With regard to this kind of substance, then, let the foregoing account suffice. All thinkers make the first principles contraries; as in the realm of natural objects, so too in respect of the unchangeable substances. Now if nothing can be prior to the first principle of all things, that first principle cannot be first principle if it is an attribute of something else. This would be as absurd as to say that “white” is the first principle, not qua anything else but qua white, and yet that it is predicable of a subject, and is white because it is an attribute of something else; because the latter will be prior to it. Moreover, all things are generated from contraries as from a substrate, and therefore contraries must most certainly have a substrate.
περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς οὐσίας ταύτης εἰρήσθω τοσαῦτα, πάντες δὲ ποιοῦσι τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐναντίας, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς, καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀκινήτους οὐσίας ὁμοίως. εἰ δὲ τῆς τῶν ἁπάντων ἀρχῆς μὴ ἐνδέχεται πρότερόν τι εἶναι, ἀδύνατον ἂν εἴη τὴν ἀρχὴν ἕτερόν τι οὖσαν εἶναι ἀρχήν, οἷον εἴ τις λέγοι τὸ λευκὸν ἀρχὴν εἶναι οὐχ ᾗ ἕτερον ἀλλʼ ᾗ λευκόν, εἶναι μέντοι καθʼ ὑποκειμένου καὶ ἕτερόν τι ὂν λευκὸν εἶναι· ἐκεῖνο γὰρ πρότερον ἔσται. ἀλλὰ μὴν γίγνεται πάντα ἐξ ἐναντίων ὡς ὑποκειμένου τινός· ἀνάγκη ἄρα μάλιστα τοῖς ἐναντίοις τοῦθʼ ὑπάρχειν.
Therefore all contraries are predicated of a subject, and none of them exists separately. But there is no contrary to substance; not only is this apparent, but it is borne out by reasoned consideration. Thus none of the contraries is strictly a first principle; the first principle is something different. But the Platonists treat one of the contraries as matter, some opposing “the unequal” to Unity (on the ground that the former is of the nature of plurality) and others plurality. For according to some, numbers are generated from the unequal dyad of the Great and Small; and according to another, from plurality; but in both cases they are generated by the essence of unity. For he who speaks of “the unequal” and Unity as elements, and describes the unequal as a dyad composed of Great and Small, speaks of the unequal, i.e. the Great and Small, as being one; and does not draw the distinction that they are one in formula but not in number. Again, they state the first principles, which they call elements, badly; some say that the Great and the Small, together with Unity (making 3 in all), are the elements of numbers; the two former as matter, and Unity as form. Others speak of the Many and Few, because the Great and the Small are in their nature more suited to be the principles of magnitude; and others use the more general term which covers these—“the exceeding” and “the exceeded.” But none of these variations makes any appreciable difference with respect to some of the consequences of the theory;
ἀεὶ ἄρα πάντα τὰ ἐναντία καθʼ ὑποκειμένου καὶ οὐθὲν χωριστόν, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ καὶ φαίνεται οὐθὲν οὐσίᾳ ἐναντίον, καὶ ὁ λόγος μαρτυρεῖ. οὐθὲν ἄρα τῶν ἐναντίων κυρίως ἀρχὴ πάντων ἀλλʼ ἑτέρα.—οἱ δὲ τὸ ἕτερον τῶν ἐναντίων ὕλην ποιοῦσιν, οἱ μὲν τῷ ἑνὶ [τῷ ἴσῳ] τὸ ἄνισον, ὡς τοῦτο τὴν τοῦ πλήθους οὖσαν φύσιν, οἱ δὲ τῷ ἑνὶ τὸ πλῆθος (γεννῶνται γὰρ οἱ ἀριθμοὶ τοῖς μὲν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἀνίσου δυάδος, τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ μικροῦ, τῷ δʼ ἐκ τοῦ πλήθους, ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δὲ οὐσίας ἀμφοῖν)· καὶ γὰρ ὁ τὸ ἄνισον καὶ ἓν λέγων τὰ στοιχεῖα, τὸ δʼ ἄνισον ἐκ μεγάλου καὶ μικροῦ δυάδα, ὡς ἓν ὄντα τὸ ἄνισον καὶ τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ μικρὸν λέγει, καὶ οὐ διορίζει ὅτι λόγῳ ἀριθμῷ δʼ οὔ. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἃς στοιχεῖα καλοῦσιν οὐ καλῶς ἀποδιδόασιν, οἱ μὲν τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ μικρὸν λέγοντες μετὰ τοῦ ἑνός, τρία ταῦτα στοιχεῖα τῶν ἀριθμῶν, τὰ μὲν δύο ὕλην τὸ δʼ ἓν τὴν μορφήν, οἱ δὲ τὸ πολὺ καὶ ὀλίγον, ὅτι τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ μικρὸν μεγέθους οἰκειότερα τὴν φύσιν, οἱ δὲ τὸ καθόλου μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τούτων, τὸ ὑπερέχον καὶ τὸ ὑπερεχόμενον. διαφέρει δὲ τούτων οὐθὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν πρὸς ἔνια τῶν συμβαινόντων, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς λογικὰς μόνον δυσχερείας, ἃς φυλάττονται διὰ τὸ καὶ αὐτοὶ λογικὰς φέρειν τὰς ἀποδείξεις.
