Authors/Thomas Aquinas/posteriorum/L2/Lect13

Lecture 13 Characteristics which should be present in the items which constitute the definition signifying the essence of a thing

Latin	English
	Lecture 13 (96a22-b14) CHARACTERISTICS WHICH SHOULD BE PRESENT IN THE ITEMS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE DEFINITION SIGNIFYING THE ESSENCE OF A THING
lib. 2 l. 13 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit qualiter quod quid est et propter quid se habeant ad demonstrationem, hic ostendit quomodo possint investigari: et primo, quomodo investigetur quod quid est; secundo, quomodo investigetur propter quid; ibi: ad habendum autem et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, dicit de quo est intentio; secundo, exequitur propositum; ibi: eorum autem igitur quae insunt semper et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod postquam dictum est qualiter quod quid est cognoscatur, et qualiter quod quid est vel propter quid accipiatur ut medium in demonstratione, nunc dicendum est quomodo oporteat investigare ea quae praedicantur in eo quod quid est.	After showing how the quod quid and propter quid are related to demonstration, the Philosopher now shows how they can be investigated. First, how the quod quid should be investigated. Secondly, how the propter quid ought to be investigated (98a1) [L. 17]. Concerning the first he does two things. First, he states his intention. Secondly, he pursues it (96a24). He says therefore first (96a22) that after stating how quod quid is recognized and how the quod quid or propter quid is taken as a middle in demonstration, we must now point out how to investigate those items which are predicated in quod quid.
lib. 2 l. 13 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit: eorum igitur quae insunt etc., ostendit propositum: et primo, manifestat qualia oporteat esse illa, quae accipiuntur ad constituendum quod quid est; secundo, quomodo sint inquirenda; ibi: congruum autem est cum totum aliquod et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, praemittit quamdam divisionem; secundo, proponit qualia oporteat esse quae accipiuntur ad constituendum quod quid est; ibi: huiusmodi accipienda sunt etc.; tertio, probat; ibi: quoniam autem ostensum est et cetera.	Then (96a24) he states his proposal. First, he indicates what characteristics should be present in things which are accepted as constituting the quod quid. Secondly, how to investigate them (96b15) [L. 14]. Concerning the first he does three things. First, he presents a certain division. Secondly, he proposes what should be the characteristics of things which are taken as constituting quod quid (96a32). Thirdly, he proves (96b2).
lib. 2 l. 13 n. 3 Circa primum considerandum est quod ea quae praedicantur in eo quod quid est, oportet quod semper et universaliter praedicentur, ut supra habitum est: et ideo accipiens ea quae praedicantur de unoquoque ut semper, dicit quod inter ea quaedam inveniuntur quae extenduntur in plus quam id cui insunt; non tamen ita quod inveniantur extra genus illud. Et exponit quid sit esse in plus, et dicit quod in plus esse dicuntur quaecunque universaliter insunt alicui, non tamen ei soli, sed etiam alii. Datur autem per hoc intelligi aliud membrum oppositum, quia scilicet est aliquid quod extenditur in plus, et est extra genus. Et de hoc primo ponit exemplum, dicens quod est aliquid quod inest omni ternario, sed et non ternario inest; sicut patet de ipso ente communi, quod quidem universaliter inest non tantum Trinitati, sed etiam aliis; et non solum in genere numeri, sed etiam in his quae sunt extra genus numeri. Impar vero inest omni ternario, et est in plus, quia etiam inest ipsi quinario; non tamen invenitur extra genus ternarii, quod est numerus, quia etiam quinarius in genere numeri invenitur; nihil autem quod sit extra genus numeri potest dici impar.	In regard to the first (96a24) it should be noted that things predicated in quod quid must be such that they are predicated always and universally, as has been established above. Then taking those things which are predicated of each thing in the sense of always, he says that we find among them certain ones which apply to more than that in which they are present, but not to the extent of being found outside that genus. (He explains what is meant by apply to more, saying that those things are said to apply to more which are indeed universally present in something, but are not solely in it but in other things also). This would imply that there is another and opposite member which applies to more, but is outside the genus. He gives an example of the first one, saying that there is something which is present in every three, as well as in non-three’s, as is obviously true of being, which is universally present not only in three but in other things; and not only in the genus of number, but even in things outside the genus of number. Odd, however is found in every three and in more things, because it is found also in five’s; however, it is not found outside the genus of three, namely, number, because even five is in the genus of number. For nothing outside the genus of number can be called odd.
