crookedness and “essence of crookedness,” if this is primary. By primary I mean that which does not imply the presence of something in something else as a material substrate. But such things as are material or are compounded with matter are not the same as their essence; not even if they are accidentally one, e.g. Socrates and “cultured”; for these are only accidentally the same. Now let us first deal with definition, in so far as it has not been dealt with in the Analytics; for the problem stated there has a bearing upon our discussion of substance. The problem I mean is this: what constitutes the unity of the thing of which we say that the formula is a definition? E.g., in the case of man, “two-footed animal”; for let us take this as the formula of “man.” Why, then, is this a unity and not a plurality, “animal” and “two-footed”? For in the case of “man” and “white” we have a plurality when the latter does not refer to the former, but a unity when it does refer to it, and the subject, “man,” has an attribute; for then they become a unity and we have “the white man.” But in the case before us one term does not partake of the other; the genus is not considered to partake of its differentiae, for then the same thing would be partaking simultaneously of contraries, since the differentiae by which the genus is distinguished are contrary.
ταῦτα γὰρ ταὐτὰ κατὰ συμβεβηκός. νῦν δὲ λέγωμεν πρῶτον ἐφʼ ὅσον ἐν τοῖς ἀναλυτικοῖς περὶ ὁρισμοῦ μὴ εἴρηται· ἡ γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνοις ἀπορία λεχθεῖσα πρὸ ἔργου τοῖς περὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἐστὶ λόγοις. λέγω δὲ ταύτην τὴν ἀπορίαν, διὰ τί ποτε ἕν ἐστιν οὗ τὸν λόγον ὁρισμὸν εἶναί φαμεν, οἷον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ζῷον δίπουν· ἔστω γὰρ οὗτος αὐτοῦ λόγος. διὰ τί δὴ τοῦτο ἕν ἐστιν ἀλλʼ οὐ πολλά, ζῷον καὶ δίπουν· ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ ἄνθρωπος καὶ λευκὸν πολλὰ μέν ἐστιν ὅταν μὴ ὑπάρχῃ θατέρῳ θάτερον, ἓν δὲ ὅταν ὑπάρχῃ καὶ πάθῃ τι τὸ ὑποκείμενον, ὁ ἄνθρωπος (τότε γὰρ ἓν γίγνεται καὶ ἔστιν ὁ λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος)· ἐνταῦθα δʼ οὐ μετέχει θατέρου θάτερον· τὸ γὰρ γένος οὐ δοκεῖ μετέχειν τῶν διαφορῶν (ἅμα γὰρ ἂν τῶν ἐναντίων τὸ αὐτὸ μετεῖχεν·
And even if it does partake of them, the same argument applies, since the differentiae are many; e.g. terrestrial, two-footed, wingless. Why is it that these are a unity and not a plurality? Not because they are present in one genus, for in that case all the differentiae of the genus will form a unity. But all the elements in the definition must form a unity, because the definition is a kind of formula which is one and defines substance, so that it must be a formula of one particular thing; because the substance denotes one thing and an individual, as we say. We must first examine definitions which are reached by the process of division. For there is nothing else in the definition but the primary genus and the differentiae; the other genera consist of the primary genus together with the differentiae which are taken with it. E.g., the primary genus is “animal”; the next below it, “two-footed animal”; and again, “two-footed wingless animal”; and similarly also if the expression contains more terms still.
αἱ γὰρ διαφοραὶ ἐναντίαι αἷς διαφέρει τὸ γένος). εἰ δὲ καὶ μετέχει, ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος, εἴπερ εἰσὶν αἱ διαφοραὶ πλείους, οἷον πεζὸν δίπουν ἄπτερον. διὰ τί γὰρ ταῦθʼ ἓν ἀλλʼ οὐ πολλά; οὐ γὰρ ὅτι ἐνυπάρχει· οὕτω μὲν γὰρ ἐξ ἁπάντων ἔσται ἕν. δεῖ δέ γε ἓν εἶναι ὅσα ἐν τῷ ὁρισμῷ· ὁ γὰρ ὁρισμὸς λόγος τίς ἐστιν εἷς καὶ οὐσίας, ὥστε ἑνός τινος δεῖ αὐτὸν εἶναι λόγον· καὶ γὰρ ἡ οὐσία ἕν τι καὶ τόδε τι σημαίνει, ὡς φαμέν.—δεῖ δὲ ἐπισκοπεῖν πρῶτον περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὰς διαιρέσεις ὁρισμῶν. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ὁρισμῷ πλὴν τὸ πρῶτον λεγόμενον γένος καὶ αἱ διαφοραί· τὰ δʼ ἄλλα γένη ἐστὶ τό τε πρῶτον καὶ μετὰ τούτου αἱ συλλαμβανόμεναι διαφοραί, οἷον τὸ πρῶτον ζῷον, τὸ δὲ ἐχόμενον ζῷον δίπουν, καὶ πάλιν ζῷον δίπουν ἄπτερον· ὁμοίως δὲ κἂν διὰ πλειόνων λέγηται.
In general it does not matter whether it contains many or few terms, nor, therefore, whether it contains few or two. Of the two one is differentia and the other genus; e.g., in “two-footed animal” “animal” is genus, and the other term differentia. If, then, the genus absolutely does not exist apart from the species which it includes, or if it exists, but only as matter (for speech is genus and matter, and the differentiae make the species, i.e. the letters, out of it), obviously the definition is the formula composed of the differentiae. But further we must also divide by the differentia of the differentia. E.g., “having feet” is a differentia of “animal”; then in turn we must discover the differentia of “animal having feet” qua “having feet.” Accordingly we should not say that of “that which has feet” one kind is winged and another wingless, (that is if we are to speak correctly; if we say this it will be through incapability), but only that one kind is cloven-footed and another not; because these are differentiae of “foot,” since cloven-footedness is a kind of footedness. And thus we tend always to progress until we come to the species which contain no differentiae. At this point there will be just as many species of foot as there are differentiae, and the kinds of animals having feet will be equal in number to the differentiae. Then, if this is so, obviously the ultimate differentia will be the substance and definition of the thing, since we need not state the same things more than once in definitions, because this is superfluous.
