Página inicial > Antiguidade > Neoplatonismo (245-529 dC) > Plotino (204-270 dC) – Tratados Enéadas > Plotino - Tratado 42,18 (VI, 1, 18) — O agir e o padecer

ENÉADAS

Plotino - Tratado 42,18 (VI, 1, 18) — O agir e o padecer

Enéada VI, 1, 18

sexta-feira 17 de junho de 2022, por Cardoso de Castro

Igal

18 Examinemos la división de las acciones en el género «actuar». ¿Dirán que unas son actos y otras movimientos calificando las instantáneas de actos y las demás de movimientos, por ejemplo el cortar —pues el cortar está en el tiempo—, o dirán que todas son movimientos o van acompañadas de movimiento? ¿Dirán que todas las acciones son relativas al padecer o que algunas son absolutas, como el andar y el hablar? ¿Dirán que todas las relativas al padecer son movimientos y las absolutas actos, o que en las unas y en las otras se da lo uno y lo otro? El caminar, al menos, que es acción absoluta, dirán que es movimiento; el pensar, en cambio, que tampoco comporta pasión, dirán, creo yo, que es acto. ¿O ni siquiera hay que admitir que el pensar y el caminar sean acciones? Pero si no entran en el género «actuar», hay que decir en cuál entran. Bien puede ser que digan que el pensar, como el pensamiento, es relativo a lo pensado, puesto que también la sensación es relativa a lo sensible. Pero si, en este caso, la sensación es relativa a lo sensible, ¿por qué el pensar mismo no es relativo a lo sensible? Mas, además, la sensación, bien que relativa a lo sensible, dice, sí, relación a lo sensible, pero posee una realidad distinta de la relación: la de ser o acto o pasión. Si, pues, la pasión es una realidad distinta del ser de algo y efecto de algo, también lo será el acto. Y el caminar, bien que comporta, también él, el ser de algo, o sea, de los pies, y efecto de algo, lleva consigo el ser movimiento. Pues también el pensamiento llevará consigo, además de la relación, el ser o movimiento o acto.

Bouillet

XVIII. Il faut examiner en outre si les Péripatéticiens ont raison de dire que dans l’agir il y a à la fois des actes et des mouvements, que les actes se produisent instantanément, et les mouvements successivement: diviser, par exemple, implique le temps. Ou bien diront-ils que tous les actes sont des mouvements ou du moins sont accompagnés de mouvement? Rapporteront-ils toutes les actions au pâtir, ou reconnaîtront-ils des actions absolues, comme marcher et parler (77)? Nommeront-ils mouvements toutes les actions qu’ils rapportent au pâtir, et actes les actions absolues, ou bien placeront-ils des actions des deux espèces au nombre des mouvements et au nombre des actes? Ils donneront sans doute le nom de mouvement à marcher, qui est une chose absolue, et celui d’acte à penser, auquel ne correspond rien de passif (78); sinon, ils seront obligés de soutenir qu’il n’y a rien d’actif dans marcher et dans penser (79). Mais si marcher et penser n’appartiennent pas à la catégorie d’agir, il faut expliquer à quoi ils appartiennent. Dira-t-on que penser (νοεῖν) se rapporte à l’intelligible (νόησις), de même que l’intellection (νοητόν), parce que la sensation se rapporte à l’objet sensible? Si l’on rapporte la sensation à l’objet sensible, pourquoi ne rapporte-t-on pas également sentir à l’objet sensible? La sensation, se rapportant à une autre chose, a une relation avec celte chose; mais, outre cette relation, elle a la propriété d’être un acte ou une passion. Si donc la passion, outre qu’elle appartient à une autre chose ou qu’elle dépend d’une autre chose, a la propriété d’être par elle-même quelque chose, comme l’acte, alors la marche, outre qu’elle appartient à une autre chose (aux pieds), et qu’elle dépend d’une autre chose (de la puissance motrice), possède cependant par elle-même la propriété d’être mouvement. S’il en est ainsi, on doit reconnaître que l’intellection, outre qu’elle est une relation, est aussi par elle-même un mouvement ou un acte (80).

Guthrie

ON ARISTOTELIAN PRINCIPLES. EVEN INTELLECTION WOULD BE MOVEMENT OR ACTUALIZATION.

18. We must further examine if the Aristotelians have the right to say that acting contains both actualizations and movements, the actualizations producing themselves instantaneously, and the movements successively; as, for instance, dividing implies time. Or will they say that all actualizations are movements, or, at least, are accompanied by movements? Will they trace all actions to "experiencing" (or, reactions), or will they acknowledge absolute actions, like walking or speaking? Or will they distinguish all actions that relate to "experiencing" as movements, and all absolute actions as actualizations? Or will they place actions of both kinds among movements, and among actualizations? They would no doubt classify walking, which is an absolute thing, as movement; and thinking, which is a verb without passive voice, as an actualization. Otherwise the Aristotelians will be obliged to insist that there is nothing active in walking or thinking. But if walking and thinking do not belong to the category of acting, it will be necessary to explain to what they do belong. Will it be said that thinking relates to the thinkable (the intelligible), as intellection does, because sensation relates to the sense-object? If sensation be related to the sense-object, why do they not equally relate "sensing" (feeling) to the sense-object? Sensation, relating to something else, has a relation with that thing; but, besides that relation, it has the property of being an "action" or an "experience" (or, reaction). If therefore reaction (or, suffering), besides belonging to something else, or depending on something else, has the property of itself being something, like actualization, then walking, besides belonging to something else (to the feet), and depending on something else (on the motive power), nevertheless by itself possesses the property of being movement. In this case, it will have to be recognized that intellection, besides being a relation, by itself also is a movement or an actualization.

MacKenna

18. There are other questions calling for consideration:

First: Are both Acts and motions to be included in the category of Action, with the distinction that Acts are momentary while Motions, such as cutting, are in time? Or will both be regarded as motions or as involving Motion?

Secondly: Will all activities be related to passivity, or will some - for example, walking and speaking - be considered as independent of it?

Thirdly: Will all those related to passivity be classed as motions and the independent as Acts, or will the two classes overlap? Walking, for instance, which is an independent, would, one supposes, be a motion; thinking, which also does not essentially involve "passivity," an Act: otherwise we must hold that thinking and walking are not even actions. But if they are not in the category of Action, where then in our classification must they fall?

It may perhaps be urged that the act of thinking, together with the faculty of thought, should be regarded as relative to the thought object; for is not the faculty of sensation treated as relative to the sensible object? If then, we may ask, in the analogue the faculty of sensation is treated as relative to the sensible object, why not the sensory act as well? The fact is that even sensation, though related to an external object, has something besides that relation: it has, namely, its own status of being either an Act or a Passion. Now the Passion is separable from the condition of being attached to some object and caused by some object: so, then, is the Act a distinct entity. Walking is similarly attached and caused, and yet has besides the status of being a motion. It follows that thought, in addition to its relationship, will have the status of being either a motion or an Act.