Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber4/lect7

Lecture 7

Latin	English
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 1 Hic incipit elenchice disputare contra negantes praedictum principium: et dividitur in duas partes. Primo disputat contra eos, qui dicunt contradictoria simul esse vera. Secundo contra illos qui dicunt quod contingit ea simul esse falsa, verum nec iterum et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo disputat contra praedictos errantes in communi. Secundo ostendit quomodo in speciali sit disputandum contra diversos, ibi, est autem non idem modus. Circa primum duo facit. Primo disputat rationem negantium praedictum principium. Secundo ostendit quod opinio Protagorae in idem redit cum praedicta positione, ibi, est autem ab eadem et cetera. Circa primum ponit septem rationes. Secunda ibi, omnino vero destruunt. Tertia ibi, amplius si contradictiones. Quarta ibi, amplius autem circa omnia et cetera. Quinta ibi, amplius igitur quomodo. Sexta ibi, unde et maxime manifestum est. Septima ibi, amplius quia si maxime. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit ex quo principio oporteat procedere contra negantes primum principium. Secundo ex illo principio procedit, ibi, primum quidem igitur manifestum et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod ad omnia talia inopinabilia non oportet accipere pro principio, quod aliquid velit supponere hoc determinate esse vel non esse, idest non oportet accipere pro principio aliquam propositionem, qua asseratur aliquid de re vel negetur ab ea: hoc enim esset quaerere principium ut prius dictum est. Sed oportet accipere pro principio, quod nomen significet aliquid, et ipsi qui profert, inquantum se loquentem intelligit, et alii qui eum audit. Si autem hoc non concedit, tunc talis non habebit propositum nec secum, nec cum alio; unde superfluum erit cum eo disputare; sed cum hoc dederit, iam statim erit demonstratio contra eum: statim enim invenitur aliquid definitum et determinatum quod per nomen significatur distinctum a suo contradictorio, ut infra patebit. Sed tamen hoc non erit demonstrans praedictum principium simpliciter, sed tantum erit ratio sustinens contra negantes. Ille enim qui destruit rationem, idest sermonem suum, dicendo quod nomen nihil significat, oportet quod sustineat, quia hoc ipsum quod negat, proferre non potest nisi loquendo et aliquid significando.	611. Here he begins to argue dialectically against those who deny the foregoing principle, and this is divided into two parts. In the first (332)C 611) he argues against those who say that contradictories are true at the same time; and in the second (383:C 720), against those who say that they are false at the same time (“Neither can there be”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he argues in a general way against those who make the aforesaid errors. Second (353:C 663), he shows how we must argue specifically against different positions (“But the same method”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he argues dialectically against the reasoning of those who deny the foregoing principle. Second (352:C 661), he shows that Protagoras’ opinion is fundamentally the same as the one just mentioned (“The doctrine of Protagoras”). In regard to the first point he gives seven arguments. He gives the second (341:C 624) at the words “And those who”; the third (343:C 636) at “Furthermore, if all”; the fourth (347:C 642) at “Again, either this”; the fifth (348:C 652) at “Again, how”; the sixth (349:C 654) at “It is most evident”; and the seventh (351:C 65.9) at “Further, even if all.” In regard to the first he does two things. First, he indicates the starting point from which one must proceed to argue against those who deny the first principle. Second (333:C 612), he proceeds to argue from that starting point (“First of all, then”). He therefore says, first (332), that with respect to all such unreasonable positions there is no need for us to take as a starting point that someone `wishes to suppose that this thing definitely is “or is not”; i.e., it is not necessary to take as a starting point some proposition in which some attribute is either affirmed or denied of a subject (for this would be a begging of the question, as was said above [[[Authors/Aristotle/metaphysics/l4#jp331|331]]:C 609] ), but it is necessary to take as a starting point that a term signifies something both to the one who utters it, inasmuch as he himself understands what he is saying, and to someone else who hears him. But if such a person does not admit this, he will not say anything meaningful either for himself or for someone else, and it will then be idle to dispute with him. But when he has admitted this, a demonstration will at once be possible against him; for there is straightway found to be something definite and determinate which is signified by the term distinct from its contradictory, as will become clear below. Yet this will not strictly be a demonstration of the foregoing principle but only an argument upholding this principle against those who deny it. For he who “destroys reason,” i.e., his own intelligible expression, by saying that a term signifies nothing, must uphold its significance, because he can only express what he denies by speaking and by signifying something.