Archiv Ladislava Hejdánka | Kartotéka

Tomáš Akvinský (1224/5-1284)

Articulus quartus
Quarto quaeritur utrum sit tantum una veritas qua omnia sunt vera. Et videtur quod sic: Anselmus enim dicit in libro De veritate31 quod sicut tempus se habet ad temporalia ita veritas ad res veras; sed tempus ita se habet ad omnia temporalia quod est unum tempus tantum; ergo ita se habebit veritas ad omnia vera quod erit tantum una veritas.
(5845, Von der Wahrheit – De veritate, Quaest.I; F.Meiner, Hamburg 1986, S. 24.)

Tomáš Akvinský (1224/5-1284)

Quarto quaeritur utrum sit tantum una veritas qua omnia sunt vera. Et videtur quod sic: Anselmus enim dicit in libro De veritate31 quod sicut tempus se habet ad temporalia ita veritas ad res veras; sed tempus ita se habet ad omnia temporalia quod est unum tempus tantum; ergo ita se habebit veritas ad omnia vera quod erit tantum una veritas.
3 Praeterea, Anselmus in libro De veritate sic argumentatur: si plurium verorum sunt plures veritates, oportet veritates variari secundum varietates verorum; sed veritates non variantur per variationem rerum verarum, quia, destructis rebus veris vel rectis, adhuc remanet veritas et rectitudo secundum quam sunt vera vel recta; ergo est una tantum veritas. Minorem probat ex hoc quia destructo signo adhuc remanet rectitudo significationis, quia rectum est ut significetur hoc quod illud signum significabat; et eadem ratione, destructo quolibet vero vel recto, eius rectitudo vel veritas remanet.
SED CONTRA, Augustinus in libro De vera religione33, „Sicut similitudo est forma similium, ita veritas est forma verorum«; sed plurium similium plures similitudines; ergo plurium verorum plures veritates.
RESPONSIO. Dicendum quod, sicut ex praedictis patet, veritas proprie invenitur in inlellectu humano vel divino, sicut sanitas in animali; in rebus autem aliis invenitur veritas per relationem ad intellectum, sicut et sanitas dicitur de quibusdam aliis in quantum sunt effectiva vel conservativa sanitatis animalis. Est ergo veritas in intellectu divino quidem primo et proprie, in mtellectu vero humano proprie quidem sed secundario, in rebus autem improprie et secundario, quia nonnisi per respectum ad alteram duarum veritatum. Veritas ergo intellectus divini est una tantum, a qua in intellectu humano derivantur plures veritates, „sicut ab una facie hominis resultant plures similitudines in speculo“, sicut dicit glosa34 super illud „Diminutae sunt veritates a filiis hominum“; veritates autem quae sunt in rebus sunt plures sicut et rerum entitates.
Veritas autem quae dicitur de rebus in comparatione ad intellectum humanum, est rebus quodam modo accidentalis, quia, posito quod intellectus humanus non esset nec esse posset, adhuc res in sua essentia permaneret; sed veritas quae de eis dicitur in comparatione ad intellectum divinum, eis inseparabiliter concomitatur, cum nec subsistere possint nisi per intellectum divinum eas in esse producentem. Per prius etiam inest rei veritas in comparatione ad intellectum divinum quam humanum, cum ad intellectum divinum comparetur sicut ad causam, ad humanum autem quodam modo sicut ad effectum in quantum intellectus scientiam a rebus accipit: …
3“ Glossa Petri Lombardi super Psal. XI (PL 191, p. 155 A).
(5845, Von der Wahrheit – De veritate, Quaest.I; F.Meiner, Hamburg 1986, S. 24.)

Aristotelés (–384-324)

It remains to disarm the considerations urged in /263/ support of the existence of the unlimited not only as a potentiality but as actually compassed. Some of them do not follow as alleged from the admitted premises; and the rest can be met along some other line od sound reasoning.
(1)Admitting that things never cease to come into being, it does not follow that there actually exists some sense-perceptible body unlimited in quantity; for though the sum of things be limited, things may come out of and pass into each other without end.
(2)Again, being in contact and being limited are different things. Contact is a relation with something else, for there must be something to touch the touched; and this may happen to something limited incidentally; but ,being limited‘ is not a relation. Also a limited thing need not be touched by a thing homogeneous with itself and cannot be touched by any other.
(3)It is futil to trust to what we can conceive as a guide to what is or can be; for the excess or defect in such a case lies not in the thing but in the conceiving. One might conceive any one of us to be many times as big as we are, without limit; but if there does not exist a man too big for the city to hold, for instance, or even bigger than the men we know of, that is not because we have conceived him to exist, but because he does; and whethe we have or have not conceived him to exist is a mere incident.
Fys. III, 8, 208a
(The Physics I, London etc. 1970, p. 261+263