INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.

br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

METAPHYSICS
Aristotle

Book I
1 A men b! nature desire to "now. An indication of t#is is t#e deli$#t we ta"e in our senses% for e&en apart from t#eir usefulness t#e! are lo&ed for t#emsel&es% and abo&e all ot#ers t#e sense of si$#t. 'or not onl! wit# a &iew to action( but e&en w#en we are not $oin$ to do an!t#in$( we prefer seein$ )one mi$#t sa!* to e&er!t#in$ else. T#e reason is t#at t#is( most of all t#e senses( ma"es us "now and brin$s to li$#t man! differences between t#in$s. +! nature animals are born wit# t#e facult! of sensation( and from sensation memor! is produced in some of t#em( t#ou$# not in ot#ers. And t#erefore t#e former are more intelli$ent and apt at learnin$ t#an t#ose w#ic# cannot remember% t#ose w#ic# are incapable of #earin$ sounds are intelli$ent t#ou$# t#e! cannot be tau$#t( e.$. t#e bee( and an! ot#er race of animals t#at ma! be li"e it% and t#ose w#ic# besides memor! #a&e t#is sense of #earin$ can be tau$#t. T#e animals ot#er t#an man li&e b! appearances and memories( and #a&e but little of connected e,perience% but t#e #uman race li&es also b! art and reasonin$s. Now from memor! e,perience is produced in men% for t#e se&eral memories of t#e same t#in$ produce finall! t#e capacit! for a sin$le e,perience. And e,perience seems prett! muc# li"e science and art( but reall! science and art come to men t#rou$# e,perience% for -e,perience made art.( as Polus sa!s( -but ine,perience luc".. Now art arises w#en from man! notions $ained b! e,perience one uni&ersal /ud$ement about a class of ob/ects is produced. 'or to #a&e a /ud$ement t#at w#en Callias was ill of t#is disease t#is did #im $ood( and similarl! in t#e case of Socrates and in man! indi&idual cases( is a matter of e,perience% but to /ud$e t#at it #as done $ood to all persons of a certain constitution( mar"ed off in one class( w#en t#e! were ill of t#is disease( e.$. to p#le$matic or bilious people w#en burnin$ wit# fe&ers0 t#is is a matter of art.

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

2it# a &iew to action e,perience seems in no respect inferior to art( and men of e,perience succeed e&en better t#an t#ose w#o #a&e t#eor! wit#out e,perience. )T#e reason is t#at e,perience is "nowled$e of indi&iduals( art of uni&ersals( and actions and productions are all concerned wit# t#e indi&idual% for t#e p#!sician does not cure man( e,cept in an incidental wa!( but Callias or Socrates or some ot#er called b! some suc# indi&idual name( w#o #appens to be a man. If( t#en( a man #as t#e t#eor! wit#out t#e e,perience( and reco$ni3es t#e uni&ersal but does not "now t#e indi&idual included in t#is( #e will often fail to cure% for it is t#e indi&idual t#at is to be cured.* +ut !et we t#in" t#at "nowled$e and understandin$ belon$ to art rat#er t#an to e,perience( and we suppose artists to be wiser t#an men of e,perience )w#ic# implies t#at 2isdom depends in all cases rat#er on "nowled$e*% and t#is because t#e former "now t#e cause( but t#e latter do not. 'or men of e,perience "now t#at t#e t#in$ is so( but do not "now w#!( w#ile t#e ot#ers "now t#e -w#!. and t#e cause. 4ence we t#in" also t#at t#e masterwor"ers in eac# craft are more #onourable and "now in a truer sense and are wiser t#an t#e manual wor"ers( because t#e! "now t#e causes of t#e t#in$s t#at are done )we t#in" t#e manual wor"ers are li"e certain lifeless t#in$s w#ic# act indeed( but act wit#out "nowin$ w#at t#e! do( as fire burns(0but w#ile t#e lifeless t#in$s perform eac# of t#eir functions b! a natural tendenc!( t#e labourers perform t#em t#rou$# #abit*% t#us we &iew t#em as bein$ wiser not in &irtue of bein$ able to act( but of #a&in$ t#e t#eor! for t#emsel&es and "nowin$ t#e causes. And in $eneral it is a si$n of t#e man w#o "nows and of t#e man w#o does not "now( t#at t#e former can teac#( and t#erefore we t#in" art more trul! "nowled$e t#an e,perience is% for artists can teac#( and men of mere e,perience cannot. A$ain( we do not re$ard an! of t#e senses as 2isdom% !et surel! t#ese $i&e t#e most aut#oritati&e "nowled$e of particulars. +ut t#e! do not tell us t#e -w#!. of an!t#in$0e.$. w#! fire is #ot% t#e! onl! sa! t#at it is #ot. At first #e w#o in&ented an! art w#ate&er t#at went be!ond t#e common perceptions of man was naturall! admired b! men( not onl! because t#ere was somet#in$ useful in t#e in&entions( but because #e was t#ou$#t wise and superior to t#e rest. +ut as more arts were in&ented( and some were directed to t#e necessities of life( ot#ers to recreation( t#e in&entors of t#e latter were naturall! alwa!s re$arded as wiser t#an t#e in&entors of t#e former( because t#eir branc#es of "nowled$e did not aim at utilit!. 4ence w#en all suc# in&entions were alread! establis#ed( t#e sciences w#ic# do not aim at $i&in$ pleasure or at t#e necessities of life were disco&ered( and first in t#e places w#ere men first be$an to #a&e leisure. T#is is w#! t#e mat#ematical arts were founded in E$!pt% for t#ere t#e priestl! caste was allowed to be at leisure.

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

2e #a&e said in t#e Et#ics w#at t#e difference is between art and science and t#e ot#er "indred faculties% but t#e point of our present discussion is t#is( t#at all men suppose w#at is called 2isdom to deal wit# t#e first causes and t#e principles of t#in$s% so t#at( as #as been said before( t#e man of e,perience is t#ou$#t to be wiser t#an t#e possessors of an! sense0perception w#ate&er( t#e artist wiser t#an t#e men of e,perience( t#e masterwor"er t#an t#e mec#anic( and t#e t#eoretical "inds of "nowled$e to be more of t#e nature of 2isdom t#an t#e producti&e. Clearl! t#en 2isdom is "nowled$e about certain principles and causes. 2 Since we are see"in$ t#is "nowled$e( we must in6uire of w#at "ind are t#e causes and t#e principles( t#e "nowled$e of w#ic# is 2isdom. If one were to ta"e t#e notions we #a&e about t#e wise man( t#is mi$#t per#aps ma"e t#e answer more e&ident. 2e suppose first( t#en( t#at t#e wise man "nows all t#in$s( as far as possible( alt#ou$# #e #as not "nowled$e of eac# of t#em in detail% secondl!( t#at #e w#o can learn t#in$s t#at are difficult( and not eas! for man to "now( is wise )sense0perception is common to all( and t#erefore eas! and no mar" of 2isdom*% a$ain( t#at #e w#o is more e,act and more capable of teac#in$ t#e causes is wiser( in e&er! branc# of "nowled$e% and t#at of t#e sciences( also( t#at w#ic# is desirable on its own account and for t#e sa"e of "nowin$ it is more of t#e nature of 2isdom t#an t#at w#ic# is desirable on account of its results( and t#e superior science is more of t#e nature of 2isdom t#an t#e ancillar!% for t#e wise man must not be ordered but must order( and #e must not obe! anot#er( but t#e less wise must obe! #im. Suc# and so man! are t#e notions( t#en( w#ic# we #a&e about 2isdom and t#e wise. Now of t#ese c#aracteristics t#at of "nowin$ all t#in$s must belon$ to #im w#o #as in t#e #i$#est de$ree uni&ersal "nowled$e% for #e "nows in a sense all t#e instances t#at fall under t#e uni&ersal. And t#ese t#in$s( t#e most uni&ersal( are on t#e w#ole t#e #ardest for men to "now% for t#e! are fart#est from t#e senses. And t#e most e,act of t#e sciences are t#ose w#ic# deal most wit# first principles% for t#ose w#ic# in&ol&e fewer principles are more e,act t#an t#ose w#ic# in&ol&e additional principles( e.$. arit#metic t#an $eometr!. +ut t#e science w#ic# in&esti$ates causes is also instructi&e( in a #i$#er de$ree( for t#e people w#o instruct us are t#ose w#o tell t#e causes of eac# t#in$. And understandin$ and "nowled$e pursued for t#eir own sa"e are found most in t#e "nowled$e of t#at w#ic# is most "nowable )for #e w#o c#ooses to "now for t#e sa"e of "nowin$ will c#oose most readil! t#at w#ic# is most trul! "nowled$e( and suc# is t#e "nowled$e of t#at w#ic# is most "nowable*% and t#e first principles and t#e causes are most "nowable% for b! reason of t#ese( and from t#ese( all ot#er t#in$s come to be "nown( and not t#ese b! means of t#e t#in$s subordinate to t#em.

