Authors/Thomas Aquinas/posteriorum/L1/Lect44

Lecture 44 Science compared with other modes of knowing

Latin	English
	Lecture 44 (88b30-89b20) SCIENCE COMPARED WITH OTHER MODES OF KNOWING
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit comparationem scientiarum ad invicem et secundum certitudinem et secundum unitatem et diversitatem, hic ostendit comparationem scientiae ad alia quae ad cognitionem pertinent. Et dividitur in duas partes: in prima, agit de comparatione scientiae ad opinionem, quae est verorum et falsorum; in secunda, de comparatione scientiae ad alios habitus cognoscitivos, qui sunt semper verorum; ibi: reliqua autem quomodo oportet et cetera. Prima autem pars dividitur in duas partes: in prima, determinat veritatem; in secunda, excludit dubitationem; ibi: qualiter ergo est idem et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo enim, proponit differentiam esse inter scientiam et opinionem; secundo, ostendit quid pertineat ad scientiam; ibi: quoniam quidem scientia etc.; tertio, ostendit quid pertineat ad opinionem; ibi: sunt autem quaedam vera et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod scientia differt ab opinione; et similiter scibile, quod est obiectum scientiae, differt ab opinabili, quod est obiectum opinionis.	After comparing sciences with one another from the viewpoints of certitude, of unity and of diversity, the Philosopher here compares science to everything else that pertains to knowledge. And his treatment falls into two parts. In the first he treats of the comparison of science to opinion, which bears on the true and false. In the second, of the comparison of science to those habits of knowledge which are concerned exclusively with the true (89b6). The first part is divided into two parts. In the first he determines the truth. In the second he excludes a doubt (89a11). Concerning the first he does three things. First, he lays down the difference between science and opinion. Secondly, he shows what pertains to science (88b31). Thirdly, what pertains to opinion (88b33). He says therefore first (88b30) that science differs from opinion; in like manner the scientifically knowable, which is the object of science, differs from the opinable, which is the object of opinion.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit: quoniam scientia universalis etc., ostendit quid pertineat ad scientiam et ponit duo ad eam pertinere: quorum unum est quod sit universalis. Non enim scientia est de singularibus sub sensu cadentibus: et hoc supra manifestatum est. Aliud est quod scientia est per necessaria. Et exponit quid sit necessarium, scilicet illud quod non contingit aliter se habere. Et hoc etiam est supra manifestatum, quod demonstratio procedat ex necessariis.	Then (88b31) he shows what pertains to science, setting down two things which pertain to it. One of these is that it is of the universal, for science is not concerned with singulars which fall under sense. (He explained this above). The other is that science is obtained in virtue of necessary things. And he explains that the necessary is that which cannot be otherwise. This, too, was explained above, namely, that demonstration proceeds from necessary things.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: sunt autem quaedam etc., ostendit quid pertineat ad opinionem; scilicet quod sit circa contingentia aliter se habere, sive in universali sive in particulari. Et hoc probat tripliciter. Primo quidem per modum divisionis, dicens quod praeter vera necessaria, quae non contingunt aliter se habere, sunt quaedam vera non necessaria, quae contingit aliter se habere. Manifestum est autem ex praedictis, quod circa huiusmodi non est scientia, quia sic sequeretur quod contingentia non possent aliter se habere: circa talia enim est scientia, ut iam dictum est. Similiter etiam non potest dici quod eorum sit intellectus. Et accipimus hic intellectum non secundum quod intellectus dicitur quaedam potentia animae, sed secundum quod est principium scientiae; idest secundum quod est habitus quidam primorum principiorum, ex quibus procedit demonstratio ad causandam scientiam.	Then (88b33) he shows what pertains to opinion, namely, that it is concerned with things that could be otherwise, either universally or particularly. This he proves in three ways. First, by way of a division, saying that in addition to necessary truths, which cannot be otherwise, there are non-necessary truths, which could be otherwise. Now from what has been said above, it is clear that science is not concerned with the latter, because it would follow that contingent things would be such as could not be otherwise. For science is concerned with such things, as has been said. Similarly, it cannot be said that understanding is concemed with them. “Understanding” is taken here not as a faculty [power] of the soul, but as being the principle of science, i.e., as the habit of first principles, from which demonstration proceeds in causing science.
