genera

Philosophy at a very early stage investigated the number and character of the Existents. Various theories resulted: some declared for one Existent, others for a finite number, others again for an infinite number, while as regards the nature of the Existents – one, numerically finite, or numerically infinite – there was a similar disagreement. These theories, in so far as they have been adequately examined by later workers, may be passed over here; our attention must be directed upon the results of those whose examination has led them to posit on their awn account certain well-defined GENERA. Enneads: VI I. 1

But here again there is a divergence of views. To some the GENERA are first-principles; to others they indicate only a generic classification of the Existents themselves. Enneads: VI I. 1

Let us begin with the well-known tenfold division of the Existents, and consider whether we are to understand ten GENERA ranged under the common name of Being, or ten categories. That the term Being has not the same sense in all ten is rightly maintained. Enneads: VI I. 1

At this point it would be natural to investigate which of the ten belong to both spheres, and whether the Existents of the Intellectual are to be ranged under one and the same genus with the Existents in the Sensible, or whether the term “Existence” (or Substance) is equivocal as applied to both realms. If the equivocation exists, the number of GENERA will be increased: if there is no equivocation, it is strange to find the one same “Existence” applying to the primary and to the derivative Existents when there is no common genus embracing both primal and secondary. Enneads: VI I. 1

But are we really obliged to posit the existence of such GENERA? Take Substance, for Substance must certainly be our starting-point: what are the grounds for regarding Substance as one single genus? It has been remarked that Substance cannot be a single entity common to both the Intellectual and the Sensible worlds. We may add that such community would entail the existence of something prior to Intellectual and Sensible Substances alike, something distinct from both as predicated of both; and this prior would be neither body nor unembodied; for it were one or the other, body would be unembodied, or the unembodied would be the body. Enneads: VI I. 2

Supposing we grant that all things known as substances are homogeneous as possessing something denied to the other GENERA, what precisely is this something, this individuality, this subject which is never a predicate, this thing not present in any thing as in a subject, this thing which does not owe its essential character to any other thing, as a quality takes character from a body and a quantity from a substance, as time is related to motion and motion to the moved? The Second Substance is, it is true, a predicate. But predication in this case signifies a different relation from that just considered; it reveals the genus inherent in the subject and the subject’s essential character, whereas whiteness is predicated of a thing in the sense of being present in the thing. Enneads: VI I. 3

If however activity is referred to Relation and the action made a distinct genus, why is not Motion referred to Relation and the movement made a distinct genus? Why not bisect the unity, Motion, and so make Action and Passion two species of the one thing, ceasing to consider Action and Passion as two GENERA? Enneads: VI I. 17

Now if we were obliged to consider Being as a unity, the following questions would be unnecessary: Is there one genus embracing everything, or are there GENERA which cannot be subsumed under such a unity? Are there first-principles? Are first-principles to be identified with GENERA, or GENERA with first-principles? Or is it perhaps rather the case that while not all GENERA are first-principles, all first-principles are at the same time GENERA? Or is the converse true? Or again, do both classes overlap, some principles being also GENERA, and some GENERA also principles? And do both the sets of categories we have been examining imply that only some principles are GENERA and some GENERA principles? or does one of them presuppose that all that belongs to the class of GENERA belongs also to the class of principles? Since, however, we affirm that Being is not a unity – the reason for this affirmation is stated by Plato and others – these questions become imperative, once we are satisfied as to the number of GENERA to be posited and the grounds for our choice. Enneads: VI II. 1

It follows that either the unity so regarded is a unity of genus under which the Existents, involving as they do plurality as well as unity, stand as species; or that while there are more GENERA than one, yet all are subordinate to a unity; or there may be more GENERA than one, though no one genus is subordinate to any other, but all with their own subordinates – whether these be lesser GENERA, or species with individuals for their subordinates – all are elements in one entity, and from their totality the Intellectual realm – that which we know as Being – derives its constitution. Enneads: VI II. 2

