Questions on Aristotle's Categories

Question Forty-Three

324 [QUESTION FORTY-THREE Whether Aristotle Suitably Assigns the Modes of Prior] One is prior to another, etc.1 oncerning this, it is asked whether Aristotle suitably assigns the modes of prior. 1. It seems that he does not: Since, in Bk. V of the Metaphysics,2 he assigns many more, for example, prior in place, prior according to cognition, prior according to motion and many others; therefore, etc. 2. Second, “one of the opposites is said in as many modes as the remaining one is said in”;3 but “simultaneous” is opposed to that which is “prior,” and it does not have five modes, but only three modes, according to Aristotle in the same place;4 therefore , etc. 3. Third, nothing is prior according to time; therefore, the first mode5 is unsuitably posited. Proof of the antecedent: since, according to Aristotle in Bk. V of the Metaphysics,6 “prior is what is nearer to the beginning”; but there is no beginning in time, since it is infinite, according to Aristotle in Bk. VIII of the Physics.7 4. Fourth, the second mode8 is unsuitably assigned. Proof: 1. Categories, Ch. 12 (14a 26). 2. Metaphysics, Bk. V, Ch. 11 (1018b 9–1019a 14). 3. Topics, Bk. I, Ch. 15 (106b 14–15). 4. Cf. Categories, Ch. 13 (14b 24–15a 12). 5. Categories, Ch. 12 (14a 27). 6. Metaphysics, Bk. V, Ch. 11 (1018b 9–11). 7. Physics, Bk. VIII, Ch. 1 (250a 10–15). 8. Categories, Ch. 12 (14a 30–31). QUESTION 43 325 since an implication is between propositions, but “prior,” about which speaks here, is in simple ; therefore, the consequent, “from which the implication is not convertible ,” ought not to be said to be prior in some mode; nevertheless , that is posited in the second mode of priority. 5. Fifth, an implication is not converted from an integral part to the whole, as is evident in the example of Aristotle, “there are two; therefore, one is and not from the converse”;9 therefore, an integral part is prior to the whole, in the second mode of prior. But this is false, since, according to Aristotle in Bk. VII of the Metaphysics,10 the whole belongs in the definition of some integral parts; but defining is prior to defined, according to Aristotle in Bk. VI of the Topics.11 6. Sixth, it seems that a part does not follow the integral whole; the opposite of which is said in the text.12 First, since every good implication is reducible to a syllogism; but that is not . Proof: since if this implication, “a house is; therefore, a wall is,” were to be reduced to a syllogism, the proposition “a house is” could not be the minor , since its predicate ought13 to be the predicate of the conclusion. Therefore, it would be necessary that it be the major . But “wall,” when it is directly the subject of the conclusion, is the minor term; and “house,” when it is the subject of the major , is the middle term. Therefore, it is necessary for the reduction of this implication to assume such a 9. Categories, Ch. 12 (14a 32–33). 10. Metaphysics, Bk. VII, Ch. 10 (1034b 20–1036a 25). 11. Topics, Bk. VI, Ch. 4 (141a 27–35). 12. Metaphysics, Bk. VII, Ch. 10 (1034b 20–1036a 25). 13. I have amended the Latin to make sense out of the argument. The Latin actually states that “its predicate ought not to be the predicate of the conclusion .” On formal grounds, the antecedent of the pronoun “it” cannot be the predicate of the minor premise, since in first-figure syllogisms, the predicate of the minor is by definition the middle term. Consequently, it is necessary to take the antecedent of the pronoun “it” to be the predicate of the statement “A house is.” If, however, existence should not be the predicate of the conclusion, then it actually should be the predicate of the minor premise, not, as the Latin text states, the predicate of the major. Here is how the syllogism should look: A house is; a wall is a house; therefore, a wall is. 326 JOHN DUNS SCOTUS minor “a wall is a house,” and so it universally is in other integral wholes and parts. But every such minor is impossible, since, according to Aristotle in Bk. IV of the Topics :14 “in no way is the part predicated...