Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber3/lect3

Lecture 3

Latin	English
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 1 Postquam philosophus movit quaestiones pertinentes ad modum considerandi huius scientiae, hic movet quaestiones pertinentes ad res de quibus ista scientia considerat. Et quia ista scientia considerat de principiis primis, ut in primo dictum est, ideo movet hic quaestiones de principiis rerum. Prima autem rerum principia ponebantur et species et mathematica. Unde primo movet quaestiones pertinentes ad species. Secundo quaestiones pertinentes ad mathematica, ibi, adhuc autem utrum numeri, aut longitudines et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo quaerit quae sunt principia. Secundo qualia sunt, ibi, amplius autem utrum principia numero aut specie determinata et cetera. Quia vero principia ponebantur universalia separata, primo quaeritur utrum universalia sint principia. Secundo utrum res separatae sint principia, ibi, maxime vero quaerendum est et cetera. Circa primum ponit duas quaestiones; quarum prima est, utrum genera sint principia et elementa rerum, aut ea in quae sicut in ultima dividitur quodcumque singulare existens. Et ratio huius dubitationis est, quia elementum est ex quo primo componitur res, et in quod ultimo dividitur. Invenimus autem duplicem modum compositionis et divisionis: unum scilicet secundum rationem, prout species resolvuntur in genera. Et secundum hoc videntur genera esse principia et elementa, ut Plato posuit. Alio modo secundum naturam sicut corpora naturalia componuntur ex igne et aere et aqua et terra, et in haec resolvuntur. Et propter hoc naturales posuerunt esse prima principia elementa.	355. Having raised questions pertaining to the method of investigation which this science uses, the Philosopher now raises questions pertaining to the things which this science considers. And since this science considers first principles, as has been stated in Book I (35), he therefore raises here questions pertaining to the principles of things. Now both the Forms and the objects of mathematics were held to be the first principles of things. Therefore, first, he raises questions concerning the Forms; and second (366), concerning the objects of mathematics (“And in addition to these”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he asks what things are principles; and second (361), what sort of beings they are (“Further, we must inquire”). And since separate universals were held to be the principles of things, he asks, first, whether universals are the principles of things; and second (357), whether separate entities are the principles of things (“But most of all”). Concerning the first he asks two questions. The first is whether genera constitute the principles and elements of things, or the ultimate parts into which each individual thing is dissolved. This question arises because an element is that of which a thing is first composed and into which it is ultimately dissolved. Now we find a twofold mode of composition and dissolution. One has to do with the intelligible constitution, in which species are resolved into genera, and according to this mode genera seem to be the principles and elements of things, as Plato claimed. The other mode of composition and dissolution has to do with the real order; for example, natural bodies are composed of fire, air, water and earth, and are dissolved into these. It was for this reason that the natural philosophers claimed that the elements constitute the first principles of things.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 2 Secunda quaestio est, supposito quod genera sint principia rerum, utrum principia sint universalia dicta de individuis, scilicet species specialissimae, quas genera appellat secundum Platonicorum consuetudinem, quia continent sub se plura individua, sicut genera plures species; aut magis sint principia prima generalissima, ut puta quid sit magis principium, utrum animal vel homo, qui est principium quoddam secundum Platonicos, et magis vere existens quam singulare. Oritur autem haec dubitatio propter duas divisiones rationis. Quarum una est secundum quam genera dividimus in species. Alia vero est secundum quam species resolvimus in genera. Semper enim videtur illud quod est ultimus terminus divisionis esse primum principium et elementum in componendo.	356. And assuming that genera are the principles of things, the second question is whether the principles of things are to be identified with the universals which are predicated of individual things, i.e., the lowest species, which he calls genera after the usage of the Platonists, because the lowest species contain under themselves many individuals just as genera contain many species; or whether it is rather the first and most common genera that constitute principles, for example, which of the two is more of a principle, animal or man; for man is a principle according to the Platonists, and is more real than any singular man. Now this problem arises because of two divisions which reason makes. One of these is that whereby we divide genera into species, and the other is that whereby we resolve species into genera. For it seems that whatever is the last term in a process of division is always the first principle and element in a process of composition.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit maxime vero quaerit de principiis ex parte separationis: et movet quatuor quaestiones, quarum prima est, cum primi naturales posuerint solum causam materialem, utrum aliquid aliud praeter materiam sit causa secundum se, aut non.	357. But most of all (186). Here he inquires whether separate entities are the principles of things; and he raises four questions. For since the first philosophers of nature posited only a material cause, the first question is whether besides matter there is anything else that is a cause in the proper sense or not.