Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber3/lect4

Lecture 4

Latin	English
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 1 Postquam philosophus movit quaestiones, quae faciunt dubitationem in ista scientia, hic incipit de eis disputare; et dividitur in tres partes. In prima disputat de quaestionibus pertinentibus ad considerationem huius scientiae. In secunda de quaestionibus pertinentibus ad substantias, ibi, amplius autem utrum sensibiles substantiae et cetera. In tertia parte de quaestionibus pertinentibus ad principia substantiarum, ibi, et de principiis utrum oporteat genera et elementa et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo enim disputat de consideratione huius scientiae quantum ad causas per quas demonstratur. Secundo quantum ad prima demonstrationis principia, ibi, at vero de principiis demonstrationis et cetera. Tertio quantum ad ipsas substantias, ibi, totaliter quae substantiarum utrum una est et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim resumit quaestionem de qua disputare intendit, concludens ex ipso enumerationis ordine, quod primo disputandum est de istis, de quibus primum dictum est in enumeratione quaestionum, utrum scilicet ad unam scientiam vel ad plures pertineat speculari omnia genera causarum; ut sic ordo disputationis ordini quaestionum motarum respondeat.	369. Having raised the questions which cause difficulty in this science, Aristotle begins here to treat them dialectically. This is divided into three parts. In the first part, he treats the questions which pertain to the method of investigation of this science. In the second (403), he treats the questions which pertain to substances (“Furthermore, there is”). In the third (423), he treats the questions which pertain to the principles of substances (“Concerning the principles”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he argues dialectically about this science’s method of investigation, with reference to the causes by means of which it demonstrates; second (387), with reference to the first principles of demonstration (“But insofar”); and third (393), with reference to substances themselves (“And there is the problem”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he takes up again the question about which he plans to argue dialectically, concluding from the order in which the questions have been listed that it is necessary first to debate those issues which were stated first in the list of questions, namely, whether it is the function of one science or of many to investigate all the classes of causes; so that in this way the order of argument corresponds to the order in which the questions have been raised.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 2 Secundo ibi unius enim ponit rationes ad quaestionem; et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim ponit rationem ad ostendendum, quod considerare omnia genera causarum non pertineat ad unam scientiam. Secundo movet alteram quaestionem: supposito quod ad diversas scientias pertineat diversa genera causarum considerare, cuius causae consideratio pertinet ad philosophum primum. Et disputat ad diversas quaestionis partes; et hoc, ibi, at vero si scientiae causarum sunt plures et cetera. Tertio ex hac disputatione secunda concludit conclusionem primarum rationum, ibi, quapropter videtur alterius esse scientiae et cetera. Circa primum ponit duas rationes; dicens, quod cum unius scientiae sit considerare contraria, quomodo erit unius scientiae considerare principia, cum non sint contraria? Quae quidem ratio si secundum superficiem consideretur, nullius videtur esse momenti. Videtur enim procedere ex destructione antecedentis, ac si sic argumentaretur: si principia sunt contraria, sunt unius scientiae: ergo, si non sunt contraria, non sunt unius scientiae.	370. For how will it be (191). Second, he gives the arguments relating to this question; and in regard to this he does three things. First (191), he gives an argument for the purpose of showing that it is not the office of a single science to consider all the classes of causes. Second (193:C 376), assuming that it belongs to different sciences to consider the different classes of causes, he asks which class of cause it is that is investigated by first philosophy. He argues on both sides of this question (“But on the other hand”). Third (197:C 386), he draws from this second dispute the conclusion of the first arguments (“But-with regard to”). In regard to the first (191) he gives two arguments. He says that since it belongs to one science to consider contraries, how will it belong to one science to consider principles since they are not contrary? This view, if it is considered superficially, seems to be of no importance; for it appears to follow from the destruction of the antecedent, as if one were to argue thus: if principles are contraries, they belong to one science; therefore, if they are not contraries, they do not belong to one science.