Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber7/lect16

Lecture 16

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 1 Hic philosophus manifestat quod superius sub dubitatione reliquit: scilicet quomodo aliqua substantia componatur ex partibus; cum supra ostenderit, quod substantia non potest componi neque ex passionibus, neque ex substantiis actu existentibus. Et ideo hic ostendit, quod partes, ex quibus componuntur substantiae, non sunt substantiae actu existentes, sed potentia; dicens, quod cum supra dictum sit, quod quaedam sunt quae ab omnibus existimantur substantiae esse, scilicet substantiae sensibiles, et partes earum, manifestum est, quod plurimae huiusmodi substantiarum sunt in potentia, et non in actu; ut patet de partibus animalium, et de omnibus aliis partibus.	1631. Here the Philosopher clears up a point which remained a difficulty above, namely, how a substance is composed of parts, when he showed above (518:C 1318) that a substance could be composed neither of its accidental attributes nor of actually existing substances (657:C 1588). Therefore he shows here (677) that the parts of which substances are composed are not actually existing substances but potential ones. He says that, since it was stated above (565:C 1263) that there are some things which are thought by all to be substances, namely, sensible substances and their parts, it is evident that most substances of this kind are potential and not actual, as is clear of the parts of animals and all other parts.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 2 Dicit autem partes esse plurimas harum substantiarum, quia, cum unumquodque totum ex pluribus componatur, oportet plures esse partes componentes quam tota composita. Et quod partes sint in potentia tantum, patet, quia nihil de numero earum est separatum; immo omnes partes inquantum sunt partes, sunt unitae in toto.	1632. He says that the parts of these substances are many, because since each whole is composed of many parts, there must be more component parts than composite wholes. And it is evident that parts exist potentially, because none of them are separate, but all parts as parts are rather united in the whole.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 3 Omne enim quod est in actu, oportet esse ab aliis distinctum, quia res una dividitur ab alia per suum actum et per formam, sicut supra dictum est. Quando autem ea, quae ponuntur partes, fuerint separata abinvicem dissoluto toto, tunc quidem sunt entia in actu, non quidem ut partes, sed ut materia existens sub privatione formae totius. Sicut patet de terra et igne et aere, quae quando sunt partes corporis mixti, non sunt actu existentia, sed potentia in mixto; cum vero separantur, tunc sunt in actu existentia, et non partes. Nullum enim elementorum antequam digeratur, idest antequam per alterationem debitam veniat ad mixtionem, et fiat unum mixtum ex eis, est unum cum alio, nisi sicut cumulus lapidum est unum secundum quid, et non simpliciter. Vel melius nihil ipsorum, idest nihil ex ipsis est unum et cetera.	1633. For everything which is actual must be distinct from other things, because one thing is distinguished from another by its own actuality and form, as was stated above (658)C 1588). But when those things which are assumed to be parts have been separated from each other when the whole is dissolved, they are then actual beings, not as parts but as matter existing under the privation of the form of the whole. This is evident, for example, of earth, fire and air, which, when they are parts of a compound, are not actually existing things but exist potentially in the compound; but when they are separated, they are then actually existing things and not parts. For none of the elements “before they are arranged,” i.e., before they reach their proper state of mixture by way of alteration, and before one compound comes from them, together form a unity, except in the sense that a heap of stones is one in a qualified sense and not in an unqualified one. Or better “none of them,” i.e., they do not constitute a unity before some one thing is produced from them by arrangement.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 4 Quamvis enim omnes partes sint in potentia, tamen maxime poterit aliquis opinari partes animatorum et partes animae esse propinquas, ut fiant actu et potentia, idest ut sint in potentia propinqua actui. Et hoc ideo, quia corpora animata sunt corpora organica habentia partes distinctas secundum formam; unde maxime sunt propinqua ad hoc quod sint actu. Et hoc ideo quia habent principium motus ab aliquo determinato, cum una pars moveat aliam. Sicut patet in iuncturis, in quibus videtur esse principium motus alterius partium coniunctarum, cum contingat unam moveri, alia quiescente, ut dicitur in libro de motibus animalium.	1634. For even though all parts exist potentially, someone might very readily suppose that the parts of living things and those of the soul which are close to them are actual as well as potential, i.e., they are in potentiality close to actuality; and the reason is that living bodies are organic bodies having parts which are formally distinct. Hence they most of all are close to being actual; and this is because they have a principle of motion in some determinate part, since one part moves another. This is clear, for instance, in the case of their joints, in which the principle of motion of one of the two connected parts seems to be found, since one can be moved and another at rest, as is stated in The Motion of Animals.