6. The Ten Categories and their Enumeration

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Enumeration of the Ten Categories (Chapter 4) #

Aristotle enumerates ten highest genera without intertwining (ἀδιαπλόκως), each signifying either:

1. Substance (οὐσία): What a thing is

   • Examples: man, horse
   • Individual substances (this man, this horse) are most known to us
   • Singular substance is primary; universal substances (genera and species) are said of singulars

2. Quantity (ποσόν - concrete, not abstract ποσότης): How much or how many

   • Examples: two cubits, three cubits long
   • Both discrete and continuous quantity
   • English “size” captures both meanings (size of a mountain, size of a crowd)

3. Quality (ποιόν - concrete, not abstract ποιότης): How/what sort

   • Examples: white (λευκόν), grammatical (γραμματικόν)
   • One sensible/bodily (white), one in the soul (grammatical knowledge)
   • Shows breadth of the category

4. Relation (πρός τι): Toward something (ad aliquum in Latin)

   • Examples: double, half, greater
   • Concrete relational language preserves the accidental character
   • Critical for understanding Trinitarian theology

5. Place (ποῦ): Where

   • Examples: in the Lyceum (private), in the marketplace/agora (public)
   • NOT to be confused with the abstract “place”

6. Time (ποτέ): When

   • Examples: yesterday, last year
   • NOT to be confused with abstract “time”

7. Position (κεῖσθαι): How positioned/laid out

   • Examples: sitting, lying down
   • Latin: situs

8. Having (ἔχειν): To have

   • Examples: shod, armed, clothed
   • Latin: habitus
   • Distinction: “I am white” (quality) vs. “I have white” (having)

9. Acting (ποιεῖν): Acting upon

   • Examples: cutting, burning, warming
   • Distinction: “warm” (quality) vs. “warming” (acting upon)

10. Undergoing (πάσχειν): Being acted upon/suffering

    • Examples: being cut, being burned, being warmed
    • Distinction between the property and the activity

Aristotle’s Deliberate Use of Concrete Terminology #

Berquist emphasizes that Aristotle uses concrete terms rather than abstract nouns:

• ποσόν (how much/many) not ποσότης (quantity)
• ποιόν (how) not ποιότης (quality)
• πρός τι (toward something) not σχέσις (relation)

Why this matters:

• Concrete language emphasizes the accidental character (accidents exist in another)
• Abstract terms might suggest substances rather than accidents
• Denominative (concrete) forms better capture the nature of accidents
• Roman Kassurik pointed this out as crucial for philosophical understanding

Why Examples Matter #

Berquist’s teacher, Roman Kassurik, taught: “You can tell a man’s understanding of the matter by the examples he chooses.”

Why Aristotle chooses man before horse:

• Man is most known to us (it is ourselves)
• Horse is closer to man than tree or stone
• Shows understanding of what is manifest to human knowledge
• Stone’s unity is questionable; trees can be grafted

Why Aristotle chooses his specific examples of each category:

• They demonstrate order and intelligence
• Sensible examples come first (e.g., white before grammatical)
• Examples show breadth (e.g., private place [Lyceum] and public place [agora])

The Translation Problem #

Berquist criticizes modern English translations for using abstract terms where concrete ones are needed:

• “Where” not “place”
• “When” not “time” (place and time are themselves quantities)
• “Acting upon” not “action”
• “Undergoing” not “passion”

Example of mistranslation consequences: If you translate πρός as “relation” instead of the concrete “toward,” you lose the force of John 1:1 (“the Word was toward God”) for understanding Trinitarian relations.

Connection to Trinitarian Theology #

The concrete relational language is critical:

• John 1:1: “the Word was toward God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν)”
• This is the same πρός Aristotle uses for relation
• Persons of the Trinity are distinguished by relations—by how they are toward each other
• The Son is toward (πρός) the Father; the Father is Father to the Son
• The Holy Spirit’s relation differs: proceeding from Father and Son (like breath), not as a Son
• Concrete “toward-ness” captures this better than abstract “relation”

Three Parts of the Categories (Latin Division) #

• Ante-Predicamenta (before the predicaments): Chapters 1-4
  • Prepares understanding before taking up categories one by one
• Predicamenta (the predicaments): Chapters 5 onward
  • Takes up each category in detail (substance, quantity, quality, relation mainly)
  • Brief treatment of last six categories
• Post-Predicamenta: Will be discussed later

Key Arguments #

Why Substance is the First Category #

• Individual substances are what individual accidents exist in
• Everything else is said of or exists in individual substances
• The categories are distinguished by how something is said of individual substances
• Substance is neither in a subject nor said of a subject (it is primary)

Why Aristotle Enumerates These Ten (Not More, Not Fewer) #

Implicit in the lecture:

• Names said without intertwining each signify one of these categories
• These are the highest genera
• No genus above them (would require infinite regress)
• Each has its own order and character

The Principle of Order Across Categories #

• Whatever is said of the predicate is said of the subject
• But this ordering differs between categories:
  • Ordered genera (like substance: individual → universal): same differences apply down the line
  • Different genera (like animal and science): differences don’t transfer across unordered genera
  • Footed, two-footed are differences of animal, not of science

Truth and Being in Simple Terms #

• Things said without intertwining (like “man,” “white,” “runs”) are neither true nor false
• Only composition/separation (κατάφασις) of terms produces truth or falsity
• “What is, is” (being true); “what is not, is not” (also being true)
• “What is, is not” or “what is not, is” (both false)
• Simple terms themselves lack truth-value

