Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber11/lect2

Lecture 2

Latin	English
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 1 Postquam movit dubitationem de consideratione huius scientiae, hic movet dubitationem de his quae in hac scientia considerantur. Et primo de substantiis. Secundo de principiis, ibi, adhuc autem siquidem est. Circa hoc movet duas dubitationes: quarum prima est, utrum oporteat aliquid poni in rerum natura existere praeter singularia, aut non. Et si dicatur quod non, videtur sequi, quod haec scientia, quae nunc quaeritur, sit singularium, et quaelibet alia. Sed hoc videtur impossibile; quia singularia sunt infinita, et infinitorum non est scientia. Si autem dicatur, quod aliquid existit praeter singularia, oportet quod sint vel genera, vel species; et sic haec scientia esset de generibus vel speciebus. Sed quare hoc sit impossibile, dictum est prius; quia nec genera nec species videntur esse principia, cum tamen haec sit scientia de principiis.	2173. Having raised a question about the study of this science, Aristotle now raises a question about the things which are considered in this science. He does this, first (912)C 2173), with regard to substances; and second (916:C 2180), with regard to principles (“Again, if”). In treating the first issue he raises two questions. First, he asks whether or not it is necessary to posit the existence of something else in reality over and above singular things. Now if one claims that it is not, then it seems to follow that the science which we are now investigating must be concerned with singular things. But this seems to be impossible, because singular things are infinite in number, and the infinite is unknowable. And if one claims that it is necessary to posit the existence of something apart from singular things, they must be genera or species; and then this science would deal with genera and species. First, he explains why this is impossible; for it seems that neither genera nor species are principles, yet this science deals with principles.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 2 Et veritas haec est, quia nihil est in rerum natura praeter singularia existens, sed tantum in consideratione intellectus abstrahentis communia a propriis.	2174. The truth of the matter is that in reality there are only singular things, and that anything else exists only in the consideration of the intellect, which abstracts common attributes from particular ones.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 3 Secundam dubitationem ponit ibi, etenim et est utrum sit aliqua substantia separabilis praeter sensibiles substantias, quae sunt hic et nunc. Et haec quaestio necessaria est hic ad quaerendum; quia si nihil est praeter sensibilia, tunc sola sensibilia sunt entia. Et, cum sapientia sit scientia entium, sequitur quod sapientia sit circa sola sensibilia, cum tamen in hac scientia videamur quaerere quamdam aliam naturam separatam. Et sic ad propositum huius scientiae pertinet quaerere, si est aliquid separatum a sensibilibus, vel non. Et quicquid horum detur, sequitur alia quaestio.	2175. And in general (913). Then he states the second question: whether there is some substance which exists apart from sensible substances existing here and now. This question must be raised here because, if there is nothing apart from sensible substances, only sensible substances are beings. And since wisdom is the science of beings, wisdom must be concerned only with sensible substances, even though we seem in this science to be looking for some other separate reality. It belongs to this science, then, to investigate whether or not there is something apart from sensible substances. And whichever alternative is taken, another question arises.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 4 Et ideo consequenter dicit adhuc autem movet quaestionem quae videtur sequi, si ponatur aliquid separabile a sensibilibus; quae quidem quaestio est, utrum praeter omnes substantias sensibiles sit aliquid separabile, aut praeter quasdam tantum. Si praeter quasdam tantum, difficile est assignare rationem praeter quales substantiarum sensibilium oportet ponere substantiam separatam, et praeter quales non. Non enim videtur esse ratio aliqua, quare praeter homines et equos sensibiles sit homo et equus separatus, et non similiter de aliis animalibus, et etiam de aliis inanimatis. Si autem praeter omnia sensibilia sit aliqua substantia separata, sequitur quod oporteat ponere aliquas substantias separatas, perpetuas, aequales numero substantiis sensibilibus et corruptibilibus; ut scilicet, sicut est homo corruptibilis, ita sit homo incorruptibilis, et equus, et bos, et etiam in rebus naturalibus aliis. Et hoc videtur cadere in irrationabilia.	2176. Further, if there (914). He therefore poses the question which seems to arise if one claims that there is something separate from sensible substances. The question is whether this separate thing exists apart from all sensible substances or only apart from some. And if only apart from some, it is hard to explain why we should posit a separate substance apart from some sensible substances and not from others. For there does not seem to be any reason why there should be a separate man and a separate horse apart from the men and horses we perceive by the senses, and why this should not be true also of other animals and other non-living things. But if there is some separate substance apart from all sensible substances, it follows that we must posit the existence of certain separate substances which are eternal and equal in number to sensible and corruptible substances. Thus, just as there is a corruptible man, in a similar way there would be an incorruptible man, and the same with horse and ox, and also with other natural bodies. This seems to be absurd.