Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber9/lect11

Lecture 11

Latin	English
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 1 Hic comparat philosophus actum ad potentiam secundum veritatem et falsitatem. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit quod verum et falsum praecipue dicitur secundum actum. Secundo manifestat propositum, ibi, hoc autem in rebus est componi aut dividi. Tertio concludit quoddam corollarium, ibi, palam etiam et quia de immobilibus. Dicit ergo primo, quod cum ens et non ens ei oppositum dividantur dupliciter: uno modo secundum diversa praedicamenta, quae sunt substantia, quantitas, qualitas et cetera; alio modo secundum potentiam et actum, vel unius, vel alterius contrariorum, quia utrumque contrariorum contingit actu esse et potentia: hoc quod est in actu, maxime proprie dicitur aut verum aut falsum.	1895. Here the Philosopher compares actuality to potency with reference to truth and falsity; and in regard to this he does three things. First, he claims that truth and falsity are chiefly referred to actuality. Second (1896), he explains what he aims to do (“And in things”). Third (1917), he draws a corollary (“And concerning”). He accordingly says, first, that, since being and non-being, which is its opposite, are divided in two ways: first, into the different categories—substance, quantity, quality and so forth; and second, into the potency and actuality of one or the other of contraries (since either one of two contraries may be actual or potential), it follows that true and false are most properly predicated of what is actual.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit hoc autem probat quod proposuerat. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo manifestat in substantiis continuis. Secundo in simplicibus, ibi, circa incomposita. Tertio colligit utrumque, ibi, esse vero ut verum. Circa primum duo facit. Primo manifestat propositum; dicens, quod hoc, scilicet esse verum vel falsum in rebus, nihil est aliud quam componi et dividi. Unde qui putat dividi quod est divisum in rebus, verus est in sua opinione; ut qui putat hominem non esse asinum: et similiter qui putat componi quod est compositum in rebus, ut qui putat hominem esse animal. Ille autem mentitur in opinando, qui e contrario habet res aliter in sua opinione, quam res sint in sua natura: ut qui putat hominem asinum, aut non esse animal: quia quando aliquid est aut non est, tunc dicitur verum vel falsum.	1896. And in things (807). He now proves his thesis; and in regard to this he does three things. First, he makes this clear in the case of continuous substances; and second (1901), in that of simple substances (“However, with regard”). Third (1914), he summarizes both of these (“Now considering”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he explains his thesis, saying that in things “this,” i.e., being true or false, consists merely in being combined or being separated. Hence one who thinks that to be separated which is separated in reality, has a true opinion—for example, one who thinks that man is not an ass. And the same is true of one who thinks that to be combined which is combined in reality—for example, one who thinks that man is an animal. But, on the other hand, one who relates things in thought in a different way than they are in their own proper nature has an erroneous opinion—for example, one who thinks that man is an ass, or that he is not an animal—because when a thing is or is not, it is then said to be true or false.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 3 Quod sic considerandum est. Non enim ideo tu es albus, quia nos vere existimamus te esse album; sed e converso, ideo existimamus te album, quia tu es albus. Unde manifestum est, quod dispositio rei est causa veritatis in opinione et oratione.	1897. This must be understood as follows: you are not white because we think truly that you are white; but conversely we think you are white because you are white. Hence it has been shown that the way which a thing is disposed is the cause of truth both in thought and in speech.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 4 Hoc autem addit ad manifestandum quod supra dixerat, quod verum et falsum est in rebus componi et dividi. Oportet enim veritatem et falsitatem quae est in oratione vel opinione, reduci ad dispositionem rei sicut ad causam. Cum autem intellectus compositionem format, accipit duo, quorum unum se habet ut formale respectu alterius: unde accipit id ut in alio existens, propter quod praedicata tenentur formaliter. Et ideo, si talis operatio intellectus ad rem debeat reduci sicut ad causam, oportet quod in compositis substantiis ipsa compositio formae ad materiam, aut eius quod se habet per modum formae et materiae, vel etiam compositio accidentis ad subiectum, respondeat quasi fundamentum et causa veritatis, compositioni, quam intellectus interius format et exprimit voce. Sicut cum dico, Socrates est homo, veritas huius enunciationis causatur ex compositione formae humanae ad materiam individualem, per quam Socrates est hic homo: et cum dico, homo est albus, causa veritatis est compositio albedinis ad subiectum: et similiter est in aliis. Et idem patet in divisione.	