Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber5/lect3

Lecture 3

Latin	English
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 1 Hic philosophus reducit omnes causas in quatuor modos causarum praedictos; dicens, quod omnia quae dicuntur causae, incidunt in praedictos quatuor modos. Dicuntur enim elementa, idest literae, causae syllabarum, et materia artificialium dicitur esse causa factorum per artem, et ignis et terra et huiusmodi omnia simplicia corpora, dicuntur esse causae corporum mixtorum. Et partes dicuntur esse causa totius. Et suppositiones, idest propositiones praemissae, ex quibus propositis syllogizatur, dicuntur esse causa conclusionis. Et in omnibus istis est una ratio causae, secundum quod dicitur causa illud ex quo fit aliquid, quod est ratio causae materialis.	777. Here the philosopher reduces all causes to the classes of causes mentioned above (409), saying that all those things which are called causes fall into one of the four classes mentioned above. For “elements,” i.e., letters, are said to be the causes of syllables; and the matter of artificial things is said to be their cause; and fire and earth and all simple bodies of this kind are said to be the causes of compounds. And parts are said to be the causes of a whole, and “premises,” i.e., propositions previously set down from which conclusions are drawn, are said to be the causes of the conclusion. And in all of these cases cause has a single formal aspect according as cause means that from which a thing is produced, and this is the formal aspect of material cause.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 2 Sciendum est autem, quod propositiones dicuntur esse materia conclusionis, non quidem secundum quod sub tali forma existunt, vel secundum virtutem earum; (sic enim magis se habent in ratione causae efficientis); sed quantum ad terminos, ex quibus componuntur. Nam ex terminis praemissarum componitur conclusio, scilicet ex maiori et ex minori extremitate.	778. Now it must be noted that propositions are said to constitute the matter of a conclusion, not inasmuch as they exist under such a form, or according to their force (for in this way they would rather have the formal aspect of an efficient cause), but with reference to the terms of which they are composed. For a conclusion is constituted of the terms contained in the premises, i.e., of the major and minor terms.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 3 Inter ea autem ex quibus res integratur, aliquid se habet per modum subiecti, sicut partes et alia quae praedicta sunt; alia vero se habent ut quod quid erat esse, scilicet totum, et compositio, et species, quae pertinent ad rationem formae, secundum quam quidditas rei completur. Sciendum est enim, quod quandoque una res simpliciter est alicuius materia, sicut argentum phialae; et tunc forma correspondens tali materiae potest dici species. Quandoque autem plures adinvicem adunatae sunt materia alicuius rei. Quod quidem contingit tripliciter. Quandoque enim adunantur secundum ordinem tantum, sicut homines in exercitu, vel domus in civitate; et sic pro forma respondet totum, quod designatur nomine exercitus vel civitatis. Quandoque autem non solum adunantur ordine, sed contactu et colligatione, sicut apparet in partibus domus; et tunc respondet pro forma compositio. Quandoque autem super hoc additur alteratio componentium, quod contingit in mixtione; et tunc forma est ipsa mixtio, quae tamen est quaedam compositionis species. Ex quolibet autem trium horum sumitur quod quid est rei, scilicet ex compositione et specie et toto: sicut patet si definiretur exercitus, domus et phiala. Sic ergo habemus duos modos causae.	779. And of those things of which something is composed, some are like a subject, for example, parts and the other things mentioned above, whereas some are like the essence, for example, the whole, the composition and the species, which have the character of a form whereby a thing’s essence is made complete. For it must be borne in mind that (1) sometimes one thing is the matter of something else in an unqualified sense (for example, silver of a goblet), and then the form corresponding to such a matter can be called the species. (2) But sometimes many things taken together constitute the matter of a thing; and this may occur in three ways. (a) For sometimes things are united merely by their arrangement, as the men in an army or the houses in a city; and then the whole has the role of a form which is designated by the term army or city. (b) And sometimes things are united not just by arrangement alone but by contact and a bond, as is evident in the parts of a house; and then their composition has the role of a form. (c) And sometimes the alteration of the component parts is added to the above, as occurs in the case of a compound; and then the compound state itself is the form, and this is still a kind of composition. And a thing’s essence is derived from any one of these three—the composition’ species, or whole—as becomes clear when an army, a house, or a goblet is defined. Thus we have two classes of cause.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 4 Secundum autem aliam rationem dicitur causa sperma et medicus et consiliator, et universaliter omne faciens, ex eo scilicet quod sunt principia motus et quietis. Unde iam hoc est aliud genus causae, propter aliam rationem causandi. Ponit autem sperma in hoc genere causae, quia secundum eius sententiam sperma vim habet activam, menstruum autem mulieris cedit in materiam concepti.	