Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber9/lect9

Lecture 9

Latin	English
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 1 Superius probavit Aristoteles quod actus erat prior potentia, substantia, definitione, et perfectione, per rationes ex ipsis corruptibilibus sumptas. Hic autem idem ostendit per comparationem sempiternorum ad corruptibilia. Et dividitur ista pars in duas. In prima ostendit propositum. In secunda ex proposito ostenso excludit quoddam a Platone dictum, ibi, si ergo aliquae sunt naturae. Et circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit propositum, et hoc tali ratione. Sempiterna comparantur ad corruptibilia sicut actus ad potentiam. Nam sempiterna, inquantum huiusmodi, non sunt in potentia; corruptibilia vero, inquantum huiusmodi, in potentia sunt. Sed sempiterna sunt priora corruptibilibus substantia et perfectione: hoc enim manifestum est. Ergo actus est potentia prior substantia et perfectione. Dicit autem, quod hac ratione magis proprie ostenditur propositum, quia non assumitur actus et potentia in eodem, sed in diversis: quod facit probationem magis evidentem.	1867. Aristotle proved above that actuality is prior to potency in substance, definition and perfection, by arguments drawn from corruptible things themselves; but here he proves the same point by comparing eternal things with corruptible ones. This part is divided into two members. In the first (1867) he proves his thesis; and in the second (1882), by the thesis thus proved, he rejects a certain statement made by Plato (“If, then”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he proves his thesis. This he does by the following argument: eternal things are compared to corruptible ones as actuality to potency; for eternal things as such are not in potency, whereas corruptible things as such are in potency. But eternal things are prior to corruptible ones in substance and perfection; for this is evident (1856). Hence actuality is prior to potency both in substance and perfection. He says that his thesis is proved in a more proper way by this argument, because actuality and potency are not considered in the same subject but in different ones, and this makes the proof more evident.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 2 Secundo ibi, ratio vero probat quod supposuerat; scilicet quod nullum sempiternum sit in potentia. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit rationem ad ostendendum hoc; quae talis est. Omnis potentia simul est contradictionis. Dicit autem hoc non de potentia activa: iam enim supra dictum est, quod potentiae irrationales non sunt ad opposita; sed loquitur hic de potentia passiva, secundum quam aliquid dicitur possibile esse et non esse, vel simpliciter, vel secundum quid.	1868. The reason (793). Second, he proves one assumption which he made, namely, that nothing eternal is in potency; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives an argument to prove this, and it runs as follows: every potency is at one and the same time a potency for opposite determinations. Now he does not say this about active potency, for it has already been shown (1789) that irrational potencies are not potencies for opposite determinations; but he is speaking here of passive potency, on the basis of which a thing is said to be capable of being and not being either absolutely or in a qualified sense.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 3 Hoc autem quod posuerat manifestat per oppositum; quia ubi non est talis potentia, non contingit utraque pars contradictionis. Nam quod non est possibile esse, nunquam in aliquo est. Si enim non est possibile esse, impossibile est esse, et necesse est non esse. Sed id quod possibile est esse, contingit non esse in actu. Manifestum est ergo, quod illud quod possibile est esse, contingit esse et non esse. Et sic potentia simul contradictionis est, quia idem est in potentia ad esse et non esse.	1869. Now the claim which he made he proves by an argument to the contrary; because where such potency does not exist, neither of the opposite determinations is possible; for what is incapable of being never exists in any way. For if a thing is incapable of being, it is impossible for it to be, and it is necessary for it not to be. But what is capable of being may possibly not be actual. Hence it is evident that what is capable of being may either be or not be; and thus the potency is at one and the same time a potency for opposite determinations, because the same thing is in potency both to being and non-being.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 4 Sed id quod potest non esse, contingit non esse. Haec enim duo aequipollent. Quod autem contingit non esse, est corruptibile, vel simpliciter, vel secundum quid, prout dicitur contingere non esse. Sicut si contingat aliquod corpus non esse in aliquo loco, illud est corruptibile secundum locum. Et similiter est de quanto et de quali. Sed simpliciter est corruptibile, quod potest non esse secundum substantiam. Relinquitur ergo, quod omne quod est in potentia, inquantum huiusmodi, corruptibile est.	1870. But what is capable of not being may possibly not be, for these two statements are equivalent ones. Moreover, what may possibly not be is corruptible either absolutely or in a qualified sense inasmuch as it is said to be possible for it not to be. For example, if it is possible for some body not to be in place, that body is corruptible as far as place is concerned; and the same applies to quantity and quality. But that is corruptible in an absolute sense which is capable of not existing substantially. Therefore it follows that everything potential inasmuch as it is potential is corruptible.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 5 Secundo ibi, nihil ergo infert conclusionem ex positione praemissa intentam. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo concludit propositum circa sempiterna; inferens ex praedictis, quod si omne, quod est in potentia, est corruptibile, sequitur quod nullum incorruptibilium simpliciter, sit ens in potentia, ut accipiamus incorruptibile simpliciter et ens in potentia simpliciter secundum substantiam.	