Authors/Thomas Aquinas/perihermenias/perihermenias II/L13

LECTURE 13

Latin	English
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 13 n. 1 Postquam determinatum est de enunciatione secundum quod diversificatur tam ex additione facta ad terminos, quam ad compositionem eius, hic secundum divisionem a s. Thoma in principio huius secundi factam, intendit Aristoteles tractare quandam quaestionem circa oppositiones enunciationum provenientes ex eo quod additur aliquid simplici enunciationi. Et circa hoc quatuor facit: primo, movet quaestionem secundo, declarat quod haec quaestio dependet ab una alia quaestione praetractanda; ibi: nam si ea, quae sunt in voce etc.; tertio, determinat illam aliam quaestionem; ibi: nam arbitrari etc.; quarto, redit ad respondendum quaestioni primo motae; ibi: quare si in opinione et cetera. Quaestio quam movere intendit est: utrum affirmativae enunciationi contraria sit negatio eiusdem praedicati, an affirmatio de praedicato contrario seu privativo? Unde dicit: utrum contraria est affirmatio negationi contradictoriae, scilicet, et universaliter oratio affirmativa orationi negativae; ut, affirmativa oratio quae dicit, omnis homo est iustus, illi contraria sit orationi negativae, nullus homo est iustus, aut illi, omnis homo est iniustus, quae est affirmativa de praedicato privativo? Et similiter ista affirmatio, Callias est iustus, est ne contraria illi contradictoriae negationi, Callias non est iustus, aut illi, Callias est iniustus, quae est affirmativa de praedicato privativo?	1. Now that he has treated the enunciation as it is diversified by an addition made to the terms and by an addition made to its composition (which is the division of the text made by St. Thomas at the beginning of the second book), Aristotle takes up another question about oppositions of enunciations. This question concerns the oppositions that result from something added to the simple enunciation. First he asks the question; secondly, he shows that this question depends upon another, which must be treated first, where he says, For if those things that are in vocal sound are determined by those in the intellect, etc.; third, he settles the latter question where he says, It is false, course, to suppose that opinions are to be defined as contrary because they are about contraries, etc.; finally, he replies to the first question where he says, If, therefore, this is the case with respect to opinion, and affirmations and negations in vocal sound are signs of those in the soul, etc. The first question he raises is this: is the contrary of an affirmative enunciation the negation of the same predicate or the affirmation of a contrary or privative predicate? Hence he says, There is a question as to whether the contrary of an affirmation is the contradictory negation, and universally, whether affirmative speech is contrary to negative speech. For instance, is affirmative speech which says "Every man is just,” contrary to negative speech which says "No man is just,” or to the affirmative of the privative predicate, "Every man is unjust”? And similarly, is the affirmation "Callias is just” contrary to the contradictory negation, "Callias is not just” or is it contrary to "Callias is unjust,” the affirmative of the privative predicate?
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 13 n. 2 Ad evidentiam tituli huius quaestionis, quia hactenus indiscusse ab aliis est relictus, considerare oportet quod cum in enunciatione sint duo, scilicet ipsa enunciatio seu significatio et modus enunciandi seu significandi, duplex inter enunciationes fieri potest oppositio, una ratione ipsius enunciationis, altera ratione modi enunciandi. Si modos enunciandi attendimus, duas species oppositionis in latitudine enunciationum inveniemus, contrarietatem scilicet et contradictionem. Divisae enim superius sunt enunciationes oppositae in contrarias et contradictorias. Contradictio inter enunciationes ratione modi enunciandi est quando idem praedicatur de eodem subiecto contradictorio modo enunciandi; ut sicut unum contradictorium nil ponit, sed alterum tantum destruit, ita una enunciatio nil asserit, sed id tantum quod altera enunciabat destruit. Huiusmodi autem sunt omnes quae contradictoriae vocantur, scilicet, omnis homo est iustus, non omnis homo est iustus, Socrates est iustus, Socrates non est iustus, ut de se patet. Et ex hoc provenit quod non possunt simul verae aut falsae esse, sicut nec duo contradictoria. Contrarietas vero inter enunciationes ratione modi enunciandi est quando idem praedicatur de