If this last is the truth, we have here not merely GENERA, but GENERA which are at the same time principles of Being. They are GENERA because they have subordinates – other GENERA, and successively species and individuals; they are also principles, since from this plurality Being takes its rise, constituted in its entirety from these its elements. Enneads: VI II. 2

Suppose, however, a greater number of origins which by their mere totality comprised, without possessing any subordinates, the whole of Being; these would be first-principles but not GENERA: it would be as if one constructed the sensible world from the four elements – fire and the others; these elements would be first principles, but they would not be GENERA, unless the term “genus” is to be used equivocally. Enneads: VI II. 2

But does this assertion of certain GENERA which are at the same time first-principles imply that by combining the GENERA, each with its subordinates, we find the whole of Being in the resultant combination? But then, taken separately, their existence will not be actual but only potential, and they will not be found in isolation. Enneads: VI II. 2

Suppose, on the other hand, we ignore the GENERA and combine the particulars: what then becomes of the ignored GENERA? They will, surely, exist in the purity of their own isolation, and the mixtures will not destroy them. The question of how this result is achieved may be postponed. Enneads: VI II. 2

For the moment we take it as agreed that there are GENERA as distinct from principles of Being and that, on another plane, principles (elements) are opposed to compounds. We are thus obliged to show in what relation we speak of GENERA and why we distinguish them instead of summing them under a unity; for otherwise we imply that their coalescence into a unity is fortuitous, whereas it would be more plausible to dispense with their separate existence. Enneads: VI II. 2

If all the GENERA could be species of Being, all individuals without exception being immediately subordinate to these species, then such a unification becomes feasible. But that supposition bespeaks annihilation for the GENERA: the species will no longer be species; plurality will no longer be subordinated to unity; everything must be the unity, unless there exist some thing or things outside the unity. The One never becomes many – as the existence of species demands – unless there is something distinct from it: it cannot of itself assume plurality, unless we are to think of it as being broken into pieces like some extended body: but even so, the force which breaks it up must be distinct from it: if it is itself to effect the breaking up – or whatever form the division may take – then it is itself previously divided. Enneads: VI II. 2

Is, then, this unity external to the GENERA thus produced, this unity which is their source though it cannot be predicated of them in respect of their essence? it is indeed external; the One is beyond; it cannot, therefore, be included among the GENERA: it is the (transcendent) source, while they stand side by side as GENERA. Yet surely the one must somehow be included (among the GENERA)? No: it is the Existents we are investigating, not that which is beyond Existence. Enneads: VI II. 3

But if the cause is included with its effects only in the sense in which a genus is included with its subordinates, the subordinates being of a different order, so that it cannot be predicated of them whether as their genus or in any other relation, these subordinates are obviously themselves GENERA with subordinates of their own: you may, for example, be the cause of the operation of walking, but the walking is not subordinate to you in the relation of species to genus; and if walking had nothing prior to it as its genus, but had posteriors, then it would be a (primary) genus and rank among the Existents. Enneads: VI II. 3

All this will become clearer in the light of further consideration – when, that is to say, we have ascertained the number of the GENERA; for thus we shall also discover their causes. It is not enough to deny; we must advance by dint of thought and comprehension. The way is clear: Enneads: VI II. 3

The same method must be applied in examining the Intellectual Substance and the GENERA and first-principles of the Intellectual sphere. Enneads: VI II. 4

This problem attacked and solved, the truth about the GENERA comprised in Being will thereby, as we asserted, be elucidated also. Enneads: VI II. 4

Having thus introduced Intellect and its life we make a single genus of what is common to all life, namely, Motion. Substance and the Motion, which constitutes the highest life, we must consider as two GENERA; for even though they form a unity, they are separable to thought which finds their unity not a unity; otherwise, it could not distinguish them. Enneads: VI II. 7

Thus all the Existents are one, at once Motion and Stability; Motion and Stability are GENERA all-pervading, and every subsequent is a particular being, a particular stability and a particular motion. Enneads: VI II. 8

