Page images
PDF
EPUB

πρὶν μαθεῖν ἢ εὑρεῖν· καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ αὑτὸν τότε δύναται νο§ 7 εῖν. ἐπεὶ δ ̓ ἄλλο ἐστὶ τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὸ μεγέθει εἶναι καὶ το ὕδωρ καὶ ὕδατι εἶναι· (οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἐφ' ἑτέρων πολλῶν, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἐπὶ πάντων· ἐπ' ἐνίων γὰρ ταὐτόν ἐστι·) τὸ σαρκὶ εἶναι καὶ σάρκα ἢ ἄλλῳ ἢ ἄλλως ἔχοντι κρίνει ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ οὐκ ἄνευ τῆς ὕλης, ἀλλ ̓ ὥσπερ τὸ σιμόν, τόδε ἐν τῷδε. τῷ μὲν οὖν αἰσθητικῷ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν κρίνει καὶ ὧν 15 λόγος τις ἡ σάρξ· ἄλλῳ δὲ ἤτοι χωριστῷ, ἢ ὡς ἡ κεκλασμένη ἔχει πρὸς αὐτὴν ὅταν ἐκταθῇ, τὸ σαρκὶ εἶναι κρί § 8 νει. πάλιν δ ̓ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν ἀφαιρέσει ὄντων τὸ εὐθὺ ὡς τὸ σιμόν· μετὰ συνεχούς γάρ· τὸ δὲ τί ἦν εἶναι, εἰ ἔστιν ἕτερον τὸ εὐθεῖ εἶναι καὶ τὸ εὐθύ, ἄλλῳ· ἔστω γὰρ δυάς. ἑτέρῳ ἄρα ἢ ἑτέρως ἔχοντι κρίνει. καὶ ὅλως ἄρα ὡς χωριστὰ τὰ § 9 πράγματα τῆς ὕλης, οὕτω καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν νοῦν. ἀπορήσειε

20

δ ̓ ἄν τις, εἰ ὁ νοῦς ἁπλοῦν ἐστὶ καὶ ἀπαθὲς καὶ μηθενὶ μηθὲν ἔχει κοινόν, ὥσπερ φησὶν ̓Αναξαγόρας, πως νοήσει, εἰ τὸ νοεῖν πάσχειν τί ἐστιν· ᾗ γάρ τι κοινὸν ἀμφοῖν ὑπάρχει, τὸ 15 § το μὲν ποιεῖν δοκεῖ τὸ δὲ πάσχειν. ἔτι δ ̓ εἰ νοητὸς καὶ αὐτός. ἢ γὰρ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁ νοῦς ὑπάρξει, εἰ μὴ κατ ̓ ἄλλο αὐτὸς

[blocks in formation]

discovered and it may in this final stage be said to think itself.

[The difference between sense and reason may be exhibited also in this manner.] There is a difference between magnitude as a simple fact and magnitude as a real notion, just as there is between water and its essential being: as indeed a similar difference holds good in most things, though not in all, there being some abstract objects in which matter and form combine together into one. It is then either by a different faculty, or by a faculty differently applied, that the mind judges of the essential nature of flesh and simple flesh itself, because flesh does not exist independently of matter, but is, like snubnosedness, a definite fact in concrete expression. With the faculty of sense it discriminates the hot and cold and those qualities of which flesh presents us with a certain aspect, whereas with another faculty, either separated from the former or standing to it in the same relation as the bent line to the same line when straightened, it judges of the essential notion of flesh.

And this distinction holds good also of abstract conceptions. The actual straight line, as occupying continuous space, resembles the concrete materially expressed snubnose; whereas the essential idea, if we allow a difference between the notion of straightness and the simple straight line, must be recognised by some other faculty. And now suppose that we define the idea of straightness as duality. It must be with a different or differently applied faculty that mind judges of this real idea: and generally just as the forms of sense can be separated from the matter in which they are embodied, so also can we draw a distinction between the different applications of thought.

The question might, however, here be raised-How, if reason is uncompounded and unaffected by impressions, and has, as Anaxagoras maintains, no community with other objectshow is it to think objects, if thinking be a sort of receptivity; for it is only in so far as there is something common to two objects that the one is thought to produce, the other to receive an impression. And the further question might be raised whether reason itself can be an object of thought. For either reason must be an attribute of other things as well, in case it be held

νοητός, ἓν δέ τε τὸ νοητὸν εἴδει, ἢ μεμιγμένον τι ἕξει, ὃ

§ 11 ποιεῖ νοητὸν αὐτὸν ὥσπερ τἆλλα. ἢ τὸ μὲν πάσχειν κατὰ

κοινόν τι. διὸ εἴρηται πρότερον, ὅτι δυνάμει πώς ἐστι τὰ νοητὰ 30

ὁ νοῦς, ἀλλ ̓ ἐντελεχείᾳ οὐδέν, πρὶν ἂν νοῇ. δεῖ δ ̓ οὕτως ώστ περ ἐν γραμματείῳ ᾧ μηθὲν ὑπάρχει ἐντελεχείᾳ γεγραμ- 4300 § 12 μένον· ὅπερ συμβαίνει ἐπὶ τοῦ νοῦ. καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ νοητός ἐστιν ὥσπερ τὰ νοητά. ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἄνευ ὕλης τὸ αὐτό ἐστι τὸ νοοῦν καὶ τὸ νοούμενον· ἡ γὰρ ἐπιστήμη ἡ θεωρητικὴ καὶ τὸ οὕτως ἐπιστητὸν τὸ αὐτό ἐστιν· τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἀεὶ νοεῖν τὸ αἴ- 5 τιον ἐπισκεπτέον· ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἔχουσιν ὕλην δυνάμει ἕκαστόν ἐστι τῶν νοητῶν. ὥστ ̓ ἐκείνοις μὲν οὐχ ὑπάρξει νους (ἄνευ γὰρ ύλης δύναμις ὁ νοῦς τῶν τοιούτων), ἐκείνῳ δὲ τὸ νοητὸν ὑπάρξει.

