Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber3/lect1

Lecture 1

Latin	English
lib. 3 l. 1 n. 1 Postquam philosophus in secundo libro ostendit modum considerandae veritatis, hic procedit ad veritatis considerationem. Et primo procedit modo disputativo, ostendens ea quae sunt dubitabilia circa rerum veritatem. Secundo incipit determinare veritatem. Et hoc in quarto libro, qui incipit ibi, est scientia quaedam quae speculatur. Prima autem pars dividitur in partes duas. In prima dicit de quo est intentio, in secunda exequitur propositum, ibi, est autem dubitatio prima quod et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim dicit de quo est intentio. Secundo rationem assignat suae intentionis, ibi, inest autem investigare volentibus et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod ad hanc scientiam, quam quaerimus de primis principiis, et universali veritate rerum, necesse est ut primum aggrediamur ea de quibus oportet, dubitare, antequam veritas determinetur. Sunt autem huiusmodi dubitabilia propter duas rationes. Vel quia antiqui philosophi aliter susceperunt opinionem de eis quam rei veritas habeat, vel quia omnino praetermiserunt de his considerare.	338. Having indicated in Book II (331) the method of considering the truth, the Philosopher now proceeds with his study of the truth. First he proceeds disputatively, indicating those points which are open to question so far as the truth of things is concerned. Second (529), he begins to establish what is true, and he does this in Book IV, which begins: “There is a certain science.” The first part is divided into two sections. In the first, he states what he intends to do. In the second (346), he proceeds to do it (“The first problem”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he states what he intends to do. Second (339), he gives the reasons for this (“Now for those”). He says first, then, that with a view to this science which we are seeking about first principles and what is universally true of things, we must attack, first of all, those subjects about which it is necessary to raise questions before the truth is established. Now there are disputed points of this kind for two reasons, either because the ancient philosophers entertained a different opinion about these things than is really true, or because they completely neglected to consider them.
lib. 3 l. 1 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit inest autem assignat quatuor rationes suae intentionis: et primo dicit quod volentibus investigare veritatem contingit prae opere, idest ante opus bene dubitare, idest bene attingere ad ea quae sunt dubitabilia. Et hoc ideo quia posterior investigatio veritatis, nihil aliud est quam solutio prius dubitatorum. Manifestum est autem in solutione corporalium ligaminum, quod ille qui ignorat vinculum, non potest solvere ipsum. Dubitatio autem de aliqua re hoc modo se habet ad mentem, sicut vinculum corporale ad corpus, et eumdem effectum demonstrat. Inquantum enim aliquis dubitat, intantum patitur aliquid simile his qui sunt stricte ligati. Sicut enim ille qui habet pedes ligatos, non potest in anteriora procedere secundum viam corporalem, ita ille qui dubitat, quasi habens mentem ligatam, non potest ad anteriora procedere secundum viam speculationis. Et ideo sicut ille qui vult solvere vinculum corporale, oportet quod prius inspiciat vinculum et modum ligationis, ita ille qui vult solvere dubitationem, oportet quod prius speculetur omnes difficultates et earum causas.	339. Now for those (177). Here he gives four arguments in support of this thesis: First, he says that for those who wish to investigate the truth it is “worth the while,” i.e., worth the effort, “to ponder these difficulties well,” i.e., to examine carefully those matters which are open to question. This is necessary because the subsequent study of truth is nothing else than the solution of earlier difficulties. Now in loosening a physical knot it is evident that one who is unacquainted with this knot cannot loosen it. But a difficulty about some subject is related to the mind as a physical knot is to the body, and manifests the same effect. For insofar as the mind is puzzled about some subject, it experiences something similar to those who are tightly bound. For just as one whose feet are tied cannot move forward on an earthly road, in a similar way one who is puzzled, and whose mind is bound, as it were, cannot move forward on the road of speculative knowledge. Therefore, just as one who wishes to loosen a physical knot must first of all inspect the knot and the way in which it is tied, in a similar way one who wants to solve a problem must first survey all the difficulties and the reasons for them.
lib. 3 l. 1 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit et quia quaerentes secundam rationem ponit; et dicit quod illi qui volunt inquirere veritatem non considerando prius dubitationem, assimilantur illis qui nesciunt quo vadant. Et hoc ideo, quia sicut terminus viae est illud quod intenditur ab ambulante, ita exclusio dubitationis est finis qui intenditur ab inquirente veritatem. Manifestum est autem quod ille qui nescit quo vadat, non potest directe ire, nisi forte a casu: ergo nec aliquis potest directe inquirere veritatem, nisi prius videat dubitationem.	340. [This is also necessary] (178). Here he gives the second argument. He says that those who wish to investigate the truth without first considering the problem are like those who do not know where they are going. This is true for this reason, that, just as the terminus of a journey is the goal intended by one who travels on foot, in a similar way the solution of a problem is the goal intended by one who is seeking the truth. But it is evident that one who does not know where he is going cannot go there directly, except perhaps by chance. Therefore, neither can one seek the truth directly unless he first sees the problem.
