24
ARISTOTLE'S ORGANON.
[CHAP. VII.
the sensible will remain; such for instance as "body," "warm," "sweet," "bitter," and every thing else which is sensible. Besides, "sense" is produced simultaneously with what is "sensitive," for at one and the same time "animal" and "sense" are produced, but the "sensible" is prior in existence to "animal" or "sense," for fire and water, and such things as animal consists of, are altogether prior to the existence of animal or sense, so that the sensible will appear to be antecedent to sense.
15. Primary substance has no relation. It is doubtful however whether no substance is among the number of relatives, as seems to be the case, or whether this happens in certain second substances; for it is true in first substances, since neither the wholes, nor the parts, of first substances are relative. "A certain man" is not said to be a certain man of something, nor "a certain ox" said to be a certain ox of something; and so also with respect to the parts, for a "certain hand" is not said to be a certain hand of some one, but the hand of some one; and some head is not said to be a certain head of some one, but the head of some one, and in most secondary substances the like occurs. Thus man is not said to be the man of some one, nor an ox the ox of some one, nor the wood the wood of some one, but they are said to be the possession of some one; in such things therefore, it is evident, that they are not included amongst relatives. 16. But some secodary substances seem to possess relation, but the question is solved by an analysis of the definition of τῶν πρός, τι. In the case of some secondary substances there is a doubt, as "head," is said to be the head of some one, and "hand," the hand of some one, and in like manner, every such thing, so that these may appear amongst the number of relatives. If then the definition of relatives has been sufficiently framed, it is either a matter of difficulty, or of impossibility, to show that no substance is relative;[1] but if- ↑ Plato's favourite method of definition, which however was rejected by Speusippus, was to take a wide genus, and by the addition of successive differentiæ, to attive at a complex notion, co-extensive with the desired definition. Aristotle, on the other hand, to discover definition, employed the inductive method, (he does not name this however,) which consisted in examining the several individuals, of which the term to be defined is predicable and observing what they had in common. This will apply to relatives and co-relatives equally, and hence we perceive that, properly speaking, all definition is an inquiry into attributes. Every substance definable must be a species, every attribute a property. Vide Scholia, Edinburgh Review, No. cxv. p. 236. Pacius on Anal. Post, 11, 13, 21.
