Questions on the Metaphysics of Aristotle

Question Five

QUESTION FIVE Can a part supposit for the whole of which it is a part? [Arguments Pro and Con] 1 [1] That it cannot: If it could, then a part could be predicated of the whole, because to predicate is common to supposition. [I.—THE OPINION OF OTHERS] 2 It is said1 that a term signifying a proposition after the manner of a simple [notion] as a part of a proposition of complex, i t supposits for it, as for another. 3 Also, expressed in this way “Every proposition is true,” i f ‘proposition’ supposits only for contradictories and not other things, then contradictories can simultaneously be false. [II.—REPLY TO THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF THE CONTRARY OPINION] 4 To the first to the contrary:2 I say that the common term signifying the complex, taken as a simple notion, is predicated of the whole; not insofar as it is an integral part, but insofar as it is a universal whole, etc. 1 Cf. Simon de Faversham, De soph. elenchis (Quaest. novae), q. 25, ed. S. Ebbesen et al. p. 167: “Et ex hoc potest concludi quod terminus significans complexionem, cuiusmodi est propositio, secundum quod est pars alicuius orationis non supponit pro illo toto cuius est pars. Ex consequenti tamen supponit pro illo cuius est pars, quia proprie loquendo pars secundum quod pars non supponit pro toto, sed improprie. Et adhuc non ut est pars, sed ut est totum; quoniam ut est pars integralis non supponit pro toto cuius est pars, sed prout ad illud potest habere rationem totius universalis, supponit pro eo.” 2 Cf. supra, n. 2. ...