| | |
| Paragraph 1 |
We must not fail to notice that sometimes it is not clear whether
a name means the composite substance, or the actuality or form, e.g.
whether 'house' is a sign for the composite thing,
'a covering consisting of bricks and stones laid thus and thus',
or for the actuality or form, 'a covering', and whether a line is
'twoness in length' or 'twoness',
and whether an animal is 'soul in a body' or 'a soul'; |
| Paragraph 2 |
If we examine we find that the syllable does not consist of the letters
+ juxtaposition, nor is the house bricks + juxtaposition. |
| Paragraph 3 |
(This, then, must either be eternal or it must be destructible without
being ever in course of being destroyed, and must have come to be
without ever being in course of coming to be. |
| Paragraph 4 |
Therefore the difficulty which used to be raised by the school of
Antisthenes and other such uneducated people has a certain timeliness. |
| Paragraph 5 |
It is also obvious that, if substances are in a sense numbers, they
are so in this sense and not, as some say, as numbers of units. |
| Paragraph 6 |
(1) it is divisible, and into
indivisible parts (for definitory formulae are not infinite), and
number also is of this nature. |
| Paragraph 7 |
And (2) as, when one of the parts of
which a number consists has been taken from or added to the number,
it is no longer the same number, but a different one, even if it is
the very smallest part that has been taken away or added, so the definition
and the essence will no longer remain when anything has been taken
away or added. |
| Paragraph 8 |
And (3) the number must be something in virtue of which
it is one, and this these thinkers cannot state, what makes it one,
if it is one (for either it is not one but a sort of heap, or if it
is, we ought to say what it is that makes one out of many); |
| Paragraph 9 |
And (4) as number does not admit of the more
and the less, neither does substance, in the sense of form, but if
any substance does, it is only the substance which involves matter. |