Authors/Aristotle/priora/Liber 2/C26

Chapter 26

Greek	Latin	English
	(PL 64 0710A) CAPUT XXVI. De instantia, quam enstasin dicunt.	26
69a37 Ἔνστασις δ᾽ ἐστὶ πρότασις προτάσει ἐναντία. διαφέρει δὲ τῆς προτάσεως, ὅτι τὴν μὲν ἔνστασιν ἐνδέχεται εἶναι ἐπὶ μέρους, τὴν δὲ πρότασιν ἢ ὅλως οὐκ ἐνδέχεται ἢ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς ↵ καθόλου συλλογισμοῖς. φέρεται δὲ ἡ ἔνστασις διχῶς καὶ διὰ δύο σχημάτων, διχῶς μὲν ὅτι ἢ καθόλου ἢ ἐν μέρει πᾶσα ἔνστασις, ἐκ δύο δὲ σχημάτων ὅτι ἀντικείμεναι φέρονται τῆι προτάσει, τὰ δ᾽ ἀντικείμενα ἐν τῶι πρώτωι καὶ τῶι τρίτωι σχήματι περαίνονται μόνοις.	Instantia autem est propositio propositioni contraria. Differt autem A propositione, quoniam contingit quidem instantiam esse in parte, propositionem vero aut omnino non contingit, aut non in universalibus syllogismus. (0710B) Fertur autem instantia duobus modis et per duas figuras: duobus modis quidem, quoniam aut universalis aut particularis omnis instantia; per duas autem figuras, quoniam oppositae feruntur propositioni, opposita autem in prima et tertia figura perficiuntur solis.	An objection is a premiss contrary to a premiss. It differs from a premiss, because it may be particular, but a premiss either cannot be particular at all or not in universal syllogisms. An objection is brought in two ways and through two figures; in two ways because every objection is either universal or particular, by two figures because objections are brought in opposition to the premiss, and opposites can be proved only in the first and third figures.
ὅταν γὰρ ἀξιώσηι παντὶ ὑπάρχειν, ἐνιστάμεθα ἢ ὅτι οὐδενὶ ἢ ὅτι τινὶ οὐχ ὑπάρχει· τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν μηδενὶ ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου σχήματος, τὸ δὲ τινὶ μὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἐσχάτου. οἷον ἔστω τὸ Α μίαν εἶναι ἐπιστή- μην, ἐφ᾽ ὧι τὸ Β ἐναντία. προτείναντος δὴ μίαν εἶναι τῶν ἐναντίων ἐπιστήμην, ἢ ὅτι ὅλως οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἐνίσταται, τὰ δ᾽ ἐναντία ἀντικείμενα, ὥστε γίνεται τὸ πρῶτον σχῆμα, ἢ ὅτι τοῦ γνωστοῦ καὶ ἀγνώστου οὐ μία· τοῦτο δὲ τὸ τρίτον· κατὰ γὰρ τοῦ Γ, τοῦ γνωστοῦ καὶ ἀγνώστου, τὸ μὲν ἐναντία εἶναι ἀληθές, τὸ δὲ μίαν αὐτῶν ἐπιστήμην εἶναι ψεῦδος.	Nam quando postulatur omni inesse, instamus quoniam nulli, aut quoniam alicui non inest. Horum autem nulli quidem ex prima figura, alicui autem non ex postrema. Ut sit A unam esse disciplinam, in quo B contraria; proponit ergo unam esse contrariorum disciplinam, aut quoniam omnino non est eadem oppositorum instant. Contraria autem opposita, quare fit prima figura; aut quoniam noti et ignoti non una, haec autem tertia. Nam secundum tertiam notum et ignotum contraria quidem esse verum, unam autem esse eorum disciplinam, falsum.	If a man maintains a universal affirmative, we reply with a universal or a particular negative; the former is proved from the first figure, the latter from the third. For example let stand for there being a single science, B for contraries. If a man premises that contraries are subjects of a single science, the objection may be either that opposites are never subjects of a single science, and contraries are opposites, so that we get the first figure, or that the knowable and the unknowable are not subjects of a single science: this proof is in the third figure: for it is true of C (the knowable and the unknowable) that they are contraries, and it is false that they are the subjects of a single science.
πάλιν ἐπὶ τῆς στερητικῆς προτάσεως ὡσαύτως. ἀξιοῦντος γὰρ μὴ εἶναι μίαν τῶν ἐναντίων, ἢ ὅτι πάντων τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἢ ὅτι τινῶν ἐναντίων ἡ αὐτὴ λέγομεν, οἷον ὑγιεινοῦ καὶ νοσώδους· τὸ μὲν οὖν πάντων ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου, τὸ δὲ τινῶν ἐκ τοῦ τρίτου σχήματος.	(0710C) Rursum in privativa propositione similiter: cum postulat enim non esse contrariorum unam disciplinam, aut quoniam omnium oppositorum, aut quoniam contrariorum aliquorum est eadem disciplina, dicimus, ut sani et aegri, ergo omnium quidem ex prima, aliquorum vero ex tertia figura.	Similarly if the premiss objected to is negative. For if a man maintains that contraries are not subjects of a single science, we reply either that all opposites or that certain contraries, e.g. what is healthy and what is sickly, are subjects of the same science: the former argument issues from the first, the latter from the third figure.