1898. He adds this in order to clarify what he said above, namely, that in things truth and falsity consist in being combined and being separated. For the truth and falsity found in speech and in thought must be traced to a thing’s disposition as their cause. Now when the intellect makes a combination, it receives two concepts, one of which is related to the other as a form; hence it takes one as being present in the other, because predicates are taken formally. Therefore, if such an operation of the intellect should be traced to a thing as its cause, then in composite substances the combination of matter and form, or also the combination of subject and accident, must serve as the foundation and cause of the truth in the combination which the intellect makes in itself and expresses in words. For example, when I say, “Socrates is a man,” the truth of this enunciation is caused by combining the form humanity with the individual matter by means of which Socrates is this man; and when I say, “Man is white,” the cause of the truth of this enunciation is the combining of whiteness with the subject. It is similar in other cases. And the same thing is evident in the case of separation.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 5 Secundo ibi, si igitur concludit ex dictis, quod si compositio et divisio rei est causa veritatis et falsitatis in opinione et oratione, necesse est quod secundum differentiam compositionis et divisionis eius quod est in rebus, est differentia veritatis et falsitatis in opinione et oratione. In rebus autem talis differentia invenitur circa compositionem et divisionem: quod quaedam semper componuntur, et impossibile est ea dividi; sicut animae rationali coniungitur natura sensitiva semper, et impossibile est quod dividatur ab ea, ita scilicet quod anima rationalis sit sine virtute sentiendi, licet e converso posset esse anima sensitiva sine ratione. Quaedam vero sunt divisa, et impossibile est ea componi, sicut nigrum albo, et formam asini homini. Quaedam vero se habent ad contraria, quia possunt componi et dividi, sicut homo albus, et etiam currens.	1899. Therefore (808). Second, he concludes from what has been said that, if the combining and separating of a thing is the cause of the truth and falsity in thought and in speech, the difference between truth and falsity in thought and in speech must be based on the difference between the combining and separating of what exists in reality. Now in reality such difference is found to involve combination and separation, because (1) some things are always combined and it is impossible for them to be separated; for example, sentient nature is always united to the rational soul, and it is impossible for the latter to be separated from the former in such a way that the rational soul may exist without the power of sensation, although on the other hand a sentient soul can exist without reason. Again, (2) some things are separated and it is impossible for them to be combined, for example, black and white, and the form of an ass and that of a man. Again, (3) some things are open to contraries, because they can be combined and separated, as man and white and also running.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 6 Esse autem, in quo consistit compositio intellectus, ut affirmatio, compositionem quamdam et unionem indicat: non esse vero, quod significat negatio, tollit compositionem, et designat pluralitatem et diversitatem. Unde manifestum est, quod in his, quae contingit componi et dividi, una et eadem oratio sit quandoque vera, quandoque falsa; sicut haec oratio, Socrates sedet, est vera eo sedente, eadem autem falsa eo surgente. Et similiter est de opinione. Sed in his quae non possunt aliter se habere, scilicet quae semper componuntur vel dividuntur, non est possibile quod eadem opinio vel oratio quandoque sit vera, quandoque falsa; sed quae est vera, semper est vera; et quae est falsa, semper est falsa. Sicut haec est vera, homo est animal; haec autem falsa, homo est asinus.	1900. However, the being in which the intellect’s act of combining consists, inasmuch as there is affirmation, indicates a certain composition and union; whereas non-being, which negation signifies, does away with composition and union and indicates plurality and otherness. Hence it was shown that in the case of things which may be combined and separated one and the same statement is sometimes true and sometimes false; for example, the statement “Socrates is sitting” is true when he is sitting; but the same statement is false when he gets up. And the same holds true in the case of thought. But with regard to those things which cannot be otherwise than they are, i.e., those which are always combined or separated, it is impossible for the same thought or statement to be sometimes true and sometimes false; but what is true is always true, and what is false is always false; for example, the proposition “Man is an animal” is true, but the proposition “Man is an ass” is false.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit circa incomposita ostendit quomodo in simplicibus possit esse verum et falsum. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit non similiter esse verum in simplicibus et in compositis; dicens, quod circa incomposita et simplicia, cuiusmodi sunt substantiae immateriales, non est verum vel falsum per compositionem aut divisionem quae fit in rebus, sed per hoc quod cognoscitur quod quid est, aut non cognoscitur. Cum enim attingamus ad cognoscendum quod quid est alicuius simplicis, tunc intellectus videtur verus esse. Cum autem non attingimus ad cognoscendum quod quid est, sed aliquid aliud ei attribuit, tunc falsus est.	1901. However, with regard (809). He now explains how truth and falsity can be present in simple things; and in regard to this he does three things. First, he shows that truth is not present in the same way in simple things and in composite ones. He says that in the case of things which are not composite but simple, such as immaterial substances, truth or falsity is not present in them (~) as a result of any combination or separation which occurs in reality, but (+) arises because their quiddity is known or not known. For when we acquire knowledge of the quiddity of any simple being, the intellect seems to be true; and when we fail to acquire knowledge of its quiddity, but attribute something else to it, the intellect is then false.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 8 Non enim in simplicibus est compositio, ut possit dici quod quando componitur res, tunc intellectus componens sit verus; vel quando divisum est in re, quod intellectus componit, tunc intellectus non sit verus. Vel aliter: non est in simplicibus compositio, ita quod cum dicitur de eo affirmative quod sit, significetur eius compositio; et cum dicitur de eo quod non sit negative, significetur eius divisio. Sicut in rebus compositis, cum dicitur, quod lignum sit album, significatur eius compositio; aut cum dicitur, quod non sit lignum album, aut quod diametrum non sit commensurabile, significatur eius divisio.	1902. For there is no composition in simple beings as a consequence of which it could be said that, when the thing is combined, the intellect in making a combination is then true; or that, when that is separated in reality which the intellect combines, the intellect is then not true. Or to express this in a different way, there is no composition in simple things by reason of which, when we express affirmatively that it is so, its composition is signified; and when we express negatively that it is not so, its separation is signified; as, for example, in the case of composite things, when it is said that a piece of wood is white, its composition is signified, or when it is said that it is not white, or that the diagonal is not commensurable, its separation is signified.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 9 Et sic patet quod verum et falsum non est similiter in simplicibus, sicut in compositis. Neque hoc mirum est, quia etiam esse non est similiter in utrisque. Sed esse compositorum surgit ex componentibus, non autem esse simplicium. Verum autem consequitur ens; quia, sicut in secundo huius est habitum, eadem est dispositio rerum in esse et in veritate. Unde quae non sunt similia in esse, non sunt similia in veritate.	1903. Thus it is evident that truth and falsity are not present in simple things in the same way as in composite things. Nor is this surprising, since being also is not the same in both; but the being of composite things results from their components, whereas that of simple things does not. Now truth follows being, because, as was said in Book II (298) of this work, the structure of things in being and in truth is the same. Hence those things which are not similar in being are not similar in truth.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 10 Secundo ibi, sed hoc ostendit qualiter sit verum et falsum in simplicibus; dicens, quod huiusmodi est verum et falsum in simplicibus, ut dicetur. Attingere enim mente ad ipsum simplex, ut scilicet apprehendatur quid est, et dicere, idest significare voce ipsum simplex, hoc est verum, quod est in simplicibus. Et, quia dicere quandoque sumitur pro praedicatione affirmativa quae cum compositione fit, hunc intellectum removet; dicens, quod non est idem affirmatio et dictio: quia affirmatio est per hoc, quod aliquid dicitur de aliquo, quod est cum compositione; dictio autem simplex prolatio alicuius.	1904. But truth (810). Second, he shows how truth and falsity are present in simple things. He says that in the case of simple things truth and falsity are such as will be explained; for to come in contact with a simple thing through the intellect, in such a way as to apprehend what it is “and to express it,” i.e., to signify this simple thing by a word, constitutes the truth present in simple things. And since sometimes the word “to express” is taken for affirmative predication, which involves composition, he rejects this interpretation. He says that affirmation and expression are not the same, because affirmation occurs when one thing is predicated of something else, and this implies combination, whereas expression is the simple utterance of something.