indivisible, either quantitatively or formally. Thus that which is quantitatively and qua quantitative wholly indivisible and has no position is called a unit; and that which is wholly indivisible and has position, a point; that which is divisible in one sense, a line; in two senses, a plane; and that which is quantitatively divisible in all three senses, a body. And reversely that which is divisible in two senses is a plane, and in one sense a line; and that which is in no sense quantitatively divisible is a point or a unit; if it has no position, a unit, and if it has position, a point. Again, some things are one numerically, others formally, others generically, and others analogically; numerically, those whose matter is one; formally, those whose definition is one; generically, those which belong to the same category; and analogically, those which have the same relation as something else to some third object. In every case the latter types of unity are implied in the former: e.g., all things which are one numerically are also one formally, but not all which are one formally are one numerically; and all are one generically which are one formally, but such as are one generically are not all one formally, although they are one analogically; and such as are one analogically are not all one generically. It is obvious also that "many" will have the opposite meanings to "one." Some things are called "many" because they are not continuous; others because their matter (either primary or ultimate) is formally divisible; others because the definitions of their essence are more than one. "Being" means (1.) accidental being, (2.)
absolute being. (1.) E.g., we say that the upright person "is" cultured, and that the man "is" cultured, and that the cultured person "is" a man; very much as we say that the cultured person builds, because the builder happens to be cultured, or the cultured person a builder; for in this sense "X is Y" means that Y is an accident of X. And so it is with the examples cited above; for when we say that "the man is cultured" and "the cultured person is a man" or "the white is cultured" or "the cultured is white," in the last two cases it is because both predicates are accidental to the same subject, and in the first case because the predicate is accidental to what is; and we say that "the cultured is a man" because "the cultured" is accidental to a man. (Similarly "not-white" is said to "be," because the subject of which "not-white" is an accident, is.) These, then, are the senses in which things are said to "be" accidentally: either because both predicates belong to the same subject, which is; or because the predicate belongs to the subject, which is; or because the subject to which belongs that of which it is itself predicated itself is. (2.) The senses of essential being are those which are indicated by the figures of predication The categories. For the full list of these see Aristot. Categories 1b 25-27.; for "being" has as many senses as there are ways of predication. Now since some predicates indicate (a) what a thing is, and others its (b) quality, (c) quantity, (d) relation, (e) activity or passivity, (f) place, (g) time, to each of these corresponds a sense of "being." There is no difference between "the man is recovering" and "the man recovers"; or between "the man is walking" or "cutting" and "the man walks" or "cuts"; and similarly in the other cases. (3.) Again, "to be" and "is" mean that a thing is true, and "not to be" that it is false. Similarly too in affirmation and negation; e.g., in " Socrates is cultured" "is" means that this is true; or in "Socrates is not-white" that this is true; but in "the diagonal is not commensurable" Cf. Aristot. Met.
1.2.15. "is not" means that the statement is false. (4.) Again, "to be" <or "is"> means that some of these statements can be made in virtue of a potentiality and others in virtue of an actuality. For we say that both that which sees potentially and that which sees actually is "a seeing thing." And in the same way we call "understanding" both that which can use the understanding, and that which does; and we call "tranquil" both that in which tranquillity is already present, and that which is potentially tranquil. Similarly too in the case of substances. For we say that Hermes is in the stone, Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.5.6.
and the half of the line in the whole; and we call "corn" what is not yet ripe. But when a thing is potentially existent and when not, must be defined elsewhere. Aristot. Met.
