Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber11/lect11

Lecture 11

Latin	English
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit quid est motus, et determinavit de infinito quod est passio quaedam motus, hic determinat de partibus motus; et dividitur in duas partes. In prima dividit motum in suas partes. In secunda manifestat concomitantia motum et partes eius, ibi, simul secundum locum. Prima dividitur in partes tres, secundum tres divisiones motus, quarum tamen una sub altera accipitur, utpote dividens aliquod membrum praecedentis divisionis. Circa primum duo facit. Primo dividit motum ex parte mobilis. Secundo ex parte moventis, ibi, est autem aliquid. Dicit ergo primo, quod tribus modis aliquid permutatur. Uno modo permutatur aliquid per accidens tantum, quando scilicet aliquid dicitur permutari ex quo illud in quo est, permutatur: sive sit in eo ut accidens in subiecto, sicut musicum dicimus ambulare, sive sit forma substantialis in materia ut anima in moto corpore, sive quaecumque pars moto toto, sive etiam contentum moto continente, ut nauta mota navi.	2355. Having explained what motion is, and having dealt with the infinite, which is a certain attribute of motion, here the Philosopher establishes the truth about the parts of motion. This is divided into two parts. In the first (1005)C 2355) he distinguishes the parts of motion; and in the second (1021:C :2404) he explains the connection between motion and its parts (“Things which are”). The first is divided into three members, corresponding to the three divisions which he makes in motion, although one of these is included under the other as a subdivision of the preceding division. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he divides motion with regard to the thing moved; and second (1006:C 2358), with regard to a mover (“The same division”). He accordingly says, first (1005), that a thing may be changed in three ways. In one way a thing may be changed only accidentally, as when something is said to be changed because the thing to which it belongs is changed, whether it belongs to it as an accident to a subject, as when we say that a musician walks, or as a substantial form to matter, as the soul belongs to the body which is moved; or as a part is said to be moved when the whole is moved, or also as something contained is moved when its container is moved, as a sailor is said to be in motion when his ship is in motion.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 2 Secundo modo dicitur aliquid permutari simpliciter eo quod aliquid eius permutatur, sicut ea quae moventur secundum partem. Sicut corpus hominis dicitur sanari, quia sanatur oculus. Et hoc quidem est per se moveri, sed non primo modo.	2356. In a second way a thing is said to be changed without qualification because some part of it is changed, as those things which are moved in some part; for example, the body of a man is said to be healed because the eye is; and this is to be moved essentially but not in the first instance.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 3 Tertio modo dicitur aliquid moveri primo et per se, sicut si aliquod totum moveatur secundum totum, ut si lapis deorsum feratur.	2357. In a third way a thing is said to be moved primarily and of itself; as when some whole is moved in its totality, for example, when a stone is moved downwards.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit est autem ponit eamdem divisionem ex parte moventis. Dicitur enim movens tripliciter. Uno modo movens secundum accidens, sicut musicus aedificat.	2358. The same division (1006). He then gives the same division with regard to a mover; for a thing is said to be a mover in three ways. First, a thing is said to cause motion accidentally; as when a musician builds.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 5 Alio modo secundum partem, sicut homo manu vulnerat et percutit.	2359. Second, a thing is said to be a mover in regard to some one of its parts; as when a man strikes and injures someone with his hand.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 6 Tertio modo per se, sicut ignis calefacit, et medicus sanat.	2360. Third, a thing is said to be a mover essentially; as when fire heats and a physician heals.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit est autem ponit secundam divisionem motus, seu mutationis. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo praemittit quaedam quae sunt necessaria ad divisionem motus accipiendam. Secundo dividit motionem, ibi, quae autem non secundum accidens. Tertio manifestat divisionem mutationis, ibi, quae quidem igitur non ex subiecto. Dicit ergo primo, quod in qualibet mutatione inveniuntur quinque. Est enim in omni mutatione aliquid quod est primum movens. Secundo est aliquid quod movetur. Tertio est tempus in quo fit mutatio: quia omnis motus est in tempore. Quarto est terminus ex quo incipit motus. Quinto est terminus in quem motus tendit. Non autem dividitur motus sive mutatio in suas species, secundum movens, neque secundum id quod movetur, neque secundum tempus: quia ista sunt communia omni mutationi. Sed dividitur secundum terminos, ex quo, et in quem est motus.	