Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber3/lect9

Lecture 9

Latin	English
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 1 Postquam philosophus disputavit quaestionem de universalibus, utrum sint principia, hic consequenter movet quaestionem de separatis, utrum scilicet aliquid sit separatum a sensibilibus, quod sit eorum principium. Et circa hoc pertractat duas quaestiones: quarum prima est, an universalia sint separata a singularibus. Secunda est, an sit aliquid formale separatum ab his quae sunt composita ex materia et forma, ibi, amplius autem si quam maxime et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describit dubitationem. Secundo obiicit ad unam partem, ibi, nam si non est et cetera. Tertio obiicit ad partem aliam, ibi, at vero et cetera. Est ergo haec dubitatio de eo quod tactum est in ultima ratione praecedentis quaestionis, utrum scilicet universale sit separatum a singularibus, sicut praemissa ratio supponebat. Et hoc est quod dicit, de qua ratio nunc existit, idest de qua immediate praecedens ratio praecessit. De hac autem dubitatione ita dicit: primo quod est habita, idest consequenter se habens ad praemissa: quia sicut iam dictum est, ex hoc dependet consideratio praecedentis quaestionis. Nam si universalia non sunt separata, non sunt principia: si autem sunt separata, sunt principia. Secundo dicit de ea, quod est difficillima omnium dubitationum huius scientiae. Quod ostenditur ex hoc quod eminentissimi philosophi de ea diversimode senserunt. Nam Platonici posuerunt universalia esse separata, aliis philosophis contra ponentibus. Tertio dicit de ea quod est maxime necessaria ad considerandum, quia scilicet ex ea dependet tota cognitio substantiarum tam sensibilium quam immaterialium.	443. Having debated the question whether universals are the principles of things, the Philosopher now raises a question about their separability, namely, whether there is anything separate from sensible things as their principle. In regard to this he considers two questions. The first (443) Of these is whether universals are separate from singular things. The second (447) is whether there is any formal [principle] separate from things which are composed of matter and form (“Further, if there is something”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he describes the problem. Second (444), he argues one side of the question (“For if there is nothing”). Third (445), he argues the other side of the question (“But if this is”). Accordingly, this problem arises with regard to a point mentioned in the last argument of the preceding question, namely, whether a universal is separate from singular things, as the aforesaid argument supposed. He describes this problem as “the one with which our analysis is now concerned (235),” i.e., the one which immediately preceded the foregoing argument. And he speaks of it in this way: first, that “it is connected with,” i.e., is a consequence of, the foregoing one, because, as has already been stated, the consideration of the preceding question depends on this. For if universals are not separate, they are not principles; but if they are separate, they are principles. Second, he speaks of this problem as the most difficult of all the problems in this science. This is shown by the fact that the most eminent philosophers have held different opinions about it. For the Platonists held that universals are separate, whereas the other philosophers held the contrary. Third, he says that this problem is one which it is most necessary to consider, because the entire knowledge of substances, both sensible and immaterial, depends on it.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit nam si non obiicit ad ostendendum, quod universalia sint separata a singularibus. Singularia enim sunt infinita: infinita autem cognosci non possunt. Unde singularia omnia cognosci non possunt nisi inquantum reducuntur ad aliquid unum, quod est universale. Sic igitur scientia de rebus singularibus non habetur, nisi inquantum sciuntur universalia. Sed scientia non est nisi verorum et existentium: ergo universalia sunt aliqua per se existentia praeter singularia.	444. For if there is nothing (236). Here he advances an argument to show that universals are separate from singular things. For singular things are infinite in number, and what is infinite cannot be known. Hence all singular things can be known only insofar as they are reduced to some kind of unity which is universal. Therefore there is science of singular things only inasmuch as universals are known. But science is only about things which are true and which exist. Therefore universals are things which exist of themselves apart from singular things.