Aristotel on Interpreting

7/30/2019 Aristotel on Interpreting

1/31

On Interpretation

By Aristotle

Written 350 BCE

Translated by E. M. Edghill

SECTION 1

Part 1

First we must define the terms

'noun' and 'erb'! then the terms

'denial' and 'affirmation'! then

'"ro"osition' and 'senten#e.'

$"o%en words are the symbols of

mental e&"erien#e and written

words are the symbols of s"o%en

words. ust as all men hae not

the same writing! so all men hae

not the same s"ee#h sounds! but

the mental e&"erien#es! whi#h

these dire#tly symboli(e! are the

same for all! as also are those

things of whi#h our e&"erien#es

are the images.

This matter has! howeer! been

dis#ussed in my treatise about the

soul! for it belongs to an

inestigation distin#t from that

whi#h lies before us.

)s there are in the mind thoughts

whi#h do not inole truth or

falsity! and also those whi#h must

be either true or false! so it is in

s"ee#h.

For truth and falsity im"ly#ombination and se"aration.

*ouns and erbs! "roided nothing

is added! are li%e thoughts without

#ombination or se"aration+ 'man'

and 'white'! as isolated terms! are

not yet either true or false. ,n

"roof of this! #onsider the word

'goat-stag.' ,t has signifi#an#e! but

there is no truth or falsity about

it! unless 'is' or 'is not' is added!

either in the "resent or in some

other tense.

Part 2

By a noun we mean a sound

signifi#ant by #onention! whi#h

has no referen#e to time! and of

whi#h no "art is signifi#ant a"art

from the rest. ,n the noun

'Fairsteed!' the "art 'steed' has no

signifi#an#e in and by itself! as in

the "hrase 'fair steed.' et there is

a differen#e between sim"le and

#om"osite nouns+ for in the former

the "art is in no way signifi#ant! in

the latter it #ontributes to the

meaning of the whole! although it

has not an inde"endent meaning.

/


2/31

Thus in the word '"irate-boat' the

word 'boat' has no meaning ee"t

as "art of the whole word.

The limitation 'by #onention' was

introdu#ed be#ause nothing is by

nature a noun or name-it is only so

when it be#omes a symbol+

inarti#ulate sounds! su#h as those

whi#h brutes "rodu#e! are

signifi#ant! yet none of these

#onstitutes a noun.

The e&"ression 'not-man' is not a

noun. There is indeed no

re#ogni(ed term by whi#h we may

denote su#h an e&"ression! for it is

not a senten#e or a denial. et it

then be #alled an indefinite noun.

The e&"ressions 'of 1hilo'! 'to

1hilo'! and so on! #onstitute not

nouns! but #ases of a noun. The

definition of these #ases of a noun

is in other res"e#ts the same as

that of the noun "ro"er! but!

when #ou"led with 'is'! 'was'! or

will be'! they do not! as they are!

form a "ro"osition either true or

false! and this the noun "ro"er

always does! under these

#onditions. Ta%e the words 'of

1hilo is' or 'of or 'of 1hilo is not'+

these words do not! as they stand!

form either a true or a false

"ro"osition.

Part 3

) erb is that whi#h! in addition to

its "ro"er meaning! #arries with it

the notion of time. *o "art of it

has any inde"endent meaning! and

it is a sign of something said of

something else.

, will e&"lain what , mean by

saying that it #arries with it the

notion of time. '2ealth' is a noun!

but 'is healthy' is a erb+ for

besides its "ro"er meaning it

indi#ates the "resent e&isten#e of

the state in uestion.

Moreoer! a erb is always a sign

of something said of something

else! i.e. of something either

"redi#able of or "resent in some

other thing.

$u#h e&"ressions as 'is not-

healthy'! 'is not! ill'! , do not

des#ribe as erbs+ for though they

#arry the additional note of time!

and always form a "redi#ate!

there is no s"e#ified name for this

ariety+ but let them be #alled

4


3/31

indefinite erbs! sin#e they a""ly

eually well to that whi#h e&ists

and to that whi#h does not.

$imilarly 'he was healthy'! 'he will

be healthy'! are not erbs! but

tenses of a erb+ the differen#e

lies in the fa#t that the erb

indi#ates "resent time! while the

tenses of the erb indi#ate those

times whi#h lie outside the

"resent.

erbs in and by themseles are

substantial and hae signifi#an#e!

for he who uses su#h e&"ressions

arrests the hearer's mind! and

fi&es his attention+ but they do

not! as they stand! e&"ress any

6udgement! either "ositie or

negatie. For neither are 'to be'

and 'not to be' the "arti#i"le

'being' signifi#ant of any fa#t!

unless something is added+ for

they do not themseles indi#ate

anything! but im"ly a #o"ulation!

of whi#h we #annot form a

#on#e"tion a"art from the things

#ou"led.

Part 4

) senten#e is a signifi#ant "ortion

of s"ee#h! some "arts of whi#h

hae an inde"endent meaning!

that is to say! as an utteran#e!

though not as the e&"ression of

any "ositie 6udgement. et me

e&"lain. The word 'human' has

meaning! but does not #onstitute a

"ro"osition! either "ositie or

negatie. ,t is only when other

words are added that the whole

will form an affirmation or denial.

But if we se"arate one syllable of

the word 'human' from the other!

it has no meaning+ similarly in the

word 'mouse'! the "art 'ouse' has

no meaning in itself! but is merely

a sound. ,n #om"osite words!

indeed! the "arts #ontribute to the

meaning of the whole+ yet! as has

been "ointed out! they hae not

an inde"endent meaning.

Eery senten#e has meaning! not

as being the natural means by

whi#h a "hysi#al fa#ulty is

reali(ed! but! as we hae said! by

#onention. et eery senten#e is

not a "ro"osition+ only su#h are

"ro"ositions as hae in them

either truth or falsity. Thus a

"rayer is a senten#e! but is neither

true nor false.

3


4/31

et us therefore dismiss all other

ty"es of senten#e but the

"ro"osition! for this last #on#erns

our "resent inuiry! whereas the

inestigation of the others belongs

rather to the study of rhetori# or

of "oetry.

Part 5

The first #lass of sim"le

"ro"ositions is the sim"le

affirmation! the ne&t! the sim"le

denial+ all others are only one by

#on6un#tion.

Eery "ro"osition must #ontain a

erb or the tense of a erb. The

"hrase whi#h defines the s"e#ies

'man'! if no erb in "resent! "ast!

or future time be added! is not a

"ro"osition. ,t may be as%ed how

the e&"ression 'a footed animal

with two feet' #an be #alled single+

for it is not the #ir#umstan#e that

the words follow in unbro%en

su##ession that effe#ts the unity.

This inuiry! howeer! finds its

"la#e in an inestigation foreign to

that before us.

We #all those "ro"ositions single

whi#h indi#ate a single fa#t! or the

#on6un#tion of the "arts of whi#h

results in unity7 those

"ro"ositions! on the other hand!

are se"arate and many in number!

whi#h indi#ate many fa#ts! or

whose "arts hae no #on6un#tion.

et us! moreoer! #onsent to #all a

noun or a erb an e&"ression only!

and not a "ro"osition! sin#e it is

not "ossible for a man to s"ea% in

this way when he is e&"ressing

something! in su#h a way as to

ma%e a statement! whether his

utteran#e is an answer to a

uestion or an a#t of his own

initiation.

