Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L1/lect15

LECTURE 15 MATTER IS DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATION, NOR GENERABLE NOR CORRUPTIBLE PER SE

Latin	English
	LECTURE 15 (191 b 35-192 b 5) MATTER IS DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATION. MATTER IS NEITHER GENERABLE NOR CORRUPTIBLE PER SE
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 1 Postquam philosophus exclusit dubitationes et errores antiquorum philosophorum provenientes ex ignorantia materiae, hic excludit errores provenientes ex ignorantia privationis. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo proponit errantium errores; secundo ostendit differentiam huius positionis ad veritatem supra ab ipso determinatam, ibi: sed hoc differt etc.; tertio probat suam opinionem veram esse, ibi: subiecta quidem natura et cetera.	129. Having excluded the problems and errors of the ancient philosophers which stem from their ignorance of matter, the Philosopher here excludes the errors which stem from their ignorance of privation. Concerning this he makes three points. First, he sets forth the errors of those who wandered from the truth. Secondly, where he says, ‘Now we distinguish ...’ (192 a 2 #132), he shows how this position differs from the truth determined by him above. Thirdly, where he says, ‘For the one which persists ...’ (192 a 13 #134), he proves that his own opinion is true.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 2 Dicit ergo primo quod quidam philosophi tetigerunt materiam, sed non sufficienter; quia non distinguebant inter privationem et materiam: unde quod est privationis, attribuebant materiae. Et quia privatio secundum se est non ens, dicebant quod materia secundum se est non ens. Et sic, sicut aliquid simpliciter et per se fit ex materia, sic confitebantur quod simpliciter et per se aliquid fit ex non ente. Et ad hoc ponendum duabus rationibus inducebantur. Primo quidem ratione Parmenidis dicentis quod quidquid est praeter ens est non ens: unde cum materia sit praeter ens, quia non est ens actu, dicebant eam simpliciter esse non ens. Secundo vero quia videbatur eis quod id quod est numero unum vel subiecto, sit etiam ratione unum: quod hic appellat esse potentia unum, quia ea quae sunt ratione unum, sic se habent quod eadem est virtus utriusque; ea vero quae sunt subiecto unum sed non ratione, non habent eandem potentiam seu virtutem, ut patet in albo et musico. Subiectum autem et privatio sunt unum numero, ut aes et infiguratum: unde videbatur eis quod essent idem ratione vel virtute. Sic igitur hic accipit unitatem potentiae.	130. He says, therefore, first that some philosophers touched upon matter, but did not understand it sufficiently. For they did not distinguish between matter and privation. Hence, they attributed to matter what belongs to privation. And because privation, considered in itself, is non-being, they said that matter, considered in itself, is non-being. And so just as a thing comes to be simply and per se from matter, so they believed that a thing comes to be simply and per se from non-being. And they were led to hold this position for two reasons. First they were influenced by the argument of Parmenides, who said that whatever is other than being is non-being. Since, then, matter is other than being, because it is not being in act, they said that it is non-being simply. Secondly, it seemed to them that that which is one in number or subject is also one in nature [ratio]. And Aristotle calls this a state of being one in potency, because things which are one in nature [ratio] are such that each has the same power. But things which are one in subject but not one in nature [ratio] do not have the same potency or power, as is clear in the white and the musical. But subject and privation are one in number, as for example, the bronze and the unshaped. Hence it seemed to them that they would be the same in nature [ratio] or in power. Hence this position accepts the unity of potency.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 3 Sed ne quis hic dubitet occasione horum verborum quid sit potentia materiae, et utrum sit una vel plures; dicendum est quod actus et potentia dividunt quodlibet genus entium, ut patet in IX Metaphys. et in tertio huius. Unde sicut potentia ad qualitatem non est aliquid extra genus qualitatis, ita potentia ad esse substantiale non est aliquid extra genus substantiae. Non igitur potentia materiae est aliqua proprietas addita super essentiam eius; sed materia secundum suam substantiam est potentia ad esse substantiale. Et tamen potentia materiae subiecto est una respectu multarum formarum; sed ratione sunt multae potentiae secundum habitudinem ad diversas formas. Unde in tertio huius dicetur quod posse sanari et posse infirmari differunt secundum rationem.	131. But lest anyone, because of these words, be in doubt about what the potency of matter is and whether it is one or many, it must be pointed out that act and potency divide every genus of beings, as is clear in Metaphysics, IX:1, and in Book III [L3] of this work. Hence, just as the potency for quality is not something outside the genus of quality, so the potency for substantial being is not outside the genus of substance. Therefore, the potency of matter is not some property added to its essence. Rather, matter in its very substance is potency for substantial being. Moreover, the potency of matter is one in subject with respect to many forms. But in its nature [ratio] there are many potencies according to its relation to different forms. Hence in Book Ills it will be said that to be able to be healed and to be able to be ill differ according to nature [ratio].