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit primum quidem procedit ex dicta suppositione ad propositum ostendendum. Et primo singulariter in uno. Secundo generaliter in omnibus, ibi, amplius si homo et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod si nomen aliquid significat, primo hoc erit manifestum quod haec propositio erit vera, et eius contradictoria quam negat est falsa. Et sic ad minus hoc habemus, quia non omnis affirmatio est vera cum sua negatione.	612. First of all, then (333). He proceeds from the assumption he had made to prove what he intends. First, he deals with one particular case; and second (334:C 612), he treats all cases in a general way (“Again, if the term”). He accordingly says, first (333), that if a term signifies something, it will be evident first of all that this proposition will be true, and that its contradictory, which he denies, will be false; and thus this at least will be true, that not every affirmation is true together with its negation.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit dico autem ostendit universaliter de omnibus, scilicet quod contradictoria non sint simul vera. Et circa hoc quatuor facit. Primo ponit quaedam quae sunt necessaria ad propositum concludendum. Secundo concludit propositum, ibi, necesse itaque. Tertio probat quoddam quod supposuerat, ibi, nam esse hominem et cetera. Quarto excludit quamdam cavillationem, ibi, si autem respondeatur. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit quod nomen unum significat. Secundo ex hoc ostendit ulterius quod hoc nomen homo, significet id quod est hominem esse, non autem id quod est non esse, ibi, nec sic contingit et cetera. Tertio ostendit quod homo significat unum ibi, si autem non significat et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod si homo significat aliquid unum, sit hoc unum, animal bipes. Hoc enim unum dicitur nomen significare, quod est definitio rei significatae per nomen; ut si est hominis esse animal bipes, idest si hoc est quod quid est homo, hoc erit significatum per hoc nomen homo.	613. Now by signifying (535). Then he shows that this applies universally to all cases, namely, that contradictories are not true at the same time. In regard to this he does four things. First, he makes certain assumptions which are necessary for drawing his intended conclusion. Second (338:C 620), he draws his conclusion (“Therefore, if it is true”). Third (339:C 622), he proves one assumption which he had made (“For being a man”). Fourth (340:C 623), he rejects a quibble (“That is to say”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he shows that a term signifies one thing; and second (336:C 616), he shows from this that the term man signifies what being a man is, but not what it is not (“It is impossible, then”). Third (337:C 61g), he shows that the term man signifies one thing (“Now if man”). He accordingly says, first (335), that if the term man signifies one thing, let this be two-footed animal. For a term is said to signify this one thing which is the definition of the thing signified by the term, so that if “twofooted animal” is the being of man, i.e., if this is what the essence of man is, this will be what is signified by the term man.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 4 Si autem dicat nomen plura significat, aut significabit finita, aut infinita. Si autem finita, nihil differt, secundum aliam translationem, ab eo quod ponitur significare unum, quia significat multas rationes diversarum rerum finitas, et singulis eorum possunt adaptari diversa nomina. Ut si homo significet multa, et unius eorum sit ratio animal bipes, ponetur unum nomen secundum hanc rationem, quod est homo: et si sunt plures aliae rationes, ponentur alia plura nomina, dummodo rationes illae sint finitae. Et sic redibit primum quod nomen significet unum.	614. But if one were to say that a term signifies many things, it will signify either a finite or an infinite nurnher of them. But if it signifies a finite number, it will differ in no way, according to another translation, from the term which is assumed to signify one thing; for it signifies many finite concepts of different things, and different terms can be fitted to each single concept. For example, if the term man were to signify many concepts, and the concept two-footed animal is one of them, one term is assigned to the concept man. And if there are many other concepts, many other terms may be assigned so long as those concepts are finite in number. Thus he will be forced back to the first position, that a term signifies one thing.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 5 Si autem nomen non significat finitas rationes, sed infinitas, manifestum est quod nulla erit ratio sive disputatio. Quod sic patet. Quod enim non significat unum, nihil significat. Et hoc sic probatur. Nomina significant intellectus. Si igitur nihil intelligitur, nihil significatur. Sed si non intelligitur unum, nihil intelligitur; quia oportet quod qui intelligit ab aliis distinguat. Ergo si non significat unum, non significat. Sed si nomina non significant, tolletur disputatio, et quae est secundum veritatem et quae est ad hominem. Ergo patet quod si nomina infinita significent, non erit ratio sive disputatio. Sed si contingit intelligere unum, imponatur ei nomen, et sic teneatur quod nomen significet aliquid.	