Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber5/lect11

Lecture 11

Latin	English
lib. 5 l. 11 n. 1 Postquam philosophus distinxit nomina, quae significant subiectum huius scientiae, hic distinguit nomina, quae significant partes eorum, quae sunt subiecta huius scientiae: et dividitur in partes duas. In prima distinguit nomina, quae significant partes unius. In secunda, nomina, quae significant partes entis; hoc ibi, potestas dicitur. Substantia enim quae etiam posita est subiectum huius scientiae, est unum solum praedicamentum non divisum in multa praedicamenta. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima distinguit nomina, quae significant partes unius. In secunda, nomina, quae significant, aliquod consequens ad rationem unius, scilicet prius et posterius. Nam unum esse, est principium esse, ut supra dictum est. Et hoc ibi, priora et posteriora dicuntur.	906. Having given the various senses of the terms which signify the subject of this science, here the Philosopher gives those which signify the parts of such things as constitute the subject of this science. This is divided into two parts. In the first (445)C 906) he gives the various senses of the terms which signify the parts of unity; and in the second (467:C 954), those which signify the parts of being ("In one sense"). For substance, which is also posited as the subject of this science, is a single category which is not divided into many categories. The first part is divided into two sections. In the first he gives the various senses of the terms which signify the parts of unity; and in the second (457:C 936), those which signify something that flows from the notion of unity, namely, prior and subsequent ("Things are said to be"). For to be one is to be a principle or starting point, as has been explained above (432:C 872).
lib. 5 l. 11 n. 2 Prima dividitur in duas. In prima distinguit nomina, quae significant primas partes unius et eius oppositi, scilicet multitudinis. In secunda distinguit nomina, quae significant quasdam secundarias partes, ibi, opposita dicuntur. Partes autem unius sunt idem, quod est unum in substantia: et simile, quod est unum in qualitate: et aequale, quod est unum in quantitate. Et e contrario partes multitudinis sunt diversum, dissimile et inaequale. Circa primum duo facit. Primo distinguit hoc nomen idem, et ea quae ei opponuntur. Secundo distinguit hoc nomen simile et dissimile oppositum eius, ibi, similia dicuntur. De aequali autem, et eius opposito, mentionem hic non facit, quia in eis multiplicitas non est ita manifesta. Circa primum tria facit. Primo distinguit hoc nomen idem. Secundo hoc nomen diversum, ibi, diversa vero dicuntur. Tertio hoc nomen differens, ibi, differentia vero. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit modos eiusdem per accidens. Secundo eiusdem per se, ibi, alia vero secundum se.	907. The first part is divided into two sections. In the first he gives the various senses of the terms which signify the primary parts of unity and of its opposite, plurality; and in the second (451)C 922), he gives those which signify certain secondary parts of unity ("By opposites"). Now the parts of unity are sameness, which is oneness in substance; likeness, which is oneness in quality; and equality, which is oneness in quantity. And, opposed to these, the parts of plurality are otherness, unlikeness and inequality. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he gives the various senses in which the term same is used, and the senses of its opposite. Second (449:C q18), he gives the various senses of the term like, and of its opposite, unlike ("Things are said to be like"). He makes no mention here, however, of the term equal and its opposite, because in the case of these terms plurality is not so evident. In regard to the first part he does three things. First, he gives the various senses of the term same; second (447:C 91D, of the term other, or diverse ("Those things are said to be other"); and third (448:C 916), of the term different ("Things are said to be different"). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he gives the ways in which things are said to be accidentally the same; and second (446:C 911), he gives those in which things are said to be essentially the same ("And others"). The “same”, “per accidens” & “per se”
lib. 5 l. 11 n. 3 Dicit ergo quod aliqua dicuntur eadem per accidens tribus modis. Uno modo sicut duo accidentia; ut album et musicum dicuntur idem, quia accidunt eidem subiecto. Secundo modo, quando praedicatum dicitur idem subiecto in quantum de eo praedicatur; ut cum dicitur, homo est musicus, quae dicuntur idem, quia accidit musicum homini, idest praedicatum subiecto. Tertio modo dicuntur idem per accidens, quando subiectum dicitur esse idem accidenti quasi de eo praedicatum: ut cum dicitur, musicus est homo, significatur quod homo sit idem musico. Quod enim praedicatur de aliquo, significatur idem esse illi. Et haec ratio identitatis est, quia subiectum accidit praedicato.	908. He says that things are said to be accidentally the same (idem per accidens) in three ways. (1) In one way they are the same in the sense that two accidents are; thus “white” and “musical” are said to be the same because they are accidents of the same subject. (2) Things are accidentally the same in a second way when a predicate is said to be the same as a subject inasmuch as it is predicated of it; thus when it is said that the man is musical, these (man and musical) are said to be the same because musical is an accident of a man, i.e., the predicate is an accident of the subject. (3) And things are accidentally the same in a third way when the subject is said to be the same as an accident inasmuch as it is predicated of it. For example, when it is said that the musical thing is a man, it is understood that the man is the same as the musical thing; for what is predicated of some subject is identified with that subject. And sameness in this sense means that the subject is an accident of the predicate.