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit at vero si obiicit in contrarium hoc modo. Si necesse est universalia esse aliquid praeter singularia, oportet quod genera sint praeter singularia, vel prima generum, vel etiam ultima, quae sunt immediate ante singularia. Sed hoc est impossibile, ut ex praecedenti dubitatione patet; ergo universalia non sunt a singularibus separata. Hanc autem dubitationem solvit philosophus in septimo huius, ubi ostendit multipliciter universalia non esse substantias per se subsistentes. Nec oportet, sicut multoties dictum est, quod aliquid eumdem modum essendi habeat in rebus, per quem modum ab intellectu scientis comprehenditur. Nam intellectus immaterialiter cognoscit materialia: et similiter naturas rerum, quae singulariter in rebus existunt, intellectus cognoscit universaliter, idest absque consideratione principiorum et accidentium individualium.	445. But if this is (237) Then he argues the other side of the question in this way: if it is necessary that universals be something apart from singular things, it is necessary that genera exist apart from singular things, either the first genera or also the last, which are immediately prior to singular things. But this is impossible, as is clear from the preceding discussion. Therefore universals are not separate from singular things. 446. The Philosopher solves this problem in Book VII (659:C 1592) Of this work, where he shows in many ways that universals are not substances which subsist of themselves. Nor is it necessary, as has often been said, that a thing should have the same mode of being in reality that it has when understood by the intellect of a knower. For the intellect knows material things immaterially, and in a similar way it knows universally the natures of things which exist as singulars in reality, i.e., without considering the principles and accidents of individuals.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem prosequitur de alia quaestione: utrum scilicet aliquid sit separatum a compositis ex materia et forma: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo movet quaestionem. Secundo prosequitur eam, ibi, si igitur et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est, quod primo movet quaestionem, utrum universale sit separatum a singularibus. Contingit autem aliquod singulare esse compositum ex materia et forma: non tamen omne singulare ex materia et forma est compositum, nec secundum rei veritatem: quia substantiae separatae sunt quaedam particulares substantiae, quia per se stantes et per se operantes; nec etiam secundum opinionem Platonicorum, qui ponebant etiam in mathematicis separatis esse quaedam particularia, ponendo plura ex eis in una specie. Et quamvis dubitari possit, utrum etiam in his quae non sunt composita ex materia et forma, sit aliquid separatum sicut universale a singulari, tamen hoc maxime habet dubitationem in rebus compositis ex materia et forma. Et ideo dicit, quod maxime est dubitabile, utrum sit aliquid, praeter simul totum etc. idest praeter rem compositam ex materia et forma. Et quare dicatur simul totum compositum, exponit subdens, ut quando praedicatur aliquid de materia. Ponebat enim Plato quod sensibilis materia participabat universalia separata. Et ex hoc erat quod universalia praedicantur de singularibus. Et ipsae participationes universalium formarum in materialibus sensibilibus constituunt simul totum, quasi universalis forma per modum participationis cuiusdam sit de materia praedicata. In his autem quaestionem trimembrem proponit: utrum scilicet praeter omnia huiusmodi sit aliquid separatum, aut praeter quaedam eorum et non praeter alia, aut praeter nihil eorum.	447. Further, if there is something (238). Here he raises another question, namely, whether anything is separate from things composed of matter and form; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he raises the question. Second (239:C 448), he proceeds to deal with it (“If, then, there is”). In regard to the first it should be observed that he first raises the question whether a universal is separate from singular things. Now it happens to be the case that some singular things are composed of matter and form. But not all singular things are so composed, either according to the real state of affairs, since separate substances are particular because existing and operating of themselves, or even according to the opinion of the Platonists, who held that even among separate mathematical entities there are particulars inasmuch as they held that there are many of them in a single species. And while it is open to dispute whether there is anything separate in the case of those things which are not composed of matter and form, as the universal is separate from the particular, the problem is chiefly whether there is anything separate in the case of things which are composed of matter and form. Hence he says that the point which causes most difficulty is whether there is something “apart from the concrete whole,” i.e., apart from the thing composed of matter and form. The reason why a composite thing is called a concrete whole he explains by adding “when something is predicated of matter.” For Plato held that sensible matter participates in separate universals, and that for this reason universals are predicated of singular things. These participations in universal forms by material sensible things constitute a concrete whole inasmuch as a universal form is predicated of matter through some kind of participation. Now in regard to these things he raises a question which has three parts, namely, whether there is anything that exists apart from all things of this kind, or apart from some and not from others, or apart from none.