Et ideo ad exponendum quid sit iste intellectus, qui est principium scientiae, subdit: neque scientia indemonstrabilis est, scilicet eorum quae contingunt aliter se habere; ac si dicat quod intellectus nihil aliud sit quam quaedam scientia indemonstrabilis. Sicut enim scientia importat certitudinem cognitionis per demonstrationem acquisitam, ita intellectus importat certitudinem cognitionis absque demonstratione; non propter defectum demonstrationis, sed quia id de quo certitudo habetur, est indemonstrabile et per se notum. Et ideo ad hoc exponendum, subdit quod scientia demonstrativa nihil aliud est quam certa existimatio immediatae propositionis. Quod autem intellectus sit scientia indemonstrabilis patet ex hoc ipso quod dicit quod est principium scientiae. Cum enim scientia sit necessariorum, et necessaria non concludantur nisi ex necessariis, ut supra probatum est, necesse est quod intellectus, qui est principium scientiae, non sit contingentium.	Hence in explaining what that understanding is which is the principle of science he adds, “Nor of indemonstrable knowledge” (88b37), i.e., not of facts that could be otherwise. As if to say: understanding is nothing more than a science of the indemonstrable. For just as science implies certainty of knowledge acquired through demonstration, so understanding implies certitude of knowledge without demonstration; not because of a shortcoming in some demonstration, but because that about which this certainty is had, is indemonstrable and per se known. Therefore, to explain this he adds that demonstrative science is nothing else than the certain intuition of an immediate proposition. But that understanding is science of the indemonstrable is clear from the fact that he says that it is the principle of science. For since science is concerned with the necessary, and the necessary is not concluded except from the necessary, as has been proved above, it is required that understanding, which is the principle of science, not be concerned with contingent things.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 4 Ostenso ergo quod neque scientia neque intellectus sunt contingentium, ponit quamdam divisionem. Et dicit quod contingit verum esse et intellectum et scientiam et opinionem et quod per hoc dicitur, idest quod enunciatur voce per intellectum et scientiam et opinionem veram. Est enim verum et in compositione et divisione intellectus, et in enunciatione exteriori, in quantum significat interiorem veritatem opinionis, scientiae vel intellectus. Si ergo cuiuslibet veri vel est intellectus, vel scientia, vel opinio, et sunt quaedam vera contingentia, quorum non est neque scientia neque intellectus; relinquitur quod circa huiusmodi sit opinio, sive sint actu vera sive sint actu falsa, dummodo possint aliter se habere.	Having shown, therefore, that neither science nor understanding is concerned with contingent things, he sets down a division and says that understanding and science and opinion happen to be true as “that does which is stated by them,” i.e., which is verbally stated by understanding and science and true opinion. For the true is found both in the intellect’s act of composing and dividing and in the outward expression of this act insofar as it signifies the inward truth of the opinion or science or understanding. Therefore, if every truth belongs either to understanding or science or opinion, and there are some contingent truths, and they belong neither to science nor understanding, what is left is that opinion is concerned with them, whether they be actually true or actually false, provided that they could be other than they are.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 5 Et ad exponendum quid sit opinio, subiungit quod opinio est acceptio, idest existimatio quaedam, immediatae propositionis, et non necessariae. Quod potest duobus modis intelligi: uno modo sic quod propositio immediata in se quidem sit necessaria, sed ab opinante accipiatur ut non necessaria; alio modo, ut in se sit contingens. Dicitur enim immediata propositio, quaecunque per aliquod medium probari non potest, sive sit necessaria sive non necessaria. Ostensum est enim supra quod non proceditur in infinitum in praedicationibus, neque quantum ad media neque quantum ad extrema; et hoc non solum analytice in demonstrationibus, sed etiam logice communiter quantum ad omnes syllogismos.	In order to elucidate what opinion is, he adds that opinion is the acceptance, i.e., the grasping, of a proposition that is immediate and not necessary. And this can be understood in two ways: in one way, so that the immediate proposition in itself is indeed necessary, but it is accepted by opinion as non-necessary; in another way, so that it is in itself contingent. For an immediate proposition is one that cannot be proved through a middle, whether it be a necessary proposition or not. For it has been shown above that there is no process to infinity in predications, neither on the part of the middles nor on the part of the extremes. And this was shown not only analytically in demonstrations, but also logically in general as to syllogisms.
