[
1056b]
[1]
but in the other case there is no
question of difference, since the joint negation applies to things
which are in different genera, and therefore the substrate is not
one.
1 A
similar question might be raised about "one" and "many." For if "many"
is absolutely opposed to "one," certain impossibilities result. (1)
One will be few; for "many" is also opposed to "few."(2) Two will be many; since
"twofold" is "manifold," and "twofold" is derived from two. Therefore
one will be few; for in what relation can two be many if not in
relation to one, which must therefore be few? for there can be nothing
less. (3) If "much" and "little" are in plurality what "long" and
"short" are in length, and if whatever is "much" is also
"many,"and "many" is
"much" (unless indeed there is a difference in the case of a plastic
continuum
2), "few" will be a
plurality. Therefore one will be a plurality, if it is few; and this
necessarily follows if two is many. Presumably, however, although
"many" in a sense means "much," there is a distinction; e.g., water is
called "much" but not "many."To all things, however, which are divisible
the term "many" is applicable: in one sense, if there is a plurality
which involves excess either absolutely or relatively (and similarly
"few" is a plurality involving defect); and in another in the sense of
number, in which case it is opposed to "one" only.
[20]
For we say "one or many" just as if we
were to say "one and ones," or "white thing and white things," or were
to compare the things measured with the measure.Multiples, too, are spoken of in this
way; for every number is "many," because it consists of "ones," and
because every number is measurable by one; and also as being the
opposite of one, and not of few. In this sense even two is many; but
as a plurality involving excess either relatively or absolutely it is
not many, but the first plurality. Two is, however, absolutely few;
because it is the first plurality involving defect(hence Anaxagoras
3 was not right in leaving the subject
by saying "all things were together, infinite both in multitude and in
smallness"; instead of "in smallness" he should have said "in
fewness,"
4 for things cannot
be infinite in fewness), since fewness is constituted not by one, as
some hold, but by two.
In the sphere of numbers "one"
is opposed to many as the measure to the measurable, i.e., as relative
terms are opposed which are not of their own nature relative. We have
distinguished elsewhere
5 that things
are called relative in two senses—either as being
contraries, or as knowledge is related to the knowable, A being
related to B because B is described in relation to A.