5. Categories Chapter 2: Being Said Of and In a Subject

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Fourfold Division of Beings (τὰ ὄντα) #

Aristotle divides beings using two binary distinctions:

1. Said of a subject vs. Not said of a subject (corresponding to universal vs. singular)
2. In a subject vs. Not in a subject (corresponding to accident vs. substance)

This creates four classes:

1. Universal Substance #

• Said of a subject but NOT in a subject
• Example: ‘Man’ is said of individual men but does not exist in them as an accident does
• Universal substance is said of its subject-parts without being composed of them

2. Individual Substance #

• NOT said of a subject AND NOT in a subject
• Examples: This particular man (Dwayne Berquist), this particular horse
• These are fundamentally unique, one in number (ἄτομα—undivided)
• The ultimate subjects of predication; nothing else is predicated of them

3. Universal Accident #

• Said of a subject AND in a subject
• Examples: Science (said of grammar, logic, geometry; exists in the soul); Virtue (said of courage, temperance; exists in the soul)
• Both characteristics are affirmed

4. Individual Accident #

• In a subject BUT NOT said of a subject
• Examples: This particular knowledge of grammar in my mind; this particular whiteness in this body
• Cannot be separated from what it is in; cannot exist apart

Being ‘In a Subject’: The Definition #

Aristotle specifies what it means to be in a subject:

• Not as a part (which is the second sense of ‘in’—e.g., teeth in mouth)
• Rather: something that belongs to something and is impossible to be apart from that which it is in
• Example: My particular knowledge cannot be extracted from my mind and placed in another’s mind or on a table
• One can generate similar knowledge in another mind, but not transfer the same knowledge

The Purpose of These Distinctions #

Aristotle structures this division using two strategies:

1. Affirming one thing and denying another: Shows distinctions by opposing what is affirmed in one class to what is denied in another (e.g., universal substance affirms predication of others but denies existing in a subject; individual accident denies predication but affirms existing in a subject)
2. Taking the extremes first: Universal substance and individual accident represent opposite poles, making the distinction obvious

Individual Substance as the Fundamental Subject #

Everything else is predicated of individual substances in three distinct ways:

1. By reason of what it is (per se):

   • Examples: ‘Man,’ ‘Animal,’ ‘Substance’
   • These constitute the category of substance
   • Universal substances are said of individual substances this way

2. By reason of something in it (denominatively):

   • Examples: ‘Tall,’ ‘White,’ ‘Healthy,’ ‘Just,’ ‘Knowledgeable’
   • Not said by what the substance is, but by some accident inhering in it
   • Corresponds to the nine accident categories

3. By reason of something outside it:

   • Examples: ‘In this room,’ ‘Clothed,’ ‘Yesterday’
   • External relations or positions
   • Neither part of the substance nor inhering in it as an accident

Why These Distinctions Prepare for the Categories #

The ten categories correspond to:

• Substance: Things that don’t exist in another (universal or individual substance)
• The nine accidents: Things that exist in another (whether universal or individual)

Key Arguments #

The Equivocation Problem #

Argument: Not all things are said ‘in the same way’ of individual substances.

• When we say ‘Dwayne Berquist is a man,’ we predicate what he is
• When we say ‘Dwayne Berquist is white,’ we predicate something in him
• When we say ‘Dwayne Berquist is in a room,’ we predicate something outside him
• Therefore, the ten categories must be distinguished by these different ways of predication

The Relationship Between Universal Substance and Composed Whole #

Key distinction:

• Universal whole: Said of its parts but NOT composed of them

  • Example: ‘Animal’ is said of dog, cat, horse, elephant, but is not a composite of these things
  • If animal were composed of these, saying ‘a dog is an animal’ would mean ‘a dog is a mixture of dog, cat, horse, etc.’—absurd

• Composed whole: Composed of its parts but NOT said of them

  • Example: A chair is composed of seat, legs, back, but we do not say ’the seat is a chair’ or ’the legs are chairs’
  • Though sometimes parts can be called by the name of the whole (metonymically)

The Distinction Between ‘Said Of’ and ‘In’ a Subject #

Argument by opposition: These cannot be the same thing.

• Something can be said of a subject without being in a subject (universal substance)
• Something can be in a subject without being said of a subject (individual accident)
• Therefore: predication and inherence are fundamentally different relations

Individual Substance as Undivided (ἄτομα) #

Etymology and meaning:

• From ἀ (negative prefix) + τέμνειν (to cut)
• Opposite of how universals are divided in particulars
• Socrates is not divided into other individuals; he is one in number
• The word ‘atom’ (from physics) derives from this but is now a sign of our ignorance—the so-called ‘indivisible’ particles turned out to be divisible

Important Definitions #

τὰ λεγόμενα (Things Said) vs. τὰ ὄντα (Beings) #

Aristotle divides beings according to:

• τὰ λεγόμενα: Of things said—focusing on predication

  • Some are said σὺν συμπλοκῇ (with intertwining/conjunction)—e.g., ‘Man runs,’ ‘White man’
  • Some are said ἄνευ συμπλοκῆς (without intertwining)—e.g., simple terms like ‘man,’ ‘white,’ ‘runs’