Si igitur sit aliqua propositio contingens mediata, oportet quod reducatur ad aliquas immediatas. Non autem reducitur ad immediatas necessarias, quia necessaria non sunt propria principia contingentium, neque ex necessariis potest concludi contingens. Unde relinquitur quod sit aliqua propositio immediata contingens. Sicut, homo non currit, est mediata; potest enim probari per hoc medium, homo non movetur, quae etiam est contingens, sed immediata. Existimatio ergo talium propositionum contingentium immediatarum est opinio: sed per hoc non excluditur quin etiam acceptio propositionis contingentis mediatae sit opinio. Sic enim se habet circa contingentia, sicut intellectus et scientia circa necessaria.	Therefore, if there be a contingent proposition which is mediate, it must be reduced to others that are immediate. However, it is not reduced to necessary immediate propositions, because necessary things are not the proper principles of contingent things, nor can contingent things be concluded from necessary things. Hence what remains is that some contingent, propositions are immediate and some mediate. Thus, “The man does not run,” is mediate, for it can be proved through this middle, “The man is not in motion,” which is also contingent, albeit immediate. The acceptance of such immediate contingent propositions is opinion. Yet this does not mean that the accepting of a mediate contingent proposition is not opinion. For opinion is related to contingent things, as science and understanding to necessary things.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 6 Secundo; ibi: et confessum autem est etc., probat idem per id quod communiter apparet. Et dicit quod id quod dictum est, scilicet opinionem esse contingentium, est quoddam confessum, idest consentaneum his quae apparent: opinio enim videtur sonare aliquid debile et incertum; et videtur esse aliqua talis natura, quae habeat in se imbecillitatem et incertitudinem.	Secondly (89a5), he proves the same point by means of that which is commonly observed, saying that what has been said, mainly, that opinion is concerned with the contingent is confessed, i.e., in agreement with things that are observed. For opinion seems to denote something weak and uncertain and to be of such a nature that weakness and uncertainty are in it.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 7 Tertio; ibi: adhuc autem nullus opinatur probare etc., probat idem per experimentum. Nullus enim quando opinatur quod impossibile sit aliter se habere, reputat se opinari; sed tunc reputat se scire: quando autem opinatur quod sic est, et quod nihil prohibeat aliter se habere, tunc reputat se opinari: ac si opinio sit talis, idest contingentis, scientia autem necessarii.	Thirdly (89a7), he proves the same point by experiment. For no one, when he thinks that it is impossible for a thing to be otherwise, supposes that he is forming an opinion; rather he considers himself to know scientifically. But when he thinks that something is such and such and that there is nothing to prevent its being otherwise, then it is that he considers himself to have opinions. This would indicate that opinion concerns such things, i.e., contingent things, but science necessary things.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: qualiter igitur est idem opinari etc., movet dubitationem contra praemissa. Et primo, movet dubitationes; secundo, solvit; ibi: aut si quidem sic et cetera. Circa primum movet duas dubitationes: quarum una est de opinabili et scibili. Si enim opinio est contingentis, scientia vero necessarii; non est autem idem necessarium et contingens; ergo remanet dubium qualiter possit homo aliquid idem opinari et scire.	Then (89a11) he raises a doubt concerning the aforesaid. First, he raises the doubts. Secondly, he solves them (89a16). Concerning the first (89a11), he presents two doubts, one of which is concerned with the opinable and the scientifically knowable. If opinion is concerned with the contingent and science with the necessary, and the contingent is not the same as the necessary, a doubt remains as to how a man can opine and scientifically know the same thing.
