Authors/Thomas Aquinas/posteriorum/L2/Lect20

Lecture 20 How the first principles of demonstration are known by us

Latin	English
	Lecture 20 (99b18-100b17) HOW THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF DEMONSTRATION ARE KNOWN BY US
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit quomodo cognoscatur illud quod est principium demonstrationis sicut medium, scilicet quid et propter quid, hic ostendit quomodo cognoscantur prima principia demonstrationis communia. Et primo, dicit de quo est intentio; secundo, exequitur propositum; ibi: quod quidem igitur et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod ex his quae sequuntur, manifestum erit de principiis primis indemonstrabilibus, qualiter eorum cognitio fiat in nobis, et quo habitu cognoscantur; hoc tamen ordine observato, ut prius circa hoc dubitationes ponamus.	After showing how that which is the principle of demonstration in the sense of a middle comes to be known, the Philosopher now shows how the first common principles come to be known. First, he states his intention. Secondly, he pursues it (99b20). He says therefore first (99b18), that from what follows it will be clear concerning indemonstrable principles both how we come to know them and by what habit they are known. However, the plan we shall observe calls for us first to propose certain problems touching this matter.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit: quod quidem igitur non contingit scire etc., exequitur propositum. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, movet dubitationem; secundo, solvit; ibi: necesse itaque est habere et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, praemittit quoddam ex quo ostenditur necessitas huiusmodi inquisitionis; secundo, movet quaestiones; ibi: immediatorum autem etc.; tertio, obiicit ad quaestionem; ibi: si quidem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod iam supra dictum est, quod non contingit aliquid scire per demonstrationem, nisi praecognoscantur prima principia immediata. Et ideo ad scientiam quae est de demonstratione, utile est ut sciatur qualiter prima principia cognoscantur.	Then (99b20) he pursues his plan. Concerning this he does two things. First, he raises the problem. Secondly, he settles it (99b32). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he prefaces something from which the need for an inquiry of this kind is indicated. Secondly, he raises the questions (99b23). Thirdly, he objects to a question (99b26). He says therefore first (99b20), that it has already been established above that nothing is scientifically known through demonstration, unless the first immediate principles are known beforehand. Therefore, in order to have scientific knowledge of demonstration, it is useful to know how the first principles are acquired.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: immediatorum autem cognitio etc., movet dubitationes tres circa praedictam cognitionem principiorum. Quarum prima est, utrum omnium immediatorum principiorum sit eadem cognitio vel non. Secunda dubitatio est, utrum omnium immediatorum principiorum sit scientia vel nullorum, aut quorumdam sit scientia, aliorum vero aliud genus cognitionis. Tertia quaestio est, utrum habitus istorum principiorum fiant in nobis, cum prius non fuerint, vel semper in nobis fuerunt, sed tamen nos latebat.	Then (99b23) he raises three questions touching this knowledge of the principles. The first question is whether the knowledge of all immediate principles is the same or not. The second is whether there is a science of all immediate principles or of none; or is there science of some, and some other type of knowledge of the others. The third question is whether the habitual knowledge of those principles comes to exist in us after previously not existing, or have they always been in us but escaped our notice.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: si quidem igitur habemus ipsos etc., obiicit ad quaestionem ultimam, ad quam aliae ordinantur. Et primo obiicit ad unam partem; et dicit quod est inconveniens dicere quod habeamus habitus horum principiorum, et lateat nos. Manifestum est enim quod illi qui habent cognitionem principiorum, habent certiorem cognitionem cognitione quae est per demonstrationem. Sed cognitio quae est per demonstrationem, non potest haberi ita quod lateat habentem. Dictum est enim in principio huius libri, quod ille qui habet scientiam, scit quod impossibile est aliter se habere. Ergo multo minus potest esse quod aliquis habeat cognitionem principiorum immediatorum, et lateat ipsum. Quod tamen inconveniens sequeretur, si habitus huiusmodi inessent, et laterent.	