ὅλως δʼ οὐδὲν διαφέρει διὰ πολλῶν ἢ διʼ ὀλίγων λέγεσθαι, ὥστʼ οὐδὲ διʼ ὀλίγων ἢ διὰ δυοῖν· τοῖν δυοῖν δὲ τὸ μὲν διαφορὰ τὸ δὲ γένος, οἷον τοῦ ζῷον δίπουν τὸ μὲν ζῷον γένος διαφορὰ δὲ θάτερον. εἰ οὖν τὸ γένος ἁπλῶς μὴ ἔστι παρὰ τὰ ὡς γένους εἴδη, ἢ εἰ ἔστι μὲν ὡς ὕλη δʼ ἐστίν (ἡ μὲν γὰρ φωνὴ γένος καὶ ὕλη, αἱ δὲ διαφοραὶ τὰ εἴδη καὶ τὰ στοιχεῖα ἐκ ταύτης ποιοῦσιν), φανερὸν ὅτι ὁ ὁρισμός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκ τῶν διαφορῶν λόγος. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ δεῖ γε διαιρεῖσθαι τῇ τῆς διαφορᾶς διαφορᾷ, οἷον ζῴου διαφορὰ τὸ ὑπόπουν· πάλιν τοῦ ζῴου τοῦ ὑπόποδος τὴν διαφορὰν δεῖ εἶναι ᾗ ὑπόπουν, ὥστʼ οὐ λεκτέον τοῦ ὑπόποδος τὸ μὲν πτερωτὸν τὸ δὲ ἄπτερον, ἐάνπερ λέγῃ καλῶς (ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ἀδυνατεῖν ποιήσει τοῦτο), ἀλλʼ ἢ τὸ μὲν σχιζόπουν τὸ δʼ ἄσχιστον· αὗται γὰρ διαφοραὶ ποδός· ἡ γὰρ σχιζοποδία ποδότης τις. καὶ οὕτως ἀεὶ βούλεται βαδίζειν ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ εἰς τὰ ἀδιάφορα· τότε δʼ ἔσονται τοσαῦτα εἴδη ποδὸς ὅσαιπερ αἱ διαφοραί, καὶ τὰ ὑπόποδα ζῷα ἴσα ταῖς διαφοραῖς. εἰ δὴ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει, φανερὸν ὅτι ἡ τελευταία διαφορὰ ἡ οὐσία τοῦ πράγματος ἔσται καὶ ὁ ὁρισμός, εἴπερ μὴ δεῖ πολλάκις ταὐτὰ λέγειν ἐν τοῖς ὅροις·
However, it does happen; for when we say “footed two-footed animal” we have simply said “animal having feet, having two feet.” And if we divide this by its proper division, we shall be stating the same thing several times, as many times as there are differentiae. If, then, we keep on taking a differentia of a differentia, one of them, the last, will be the form and the substance. But if we proceed with reference to accidental qualities—e.g. if we divide “that which has feet” into white and black—there will be as many differentiae as there are divisions. It is therefore obvious that the definition is the formula derived from the differentiae, and strictly speaking from the last of them. This will be clear if we change the order of such definitions, e.g. that of man, saying “two-footed footed animal”; for “footed” is superfluous when we have already said “two-footed.” But there is no question of order in the substance; for how are we to think of one part as posterior and the other prior? With regard, then, to definitions by division, let this suffice as a preliminary statement of their nature.
περίεργον γάρ. συμβαίνει δέ γε τοῦτο· ὅταν γὰρ εἴπῃ ζῷον ὑπόπουν δίπουν, οὐδὲν ἄλλο εἴρηκεν ἢ ζῷον πόδας ἔχον, δύο πόδας ἔχον· κἂν τοῦτο διαιρῇ τῇ οἰκείᾳ διαιρέσει, πλεονάκις ἐρεῖ καὶ ἰσάκις ταῖς διαφοραῖς. ἐὰν μὲν δὴ διαφορᾶς διαφορὰ γίγνηται, μία ἔσται ἡ τελευταία τὸ εἶδος καὶ ἡ οὐσία· ἐὰν δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οἷον εἰ διαιροῖ τοῦ ὑπόποδος τὸ μὲν λευκὸν τὸ δὲ μέλαν, τοσαῦται ὅσαι ἂν αἱ τομαὶ ὦσιν. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι ὁ ὁρισμὸς λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ ἐκ τῶν διαφορῶν, καὶ τούτων τῆς τελευταίας κατά γε τὸ ὀρθόν. δῆλον δʼ ἂν εἴη, εἴ τις μετατάξειε τοὺς τοιούτους ὁρισμούς, οἷον τὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, λέγων ζῷον δίπουν ὑπόπουν· περίεργον γὰρ τὸ ὑπόπουν εἰρημένου τοῦ δίποδος. τάξις δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ· πῶς γὰρ δεῖ νοῆσαι τὸ μὲν ὕστερον τὸ δὲ πρότερον; περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν κατὰ τὰς διαιρέσεις ὁρισμῶν τοσαῦτα εἰρήσθω τὴν πρώτην, ποῖοί τινές εἰσιν.
Since the subject of our inquiry is substance, let us return to it. Just as the substrate and the essence and the combination of these are called substance, so too is the universal. With two of these we have already dealt, i.e. with the essence and the substrate; of the latter we have said that it underlies in two senses—either being an individual thing (as the animal underlies its attributes), or as matter underlies the actuality. The universal also is thought by some to be in the truest sense a cause and a principle. Let us therefore proceed to discuss this question too; for it seems impossible that any universal term can be substance. First, the substance of an individual is the substance which is peculiar to it and belongs to nothing else; whereas the universal is common; for by universal we mean that which by nature appertains to several things. Of what particular, then, will the universal be the substance? Either of all or of none. But it cannot be the substance of all; while, if it is to be the substance of one, the rest also will be that one; because things whose substance is one have also one essence and are themselves one. Again, substance means that which is not predicated of a subject, whereas the universal is always predicated of some subject. But perhaps although the universal cannot be substance in the sense that essence is, it can be present in the essence, as “animal” can be present in “man” and “horse.” Then clearly there is in some sense a formula of the universal. It makes no difference even if there is not a formula of everything that is in the substance; for the universal will be none the less the substance of something; e.g., “man” will be the substance of the man in whom it is present.
