[
1060a]
[1]
because that which involves the
destruction of something else is a principle. These and other similar
points are those which cause us perplexity.
Again,
ought we to assume the existence of something else besides particular
things, or are they the objects of the science which we are
seeking?
1 It is true that they are
infinite in number; but then the things which exist besides
particulars are genera or species, and neither of these is the object
of the science which we are now seeking. We have explained
2 why this is impossible.Indeed, in general it is a difficult question
whether we should suppose that there is some substance which exists
separately besides sensible substances (i.e. the substances of our
world), or that the latter constitute reality, and that it is with
them that Wisdom is concerned. It
seems that we are
looking for some other kind of substance, and that this is the object
of our undertaking: I mean, to see whether there is anything which
exists separately and independently, and does not appertain to any
sensible thing.But again,
if there is another kind of substance besides sensible substances, to
what kind of sensible things are we to suppose that it corresponds?
Why should we suppose that it corresponds to men or horses rather than
to other animals, or even to inanimate objects in general? And yet to
manufacture a set of eternal substances equal in number to those which
are sensible and perishable would seem to fall outside the bounds of
plausibility.Yet if
the principle which we are now seeking does not exist in separation
from bodies,
[20]
what can we
suppose it to be if not matter? Yes, but matter does not exist
actually, but only potentially. It might seem rather that a more
appropriate principle would be form or shape; but this is
perishable
3; and so in general there is no eternal substance
which exists separately and independently.But this is absurd, because it seems natural
that there should be a substance and principle of this kind, and it is
sought for as existing by nearly all the most enlightened thinkers.
For how can there be any order in the universe if there is not
something eternal and separate and permanent?
Again,
if there is a substance and principle of such a nature as that which
we are now seeking, and if it is one for all things, i.e. the same for
both eternal and perishable things, it is a difficult question as to
why, when the principle is the same, some of the things which come
under that principle are eternal, and others not; for this is
paradoxical.
4 But if there is one principle of perishable
things, and another of eternal things, if the principle of perishable
things is also eternal, we shall still have the same difficulty;
because if the principle is eternal, why are not the things which come
under that principle eternal? And if it is perishable, it must have
another principle behind it, and that principle must have another
behind it; and the process will go on to infinity.
On the
other hand, if we posit the principles which seem most unchangeable,
Being and Unity,
5(a) unless each of them denotes a
particular thing and a substance,