Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber11/lect7

Lecture 7

Latin	English
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit de quibus sit consideratio huius scientiae, hic comparat istam scientiam ad alias. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit quid sit proprium particularium scientiarum. Secundo ostendit differentiam particularium scientiarum adinvicem, ibi, quoniam autem est quaedam. Tertio comparat istam ad alias, ibi, quoniam autem est quaedam entis scientia. Circa primum duo facit, secundum duo, quae dicit pertinere ad particulares scientias. Dicit ergo primo, quod omnis scientia particularis quaerit aliqua principia et causas, circa proprium scibile quod sub ipsa continetur. Dicit autem - aliqua principia et causas,- quia non omnis scientia considerat omne genus causae.	2247. Having shown with what things this science is concerned, here the Philosopher compares this science with the others. In regard to this he does three things. First (956)C 2247), he indicates what is proper to the particular sciences. Second (958:C 2252), he shows how the particular sciences differ from one another (“Now since”). Third (960:C 2259), he compares this science with the others (“And since there is”). In treating the first member of this division he does two things, insofar as there are two characteristics which he says pertain to the particular sciences. He accordingly says, first (956), that every particular science seeks certain principles and causes of the proper object of knowledge which comes within its scope. He says certain principles and causes because not every science considers every class of cause.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 2 Et ponit exemplum de medicativa quae est circa sanitatem, et de exercitativa quae est circa exercitia ordinata ad bonam valetudinem corporis; et similiter de qualibet scientia alia, sive sit factiva idest practica, sive doctrinalis idest theorica; quia unaquaeque harum scientiarum particularium circumscribit et accipit sibi aliquod determinatum genus entis, circumscribens illud et dividens ab aliis entibus, et de illo solo determinans. Negociatur enim circa hoc genus entis quasi circa aliquod ens, sed non inquantum est ens. Sed hoc, scilicet considerare de ente inquantum est ens, pertinet ad quamdam scientiam quae est alia praeter omnes scientias particulares.	2248. He gives as an example the science of medicine, whose object is health, and the art of gymnastics, whose object is physical exercise directed to the well-being of the body. The same thing holds true of any of the other sciences, whether they are “productive,” i.e., practical, or “doctrinal,” i.e., theoretical; because each of these particular sciences marks off and takes as its own some determinate class of being inasmuch as it confines itself to that class and deals with it alone. For it is concerned with that class of being as a certain kind of being, though not as being. But to consider this, namely, being as being, belongs to a science which differs from all of the particular sciences.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 3 Secundo ibi, dictarum autem ponit aliud pertinens ad particulares scientias; dicens quod unaquaeque praedictarum scientiarum particularium supponit aliqualiter quod quid est, in quocumque genere consideretur. Unde et in primo posteriorum dictum est, quod de subiecto oportet supponere, et quia est, et quid est. Et hoc supposito, scilicet quod quid est, quo quaelibet scientia utitur tamquam medio ad demonstrandum aliqua sicut passiones et huiusmodi, tentat demonstrare aut debilius aut certius, quia in quibusdam scientiis est certior modus demonstrandi sicut in mathematicis, in quibusdam autem debilior sicut in naturalibus.	2249. And each (957). Second, he gives another characteristic of the particular sciences. He says that each of the above-mentioned particular sciences somehow assumes the quiddity in whatever class of things is considered. Hence it has been stated at the beginning of the Posterior Analytics that it is necessary to assume both the existence and quiddity of the subject. And having assumed this, i.e., the quiddity, which every science uses as a middle term to demonstrate certain things, such as properties and the like, it tries to demonstrate these with greater or lesser certainty; because some sciences have a more certain method of demonstrating, as the mathematical sciences, and others a less certain one, as the natural sciences.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 4 Et quia dixerat quod aliae scientiae aliqualiter supponunt quod quid est, ideo subiungit quod quaedam scientiae sumunt quod quid est per sensum, inquantum ex accidentibus sensibilibus deveniunt in cognitionem essentiae rei. Quaedam vero sumunt quod quid est, supponentes ab aliis scientiis, sicut particulares ab universalibus.	2250. And since he had said that other sciences somehow assume the quiddity, he therefore adds that some sciences derive the quiddity from sensory perception inasmuch as they acquire a knowledge of a thing’s essence from sensible accidents, and that others derive the quiddity by assuming it from other sciences, as particular sciences from universal ones.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 5 Et sic manifestum est quod in scientiis particularibus non est demonstratio de substantia rei, nec de eo quod quid est. Utrumque igitur horum de quibus particulares scientiae non se intromittunt, pertinet ad universalem scientiam, idest considerare de substantia et ente et quidditate rei.	2251. Thus it is evident that in the particular sciences there is no demonstration of the substance or the quiddity of a thing. Hence both of the things with which the particular sciences do not concern themselves, i.e., a consideration of the substance or being and its quiddity, pertain to a universal science.