Authors/Thomas Aquinas/posteriorum/L1/Lect33

Lecture 33 That one does not proceed to infinity in essential predicates is shown “logically”

Latin	English
	Lecture 33 (82b34-83a35) THAT ONE DOES NOT PROCEED TO INFINITY IN ESSENTIAL PREDICATES IS SHOWN “LOGICALLY”
lib. 1 l. 33 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit quod si sit status in extremis, necesse est esse statum in mediis, et si sit status in affirmativis, necesse est esse statum in negativis; hic intendit ostendere quod sit status in affirmativis in sursum et deorsum. Et dividitur in duas partes: in prima parte, ostendit propositum logice, idest per rationes communes omni syllogismo, quae accipiuntur secundum praedicata communiter sumpta; in secunda, ostendit idem analytice, idest per rationes proprias demonstrationi, quae accipiuntur secundum praedicata per se, quae sunt demonstrationi propria; ibi: analytice autem manifestum et cetera. Prima autem pars dividitur in duas partes: in prima, ostendit quod non sit procedere in infinitum in praedicatis, quae praedicantur in eo quod quid; in secunda, ostendit quod non sit procedere in infinitum universaliter in praedicatis affirmativis; ibi: universaliter autem sic dicimus et cetera.	After showing that if there is a stop in the extremes there must be a stop in the middles, and if there is a stop in affirmatives there must be a stop in negatives, the Philosopher now shows that there is a stop in affirmatives both upwards and downwards. And his treatment is divided into two parts. In the first part he shows his thesis “logically,” i.e., through characteristics common to every syllogism, which are based on predicates considered commonly. In the second he shows the same thing analytically, i.e., through characteristics proper to demonstration, which are based on per se predicates which are proper to demonstration (84a8) [L. 35]. The first is divided into two parts. In the first he shows that one does not proceed to infinity in predicates which are predicated in eo quod quid (i.e., pertaining to the essence of the subject]. In the second he shows universally that one does not proceed to infinity in affirmative predicates (83a1).
lib. 1 l. 33 n. 2 Dicit ergo primo, quod cum ostensum sit quod in privativis non est ire in infinitum, si stetur in affirmativis; hic iam manifestum erit quomodo aliqui speculantur in illis, idest in affirmativis, esse statum per logicas rationes. Et dicuntur hic logicae rationes, quae procedunt ex quibusdam communibus, quae pertinent ad considerationem logicae.	He says therefore first (82b34) that since we have established that an infinite process does not occur in negatives if there is a stop in affirmatives, our present task will be to show how one speculates through logical reasons that there is a stop “in those,” i.e., in affirmatives. (These reasons are called “logical,” because they proceed from certain common notions that pertain to the considerations of logic).
Haec autem veritas manifesta est in his, quae praedicantur in eo quod quid est, idest in praedicatis, ex quibus quod quid est, idest definitio constituitur. Si enim huiusmodi praedicata dentur esse infinita, sequitur et quod non contingat definire aliquid, et quod si definitur aliquid, eius definitio non possit esse nota. Et hoc ideo, quia infinita non est pertransire. Non autem contingit definiri, neque definitionem cognosci, nisi descendendo perveniatur usque ad ultimum, et ascendendo perveniatur usque ad primum. Si ergo contingit aliquid definire, vel si contingit definitionem alicuius esse notam, ex utroque antecedenti sequitur hoc consequens, quod in praedictis praedicatis non sit procedere in infinitum, sed in eis contingat stare.	Now this truth is clear in regard to things predicated as constituting the essence of a thing, namely, the predicates from which the quod quid est, i.e., the definition, is formed. For if such predicates were agreed to be infinite, the result would be that nothing can be defined, and that if something is defined, its definition cannot be known: and all because the infinite cannot be traversed. For a thing cannot be defined, or its definition known, except by reaching the ultimate through descent and the first through ascent. Therefore, if something can be defined, or if a thing’s definition can be known, then in either case this consequence will follow, namely, there is no infinite process in the aforementioned predicates, but there is a stop in them.
lib. 1 l. 33 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: universaliter autem sic etc., ostendit universaliter quod in praedicatis affirmativis non sit procedere in infinitum. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, quaedam praemittit, quae sunt necessaria ad propositum ostendendum; secundo, ostendit propositum; ibi: amplius si non est et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, distinguit praedicata per accidens a praedicatis per se; secundo, distinguit praedicata per se ad invicem; ibi: quare autem in eo quod quid est et cetera.	Then (83a1) he shows universally that there is not a process to infinity in affirmative predicates. In regard to this he does two things. First, he prefaces certain things needed for establishing the thesis. Secondly, he establishes it (83a36) [L. 34]. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he distinguishes per accidens from per se predicates. Secondly, he distinguishes among the per se predicates (83a21).