lib. 3 l. 1 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit et adhuc tertiam rationem ponit; et dicit, quod sicut ex hoc quod aliquis nescit quo vadat, sequitur quod quando pervenit ad locum quem intendebat nescit utrum sit quiescendum vel ulterius eundum, ita etiam quando aliquis non praecognoscit dubitationem, cuius solutio est finis inquisitionis, non potest scire quando invenit veritatem quaesitam, et quando non; quia nescit finem suae inquisitionis, qui est manifestus ei qui primo dubitationem cognovit.	341. Again, one would (179). Here he gives the third argument. He says that, just as one who is ignorant of where he is going does not know whether he should stop or go further when he reaches his appointed goal, in a similar way one who does not know beforehand the problem whose solution marks the terminus of his search cannot know when he finds the truth which he is seeking and when not. For he does not know what the goal of his investigations is, but this is evident to one who knew the problem beforehand.
lib. 3 l. 1 n. 5 Et quia quartam rationem ponit, quae sumitur ex parte auditoris. Auditorem enim oportet iudicare de auditis. Sicut autem in iudiciis nullus potest iudicare nisi audiat rationes utriusque partis, ita necesse est eum, qui debet audire philosophiam, melius se habere in iudicando si audierit omnes rationes quasi adversariorum dubitantium.	342. Furthermore (180). He gives the fourth argument, which is taken from the viewpoint of a judge. For a judge must pass judgment on the things which he hears. But just as one can pass judgment in a lawsuit only if he hears the arguments on both sides, in a similar way one who has to pass judgment on a philosophy is necessarily in a better position to do so if he will hear all the arguments, as it were, of the disputants.
lib. 3 l. 1 n. 6 Est autem attendendum, quod propter has rationes consuetudo Aristotelis fuit fere in omnibus libris suis, ut inquisitioni veritatis vel determinationi praemitteret dubitationes emergentes. Sed in aliis libris singillatim ad singulas determinationes praemittit dubitationes: hic vero simul praemittit omnes dubitationes, et postea secundum ordinem debitum determinat veritatem. Cuius ratio est, quia aliae scientiae considerant particulariter de veritate: unde et particulariter ad eas pertinet circa singulas veritates dubitare: sed ista scientia sicut habet universalem considerationem de veritate, ita etiam ad eam pertinet universalis dubitatio de veritate; et ideo non particulariter, sed simul universalem dubitationem prosequitur.	343. Now it must be noted that it was for these reasons that Aristotle was accustomed, in nearly all his works, to set forth the problems which emerge before investigating and establishing what is true. But while in other works Aristotle sets down the problems one at a time in order to establish the truth about each one, in this work he sets forth all the problems at once, and afterwards in the proper order establishes the things that are true. The reason for this is that other sciences consider the truth in a particular way, and therefore it belongs to them to raise problems of a particular kind about individual truths. But just as it belongs to this science to make a universal study of truth, so also does it belong to it to discuss all the problems which pertain to the truth. Therefore it does not discuss its problems one at a time but all at once.
lib. 3 l. 1 n. 7 Potest etiam et alia esse ratio; quia dubitabilia, quae tangit, sunt principaliter illa, de quibus philosophi aliter opinati sunt. Non autem eodem ordine ipse procedit ad inquisitionem veritatis, sicut et alii philosophi. Ipse enim incipit a sensibilibus et manifestis, et procedit ad separata, ut patet infra in septimo. Alii vero intelligibilia et abstracta voluerunt sensibilibus applicare. Unde, quia non erat eodem ordine determinaturus, quo ordine processerunt alii philosophi, ex quorum opinionibus dubitationes sequuntur; ideo praeelegit primo ponere dubitationes omnes seorsum, et postea suo ordine dubitationes determinare.	344. There can also be another reason [why Aristotle proceeds in this way], namely, that those problems on which he touches are chiefly those about which the philosophers have held different opinions. However, he does not proceed to investigate the truth in the same order as the other philosophers did. For he begins with things which are sensible and evident and proceeds to those which are separate from matter, as is evident below in Book VII (1566), whereas the other philosophers wanted to apply intelligible and abstract principles to sensible things. Hence, because he did not intend to establish the truth in the same order as that followed by the other philosophers, and from whose views these problems arise, he therefore decided to give first all the problems in a separate section, and afterwards to solve these problems in their proper order.
lib. 3 l. 1 n. 8 Tertiam assignat Averroes dicens hoc esse propter affinitatem huius scientiae ad logicam, quae tangitur infra in quarto. Et ideo dialecticam disputationem posuit quasi partes principales huius scientiae.	345. Averroes gives another reason [for Aristotle’s procedure]. He says that Aristotle proceeds in this way because of the relationship of this science to logic, which will be touched on below in Book IV (588); and therefore he made dialectical discussion a principal part of this science.