Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber1/lect6

Lecture 6

Latin	English
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 1 Hic ponit opinionem ponentium contrarietatem in huiusmodi, et rationem eos moventem, quae talis erat. In rerum natura videbantur aliqua esse contraria bonis, quia in natura non solum invenitur ordinatum et bonum, sed aliquando inordinatum et turpe: non potest autem dici quod mala non habeant causam, sed accidant a casu: quia mala sunt plura melioribus, et prava sunt plura bonis simpliciter: quae autem sunt a casu sine causa determinata non sunt ut in pluribus, sed ut in paucioribus. Unde, cum contrariorum sint contrariae causae, oportet non solum causam rerum ponere amorem, ex quo proveniunt ordinationes et bona: sed et odium, ex quo proveniunt inordinationes et turpia vel mala: ut sic singula mala et bona proprias causas habeant.	104. Here Aristotle gives the opinion of those who posited contrariety in beings of this kind, and the reason which moved them, which is as follows. There would seem to be in nature things which are contrary to those that are good, because in nature one finds not only things which are ordered and good, but sometimes things which are disordered and base. Now it cannot be said that evil things have no cause but happen by chance, because evil things are more numerous than good ones, and base things more numerous than those which are unqualifiedly noble. But those things which come to be by chance without a definite cause do not occur for the most part but in the smaller number of cases. Hence, since contrary effects have contrary causes, it was necessary to hold as a cause of things not only love, from which the order and good in things originate, but also hate, which is the source of disorder and baseness or evil in things, so that in this way particular instances of evil and good have their own type of causes.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 2 Et quod ista fuerit ratio movens Empedoclem patet, si quis assequatur sententiam eius, et accipiat sententiam, quam dicere voluit, et non ad verba, quae imperfecte et quasi balbutiendo dixit. Dixit enim quod amoris est congregare, odii disgregare: sed quia ex congregatione est rerum generatio, ex qua rebus est esse et bonum: per segregationem vero est corruptio, quae est via ad non esse et malum, iam patet quod voluit amorem esse causam aggregatorum, idest bonorum, et odium esse causam malorum. Et ita si quis dicat, quod Empedocles fuit primus, qui dixit bonum et malum esse principia, forsitan bene dixit.	105. That this was the reason which moved Empedocles is evident if anyone grasps what he says, taking his statement according to its meaning rather than according to the words which he used imperfectly and, as it were, in a faltering way. For he said that it is the office of love to bring the elements together, and of hate to separate them. But since the generation of things is a result of the coming together [of the elements], by reason of which there is being and good in things, and their corruption a result of the separation [of the elements], which is the way to non-being and evil, it is now evident that he wanted love to be the cause of things which come to be by aggregation, i.e., of good things, and hate the cause of evil things. Thus if one were to say that Empedocles was the first to maintain that good and evil are principles, he would perhaps speak correctly.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 3 Si tamen secundum Empedoclem fuit hoc quod bonum est causa omnium bonorum, et malum omnium malorum. Quod enim aliquorum malorum posuit causam malam, scilicet corruptionis, et aliquorum bonorum bonum, scilicet generationis, manifestum est: sed quia non sequebatur quod omnia bona essent per amicitiam, nec omnia mala per odium, cum distinctio partium mundi adinvicem esset per odium, et confusio per amicitiam, ideo non usquequaque posuit bonum causam bonorum, et malum causam malorum.	106. That is to say, this would follow if Empedocles did hold that good is the cause of all good things, and evil the cause of all evil things. For it is evident that he posited evil as the cause of some evil things, namely, of corruption, and good as the cause of some good things, namely, of generation. But because it would not follow that all good things would be caused by friendship or all evil things by hate, since the parts of the world would be differentiated by hate and fused together by friendship, therefore he did not always hold that good is the cause of good things, and evil the cause of evil things.