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

And t#e science w#ic# "nows to w#at end eac# t#in$ must be done is t#e most aut#oritati&e of t#e sciences( and more aut#oritati&e t#an an! ancillar! science% and t#is end is t#e $ood of t#at t#in$( and in $eneral t#e supreme $ood in t#e w#ole of nature. 8ud$ed b! all t#e tests we #a&e mentioned( t#en( t#e name in 6uestion falls to t#e same science% t#is must be a science t#at in&esti$ates t#e first principles and causes% for t#e $ood( i.e. t#e end( is one of t#e causes. T#at it is not a science of production is clear e&en from t#e #istor! of t#e earliest p#ilosop#ers. 'or it is owin$ to t#eir wonder t#at men bot# now be$in and at first be$an to p#ilosop#i3e% t#e! wondered ori$inall! at t#e ob&ious difficulties( t#en ad&anced little b! little and stated difficulties about t#e $reater matters( e.$. about t#e p#enomena of t#e moon and t#ose of t#e sun and of t#e stars( and about t#e $enesis of t#e uni&erse. And a man w#o is pu33led and wonders t#in"s #imself i$norant )w#ence e&en t#e lo&er of m!t# is in a sense a lo&er of 2isdom( for t#e m!t# is composed of wonders*% t#erefore since t#e! p#ilosop#i3ed order to escape from i$norance( e&identl! t#e! were pursuin$ science in order to "now( and not for an! utilitarian end. And t#is is confirmed b! t#e facts% for it was w#en almost all t#e necessities of life and t#e t#in$s t#at ma"e for comfort and recreation #ad been secured( t#at suc# "nowled$e be$an to be sou$#t. E&identl! t#en we do not see" it for t#e sa"e of an! ot#er ad&anta$e% but as t#e man is free( we sa!( w#o e,ists for #is own sa"e and not for anot#er.s( so we pursue t#is as t#e onl! free science( for it alone e,ists for its own sa"e. 4ence also t#e possession of it mi$#t be /ustl! re$arded as be!ond #uman power% for in man! wa!s #uman nature is in bonda$e( so t#at accordin$ to Simonides -9od alone can #a&e t#is pri&ile$e.( and it is unfittin$ t#at man s#ould not be content to see" t#e "nowled$e t#at is suited to #im. If( t#en( t#ere is somet#in$ in w#at t#e poets sa!( and /ealous! is natural to t#e di&ine power( it would probabl! occur in t#is case abo&e all( and all w#o e,celled in t#is "nowled$e would be unfortunate. +ut t#e di&ine power cannot be /ealous )na!( accordin$ to t#e pro&erb( -bards tell a lie.*( nor s#ould an! ot#er science be t#ou$#t more #onourable t#an one of t#is sort. 'or t#e most di&ine science is also most #onourable% and t#is science alone must be( in two wa!s( most di&ine. 'or t#e science w#ic# it would be most meet for 9od to #a&e is a di&ine science( and so is an! science t#at deals wit# di&ine ob/ects% and t#is science alone #as bot# t#ese 6ualities% for )1* 9od is t#ou$#t to be amon$ t#e causes of all t#in$s and to be a first principle( and )5* suc# a science eit#er 9od alone can #a&e( or 9od abo&e all ot#ers. All t#e sciences( indeed( are more necessar! t#an t#is( but none is better.

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

<

;et t#e ac6uisition of it must in a sense end in somet#in$ w#ic# is t#e opposite of our ori$inal in6uiries. 'or all men be$in( as we said( b! wonderin$ t#at t#in$s are as t#e! are( as t#e! do about self0mo&in$ marionettes( or about t#e solstices or t#e incommensurabilit! of t#e dia$onal of a s6uare wit# t#e side% for it seems wonderful to all w#o #a&e not !et seen t#e reason( t#at t#ere is a t#in$ w#ic# cannot be measured e&en b! t#e smallest unit. +ut we must end in t#e contrar! and( accordin$ to t#e pro&erb( t#e better state( as is t#e case in t#ese instances too w#en men learn t#e cause% for t#ere is not#in$ w#ic# would surprise a $eometer so muc# as if t#e dia$onal turned out to be commensurable. 2e #a&e stated( t#en( w#at is t#e nature of t#e science we are searc#in$ for( and w#at is t#e mar" w#ic# our searc# and our w#ole in&esti$ation must reac#. 3 E&identl! we #a&e to ac6uire "nowled$e of t#e ori$inal causes )for we sa! we "now eac# t#in$ onl! w#en we t#in" we reco$ni3e its first cause*( and causes are spo"en of in four senses. In one of t#ese we mean t#e substance( i.e. t#e essence )for t#e -w#!. is reducible finall! to t#e definition( and t#e ultimate -w#!. is a cause and principle*% in anot#er t#e matter or substratum( in a t#ird t#e source of t#e c#an$e( and in a fourt# t#e cause opposed to t#is( t#e purpose and t#e $ood )for t#is is t#e end of all $eneration and c#an$e*. 2e #a&e studied t#ese causes sufficientl! in our wor" on nature( but !et let us call to our aid t#ose w#o #a&e attac"ed t#e in&esti$ation of bein$ and p#ilosop#i3ed about realit! before us. 'or ob&iousl! t#e! too spea" of certain principles and causes% to $o o&er t#eir &iews( t#en( will be of profit to t#e present in6uir!( for we s#all eit#er find anot#er "ind of cause( or be more con&inced of t#e correctness of t#ose w#ic# we now maintain. Of t#e first p#ilosop#ers( t#en( most t#ou$#t t#e principles w#ic# were of t#e nature of matter were t#e onl! principles of all t#in$s. T#at of w#ic# all t#in$s t#at are consist( t#e first from w#ic# t#e! come to be( t#e last into w#ic# t#e! are resol&ed )t#e substance remainin$( but c#an$in$ in its modifications*( t#is t#e! sa! is t#e element and t#is t#e principle of t#in$s( and t#erefore t#e! t#in" not#in$ is eit#er $enerated or destro!ed( since t#is sort of entit! is alwa!s conser&ed( as we sa! Socrates neit#er comes to be absolutel! w#en #e comes to be beautiful or musical( nor ceases to be w#en loses t#ese c#aracteristics( because t#e substratum( Socrates #imself remains. /ust so t#e! sa! not#in$ else comes to be or ceases to be% for t#ere must be some entit!0eit#er one or more t#an one0from w#ic# all ot#er t#in$s come to be( it bein$ conser&ed. ;et t#e! do not all a$ree as to t#e number and t#e nature of t#ese principles. T#ales( t#e founder of t#is t!pe of p#ilosop#!( sa!s t#e principle is water )for w#ic# reason #e declared

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

t#at t#e eart# rests on water*( $ettin$ t#e notion per#aps from seein$ t#at t#e nutriment of all t#in$s is moist( and t#at #eat itself is $enerated from t#e moist and "ept ali&e b! it )and t#at from w#ic# t#e! come to be is a principle of all t#in$s*. 4e $ot #is notion from t#is fact( and from t#e fact t#at t#e seeds of all t#in$s #a&e a moist nature( and t#at water is t#e ori$in of t#e nature of moist t#in$s. Some t#in" t#at e&en t#e ancients w#o li&ed lon$ before t#e present $eneration( and first framed accounts of t#e $ods( #ad a similar &iew of nature% for t#e! made Ocean and Tet#!s t#e parents of creation( and described t#e oat# of t#e $ods as bein$ b! water( to w#ic# t#e! $i&e t#e name of St!,% for w#at is oldest is most #onourable( and t#e most #onourable t#in$ is t#at b! w#ic# one swears. It ma! per#aps be uncertain w#et#er t#is opinion about nature is primiti&e and ancient( but T#ales at an! rate is said to #a&e declared #imself t#us about t#e first cause. 4ippo no one would t#in" fit to include amon$ t#ese t#in"ers( because of t#e paltriness of #is t#ou$#t. Ana,imenes and =io$enes ma"e air prior to water( and t#e most primar! of t#e simple bodies( w#ile 4ippasus of >etapontium and 4eraclitus of Ep#esus sa! t#is of fire( and Empedocles sa!s it of t#e four elements )addin$ a fourt#0eart#0to t#ose w#ic# #a&e been named*% for t#ese( #e sa!s( alwa!s remain and do not come to be( e,cept t#at t#e! come to be more or fewer( bein$ a$$re$ated into one and se$re$ated out of one. Ana,a$oras of Cla3omenae( w#o( t#ou$# older t#an Empedocles( was later in #is p#ilosop#ical acti&it!( sa!s t#e principles are infinite in number% for #e sa!s almost all t#e t#in$s t#at are made of parts li"e t#emsel&es( in t#e manner of water or fire( are $enerated and destro!ed in t#is wa!( onl! b! a$$re$ation and se$re$ation( and are not in an! ot#er sense $enerated or destro!ed( but remain eternall!. 'rom t#ese facts one mi$#t t#in" t#at t#e onl! cause is t#e so0called material cause% but as men t#us ad&anced( t#e &er! facts opened t#e wa! for t#em and /oined in forcin$ t#em to in&esti$ate t#e sub/ect. 4owe&er true it ma! be t#at all $eneration and destruction proceed from some one or )for t#at matter* from more elements( w#! does t#is #appen and w#at is t#e cause? 'or at least t#e substratum itself does not ma"e itself c#an$e% e.$. neit#er t#e wood nor t#e bron3e causes t#e c#an$e of eit#er of t#em( nor does t#e wood manufacture a bed and t#e bron3e a statue( but somet#in$ else is t#e cause of t#e c#an$e. And to see" t#is is to see" t#e second cause( as we s#ould sa!(0t#at from w#ic# comes t#e be$innin$ of t#e mo&ement. Now t#ose w#o at t#e &er! be$innin$ set t#emsel&es to t#is "ind of in6uir!( and said t#e substratum was one( were not at all dissatisfied wit# t#emsel&es% but some at least of t#ose w#o maintain it to be one0as t#ou$# defeated b! t#is searc# for t#e second cause0