ἐπεὶ δὲ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἡ σκέψις ἐστί, πάλιν ἐπανέλθωμεν. λέγεται δʼ ὥσπερ τὸ ὑποκείμενον οὐσία εἶναι καὶ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτων, καὶ τὸ καθόλου. περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῖν δυοῖν εἴρηται (καὶ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ τί ἦν εἶναι καὶ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου, ὅτι διχῶς ὑπόκειται, ἢ τόδε τι ὄν, ὥσπερ τὸ ζῷον τοῖς πάθεσιν, ἢ ὡς ἡ ὕλη τῇ ἐντελεχείᾳ), δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ καθόλου αἴτιόν τισιν εἶναι μάλιστα, καὶ εἶναι ἀρχὴ τὸ καθόλου· διὸ ἐπέλθωμεν καὶ περὶ τούτου. ἔοικε γὰρ ἀδύνατον εἶναι οὐσίαν εἶναι ὁτιοῦν τῶν καθόλου λεγομένων. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὐσία ἑκάστου ἡ ἴδιος ἑκάστῳ, ἣ οὐχ ὑπάρχει ἄλλῳ, τὸ δὲ καθόλου κοινόν· τοῦτο γὰρ λέγεται καθόλου ὃ πλείοσιν ὑπάρχειν πέφυκεν. τίνος οὖν οὐσία τοῦτʼ ἔσται; ἢ γὰρ πάντων ἢ οὐδενός, πάντων δʼ οὐχ οἷόν τε· ἑνὸς δʼ εἰ ἔσται, καὶ τἆλλα τοῦτʼ ἔσται· ὧν γὰρ μία ἡ οὐσία καὶ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι ἕν, καὶ αὐτὰ ἕν. ἔτι οὐσία λέγεται τὸ μὴ καθʼ ὑποκειμένου, τὸ δὲ καθόλου καθʼ ὑποκειμένου τινὸς λέγεται ἀεί. ἀλλʼ ἆρα οὕτω μὲν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται ὡς τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι, ἐν τούτῳ δὲ ἐνυπάρχειν, οἷον τὸ ζῷον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἵππῳ; οὐκοῦν δῆλον ὅτι ἔστι τις αὐτοῦ λόγος. διαφέρει δʼ οὐθὲν οὐδʼ εἰ μὴ πάντων λόγος ἔστι τῶν ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ·
Thus the same thing will happen again; e.g. “animal” will be the substance of that in which it is present as peculiar to it. Again, it is impossible and absurd that the individual or substance, if it is composed of anything, should be composed not of substances nor of the individual, but of a quality; for then non-substance or quality will be prior to substance or the individual. Which is impossible; for neither in formula nor in time nor in generation can the affections of substance be prior to the substance, since then they would be separable. Again, a substance will be present in “Socrates,” who is a substance; so that it will be the substance of two things. And in general it follows that if “man” and all terms used in this way are substance, none of the elements in the formula is the substance of anything, nor can it exist apart from the species or in anything else; I mean, e.g., that neither “animal” nor any other element of the formula can exist apart from the particular species. If we look at the question from this standpoint it is obvious that no universal attribute is substance; and it is also clear from the fact that none of the common predicates means “so-and-so,” but “such and-such.”
οὐδὲν γὰρ ἧττον οὐσία τοῦτʼ ἔσται τινός, ὡς ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν ᾧ ὑπάρχει, ὥστε τὸ αὐτὸ συμβήσεται πάλιν· ἔσται γὰρ ἐκείνου οὐσία, οἷον τὸ ζῷον, ἐν ᾧ ὡς ἴδιον ὑπάρχει. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἀδύνατον καὶ ἄτοπον τὸ τόδε καὶ οὐσίαν, εἰ ἔστιν ἔκ τινων, μὴ ἐξ οὐσιῶν εἶναι μηδʼ ἐκ τοῦ τόδε τι ἀλλʼ ἐκ ποιοῦ· πρότερον γὰρ ἔσται μὴ οὐσία τε καὶ τὸ ποιὸν οὐσίας τε καὶ τοῦ τόδε. ὅπερ ἀδύνατον· οὔτε λόγῳ γὰρ οὔτε χρόνῳ οὔτε γενέσει οἷόν τε τὰ πάθη τῆς οὐσίας εἶναι πρότερα· ἔσται γὰρ καὶ χωριστά. ἔτι τῷ Σωκράτει ἐνυπάρξει οὐσία οὐσίᾳ, ὥστε δυοῖν ἔσται οὐσία. ὅλως δὲ συμβαίνει, εἰ ἔστιν οὐσία ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὅσα οὕτω λέγεται, μηθὲν τῶν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ εἶναι μηδενὸς οὐσίαν μηδὲ χωρὶς ὑπάρχειν αὐτῶν μηδʼ ἐν ἄλλῳ, λέγω δʼ οἷον οὐκ εἶναί τι ζῷον παρὰ τὰ τινά, οὐδʼ ἄλλο τῶν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις οὐδέν. ἔκ τε δὴ τούτων θεωροῦσι φανερὸν ὅτι οὐδὲν τῶν καθόλου ὑπαρχόντων οὐσία ἐστί, καὶ ὅτι οὐδὲν σημαίνει τῶν κοινῇ κατηγορουμένων τόδε τι, ἀλλὰ τοιόνδε.
Otherwise amongst many other awkward consequences we have the “third man.” Again, it is clear in this way too. Substance can not consist of substances actually present in it; for that which is actually two can never be actually one, whereas if it is potentially two it can be one. E.g., the double consists of two halves—that is, potentially; for the actualization separates the halves. Thus if substance is one, it cannot consist of substances present in it even in this sense, as Democritus rightly observes; he says that it is impossible for two to come from one, or one from two, because he identifies substance with the atoms. Clearly then the same will also hold good in the case of number (assuming that number is a composition of units, as it is said to be by some); because either 2 is not 1, or there is not actually a unit in it. The consequence involves a difficulty; for if no substance can consist of universals, because they mean “of such a kind,” and not a particular thing; and if no substance can be actually composed of substances, every substance will be incomposite, and so there will be no formula of any substance. But in point of fact it is universally held, and has been previously stated, that substance is the only or chief subject of definition; but on this showing there is no definition even of substance.
εἰ δὲ μή, ἄλλα τε πολλὰ συμβαίνει καὶ ὁ τρίτος ἄνθρωπος. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ὧδε δῆλον. ἀδύνατον γὰρ οὐσίαν ἐξ οὐσιῶν εἶναι ἐνυπαρχουσῶν ὡς ἐντελεχείᾳ· τὰ γὰρ δύο οὕτως ἐντελεχείᾳ οὐδέποτε ἓν ἐντελεχείᾳ, ἀλλʼ ἐὰν δυνάμει δύο ᾖ, ἔσται ἕν (οἷον ἡ διπλασία ἐκ δύο ἡμίσεων δυνάμει γε· ἡ γὰρ ἐντελέχεια χωρίζει), ὥστʼ εἰ ἡ οὐσία ἕν, οὐκ ἔσται ἐξ οὐσιῶν ἐνυπαρχουσῶν καὶ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ὃν λέγει Δημόκριτος ὀρθῶς· ἀδύνατον γὰρ εἶναί φησιν ἐκ δύο ἓν ἢ ἐξ ἑνὸς δύο γενέσθαι· τὰ γὰρ μεγέθη τὰ ἄτομα τὰς οὐσίας ποιεῖ. ὁμοίως τοίνυν δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἐπʼ ἀριθμοῦ ἕξει, εἴπερ ἐστὶν ὁ ἀριθμὸς σύνθεσις μονάδων, ὥσπερ λέγεται ὑπό τινων· ἢ γὰρ οὐχ ἓν ἡ δυὰς ἢ οὐκ ἔστι μονὰς ἐν αὐτῇ ἐντελεχείᾳ.—ἔχει δὲ τὸ συμβαῖνον ἀπορίαν. εἰ γὰρ μήτε ἐκ τῶν καθόλου οἷόν τʼ εἶναι μηδεμίαν οὐσίαν διὰ τὸ τοιόνδε ἀλλὰ μὴ τόδε τι σημαίνειν, μήτʼ ἐξ οὐσιῶν ἐνδέχεται ἐντελεχείᾳ εἶναι μηδεμίαν οὐσίαν σύνθετον, ἀσύνθετον ἂν εἴη οὐσία πᾶσα, ὥστʼ οὐδὲ λόγος ἂν εἴη οὐδεμιᾶς οὐσίας. ἀλλὰ μὴν δοκεῖ γε πᾶσι καὶ ἐλέχθη πάλαι ἢ μόνον οὐσίας εἶναι ὅρον ἢ μάλιστα·
Then there can be no definition of anything; or rather in a sense there can, and in a sense cannot. What this means will be clearer from what follows later. From these same considerations it is clear also what consequence follows for those who maintain that the Forms are substances and separable, and who at the same time make the species consist of the genus and the differentiae. If there are Forms, and if “animal” is present in the man and the horse, it is either numerically one and the same with them, or not. (In formula they are clearly one; for in each case the speaker will enunciate the same formula.) If, then, there is in some sense an Absolute Man, who is an individual and exists separately, then the constituents, e.g. “animal” and “two-footed,” must have an individual meaning and be separable and substances. Hence there must be an Absolute Animal too. (i) Then if the “animal” which is in the horse and the man is one and the same, as you are one and the same with yourself, how can the one which in things that exist separately be one, and why should not this “animal” also be separated from itself?