9.9. "Substance" means (a) simple bodies, e.g. earth, fire, water and the like; and in general bodies, and the things, animal or divine, including their parts, which are composed of bodies. All these are called substances because they are not predicated of any substrate, but other things are predicated of them. (b) In another sense, whatever, being immanent in such things as are not predicated of a substrate, is the cause of their being; as, e.g., the soul is the cause of being for the animal. (c) All parts immanent in things which define and indicate their individuality, and whose destruction causes the destruction of the whole; as, e.g., the plane is essential to the body (as some The Pythagoreans and Platonists. hold) and the line to the plane. And number in general is thought by some The Pythagoreans and Platonists. to be of this nature, on the ground that if it is abolished nothing exists, and that it determines everything. (d) Again, the essence, whose formula is the definition, is also called the substance of each particular thing. Thus it follows that "substance" has two senses: the ultimate subject, which cannot be further predicated of something else; and whatever has an individual and separate existence. The shape and form of each particular thing is of this nature. "The same" means (a) accidentally the same. E.g., "white" and "cultured" are the same because they are accidents of the same subject; and "man" is the same as "cultured," because one is an accident of the other; and "cultured" is the same as "man" because it is an accident of "man"; and "cultured man" is the same as each of the terms "cultured" and "man," and vice versa; for both "man" and "cultured" are used in the same way as "cultured man," and the latter in the same way as the former. Hence none of these predications can be made universally. For it is not true to say that every man is the same as "the cultured"; because universal predications are essential to things, but accidental predications are not so, but are made of individuals and with a single application. " Socrates" and "cultured Socrates" seem to be the same; but " Socrates" is not a class-name, and hence we do not say "every Socrates" as we say "every man." Some things are said to be "the same" in this sense, but (b) others in an essential sense, in the same number of senses as "the one" is essentially one; for things whose matter is formally or numerically one, and things whose substance is one, are said to be the same. Thus "sameness" is clearly a kind of unity in the being, either of two or more things, or of one thing treated as more than one; as, e.g., when a thing is consistent with itself; for it is then treated as two. Things are called "other" of which either the forms or the matter or the definition of essence is more than one; and in general "other" is used in the opposite senses to "same." Things are called "different" which, while being in a sense the same, are "other" not only numerically, but formally or generically or analogically; also things whose genus is not the same; and contraries; and all things which contain "otherness" in their essence. Things are called "like" which have the same attributes in all respects; or more of those attributes the same than different; or whose quality is one. Also that which has a majority or the more important of those attributes of something else in respect of which change is possible (i.e. the contraries) is like that thing. And "unlike" is used in the opposite senses to "like." The term "opposite" is applied to (a) contradiction; (b) contraries; (c) relative terms; (d) privation; (e) state; (f) extremes; e.g. in the process of generation and destruction. And (g) all things which cannot be present at the same time in that which admits of them both are called opposites; either themselves or their constituents. "Grey" and "white" do not apply at the same time to the same thing, and hence their constituents are opposite. "Contrary" means: (a) attributes, generically different, which cannot apply at the same time to the same thing. (b) The most different attributes in the same genus; or (c) in the same subject; or (d) falling under the same faculty. (e) Things whose difference is greatest absolutely, or in genus, or in species. Other things are called "contrary" either because they possess attributes of this kind, or because they are receptive of them, or because they are productive of or liable to them, or actually produce or incur them, or are rejections or acquisitions or possessions or privations of such attributes. And since "one" and "being" have various meanings, all other terms which are used in relation to "one" and "being" must vary in meaning with them; and so "same," "other" and "contrary" must so vary, and so must have a separate meaning in accordance with each category. Things are called "other in species" (a) which belong to the same genus and are not subordinate one to the other; or (b) which are in the same genus and contain a differentia; or (c) which contain a contrariety in their essence. (d) Contraries, too (either all of them or those which are called so in a primary sense), are "other in species" than one another; and (e) so are all things of which the formulae are different in the final species of the genus (e.g., "man" and "horse" are generically indivisible, but their formulae are different); and (f) attributes of the same substance which contain a difference. "The same in species" has the opposite meanings to these. "Prior" and "posterior" mean: (1.) (a) In one sense (assuming that there is in each genus some primary thing or starting-point) that which is nearer to some starting-point, determined either absolutely and naturally, or relatively, or locally, or by some agency; e.g., things are prior in space because they are nearer either to some place naturally determined, such as the middle or the extreme, or to some chance relation; and that which is further is posterior. (b) In another sense, prior or posterior in time. Some things are prior as being further from the present, as in the case of past events (for the Trojan is prior to the Persian war, because it is further distant from the present); and others as being nearer the present, as in the case of future events (for the Nemean are prior to the Pythian games because they are nearer to the present, regarded as a starting-point and as primary). (c) In another sense, in respect of motion (for that which is nearer to the prime mover is prior; e.g., the boy is prior to the man). This too is a kind of starting point in an absolute sense. (d) In respect of potency; for that which is superior in potency, or more potent, is prior. Such is that in accordance with whose will the other, or posterior, thing must follow, so that according as the former moves or does not move, the latter is or is not moved. And the will is a "starting-point." (e) In respect of order; such are all things which are systematically arranged in relation to some one determinate object.