Dicit ergo primo, quod cum ostensum sit in quibusdam praedicatis, quod in eis non est procedere in infinitum, scilicet in his, quae praedicantur in quod quid est, ostendendum est hoc universaliter in omnibus praedicatis affirmativis.	He says therefore first (83a1) that since it has been established in regard to certain predicates that there is no infinite process in them, namely, in those which are predicated as pertaining to the essence, our task is to show that this is universally so in all affirmative predicates.
lib. 1 l. 33 n. 4 Et incipit suam considerationem a praedicatis per accidens, in quibus est triplex modus verae praedicationis. Unus quidem modus est, quando accidens praedicatur de accidente; puta, cum dicimus, album ambulat. Secundus modus est, quando subiectum praedicatur de accidente; puta, cum dicimus, hoc magnum est lignum. Tertius modus est, quando accidens praedicatur de subiecto; puta, cum dicimus, lignum est album: vel cum dicimus, homo ambulat.	And he begins his consideration with per accidens predicates in which there are three modes of true predication. One mode is when an accident is predicated of an accident, as when we say, “Something white is walking.” The second mode is when the subject is predicated of an accident, as when we say, “Something white is wood.” The third mode is when an accident is predicated of a-subject, as when we say, “Wood is white,” or “Man walks.”
Isti autem modi praedicandi sunt alteri et diversi ad invicem: quia cum subiectum praedicatur de accidente, puta, cum dicitur, album est lignum, hoc significatur, quod illud universale praedicatum, quod est lignum, praedicatur de subiecto, cui accidit esse album, scilicet de hoc particulari ligno, in quo est albedo. Idem enim est sensus cum dico, album est lignum, ac si dicerem, hoc lignum, cui accidit esse album, est lignum; non autem est sensus quod album sit subiectum ligni.	Now these modes of predicating are mutually other and diverse, because when its subject is predicated of an accident, say “Something white is wood,” what is signified is that the universal predicate, “wood,” is being predicated of a subject which happens to be wood, i.e., this particular wood in which there is whiteness. For when I say, “Something white is wood,” the meaning is the same as “This wood which happens to be white is wood”; in other words, the sense is not that “white” is the subject of wood.
Et hoc probat, quia subiectum fit hoc quod praedicatur de ipso sicut de subiecto, vel secundum totum, vel secundum partem, sicut homo fit albus: sed neque album, neque aliqua pars albi, quae vere sit album, idest quae sit de substantia ipsius albedinis, fit lignum; non enim accidens est subiectum transmutationis, qua de non ligno fit lignum. Omne autem quod incipit esse hoc, fit hoc; si igitur non fit hoc, non est hoc, nisi detur quod semper hoc fuerit; non autem semper fuit verum dicere, album est lignum, quia aliquando non simul fuerunt albedo et lignum. Cum ergo non sit verum dicere quod album fiat lignum, manifestum est quod album non est lignum proprie et per se loquendo: sed si hoc concedatur, album est lignum, intelligitur per accidens, quia scilicet illud particulare subiectum, cui accidit album, est lignum. Iste ergo est sensus huiusmodi praedicationis, in qua subiectum praedicatur de accidente.	And he proves this on the ground that it is either according to its totality or according to a part that a subject comes to be that which is predicated of it as of a subject, as a man comes to be white. But neither the white nor its white part, which is really white, i.e., which pertains to the very essence of whiteness, becomes wood: for an accident is not the subject of change whereby wood comes to be from non-wood. But whatever begins to be such and such, comes to be it; therefore, if it does not come to be this, it is not it-unless it is granted that it always was this. But it was not always true to say that the white [object] is wood, because at some time the whiteness and the wood were not together. Therefore, since it is not true to say that the white [object] becomes wood, it is obvious that the white [object], properly and per se speaking, is not wood. Yet if it be granted that something white is wood, it is understood per accidens, namely, because that particular subject, which happens to be white, is wood. This, therefore, is the sense of any predication in which a subject is predicated of an accident.
