Aristotle, Metaphysics, Hugh Tredennick (Translator), 11

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

1059a 18 That wisdom is a science of first principles is clear from our Introductory remarks,¹ in which we of raised objections to the statements of other thinkers about the first principles. 20 It might be asked, however, whether we should regard Wisdom as one science or as more than one.² If as one, it may be objected that the objects of one science are always contraries; but the first principles are not contraries. And if it is not one, what sort of sciences are we to suppose them to be?

Again, is it the province of one science, or of more than one, to study the principles of demonstration?³ If of one, why of it rather than of any other? And if of more than one, of what sort are we to suppose them to be?

Again, are we to suppose that Wisdom deals with all substances or not?⁴ If not with all, it is hard to lay down with what kind it does deal; while if there is one science of them all, it is not clear how the same science can deal with more than one subject.

Again, is this science concerned only with substances, or with attributes as well?⁵ For if it is a demonstration of attributes, it is not concerned with substances; and if there is a separate science of each, what is each of these sciences, and which of them is Wisdom? qua demonstrative, the science of attributes appears to be Wisdom; but qua concerned with that which is primary, the science of substances.

Nor must we suppose that the science which we are seeking is concerned with the causes described in the Physics.⁶ It is not concerned with the final cause; for this is the Good, and this belongs to the sphere of action and to things which are in motion; and it is this which first causes motion (for the end is of this nature); but there is no Prime Mover in the sphere of immovable things.

And in general it is a difficult question whether the science which we are now seeking is concerned with sensible substances, 1059b 1 or not with sensible substances, but with some other kind.⁷ If with another kind, it must be concerned either with the Forms or with mathematical objects. Now clearly the Forms do not exist. (But nevertheless, even if we posit them, it is a difficult question as to why the same rule does not apply to the other things of which there are Forms as applies to the objects of mathematics.

I mean that they posit the objects of mathematics as intermediate between the Forms and sensible things, as a third class besides the Forms and the things of our world; but there is no third man⁸ or horse besides the Ideal one and the particulars. If on the other hand it is not as they make out, what sort of objects are we to suppose to be the concern of the mathematician? Not surely the things of our world; for none of these is of the kind which the mathematical sciences investigate.)

Nor indeed is the science which we are now seeking concerned with the objects of mathematics; for none of them can exist separately. But it does not deal with sensible substances either; for they are perishable.

In general the question might be raised, to what science it pertains to discuss the problems concerned with the matter⁹ of mathematical objects.

It is not the province of physics, because the whole business of the physicist is with things which contain in themselves a principle of motion and rest; nor yet of the science which inquires into demonstration and

scientific knowledge, 20 for it is simply this sort of thing which forms the subject of its inquiry. It remains, therefore, that it is the science which we have set ourselves to find that treats of these subjects.

One might consider the question whether we should regard the science which we are now seeking as dealing with the principles which by some are called elements.¹⁰ But everyone assumes that these are present in composite things; and it would seem rather that the science which we are seeking must be concerned with universals, since every formula and every science is of universals and not of ultimate species; so that in this case it must deal with the primary genera.

These would be Being and Unity; for these, if any, might best be supposed to embrace all existing things, and to be most of the nature of first principles, because they are by nature primary; for if they are destroyed, everything else is destroyed with them, since everything exists and is one.

But inasmuch as, if Being and Unity are to be regarded as genera, they must be predicable of their differentiae, whereas no genus is predicable of any of its differentiae, from this point of view it would seem that they should be regarded neither as genera nor as principles.

Further, since the more simple is more nearly a principle than the less simple, and the ultimate subdivisions of the genus are more simple than the genera (because they are indivisible), and the genera are divided into a number of different species, it would seem that species are more nearly a principle than genera.

On the other hand, inasmuch as species are destroyed together with their genera, it seems more likely that the genera are principles; 1060a 1 because that which involves the destruction of something else is a principle. These and other similar points are those which cause us perplexity.

Again, ought we to assume the existence of something else besides particular things, or are they the objects of the science which we are seeking?¹¹ It is true that they are infinite in number; but then the things which exist besides particulars are genera or species, and neither of these is the object of the science which we are now seeking. We have explained¹² why this is impossible.

Indeed, in general it is a difficult question whether we should suppose that there is some substance which exists separately besides sensible substances (i.e. the substances of our world), or that the latter constitute reality, and that it is with them that Wisdom is concerned. It seems that we are looking for some other kind of substance, and that this is the object of our undertaking: I mean, to see whether there is anything which exists separately and independently, and does not appertain to any sensible thing.

But again, if there is another kind of substance besides sensible substances, to what kind of sensible things are we to suppose that it corresponds? Why should we suppose that it corresponds to men or horses rather than to other animals, or even to inanimate objects in general? And yet to manufacture a set of eternal substances equal in number to those which are sensible and perishable would seem to fall outside the bounds of plausibility.

Yet if the principle which we are now seeking does not exist in separation from bodies, 20 what can we suppose it to be if not matter? Yes, but matter does not exist actually, but only potentially. It might seem rather that a more appropriate principle would be form or shape; but this is perishable¹³; and so in general there is no eternal substance which exists separately and independently.

But this is absurd, because it seems natural that there should be a substance and principle of this kind, and it is sought for as existing by nearly all the most enlightened thinkers. For how can there be any order in the universe if there is not something eternal and separate and permanent?

Again, if there is a substance and principle of such a nature as that which we are now seeking, and if it is one for all things, i.e. the same for both eternal and perishable things, it is a difficult question as to why, when the principle is the same, some of the things which come under that principle are eternal, and others not; for this is paradoxical.¹⁴

But if there is one principle of perishable things, and another of eternal things, if the principle of perishable things is also eternal, we shall still have the same difficulty; because if the principle is eternal, why are not the things which come under that principle eternal? And if it is perishable, it must have another principle behind it, and that principle must have another behind it; and the process will go on to infinity.

On the other hand, if we posit the principles which seem most unchangeable, Being and Unity,¹⁵(a) unless each of them denotes a particular thing and a substance, 1060b 1 how can they be separate and independent? but the eternal and primary principles for which we are looking are of this nature.

(b) If, however, each of them denotes a particular thing and a substance, then all existing things are substances; for Being is predicated of everything, and Unity also of some things.

But that all things are substances is false. (c) As for those who maintain that Unity is the first principle and a substance, and who generate number from Unity and matter as their first product, and assert that it is a substance, how can their theory be true? How are we to conceive of 2 and each of the other numbers thus composed, as one? On this point they give no explanation; nor is it easy to give one.

But if we posit lines or the things derived from them (I mean surfaces in the primary sense¹⁶) as principles,¹⁷ these at least are not separately existing substances, but sections and divisions, the former of surfaces and the latter of bodies (and points are sections and divisions of lines); and further they are limits of these same things. All these things are integral parts of something else, and not one of them exists separately.

Further, how are we to suppose that there is a substance of unity or a point? for in the case of every substance¹⁸ there is a process of

generation, but in the case of the point there is not; for the point is a division.

20 It is a perplexing fact also that whereas every science treats of universals and types, substance is not a universal thing, but rather a particular and separable thing; so that if there is a science that deals with first principles, how can we suppose that substance is a first principle?¹⁹

Again, is there anything besides the concrete whole (I mean the matter and the form in combination) or not?²⁰ If not, all things in the nature of matter are perishable; but if there is something, it must be the form or shape. It is hard to determine in what cases this is possible and in what it is not; for in some cases, e.g. that of a house, the form clearly does not exist in separation.

Again, are the first principles formally or numerically the same?²¹ If they are numerically one, all things will be the same.

Since the science of the philosopher is concerned with Being qua Being universally,²² and not with some part of it, and since the term Being has several meanings and is not used only in one sense, if it is merely equivocal and has no common significance it cannot fall under one science (for there is no one class in things of this kind); but if it has a common significance it must fall under one science.

Now it would seem that it is used in the sense which we have described, like medical and healthy, for we use each of these terms in several senses; 1061a 1 and each is used in this way because it has a reference, one to the science of medicine, and another to health, and another to something else; but each refers always to the same concept. A diagnosis and a scalpel are both called medical, because the one proceeds from medical science and the other is useful to it.

The same is true of healthy; one thing is so called because it is indicative, and another because it is productive, of health; and the same applies to all other cases. Now it is in this same way that everything which exists is said to be ; each thing is said to be because it is a modification or permanent or temporary state or motion or some other such affection of Being qua Being.

And since everything that is can be referred to some one common concept, each of the contrarieties too can be referred to the primary differentiae and contrarieties of Being—whether the primary differentiae of Being are plurality and unity, or similarity and dissimilarity, or something else; for we may take them as already discussed.²³

It makes no difference whether that which is is referred to Being or Unity; for even if they are not the same but different, they are in any case convertible, since that which is one also in a sense is , and that which is is one.

Now since the study of contraries pertains to one and the same science, 20 and each contrary is so called in virtue of privation (although indeed one might wonder in what sense they can be called contraries in virtue of privation when they admit of a middle term—e.g. unjust and just), in all such cases we must regard the privation as being not of the whole definition but of the ultimate species. E.g., if the just man is one who is obedient to the laws in virtue of some volitional state, the unjust man will not be entirely deprived of the whole definition, but will be one who is in some respect deficient in obedience to the laws; and it is in this respect that the privation of justice will apply to him (and the same holds good in all other cases).

And just as the mathematician makes a study of abstractions (for in his investigations he first abstracts everything that is sensible, such as weight and lightness, hardness and its contrary, and also heat and cold and all other sensible contrarieties, leaving only quantity and continuity—sometimes in one, sometimes in two and sometimes in three dimensions—and their affections qua quantitative and continuous, and does not study them with respect to any other thing; and in some cases investigates the relative positions of things and the properties of these, 1061b 1 and in others their commensurability or incommensurability, and in others their ratios; yet nevertheless we hold that there is one and the same science of all these things, viz. geometry), so it is the same with regard to Being.

For the study of its attributes in so far as it is Being, and of its contrarieties²⁴ qua Being, belongs to no other science than Philosophy; for to physics one would assign the study of things not qua Being but qua participating in motion, while dialectics and sophistry deal with the attributes of existing things, but not of things qua Being, nor do they treat of Being itself in so far as it is Being.

Therefore it remains that the philosopher is the man who studies the things which we have described, in so far as they are Being. And since everything that is , although the term has several meanings, is so described in virtue of some one common concept, and the same is true of the contraries (since they can be referred to the primary contrarieties and differences of Being), and since things of this kind can fall under one science, the difficulty which we stated at the beginning²⁵ may be regarded as solved²⁶—I mean the problem as to how there can be one science of several things which are different in genus.

Since even the mathematician uses the common axioms only in a particular application, it will be the province of Primary Philosophy to study the principles of these as well.²⁷

20 That when equals are taken from equals the remainders are equal is an axiom common to all quantities; but mathematics isolates a particular part of its proper subject matter and studies it separately; e.g. lines or angles or numbers or some other kind of quantity, but not qua Being, but only in so far as each of them is continuous in one, two or three dimensions. But philosophy does not investigate particular things in so far as each of them has some definite attribute, but studies that which is , in so far as each particular thing is .

The same applies to the science of physics as to mathematics, for physics studies the attributes and first principles of things qua in motion, and not qua Being; but Primary Science, as we have said, deals with these things only in so far as the subjects which underlie them are existent, and not in respect of anything else. Hence we should regard both physics and mathematics as subdivisions of Wisdom.

There is a principle in existing things about which we cannot make a mistake²⁸; of which, on the contrary, we must always realize the truth—viz. that the same thing cannot at one and the same time be and not be, 1062a 1 nor admit of any other similar pair of opposites. Of such axioms although there is a proof ad hominem, there is no absolute proof;

because there is no principle more convincing than the axiom itself on which to base an argument, whereas there must be such a principle if there is to be absolute proof.

But he who wants to convince an opponent who makes opposite statements that he is wrong must obtain from him an admission which shall be identical with the proposition that the same thing cannot at one and the same time be and not be, but shall seem not to be identical with it. This is the only method of proof which can be used against one who maintains that opposite statements can be truly made about the same subject.

Now those who intend to join in discussion must understand one another to some extent; for without this how can there be any common discussion between them? Therefore each of the terms which they use must be intelligible and signify something; not several things, but one only; or if it signifies more than one thing, it must be made clear to which of these the term is applied.

Now he who says that A is and is not denies what he asserts, and therefore denies that the term signifies what it does signify. But this is impossible. Therefore if to be so-and-so has a definite meaning, the opposite statement about the same subject cannot be true.

20 Again, if the term has a definite significance and this is truly stated, it must of necessity be so.²⁹ But that which of necessity is can never not be. Hence opposite statements about the same subject cannot be true.

Again, if the assertion is no more true than the negation, it will be no more true to say A is man than to say A is not man.³⁰

But it would also be admitted that it is more or at least not less true to say that a man is not a horse than to say that he is not a man; and therefore, since it was assumed that opposite statements are equally true, it will be true to say that the same person is also a horse. It follows therefore, that the same person is a man and a horse, or any other animal.

Thus, although there is no absolute proof of these axioms, there is an ad hominem proof where one’s opponent makes these assumptions.³¹ Perhaps even Heraclitus himself, if he had been questioned on these lines, would have been compelled to admit that opposite statements can never be true of the same subjects; as it is, he adopted this theory through ignorance of what his doctrine implied.

In general,³² if what he says is true, not even this statement itself 1062b 1 (I mean that the same thing can at one and the same time be and not be) will be true;

because just as, when they are separated, the affirmation is no more true than the negation, so in the same way, if the complex statement is taken as a single affirmation, the negation will be just as true as the whole statement regarded as an affirmation.

And further, if nothing can be truly affirmed, then this very statement—that there is no such thing as a true affirmation—will be false. But if there is such a thing, the contentions of those who raise objections of this kind and utterly destroy rational discourse may be considered to be refuted.³³

Very similar to the views which we have just mentioned is the dictum of Protagoras³⁴; for he said that man is the measure of all things, by which he meant simply that each individual’s impressions are positively true.

But if this is so, it follows that the same thing is and is not, and is bad and good, and that all the other implications of opposite statements are true; because often a given thing seems beautiful to one set of people and ugly to another, and that which seems to each individual is the measure.

20 This difficulty will be solved if we consider the origin of the assumption. It seems probable that it arose in some cases from the doctrine of the natural philosophers, and in others from the fact that everyone does not form the same opinion about the same things, but to some a given thing seems sweet and to others the contrary.

For that nothing comes from what is not, but everything from what is, is a doctrine common to nearly all natural philosophers.³⁵ Since, then, a thing does not become white which was before completely white and in no respect not-white, that which becomes white must come from what was not-white. Hence according to this theory there would be generation from what is not, unless the same thing were originally white and not-white.

However, it is not hard to solve this difficulty. We have explained in the Physics³⁶ in what sense things which are generated are generated from what is not, and in what sense from what is.

But to attach equal importance to the opinions and impressions of opposing parties is foolish, because clearly one side or the other must be wrong.³⁷

This is evident from what happens in the sphere of sensation; 1063a 1 for the same thing never seems to some people sweet and to others to the contrary unless one of the parties has the organ of sense which distinguishes the said flavors injured or impaired. Such being the case, the one party should be taken as the measure, and the other not.

And I hold the same in the case of good and bad, and of beautiful and ugly, and of all other such qualities. For to maintain this view³⁸ is just the same as to maintain that what appears to us when we press the finger below the eye and make a thing seem two instead of one must be two because it appears to be so, and then afterwards that it must be one; because if we do not interfere with our sight that which is one appears to be one.

And in general it is absurd to form our opinion of the truth from the appearances of things in this world of ours which are subject to change and never remain in the same state³⁹; for it is by reference to those things which are always the same state and undergo no change that we should prosecute our search for truth.

Of this kind are the heavenly bodies; for these do not appear to be now of one nature and subsequently of another, but are manifestly always the same and have no change of any kind.

Again, if there is motion there is also something which is moved; and everything is moved from something and into something. Therefore that which is moved must be in that from which it is to be moved, 20 and must also not be in it; and must be moved into so-and-so and must also come to be in it; but the contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time, as our opponents allege.

And if the things of our world are in a state of continuous flux and motion in respect of quantity, and we assume this although it is not true, why should they not be constant in respect of quality?⁴⁰ It appears that not the least reason why our opponents predicate opposite statements of the same thing is that they start with the assumption that quantity is not constant in the case of bodies; hence they say that the same thing is and is not six feet long.

But essence depends upon quality, and this is of a determinate, whereas quantity is of an indeterminate nature.

Again, when the doctor orders them to adopt some article of diet, why do they adopt it?⁴¹ For on their view it is no more true that a thing is bread than that it is not; and therefore it would make no difference whether they ate it or not. But as it is, they adopt a particular food as though they knew the truth about it and it were the food prescribed;

yet they ought not to do so if there were no fixed and permanent nature in sensible things and everything were always in a state of motion and flux.

Again, if we are always changing and never remain the same, is it any wonder that to us, as to the diseased, things never appear the same?⁴²

1063b 1 For to the diseased, since they are not in the same physical condition as when they were well, sensible qualities do not appear to be the same; although this does not mean that the sensible things themselves partake of any change, but that they cause different, and not the same, sensations in the diseased. Doubtless the same must be true if the change which we have referred to takes place in us.

If, however, we do not change but remain always the same, there must be something permanent.

As for those who raise the aforesaid difficulties on dialectical grounds,⁴³ it is not easy to find a solution which will convince them unless they grant some assumption for which they no longer require an explanation; for every argument and proof is possible only in this way. If they grant no assumption, they destroy discussion and reasoning in general.

