Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber5/lect19

Lecture 19

Latin	English
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 1 Hic prosequitur de nominibus, quae significant conditiones perfecti. Perfectum autem, ut ex praemissis patet, est terminatum et absolutum, non dependens ab alio, et non privatum, sed habens ea, quae sibi secundum suum genus competunt. Et ideo primo ponit hoc nomen terminus. Secundo hoc quod dicitur per se, ibi, et secundum quod dicitur. Tertio hoc nomen habitus, ibi, habitus vero dicitur. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit rationem termini; dicens, quod terminus dicitur quod est ultimum cuiuslibet rei, ita quod nihil de primo terminato est extra ipsum terminum; et omnia quae sunt eius, continentur intra ipsum. Dicit autem primi quia contingit id, quod est ultimum primi, esse principium secundi; sicut nunc quod est ultimum praeteriti, est principium futuri.	1044. Here Aristotle proceeds to examine the terms which signify the conditions necessary for perfection. Now what is perfect or complete, as is clear from the above, is what is determinate and absolute, independent of anything else, and not deprived of anything but having whatever befits it in its own line. Therefore, first, he deals with the term limit (boundary or terminus); second (1050), with the phrase in itself (“The phrase according to which”); and third (1062), with the term having (“Having means”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he gives the meaning of limit. He says that limit means the last part of anything, such that no part of what is first limited lies outside this limit; and all things which belong to it are contained within it. He says “first” because the last part of a first thing may be the starting point of a second thing; for example, the now of time, which is the last point of the past, is the beginning of the future.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 2 Et quaecumque secundo ponit quatuor modos, quibus dicitur terminus; quorum primus est secundum quod in qualibet specie magnitudinis, finis magnitudinis, vel habentis magnitudinem, dicitur terminus; sicut punctus dicitur terminus lineae, et superficies corporis, vel etiam lapidis habentis quantitatem.	1045. And limit means the form (504). Second, he gives four senses in which the term limit is used: The first of these applies to any kind of continuous quantity insofar as the terminus of a continuous quantity, or of a thing having continuous quantity, is called a limit; for example, a point is called the limit of a line, and a surface the limit of a body, or also of a stone, which has quantity.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 3 Secundus modus est similis primo, secundum quod unum extremum motus vel actionis dicitur terminus, hoc scilicet ad quod est motus, et non a quo: sicut terminus generationis est esse, non autem non esse; quamvis quandoque ambo extrema motus dicantur terminus largo modo, scilicet a quo, et in quod; prout dicimus, quod omnis motus est inter duos terminos.	1046. The second sense of limit is similar to the first inasmuch as one extreme of a motion or activity is called a limit, i.e., that toward which there is motion, and not that from which there is motion, as the limit of generation is being and not non-being. Sometimes, however, both extremes of motion are called limits in a broad sense, i.e., both that from which as well as that to which, inasmuch as we say that every motion is between two limits or extremes.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 4 Tertius modus dicitur terminus, cuius causa fit aliquid; hoc enim est ultimum intentionis, sicut terminus secundo modo dictus est ultimum motus vel operationis.	1047. In a third sense limit means that for the sake of which something comes to be, for this is the terminus of an intention, just as limit in the second sense meant the terminus of a motion or an operation.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 5 Quartus modus est secundum quod substantia rei, quae est essentia et definitio significans quod quid est res, dicitur terminus. Est enim terminus cognitionis. Incipit enim cognitio rei ab aliquibus signis exterioribus quibus pervenitur ad cognoscendum rei definitionem; quo cum perventum fuerit, habetur perfecta cognitio de re. Vel dicitur terminus cognitionis definitio, quia infra ipsam continentur ea, per quae scitur res. Si autem mutetur una differentia, vel addatur, vel subtrahatur, iam non erit eadem definitio. Si autem est terminus cognitionis, oportet quod sit rei terminus, quia cognitio fit per assimilationem cognoscentis ad rem cognitam.	1048. In a fourth sense limit means the substance of a thing, i.e., the essence of a thing or the definition signifying what a thing is. For this is the limit or terminus of knowledge, because knowledge of a thing begins with certain external signs from which we come to know a thing’s definition, and when we have arrived at it we have complete knowledge of the thing. Or the definition is called the limit or terminus of knowledge because under it are contained the notes by which the thing is known. And if one difference is changed, added, or subtracted, the definition will not remain the same. Now if it [i.e., the definition] is the limit of knowledge, it must also be the limit of the thing, because knowledge is had through the assimilation of the knower to the thing known.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit quare palam concludit comparationem termini ad principium; dicens, quod quoties dicitur principium, toties dicitur terminus, et adhuc amplius; quia omne principium est terminus, sed non terminus omnis est principium. Id enim ad quod motus est, terminus est, et nullo modo principium est: illud vero a quo est motus, est principium et terminus, ut ex praedictis patet.	1049. Hence it is clear (505). Here he concludes by comparing a limit with a principle, saying that limit has as many meanings as principle has, and even more, because every principle is a limit but not every limit is a principle. For that toward which there is motion is a limit, but it is not in any way a principle, whereas that from which there is motion is both a principle and a limit, as is clear from what was said above (1046).