2361. And there is (1007). Then he gives a second division of motion or change, and in regard to this he does three things. First (1007:C 2361), he prefaces his discussion with certain points which are necessary for an understanding of the division of motion. Second (1008:C 2363), he divides motion (“Now change”). Third (1009:C 2366), he explains the division of change (“The change”). He says, first, that there are five things found in every change. First, there is a primary mover; second, something which is moved; third, a time during which the motion takes place, because every motion occurs in time; fourth, a starting point from which motion begins; and fifth, a terminus to which the motion proceeds. However, motion or change is not divided into species either on the basis of the mover or of the thing moved or of time, because these are common to every change; but it is divided on the basis of the starting point from which it begins and the terminus to which it proceeds.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 8 Et ideo duo ultimo posita manifestat, dicens, quod species, idest formae et passiones, idest qualitates et locus, sunt termini motuum, quia in ea moventur ea quae mobilia sunt. Et dicit species, propter generationem et corruptionem. Passiones, propter alterationes. Et locum, propter loci mutationem. Et exemplificat de passionibus per scientiam et caliditatem. Sed quia quibusdam videbatur quod caliditas esset idem quod alteratio, et sic sequeretur quod caliditas esset motus et non terminus motus, ideo dicit quod caliditas non est motus, sed calefactio.	2362. He therefore explains the last two, saying that “the forms,” i.e., specifying principles, “modifications,” i.e., qualities, and “place,” are limits of motion, because those things which are movable are moved with respect to these. He uses the term forms, because of generation; modifications, because of alterations; and place, because of local motion. He gives examples of modifications by using science and heat. And because it might seem to some that heat is the sam6 as alteration, and then it would follow that heat is motion and not a limit or terminus of motion, he therefore says that heat is not motion but heating is.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit quae autem praetermissis duabus partibus primae divisionis, accipit tertiam; et eam subdividit secundum terminos, scilicet mutationem, quae non est per accidens, neque secundum partem: dicens, quod permutatio quae non est secundum accidens, non existit inter quoscumque terminos; sed oportet, quod termini eius sint vel contraria, sicut est mutatio de albo in nigrum; vel intermedia, sicut mutatio de nigro in rubeum et de rubeo in pallidum; aut est mutatio inter contradictoria, sicut de albo in non album, aut e converso. Tacet autem de privative oppositis, quia media sunt inter contradictoria et contraria, et sub eis intelliguntur.	2363. Now change (1008). Then, passing over two parts of the first division, he takes the third, namely, change which is neither accidental nor in a part, and subdivides it according to its limits. He says that change which is not accidental is not found between just any limits whatever; but its limits must either be contraries, as change from white to black, or intermediates, as change from black to red and from red to gray; or there is change between contradictories, as from white to not-white, and vice versa. He says nothing of privative opposites because they are found between contradictories and contraries and are understood to come under these.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 10 Et quod solum inter praedictos terminos fiat permutatio, ostendit per inductionem. Quatuor enim modis possunt variari termini mutationis. Aut ita, quod uterque sit affirmativus, ut si aliquid dicatur mutari ex albo in nigrum; et hoc est quod dicit, ex subiecto in subiectum. Aut ita, quod uterque sit negativus, ut si aliquid dicatur mutari de non albo in non nigrum: et hoc est quod dicitur, ex non subiecto in non subiectum. Aut ita quod terminus a quo sit affirmativus, et terminus ad quem sit negativus, ut si dicatur mutari de albo in non album: et hoc est quod dicit, ex subiecto in non subiectum. Aut ita, quod terminus a quo sit negativus et terminus ad quem affirmativus, ut si dicatur aliquid mutari de non albo in album: et hoc est quod dicit, ex non subiecto in subiectum. Exponit autem quod dixerat subiectum, scilicet id quod affirmative significatur.	2364. He shows by induction that change takes place only between the above-mentioned limits; for the limits of change admit of four possible combinations: first, when both limits are affirmative or positive terms, as when something is said to be changed from white to black, and this change he describes as one from subject to subject; second, when both limits are negative terms, as when something is said to be changed from not-white to not-black, or in his words, from non-subject to non-subject; third, when the starting point from which change begins is a positive term and the terminus to which it proceeds is a negative one, as when a thing is said to be changed from white to not-white, or as he says, from subject to non-subject; fourth, when the starting point of change is a negative term and the terminus to which it proceeds is a positive one, as when a thing is said to be changed from not-white to white, or as he says, from a non-subject to a subject. He explains the meaning of the term subject which he had used, as what is signified by an affirmative or positive term.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 11 Harum autem quatuor combinationum, una est inutilis. Non enim est aliqua permutatio de non subiecto in non subiectum. Duae enim negationes, sicut non album, et non nigrum, neque sunt contraria, neque contradictoria, quia non sunt opposita. Possunt enim verificari de eodem. Multa enim sunt, quae neque alba neque nigra sunt. Unde, cum mutatio sit inter opposita, ut in primo physicorum probatum est, relinquitur quod de non subiecto in non subiectum, non sit permutatio. Et sic est necesse solum tres esse permutationes; scilicet duas secundum contradictionem, et unam secundum contrarietatem.	