Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L1/lect10

LECTURE 10 THE OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING THE CONTRARIETY OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLES

Latin	English
	LECTURE 10 (188 a 19-189 a 10) THE OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING THE CONTRARIETY OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLES
lib. 1 l. 10 n. 1 Positis opinionibus antiquorum philosophorum de principiis naturae, hic incipit inquirere veritatem. Et primo inquirit eam per modum disputationis ex probabilibus procedendo; secundo determinat veritatem per modum demonstrationis, ibi: sic igitur nos dicamus et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo inquirit de contrarietate principiorum; secundo de numero eorum, ibi: consequens autem utique et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo ponit opinionem antiquorum de contrarietate principiorum; secundo inducit ad hoc rationem, ibi: et hoc rationabiliter etc.; tertio ostendit quomodo philosophi se habebant in ponendo contraria principia, ibi: usque quidem igitur et cetera.	75. Having set forth the opinions of the ancient philosophers concerning the principles of nature, Aristotle here begins to seek the truth. He seeks it first by way of disputation, proceeding from probable opinions. Secondly, where he says, ‘We will now give ...’ (189 b 30; L12 #98), he determines the truth demonstratively. The Oxford English translation seems to be based upon this variant reading. Lecture 12, 98. Concerning the first part he makes two points. First he investigates the contrariety of the principles, secondly, where he says, ‘The next question is ...’ (189 a 11; L11 #82), he inquires about their number. Concerning the first part he makes three points. First he sets forth the opinion of the ancients about the contrariety of the principles. Secondly, where he says, ‘And with good reason ...’ (188 a 27 #77) he gives an argument in favour of this position. Thirdly he shows how the philosophers are related to each other in saying that the principles are contraries. He does this where he says, ‘Up to this point...’ (188 b 27 #79).
lib. 1 l. 10 n. 2 Dicit ergo primo quod omnes antiqui philosophi posuerunt contrarietatem in principiis. Et hoc manifestat per tres opiniones philosophorum. Quidam enim dixerunt quod totum universum sit unum ens immobile. Quorum Parmenides dixit quod omnia sunt unum secundum rationem, sed sunt plura secundum sensum; et inquantum sunt plura, ponebat in eis contraria principia, scilicet calidum et frigidum, et attribuebat calidum igni, frigidum vero terrae. Secunda vero opinio fuit philosophorum naturalium qui posuerunt unum principium materiale mobile: et dicebant quod ex eo fiebant alia secundum raritatem et densitatem, et sic ponebant rarum et densum esse principia. Tertia vero opinio est eorum qui posuerunt plura principia. Inter quos Democritus posuit omnia fieri ex indivisibilibus corporibus, quae quidem ad invicem coniuncta, in ipso contactu quoddam vacuum relinquebant; et huiusmodi vacuitates vocabat poros, ut patet in I de generatione. Sic igitur omnia corpora ponebat composita ex firmo et inani, idest ex pleno et vacuo: unde plenum et vacuum dicebat esse principia naturae; sed plenum attribuebat enti, vacuum vero non enti. Item, licet corpora indivisibilia omnia essent unius naturae, tamen ex eis dicebat constitui diversa secundum diversitatem figurae, positionis et ordinis. Unde ponebat principia esse contraria quae sunt in genere positionis, scilicet sursum et deorsum, ante et retro; et contraria quae sunt in genere figurae, scilicet rectum, angulare et circulare; et similiter contraria quae sunt in genere ordinis, scilicet prius et posterius, de quibus non fit mentio in littera quia manifesta sunt. Et sic concludit quasi inducendo quod omnes philosophi posuerunt principia esse contraria secundum aliquem modum. De opinione autem Anaxagorae et Empedoclis mentionem non fecit, quia eas superius magis explicavit. Et tamen hi ponebant etiam quodammodo contrarietatem in principiis, dicentes omnia fieri congregatione et segregatione, quae conveniunt in genere cum raro et denso.	76. He says, therefore, first that all of the ancient philosophers posited contrariety in the principles. And he makes this clear by citing three opinions of the philosophers. For some philosophers have said that the whole universe is one immobile being. Of these, Parmenides said that all things are one according to reason, but many according to sense. And to the extent that there are many, he posited in them contrary principles, e.g., the hot and the cold. He attributed the hot to fire and the cold to earth. Secondly there was the opinion of the natural philosophers who posited one material and mobile principle. They said that other things come to be from this principle according to rarity and density. Thus they held that the rare and the dense are principles. A third opinion was advanced by those who posited many principles. Among them, Democritus held that all things come to be from indivisible bodies which are joined together. And in this contact with each other they left a sort of void. Such voids he called pores, as is clear in De Generatione, I:8. Therefore he held that all bodies are composed of the fixed and the empty, that is, composed of the plenum and the void. Hence he said that the plenum and the void are principles of nature. But he associated the plenum with being and the void with non-being. And although all of these indivisible bodies are one in nature, he said that different things are composed of them according to a diversity of figure, position, and order. Thus he held that the principles are contraries in the genus of position, i.e., above and below, before and behind, and also contraries in the genus of figure, i.e., the straight, the angular, and the circular. The principles also are contraries in the genus of order, i.e., prior and posterior. (These last contraries are not mentioned in the text because they are obvious.) And thus Aristotle concludes, by a sort of induction, that all of the philosophers held that the principles are contraries in some way. He makes no mention of the opinion of Anaxagoras and Empedocles because he has already explained their position at length above [L8 #56-57]. However, they also placed a certain contrariety in the principles when they said that all things come to be through joining and separating, which agree in genus with the rare and the dense.
