[
1092a]
[1]
and that the Bad is
the province for the activity of the Good, and partakes of and tends
towards that which is destructive of the Good; for a contrary is
destructive of its contrary.And if, as we said,
1
the matter of each thing is that which is it
potentially—e.g., the matter of actual fire is that which is
potentially fire—then the Bad will be simply the potentially
Good.
Thus all these objections
follow because (1.) they make every principle an element; (2.) they
make contraries principles; (3.) they make unity a principle; and (4.)
they make numbers the primary substances, and separable, and
Forms.
If, then, it is impossible both not to
include the Good among the first principles, and to include it in this
way, it is clear that the first principles are not being rightly
represented, nor are the primary substances. Nor is a certain
thinker
2
right in his assumption when he likens the principles of the universe
to that of animals and plants, on the ground that the more perfect
forms are always produced from those which are indeterminate and
imperfect, and is led by this to assert that this is true also of the
ultimate principles; so that not even unity itself is a real
thing.
3 He
is wrong; for even in the natural world the principles from which
these things are derived are perfect and complete—for it is
man that begets man; the seed does not come first.
4 It is absurd also to generate space
simultaneously with the mathematical solids (for space is peculiar to
particular things, which is why they are separable in space, whereas
the objects of mathematics have no position)
[20]
and to say that they must be somewhere,
and yet not explain what their spatial position is.
Those
who assert that reality is derived from elements, and that numbers are
the primary realities, ought to have first distinguished the senses in
which one thing is derived from another, and then explained in what
way number is derived from the first principles. Is it by mixture? But
(a) not everything admits of mixture
5; (b) the result of mixture is something
different; and unity will not be separable,
6 nor will it be a distinct entity, as
they intend it to be.Is it
by composition, as we hold of the syllable? But (a) this necessarily
implies position; (b) in thinking of unity and plurality we shall
think of them separately. This, then, is what number will
be—a unit
plus plurality, or unity
plus the Unequal.
And since
a thing is derived from elements either as inherent or as not inherent
in it, in which way is number so derived? Derivation from inherent
elements is only possible for things which admit of generation.
7 Is it derived as from seed?But nothing can be emitted from that
which is indivisible.
8 Is it derived from a contrary which does not persist? But
all things which derive their being in this way derive it also from
something else which does persist. Since, therefore, one thinker
9 regards unity as
contrary to plurality,