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: sed hoc differt, etc., ostendit differentiam suae opinionis ad opinionem praemissam. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo aperit intellectum suae opinionis; secundo ostendit quid alia opinio ponat, ibi: quidam autem quod non est et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod multum differt aliquid esse unum numero vel subiecto, et esse unum potentia vel ratione. Quia nos ipsi dicimus, ut ex superioribus patet, quod materia et privatio, licet sint unum subiecto, tamen sunt alterum ratione. Quod patet ex duobus. Primo quidem quia materia est non ens secundum accidens, sed privatio est non ens per se: hoc enim ipsum quod est infiguratum, significat non esse, sed aes non significat non esse, nisi inquantum ei accidit infiguratum. Secundo vero quia materia est prope rem, et est aliqualiter, quia est in potentia ad rem, et est aliqualiter substantia rei, quia intrat in constitutionem substantiae: sed hoc de privatione dici non potest.	132. Next where he says, ‘Now we distinguish...’ (192 a 2), he explains the difference between his own opinion and the opinion just given. Concerning this he makes two points. First he widens our understanding of his own opinion. Secondly, where he says, ‘They, on the other hand ...’ (192 a 6 #133), he shows what the other opinion holds. He says, therefore, first that there is a great difference between a thing’s being one in number or subject and its being one in potency or nature [ratio]. For we say, as is clear from the above [L12 #104], that matter and privation although one in subject, are other in nature [ratio]. And this is clear for two reasons. First, matter is non-being accidentally, whereas privation is non-being per se. For ‘unshaped’ signifies non-being, but ‘bronze’ does not signify non-being except insofar as ‘unshaped’ happens to be in it. Secondly, matter is ‘near to the thing’ and exists in some respect, because it is in potency to the thing and is in some respect the substance of the thing, since it enters into the constitution of the substance. But this cannot be said of privation.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: quidam autem quod non est etc., manifestat intellectum opinionis Platonicae. Et dicit quod Platonici ponebant quidem duo ex parte materiae, scilicet magnum et parvum; sed tamen aliter quam Aristoteles. Quia Aristoteles ponit ista duo esse materiam et privationem, quae sunt unum subiecto et differunt ratione: sed isti non ponebant quod alterum istorum esset privatio et alterum materia, sed privationem coassumebant utrique, scilicet parvo et magno; sive acciperent ista duo simul, utpote cum loquebantur non distinguentes eam per magnum et parvum; sive acciperent utrumque seorsum. Unde patet quod omnino aliter ponebant tria principia Platonici, ponentes formam et magnum et parvum; et Aristoteles, qui posuit materiam et privationem et formam. Platonici vero usque ad hoc pervenerunt prae aliis philosophis antiquioribus, quod oportet unam quandam naturam supponi omnibus formis naturalibus, quae est materia prima. Sed hanc faciunt unam tantum sicut subiecto ita et ratione, non distinguentes inter ipsam et privationem. Quia etsi ponant dualitatem ex parte materiae, scilicet magnum et parvum, nihilominus non faciunt differentiam inter materiam et privationem: sed faciunt mentionem tantum de materia, sub qua comprehenditur magnum et parvum; et privationem despexerunt, de ea mentionem non facientes.	133. Next where he says, ‘They, on the other hand ...’(192 a 6), he clarifies his understanding of the opinion of the Platonists. He says that the Platonists also held a certain duality on the part of matter, namely, the great and the small. But this duality is different from that of Aristotle. For Aristotle held that the duality was matter and privation, which are one in subject but different in nature [ratio]. But the Platonists did not hold that one of these is privation and the other matter, but they joined privation to both, i.e., to the great and the small. They either took both of them together, not distinguishing in their speech between the great and the small, or else they took each separately. Whence it is clear that the Platonists, who posited form and the great and the small, held three completely different principles than Aristotle, who posited matter and privation and form. The Platonists realized more than the other ancient philosophers that it is necessary to suppose some one nature for an natural forms, which nature is primary matter. But they made it one both in subject and in nature [ratio], not distinguishing between it and privation. For although they held a duality on the part of matter, namely, the great and the small, they made no distinction at all between matter and privation. Rather they spoke only of matter under which they included the great and the small. And they ignored privation, making no mention of it.