Authors/Thomas Aquinas/perihermenias/perihermenias II/L11

LECTURE 11

Latin	English
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 11 n. 1 Postquam Aristoteles declaravit modalium consequentias, hic movet quandam dubitationem circa unum eorum quae determinata sunt, scilicet quod possibile sequitur ad necesse. Et duo facit: quia primo dubitationem absolvit; secundo, ex determinata quaestione alium ordinem earumdem consequentiarum modalibus statuit; ibi: et est fortasse et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, movet quaestionem; secundo, determinat eam; ibi: manifestum est et cetera. Movet ergo quaestionem: primo dicens: dubitabit autem aliquis si ad id quod est necesse esse sequatur possibile esse; et secundo, arguit ad partem affirmativam subdens: nam si non sequatur, contradictoria eius sequetur, scilicet non possibile esse, ut supra deductum est: quia de quolibet est affirmatio vel negatio vera. Et si quis dicat hanc, scilicet, non possibile esse, non esse contradictoriam illius, scilicet, possibile esse, et propterea subterfugiendum velit argumentum, et dicere quod neutra harum sequitur ad necesse esse; talis licet falsum dicat, tamen concedatur sibi, quoniam necesse erit ipsum dicere illius contradictoriam fore, possibile non esse. Oportet namque aut non possibile esse aut possibile non esse, esse contradictoriam, possibile esse; et tunc in eumdem redibit errorem, quoniam utraeque, scilicet, non possibile esse et possibile non esse, falsae sunt de eo quod est, necesse esse. Et consequenter ad ipsum neutra sequi potest. Nulla enim enunciatio sequitur ad illam, cuius veritatem destruit. Relinquitur ergo quod, ad necesse esse sequitur possibile esse.	1. Now that he has explained the consequents of modals, Aristotle raises a question about one of the points that has already been determined, namely, that the possible follows upon the necessary. He first raises the question and then settles it where he says, It is evident by now that not every possibility of being or walking is one that admits of opposites, etc. Secondly, he establishes another order of the same consequents from the determination of the present question, where he says Indeed the necessary and not necessary may well be the principle of all that is or is not, etc. First, then, he raises the question: But it may be questioned whether "Possible to be follows upon "necessary to be.” Secondly, he argues to the affirmative part: Yet if not, the contradictory, "not possible to be,” would have to follow, as was deduced earlier, for either the affirmation or the negation is true of anything. And if someone should say "not possible to be” is not the contradictory of "possible to be,” because he wants to avoid the conclusion by saying that neither of these follows upon "necessary to be,” this may be conceded, although what he says is false. But then he will have to say that the contradictory of "possible to be” is "possible not to be,” for the contradictory of "possible to be” has to be either "not possible to be” or "possible not to be.” But if he says this, he will fall into another error, for it is false to say it is not possible to be of that which is necessary to be, and it is false to say it is possible not to be. Consequently, neither follows upon it, for no enunciation follows upon an enunciation whose truth it destroys. Therefore, "possible to be” follows upon "necessary to be.”
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 11 n. 2 Tertio, arguit ad partem negativam cum subdit: at vero rursus etc., et intendit talem rationem. Si ad necesse esse sequitur possibile esse, cum ad possibile sequatur possibile non esse (per conversionem in oppositam qualitatem, ut dicitur in I priorum, quia idem est possibile esse et non esse), sequetur de primo ad ultimum quod necesse est possibile non esse: quod est falsum manifeste. Unde oppositionis hypothesim subdit: at vero rursus videtur idem possibile esse et non esse, ut domus, et possibile incidi et non incidi, ut vestis. Quare de primo ad ultimum necesse esse, erit contingens non esse. Hoc autem est falsum. Ergo hypothesis illa, scilicet, quod possibile sequatur ad necesse, est falsa.	2. Thirdly, he argues to the negative part where he says, On the other hand, it seems possible for the same thing to be cut and not to be cut, etc. His argument is as follows: If "possible to be” follows upon "necessary to be,” then, since "possible not to be” follows upon the possible (through conversion to the opposite quality, as is said in I Priorum [13: 32a 31], for the same thing is possible to be and not to be), from first to last it will follow that the necessary is possible not to be, which is clearly false. In this argument, Aristotle supplies a hypothesis opposed to the position that possible to be follows upon necessary to be: On the other hand, it seems possible for the same thing to be cut and not to be cut, for instance a garment, and to be and not to be, for instance a house. Therefore, from first to last, necessary to be will be possible not to be. But this is false. Therefore, the hypothesis that the possible follows upon the necessary is false.