2365. Now one of these four combinations is useless; for there is no change from a non-subject to a non-subject, because two negative terms, such as not-white and not-black, are neither contraries nor contradictories since they are not opposites; for they can be affirmed truly of the same subject because there are many things which are neither white nor black. Hence, since change is between opposites, as is proved in Book I of the Physics, it follows that there is no change from a non-subject to a non-subject. Therefore there must be three kinds of change, two of which relate to contradiction and the other to contrariety.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit quae quidem manifestat quid sint praedictae tres mutationes; et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit quod duae earum sunt generatio et corruptio. Secundo ostendit quod neutra earum est motus, ibi, si itaque non ens. Tertio concludit quae mutatio dicatur motus, ibi, quoniam autem omnis motus et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod trium praedictarum mutationum illa quae est de non subiecto in subiectum, existens inter contradictorios terminos, vocatur generatio. Sed hoc contingit dupliciter. Quia aut est mutatio de non ente simpliciter in ens simpliciter, et tunc est generatio simpliciter. Et hoc quando mutabile subiectum mutatur secundum substantiam. Aut est de non ente in ens non simpliciter, sed secundum quid, sicut de eo quod non est album, in albo: et haec est generatio quaedam et secundum quid.	2366. The change (1009). Then he shows what these three changes are; and in regard to this he does three things. First, he shows that generation and destruction are two of these. Second (1010:C 2368), he shows that neither of these is motion (“If non-being”). Third (1011:C 2375), he draws his conclusion as to which change is called motion (“And since every”). He accordingly says, first (1009), that of the three changes mentioned above, that which is from a non-subject to a subject, or between contradictory terms, is called generation. And this is twofold; for there is change either from non-being in an unqualified sense to being in an unqualified sense (generation in an unqualified sense), and this occurs when a movable subject is changed substantially; or there is change from non-being to being, not in an unqualified sense but in a qualified one, for example, change from not-white to white (generation in a qualified sense).
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 13 Illa vero mutatio, quae est de subiecto in non subiectum, dicitur corruptio. Et similiter in hac distinguitur simpliciter et secundum quid sicut in generatione.	2367. But that change which proceeds from a subject to a non-subject is called destruction; and in this change we also distinguish between destruction in an unqualified sense and in a qualified one, just as we did in the case of generation.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit si itaque ostendit philosophus quod neutra harum mutationum est motus. Et primo ostendit hoc de generatione. Secundo de corruptione, ibi, neque itaque corruptio motus. Dicit ergo primo, quod non ens dicitur multipliciter sicut et ens. Uno enim modo dicitur quod est secundum compositionem et divisionem propositionis. Et hoc, cum non sit in rebus, sed in mente, non potest moveri.	2368. If non-being (1010). Then the Philosopher shows that neither of these changes is motion. First (1010:C 2368), he shows that this is true of generation; and second (ibid.), that it is true of destruction (“Nor is destruction”). He accordingly says, first (1010), that the term non-bring is used in the same number of senses as being is. One meaning is the combination and separation found in a proposition; and since this does not exist in reality but only in the mind, it cannot be moved.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 15 Alio modo dicitur ens et non ens secundum potentiam et actum. Et id quod est actu, est simpliciter ens. Quod autem est secundum potentiam tantum, est non ens. Dicit ergo, quod neque contingit moveri hoc non ens, quod quidem est secundum potentiam ens, sed non ens actu, quod est quasi oppositum enti in actu simpliciter.	2369. Being and non-being are used in another sense with reference to actuality and potentiality. That which is actual is a being in an unqualified sense, but that which is potential only is a non-being. He therefore says that even that sort of non-being which is a being potentially but not actually cannot be moved.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 16 Sed quare dixerit quod est oppositum enti simpliciter, manifestat, cum subdit: quod enim non album. Ens enim in potentia, quod opponitur enti in actu, quod non est ens simpliciter, contingit moveri; quia quod non est non album in actu, aut non bonum in actu, contingit moveri, sed tamen secundum accidens. Non enim ipsum non album movetur, sed subiectum in quo est haec privatio, quod est ens actu. Quod enim est non album, potest esse homo. Sed quod est non ens in actu simpliciter, idest secundum substantiam, nequaquam contingit moveri. Si, inquam, haec omnia vera sunt, impossibile est non ens moveri. Et si hoc verum est, impossibile est generationem esse motum, quia non ens generatur. Est enim generatio, ut dictum est, de non ente in ens. Unde, si generatio simpliciter esset motus, sequeretur quod non ens simpliciter moveretur.	