Chapter 10 volume eight

Chapter One We must conclude our study by taking the consequences arising from the above sections and summarizing them.We have said that causes, principles, and elements of noumenon are the objects of our investigation.Some noumenon are recognized by everyone, and some are only recognized as noumenon by certain schools of thought.Those generally recognized are the natural substances, the simple bodies of fire, earth, water, air, etc.; next, plants and their parts, and animals and their parts; lastly, the universe and its parts.As for some schools of thought, general formulas and mathematical objects are regarded as ontology.In the debate there are other ontology, such as how is and the bottom.From another point of view, it seems that the family and genus should be regarded as the ontology more than each species, and the general (universal) should be regarded as the ontology more than individual (special) ones.From universality and genera are connected to Italian forms; these are also recognized as ontology by the same argument.And because how is the ontology, the definition is the formula of how to be. For this reason, we have discussed the definition and main categories.Since a definition is a formula, and a formula has parts, we also have to consider matters about "parts," what is and is not part of the ontology, and whether parts of the ontology are part of the definition.We have also said that universality and genera are not ontology.We must hereafter proceed to the study of forms and mathematical objects; for some say that these are substances as well as sensible things.

Let us now return to the generally recognized noumenon.These are sensible substances, and all sensible substances have matter.The bottom layer is noumenon, one meaning of noumenon is matter (I use the original meaning of matter to indicate that this is potentially a "this" rather than the realized "this"), and its other meaning is formula or shape (that is a thing that can "this" expressed by formula alone).The third sense is the compound of the two, which alone is degenerate and fully capable of self-existence—of the substances expressible by formulas, some are independent and some are not.

Matter is evidently also substance; for among all the opposite changes encountered there is something which is the substratum of the change on which the change can take place, and the instance of the change is like the "displacement" of being here at a moment and elsewhere. , now is such a scale, but in the future there will be "quantitative changes" of increasing or decreasing, and "qualitative changes" of being healthy and sick at one moment; similarly, there are changes of birth and death in the body. Becoming a "this" by changing and depriving the factor of being "this" by changing.In "Changes of Noumenon", other changes are also included.But in other changes, the body does not necessarily change with it, because things that have displacement substances do not necessarily have birth and death substances.

The distinction between the full name of becoming (general meaning of becoming) and its name of becoming (different meaning of becoming) has been discussed in our physics paper. Chapter Two The noumenon that exists as the bottom layer and matter, that is, the potential noumenon, can generally be recognized, and what remains to be explained should be the real noumenon of sensible things.Democritus seems to have thought of three kinds of differences between things of the same underlying substance, which differ from law as shape, or orientation as position, or contact as order.But everyone obviously saw more differences. For example, some things have different material combinations. Honey and water are made by mixing, bundles and so on are made by binding, books and so on are made by gluing, and boxes and so on are made of staples. Others are formed by the combination of numbers; some things are different because of the position, the lintel and the threshold are different, and some are different because of the time, such as lunch and breakfast; and some are different because of the place like the wind; and some differ according to the dispositions of sensible things, such as hardness, softness, density, wetness; insufficient.

Clearly, then, the word "is" should have so many meanings; something "is" a threshold because it is placed in such and such a position that what it "is" is a position, and something else For a piece of ice, what it "is" is actually a solid that condenses as such.The truth of some things is to be explained by exhausting all these different qualities, for that thing may be partly mixed, partly mixed, partly bound, partly solidified, and other differences to be applied to other parts; for example A hand or a foot needs such a complicated definition.Therefore, we must grasp the differences of various categories (these are the principles of things becoming real), such as the difference of things by how much, or by density, or by other similar properties; these are surplus or deficiency. of various forms.And the shape of any thing is mainly smooth or rough, and the difference is straight and curved.Other things, if mixed as real, will see their opposite as false.

From these facts, it is clear that, since the reality of things is derived from their substance, we should look for the causes of these things to be reality in these distinctions.Now these distinctions, alone or in conjunction with each other, are not the essence, but each already contains things comparable to the essence.As in noumenon, realization itself is accounted for by matter, so in other definitions matter comes closest to complete realization.For example, if we want to define a threshold, we should say "wood or stone in such and such a place", a house should say "wood and brick in such and such a place", or in some cases, we should say In relation to function beyond form, if we were to define ice, we should say "water freezes or solidifies in such and such a way";

It is evident, then, that as the matter differs, the realizations or formulas also differ; for some realizations depend on combinations, others on mixing, and others according to the other differences which we have said above.Thus, those who work on making definitions, who define a house "of brick and wood and stone," mean a latent house; Refers to the realization of the house.Those people combined the two terms to define it, which refers to the third noumenon composed of form and matter. (The formulas that account for the difference seem to be for form or realization, and those for constituent parts refer rather to matter); the definitions often accepted by Argyle are of this kind; they state the union of form and matter. .Example: What does it mean to have no wind? "Air inactivity in a wide range", air is a substance, and inactivity is the realization and also the noumenon.What is Wulang <Langping>? "Smoothness of the ocean", the substratum of matter is the ocean and its shape or realization is smoothness.So, it is obvious from what has been said above, but what is the sense being, how does this exist—