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: subiecta quidem natura etc., probat quod sua opinio habet veritatem. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ostendit propositum, scilicet quod oporteat privationem distingui a materia; secundo ostendit quomodo materia corrumpatur vel generetur, ibi: corrumpitur autem et cetera. Primum autem ostendit dupliciter: primo quidem ostensive; secundo ducendo ad impossibile, ibi: aliud autem aptum natum et cetera.	134. Next where he says, ‘For the one which persists ...’ (192 a 13), he proves that his opinion is true. Concerning this he makes two points. First he states his position, i.e., that it is necessary to distinguish privation from matter. Secondly, where he says, ‘The matter comes to be ...’ (192 a 25),1 he shows how matter is corrupted or generated. He treats the first point in two ways, first by explanation, and secondly by reducing [the opposite opinion] to the impossible, where he says, ‘...the other such ...’ (192 a 18).
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 7 Dicit ergo primo quod ista natura quae subiicitur, scilicet materia, simul cum forma est causa eorum quae fiunt secundum naturam, ad modum matris: sicut enim mater est causa generationis in recipiendo, ita et materia. Sed si quis accipiat alteram partem contrarietatis, scilicet privationem, protendens intellectum circa ipsam, imaginabitur ipsam non ad constitutionem rei pertinere, sed magis ad quoddam malum rei: quia est penitus non ens, cum privatio nihil aliud sit quam negatio formae in subiecto, et est extra totum ens: ut sic in privatione locum habeat ratio Parmenidis, quidquid est praeter ens est non ens; non autem in materia, ut dicebant Platonici. Et quod privatio pertineat ad malum, ostendit per hoc, quod forma est quoddam divinum et optimum et appetibile. Divinum quidem est, quia omnis forma est quaedam participatio similitudinis divini esse, quod est actus purus: unumquodque enim in tantum est actu in quantum habet formam. Optimum autem est, quia actus est perfectio potentiae et bonum eius: et per consequens sequitur quod sit appetibile, quia unumquodque appetit suam perfectionem. Privatio autem opponitur formae, cum non sit aliud quam remotio eius: unde cum id quod opponitur bono et removet ipsum, sit malum, manifestum est quod privatio pertinet ad malum. Unde sequitur quod non sit idem quod materia, quae est causa rei sicut mater.	135. He says, therefore, first that this nature which is the subject, i.e., matter, together with form is a cause of the things which come to be according to nature after the manner of a mother. For just as a mother is a cause of generation by receiving, so also is matter. But if one takes the other part of the contrariety, namely, the privation, we can imagine, by stretching our understanding, that it does not pertain to the constitution of the thing, but rather to some sort of evil for the thing. For privation is altogether non-being, since it is nothing other than the negation of a form in a subject, and is outside the whole being. Thus the argument of Parmenides that whatever is other than being is non-being, has a place in regard to privation, but not in regard to matter, as the Platonists said. He shows that privation would pertain to evil as follows. Form is something divine and very good and desirable. It is divine because every form is a certain participation in the likeness of the divine being, which is pure act. For each thing, insofar as it is in act, has form. Form is very good because act is the perfection of potency and is its good; and it follows as a consequence of this that form is desirable, because every thing desires its own perfection. Privation, on the other hand, is opposed to form, since it is nothing other than the removal of form. Hence, since that which is opposed to the good and removes it is evil, it is clear that privation pertains to evil. Whence it follows that privation is not the same as matter, which is the cause of a thing as a mother.