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 11 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: manifestum est autem etc., respondet dubitationi. Et primo, declarat veritatem simpliciter; secundo, applicat ad propositum; ibi: hoc igitur possibile et cetera. Proponit ergo primo ipsam veritatem declarandam, dicens: manifestum est autem, ex dicendis, quod non omne possibile esse vel ambulare, idest operari: idest, non omne possibile secundum actum primum vel secundum ad opposita valet, idest ad opposita viam habet, sed est invenire aliqua possibilia, in quibus non sit verum dicere quod possunt in opposita. Deinde, quia possibile a potentia nascitur, manifestat qualiter se habeat potentia ipsa ad opposita: ex hoc enim clarum erit quomodo possibile se habeat ad opposita. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo manifestat hoc in potentiis eiusdem rationis; secundo, in his quae aequivoce dicuntur potentiae; ibi: quaedam vero potentiae et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: quia primo manifestat qualiter potentia irrationalis se habeat ad opposita; et ait quod potentia irrationalis non potest in opposita.	3. When he says, It is evident by now that not every possibility of being or walking, etc., he answers the question he proposed. First, he manifests the truth simply, then applies it to the question where he says, So it is not true to say the latter possible of what is necessary simply, etc. First, then, he proposes the truth he is going to explain: It is evident by now that not every possibility of being or walking, i.e., of operating; that is, not everything possible according to first or second act admits of opposites, i.e., has access to opposites; there are some possibles of which it is not true to say that they are capable of opposites. Then, since the possible arises from potency, he manifests how potency is related to opposites; for it will be clear from this bow the possible is related to opposites. First he manifests this in potencies having the same notion; secondly, in those that are called potencies equivocally where he says, But some are called potentialities equivocally, etc. With respect to the way in which potencies of the same specific notion are related to opposites, he does three things. First of all he manifests how an irrational potency is related to opposites; an irrational potency, he says, is not a potency that is capable of opposites.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 11 n. 4 Ubi notandum est quod, sicut dicitur IX Metaphys., potentia activa, cum nihil aliud sit quam principium quo in aliud agimus, dividitur in potentiam rationalem et irrationalem. Potentia rationalis est, quae cum ratione et electione operatur; sicut ars medicinae, qua medicus cognoscens quid sanando expediat infirmo, et volens applicat remedia. Potentia autem irrationalis vocatur illa, quae non ex ratione et libertate operatur, sed ex naturali sua dispositione; sicut calor ignis potentia irrationalis est, quia calefacit, non ut cognoscit et vult, sed ut natura sua exigit. Assignatur autem ibidem duplex differentia proposito deserviens inter istas potentias. Prima est quod activa potentia irrationalis non potest duo opposita, sed est determinata ad unum oppositorum, sive sumatur oppositum contradictorie sive contrarie. Verbi gratia: calor non potest calefacere et non calefacere, quae sunt contradictorie opposita, neque potest calefacere et frigefacere, quae sunt contraria, sed ad calefactionem determinatus est. Et hoc intellige per se, quia per accidens calor frigefacere potest, vel resolvendo materiam caloris, humidum scilicet, vel per antiperistasin contrarii. Et similiter potest non calefacere per accidens, scilicet si calefactibile deest. Potentia autem rationalis potest in opposita et contradictorie et contrarie. Arte siquidem medicinae potest medicus adhibere remedia et non adhibere, quae sunt contradictoria; et adhibere remedia sana et nociva, quae sunt contraria. Secunda differentia est quod potentia activa irrationalis, praesente passo, necessario operatur, deductis impedimentis: calor enim calefactibile sibi praesens calefacit necessario, si nihil impediat; potentia autem rationalis, passo praesente, non necessario operatur: praesente siquidem infirmo, non cogitur medicus remedia adhibere.	4. It must be noted in this connection that active potency, since it is the principle by which we act on something else, is divided into rational and irrational potency, as is said in IX Metaphysicae [2: 1046a 36]. Rational potency operates in connection with reason and choice; for example, the art of medicine by which the physician, knowing and willing what is expedient in healing an illness, applies a remedy. Irrational potency operates according to its own natural disposition, not according to reason and liberty; for example, the heat of fire is an irrational potency, because it heats, not as it knows and wills, but as its nature requires. In the Metaphysics, a twofold difference between these potencies is assigned which is relevant here. The first is that an irrational active potency is not capable of two opposites, but is determined to one opposite, whether "opposite” is taken contradictorily or contrarily; e.g., heat cannot heat and not heat, which are opposed contradictorily; nor can it heat and cool, which are contraries, but is deter mined to heating. Understand this per se, for heat can cool accidentally, either by destroying the matter of heat, namely, the humid, or through alternation of the contrary. It also has the potentiality not to heat accidentally, if that which can be heated is lacking. A rational potency, on the other hand, is capable of opposites, both contradictorily and contrarily; for by the art of medicine the physician can employ a remedy and not employ it, which are contradictories, and employ healing and harmful remedies, which are contraries. The second difference is that an irrational active potency necessarily operates when a subject is present and impediments are with drawn; for heat necessarily heats when a subject that can be heated is present, and nothing impedes it. A rational potency, however, does not necessarily operate when a subject is present; e.g., when a sick man is present the physician is not forced to employ a remedy.