To return7 of "ro"ositions one %ind

is sim"le! i.e. that whi#h asserts

or denies something of something!

the other #om"osite! i.e. that

whi#h is #om"ounded of sim"le

"ro"ositions. ) sim"le "ro"osition

is a statement! with meaning! as

to the "resen#e of something in a

sub6e#t or its absen#e! in the

"resent! "ast! or future! a##ording

to the diisions of time.

8


5/31

Part 6

)n affirmation is a "ositie

assertion of something about

something! a denial a negatie

assertion.

*ow it is "ossible both to affirm

and to deny the "resen#e of

something whi#h is "resent or of

something whi#h is not! and sin#e

these same affirmations and

denials are "ossible with referen#e

to those times whi#h lie outside

the "resent! it would be "ossible

to #ontradi#t any affirmation or

denial. Thus it is "lain that eery

affirmation has an o""osite denial!

and similarly eery denial an

o""osite affirmation.

We will #all su#h a "air of

"ro"ositions a "air of

#ontradi#tories. Those "ositie and

negatie "ro"ositions are said to

be #ontradi#tory whi#h hae the

same sub6e#t and "redi#ate. The

identity of sub6e#t and of

"redi#ate must not be 'euio#al'.

,ndeed there are definitie

ualifi#ations besides this! whi#h

we ma%e to meet the #asuistries

of so"hists.

Part 7

$ome things are uniersal! others

indiidual. By the term 'uniersal' ,

mean that whi#h is of su#h a

nature as to be "redi#ated of

many sub6e#ts! by 'indiidual' that

whi#h is not thus "redi#ated. Thus

'man' is a uniersal! 'Callias' an

indiidual.

9ur "ro"ositions ne#essarily

sometimes #on#ern a uniersal

sub6e#t! sometimes an indiidual.

,f! then! a man states a "ositie

and a negatie "ro"osition of

uniersal #hara#ter with regard to

a uniersal! these two "ro"ositions

are '#ontrary'. By the e&"ression 'a

"ro"osition of uniersal #hara#ter

with regard to a uniersal'! su#h

"ro"ositions as 'eery man is

white'! 'no man is white' are

meant. When! on the other hand!

the "ositie and negatie

"ro"ositions! though they hae

regard to a uniersal! are yet not

of uniersal #hara#ter! they will

not be #ontrary! albeit the

meaning intended is sometimes

#ontrary. )s instan#es of

"ro"ositions made with regard to a

5


6/31

uniersal! but not of uniersal

#hara#ter! we may ta%e the

'"ro"ositions 'man is white'! 'man is

not white'. 'Man' is a uniersal! but

the "ro"osition is not made as of

uniersal #hara#ter+ for the word

'eery' does not ma%e the sub6e#t

a uniersal! but rather gies the

"ro"osition a uniersal #hara#ter.

,f! howeer! both "redi#ate and

sub6e#t are distributed! the

"ro"osition thus #onstituted is

#ontrary to truth+ no affirmation

will! under su#h #ir#umstan#es! be

true.

The "ro"osition 'eery man is

eery animal' is an e&am"le of this

ty"e.

)n affirmation is o""osed to a

denial in the sense whi#h , denote

by the term '#ontradi#tory'! when!

while the sub6e#t remains the

same! the affirmation is of

uniersal #hara#ter and the denial

is not. The affirmation 'eery man

is white' is the #ontradi#tory of the

denial 'not eery man is white'! or

again! the "ro"osition 'no man is

white' is the #ontradi#tory of the

"ro"osition 'some men are white'.

But "ro"ositions are o""osed as

#ontraries when both the

affirmation and the denial are

uniersal! as in the senten#es

'eery man is white'! 'no man is

white'! 'eery man is 6ust'! 'no man

is 6ust'.

We see that in a "air of this sort

both "ro"ositions #annot be true!

but the #ontradi#tories of a "air of

#ontraries #an sometimes both be

true with referen#e to the same

sub6e#t+ for instan#e 'not eery

man is white' and some men are

white' are both true. 9f su#h

#orres"onding "ositie and

negatie "ro"ositions as refer to

uniersals and hae a uniersal

#hara#ter+ one must be true and

the other false. This is the #ase

also when the referen#e is to

indiiduals! as in the "ro"ositions

'$o#rates is white'! '$o#rates is not

white'.

When! on the other hand! the

referen#e is to uniersals! but the

"ro"ositions are not uniersal! it is

not always the #ase that one is

true and the other false! for it is

"ossible to state truly that man is

white and that man is not white

and that man is beautiful and that

man is not beautiful+ for if a man

is deformed he is the reerse of

:


7/31

beautiful! also if he is "rogressing

towards beauty he is not yet

beautiful.

This statement might seem at first

sight to #arry with it a

#ontradi#tion! owing to the fa#t

that the "ro"osition 'man is not

white' a""ears to be euialent to

the "ro"osition 'no man is white'.

This! howeer! is not the #ase! nor

are they ne#essarily at the same

time true or false.

,t is eident also that the denial

#orres"onding to a single

affirmation is itself single+ for the

denial must deny 6ust that whi#h

the affirmation affirms #on#erning

the same sub6e#t! and must

#orres"ond with the affirmation

both in the uniersal or "arti#ular

#hara#ter of the sub6e#t and in the

distributed or undistributed sense

in whi#h it is understood.

For instan#e! the affirmation

'$o#rates is white' has its "ro"er

denial in the "ro"osition '$o#rates

is not white'. ,f anything else be

negatiely "redi#ated of the

sub6e#t or if anything else be the

sub6e#t though the "redi#ate

remain the same! the denial will

not be the denial "ro"er to that

affirmation! but on that is

distin#t.

The denial "ro"er to the

affirmation 'eery man is white' is

'not eery man is white'+ that

"ro"er to the affirmation 'some

men are white' is 'no man is white'!

while that "ro"er to the

affirmation 'man is white' is 'man is

not white'.

We hae shown further that a

single denial is #ontradi#torily

o""osite to a single affirmation

and we hae e&"lained whi#h

these are+ we hae also stated

that #ontrary are distin#t from

#ontradi#tory "ro"ositions and

whi#h the #ontrary are+ also that

with regard to a "air of o""osite

"ro"ositions it is not always the

#ase that one is true and the other

false. We hae "ointed out!

moreoer! what the reason of this

is and under what #ir#umstan#es

the truth of the one inoles the

falsity of the other.

;


8/31

Part 8

)n affirmation or denial is single!

if it indi#ates some one fa#t about

some one sub6e#t+ it matters not

whether the sub6e#t is uniersal

and whether the statement has a

uniersal #hara#ter! or whether

this is not so. $u#h single

"ro"ositions are7 'eery man is

white'! 'not eery man is white'+'

man is white'! 'man is not white'+

'no man is white'! 'some men are

white'+ "roided the word 'white'

has one meaning.

,f! on the other hand! one word

has two meanings whi#h do not

#ombine to form one! the

affirmation is not single. For

instan#e! if a man should establish

the symbol 'garment' as signifi#ant

both of a horse and of a man! the

"ro"osition 'garment is white'

would not be a single affirmation!

nor its o""osite a single denial.

For it is euialent to the

"ro"osition 'horse and man are

white'! whi#h! again! is euialent

to the two "ro"ositions 'horse is

white'! 'man is white'. ,f! then!

these two "ro"ositions hae more

than a single signifi#an#e! and do

not form a single "ro"osition! it is

"lain that the first "ro"osition

either has more than one

signifi#an#e or else has none+ for a

"arti#ular man is not a horse.

