LESSON V

Ways in Which An Enunciation May Be Many Rather than One

             20b 12 Neither the affirmation nor the negation which affirms or denies one predicate of many subjects or many predicates of one subject is one, unless something one is constituted from the many. I do not use "one" of those things which, although one name may be imposed, do not constitute something one. For example, man probably is animal and biped and civilized, but there is also something one formed from these; whereas from "white" and "man" and "walking" there is not. Consequently, if someone affirms something one of these latter there will not be one affirmation, except in vocal sound; on the contrary, there will be many affirmations. Nor will there be one affirmation if someone affirms these of one subject; in this case too there will be many.

             20b 22 In fact, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, i.e., either for the admission of a premise or one part of a contradiction--and a premise is a part of one contradiction--there would not be one answer in reference to the above predicates. There would not be one answer even if there is a true answer, for there would not be a single question.

             20b 26 But we have spoken about these things in the Topics.

             At the same time it is clear that the question "What is it?" is not a dialectical one. For the dialectical interrogation must provide for choosing whichever part of a contradiction one wishes to enunciate. For this the interrogator must specifically word the question so that the parts of the contradiction are clear; for example, by asking whether man is this or not.

             1. After the Philosopher has treated the diversity in an enunciation arising from the addition of the infinite negation, he explains what happens to an enunciation when something is added to the subject or predicate which takes away its unity. He first determines their diversity, and then proves that all the enunciations are many where he says, In fact, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, etc. Secondly, he determines their consequences, where he says, Some things predicated separately are such that they unite to form one predicate, etc.

             He begins by taking up something he said in the first book: there is not one affirmative enunciation nor one negative enunciation when one thing is affirmed or denied of many or many of one, if one thing is not constituted from the many. Then he explains what he means by the subject or predicate having to be one where he says, I do not use "one" of those things which, although one name may be imposed, do not constitute something one, i.e., a subject or predicate is one, not from the unity of the name, but from the unity of what is signified. For when many things are brought together under one name in such a way that what is signified by that name is not one, then the unity is only one of vocal sound. But when one name has been imposed for many, whether for subjective or for integral parts, so that it encloses them in the same signification, then there is unity both of vocal sound and what is signified. In the latter case, unity of the enunciation is not impeded.

             2. Then he adds, For example, man probably is an animal and biped and civilized. This, however, is obscure, for it can be understood as an example of the opposite, as if he were saying, "I do not mean by 'one' such a 'one' as the unity of the name imposed upon many from which one thing is not constituted, for instance, 'man' as 'one' from the parts of the definition, animal and civilized and biped.'" And to prevent anyone from thinking these are true parts of the definition of the name he interposes perhaps.

             Porphyry, however, referred to with approval by Boethius, separates these parts of the text. He says Aristotle first states that that enunciation is many in which many are subjected to one, or many are predicated of one, when one thing is not constituted from these. And when he says, For example, man perhaps is, etc., he intends to show that an enunciation is many when many from which one thing is constituted are subjected or predicated, as in the example "Man is an animal and civilized and biped," with copulas interjected or a pause such as orators make. He added perhaps, they say, to imply that this could happen, but it need not.

             3. While agreeing with the opinion of Porphyry, Boethius, and Albert, we think a more subtle construction can be made of the text. According to it Aristotle makes four points here. First, he reviews what an enunciation is in general when he says, The enunciation is many in which one is enunciated of many or many of one, unless from the many something one is constituted . . . as he stated and explained in the first book.

             Secondly, he clarifies the term "one," when he says, I do not use "one" of those things, etc., i.e., I call a name one, not by reason of the unity of vocal sound, but of signification, as was said above.

             Thirdly, he manifests (by dividing) and divides (by manifesting) the number of ways in which one name may be imposed on many things from which one thing is not constituted. From this he implies the diversity of the multiple enunciation. And he posits two ways in which one name may be imposed on many things from which one thing is not constituted: first, when one name is imposed upon many things from which one thing is constituted but not as one thing is constituted from them. In this case, materially and accidentally speaking, the name is imposed on many from which one thing is constituted, but it is formally and per se imposed on many from which one thing is not constituted; for it is not imposed upon them in the respect in which they constitute one thing; as perhaps the name "man" is imposed to signify animal and civilized and biped (i.e., parts of its definition) not as they are united in the one nature of man in the mode of act and potency, but as they are themselves distinct actualities. Aristotle implies that he is taking these parts of the definition as distinct by the conjunctions and by also adding adversatively, but if there is something one formed from these, as if to say, "when however it holds that one thing is constituted from these."

