Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L5/lect3

Lecture 3 Per se motion is not in other predicaments than quantity, quality, and place

Latin	English
	Lecture 3 Per se motion is not in other predicaments than quantity, quality, and place
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 1 Postquam philosophus divisit mutationem in generationem et corruptionem et motum, hic subdividit motum in suas partes. Et quia oppositorum est eadem scientia, primo assignat species motus; secundo ostendit quot modis immobile dicatur, ibi: immobile autem et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit quandam conditionalem, per quam accipitur divisio motus in suas partes; secundo manifestat conditionalem praemissam, ibi: secundum substantiam autem et cetera.	660. After dividing change into generation, ceasing-to-be and motion, the Philosopher now subdivides motion into its parts. And because it is the same science that deals with a thing and with its opposite, He first derives the species of motion; Secondly, he explains the various senses of immobile, at 683, About the first he does two things: First he posits a conditional proposition in the light of which he deduces the parts of motion; Secondly, he explains this conditional proposition, at 662.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 2 Concludit ergo ex praemissis, quod cum motus sit de subiecto in subiectum, subiecta autem sint in aliquo genere praedicamentorum; necesse est quod species motus distinguantur secundum genera praedicamentorum, cum motus denominationem et speciem a termino trahat, ut supra dictum est. Si ergo praedicamenta sunt divisa in decem rerum genera, scilicet substantiam et qualitatem etc., ut dictum est in libro praedicamentorum et in V Metaphys.; et in tribus illorum inveniatur motus; necesse est esse tres species motus, scilicet motus qui est in genere quantitatis, et motus qui est in genere qualitatis, et motus qui est in genere ubi, qui dicitur secundum locum. Qualiter autem motus sit in istis generibus, et qualiter pertineat motus ad praedicamentum actionis et passionis, in tertio dictum est. Unde nunc breviter dicere sufficiat, quod quilibet motus est in eodem genere cum suo termino, non quidem ita quod motus qui est ad qualitatem sit species qualitatis, sed per reductionem. Sicut enim potentia reducitur ad genus actus, propter hoc quod omne genus dividitur per potentiam et actum: ita oportet quod motus, qui est actus imperfectus, reducatur ad genus actus perfecti. Secundum autem quod motus consideratur ut est in hoc ab alio, vel ab hoc in aliud, sic pertinet ad praedicamentum actionis et passionis.	661. He concludes therefore (487 225 b10) from the previous lecture that, since motion goes from subject to subject, and subjects are involved in certain genera of the predicaments, the species of motion must be distinguished according to the genera of predicaments, especially since motions derive their nature and name from the terminus, as was said above. Therefore, if the predicaments are divided into ten genera of things; namely, substance, quality, etc. (as is explained in the book of Predicaments and in V Metaphysics) and motion is found in three of these genera, there must be three species of motion, i.e., in the genus of quantity and in the genus of quality and in the genus of where, which is motion in respect of place. The way in which motion is present in these three genera as well as how it is related to the predicaments of action and passion has been explained in Book III. Hence it is enough to mention briefly that a motion is in the same genus as its terminus, not that the motion itself would be in the genus, for example of quality, but it is placed there by reduction. For just as potency is reduced to the same genus as its act, inasmuch as every genus is divided by potency and act; so it is necessary for motion, which is an imperfect act, to be reduced to the genus of its perfect act. But when motion is regarded as being in something, though originating from something else, or as originating from one thing and being in something else, then it belongs to the predicaments of action and passion.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: secundum substantiam autem etc., manifestat conditionalem praemissam. Et primo ostendit quod in aliis generibus a tribus praedictis, non potest esse motus; secundo ostendit quomodo in istis tribus generibus motus sit, ibi: quoniam autem neque substantiae et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo ostendit quod in genere substantiae non est motus; secundo quod nec in genere ad aliquid, ibi: neque est in ad aliquid etc.; tertio quod nec in genere actionis et passionis, ibi: neque agentis neque patientis et cetera. Praetermittit autem tria praedicamenta, scilicet quando et situm et habere. Quando enim significat in tempore esse; tempus autem mensura motus est: unde per quam rationem non est motus in actione et passione, quae pertinent ad motum, eadem ratione nec in quando. Situs autem ordinem quendam partium demonstrat; ordo vero relatio est: et similiter habere dicitur secundum quandam habitudinem corporis ad id quod ei adiacet: unde in his non potest esse motus, sicut nec in relatione. Quod ergo motus non sit in genere substantiae, sic probat. Omnis motus est inter contraria, sicut supra dictum est: sed substantiae nihil est contrarium: ergo secundum substantiam non est motus.	662. Then at (487 225 b10) he explains the conditional proposition. First, that there is no motion in any but the three genera mentioned; Secondly, how motion is present in those three genera, at 678. About the first he does three things., First he shows that motion is not in the genus of substance, Secondly, that it is not in the genus of relation, at 666; Thirdly, that it is not in the genera of action and passion, 668. He passes over the three predicaments of when, situs and habitus. For when expresses existence in time, which is the measure of motion, Hence for the same reason that there is no motion in action and passion which pertain to motion, there is no motion in when. Situs denotes order of parts, and order is a relation; in like manner, habitus bespeaks a relationship existing between a body and what is adjacent to it. Hence there can be no motion in situs and habitus any more than in relation. That motion (487 225 b10) is not found in the genus of substance he proves by saying that every motion is between contraries, as we have said; but nothing is contrary to substance. Therefore, there is no motion in respect of substance.