This! then! is another instan#e of

those "ro"ositions of whi#h both

the "ositie and the negatie

forms may be true or false

simultaneously.

Part 9

,n the #ase of that whi#h is or

whi#h has ta%en "la#e!

"ro"ositions! whether "ositie or

negatie! must be true or false.

)gain! in the #ase of a "air of

#ontradi#tories! either when the

sub6e#t is uniersal and the

"ro"ositions are of a uniersal

#hara#ter! or when it is indiidual!

as has been said!' one of the two

must be true and the other false+

whereas when the sub6e#t is

uniersal! but the "ro"ositions are

not of a uniersal #hara#ter! there

is no su#h ne#essity. We hae

dis#ussed this ty"e also in a

"reious #ha"ter.

When the sub6e#t! howeer! is

indiidual! and that whi#h is


9/31

"redi#ated of it relates to the

future! the #ase is altered. For if

all "ro"ositions whether "ositie

or negatie are either true or

false! then any gien "redi#ate

must either belong to the sub6e#t

or not! so that if one man affirms

that an eent of a gien #hara#ter

will ta%e "la#e and another denies

it! it is "lain that the statement of

the one will #orres"ond with

reality and that of the other will

not. For the "redi#ate #annot both

belong and not belong to the

sub6e#t at one and the same time

with regard to the future.

Thus! if it is true to say that a

thing is white! it must ne#essarily

be white+ if the reerse

"ro"osition is true! it will of

ne#essity not be white. )gain! if it

is white! the "ro"osition stating

that it is white was true+ if it is

not white! the "ro"osition to the

o""osite effe#t was true. )nd if it

is not white! the man who states

that it is ma%ing a false

statement+ and if the man who

states that it is white is ma%ing a

false statement! it follows that it

is not white. ,t may therefore be

argued that it is ne#essary that

affirmations or denials must be

either true or false.

*ow if this be so! nothing is or

ta%es "la#e fortuitously! either in

the "resent or in the future! and

there are no real alternaties+

eerything ta%es "la#e of ne#essity

and is fi&ed. For either he that

affirms that it will ta%e "la#e or

he that denies this is in

#orres"onden#e with fa#t!

whereas if things did not ta%e

"la#e of ne#essity! an eent might

6ust as easily not ha""en as

ha""en+ for the meaning of the

word 'fortuitous' with regard to

"resent or future eents is that

reality is so #onstituted that it

may issue in either of two o""osite

dire#tions. )gain! if a thing is

white now! it was true before to

say that it would be white! so that

of anything that has ta%en "la#e it

was always true to say 'it is' or 'it

will be'. But if it was always true

to say that a thing is or will be! it

is not "ossible that it should not

be or not be about to be! and

when a thing #annot not #ome to

be! it is im"ossible that it should

not #ome to be! and when it is

im"ossible that it should not #ome

=


10/31

to be! it must #ome to be. )ll!

then! that is about to be must of

ne#essity ta%e "la#e. ,t results

from this that nothing is un#ertain

or fortuitous! for if it were

fortuitous it would not be

ne#essary.

)gain! to say that neither the

affirmation nor the denial is true!

maintaining! let us say! that an

eent neither will ta%e "la#e nor

will not ta%e "la#e! is to ta%e u" a

"osition im"ossible to defend.

,n the first "la#e! though fa#ts

should "roe the one "ro"osition

false! the o""osite would still be

untrue. $e#ondly! if it was true to

say that a thing was both white

and large! both these ualities

must ne#essarily belong to it+ and

if they will belong to it the ne&t

day! they must ne#essarily belong

to it the ne&t day. But if an eent

is neither to ta%e "la#e nor not to

ta%e "la#e the ne&t day! the

element of #han#e will be

eliminated. For e&am"le! it would

be ne#essary that a sea-fight

should neither ta%e "la#e nor fail

to ta%e "la#e on the ne&t day.

These aw%ward results and others

of the same %ind follow! if it is an

irrefragable law that of eery "air

of #ontradi#tory "ro"ositions!

whether they hae regard to

uniersals and are stated as

uniersally a""li#able! or whether

they hae regard to indiiduals!

one must be true and the other

false! and that there are no real

alternaties! but that all that is or

ta%es "la#e is the out#ome of

ne#essity. There would be no need

to deliberate or to ta%e trouble!

on the su""osition that if we

should ado"t a #ertain #ourse! a

#ertain result would follow! while!

if we did not! the result would not

follow. For a man may "redi#t

an eent ten thousand years

beforehand! and another may

"redi#t the reerse+ that whi#h

was truly "redi#ted at the moment

in the "ast will of ne#essity ta%e

"la#e in the fullness of time.

Further! it ma%es no differen#e

whether "eo"le hae or hae not

a#tually made the #ontradi#tory

statements. For it is manifest that

the #ir#umstan#es are not

influen#ed by the fa#t of an

affirmation or denial on the "art

of anyone. For eents will not ta%e

"la#e or fail to ta%e "la#e be#ause

/0


11/31

it was stated that they would or

would not ta%e "la#e! nor is this

any more the #ase if the

"redi#tion dates ba#% ten

thousand years or any other s"a#e

of time. Wherefore! if through all

time the nature of things was so

#onstituted that a "redi#tion

about an eent was true! then

through all time it was ne#essary

that that should find fulfilment+

and with regard to all eents!

#ir#umstan#es hae always been

su#h that their o##urren#e is a

matter of ne#essity. For that of

whi#h someone has said truly that

it will be! #annot fail to ta%e

"la#e+ and of that whi#h ta%es

"la#e! it was always true to say

that it would be.

et this iew leads to an

im"ossible #on#lusion+ for we see

that both deliberation and a#tion

are #ausatie with regard to the

future! and that! to s"ea% more

generally! in those things whi#h

are not #ontinuously a#tual there

is "otentiality in either dire#tion.

$u#h things may either be or not

be+ eents also therefore may

either ta%e "la#e or not ta%e

"la#e. There are many obious

instan#es of this. ,t is "ossible that

this #oat may be #ut in half! and

yet it may not be #ut in half! but

wear out first. ,n the same way! it

is "ossible that it should not be

#ut in half+ unless this were so! it

would not be "ossible that it

should wear out first. $o it is

therefore with all other eents

whi#h "ossess this %ind of

"otentiality. ,t is therefore "lain

that it is not of ne#essity that

eerything is or ta%es "la#e+ but in

some instan#es there are real

alternaties! in whi#h #ase the

affirmation is no more true and no

more false than the denial+ while

some e&hibit a "redis"osition and

general tenden#y in one dire#tion

or the other! and yet #an issue in

the o""osite dire#tion by

ee"tion.

*ow that whi#h is must needs be

when it is! and that whi#h is not

must needs not be when it is not.

et it #annot be said without

ualifi#ation that all e&isten#e and

non-e&isten#e is the out#ome of

ne#essity. For there is a differen#e

between saying that that whi#h is!

when it is! must needs be! and

sim"ly saying that all that is must

//


12/31

needs be! and similarly in the #ase

of that whi#h is not. ,n the #ase!

also! of two #ontradi#tory

"ro"ositions this holds good.

