Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber1/lect15

Lecture 15

Latin	English
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 1 Hic improbat opinionem Platonis quantum ad hoc quod non concludebat quod concludere intendebat. Intendebat enim Plato concludere ideas esse per hoc, quod sunt necesse sensibilibus rebus secundum aliquem modum. Unde Aristoteles ostendens quod ideae ad nihil possunt sensibilibus utiles esse, destruit rationes Platonis de positione idearum: et ideo dicit, quod inter omnia dubitabilia, quae sunt contra Platonem, illud est maximum, quod species a Platone positae non videntur aliquid conferre rebus sensibilibus, nec sempiternis, sicut sunt corpora caelestia: nec his, quae fiunt et corrumpuntur, sicut corpora elementaria. Quod sigillatim de omnibus ostendit propter quae Plato ponebat ideas, cum dicit nec enim.	225. Here Aristotle attacks the opinion of Plato insofar as he did not draw the conclusion which he intended to draw. For Plato intended to conclude that there are Ideas by this argument that they are necessary in some way for sensible things. Hence, Aristotle, by showing that the Ideas cannot contribute anything to sensible things, destroys the arguments by which Plato posits Ideas. Thus he says (112) that of all the objections which may be raised against Plato the foremost is that the Forms which Plato posited do not seem to contribute anything to sensible things, either to those which are eternal, as the celestial bodies, or to those which are generated and corrupted, as the elemental bodies. He shows (113) that this criticism applies to each of the arguments by which Plato posited Ideas (“For they are not”).
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 2 Ibi incipit quinque ostendere. Primo quod non prosunt ad motum. Secundo quod non prosunt ad scientias, ibi, sed nec ad scientiam. Tertio quod non prosunt exemplaria, ibi, dicere vero exemplaria et cetera. Quarto quod non prosunt sicut substantiae, ibi, amplius opinabitur. Quinto quod non prosunt sicut causae fiendi, ibi, in Phaedone vero et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod species non possunt conferre sensibilibus, ita quod sint eis causa motus vel transmutationis alicuius. Cuius rationem hic non dicit, sed superius tetigit, quia videlicet ideae non introducebantur propter motum, sed magis propter immobilitatem. Quia enim Platoni videbatur quod omnia sensibilia semper essent in motu, voluit aliquid ponere extra sensibilia fixum et immobile, de quo posset esse certa scientia. Unde species non poterant ab eo poni sicut principia sensibilia motus, sed potius sicut immobiles, et immobilitatis principia: ut scilicet si aliquid fixum et eodem modo se habens in rebus sensibilibus invenitur, hoc sit secundum participantiam idearum, quae per se sunt immobiles.	226. At this point in the text (113) he begins to present his five objections [against the Platonic arguments for Ideas] . He argues, first (226), that they are useless in explaining motion; second (227), that they are use less in explaining our knowledge of sensible things (“Nor are they”); third (231), that they are of no value as exemplars (“Again, to say”); fourth (236), that they are of no value as the substances of things (“Again, it is thought”); and fifth (237) that they are of no value as causes of generation (“But in the Phaedo”). Accordingly, he says, first (113), that the Forms cannot contribute anything to sensible things in such a way as to be the cause of motion or of any kind of change in them. He does not give the reason for this here but mentioned it above (237), because it is clear that the Ideas were not introduced to explain motion but rather to explain immutability. For since it seemed to Plato that all sensible things are always in motion, he wanted to posit something separate from sensible things that is fixed and immobile, of which there can be certain knowledge. Hence, according to him, the Forms could not be held to be sensible principles of motion, but rather to be immutable things and principles of immutability; so that, undoubtedly, whatever is found to be fixed and constant in sensible things will be due to participation in the Ideas, which are immutable in themselves.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit sed nec ad ostendit secundo, quod species non prosunt sensibilibus ad scientiam, tali ratione. Cognitio uniuscuiusque perficitur per cognitionem suae substantiae, et non per cognitionem aliquarum substantiarum extrinsecarum: sed substantiae separatae quas dicebant species, sunt omnino aliae ab istis substantiis sensibilibus: ergo earum cognitio non auxiliatur ad scientiam illorum sensibilium.	