lib. 2 l. 13 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: huiusmodi autem accipienda sunt etc., ostendit qualia debeant esse quae accipiuntur ad constituendum quod quid est. Et primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, manifestat per exemplum; ibi: ut Trinitati omni et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod ad manifestandum quod quid est accipienda sunt talia, quae quidem sunt semper et in plus, non tamen extra genus, usque ad talem terminum, ut primo quidem unumquodque quod accipitur sit in plus, omnia autem non sint in plus, sed convertantur cum re, cuius quaeritur quod quid est. Huius enim rationem necesse est significare quod quid est rei.	Then (96a32) he shows what should be the characteristics of things that are taken as constituting the quod quid. First, he proposes his intention. Secondly, he clarifies it with examples (96a34). He says therefore first (96a32) that in order to manifest the quod quid, we must take items which are both always and applicable to more (but not outside the genus), until the term is reached. And they should be so selected that each item when first taken should be applicable to more, but when all are taken together the combination does not apply to more, but is converted with the thing whose quod quid is sought. For the quod quid of a thing must signify its essence.
lib. 2 l. 13 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: ut Trinitati omni inest numerus etc., manifestat quod dixerat per exemplum. Accipiamus enim ista quatuor, scilicet numerus, impar, primus utroque modo. Dupliciter enim dicitur aliquis numerus primus. Uno modo, quia non mensuratur aliquo alio numero, sicut per oppositum patet quod quaternarius non est numerus primus, quia mensuratur dualitate; ternarius autem est numerus primus, quia non mensuratur aliquo numero, sed sola unitate. Alio modo dicitur aliquis numerus primus, quia non componitur ex pluribus numeris; sicut patet per oppositum de septenario, qui primo modo est primus, non enim mensuratur nisi unitate; non autem est primus secundo modo, componitur enim ex ternario et quaternario: sed ternarius non componitur ex pluribus numeris, sed ex sola dualitate et unitate.	Then (96a34) he manifests what he had said with an example. Let us, therefore, take those four, namely, number, odd, and prime in both its senses. For there are two senses in which a number is said to be prime: in one way because it is not divided by any other number, as opposed to four, which is not a prime number, since it can be divided by two; three, however, is a prime number, because it is not divided by any other number except one. In another way a number is called prime because it is not composed of other numbers, as opposed to seven, which is prime in the first way, because it is not divided by any other number except one, but is not prime in the second way, for it is composed of three and four. Three, however, is not composed of several numbers, but only of the number two, and one.
Sic ergo patet quod quodlibet praedictorum quatuor convenit universaliter Trinitati, quodlibet autem eorum convenit etiam aliis in genere numeri. Nam hoc quod dicitur numerus et impar convenit omnibus numeris imparibus: ultimum autem, scilicet quod sit primus utroque modo, convenit etiam dualitati, quae nec mensuratur alio numero, nec componitur ex numeris, sed ex solis unitatibus: unde omnia ista simul iuncta significant quod quid est ternarius.	And so it is obvious that each of the four aforesaid notions belongs universally to every three, although each of them is also found in other things in the genus of number. For number and odd are found in all odd numbers; but the fourth, i.e, being prime in both ways, belongs also to two, which is neither divided by any other number nor composed of numbers, but only of units; hence, when they are all assembled they signify the quod quid of three.
lib. 2 l. 13 n. 6 Sed videtur quod non requiratur ad definitionem quod quaelibet particula sit in plus quam definitum. Dicit enim philosophus in VII Metaphys. quod quando pervenitur ad ultimas differentias, erunt aequales differentiae speciebus; non ergo oportet quod differentia sit in plus quam species. Quod etiam ratione videtur. Dicit enim philosophus in VIII Metaphys., quod ratio quae est ex differentiis, videtur esse speciei et actus, idest formae, quia, sicut ibidem dicitur, differentia respondet formae; cuiuslibet autem speciei est propria forma, quae nulli alii convenit. Videtur igitur quod differentia ultima non excedat speciem. Dicit etiam philosophus in VII Metaphys. quod nihil est aliud in definitione quam genus et differentiae, et quod possibile est definitionem ex duobus constitui, quorum unum sit genus, aliud differentia. Differentia autem non invenitur extra proprium genus, alioquin non esset divisiva generis per se, sed per accidens. Videtur ergo quod differentia non excedat speciem.	But the requirement that each particle of the definition apply to more than the definition seems superfluous. For the Philosopher says in Metaphysics VII that when the ultimate differences are reached, those differences will be equal to the species; therefore, it is not required that the difference apply to more things than the species does. This can also be proved with an argument. For the Philosopher says in Metaphysics VIII that a formality which is based on differences seems to be of the species and of the act, i.e., of the form; because, as he says in the same place, the difference corresponds to the form. But each species has its own appropriate form which belongs to no other species. Therefore, it seems that the ultimate difference does not exceed the species. Furthermore, the Philosopher in Metaphysics VII says that there is no more in a definition than genus and differences, and that it is possible for a definition to be formed of two things, one of which is a genus and the other a difference. But a difference cannot be found outside its appropriate genus; otherwise it would not divide the genus per se but per accidens. Therefore, it seems that the difference does not exceed the species.