νῦν δʼ οὐδὲ ταύτης. οὐδενὸς ἄρʼ ἔσται ὁρισμός· ἢ τρόπον μέν τινα ἔσται τρόπον δέ τινα οὔ. δῆλον δʼ ἔσται τὸ λεγόμενον ἐκ τῶν ὕστερον μᾶλλον. φανερὸν δʼ ἐξ αὐτῶν τούτων τὸ συμβαῖνον καὶ τοῖς τὰς ἰδέας λέγουσιν οὐσίας τε χωριστὰς εἶναι καὶ ἅμα τὸ εἶδος ἐκ τοῦ γένους ποιοῦσι καὶ τῶν διαφορῶν. εἰ γὰρ ἔστι τὰ εἴδη, καὶ τὸ ζῷον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἵππῳ, ἤτοι ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἐστὶν ἢ ἕτερον· τῷ μὲν γὰρ λόγῳ δῆλον ὅτι ἕν· τὸν γὰρ αὐτὸν διέξεισι λόγον ὁ λέγων ἐν ἑκατέρῳ. εἰ οὖν ἐστί τις ἄνθρωπος αὐτὸς καθʼ αὑτὸν τόδε τι καὶ κεχωρισμένον, ἀνάγκη καὶ ἐξ ὧν, οἷον τὸ ζῷον καὶ τὸ δίπουν, τόδε τι σημαίνειν καὶ εἶναι χωριστὰ καὶ οὐσίας· ὥστε καὶ τὸ ζῷον. εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἓν τὸ ἐν τῷ ἵππῳ καὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, ὥσπερ σὺ σαυτῷ, πῶς τὸ ἓν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι χωρὶς ἓν ἔσται, καὶ διὰ τί οὐ καὶ χωρὶς αὑτοῦ ἔσται τὸ ζῷον τοῦτο;
Again, if it is to partake of “two-footed” and of “many-footed,” an impossibility follows; for contrary attributes will belong to it although it is one and individual. But if it does not, in what sense is it that one calls an animal “two-footed” or “terrestrial”? Perhaps the terms are “combined” and “in contact” or “mixed.” But all these expressions are absurd. (2) “But there is a different ‘animal’ in each species.” Then there will be practically an infinity of things of which “animal” is the substance, since it is not in an accidental sense that “man” is derived from “animal.” Again, the Absolute Animal will be a plurality. For (a) the “animal” in each species will be the substance of that species, since the species is called after it and no other thing. Otherwise “man” would be derived from that other thing, which would be the genus of “man.” (b) Further, all the constituents of “man” will be Ideas. Then, since nothing can be the Idea of one thing and the substance of another (for this is impossible), each and every “animal” in the various species will be the Absolute Animal. Further, from what will these Forms be derived, and how can they be derived from the Absolute Animal? Or how can “the animal,” whose very essence is “animal,” exist apart from the Absolute Animal? And further, in the case of sensible things both these and still more absurd consequences follow. If, then, these consequences are impossible, clearly there are not Forms of sensible things in the sense in which some hold that there are.
ἔπειτα εἰ μὲν μεθέξει τοῦ δίποδος καὶ τοῦ πολύποδος, ἀδύνατόν τι συμβαίνει, τἀναντία γὰρ ἅμα ὑπάρξει αὐτῷ ἑνὶ καὶ τῷδέ τινι ὄντι· εἰ δὲ μή, τίς ὁ τρόπος ὅταν εἴπῃ τις τὸ ζῷον εἶναι δίπουν ἢ πεζόν; ἀλλʼ ἴσως σύγκειται καὶ ἅπτεται ἢ μέμικται· ἀλλὰ πάντα ἄτοπα. ἀλλʼ ἕτερον ἐν ἑκάστῳ· οὐκοῦν ἄπειρα ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἔσται ὧν ἡ οὐσία ζῷον· οὐ γὰρ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἐκ ζῴου ἅνθρωπος. ἔτι πολλὰ ἔσται αὐτὸ τὸ ζῷον· οὐσία τε γὰρ τὸ ἐν ἑκάστῳ ζῷον (οὐ γὰρ κατʼ ἄλλο λέγεται· εἰ δὲ μή, ἐξ ἐκείνου ἔσται ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ γένος αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖνο), καὶ ἔτι ἰδέαι ἅπαντα ἐξ ὧν ὁ ἄνθρωπος· οὐκοῦν οὐκ ἄλλου μὲν ἰδέα ἔσται ἄλλου δʼ οὐσία (ἀδύνατον γάρ)· αὐτὸ ἄρα ζῷον ἓν ἕκαστον ἔσται τῶν ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις. ἔτι ἐκ τίνος τοῦτο, καὶ πῶς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ζῴου; ἢ πῶς οἷόν τε εἶναι τὸ ζῷον, ᾧ οὐσία τοῦτο αὐτό, παρʼ αὐτὸ τὸ ζῷον; ἔτι δʼ ἐπὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ταῦτά τε συμβαίνει καὶ τούτων ἀτοπώτερα. εἰ δὴ ἀδύνατον οὕτως ἔχειν, δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν εἴδη αὐτῶν οὕτως ὥς τινές φασιν.
