Kitap 14
10
But this cannot be so; for (a) the geometricians do not assume anything that is false (since the proposition is not part of the logical inferencei.e., the validity of a geometrical proof does not depend upon the accuracy of the figure.), and (b) existing things are not generated from or resolved into not-being in this sense. But not only has not-being in its various cases as many meanings as there are categories, but moreover the false and the potential are called not-being; and it is from the latter that generation takes place—man comes to be from that which is not man but is potentially man, and white from that which is not white but is potentially white; no matter whether one thing is generated or many.
11
Clearly the point at issue is how being in the sense of the substances is many; for the things that are generated are numbers and lines and bodies. It is absurd to inquire how Being as substance is many, and not how qualities or quantities are many.
12
Surely the indeterminate dyad or the Great and Small is no reason why there should be two whites or many colors or flavors or shapes; for then these too would be numbers and units. But if the Platonists had pursued this inquiry, they would have perceived the cause of plurality in substances as well; for the causeMatter, according to Aristotle; and there is matter, or something analogous to it, in every category. Cf. Aristot. Met. 12.5. is the same, or analogous.
13
This deviation of theirs was the reason why in seeking the opposite of Being and unity, from which in combination with Being and unity existing things are derived, they posited the relative (i.e. the unequal), which is neither the contrary nor the negation of Being and unity, but is a single characteristic of existing things, just like substance or quality. They should have investigated this question also; how it is that relations are many, and not one.