Secunda dubitatio est de scientia et opinione, quare scilicet opinio non sit scientia: si tamen aliquis ponat quod de omni cognito possit esse opinio. De quolibet enim cognito potest homo opinari quod possit aliter se habere, nisi forte de primis principiis per se notis, quorum contraria non cadunt in existimatione: de quibus tamen non est scientia. Sed circa omnia mediata, quorum est demonstratio et scientia, potest aliquis existimare quod possibile sit aliter se habere, et ita potest ea opinari. Non enim opinio est solum de his quae sunt contingentia in sui natura; quia secundum hoc, non omne quod quis novit, contingeret opinari. Sed opinio est de his quae accipiuntur ut contingentia aliter se habere, sive sint talia sive non. Hoc ergo supposito, videtur quod sit idem scientia et opinio; quia tam sciens quam opinans consequuntur scientiam et opinionem per aliqua media, quousque perveniant ad aliqua immediata, sicut ex dictis patet. Unde si aliquis sit procedens per media ad immediata, habet scientiam. Quod autem opinio per media veniat ad immediata, manifestat per hoc, quia sicut contingit opinari quia ita est, ita contingit opinari propter quid sit ita. Hoc autem quod dico propter quid, significat medium. Unde patet quod opinio potest procedere per media ad immediata, sive opinio sit eorum quae in natura sua sunt contingentia, sive sit eorum quae accipiuntur ut contingentia.	The second doubt concerns science and opinion, namely, why opinion is not science; supposing, of course, that one claims that there can be opinion about every known thing. For in regard to everything known a man can opine that it could be otherwise (except perhaps in the case of first principles per se known, whose contraries cannot be conceived, and concerning which there is not science but understanding). But in regard to all mediate truths of which there is demonstration and science, someone can suppose that it is possible that they could be otherwise. Consequently, they can fall under opinion. For opinion is not concerned exclusively with things contingent in their very nature, because then a man could not have opinion about everything he knows. Rather opinion is concerned with that which is accepted as possible to be otherwise, whether it is that or not. Therefore, on this supposition, it remains that science and opinion are the same, because both the scientific knower and the man of opinion acquire science and opinion through middles until they reach things which are immediate, as is clear from the foregoing. Hence if someone proceeds through middles to immediate propositions he has science. Now this is what the man of opinion does, because just as it is possible to have an opinion that something is so, it is also possible to have an opinion why something is so. But when I say, “why,” a middle is implied. Hence it is clear that opinion can proceed to immediates through a middle, whether opinion be of things that are contingent in their very nature, or of things accepted as contingent.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: aut si quidem sic arbitratur etc., solvit praedictas dubitationes. Et primo secundam, quae est de identitate scientiae et opinionis; secundo, primam, quae est de identitate sciti et opinati; ibi: eiusdem autem et cetera.	Then (89a16) he solves the aforesaid doubts. First, he solves the second one which is concerned with the identity of science and opinion. Secondly, he solves the first one which is concerned with the identity of the scientifically knowable and the opinable (89a23).
Dicit ergo primo quod si aliquis per media procedat ad immediata, ita quod illa media non arbitretur ut contingentia aliter se habere, sed arbitretur ea sic se habere sicut definitiones, quae sunt media per quae demonstrationes procedunt, non erit opinio, sed scientia. Si autem aliquis procedat usque ad immediata per aliqua media vera, quae tamen vel non insint illis, de quibus dicuntur, per se, sicut definitiones quae praedicantur substantialiter et significant speciem rei, vel non accipiat ea ut quae sic insunt; tunc habebit opinionem, et non sciet vere quia et propter quid simul, si tamen procedat usque ad immediata; tunc enim per immediata opinabitur, et non sciet. Si vero non procedat per immediata, sed per mediata, tunc non opinabitur propter quid, sed opinabitur solum quia. Nam etiam scientia, quae non est propter quid et immediata, non est scientia propter quid, sed quia.	He says therefore first (89a16) that if someone proceeds through middles to immediates in such a way that the middles are not considered capable of being otherwise, but are considered to behave as definitions which are the middles through which demonstrations proceed, there will not be opinion but science. But if someone proceeds to the immediates through certain true middles which, nevertheless, are either not verified of the things of which they are said per se (as definitions which are predicated essentially or signify the species of a thing)-or he does not take them as being in these things per se, then he will have opinion and will not truly know the quia and the propter quid at once, even if he proceeds as far as the immediates: for then he will be forming an opinion through the immediates and will not know scientifically. But if he does not proceed through immediates but through mediates, then he will not be forming an opinion bearing on the propter quid but only the quia. For even scientific knowledge, when it is not propter quid and immediate, is not propter quid science but quia.