Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber3/lect11

Lecture 11

Latin	English
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 1 Postquam philosophus inquisivit universaliter, utrum principia sint eadem numero omnia quae sunt unius speciei, vel eadem specie, hic inquirit utrum eadem numero sint principia corruptibilium et incorruptibilium: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit quaestionem. Secundo inducit rationem ad ostendendum quod non sunt eadem principia corruptibilium et incorruptibilium, ibi, nam si eadem et cetera. Tertio inducit rationes ad ostendendum quod non sunt diversa, ibi, si vero diversa et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod quaedam dubitatio est, quae non minus relinquitur modernis philosophis Platonem sequentibus, quam fuit apud antiquos philosophos, qui etiam dubitaverunt, utrum corruptibilium et incorruptibilium sint eadem principia vel diversa.	466. Having investigated in a general way whether all principles belonging to one species are numerically the same, the Philosopher inquires here whether the principles of corruptible and incorruptible things are numerically the same. In regard to this he does three things. First (250:C 466), he raises the question. Second (251:C 467), he introduces an argument to show that the principles of corruptible and those of incorruptible things arc not the same (“For if they are the same”). Third (264:C 483), he introduces arguments to show that they are not different (“But if the principles”). He says first (250), then, that there is a problem which has been neglected no less by the modern philosophers, who followed Plato, than by the ancient philosophers of nature, who also were puzzled whether the principles of corruptible and incorruptible things are the same or different.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit nam si eadem obiicit ad ostendendum quod non sunt eadem principia corruptibilium et incorruptibilium: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit rationem. Secundo improbat solutionem positae rationis, quam poetae theologi adhibebant, ibi, qui quidem et cetera. Tertio excludit solutionem quam adhibebant quidam philosophi naturales, ibi, a dicentibus et cetera. Dicit ergo, quod si ponantur corruptibilium et incorruptibilium esse eadem principia, cum ex eisdem principiis idem sequatur effectus, videtur quod omnia vel sint corruptibilia, vel omnia sint incorruptibilia. Relinquitur ergo quaestio quomodo quaedam sunt corruptibilia et quaedam incorruptibilia, et propter quam causam.	467. For, if they are the same (251). Here he advances an argument to show that the principles of corruptible and of incorruptible things are not the same. In regard to this he does three things. First (251:C 467), he gives the argument. Second (252:C 468), he criticizes the solution of the proposed argument which the theological poets gave (“The followers of Hesiod”). Third (255:C 472), he criticizes the solution which some philosophers of nature gave (“However, from those who”). He says first (251), then, that if the principles of corruptible and of incorruptible things are held to be the same, since from the same principles there follow the same effects, it seems that either all things are corruptible or all are incorruptible. Therefore the question arises how some things are corruptible and others incorruptible, and what the reason is.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit qui quidem excludit solutionem poetarum theologorum. Et primo ponit eorum solutionem. Secundo obiicit contra praedictam positionem, ibi, palam quod haec omnia sibi nota dicentes et cetera. Tertio se excusat a diligentiori improbatione huius positionis, ibi, sed de fabulose et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est, quod apud Graecos, aut naturales philosophos, fuerunt quidam sapientiae studentes, qui deis se intromiserunt occultantes veritatem divinorum sub quodam tegmine fabularum, sicut Orpheus, Hesiodus et quidam alii: sicut etiam Plato occultavit veritatem philosophiae sub mathematicis, ut dicit Simplicius in commento praedicamentorum. Dicit ergo, quod sectatores Hesiodi, et omnes, qui dicebantur theologi, curaverunt persuadere solis sibi, et nos alios spreverunt; quia scilicet veritatem, quam intellexerunt, taliter tradiderunt, quod eis solum possit esse nota. Si enim per fabulas veritas obumbretur, non potest sciri quid verum sub fabula lateat, nisi ab eo qui fabulam confixerit. Ii igitur Hesiodistae prima rerum principia deos nominaverunt; et dixerunt, quod illi de numero deorum, qui non gustaverunt de quodam dulci cibo, qui vocatur nectar vel manna, facti sunt mortales; illi vero qui gustaverunt, facti sunt immortales.	