Eerything must either be or not

be! whether in the "resent or in

the future! but it is not always

"ossible to distinguish and state

determinately whi#h of these

alternaties must ne#essarily #ome

about.

et me illustrate. ) sea-fight must

either ta%e "la#e to-morrow or

not! but it is not ne#essary that it

should ta%e "la#e to-morrow!

neither is it ne#essary that it

should not ta%e "la#e! yet it is

ne#essary that it either should or

should not ta%e "la#e to-morrow.

$in#e "ro"ositions #orres"ond with

fa#ts! it is eident that when in

future eents there is a real

alternatie! and a "otentiality in

#ontrary dire#tions! the

#orres"onding affirmation and

denial hae the same #hara#ter.

This is the #ase with regard to that

whi#h is not always e&istent or not

always none&istent. 9ne of the

two "ro"ositions in su#h instan#es

must be true and the other false!

but we #annot say determinately

that this or that is false! but must

leae the alternatie unde#ided.

9ne may indeed be more li%ely to

be true than the other! but it

#annot be either a#tually true or

a#tually false. ,t is therefore "lain

that it is not ne#essary that of an

affirmation and a denial one

should be true and the other false.

For in the #ase of that whi#h e&ists

"otentially! but not a#tually! the

rule whi#h a""lies to that whi#h

e&ists a#tually does not hold good.

The #ase is rather as we hae

indi#ated.

Part 1

)n affirmation is the statement of

a fa#t with regard to a sub6e#t!

and this sub6e#t is either a noun or

that whi#h has no name+ the

sub6e#t and "redi#ate in an

affirmation must ea#h denote a

single thing. , hae already

e&"lained' what is meant by a

noun and by that whi#h has no

name+ for , stated that the

e&"ression 'not-man' was not a

noun! in the "ro"er sense of the

word! but an indefinite noun!

denoting as it does in a #ertain

/4


13/31

sense a single thing. $imilarly the

e&"ression 'does not en6oy health'

is not a erb "ro"er! but an

indefinite erb. Eery affirmation!

then! and eery denial! will

#onsist of a noun and a erb!

either definite or indefinite.

There #an be no affirmation or

denial without a erb+ for the

e&"ressions 'is'! 'will be'! 'was'! 'is

#oming to be'! and the li%e are

erbs a##ording to our definition!

sin#e besides their s"e#ifi#

meaning they #oney the notion of

time. Thus the "rimary affirmation

and denial are 'as follows7 'man is'!

'man is not'. *e&t to these! there

are the "ro"ositions7 'not-man is'!

'not-man is not'. )gain we hae the

"ro"ositions7 'eery man is! 'eery

man is not'! 'all that is not-man is'!

'all that is not-man is not'. The

same #lassifi#ation holds good

with regard to su#h "eriods of

time as lie outside the "resent.

When the erb 'is' is used as a third

element in the senten#e! there

#an be "ositie and negatie

"ro"ositions of two sorts. Thus in

the senten#e 'man is 6ust' the erb

'is' is used as a third element! #all

it erb or noun! whi#h you will.

Four "ro"ositions! therefore!

instead of two #an be formed with

these materials. Two of the four!

as regards their affirmation and

denial! #orres"ond in their logi#al

seuen#e with the "ro"ositions

whi#h deal with a #ondition of

"riation+ the other two do not

#orres"ond with these.

, mean that the erb 'is' is added

either to the term '6ust' or to the

term 'not-6ust'! and two negatie

"ro"ositions are formed in the

same way. Thus we hae the four

"ro"ositions. >eferen#e to the

sub6oined table will ma%e matters

#lear7

A! A""ir#ation B! $enial %an is

&'st %an is not &'st ( ) * ) ( $!

$enial C! A""ir#ation %an is

not not+&'st %an is not+&'st

,ere -is- an. -is not- are a..e.

eit/er to -&'st- or to -not+&'st-!

This then is the "ro"er s#heme for

these "ro"ositions! as has been

said in the )nalyti#s. The same

rule holds good! if the sub6e#t

isdistributed. Thus we hae the

table7

/3


14/31

A-! A""ir#ation B-! $enial

E0ery #an is &'st Not e0ery

#an is &'st ( ) * $-! $enial ) (

C-! A""ir#ation

*ot eery man is not-6ust Eery

man is not-6ust et here it is not

"ossible! in the same way as in the

former #ase! that the "ro"ositions

6oined in the table by a diagonal

line should both be true+ thoughunder #ertain #ir#umstan#es this is

the #ase.

We hae thus set out two "airs of

o""osite "ro"ositions+ there are

moreoer two other "airs! if a

term be #on6oined with 'not-man'!

the latter forming a %ind of

sub6e#t. Thus7

A! B! Not+#an is &'st

Not+#an is not &'st (

) + *

$! ) ( C! Not+#an is not

not+&'st Not+#an is not+&'st

This is an e&haustie enumeration

of all the "airs of o""osite

"ro"ositions that #an "ossibly be

framed. This last grou" should

remain distin#t from those whi#h

"re#eded it! sin#e it em"loys as its

sub6e#t the e&"ression 'not-man'.

When the erb 'is' does not fit the

stru#ture of the senten#e ?for

instan#e! when the erbs 'wal%s'!

'en6oys health' are used@! that

s#heme a""lies! whi#h a""lied

when the word 'is' was added.

Thus we hae the "ro"ositions7

'eery man en6oys health'! 'eery

man does-not-en6oy-health'! 'all

that is not-man en6oys health'! 'all

that is not-man does-not-en6oy-

health'. We must not in these

"ro"ositions use the e&"ression

'not eery man'. The negatie must

be atta#hed to the word 'man'! for

the word 'eery' does not gie to

the sub6e#t a uniersal

signifi#an#e! but im"lies that! as a

sub6e#t! it is distributed.

This is "lain from the following

"airs7 'man en6oys health'! 'man

does not en6oy health'+ 'not-man

en6oys health'! 'not man does not

en6oy health'. These "ro"ositions

differ from the former in being

indefinite and not uniersal in

#hara#ter. Thus the ad6e#ties

'eery' and no additional

signifi#an#e ee"t that the

sub6e#t! whether in a "ositie or

/8


15/31

in a negatie senten#e! is

distributed. The rest of the

senten#e! therefore! will in ea#h

#ase be the same.

$in#e the #ontrary of the

"ro"osition 'eery animal is 6ust' is

'no animal is 6ust'! it is "lain that

these two "ro"ositions will neer

both be true at the same time or

with referen#e to the same

sub6e#t. $ometimes! howeer! the

#ontradi#tories of these #ontraries

will both be true! as in the

instan#e before us7 the

"ro"ositions 'not eery animal is

6ust' and 'some animals are 6ust'

are both true.

Further! the "ro"osition 'no man is

6ust' follows from the "ro"osition

'eery man is not 6ust' and the

"ro"osition 'not eery man is not

6ust'! whi#h is the o""osite of

'eery man is not-6ust'! follows

from the "ro"osition 'some men

are 6ust'+ for if this be true! there

must be some 6ust men.

,t is eident! also! that when the

sub6e#t is indiidual! if a uestion

is as%ed and the negatie answer

is the true one! a #ertain "ositie

"ro"osition is also true. Thus! if

the uestion were as%ed $o#rates

wiseA' and the negatie answer

were the true one! the "ositie

inferen#e 'Then $o#rates is unwise'

is #orre#t. But no su#h inferen#e is

#orre#t in the #ase of uniersals!

but rather a negatie "ro"osition.