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit: eiusdem autem opinio et scientia etc., solvit primam dubitationem, quae est de identitate sciti et opinati. Ubi primo considerandum est quod non est inconveniens id quod est scitum ab uno, esse opinatum ab alio; quia quod unus accipit ut impossibile aliter se habere quasi scitum, alter accipit ut contingens aliter se habere quasi opinatum. Sed quod idem homo de eodem simul habeat opinionem et scientiam, non omnino est verum, sed aliquo modo. Sicut enim falsa opinio et vera opinio possunt esse quodammodo de eodem, sed non simpliciter, sic etiam est de opinione et scientia. Si quis enim diceret quod opinio vera et falsa essent penitus de eodem, sicut aliqui dicunt, puta illi qui dicebant quod omne quod alicui videtur est verum, ut dicitur in IV Metaphys.; ille qui sic diceret, vellet consequi aliqua inconvenientia, et multa quidem alia, quae posita sunt in IV Metaphys., quae consequuntur ex hoc, quod aliquis dicit idem esse verum et falsum; et specialiter hoc inconveniens consequeretur ei, quod nulla opinio esset falsa, et quod ille qui opinatur falsa, non opinaretur. Non ergo potest dici quod vera opinio et falsa sint eiusdem simpliciter.	Then (89a23) he solves the first doubt which concerns the identity of the scientifically known and the object of opinion. Here it should be noted first of all that it is not unfitting that what is scientifically known by one person be a matter of opinion for another, because what one takes as impossible to be otherwise than stated and as scientifically known, another might take as possible to be otherwise and as a matter for opinion. But to say that the same man has opinion and scientific knowledge of the same thing at the same time, is not entirely true, but only in a way. For just as there can be true and false opinion about the same thing somehow but not absolutely, so also in regard to opinion and scientific knowledge. For if someone were to say that there could be a completely true and completely false opinion about the same thing, as some do say (for example, those who said that whatever seems to be true to a person is true, as it is stated in Metaphysics IV), then a person who would say such a thing would be forced to admit certain absurdities and the many other things pointed out in Metaphysics IV which follow from stating that the same thing is true and false. In particular this absurdity would follow, namely, that no opinion is false and that what he opined to be false he did not opine. Hence it cannot be said that there is true and false opinion of the same thing absolutely.
Sed quia idem dicitur multipliciter, contingit quodammodo opinionem veram et falsam esse eiusdem, et quodammodo non. Si enim accipiatur idem subiectum secundum rem, de quo sunt opiniones, sic de eodem potest esse opinio vera et falsa. Si autem accipiatur idem esse ipsum enunciabile opinatum, sic hoc est impossibile. Puta diametrum esse commensurabilem lateri quadrati opinatur aliquis falsa opinione, et inconveniens est dicere quod hoc enunciabile aliquis opinetur vera opinione.	But because “same” is said in many ways, it happens that somehow there is true and false opinion about a same thing, and somehow not. For if “a same thing about which there are opinions” means the same real extramental subject, then there can be true and false opinion about a same thing. But if “same” refers to the proposition that is opined, then it is impossible. For example, to opine that the diagonal is commensurable with the side of a square is to opine with a false opinion; and it is absurd to say that this statement can be opined as a true opinion.
Sed secundum quod accipimus ipsum subiectum enunciabile diametrum, sic eiusdem potest esse opinio vera et falsa. Nam circa diametrum, unus vere opinatur quod sit incommensurabilis, alius falso quod sit commensurabilis. Et sic manifestum est quod id de quo est opinio et scientia, etsi sit idem subiecto, non tamen est idem secundum rationem. Est enim idem subiecto diametrum commensurari, et diametrum non commensurari, quia subiectum utriusque enunciabilis est idem: tamen manifestum est quod ratione diameter differt secundum quod accipitur ut commensurabilis, et secundum quod accipitur ut incommensurabilis. Et sic opinio vera et falsa possunt esse eiusdem subiecto, non autem eiusdem secundum rationem.	But if we take diagonal as the enunciable subject, then there can be true and false opinion of a same thing. For in regard to a diagonal, one opines truly that it is really incommensurable, and another opines falsely that it is commensurable. Thus, it is clear that although that concerning which there is science and opinion be the same in subject, it is not the same in notion. For the diagonal which is said to be commensurable and not to be commensurable is the same in subject, because the subject of each statement is the same. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is a mental distinction between diagonal insofar as it is taken as commensurable and insofar as it is taken as incommensurable. Consequently, there can be true and false opinion about the same subject, but not of the same subject according to notion.