Then (99b26) he objects to the last question to which the others are ordered. First, he objects to the second side, saying that it is absurd to claim that we have the habitual knowledge of these principles but they escape our notice. For it is obvious that those who have knowledge of the principles have a knowledge which is more certain than that which is acquired through demonstration. But knowledge through demonstration cannot be had such that it escapes the notice of the one having it. For it was established in the beginning of this book that a person who has scientific knowledge of something knows that it is impossible for it to be otherwise. Therefore, it is far less possible for someone having a knowledge of the first principles to have it escape his notice. Yet this absurdity would follow, if habitual knowledge of this kind were in us but escaped our notice.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 5 Secundo, ibi: si autem accipimus etc., obiicit ad contrarium. Si enim aliquis dicat quod accipimus de novo habitus principiorum, cum prius eos non habuerimus, relinquitur ulterius dubitatio qualiter possimus huiusmodi principia de novo cognoscere et addiscere, et hoc non ex aliqua praeexistenti cognitione; impossibile est enim aliquid addiscere nisi ex praeexistenti cognitione, sicut etiam supra circa demonstrationem diximus. Immediata autem principia ideo ex praeexistenti cognitione addiscere non possumus, quia praeexistens cognitio est certior, cum sit causa certitudinis his quae per eam innotescunt. Nulla autem cognitio est certior cognitione huiusmodi principiorum. Unde non videtur quod possimus ea cognoscere, cum prius non cognoverimus.	Secondly (99b28), he objects to the other side. For if a person states that we acquire these habits or principles de novo after previously not having them, we are left with the further problem of how we can know and learn such principles de novo without some previous knowledge existing in us: for it is impossible to learn anything save from preexisting knowledge, as we have established above in regard to demonstration. But the reason why we cannot learn the immediate principles from pre-existing knowledge is that pre-existing knowledge is more certain, since it is a cause of certitude of the things which are made known through it. But no knowledge is more certain than the knowledge of these principles. Hence it does not seem that we can begin to know them, when previously we did not know.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 6 Tertio, ibi: manifestum igitur est etc., concludit ex praemissis duabus rationibus, quod neque possibile est semper habere cognitionem horum principiorum, quae nos lateat; neque etiam possibile est quod in nobis generetur de novo talis cognitio, omnimoda ignorantia praecedente, et non habito aliquo alio habitu.	Thirdly (99b30), he concludes from the above two arguments that it is neither possible always to have had the knowledge of these principles but it escaped our notice, nor possible that such knowledge is generated de novo in us to supplant a state of absolute ignorance in which no other habitual knowledge was possessed.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: necesse itaque est etc., solvit praemissas quaestiones. Et primo, solvit ultimam; secundo, solvit duas primas; ibi: quoniam autem eorum qui circa intellectum et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, solvit dubitationem; secundo, manifestat solutionem positam; ibi: quod autem dictum est olim et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, proponit quod oportet aliquid cognoscitivum in nobis praeexistere; secundo, ostendit quid sit illud; ibi: videtur autem etc.; tertio, ostendit quomodo ex praeexistenti cognoscitivo principio fiat in nobis principiorum cognitio; ibi: ex sensu quidem et cetera.	Then (99b32) he solves these questions. First, he solves the last one Secondly, he solves the first two (100b5). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he proposes that some principle of knowing must pre-exist in us. Secondly, he shows what it is (99b34). Thirdly, he shows how from a pre-existing principle of knowing we attain the knowledge of principles (100a4).