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 11 n. 5 Dimittantur autem metaphysico harum differentiarum rationes et ad textum redeamus. Ubi narrans quomodo se habeat potentia irrationalis ad oppositum, ait: et primum quidem, scilicet, non est verum dicere quod sit potentia ad opposita in his quae possunt non secundum rationem, idest, in his quorum posse est per potentias irrationales; ut ignis calefactivus est, idest, potens calefacere, et habet vim, idest, potentiam istam irrationalem. Ignis siquidem non potest frigefacere; neque in eius potestate est calefacere et non calefacere. Quod autem dixit primum ordinem, nota, ad secundum genus possibilis infra dicendum, in quo etiam non invenitur potentia ad opposita.	5. The reasons for these differences are given in the Metaphysics, but let us return to the text. Explaining bow an irrational potency is related to opposites, he says, First of all, this is not true, i.e., it is not true to say that there is a potency to opposites in those which are not according to reason, i.e., whose power is through irrational potencies; as fire which is calefactive, i.e., capable of heating, has this power, i.e., this irrational potentiality, since it is not able to cool, nor is it in its power 4 to heat and not to heat. Note that he speaks here of a first kind. This is in relation to a second genus of the possible which he will speak of later, in which there is not a potency to opposites either.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 11 n. 6 Secundo, manifestat quomodo potentia rationalis se habeat ad opposita, intendens quod potentia rationalis potest in opposita. Unde subdit: ergo potestates secundum rationem, idest rationales, ipsae eaedem sunt contrariorum, non solum duorum, sed etiam plurimorum, ut arte medicinae medicus plurima iuga contrariorum adhibere potest, et a multarum operationum contradictionibus abstinere potest. Praeposuit autem ly ergo, ut hoc consequi ex dictis insinuaret: cum enim oppositorum oppositae sint proprietates, et potentia irrationalis ex eo quod irrationalis ad opposita non se extendat; oportet potentiam rationalem ad opposita viam habere, eo quod rationalis sit.	6. Secondly, he shows how a rational potency is related to opposites, i.e., it is capable of opposites: Therefore potentialities that are in conjunction with reason, i.e., rational potencies, are capable of contraries, not only of two, but even of many; for example, a physician by the art of medicine can employ many pairs of contraries and he can abstain from doing or not doing many things. He begins with "therefore” so as to imply that this follows from what has been said.”’ The argument would be: properties of opposites are opposites; an irrational potency, because it is irrational, does not extend itself to opposites; therefore a rational potency, because it is rational, has access to opposites.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 11 n. 7 Tertio, explanat id quod dixit de potentiis irrationalibus, propter causam infra assignandam ab ipso; et intendit quod illud quod dixit de potentia irrationali, scilicet quod non potest in opposita, non est verum universaliter, sed particulariter. Ubi nota quod potentia irrationalis dividitur in potentiam activam, quae est principium faciendi, et potentiam passivam, quae est principium patiendi: verbi gratia, potentia ad calorem dividitur in posse calefacere, et in posse calefieri. In potentiis activis irrationalibus verum est quod non possunt in opposita, ut declaratum est; in potentiis autem passivis non est verum. Illud enim quod potest calefieri, potest etiam frigefieri, quia eadem est materia, seu potentia passiva contrariorum, ut dicitur in II de caelo et mundo, et potest non calefieri, quia idem est subiectum privationis et formae, ut dicitur in I Physic. Et propter hoc ergo explanando, ait: irrationales vero potentiae non omnes a posse in opposita excludi intelligendae sunt, sed illae quae sunt quemadmodum potentia ignis calefactiva (ignem enim non posse non calefacere manifestum est), et universaliter, quaecunque alia sunt talis potentiae, quod semper agunt, idest quod quantum est ex se non possunt non agere, sed ad semper agendum ex sua forma necessitantur. Huiusmodi autem sunt, ut declaravimus, omnes potentiae activae irrationales. Alia vero sunt talis conditionis quod etiam secundum irrationales potentias, scilicet passivas, simul possunt in quaedam opposita, ut aer potest calefieri et frigefieri. Quod vero ait, simul, cadit supra ly possunt, et non supra ly opposita; et est sensus, quod simul aliquid habet potentiam passivam ad utrunque oppositorum, et non quod habeat potentiam passivam ad utrunque oppositorum simul habendum. Opposita namque impossibile est haberi simul. Unde et dici solet et bene, quod in huiusmodi est simultas potentiae, non potentia simultatis. Irrationalis igitur potentia non secundum totum suum ambitum a posse in opposita excluditur, sed secundum partem eius, secundum potentias scilicet activas.	