they only affect the abstract difficulties, which these thinkers escape because the proofs which they themselves employ are abstract. There is, however, this exception: if “the exceeding” and “the exceeded” are the first principles, and not the Great and the Small, on the same principle number should be derived from the elements before 2 is derived; for as “the exceeding and the exceeded” is more universal than the Great and Small, so number is more universal than 2. But in point of fact they assert the one and not the other. Others oppose “the different” or “other” to Unity; and others contrast Plurality and Unity. Now if, as they maintain, existing things are derived from contraries, and if there is either no contrary to unity, or if there is to be any contrary it is plurality; and if the unequal is contrary to the equal, and the different to the same, and the other to the thing itself then those who oppose unity to plurality have the best claim to credibility—but even their theory is inadequate, because then unity will be few. For plurality is opposed to paucity, and many to few. That “unity” denotes a measure is obvious. And in every case there is something else which underlies it; e.g., in the scale there is the quarter-tone; in spatial magnitude the inch or foot or some similar thing; and in rhythms the foot or syllable. Similarly in the case of gravity there is some definite weight. Unity is predicated of all things in the same way;
πλὴν τοῦ αὐτοῦ γε λόγου ἐστὶ τὸ ὑπερέχον καὶ ὑπερεχόμενον εἶναι ἀρχὰς ἀλλὰ μὴ τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ μικρόν, καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν πρότερον τῆς δυάδος ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων· καθόλου γὰρ ἀμφότερα μᾶλλόν ἐστιν. νῦν δὲ τὸ μὲν λέγουσι τὸ δʼ οὐ λέγουσιν. οἱ δὲ τὸ ἕτερον καὶ τὸ ἄλλο πρὸς τὸ ἓν ἀντιτιθέασιν, οἱ δὲ πλῆθος καὶ τὸ ἕν. εἰ δέ ἐστιν, ὥσπερ βούλονται, τὰ ὄντα ἐξ ἐναντίων, τῷ δὲ ἑνὶ ἢ οὐθὲν ἐναντίον ἢ εἴπερ ἄρα μέλλει, τὸ πλῆθος, τὸ δʼ ἄνισον τῷ ἴσῳ καὶ τὸ ἕτερον τῷ ταὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἄλλο αὐτῷ, μάλιστα μὲν οἱ τὸ ἓν τῷ πλήθει ἀντιτιθέντες ἔχονταί τινος δόξης, οὐ μὴν οὐδʼ οὗτοι ἱκανῶς· ἔσται γὰρ τὸ ἓν ὀλίγον· πλῆθος μὲν γὰρ ὀλιγότητι τὸ δὲ πολὺ τῷ ὀλίγῳ ἀντίκειται.—τὸ δʼ ἓν ὅτι μέτρον σημαίνει, φανερόν. καὶ ἐν παντὶ ἔστι τι ἕτερον ὑποκείμενον, οἷον ἐν ἁρμονίᾳ δίεσις, ἐν δὲ μεγέθει δάκτυλος ἢ ποὺς ἤ τι τοιοῦτον, ἐν δὲ ῥυθμοῖς βάσις ἢ συλλαβή· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐν βάρει σταθμός τις ὡρισμένος ἐστίν· καὶ κατὰ πάντων δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ἐν μὲν τοῖς ποιοῖς ποιόν τι, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ποσοῖς ποσόν τι, καὶ ἀδιαίρετον τὸ μέτρον, τὸ μὲν κατὰ τὸ εἶδος τὸ δὲ πρὸς τὴν αἴσθησιν, ὡς οὐκ ὄντος τινὸς τοῦ ἑνὸς καθʼ αὑτὸ οὐσίας.
of qualities as a quality, and of quantities as a quantity. (The measure is indivisible, in the former case in kind, and in the latter to our senses.) This shows that unity is not any independent substance. And this is reasonable; because unity denotes a measure of some plurality, and number denotes a measured plurality and a plurality of measures. (Hence too it stands to reason that unity is not a number; for the measure is not measures, but the measure and unity are starting-points.) The measure must always be something which applies to all alike; e.g., if the things are horses, the measure is a horse; if they are men, the measure is a man; and if they are man, horse and god, the measure will presumably be an animate being, and the number of them animate beings. If the things are “man,” “white” and “walking,” there will scarcely be a number of them, because they all belong to a subject which is one and the same in number; however, their number will be a number of genera, or some other such appellation. Those who regard the unequal as a unity, and the dyad as an indeterminate compound of great and small, hold theories which are very far from being probable or possible. For these terms represent affections and attributes, rather than substrates, of numbers and magnitudes—“many” and “few” applying to number, and “great” and “small” to magnitude— just as odd and even, smooth and rough, straight and crooked, are attributes.