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

sa! t#e one and nature as a w#ole is unc#an$eable not onl! in respect of $eneration and destruction )for t#is is a primiti&e belief( and all a$reed in it*( but also of all ot#er c#an$e% and t#is &iew is peculiar to t#em. Of t#ose w#o said t#e uni&erse was one( t#en none succeeded in disco&erin$ a cause of t#is sort( e,cept per#aps Parmenides( and #e onl! inasmuc# as #e supposes t#at t#ere is not onl! one but also in some sense two causes. +ut for t#ose w#o ma"e more elements it is more possible to state t#e second cause( e.$. for t#ose w#o ma"e #ot and cold( or fire and eart#( t#e elements% for t#e! treat fire as #a&in$ a nature w#ic# fits it to mo&e t#in$s( and water and eart# and suc# t#in$s t#e! treat in t#e contrar! wa!. 2#en t#ese men and t#e principles of t#is "ind #ad #ad t#eir da!( as t#e latter were found inade6uate to $enerate t#e nature of t#in$s men were a$ain forced b! t#e trut# itself( as we said( to in6uire into t#e ne,t "ind of cause. 'or it is not li"el! eit#er t#at fire or eart# or an! suc# element s#ould be t#e reason w#! t#in$s manifest $oodness and( beaut! bot# in t#eir bein$ and in t#eir comin$ to be( or t#at t#ose t#in"ers s#ould #a&e supposed it was% nor a$ain could it be ri$#t to entrust so $reat a matter to spontaneit! and c#ance. 2#en one man said( t#en( t#at reason was present0as in animals( so t#rou$#out nature0as t#e cause of order and of all arran$ement( #e seemed li"e a sober man in contrast wit# t#e random tal" of #is predecessors. 2e "now t#at Ana,a$oras certainl! adopted t#ese &iews( but 4ermotimus of Cla3omenae is credited wit# e,pressin$ t#em earlier. T#ose w#o t#ou$#t t#us stated t#at t#ere is a principle of t#in$s w#ic# is at t#e same time t#e cause of beaut!( and t#at sort of cause from w#ic# t#in$s ac6uire mo&ement. 4 One mi$#t suspect t#at 4esiod was t#e first to loo" for suc# a t#in$0or some one else w#o put lo&e or desire amon$ e,istin$ t#in$s as a principle( as Parmenides( too( does% for #e( in constructin$ t#e $enesis of t#e uni&erse( sa!sA0 o&e first of all t#e 9ods s#e planned. And 4esiod sa!sA0 'irst of all t#in$s was c#aos made( and t#en +road0breasted eart#... And lo&e( -mid all t#e $ods pre0eminent( w#ic# implies t#at amon$ e,istin$ t#in$s t#ere must be from t#e first a cause w#ic# will mo&e t#in$s and brin$ t#em to$et#er. 4ow t#ese t#in"ers s#ould be arran$ed wit# re$ard to priorit! of disco&er! let us be allowed to decide later% but since t#e contraries of t#e &arious

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

forms of $ood were also percei&ed to be present in nature0not onl! order and t#e beautiful( but also disorder and t#e u$l!( and bad t#in$s in $reater number t#an $ood( and i$noble t#in$s t#an beautiful0t#erefore anot#er t#in"er introduced friends#ip and strife( eac# of t#e two t#e cause of one of t#ese two sets of 6ualities. 'or if we were to follow out t#e &iew of Empedocles( and interpret it accordin$ to its meanin$ and not to its lispin$ e,pression( we s#ould find t#at friends#ip is t#e cause of $ood t#in$s( and strife of bad. T#erefore( if we said t#at Empedocles in a sense bot# mentions( and is t#e first to mention( t#e bad and t#e $ood as principles( we s#ould per#aps be ri$#t( since t#e cause of all $oods is t#e $ood itself. T#ese t#in"ers( as we sa!( e&identl! $rasped( and to t#is e,tent( two of t#e causes w#ic# we distin$uis#ed in our wor" on nature0t#e matter and t#e source of t#e mo&ement0&a$uel!( #owe&er( and wit# no clearness( but as untrained men be#a&e in fi$#ts% for t#e! $o round t#eir opponents and often stri"e fine blows( but t#e! do not fi$#t on scientific principles( and so too t#ese t#in"ers do not seem to "now w#at t#e! sa!% for it is e&ident t#at( as a rule( t#e! ma"e no use of t#eir causes e,cept to a small e,tent. 'or Ana,a$oras uses reason as a deus e, mac#ina for t#e ma"in$ of t#e world( and w#en #e is at a loss to tell from w#at cause somet#in$ necessaril! is( t#en #e dra$s reason in( but in all ot#er cases ascribes e&ents to an!t#in$ rat#er t#an to reason. And Empedocles( t#ou$# #e uses t#e causes to a $reater e,tent t#an t#is( neit#er does so sufficientl! nor attains consistenc! in t#eir use. At least( in man! cases #e ma"es lo&e se$re$ate t#in$s( and strife a$$re$ate t#em. 'or w#ene&er t#e uni&erse is dissol&ed into its elements b! strife( fire is a$$re$ated into one( and so is eac# of t#e ot#er elements% but w#ene&er a$ain under t#e influence of lo&e t#e! come to$et#er into one( t#e parts must a$ain be se$re$ated out of eac# element. Empedocles( t#en( in contrast wit# #is precessors( was t#e first to introduce t#e di&idin$ of t#is cause( not positin$ one source of mo&ement( but different and contrar! sources. A$ain( #e was t#e first to spea" of four material elements% !et #e does not use four( but treats t#em as two onl!% #e treats fire b! itself( and its opposite0eart#( air( and water0as one "ind of t#in$. 2e ma! learn t#is b! stud! of #is &erses. T#is p#ilosop#er t#en( as we sa!( #as spo"en of t#e principles in t#is wa!( and made t#em of t#is number. eucippus and #is associate =emocritus sa! t#at t#e full and t#e empt! are t#e elements( callin$ t#e one bein$ and t#e ot#er non0bein$0t#e full and solid bein$ bein$( t#e empt! non0bein$ )w#ence t#e! sa! bein$ no more is t#an non0bein$( because t#e solid no more is t#an t#e empt!*% and t#e! ma"e t#ese t#e material causes of t#in$s. And as t#ose w#o ma"e t#e underl!in$ substance one $enerate all ot#er t#in$s b! its modifications( supposin$ t#e rare and t#e dense to be t#e sources of t#e modifications( in t#e same wa!