468. The followers of Hesiod (252) He criticizes the solution given by the theological poets. First (252:C 468), he gives their solution. Second (253:C 470), he argues against it (“And it is clear that”). Third (254:C 471), he gives the reason why he does not criticize this position with more care (“But with regard to those”). Concerning the first (252) it Must be noted that there were among the Greeks, or philosophers of nature, certain students of wisdom, such as Orpheus, Hesiod and certain others, who were concerned with the gods and hid the truth about the gods under a cloak of fables, just as Plato hid philosophical truth under mathematics, as Simplicius says in his Commentary on the Categories.’ Therefore he says that the followers of Hesiod, and all those who were called theologians, paid attention to what was convincing to themselves and have neglected us, because the truth which they understood was treated by them in such a way that it could be known only to themselves. For if the truth is obscured by fables, then the truth which underlies these fables can be known only to the one who devised them. Therefore the followers of Hesiod called the first principles of things gods, and said that those among the gods who have not tasted a certain delectable food called nectar or manna became mortal, whereas those who had tasted it became immortal.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 4 Potuit autem sub hac fabula aliquid veritatis occulte latere, ut scilicet per nectar et manna intelligatur ipsa suprema bonitas primi principii. Nam omnis dulcedo dilectionis et amoris ad bonitatem refertur. Omne autem bonum a primo bono derivatur. Potuit ergo esse intellectus eorum quod ex participatione propinqua summae bonitatis aliqua incorruptibilia reddantur, sicut quae perfecte participant divinum esse. Quaedam vero propter longe distare a primo principio, quod est non gustare manna et nectar, non possunt perpetuitatem conservare secundum idem numero, sed secundum idem specie: sicut dicit philosophus in secundo de generatione. Sed utrum hoc intenderint occulte tradere, vel aliud, ex hoc dicto plenius percipi non potest.	469. But some part of the truth could lie hidden under this fable, provided that by nectar or manna is understood the supreme goodness itself of the first principle. For all the sweetness of love and affection is referred to goodness. But every good is derived from a first good. Therefore the meaning of these words could be that some things are incorruptible by reason of an intimate participation in the highest good, as those which participate perfectly in the divine being. But certain things because of their remoteness from the first principle, which is the meaning of not to taste manna and nectar, cannot remain perpetually the same in number but only in species, as the Philosopher says in Book II of Generation. But whether they intended to treat this obscurely or something else, cannot be perceived any more fully from this statement.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit palam quod obiicit contra praedictam positionem: et dicit, quod praedicti Hesiodistae quid significare voluerint per ista nomina nectar et manna, fuit eis notum, sed non nobis. Et ideo quomodo afferantur istae causae ad istam quaestionem solvendam, et ad incorruptionem praestandam rebus, dixerunt supra nostrum intellectum. Si enim intelligantur ista verba secundum quod sonant, nullius efficaciae esse videntur. Dii enim, qui gustaverunt nectar et manna, aut gustaverunt propter delectationem, aut propter necessitatem essendi. His enim de causis aliqui sumunt cibum. Siquidem sumpserunt ista propter delectationem, non possunt nectar et manna esse eis causa existendi, ita quod per hoc incorruptibiles reddantur: quia delectatio est quoddam consequens ad esse. Si autem propter necessitatem essendi praedicta sumpserunt, non erunt semper iterum cibo indigentes. Videtur ergo quod corruptibiles existentes prius tamquam cibo indigentes, per cibum facti sunt incorruptibiles. Quod iterum videtur inconveniens; quia cibus non nutrit in sua specie, nisi corruptus transeat in speciem nutriti. Quod autem est corruptibile, non potest alii incorruptionem praestare.	470. And it is clear (253). He argues against the aforesaid position. He says that the meaning which these followers of Hesiod wished to convey by the terms nectar or manna was known to them but not to us. Therefore their explanation of the way in which these causes are meant to solve this question and preserve things from corruption is beyond our understanding. For if these terms are understood in their literal sense, they appear to be inadequate, because the gods who tasted nectar or manna did so either for the sake of pleasure or because these things were necessary for their existence, since these are the reasons why men partake of food. Now if they partook of them for the sake of pleasure, nectar and manna could not be the cause of their existence so as to make them incorruptible, because pleasure is something that follows on being. But if they partook of the aforesaid nourishment because they needed it to exist, they would not be eternal, having repeated need of food. Therefore it seems that gods who are first corruptible, as it were, standing as they do in need of food, are’made incorruptible by means of food. This also seems to be unreasonable, because food does not nourish a thing according to its species unless it is corrupted and passes over into the species of the one nourished. But nothing that is corruptible can be responsible for the incorruptibility of something else.