Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber2/lect4

Lecture 4

Latin	English
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 1 Postquam probavit philosophus, quod in causis moventibus et materialibus non proceditur in infinitum, hic ostendit idem in causa finali, quae nominatur cuius causa fit aliquid. Et ostendit propositum quatuor rationibus: quarum prima talis est. Id, quod est cuius causa, habet rationem finis. Sed finis est id quod non est propter alia, sed alia sunt propter ipsum. Aut ergo est aliquid tale, aut nihil: et si quidem fuerit aliquid tale, ut scilicet omnia sint propter ipsum, et ipsum non sit propter alia, ipsum erit ultimum in hoc genere; et ita non procedetur in infinitum: si autem nihil inveniatur tale, non erit finis. Et ita tolletur hoc genus causae, quod dicitur cuius causa.	316. Having shown that there is no infinite regress either among the causes of motion or among material causes, the Philosopher now shows that the same thing is true of the final cause, which is called “that for the sake of which” something comes to be (160). He proves this by four arguments. The first is as follows. That for the sake of which something comes to be has the character of an end. But an end does not exist for the sake of other things, but others exist for its sake. Now such a thing either exists or not. If there is something of such a kind that all things exist for its sake and not it for the sake of something else, it will be the last thing in this order; and thus there will not be an infinite regress. However, if no such thing exists, no end will exist; and thus the class of cause called “that for the sake of which” will be eliminated.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 2 Secundam rationem ponit ibi, sed qui, quae derivatur ex praemissa ratione. Ex prima enim ratione conclusum est quod qui ponunt infinitatem in causis finalibus, removeant causam finalem. Remota autem causa finali, removetur natura et ratio boni: eadem enim ratio boni et finis est; nam bonum est quod omnia appetunt, ut dicitur in primo Ethicorum. Et ideo illi qui ponunt infinitum in causis finalibus, auferunt totaliter naturam boni, licet ipsi hoc non percipiant.	317. Now those who posit infinity (161). He gives the second argurgent, which is derived from the foregoing one; for from the first argument he concluded that those who posit an infinite regress in final causes do away with the final cause. Now when the final cause is removed, so also is the nature and notion of the good; because good and end have the same meaning, since the good is that which all desire, as is said in Book I of the Ethics. Therefore those who hold that there is an infinite regress in final causes do away completely with the nature of the good, although they do not realize this.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 3 Tertiam rationem ponit ibi, et nullus, quae talis est. Si sit infinitum in causis finalibus, nullus poterit pervenire ad ultimum terminum, quia infinitorum non est ultimus terminus: sed nullus conatur ad aliquid faciendum nisi per hoc, quod se existimat venturum ad aliquid, sicut ad ultimum terminum: ergo ponentes infinitum in causis finalibus excludunt omnem conatum ad operandum, etiam naturalium rerum: nullius enim rei motus naturalis est nisi ad id ad quod nata est pervenire.	318. But no one will attempt (162). He gives the third argument, which is as follows. If there were an infinite number of final causes, no one could reach a last terminus, because there is no last terminus in an infinite series. But no one will attempt to do anything unless he thinks he is able to accomplish something as a final goal. Therefore, those who hold that final causes proceed to infinity do away with every attempt to operate and even with the activities of natural bodies; for a thing’s natural movement is only toward something which it is naturally disposed to attain.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 4 Quartam rationem ponit ibi neque utique quae talis est. Qui ponit infinitum in causis finalibus, excludit terminum, et per consequens excludit finem cuius causa fit aliquid. Sed omne agens per intellectum agit causa alicuius finis: ergo sequetur quod inter causas operativas non sit intellectus, et ita tolletur intellectus practicus. Quae cum sint inconvenientia, oportet removere primum, id scilicet ex quo sequuntur, scilicet infinitum a causis finalibus.	319. Nor will there be (163). He states the fourth argument, which is as follows. One who posits an infinite number of final causes does away with a limit, and therefore with the end for the sake of which a cause acts. But every intelligent agent acts for the sake of some end. Therefore it would follow that there is no intellect among causes which are productive; and thus the practical intellect is eliminated. But since these things are absurd, we must reject the first position, from which they follow, i.e., that there is an infinite number of final causes.