lib. 2 l. 13 n. 7 Sed dicendum est quod si accipi posset differentia, quae notificaret ipsam formam substantialem speciei, nullo modo differentia ultima esset in plus quam species, ut rationes probant. Sed quia formae essentiales non sunt nobis per se notae, oportet quod manifestentur per aliqua accidentia, quae sunt signa illius formae, ut patet in VIII Metaphys. Non autem oportet accipere accidentia propria illius speciei, quia talia oportet per definitionem speciei demonstrari; sed oportet notificari formam speciei per aliqua accidentia communiora; et secundum hoc differentiae assumptae dicuntur quidem substantiales, in quantum inducuntur ad declarandum formam essentialem, sunt autem communiores specie, in quantum assumuntur ex aliquibus signis, quae consequuntur superiora genera.	But it should be answered that if one were able to discover the difference which would make known the substantial form of the species, then, as the arguments prove, the ultimate difference would not apply to more things than the species does. But because the essential forms are not known to us per se, they must be disclosed through certain accidents which are signs of that form, as is stated in Metaphysics VIII. However, one should not take the proper accidens of that species, because they are the ones that will be demonstrated by the definition of the species; rather the form of the species must be made known by certain accidents that are more common. Hence according to this, the differences which are used are indeed called substantial, inasmuch as they are adduced in order to declare the essential form; but they are more common than the species, inasmuch as they are taken from signs which follow upon higher genera.
lib. 2 l. 13 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: quoniam autem ostensum est etc., ostendit quod supra dixerat: et primo, quod oporteat praedicta universaliter et ex necessitate praedicari de ternario; secundo, quod ex praedictis constituatur ipsa essentia ternarii; ibi: quod autem substantia ex his et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod quia superius ostensum est quod ea quae praedicantur in eo quod quid est ex necessitate insunt; quaecunque autem ex necessitate insunt, universaliter praedicantur; necesse est quod sive de ternario sive de quocunque alio accipiantur praedicto modo ea quae praedicantur in eo quod quid, quod ex necessitate et universaliter praedicentur.	Then (96b2) he explains what he had said above. First, the statement that the items mentioned above should be predicated universally and necessarily of three. Secondly, that the very essence of three is constituted by those items (96b6). He says therefore first (96b2) that since it has been established above that items which are predicated in quod quid are present of necessity, and whatever is present of necessity is predicated universally, it follows that whether those items which are taken in the manner above indicated be predicated as quod quid of three or of any other thing, it is necessary that they be predicated necessarily and universally.
lib. 2 l. 13 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: quod autem substantia etc., ostendit quod ex his quae praedicto modo accipiuntur, constituatur essentia ternarii, vel cuiuscunque alterius; quia necesse est, si hoc quod supra positum est non esset ipsa substantia ternarii, cum praedicetur in eo quod quid est, quod esset quoddam genus, vel nominatum vel innominatum. Non enim cuilibet rationi est nomen impositum: et inde est quod multa sunt innominata tam in generibus quam in speciebus. Ideo autem oportet quod praedicta ratio sit genus ternarii, si non significet essentiam eius, quia omne quod praedicatur in quid, aut est genus aut definitio significans essentiam. Non est autem possibile quod sit genus, quia sequeretur quod esset in plus quam ternarius: hoc enim supponimus esse genus, cuius potentia sub se plures species continet. Habitum est autem quod praedicta ratio non convenit nisi atomis, idest individuis, sub ternario contentis. Relinquitur ergo quod praedicta ratio sit definitio significans essentiam ternarii. Haec enim supponitur esse essentia uniuscuiusque, quae invenitur in individuis illius speciei finaliter, secundum praedictum modum praedicationis. Et sicut dictum est de ternario, ita etiam est intelligendum de quibuscunque aliis, quibus demonstretur aliquid esse idem per modum praedictum.	Then (96b6) he shows that from things which are taken in the abovementioned way the essence of three or of anything else is constituted; for it is necessary, if the items mentioned above are not the substance of three, that they be its genus, either named or unnamed, since they are predicated in quod quid. For not every formality has a name. That is why there are many genera and species without names. However, the reason why the above formality is the genus of three, if it does not signify its essence, is that whatever is predicated in quid is either the genus or the definition signifying the essence. Yet it cannot be the genus; otherwise it would apply to more things than three’s: for we assume a genus to be something which potentially contains several species under it. But we have established that the aforesaid formality applies only to the atoms, i.e., to the individuals contained under three. What remains, therefore, is that the formality in question is the definition signifying the essence of three. For the essence of a thing is supposed to be that which is found in the individuals of that species ultimately, according to the manner of predication described above. And what has been said of three is also understood of any other things regarding which something is demonstrated to be the same in the manner indicated above.