Thus there is no arguing with people of this kind; but in the case of those who are perplexed by the traditional difficulties it is easy to meet and refute the causes of their perplexity. This is evident from what has been already said.

Thus from these considerations it is obvious that opposite statements cannot be true of the same thing at one time; nor can contrary statements, since every contrariety involves privation. This is clear if we reduce the formulae of contraries to their first principles.⁴⁴

Similarly no middle term can be predicated of one and the same thing 20 of which one of the contraries is predicated.⁴⁵

If, when the subject is white, we say that it is neither white nor black, we shall be in error; for it follows that it is and is not white, because the first of the two terms in the complex statement will be true of the subject, and this is the contradictory of white.

Thus we cannot be right in holding the views either of Heraclitus⁴⁶ or of Anaxagoras.⁴⁷

If we could, it would follow that contraries are predicable of the same subject; for when he⁴⁸ says that in everything there is a part of everything, he means that nothing is sweet any more than it is bitter, and similarly with any of the other pairs of contraries; that is, if everything is present in everything not merely potentially but actually and in differentiation.

Similarly all statements cannot be false, nor all true. Among many other difficulties which might be adduced as involved by this supposition there is the objection that if all statements were false, not even this proposition itself would be true; while if they were all true it would not be false to say that they are all false.

Every science inquires for certain principles and causes with respect to every knowable thing which comes within its scope⁴⁹; 1064a 1 e.g., the sciences of medicine and physical culture do this, and so does each of the other productive and mathematical sciences. Each one of these marks out for itself some class of objects, and concerns itself with this as with something existent and real, but not qua real; it is another science distinct from these which does this.

Each of the said sciences arrives in some way at the essence in a particular class of things, and then tries to prove the rest more or less exactly. Some arrive at the essence through sense-perception, and some by hypothesis; hence it is obvious from such a process of induction that there is no demonstration of the reality or essence.

Now since there is a science of nature, clearly it must be different from both practical and productive science. In a productive science the source of motion is in the producer and not in the thing produced, and is either an art or some other kind of potency; and similarly in a practical science the motion is not in the thing acted upon but rather in the agent.

But the science of the natural philosopher is concerned with things which contain in themselves a source of motion. From this it is clear that natural science must be neither practical nor productive, but speculative; since it must fall under one of these classes.

And since every science must have some knowledge of the essence 20 and must use it as a starting-point, we must be careful to observe how the natural philosopher should define, and how he should regard the formula of essence—whether in the same way as the term snub, or rather as the term concave.

For of these the formula of snub is stated in conjunction with the matter of the object, whereas that of concave is stated apart from the matter; since snubness is only found in the nose, which is therefore included in the formula, for the snub is a concave nose . Thus it is obvious that the formula of flesh and eye and the other parts of the body must always be stated in conjunction with their matter.

Since there is a science of Being qua Being and separately existent, we must inquire whether this should be regarded as identical with natural science or rather as a distinct branch of knowledge. Physics deals with things which contain a source of motion in themselves, and mathematics is speculative and is a science which deals with permanent things, but not with things which can exist separately.

Hence there is a science distinct from both of these, which deals with that which exists separately and is immovable; that is, if there really is a substance of this kind—I mean separately existent and immovable—as we shall endeavor to prove.⁵⁰ And if there is an entity of this kind in the world of reality, here surely must be the Divine, and this must be the first and most fundamental principle.

1064b 1 Evidently, then, there are three kinds of speculative science: physics, mathematics, and theology. The highest class of science is the speculative, and of the speculative sciences themselves the highest is the last named, because it deals with the most important side of reality; and each science is reckoned higher or lower in accordance with the object of its study.

The question might be raised as to whether the science of Being qua Being should be regarded as universal or not.

Each of the mathematical sciences deals with some one class of things which is determinate, but universal mathematics is common to all alike. If, then, natural substances are the first of existing things, physics will be the first of the sciences; but if there is some other nature and substance which exists separately and is immovable, then the science which treats of it must be different from and prior to physics, and universal because of its priority.

Since the term Being in its unqualified sense is used with several meanings, of which one is accidental Being, we must first consider Being in this sense.⁵¹ Clearly none of the traditional sciences concerns itself with the accidental; the science of building does not consider what will happen to the occupants of the house, 20 e.g. whether they will find it unpleasant or the contrary to live in; nor does the science of weaving or of shoemaking or of confectionery.

Each of these sciences considers only what is proper to it, i.e. its particular end. As for the question whether the cultured is also the lettered, or the quibble⁵² that the man who is cultured, when he has become lettered, will be both at once although he was not before; but that which is but was not always so must have come to be; therefore he must have become at the same time cultured and lettered

—none of the recognized sciences considers this, except sophistry. This is the only science which concerns itself with the accidental, and hence Plato was not far wrong in saying⁵³ that the sophist spends his time in the study of unreality. But that it is not even possible for there to be a science of the accidental will be apparent if we try to see what the accidental really is.

Of some things we say that they are so always and of necessity (necessity having the sense not of compulsion, but that which we use in logical demonstration⁵⁴), and of others that they are so usually, but of others that they are so neither usually nor always and of necessity, but fortuitously. E.g., there might be a frost at midsummer, although this comes about neither always and of necessity nor usually; 1065a 1 but it might happen sometimes.

The accidental, then, is that which comes about, but not always nor of necessity nor usually. Thus we have now stated what the accidental is; and it is obvious why there can be no science of such a thing, because every science has as its object that which is so always or usually, and the accidental falls under neither of these descriptions.

Clearly there can be no causes and principles of the accidental such as there are of that which is per se; otherwise everything would be of necessity. For if A is when B is, and B is when C is, and C is not fortuitously but of necessity, then that of which C was the cause will also be of necessity, and so on down to the last causatum , as it is called.

(But this was assumed to be accidental.) Therefore everything will be of necessity, and the element of chance, i.e. the possibility of a thing’s either happening or not, is entirely banished from the world of events. Even if we suppose the cause not to exist already but to be coming to be, the result will be the same; for everything will come to be of necessity.

The eclipse tomorrow will come about if A does, and A will if B does, and B if C does; and in this way if we keep on subtracting time from the finite time between now and to-morrow, we shall at some point arrive at the present existing condition. 20 Therefore since this exists, everything subsequent to it will happen of necessity, and so everything happens of necessity.

As for what is in the sense of what is true or what is accidental , the former depends upon a combination in thought, and is an affection of thought (hence we do not look for the principles of Being in this sense, but only for those of objective and separable Being) the latter is not necessary but indeterminate (I mean the accidental); and of such a thing the causes are indefinite and cannot be reduced to a system.

Teleology is found in events which come about in the course of nature or as a result of thought.⁵⁵ It is chance 〈or luck〉 when one of these comes about by accident; for a thing may be a cause, just as it may exist, either per se or accidentally. Chance is an accidental cause of normally purposive teleological events.

Hence chance and thought have the same sphere of action, for there is no purpose without thought. Causes from which chance results may come about are indeterminate; hence chance is inscrutable to human calculation, and is a cause only accidentally, but in the strictest sense is a cause of nothing.

It is good or bad luck when the result is good or bad, 1065b 1 and good or bad fortune when the result is on a large scale.

Since nothing accidental is prior to that which is per se, neither are accidental causes prior. Therefore if chance or spontaneity is the cause of the universe, mind and nature are prior causes.⁵⁶

A thing may exist only actually or potentially, or actually and potentially; it may be a substance or a quantity or one of the other categories. There is no motion⁵⁷ apart from things, for change is always in accordance with the categories of Being⁵⁸; and there is nothing which is common to these and in no one category. Each category belongs to all its members in two ways—e.g. substance, for this is sometimes the form of the thing and sometimes its privation;

and as regards quality there is white and black; and as regards quantity, complete and incomplete; and as regards spatial motion there is up and down or light and heavy—so that there are as many forms of motion and change as there are of Being.⁵⁹

Now since every kind of thing is divided into the potential and the real, I call the actualization of the potential as such,⁶⁰ motion.

That this is a true statement will be clear from what follows. When the buildable in the sense in which we call it such exists actually, it is being built; and this is the process of building. The same is true of the processes of learning, healing, walking, 20 jumping, ageing, maturing. Motion results when the complete reality itself exists, and neither sooner nor later.

The complete reality, then, of that which exists potentially, when it is completely real and actual, not qua itself but qua movable, is motion. By qua I mean this. The bronze is potentially a statue; but nevertheless the complete reality of the bronze qua bronze is not motion. To be bronze is not the same as to be a particular potentiality; since if it were absolutely the same by definition the complete reality of the bronze would be a kind of motion; but it is not the same.

(This is obvious in the case of contraries; for the potentiality for health and the potentiality for illness are not the same—for if they were, health and illness would be the same too—but the substrate which becomes healthy or ill, whether it is moisture or blood, is one and the same.) And since it is not the same, just as color and visible are not the same, it is the complete reality of the potential qua potential that is motion.

It is evident that it is this, and that motion results when the complete reality itself exists, and neither sooner nor later. 1066a 1 For everything may sometimes be actual, and sometimes not; e.g. the buildable qua buildable; and the actualization of the buildable qua buildable is the act of building.

For the actualization is either this—the act of building—or a house. But when the house exists, it will no longer be buildable; the buildable is that which is being built. Hence the actualization must be the act of building, and the act of building is a kind of motion. The same argument applies to the other kinds of motion.

That this account is correct is clear from what the other authorities say about motion, and from the fact that it is not easy to define it otherwise. For one thing, it could not be placed in any other class; this is clear from the fact that some people⁶¹ identify it with otherness and inequality and not-being, none of which is necessarily moved;

moreover change is no more into these or out of them than into or out of their opposites.⁶² The reason for placing motion in this class is that it is considered to be indeterminate, and the principles in one of the columns of contraries are indeterminate, being privative; for none of them is a determinate thing or quality or any of the other categories.

The reason for considering motion to be indeterminate is that it cannot be associated either with the potentiality or with the actuality of things; for neither that which is potentially 20 nor that which is actually of a certain size is necessarily moved.

And motion is considered to be a kind of actualization, but incomplete⁶³; the reason of this is that the potential, of which it is the actualization, is incomplete.

Thus it is difficult to comprehend what motion is; for we must associate it either with privation or with potentiality or with absolute actuality; and apparently none of these is possible.

There remains, then, the account which we have given; that it is an actuality, and an actuality of the kind which we have described, which is hard to visualize but capable of existing.

That motion is in the movable is evident; for it is the complete realization of the movable by that which is capable of causing motion, and the actualization of that which is capable of causing motion is identical with that of the movable.

For it must be a complete realization of them both; since a thing is capable of moving because it has the potentiality, but it moves only when it is active; but it is upon the movable that it is capable of acting. Thus the actuality of both alike is one; just as there is the same interval from one to two as from two to one, and the hill up and the hill down are one, although their being is not one; the case of the mover and the thing moved is similar.

⁶⁴The infinite is either (a) that which cannot be traversed because it is not its nature to be traversed (just as sound is by nature invisible); or (b) that which admits of an endless traverse; or (c) scarcely admits of traverse; or (d) which, though it would naturally admit of traverse or limit, does not do so. 1066b 1 Further, it may be infinite in respect of addition or of subtraction or of both.

That the infinite should be a separate independent entity,⁶⁵ and yet imperceptible, is impossible.

For if it is neither magnitude nor plurality, but infinity itself is the essence of it, and not merely an accident, it must be indivisible; because that which is divisible is either magnitude or plurality. And if it is indivisible it cannot be infinite, except in the same way as sound is invisible. But this is not what people mean by infinite; and it is not the infinite in this sense that we are investigating, but the infinite in the sense of the untraversable.

Again, how can the infinite exist independently unless number and magnitude, of which infinity is an attribute, also exist independently?⁶⁶ And further, if the infinite is accidental, it cannot, qua infinite, be an element of things; just as the invisible is not an element of speech, although sound is invisible. It is clear also that the infinite cannot exist actually.

Otherwise any part of it which we might take would be infinite; for infinity and the infinite are the same, if the infinite is substance and is not predicated of a subject. Therefore it is either indivisible, or if it is partible, the parts into which it is divisible are infinite. But the same thing cannot be many infinites; for just as a part of air is air, so a part of the infinite will be infinite, if the infinite is a substance and principle.

Therefore it is impartible and indivisible. But this is impossible of the actually infinite, because it must be some quantity. Therefore infinity is an accidental attribute. But if so, 20 as we have said, it cannot be it that is a principle, but that of which it is an accident: air⁶⁷ or the even.⁶⁸

The foregoing inquiry is general; but what follows will show that the infinite does not exist in sensible things.

If the definition of a body is that which is bounded by surfaces, then no body, whether sensible or intelligible, can be infinite nor can there be any separate and infinite number, since number or that which involves number is numerable. This is clearly shown by the following concrete argument. The infinite can neither be composite nor simple. For (a) it cannot be a composite body if the elements are limited in number⁶⁹;

for the contraries must be equal, and no one of them must be infinite; for if the potency of one of the two corporeal elements is in any way inferior, the finite element will be destroyed by the infinite. And every element cannot be infinite, because body is that which has extension in all directions, and the infinite is that which is extended without limit; so that if the infinite is corporeal it will be infinite in all directions.⁷⁰

Nor (b) can the infinite be any simple body; neither, as some⁷¹ hold, something which is apart from the elements and from which they suppose the elements to be generated (for there is no such body apart from the elements; everything can be resolved into that of which it consists, but we do not see things resolved into anything apart from the simple bodies), 1067a 1 nor fire nor any other element.

Apart from the question of how any of them could be infinite, the All, even if it is finite, cannot be or become any one of the elements, as Heraclitus says⁷² all things at certain times become fire. The same argument applies as to the One which the physicists posit besides the elements; for all change proceeds from the contrary, e.g. from hot to cold.⁷³

Again, a sensible body is in some region, and the region of the whole and of the part (e.g. of the earth) is the same.⁷⁴ Therefore if the infinite body is homogeneous, it will be immovable or will always be in motion⁷⁵; but this is impossible, for why should there be rest or motion below rather than above or in any other region? E.g., if there were a clod, in what region would it move or be at rest?

The region proper to the body which is homogeneous with the clod is infinite. Then will the clod occupy the whole of that region? How can it? Then what of its rest or motion? It will either rest everywhere—in which case it cannot move—or move everywhere; in which case it cannot rest.⁷⁶ And if the whole is not alike throughout, the regions proper to its parts are unlike also; and (a) the body of the whole is not one, except in virtue of contact; (b) the parts will be either finite or infinite in kind.

Finite they cannot be, for then those of one kind would be infinite⁷⁷ and those of another would not (if the whole is infinite); e.g., fire or water would be infinite. 20 But such a condition would involve the destruction of the contraries. But if the parts are infinite⁷⁸ and simple, the regions proper to them are infinite and the elements will be infinite. And since this is impossible,⁷⁹ the regions are finite⁸⁰ and the whole must be finite.

In general, there cannot be an infinite body and a place for bodies if every body which is sensible has either weight or lightness; for it will have to move either towards the center or upwards, and the infinite—either the whole or the half—cannot do either; for how can you divide it? How can the infinite be part up and part down, or part extreme and part center?

Further, every sensible body is in some place, and of place there are six kinds,⁸¹ but these cannot exist in an infinite body. In general, if an infinite place is impossible, so is an infinite body; because that which is in a place is somewhere, and this means either up or down or one of the other kinds of place, and each of these is a limit.

The infinite is not the same in the sense that it is one nature whether it applies to magnitude or to motion or to time; the posterior is derived from the prior sense, e.g. motion is called infinite in virtue of the magnitude involved when a thing is moved or changed or increased, and time is so called on account of motion.⁸²

1067b 1 That which changes either changes accidentally, as when the cultured walks; or is said to change in general because something in it changes, as in the case of things which change in their parts; the body becomes healthy because the eye does.

But there is something which is moved directly per se, i.e. the essentially movable. The same applies to that which moves, for it moves sometimes accidentally, sometimes partially, and sometimes per se. There is something that moves directly, and something that is moved; and also a time in which, and something from which, and something into which it is moved. But the forms and modifications and place into which moving things are moved are immovable; e.g. knowledge and warmth. It is not warmth that is motion, but the process of warming.

Non-accidental change is not found in all things, but only between contraries and intermediates and contradictories. We can convince ourselves of this by means of induction. That which changes changes either from positive into positive, or from negative into negative, or from positive into negative, or from negative into positive.

By positive I mean that which is denoted by an affirmation. Thus there must be three forms of change; 20 for that which is from negative into negative is not change, because they are neither contraries nor contradictories, since they entail no opposition. The change from the negative into its contradictory positive is generation—absolute change absolute generation, and qualified change qualified generation; and the change from the positive to the negative is destruction—absolute change absolute destruction, and qualified change qualified destruction.⁸³

Now if what is not has several meanings, and neither that which implies a combination or separation of terms,⁸⁴ nor that which relates to potentiality and is opposed to unqualified Being, admits of motion ( not-white or not-good, however, admits of motion accidentally, because not-white may be a man; but that which is not so-and-so in an absolute sense does not admit of it at all), then what is not cannot be moved. If this is so, generation cannot be motion; for it is what is not that is generated.

For even if the generation is in the highest degree accidental, still it is true to say that not-being is predicable of that which is generated absolutely. And the argument applies similarly to rest. Thus not only do these difficult conclusions follow, but also that everything which is moved is in a place, whereas what is not is not in a place; for then it would be somewhere. Nor is destruction motion; for the contrary of motion is motion or rest, but the contrary of destruction is generation.