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

t#ese p#ilosop#ers sa! t#e differences in t#e elements are t#e causes of all ot#er 6ualities. T#ese differences( t#e! sa!( are t#ree0s#ape and order and position. 'or t#e! sa! t#e real is differentiated onl! b! -r#!t#m and -inter0contact. and -turnin$.% and of t#ese r#!t#m is s#ape( inter0contact is order( and turnin$ is position% for A differs from N in s#ape( AN from NA in order( > from 2 in position. T#e 6uestion of mo&ement0w#ence or #ow it is to belon$ to t#in$s0t#ese t#in"ers( li"e t#e ot#ers( la3il! ne$lected. Re$ardin$ t#e two causes( t#en( as we sa!( t#e in6uir! seems to #a&e been pus#ed t#us far b! t#e earl! p#ilosop#ers. 5 Contemporaneousl! wit# t#ese p#ilosop#ers and before t#em( t#e so0called P!t#a$oreans( w#o were t#e first to ta"e up mat#ematics( not onl! ad&anced t#is stud!( but also #a&in$ been brou$#t up in it t#e! t#ou$#t its principles were t#e principles of all t#in$s. Since of t#ese principles numbers are b! nature t#e first( and in numbers t#e! seemed to see man! resemblances to t#e t#in$s t#at e,ist and come into bein$0more t#an in fire and eart# and water )suc# and suc# a modification of numbers bein$ /ustice( anot#er bein$ soul and reason( anot#er bein$ opportunit!0and similarl! almost all ot#er t#in$s bein$ numericall! e,pressible*% since( a$ain( t#e! saw t#at t#e modifications and t#e ratios of t#e musical scales were e,pressible in numbers%0since( t#en( all ot#er t#in$s seemed in t#eir w#ole nature to be modelled on numbers( and numbers seemed to be t#e first t#in$s in t#e w#ole of nature( t#e! supposed t#e elements of numbers to be t#e elements of all t#in$s( and t#e w#ole #ea&en to be a musical scale and a number. And all t#e properties of numbers and scales w#ic# t#e! could s#ow to a$ree wit# t#e attributes and parts and t#e w#ole arran$ement of t#e #ea&ens( t#e! collected and fitted into t#eir sc#eme% and if t#ere was a $ap an!w#ere( t#e! readil! made additions so as to ma"e t#eir w#ole t#eor! co#erent. E.$. as t#e number 1D is t#ou$#t to be perfect and to comprise t#e w#ole nature of numbers( t#e! sa! t#at t#e bodies w#ic# mo&e t#rou$# t#e #ea&ens are ten( but as t#e &isible bodies are onl! nine( to meet t#is t#e! in&ent a tent#Et#e -counter0eart#.. 2e #a&e discussed t#ese matters more e,actl! elsew#ere. +ut t#e ob/ect of our re&iew is t#at we ma! learn from t#ese p#ilosop#ers also w#at t#e! suppose to be t#e principles and #ow t#ese fall under t#e causes we #a&e named. E&identl!( t#en( t#ese t#in"ers also consider t#at number is t#e principle bot# as matter for t#in$s and as formin$ bot# t#eir modifications and t#eir permanent states( and #old t#at t#e elements of number are t#e e&en and t#e odd( and t#at of t#ese t#e latter is limited( and t#e former unlimited% and t#at t#e One proceeds from bot# of t#ese )for it is bot# e&en and odd*( and number from t#e One% and t#at t#e w#ole #ea&en( as #as been said( is numbers.

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

1D

Ot#er members of t#is same sc#ool sa! t#ere are ten principles( w#ic# t#e! arran$e in two columns of co$nates0limit and unlimited( odd and e&en( one and pluralit!( ri$#t and left( male and female( restin$ and mo&in$( strai$#t and cur&ed( li$#t and dar"ness( $ood and bad( s6uare and oblon$. In t#is wa! Alcmaeon of Croton seems also to #a&e concei&ed t#e matter( and eit#er #e $ot t#is &iew from t#em or t#e! $ot it from #im% for #e e,pressed #imself similarl! to t#em. 'or #e sa!s most #uman affairs $o in pairs( meanin$ not definite contrarieties suc# as t#e P!t#a$oreans spea" of( but an! c#ance contrarieties( e.$. w#ite and blac"( sweet and bitter( $ood and bad( $reat and small. 4e t#rew out indefinite su$$estions about t#e ot#er contrarieties( but t#e P!t#a$oreans declared bot# #ow man! and w#ic# t#eir contraricties are. 'rom bot# t#ese sc#ools( t#en( we can learn t#is muc#( t#at t#e contraries are t#e principles of t#in$s% and #ow man! t#ese principles are and w#ic# t#e! are( we can learn from one of t#e two sc#ools. +ut #ow t#ese principles can be brou$#t to$et#er under t#e causes we #a&e named #as not been clearl! and articulatel! stated b! t#em% t#e! seem( #owe&er( to ran$e t#e elements under t#e #ead of matter% for out of t#ese as immanent parts t#e! sa! substance is composed and moulded. 'rom t#ese facts we ma! sufficientl! percei&e t#e meanin$ of t#e ancients w#o said t#e elements of nature were more t#an one% but t#ere are some w#o spo"e of t#e uni&erse as if it were one entit!( t#ou$# t#e! were not all ali"e eit#er in t#e e,cellence of t#eir statement or in its conformit! to t#e facts of nature. T#e discussion of t#em is in no wa! appropriate to our present in&esti$ation of causes( for. t#e! do not( li"e some of t#e natural p#ilosop#ers( assume bein$ to be one and !et $enerate it out of t#e one as out of matter( but t#e! spea" in anot#er wa!% t#ose ot#ers add c#an$e( since t#e! $enerate t#e uni&erse( but t#ese t#in"ers sa! t#e uni&erse is unc#an$eable. ;et t#is muc# is $ermane to t#e present in6uir!A Parmenides seems to fasten on t#at w#ic# is one in definition( >elissus on t#at w#ic# is one in matter( for w#ic# reason t#e former sa!s t#at it is limited( t#e latter t#at it is unlimited% w#ile Genop#anes( t#e first of t#ese partisans of t#e One )for Parmenides is said to #a&e been #is pupil*( $a&e no clear statement( nor does #e seem to #a&e $rasped t#e nature of eit#er of t#ese causes( but wit# reference to t#e w#ole material uni&erse #e sa!s t#e One is 9od. Now t#ese t#in"ers( as we said( must be ne$lected for t#e purposes of t#e present in6uir!0two of t#em entirel!( as bein$ a little too nai&e( &i3. Genop#anes and >elissus% but Parmenides seems in places to spea" wit# more insi$#t. 'or( claimin$ t#at( besides t#e e,istent( not#in$ non0e,istent e,ists( #e t#in"s t#at of necessit! one t#in$ e,ists( &i3. t#e e,istent and not#in$ else )on t#is we #a&e spo"en more clearl! in our wor" on nature*( but bein$ forced to follow t#e obser&ed facts( and supposin$ t#e e,istence of t#at w#ic# is one in definition( but more t#an one accordin$ to our sensations( #e now

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

11

posits two causes and two principles( callin$ t#em #ot and cold( i.e. fire and eart#% and of t#ese #e ran$es t#e #ot wit# t#e e,istent( and t#e ot#er wit# t#e non0e,istent. 'rom w#at #as been said( t#en( and from t#e wise men w#o #a&e now sat in council wit# us( we #a&e $ot t#us muc#0on t#e one #and from t#e earliest p#ilosop#ers( w#o re$ard t#e first principle as corporeal )for water and fire and suc# t#in$s are bodies*( and of w#om some suppose t#at t#ere is one corporeal principle( ot#ers t#at t#ere are more t#an one( but bot# put t#ese under t#e #ead of matter% and on t#e ot#er #and from some w#o posit bot# t#is cause and besides t#is t#e source of mo&ement( w#ic# we #a&e $ot from some as sin$le and from ot#ers as twofold. =own to t#e Italian sc#ool( t#en( and apart from it( p#ilosop#ers #a&e treated t#ese sub/ects rat#er obscurel!( e,cept t#at( as we said( t#e! #a&e in fact used two "inds of cause( and one of t#ese0t#e source of mo&ement0some treat as one and ot#ers as two. +ut t#e P!t#a$oreans #a&e said in t#e same wa! t#at t#ere are two principles( but added t#is muc#( w#ic# is peculiar to t#em( t#at t#e! t#ou$#t t#at finitude and infinit! were not attributes of certain ot#er t#in$s( e.$. of fire or eart# or an!t#in$ else of t#is "ind( but t#at infinit! itself and unit! itself were t#e substance of t#e t#in$s of w#ic# t#e! are predicated. T#is is w#! number was t#e substance of all t#in$s. On t#is sub/ect( t#en( t#e! e,pressed t#emsel&es t#us% and re$ardin$ t#e 6uestion of essence t#e! be$an to ma"e statements and definitions( but treated t#e matter too simpl!. 'or t#e! bot# defined superficiall! and t#ou$#t t#at t#e first sub/ect of w#ic# a $i&en definition was predicable was t#e substance of t#e t#in$ defined( as if one supposed t#at -double. and -5. were t#e same( because 5 is t#e first t#in$ of w#ic# -double. is predicable. +ut surel! to be double and to be 5 are not t#e same% if t#e! are( one t#in$ will be man!0a conse6uence w#ic# t#e! actuall! drew. 'rom t#e earlier p#ilosop#ers( t#en( and from t#eir successors we can learn t#us muc#. 6 After t#e s!stems we #a&e named came t#e p#ilosop#! of Plato( w#ic# in most respects followed t#ese t#in"ers( but #ad pecullarities t#at distin$uis#ed it from t#e p#ilosop#! of t#e Italians. 'or( #a&in$ in #is !out# first become familiar wit# Crat!lus and wit# t#e 4eraclitean doctrines )t#at all sensible t#in$s are e&er in a state of flu, and t#ere is no "nowled$e about t#em*( t#ese &iews #e #eld e&en in later !ears. Socrates( #owe&er( was bus!in$ #imself about et#ical matters and ne$lectin$ t#e world of nature as a w#ole but see"in$ t#e uni&ersal in t#ese et#ical matters( and fi,ed t#ou$#t for t#e first time on definitions% Plato accepted #is teac#in$( but #eld t#at t#e problem applied not to sensible t#in$s but to entities of anot#er "ind0for t#is reason( t#at t#e common definition could not be a definition of an! sensible t#in$( as t#e! were alwa!s c#an$in$. T#in$s of t#is ot#er