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 5 Et propter hoc etiam, quia non solum partes corporis sunt in potentia propinqua actui, sed etiam partes animae, ideo quaedam animalia post divisionem vivunt, sicut animalia anulosa. Quod ex hoc contingit, quia in toto animali erat una anima in actu, plures autem in potentia. Facta autem divisione, fiunt plures animae in actu. Quod contingit propter imperfectionem talium animalium, quae requirunt modicam diversitatem in partibus, eo quod habent animam imperfectae virtutis, non valentem diversa operari, ad quae sit necessaria organorum multitudo.	1635. And since not only the parts of the body are in potentiality close to actuality, but also the parts of the soul, therefore some animals live after they have been divided, as segmented animals. And this is possible because in the whole animal there is one soul actually and there are many souls potentially. But when division is made the several souls become actual. This happens because of the imperfection of such animals which require very little diversity in their parts, for they have a soul with imperfect ability to function and incapable of acting in different ways, for which a number of different organs. are necessary.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 6 Sed tamen quamvis istae partes animae et animatorum sint propinquae actui, nihilominus sunt omnia in potentia, quando totum fuerit unum et continuum per naturam. Non autem si fiat unum per violentiam; sicut si ligentur partes unius animalis cum partibus alterius; aut per complantationem, sicut accidit in plantis. Ante enim quam surculus insertus uniatur plantae, est in actu; postea vero est in potentia. Tale namque, scilicet unum esse per violentiam aut per complantationem est orbatio, idest aliquid laesivum naturae, et contra naturam existens.	1636. Yet even though these parts of the soul and the parts of living things are close to actuality, nevertheless they are all potential when the whole is one and continuous by nature. But this would not be the case if one thing came into being by force, as, for example, when the parts of one living thing are tied to those of another; or by grafting, as happens in the case of plants. For before the scion which is to be inserted is united with the plant, it is actual, but afterwards it is potential. “For such a thing,” namely, to be one by force or grafting, “is a mutilation,” i.e., something injurious to nature and opposed to nature.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit quoniam vero ostendit specialiter quod unum et ens non sunt substantiae. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo praemittit propositum; dicens, quod hoc modo praedicatur de rebus unum sicut et ens, cum sint convertibilia: et unum dicitur de aliqua re propter substantiam eius. Unius enim est una substantia; et illa sunt unum numero, quorum est substantia una numero. Quod etiam aliquid dicatur ens per suam substantiam, hoc est manifestum.	1637. And since (678). Here he shows in a special way that unity and being are not substances; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he states his thesis. He says that unity is predicated of things in the same way that being is, since they are interchangeable, and unity is predicated of a thing because of its substance. For one thing has one substance, and those things are numerically one whose substance is numerically one. And it is also evident that a thing is called a being because of its own substance.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 8 Quoniam inquam ita est, palam est quod neque unum neque ens contingit esse substantiam rerum; immo praedicantur de substantia sicut de subiecto. Sicut etiam neque hoc quod est elemento esse aut principio, idest ipsa ratio principii et elementi, dicit substantiam rei quae dicitur principium vel elementum. Sed quaerimus quid sit principium vel elementum, ut ad aliquod notius referamus, scilicet ad substantiam subiectam.	1638. Since this is true, I say, it is clear that neither unity nor being can be the substance of things, but they are predicated rather of substance as their subject. And in a similar way neither does “the being of an element or a principle,” i.e., the very notion of a principle or element, express the substance of the thing called a principle or element. But we look for the principle or element in order to refer it to something better known, namely, to the substance of the subject.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 9 Sed tamen ens et unum magis sunt substantia quam principium et elementum et causa. Propinquius enim se habent ad rerum substantiam. Principium enim et causa et elementum, important solam habitudinem rei ad rem aliquam; sed ens et unum significat id quod convenit rei ratione suae substantiae. Et tamen nec ens nec unum sunt substantia ipsa rei.	1639. Yet being and unity are substance to a greater degree than a principle, element and cause, since they are closer to the substance of things; for principle, element and cause signify only the relationship of one thing to another, but being and unity signify something proper to a thing by reason of its own substance. Yet neither being nor unity is the substance itself of a thing.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 10 Secundo ibi, sed nec probat propositum duabus rationibus. Quarum primam ponit dicens, quod cum ista, scilicet ens et unum, sint communia, non possunt esse substantiae, si nullum commune est substantia, ut probatum est. Quod autem nullum commune sit substantia, ex hoc patet, quia substantia nulli potest inesse nisi ipsi habenti eam cuius est substantia. Unde impossibile est substantiam esse communem multorum.	