Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L8/lect6

Lecture 6 A third member of the division is rejected

Latin	English
	Lecture 6 A third member of the division is rejected
lib. 8 l. 6 n. 1 Reprobatis duobus membris praemissae divisionis, hic reprobat tertium, quod scilicet poni posset entia dividi in duas dispositiones tantum, ita quod quaedam semper quiescerent; alia semper moverentur; et non sit tertium genus entium, quae quandoque moveantur, quandoque quiescant. Hoc autem reprobat dupliciter. Primo quidem, sicut et praedictas duas positiones, ex eo quod repugnat sensui. Non solum enim videmus ad sensum quod quaedam moventur, per quod destruitur prima positio ponentium omnia quiescere semper; et quod quaedam quiescunt, per quod destruitur secunda positio ponentium omnia moveri semper: sed etiam videmus quod in eisdem rebus fiunt praedictae mutationes seu variationes de motu in quietem, et de quiete in motum; per quod apparet quod aliqua sunt quae quandoque moventur et quandoque quiescunt.	1014. Having disposed of two members of the foregoing division, the Philosopher now rejects a third, in which it was posited that things are divided into two dispositions only, in such a way, namely, that some things are always at rest and others always in motion, and there is not a third class of things that are sometimes in motion and sometimes at rest. He rejects this in two ways. He does this First (783 254 a3) in the same way that he rejected the two previous positions, namely, on the ground that they are contrary to sense observation. For we see by the senses not only that some things are in motion (which destroys the first position, namely, of those who posit all things to be always at rest), and that some are at rest (by which is destroyed the second position, of those who maintain that all things are always in motion); but we also see that the aforementioned changes or variations from motion to rest, and from rest to motion, occur in the same things. This shows that there are some things which are sometimes moved and sometimes at rest.
lib. 8 l. 6 n. 2 Secundo ibi: et adhuc quia oppugnat etc., reprobat idem per hoc quod qui hanc dubitationem induceret, repugnaret iis quae sunt manifesta in natura. Primo enim tolleretur motus augmenti: videmus enim motum augmenti esse in his quae non semper augebantur; alioquin, si semper augerentur, non esset augmentum ad determinatam quantitatem, sed in infinitum. Secundo tollitur motus localis violentus: non enim est motus violentus, nisi sit aliquid quod extra naturam moveatur, quod prius quieverit secundum naturam; cum motus violentus non sit nisi recessus a quiete naturali. Si ergo nullum quiescens potest moveri, sequetur quod id quod quiescit naturaliter, non possit postmodum per violentiam moveri. Tertio excluditur generatio et corruptio per hanc positionem. Generatio enim est mutatio de non esse in esse, corruptio vero de esse in non esse. Ad hoc ergo quod aliquid corrumpatur, oportet quod prius fuerit ens per aliquod tempus; et ad hoc quod generetur, oportet quod prius fuerit non ens per aliquod tempus. Quod autem per aliquod tempus est ens vel non ens, quiescit (ut large de quiete loquamur): si igitur nullum quiescens potest moveri, sequitur quod nihil quod non est per aliquod tempus, possit generari, et nihil quod est in aliquo tempore, possit corrumpi. Quarto autem ulterius haec positio destruit universaliter omnem motum: quia in omni motu est quaedam generatio et corruptio, vel simpliciter vel secundum quid. Quod enim in aliquid movetur sicut in terminum, generatur hoc, quantum ad motum alterationis et augmenti; aut in hoc, quantum ad motum localem; sicut quod movetur de nigro in album, aut de parvo in magnum, fit album aut magnum; quod autem movetur ad aliquem locum, fit existens in loco illo. Sed ex quo aliquid mutatur sicut a termino a quo, corrumpitur hoc in motu alterationis et augmenti, ut nigrum aut parvum; aut ab hinc quantum ad motum localem. Quia ergo in omni motu est generatio et corruptio, dum praedicta positio tollit generationem et corruptionem, per consequens tollit omnem motum. Quia ergo haec quae dicta sunt, sunt impossibilia, manifestum fit quod quaedam moventur non quidem semper, sed aliquando; et quaedam quiescunt non semper, sed aliquando.	