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit si igitur prosequitur praedictam dubitationem: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo obiicit contra hoc, quod poni posset nihil separatum esse ab his quae sunt composita ex materia et forma. Secundo obiicit ad oppositum, ibi, sed si hoc et cetera. Circa primum, obiicit duplici via. Primo quidem ex hoc, quod ea quae sunt composita ex materia et forma sunt sensibilia: unde proponit quod ea quae sunt composita ex materia et forma sunt singularia. Singularia autem non sunt intelligibilia, sed sensibilia. Si igitur nihil est praeter singularia composita ex materia et forma nihil erit intelligibile, sed omnia entia erunt sensibilia. Scientia autem non est nisi intelligibilium: ergo sequitur quod nullius rei sit scientia: nisi aliquis dicat quod sensus et scientia sunt idem, ut antiqui naturales posuerunt: sicut dicitur in primo de anima. Utrumque autem horum est inconveniens: scilicet vel quod non sit scientia, vel quod scientia sit sensus: ergo et primum est inconveniens, scilicet quod nihil sit praeter singularia composita ex materia et forma.	448. If, then, there is (239) Here he proceeds to deal with this problem; and concerning it he does two things. First, he argues against the position that nothing can be held to be separate from things composed of matter and form. Second (244:C 454), he argues the other side of the question (“But again if anyone holds this”). In regard to the first (239) he advances two arguments. First, he argues from the principle that those things which are composed of matter and form are sensible things; and therefore he proposes that those things which are composed of matter and form are singulars. However, singular things are not intelligible but sensible. Therefore, if there is nothing apart from singular things which are composed of matter and form, nothing will be intelligible but all beings will be sensible. But there is science only of things which are intelligible. Therefore it follows that there will be no science of anything, unless one were to say that sensory perception and science are the same, as the ancient philosophers of nature held, as is stated in Book I of The Soul. But both of these conclusions are untenable, namely, that there is no science and that science is sensory perception. Therefore the first position is also untenable, namely, that nothing exists except singular things which are composed of matter and form.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem secundo obiicit ex hoc quod composita ex materia et forma sunt mobilia. Inducit talem rationem. Omnia sensibilia composita ex materia et forma corrumpuntur et in motu sunt: si igitur nihil sit praeter huiusmodi entia, sequetur quod nihil sit sempiternum nec immobile.	449. Further, neither will anything (240). Second, he argues on the grounds that things composed of matter and form are mobile. He gives the following argument. All sensible things composed of matter and form perish and are subject to motion. Therefore, if there is nothing apart from beings of this kind, it will follow that nothing is eternal or immobile.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit at vero ostendit esse inconveniens, scilicet quod nihil sit sempiternum et immobile: et primo ex parte materiae. Secundo ex parte formae, ibi, amplius autem cum sit et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod si nihil est sempiternum, non est possibile esse generationem alicuius rei. Et hoc probat sic. Quia in omni generatione necesse est aliquid quod fit, et aliquid ex quo fit. Si ergo id ex quo fit aliquid, iterum generatur, oportet quod ex aliquo generetur. Aut ergo necesse est quod in infinitum procedatur in materiis, aut quod stet processus in aliquo primo, quod sit aliquod primum materiale principium non generatum: nisi forte dicatur quod generetur ex non ente, quod est impossibile. Si autem in infinitum procederetur, numquam posset compleri generatio, quia infinita non est transire: ergo vel oportet ponere aliquid ingenitum materiale principium, aut impossibile est esse aliquam generationem.	