Aristotle - On Generation and Corruption

8/3/2019 Aristotle - On Generation and Corruption

1/34

Project Gutenberg Consortia Center's

Alex Catalogue of Electronic Texts Collection

Project Gutenberg Consortia Center Collection, a member of the World Public Library,http://WorldLibrary.net,

bringing the world's eBook collections together.

Conditions of Use:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy

it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or full

complete details are online at: http://gutenberg.net/license.

Here are 3 of the more major items to consider:

1. The eBooks on the PG sites are not 100% public domain, some of them are copyrighted and used by

permission and thus you may charge for redistribution only via direct permission from the copyright holders.

2. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark [TM]. For any other purpose than to redistribute eBooks

containing the entire Project Gutenberg file free of charge and with the headers intact, permission is

required.

3. The public domain status is per U.S. copyright law. This eBook is from the Project Gutenberg Consortia

Center of the United States.

The mission of the Project Gutenberg Consortia Center is to provide a similar framework for the collection of eBook

collections as does Project Gutenberg for single eBooks, operating under the practices, and general guidelines of

Project Gutenberg. The major additional function of Project Gutenberg Consortia Center is to manage the addition

of large collections of eBooks from other eBook creation and collection centers around the world.

For more great classic literature visit:

Project Gutenberg Consortia Center, bringing the world's eBook collections together http://www.Gutenberg.us

World Public Library

1
http://worldlibrary.net/http://www.gutenberg.us/http://www.gutenberg.us/http://www.gutenberg.us/http://worldlibrary.net/http://worldlibrary.net/http://www.gutenberg.us/http://www.gutenberg.us/


2/34

350 BC

ON GENERATI ON AND CORRUPTI ON

by Ar i s tot l e

t r ansl at ed by H. H. J oachi m

Book I

1

OUR next t ask i s t o st udy comi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway. We are t odi st i ngui sh t he causes, and t o st at e the def i ni t i ons, of t hesepr ocesses consi der ed i n gener al - as changes pr edi cabl e uni f or ml y of al lt he t hi ngs t hat come- t o- be and pass- away by natur e. Fur t her, we ar e t ost udy growt h and ' al t er at i on' . We must i nqui r e what each of t hem i s;and whet her ' al t er at i on' i s t o be i dent i f i ed wi t h comi ng- t o- be, orwhether t o these di f f erent names t her e corr espond t wo separatepr ocesses wi t h di st i nct nat ur es.

On t hi s quest i on, i ndeed, t he ear l y phi l osopher s ar e di vi ded. Someof t hem asser t t hat t he so- cal l ed ' unqual i f i ed comi ng- t o- be' i s' al t er at i on' , whi l e ot her s mai nt ai n t hat ' al t er at i on' and comi ng- t o- beare di st i nct . For t hose who say t hat t he uni ver se i s one somet hi ng( i . e. t hose who gener at e al l t hi ngs out of one thi ng) are bound t oasser t t hat comi ng- t o- be i s ' al t er at i on' , and that what ever' comes- t o- be' i n t he pr oper sense of t he t er m i s ' bei ng al t er ed' :but t hose who make the mat t er of t hi ngs more t han one must di st i ngui shcomi ng- t o- be f r om ' al t erat i on' . To t hi s l at t er c l ass bel ongEmpedocl es, Anaxagoras, and Leuci ppus. And yet Anaxagoras hi msel ff ai l ed t o under st and hi s own ut t er ance. He says, at al l event s, t hatcomi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway ar e t he same as ' bei ng al t er ed' : ' yet ,i n common wi t h ot her t hi nker s, he af f i r ms t hat t he el ement s ar emany. Thus Empedocl es hol ds t hat t he corporeal el ement s are f our ,whi l e al l t he el ement s- i ncl udi ng those whi ch i ni t i at e movement - ar e si xi n number ; wher eas Anaxagoras agr ees wi t h Leuci ppus and Democr i t ust hat t he el ement s are i nf i ni t e.

( Anaxagoras posi t s as el ement s t he ' homoeomer i es' , vi z. bone, f l esh,marr ow, and ever ythi ng el se whi ch i s such t hat part and whol e aret he same i n name and nat ure; whi l e Democr i t us and Leuci ppus say t hatt her e ar e i ndi vi si bl e bodi es, i nf i ni t e bot h i n number and i n t hevar i et i es of t hei r shapes, of whi ch ever ythi ng el se i s composed- t hecompounds di f f eri ng one f r om another accordi ng t o t he shapes,' posi t i ons' , and ' groupi ngs' of t hei r const i t uent s. )

For t he vi ews of t he school of Anaxagoras seem di amet r i cal l y opposedt o those of t he f ol l ower s of Empedocl es. Empedocl es says t hat Fi r e,Wat er , Ai r , and Eart h ar e f our el ement s, and ar e t hus ' si mpl e'r at her t han f l esh, bone, and bodi es whi ch, l i ke t hese, ar e' homoeomeri es' . But t he f ol l ower s of Anaxagoras r egard t he' homoeomer i es' as ' si mpl e' and el ement s, whi l st t hey af f i r m t hat


2


3/34

Ear t h, Fi r e, Wat er , and Ai r ar e composi t e; f or each of t hese i s( accor di ng t o t hem) a ' common semi nar y' of al l t he ' homoeomeri es' .

Those, t hen, who const r uct al l t hi ngs out of a si ngl e el ement ,must mai nt ai n that comi ng- t obe and passi ngaway are ' al t erat i on' .For t hey must af f i r m t hat t he underl yi ng somethi ng al ways r emai nsi dent i cal and one; and change of such a subst r atum i s what we cal l' al t er i ng' Those, on t he ot her hand, who make t he ul t i mate ki nds oft hi ngs mor e t han one, must mai nt ai n t hat ' al t er at i on' i s di st i nct f r omcomi ng- t o- be: f or comi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway r esul t f r om t heconsi l i ence and the di ssol ut i on of t he many ki nds. That i s whyEmpedocl es t oo uses l anguage t o t hi s ef f ect , when he says ' Ther e i s no

comi ng- t o- be of anythi ng, but onl y a mi ngl i ng and a di vor ce of whathas been mi ngl ed' . Thus i t i s cl ear ( i ) t hat t o descri becomi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway i n t hese t er ms i s i n accor dance wi t ht hei r f undament al assumpt i on, and ( i i ) t hat t hey do i n f act sodescr i be them: never t hel ess, t hey t oo must r ecogni ze ' al t er at i on' as af act di sti nct f r om comi ng t o-be, t hough i t i s i mpossi bl e for t hem t odo so consi st ent l y wi t h what t hey say.

That we are r i ght i n t hi s cr i t i c i sm i s easy t o percei ve. For' al t er at i on' i s a f act of obser vat i on. Whi l e t he subst ance of t het hi ng r emai ns unchanged, we see i t ' al t er i ng' j ust as we see i n i t t hechanges of magni t ude cal l ed ' gr owt h' and ' di mi nut i on' . Never t hel ess,t he st at ement s of t hose who posi t mor e ' or i gi nal r eal s' t han onemake ' al t er at i on' i mpossi bl e. For ' al t er at i on, as we asser t , t akespl ace i n r espect t o cer t ai n qual i t i es: and t hese qual i t i es ( I mean,e. g. hot - col d, whi t e- bl ack, dr y- moi st, sof t - har d, and so f or t h) ar e,al l of t hem, di f f er ences char act er i zi ng t he ' el ement s' . The act ualwords of Empedocl es may be quoted i n i l l ust r at i on-

The sun everywhere bri ght t o see, and hot ,

The r ai n everywhere dark and col d;

and he di st i nct i vel y char act er i zes hi s r emai ni ng el ement s i n a si mi l armanner . Si nce, t her ef ore, i t i s not possi bl e f or Fi r e t o become Wat er ,or Wat er t o become Ear t h, nei t her wi l l i t be possi bl e f or anythi ngwhi t e t o become bl ack, or anythi ng sof t t o become hard; and t he samear gument appl i es t o al l t he ot her qual i t i es. Yet t hi s i s what' al terat i on' essent i al l y i s .

I t f ol l ows, as an obvi ous cor ol l ar y, t hat a si ngl e mat t er mustal ways be assumed as under l yi ng t he contr ary ' pol es' of any changewhet her change of pl ace, or gr owt h and di mi nut i on, or ' al t er at i on' ;f ur t her , t hat t he bei ng of t hi s mat t er and t he bei ng of ' al t er at i on'st and and f al l t oget her . For i f t he change i s ' al t er at i on' , t hen t hesubst r at um i s a si ngl e el ement ; i . e. al l t hi ngs whi ch admi t ofchange i nt o one another have a si ngl e matt er. And, conver sel y, i ft he substr at um of t he changi ng thi ngs i s one, t her e i s ' al t er at i on' .

Empedocl es, i ndeed, seems t o cont r adi ct hi s own st atement s as wel las t he observed f act s. For he deni es t hat any one of hi s el ement scomes - t o- be out of any ot her , i nsi st i ng on t he cont r ar y t hat t heyare t he t hi ngs out of whi ch ever ythi ng el se comes - t o- be; and yet( havi ng br ought t he ent i r et y of exi st i ng t hi ngs, except St r i f e,t oget her i nt o one) he mai nt ai ns, si mul t aneousl y wi t h t hi s deni al , t hateach t hi ng once more comes- t o- be out of t he One. Hence i t wascl ear l y out of a One that t hi s came- t o- be Water, and that Fi r e,var i ous por t i ons of i t bei ng separ at ed of f by cer t ai n char acteri st i cdi f f er ences or qual i t i es- as i ndeed he cal l s t he sun ' whi t e and hot ' ,and t he ear t h ' heavy and har d' . I f , t her ef or e, t hese char act er i st i cdi f f er ences be t aken away ( f or t hey can be t aken away, si nce t heycame- t o- be) , i t wi l l cl ear l y be i nevi t abl e f or Ear t h to come to- be outof Water and Water out of Eart h, and f or each of t he ot her el ement s t o

under go a si mi l ar t r ansf or mat i on- not onl y t hen, but al so now- i f , andbecause, t hey change thei r qual i t i es. And, t o j udge by what he says,t he qual i t i es ar e such that t hey can be ' at t ached' t o t hi ngs and canagai n be ' separ at ed' f r om t hem, especi al l y si nce St r i f e and Love ar est i l l f i ght i ng wi t h one anot her f or t he mast er y. I t was owi ng tot hi s same conf l i ct t hat t he el ement s wer e gener ated f r om a One att he f or mer per i od. I say ' gener at ed' , f or pr esumabl y Fi r e, Ear t h,and Water had no di st i nct i ve exi st ence at al l whi l e mer ged i n one.

Ther e i s another obscur i t y i n t he theory Empedocl es. Ar e we t or egar d t he One as hi s ' or i gi nal r eal ' ? Or i s i t t he Many- i . e. Fi r e andEart h, and the bodi es co- ordi nate wi t h these? For t he One i s an' el ement ' i n so f ar as i t under l i es t he pr ocess as mat t er - as t hatout of whi ch Eart h and Fi r e come- t o- be thr ough a change of qual i t i esdue t o ' t he mot i on' . On the ot her hand, i n so f ar as t he One resul t sf r om composi t i on ( by a consi l i ence of t he Many), wher eas t hey r esul t


3


4/34

f r om di si nt egr ati on t he Many are more ' el ement ary' t han t he One, andpr i or to i t i n thei r nature.

2

We have t her ef ore t o di scuss t he whol e subj ect of ' unqual i f i ed'comi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway; we have to i nqui r e whet her t hese changesdo or do not occur and, i f t hey occur , t o expl ai n the pr eci secondi t i ons of t hei r occur r ence. We must al so di scuss t he remai ni ngf orms of change, vi z. gr owt h and ' al t er at i on' . For t hough, no doubt ,Pl ato i nvest i gated t he condi t i ons under whi ch thi ngs come- t o- be andpass- away, he conf i ned hi s i nqui r y t o t hese changes; and he

di scussed not al l comi ng- t o- be, but onl y t hat of t he el ement s. Heasked no quest i ons as t o how f l esh or bones, or any of t he ot hersi mi l ar compound thi ngs, come- t o- be; nor agai n di d he exami ne t hecondi t i ons under whi ch ' al t er at i on' or gr owt h ar e at t r i but abl e t ot hi ngs.