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit sed nec ostendit quod non sit infinitum in causis formalibus: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit. Secundo probat propositum, ibi: semper enim et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est quod unumquodque constituitur in specie per propriam formam. Unde definitio speciei maxime significat formam rei. Oportet ergo accipere processum in formis secundum processum in definitionibus. In definitionibus enim una pars est prior altera, sicut genus est prius differentia, et differentiarum una est prior altera. Idem ergo est quod in infinitum procedatur in formis et quod in infinitum procedatur in partibus definitionis. Et ideo volens ostendere quod non sit procedere in infinitum in causis formalibus, proponit non esse infinitum in partibus definitionis. Et ideo dicit quod non convenit hoc quod est quod quid erat esse, in infinitum reduci ad aliam definitionem, ut sic semper multiplicetur ratio. Puta qui definit hominem in definitione eius ponit animal. Unde definitio hominis reducitur ad definitionem animalis, quae ulterius reducitur ad definitionem alicuius alterius, et sic multiplicatur ratio definitiva. Sed hoc non convenit in infinitum procedere.	320. Nor can the quiddity (164). He shows that there is not an infinite number of formal causes. In regard to this he does two things. First (164:C 320), he states what he intends to prove. Second (165:C 322), he proves it (“For a prior definition”). Regarding the first we must understand that each thing derives its particular species from its proper form, and this is why the definition of a species signifies chiefly a thing’s form. Therefore we must understand that a procession of forms is consequent upon a procession of definitions; for one part of a definition is prior to another just as genus is prior to difference and one difference is prior to another. Therefore an infinite regress in forms and in the parts of a definition is one and the same thing. Now since Aristotle wishes to show that it is impossible to proceed to infinity in the case of formal causes, he holds that it is impossible to proceed to infinity in the parts of a definition. Hence he says that it is impossible for a thing’s quiddity to be reduced to another definition, and so on to infinity, so that the defining notes are always increased in number. For example, one who defines man gives animal in his definition, and therefore the definition of man is reduced to that of animal, and this in turn to the definition of something else, thereby increasing the defining notes. But to proceed to infinity in this way is absurd.Regarding the first we must understand that each thing derives its particular species from its proper form, and this is why the definition of a species signifies chiefly a thing’s form. Therefore we must understand that a procession of forms is consequent upon a procession of definitions; for one part of a definition is prior to another just as genus is prior to difference and one difference is prior to another. Therefore an infinite regress in forms and in the parts of a definition is one and the same thing. Now since Aristotle wishes to show that it is impossible to proceed to infinity in the case of formal causes, he holds that it is impossible to proceed to infinity in the parts of a definition. Hence he says that it is impossible for a thing’s quiddity to be reduced to another definition, and so on to infinity, so that the defining notes are always increased in number. For example, one who defines man gives animal in his definition, and therefore the definition of man is reduced to that of animal, and this in turn to the definition of something else, thereby increasing the defining notes. But to proceed to infinity in this way is absurd.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 6 Non autem hoc dicimus quasi in uno et eodem individuo multiplicentur formae secundum numerum generum et differentiarum, ut scilicet in homine sit alia forma a qua est homo, et alia a qua est animal, et sic aliis; sed quia necesse est ut in rerum natura tot gradus formarum inveniantur, quod inveniuntur genera ordinata et differentiae. Est enim in rebus invenire aliquam formam, quae est forma, et non est forma corporis; et aliquam quae est forma corporis, sed non est forma animati corporis; et sic de aliis.	321. Now we do not mean by this that there are the same number of forms in each individual as there are genera and differences, so that in man there is one form by which he is man, another by which he is animal, and so on; but we mean that there must be as many grades of forms in reality as there are orders of genera and differences [in knowledge]. For we find in reality one form which is not the form of a body, another which is the form of a body but not of an animated body, and so on.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit semper enim probat propositum quatuor rationibus. Quarum prima talis est. In multitudine formarum vel rationum semper illa quae est prius est magis. Quod non est intelligendum quasi sit completior; quia formae specificae sunt completae. Sed dicitur esse magis, quia est in plus quam illa quae est posterior, quae non est ubicumque est prior. Non enim ubicumque est ratio animalis, est ratio hominis. Ex quo argumentatur, quod si primum non est, nec habitum idest consequens est. Sed si in infinitum procedatur in rationibus et formis, non erit prima ratio vel forma definitiva; ergo excludentur omnes consequentes.	322. For a prior definition (165). He proves his premise by four arguments. The first is this. Wherever there are a number of forms or defining notes, a prior definition is always “more of a definition.” This does not mean that a prior form is more complete (for specific forms are complete), but that a prior form belongs to more things than a subsequent form, which is not found wherever a prior form is found; e.g., the definition of man is not found wherever that of animal is found. From this he argues that if the first note [of a series] does not fit the thing defined, “neither does a later one.” But if there were an infinite regress in definitions and forms, there would be no first definition or definitive form. Hence all subsequent definitions and forms would be eliminated.