by Aristotle
But now it is obvious that a body is in fact divided into separable magnitudes which are smaller at each division—into magnitudes which fall apart from one another and are actually separated. Hence the process of dividing a body part by part is not a breaking up which could continue ad infinitum; nor can a body be [30] simultaneously divided at every point (for that is not possible) but only up to a certain limit. The necessary consequence—especially if coming-to-be and passing-away are to take place by association and dissociation respectively—is that a body must contain atomic magnitudes which are invisible.
Such is the argument which is believed to establish the necessity of atomic [317a] magnitudes: we must now show that it conceals a faulty inference, and exactly where it conceals it.
For, since no point is contiguous to another point, magnitudes are divisible through and through in one sense, and yet not in another. When, however, it is admitted that a magnitude is divisible through and through, it is thought that there is a point not only anywhere, but also everywhere, in it: hence it follows that the [5] magnitude must be divided away into nothing. For there is a point everywhere within it, so that it consists either of contacts or of points. But it is only in one sense that the magnitude is divisible through and through, viz. in so far as there is one point anywhere within it and all its points are everywhere within it if you take them singly. But there are not more points than one anywhere within it, for the points are not consecutive; hence it is not divisible through and through. For if it were, then, if it be divisible at its centre, it will be divisible also at a contiguous point. But it is not [10] so divisible; for position is not contiguous to position, nor point to point (i.e. division or composition).
Hence there are both association and dissociation, though neither into, and out of, atomic magnitudes (for that involves many impossibilities), nor so that division takes place through and through—for this would have resulted if point had been [15] contiguous to point; but dissociation takes place into small (i.e. relatively small) parts, and association takes place out of relatively small parts.
It is wrong, however, to suppose, as some assert, that coming-to-be in the unqualified and complete sense is defined by association and dissociation, while the change that takes place in what is continuous is alteration. On the contrary, this is where the whole error lies. For unqualified coming-to-be and passing-away are not [20] effected by association and dissociation. They take place when a thing changes, from this to that, as a whole. But they suppose that all such change is alteration; whereas in fact there is a difference. For in that which underlies the change there is a factor corresponding to the definition and there is a material factor. When, then, [25] the change is in these factors, there will be coming-to-be or passing-away; but when it is in the thing’s affections and accidental, there will be alteration.
Dissociation and association make a thing susceptible to passing-away. For if water has first been dissociated into smallish drops, air comes-to-be out of it more quickly; while, if drops of water have first been associated, air comes-to-be more [30] slowly. This will become clearer in the sequel. Meantime, so much may be taken as established—viz. that coming-to-be cannot be association of the kind some assert it to be.
3 · Now that we have established that we must first consider whether there is anything which comes-to-be and passes-away in the unqualified sense; or whether nothing comes-to-be in this strict sense, but everything always comes-to-be something and out of something—I mean, e.g., comes-to-be healthy out of being ill and ill out of being healthy, comes-to-be small out of being big and big out of being [317b1] small, and so on in every other instance. For if there is to be coming-to-be without qualification, something must—without qualification—come-to-be out of not-being, so that it would be true to say that not-being is an attribute of some things. For qualified coming-to-be is a process out of qualified not-being (e.g. out of [5] not-white or not-beautiful), but unqualified coming-to-be is a process out of unqualified not being.
Now ‘unqualified’ means either the primary within each category, or the universal, i.e. the all-comprehensive. Hence, if it signifies the primary, there will be a coming-to-be of a substance out of not-substance. But that which is not a substance or a ‘this’ clearly cannot possess predicates drawn from any of the other [10] categories either—e.g. we cannot attribute to it any quality, quantity, or position. Otherwise, properties would admit of existence in separation from substances. If, on the other hand, it means what is not in any sense at all, it will be a universal negation of all forms of being, so that what comes-to-be will have to come-to-be out of nothing.
Although we have rehearsed and settled these problems at greater length in another work,3 we must mention them briefly here too.
[15] In one sense things come-to-be out of that which has no being without qualification; yet in another sense they come-to-be always out of what is. For there must pre-exist something which potentially is, but actually is not; and this something is spoken of both as being and as not-being.
These distinctions may be taken as established; but even then it is extraordinarily difficult to see how there can be unqualified coming-to-be (whether we [20] suppose it to occur out of what potentially is, or in some other way), and we must recall this problem for further examination. For the question might be raised whether substance (i.e. the ‘this’) comes-to-be at all. Is it not rather the ‘such’, the ‘so great’, or the ‘somewhere’, which comes-to-be? And the same question might be raised about ‘passing-away’ also. For if a substantial thing comes-to-be, it is clear that there will be (not actually, but potentially) a substance, out of which its coming-to-be will proceed and into which the thing that is passing-away will necessarily change. Then will any predicate belonging to the [25] remaining categories attach actually to this? In other words, will that which is only potentially a ‘this’ (which only potentially is), while without qualification it is not a ‘this’ (i.e. is not), possess, e.g., any determinate size or quality or position? For if it possesses none, but all of them potentially, the result is that a being, which is not a determinate being, is capable of separate existence; and in addition that coming-to-be proceeds out of nothing pre-existing—a thesis which, more than any other, preoccupied and alarmed the earliest philosophers. On the other hand if, although it [30] is not a ‘this somewhat’ or a substance, it is to possess some of the remaining determinations quoted above, then (as we said) properties will be separable from substances.