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit isti quidem hic ostendit, quod in ponendo praedictas causas deficiebant. Et primo loquitur generaliter de eis. Secundo specialiter, ibi, Anaxagoras autem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod praedicti philosophi, scilicet Anaxagoras et Empedocles, usque ad hoc pervenerunt, quod posuerunt duas causas illarum quatuor, quae sunt determinatae in physicis, scilicet materiam et causam motus; sed obscure et non manifeste tradiderunt, quia non exprimebant quod illa, quae causas esse ponebant, ad ista causarum genera reducerentur. Sed in hoc quod de causis posuerunt duas, convenienter assimilabantur bellatoribus non eruditis, qui ab adversariis circumducti faciunt aliquando bonos ictus, sed non per artem, sed a casu. Quod ex hoc patet, quia etsi aliquando accidit eis, non tamen semper aut frequenter. Similiter etiam praedicti philosophi non sunt usi dicere quod dicunt, nec usi sunt scientibus, idest sicut scientes. Unde alia translatio habet, sed nec illi scientiam, nec hi assimilati sunt scientibus dicere quod dicunt. Quod ex hoc patet, quia cum praedictas causas posuissent, fere non sunt eis usi, quia in paucis utebantur. Unde videtur quod non ex arte, sed quadam inducti necessitate eas casualiter induxerunt.	107. These thinkers (51). Here he shows that in giving these causes the philosophers treated them inadequately. First, he mentions them in a general way. Second (108), he treats each one individually (“Anaxagoras”). He says first, then, that these philosophers—Anaxagoras and Empedocles—arrived at a doctrine of two of the causes which have been established in the Physics, namely, matter and the cause of motion, although they treated these obscurely and with no clarity, because they did not explain that those principles which they held to be the causes of things could be reduced to these classes of causes. But insofar as they posited two of these causes, they may be likened to untrained warriors who, ttiough encircled by the enemy, sometimes strike good blows, not by art but by chance. This is evident from the fact that, even though they happen to do this sometimes, this does not occur always or for the most part. In like manner, too, these philosophers were not accustomed to express themselves accurately, nor was it their custom to speak with awareness, i.e., as men who know. Hence another translation has, “But these men neither have science, nor are they to be compared with men who realize what they are saying.” This is shown by the fact that, although they had proposed these causes, they hardly ever used them, because they employed them in few instances. Hence it seems that they introduced them not as a result of art but by accident, because they were moved to, do so by necessity.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit Anaxagoras autem hic ostendit in quo specialiter eorum uterque defecerit. Et primo de Anaxagora. Secundo de Empedocle, ibi, et Empedocles. Dicit ergo primo, quod Anaxagoras utitur intellectu ad mundi generationem; in quo videtur artificialiter loqui, non dubitans de causis generationis mundi, ex necessitate attrahit, idest producit ipsum intellectum, non valens reducere mundi generationem in aliquam aliam causam distinguentem res, nisi in aliquod in se distinctum et immixtum, cuiusmodi est intellectus. Sed in omnibus aliis assignat causas magis ex omnibus aliis, quam ex intellectu, sicut in specialibus rerum naturis.	108. Anaxagoras (52). Here he shows in what particular respect the view of each is unsatisfactory. First, he speaks of Anaxagoras; and second (109), of Empedocles (“Empedocles”). He says first, then, that Anaxagoras uses “intellect” to generate the world, and in so doing he seems to speak of it in an artificial way. For when he inquires about the causes of the world’s generation, he drags it in of necessity, i.e., he invents this intelligence only because he is unable to attribute the generation of the world to any other cause which would differentiate things except to one which is essentially distinct and unmixed, and intellect is a thing of this kind. But in all other cases he draws his causes from any other source rather than intellect, for example, in the case of the particular natures of things.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit et Empedocles hic ostendit in quo deficiat Empedocles. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit in quo deficit. Secundo quid proprium prae aliis dixit, ibi, Empedocles igitur. Dicit ergo primo, quod Empedocles in determinando de particularibus rerum naturis, plus utitur causis a se positis, scilicet quatuor elementis, et odio et amore, quam Anaxagoras, quia singulorum generationem et corruptionem in praedictas causas reducit, non autem Anaxagoras in intellectum. Sed in duobus deficit. Primo, quia non sufficienter huiusmodi causas tradit. Utitur enim eis quasi dignitatibus per se notis, quae non sunt per se nota, ut dicitur primo physicorum: dum scilicet supponebat quasi per se notum, quod lis determinato tempore dominabatur in elementis, et alio tempore determinato amor.	109. Empedocles (53). Here he shows in what respect Empedocles’ doctrine is inadequate; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he shows in what respect Empedocles’ doctrine is inadequate. Second (111), he explains what Empedocles himself held in contrast to the other philosophers (“In contrast” ) He says, first (53), that Empedocles, in dealing with the particular natures of things, “makes greater use of the causes” posited by him (the four elements, and love and hate) than Anaxagoras did, because he reduced the generation and corruption of particular things to these causes, and not to intelligence as Anaxagoras did. But Empedocles failed in two ways. First, he failed because he does not treat causes of this kind adequately enough; for he uses things which are not self-evident as though they were self-evident axioms, as is stated in the Physics, Book W that is, insofar as he assumed that they are self-evident, because at one definite time strife has dominion over the elements and at another, love.