Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L1/lect7

LECTURE 7 HE DISPROVES THE POSITION OF THOSE WHO SAID THAT NON-BEING IS SOMETHING

Latin	English
	LECTURE 7 (187 a 1-10) HE DISPROVES THE POSITION OF THOSE WHO SAID THAT NON-BEING IS SOMETHING
lib. 1 l. 7 n. 1 Postquam philosophus improbavit rationem Parmenidis ducendo ad quaedam inconvenientia, hic improbat positionem quorundam, qui praedicta inconvenientia concedebant. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ponit positionem eorum; secundo improbat eam, ibi: manifestum autem et cetera.	47. After the Philosopher has disproved the argument of Parmenides by bringing forth certain inconsistencies found in it, he here disproves the position of those who have conceded these inconsistencies. Concerning this he makes two points. First he sets forth their position. Secondly, he disproves it where he says, ‘But obviously it is not...’ (187 a 3 #50).
lib. 1 l. 7 n. 2 Considerandum est ergo primo: quod supra philosophus contra rationem Parmenidis duabus rationibus usus est. Una ad ostendendum quod ex ratione Parmenidis non sequitur omnia esse unum, propter diversitatem subiecti et accidentis: quae quidem ratio ducebat ad hoc inconveniens, quod non ens est ens, ut ex superioribus patet. Alia vero ratio procedebat ad ostendendum quod non sequitur omnia esse unum, propter hoc quod si esset magnitudo, sequeretur magnitudinem esse indivisibilem; quia si sit divisibilis, erunt quodammodo multa.	48. It must be noted first that the Philosopher used two arguments above [L6 #36ff.] against the argument of Parmenides. He used one to show that, because of the diversity of subject and accident, it does not follow from the argument of Parmenides that all is one. This argument led to the absurdity that non-being is being, as is clear from what was said above. The other argument proceeded to show that the conclusion that an is one does not follow because, if it were a magnitude, it would follow that this magnitude is indivisible. For if it were divisible, there would be some sort of multiplicity.
lib. 1 l. 7 n. 3 Platonici vero utrique rationi acquieverunt, concedendo impossibilia ad quae deducunt. Acquieverunt ergo primae rationi, quae ducebat ad hoc quod non ens esset ens, si aliquis diceret quod ens significet unum, vel substantiam tantum vel accidens tantum, et per hoc vellet dicere quod omnia sunt unum:- huic rationi, dico, acquieverunt quod non ens esset ens. Dicebat enim Plato quod accidens est non ens: et propter hoc dicitur in VI Metaphys. quod Plato posuit sophisticam circa non ens, quia versatur maxime circa ea quae per accidens dicuntur. Sic ergo Plato, intelligens per ens substantiam, concedebat primam propositionem Parmenidis, dicentis quod quidquid est praeter ens est non ens; quia ponebat accidens, quod est praeter substantiam, esse non ens. Non tamen concedebat secundam propositionem, hanc scilicet: quidquid est non ens est nihil. Licet enim diceret accidens esse non ens, non tamen dicebat accidens esse nihil, sed aliquid. Et propter hoc secundum ipsum non sequebatur quod sit unum tantum. Sed alteri rationi, quae ducebat ad hoc quod magnitudo esset indivisibilis, assentiebat faciendo magnitudines esse indivisibiles ex decisione, idest dicendo quod magnitudinum divisio ad indivisibilia terminatur. Ponebat enim corpora resolvi in superficies, et superficies in lineas, et lineas in indivisibilia, ut patet in III de caelo et mundo.	49. The Platonists, however, gave in to each argument, conceding the impossibilities to which they led. They accepted the first argument which led to the conclusion that non-being would be being. Suppose that someone were to say that being signifies one thing, either substance alone or accident alone, and because of this he might also wish to say that all things are one-in regard to this argument, I say, they accepted [the conclusion] that non-being would be being. For Plato said that accident is non-being. And because of this it is said in Metaphysics, VI:2 that Plato held that sophistry dealt with nonbeing, because it treated most of all those things which are predicated per accidens. Therefore Plato, understanding being to be substance, conceded the first proposition of Parmenides who said that whatever is other than being is non-being. For Plato held that accident, which is other than substance, was non-being. He did not, however, concede the second proposition, namely, that whatever is non-being is nothing. For although he would say that accident is non-being, he did not say that accident is nothing, but rather that it is something. And because of this, according to Plato, it does not follow that being is one only. But Plato, when he made magnitudes to be indivisible by dissection, that is, when he said that a magnitude is terminated in indivisibles by division, did assent to the other argument which led to the conclusion that a magnitude would be indivisible. For he held that bodies are resolved into surfaces, and surfaces into lines, and lines into indivisibles, as is clear in De Caelo et Mundo, III:1.