Sed cum dico, lignum est album, praedicando accidens de subiecto, non significo sicut in praedicto modo praedicationis, quod alterum aliquid sit substantialiter album, cui accidit esse lignum. Quod quidem significatur tam in praedicto modo, quo subiectum praedicatur de accidente, quam etiam in alio modo, quo accidens praedicatur de accidente, ut cum dico, musicum est album: hic enim nihil aliud significo, nisi quod ille homo particularis, puta Socrates, cui accidit esse musicum, est albus. Sed quando dico, lignum est album, significo quod ipsum lignum vere factum est subiectum albi, non quod aliquid aliud a ligno, vel a parte ligni, quae est lignum aliquod, sit factum album.	But when I say, “Wood is white,” predicating an accident of the subject, I do not signify, as I did in the previous mode of predication, that there is something else substantially white, such that to be wood happens to it: which, of course, is signified both in the previous mode, where a subject is predicated of an accident, and in the other mode, where an accident is predicated of an accident, as when I say, “The musician is white”: for this signifies nothing but the fact that this particular man, say Socrates, who happens to be a musician, is white. But when I say, “The wood is white,” I signify that the wood itself has become the subject of white, and not that something other than the wood or other than a section of the wood has become white.
Est ergo differentia in tribus modis praedictis: quia cum praedicatur accidens de subiecto, non praedicatur per aliquod aliud subiectum; cum autem praedicatur subiectum de accidente, vel accidens de accidente, fit praedicatio ratione eius quod subiicitur termino posito in subiecto; de quo quidem praedicatur aliud accidens accidentaliter, ipsa vero species subiecti essentialiter.	Therefore, there is a difference among these three modes of predicating, because when an accident is predicated of a subject, it is not predicated in virtue of some other subject; but when the subject is predicated of an accident or an accident of an accident, the predication is made in virtue of that which is subjected to the terms acting as the subject, of which another accident is predicated accidentally in the second case, and the species of the subject is predicated essentially in the first case.
lib. 1 l. 33 n. 5 Et quia in quolibet praedictorum modorum utimur nomine praedicationis, et sicut possumus nomina ponere, ita possumus ea restringere; imponamus sic nomina in probatione sequenti, ut praedicari solum dicamus illud, quod dicitur hoc modo, scilicet non ratione alterius subiecti. Illud vero quod dicitur illo modo, scilicet ratione alterius subiecti, velut cum subiectum praedicatur de accidente, vel accidens de accidente, non dicatur praedicari, vel si dicatur praedicari, non dicatur praedicari simpliciter, sed secundum accidens. Et accipiamus semper illud, quod se habet per modum albi, ex parte praedicati, id autem, quod se habet per modum ligni, accipiatur ex parte subiecti. Hoc ergo supponamus praedicari semper, in probatione sequenti, quod praedicatur de eo, de quo praedicatur, simpliciter, et non secundum accidens. Et ratio quare debemus sic uti vocabulo praedicationis, haec est: quia loquimur in materia demonstrativa, demonstrationes autem non utuntur nisi talibus praedicationibus.	Now since in each of the above modes we use the name, “predication,” and since it lies within our power to employ names as well as to restrict them, let us agree so to use our names in the following proof that only those things are said to be predicated which are said in this way, namely, not in virtue of some other subject. Consequently, whatever is said in another way, namely, by reason of another subject, as when a subject is predicated of an accident or an accident of an accident, shall not be said to be predicated—or if it is said to be predicated, it shall be said to be predicated not absolutely but per accidens. Furthermore, that which is after the manner of “white,” let us always take on the part of the predicate, and that which is after the manner of “wood,” let it be taken on the part of the subject. Therefore, in the following proof let us suppose this to be predicated which is predicated not per accidens, but absolutely, of that of which it is predicated. And the reason why we should use the word “predication” in this way is that we are speaking of demonstrative matters, and demonstrations use only such predications.
lib. 1 l. 33 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: quare autem in quod etc. ostendit differentiam praedicatorum per se ad invicem. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, distinguit praedicata ad invicem secundum diversa genera; secundo, ostendit differentiam praedicatorum; ibi: amplius substantiam quidem et cetera.	Then (83a21) he shows the differences among per se predicates. In regard to this he does two things. First, he distinguishes these predicates into diverse genera. Secondly, he shows the differences among them (83a24).