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 4 Habet autem dubitationem quod hic dicitur, propter hoc quod idem philosophus dicit in libro de generatione, quod ignis est contrarius aquae. Et in libro de caelo dicitur, quod caelum non est generabile nec corruptibile, quia non habet contrarium: unde videtur relinquere, quod ea quae corrumpuntur, vel sint contraria vel ex contrariis composita. Dicunt autem quidam ad hoc, quod una substantia potest esse alteri contraria, ut ignis aquae, secundum suam formam, non secundum suum subiectum. Sed secundum hoc probatio Aristotelis non valeret: sufficeret enim ad hoc quod motus sit in substantia, quod formae substantiales sint contrariae. Est enim motus de forma in formam, quia et in alteratione subiectum non est contrarium subiecto, sed forma formae. Et ideo aliter dicendum, quod ignis est contrarius aquae secundum qualitates activas et passivas, quae sunt calidum et frigidum, humidum et siccum; non autem secundum formas substantiales. Non enim potest dici quod calor sit forma substantialis ignis, cum in aliis corporibus sit accidens de genere qualitatis. Quod enim est de genere substantiae, non potest esse alicui accidens. Sed haec etiam responsio difficultatem patitur. Manifestum est enim quod propriae passiones causantur ex principiis subiecti, quae sunt materia et forma. Si igitur propriae passiones ignis et aquae sunt contrariae, cum contrariorum sint contrariae causae, videtur quod formae substantiales sint contrariae. Item in X Metaphys. probatur quod omne genus dividitur per contrarias differentias: differentiae autem sumuntur a formis, ut in VIII eiusdem libri habetur: videtur ergo quod sit contrarietas in formis substantialibus.	663. Now, there seems to be a disagreement between this doctrine of the Philosopher and what he says in the book On Generation, that fire is contrary to water. And again in the book On the Heavens he says that the heaven is capable neither of coming to be nor ceasing to be, because it does not have a contrary—which seems to imply that things which cease to be are either contrary or composed of contraries. To reconcile this, some assert that one substance can be contrary to another, as fire to water, in respect to form but not in respect to their subject. But if that were so, Aristotle’s proof at the end of 662 would be worthless; for then there would be motion in substance as long as the substantial forms were contrary. For motion is from form to form, because even in alteration subject is not contrary to subject, but form to form. Consequently, another explanation must be given; namely, that fire is contrary to water in respect of their active and passive qualities, which are hot and cold, wet and dry, but not in respect of their substantial forms. For it cannot be said that heat is the substantial form of fire, since in other bodies it is an accident in the genus of quality. And substance cannot be an accident of something. But even this answer presents a difficulty. For it is clear that properties originate from the principles of the subject, i.e., from matter and form. Now, if the properties of fire and water are contrary, then since the causes of contraries are themselves contrary, it seems that the substantial forms are contrary. Moreover, it is proved in X Metaphysics that every genus is divided by differences that are contrary, and differences are traced to the forms, as VIII Metaphysics explains. Therefore, it seems that there is contrariety between substantial forms.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 5 Dicendum est igitur quod contrarietas differentiarum, quae est in omnibus generibus, attenditur secundum communem radicem contrarietatis, quae quidem est excellentia et defectus, ad quam oppositionem omnia contraria reducuntur, ut in primo huius habitum est. Omnes enim differentiae dividentes aliquod genus, hoc modo se habent, quod una earum est ut abundans, et alia ut deficiens respectu alterius. Propter quod Aristoteles dicit in VIII Metaphys., quod definitiones rerum sunt sicut numeri, quorum species variantur per additionem et subtractionem unitatis. Non tamen oportet quod in quolibet genere sit contrarietas secundum propriam rationem huius et illius speciei; sed solum secundum communem rationem excellentiae et defectus. Quia enim contraria sunt quae maxime distant, oportet quod in quocumque genere invenitur contrarietas, quod inveniantur duo termini maxime distantes, inter quos cadunt omnia quae sunt illius generis. Nec hoc sufficeret ad hoc quod in illo genere esset motus, nisi de uno extremo in aliud contingeret continue pervenire. In quibusdam ergo generibus hae duae conditiones desunt, ut patet in numeris. Quamvis enim omnes species numerorum differant secundum excellentiam et defectum; tamen non est accipere duo extrema maxime distantia in illo genere: est enim accipere minimum numerum, scilicet dualitatem, non tamen maximum. Similiter inter species numerorum non est continuitas; quia quaelibet species numerorum formaliter perficitur per unitatem, quae indivisibilis est, et alteri unitati non continua. Et similiter etiam est in genere substantiae. Sunt enim formae diversarum specierum ab invicem differentes secundum excellentiam et defectum, inquantum una forma est nobilior alia; et propter hoc ex diversis formis possunt causari diversae passiones, ut obiectum est: tamen una forma speciei secundum propriam suam rationem non habet contrarietatem ad aliam. Primo quidem quia in formis substantialibus non attenditur maxima distantia inter aliquas duas formas, ita quod ab una earum non veniatur ordinatim nisi per media: sed materia dum exuitur una forma, potest indifferenter recipere diversas formas absque ordine. Unde Aristoteles dicit in II de generatione, quod cum ex terra fit ignis, non oportet quod fiat transitus per media elementa. Secundo quia, cum esse substantiale cuiuslibet rei sit in aliquo indivisibili, non potest aliqua continuitas attendi in formis substantialibus, ut motus continuus possit esse de una forma in aliam secundum remissionem unius formae et intensionem alterius. Unde probatio Aristotelis, qua probat in substantia non esse motum quia non est ibi contrarietas, est demonstrativa, et non probabilis tantum, ut Commentator innuere videtur. Licet possit et alia ratione probari quod motus non est in substantia, quam supra posuit: quia scilicet subiectum formae substantialis est ens in potentia tantum.	