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit si autem movet aliam quaestionem, quae videtur sequi, si non sit aliqua substantia separata a sensibilibus. Et est quaestio quid sit primum principium, utrum scilicet materia vel forma: ex his enim duobus componuntur substantiae sensibiles. Videtur enim primo aspectu quod nihil magis possit poni principium quam materia, quae est primum subiectum, et semper manet, sicut primi naturales posuerunt. Sed hoc, ut videtur, non potest esse principium, quia materia non est in actu, sed in potentia. Et ita, cum actus naturaliter sit prior potentia, ut in nono habitum est, videtur quod sit principium species et forma quae est actus.	2177. But if the principle (915). Then he raises another question which seems to follow if there is no substance separate from sensible substances. This question asks what the first principle is, whether matter or form; for sensible substances are composed of these two principles. For at first glance it seems that nothing can be more of a principle of things than matter, which is the first subject and always continues to exist, as the first philosophers of nature claimed. Yet it would seem that matter cannot be a principle, because it is not an actuality but a potentiality. Hence, since actuality is naturally prior to potentiality, as has been pointed out in Book IX (785:C 1856), the specifying principle or form, which is an actuality, seems to be this principle.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 6 Sed nec forma potest esse principium, ut videtur, quia forma sensibilis videtur esse corruptibilis. Et ita, si forma sensibilis sit primum principium, videtur sequi quod nulla substantia sit perpetua, quae sit separabilis, et secundum se existens. Quod videtur inconveniens: quia a famosis philosophis quaeritur aliquod principium perpetuum et separatum, et aliqua talis substantia: et hoc rationabiliter. Non enim esset ordo perpetuitatis in rebus, nisi esset aliquod principium separabile et perpetuum, quod daret rebus perpetuitatem.	2178. But it seems that form cannot be a principle because a sensible form appears to be corruptible. If a sensible form were the first principle, then, it would seem to follow that there would be no eternal substance, separable and existing of itself. But this is clearly absurd because some such principle, eternal and separate, and some such substance, is sought by [almost all] the famous philosophers. This is reasonable, for there would not be a perpetual order of things in the world if there were no separate and eternal principle which causes things to be perpetual.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 7 Et veritas harum quaestionum est, quod est aliqua substantia separata a sensibilibus; non quidem species rerum sensibilium, ut Platonici posuerunt, sed primi motores, ut infra ostendetur.	2179. The true answer to this question is that there are certain substances which are separate from sensible substances; and these are not the Forms of sensible things, as the Platonists claimed, but the primary movers, as will be shown below (1056:C 2492).
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit adhuc autem movet quaestionem de principiis. Et primo qualia sunt. Secundo quae sunt, ibi, si autem rursus aliquid. Tertio quomodo se habeant adinvicem, ibi, adhuc autem primum principium. Quaerit ergo si sit aliqua substantia separata et principium ut nunc quaerimus, utrum sit aliquod principium omnium, scilicet corruptibilium et incorruptibilium, vel non. Si sit principium aliquod omnium, dubitatio remanet, quare ex eodem principio, quaedam sunt perpetua, quaedam non perpetua. Si autem aliud est principium corruptibilium, et aliud incorruptibilium, adhuc remanet dubitatio, quare, cum principium sit perpetuum, ea quae sunt ex primo non sunt perpetua. Si autem principium sit corruptibile, omne autem corruptibile est generabile, omne autem generabile habet principium, sequitur quod principium corruptibile habeat aliquod principium, et illud, aliud, et sic in infinitum. Quod est impossibile, ut ostensum est supra in secundo.	2180. Again, if there (916). Then he raises the question about principles. First, he asks what kinds of principles there are; second (917:C 2182), what they are (“But on the other hand”); and third (918:C :2184), how they are related to one another (“Again, how can”). He accordingly asks (916) whether or not, if there is some separate substance and principle such as we are now seeking, it is the principle of all things, corruptible and incorruptible. Now if there is such a principle of all things, the question arises why some of the things which come from the same principle are eternal and some ire not. But if there is one principle for corruptible things and another for incorruptible ones, there remains the question why, if the principle is eternal the things coming from it are not themselves eternal. But if the principle of things is corruptible, and every corruptible thing is capable of being generated, and everything capable of being generated has a principle, it follows that the corruptible principle will have a principle, and that this will have another, and so on to infinity, as has been made clear above in Book II (153:C 301).