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit sed de fabulose excusat se a diligentiori huius opinionis investigatione: et dicit quod de illis, qui philosophari voluerunt fabulose, veritatem scilicet sapientiae sub fabulis occultantes non est dignum cum studio intendere. Quia si quis contra dicta eorum disputaret secundum quod exterius sonant, ridiculosa sunt. Si vero aliquis velit de his inquirere secundum veritatem fabulis occultatam, immanifesta est. Ex quo accipitur quod Aristoteles disputans contra Platonem et alios huiusmodi, qui tradiderunt suam doctrinam occultantes sub quibusdam aliis rebus, non disputat secundum veritatem occultam, sed secundum ea quae exterius proponuntur.	471. But with regard to those (254). Here he gives his reason for not investigating this opinion with more care, He says that it is not worth our while to pay any attention to those who have philosophized “by using fables,” i.e., by hiding philosophical truth under fables. For if anyone argues against their statements insofar as they are taken in a literal sense, these statements are ridiculous. But if one wishes to inquire into the truth hidden by these fables, it is not evident. Hence it is understood that Aristotle, in arguing against Plato and other thinkers of this kind who have treated their own doctrines by hiding them under something else, does not argue about the truth which is hidden but about those things which are outwardly expressed.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit a dicentibus disputat contra responsionem quorumdam philosophorum naturalium. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo recitat rationem. Secundo ponit responsionem, ibi, etenim quam existimabit et cetera. Tertio improbat ipsam, ibi, videbitur autem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod praetermissis illis, qui sub fabulis veritatem tradiderunt, oportet a tradentibus veritatem per modum demonstrationis inquirere de quaestione praedicta: scilicet, si ex eisdem principiis sunt omnia existentia, quare quaedam existentium naturaliter sunt sempiterna, quaedam vero corrumpantur. Et quia nec ipsi causam dicunt quare hoc sit, nec rationabile est sic se habere, ut ex eisdem principiis existentium quaedam sint corruptibilia, quaedam sempiterna: videtur manifeste sequi quod non sunt eadem principia nec causae corruptibilium et sempiternorum.	472. However, from those who make assertions (255). Then he argues against the answer given by some of the philosophers of nature; and in regard to this he does three things. First (255:C 472), he gives the argument. Second (256:C 473), he gives the answer (“For the explanation”). Third (257:C 474), he criticizes it (“Yet even hate”). Accordingly, he says, first (255), that, having dismissed those who treated the truth by using fables, it is necessary to seek information about the aforesaid question from those who have treated the truth in a demonstrative way, by asking them why it is that, if all beings are derived from the same principles, some beings are eternal by nature and others are corrupted. And since these men give no reason why this is so, and since it is unreasonable that things should be as they say (that in the case of beings having the same principles some should be corruptible and others eternal), it seems clearly to follow that corruptible and eternal things do not have the same principles or the same causes.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit etenim quam ponit quamdam solutionem: et dicit, quod ratio assignata circa praedictam dubitationem, quae maxime videtur esse conveniens ad quaestionem, est quam assignavit Empedocles: qui tamen idem passus est cum aliis: quia ratio quam assignavit, non est conveniens, sicut nec aliorum, ut ostendetur. Posuit enim quaedam principia communia corruptibilium et incorruptibilium; sed posuit quoddam principium esse causam specialem corruptionis, scilicet odium elementorum: ita scilicet quod adiunctio huius causae ad alia principia facit corruptionem in rebus.	