664. Consequently, it must be asserted that contrariety of differences are all the genera is based on the common root of contrariety, which is excellence and defect, to which set of contraries all others are reduced, as was explained in Book I. For all differences that divide a genus are so related that one is like abundance and the other is like defect in relation to the first. For which reason Aristotle says in VIII Metaphysics that the definitions of things are like numbers in which the addition or subtraction of unity makes a different number. However, it is not necessary that there be in every genus the same detailed contrariety between species as exists in some genera; for a contrariety of excellence and deficiency is enough. For since contraries are things most distant, then in order to have contrariety in a genus there must be found two extremes that are most distant, so that between them fall all the things in that genus. Yet that is not enough for positing motion in a genus, unless it is possible to pass without a break from one extreme to the other. Now these two conditions are lacking in some genera; for example, in numbers. For although all numbers differ according to excellence or defect, yet there cannot be found in that genus two extremes that are most distant; for it is possible to find a lowest number, i.e., 2, but not a greatest. In like manner, there are breaks between the species of number, for each number is formally constituted by unity, which is indivisible and not continuous with another unity. Likewise, in the genus of substance. For the forms of diverse species differ in respect to excellence and defect, inasmuch as one form is more noble than another, for which reason diverse qualities can be caused by diverse forms, as the objection mentions. Yet one form of a species is not contrary to another, if you consider it in regard to its own specific nature. First of all, because when you are speaking of substantial forms, there is no maximum distance between any two forms, such that you must pass through an orderly array of intermediate forms to go from the one extreme to the other. Rather, matter when it doffs one form can indiscriminately receive any other form in just any order. For which reason Aristotle says in II On Generation that when fire comes to be from earth, it is not necessary that the intermediate elements be involved at all. Secondly, because, since the substantial essence of anything consists in an indivisible, no continuity can be found in substantial forms so as to make a continuous motion from one form to another by one form growing weak and the other growing strong. Hence the proof by which Aristotle shows that there is no motion in substance because contrariety is absent is a demonstration and not merely a probability, as the Commentator seems to suggest, However, besides the reason given above, there is another which proves that in substance there is no motion, and it is this: that the subject of substantial form is merely a being in potency.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 6 In qualitatibus autem tertiae speciei manifeste apparet contrarietas secundum utramque rationem: et quia qualitates possunt intendi et remitti, ut sic possit esse continuus motus de qualitate in qualitatem; et quia invenitur maxima distantia in uno genere inter duo determinata extrema, sicut in coloribus inter album et nigrum, in saporibus inter dulce et amarum. In quantitate autem et loco, alterum istorum manifeste invenitur, scilicet continuitas: sed aliud, scilicet maxima distantia determinatorum extremorum, non invenitur in eis, si secundum communem rationem quantitatis et loci accipiantur; sed solum secundum quod accipiuntur in aliqua re determinata; sicut in aliqua specie animalis vel plantae est aliqua minima quantitas, a qua incipit motus augmenti, et aliqua maxima, ad quam terminatur. Similiter etiam in loco inveniuntur duo termini maxime distantes per comparationem ad motum aliquem, a quorum uno incipit motus, et in aliud terminatur, sive sit motus naturalis sive violentus.	665. In qualities of the third species, the two above-mentioned characteristics of contraries (namely, continuity and maximum distance between the extremes) are clearly manifest: first, because qualities can be weakened and strengthened so as to make for a continuous motion from quality to quality, and, secondly, because there exists a maximum distance between two definite extremes of one genus, as black and white in the genus of color, and sweet and bitter in the genus of taste. However, in quantity and place one of these two characteristics is evident; namely, continuity, but the other, which is max mum distance between definite extremes is not found in them, if you seize upon the general notion of quantity and place. But it is found, if you look for it in a definite thing. For example, in a definite species of animal or plant there is a minimum quantity at which the motion of growing begins and a maximum at which it is terminated. Likewise, in place there are involved two termini that are most distant in respect to some particular motion: from one of them motion begins and at the other it is terminated, and this happens whether the motion be natural or compulsory.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: neque est in ad aliquid etc., ostendit quod non est motus in genere ad aliquid. In quocumque enim genere est per se motus, nihil illius generis de novo invenitur in aliquo, absque eius mutatione; sicut novus color non invenitur in aliquo colorato absque eius alteratione. Sed contingit de novo verum esse aliquid relative dici ad alterum altero mutato, ipso tamen non mutato. Ergo motus non est per se in ad aliquid, sed solum per accidens, inquantum scilicet ad aliquam mutationem consequitur nova relatio; sicut ad mutationem secundum quantitatem sequitur aequalitas vel inaequalitas, et ex mutatione secundum qualitatem similitudo vel dissimilitudo.	