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 3 Posset ergo dici, quod philosophus in his disputationibus non solum probabilibus rationibus utitur, sed etiam interdum sophisticis, ponens rationes quae ab aliis inducebantur. Sed non videtur esse rationabile, quod in tanta re tantus philosophus tam frivolam et parum apparentem rationem induxisset. Unde aliter dicendum est, quod si quis recte consideret naturam diversorum, quae ad eamdem scientiam pertinent, quaedam pertinent ad unam scientiam secundum sui diversitatem, quaedam vero secundum quod reducuntur ad aliquod unum. Multa quidem igitur alia diversa inveniuntur pertinere ad unam scientiam, secundum quod reducuntur ad aliquod unum; puta, ut ad unum totum, vel ad unam causam, vel ad unum subiectum. Sed contraria et quaelibet opposita pertinent ad unam scientiam secundum se ipsa, eo quod unum est ratio cognoscendi alterum. Et ex hoc efficitur ista propositio probabilis, quod omnia diversa, quae sunt contraria, pertineant ad unam scientiam. Unde sequeretur, si principia sunt diversa et non sunt contraria, quod non pertineant ad unam scientiam.	371. Therefore it can be said that in these disputes the Philosopher not only uses probable arguments but sometimes also uses sophistical ones when he gives arguments introduced by others. But it does not seem reasonable that in such an important matter so great a Philosopher would have introduced an argument which is both trifling and insignificant. Hence a different explanation must be given, namely, that if one rightly considers the nature of the various things which belong to the same science, some belong to a single science-insofar as they are different, but others insofar as they are reduced to some one thing. Hence many other different things are found to belong to one science insofar as they are reduced to one thing, for example, to one whole, one cause, or one subject. But contraries and all opposites belong essentially to one science by reason of the fact that one is the means of knowing the other. And from this comes this probable proposition that all different things which are contraries belong to one science. Therefore, if principles were different and were not contraries, it would follow that they would not belong to one science.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem secundam rationem ponit, quae talis est. Diversorum pertinentium ad unam scientiam, quaecumque scientia considerat unum considerat et aliud, ut patet in contrariis, quorum diversitas secundum se pertinet ad unam scientiam non per reductionem ad aliquid aliud unum: sed non quaecumque scientia considerat unam causam considerat omnes causas: ergo consideratio omnium causarum non pertinet ad unam scientiam.	372. Furthermore, in the case of (192). Here he gives the second argument, which runs thus. In the case of different things which belong to one science, whatever science considers one also considers another. This is evident in the case of contraries, which are different and belong essentially to one science without being reduced to some other unity. But not every science which considers one cause considers all causes. Therefore the study of all the causes does not belong to a single science.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 5 Minorem probat per hoc, quod diversae scientiae sunt de diversis entibus; et multa entia sunt, quibus non possunt attribui omnes causae. Quod primo manifestat in causa, quae dicitur, unde principium motus: non enim videtur, quod possit esse principium motus in rebus immobilibus. Ponuntur autem quaedam entia immobilia, et praecipue secundum Platonicos ponentes numeros et substantias paratas. Unde, si qua scientia de his considerat, non potest considerare de causa quae est unde principium motus.	373. He proves the minor premise thus: Different sciences deal with different beings, and there are many beings to which all the causes cannot be assigned. He makes this dear, first, with regard to that cause which is called the source of motion; for it does not seem that there can be a principle of motion in immobile things. Now certain immobile things are posited, especially by the Platonists, who claim that numbers and substances are separate entities. Hence, if any science considers these, it cannot consider the cause which is the source of motion.