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit quoniam autem ostendit differentiam particularium scientiarum abinvicem. Et primo scientiae naturalis ad scientias operativas. Secundo scientiae mathematicae ad naturalem, ibi, quoniam autem quod quid est. Dicit ergo primo, quod cum sit quaedam particularis scientia de natura, oportet quod sit altera a practica, idest activa et factiva. Omnis enim scientia operativa, vel est activa, vel factiva.	2252. Now since (958). Then he shows how the particular sciences differ from one another. First (958:C 2252), he shows how the philosophy of nature differs from the productive sciences; and second (959:C 2256), how the mathematical sciences differ from the philosophy of nature (“And since it is necessary”). He accordingly says, first (958), that, since there is a particular science of nature, it must be different “from the practical,” i.e., from the sciences which govern activity and from those which govern production; for every practical science is either a science of action or a science of production.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 7 Ad quam differentiam cognoscendam sumendum est, quod supra in nono habitum est, scilicet quod agere et facere differunt. Nam agere proprie dicitur secundum operationem quae permanet in agente, et non transit in materiam exteriorem; sicut intelligere et sentire et huiusmodi. Facere autem est secundum operationem transeuntem in materiam exteriorem, quae permutatur; sicut calefacere, secare et alia. Est ergo scientia activa, ex qua instruimur ad recte exercendum operationes, quae actiones dicuntur; sicut est scientia moralis. Factiva autem scientia est, per quam recte aliquid facimus; sicut ars fabrilis, et alia huiusmodi.	2253. In order to understand this difference we must consider a distinction which was made above in Book IX (790:C 1864), namely, that to act and to make differ; for to act is said properly of an operation which remains in the agent and does not pass over into some external matter, for instance, to understand and to perceive and so on. But to make or produce is said of an operation which passes over into some external matter which is changed, for example, to heat and to cut and the like. Hence there is a science of activity by which we are instructed how to perform correctly those operations which are called actions; and moral science is such. But that science by which we make something correctly is a productive science. The art of carpentry and the like belong to this class.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 8 Ab utraque autem harum operativarum scientiarum scientia naturalis altera est; quia factivae scientiae non habent principium motus in facto, sed in faciente. Et hoc principium est sicut ars, quae est principium sicut dirigens, sive potentia aliqua quae est principium sicut exequens. Et similiter scientiae practicae, idest activae, non habent principium motus in eo in quod agitur, sed magis in agentibus.	2254. Now the philosophy of nature differs from each of these sciences which govern operations; for the productive sciences do not have a principle of motion in the thing made but in the maker, and this principle is either the art, which is a directive principle, or some potency which is the principle executing the work. Similarly “the practical sciences,” i.e., those governing activity, do not have a principle of motion in that upon which the activity is exercised but rather in the agents.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 9 Sed illa quae pertinent ad considerationem scientiae naturalis, sunt habentia principium motus in ipsis, cum natura sit principium motus in eo in quo est. Manifestum est igitur quod scientia naturalis non est activa neque factiva, sed speculativa. Necesse est enim quod scientia naturalis cadat in unum aliquod horum generum, scilicet activa vel factiva vel speculativa. Unde, si non sit activa vel factiva, sequitur quod sit speculativa.	2255. But those things which belong to the consideration of the philosophy of nature have their principles of motion in themselves, since nature is a principle of motion in the thing in which it exists. It is evident, then, that the philosophy of nature is a science neither of action nor of production but is speculative. For the philosophy of nature must fall into one of these classes, i.e., active, productive or speculative science. Hence, if it is a science neither of action nor of production, it follows that it must be speculative.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit quoniam autem ostendit differentiam mathematicae ad naturalem; et dicit, quod cum ita sit quod necessarium sit unicuique scientiarum cognoscere aliqualiter quod quid est, et uti eo quasi principio ad demonstrandum, oportet quod secundum diversum modum definitionis diversificentur scientiae. Et ita ad cognoscendum qualiter scientia naturalis differat ab aliis, oportet non latere quem modum servet naturalis in definiendo, et qualiter sit sumenda definitio in scientia naturali; utrum scilicet sicut definitur simum, aut sicut definitur concavum.	2256. And since (959). Then he shows how the mathematical sciences differ from the philosophy of nature. He says that, since each of the sciences must somehow come to know the quiddity and must use this as a starting point with a view to demonstrating, the sciences must be distinguished on the basis of a different method of defining. Hence in order to understand how the philosophy of nature differs from the other sciences we must not neglect to consider the method which the philosophy of nature uses in defining things, and how the definition should be considered in the philosophy of nature; that is, whether a thing should be defined in the way that snub is or in the way that concave is.