666. Then at (488 225 b11) he shows that there is no motion in the genus to something, i.e., relation. For in any genus in which per se motion exists, nothing can newly arise in that genus without its being changed, just as new color is never found in a colored object without that object’s being changed. But it does happen that something can be newly said truly of one thing relative to another, where the latter is changed but the former not. Therefore, in relation motion is not found per se but only per accidens, inasmuch as a new relation follows upon some change; for example, equality or inequality accompany a quantitative change and resemblance or dissimilarity qualitative change.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 8 Hoc autem quod hic dicitur, in quibusdam non videtur habere difficultatem, in quibusdam autem sic. Sunt enim quaedam relationes quae non sunt aliquid realiter in eo de quo praedicantur. Quod quidem quandoque contingit ex parte utriusque extremi, sicut cum dicitur idem eidem idem: haec enim identitatis relatio in infinitum multiplicaretur, si quaelibet res esset sibi eadem per relationem additam: manifestum est enim quod quodlibet sibi ipsi est idem. Est ergo haec relatio secundum rationem tantum, inquantum scilicet unam et eandem rem ratio accipit ut duo extrema relationis. Et similiter est in multis aliis. Quaedam vero relationes sunt, quarum una realiter est in uno extremo, et alia secundum rationem tantum in altero, sicut scientia et scibile: scibile enim relative dicitur, non quia ipsum refertur per aliquam relationem in ipso existentem, sed quia aliud refertur ad ipsum, ut patet per philosophum in V Metaphys. Et similiter est cum columna dicitur dextra animali: dextrum enim et sinistrum sunt relationes reales in animali, quia in eis inveniuntur determinatae virtutes, in quibus huiusmodi relationes fundantur: in columna autem non sunt secundum rem, sed secundum rationem tantum, quia non habet praedictas virtutes, quae sunt fundamenta harum relationum. Quaedam vero relativa sunt, in quibus ex parte utriusque extremi invenitur relatio realiter existens, sicut in aequalitate et similitudine: in utraque enim invenitur quantitas vel qualitas, quae est huius relationis radix. Et simile etiam apparet in multis aliis relationibus. In illis igitur relationibus quae non ponunt rem aliquam nisi in uno extremorum, non videtur difficile quod mutato illo extremo, in quo relatio realiter existit, de novo dicatur aliquid relative de altero, absque sui mutatione, cum nihil ei realiter adveniat. Sed in illis in quibus relatio invenitur realiter in utroque extremorum, videtur difficile quod aliquid relative dicatur de uno per mutationem alterius absque mutatione sui: cum nihil de novo adveniat alicui absque mutatione eius cui advenit. Unde dicendum est quod si aliquis per suam mutationem efficiatur mihi aequalis, me non mutato, ista aequalitas primo erat in me quodammodo, sicut in sua radice, ex qua habet esse reale: ex hoc enim quod habeo talem quantitatem, competit mihi quod sim aequalis omnibus illis, qui eandem quantitatem habent. Cum ergo aliquis de novo accipit illam quantitatem, ista communis radix aequalitatis determinatur ad istum: et ideo nihil advenit mihi de novo per hoc quod incipio esse alteri aequalis per eius mutationem.	667. What has just been said seems to offer difficulty in respect of some types of relation and not of others. For there are some relations that do posit no reality at all in the thing of which they are predicated. This happens sometimes on the side of both extremes, as when it is said that the same thing is the same to the same: for this relation of identity would be multiplied ad infinitum, if each thing were the same as itself through an added relation, since it is evident that each thing is the same as itself. Consequently, this relation exists only in the reasoning power, inasmuch as the reason takes one and the same thing as the two extremes of the relation. The same thing is true in many other relations. But there are some relations in which one relation is really in one of the extremes but only according to reason in the other; for example, knowledge and the knowable. For “knowable” is a relative term, which is applied to an object not because it is related to something else by reason of a relationship existing in the object but because that something else is related to it, as is clear in V Metaphysics. In like manner, when a pillar is said to be on the right of an animal: for right and left are real relations in the animal (because animals possess definite energies on which these relations are based), but in the pillar they are not present in reality but only according to reason, for the pillar lacks the energies which are the basis of these relations. Again, there are relationships in which both extremes possess a real relation; for example, in equality and resemblance, for both extremes possess the quantity or the quality, which serve as the root of the relationship. The same is apparent in many other relationships. Now in those relations which put something real in only one of the extremes it is not hard to see that if the extreme in which the relation really exists undergoes a change, something new will be said correlatively of the other extreme, even though it remains unchanged, since nothing really happened to it. However, in those cases in which the relation is really found in both extremes, it is hard to see how something relative can be said of A if B changes but A does not, for nothing can be newly acquired by A without A being changed. Hence it must be said that if some change in X makes him equal to me (even though I do not change at all), that equality was in a sense in me in advance as in its root, from which that equality has real existence: for since I have such and such a quantity, it belongs to me to be equal to anything having the same quantity. Hence, when X newly acquires that quantity, that common basis of equality reaches to him: that is why nothing new happens to me, when I begin to be equal to X, as he changes.