eodem subiecto contrario modo enunciandi; ut sicut unum contrariorum ponit materiam sibi et reliquo communem in extrema distantia sub illo genere, ut patet de albo et nigro, ita una enunciatio ponit subiectum commune sibi et suae oppositae in extrema distantia sub illo praedicato. Huiusmodi quoque sunt omnes illae quae contrariae in figura appellantur, scilicet, omnis homo est iustus, omnis homo non est iustus. Hae enim faciunt subiectum, scilicet hominem, maxime distare sub iustitia, dum illa enunciat iustitiam inesse homini, non quocunque modo, sed universaliter; ista autem enunciat iustitiam abesse homini, non qualitercunque, sed universaliter. Maior enim distantia esse non potest quam ea, quae est inter totam universitatem habere aliquid et nullum de universitate habere illud. Et ex hoc provenit quod non possunt esse simul verae, sicut nec contraria possunt eidem simul inesse; et quod possunt esse simul falsae, sicut et contraria simul non inesse eidem possunt. Si vero ipsam enunciationem sive eius significationem attendamus secundum unam tantum oppositionis speciem, in tota latitudine enunciationum reperiemus contrarietatem, scilicet secundum veritatem et falsitatem: quia duarum enunciationum significationes entia positiva sunt, ac per hoc neque contradictorie neque privative opponi possunt, quia utriusque oppositionis alterum extremum est formaliter non ens. Et cum nec relative opponantur, ut clarum est, restat ut nonnisi contrarie opponi possunt.	2. Since this question has not been discussed by others, we must begin by noting that there are two things in an enunciation, namely, the enunciation itself, i.e., the signification, and the mode of enunciating or signifying. Hence, a twofold opposition can be made between enunciations, one by reason of the enunciation itself, the other by reason of the mode of enunciating. If we consider the modes of enunciating, we find two species of opposition among enunciations, namely, contrariety and contradiction. This point was made earlier when opposed enunciations were divided into contraries and contradictories. There is contradiction by reason of mode of enunciating when the same thing is predicated of the same subject in a contradictory mode; so that just as one of a pair of contradictories posits nothing but only destroys the other, so one enunciation 4 asserts nothing, but only destroys what the other was enunciating. All enunciations that are called contradictories are of this kind; e.g., "Every man is just,” "Not every man is just”; "Socrates is just,” "Socrates is not just.” It follows from this that they cannot be at once true or false, just as two contradictories cannot be at once. There is contrariety between enunciations by reason of mode of enunciating when the same thing is predicated of the same subject in a contrary mode of enunciating; so that just as one of a pair of contraries posits matter common to itself and to the other which is at the extreme distance under that genus—as is evident for instance in white and black—so one enunciation posits a subject common to itself and its opposite at the extreme distance under that predicate. All the enunciations in the diagram that are called contrary are of this kind, for example, "Every man is just,” "No man is just.” These make the subject "man” distant to the greatest degree possible under justice, one enunciating justice to be in man, not in any way, but universally, the other enunciating justice to be absent from man, not in any way, but universally. For no distance can be greater than the distance between the total number of things having something and none of the total number of things having that thing. It follows that contrary enunciations cannot be at once true, just as contraries cannot be in the same thing at once. They can, however, be false at the same time, just as it is possible that contraries not be in the same thing at the same time. If we consider the enunciation itself (viz., its signification) according to only one species of opposition, we will find in the whole range of enunciations an opposition of contrariety, i.e., an opposition according to truth and falsity. The reason for this is that the significations of two enunciations are positive, and accordingly cannot be opposed either contradictorily or privatively because the other extreme of both of these oppositions is formally non-being. And since significations are not opposed relatively, as is evident, the only way they can be opposed is contrarily.