780. But the seed, the physician and the adviser, and in general every agent, are called causes for a different reason, namely, because they are the sources of motion and rest. Hence this is now a different class of cause because of a different formal aspect of causality. He puts seed in this class of cause because he is of the opinion that the seed has active power, whereas a woman’s menstrual fluid has the role of the matter of the offspring.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 5 Quarta vero ratio causandi est secundum quod aliqua dicuntur causae per modum finis et boni respectu aliorum. Illud enim cuius causa fit aliquid, est optimum inter alia et vult esse idest habet aptitudinem ut sit aliorum finis. Quia vero posset aliquis obiicere quod non semper bonum est finis, cum quandoque aliqui inordinate agentes malum finem sibi constituant, ideo respondet, quod nihil ad propositum differt dicere quod simpliciter sit bonum vel apparens bonum. Qui enim agit, agit per se loquendo propter bonum; hoc enim intendit; per accidens autem propter malum, inquantum accidit ei quod existimat bonum esse. Nullus enim agit propter aliquid intendens malum.	781. There is a fourth formal aspect of causality inasmuch as some things are said to be causes in the sense of the end and good of other things. For that for the sake of which something else comes to be is the greatest good “and the end” of other things, i.e., it is naturally disposed to be their end. But because someone could raise the objection that an end is not always a good since certain agents sometimes inordinately set up an evil as their end, he therefore replies that it makes no difference to his thesis whether we speak of what is good without qualification or of an apparent good. For one who acts does so, properly speaking, because of a good, for this is what he has in mind. And one acts for the sake of an evil accidentally inasmuch as he happens to think that it is good. For no one acts for the sake of something with evil in view.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 6 Sciendum autem est, quod licet finis sit ultimus in esse in quibusdam, in causalitate tamen est prior semper. Unde dicitur causa causarum, quia est causa causalitatis in omnibus causis. Est enim causa causalitatis efficientis, ut iam dictum est. Efficiens autem est causa causalitatis et materiae et formae. Nam facit per suum motum materiam esse susceptivam formae, et formam inesse materiae. Et per consequens etiam finis est causa causalitatis et materiae et formae; et ideo potissimae demonstrationes sumuntur a fine, in illis in quibus agitur aliquid propter finem, sicut in naturalibus, in moralibus et artificialibus. Concludit igitur, quod praedicta sunt causae, et quod causae secundum tot species distinguuntur.	782. Moreover, it must be noted that, even though the end is the last thing to come into being in some cases, it is always prior in causality. Hence it is called the “cause of causes”, because it is the cause of the causality of all causes. For it is the cause of efficient causality, as has already been pointed out (775); and the efficient cause is the cause of the causality of both the matter and the form, because by its motion it causes matter to be receptive of form and makes form exist in matter. Therefore the final cause is also the cause of the causality of both the matter and the form. Hence in those cases in which something is done for an end (as occurs in the realm of natural things, in that of moral matters, and in that of art), the most forceful demonstrations are derived from the final cause. Therefore he concludes that the foregoing are causes, and that causes are distinguished into this number of classes.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit modi vero distinguit modos causarum. Est autem distinctio causae per species et per modos. Nam distinctio per species est penes diversas rationes causandi; et ideo est quasi divisio per differentias essentiales species constituentes. Divisio autem per modos est penes diversas habitudines causae ad causatum. Et ideo est in his quae habent eamdem rationem causandi, sicut per se et per accidens, remotum et propinquum. Unde est quasi per differentias accidentales non diversificantes speciem.	783. Now the modes (410). Then he distinguishes between the modes of causes. And causes are distinguished into classes and into modes. For the division of causes into classes is based on different formal aspects of causality, and is therefore equivalently a division based on essential differences, which constitute species. But the division of causes into modes is based on the different relationships between causes and things caused, and therefore pertains to those causes which have the same formal aspect of causality. An example of this is the division of causes into proper and accidental causes, and into remote and proximate causes. Therefore this division is equivalently a division based on accidental differences, which do not constitute different species.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 8 Dicit ergo, quod multi sunt modi causarum, sed pauciores inveniuntur quando capitulatim, idest quodam compendio comprehenduntur. Per se enim et per accidens sunt duo modi; tamen reducuntur ad unum capitulum, secundum quod est eadem consideratio de utroque. Et similiter est de aliis modis oppositis. Causae enim multis modis dicuntur, non solum quantum ad diversas species causae, sed etiam quantum ad causas conspeciales, quae scilicet reducuntur ad unam speciem causae.	