473. For the explanation (256). Then he gives one solution. He says that the explanation given to the aforesaid question which seems to fit it best is the one which Empedocles gave, although he was subject to the same error as the others, because the explanation which he gave is no more adequate than theirs, as is about to be shown. For he maintained that corruptible and incorruptible things have certain common principles, but that a special principle, hate, causes the corruption of the elements in such a way that the coming together of this cause and another principle produces corruption in the world.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit videbitur autem improbat praedictam rationem Empedoclis: et hoc tripliciter. Primo quidem ostendendo, quod ratio ab eo assignata non convenit suae positioni. Secundo ostendendo, quod non est sufficiens, ibi, similiter quoque ipsius transmutationis et cetera. Tertio ostendendo quod non est ad propositum, ibi, attamen tantum solum dicit et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit suam rationem non convenire aliis eius positionibus ex parte odii. Secundo ex parte ipsius Dei, ibi, propter quod et cetera. Tertio ex parte amoris, ibi, similiter autem nec amor et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod inconvenienter Empedocles ponit odium esse causam corruptionis: quia non minus secundum eius positionem videtur esse causa generationis in omnibus rebus, nisi in una re tantum. Ponebat enim omnia alia essentialiter composita ex odio simul cum aliis principiis, nisi solus Deus, quem ponebat compositum esse ex aliis principiis praeter odium. Deum autem appellabat caelum, sicut supradictum est in primo, quod Xenophanes ad totum caelum respiciens, ipsum unum dicit esse Deum. Ponebat autem Empedocles caelum esse compositum ex quatuor elementis, et ex amicitia: non autem ex lite sive ex odio, considerans indissolubilitatem caeli. Sed quantum ad alias res dicebat, quod omnia sunt ex odio quaecumque sunt, erunt vel fuerunt: sicut arbores pullulantes, et viri, et feminae, et bestiae quae sunt animalia terrestria: et vultures, quae sunt volantia diu viventia: et pisces nutriti in aqua, et dii longaevi. Videtur autem hos deos vocare vel stellas, quas ponebat quandoque corrumpi, licet post longum tempus: vel Daemones quos ponebant Platonici esse animalia aerea. Vel etiam dii quos ponebant Epicurei in forma humana, sicut supra dictum est. Ex hoc ergo quod omnia animalia praeter unum sunt generata ex odio, potest haberi quod odium sit causa generationis.	474. Yet even hate (257). Here he criticizes Empedocles’ argument, and he does this in three ways. First (257:C 474), he does this by showing that the argument which Empedocles gave is not in keeping with his position; second (261:C 478), by showing that it is not adequate (“Moreover, he does not”); third (263:C 481), by showing that it is not to the point (“Yet he alone speaks”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he shows that Empedocles’ argument does not agree with his other views about hate; second (258:C 476), that it does not agree with his view about God himself (“For this reason”); and third (260:C 477), that it does not agree with his view about love (“Nor, similarly”). Accordingly, he says, first (257), that Empedocles’ position that hate is the cause of corruption is untenable, because according to his position hate also seems to be the cause of the generation of all things except one. For he held that everything else is composed essentially of hate along with the other principles, with the exception of God alone, whom he claimed to be composed of the other principles without hate. Moreover, he called the heavens God, as was stated above in Book I (49:C 101), because Xenophanes, after reflecting upon the whole heaven, said that the one itself is God. And Empedocles, considering the indestructibleness of the heavens, held that the heavens are composed of the four elements and love, but not of strife or hatred. But in the case of other things he said that all those which are or were or will be, come, from hate, such as sprouting trees, and men and women, and beasts (which are terrestial animals), and vultures (which are flying and long-lived animals), and fish (which are nourished in the water), and the long-lived gods. And by the gods he seems to mean either the stars, which he held are sometimes corrupted, although after a long period of time, or the demons, which the Platonists held to be ethereal animals. Or by the gods he also means those beings whom the Epicureans held to be of human form, as was stated above (210:C 408). Therefore, from the fact that all living things except one are generated from hate, it can be said that hate is the cause of generation.