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: aliud autem aptum natum etc., ostendit idem per rationem ducentem ad impossibile hoc modo. Cum forma sit quoddam bonum et appetibile, materia, quae est aliud a privatione et a forma, est apta nata appetere et desiderare ipsam secundum suam naturam. Sed quibusdam, qui scilicet non distinguunt materiam a privatione, accidit hoc inconveniens, quod contrarium appetit corruptionem sui ipsius, quod est inconveniens. Et quod hoc accidat, sic ostendit. Quia si materia appetit formam, non appetit eam secundum quod est sub ipsa forma, quia iam non indiget esse per eam (appetitus autem omnis est propter indigentiam, quia est non habiti): similiter et non appetit eam secundum quod est sub contrario vel privatione, quia unum contrariorum est alterius corruptivum, et sic aliquid appeteret sui corruptionem. Manifestum est igitur quod materia quae appetit formam, est aliud ratione sicut a forma ita et a privatione. Si enim materia appetit formam secundum propriam naturam, ut dictum est, si ponitur quod materia et privatio sint idem ratione, sequitur quod privatio appetit formam, et ita appetit sui ipsius corruptionem; quod est impossibile. Unde et hoc impossibile est, quod materia et privatio sint idem ratione. Sed tamen et materia est hoc, idest privationem habens, sicut si femina appetat masculum et turpe appetat bonum non quod ipsa turpitudo appetat bonum sibi contrarium, sed secundum accidens, quia id cui accidit esse turpe, appetit esse bonum: et similiter femineitas non appetit masculinum, sed id cui accidit esse feminam. Et similiter privatio non appetit esse formam, sed id cui accidit privatio, scilicet materia.	136. Next where he says, the other such...’ (192 a 18), he proves the same thing by an argument which reduces [the opposite position] to the impossible. Since form is a sort of good and is desirable, matter, which is other than privation and other than form, naturally seeks and desires form according to its nature. But for those who do not distinguish matter from privation, this involves the absurdity that a contrary seeks its own corruption, which is absurd. That this is so he shows as follows. If matter seeks form, it does not seek a form insofar as it is under this form. For in this latter case the matter does not stand in need of being through this form. (Every appetite exists because of a need, for an appetite is a desire for what is not possessed.) In like manner matter does not seek form insofar as it is under the contrary or privation, for one of the contraries is corruptive of the other, and thus something would seek its own corruption. It is clear, therefore, that matter, which seeks form, is other in nature [ratio] from both form and privation. For if matter seeks form according to its proper nature, as was said, and if it is held that matter and privation are the same in nature [ratio], it follows that privation seeks form, and thus seeks its own corruption, which is impossible. Hence it is also impossible that matter and privation be the same in nature [ratio]. Nevertheless, matter is ‘a this’, i.e., something having privation. Hence, if the feminine seeks the masculine, and if the base seeks the good, this is not because baseness itself seeks the good, which is its contrary; rather it seeks it accidentally, because that in which baseness happens to be seeks to be good. And likewise femininity does not seek masculinity; rather that in which the feminine happens to be seeks the masculine. And in like manner, privation does not seek to be form; rather that in which privation happens to be, namely, matter, seeks to be form.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 9 Sed contra haec verba philosophi Avicenna tripliciter opponit. Primo quidem quia materiae non competit neque appetitus animalis, ut per se manifestum est, neque appetitus naturalis ut appetat formam, cum non habeat aliquam formam vel virtutem inclinantem ipsam ad aliquid: sic enim grave naturaliter appetit locum infimum, inquantum sua gravitate inclinatur ad locum talem. Secundo obiicit ex hoc quod, si materia appetit formam, hoc est quia caret omni forma, aut quia appetit multas formas habere simul, quod est impossibile; aut quia fastidit formam quam habet et quaerit habere aliam, et hoc etiam est vanum: nullo igitur modo dicendum videtur quod materia appetat formam. Tertio obiicit per hoc, quia dicere quod materia appetat formam sicut femina masculum, est figurate loquentium, scilicet poetarum, et non philosophorum.	