Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber6/lect4

Lecture 4

Latin	English
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 1 Postquam determinavit philosophus de ente per accidens, hic determinat de ente, quod significat veritatem propositionis: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo determinat qualiter dicatur huiusmodi ens. Secundo removet ipsum a principali consideratione huius scientiae, ibi, quoniam autem complexio et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit qualiter huiusmodi ens dicatur. Secundo respondet cuidam quaestioni, ibi, quomodo autem quod simul et cetera. Tertio manifestat quoddam quod dixerat, ibi, non est autem verum et falsum in rebus et cetera. Dicit ergo quod ens quoddam dicitur quasi verum, idest quod nihil aliud significat nisi veritatem. Cum enim interrogamus si homo est animal, respondetur quod est; per quod significatur, propositionem praemissam esse veram. Et eodem modo non ens significat quasi falsum. Cum enim respondetur, non est, significatur quod proposita oratio sit falsa. Hoc autem ens, quod dicitur quasi verum, et non ens, quod dicitur quasi falsum, consistit circa compositionem et divisionem. Voces enim incomplexae neque verum neque falsum significant; sed voces complexae, per affirmationem aut negationem veritatem aut falsitatem habent. Dicitur autem hic affirmatio compositio, quia significat praedicatum inesse subiecto. Negatio vero dicitur hic divisio, quia significat praedicatum a subiecto removeri.	1223. Having drawn his conclusions about accidental being, the Philosopher now settles the issue about the being which signifies the truth of a proposition; and in regard to this he does two things. First (556)C 1223), he determines the meaning of this kind of being. Second (1241), he excludes it from the principal study of this science (“But since combination”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he determines the meaning of this kind of being. Second (1227), he answers a question (“But how [the intellect]”). Third (1230) he clarifies a statement which he had made (“For what is true”) . He says, then, that “in one sense being means what is true,” i.e., it signifies nothing else than truth; for when we ask if man is an animal, the answer is that he is, by which it is meant that this proposition is true. And in the same way non-being signifies in a sense what is false; for when one answers that he is not, it is meant that the statement made is false. Now this ‘being which means what is true, and non-being which means what is false, depend on combination and separation; for simple terms signify neither truth nor falsity, whereas complex terms have truth and falsity through affirmation or negation. And here affirmation is called combination because it signifies that a predicate belongs to a subject, whereas negation is called separation because it signifies that a predicate does not belong to a subject.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 2 Et cum voces sint signa intellectuum, similiter dicendum est de conceptionibus intellectus. Quae enim sunt simplices, non habent veritatem neque falsitatem, sed solum illae quae sunt complexae per affirmationem vel negationem.	1224. Further, since words are the signs of concepts, we must speak in the same way about the concepts of the intellect; for those which are simple do not have truth and falsity, but only those which are complex through affirmation or negation.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 3 Et quia praedictum ens et non ens, scilicet verum et falsum, consistit in compositione et divisione, ideo similiter consistit circa partitionem contradictionis. Unaquaeque enim contradictionum partiuntur sibi invicem verum et falsum; ita quod altera pars est vera, et altera pars est falsa. Cum enim contradictio ex affirmatione et negatione constituatur, utraque autem harum ex praedicato sit et subiecto, praedicatum et subiectum dupliciter se possunt habere. Aut enim sunt coniuncta in rerum natura, sicut homo et animal; aut sunt disiuncta, ut homo et asinus.	1225. And since the being and non-being just mentioned—the true and the false—depend on combination and separation, they therefore also depend on the division of a contradiction; for each part of a contradiction separates the true and the false from each other so that one part is true and the other is false. For since a contradiction is constituted of an affirmation and a negation, and each of these is constituted of a predicate and a subject, then a predicate and a subject can be related to each other in two ways; because they are either connected in reality, as man and animal, or are unconnected, as man and ass.