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 10 Et praeter hoc etiam ex alia ratione. Manifestum est enim secundum positionem Empedoclis quod, si non esset odium in rebus, omnia essent unum. Odium enim est causa distinctionis secundum Empedoclem. Unde inducit verba Empedoclis dicentis, quod quando omnes res in unum conveniunt, ut puta quando fit chaos, tunc ultimum stabit odium separans et dissolvens. Unde litera Boetii habet: ea enim convenit, tunc ultimam scit discordiam. Et sic patet quod, cum esse mundi consistat in distinctione rerum, odium est causa generationis mundi.	475. And in addition to this there is another reason [why hate can be said to be the cause of generation]; for according to Empedocles’ position it is evident that, if hate did not exist in the world, all things would be one, since hate is the reason why things are distinct, according to Empedocles. Hence he quotes Empedocles’ words to the effect that, when all things come together into a unity, for example, when chaos comes into being, hate will stand last of all, separating and dissolving things. Hence the text of Boethius says: “When it comes together, then chaos knows the ultimate discord.” Thus it is clear that, since the being of the world consists in the distinction of things, hate is the cause of the world’s generation.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit propter quod ponit secundam rationem sumptam ex parte Dei: et dicit, quod cum Empedocles poneret odium non esse de compositione Dei, accidit secundum rationes eius, quod Deus, qui est felicissimus secundum omnium dicta, et per consequens maxime cognoscens, sit minus prudens omnibus aliis cognoscentibus. Sequetur enim, secundum positionem Empedoclis, quod non cognoscat omnia elementa, quia non habet odium; unde non cognoscit ipsum. Cognoscit autem simile simili secundum opinionem Empedoclis qui dixit, quod per terram cognoscimus terram, per aquam cognoscimus aquam et affectum, idest amorem vel concordiam cognoscimus per affectum, idest amorem vel concordiam: et similiter odium per odium, quod est triste sive grave vel malum secundum literam Boetii, qui dicit discordiam autem discordia malum. Sic igitur patet, quod Aristoteles reputat inconveniens, et contra id quod ponitur Deus felicissimus, quod ipse ignoret aliquid eorum, quae nos scimus. Sed quia ista ratio videbatur esse praeter propositum, ideo ad principale propositum rediens, dicit, quod redeundo ad illud unde prius erat ratio, manifestum est quod accidit Empedocli quod odium non sit magis causa corruptionis quam existendi.	476. For this reason (258). Here he gives a second argument, which pertains to the deity. He says that, since Empedocles would hold that hate is not a constituent of the divine composition, it follows, according to his arguments, that God, who is said by all men to be most happy, and consequently most knowing, is less prudent than all other beings who have knowledge. For according to Empedodes’ position it follows that God does not know the elements because He does not contain hate. Hence He does not know himself. And like knows like according to the opinion of Empedodes, who said that by earth we know earth, by water water, “and by affection,” i.e., love or concord, we know affection, or love or concord. And in a similar way we know “hate by hate,” which is sadness, whether unpleasant or evil, according to the text of Boethius, who says that “by evil discord we know discord.” It is evident, then, that Aristotle thought this untenable and contrary to the position that God is most happy because He himself would not know some of the things that we know. And since this argument seemed to be beside the point, therefore, returning to his principal theme, he says (259) that, in returning to the point from which the first argument began, it is evident, so far as Empedocles is concerned, that hate is no more a cause of corruption than of being.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit similiter autem ponit tertiam rationem ex parte amoris: et dicit, quod similiter etiam amor non est causa generationis vel existendi, ut ipse ponebat, si alia eius positio attendatur. Dicebat enim quod cum omnia elementa in unum congregabuntur, tunc erit corruptio mundi. Et sic amor corrumpit omnia: ergo quantum ad totum mundum amor erat causa corruptionis, odium autem generationis. Quantum autem ad singulares odium erat causa corruptionis et amor generationis.	477. Nor, similarly, is love (260). Here he gives the third argument, which pertains to love. He says that in like manner love is noe the cause of generation or being, as Empedocles claimed, if another position of his is considered. For he said that, when all the elements are combined into a unity, the corruption of the world will then take place; and thus love corrupts all things. Therefore, with respect to the world in general, love is the cause of corruption, whereas hate is the cause of generation. But with respect to singular things, hate is the cause of corruption and love of generation.