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 9 Et veritas est, quod primum principium omnium est incorruptibile. Sed quaedam propter longe distare ab eo sunt corruptibilia, in quibus generatio et corruptio causatur per causam mediam quae est incorruptibilis secundum substantiam, variabilis secundum ubi.	2181. The truth of the matter is that the first principle of all things is incorruptible, and that some things are corruptible because of their great distance from that principle. These are the things in which generation and corruption are caused by an intermediate cause which is incorruptible as regards its substance but changeable as regards place.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit si autem quaerit quae sunt principia. Et primo quaerit de opinione illorum, qui posuerunt principia unum et ens, quia sunt maxime immobilia. Qualitercumque enim varietur aliquid, semper remanet unum et ens.	2182. But on the other hand (917). Then he asks what the principles of things are. First, he examines the opinions of those men who claimed that the principles are unity and being because these are the most unchangeable. For no matter how a thing varies, it always remains one.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 11 Sed ex eorum opinione consurgit duplex dubitatio. Quarum una est, utrum unum et ens significat hoc aliquid et substantiam. Si enim non, non potuerunt esse separabilia et per se existentia. Sed talia principia quaerimus, quae sint perpetua et separata existentia. Si autem significat hoc aliquid et substantiam, sequitur quod omnia sint substantiae et nihil sit accidens: quia ens praedicatur de omnibus entibus, unum autem praedicatur de quibusdam. Quaedam vero sunt, quae in multitudine consistunt; de quibus vere manifestum est qualiter praedicetur unum. Hoc autem est falsum, quod omnia sint substantiae. Unde videtur quod unum et ens non significent substantiam.	2183. But the opinion of these men gives rise to two questions. The first is whether unity and being signify a particular thing, i.e., a substance; for, if they do not, they cannot be separable and exist of themselves. But we are looking for such principles which are eternal and exist separately. Yet if they do signify a particular thing or substance, it follows that all things are substances, and that nothing is an accident; for being is predicated of any existing thing at all, and unity is predicated of some. Now there are some things which involve multiplicity in their being, and the different ways in which unity is predicated truly of these is clear enough. But it is false that all things are substances; and therefore it seems that unity and being do not signify substance.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 12 Adhuc autem secunda dubitatio quam ponit talis est. Ponentes enim unum principium et substantiam, dicunt, quod ex uno et ex materia generatur numerus tamquam primus effectus. Et hunc, scilicet numerum, dicunt esse substantiam. Sed hoc non videtur esse verum. Quia, si numerus componitur ex uno et materia, oportet quod sit aliquid unum, sicut quod componitur ex anima et materia, oportet quod sit animatum. Sed quomodo dualitas et quilibet aliorum numerorum qui sunt compositi ex multis unitatibus, sunt unum, ut dicunt Platonici? Nec facile est assignare, ut possit dici esse derelictum ab eis, quasi de facili intelligibile.	2184. Again, how can (918). The second question or problem which he raises runs as follows: those who maintain that unity, or the unit, is the principle and substance of things say that number is generated as a first product from the unit and matter. And this, i.e., number, they call substance. But evidently this is not true, because, if a number is composed of the unit and matter, it must be something one, just as what is composed of a living principle and matter must be something living. But in what way is the number two or any other number, which is composed of units, one, as the Platonists claimed? This is not easy to explain, inasmuch as it can be said that they neglected to account for this as though it were easy to understand.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 13 Secundo ibi, si vero prosequitur aliam opinionem de principiis. Quidam enim posuerunt lineas et habita, idest consequenter se habentia ad eas, scilicet superficies, esse principia, quia ponebant corpora componi ex superficiebus et superficies ex lineis. Sed manifestum est, quod huiusmodi non sunt substantiae separabiles et per se existentes, quia sunt quaedam decisiones et divisiones, lineae quidem superficierum, superficies corporum, puncta vero linearum. Et sunt etiam termini eorumdem: puncta, scilicet linearum, et sic de aliis. Punctum enim quod est in extremitate lineae, est terminus lineae. Quod autem significatur actu infra lineam, est decisio lineae. Et similiter est de linea ad superficiem, et de superficie ad corpus. Manifestum est autem, quod termini et decisiones sunt existentia in aliis sicut in subiectis. Unde non possunt esse separabilia. Et sic lineae et superficies non sunt principia.	2185. But if someone (919). Second, he examines another opinion about the principles of things. For sonic claimed that “lines and what is derived from them,” namely, surfaces, are principles, because they held that bodies are composed of surfaces, and surfaces of lines. But it is clear that such things are not separate substances which exist of themselves; for such things are sections and divisions: lines being sections and divisions of surfaces, surfaces of bodies, and points of lines. They are also the limits of these things, i.e., points are the limits of lines, and so forth; for a point, which is at the extremity of a line, is the limit of a line. Now what is signified as actually within a line is a section of the line. The same thing is true of, a line in relation to a surface, and of a surface in relation to a body; for it is evident that limits and sections are entities which exist in other things as their subjects. Hence they cannot exist apart. Lines and surfaces, then, are not principles of things.