For instan#e! if to the uestion ',s

eery man wiseA' the answer is 'no'!

the inferen#e 'Then eery man is

unwise' is false. But under these

#ir#umstan#es the inferen#e '*ot

eery man is wise' is #orre#t. This

last is the #ontradi#tory! the

former the #ontrary. *egatie

e&"ressions! whi#h #onsist of an

indefinite noun or "redi#ate! su#h

as 'not-man' or 'not-6ust'! may

seem to be denials #ontaining

neither noun nor erb in the

"ro"er sense of the words. But

they are not. For a denial must

always be either true or false! and

he that uses the e&"ression 'not

man'! if nothing more be added! is

not nearer but rather further from

ma%ing a true or a false statement

than he who uses the e&"ression

'man'.

The "ro"ositions 'eerything that is

not man is 6ust'! and the

#ontradi#tory of this! are not

/5


16/31

euialent to any of the other

"ro"ositions+ on the other hand!

the "ro"osition 'eerything that is

not man is not 6ust' is euialent

to the "ro"osition 'nothing that is

not man is 6ust'.

The #onersion of the "osition of

sub6e#t and "redi#ate in a

senten#e inoles no differen#e in

its meaning. Thus we say 'man is

white' and 'white is man'. ,f these

were not euialent! there would

be more than one #ontradi#tory to

the same "ro"osition! whereas it

has been demonstrated' that ea#h

"ro"osition has one "ro"er

#ontradi#tory and one only. For of

the "ro"osition 'man is white' the

a""ro"riate #ontradi#tory is 'man

is not white'! and of the

"ro"osition 'white is man'! if its

meaning be different! the

#ontradi#tory will either be 'white

is not not-man' or 'white is not

man'. *ow the former of these is

the #ontradi#tory of the

"ro"osition 'white is not-man'! and

the latter of these is the

#ontradi#tory of the "ro"osition

'man is white'+ thus there will be

two #ontradi#tories to one

"ro"osition.

,t is eident! therefore! that the

inersion of the relatie "osition

of sub6e#t and "redi#ate does not

affe#t the sense of affirmations

and denials.

/:


17/31

SECTION 2

Part 11

There is no unity about an

affirmation or denial whi#h! either

"ositiely or negatiely!

"redi#ates one thing of many

sub6e#ts! or many things of the

same sub6e#t! unless that whi#h is

indi#ated by the many is really

some one thing. do not a""ly this

word 'one' to those things whi#h!

though they hae a single

re#ogni(ed name! yet do not

#ombine to form a unity. Thus!

man may be an animal! and bi"ed!

and domesti#ated! but these three

"redi#ates #ombine to form a

unity. 9n the other hand! the

"redi#ates 'white'! 'man'! and

'wal%ing' do not thus #ombine.

*either! therefore! if these three

form the sub6e#t of an

affirmation! nor if they form its

"redi#ate! is there any unity about

that affirmation. ,n both #ases the

unity is linguisti#! but not real.

,f therefore the diale#ti#al

uestion is a reuest for an

answer! i.e. either for the

admission of a "remiss or for the

admission of one of two

#ontradi#tories-and the "remiss is

itself always one of two

#ontradi#tories-the answer to su#h

a uestion as #ontains the aboe

"redi#ates #annot be a single

"ro"osition. For as , hae

e&"lained in the To"i#s! uestion

is not a single one! een if the

answer as%ed for is true.

)t the same time it is "lain that a

uestion of the form 'what is itA' is

not a diale#ti#al uestion! for a

diale#ti#al uestioner must by the

form of his uestion gie his

o""onent the #han#e of

announ#ing one of two

alternaties! whi#heer he wishes.

2e must therefore "ut the

uestion into a more definite

form! and inuire! e.g. whether

man has su#h and su#h a

#hara#teristi# or not.

$ome #ombinations of "redi#ates

are su#h that the se"arate

"redi#ates unite to form a single

"redi#ate. et us #onsider under

what #onditions this is and is not

"ossible. We may either state in

two se"arate "ro"ositions that

man is an animal and that man is a

/;


18/31

bi"ed! or we may #ombine the

two! and state that man is an

animal with two feet. $imilarly we

may use 'man' and 'white' as

se"arate "redi#ates! or unite them

into one.

et if a man is a shoema%er and is

also good! we #annot #onstru#t a

#om"osite "ro"osition and say that

he is a good shoema%er. For if!

wheneer two se"arate "redi#ates

truly belong to a sub6e#t! it

follows that the "redi#ate

resulting from their #ombination

also truly belongs to the sub6e#t!

many absurd results ensue. For

instan#e! a man is man and white.

Therefore! if "redi#ates may

always be #ombined! he is a white

man. )gain! if the "redi#ate

'white' belongs to him! then the

#ombination of that "redi#ate with

the former #om"osite "redi#ate

will be "ermissible. Thus it will be

right to say that he is a white man

so on indefinitely. 9r! again! we

may #ombine the "redi#ates

'musi#al'! 'white'! and 'wal%ing'!

and these may be #ombined many

times. $imilarly we may say that

$o#rates is $o#rates and a man!

and that therefore he is the man

$o#rates! or that $o#rates is a man

and a bi"ed! and that therefore he

is a two-footed man. Thus it is

manifest that if man states

un#onditionally that "redi#ates

#an always be #ombined! many

absurd #onseuen#es ensue.

We will now e&"lain what ought to

be laid down. Those "redi#ates!

and terms forming the sub6e#t of

"redi#ation! whi#h are a##idental

either to the same sub6e#t or to

one another! do not #ombine to

form a unity. Ta%e the "ro"osition

'man is white of #om"le&ion and

musi#al'. Whiteness and being

musi#al do not #oales#e to form a

unity! for they belong only

a##identally to the same sub6e#t.

*or yet! if it were true to say that

that whi#h is white is musi#al!

would the terms 'musi#al' and

'white' form a unity! for it is only

in#identally that that whi#h is

musi#al is white+ the #ombination

of the two will! therefore! not

form a unity.

Thus! again! whereas! if a man is

both good and a shoema%er! we

#annot #ombine the two

"ro"ositions and say sim"ly that

he is a good shoema%er! we are! at

the same time! able to #ombine

/


19/31

the "redi#ates 'animal' and 'bi"ed'

and say that a man is an animal

with two feet! for these

"redi#ates are not a##idental.

Those "redi#ates! again! #annot

form a unity! of whi#h the one is

im"li#it in the other7 thus we

#annot #ombine the "redi#ate

'white' again and again with that

whi#h already #ontains the notion

'white'! nor is it right to #all a man

an animal-man or a two-footed

man+ for the notions 'animal' and

'bi"ed' are im"li#it in the word

'man'. 9n the other hand! it is

"ossible to "redi#ate a term

sim"ly of any one instan#e! and to

say that some one "arti#ular man

is a man or that some one white

man is a white man.

et this is not always "ossible7

indeed! when in the ad6un#t there

is some o""osite whi#h inoles a

#ontradi#tion! the "redi#ation of

the sim"le term is im"ossible.

Thus it is not right to #all a dead

man a man. When! howeer! this

is not the #ase! it is not

im"ossible.

et the fa#ts of the #ase might

rather be stated thus7 when some

su#h o""osite elements are

"resent! resolution is neer

"ossible! but when they are not

"resent! resolution is neertheless

not always "ossible.

