Authors/Aristotle/metaphysics/l5/c22 - Revision history

Edward Ockham: /* Chapter 22 Privation */

2015-02-21T22:46:00Z

Chapter 22 Privation

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 21 February 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Chapter 22 Privation==		==Chapter 22 Privation==
	{\| border=1 cellpadding=10		{\| border=1 cellpadding=10
	!valign = top width=45%\|Latin		!valign = top width=30%\|Greek
	!valign = top width=55%\|English		!valign = top width=30%\|Latin
			!valign = top width=40%\|English
	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
			\|στέρησις λέγεται ἕνα μὲν τρόπον ἂν μὴ ἔχῃ τι τῶν πεφυκότων ἔχεσθαι, κἂν μὴ αὐτὸ ᾖ πεφυκὸς ἔχειν, οἷον φυτὸν ὀμμάτων ἐστερῆσθαι λέγεται: ἕνα δὲ ἂν πεφυκὸς [25] ἔχειν, ἢ αὐτὸ ἢ τὸ γένος, μὴ ἔχῃ, οἷον ἄλλως ἄνθρωπος ὁ τυφλὸς ὄψεως ἐστέρηται καὶ ἀσπάλαξ, τὸ μὲν κατὰ τὸ γένος τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ αὑτό. ἔτι ἂν πεφυκὸς καὶ ὅτε πέφυκεν ἔχειν μὴ ἔχῃ: ἡ γὰρ τυφλότης στέρησίς τις, τυφλὸς δ᾽ οὐ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἡλικίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ᾗ πέφυκεν ἔχειν, ἂν μὴ ἔχῃ. [30] ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἂν ᾖ <πεφυκὸς> καὶ καθ᾽ ὃ καὶ πρὸς ὃ καὶ ὥς, ἂν μὴ ἔχῃ [πεφυκός]. ἔτι ἡ βιαία ἑκάστου ἀφαίρεσις στέρησις λέγεται.

	\|<span id=c22></span>Privatio dicitur uno quidem modo, si non habet aliquid * natorum haberi, et si non ipsum sit aptum natum habere, ut oculis privari dicitur planta. Alio vero si aptum natum habere, aut ipsum aut genus, non habet, ut aliter homo cecus {{a\|bk1022b25\|↵}} visu privari dicitur et talpa; hoc quidem secundum genus illud vero secundum se. Amplius si aptum natum et quando aptum natum est habere, non habet; caecitas enim privatio quaedam est, sed cecus non est secundum omnem etatem, sed in qua aptum natum est habere, si non habet. Similiter autem et in {{a\|bk1022b30\|↵}} quocumque fuerit et secundum quod et ad quod et ut, si non habet aptum natum. Amplius cuiusque per vim ablatio privatio dicitur.		\|<span id=c22></span>Privatio dicitur uno quidem modo, si non habet aliquid * natorum haberi, et si non ipsum sit aptum natum habere, ut oculis privari dicitur planta. Alio vero si aptum natum habere, aut ipsum aut genus, non habet, ut aliter homo cecus {{a\|bk1022b25\|↵}} visu privari dicitur et talpa; hoc quidem secundum genus illud vero secundum se. Amplius si aptum natum et quando aptum natum est habere, non habet; caecitas enim privatio quaedam est, sed cecus non est secundum omnem etatem, sed in qua aptum natum est habere, si non habet. Similiter autem et in {{a\|bk1022b30\|↵}} quocumque fuerit et secundum quod et ad quod et ut, si non habet aptum natum. Amplius cuiusque per vim ablatio privatio dicitur.

Line 9:		Line 12:

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
			\|καὶ ὁσαχῶς δὲ αἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ <α> ἀποφάσεις λέγονται, τοσαυταχῶς καὶ αἱ στερήσεις λέγονται: ἄνισον μὲν γὰρ τῷ μὴ ἔχειν ἰσότητα πεφυκὸς λέγεται, ἀόρατον δὲ [35] καὶ τῷ ὅλως μὴ ἔχειν χρῶμα καὶ τῷ φαύλως, καὶ ἄπουν καὶ τῷ μὴ ἔχειν ὅλως πόδας καὶ τῷ φαύλους. ἔτι καὶ τῷ μικρὸν ἔχειν, οἷον τὸ ἀπύρηνον: [1023α] [1] τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ φαύλως πως ἔχειν. ἔτι τῷ μὴ ῥᾳδίως ἢ τῷ μὴ καλῶς, οἷον τὸ ἄτμητον οὐ μόνον τῷ μὴ τέμνεσθαι ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ μὴ ῥᾳδίως ἢ μὴ καλῶς. ἔτι τῷ πάντῃ μὴ ἔχειν: τυφλὸς γὰρ οὐ λέγεται ὁ [5] ἑτερόφθαλμος ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐν ἀμφοῖν μὴ ἔχων ὄψιν: διὸ οὐ πᾶς ἀγαθὸς ἢ κακός, ἢ δίκαιος ἢ ἄδικος, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ μεταξύ.

