Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L1/lect8

LECTURE 8 THE OPINIONS OF THE PHYSICISTS WHO SPOKE OF THE PRINCIPLES AS NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS

Latin	English
	LECTURE 8 (187 a 11-26) THE OPINIONS OF THE PHYSICISTS WHO SPOKE OF THE PRINCIPLES AS NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS
lib. 1 l. 8 n. 1 Postquam philosophus improbavit opinionem de principiis eorum qui de natura non naturaliter sunt locuti, hic prosequitur opiniones eorum qui de principiis naturae naturaliter sunt locuti, non removentes motum: et ideo vocat eos physicos, idest naturales. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ostendit diversitatem opinionum; secundo prosequitur unam earum, ibi: videtur autem et cetera.	53. After the Philosopher has disproved the opinion concerning principles of those who did not speak of nature as natural philosophers, he here pursues the opinions of those who, not disregarding motion, spoke of the principles of nature as natural philosophers. And he calls these men physicists, i.e., natural philosophers. Concerning this he makes two points. First he sets forth the diversity of their opinions. Secondly he examines one of these opinions, where he says, ‘The theory of Anaxagoras ...’ (187 a 28; L9 #58).
lib. 1 l. 8 n. 2 Dicit ergo primo quod secundum opinionem naturalium philosophorum, duo sunt modi secundum quos generantur res ex principiis. Quorum unum tangebant philosophi naturales ponentes unum tantum principium materiale; sive esset unum de tribus elementis, scilicet igne, aere et aqua (quia terram solam nullus posuit principium, ut supra dictum est), sive aliquod medium inter ea, ut puta quod esset densius igne et subtilius aere. Ab isto autem uno principio dicebant omnia alia generari secundum raritatem et densitatem; ut puta, qui ponebant aerem principium, dicebant quod ex eo rarefacto generatur ignis, ex eo autem condensato generatur aqua. Rarum autem et densum sunt contraria; et reducuntur ad excellentiam et defectum, ut ad quaedam universaliora: nam densum est quod habet multum de materia, rarum autem quod parum.	54. He says first that according to the opinion of the natural philosophers there are two ways in which things are generated from principles. One of the opinions was advanced by the natural philosophers who held that there is only one material principle. This principle would be either one of three elements, i.e., fire, air, and water (for no one made earth alone the principle, as was said above [L2 #13]) or else some intermediate between them, for example, that which would be more dense than fire and more subtle than air. They then said that all other things were generated from this one principle by rarity and density. For example, those who made air to be the principle said that fire was generated from air by rarefaction, and water by condensation. However, the dense and the rare are contraries and are reduced to excess and defect as to something more universal. For the dense is what has much matter, whereas the rare has little.
lib. 1 l. 8 n. 3 Et sic quodammodo concordabant cum Platone, qui ponebat magnum et parvum principia, quae etiam pertinent ad excellentiam et defectum. Sed in hoc differebant a Platone, quia Plato posuit magnum et parvum ex parte materiae, quia ponebat unum principium formale, quod est quaedam idea participata a diversis secundum diversitatem materiae: antiqui vero naturales ponebant contrarietatem ex parte formae, quia ponebant primum principium unam materiam, ex qua multa constituuntur secundum diversas formas.	55. And thus they agreed in a certain respect with Plato who held that the great and the small are principles which also pertain to excess and defect. But they differed from Plato as follows. Plato held that the great and the small are on the side of matter, because he posited one formal principle which is a certain idea participated in by different things according to a diversity of matter; the ancient natural philosophers, on the other hand, maintained a contrariety on the part of form, because they held that the first principle is one matter from which many things were constituted in being according to different forms.
lib. 1 l. 8 n. 4 Alii vero antiqui naturales ponebant res fieri ex principiis, ex hoc quod ipsa contraria et diversa extrahebantur ab uno, in quo erant quasi commixta et confusa. Sed in hoc differebant, quod Anaximander ponebat illud unum confusum esse principium, non autem illa multa quae in eo erant commixta: unde ponebat unum tantum principium. Empedocles vero et Anaxagoras ponebant magis esse principia illa quae in eo permiscebantur: et ideo ponebant multa principia, licet et illud unum confusum quodammodo principium ponerent.	56. Other natural philosophers, however, held that things come to be from principles in such a way that contraries themselves and different things are drawn forth from one thing in which they already existed, as it were, mixed and confused. But they differed as follows. Anaximander held that the principle is one confused state in which there are not many things mixed together. Thus he held one principle only. But Empedocles and Anaxagoras held rather that the principles are the very things which are mixed together in that one confused state. And so they held many principles, although they also held that this one confused state is in some way a principle.
lib. 1 l. 8 n. 5 Sed Anaxagoras et Empedocles differebant in duobus. Primo quidem quia Empedocles ponebat circulationem quandam commixtionis et segregationis. Ponebat enim mundum multoties esse factum et multoties corruptum; ita scilicet quod cum mundus corruptus fuit, amicitia omnia confundente in unum, iterum mundus generaretur, lite separante et distinguente: et sic confusioni succedit distinctio et e converso. Sed Anaxagoras ponebat semel tantum mundum factum esse, ita quod a principio omnia essent commixta in unum: sed intellectus, qui incoepit extrahere et distinguere, nunquam cessabit hoc facere, ita quod nunquam erunt omnia commixta in unum. Alio modo differebant in hoc quod Anaxagoras posuit principia esse infinitas partes similes et contrarias: sicut infinitas partes carnis, quae sunt similes invicem, et infinitas partes ossis et aliorum quae habent partes similes, cum tamen quarundam sit ad alias contrarietas; sicut partium ossis ad partes sanguinis est contrarietas secundum humidum et siccum. Sed Empedocles posuit principia solum illa quatuor quae communiter dicuntur elementa, scilicet ignem, aerem, aquam et terram.	57. But Anaxagoras and Empedocles differed on two points. First, Empedocles held that there is a certain cycle of mixing and separating. For he held that the world has been made and corrupted many times; that is to say, when the world has been corrupted by friendship gathering all into one, the world is then generated again by strife separating and distinguishing. And thus the distinction of things follows upon their being confused, and vice versa. But Anaxagoras held that the world was made only once, such that from the beginning all things were mixed into one. But mind, which began to draw out and to distinguish, will never cease to do this, so that all things never will be mixed into one. They also differed in another way. Anaxagoras held that the principles are infinite parts which are alike and contrary. Thus there are infinite parts of flesh which are like each other and infinite parts of bone and other things which have similar parts, yet each has a contrariety to the others. Thus the contrariety of the parts of bone to the parts of blood is that of the dry to the moist. But Empedocles held as principles only those four things which are commonly called elements, i.e., fire, air, water, and earth.