Página inicial > Antiguidade > Neoplatonismo > Plotino (séc. III) > Enéada VI > Enéada VI, 3 (44) > Plotino - Tratado 44,11 (VI, 3, 11) — Pertencem à quantidade não o lugar e o (…)

Plotino - Tratado 44,11 (VI, 3, 11) — Pertencem à quantidade não o lugar e o tempo, mas o grande e o pequeno

sábado 18 de junho de 2022, por Cardoso de Castro

  

Igal

11 Pasando a lo cuanto y a la cuantidad, ya hemos dicho repetidas veces que hay que ponerlos en el número y en la magnitud en cuanto cada cosa es cuanta, lo cual consiste en un número de cosas materializadas y en una dimensión de sustrato, (porque no se trata de la cuantidad transcendente, sino de la que hace que este leño sea de tres codos o de cinco que hay en cinco caballos), y que sólo a éstos hay que tenerlos por cuantos, mientras que el lugar y el tiempo no deben ser concebidos como cuantos, sino que el tiempo, por ser «medida del movimiento», hay que asignarlo a la relación, y que el lugar, siendo contenedor de un cuerpo, también debe entrar en la relación y en lo relativo. Porque también el movimiento es continuo, y no por eso fué incluido en la cuantidad. En cambio, ¿por qué lo grande y lo pequeño no han de ser incluidos en la cuantidad? Lo grande es grande por la cuantidad, y la magnitud no es del número de los relativos; son lo mayor y lo menor los que son del número de los relativos, porque dicen relación a otro, lo mismo que el doble.

—¿Por qué, entonces, lo de «montaña grande y mijo pequeño»?.

—En primer lugar, «montaña grande» se dice en vez de «más pequeña». Porque si ellos mismos por su parte reconocen que la montaña es pequeña comparada con sus congéneres, con ello reconocen también que se dice «pequeña» en vez de «más pequeña». Tampoco se dice del mijo grande simplemente «grande», sino «mijo grande», que equivale a «grande entre sus congéneres». Pero lo natural sería decir «más grande que sus congéneres». En segundo lugar, ¿por qué no decir que también la belleza es del número de los relativos? Decimos, por el contrario, que la belleza existe en sí y que es cualidad. En cambio, «más bello» es del número de los relativos. Por más que aun lo que decimos que es bello parecería feo comparado con otro, por ejemplo, la belleza del hombre comparada con Dios: «el más bello de los monos —dice— es feo en comparación con un ser de distinto género». Pero lo bello es bello en sí mismo, aunque, comparado con otro, sea más bello o lo contrario. Pues así también aquí, lo grande es grande en sí mismo, por estar dotado de magnitud, pero comparado con otro, no lo es. De lo contrario, habría que suprimir la belleza de una cosa porque hay otra más bella. Pues tampoco hay que suprimir la magnitud de una cosa porque haya otra más grande. Y es que ni siquiera habría, en absoluto, algo más grande, si no hubiera algo grande, del mismo modo que tampoco habría algo más bello, si no hubiera algo bello.

Bouillet

XI. [Quantité.] Passons à la quantité et aux quantitatifs.

En traitant de la quantité, nous avons déjà dit qu’elle consiste dans le nombre et la grandeur, en tant que chaque chose a telle quantité, c’est-à-dire dans le nombre des choses matérielles et dans l’étendue du sujet (43). Ici en effet nous ne traitons pas de la quantité abstraite, mais de la quantité qui fait dire qu’un morceau de bois a trois coudées, que des chevaux sont au nombre de cinq. On doit donc, comme nous l’avons expliqué, appeler quantitatifs l’étendue et le nombre [considérés ainsi au pointde vue concret]: mais on ne saurait donner ce nom ni au temps ni au lieu : le temps, étant la mesure du mouvement (44), rentre dans la relation ; et le lieu, étant ce qui contient le corps (45), consiste dans une manière d’être, par conséquent dans une relation. On doit d’autant moins appeler quantitatifs le temps et le lieu que] le mouvement, bien qu’il soit continu, n’apparient pas non plus au genre de la quantité.

Faut-il placer dans le genre de la quantité le grand et le petit ? Oui : car le grand est grand par une certaine grandeur, et la grandeur n’est pas un rapport (46). Quant au plus grand et au plus petit, ils appartiennent à la relation : car c’est par rapport à une autre qu’une chose est plus grande ou plus petite, de même qu’elle est double. — Pourquoi donc lit-on souvent qu’une montagne est petite et qu’un grain le millet est grand ? — Quand on dit qu’une montagne est petite, on emploie petite au lieu de plus petite : car ceux qui se servent de cette expression avouent eux-mêmes qu’ils n’appellent une montagne petite qu’en la comparant à d’autres montagnes, ce qui implique que petite est ici à la place de plus petite. De même, quand on dit qu’un grain de millet est grand, on n’entend pas grand absolument, mais grand pour un grain de millet ; ce qui implique qu’on le compare aux choses de même espèce, et que grand signifie ici plus grand (47).

