[1003b]
[1]
and as
"medical" relates to the art of medicine (either as possessing it or
as naturally adapted for it or as being a function of
medicine)—and we shall find other terms used similarly to
these—so
"being " is used in various senses, but always with reference to one
principle. For some things are said to "be" because they are
substances; others because they are modifications of substance; others
because they are a process towards substance, or destructions or
privations or qualities of substance, or productive or generative of
substance or of terms relating to substance, or negations of certain
of these terms or of substance. (Hence we even say that not-being
is not-being.)And so, just as there is one science of all
healthy things, so it is true of everything else. For it is not only
in the case of terms which express one common notion that the
investigation belongs to one science, but also in the case of terms
which relate to one particular characteristic; for the latter too, in
a sense, express one common notion. Clearly then the study of things
which are, qua being, also belongs to one
science.Now in every
case knowledge is principally concerned with that which is primary,
i.e. that upon which all other things depend, and from which they get
their names. If, then, substance is this primary thing, it is of
substances that the philosopher must grasp the first principles and
causes.Now of every single class
of things, as there is one perception,
[20]
so there is one science: e.g., grammar, which is
one science, studies all articulate sounds.Hence the study of all the species of Being
qua Being belongs to a science which is
generically one, and the study of the several species of Being belongs
to the specific parts of that science.Now if Being and Unity are the same, i.e. a single nature, in the
sense that they are associated as principle and cause are, and not as
being denoted by the same definition (although it makes no difference
but rather helps our argument if we understand them in the same
sense),since "one
man" and "man" and "existent man" and "man" are the same thing, i.e.
the duplication in the statement "he is a man and an
existent man" gives no fresh meaning (clearly the
concepts of humanity and existence are not dissociated in respect of
either coming to be or ceasing to be), and similarly in the case of
the term "one," so that obviously the additional term in these phrases
has the same significance, and Unity is nothing distinct from
Being;and further if
the substance of each thing is one in no accidental sense, and
similarly is of its very nature something which is—then
there are just as many species of Being as of Unity. And to study the
essence of these species (I mean, e.g., the study of Same and Other
and all the other similar concepts—roughly speaking all the "contraries" are
reducible to this first principle;
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.