             He adds perhaps because the name "man" is not imposed to signify its definitive parts as they are distinct. But if it had been so imposed or were imposed, it would be one name imposed on many things from which no one thing is constituted. And since the judgment with respect to such a name and those many things is the same, the many definitive parts can also be taken in two ways: first, in the mode of the actual and possible, and thus they constitute one thing, and formally speaking are called many from which one thing is constituted, and they are to be pronounced in continuous speech and they make one enunciation, for example, "A mortal rational animal is running." For this is one enunciation, just as is "Man is running." In the second way, the foresaid parts of the definition are taken as they are distinct actualities, and thus they do not constitute one thing, for one thing is not constituted from two acts as such, as Aristotle says in VII Metaphysicae. In this case they constitute many enunciations and are pronounced either with conjunctions interposed or with a pause in the rhetorical manner, for example, "Man is an animal and civilized and biped" or "Man is an animal--civilized--biped." Each of these is a multiple enunciation. And so is the enunciation, "Socrates is a man" if "man" is imposed to signify animal, civilized, and biped as they are distinct actualities.

             Aristotle takes up the second way in which one name is imposed on many from which one thing is not constituted where he says, whereas from "white" and "man" and "walking," there is not [something one formed]. Since in no way can any one nature be constituted from "man," "white," and "walking" (as there can be from the definitive parts), it is evident that if a name were imposed on these it would be a name that does not signify one thing, as was said in the first book of the name "cloak" imposed for man and horse.

             4. We have, therefore, two modes of the many (i.e., the multiple enunciation) and since both are constituted in two ways, there will be four modes: first, when one name imposed on many from which one thing is constituted is subjected or predicated as though the name stands for many; the second, when the many from one which one thing is constituted are subjected or predicated as distinct actualities; the third, when one name is imposed for a many from which nothing one is constituted; the fourth, when many which do not constitute one thing are subjected or predicated. Note that the enunciation, according to the members of the division by which it has been divided into one and many, can be varied in four ways, i.e., one is predicated of one, one of many, many of one, and many of many. Aristotle has not spoken of the last one, either because its plurality is clear enough or because, as Albert says, he only intends to treat of the enunciation which is one in some way.

             Finally [fourthly], he concludes with this summary: Consequently, if someone affirms something one of these latter there will not be one affirmation according to the thing: vocally it will be one; significatively, it will not be one, but many. And conversely, if the many are affirmed of one subject, there will not be one affirmation. For example, "Man is white, walking, and musical" implies three affirmations, i.e., "Man is white" and "is walking" and "is musical," as is clear from its contradiction, for a threefold negation is opposed to it, corresponding to the threefold affirmation.

             5. Then when he says, In fact, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, etc., he proves a posteriori that the foresaid enunciations are many. First he states an argument to prove this by way of the consequent; then he proves the antecedent of the given consequent where he says, But we have spoken about these things in the Topics, etc.

             Now if dialectical questioning is a request for an answer, either a proposition or one part of a contradiction, none of the foresaid enunciations, put in the form of a question, will have one answer. Therefore, the question is not one, but many. Aristotle first states the antecedent of the argument, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, etc. To understand this it should be noted that an enunciation, a question, and an answer sound the same. For when we say, "The region of heaven is animated," we call it an enunciation inasmuch as it enunciates a predicate of a subject, but when it is proposed to obtain an answer we call it an interrogation, and as applied to what was asked we call it a response. Therefore, to prove that there is not one response or one question or one enunciation will be the same thing.

             It should also be noted that interrogation is twofold. One proposes either of the two parts of a contradiction to choose from. This is called dialectical interrogation because the dialectician knows the way to prove either part of a contradiction from probable positions. The other kind of interrogation seeks one determinate response. This is the demonstrative interrogation, for the demonstrator proceeds determinately toward a single alternative.

             Note, finally, that it is possible to reply to a dialectical question in two ways. We may consent to the question, either affirmatively or negatively; for example, when someone asks, "Is the region of heaven animated," we may respond, "It is," or to the question "Is not God moved," we may say, "No." Such a response is called a proposition.