450. But if there is (241). Here he shows that this conclusion is untenable, namely, that nothing is eternal and immobile. He does this, first, with respect to matter; and second (242:C 451), with respect to form (“Further, since generation”). Accordingly, he says first (241) that if nothing is eternal, it is impossible for anything to be generated. He proves this as follows. In every process of generation there must be something which comes to be and something from which it comes to be. Therefore, if that from which a thing comes to be is itself generated, it must be generated from something. Hence there must either be an infinite regress in material principles, or the process must stop with some first thing which is a first material principle that is ungenerated, unless it might be said, perhaps, that it is generated from non-being; but this is impossible. Now if the process were to go on to infinity, generation could never be completed, because what is infinite cannot be traversed. Therefore it is necessary to hold either that there is some material principle which is ungenerated, or that it is impossible for any generation to take place.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem ostendit idem ex parte causae formalis: et ponit duas rationes: quarum prima talis est. Omnis generatio et motus necesse est quod habeat aliquem finem. Et hoc probat, quia nullus motus est infinitus, sed cuiuslibet motus est aliquis finis. Hoc autem planum est in illis motibus, qui finiuntur in suis terminis. Sed videtur habere instantiam in motu circulari, qui potest esse perpetuus et infinitus, ut probatur in octavo physicorum. Et quamvis supposita sempiternitate motus, tota continuitas circularis motus sit infinita, secundum quod circulatio succedit circulationi, tamen quaelibet circulatio secundum speciem suam, completa et finita est. Quod autem ei succedat alia circulatio, hoc accidit quantum ad circulationis speciem.	451. Further, since generation (242). Here he proves the same thing with respect to the formal cause; and he gives two arguments, the first of which is as follows. Every process of generation and motion must have some terminus. He proves this on the grounds that no motion is infinite, but that each motion has some terminus. This is clear in the case of other motions which are completed in their termini. But it seems that a contrary instance is had in the case of circular motion, which can be perpetual and infinite, as is proved in Book VIII of the Physics. And even though motion is assumed to be eternal, so that the entire continuity of circular motion is infinite insofar as one circular motion follows another, still each circular motion is both complete in its species and finite. That one circular motion should follow another is accidental so far as the specific nature of circular motion is concerned.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 9 Et quod dixerat de motu universaliter, specialiter ostendit de generatione: non enim potest esse aliqua generatio una infinita, quia non potest aliquid generari quod impossibile est pervenire ad finem generationis, cuius finis est factum esse. Et quod factum esse sit terminus generationis, ex hoc patet: quia quod generatum est, necesse est esse quando primo factum est, id est quando primo terminatur generatio eius. Oportet igitur quod cum forma secundum quam aliquid est, sit terminus generationis, quod non sit procedere in infinitum in formis, sed quod sit aliqua forma ultima, cuius non sit aliqua generatio. Omnis enim generationis finis est forma, ut dictum est. Et sic videtur quod sicut materiam, ex qua aliquid generatur, oportet esse ingenitam, ex eo quod non proceditur in infinitum, ita etiam quod formam aliquam oportet esse ingenitam, ex hoc quod in infinitum non procedatur in formis.	452. The things which he said about motion in general he proves specially in regard to generation; for no process of generation can be infinite, because that thing cannot be generated whose process of generation cannot come to an end, since the end of generation is to have been made. That its being made is the terminus of generation is clear from the fact that what has been generated must exist “as soon as it has come to be,” i.e., as soon as its generation is first terminated. Therefore, since the form whereby something is, is the terminus of generation, it must be impossible to have an infinite regress in the case of forms, and there must be some last form of which there is no generation. For the end of every generation is a form, as we have said. Thus it seems that just as the matter from which a thing is generated must itself be ungenerated because it is impossible to have an infinite regress, in a similar way there must be some form which is ungenerated because it is impossible to have an infinite regress in the case of forms.