1640. But neither (679). Second, he proves his thesis by two arguments. He gives the first of these when he says that since these—unity and being—are common attributes, they cannot be substances if nothing common is substance, as has been proved (655:C 1585). That nothing common is substance is clear from the fact that substance can only be present in the thing to which it belongs and of which it is the substance. Hence it is impossible that substance should be common to several things.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 11 Secundam rationem ponit ibi, amplius quod dicit quod hoc ipsum quod est unum, non potest apud multa simul inveniri. Hoc enim est contra rationem unius, si tamen ponatur aliquod unum per se existens ut substantia. Sed illud quod est commune, est simul apud multa. Hoc enim est ratio communis, ut de multis praedicetur, et in multis existat. Patet igitur quod unum quod est commune, non potest esse sic unum quasi una substantia. Et ulterius palam est ex omnibus praedictis in hoc capitulo, quod nullum universale, nec ens, nec unum, nec genera, nec species habent esse separatum praeter singularia.	1641. Furthermore, unity (680). Here he gives the second argument. He says that unity itself cannot be present in many things at the same time; for this is opposed to the notion of unity even though it is maintained that there is a unity which exists by itself as a substance. But what is common is present in many things at the same time, for common means what may be predicated of many things and be present in many things. Hence it is clear that a common unity cannot be one in the sense that it is one substance. Furthermore, it is evident from all the points already discussed above in this chapter that no universal—either being or unity or genera or species—has a separate being apart from singular things.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit sed species ostendit quantum ad quid Plato recte dixerit, et quantum ad quid non recte; dicens, quod Platonici ponentes species ideales, in hoc recte dicunt, quod ponunt eas separatas, ex quo ponunt esse substantias singularium. De ratione enim substantiae est quod sit per se existens. Non autem posset esse per se existens si in aliquo singularium esset; praesertim quia si uno singularium existeret, in aliis esse non posset. Sicut enim iam dictum est, id quod est unum subsistens, non potest in multis esse. Unde in hoc recte facit Plato, ex quo posuit species esse substantias, quod posuit eas separatas.	1642. But those who (681). He shows in what sense Plato’s statements are true, and in what sense they are not. He says that the Platonists, who assume that there are certain ideal forms, are right insofar as they claim that these are separate, because they hold that they are the substances of singular things; for by definition a substance is something that exists of itself. Now unity cannot be something that exists of itself if it exists in some singular thing, and the reason is that if it does exist in one singular thing it cannot exist in others; for, as has already been stated (680:C 1641), no self-subsistent unity can be present in many things. Hence considering Plato’s doctrine that the separate Forms are substance, he was right insofar as he maintained that they are separate.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 13 In hoc autem non dixerunt recte, quia dicunt unam speciem esse in multis. Haec enim duo videntur esse opposita: quod aliquid sit separatum per se existens, et tamen habeat esse in multis. Causa autem propter quam inducti sunt Platonici ad ponendum huiusmodi substantias separatas, et tamen esse in multis, haec est: quia per rationem invenerunt quod oportet esse aliquas substantias incorruptibiles et incorporeas, cum ratio substantiae corporalibus dimensionibus non sit obligata. Sed quae sunt huiusmodi substantiae, quae quidem sunt incorruptibiles, et sunt praeter has substantias singulares et sensibiles, non habent reddere, idest non possunt assignare et manifestare, eo quod nostra cognitio a sensu incipit, et ideo ad incorporea quae sensum transcendunt, non possumus ascendere, nisi quatenus per sensibilia manuducimur.	1643. But the Platonists were not right when they said that there is one form in many things; for these two statements seem to be opposed, namely, that something may be separate and exist of itself, and that it may still have being in many things. The reason why the Platonists were led to posit separate substances of this kind, yet have them existing in many things, is that they discovered through the use of reason that there must be some incorruptible and incorporeal substances, since the notion of substance is not bound up with corporeal dimensions. But “they cannot explain” which substances are of this kind which are incorruptible and exist apart from these singular and sensible substances, i.e., they cannot describe and make them known, because our knowledge begins from the senses and therefore we can ascend to incorporeal things, which transcend the senses, only insofar as we may be guided by sensible substances.