lib. 5 l. 11 n. 4 Praeter hos autem modos eiusdem per accidens, in quibus sumitur accidens per se et subiectum per se, sunt alii modi in quibus accipitur accidens cum subiecto compositum. Et in hoc variantur duo modi: quorum unus significatur, quando accidens simpliciter praedicatur de composito ex accidente et subiecto. Et tunc significatur hoc, scilicet accidens esse idem utrique simul accepto; sicut musico homini, musicum. Alius modus significatur quando compositum praedicatur de subiecto simplici, ut cum dicitur, homo est homo musicus. Tunc enim illi, idest subiecto simplici, significatur esse idem horum utrumque simul acceptum, scilicet hoc quod dicitur homo musicus. Et similis ratio est, si accidens accipitur ut simplex, et subiectum cum compositione; ut si dicamus, musicus est homo musicus, aut e converso, quia et homini musico, quod est compositum, dicuntur idem per accidens et homo et musicum, quando haec duo de illo uno praedicantur, et e converso.	909. Now besides these ways in which things are accidentally the same, in which an accident and a subject are taken in themselves, there are also others, i.e., those in which an accident is taken in conjunction with a subject. And when this occurs two senses of the term same have to be distinguished. (1) One of these is signified when an accident taken singly is predicated of the composite of subject and accident; and then the meaning is that the accident is the same as both of the simple terms taken together; for example, “musical” is the same as “musical man.” (2) The other is signified when the composite of accident and subject is predicated of the subject taken singly, as when we say that the man is a musical man; and then both of these (the composite “musical man”) are signified as being the same as this, i.e., as the subject taken singly. The same notion applies if an accident is taken singly and a subject is taken in combination with the accident. This would be the case, for example, if we were to say that what is musical is a musical man, or the reverse, for both “man” and “musical” are said to be accidentally the same as “musical man,” which is the composite, when these two are predicated of that one thing, and vice versa.
lib. 5 l. 11 n. 5 Ex hoc autem concludit ulterius conclusionem, quod in omnibus praedictis modis praedicandi, in quibus idem per accidens praedicatur, non praedicatur aliquod nomen universaliter. Non enim est verum dicere, quod omnis homo sit idem musico. Quod sic patet. Ea enim sola de universalibus praedicantur universaliter, quae secundum se insunt eidem. Propter hoc enim modus praedicandi, qui est universaliter praedicari, convenit cum conditione subiecti, quod est universale, quia praedicatum per se de subiecto praedicatur. Sed accidentia non praedicantur secundum se de universalibus, sed ratione singularium. Et ideo de universalibus non praedicantur universaliter. Sed de singularibus praedicantur simpliciter, quia idem videtur esse subiecto Socrates et Socrates musicus; non tamen praedicantur de singulari universaliter, quia de nullo potest praedicari aliquid universaliter quod non est universale. Socrates autem non est universale: nam non est in multis. Et ideo non praedicatur universaliter aliquid de Socrate, ut dicatur, omnis Socrates sicut omnis homo. Igitur quae diximus sic dicuntur eadem, scilicet per accidens, ut dictum est.	910. From this he draws the further conclusion that, in all of the foregoing modes of predication in which things are said to be accidentally the same, no term is predicated universally. For it is not true to say that every man is the same as what is musical. This becomes clear as follows: Only those attributes which belong essentially to the same subject are predicated universally of universals; for a predicate is predicated essentially of a subject because the mode of predication, which is a universal one, agrees with the condition of the subject, which is universal. However, accidents are not predicated essentially of universals, but only by reason of singular things; and thus they are not predicated universally of universals. But while accidents are predicated in an unqualified sense of singular things (for Socrates and musical Socrates seem to be the same in subject), they are not predicated universally of singular things; for nothing can be predicated universally of something that is not universal. But Socrates is not universal, because he is not present in many. Hence nothing can be predicated of Socrates so that we should say “every Socrates” as we say “every man.” The things of which we have spoken, then, are said to be one in this way, i.e., accidentally, as has been stated.
