Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber9/lect7

Lecture 7

Latin	English
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 1 Postquam determinavit philosophus de potentia et actu, hic comparat ea adinvicem: et dividitur in tres partes. In prima comparat ea adinvicem secundum prius et posterius. In secunda secundum bene et male, ibi, quod autem melior et honorabilior. In tertia secundum cognitionem veri et falsi, ibi, inveniuntur autem et diagrammata. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit: dicens, quod cum supra determinatum sit in quinto quot modis prius dicitur, manifestum est quod actus est prior potentia diversis modis. Loquimur autem nunc de potentia non solum secundum quod est principium motus in alio, secundum quod est aliud, ut supra definita est potentia activa; sed universaliter de omni principio, sive sit principium motivum, sive immobilitatis et quietis, aut operationis absque motu existentis, cuiusmodi est intelligere, quia et natura ad idem pertinere videtur quod potentia.	1844. Having established the truth about potency and actuality, the Philosopher now compares one with the other; and this is divided into two parts. In the first part he compares them from the viewpoint of priority and posteriority; in the second (1883), in terms of being better or worse; and in the third (1888), in reference to knowledge of the true and the false. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he explains his aim, saying that, since it has been established above, in Book V (936), that the term prior is used in different senses, it is evident that actuality is prior to potency in different ways. And we are now speaking of potency not only inasmuch as it is a principle of motion in some other thing as other, as active potency was defined above (1776), but universally of every principle, whether it be a principle that causes motion or a principle of immobility or rest or a principle of action devoid of motion (e.g., understanding), because nature also seems to belong to the same thing as potency.
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 2 Est enim natura in eodem genere cum potentia ipsa, quia utrumque est principium motus, licet natura non sit principium motus in alio, sed in eo in quo est, inquantum huiusmodi, ut manifestatur in secundo physicorum. Et tamen natura non solum est principium motus, sed etiam quietis. Et propter hoc potentia intelligenda est non solum principium motus, sed etiam principium immobilitatis. Omni ergo tali potentia, actus prior est, et ratione, et substantia, et etiam tempore quodammodo, alio vero modo non.	1845. For nature is in the same genus as potency itself because each is a principle of motion, although nature is not a principle of motion in some other thing but in the thing in which it is present as such, as is made clear in Book Il of the Physics. However, nature is a principle not only of motion but also of immobility. Hence actuality is prior to all such potency both in intelligibility and in substance. And in one sense it is also prior in time, and in another it is not.
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit ratione quidem secundo ostendit propositum. Et primo, quod actus est prior potentia ratione. Secundo ostendit quomodo est prior tempore, et quomodo non, ibi, tempore vero prius. Tertio ostendit quod est prior secundum substantiam, ibi, at vero et substantia prius quidem. Primum sic probatur. Id per quod oportet alterum definiri, est prius eo ratione; sicut animal prius homine, et subiectum accidente. Sed potentia non potest definiri nisi per actum. Nam prima ratio possibilis in hoc consistit, quod convenit ipsum agere vel esse in actu; sicut aedificator dicitur qui potest aedificare, et speculator qui potest speculari, et visibile dicitur aliquid quod potest videri, et sic est in aliis. Ergo est necessarium, quod ratio actus praecedat rationem potentiae, et notitia actus notitiam potentiae. Et propter hoc superius Aristoteles manifestavit potentiam definiendo per actum; actum autem non potuit per aliquod aliud definire, sed solum inductive manifestavit.	1846. It is evident (779). Second he proves his thesis. First, he shows that actuality is prior to potency in intelligibility. Second (1847), he shows how it is prior in time, and how it is not. Third (1856), he shows how it is prior in substance. The first is proved as follows: anything that must be used in defining something else is prior to it in intelligibility, as animal is prior to man and subject to accident. But potency or capability can only be defined by means of actuality, because the first characteristic of the capable consists in the possibility of its acting or being actual. For example, a builder is defined as one who can build, and a theorist as one who can theorize, and the visible as what can be seen; and the same is true in other cases. The concept of actuality must therefore be prior to the concept of potency, and the knowledge of actuality prior to the knowledge of potency. Hence Aristotle explained above what potency is by defining it in reference to actuality, but he could not define actuality by means of something else but only made it known inductively.