One is matter, another is form or realization, and the third is the combination of those two. Chapter three We must not ignore that sometimes it is unclear whether a name refers to the composite substance, or to the form and realization; for example, "house" as a sign marks "a shelter composed of bricks and stones so and so." "(composite things) or just "a shadow" (realization or form); is the line "the length of two" or just "two"; realization of a body). The name "animal" cannot be explained by one formula. It should be applicable to both, and the two formulas still refer to the same thing.But this question (whether the name refers to the synthetic substance or the form) is very important from another point of view, and not so important in the study of sensible substances; for what really lies in the form or realization. "Soul" is the same as "being a soul", but "being a man" is not the same as "man", unless that "soul" without a body is called a man; in one, a thing is what it is, and in the other Things are not what they are.

If we examine this, we see that syllables are not just letters put together, and houses are not just bricks put together.This is true; for combination or admixture does not apply to that which is combined or admixed, nor in every other case; For example, the position of the threshold is defined by it, but the position is not caused by the threshold, but the threshold is caused by the position.Man is not only an animal with two feet, but there must be something else besides these substances, and these other things are not elements or complex objects, but forms and substances: but people often forget this and only mention substances.If this is the reason why things exist, and this cause is also the substance of things, then people have not been able to explain this substance.

This, then, must be eternal, or perishable without ever taking part in the process of destruction, begotten without ever taking part in the process of becoming.It has been said and proved elsewhere that no one makes or reproduces forms, but only "individuals" are made, or only "complexes of form and matter" are produced.As for whether the noumenon of destructible things can be separated, it is not yet fully understood; what has been understood are only some individual cases, such as houses and furniture (the form) cannot exist independently without individuality.Perhaps in fact these things themselves, and any other things which are not made by nature, are not substance at all; for one may say that among perishable things, only their natural nature is substance.

