Authors/Thomas Aquinas/perihermenias/perihermenias I/L15

LECTURE 15

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 15 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit esse impossibilia ea, quae ex praedictis rationibus sequebantur; hic, remotis impossibilibus, concludit veritatem. Et circa hoc duo facit: quia enim argumentando ad impossibile, processerat ab enunciationibus ad res, et iam removerat inconvenientia quae circa res sequebantur; nunc, ordine converso, primo ostendit qualiter se habeat veritas circa res; secundo, qualiter se habeat veritas circa enunciationes; ibi: quare quoniam orationes verae sunt et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit qualiter se habeant veritas et necessitas circa res absolute consideratas; secundo, qualiter se habeant circa eas per comparationem ad sua opposita; ibi: et in contradictione eadem ratio est et cetera.	1. Now that the Philosopher has shown the impossibilities that follow from the foresaid arguments, he concludes what the truth is on this point. In arguing to the impossibility of the position, he proceeded from enunciations to things, and has already rejected the unlikely consequences in respect to things. Now, in the converse order, he first shows the way in which there is truth about things; secondly, the way in which there is truth in enunciations, where he says, And so, since speech is true as it corresponds to things, etc. With respect to truth about things be first shows the way in which there is truth and necessity about things absolutely considered; secondly, the way in which there is truth and necessity about things through a comparing of their opposites, where he says, And this is also the case with respect to contradiction, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 15 n. 2 Dicit ergo primo, quasi ex praemissis concludens, quod si praedicta sunt inconvenientia, ut scilicet omnia ex necessitate eveniant, oportet dicere ita se habere circa res, scilicet quod omne quod est necesse est esse quando est, et omne quod non est necesse est non esse quando non est. Et haec necessitas fundatur super hoc principium: impossibile est simul esse et non esse: si enim aliquid est, impossibile est illud simul non esse; ergo necesse est tunc illud esse. Nam impossibile non esse idem significat ei quod est necesse esse, ut in secundo dicetur. Et similiter, si aliquid non est, impossibile est illud simul esse; ergo necesse est non esse, quia etiam idem significant. Et ideo manifeste verum est quod omne quod est necesse est esse quando est; et omne quod non est necesse est non esse pro illo tempore quando non est: et haec est necessitas non absoluta, sed ex suppositione. Unde non potest simpliciter et absolute dici quod omne quod est, necesse est esse, et omne quod non est, necesse est non esse: quia non idem significant quod omne ens, quando est, sit ex necessitate, et quod omne ens simpliciter sit ex necessitate; nam primum significat necessitatem ex suppositione, secundum autem necessitatem absolutam. Et quod dictum est de esse, intelligendum est similiter de non esse; quia aliud est simpliciter ex necessitate non esse et aliud est ex necessitate non esse quando non est. Et per hoc videtur Aristoteles excludere id quod supra dictum est, quod si in his, quae sunt, alterum determinate est verum, quod etiam antequam fieret alterum determinate esset futurum.	2. He begins, then, as though concluding from premises: if the foresaid things are unlikely (namely, that all things take place of necessity), then the case with respect to things must be this: everything that is must be when it is, and everything that is not, necessarily not be when it is not. This necessity is founded on the principle that it is impossible at once to be and not be; for if something is, it is impossible that it at the same time not be; therefore it is necessary that it be at that time. For "impossible not to be” signifies the same thing as "necessary to be,” as Aristotle says in the second book. Similarly, if something is not, it is impossible that it at the same time be. Therefore it is necessary that it not be, for they also signify the same thing. Clearly it is true, then, that everything that is must be when it is, and everything that is not must not be when it is not. This is not absolute necessity, but necessity by supposition. Consequently, it cannot be said absolutely and simply that everything that is must be, and that everything that is not must not be. For "every being, when it is, necessarily is” does not signify the same thing as "every being necessarily is, simply. The first signifies necessity by supposition, the second, absolute necessity. What has been said about to be must be understood to apply also to not to be, for "necessarily not to be simply” and "necessarily not to be when it is not” are also different. By this Aristotle seems to exclude what was said above, namely, that if in those things that are, one of the two is determinately true, then even before it takes place one of the two would determinately be going to be.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 15 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: et in contradictione etc., ostendit quomodo se habeant veritas et necessitas circa res per comparationem ad sua opposita: et dicit quod eadem ratio est in contradictione, quae est in suppositione. Sicut enim illud quod non est absolute necessarium, fit necessarium ex suppositione eiusdem, quia necesse est esse quando est; ita etiam quod non est in se necessarium absolute fit necessarium per disiunctionem oppositi, quia necesse est de unoquoque quod sit vel non sit, et quod futurum sit aut non sit, et hoc sub disiunctione: et haec necessitas fundatur super hoc principium quod, impossibile est contradictoria simul esse vera vel falsa. Unde impossibile est neque esse neque non esse; ergo necesse est vel esse vel non esse. Non tamen si divisim alterum accipiatur, necesse est illud esse absolute. Et hoc manifestat per exemplum: quia necessarium est navale bellum esse futurum cras vel non esse; sed non est necesse navale bellum futurum esse cras; similiter etiam non est necessarium non esse futurum, quia hoc pertinet ad necessitatem absolutam; sed necesse est quod vel sit futurum cras vel non sit futurum: hoc enim pertinet ad necessitatem quae est sub disiunctione.	