] εἰρημένων. ὥστε φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων.	Ad habentes quidem igitur dictas dubitationes ex ratione, non facile dissoluere non ponentibus aliquid et horum non ↵ adhuc rationem exquirentibus; sic enim omnis ratio et omnis demonstratio fit; nihil enim ponentes interimunt disputare et totaliter rationem. Quare ad tales quidem non est sermo. Ad dubitantes autem ex datis defectibus, facile obuiare et dissoluere ↵ facientia dubitationem in ipsis. Palam autem ex dictis.	As for those to whom the difficulties mentioned are suggested by reasoning, it is not easy to solve the difficulties to their satisfaction, unless they will posit something and no longer demand a reason for it; for it is only thus that all reasoning and all proof is accomplished; if they posit nothing, they destroy discussion and all reasoning. Therefore with such men there is no reasoning. But as for those who are perplexed by the traditional difficulties, it is easy to meet them and to dissipate the causes of their perplexity. This is evident from what has been said.
ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τὰς ἀντικειμένας φάσεις περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καθ᾽ ἕνα χρόνον ἀληθεύειν, οὐδὲ τὰ ἐναντία, διὰ τὸ λέγεσθαι κατὰ στέρησιν πᾶσαν ἐναντιότητα: δῆλον δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀρχὴν τοὺς λόγους ἀναλύουσι τοὺς τῶν ἐναντίων. ὁμοίως δ᾽ οὐδὲ τῶν ἀνὰ μέσον οὐδὲν οἷόν τε [20] κατηγορεῖσθαι καθ᾽ ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ: λευκοῦ γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ ὑποκειμένου λέγοντες αὐτὸ εἶναι οὔτε μέλαν οὔτε λευκὸν ψευσόμεθα: συμβαίνει γὰρ εἶναι λευκὸν αὐτὸ καὶ μὴ εἶναι: θάτερον γὰρ τῶν συμπεπλεγμένων ἀληθεύσεται κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀντίφασις τοῦ λευκοῦ.	Quare manifestum ex hiis quod non contingit oppositas dictiones de eodem secundum unum tempus verificari, neque contraria, propter dici secundum privationem omnem contrarietaƿtem. Palam autem hoc ad principium resoluentibus rationes contrariorum. Similiter autem neque intermediorum nullum possibile est predicari de uno et eodem. Albo enim existente ↵ subiecto dicentes ipsum esse neque album neque nigrum mentiemur; accidit enim esse album ipsum et non esse; alterum enim complexorum verificabitur de ipso, hoc autem est contradictio albi.	It is manifest, therefore, from these arguments that contradictory statements cannot be truly made about the same subject at one time, nor can contrary statements, because every contrariety depends on privation. This is evident if we reduce the definitions of contraries to their principle. Similarly, no intermediate between contraries can be predicated of one and the same subject, of which one of the contraries is predicated. If the subject is white we shall be wrong in saying it is neither black nor white, for then it follows that it is and is not white; for the second of the two terms we have put together is true of it, and this is the contradictory of white.
οὔτε δὴ καθ᾽ Ἡράκλειτον [25] ἐνδέχεται λέγοντας ἀληθεύειν, οὔτε κατ᾽ Ἀναξαγόραν: εἰ δὲ μή, συμβήσεται τἀναντία τοῦ αὐτοῦ κατηγορεῖν: ὅταν γὰρ ἐν παντὶ φῇ παντὸς εἶναι μοῖραν, οὐδὲν μᾶλλον εἶναί φησι γλυκὺ ἢ πικρὸν ἢ τῶν λοιπῶν ὁποιανοῦν ἐναντιώσεων, εἴπερ ἐν ἅπαντι πᾶν ὑπάρχει μὴ δυνάμει μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεργεία [30] ι καὶ ἀποκεκριμένον.	Neque itaque secundum Eraclitum contingit dicentes ↵ verum dicere neque secundum Anaxagoram. Si autem non, accidet contraria de eodem predicari. Cum enim in omni dicat omnis esse partem, nihil magis esse dicit dulce quam amarum aut reliquarum quamcumque contrarietatum, siquidem in omni existit non potentia solum sed actu et segregatum.	We could not be right, then, in accepting the views either of Heraclitus or of Anaxagoras. If we were, it would follow that contraries would be predicated of the same subject; for when Anaxagoras says that in everything there is a part of everything, he says nothing is sweet any more than it is bitter, and so with any other pair of contraries, since in everything everything is present not potentially only, but actually and separately.
ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδὲ πάσας ψευδεῖς οὐδ᾽ ἀληθεῖς τὰς φάσεις δυνατὸν εἶναι, δι᾽ ἄλλα τε πολλὰ τῶν συναχθέντων ἂν δυσχερῶν διὰ ταύτην τὴν θέσιν, καὶ διότι ψευδῶν μὲν οὐσῶν πασῶν οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτό τις φάσκων ἀληθεύσει, ἀληθῶν δὲ ψευδεῖς εἶναι πάσας λέγων οὐ ψεύσεται. [35]	Similiter ↵ autem neque omnes falsas neque veras dictiones possibile esse, et propter alia multa collectarum utique difficultatum propter hanc positionem, et quia falsis quidem existentibus omnibus neque hoc ipsum quis dicens verum dicet, veris autem falsas esse omnes dicens non mentietur. ↵	And similarly all statements cannot be false nor all true, both because of many other difficulties which might be adduced as arising from this position, and because if all are false it will not be true to say even this, and if all are true it will not be false to say all are false. (See also E, chapter 1).