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 4 Si ergo formantur duae contradictiones: una ex terminis coniunctis, ut, homo est animal, homo non est animal; alia ex terminis disiunctis, ut, homo est asinus, homo non est asinus, utramque contradictionem inter se condividunt verum et falsum; ita quod verum pro parte sua habet affirmationem in composito, idest in terminis coniunctis, et negationem in disiuncto, idest in terminis disiunctis. Hae enim duae sunt verae, homo est animal et homo non est asinus. Sed falsum pro sua parte habet contradictionem partitionis, idest contradictoria eorum, quae cedunt in partem veri. Habet enim falsum pro sua parte negationem in coniuncto, et affirmationem in disiuncto. Hae enim duae sunt falsae, homo non est animal, et homo est asinus.	1226. Hence, if two contradictions are formed, one from connected terms, as “Man is an animal” and “Man is not an animal,” and another from unconnected terms, as “Man is an ass” and “Man is not an ass,” then truth and falsity divide each contradiction between themselves, so that the true on its side “resides in affirmation when there is combination,” i.e., in connected terms, and “in negation when there is separation,” i.e., in unconnected terms. For these two propositions “Man is an animal” and “Man is not an ass” are true. But the false on its side resides in the reverse of this division, i.e., in the contradictory of those statements which fall on the side of the true, because it consists in the negating of connected terms and in the affirming of unconnected terms; for these two propositions “Man is not an animal” and “Man is an ass” are false.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit quomodo autem removet quamdam dubitationem, quae posset occasionari ex dictis. Dixerat enim quod verum et falsum consistunt in compositione et divisione, vocum quidem secundario, intellectus autem primo et principaliter: omnis autem compositio vel divisio plurium est: et ideo potest esse dubium, quomodo ista quae componuntur et dividuntur, intellectus intelligat: utrum scilicet simul, aut separatim. Sed dicit, quod hoc pertinet ad alium sermonem, scilicet ad librum de anima.	1227. But how [the intellect] (557). Here he dismisses a problem that could arise from the foregoing remarks. For he said that the true and the false consist secondarily in the combination and separation of words, but primarily and properly in the combination and separation which the intellect makes. Now every combination and separation involves a plurality, and therefore the problem can arise how the intellect understands things which are combined and separated, whether together or separately. But he says that this pertains to another discussion, namely, to The Soul.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 6 Et quia simul dupliciter dicitur, quandoque enim significat unitatem, sicut dicimus simul esse secundum tempus quae sunt in uno et eodem instanti: quandoque vero significat coniunctionem et vicinitatem eorum quae consequenter se habent, sicut dicimus duos homines esse simul secundum locum, quorum loca sunt coniuncta et consequenter se habentia, et secundum tempus, quae se tempore consequuntur: ideo exponit quaestionem motam, qua quaesivit utrum simul aut separatim intelligat intellectus ea quae componuntur et dividuntur: dicens, quod non intelligit simul secundum quod aliqua dicuntur esse simul, ut consequenter se habent; sed secundum quod aliqua dicuntur esse simul in eo quod fit aliquid unum.	1228. Now together is used in two senses. (1) For sometimes it signifies a unity, as when we say that those things which exist at one and the same instant are together in time; and (2) sometimes it signifies the connection and proximity of things which succeed each other, as when we say that two men are together in place when their places are joined and next to each other, and in time when their times succeed each other. And since this is so, he therefore answers the proposed question which asks whether the intellect understands things which are combined or separated, together or separately, by saying that it does not understand them together according as some things are said to be together (~) insofar as they succeed each other, but (+) according as they are said to be together insofar as they form one thing.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 7 Et in hoc innuitur solutio quaestionis. Si enim intellectus intelligat hominem et animal unumquodque secundum se, ut sunt duo quaedam, intelligit ea consequenter duabus conceptionibus simplicibus, non formans ex eis affirmationem neque negationem. Cum autem ex eis format compositionem vel divisionem, intelligit ambo ut unum, inquantum scilicet ex eis aliquod unum fit: sicut etiam partes cuiuslibet totius intelligit intellectus ut unum, intelligendo ipsum totum. Non enim intelligit domum intelligendo prius fundamentum et postea parietem et postea tectum; sed omnia ista intelligit simul, inquantum ex eis fit unum. Similiter intelligit praedicatum et subiectum simul, inquantum ex eis fit unum, scilicet affirmatio et negatio.	