Pourquoi donc ne plaçons-nous pas aussi le beau au nombre des relatifs ? C’est que le beau est tel par lui-même, qu’il constitue une qualité, tandis que plus beau est un relatif : Cependant la chose qu’on appelle belle paraîtrait quelquefois laide si on la comparait à une autre, la beauté des hommes, par exemple, mise en regard de celle des dieux; de là vient ce mot [d’Héraclite   ] : « Le plus beau des singes serait laid si on le comparait à un animal d’une autre espèce (48). « Quand on dit qu’une chose est belle, on la considère en elle-même ; on l’appellerait peut-être plus belle ou laide si on la comparait à une autre. De là il résulte que, dans le genre dont nous traitons, un objet est grand en lui-même, par la présence de la grandeur, mais non par rapport à un autre. Sans cela, nous serions obligés de nier qu’une chose soit belle, parce qu’il y en a une autre plus belle qu’elle. Nous ne devons donc.pas non plus nier qu’une chose soit grande parce qu’il y en a une plus grande qu’elle : car plus grand ne saurait exister sans grand, comme plus beau sans beau.

Guthrie

DEFINITION OF QUANTITY.

11. Let us now pass to quantity and quantitatives. When treating of quantity, we have already said that it consists in number and dimension, in so far as some thing possesses such a quantity, that is, in the number of material things, and in the extension of the subject. Here indeed we are not treating of abstract quantity, but of a quantity which causes a piece of wood to measure three feet, or that horses are five in number. Consequently, as we have said, we should call extension and number (considered from the concrete viewpoint) “quantitatives”; but this name could could be applied neither to time nor space; time, being the measure of movement, re-enters into relation; and place, being that which contains the body, consists of a manner of being, and consequently, in a relation. (So much the less should we call time and place “quantitatives,” as) movement, though continuous, does not either belong to the genus of quantity.

LARGE AND SMALL ARE CONCEPTIONS BELONGING TO QUANTITY.

Should “large” and “small” be classified within the genus of quantity? Yes: for the large is large by a certain dimension, and dimension is not a relation. As to “greater” and “smaller,” they belong to relation; for a thing is greater or smaller in relation to something else, just as when it is double. Why then do we sometimes say that a mountain is large, and that a grain of millet is small? When we say that a mountain is small, we use the latter term instead of smaller; for they who use this expression themselves acknowledge that they call a mountain small only by comparing it to other mountains, which implies that here “little” stands for “smaller.” Likewise, when we say that a grain of millet is large, this does not mean “large” in any absolute sense, but large only for a grain of millet; which implies that one compares it to things of the same kind, and that here “large” means “larger.”

BEAUTY IS CLASSIFIED ALONG WITH THE RELATIVES.

Why then do we not also classify the beautiful among the relatives? Because beauty is such by itself, because it constitutes a quality, while “more beautiful” is a relative. Nevertheless the thing which is called beautiful would sometimes appear ugly, if it were compared to some other, as, for instance, if we were to contrast the beauty of men with that of the gods; hence the expression (of Heraclitus’s): “The most beautiful of monkeys would be ugly if compared with an animal of a different kind.” When beauty is predicated of something, it is considered in itself; it might perhaps be called more beautiful or more ugly if it were compared to another. Hence it results that, in the genus of which we are treating, an object is in itself great because of the presence of greatness, but not in respect to some other. Otherwise, we would be obliged to deny that a thing was beautiful because of the existence of some more beautiful one. Neither therefore must we deny that a thing is great because there is only one greater than it; for “greater” could not exist without “great,” any more than “more beautiful” without “beautiful.”

MacKenna

11. Passing to Quantity and the quantum, we have to consider the view which identifies them with number and magnitude on the ground that everything quantitative is numbered among Sensible things or rated by the extension of its substrate: we are here, of course, discussing not Quantity in isolation, but that which causes a piece of wood to be three yards long and gives the five in "five horses,"

Now we have often maintained that number and magnitude are to be regarded as the only true quantities, and that Space and Time have no right to be conceived as quantitative: Time as the measure of Motion should be assigned to Relation, while Space, being that which circumscribes Body, is also a relative and falls under the same category; though continuous, it is, like Motion, not included in Quantity.

On the other hand, why do we not find in the category of Quantity "great" and "small"? It is some kind of Quantity which gives greatness to the great; greatness is not a relative, though greater and smaller are relatives, since these, like doubleness, imply an external correlative.

What is it, then, which makes a mountain small and a grain of millet large? Surely, in the first place, "small" is equivalent to "smaller." It is admitted that the term is applied only to things of the same kind, and from this admission we may infer that the mountain is "smaller" rather than "small," and that the grain of millet is not large in any absolute sense but large for a grain of millet. In other words, since the comparison is between things of the same kind, the natural predicate would be a comparative.

Again, why is not beauty classed as a relative? Beauty, unlike greatness, we regard as absolute and as a quality; "more beautiful" is the relative. Yet even the term "beautiful" may be attached to something which in a given relation may appear ugly: the beauty of man, for example, is ugliness when compared with that of the gods; "the most beautiful of monkeys," we may quote, "is ugly in comparison with any other type." Nonetheless, a thing is beautiful in itself; as related to something else it is either more or less beautiful.

Similarly, an object is great in itself, and its greatness is due, not to any external, but to its own participation in the Absolute Great.

Are we actually to eliminate the beautiful on the pretext that there is a more beautiful? No more then must we eliminate the great because of the greater: the greater can obviously have no existence whatever apart from the great, just as the more beautiful can have no existence without the beautiful.


Ver online : Plotino