Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L5/lect9

Lecture 9 Contrariety of rest to motion, and of rest to rest

Latin	English
	Lecture 9 Contrariety of rest to motion, and of rest to rest
lib. 5 l. 9 n. 1 Postquam determinavit philosophus de contrarietate motuum, hic determinat de contrarietate quietum. Et primo in motibus; secundo in mutationibus, ibi: quibus autem non sunt contraria et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ostendit quod quies sit contraria motui; secundo quae cui, ibi: qualis autem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod quia motui non solum videtur contrariari motus, sed etiam quies, determinandum est hoc, qualiter scilicet quies contrarietur motui: quia simpliciter quidem et proprie et perfecte contrariatur motus motui; sed etiam quies motui opponitur, cum sit privatio motus, et privatio quodammodo sit contrarium. Est enim privatio et habitus prima contrarietas, ut dicitur in X Metaphys.: quia scilicet in omnibus contrariis salvatur privationis ratio et habitus, cum semper alterum contrariorum sit quasi privatio respectu alterius, ut album respectu nigri, et amarum respectu dulcis.	727. After discussing contrariety of motions, the Philosopher now determines about contrariety of states of rest. First, in motions; Secondly, in changes, at 732. About the first he does two things: First he shows how rest is contrary to motion; Secondly, which is contrary to which, at 728. He says first (541 229 b23) that since not only motion but also rest seem to be contrary to motion, we have to decide how rest is contrary to motion, for, strictly speaking, it is motion that is perfectly contrary to motion. However, even rest is opposed to motion, since it is the privation of motion, and privation is somehow a contrary. For privation and possession form the fundamental contraries, as is said in Book X of Metaphysics, since the idea of privation and possession are involved in every type of contrary, inasmuch as in any set of contraries, one of them is as privation in respect of the other; for example, black in relation to white and sweet in relation to bitter.
lib. 5 l. 9 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit: qualis autem quali etc., ostendit quae quies cui motui contrarietur. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo movet quaestionem; secundo determinat veritatem, ibi: manifestum igitur est etc.; tertio probat, ibi: motui autem ei et cetera. In quaestione autem quam ponit, unum supponitur, scilicet quod non omnis quies omni motui opponatur, sed aliqualis quies aliquali motui; sicut motui qui est secundum locum, quies secundum locum. Sed quia hoc simpliciter, idest universaliter, dicitur, restat secundum ulterius quaerendum, utrum mansioni, idest quieti, quae est in aliquo termino, puta in albo, opponatur motus, aut ille qui est in album, scilicet dealbatio, aut ille qui est ex albo, scilicet denigratio.	728. Then at (542 229 b26) he shows which rest is contrary to which motion. About this he does three things: First he phrases the question; Secondly, he determines the truth, at 729; Thirdly, he proves it, at 731. In the question which he proposes (542 229 b26) he assumes that not any state of rest is indiscriminately opposed to just any state of motion, but a definite type of rest to a definite type of motion; for example, rest in place is opposed to motion in regard to place. But because the question here is a general one, there still remains another problem: whether the opposite of that rest which consists in possessing its goal, for example, whiteness, is the motion to whiteness, i.e., whitening, or the one from whiteness, namely, blackening.
lib. 5 l. 9 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: manifestum igitur est etc., determinat veritatem: et primo quantum ad contrarietatem motus ad quietem; secundo quantum ad contrarietatem quietum ad invicem, ibi: simul autem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod cum motus sit inter duo subiecta, idest inter duos terminos affirmatos, motui qui est ex hoc termino in suum contrarium, contrariatur quies quae est in hoc termino; sicut motui qui est ex albo in nigrum, contrariatur quies quae est in albo: et motui qui est ex contrario in hoc, contrariatur quies quae est in contrario; sicut motui qui est ex nigro in album, contrariatur quies quae est in nigro.	729. Then at (543 229 b29) he determines the truth. First as to the contrariety of motion to rest; Secondly, as to the contrariety of rest to rest, at 730. He says therefore first (543 229 b29) that since motion is between two affirmed termini, the contrary of a motion from A to its contrary B is rest in A; for example, the contrary of a motion from whiteness to blackness is rest in whiteness, while the contrary of a motion from the contrary B to A is rest in B. For example, the contrary of a motion from black to white is rest in black.
lib. 5 l. 9 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: simul autem etc., agit de contrarietate quietum ad invicem. Et dicit quod hae quietes sunt contrariae ad invicem, quae sunt in contrariis terminis. Inconveniens enim est, si motus sint contrarii ad invicem, et quietes ad invicem non opponantur. Et quomodo quietes sunt oppositae, quae sunt in oppositis, exemplificat subdens, quod quies quae est in sanitate, opponitur quieti quae est in aegritudine.	730. Then at (544 229 b31) he treats of the contrariety of one state of rest to another. And he says that those states of rest which are in contrary termini are mutually contrary. For it is not suitable to have motions contrary to one another and states of rest not contrary. And how states of rest in opposites are opposite, he explains with the example that rest in health is the opposite of rest in sickness.