1068a 1 And since every motion is a kind of change, and the three kinds of change are those which we have described,⁸⁵ and of these those which relate to generation and destruction are not motions, and these are the changes between contradictories, the change from positive to positive must alone be motion. The subjects are either contraries or intermediates (for privative terms may also be regarded as contraries) and are denoted by a positive term—e.g. naked or toothless or black.

Now since the categories are distinguished as substance, quality, place, activity or passivity, relation and quantity,⁸⁶ there must be three kinds of motion, in respect of quality, quantity and place. There is no motion⁸⁷ in respect of substance, because substance has no contrary; nor of the relative, because it is possible that when one of two related things changes the relation to it of the other thing, even though the thing itself does not change, may become untrue; therefore the motion of these related things is accidental.

Nor is there motion of the agent or patient, or of the mover and the thing moved, because there is no motion of motion nor no generation of generation, nor in general is there change of change. There are two ways in which there might be motion of motion: (1) Motion might be the subject of motion, as, e.g., a man is moved because he changes from white to black; in this way motion might be heated or cooled or might change its place or increase.

20 But this is impossible, because the change is not a subject. Or (2) some other subject might change from change to some other form of existence, as, e.g., a man changes from sickness to health. But this is also impossible except accidentally.

Every motion is a change from one thing into something else; and the same is true of generation and destruction, except that these are changes into opposites in one sense,⁸⁸ while the other, i.e. motion, is a change into opposites in another sense.⁸⁹ Hence a thing changes at the same time from health to sickness, and from this change itself into another.

Now clearly if it has fallen ill it will be already changed (for it cannot remain at rest) into that other change, whatever it may be; and further this cannot be, in any given case, any chance change; and it also must be from something into something else. Therefore it will be the opposite change, viz. becoming healthy. But this is so accidentally; just as there is change from recollecting to forgetting because the subject changes, now in the direction of knowledge and now in that of ignorance.

Further, we shall have an infinite series if there is to be change of change and becoming of becoming, because if the latter of two becomings comes to be from the former, the former must come to be too. 1068b 1 E.g., if simple becoming was once coming to be, that which comes to be something was also once coming to be. Therefore that which simply comes to be was not yet, but there was already something coming to be coming to be something.

But this too was at one time coming to be, and therefore it was not at that time coming to be something. But in infinite series there is no first term, and therefore in this series the first term cannot exist, nor can any subsequent term. Therefore nothing can be either generated or moved or changed.

Further, the same thing which admits of motion admits also of the contrary motion and of rest, and that which admits of generation admits also of destruction.

Therefore that which comes to be, when it has come to be coming to be, is then in course of perishing⁹⁰; for it does not perish as soon as it is coming to be coming to be, nor afterwards, because that which is perishing must exist .⁹¹

Further, there must be some matter underlying that which is coming to be or changing. What then will it be? What is it that becomes motion or generation in the same way as it is body or soul that undergoes change? And moreover what is that which is the terminus of the motion? For that which we are considering must be a motion or generation of A from B into C.

How then can these conditions be fulfilled? There can be no learning of learning, and therefore there can be no generation of generation.

Since there is no motion of substance or of the relative or of activity and passivity, it remains that there is motion in respect of quality, quantity and place; for each of these admits of contrariety. By quality I mean not that which is in the substance (for indeed even the differentia is a quality), 20 but the passive quality in virtue of which a thing is said to be acted upon or to be immune from being acted upon.⁹²

The immovable is either that which is wholly incapable of being moved, or that which is scarcely moved in the course of a long time or is slow in starting, or that which would naturally be moved but cannot be moved at the time when and from the place whence and in the way in which it would naturally be moved. This last is the only kind of immovable thing which I recognize as being at rest; for rest is contrary to motion, and so must be a privation of that which admits of motion.

Things are together in place which are in the primary sense⁹³ in one place, and separate which are in different places. Contrary in place is that which is at a maximum distance in a straight line.⁹⁴ Things are said to be in contact whose extremes are together in place. An intermediate is that at which a changing thing which changes continuously in accordance with its nature naturally arrives before it arrives at the extreme into which it is changing. Since all change takes place between opposites, and these are either contraries or contradictories, and contradictories have no middle term, clearly it is to the sphere of contraries that the intermediate belongs.⁹⁵

Successive is that which comes after the beginning (the order being determined by position or form or in some other way) and has nothing of the same class between itself and that which it succeeds; e.g. lines in the case of a line, and units in that of a unit, and a house in the case of a house (but there is nothing to prevent something else from coming between). For that which is successive is a thing which is successive and posterior to some other thing. 1069a 1 1 is not successive to 2, nor is the new moon⁹⁶ to the second day of the month.

Contiguous is that which is successive and in contact. The continuous is a species of the contiguous.

I call two things continuous when their respective boundaries, by which they are kept together in contact, become one and the same; hence clearly the continuous belongs to the sphere of things whose nature it is to become one by contiguity.

Clearly successive is the most ultimate term; for the successive need not be in contact, but contact implies succession; and if there is continuity there is contact, but if there is contact there is not necessarily continuity;

and where there is no contact there is no coalescence. Therefore a point is not the same as a unit; for points admit of contact, whereas units do not, but only of succession; and between points there is something intermediate, but between units there is not.

Metaphysics. Aristotle. Hugh Tredennick (Translator). London. 1933-1935.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The Annenberg CPB/Project.

Current edition Perseus

Metaphysics (English) (Aristotle. The Metaphysics, Vol. 1-2. Tredennick, Hugh, translator. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933-35 (printing).)

Editions (1)

τὰ Μετὰ τὰ Φυσικά Perseus (Aristotle. Aristotle's Metaphysics, Vol. 1-2. Ross, William David, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924 (printing).) — 11 focus

[1] 1059a 18 ὅτι μὲν ἡ σοφία περὶ ἀρχὰς ἐπιστήμη τίς ἐστι, δῆλον ἐκ τῶν πρώτων ἐν οἷς διηπόρηται πρὸς τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων 20 εἰρημένα περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν· ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις πότερον μίαν ὑπολαβεῖν εἶναι δεῖ τὴν σοφίαν ἐπιστήμην ἢ πολλάς· εἰ μὲν γὰρ μίαν, μία γʼ ἐστὶν ἀεὶ τῶν ἐναντίων, αἱ δʼ ἀρχαὶ οὐκ ἐναντίαι· εἰ δὲ μὴ μία, ποίας δεῖ θεῖναι ταύτας; ἔτι τὰς ἀποδεικτικὰς ἀρχὰς θεωρῆσαι μιᾶς ἢ πλειόνων; εἰ μὲν γὰρ 25 μιᾶς, τί μᾶλλον ταύτης ἢ ὁποιασοῦν; εἰ δὲ πλειόνων, ποίας δεῖ ταύτας τιθέναι; ἔτι πότερον πασῶν τῶν οὐσιῶν ἢ οὔ; εἰ μὲν γὰρ μὴ πασῶν, ποίων χαλεπὸν ἀποδοῦναι· εἰ δὲ πασῶν μία, ἄδηλον πῶς ἐνδέχεται πλειόνων τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπιστήμην εἶναι. ἔτι πότερον περὶ τὰς οὐσίας μόνον ἢ καὶ τὰ 30 συμβεβηκότα ἀπόδειξίς ἐστιν; εἰ γὰρ περί γε τὰ συμβεβηκότα ἀπόδειξίς ἐστιν, περὶ τὰς οὐσίας οὐκ ἔστιν· εἰ δʼ ἑτέρα, τίς ἑκατέρα καὶ ποτέρα σοφία; ᾗ μὲν γὰρ ἀποδεικτική, σοφία ἡ περὶ τὰ συμβεβηκότα· ᾗ δὲ περὶ τὰ πρῶτα, ἡ τῶν οὐσιῶν. ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ περὶ τὰς ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς εἰρημένας αἰτίας 35 τὴν ἐπιζητουμένην ἐπιστήμην θετέον· οὔτε γὰρ περὶ τὸ οὗ ἕνεκεν (τοιοῦτον γὰρ τὸ ἀγαθόν, τοῦτο δʼ ἐν τοῖς πρακτοῖς ὑπάρχει καὶ ταῖς οὖσιν ἐν κινήσει· καὶ τοῦτο πρῶτον κινεῖ—τοιοῦτον γὰρ τὸ τέλος—τὸ δὲ πρῶτον κινῆσαν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς ἀκινήτοις)· ὅλως δʼ ἀπορίαν ἔχει πότερόν ποτε περὶ τὰς αἰσθητὰς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ἡ ζητουμένη νῦν ἐπιστήμη ἢ οὔ, περὶ δέ τινας ἑτέρας. 1059b 1 εἰ γὰρ περὶ ἄλλας, ἢ περὶ τὰ εἴδη εἴη ἂν ἢ περὶ τὰ μαθηματικά. τὰ μὲν οὖν εἴδη ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι, δῆλον (ὅμως δὲ ἀπορίαν ἔχει, κἂν εἶναί τις αὐτὰ θῇ, διὰ τί ποτʼ οὐχ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν μαθηματικῶν, 5 οὕτως ἔχει καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὧν ἔστιν εἴδη· λέγω δʼ ὅτι τὰ μαθηματικὰ μὲν μεταξύ τε τῶν εἰδῶν τιθέασι καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν οἷον τρίτα τινὰ παρὰ τὰ εἴδη τε καὶ τὰ δεῦρο, τρίτος δʼ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδʼ ἵππος παρʼ αὐτόν τε καὶ τοὺς καθʼ ἕκαστον· εἰ δʼ αὖ μὴ ἔστιν ὡς λέγουσι, 10 περὶ ποῖα θετέον πραγματεύεσθαι τὸν μαθηματικόν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ περὶ τὰ δεῦρο· τούτων γὰρ οὐθέν ἐστιν οἷον αἱ μαθηματικαὶ ζητοῦσι τῶν ἐπιστημῶν)· οὐδὲ μὴν περὶ τὰ μαθηματικὰ ἡ ζητουμένη νῦν ἐστὶν ἐπιστήμη (χωριστὸν γὰρ αὐτῶν οὐθέν)· ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐσιῶν· φθαρταὶ γάρ. ὅλως δʼ ἀπορήσειέ 15 τις ἂν ποίας ἐστὶν ἐπιστήμης τὸ διαπορῆσαι περὶ τῆς τῶν μαθηματικῶν ὕλης. οὔτε γὰρ τῆς φυσικῆς, διὰ τὸ περὶ τὰ ἔχοντα ἐν αὑτοῖς ἀρχὴν κινήσεως καὶ στάσεως τὴν τοῦ φυσικοῦ πᾶσαν εἶναι πραγματείαν, οὐδὲ μὴν τῆς σκοπούσης περὶ ἀποδείξεώς τε καὶ ἐπιστήμης· περὶ γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ 20 γένος τὴν ζήτησιν ποιεῖται. λείπεται τοίνυν τὴν προκειμένην φιλοσοφίαν περὶ αὐτῶν τὴν σκέψιν ποιεῖσθαι. διαπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις εἰ δεῖ θεῖναι τὴν ζητουμένην ἐπιστήμην περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, τὰ καλούμενα ὑπό τινων στοιχεῖα· ταῦτα δὲ πάντες ἐνυπάρχοντα τοῖς συνθέτοις τιθέασιν. μᾶλλον δʼ ἂν δόξειε 25 τῶν καθόλου δεῖν εἶναι τὴν ζητουμένην ἐπιστήμην· πᾶς γὰρ λόγος καὶ πᾶσα ἐπιστήμη τῶν καθόλου καὶ οὐ τῶν ἐσχάτων, ὥστʼ εἴη ἂν οὕτω τῶν πρώτων γενῶν. ταῦτα δὲ γίγνοιτʼ ἂν τό τε ὂν καὶ τὸ ἕν· ταῦτα γὰρ μάλιστʼ ἂν ὑποληφθείη περιέχειν τὰ ὄντα πάντα καὶ μάλιστα ἀρχαῖς ἐοικέναι διὰ 30 τὸ εἶναι πρῶτα τῇ φύσει· φθαρέντων γὰρ αὐτῶν συναναιρεῖται καὶ τὰ λοιπά· πᾶν γὰρ ὂν καὶ ἕν. ᾗ δὲ τὰς διαφορὰς αὐτῶν ἀνάγκη μετέχειν εἰ θήσει τις αὐτὰ γένη, διαφορὰ δʼ οὐδεμία τοῦ γένους μετέχει, ταύτῃ δʼ οὐκ ἂν δόξειε δεῖν αὐτὰ τιθέναι γένη οὐδʼ ἀρχάς. ἔτι δʼ εἰ μᾶλλον 35 ἀρχὴ τὸ ἁπλούστερον τοῦ ἧττον τοιούτου, τὰ δʼ ἔσχατα τῶν ἐκ τοῦ γένους ἁπλούστερα τῶν γενῶν (ἄτομα γάρ, τὰ γένη δʼ εἰς εἴδη πλείω καὶ διαφέροντα διαιρεῖται), μᾶλλον ἂν ἀρχὴ δόξειεν εἶναι τὰ εἴδη τῶν γενῶν. ᾗ δὲ συναναιρεῖται τοῖς γένεσι τὰ εἴδη, τὰ γένη ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἔοικε μᾶλλον· ἀρχὴ γὰρ τὸ συναναιροῦν. 1060a 1 τὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν ἀπορίαν ἔχοντα ταῦτα καὶ τοιαῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἕτερα.