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: neque agentis etc., probat quod non sit motus in genere actionis et passionis. Actio enim et passio non differunt subiecto a motu, sed addunt aliquam rationem, ut in tertio dictum est. Unde idem est dicere quod motus sit in agere et pati, et quod motus sit in motu. Circa hoc ergo tria facit: primo proponit quod intendit; secundo probat propositum, ibi: primum quidem enim contingit etc.; tertio ponit quandam distinctionem ad propositi manifestationem, ibi: omnino autem quoniam movetur et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod sicut motus non est eius quod est ad aliquid, ita etiam non est agentis et patientis, neque etiam, ut absolute loquamur, est moventis aut moti: quia non potest esse quod aliquis motus sit alicuius motus, neque quod generatio sit generationis, quae sunt species mutationis; neque etiam quod mutationis sit mutatio, quae est genus eorum et etiam corruptionis.	668. Then at (489 225 b13) he proves that motion is not in the genera of action and passion. For action and passion do not differ really from motion, but they add to it something of reason, as we said in Book III. Hence, it is the same thing to say that motion is present in acting and being acted upon as to say that motion is present in motion, Therefore in regard to this he does 3 things: First he proposes what he intends; Secondly, he proves his proposition, at 669; Thirdly, he posits a distinction that will explain the proposition, at 677. Accordingly, he says at (489 225 b13) that just as motion is not found in something relative, so also there is no motion of an agent or a patient and, strictly speaking, not even of the mover and moved: for there cannot be motion of motion or a coming-to-be of coming-to-be, which are types of change, nor even a change of change (which is the genus) or a ceasing-to-be of a ceasing-to-be.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit: primum quidem enim contingit etc., probat quod mutationis non possit esse mutatio; et hoc per sex rationes. Quarum prima est, quia si mutationis sit mutatio, hoc potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo ut mutatio sit mutationis sicut subiecti quod movetur: sicut aliqua mutatio est hominis, quia homo movetur, puta de albedine in nigredinem. Sic ergo potest intelligi quod motus aut mutatio sit mutationis aut motus ut subiecti, ita scilicet quod motus aut mutatio moveatur; puta quod calescat aut infrigidetur vel moveatur secundum locum aut secundum augmentum et diminutionem. Sed hoc est impossibile, quia mutatio non est de numero subiectorum, cum non sit substantia per se subsistens. Non ergo potest esse mutatio mutationis ut subiecti.	669. Then at (490 225 b16) he proves that there cannot be change of changes. And he does this with six arguments. The first of which is that there are two ways of interpreting change of change. In one sense it means that there is a change of a change, i.e., of the subject which is being changed, as there is change of a man, because the man is being changed, for example, from white to black. In this interpretation there would be a motion or change of a change or motion as of a subject, in such a way that the motion or charge are changed; for example, that the change gets hot or cold or changes place or grows or decreases. This, however, is impossible, because change is not listed among the subjects of change, for it is not a substance existing by itself. So there cannot be change of change in this sense.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 11 Alio modo potest intelligi ut sit mutatio mutationis ut termini, ita scilicet quod aliquod subiectum moveatur ex una specie mutationis in alteram, sicut ex calefactione in infrigidationem aut sanationem ut duae mutationes intelligantur duo termini unius mutationis, sicut aegritudo et sanitas intelliguntur duo termini mutationis, cum homo mutatur a sanitate in aegritudinem. Sed non est possibile quod aliquod subiectum moveatur per se de mutatione in mutationem, sed solum per accidens. Et quod hoc non sit possibile per se, probat dupliciter. Primo quidem sic. Omnis enim motus est mutatio ab una specie determinata in aliam speciem determinatam. Et similiter generatio et corruptio, quae condividuntur motui, habent determinatos terminos: sed est differentia intantum quod generatio et corruptio sunt in terminum oppositum sic, idest secundum contradictionem; sed motus est in terminum oppositum non similiter, sed secundum contrarietatem. Si igitur aliquod subiectum mutetur de mutatione in mutationem, puta de aegrotatione in dealbationem, simul dum mutatur subiectum de sanitate in aegritudinem, mutabitur etiam ex hac mutatione in aliam. Dum enim subiectum adhuc est partim in termino a quo, movetur in terminum ad quem, sicut dum aliquis aliquid habet de sanitate, movetur ad aegritudinem. Si igitur motus de sanitate in aegritudinem sit terminus a quo alicuius motus, dum adhuc durat ista mutatio, qua scilicet aliquis mutatur de sanitate in aegritudinem, simul mutabitur subiectum de hac mutatione in aliam, quae succedit in subiecto huic mutationi. Manifestum est autem quod quando prima mutatio fuerit terminata, scilicet cum iam quis ex sanitate mutatus est in aegritudinem, poterit deinceps succedere sibi quaecumque alia mutatio. Nec hoc est mirum; quia contingit terminata prima mutatione, subiectum quiescere et nulla mutatione mutari; et eadem ratione contingit quod mutetur alia quacumque mutatione. Si igitur est aliquis motus de prima mutatione in secundam mutationem, quae succedit in subiecto, sequetur quod motus sit de prima mutatione in quamcumque aliam indeterminate. Et hoc est contra rationem motus per se: quia omnis motus est de determinato ad determinatum terminum: non enim corpus movetur per se de albo in quodcumque, sed in nigrum aut medium. Patet ergo quod duae mutationes non sunt per se termini mutationis alicuius.	