Authors/Aristotle/metaphysics/l7/c15

Chapter 15

Greek	Latin	English
ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἡ οὐσία ἑτέρα, τό τε σύνολον καὶ ὁ λόγος (λέγω δ᾽ ὅτι ἡ μὲν οὕτως ἐστὶν οὐσία, σὺν τῇ ὕλῃ συνειλημμένος ὁ λόγος, ἡ δ᾽ ὁ λόγος ὅλως), ὅσαι μὲν οὖν οὕτω λέγονται, τούτων μὲν ἔστι φθορά (καὶ γὰρ γένεσις), τοῦ δὲ λόγου οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτως ὥστε φθείρεσθαι (οὐδὲ γὰρ γένεσις, οὐ [25] γὰρ γίγνεται τὸ οἰκίᾳ εἶναι ἀλλὰ τὸ τῇδε τῇ οἰκίᾳ), ἀλλ᾽ ἄνευ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς εἰσὶ καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν: δέδεικται γὰρ ὅτι οὐδεὶς ταῦτα γεννᾷ οὐδὲ ποιεῖ. διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ τῶν οὐσιῶν τῶν αἰσθητῶν τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα οὔτε ὁρισμὸς οὔτε ἀπόδειξις ἔστιν, ὅτι ἔχουσιν ὕλην ἧς ἡ φύσις τοιαύτη ὥστ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι [30] καὶ εἶναι καὶ μή: διὸ φθαρτὰ πάντα τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα αὐτῶν. εἰ οὖν ἥ τ᾽ ἀπόδειξις τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ ὁ ὁρισμὸς ἐπιστημονικόν, καὶ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾽ ἐπιστήμην ὁτὲ μὲν ἐπιστήμην ὁτὲ δ᾽ ἄγνοιαν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ δόξα τὸ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, οὕτως οὐδ᾽ ἀπόδειξιν οὐδ᾽ ὁρισμόν, ἀλλὰ δόξα ἐστὶ τοῦ ἐνδεχομένου ἄλλως ἔχειν, [1040α] [1] δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἂν εἴη αὐτῶν οὔτε ὁρισμὸς οὔτε ἀπόδειξις. ἄδηλά τε γὰρ τὰ φθειρόμενα τοῖς ἔχουσι τὴν ἐπιστήμην, ὅταν ἐκ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἀπέλθῃ, καὶ σωζομένων τῶν λόγων ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ τῶν [5] αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔσται οὔτε ὁρισμὸς ἔτι οὔτε ἀπόδειξις. διὸ δεῖ, τῶν πρὸς ὅρον ὅταν τις ὁρίζηταί τι τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον, μὴ ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι ἀεὶ ἀναιρεῖν ἔστιν: οὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεται ὁρίσασθαι.	Quoniam vero substantia altera, et quod simul totum ↵ et ratio (dico autem quia haec quidem sic est substantia, cum materia concepta ratio, illa vero ratio totaliter), quaecumque quidem igitur ita dicuntur, harum quidem est corruptio; et enim generatio. Rationis autem non est ita ut corrumpatur; neque enim generatio; non enim fit domui esse sed quod huic ↵ domui. Verum sine generatione et corruptione sunt et non ƿ sunt; ostensum est enim ↵ quia nullus haec generat nec facit.Propter hoc autem et substantiarum sensibilium singularium nec diffinitio nec demonstratio est quia habent materiam cuius ↵ natura talis est ut contingat et esse et non; quopropter corruptibilia omnia singularia ipsorum. Ergo si demonstratio necessariorum et diffinitio scientifica, et non contingit sicut nec scientiam quandoque scientiam quandoque ignorantiam esse, sed opinio quod tale est, ita nec demonstrationem nec ↵ diffinitionem, sed opinio est contingentis aliter se habere, palam quia non utique erit ipsorum nec diffinitio nec demonstratio. Non enim some manifesta corrupta scientiam habentibus, cum ↵ a sensu abscesserint; et salvatis rationibus in anima eisdem, non erit nec diffinitio amplius nec demonstratio. Propter quod oportet eorum qui ad terminum cum aliquis diffiniat aliquid singularium, non ignorare quia semper auferre est; non enim contingit diffinere.	Chapter 15. Since substance is of two kinds, the concrete thing and the formula (I mean that one kind of substance is the formula taken with the matter, while another kind is the formula in its generality), substances in the former sense are capable of destruction (for they are capable also of generation), but there is no destruction of the formula in the sense that it is ever in course of being destroyed (for there is no generation of it either; the being of house is not generated, but only the being of this house), but without generation and destruction formulae are and are not; for it has been shown that no one begets nor makes these. For this reason, also, there is neither definition of nor demonstration about sensible individual substances, because they have matter whose nature is such that they are capable both of being and of not being; for which reason all the individual instances of them are destructible. If then demonstration is of necessary truths and definition is a scientific process, and if, just as knowledge cannot be sometimes knowledge and sometimes ignorance, but the state which varies thus is opinion, so too demonstration and definition cannot vary thus, but it is opinion that deals with [40a] that which can be otherwise than as it is, clearly there can neither be definition of nor demonstration about sensible individuals. For perishing things are obscure to those who have the relevant knowledge, when they have passed from our perception; and though the formulae remain in the soul unchanged, there will no longer be either definition or demonstration. And so when one of the definition-mongers defines any individual, he must recognize that his definition may always be overthrown; for it is not possible to define such things.