[2] ἔτι πότερον δεῖ τιθέναι τι παρὰ τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα ἢ οὔ, ἀλλὰ τούτων ἡ ζητουμένη ἐπιστήμη; ἀλλὰ ταῦτα ἄπειρα· 5 τά γε μὴν παρὰ τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα γένη ἢ εἴδη ἐστίν, ἀλλʼ οὐδετέρου τούτων ἡ ζητουμένη νῦν ἐπιστήμη. διότι γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦτο, εἴρηται. καὶ γὰρ ὅλως ἀπορίαν ἔχει πότερον δεῖ τινὰ ὑπολαβεῖν οὐσίαν εἶναι χωριστὴν παρὰ τὰς αἰσθητὰς οὐσίας καὶ τὰς δεῦρο, ἢ οὔ, ἀλλὰ ταῦτʼ εἶναι τὰ ὄντα καὶ 10 περὶ ταῦτα τὴν σοφίαν ὑπάρχειν. ζητεῖν μὲν γὰρ ἐοίκαμεν ἄλλην τινά, καὶ τὸ προκείμενον τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἡμῖν, λέγω δὲ τὸ ἰδεῖν εἴ τι χωριστὸν καθʼ αὑτὸ καὶ μηδενὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ὑπάρχον. ἔτι δʼ εἰ παρὰ τὰς αἰσθητὰς οὐσίας ἔστι τις ἑτέρα οὐσία, παρὰ ποίας τῶν αἰσθητῶν δεῖ τιθέναι ταύτην εἶναι; 15 τί γὰρ μᾶλλον παρὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἢ τοὺς ἵππους ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων θήσει τις αὐτὴν ἢ καὶ τῶν ἀψύχων ὅλως; τό γε μὴν ἴσας ταῖς αἰσθηταῖς καὶ φθαρταῖς οὐσίαις ἀϊδίους ἑτέρας κατασκευάζειν ἐκτὸς τῶν εὐλόγων δόξειεν ἂν πίπτειν. εἰ δὲ μὴ χωριστὴ τῶν σωμάτων ἡ ζητουμένη νῦν ἀρχή, 20 τίνα ἄν τις ἄλλην θείη μᾶλλον τῆς ὕλης; αὕτη γε μὴν ἐνεργείᾳ μὲν οὐκ ἔστι, δυνάμει δʼ ἔστιν. μᾶλλόν τʼ ἂν ἀρχὴ κυριωτέρα ταύτης δόξειεν εἶναι τὸ εἶδος καὶ ἡ μορφή· τοῦτο δὲ φθαρτόν, ὥσθʼ ὅλως οὐκ ἔστιν ἀΐδιος οὐσία χωριστὴ καὶ καθʼ αὑτήν. ἀλλʼ ἄτοπον· ἔοικε γὰρ καὶ ζητεῖται σχεδὸν 25 ὑπὸ τῶν χαριεστάτων ὡς οὖσά τις ἀρχὴ καὶ οὐσία τοιαύτη· πῶς γὰρ ἔσται τάξις μή τινος ὄντος ἀϊδίου καὶ χωριστοῦ καὶ μένοντος; ἔτι δʼ εἴπερ ἔστι τις οὐσία καὶ ἀρχὴ τοιαύτη τὴν φύσιν οἵαν νῦν ζητοῦμεν, καὶ αὕτη μία πάντων καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ τῶν ἀϊδίων τε καὶ φθαρτῶν, ἀπορίαν ἔχει διὰ τί ποτε τῆς 30 αὐτῆς ἀρχῆς οὔσης τὰ μέν ἐστιν ἀΐδια τῶν ὑπὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν τὰ δʼ οὐκ ἀΐδια (τοῦτο γὰρ ἄτοπον)· εἰ δʼ ἄλλη μέν ἐστιν ἀρχὴ τῶν φθαρτῶν ἄλλη δὲ τῶν ἀϊδίων, εἰ μὲν ἀΐδιος καὶ ἡ τῶν φθαρτῶν, ὁμοίως ἀπορήσομεν (διὰ τί γὰρ οὐκ ἀϊδίου τῆς ἀρχῆς οὔσης καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀΐδια;)· φθαρτῆς δʼ 35 οὔσης ἄλλη τις ἀρχὴ γίγνεται ταύτης κἀκείνης ἑτέρα, καὶ τοῦτʼ εἰς ἄπειρον πρόεισιν. εἰ δʼ αὖ τις τὰς δοκούσας μάλιστʼ ἀρχὰς ἀκινήτους εἶναι, τό τε ὂν καὶ τὸ ἕν, θήσει, πρῶτον μὲν εἰ μὴ τόδε τι καὶ οὐσίαν ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν σημαίνει, 1060b 1 πῶς ἔσονται χωρισταὶ καὶ καθʼ αὑτάς; τοιαύτας δὲ ζητοῦμεν τὰς ἀϊδίους τε καὶ πρώτας ἀρχάς. εἴ γε μὴν τόδε τι καὶ οὐσίαν ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν δηλοῖ, πάντʼ ἐστὶν οὐσίαι τὰ ὄντα· κατὰ 5 πάντων γὰρ τὸ ὂν κατηγορεῖται (κατʼ ἐνίων δὲ καὶ τὸ ἕν)· οὐσίαν δʼ εἶναι πάντα τὰ ὄντα ψεῦδος. ἔτι δὲ τοῖς τὴν πρώτην ἀρχὴν τὸ ἓν λέγουσι καὶ τοῦτʼ οὐσίαν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ τῆς ὕλης τὸν ἀριθμὸν γεννῶσι πρῶτον καὶ τοῦτον οὐσίαν φάσκουσιν εἶναι, πῶς ἐνδέχεται τὸ λεγόμενον ἀληθὲς εἶναι; 10 τὴν γὰρ δυάδα καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἕκαστον ἀριθμῶν τῶν συνθέτων πῶς ἓν δεῖ νοῆσαι; περὶ τούτου γὰρ οὔτε λέγουσιν οὐδὲν οὔτε ῥᾴδιον εἰπεῖν. εἴ γε μὴν γραμμὰς ἢ τὰ τούτων ἐχόμενα (λέγω δὲ ἐπιφανείας τὰς πρώτας) θήσει τις ἀρχάς, ταῦτά γʼ οὐκ εἰσὶν οὐσίαι χωρισταί, τομαὶ δὲ καὶ διαιρέσεις αἱ μὲν 15 ἐπιφανειῶν αἱ δὲ σωμάτων (αἱ δὲ στιγμαὶ γραμμῶν), ἔτι δὲ πέρατα τῶν αὐτῶν τούτων· πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐν ἄλλοις ὑπάρχει καὶ χωριστὸν οὐδέν ἐστιν. ἔτι πῶς οὐσίαν ὑπολαβεῖν εἶναι δεῖ τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ στιγμῆς; οὐσίας μὲν γὰρ πάσης γένεσις ἔστι, στιγμῆς δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν· διαίρεσις γὰρ ἡ στιγμή. παρέχει 20 δʼ ἀπορίαν καὶ τὸ πᾶσαν μὲν ἐπιστήμην εἶναι τῶν καθόλου καὶ τοῦ τοιουδί, τὴν δʼ οὐσίαν μὴ τῶν καθόλου εἶναι, μᾶλλον δὲ τόδε τι καὶ χωριστόν, ὥστʼ εἰ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς ἐστιν ἐπιστήμη, πῶς δεῖ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὑπολαβεῖν οὐσίαν εἶναι; ἔτι πότερον ἔστι τι παρὰ τὸ σύνολον ἢ οὔ (λέγω δὲ τὴν ὕλην καὶ 25 τὸ μετὰ ταύτης); εἰ μὲν γὰρ μή, τά γε ἐν ὕλῃ φθαρτὰ πάντα· εἰ δʼ ἔστι τι, τὸ εἶδος ἂν εἴη καὶ ἡ μορφή· τοῦτʼ οὖν ἐπὶ τίνων ἔστι καὶ ἐπὶ τίνων οὔ, χαλεπὸν ἀφορίσαι· ἐπʼ ἐνίων γὰρ δῆλον οὐκ ὂν χωριστὸν τὸ εἶδος, οἷον οἰκίας. ἔτι πότερον αἱ ἀρχαὶ εἴδει ἢ ἀριθμῷ αἱ αὐταί; εἰ γὰρ ἀριθμῷ 30 ἕν, πάντʼ ἔσται ταὐτά.

[3] ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ τοῦ φιλοσόφου ἐπιστήμη τοῦ ὄντος ᾗ ὂν καθόλου καὶ οὐ κατὰ μέρος, τὸ δʼ ὂν πολλαχῶς καὶ οὐ καθʼ ἕνα λέγεται τρόπον· εἰ μὲν οὖν ὁμωνύμως κατὰ δὲ κοινὸν μηδέν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπὸ μίαν ἐπιστήμην (οὐ γὰρ ἓν γένος 35 τῶν τοιούτων), εἰ δὲ κατά τι κοινόν, εἴη ἂν ὑπὸ μίαν ἐπιστήμην. ἔοικε δὴ τὸν εἰρημένον λέγεσθαι τρόπον καθάπερ τό τε ἰατρικὸν καὶ ὑγιεινόν· καὶ γὰρ τούτων ἑκάτερον πολλαχῶς λέγομεν. 1061a 1 λέγεται δὲ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἕκαστον τῷ τὸ μὲν πρὸς τὴν ἰατρικὴν ἐπιστήμην ἀνάγεσθαί πως τὸ δὲ πρὸς ὑγίειαν τὸ δʼ ἄλλως, πρὸς ταὐτὸ δʼ ἕκαστον. ἰατρικὸς γὰρ λόγος καὶ μαχαίριον λέγεται τῷ τὸ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἰατρικῆς 5 ἐπιστήμης εἶναι τὸ δὲ ταύτῃ χρήσιμον. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὑγιεινόν· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι σημαντικὸν ὑγιείας τὸ δʼ ὅτι ποιητικόν. ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς τρόπος καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν. τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ τὸ ὂν ἅπαν λέγεται· τῷ γὰρ τοῦ ὄντος ᾗ ὂν πάθος ἢ ἕξις ἢ διάθεσις ἢ κίνησις ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τι τῶν τοιούτων 10 εἶναι λέγεται ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ὄν. ἐπεὶ δὲ παντὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸς ἕν τι καὶ κοινὸν ἡ ἀναγωγὴ γίγνεται, καὶ τῶν ἐναντιώσεων ἑκάστη πρὸς τὰς πρώτας διαφορὰς καὶ ἐναντιώσεις ἀναχθήσεται τοῦ ὄντος, εἴτε πλῆθος καὶ ἓν εἴθʼ ὁμοιότης καὶ ἀνομοιότης αἱ πρῶται τοῦ ὄντος εἰσὶ διαφοραί, εἴτʼ 15 ἄλλαι τινές· ἔστωσαν γὰρ αὗται τεθεωρημέναι. διαφέρει δʼ οὐδὲν τὴν τοῦ ὄντος ἀναγωγὴν πρὸς τὸ ὂν ἢ πρὸς τὸ ἓν γίγνεσθαι. καὶ γὰρ εἰ μὴ ταὐτὸν ἄλλο δʼ ἐστίν, ἀντιστρέφει γε· τό τε γὰρ ἓν καὶ ὄν πως, τό τε ὂν ἕν.—ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐστὶ τὰ ἐναντία πάντα τῆς αὐτῆς καὶ μιᾶς ἐπιστήμης θεωρῆσαι, λέγεται 20 δʼ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν κατὰ στέρησιν—καίτοι γʼ ἔνια ἀπορήσειέ τις ἂν πῶς λέγεται κατὰ στέρησιν, ὧν ἔστιν ἀνὰ μέσον τι, καθάπερ ἀδίκου καὶ δικαίου—περὶ πάντα δὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὴν στέρησιν δεῖ τιθέναι μὴ τοῦ ὅλου λόγου, τοῦ τελευταίου δὲ εἴδους· οἷον εἰ ἔστιν ὁ δίκαιος καθʼ ἕξιν τινὰ 25 πειθαρχικὸς τοῖς νόμοις, οὐ πάντως ὁ ἄδικος ἔσται τοῦ ὅλου στερούμενος λόγου, περὶ δὲ τὸ πείθεσθαι τοῖς νόμοις ἐκλείπων πῃ, καὶ ταύτῃ ἡ στέρησις ὑπάρξει αὐτῷ· τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων.—καθάπερ δʼ ὁ μαθηματικὸς περὶ τὰ ἐξ ἀφαιρέσεως τὴν θεωρίαν ποιεῖται (περιελὼν γὰρ πάντα 30 τὰ αἰσθητὰ θεωρεῖ, οἷον βάρος καὶ κουφότητα καὶ σκληρότητα καὶ τοὐναντίον, ἔτι δὲ καὶ θερμότητα καὶ ψυχρότητα καὶ τὰς ἄλλας αἰσθητὰς ἐναντιώσεις, μόνον δὲ καταλείπει τὸ ποσὸν καὶ συνεχές, τῶν μὲν ἐφʼ ἓν τῶν δʼ ἐπὶ δύο τῶν δʼ ἐπὶ τρία, καὶ τὰ πάθη τὰ τούτων ᾗ ποσά ἐστι 35 καὶ συνεχῆ, καὶ οὐ καθʼ ἕτερόν τι θεωρεῖ, καὶ τῶν μὲν τὰς πρὸς ἄλληλα θέσεις σκοπεῖ καὶ τὰ ταύταις ὑπάρχοντα, 1061b 1 τῶν δὲ τὰς συμμετρίας καὶ ἀσυμμετρίας, τῶν δὲ τοὺς λόγους, ἀλλʼ ὅμως μίαν πάντων καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν τίθεμεν ἐπιστήμην τὴν γεωμετρικήν), τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὸ ὄν. τὰ γὰρ τούτῳ συμβεβηκότα καθʼ ὅσον ἐστὶν ὄν, καὶ 5 τὰς ἐναντιώσεις αὐτοῦ ᾗ ὄν, οὐκ ἄλλης ἐπιστήμης ἢ φιλοσοφίας θεωρῆσαι. τῇ φυσικῇ μὲν γὰρ οὐχ ᾗ ὄντα, μᾶλλον δʼ ᾗ κινήσεως μετέχει, τὴν θεωρίαν τις ἀπονείμειεν ἄν· ἥ γε μὴν διαλεκτικὴ καὶ ἡ σοφιστικὴ τῶν συμβεβηκότων μέν εἰσι τοῖς οὖσιν, οὐχ ᾗ δʼ ὄντα οὐδὲ περὶ τὸ ὂν αὐτὸ καθʼ ὅσον 10 ὄν ἐστιν· ὥστε λείπεται τὸν φιλοσόφον, καθʼ ὅσον ὄντʼ ἐστίν, εἶναι περὶ τὰ λεχθέντα θεωρητικόν. ἐπεὶ δὲ τό τε ὂν ἅπαν καθʼ ἕν τι καὶ κοινὸν λέγεται πολλαχῶς λεγόμενον, καὶ τἀναντία τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον (εἰς τὰς πρώτας γὰρ ἐναντιώσεις καὶ διαφορὰς τοῦ ὄντος ἀνάγεται), τὰ δὲ τοιαῦτα δυνατὸν 15 ὑπὸ μίαν ἐπιστήμην εἶναι, διαλύοιτʼ ἂν ἡ κατʼ ἀρχὰς ἀπορία λεχθεῖσα, λέγω δʼ ἐν ᾗ διηπορεῖτο πῶς ἔσται πολλῶν καὶ διαφόρων ὄντων τῷ γένει μία τις ἐπιστήμη.

[4] ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ μαθηματικὸς χρῆται τοῖς κοινοῖς ἰδίως, καὶ τὰς τούτων ἀρχὰς ἂν εἴη θεωρῆσαι τῆς πρώτης φιλοσοφίας. ὅτι γὰρ 20 ἀπὸ τῶν ἴσων ἴσων ἀφαιρεθέντων ἴσα τὰ λειπόμενα, κοινὸν μέν ἐστιν ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν ποσῶν, ἡ μαθηματικὴ δʼ ἀπολαβοῦσα περί τι μέρος τῆς οἰκείας ὕλης ποιεῖται τὴν θεωρίαν, οἷον περὶ γραμμὰς ἢ γωνίας ἢ ἀριθμοὺς ἢ τῶν λοιπῶν τι ποσῶν, οὐχ ᾗ δʼ ὄντα ἀλλʼ ᾗ συνεχὲς αὐτῶν ἕκαστον ἐφʼ 25 ἓν ἢ δύο ἢ τρία· ἡ δὲ φιλοσοφία περὶ τῶν ἐν μέρει μέν, ᾗ τούτων ἑκάστῳ τι συμβέβηκεν, οὐ σκοπεῖ, περὶ τὸ ὂν δέ, ᾗ ὂν τῶν τοιούτων ἕκαστον, θεωρεῖ. τὸν αὐτὸν δʼ ἔχει τρόπον καὶ περὶ τὴν φυσικὴν ἐπιστήμην τῇ μαθηματικῇ· τὰ συμβεβηκότα γὰρ ἡ φυσικὴ καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς θεωρεῖ τὰς τῶν ὄντων 30 ᾗ κινούμενα καὶ οὐχ ᾗ ὄντα (τὴν δὲ πρώτην εἰρήκαμεν ἐπιστήμην τούτων εἶναι καθʼ ὅσον ὄντα τὰ ὑποκείμενά ἐστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ᾗ ἕτερόν τι)· διὸ καὶ ταύτην καὶ τὴν μαθηματικὴν ἐπιστήμην μέρη τῆς σοφίας εἶναι θετέον.

[5] ἔστι δέ τις ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἀρχὴ περὶ ἣν οὐκ ἔστι διεψεῦσθαι, 35 τοὐναντίον δὲ ἀναγκαῖον ἀεὶ ποιεῖν, λέγω δὲ ἀληθεύειν, οἷον ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τὸ αὐτὸ καθʼ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι, 1062a 1 καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοῦτον αὑτοῖς ἀντικείμενα τὸν τρόπον. καὶ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἁπλῶς μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀπόδειξις, πρὸς τόνδε δὲ ἔστιν· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐκ πιστοτέρας ἀρχῆς αὐτοῦ τούτου ποιήσασθαι συλλογισμόν, δεῖ δέ γʼ 5 εἴπερ ἔσται τὸ ἁπλῶς ἀποδεδεῖχθαι. πρὸς δὲ τὸν λέγοντα τὰς ἀντικειμένας φάσεις τῷ δεικνύντι διότι ψεῦδος ληπτέον τι τοιοῦτον ὃ ταὐτὸ μὲν ἔσται τῷ μὴ ἐνδέχεσθαι ταὐτὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι καθʼ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον, μὴ δόξει δʼ εἶναι ταὐτόν· οὕτω γὰρ μόνως ἂν ἀποδειχθείη πρὸς τὸν 10 φάσκοντα ἐνδέχεσθαι τὰς ἀντικειμένας φάσεις ἀληθεύεσθαι κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ. τοὺς δὴ μέλλοντας ἀλλήλοις λόγου κοινωνήσειν δεῖ τι συνιέναι αὑτῶν· μὴ γιγνομένου γὰρ τούτου πῶς ἔσται κοινωνία τούτοις πρὸς ἀλλήλους λόγου; δεῖ τοίνυν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἕκαστον εἶναι γνώριμον καὶ δηλοῦν τι, καὶ μὴ 15 πολλά, μόνον δὲ ἕν· ἂν δὲ πλείονα σημαίνῃ, φανερὸν ποιεῖν ἐφʼ ὃ φέρει τοὔνομα τούτων. ὁ δὴ λέγων εἶναι τοῦτο καὶ μὴ εἶναι, τοῦτο ὅ φησιν οὔ φησιν, ὥσθʼ ὃ σημαίνει τοὔνομα τοῦτʼ οὔ φησι σημαίνειν· τοῦτο δʼ ἀδύνατον. ὥστʼ εἴπερ σημαίνει τι τὸ εἶναι τόδε, τὴν ἀντίφασιν ἀδύνατον ἀληθεύειν. ἔτι δʼ εἴ 20 τι σημαίνει τοὔνομα καὶ τοῦτʼ ἀληθεύεται, δεῖ τοῦτʼ ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἶναι· τὸ δʼ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὂν οὐκ ἐνδέχεταί ποτε μὴ εἶναι· τὰς ἀντικειμένας ἄρα οὐκ ἐνδέχεται φάσεις καὶ ἀποφάσεις ἀληθεύειν κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ. ἔτι δʼ εἰ μηθὲν μᾶλλον ἡ φάσις ἢ ἡ ἀπόφασις ἀληθεύεται, ὁ λέγων ἄνθρωπον ἢ 25 οὐκ ἄνθρωπον οὐθὲν μᾶλλον ἀληθεύσει· δόξειε δὲ κἂν οὐχ ἵππον εἶναι φάσκων τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἢ μᾶλλον ἢ οὐχ ἧττον ἀληθεύειν ἢ οὐκ ἄνθρωπον, ὥστε καὶ ἵππον φάσκων εἶναι τὸν αὐτὸν ἀληθεύσει (τὰς γὰρ ἀντικειμένας ὁμοίως ἦν ἀληθεύειν)· συμβαίνει τοίνυν τὸν αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον εἶναι καὶ ἵππον 30 ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τι ζῴων.—ἀπόδειξις μὲν οὖν οὐδεμία τούτων ἐστὶν ἁπλῶς, πρὸς μέντοι τὸν ταῦτα τιθέμενον ἀπόδειξις. ταχέως δʼ ἄν τις καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Ἡράκλειτον τοῦτον ἐρωτῶν τὸν τρόπον ἠνάγκασεν ὁμολογεῖν μηδέποτε τὰς ἀντικειμένας φάσεις δυνατὸν εἶναι κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀληθεύεσθαι· νῦν δʼ 35 οὐ συνιεὶς ἑαυτοῦ τί ποτε λέγει, ταύτην ἔλαβε τὴν δόξαν. ὅλως δʼ εἰ τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ἐστὶν ἀληθές, οὐδʼ ἂν αὐτὸ τοῦτο εἴη ἀληθές, 1062b 1 λέγω δὲ τὸ ἐνδέχεσθαι τὸ αὐτὸ καθʼ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον εἶναί τε καὶ μὴ εἶναι· καθάπερ γὰρ καὶ διῃρημένων αὐτῶν οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἡ κατάφασις ἢ ἡ ἀπόφασις ἀληθεύεται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ τοῦ συναμφοτέρου 5 καὶ τοῦ συμπεπλεγμένου καθάπερ μιᾶς τινὸς καταφάσεως οὔσης οὐθὲν μᾶλλον ἢ ἡ ἀπόφασις ἢ τὸ ὅλον ὡς ἐν καταφάσει τιθέμενον ἀληθεύσεται. ἔτι δʼ εἰ μηθὲν ἔστιν ἀληθῶς καταφῆσαι, κἂν αὐτὸ τοῦτο ψεῦδος εἴη τὸ φάναι μηδεμίαν ἀληθῆ κατάφασιν ὑπάρχειν. εἰ δʼ ἔστι τι, λύοιτʼ ἂν τὸ 10 λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐνισταμένων καὶ παντελῶς ἀναιρούντων τὸ διαλέγεσθαι.