1229. And in this way he indicates the solution of this question. For (1) if the intellect understands a man and an animal as they are in themselves, as two distinct things, it understands them successively by two simple concepts without forming an affirmation or a negation from them. But (2) when it combines or separates them, it understands them both as one thing, i.e., according as one thing is constituted from them; just as the intellect also understands the parts of a whole as one thing by understanding the whole itself. For the intellect does not understand a house by understanding first the foundation and then the walls and then the roof, but it understands all of these together insofar as one thing is constituted from them. And in a similar way it understands a predicate and a subject together insofar as one judgment is constituted from them, namely, an affirmation or a negation.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit non est autem. Manifestat quoddam quod dixerat scilicet quod verum et falsum sint in compositione et divisione. Quod quidem probat per modum cuiusdam divisionis. Eorum enim, quae dicuntur voce, quaedam sunt in rebus extra animam, quaedam autem sunt in anima tantum. Album enim et nigrum sunt extra animam; sed rationes horum sunt in anima tantum. Posset autem aliquis credere, quod verum et falsum sint etiam in rebus sicut bonum et malum; ita quod verum sit quoddam bonum, et falsum sit quoddam malum: hoc enim oporteret si verum et falsum essent in rebus. Verum enim quamdam perfectionem naturae significat, falsum vero defectum. Omnis autem perfectio in rebus existens, ad perfectionem et bonitatem naturae pertinet, defectus vero et privatio ad malitiam.	1230. For what is true (558). He explains a statement which he had made to the effect that truth and falsity consist in combination and separation; and he proves this by means of the process of elimination. For some of the things significd by a word are found in things outside of the mind, but others are found only in the mind. For white and black are found outside of the mind, but their concepts are found only in the mind. Now someone might think that the true and the false are also found in things, just as good and evil are, so that the true is a kind of good and the false a kind of evil; for this would be necessary if truth and falsity were found in things, since truth signifies a certain perfection of nature, and falsity a defect. Moreover, every perfection existing in things pertains to the perfection and goodness of their nature, whereas every defect and privation pertains to evil.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 9 Sed ipse hoc negat; dicens, quod verum et falsum non sunt in rebus, ita quod verum rationis sit quoddam bonum naturae, et falsum sit quoddam malum; sed sunt tantum in mente, idest in intellectu.	1231. But he denies this, saying that the true and the false are not found in things in such a way that what is true on the part of reason is a kind of natural good, and what is false a kind of evil, but “they are found only in the mind,” or intellect.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 10 Intellectus autem habet duas operationes, quarum una vocatur indivisibilium intelligentia, per quam intellectus format simplices conceptiones rerum intelligendo quod quid est uniuscuiusque rei. Alia eius operatio est per quam componit et dividit.	1232. The intellect, however, has two operations. One of these is called the understanding of indivisibles, and this is the operation by which the intellect forms simple concepts of things by understanding the whatness of each one of them. The other operation is that by which the intellect combines and separates.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 11 Verum autem et falsum, etsi sint in mente, non tamen sunt circa illam operationem mentis, qua intellectus format simplices conceptiones, et quod quid est rerum. Et hoc est quod dicit, quod verum et falsum, circa simplicia et quod quid est, nec in mente est. Unde relinquitur per locum a divisione, quod ex quo non est in rebus, nec est in mente circa simplicia et quod quid est, quod sit circa compositionem et divisionem mentis primo et principaliter; et secundario vocis, quae significat conceptionem mentis. Et ulterius concludit, quod quaecumque oportet speculari circa ens et non ens sic dictum, scilicet prout ens significat verum, et non ens falsum, posterius perscrutandum est, scilicet in fine noni et etiam in libro de anima, et in logicalibus. Tota enim logica videtur esse de ente et non ente sic dicto.	