1015. In a second way at (784 254 a8) he rejects the same opinion on the ground that the one who would engender this doubt would be contrary to what is evident in nature. In the first place it would deny the motion of growth, for we see that growth takes place in things that are not always growing, because, were they always growing, they would be tending not to a definite quantity but to the infinite. In the second place it would deny compulsory local motion, for a motion is not compulsory, unless something is moved not in keeping with its nature when previously it was naturally at rest; for a forced motion is nothing more than a departure from natural rest. If therefore nothing at rest can be moved, it will follow that what is naturally at rest cannot later be moved by compulsion. In the third place generation and ceasing-to-be would be excluded by this opinion. For the former is a change from non-being to being, and the latter from being to non-being. Therefore, in order that a thing cease to be, it ought previously to have been existing for a time, and in order that a thing be generated, it ought previously not to have been existing for a time. But whatever is a being or a non-being for some time is at rest (where rest is taken in a very general sense), If, therefore, nothing at rest can be moved, it follows that nothing which is for some time a non-existent can be generated, and that nothing which exists for a time can cease to be. In the fourth place this position destroys all motion universally, because every motion involves generation and ceasing-to-be either absolutely or in a qualified sense. For what is being moved toward something as toward a terminus is being made such-and-such, so far as alteration and growth are concerned, or being made to be in such-and-such, so far as local motion is concerned; for example, what is being changed from black to white, or from small to large, becomes white or large, but whatever is being moved to a place comes to exist in that place. But from the fact that something is changed from its terminus a quo, a “such and such” ceased to be, when it is a case of alteration and growth, and a “there” ceased to be, if it is a case of local motion. Therefore, because in every motion there is generation and ceasing-to-be, it consequently rejects all motion. Because such things are impossible, it becomes clear that some things are being moved, but not always; and that some things are at rest, not always, but sometimes.
lib. 8 l. 6 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: omnia autem velle etc., inquirit de aliis duobus membris praemissae divisionis. Et primo manifestat suam intentionem; secundo exequitur ipsam, ibi: moventium igitur et eorum quae moventur et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo ostendit ad quam positionem pertineat quartum membrum; secundo ea quae dicta sunt in isto capitulo recolligit, ibi: principium autem iterum faciendum etc.; tertio ostendit quid restat dicendum, ibi: reliquum ergo considerandum et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod ponere quod omnia quandoque quiescunt et quandoque moventur, hoc iam pertinet ad antiquas rationes, quas tetigimus disputantes de motus sempiternitate. Hoc enim posuisse videtur praecipue Empedocles, quod omnia quandoque moventur sub dominio amicitiae et litis, et quandoque quiescunt intermediis temporibus.	1016. Then at (785 254 a15) he studies the other two members of his division. First he reveals his intention; Secondly, he pursues it, (L. 7). About the first he does three things: First he shows to which opinion the fourth member pertains; Secondly, he summarizes what has been said in this chapter, at 1017; Thirdly, he states what remains to be said, at 1020. He says therefore First (785 254 a15) that to posit that all things are sometimes at rest and sometimes in motion pertains to the ancient arguments which we touched upon in discussing the eternity of motion. For Empedocles seems to be the chief protagonist of this opinion that all things are at some time moved by friendship and by discord and in the meantime are at rest.