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 6 Secundo manifestat idem de causa finali, quae habet rationem boni. Boni enim natura non videtur posse inveniri in rebus immobilibus, si hoc concedatur, quod omne quod est bonum secundum se et propter suam naturam, est finis. Et hoc modo causa est, inquantum propter ipsam et causa eius omnia fiunt et sunt. Dicit autem, quod est bonum secundum se et propter suam naturam, ad excludendum bonum utile, quod non dicitur de fine, sed magis de eo quod est ad finem. Unde quae sic solum dicuntur bona inquantum sunt utilia ad aliud, non sunt bona secundum se et propter suam naturam. Sicut potio amara non est secundum se bona, sed solum secundum quod ordinatur ad finem sanitatis, quae est secundum se bona: finis autem, et cuius causa fit aliquid, videtur esse terminus alicuius actus: omnes autem actiones videntur esse cum motu. Ergo videtur sequi, quod in rebus immobilibus non possit esse hoc principium, scilicet causa finalis, quae habet rationem boni. Et quia quae sunt per se existentia absque materia, necesse est quod sint immobilia, ideo non videtur esse possibile, quod sit aliquid autoagathon, idest per se bonum, ut Plato ponebat. Omnia enim immaterialia et non participata vocabat per se existentia, sicut ideam hominis vocabat hominem per se, quasi non participatum in materia. Unde et per se bonum dicebat id quod est sua bonitas non participata, scilicet primum principium omnium.	374. Second, he shows that the same thing is true of the final cause, which has the character of good. For it does not seem that the character of goodness can be found in immobile things, if it is conceded that everything which is good in itself and by reason of its own nature is an end. And it is a cause in the sense that all things come to be and exist because of it and for its sake. However, he says “everything which is good in itself and by reason of its own nature” in order to exclude the useful good, which is not predicated of the end but of the means to the end. Hence those things which are said to be good only in the sense that they are useful for something else arc not good in themselves and by reason of their own nature. For example, a bitter potion is not good in itself but only insofar as it is directed to the end, health, which is a good in itself. But an end, or that for the sake of which something comes to be, seems to be the terminus of an action. But all actions seem to involve motion. Therefore it seems to follow that this principle, i.e., the final cause, which has the character of goodness, cannot exist in immobile things. Further, since those things which exist of themselves apart from matter must be immobile, it therefore does not seem possible that “an autoagathon,” i.e., a good-in-itself, exists, as Plato held. For he called all immaterial and unparticipated things entities which exist of themselves, just as he called the Idea of man, man-in-himself, as though not something participated in matter. Hence he also called the good-in-itself that which is its own goodness unparticipated, namely, the first principle of all things.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 7 Et ad hanc rationem confirmandam inducit quoddam signum. Ex hoc enim quod finis non potest esse in rebus immobilibus, videtur procedere quod in scientiis mathematicis, quae abstrahunt a materia et motu, nihil probatur per hanc causam, sicut probatur in scientia naturali, quae est de rebus mobilibus, aliquid per rationem boni. Sicut cum assignamus causam quare homo habet manus, quia per eas melius potest exequi conceptiones rationis. In mathematicis autem nulla demonstratio fit hoc modo, quod hoc modo sit quia melius est sic esse, aut deterius si ita non esset. Puta si diceretur quod angulus in semicirculo est rectus, quia melius est quod sic sit quam quod sit acutus vel obtusus. Et quia posset forte aliquis esse alius modus demonstrandi per causam finalem, puta si diceretur, si finis erit, necesse est id quod est ad finem praecedere: ideo subiungit, quod nullus omnino in mathematicis facit mentionem alicuius talium pertinentium ad bonum vel ad causam finalem. Propter quod quidam sophistae, ut Aristippus, qui fuit de secta Epicureorum, omnino neglexit demonstrationes quae sunt per causas finales, reputans eas viles ex hoc quod in artibus illiberalibus sive mechanicis, ut in arte tectonica, idest aedificatoria, et coriaria, omnium rationes assignantur ex hoc quod est aliquid melius vel deterius. In mathematicis vero, quae sunt nobilissimae et certissimae scientiae, nulla fit mentio de bonis et malis.	375. Moreover, with a view to strengthening this argument he introduces an example. For, from the fact that there cannot be an end in the case of immobile things, it seems to follow that in the mathematical sciences, which abstract from matter and motion, nothing is proved by means of this cause, as in the science of nature, which deals with mobile things, something is proved by means of the notion of good. For example, we may give as the reason why man has hands that by them he is more capable of executing the things which reason conceives. But in the mathematical sciences no demonstration is made in this way, that something is so because it is better for it to be so, or worse if it were not so; as if one were to say, for example, that the angle in a semi-circle is a right angle because it is better that it should be so than be acute or obtuse. And because there can be, perhaps, another way of demonstrating by means of the final cause (for example, if one were to say that, if an, end is to be, then what