1233. Now while truth and falsity are in the mind, they do not pertain to that operation by which the mind forms simple concepts and the whatness of things. This is what he means when he says “with regard to simple concepts and the whatness of things there is neither truth nor falsity in the mind.” Hence as a result of this process of elimination it follows that since truth and falsity are neither in things nor in the mind when it apprehends simple concepts and the whatness of things, they must pertain primarily and principally to the combination and separation which the mind makes, and secondarily to that of words, which signify the mind’s conceptions. Further, he concludes that everything which must be considered about being and non-being in this sense, namely, insofar as being signifies the true, and non-being the false, “must be considered later on,” i.e., at the end of Book IX (1895), and also in The Soul, and in his works on logic. For the whole of logic seems to be devoted to the being and non-being spoken of in this way.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 12 Sciendum est autem, quod cum quaelibet cognitio perficiatur per hoc quod similitudo rei cognitae est in cognoscente; sicut perfectio rei cognitae consistit in hoc quod habet talem formam per quam est res talis, ita perfectio cognitionis consistit in hoc, quod habet similitudinem formae praedictae. Ex hoc autem, quod res cognita habet formam sibi debitam, dicitur esse bona; et ex hoc, quod aliquem defectum habet, dicitur esse mala. Et eodem modo ex hoc quod cognoscens habet similitudinem rei cognitae, dicitur habere veram cognitionem: ex hoc vero, quod deficit a tali similitudine, dicitur falsam cognitionem habere. Sicut ergo bonum et malum designant perfectiones, quae sunt in rebus: ita verum et falsum designant perfectiones cognitionum.	1234. Now it must be noted that any kind of knowing attains its completion as a result of the likeness of the thing known existing in the knowing subject. Therefore, just as the completion of the thing known depends upon this thing having the kind of form which makes it to be such and such a thing, in a similar fashion the completion of the act of knowing depends upon the knowing subject having the likeness of this form. Moreover, just as the thing known is said to be good because it has the form which it ought to have, and evil because it is defective in some way, in a similar fashion the knowledge of the knowing subject is said to be true because this subject possesses a likeness of the thing known, and false because its knowledge falls short of such a likeness. Therefore, just as good and evil designate perfections of things, in a similar way truth and falsity designate perfections of knowledge.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 13 Licet autem in cognitione sensitiva possit esse similitudo rei cognitae, non tamen rationem huius similitudinis cognoscere ad sensum pertinet, sed solum ad intellectum. Et ideo, licet sensus de sensibili possit esse verus, tamen sensus veritatem non cognoscit, sed solum intellectus: et propter hoc dicitur quod verum et falsum sunt in mente.	1235. But even though in sensory perception there can be a likeness of the thing known, nevertheless it does not belong to the senses to know the formality of this likeness but only to the intellect. Hence, even though the senses can be true in relation to sensible objects, they still cannot know the truth, but only the intellect can do this. And this is why it is said that truth and falsity are in the mind.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 14 Intellectus autem habet apud se similitudinem rei intellectae, secundum quod rationes incomplexorum concipit; non tamen propter hoc ipsam similitudinem diiudicat, sed solum cum componit vel dividit. Cum enim intellectus concipit hoc quod est animal rationale mortale, apud se similitudinem hominis habet; sed non propter hoc cognoscit se hanc similitudinem habere, quia non iudicat hominem esse animal rationale et mortale: et ideo in hac sola secunda operatione intellectus est veritas et falsitas, secundum quam non solum intellectus habet similitudinem rei intellectae, sed etiam super ipsam similitudinem reflectitur, cognoscendo et diiudicando ipsam. Ex his igitur patet, quod veritas non est in rebus, sed solum in mente, et etiam in compositione et divisione.	