Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L1/lect3

LECTURE 3 THE ASSERTION OF PARMENIDES AND MELISSUS THAT ALL THINGS ARE ONE BEING IS REFUTED

Latin	English
	LECTURE 3 (185 a 20-b 27) THE ASSERTION OF PARMENIDES AND MELISSUS THAT ALL THINGS ARE ONE BEING IS REFUTED
lib. 1 l. 3 n. 1 Postquam posuit opiniones philosophorum de principiis, hic disputat contra eos. Et primo contra illos qui non naturaliter de natura locuti sunt; secundo contra illos qui naturaliter de natura locuti sunt, ibi: sicut autem physici et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo disputat contra positionem Melissi et Parmenidis; secundo contra rationes eorum, ibi: et ex quibus demonstrant et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo disputat contra positionem hanc, ens est unum, per rationem sumptam ex parte entis, quod est subiectum in propositione; secundo per rationem sumptam ex parte unius, quod est praedicatum, ibi: amplius quoniam et cetera.	20. After he has set forth the opinions of the philosophers concerning principles, here Aristotle argues against them. First he argues against those who spoke unnaturally about nature. Secondly, where he says, ‘The physicists, on the other hand ...’ (187 a 11; L8 #53), he argues against those who spoke of nature in a natural way. Concerning the first part he makes two points. First he argues against the position of Melissus and Parmenides, and secondly against their arguments, where he says, ‘Further the arguments they use ...’ (186 a 5; L5 #29). Concerning the first part he makes two points. First he argues against the position that ‘being is one’ by using an argument dealing with the ‘being’ which is the subject in this proposition. Secondly, where he says, ‘Again, “one” itself ...’(185 b 5 #22), he uses an argument dealing with the ‘one’ which is the predicate.
lib. 1 l. 3 n. 2 Dicit ergo primo: quod id quod maxime accipiendum est pro principio ad disputandum contra positionem praedictam, est quod id quod est, idest ens, dicitur multipliciter. Quaerendum enim est ab eis qui dicunt ens esse unum, quomodo accipiant ens: utrum scilicet pro substantia, vel pro qualitate, vel pro aliquo aliorum generum. Et quia substantia dividitur in universalem et particularem, idest in substantiam primam et secundam, et iterum in multas species, quaerendum est utrum dicant ens esse unum ut hominem unum, aut ut equum unum, aut ut animam unam; aut ut qualitatem unam, ut album aut calidum aut aliquod huiusmodi: multum enim differt quodcumque istorum dicatur. Oportet igitur quod si ens est unum, quod vel sit substantia et accidens simul, vel sit accidens tantum, vel substantia tantum. Si autem sit substantia et accidens simul, non erit unum ens tantum, sed duo. Nec differt quantum ad hoc utrum substantia et accidens sint simul in uno ut unum vel diversa: quia licet sint simul in uno, non tamen sunt unum simpliciter, sed unum subiecto. Et sic ponendo substantiam cum accidente, sequitur quod non sint unum simpliciter sed multa. Si vero dicatur quod sit accidens tantum et non substantia, hoc est omnino impossibile: nam accidens sine substantia omnino esse non potest; omnia enim accidentia de substantia dicuntur sicut de subiecto, et in hoc ratio eorum consistit. Si vero dicatur quod sit substantia tantum sine accidente, sequitur quod non sit quantitas, nam quantitas accidens est: et hoc est contra positionem Melissi. Posuit enim ens esse infinitum; unde sequitur quod sit quantum, quia infinitum per se loquendo non est nisi in quantitate; sed substantia et qualitas et huiusmodi non dicuntur infinita nisi per accidens, inquantum scilicet sunt simul cum quantitate. Cum ergo Melissus ponat ens infinitum, non potest ponere substantiam sine quantitate. Si ergo est substantia et quantitas simul, sequitur quod non sit tantum unum ens, sed duo; si vero sit solum substantia, non est infinitum, quia non habebit magnitudinem neque quantitatem: nullo igitur modo potest esse verum quod Melissus dicit, ens esse unum.	21. He says first that that which should be taken primarily as a principle in arguing against the aforesaid position is the fact that that which is, i.e., being, is said in many ways. For we must ask of those who say that being is one how they are using ‘being’: whether they take it for substance, or for quality, or for one of the other genera. And because substance is divided into the universal and the particular, i.e., into first and second substance, and further into many species, we must ask the following questions. Do they say that being is one as one man or as one horse, or as one soul, or as one quality, such as white or hot or some other such thing? For it makes a great difference which of these is said. Hence, if being is one, it must either be substance and accident together, or it must be accident alone, or substance alone. If, however, it is substance and accident together, then being will not be one only, but two. Nor does it differ with reference to this whether substance and accident are together in one thing as one or as different. For even though they are together in one thing, they are not one simply, but one in subject. And so by positing substance