οὐδὲ δὴ ἰδέαν οὐδεμίαν ἔστιν ὁρίσασθαι. τῶν γὰρ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἡ ἰδέα, ὡς φασί, καὶ χωριστή:	Nec itaque ydeam nullum est diffinire. Singularium enim ydea, ut dicunt, et separabilis est.	Nor is it possible to define any Idea. For the Idea is, as its supporters say, an individual, and can exist apart;
ἀναγκαῖον δὲ ἐξ ὀνομάτων [10] εἶναι τὸν λόγον, ὄνομα δ᾽ οὐ ποιήσει ὁ ὁριζόμενος (ἄγνωστον γὰρ ἔσται), τὰ δὲ κείμενα κοινὰ πᾶσιν: ἀνάγκη ἄρα ὑπάρχειν καὶ ἄλλῳ ταῦτα: οἷον εἴ τις σὲ ὁρίσαιτο, ζῷον ἐρεῖ ἰσχνὸν ἢ λευκὸν ἢ ἕτερόν τι ὃ καὶ ἄλλῳ ὑπάρξει.	Necessarium vero ex ↵ nominibus esse rationem, nomen autem non faciet diffiniens; ignotum enim erit. Posita autem communia omnibus. Ergo necesse inesse et alii haec; et si quis te diffiniat, animal dicet gracile aut album aut aliquid aliud quod in alio sit.	and the formula must consist of words; and he who defines must not invent a word (for it would be unknown), but the established words are common to all the members of a class; these then must apply to something besides the thing defined; e.g. if one were defining you, he would say ‘an animal which is lean’ or ‘pale’, or something else which will apply also to some one other than you.
εἰ δέ τις φαίη μηδὲν κωλύειν χωρὶς μὲν πάντα πολλοῖς [15] ἅμα δὲ μόνῳ τούτῳ ὑπάρχειν, λεκτέον πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι καὶ ἀμφοῖν, οἷον τὸ ζῷον δίπουν τῷ ζῴῳ καὶ τῷ δίποδι (καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀϊδίων καὶ ἀνάγκη εἶναι, πρότερά γ᾽ ὄντα καὶ μέρη τοῦ συνθέτου: ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ χωριστά, εἴπερ τὸ ἄνθρωπος χωριστόν: ἢ γὰρ οὐθὲν ἢ ἄμφω: [20] εἰ μὲν οὖν μηθέν, οὐκ ἔσται τὸ γένος παρὰ τὰ εἴδη, εἰ δ᾽ ἔσται, καὶ ἡ διαφορά):	Si quis autem ↵ dicat nihil prohibere separatim quidem omnia multi, simul vero huic soli inesse: primum quidem quia et ambobus, ut ƿ animal bipes animali et bipedi, et hoc in sempiternis quidem, et necesse esse priora existentia et partes compositi. Quin immo et separabilia, si homo separabile; aut enim nihil aut ambo. Si quidem igitur nihil, non erit genus praeter species; si vero ↵ erit, et differentia.	If any one were to say that perhaps all the attributes taken apart may belong to many subjects, but together they belong only to this one, we must reply first that they belong also to both the elements; e.g. ‘two-footed animal’ belongs to animal and to the two-footed. (And in the case of eternal entities this is even necessary, since the elements are prior to and parts of the compound; nay more, they can also exist apart, if ‘man’ can exist apart. For either neither or both can. If, then, neither can, the genus will not exist apart from the various species; but if it does, the differentia will also.)