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit adhuc quomodo inducit aliam rationem; dicens quod non potest opinari quod sit aliqua substantia unitatis et puncti, quia substantia non incipit esse nisi per generationem. Cum autem linea dividitur in actu, ipsa divisio est punctum.	2186. Again, how are we (920). Then he introduces another argument. He says that it cannot be understood that the unit and the point have a substance, because substance begins to exist only by way of generation. But when a line is actually divided, the division itself is a point.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 15 Est autem harum quaestionum veritas, quod nec unum nec lineae et superficies sunt principia.	2187. The correct answer to these questions is that neither units nor lines nor surfaces are principles.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 16 Tertio ibi, exhibet autem ponit quaestionem de uno et ente, et de dimensionibus, movet quaestionem de substantiis. Et primo quaerit utrum substantiae sint principia. Et videtur quod non: quia omnis scientia est universalium, et quaelibet scientia est talis universalis, idest alicuius subiecti universalis determinati. Sed substantia non est de numero universalium, sed magis est hoc aliquid separabile, idest per se existens. Et ita videtur quod de substantiis non sit scientia. Sed scientia est circa principia: ergo substantia non est principium.	2188. There is also the problem (921). After the question about unity and being and dimensions he now raises the question about substances. First, he asks whether substances are principles. The answer seems to be that they are not; for every science is concerned with universals and with “such and such a universal,” i.e., some definite universal subject. Now a substance is not included among universals, but is rather a particular thing which exists of itself. Hence it seems that there is no science of substances. But a science is concerned with principles. Therefore substances are not principles.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 17 Et veritas est quod, licet universalia non per se existant, tamen naturas eorum quae per se subsistunt est considerare universaliter. Et secundum hoc accipiuntur genera et species in praedicamento substantiae, quae dicuntur secundae substantiae, de quibus est scientia. Quaedam etiam per se existentes sunt principia, quae, quia immateriales, pertinent ad intelligibilem cognitionem, licet excedant intellectus nostri comprehensionem.	2189. The truth is that, although universals do not exist of themselves, it is still necessary to consider universally the natures of things which subsist of themselves. Accordingly, genera and species, which are called second substances, are put in the category of substance; and of these there is scientific knowledge. And certain things which exist of themselves are principles; and these, because they are immaterial, pertain to intelligible knowledge, even though they surpass the comprehension of our intellect.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 18 Adhuc utrum secundo quaerit, utrum sit aliquod principium praeter synolon, idest praeter simul totum quod est compositum, aut non. Et exponit synolon quod est materia, et quod cum materia componitur. Si enim non sit aliquid praeter compositum ex materia et forma, quae autem sunt in materia dicuntur corruptibilia, sequitur quod nihil sit perpetuum. Et si est aliquid praeter compositum, hoc erit species et forma; et remanebit dubitatio in quibus forma separatur, et in quibus non. Manifestum est enim quod in quibusdam forma non separatur. Forma enim domus non separatur a materia. Unde et Platonici non posuerunt ideas rerum artificialium, quia formae rerum artificialium sunt actus, quae non possunt per se existere.	2190. Again, the question (922). Second, he asks whether or not there is any “principle apart from the concrete whole,” i.e., the natural whole or composite. He explains that by concrete whole he means matter, or the thing composed of matter. For if there is no principle apart from the composite of matter and form, and those principles which are said to be in matter are corruptible, it follows that nothing is eternal. And if there is some principle apart from the composite, it must be the specifying principle or form. Then the question arises in which cases the form is separate and in which it is not. For it is obvious that in some cases the form is not separate; the form of a house, for example, is not separate from matter. It was for this reason that the Platonists did not posit Ideas or Forms of artificial things, because the forms of such things are actualities which cannot exist of themselves.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 19 Et veritas est quod est aliquid praeter materiam, non tamen forma rerum sensibilium.	2191. The correct answer to this question is that there is some principle apart from matter, and this is not the form of sensible things.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 20 Deinde cum dicit adhuc utrum quaerit qualiter principia se habeant adinvicem; utrum scilicet omnium principia sint eadem numero, aut specie tantum. Si enim sint eadem numero, sequitur quod omnia sint eadem numero. Si autem non sunt eadem numero, oportebit quaerere causam diversitatis.	2192. Again, there is (923). He now asks how the principles of all things are related to one another: whether they are the same numerically or only specifically. For, if they are the same numerically, it follows that all things -are the same numerically. But if they are not the same numerically, this difference will have to be accounted for.
lib. 11 l. 2 n. 21 Et veritas est quod, loquendo de principiis extrinsecis, unum numero sunt; cum id quod est primum principium omnium, sit agens et finis. Principia vero intrinseca, scilicet materia et forma, non sunt unum numero omnium, sed secundum analogiam, ut infra ostendetur.	2193. The truth is that, if one is speaking of the extrinsic principles of things, they are the same numerically, since the first principle of all things is an agent and final cause. But the intrinsic principles of things-matter and form-are not the same numerically but only analogically, as will be shown below (1049-54:C 2474-87).