• τὰ ὄντα: Of beings—focusing on modes of existence

  • Some are said of a subject; some are in a subject; combinations thereof

In a Subject (ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ) #

Not what is in something as a part (second sense of ‘in’), but something that:

• Belongs to something
• Is impossible to be apart from that which it is in (ἀδυνάτων χωρὶς εἶναι)

Said of a Subject (κατὰ ὑποκειμένου) #

Predicated of something as an answer to ‘What is it?’ (τί ἐστι)

• Answers the question of essence or nature
• Characteristic of universal predication

One in Number (ἑν τῷ ἀριθμῷ) #

Aristotle’s term for individual/singular things:

• Not said of any subject
• May exist in a subject (if an individual accident)
• Cannot be divided into other things of the same kind

Examples & Illustrations #

Universal Substance Predication #

• ‘This man is a man’ (individual substance of universal substance)
• ‘Man is an animal’ (universal substance of universal substance)
• ‘Animal is a substance’ (universal substance of universal substance)

Individual Accident Inherence #

• My particular knowledge of geometry (exists in my mind, not predicated of anything)
• This particular whiteness (exists in a body, not predicated of anything)
• My knowledge of logic (cannot be extracted and placed on a table or in someone else’s mind)

The Three Ways of Predication of Individual Substance #

Example: Father Michael (individual substance)

1. By reason of what he is:

   • ‘Father Michael is a man’
   • ‘He is an animal’
   • ‘He is a substance’

2. By reason of something in him:

   • ‘He is healthy/sick’
   • ‘He is tall/short’
   • ‘He is just/unjust’
   • ‘He is a son’

3. By reason of something outside him:

   • ‘He is in his room’
   • ‘He is clothed’
   • ‘He has a beard’ (though this is part of him)

The Distinction Between Beard and Clothing #

Berquist’s distinction:

• A beard is part of the person, not properly said by reason of something outside him
• Clothing is outside the person, not part of him, and properly exemplifies predication by reason of something external
• Contact lenses, similarly, are not part of you even though worn on your eye

Composed Wholes vs. Universal Wholes #

Chair: Composed whole

• Made of seat, legs, back (composing parts)
• We don’t say ’the seat is a chair’ or ’the legs are chairs’
• Though a knife’s blade can sometimes be called ‘a knife’ (metonymic usage)

Animal: Universal whole

• Universally said of dog, cat, horse, elephant
• Not composed of them
• These are called ‘subject parts’ (ὑποκειμένα μέρη)

Questions Addressed #

Can Things Be Said of a Subject Without Existing In a Subject? #

Answer: Yes—universal substances.

• ‘Man’ is said of individual men but does not exist in them as an accident does
• The genus has a different relation to its species than accidents have to their subjects

Can Things Exist In a Subject Without Being Said of a Subject? #

Answer: Yes—individual accidents.

• My knowledge of grammar exists in my mind but is not predicated of anything else
• This particular whiteness exists in a body but is not said of other things

Why Does Aristotle Present These Distinctions Using Opposed Affirmations and Denials? #

Answer: To make the distinctions obvious and unmistakable.

• By affirming one relation in one class and denying it in another, the distinction becomes clear
• Example: Universal substance affirms ‘said of’ but denies ‘in a subject’; individual accident denies ‘said of’ but affirms ‘in a subject’

How Are the Ten Categories Distinguished? #

Answer: By the different ways something can be said of individual substances.

• Substance category: Things said by reason of what the individual substance is
• Accident categories: Things said by reason of something in or outside the individual substance
• Thomas Aquinas will subdivide the second and third ways further

Why Is It Important That Individual Substance Is Neither Said of Nor In a Subject? #

Answer: Because individual substances are the fundamental subjects of all predication.

• Everything else is either predicated of them or exists in them
• They are the ultimate ‘ground’ upon which all other things depend
• Without individual substances, there would be nothing for universals to be said of or for accidents to inhere in

Theological Implications #

The Problem of Speaking About God #

Berquist’s observation: Our ordinary language about having and predication breaks down with God.

• We say ‘God has mercy,’ but in God the haver and the had are not distinct
• We say ‘God is good’ and ‘God is goodness itself’—but these mean something different than when said of creatures
• For creatures: We have goodness as something external to what we are (we have virtue or grace)
• For God: God IS goodness itself—there is no distinction between God and His attributes
• Therefore: The church fathers spoke of the mind ‘stuttering’ when trying to speak of God

The Simplicity of God #

Thomas Aquinas’s argument (referenced from Summa Gentiles):

1. God is good (affirmed)
2. God is goodness itself (his nature IS goodness, not merely an attribute)
3. Therefore: There can be nothing bad in God (because if He were goodness itself, badness would be impossible in Him)

Contrast with creatures:

• I am good, but I am not goodness itself; I have goodness through virtue or grace
• I am also capable of being bad; there is something in me that is not good
• Therefore: The conclusion about God’s simplicity does not apply to creatures

God as the Good of Every Good #

From Augustine (referenced in Summa Gentiles): God is the summum bonum—the highest good and the good of every good. Nothing can be good unless it partakes in some way of God’s goodness.