[
1031a]
[1]
Clearly, then, there is definition of substance alone. If there were
definition of the other categories also, it would have to involve an
added determinant, as in the case of the qualitative; and of the odd,
for this cannot be defined apart from number; nor can "female" apart
from "animal."By
"involving an added determinant" I mean descriptions which involve a
tautology, as in the above examples. Now if this is true, there will
be no definition of compound expressions either; e.g., "odd number."
We fail to realize this because our terms are not used accurately. If
on the other hand there are definitions of these too, either they are
defined in a different way, or, as we have said, "definition" and
"essence" must be used in more than one sense;thus in one sense there will be no
definition of anything, and nothing will have an essence, except
substances; and in another those other things will have a definition
and essence. It is obvious, then, that the definition is the formula
of the essence, and that the essence belongs either
only
to substances, or especially and primarily and simply.
We must inquire whether the essence is the same as the particular
thing, or different. This is useful for our inquiry about substance;
because a particular thing is considered to be nothing other than its
own substance, and the essence is called the substance of the
thing.In accidental
predications, indeed, the thing itself would seem to be different from
its essence;
[20]
e.g., "white
man" is different from "essence of white man." If it were the same,
"essence of man" and "essence of white man" would be the same. For
"man" and "white man" are the same, they say, and therefore "essence
of white man" is the same as "essence of man."But perhaps it is not necessarily true
that the essence of accidental combinations is the same as that of the
simple terms; because the extremes of the syllogism are not identical
with the middle term in the same way.
1 Perhaps it might be thought to follow that
the accidental extremes are identical; e.g. "essence of white" and
"essence of cultured"; but this is not admitted.
2But in
per se expressions, is the thing necessarily the same as its essence,
e.g., if there are substances which have no other substances or
entities prior to them, such as some hold the Ideas to be?For if the Ideal Good is to be
different from the essence of good, and the Ideal Animal and Being
from the essence of animal and being,