137. But Avicenna opposes this position of the Philosopher in three ways. First, matter has neither animal appetite (as is obvious in itself) nor natural appetite, whereby it would seek form. For matter does not have any form or power inclining it to anything, as for example, the heavy naturally seeks the lowest place insofar as it is inclined by its heaviness to such a place. Secondly, he objects that, if matter seeks form, this is so because it lacks every form, or because it seeks to possess many forms at once, both which are impossible, or because it dislikes the form which it has and seeks to have another form, and this also is meaningless. Hence it seems that we must say that matter in no way seeks form. His third objection is as follows. To say that matter seeks form as the feminine seeks the masculine is to speak figuratively, i.e., as a poet, not as a philosopher.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 10 Sed huiusmodi obiectiones facile est solvere. Sciendum est enim quod omne quod appetit aliquid, vel cognoscit ipsum et se ordinat in illud; vel tendit in ipsum ex ordinatione et directione alicuius cognoscentis, sicut sagitta tendit in determinatum signum ex directione et ordinatione sagittantis. Nihil est igitur aliud appetitus naturalis quam ordinatio aliquorum secundum propriam naturam in suum finem. Non solum autem aliquid ens in actu per virtutem activam ordinatur in suum finem, sed etiam materia secundum quod est in potentia; nam forma est finis materiae. Nihil igitur est aliud materiam appetere formam, quam eam ordinari ad formam ut potentia ad actum. Et quia sub quacumque forma sit, adhuc remanet in potentia ad aliam formam, inest ei semper appetitus formae: non propter fastidium formae quam habet, nec propter hoc quod quaerat contraria esse simul; sed quia est in potentia ad alias formas, dum unam habet in actu. Nec etiam utitur hic figurata locutione, sed exemplari. Dictum est enim supra quod materia prima scibilis est secundum proportionem, inquantum sic se habet ad formas substantiales, sicut materiae sensibiles ad formas accidentales; et ideo ad manifestandum materiam primam, oportet uti exemplo sensibilium substantiarum. Sicut igitur usus est exemplo aeris infigurati et hominis non musici ad manifestandam materiam, ita nunc ad eius manifestationem utitur exemplo feminae virum appetentis, et turpis appetentis bonum: hoc enim accidit eis inquantum habent aliquid de ratione materiae. Sciendum tamen est quod Aristoteles hic loquitur contra Platonem, qui talibus metaphoricis locutionibus utebatur, assimilans materiam matri et feminae, et formam masculo; et ideo Aristoteles utitur contra eum metaphoris ab eo assumptis.	138. But it is easy to resolve objections of this sort. For we must note that everything which seeks something either knows that which it seeks and orders itself to it, or else it tends toward it by the ordination and direction of someone who knows, as the arrow tends toward a determinate mark by the direction and ordination of the archer. Therefore, natural appetite is nothing but the ordination of things to their end in accordance with their proper natures. However a being in act is not only ordered to its end by an active power, but also by its matter insofar as it is potency. For form is the end of matter. Therefore for matter to seek form is nothing other than matter being ordered to form as potency to act. And because matter still remains in potency to another form while it is under some form, there is always in it an appetite for form. This is not because of a dislike for the form which it has, nor because it seeks to be the contrary at the same time, but because it is in potency to other forms while it has some form in act. Nor does he use a figure of speech here; rather, he uses an example. For it was said above [L13 #118] that primary matter is knowable by way of proportion, insofar as it is related to substantial forms as sensible matters are related to accidental forms. And thus in order to explain primary matter, it is necessary to use an example taken from sensible substances. Therefore, just as he used the example of unshaped bronze and the example of the non-musical man to explain matter, so now to explain matter he uses the example of the appetite of the woman for the man and the example of appetite of the base for the good. For this happens to these things insofar as they have something which is of the nature [ratio] of matter. However, it must be noted that Aristotle is here arguing against Plato, who used such metaphorical expressions, likening matter to a mother and the feminine, and form to the masculine. And so Aristotle uses Plato’s own metaphors against him.