Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L1/lect6

LECTURE 6 THE ARGUMENT OF PARMENIDES IS ANSWERED IN A NUMBER OF WAYS

Latin	English
	LECTURE 6 (186 a 23-b 35) THE ARGUMENT OF PARMENIDES IS ANSWERED IN A NUMBER OF WAYS
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 1 Postquam philosophus improbavit rationem Melissi, hic improbat rationem Parmenidis. Et primo improbat eam; secundo excludit dicta quorundam qui male obviabant rationi Parmenidis, ibi: quidam autem rationibus et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit modos quibus obviandum est rationi Parmenidis; secundo illis modis eam solvit ibi: falsa quidem et cetera.	36. Having disproved the argument of Melissus, here the Philosopher disproves the argument of Parmenides. First he disproves the argument. Secondly, where he says, ‘Some thinkers did...’(187 a 1; L7 #47ff.), he rejects what has been said by some who have argued badly against Parmenides. Concerning the first part he makes two points. First he sets forth the ways in which the argument of Parmenides is to be refuted. Secondly, where he says, ‘His assumption...’(186 a 24 #39), he resolves the argument in these ways.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 2 Circa primum sciendum est quod ratio Parmenidis talis erat, ut patet in I Metaphys. Quidquid est praeter ens est non ens; sed quod est non ens est nihil; ergo quidquid est praeter ens est nihil. Sed ens est unum; ergo quidquid est praeter unum est nihil; ergo est tantum unum ens. Et ex hoc concludebat quod esset immobile, quia non haberet a quo moveretur, nec haberet extra se quo moveretur. Ex ipsis autem eorum rationibus patet quod Parmenides considerabat ens secundum rationem entis, et ideo ponebat ens esse unum et finitum: Melissus autem considerabat ens ex parte materiae, considerabat enim ens secundum quod est factum vel non factum; et ideo ponebat ens esse unum et infinitum.	37. Concerning the first part it must be known that the argument of Parmenides was as follows, as is clear from Metaphysics, I:5. Whatever is other than being is non-being. But what is non-being is nothing. Therefore whatever is other than being is nothing. But being is one, therefore whatever is other than one is nothing. Therefore there is only one being. And from this he concluded that it would be immobile, because it would not have anything by which it would be moved, nor would there be anything outside of it by which it would be moved. It is clear, moreover, from their very arguments that Parmenides considered being under the aspect [secundum rationem] of being, and so held it to be one and finite; whereas Melissus considered being from the point of view of matter. For Melissus considered being insofar as it is made or not made. And so he held being to be one and infinite.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 3 Dicit ergo quod idem modus est procedendi contra rationem Parmenidis et contra rationem Melissi. Nam sicut ratio Melissi solvebatur ex eo quod assumebat propositiones falsas, et ex eo quod non recte concludebat secundum rectam formam syllogisticam; sic et ratio Parmenidis solvitur partim quia falsa assumit, et partim quia non recte concludit. Dicit autem et esse alios modos disputandi proprios contra Parmenidem; quia contra eum disputari potest ex propositionibus ab eo sumptis, quae sunt aliquo modo verae et probabiles. Sed Melissus procedebat ex eo quod est falsum et improbabile, scilicet quod ens non generatur: unde non disputavit contra eum per propositiones ab eo sumptas.	38. Aristotle says, therefore, that the same approach must be used against the argument of Parmenides that was used against the argument of Melissus. For as the argument of Melissus was answered on the basis that he assumed false propositions and did not draw his conclusions according to the correct form of the syllogism, so also the argument of Parmenides is answered partly because he assumed false propositions and partly because he did not draw his conclusions correctly. He says, however, that there are also other appropriate ways of arguing against Parmenides. For it is possible to argue against Parmenides from the propositions which he assumed and which are in a certain respect true and probable. But Melissus proceeded from what was false and improbable, for example, that being is not generated. Because of this, Aristotle did not argue against Melissus from the propositions which he assumed.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: falsa quidem etc., prosequitur praedictos modos. Et primo primum; secundo secundum, ibi: non concluditur autem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod Parmenides assumit propositiones falsas, quia accipit quod est, idest ens, dici simpliciter, idest uno modo, cum tamen dicatur multipliciter. Dicitur enim ens uno modo substantia, alio modo accidens; et hoc multipliciter secundum diversa genera: potest etiam accipi ens prout est commune substantiae et accidenti. Patet autem quod propositiones ab eo sumptae in uno sensu sunt verae, et in alio sensu sunt falsae. Nam cum dicitur: quidquid est praeter ens est non ens, verum est si ens sumatur prout est commune substantiae et accidenti: si autem sumatur pro accidente tantum vel pro substantia tantum, falsum est, ut infra ostendetur. Similiter et cum dicit quod ens est unum, verum est si accipiatur pro aliqua una substantia vel pro aliquo uno accidente: non tamen verum erit in illo sensu quod quidquid est praeter illud ens, sit non ens.	39. Next where he says, ‘His assumption ...’ (186 a 24), he follows the procedures just mentioned. First according to the first way, and secondly according to the second way, where he says, ‘His conclusion does not follow ...’ (186 a 25 #40). He says, therefore, first that Parmenides assumed false propositions because he held that what is, i.e., being, is used simply, i.e., in one way. Whereas in fact it is used in many ways. For being is used in one way for substance, in another way for accident; and the latter is used in many ways according to the different genera. Being also can be used commonly for substance and accident. Hence it is clear that the propositions assumed by Parmenides are true in one sense and false in another. For when it is said that whatever is other than being is non-being, this is true if being is taken, as it were, commonly for substance and accident. If, however, being is taken for accident alone or for substance alone, this is false, as will be shown below [#42-43]. Likewise when he says that being is one, this is true if being is taken for some one substance or for some one accident. But this will not be true in the sense that whatever is other than that being is non-being.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: non concluditur etc., prosequitur secundum modum solutionis, quod scilicet ratio Parmenidis non recte concludebat. Et primo ostendit in simili; secundo adaptat ad propositum, ibi: necesse est igitur et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod ex hoc sciri potest quod ratio Parmenidis non concludit recte, quia forma argumentandi non est efficax in omni materia; quod oporteret si esset debita forma argumentandi. Si enim accipiamus album loco entis, et ponamus quod album significet unum tantum et non dicatur aequivoce, et dicamus sic: quidquid est praeter album est non album, et quidquid est non album est nihil; non sequitur quod album sit unum tantum. Primo quidem quia non erit necessarium quod omnia alba sint unum continuum. Vel aliter: non erit unum album continuatione; idest ex hoc ipso quod est continuum, non erit unum simpliciter; quia continuum est quodammodo multa, ut supra dictum est. Et similiter non erit unum ratione: alia enim est ratio albi et susceptibilis. Et tamen non erit aliquid praeter album quasi ab eo divisum: non est enim aliud album a susceptibili quia album sit separabile a susceptibili; sed quia alia est ratio albi et susceptibilis. Sed hoc nondum erat consideratum tempore Parmenidis, scilicet quod aliquid esset unum subiecto et multa ratione: et ideo credidit quod si nihil sit extra aliquod subiectum, quod sequatur id esse unum. Sed hoc falsum est tum propter multitudinem partium, tum propter diversam rationem subiecti et accidentis.	40. Next where he says, ‘His conclusion does not follow ...’ (186 a 25), he follows the second method of answering the argument, i.e., that the argument of Parmenides does not draw its conclusion according to proper form. He shows this first in an example. And secondly, where he says, ‘It is necessary for him ...’ (186 a 33 #41), he adapts this example to the problem at hand. He says, therefore, first that it can be seen that the argument of Parmenides does not draw its conclusion properly because of the fact that the form of argumentation used is not efficacious in every matter. And this could not be true if a proper form of argumentation were used. For if we take ‘white’ in the place of ‘being’, and if we say that ‘white’ signifies one thing only and is not used equivocally, and if we say that whatever is other than white is non-white, and whatever is non-white is nothing, then it will not follow that white would be one only. For it will not be necessary that all white things are one continuum. Or, to put it differently, white will not necessarily be one by continuity, i.e., from the fact that white is a continuum, it will not be one simply. For a continuum is in a certain respect many, as was said above [L3 #22]. And in like manner white will not be one in definition [ratio], for the white and that which is receptive of the white are different in definition [ratio]. Furthermore there will not be something other than white, as it were, separated from it. For the white is not other than that which is receptive of it because the white is separable from that which is receptive of it, but because the definitions [ratio] of the white and of that which is receptive of it are different. But. it was not yet known at the time of Parmenides that something could be one in subject and many in definition [ratio].