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

15

sort( t#en( #e called Ideas( and sensible t#in$s( #e said( were all named after t#ese( and in &irtue of a relation to t#ese% for t#e man! e,isted b! participation in t#e Ideas t#at #a&e t#e same name as t#e!. Onl! t#e name -participation. was new% for t#e P!t#a$oreans sa! t#at t#in$s e,ist b! -imitation. of numbers( and Plato sa!s t#e! e,ist b! participation( c#an$in$ t#e name. +ut w#at t#e participation or t#e imitation of t#e 'orms could be t#e! left an open 6uestion. 'urt#er( besides sensible t#in$s and 'orms #e sa!s t#ere are t#e ob/ects of mat#ematics( w#ic# occup! an intermediate position( differin$ from sensible t#in$s in bein$ eternal and unc#an$eable( from 'orms in t#at t#ere are man! ali"e( w#ile t#e 'orm itself is in eac# case uni6ue. Since t#e 'orms were t#e causes of all ot#er t#in$s( #e t#ou$#t t#eir elements were t#e elements of all t#in$s. As matter( t#e $reat and t#e small were principles% as essential realit!( t#e One% for from t#e $reat and t#e small( b! participation in t#e One( come t#e Numbers. +ut #e a$reed wit# t#e P!t#a$oreans in sa!in$ t#at t#e One is substance and not a predicate of somet#in$ else% and in sa!in$ t#at t#e Numbers are t#e causes of t#e realit! of ot#er t#in$s #e a$reed wit# t#em% but positin$ a d!ad and constructin$ t#e infinite out of $reat and small( instead of treatin$ t#e infinite as one( is peculiar to #im% and so is #is &iew t#at t#e Numbers e,ist apart from sensible t#in$s( w#ile t#e! sa! t#at t#e t#in$s t#emsel&es are Numbers( and do not place t#e ob/ects of mat#ematics between 'orms and sensible t#in$s. 4is di&er$ence from t#e P!t#a$oreans in ma"in$ t#e One and t#e Numbers separate from t#in$s( and #is introduction of t#e 'orms( were due to #is in6uiries in t#e re$ion of definitions )for t#e earlier t#in"ers #ad no tincture of dialectic*( and #is ma"in$ t#e ot#er entit! besides t#e One a d!ad was due to t#e belief t#at t#e numbers( e,cept t#ose w#ic# were prime( could be neatl! produced out of t#e d!ad as out of some plastic material. ;et w#at #appens is t#e contrar!% t#e t#eor! is not a reasonable one. 'or t#e! ma"e man! t#in$s out of t#e matter( and t#e form $enerates onl! once( but w#at we obser&e is t#at one table is made from one matter( w#ile t#e man w#o applies t#e form( t#ou$# #e is one( ma"es man! tables. And t#e relation of t#e male to t#e female is similar% for t#e latter is impre$nated b! one copulation( but t#e male impre$nates man! females% !et t#ese are analo$ues of t#ose first principles. Plato( t#en( declared #imself t#us on t#e points in 6uestion% it is e&ident from w#at #as been said t#at #e #as used onl! two causes( t#at of t#e essence and t#e material cause )for t#e 'orms are t#e causes of t#e essence of all ot#er t#in$s( and t#e One is t#e cause of t#e

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

17

essence of t#e 'orms*% and it is e&ident w#at t#e underl!in$ matter is( of w#ic# t#e 'orms are predicated in t#e case of sensible t#in$s( and t#e One in t#e case of 'orms( &i3. t#at t#is is a d!ad( t#e $reat and t#e small. 'urt#er( #e #as assi$ned t#e cause of $ood and t#at of e&il to t#e elements( one to eac# of t#e two( as we sa! some of #is predecessors sou$#t to do( e.$. Empedocles and Ana,a$oras. 7 Our re&iew of t#ose w#o #a&e spo"en about first principles and realit! and of t#e wa! in w#ic# t#e! #a&e spo"en( #as been concise and summar!% but !et we #a&e learnt t#is muc# from t#em( t#at of t#ose w#o spea" about -principle. and -cause. no one #as mentioned an! principle e,cept t#ose w#ic# #a&e been distin$uis#ed in our wor" on nature( but all e&identl! #a&e some in"lin$ of t#em( t#ou$# onl! &a$uel!. 'or some spea" of t#e first principle as matter( w#et#er t#e! suppose one or more first principles( and w#et#er t#e! suppose t#is to be a bod! or to be incorporeal% e.$. Plato spo"e of t#e $reat and t#e small( t#e Italians of t#e infinite( Empedocles of fire( eart#( water( and air( Ana,a$oras of t#e infinit! of t#in$s composed of similar parts. T#ese( t#en( #a&e all #ad a notion of t#is "ind of cause( and so #a&e all w#o spea" of air or fire or water( or somet#in$ denser t#an fire and rarer t#an air% for some #a&e said t#e prime element is of t#is "ind. T#ese t#in"ers $rasped t#is cause onl!% but certain ot#ers #a&e mentioned t#e source of mo&ement( e.$. t#ose w#o ma"e friends#ip and strife( or reason( or lo&e( a principle. T#e essence( i.e. t#e substantial realit!( no one #as e,pressed distinctl!. It is #inted at c#iefl! b! t#ose w#o belie&e in t#e 'orms% for t#e! do not suppose eit#er t#at t#e 'orms are t#e matter of sensible t#in$s( and t#e One t#e matter of t#e 'orms( or t#at t#e! are t#e source of mo&ement )for t#e! sa! t#ese are causes rat#er of immobilit! and of bein$ at rest*( but t#e! furnis# t#e 'orms as t#e essence of e&er! ot#er t#in$( and t#e One as t#e essence of t#e 'orms. T#at for w#ose sa"e actions and c#an$es and mo&ements ta"e place( t#e! assert to be a cause in a wa!( but not in t#is wa!( i.e. not in t#e wa! in w#ic# it is its nature to be a cause. 'or t#ose w#o spea" of reason or friends#ip class t#ese causes as $oods% t#e! do not spea"( #owe&er( as if an!t#in$ t#at e,ists eit#er e,isted or came into bein$ for t#e sa"e of t#ese( but as if mo&ements started from t#ese. In t#e same wa! t#ose w#o sa! t#e One or t#e e,istent is t#e $ood( sa! t#at it is t#e cause of substance( but not t#at substance eit#er is or comes to be for t#e sa"e of t#is. T#erefore it turns out t#at in a sense t#e! bot# sa! and do not sa! t#e $ood is a cause% for t#e! do not call it a cause 6ua $ood but onl! incidentall!.