Again, inasmuch as we restore them to an all-embracing unity, identifying all with unity, do we not see in this amalgamation Identity emerging as a Real Existent? Thus, in addition to the other three (Being, Motion, Stability), we are obliged to posit the further two, Identity and Difference, so that we have in all five GENERA. In so doing, we shall not withhold Identity and Difference from the subsequents of the Intellectual order; the thing of Sense has, it is clear, a particular identity and a particular difference, but Identity and Difference have the generic status independently of the particular. Enneads: VI II. 8

They will, moreover, be primary GENERA, because nothing can be predicated of them as denoting their essential nature. Nothing, of course we mean, but Being; but this Being is not their genus, since they cannot be identified with any particular being as such. Similarly, Being will not stand as genus to Motion or Stability, for these also are not its species. Beings (or Existents) comprise not merely what are to be regarded as species of the genus Being, but also participants in Being. On the other hand, Being does not participate in the other four principles as its GENERA: they are not prior to Being; they do not even attain to its level. Enneads: VI II. 8

The above considerations – to which others, doubtless, might be added – suffice to show that these five are primary GENERA. But that they are the only primary GENERA, that there are no others, how can we be confident of this? Why do we not add unity to them? Quantity? Quality? Relation, and all else included by our various forerunners? As for unity: If the term is to mean a unity in which nothing else is present, neither Soul nor Intellect nor anything else, this can be predicated of nothing, and therefore cannot be a genus. If it denotes the unity present in Being, in which case we predicate Being of unity, this unity is not primal. Enneads: VI II. 9

Admitted that not everything suffices to produce a genus, it may yet be urged that there is an Absolute or Primary Unity corresponding to the other primaries. But if Being and unity are identified, then since Being has already been included among the GENERA, it is but a name that is introduced in unity: if, however, they are both unity, some principle is implied: if there is anything in addition (to this principle), unity is predicated of this added thing; if there is nothing added, the reference is again to that unity predicated of nothing. If however the unity referred to is that which accompanies Being, we have already decided that it is not unity in the primary sense. Enneads: VI II. 9

It follows that unity is not a genus. For a genus is such that wherever it is affirmed its opposites cannot also be affirmed; anything of which unity and its opposites are alike affirmed – and this implies the whole of Being – cannot have unity as a genus. Consequently unity can be affirmed as a genus neither of the primary GENERA – since the unity of Being is as much a plurality as a unity, and none of the other (primary) GENERA is a unity to the entire exclusion of plurality – nor of things posterior to Being, for these most certainly are a plurality. In fact, no genus with all its items can be a unity; so that unity to become a genus must forfeit its unity. The unit is prior to number; yet number it must be, if it is to be a genus. Enneads: VI II. 10

Again, just as the unit, appearing in numbers, not regarded as a genus predicated of them, but is thought of as inherent in them, so also unity, though present in Being, cannot stand as genus to Being or to the other GENERA or to anything whatever. Enneads: VI II. 10

We are bound however to enquire under what mode unity is contained in Being. How is what is termed the “dividing” effected – especially the dividing of the GENERA Being and unity? Is it the same division, or is it different in the two cases? First then: In what sense, precisely, is any given particular called and known to be a unity? Secondly: Does unity as used of Being carry the same connotation as in reference to the Absolute? Unity is not identical in all things; it has a different significance according as it is applied to the Sensible and the Intellectual realms – Being too, of course, comports such a difference – and there is a difference in the unity affirmed among sensible things as compared with each other; the unity is not the same in the cases of chorus, camp, ship, house; there is a difference again as between such discrete things and the continuous. Nevertheless, all are representations of the one exemplar, some quite remote, others more effective: the truer likeness is in the Intellectual; Soul is a unity, and still more is Intellect a unity and Being a unity. Enneads: VI II. 11

But how are the five GENERA to be regarded? Do they form particulars by being broken up into parts? No; the genus exists as a whole in each of the things whose genus it is. Enneads: VI II. 12

We turn to ask why Quantity is not included among the primary GENERA, and Quality also. Enneads: VI II. 13