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: necesse est igitur etc., adaptat similitudinem ad propositum, ut quod dictum est de albo, ostendat similiter se habere circa ens. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ostendit quod non sequitur ens esse unum simpliciter, propter hoc quod subiectum et accidens sunt diversa secundum rationem; secundo propter multitudinem partium, ibi: neque igitur magnitudo et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ostendit quod cum dicitur quidquid est praeter ens est non ens, hoc quod est ens non potest accipi pro accidente tantum; secundo quod non potest accipi pro substantia tantum, ibi: si igitur quod vere et cetera.	41. Next where he says, ‘It is necessary for him ...’ (186 a 33), he adapts this example to the matter at hand in order to show how what he has said of the white also applies to being. Concerning this he makes two points. First he shows that it does not follow that being is one simply. For subject and accident are different according to definition [ratio]. Secondly, where he says, ‘In particular then...’ (186 b 13 #44), he shows that this does not follow because of the multiplicity of parts. Concerning the first part he makes two points. First he shows that when it is said that ‘whatever is other than being is non-being’, this ‘being’ cannot be taken to mean accident alone. Secondly, where he says, ‘If, then, substance ...’ (186 b 4 #43), he shows that this ‘being’ cannot be taken to mean substance alone.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 7 Dicit ergo primo quod cum dicitur quidquid est praeter ens est non ens, si ens dicatur unum significare, oportebit quod significet non quodcumque ens, vel de quocumque praedicatur; sed significet quod vere est, idest substantiam, et significet quod vere est unum, scilicet indivisibile. Si enim ens significet accidens, cum accidens praedicetur de subiecto, oportet quod subiectum non sit cui accidit accidens quod ponitur ens. Si enim quidquid est praeter ens est non ens, idest praeter accidens, et subiectum est alterum ab accidente quod significat hoc quod dico ens; sequetur quod subiectum sit non ens: et ita, cum accidens quod est ens praedicetur de subiecto quod est non ens, sequetur quod ens praedicetur de non ente. Et hoc est quod concludit, erit itaque aliquid cum non sit; ac si dicat: ergo sequetur quod non ens sit ens. Hoc autem est impossibile, quia hoc est primum supponendum in scientiis, quod contradictoria non praedicentur de se invicem, ut in IV Metaphys. dicitur. Unde concludit quod si aliquid sit vere ens, supposita hac propositione, quidquid est praeter ens est non ens, quod illud non sit accidens inhaerens alii. Quia tunc non contingeret ipsi subiecto sic esse aliquod ens, idest quod ipsum subiectum haberet rationem entis, nisi ens multa significaret, ita quod unumquodque illorum multorum esset aliquod ens: sed supponitur a Parmenide quod ens significat unum tantum.	42. He says, therefore, first that when it is said that ‘whatever is other than being is non-being’, if ‘being’ is said to signify one thing, then it will be necessary that it signify not some one being or what is predicated of some one thing. Rather it will signify what truly is, i.e., substance, and it will signify what is truly one, i.e., the indivisible. For if being were to signify accident, then, since accident would be predicated of a subject, the subject could not be that to which the accident, which is called being, occurs. For if whatever is other than being is non-being (i.e., other than accident), and if the subject is other than the accident, which is here said to be being, then it follows that the subject is nonbeing. And so when accident, which is being, is predicated of the subject which is non-being, it follows that being is predicated of non-being. Hence, Aristotle concludes, ‘Something, therefore, which is not will be’ (186 b 1), that is, it will follow that non-being is being. This, however, is impossible.. For what is first of all assumed in the sciences is that contradictories are not to be predicated of each other, as is said in Metaphysics, IV:7. Whence he concludes that if anything is truly being, as is supposed in the proposition ‘whatever is other than being is nonbeing’, it follows that it is not an accident inhering in something else. For in this case its subject would not be a being. That is, this subject would not have the nature [ratio] of being, unless being should signify many, so that each of the many would be a being. But it was assumed by Parmenides that being signifies one only.