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 13 n. 3 Consistit autem ista contrarietas in hoc quod duarum enunciationum altera alteram non compatitur vel in veritate vel in falsitate, praesuppositis semper conditionibus contrariorum, scilicet quod fiant circa idem et in eodem tempore. Patere quoque potest talem oppositionem esse contrarietatem ex natura conceptionum animae componentis et dividentis, quarum singulae sunt enunciationes. Conceptiones siquidem animae adaequatae nullo alio modo opponuntur conceptionibus inadaequatis nisi contrarie, et ipsae conceptiones inadaequatae, si se mutuo expellunt, contrariae quoque dicuntur. Unde verum et falsum, contrarie opponi probatur a s. Thoma in I parte, qu. 17. Sicut ergo hic, ita et in enunciationibus ipsae significationes adaequatae contrarie opponuntur inadaequatis, idest verae falsis; et ipsae inadaequatae, idest falsae, contrarie quoque opponuntur inter se, si contingat quod se non compatiantur, salvis semper contrariorum conditionibus. Est igitur in enunciationibus duplex contrarietas, una ratione modi, altera ratione significationis, et unica contradictio, scilicet ratione modi. Et, ut confusio vitetur, prima contrarietas vocetur contrarietas modalis, secunda contrarietas formalis. Contradictio autem non ad confusionis vitationem quia unica est, sed ad proprietatis expressionem contradictio modalis vocari potest. Invenitur autem contrarietas formalis enunciationum inter omnes contradictorias, quia contradictoriarum altera alteram semper excludit; et inter omnes contrarias modaliter quoad veritatem, quia non possunt esse simul verae, licet non inveniatur inter omnes quoad falsitatem, quia possunt esse simul falsae.	3. The contrariety spoken of here consists in this: of two enunciations one is not compatible with the other either in truth or falsity—presupposing always the conditions for contraries, that they are about the same thing and at once. It can be shown that such opposition is contrariety from the nature of the conceptions of the soul when composing and dividing, each of which is an enunciation. Adequate conceptions of the soul are opposed to inadequate conceptions only contrarily, and inadequate conceptions, if each cancels the other, are also called contraries. It is from this that St. Thomas proves, in [Summa theologiae] part I, question 17, that the true and false are contrarily opposed. Therefore, as in the conceptions of the soul, so in enunciations, adequate significations are contrarily opposed to inadequate, i.e., true to false; and the inadequate, i.e., the false, are also contrarily opposed among themselves if it happens that they are not compatible, supposing always the conditions for contraries. There is, therefore, in enunciations a twofold contrariety, one by reason of mode, the other by reason of signification, and only one contradiction, that by reason of mode. To avoid confusion, let us call the first contrariety modal and the second formal. We may call contradiction modal—not to avoid confusion since it is unique—but for propriety of expression. Formal contrariety is found between all contradictory enunciations, since one contradictory always excludes the other. It is also found between all modally contrary enunciations in regard to truth, since they cannot be at once true. However it is not found between the latter in regard to falsity, since they can be at once false.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 13 n. 4 Quia igitur Aristoteles in hac quaestione loquitur de contrarietate enunciationum quae se extendit ad contrarias modaliter, et contradictorias, ut patet in principio et in fine quaestionis (in principio quidem, quia proponit utrasque contradictorias dicens: affirmatio negationi etc.; et contrarias modaliter dicens: et oratio orationi etc., unde et exempla utrarunque statim subdit, ut patet in littera. In fine vero, quia ibi expresse quam conclusit esse contrariam affirmativae universali verae dividit, in contrariam modaliter universalem negativam, scilicet, et contradictoriam: quae divisio falsitate non careret, nisi conclusisset contrariam formaliter, ut de se patet), quia, inquam, sic accipit contrarietatem, ideo de contrarietate formali enunciationum quaestio intelligenda est. Et est quaestio valde subtilis, necessaria et adhuc nullo modo superius tacta. Est igitur titulus quaestionis; utrum affirmativae verae contraria formaliter sit negativa falsa eiusdem praedicati, aut affirmativa falsa de praedicato, vel contrario? Et sic patet quis sit sensus tituli, et quare non movet quaestionem de quacunque alia oppositione enunciationum (quia