615. But if a term does not signify a finite but an infinite number of concepts, evidently neither reasoning nor debate will be possible. This becomes clear as follows: any term that does not signify one thing signifies nothing. This is proved thus: terms signify something understood, and therefore if nothing is understood, nothing is signified. But if one thing is not understood, nothing is understood, because anyone who understands anything must distinguish it from other things. If a term does not signify one thing, then, it signifies nothing at all; and if terms signify nothing, discourse will be impossible, both the kind which establishes truth and the kind which refutes an assertion. Hence it is clear that, if terms signify an infinite number of things, neither reasoning nor dispute will be possible. But if it is possible to understand one thing, a term may be given to it. So let it be held then that a term signifies something.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit nec sic contingit ostendit secundum; scilicet quod hoc nomen homo non significet id quod est homini non esse: nomen enim significans unum, non solum significat unum subiecto, quod ideo dicitur unum quia de uno, sed id quod est unum simpliciter, scilicet secundum rationem. Si enim hoc vellemus dicere, quod nomen significat unum quia significat ea quae verificantur de uno, sic sequeretur quod musicum et album et homo unum significarent, quoniam omnia verificantur de uno. Et ex hoc sequeretur, quod omnia essent unum: quia si album dicitur de homine, et propter hoc est unum cum eo, cum dicatur etiam de lapide, erit unum cum lapide. Et quae uni et eidem sunt eadem, sibiinvicem sunt eadem. Unde sequeretur quod homo et lapis sit unum, et unius rationis. Et sic sequeretur quod omnia nomina sint univoca, idest unius rationis, vel synonyma secundum aliam literam, idest omnino idem significantia re et ratione.	616. It is impossible (336). He proves the second point, namely, that the term man does not signify not being a man; for a term that signifies one thing signifies not only what is one in subject (and is therefore said to be one because it is predicated of one subject) but what is one absolutely, i.e., in concept. For if we wanted to say that a term signifies one thing because it signifies the attributes which are verified of one thing, it would then follow that the terms musical, white and man all signify one thing, since all are verified of one thing. And from this it would follow that all things are one; for if white is predicated of man and is therefore identical with him, then when it is also predicated of a stone it will be identical with a stone; and since those things which are identical with one and the same thing are identical with each other, it would follow that a man and a stone are one thing and have one concept. Thus the result would be that all terms are univocal, i.e., one in concept, or synonymous, as another text says, i.e., meaning absolutely the same thing in subject and in concept.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 7 Quamvis autem esse et non esse verificentur de eodem secundum negantes principium primum, tamen oportet quod alius sit hoc quod esse hominem et hoc quod est non esse; sicut aliud est ratione album et musicum, quamvis de eodem verificentur. Ergo patet quod esse et non esse non erunt idem ratione et re, quasi uno nomine significatum univoce.	617. Now although being and nonbeing are verified of the same subject according to those who deny the first principle, still being a man and not being a man must differ in concept, just as white and musical differ in concept even though they are verified of the same subject. Hence it is evident that being and non-being cannot be the same in concept and in subject in the sense that they are signified by one univocal term.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 8 Sciendum est autem quod esse hominem vel esse homini sive hominis, hic accipitur pro quod quid est hominis. Ex hoc ergo concluditur quod hoc quod dico homo, non significat hoc quod dico hominem non esse, sicut propriam rationem. Sed quia dixerat supra quod idem nomen potest plura significare secundum diversas rationes, ideo subiungit nisi secundum aequivocationem, ad determinandum quod homo univoce non significet esse hominem, et non esse hominem; sed aequivoce potest utrumque significare; ut si id quod vocamus hominem in una lingua, vocent alii non hominem in alia lingua. Non enim est nostra disputatio si idem secundum nomen contingat esse et non esse, sed si idem secundum rem.	618. Now it must be noted that the expression being a man or to be a man or having the being of a man is taken here for the quiddity of man, and therefore it is concluded from this that the term man does not signify not being a man as its proper concept. But because he had said above (335)C 614) that the same term can signify many things according to different concepts, he therefore adds “except in an equivocal sense” in order to make clear that the term man does not signify in a univocal sense both being a man and not being a man, but it can signify both in an equivocal sense; i.e., in the sense that what we call man in one language others might call not-man in another language. For we are not debating whether the same thing can both be and not be man in name, but whether it can in fact.