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: si igitur quod vere etc., postquam conclusit quod cum dicitur quidquid est praeter ens est non ens, per ens non potest intelligi accidens, ostendit quod nec etiam substantia. Unde dicit: si igitur quod vere est non sit accidens alicui, sed illi aliquid accidit, oportet quod in hac propositione, quidquid est praeter ens est non ens, magis significetur quod vere est, idest substantia, per ens quam per non ens. Sed nec hoc potest stare. Ponatur enim quod id quod vere est ens, idest illa substantia, sit album: album autem non est quod vere est. Iam enim dictum est quod id quod vere est, non est possibile accidere alicui: et hoc ideo quia quod non vere est, idest quod non est substantia, non est quod est, idest non est ens. Sed quidquid est praeter ens, idest praeter substantiam, est non ens: sic ergo sequitur quod album non sit ens. Et non solum ita quod non sit hoc ens, sicut homo non est hoc ens quod est asinus: sed quod omnino non sit, quia ipse dicit quod quidquid est praeter ens est non ens, et quod est non ens est nihil. Ex hoc ergo sequitur quod non ens praedicetur de eo quod vere est; quia album praedicatur de substantia, quae vere est, et tamen album non significat ens, ut dictum est. Unde sequitur quod ens sit non ens: et hoc est etiam impossibile, quia unum contradictoriorum non praedicatur de altero. Unde si ad evitandum hoc inconveniens dicamus quod vere ens non solum significat subiectum, sed etiam ipsum album, sequitur quod ens multa significet. Et ita non erit tantum unum ens, quia subiectum et accidens plura sunt secundum rationem.	43. Next where he says, ‘If, then, substance.. .’(186 b 4), after he has concluded that ‘being’ cannot refer to accident when it is said that ‘whatever is other than being is non-being’, he shows further that ‘being’ cannot refer to substance either. Whence he says that if what truly is does not happen to something, but other things happen to it, then in the proposition ‘whatever is other than being is non-being’, it is necessity that ‘what truly is’, i.e., substance, be signified by being rather than by non-being. But this cannot stand. For let it be held that that which truly is, i.e., substance, is white. But white is not that which truly is. For it has already been said that that which truly is cannot happen to something. And this is so because what is not truly, i.e., what is not substance, is not that which is, i.e., is not being. But what is other than being, i.e., other than substance, is non-being. Hence it follows that white is non-being, not only in the sense that it is not this being, as a man is not this being which is an ass, but also in the sense that it is not in any way. For he says that whatever is other than being is non-being, and what is nonbeing is nothing. From this, therefore, it follows that non-being would be predicated of that which truly is, because white is predicated of substance, which truly is. And white does not signify being, as was said. Whence it follows that being is non-being. And this indeed is impossible, because one contradictory is not predicated of another. Whence, if in order to avoid this inconsistency, we say that true being signifies not only the subject, but also the white itself, it follows that being will signify many. And thus there will not be only one being, for subject and accident are many according to nature [ratio].