Ἁπλῶς γὰρ ἐν πᾶσι καθόλου μὲν ἐνιστάμενον ἀνάγκη πρὸς τὸ καθόλου τῶν προτεινομένων τὴν ἀντίφασιν εἰπεῖν, οἷον εἰ μὴ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀξιοῖ τῶν ἐναντίων, πάντων εἰπόντα τῶν ἀντικειμένων μίαν. οὕτω δ᾽ ἀνάγκη τὸ πρῶτον εἶναι σχῆμα· μέσον γὰρ γίνεται τὸ καθόλου πρὸς τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς.	Simpliciter autem in omnibus universaliter quidem instantibus, necesse est ad id quod universale est proposito contradictionem dicere (ut si non unam existimet contrariorum omnium, dicere oppositorum unam; sic autem necesse est primam esse figuram, medium enim fit universale ad hoc quod ex principio);	In general if a man urges a universal objection he must frame his contradiction with reference to the universal of the terms taken by his opponent, e.g. if a man maintains that contraries are not subjects of the same science, his opponent must reply that there is a single science of all opposites. Thus we must have the first figure: for the term which embraces the original subject becomes the middle term.
ἐν μέρει δέ, πρὸς ὅ ἐστι καθόλου καθ᾽ οὗ λέγεται ἡ πρότασις, οἷον γνωστοῦ καὶ ἀγνώστου μὴ τὴν αὐτήν· τὰ γὰρ ἐναντία καθόλου πρὸς ταῦτα. καὶ γίνεται τὸ τρίτον σχῆμα· μέσον γὰρ τὸ ἐν μέρει λαμβανόμενον, οἷον τὸ γνωστὸν καὶ τὸ ἄγνωστον. ἐξ ὧν γὰρ ἔστι συλλογίσασθαι τοὐναντίον, ἐκ τούτων καὶ τὰς ἐνστάσεις ἐπιχειροῦμεν λέγειν. διὸ καὶ ἐκ μόνων τούτων τῶν σχημάτων φέρομεν· ἐν μόνοις γὰρ οἱ ἀντικείμενοι συλλογισμοί· διὰ γὰρ τοῦ μέσου οὐκ ἦν καταφατικῶς.	quod autem ad hoc in parte est universale, dicitur propositio, ut noti et ignoti non eamdem, nam contraria universale ad haec, et fit tertia figura, medium enim in parte sumptum, ut notum et ignotum. (0710D) Nam ex quibus est syllogizare contrarium, ex iis et instantias conamur dicere, quare et ex his solis figuris ferimus, nam in his solis oppositi syllogismi, per mediam enim figuram non fuit affirmare.	If the objection is particular, the objector must frame his contradiction with reference to a term relatively to which the subject of his opponent’s premiss is universal, e.g. he will point out that the knowable and the unknowable are not subjects of the same science: ‘contraries’ is universal relatively to these. And we have the third figure: for the particular term assumed is middle, e.g. the knowable and the unknowable. Premisses from which it is possible to draw the contrary conclusion are what we start from when we try to make objections. Consequently we bring objections in these figures only: for in them only are opposite syllogisms possible, since the second figure cannot produce an affirmative conclusion.
ἔτι δὲ κἂν λόγου δέοιτο πλείονος ἡ διὰ τοῦ μέσου σχήματος, οἷον εἰ μὴ δοίη τὸ Α τῶι Β ὑπάρχειν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν αὐτῶι τὸ Γ. τοῦτο γὰρ δι᾽ ἄλλων προτάσεων δῆλον· οὐ δεῖ δὲ εἰς ἄλλα ἐκτρέπεσθαι τὴν ἔνστασιν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς φανερὰν ἔχειν τὴν ἑτέραν πρότασιν. [διὸ καὶ τὸ σημεῖον ἐκ μόνου τούτου τοῦ σχήματος οὐκ ἔστιν.]	Amplius autem et si sit, oratione indiget plurima, quae est per mediam figuram, ut si non concedant A inesse B, eo quod non sequitur hoc C, hoc enim per alias propositiones manifestum; non oportet autem instantiam converti ad alia, sed statim manifestam habere alteram propositionem. Quapropter et signum ex sola hac figura non est.	Besides, an objection in the middle figure would require a fuller argument, e.g. if it should not be granted that A belongs to B, because C does not follow B. This can be made clear only by other premisses. But an objection ought not to turn off into other things, but have its new premiss quite clear immediately. For this reason also this is the only figure from which proof by signs cannot be obtained.
Ἐπισκεπτέον δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐνστάσεων, οἷον περὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου καὶ τοῦ ὁμοίου καὶ τοῦ κατὰ δόξαν, καὶ ↵ εἰ τὴν ἐν μέρει ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου ἢ τὴν στερητικὴν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου δυνατὸν λαβεῖν.	Perspiciendum autem et de aliis instantiis, ut de iis quae sunt ex contrario, et simili, et secundum opinionem, et si particularem ex prima, vel privativam ex media possibile est sumere.	We must consider later the other kinds of objection, namely the objection from contraries, from similars, and from common opinion, and inquire whether a particular objection cannot be elicited from the first figure or a negative objection from the second.