1871. Therefore nothing (794). Second, he draws from the foregoing the conclusion at which he aims; and in regard to this he does three things. First, he concludes to this thesis about eternal things, inferring from the observations made above that, if everything potential is corruptible, it follows that nothing which is incorruptible in an absolute sense is a potential being, provided that we understand incorruptible things in an absolute sense and potential being (~) in an absolute sense in reference to substance.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 6 Sed nihil prohibet, id quod est incorruptibile simpliciter, esse in potentia secundum quid, aut secundum quale, aut ubi. Ut luna est in potentia ut sit illustrata a sole, et sol est in potentia, cum est in oriente, quod sit in occidente. Patet ergo ex praedictis, quod omnia sempiterna, inquantum huiusmodi, sunt in actu.	1872. But nothing prevents something that is incorruptible in an absolute sense from being potential (+) in a qualified sense, in reference either to quality or to place. For example, the moon is in a state of potency to being illuminated by the sun; and when the sun is in the east it is in a state of potency with regard to being in the west. It is evident from what has been said, then, that all eternal things as such are actual.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 7 Secundo ibi, nec eorum concludit idem de necessariis, quod concluserat de sempiternis; quia etiam in ipsis rebus corruptibilibus sunt quaedam necessaria, ut hominem esse animal, omne totum esse maius sua parte. Dicit ergo, quod neque aliquid eorum, quae sunt ex necessitate, in potentia est. Quae enim necessaria sunt, semper sunt in actu, et non possunt esse et non esse. Ea vero, quae sunt necessaria, sunt prima inter omnia, quia eis ablatis nihil remanet aliorum; utpote si tollerentur essentialia praedicata, quae necessario praedicantur, non possent inesse accidentalia praedicata, quae contingit inesse et non inesse. Et sic relinquitur quod actus est prior potentia.	1873. And none (795). Second, he comes to the same conclusion about necessary things as he did about eternal things, because even in corruptible things there are certain necessary aspects; for example, man is an animal, and every whole is greater than its part. Hence he says that nothing necessary is potential; for necessary things are always actual and incapable of being or not being. And those things which are necessary are the first of all things, because if they ceased to exist, none of the others would exist; for example, if essential predicates, which are referred to a subject necessarily, were taken away, accidental predicates, which can be present and not present in some subject, could not be present in any subject. It follows, then, that actuality is prior to potency.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 8 Tertio ibi, neque utique concludit idem de motu sempiterno, quod concluserat de substantiis sempiternis; et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ex praedictis concludit propositum; dicens, quod si aliquis motus est sempiternus, ille motus non est in potentia, nec id quod movetur est in potentia ad motum, sed est in potentia unde quo idest ut ab hoc in id transeat. Cum enim motus sit actus existentis in potentia, oportet omne quod movetur esse in potentia ad terminum motus, non autem ad ipsum moveri, sed ad aliquod ubi, quo tendit per motum.	1874. Nor is (796). Third, he comes to the same conclusion about eternal motion as he did about eternal substances; and in regard to this he does three things. First, from what has been said above he concludes to his thesis. He says that, if some motion is eternal, that motion is not potential; nor is anything that is moved eternally in a state of potency to motion, but it is in a state of potency to this or to that place, i.e., inasmuch as it goes from this place to that place. For since motion is the actuality of something in potency, everything which is being moved must be in potency to the goal of that motion, not however as regards motion itself, but as regards some place to which it tends by its motion.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 9 Et quia quod movetur oportet habere materiam, subiungit quod nihil prohibet id quod movetur motu sempiterno habere materiam; quia licet non sit in potentia ad moveri simpliciter, est tamen in potentia ad hoc vel ad illud ubi.	1875. And since what is being moved must have matter, he adds that nothing prevents a thing which is being moved by an eternal motion from having matter; because, even though it is not in potency to motion in an absolute sense, it is nevertheless in potency to this or to that place.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 10 Secundo ibi, propter quod concludit quoddam corollarium ex dictis. Quia enim quod movetur motu sempiterno, non est in potentia ad ipsum moveri, motus autem caeli sempiternus est, secundum quod traditur in libro octavo physicorum: sequitur quod sol et astra et totum caelum semper agant, quia semper moventur, et per motum suum agunt.	1876. And for this (797). Second, he draws a corollary from the above discussion. For since what is being moved by an eternal motion is not in potency to motion itself (and the motion of the heavens is eternal according to the discussion in Book VIII of the Physics), it follows that the sun and the moon and the stars and the entire heaven are always active, because they are always being moved and are acting by means of their motion.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 11 Nec est timendum, quod aliquando motus caeli stet, ut timuerunt quidam naturales, scilicet Empedocles, et sequaces eius, qui posuerunt, quod per litem et amicitiam mundus quandoque corrumpitur, et rursus reparatur. Et ideo dicit non esse timendum, quia non sunt in potentia ad non movere.	1877. Nor is it to be feared that at some time the motion of the heavens may cease, as “some of the natural philosophers feared it would,” namely, Empedocles and his followers, who held that at times the world is destroyed by discord and is restored again by friendship. Hence he says that this is not to be feared, because they are not potentially immobile.