A si mi l ar cri t i ci sm appl i es t o al l our pr edecessor s wi t h t hesi ngl e except i on of Democri t us. Not one of t hem penet r ated bel ow t hesur f ace or made a thor ough exami nat i on of a si ngl e one of t hepr obl ems. Democr i t us, however, does seem not onl y t o have t houghtcar ef ul l y about al l t he pr obl ems, but al so to be di st i ngui shed f r omt he out set by hi s method. For , as we ar e sayi ng, none of t he ot herphi l osophers made any def i ni t e st atement about gr owt h, except suchas any amateur mi ght have made. They sai d t hat t hi ngs grow ' by theaccessi on of l i ke t o l i ke' , but t hey di d not pr oceed t o expl ai n t hemanner of t hi s accessi on. Nor di d t hey gi ve any account of' combi nati on' : and they negl ect ed al most ever y si ngl e one of t her emai ni ng pr obl ems, of f er i ng no expl anat i on, e. g. of ' acti on' or

' passi on' how i n physi cal act i ons one t hi ng act s and the ot herunder goes act i on. Democr i t us and Leuci ppus, however , postul ate t he' f i gur es' , and make ' al t er at i on' and comi ng- t o- be resul t f r om t hem.

They expl ai n comi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway by t hei r ' di ssoci at i on' and' associ at i on' , but ' al t er at i on' by t hei r ' groupi ng' and ' Posi t i on' .And si nce t hey t hought t hat t he ' t r ut h l ay i n t he appear ance, andt he appearances are conf l i ct i ng and i nf i ni t el y many, t hey made the' f i gur es' i nf i ni t e i n number . Hence- owi ng to t he changes of t hecompound- t he same t hi ng seems di f f er ent and conf l i ct i ng t o di f f erentpeopl e: i t i s ' t r ansposed' by a smal l addi t i onal i ngr edi ent , andappear s ut t er l y ot her by the ' t r ansposi t i on' of a si ngl econst i t uent . For Tragedy and Comedy are bot h composed of t he samel ett ers .

Si nce al most al l our pr edecessor s t hi nk (i ) t hat comi ng- t o- be i sdi s t i nct f rom ' al terat i on' , and ( i i ) that , whereas thi ngs ' al ter ' bychange of t hei r qual i t i es, i t i s by ' associ at i on' and ' di ssoci at i on't hat t hey come- t o- be and pass - away, we must concent r ate ourat t ent i on on t hese t heses. For t hey l ead t o many per pl exi ng andwel l - gr ounded di l emmas. I f , on t he one hand, comi ng- t o- be i s' associ at i on' , many i mpossi bl e consequences r esul t : and yet t her eare ot her argument s, not easy to unr avel , whi ch f orce t he concl usi onupon us t hat comi ng- t o- be cannot possi bl y be anythi ng el se. I f , on theot her hand, comi ng- t o- be i s not ' associ at i on' , ei t her t her e i s no sucht hi ng as comi ng- t o- be at al l or i t i s ' al t er at i on' : or el se we mustendeavour t o unr avel t hi s di l emma t oo- and a st ubborn one we shal l f i ndi t . The f undament al quest i on, i n deal i ng wi t h al l t hesedi f f i cul t i es, i s t hi s: ' Do thi ngs come- t o- be and "al t er " and gr ow, andunder go t he cont r ary changes, because t he pr i mary " r eal s" arei ndi vi si bl e magni t udes? Or i s no magni t ude i ndi vi si bl e?' For t heanswer we gi ve to t hi s quest i on makes t he gr eat est di f f erence. Andagai n, i f t he pr i mar y ' r eal s' ar e i ndi vi si bl e magni t udes, ar e thesebodi es, as Democr i t us and Leuci ppus mai nt ai n? Or are t hey pl anes, asi s asser t ed i n t he Ti maeus?

To r esol ve bodi es i nt o pl anes and no f ur t her - t hi s, as we have al sor emarked el sewher e, i n i t sel f a paradox. Hence t here i s more t o besai d f or t he vi ew t hat t her e ar e i ndi vi si bl e bodi es. Yet even thesei nvol ve much of par adox. St i l l , as we have sai d, i t i s possi bl e toconst r uct ' al t er at i on' and comi ng- t o- be wi t h t hem, i f one ' t r ansposes't he same by ' t ur ni ng' and ' i nt er cont act ' , and by ' t he var i et i es of t hef i gur es' , as Democri t us does. ( Hi s deni al of t he real i t y of col ouri s a corol l ary f r om t hi s posi t i on: f or, accordi ng to hi m, t hi ngs getcol oured by ' t urni ng' of t he ' f i gur es' . ) But t he possi bi l i t y of such aconst r uct i on no l onger exi st s f or t hose who di vi de bodi es i nt o pl anes.For not hi ng except sol i ds r esul t s f r om put t i ng pl anes t oget her : t heydo not even at t empt t o generate any qual i t y f r om t hem.

Lack of exper i ence di mi ni shes our power of t aki ng a compr ehensi vevi ew of t he admi t t ed f acts . Hence t hose who dwel l i n i nt i mateassoci at i on wi t h nature and i t s phenomena grow more and more abl e t o


4


5/34

f or mul at e, as t he f oundat i ons of t hei r t heor i es, pr i nci pl es such as t oadmi t of a wi de and coher ent devel opment : whi l e t hose whom devot i on t oabst r act di scussi ons has r ender ed unobser vant of t he f act s ar e t oor eady t o dogmati ze on t he basi s of a f ew observat i ons. The r i valt r eat ment s of t he subj ect now bef or e us wi l l ser ve t o i l l ust r at e howgr eat i s t he di f f er ence bet ween a ' sci ent i f i c' and a ' di al ecti cal 'method of i nqui r y. For , wher eas t he Pl atoni st s ar gue t hat t her e mustbe at omi c magni t udes ' because otherwi se "The Tr i angl e" wi l l be moret han one' , Democr i t us woul d appear t o have been convi nced by ar gument sappr opr i at e to t he subj ect , i . e. dr awn f r om t he sci ence of nat ur e. Ourmeani ng wi l l become cl ear as we proceed. For t o suppose t hat a body( i . e. a magni t ude) i s di vi si bl e through and t hr ough, and that t hi s

di vi s i on i s possi bl e, i nvol ves a di f f i cul t y. What wi l l t here be i n t hebody whi ch escapes t he di vi si on?

I f i t i s di vi s i bl e t hr ough and t hrough, and i f t hi s di vi s i on i spossi bl e, t hen i t mi ght be, at one and t he same moment , di vi dedt hrough and t hr ough, even t hough the di vi di ngs had not been ef f ectedsi mul t aneousl y: and t he act ual occur r ence of t hi s r esul t woul d i nvol veno i mpossi bi l i t y. Hence t he same pr i nci pl e wi l l appl y whenever abody i s by nature di vi si bl e t hr ough and thr ough, whet her by bi secti on,or gener al l y by any met hod whatever : nothi ng i mpossi bl e wi l l haver esul t ed i f i t has actual l y been di vi ded- not even i f i t has beendi vi ded i nt o i nnumer abl e part s, t hemsel ves di vi ded i nnumer abl et i mes. Nothi ng i mpossi bl e wi l l have resul t ed, t hough per haps nobody i nf act coul d so di vi de i t .

Si nce, t her ef or e, t he be dy i s di vi si bl e t hr ough and t hr ough, l et i thave been di vi ded. What, t hen, wi l l r emai n? A magni t ude? No: t hat i si mpossi bl e, si nce t hen t her e wi l l be somet hi ng not di vi ded, wher eas ex

hypot hesi s t he body was di vi si bl e t hr ough and through. But i f i t beadmi t t ed t hat nei t her a body nor a magni t ude wi l l r emai n, and yetdi vi si on i s t o take pl ace, t he const i t uent s of t he body wi l l ei t her bepoi nt s ( i . e. wi t hout magni t ude) or absol ut el y not hi ng. I f i t sconst i t uent s ar e not hi ngs, t hen i t mi ght bot h come- t o- be out ofnothi ngs and exi st as a composi t e of nothi ngs: and t hus pr esumabl y t hewhol e body wi l l be not hi ng but an appear ance. But i f i t consi st s ofpoi nt s, a s i mi l ar absurdi t y wi l l resul t : i t wi l l not possess anymagni t ude. For when t he poi nt s wer e i n cont act and coi nci ded t o f orm asi ngl e magni t ude, t hey di d not make t he whol e any bi gger ( si nce,when t he body was di vi ded i nto t wo or more par t s, t he whol e was nota bi t smal l er or bi gger t han i t was bef or e the di vi si on) : hence,even i f al l t he poi nt s be put t oget her , t hey wi l l not make anymagni t ude.

But suppose that , as t he body i s bei ng di vi ded, a mi nut e sect i on- api ece of sawdust , as i t wer e- i s extr act ed, and t hat i n t hi s sense- abody ' comes away' f r om t he magni t ude, evadi ng the di vi si on. Event hen t he same ar gument appl i es. For i n what sense i s t hat sect i ondi vi si bl e? But i f what ' came away' was not a body but a separabl e f ormor qual i t y, and i f t he magni t ude i s ' poi nt s or cont act s t husqual i f i ed' : i t i s par adoxi cal t hat a magni t ude shoul d consi st ofel ement s, whi ch are not magni t udes. Moreover , wher e wi l l t he poi nt sbe? And are t hey mot i onl ess or movi ng? And ever y contact i s al ways acont act of t wo somet hi ngs, i . e. t her e i s al ways somet hi ng besi dest he cont act or t he di vi si on or t he poi nt .

These, t hen, ar e t he di f f i cul t i es resul t i ng f rom t he supposi t i ont hat any and ever y body, what ever i t s si ze, i s di vi si bl e through andt hr ough. Ther e i s, besi des, t hi s f ur t her consi der at i on. I f , havi ngdi vi ded a pi ece of wood or anyt hi ng el se, I put i t t oget her , i t i sagai n equal t o what i t was, and i s one. Cl ear l y thi s i s so, what evert he poi nt at whi ch I cut t he wood. The wood, t her ef ore, has beendi vi ded potent i al l y t hr ough and t hr ough. What, t hen, i s t her e i n t hewood besi des t he di vi si on? For even i f we suppose t here i s some

qual i t y, yet how i s t he wood di ssol ved i nt o such const i t uent s andhow does i t come- t o- be out of t hem? Or how are such const i t uent ssepar at ed so as t o exi st apar t f r om one anot her ? Si nce, t her ef or e,i t i s i mpossi bl e f or magni t udes t o consi st of cont act s or poi nt s,t her e must be i ndi vi si bl e bodi es and magni t udes. Yet , i f we dopostul ate t he l at t er , we ar e conf r ont ed wi t h equal l y i mpossi bl econsequences, whi ch we have exami ned i n other wor ks. ' But we mustt r y to di sent angl e t hese per pl exi t i es, and must t her ef or e f or mul atet he whol e pr obl em over agai n.

On t he one hand, t hen, i t i s i n no way paradoxi cal t hat ever yper cept i bl e body shoul d be i ndi vi si bl e as wel l as di vi si bl e at any andever y poi nt . For t he second pr edi cat e wi l l at . t ach t o i t pot ent i al l y,but t he f i r st act ual l y. On t he ot her hand, i t woul d seem t o bei mpossi bl e f or a body t o be, even pot ent i al l y, di vi si bl e at al l poi nt ssi mul t aneousl y. For i f i t wer e possi bl e, t hen i t mi ght actual l y occur ,


5


6/34

wi t h t he resul t , not t hat t he body woul d si mul t aneousl y be act ual l ybot h (i ndi vi si bl e and di vi ded) , but t hat i t woul d be si mul t aneousl ydi vi ded at any and ever y poi nt . Consequent l y, nothi ng wi l l r emai nand the body wi l l have passedaway i nt o what i s i ncorpor eal : and so i tmi ght come- t o- be agai n ei t her out of poi nt s or absol ut el y out ofnothi ng. And how i s t hat possi bl e?