scilicet nulla alia in eis formaliter invenitur), et quod accipit contrarietatem proprie et strictissime, licet talis contrarietas inveniatur inter contradictorias modaliter et contrarias modaliter. Dictum vero fuit a s. Thoma provenire hanc dubitationem ex eo quod additur aliquid simplici enunciationi, quia si tantum simplices, idest, de secundo adiacente enunciationes attendantur, non habet haec quaestio radicem. Quia autem simplici enunciationi, idest subiecto et verbo substantivo, additur aliquid, scilicet praedicatum, nascitur dubitatio circa oppositionem, an illud additum in contrariis debeat esse illudmet praedicatum, negatione apposita verbo, an debeat esse praedicatum contrarium seu privativum, absque negatione praeposita verbo.	4. Aristotle in this question is speaking of the contrariety of enunciations that extends to contraries modally and to contradictories. This is evident from what he says in the beginning and at the end of the question. In the beginning, he proposes both contradictories when he says, an affirmation... to a negation, etc.; and contraries modally, when he says, and in the case of speech whether the one saying... is opposed to the one saying... etc. It is evident, too, from the examples immediately added. At the end, he explicitly divides what he has concluded to be contrary to a true universal affirmative, into the modally contrary universal negative and the contradictory. It is clear at once that this division would be false unless it comprised the contrary formally. Since he takes contrariety in this way the question must be understood with respect to formal contrariety of enunciations. This is a very subtle question and one that has to be treated and has not been thus far. The question, therefore, is this: whether the formal contrary of the true affirmative is the false negative of the same predicate or the false affirmative of the privative predicate, i.e., of the contrary. The meaning of the question is now clear, and it is evident why he does not ask about any other oppositions of enunciations-no other opposition is found in them formally. It is also evident that he is taking contrariety properly and strictly, notwithstanding the fact that such contrariety is found among contradictories modally and contraries modally. St. Thomas has already pointed out that this question arises from the fact that something is added to the simple enunciation, for as it far as simple enunciations are concerned, i.e., those with only a second determinant, there is no occasion for the question. When, however, something is added, namely a predicate, to the simple enunciation, i.e., to the subject and the substantive verb, the question arises as to whether what ought to be added in contrary enunciations is the selfsame predicate with a negation added to the verb or a contrary, i.e., privative, predicate without a negation added to the verb.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 13 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: nam si ea etc., declarat unde sumenda sit decisio huius quaestionis. Et duo facit: quia primo declarat quod haec quaestio dependet ex una alia quaestione, ex illa scilicet: utrum opinio, idest conceptio animae, in secunda operatione intellectus, vera, contraria sit opinioni falsae negativae eiusdem praedicati, an falsae affirmativae contrarii sive privativi. Et assignat causam, quare illa quaestio dependet ex ista, quia scilicet enunciationes vocales sequuntur mentales, ut effectus adaequati causas proprias, et ut significata signa adaequata, et consequenter similis est in hoc utraque natura. Unde inchoans ab hac causa ait: nam si ea quae sunt in voce sequuntur ea, quae sunt in anima, ut dictum est in principio I libri, et illic, idest in anima, opinio contrarii praedicati circa idem subiectum est contraria illi alteri, quae affirmat reliquum contrarium de eodem (cuiusmodi sunt istae mentales enunciationes, omnis homo est iustus, omnis homo est iniustus); si ita inquam est, etiam et in his affirmationibus quae sunt in voce, idest vocaliter sumptis, necesse est similiter se habere, ut scilicet sint contrariae duae affirmativae de eodem subiecto et praedicatis contrariis. Quod si neque illic, idest in anima, opinatio contrarii praedicati, contrarietatem inter mentales enunciationes constituit, nec affirmatio vocalis affirmationi vocali contraria erit de contrario praedicato, sed magis affirmationi contraria erit negatio eiusdem praedicati.	