εἶθ᾽ ὅτι πρότερα τῷ εἶναι: ταῦτα δὲ οὐκ ἀνταναιρεῖται. ἔπειτα εἰ ἐξ ἰδεῶν αἱ ἰδέαι [23] (ἀσυνθετώτερα γὰρ τὰ ἐξ ὧν), ἔτι ἐπὶ πολλῶν δεήσει κἀκεῖνα κατηγορεῖσθαι ἐξ ὧν ἡ ἰδέα, οἷον τὸ ζῷον καὶ τὸ [25] δίπουν. εἰ δὲ μή, πῶς γνωρισθήσεται; ἔσται γὰρ ἰδέα τις ἣν ἀδύνατον ἐπὶ πλειόνων κατηγορῆσαι ἢ ἑνός. οὐ δοκεῖ δέ, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα ἰδέα εἶναι μεθεκτή.	Deinde quia priora ipso esse; haec vero non contra auferuntur. Deinde autem si ex ydeis ydee; minus enim composita ex quibus. Amplius de multis oportebit et illa praedicari ex quibus ydea, ut animal et bipes. Sin autem, ↵ quomodo cognoscetur? Erit enim ydea quaedam quam impossibile de pluribus praedicari quam uno. Non videtur autem, sed omnis ydea esse participabilis.	Secondly, we must reply that ‘animal’ and ‘two-footed’ are prior in being to ‘two-footed animal’; and things which are prior to others are not destroyed when the others are.Again, if the Ideas consist of Ideas (as they must, since elements are simpler than the compound), it will be further necessary that the elements also of which the Idea consists, e.g. ‘animal’ and ‘two-footed’, should be predicated of many subjects. If not, how will they come to be known? For there will then be an Idea which cannot be predicated of more subjects than one. But this is not thought possible – every Idea is thought to be capable of being shared.
ὥσπερ οὖν εἴρηται, λανθάνει ὅτι ἀδύνατον ὁρίσασθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀϊδίοις, μάλιστα δὲ ὅσα μοναχά, οἷον ἥλιος ἢ σελήνη. οὐ μόνον γὰρ διαμαρτάνουσι [30] τῷ προστιθέναι τοιαῦτα ὧν ἀφαιρουμένων ἔτι ἔσται ἥλιος, ὥσπερ τὸ περὶ γῆν ἰὸν ἢ νυκτικρυφές (ἂν γὰρ στῇ ἢ φανῇ, οὐκέτι ἔσται ἥλιος: ἀλλ᾽ ἄτοπον εἰ μή: ὁ γὰρ ἥλιος οὐσίαν τινὰ σημαίνει): ἔτι ὅσα ἐπ᾽ ἄλλου ἐνδέχεται, οἷον ἐὰν ἕτερος γένηται τοιοῦτος, δῆλον ὅτι ἥλιος ἔσται: κοινὸς ἄρα ὁ λόγος: [1040β] [1] ἀλλ᾽ ἦν τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα ὁ ἥλιος, ὥσπερ Κλέων ἢ Σωκράτης: ἐπεὶ διὰ τί οὐδεὶς ὅρον ἐκφέρει αὐτῶν ἰδέας; γένοιτο γὰρ ἂν δῆλον πειρωμένων ὅτι ἀληθὲς τὸ νῦν εἰρημένον. [5]	Quemadmodum ergo dictum est, latet quod impossibile diffinire in sempiternis, maxime vero quaecumque unica, ut sol et luna. Non solum enim peccant additione talium quibus ↵ ablatis adhuc erit sol, puta terram girans aut nocte absconditum; si enim steterit aut apparuerit, non adhuc erit sol. Sed absurdum si non; sol enim substantiam quandam significat. Amplius quaecumque in alio contingunt, ut si alter fiat talis, palam sol erit; communis ergo ratio. Sed erat ↵ singularium sol, it Cleon aut Socrates.Quoniam propter quid nullus ipsorum terminum profert ydee? Fiet enim utique manifestum temptantibus quia verum quod modo dictum est.	As has been said, then, the impossibility of defining individuals escapes notice in the case of eternal things, especially those which are unique, like the sun or the moon. For people err not only by adding attributes whose removal the sun would survive, e.g. ‘going round the earth’ or ‘night-hidden’ (for from their view it follows that if it stands still or is visible, it will no longer be the sun; but it is strange if this is so; for ‘the sun’ means a certain substance); but also by the mention of attributes which can belong to another subject; e.g. if another thing with the stated attributes comes into existence, clearly it will be [40b] a sun; the formula therefore is general. But the sun was supposed to be an individual, like Cleon or Socrates. After all, why does not one of the supporters of the Ideas produce a definition of an Idea? It would become clear, if they tried, that what has now been said is true.