But now i t i s obvi ous t hat a body i s i n f act di vi ded i nt osepar abl e magni t udes whi ch ar e smal l er at each di vi si on- i nt omagni t udes whi ch f al l apar t f r om one another and ar e act ual l ysepar ated. Hence ( i t i s urged) t he pr ocess of di vi di ng a body par tby par t i s not a ' br eaki ng up' whi ch coul d cont i nue ad i nf i ni t um;

nor can a body be si mul t aneousl y di vi ded at ever y poi nt , f or t hat i snot possi bl e; but t her e i s a l i mi t , beyond whi ch the ' br eaki ng up'cannot pr oceed. The necessary consequence- especi al l y i f comi ng- t o- beand passi ngaway ar e to t ake pl ace by ' associ at i on' and ' di ssoci at i on'r espect i vel y- i s t hat a body must cont ai n at omi c magni t udes whi ch ar ei nvi si bl e. Such i s t he ar gument whi ch i s bel i eved to est abl i sh thenecessi t y of atomi c magni t udes: we must now show t hat i t conceal s af aul t y i nf er ence, and exactl y wher e i t conceal s i t .

For , si nce poi nt i s not ' i mmedi at el y- next' t o poi nt , magni t udesar e ' di vi si bl e t hr ough and t hr ough' i n one sense, and yet not i nanother . When, however , i t i s admi t t ed t hat a magni t ude i s' di vi si bl e t hr ough and thr ough' , i t i s t hought t her e i s a poi nt notonl y anywher e, but al so ever ywher e, i n i t : hence i t i s supposed t of ol l ow, f r om t he admi ssi on, t hat t he magni t ude must be di vi ded awayi nt o not hi ng. For i t i s supposed- t her e i s a poi nt ever ywher e wi t hi ni t , so that i t cons i s ts ei t her of contacts or of poi nts . But i t i sonl y i n one sense t hat t he magni t ude i s ' di vi si bl e t hr ough and

t hr ough' , vi z. i n so f ar as t her e i s one poi nt anywher e wi t hi n i tand al l i t s poi nt s ar e ever ywher e wi t hi n i t i f you take them si ngl yone by one. But t here are not more poi nt s t han one anywhere wi t hi n i t ,f or t he poi nt s ar e not ' consecut i ve' : hence i t i s not si mul t aneousl y' di vi s i bl e through and t hrough' . For i f i t wer e, t hen, i f i t bedi vi s i bl e at i ts cent re, i t wi l l be di vi s i bl e al so at a poi nt' i mmedi at el y- next ' t o i t s cent re. But i t i s not so di vi s i bl e: f orposi t i on i s not ' i mmedi at el y- next ' t o posi t i on, nor poi nt t opoi nt - i n ot her wor ds, di vi si on i s not ' i mmedi at el y- next ' t odi vi si on, nor composi t i on t o composi t i on.

Hence t her e ar e bot h ' associ at i on' and ' di ssoci at i on' , t houghnei t her ( a) i nt o, and out of , at omi c magni t udes ( f or t hat i nvol vesmany i mpossi bi l i t i es) , nor ( b) so t hat di vi si on t akes pl ace t hr oughand through- f or t hi s woul d have r esul t ed onl y i f poi nt had been' i mmedi at el y-next ' t o poi nt : but ' di ssoci at i on' t akes pl ace i nt o smal l( i . e. re l at i vel y smal l ) part s, and ' associ at i on' t akes pl ace out ofre l at i vel y smal l par t s.

I t i s wr ong, however , t o suppose, as some asser t , t hatcomi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway i n the unqual i f i ed and compl ete sensear e di st i nct i vel y def i ned by ' associ at i on' and ' di ssoci at i on' , whi l et he change that t akes pl ace i n what i s cont i nuous i s ' al t er at i on' .On t he cont r ar y, t hi s i s wher e the whol e er r or l i es. For unqual i f i edcomi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway are not ef f ect ed by ' associ ati on' and' di ssoci at i on' . They t ake pl ace when a t hi ng changes, f r om t hi s t ot hat , as a whol e. But t he phi l osopher s we ar e cri t i ci zi ng suppose thatal l such change i s ' al t er at i on' : wher eas i n f act t her e i s adi f f er ence. For i n that whi ch under l i es t he change ther e i s a f actorcor r espondi ng to t he def i ni t i on and ther e i s a mat er i al f actor .When, t hen, t he change i s i n t hese const i t ut i ve f actor s, t her e wi l l becomi ng- t o- be or passi ngaway: but when i t i s i n the t hi ng' s qual i t i es,i . e. a change of t he thi ng per acci dent s, t her e wi l l be ' al t er at i on' .

' Di ssoci at i on' and ' associ at i on' af f ect the t hi ng' s suscept i bi l i t y

t o passi ngaway. For i f wat er has f i r st been ' di ssoci at ed' i nt osmal l i sh dr ops, ai r comes- t o- be out of i t mor e qui ckl y: whi l e, i fdr ops of wat er have f i r st been ' associ at ed' , ai r comes- t o- be mor esl owl y. Our doct r i ne wi l l become cl ear er i n t he sequel . ' Meant i me,so much may be t aken as est abl i shed- vi z. t hat comi ng- t o- be cannot be' associ at i on' , at l east not t he ki nd of ' associ at i on' somephi l osopher s asser t i t t o be.

3

Now t hat we have est abl i shed t he pr ecedi ng di st i nct i ons, we mustf i r st consi der whet her t her e i s anythi ng whi ch comes - t o- be andpasses- away i n t he unqual i f i ed sense: or whether nothi ng comes - t o- bei n thi s s t r i ct sense, but ever ythi ng al ways comes- t o- be somet hi ngand out of somet hi ng- I mean, e. g. comes- t o- be- heal t hy out of bei ng- i l land i l l out of bei ng- heal t hy, comes- t o- be- smal l out of bei ng bi g and


6


7/34

bi g out of bei ng- smal l , and so on i n ever y ot her i nst ance. For i ft her e i s t o be comi ng- t o- be wi t hout qual i f i cat i on, ' somet hi ng'must - wi t hout qual i f i cat i on- ' come- t o-be out of not - bei ng' , so that i twoul d be tr ue t o say t hat ' not - bei ng i s an at t r i but e of somet hi ngs' . For qual i f i ed comi ng- t o-be i s a pr ocess out of qual i f i ednot - bei ng (e. g. out of not - whi t e or not - beaut i f ul ) , but unqual i f i edcomi ng- t o- be i s a pr ocess out of unqual i f i ed not - bei ng.

Now ' unqul i f i ed' means ei t her ( i ) t he pr i mar y pr edi cat i on wi t hi neach Cat egor y, or ( i i ) t he uni ver sal , i . e. t he al l - compr ehensi ve,pr edi cat i on. Hence, i f ' unqual i f i ed not - bei ng ' means t he negat i on of' bei ng' i n the sense of t he pr i mar y term of t he Cat egor y i n

quest i on, we shal l have, i n ' unqual i f i ed comi ng- t o- be' , a comi ng- t o- beof a subst ance out of not - subst ance. But t hat whi ch i s not a subst anceor a ' t hi s' cl ear l y cannot possess pr edi cat es dr awn f r om any of t heot her Cat egor i es ei t her - e. g. we cannot at t r i but e to i t any qual i t y,quant i t y, or posi t i on. Ot her wi se, pr oper t i es woul d admi t ofexi st ence i n separ at i on f r om subst ances. I f , on the ot her hand,' unqual i f i ed not - bei ng' means ' what i s not i n any sense at al l ' , i twi l l be a uni ver sal negat i on of al l f or ms of bei ng, so t hat whatcomes - t o- be wi l l have t o come- t o- be out of nothi ng.

Al t hough we have deal t wi t h these pr obl ems at gr eater l engt h i nanot her work, wher e we have set f or t h t he di f f i cul t i es andest abl i shed t he di sti ngui shi ng def i ni t i ons, t he f ol l owi ng conci ser estatement of our r esul t s must her e be of f er ed: I n one sense t hi ngscome- t o- be out of t hat whi ch has no ' bei ng' wi t hout qual i f i cat i on: yeti n another sense t hey come- t o- be al ways out of what i s' . Forcomi ng- t o- be necessar i l y i mpl i es t he pr e- exi st ence of somet hi ngwhi ch pot ent i al l y ' i s ' , but actual l y ' i s not ' ; and t hi s somet hi ng i s

spoken of bot h as ' bei ng' and as ' not - bei ng' .

These di st i nct i ons may be t aken as establ i shed: but even t hen i ti s ext r aor di nar i l y di f f i cul t t o see how t her e can be ' unqual i f i edcomi ng- t o- be' ( whet her we suppose i t t o occur out of whatpot ent i al l y ' i s' , or i n some ot her way), and we must r ecal l t hi spr obl em f or f ur t her exami nat i on. For t he quest i on mi ght be r ai sedwhet her substance ( i . e. t he ' t hi s' ) comes- t o- be at al l . I s i t notr at her t he ' such' , t he ' so gr eat ' , or t he ' somewher e' , whi chcomes- t o- be? And t he same quest i on mi ght be r ai sed about' passi ngaway' al so. For i f a subst ant i al t hi ng comes- t o-be, i t i sc l ear t hat t here wi l l ' be' ( not actual l y, but pot ent i al l y) asubst ance, out of whi ch i t s comi ng- t o- be wi l l pr oceed and i nt o whi cht he t hi ng that i s passi ngaway wi l l necessari l y change. Then wi l lany pr edi cat e bel ongi ng t o t he r emai ni ng Cat egor i es att ach act ual l y t ot hi s presupposed subst ance? I n other words, wi l l t hat whi ch i s onl ypot ent i al l y a ' t hi s ' ( whi ch onl y pot ent i al l y i s) , whi l e wi t hout t hequal i f i cat i on ' potent i al l y' i t i s not a ' thi s ' ( i . e. i s not ) , possess,e. g. any det ermi nat e s i ze or qual i t y or posi t i on? For ( i ) i f i tpossesses none of t hese det er mi nat i ons actual l y, but al l of t hemonl y pot ent i al l y, t he resul t i s f i rst t hat a bei ng, whi ch i s not adet er mi nat e bei ng, i s capabl e of separate exi st ence; and i n addi t i ont hat comi ng- t o- be pr oceeds out of not hi ng pr e- exi st i ng- a t hesi s whi ch,more t han any ot her, pr eoccupi ed and al armed t he ear l i estphi l osopher s. On t he ot her hand ( i i ) i f , al t hough i t i s not a ' t hi ssomewhat ' or a subst ance, i t i s t o possess some of t he r emai ni ngdet er mi nat i ons quoted above, t hen ( as we sai d) ' pr oper t i es wi l l besepar abl e f r om subst ances.

We must t heref ore concent r ate al l our powers on t he di scussi on oft hese di f f i cul t i es and on t he sol ut i on of a f ur t her quest i on- vi z. Whati s t he cause of t he per pet ui t y of comi ng- t o- be? Why i s t her e al waysunqual i f i ed, as wel l as par t i al , comi ng- t o- be? Cause' i n thi sconnexi on has t wo senses. I t means ( i ) t he sour ce f r om whi ch, as wesay, t he pr ocess ' or i gi nat es' , and ( i i ) t he mat t er . I t i s t he mat er i al

cause t hat we have her e t o st ate. For , as t o t he ot her cause, wehave al r eady expl ai ned ( i n our t r eat i se on Mot i on that i t i nvol ves ( a)somethi ng i mmovabl e t hrough al l t i me and (b) somethi ng al ways bei ngmoved. And the accur ate t r eatment of t he f i r st of t hese- of t hei mmovabl e ' or i gi nati ve sour ce' - bel ongs t o the pr ovi nce of t he ot her ,or ' pr i or ' , phi l osophy: whi l e as r egar ds ' t hat whi ch set s ever yt hi ngel se i n mot i on by bei ng i t sel f cont i nuousl y moved' , we shal l have t oexpl ai n l at er ' whi ch amongst t he so- cal l ed ' speci f i c' causesexhi bi t s t hi s character . But at pr esent we ar e t o stat e t he materi alcause- t he cause cl assed under t he head of mat t er - t o whi ch i t i s duet hat passi ngaway and comi ng- t o- be never f ai l t o occur i n Natur e.For per haps, i f we succeed i n cl ear i ng up t hi s quest i on, i t wi l lsi mul t aneousl y become cl ear what account we ought t o gi ve of t hatwhi ch per pl exed us j ust now, i . e. of unqual i f i ed passi ngaway andcomi ng- t o- be.