exists for the sake of an end must first be), he therefore adds that in the mathematical sciences no one makes any mention at all of any of those things which pertain to the good or to the final cause. And for this reason certain sophists, as Aristippus, who belonged to the Epicurean school, completely disregarded any demonstrations which employ final causes, considering them to be worthless in view of the fact that in the servile or mechanical arts, for example, in the “art of building,” i.e., in carpentry, and in that of “cobbling,” all things are explained on the grounds that something is better or worse; whereas in the mathematical sciences, which are the noblest and most certain of the sciences, no mention is made of things good and evil.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit at vero interponit aliam quaestionem: et primo proponit eam. Et habet duas partes. Prima enim pars quaestionis est. Si diversae causae considerentur a pluribus scientiis, ita quod altera scientia sit alterius causae considerativa, quae illarum debet dici scientia quae quaeritur? Idest philosophia prima? Utrum scilicet illa quae considerat causam formalem, aut quae considerat causam finalem, vel quae considerat aliquam aliarum? Secunda pars quaestionis est, si aliquae res sint quae habeant plures causas, quis maxime cognoscit rem illam eorum qui considerant illas causas?	376. But on the other hand (193). Here he interjects another question. First, he states this question, which has two parts. The first part of the question is this. If different causes are considered by many sciences, so that a different science considers a different cause, then which of these sciences should be called the one “that is being sought,” i.e., first philosophy? Is it the one which considers the formal cause, or the one which considers the final cause, or the one which considers one of the other causes? The second part of the question is this: If there are some things which have many causes, which one of those who consider those causes knows that subject best?
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 9 Secundo cum dicit contingit enim manifestat partem secundam quaestionis per hoc, quod una et eadem res invenitur, quae habet omnes modos causarum: sicut domus causa unde principium motus, est ars et aedificator. Id vero cuius causa vel finis causa domus est opus, idest usus eius, qui est habitatio. Causa vero sicut materia est terra, ex qua fiunt lateres et lapides. Causa vero sicut species vel forma, est ipsa ratio domus, quam artifex praeconceptam mente in materia ponit.	377. For it is possible (194). He clarifies the second part of the question by the fact that one and the same thing is found to have every type of cause. For example, in the case of a house the source of motion is the art and the builder; the reason, for which, or the final cause of the house, “is its function,” i.e., its use, which is habitation; its material cause is the earth, from which the walls and floor are made; and its specifying or formal cause is the plan of the house, which the architect, after first conceiving it in his mind, gives to matter.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 10 Tertio ibi igitur ex reassumit quaestionem, scilicet quam dictarum scientiarum possumus vocare sapientiam, secundum ea quae de sapientia prius determinavimus in principio libri: utrum scilicet illam, quae considerat causam formalem, vel quae considerat causam finalem, vel aliquam aliarum causarum. Et ponit consequenter rationes ad singulas trium causarum: dicens, quod ratio quaedam videtur de qualibet scientia, idest quae est per quamcumque causam, quod appelletur nomine sapientiae. Et primo quantum ad scientiam quae est per causam finalem. Dictum est enim in principio libri, quod ista scientia, quae sapientia dicitur, est maxime principalis et ordinativa aliarum, quasi subditarum. Sic igitur inquantum sapientia est senior, idest prior ordine dignitatis, et principalior quadam auctoritate ordinandi alias, quia non est iustum quod aliae scientiae contradicant ei, sed ab ea accipiant sua principia, sicut ei servientes; videtur quod illa scientia, quae est finis et boni, idest quae procedit per causam finalem, sit digna nomine sapientiae. Et hoc ideo, quia omnia alia sunt propter finem, unde finis est quodammodo causa omnium aliarum causarum. Et sic scientia, quae procedit per causam finalem, est principalior. Cuius signum est, quod artes illae, ad quas pertinent fines, principantur et praecipiunt aliis artibus, sicut gubernatoria navifactivae. Unde, si sapientia est principalis et praeceptiva respectu aliarum, maxime videtur quod procedat per causam finalem.	