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit similiter quoque ostendit quod ratio eius non fuit sufficiens. Dicebat enim quamdam transmutationem esse in rebus odii et amicitiae, ita scilicet quod amor quandoque omnia uniebat, et postmodum omnia odium separabat. Sed causam, quare sic transmutabatur, ut quodam tempore dominaretur odium, et alio tempore amor, nullam aliam dicebat, nisi quia sic aptum natum est esse.	478. Moreover, he does (261). Here he shows that Empedocles’ argument is not adequate. For Empedodes said that there exists in the world a certain alternation of hate and friendship, in such a way that at one time love unites all things and afterwards hate separates them. But as to the reason why this alternation takes place, so that at one time hate predominates and at another time love, he said nothing more than that it was naturally disposed to be so.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 14 Et ponit consequenter verba Empedoclis, quae, quia in Graeco metrice scripta sunt, habent aliquam difficultatem et diversitatem a communi modo loquendi. Sunt autem haec verba eius, sed itaque magnum odium in membris nutritum est, et ad honorem intendebat perfecto tempore, qui mutabilis dissolvit sacramentum. Litera vero Boetii sic habet sed cum magna discordia in membris alita sit in honores: quia processit completo anno, qui illis mutatis amplo rediit sacramento. Ad cuius intellectum notandum est, quod loquitur poetice de toto mundo, ad similitudinem unius animalis, in cuius membris et partibus primo quidem est magna convenientia, quam amorem nominabat sive concordiam: sed postea paulatim incipit aliqua dissonantia esse, quam dicit discordiam. Et similiter in partibus universi a principio erat magna concordia, sed postea paulatim nutritur odium quousque odium praecedat ad honorem, idest ad hoc quod dominetur super elementa. Quod quidem fit perfecto tempore quodam determinato, vel completo quodam anno, quem ponebat Empedocles: qui, scilicet odium et discordia, vel annus mutabilis existens dissolvit sacramentum, idest unionem praeexistentem elementorum, vel annus sive odium rediit amplo sacramento, quia quadam potentia et secreta virtute rediit ad dominandum in rebus.	479. And next he gives Empedocles’ words, which, because they are written in Greek verse, are difficult and differ from the common way of speaking. These words are (262): “But thus mighty hate was nourished among the members and rose to a position of honor when the time was fulfilled, which being changeable dissolved the bond.” But the text of Boethius runs thus: “But when mighty discord in the members was promoted to a place of honor, because it marched forward in a completed year, which, when these things have been changed, returns to a full bond.” Now in order to understand this it must be noted that he speaks poetically of the whole world as though it were a single living thing in whose members and parts there is found at first the greatest harmony, which he calls love or concord, and afterwards there begins to exist little by little a certain dissonance, which he calls discord. And, similarly, in the parts of the universe at first there was maximum concord, and afterwards hate was nourished little by little until it acquired “the place of honor,” i.e., it acquired dominion over the elements. This comes about when a completed time is reached or a year is completed, as Empedocles held, “which” (hate or discord, or the year), being changeable, dissolves “the bond,” i.e., the former union of the elements; or the year or hate returns to a full bond, because by a certain ability and hidden power it returns to predominate over things.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 15 Post quae verba Empedoclis Aristoteles faciens vim in hoc quod dixerat mutabilis, subiungit exponens quasi necessarium ens transmutari: quasi dicat: sic praedicta dixit Empedocles ac si necessarium sit esse transmutationem odii et amoris: sed nullam causam ostendit huius necessitatis. In uno enim animali est manifesta causa transmutationis et odii et amoris, propter motum caeli, qui causat generationem et corruptionem in rebus. Sed talis causa non potest assignari totius universi sic transmutati per amicitiam et litem. Unde patet, quod eius ratio fuit insufficiens.	480. After these words of Empedodes, Aristotle, in giving the meaning of the word “changeable” which he used, adds the explanation as though change were necessary; for he says that Empedocles made the foregoing statements as though it were necessary that there should be an alternation of hate and love, but he gives no reason for this necessity. For in the case of this one living thing it is evident that what causes the alternation of hate and love is the motion of the heavens which causes generation and corruption in the world. But no such cause can be assigned why the whole should be changed in this way by love and hate. Hence it is clear that his argument was inadequate.