7


8/34

Our new quest i on t oo- vi z. ' what i s t he cause of t he unbr okencont i nui t y of comi ng- t o- be?' - i s suf f i c i ent l y perpl exi ng, i f i n f actwhat passes- away vani shes i nt o ' what i s not ' and ' what i s not ' i snot hi ng ( si nce ' what i s not ' i s nei t her a thi ng, nor possessed of aqual i t y or quant i t y, nor i n any pl ace) . I f , t hen, some one of t het hi ngs ' whi ch are' const ant l y di sappeari ng, why has not t he whol e of' what i s' been used up l ong ago and vani shed away assumi ng of cour set hat t he mat er i al of al l t he sever al comi ngs- t o- be was f i ni t e? For ,pr esumabl y, t he unf ai l i ng cont i nui t y of comi ng- t o- be cannot beat t r i but ed t o t he i nf i ni t y of t he mat er i al . That i s i mpossi bl e, f ornothi ng i s actual l y i nf i ni te. A thi ng i s i nf i ni te onl y potent i al l y,i . e. t he di vi di ng of i t can cont i nue i ndef i ni t el y: so t hat we shoul d

have t o suppose t her e i s onl y one ki nd of comi ng- t o- be i n thewor l d- vi z. one whi ch never f ai l s, because i t i s such that whatcomes - t o- be i s on each successi ve occasi on smal l er t han bef ore. But i nf act t hi s i s not what we see occur r i ng.

Why, t hen, i s thi s f or m of change necessar i l y ceasel ess? I s i tbecause t he passi ngaway of t hi s i s a comi ng- t o- be of somet hi ngel se, and the comi ng- t o- be of t hi s a passi ngaway of somet hi ng el se?

The cause i mpl i ed i n t hi s sol ut i on must no doubt be consi der edadequate t o account f or comi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway i n t hei r generalchar acter as t hey occur i n al l exi sti ng thi ngs al i ke. Yet , i f t he samepr ocess i s a comi ng t o- be of t hi s but a passi ngaway of t hat , and apassi ngaway of t hi s but a comi ng- t o- be of t hat, why ar e some t hi ngssai d t o come- t o- be and pass- away wi t hout qual i f i cat i on, but ot her sonl y wi t h a qual i f i cat i on?

The di st i nct i on must be i nvest i gated once more, f or i t demands

some expl anat i on. ( I t i s appl i ed i n a t wof ol d manner . ) For ( i ) wesay ' i t i s now passi ngaway' wi t hout qual i f i cat i on, and not mer el y' t hi s i s passi ngaway' : and we cal l t hi s change ' comi ng- t o- be' , andt hat ' passi ngaway' , wi t hout qual i f i cat i on. And ( i i ) so- and- so' comes- t o- be- somet hi ng' , but does not ' come- t o- be' wi t houtqual i f i cat i on; f or we say t hat t he student ' comes- t o- be- l ear ned' ,not ' comes- t o- be' wi t hout qual i f i cat i on.

( i ) Now we of t en di vi de t er ms i nt o those whi ch si gni f y a ' t hi ssomewhat' and those whi ch do not . And (t he f i r st f orm of ) t hedi sti ncti on, whi ch we ar e i nvest i gat i ng, r esul t s f r om a si mi l ardi vi si on of t er ms: f or i t makes a di f f er ence i nt o what t he changi ngt hi ng changes. Per haps, e. g. t he passage i nt o Fi r e i s ' comi ng- t o- be'unqual i f i ed, but ' passi ngaway- of - somet hi ng' ( e. g. Ear t h) : whi l st t hecomi ng- t o- be of Ear t h i s qual i f i ed ( not unqual i f i ed) ' comi ng- t o- be' ,t hough unqual i f i ed ' passi ngaway' ( e. g. of Fi r e) . Thi s woul d be thecase on the theory set f or t h i n Parmeni des: f or he says t hat t het hi ngs i nt o whi ch change t akes pl ace ar e t wo, and he asser t s t hatt hese t wo, vi z. what i s and what i s not , are Fi r e and Eart h. Whet herwe post ul ate t hese, or other t hi ngs of a si mi l ar ki nd, makes nodi f f er ence. For we ar e t r yi ng t o di scover not what under goes t hesechanges, but what i s t hei r charact eri st i c manner . The passage, t hen,i nt o what ' i s' not except wi t h a qual i f i cat i on i s unqual i f i edpassi ngaway, whi l e t he passage i nt o what ' i s' wi t hout qual i f i cat i oni s unqual i f i ed comi ng- t o- be. Hence what ever t he cont r asted ' pol es'of t he changes may be whether Fi r e and Ear t h, or some ot her coupl e- t heone of t hem wi l l be ' a bei ng' and t he ot her ' a not - bei ng' .

We have thus st ated one charact er i st i c manner i n whi ch unqual i f i edwi l l be di st i ngui shed f r om qual i f i ed comi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway:but t hey ar e al so di st i ngui shed accor di ng to t he speci al nat ur e of t hemateri al of t he changi ng t hi ng. For a mat er i al , whose const i t ut i vedi f f er ences si gni f y mor e a ' t hi s somewhat ' , i s i t sel f mor e' substant i al ' or ' real ' : whi l e a mat eri al , whose const i t ut i vedi f f erences si gni f y pr i vat i on, i s ' not r eal ' . ( Suppose, e. g. t hat ' t he

hot ' i s a posi t i ve predi cat i on, i . e. a ' f or m' , whereas ' col d' i s apr i vat i on, and t hat Ear t h and Fi r e di f f er f r om one anot her by theseconsti t ut i ve di f f er ences. )

The opi ni on, however , whi ch most peopl e ar e i ncl i ned t o pr ef er , i st hat t he di st i nct i on depends upon t he di f f erence bet ween ' t heper cept i bl e' and ' t he i mper cept i bl e' . Thus, when ther e i s a changei nt o per cept i bl e mat er i al , peopl e say t her e i s ' comi ng- t o- be' ; butwhen t her e i s a change i nt o i nvi si bl e mat er i al , t hey cal l i t' passi ngaway' . For t hey di st i ngui sh ' what i s' and ' what i s not ' byt hei r per cei vi ng and not - per cei vi ng, j ust as what i s knowabl e ' i s' andwhat i s unknowabl e ' i s not ' - per cept i on on thei r vi ew havi ng t hef orce of knowl edge. Hence, j ust as t hey deem t hemsel ves t o l i ve and to' be' i n vi rt ue of t hei r per cei vi ng or t hei r capaci t y to per cei ve, sot oo t hey deem t he thi ngs t o ' be' qua per cei ved or per cept i bl e- and i nt hi s t hey are i n a sense on t he t r ack of t he t r ut h, t hough what t hey


8


9/34

actual l y say i s not t r ue.

Thus unqual i f i ed comi ng- t o- be and passi ngaway t ur n out t o bedi f f er ent accor di ng t o common opi ni on f r om what t hey are i n t r ut h. ForWi nd and Ai r are i n t r ut h more r eal more a ' t hi s somewhat' or a' f or m' - t han Ear t h. But t hey ar e l ess r eal t o per cept i on whi ch expl ai nswhy t hi ngs are commonl y sai d t o ' pass- away' wi t hout qual i f i cati on whent hey change i nto Wi nd and Ai r , and t o ' come- t o- be' when t hey changei nt o what i s t angi bl e, i . e. i nt o Eart h.

We have now expl ai ned why there i s ' unqual i f i ed comi ng- t o- be'( t hough i t i s a passi ngaway- of - somet hi ng) and ' unqual i f i ed passi ngaway

( t hough i t i s a comi ng- t o- beof - somet hi ng) . For t hi s di st i ncti on ofappel l at i on depends upon a di f f er ence i n t he mater i al out of whi ch,and i nt o whi ch, t he changes are ef f ect ed. I t depends ei t her uponwhet her t he mat er i al i s or i s not ' subst ant i al ' , or upon whet her i t i smor e or l ess ' subst ant i al ' , or upon whet her i t i s mor e or l essper cept i bl e.

( i i ) But why ar e some thi ngs sai d t o ' come to- be' wi t houtqual i f i cat i on, and ot her s onl y t o ' come- t o-be- so- and- so' , i n casesdi f f er ent f r om t he one we have been consi der i ng wher e t wo t hi ngscome- t o- be reci pr ocal l y out of one another ? For at pr esent we haveexpl ai ned no more t han t hi s: - why, when two t hi ngs changer eci pr ocal l y i nt o one another , we do not att r i but e comi ng- t o- be andpassi ngaway uni f or ml y t o t hem bot h, al t hough ever y comi ng- t o- be i sa passi ngaway of somethi ng el se and ever y passi ngaway some othert hi ng' s comi ng- t o- be. But t he quest i on subsequent l y f ormul atedi nvol ves a di f f er ent pr obl em- vi z. why, al t hough the l ear ni ng thi ngi s sai d t o ' come- t o- be- l ear ned' but not t o ' come- t obe' wi t hout

qual i f i cat i on, yet t he gr owi ng t hi ng i s sai d to ' come- t o-be' .

The di st i nct i on her e t ur ns upon t he di f f er ence of t he Cat egor i es.For some t hi ngs si gni f y a thi s somewhat , other s a such, and ot hers aso- much. Those thi ngs, t hen, whi ch do not si gni f y subst ance, are notsai d t o ' come- t o-be' wi t hout qual i f i cat i on, but onl y to' come- t o- be- so- and- so' . Never t hel ess, i n al l changi ng t hi ngs al i ke, wespeak of ' comi ng- t o- be' when t he thi ng comes- t o- be somethi ng i n one oft he two Col umns- e. g. i n Subst ance, i f i t comes- t o- be Fi r e but not i fi t comes- t o- be Ear t h; and i n Qual i t y, i f i t comes- t o- be l ear ned butnot when i t comes- t o- be i gnorant .

We have expl ai ned why some t hi ngs come t o- be wi t houtqual i f i cat i on, but not ot her s bot h i n gener al , and al so when t hechangi ng t hi ngs ar e subst ances and nothi ng el se; and we have st atedt hat t he subst r at um i s t he mat er i al cause of t he cont i nuous occur r enceof comi ng t o- be, because i t i s such as t o change f r om cont r ary t ocont r ary and because, i n subst ances, t he comi ng- t o- be of one t hi ngi s al ways a passi ngaway of another , and t he passi ngaway of one t hi ngi s al ways another ' s comi ng- t o- be. But t her e i s no need even to di scusst he ot her quest i on we rai sed- vi z. why comi ng- t o- be cont i nues t hought hi ngs are const ant l y bei ng dest r oyed. For j ust as peopl e speak of' a passi ngaway' wi t hout qual i f i cat i on when a thi ng has passed i nt owhat i s i mper cept i bl e and what i n that sense ' i s not ' , so al so t heyspeak of ' a comi ng- t o- be out of a not - bei ng' when a t hi ng emer ges f r oman i mper cept i bl e. Whet her , t her ef or e, t he subst r at um i s or i s notsomet hi ng, what comes- t obe emerges out of a ' not - bei ng' : so t hat at hi ng comes- t o- be out of a not - bei ng' j ust as much as i t' passes- away i nt o what i s not ' . Hence i t i s r easonabl e enough thatcomi ng- t o- be shoul d never f ai l . For comi ng- t o- be i s a passi ng- awayof ' what i s not ' and passi ngaway i s a comi ng t o- be of ' what i s not ' .