Similiter etiam est et de scientia et de opinione. Nam scientia quidem est de hoc quod aliquis sciat animal, ita tamen quod non contingat illud non esse animal; sed opinio est de hoc quod aliquis scit animal, ita tamen quod contingat illud non esse animal. Puta si scientia sit quod homo vere sit id quod est animal, et sic impossibile sit aliter se habere; opinio vero sit de hoc quod homo non vere sit id quod est animal, et per hoc contingat aliter se habere. Manifestum est enim quod idem est subiectum et scitum et opinatum, quod est homo; sed non est ut idem ratione. Sic igitur ex dictis manifestum est quod non contingit simul omnino idem scire et opinari; quia simul homo haberet existimationem quod posset aliter se habere, et quod non posset aliter se habere. Sed in alio homine hoc contingit quod de eodem unus habet scientiam, et alius opinionem, sicut dictum est. In eodem vero homine non contingit ratione iam dicta.	The same is true of science and opinion. For it is science when someone knows this to be an animal in such a way that it cannot not be an animal; but it is opinion when someone knows it to be an animal in such a way that it might not be an animal. For example, if there is science concerning the fact that man is truly that which is an animal in such a way that it is impossible for it to be otherwise, there will be opinion concerning the fact that man is not truly that which is an animal, and as a result could be otherwise. For it is clear that the subject both known and opined is the same, namely, man; but in notion it is not the same. Thus, therefore, from the foregoing it is obvious that it is impossible to know scientifically and to opine the same thing at the same time, because a man would at one and the same time have a conjecture that could be otherwise and that could not be otherwise. But this could occur in the case of two men, namely, that one have science about a thing and another have opinion about the same thing, as has been stated. But this does not occur in the same person for the reason given.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit: reliqua autem quomodo etc., comparat scientiam ad alios habitus qui se habent ad verum. Et primo, ad illos habitus qui sunt de principiis et de conclusionibus; secundo, ad habitum qui specialiter respicit medium; ibi: solertia autem et cetera.	Then (89b6) he compares science to certain habits that are concerned with truth. First, to those habits which deal with principles and conclusions. Secondly, to the habit which is specifically concerned with the middle (89b10).
Dicit ergo primo quod reliqua ab opinione ad cognitionem pertinentia, quomodo distinguantur in rationem, et intellectum, et scientiam, et artem, et prudentiam, et sapientiam, quantum ad aliquid pertinent ad considerationem philosophiae primae, vel etiam philosophiae naturalis; quantum autem ad aliquid, ad considerationem philosophiae moralis, quae dicitur Ethica.	He says therefore first (89b6) that in regard to those forms of knowledge that are other than opinion, the question of how they are distinguished into reason and understanding and science and art and prudence and wisdom, pertains somehow to the considerations of first philosophy or even of natural philosophy and somehow to the considerations of moral philosophy which is called ethics.
Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est quod Aristoteles in VI Ethic. ponit quinque quae se habent semper ad verum, scilicet artem, scientiam, sapientiam, prudentiam et intellectum; subiungens duo quae se habent ad verum et falsum, scilicet suspicionem et opinionem. Prima autem quinque se habent solum ad verum, quia important rectitudinem rationis. Sed tria eorum, scilicet sapientia, scientia et intellectus, important rectitudinem cognitionis circa necessaria: scientia quidem circa conclusiones, intellectus autem circa principia, sapientia autem circa causas altissimas, quae sunt causae divinae. Alia vero duo, scilicet ars et prudentia, important rectitudinem rationis circa contingentia. Prudentia quidem circa agibilia, idest circa actus qui sunt in operante, puta amare, odire, eligere et huiusmodi, quae pertinent ad actus morales, quorum est directiva prudentia. Ars autem importat rectitudinem rationis circa factibilia, idest circa ea quae aguntur in exteriorem materiam, sicut est secare et alia huiusmodi opera, in quibus dirigit ars.	To understand this it should be noted that in Ethics VI, Aristotle lays down five things which are always concerned with the truth, namely, art, science, wisdom, prudence and understanding, adding two that are concerned with the true and false, namely, suspicion and opinion. Now the first five are concerned solely with the true, because they imply rectitude of reason. But three of them, namely, wisdom, science and understanding imply reason’s rectitude in regard to necessary truths: science in regard to conclusions, understanding in regard to principles, and wisdom in regard to the highest causes, which are the divine causes. But the other two, namely, art and prudence, imply the rectitude of reason in regard to contingent things: prudence in regard to things to be done, i.e., in regard to acts which remain within the one acting, such as to love, hate, choose, and similar acts that pertain to moral activity, of which prudence is the director. Art, however, implies the rectitude of reason in regard to things to be made, i.e., things that are done to external matter; for example, cutting and other activities in which art directs.
