1 The point seems to be that if number is self-subsistent it must be actually finite or infinite. Aristotle himself holds that number is infinite only potentially; i.e., however high you can count, you can always count higher.
2 i.e., as implying an actual infinite.
3 i.e., as inconsistent with the conception of an Idea as a determining principle.
4 Cf. Aristot. Met. 12.8.2. The Platonists derived this view from the Pythagoreans; see Introduction.
5 Robin is probably right in taking this to mean that the 3 which is in the ideal 4 is like the 3 which is in the 4 which is in a higher ideal number, and so on (La Theorie platonicienne des Idees et des Nombres d'apres Aristote, p. 352).
6 Cf. Aristot. Met. 13.4.7, 8; Aristot. Met. 1.9.2, 3.
7 From the Dyad were derived void (Theophrastus, Met. 312.18-313.3) and motion (cf. Aristot. Met. 1.9.29, Aristot. Met. 11.9.8). Rest would naturally be derived from unity. For good and evil see Aristot. Met. 1.6.10. Proportion alone of the "derivatives" here mentioned appears to be derived from number. As Syrianus says, the three types of proportion can be illustrated by numbers from within the decad—arithmetical 1. 2. 3, geometrical 1. 2. 4, harmonic 2. 3. 6.
8 sc. because (on their theory) 3 is not contained in 5. Thus oddness had to be referred to not a number but a principle—unity.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.