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit si autem probat tertium, scilicet quod homo et non homo non significat idem, tali ratione. Homo significat hoc quod est esse hominem, et quod quid est homo: non homo autem significat non esse hominem, et quod quid est non homo. Si ergo homo et non homo non significant aliquid diversum, tunc id quod est esse homini non erit diversum ab hoc quod est non esse homini, vel non esse hominem. Et ita unum eorum praedicabitur de altero. Et erunt etiam secundum rationem unum. Cum enim dicimus aliqua unum significare, intelligimus quod significent rationem unam, sicut vestis et indumentum. Si igitur esse hominem et non esse hominem sunt hoc modo unum, scilicet secundum rationem, unum et idem erit illud quod significabit illud quod est esse hominem, et id quod est non esse hominem. Sed datum est vel demonstratum, quia diversum nomen est quod significat utrumque. Ostensum est enim quod hoc nomen homo significat hominem, et non significat non esse hominem: ergo patet quod esse hominem et non esse hominem, non sunt unum secundum rationem. Et sic patet propositum quod homo et non homo diversa significant.	619. Now if man (337). Then he proves the third point: that the terms man and not-man do not signify the same thing, and he uses the following argument. The term man signifies being a man or what man is, and the term not-man signifies not being a man or what man is not. If, then, man and not man do not signify something different, being a man will not differ from not being a man, or being a not-man, and therefore one of these will be predicated of the other. And they will also have one concept; for when we say that some terms signify one thing, we mean that they signify one concept, as the terms clothing and garment do. Hence, if being a man and not being a man are one in this way, i.e., in concept, there will then be one concept which will signify both being a man and not being a man. But it has been granted or demonstrated that the term which signifies each is different; for it has been shown that the term man signifies man and does not signify not-man. Thus it is clear that being a man and not being a man do not have a single concept, and therefore the thesis that man and not-man signify different things becomes evident.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit necesse itaque ostendit principale propositum ex prioribus suppositis, tali ratione. Necesse est quod homo sit animal bipes: quod patet ex praehabitis. Haec enim est ratio quam hoc nomen significat. Sed quod necesse est esse, non contingit non esse: hoc enim significat necessarium, scilicet non possibile non esse, vel non contingens non esse, vel impossibile non esse: ergo impossibile est sive non contingens vel non possibile hominem non esse animal bipes. Sic ergo patet quod non contingit utrumque verum esse affirmationem et negationem; scilicet quod si animal bipes, et quod non sit animal bipes. Et eadem ratio ex significationibus nominum sumpta potest accipi de non homine, quia necesse est non hominem esse non animal bipes, cum hoc significet nomen: ergo impossibile est esse animal bipes.	620. Therefore, if it is true (338). Here he proves his main thesis from the assumptions made earlier, and he uses the following argument. A man must be a two-footed animal, as is true from the foregoing, for this is the concept which the term man signifies. But what is necessary cannot not be; for this is what the term necessary means, namely, unable not to be, or incapable of not being, or impossible not to be. Hence it is not possible, or incapable, or impossible for man not to be a two-footed animal, and therefore it is evident that the affirmation and the negation cannot both be true; i.e., it cannot be true that man is both a two-footed animal and not a two-footed animal. The same reasoning based on the meanings of terms can be understood to apply to what is not-man, because what is not-man must be not a two-footed animal, since this is what the term signifies. Therefore it is impossible that a not-man should be a two-footed animal.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 11 Ea autem, quae supra monstrata sunt, valent ad propositum: quia si consideretur quod homo et non homo idem significarent, vel quod hoc nomen homo significaret esse hominem et non esse hominem, posset adversarius negare istam: necesse est hominem esse animal bipes. Posset enim dicere, quod non magis necessarium est dicere hominem esse animal bipes, quam non esse animal bipes, si haec nomina homo et non homo idem significarent, vel si hoc nomen homo utrumque significet, scilicet id quod est esse hominem, et id quod est non esse hominem.	