lib. 5 l. 9 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: motui autem ei qui est etc., probat quod dixerat de contrarietate quietis ad motum. Et dicit quod motui qui est ex sanitate in aegritudinem, opponitur quies quae est in sanitate; quia irrationabile esset quod quies quae est in sanitate, opponeretur motui qui est ex aegritudine in sanitatem. Et hoc sic probat: quia eius motus qui est in ipso, idest ad aliquem terminum, status in eodem termino est magis quietatio, idest eius consummatio vel perfectio, quam quod ei opponatur. Et quod quies in termino ad quem sit motus perfectio, patet per hoc quod simul fit illa quies cum motu: quia ipsum moveri ad terminum est fieri quietem. Unde cum motus sit causa illius quietis, non potest ei opponi, quia oppositum non est causa sui oppositi. Sed necesse est quod motui contrarietur aut haec quies quae est in termino ad quem, aut quies quae est in termino a quo. Non enim potest dici quod quies quae est in aliqua alia specie, contrarietur motui aut quieti: sicut quod quies quae est in albedine, contrarietur quieti quae est in sanitate, aut motui qui est in sanitate. Cum ergo quies quae est in termino ad quem, non contrarietur motui, relinquitur quod contrarietur ei quies quae est in termino a quo.	731. Then at (545 230 a2) he proves what he had said about the contrariety of rest to motion. And he says that the opposition of a motion from health to sick is rest in health; for it is not reasonable that rest in health be the opposite of a motion from sickness to health. This he now proves: Rest in the very goal toward which something else is in motion is the consummation and perfection rather than the opposite of that motion. And that rest in the goal toward which there is motion is its perfection is evident from the fact that the state of rest is coming to be during the motion, because the very movement toward the goal means that rest is coming to be. Hence, since motion is the cause of that rest, it cannot be its opposite, because a thing is not the cause of its opposite. Now the contrary of a motion must be either rest in its goal or rest in the starting point. For it is not reasonable to say that rest in some other species is contrary to a given motion or rest, any more than rest in whiteness is contrary to rest in health or motion to health. Consequently, since rest in the goal is not contrary to motion toward that goal, the only thing that remains is that it is contrary to rest in the starting point.
lib. 5 l. 9 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: quibus autem non sunt contraria etc., determinat de contrarietate quietis in mutationibus. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo resumit quod dictum est de contrarietate mutationum; secundo ostendit quod mutationi non opponitur quies, sed non mutatio, ibi: quies quidem horum etc., tertio ostendit quomodo non mutatio contrarietur mutationi, ibi: simile autem aliquid est et cetera. Resumit ergo primo quod supra dictum est, scilicet quod in mutationibus in quibus non est contrarietas in terminis, sicut in generatione et corruptione substantiae, oppositio accipitur secundum accessum et recessum ex eodem termino. Est enim mutatio quae est ex ipso aliquo termino, opposita mutationi quae est in ipsum. Sicut mutatio quae est ex esse, scilicet corruptio, opponitur mutationi quae est in esse, scilicet generationi; cum tamen neutra earum sit motus.	732. Then at (546 230 a7) he determines about contrariety of rest in changes. About this he does three things: First he repeats what has already been said about contrariety of changes; Secondly, he shows that the opposite of change is not rest but non-change, at 733; Thirdly, how non-change is contrary to change, at 736. He repeats therefore first (546 230 a7) that in changes that do not involve termini that are contrary, for example, in the generation and ceasing-to-be of substance, opposition is based on approach and departure from the same terminus. For a change from A is opposed to a change to A, as a change from existence, i.e., corruption, is opposed to a change to existence, i.e., generation. However, neither of these is called motion.
lib. 5 l. 9 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: quies quidem horum etc., ostendit quod his mutationibus non opponitur quies. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo proponit quod intendit; secundo interserit quandam dubitationem, ibi: et si quidem aliquid erit etc.: tertio probat propositum, ibi: si autem hoc et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod in his mutationibus quae non sunt inter contraria, non invenitur quies opposita: sed illud quod opponitur eis, sicut quies motui, potest vocari immutatio, idest non mutatio.	733. Then at (547 230 a9) he shows that these changes do not have an opposing state of rest. About this he does three things: First he proposes what he intends; Secondly, he interposes a question, at 734; Thirdly, he proves his proposition, at 133-5. He says therefore first (547 230 a9) that changes which do not pass from contrary to contrary have no states of rest opposed to them; rather what is opposed to them in the way that rest is opposed to motion can be called non-change.