lib. 1 l. 10 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: et hoc rationabiliter etc., ponit probabilem rationem ad ostendendum quod prima principia sunt contraria: quae talis est. Tria videntur de ratione principiorum esse: primum quod non sint ex aliis; secundum quod non sint ex alterutris; tertium quod omnia alia sint ex eis. Sed haec tria conveniunt primis contrariis; ergo prima contraria sunt principia. Ad intelligendum autem quid vocet prima contraria, considerandum est quod quaedam contraria sunt quae ex aliis contrariis causantur, sicut dulce et amarum causantur ex humido et sicco et calido et frigido: sic autem non est procedere in infinitum, sed est devenire ad aliqua contraria quae non causantur ex aliis contrariis, et haec vocat prima contraria. His igitur primis contrariis tres praedictae conditiones conveniunt principiorum. Ex eo enim quod prima sunt, manifestum est quod non sunt ex aliis; ex eo vero quod contraria sunt, manifestum est quod non sunt ex alterutris: quamvis enim frigidum fiat ex calido inquantum id quod prius est calidum postea fit frigidum, tamen ipsa frigiditas nunquam fit ex caliditate, ut postea dicetur. Tertium vero, qualiter omnia fiant ex contrariis, oportet diligentius investigare.	77. Next where he says, ‘And with good reason’ (188 a 27), he gives a probable argument to show that the first principles are contraries. The argument is as follows. Three things seem to belong to the very nature of principles. First, they are not from other things. Secondly, they are not from each other. Thirdly, all other things are from them. But these three notes are found in the primary contraries. Therefore the primary contraries are principles. Now in order to understand what he means when he speaks of primary contraries, we must realize that some contraries are caused by other contraries, e.g., the sweet and the bitter are caused by the wet and the dry and the hot and the cold. Since, however, it is impossible to proceed to infinity, but one must come to certain contraries, which are not caused by other contraries, he calls these last contraries the primary contraries. Now the three conditions proper to principles mentioned above are found in these primary contraries. For things which are first are manifestly not from others. Moreover things which are contraries are manifestly not from each other. For even though the cold comes to be from the hot, insofar as that which was previously hot is later cold, nevertheless coldness itself never comes to be from heat, as will be pointed out later [L11 #90]. The third point—precisely how all things come to be from the contraries -we must investigate more carefully.
