Questions on Aristotle's Categories

Question Six

92 [QUESTION SIX Whether the Definition of Univocals is Good] t is asked whether the definition of univocals is suitable , namely, this : “Univocals are the name of which is common and the account of the substance is the same.”1 1. One can argue that it is not according to the first three arguments in the preceding question.2 —And are solved in a similar manner just as they are solved there.3 2. Likewise, “white” is predicated of a man and of a horse according to the same account; for otherwise it would be equivocal . And nevertheless it is not a univocal predicate with regard to them, since it is denominative. One can make a similar point about every denominative predicate, and, most , of intentions , since this predicate “genus” is said according to the same account of substance and of quantity, and nevertheless it is not univocal, since it is denominative. And univocal and denominative are opposite ways of predicating, just as univocal and equivocal . 3. Second,4 all equivocals have the same name,5 namely, the 1. Categories, Ch. 1 (1a 6–11). 2. Cf. supra, q. 5 nn.1–3. 3. The first three arguments alluded to are the first three arguments of question 5. Having solved, however, these similar arguments in q. 5, nn. 13–15, Scotus immediately dismisses them here. 4. Although in one sense, this is the third argument, it is only the second original argument. As a result, in n. 13 Scotus refers to this as the second argument. 5. Categories, Ch. 1 (1a 1–5). QUESTION 6 93 name “equivocals,” and the same account of the substance, that is, an essential , according to that name, namely, the account of equivocals. Therefore, if the definition said were suitable, all equivocals would be univocals , which is false, since opposite is predicated of opposite. 4. Third, those , of which the essential substance is the same, are the same essentially. But univocated univocals have the same account of a univocating substance. Therefore, all univocates would be the same essentially, which is false, since in this way man and a donkey would be the same essentially. 5. To the opposite is Aristotle.6 [I. The Response To The Question] 6. It must be said that the description is suitable, and one can suitably understand univocates in this way: Univocates are those of which, not as of the significates, the name of the univocating is common. Since that name does not signify something univocal, but of which, as of the contents under the univocating , the name of the univocating is common, and the account of the substance of the univocates the same, according to that univocating name. And then no univocating univocal is denominative with regard to the same , since the account of a denominative is not a substantial account of the denominates. 7. Similarly, one can understand univocating in this way: Univocating are of which the name, as the part of the whole, is common to the univocates, and the account of the univocating substance the same as the univocates according to that name. The definition of equivocals, however , was not able to be understood of equivocating , since they do not have a name, since nothing is equivocating except only the utterance. Similarly, they do not have any definition ; therefore, they neither a diverse nor the same . But neither of these impedes this definition from being understood of univocating 6. Categories, Ch. 1 (1a 6–8). 94 JOHN DUNS SCOTUS , since they have a name (since not only the name univocates ), and they have the same account of the substance. 8. Nevertheless, Aristotle seems to understand more of univocates . For he says:7 “for example, man an animal, and cow .8 For both animals are called by a common name,” which is manifestly said of the univocates. And he adds of “the same account”: “if anyone assigns the account of each, what they are, in that they are animals, he will assign the same account of each”; which similarly is manifestly referred to the univocates. [II. To The Principal Arguments] 9. To the first argument,9 it is said that no denominative has the account of a substance with regard to that thing with respect to which it is a denominative , although in its own genus it can have the account of a substance .10 And for this reason no denominative is predicated according to...