	\|Et quotiens autem ab eo quod a negationes dicuntur, totiens et privationes dicuntur; nam inequale non habere equalitatem aptum * natum dicitur, inuisibile vero et eo quod {{a\|bk1022b35\|↵}} omnino non habeat colorem et eo quod turpiter, et sine pede et eo quod non habeat omnino pedes et eo quod turpes. Amplius et eo quod parum habeat, ut non igneum; hoc autem {{a\|bk1023a1\|↵}} {{p\|118}} est in prave aliquo modo habere. Amplius quod non facile aut non bene, ut insecabile non solum quia non secatur sed quia non facile aut quia non bene. Amplius omnino non {{a\|bk1023a5\|↵}} habere; cecus enim non dicitur monoculus sed qui in ambobus non habet visum. Propter quod non omnis bonus aut malus, aut iustus aut iniustus, sed et * medium.		\|Et quotiens autem ab eo quod a negationes dicuntur, totiens et privationes dicuntur; nam inequale non habere equalitatem aptum * natum dicitur, inuisibile vero et eo quod {{a\|bk1022b35\|↵}} omnino non habeat colorem et eo quod turpiter, et sine pede et eo quod non habeat omnino pedes et eo quod turpes. Amplius et eo quod parum habeat, ut non igneum; hoc autem {{a\|bk1023a1\|↵}} {{p\|118}} est in prave aliquo modo habere. Amplius quod non facile aut non bene, ut insecabile non solum quia non secatur sed quia non facile aut quia non bene. Amplius omnino non {{a\|bk1023a5\|↵}} habere; cecus enim non dicitur monoculus sed qui in ambobus non habet visum. Propter quod non omnis bonus aut malus, aut iustus aut iniustus, sed et * medium.

	\|<span id=jp512></span> Indeed there are just as many kinds of privations as there are of words with negative prefixes; for a thing is called unequal because it has not equality though it would naturally have it, and invisible either because it has no colour at all or because it has a poor colour, and apodous either because it has no feet at all or because it has imperfect feet. Again, a privative term may be used because the thing has ['''23a'''] little of the attribute (and this means having it in a sense imperfectly), e.g. ''kernel-less'' ; or because it has it not easily or not well (e.g. we call a thing uncuttable not only if it cannot be cut but also if it cannot be cut easily or well); or because it has not the attribute at all; for it is not the one-eyed man but he who is sightless in both eyes that is called blind. This is why not every man is ''good'' or ''bad'' , ''just'' or ''unjust'' , but there is also an intermediate state.		\|<span id=jp512></span> Indeed there are just as many kinds of privations as there are of words with negative prefixes; for a thing is called unequal because it has not equality though it would naturally have it, and invisible either because it has no colour at all or because it has a poor colour, and apodous either because it has no feet at all or because it has imperfect feet. Again, a privative term may be used because the thing has ['''23a'''] little of the attribute (and this means having it in a sense imperfectly), e.g. ''kernel-less'' ; or because it has it not easily or not well (e.g. we call a thing uncuttable not only if it cannot be cut but also if it cannot be cut easily or well); or because it has not the attribute at all; for it is not the one-eyed man but he who is sightless in both eyes that is called blind. This is why not every man is ''good'' or ''bad'' , ''just'' or ''unjust'' , but there is also an intermediate state.

	\|}		\|}
	<noinclude>		<noinclude>
	==Notes==		==Notes==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}</noinclude>
	</noinclude>

Edward Ockham: Text replace - "{{bk\|(.*)}}" to "{{a|bk$1|↵}}"

2014-03-13T11:28:17Z

Text replace - "{{bk\|(.*)}}" to "{{a|bk$1|↵}}"