E.g., he who is next to the leader of the chorus is prior to him who is next but one, and the seventh string is prior to the eighth The octachord to which Aristotle refers was composed of the following notes: E the starting-point, and in the other the middle Strictly speaking there was no middle string in the octachord; the name was taken over from the earlier heptachord EFGABbCD, in which there was no parame/sh. The me/sh was apparently what we should call the tonic.
Cf. Aristot. Met. 14.6.5; Aristot. Problemata 919b 20.
string. In these examples "prior" has this sense; but (2.) in another sense that which is prior in knowledge is treated as absolutely prior; and of things which are prior in this sense the prior in formula are different from the prior in perception. Universals are prior in formula, but particulars in perception. And in formula the attribute is prior to the concrete whole: e.g. "cultured" to "the cultured man"; for the formula will not be a whole without the part. Yet "cultured" cannot exist apart from some cultured person. Again, (3.)
attributes of prior subjects are called prior; e.g., straightness is prior to smoothness, because the former is an attribute of the line in itself, and the latter of a surface. Some things, then, are called prior and posterior in this sense; but others (iv.) in virtue of their nature and substance, namely all things which can exist apart from other things, whereas other things cannot exist without them. This distinction was used by Plato. Not, apparently, in his writings. (And since "being" has various meanings, (a) the substrate, and therefore substance, is prior; (b) potential priority is different from actual priority. Some things are prior potentially, and some actually; e.g., potentially the half-line is prior to the whole, or the part to the whole, or the matter to the substance; but actually it is posterior, because it is only upon dissolution that it will actually exist.) Indeed, in a sense all things which are called "prior" or "posterior" are so called in this connection; for some things can exist apart from others in generation (e.g. the whole without the parts), and others in destruction (e.g. the parts without the whole). And similarly with the other examples. "Potency" Or "capacity" or "potentiality." means: (a) the source of motion or change which is in something other than the thing changed, or in it qua other. E.g., the science of building is a potency which is not present in the thing built; but the science of medicine, which is a potency, may be present in the patient, although not qua patient. Thus "potency" means the source in general of change or motion in another thing, or in the same thing qua other; or the source of a thing's being moved or changed by another thing, or by itself qua other (for in virtue of that principle by which the passive thing is affected in any way we call it capable of being affected; sometimes if it is affected at all, and sometimes not in respect of every affection, but only if it is changed for the better). (b) The power of performing this well or according to intention; because sometimes we say that those who can merely take a walk, or speak, without doing it as well as they intended, cannot speak or walk. And similarly in the case of passivity. (c) All states in virtue of which things are unaffected generally, or are unchangeable, or cannot readily deteriorate, are called "potencies."
For things are broken and worn out and bent and in general destroyed not through potency but through impotence and deficiency of some sort; and things are unaffected by such processes which are scarcely or slightly affected because they have a potency and are potent and are in a definite state. Since "potency" has all these meanings, "potent" (or "capable") will mean (a) that which contains a source of motion or change (for even what is static is "potent" in a sense) which takes place in another thing, or in itself qua other. (b) That over which something else has a potency of this kind. (c) That which has the potency of changing things, either for the worse or for the better (for it seems that even that which perishes is "capable" of perishing; otherwise, if it had been incapable, it would not have perished. As it is, it has a kind of disposition or cause or principle which induces such an affection. Sometimes it seems to be such as it is because it has something, and sometimes because it is deprived of something; but if privation is in a sense a state or "habit," everything will be "potent" through having something; and so a thing is "potent" in virtue of having a certain "habit" or principle, and also in virtue of having the privation of that "habit," if it can have privation; and if privation is not in a sense "habit," the term "potent" is equivocal). (d) A thing is "potent" if neither any other thing nor itself qua other contains a potency or principle destructive of it. (e) All these things are "potent" either because they merely might chance to happen or not to happen, or because they might do so well. Even in inanimate things this kind of potency is found; e.g. in instruments; for they say that one lyre "can" be played, and another not at all, if it has not a good tone. "Impotence" is a privation of potency—a kind of abolition of the principle which has been described—either in general or in something which would naturally possess that principle, or even at a time when it would naturally already possess it (for we should not use "impotence"—in respect of begetting—in the same sense of a boy, a man and a eunuch). Again, there is an "impotence" corresponding to each kind of potency; both to the kinetic and to the successfully kinetic. Some things are said to be "impotent" in accordance with this meaning of "impotence," but others in a different sense, namely "possible" and "impossible." "Impossible" means: (a) that whose contrary is necessarily true; e.g., it is impossible that the diagonal of a square should be commensurable with the sides, because such a thing is a lie, whose contrary is not only true but