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 11 Definitio autem simi est cum materia sensibili. Sed definitio concavi est sine materia sensibili. Quia enim simitas non est nisi circa determinatam materiam sensibilem, quia non est nisi in naso: propter hoc ratio simi oportet quod accipiatur cum materia sensibili. Haec est enim definitio simi simus est nasus concavus. Sed in definitione concavi sive curvi non ponitur aliqua materia sensibilis. Sicut igitur in definitione simi ponitur materia sensibilis, ita oportet quod in definitione carnis et oculi, et aliarum partium, reddatur materia sensibilis. Et similiter est de aliis rebus naturalibus.	2257. Now the definition of snub includes sensible matter, but that of concave does not; for since snubness is found only in a definite sensible matter, because it is found only in a nose, the intelligible structure of snub must therefore include sensible matter; for snub is defined thus: snub is a concave nose. Sensible matter, however, is not included in the definition of concave or curved. Hence, just as sensible matter is included in the definition of snub, so too it must be included in the definition of flesh and of eye and of the other parts of the body. The same holds true of other natural beings.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 12 Et ex hoc accipitur differentia inter mathematicam et scientiam naturalem; quia naturalis scientia est de his in quorum definitionibus ponitur materia sensibilis. Mathematica vero est de aliis, in quorum definitionibus non ponitur materia sensibilis, licet habeant esse in materia sensibili.	2258. The difference between the philosophy of nature and mathematics is taken from this, because the philosophy of nature deals with those things whose definitions include sensible matter, whereas mathematics deals with those things whose definitions do not include sensible matter, although they have being in sensible matter.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit quoniam autem comparat istam scientiam ad alias scientias particulares. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo comparat istam scientiam ad alias scientias particulares, quantum ad modum separationis. Secundo quantum ad nobilitatem, ibi, optimum quidem genus et cetera. Tertio quantum ad universalitatem, ibi, dubitabit autem. Dicit ergo primo, quod est quaedam scientia de ente inquantum est separabile; non enim solum pertinet ad hanc scientiam determinare de ente in communi, quod est determinare de ente inquantum est ens; sed etiam pertinet determinare de entibus separatis a materia secundum esse. Unde considerandum est, utrum ista scientia ad quam pertinent haec duo, sit eadem cum scientia naturali, aut altera ab ea.	2259. And since there is (960). Then he compares this science with the other particular sciences; and in regard to this he does three things. First (960:C 2259), he compares this science with the different particular sciences in reference to the way in which their objects are separate from matter. Second (961:C 2265), he compares them from the viewpoint of nobility (“The class of speculative sciences”). Third (962:C 2265), he compares them from the viewpoint of universality (“However, one”). He accordingly says, first (960), that there is a science of being insofar as it is separable; for it is the office of this science not only to establish the truth about being in common (and this is to establish the truth about being as being) but also to establish the truth about things which are separate from matter in being. Hence it is necessary to consider whether this science whose function is to consider these two things is the same as the philosophy of nature or differs from it.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 14 Et quod sit altera, manifestat: quia scientia naturalis est circa ea quae habent in seipsis principium motus; et sic oportet quod naturalia habeant determinatam materiam, quia nihil movetur nisi quod habet materiam. Sed mathematica speculatur circa immobilia; quia ea quorum ratio accipitur sine materia sensibili, oportet quod eodem modo eorum ratio sit sine motu, cum motus non sit nisi in sensibilibus.	2260. That it differs from the philosophy of nature he makes clear as follows: the philosophy of nature is concerned with things which have a principle of motion in themselves; therefore natural things must have a definite matter, because only that which has matter is moved. But mathematics studies immovable things; for those things whose intelligible structure does not include sensible matter must likewise not have motion in their intelligible structure, since motion is found only in sensible things.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 15 Sed haec de quibus considerat mathematica, non sunt separabilia a materia et motu secundum esse, sed solum secundum rationem. Oportet igitur quod circa illud ens, quod est separatum a materia et motu secundum esse et omnino immobile, sit quaedam scientia alia, et a mathematica, et a naturali.	2261. But those things which mathematics considers are not separable from matter and motion in being but only in their intelligible structure. Hence the science which treats that kind of being which is separable from matter and from motion and is immovable in every respect must be one which differs both from mathematics and from the philosophy of nature.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 16 Et hoc dico si tamen sit aliqua talis substantia praeter sensibilia, quae sit omnino immobilis. Et hoc dicit, quia nondum est probatum aliquam talem substantiam esse. Sed hoc ostendere intendit.	2262. He says here, “if there is some such substance” apart from sensible substances which is immovable in every respect. He says this because the existence of some such substance has not yet been proved, although he intends to prove this.