Dicit ergo primo quod necesse est a principio in nobis esse quamdam potentiam cognoscitivam, quae scilicet praeexistat cognitioni principiorum; non tamen talem quae sit potior quantum ad certitudinem cognitione principiorum. Unde non eodem modo principiorum cognitio fit in nobis ex praeexistenti cognitione, sicut accidit in his quae cognoscuntur per demonstrationem.	He says therefore first (99b32), that there must be in us from the beginning a certain cognitive power that exists previously to the knowledge of principles, but not such that it is stronger as to certitude than the knowledge of principles. Hence the knowledge of principles does not come about in us from pre-existing knowledge in the same way as things which are known through demonstration.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: videtur autem hoc inesse etc., ostendit quid sit illud principium cognoscitivum praeexistens. Et quantum ad hoc ponit tres gradus in animalibus. Quorum primus est hoc, quod videtur inesse communiter omnibus animalibus, quae omnia habent quamdam connaturalem potentiam ad iudicandum de sensibilibus, quae vocatur sensus, quae non acquiritur de novo, sed ipsam naturam consequitur.	Then (99b34) he shows what that pre-existing cognitive principle is. Apropos of this he posits three grades among animals. The first of these is something which seems to be common to all animals, namely, that they have a certain connatural faculty [i.e., potency, i.e., power] for estimating about sense-perceptible things. This faculty, which is not acquired de novo but follows upon their very nature, is called sense.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 9 Secundum gradum ponit ibi: cum autem insit sensus etc.; et dicit quod cum sensus sit in omnibus animalibus, in quibusdam eorum remanet aliqua impressio sensibilis, abeunte re sensibili, sicut contingit in omnibus animalibus perfectis. In quibusdam autem hoc non contingit, sicut in quibusdam animalibus imperfectis, sicut patet in his quae non moventur motu progressivo. Et forte contingit quod circa aliqua animalia remanet aliqua impressio quantum ad aliqua sensibilia, quae sunt vehementiora, non autem quantum ad alia, quae sunt debiliora. In quibuscunque igitur animalibus omnino nulla impressio remanet sensibilium, huiusmodi animalia nullam cognitionem habent, nisi dum sentiunt. Et similiter animalia in quibus nata est remanere talis impressio, si circa aliqua sensibilia in eis non remaneat, non possunt habere aliquam cognitionem nisi dum sentiunt. Sed animalia in quibus inest huiusmodi remansio impressionis, contingit adhuc habere quamdam cognitionem in anima praeter sensum; et ista sunt quae habent memoriam.	Then (99b36) he mentions the second grade, saying that although sense is found in all animals, in some of them a sensible impression remains after the sense-object is removed, as happens in all the perfect animals. But in certain others this does not occur, as in certain imperfect animals; say in those which are not capable of progressive local movement. And it might perhaps be that in regard to some animals an impression remains in regard to certain sense-objects which are more vigorous, and not in regard to those which are weaker. Therefore, those animals in which no impression of sensible objects remains at all have no knowledge except when they are sensing. Similarly, in regard to animals in which such an impression is apt to remain, if it does not remain in them in the case of certain sensible objects, they cannot have any knowledge of them except while they are sensing. But animals, in which a trace of such an impression remains, are capable of having some knowledge in the mind beyond sense; and these are the animals which have memory.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 10 Tertium gradum ponit ibi: multis igitur factis etc.; et dicit quod cum multa sint talia animalia habentia memoriam, inter ea ulterius est quaedam differentia. Nam in quibusdam eorum fit ratiocinatio de his quae remanent in memoria, sicut in hominibus; in quibusdam autem non, sicut in brutis.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit: ex sensu quidem igitur etc., ostendit secundum praedicta quomodo in nobis fiat cognitio primorum principiorum, et concludit ex praemissis quod ex sensu fit memoria in illis animalibus, in quibus remanet impressio sensibilis, sicut supra dictum est. Ex memoria autem multoties facta circa eamdem rem, in diversis tamen singularibus, fit experimentum; quia experimentum nihil aliud esse videtur quam accipere aliquid ex multis in memoria retentis. Sed tamen experimentum indiget aliqua ratiocinatione circa particularia, per quam confertur unum ad aliud, quod est proprium rationis. Puta cum aliquis recordatur quod talis herba multoties sanavit multos a febre, dicitur esse experimentum quod talis sit sanativa febris.	Then (100a1) he shows, in view of the foregoing, how the knowledge of first principles comes about in us; and he concludes from the foregoing that from sensing comes remembrance in those animals in which a sensible impression remains, as has been stated above. But from remembrance many times repeated in regard to the same item but in diverse singulars arises experience, because experience seems to be nothing else than to take something from many things retained in the memory. However, experience requires some reasoning about the particulars, in that one is compared to another: and this is peculiar to reason. Thus, when one recalls that such a herb cured several men of fever, there is said to be experience that such a herb cures fevers.