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 8 Secundam rationem ponit ibi amplius scire quae talis est. Impossibile est aliquid sciri prius quam perveniatur ad individua. Non autem accipitur hic individuum singulare, quia scientia non est de singularibus. Sed individuum potest dici uno modo ipsa ratio speciei specialissimae, quae non dividitur ulterius per essentiales differentias. Et secundum hoc intelligitur quod non habetur perfecta scientia de re, quousque perveniatur ad speciem specialissimam; quia ille qui scit aliquid in genere, nondum habet perfectam scientiam de re. Et secundum hanc expositionem oportet dicere, quod sicut prima ratio concludebat, quod in causis formalibus non proceditur in infinitum in sursum, ita haec ratio concludit, quod non proceditur in infinitum in deorsum. Sic enim non esset devenire ad speciem specialissimam. Ergo ista positio destruit perfectam scientiam.	323. Again, those who speak (166). He gives the second argument, which is as follows. It is impossible to have scientific knowledge of anything until we come to what is undivided. Now in this place “undivided” cannot mean the singular, because there is no science of the singular. However, it can be understood in two other ways. First, it can mean the definition itself of the last species, which is not further divided by essential differences. In this sense his statement can mean that we do not have complete knowledge of a thing until we reach its last species; for one who knows the genus to which a thing belongs does not yet have a complete knowledge of that thing. According to this interpretation we must say that, just as the first argument concluded that it is impossible to have an infinite regress in an upward direction among formal causes, in a similar fashion this second argument concludes that it is impossible to have an infinite regress in a downward direction, otherwise it would be impossible to reach a last species. Therefore this position destroys any complete knowledge.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 9 Sed quia formalis divisio non solum est secundum quod genus dividitur per differentias, per cuius divisionis privationem species specialissima potest dici individuum, sed etiam est secundum quod definitum dividitur in partes definitionis, ut patet in primo physicorum; ideo individuum potest hic dici, cuius definitio non resolvitur in aliqua definientia. Et secundum hoc, supremum genus est individuum. Et secundum hoc erit sensus, quod non potest haberi scientia de re per aliquam definitionem, nisi deveniatur ad suprema genera, quibus ignoratis impossibile est aliquod posteriorum sciri. Et secundum hoc concludit ratio, quod in causis formalibus non procedatur in infinitum in sursum, sicut et prius.	324. Now a formal division exists not only when a genus is divided by differences (and when such division is no longer possible the last species can be said to be undivided), but also when the thing defined is divided into its definitive parts, as is evident in Book I of the Physics. Therefore in this place “undivided” can also mean a thing whose definition cannot be resolved into any definitive parts. Now according to this the supreme genus is undivided; and from this point of view his statement can mean that we cannot have scientific knowledge of a thing by definition unless we reach its supreme genera; because when these remain unknown it is impossible to know its subsequent genera. And according to this the second argument concludes, as the former one did, that it is impossible to proceed to infinity in an upward direction among formal causes.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 10 Vel ad idem concludendum potest aliter exponi individuum, ut scilicet propositio immediata dicatur individuum. Si enim procedatur in infinitum in definitionibus in sursum, nulla erit propositio immediata. Et sic universaliter tolletur scientia, quae est de conclusionibus deductis ex principiis immediatis.	325. Or, in order to reach the same conclusion, “undivided” can be explained in another way, i.e., in the sense that an immediate proposition is undivided. For if it were possi ‘ hie to proceed to infinity in an upward direction in the case of definitions, there would be no immediate proposition, and thus science as such, which is about conclusions derived from immediate principles, would be destroyed.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit et cognoscere tertiam rationem ponit quae procedit non solum ad scientiam excludendam, sed ad excludendum simpliciter omnem cognitionem humanam. Et circa hanc rationem duo facit. Primo ponit rationem. Secundo excludit obiectionem quamdam, ibi, non enim simile et cetera. Ratio autem talis est. Unumquodque cognoscitur per intellectum suae formae: sed si in formis procedatur in infinitum, non poterunt intelligi; quia infinitum inquantum huiusmodi, non comprehenditur intellectu: ergo ista positio universaliter destruit cognitionem.	