Dicit ergo primo, quod quia nos praedicari dicimus solum illud, quod praedicatur non secundum aliud subiectum, hoc autem diversificatur secundum decem praedicamenta; sequitur quod omne quod sic praedicatur, praedicetur aut in quod quid est, idest per modum substantialis praedicati, aut per modum qualis, vel quanti, vel alicuius alterius praedicamentorum, de quibus actum est in praedicamentis. Et addit cum unum de uno praedicetur: quia si praedicatum non sit unum sed multa, non poterit praedicatum simpliciter dici quid vel quale; sed forte dicetur simul quale quid, puta si dicam, homo est animal album. Fuit autem necessaria haec additio; quia si multa praedicentur de uno, ita quod multa accipiantur in ratione unius praedicati, poterunt in infinitum praedicationes multiplicari, secundum infinitos modos combinandi praedicata ad invicem. Unde cum quaeritur status in his quae praedicantur, necesse est accipere unum de uno praedicari.	He says therefore first (83a21) that because we are saying that those things alone are being predicated which are predicated not in virtue of some other subject, and this is diversified according to the ten predicaments, it follows that whatever is thus predicated is predicated “either in quod quid est,” i.e., after the manner of an essential predicate, or after the manner of quality or quantity or one of the other predicaments discussed in the Categories. And he adds, “when one is predicated of one,” because if a predicate is not one but several, it cannot be said to be predicated precisely as quid or quale, but perhaps jointly as quale quid, as when I say “Man is a white animal.” Now it was necessary to add this because if several things are predicated of one in such a way that they function as one predicate, predications will be multipliable to infinity according to the infinite modes of combining predicates one to another. Hence when there is question of a stop in things that are predicated, it is necessary to take one thing predicated of one thing.
lib. 1 l. 33 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: amplius substantiam quidem etc., ostendit differentiam praedictorum praedicatorum. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo, proponit differentiam; secundo, manifestat per exempla; ibi: ut de homine et albo etc.; tertio, excludit quamdam obviationem; ibi: species enim gaudeant et cetera.	Then (83a24) he indicates the difference among the aforesaid predicates. In regard to this he does three things. First, he proposes the difference. Secondly, he clarifies it with examples (83a27). Thirdly, he excludes an objection (83a33).
Dicit ergo primo, quod illa quae substantiam significant, oportet quod significent respectu eius de quo praedicantur, quod vere illud est, aut quod vere illud aliquid. Quod potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo, ut ostendatur distinctio ex parte praedicati, quod vel significat totam essentiam subiecti, sicut definitio: et hoc significat cum dicit: quod vere illud est; vel significat partem essentiae, sicut genus, vel differentia: et hoc significat cum dicit; aut quod vere illud aliquid. Alio modo, et melius, ut ostendatur distinctio ex parte subiecti, quod quandoque est convertibile cum praedicato essentiali, sicut definitum cum definitione: et hoc significat cum dicit: quod vere illud est; quandoque vero est pars subiectiva praedicati, sicut homo animalis: et hoc significat cum dicit: aut quod vere illud aliquid. Homo enim aliquod animal est. Sed illa quae non significant substantiam, sed dicuntur de aliquo subiecto, quod quidem subiectum nec vere, idest essentialiter, est illud praedicatum, neque aliquid eius; omnia huiusmodi praedicata sunt accidentalia.	He says therefore first (83a24) that those which signify substance must signify, in respect to that of which they are predicated, “what it truly is or something that it truly is.” This can be understood in two ways: in one way, as showing a distinction on the part of the predicate which might signify either the entire essence of the subject, as a definition does (and he signifies this when he says, “what it truly is”), or part of the essence, as a genus or a difference does (and he signifies this when he says, “or something that it truly is.”) In another way, and better, as showing a distinction on the part of the subject, which is sometimes convertible with an essential predicate, as the definitum with the definition (and he signifies this, when he says, “what it truly is”), and sometimes is a subjective part of the predicate, as man is of animal (and he signifies this when he says, “or something that it truly is,” for man is a certain anima1). But those which do not signify substance but are said of some subject (which subject is not truly, i.e., essentially, that predicate nor something of it), all such predicates are accidental.