lib. 5 l. 11 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit alia vero ponit modos eiusdem per se; et dicit, quod aliqua dicuntur eadem secundum se eisdem modis, quibus dicitur unum per se. Omnes enim modi, quibus aliqua unum per se dicuntur, reducuntur ad duos: quorum unus est secundum quod dicuntur unum illa, quorum materia est una; sive accipiamus materiam eamdem secundum speciem, sive secundum numerum; ad quod pertinet secundus et tertius modus unius. Alio modo dicuntur unum, quorum substantia est una: vel ratione continuitatis, quod pertinet ad primum modum: vel propter unitatem et indivisibilitatem rationis, quod pertinet ad quartum et quintum. Unde et his modis dicuntur aliqua esse idem.	911. And others (446). Then he gives the ways in which things are said to be essentially the same (idem per se). He says that things are said to be essentially the same in the same number of ways in which they are said to be essentially one. Now all of the ways in which things are said to be essentially one are reduced to two. (1) Thus, in one sense, things are said to be essentially one because their matter is one, whether we take the matter to be the same in species or in number. The second and third ways in which things are one are reduced to this. (2) And, in another sense, things are said to be one because their substance is one, whether by reason of continuity, which pertains to the first way in which things are one, or by reason of the unity and indivisibility of their intelligible structure, which pertains to the fourth and fifth ways. Therefore some things are said to be the same in these ways too.
lib. 5 l. 11 n. 7 Ex hoc autem ulterius concludit, quod identitas est unitas vel unio; aut ex eo quod illa quae dicuntur idem, sunt plura secundum esse, et tamen dicuntur idem in quantum in aliquo uno conveniunt. Aut quia sunt unum secundum esse, sed intellectus utitur eo ut pluribus ad hoc quod relationem intelligat. Nam non potest intelligi relatio nisi inter duo extrema. Sicut cum dicitur aliquid esse idem sibiipsi. Tunc enim intellectus utitur eo quod est unum secundum rem, ut duobus. Alias eiusdem ad seipsum relationem designare non posset. Unde patet, quod si relatio semper requirit duo extrema, et in huiusmodi relationibus non sunt duo extrema secundum rem sed secundum intellectum solum, relatio identitatis non erit relatio realis, sed rationis tantum, secundum quod aliquid dicitur idem simpliciter. Secus autem est, quando aliqua duo dicuntur esse idem vel genere vel specie. Si enim identitatis relatio esset res aliqua praeter illud quod dicitur idem, res etiam, quae relatio est, cum sit idem sibi, pari ratione haberet aliam relationem, quae sibi esset idem, et sic in infinitum. Non est autem possibile in rebus in infinitum procedere. Sed in his quae sunt secundum intellectum nihil prohibet. Nam cum intellectus reflectatur super suum actum, intelligit se intelligere. Et hoc ipsum potest etiam intelligere, et sic in infinitum.	912. From this he further concludes that sameness (identitas) is a unity or union. For things which are said to be the same are either many in being, but are said to be the same inasmuch as they agree in some respect, or they are one in being, but the intellect uses this as many in order to understand a relationship; for a relationship can be understood only between two extremes. This is what happens, for example, when we say that something is the same as itself; for the intellect then uses something which is one in reality as though it were two, otherwise it could not designate the relationship of a thing to itself. Hence it is clear that, if a relationship always requires two extremes, and in relations of this kind there are not two extremes in reality but only in the mind, then the relationship of sameness according to which something is said to be absolutely the same, will not be a real relation but only a conceptual relation. This is not the case, however, when any two things are said to be the same either in genus or in species. For if the relationship of sameness were something in addition to what we designate by the term same, then since this reality, which is a relation, is the same as itself, it would have to have for a like reason something that is also the same as itself; and so on to infinity. Now while it is impossible to proceed to infinity in the case of real beings, nothing prevents this from taking place in the case of things which have being in the mind. For since the mind may reflect on its own act it can understand that it understands; and it can also understand this act in turn, and so on to infinity.