καὶ τοῦτο κατὰ λόγον· σημαίνει γὰρ τὸ ἓν ὅτι μέτρον πλήθους τινός, καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς ὅτι πλῆθος μεμετρημένον καὶ πλῆθος μέτρων (διὸ καὶ εὐλόγως οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἓν ἀριθμός· οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ μέτρον μέτρα, ἀλλʼ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ μέτρον καὶ τὸ ἕν). δεῖ δὲ ἀεὶ τὸ αὐτό τι ὑπάρχειν πᾶσι τὸ μέτρον, οἷον εἰ ἵπποι, τὸ μέτρον ἵππος, καὶ εἰ ἄνθρωποι, ἄνθρωπος. εἰ δʼ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἵππος καὶ θεός, ζῷον ἴσως, καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν ἔσται ζῷα. εἰ δʼ ἄνθρωπος καὶ λευκὸν καὶ βαδίζον, ἥκιστα μὲν ἀριθμὸς τούτων διὰ τὸ ταὐτῷ πάντα ὑπάρχειν καὶ ἑνὶ κατὰ ἀριθμόν, ὅμως δὲ γενῶν ἔσται ὁ ἀριθμὸς ὁ τούτων, ἤ τινος ἄλλης τοιαύτης προσηγορίας. οἱ δὲ τὸ ἄνισον ὡς ἕν τι, τὴν δυάδα δὲ ἀόριστον ποιοῦντες μεγάλου καὶ μικροῦ, πόρρω λίαν τῶν δοκούντων καὶ δυνατῶν λέγουσιν· πάθη τε γὰρ ταῦτα καὶ συμβεβηκότα μᾶλλον ἢ ὑποκείμενα τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς καὶ τοῖς μεγέθεσίν ἐστι, τὸ πολὺ καὶ ὀλίγον ἀριθμοῦ, καὶ μέγα καὶ μικρὸν μεγέθους, ὥσπερ ἄρτιον καὶ περιττόν, καὶ λεῖον καὶ τραχύ, καὶ εὐθὺ καὶ καμπύλον·
Further, in addition to this error, “great” and “small” and all other such terms must be relative. And the relative is of all the categories in the least degree a definite entity or substance; it is posterior to quality and quantity. The relative is an affection of quantity, as we have said, and not its matter; since there is something else distinct which is the matter both of the relative in general and of its parts and kinds. There is nothing great or small, many or few, or in general relative, which is many or few, great or small, or relative to something else without having a distinct nature of its own. That the relative is in the lowest degree a substance and a real thing is shown by the fact that of it alone there is neither generation nor destruction nor change in the sense that in respect of quantity there is increase and decrease, in respect of quality, alteration, in respect of place, locomotion, and in respect of substance, absolute generation and destruction. There is no real change in respect of the relative; for without any change in itself, one term will be now greater, now smaller or equal, as the other term undergoes quantitative change.
ἔτι δὲ πρὸς ταύτῃ τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ καὶ πρός τι ἀνάγκη εἶναι τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ μικρὸν καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα· τὸ δὲ πρός τι πάντων ἥκιστα φύσις τις ἢ οὐσία [τῶν κατηγοριῶν] ἐστι, καὶ ὑστέρα τοῦ ποιοῦ καὶ ποσοῦ· καὶ πάθος τι τοῦ ποσοῦ τὸ πρός τι, ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὕλη, εἴ τι ἕτερον καὶ τῷ ὅλως κοινῷ πρός τι καὶ τοῖς μέρεσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἴδεσιν. οὐθὲν γάρ ἐστιν οὔτε μέγα οὔτε μικρόν, οὔτε πολὺ οὔτε ὀλίγον, οὔτε ὅλως πρός τι, ὃ οὐχ ἕτερόν τι ὂν πολὺ ἢ ὀλίγον ἢ μέγα ἢ μικρὸν ἢ πρός τί ἐστιν. σημεῖον δʼ ὅτι ἥκιστα οὐσί τις καὶ ὄν τι τὸ πρός τι τὸ μόνου μὴ εἶναι γένεσιν αὐτοῦ μηδὲ φθορὰν μηδὲ κίνησιν ὥσπερ κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν αὔξησις καὶ φθίσις, κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν ἀλλοίωσις, κατὰ τόπον φορά, κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἡ ἁπλῆ γένεσις καὶ φθορά,—ἀλλʼ οὐ κατὰ τὸ πρός τι· ἄνευ γὰρ τοῦ κινηθῆναι ὁτὲ μὲν μεῖζον ὁτὲ δὲ ἔλαττον ἢ ἴσον ἔσται θατέρου κινηθέντος κατὰ τὸ ποσόν.
Moreover, the matter of every thing, and therefore of substance, must be that which is potentially of that nature; but the relative is neither potentially substance nor actually. It is absurd, then, or rather impossible, to represent non-substance as an element of substance and prior to it; for all the other categories are posterior to substance. And further, the elements are not predicated of those things of which they are elements; yet “many” and “few” are predicated, both separately and together, of number; and “long” and “short” are predicated of the line, and the Plane is both broad and narrow. If, then, there is a plurality of which one term, viz. “few,” is always predicable, e.g. 2 (for if 2 is many, 1 will be few ), then there will be an absolute “many”; e.g., 10 will be many (if there is nothing more than 10 ), or 10,000. How, then, in this light, can number be derived from Few and Many? Either both ought to be predicated of it, or neither; but according to this view only one or the other is predicated. But we must inquire in general whether eternal things can be composed of elements. If so, they will have matter; for everything which consists of elements is composite. Assuming, then, that that which consists of anything, whether it has always existed or it came into being, must come into being 〈if at all〉 out of that of which it consists; and that everything comes to be that which it comes to be out of that which is it potentially (for it could not have come to be out of that which was not potentially such, nor could it have consisted of it); and that the potential can either be actualized or not;