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 12 Et propter hoc etiam non corruptibilia, in eo quod moventur, non laborant. Non enim inest eis potentia contradictionis, scilicet ut moveantur et non moveantur, sicut est in corruptibilibus, quae haec habent per motum, et ita per hunc modum continuus motus fit eis motus cum labore. Quod enim corruptibilia laborent in eo quod moventur, causa est, quia sunt in potentia ad moveri et non moveri, et non habent hoc ex natura substantiali sua quod semper moveantur. Unde videmus quod tanto aliquis motus est laboriosior, quanto etiam natura rei est propinquior ad non moveri. Sicut patet quod moveri sursum in animalibus laboriosum est.	1878. And for this reason too incorruptible things insofar as they are being moved do not tire in their activity, because “the potency for opposite determinations” is not found in them, namely, the ability to be both moved and not moved, as is found in corruptible things, which have these as a result of motion. And thus in this way continuous motion becomes laborious for them. For corruptible things labor insofar as they are moved; and the reason is that they are in a state of potency both for being moved and not being moved, and it is not proper to them by reason of their substantial nature always to be undergoing motion. Hence we see that the more laborious any motion is, the nearer also does the nature of the thing come to immobility; for example, in the case of animals it is evident that motion in an upward direction is more laborious.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 13 Quod autem hic dicitur de perpetuitate motus caeli, dicitur secundum convenientiam naturae corporis caelestis, quam experti sumus. Sed hoc non praeiudicat divinae voluntati, a qua dependet motus caeli et esse eius.	1879. Now what he says here about the continuity of celestial motion is in keeping with the nature of a celestial body, which we know by experience. But this is not prejudicial to the divine will, on which the motion and being of the heavens depend.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 14 Tertio ibi, imitantur autem comparat corpora corruptibilia incorruptibilibus in agendo. Et primo quantum ad similitudinem; dicens, quod corpora eorum, quorum esse est in transmutatione, imitantur corpora incorruptibilia in eo, quod semper agunt; sicut ignis, qui secundum se semper calefacit, et terra quae secundum se semper facit operationes proprias et naturales. Et hoc ideo est, quia habent motum et operationem suam propriam secundum se, et in eis, inquantum scilicet formae eorum sunt principia talium motuum et actionum.	1880. Moreover, incorruptible things (798). Third, he compares corruptible bodies with incorruptible ones from the viewpoint of activity. First, he does this insofar as they are alike. He says that the bodies of those things whose being involves change resemble incorruptible bodies insofar as they are always acting; for example, fire, which of itself always produces heat, and earth, which of itself always produces proper and natural activities. And this is true because they have motion and their own proper activity of themselves— inasmuch, namely, as their forms are principles of such motions and activities.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 15 Secundo ibi, potentiae vero ponit comparationem secundum dissimilitudinem; dicens, quod aliae potentiae rerum mobilium, de quibus supra determinatum est, omnes sunt contradictionis, e contrario rebus sempiternis, quae semper sunt in actu. Sed diversimode: nam potentiae rationales sunt contradictionis, eo quod possunt movere sic vel non sic, sicut supra dictum est. Potentiae vero irrationales operantur uno modo; sed et ipsae sunt contradictionis per hoc, quod possunt adesse, et non esse, sicut animal potest amittere potentiam visivam.	1881. But all the other (799). Second, he compares them insofar as they are unlike. He says that in contrast with eternal things, which are always actual, the other potencies of mobile things, about which the truth has been established above, are all potencies for opposite determinations. But this is verified in a different way; for (1) rational potencies are potencies capable of opposite determinations because they can move in this way or not, as has been said above (1789); whereas (2) irrational potencies, though acting in one way, are themselves also potencies of opposite determinations in view of the fact that they can be present in a subject or not; for example, an animal can lose its power of vision.
lib. 9 l. 9 n. 16 Deinde cum dicit si ergo ex praemissis excludit quoddam a Platone positum. Ponebat enim Plato formas separatas, quas maxime esse dicebat: sicut si ponerem scientiam esse separatam, quam vocabat per se scientiam: et dicebat quod hoc erat principalissimum in genere scibilium et similiter per se motum in genere mobilium. Sed secundum praeostensa, aliquid erit primo in genere scibilium, quam per se scientia. Ostensum est enim quod prior est actus perfectione quam potentia. Scientia enim ipsa est quaedam potentia. Unde consideratio quae est actus eius erit ea potior, et sic de aliis huiusmodi. Ultimo epilogat quod dictum est, scilicet quod actus est prior potentia, et omni principio motus.	1882. If, hen (800). As a result of what has been said he rejects a doctrine of Plato. For Plato claimed that there are certain separate Forms, which he held to have being in the highest degree; say, a separate science, which he called science-in-itself; and he said that this is foremost in the class of knowable entities. And similarly he maintained that motion-in-itself is foremost in the class of mobile things. But according to the points made clear above, something else besides science-in-itself will be first in the class of knowable things; for it was shown that actuality is prior to potency in perfection, and science itself is a kind of potency. Hence speculation, which is the activity of science, will be more perfect than science is; and the same will apply in the case of other things of this kind. Lastly he summarizes his discussion, saying that actuality is prior to potency and to every principle of motion.