5. When Aristotle says, For if those things that are in vocal sound are determined by those in the intellect, etc.; he shows where we have to begin in order to settle this question. First he shows that the question depends on another question, namely, whether a true opinion (i.e., a conception of the soul in the second operation of the intellect) is contrary to a false negative opinion of the same predicate, or to a false affirmative of the contrary, i.e., privative, predicate. Then he gives the reason why the former question depends on this. Vocal enunciations follow upon mental as adequate effects upon proper causes and as the signified upon adequate signs. So, in this the nature of each is similar. He begins, then, with the reason for this dependence: For if those things that are in vocal sound are determined by those in the intellect (as was said in the beginning of the first book) and if in the soul, those opinions are contrary which affirm contrary predicates about the same subject, (for example, the mental enunciations, "Every man is just, "Every man is unjust”), then in affirmations that are in vocal sound, the case must be the same. The contraries will be two affirmatives about the same subject with contrary predicates. But if in the soul this is not the case, i.e., that opinions with contrary predicates constitute contrariety in mental enunciations, then the contrary of a vocal affirmation will not be a vocal affirmation with a contrary predicate. Rather, the contrary of an affirmation will be the negation of the same predicate.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 13 n. 6 Dependet ergo mota quaestio ex ista alia sicut effectus ex causa. Propterea et concludendo addit secundum, quod scilicet de hac quaestione prius tractandum est, ut ex causa cognita effectus innotescat dicens: quare considerandum est, opinio vera cui opinioni falsae contraria est: utrum negationi falsae an certe ei affirmationi falsae, quae contrarium esse opinatur. Et ut exemplariter proponatur, dico hoc modo: sunt tres opiniones de bono, puta vita: quaedam enim est ipsius boni opinio vera, quoniam bonum est, puta, quod vita sit bona; alia vero falsa negativa, scilicet, quoniam bonum non est, puta, quod vita non sit bona; alia item falsa affirmativa contrarii, scilicet, quoniam malum est, puta, quod vita sit mala. Quaeritur ergo quae harum falsarum contraria est verae?	6. The first question, then, depends on this question as an effect upon its cause. For this reason, and by way of a conclusion to what he has just been saying, he adds the second question, which must be treated first so that once the cause is known the effect will be known: We must therefore consider to which false opinion the true opinion is contrary, whether it is to the false negation or to the false affirmation that it is to be judged contrary. Then in order to propose the question by examples he says: what I mean is this; there are three opinions of a good, for instance, of life. One is a true opinion, that it is good, for instance, that life is good. The other is a false negative, that it is not good, for instance, that life is not good. Still another, likewise false, is the affirmative of the contrary, that it is evil, for instance, that life is evil. The question is, then, which of these false opinions is contrary to the true one.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 13 n. 7 Quod autem subdidit: et si est una, secundum quam contraria est, tripliciter legi potest. Primo, dubitative, ut sit pars quaestionis; et tunc est sensus: quaeritur quae harum falsarum contraria est verae: et simul quaeritur, si est tantum una harum falsarum secundum quam fiat contraria ipsi verae: quia cum unum uni sit contrarium, ut dicitur in X metaphysicae, quaerendo quae harum sit contraria, quaeremus etiam an una earum sit contraria. Alio modo, potest legi adversative, ut sit sensus: quaeritur quae harum sit contraria; quamquam sciamus quod non utraque sed una earum est secundum quam fit contrarietas. Tertio modo, potest legi dividendo hanc particulam, et si est una, ab illa sequenti, secundum quam contraria est; et tunc prima pars expressive, secunda vero dubitative legitur; et est sensus: quaeritur quae harum falsarum contraria est verae, non solum si istae duae falsae inter se differunt in consequendo, sed etiam si utraque est una, idest alteri indivisibiliter unita, quaeritur secundum quam fit contrarietas. Et hoc modo exponit Boethius, dicens quod Aristoteles apposuit haec verba propter contraria immediata, in quibus non differt contrarium a privativo. Inter contraria enim mediata et immediata haec est differentia, quod