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

1:

All t#ese t#in"ers t#en( as t#e! cannot pitc# on anot#er cause( seem to testif! t#at we #a&e determined ri$#tl! bot# #ow man! and of w#at sort t#e causes are. +esides t#is it is plain t#at w#en t#e causes are bein$ loo"ed for( eit#er all four must be sou$#t t#us or t#e! must be sou$#t in one of t#ese four wa!s. et us ne,t discuss t#e possible difficulties wit# re$ard to t#e wa! in w#ic# eac# of t#ese t#in"ers #as spo"en( and wit# re$ard to #is situation relati&el! to t#e first principles. 8 T#ose( t#en( w#o sa! t#e uni&erse is one and posit one "ind of t#in$ as matter( and as corporeal matter w#ic# #as spatial ma$nitude( e&identl! $o astra! in man! wa!s. 'or t#e! posit t#e elements of bodies onl!( not of incorporeal t#in$s( t#ou$# t#ere are also incorporeal t#in$s. And in tr!in$ to state t#e causes of $eneration and destruction( and in $i&in$ a p#!sical account of all t#in$s( t#e! do awa! wit# t#e cause of mo&ement. 'urt#er( t#e! err in not positin$ t#e substance( i.e. t#e essence( as t#e cause of an!t#in$( and besides t#is in li$#tl! callin$ an! of t#e simple bodies e,cept eart# t#e first principle( wit#out in6uirin$ #ow t#e! are produced out of one anot#ers0I mean fire( water( eart#( and air. 'or some t#in$s are produced out of eac# ot#er b! combination( ot#ers b! separation( and t#is ma"es t#e $reatest difference to t#eir priorit! and posteriorit!. 'or )1* in a wa! t#e propert! of bein$ most elementar! of all would seem to belon$ to t#e first t#in$ from w#ic# t#e! are produced b! combination( and t#is propert! would belon$ to t#e most fine0$rained and subtle of bodies. 'or t#is reason t#ose w#o ma"e fire t#e principle would be most in a$reement wit# t#is ar$ument. +ut eac# of t#e ot#er t#in"ers a$rees t#at t#e element of corporeal t#in$s is of t#is sort. At least none of t#ose w#o named one element claimed t#at eart# was t#e element( e&identl! because of t#e coarseness of its $rain. )Of t#e ot#er t#ree elements eac# #as found some /ud$e on its side% for some maintain t#at fire( ot#ers t#at water( ot#ers t#at air is t#e element. ;et w#!( after all( do t#e! not name eart# also( as most men do? 'or people sa! all t#in$s are eart# 4esiod sa!s eart# was produced first of corporeal t#in$s% so primiti&e and popular #as t#e opinion been.* Accordin$ to t#is ar$ument( t#en( no one would be ri$#t w#o eit#er sa!s t#e first principle is an! of t#e elements ot#er t#an fire( or supposes it to be denser t#an air but rarer t#an water. +ut )5* if t#at w#ic# is later in $eneration is prior in nature( and t#at w#ic# is concocted and compounded is later in $eneration( t#e contrar! of w#at we #a&e been sa!in$ must be true(0 water must be prior to air( and eart# to water. So muc#( t#en( for t#ose w#o posit one cause suc# as we mentioned% but t#e same is true if one supposes more of t#ese( as Empedocles sa!s matter of t#in$s is four bodies. 'or #e too is confronted b! conse6uences some of w#ic# are t#e same as #a&e been mentioned( w#ile

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

1<

ot#ers are peculiar to #im. 'or we see t#ese bodies produced from one anot#er( w#ic# implies t#at t#e same bod! does not alwa!s remain fire or eart# )we #a&e spo"en about t#is in our wor"s on nature*% and re$ardin$ t#e cause of mo&ement and t#e 6uestion w#et#er we must posit one or two( #e must be t#ou$#t to #a&e spo"en neit#er correctl! nor alto$et#er plausibl!. And in $eneral( c#an$e of 6ualit! is necessaril! done awa! wit# for t#ose w#o spea" t#us( for on t#eir &iew cold will not come from #ot nor #ot from cold. 'or if it did t#ere would be somet#in$ t#at accepted t#e contraries t#emsel&es( and t#ere would be some one entit! t#at became fire and water( w#ic# Empedocles denies. As re$ards Ana,a$oras( if one were to suppose t#at #e said t#ere were two elements( t#e supposition would accord t#orou$#l! wit# an ar$ument w#ic# Ana,a$oras #imself did not state articulatel!( but w#ic# #e must #a&e accepted if an! one #ad led #im on to it. True( to sa! t#at in t#e be$innin$ all t#in$s were mi,ed is absurd bot# on ot#er $rounds and because it follows t#at t#e! must #a&e e,isted before in an unmi,ed form( and because nature does not allow an! c#ance t#in$ to be mi,ed wit# an! c#ance t#in$( and also because on t#is &iew modifications and accidents could be separated from substances )for t#e same t#in$s w#ic# are mi,ed can be separated*% !et if one were to follow #im up( piecin$ to$et#er w#at #e means( #e would per#aps be seen to be somew#at modern in #is &iews. 'or w#en not#in$ was separated out( e&identl! not#in$ could be trul! asserted of t#e substance t#at t#en e,isted. I mean( e.$. t#at it was neit#er w#ite nor blac"( nor $re! nor an! ot#er colour( but of necessit! colourless% for if it #ad been coloured( it would #a&e #ad one of t#ese colours. And similarl!( b! t#is same ar$ument( it was fla&ourless( nor #ad it an! similar attribute% for it could not be eit#er of an! 6ualit! or of an! si3e( nor could it be an! definite "ind of t#in$. 'or if it were( one of t#e particular forms would #a&e belon$ed to it( and t#is is impossible( since all were mi,ed to$et#er% for t#e particular form would necessaril! #a&e been alread! separated out( but #e all were mi,ed e,cept reason( and t#is alone was unmi,ed and pure. 'rom t#is it follows( t#en( t#at #e must sa! t#e principles are t#e One )for t#is is simple and unmi,ed* and t#e Ot#er( w#ic# is of suc# a nature as we suppose t#e indefinite to be before it is defined and parta"es of some form. T#erefore( w#ile e,pressin$ #imself neit#er ri$#tl! nor clearl!( #e means somet#in$ li"e w#at t#e later t#in"ers sa! and w#at is now more clearl! seen to be t#e case. +ut t#ese t#in"ers are( after all( at #ome onl! in ar$uments about $eneration and destruction and mo&ement% for it is practicall! onl! of t#is sort of substance t#at t#e! see" t#e principles and t#e causes. +ut t#ose w#o e,tend t#eir &ision to all t#in$s t#at e,ist( and of e,istin$ t#in$s suppose some to be perceptible and ot#ers not perceptible( e&identl! stud! bot# classes( w#ic# is all t#e more reason w#! one s#ould de&ote some time to seein$ w#at

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

1@

is $ood in t#eir &iews and w#at bad from t#e standpoint of t#e in6uir! we #a&e now before us. T#e -P!t#a$oreans. treat of principles and elements stran$er t#an t#ose of t#e p#!sical p#ilosop#ers )t#e reason is t#at t#e! $ot t#e principles from non0sensible t#in$s( for t#e ob/ects of mat#ematics( e,cept t#ose of astronom!( are of t#e class of t#in$s wit#out mo&ement*% !et t#eir discussions and in&esti$ations are all about nature% for t#e! $enerate t#e #ea&ens( and wit# re$ard to t#eir parts and attributes and functions t#e! obser&e t#e p#enomena( and use up t#e principles and t#e causes in e,plainin$ t#ese( w#ic# implies t#at t#e! a$ree wit# t#e ot#ers( t#e p#!sical p#ilosop#ers( t#at t#e real is /ust all t#at w#ic# is perceptible and contained b! t#e so0called -#ea&ens.. +ut t#e causes and t#e principles w#ic# t#e! mention are( as we said( sufficient to act as steps e&en up to t#e #i$#er realms of realit!( and are more suited to t#ese t#an to t#eories about nature. T#e! do not tell us at all( #owe&er( #ow t#ere can be mo&ement if limit and unlimited and odd and e&en are t#e onl! t#in$s assumed( or #ow wit#out mo&ement and c#an$e t#ere can be $eneration and destruction( or t#e bodies t#at mo&e t#rou$# t#e #ea&ens can do w#at t#e! do. 'urt#er( if one eit#er $ranted t#em t#at spatial ma$nitude consists of t#ese elements( or t#is were pro&ed( still #ow would some bodies be li$#t and ot#ers #a&e wei$#t? To /ud$e from w#at t#e! assume and maintain t#e! are spea"in$ no more of mat#ematical bodies t#an of perceptible% #ence t#e! #a&e said not#in$ w#ate&er about fire or eart# or t#e ot#er bodies of t#is sort( I suppose because t#e! #a&e not#in$ to sa! w#ic# applies peculiarl! to perceptible t#in$s. 'urt#er( #ow are we to combine t#e beliefs t#at t#e attributes of number( and number itself( are causes of w#at e,ists and #appens in t#e #ea&ens bot# from t#e be$innin$ and now( and t#at t#ere is no ot#er number t#an t#is number out of w#ic# t#e world is composed? 2#en in one particular re$ion t#e! place opinion and opportunit!( and( a little abo&e or below( in/ustice and decision or mi,ture( and alle$e( as proof( t#at eac# of t#ese is a number( and t#at t#ere #appens to be alread! in t#is place a pluralit! of t#e e,tended bodies composed of numbers( because t#ese attributes of number attac# to t#e &arious places(0t#is bein$ so( is t#is number( w#ic# we must suppose eac# of t#ese abstractions to be( t#e same number w#ic# is e,#ibited in t#e material uni&erse( or is it anot#er t#an t#is? Plato sa!s it is different% !et e&en #e t#in"s t#at bot# t#ese bodies and t#eir causes are numbers( but t#at t#e intelli$ible numbers are causes( w#ile t#e ot#ers are sensible. 9