621. Now the things demonstrated above are useful to his thesis, because if someone were to think that the terms man and not-man might signify the same thing, or that the term man might signify both being a man and not being a man, his opponent could deny the proposition that man must be a two-footed animal. For he could say that it is no more necessary to say that man must be a two-footed animal than to say that he is not a two-footed animal, granted that the terms man and not-man signify the same thing, or granted that the term man signifies both of these-being a man and not being a man.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit nam hominem hic probat quoddam quod supposuerat. Ad probandum autem quod hoc nomen, homo, non significat id quod est non esse hominem, assumpsit quod id quod est esse hominem, et id quod est non esse hominem, sint diversa, quamvis verificentur de eodem. Et hoc intendit hic probare tali ratione. Magis opponuntur esse hominem et non esse hominem quam homo et album: sed homo et album sunt diversa secundum rationem, licet sint idem subiecto; ergo et esse hominem et non esse hominem sunt diversa secundum rationem. Minorem sic probat. Si enim omnia quae dicuntur de eodem sunt unum secundum rationem quasi significata uno nomine, sequitur quod omnia sunt unum, sicut supra dictum est et expositum. Si ergo hoc non contingit, continget illud quod dictum est, scilicet quod esse hominem et non esse hominem sunt diversa. Et per consequens sequitur ultima conclusio supradicta, scilicet quod homo sit animal bipes, et quod impossibile est ipsum esse non animal bipes.	622. For being a man (339) Then he proves one of the assumptions which he had made; for in order to prove that the term man does not signify not being a man, he assumed that being a man and not being a man are different, even though they might be verified of the same subject. His aim here is to prove this by the following argument. There is greater opposition between being a man and not being a man than between man and white; but man and white have different concepts, although they may be the same in subject. Therefore being a man and not being a man also have different concepts. He proves the minor thus: if all attributes which are predicated of the same subject have the same concept and are signified by one term, it follows that all are one, as has been stated and explained (336:C 616). Now if this is impossible, the position we have maintained follows, namely, that being a man and not being a man are different. And for this reason the final conclusion given above will follow, namely, that man is a two-footed animal, and that it is impossible for him to be what is not a two-footed animal.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit si respondeatur excludit quamdam cavillationem per quam praedictus processus posset impediri. Posset enim adversarius interrogatus, an necesse sit hominem esse animal bipes, non respondere affirmationem vel negationem, sed dicere, necesse est hominem esse animal bipes, et non esse animal bipes. Hoc autem excludit hic philosophus dicens praedictam conclusionem sequi, dummodo velit respondere ad interrogatum simpliciter. Si autem interroganti simpliciter de affirmatione, velit addere negationem in sua responsione, ut dictum est, non ad interrogatum responderet. Quod sic probat. Contingit enim unam et eamdem rem esse hominem et album et mille alia huiusmodi. Hic tamen si quaeratur, utrum homo sit albus, respondendum est tantum id quod uno nomine significatur. Nec sunt addenda alia omnia. Verbi gratia: si quaeratur, utrum hoc sit homo, respondendum est, quod est homo. Et non est addendum quod est homo et albus et magnus et similia; quia oportet omnia quae accidunt alicui simul respondere, aut nullum. Omnia autem simul non possunt, cum sint infinita: infinita enim eidem accidunt ad minus secundum relationes ad infinita antecedentia et consequentia, et infinita non est pertransire. In respondendo ergo, nullum eorum quae accidunt quaesito est respondendum, sed solum quod quaeritur. Licet ergo supponatur millies quod sit idem homo et non homo; cum tamen quaeritur de homine, non est respondendum de non homine, nisi respondeantur omnia quae possunt homini accidere. Si enim hoc fieret, non esset disputandum, quia nunquam compleretur disputatio, cum impossibile sit infinita pertransire.	623. That is to say (340). He rejects one quibble by which the foregoing process of reasoning could be obstructed. For when an opponent has been asked whether man must be a two-footed animal, he need not reply either affirmatively or negatively but could say that man must be both a two-footed animal and not a two-footed animal. But the philosopher rejects this here, saying that the foregoing conclusion follows so long as an opponent wishes to give a simple answer to the question. But if in giving a simple answer to the question on the side of the affirmative he also wishes to include in his answer the negative aspect, he will not be answering the question. He proves this as follows. One and the same thing can be both a man and white and a thousand other things of this kind. Yet if it is asked here whether a man is white, we must give in our answer