We must therefore concentrate all our powers on the discussion of these difficulties and on the solution of a further question—viz. What is the cause of the perpetuity of coming-to-be? Why is there always unqualified, as well as partial, coming-to-be?
Now the cause is either the source from which, as we say, the movement [318a1] originates, or the matter. It is the material cause that we have here to state. For, as to the other cause, we have already explained (in our treatise on Motion)4 that it involves something immovable through all time and something always being moved. And the treatment of the first of these—of the immovable source—belongs to the [5] province of the other and prior philosophy; while as regards that which sets everything else in motion by being itself continuously moved, we shall have to explain later5 which amongst the particular causes exhibits this character. But at present we are to state the cause classed under the head of matter, to which it is due that passing-away and coming-to-be never fail to occur in nature. For perhaps, if [10] we succeed in clearing up this question, it will simultaneously become clear what account we ought to give of that which perplexed us just now, i.e. of unqualified passing-away and coming-to-be.
Our new question too—viz. What is the cause of the unbroken continuity of coming-to-be?—is sufficiently perplexing, if in fact what passes-away vanishes into what is not and what is not is nothing (since what is not is neither a thing, nor possessed of a quality or quantity, nor in any place). If, then, some one of the things which are is constantly disappear
ing, why has not the universe been used up long ago and vanished away—assuming of course that the material of all the several comings-to-be was finite? For, presumably, the unfailing continuity of coming-to-be cannot be attributed to the infinity of the material. That is impossible; for [20] nothing is actually infinite, and potentially things are infinite by way of division; so that we should have to suppose there is only one kind of coming-to-be, viz. one which never fails, such that what comes-to-be is on each successive occasion smaller than before. But in fact this is not what we see occurring.
Why, then, is this form of change necessarily ceaseless? Is it because the passing-away of this is a coming-to-be of something else, and the coming-to-be of [25] this a passing-away of something else?
The cause implied in this solution must be considered adequate to account for coming-to-be and passing-away in their general character as they occur in all existing things alike. Yet, if the same process is a coming-to-be of this but a [30] passing-away of that, and a passing-away of this but a coming-to-be of that, why are some things said to come-to-be and pass-away without qualification, but others only with a qualification?
This question must be investigated once more, for it demands some explanation. For we say ‘it is now passing-away’ without qualification, and not merely ‘this is passing-away’; and we call this change coming-to-be, and that passing-away, without qualification. And so-and-so comes-to-be something, but does not come-to-be without qualification; for we say that the student comes-to-be learned, not comes-to-be without qualification.
[318b1] Now we often divide terms into those which signify a ‘this somewhat’ and those which do not. And the issue we are investigating results from this; for it makes a difference into what the changing thing changes. Perhaps, e.g., the passage into Fire is coming-to-be unqualified, but passing-away-of something (e.g. of Earth); [5] whilst the coming-to-be of Earth is qualified (not unqualified) coming-to-be, though unqualified passing-away (e.g. of Fire). This would be the case on the theory set forth by Parmenides; for he says that the things into which change takes place are two, and he asserts that these two, viz. what is and what is not, are Fire and Earth. Whether we postulate these, or other things of a similar kind, makes no difference. For we are trying to discover not what undergoes these changes, but what is their characteristic manner. The passage, then, into what without qualification [10] is not is unqualified passing-away, while the passage into what is without qualification is unqualified coming-to-be. Hence however they are characterized—whether as Fire and Earth, or as some other couple—the one of them will be a being and the other a not-being.
We have thus stated one way in which unqualified will be distinguished from qualified coming-to-be and passing-away; but they are also distinguished according to the material of the changing thing. For a material, whose constitutive differences signify [15] more a ‘this somewhat’, is itself more a substance while a material, whose constitutive differences signify privation, is more not-being. (Suppose, e.g., that the hot is a positive predication, i.e. a form, whereas cold is a privation, and that Earth and Fire differ from one another by these constitutive differences.)
The opinion, however, which most people are inclined to prefer, is that the distinction depends upon the difference between the perceptible and the imperceptible. [20] Thus, when there is a change into perceptible material, people say there is coming-to-be; but when there is a change into invisible material, they call it passing-away. For they distinguish what is and what is not by their perceiving and not perceiving, just as what is knowable is and what is unknowable is not—perception on their view having the force of knowledge. Hence, just as they deem themselves to live and to be in virtue of their perceiving or their capacity to perceive, [25] so too they deem the things to be qua perceived or perceptible—and in this they are in a sense on the track of the truth, though what they actually say is not true.