784. He accordingly says that there are many modes of causes, but that these are found to be fewer in number when “summarized,” i.e., when brought together under one head. For even though proper causes and accidental causes are two modes, they are still reduced to one head insofar as both may be considered from the same point of view. The same thing is true of the other different modes. For many different modes of causes are spoken of, not only with reference to the different species of causes, but also with reference to causes of the same species, namely, those which are reduced to one class of cause.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 9 Dicitur enim una prior, et altera posterior. Prius autem et posterius in causis invenitur dupliciter. Uno modo in causis diversis numero adinvicem ordinatis, quarum una est prima et remota, et alia secunda et propinqua; sicut in causis efficientibus homo generat hominem ut causa propinqua et posterior, sol autem ut causa prior et remota: et similiter potest considerari in aliis speciebus causarum. Alio modo in una et eadem causa numero secundum ordinem rationis qui est inter universale et particulare. Nam universale naturaliter est prius, particulare posterius.	785. (1) For one cause is said to be prior and another subsequent; and causes are prior or subsequent in two ways: (1) In one way, when there are many distinct causes which are related to each other, one of which is primary and remote, and another secondary and proximate (as in the case of efficient causes man generates man as a proximate and subsequent cause, but the sun as a prior and remote cause); and the same thing can be considered in the case of the other classes of causes. (2) In another way, when the cause is numerically one and the same, but is considered according to the sequence which reason sets up between the universal and the particular; for the universal is naturally prior and the particular subsequent.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 10 Praetermittit autem primum modum, et accipit secundum. In secundo enim modo immediate effectus ab utraque causa existit, scilicet priori et posteriori, quod in primo non convenit. Unde dicit, quod sanitatis causa est medicus et artifex in genere causae efficientis. Artifex quidem ut universale, et prius; medicus vero ut particulare, sive speciale, et posterius. Similiter etiam in causis formalibus dupliciter est causa formalis: ut diapason duplum, vel proportio dupla, vel dualitas est causa formalis, ut speciale et posterius; numerum autem, vel proportio numeri ad numerum vel ad unum, ut universale et prius. Et ita semper ea quae continent singularia, scilicet universalia, dicuntur causae priores.	786. But he omits the first way and considers the second. For in the second way the effect is the immediate result of both causes, i.e., of both the prior and subsequent cause; but this cannot happen in the first way. Hence he says that the cause of health is both the physician and one possessing an art, who belong to the class of efficient cause: one possessing an art as a universal and prior cause, and the physician as a particular, or special, and subsequent cause. The same thing is true of the formal cause, since this cause may also be considered in two ways; for example, for an octave chord “double,” or the ratio of 2:1, or the number two, is a formal cause as one that is special and subsequent, whereas number, or the ratio of one number to another or to the unit, is like a universal and prior cause. And in this way too “always those classes which contain singulars,” i.e., universals, are said to be prior causes.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 11 Alia divisio est causarum, secundum quod aliquid dicitur esse causa per se et per accidens. Sicut enim causa per se dividitur in universale et particulare, sive in prius et posterius, ita etiam causa per accidens. Unde non solum ipsae causae accidentales dicuntur causae per accidens, sed etiam ipsarum genera. Ut statuae factor, statuae causa est per se; Polycletus autem per accidens est causa, inquantum accidit ei factorem statuae esse. Et sicut Polycletus est causa statuae per accidens, ita omnia universalia continentia accidens, idest causam per accidens, dicuntur per accidens causae; sicut homo et animal, quae sub se continent Polycletum, qui est homo et animal.	787. (2) Causes are distinguished in another way inasmuch as one thing is said to be a proper cause and another an accidental cause. For just as proper causes are divided into universal and particular, or into prior and subsequent, so also are accidental causes. Therefore, not only accidental causes themselves are called such, but so also are the classes which contain these. For example, a sculptor is the proper cause of a statue, and Polyclitus is an accidental cause inasmuch as he happens to be a sculptor. And just as Polyclitus is an accidental cause of a statue, in a similar way all universals “which contain accidents,” i.e., accidental causes, are said to be accidental causes, for example, man and animal, which contain under themselves Polyclitus, who is a man and an animal.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 12 Et sicut causarum per se quaedam sunt propinquae, quaedam remotae, ut dictum est, ita et inter causas per accidens. Nam Polycletus est causa statuae magis propinqua quam album et musicum. Magis enim remotus modus praedicationis per accidens est, cum accidens praedicatur de accidente, quam cum accidens praedicatur de subiecto. Accidens enim non praedicatur de accidente, nisi quia ambo praedicantur de subiecto. Unde magis remotum est ut attribuatur uni accidenti quod est alterius, sicut musico quod est aedificatoris, quam quod attribuatur subiecto quod est accidentis, sicut Polycleto quod est aedificatoris.	