670. In another way it can be interpreted that there be change of change as of a terminus, so that subject A is moved from one type of change to another; for example, from getting hot to getting cold or healthy, so that two changes are understood to be the termini of one change, as sickness and health are taken as the two termini of a change when a man is changed from health to sickness. But it is not possible for a subject to be moved per se from one change to another but only per accidens. And that it is impossible per se, he proves in two ways: for every motion is a change from one definite form to another definite form. Even generation and ceasing-to-be, which are co-divided with motion, have their definite termini; but there is this difference, namely, that generation and ceasing-to-be are to opposite termini “thus”, i.e., according to contradiction, whereas motion tends to an opposite terminus “not in a like way” but according to contrariety. Therefore, if a subject should be passing from one change to another, for example, from getting sick to getting white, while it is at the same time changing from health to sickness, it will be passing from one change into another change. For while the subject is still partially in the terminus a quo it is being moved to the terminus ad quem, just as while it still health it is being moved to sickness. Now, if the very motion from health to sickness is the terminus a quo of some motion, then while that change (from health to sickness)is still going on, the subject is at the same time passing from this change into another change, which succeeds in the subject to the first change. But it is evident that when the first change shall have ended, i.e., when someone has now already changed from health to sickness, subsequently some other change could succeed it, And this is not strange: for after the first change is over, the subject might remain at rest or it might be affected by another change, Therefore, if there is a passing from the first to the second change, it will follow that the motion goes from the first change to an indeterminate goal. And this is against the true nature of per se motion, because every motion is from a definite terminus to a determinate goal, for a body does not change per se from white to just anything but to black or to something intermediate. It is evident, therefore, that two changes cannot be the per se termini of a change.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 12 Secundo autem probat idem per aliam rationem. Quia si mutatio quaedam per se est de mutatione praecedente in mutationem subsequentem, non oportet quod semper sit mutatio in mutationem contingentem, idest quam contingat simul esse cum mutatione praecedente: sicut dealbatio simul potest esse cum aegrotatione, sed sanatio non potest simul esse cum aegrotatione, quia sunt contrariae mutationes. Contingit tamen quod aegrotationi succedat in eodem subiecto sicut dealbatio, ita et sanatio. Et hoc est quod dicit, quod mutatio quae ponitur esse de una mutatione in aliam, non semper erit in mutationem contingentem, cum quandoque succedat non contingens. Et illa etiam mutatio non contingens est ex quodam in quoddam alterum, idest inter duos alios terminos. Quare ista mutatio non contingens, in quam aliquis mutatur de aegrotatione, erit sanatio opposita aegrotationi. Quod autem hoc sit inconveniens, patet ex propositione supra inducta, scilicet quod simul dum est prima mutatio, mutabitur in secundam: simul ergo dum aliquis movetur ad aegritudinem, mutabitur ad sanationem. Sanationis autem terminus est sanitas: est enim de quodam in quoddam aliud, ut dictum est. Unde relinquitur quod simul dum aliquid movetur ad aegritudinem, moveatur etiam ad sanitatem: quod est moveri ad duo contraria simul, et intendere ea simul; quod est impossibile. Sic igitur manifestum est quod nulla mutatio est per se de una mutatione in aliam. Sed quod hoc contingat esse per accidens, ut praemisit, manifestat subdens quod per accidens hoc contingit, sicut quando subiectum nunc mutatur una mutatione et postmodum alia: puta si dicatur aliquid mutari per accidens de recordatione in oblivionem, vel in quamcumque aliam mutationem: quia subiectum mutationis quandoque mutatur in scientiam, quandoque in aliquid aliud, puta in sanitatem.	671. He proves this same point again with another argument: If the passing from a previous changing to a subsequent change were motion per se, it would not be necessary that the passing be always to a “contingent” change, i.e., one which could co-exist with the previous change: as becoming white can co-exist with becoming sick, but getting well cannot co-exist with getting sick, because these are contrary changes. But it is possible that just as becoming white can follow becoming sick in the same subject, so also could becoming well. And this is what he says: that the passing from one change to another will not always be to a contingent change, since it is sometimes to a non-contingent, and that non-contingent change proceeds from something to something else, that is, it is between two other termini, Hence that non-contingent change into which something passes from the change called “getting sick” will be “getting well”, which is the opposite of “getting sick”. Now that this is strange is evident from what we have said above, that while the first change is still going on, it is being changed to the second change: therefore, while something is being moved to sickness, it will be changing to another change called “getting well”. Hat the goal of getting well is health (for it is from something to something, as was said). Hence it remains that while something is being moved to sickness it is at the same time being moved to health, which means it is being moved toward two contraries at the same time and intends them at the same time—which is impossible. Consequently, it is clear that no change from one change to another is per se. However, that such a thing can take place per accidens, as he had said before, he makes clear, when he says that this can happen per accidens, as when a subject is now affected by one change and later by another; for example, if someone is changed per accidens from remembering to forgetting or to any other change: because the subject of the change is sometimes changed to knowledge and sometimes to something else, for example, to health.