Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber9/lect5

Lecture 5

Latin	English
lib. 9 l. 5 n. 1 Postquam determinavit de potentia, hic determinat de actu; et dividitur in duas partes. In prima determinat quid est actus. In secunda, quando aliquid est in potentia ad actum, ibi, quando autem potentia. Et circa primum duo facit. Primo continuat se ad praecedentia; dicens, quod quia dictum est de potentia quae invenitur in rebus mobilibus, quae scilicet est principium motus active et passive, oportet determinare quid est actus, et qualiter se habeat ad potentiam: quia per hoc simul manifestum erit de potentia, cum diviserimus actum. Actus enim non tantum invenitur in rebus mobilibus, sed etiam in rebus immobilibus.	1823. Having drawn his conclusions about potency, Aristotle now establishes the truth about actuality; and this is divided into two parts. In the first he establishes what actuality is. In the second (1832) he establishes what is true when something is in potency to actuality. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he links this up with the preceding discussion. He says that, since we have dealt with the kind of potency which is found in mobile things, i.e., the kind which is an active or passive principle of motion, we must now explain what actuality is and how it is related to potency; because when we will have distinguished the kinds of actuality, the truth about potency will become evident from this at the same time. For actuality is found not only in mobile things but also in immobile ones.
lib. 9 l. 5 n. 2 Ex quo manifestum est, cum potentia dicatur ad actum, quod active possibile vel potens, non solum dicatur quod est natum movere active, vel moveri ab alio passive, aut simpliciter, secundum quod dicitur potentia respectu actionis aut passionis communiter, aut modo quodam, secundum quod potentia dicitur respectu eius quod est bene agere aut bene pati; sed etiam dicetur possibile vel potens aliter secundum ordinem ad actum qui est sine motu. Licet enim nomen actus a motu originem sumpserit, ut supra dictum est, non tamen solum motus dicitur actus; unde nec dicitur solum possibile in ordine ad motum. Et ideo oportet inquirendo de his tractare.	1824. And since potency is referred to actuality, it is evident from this that capability or potency taken in reference to action is attributed not only (1) to something that is naturally disposed (+) to move something else actively or be moved by something else passively, either in an unqualified sense, inasmuch as potency is referred alike to acting and being acted upon, or in some special way, inasmuch as potency is referred to what is able to act or be acted upon well; but (2) capability or potency is also referred to that actuality which is devoid of (~) motion. For although the word actuality is derived from motion, as was explained above (1805), it is still not motion alone that is designated as actuality. Hence, neither is potency referred only to motion. It is therefore necessary to inquire about these things in our investigations.
lib. 9 l. 5 n. 3 Secundo ibi, est autem determinat de actu. Et primo ostendit quid sit actus. Secundo quomodo diversimode dicatur in diversis, ibi, dicuntur autem actu. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quid est actus; dicens, quod actus est, quando res est, nec tamen ita est sicut quando est in potentia. Dicimus enim in ligno esse imaginem Mercurii potentia, et non actu, antequam lignum sculpatur; sed si sculptum fuit, tunc dicitur esse in actu imago Mercurii in ligno. Et similiter in aliquo toto continuo pars eius. Pars enim, puta medietas, est in potentia, inquantum possibile est ut pars illa auferatur a toto per divisionem totius; sed diviso toto, iam erit pars illa in actu. Et similiter sciens et non speculans, est potens considerare sine consideratione; sed hoc scilicet speculari sive considerare, est esse in actu.	1825. Now actuality (769). Second, he establishes the truth about actuality. First, he shows what actuality is; and second (1828), how it is used in different senses in the case of different things (“However, things”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows what actuality is. He says that a thing is actual when it exists but not in the way in which it exists when it is potential. (a) For we say that the image of Mercury is in the wood potentially and not actually before the wood is carved; but once it has been carved the image of Mercury is then said to be in the wood actually. (b) And in the same way we say that any part of a continuous whole is in that whole, because any part (for example, the middle one) is present potentially inasmuch as it is possible for it to be separated from the whole by dividing the whole; but after the whole has been divided, that part will now be present actually. (c) The same thing is true of one who has a science and is not speculating, for he is capable of speculating even though he is not actually doing so; but to be speculating or contemplating is to be in a state of actuality.
lib. 9 l. 5 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit palam autem respondet quaestioni tacitae. Posset enim aliquis quaerere ab eo, ut ostenderet quid sit actus per definitionem. Sed ipse respondet dicens, quod inducendo in singularibus per exempla manifestari potest illud quod volumus dicere, scilicet quid est actus, et non oportet cuiuslibet rei quaerere terminum, idest definitionem. Nam prima simplicia definiri non possunt, cum non sit in definitionibus abire in infinitum. Actus autem est de primis simplicibus; unde definiri non potest.	1826. What we mean (770). Here he answers an implied question; for someone could ask him to explain what actuality is by giving its definition. And he answers by saying that it is possible to show what we mean (i.e., by actuality) in the case of singular things by proceeding inductively from examples, “and we should not look for the boundaries of everything,” i.e., the definition. For simple notions cannot be defined, since an infinite regress in definitions is impossible. But actuality is one of those first simple notions. Hence it cannot be defined.