in immediatis a privativo contrarium non infertur. Non enim valet, corpus colorabile est non album, ergo est nigrum: potest enim esse rubrum. In immediatis autem valet; verbi gratia: animal est non sanum, ergo infirmum; numerus est non par, ergo impar. Voluit ergo Aristoteles exprimere quod nunc, cum quaerimus quae harum falsarum, scilicet negativae et affirmativae contrarii, sit contraria affirmativae verae, quaerimus universaliter sive illae duae falsae indivisibiliter se sequantur, sive non.	7. Then he adds, the question, and if there is one, is either one the contrary. This passage can be read in three ways. It can be read inquiringly so that it is a part of the question, and then the meaning is: which of these false opinions is contrary to the true opinion, and, is there one of these by which the contrary to the true one is effected? For since one is contrary to one other, as is said in X Metaphysicae [1: 1055a 19], in asking which of these is the contrary we are also asking whether one of them is the contrary. This can also be read adversatively, and then the meaning is: which of these is the contrary, given that we know it is not both but one by which the contrariety is effected? This can be read in a third way by dividing the first clause, "and if it is one” from the second clause, "is either one the contrary.” The first part is then read assertively, the second inquiringly, and the meaning is: which of these two false opinions is contrary to the true opinion if the two false opinions differ as to consequence, and also if both are one, i.e., united to each other indivisibly? Boethius explains this passage in the last way. He says that Aristotle adds these words because of immediate contraries in which the contrary does not differ from the privative. For the difference between mediate and immediate contraries is that in the former the contrary is not inferred from the privative. For example, this is not valid: "A colored body is not white, therefore it is black”—for it could be red. In immediate contraries, on the other hand, it is valid to infer the contrary from the privative; e.g., "An animal is not healthy, therefore it is number is not even, therefore it is odd.” Therefore, Aristotle intends to show here that when we ask which of these false opinions, i.e., negative and affirmative contraries, is contrary to the true affirmative, we are asking universally whether these two false opinions follow each other indivisibly or not.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 13 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: nam arbitrari, prosequitur hanc secundam quaestionem. Et circa hoc quatuor facit. Primo, declarat quod contrarietas opinionum non attenditur penes contrarietatem materiae, circa quam versantur, sed potius penes oppositionem veri vel falsi; secundo, declarat quod non penes quaecunque opposita secundum veritatem et falsitatem est contrarietas opinionum; ibi: si ergo boni etc.; tertio, determinat quod contrarietas opinionum attenditur penes per se primo opposita secundum veritatem et falsitatem tribus rationibus; ibi: sed in quibus primo fallacia etc.; quarto declarat hanc determinationem inveniri in omnibus veram; ibi: manifestum est igitur et cetera. Dicit ergo proponens intentam conclusionem, quod falsum est arbitrari opiniones definiri seu determinari debere contrarias ex eo quod contrariorum obiectorum sunt. Et adducit ad hoc duplicem rationem. Prima est: opiniones contrariae non sunt eadem opinio; sed contrariorum eadem est fortasse opinio; ergo opiniones non sunt contrariae ex hoc quod contrariorum sunt. Secunda est: opiniones contrariae non sunt simul verae; sed opiniones contrariorum, sive plures, sive una, sunt simul verae quandoque; ergo opiniones non sunt contrariae ex hoc quod contrariorum sunt. Harum rationum, suppositis maioribus, ponit utriusque minoris declarationem simul, dicens: boni enim, quoniam bonum est, et mali, quoniam malum est, eadem fortasse opinio est, quoad primam. Et subdit esse vera, sive plures sive una sit, quoad secundam. Utitur autem dubitativo adverbio et disiunctione, quia non est determinandi locus an contrariorum eadem sit opinio, et quia aliquo modo est eadem et aliquo modo non. Si enim loquamur de habituali opinione, sic eadem est; si autem de actuali, sic non eadem est. Alia siquidem mentalis compositio actualiter fit, concipiendo bonum esse bonum, et alia concipiendo malum esse malum, licet eodem habitu utrunque cognoscamus, illud per se primo, et hoc secundario, ut dicitur IX metaphysicae. Deinde subdit quod ista quae ad declarationem minorum sumpta sunt, scilicet bonum et malum, contraria sunt etiam contrarietate sumpta stricte in moralibus, ac per hoc congrua usi sumus declaratione. Ultimo inducit conclusionem. Sed non in eo quod contrariorum opiniones sunt, contrariae sunt, sed magis in eo quod contrariae, idest, sed potius censendae sunt opiniones contrariae ex eo quod contrariae adverbialiter, scilicet contrario modo, idest vere et false enunciant. Et sic patet primum.	