ἀνάγκη τε ἑκάστου ὕλην εἶναι τὸ δυνάμει τοιοῦτον, ὥστε καὶ οὐσίας· τὸ δὲ πρός τι οὔτε δυνάμει οὐσία οὔτε ἐνεργείᾳ. ἄτοπον οὖν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀδύνατον, τὸ οὐσίας μὴ οὐσίαν ποιεῖν στοιχεῖον καὶ πρότερον· ὕστερον γὰρ πᾶσαι αἱ κατηγορίαι. ἔτι δὲ τὰ στοιχεῖα οὐ κατηγορεῖται καθʼ ὧν στοιχεῖα, τὸ δὲ πολὺ καὶ ὀλίγον καὶ χωρὶς καὶ ἅμα κατηγορεῖται ἀριθμοῦ, καὶ τὸ μακρὸν καὶ τὸ βραχὺ γραμμῆς, καὶ ἐπίπεδόν ἐστι καὶ πλατὺ καὶ στενόν. εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ ἔστι τι πλῆθος οὗ τὸ μὲν ἀεί, ⟨τὸ⟩ ὀλίγον, οἷον ἡ δυάς (εἰ γὰρ πολύ, τὸ ἓν ἂν ὀλίγον εἴη), κἂν πολὺ ἁπλῶς εἴη, οἷον ἡ δεκὰς πολύ, [καὶ] εἰ ταύτης μή ἐστι πλεῖον, ἢ τὰ μύρια. πῶς οὖν ἔσται οὕτως ἐξ ὀλίγου καὶ πολλοῦ ὁ ἀριθμός; ἢ γὰρ ἄμφω ἔδει κατηγορεῖσθαι ἢ μηδέτερον· νῦν δὲ τὸ ἕτερον μόνον κατηγορεῖται. ἁπλῶς δὲ δεῖ σκοπεῖν, ἆρα δυνατὸν τὰ ἀΐδια ἐκ στοιχείων συγκεῖσθαι; ὕλην γὰρ ἕξει· σύνθετον γὰρ πᾶν τὸ ἐκ στοιχείων. εἰ τοίνυν ἀνάγκη, ἐξ οὗ ἐστιν, εἰ καὶ ἀεὶ ἔστι, κἄν, εἰ ἐγένετο, ἐκ τούτου γίγνεσθαι, γίγνεται δὲ πᾶν ἐκ τοῦ δυνάμει ὄντος τοῦτο ὃ γίγνεται (οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐγένετο ἐκ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου οὐδὲ ἦν), τὸ δὲ δυνατὸν ἐνδέχεται καὶ ἐνεργεῖν καὶ μή, εἰ καὶ ὅτι μάλιστα ἀεὶ ἔστιν ὁ ἀριθμὸς ἢ ὁτιοῦν ἄλλο ὕλην ἔχον, ἐνδέχοιτʼ ἂν μὴ εἶναι, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ μίαν ἡμέραν ἔχον καὶ τὸ ὁποσαοῦν ἔτη·
then however everlasting number or anything else which has matter may be, it would be possible for it not to exist, just as that which is any number of years old is as capable of not existing as that which is one day old. And if this is so, that which has existed for so long a time that there is no limit to it may also not exist. Therefore things which contain matter cannot be eternal, that is, if that which is capable of not existing is not eternal, as we have had occasion to say elsewhere. Now if what we have just been saying—that no substance is eternal unless it is actuality—is true universally, and the elements are the matter of substance, an eternal substance can have no elements of which, as inherent in it, it consists. There are some who, while making the element which acts conjointly with unity the indeterminate dyad, object to “the unequal,” quite reasonably, on the score of the difficulties which it involves. But they are rid only of those difficulties which necessarily attend the theory of those who make the unequal, i.e. the relative, an element; all the difficulties which are independent of this view must apply to their theories also, whether it is Ideal or mathematical number that they construct out of these elements. There are many causes for their resorting to these explanations, the chief being that they visualized the problem in an archaic form.
εἰ δʼ οὕτω, καὶ τὸ τοσοῦτον χρόνον οὗ μὴ ἔστι πέρας. οὐκ ἂν τοίνυν εἴη ἀΐδια, εἴπερ μὴ ἀΐδιον τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον μὴ εἶναι, καθάπερ ἐν ἄλλοις λόγοις συνέβη πραγματευθῆναι. εἰ δέ ἐστι τὸ λεγόμενον νῦν ἀληθὲς καθόλου, ὅτι οὐδεμία ἐστὶν ἀΐδιος οὐσία ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ἐνέργεια, τὰ δὲ στοιχεῖα ὕλη τῆς οὐσίας, οὐδεμιᾶς ἂν εἴη ἀϊδίου οὐσίας στοιχεῖα ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν ἐνυπαρχόντων. εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ δυάδα μὲν ἀόριστον ποιοῦσι τὸ μετὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς στοιχεῖον, τὸ δʼ ἄνισον δυσχεραίνουσιν εὐλόγως διὰ τὰ συμβαίνοντα ἀδύνατα· οἷς τοσαῦτα μόνον ἀφῄρηται τῶν δυσχερῶν ὅσα διὰ τὸ ποιεῖν τὸ ἄνισον καὶ τὸ πρός τι στοιχεῖον ἀναγκαῖα συμβαίνει τοῖς λέγουσιν· ὅσα δὲ χωρὶς ταύτης τῆς δόξης, ταῦτα κἀκείνοις ὑπάρχειν ἀναγκαῖον, ἐάν τε τὸν εἰδητικὸν ἀριθμὸν ἐξ αὐτῶν ποιῶσιν ἐάν τε τὸν μαθηματικόν.—πολλὰ μὲν οὖν τὰ αἴτια τῆς ἐπὶ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας ἐκτροπῆς, μάλιστα δὲ τὸ ἀπορῆσαι ἀρχαϊκῶς.
They supposed that all existing things would be one, absolute Being, unless they encountered and refuted Parmenides’ dictum: It will ne’er be proved that things which are not, are, i.e., that they must show that that which is not, is; for only so—of that which is, and of something else—could existing things be composed, if they are more than one. However, (i) in the first place, if “being” has several meanings (for sometimes it means substance, sometimes quality, sometimes quantity, and so on with the other categories), what sort of unity will all the things that are constitute, if not-being is not to be? Will it be the substances that are one, or the affections (and similarly with the other categories), or all the categories together? in which case the “this” and the “such” and the “so great,” and all the other categories which denote some sense of Being, will be one. But it is absurd, or rather impossible, that the introduction of one thing should account for the fact that “what is” sometimes means “so-and-so,” sometimes “such-and-such,” sometimes “of such-and-such a size,” sometimes “in such-and-such a place.” (2) Of what sort of not-being and Being do real things consist? Not-being, too, has several senses, inasmuch as Being has; and “not-man” means “not so-and-so,” whereas “not straight” means “not such-and-such,” and “not five feet long” means “not of such-and-such a size.” What sort of Being and not-being, then, make existing things a plurality?