lib. 1 l. 10 n. 4 Ad hoc igitur ostendendum, praemittit primo quod neque actio neque passio potest accidere inter contingentia, idest inter ea quae contingunt simul esse: vel inter contingentia, idest inter quaecumque indeterminata. Neque quodlibet fit ex quolibet, sicut Anaxagoras dixit, nisi forte secundum accidens. Et hoc manifestatur primo in simplicibus. Album enim non fit ex musico nisi forte secundum accidens, inquantum musico accidit esse album vel nigrum; sed album fit per se ex non albo, et non ex quocumque non albo, sed ex non albo quod est nigrum vel medius color: et similiter musicum ex non musico; et non ex quocumque non musico sed ex opposito, quod dicitur immusicum, idest quod est natum habere musicam et non habet, vel ex quocumque medio inter ea. Et eadem ratione non corrumpitur aliquid primo et per se in quodcumque contingens: sicut album non corrumpitur in musicum nisi per accidens, sed corrumpitur per se in non album; et non in quodcumque non album, sed in nigrum aut in medium colorem. Et idem dicit de corruptione musici et de aliis similibus. Et huius ratio est, quia omne quod fit et corrumpitur, non est antequam fiat, nec est postquam corrumpitur: unde oportet quod id quod per se aliquid fit, et in quod per se aliquid corrumpitur, tale sit quod in sua ratione includat non esse eius quod fit vel corrumpitur. Et similiter manifestat hoc in compositis. Et dicit quod similiter se habet in compositis sicut in simplicibus; sed magis latet in compositis, quia opposita compositorum non sunt nominata, sicut opposita simplicium; oppositum enim domus non est nominatum, sicut oppositum albi: unde si reducantur ad aliqua nominata, erit manifestum. Nam omne compositum consistit in aliqua consonantia; consonans autem fit ex inconsonanti, et inconsonans ex consonanti; et similiter consonans corrumpitur in inconsonantiam, non in quamcumque, sed in oppositam. Inconsonantia autem potest dici vel secundum ordinem tantum, vel secundum compositionem. Aliquod enim totum consistit in consonantia ordinis, sicut exercitus, aliquod vero in consonantia compositionis, sicut domus; et eadem ratio est de utroque. Et manifestum est quod omnia composita fiunt similiter ex incompositis, sicut domus fit ex incompositis, et figuratum ex infiguratis; et in omnibus his nihil attenditur nisi ordo et compositio. Sic igitur quasi per inductionem manifestum est quod omnia quae fiunt vel corrumpuntur, fiunt ex contrariis vel mediis, vel corrumpuntur in ea. Media autem fiunt ex contrariis, sicut colores medii ex albo et nigro: unde concludit quod omnia quae fiunt secundum naturam, vel ipsa sunt contraria, sicut album et nigrum, vel fiunt ex contrariis, sicut media. Et hoc est principale intentum quod intendit concludere, scilicet quod omnia fiunt ex contrariis, quod erat tertia conditio principiorum.	78. Now in order to clarify this latter point he states first that neither action nor passion can occur between things which are contingent in the sense of merely happening to be together, or between things which are contingent in the sense of being indeterminate. Nor does everything come to be from everything, as Anaxagoras said, except perhaps accidentally. This is first of all seen clearly in simple things. For white does not come to be from musical except accidentally insofar as white or black happen to be in the musical. But white comes to be per se from the non-white, and not from just any non-white, but from that non-white which is black or some mean colour. And in like manner, the musical comes to be from the non-musical, and again not from just any nonmusical, but from its opposite, which is called the unmusical, i.e., from that which is disposed to be musical but is not, or from some mean between these two. And for the same reason, a thing is not corrupted primarily and per se into just any contingent thing (e.g., the white into the musical) except accidentally. Rather white is corrupted per se into the non-white, and not into just any non-white, but into black or some mean colour. And he says the same of the corruption of the musical and of other similar things. The reason for this is as follows. Whatever comes to be or is corrupted does not exist before it comes to be and does not exist after it is corrupted. Whence it is necessary that that which a thing comes to be per se and that into which a thing is corrupted per se be such that it includes in its nature [ratio] the non-being of that which comes to be or is corrupted. And he shows that the same is true of composite things. He says that the situation is the same with composite things as with simple things, but is more hidden in composite things because the opposites of composite things have no names, as do the opposites of simple things. For the opposite of house has no name, although we give a name to the opposite of white. Hence if the composite is reduced to something with a name, it will be clear. For every composite consists of a certain harmony. Now the harmonious comes to be from the inharmonious, and the inharmonious from the harmonious. And in like manner, the harmonious is corrupted into the inharmonious (not any inharmonious, but the opposite). However, we can speak of the harmonious according to order alone, or according to composition. For some wholes consist of a harmony of order, e.g., an army; and other wholes consist of a harmony of composition, e.g., a house. And the nature [ratio] of each of these is the same. It is also clear that all composites come to be from the non-composed, for example, a house comes to be from non-composed things, and the figured from the non-figured. And in all such things nothing is involved except order and composition. Thus it is clear by induction, as it were, that everything which comes to be or is corrupted comes to be from contraries or from some intermediate between them, or is corrupted into them. Moreover, intermediates between contraries come to be from the contraries, as the intermediate colours come to be from black and white. Hence he concludes that whatever comes to be according to nature is either a contrary, such as white and black, or comes to be from the contraries, such as the intermediates between the contraries. This, then, is the principal conclusion which he intended to draw, namely, that all things come to be from contraries, which was the third characteristic of principles.