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 13 March 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:
	!valign = top width=55%\|English		!valign = top width=55%\|English
	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|<span id=c22></span>Privatio dicitur uno quidem modo, si non habet aliquid * natorum haberi, et si non ipsum sit aptum natum habere, ut oculis privari dicitur planta. Alio vero si aptum natum habere, aut ipsum aut genus, non habet, ut aliter homo cecus {{bk\|~~1022b25~~}} visu privari dicitur et talpa; hoc quidem secundum genus illud vero secundum se. Amplius si aptum natum et quando aptum natum est habere, non habet; caecitas enim privatio quaedam est, sed cecus non est secundum omnem etatem, sed in qua aptum natum est habere, si non habet. Similiter autem et in {{bk\|~~1022b30~~}} quocumque fuerit et secundum quod et ad quod et ut, si non habet aptum natum. Amplius cuiusque per vim ablatio privatio dicitur.		\|<span id=c22></span>Privatio dicitur uno quidem modo, si non habet aliquid * natorum haberi, et si non ipsum sit aptum natum habere, ut oculis privari dicitur planta. Alio vero si aptum natum habere, aut ipsum aut genus, non habet, ut aliter homo cecus {{a\|bk1022b25\|↵}} visu privari dicitur et talpa; hoc quidem secundum genus illud vero secundum se. Amplius si aptum natum et quando aptum natum est habere, non habet; caecitas enim privatio quaedam est, sed cecus non est secundum omnem etatem, sed in qua aptum natum est habere, si non habet. Similiter autem et in {{a\|bk1022b30\|↵}} quocumque fuerit et secundum quod et ad quod et ut, si non habet aptum natum. Amplius cuiusque per vim ablatio privatio dicitur.

	\|'''Chapter 22.''' <span id=jp511></span> We speak of ''privation'' (1) if something has not one of the attributes which a thing might naturally have, even if this thing itself would not naturally have it; e.g. a plant is said to be ''deprived'' of eyes.(2) If, though either the thing itself or its genus would naturally have an attribute, it has it not; e.g. a blind man and a mole are in different senses ''deprived'' of sight; the latter in contrast with its genus, the former in contrast with his own normal nature.(3) If, though it would naturally have the attribute, and when it would naturally have it, it has it not; for blindness is a privation, but one is not ''blind'' at any and every age, but only if one has not sight at the age at which one would naturally have it. Similarly a thing is called blind if it has not sight in the medium in which, and in respect of the organ in respect of which, and with reference to the object with reference to which, and in the circumstances in which, it would naturally have it.(4) The violent taking away of anything is called privation.		\|'''Chapter 22.''' <span id=jp511></span> We speak of ''privation'' (1) if something has not one of the attributes which a thing might naturally have, even if this thing itself would not naturally have it; e.g. a plant is said to be ''deprived'' of eyes.(2) If, though either the thing itself or its genus would naturally have an attribute, it has it not; e.g. a blind man and a mole are in different senses ''deprived'' of sight; the latter in contrast with its genus, the former in contrast with his own normal nature.(3) If, though it would naturally have the attribute, and when it would naturally have it, it has it not; for blindness is a privation, but one is not ''blind'' at any and every age, but only if one has not sight at the age at which one would naturally have it. Similarly a thing is called blind if it has not sight in the medium in which, and in respect of the organ in respect of which, and with reference to the object with reference to which, and in the circumstances in which, it would naturally have it.(4) The violent taking away of anything is called privation.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Et quotiens autem ab eo quod a negationes dicuntur, totiens et privationes dicuntur; nam inequale non habere equalitatem aptum * natum dicitur, inuisibile vero et eo quod {{bk\|~~1022b35~~}} omnino non habeat colorem et eo quod turpiter, et sine pede et eo quod non habeat omnino pedes et eo quod turpes. Amplius et eo quod parum habeat, ut non igneum; hoc autem {{bk\|~~1023a1~~}} {{p\|118}} est in prave aliquo modo habere. Amplius quod non facile aut non bene, ut insecabile non solum quia non secatur sed quia non facile aut quia non bene. Amplius omnino non {{bk\|~~1023a5~~}} habere; cecus enim non dicitur monoculus sed qui in ambobus non habet visum. Propter quod non omnis bonus aut malus, aut iustus aut iniustus, sed et * medium.		\|Et quotiens autem ab eo quod a negationes dicuntur, totiens et privationes dicuntur; nam inequale non habere equalitatem aptum * natum dicitur, inuisibile vero et eo quod {{a\|bk1022b35\|↵}} omnino non habeat colorem et eo quod turpiter, et sine pede et eo quod non habeat omnino pedes et eo quod turpes. Amplius et eo quod parum habeat, ut non igneum; hoc autem {{a\|bk1023a1\|↵}} {{p\|118}} est in prave aliquo modo habere. Amplius quod non facile aut non bene, ut insecabile non solum quia non secatur sed quia non facile aut quia non bene. Amplius omnino non {{a\|bk1023a5\|↵}} habere; cecus enim non dicitur monoculus sed qui in ambobus non habet visum. Propter quod non omnis bonus aut malus, aut iustus aut iniustus, sed et * medium.