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 11 Sic ergo attingere et dicere, est verum; sed non attingere mente ipsa simplicia, est ea penitus ignorare. Quicumque enim non attingit ad quod quid est rei simplicis, penitus ignorat ipsam: non enim potest aliquid eius scire, et aliquid ignorare, ex quo non est compositum.	1905. Therefore to come in contact with simple things through the intellect and to express them constitutes truth; but not to come in contact with them is not to know them at all. For whoever does not grasp the quiddity of a simple thing is completely ignorant of it; because one cannot both know and not know something about it, since it is not composite.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 12 Videbatur autem, quod sicut dixerat, quod attingere simplicia est dicere verum in eis, ita non attingere est falsum, aut decipi. Hoc autem non dixit, sed dixit quod non attingere est ignorare; et ideo subdit causam, quare non attingere non est decipi; dicens, quod circa quod quid est non est decipi; nisi secundum accidens. Quod sic intelligendum est.	1906. Moreover, since he had said that to come in contact with simple things is to express their truth, it would seem that not to come in contact with them is (~) to be false or in error. He did not say this, however, but said that not to come in contact with them is (+) not to know them. Hence he gives the reason why not to come in contact with them is not to be in error about them, saying that it is possible to be in error about their quiddity only accidentally; and this must be understood as follows.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 13 Dictum est enim superius in septimo et in octavo, quod in substantiis simplicibus idem est res, et quod quid est eius. Sic igitur cum substantia simplex sit ipsum quod quid est, idem iudicium est de cognitione substantiae simplicis, et de cognitione eius quod quid est. Sed circa quod quid est non decipitur intellectus nisi per accidens: aut enim per intellectum attingit aliquis quod quid est rei, et tunc vere cognoscit quid est res; aut non attingit, et tunc non apprehendit rem illam. Unde circa eam non verificatur neque decipitur. Propter quod dicit Aristoteles in tertio de anima, quod sicut sensus circa propria obiecta semper est verus, ita intellectus circa quod quid est, quasi circa proprium obiectum. Et quod intellectus circa quod quid est non decipiatur, non solum est in simplicibus substantiis, sed etiam in compositis.	1907. It was said above in Book VII (1362) and in Book VIII (1710) that in the case of simple substances the thing itself and its quiddity are one and the same. Hence, since a simple substance is its own quiddity, the judgment about the knowledge of a simple substance and the judgment about the knowledge of its quiddity are one and the same. But the intellect is deceived about a quiddity only accidentally; for either a person comes in contact with a thing’s quiddity through his intellect, and then he truly knows what that thing is; or he does not come in contact with it, and then he does not know what it is. Hence, with regard to such a thing the intellect is neither true nor false. This is why Aristotle says in Book III of The Soul that, just as a sense is always true with regard to its proper object, in a similar fashion the intellect is always true with regard to its proper object—quiddity. And the fact that the intellect is not deceived about a thing’s quiddity applies not only in the case of simple substances but also in that of composite ones.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 14 Quomodo autem per accidens decipiatur aliquis circa quod quid est, considerandum est. Non enim decipitur quis circa quod quid est, nisi componendo, aut dividendo. Quod quidem in substantiis compositis contingit dupliciter. Uno modo per compositionem definitionis ad rem definitam, aut divisionem. Ut si aliquis diceret: asinum esse animal rationale mortale; aut: homo non est animal rationale mortale, utrobique falsum est. Alio modo secundum quod definitio constituitur ex partibus, quae non sunt invicem componibiles: ut si quis assignaret hanc definitionem, homo est animal insensibile. Primo igitur modo definitio dicitur esse falsa, quia non est huius. Secundo modo dicitur esse falsa per se, ut supra in quinto docuit philosophus.	1908. Now it is necessary to consider how one may be accidentally deceived about a quiddity. For a person is deceived about a quiddity only as a result of combining or separating; and with regard to composite substances this may occur in two ways. (1) First, it may occur by combining a definition with something defined or by separating them; for example, if someone were to say that an ass is a mortal rational animal, or that a man is not a mortal rational animal, both would be false. (2) Second, insofar as a definition is composed of parts which are incompatible with each other; for example, if someone were to give this definition—man is a non-sensible animal. Thus a definition is said to be false in the first way because it is not the definition of this thing; and in the second way it is said to be false in itself, as the Philosopher has instructed us above in Book V (1132).