lib. 1 l. 10 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: usque quidem igitur etc., ostendit hic philosophus quomodo se habuerunt philosophi in ponendo principia esse contraria: et primo quomodo se habuerunt quantum ad motivum positionis; secundo quomodo se habuerunt quantum ad ipsam positionem, ibi: differunt autem ab invicem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod, sicut supra dictum est, multi philosophorum secuti sunt veritatem usque ad hoc, quod ponerent principia esse contraria. Quod quidem licet vere ponerent, non tamen quasi ab aliqua ratione moti hoc ponebant, sed sicut ab ipsa veritate coacti. Verum enim est bonum intellectus, ad quod naturaliter ordinatur: unde sicut res cognitione carentes moventur ad suos fines absque ratione, ita interdum intellectus hominis quadam naturali inclinatione tendit in veritatem, licet rationem veritatis non percipiat.	79. Next where he says, ‘Up to this point ...’ (188 b 27), Aristotle shows how the philosophers are related in holding that the principles are contraries. First he shows how they are related with reference to being moved toward this position. Secondly, where he says, ‘They differ, however...’(188 b 30 #80), he shows how they are related in respect to the position itself. He says, therefore, as was pointed out above [#76] that many of the philosophers followed the truth to the point where they held that the principles are contraries. Although they indeed held this position, they did not hold it as though moved by reason, but rather as forced to it by the truth itself. For truth is the good of the intellect, toward which the intellect is naturally ordered. Hence as things which lack knowledge are moved to their ends without reason [ratio], so, at times, the intellect of man, by a sort of natural inclination, tends toward the truth, though it does not perceive the reason [ratio] for the truth.
lib. 1 l. 10 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: differunt autem ab invicem etc., ostendit quomodo praedicti philosophi se habebant in ipsa positione. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ostendit quomodo differebant in ponendo principia esse contraria; secundo quomodo simul differebant et conveniebant, ibi: quare est eadem dicere et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod philosophi, ponentes principia esse contraria, dupliciter differebant. Primo quidem quia aliqui eorum rationabiliter ponentes, accipiebant pro principiis priora contraria; alii vero minus provide considerantes, accipiebant posteriora contraria ut principia. Et eorum qui accipiebant priora contraria, quidam attendebant ad ea quae erant notiora secundum rationem; quidam vero ad ea quae sunt notiora secundum sensum. Vel potest dici quod per hanc secundam differentiam assignatur ratio primae differentiae: nam ea quae sunt notiora secundum rationem, sunt priora simpliciter; quae vero sunt notiora secundum sensum, sunt posteriora simpliciter et priora quoad nos. Manifestum est autem quod oportet principia esse prima. Unde illi qui iudicabant prius secundum id quod est notius rationi, ponebant principia contraria priora simpliciter: qui vero iudicabant prius secundum id quod est notius sensui, ponebant principia posteriora simpliciter. Unde quidam ponebant prima principia calidum et frigidum, alii vero humidum et siccum: et utraque sunt notiora secundum sensum. Tamen calidum et frigidum, quae sunt qualitates activae, sunt priora humido et sicco, quae sunt qualitates passivae: quia activum est prius naturaliter passivo. Alii vero posuerunt principia notiora secundum rationem. Quorum aliqui posuerunt principia parem et imparem, scilicet Pythagorici, existimantes substantiam omnium esse numeros, et quod omnia componuntur ex pari et impari sicut ex forma et materia: nam pari attribuebant infinitatem et alteritatem propter eius divisibilitatem, impari vero tribuebant finitatem et identitatem propter suam indivisionem. Quidam vero posuerunt causas generationis et corruptionis discordiam et concordiam, scilicet sequaces Empedoclis, quae sunt etiam notiora secundum rationem. Unde patet quod in istis positionibus apparet praedicta diversitas.	80. Next where he says, ‘They differ, however, ...’ (188 b 30), he shows how the aforesaid philosophers are related in respect to the position itself. Concerning this he makes two points. First he shows how they differ in holding that the principles are contraries. Secondly, where he says, ‘Hence their principles...’ (188 b 37 #81), he shows how they both differ and agree. He says, therefore, first that the philosophers who held that the principles are contraries differed in two ways. First, those who argued reasonably held that the principles are the primary contraries. Others, however, considering the matter less well, held that the principles are posterior [derived] contraries. And of those who appealed to the primary contraries, some considered those contraries which were better known to reason, others those contraries which were better known to sense. Or it could be said that this second difference explains the first. For those things which are better known to reason are prior simply, whereas those things which are better known to sense are posterior simply, and are prior relative to us. However, it is clear that the principles must be prior. Thus, those who judged ‘prior’ according to what is better known to reason held that the principles are those contraries which are prior simply. On the other hand, those who judged ‘prior’ according to what is better known to sense held that the principles are those contraries which are posterior simply. Hence some held that the hot and the cold are first principles; others, the wet and the dry. And both of these are better known to sense. However the hot and the cold, which are active qualities, are prior to the wet and the dry, which are passive qualities, because the active is naturally prior to the passive. Others, however, held principles which are better known to reason. Among these, some held that the equal and the unequal are the principles. For example, the Pythagoreans, thinking that the substance of all things is numbers, held that all things are composed of the equal and the unequal as of form and matter. For they attributed infinity and otherness to the equal because of its divisibility. Whereas to the unequal they attributed finiteness and identity because of its indivisibility. Others, however, held that the cause of generation and corruption is strife and friendship, that is, the cycles of Empedocles, which are also better known to reason. Whence it is clear that the diversity mentioned above appears in these positions.