Since substance is of two kinds, the concrete thing and the formula (I mean that one kind of substance is the formula in combination with the matter, and the other is the formula in its full sense), substances in the former sense admit of destruction, for they also admit of generation. But the formula does not admit of destruction in the sense that it is ever being destroyed, since neither does it so admit of generation (for the essence of house is not generated, but only the essence of this house); formulae are, and are not, independently of generation and destruction; for it has been shown that no one either generates or creates them. For this reason also there is no definition or demonstration of particular sensible substances, because they contain matter whose nature is such that it can both exist and not exist. Hence all the individual instances of them are perishable. If, then, the demonstration and definition of necessary truths requires scientific knowledge, and if, just as knowledge cannot be sometimes knowledge and sometimes ignorance (it is opinion that is of this nature), so too demonstration and definition cannot vary (it is opinion that is concerned with that which can be otherwise than it is)— then clearly there can be neither definition nor demonstration of individual sensible substances.
ἐπεὶ δʼ ἡ οὐσία ἑτέρα, τό τε σύνολον καὶ ὁ λόγος (λέγω δʼ ὅτι ἡ μὲν οὕτως ἐστὶν οὐσία, σὺν τῇ ὕλῃ συνειλημμένος ὁ λόγος, ἡ δʼ ὁ λόγος ὅλως), ὅσαι μὲν οὖν οὕτω λέγονται, τούτων μὲν ἔστι φθορά (καὶ γὰρ γένεσις), τοῦ δὲ λόγου οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτως ὥστε φθείρεσθαι (οὐδὲ γὰρ γένεσις, οὐ γὰρ γίγνεται τὸ οἰκίᾳ εἶναι ἀλλὰ τὸ τῇδε τῇ οἰκίᾳ), ἀλλʼ ἄνευ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς εἰσὶ καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν· δέδεικται γὰρ ὅτι οὐδεὶς ταῦτα γεννᾷ οὐδὲ ποιεῖ. διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ τῶν οὐσιῶν τῶν αἰσθητῶν τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστα οὔτε ὁρισμὸς οὔτε ἀπόδειξις ἔστιν, ὅτι ἔχουσιν ὕλην ἧς ἡ φύσις τοιαύτη ὥστʼ ἐνδέχεσθαι καὶ εἶναι καὶ μή· διὸ φθαρτὰ πάντα τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα αὐτῶν. εἰ οὖν ἥ τʼ ἀπόδειξις τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ ὁ ὁρισμὸς ἐπιστημονικόν, καὶ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται, ὥσπερ οὐδʼ ἐπιστήμην ὁτὲ μὲν ἐπιστήμην ὁτὲ δʼ ἄγνοιαν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ δόξα τὸ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, οὕτως οὐδʼ ἀπόδειξιν οὐδʼ ὁρισμόν, ἀλλὰ δόξα ἐστὶ τοῦ ἐνδεχομένου ἄλλως ἔχειν, δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἂν εἴη αὐτῶν οὔτε ὁρισμὸς οὔτε ἀπόδειξις.
For (a) things which perish are obscure to those who have knowledge of them when they are removed from the sphere of their perception, and (b) even though their formulae are preserved in the soul, there will no longer be either definition or demonstration of them. Therefore in cases relating to definition, when we are trying to define any individual, we must not fail to realize that our definition may always be upset; because it is impossible to define these things. Nor, indeed, can any Idea be defined; for the Idea is an individual, as they say, and separable; and the formula must consist of words, and the man who is defining must not coin a word, because it would not be comprehensible. But the words which are in use are common to all the things which they denote; and so they must necessarily apply to something else as well. E.g., if a man were to define you, he would say that you are an animal which is lean or white or has some other attribute, which will apply to something else as well. And if it should be said that there is no reason why all the attributes separately should not belong to several things, and yet in combination belong to this alone, we must reply, (1.) that they also belong to both the elements; e.g., “two-footed animal” belongs both to “animal” and to “two-footed” (and in the case of eternal elements this is even necessarily so; since they are prior to the compound, and parts of it. Indeed they are also separable, if the term “man” is separable—for either neither can be separable, or both are so.
ἄδηλά τε γὰρ τὰ φθειρόμενα τοῖς ἔχουσι τὴν ἐπιστήμην, ὅταν ἐκ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἀπέλθῃ, καὶ σωζομένων τῶν λόγων ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ τῶν αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔσται οὔτε ὁρισμὸς ἔτι οὔτε ἀπόδειξις. διὸ δεῖ, τῶν πρὸς ὅρον ὅταν τις ὁρίζηταί τι τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστον, μὴ ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι ἀεὶ ἀναιρεῖν ἔστιν· οὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεται ὁρίσασθαι. οὐδὲ δὴ ἰδέαν οὐδεμίαν ἔστιν ὁρίσασθαι. τῶν γὰρ καθʼ ἕκαστον ἡ ἰδέα, ὡς φασί, καὶ χωριστή· ἀναγκαῖον δὲ ἐξ ὀνομάτων εἶναι τὸν λόγον, ὄνομα δʼ οὐ ποιήσει ὁ ὁριζόμενος (ἄγνωστον γὰρ ἔσται), τὰ δὲ κείμενα κοινὰ πᾶσιν· ἀνάγκη ἄρα ὑπάρχειν καὶ ἄλλῳ ταῦτα· οἷον εἴ τις σὲ ὁρίσαιτο, ζῷον ἐρεῖ ἰσχνὸν ἢ λευκὸν ἢ ἕτερόν τι ὃ καὶ ἄλλῳ ὑπάρξει. εἰ δέ τις φαίη μηδὲν κωλύειν χωρὶς μὲν πάντα πολλοῖς ἅμα δὲ μόνῳ τούτῳ ὑπάρχειν, λεκτέον πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι καὶ ἀμφοῖν, οἷον τὸ ζῷον δίπουν τῷ ζῴῳ καὶ τῷ δίποδι (καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀϊδίων καὶ ἀνάγκη εἶναι, πρότερά γʼ ὄντα καὶ μέρη τοῦ συνθέτου· ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ χωριστά, εἴπερ τὸ ἄνθρωπος χωριστόν· ἢ γὰρ οὐθὲν ἢ ἄμφω·