But what about t hat whi ch ' i s' not except wi t h a qual i f i cat i on? I si t one of t he t wo cont r ar y pol es of t he chang- e. g. Ear t h (i . e. t heheavy) a ' not - bei ng' , but Fi re ( i . e. t he l i ght ) a ' bei ng' ? Or, on

t he cont r ary, does what i s ' i ncl ude Eart h as wel l as Fi r e, wher easwhat i s not ' i s mat t er - t he mat t er of Ear t h and Fi r e al i ke? Andagai n, i s t he mat t er of each di f f er ent ? Or i s i t t he same, si nceother wi se t hey woul d not come- t o- be reci pr ocal l y out of one another ,i . e. cont r ar i es out of cont r ar i es? For t hese t hi ngs- Fi r e, Ear t h,Wat er , Ai r - ar e char act er i zed by ' t he cont r ar i es' .

Per haps t he sol ut i on i s t hat t hei r mat t er i s i n one sense thesame, but i n another sense di f f er ent . For t hat whi ch under l i es t hem,what ever i t s nat ure may be qua under l yi ng t hem, i s t he same: but i t sactual bei ng i s not t he same. So much, t hen, on t hese topi cs.

4

Next we must st ate what t he di f f erence i s bet ween comi ng- t o- be and' al t er at i on' - f or we mai nt ai n t hat t hese changes ar e di st i nct f r om


9


10/34

one anot her .

Si nce, t hen, we must di st i ngui sh ( a) t he subst r atum, and ( b) t hepr oper t y whose natur e i t i s t o be pr edi cat ed of t he subst r atum; andsi nce change of each of t hese occur s; t her e i s ' al t er at i on' when t hesubst r at um i s per cept i bl e and per si st s, but changes i n i t s ownpr oper t i es, t he pr oper t i es i n quest i on bei ng opposed t o one anotherei t her as cont r ar i es or as i nt er medi at es. The body, e. g. al t houghpersi st i ng as t he same body, i s now heal t hy and now i l l ; and thebr onze i s now spher i cal and at another t i me angul ar, and yet r emai nst he same br onze. But when not hi ng per cept i bl e per si st s i n i t s i dent i t yas a subst r atum, and t he t hi ng changes as a whol e ( when e. g. t he

seed as a whol e i s conver t ed i nt o bl ood, or wat er i nt o ai r , or ai ras a whol e i nt o water ) , such an occur r ence i s no l onger' al t er ati on' . I t i s a comi ng- t o- be of one subst ance and a passi ng- awayof t he ot her - especi al l y i f t he change pr oceeds f r om an i mper cept i bl esomet hi ng to somet hi ng per cept i bl e ( ei t her t o touch or t o al l t hesenses) , as when wat er comes- t o- be out of , or passes- away i nt o, ai r :f or ai r i s pr et t y wel l i mper cept i bl e. I f , however , i n such cases,any pr oper t y (bei ng one of a pai r of cont r ar i es) per si st s, i n t het hi ng t hat has come- t o- be, t he same as i t was i n the t hi ng whi ch haspassedaway- i f , e. g. when water comes- t o- be out of ai r , bot h ar et r ansparent or col d- t he second t hi ng, i nt o whi ch t he f i r st changes,must not be a pr oper t y of t hi s per si st ent i dent i cal somet hi ng.Ot her wi se the change wi l l be ' al t er at i on. ' Suppose, e. g. t hat t hemusi cal man passedaway and an unmusi cal man came- t obe, and t hat t heman per si st s as somet hi ng i dent i cal . Now, i f ' musi cal ness andunmusi cal ness' had not been a pr oper t y essent i al l y i nheri ng i n man,t hese changes woul d have been a comi ng- t o- be of unmusi cal ness and apassi ngaway of musi cal ness: but i n f act ' musi cal ness and

unmusi cal ness' ar e a pr oper t y of t he per si st ent i dent i t y, vi z. man.( Hence, as r egards man, t hese changes ar e ' modi f i cati ons' ; t hough,as r egards musi cal man and unmusi cal man, t hey ar e a pass i ng- awayand a comi ng- t o- be. ) Consequent l y such changes are ' al t er at i on. 'When the change f r om cont r ar y t o cont r ar y i s i n quant i t y, i t i s' gr owt h and di mi nut i on' ; when i t i s i n pl ace, i t i s ' mot i on' ; wheni t i s i n proper t y, i . e. i n qual i ty, i t i s ' al terat i on' : but , whennot hi ng per si st s, of whi ch t he resul t ant i s a pr oper t y (or an' acci dent ' i n any sense of t he term) , i t i s ' comi ng- t o- be' , and theconver se change i s ' passi ngaway' .

' Mat t er ' , i n t he most pr oper sense of t he t er m, i s t o bei dent i f i ed wi t h the subst r at um whi ch i s r ecept i ve of comi ng- t o- beand passi ngaway: but t he subst r atum of t he r emai ni ng ki nds of changei s al so, i n a cer t ai n sense, ' mat t er ' , because al l t hese substr at a ar er ecept i ve of ' cont r ar i et i es' of some ki nd. So much, t hen, as an answert o t he questi ons ( i ) whet her comi ng- t o- be ' i s' or ' i s not ' - i . e. whatar e the pr eci se condi t i ons of i t s occur r ence and (i i ) what' al t erat i on' i s : but we have st i l l t o tr eat of growt h.

5

We must expl ai n ( i ) wher ei n gr owt h di f f er s f r om comi ng- t o- be andf r om ' al t er at i on' , and i i ) what i s t he pr ocess of gr owi ng and t hespr ocess of di mi ni shi ng i n each and al l of t he t hi ngs t hat gr ow anddi mi ni sh.

Hence our f i r st quest i on i s t hi s: Do t hese changes di f f er f r om oneanot her sol el y because of a di f f er ence i n thei r r espect i ve' spher es' ? I n ot her wor ds, do t hey di f f er because, whi l e a change f r omt hi s t o t hat ( vi z. f rom pot ent i al t o actual substance) i scomi ng- t o- be, a change i n t he sphere of magni t ude i s gr owt h and one i nt he spher e of qual i t y i s ' al t er at i on' - bot h gr owt h and ' al t er at i on'bei ng changes f r om what i s- pot ent i al l y t o what i s- act ual l y magni t udeand qual i t y respecti vel y? Or i s t her e al so a di f f er ence i n t he

manner of t he change, si nce i t i s evi dent t hat , wher eas nei t her whati s ' al t er i ng' nor what i s comi ng- t o- be necessar i l y changes i t spl ace, what i s growi ng or di mi ni shi ng changes i t s spat i al posi t i onof necessi t y, t hough i n a di f f er ent manner f r om t hat i n whi ch themovi ng thi ng does so? For t hat whi ch i s bei ng moved changes i t spl ace as a whol e: but t he gr owi ng thi ng changes i t s pl ace l i ke a met alt hat i s bei ng beat en, r et ai ni ng i t s posi t i on as a whol e whi l e i t spart s change thei r pl aces. They change thei r pl aces, but not i n thesame way as t he part s of a revol vi ng gl obe. For t he part s of t he gl obechange thei r pl aces whi l e t he whol e cont i nues t o occupy an equalpl ace: but t he part s of t he rowi ng t hi ng expand over anever - i ncreasi ng pl ace and t he par t s of t he di mi ni shi ng thi ngcont r act wi t hi n an ever - di mi ni shi ng ar ea.

I t i s cl ear , t hen, t hat t hese changes- t he changes of t hat whi ch i scomi ng- t o- be, of t hat whi ch i s ' al t er i ng' , and of t hat whi ch i s


10


11/34

gr owi ngdi f f er i n manner as wel l as i n sphere. But how are we toconcei ve t he ' spher e' of t he change whi ch i s growt h and di mi nut i on?

The sphere' of growi ng and di mi ni shi ng i s bel i eved t o be magni t ude.Ar e we t o suppose t hat body and magni t ude come- t o- be out ofsomet hi ng whi ch, t hough potent i al l y magni t ude and body, i s act ual l yi ncor poreal and devoi d of magni t ude? And si nce t hi s descr i pt i on may beunder st ood i n two di f f er ent ways, i n whi ch of t hese t wo ways are we t oappl y i t t o the pr ocess of gr owt h? I s t he mat t er , out of whi chgr owt h t akes pl ace, ( i ) ' separ at e' and exi st i ng al one by i t sel f , or( i i ) ' separ at e' but cont ai ned i n anot her body?

Per haps i t i s i mpossi bl e f or gr owt h t o t ake pl ace i n ei t her of t hese

ways. For si nce the mat t er i s ' separ at e' , ei t her ( a) i t wi l l occupy nopl ace (as i f i t were a poi nt ) , or (b) i t wi l l be a ' voi d' , i . e. anon- per cept i bl e body. But t he f i r st of t hese al t er nat i ves i si mpossi bl e. For si nce what comes - t o- be out of t hi s i ncor por eal andsi zel ess somet hi ng wi l l al ways be ' somewher e' , i t t oo must be' somewher e' - ei t her i nt r i nsi cal l y or i ndi r ectl y. And t he secondal t er nat i ve necessari l y i mpl i es t hat t he mat t er i s cont ai ned i n someot her body. But i f i t i s t o be ' i n' anot her body and yet r emai ns' separ at e' i n such a way t hat i t i s i n no sense a par t of t hat body( nei t her a par t of i t s substant i al bei ng nor an ' acci dent ' of i t ) ,many i mpossi bi l i t i es wi l l r esul t . I t i s as i f we wer e to supposet hat when, e. g. ai r comes- t o- be out of water t he pr ocess wer e duenot t o a change of t he but t o t he mat t er of t he ai r bei ng ' cont ai nedi n' t he wat er as i n a vessel . Thi s i s i mpossi bl e. For ( i ) t here i snothi ng t o pr event an i ndetermi nate number of mat t ers bei ng t hus' cont ai ned i n' t he wat er , so that t hey mi ght come- t o- be act ual l y ani ndet er mi nat e quant i t y of ai r ; and ( i i ) we do not i n f act see ai rcomi ng- t o- be out of wat er i n thi s f ashi on, vi z. wi t hdr awi ng out of

i t and l eavi ng i t unchanged.

I t i s ther ef or e bet t er t o suppose t hat i n al l i nstances ofcomi ng- t o- be the mat t er i s i nsepar abl e, bei ng numer i cal l y i dent i caland one wi t h the ' cont ai ni ng' body, t hough i sol abl e f r om i t bydef i ni t i on. But t he same reasons al so f or bi d us t o regar d t hematt er , out of whi ch t he body comes- t o- be, as poi nt s or l i nes. Themat t er i s t hat of whi ch poi nt s and l i nes are l i mi t s, and i t i ssomet hi ng t hat can never exi st wi t hout qual i t y and wi t hout f orm.

Now i t i s no doubt t r ue, as we have al so est abl i shed el sewher e, 't hat one thi ng ' comes- t obe' ( i n the unqual i f i ed sense) out ofanot her t hi ng: and furt her i t i s t r ue that t he ef f i ci ent cause ofi t s comi ng- t o- be i s ei t her ( i ) an actual t hi ng (whi ch i s t he same ast he ef f ect ei t her gener i cal l y- or t he ef f i ci ent cause of t hecomi ng- t o- be of a har d t hi ng i s not a har d t hi ng or speci f i cal l y, ase. g. f i r e i s t he ef f i ci ent cause of t he comi ng- t o- be of f i r e or oneman of t he bi r t h of anot her ) , or ( i i ) an actual i t y. Never t hel ess,si nce ther e i s al so a mat t er out of whi ch cor por eal subst ance i t sel fcomes - t o- be (cor poreal subst ance, however , al r eady charact er i zed assuch- and- such a det ermi nate body, f or t her e i s no such t hi ng as bodyi n gener al ) , t hi s same matt er i s al so t he mat t er of magni t ude andqual i t y- bei ng separ abl e f r om t hese mat t er s by def i ni t i on, but notsepar abl e i n pl ace unl ess Qual i t i es ar e, i n thei r t ur n, separ abl e.

I t i s evi dent , f r om t he pr ecedi ng devel opment and di scussi on ofdi f f i cul t i es, t hat gr owt h i s not a change out of somet hi ng whi ch,t hough potent i al l y a magni t ude, actual l y possesses no magni t ude.For , i f i t wer e, t he ' voi d' woul d exi st i n separ at i on; but we haveexpl ai ned i n a f ormer wor k' t hat t hi s i s i mpossi bl e. Mor eover , achange of t hat ki nd i s not pecul i ar l y di st i nct i ve of gr owt h, butchar act er i zes comi ng- t o- be as such or i n gener al . For gr owt h i s ani ncrease, and di mi nut i on i s a l esseni ng, of t he magni t ude whi ch i st her e al r eady- t hat , i ndeed, i s why t he gr owi ng thi ng must possess somemagni t ude. Hence growt h must not be r egarded as a process f r om a

matt er wi t hout magni t ude t o an act ual i t y of magni t ude: f or t hi swoul d be a body' s comi ng- t o- be r ather t han i t s gr owt h.