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 15 In simplicibus vero substantiis non potest esse deceptio circa quod quid est per accidens nisi primo modo: non enim eorum quod quid est, est compositum ex pluribus, circa quorum compositionem vel divisionem possit accidere falsum.	1909. Now we can be deceived accidentally about the quiddity of simple substances only in the first way; for their quiddity is not composed of many parts in the combining and separating of which falsity can arise.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 16 Et omnes adaptat quod dixerat de substantiis simplicibus ad principale propositum: scilicet ad ostendendum quod verum magis est actu quam in potentia. Ostenderat quidem hoc circa composita, pro eo quod verum est circa compositionem et divisionem, quae actum designant: in substantiis vero simplicibus ex eo quod non est in eis falsum, sed tantum verum. Propter quod non sunt in potentia, sed in actu.	1910. And they are (811). He adapts his remarks about simple substances to his main thesis, in which he shows that truth involves actuality rather than potency. Indeed, he had shown this to be true in the case of composite substances insofar as their truth embodies combination and separation, which designate actuality. But he shows that this is true in the case of simple substances from the fact that they do not contain falsity but only truth. And for this reason they are not potential but actual.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 17 Dicit ergo quod omnes substantiae simplices sunt actu entes, et nunquam entes in potentia: quia, si quandoque essent in actu, et quandoque in potentia, generarentur et corrumperentur: sed hoc non potest esse, ut ostensum est: nam huiusmodi substantiae sunt formae tantum, unde etiam secundum se sunt entes; ens autem secundum seipsum non generatur neque corrumpitur. Omne enim quod generatur ex aliquo generatur: ens autem simpliciter inquantum ens, non potest ex aliquo generari. Non enim est aliquid extra ens, sed extra tale ens; utputa extra hominem est aliquod ens. Unde hoc ens potest generari secundum quid, sed ens simpliciter non. Id ergo, quod est ens secundum se, per hoc, quod ipsum est forma, ad quam sequitur ens, non est generabile. Unde non est quandoque in potentia, quandoque in actu.	1911. He accordingly says that all simple substances are actual beings and are never potential ones; for if they were sometimes actual and sometimes potential, they would be generated and corrupted. But this cannot be the case, as has been shown above (1715), for substances of this kind are forms alone, and for this reason they are also beings of themselves. Now what exists of itself is neither generated nor corrupted, for everything that is generated is generated from something. But being in an absolute sense cannot be generated from anything; for there is nothing apart from being but only apart from some particular being, just as there is some being apart from man. Hence this being can be generated in a qualified sense, but being in an absolute sense cannot. Hence what is a being of itself, because it is a form, from which being naturally follows, cannot be generated; and for this reason it is not sometimes potential and sometimes actual.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 18 Et ideo, quia circa actum maxime consistit verum, quaecumque sunt talia, quae sunt solum in actu, et sunt id quod vere aliquid est, quia sunt quidditates et formae, circa ea non convenit decipi, aut esse falsum. Sed oportet ut intelligantur si mente attingantur, vel penitus non intelligantur si mente non attingantur.	1912. Therefore, since truth consists chiefly in actuality, it is unfitting that there should be error or falsity in all those things which are actual only and are what something truly is, since they are quiddities or forms; but they must either be understood if they are grasped by the intellect, or not be understood at all if they are not grasped by the intellect.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 19 Sed quamvis in eis non contingat decipi secundum se, contingit tamen cum quaeritur de eis quod quid est, scilicet si talia sunt aut non. Et sic contingit decipi in eis per accidens: utputa si quis quaerat de aliqua substantia simplici utrum sit ignis, aut substantia corporea, vel non: quia, si attribuitur ei esse substantiam corpoream, erit falsitas per accidens propter compositionem.	