7. Thirdly, he explains what he has said about irrational potencies. He will assign the reason for doing this later. He makes the point that what he has said about irrational potentiality, i.e., that it is not capable of opposites, is not true universally, but particularly. It should be noted here that irrational potency is divided into active potency, which is the principle of acting, and passive potency, which is the principle of being acted upon; e.g., potency to heat is divided into potentiality to heat and potentiality to be heated. Now it is true that active irrational potencies are not capable of opposites, as was explained. This is not true, however, of passive potencies, for what can be heated can also be cooled, because the mat ter is the same, i.e., the passive potency of contraries, as is said in II De caelo et mundo [7: 286a 23]. It can also not be heated, since the subject of privation and of form is the same, as is said in I Physic [7: 189b 32]. Therefore, in explaining about irrational potencies, he says, But not all irrational potentialities should be understood to be excluded from the capacity of opposites. Those like the potentiality of fire to heat are to be excluded (for it is evident that fire cannot not heat) I and universally, whatever others are potencies of such a kind that they always act, i.e., the ones that of themselves cannot not act, but are necessitated by their form always to act. All active irrational potencies are of this kind, as we have explained. There are others, however, of such a condition that even though they are irrational potencies (i.e., passive) are simultaneously capable of certain opposites; for example, air can be heated and cooled. "Simultaneously” modifies "are capable” and not "opposites.” What he means is that the thing simultaneously has a passive potency to each opposite, and not that it has a passive potency to have both opposites simultaneously, for it is impossible to have opposites at one and the same time. Hence it is customary and correct to say that in these there is simultaneity of potency, not potency of simultaneity. Therefore, irrational potency is excluded from the capacity of opposites, not completely, but according to its part, namely, according to active potencies.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 11 n. 8 Quia autem videbatur superflue addidisse differentias inter activas et passivas irrationales, quia sat erat proposito ostendisse quod non omnis potentia oppositorum est; ideo subdit quod hoc idcirco dictum est, ut notum fiat quoniam nedum non omnis potestas oppositorum est, loquendo de potentia communissime, sed neque quaecunque potentiae dicuntur secundum eamdem speciem ad opposita possunt. Potentiae siquidem irrationales omnes sub una specie irrationalis potentiae concluduntur, et tamen non omnes in opposita possunt, sed passive tantum. Non supervacanea ergo fuit differentia inter passivas et activas irrationales, sed necessaria ad declarandum quod non omnes potentiae eiusdem speciei possunt in opposita. Potest et ly hoc demonstrare utranque differentiam, scilicet, inter rationales et irrationales, et inter irrationales activas et passivas inter se; et tunc est sensus, quod hoc ideo fecimus, ut ostenderemus quod non omnis potestas, quae scilicet secundum eamdem rationem potentiae physicae dicitur, quia scilicet potest in aliquid ut rationalis et irrationalis, neque etiam omnis potestas, quae sub eadem specie continetur, ut irrationalis activa et passiva sub specie irrationalis, ad opposita potest.	8. Because it might seem superfluous to have added the differences between active and passive irrational potencies, since enough had already been said to show that not every potency is of opposites, Aristotle gives the reason for this. It was not only to make it known that not every potency is of opposites, speaking of potency most commonly, but also that not all that are called potencies according to the same species are capable of opposites. For all irrational potencies are included under one species of irrational potency, and yet not all are capable of opposites, but only the passive potencies. It was not superfluous, therefore, to point out the difference between passive and active irrational potencies, since this was necessary in order to show that not all potencies of the same species are capable of opposites. " This” in the phrase "this has been said” could designate each difference, the one between rational and irrational potencies, and the one between active and passive irrational potencies. The meaning is, then, that we have said this to show that not every potentiality which is said according to the same notion of physical power—namely, because it can be in something as rational and irrational—not even every potentiality which is contained under the same species, as active and passive under the species irrational, is capable of opposites.