Important Definitions #

Οὐσία (Substance): What a thing is; can be either individual substance (singular, atoma) or universal substance (genus or species)

ποσόν (How much/many): Concrete quantity term; emphasizes the accidental character

ποιόν (How): Concrete quality term; what sort of thing

πρός τι (Toward something): Relation as concretely understood; what something is directed or related to

ποῦ (Where): Place, understood concretely—not as the abstract “place” but as location

ποτέ (When): Time, understood concretely—not as abstract time but as temporal position

κεῖσθαι (Keisthai): Position, attitude, or how something is laid out; Latin situs

ἔχειν (Echein): To have; possessing something (e.g., shod with shoes); Latin habitus

ποιεῖν (Poiein): Acting upon; doing something to another (cutting, burning)

πάσχειν (Paschein): Undergoing; being acted upon; suffering an action

Κατάφασις (Kataphasis): Composition/combination of terms that produces a statement capable of being true or false

Λόγος (Logos): In the context of definition, the rational account of something

Examples & Illustrations #

Substance #

• Man and horse (chosen because they are closest to us and have clear unity)
• Not stone or tree (whose unity is questionable)
• Individual substances (this man, this horse) vs. universal substances (man, animal, living body, substance)

Quantity #

• Two cubits long, three cubits long
• Size of a mountain (continuous), size of a crowd (discrete)
• Both captured by the single English term “size”

Quality #

• White (λευκόν)—sensible, bodily quality
• Grammatical (γραμματικόν)—quality in the soul
• Shows the category’s breadth (bodily and mental qualities)

Relation #

• Double, half, greater
• All obvious examples from quantity-based relations

Place #

• In the Lyceum (private place)
• In the Agora/marketplace (public place)
• Shows a distinction between private and public

Time #

• Yesterday (recent past, more clear)
• Last year (more distant past)

Position #

• Sitting, lying down

Having #

• Being shod (having shoes)
• Being armed (having armor)
• Being clothed (having clothes)

Acting & Undergoing #

• Cutting / being cut
• Burning / being burned
• Warming / being warmed
• Kicking / being kicked

The Lyceum #

• Aristotle’s school, named from which his learning place was called
• Modern French “lycée” derives from it
• Academy (Plato’s school) is more famous historically
• Movie theaters once called “Lyceum” show Aristotle’s declining cultural presence

Ronald Reagan’s Film #

• Illustrated the sense of losing part of one’s substance (“Where’s the rest of me?”)
• Shows how substance (individual man) is more known to us than accidents

Notable Quotes #

“You can tell a man’s understanding of the matter by the examples he chooses.” — Roman Kassurik

“Until translators are philosophers or philosophers are translators, you’ll have bad translations.” — Duane Berquist (paraphrasing Plato)

“Compared to Aristotle, I have the brain of an angleworm.” — Roman Kassurik

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God” — Gospel of John 1:1 (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, using the same πρός as Aristotle’s category of relation)

“He said, you’re going to be a philosopher, you take Greek.” — Roman Kassurik to young Duane Berquist

Questions Addressed #

Why Does Aristotle Use Concrete Terms Rather Than Abstract Ones? #

• To preserve the sense that these are accidents (things that exist in another)
• Abstract terms like “quantity” and “quality” sound like substances themselves
• Concrete terms (“how much,” “how”) emphasize the accidental character better
• This reflects more accurate philosophical understanding

Why Are Man and Horse Chosen as Primary Examples of Substance? #

• Man is most known to us (we are men)
• Horse is closer to man than stone or tree
• Shows Aristotle’s understanding of what is manifest to human knowledge
• Contrasts with stone (unclear unity) and tree (can be grafted, lacks clear unity)

Why Does the Lyceum No Longer Dominate as Aristotle’s School? #

• Berquist notes Plato’s Academy is more famous in modern culture
• The term “Lycée” for French schools preserves the name
• But “movie theaters” called the Lyceum suggest declining philosophical association
• Reflects broader cultural shift away from Aristotelian philosophy

How Do Categories Relate to Trinitarian Theology? #

• Persons of the Trinity are distinguished by relations (πρός τι)
• The Son is “toward” (πρός) the Father; the Father is “Father to” the Son
• The Holy Spirit’s relation is different: proceeding from Father and Son (breathing)
• Understanding Aristotle’s concrete πρός language illuminates John 1:1
• Without this understanding, translations lose critical theological meaning

What Is the Difference Between “Warm” and “Warming”? #

• Warm: A quality (ποιόν)
• Warming: Acting upon (ποιεῖν)—the activity of making something warm
• Sitting by a fire, I am being warmed (undergoing, πάσχειν)
• The fire is warming me (acting upon, ποιεῖν)
• Precise language requires distinguishing the property from the activity

How Does Simple/Unseparated Language Relate to Truth and Falsehood? #

• Simple terms like “man,” “white,” “runs” by themselves are neither true nor false
• Only when combined into statements (κατάφασις) does truth/falsehood arise
• “What is, is” = true statement
• “What is not, is not” = also true statement
• “What is, is not” = false statement
• This reflects the composition required for truth-value

Parenthetical Observations #

Berquist notes that Aristotle’s method in the Categories differs from modern philosophers:

• Modern philosophers might not order examples meaningfully
• Aristotle and Thomas always show order and intelligence in examples
• The choice of examples reveals the philosopher’s understanding
• Careful attention to examples is therefore philosophically important