We must t heref ore come to cl oser quart er s wi t h the subj ect of ouri nqui r y. We must gr appl e' wi t h i t ( as i t wer e) f r om i t s begi nni ng, anddetermi ne the pr eci se character of t he gr owi ng and di mi ni shi ng whosecauses we ar e i nvest i gati ng.

I t i s evi dent ( i ) t hat any and ever y par t of t he gr owi ng t hi ng hasi ncreased, and that si mi l ar l y i n di mi nut i on ever y par t has becomesmal l er : al so ( i i ) t hat a thi ng gr ows by t he accessi on, and di mi ni shesby t he depart ur e, of somethi ng. Hence i t must gr ow by t he accessi onei t her ( a) of somet hi ng i ncor por eal or ( b) of a body. Now, i f ( a) i tgr ows by t he accessi on of somet hi ng i ncor por eal , t her e wi l l exi stsepar ate a voi d: but ( as we have st at ed bef or e) ' i s i mpossi bl e f or amatt er of magni t ude to exi st ' separ at e' . I f , on t he other hand (b)


11


12/34

i t gr ows by t he accessi on of a body, t her e wi l l be two bodi es- t hatwhi ch gr ows and that whi ch i ncr eases i t - i n the same pl ace: and thi st oo i s i mpossi bl e.

But nei t her i s i t open t o us t o say that gr owt h or di mi nut i on occur si n the way i n whi ch e. g. ai r i s gener at ed f r om wat er . For , al t hought he vol ume has t hen become gr eat er, t he change wi l l not be gr owt h, buta comi ng t o- be of t he one- vi z. of t hat i nt o whi ch t he change i s t aki ngpl ace- and a passi ngaway of t he cont r asted body. I t i s not a gr owt h ofei t her . Nothi ng gr ows i n the pr ocess; unl ess i ndeed ther e be somethi ngcommon t o both t hi ngs ( t o t hat whi ch i s comi ng- t o- be and t o t hat whi chpassed- away) , e. g. ' body' , and t hi s gr ows. The water has not gr own,

nor has t he ai r : but t he f ormer has passedaway and the l at t er hascome- t o- be, and- i f anyt hi ng has gr own- t here has been a gr owt h of' body. ' Yet t hi s t oo i s i mpossi bl e. For our account of gr owt h mustpr eser ve t he char act er i st i cs of t hat whi ch i s gr owi ng and di mi ni shi ng.And these char act er i st i cs are t hr ee: ( i ) any and ever y par t of t hegr owi ng magni t ude i s made bi gger ( e. g. i f f l esh gr ows, ever ypar t i cl e of t he f l esh get s bi gger ) , ( i i ) by the accessi on ofsomet hi ng, and (i i i ) i n such a way t hat t he gr owi ng thi ng i s preser vedand per si st s. For wher eas a t hi ng does not per si st i n the pr ocesses ofunqual i f i ed comi ng- t o- be or passi ngaway, t hat whi ch gr ows or ' al t er s'per si st s i n i t s i dent i t y thr ough t he ' al t er i ng' and t hr ough t hegr owi ng or di mi ni shi ng, t hough t he qual i t y (i n ' al t er at i on' ) and t hesi ze ( i n gr owt h) do not r emai n the same. Now i f t he gener ati on ofai r f r om wat er i s t o be regar ded as growt h, a t hi ng mi ght gr ow wi t houtt he accessi on ( and wi t hout t he per si st ence) of anythi ng, anddi mi ni sh wi t hout t he depart ur e of anythi ng- and t hat whi ch gr ows neednot per si st . But t hi s char act er i st i c must be pr eser ved: f or t he gr owt hwe are di scussi ng has been assumed t o be thus char acteri zed.

One mi ght r ai se a f ur t her di f f i cul t y. What i s ' t hat whi ch gr ows' ? I si t t hat t o whi ch somet hi ng i s added? I f , e. g. a man gr ows i n hi s shi n,i s i t t he shi n whi ch i s great er - but not t hat ' wher eby' he gr ows,vi z. not t he f ood? Then why have not both ' gr own' ? For when A i s addedt o B, both A and B are gr eat er, as when you mi x wi ne wi t h water ; f oreach i ngr edi ent i s al i ke i ncreased i n vol ume. Per haps t heexpl anat i on i s t hat t he subst ance of t he one remai ns unchanged, butt he subst ance of t he ot her ( vi z. of t he f ood) does not . For i ndeed,even i n t he mi xture of wi ne and water, i t i s t he pr evai l i ng i ngr edi entwhi ch i s sai d t o have i ncr eased i n vol ume. We say, e. g. t hat t hewi ne has i ncr eased, because t he whol e mi xt ur e act s as wi ne but notas wat er. A s i mi l ar pri nci pl e appl i es al so t o ' al t erat i on' . Fl esh i ssai d to have been ' al t er ed' i f , whi l e i t s char act er and subst ancer emai n, some one of i t s essent i al pr oper t i es, whi ch was not t her ebef or e, now qual i f i es i t : on t he ot her hand, t hat ' wher eby' i t hasbeen ' al t ered' may have undergone no change, t hough somet i mes i t t oohas been af f ect ed. The al t er i ng agent , however , and t he or i gi nat i vesour ce of t he pr ocess ar e i n t he gr owi ng thi ng and i n that whi ch i sbei ng ' al t er ed' : f or t he ef f i ci ent cause i s i n t hese. No doubt t hef ood, whi ch has come i n, may somet i mes expand as wel l as t he body t hathas consumed i t ( t hat i s so, e. g. i f , af t er havi ng come i n, a f oodi s conver t ed i nt o wi nd) , but when i t has undergone t hi s change i thas passedaway: and t he ef f i ci ent cause i s not i n t he f ood.

We have now devel oped t he di f f i cul t i es suf f i ci ent l y and mustt her ef ore t r y t o f i nd a sol ut i on of t he pr obl em. Our sol ut i on mustpr eser ve i nt act t he t hr ee char act er i st i cs of gr owt h- t hat t he gr owi ngt hi ng per si st s, t hat i t gr ows by t he accessi on ( and di mi ni shes byt he depar t ur e) of somet hi ng, and f ur t her t hat ever y per cept i bl epart i cl e of i t has become ei t her l ar ger or smal l er . We mustr ecogni ze al so ( a) t hat t he gr owi ng body i s not ' voi d' and that yett her e are not t wo magni t udes i n the same pl ace, and ( b) t hat i t doesnot gr ow by t he accessi on of somet hi ng i ncor poreal .

Two pr el i mi nar y di st i nct i ons wi l l pr epar e us t o gr asp t he cause ofgr owt h. We must note ( i ) t hat t he organi c par t s gr ow by t he gr owt hof t he ti ssues ( f or ever y or gan i s composed of t hese as i t sconsti t uent s); and ( i i ) t hat f l esh, bone, and ever y such par t - l i keever y other t hi ng whi ch has i t s f or m i mmer sed i n matt er - has at wof ol d nat ur e: f or t he f or m as wel l as t he mat t er i s cal l ed ' f l esh'or ' bone' .

Now, t hat any and ever y par t of t he ti ssue qua f orm shoul dgr ow- and gr ow by t he accessi on of somethi ng- i s possi bl e, but nott hat any and ever y par t of t he t i ssue qua mat t er shoul d do so. Forwe must t hi nk of t he t i ssue af t er t he i mage of f l owi ng wat er t hat i smeasured by one and the same measure: part i cl e af t er par t i cl ecomes- t o- be, and each successi ve par t i cl e i s di f f er ent . And i t i s i nt hi s sense t hat t he mat t er of t he f l esh gr ows, some f l owi ng out andsome f l owi ng i n f r esh; not i n t he sense t hat f r esh mat t er accedes t o


12


13/34

ever y par t i cl e of i t . Ther e i s, however , an accessi on to ever y par t ofi t s f i gure or ' f orm' .

That gr owt h has t aken pl ace pr opor t i onal l y, i s mor e mani f est i nt he or gani c par t s- e. g. i n the hand. For t her e t he f act t hat t he mat t eri s di st i nct f rom t he f or m i s more mani f est t han i n f l esh, i . e. t han i nt he t i ssues. That i s why t her e i s a great er t endency t o suppose t hat acor pse st i l l possesses f l esh and bone than that i t st i l l has a hand oran ar m.

Hence i n one sense i t i s t r ue t hat any and ever y part of t he f l eshhas gr own; but i n anot her sense i t i s f al se. For t her e has been an

accessi on to ever y par t of t he f l esh i n r espect t o i t s f or m, but noti n respect t o i t s mat t er . The whol e, however , has become l arger . Andt hi s i ncr ease i s due (a) on t he one hand to the accessi on ofsomet hi ng, whi ch i s cal l ed ' f ood' and i s sai d t o be ' cont r ar y' t of l esh, but ( b) on the ot her hand to t he tr ansf or mat i on of t hi s f oodi nt o t he same f or m as t hat of f l esh as i f , e. g. ' moi st ' wer e to accedet o ' dr y' and, havi ng acceded, were t o be t r ansf ormed and t o become' dr y' . For i n one sense ' Li ke gr ows by Li ke' , but i n anot her sense' Unl i ke gr ows by Unl i ke' .

One mi ght di scuss what must be t he character of t hat ' whereby' at hi ng gr ows. Cl ear l y i t must be pot ent i al l y that whi ch i sgr owi ng- pot ent i al l y f l esh, e. g. i f i t i s f l esh t hat i s gr owi ng.Act ual l y, t her ef or e, i t must be ' ot her ' t han the gr owi ng t hi ng. Thi s' act ual ot her ' , t hen, has passedaway and come- t o- be f l esh. But i t hasnot been tr ansf or med i nt o f l esh al one by i t sel f ( f or t hat woul d havebeen a comi ng- t o- be, not a gr owt h) : on the cont r ar y, i t i s t he gr owi ngt hi ng whi ch has come- t o- be f l esh (and gr own) by t he f ood. I n what way,

t hen, has t he f ood been modi f i ed by t he gr owi ng t hi ng? Perhaps weshoul d say t hat i t has been ' mi xed' wi t h i t , as i f one wer e t o pourwater i nt o wi ne and the wi ne were abl e t o conver t t he new i ngredi enti nt o wi ne. And as f i r e l ays hol d of t he i nf l ammabl e, so the act i vepr i nci pl e of gr owt h, dwel l i ng i n the gr owi ng t hi ng t hat whi ch i sactual l y f l esh) , l ays hol d of an accedi ng f ood whi ch i s pot ent i al l yf l esh and conver t s i t i nt o act ual f l esh. The accedi ng f ood, t her ef or e,must be t oget her wi t h the gr owi ng t hi ng: f or i f i t wer e apar t f r om i t ,t he change woul d be a comi ng- t o- be. For i t i s possi bl e t o pr oduce f i r eby pi l i ng l ogs on t o t he al r eady bur ni ng f i r e. That i s ' gr owt h' . Butwhen t he l ogs t hemsel ves ar e set on f i r e, t hat i s ' comi ng- t o- be' .