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 4 Secunda quaestio est, supposito quod aliquid praeter materiam sit causa, utrum illud sit separabile a materia, sicut posuit Plato, aut sicut posuit Pythagoras.	358. And granted that there is some other cause besides matter, the second question is whether it is separable from matter, as Plato held, or as Pythagoras held.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 5 Tertia quaestio est, si est aliquid separabile a materia, utrum sit unum tantum, sicut posuit Anaxagoras, aut plura numero sicut posuit Plato et ipse Aristoteles.	359. And if there is something separable from matter, the third question is whether it is a single thing, as Anaxagoras claimed, or many, as Plato and Aristotle himself claimed.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 6 Quarta quaestio est, utrum aliquid sit praeter synolon, id est simul totum, aut nihil; aut in quibusdam sit aliquid, et in quibusdam non: et qualia sint in quibus sunt et qualia in quibus non. Exponit autem quid sit synolon vel simul totum, scilicet quando praedicatur aliquid de materia. Ad cuius intellectum considerandum est quod Plato posuit hominem et equum et ea quae sic praedicantur, esse quasdam formas separatas. Per hoc autem homo praedicatur de Socrate vel Platone, quod materia sensibilis participat formam separatam. Socrates ergo vel Plato dicitur synolon vel simul totum, quia constituitur per hoc quod materia participat formam separatam. Et est quasi quoddam praedicatum de materia. Quaerit ergo philosophus hic utrum quod quid est individui, sit aliquid aliud praeter ipsum individuum, vel non: aut etiam in quibusdam est aliud et in quibusdam non aliud. Quam quidem quaestionem philosophus determinabit in septimo.	360. The fourth question is whether there is anything “besides the synolon,” i.e., the concrete whole, or nothing; or whether there is something in certain cases and not in others; and what kind of things they are in those cases in which there is something else, and what kind of things they are in those in which there is not. And he explains what a synolon or concrete whole is; i.e., it is matter when something is predicated of it. Now in order to understand this we must note that Plato claimed that man and horse, and universals which are predicated in this way, are certain separate Forms; and that man is predicated of Socrates or Plato by reason of the fact that sensible matter participates in a separate Form. Hence Socrates or Plato is called a synolon or concrete whole, because each is constituted as a result of matter participating in a separate form. And each is, as it were, a kind of predicate of matter. Hence the Philosopher asks here whether the whatness of the individual thing is something else in addition to the individual thing itself, or not; or also whether it is something rise in the case of some things and not in that of others. The Philosopher will answer this question in Book VII (7356).
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem movet quaestiones circa modum existendi principiorum. Et quia ens dividitur per unum et multa, per actum et potentiam, primo quaerit quomodo sint principia secundum unitatem et multitudinem. Secundo quomodo sint secundum actum et potentiam, ibi, et potestate aut actu. Circa primum movet quatuor quaestiones: quarum prima est, utrum principia sint determinata secundum numerum, aut secundum speciem. Puta quia dicimus tria esse principia naturae. Potest autem intelligi, vel quia sunt determinata secundum numerum, ita scilicet quod sola una numero forma sit principium naturae, et sola una numero materia et privatio. Et potest intelligi quod sit determinata secundum speciem, ita, scilicet, quod sint multa principia materialia quae conveniant in specie materialis principii, et sic de aliis. Et quia quidam philosophorum assignabant causas formales, sicut Platonici, quidam autem solas materiales, sicut antiqui naturales, addit quod ista quaestio habet locum in rationibus, idest in causis formalibus, et in subiecto, idest in causis materialibus.	361. Further, we must inquire (187). Here he raises questions about the way in which principles exist. And since being is divided by the one and many, and by act and potency, he asks, first, whether these principles are one or many; and second (365), whether they are actual or potential (“Again, we must inquire”). In regard to the first he asks four questions: Q. 12 The first is whether the principles of things are limited in number or in kind; as we say, for example, that there are three principles of nature. Now the statement that they are limited in number can mean that the principle of nature is numerically a single form and a single matter and privation. And the statement that they are limited in kind can mean that there are many material principles which have in common the specific nature of material principle, and so on for the rest. And since some of the philosophers, such as the Platonists, attributed formal causes to things, while others, such as the ancient natural philosophers, attributed only material causes to things, he adds that this question is applicable both “in the intelligible structures,” i.e., in formal causes, “and in the underlying subject,” i.e., in material causes.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 8 Secunda quaestio est, utrum corruptibilium et incorruptibilium sint eadem principia aut diversa. Et si sint diversa, utrum omnia sint incorruptibilia, vel corruptibilium principia sint corruptibilia et incorruptibilium incorruptibilia.	