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 13 Secundam rationem ponit ibi: amplius autem in infinitum etc., et praemittit duas conditionales. Quarum prima est, quod si mutatio est mutationis vel generatio generationis, quocumque modo necesse est procedere in infinitum: quia eadem ratione generatio secunda habebit aliam generationem, et sic in infinitum. Secunda conditionalis est, quod si ordinentur hoc modo generationes et mutationes, quod mutatio sit mutationis et generatio generationis, si ultima mutatio vel generatio erit, necesse est quod prima sit. Hanc autem secundam conditionalem sic probat. Sit enim aliquid quod generetur simpliciter, puta ignis: si generationis est generatio, oportet dicere quod etiam ista simpliciter generatio aliquando generabatur, et hoc ipsum fieri fiebat. Cum autem fiebat ipsa generatio, nondum erat illud quod generatur simpliciter, scilicet ignis; quia aliquid non est dum fit, sed quando iam factum est, tunc primo est. Quamdiu ergo fiebat generatio ignis, ignis nondum erat factus: nondum ergo erat. Et iterum ipsa generatio suae generationis eadem ratione aliquando fiebat: et sicut quando fiebat generatio ignis, nondum erat ignis, ita sequitur quod quamdiu fiebat generatio generationis ignis, nondum esset generatio ignis. Ex quo manifestum est quod generatio ignis esse non potest, nisi completa sua generatione: et eadem ratione nec illa, nisi fuerit praecedens; et sic usque ad primam. Si igitur non fuerit prima generatio, non erit ultima, quae est generatio ignis. Sed si procedatur in generationibus in infinitum, non est accipere primam mutationem vel generationem, quia in infinitis non est primum. Unde sequitur quod neque sit habitum, idest consequenter se habens, in generationibus et mutationibus. Si autem non sit aliqua generatio nec mutatio, nihil fit neque movetur. Si igitur generationis sit generatio, et mutationis sit mutatio, nihil fit neque movetur. Est autem attendendum, quod haec ratio non excludit quin mutatio possit sequi mutationem per accidens in infinitum: quod oportet dicere secundum opinionem Aristotelis, qui posuit motum aeternum. Sed intendit ostendere, sicut prius dictum est, quod mutatio non sit mutationis per se in infinitum. Sic enim postrema dependeret ex infinitis praecedentibus, et nunquam finiretur.	672. Before giving the second of the six reasons he promised, he presents (491 225 b33) two conditional propositions: the first of which is that if there is change of change and generation of generation, in either case it would be necessary to go on ad infinitum; because, for the same reason the second generation will have another generation, and so on ad infinitum. The second conditional is that if generations and changes are so arranged that there is change of change and generation of generation, then, if there is a last change or generation, there necessarily had to be a first. This second conditional he now proves: Let fire be the thing that is unqualifiedly generated; if, then, there is a generation of generation, it is necessary to say that that unqualified generation was itself generated and that its coming-to-be came to be. When, however, that coming-to-be was being generated, the fire was not existing (for it is being assumed that the fire is being unqualifiedly generated): because a thing does not exist while it is coming to be, but it exists for the first time after it has come to be. Therefore, as long as the coming-to-be of fire was in the state of coming to be, the fire had not yet come to be; therefore, it was not yet existing. And again the very coming-to-be of its coming-to-be was itself (for the same reason) coming to be. Consequently, just as when the coming-to-be of the fire was coming to be, the fire did not exist, so also as long as the coming-to-be of the coming-to-be was taking place, the coming-to-be of the fire was not existing. From this it is clear that coming-to-be of fire cannot exist till that coming-to-be is completed and, for the same reason, the previous coming-to-be of the coming-to-be of the fire and so on to the first. Consequently, if there was no first coming-to-be, there will be no last, i.e., no coming-to-be of the fire. But if an infinite process be posited in cases of coming-to-be, there will be no first change and no first coming-to-be, because in the realm of the infinite there is no first. Hence, it follows that there is no sequence at all among generations and among changes. But if there is no generation or change, nothing comes to be and nothing changes. Consequently, if there were coming-to-be of coming-to-be or change of change, nothing ever comes to be or changes. Note, however, that this argument does not exclude the possibility of one change following another ad infinitum. per accidens: which has to be admitted according to the opinion of Aristotle, who posited eternal motion. But the argument intends to show that there is no per se change ad infinitum, for in that case a present change would depend on an infinitude of preceding changes and would never end.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 14 Tertiam rationem ponit ibi: amplius eiusdem motus etc.: quae talis est. Eidem motui contrariatur et motus et quies, sicut ascensioni contrariatur descensus et quies in loco inferiori; et similiter generatio et corruptio contrariantur: contraria autem nata sunt fieri circa idem. Ergo quidquid generatur, potest corrumpi. Sed si generationis est generatio, oportet quod generatio generetur: ergo generatio corrumpitur. Sed quod corrumpitur oportet esse: sicut enim generatur quod non est, ita corrumpitur quod est. Ergo oportet quod cum fiat quod fit, idest cum generatur aliquid, generatione existente, tunc ipsa generatio corrumpatur: non quidem statim cum generatio desierit, neque iterum in posteriori tempore, sed simul; quod videtur inconveniens. Est autem considerandum quod generatio est ut terminus eius quod generatur sicut substantia, quia generatio est transmutatio ad substantiam: quod autem est generationis subiectum, non est id quod generatur, sed materia eius. Unde Aristoteles non recedit a suo proposito, quo intendebat ostendere quod mutatio non est mutationis ut termini.	