lib. 1 l. 33 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: ut de homine est album etc., manifestat praemissam differentiam per exempla: et dicit quod cum dicimus, homo est albus, praedicatum illud est accidentale, quia homo non est quod vere album est, idest esse album non est essentia hominis; neque quod vere album aliquid, ut supra expositum est. Sed cum dicitur, homo est animal, forsan homo est quod vere est animal: animal enim significat essentiam hominis, quia illud ipsum quod est homo, est essentialiter animal. Et quamvis illa, quae non significant substantiam, sint accidentia, non tamen per accidens praedicantur. Praedicantur enim de quodam subiecto non propter aliquod aliud subiectum: puta cum dico, homo est albus, praedicatur album de homine, non ea ratione, quod aliquod aliud subiectum sit album, ratione cuius homo dicatur albus; sicut supra dictum est in his, quae praedicantur per accidens.	Then (83a27) he clarifies the aforesaid difference with examples, saying that when we say, “Man is white,” the predicate is accidental, because man is not that which white truly is, i.e., to be white is not the essence of man “or anything of what white truly is,” as was explained above. But , when it is stated, “Man is an animal,” perhaps man is that which animal truly is. For animal signifies the essence of man, because that which is man is essentially animal. And although predicates that do not signify substance are accidents, they are not predicated per accidens. For they are not predicated of some subject in virtue of some other subject; for when I say, “Man is white,” “white” is not predicated of man by reason of some other subject’s being white in virtue of which man is called white as was explained above in regard to things predicated per accidens.
lib. 1 l. 33 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: species enim gaudeant etc., excludit quamdam obviationem. Posset enim aliquis dicere quod praedicata, quae significant substantiam, non sunt vere et essentialiter id, de quo praedicantur, vel aliquid eius: neque accidentia, quae sunt in individuis sicut in subiectis, conveniunt huiusmodi communibus praedicatis essentialibus; quia huiusmodi praedicata universalia significant quasdam essentias semper separatas per se subsistentes, sicut Platonici dicebant.	Then (83a33) he excludes an objection. For someone could say that predicates which signify the substance are not truly and essentially that which they are predicated of, nor are they something of it; and that accidents which exist in individuals as in subjects, do not correspond to any common essential predicates, because such universal predicates signify certain separated essences always subsisting by themselves, as the Platonists say.
Sed ipse respondet quia, si supponantur species, idest ideae, esse, debent gaudere, quia secundum Platonicos habent aliquod nobilius esse, quam res nobis notae naturales. Huiusmodi enim res sunt particulares et materiales, illae autem sunt universales et immateriales. Sunt enim quaedam praemonstrationes respectu naturalium, idest quaedam exemplaria horum: ut accipiantur hic monstra vel praemonstrationes sicut praemonstratur aliquid ad aliquid probandum. Quia ergo sunt praemonstrationes vel exemplaria rerum naturalium, necesse est quod in istis rebus naturalibus inveniantur aliquae participationes illarum specierum, quae pertinent ad essentiam harum rerum naturalium. Et ideo si sint huiusmodi species separatae, sicut Platonici posuerunt, nihil pertinent ad rationem praesentem. Nos enim intendimus de huiusmodi rebus, de quibus in nobis scientia per demonstrationem acquiritur. Et huiusmodi sunt res in natura existentes nobis notae, de quibus demonstrationes fiunt. Et ideo si detur quod animal sit quoddam separatum, quasi praemonstratio existens animalium naturalium, tunc cum dico, homo est animal, secundum quod hac propositione utimur in demonstrando, ly animal significat essentiam rei naturalis, de qua fit demonstratio.	But he answers that if Forms, i.e., Ideas, are assumed to exist, they should be happy, because according to the Platonists they have a nobler existence than the material things known to us. For the latter are particular and material, but the former universal and immaterial. For they are “premonstrations,” i.e., certain exemplars, of material things (taking “premonstrations” here as above, when we spoke of something being shown beforehand in order to prove something). Therefore, since they are the premonstrations or exemplars of natural things, it is necessary that in these natural things there be found certain participations of those Forms which pertain to the essences of these natural things. Hence if such separated Forms exist, as the Platonists contend, they have nothing to do with the present matter. For we are concerned with things, the science of which is produced in us through demonstration. And these are things existing in matter and known to us and concerning which demonstrations deal. Consequently, if it be granted that “animal” is something separated, an existing premonstration, as it were, of natural animals, then when I say, “Man is an animal,” in the sense that we use this preposition in demonstrating, “animal” signifies the essence of the natural thing concerning which the demonstration is made.