lib. 1 l. 10 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: quare est eadem dicere etc., ostendit quomodo in differentia praedictarum opinionum est etiam quaedam convenientia, concludens ex praedictis quod quodammodo antiqui philosophi dixerunt eadem principia et quodammodo altera: altera quidem secundum quod diversi diversa contraria assumpserunt, sicut dictum est; eadem vero secundum analogiam, idest proportionem, quia principia accepta ab omnibus habent eandem proportionem. Et hoc tripliciter. Primo quidem quia quaecumque principia accipiuntur ab eis, se habent ad invicem ut contraria: et hoc est quod dicit, quod omnes accipiunt principia ex eadem coordinatione, scilicet contrariorum; omnes enim accipiunt contraria pro principiis, sed tamen diversa. Nec est mirum si ex coordinatione contrariorum diversa accipiantur principia; quia inter contraria quaedam sunt continentia, ut priora et communiora, et quaedam contenta, ut posteriora et minus communia. Iste est igitur unus modus quo similiter dicunt, inquantum omnes accipiunt principia ex ordine contrariorum. Alius modus in quo conveniunt secundum analogiam est, quod quaecumque principia accipiuntur ab eis, unum eorum se habet ut melius et aliud ut peius; sicut concordia vel plenum vel calidum ut melius, discordia vero vel vacuum vel frigidum ut peius; et sic est considerare in aliis. Et hoc ideo est, quia semper alterum contrariorum habet privationem admixtam: principium enim contrarietatis est oppositio privationis et habitus, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Tertio modo conveniunt secundum analogiam in hoc quod omnes accipiunt principia notiora: sed quidam notiora secundum rationem, quidam vero secundum sensum. Cum enim ratio sit universalis, sensus vero particularis, universalia sunt notiora secundum rationem, ut magnum et parvum; singularia vero secundum sensum, ut rarum et densum, quae sunt minus communia. Et sic ultimo quasi epilogando concludit quod principaliter intendit, scilicet quod principia sunt contraria.	81. Next where he says, ‘Hence their principles ...’ (188 b 37), he shows how there is also a certain agreement within the differences of the aforementioned positions. He concludes from what he has said above that the ancient philosophers in a way called the same things principles and in a way called different things principles. For they differed insofar as different philosophers assumed different contraries (as was said above #80); yet they are the same insofar as their principles were alike according to analogy, i.e., proportion. For the principles taken by an of them have the same proportion. And this is true in three respects. First, all the principles which they assumed are related as contraries. And thus Aristotle says that they all took their principles from the same columns, i.e., columns of contraries. For they all took contraries as their principles, even though the contraries differed. Nor is it remarkable that they took different principles from the columns of contraries. For among the contraries, some are containers, as the prior and more common; and others axe contained, as the posterior and less common. Hence one way in which they spoke alike is that all of them took their principles from the order of contraries. Another way, in which they agree according to analogy is as follows. No matter what principles they accepted, one of these principles is better, and the other is worse. For example, friendship, or the plenum, or the hot, are better; but strife, or the void, or the cold, are worse. And the same thing is true of the other pairs of contraries. This is so because one of the contraries always has privation joined to it. For the source of contrariety is the opposition of privation and habit, as is said in Metaphysics, X:4. Thirdly they agree according to analogy by reason of the fact that they all took principles which are better known. But some took principles which are better known to reason, others those which are better known to sense. Since reason treats the universal and sense treats the particular, universals (such as the great and the small) are better known to reason, whereas singulars (such as the rare and the dense, which are less common) are better known to sense. Then as a final summary, he concludes with that which he had uppermost in mind, namely, the principles are contraries.