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 16 Deinde cum dicit attamen tantum ostendit quod praedicta ratio Empedoclis non est ad propositum: et dicit quod hoc solum videtur dicere confesse, idest manifeste, quod non ponit quaedam existentium ex principiis esse corruptibilia, et quaedam non corruptibilia, sed omnia ponit esse corruptibilia praeter sola elementa. Et ita videtur evadere praedictam dubitationem, qua dubitabatur, quare quaedam sunt corruptibilia et quaedam non, si sunt ex eisdem principiis? Unde etiam patet, quod eius ratio non est ad propositum, quia interemit id de quo est dubitatio.	481. Yet he alone (263). Here he shows that this argument of Empedocles is not to the point. He says that Empedocles seems to say 11 expressly,” i.e., clearly, only that he does not hold that some of the things derived from these principles are corruptible and others incorruptible, but he holds that all things are corruptible with the exception of the elements alone. Thus he seems to avoid the foregoing problem inasmuch as the question remains why some things are corruptible and some not, if they come from the same principles. Hence it is also clear that his argument is not to the point, because he neglects the very point that requires explanation.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 17 Sed potest quaeri quomodo hic dicit, quod Empedocles ponebat omnia esse corruptibilia praeter elementa, cum supra dixerit unum esse Deum, scilicet ex aliis principiis compositum praeter quam ex odio? Sed dicendum, quod Empedocles ponebat duplicem corruptionem in rebus, sicut ex praedictis patet. Unam quidem secundum confusionem totius universi, quam faciebat amor; et ab hac corruptione nec ipsum Deum faciebat immunem, cum in eo poneret amorem, qui alia ei commiscebat. Aliam autem corruptionem ponebat singularium rerum, quarum principium est odium. Et hanc corruptionem excludebat a Deo per hoc, quod in eo odium non ponebat. Sic igitur Aristoteles epilogando concludit tot dicta esse ad ostendendum, quod non sunt eadem principia corruptibilium et incorruptibilium.	482. But it can be asked how he can say here that Empedocles held all things to be corruptible except the elements, since Empedocles has said above that the one is God, i.e., what is composed of the other principles except hate. It must be noted, however, that Empedocles posited two processes of corruption in the world, as is clear from what was said above. He posited one with respect to the blending of the whole universe, which was brought about by love; and from this process he did not make even God immune, because in God he placed love, which caused other things to be mixed with God. And he posited another process of corruption for singular things, and the principle of this process is hate. But he excluded this kind of corruption from God, seeing that he did not posit hate in God. In summing up, then, Aristotle concludes that this much has been said for the purpose of showing that corruptible and incorruptible things do not have the same principles.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 18 Deinde cum dicit si vero obiicit ad contrariam partem per duas rationes: quarum prima est: si non sint eadem principia corruptibilium et incorruptibilium, relinquitur quaestio, utrum principia corruptibilium sint corruptibilia, an incorruptibilia. Si dicatur quod sint corruptibilia, ostendit hoc esse falsum duplici ratione. Quarum prima est: omne corruptibile corrumpitur in ea ex quibus est: si igitur principia corruptibilium sunt corruptibilia, oportet iterum ponere alia principia ex quibus sint. Et hoc inconveniens est, nisi ponantur principia procedere in infinitum. Ostensum autem est in secundo quod secundum nullum genus causae contingit in principiis procedere in infinitum. Similiter etiam est inconveniens si dicatur, quod fit status in principiis corruptibilibus; cum corruptio videatur esse per resolutionem in aliqua priora.	483. But if the principles (264) Here he argues the other side of the question, with two arguments. The first is this: if the principles of corruptible and incorruptible things are not the same, the question arises whether the principles of corruptible things are corruptible or incorruptible. If one says that they are corruptible, he proves that this is false by two arguments. The first runs thus: every corruptible thing is dissolved into the principles of which it is composed. If, then, the principles of corruptible things are corruptible, it will be necessary to hold also that there are other principles from which they are derived. But this is untenable, unless an infinite regress is posited. Now it was shown in Book II (152:C 299) that it is impossible to have an infinite regress in principles in any class of cause. And it would be just as untenable for someone to say that this condition applies in the case of corruptible principles, since corruption seems to come about as a result of something being dissolved into prior principles.