Lecture 9 — Division of being into accidental and essential

The term “being” signifies both accidental being and essential being.

Accidental being is designated when we say, for example, that the just person is musical, and that the man is musical, and that the musician is a man. And the same thing applies when we say that the musician builds, because it is accidental to a builder to be a musician, or to a musician to be a builder. For to say that this is that means that this is an accident of that.

And so it is in the cases given, for when we say that the man is musical, and that the musician is a man, or that what is musical is white, in the latter case we mean that both are accidents of the same thing, and in the former that the attribute is accidental to the being. But when we say that what is musical is a man, we mean that musical is an accident of this person.

And in this sense too white is said to exist, because the thing of which it is an accident exists. Therefore, those things that are said to be in an accidental sense are said to be such either because both belong to the same being, or because the attribute belongs to the being, or because the thing to which it belongs and of which it is itself predicated, itself exists.

On the other hand, those things are said to be essentially which signify the figures of predication, for being is signified in just as many ways as predications are made.

Therefore, since some of these predications signify what a thing is, others what it is like, others how much, others how related, others what it does, others what it undergoes, others where, and others when, to each of these there corresponds a mode of being which signifies the same thing.

For there is no difference between “The man is recovering” and “The man recovers,” or between “The man is walking” or “cutting” and “The man walks” or “cuts.” And the same is true in other cases.

Again, “being” signifies that something is true, and non-being signifies that something is not true, but false. This also holds true of affirmation and negation. For example, to say that Socrates is musical means that this is true. Or to say that Socrates is not white means that this is true. But to say that the diagonal of a square is not incommensurable with a side means that this is false.

Again, “to be,” and “being,” signifies that some of the things mentioned are potentially and others actually. For in the case of the terms mentioned we predicate being both of what is said to be potentially and of what is said to be actually.

And similarly we say both of one who is capable of using scientific knowledge and of one who is actually using it that he knows. And we say that that is at rest which is already so or capable of being so.

And this also applies in the case of substances, for we say that Mercury is in the stone, and half of the line in the line, and we call that grain which is not yet ripe. But when a thing is potential and when not must be settled elsewhere (1048b37; [1832]).

Kinds of being: three ways per accidens

885. Here the Philosopher gives the various senses in which the term “being” is used, and in regard to this he does three things.

First (1017a7), he divides being into being per se and being per accidens.

Second (1017a8; [886]), he distinguishes between the types of accidental being, at accidental being.

Third (1017a22; [889]), he distinguishes between the types of being per se, at on the other hand.

He says, then, that while things are said to be both per se and accidentally, it should be noted that this division of being is not the same as that whereby being is divided into substance and accident. This is clear from the fact that he later divides being per se into the ten predicaments, nine of which belong to the genus of accident [889]. Hence being is divided into substance and accident insofar as it is considered in an absolute sense—for example, whiteness considered in itself is called an accident, and man a substance. But accidental being, in the sense in which it is taken here, must be understood by comparing an accident with a substance; and this comparison is signified by the term “is” when (for example) it is said that the man is white. Hence this whole, “The man is white,” is an accidental being. It is clear, then, that the division of being into per se being and being per accidens is based on the fact that one thing is predicated of another either per se or accidentally. But the division of being into substance and accident is based on the fact that a thing is in its own nature either a substance or an accident.

886. Then he indicates the various senses in which a thing is said to be accidentally. He says that this occurs in three ways:

first, when an accident is predicated of an accident, as when it is said that someone just is musical;

second, when an accident is predicated of a subject, as when it is said that the man is musical;

and third, when a subject is predicated of an accident, as when it is said that the musician is a man.

And since he has shown above [787] how an accidental cause differs from a cause per se, he therefore now shows that an accidental being is a result of an accidental cause.

887. He says that, in giving an accidental cause, we say that the musician builds, because it is accidental to a builder to be a musician, or vice versa. For it is evident that the statement this is that, namely, “The musician is a builder,” simply means that this is an accident of that. The same is true of the foregoing senses of accidental being when we say that the man is musical by predicating an accident of a subject, or when we say that what is white is musical, or conversely that what is musical is white, by predicating an accident of an accident.