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit et secundum hic determinat de per se: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo determinat de hoc, quod dicitur secundum quod; quod est communius quam secundum se. Secundo concludit modos eius, quod dicitur secundum se, ibi, quare secundum se. Tertio, quia uterque dictorum modorum secundum aliquem modum significat dispositionem, determinat de nomine dispositionis, ibi, dispositio. Circa primum ponit quatuor modos eius quod dicitur secundum quod; quorum primus est, prout species, idest forma, et substantia rei, idest essentia, est id, secundum quod aliquid esse dicitur; sicut secundum Platonicos, per se bonum, idest idea boni, est illud, secundum quod aliquid bonum dicitur.	1050. The phrase “according to which” (506). Here he deals with the phrase in itself; and in regard to this he does three things. First, he lays down the meaning of the phrase according to which, which is more common than the phrase in itself. Second (1054), he draws his conclusion as to the ways in which the phrase in itself is used (“Hence the phrase”). Third (1058), he establishes the meaning of the term disposition, because each of the senses in which we use the phrases mentioned above somehow signifies disposition. In regard to the first, he gives four senses in which the phrase according to which is used: The first has to do with the “species,” i.e., the form, or “the substance of each thing,” or its essence, inasmuch as this is that according to which something is said to be; for example, according to the Platonists “the good itself,” i.e., the Idea of the Good, is that according to which something is said to be good.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 8 Secundus modus est, prout subiectum, in quo primo aliquid natum est fieri, dicitur secundum quod, sicut color primo fit in superficie; et ideo dicitur, quod corpus est coloratum secundum superficiem. Hic autem modus differt a praedicto, quia praedictus pertinet ad formam, et hic pertinet ad materiam.	1051. This phrase has a second meaning insofar as the subject in which some attribute is naturally disposed to first come into being is termed “that according to which,” as color first comes into being in surface; and therefore it is said that a body is colored according to its surface. Now this sense differs from the preceding one, because the preceding sense pertains to form, but this last sense pertains to matter.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 9 Tertius modus est, prout universaliter quaelibet causa dicitur secundum quod. Unde toties dicitur secundum quod quoties et causa. Idem enim est quaerere secundum quod venit, et cuius causa venit; similiter secundum quod paralogizatum, aut syllogizatum est, et qua causa facti sunt syllogismi.	1052. There is a third sense in which this phrase is used, inasmuch as any cause or reason in general is said to be “that according to which.” Hence the phrase “according to which” is used in the same number of senses as the term reason. For it is the same thing to ask, “According to what does he come?” and “For what reason does he come? “ And in like manner it is the same to ask, “According to what has he reasoned incorrectly or simply reasoned, and, for what reason has he reasoned?”
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 10 Quartus modus est prout secundum quod significat positionem et locum; sicut dicitur, iste stetit secundum hunc, idest iuxta hunc, et ille vadit secundum hunc, idest iuxta hunc; quae omnia significant positionem et locum. Et hoc manifestius in Graeco idiomate apparet.	1053. This phrase according to which (secundum quid) is used in a fourth sense inasmuch as it signifies position and place; as in the statement, “according to which he stands,” i.e., next to which, and, “according to which he walks,” i.e., along which he walks; and both of these signify place and position. This appears more clearly in the Greek idiom.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit quare secundum concludit ex praedictis, quatuor modos dicendi per se, vel secundum se. Quorum primus est, quando definitio significans quid est esse uniuscuiusque, dicitur ei inesse secundum se, sicut Callias et quod quid erat esse Calliam, idest et essentia rei, ita se habent quod unum inest secundum se alteri. Non autem solum tota definitio dicitur de definito secundum se; sed aliquo modo etiam quaecumque insunt in definitione dicente quid est, praedicantur de definito secundum se, sicut Callias est animal secundum se. Animal enim inest in ratione Calliae. Nam Callias est quoddam animal; et poneretur in eius definitione, si singularia definitionem habere possent. Et hi duo modi sub uno comprehenduntur. Nam eadem ratione, definitio et pars definitionis per se de unoquoque praedicantur. Est enim hic primus modus per se, qui ponitur in libro posteriorum; et respondet primo modo eius quod dicitur secundum quod, superius posito.	