lib. 9 l. 5 n. 5 Sed per proportionem aliquorum duorum adinvicem, potest videri quid est actus. Ut si accipiamus proportionem aedificantis ad aedificabile, et vigilantis ad dormientem, et eius qui videt ad eum qui habet clausos oculos cum habeat potentiam visivam, et eius quod segregatur a materia, idest per operationem artis vel naturae formatur, et ita a materia informi segregatur; et similiter per separationem eius quod est praeparatum, ad illud quod non est praeparatum, sive quod est elaboratum ad id quod non est elaboratum. Sed quorumlibet sic differentium altera pars erit actus, et altera potentia. Et ita proportionaliter ex particularibus exemplis possumus venire ad cognoscendum quid sit actus et potentia.	1827. And he says that we can see what actuality is by means of the proportion existing between two things. For example, we may take the proportion of one who is building to one capable of building; and of one who is awake to one asleep; and of one who sees to one whose eyes are closed although he has the power of sight; and “of that which is separated out of matter,” i.e., what is formed by means of the operation of art or of nature, and thus is separated out of unformed matter, to what is not separated out of unformed matter. And similarly we may take the proportion of what has been prepared to what has not been prepared, or of what has been worked on to what has not been worked on. But in each of these opposed pairs one member will be actual and the other potential. And thus by proceeding from particular cases we can come to an understanding in a proportional way of what actuality and potency are.
lib. 9 l. 5 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit dicuntur autem ostendit, quod diversimode dicatur actus. Et ponit duas diversitates: quarum prima est, quod actus dicitur vel actus, vel operatio. Ad hanc diversitatem actus insinuandam dicit primo, quod non omnia dicimus similiter esse actu, sed hoc diversimode. Et haec diversitas considerari potest per diversas proportiones. Potest enim sic accipi proportio, ut dicamus, quod sicut hoc est in hoc, ita hoc in hoc. Utputa visus sicut est in oculo, ita auditus in aure. Et per hunc modum proportionis accipitur comparatio substantiae, idest formae, ad materiam; nam forma in materia dicitur esse.	1828. However, things (771). Then he shows that the term actuality is used in different senses; and he gives two different senses in which it is used. (1) First, actuality means action, or operation. And with a view to introducing the different senses of actuality he says, first, that we do not say that all things are actual in the same way but in different ones; and this difference can be considered according to different proportions. For a proportion can be taken as meaning that, just as one thing is in another, so a third is in a fourth; for example, just as sight is in the eye, so hearing is in the ear. And the relation of substance (i.e., of form) to matter is taken according to this kind of proportion; for form is said to be in matter.
lib. 9 l. 5 n. 7 Alius modus proportionis est, ut dicamus quod sicut habet se hoc ad hoc, ita hoc ad hoc; puta sicut se habet visus ad videndum, ita auditus ad audiendum. Et per hunc modum proportionis accipitur comparatio motus ad potentiam motivam, vel cuiuscumque operationis ad potentiam operativam.	1829. There is another meaning of proportion inasmuch as we say that, just as this is related to that, so another thing is related to something else; for example, just as the power of sight is related to the act of seeing, so too the power of hearing is related to the act of hearing. And the relation of motion to motive power or of any operation to an operative potency is taken according to this kind of proportion.
lib. 9 l. 5 n. 8 Secundo ibi aliter autem ponit aliam diversitatem actus; dicens, quod infinitum, et inane sive vacuum, et quaecumque huiusmodi sunt, aliter dicuntur esse in potentia et actu, quam multa alia entia. Utputa videns, et vadens, et visibile. Huiusmodi enim convenit aliquando simpliciter esse vel in potentia tantum, vel in actu tantum; sicut visibile in actu tantum, quando videtur, et in potentia tantum, quando potest videri et non videtur.	1830. But the infinite (772). (2) Second, he gives the other sense in which the word actuality is used. He says that the infinite and the empty or the void, and all things of this kind, are said to exist potentially and actually in a different sense from many other beings; for example, what sees and what walks and what is visible. For it is fitting that things of this kind should sometimes exist in an unqualified sense either only potentially or only actually; for example, the visible is only actual when it is seen, and it is only potential when it is capable of being seen but is not actually being seen.
lib. 9 l. 5 n. 9 Sed infinitum non ita dicitur in potentia, ut quandoque sit separatum in actu tantum. Sed actus et potentia distinguuntur ratione et cognitione in infinito. Puta in infinito secundum divisionem dicitur esse actus cum potentia simul, eo quod nunquam deficit potentia dividendi: quando enim dividitur in actu, adhuc est ulterius divisibile in potentia. Nunquam autem separatur actus a potentia, ut scilicet quandoque sit totum divisum in actu, et non sit ulterius divisibile in potentia. Et similiter est considerandum in vacuo. Possibile enim est locum evacuari ab hoc corpore, non ut sit totum vacuum: remanet enim plenus alio corpore. Et sic semper in vacuo remanet potentia coniuncta actui. Et idem est in motu, et tempore, et huiusmodi aliis, quae non habent esse perfectum. Deinde in fine epilogat quod dixit. Et est planum in litera.	1831. But the infinite is not said to exist potentially in the sense that it may sometimes have separate actual existence alone; but in the case of the infinite, actuality and potentiality are distinguished only in thought and in knowledge. For example, in the case of the infinite in the sense of the infinitely divisible, actuality and potentiality are said to exist at the same time, because the capacity of the infinite for being divided never comes to an end; for when it is actually divided it is still potentially further divisible. However, it is never actually separated from potentiality in such a way that the whole is sometimes actually divided and is incapable of any further division. And the same thing is true of the void; for it is possible for a place to be emptied of a particular body, but not so as to be a complete void, for it continues to be filled by another body; and thus in the void potentiality always continues to be joined to actuality. The same thing is true of motion and time and other things of this kind which do not have complete being. Then at the end he makes a summary of what has been said. This is evident in the text.