[6] παραπλήσιον δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ λεχθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πρωταγόρου· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἔφη πάντων εἶναι χρημάτων μέτρον ἄνθρωπον, οὐδὲν ἕτερον λέγων ἢ τὸ δοκοῦν ἑκάστῳ 15 τοῦτο καὶ εἶναι παγίως· τούτου δὲ γιγνομένου τὸ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει καὶ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι, καὶ κακὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι, καὶ τἆλλα τὰ κατὰ τὰς ἀντικειμένας λεγόμενα φάσεις, διὰ τὸ πολλάκις τοισδὶ μὲν φαίνεσθαι τόδε εἶναι καλὸν τοισδὶ δὲ τοὐναντίον, μέτρον δʼ εἶναι τὸ φαινόμενον ἑκάστῳ. 20 λύοιτο δʼ ἂν αὕτη ἡ ἀπορία θεωρήσασι πόθεν ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ἀρχὴ 21 τῆς ὑπολήψεως ταύτης· ἔοικε γὰρ ἐνίοις μὲν ἐκ τῆς τῶν φυσιολόγων δόξης γεγενῆσθαι, τοῖς δʼ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ταὐτὰ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἅπαντας γιγνώσκειν ἀλλὰ τοῖσδε μὲν ἡδὺ τόδε φαίνεσθαι τοῖσδε δὲ τοὐναντίον. τὸ γὰρ μηδὲν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος 25 γίγνεσθαι, πᾶν δʼ ἐξ ὄντος, σχεδὸν ἁπάντων ἐστὶ κοινὸν δόγμα τῶν περὶ φύσεως· ἐπεὶ οὖν οὐ λευκὸν γίγνεται λευκοῦ τελέως ὄντος καὶ οὐδαμῇ μὴ λευκοῦ νῦν δὲ γεγενημένον μὴ λευκόν, γίγνοιτʼ ἂν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος λευκοῦ τὸ γιγνόμενον μὴ λευκόν· ὥστε ἐκ μὴ ὄντος γίγνοιτʼ ἂν κατʼ ἐκείνους, εἰ μὴ 30 ὑπῆρχε λευκὸν τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ μὴ λευκόν. οὐ χαλεπὸν δὲ διαλύειν τὴν ἀπορίαν ταύτην· εἴρηται γὰρ ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς πῶς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γίγνεται τὰ γιγνόμενα καὶ πῶς ἐξ ὄντος. τό γε μὴν ὁμοίως προσέχειν ταῖς δόξαις καὶ ταῖς φαντασίαις τῶν πρὸς αὑτοὺς διαμφισβητούντων εὔηθες· δῆλον 35 γὰρ ὅτι τοὺς ἑτέρους αὐτῶν ἀνάγκη διεψεῦσθαι. φανερὸν δὲ τοῦτʼ ἐκ τῶν γιγνομένων κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν· οὐδέποτε γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ φαίνεται τοῖς μὲν γλυκὺ τοῖς δὲ τοὐναντίον, 1063a 1 μὴ διεφθαρμένων καὶ λελωβημένων τῶν ἑτέρων τὸ αἰσθητήριον καὶ κριτήριον τῶν λεχθέντων χυμῶν. τούτου δʼ ὄντος τοιούτου τοὺς ἑτέρους μὲν ὑποληπτέον μέτρον εἶναι τοὺς δʼ ἄλλους οὐχ 5 ὑποληπτέον. ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦτο λέγω καὶ ἐπὶ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ, καὶ καλοῦ καὶ αἰσχροῦ, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων. οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει τοῦτʼ ἀξιοῦν ἢ τὰ φαινόμενα τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν ὄψιν ὑποβάλλουσι τὸν δάκτυλον καὶ ποιοῦσιν ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς φαίνεσθαι δύο, δύο δεῖν εἶναι διὰ τὸ φαίνεσθαι τοσαῦτα, καὶ πάλιν ἕν· 10 τοῖς γὰρ μὴ κινοῦσι τὴν ὄψιν ἓν φαίνεται τὸ ἕν. ὅλως δὲ ἄτοπον ἐκ τοῦ φαίνεσθαι τὰ δεῦρο μεταβάλλοντα καὶ μηδέποτε διαμένοντα ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς, ἐκ τούτου περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν κρίσιν ποιεῖσθαι· δεῖ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἐχόντων καὶ μηδεμίαν μεταβολὴν ποιουμένων τἀληθὲς θηρεύειν, 15 τοιαῦτα δʼ ἐστὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν κόσμον· ταῦτα γὰρ οὐχ ὁτὲ μὲν τοιαδὶ πάλιν δʼ ἀλλοῖα φαίνεται, ταὐτὰ δʼ ἀεὶ καὶ μεταβολῆς οὐδεμιᾶς κοινωνοῦντα. ἔτι δʼ εἰ κίνησις ἔστι, καὶ κινούμενόν τι, κινεῖται δὲ πᾶν ἔκ τινος καὶ εἴς τι· δεῖ ἄρα τὸ κινούμενον εἶναι ἐν ἐκείνῳ ἐξ οὗ κινήσεται καὶ οὐκ 20 εἶναι ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ εἰς τοδὶ κινεῖσθαι καὶ γίγνεσθαι ἐν τούτῳ, τὸ δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀντίφασιν μὴ συναληθεύεσθαι κατʼ αὐτούς. καὶ εἰ κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν συνεχῶς τὰ δεῦρο ῥεῖ καὶ κινεῖται, καί τις τοῦτο θείη καίπερ οὐκ ἀληθὲς ὄν, διὰ τί κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν οὐ μενεῖ; φαίνονται γὰρ οὐχ ἥκιστα τὰ κατὰ τὰς ἀντιφάσεις 25 ταὐτοῦ κατηγορεῖν ἐκ τοῦ τὸ ποσὸν ὑπειληφέναι μὴ μένειν ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων, διὸ καὶ εἶναι τετράπηχυ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ οὐκ εἶναι. ἡ δʼ οὐσία κατὰ τὸ ποιόν, τοῦτο δὲ τῆς ὡρισμένης φύσεως, τὸ δὲ ποσὸν τῆς ἀορίστου. ἔτι διὰ τί προστάττοντος τοῦ ἰατροῦ τοδὶ τὸ σιτίον προσενέγκασθαι προσφέρονται; 30 τί γὰρ μᾶλλον τοῦτο ἄρτος ἐστὶν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν; ὥστʼ οὐθὲν ἂν διέχοι φαγεῖν ἢ μὴ φαγεῖν· νῦν δʼ ὡς ἀληθεύοντες περὶ αὐτὸ καὶ ὄντος τοῦ προσταχθέντος σιτίου τούτου προσφέρονται τοῦτο· καίτοι γʼ οὐκ ἔδει μὴ διαμενούσης παγίως μηδεμιᾶς φύσεως ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ἀλλʼ ἀεὶ πασῶν κινουμένων 35 καὶ ῥεουσῶν. ἔτι δʼ εἰ μὲν ἀλλοιούμεθα ἀεὶ καὶ μηδέποτε διαμένομεν οἱ αὐτοί, τί καὶ θαυμαστὸν εἰ μηδέποθʼ ἡμῖν ταὐτὰ φαίνεται καθάπερ τοῖς κάμνουσιν 1063b 1 (καὶ γὰρ τούτοις διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμοίως διακεῖσθαι τὴν ἕξιν καὶ ὅθʼ ὑγίαινον, οὐχ ὅμοια φαίνεται τὰ κατὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις, αὐτὰ μὲν οὐδεμιᾶς διά γε τοῦτο μεταβολῆς κοινωνοῦντα τὰ αἰσθητά, αἰσθήματα δʼ ἕτερα ποιοῦντα τοῖς κάμνουσι καὶ μὴ τὰ αὐτά· 5 τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ἔχειν καὶ τῆς εἰρημένης μεταβολῆς γιγνομένης ἴσως ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν); εἰ δὲ μὴ μεταβάλλομεν ἀλλʼ οἱ αὐτοὶ διατελοῦμεν ὄντες, εἴη ἄν τι μένον.—πρὸς μὲν οὖν τοὺς ἐκ λόγου τὰς εἰρημένας ἀπορίας ἔχοντας οὐ ῥᾴδιον διαλῦσαι μὴ τιθέντων τι καὶ τούτου μηκέτι λόγον ἀπαιτούντων· 10 οὕτω γὰρ πᾶς λόγος καὶ πᾶσα ἀπόδειξις γίγνεται· μηθὲν γὰρ τιθέντες ἀναιροῦσι τὸ διαλέγεσθαι καὶ ὅλως λόγον,—ὥστε πρὸς μὲν τοὺς τοιούτους οὐκ ἔστι λόγος, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς διαποροῦντας ἐκ τῶν παραδεδομένων ἀποριῶν ῥᾴδιον ἀπαντᾶν καὶ διαλύειν τὰ ποιοῦντα τὴν ἀπορίαν ἐν αὐτοῖς· δῆλον δʼ ἐκ τῶν 15 εἰρημένων. ὥστε φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων. ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τὰς ἀντικειμένας φάσεις περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καθʼ ἕνα χρόνον ἀληθεύειν, οὐδὲ τὰ ἐναντία, διὰ τὸ λέγεσθαι κατὰ στέρησιν πᾶσαν ἐναντιότητα· δῆλον δὲ τοῦτʼ ἐπʼ ἀρχὴν τοὺς λόγους ἀναλύουσι τοὺς τῶν ἐναντίων. ὁμοίως δʼ οὐδὲ τῶν ἀνὰ μέσον οὐδὲν οἷόν τε 20 κατηγορεῖσθαι καθʼ ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ· λευκοῦ γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ ὑποκειμένου λέγοντες αὐτὸ εἶναι οὔτε μέλαν οὔτε λευκὸν ψευσόμεθα· συμβαίνει γὰρ εἶναι λευκὸν αὐτὸ καὶ μὴ εἶναι· θάτερον γὰρ τῶν συμπεπλεγμένων ἀληθεύσεται κατʼ αὐτοῦ, τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν ἀντίφασις τοῦ λευκοῦ. οὔτε δὴ καθʼ Ἡράκλειτον 25 ἐνδέχεται λέγοντας ἀληθεύειν, οὔτε κατʼ Ἀναξαγόραν· εἰ δὲ μή, συμβήσεται τἀναντία τοῦ αὐτοῦ κατηγορεῖν· ὅταν γὰρ ἐν παντὶ φῇ παντὸς εἶναι μοῖραν, οὐδὲν μᾶλλον εἶναί φησι γλυκὺ ἢ πικρὸν ἢ τῶν λοιπῶν ὁποιανοῦν ἐναντιώσεων, εἴπερ ἐν ἅπαντι πᾶν ὑπάρχει μὴ δυνάμει μόνον ἀλλʼ ἐνεργεία 30 ι ικαὶ ἀποκεκριμένον. ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδὲ πάσας ψευδεῖς οὐδʼ ἀληθεῖς τὰς φάσεις δυνατὸν εἶναι, διʼ ἄλλα τε πολλὰ τῶν συναχθέντων ἂν δυσχερῶν διὰ ταύτην τὴν θέσιν, καὶ διότι ψευδῶν μὲν οὐσῶν πασῶν οὐδʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτό τις φάσκων ἀληθεύσει, ἀληθῶν δὲ ψευδεῖς εἶναι πάσας λέγων οὐ ψεύσεται.

[7] 35 πᾶσα δʼ ἐπιστήμη ζητεῖ τινὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ αἰτίας περὶ ἕκαστον τῶν ὑφʼ αὑτὴν ἐπιστητῶν, 1064a 1 οἷον ἰατρικὴ καὶ γυμναστικὴ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἑκάστη τῶν ποιητικῶν καὶ μαθηματικῶν. ἑκάστη γὰρ τούτων περιγραψαμένη τι γένος αὑτῇ περὶ τοῦτο πραγματεύεται ὡς ὑπάρχον καὶ ὄν, οὐχ ᾗ δὲ ὄν, ἀλλʼ ἑτέρα τις αὕτη παρὰ ταύτας τὰς ἐπιστήμας ἐστὶν ἐπιστήμη. τῶν δὲ 5 λεχθεισῶν ἐπιστημῶν ἑκάστη λαβοῦσά πως τὸ τί ἐστιν ἐν ἑκάστῳ γένει πειρᾶται δεικνύναι τὰ λοιπὰ μαλακώτερον ἢ ἀκριβέστερον. λαμβάνουσι δὲ τὸ τί ἐστιν αἱ μὲν διʼ αἰσθήσεως αἱ δʼ ὑποτιθέμεναι· διὸ καὶ δῆλον ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπαγωγῆς ὅτι τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ τί ἐστιν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀπόδειξις. 10 ἐπεὶ δʼ ἔστι τις ἡ περὶ φύσεως ἐπιστήμη, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πρακτικῆς ἑτέρα καὶ ποιητικῆς ἔσται. ποιητικῆς μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ ποιοῦντι καὶ οὐ τῷ ποιουμένῳ τῆς κινήσεως ἡ ἀρχή, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἔστιν εἴτε τέχνη τις εἴτʼ ἄλλη τις δύναμις· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῆς πρακτικῆς οὐκ ἐν τῷ πρακτῷ μᾶλλον δʼ ἐν τοῖς 15 πράττουσιν ἡ κίνησις. ἡ δὲ τοῦ φυσικοῦ περὶ τὰ ἔχοντʼ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς κινήσεως ἀρχήν ἐστιν. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν οὔτε πρακτικὴν οὔτε ποιητικὴν ἀλλὰ θεωρητικὴν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὴν φυσικὴν ἐπιστήμην, δῆλον ἐκ τούτων (εἰς ἓν γάρ τι τούτων τῶν γενῶν ἀνάγκη πίπτειν)· ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ τί ἐστιν ἀναγκαῖον 20 ἑκάστῃ πως τῶν ἐπιστημῶν εἰδέναι καὶ τούτῳ χρῆσθαι ἀρχῇ, δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν πῶς ὁριστέον τῷ φυσικῷ καὶ πῶς ὁ τῆς οὐσίας λόγος ληπτέος, πότερον ὡς τὸ σιμὸν ἢ μᾶλλον ὡς τὸ κοῖλον. τούτων γὰρ ὁ μὲν τοῦ σιμοῦ λόγος μετὰ τῆς ὕλης λέγεται τῆς τοῦ πράγματος, ὁ δὲ τοῦ κοίλου χωρὶς τῆς ὕλης· 25 ἡ γὰρ σιμότης ἐν ῥινὶ γίγνεται, διὸ καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτῆς μετὰ ταύτης θεωρεῖται· τὸ σιμὸν γάρ ἐστι ῥὶς κοίλη. φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι καὶ σαρκὸς καὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν μορίων μετὰ τῆς ὕλης ἀεὶ τὸν λόγον ἀποδοτέον. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἔστι τις ἐπιστήμη τοῦ ὄντος ᾗ ὂν καὶ χωριστόν, σκεπτέον πότερόν ποτε τῇ φυσικῆ 30 ι ιτὴν αὐτὴν θετέον εἶναι ταύτην ἢ μᾶλλον ἑτέραν. ἡ μὲν οὖν φυσικὴ περὶ τὰ κινήσεως ἔχοντʼ ἀρχὴν ἐν αὑτοῖς ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ μαθηματικὴ θεωρητικὴ μὲν καὶ περὶ μένοντά τις αὕτη, ἀλλʼ οὐ χωριστά. περὶ τὸ χωριστὸν ἄρα ὂν καὶ ἀκίνητον ἑτέρα τούτων ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ἐπιστημῶν ἔστι τις, εἴπερ 35 ὑπάρχει τις οὐσία τοιαύτη, λέγω δὲ χωριστὴ καὶ ἀκίνητος, ὅπερ πειρασόμεθα δεικνύναι. καὶ εἴπερ ἔστι τις τοιαύτη φύσις ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν, ἐνταῦθʼ ἂν εἴη που καὶ τὸ θεῖον, καὶ αὕτη ἂν εἴη πρώτη καὶ κυριωτάτη ἀρχή. 1064b 1 δῆλον τοίνυν ὅτι τρία γένη τῶν θεωρητικῶν ἐπιστημῶν ἔστι, φυσική, μαθηματική, θεολογική. βέλτιστον μὲν οὖν τὸ τῶν θεωρητικῶν γένος, τούτων δʼ αὐτῶν ἡ τελευταία λεχθεῖσα· περὶ τὸ τιμιώτατον 5 γάρ ἐστι τῶν ὄντων, βελτίων δὲ καὶ χείρων ἑκάστη λέγεται κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐπιστητόν. ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις πότερόν ποτε τὴν τοῦ ὄντος ᾗ ὂν ἐπιστήμην καθόλου δεῖ θεῖναι ἢ οὔ. τῶν μὲν γὰρ μαθηματικῶν ἑκάστη περὶ ἕν τι γένος ἀφωρισμένον ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ καθόλου κοινὴ περὶ πάντων. εἰ μὲν οὖν 10 αἱ φυσικαὶ οὐσίαι πρῶται τῶν ὄντων εἰσί, κἂν ἡ φυσικὴ πρώτη τῶν ἐπιστημῶν εἴη· εἰ δʼ ἔστιν ἑτέρα φύσις καὶ οὐσία χωριστὴ καὶ ἀκίνητος, ἑτέραν ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν ἐπιστήμην αὐτῆς εἶναι καὶ προτέραν τῆς φυσικῆς καὶ καθόλου τῷ προτέραν.