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem secundam rationem ponit quae talis est. Si materia aliqua est prima quia est ingenita, multo rationabilius est quod sit substantia, idest forma ingenita, cum per formam res habeat esse; materia vero magis sit subiectum generationis et transmutationis. Si vero neutrum eorum sit ingenitum, nihil omnino erit ingenitum; cum omne quod est, pertineat ad rationem materiae vel formae, vel sit compositum ex utroque. Hoc autem est impossibile, ut nihil sit ingenitum, sicut probatum est. Ergo relinquitur quod necesse est aliquid esse praeter synolon, idest simul totum, idest praeter singulare compositum ex materia et forma. Et hoc dico aliquid quod sit forma et species. Materia enim per se non potest esse separata a singularibus, quia non habet esse nisi per aliud. De forma vero hoc magis videtur, per quam est esse rerum.	453. Further, if matter exists (143). He gives the second argument, which runs thus. If there is some first matter which is ungenerated, it is much more reasonable that there should be some substance, i.e., some form, which is ungenerated, since a thing has being through its form, whereas matter is rather the subject of generation and transmutation. But if neither of these is ungenerated, then absolutely nothing will be ungenerated, since everything which exists has the character of matter or form or is composed of both. But it is impossible that nothing should be ungenerated, as has been proved (242:C 452). Therefore it follows that there must be something else “besides the synolon,” or concrete whole, i.e., besides the singular thing which is composed of matter and form. And by something else I mean the form or specifying principle. For matter in itself cannot be separated from singular things, because it has being only by reason of something else. But this seems to be true rather of form, by which things have being.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit sed si hoc obiicit in contrarium. Si enim aliquis ponat aliquam formam esse separatam praeter singularia composita ex materia et forma, erit dubitatio in quibus hoc sit ponendum et in quibus non. Manifestum enim est quod hoc non est ponendum in omnibus, praecipue in artificialibus. Non enim est possibile quod sit aliqua domus praeter hanc domum sensibilem compositam ex materia et forma.	454. But again if anyone (244). Here he argues the other side of the question. For if one holds that there is some form separate from singular things which are composed of matter and form, the problem arises in which cases this must be admitted and in which not. For obviously this must not be held to be true in the case of all things, especially in that of those made by art. For it is impossible that there should be a house apart from this sensible house, which is composed of matter and form.
lib. 3 l. 9 n. 12 Hanc autem dubitationem solvit Aristoteles partim quidem in duodecimo huius: ubi ostendit esse quasdam substantias a sensibilibus separatas, quae sunt secundum seipsas intelligibiles: partim vero in septimo huius, ubi ostendit formas et species rerum sensibilium non esse a materia separatas. Non tamen sequitur, quod de rebus sensibilibus non possit haberi scientia, vel quod scientia sit sensus. Non enim oportet, quod eumdem modum essendi habeant res in seipsis, quem habent in consideratione scientis. Quae enim seipsis materialia sunt, ab intellectu immaterialiter cognoscuntur, ut etiam supra dictum est. Nec etiam oportet, si forma non est separata a materia, quod generetur: quia formarum non est generatio, sed compositorum, ut in septimo huius ostendetur. Patet ergo in quibus oportet ponere separatas formas, et quibus non. Nam omnium eorum quae sunt secundum suam naturam sensibilia, formae non sunt separatae. Sed illa quae sunt secundum naturam suam intelligibilia, sunt a materia separata. Non enim substantiae separatae sunt naturae horum sensibilium, sed sunt altioris naturae, alium habentes ordinem in rebus.	455. Now Aristotle solves this problem partly in Book XII (2488) of this work, where he shows that there are certain substances separate from sensible things and intelligible in themselves; and partly in Book VII (1503), where he shows that the forms or specifying principles of sensible things are not separate from matter. However, it does not follow that no science of sensible things can be had or that science is sensory perception. For it is not necessary that things have in themselves the same mode of being which they have in the intellect of one who knows them. For those things which are material in themselves are known in an immaterial way by the intellect, as has also been stated above (446). And even though a form is not separate from matter, it is not therefore necessary that it should be generated; for it is not forms that are generated but composites, as will be shown in Book VII (1417) of this work. It is clear, then, in what cases it is necessary to posit separate forms and in what not. For the forms of all things which are sensible by nature are not separate from matter, whereas the forms of things which are intelligible by nature are separate from matter. For the separate substances do not have the nature of sensible things, but are of a higher nature and belong to another order of existing things.