Hic autem addit rationem, quae pertinet ad deductionem principiorum in conclusiones. Determinare quidem de sapientia quid sit et quomodo se habeat, et de scientia et intellectu et arte, pertinet aliqualiter ad philosophiam primam; prudentia vero pertinet ad considerationem moralem; intellectus et ratio, secundum quod significant potentias quasdam, pertinent ad considerationem naturalem, ut patet in libro de anima.	To this list he adds “reason,” which pertains to bringing, principles to their conclusions. Now to treat of wisdom, namely, what it is and how it works, and to treat of science and understanding and art, pertain somehow to first philosophy. Prudence, on the other hand, pertains to moral consideration; understanding and reason, insofar as they name certain powers, pertain to natural consideration, as is clear in On the Soul.
lib. 1 l. 44 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit: solertia autem est subtilitas etc., facit mentionem de quodam habitu, qui specialiter respicit medium. Et dicit quod solertia est quaedam subtilis et facilis coniecturatio medii, propter quod aliquid evenit, et hoc quando non habet magnum tempus ad perspiciendum vel deliberandum: sicut si aliquis videns quod semper luna, quando convertitur opposita ad solem, splendorem habet per totum, statim intellexit propter quid hoc sit, scilicet quia illustratur a sole. Et similiter in actibus humanis, si aliquis videat aliquem pauperem altercantem cum aliquo divite, cognoscit quod ille dives accommodavit ei aliquid, et altercantur de redditione; vel si aliquis videns aliquos, qui prius fuerant inimici, esse factos amicos, cognovit propter quid hoc sit, quia scilicet sunt inimici eiusdem.	Then (89b10) he makes mention of the habit which is specifically concerned with the middle. And he says that quick wit is a certain accurate and facile conjecturing of the middle (the reason) why something occurs; and this when one does not have much time to inspect or deliberate, as when a person, seeing that the moon has all its brightness whenever it is turned toward the sun, immediately understands why this is, namely, because it is illumined by the sun. Similarly, in the case of human acts: if a person sees a poor man arguing with a rich man, he knows that the rich man took something from him, and the argument is about its return. Or if he should see persons formerly enemies now made friends, he knows that the reason is because both have a common enemy.
Et quod cognoscere medium sit cognoscere propter quid, manifestat dupliciter: primo quidem per rationem, quia talis solers videns omnes causas medias, cognovit et ultimas, in quas fit ultimo resolutio, per quas cognoscitur propter quid; secundo, manifestat per exemplum ordinatum in syllogismo. Ut ponamus lunam esse c, idest minorem extremitatem; sed esse splendidum per oppositionem ad solem sit a, idest maior extremitas; sed illuminari a sole sit b, idest medium. C enim est b, idest luna habet lumen a sole; et a inest ipsi b, quia quod habet lumen a sole splendet conversum ad solem; et sic probatur quod a insit ipsi c per b.	Secondly, he shows in two ways that to know the middle is to know the “why”: first, with the following reason, namely, because such a quick witted person, seeing all the middle causes, knows all the ultimate ones into which they are all finally analyzed, and through which the “why” is known. Secondly, he manifests this with an example presented in a syllogism. Thus, let us suppose the moon to be C, i.e., the minor extreme, and “to be bright because of its opposition to the sun,” to be A. the major extreme; but “to be illumined by the sun,” to be B, i.e., the middle. For C is B. i.e., “The moon has light from the sun,” and A is in B, because “that which has light from the sun is bright when turned toward the sun.” Thus it is proved that A is in C through B.
Unde patet quod solertia est quaedam perspicacitas velociter apprehendendi medium: quod contingit ex naturali aptitudine, et etiam ex exercitio. Posuit autem diversa exempla solertiae, ut ostendat quod in omnibus praedictis habitibus, scilicet prudentia et sapientia etc., possit esse solertia.	Hence it is clear that quick wit is the faculty of quickly apprehending the middle, and is present in persons as a natural gift or is acquired by training. But he presented various examples of quick wit to show that in all the aforesaid habits, namely, prudence, wisdom, and so on, there can be quick wit.