Ta%e the "ro"osition '2omer is so-

and-so'! say 'a "oet'+ does it follow

that 2omer is! or does it notA The

erb 'is' is here used of 2omer only

in#identally! the "ro"osition being

that 2omer is a "oet! not that he

is! in the inde"endent sense of the

word.

Thus! in the #ase of those

"redi#ations whi#h hae within

them no #ontradi#tion when the

nouns are e&"anded into

definitions! and wherein the

"redi#ates belong to the sub6e#t in

their own "ro"er sense and not in

any indire#t way! the indiidual

may be the sub6e#t of the sim"le

"ro"ositions as well as of the

#om"osite. But in the #ase of that

whi#h is not! it is not true to say

that be#ause it is the ob6e#t of

o"inion! it is+ for the o"inion held

about it is that it is not! not that it

is.

/=


20/31

Part 12

)s these distin#tions hae been

made! we must #onsider the

mutual relation of those

affirmations and denials whi#h

assert or deny "ossibility or

#ontingen#y! im"ossibility or

ne#essity7 for the sub6e#t is not

without diffi#ulty.

We admit that of #om"osite

e&"ressions those are

#ontradi#tory ea#h to ea#h whi#h

hae the erb 'to be' its "ositie

and negatie form res"e#tiely.

Thus the #ontradi#tory of the

"ro"osition 'man is' is 'man is not'!

not 'not-man is'! and the

#ontradi#tory of 'man is white' is

'man is not white'! not 'man is not-

white'. For otherwise! sin#e either

the "ositie or the negatie

"ro"osition is true of any sub6e#t!

it will turn out true to say that a

"ie#e of wood is a man that is not

white.

*ow if this is the #ase! in those

"ro"ositions whi#h do not #ontain

the erb 'to be' the erb whi#h

ta%es its "la#e will e&er#ise the

same fun#tion. Thus the

#ontradi#tory of 'man wal%s' is

'man does not wal%'! not 'not-man

wal%s'+ for to say 'man wal%s'

merely euialent to saying 'man is

wal%ing'.

,f then this rule is uniersal! the

#ontradi#tory of 'it may be' is may

not be'! not 'it #annot be'.

*ow it a""ears that the same

thing both may and may not be+

for instan#e! eerything that may

be #ut or may wal% may also

es#a"e #utting and refrain from

wal%ing+ and the reason is that

those things that hae "otentiality

in this sense are not always

a#tual. ,n su#h #ases! both the

"ositie and the negatie

"ro"ositions will be true+ for that

whi#h is #a"able of wal%ing or of

being seen has also a "otentiality

in the o""osite dire#tion.

But sin#e it is im"ossible that

#ontradi#tory "ro"ositions should

both be true of the same sub6e#t!

it follows that' it may not be' is not

the #ontradi#tory of 'it may be'.

For it is a logi#al #onseuen#e of

what we hae said! either that the

same "redi#ate #an be both

40


21/31

a""li#able and ina""li#able to one

and the same sub6e#t at the same

time! or that it is not by the

addition of the erbs 'be' and 'not

be'! res"e#tiely! that "ositie and

negatie "ro"ositions are formed.

,f the former of these alternaties

must be re6e#ted! we must #hoose

the latter.

The #ontradi#tory! then! of 'it may

be' is 'it #annot be'. The same rule

a""lies to the "ro"osition 'it is

#ontingent that it should be'+ the

#ontradi#tory of this is 'it is not

#ontingent that it should be'. The

similar "ro"ositions! su#h as 'it is

ne#essary' and 'it is im"ossible'!

may be dealt with in the same

manner. For it #omes about that

6ust as in the former instan#es the

erbs 'is' and 'is not' were added to

the sub6e#t-matter of the

senten#e 'white' and 'man'! so here

'that it should be' and 'that it

should not be' are the sub6e#t-

matter and 'is "ossible'! 'is

#ontingent'! are added. These

indi#ate that a #ertain thing is or

is not "ossible! 6ust as in the

former instan#es 'is' and 'is not'

indi#ated that #ertain things were

or were not the #ase.

The #ontradi#tory! then! of 'it may

not be' is not 'it #annot be'! but 'it

#annot not be'! and the

#ontradi#tory of 'it may be' is not

'it may not be'! but #annot be'.

Thus the "ro"ositions 'it may be'

and 'it may not be' a""ear ea#h to

im"ly the other7 for! sin#e these

two "ro"ositions are not

#ontradi#tory! the same thing both

may and may not be. But the

"ro"ositions 'it may be' and 'it

#annot be' #an neer be true of

the same sub6e#t at the same

time! for they are #ontradi#tory.

*or #an the "ro"ositions 'it may

not be' and 'it #annot not be' be at

on#e true of the same sub6e#t.

The "ro"ositions whi#h hae to do

with ne#essity are goerned by the

same "rin#i"le. The #ontradi#tory

of 'it is ne#essary that it should

be'! is not 'it is ne#essary that it

should not be!' but 'it is not

ne#essary that it should be'! and

the #ontradi#tory of 'it is

ne#essary that it should not be' is

'it is not ne#essary that it should

not be'.

)gain! the #ontradi#tory of 'it is

im"ossible that it should be' is not

'it is im"ossible that it should not

4/


22/31

be' but 'it is not im"ossible that it

should be'! and the #ontradi#tory

of 'it is im"ossible that it should

not be' is 'it is not im"ossible that

it should not be'.

To generali(e! we must! as has

been stated! define the #lauses

'that it should be' and 'that it

should not be' as the sub6e#t-

matter of the "ro"ositions! and in

ma%ing these terms into

affirmations and denials we must

#ombine them with 'that it should

be' and 'that it should not be'

res"e#tiely.

We must #onsider the following

"airs as #ontradi#tory

"ro"ositions7

,t may be. ,t #annot be.

,t is #ontingent. ,t is not

#ontingent.

,t is im"ossible. ,t is not

im"ossible.

,t is ne#essary. ,t is not

ne#essary.

,t is true. ,t is not true.

Part 13

ogi#al seuen#es follow in due

#ourse when we hae arranged the

"ro"ositions thus. From the

"ro"osition 'it may be' it follows

that it is #ontingent! and the

relation is re#i"ro#al. ,t follows

also that it is not im"ossible and

not ne#essary.

From the "ro"osition 'it may not

be' or 'it is #ontingent that it

should not be' it follows that it is

not ne#essary that it should not be

and that it is not im"ossible that it

should not be. From the

"ro"osition 'it #annot be' or 'it is

not #ontingent' it follows that it is

ne#essary that it should not be

and that it is im"ossible that it

should be. From the "ro"osition 'it

#annot not be' or 'it is not

#ontingent that it should not be' it

follows that it is ne#essary that it

should be and that it is im"ossible

that it should not be.

et us #onsider these statements

by the hel" of a table7

A! B!

,t may be. ,t #annot be.

,t is #ontingent. ,t is not

#ontingent.

44


23/31

,t is not im"ossible ,t is

im"ossible that it

that it should be. should be.

,t is not ne#essary ,t is

ne#essary that it

that it should be. should not

be.

C! $!

,t may not be. ,t #annot not

be.

,t is #ontingent that it ,t is not

#ontingent that

should not be. it should not

be.

,t is not im"ossible ,t is

im"ossible thatit

that it should not be. should not

be.

,t is not ne#essary that ,t is

ne#essary that it

it should not be. should be.

