Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L1/lect4

LECTURE 4 THE LATER PHILOSOPHERS ALSO WERE INVOLVED IN THIS SAME ERROR

Latin	English
	LECTURE 4 (185 b 27-186 a 4) THE LATER PHILOSOPHERS ALSO WERE INVOLVED IN THIS SAME ERROR, NAMELY, THAT THE ONE AND THE MANY COULD NOT IN ANY WAY CONCUR
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 1 Postquam philosophus improbavit opinionem Parmenidis et Melissi ponentium ens esse unum, hic ostendit quod ex eadem radice quidam posteriores philosophi in dubitationem inciderunt. Erraverunt enim Parmenides et Melissus eo quod nesciverunt distinguere unum: unde quae aliquo modo sunt unum, simpliciter esse unum enunciabant. Posteriores autem philosophi, nescientes distinguere unum, pro inconvenienti reputabant quod idem aliquo modo sit unum et multa: quod tamen convicti rationibus confiteri cogebantur. Et ideo dicit quod posteriores philosophi conturbati sunt, idest in dubitationem inciderunt, quemadmodum et antiqui, scilicet Parmenides et Melissus, ne forte cogerentur hoc dicere, quod idem sit unum et multa; quod inconveniens videbatur utrisque. Et ideo primi ponentes omnia unum, totaliter multitudinem auferebant: posteriores vero multitudinem auferre conabantur a quibuscumque quae ponerent esse unum.	25. Having disproven the opinion of Parmenides and Melissus that being is one, the Philosopher here shows that certain later philosophers fell into difficulty on this very same problem. Parmenides and Melissus erred because they did not know how to distinguish the uses of the term ‘one’. Thus, what is one in a certain respect, they said was one simply. But the later philosophers, also not knowing how to distinguish the uses of the term ‘one’, thought it absurd that one and the same thing should be in some way one and many. Yet, being convinced by the arguments, they were forced to believe it. And so Aristotle says that the later philosophers were ‘disturbed’ (that is, fell into a difficulty similar to that of the ancients, i.e., Parmenides and Melissus) lest they be forced to say that one and the same thing is one and many. Now this seemed absurd to both groups of philosophers. So the earlier philosophers, holding that all is one, rejected all multiplicity. The later philosophers, on the other hand, tried to remove multiplicity from anything they held to be one.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 2 Et ideo quidam in propositionibus, ut Lycophron, auferebant hoc verbum est: dicebant enim quod non est dicendum homo est albus, sed homo albus. Considerabant enim quod homo et albus sunt quodammodo unum, alioquin album de homine non praedicaretur; sed videbatur eis quod haec dictio est, cum sit copula verbalis, inter duo copularet: et ideo totaliter ab eo quod est unum multitudinem auferre volentes, dicebant non esse apponendum hoc verbum est. Sed quia imperfecta oratio videbatur, et imperfectum sensum generari in animo auditoris, si ponantur nomina absque additione alicuius verbi; hoc volentes corrigere alii mutabant modum loquendi, et non dicebant homo albus, propter imperfectionem orationis, nec homo est albus, ne daretur intelligi multitudo, sed homo albatur: quia per hoc quod est albari, non intelligitur res aliqua, ut eis videbatur, sed quaedam subiecti transmutatio. Et similiter dicebant non esse dicendum homo est ambulans, sed homo ambulat; ne per additionem huius copulae verbalis est, id quod reputabant unum, scilicet hominem album, facerent esse multa: ac si unum et ens dicerentur singulariter, idest uno modo, et non multipliciter.	26. Thus some, such as Lycophron, removed the verb is from propositions. They said that we must not say ‘man is white’ but rather ‘white man’. For they thought that man and. white were in some way one, otherwise white would not be predicated of man. And it seemed to them that the word ‘is’, since it is a verbal copula, must serve as a copula between two. And so, wishing to remove all multiplicity from that which is one, they said the verb ‘is’ must not be used. But because such speech seemed to be imperfect, and because an imperfect understanding was produced in the soul of him who heard if names were spoken without the addition of any verb, some, wishing to correct this, changed the mode of speech. They did not say ‘white man’ because of the imperfection of this mode of speech. Nor did they say ‘man is white’ lest they give the impression that there is multiplicity. Rather they said ‘man whitened’,’ because by this expression ‘whitened’ [albari] a thing is not understood (as it seemed to them), but rather a certain change in the subject. And in like manner they said that we must not say ‘man is walking’ but ‘man walks’, lest by the addition of the verbal copula ‘is’ they make that which they thought to be one (i.e., white man) to be many, as if one and being were used in only one way and not in many.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 3 Sed hoc est falsum, quia id quod est unum uno modo, potest esse multa alio modo: sicut quod est unum subiecto, potest esse multa ratione, sicut album et musicum idem sunt subiecto sed ratione multa; alia enim est ratio musici et alia albi. Unde concludi potest quod unum sit multa. Alio etiam modo contingit quod id quod est unum toto et actu, sit multa secundum partium divisionem: unde totum est unum in sua totalitate, sed habet partium multitudinem. Et quamvis ad id quod est unum subiecto et multa ratione aliquod remedium adinvenirent, auferentes hoc verbum est, vel commutantes ut supra dictum est; tamen hic, scilicet in toto et partibus, omnino deficiebant respondere nescientes; et confitebantur tanquam aliquid inconveniens, unum esse multa. Sed hoc non est inconveniens quando unum et multa non accipiuntur ut opposita. Unum enim in actu et multa in actu opponuntur; sed unum in actu et multa in potentia non sunt opposita. Et propter hoc subdit quod unum dicitur multipliciter, scilicet unum in potentia et unum in actu: et sic idem nihil prohibet esse unum in actu et multa in potentia, sicut patet de toto et partibus.	27. But this is false, For that which is one in one respect can be many in some other respect, as what is one in subject can be many in definition [ratio]. Thus the white and the musical are the same in subject but many in definition [ratio]. Hence it can be concluded that the one may be many. This may happen also in another way. That which is actually one as a whole may be many according to a division of parts. Whence the whole is one in its totality, but it has multiplicity of parts. And although those who wished to remove the verb ‘is’ or alter it, as was said above [#26], found some solution to the objection that things could be one in subject and many in definition [ratio], they failed altogether to answer the objection that a thing may be one as a whole but many in its parts. They still believed it to be something of an absurdity that the one should be many. But it is not absurd if the one and the many are not taken as opposites. For the one in act and the many in act are opposed, but the one in act and the many in potency are not opposed. And because of this he adds that ‘one’ is said in many ways, i.e., one in potency and one in act. And so nothing prohibits the same thing from being one in act and many in potency, as is clear with regard to the whole and the parts.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 4 Ultimo autem inducit conclusionem principaliter intentam, scilicet quod ex praedictis rationibus patet quod impossibile est omnia entia esse unum.	28. Finally he draws the conclusion which he had uppermost in mind, namely, that it is clear from the foregoing arguments that it is impossible for all beings to be one.