Thus unqualified coming-to-be and passing-away turn out to be different according to common opinion from what they are in truth. For Wind and Air are in truth more a ‘this somewhat’ or a ‘form’ than Earth. But they are less real to perception—which explains why things are commonly said to ‘pass-away’ without [30] qualification when they change into Wind and Air, and to ‘come-to-be’ when they change into what is tangible, i.e. into Earth.
We have now explained why there is unqualified coming-to-be (though it is a passing-away-of-something) and unqualified passing-away (though it is a coming-to-be-of-something). For this distinction depends upon a difference in the material—upon whether the material is or is not a substance, or upon whether it is more or [319a1] less substantial, or upon whether the material out of which and into which the change occurs is more or less perceptible.
But why are some things said to come-to-be without qualification, and others only to come-to-be so-and-so, in cases different from the one we have been considering where two things come-to-be reciprocally out of one another? For at present we have explained no more than why, when two things change reciprocally [5] into one another, we do not attribute coming-to-be and passing-away uniformly to them both, although every coming-to-be is a passing-away of something else and every passing-away some other thing’s coming-to-be. But the question subsequently formulated involves a different problem—viz. why, although the learning thing is said to come-to-be learned but not to come-to-be without qualification, yet the [10] growing thing is said to come-to-be.
The distinction here turns upon the difference of the Categories. For some things signify a this somewhat, others a such, and others a so-much. Those things, then, which do not signify substance, are not said to come-to-be without qualification, but only to come-to-be so-and-so. Nevertheless, in all changing things alike, we speak of coming-to-be when the thing comes-to-be something in one of the two columns—e.g. in substance, if it comes-to-be fire but not if it comes-to-be earth; and [15] in quality, if it comes-to-be learned but not when it comes-to-be ignorant.
We have explained why some things come-to-be without qualification, but not others—both in general, and also when the changing things are substances; and we have stated that the substratum is the material cause of the continuous occurrence of coming-to-be, because it is such as to change from contrary to contrary and [20] because, in substances, the coming-to-be of one thing is always a passing-away of another, and the passing-away of one thing is always another’s coming-to-be. But there is no need even to discuss why coming-to-be continues though things are constantly being destroyed. For just as people speak of a passing-away without qualification when a thing has passed into what is imperceptible and what is not, so also they speak of a coming-to-be out of a not-being when a thing emerges from an [25] imperceptible. Whether, therefore, the substratum is or is not something, what comes-to-be emerges out of a not-being; so that a thing comes-to-be out of a not-being just as much as passes-away into what is not. Hence it is reasonable enough that coming-to-be should never fail. For coming-to-be is a passing-away of what is not and passing-away is a coming-to-be of what is not.
But what about that which without qualification is not? Is it one of the two [30] contrary poles of the change—e.g. is earth (i.e. the heavy) a not-being, but fire (i.e. the light) a being? Or, on the contrary, does what is include earth as well as fire, whereas what is not is matter—the matter of earth and fire alike? And again, is the matter of each different? Or is it the same, since otherwise they would not [319b1] come-to-be reciprocally out of one another, i.e. contraries out of contraries? For these things—fire, earth, water, air—are characterized by the contraries.
4 · Perhaps the solution is that their matter is in one sense the same, but in another sense different. For that which underlies them, whatever its nature may be [5] is the same; but its being is not the same. So much, then, on these topics. Next we must state what the difference is between coming-to-be and alteration—for we maintain that these changes are distinct from one another.
Since, then, we must dist
inguish the substratum, and the property whose nature it is to be predicated of the substratum; and since change of each of these [10] occurs; there is alteration when the substratum is perceptible and persists, but changes in its own properties, the properties in question being either contraries or intermediates. The body, e.g., although persisting as the same body, is now healthy and now ill; and the bronze is now spherical and at another time angular, and yet remains the same bronze. But when nothing perceptible persists in its identity as a [15] substratum, and the thing changes as a whole (when e.g. the seed as a whole is converted into blood, or water into air, or air as a whole into water), such an occurrence is a coming-to-be of one substance and a passing-away of the other—especially if the change proceeds from an imperceptible something to something perceptible (either to touch or to all the senses), as when water comes-to-be out of, [20] or passes-away into, air; for air is pretty well imperceptible. If, however, in such cases, any property (being one of a pair of contraries) persists, in the thing that has come-to-be, the same as it was in the thing which has passed-away—if, e.g., when water comes-to-be out of air, both are transparent or cold—the second thing, into which the first changes, must not be a property of this. Otherwise the change will be alteration.
[25] Suppose, e.g., that the musical man passed-away and an unmusical man came-to-be, and that the man persists as something identical. Now, if musicalness (and unmusicalness) had not been in itself a property of the man, these changes would have been a coming-to-be of unmusicalness and a passing-away of musicalness; but in fact a property of the persistent thing. (Hence these are properties of the [30] man, and of musical man and unmusical man, there is a passing-away and a coming-to-be.) Consequently such changes are alteration.