inevitable. Hence that it is commensurable is not only a lie but necessarily a lie. And the contrary of the impossible, i.e. the possible, is when the contrary is not necessarily a lie; e.g., it is possible that a man should be seated, for it is not necessarily a lie that he should not be seated. "Possible," then, means in one sense, as we have said, that which is not necessarily a lie; in another, that which is true; and in another, that which may be true. (The "power" in geometry A square was called a du/namis. Plat. Rep 587d; Plat. Tim. 31c. is so called by an extension of meaning.) These are the senses of "potent" which do not correspond to "potency." Those which do correspond to it all refer to the first meaning, i.e. "a source of change which exists in something other than that in which the change takes place, or in the same thing qua other." Other things are said to be "potent" sc. in a passive sense, which the English word "potent" cannot bear. because something else has such a potency over them; others because it does not possess it; others because it possesses it in a particular way. The term "impotent" is similarly used. Thus the authoritative definition of "potency" in the primary sense will be "a principle producing change, which is in something other than that in which the change takes place, or in the same thing qua other." "Quantity" means that which is divisible into constituent parts, each i.e., if there are only two. or every one of which is by nature some one individual thing. Thus plurality, if it is numerically calculable, is a kind of quantity; and so is magnitude, if it is measurable. "Plurality" means that which is potentially divisible into non-continuous parts; and "magnitude" that which is potentially divisible into continuous parts. Of kinds of magnitude, that which is continuous in one direction is length; in two directions, breadth; in three, depth. And of these, plurality, when limited, is a number; length, a line; breadth, a plane; depth, a body. Again, some things are essentially quantitative, but others only accidentally; e.g. the line is essentially, but "cultured" accidentally quantitative. And of the former class some are quantitative in virtue of their substance, e.g. the fine (because the definition which describes it is quantitative in some form); and others are attributes and conditions of a substance of this kind— e.g., "much" and "little," "long" and "short," "broad" and "narrow," "deep" and "shallow," "heavy" and "light," etc. Moreover, "great" and "small," and "greater" and "smaller," whether used absolutely or relatively to one another, are essential attributes of quantity; by an extension of meaning, however, these terms are also applied to other things. Of things called quantitative in an accidental sense, one kind is so called in the sense in which we said above that "cultured" or "white" is quantitative—because the subject to which they belong is quantitative; and others in the sense that motion and time are so called—for these too are said in a sense to be quantitative and continuous, since the subjects of which they are attributes are divisible. I mean, not the thing moved, but that through or along which the motion has taken place; for it is because the latter is quantitative that the motion is quantitative, and because the motion is quantitative that the time is also. "Quality" means (a) in one sense, the differentia of essence; e.g., a man is an animal of a certain quality because he is two-footed; and so is a horse, because it is four-footed. Also a circle is a geometrical figure of a certain quality, because it has no angles; which shows that the essential differentia is quality. In this one sense, then, "quality" means differentia of essence; but (b) in another it is used as of immovable and mathematical objects, in the sense that numbers are in a way qualitative—e.g. such as are composite and are represented geometrically not by a line but by a plane or solid (these are products respectively of two and of three factors)—and in general means that which is present besides quantity in the essence. For the essence of each number is that which goes into it once; e.g. that of 6 is not what goes twice or three times, but what goes once; for 6 is once 6. (c) All affections of substance in motion in respect of which bodies become different when they (the affections) change—e.g. heat and cold, whiteness and blackness, heaviness and lightness, etc. (d) The term is used with reference to goodness and badness, and in general to good and bad. Thus there are, roughly speaking, two meanings which the term "quality" can bear, and of these one is more fundamental than the other. Quality in the primary sense is the differentia of the essence; and quality in numbers falls under this sense, because it is a kind of differentia of essences, but of things either not in motion or not qua in motion. Secondly, there are the affections of things in motion qua in motion, and the differentiae of motions. Goodness and badness fall under these affections, because they denote differentiae of the motion or functioning in respect of which things in motion act or are acted upon well or badly. For that which can function or be moved in such-and-such a way is good, and that which can function in such-and-such a way and in the contrary way is bad. Quality refers especially to "good" and "bad" in the case of living things, and of these especially in the case of such as possess choice. Things are called "relative" (a) In the sense that "the double" is relative to the half, and "the triple" to the third; and in general the "many times greater" to the "many times smaller," and that which exceeds to the thing exceeded. (b) In the sense that the thing which heats or cuts is relative to the thing heated or cut; and in general the active to the passive. (c) In the sense that the measurable is relative to the measure, and the knowable to knowledge, and the sensible to sensation. (a) In the first sense they are said to be numerically relative; either simply, or in a definite relation to numbers or to 