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 14 Et ideo, ut aliquam notitiam traderent de substantiis incorporeis incorruptibilibus, faciunt, idest fingunt eas, easdem esse specie substantiis corruptibilibus, sicut in istis substantiis corruptibilibus invenitur homo singularis corruptibilis, et similiter equus. Posuerunt igitur quod etiam in illis substantiis separatis esset aliqua substantia quae esset homo, et aliqua quae esset equus, et sic de aliis: sed differenter: quia has substantias separatas scimus, ex doctrina Platonicorum, per hoc quod dicimus autanthropon, idest per se hominem, et authippon, idest per se equum. Et ita in singulis substantiis sensibilibus ad designandas substantias separatas addimus hoc verbum, idest hanc dictionem auto, idest per se.	1644. Therefore in order that they might convey some knowledge of incorporeal, incorruptible substances, “they make,” i.e., they suppose, them to be specifically the same as corruptible substances, just as they find among these corruptible substances a singular corruptible man and similarly a singular corruptible horse. Hence they claimed that among those separate substances there is a substance which is man, and another which is horse, and so on for other things, but in a different way; because according to the doctrine of the Platonists we know these separate substances on the grounds that we speak of “man himself,” i.e., man-in-himself, “and horse itself,” i.e., horse-in-itself. And thus in order to designate separate substances “we add this word,” i.e., the term “itself,” or in itself, to each sensible substance.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 15 Ex quo apparet quod Platonici volebant illas substantias separatas esse eiusdem speciei cum istis sensibilibus; et solum in hoc differre, quia separatis attribuebant nomen speciei per se, non autem sensibilibus. Cuius ratio est quia in singularibus sunt multa, quae non sunt partes speciei. Sed in illis substantiis separatis dicebant tantum esse illa quae pertinent ad speciem et naturam speciei. Ergo homo separatus dicebatur per se homo, quia habet ea tantum quae pertinent ad naturam speciei. Sed hic homo singularis habet, cum his quae ad naturam speciei pertinent, multa alia: et propter hoc non dicitur per se homo.	1645. From this it appears that the Platonists wanted those separate substances to be specifically the same as these sensible substances; and to differ only in that they gave to separate substances the name of a form in itself, but not to sensible substances. The reason for this is that singular substances contain many things which are not parts of the form, and they said that separate substances contain only those elements which pertain to the specific form and to the nature of the specific form. Hence this separate man was called man-in-himself, because he contained only those elements which pertain to the nature of the form; but this singular man contains many other things besides those which pertain to the form, and for this reason he is not called man-in-himself.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 16 Est autem similis defectus in hac positione, sicut si poneremus quod non videremus astra et alia corpora incorruptibilia, et tamen constaret per rationem quod essent aliqua corpora incorruptibilia, et poneremus quod incorruptibilia corpora essent eiusdem speciei cum corporibus corruptibilium. Sicut si diceremus quod corpora incorruptibilia essent bos et homo et equus et alia huiusmodi, ut poetae finxerunt in stellis esse arietem et taurum et alia huiusmodi. Sicut igitur si non videremus stellas, non minus ut existimo forent substantiae corporeae sempiternae, idest stellae, praeter eas quas nos tunc videremus, scilicet huiusmodi corpora corruptibilia et alterius speciei ab eis; ita etiam et nunc, quamvis nesciamus dicere quae sunt substantiae separatae et cuius naturae, tamen forsan necessarium est esse quasdam substantias separatas praeter sensibiles, et alterius speciei ab eis. Ideo autem dicit forsan, quia nondum probaverat substantias aliquas esse a materia separatas. Probabit autem in sequentibus.	1646. Now there is a defect in this position comparable to that of maintaining that we do not see the stars and other incorruptible bodies but that it was nevertheless certain by reason that there existed incorruptible bodies, and then maintaining that incorruptible bodies were specifically the same as the bodies of corruptible things; as if we were to say that ox and man and horse and other substances of this kind were incorruptible bodies, as the poets imagined a ram (Aries) and a bull (Taurus) and the like to be present in the stars. Therefore even if we did not see the stars, none the less, “as I should presume,” there would be “eternal corporeal substances,” i.e., the stars, in addition to those substances which we did then see, namely, corruptible bodies of this kind, and they would be of a different species than these. And in a similar way, even if we do not now know how to express what separate substances are and of what nature they are, perhaps it is still necessary that there should be some separate substances in addition to sensible ones, and of a different species than these. And he says “Perhaps” because he has not yet proved that there are any separate substances apart from matter. However, he will prove this in later books (XII & XIII).
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 17 Concludit autem ultimo conclusionem intentam in toto capitulo; dicens, quod manifesta sunt ex praedictis duo. Quorum unum est, quod nihil universaliter dictorum sit substantia. Secundum est quod nulla substantia fit ex substantiis actu existentibus. Vel secundum aliam literam, ex non substantiis. Ostendit enim supra, quod substantia quae est hoc aliquid, non fit ex communibus, quae significant quale quid.	1647. Last of all he draws the conclusion at which he aims throughout the whole chapter. He says that two things are evident from what has been said: first, that no universal predicates are substances; and second, that no substance consists of substances having actual existence, or according to another text, “one substance is not composed of substances.” For he has shown above (655)C 1584-5) that substance in the sense of this particular thing does not consist of common attributes which signify of what sort a thing is.