227. Nor are they of any assistance (114). Second, he shows that the Forms do not contribute anything to the knowledge of sensible things, by the following argument: knowledge of each thing is acquired by knowing its own substance, and not by knowing certain substances which are separate from it. But these separate substances, which they call Forms, are altogether othef than sensible substances. Therefore a knowledge of them is of no assistance in knowing other sensible things.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 4 Nec potest dici quod illae species sunt substantiae istorum sensibilium: nam cuiuslibet rei substantia est in eo cuius est substantia. Si igitur illae species essent substantiae rerum sensibilium, essent in his sensibilibus: quod est contra Platonem.	228. Nor can it be said that the Forms are the substances of these sensible things; for the substance of each thing is present in the thing whom substance it is. Therefore, if then Forms were the substances of sensible things, they would be present in sensible things. This is opposed to Plato’s opinion.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 5 Nec iterum potest dici quod illae species adsint istis substantiis sensibilibus, sicut participantibus eas. Hoc enim modo Plato opinabatur aliquas species horum sensibilium causas esse. Sicut nos intelligeremus ipsum album per se existens, ac si esset quoddam album separatum, permisceri albo quod est in subiecto, et albedinem participare, ut sic etiam dicamus quod homo iste, qui est separatus, permisceatur huic homini qui componitur ex materia et natura speciei, quam participat. Sed haec ratio est valde mobilis, idest destructibilis: hanc enim rationem primo tetigit Anaxagoras qui posuit etiam formas et accidentia permisceri rebus. Et secundo tetigit Hesiodus et alii quidam. Et ideo dico quod est valde mobilis, scilicet quia facile est colligere multa impossibilia contra talem opinionem. Sequitur enim, sicut supra dixit contra Anaxagoram, quod accidentia et formae possunt esse sine substantiis. Nam ea sola nata sunt misceri quae possunt separatim existere.	229. Nor again can it be said that the Forms are present in these sensible substances as in things which participate in them; for Plato thought that some Forms are the causes of sensible things in this way. For just as we might understand whiteness itself existing of itself as a certain separate whiteness to be mingled with the whiteness in a subject, and to participate in whiteness, in a similar way we . might say that man [in himself], who is separate, is mingled with this man who is composed of matter and the specific nature in which he participates. But this argument is easily “disposed of, ‘ i.e., destroyed; for Anaxagoras, who also held that forms and accidents are mingled with things, was the first to state it. Hesiod and certain other thinkers were the second to mention it. Therefore I say that it is easily disposed of, because it is easy to bring many absurd conclusions against such an opinion. For it would follow as he pointed out above (194) against Anaxagoras, that accidents and forms could exist without substances. For only those things can exist separately which are naturally disposed to be mixed with other things.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 6 Sic igitur non potest dici quod species sic conferant ad scientiam sensibilium ut eorum substantiae, nec quod sint eis principia existendi per modum participandi. Nec etiam potest dici quod ex speciebus sicut ex principiis sunt alia, scilicet sensibilia secundum ullum eorum modum qui consueverunt dici. Unde si eadem sunt principia essendi et cognoscendi, oportet quod species non conferant ad scientias, cum principia essendi esse non possint. Ideo autem dicit secundum ullum modum consuetorum dici, quia Plato invenerat novos modos aliquid ex alio cognoscendi.	230. It cannot be said, then, that the Forms contribute in any way to our knowledge of sensible things as their substances. Nor can it be said that they are the principles of being in these substances by way of participation. Nor again can it be said that from these Forms as principles other things—sensible ones—come to be in any of the ways in which we are accustomed to speak. Therefore, if principles of being and principles of knowledge are the same, the Forms cannot possibly make any contribution to scientific knowledge, since they cannot be principles of 1wing. Hence he says “in any of the customary ways” of speaking, because Plato invented many new ways of deriving knowledge of one thing from something else.