ἔδοξε γὰρ αὐτοῖς πάντʼ ἔσεσθαι ἓν τὰ ὄντα, αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν, εἰ μή τις λύσει καὶ ὁμόσε βαδιεῖται τῷ Παρμενίδου λόγῳ οὐ γὰρ μήποτε τοῦτο δαμῇ, εἶναι μὴ ἐόντα, ἀλλʼ ἀνάγκη εἶναι τὸ μὴ ὂν δεῖξαι ὅτι ἔστιν· οὕτω γάρ, ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος καὶ ἄλλου τινός, τὰ ὄντα ἔσεσθαι, εἰ πολλά ἐστιν. καίτοι πρῶτον μέν, εἰ τὸ ὂν πολλαχῶς (τὸ μὲν γὰρ [ὅτι] οὐσίαν σημαίνει, τὸ δʼ ὅτι ποιόν, τὸ δʼ ὅτι ποσόν, καὶ τὰς ἄλλας δὴ κατηγορίας), ποῖον οὖν τὰ ὄντα πάντα ἕν, εἰ μὴ τὸ μὴ ὂν ἔσται; πότερον αἱ οὐσίαι, ἢ τὰ πάθη καὶ τὰ ἄλλα δὴ ὁμοίως, ἢ πάντα, καὶ ἔσται ἓν τὸ τόδε καὶ τὸ τοιόνδε καὶ τὸ τοσόνδε καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἕν τι σημαίνει; ἀλλʼ ἄτοπον, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀδύνατον, τὸ μίαν φύσιν τινὰ γενομένην αἰτίαν εἶναι τοῦ τοῦ ὄντος τὸ μὲν τόδε εἶναι τὸ δὲ τοιόνδε τὸ δὲ τοσόνδε τὸ δὲ πού. ἔπειτα ἐκ ποίου μὴ ὄντος καὶ ὄντος τὰ ὄντα; πολλαχῶς γὰρ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὄν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸ ὄν· καὶ τὸ μὲν μὴ ἄνθρωπον ⟨εἶναι⟩ σημαίνει τὸ μὴ εἶναι τοδί, τὸ δὲ μὴ εὐθὺ τὸ μὴ εἶναι τοιονδί, τὸ δὲ μὴ τρίπηχυ τὸ μὴ εἶναι τοσονδί. ἐκ ποίου οὖν ὄντος καὶ μὴ ὄντος πολλὰ τὰ ὄντα;
This thinker means by the not-being which together with Being makes existing things a plurality, falsity and everything of this nature; and for this reason also it was said that we must assume something which is false, just as geometricians assume that a line is a foot long when it is not. But this cannot be so; for (a) the geometricians do not assume anything that is false (since the proposition is not part of the logical inference ), and (b) existing things are not generated from or resolved into not-being in this sense. But not only has “not-being” in its various cases as many meanings as there are categories, but moreover the false and the potential are called “not-being”; and it is from the latter that generation takes place—man comes to be from that which is not man but is potentially man, and white from that which is not white but is potentially white; no matter whether one thing is generated or many. Clearly the point at issue is how “being” in the sense of the substances is many; for the things that are generated are numbers and lines and bodies. It is absurd to inquire how Being as substance is many, and not how qualities or quantities are many. Surely the indeterminate dyad or the Great and Small is no reason why there should be two whites or many colors or flavors or shapes;
βούλεται μὲν δὴ τὸ ψεῦδος καὶ ταύτην τὴν φύσιν λέγειν τὸ οὐκ ὄν, ἐξ οὗ καὶ τοῦ ὄντος πολλὰ τὰ ὄντα, διὸ καὶ ἐλέγετο ὅτι δεῖ ψεῦδός τι ὑποθέσθαι, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ γεωμέτραι τὸ ποδιαίαν εἶναι τὴν μὴ ποδιαίαν· ἀδύνατον δὲ ταῦθʼ οὕτως ἔχειν, οὔτε γὰρ οἱ γεωμέτραι ψεῦδος οὐθὲν ὑποτίθενται (οὐ γὰρ ἐν τῷ συλλογισμῷ ἡ πρότασις), οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ οὕτω μὴ ὄντος τὰ ὄντα γίγνεται οὐδὲ φθείρεται. ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ τὸ μὲν κατὰ τὰς πτώσεις μὴ ὂν ἰσαχῶς ταῖς κατηγορίαις λέγεται, παρὰ τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ὡς ψεῦδος λέγεται [τὸ] μὴ ὂν καὶ τὸ κατὰ δύναμιν, ἐκ τούτου ἡ γένεσίς ἐστιν, ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ἀνθρώπου δυνάμει δὲ ἀνθρώπου ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ λευκοῦ δυνάμει δὲ λευκοῦ λευκόν, ὁμοίως ἐάν τε ἕν τι γίγνηται ἐάν τε πολλά.—φαίνεται δὲ ἡ ζήτησις πῶς πολλὰ τὸ ὂν τὸ κατὰ τὰς οὐσίας λεγόμενον· ἀριθμοὶ γὰρ καὶ μήκη καὶ σώματα τὰ γεννώμενά ἐστιν. ἄτοπον δὴ τὸ ὅπως μὲν πολλὰ τὸ ὂν τὸ τί ἐστι ζητῆσαι, πῶς δὲ ἢ ποιὰ ἢ ποσά, μή. οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἡ δυὰς ἡ ἀόριστος αἰτία οὐδὲ τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ μικρὸν τοῦ δύο λευκὰ ἢ πολλὰ εἶναι χρώματα ἢ χυμοὺς ἢ σχήματα·
for then these too would be numbers and units. But if the Platonists had pursued this inquiry, they would have perceived the cause of plurality in substances as well; for the cause is the same, or analogous. This deviation of theirs was the reason why in seeking the opposite of Being and unity, from which in combination with Being and unity existing things are derived, they posited the relative (i.e. the unequal), which is neither the contrary nor the negation of Being and unity, but is a single characteristic of existing things, just like substance or quality. They should have investigated this question also; how it is that relations are many, and not one. As it is, they inquire how it is that there are many units besides the primary unity, but not how there are many unequal things besides the Unequal. Yet they employ in their arguments and speak of Great and Small, Many and Few (of which numbers are composed), Long and Short (of which the line is composed), Broad and Narrow (of which the plane is composed), Deep and Shallow (of which solids are composed); and they mention still further kinds of relation. Now what is the cause of plurality in these relations? We must, then, as I say, presuppose in the case of each thing that which is it potentially. The author of this theory further explained what it is that is potentially a particular thing or substance, but is not per se existent—that it is the relative (he might as well have said “quality”); which is neither potentially unity or Being, nor a negation of unity or Being, but just a particular kind of Being.