Quantity is not among the primaries, because these are permanently associated with Being. Motion is bound up with Actual Being (Being-in-Act), since it is its life; with Motion, Stability too gained its foothold in Reality; with these are associated Difference and Identity, so that they also are seen in conjunction with Being. But number (the basis of Quantity) is a posterior. It is posterior not only with regard to these GENERA but also within itself; in number the posterior is divided from the prior; this is a sequence in which the posteriors are latent in the priors (and do not appear simultaneously). Number therefore cannot be included among the primary GENERA; whether it constitutes a genus at all remains to be examined. Enneads: VI II. 13

But the problem of the origin of number and magnitude, or rather of how they subsist and are conceived, must be held over. It may, thus, be found that number is among the primary GENERA, while magnitude is posterior and composite; or that number belongs to the genus Stability, while magnitude must be consigned to Motion. But we propose to discuss all this at a later stage. Enneads: VI II. 13

Now in the case of composite substances – those constituted from diverse elements – number and qualities provide a means of differentiation: the qualities may be detached from the common core around which they are found to group themselves. But in the primary GENERA there is no distinction to be drawn between simples and composites; the difference is between simples and those entities which complete not a particular substance but Substance as such. A particular substance may very well receive completion from Quality, for though it already has Substance before the accession of Quality, its particular character is external to Substance. But in Substance itself all the elements are substantial. Enneads: VI II. 14

How then do the four GENERA complete Substance without qualifying it or even particularizing it? It has been observed that Being is primary, and it is clear that none of the four – Motion, Stability, Difference, Identity – is distinct from it. That this Motion does not produce Quality is doubtless also clear, but a word or two will make it clearer still. Enneads: VI II. 15

Substance (Real Being) requires no more than these five constituents; but when we have to turn to the lower sphere, we find other principles giving rise no longer to Substance (as such) but to quantitative Substance and qualitative: these other principles may be regarded as GENERA but not primary GENERA. Enneads: VI II. 15

Why are not beauty, goodness and the virtues, together with knowledge and intelligence, included among the primary GENERA? If by goodness we mean The First – what we call the Principle of Goodness, the Principle of which we can predicate nothing, giving it this name only because we have no other means of indicating it – then goodness, clearly, can be the genus of nothing: this principle is not affirmed of other things; if it were, each of these would be Goodness itself. The truth is that it is prior to Substance, not contained in it. If, on the contrary, we mean goodness as a quality, no quality can be ranked among the primaries. Enneads: VI II. 17

But the other GENERA too, we said, are constituents of Being, and are regarded as GENERA because each is a common property found in many things. If then goodness is similarly observed in every part of Substance or Being, or in most parts, why is goodness not a genus, and a primary genus? Because it is not found identical in all the parts of Being, but appears in degrees, first, second and subsequent, whether it be because one part is derived from another – posterior from prior – or because all are posterior to the transcendent Unity, different parts of Being participating in it in diverse degrees corresponding to their characteristic natures. Enneads: VI II. 17

This indeed is why we posit that which transcends Being, since Being and Substance cannot but be a plurality, necessarily comprising the GENERA enumerated and therefore forming a one-and-many. Enneads: VI II. 17

It is true that we do not hesitate to speak of the goodness inherent in Being” when we are thinking of that Act by which Being tends, of its nature, towards the One: thus, we affirm goodness of it in the sense that it is thereby moulded into the likeness of The Good. But if this “goodness inherent in Being” is an Act directed toward The Good, it is the life of Being: but this life is Motion, and Motion is already one of the GENERA. Enneads: VI II. 17

Intelligence, since it connotes intelligent Being and comprises the total of existence, cannot be one of the GENERA: the true Intelligence (or Intellect) is Being taken with all its concomitants (with the other four GENERA); it is actually the sum of all the Existents: Being on the contrary, stripped of its concomitants, may be counted as a genus and held to an element in Intelligence. Enneads: VI II. 18

Justice and self-control (sophrosyne), and virtue in GENERAl – these are all various Acts of Intelligence: they are consequently not primary GENERA; they are posterior to a genus, that is to say, they are species. Enneads: VI II. 18

