Commentary Aristotle Metaphysics
80. In the first line of reasoning he uses three indications to show that water is the principle of being of things.
The first of these is that the nutriment of living things must be moist. But living things derive nourishment and being from the same principle; thus moisture appears to be the principle of being of things.
The second indication is that the being of any physical thing, and especially of a living one, is conserved by its proper and natural heat. But heat seems to be generated from moisture, since moisture itself is in a sense the matter of heat. Hence from this it appears that moisture is a principle of being of things.
The third indication is that animal life depends on moisture. Hence an animal dies as a result of its natural moisture being dried up, and is kept in existence as a result of its moisture being preserved. But in living things, to live is to be. Hence it is also evident from this that moisture is a principle of being of things.
These three indications also have a natural connection with one another. For an animal is nourished by moisture, because its natural heat is sustained by moisture. And from these two it follows that animal life is always due to moisture. But that from which a thing comes to be (that is, from which a thing gets its being) is a principle of everything that derives being from it. And for this reason he adopted this opinion that moisture is the principle of all things.
81. In a similar way, he also draws an indication of this from the generation of things, because the processes of generation of living things, which are the noblest of beings, come from seed. But the seed or spermata of all living things has a moist nature. Hence from this it also appears that moisture is a principle of generation of things. Again, if we add to all of the above points the fact that water is the principle of moisture, it follows that water is the first principle of things.
82. But there are some. Here he shows how Thales was led to the above position by the authority of the ancients. He says that prior to Thales and many years before the men of Aristotle’s time there were some men, the first to speculate about the gods, who seem to have held this opinion about nature, namely, that water is the principle of all things.
83. With a view to making this clear, we must bear in mind that among the Greeks the first who were famous for their learning were certain theological poets, so called because of the songs that they wrote about the gods. These poets, who were three in number—Orpheus, Museus, and Linus (of whom Orpheus was the more famous)—lived during the time when the judges ruled over the Jewish people. Hence it is clear that they lived long before Thales and much longer before Aristotle, who lived during the time of Alexander. These poets dealt to some extent with the nature of things by means of certain figurative representations in myths. For they said that Oceanus, where the greatest aggregation of waters is found, and Tethys, which is the name they gave to the goddess of the waters, are the parents of generation, implying under the form of a myth that water is the principle of generation.
84. They cloaked this view in another fabulous story, saying that the oath or vow of the gods was by a certain body of water, which the poets call Styx and describe as an underground swamp. And when they said that the gods swore by water, they implied that water was nobler than the gods themselves, because an oath or vow is taken on what is most honorable. Now that which is prior is more honorable, for the perfect is prior absolutely to the imperfect, both in nature and in time, although in a particular being imperfection is prior temporally to perfection. Hence, from this it is evident that they thought that water is prior to the gods themselves, whom they thought to be celestial bodies. And since these earliest thinkers said that water is the principle of things, if there was any opinion about natural bodies prior to theirs, we do not know what it was. Thus, what Thales is said to have thought about the first cause of things is now clear.
85. A certain philosopher named Hippo was not credited with adding anything to those mentioned because of the imperfection of his knowledge or understanding. Hence, in On the Soul, Hippo is placed among the ruder thinkers; for in that work it is stated that Hippo, basing his argument on the seeds of things (as was said here of Thales), held water to be the soul and principle of things. Hence it is clear that he adds nothing to Thales’ view. Or the statement can mean that, since he spoke imperfectly, he did not make himself worthy to have his doctrine included here with the others.
86. Anaximenes and Diogenes. Here he gives the opinions of those who held that air is the principle of things. These were Diogenes and Anaximenes, who held that air is naturally prior to water and is the principle of all simple bodies, that is, of the four elements, and thus of all other things. Anaximenes is the third philosopher after Thales and the disciple of Anaximander, who was the disciple of Thales; Diogenes is said to have been the disciple of Anaximenes. Yet there is this difference between the opinion of Diogenes and that of Anaximenes: Anaximenes held that air is the principle of things in an absolute sense, whereas Diogenes said that air could be the principle of things only if it possessed a divine nature. From this comes the opinion which is touched on in On the Soul 1. Now the reason why he held that air is the principle of things could be taken from the process of respiration, by which the life of animals is conserved, and because the processes whereby things are generated and corrupted seem to be modified as a result of changes in the air.
87. Hippasus of Metopontium. Here he states that two philosophers, Hippasus and Heraclitus, held that fire is the material principle of things. And they could have been influenced by its subtleness, as is said below.
88. Empedocles. Here he gives the opinions of those who posited many material principles.
First, he gives the opinion of Empedocles, who held that there are a limited number of such principles;
second, that of Anaxagoras, who held that there are an infinite number, at Anaxagoras.
First, he gives Empedocles’ opinion regarding the three elements mentioned above (water, air, and fire), which he says are the principles of things, adding to them a fourth, earth.
89. Second, he gives Empedocles’ opinion about the permanence of these elements; like those who hold that there is one material cause, he holds that these elements always remain and are neither generated nor corrupted. However, he said that other things are generated from and divided into these elements according as a greater or smaller number of them are combined or separated out (that is, inasmuch as these four are united by the process of combination and lose their unity by the process of separation).
90. Anaxagoras. Here he gives the opinion of Anaxagoras, who was the other disciple of Anaximenes and the classmate of Diogenes. A native of Clazomenae, he was prior to Empedocles in years but later in his activity or work, either because he began to philosophize later, or because his explanation of the number of principles is less satisfactory than that of Empedocles. For he said that there are an infinite number of material principles, whereas it is better to take a limited and smaller number, as Empedocles did, as is stated in Physics 1.
For Anaxagoras not only said that fire, water, and the other elements are the principles of things, as Empedocles did, but also claimed that all things having like parts, such as flesh, bones, marrow and so forth, whose smallest parts are infinite in number, are the principles of things. For he claimed that in each being there are an infinite number of parts of each type of thing, because he found that in the case of inferior things one of these can be generated from another. He said, in fact, that things could be generated only by being separated out from a mixture, as Aristotle has explained more fully in Physics 1.
91. Second, Anaxagoras also agrees with Empedocles on this point: things are generated and corrupted only insofar as the parts of these infinite principles are combined or separated out, and that if this were not the case nothing would be generated or corrupted. But he said that the infinite number of principles of this kind, from which the substances of things are produced, always remain in being.
92. From the opinions of these philosophers, then, Aristotle concludes that the only cause which these men recognized was the one which belongs to the species of material cause.