' Quant um- i n- general ' does not come- t o- be any more t han ' ani mal 'whi ch i s nei t her man nor any other of t he speci f i c f or ms of ani mal :what ' ani mal - i n- gener al ' i s i n comi ng- t o- be, t hat ' quant um- i n- gener al 'i s i n gr owt h. But what does come- t o- be i n gr owt h i s f l esh or bone- or ahand or ar m ( i . e. t he t i ssues of t hese or gani c par t s) . Such t hi ngscome- t o- be, t hen, by t he accessi on not of quant i f i ed- f l esh but of aquant i f i ed- somet hi ng. I n so f ar as t hi s accedi ng f ood i s pot ent i al l yt he doubl e resul t e. g. i s pot ent i al l y somuch- f l esh- i t pr oducesgr owt h: f or i t i s bound t o become act ual l y both somuch and f l esh. Buti n so f ar as i t i s potent i al l y f l esh onl y, i t nour i shes : f or i t i st hus t hat ' nut r i t i on' and ' growt h' di f f er by t hei r def i ni t i on. That i swhy a body' s' nut r i t i on' cont i nues so l ong as i t i s kept al i ve (evenwhen i t i s di mi ni shi ng) , t hough not i t s ' gr owt h' ; and why nut r i t i on,t hough ' t he same' as gr owt h, i s yet di f f er ent f r om i t i n i t s actualbei ng. For i n so f ar as t hat whi ch accedes i s pot ent i al l y ' somuch- f l esh' i t t ends t o i ncrease f l esh: wher eas, i n so f ar as i t i spot ent i al l y ' f l esh' onl y, i t i s nour i shment .

The f orm of whi ch we have spoken i s a ki nd of power i mmersed i nmatt er - a duct , as i t wer e. I f , t hen, a matt er accedes- a mat t er ,whi ch i s pot ent i al l y a duct and al so pot ent i al l y possesses det er mi nat equant i t y t he duct s t o whi ch i t accedes wi l l become bi gger . But i f i ti s no l onger abl e t o act - i f i t has been weakened by the cont i nued

i nf l ux of mat t er , j ust as wat er , cont i nual l y mi xed i n gr eat er andgr eat er quant i t y wi t h wi ne, i n the end makes t he wi ne watery andconver t s i t i nt o wat er - t hen i t wi l l cause a di mi nut i on of t he quant um;t hough st i l l t he f orm persi sts.

6

( I n di scussi ng the causes of comi ng- t obe) we must f i r sti nvest i gat e t he matt er , i . e. t he so- cal l ed ' el ement s' . We must askwhet her t hey r eal l y ar e cl ement s or not , i . e. whet her each of t hemi s eternal or whether t her e i s a sense i n whi ch they come- t o- be:and, i f t hey do come- t o- be, whet her al l of t hem come- t o- be i n t he samemanner r eci pr ocal l y out of one another , or whet her one amongst t hem i ssomethi ng pr i mary. Hence we must begi n by expl ai ni ng cer t ai npr el i mi nary mat t ers , about whi ch t he st atement s now curr ent are vague.


13


14/34

For al l ( t he pl ur al i st phi l osopher s) - t hose who gener at e t he' el ement s' as wel l as t hose who gener ate t he bodi es t hat arecompounded of t he el ement s- make use of ' di ssoci at i on' and' associ at i on' , and of ' act i on' and ' passi on' . Now ' associ at i on' i s' combi nati on' ; but t he pr eci se meani ng of t he pr ocess we cal l' combi ni ng' has not been expl ai ned. Agai n, ( al l t he moni st s make useof ' al t er at i on' : but ) wi t hout an agent and a pat i ent t her e cannot be' al t er i ng' any mor e t han ther e can be ' di ssoci at i ng' and' associ at i ng' . For not onl y those who post ul at e a pl ur al i t y ofel ement s empl oy t hei r r eci pr ocal act i on and passi on t o gener ate t hecompounds: t hose who der i ve t hi ngs f r om a si ngl e el ement are equal l ycompel l ed t o i nt r oduce ' acti ng' . And i n thi s r espect Di ogenes i s r i ght

when he argues that ' unl ess al l t hi ngs wer e deri ved f r om one,r eci pr ocal act i on and passi on coul d not have occur r ed' . The hot t hi ng,e. g. woul d not be cool ed and t he col d t hi ng i n t ur n be warmed: f orheat and col d do not change reci pr ocal l y i nt o one another , but whatchanges ( i t i s cl ear ) i s t he subst r at um. Hence, whenever t her e i sacti on and passi on between t wo t hi ngs, t hat whi ch underl i es t hemmust be a si ngl e somet hi ng. No doubt , i t i s not t r ue t o say t hat al lt hi ngs ar e of t hi s char acter : but i t i s t r ue of al l t hi ngs bet weenwhi ch t her e i s r eci pr ocal act i on and passi on.

But i f we must i nvest i gat e ' act i on- passi on' and ' combi nati on' , wemust al so i nvest i gat e ' cont act ' . For act i on and passi on (i n t he pr opersense of t he t erms) can onl y occur between thi ngs whi ch are such as t ot ouch one another ; nor can thi ngs ent er i nt o combi nat i on at al l unl esst hey have come i nt o a cer t ai n ki nd of cont act . Hence we must gi ve adef i ni t e account of t hese three t hi ngs- of ' cont act' , ' combi nat i on' ,and ' acti ng' .

Let us star t as f ol l ows. Al l t hi ngs whi ch admi t of ' combi nat i on'must be capabl e of r eci pr ocal cont act: and the same i s t r ue of any t wot hi ngs, of whi ch one ' acts' and the ot her ' suf f er s act i on' i n t hepr oper sense of t he t er ms. For t hi s r eason we must t r eat of' cont act ' f i r st . ever y t er m whi ch possesses a var i et y of meani ngi ncl udes t hose var i ous meani ngs ei t her owi ng t o a mer e coi nci denceof l anguage, or owi ng to a real or der of der i vat i on i n t he di f f er entt hi ngs t o whi ch i t i s appl i ed: but , t hough t hi s may be t aken t o hol dof ' cont act' as of al l such t er ms, i t i s never t hel ess t r ue thatcont act ' i n the pr oper sense appl i es onl y t o t hi ngs whi ch have' posi t i on' . And ' posi t i on' bel ongs onl y t o those t hi ngs whi ch al sohave a Pl ace' : f or i n so f ar as we at t r i but e ' cont act' t o themathemat i cal t hi ngs, we must al so at t r i but e ' pl ace' t o t hem, whet hert hey exi st i n separ ati on or i n some ot her f ashi on. Assumi ng,t her ef or e, t hat ' t o touch' i s- as we have def i ned i t i n a pr evi ouswor k' - ' t o have t he ext r emes t oget her ' , onl y t hose t hi ngs wi l l t ouchone another whi ch, bei ng separate magni t udes and possessi ngposi t i on, have t hei r ext r emes ' t oget her ' . And si nce posi t i on bel ongsonl y t o those t hi ngs whi ch al so have a ' pl ace' , whi l e t he pr i marydi f f er ent i at i on of ' pl ace' i s t he above' and ' t he bel ow' ( and thesi mi l ar pai r s of opposi t es) , al l t hi ngs whi ch t ouch one anot her wi l lhave ' wei ght ' or ' l i ght ness' ei t her bot h t hese qual i t i es or one or t heother of t hem. But bodi es whi ch ar e heavy or l i ght are such as t o' act ' and ' suf f er act i on' . Hence i t i s c l ear t hat t hose thi ngs areby natur e such as t o t ouch one another , whi ch ( bei ng separatemagni t udes) have t hei r ext r emes ' t ogether ' and ar e abl e t o move, andbe moved by, one anot her .

The manner i n whi ch t he ' mover ' moves t he moved' not al ways t hesame: on t he contr ary, whereas one ki nd of ' mover ' can onl y i mpar tmot i on by bei ng i t sel f moved, another ki nd can do so t houghr emai ni ng i t sel f unmoved. Cl ear l y t heref ore we must r ecogni ze acor r espondi ng var i et y i n speaki ng of t he ' acti ng' t hi ng too: f or t he' mover ' i s sai d t o ' act' ( i n a sense) and t he ' acti ng' t hi ng to' i mpart mot i on' . Never t hel ess t here i s a di f f er ence and we must dr aw a

di st i nct i on. For not ever y ' mover' can ' act ' , i f ( a) t he ter m' agent ' i s t o be used i n cont rast t o ' pat i ent ' and ( b) ' pat i ent ' i s t obe appl i ed onl y t o those t hi ngs whose mot i on i s a ' qual i t at i veaf f ect i on' - i . e. a qual i t y, l i ke whi te' or ' hot ' , i n respect t o whi cht hey ar e moved' onl y i n the sense t hat t hey ar e ' al t er ed' : on thecont rary, t o ' i mpart mot i on' i s a wi der t erm t han t o ' act ' . St i l l ,so much, at any r at e, i s cl ear : t he t hi ngs whi ch ar e ' such as t oi mpar t mot i on' , i f t hat descri pt i on be i nt er pr et ed i n one sense,wi l l t ouch t he t hi ngs whi ch ar e ' such as t o be moved by t hem' - whi l et hey wi l l not t ouch t hem, i f t he descri pt i on be i nt er pr et ed i n adi f f er ent sense. But t he di sj unct i ve def i ni t i on of ' t ouchi ng' musti ncl ude and di sti ngui sh ( a) ' cont act i n gener al ' as t he rel at i onbetween two t hi ngs whi ch, havi ng posi t i on, are such t hat one i s abl et o i mpart moti on and t he other t o be moved, and ( b) ' r eci pr ocalcont act ' as t he rel at i on bet ween t wo thi ngs, one abl e t o i mpart moti onand the other abl e t o be moved i n such a way that ' act i on and passi on'


14


15/34

are predi cabl e of t hem.

As a rul e, no doubt , i f A t ouches B, B t ouches A. For i ndeedpr acti cal l y al l t he ' mover s' wi t hi n our or di nar y exper i ence i mpar tmot i on by bei ng moved: i n t hei r case, what t ouches i nevi t abl y must ,and al so evi dent l y does, t ouch somet hi ng whi ch reci pr ocal l y t ouchesi t . Yet , i f A moves B, i t i s possi bl e- as we somet i mes expr ess i t - f or A' merel y t o t ouch' B, and that whi ch t ouches need not t ouch a somethi ngwhi ch t ouches i t . Never t hel ess i t i s commonl y supposed that ' t ouchi ng'must be reci pr ocal . The reason of t hi s bel i ef i s t hat ' mover s' whi chbel ong t o t he same ki nd as t he ' moved' i mpar t mot i on by bei ng moved.Hence i f anythi ng i mpart s mot i on wi t hout i t sel f bei ng moved, i t may

t ouch t he ' moved' and yet i t sel f be t ouched by nothi ng- f or we saysomet i mes t hat t he man who gr i eves us ' t ouches' us, but not t hat we' t ouch' hi m.

The account j ust gi ven may serve t o di st i ngui sh and def i ne t he' cont act ' whi ch occur s i n t he t hi ngs of Nat ur e.

7

Next i n or der we must di scuss ' act i on' and ' passi on' . Thet r adi t i onal t heor i es on t he subj ect ar e conf l i cti ng. For ( i ) mostt hi nker s are unani mous i n mai nt ai ni ng ( a) t hat ' l i ke' i s al waysunaf f ect ed by ' l i ke' , because ( as t hey ar gue) nei t her of t wo ' l i kes'i s mor e apt t han the ot her ei t her t o act or t o suf f er acti on, si nceal l t he pr oper t i es whi ch bel ong t o the one bel ong i dent i cal l y and i nt he same degr ee t o the ot her ; and (b) t hat ' unl i kes' , i . e.' di f f er ent s' , ar e by nat ur e such as t o act and suf f er act i onr eci pr ocal l y. For even when the smal l er f i r e i s dest r oyed by the

gr eat er , i t suf f ers t hi s ef f ect ( t hey say) owi ng to i t s' cont rari et y' s i nce t he great i s cont r ary t o the smal l . But ( i i )Democr i t us di ssent ed f r om al l t he ot her t hi nker s and mai nt ai ned at heor y pecul i ar t o hi msel f . He asser t s t hat agent and pat i ent ar ei dent i cal , i . e. ' l i ke' . I t i s not possi bl e (he says ) that ' others ' ,i . e. ' di f f erent s' , shoul d suf f er act i on f rom one anot her : on t hecont r ar y, even i f t wo thi ngs, bei ng ' other s' , do act i n some way onone anot her , t hi s happens t o t hem not qua ' ot her s' but quapossessi ng an i dent i cal pr oper t y.