788. And just as some proper causes are proximate and some remote, as was pointed out above, so also is this the case with accidental causes. For Polyclitus is a more proximate cause of a statue than what is white or what is musical. For an accidental mode of predication is more remote when an accident is predicated of an accident than when an accident is predicated of a subject. For one accident is predicated of another only because both are predicated of a subject. Hence when something pertaining to one accident is predicated of another, as when something pertaining to a builder is predicated of a musician, this mode of predication is more remote than one in which something is predicated of the subject of an accident, as when something pertaining to a builder is predicated of Polyclitus.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 13 Sciendum autem est, quod aliquid potest dici causa per accidens alterius dupliciter. Uno modo ex parte causae; quia scilicet illud quod accidit causae, dicitur causa per accidens, sicut si album dicatur causa domus. Alio modo ex parte effectus; ut scilicet aliquid dicatur causa per accidens alicuius, quod accidit ei quod est effectus per se. Quod quidem potest esse tripliciter. Uno modo, quia habet ordinem necessarium ad effectum, sicut remotio impedimenti habet ordinem necessarium ad effectum. Unde removens prohibens dicitur movens per accidens; sive illud accidens sit contrarium, sicut cholera prohibet frigiditatem, unde scamonaea dicitur infrigidare per accidens, non quia causet frigiditatem sed quia tollit impedimentum frigiditatis, quod est ei contrarium, scilicet choleram: sive etiam si non sit contrarium, sicut columna impedit motum lapidis, unde removens columnam dicitur per accidens movere lapidem superpositum alio modo, quando accidens habet ordinem ad effectum, non tamen necessarium, nec ut in pluribus, sed ut in paucioribus, sicut inventio thesauri ad fossionem in terra. Et hoc modo fortuna et casus dicuntur causae per accidens. Tertio, quando nullum ordinem habent, nisi forte secundum existimationem; sicut si aliquis dicat se esse causam terraemotus, quia eo intrante domum accidit terraemotus.	789. Now it must be borne in mind that one thing can be said to be the accidental cause of something else in two ways: (1) in one way, from the viewpoint of the cause; because whatever is accidental to a cause is itself called an accidental cause, for example, when we say that something white is the cause of a house. (2) In another way, from the viewpoint of the effect, i.e., inasmuch as one thing is said to be an accidental cause of something else because it is accidental to the proper effect. This can happen in three ways: The first is that the thing has a necessary connection with the effect. Thus that which removes an obstacle is said to be a mover accidentally. This is the case whether that accident is a contrary, as when bile prevents coolness (and thus scammony is said to produce coolness accidentally, not because it causes coolness, but because it removes the obstacle preventing coolness, i.e., bile, which is its contrary); or even if it is not a contrary, as when a pillar hinders the movement of a stone which rests upon it, so that one who removes the pillar is said to move the stone accidentally. In a second way, something is accidental to the proper effect when the accident is connected with the effect neither necessarily nor in the majority of cases but seldom, as the discovery of a treasure is connected with digging in the soil. It is in this way that fortune and chance are said to be accidental causes. In a third way things are accidental to the effect when they have no connection except perhaps in the mind, as when someone says that he is the cause of an earthquake because an earthquake took place when he entered the house.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 14 Tertia distinctio est, secundum quod prae omnibus his vel praeter omnia haec, quae dicuntur esse secundum se sive per se, et secundum accidens, quaedam sunt causae in potentia, quaedam ut agentia, idest in actu. Sicut aedificationis causa est aedificator in potentia. Hoc enim sonat habitum vel officium. Vel aedificans actu.	790. [Cross-division of all] And besides the distinction of all things into causes in themselves or proper causes and accidental causes, there is a third division of causes inasmuch as some things are causes potentially and some actually, i.e., actively. For example, the cause of building is a builder in a state of potency (for this designates his habit or office), or one who is actually building.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 15 Et eisdem modis, quibus dividuntur causae, possunt dividi causata in quibus vel quorum causae sunt causae. Potest enim dividi causatum per prius et posterius sive particulare et universale; sicut si dicamus, quod statuae factor est causa huius statuae, quod est posterius, aut statuae, quod est universalius et prius, aut imaginis, quod est adhuc universalius. Et similiter aliquid est causa formalis huius aeris, aut aeris, quod est universalius, aut materiae, quod est adhuc universalius. Et similiter potest dici in accidentalibus, scilicet in effectibus per accidens. Nam statuae factor qui est causa statuae, est etiam causa gravis vel albi vel rubei quae accidunt ex parte materiae, et non sunt ab hoc agente causata.	