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: neque igitur magnitudo etc., ostendit quod non sequitur ex ratione Parmenidis quod sit tantum unum ens, propter multitudinem partium. Et primo quantum ad partes quantitativas; secundo quantum ad partes rationis, ibi: quod autem dividitur et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod si ens tantum unum significet, non solum non poterit esse accidens cum subiecto, sed neque etiam ens erit aliqua magnitudo: quia omnis magnitudo est divisibilis in partes, utriusque autem partis non est eadem ratio sed altera. Unde sequitur quod illud ens unum non sit substantia corporea.	44. Next where he says, ‘In particular then ...’ (186 b 13), he shows, because of the multiplicity of parts, that it does not follow from the argument of Parmenides that there is only one being. He shows this first with reference to quantitative parts and secondly with reference to the parts of definition [ratio], where he says, ‘Substance is plainly divisible ...’ (186 b 14).1 He says, therefore, first that if being signifies only one thing, not only will it not be accident with subject, but neither will it be a, magnitude. For every magnitude is divisible into parts. But the natures [ratio] of each of the parts are not the same, but different. Whence it follows that this one being is not a corporeal substance.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 10 Secundo, ibi: quod autem dividitur etc., ostendit quod non possit esse ens substantia definibilis. Manifestum est enim ex definitione quod id quod vere est, idest substantia, dividitur in plura, quorum unumquodque est quod vere est, idest substantia, et aliud secundum rationem. Ut ponamus quod illud unum quod vere est, sit homo: cum homo sit animal bipes, necesse est quod animal sit et bipes sit; et utrumque eorum erit quod vere est, idest substantia. Quod si non sint substantiae, erunt accidentia: aut igitur homini aut alicui alteri. Sed impossibile est quod sint accidentia homini. Et ad hoc ostendendum duo supponit. Quorum primum est quod accidens dicitur dupliciter: uno modo accidens separabile, quod contingit inesse et non inesse, ut sedere; alio modo accidens inseparabile et per se. Et hoc est accidens in cuius definitione ponitur subiectum cui accidit: sicut simum est per se accidens nasi quia in definitione simi ponitur nasus; est enim simum nasus curvus. Secundum quod supponit est quod si aliqua ponuntur in definitione alicuius definiti, aut in definitione alicuius eorum ex quibus constat definitio, impossibile est quod in definitione alicuius horum ponatur definitio totius definiti. Sicut bipes ponitur in definitione hominis, et quaedam alia ponuntur in definitione bipedis vel animalis, ex quibus definitur homo: impossibile est autem quod ponatur homo in definitione bipedis, aut in definitione alicuius eorum quae cadunt in definitione bipedis vel animalis; alioquin esset definitio circularis, et esset idem prius et posterius, et notius et minus notum; omnis enim definitio est ex prioribus et notioribus, ut in VI Topic. dicitur. Et eadem ratione, cum in definitione hominis albi ponatur album, non est possibile quod in definitione albi ponatur homo albus. His igitur suppositis, sic argumentatur. Si bipes est accidens homini, necesse est vel quod sit accidens separabile, et sic continget hominem non esse bipedem, quod est impossibile; vel erit inseparabile, et sic oportebit quod homo ponatur in ratione bipedis, quod est etiam impossibile quia bipes ponitur in ratione eius. Impossibile est igitur quod bipes sit accidens homini, et eadem ratione neque animal. Si vero dicatur quod ambo sunt accidentia alicui alii, sequeretur quod etiam homo accidat alicui alteri. Sed hoc est impossibile: iam enim supra dictum est quod illud quod vere est nulli accidit, homo autem supponitur esse illud quod vere est, ut ex superioribus patet. Quod autem sequatur hominem accidere alteri si animal et bipes alteri accidunt, sic manifestat: quia de quocumque dicuntur ambo seorsum, scilicet animal et bipes, de eodem dicetur utrumque simul, scilicet animal bipes; et de quocumque dicitur animal bipes, dicitur quod est ex eis, scilicet homo, quia nihil aliud est homo quam animal bipes. Sic igitur patet quod si ponatur unum tantum ens, non possunt poni partes quantitativae, neque partes magnitudinis, neque partes rationis. Sic igitur sequitur quod omne ens sit de numero indivisibilium, ne ponentes unum ens cogamur ponere multa propter partes.	45. Secondly, where he says, ‘Substance is plainly divisible ...’ (186 b 14), he shows that this being cannot be a definable substance. For in a definition it is clear that that which truly is, i.e., the substance, is divided into many, each one of which is what truly is, i.e. substance, and each one of which has a different nature [ratio]. Let us suppose that man is one thing which truly is. Since man is a two-footed animal, it is necessary that animal be and that two-footed be. And each of these will be what truly is, i.e., substance. And if they are not substances, they are accidents, either of man or of some other thing. But it is impossible that they be accidents of man. And to make this clear he assumes two things. First he assumes that ‘accident’ is used in two ways. One type of accident is separable, and as such can be in something or not in it, for example, to sit. Another type of accident is inseparable and per se. And this latter is the accident in whose definition is placed the subject in which it is. For example, the snub is a per se accident of nose, because nose is placed in the definition of the snub. For the snub is a curved nose. The second thing which he assumes is that if certain things are placed in the definition of that which is defined, or in the definition of the things on which the definition depends, then it is impossible that the whole definition of that which is defined be placed in the definition of these certain things. Thus two-footed is placed in the definition of man, and certain other things are placed in the definition of two-footed or animal, from which [i.e., from two-footed and animal] man is defined. Hence it is impossible that man be placed in the definition of two-footed or in the definition of any of the things which fall in the definition of two-footed or of animal. Otherwise we would have a circular definition, and one and the same thing would be both prior and posterior, better known and less known. For every definition is from the prior and the better known, as is said in Topics, VI:4. And for the same reason, when white is placed in the definition of white man, it is impossible for white man to be placed in the definition of white. These things having been assumed, the argument is as follows. If two-footed is an accident of man, it must be either a separable accident (and thus it could happen that man is not two-footed, which is impossible) or an inseparable accident (and thus it will be necessary that man be placed in the definition of two-footed). But this also is impossible, because two-footed is placed in the definition of man. It is impossible, therefore, that two-footed be an accident of man. For the same reason animal cannot be an accident. If, however, it is said that both are accidents of something else, it would follow that man also would be an accident of something else. But this is impossible, for it has already been said above that that which truly is is an accident of nothing. But man was assumed to be that which truly is, as is clear from what was said above. That it would follow that man would be an accident of another if animal and two-footed were accidents of another, he shows as follows. What is said of both animal and two-footed taken separately may be said of them taken together, i.e., two-footed animal. And what is said of two-footed animal may be said of that which is from them, i.e., man, because man is nothing other than a two-footed animal. Therefore it is clear that if being is held to be one only, we cannot hold that there are quantitative parts, or parts of a magnitude, or parts of a definition. Therefore it follows that every being is numerically indivisible. Otherwise, while holding being to be one, we would be forced to posit a multiplicity because of the parts.
lib. 1 l. 6 n. 11 Commentator autem dicit quod ibi, sed quod vere est etc., ponit secundam rationem Parmenidis ad ostendendum quod ens sit unum, quae talis est. Ens quod est unum est substantia et non accidens (et per substantiam intelligit corpus): si autem corpus illud dividatur in duas medietates, sequitur quod ens dicatur de utraque medietate et de congregato ex eis. Et hoc vel procedit in infinitum, quod est impossibile secundum ipsum; aut erit dividere usque ad puncta, quod etiam est impossibile; unde oportet quod ens sit unum indivisibile. Sed haec expositio extorta est et contra intentionem Aristotelis, sicut satis apparet litteram inspicienti secundum primam expositionem.	46. the Commentator, however, says that in the passage beginning, ‘But we must assume ...’ (186 b 33), Aristotle sets forth the second argument of Parmenides to show that being is one. And this argument is as follows. A being which is one is substance and not accident (and by substance he means body). If, however, that body is divided into two halves, it will follow that being is predicated of each half and of the union of the two. And this either proceeds to infinity, which is impossible in itself, or else the being is divided into points. But this also is impossible. Hence it follows that being is an indivisible one. But this exposition is fabricated and contrary to the intention of Aristotle, as is sufficiently clear from an examination of the letter of the text according to the first explanation.