Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber1/lect11

Lecture 11

Latin	English
lib. 1 l. 11 n. 1 Hic recolligit omnia quae ab antiquis de causis sunt dicta: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit, quod priores philosophi nullam causam de quatuor generibus causarum ab eis suprapositis addere potuerunt. Secundo ostendit qualiter praedictas causas tetigerunt, ibi, sed omnes obscure et cetera. Tertio concludit conclusionem principaliter intentam, ibi, quod quidem igitur recte et cetera. Dicit ergo, quod breviter et sub quodam capitulo sive compendio pertranseundo dictum est, quid philosophi, et quomodo locuti sunt de principiis rerum et de veritate, quantum ad ipsam rerum substantiam. Sed ex eorum dictis tantum haberi potest, quod nullus eorum, qui de causis et principiis rerum dixerunt, potuit dicere aliquas causas praeter illas, quae distinctae sunt secundo physicorum.	171. Here he makes a summary of everything that the early philosophers have said about causes* and in regard to this he does three' things. First (79:C 171), he shows that the early philosophers were unable to add artother kind of cause to the four classes of causes given above (34:C 70). Second (80:C 172), he indicates the way in which they touched upon these causes ("Yet all"). Third (85:C 180) he draws the conclusion at which he chiefly aims ("Therefore all these"). He says, first (79), that in giving this brief and summary account he has stated who the philosophers are, and how they have spoken of the principles of things and of what is true of the substance itself of things. And from their statements this much can be learned: that none of those who have spoken about causes and principles were able to mention any causes other than those distinguished in Book II of the Physics.
lib. 1 l. 11 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit sed omnes hic ponit qualiter illas causas posuerunt. Et primo in generali. Secundo in speciali, ibi, illi namque et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod non solum nihil addiderunt, sed quo modo appropinquaverunt, et hoc non manifeste, sed obscure. Non enim assignaverunt secundum quod genus causae principia ab eis posita rerum causae essent; sed solum posuerunt illa, quae ad aliquod genus causae adaptari possunt.	172. Yet all (80). Here he gives the way in which they dealt with each of the causes. He does this, first (80), in a general way: and, second (81:C 172), in a special Way ("For some speak"). Accordingly be says, first, that they not only have not added anything, but in the way in which they approached these causes they proceeded obscurely and not clearly. For they have not stated to what class of cause the principles posited by them would belong; but they gave as principles things that can be adapted to some class of cause.
lib. 1 l. 11 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit illi namque hic ostendit in speciali quomodo singulas causas tetigerunt. Et primo quomodo tetigerunt causam materialem. Secundo quomodo causam efficientem, ibi, alii vero. Tertio quomodo causam formalem, ibi. Quod quid erat esse vero et cetera. Quarto quomodo causam finalem, ibi, cuius vero causa et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod illi, scilicet priores philosophi, omnes in hoc conveniunt, quod dant rebus aliquod principium quasi materiam. Differunt tamen in duobus. Primo, quia quidam posuerunt unam materiam, sicut Thales et Diogenes et similes: quidam plures, sicut Empedocles. Secundo, quia quidam posuerunt rerum materiam esse aliquod corpus, sicut praedicti philosophi. Quidam incorporeum, sicut Plato qui posuit dualitatem. Posuit enim Plato magnum et parvum, quae non dicunt aliquod corpus. Italici vero, idest Pythagorici posuerunt infinitum, quod iterum non est corpus. Empedocles vero quatuor elementa quae sunt corpora. Similiter Anaxagoras posuit infinitatem similium partium idest infinitas partes consimiles principia esse. Et hi omnes tetigerunt talem causam, scilicet materialem. Et etiam illi qui dixerunt aerem aut aquam aut ignem esse principium, vel aliquod medium inter haec elementa, scilicet igne spissius, aere subtilius; omnes enim tales praedicti tale corpus posuerunt esse primum elementum. Et sic patet quod dicit, quod philosophi quantum ad haec, quae praedicta sunt, posuerunt solam causam materialem.	