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit: corrumpitur autem etc., ostendit quomodo materia corrumpatur. Et dicit quod quodammodo corrumpitur, et quodammodo non. Quia secundum quod est in ea privatio, sic corrumpitur cum cessat in ea esse privatio, ut si diceremus aes infiguratum corrumpi, quando desinit esse infiguratum: sed secundum se, inquantum est quoddam ens in potentia, est ingenita et incorruptibilis. Quod sic patet. Si enim materia fiat, oportet ei aliquid subiici ex quo fiat, ut ex superioribus patet. Sed primum quod subiicitur in generatione est materia: hoc enim dicimus materiam, primum subiectum ex quo aliquid fit per se et non secundum accidens, et inest rei iam factae (et utrumque eorum ponitur ad differentiam privationis, ex qua fit aliquid per accidens, et non inest rei factae). Sequitur ergo quod materia sit antequam fiat, quod est impossibile. Et similiter omne quod corrumpitur, resolvitur in materiam primam. Quando igitur iam est materia prima, tunc est corruptum: et sic, si materia prima corrumpatur, erit corrupta antequam corrumpatur, quod est impossibile. Sic igitur impossibile est materiam primam generari vel corrumpi. Sed ex hoc non excluditur quin per creationem in esse procedat.	139. Next where he says, ‘The matter comes to be ... (192 a 25), he shows how matter is corrupted. He says that in a certain respect matter is corrupted and in a certain respect it is not. For insofar as privation is in it, it is corrupted when the privation ceases to be in it, as if we should say that unshaped bronze is corrupted when it ceases to be unshaped. But in itself, insofar as it is a certain being in potency, it is neither generated nor corruptible. This is clear from the following. If matter should come to be, there would have to be something which is the subject from which it comes to be, as is clear from what was said above [L12 #7,10ff]. But that which is the first subject in generation is matter. For we say that matter is the first subject from which a thing comes to be per se, and not per accidens, and is in the thing after it has come to be. (And privation differs from matter on both of these points. For privation is that from which a thing comes to be per accidens, and is that which is not in the thing after it has come to be.) It follows, therefore, that matter would be before it would come to be, which is impossible. And in like manner, everything which is corrupted is resolved into primary matter.. Therefore, at the very time when primary matter already is, it would be corrupted; and thus if primary matter is corrupted, it will have been corrupted before it is corrupted, which is impossible. Therefore, it is impossible for primary matter to be generated and corrupted. But by this we do not deny that it comes into existence through creation.
lib. 1 l. 15 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit: de principio autem etc., quia iam excluserat errores circa materiam et privationem, restare videbatur ut excluderet errores et dubitationes circa formam. Posuerunt enim quidam formas separatas, scilicet ideas, quas reducebant ad unam primam ideam. Et ideo dicit quod de principio formali, utrum sit unum vel plura, et quot et quae sint, pertinet determinare ad philosophiam primam, et usque ad illud tempus reservetur: quia forma est principium essendi, et ens inquantum huiusmodi est subiectum primae philosophiae; sed materia et privatio sunt principia entis transmutabilis, quod a philosopho naturali consideratur. Sed tamen de formis naturalibus et corruptibilibus in sequentibus huius doctrinae determinabitur. Ultimo autem epilogat quae dicta sunt: et dicit quod sic determinatum est quod principia sunt, et quae, et quot. Sed oportet iterum aliter principium facere scientiae naturalis, inquirendo scilicet principia scientiae.	140. Next where he says, ‘The accurate determination...’ (192 a 34), he indicates that since the errors about matter and privation have been eliminated, then the errors and problems about form should also be eliminated. For some have posited separated forms, i.e., ideas, which they reduced to one first idea. And so he says that first philosophy treats such questions as whether the formal principle is one or many, and how many there are, and what kind there are. Hence these questions will be reserved for first philosophy. For form is a principle of existing, and being as such is the subject of first philosophy. But matter and privation are. principles of mutable being, which is considered by the natural philosopher. Nevertheless we shall treat of natural and corruptible forms in the following books on this discipline. Finally he summarizes what has been said. It has been determined that there are principles, what the principles are, and how many there are. But it is necessary to make a new start in our study of natural science, inquiring, that is, into the principles of the science.