378. Therefore from the things (195) Here he takes up again the question as to which of the aforesaid sciences we can call wisdom on the basis of the points previously established about wisdom at the beginning of this work (14:C 36), namely, whether it is the science which considers the formal cause, or the one which considers the final cause, or the one which considers one of the other causes. And he gives in order arguments relating to each of the three causes, saying that there seems to be some reason why “every oxie of the sciences,” i.e., any one which proceeds by means of any cause at all, should be called by the name of wisdom. First, he speaks of that science which proceeds by means of the final cause. For it was stated at the beginning of this work that this science, which is called wisdom, is the most authoritative one, and the one which directs others as subordinates. Therefore, inasmuch as wisdom “takes precedence,” i.e., is prior in the order of dignity and more influential in its authoritative direction of the other sciences (because it is not right that the others should contradict it but they should take their principles from it as its servants), it seems that that science “which deals with the end and the good,” i.e., the one which proceeds by means of the final cause, is worthy of the name of wisdom. And this is true because everything else exists for the sake of the end, so that in a sense the end is the cause of all the other causes. Thus the science which proceeds by means of the final cause is the most important one. This is indicated by the fact that those arts which are concerned with ends are more important than and prior to the other arts; for example, the art of navigation is more important than and prior to the art of ship-building. Hence, if wisdom is pre-eminent and regulative of the other sciences, it seems that it proceeds especially by means of the final cause.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit inquantum vero inducit rationem de causa formali. Dictum est enim in prooemio libri, quod sapientia est primarum causarum, et eius quod est maxime scibile, et quod est maxime certum. Et secundum hoc videtur quod sit substantiae, idest per causam formalem: quia inter diversos modos sciendi, magis dicimus scire illum qui scit aliquid esse, quam qui scit aliquid non esse. Unde et in posterioribus philosophus probat, quod demonstratio affirmativa est potior quam negativa. Inter eos autem, qui sciunt aliquid affirmare, unum alio magis dicimus scire. Sed inter omnes maxime dicimus scire illum, qui cognoscit quid est res, non autem qui scit quanta est, vel qualis, et quid possit facere vel pati. Sic igitur in cognoscendo ipsam rem absolute perfectissimum est scire quid est res, quod est scire substantiam rei. Sed etiam in aliis cognoscendis, puta proprietatibus rei, magis dicimus scire singula, de quibus sunt demonstrationes, quando etiam de ipsis accidentibus vel proprietatibus scimus quod quid est; quia quod quid est non solum invenitur in substantiis, sed etiam in accidentibus.	379. But insofar as wisdom (196). Here he introduces the arguments relating to the formal cause. For it was said in the prologue of this work (26:C 51) that wisdom is concerned with first causes and with whatever is most knowable and most certain. And according to this it seems to be concerned with “substance,” i.e., it proceeds by means of the formal cause. For among the different ways of knowing things, we say that he who knows that something exists, knows more perfectly than he who knows that it does not exist. Hence in the Posterior Analytics the Philosopher proves that an affirmative demonstration is preferable to a negative demonstration. And among those who know something affirmatively, we say that one knows more perfectly than another. But we say that he knows more perfectly than any of the others who knows what a thing is, and not he who knows how great it is, or what it is like, or what it can do or undergo. Therefore, to know a thing itself in the most perfect way absolutely is to know what it is, and this is to know its substance. But even in knowing other things, for example, a thing’s properties, we say that we know best every single thing about which there are demonstrations when we also know the whatness of their accidents and properties; because whatness is found not only in substance but also in accidents.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 12 Et ponit exemplum de tetragonismo, idest quadratura superficiei aeque distantium laterum non quadratae, quam quadrare dicimur, cum invenimus quadratum ei aequale. Cum autem omnis superficies aeque distantium laterum et rectorum angulorum ex duabus lineis contineatur, quae rectum continent angulum, ita, quod totalis superficies nihil est aliud quam ductus unius earum in alia, tunc invenimus quadratum aequale superficiei praedictae, quando invenimus lineam quae sit media in proportione inter duas lineas praedictas. Puta, si linea a, ad lineam b se habet sicut linea b ad lineam c, quadratum lineae b est aequale superficiei, quae continetur in c et a, ut probatur in sexto Euclidis.	