If neither, the genus will not exist apart from the species, or if it is so to exist, so will the differentia); (2.) that “animal” and “two-footed” are prior in being to “two-footed animal,” and that which is prior to something else is not destroyed together with it. Again, if the Ideas are composed of Ideas (for constituents are less composite than that which they compose), still the elements of which the Idea is composed (e.g. “animal” and “two-footed”) will have to be predicated of many particulars. Otherwise, how can they be known? For there would be an Idea which cannot be predicated of more than one thing. But this is not considered possible; every Idea is thought to admit of participation. Thus, as we have said, the impossibility of defining individuals is hard to realize when we are dealing with eternal entities, especially in the case of such as are unique, e.g. the sun and moon. For people go wrong not only by including in the definition attributes on whose removal it will still be sun—e.g., “that which goes round the earth,” or “night-hidden” (for they suppose that if it stops or becomes visible it will no longer be sun; but it is absurd that this should be so, since “the sun” denotes a definite substance)—they also mention attributes which may apply to something else; e.g., if another thing with those attributes comes into being, clearly it will be a sun. The formula, then, is general;
εἰ μὲν οὖν μηθέν, οὐκ ἔσται τὸ γένος παρὰ τὰ εἴδη, εἰ δʼ ἔσται, καὶ ἡ διαφορά)· εἶθʼ ὅτι πρότερα τῷ εἶναι· ταῦτα δὲ οὐκ ἀνταναιρεῖται. ἔπειτα εἰ ἐξ ἰδεῶν αἱ ἰδέαι (ἁσυνθετώτερα γὰρ τὰ ἐξ ὧν), ἔτι ἐπὶ πολλῶν δεήσει κἀκεῖνα κατηγορεῖσθαι ἐξ ὧν ἡ ἰδέα, οἷον τὸ ζῷον καὶ τὸ δίπουν. εἰ δὲ μή, πῶς γνωρισθήσεται; ἔσται γὰρ ἰδέα τις ἣν ἀδύνατον ἐπὶ πλειόνων κατηγορῆσαι ἢ ἑνός. οὐ δοκεῖ δέ, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα ἰδέα εἶναι μεθεκτή. ὥσπερ οὖν εἴρηται, λανθάνει ὅτι ἀδύνατον ὁρίσασθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀϊδίοις, μάλιστα δὲ ὅσα μοναχά, οἷον ἥλιος ἢ σελήνη. οὐ μόνον γὰρ διαμαρτάνουσι τῷ προστιθέναι τοιαῦτα ὧν ἀφαιρουμένων ἔτι ἔσται ἥλιος, ὥσπερ τὸ περὶ γῆν ἰὸν ἢ νυκτικρυφές (ἂν γὰρ στῇ ἢ φανῇ, οὐκέτι ἔσται ἥλιος· ἀλλʼ ἄτοπον εἰ μή· ὁ γὰρ ἥλιος οὐσίαν τινὰ σημαίνεi)· ἔτι ὅσα ἐπʼ ἄλλου ἐνδέχεται, οἷον ἐὰν ἕτερος γένηται τοιοῦτος, δῆλον ὅτι ἥλιος ἔσται· κοινὸς ἄρα ὁ λόγος·
but the sun was supposed to be an individual, like Cleon or Socrates. Why does not one of the exponents of the Ideas produce a definition of them? If they were to try, it would become obvious that what we have just said is true. It is obvious that even of those things which are thought to be substances the majority are potentialities; both the parts of living things (for none of them has a separate substantial existence; and when they are separated, although they still exist, they exist as matter), and earth, fire and air; for none of these is one thing —they are a mere aggregate before they are digested and some one thing is generated from them. It might be supposed very reasonably that the parts of living things and the corresponding parts of their vital principle are both, i.e. exist both actually and potentially, because they contain principles of motion derived from something in their joints; and hence some animals live even when they are divided. Nevertheless it is only potentially that all of them will exist when they are one and continuous by nature and not by force or concretion; for this sort of thing is malformation. And since “unity” has the same variety of senses as “being,” and the substance of Unity is one, and things whose substance is numerically one are numerically one, evidently neither Unity nor Being can be the substance of things, just as neither “being an element” or “principle” can be the substance;
ἀλλʼ ἦν τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστα ὁ ἥλιος, ὥσπερ Κλέων ἢ Σωκράτης· ἐπεὶ διὰ τί οὐδεὶς ὅρον ἐκφέρει αὐτῶν ἰδέας; γένοιτο γὰρ ἂν δῆλον πειρωμένων ὅτι ἀληθὲς τὸ νῦν εἰρημένον. φανερὸν δὲ ὅτι καὶ τῶν δοκουσῶν εἶναι οὐσιῶν αἱ πλεῖσται δυνάμεις εἰσί, τά τε μόρια τῶν ζῴων (οὐθὲν γὰρ κεχωρισμένον αὐτῶν ἐστίν· ὅταν δὲ χωρισθῇ, καὶ τότε ὄντα ὡς ὕλη πάντα) καὶ γῆ καὶ πῦρ καὶ ἀήρ· οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἕν ἐστιν, ἀλλʼ οἷον σωρός, πρὶν ἢ πεφθῇ καὶ γένηταί τι ἐξ αὐτῶν ἕν. μάλιστα δʼ ἄν τις τὰ τῶν ἐμψύχων ὑπολάβοι μόρια καὶ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς πάρεγγυς ἄμφω γίγνεσθαι, ὄντα καὶ ἐντελεχείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει, τῷ ἀρχὰς ἔχειν κινήσεως ἀπό τινος ἐν ταῖς καμπαῖς· διὸ ἔνια ζῷα διαιρούμενα ζῇ. ἀλλʼ ὅμως δυνάμει πάντʼ ἔσται, ὅταν ᾖ ἓν καὶ συνεχὲς φύσει, ἀλλὰ μὴ βίᾳ ἢ συμφύσει· τὸ γὰρ τοιοῦτον πήρωσις. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ ἓν λέγεται ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ ὄν, καὶ ἡ οὐσία ἡ τοῦ ἑνὸς μία, καὶ ὧν μία ἀριθμῷ ἓν ἀριθμῷ, φανερὸν ὅτι οὔτε τὸ ἓν οὔτε τὸ ὂν ἐνδέχεται οὐσίαν εἶναι τῶν πραγμάτων, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ στοιχείῳ εἶναι ἢ ἀρχῇ· ἀλλὰ ζητοῦμεν τίς οὖν ἡ ἀρχή, ἵνα εἰς γνωριμώτερον ἀναγάγωμεν.
but we ask what the principle is so that we may refer to something more intelligible. Now of these concepts Being and Unity are more nearly substance than are principle, element and cause; but not even the former are quite substance, since nothing else that is common is substance; for substance belongs to nothing except itself and that which contains it and of which it is the substance. Again, Unity cannot exist in many places at the same time, but that which is common is present in many things at the same time. Hence it is clear that no universal exists in separation apart from its particulars. The exponents of the Forms are partly right in their account when they make the Forms separate; that is, if the Forms are substances, but they are also partly wrong, since by “Form” they mean the “one-over-many.” The reason for this is that they cannot explain what are the imperishable substances of this kind which exist besides particular sensible substances; so they make them the same in kind as perishable things (for these we know); i.e., they make “Ideal Man” and “Ideal Horse,” adding the word “Ideal” to the names of sensible things. However, I presume that even if we had never seen the stars, none the less there would be eternal substances besides those which we knew; and so in the present case even if we cannot apprehend what they are, still there must be eternal substances of some kind.