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit tempore vero ostendit quomodo sit actus potentia prior tempore, et quomodo non: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo manifestat hoc in potentiis passivis. Secundo in potentiis activis quibusdam, ibi, quapropter videtur impossibile. Dicit ergo primo, quod actus est prior tempore potentia; ita tamen quod idem specie, est prius agens, vel ens actu quam ens in potentia; sed idem numero est prius tempore in potentia quam in actu.	1847. And actuality (780). Then he shows how actuality is prior to potency in time, and how it is not. In regard to this he does two things. First, he makes this clear in the case of passive potencies; and second (1850), in the case of certain active potencies. He accordingly says, (+) first, that actuality is prior to potency in time in the sense that in the same species the agent, or what is actual, is prior to what is potential; but (~) in numerically one and the same thing what is potential is prior in time to what is actual.
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 5 Quod sic manifestatur. Si enim accipiamus hunc hominem qui est iam actu homo, fuit prius secundum tempus materia, quae erat potentia homo. Et similiter prius tempore fuit semen quod potentia est frumentum, quam frumentum actu, et visivum, idest habens potentiam videndi, quam videns in actu. Sed tamen quaedam existentia in actu fuerunt priora secundum tempus in his existentibus in potentia, scilicet agentia, a quibus reducta sunt in actum. Semper enim oportet quod id quod est in potentia ens, sit actu ens ab agente, quod est actu ens. Unde homo in potentia fit homo in actu ab homine generante, qui est in actu. Et similiter musicum in potentia respicit musicum in actu, discendo a doctore qui est musicus actu. Et ita semper eo quod est in potentia, est aliquid prius quod movet, et movens est in actu. Unde relinquitur, quod licet idem numero prius tempore sit in potentia quam in actu, tamen aliquod ens in actu secundum idem specie, est etiam prius tempore, quam ens in potentia.	1848. This is shown as follows: if we take this man who is now actually a man, prior to him in time there was a matter which was potentially a man. And similarly seed, which is potentially grain, was prior in time to what is actually grain. And “the thing capable of seeing,” i.e., having the power of sight, was prior in time to the thing actually seeing. And prior in time to the things having potential being there were certain things having actual being, namely, agents, by which the former have been brought to actuality. For what exists potentially must always be brought to actuality by an agent, which is an actual being. Hence what is potentially a man becomes actually a man as a result of the man who generates him, who is an actual being; and similarly one who is potentially musical becomes actually musical by learning from a teacher who is actually musical. And thus in the case of anything potential there is always some first thing which moves it, and this mover is actual. It follows, then, that even though the same thing numerically exists potentially prior in time to existing actually, there is still also some actual being of the same species which is prior in time to the one that exists potentially.
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 6 Et quia posset aliquis dubitare de quibusdam quae dixerat, ideo subiungit ea esse manifesta superius. Dictum est enim in superioribus de substantia, scilicet in septimo libro, quod omne quod fit, fit ex aliquo, sicut ex materia, et ab aliquo, sicut ab agente. Et hoc etiam agens est specie idem cum eo quod fit. Quod manifestum est in generationibus univocis. Sed in generationibus aequivocis oportet esse aliquam similitudinem generantis ad genitum, ut ibidem ostensum est.	1849. And because someone could be perplexed about some of the statements which he had made, he therefore adds that these have been explained above; for it was pointed out in the foregoing discussions about substance—in Book VII (1383; 1417)—that everything which comes to be comes from something as matter, and by something as an agent. And it was also stated above that this agent is specifically the same as the thing which comes to be. This was made clear in the case of univocal generations, but in the case of equivocal generations there must also be some likeness between the generator and the thing generated, as was shown elsewhere (1444-47).
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit quapropter et ostendit ordinem actus et potentiae secundum tempus in quibusdam potentiis activis: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit propositum. Dictum enim fuit supra, quod quaedam potentiae operativae sunt quas oportet accipere praeagentes sive praeexercitantes se in eorum actionibus. Sicut quae acquiruntur per consuetudinem vel disciplinam. Et de his dicit hic quod etiam in eisdem secundum numerum, actus praecedit potentiam. Impossibile enim videtur quod aliquis fiat aedificator, qui non prius aedificaverit; aut quod fiat citharaedus, qui non prius citharizaverit.	1850. And for this reason (781). He explains the temporal sequence of actuality and potency in the case of certain active potencies; and in regard to this he does three things. First, he explains what he intends to do. For it was said above (1815) that there are certain operative potencies whose very actions must be understood to be performed or exercised beforehand, as those acquired by practice or instruction. And with regard to these he says here that in those things which are numerically the same, actuality is also prior to potency. For it seems impossible that anyone should become a builder who has not first built something; or that anyone should become a harpist who has not first played the harp.