Ratio autem non sistit in experimento particularium, sed ex multis particularibus in quibus expertus est, accipit unum commune, quod firmatur in anima, et considerat illud absque consideratione alicuius singularium; et hoc commune accipit ut principium artis et scientiae. Puta quamdiu medicus consideravit hanc herbam sanasse Socratem febrientem, et Platonem, et multos alios singulares homines, est experimentum; cum autem sua consideratio ad hoc ascendit quod talis species herbae sanat febrientem simpliciter, hoc accipitur ut quaedam regula artis medicinae.	But reason does not stop at the experience gathered from particulars, but from many particulars in which it has been experienced, it takes one common item which is consolidated in the mind and considers it without considering any of the singulars. This common item reason takes as a principle of art and science. For example, as long as a doctor considered that this herb cured Socrates of fever, and Plato and many other individual men, it is experience; but when his considerations arise to the fact that such a species of herb heals a fever absolutely, this is taken as a rule of the art of medicine.
Hoc est ergo quod dicit, quod sicut ex memoria fit experimentum, ita etiam ex experimento, aut etiam ulterius ex universali quiescente in anima (quod scilicet accipitur ac si in omnibus ita sit, sicut est experimentum in quibusdam. Quod quidem universale dicitur esse quiescens in anima; in quantum scilicet consideratur praeter singularia, in quibus est motus. Quod etiam dicit esse unum praeter multa, non quidem secundum esse, sed secundum considerationem intellectus, qui considerat naturam aliquam, puta hominis, non respiciendo ad Socratem et Platonem. Quod etsi secundum considerationem intellectus sit unum praeter multa, tamen secundum esse est in omnibus singularibus unum et idem, non quidem numero, quasi sit eadem humanitas numero omnium hominum, sed secundum rationem speciei. Sicut enim hoc album est simile illi albo in albedine, non quasi una numero albedine existente in utroque, ita etiam Socrates est similis Platoni in humanitate, non quasi una humanitate numero in utroque existente) ex hoc igitur experimento, et ex tali universali per experimentum accepto, est in anima id quod est principium artis et scientiae.	This, then, is what he means when he says that just as from memory is formed experience, so from experience or even from the universal resting in the mind (which, namely, is taken as if it is so in all cases, just as experience is taken as being so in certain cases.—This universal is said to be resting in the mind, inasmuch as it is considered outside the singulars, which undergo change. Furthermore, he says that it is one outside the many, not according to an autonomous existence but according to the consideration of the intellect which considers a nature, say of man, without referring to Socrates and Plato. But even though it is one outside the many according to the intellect’s consideration, nevertheless in the sphere of existents it exists in all singulars one and the same: not numerically, however, as though the humanity of all men were numerically one, but according to the notion of the species. For just as this white is similar to that white in whiteness, not as though there were one numerical whiteness existing in the two, so too Socrates is similar to Plato in humanity, but not as though there were numerically one humanity existing in the two.—) the principle of art and science is formed in the mind.