ἀριθμοὶ γὰρ ἂν καὶ ταῦτα ἦσαν καὶ μονάδες. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ γε ταῦτʼ ἐπῆλθον, εἶδον ἂν τὸ αἴτιον καὶ τὸ ἐν ἐκείνοις· τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ καὶ τὸ ἀνάλογον αἴτιον. αὕτη γὰρ ἡ παρέκβασις αἰτία καὶ τοῦ τὸ ἀντικείμενον ζητοῦντας τῷ ὄντι καὶ τῷ ἑνί, ἐξ οὗ καὶ τούτων τὰ ὄντα, τὸ πρός τι καὶ τὸ ἄνισον ὑποθεῖναι, ὃ οὔτʼ ἐναντίον οὔτʼ ἀπόφασις ἐκείνων, μία τε φύσις τῶν ὄντων ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ τί καὶ τὸ ποῖον. καὶ ζητεῖν ἔδει καὶ τοῦτο, πῶς πολλὰ τὰ πρός τι ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἕν· νῦν δὲ πῶς μὲν πολλαὶ μονάδες παρὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἓν ζητεῖται, πῶς δὲ πολλὰ ἄνισα παρὰ τὸ ἄνισον οὐκέτι. καίτοι χρῶνται καὶ λέγουσι μέγα μικρόν, πολὺ ὀλίγον, ἐξ ὧν οἱ ἀριθμοί, μακρὸν βραχύ, ἐξ ὧν τὸ μῆκος, πλατὺ στενόν, ἐξ ὧν τὸ ἐπίπεδον, βαθὺ ταπεινόν, ἐξ ὧν οἱ ὄγκοι· καὶ ἔτι δὴ πλείω εἴδη λέγουσι τοῦ πρός τι· τούτοις δὴ τί αἴτιον τοῦ πολλὰ εἶναι;—ἀνάγκη μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ λέγομεν, ὑποθεῖναι τὸ δυνάμει ὂν ἑκάστῳ (τοῦτο δὲ προσαπεφήνατο ὁ ταῦτα λέγων, τί τὸ δυνάμει τόδε καὶ οὐσία, μὴ ὂν δὲ καθʼ αὑτό, ὅτι τὸ πρός τι, ὥσπερ εἰ εἶπε τὸ ποιόν, ὃ οὔτε δυνάμει ἐστὶ τὸ ἓν ἢ τὸ ὂν οὔτε ἀπόφασις τοῦ ἑνὸς οὐδὲ τοῦ ὄντος ἀλλʼ ἕν τι τῶν ὄντων), πολύ τε μᾶλλον, ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη, εἰ ἐζήτει πῶς πολλὰ τὰ ὄντα, μὴ τὰ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ κατηγορίᾳ ζητεῖν, πῶς πολλαὶ οὐσίαι ἢ πολλὰ ποιά, ἀλλὰ πῶς πολλὰ τὰ ὄντα·
And it was still more necessary, as we have said, that, if he was inquiring how it is that things are many, he should not confine his inquiry to things in the same category, and ask how it is that substances or qualities are many, but that he should ask how it is that things in general are many; for some things are substances, some affections, and some relations. Now in the case of the other categories there is an additional difficulty in discovering how they are many. For it may be said that since they are not separable, it is because the substrate becomes or is many that qualities and quantities are many; yet there must be some matter for each class of entities, only it cannot be separable from substances. In the case of particular substances, however, it is explicable how the particular thing can be many, if we do not regard a thing both as a particular substance and as a certain characteristic. The real difficulty which arises from these considerations is how substances are actually many and not one. Again, even if a particular thing and a quantity are not the same, it is not explained how and why existing things are many, but only how quantities are many; for all number denotes quantity, and the unit, if it does not mean a measure, means that which is quantitatively indivisible. If, then, quantity and substance are different, it is not explained whence or how substance is many;
τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐσίαι τὰ δὲ πάθη τὰ δὲ πρός τι. ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἄλλων κατηγοριῶν ἔχει τινὰ καὶ ἄλλην ἐπίστασιν πῶς πολλά (διὰ γὰρ τὸ μὴ χωριστὰ εἶναι τῷ τὸ ὑποκείμενον πολλὰ γίγνεσθαι καὶ εἶναι ποιά τε πολλὰ [εἶναι] καὶ ποσά· καίτοι δεῖ γέ τινα εἶναι ὕλην ἑκάστῳ γένει, πλὴν χωριστὴν ἀδύνατον τῶν οὐσιῶν)· ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τῶν τόδε τι ἔχει τινὰ λόγον πῶς πολλὰ τὸ τόδε τι, εἰ μή τι ἔσται καὶ τόδε τι καὶ φύσις τις τοιαύτη· αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἐκεῖθεν μᾶλλον ἡ ἀπορία, πῶς πολλαὶ ἐνεργείᾳ οὐσίαι ἀλλʼ οὐ μία. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ εἰ μὴ ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ τόδε καὶ τὸ ποσόν, οὐ λέγεται πῶς καὶ διὰ τί πολλὰ τὰ ὄντα, ἀλλὰ πῶς ποσὰ πολλά. ὁ γὰρ ἀριθμὸς πᾶς ποσόν τι σημαίνει, καὶ ἡ μονάς, εἰ μὴ μέτρον καὶ τὸ κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν ἀδιαίρετον. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἕτερον τὸ ποσὸν καὶ τὸ τί ἐστιν, οὐ λέγεται τὸ τί ἐστιν ἐκ τίνος οὐδὲ πῶς πολλά·