only what is signified by one word, and not add all the other attributes. For example, if one asks whether this is a man, we must answer that it is a man, and not add that it is both a man and white and large and the like; for we must give either all of the accidents of a thing at once or not. But not all accidents can be given at once since they are infinite in number; for there are an infinite number of accidents belonging to one and the same thing by reason of its relationship to an infinite number of antecedents and consequents, and what is infinite in number cannot be traversed. In answering the question, then, we must not give any of the attributes which are accidental to the thing about which the question is raised but only the attribute which is asked for. Hence, even if it is supposed a thousand times that man and not-man are the same, still, when the question is asked about man, the answer must not include anything about not-man, unless all those things which are accidental to man are given. And if this were done, no dispute would be possible, because it would never reach completion, since an infinite number of things cannot be traversed.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit omnino vero ponit secundam rationem, quae sumitur ex ratione praedicati substantialis et accidentalis: quae talis est. Si affirmatio et negatio verificantur de eodem, sequitur quod nihil praedicabitur in quid sive substantialiter, sed solum per accidens. Et sic in praedicatis per accidens erit procedere in infinitum. Sed hoc est impossibile: ergo primum.	624. And those who (341). Then he gives the second argument, and it is based on the notion of substantial and accidental predicates. This is his argument: if an affirmation and a negation are verified of the same subject, it follows that no term will be predicated quidditatively, or substantially, but only accidentally; and therefore there will have to be an infinite regress in accidental predicates. But the consequent is impossible, and thus the antecedent must be impossible.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 15 Circa hanc rationem duo facit. Primo ponit conditionalem. Secundo probat destructionem consequentis, ibi, si vero omnia secundum accidens et cetera. Circa primum sic procedit: dicens quod illi qui hoc dicunt, scilicet affirmationem et negationem simul esse vera, omnino destruunt substantiam, idest substantiale praedicatum, et quod quid erat esse, idest quod praedicatur in eo quod quid: necesse est enim eis dicere quod omnia accidunt, idest per accidens praedicantur, et quod non sit hominem esse aut animal esse, et quod non sit quod significet quid est homo, aut quid est animal.	625. In this argument he does two things. First, he gives a conditional proposition. Second (342)C 629), he gives a proof that destroys the consequent (“Moreover, if all”). Regarding the first part he proceeds as follows. He says that those who state that an affirmation ind a negation may lie true at the same time completely do away with “substance,” i.e., with a substantial predicate, “or essence,” i.e., with an essential predicate; for they must say “that all attributes are accidents,” or accidental predicates, and that there is no such thing as being a man or being an animal, and that what the quiddity of man or the quiddity of animal signifies does not exist.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 16 Quod sic probat. Si aliquid est quod est hominem esse, idest quod quid est homo substantialiter, scilicet de homine praedicatum; illud non erit non esse hominem, nec erit esse non hominem. Huius enim quod est esse hominem sunt praedictae duae negationes; scilicet non esse hominem, vel esse non hominem. Patet ergo quod affirmatio et negatio non verificantur de eodem; quia scilicet de eo quod est esse hominem non verificatur non esse hominem, vel esse non hominem.	626. He proves this as follows: if there is something which is being a man, i.e., which is the substantial essence of man, which is predicated of man, it will not be not being a man or being a not-man; for these two, i.e., not being a man and being a not-man, are the negations of being a man. It is clear, then, that an affirmation and a negation are not verified of the same subject, for not being a man or being a not-man is not verified of being a man.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 17 Conditionalem autem positam, quod si aliquid sit quod quid est homo, quod illud non sit non esse hominem, vel esse non hominem, sic probat. Propositum est enim supra et probatum quod hoc quod significat nomen est unum. Et iterum est positum quod illud quod significat nomen, est substantia rei, scilicet quod quid est res. Unde patet quod aliquid significat substantiam rei, et idem quod est significatum non est aliquid aliud. Si igitur illud quod est esse hominem, sive quod quid est homo, fuerit vel non esse hominem, vel esse non hominem, constat quidem quod erit alterum a se. Unde oportet dicere, quod non sit definitio significans quod quid est esse rei; sed sequetur ex hoc quod omnia praedicentur secundum accidens.	