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit dicere vero hic tertio ostendit, quod species non conferant sensibilibus sicut exemplaria. Et primo proponit intentum. Secundo probat, ibi, nam quid opus est et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod dicere species esse exemplaria sensibilium et mathematicorum eo quod huiusmodi causas participent, est dupliciter inconveniens. Uno modo, quia vanum et nulla utilitas est huiusmodi exemplaria ponere, sicut ostendet. Alio modo quia est simile metaphoris quas poetae inducunt, quod ad philosophum non pertinet. Nam philosophus ex propriis docere debet. Ideo autem hoc dicit esse metaphoricum, quia Plato productionem rerum naturalium assimilavit factioni rerum artificialium, in quibus artifex ad aliquid exemplar respiciens, operatur aliquid simile suae arti.	231. Again, to say (115). Here he gives the third objection against the arguments for separate Forms. He says that the Forms are of no value to sensible things as their exemplars. First (115), he states his thesis; and, second (232), he proves it (“For what is the work”). Accordingly he says, first (115), that to say that the Forms are the exemplars both of sensible things and the objects of mathematics (because the latter participate in causes of this kind), is untenable for two reasons. First, because it is vain and useless to posit exemplars of this kind, as he will show; and second, because this manner of speaking is similar to the metaphors which the poets introduce, which do not pertain to the philosopher. For the philosopher ought to teach by using proper causes. Hence he says that this manner of speaking is metaphorical, because Plato likened the generation of natural substances to the making of works of art, in which the artisan, by looking at some exemplar, produces something similar to his artistic idea.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit nam quid est hic probat propositum tribus rationibus. Hoc enim videtur esse opus exemplaris, idest utilitas, quod artifex respiciens ad exemplar inducat similitudinem formae in suo artificio. Videmus autem in operatione naturalium rerum, quod similia ex similibus generantur, sicut ex homine generatur homo. Aut ergo similitudo ista provenit in rebus generatis propter respectum alicuius agentis ad exemplar, aut non. Si non, quid erat opus, idest utilitas quod aliquod agens sic respiciens ad ideas sicut ad exemplaria? Quasi dicat, nullum. Si autem similitudo provenit ex respectu ad exemplar separatum, tunc non poterit dici quod causa huius similitudinis in genito sit forma inferioris generantis. Fiet enim aliquid simile propter respectum ad hoc exemplar separatum, et non per respectum ad agens hoc sensibile. Et hoc est quod dicit et non simile illi, idest agenti sensibili. Ex quo sequitur hoc inconveniens quod aliquis generetur similis Socrati, sive posito, sive remoto Socrate. Quod videmus esse falsum; quia nisi Socrates agat in generatione, nunquam generabitur aliquis similis Socrati. Si igitur hoc est falsum, quod non similitudo generatorum dependeat a proximis generantibus, vanum et superfluum est ponere aliqua exemplaria separata.	232. For what is the work (116). Here he proves his thesis by three arguments. For the work, i.e., the use, of an exemplar, seems to be this, that the artisan by looking at an exemplar induces a likeness of the form in his own artifact. But in the operations of natural beings we see that like things are generated by like, as man is generated by man. Therefore this likeness arises in things which are generated, either because some agent looks toward an exemplar or not. If not, then what is “the work,” or utility, of the agent’s so looking toward the Ideas as exemplars?—as if to say, none. But if the likeness results from looking at a separate exemplar, then it cannot be said that the cause of this likeness in the thing generated is the form of an inferior agent. For something similar would come into being with reference to this separate exemplar and not with reference to this sensible agent. And this is what he means when he says “and not be like it,” i.e., like the sensible agent. From this the following absurdity results: someone similar to Socrates will be generated whether Socrates is held to exist or not. This we see is false; for unless Socrates plays an active part in the process of generation, no one similar to Socrates will ever be generated. Therefore, if it is false that the likeness of things which are generated does not depend on proximate agents, it is pointless and superfluous to posit separate exemplars of any kind.