For in all of these cases “is” signifies merely accidental being. In the latter case, when an accident is predicated of an accident, “is” signifies that both accidents are accidental to the same subject, and in the former, when an accident is predicated of a subject, “is” signifies that the attribute is accidental to the being, that is, to the subject.

But when we say that what is musical is a man, we mean that musical is an accident of this person, that is, that musical, which holds the position of a subject, is an accident of the predicate. And the reason for making the predication is similar in a sense when a subject is predicated of an accident and when an accident is predicated of an accident.

For a subject is predicated of an accident by reason of the fact that the subject is predicated of that to which the accident, which is expressed in the subject, is accidental; and in a similar fashion an accident is predicated of an accident because it is predicated of the subject of an accident. And for this reason the attribute “musical” is predicated not only of man but also of white, because that of which the attribute musical is an accident (that is, the subject) is white.

888. It, is evident, then, that those things that are said to be in an accidental sense are said to be such for three reasons.

First, because both, namely, the subject and predicate, belong to the same being (as when an accident is predicated of an accident).

Second, because the attribute, that is, the predicate (such as musical) belongs to the being, that is, to the subject which is said to be musical (and this occurs when an accident is predicated of a subject).

Third, because the thing, the subject which is expressed in the predicate to which belongs the accident of which it (the subject) is itself predicated, itself exists. (This occurs when a subject is predicated of an accident, as when we say that what is musical is a man.)

Ten ways per se

889. On the other hand (1017a22). Here he distinguishes between the types of being per se, and in regard to this he does three things.

First, he divides the kind of being which lies outside the mind, which is complete being, by the ten predicaments.

Second (1017a31; [895]), he gives another type of being, inasmuch as being exists only in the mind, at again, “being” signifies.

Third (1017a35; [897]), he divides being by potency and act—and being divided in this way is more common than complete being, for potential being is being only imperfectly and in a qualified sense, at again, “to be.”

He says, first (1017a22), that all those things that signify the figures of predication are said to be essentially. For it must be noted that being cannot be narrowed down to some definite thing in the way in which a genus is narrowed down to a species by means of differences. Since a difference does not participate in a genus, it lies outside the essence of a genus. But there could be nothing outside the essence of being which could constitute a particular species of being by adding to being; for what is outside of being is nothing, and this cannot be a difference. Hence, in book 3 of this work [433], the Philosopher proved that being cannot be a genus.

890. Being must then be narrowed down to diverse genera on the basis of a different mode of predication, which flows from a different mode of being; for being is signified, that is, something is signified to be, in just as many ways (or in as many senses) as predications are made. And for this reason, those things into which being is first divided are called “predicaments,” because they are distinguished on the basis of different ways of predicating. Therefore, since some predicates signify what (or substance), some signify what kind, some signify how much, and so on, there must be a mode of being corresponding to each type of predication. For example, when it is said that a man is an animal, “is” signifies substance; when it is said that a man is white, “is” signifies quality, and so on.

891. For it should be noted that a predicate can be referred to a subject in three ways.

This occurs in one way when the predicate states what the subject is, as when I say that Socrates is an animal, for Socrates is the thing which is an animal. And this predicate is said to signify first substance (that is, a particular substance), of which all attributes are predicated.

892. A predicate is referred to a subject in a second way when the predicate is taken as being in the subject, and this predicate is in the subject either per se and absolutely and as something flowing from its matter, and then it is quantity, or as something flowing from its form, and then it is quality; or it is not present in the subject absolutely but with reference to something else, and then it is relation.

A predicate is referred to a subject in a third way when the predicate is taken from something extrinsic to the subject, and this occurs in two ways.

In one way, that from which the predicate is taken is totally extrinsic to the subject; and if this is not a measure of the subject, it is predicated after the manner of attire, as when it is said that Socrates is shod or clothed. But if it is a measure of the subject, then, since an extrinsic measure is either time or place, either the predicament is taken in reference to time, and so it will be “when,” or it is taken in reference to place and the order of parts in place is not considered, and it will be “where,” but if this order is considered, it will be position.

In another way, that from which the predicate is taken, though outside the subject, is nevertheless from a certain point of view in the subject of which it is predicated.

And if it is from the viewpoint of the principle, then it is predicated as an action, for the principle of action is in the subject.