8. When he says, It is false, of course, to suppose that opinions are to be defined as contrary because they are about contraries, etc., he proceeds with the second question. First he shows that contrariety of opinions is not determined by the contrariety of the matter involved, but rather by the opposition of true and false; secondly, he shows that there is not contrariety of opinions in just any opposites according to truth and falsity, where he says, Now if there is the opinion of that which is good, that it is good, and the opinion that it is not good, etc.; third, he determines that contrariety of opinions is concerned with the per se first opposites; according to truth and falsity, for three reasons, where he says, Rather, those opinions in which there is fallacy must be posited as contrary to true opinions, etc.; finally, he shows that this determination is true of all, where he says, It is evident that it will make no difference if we posit the affirmation universally, for the universal negation will be the contrary, etc. Aristotle says, then, proposing the conclusion he intends to prove, that it is false to suppose that opinions are to be defined or determined as contrary because they are about contrary objects. He gives two arguments for this. Contrary opinions are not the same opinion; but opinions about contraries are probably the same opinion; therefore, opinions are not contrary from the fact that they are about contraries. And, contrary opinions are not simultaneously true; but opinions about contraries, whether many or one, are sometimes true simultaneously; therefore, opinions are not contraries because they are about contraries. Having supposed the majors of these arguments, he posits a manifestation of each minor at the same time. In relation to the first argument, he says, for the opinion of that which is good, that it is good, and of that which is evil, that it is evil are probably the same. In relation to the second argument he adds: and, whether many or one, are true. He uses "probably,” an adverb expressing doubt and disjunction, because this is not the place to determine whether the opinion of contraries is the same opinion, and, because in some way the opinion is the same and in some way not. In the case of habitual opinion, the opinion of contraries is the same, but in the case of an actual opinion it is not. One mental composition is actually made in conceiving that a good is good and another in conceiving that an evil is evil, although we know both by the same habit, the former per se and first, the latter secondarily, as is said in IX Metaphysicae [4: 1051a 4]. Then he adds that good and evil—which are used for the manifestation of the minor—are contraries even when the contrariety is taken strictly in moral matters; and so in using this our exposition is apposite. Finally, he draws the conclusion: however, opinions are not contraries because they are about contraries, but rather because they are contraries, i.e., opinions are to be considered as contrary from the fact that they enunciate contrarily, adverbially, i.e., in a contrary mode, i.e., they enunciate truly and falsely. Thus the first argument is clear.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 13 n. 9 Si ergo boni et cetera. Quia dixerat quod contrarietas opinionum accipitur secundum oppositionem veritatis et falsitatis earum, declarat modo quod non quaecunque secundum veritatem et falsitatem oppositae opiniones sunt contrariae, tali ratione. De bono, puta, de iustitia, quatuor possunt opiniones haberi, scilicet quod iustitia est bona, et quod non est bona, et quod est fugibilis, et quod est non appetibilis. Quarum prima est vera, reliquae sunt falsae. Inter quas haec est diversitas quod, prima negat idem praedicatum quod vera affirmabat; secunda affirmat aliquid aliud quod bono non inest; tertia negat id quod bono inest, non tamen illud quod vera affirmabat. Tunc sic. Si omnes opiniones secundum veritatem et falsitatem sunt contrariae, tunc uni, scilicet verae opinioni non solum multa sunt contraria, sed etiam