but if they are the same, he who holds this has to face many logical contradictions. One might fasten also upon the question with respect to numbers, whence we should derive the belief that they exist. For one who posits Ideas, numbers supply a kind of cause for existing things; that is if each of the numbers is a kind of Idea, and the Idea is, in some way or other, the cause of existence for other things; for let us grant them this assumption. But as for him who does not hold this belief, because he can see the difficulties inherent in the Ideal theory (and so has not this reason for positing numbers), and yet posits mathematical number, what grounds have we for believing his statement that there is a number of this kind, and what good is this number to other things? He who maintains its existence does not claim that it is the cause of anything, but regards it as an independent entity; nor can we observe it to be the cause of anything; for the theorems of the arithmeticians will all apply equally well to sensible things, as we have said. Those, then, who posit the Ideas and identify them with numbers, by their assumption (in accordance with their method of abstracting each general term from its several concrete examples) that every general term is a unity, make some attempt to explain why number exists. Since, however, their arguments are neither necessarily true nor indeed possible, there is no justification on this ground for maintaining the existence of number.
εἰ δὲ ταὐτό, πολλὰς ὑπομένει ὁ λέγων ἐναντιώσεις.—ἐπιστήσειε δʼ ἄν τις τὴν σκέψιν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν πόθεν δεῖ λαβεῖν τὴν πίστιν ὡς εἰσίν. τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἰδέας τιθεμένῳ παρέχονταί τινʼ αἰτίαν τοῖς οὖσιν, εἴπερ ἕκαστος τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἰδέα τις ἡ δʼ ἰδέα τοῖς ἄλλοις αἰτία τοῦ εἶναι ὃν δή ποτε τρόπον (ἔστω γὰρ ὑποκείμενον αὐτοῖς τοῦτο)· τῷ δὲ τοῦτον μὲν τὸν τρόπον οὐκ οἰομένῳ διὰ τὸ τὰς ἐνούσας δυσχερείας ὁρᾶν περὶ τὰς ἰδέας ὥστε διά γε ταῦτα μὴ ποιεῖν ἀριθμούς, ποιοῦντι δὲ ἀριθμὸν τὸν μαθηματικόν, πόθεν τε χρὴ πιστεῦσαι ὡς ἔστι τοιοῦτος ἀριθμός, καὶ τί τοῖς ἄλλοις χρήσιμος; οὐθενὸς γὰρ οὔτε φησὶν ὁ λέγων αὐτὸν εἶναι, ἀλλʼ ὡς αὐτήν τινα λέγει καθʼ αὑτὴν φύσιν οὖσαν, οὔτε φαίνεται ὢν αἴτιος· τὰ γὰρ θεωρήματα τῶν ἀριθμητικῶν πάντα καὶ κατὰ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ὑπάρξει, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη. οἱ μὲν οὖν τιθέμενοι τὰς ἰδέας εἶναι, καὶ ἀριθμοὺς αὐτὰς εἶναι, ⟨τῷ⟩ κατὰ τὴν ἔκθεσιν ἑκάστου παρὰ τὰ πολλὰ λαμβάνειν [τὸ] ἕν τι ἕκαστον πειρῶνταί γε λέγειν πως διὰ τί ἔστιν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ ἐπεὶ οὔτε ἀναγκαῖα οὔτε δυνατὰ ταῦτα, οὐδὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν διά γε ταῦτα εἶναι λεκτέον·
The Pythagoreans, on the other hand, observing that many attributes of numbers apply to sensible bodies, assumed that real things are numbers; not that numbers exist separately, but that real things are composed of numbers. But why? Because the attributes of numbers are to be found in a musical scale, in the heavens, and in many other connections. As for those who hold that mathematical number alone exists, they cannot allege anything of this kind consistently with their hypotheses; what they did say was that the sciences could not have sensible things as their objects. But we maintain that they can; as we have said before. And clearly the objects of mathematics do not exist in separation; for if they did their attributes would not be present in corporeal things. Thus in this respect the Pythagoreans are immune from criticism; but in so far as they construct natural bodies, which have lightness and weight, out of numbers which have no weight or lightness, they appear to be treating of another universe and other bodies, not of sensible ones. But those who treat number as separable assume that it exists and is separable because the axioms will not apply to sensible objects; whereas the statements of mathematics are true and appeal to the soul.
οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι διὰ τὸ ὁρᾶν πολλὰ τῶν ἀριθμῶν πάθη ὑπάρχοντα τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς σώμασιν, εἶναι μὲν ἀριθμοὺς ἐποίησαν τὰ ὄντα, οὐ χωριστοὺς δέ, ἀλλʼ ἐξ ἀριθμῶν τὰ ὄντα· διὰ τί δέ; ὅτι τὰ πάθη τὰ τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἐν ἁρμονίᾳ ὑπάρχει καὶ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἄλλοις. τοῖς δὲ τὸν μαθηματικὸν μόνον λέγουσιν εἶναι ἀριθμὸν οὐθὲν τοιοῦτον ἐνδέχεται λέγειν κατὰ τὰς ὑποθέσεις, ἀλλʼ ὅτι οὐκ ἔσονται αὐτῶν αἱ ἐπιστῆμαι ἐλέγετο. ἡμεῖς δέ φαμεν εἶναι, καθάπερ εἴπομεν πρότερον. καὶ δῆλον ὅτι οὐ κεχώρισται τὰ μαθηματικά· οὐ γὰρ ἂν κεχωρισμένων τὰ πάθη ὑπῆρχεν ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν. οἱ μὲν οὖν Πυθαγόρειοι κατὰ μὲν τὸ τοιοῦτον οὐθενὶ ἔνοχοί εἰσιν, κατὰ μέντοι τὸ ποιεῖν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν τὰ φυσικὰ σώματα, ἐκ μὴ ἐχόντων βάρος μηδὲ κουφότητα ἔχοντα κουφότητα καὶ βάρος, ἐοίκασι περὶ ἄλλου οὐρανοῦ λέγειν καὶ σωμάτων ἀλλʼ οὐ τῶν αἰσθητῶν· οἱ δὲ χωριστὸν ποιοῦντες, ὅτι ἐπὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐκ ἔσται τὰ ἀξιώματα, ἀληθῆ δὲ τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ σαίνει τὴν ψυχήν, εἶναί τε ὑπολαμβάνουσι καὶ χωριστὰ εἶναι· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ μεγέθη τὰ μαθηματικά.
The same applies to mathematical extended magnitudes. It is clear, then, both that the contrary theory can make out a case for the contrary view, and that those who hold this theory must find a solution for the difficulty which was recently raised —why it is that while numbers are in no way present in sensible things, their attributes are present in sensible things. There are some who think that, because the point is the limit and extreme of the line, and the line of the plane, and the plane of the solid, there must be entities of this kind. We must, then, examine this argument also, and see whether it is not exceptionally weak. For (1.) extremes are not substances; rather all such things are merely limits. Even walking, and motion in general, has some limit; so on the view which we are criticizing this will be an individual thing, and a kind of substance. But this is absurd. And moreover (2.) even if they are substances, they will all be substances of particular sensible things, since it was to these that the argument applied. Why, then, should they be separable? Again, we may, if we are not unduly acquiescent, further object with regard to all number and mathematical objects that they contribute nothing to each other, the prior to the posterior. For if number does not exist, none the less spatial magnitudes will exist for those who maintain that only the objects of mathematics exist; and if the latter do not exist, the soul and sensible bodies will exist. But it does not appear, to judge from the observed facts, that the natural system lacks cohesion, like a poorly constructed drama.
δῆλον οὖν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἐναντιούμενος λόγος τἀναντία ἐρεῖ, καὶ ὃ ἄρτι ἠπορήθη λυτέον τοῖς οὕτω λέγουσι, διὰ τί οὐδαμῶς ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ὑπαρχόντων τὰ πάθη ὑπάρχει αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς. εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ ἐκ τοῦ πέρατα εἶναι καὶ ἔσχατα τὴν στιγμὴν μὲν γραμμῆς, ταύτην δʼ ἐπιπέδου, τοῦτο δὲ τοῦ στερεοῦ, οἴονται εἶναι ἀνάγκην τοιαύτας φύσεις εἶναι. δεῖ δὴ καὶ τοῦτον ὁρᾶν τὸν λόγον, μὴ λίαν ᾖ μαλακός. οὔτε γὰρ οὐσίαι εἰσὶ τὰ ἔσχατα ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον πάντα ταῦτα πέρατα (ἑπεὶ καὶ τῆς βαδίσεως καὶ ὅλως κινήσεως ἔστι τι πέρας· τοῦτʼ οὖν ἔσται τόδε τι καὶ οὐσία τις· ἀλλʼ ἄτοπον)·—οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ εἰσί, τῶνδε τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἔσονται πάντα (ἐπὶ τούτων γὰρ ὁ λόγος εἴρηκεν)· διὰ τί οὖν χωριστὰ ἔσται;—ἔτι δὲ ἐπιζητήσειεν ἄν τις μὴ λίαν εὐχερὴς ὢν περὶ μὲν τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ παντὸς καὶ τῶν μαθηματικῶν τὸ μηθὲν συμβάλλεσθαι ἀλλήλοις τὰ πρότερα τοῖς ὕστερον (μὴ ὄντος γὰρ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ οὐθὲν ἧττον τὰ μεγέθη ἔσται τοῖς τὰ μαθηματικὰ μόνον εἶναι φαμένοις, καὶ τούτων μὴ ὄντων ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὰ σώματα τὰ αἰσθητά· οὐκ ἔοικε δʼ ἡ φύσις ἐπεισοδιώδης οὖσα ἐκ τῶν φαινομένων, ὥσπερ μοχθηρὰ τραγῳδία)·