[8] 15 ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ ἁπλῶς ὂν κατὰ πλείους λέγεται τρόπους, ὧν εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς εἶναι λεγόμενος, σκεπτέον πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ οὕτως ὄντος. ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐδεμία τῶν παραδεδομένων ἐπιστημῶν πραγματεύεται περὶ τὸ συμβεβηκός, δῆλον (οὔτε γὰρ οἰκοδομικὴ σκοπεῖ τὸ συμβησόμενον τοῖς τῇ 20 οἰκίᾳ χρησομένοις, οἷον εἰ λυπηρῶς ἢ τοὐναντίον οἰκήσουσιν, οὔθʼ ὑφαντικὴ οὔτε σκυτοτομικὴ οὔτε ὀψοποιική, τὸ δὲ καθʼ αὑτὴν ἴδιον ἑκάστη τούτων σκοπεῖ τῶν ἐπιστημῶν μόνον, τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον τέλος· οὐδὲ μουσικὸν καὶ γραμματικόν, οὐδὲ τὸν ὄντα μουσικὸν ὅτι γενόμενος γραμματικὸς ἅμα ἔσται τὰ 25 ἀμφότερα, πρότερον οὐκ ὤν, ὃ δὲ μὴ ἀεὶ ὂν ἔστιν, ἐγένετο τοῦτο, ὥσθʼ ἅμα μουσικὸς ἐγένετο καὶ γραμματικός,—τοῦτο δὲ οὐδεμία ζητεῖ τῶν ὁμολογουμένως οὐσῶν ἐπιστημῶν πλὴν ἡ σοφιστική· περὶ τὸ συμβεβηκὸς γὰρ αὕτη μόνη πραγματεύεται, διὸ Πλάτων οὐ κακῶς εἴρηκε φήσας τὸν σοφιστὴν 30 περὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν διατρίβειν)· ὅτι δʼ οὐδʼ ἐνδεχόμενόν ἐστιν εἶναι τοῦ συμβεβηκότος ἐπιστήμην, φανερὸν ἔσται πειραθεῖσιν ἰδεῖν τί ποτʼ ἐστὶ τὸ συμβεβηκός. πᾶν δή φαμεν εἶναι τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ καὶ ἐξ ἀνάγκης (ἀνάγκης δʼ οὐ τῆς κατὰ τὸ βίαιον λεγομένης ἀλλʼ ᾗ χρώμεθα ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὰς ἀποδείξεις), 35 τὸ δʼ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ, τὸ δʼ οὔθʼ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ οὔτʼ ἀεὶ καὶ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀλλʼ ὅπως ἔτυχεν· οἷον ἐπὶ κυνὶ γένοιτʼ ἂν ψῦχος, ἀλλὰ τοῦτʼ οὔτʼ ὡς ἀεὶ καὶ ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὔθʼ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ γίγνεται, συμβαίη δέ ποτʼ ἄν. 1065a 1 ἔστι δὴ τὸ συμβεβηκὸς ὃ γίγνεται μέν, οὐκ ἀεὶ δʼ οὐδʼ ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὐδʼ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ. τί μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ τὸ συμβεβηκός, εἴρηται, διότι δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιστήμη τοῦ τοιούτου, δῆλον· ἐπιστήμη μὲν γὰρ πᾶσα τοῦ 5 ἀεὶ ὄντος ἢ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ, τὸ δὲ συμβεβηκὸς ἐν οὐδετέρῳ τούτων ἐστίν. ὅτι δὲ τοῦ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ὄντος οὐκ εἰσὶν αἰτίαι καὶ ἀρχαὶ τοιαῦται οἷαίπερ τοῦ καθʼ αὑτὸ ὄντος, δῆλον· ἔσται γὰρ ἅπαντʼ ἐξ ἀνάγκης. εἰ γὰρ τόδε μὲν ἔστι τοῦδε ὄντος τόδε δὲ τοῦδε, τοῦτο δὲ μὴ ὅπως ἔτυχεν ἀλλʼ ἐξ 10 ἀνάγκης, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔσται καὶ οὗ τοῦτʼ ἦν αἴτιον ἕως τοῦ τελευταίου λεγομένου αἰτιατοῦ (τοῦτο δʼ ἦν κατὰ συμβεβηκός), ὥστʼ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἅπαντʼ ἔσται, καὶ τὸ ὁποτέρως ἔτυχε καὶ τὸ ἐνδέχεσθαι καὶ γενέσθαι καὶ μὴ παντελῶς ἐκ τῶν γιγνομένων ἀναιρεῖται. κἂν μὴ ὂν δὲ ἀλλὰ γιγνόμενον τὸ 15 αἴτιον ὑποτεθῇ, ταὐτὰ συμβήσεται· πᾶν γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης γενήσεται. ἡ γὰρ αὔριον ἔκλειψις γενήσεται ἂν τόδε γένηται, τοῦτο δʼ ἐὰν ἕτερόν τι, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἂν ἄλλο· καὶ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν τρόπον ἀπὸ πεπερασμένου χρόνου τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μέχρι αὔριον ἀφαιρουμένου χρόνου ἥξει ποτὲ εἰς τὸ ὑπάρχον, ὥστʼ 20 ἐπεὶ τοῦτʼ ἔστιν, ἅπαντʼ ἐξ ἀνάγκης τὰ μετὰ τοῦτο γενήσεται, ὥστε πάντα ἐξ ἀνάγκης γίγνεσθαι. τὸ δʼ ὡς ἀληθὲς ὂν καὶ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς τὸ μέν ἐστιν ἐν συμπλοκῇ διανοίας καὶ πάθος ἐν ταύτῃ (διὸ περὶ μὲν τὸ οὕτως ὂν οὐ ζητοῦνται αἱ ἀρχαί, περὶ δὲ τὸ ἔξω ὂν καὶ χωριστόν)· τὸ δʼ οὐκ 25 ἀναγκαῖον ἀλλʼ ἀόριστον, λέγω δὲ τὸ κατὰ συμβεβηκός· τοῦ τοιούτου δʼ ἄτακτα καὶ ἄπειρα τὰ αἴτια.—τὸ δὲ ἕνεκά του ἐν τοῖς φύσει γιγνομένοις ἢ ἀπὸ διανοίας ἐστίν, τύχη δέ ἐστιν ὅταν τι τούτων γένηται κατὰ συμβεβηκός· ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ ὄν ἐστι τὸ μὲν καθʼ αὑτὸ τὸ δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οὕτω 30 καὶ αἴτιον. ἡ τύχη δʼ αἰτία κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ προαίρεσιν τῶν ἕνεκά του γιγνομένοις, διὸ περὶ ταὐτὰ τύχη καὶ διάνοια· προαίρεσις γὰρ οὐ χωρὶς διανοίας. τὰ δʼ αἴτια ἀόριστα ἀφʼ ὧν ἂν γένοιτο τὰ ἀπὸ τύχης, διὸ ἄδηλος ἀνθρωπίνῳ λογισμῷ καὶ αἴτιον κατὰ συμβεβηκός, ἁπλῶς δʼ 35 οὐδενός. ἀγαθὴ δὲ τύχη καὶ κακὴ ὅταν ἀγαθὸν ἢ φαῦλον ἀποβῇ· εὐτυχία δὲ καὶ δυστυχία περὶ μέγεθος τούτων. 1065b 1 ἐπεὶ δʼ οὐθὲν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς πρότερον τῶν καθʼ αὑτό, οὐδʼ ἄρʼ αἴτια· εἰ ἄρα τύχη ἢ τὸ αὐτόματον αἴτιον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, πρότερον νοῦς αἴτιος καὶ φύσις.

[9] 5 ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν ἐνεργείᾳ μόνον τὸ δὲ δυνάμει τὸ δὲ δυνάμει καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ, τὸ μὲν ὂν τὸ δὲ ποσὸν τὸ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν. οὐκ ἔστι δέ τις κίνησις παρὰ τὰ πράγματα· μεταβάλλει γὰρ ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰς τοῦ ὄντος κατηγορίας, κοινὸν δʼ ἐπὶ τούτων οὐδέν ἐστιν ὃ οὐδʼ ἐν μιᾷ κατηγορίᾳ. ἕκαστον δὲ διχῶς 10 ὑπάρχει πᾶσιν (οἷον τὸ τόδε—τὸ μὲν γὰρ μορφὴ αὐτοῦ τὸ δὲ στέρησις—καὶ κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν τὸ μὲν λευκὸν τὸ δὲ μέλαν, καὶ κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν τὸ μὲν τέλειον τὸ δὲ ἀτελές, καὶ κατὰ φορὰν τὸ μὲν ἄνω τὸ δὲ κάτω, ἢ κοῦφον καὶ βαρύ)· ὥστε κινήσεως καὶ μεταβολῆς τοσαῦτʼ εἴδη ὅσα τοῦ ὄντος. διῃρημένου 15 δὲ καθʼ ἕκαστον γένος τοῦ μὲν δυνάμει τοῦ δʼ ἐντελεχείᾳ, τὴν τοῦ δυνάμει ᾗ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν ἐνέργειαν λέγω κίνησιν. ὅτι δʼ ἀληθῆ λέγομεν, ἐνθένδε δῆλον· ὅταν γὰρ τὸ οἰκοδομητόν, ᾗ τοιοῦτον αὐτὸ λέγομεν εἶναι, ἐνεργείᾳ ᾖ, οἰκοδομεῖται, καὶ ἔστι τοῦτο οἰκοδόμησις· ὁμοίως μάθησις, ἰάτρευσις, βάδισις, 20 ἅλσις, γήρανσις, ἅδρυνσις. συμβαίνει δὲ κινεῖσθαι ὅταν ἡ ἐντελέχεια ᾖ αὐτή, καὶ οὔτε πρότερον οὔθʼ ὕστερον. ἡ δὴ τοῦ δυνάμει ὄντος, ὅταν ἐντελεχείᾳ ὂν ἐνεργῇ, οὐχ ᾗ αὐτὸ ἀλλʼ ᾗ κινητόν, κίνησίς ἐστιν. λέγω δὲ τὸ ᾗ ὧδε. ἔστι γὰρ ὁ χαλκὸς δυνάμει ἀνδριάς· ἀλλʼ ὅμως οὐχ ἡ τοῦ 25 χαλκοῦ ἐντελέχεια, ᾗ χαλκός, κίνησίς ἐστιν. οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὸν χαλκῷ εἶναι καὶ δυνάμει τινί, ἐπεὶ εἰ ταὐτὸν ἦν ἁπλῶς κατὰ τὸν λόγον, ἦν ἂν ἡ τοῦ χαλκοῦ ἐντελέχεια κίνησίς τις. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ταὐτό (δῆλον δʼ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐναντίων· τὸ μὲν γὰρ δύνασθαι ὑγιαίνειν καὶ δύνασθαι κάμνειν οὐ ταὐτόν—καὶ γὰρ 30 ἂν τὸ ὑγιαίνειν καὶ τὸ κάμνειν ταὐτὸν ἦν—τὸ δʼ ὑποκείμενον καὶ ὑγιαῖνον καὶ νοσοῦν, εἴθʼ ὑγρότης εἴθʼ αἷμα, ταὐτὸ καὶ ἕν). ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐ τὸ αὐτό, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ χρῶμα ταὐτὸν καὶ ὁρατόν, ἡ τοῦ δυνατοῦ καὶ ᾗ δυνατὸν ἐντελέχεια κίνησίς ἐστιν. 34 ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐστιν αὕτη, καὶ ὅτι συμβαίνει τότε κινεῖσθαι ὅταν 35 ἡ ἐντελέχεια ᾖ αὐτή, καὶ οὔτε πρότερον οὔθʼ ὕστερον, δῆλον (ἐνδέχεται γὰρ ἕκαστον ὁτὲ μὲν ἐνεργεῖν ὁτὲ δὲ μή, 1066a 1 οἷον τὸ οἰκοδομητὸν ᾗ οἰκοδομητόν, καὶ ἡ τοῦ οἰκοδομητοῦ ἐνέργεια ᾗ οἰκοδομητὸν οἰκοδόμησίς ἐστιν· ἢ γὰρ τοῦτό ἐστιν, ἡ οἰκοδόμησις, ἡ ἐνέργεια, ἢ οἰκία· ἀλλʼ ὅταν οἰκία ᾖ, οὐκέτι οἰκοδομητόν, 5 οἰκοδομεῖται δὲ τὸ οἰκοδομητόν· ἀνάγκη ἄρα οἰκοδόμησιν τὴν ἐνέργειαν εἶναι, ἡ δʼ οἰκοδόμησις κίνησίς τις, ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων κινήσεων)· ὅτι δὲ καλῶς εἴρηται, δῆλον ἐξ ὧν οἱ ἄλλοι λέγουσι περὶ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾴδιον εἶναι διορίσαι ἄλλως αὐτήν. οὔτε γὰρ ἐν ἄλλῳ 10 τις γένει δύναιτʼ ἂν θεῖναι αὐτήν· δῆλον δʼ ἐξ ὧν λέγουσιν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἑτερότητα καὶ ἀνισότητα καὶ τὸ μὴ ὄν, ὧν οὐδὲν ἀνάγκη κινεῖσθαι, ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ ἡ μεταβολὴ οὔτʼ εἰς ταῦτα οὔτʼ ἐκ τούτων μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν ἀντικειμένων. αἴτιον δὲ τοῦ εἰς ταῦτα τιθέναι ὅτι ἀόριστόν τι δοκεῖ εἶναι ἡ κίνησις, τῆς 15 δʼ ἑτέρας συστοιχίας αἱ ἀρχαὶ διὰ τὸ στερητικαὶ εἶναι ἀόριστοι· οὔτε γὰρ τόδε οὔτε τοιόνδε οὐδεμία αὐτῶν οὔτε τῶν λοιπῶν κατηγοριῶν. τοῦ δὲ δοκεῖν ἀόριστον εἶναι τὴν κίνησιν αἴτιον ὅτι οὔτʼ εἰς δύναμιν τῶν ὄντων οὔτʼ εἰς ἐνέργειαν ἔστι θεῖναι αὐτήν· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ δυνατὸν ποσὸν εἶναι κινεῖται ἐξ 20 ἀνάγκης, οὔτε τὸ ἐνεργείᾳ ποσόν, ἥ τε κίνησις ἐνέργεια μὲν εἶναι δοκεῖ τις, ἀτελὴς δέ· αἴτιον δʼ ὅτι ἀτελὲς τὸ δυνατὸν οὗ ἐστὶν ἐνέργεια. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο χαλεπὸν αὐτὴν λαβεῖν τί ἐστιν· ἢ γὰρ εἰς στέρησιν ἀνάγκη θεῖναι ἢ εἰς δύναμιν ἢ εἰς ἐνέργειαν ἁπλῆν, τούτων δʼ οὐδὲν φαίνεται ἐνδεχόμενον, ὥστε 25 λείπεται τὸ λεχθὲν εἶναι, καὶ ἐνέργειαν καὶ μὴ ἐνέργειαν τὴν εἰρημένην, ἰδεῖν μὲν χαλεπὴν ἐνδεχομένην δʼ εἶναι. καὶ ὅτι ἐστὶν ἡ κίνησις ἐν τῷ κινητῷ, δῆλον· ἐντελέχεια γάρ ἐστι τούτου ὑπὸ τοῦ κινητικοῦ. καὶ ἡ τοῦ κινητικοῦ ἐνέργεια οὐκ ἄλλη ἐστίν. δεῖ μὲν γὰρ εἶναι ἐντελέχειαν ἀμφοῖν· κινητικὸν 30 μὲν γάρ ἐστι τῷ δύνασθαι, κινοῦν δὲ τῷ ἐνεργεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἔστιν ἐνεργητικὸν τοῦ κινητοῦ, ὥσθʼ ὁμοίως μία ἡ ἀμφοῖν ἐνέργεια ὥσπερ τὸ αὐτὸ διάστημα ἓν πρὸς δύο καὶ δύο πρὸς ἕν, καὶ τὸ ἄναντες καὶ τὸ κάταντες, ἀλλὰ τὸ εἶναι οὐχ ἕν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ κινοῦντος καὶ κινουμένου.