1236. And although the intellect has within itself a likeness of the things known according as it forms concepts of incomplex things, it does not for that reason make a judgment about this likeness. This occurs only when it combines or separates. For when the intellect forms a concept of mortal rational animal, it has within itself a likeness of man; but it does not for that reason know that it has this likeness, since it does not judge that “Man is a mortal rational animal.” There is truth and falsity, then, only in this second operation of the intellect, according to which it not only possesses a likeness of the thing known but also reflects on this likeness by knowing it and by making a judgment about it. Hence it is evident from this that truth is not found in things but only in the mind, and that it depends upon combination and separation.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 15 Et si res dicatur aliquando falsa, vel etiam definitio, hoc erit in ordine ad affirmationem et ad negationem. Dicitur enim res falsa, ut in fine quinti habitum est, aut quae non est omnino, sicut diametrum commensurabilem; aut quia est quidem, sed est apta nata videri aliter quam sit. Et similiter definitio dicitur falsa aut quia nullius, vel quia assignatur alteri quam ei cuius est. In omnibus enim his modis patet quod falsum in rebus vel in definitionibus dicitur, ratione falsae enunciationis de ipsis.	1237. And if a thing is sometimes said to be false, and the same applies to a definition, this will be so in reference to affirmation and negation. For a false thing, as is said at the end of Book V (1128), means (a) one that does not exist in any way (for example, the commensurability of a diagonal) or (b) one that exists but is naturally disposed to appear otherwise than it is. Similarly a definition is said to be false either because it is not the definition of any existing thing or because it is assigned to something other than that of which it is the definition. For it is evident that falsity is said to be in things or in definitions in all of these ways by reason of a false statement made about them.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 16 Et similiter patet de vero. Nam res dicitur vera, quando habet propriam formam, quae ei ostenditur inesse. Et definitio vera, quae vere competit ei cui assignatur.	1238. The same thing is evident in the case of truth. For a thing is said to be true when it has the proper form which is shown to be present in it; and a definition is said to be true when it really fits the thing to which it is assigned.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 17 Patet etiam quod nihil prohibet verum esse quoddam bonum, secundum quod intellectus cognoscens accipitur ut quaedam res. Sicut enim quaelibet alia res dicitur bona sua perfectione, ita intellectus cognoscens, sua veritate.	1239. It is also evident that nothing prevents truth from being a kind of good insofar as the knowing intellect is taken as a thing. For just as every other thing is said to be good because of its perfection, in a similar fashion the intellect which knows is said to be good because of its truth.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 18 Apparet etiam ex his quae hic dicuntur, quod verum et falsum, quae sunt obiecta cognitionis, sunt in mente. Bonum vero et malum, quae sunt obiecta appetitus, sunt in rebus. Item quod, sicut cognitio perficitur per hoc quod res cognitae sunt in cognoscente, ita appetitus quicumque perficitur per ordinem appetentis ad res appetibiles.	1240. It is also evident from the statements made here that the true and the false, which are objects of knowing, are found in the mind, but that good and evil, which are the objects of appetite, are found in things. And it is also evident that, just as the act of knowing attains its completion as a result of the things known existing in the knowing subject, in a similar fashion every appetite attains its completion as a result of the ordering of the appetitive subject to its appetible objects.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 19 Deinde cum dicit quoniam autem excludit ens verum et ens per accidens a principali consideratione huius doctrinae; dicens, quod compositio et divisio, in quibus est verum et falsum, est in mente, et non in rebus. Invenitur siquidem et in rebus aliqua compositio; sed talis compositio efficit unam rem, quam intellectus recipit ut unum simplici conceptione. Sed illa compositio vel divisio, qua intellectus coniungit vel dividit sua concepta, est tantum in intellectu, non in rebus. Consistit enim in quadam duorum comparatione conceptorum; sive illa duo sint idem secundum rem, sive diversa. Utitur enim intellectus quandoque uno ut duobus compositionem formans; sicut dicitur, homo est homo: ex quo patet quod talis compositio est solum in intellectu, non in rebus. Et ideo illud, quod est ita ens sicut verum in tali compositione consistens, est alterum ab his quae proprie sunt entia, quae sunt res extra animam, quarum unaquaeque est aut quod quid est, idest substantia, aut quale, aut quantum, aut aliquod incomplexum, quod mens copulat vel dividit.	