lib. 5 l. 9 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: et si quidem aliquid erit etc., interserit quandam dubitationem circa praemissa. Dictum est enim quod mutatio quae est ad esse, contrariatur mutationi quae est ex esse; quae quidem est in non esse. Hoc autem quod dico non esse, potest dupliciter accipi. Uno modo quod habeat aliquod subiectum, vel ens actu, sicut non album in corpore, vel in potentia tantum ens, sicut privatio formae substantialis est in materia prima. Aut intelligitur tale non esse, quod non habet aliquod subiectum, sed est omnino non ens. Si primo modo accipiatur non esse, quod habeat aliquod subiectum, tunc inveniri poterit quomodo una non mutatio sit contraria alii non mutationi: quia poterit dici quod non mutatio quae est in esse, opponitur non mutationi quae est in non esse. Ex quo enim non esse habet subiectum, nihil prohibebit dicere, quod illud subiectum permaneat in illo non esse, quod est ipsum non mutari. Si vero non est aliquid quod non est, idest si ipsi non esse non est aliquod subiectum, tunc dubitatio remanet, cui non mutationi sit contraria illa non mutatio vel quies, quae est in esse. Quod enim omnino non est, non potest dici quiescere aut immutabiliter permanere. Et quia necesse est quod non mutationi vel quieti quae est in esse, sit aliqua non mutatio contraria, manifestum ex hoc fit quod illud non esse, a quo est generatio et in quod tendit corruptio, est non esse habens subiectum.	734. Then at (548 230 a10) he interposes a question on this matter. For it has been said that a change to being is contrary to a change from being, which is really a change to non-being. Now the expression “non-being” has two senses: In one sense, it implies a subject, which is either an actual being, as when non-white is in a body, or a potential being, as when privation of substantial form is in first matter. In a second sense, non-being can imply that no subject is involved, i.e., that we are dealing with absolute non-being. If non-being is taken in the first sense, i.e., that a subject. is implied, then it would be possible to find out how one non-change is contrary to another non-change: for it could be said that a non-change in being is opposed to a non-change in non-being. For, since non-being has a subject, there is nothing to prevent that subject from persevering in non-being, which is the same as not changing. Rut if there is nothing which is not, i.e., if non-being has no subjects then the question remains: to which non-change is the non-change or rest in being contrary? For what does not exist at all cannot be said to be at rest or to be unchangeably permanent. And since some kind of non-change must be contrary to non-change or rest in existence, it follows that that non-existence from which generation begins and toward which ceasing-to-be tends is a nonbeing that has a subject.
lib. 5 l. 9 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: si autem hoc est, aut non omnis etc., ostendit quod supposuerat, scilicet quod id quod opponitur generationi et corruptioni non sit quies. Si enim hoc daretur, scilicet quod esset quies, sequeretur alterum duorum; scilicet quod aut non omnis quies esset contraria motui, aut quod generatio et corruptio sit motus. Unde manifestum est quod id quod opponitur generationi et corruptioni, non dicitur quies, nisi generatio et corruptio esset motus, quod supra improbatum est.	735. Then at (549 230 a12) he explains something he had supposed, namely, that the opposite of generation and of ceasing-to-be is not rest. For if it were, then either of two things would follow: first, that not every rest is contrary to motion, or, secondly, that generation and ceasing-to-be are motions. So it is clear that whatever it is that is opposed to generation and ceasing-to-be, it is not rest, unless generation and ceasing-to-be are motion—which they are not, as we have proved above.
lib. 5 l. 9 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit: simile autem aliquid est etc., ostendit quomodo non mutatio sit contraria mutationi. Et dicit quod simile est de contrarietate immutationis ad mutationem, sicut de contrarietate quietis ad motum: quia immutatio quae est in esse, contraria est vel nulli immutationi (quod esset si non esse non haberet subiectum): aut ei non mutationi quae est in non esse, si non esse habet subiectum. Et haec contrarietas est per modum quo quies opponitur quieti. Aut etiam non mutatio quae est in esse, opponitur corruptioni, ut quies motui. Non autem opponitur generationi, quia corruptio recedit ab immutatione vel quiete quae est in esse, generatio vero tendit in illam; motui autem et mutationi non opponitur quies in termino ad quem, sed quies in termino a quo.	736. Then at (550 230 a16) he shows how non-change is contrary to change. And he says that there is a parallel between the contrariety of non-change to change and that of rest to motion: for a non-change An being is contrary, either to no non-change (which would be, if non-being has no subject) or to that non-change which is in nonbeing (if non-being has a subject). And this contrariety is like the opposition between one rest and another. Or we can say that a non-change in being is the opposite of corruption, as rest is of motion. However, it is not the opposite of generation, because corruption departs from non-change and rest in being, whereas generation tends to it. And we already know that the opposite of motion and change is not rest in the goal but rest in the starting point.