Having established our four primary GENERA, it remains for us to enquire whether each of them of itself alone produces species. And especially, can Being be divided independently, that is without drawing upon the other GENERA? Surely not: the differentiae must come from outside the genus differentiated: they must be differentiae of Being proper, but cannot be identical with it. Enneads: VI II. 19

Where then is it to find them? Obviously not in non-beings. If then in beings, and the three GENERA are all that is left, clearly it must find them in these, by conjunction and couplement with these, which will come into existence simultaneously with itself. Enneads: VI II. 19

But if all come into existence simultaneously, what else is produced but that amalgam of all Existents which we have just considered (Intellect)? How can other things exist over and above this all-including amalgam? And if all the constituents of this amalgam are GENERA, how do they produce species? How does Motion produce species of Motion? Similarly with Stability and the other GENERA. Enneads: VI II. 19

A word of warning must here be given against sinking the various GENERA in their species; and also against reducing the genus to a mere predicate, something merely seen in the species. The genus must exist at once in itself and in its species; it blends, but it must also be pure; in contributing along with other GENERA to form Substance, it must not destroy itself. There are problems here that demand investigation. Enneads: VI II. 19

There is the possibility that the GENERA posited for the Intellectual sphere will suffice for the lower also; possibly with these GENERA others will be required; again, the two series may differ entirely; or perhaps some of the sensible GENERA will be identical with their intellectual prototypes, and others different – “identical,” however, being understood to mean only analogous and in possession of a common name, as our results will make dear. Enneads: VI III. 1

This procedure however is as we have already shown, impossible in dealing with the subject of our present enquiry. New GENERA must be sought for this Universe-GENERA distinct from those of the Intellectual, inasmuch as this realm is different from that, analogous indeed but never identical, a mere image of the higher. True, it involves the parallel existence of Body and Soul, for the Universe is a living form: essentially however Soul is of the Intellectual and does not enter into the structure of what is called Sensible Being. Enneads: VI III. 1

Thus we have five GENERA, counting the first three entities as one. If the first three are not massed into a unity, the series will be Matter, Form, Composite, Relation, Quantity, Quality, Motion. The last three may, again, be included in Relation, which is capable of bearing this wider extension. Enneads: VI III. 3

So much for one of the GENERA – the “Substance,” so called, of the Sensible realm. Enneads: VI III. 9

But suppose similarity to be identical in both GENERA; Quantity and Quality must then be expected to reveal other properties held in common. Enneads: VI III. 15

Surely, it may be interposed, five differs from three by two. No: it exceeds it by two; we do not say that it differs: how could it differ by a “two” in the “three”? We may add that neither can Motion differ from Motion by Motion. There is, in short, no parallel in any of the other GENERA. Enneads: VI III. 18

Change may be suggested as a prior. But, in the first place, either it is identical with Motion, or else, if change be claimed as a genus, it will stand distinct from the GENERA so far considered: secondly, Motion will evidently take rank as a species and have some other species opposed to it – becoming, say – which will be regarded as a change but not as a motion. Enneads: VI III. 21

What view are we to take of that which is opposed to Motion, whether it be Stability or Rest? Are we to consider it as a distinct genus, or to refer it to one of the GENERA already established? We should, no doubt, be well advised to assign Stability to the Intellectual, and to look in the lower sphere for Rest alone. Enneads: VI III. 27

As for the remaining so-called GENERA, we have shown that they are reducible to those which we have posited. Enneads: VI III. 28

We have examined the proposed “ten GENERA”: we have discussed also the theory which gathers the total of things into one genus and to this subordinates what may be thought of as its four species. The next step is, naturally, to expound our own views and to try to show the agreement of our conclusions with those of Plato. Enneads: VI II. 1

But since we identified the amalgam of the Existents (or primary GENERA) with the particular intellect, Intellect as such being found identical with Being or Substance, and therefore prior to all the Existents, which may be regarded as its species or members, we may infer that the intellect, considered as completely unfolded, is a subsequent. Enneads: VI II. 19