362. (2) The second question is whether the principles of corruptible and of incorruptible things are the same or different. And if they are different, whether all are incorruptible, or whether the principles of corruptible things are corruptible and those of incorruptible things are incorruptible.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 9 Tertia quaestio est, utrum unum et ens significent ipsam substantiam rerum et non aliquid aliud additum supra substantiam rerum, sicut dicebant Pythagorici et Platonici, vel non significent ipsam substantiam rerum, sed sit aliquid aliud subiectum unitati et entitati, scilicet ignis aut aer, aut aliquid aliud huiusmodi, ut antiqui naturales posuerunt. Hanc autem quaestionem dicit esse difficillimam et maxime dubitabilem, quia ex ista quaestione dependet tota opinio Platonis et Pythagorae, qui ponebant numeros esse substantiam rerum.	363. (3) The third question is whether unity and being signify the very substance of things and not something added to the substance of things, as the Pythagoreans and Platonists claimed; or whether they do not signify the substance of things, but something else is the subject of unity and being, for example, fire or air or something else of this kind, as the ancient philosophers of nature held. Now he says that this question is the most difficult and most puzzling one, because on this question depends the entire thought of Plato and Pythagoras, who held that numbers are the substance of things.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 10 Quarta quaestio est, utrum principia rerum sint sicut quaedam universalia, vel sicut aliqua singularia, idest utrum ea quae ponuntur esse principia habeant rationem principii secundum rationem universalem, vel secundum quod unumquodque eorum est aliquid et singulare.	364. The fourth question is whether the principles of things are “somehow universals or are in some sense singular things,” i.e., whether those things which are held to be principles have the character of a principle in the sense of a universal intelligible nature, or according as each is a particular and singular thing.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit et potestate quaerit utrum principia sint secundum potentiam vel secundum actum. Et haec quaestio maxime videtur pertinere ad principia materialia. Potest enim esse dubitatio, utrum primum materiale principium sit aliquod corpus in actu, ut ignis aut aer, ut antiqui naturales posuerunt, aut aliquid existens in potentia tantum, ut Plato posuit. Et quia motus est actus existentis in potentia, et est quodammodo medium inter potentiam et actum, ideo adiungit aliam quaestionem, utrum principia sint causae rerum solum secundum motum, sicut naturales posuerunt sola principia motus, vel materialia, vel efficientia: vel etiam sint principia aliter quam per motum, sicut Plato posuit per quamdam participationem huius sensibilia ab immaterialibus causari. Has autem quaestiones ideo se movisse dicit, quia magnam dubitationem habent, ut patet ex discordia philosophorum circa eas.	365. Again, we must inquire (188). Here he asks whether these principles exist potentially or actually. This question seems to refer especially to material principles; for it can be a matter of dispute whether the first material principle is some actual body, such as fire or air, as the ancient philosophers of nature held, or something which is only potential, as Plato held. And since motion is the actualization of something in potency, and is, in a sense, midway between potentiality and actuality, he therefore adds another question: whether the principles of things are causes only in reference to motion, as the philosophers of nature posited only principles of motion, either material or efficient, or also whether they are principles which act in some other way than by motion, as Plato claimed that sensible things are caused by immaterial entities by a certain participation in these. Futhermore, he says that these questions have been raised because they present the greatest difficulty, as is clear from the manner in which the philosophers have disagreed about them.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit adhuc autem movet quaestiones pertinentes ad mathematica, quae quidem principia rerum ponuntur: et movet duas quaestiones. Quarum prima est, utrum numeri et longitudines et figurae et puncta sint quaedam substantiae, ut Pythagorici vel Platonici posuerunt; vel non, sicut posuerunt naturales.	366. And in addition to these (189). Here he raises questions concerning the objects of mathematics, which are posited as the principles of things. He raises two questions. The first is whether numbers, lengths, figures and points are somehow substances, as the Pythagoreans or Platonists held, or whether they are not, as the philosophers of nature held.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 13 Secunda quaestio est, si sunt substantiae, utrum sint separatae a sensibilibus, ut posuerunt Platonici, aut in sensibilibus, ut Pythagorici.	367. And if they are substances, the second question is whether they are separate from sensible things, as the Platonists held, or exist in sensible things, as the Pythagoreans held.
lib. 3 l. 3 n. 14 Moventur autem quaestiones istae tamquam disputandae infra et determinandae: quia in his non solum difficile est veritatem inquirere, sed etiam non est facile bene dubitare de eis, inveniendo scilicet probabiles rationes dubitationis.	368. Now these questions are raised as problems which must be debated and settled below, because in these matters it is not only difficult to discover the truth, but it is not even easy to debate the matter adequately by finding probable arguments for either side of the question.