1. E.g., "the double" in relation to 1 is a definite number; the "many times as great" is in a numerical relation to 1, but not in a definite relation such as this or that; the relation of that which is 1.5 times something else to that something is a definite numerical relation to a number; and that which is (n+1)/n times something else is in an indefinite relation to a number, just as "the many times as great" is in an indefinite relation to 1. The relation of that which exceeds to that which is exceeded is numerically quite indefinite, for number is commensurate, and is not predicated of the incommensurate; whereas that which exceeds, in relation to that which is exceeded, is "so much" plus something more; and this something more is indefinite, for it is indifferently equal or not equal to the "so much." Thus not only are all these things said to be relative in respect of number, but also the "equal" and "like" and "same," though in another way: for all these terms are used in respect of "one". Things are "the same" whose essence is one; "like" whose quality is one; "equal" whose quantity is one. Now "one" is the starting-point and standard of number; and so all these relations involve number, though not all in the same way. (b) Active and passive things are called relative in virtue of an active or passive potentiality or actualization of the potentialities; e.g., that which can heat is called relative to that which can be heated, because it can heat; and again the thing heating is called relative to the thing heated, and the thing cutting to the thing cut, because their potentialities are actualized. Numerical relations, on the other hand, are not actualized (except as has been described elsewhere) The reference is quite uncertain, but cf. Aristot. Met. 9.9.4, 5.
The point is that the actualization of a numerical (or geometrical) relation does not imply an active functioning, as in the case of the potentialities just described.; they have no actualizations in respect of motion. Of things potentially relative, some are further relative in respect of particular times; as, e.g., that which has made or will make is relative to that which has been or will be made. It is in this way that a father is called father of a son; the one has acted, and the other has been acted upon, in a particular way.
Again, some things are relative in virtue of a privation of their potentiality; such is "the impossible" and all similar terms, e.g.
"the invisible." Thus relative terms which involve number and potentiality are all relative because their very essence contains a reference to something else; but not because something else is related to their essence. But (c) that which is measurable or knowable or thinkable is called relative because something else is related to its essence. For "thinkable" signifies that there is a thought which thinks it; but thought is not relative to that of which it is the thought (for then the same thing would have been said twice). And similarly sight is the sight of something; not of that of which it is the sight, although this is of course true—it is relative to some color or other similar thing. To describe it in the other way—"the sight of the object of sight"—would be to say the same thing twice. Things, then, which are called relative of their own nature are so called, some in these senses, and others because the classes which contain them are of this kind. E.g., medicine is reckoned as relative because its genus, science, is thought to be a relative thing. Further, there are the properties in virtue of which the things which possess them are called relative; e.g., "equality" is relative because "the equal" is relative, and "similarity" because "the similar" is relative. Other things are accidentally relative; e.g., a man is relative because he happens to be "double" something else, and "double" is a relative term; or "white" is relative if the same thing happens to be white as well as double. "Perfect" <or "complete"> means: (a) That outside which it is impossible to find even a single one of its parts; e.g., the complete time of each thing is that outside which it is impossible to find any time which is a part of it. (b) That which, in respect of goodness or excellence, cannot be surpassed in its kind; e.g., a doctor and a musician are "perfect" when they have no deficiency in respect of the form of their peculiar excellence. And thus by an extension of the meaning we use the term in a bad connection, and speak of a "perfect" humbug and a "perfect" thief; since indeed we call them "good"— e.g. a "good" thief and a "good" humbug. (c) And goodness is a kind of perfection. For each thing, and every substance, is perfect when, and only when, in respect of the form of its peculiar excellence, it lacks no particle of its natural magnitude. (d) Things which have attained their end, if their end is good, are called "perfect"; for they are perfect in virtue of having attained the end. Hence, since the end is an ultimate thing, we extend the meaning of the term to bad senses, and speak of perishing "perfectly" or being "perfectly" destroyed, when the destruction or calamity falls short in no respect but reaches its extremity. Hence, by an extension of the meaning, death is called an "end," because they are both ultimate things. And the ultimate object of action is also an end. Things, then, which are called "perfect" in themselves are so called in all these senses; either because in respect of excellence they have no deficiency and cannot be surpassed, and because no part of them can be found outside them; or because, in general, they are unsurpassed in each particular class, and have no part outside. All other things are so called in virtue of these, because they either produce or possess something of this kind, or conform to it, or are referred in some way or other to things which are perfect in the primary sense. "Limit" means: (a) The furthest part of each thing, and the first point outside which no part of a thing can be found, and the first point within which all parts are contained.