infinita: quod est impossibile, quia unum uni est contrarium. Tenet consequentia, quia possunt infinitae imaginari opiniones falsae de una re similes ultimis falsis opinionibus adductis, affirmantes, scilicet ea quae non insunt illi, et negantes ea quae illi quocunque modo coniuncta sunt: utraque namque indeterminata esse et absque numero constat. Possumus enim opinari quod iustitia est quantitas, quod est relatio, quod est hoc et illud; et similiter opinari quod iustitia non sit qualitas, non sit appetibilis, non sit habitus. Unde ex supradictis in propositione quaestionis, inferens pluralitatem falsarum contra unam veram, ait: si ergo est opinatio vera boni, puta iustitiae, quoniam est bonum; et si est etiam falsa opinatio negans idem, scilicet, quoniam non est quid bonum; est vero et tertia opinatio falsa quoque, affirmans aliquid aliud inesse illi, quod non inest nec inesse potest, puta, quod iustitia sit fugibilis, quod sit illicita; et hinc intelligitur quarta falsa quoque, quae scilicet negat aliquid aliud ab eo quod vera opinio affirmat inesse iustitiae, quod tamen inest, ut puta quod non sit qualitas, quod non sit virtus; si ita inquam est, nulla aliarum falsarum ponenda est contraria opinioni verae. Et exponens quid demonstret per ly aliarum, subdit: neque quaecunque opinio opinatur esse quod non est, ut tertii ordinis opiniones faciunt: neque quaecunque opinio opinatur non esse quod est, ut quarti ordinis opiniones significant. Et causam subdit: infinitae enim utraeque sunt, et quae esse opinantur quod non est, et quae non esse quod est, ut supra declaratum fuit. Non ergo quaecunque opiniones oppositae secundum veritatem et falsitatem contrariae sunt. Et sic patet secundum.	9. When he says, Now, if there is the opinion of that which is good, that it is good, and the opinion that it is not good, etc., he takes up the second point. Since he has just said that contrariety of opinions is taken according to their opposition of truth and falsity, he goes on to show that not just any opposites according to truth and falsity are contraries. This is his argument. Four opinions can be held about a good, for instance justice: that justice is good, that it is not good, that it is avoidable, that it is not desirable. Of these, the first is true, the rest false. The three false ones are diverse. The first denies the same predicate the true one affirmed; the second affirms something which does not belong to the good; the third denies what belongs to the good, but something other than the true one affirmed. Now if all opinions opposed as to truth and falsity are contraries, then not only are there many contraries to one true opinion, but an infinite number. But this is impossible, for one is contrary to one other. The consequence holds because infinite false opinions about one thing, similar to those cited, can be imagined; such opinions would affirm of it what does not belong to it and deny what is joined to it in some way. Both kinds are indeterminate and without number. We can think, for instance, that justice is a quantity, that it is a relation, that it is this and that; and likewise we can think that it is not a quality, is not desirable, is not a habit. Hence, from what was said above in proposing the question, Aristotle infers a plurality of false opinions opposed to one true opinion: Now if there is the opinion of that which is good, for instance justice, that it is good, and there is a false opinion denying the same thing, namely, that it is not good, and besides these a third opinion, false also, affirming that some other thing belongs to justice that does not belong and cannot belong to it (for instance, that justice is avoidable, that it is illicit) and a fourth opinion, also false, that denies something other than the true opinion affirms, something, however, which does belong to justice (for instance, that it is not a quality, that it is not a virtue), none of these other false enunciations are to be posited as the contrary of the true opinion. To explain what he is designating by "of these others,” he adds, neither those purporting that what is not, is, as opinions of the third order do, nor those purporting that what is, is not, as opinions of the fourth order signify. Then he adds the reason these cannot be posited as the contrary of the true opinion: for both the opinions that that is which is not, and that which is not, is, are infinite, as was shown above. Therefore, not just any opinions opposed according to truth and falsity are contraries. Thus the second argument is clear.