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

1B

et us lea&e t#e P!t#a$oreans for t#e present% for it is enou$# to #a&e touc#ed on t#em as muc# as we #a&e done. +ut as for t#ose w#o posit t#e Ideas as causes( firstl!( in see"in$ to $rasp t#e causes of t#e t#in$s around us( t#e! introduced ot#ers e6ual in number to t#ese( as if a man w#o wanted to count t#in$s t#ou$#t #e would not be able to do it w#ile t#e! were few( but tried to count t#em w#en #e #ad added to t#eir number. 'or t#e 'orms are practicall! e6ual to0or not fewer t#an0t#e t#in$s( in tr!in$ to e,plain w#ic# t#ese t#in"ers proceeded from t#em to t#e 'orms. 'or to eac# t#in$ t#ere answers an entit! w#ic# #as t#e same name and e,ists apart from t#e substances( and so also in t#e case of all ot#er $roups t#ere is a one o&er man!( w#et#er t#e man! are in t#is world or are eternal. 'urt#er( of t#e wa!s in w#ic# we pro&e t#at t#e 'orms e,ist( none is con&incin$% for from some no inference necessaril! follows( and from some arise 'orms e&en of t#in$s of w#ic# we t#in" t#ere are no 'orms. 'or accordin$ to t#e ar$uments from t#e e,istence of t#e sciences t#ere will be 'orms of all t#in$s of w#ic# t#ere are sciences and accordin$ to t#e -one o&er man!. ar$ument t#ere will be 'orms e&en of ne$ations( and accordin$ to t#e ar$ument t#at t#ere is an ob/ect for t#ou$#t e&en w#en t#e t#in$ #as peris#ed( t#ere will be 'orms of peris#able t#in$s% for we #a&e an ima$e of t#ese. 'urt#er( of t#e more accurate ar$uments( some lead to Ideas of relations( of w#ic# we sa! t#ere is no independent class( and ot#ers introduce t#e -t#ird man.. And in $eneral t#e ar$uments for t#e 'orms destro! t#e t#in$s for w#ose e,istence we are more 3ealous t#an for t#e e,istence of t#e Ideas% for it follows t#at not t#e d!ad but number is first( i.e. t#at t#e relati&e is prior to t#e absolute(0besides all t#e ot#er points on w#ic# certain people b! followin$ out t#e opinions #eld about t#e Ideas #a&e come into conflict wit# t#e principles of t#e t#eor!. 'urt#er( accordin$ to t#e assumption on w#ic# our belief in t#e Ideas rests( t#ere will be 'orms not onl! of substances but also of man! ot#er t#in$s )for t#e concept is sin$le not onl! in t#e case of substances but also in t#e ot#er cases( and t#ere are sciences not onl! of substance but also of ot#er t#in$s( and a t#ousand ot#er suc# difficulties confront t#em*. +ut accordin$ to t#e necessities of t#e case and t#e opinions #eld about t#e 'orms( if 'orms can be s#ared in t#ere must be Ideas of substances onl!. 'or t#e! are not s#ared in incidentall!( but a t#in$ must s#are in its 'orm as in somet#in$ not predicated of a sub/ect )b! -bein$ s#ared in incidentall!. I mean t#at e.$. if a t#in$ s#ares in -double itself.( it s#ares also in -eternal.( but incidentall!% for -eternal. #appens to be predicable of t#e -double.*. T#erefore t#e 'orms will be substance% but t#e same terms indicate substance in t#is and in t#e ideal world )or w#at will be t#e meanin$ of sa!in$ t#at t#ere is somet#in$ apart from t#e particulars0t#e one o&er man!?*. And if t#e Ideas and t#e particulars t#at

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

1C

s#are in t#em #a&e t#e same form( t#ere will be somet#in$ common to t#ese% for w#! s#ould -5. be one and t#e same in t#e peris#able 5.s or in t#ose w#ic# are man! but eternal( and not t#e same in t#e -5. itself. as in t#e particular 5? +ut if t#e! #a&e not t#e same form( t#e! must #a&e onl! t#e name in common( and it is as if one were to call bot# Callias and a wooden ima$e a -man.( wit#out obser&in$ an! communit! between t#em. Abo&e all one mi$#t discuss t#e 6uestion w#at on eart# t#e 'orms contribute to sensible t#in$s( eit#er to t#ose t#at are eternal or to t#ose t#at come into bein$ and cease to be. 'or t#e! cause neit#er mo&ement nor an! c#an$e in t#em. +ut a$ain t#e! #elp in no wise eit#er towards t#e "nowled$e of t#e ot#er t#in$s )for t#e! are not e&en t#e substance of t#ese( else t#e! would #a&e been in t#em*( or towards t#eir bein$( if t#e! are not in t#e particulars w#ic# s#are in t#em% t#ou$# if t#e! were( t#e! mi$#t be t#ou$#t to be causes( as w#ite causes w#iteness in a w#ite ob/ect b! enterin$ into its composition. +ut t#is ar$ument( w#ic# first Ana,a$oras and later Eudo,us and certain ot#ers used( is &er! easil! upset% for it is not difficult to collect man! insuperable ob/ections to suc# a &iew. +ut( furt#er( all ot#er t#in$s cannot come from t#e 'orms in an! of t#e usual senses of -from.. And to sa! t#at t#e! are patterns and t#e ot#er t#in$s s#are in t#em is to use empt! words and poetical metap#ors. 'or w#at is it t#at wor"s( loo"in$ to t#e Ideas? And an!t#in$ can eit#er be( or become( li"e anot#er wit#out bein$ copied from it( so t#at w#et#er Socrates or not a man Socrates li"e mi$#t come to be% and e&identl! t#is mi$#t be so e&en if Socrates were eternal. And t#ere will be se&eral patterns of t#e same t#in$( and t#erefore se&eral 'orms% e.$. -animal. and -two0footed. and also -man #imself. will be 'orms of man. A$ain( t#e 'orms are patterns not onl! sensible t#in$s( but of 'orms t#emsel&es also% i.e. t#e $enus( as $enus of &arious species( will be so% t#erefore t#e same t#in$ will be pattern and cop!. A$ain( it would seem impossible t#at t#e substance and t#at of w#ic# it is t#e substance s#ould e,ist apart% #ow( t#erefore( could t#e Ideas( bein$ t#e substances of t#in$s( e,ist apart? In t#e P#aedo. t#e case is stated in t#is wa!0t#at t#e 'orms are causes bot# of bein$ and of becomin$% !et w#en t#e 'orms e,ist( still t#e t#in$s t#at s#are in t#em do not come into bein$( unless t#ere is somet#in$ to ori$inate mo&ement% and man! ot#er t#in$s come into bein$ )e.$. a #ouse or a rin$* of w#ic# we sa! t#ere are no 'orms. Clearl!( t#erefore( e&en t#e ot#er t#in$s can bot# be and come into bein$ owin$ to suc# causes as produce t#e t#in$s /ust mentioned. A$ain( if t#e 'orms are numbers( #ow can t#e! be causes? Is it because e,istin$ t#in$s are ot#er numbers( e.$. one number is man( anot#er is Socrates( anot#er Callias? 2#! t#en are