173. For some speak (81). Here he shows in a special way how they touched on each of these causes. He shows, first (81), how they touched on the material cause; second (82:C 174), On the efficient cause ("But others"); third (83:C 175), on the formal cause ("But the quiddity"); and fourth (84:C 177), on the final cause ("That for the sake of which"). He says, first (81), then, that those philosophers, i.e., the early ones, all agree insofar as they assign some material cause to things. Yet they differ in two respects. First, they differ in that some, such as Thales, Diogenes and the like, held that the material principle is one, whereas others, such as Empedocles, claimed that it is many; and second, they differ in that some, such as the first group above, held that the material principle of things is a body, whereas others, such as Plato, who posited a dyad, claimed that it is something incorporeal. For Plato posited the great and small, which the Platonists do not speak of as a body. The Italians, or Pythagoreans, posited the unlimited ; but neither is this a body. Empedocles, on the other hand, posited the four elements, which are bodies; and Anaxagoras also posited "an infinite number of like parts," i.e.) [he claimed] that the principles of things are an infinite number of like parts. All of these thinkers have touched on "this kind of cause," i.e., the material cause, and so also have those who said that the principle of things is air or water or fire or something midway between these elements, i.e., what is denser than fire and rarer than air. For all philosophers such as those just mentioned have claimed that some kind of body is the first element of things. Thus Aristotle's statement is evident, namely, that in the light of the foregoing remarks these philosophers have posited only the material cause.
lib. 1 l. 11 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit alii quidem hic ponit opiniones de causa efficiente, dicens, quod alii praedictorum philosophorum posuerunt cum causa materiali causam unde principium motus: sicut quicumque posuerunt causam rerum amorem, odium, et intellectum; aut qui faciunt aliqua principia agentia praeter haec, sicut Parmenides qui posuit ignem quasi causam agentem.	174. But others (82). Here he gives their opinions about the efficient cause. He says that some of the foregoing philosophers have posited, in addition to the material cause, a cause from which motion begins, for example, those who made love or hate or intellect a cause of things, or those who introduced some other active principle distinct from these, as Parmenides, who made fire an efficient cause.
lib. 1 l. 11 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit quod quid hic ponit opiniones de causa formali; et dicit quod causa, per quam scitur quid est rei substantia, idest causam formalem, nullus manifeste rebus attribuit, et si aliquid tangerent antiqui philosophi quod pertineret ad causam formalem, sicut Empedocles qui posuit os et carnem habere aliquam rationem per quam sunt huiusmodi; non tamen hoc quod pertinet ad causam formalem ponebant per modum causae.	175. But the quiddity (83) Here he gives their opinions about the formal cause. He says that the cause through which a thing's substance is known, i.e., the formal cause, no one attributed to things with any clarity. And if the ancient philosophers touched on something that might pertain to the formal cause, as Empedocles did when he claimed that bone and flesh contain some proportion [of the elements], by which they are things of this kind, nevertheless they did not treat what belongs to the formal cause after the manner of a cause.
lib. 1 l. 11 n. 6 Sed inter alios maxime appropinquaverunt ad ponendum causam formalem qui posuerunt species, et eas rationes qui ad species pertinent, sicut unitatem et numerum et alia huiusmodi. Species enim et ea quae sunt modo praedicto in speciebus, ut unitas et numerus, non suscipiuntur vel ponuntur ab eis ut materia rerum sensibilium, cum potius ex parte rerum sensibilium materiam ponant. Nec ponunt eas ut causas unde motus proveniat rebus, immo magis sunt rebus causa immobilitatis. Quicquid enim necessarium in sensibilibus invenitur, hoc ex speciebus causari dicebant, et ipsas, scilicet species, dicebant esse absque motu. Ad hoc enim ab eis ponebantur, ut dictum est, quod immobiles existentes uniformiter se haberent, ita quod de eis possent dari definitiones et fieri demonstrationes. Sed secundum eorum opinionem species rebus singulis praestant quidditatem per modum causae formalis, et unitas hoc ipsum praestat speciebus.	176. But among the other philosophers, those who posited the Forms and those intelligible aspects which belong to the Forms, such as unity, number and the like, came closest to positing the formal cause. For the Forms and everything that belongs to the Forms in the aforesaid way, such as unity and number, are not acknowledged or assumed by them to be the matter of sensible things, since they place matter rather on the side of sensible things; nor do they claim that the Forms are the causes from which motion originates in the world, but rather that they are the cause of immobility in things. For they said that whatever is found to be necessary in sensible things is caused by the Forms, and that these, i.e., the Forms, are immobile. For they claimed that the Forms, because immobile, are uniform in being, as has been said (69:C 156), so that definitions can be given of them and demonstrations made about them. But according to the opinion of these men the Forms are responsible for the quiddity of pparticular things after the manner of a formal cause, and the one is responsible for the quiddity of the Forms.