673. He gives the third reason at (492 226 a6) and it is this. One and the same motion has as its contraries both motion and rest; for example, both descending and rest in the lower place are contrary to ascending. In the same way are generation and ceasing-to-be contrary. But contraries are apt to affect the same thing. Therefore, whatever comes to be can cease to be. But if there is coming-to-be of coming-to-be, then coming-to-be must come to be. Therefore coming-to-be ceases to be. But what ceases to be must be: for just as it is what is not that comes to be, so it is what is that ceases to be. Therefore, it is necessary that when what comes to be comes to be, i.e., when something-comes to be and the coming-to-be exists, then the very coming-to-be ceases to be, not indeed as soon as the coming-to-be is finished or some time after it is finished, but during the coming to be-which seems absurd. But it should be observed that coming-to-be is as a terminus of what comes to be as a substance does, because coming-to-be is a change tending to substance. But the subject of coming-to-be is not what comes to be but its matter. Hence Aristotle is not departing from his proposition that there is no change of change, as of a terminus.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 15 Quartam rationem ponit ibi: amplius oportet materiam etc.: quae talis est. In omni generatione oportet esse aliquam materiam, ex qua fiat illud quod generatur, sicut et in omni mutatione oportet esse aliquam materiam vel subiectum; ut in alteratione subiectum est corpus quantum ad corporales alterationes, et anima quantum ad animales. Si igitur generatio generetur, oportet quod sit aliqua materia ipsius generationis, quae scilicet in speciem generationis transeat, sicut materia ignis generati transit in speciem ignis: et talem materiam non est assignare. Ponit etiam sub eadem ratione aliud medium: quia scilicet in qualibet generatione vel mutatione oportet esse aliquem terminum, in quem aliquid movetur. Et huiusmodi terminum oportet esse hoc aliquid demonstratum vel determinatum: huiusmodi autem non est neque motus neque generatio. Non est ergo possibile quod generationis aut motus sit aliqua generatio.	674. At (493 226 a10) he gives the fourth reason, In every coming to be there must be matter from which that which comes to be is generated, just as every change requires some matter or subject: for example, in alteration the subject is the body, if you are dealing with bodily qualities, or the soul, if you are dealing with soul qualities. If, therefore, coming-to-be comes to be, there must be some matter involved which passes into the form coming to be as the matter of generated fire passed into the form fire. However, such matter is not discoverable. In the same vein he makes use of another medium: namely, that in every coming-to-be or change there must be involved a goal toward which something is moved. And this goal must be something definite and capable of being pointed out. But neither change nor coming-to-be is such a goal. Therefore, it is not possible that there be either change of change or coming to be of coming-to-be.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 16 Quintam rationem ponit ibi: similiter autem etc.: quae talis est. Sicut se habet genus ad genus, sic et species ad speciem: si igitur generationis sit generatio, oportebit quod etiam doctrinae generatio sit doctrina. Sed hoc apparet manifeste falsum: doctrina enim est generatio scientiae, et non generatio doctrinae. Ergo neque generationis potest esse generatio.	675. At (494 226 a14) he gives the fifth reason: Genus is to genus as species is to species. If, therefore, there is coming to be of coming-to-be, then the coming to be of teaching is itself teaching. But this is evidently false: for teaching is the generation of science and not of teaching. Therefore, neither can there be a coming to be of coming-to-be.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 17 Sextam rationem ponit ibi: amplius, si tres species etc.: quae talis est. Si mutationis sit mutatio vel sicut subiecti vel sicut termini, cum tres sint species motus, ut dictum est, scilicet motus in ubi, in quantitate et qualitate; sequetur quod una harum specierum possit esse subiectum alterius et terminus, et etiam sui ipsius. Sequetur ergo quod loci mutatio alteretur vel etiam feratur secundum locum. Quae quidem evidentius apparent inconvenientia in speciali quam in communi. Non ergo dicendum est quod mutationis sit mutatio, aut generationis generatio.	676. The sixth reason is given at (495 226 a16) and it is this: If there is change of change, whether as of a subject or as of a terminus, then, since there are three species of motion, as was said above (motion to where and quantity and quality), it will follow that one of these species could be the subject and terminus of some other species or even of its own species. Therefore, it will follow that local motion can be altered or even be moved locally. Such a thing is more plainly absurd when you get down to cases than when you speak in general. Therefore, it cannot be admitted that there is change of change or coming to be of coming-to-be.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 18 Deinde cum dicit: omnino autem etc., ostendit quomodo possit esse mutationis mutatio. Et dicit quod cum tripliciter aliquid moveatur, ut supra est dictum, vel secundum accidens vel secundum partem vel per se, solummodo per accidens contingit mutari mutationem; inquantum scilicet subiectum mutationis mutatur: puta si aliquis dum fit sanus, currat aut discat; tunc enim sanatio curret aut discet per accidens, sicut musicus aedificat. Sed de eo quod movetur per accidens, non intendimus nunc tractare: hoc enim iam supra praetermisimus.	677. Then at (496 226 a19) he shows in what sense there can be change of change. And he says that since there are three ways in which something can be moved, (namely, in respect to an accident or in respect to a part or per se, it is only per accidens that there could be change of change, i.e., only inasmuch as the subject of the change changes: for example, if someone, while he is becoming healthy, would run or learn; for then the healing process would be running or learning per accidens, just as a musician builds per accidens. But it is not our intention to treat of per accidens motion, for we have already decided to pass it by.