μᾶλλον μὲν οὖν τούτων οὐσία τὸ ὂν καὶ ἓν ἢ ἥ τε ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ στοιχεῖον καὶ τὸ αἴτιον, οὔπω δὲ οὐδὲ ταῦτα, εἴπερ μηδʼ ἄλλο κοινὸν μηδὲν οὐσία· οὐδενὶ γὰρ ὑπάρχει ἡ οὐσία ἀλλʼ ἢ αὑτῇ τε καὶ τῷ ἔχοντι αὐτήν, οὗ ἐστὶν οὐσία. ἔτι τὸ ἓν πολλαχῇ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἅμα, τὸ δὲ κοινὸν ἅμα πολλαχῇ ὑπάρχει· ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲν τῶν καθόλου ὑπάρχει παρὰ τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα χωρίς. ἀλλʼ οἱ τὰ εἴδη λέγοντες τῇ μὲν ὀρθῶς λέγουσι χωρίζοντες αὐτά, εἴπερ οὐσίαι εἰσί, τῇ δʼ οὐκ ὀρθῶς, ὅτι τὸ ἓν ἐπὶ πολλῶν εἶδος λέγουσιν. αἴτιον δʼ ὅτι οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἀποδοῦναι τίνες αἱ τοιαῦται οὐσίαι αἱ ἄφθαρτοι παρὰ τὰς καθʼ ἕκαστα καὶ αἰσθητάς· ποιοῦσιν οὖν τὰς αὐτὰς τῷ εἴδει τοῖς φθαρτοῖς (ταύτας γὰρ ἴσμεν), αὐτοάνθρωπον καὶ αὐτόϊππον, προστιθέντες τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ αὐτό. καίτοι κἂν εἰ μὴ ἑωράκειμεν τὰ ἄστρα, οὐδὲν ἂν ἧττον, οἶμαι, ἦσαν οὐσίαι ἀΐδιοι παρʼ ἃς ἡμεῖς ᾔδειμεν·
It is clear, then, both that no universal term is substance and that no substance is composed of substances. As for what and what sort of thing we mean by substance, let us explain this by making, as it were, another fresh start. Perhaps in this way we shall also obtain some light upon that kind of substance which exists in separation from sensible substances. Since, then, substance is a kind of principle and cause, we had better pursue our inquiry from this point. Now when we ask why a thing is, it is always in the sense “why does A belong to B?” To ask why the cultured man is a cultured man is to ask either, as we have said, why the man is cultured, or something else. Now to ask why a thing is itself is no question; because when we ask the reason of a thing the fact must first be evident; e.g., that the moon suffers eclipse; and “because it is itself” is the one explanation and reason which applies to all questions such as “why is man man?” or “why is the cultured person cultured?” (unless one were to say that each thing is indivisible from itself, and that this is what “being one” really means);
ὥστε καὶ νῦν εἰ μὴ ἔχομεν τίνες εἰσίν, ἀλλʼ εἶναί γέ τινας ἴσως ἀναγκαῖον. ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὔτε τῶν καθόλου λεγομένων οὐδὲν οὐσία οὔτʼ ἐστὶν οὐσία οὐδεμία ἐξ οὐσιῶν, δῆλον. τί δὲ χρὴ λέγειν καὶ ὁποῖόν τι τὴν οὐσίαν, πάλιν ἄλλην οἷον ἀρχὴν ποιησάμενοι λέγωμεν· ἴσως γὰρ ἐκ τούτων ἔσται δῆλον καὶ περὶ ἐκείνης τῆς οὐσίας ἥτις ἐστὶ κεχωρισμένη τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐσιῶν. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἡ οὐσία ἀρχὴ καὶ αἰτία τις ἐστίν, ἐντεῦθεν μετιτέον. ζητεῖται δὲ τὸ διὰ τί ἀεὶ οὕτως, διὰ τί ἄλλο ἄλλῳ τινὶ ὑπάρχει. τὸ γὰρ ζητεῖν διὰ τί ὁ μουσικὸς ἄνθρωπος μουσικὸς ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν, ἤτοι ἐστὶ τὸ εἰρημένον ζητεῖν, διὰ τί ὁ ἄνθρωπος μουσικός ἐστιν, ἢ ἄλλο. τὸ μὲν οὖν διὰ τί αὐτό ἐστιν αὐτό, οὐδέν ἐστι ζητεῖν (δεῖ γὰρ τὸ ὅτι καὶ τὸ εἶναι ὑπάρχειν δῆλα ὄντα—λέγω δʼ οἷον ὅτι ἡ σελήνη ἐκλείπει—, αὐτὸ δὲ ὅτι αὐτό, εἷς λόγος καὶ μία αἰτία ἐπὶ πάντων, διὰ τί ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος ἢ ὁ μουσικὸς μουσικός, πλὴν εἴ τις λέγοι ὅτι ἀδιαίρετον πρὸς αὑτὸ ἕκαστον, τοῦτο δʼ ἦν τὸ ἑνὶ εἶναι· ἀλλὰ τοῦτο κοινόν γε κατὰ πάντων καὶ σύντομον)·
but this, besides being a general answer, is a summary one. We may, however, ask why a man is an animal of such-and-such a kind. It is clear, then, that we are not asking why he who is a man is a man; therefore we are asking why A, which is predicated of B, belongs to B. (The fact that A does belong to B must be evident, for if this is not so, the question is pointless.) E.g., “Why does it thunder?” means “why is a noise produced in the clouds?” for the true form of the question is one thing predicated in this way of another. Or again, “why are these things, e.g. bricks and stones, a house?” Clearly then we are inquiring for the cause (i.e., to speak abstractly, the essence); which is in the case of some things, e.g. house or bed, the end, and in others the prime mover—for this also is a cause. We look for the latter kind of cause in the case of generation and destruction, but for the former also in the case of existence. What we are now looking for is most obscure when one term is not predicated of another;
ζητήσειε δʼ ἄν τις διὰ τί ἅνθρωπός ἐστι ζῷον τοιονδί. τοῦτο μὲν τοίνυν δῆλον, ὅτι οὐ ζητεῖ διὰ τί ὅς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν· τὶ ἄρα κατά τινος ζητεῖ διὰ τί ὑπάρχει (ὅτι δʼ ὑπάρχει, δεῖ δῆλον εἶναι· εἰ γὰρ μὴ οὕτως, οὐδὲν ζητεῖ), οἷον διὰ τί βροντᾷ; διὰ τί ψόφος γίγνεται ἐν τοῖς νέφεσιν; ἄλλο γὰρ οὕτω κατʼ ἄλλου ἐστὶ τὸ ζητούμενον. καὶ διὰ τί ταδί, οἷον πλίνθοι καὶ λίθοι, οἰκία ἐστίν; φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι ζητεῖ τὸ αἴτιον· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι, ὡς εἰπεῖν λογικῶς, ὃ ἐπʼ ἐνίων μέν ἐστι τίνος ἕνεκα, οἷον ἴσως ἐπʼ οἰκίας ἢ κλίνης, ἐπʼ ἐνίων δὲ τί ἐκίνησε πρῶτον· αἴτιον γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν τοιοῦτον αἴτιον ἐπὶ τοῦ γίγνεσθαι ζητεῖται καὶ φθείρεσθαι, θάτερον δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ εἶναι. λανθάνει δὲ μάλιστα τὸ ζητούμενον ἐν τοῖς μὴ κατʼ ἀλλήλων λεγομένοις, οἷον ἄνθρωπος τί ἐστι ζητεῖται διὰ τὸ ἁπλῶς λέγεσθαι ἀλλὰ μὴ διορίζειν ὅτι τάδε τόδε.