(b) Any form of magnitude or of something possessing magnitude. (c) The end of each thing. (This end is that to which motion and action proceed, and not the end from which. But sometimes it is both the end from which and the end to which, i.e. the final cause.) (d) The reality or essence of each thing; for this is the limit of our knowledge of it, and if it is a limit of the knowledge, it is also a limit of the thing. Thus it is obvious that "limit" has not only as many senses as "beginning" but even more; because the beginning is a kind of limit, but not every limit is a beginning. "That in virtue of which" has various meanings. (a) The form or essence of each individual thing; e.g., that in virtue of which a man is good is "goodness itself." (b) The immediate substrate in which a thing is naturally produced; as, e.g., color is produced in the surface of things. Thus "that in virtue of which" in the primary sense is the form, and in the secondary sense, as it were, the matter of each thing, and the immediate substrate. And in general "that in virtue of which" will exist in the same number of senses as "cause." For we say indifferently "in virtue of what has he come?" or "for what reason has he come?" and "in virtue of what has he inferred or inferred falsely?" or "what is the cause of his inference or false inference?" (And further, there is the positional sense of kaq' o(/, "in which he stands," or "in which he walks"; all these examples denote place or position.) Hence "in virtue of itself" must also have various meanings. It denotes (a) The essence of each particular; e.g., Callias is in virtue of himself Callias and the essence of Callias. (b) Everything contained in the definition; e.g., Callias is in virtue of himself an animal, because "animal" is present in the definition, since Callias is a kind of animal. (c) Any attribute which a thing has received directly in itself or in any of its parts; e.g., the surface is white in virtue of itself; and man lives in virtue of himself, because the soul is a part of the man, and life is directly contained in it. (d) That which has no other cause. Man has many causes: "animal," "twofooted," etc.; but nevertheless man is in virtue of himself man. (e) All things which belong to a thing alone and qua alone; and hence that which is separate is "in virtue of itself." This seems to be a slightly irrelevant reference to kaq' a(uto/ in the sense of "independent"; but corruption in the text has made the true reading uncertain.
"Disposition" means arrangement of that which has parts, either in space or in potentiality or in form. It must be a kind of position, as indeed is clear from the word, "disposition." "Having" (/ecis means not only "having" but "habit" or "state." Cf. Latin, habitus.
means (a) In one sense an activity, as it were, of the haver and the thing had, or as in the case of an action or motion; for when one thing makes and another is made, there is between them an act of making. In this way between the man who has a garment and the garment which is had, there is a "having." Clearly, then, it is impossible to have a "having" in this sense; for there will be an infinite series if we can have the having of what we have. But (b) there is another sense of "having" which means a disposition, in virtue of which the thing which is disposed is disposed well or badly, and either independently or in relation to something else. E.g., health is a state, since it is a disposition of the kind described. Further, any part of such a disposition is called a state; and hence the excellence of the parts is a kind of state. "Affection" means (a) In one sense, a quality in virtue of which alteration is possible; e.g., whiteness and blackness, sweetness and bitterness, heaviness and lightness, etc. (b) The actualizations of these qualities; i.e. the alterations already realized. (c) More particularly, hurtful alterations and motions, and especially hurts which cause suffering. (d) Extreme cases of misfortune and suffering are called "affections." The English equivalent for pa/qos in this sense would be "calamity" or "disaster." We speak of "privation": (a) In one sense, if a thing does not possess an attribute which is a natural possession, even if the thing itself would not naturally possess it This is not a proper sense of privation, as Aristotle implies by choosing an example from everyday speech.; e.g., we say that a vegetable is "deprived" of eyes. (b) If a thing does not