*ow the "ro"ositions 'it is

im"ossible that it should be' and 'it

is not im"ossible that it should be'

are #onseuent u"on the

"ro"ositions 'it may be'! 'it is

#ontingent'! and 'it #annot be'! 'it

is not #ontingent'! the

#ontradi#tories u"on the

#ontradi#tories. But there is

inersion.

The negatie of the "ro"osition 'it

is im"ossible' is #onseuent u"on

the "ro"osition 'it may be' and the

#orres"onding "ositie in the first

#ase u"on the negatie in the

se#ond. For 'it is im"ossible' is a

"ositie "ro"osition and 'it is not

im"ossible' is negatie.

We must inestigate the relation

subsisting between these

"ro"ositions and those whi#h

"redi#ate ne#essity. That there is

a distin#tion is #lear. ,n this #ase!

#ontrary "ro"ositions follow

res"e#tiely from #ontradi#tory

"ro"ositions! and the

#ontradi#tory "ro"ositions belong

to se"arate seuen#es. For the

"ro"osition 'it is not ne#essary that

it should be' is not the negatie of

'it is ne#essary that it should not

be'! for both these "ro"ositions

may be true of the same sub6e#t+

for when it is ne#essary that a

thing should not be! it is not

ne#essary that it should be. The

reason why the "ro"ositions

43


24/31

"redi#ating ne#essity do not follow

in the same %ind of seuen#e as

the rest! lies in the fa#t that the

"ro"osition 'it is im"ossible' is

euialent! when used with a

#ontrary sub6e#t! to the

"ro"osition 'it is ne#essary'. For

when it is im"ossible that a thing

should be! it is ne#essary! not that

it should be! but that it should not

be! and when it is im"ossible that

a thing should not be! it is

ne#essary that it should be. Thus!

if the "ro"ositions "redi#ating

im"ossibility or non-im"ossibility

follow without #hange of sub6e#t

from those "redi#ating "ossibility

or non-"ossibility! those

"redi#ating ne#essity must follow

with the #ontrary sub6e#t+ for the

"ro"ositions 'it is im"ossible' and 'it

is ne#essary' are not euialent!

but! as has been said! inersely

#onne#ted.

et "erha"s it is im"ossible that

the #ontradi#tory "ro"ositions

"redi#ating ne#essity should be

thus arranged. For when it is

ne#essary that a thing should be!

it is "ossible that it should be. ?For

if not! the o""osite follows! sin#e

one or the other must follow+ so!

if it is not "ossible! it is

im"ossible! and it is thus

im"ossible that a thing should be!

whi#h must ne#essarily be+ whi#h

is absurd.@

et from the "ro"osition 'it may

be' it follows that it is not

im"ossible! and from that it

follows that it is not ne#essary+ it

#omes about therefore that the

thing whi#h must ne#essarily be

need not be+ whi#h is absurd. But

again! the "ro"osition 'it is

ne#essary that it should be' does

not follow from the "ro"osition 'it

may be'! nor does the "ro"osition

'it is ne#essary that it should not

be'. For the "ro"osition 'it may be'

im"lies a twofold "ossibility!

while! if either of the two former

"ro"ositions is true! the twofold

"ossibility anishes.

For if a thing may be! it may also

not be! but if it is ne#essary that it

should be or that it should not be!

one of the two alternaties will be

eluded. ,t remains+ therefore!

that the "ro"osition 'it is not

ne#essary that it should not be'

follows from the "ro"osition 'it

may be'. For this is true also of

that whi#h must ne#essarily be.

48


25/31

Moreoer the "ro"osition 'it is not

ne#essary that it should not be' is

the #ontradi#tory of that whi#h

follows from the "ro"osition 'it

#annot be'+ for 'it #annot be' is

followed by 'it is im"ossible that it

should be' and by 'it is ne#essary

that it should not be'! and the

#ontradi#tory of this is the

"ro"osition 'it is not ne#essary that

it should not be'. Thus in this #ase

also #ontradi#tory "ro"ositions

follow #ontradi#tory in the way

indi#ated! and no logi#al

im"ossibilities o##ur when they

are thus arranged.

,t may be uestioned whether the

"ro"osition 'it may be' follows from

the "ro"osition 'it is ne#essary that

it should be'. ,f not! the

#ontradi#tory must follow! namely

that it #annot be! or! if a man

should maintain that this is not the

#ontradi#tory! then the

"ro"osition 'it may not be'.

*ow both of these are false of that

whi#h ne#essarily is. )t the same

time! it is thought that if a thing

may be #ut it may also not be #ut!

if a thing may be it may also not

be! and thus it would follow that a

thing whi#h must ne#essarily be

may "ossibly not be+ whi#h is

false. ,t is eident! then! that it is

not always the #ase that that

whi#h may be or may wal%

"ossesses also a "otentiality in the

other dire#tion. There are

ee"tions. ,n the first "la#e we

must ee"t those things whi#h

"ossess a "otentiality not in

a##ordan#e with a rational

"rin#i"le! as fire "ossesses the

"otentiality of giing out heat!

that is! an irrational #a"a#ity.

Those "otentialities whi#h inole

a rational "rin#i"le are

"otentialities of more than one

result! that is! of #ontrary results+

those that are irrational are not

always thus #onstituted. )s , hae

said! fire #annot both heat and not

heat! neither has anything that is

always a#tual any twofold

"otentiality.

et some een of those

"otentialities whi#h are irrational

admit of o""osite results.

2oweer! thus mu#h has been said

to em"hasi(e the truth that it is

not eery "otentiality whi#h

admits of o""osite results! een

45


26/31

where the word is used always in

the same sense.

But in some #ases the word is used

euio#ally. For the term '"ossible'

is ambiguous! being used in the

one #ase with referen#e to fa#ts!

to that whi#h is a#tuali(ed! as

when a man is said to find wal%ing

"ossible be#ause he is a#tually

wal%ing! and generally when a

#a"a#ity is "redi#ated be#ause it

is a#tually reali(ed+ in the other

#ase! with referen#e to a state in

whi#h reali(ation is #onditionally

"ra#ti#able! as when a man is said

to find wal%ing "ossible be#ause

under #ertain #onditions he would

wal%. This last sort of "otentiality

belongs only to that whi#h #an be

in motion! the former #an e&ist

also in the #ase of that whi#h has

not this "ower. Both of that whi#h

is wal%ing and is a#tual! and of

that whi#h has the #a"a#ity though

not ne#essarily reali(ed! it is true

to say that it is not im"ossible that

it should wal% ?or! in the other

#ase! that it should be@! but while

we #annot "redi#ate this latter

%ind of "otentiality of that whi#h

is ne#essary in the unualified

sense of the word! we #an

"redi#ate the former.

9ur #on#lusion! then! is this7 that

sin#e the uniersal is #onseuent

u"on the "arti#ular! that whi#h is

ne#essary is also "ossible! though

not in eery sense in whi#h the

word may be used.

We may "erha"s state that

ne#essity and its absen#e are the

initial "rin#i"les of e&isten#e and

non-e&isten#e! and that all else

must be regarded as "osterior to

these.

,t is "lain from what has been said

that that whi#h is of ne#essity is

a#tual. Thus! if that whi#h is

eternal is "rior! a#tuality also is

"rior to "otentiality. $ome things

are a#tualities without

"otentiality! namely! the "rimary

substan#es+ a se#ond #lass #onsists

of those things whi#h are a#tual

but also "otential! whose a#tuality

is in nature "rior to their

"otentiality! though "osterior in

time+ a third #lass #om"rises those

things whi#h are neer a#tuali(ed!

but are "ure "otentialities.