lib. 1 l. 7 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: manifestum autem etc., improbat praedictam positionem quantum ad hoc, quod concedebat quod non ens est aliquid. Nam quantum ad id quod faciebat individuas magnitudines, improbat suo loco in sequentibus scientiae naturalis. Improbat autem primum dupliciter: primo ostendendo quod non sequitur ex ratione Platonis quod non ens sit aliquid; secundo quantum ad hoc quod dicebat, quod nisi hoc ponatur (scilicet quod si non ens quod est accidens, non sit aliquid), sequitur omnia esse unum, ibi: dicere igitur et cetera.	50. Next where he says, ‘But obviously ...’ (187 a 3), he disproves the above position in regard to the point that Plato conceded, namely, that non-being is something. In regard to the other point, namely, that Plato held that there are indivisible magnitudes, this is disproved in its proper place in the following books of natural science [VI L1]. He disproves the first point in two ways. First he shows that it does not follow from the argument of Plato that non-being is something. Secondly, he disproves Plato’s remark that unless we hold this (i.e., that the non-being which is accident is something), it will follow that all is one. He does this where he says, ‘To say that all things ...’ (187 a 7 #52).
lib. 1 l. 7 n. 5 Dicit ergo primo manifestum esse quod non est verum quod ista ratio Platonis sequatur, qua sic deducebat, ens unum significat. Ponebat enim ens esse genus, et univoce dictum de omnibus secundum participationem primi entis; et iterum ponebat quod contradictoria non sunt simul vera. Ex his duobus arbitrabatur sequi non ens non esse nihil, sed aliquid. Si enim ens significat unum quod est substantia, oportebit quod quidquid est non substantia, sit non ens: quia si esset ens, cum ens non significet nisi substantiam, sequeretur quod esset substantia; et ita esset simul substantia et non substantia; quod est contradictoria simul vera esse. Si igitur impossibile est contradictoria simul vera esse, et ens significat unum quod est substantia, sequetur quod quidquid est non substantia, sit non ens. Sed aliquid est non substantia, scilicet accidens; igitur aliquid est non ens: et sic non est verum quod non ens sit nihil. Ostendit autem Aristoteles quod hoc non sequitur, quia si ens significat principaliter unum quod est substantia, nihil prohibet dicere quod accidens, quod non est substantia, non sit simpliciter ens: sed tamen non propter hoc oportet quod illud quod non est aliquid, idest substantia, dicatur absolute non ens. Licet ergo accidens non sit ens simpliciter, non tamen potest dici absolute non ens.	51. He says, therefore, first that the argument by which Plato concluded that being signifies one clearly does not follow. For he held that being is a genus and is predicated univocally of all things by a participation in the first being. And further he held that contradictories cannot be true at the same time. From these two points he thought that it followed that non-being is not nothing, but something. For if being signifies the one, which is substance, it will be necessary that whatever is not substance is non-being. For if it were being, then since being does not signify anything but substance, it would follow that it would be substance. And so it would at once be substance and non-substance, in which case contradictories would be true at the same time. If, therefore, it is impossible for contradictories to be true at the same time, and if being signifies the one, which is substance, it would follow that whatever is not substance is non-being. But there is something which is not substance, namely, accident. Therefore something is non-being. And so it is not true that non-being is nothing. But Aristotle shows that this does not follow. For if being signifies principally the one, which is substance, there is nothing to prevent one from saying that accident, which is not substance, is not being simply. But because of this it is not necessary to say that that which is not something, i.e., not substance, is absolute non-being. Hence, although accident is not being simply, it cannot, indeed, be called absolute nonbeing.
lib. 1 l. 7 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: dicere igitur etc., ostendit ulterius quod non sequitur, si non ens quod est accidens non sit aliquid, quod omnia sint unum. Et hoc est quod dicit, quod inconveniens est dicere quod sequatur omnia esse unum nisi aliquid sit extra ens, quia per ens non potest intelligi nisi substantia, quae vere est. Sed si substantia sit, nihil prohibet esse multa, sicut iam dictum est, etiam remota magnitudine et accidente; quia definitio substantiae dividitur in multa quae sunt de genere substantiae, sicut homo in animal et bipes. Et ulterius sequitur quod secundum diversas differentias generis sint multae substantiae in actu. Et ultimo infert conclusionem principaliter intentam, quod non omnia sunt unum, sicut dicebat Parmenides et Melissus.	52. Next where he says, ‘To say that all things ...’ (187 a 7), he shows further that, if the non-being which is accident is not something, it does not follow that all is one. For if being can mean only substance, which truly is, then he says that it is absurd to hold that it would follow that all things are one unless there is something outside of being. For if there is substance, there is nothing to prevent there being a multiplicity of substances, as has already been said [L6 #45], even if magnitude and accident are removed. For the definition of substance is divided into the many things which are in the genus of substance, as man is divided into animal and two-footed. And further it follows that according to the diverse differentiae of a genus there are many substances in act. And finally he draws the conclusion which he had uppermost in mind, namely, that all things are not one, as Parmenides and Melissus said.