791. And the same distinctions which apply to causes can apply to the effects of which these causes are the causes. For effects, whether particular or universal, can be divided into prior and subsequent, as a sculptor may be called the cause of this statue, which is subsequent; or of a statue, which is more universal and prior; or of an image, which is still more universal. And similarly something is the formal cause of this particular bronze; or of bronze, which is more universal; or of matter, which is still more universal. The same things can be said of accidental effects, i.e., of things produced by accident. For a sculptor who is the cause of a statue is also the cause of the heaviness, whiteness or redness which are in it as accidents from the matter and are not caused by this agent.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 16 Ulterius ponit quartam distinctionem causae, quae est in simplex et in compositum; ut simplex causa dicatur secundum quod accipitur causa statuae per se totum ut statuae factor, sive per accidens tantum, scilicet Polycletus. Composita autem secundum quod utrumque simul accipitur, ut dicatur causa statuae Polycletus statuae factor.	792. (3) Again, he gives a fourth division of causes, namely, the division into simple causes and composite causes. A cause is said to be simple (a) when, for example, in the case of a statue, the proper cause alone is considered, as a sculptor, or when an accidental cause alone is considered, as Polyclitus. But a cause is said to be composite when both are taken together, for example, when we say that the cause of a statue is the sculptor Polyclitus.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 17 Est autem alius modus quo causae possunt dici compositae, secundum quod plures causae concurrunt ad unius rei constitutionem; sicut plures homines ad trahendum navem, vel plures lapides, ut sint materia domus. Sed hoc praetermisit, quia nullum illorum est causa, sed pars causae.	793. (b) There is moreover another way in which causes are said to be composite, i.e., when several causes act together to produce one effect, for example, when many men act together in order to row a boat, or when many stones combine in order to constitute the matter of a house. But he omits the latter way because no one of these things taken in itself is the cause, but a part of the cause.
lib. 5 l. 3 n. 18 His autem modis positis, colligit istorum modorum numerum, dicens, quod isti modi causarum sunt sex et variantur dupliciter, et ita efficiuntur duodecim. Hi enim modi sex sunt aut singulare, aut genus, quod superius dixit prius et posterius. Et secundum se et per accidens, ad quod etiam reducitur genus accidentis, nam genus accidentis est causa per accidens. Et iterum per complexum et simplex. Hi autem sex modi ulterius dividuntur per potentiam et per actum, et sunt duodecim. Ideo autem oportet omnes istos modos per potentiam et actum dividi, quia potentia et actus diversificant habitudinem causae ad effectum. Nam causae in actu particulares sunt simul et tolluntur cum suis effectibus, sicut hic medicans cum hoc convalescente, et hic aedificans cum hoc aedificato: non enim potest aliquid actu aedificari, nisi sit actu aedificans. Sed causae secundum potentiam non semper removentur cum effectibus; sicut domus et aedificator non simul corrumpuntur. In quibusdam tamen contingit, quod remota actione efficientis tollitur substantia effectus, sicut in his quorum esse est in fieri, vel quorum causa non solum est effectui causa fiendi sed essendi. Unde remota illuminatione solis ab aere, tollitur lumen. Dicit autem causas singulares, quia actus singularium sunt, ut in primo huius habitum est.	794. And having given these different modes of causes, he brings out their number, saying that these modes of causes are six in number, and that each of these have two alternatives so that twelve result. For these six modes are (1-2) either singular or generic (or, as he called them above, prior and subsequent); (3-4) either proper or accidental (to which the genus of the accident is also reduced, for the genus to which an accident belongs is an accidental cause); and again, (5-6) either composite or simple. Now these six modes are further divided by potency and actuality and thus are twelve in number. Now the reason why all these modes must be divided by potency and actuality is that potency and actuality distinguish the connection between cause and effect. For active causes are at one and the same time particulars and cease to exist along with their effects; for example, this act of healing ceases with this act of recovering health, and this act of building with this thing being built; for a thing cannot be actually being built unless something is actually building. But potential causes do not always cease to exist when their effects cease; for example, a house and a builder do not cease to exist at one and the same time. In some cases, however, it does happen that when the activity of the efficient cause ceases the substance of the effect ceases. This occurs in the case of those things whose being consists in coming to be, or whose cause is not only the cause of their coming to be but also of their being. For example, when the sun’s illumination is removed from the atmosphere, light ceases to be. He says “singular causes” because acts belong to singular things, as was stated in Book I of this work (21).