e.g. when we inquire what man is; because the expression is a simple one not analyzed into subject and attributes. We must make the question articulate before we ask it; otherwise we get something which shares the nature of a pointless and of a definite question. Now since we must know that the fact actually exists, it is surely clear that the question is “why is the matter so-and-so?” e.g. “why are these materials a house?” Because the essence of house is present in them. And this matter, or the body containing this particular form, is man. Thus what we are seeking is the cause (i.e. the form) in virtue of which the matter is a definite thing; and this is the substance of the thing. Clearly then in the case of simple entities inquiry and explanation are impossible; in such cases there is a different mode of inquiry. Now since that which is composed of something in such a way that the whole is a unity; not as an aggregate is a unity, but as a syllable is —the syllable is not the letters, nor is BA the same as B and A; nor is flesh fire and earth; because after dissolution the compounds, e.g. flesh or the syllable, no longer exist; but the letters exist, and so do fire and earth. Therefore the syllable is some particular thing; not merely the letters, vowel and consonant, but something else besides. And flesh is not merely fire and earth, or hot and cold, but something else besides. Since then this something else must be either an element or composed of elements, (a) if it is an element, the same argument applies again; for flesh will be composed of this and fire and earth, and again of another element, so that there will be an infinite regression.
ἀλλὰ δεῖ διαρθρώσαντας ζητεῖν· εἰ δὲ μή, κοινὸν τοῦ μηθὲν ζητεῖν καὶ τοῦ ζητεῖν τι γίγνεται. ἐπεὶ δὲ δεῖ ἔχειν τε καὶ ὑπάρχειν τὸ εἶναι, δῆλον δὴ ὅτι τὴν ὕλην ζητεῖ διὰ τί ⟨τί⟩ ἐστιν· οἷον οἰκία ταδὶ διὰ τί; ὅτι ὑπάρχει ὃ ἦν οἰκίᾳ εἶναι. καὶ ἄνθρωπος τοδί, ἢ τὸ σῶμα τοῦτο τοδὶ ἔχον. ὥστε τὸ αἴτιον ζητεῖται τῆς ὕλης (τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ εἶδος) ᾧ τί ἐστιν· τοῦτο δʼ ἡ οὐσία. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι ἐπὶ τῶν ἁπλῶν οὐκ ἔστι ζήτησις οὐδὲ δίδαξις, ἀλλʼ ἕτερος τρόπος τῆς ζητήσεως τῶν τοιούτων.—ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ ἔκ τινος σύνθετον οὕτως ὥστε ἓν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν, [ἂν] μὴ ὡς σωρὸς ἀλλʼ ὡς ἡ συλλαβή—ἡ δὲ συλλαβὴ οὐκ ἔστι τὰ στοιχεῖα, οὐδὲ τῷ ⟨βα⟩ ταὐτὸ τὸ ⟨β⟩ καὶ ⟨α⟩, οὐδʼ ἡ σὰρξ πῦρ καὶ γῆ (διαλυθέντων γὰρ τὰ μὲν οὐκέτι ἔστιν, οἷον ἡ σὰρξ καὶ ἡ συλλαβή, τὰ δὲ στοιχεῖα ἔστι, καὶ τὸ πῦρ καὶ ἡ γῆ)· ἔστιν ἄρα τι ἡ συλλαβή, οὐ μόνον τὰ στοιχεῖα τὸ φωνῆεν καὶ ἄφωνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερόν τι, καὶ ἡ σὰρξ οὐ μόνον πῦρ καὶ γῆ ἢ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερόν τι—εἰ τοίνυν ἀνάγκη κἀκεῖνο ἢ στοιχεῖον ἢ ἐκ στοιχείων εἶναι, εἰ μὲν στοιχεῖον, πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς ἔσται λόγος (ἐκ τούτου γὰρ καὶ πυρὸς καὶ γῆς ἔσται ἡ σὰρξ καὶ ἔτι ἄλλου, ὥστʼ εἰς ἄπειρον βαδιεῖταi)·
And (b) if it is composed of elements, clearly it is composed not of one (otherwise it will itself be that element) but of several; so that we shall use the same argument in this case as about the flesh or the syllable. It would seem, however, that this “something else” is something that is not an element, but is the cause that this matter is flesh and that matter a syllable, and similarly in other cases. And this is the substance of each thing, for it is the primary cause of its existence. And since, although some things are not substances, all substances are constituted in accordance with and by nature, substance would seem to be this “nature,” which is not an element but a principle. An element is that which is present as matter in a thing, and into which the thing is divided; e.g., A and B are the elements of the syllable.
εἰ δὲ ἐκ στοιχείου, δῆλον ὅτι οὐχ ἑνὸς ἀλλὰ πλειόνων, ἢ ἐκεῖνο αὐτὸ ἔσται, ὥστε πάλιν ἐπὶ τούτου τὸν αὐτὸν ἐροῦμεν λόγον καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ἢ συλλαβῆς. δόξειε δʼ ἂν εἶναι τὶ τοῦτο καὶ οὐ στοιχεῖον, καὶ αἴτιόν γε τοῦ εἶναι τοδὶ μὲν σάρκα τοδὶ δὲ συλλαβήν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων. οὐσία δὲ ἑκάστου μὲν τοῦτο (τοῦτο γὰρ αἴτιον πρῶτον τοῦ εἶναι)—ἐπεὶ δʼ ἔνια οὐκ οὐσίαι τῶν πραγμάτων, ἀλλʼ ὅσαι οὐσίαι, κατὰ φύσιν καὶ φύσει συνεστήκασι, φανείη ἂν [καὶ] αὕτη ἡ φύσις οὐσία, ἥ ἐστιν οὐ στοιχεῖον ἀλλʼ ἀρχή—· στοιχεῖον δʼ ἐστὶν εἰς ὃ διαιρεῖται ἐνυπάρχον ὡς ὕλην, οἷον τῆς συλλαβῆς τὸ ⟨α⟩ καὶ τὸ ⟨β⟩.