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 9 Sciendum autem quod illa ratio, etsi destruat exemplaria separata a Platone posita, non tamen removet divinam scientiam esse rerum omnium exemplarem. Cum enim res naturales naturaliter intendant similitudines in res generatas inducere, oportet quod ista intentio ad aliquod principium dirigens reducatur, quod est in finem ordinans unumquodque. Et hoc non potest esse nisi intellectus cuius sit cognoscere finem et proportionem rerum in finem. Et sic ista similitudo effectuum ad causas naturales reducitur, sicut in primum principium, in intellectum aliquem. Non autem oportet quod in aliquas alias formas separatas: quia ad similitudinem praedictam sufficit praedicta directio in finem, qua virtutes naturales diriguntur a primo intellectu.	233. However, it should be noted that, even though this argument does away with the separate exemplars postulated by Plato, it still does not do away with the fact that God’s knowledge is the exemplar of all things. For since things in the physical world are naturally inclined to induce their likeness in things which are generated, this inclination must be traced back to some directing principle which ordains each thing to its end. This can only be the intellect of that being who knows the end and the relationship of things to the end. Therefore this likeness of effects to their natural causes is traced back to an intellect as their first principle. But it is not necessary that this likeness should be traced back to any other separate forms; because in order to have the above-mentioned likeness this direction of things to their end, according to which natural powers are directed by the first intellect, is sufficient.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit similiter autem hic ponit secundam rationem, quae talis est. Sicut Socrates ex eo quod est Socrates addit aliquid supra hominem, ita etiam homo addit aliquid supra animal: et sicut Socrates participat hominem, ita homo participat animal. Sed si praeter istum Socratem sensibilem poneretur alius Socrates sempiternus, quasi exemplaris, sequeretur quod huius Socratis sensibilis essent plura exemplaria, scilicet Socrates sempiternus et idea hominis: ergo et eadem ratione species hominis habet plura exemplaria. Erit enim exemplar eius et animal et bipes et iterum autosanthropos, idest idea hominis. Hoc autem est inconveniens quod unius exemplati sint plura exemplaria: ergo inconveniens est ponere huiusmodi sensibilium exemplaria.	234. Similarly, it is evident (117). Here he gives the second argument, which runs as follows: just as Socrates because he is Socrates adds something to man, in a similar way man adds something to animal. And just as Socrates participates in man, so does man participate in animal. But if besides this Socrates whom we perceive there is held to be another Socrates who is eternal, as his exemplar, it will follow that there are several exemplars of this Socrates whom we perceive, i.e., the eternal Socrates and the Form man. And by the same reasoning the Form man will have several exemplars; for its exemplar will be both animal and two-footed and also “man-in-himself,” i.e., the Idea of man. But that there should be several exemplars of a single thing made in likeness to an exemplar is untenable. Therefore it is absurd to hold that things of this kind are the exemplars of sensible things.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem hic ponit tertiam rationem, quae talis est. Sicut se habet species ad individuum, ita se habet genus ad speciem. Si igitur species sunt exemplaria sensibilium individuorum, ut Plato ponit, ipsarum etiam specierum erunt aliqua exemplaria, scilicet genus specierum: quod est inconveniens: quia tunc sequeretur quod idem, scilicet species, erit exemplum alterius, scilicet individui sensibilis, et imago ab alio exemplata, scilicet a genere; quod videtur esse inconveniens.	235. Further (118). Here he gives the third argument, which runs thus: just as a Form is related to an individual, so also is a genus related to a species. Therefore, if the Forms are the exemplars of individual sensible things, as Plato held, there will be also certain exemplars of these Forms, that is to say, their genus. But this is absurd, because then it would follow that one and the same thing, i.e., Form, would be an exemplar of one thing, namely, of the individual whom we perceive by the senses, and a copy made in likeness to something else, namely, a genus. This seems to be absurd.