380. He gives the example of squaring, i.e., squaring a surface of equally distant sides which is not square but which we say we square when we find a square equal to it. But since every rectangular surface of equally distant sides is contained by the two lines which contain the right angle, so that the total surface is simply the product of the multiplication of one of these lines by the other, then we find a square equal to this surface when we find a line which is the proportional mean between these two lines. For example, if line A is to line B as line B is to line C, the square of line B is equal to the surface contained by C and A, as is proved in Book VI of Euclid’s Elements.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 13 Et apparet manifeste in numeris. Sex enim est medium in proportione inter novem et quatuor. Novem enim se habet ad sex in proportione sesquialtera, et similiter sex ad quatuor. Quadratum autem senarii est trigintasex. Quod etiam perficitur ex ductu quaternarii in novenarium. Quater enim novem sunt trigintasex. Et simile est in omnibus aliis.	381. This becomes quite evident in the case of numbers. For 6 is the proportional mean between 9 and 4; for 9 is related to 6 in the ratio of 11/2 to 1, and so also is 6 to 4. Now the square of 6 is 36, which is also produced by multiplying 4 by 9; for 4 x 9 = 36. And it is similar in all other cases.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 14 Deinde ponit rationem de causa movente circa generationes videmus enim quod circa generationes et actiones, et circa omnem transmutationem maxime dicimur aliquid scire quando cognoscimus principium motus, et quod motus nihil est aliud quam actus mobilis a movente, ut dicitur in tertio physicorum. Praetermittit autem de causa materiali, quia illa imperfectissime se habet ad hoc quod sit principium cognoscendi: non enim fit cognitio per id quod est in potentia, sed per id quod est in actu, ut infra in nono dicetur.	382. But with regard to processes (197) Here he gives an argument pertaining to the cause of motion. For in processes of generation and actions and in every change we see that we may say that we know a thing when we know its principle of motion, and that motion is nothing else than the actuality of something mobile produced by a mover, as is stated in the Physics, Book III. He omits the material cause, however, because that cause is a principle of knowing in the most imperfect way; for the act of knowing is not caused by what is potential but by what is actual, as is stated below in Book IX (805:C 1894)
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 15 His igitur positis ad secundam quaestionem pertinentibus, inducit rationem ex eisdem rationibus supra positis ad primam quaestionem, scilicet quod alterius scientiae sit considerare omnes istas causas, eo quod in diversis rebus diversae causae videntur habere principalitatem, sicut in mobilibus principium motus, in scibilibus quod quid est, finis autem in his quae ordinantur ad finem.	383. Then after having given those arguments which pertain to the second question, he introduces an argument which is based on the same reasons as were given above (191:C 370 ff.) in reference to the first question, namely, that it is the office of a different science to consider all these causes by reason of the fact that in different subject-matters different causes seem to have the principal role, for example, the source of motion in mobile things, the quiddity in demonstrable things, and the end in things which are directed to an end.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 16 Hanc autem quaestionem Aristoteles in sequentibus expresse solvere non invenitur: potest tamen eius solutio ex his quae ipse inferius in diversis locis determinat, colligi. Determinat enim in quarto, quod ista scientia considerat ens inquantum est ens; unde et eius est considerare primas substantias, non autem scientiae naturalis, quia supra substantiam mobilem sunt aliae substantiae. Omnis autem substantia vel est ens per seipsam, si sit forma tantum; vel si sit composita ex materia et forma, est ens per suam formam; unde inquantum haec scientia est considerativa entis, considerat maxime causam formalem. Primae autem substantiae non cognoscuntur a nobis ut sciamus de eis quod quid est, ut potest aliqualiter haberi ex his quae in nono determinantur: et sic in earum cognitione non habet locum causa formalis. Sed quamvis ipsae sint immobiles secundum seipsas, sunt tamen causa motus aliorum per modum finis; et ideo ad hanc scientiam, inquantum est considerativa primarum substantiarum, praecipue pertinet considerare causam finalem, et etiam aliqualiter causam moventem. Causam autem materialem secundum seipsam nullo modo, quia materia non convenienter causa est entis, sed alicuius determinati generis, scilicet substantiae mobilis. Tales autem causae pertinent ad considerationem particularium scientiarum, nisi forte considerentur ab hac scientia inquantum continentur sub ente. Sic enim ad omnia suam considerationem extendit.	