1241. But since combination (559). Here he excludes being in the sense of the true and being in the sense of the accidental from the principal consideration of this science. He says that combination and separation, on which truth and falsity depend, are found in the mind and not in things; and that if any combination is also found in things, such combination produces a unity which the intellect understands as one by a simple concept. But that combination or separation by which the intellect combines or separates its concepts is found only in the intellect and not in things. For it consists in a certain comparison of two concepts, whether these two are identical or distinct in reality. For sometimes the intellect uses one concept as two when it forms a combination, as when we say “Man is man”; and it is clear from this that such a combination is found only in the intellect and not in things. Therefore whatever is a being in the sense of the true, and consists in such a combination, differs from those things which are beings in the proper sense and are realities outside of the mind, cach of which is “either what a thing is,” i.e., substance, or of what sort, or how much, or any of the simple concepts which the mind combines or separates.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 20 Et ideo utrumque est praetermittendum; scilicet et ens per accidens, et ens quod significat verum; quia huius, scilicet entis per accidens, causa est indeterminata, et ideo non cadit sub arte, ut ostensum est. Illius vero, scilicet entis veri, causa est aliqua passio mentis, idest operatio intellectus componentis et dividentis. Et ideo pertinet ad scientiam de intellectu.	1242. Therefore both being in the sense of the accidental and being in the sense of the true must be excluded from this science. For the cause of the former—being in the sense of the accidental—is the indeterminate, and therefore it does not come within the scope of art, as has been shown (1174); and the cause of the latter—being in the sense of the true—is “some positive state of mind,” i.e., the operation of the intellect combining and separating, and therefore it belongs to that science which studies the intellect.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 21 Et alia ratio est, quia utrumque, scilicet ens verum et ens per accidens, sunt circa aliquod genus entis, non circa ens simpliciter per se quod est in rebus; et non ostendunt aliquam aliam naturam entis existentem extra per se entia. Patet enim quod ens per accidens est ex concursu accidentaliter entium extra animam, quorum unumquodque est per se. Sicut grammaticum musicum licet sit per accidens, tamen et grammaticum et musicum est per se ens, quia utrumque per se acceptum, habet causam determinatam. Et similiter intellectus compositionem et divisionem facit circa res, quae sub praedicamentis continentur.	1243. Another reason for excluding them is that, while “both of these,” namely, being in the sense of the true and accidental being, (+) belong to some class of being, (~) they do not belong to being in the proper sense, which is found in reality. Nor do they designate another kind of being distinct from beings in the proper sense. For it is evident that accidental being is a result of the coincidental connection of beings which exist outside the mind, each of which is a being of itself. For even though the grammatical musical has being only accidentally, nevertheless both grammatical and musical are beings in the proper sense, because each of these taken by itself has a definite cause. Similarly the intellect combines and separates those things which are contained in the categories.
lib. 6 l. 4 n. 22 Unde si determinetur sufficienter illud genus entis quod continetur sub praedicamento, manifestum erit et de ente per accidens, et de ente vero. Et propter hoc huiusmodi entia praetermittuntur. Sed perscrutandae sunt causae et principia ipsius entis per se dicti, inquantum est ens. De quo palam est ex his quae determinavimus in quinto libro; ubi dictum est, quoties unumquodque talium nominum dicitur, quod ens dicitur multipliciter, sicut infra in principio septimi sequetur.	1244. If, then, the class of being contained in the categories is sufficiently dealt with, the nature of accidental being and being in the sense of the true will be evident. And for this reason we must exclude these types of being and investigate the causes and principles of beings as beings in the proper sense. This is also evident from what has been established in Book V (885), where, in discussing the different senses of such terms, it was stated that being is used in many senses, as follows below at the beginning of Book VII (1240).