6. The Ten Categories and their Enumeration

Summary

This lecture completes Aristotle’s Anti-Predicaments by enumerating and exemplifying the ten highest genera (categories). Berquist examines Aristotle’s deliberate use of concrete terminology (poson, poion, prosti) rather than abstract terms, explains why substance is privileged as the first category, and illustrates how each category is distinguished by the way predicates are said of individual substances. The lecture emphasizes the importance of precise translation and concrete language for understanding both Aristotelian logic and Trinitarian theology.

Listen to Lecture

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:

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
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)
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
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
Place (ποῦ): Where
- Examples: in the Lyceum (private), in the marketplace/agora (public)
- NOT to be confused with the abstract “place”
Time (ποτέ): When
- Examples: yesterday, last year
- NOT to be confused with abstract “time”
Position (κεῖσθαι): How positioned/laid out
- Examples: sitting, lying down
- Latin: situs
Having (ἔχειν): To have
- Examples: shod, armed, clothed
- Latin: habitus
- Distinction: “I am white” (quality) vs. “I have white” (having)
Acting (ποιεῖν): Acting upon
- Examples: cutting, burning, warming
- Distinction: “warm” (quality) vs. “warming” (acting upon)
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

📄 Handout References #

Vol III, p. 120 — The page is titled ‘CHAPTER FOUR OF THE CATEGORIES’ and contains exact matches for the lecture content: the list of ten categories, the discussion of ’no intertwining’, and the specific observation that in the ‘Book About Places (Topics)’, Aristotle calls the first category ‘What it is’ (ti esti) instead of substance (ousia).