Such, t hen, ar e t he t r adi t i onal t heor i es, and i t l ooks as i f t hest at ement s of t hei r advocat es wer e i n mani f est conf l i ct . But t her eason of t hi s conf l i ct i s t hat each gr oup i s i n f act st at i ng apar t , whereas t hey ought t o have t aken a compr ehensi ve vi ew of t hesubj ect as a whol e. For ( i ) i f A and B ar e ' l i ke' - absol ut el y and i nal l r espects wi t hout di f f er ence f r om one anot her - i t i s r easonabl et o i nf er t hat nei t her i s i n any way af f ect ed by t he ot her . Why,i ndeed, shoul d ei t her of t hem t end to act any more t han t he ot her ?Mor eover , i f ' l i ke' can be af f ected by ' l i ke' , a t hi ng can al so beaf f ected by i t sel f : and yet i f t hat were so- i f ' l i ke' t ended i n f actt o act qua ' l i ke' - t her e woul d be not hi ng i ndest r ucti bl e ori mmovabl e, f or ever ythi ng woul d move i t sel f . And (i i ) t he sameconsequence f ol l ows i f A and B ar e absol ut el y ' ot her ' , i . e. i n nor espect i dent i cal . Whi t eness coul d not be af f ect ed i n any way byl i ne nor l i ne by whi seness- except per haps ' coi nci dent al l y' , vi z. i ft he l i ne happened t o be whi t e or bl ack: f or unl ess t wo t hi ngs ei t herar e, or ar e composed of , ' cont r ar i es' , nei t her dr i ves t he ot her out ofi t s nat ural condi t i on. But ( i i i ) s i nce onl y t hose thi ngs whi chei t her i nvol ve a ' cont r ar i et y' or ar e ' cont r ar i es' - and not anyt hi ngs sel ect ed at r andom- ar e such as t o suf f er act i on and t o act ,agent and pat i ent must be ' l i ke' ( i . e. i dent i cal ) i n ki nd and yet' unl i ke' ( i . e. cont rary) i n speci es. ( For i t i s a l aw of nat ure thatbody i s af f ect ed by body, f l avour by f l avour , col our by col our , and soi n general what bel ongs t o any ki nd by a member of t he same ki nd- t her eason bei ng that ' cont r ar i es' ar e i n ever y case wi t hi n a si ngl e

i dent i cal ki nd, and i t i s ' cont rari es' whi ch reci procal l y act andsuf f er act i on. ) Hence agent and pat i ent must be i n one sensei dent i cal , but i n anot her sense ot her t han ( i . e. ' unl i ke' ) oneanot her . And si nce ( a) pat i ent and agent ar e gener i cal l y i dent i cal( i . e. ' l i ke' ) but speci f i cal l y ' unl i ke' , whi l e ( b) i t i s' contr ar i es ' t hat exhi bi t thi s character : i t i s cl ear that' cont r ar i es' and thei r ' i nt er medi at es' ar e such as t o suf f er acti onand t o act r eci pr ocal l y- f or i ndeed i t i s t hese that const i t ut e theent i r e sphere of passi ngaway and comi ng- t o- be.

We can now under st and why f i r e heat s and t he col d thi ng cool s, andi n gener al why the acti ve t hi ng assi mi l at es t o i t sel f t he pat i ent . Foragent and pat i ent are cont r ary t o one another , and comi ng- t o- be i s apr ocess i nt o t he cont r ary: hence t he pati ent must change i nt o t heagent , si nce i t i s onl y t hus t hat comi ng- t o be wi l l be a pr ocessi nt o t he cont r ar y. And, agai n, i t i s i nt el l i gi bl e t hat t he advocat es


15


16/34

of bot h vi ews, al t hough thei r t heor i es are not t he same, ar e yet i ncont act wi t h t he natur e of t he f act s. For someti mes we speak of t hesubst r at um as suf f er i ng acti on ( e. g. of ' t he man' as bei ng heal ed,bei ng war med and chi l l ed, and si mi l ar l y i n al l t he ot her cases) , butat ot her t i mes we say ' what i s col d i s ' bei ng war med' , ' what i s si cki s bei ng heal ed' : and i n both t hese ways of speaki ng we expr ess t het r ut h, si nce i n one sense i t i s t he ' mat t er ' , whi l e i n anot her sensei t i s t he ' cont r ary' , whi ch suf f er s act i on. ( We make the samedi st i nct i on i n speaki ng of t he agent : f or somet i mes we say t hat ' t heman' , but at ot her t i mes t hat ' what i s hot ' , pr oduces heat. ) Now t heone gr oup of t hi nker s supposed t hat agent and pat i ent must possesssomet hi ng i dent i cal , because they f ast ened thei r att ent i on on the

subst r atum: whi l e t he ot her gr oup mai ntai ned the opposi t e becauset hei r at t ent i on was concent r at ed on t he ' cont r ar i es' . We must concei vet he same account t o hol d of acti on and passi on as t hat whi ch i s t r ueof ' bei ng moved' and ' i mpar t i ng mot i on' . For t he ' mover ' , l i ke t he' agent ' , has t wo meani ngs. Bot h ( a) t hat whi ch cont ai ns t heor i gi nat i ve sour ce of t he mot i on i s t hought t o ' i mpar t mot i on' ( f ort he or i gi nat i ve sour ce i s f i r st amongst t he causes) , and al so ( b) t hatwhi ch i s l ast , i . e. i mmedi atel y next t o t he moved t hi ng and to t hecomi ng- t o- be. A si mi l ar di st i ncti on hol ds al so of t he agent : f or wespeak not onl y ( a) of t he doct or , but al so ( b) of t he wi ne, asheal i ng. Now, i n mot i on, t her e i s not hi ng t o pr event t he f i r s; moverbei ng unmoved ( i ndeed, as r egar ds some ' f i r st ' mover s' t hi s i sactual l y necessary) al t hough t he l ast mover al ways i mpart s mot i on bybei ng i t sel f moved: and, i n acti on, t her e i s not hi ng to pr event t hef i r st agent bei ng unaf f ected, whi l e t he l ast agent onl y act s bysuf f er i ng act i on i t sel f . For agent and pat i ent have not t he samemat t er , agent act s wi t hout bei ng af f ect ed: t hus t he ar t of heal i ngpr oduces heal t h wi t hout i t sel f bei ng act ed upon i n any way by t hat

whi ch i s bei ng heal ed. But ( b) t he food, i n act i ng, i s i t sel f i nsome way act ed upon: f or, i n act i ng, i t i s si mul t aneousl y heat ed orcool ed or ot herwi se af f ect ed. Now t he ar t of heal i ng cor r esponds t o an' or i gi nat i ve sour ce' , whi l e t he f ood cor r esponds to ' t he l ast ' ( i . e.' cont i nuous' ) mover.

Those act i ve powers , t hen, whose f orms are not embodi ed i n mat t er ,are unaf f ect ed: but t hose whose f orms are i n mat t er are such as t obe af f ect ed i n act i ng. For we mai nt ai n t hat one and t he same' mat t er ' i s equal l y, so to say, t he basi s of ei t her of t he two opposedt hi ngs- bei ng as i t wer e a ' ki nd' ; and that t hat whi ch can he hotmust be made hot , pr ovi ded t he heat i ng agent i s t her e, i . e. comesnear . Hence ( as we have sai d) some of t he act i ve powers ar e unaf f ectedwhi l e ot her s are such as t o be af f ect ed; and what hol ds of mot i on i st r ue al so of t he act i ve power s. For as i n mot i on ' t he f i r st mover 'i s unmoved, so among the act i ve power s ' t he f i r st agent ' i sunaf f ect ed.

The act i ve power i s a ' cause' i n t he sense of t hat f r om whi ch t hepr ocess ori gi nat es: but t he end, f or t he sake of whi ch i t t akes pl ace,i s not ' act i ve' . ( That i s why heal t h i s not ' act i ve' , exceptmetaphori cal l y. ) For when the agent i s t here, t he pati ent he- comessomet hi ng: but when ' st ates' ar e t her e, t he pati ent no l ongerbecomes but al r eady i s- and ' f or ms' ( i . e. l ends' ) ar e a ki nd of' state' . As t o the ' mat t er' , i t ( qua mat t er) i s passi ve. Now f i r econt ai ns ' t he hot ' embodi ed i n mat t er : but a ' hot ' separ at e f r ommat t er ( i f such a t hi ng exi st ed) coul d not suf f er any act i on. Per haps,i ndeed, i t i s i mpossi bl e that ' t he hot ' shoul d exi st i n separ at i onf r om mat t er : but i f t her e ar e any ent i t i es t hus separ abl e, what we ar esayi ng woul d be t r ue of t hem.

We have t hus expl ai ned what act i on and passi on are, what t hi ngsexhi bi t t hem, why t hey do so, and i n what manner . We must go on t odi scuss how i t i s possi bl e f or acti on and passi on to t ake pl ace.

8 Some phi l osopher s t hi nk that t he ' l ast ' agent - t he ' agent ' i n t hest r i ctest sense- ent er s i n through cer t ai n por es, and so the pat i entsuf f er s act i on. I t i s i n t hi s way, t hey asser t , t hat we see and hearand exer ci se al l our ot her senses. Mor eover , accor di ng t o t hem, t hi ngsare seen t hr ough ai r and water and other t r ansparent bodi es, becausesuch bodi es possess por es, i nvi si bl e i ndeed owi ng t o thei r mi nut eness,but cl ose- set and ar r anged i n rows: and the more t r anspar ent t he body,t he more f r equent and ser i al t hey suppose i t s pores t o be. Such wast he theory whi ch some phi l osophers ( i ndudi ng Empedocl es) advanced i nr egar d t o the st r ucture of cer t ai n bodi es. They do not r est r i ct i tt o the bodi es whi ch act and suf f er act i on: but ' combi nat i on' t oo, t heysay, t akes pl ace ' onl y bet ween bodi es whose pores ar e i n reci pr ocalsymmetr y' . The most syst emat i c and consi st ent t heor y, however, and onet hat appl i ed t o al l bodi es, was advanced by Leuci ppus and


16


17/34

Democri t us: and, i n mai nt ai ni ng i t , t hey t ook as t hei rst ar t i ng- poi nt what nat ur al l y comes f i r st.

For some of t he ol der phi l osopher s t hought t hat ' what i s' must ofnecessi t y be ' one' and i mmovabl e. The voi d, t hey argue, ' i s not ' :but unl ess t her e i s a voi d wi t h a separ at e bei ng of i t s own, ' what i s'cannot be moved- nor agai n can i t be ' many' , si nce t her e i s not hi ngt o keep thi ngs apar t . And i n thi s r espect, t hey i nsi st , t he vi ewt hat t he uni ver se i s not ' cont i nuous' but ' di scret es- i n- cont act' i s nobet t er t han t he vi ew t hat t her e are ' many' ( and not ' one' ) and a voi d.For ( suppose t hat t he uni ver se i s di scr et es- i n- cont act. Then) , i f i ti s di vi si bl e through and thr ough, t her e i s no ' one' , and ther ef or e

no ' many' ei t her , but t he Whol e i s voi d; whi l e t o mai nt ai n that i ti s di vi si bl e at some poi nt s, but not at ot her s, l ooks l i ke anar bi t rary f i ct i on. For up t o what l i mi t i s i t di vi s i bl e? And f orwhat r eason i s par t of t he Whol e i ndi vi si bl e, i . e. a pl enum, andpar t di vi ded? Fur t her , t hey mai nt ai n, i t i s equal l y necessar y t odeny t he exi st ence of mot i on.

Reasoni ng i n t hi s way, t her ef ore, t hey wer e l ed t o t r anscendsense- per cept i on, and t o di sr egard i t on t he gr ound that ' one ought t of ol l ow t he ar gument ' : and so t hey asser t t hat t he uni ver se i s ' one'and i mmovabl e. Some of t hem add t hat i t i s ' i nf i ni t e' , si nce t he l i mi t( i f i t had one) woul d be a l i mi t agai nst t he voi d.

Ther e wer e, t hen, cer t ai n t hi nker s who, f or t he r easons we havest at ed, enunci at ed vi ews of t hi s ki nd as t hei r t heor y of ' The

Tr uth' . . . . Mor eover, al t hough t hese opi ni ons appear

Aristotle - On Generation and Corruption

Documents