326. Nor will knowledge (167) He gives the third argument, which proceeds to [show that such an infinite regress would] destroy not only science but any kind of human knowing whatsoever. In regard to this argument he does two things. First (167:C 326), he gives his argument. Second (168:C 327), he refutes an objection raised against it (“This case is not like”). The argument is as follows. We know each thing by understanding its form. But if there were an infinite regress in forms, these forms could not be understood, because the intellect is incapable of understanding the infinite as infinite. Therefore this position destroys knowing in its entirety.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit non enim excludit quamdam obviationem. Posset enim aliquis dicere, quod illud quod habet infinitas formas, potest cognosci, sicut et linea, quae in infinitum dividitur. Sed hoc excludit, dicens, quod non est simile de linea, cuius divisiones non stant, sed in infinitum procedunt. Impossibile enim est quod aliquid intelligatur nisi in aliquo stetur; unde linea, inquantum statuitur ut finita in actu propter suos terminos, sic potest intelligi; secundum vero quod non statur in eius divisione, non potest sciri. Unde nullus potest numerare divisiones lineae secundum quod in infinitum procedunt. Sed infinitum in formis est infinitum in actu, et non in potentia, sicut est infinitum in divisione lineae; et ideo, si essent infinitae formae, nullo modo esset aliquid scitum vel notum.	327. This case is not like (168). He disposes of an objection; for someone could say that a thing having an infinite number of forms can be understood in the same way as a line which is divided to infinity. But he denies this. He says that this case is not the same as that of a line, whose divisions do not stop but go on to infinity. For it is impossible to understand anything unless some limit is set to it. Therefore a line can be understood inasmuch as some actual limit is given to it by reason of its extremes. However, it cannot be understood insofar as its division does not terminate. Hence no one can count the divisions of a line insofar as they are infinite. But as applied to forms “infinite” means actually infinite, and not potentially infinite as it does when applied to the division of a line. Therefore, if there were an infinite number of forms, there would be no way in which a thing could be known either scientifically or in any way at all.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit sed materiam ponit quartam rationem, quae talis est. In omni eo quod movetur necesse est intelligere materiam. Omne enim quod movetur est in potentia: ens autem in potentia est materia: ipsa autem materia habet rationem infiniti, et ipsi infinito, quod est materia, convenit ipsum nihil, quia materia secundum se intelligitur absque omni forma. Et, cum ei quod est infinitum, conveniat hoc quod est nihil, sequitur per oppositum, quod illud per quod est esse, non sit infinitum, et quod infinito, idest materiae, non sit esse infinitum. Sed esse est per formam: ergo non est infinitum in formis.	328. But it is necessary (169). He gives the fourth argument, which runs thus. Matter must be understood to exist in everything that is moved; for whatever is moved is in potentiality, and what is in potentiality is matter. But matter itself has the character of the infinite, and nothingness belongs to the infinite in the sense of matter, because matter taken in itself is understood without any of kind of form. And since nothingness belongs to the infinite, it follows contrariwise that the principle by which the infinite is a being is itself not infinite, and that it does not belong “to the infinite,” i.e., to matter, to be infinite in being. But things are by virtue of their form. Hence there is no infinite regress among forms.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 14 Est autem hic advertendum quod hic ponit nihil esse de ratione infiniti, non quod privatio sit de ratione materiae, sicut Plato posuit non distinguens privationem a materia; sed quia privatio est de ratione infiniti. Non enim ens in potentia habet rationem infiniti, nisi secundum quod est sub ratione privationis, ut patet in tertio physicorum.	329. However, it must be noted that in this place Aristotle holds that the infinite involves the notion of nothingness, not because matter involves the notion of privation (as Plato claimed when he failed to distinguish between privation and matter), but because the infinite involves the notion of privation. For a potential being contains the notion of the infinite only insofar as it comes under the nature of privation, as is evident in Book III of the Physics.
lib. 2 l. 4 n. 15 Deinde cum dicit sed si infinitae ostendit quod non sunt infinitae species causarum, tali ratione. Tunc putamus nos scire unumquodque quando cognoscimus omnes causas eius: sed, si sunt infinitae causae secundum adiunctionem unius speciei ad aliam, non erit pertransire istam infinitatem, ita quod possint omnes causae cognosci: ergo etiam per istum modum excludetur cognitio rerum.	330. Again, if the classes (170). He shows that the classes of causes are not infinite in number, and he uses the following argument. We think that we have scientific knowledge of each thing when we know all its causes. But if there were an infinite number of causes in the sense that one class of cause may be added to another continuously, it would be impossible to traverse this infinity in such a way that all causes could be known. Hence in this way too the knowing of things would be destroyed.