627. And the assumption made, namely, that if there is such a thing as being a man, this will not be not being a man or being a not-man, he proves in the following way. It was posited and proved above that the thing which a term signifies is one. And it was also posited that the thing which a term signifies is the substance of something, namely, a thing’s quiddity. Hence it is clear that some term signifies a thing’s substance, and that the thing which was signified is not something else. Therefore, if the essence or quiddity of man should be either not being a man or being a not-man, it is quite clear that it would differ from itself. It would be necessary to say, then, that there is no definition signifying a thing’s essence. But from this it would follow that all predicates are accidental ones.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 18 In hoc enim distinguitur substantia ab accidente, idest praedicatum substantiale ab accidentali, quia unumquodque est vere id quod praedicatur substantialiter de eo; et ita non potest dici illud quod praedicatur substantialiter esse non unum, quia quaelibet res non est nisi una. Sed homo dicitur albus, quia albedo vel album accidit ei. Non autem ita quod sit id quod vere est album vel albedo. Ergo non oportet quod id quod praedicatur per accidens sit unum tantum. Sed multa possunt per accidens praedicari. Substantiale vero praedicatum est unum tantum. Et sic patet, quod ita est esse hominem quod non est non esse hominem. Si autem utrumque fuerit, iam substantiale praedicatum non erit unum tantum, et sic non erit substantiale sed accidentale.	628. For substance is distinguished from accident, i.e., a substantial predicate is distinguished from an accidental one, in that each thing is truly what is predicated substantially of it. Thus it cannot be said that a substantial predicate is not one thing, for each thing exists only if It is one. But man is said to be white because whiteness or white is one of his accidents, although not in such a way that he is the very essence of white or whiteness. It is not necessary, then, that an accidental predicate should be one only, but there can be many accidental predicates. A substantial predicate, however, is one only; and thus it is clear that what being a man is is not what not being a man is. But if a substantial predicate is both, it will no longer be one only, and thus will not be substantial but accidental.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 19 Deinde cum dicit si vero destruit consequens; ostendens hoc esse impossibile quod aliquid non praedicetur substantialiter, sed omnia accidentaliter; quia si omnia per accidens praedicentur, non erit aliquid praedicatum universale. (Dicitur autem hic praedicatum universale sicut in posterioribus, secundum quod praedicatur de aliquo per se et secundum quod ipsum est). Hoc autem est impossibile: quia si semper aliquid praedicatur de altero per accidens, oportet quod accidentalis praedicatio procedat in infinitum, quod est impossibile hac ratione.	629. Moreover, if all (342). He destroys the consequent. He shows that it is impossible that all predicates should be accidental and none substantial because, if all were accidental, there would be no universal predicate. (And universal predicate here means the same thing as it does in the Posterior Analytics, i.e., an attribute which is predicated of something in virtue of itself and in reference to what it itself is). But this is impossible; for if one attribute is always predicated of another accidentally, there will be an infinite regress in accidental predication; but this is impossible for this reason.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 20 Praedicatio enim accidentalis non complectitur nisi duos modos. Unus modus est secundum quod accidens de accidente praedicatur per accidens, et hoc ideo, quia ambo accidunt eidem subiecto, sicut album praedicatur de musico, quia ambo accidunt homini. Alius modus est quo accidens praedicatur de subiecto, sicut Socrates dicitur musicus, non quia ambo accidunt alicui alteri subiecto, sed quia unum eorum accidit alteri. Cum igitur sint duo modi praedicationis per accidens, in neutro contingit esse praedicationem in infinitum.	630. For there are only two ways in which accidental predication occurs. One way is had when one accident is predicated accidentally of another; and this happens because both are accidents of the same subject, for example, when white is predicated of musical because both are accidents of man. The other way is had when an accident is predicated of a subject (as when Socrates is said to be musical), not because both are accidents of some other subject, but because one of them is an accident of the other. Hence, even though there are two ways in which accidents may be predicated, in neither way can there be an infinite regress in predication.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 21 Constat enim quod illo modo, quo accidens praedicatur de accidente, non contingit abire in infinitum, quia oportet devenire ad subiectum. Iam enim dictum est, quod haec est ratio praedicationis huius, quia ambo praedicantur de uno subiecto; et sic descendendo a praedicato ad subiectum contingit invenire pro termino ipsum subiectum.	