Et distinguit inter artem et scientiam, sicut etiam in VI Ethic., ubi dicitur quod ars est recta ratio factibilium. Et ideo hic dicit quod si ex experimento accipiatur aliquod universale circa generationem, idest circa quaecunque factibilia, puta circa sanationem vel agriculturam, hoc pertinet ad artem. Scientia vero, ut ibidem dicitur, est circa necessaria; et ideo si universale consideretur circa ea quae semper eodem modo sunt, pertinet ad scientiam, puta circa numeros vel figuras. Et iste modus qui dictus est, competit in principiis omnium scientiarum et artium. Unde concludit quod neque praeexistunt in nobis habitus principiorum, quasi determinati et completi; neque etiam fiunt de novo ab aliquibus notioribus habitibus praeexistentibus, sicut generatur in nobis habitus scientiae ex praecognitione principiorum; sed habitus principiorum fiunt in nobis a sensu praeexistente.	And he distinguishes between art and science, just as he did in Ethics VI, where it is stated that art is right reason in regard to things to be made. And so he says here that if from experience a universal in regard, to generation is taken, i.e., in regard to anything that can be made, say in regard to healing or husbandry, this pertains to art. Science, however, as it is stated in the same place, is concerned with necessary things; hence if the universal bears on things which are always in the same way, it pertains to science; for example, if it bears on numbers or figures. And this process which has been described is verified in regard to the principle of all sciences and arts. Hence he concludes that there do not pre-exist, any habits of principles in the sense of being determinate and complete, neither do they come to exist anew from other better known pre-existing principles in the way that a scientific habit is generated in us from previously known principles; rather the habits of principles come to exist in us from pre-existing sense.
Et ponit exemplum in pugnis quae fiunt per reversionem exercitus devicti et fugati. Cum enim unus eorum perfecerit statum, idest immobiliter ceperit stare et non fugere, alter stat adiungens se ei, et postea alter, quousque tot congregentur quod faciant principium pugnae. Sic etiam ex sensu et memoria unius particularis, et iterum alterius et alterius, quandoque pervenitur ad id quod est principium artis et scientiae, ut dictum est.	And he gives as an example a battle which starts after the soldiers have been beaten and put to flight. For when one of the soldiers shall have, taken a stand, i.e., begun to take a battle position and not flee, another takes his stand next to him, and then another, until enough are gathered to form the beginning of a battle. So, too, from the sense and memory of one particular and then of another and another, something is finally reached which is the principle of art and science, as has been stated.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 12 Posset autem aliquis credere quod solus sensus, vel memoria singularium sufficiat ad causandum intelligibilem cognitionem principiorum, sicut posuerunt quidam antiqui, non discernentes inter sensum et intellectum; et ideo ad hoc excludendum philosophus subdit quod simul cum sensu oportet praesupponere talem naturam animae, quae possit pati hoc, idest quae sit susceptiva cognitionis universalis, quod quidem fit per intellectum possibilem; et iterum quae possit agere hoc secundum intellectum agentem, qui facit intelligibilia in actu per abstractionem universalium a singularibus.	But someone could believe that sense alone or the mere remembrance of singulars is sufficient to cause intellectual knowledge of principles, as some of the ancients supposed, who did not discriminate between sense and intellect. Therefore, to exclude this the Philosopher adds that along with sense it is necessary to presuppose such a nature of mind as cannot only suffer this (i.e., be susceptible of universal knowledge, which indeed comes to pass in virtue of the possible intellect) but can also cause this in virtue of the agent intellect which makes things intelligible in act by abstraction of universals from singulars.