lib. 8 l. 6 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: principium autem etc., resumit ea quae dicta sunt in isto capitulo. Et primo resumit divisionem supra positam; secundo reprobationem primae partis, qua ponitur omnia quiescere semper, ibi: quod quidem igitur non possibile etc.; tertio reprobationem aliorum duorum membrorum, ibi: similiter autem et impossibile et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod ad manifestandum magis intentionem sequentium, debemus incipere ab iis quae nuper determinavimus, sumentes idem principium quod prius; scilicet quod entia oportet primo quod se habeant in aliqua harum trium dispositionum, scilicet quod vel omnia quiescant, vel omnia moveantur, vel quod quaedam quiescant et quaedam moveantur. Et hoc tertium iterum in tria dividitur: quia si eorum quae sunt, quaedam quiescunt et quaedam moventur, necesse est quod vel omnia sic se habeant quod quandoque quiescant et quandoque moveantur; vel quod quaedam semper quiescant, quaedam autem semper moveantur; vel quod cum iis duobus apponatur tertium membrum, scilicet quod alia sint quae quiescant aliquando et non semper, aliis quandoque motis et non semper.	1017. Then at (786 254 a16) he sums up what has been said in this chapter. First he recalls the divisions previously made; Secondly, he recalls the rejection of the first member which posited all things at rest, at 1018; Thirdly, the rejection of the other two members, at 1019. He says therefore First (786 254 a16) that in order to make clearer the intention of what follows, we must begin with what has just been determined and use the same principle as before, namely, that beings must maintain themselves in one of three dispositions, i.e., either that all are at rest or all in motion or some at rest and some in motion. And this third is again divided into three members, for if all things are such that some are at rest and others in motion, then necessarily all must be at one time at rest and at another in motion, or some are always at rest and others always in motion, or to these two a third member may be added, namely, that there are others of which some are at rest not always but sometimes, while the others are in motion sometimes but not always.
lib. 8 l. 6 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: quod quidem igitur etc., reprobat primum membrum. Et dicit quod supra dictum est, quod non sit possibile omnia quiescere semper, sed et nunc etiam aliquid est addendum. Et duo dicit contra hanc positionem. Primo quidem quod necesse est ponere aliquem motum saltem in anima. Quia si aliquis velit dicere quod secundum veritatem sic se habet quod nihil movetur, sicut dixerunt sequentes Melissum, qui posuit quod ens est infinitum et immobile: sed tamen non ita videtur secundum sensum, sed multa entium moventur, ut sensus iudicat. Si ergo aliquis dicat quod ista opinio est falsa, qua opinamur quaedam moveri; adhuc sequitur quod motus sit. Quia si opinio falsa est, motus est; et universaliter si opinio est, motus est; et similiter si phantasia est, motus est. Et hoc ideo, quia phantasia est quidam motus sensitivae partis, factus a sensu secundum actum. Opinio etiam quidam motus est rationis, ex aliquibus ratiocinationibus procedens. Sed adhuc manifestius sequitur quod motus sit in opinione vel phantasia, si aliquando videatur nobis sic esse, aliquando aliter: quod contingit cum quandoque videntur nobis aliqua quiescere, quandoque vero non quiescere. Sic ergo omnino sequitur quod motus sit. Secundo contra hanc opinionem dicit, quod apponere intentionem ad destruendum hanc opinionem, et quaerere rationem ad probandum illas res quas debemus habere in maiori dignitate quam quod ratione indigeant, quia scilicet habentur ut per se manifesta: hoc inquam facere nihil est aliud quam male iudicando discernere inter melius et peius in moralibus, et inter credibile et incredibile in logicis, et inter principium et non principium in demonstrativis. Qui enim quaerit rationem ad probandum ea quae per se sunt manifesta, et sic habentur ut principia, non cognoscit ea esse principia, dum ea per alia principia probare intendit. Similiter videtur quod non sciat cognoscere quid sit credibile et incredibile; quia id quod est per se credibile, per aliud probare intendit, ac si non esset per se credibile. Nec etiam inter melius et peius posse discernere videtur, qui magis manifesta per minus manifesta probat. Est autem per se manifestum aliqua moveri: non ergo ad hoc debet esse nostra intentio, ut hoc rationibus probare nitamur.	