384. However, we do not find that Aristotle explicitly solves this question later on, though his solution can be ascertained from the things which he establishes below in different places. For in Book IV (533) he establishes that this science considers being as being, and therefore that it also belongs to it, and not to the philosophy of nature, to consider first substances; for there are other substances besides mobile ones. But every substance is either a being of itself, granted that it is only a form; or it is a being by its form, granted that it is composed of matter and form. Hence inasmuch as this science considers being, it considers the formal cause before all the rest. But the first substances are not known by us in such a way that we know what they are, as can be understood in some way from the things established in Book IX (1904); and thus in our knowledge of them the formal cause has no place. But even though they are immobile in themselves, they are nevertheless the cause of motion in other things after the manner of an end. Hence inasmuch as this science considers first substances, it belongs to it especially to consider the final cause and also in a way the efficient cause. But to consider the material cause in itself does not belong to it in any way, because matter is not properly a cause of being but of some definite kind of being, namely, mobile substance. However, such causes belong to the consideration of the particular sciences, unless perhaps they are considered by this science inasmuch as they are contained under being; for it extends its analysis to all things in this way.
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 17 His autem visis, rationes inductas facile est solvere. Primo enim nihil prohibet diversas causas ad hanc scientiam pertinere unam existentem, licet non sint contraria, quia reducuntur ad unum, scilicet ad ens commune, sicut dictum est. Similiter nihil prohibet, etsi non quaelibet scientia consideret omnes causas, quin aliqua scientia possit considerare omnes vel plures earum inquantum reducuntur ad aliquid unum. Sed specialiter descendendo, dicendum est, quod nihil prohibet in immobilibus considerari et principium motus, et finem sive bonum; in immobilibus inquam quae sunt tamen moventia sicut sunt primae substantiae: in his autem quae neque moventur nec movent, non est consideratio principii motus, nec finis sub ratione finis motus, quamvis possit considerari finis sub ratione finis alicuius operationis sine motu. Sicut si ponantur esse substantiae intelligentes non moventes, ut Platonici posuerunt, nihilominus tamen inquantum habent intellectum et voluntatem oportet ponere in eis finem et bonum, quod est obiectum voluntatis. Mathematica autem non moventur, nec movent, nec habent voluntatem. Unde in eis non consideratur bonum sub nomine boni et finis. Consideratur tamen in eis id quod est bonum, scilicet esse et quod quid est. Unde falsum est, quod in mathematicis non sit bonum, sicut ipse infra in nono probat.	385. Now when these things are seen it is easy to answer the arguments which have been raised. For, first, nothing prevents the different causes in this science from belonging to a single existing thing, even though they are not contraries, because they are reducible to one thing—being in general—as has been stated (384). And in a similar way, even though not every science considers all of the causes, still nothing prevents one science from being able to consider all of the causes or several of them insofar as they are reducible to some one thing. But to be more specific, it must be said that in the case of immobile things nothing prevents the source of motion and the end or good from being investigated. By immobile things I mean here those which are still causes of motion, as the first substances. However, in the case of those things which are neither moved cause motion there is no investigation of the source of motion, or of the end in the sense of the end of motion, although an end can be considered as the goal of some operation which does not involve motion. For if there are held to be intellectual substances which do not cause motion, as the Platonists claimed, still insofar as they have an intellect and will it is necessary to hold that they have an end and a good which is the object of their will. However, the objects of mathematics neither are moved nor cause motion nor have a will. Hence in their case the good is not considered under the name of good and end, although in them we do consider what is good, namely, their being and what they are. Hence the statement that the good is not found in the objects of mathematics is false, as he proves below in Book IX (1888) .
lib. 3 l. 4 n. 18 Ad quaestionem vero secundam iam patet responsio; quia ad hanc scientiam pertinet consideratio trium causarum, de quibus rationes inducit.	386. The reply to the second question is already clear; for a study of the three causes, about which he argued dialectically, belongs to this science.