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 17 Si autem est aliqua talis natura in entibus, scilicet quae sit separabilis et immobilis, oportet quod talis natura sit alicubi, idest quod attribuatur alicui substantiae. Et id quod habet istam naturam erit quoddam divinum, et quoddam principalissimum omnium; quia quanto aliquid est simplicius et formalius in entibus, tanto est nobilius et prius et magis causa aliorum. Et sic patet quod haec scientia quae considerat huiusmodi entia separabilia, debet vocari scientia divina, et scientia de primis principiis.	2263. And if there is some such nature among existing things, i.e., one which is separable and immovable, it is necessary that “such a nature exist somewhere,” i.e., that it be attributed to some substance. And whatever has this nature must be something that is divine and the highest of all; because the simpler and more actual a being is, the nobler it is and the more it is prior and a cause of other things. Thus it is evident that the science which considers separate beings of this kind should be called the divine science and the science of first principles.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 18 Et ex hoc ulterius concludit, quod tria sunt genera speculativarum scientiarum: scilicet naturalis quae considerat ea mobilia, quae in sui definitione materiam sensibilem recipiunt; et mathematica quae considerat immobilia, quae non recipiunt materiam sensibilem in sui definitione, licet habeant esse in materia sensibili; et theologia quae est circa entia penitus separata.	2264. From this he again concludes that there are three classes of speculative science: the philosophy of nature, which considers things that are movable and have sensible matter in their definition; mathematics, which considers immovable things that do not have sensible matter in their definition yet exist in sensible matter; and theology, which considers beings that are entirely separate from matter.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 19 Deinde cum dicit optimum quidem comparat istam ad alias secundum nobilitatem; et dicit, quod scientiae speculativae sunt nobilissimae inter omnes alias scientias, quia in eis quaeritur scire propter seipsum, in scientiis autem operativis quaeritur scire propter opus. Et in scientiis speculativis ultima, scilicet theologia, cum sit circa nobiliora entia, est nobilior. Tanto enim unaquaeque scientia nobilior est, quanto eius scibile nobilius fuerit.	2265. The class (961). Next he compares this science with the others from the viewpoint of nobility. He says that the speculative sciences are the noblest, because of all the sciences the speculative seek knowledge for its own sake, whereas the practical seek knowledge for the sake of some work. And among the speculative sciences there is one that, is highest, namely, theology, since a science which deals with more noble beings is itself more noble; for a science is more noble in proportion to the greater nobility of its object.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 20 Deinde cum dicit dubitabit autem comparat istam scientiam ad alias quantum ad universalitatem; et dicit: dubitabile est, utrum istam scientiam, quae est circa entia separabilia, oporteat poni universalem scientiam entis, inquantum est ens, aut non: et ostendit, quod sic, quasi per divisionem.	2266. However, one might (962). Then he compares this science with the others from the viewpoint of universality. He says that one might raise the question whether or not the science which deals with separate beings must be held to be a universal science of being as being; and that it must be such he shows by a process of elimination.
lib. 11 l. 7 n. 21 Manifestum est enim, quod praedictae scientiae operativae non sunt universales. Et ideo eas praetermittit. Sed inter speculativas scientias, manifestum est, quod quaelibet mathematicarum scientiarum est circa unum aliquod genus determinatum: universalis autem scientia communiter de omnibus est: unde nulla mathematicarum scientiarum est communis omnium entium. Sed de naturali manifestum est; quia si naturales substantiae, quae sunt substantiae sensibiles et mobiles, sunt primae inter entia, oportet quod naturalis scientia sit prima inter scientias; quia secundum ordinem subiectorum, est ordo scientiarum, ut iam dictum est. Si autem est alia natura et substantia praeter substantias naturales, quae sit separabilis et immobilis, necesse est alteram scientiam ipsius esse, quae sit prior naturali. Et ex eo quod est prima, oportet quod sit universalis. Eadem enim est scientia quae est de primis entibus, et quae est universalis. Nam prima entia sunt principia aliorum.	2267. For it is evident that the foregoing sciences which deal with operations are not universal sciences, and he therefore omits them. In the case of the speculative sciences it is evident that every mathematical science is concerned with some one determinate class of things. But a universal science deals with all things in common. No mathematical science, then, can be the one which treats all beings in common. Regarding the philosophy of nature it is evident that, if natural substances, which are perceptible and movable, are the primary beings, the philosophy of nature must be the primary science; because the order of the sciences corresponds with that of their subjects, as has been stated already (961)C 2265). But if there is a different nature and substance over and above natural substances, which is separable and immovable, there must be a science which differs from the philosophy of nature and is prior to it. And because it is first, it must be universal; for it is the same science which treats of primary beings and of what is universal, since the primary beings are the principles of the others.