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 19 Secunda ratio est, quia si principia corruptibilium sint corruptibilia, oportet quod corrumpantur, quia omne corruptibile corrumpetur. Sed postquam sunt corrupta non possunt esse principia; quia quod corrumpitur vel corruptum est, non potest causare aliquid. Cum ergo corruptibilia semper causentur per successionem, non potest dici, quod principia corruptibilium sint corruptibilia.	484. The second argument runs thus. If the principles of corruptible things are corruptible, they must be corrupted, because every corruptible thing will be corrupted. But after they have been corrupted they cannot be principles, for what is corrupted or has been corrupted cannot cause anything. Therefore, since corruptible things are always caused in succession, the principles of corruptible things cannot be said to be corruptible.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 20 Si autem dicatur, quod principia corruptibilium sunt incorruptibilia, manifestum est quod principia incorruptibilium sunt incorruptibilia. Relinquitur ergo quaestio, quare ex quibusdam incorruptibilibus principiis producantur effectus corruptibiles, et ex quibusdam effectus incorruptibiles. Hoc enim non videtur esse rationabile; sed aut est impossibile, aut indiget multa manifestatione.	485. Again, if it is said that the principles of corruptible things are incorruptible, evidently the principles of incorruptible things are incorruptible. Therefore the question remains why it is that from certain incorruptible principles corruptible effects are produced, and from certain others incorruptible effects are produced; for this seems to be unreasonable and is either impossible or requires considerable explanation.
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 21 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem secundam rationem ad principale propositum ponit, quae sumitur ex communi opinione omnium. Nullus enim conatus est hoc dicere, quod sint diversa principia corruptibilium et incorruptibilium; sed omnes dicunt eadem esse principia omnium. Et tamen id quod primo obiectum est, scilicet pro prima parte, ac si esset aliquid modicum omnes leviter transeunt, quod est concedere. Unde litera Boetii habet, sed primum obiectum deglutiunt, sicut hoc parvum quoddam opinantes.	486. Further, no one (265). Then relative to his main thesis he gives his second argument, which is drawn from the common opinions of all men. For no one has attempted to say that corruptible and incorruptible things have different principles, but all say that all things have the, same principles. Yet the first argument, given in favor of the first part of the question, all pass over lightly, as though it were of little importance; but this is to acknowledge its truth. Hence the text of Boethius says: “But they swallow the first argument as though they considered it a minor matter.”
lib. 3 l. 11 n. 22 Huius autem dubitationis solutio ponitur in duodecimo: ubi philosophus ostendit prima quidem principia activa vel motiva esse eadem omnium sed quodam ordine. Nam prima quidem sunt principia simpliciter incorruptibilia et immobilia. Sunt autem secunda incorruptibilia et mobilia, scilicet caelestia corpora, quae per sui motum causant generationem et corruptionem in rebus. Principia autem intrinseca non sunt eadem numero corruptibilium et incorruptibilium, sed secundum analogiam. Nec tamen principia intrinseca corruptibilium, quae sunt materia et forma, sunt corruptibilia per se, sed solum per accidens. Sic enim corrumpitur materia et forma corruptibilium, ut habetur in primo physicorum.	487. Now the solution to this problem is given in Book XII (2553), where the Philosopher shows that the first active or motive principles of all things are the same but in a certain sequence. For the first principles of things are unqualifiedly incorruptible and immobile, whereas the second are incorruptible and mobile, i.e., the celestial bodies, which cause generation and corruption in the world as a result of their motion. Now the intrinsic principles of corruptible and of incorruptible things are the same, not numerically but analogically. Still the intrinsic principles of corruptible things, which are matter and form, are not corruptible in themselves but only in reference to something else. For it is in this way that the matter and form of corruptible things are corrupted, as is stated in Book I of the Physics.