             The second way of replying is by destroying; for example, when someone asks "Is the region of heaven animated?" and we respond, "No," or to the question, "Is not God moved?" we respond, "He is moved." Such a response is called the other part of a contradiction, because a negation is given to an affirmation and an affirmation to a negation.

             Dialectical interrogation, then, according to the exposition just given, which is that of Boethius, is a request for the admission of a response which is a proposition, or which is one part of a contradiction.

             6. He adds the proof of the consequent when he says, and a proposition is a part of one contradiction. In relation to this it should be noted that if a dialectical response could be many, it would not follow that a response to a multiple enunciation would not be dialectical. However, if the dialectical response can only be one enunciation then it follows that a response to a plural enunciation is not a dialectical response, for it is one [i.e., it inclines to one part of a contradiction at a time].

             It should also be noted that if an enunciation is a part of many contradictions, it is thereby proven not to be one, for one contradicts only one. But if an enunciation is a part of only one contradiction, it is one by the same reasoning, i.e., because there is only one negation of one affirmation, and conversely.

             Hence Aristotle proves the consequent from the fact that the proposition, i.e., the dialectical response, is a part of one contradiction, i.e., it is one affirmative or one negative enunciation. It follows from this, as has been said, that there is no dialectical response of a multiple enunciation, and consequently not one response.

             It should not be overlooked that when he designates a proposition or one part of a contradiction as the response to a dialectical interrogation, it is only of the proposition that he adds that it is one, because the very wording shows the unity of the other. For when you hear one part of a contradiction, you immediately understand one affirmation or negation.

             He puts the "therefore" with the antecedent, either implying that this is taken from another place and he will explain in particular afterward, or having changed the structure, he places the sign of the consequent, which should be between the antecedent and consequent before the antecedent, as when one says, "Therefore if Socrates runs, he is moved," for "If Socrates runs, therefore he is moved."

             Then the consequent follows: there will not be one answer to this, etc.; and the inference of the principal conclusion, for there would not be a single question. For if the response cannot be one, the question will not be one.

             7. He adds, even if there is a true answer, because someone might think that although one response cannot be given to a plural interrogation when the question concerns something that cannot be affirmed or denied of all of the many (for example, when someone asks, "Is a dog an animal?" no one response can be given, for we cannot truly say of every dog that it is an animal because of the star by that name; nor can we truly say of every dog that it is not an animal, because of the barking dog), nevertheless one response could be given when that which falls under the interrogation can be truly said of all. For example, when someone asks, "Is a dog a substance?" a single response can be given because it can truly be said of every dog that it is a substance, for to be a substance belongs to all dogs. Aristotle adds the phrase, even if there is a true answer, to remove such an erroneous judgment. For even if the response to the multiple enunciation is verified of all, it is nonetheless not one, since it does not signify one thing, nor is it a part of one contradiction. Rather, as is evident, this response has many contradictories.

             8. Where he says, But we have spoken about these things in the Topics, etc., he proves the antecedent in two ways. First, he proves it on the basis of what was said in the Topics; secondly, by a sign.

             The sign is given first where he says, Similarly it is clear that the question "What is it?" is not a dialectical one, etc. That is, given the doctrine in the Topics, it is clear (i.e., assuming the antecedent that the dialectical interrogation is a request for an affirmative or negative response) that the question "What is it?" is not a dialectical interrogation, e.g., when someone asks, "What is an animal?" he does not interrogate dialectically.

             Secondly, he gives the proof of what was assumed, namely, that the question "What is it?" is not a dialectical question. He states that a dialectical interrogation must offer to the one responding the option of whichever part of the contradiction he wishes. The question "What is it?" does not offer such liberty, for in saying "What is an animal?" the one responding is forced to assign a definition, and a definition is not only determined to one but is also entirely devoid of contradiction, since it affirms neither being nor non-being. Therefore, the question "What is it?" is not a dialectical interrogation. Whence he says, For the dialectical interrogation must provide, i.e., from the proposed dialectical interrogation the one responding must be able to choose whichever part of the contradiction he wishes, which parts of the contradiction the interrogator must specify, i.e., he must propose the question in this way: "Is this animal man or not?" wherein the wording of the question clearly offers an option to the one answering. Therefore, you have as a sign that a dialectical question is seeking a response of a proposition or of one part of a contradiction, the setting apart of the question "What is it?" from dialectical questions.