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

1F

t#e one set of numbers causes of t#e ot#er set? It will not ma"e an! difference e&en if t#e former are eternal and t#e latter are not. +ut if it is because t#in$s in t#is sensible world )e.$. #armon!* are ratios of numbers( e&identl! t#e t#in$s between w#ic# t#e! are ratios are some one class of t#in$s. If( t#en( t#isEt#e matterEis some definite t#in$( e&identl! t#e numbers t#emsel&es too will be ratios of somet#in$ to somet#in$ else. E.$. if Callias is a numerical ratio between fire and eart# and water and air( #is Idea also will be a number of certain ot#er underl!in$ t#in$s% and man #imself( w#et#er it is a number in a sense or not( will still be a numerical ratio of certain t#in$s and not a number proper( nor will it be a of number merel! because it is a numerical ratio. A$ain( from man! numbers one number is produced( but #ow can one 'orm come from man! 'orms? And if t#e number comes not from t#e man! numbers t#emsel&es but from t#e units in t#em( e.$. in 1D(DDD( #ow is it wit# t#e units? If t#e! are specificall! ali"e( numerous absurdities will follow( and also if t#e! are not ali"e )neit#er t#e units in one number bein$ t#emsel&es li"e one anot#er nor t#ose in ot#er numbers bein$ all li"e to all*% for in w#at will t#e! differ( as t#e! are wit#out 6ualit!? T#is is not a plausible &iew( nor is it consistent wit# our t#ou$#t on t#e matter. 'urt#er( t#e! must set up a second "ind of number )wit# w#ic# arit#metic deals*( and all t#e ob/ects w#ic# are called -intermediate. b! some t#in"ers% and #ow do t#ese e,ist or from w#at principles do t#e! proceed? Or w#! must t#e! be intermediate between t#e t#in$s in t#is sensible world and t#e t#in$s0t#emsel&es? 'urt#er( t#e units in must eac# come from a prior but t#is is impossible. 'urt#er( w#! is a number( w#en ta"en all to$et#er( one? A$ain( besides w#at #as been said( if t#e units are di&erse t#e Platonists s#ould #a&e spo"en li"e t#ose w#o sa! t#ere are four( or two( elements% for eac# of t#ese t#in"ers $i&es t#e name of element not to t#at w#ic# is common( e.$. to bod!( but to fire and eart#( w#et#er t#ere is somet#in$ common to t#em( &i3. bod!( or not. +ut in fact t#e Platonists spea" as if t#e One were #omo$eneous li"e fire or water% and if t#is is so( t#e numbers will not be substances. E&identl!( if t#ere is a One itself and t#is is a first principle( -one. is bein$ used in more t#an one sense% for ot#erwise t#e t#eor! is impossible. 2#en we wis# to reduce substances to t#eir principles( we state t#at lines come from t#e s#ort and lon$ )i.e. from a "ind of small and $reat*( and t#e plane from t#e broad and narrow( and bod! from t#e deep and s#allow. ;et #ow t#en can eit#er t#e plane contain a line( or t#e solid a line or a plane? 'or t#e broad and narrow is a different class from t#e

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

5D

deep and s#allow. T#erefore( /ust as number is not present in t#ese( because t#e man! and few are different from t#ese( e&identl! no ot#er of t#e #i$#er classes will be present in t#e lower. +ut a$ain t#e broad is not a $enus w#ic# includes t#e deep( for t#en t#e solid would #a&e been a species of plane. 'urt#er( from w#at principle will t#e presence of t#e points in t#e line be deri&ed? Plato e&en used to ob/ect to t#is class of t#in$s as bein$ a $eometrical fiction. 4e $a&e t#e name of principle of t#e line0and t#is #e often posited0to t#e indi&isible lines. ;et t#ese must #a&e a limit% t#erefore t#e ar$ument from w#ic# t#e e,istence of t#e line follows pro&es also t#e e,istence of t#e point. In $eneral( t#ou$# p#ilosop#! see"s t#e cause of perceptible t#in$s( we #a&e $i&en t#is up )for we sa! not#in$ of t#e cause from w#ic# c#an$e ta"es its start*( but w#ile we fanc! we are statin$ t#e substance of perceptible t#in$s( we assert t#e e,istence of a second class of substances( w#ile our account of t#e wa! in w#ic# t#e! are t#e substances of perceptible t#in$s is empt! tal"% for -s#arin$.( as we said before( means not#in$. Nor #a&e t#e 'orms an! conne,ion wit# w#at we see to be t#e cause in t#e case of t#e arts( t#at for w#ose sa"e bot# all mind and t#e w#ole of nature are operati&e(0wit# t#is cause w#ic# we assert to be one of t#e first principles% but mat#ematics #as come to be identical wit# p#ilosop#! for modern t#in"ers( t#ou$# t#e! sa! t#at it s#ould be studied for t#e sa"e of ot#er t#in$s. 'urt#er( one mi$#t suppose t#at t#e substance w#ic# accordin$ to t#em underlies as matter is too mat#ematical( and is a predicate and differentia of t#e substance( ie. of t#e matter( rat#er t#an matter itself% i.e. t#e $reat and t#e small are li"e t#e rare and t#e dense w#ic# t#e p#!sical p#ilosop#ers spea" of( callin$ t#ese t#e primar! differentiae of t#e substratum% for t#ese are a "ind of e,cess and defect. And re$ardin$ mo&ement( if t#e $reat and t#e small are to #e mo&ement( e&identl! t#e 'orms will be mo&ed% but if t#e! are not to be mo&ement( w#ence did mo&ement come? T#e w#ole stud! of nature #as been anni#ilated. And w#at is t#ou$#t to be eas!0to s#ow t#at all t#in$s are one0is not done% for w#at is pro&ed b! t#e met#od of settin$ out instances is not t#at all t#in$s are one but t#at t#ere is a One itself(0if we $rant all t#e assumptions. And not e&en t#is follows( if we do not $rant t#at t#e uni&ersal is a $enus% and t#is in some cases it cannot be. Nor can it be e,plained eit#er #ow t#e lines and planes and solids t#at come after t#e numbers e,ist or can e,ist( or w#at si$nificance t#e! #a&e% for t#ese can neit#er be 'orms )for t#e! are not numbers*( nor t#e intermediates )for t#ose are t#e ob/ects of mat#ematics*( nor t#e peris#able t#in$s. T#is is e&identl! a distinct fourt# class.

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

51

In $eneral( if we searc# for t#e elements of e,istin$ t#in$s wit#out distin$uis#in$ t#e man! senses in w#ic# t#in$s are said to e,ist( we cannot find t#em( especiall! if t#e searc# for t#e elements of w#ic# t#in$s are made is conducted in t#is manner. 'or it is surel! impossible to disco&er w#at -actin$. or -bein$ acted on.( or -t#e strai$#t.( is made of( but if elements can be disco&ered at all( it is onl! t#e elements of substances% t#erefore eit#er to see" t#e elements of all e,istin$ t#in$s or to t#in" one #as t#em is incorrect. And #ow could we learn t#e elements of all t#in$s? E&identl! we cannot start b! "nowin$ an!t#in$ before. 'or as #e w#o is learnin$ $eometr!( t#ou$# #e ma! "now ot#er t#in$s before( "nows none of t#e t#in$s wit# w#ic# t#e science deals and about w#ic# #e is to learn( so is it in all ot#er cases. T#erefore if t#ere is a science of all t#in$s( suc# as some assert to e,ist( #e w#o is learnin$ t#is will "now not#in$ before. ;et all learnin$ is b! means of premisses w#ic# are )eit#er all or some of t#em* "nown before(0w#et#er t#e learnin$ be b! demonstration or b! definitions% for t#e elements of t#e definition must be "nown before and be familiar% and learnin$ b! induction proceeds similarl!. +ut a$ain( if t#e science were actuall! innate( it were stran$e t#at we are unaware of our possession of t#e $reatest of sciences. A$ain( #ow is one to come to "now w#at all t#in$s are made of( and #ow is t#is to be made e&ident? T#is also affords a difficult!% for t#ere mi$#t be a conflict of opinion( as t#ere is about certain s!llables% some sa! 3a is made out of s and d and a( w#ile ot#ers sa! it is a distinct sound and none of t#ose t#at are familiar. 'urt#er( #ow could we "now t#e ob/ects of sense wit#out #a&in$ t#e sense in 6uestion? ;et we ou$#t to( if t#e elements of w#ic# all t#in$s consist( as comple, sounds consist of t#e clements proper to sound( are t#e same. 10 It is e&ident( t#en( e&en from w#at we #a&e said before( t#at all men seem to see" t#e causes named in t#e P#!sics( and t#at we cannot name an! be!ond t#ese% but t#e! see" t#ese &a$uel!% and t#ou$# in a sense t#e! #a&e all been described before( in a sense t#e! #a&e not been described at all. 'or t#e earliest p#ilosop#! is( on all sub/ects( li"e one w#o lisps( since it is !oun$ and in its be$innin$s. 'or e&en Empedocles sa!s bone e,ists b! &irtue of t#e ratio in it. Now t#is is t#e essence and t#e substance of t#e t#in$. +ut it is similarl! necessar! t#at fles# and eac# of t#e ot#er tissues s#ould be t#e ratio of its elements( or t#at not one of t#em s#ould% for it is on account of t#is t#at bot# fles# and bone and e&er!t#in$ else will e,ist( and not on account of t#e matter( w#ic# #e names(0fire and

INSTITUTO PACKTER www.filosofiaclinica.com.br obra para estudo retirada por mecanismos de busca da Internet

55

eart# and water and air. +ut w#ile #e would necessaril! #a&e a$reed if anot#er #ad said t#is( #e #as not said it clearl!. On t#ese 6uestions our &iews #a&e been e,pressed before% but let us return to enumerate t#e difficulties t#at mi$#t be raised on t#ese same points% for per#aps we ma! $et from t#em some #elp towards our later difficulties.

H Table of Contents H H Ne,t H Rendered into HTML on Thu Dec 23 17:49:23 1999, by Ste e Tho!"s #or The $ni ersity o# Adel"ide Libr"ry %lectronic Te&ts 'ollection(