Kitap 13
11
(b) The exponent of this theory merely introduces another number; because plurality is a number of indivisible parts.i.e., to say that number is derived from plurality is to say that number is derived from number—which explains nothing.
11
Again, we must inquire from the exponent of this theory whether the numbersc. which plurality has been shown to be. is infinite or finite.
12
There was, it appears, a finite plurality from which, in combination with Unity, the finite units were generated; and absolute plurality is different from finite plurality. What sort of plurality is it, then, that is, in combination with unity, an element of number?
12
We might ask a similar question with regard to the point, i.e. the element out of which they create spatial magnitudes.
13
This is surely not the one and only point. At least we may ask from what each of the other points comes; it is not, certainly, from some interval and the Ideal point. Moreover, the parts of the interval cannot be indivisible parts, any more than the parts of the plurality of which the units are composed; because although number is composed of indivisible parts, spatial magnitudes are not.
14
All these and other similar considerations make it clear that number and spatial magnitudes cannot exist separately. Further, the fact that the leading authoritiesAlexander preferred the reading πρώτους, interpreting it in this sense; and I do not see why he should not be followed. Ross objects that πρῶτος is used in the chronological sense in 16., but this is really no argument. For a much more serious (although different) inconsistency in the use of terms cf. Aristot. Met. 12.3.1. disagree about numbers indicates that it is the misrepresentation of the facts themselves that produces this confusion in their views.