3. He shows how truth and necessity is had about things through the comparing of their opposites where he says, This is also the case with respect to contradiction, etc. The reasoning is the same, he says, in respect to contradiction and in respect to supposition. For just as that which is not absolutely necessary becomes necessary by supposition of the same (for it must be when it is), so also what in itself is not necessary absolutely, becomes necessary through the disjunction of the opposite, for of each thing it is necessary that it is or is not, and that it will or will not be in the future, and this under disjunction. This necessity is founded upon the principle that it is impossible for contradictories to be at once true and false. Accordingly, it is impossible that a thing neither be nor not be; therefore it is necessary that it either be or not be. However if one of these is taken separately [i.e., divisively], it is not necessary that that one be absolutely. This he manifests by example: it is necessary that there will be or will not be a naval battle tomorrow; but it is not necessary that a naval battle will take place tomorrow, nor is it necessary that it will not take place, for this pertains to absolute necessity. It is necessary, however, that it will take place or will not take place tomorrow. This pertains to the necessity which is under disjunction.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 15 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: quare quoniam etc. ex eo quod se habet circa res, ostendit qualiter se habeat circa orationes. Et primo, ostendit quomodo uniformiter se habet in veritate orationum, sicut circa esse rerum et non esse; secundo, finaliter concludit veritatem totius dubitationis; ibi: quare manifestum et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod, quia hoc modo se habent orationes enunciativae ad veritatem sicut et res ad esse vel non esse (quia ex eo quod res est vel non est, oratio est vera vel falsa), consequens est quod in omnibus rebus quae ita se habent ut sint ad utrumlibet, et quaecumque ita se habent quod contradictoria eorum qualitercumque contingere possunt, sive aequaliter sive alterum ut in pluribus, ex necessitate sequitur quod etiam similiter se habeat contradictio enunciationum. Et exponit consequenter quae sint illae res, quarum contradictoria contingere queant; et dicit huiusmodi esse quae neque semper sunt, sicut necessaria, neque semper non sunt, sicut impossibilia, sed quandoque sunt et quandoque non sunt. Et ulterius manifestat quomodo similiter se habeat in contradictoriis enunciationibus; et dicit quod harum enunciationum, quae sunt de contingentibus, necesse est quod sub disiunctione altera pars contradictionis sit vera vel falsa; non tamen haec vel illa determinate, sed se habet ad utrumlibet. Et si contingat quod altera pars contradictionis magis sit vera, sicut accidit in contingentibus quae sunt ut in pluribus, non tamen ex hoc necesse est quod ex necessitate altera earum determinate sit vera vel falsa.	4. Then when he says, And so, since speech is true as it corresponds to things, etc., he shows how truth in speech corresponds to the way things are. First he shows in what way truth of speech conforms to the being and nonbeing of things; secondly, and finally, he arrives at the truth of the whole question, where he says, Therefore it is clear that it is not necessary that of every affirmation and negation of opposites, one is true and one false, etc. He says, then, that enunciative speech is related to truth in the way the thing is to being or nonbeing (for from the fact that a thing is or is not, speech is true or false). It follows, therefore, that when things are such as to be indeterminate to either of two, and when they are such that their contradictories could happen in whichever way, whether equally or one for the most part, the contradiction of enunciations must also be such. He explains next what the things are in which contradictories can happen. They are those that neither always are (i.e., the necessary), nor always are not (i.e., the impossible), but sometimes are and some times are not. He shows further how this is maintained in contradictory enunciations. In those enunciations that are about contingent things, one part of the contradiction must be true or false tinder disjunction; but it is related to either, not to this or that determinately. If it should turn out that one part of the contradiction is more true, as happens in contingents that are for the most part, it is nevertheless not necessary on this account that one of them is determinately true or false.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 15 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: quare manifestum est etc., concludit principale intentum et dicit manifestum esse ex praedictis quod non est necesse in omni genere affirmationum et negationum oppositarum, alteram determinate esse veram et alteram esse falsam: quia non eodem modo se habet veritas et falsitas in his quae sunt iam de praesenti et in his quae non sunt, sed possunt esse vel non esse. Sed hoc modo se habet in utriusque, sicut dictum est, quia scilicet in his quae sunt necesse est determinate alterum esse verum et alterum falsum: quod non contingit in futuris quae possunt esse et non esse. Et sic terminatur primus liber.	5. Then he says, Therefore, it is clear that it is not necessary that of every affirmation and negation of opposites, one is true and one, false, etc. This is the conclusion he principally intended. It is evident from what has been said that it is not necessary in every genus of affirmation and negation of opposites that one is determinately true and the other false, for truth and falsity is not had in the same way in regard to things that are already in the present and those that are not but which could be or not be. The position in regard to each has been explained. In those that are, it is necessary that one of them be determinately true and the other false; in things that are future, which could be or not be, the case is not the same. The first book ends with this.