lib. 1 l. 11 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit cuius vero hic ponit opiniones quorumdam de causa finali, dicens quod philosophi quodammodo finem cuius causa motus et transmutationes et actiones fiunt, dicunt esse causam, et quodammodo non dicunt, nec dicunt eodem modo, quo vera causa est. Illi enim qui dicunt causam esse intellectum vel amorem, ponunt eas causas quasi bonum. Dicebant enim huiusmodi esse causas ut res bene se habeant. Boni enim causa esse non potest nisi bonum. Unde sequitur quod ponerent intellectum et amorem esse causam, sicut bonum est causa. Bonum autem potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo sicut causa finalis, inquantum aliquid fit gratia alicuius boni. Alio modo per modum causae efficientis, sicut dicimus quod bonus homo facit bonum. Isti ergo philosophi non dixerunt praedictas causas esse bonas, quasi horum causa aliquod entium sit aut fiat, quod pertinet ad rationem causae finalis; sed quia a praedictis, scilicet intellectu et amore, procedebat motus quidam ad esse et fieri rerum, quod pertinet ad rationem causae efficientis.	177. That for the sake of which (84). Here he gives the opinions of certain thinkers about the final cause. He says that in one sense the philosophers say that the goal for the sake of which motions, changes and activities occur is a cause, and in another sense they do not. And they neither speak of it in the same way, nor in the way in which it is a true cause. For those who affirm that intellect or love is a cause, posit these causes as good. For they said that things of this kind are the causes of things being well disposed, since the cause of good can only be good. Hence it follows that they could make intellect and love to be causes, just as the good is a cause. But good can be understood in two ways: (1) in one way as a final cause, in the sense that something comes to be for the sake of some good; and (2) in another way as an efficient cause, as we say that the good man does good. Now these philosophers did not say that the foregoing causes are good in the sense that they are the reason for the existence or coming to be of some beings, which pertains to the intelligibility of the final cause, but in the sense that there proceeds from these causes—intellect and will—a kind of motion toward the being and coming-to-be of things; and this pertains to the intelligibility of the efficient cause.
lib. 1 l. 11 n. 8 Similiter autem Pythagorici et Platonici qui dixerunt rerum substantiam esse ipsum unum et ens, uni etiam et enti attribuebant bonitatem. Et sic dicebant talem naturam, scilicet bonum, esse rebus sensibilibus causam substantiae, vel per modum causae formalis, sicut Plato posuit, vel per modum materiae sicut Pythagorici. Non tamen dicebant quod esse rerum aut fieri esset huius causa, scilicet unius et entis, quod pertinet ad rationem causae finalis. Et sic sicut naturales posuerunt bonum esse causam, non per modum causae formalis, sed per modum causae efficientis: ita Platonici posuerunt bonum esse causam per modum causae formalis et non per modum causae finalis: Pythagorici vero per modum causae materialis.	178. In a similar way the Pythagoreans and Platonists, who said that the substance of things is the one itself or being, also attributed goodness to the one or being. Thus they said that such a reality, i.e., the good, is the cause of the substance of sensible things, either in the manner of a formal cause, as the Platonists maintained, or in the manner of a material cause, as the Pythagoreans claimed. However, they did not say that the being and coming-to-be of things exists for the sake of this, i.e., the one or being; and this is something that pertains to the intelligibility of the final cause. Hence, just as the philosophers of nature claimed that the good is a cause in the manner of an (+) efficient cause and not in that of a (~) formal cause, in a similar way the Platonists claimed that the good is a cause in the manner of a (+) formal cause, and not in that of a (~) final cause. The Pythagoreans, on the other hand, considered it to be a cause in the manner of a (+) material cause.