4:


27/31

Part 14

The uestion arises whether an

affirmation finds its #ontrary in a

denial or in another affirmation+

whether the "ro"osition 'eery

man is 6ust' finds its #ontrary in

the "ro"osition 'no man is 6ust'! or

in the "ro"osition 'eery man is

un6ust'. Ta%e the "ro"ositions

'Callias is 6ust'! 'Callias is not 6ust'!

'Callias is un6ust'+ we hae to

dis#oer whi#h of these form

#ontraries.

*ow if the s"o%en word

#orres"onds with the 6udgement of

the mind! and if! in thought! that

6udgement is the #ontrary of

another! whi#h "ronoun#es a

#ontrary fa#t! in the way! for

instan#e! in whi#h the 6udgement

'eery man is 6ust' "ronoun#es a

#ontrary to that "ronoun#ed by

the 6udgement 'eery man is

un6ust'! the same must needs hold

good with regard to s"o%en

affirmations.

But if! in thought! it is not the

6udgement whi#h "ronoun#es a

#ontrary fa#t that is the #ontrary

of another! then one affirmation

will not find its #ontrary in

another! but rather in the

#orres"onding denial. We must

therefore #onsider whi#h true

6udgement is the #ontrary of the

false! that whi#h forms the denial

of the false 6udgement or that

whi#h affirms the #ontrary fa#t.

et me illustrate. There is a true

6udgement #on#erning that whi#h

is good! that it is good+ another! a

false 6udgement! that it is not

good+ and a third! whi#h is

distin#t! that it is bad. Whi#h of

these two is #ontrary to the trueA

)nd if they are one and the same!

whi#h mode of e&"ression forms

the #ontraryA

,t is an error to su""ose that

6udgements are to be defined as

#ontrary in irtue of the fa#t that

they hae #ontrary sub6e#ts+ for

the 6udgement #on#erning a good

thing! that it is good! and that

#on#erning a bad thing! that it is

bad! may be one and the same!

and whether they are so or not!

they both re"resent the truth. et

the sub6e#ts here are #ontrary.

But 6udgements are not #ontrary

be#ause they hae #ontrary

4;


28/31

sub6e#ts! but be#ause they are to

the #ontrary effe#t.

*ow if we ta%e the 6udgement

that that whi#h is good is good!

and another that it is not good!

and if there are at the same time

other attributes! whi#h do not and

#annot belong to the good! we

must neertheless refuse to treat

as the #ontraries of the true

6udgement those whi#h o"ine that

some other attribute subsists

whi#h does not subsist! as also

those that o"ine that some other

attribute does not subsist whi#h

does subsist! for both these #lasses

of 6udgement are of unlimited

#ontent.

Those 6udgements must rather be

termed #ontrary to the true

6udgements! in whi#h error is

"resent. *ow these 6udgements

are those whi#h are #on#erned

with the starting "oints of

generation! and generation is the

"assing from one e&treme to its

o""osite+ therefore error is a li%e

transition.

*ow that whi#h is good is both

good and not bad. The first uality

is "art of its essen#e! the se#ond

a##idental+ for it is by a##ident

that it is not bad. But if that true

6udgement is most really true!

whi#h #on#erns the sub6e#t's

intrinsi# nature! then that false

6udgement li%ewise is most really

false! whi#h #on#erns its intrinsi#

nature. *ow the 6udgement that

that is good is not good is a false

6udgement #on#erning its intrinsi#

nature! the 6udgement that it is

bad is one #on#erning that whi#h

is a##idental. Thus the 6udgement

whi#h denies the true 6udgement

is more really false than that

whi#h "ositiely asserts the

"resen#e of the #ontrary uality.

But it is the man who forms that

6udgement whi#h is #ontrary to

the true who is most thoroughly

de#eied! for #ontraries are

among the things whi#h differ

most widely within the same #lass.

,f then of the two 6udgements one

is #ontrary to the true 6udgement!

but that whi#h is #ontradi#tory is

the more truly #ontrary! then the

latter! it seems! is the real

#ontrary. The 6udgement that that

whi#h is good is bad is #om"osite.

For "resumably the man who

forms that 6udgement must at the

4


29/31

same time understand that that

whi#h is good is not good.

Further! the #ontradi#tory is

either always the #ontrary or

neer+ therefore! if it must

ne#essarily be so in all other

#ases! our #on#lusion in the #ase

6ust dealt with would seem to be

#orre#t. *ow where terms hae no

#ontrary! that 6udgement is false!

whi#h forms the negatie of the

true+ for instan#e! he who thin%s a

man is not a man forms a false

6udgement. ,f then in these #ases

the negatie is the #ontrary! then

the "rin#i"le is uniersal in its

a""li#ation.

)gain! the 6udgement that that

whi#h is not good is not good is

"arallel with the 6udgement that

that whi#h is good is good. Besides

these there is the 6udgement that

that whi#h is good is not good!

"arallel with the 6udgement that

that that is not good is good. et

us #onsider! therefore! what would

form the #ontrary of the true

6udgement that that whi#h is not

good is not good. The 6udgement

that it is bad would! of #ourse! fail

to meet the #ase! sin#e two true

6udgements are neer #ontrary

and this 6udgement might be true

at the same time as that with

whi#h it is #onne#ted. For sin#e

some things whi#h are not good

are bad! both 6udgements may be

true. *or is the 6udgement that it

is not bad the #ontrary! for this

too might be true! sin#e both

ualities might be "redi#ated of

the same sub6e#t. ,t remains!

therefore! that of the 6udgement

#on#erning that whi#h is not good!

that it is not good! the #ontrary

6udgement is that it is good+ for

this is false. ,n the same way!

moreoer! the 6udgement

#on#erning that whi#h is good!

that it is not good! is the #ontrary

of the 6udgement that it is good.

,t is eident that it will ma%e no

differen#e if we uniersali(e the

"ositie 6udgement! for the

uniersal negatie 6udgement will

form the #ontrary. For instan#e!

the #ontrary of the 6udgement

that eerything that is good is

good is that nothing that is good is

good. For the 6udgement that that

whi#h is good is good! if the

sub6e#t be understood in a

uniersal sense! is euialent to

4=


30/31

the 6udgement that whateer is

good is good! and this is identi#al

with the 6udgement that

eerything that is good is good.

We may deal similarly with

6udgements #on#erning that whi#h

is not good.

,f therefore this is the rule with

6udgements! and if s"o%en

affirmations and denials are

6udgements e&"ressed in words! it

is "lain that the uniersal denial is

the #ontrary of the affirmation

about the same sub6e#t. Thus the

"ro"ositions 'eerything good is

good'! 'eery man is good'! hae for

their #ontraries the "ro"ositions

'nothing good is good'! 'no man is

good'. The #ontradi#tory

"ro"ositions! on the other hand!

are 'not eerything good is good'!

'not eery man is good'.

,t is eident! also! that neither

true 6udgements nor true

"ro"ositions #an be #ontrary the

one to the other. For whereas!

when two "ro"ositions are true! a

man may state both at the same

time without in#onsisten#y!

#ontrary "ro"ositions are those

whi#h state #ontrary #onditions!

and #ontrary #onditions #annot

subsist at one and the same time

in the same sub6e#t.

T,E EN$

30


31/31

3/

Documents

Aristotel on Interpreting