1913. But even though it is impossible to be (~) deceived about these things as regards their essence, this is nevertheless (+ possible when “we ask what they are,” i.e., whether they are of such and such a nature or not. Hence it is possible to be deceived about them accidentally, as someone might ask whether a simple substance is fire or a corporeal substance or not, because if it is held to be a corporeal substance, there will be falsity accidentally as a result of combination.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 20 Deinde cum dicit esse vero colligit quod dixerat de vero et falso tam circa composita quam circa simplicia; dicens, quod hoc ipsum esse quod significat veritatem, et non esse quod significat falsitatem (quia qui dicit, homo est albus, significat hoc esse verum; qui dicit, non est albus, significat hoc esse falsum): hoc, inquam, esse et non esse, uno modo dicitur, scilicet in compositione, scilicet quod est verum si componitur in re quod intellectus componit: falsum autem si non componitur in re quod intellectus componit, intelligens aut denuncians.	1914. Now considering (812). He summarizes the statements he has made about truth and falsity both with reference to composite things and to simple ones. He says that this being which signifies truth and non-being which signifies falsity (because he who says that a man is white signifies this to be true; and he who says that a man is not white signifies this to be false), being and non-being in this sense, I say, are used (1) in one way in the case of the composition of things. That is, there is truth if what the intellect combines is combined in reality, but there is falsity if what the intellect combines when it understands or forms a proposition is not combined in reality.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 21 Alio vero modo in rebus simplicibus verum est, si id quod est vere ens, idest quod est ipsum quod quid est, idest substantia rei simplex, sic est sicut intelligitur: si vero non est ita sicut intelligitur, non est verum in intellectu. Et sic est verum intelligere ipsa, sed falsum non est ibi, neque deceptio, ut expositum est, sed ignorantia. Quia si non attingit ad quod quid est, penitus ignorat rem illam. In compositis autem potest unum scire, et circa alias proprietates eius decipi.	1915. (2) And truth exists in a different way in the case of simple things, if what is truly a being,” i.e., the quiddity or substance of a simple thing, is as it is understood to be; but if it is not as it is understood to be, no truth exists in the intellect. Thus truth consists in understanding these things; but concerning them there is neither falsity nor error in the intellect, as has been explained (1912), but ignorance; for if one does not grasp the quiddity of a thing, one does not know that thing in any way at all. In the case of composite things, however, one can know one of their properties and be deceived about the others.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 22 Qualis autem ignorantia est, ostendit cum dicit, quod illa ignorantia non est talis privatio sicut caecitas quae est privatio potentiae visivae. Unde illa ignorantia similis caecitati esset, si aliquis non haberet vim intellectivam ad attingendum substantias simplices. Ex quo patet quod secundum sententiam Aristotelis humanus intellectus potest pertingere ad intelligendum substantias simplices. Quod videtur sub dubio reliquisse in tertio de anima.	1916. Furthermore, he shows what sort of ignorance this is when he says that this ignorance is not “a privation such as blindness,” which is the privation of the power of sight. Hence that ignorance would be similar to blindness if one did not have the intellective power of acquiring knowledge of simple substances. And from this it is evident that according to the opinion of Aristotle the human intellect can acquire an understanding of simple substances. This is a point which he seems to have left unsolved in The Soul, Book III:3.