Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 5.djvu/234

Rh 222 CATEGORY acceptation, but generally it has there a definite and technical signification. So also in Aristotle the verb Ka.-rrjyopf.lv, to accuse, takes the specific logical sense, to pre dicate ; TO Karyyopov/jLevov becomes the predicate ; and KdTrjyopLKr] TrpoVao-is may be translated as affirmative pro position. But though the word thus received a new signi fication from Aristotle, it is not on that account certain that the thing it was taken to signify was equally a novelty in philosophy. We do find in the records of Oriental and early Greek thought something corresponding to the Aris totelian classification. Our knowledge of Hindu philosophy, and of the rela tions in which it may have stood to Greek speculation, is not yet adequate to give decisive answers to various ques tions that naturally arise on observation of their many resemblances, and it might therefore appear irrelevant to introduce into an historical notice of a peculiarly Western doctrine any reference to its Eastern counterpart. Yet the similarity between the two is so striking that, if not historically connected, they must at least be regarded as expressions of similar philosophic wants. The Hindu classification to which we specially refer is that of Kanada, who lays down six categories, or classes of existence, a seventh being generally added by the commentators. The term employed is Padartha, meaning &quot; signification of a word.&quot; This is in entire harmony with the Aristotelian doc trine, the categories of which may with truth be described as significations of simple terms, TO. Kara p.r)oefj.Lav o-vfj.7roKr)v ey6fj.eva. The six categories of Kanada are Substance, Quality, Action, Genus, Individuality, and Concretion or Co-inherence. To these is added Non-Existence, Priva tion, or Negation. Substance is the permanent sub-strate in which Qualities exist. Action, belonging to or inher ing in substances, is that which produces change. Genus belongs to substance, qualities, and actions; there are higher and lower genera. Individuality, found only in substance, is that by which a thing is self-existent and marked off from others. Concretion or Co-inherence denotes inseparable or necessary connection, such as that between substance and quality. Under these six classes, yeVr; TOV OVTOS, Kanada then proceeds to range the facts of the universe. 1 Within Greek philosophy itself there were foreshadow- ings of the Aristotelian doctrine, but nothing so important as to warrant the conclusion that Aristotle was directly influenced by it. Doubtless the One and Many, Being and Non-Being, of the Eleatic dialectic, with their sub ordinate oppositions, may be called categories, but they are not so in the Aristotelian sense, and have little or nothing in common with the later system. Their starting-point and results are wholly diverse. Nor does it appear neces sary to do more than mention the Pythagorean table of principles, the number of which is supposed to have given rise to the decuple arrangement adopted by Aristotle. The two classifications have nothing in common ; no term in the one list appears in the other ; and there is absolutely nothing in the Pythagorean principles which could have. led to the theory of the categories. 2 One naturally turns to Plato when endeavouring to dis cover the genesis of any Aristotelian doctrine, and un doubtedly there are in the Platonic writings many detached discussions in which the matter of the categories is touched upon. Special terms also are anticipated at various times, 1 For details of this and other Hindu systems see Colebrooke, Assays ; H. H. Wilson, Essays ; Williams, Indian Wisdom ; Cough s Vaiseshika-Sutras ; M. Miiller, Sanskrit Literature, and particularly his Appendix to Thomson s Laws of Thought. a The supposed origin of that theory in the treatise wfpi rov TTO.VTOS, ascribed to ARCHYTAS (q.v.), has been proved to be an error. The treatise itself dates in all probability from the Neo-Pythagorean .schools of the 2d century A.D. e.g., 77-1010x779 in the Thecetetus, Trotetv and iraor^iv in tha Gorgias, and Trpds TI in the Sophist. 3 But there does not seem to be anything in Plato which one could say gave occasion directly and of itself to the Aristotelian doctrine ; and even when we take a more comprehensive view of the Platonic system and inquire what in it corresponds to the widest definition of categories, say as ultimate elements of thought and existence, we receive no very definite answer. The Platonic dialectic never worked, out into system, and only in two dialogues do we get anything like a list of ultimate or root-notions. In the Sophist, Being, Rest, and Motion (TO ov avro KOI crToVis KCU K/v^cris) are laid down as /ueyio-ra rwv -yevwy. 4 To these are presently added the Same and the Other (TUVTOV KCU Odrepov), and out of the consideration of all five some light is cast upon the obscure notion of Non-Being (TO p-rj ov). In the same dialogue (262, sq.) is found the important distinction of oVo/xa and pr/fj-a., noun and verb. The Philebus presents us with a totally distinct classification into four elements the In finite, the Finite, the Mixture or Unity of both, and the Cause of this unity (TO airtLpov, TO Tre pas, f] aiy^i^ts, rj aiTta). It is at once apparent that, however these classifica tions aie related to one another and to the Platonic system, they lie in a different field from that occupied by the Aristotelian categories, and can hardly be said to have anything in common with them. The Aristotelian doctrine is most distinctly formulated in the short treatise KarrjyopiaL, which generally occupies the first place among the books of the Oryanon. The authen ticity of the treatise was doubted in early times by some of the commentators,- and the doubts have been revived by such scholars as Spengel and Prantl. On the other hand Brandi s, Bonitz, and Zeller are of opinion that the tract is substantially Aristotle s. The matter is hardly one that can be decided either pro or con with anything like cer tainty ; but this is of little moment, for the doctrine of the categories, even of the ten categories, does not stand or fall with only one portion of Aristotle s works. It is surprising that there should yet be so much uncer tainty as to the real significance of the categories, and that we should be in nearly complete ignorance as to the process of thought by which Aristotle was led to the doctrine. On both points it is difficult to extract from the matter before us anything approaching a satisfactory solution. The terms employed to denote the categories have been scrutinized with the utmost care, but they give little help. The most important K. TOV OVTOS or Tr}s oicrtas, yeVr/ TOV OVTOS or rwv ovTiov, yivrj simply, TO. Trpu/ra or TO. KOLVO. TrpaJTa, al TTTcucreis, or at Staipecreis only indicate that the categories are general classes into which Being as such may be divided, that they are summa genera. The expressions yevr) TWV Karrjyopiuv and o-^/xaTa TWV K., which are used frequently, seem to lead to another and somewhat different view. Karri yopi a being taken to mean that which is predicated, yeV^ TWV K. would signify the most general classes of predicates, the framework into the divisions of which all predicates must come. To this interpretation there are objections. The categories must be carefully distinguished from predicables ; in the scholastic phraseology the former refer to first inten tions, the latter to second intentions, i.e., the one denote real, the other logical connection. Further, the categories can not without careful explanation be defined as predicates ; they are this and something more. The most important category, ovo-ia, in one of its aspects cannot be predicate at all. In the Kar^yopiai Aristotle prefixes to his enumeration a gramrnatico-logical disquisition on homonyms and syno nyms, and on the elements of the proposition, i.e., sub- 3 Prantl, Ges. d. Logik, i. 74- 5 ; Trendolenburg, Kategorienhhre, 209, n. 4 Soph., 254, I).