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 7 Secundo, quia in his quae quaerit, non invenitur illud quod est ab eo confessum, idest suppositum quasi principium, scilicet quod amor congreget et odium disgreget; quia in multis locis oportet quod e contrario amor secernat, idest dividat, et odium concernat, idest congreget; quia quando ipsum universum in partes suas per odium, distrahitur, idest deiicitur, quod est in generatione mundi, tunc omnes partes ignis in unum conveniunt, et similiter singulae partes aliorum elementorum, concernunt, idest adinvicem coniunguntur. Sic igitur odium, non solum partes ignis dividit a partibus aeris, sed etiam partes ignis coniungit adinvicem. E contrario autem, cum elementa in unum conveniunt per amorem, quod accidit in destructione universi, tunc necesse est ut partes ignis adinvicem separentur, et similiter singulorum partes adinvicem secernantur. Non enim posset ignis commisceri aeri nisi partes ignis adinvicem separarentur, et similiter partes aeris nisi invicem se elementa praedicta penetrarent, ut sic amor sicut coniungit extranea, ita dividat similia, secundum quod sequitur ex eius positione.	110. Second, he failed because in the matters which he investigates, one does not find what he has professed, i.e., what he held as a principle, namely, that love combines things and that strife separates them, because in many places love must on the contrary “separate” or divide things, and strife “bring them together,” i.e., unite them. For when the universe itself “is separated out,” i.e., divided into its parts, by hate, as occurs when the world is generated, all particles of fire are then combined into one whole, and so also are the individual particles of the other elements “brought together,” i.e., joined to each other. Hence, strife not only separates the particles of fire from those of air, but also brings together the particles of fire. But, on the other hand, when the elements come together through love, which occurs when the universe is destroyed the particles of fire must then be separated from each other, and so also must the particles of the other elements. For fire can be mixed with air only if the particles of fire are separated from each other; and the same is true of the particles of air only if these elements penetrate one another, so that love not only unites unlike things but also separates like things, according to what follows from his position.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit Empedocles quidem hic ostendit quomodo Empedocles prae aliis philosophis proprium posuit. Et dicit quod duo prae aliis posuit. Unum est quod causam unde motus divisit in duas contrarias partes. Aliud est quod causam materialem dixit esse quatuor elementa: non quod utatur quatuor elementis ut quatuor, sed ut duobus, quia ignem comparat aliis tribus dicens, quod ignis habet naturam activam, et alia passivam. Et hoc potest aliquis sumere ex elementis rerum ab ipso traditis, vel elementis principiis suae doctrinae quae posuit. Alia litera habet ex versibus, quia dicitur metrice suam philosophiam scripsisse. Et huic concordat alia translatio quae dicit, ex rationibus. Hic igitur, ut dictum est et sic tot primus posuit principia, quia quatuor, et ea quae dicta sunt.	111. In contrast (54). Here he shows in what respect Empedocles’ own doctrine differs from that of the other philosophers. He says that Empedocles maintained two things in contrast to the others. First, he divided the cause which is the source of motion into two contrary parts. Second, he held the material cause to be constituted of four elements—not that he uses the four elements as four, but rather as two, because he contrasts fire with the other three, saying that fire is active in nature and the others passive in nature. Anyone can gather this from the elements of things treated by him, or from his “basic sayings” in the sense of the rudiments of the doctrine which he propounded. Another version reads “from his verses,” because he is said to have written his philosophy in meters. And still another version, which says “from his statements,” agrees with this. As has been stated, then, this philosopher was the first to stipulate in this way that the principles of things are so many in number, namely, four, and to speak of those which have been mentioned.