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 23 Deinde cum dicit palam etiam inducit quoddam corollarium; dicens, quod ex dictis manifestum est, quod de immobilibus non est deceptio secundum quando. In contingentibus vero contingit decipi secundum quando, in his scilicet quae non semper sunt: utputa, si Socrates est sessurus, et hoc aliquis putet, potest aliquis decipi in eo quod putet eum sessurum quando non est sessurus; et similiter si putet eclipsim futuram quando non est futura. Sed in rebus immobilibus et quae semper sunt, non potest contingere nisi uno modo: scilicet si quis putet ea esse mobilia, et non semper esse: tunc enim decipitur in eis, sed non secundum quando. Et ideo dicit: si quis putet ea esse immobilia, non decipitur in eis secundum quando.	1917. And concerning (813). Here he introduces a corollary. He says that it is evident from what has been said that there is no error about (~) immobile things as regards time. But in the case of (+) contingent things, which are not always so, it is possible to be in error about them as regards time; for example, if Socrates is going to sit down and someone were to judge this to be so, he could be deceived insofar as he might judge that Socrates is going to sit down when he is not. The same thing would be true if someone were to think that an eclipse will occur when it will not. But in the case of immobile things and those which always are, the above can occur only in one way, i.e., if someone were to think that these things are mobile and that they do not always exist; for he is then in error about them, but he would not be in error as regards time. Hence he says that, if someone thinks that they are immobile, he will not be deceived about them as regards time.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 24 Et hoc ideo dicit, quia si quis putat ea esse immobilia, non putabit ea quandoque esse et quandoque non esse, et sic non decipitur in eis secundum quando. Ut si quis putet triangulum non permutari, non opinabitur quod quandoque habeat duos rectos, quantum ad aequivalentiam, et quandoque non. Sic enim permutaretur et non permutaretur.	1918. He says this, then, because, if someone assumes that they are immobile, he will not think that they sometimes are and sometimes are not, and thus he is not deceived about them as regards time. For example, if someone thinks that a triangle is unchangeable, he will not be of the opinion that the sum of its angles will sometimes equal two right angles and sometimes will not, for it would then be both changeable and unchangeable.
lib. 9 l. 11 n. 25 Sed in rebus immobilibus convenit sub aliquo communi accipere aliquid, quod sic se habet, et aliquid quod non sic: puta sub triangulo aliquem aequilaterum, et aliquem non. Et convenit dubitari de numero pari, utrum nullus sit primus, vel aliqui sint primi, aliqui non. Numerus primus dicitur quem sola unitas mensurat. Unde inter numeros pares, solus binarius est primus, et nullus aliorum. Et circa unum numero in rebus immobilibus non convenit errare ac decipi, neque quantum ad hoc. Non enim in eodem numero potest aliquis putare aliquem sic se habere, et aliquem non sic. Unum enim numero non dividitur in multa. Unde oportebit, quod simpliciter dicat verum vel falsum, cum illud unum numero semper similiter se habeat, nec sit in eo accipere diversitatem, neque quantum ad tempus, neque quantum ad supposita. Ex quibus apparet, quod verum est magis circa actum. Immobilia enim, inquantum huiusmodi, semper sunt actu.	1919. But in the case of immobile things it is possible to consider under one common aspect one thing that has such and such a property and another that has not; for example, it is possible to understand that under triangle some triangles are equilateral and others are not. And it is possible to ask whether no even number is prime, or whether some are and some are not—a prime number being one which the unit alone measures. Hence among even numbers only the number two is a prime number, but none of the others. And regarding what is numerically one, in the case of immobile things it is impossible to be in error or to be deceived even in this [taking one thing that has and another that has not a certain property]. For in the case of something numerically one it is impossible for anyone to think that one individual can be so and another not be so; for what is numerically one is not divided into many. Hence he will have to say what is true or false in an unqualified sense, since what is numerically one always exists in the same way and is incapable of being diversified either in point of time or of subjects. From this it is clear that truth has to do with actuality; for immobile things as such are always actual.