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit: quod autem dictum est etc., manifestat quod dictum est in praecedenti solutione, quantum ad hoc quod ex experimento singularium accipitur universale; et dicit quod illud quod supra dictum est, et non plane, quomodo scilicet ex experimento singularium fiat universale in anima, iterum oportet dicere, ut planius manifestetur. Si enim accipiantur multa singularia, quae sunt indifferentia quantum ad aliquid unum in eis existens, illud unum secundum quod non differunt, in anima acceptum, est primum universale, quidquid sit illud, sive scilicet pertineat ad essentiam singularium, sive non. Quia enim invenimus Socratem et Platonem et multos alios esse indifferentes quantum ad albedinem, accipimus hoc unum, scilicet album, quasi universale quod est accidens. Et similiter quia invenimus Socratem et Platonem et alios esse indifferentes quantum ad rationalitatem, hoc unum in quo non differunt, scilicet rationale, accipimus quasi universale quod est differentia.	Then (100a4) he elucidates something asserted in the preceding solution, namely, that the universal is taken from experience bearing on singulars. And he says that what was stated above, albeit not clearly—namely, how from the experience of singulars the universal is formed in the mind—must now be discussed again and explained more clearly. For if many singulars are taken which are without differences as to some one item existing in them, that one item according to which they are not different, once it is received in the mind, is the first universal, no matter what it may be, i.e., whether it pertains to the essence of the singulars or not. For since we find that Socrates and Plato and many others are without difference as to whiteness, we take this one item, namely, white, as a universal which is an accident. Similarly, because we find that Socrates and Plato and the others are not different as to rationality, this one item in which they do not differ, namely, rational, we take as a universal which is an essential difference.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 14 Qualiter autem hoc unum accipi possit, manifestat consequenter. Manifestum est enim quod singulare sentitur proprie et per se, sed tamen sensus est quodammodo etiam ipsius universalis. Cognoscit enim Calliam non solum in quantum est Callias, sed etiam in quantum est hic homo, et similiter Socratem in quantum est hic homo. Et exinde est quod tali acceptione sensus praeexistente, anima intellectiva potest considerare hominem in utroque. Si autem ita esset quod sensus apprehenderet solum id quod est particularitatis, et nullo modo cum hoc apprehenderet universalem naturam in particulari, non esset possibile quod ex apprehensione sensus causaretur in nobis cognitio universalis.	But how this one item can be taken he now explains. For it is clear that sensing is properly and per se of the singular, but yet there is some how even a sensing of the universal. For sense knows Callias not only so far forth as he is Callias, but also as he is this man; and similarly Socrates, as he is this man. As a result of such an attainment pre-existing in the sense, the intellective soul can consider man in both. But if it were in the very nature of things that sense could apprehend only that which pertains to particularity, and along with this could in no wise apprehend the nature in the particular, it would not be possible for universal knowledge to be caused in us from sense-apprehension.
Et hoc idem manifestat consequenter in processu qui est a speciebus ad genus. Unde subdit quod iterum in his, scilicet in homine et equo, anima stat per considerationem quousque perveniatur ad aliquid impartibile in eis, quod est universale. Ut puta consideramus tale animal et tale, puta hominem et equum, quousque perveniamus ad commune animal, quod est genus; et in hoc similiter facimus quousque perveniamus ad aliquod genus superius. Quia igitur universalium cognitionem accipimus ex singularibus, concludit manifestum esse quod necesse est prima universalia principia cognoscere per inductionem. Sic enim, scilicet per viam inductionis, sensus facit universale intus in anima, in quantum considerantur omnia singularia.	Then he manifests this same point in the process which goes from species to genus. Hence he adds: “Again in these,” namely, in man and horse, “the mind lingers in its consideration, until it attains to some thing indivisible in them, which is universal.” For example, we consider such an animal and another one, say a man and a horse, until we arrive at the common item, “animal,” which is universal; and in this genus we do the same until we arrive at some higher genus. Therefore, since we take a knowledge of universals from singulars, he concludes that it is obviously necessary to acquire the first universal principles by induction. For that is the way, i.e., by way of induction, that the sense introduces the universal into the mind, inasmuch as all the singulars are considered.