2370. He explains why he had said that actual non-being is opposed to being in an unqualified sense, when he adds “for what is not-white.” For potential being, which is opposed to actual being and is not being in an unqualified sense, can be moved, because what is not not-white actually or not-good actually can be moved, but only accidentally. For what is moved is not the not-white itself, but the subject in which this privation is found, and this is an actual being. For that which is not white may be a man, but that which is an actual non-being in an unqualified sense, i.e., in substance, cannot be moved at all. Now if all of these statements are true, I say, it is impossible for non-being to be moved. And if this is the case, generation cannot be motion, because non-being is generated. For generation, as has been pointed out (1009:C 2366), proceeds from non-being to being. Hence, if generation in an unqualified sense were motion, it would follow that non-being in an unqualified sense would be moved.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 17 Sed huic processui posset aliquis obviare, dicens, quod non ens non generatur nisi per accidens: per se enim generatur id quod est subiectum generationis, idest ens in potentia. Non ens autem significat privationem in materia. Unde non generatur nisi per accidens.	2371. But one can raise an objection to this process of reasoning by saying that non-being is generated only accidentally; for “the subject of generation,” i.e., a being in potentiality, is generated essentially. But non-being signifies privation in a matter. Hence it is generated only accidentally.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 18 Sed hanc obviationem excludit, ibi, si enim et quam maxime. Dicens, quod licet ens non generetur nisi secundum accidens, tamen de eo quod generatur simpliciter, verum est dicere, quod est non ens. Et de quocumque est hoc verum dicere, impossibile est id moveri. Ergo subiectum mutationis impossibile est moveri. Et similiter impossibile est ipsum quiescere, quia non ens simpliciter non movetur neque quiescit. Haec enim inconvenientia accidunt, si quis ponit generationem esse motum.	2372. For even if (ibid.). Then he refutes this objection. He says that, even if a being is generated only accidentally, nevertheless it is true to say that what is generated in an unqualified sense is non-being. And of each of these it is true to say that it cannot be moved. Similarly it cannot be at rest, because non-being in an unqualified sense is neither in motion nor at rest. These are the untenable results if one maintains that generation is motion.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 19 Ad ostendendum autem quod non ens non movetur, subiungit quod omne quod movetur, est in loco, quia motus localis est prior motuum. Non ens autem simpliciter, non est in loco, quia alicubi esset non ens. Igitur non potest moveri: et sic generatio non est motus.	2373. In order to show that nonbeing is not moved, he adds that everything which is moved is in a place because local motion is the first of all motions, whereas non-being in an unqualified sense is not in a place; for [were it moved] it would then be somewhere. Hence it cannot be moved; and therefore generation is not motion.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 20 Et ex hoc ulterius ostendit quod neque corruptio est motus, ibi, neque itaque corruptio. Quia motui non contrariatur nisi motus vel quies. Sed corruptioni contrariatur generatio. Si ergo corruptio sit motus, oportet quod generatio sit vel motus vel quies. Quod non potest esse, ut ostensum est.	2374. Nor is destruction (ibid.). From these considerations he further shows that destruction is not motion; for the only thing that is opposed to motion is motion or rest. But destruction is opposed to generation. Therefore, if destruction were motion, generation would have to be either motion or rest. But this cannot be true, as has been shown.
lib. 11 l. 11 n. 21 Deinde cum dicit quoniam autem ostendit quae mutatio dicatur motus; dicens quod omnis motus est aliqua permutatio. Permutationes autem sunt solum tres: quarum duae, quae sunt secundum contradictionem, scilicet generatio et corruptio, non sunt motus. Relinquitur ergo quod sola mutatio, scilicet de subiecto in subiectum, sit motus. Et cum subiecta ista inter quae est motus oporteat esse opposita, necesse est quod sint contraria vel intermedia; quia privatio, licet affirmativa monstretur, sicut nudum, edentulum et nigrum, tamen ad contrarium reducitur, quia privatio est prima contrarietas, ut in decimo ostensum est. Dicit autem nigrum esse privationem non simpliciter, sed inquantum defective participat generis naturam.	2375. And since every motion (1011). Next he shows which change is said to be motion. He says that every motion is a kind of change. But there are only three changes, and two of these, which involve contradictories, i.e., generation and destruction, are not motion. It follows, then, that only change from a subject to a subject is motion. And since the subjects between which motion takes place must be opposed to each other, they must be contraries or intermediates; for even though a privation is expressed by an affirmative term, such as naked, toothless, and black, it is regarded as a contrary, because privation is the primary contrariety, as has been pointed out in Book X (852:C 2049). And he says that black is a privation not in an unqualified sense but inasmuch as it participates deficiently in the nature of its genus.