	\|<span id=jp512></span> Indeed there are just as many kinds of privations as there are of words with negative prefixes; for a thing is called unequal because it has not equality though it would naturally have it, and invisible either because it has no colour at all or because it has a poor colour, and apodous either because it has no feet at all or because it has imperfect feet. Again, a privative term may be used because the thing has ['''23a'''] little of the attribute (and this means having it in a sense imperfectly), e.g. ''kernel-less'' ; or because it has it not easily or not well (e.g. we call a thing uncuttable not only if it cannot be cut but also if it cannot be cut easily or well); or because it has not the attribute at all; for it is not the one-eyed man but he who is sightless in both eyes that is called blind. This is why not every man is ''good'' or ''bad'' , ''just'' or ''unjust'' , but there is also an intermediate state.		\|<span id=jp512></span> Indeed there are just as many kinds of privations as there are of words with negative prefixes; for a thing is called unequal because it has not equality though it would naturally have it, and invisible either because it has no colour at all or because it has a poor colour, and apodous either because it has no feet at all or because it has imperfect feet. Again, a privative term may be used because the thing has ['''23a'''] little of the attribute (and this means having it in a sense imperfectly), e.g. ''kernel-less'' ; or because it has it not easily or not well (e.g. we call a thing uncuttable not only if it cannot be cut but also if it cannot be cut easily or well); or because it has not the attribute at all; for it is not the one-eyed man but he who is sightless in both eyes that is called blind. This is why not every man is ''good'' or ''bad'' , ''just'' or ''unjust'' , but there is also an intermediate state.

Edward Ockham at 16:31, 9 March 2014

2014-03-09T16:31:44Z

New page

==Chapter 22 Privation==
{| border=1 cellpadding=10
!valign = top width=45%|Latin
!valign = top width=55%|English
|- valign = top
|Privatio dicitur uno quidem modo, si non habet aliquid * natorum haberi, et si non ipsum sit aptum natum habere, ut oculis privari dicitur planta. Alio vero si aptum natum habere, aut ipsum aut genus, non habet, ut aliter homo cecus {{bk|1022b25}} visu privari dicitur et talpa; hoc quidem secundum genus illud vero secundum se. Amplius si aptum natum et quando aptum natum est habere, non habet; caecitas enim privatio quaedam est, sed cecus non est secundum omnem etatem, sed in qua aptum natum est habere, si non habet. Similiter autem et in {{bk|1022b30}} quocumque fuerit et secundum quod et ad quod et ut, si non habet aptum natum. Amplius cuiusque per vim ablatio privatio dicitur.

|'''Chapter 22.''' We speak of ''privation'' (1) if something has not one of the attributes which a thing might naturally have, even if this thing itself would not naturally have it; e.g. a plant is said to be ''deprived'' of eyes.(2) If, though either the thing itself or its genus would naturally have an attribute, it has it not; e.g. a blind man and a mole are in different senses ''deprived'' of sight; the latter in contrast with its genus, the former in contrast with his own normal nature.(3) If, though it would naturally have the attribute, and when it would naturally have it, it has it not; for blindness is a privation, but one is not ''blind'' at any and every age, but only if one has not sight at the age at which one would naturally have it. Similarly a thing is called blind if it has not sight in the medium in which, and in respect of the organ in respect of which, and with reference to the object with reference to which, and in the circumstances in which, it would naturally have it.(4) The violent taking away of anything is called privation.

|- valign = top
|Et quotiens autem ab eo quod a negationes dicuntur, totiens et privationes dicuntur; nam inequale non habere equalitatem aptum * natum dicitur, inuisibile vero et eo quod {{bk|1022b35}} omnino non habeat colorem et eo quod turpiter, et sine pede et eo quod non habeat omnino pedes et eo quod turpes. Amplius et eo quod parum habeat, ut non igneum; hoc autem {{bk|1023a1}} {{p|118}} est in prave aliquo modo habere. Amplius quod non facile aut non bene, ut insecabile non solum quia non secatur sed quia non facile aut quia non bene. Amplius omnino non {{bk|1023a5}} habere; cecus enim non dicitur monoculus sed qui in ambobus non habet visum. Propter quod non omnis bonus aut malus, aut iustus aut iniustus, sed et * medium.

| Indeed there are just as many kinds of privations as there are of words with negative prefixes; for a thing is called unequal because it has not equality though it would naturally have it, and invisible either because it has no colour at all or because it has a poor colour, and apodous either because it has no feet at all or because it has imperfect feet. Again, a privative term may be used because the thing has ['''23a'''] little of the attribute (and this means having it in a sense imperfectly), e.g. ''kernel-less'' ; or because it has it not easily or not well (e.g. we call a thing uncuttable not only if it cannot be cut but also if it cannot be cut easily or well); or because it has not the attribute at all; for it is not the one-eyed man but he who is sightless in both eyes that is called blind. This is why not every man is ''good'' or ''bad'' , ''just'' or ''unjust'' , but there is also an intermediate state.
|}
<noinclude>
==Notes==
{{reflist}}
</noinclude>