lib. 1 l. 11 n. 9 Unde patet quod accidebat eis quodammodo dicere bonum esse causam, et quodammodo non dicere. Non enim simpliciter dicebant bonum esse causam, sed per accidens. Bonum enim secundum propriam rationem est causa per modum causae finalis. Quod ex hoc patet, quod bonum est, quod omnia appetunt. Id autem, in quod tendit appetitus, est finis: bonum igitur secundum propriam rationem est causa per modum finis. Illi igitur ponunt bonum simpliciter esse causam, qui ponunt ipsum esse causam finalem. Qui autem attribuunt bono alium modum causalitatis, ponunt ipsum esse causam, et hoc per accidens, quia non ex ratione boni, sed ratione eius cui accidit esse bonum, ut ex hoc quod est esse activum vel perfectivum. Unde patet quod isti philosophi causam finalem non ponebant nisi per accidens, quia scilicet ponebant pro causa, id cui convenit esse finem, scilicet bonum; non tamen posuerunt ipsum esse causam per modum finalis causae, ut dictum est.	179. It is evident, then, that in one sense they happened to speak of the good as a cause and in another not. For they did not speak of it as a cause in its principal aspect but in a secondary one; because according to its proper intelligible structure the good is a cause in the manner of a final cause. This is clear from the fact that the good is what all desire. Now that to which an appetite tends is a goal. Therefore according to its proper intelligible structure the good is a cause in the manner of a goal. Hence those who make the good a cause in its principal aspect claim that it is a final cause. But those who attribute a different mode of causality to the good claim that the good is a cause but only in a secondary way; because they do not hold that it is such by reason of being good, but by reason of that to which good happens to belong by reason of its being active or perfective. Hence it is clear that those philosophers posited a final cause only incidentally, because they posited as a cause something that is fitting to be an end, namely, the good. However, they did not claim that it is a cause in the manner of a final cause, as has been stated.
lib. 1 l. 11 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit quod quidem hic concludit conclusionem principaliter intentam, scilicet quod determinatio facta superius de causis quae et quot sint, recta fuit. Huius enim testimonium videntur praebere praedicti philosophi, nullum genus causae valentes addere supra praedicta. Et haec utilitas provenit ex praedictarum opinionum recitatione. Alia autem utilitas est, quia inde palam est, quod principia rerum sunt quaerenda in ista scientia, ut omnia quae antiqui posuerunt, et quae superius sunt determinata, aut aliquod horum. Maxime enim haec scientia considerat causam formalem et finalem et aliquo modo etiam moventem. Nec solum oportet praedictas opiniones recitasse; sed post haec transeundo dicendum est quomodo quilibet horum dixerit, et in quo bene, et in quo male; et quomodo ea quae dicuntur de principiis habent aliquam dubitationem.	180. Therefore all these (85). Here he draws the conclusion at which he chiefly aims: that the things established about the causes, both as to their number and their kinds, are correct. For the foregoing philosophers seem to bear witness to this in being unable to add another class of cause to those discussed above. This is one of the useful pieces of information resulting from the account of the foregoing views. Another is that evidently the principles of things must be investigated in this science, either all those which the ancient philosophers posited, and which have been established above, or some of them. For this science considers chiefly the formal and final cause, and also in a sense the efficient cause. Now it is not only necessary that the above views be discussed, but after this examination it is also necessary to describe the way in which each of these men has spoken (both in what sense their statements are acceptable and in what sense not), and how the statements which have been made about the principles of things contain a problem.