[10] 35 τὸ δʼ ἄπειρον ἢ τὸ ἀδύνατον διελθεῖν τῷ μὴ πεφυκέναι διιέναι, καθάπερ ἡ φωνὴ ἀόρατος, ἢ τὸ διέξοδον ἔχον ἀτελεύτητον, ἢ ὃ μόλις, ἢ ὃ πεφυκὸς ἔχειν μὴ ἔχει διέξοδον ἢ πέρας· ἔτι προσθέσει ἢ ἀφαιρέσει ἢ ἄμφω. 1066b 1 χωριστὸν μὲν δὴ αὐτό τι ὂν οὐχ οἷόν τʼ εἶναι· εἰ γὰρ μήτε μέγεθος μήτε πλῆθος, οὐσία δʼ αὐτὸ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ μὴ συμβεβηκός, ἀδιαίρετον ἔσται (τὸ γὰρ διαιρετὸν ἢ μέγεθος ἢ πλῆθος), εἰ 5 δὲ ἀδιαίρετον, οὐκ ἄπειρον, εἰ μὴ καθάπερ ἡ φωνὴ ἀόρατος· ἀλλʼ οὐχ οὕτω λέγουσιν οὐδʼ ἡμεῖς ζητοῦμεν, ἀλλʼ ὡς ἀδιέξοδον. ἔτι πῶς ἐνδέχεται καθʼ αὑτὸ εἶναι ἄπειρον, εἰ μὴ καὶ ἀριθμὸς καὶ μέγεθος, ὧν πάθος τὸ ἄπειρον; ἔτι εἰ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οὐκ ἂν εἴη στοιχεῖον τῶν ὄντων 10 ᾗ ἄπειρον, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ ἀόρατον τῆς διαλέκτου, καίτοι ἡ φωνὴ ἀόρατος. καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἐνεργείᾳ εἶναι τὸ ἄπειρον, δῆλον. ἔσται γὰρ ὁτιοῦν αὐτοῦ ἄπειρον μέρος τὸ λαμβανόμενον (τὸ γὰρ ἀπείρῳ εἶναι καὶ ἄπειρον τὸ αὐτό, εἴπερ οὐσία τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ μὴ καθʼ ὑποκειμένου), ὥστε ἢ ἀδιαίρετον, ἢ εἰς 15 ἄπειρα διαιρετόν, εἰ μεριστόν· πολλὰ δʼ εἶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ἀδύνατον ἄπειρα (ὥσπερ γὰρ ἀέρος ἀὴρ μέρος, οὕτως ἄπειρον ἀπείρου, εἰ ἔστιν οὐσία καὶ ἀρχή)· ἀμέριστον ἄρα καὶ ἀδιαίρετον. ἀλλὰ ἀδύνατον τὸ ἐντελεχείᾳ ὂν ἄπειρον (ποσὸν γὰρ εἶναι ἀνάγκη)· κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἄρα ὑπάρχει. ἀλλʼ εἰ 20 οὕτως, εἴρηται ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται εἶναι ἀρχήν, ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνο ᾧ συμβέβηκε, τὸν ἀέρα ἢ τὸ ἄρτιον.—αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ ζήτησις καθόλου, ὅτι δʼ ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐνθένδε δῆλον· εἰ γὰρ σώματος λόγος τὸ ἐπιπέδοις ὡρισμένον, οὐκ εἴη ἂν ἄπειρον σῶμα οὔτʼ αἰσθητὸν οὔτε νοητόν, οὐδʼ ἀριθμὸς ὡς 25 κεχωρισμένος καὶ ἄπειρος· ἀριθμητὸν γὰρ ὁ ἀριθμὸς ἢ τὸ ἔχον ἀριθμόν. φυσικῶς δὲ ἐκ τῶνδε δῆλον· οὔτε γὰρ σύνθετον οἷόν τʼ εἶναι οὔθʼ ἁπλοῦν. σύνθετον μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔσται σῶμα, εἰ πεπέρανται τῷ πλήθει τὰ στοιχεῖα (δεῖ γὰρ ἰσάζειν τὰ ἐναντία καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἓν αὐτῶν ἄπειρον· εἰ γὰρ ὁτῳοῦν 30 λείπεται ἡ θατέρου σώματος δύναμις, φθαρήσεται ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου τὸ πεπερασμένον· ἕκαστον δʼ ἄπειρον εἶναι ἀδύνατον, σῶμα γάρ ἐστι τὸ πάντῃ ἔχον διάστασιν, ἄπειρον δὲ τὸ ἀπεράντως διεστηκός, ὥστʼ εἰ τὸ ἄπειρον σῶμα, πάντῃ ἔσται ἄπειρον)· οὐδὲ ἓν δὲ καὶ ἁπλοῦν ἐνδέχεται τὸ ἄπειρον εἶναι 35 σῶμα, οὔθʼ ὡς λέγουσί τινες, παρὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα ἐξ οὗ γεννῶσι ταῦτα (οὐκ ἔστι γὰρ τοιοῦτο σῶμα παρὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα· ἅπαν γάρ, ἐξ οὗ ἐστί, καὶ διαλύεται εἰς τοῦτο, οὐ φαίνεται δὲ τοῦτο παρὰ τὰ ἁπλᾶ σώματα), 1067a 1 οὐδὲ πῦρ οὐδʼ ἄλλο τῶν στοιχείων οὐθέν· χωρὶς γὰρ τοῦ ἄπειρον εἶναί τι αὐτῶν, ἀδύνατον τὸ ἅπαν, κἂν ᾖ πεπερασμένον, ἢ εἶναι ἢ γίγνεσθαι ἕν τι αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ Ἡράκλειτός φησιν ἅπαντα γίγνεσθαί ποτε 5 πῦρ. ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς ὃ ποιοῦσι παρὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα οἱ φυσικοί· πᾶν γὰρ μεταβάλλει ἐξ ἐναντίου, οἷον ἐκ θερμοῦ εἰς ψυχρόν.—ἔτι τὸ αἰσθητὸν σῶμα πού, καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς τόπος ὅλου καὶ μορίου, οἷον τῆς γῆς, ὥστʼ εἰ μὲν ὁμοειδές, ἀκίνητον ἔσται ἢ ἀεὶ οἰσθήσεται, τοῦτο δὲ 10 ἀδύνατον (τί γὰρ μᾶλλον κάτω ἢ ἄνω ἢ ὁπουοῦν; οἷον εἰ βῶλος εἴη, ποῦ αὕτη κινήσεται ἢ μενεῖ; ὁ γὰρ τόπος τοῦ συγγενοῦς αὐτῇ σώματος ἄπειρος· καθέξει οὖν τὸν ὅλον τόπον; καὶ πῶς; τίς οὖν ἡ μονὴ καὶ ἡ κίνησις; ἢ πανταχοῦ μενεῖ—οὐ κινηθήσεται ἄρα, ἢ πανταχοῦ κινηθήσεται 15 —οὐκ ἄρα στήσεται)· εἰ δʼ ἀνόμοιον τὸ πᾶν, ἀνόμοιοι καὶ οἱ τόποι, καὶ πρῶτον μὲν οὐχ ἓν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ παντὸς ἀλλʼ ἢ τῷ ἅπτεσθαι, εἶτα ἢ πεπερασμένα ταῦτʼ ἔσται ἢ ἄπειρα εἴδει. πεπερασμένα μὲν οὖν οὐχ οἷόν τε (ἔσται γὰρ τὰ μὲν ἄπειρα τὰ δʼ οὔ, εἰ τὸ πᾶν ἄπειρον, οἷον πῦρ ἢ ὕδωρ· 20 φθορὰ δὲ τὸ τοιοῦτον τοῖς ἐναντίοις)· εἰ δʼ ἄπειρα καὶ ἁπλᾶ, καὶ οἱ τόποι ἄπειροι καὶ ἔσται ἄπειρα στοιχεῖα· εἰ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἀδύνατον καὶ οἱ τόποι πεπερασμένοι, καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἀνάγκη πεπεράνθαι. ὅλως δʼ ἀδύνατον ἄπειρον εἶναι σῶμα καὶ τόπον τοῖς σώμασιν, εἰ πᾶν σῶμα αἰσθητὸν ἢ βάρος ἔχει 25 ἢ κουφότητα· ἢ γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον ἢ ἄνω οἰσθήσεται, ἀδύνατον δὲ τὸ ἄπειρον ἢ πᾶν ἢ τὸ ἥμισυ ὁποτερονοῦν πεπονθέναι· πῶς γὰρ διελεῖς; ἢ πῶς τοῦ ἀπείρου ἔσται τὸ μὲν κάτω τὸ δʼ ἄνω, ἢ ἔσχατον καὶ μέσον; ἔτι πᾶν σῶμα αἰσθητὸν ἐν τόπῳ, τόπου δὲ εἴδη ἕξ, ἀδύνατον δʼ ἐν τῷ 30 ἀπείρῳ σώματι ταῦτʼ εἶναι. ὅλως δʼ εἰ ἀδύνατον τόπον ἄπειρον εἶναι, καὶ σῶμα ἀδύνατον· τὸ γὰρ ἐν τόπῳ πού, τοῦτο δὲ σημαίνει ἢ ἄνω ἢ κάτω ἢ τῶν λοιπῶν τι, τούτων δʼ ἕκαστον πέρας τι. τὸ δʼ ἄπειρον οὐ ταὐτὸν ἐν μεγέθει καὶ κινήσει καὶ χρόνῳ ὡς μία τις φύσις, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕστερον 35 λέγεται κατὰ τὸ πρότερον, οἷον κίνησις κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος ἐφʼ οὗ κινεῖται ἢ ἀλλοιοῦται ἢ αὔξεται, χρόνος δὲ διὰ τὴν κίνησιν.

[11] 1067b 1 μεταβάλλει δὲ τὸ μεταβάλλον τὸ μὲν κατὰ συμβεβηκός, 2 ὡς τὸ μουσικὸν βαδίζει, τὸ δὲ τῷ τούτου τι μεταβάλλειν ἁπλῶς λέγεται μεταβάλλειν, οἷον ὅσα κατὰ μέρη (ὑγιάζεται γὰρ τὸ σῶμα, ὅτι ὁ ὀφθαλμός), ἔστι δέ 5 τι ὃ καθʼ αὑτὸ πρῶτον κινεῖται, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἔστι τὸ καθʼ αὑτὸ κινητόν. ἔστι δέ τι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ κινοῦντος ὡσαύτως· κινεῖ γὰρ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς τὸ δὲ κατὰ μέρος τὸ δὲ καθʼ αὑτό· ἔστι δέ τι τὸ κινοῦν πρῶτον· ἔστι δέ τι τὸ κινούμενον, ἔτι ἐν ᾧ χρόνῳ καὶ ἐξ οὗ καὶ εἰς ὅ. τὰ δʼ εἴδη καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ 10 ὁ τόπος, εἰς ἃ κινοῦνται τὰ κινούμενα, ἀκίνητά ἐστιν, οἷον ἐπιστήμη καὶ θερμότης· ἔστι δʼ οὐχ ἡ θερμότης κίνησις ἀλλʼ ἡ θέρμανσις. ἡ δὲ μὴ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς μεταβολὴ οὐκ ἐν ἅπασιν ὑπάρχει ἀλλʼ ἐν τοῖς ἐναντίοις καὶ μεταξὺ καὶ ἐν ἀντιφάσει· τούτου δὲ πίστις ἐκ τῆς ἐπαγωγῆς. μεταβάλλει 15 δὲ τὸ μεταβάλλον ἢ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς ὑποκείμενον, ἢ οὐκ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς οὐχ ὑποκείμενον, ἢ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς οὐχ ὑποκείμενον, ἢ οὐκ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς ὑποκείμενον (λέγω δὲ ὑποκείμενον τὸ καταφάσει δηλούμενον), ὥστʼ ἀνάγκη τρεῖς εἶναι μεταβολάς· ἡ γὰρ ἐξ οὐχ ὑποκειμένου 20 εἰς μὴ ὑποκείμενον οὐκ ἔστι μεταβολή· οὔτε γὰρ ἐναντία οὔτε ἀντίφασίς ἐστιν, ὅτι οὐκ ἀντίθεσις. ἡ μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς ὑποκείμενον κατʼ ἀντίφασιν γένεσίς ἐστιν, ἡ μὲν ἁπλῶς ἁπλῆ, ἡ δὲ τινὸς τίς· ἡ δʼ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς μὴ ὑποκείμενον φθορά, ἡ μὲν ἁπλῶς ἁπλῆ, ἡ δὲ τινὸς 25 τίς. εἰ δὴ τὸ μὴ ὂν λέγεται πλεοναχῶς, καὶ μήτε τὸ κατὰ σύνθεσιν ἢ διαίρεσιν ἐνδέχεται κινεῖσθαι μήτε τὸ κατὰ δύναμιν τὸ τῷ ἁπλῶς ὄντι ἀντικείμενον (τὸ γὰρ μὴ λευκὸν ἢ μὴ ἀγαθὸν ὅμως ἐνδέχεται κινεῖσθαι κατὰ συμβεβηκός, εἴη γὰρ ἂν ἄνθρωπος τὸ μὴ λευκόν· τὸ δʼ ἁπλῶς 30 μὴ τόδε οὐδαμῶς), ἀδύνατον τὸ μὴ ὂν κινεῖσθαι (εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ τὴν γένεσιν κίνησιν εἶναι· γίγνεται γὰρ τὸ μὴ ὄν· εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὅτι μάλιστα κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς γίγνεται, ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν ὅτι ὑπάρχει τὸ μὴ ὂν κατὰ τοῦ γιγνομένου ἁπλῶς)· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ ἠρεμεῖν. ταῦτά 35 τε δὴ συμβαίνει δυσχερῆ, καὶ εἰ πᾶν τὸ κινούμενον ἐν τόπῳ, τὸ δὲ μὴ ὂν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τόπῳ· εἴη γὰρ ἂν πού. οὐδὲ δὴ ἡ φθορὰ κίνησις· ἐναντίον γὰρ κινήσει κίνησις ἢ ἠρεμία, φθορὰ δὲ γενέσει. 1068a 1 ἐπεὶ δὲ πᾶσα κίνησις μεταβολή τις, μεταβολαὶ δὲ τρεῖς αἱ εἰρημέναι, τούτων δʼ αἱ κατὰ γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν οὐ κινήσεις, αὗται δʼ εἰσὶν αἱ κατʼ ἀντίφασιν, ἀνάγκη τὴν ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς ὑποκείμενον κίνησιν εἶναι 5 μόνην. τὰ δʼ ὑποκείμενα ἢ ἐναντία ἢ μεταξύ (καὶ γὰρ ἡ στέρησις κείσθω ἐναντίον), καὶ δηλοῦται καταφάσει, οἷον τὸ γυμνὸν καὶ νωδὸν καὶ μέλαν.