1018. Then at (787 254 a23) he rejects the first member and says that it was said above that it is not possible for all things to be always at rest; but something else must now be added. And he says two things against this position. First, some motion must be posited at least in the soul. For should anyone want to say that according to truth it is a fact that nothing is being moved (as the followers of Melissus did, who posited that being is infinite and immobile), yet it is also a fact that this does not appear to be so according to sense, for many things appear to the senses to be moving. If, therefore, anyone declares as false the opinion by which we believe that some things are in motion, it still follows that motion exists. For if there is false opinion, there is motion; and universally if there is opinion, there is motion and, likewise, if there is imagining, there is motion. The reason is that imagining is a motion of the sensitive part and is produced by the sense in act. Opinion also is a certain motion of the reason and proceeds from several acts of reasoning. But it follows even more strongly that there is motion in opinion and imagining, if things appear to be this at one time and that at another. This happens when things at one time seem to us to be at rest and at another time not to rest. Thus, it entirely follows that motion exists. He says, secondly, against the opinion at issue, that to have the intention of destroying this opinion, and to look for an argument to prove those things that we ought to hold in a respect surpassing the need for proof, since they are accepted as self-evident. To do this, I say, is no different from judging poorly between what is better and what is worse in morals, and between what is credible and incredible in logical matters, and between a principle and a non-principle in matters of demonstration. For whoever looks for arguments to prove things which are self-evident and, consequently, held as principles, does not recognize them for principles so long as he intends to prove them through other principles. Likewise, it seems that he does not recognize what is credible and what is incredible, because he is trying to prove what is per se credible through something else, as though it were not per se credible. Nor does he seem capable of distinguishing between the better and the worse who tries to prove the more evident by means of the less evident. But it is self-evident that some things are in motion. Therefore, we should not address ourselves to trying to prove this by arguments.
lib. 8 l. 6 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: similiter autem et impossibile etc., excludit alia duo membra praemissae divisionis. Et dicit quod sicut impossibile est omnia quiescere semper, ita etiam impossibile est omnia moveri semper; aut etiam quod alia semper moveantur et alia semper quiescant, ita quod nihil sit quod quandoque moveatur et quandoque quiescat. Contra omnia haec sufficit fidem facere per unum medium: quia scilicet videmus quod quaedam quandoque moventur et quandoque iterum quiescunt. Unde manifestum est quod impossibile est dicere quod omnia continue quiescant, quod erat primum membrum, et quod omnia continue moveantur, quod erat secundum membrum; vel quod quaedam semper moveantur et quaedam semper quiescant, et nihil sit medium.	1019. Then at (788 254 a33) he rejects two more members of his original division. And he says that just as it is impossible for all things to be always at rest, so too is it impossible that all things be always in motion, or that some things are always in motion and some always at rest, so as to leave nothing which is sometimes in motion and sometimes at rest. Against all this, sufficient credence arises from one medium, namely, the fact that we see that some things are sometimes in motion and sometimes at rest. Hence, it is clear that it is impossible to say that all things are continually at rest—which was the first member—and that all things are continually in motion—which was the second member—or that some are always in motion and the remainder always at rest without any mediate possibility.
lib. 8 l. 6 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: reliquum ergo etc., ostendit quid restat dicendum: et concludit ex praemissis, quod cum tria membra praemissae divisionis stare non possint, relinquitur considerandum quod membrum aliorum duorum sit verius: utrum scilicet quod omnia sint possibilia moveri et quiescere; aut quaedam sint possibilia moveri et quiescere, ita tamen quod aliqua sint quae semper quiescant, et aliqua quae semper moveantur. Hoc enim ultimum est quod demonstrare intendimus. Sic enim ostendetur primum motum esse sempiternum, et primum motorem esse immobilem.	1020. Then at (789 254 b4) he shows what is left to be said, and he concludes from the foregoing that since three members of the division cannot stand, what remains is to consider which of the other two is the truer, whether, namely, all things are capable of both motion and rest, or whether some are capable of both motion and rest while still others are always at rest and others always in motion. This last is what we intend to demonstrate. In this way it will be shown that the first motion is eternal, and the first mover immobile.