with accident it follows that they are not one simply, but many. If, however, it is said that being is accident only and not substance, this is altogether impossible. For accident can in no way be without substance. For every accident is said of substance as of its subject, and the very definition of accident involves this. If, however, it is said that being is substance only without accident, then it follows that it would not be a quantity, for quantity is an accident. And this is contrary to the position of Melissus. For he held that being was infinite, whence it follows that it is quantity, because the infinite, properly speaking, does not exist except in quantity. And substance and quality and the like are not said to be infinite except accidentally insofar as they are, for instance, together with quantity. Since, then, Melissus held being to be infinite, he cannot hold that it is substance without quantity. If, therefore, being is substance and quantity together, it follows that being is not one only, but two. If, however, it is substance alone, it is not infinite, because it will not have magnitude or quantity. Hence what Melissus says, namely, that being is one, can in no way be true.
lib. 1 l. 3 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: amplius quoniam et ipsum etc., ponit secundam rationem acceptam ex parte unius. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ponit rationem; secundo ostendit quomodo quidam erraverunt in solutione ipsius, ibi: conturbati sunt autem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod sicut ens dicitur multipliciter, ita et unum: et ideo considerandum est quomodo dicant omnia esse unum. Dicitur enim unum tripliciter: vel sicut continuum est unum, ut linea et corpus; vel sicut indivisibile est unum, ut punctum; vel sicut unum dicuntur illa quorum ratio est una, seu definitio, sicut vappa et vinum dicuntur unum. Primo ergo ostendit quod non possunt dicere quod omnia sunt unum continuatione, quia continuum est quodammodo multa: omne enim continuum est in infinitum divisibile, et sic continet in se multas partes. Unde qui ponit ens continuum, necesse est quod ponat quodammodo multa. Et non solum propter multitudinem partium, sed etiam propter diversitatem quae videtur esse inter totum et partes. Est enim dubitatio utrum totum et partes sint unum aut plura. Et licet forsitan haec dubitatio ad propositum non pertineat, tamen per se ipsam utilis est ad cognoscendum. Et non solum de totis continuis, sed etiam de totis contiguis, quorum partes non sunt continuae; sicut partes domus, quae sunt unum contactu et compositione. Et manifestum est quod totum secundum quid est idem parti, non tamen simpliciter. Si enim simpliciter totum esset idem uni partium, eadem ratione esset idem alteri partium; quae autem uni et eidem sunt eadem, sibi invicem sunt eadem; et sic sequitur quod ambae partes, si ponantur simpliciter esse idem toti, quod sint idem ad invicem. Et sic sequeretur quod totum sit indivisibile, non habens diversitatem partium.	22. Then where he says, ‘Again “one” itself...’ (185 b 5) he sets forth his second argument which deals with the ‘one’. Concerning this he makes two points. First he gives the argument. Secondly, where he says, ‘Even the more recent ...’ (185 b 25; L4 #25), he shows how some have erred in the solution of this question. He says first that just as being is said in many ways, so also is one. And so we must consider in what way they say that all things are one. For ‘one’ is used in three ways: either as the continuous is one, such as a line or a body, or as the indivisible is one, such as a point, or as those things are said to be one whose nature [ratio] or definition is one, as drink and wine are said to be one. First, therefore, he shows that we cannot say that all are one by continuity, because a continuum is in a certain respect many. For every continuum is divisible to infinity, and so contains many in itself as parts. Hence whoever holds that being is a continuum must hold that it is in a certain respect many. And this is true, not only because of the number of the parts, but also because of the difference which seems to exist between the whole and the parts. For there is a question whether the whole and the parts are one or many. And although this question, perhaps, does not pertain to the matter at hand, it is, nevertheless, worthy of consideration for its own sake. And here we consider not only the continuous whole, but also the contiguous whole whose parts are not continuous, such as the parts of a house which are one by contact and composition. It is clear that that which is a whole accidentally is the same as its parts. But this is not true of that which is a whole simply. For if that which is a whole simply the same as one of the parts, then for the same reason it would be the same as another of the parts. But things which are identical with the same thing are identical with each other. And thus it would follow that both parts, if they are held simply to be the same as the whole, would be identical with each other. Hence it would follow that the whole would be indivisible having no diversity of parts.