lib. 2 l. 20 n. 15 Deinde cum dicit: quoniam autem eorum etc., solvit primas duas quaestiones, utrum scilicet primorum principiorum sit scientia, vel aliquis alius habitus. Circa quod ex praemissis accipit quod cognitio principiorum pertinet ad intellectum, cuius est cognoscere universale: nam universale dicit esse principium scientiae. Circa intellectum autem sunt duo genera habituum habentium se aliqualiter ad verum. Quidam enim sunt semper veri, alii vero interdum recipiunt falsitatem, ut patet de opinione et ratiocinatione, quae potest esse et veri et falsi. Sunt etiam et quidam habitus erronei, se habentes ad falsum. Quia vero principia sunt maxime vera, manifestum est quod non pertinent ad habitus qui semper sunt falsi, neque etiam ad habitus qui interdum recipiunt falsitatem, sed solum ad habitus qui sunt semper veri. Huiusmodi autem sunt scientia et intellectus. Additur autem in VI Ethic. tertium, scilicet sapientia: sed quia sapientia, ut ibidem dicitur, comprehendit in se scientiam et intellectum (est enim quaedam scientia et caput scientiarum), hic eam praetermittit. Hac ergo praetermissa, nullum aliud genus cognitionis quam intellectus, est certius scientia.	Then (1005) he solves the first two question, namely, whether the knowledge of first principles is science, or some other habit. In regard 1 to this he accepts, from what has been stated above, that the knowledge... of principles pertains to the intellect whose function is to know the universal: for he says that the universal is a principle of science. But in regard to the intellect there are two genera of habits, and these are not related to the true in exactly the same way. For some are always true, whereas others sometimes receive what is false, as in opinion and in those cases of reasoning which can be of the true and of the false. Again, there are certain erroneous habits, namely, which bear on the false. But because principles are most true, it is clear that they do not pertain to habits which are always of the false, or even to habits which now and then receive falsity, but only to habits which are always of the true. But these are science and understanding [i.e., intuition]. (In Ethics VI a third one is added, namely, wisdom: but because wisdom, as it is stated there, comprehends within itself both science and understanding—since it is a science and the chief of the sciences—he omits it here). Therefore, leaving this one aside, no other genus of knowledge but understanding is more certain than science.
Manifestum est autem quod principia demonstrationum sunt notiora conclusionibus demonstratis, ut in primo habitum est. Non autem potest esse scientia ipsorum principiorum, quia omnis scientia fit ex aliqua ratiocinatione, scilicet demonstrativa, cuius sunt principia illa de quibus loquimur. Quia igitur nihil potest esse verius quam scientia et intellectus (nam sapientia in his intelligitur), consequens est ex consideratione praemissorum quod principiorum proprie sit intellectus.	Now it is plain that the principles of demonstrations are better known than the demonstrated conclusions, as was established in Book I. Moreover, it cannot be through science that we have those principles, because science is the result of reasoning, namely, demonstrative, whose principles are the very things about which we are speaking. Therefore, because nothing can be truer than science and understanding (for wisdom is included in them), what follows from our consideration of the foregoing is that, properly speaking, the knowledge of principles is understanding.
Probat hoc etiam alia ratione, quia scilicet demonstratio non est ex necessitate demonstrationis principium; alioquin procederetur in demonstrationibus in infinitum, quod in primo improbatum est. Cum igitur demonstratio scientiam causet, sequitur quod neque scientia possit esse principium scientiae, ita scilicet quod principia scientiarum per scientiam cognoscantur. Si igitur nullum aliud genus cognitionis praeter scientiam habemus quod semper sit verum, relinquitur quod intellectus erit principium scientiae, quia scilicet per intellectum cognoscuntur principia scientiarum; ita scilicet quod hic intellectus, qui est principium scientiae, est cognoscitivus principii, ex quo procedit scientia. Hoc autem, scilicet scientia, est omne, idest totum, quod similiter se habet ad omnem rem, idest ad totam materiam de qua est scientia, sicut scilicet intellectus ad principium scientiae.	He also proves this with another reason, namely, because a demonstration is not”of necessity a principle of a demonstration; otherwise there would be an infinite process in demonstrations, and this was disproved in Book I. Since, therefore, demonstration causes science, it follows that science cannot be the principle of science, as though the principles of the sciences were made known through science. Therefore, if we have no other type of knowledge except science which is always true, it follows that understanding will be the principle of science, namely, because the principles of the sciences are made known through understanding, so far forth, namely, that this understanding which is the principle of science is cognoscitive of the principles from which science proceeds. But this, namely, science, is all, i.e., a whole, which is related to every thing (i.e., to the entire matter with which science is concerned) in the way that understanding is related to the principles of science.