It is therefore sometimes quite fashionable, too, that the doubts frequently raised by the School of Antireni and other uneducated people say "what" for which no definition can be made (the so-called definition is only a long formula), but what can be What they define is only the approximation of things; for example, silver, they think that no one can answer "what is silver", all they can answer is "it looks like tin".Therefore, what can be defined or formulated for it should only be that combined substance, including the sensible or intelligible combination; while the original parts that make up this substance cannot be defined. A formula as a definition takes a certain In order to denote certain things by these things, one part of the definition necessarily enumerates matter, and another part enumerates form. It is also obvious that if a certain meaning of noumenon is number, then these noumenon should be numbers in this sense, and not a collection of units + as some people say.Because a number is like a definition, (1) The definition is distinguishable and can be divided into parts that are no longer distinguishable (the formula of the definition is not endless), and the number also has the same property. (2) A number may increase or decrease by a part, even if the increase or decrease is very small, it is no longer the original number but another different number.In the same way, if there are some additions and subtractions between the definition and how is, it will not be the original definition. (3) A number must consist of that which is a whole number, if it is a whole.These thinkers could not tell why the columns should be equal.If it's not a whole, it's like a pile of things; Or if this is the whole, we should explain how the many can be one.Similarly, the definition is unity, and they can't say how the definition can become unity.This is a natural consequence; for the same reason applies, in the sense we have shown, that substances are one, not units or points, as some say; each substance is a complete realization. , each with a definite nature. (4) Numbers are not allowed to increase or decrease, and so is substance. Only the substance that includes matter is allowed to increase or decrease.This is where the discussion of the so-called generation and destruction of the noumenon—how it is possible to arise and die, and how it cannot be—and the reduction of things to numbers stops here. Chapter Four We must not forget with regard to the substance itself, that even though all things originate from the same first cause or have the same thing as their first cause, even if the same matter is the starting point of their generation, each thing still has its own Its immediate substances, such as phlegm, are sweet or fatty, and bile bitter or otherwise, though these may actually be derived from the same original substance.Again, when a substance is the substance of another thing, that thing may come from several substances; for example, if fat is from sweetness, mucus is from fat or sweetness; when the bile is analyzed as the original substance This will also see several substances from which bile is derived.There are two meanings for one thing to be derived from another, either because it was at a previous stage in the development of things, or because it was found to be the original component of the combination when the other thing was analyzed. Although there is only one kind of substance, different things can be produced if the motives are different; for example, wood can be a box or a bed.But there are different things whose matter must be different; for example, a saw cannot be made of wood, and this cannot be caught by the cause; the cause cannot make a saw of wool or wood.But if different substances actually produce the same thing, the technique of manufacture, that is, the agent, must be the same; if both the substance and the agent are different, the products must be different. There are several different meanings of cause, and when one studies the causes of things, he has to account for all possible causes.For example, what is the human factor?We should say menstruation.What is his motivation?It's the seeds.What about the original reason?What is his.What about the extreme cause?his whole life.But the last two causes may be the same. — These are the proximate causes which we must state.What is physical cause?We must not enumerate fire or earth, but the most immediate substance of the thing. If the reasons we want to investigate are those four items, then noumenon can be generated in nature, and if we do the right research, we can proceed in this way.But for those eternal noumenon in nature, this should be different.Because some may not have matter, or may not be like the kind of matter on the earth, but just like the kind of matter that can move in the space of the universe.Those things that exist in nature but are not substance also have no matter; their substratum is substance.For example what is the cause of a lunar eclipse?What is the substance of erosion?There is no matter; what is eclipsed is the moon.What is the cause of extinction of light?Earth.The extreme cause may not exist.The original cause is the formula of definition, and if the formula of definition does not contain the cause, it is only a vague formula.For example, what is a lunar eclipse? "Deprived of light".But if we add "covered by the earth in the middle", this becomes a formula that includes a cause.In the case of sleep, it is not clear what principle caused this evolution. Should we say that the animal is sleeping?Yes, but where does the animal's sleep begin?Heart or other parts?Second, what makes it sleep?So what does it feel like—is it that part of the body that goes to sleep, and not the whole animal?Should we say "sleep is so incapacitating"?Yes, but by what means is this part of the sleep-faculty so and so incapacitated? Chapter five For there are things like "points" which, if they are counted as being, have no trace of their presence or absence; What exists is not "white" but the wood that becomes "white"), not all opposites can be transformed into each other, and the meaning of "a black face becomes a white face" is different from "black becomes white".Not all things have matter, only those things that become and change have matter. Those things which never take part in the process of change, live or die, have no matter. One difficulty of the problem is in how the matter of each thing is related to its opposite state.For example, if a body is potentially healthy and disease is the opposite of health, is the body potentially both healthy and sick?And is water potentially both wine and vinegar?We answer that these are all substances, one is healthy based on the positive state and positive form, and the other is deprived and destroyed of the positive state and becomes a disease that is contrary to the nature of health.It is somewhat puzzling why wine is not a substance of vinegar, nor is it underlying vinegar (although vinegar is made from wine).Why not say a living person is a potentially dead person.In fact, they are neither.Here the corruption of the wine is accidental; while the substance which is a corpse is latent in the substance of the animal, and by the corruption of that substance the dead man is made, and the substance of the vinegar is really water.Therefore, as night is obtained from books, corpses are obtained from animals, and vinegar is obtained from wine.All things, if they transform into each other, must return to their matter; For example, if an animal is to be produced from a corpse, the corpse must be reduced to its substance, and only then can an animal be produced; vinegar must first be returned to water, and only then can wine be made again. Chapter Six Going back to the difficult problem I mentioned before, what is the reason for each of the definitions and column numbers becoming a whole?All things that have several parts, the whole is not a random heap, but includes the parts to form another thing, each of which must have its own cause of unity; One reason, or sticky, or other reasons like this.A definition is a group of words, which are not linked together like "Irie", but are linked together because they refer to an object.Then, what makes man one; why is he "one" instead of "many", for example, "animal" and "two-legged", according to some people's thinking, he should be both a general animal and a Is it a two-legged formula?Why don't these formulas themselves be human beings, let people directly and separately participate in these formulas; in this way, people are not a formula or an individual, but become animals and two legs, and ordinary people can become more than just one thing." Two things "animal" and "two feet"? Clearly, then, if people speak and make definitions according to their usual habits, they cannot formulate problems and answer them.But, as we have said, by taking the one as matter and the other as form, the one as potentiality and the other as actualization, the doubt disappears.Because this problem is the same as the problem caused by the definition of "X" as the copper circle; if X is the symbol of the definition formula, then the problem of X lies in the reason why "copper" and "circle" are united.Problems can be solved; because one is matter and the other is form.What causes the potential to become a reality? —(except the cause) There is no other reason for making a potential ball into a real ball, and this is due to how they are. Where there is a distinction between intelligible and sensible in matter, there is always a matter and an element of realization in a formula; for example a "circle" is a "planar figure".But things which have neither intelligible matter nor sensible matter are themselves a kind of unity and a kind of being—like individual substances, like qualities or quantities (thus in their definition do not express being, nor manifest the monad), since their nature is being, that is, the monad; therefore these have nothing else to be the cause of their unity and being; It is not because they are included in the category of "one" and "is", nor can it be said that these "one" and "is" can exist independently from the individual, they are directly some kind of unity and It is. In order to explain the problem of unity, some people focus on "participation", and turn the question to what is the reason for participation, and what is the participation; others also focus on "communication", such as Lu Govron said that knowledge is the "communication" of the soul; others say that life is the "synthesis" or "connection" of soul and body.But these synonyms, references are still the same for examples; such as the state of health, this will be said to be a "communication" or "connection" or "synthesis" of soul and health, like copper is a triangle. , it will be the "synthesis" of copper and triangle, and the fact that objects have white color must also be said to be the "synthesis" of surface and white.The rationale is that people are looking for a formula of unity, and the difference between potential and reality.But as mentioned above, the immediate matter and the form are one in the same thing, the one is potentially one and the other is actually one.So asking why they are one is like asking why things in general are one; everything is one in itself, potentiality and actuality are one.Therefore, there is no other reason, but the reason is that something is the cause of it, so that the potential becomes actual.As for all non-material things, the original is the full name of Yuan.