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 8 Hoc autem inducit concludens ex praemissis. Dictum est enim supra, quod potentia musicum fit actu musicum a musico in actu, inquantum scilicet ab eo addiscit. Et similiter in aliis est actibus. Addiscere autem non poterit artem huiusmodi, nisi exercitando se in actu eius. Nam aliquis citharizando, addiscit citharizare. Et similiter est in aliis artibus. Unde manifestum est quod impossibile est haberi huiusmodi potentias, nisi prius insint actiones earum etiam in eodem secundum numerum.	1851. He draws this conclusion from the points laid down above; for it was said above (1848) that one who is potentially musical becomes actually musical as a result of someone who is actually musical—meaning that he learns from him; and the same thing holds true of other actions. Now one could not learn an art of this kind unless he himself performed the actions associated with it; for one learns to play the harp by playing it. This is also true of the other arts. It has been shown, then, that it is impossible to have potencies of this sort unless their actions are also first present in one and the same subject numerically.
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 9 Secundo ibi unde sophisticus ponit quamdam sophisticam obiectionem contra praedicta; dicens, quod quidam sophisticus elenchus factus est, idest syllogismus apparens contradicens veritati, qui talis est. Discens artem operatur actionem artis. Sed discens artem non habet artem. Ergo qui non habet scientiam nec artem facit id cuius est scientia aut ars. Quod videtur contrarium veritati.	1852. From this arose (782). Second, he raises a sophistical objection against the above view. He says that “a sophistical argument arose,” i.e., an apparently cogent syllogism which contradicts the truth, and it runs as follows: one who is learning an art exercises the actions of that art. But one who is learning an art does not have that art. Hence one who does not have a science or an art is doing the thing which is the object of that science or art. This seems to be contrary to the truth.
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 10 Tertio ibi, sed quia solvit dictam obiectionem, assignando quoddam quod dictum est, et probatum in sexto physicorum. Ostensum est ibi quod omne moveri praecedit motum esse, propter divisionem motus. Oportet enim quod quacumque parte motus data, cum divisibilis sit, aliquam partem eius accipi, quae iam peracta est, dum pars motus data peragitur. Et ideo quicquid movetur, iam quantum ad aliquid motum est.	1853. But since some (783). Third, he answers this objection by stating a position which was discussed and proved in the Physics, Book VI; for there he proved that being moved is always prior to having been moved, because of the division of motion. For whenever any part of a motion is given, since it is divisible, we must be able to pick out some part of it which has already been completed, while the part of the motion given is going on. Therefore whatever is being moved has already been partly moved.
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 11 Et eadem ratione quicquid fit, iam quantum ad aliquid factum est. Licet enim factio in substantia quantum ad introductionem formae substantialis sit indivisibilis, tamen si accipiatur alteratio praecedens cuius terminus est generatio, divisibilis est, et totum potest dici factio. Quia igitur quod fit quantum ad aliquid factum est, potest aliqualem operationem habere quod fit eius ad quod terminatur factio; sicut quod calefit potest aliquo modo calefacere, licet non perfecte, sicut id quod iam factum est calidum. Et sic, cum discere sit fieri scientem, necesse est quod discens quasi aliquid iam scientiae et artis habeat. Unde non est inconveniens si aliqualiter facit operationem artis. Non enim eam facit perfecte, sicut qui iam habet artem.	1854. And by the same argument, whatever is coming to be has already partly come to be; for even though the process of producing a substance, with reference to the introduction of the substantial form, is indivisible, still if we take the preceding alteration whose terminus is generation, the process is divisible, and the whole process can be called a production. Therefore, since what is coming to be has partly come to be, then what is coming to be can possess to some degree the activity of the thing in which the production is terminated. For example, what is becoming hot can heat something to some degree, but not as perfectly as something that has already become hot. Hence, since to learn is to become scientific, the one learning must already have, as it were, some part of a science or an art. It is not absurd, then, if he should exercise the action of an art to some degree; for he does not do it as perfectly as one who already has the art.
lib. 9 l. 7 n. 12 Sed et in ipsa ratione, naturaliter praeinsunt quaedam semina et principia scientiarum et virtutum, virtute quorum potest homo aliqualiter exire in scientiae et virtutis actum, antequam habeat habitum scientiae et virtutis; quo adepto, operatur perfecte, prius autem imperfecte. Ultimo epilogat quod supra dictum est, ut patet in litera.	1855. But in reason itself there are also naturally inherent certain seeds or principles of the sciences and virtues, through which a man can pass to some degree into the activity of a science or a virtue before he has the habit of the science or the virtue; and when this has been acquired he acts perfectly, whereas at first he acted imperfectly. Lastly he summarizes the above discussion, as is evident in the text.