But if it is from the viewpoint of its terminus, then it will be predicated as a passion, for a passion is terminated in the subject which is being acted upon.

893. But since there are some predications in which the verb “is” is clearly not used (for example, when it is said that a man walks), lest someone think that these predications do not involve the predication of being, Aristotle subsequently rejects this notion, saying that in all predications of this kind something is signified to be. For every verb is reduced to the verb “is” plus a participle. For there is no difference between the statements “The man is recovering” and “The man recovers” (and it is the same in other cases). It is clear, then, that “being” is used in as many ways as we make predications.

894. And there is no truth in Avicenna’s statement that predicates which belong to the genus of accidents primarily signify substance and secondarily accidents, as the terms “white” and “musical.” For the term “white,” as it is used in the categories, signifies quality alone. Now the term “white” implies a subject inasmuch as it signifies whiteness after the manner of an accident, so that it must by implication include the subject in its notion, because the being of an accident consists in being in something. For even though whiteness signifies an accident, it still does not signify this after the manner of an accident, but after that of a substance. Hence it implies a subject in no way. For if it were to signify a subject primarily, then the Philosopher would not put accidental predicates under essential being, but under accidental being. For the whole statement “The man is white” is a being in an accidental sense, as has been stated [886].

Logical being

895. Again, “being” signifies (1017a31). Then he gives another sense in which the term “being” is used, inasmuch as the terms “being” and “is” signify the composition of a proposition, which the intellect makes when it combines and separates. He says that being signifies the truth of a thing, or as another translation better expresses it, “being” signifies that some statement is true.

Thus the truth of a thing can be said to determine the truth of a proposition after the manner of a cause; for a discourse is true or false by reason of the fact that a thing is or is not. For when we say that something is, we signify that a proposition is true; and when we say that something is not, we signify that it is not true. And this applies both to affirmation and to negation.

It applies to affirmation as when we say that Socrates is white because this is true, and to negation as when we say that Socrates is not white because this is true (namely, that he is not white). And in a similar way we say that the diagonal of a square is not incommensurable with a side, because its being incommensurable is false.

896. Now it must be noted that this second way in which “being” is used is related to the first as an effect is to a cause. For from the fact that something is in reality, it follows that there is truth and falsity in a proposition, and the intellect signifies this by the term “is” taken as a verbal copula. But since the intellect considers as a kind of being something which is in itself a non-being, such as a negation and the like, therefore sometimes being is predicated of something in this second way and not in the first. For blindness is said to be in the second way on the grounds that the proposition in which something is said to be blind is true. However, it is not said to be true in the first way; for blindness does not have any being in reality, but is rather a privation of some being.

Now it is accidental to a thing that an attribute should be affirmed of it truly in thought or in word, for reality is not referred to knowledge, but the reverse. But the act of being which each thing has in its own nature is substantial. Therefore, when it is said that Socrates is, if the “is” is taken in the first way, it belongs to substantial predicates, for being is a higher predicate with reference to any particular being, as animal with reference to man. But if it is taken in the second way, it belongs to accidental predicates.

Division by potency and act

897. Again, “to be,” and “being” (1017a35). Here he gives the division of being into the actual and the potential. He says that “to be,” and “being,” signifies something which is expressible or utterable potentially or actually. For in the case of all of the foregoing terms which signify the ten predicaments, something is said to be so actually and something else potentially; and from this it follows that each predicament is divided by act and potency.

And just as in the case of things that are outside the mind some are said to be actually and some potentially, so also is this true in the case of the mind’s activities, and in that of privations, which are only conceptual beings.

For one is said to know both because he is capable of using scientific knowledge and because he is using it; similarly, a thing is said to be at rest both because rest belongs to it already and because it is capable of being at rest.

And this is true not only of accidents but also of substances. For we say that Mercury (that is, the image of Mercury), is in the stone potentially; and half of the line is in the line potentially, for every part of a continuum is potentially in the whole. And the line is included among substances according to the opinion of those who hold that the objects of mathematics are substances—an opinion which he has not yet disproved. And when grain is not yet ripe—for example, when it is still in blade—it is said to be potentially. Just when, however, something is potential and when it is no longer such must be established elsewhere—namely, in book 9 of this work [1832].