1054. Hence the phrase (507). From what has been said above he draws four senses in which the phrase in itself or of itself is used: The first of these is found when the definition, which signifies the quiddity of each thing, is said to belong to each in itself, as Callias “and the quiddity of Callias,” i.e., the essence of the thing, are such that one belongs to the other “in itself.” And not only the whole definition is predicated of the thing defined in itself, but so too in a way everything which belongs to the definition, which expresses the quiddity, is predicated of the thing defined in itself. For example, Callias is an animal in himself. For animal belongs in the definition of Callias, because Callias is an individual animal, and this would be given in his definition if individual things could have a definition. And these two senses are included under one, because both the definition and a part of the definition are predicated of each thing in itself for the same reason. For this is the first type of essential predication given in the Posterior Analytics; and it corresponds to the first sense given above (1050) in which we use the phrase according to which.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 12 Secundus modus est, quando aliquid ostenditur esse in aliquo, sicut in primo subiecto, cum inest ei per se. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter: quia vel primum subiectum accidentis est ipsum totum subiectum de quo praedicatur (sicut superficies dicitur colorata vel alba secundum seipsam. Primum enim subiectum coloris est superficies, et ideo corpus dicitur coloratum ratione superficiei). Vel etiam aliqua pars eius; sicut homo dicitur vivens secundum se, quia aliqua pars eius est primum subiectum vitae, scilicet anima. Et hic est secundus modus dicendi per se in posterioribus positus, quando scilicet subiectum ponitur in definitione praedicati. Subiectum enim primum et proprium, ponitur in definitione accidentis proprii.	1055. This phrase is used in a second sense when something is shown to be in something else as in a first subject, when it belongs to it of itself. This can happen in two ways: (a) for either the first subject of an accident is the whole subject itself of which the accident is predicated (as a surface is said to be colored or white in itself; for the first subject of color is surface, and therefore a body is said to be colored by reason of its surface); or (b) also the subject of the accident is some part of the subject, just as a man is said to be alive in himself, because part of him, namely, the soul, is the first subject of life. This is the second type of essential predication given in the Posterior Analytics, namely, that in which the subject is given in the definition of the predicate. For the first and proper subject is given in the definition of a proper accident.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 13 Tertius modus est prout secundum se esse dicitur illud, cuius non est aliqua alia causa; sicut omnes propositiones immediatae, quae scilicet per aliquod medium non probantur. Nam medium in demonstrationibus propter quid est causa, quod praedicatum insit subiecto. Unde, licet homo habeat multas causas, sicut animal et bipes, quae sunt causae formales eius; tamen huius propositionis, homo est homo, cum sit immediata, nihil est causa; et propter hoc homo est homo secundum se. Et ad hunc modum reducitur quartus modus dicendi per se in posterioribus positus, quando effectus praedicatur de causa; ut cum dicitur interfectus interiit propter interfectionem, vel infrigidatum infriguit vel refriguit propter refrigerium.	1056. This phrase is used in a third sense when something having no cause is spoken of as in itself; as all immediate propositions, i.e., those which are not proved by a middle term. For in a priori demonstrations the middle term is the cause of the predicate’s belonging to the subject. Hence, although man has many causes, for example, animal and two-footed, which are his formal cause, still nothing is the cause of the proposition “Man is man,” since it is an immediate one; and for this reason man is man in himself. And to this sense is reduced the fourth type of essential predication given in the Posterior Analytics, the case in which an effect is predicated of a cause; as when it is said that the slain man perished by slaying, or that the thing cooled was made cold or chilled by cooling.
lib. 5 l. 19 n. 14 Quartus modus est, prout illa dicuntur secundum se inesse alicui, quae ei soli inquantum soli insunt. Quod dicit ad differentiam priorum modorum, in quibus non dicebatur secundum se inesse ex eo quod est soli inesse. Quamvis etiam ibi aliquid soli inesset, ut definitio definito. Hic autem secundum se dicitur ratione solitudinis. Nam hoc quod dico secundum se, significat aliquid separatum; sicut dicitur homo secundum se esse, quando solus est. Et ad hunc reducitur tertius modus in posterioribus positus, et quartus modus dicendi secundum quod, qui positionem importabat.	1057. This phrase is used in a fourth sense inasmuch as those things are said to belong to something in themselves which belong to it alone and precisely as belonging to it alone. He says this in order to differentiate this sense of in itself from the preceding senses, in which it was not said that a thing belongs to something in itself because it belongs to it alone; although in that sense too something would belong to it alone, as the definition to the thing defined. But here something is said to be in itself by reason of its exclusiveness. For in itself signifies something separate, as a man is said to be by himself when he is alone. And to this sense is reduced the third sense given in the Posterior Analytics, and the fourth sense of the phrase according to which, which implies position.