[12] εἰ οὖν αἱ κατηγορίαι διῄρηνται οὐσίᾳ, ποιότητι, τόπῳ, τῷ ποιεῖν ἢ πάσχειν, τῷ πρός τι, τῷ ποσῷ, ἀνάγκη τρεῖς 10 εἶναι κινήσεις, ποιοῦ ποσοῦ τόπου· κατʼ οὐσίαν δʼ οὔ, διὰ τὸ μηθὲν εἶναι οὐσίᾳ ἐναντίον, οὐδὲ τοῦ πρός τι (ἔστι γὰρ θατέρου μεταβάλλοντος μὴ ἀληθεύεσθαι θάτερον μηδὲν μεταβάλλον, ὥστε κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἡ κίνησις αὐτῶν), οὐδὲ ποιοῦντος καὶ πάσχοντος, ἢ κινοῦντος καὶ κινουμένου, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι 15 κινήσεως κίνησις οὐδὲ γενέσεως γένεσις, οὐδʼ ὅλως μεταβολῆς μεταβολή. διχῶς γὰρ ἐνδέχεται κινήσεως εἶναι κίνησιν, ἢ ὡς ὑποκειμένου (οἷον ὁ ἄνθρωπος κινεῖται ὅτι ἐκ λευκοῦ εἰς μέλαν μεταβάλλει, ὥστε οὕτω καὶ ἡ κίνησις ἢ θερμαίνεται ἢ ψύχεται ἢ τόπον ἀλλάττει ἢ αὔξεται· τοῦτο 20 δὲ ἀδύνατον· οὐ γὰρ τῶν ὑποκειμένων τι ἡ μεταβολή), ἢ τῷ ἕτερόν τι ὑποκείμενον ἐκ μεταβολῆς μεταβάλλειν εἰς ἄλλο εἶδος, οἷον ἄνθρωπον ἐκ νόσου εἰς ὑγίειαν. ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τοῦτο δυνατὸν πλὴν κατὰ συμβεβηκός. πᾶσα γὰρ κίνησις ἐξ ἄλλου εἰς ἄλλο ἐστὶ μεταβολή, καὶ γένεσις καὶ φθορὰ 25 ὡσαύτως· πλὴν αἱ μὲν εἰς ἀντικείμενα ὡδί, ἡ δʼ ὡδί, ἡ κίνησις. ἅμα οὖν μεταβάλλει ἐξ ὑγιείας εἰς νόσον, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ταύτης τῆς μεταβολῆς εἰς ἄλλην. δῆλον δὴ ὅτι ἂν νοσήσῃ, μεταβεβληκὸς ἔσται εἰς ὁποιανοῦν (ἐνδέχεται γὰρ ἠρεμεῖν) καὶ ἔτι εἰς μὴ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἀεί· κἀκείνη ἔκ τινος εἴς 30 τι ἄλλο ἔσται· ὥσθʼ ἡ ἀντικειμένη ἔσται, ὑγίανσις, ἀλλὰ τῷ συμβεβηκέναι, οἷον ἐξ ἀναμνήσεως εἰς λήθην μεταβάλλει ὅτι ᾧ ὑπάρχει ἐκεῖνο μεταβάλλει, ὁτὲ μὲν εἰς ἐπιστήμην ὁτὲ δὲ εἰς ἄγνοιαν.—ἔτι εἰς ἄπειρον βαδιεῖται, εἰ ἔσται μεταβολῆς μεταβολὴ καὶ γενέσεως γένεσις. ἀνάγκη 35 δὴ καὶ τὴν προτέραν, εἰ ἡ ὑστέρα· οἷον εἰ ἡ ἁπλῆ γένεσις ἐγίγνετό ποτε, καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον ἐγίγνετο· 1068b 1 ὥστε οὔπω ἦν τὸ γιγνόμενον ἁπλῶς, ἀλλά τι γιγνόμενον ἢ γιγνόμενον ἤδη. καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐγίγνετό ποτε, ὥστʼ οὐκ ἦν πω τότε γιγνόμενον. ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν ἀπείρων οὐκ ἔστι τι πρῶτον, οὐκ 5 ἔσται τὸ πρῶτον, ὥστʼ οὐδὲ τὸ ἐχόμενον. οὔτε γίγνεσθαι οὖν οὔτε κινεῖσθαι οἷόν τε οὔτε μεταβάλλειν οὐδέν. ἔτι τοῦ αὐτοῦ κίνησις ἡ ἐναντία καὶ ἠρέμησις, καὶ γένεσις καὶ φθορά, ὥστε τὸ γιγνόμενον, ὅταν γένηται γιγνόμενον, τότε φθείρεται· οὔτε γὰρ εὐθὺς γιγνόμενον οὔθʼ ὕστερον· εἶναι γὰρ δεῖ 10 τὸ φθειρόμενον. ἔτι δεῖ ὕλην ὑπεῖναι τῷ γιγνομένῳ καὶ μεταβάλλοντι. τίς οὖν ἔσται ὥσπερ τὸ ἀλλοιωτὸν σῶμα ἢ ψυχή—οὕτω τί τὸ γιγνόμενον κίνησις ἢ γένεσις; καὶ ἔτι τί εἰς ὃ κινοῦνται; δεῖ γὰρ εἶναι τὴν τοῦδε ἐκ τοῦδε εἰς τόδε κίνησιν ἢ γένεσιν. πῶς οὖν; οὐ γὰρ ἔσται μάθησις τῆς 15 μαθήσεως, ὥστʼ οὐδὲ γένεσις γενέσεως. ἐπεὶ δʼ οὔτʼ οὐσίας οὔτε τοῦ πρός τι οὔτε τοῦ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν, λείπεται κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν καὶ ποσὸν καὶ τόπον κίνησιν εἶναι (τούτων γὰρ ἑκάστῳ ἐναντίωσις ἔστιν), λέγω δὲ τὸ ποιὸν οὐ τὸ ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ (καὶ γὰρ ἡ διαφορὰ ποιόν) ἀλλὰ τὸ παθητικόν, καθʼ ὃ 20 λέγεται πάσχειν ἢ ἀπαθὲς εἶναι. τὸ δὲ ἀκίνητον τό τε ὅλως ἀδύνατον κινηθῆναι καὶ τὸ μόλις ἐν χρόνῳ πολλῷ ἢ βραδέως ἀρχόμενον, καὶ τὸ πεφυκὸς μὲν κινεῖσθαι καὶ δυνάμενον μὴ κινούμενον δὲ ὅτε πέφυκε καὶ οὗ καὶ ὥς· ὃ καλῶ ἠρεμεῖν τῶν ἀκινήτων μόνον· ἐναντίον γὰρ ἠρεμία 25 κινήσει, ὥστε στέρησις ἂν εἴη τοῦ δεκτικοῦ. ἅμα κατὰ τόπον ὅσα ἐν ἑνὶ τόπῳ πρώτῳ, καὶ χωρὶς ὅσα ἐν ἄλλῳ· ἅπτεσθαι δὲ ὧν τὰ ἄκρα ἅμα· μεταξὺ δʼ εἰς ὃ πέφυκε πρότερον ἀφικνεῖσθαι τὸ μεταβάλλον ἢ εἰς ὃ ἔσχατον μεταβάλλει κατὰ φύσιν τὸ συνεχῶς μεταβάλλον. 30 ἐναντίον κατὰ τόπον τὸ κατʼ εὐθεῖαν ἀπέχον πλεῖστον· ἑξῆς δὲ οὗ μετὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὄντος, θέσει ἢ εἴδει ἢ ἄλλως πως ἀφορισθέντος, μηθὲν μεταξύ ἐστι τῶν ἐν ταὐτῷ γένει καὶ οὗ ἐφεξῆς ἐστίν, οἷον γραμμαὶ γραμμῆς ἢ μονάδες μονάδος ἢ οἰκίας οἰκία (ἄλλο δʼ οὐθὲν κωλύει μεταξὺ 35 εἶναι). τὸ γὰρ ἑξῆς τινὸς ἐφεξῆς καὶ ὕστερόν τι· οὐ γὰρ τὸ ἓν ἑξῆς τῶν δύο οὐδʼ ἡ νουμηνία τῆς δευτέρας. 1069a 1 ἐχόμενον δὲ ὃ ἂν ἑξῆς ὂν ἅπτηται. ἐπεὶ δὲ πᾶσα μεταβολὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις, ταῦτα δὲ τὰ ἐναντία καὶ ἀντίφασις, ἀντιφάσεως δʼ οὐδὲν ἀνὰ μέσον, δῆλον ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἐναντίοις τὸ 5 μεταξύ. τὸ δὲ συνεχὲς ὅπερ ἐχόμενόν τι. λέγω δὲ συνεχὲς ὅταν ταὐτὸ γένηται καὶ ἓν τὸ ἑκατέρου πέρας οἷς ἅπτονται καὶ συνέχονται, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι τὸ συνεχὲς ἐν τούτοις ἐξ ὧν ἕν τι πέφυκε γίγνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν σύναψιν. καὶ ὅτι πρῶτον τὸ ἐφεξῆς, δῆλον (τὸ γὰρ ἐφεξῆς οὐχ ἅπτεται, 10 τοῦτο δʼ ἐφεξῆς· καὶ εἰ συνεχές, ἅπτεται, εἰ δʼ ἅπτεται, οὔπω συνεχές· ἐν οἷς δὲ μὴ ἔστιν ἁφή, οὐκ ἔστι σύμφυσις ἐν τούτοις)· ὥστʼ οὐκ ἔστι στιγμὴ μονάδι ταὐτόν· ταῖς μὲν γὰρ ὑπάρχει τὸ ἅπτεσθαι, ταῖς δʼ οὔ, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐφεξῆς· καὶ τῶν μὲν μεταξύ τι τῶν δʼ οὔ.

Notes on the current edition

Metaphysics

1. Aristot. Met. 1.3-10 .

2. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.5 , Aristot. Met. 3.2.1-10 .

3. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.5, , Aristot. Met. 3.2.10-15 , where the problem takes a slightly different form.

4. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.6 , Aristot. Met. 3.2.15-17 .

5. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.8-10 , Aristot. Met. 3.2.18-19 .

6. Aristot. Physics 2.3 .

7. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.7 , Aristot. Met.3.2.20-30 .

8. This phrase has no technical sense here; cf. Aristot. Met. 1.9.4 .

9. i.e., intelligible matter (cf. Aristot. Met. 7.10.18 ). This problem is not raised in Book 3.

10. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.10 , Aristot. Met. 3.3 .

11. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.11 , Aristot. Met. 3.4.1-8 .

12. Aristot. Met. 11.1.11-13

13. Forms which are induced in matter are perishable, although not subject to the process of destruction; they are at one time and are not at another (cf. Aristot. Met. 7.15.1 ). The only pure form (i.e., the only form which is independent of matter in any and every sense) is the prime mover ( Aristot. Met. 12.7 ).

14. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.12 , Aristot. Met. 3.4.11-23 .

15. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.13 , Aristot. Met. 3.4.24-34 .

16. i.e., intelligible surfaces, etc.

17. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.15 , Aristot. Met. 3.5 .

18. sc. which is liable to generation or destruction.

19. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.14 , Aristot. Met. 3.6.7-9 .

20. This section belongs to the problem discussed in 1-5 above.

21. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.1.12 , Aristot. Met. 3.4.8-10 .

22. This chapter corresponds to Aristot. Met. 4.1, 2 , with which it should be compared.

23. Cf. Aristot. Met. 4.2.9 n .

24. i.e., identity, otherness, etc.

25. Aristot. Met. 11.1.1 .

26. Also the problem stated in ch. i. 3.

27. This chapter corresponds to Aristot. Met. 4.3.1-6 , and answers the problem stated in Aristot. Met. 11.1.2.

28. This chapter corresponds to Aristot. Met. 4.3.7-4.31 .

29. sect. 6= Aristot. Met. 4.4.14-16 .

30. With this section cf. Aristot. Met. 4.4.26-30 .

31. sect. 8= Aristot. Met. 4.3.10 .

32. sect. 9-11= Aristot. Met. 4.4.31 .

33. Cf. Aristot. Met. 4.8.4, 5 .

34. This chapter forms a summary of Aristot. Met. 4.5-8 . sect. 1-3= Aristot. Met. 4.5.1-5 .

35. With sect. 4, 5 cf. Aristot. Met. 4.5.6 .

36. Aristot. Physics 1.7-9 .

37. sect. 5-7= Aristot. Met. 4.5.23-27 .

38. i.e., that the same thing has contrary qualities.

39. sect. 8, 9 (first half)= Aristot. Met. 4.5.21, 22 .

40. Cf. Aristot. Met. 4.5.20, 21 .

41. Cf. Aristot. Met. 4.4.39-42 .

42. With this section cf. Aristot. Met. 4.5.7-14 .

43. With this section cf. Aristot. Met. 4.5.3, 4 , Aristot. Met. 4.6.1-3 .

44. Cf. Aristot. Met. 4.6.10, 11 .

45. Cf. Aristot. Met. 4.7 where, however, the point which is proved is that there can be no intermediate between contradictories.

46. Cf. Aristot. Met. 11.5.8

47. Cf. Aristot. Met. 4.7.8-8.5

48. Anaxagoras. What he really meant was that even the sweetest things contain some bitter particles. Cf. Anaxagoras Fr. 11 (Diels) ; Burnet, E.G.P. 129.

49. This chapter corresponds to Aristot. Met. 6.1 ; cf. also Aristot. Met. 4.3.1-6 and ch. 4 above. It also answers the problem stated in ch. 1.2.

50. Aristot. Met. 12.6, 7 .

51. Sections 1-9 of this chapter correspond to Aristot. Met. 6.2-4 .

52. This is a different form of the quibble in Aristot. Met. 6.2.4 . Here the fallacy obviously consists in the wrong application of the word ἅμα( at once or at the same time).

53. Plat. Sop. 254a .

54. Cf. Aristot. Met. 6.2.6 .

55. This section is taken from Aristot. Physics 2.5, 6 .

56. The argument is stated more fully and clearly in Aristot. Physics 2.6ff. . Chance produces indirectly the effects produced directly by mind; and spontaneity is similarly related to nature. But the indirect cause presupposes the direct. The argument is directed against the Atomists. Cf. Aristot. Phys. 196a 24 , Simplicius 327.24 , Cicero De Nat. Deor. 1.66 ( nulla cogente natura, sed concursu quodam fortuito).

57. The discussion of motion in this chapter consists of extracts from Aristot. Physics 3.1-3 .

58. i.e., change is substantial (generation and destruction); quantitative (increase and decrease); qualitative (alteration); spatial (locomotion). Cf. Aristot. Met. 11.12.1, 2 .

59. This is inaccurate; see previous note.

60. What Aristotle means by this is explained more clearly in the following sections, which may be summarized thus. The material substrate, e.g. bricks, etc., which is potentially a house, may be regarded (a) as potential material; in this sense it is actualized as bricks before building begins; (b) as potentially a house; in this sense when it is actualized it is no longer buildable but built, i.e., it is no longer potential; (c) as potentially buildable into a house. In this sense its actualization is conterminous with the process of building, and is incomplete (sect.11), and should not be described as ἐντελέχεια or complete reality. But Aristotle often uses this term as synonymous with the vaguer ἐνέργεια.

61. Pythagoreans and Platonists. Cf. Aristot. Met. 1.5.6 , Plat. Soph. 256d .

62. The criticism implied is: If motion is identified with otherness, inequality, etc., then these concepts must be either (a) subjects of motion, which is absurd, or (b) termini of motion, in which case the same must be true of their contraries, since motion is between contraries.

63. Cf. note on sect. 2 (end) above, and Aristot. Met. 9.6.7-10 .

64. This chapter consists of extracts from Aristot. Physics 3.4, 5, 7 .

65. The Pythagorean and Platonic view.

66. Aristotle has argued that they do not in Aristot. Met. 1.9.16-25 .

67. According to Anaximenes; cf. Theophrastus, Phys. Opin. Fr. 2 (Ritter and Preller 26) .

68. According to the Pythagoreans. Cf. Aristot. Met. 1.5.5. n

69. This is proved in Aristot. Physics 1.6 .

70. sc. and so no other body can exist beside it.

71. Anaximander. It seems, however, that by ἄπειρον he meant indeterminate or undifferentiated, although he no doubt regarded this principle as infinite as well. Cf. notes on Aristot. Met. 1.7.3 , Aristot. Met. 12.2.3 .

72. Cf. Hereclitus Fr. 20-22 (Bywater) .

73. The argument seems to be: Since all change is from contrary to contrary, and it is impossible that either (a) one of the elements should be contrary to the rest, or (b) one material principle should be contrary to all four elements, it follows that no one element, and similarly that no one material principle apart from the elements, can be the ultimate material principle of the universe.

74. i.e., the region of the universe which is proper to a given element is proper also to any part of that element. The proper region of earth is the center, of fire the circumference of the universe. Cf. Aristot. De Caelo 1.2 .

75. Ross is evidently right in taking this to refer to the rest or motion of the parts. An infinite body cannot move as a whole, because there is no space outside it.

76. If earth is an infinite body, its region must be infinite. But the infinite has no center (cf. sect. 13). Therefore a clod, which cannot occupy the whole region proper to earth, will have no region proper to itself to which it can move or in which it can rest.

77. sc. in quantity. If the universe is infinite in quantity, and the elements are limited in kind, some of the elements (or at least one) must be infinite in quantity. But this is impossible, just as it is impossible that all the elements should be infinite in quantity. Cf. sect. 7 above

78. sc. in kind or number.

79. Cf. sect. 6 n.

80. Cf. sect. 14 n.

81. i.e., above and below, before and behind, right and left ( Aristot. Phys. 205b 31 ).

82. Cf. Aristot. Met. 5.13.5 .

83. The change from positive to positive is omitted here (but cf. sect. 7). Aristotle no doubt intended to use it as an example of non-substantial change, e.g. from poor man to rich man; but since this can be regarded as change from poor man to not-poor man, or not-rich man to rich man, he includes it as a qualified type of substantial change.

84. i.e., falsity. Cf. Aristot. Met. 9.10.1 .

85. sect. 3.

86. Aristotle generally distinguishes eight categories (originally ten, but he seems to have abandoned κεῖσθαι position and ἔχειν state at an early date); here he omits time as being relative to motion (it is that by which motion can be numerically estimated; cf. Aristot. Met. 12.6.2 , Aristot. Phys. 219b 1 ) and therefore neither the subject nor the terminus of motion. Cf. Ross ad loc.

87. There is, however, change in respect of substance (generation and destruction), but this is between contradictories and is not motion in the strict sense. Cf. Aristot. Met. 11.11.6 , and sect. 4 below. The distinction between motion and change is not always maintained.

88. sc. contradictories.

89. sc. contraries.

90. sc. which is absurd.

91. That which comes to be must cease to be, and it can cease to be only when it exists. Therefore if that which comes to be comes to be coming to be, it must cease to be when it is coming to be; before this it does not exist, but is only coming to be coming to be, and after this it is not that which comes to be but that which has come to be.

92. Cf. Aristot. Met. 5.14 .

93. i.e., when they occupy one place to the exclusion of anything else. Cf. Aristot. Phys. 209a 33-b 1 .

94. I have transferred this sentence from the end of the section, where it is placed in the text, on the ground that it fits more naturally here. I suspect that it, like the displaced portion of sect. 13, was originally a marginal note which was later inserted in the body of the text, but in the wrong position.

95. I have followed Prantl’s suggestion in transferring this sentence from the end of sect. 13.

96. i.e., the first day of the month.

Aristotle Metaphysics 11

Hugh Tredennick (Translator)

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Perseus

Notes on the current edition

Stable identifiers