V. Ἐπεὶ δ ̓ ὥσπερ ἐν ἁπάσῃ τῇ φύσει ἐστί τι τὸ μὲν το ὕλη ἑκάστῳ γένει (τοῦτο δὲ ὃ πάντα δυνάμει ἐκεῖνα), ἕτερον δὲ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ ποιητικόν, τῷ ποιεῖν πάντα, οἷον ἡ τέχνη

[blocks in formation]

to be an object of thought not through anything outside itself, but simply in and by itself, and supposing that the object of thought is always something homogeneous: or it must have some element compounded with it which makes it capable of being thought like other real things. Or may we not rather hold that the receptivity of reason is possible only in virtue of some common element? And hence it has been already said that reason is in a way potentially one with the ideas of reason, though it is actually nothing but a mere capacity before the exercise of thought. We must suppose, in short, that the process of thought is like that of writing on a writing-tablet on which nothing is yet actually written.

Thus the reason can be thought just in the same way as can objects of thought generally. [For such objects of thought are either immaterial or material.] Now in the case of immaterial objects, the subject thinking and the object thought are one and the same just as speculative science is equivalent to the objects and ideas of speculative knowledge (a fact, it is true, which leaves the question-why we do not always think, to be investigated). In the case, on the contrary, of those objects which are imbedded in matter, each of the ideas of reason is present, if only potentially and implicitly. And thus reason is not to be regarded as belonging to and governed by the things of sense (reason being a faculty independent of the matter of such objects), but the world of thought must be regarded as belonging to and regulated by reason.

CHAPTER V.

The same differences, however, as are found in nature as a whole must be characteristic also of the soul. Now in nature there is on the one hand that which acts as material substratum to each class of objects, this being that which is potentially all of them: on the other hand, there is the element which is causal and creative in virtue of its producing all things, and which stands towards the other in the same relation as that in which art

πρὸς τὴν ὕλην πέπονθεν, ἀνάγκη καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ὑπάρχειν ταύτας τὰς διαφοράς. καὶ ἔστιν ὁ μὲν τοιοῦτος νοῦς τῷ πάντα γίνεσθαι, ὁ δὲ τῷ πάντα ποιεῖν, ὡς ἕξις τις, οἷον τὸ φῶς· 15 τρόπον γάρ τινα καὶ τὸ φῶς ποιεῖ τὰ δυνάμει ὄντα χρώματα ἐνεργεία χρώματα. καὶ οὗτος ὁ νοῦς χωριστὸς καὶ § 2 ἀμιγὴς καὶ ἀπαθής, τῇ οὐσίᾳ ὢν ἐνεργεία. ἀεὶ γὰρ τιμιώτε

ρον τὸ ποιοῦν τοῦ πάσχοντος καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς ὕλης. τὸ δ' αὐτό ἐστιν ἡ κατ' ἐνέργειαν ἐπιστήμη τῷ πράγματι· ἡ δὲ 10 κατὰ δύναμιν χρόνῳ προτέρα ἐν τῷ ἑνί, ὅλως δὲ οὐδὲ χρόνῳ. ἀλλ ̓ οὐχ ὁτὲ μὲν νοεῖ ὁτὲ δ ̓ οὐ νοεῖ. χωρισθεὶς δ ̓ ἐστὶ μόνον τοῦθ ̓ ὅπερ ἐστί, καὶ τοῦτο μόνον ἀθάνατον καὶ ἀΐδιον. οὐ μνημονεύομεν δέ, ὅτι τοῦτο μὲν ἀπαθές, ὁ δὲ παθητικὸς νοῦς φθαρτός, καὶ ἄνευ τούτου οὐθὲν νοεῖ.

25

VI. Ἡ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἀδιαιρέτων νόησις ἐν τούτοις, περὶ ἃ οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ψεῦδος· ἐν οἷς δὲ καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος καὶ τὸ ἀληθές, σύνθεσίς τις ἤδη νοημάτων ὥσπερ ἓν ὄντων, καθάπερ Εμπεδοκλῆς ἔφη “ ᾗ πολλῶν μὲν κόρσαι ἀναύχενες ἐβλάστησαν,” ἔπειτα συντίθεσθαι τῇ φιλίᾳ. οὕτω καὶ ταῦτα κεχωρισμένα 30 § 2 συντίθεται, οἷον τὸ ἀσύμμετρον καὶ ἡ διάμετρος. ἂν δὲ γενο

18. ἀπαθὴς καὶ ἀμιγής EL. Trend. Bekk. || ἐνεργεία] ἐνέργεια Tor. τὸ δ ̓ αὐτό] αὐτό δ' STUVWXy.

22. οὐχ om. Wy. Tor.

19. 21. οὐδὲ χρονῷ] οὐ χρ. EL. Trend. Bekk.

31. συντίθεται] συντίθεσθαι STVWy. || διάμετρος

ἢ τὸ σύμμετρον καὶ ἡ διάμετρος W. Tor. Simplic. || γενομένων] γινομένων VWX

Trend.

« PreviousContinue »