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit amplius opinabitur hic quarto ostendit quod species non conferunt rebus sensibilibus sicut earum substantiae vel causae formales, quia hic opinabitur, idest hoc est opinativum (ut impersonaliter ponatur), quod impossibile est separari substantiam ab eo cuius est substantia. Sed hae separantur ab eo cuius sunt ideae, idest a sensibilibus: ergo non sunt substantiae sensibilium.	236. Again, it is thought (119). Here he proves his fourth objection, namely, that the Forms contribute nothing to sensible things as their substances or formal causes; because “It is thought by him,” that is to say, it is a matter of opinion (to put this impersonally), that it is impossible for a thing’s substance to exist apart from the thing whose substance it is. But the Forms exist apart from the things of which they are the Forms, i.e., apart, from sensible things. Therefore they are not the substances of sensible things.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit in Phaedone hic ostendit quod non conferunt species sensibilibus ad eorum fieri, quamvis Plato dixerit in Phaedone, idest in quodam suo libro, quod species sunt causae rebus sensibilibus essendi et fiendi. Sed hoc improbat duabus rationibus: quarum prima talis est. Posita causa ponitur effectus: sed existentibus speciebus non propter hoc fiunt entia particularia sive individua participantia species, nisi sit aliquid motivum quod moveat ad speciem. Quod ex hoc patet, quia species semper eodem modo sunt secundum Platonem. Si igitur eis positis essent vel fierent individua participantia eas, sequeretur quod semper essent huiusmodi individua, quod patet esse falsum: ergo non potest dici quod species sint causae fieri et esse rerum; et praecipue cum non poneret species causas esse motivas, ut supra dictum est. Sic enim a substantiis separatis immobilibus ponit Aristoteles procedere et fieri et esse inferiorum, inquantum illae substantiae sunt motivae caelestium corporum, quibus mediantibus causatur generatio et corruptio in istis inferioribus.	237. But in the “Phaedo” (120). Here he shows that the Forms are of no value in accounting for the coming to be of sensible things, although Plato said “in the Phaedo,” i.e., in one of his works, that the Forms are the causes both of the being and of the coming to be of sensible things. But Aristotle disproves this by two arguments. The first is as follows: to posit the cause is to posit the effect. However, even if the Forms exist, the particular or individual things which participate in the Forms will come into being only if there is some agent which moves them to acquire form. This is evident from Plato’s opinion that the Forms are always in the same state. Therefore, assuming that these Forms exist, if individuals were to exist or come into being by participating in them, it would follow that individual substances of this kind would always be. This is clearly false. Therefore it cannot be said that the Forms are the causes of both the coming to be and the being of sensible things. The chief reason is that Plato did not hold that the Forms are efficient causes, as was stated above (226). For Aristotle holds that the being and coming to be of lower substances proceeds from immobile separate substances, inasmuch as these substances are the movers of the celestial bodies, by means of which generation and corruption are produced in these lower substances.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit et multa hic ponit secundam rationem, quae talis est. Sicut se habent artificialia ad causas artificiales, ita se habent naturalia ad causas naturales. Sed videmus quod multa alia a naturalibus, ut domus et annulus, fiunt in istis inferioribus, quorum Platonici species non ponebant: ergo et alias, scilicet naturalia contingit esse et fieri propter tales causas proximas, quales contingit esse nunc dictas, scilicet artificiales; ut scilicet sicut res artificiales fiunt a proximis agentibus, ita et res naturales.	238. And many other (121). Here he gives the second argument, which runs thus: just as artifacts are related to artificial causes, so are natural bodies to natural causes. But we see that many other things besides natural bodies come into being in the realm of these lower bodies, as a house and a ring, for which the Platonists did not posit any Forms. Therefore “other things,” namely, natural things, can both be and come to be because of such proximate causes as those just mentioned, i.e., artificial ones; so that, just as artificial things come to be as a result of proximate agents, so also do natural things.