lib. 1 l. 3 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: at vero si est etc., ostendit quod omnia non possunt esse unum sicut indivisibile est unum: quia quod est indivisibile non potest esse quantum, cum omnis quantitas sit divisibilis; et per consequens non potest esse quale, ut intelligatur de qualitate quae fundatur super quantitatem. Et si non est quantum, non potest esse finitum, sicut dixit Parmenides, neque infinitum, sicut dixit Melissus; quia terminus indivisibilis, utpote punctus, est finis et non finitus; quia finitum et infinitum conveniunt quantitati.	23. Next where he says, ‘But to proceed ...’ (185 b 18), he shows that it is impossible for all to be one as the indivisible is one. For that which is indivisible cannot be a quantity, since every quantity is divisible. As a result of this it cannot be a quality, if it is understood that we are speaking of a quality which is founded upon quantity. And if it is not a quantity, it cannot be finite as Parmenides has said, nor can it be infinite as Melissus has said. For an indivisible terminus, such as a point, is an end and is not finite. For the finite and the infinite are found in quantity.
lib. 1 l. 3 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: at vero si ratione etc., ostendit quomodo non potest dici omnia esse unum secundum rationem: quia si hoc esset, sequerentur tria inconvenientia. Primum est quod contraria essent unum secundum rationem, scilicet quod eadem ratio esset boni et mali, sicut Heraclitus ponebat eandem esse rationem contrariorum, ut patet in IV Metaphys. Secundum inconveniens est quod eadem esset ratio boni et non boni, quia ad malum sequitur non bonum; et sic sequeretur quod esset eadem ratio entis et non entis; et sic sequeretur etiam quod omnia entia non solum essent unum ens, ut ipsi ponunt, sed etiam essent non ens vel nihil; quia quaecumque sunt unum secundum rationem, ita se habent quod de quocumque praedicatur unum, et aliud. Unde si ens et nihil sunt unum secundum rationem, sequitur, si omnia sunt unum ens, quod omnia sunt nihil. Tertium inconveniens est quod diversa genera, ut quantitas et qualitas, sint eadem secundum rationem. Et hoc inconveniens ponit cum dicit, et tali et tanto. Advertendum vero quod sicut philosophus dicit in IV Metaphys., contra negantes principia non potest adduci demonstratio simpliciter, quae procedit ex magis notis simpliciter; sed demonstratio ad contradicendum, quae procedit ex iis quae supponuntur ab adversario, quae sunt interdum minus nota simpliciter. Et sic philosophus in hac disputatione utitur pluribus quae sunt minus nota quam hoc quod est entia esse multa et non unum tantum, ad quod rationes adducit.	24. Next where he says, ‘But if all things...’ (185 b 19), he shows how it cannot be said that all things are one in definition [ratio]. For if this were true, three absurdities would follow. The first is that contraries would be one according to definition [ratio), so that the definitions of good and evil would be the same, just as Heraclitus held the definitions of contraries to be the same,. as is made clear in Metaphysics, IV:3. The second absurdity is that the definitions [ratio] of the good and the non-good would be the same, because non-good follows upon evil. And thus it would follow that the definitions of being and non-being would be the same. And it would also follow that all beings would not only be one being, as they hold, but also they would be non-being or nothing. For things which are one in definition are so related that they may be used interchangeably as predicates. Whence if being and nothing are one according to definition, then it follows, that if all are one being, all are nothing. The third absurdity is that the different genera, such as quantity and quality, would be the same according to definition [ratio]. He sets forth this absurdity where he says ‘... “to be of such-and-such a quality” is the same as “to be of such-and-such a size”’ (185 b 24). We must note however, that, as the Philosopher says in Metaphysics, IV:4, against those who deny principles there can be no unqualified demonstration which proceeds from what is more known simply. But we may use a demonstration to contradiction which proceeds from those things which are supposed by our adversary, which things are, for the time being, less known simply. And so the Philosopher, in this argument, uses many things which are less known than the fact that beings are many and not only one—the point about which he argues.