631. For it is clear that there cannot be an infinite regress in that way in which one accident is predicated of another, because one must reach some subject. For it has been stated already that the essential note of this kind of predication is that both accidents are predicated of one subject. And thus by descending from a predicate to a subject, the subject itself can be found to be the terminus.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 22 Sed illo modo praedicandi per accidens quo accidens praedicatur de subiecto, ut cum dicitur Socrates est albus, non contingit abire in infinitum in superius ascendendo a subiecto ad praedicatum, ita ut dicamus quod Socrati accidit album et quod Socrati albo accidit aliquod aliud. Hoc enim non posset esse nisi duobus modis. Uno modo quia ex albo et Socrate fieret unum. Et sic sicut Socrates est unum subiectum albedinis, ita Socrates albus esset subiectum alterius accidentis. Hoc autem non potest esse, quia non fit aliquid unum ex omnibus quibuscumque praedicatis. Ex subiecto enim et accidente non fit unum simpliciter, sicut fit unum ex genere et differentia. Unde non potest dici quod Socrates albus, sit unum subiectum.	632. And there cannot be an infinite regress in an upward direction in the way of predicating in which an accident is predicated of a subject, as when Socrates is said to be white, by ascending from a subject to a predicate so as to say that white is an accident of Socrates and that some other attribute is an accident of white Socrates. For this could occur only in two ways. One way would be that one thing would come from white and Socrates; and thus just as Socrates is one subject of whiteness, in a similar way white Socrates would be one subject of another accident. But this cannot be so, because one thing does not come from all of these predicates. For what is one in an absolute sense does not come from a substance and an accident in the way that one thing comes from a genus and a difference. Hence it cannot be said that white Socrates is one subject.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 23 Alius modus esset quod sicut Socrates est subiectum albi, ita ipsi albo insit aliquid aliud accidens, ut musicum. Sed hoc etiam non potest esse, propter duo. Primo, quia non erit aliqua ratio, quare musicum dicatur magis accidere albo quam e converso. Unde non erit ordo inter album et musicum, sed e converso respicient se adinvicem. Secundo, quia simul cum hoc definitum est vel determinatum, quod iste est alius modus praedicandi per accidens in quo accidens praedicatur de accidente, ab illo modo quo accidens praedicatur de subiecto, et musicum de Socrate. In isto autem modo de quo nunc loquitur, non dicitur praedicatio accidentalis, quia accidens praedicetur de accidente; sed illo modo quo prius locuti sumus.	633. The other way would be that, just as Socrates is the subject of whiteness, in a similar way some other accident, such as musical, would have whiteness as its subject. But neither can this be so, and for two reasons. First, there can be no special reason why musical should be said to be an accident of white rather than the reverse; neither white nor musical will be prior to the other, but they will rather be of equal rank. Second, in conjunction with this it has been established or determined at the same time that this way of predicating in which an accident is predicated of an accident differs from that in which an accident is predicated of a subject, as when musical is predicated of Socrates. But in the way of which he is now speaking accidental predication does not mean that an accident is predicated of an accident; but it is to be so taken in the way we first described.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 24 Sic igitur manifestum est, quod in accidentali praedicatione non est abire in infinitum: quare patet quod non omnia praedicantur secundum accidens. Et ulterius quod aliquid erit significans substantiam. Et ulterius quod contradictio non verificatur de eodem.	634. It is evident, then, that an infinite regress in accidental predication is impossible, and therefore that not all predications are accidental. And it is also evident that there will be some term which signifies substance; and again, that contradictories are not true of the same subject.
lib. 4 l. 7 n. 25 Sciendum autem est circa praedictam rationem, quod licet accidens non sit subiectum alterius, et sic non sit ordo accidentis ad accidens quantum ad rationem subiiciendi, est tamen ordo quantum ad rationem causae et causati. Nam unum accidens est causa alterius, sicut calidum et humidum dulcis et sicut superficies coloris. Subiectum enim per hoc quod subiicitur uni accidenti, est susceptivum alterius.	635. Now with regard to the argument given it must be noted that, even though one accident is not the subject of another, and thus one accident is not related to the other as its subject, still one is related to the other as cause and thing caused. For one accident is the cause of another. Heat and moistness, for example, are the cause of sweetness, and surface is the cause of color. For by reason of the fact that a subject is receptive of one accident it is receptive of another.