§12Τούτων δὲ διωρισμένων σκεπτέον ὅπως ἔχουσιν αἱ ἀποφάσεις καὶ καταφάσεις πρὸς ἀλλήλας αἱ τοῦ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ μὴ δυνατὸν καὶ ἐνδεχόμενον καὶ μὴ ἐνδεχόμενον, καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου τε καὶ ἀναγκαίου· ἔχει γὰρ ἀπορίας τινάς.
These having been defined, we must consider how the negations and affirmations of being possible and not possible, and contingent and not contingent, stand in relation to one another, and also about the impossible and the necessary; for they present some difficulties.
Εἰ γὰρ τῶν συμπλεκομένων αὗται ἀλλήλαις ἀντίκεινται ἀντιφάσεις, ὅσαι κατὰ τὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι τάττονται, οἷον τοῦ εἶναι ἄνθρωπον ἀπόφασις τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἄνθρωπον, οὐ τὸ εἶναι μὴ ἄνθρωπον, καὶ τοῦ εἶναι λευκὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸ μὴ εἶναι λευκὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τὸ εἶναι μὴ λευκὸν ἄνθρωπον.
For if those contradictions oppose one another which, among combined things, are arranged according to 'being' and 'not being'—as for example, the negation of 'to be a man' is 'not to be a man', not 'to be a non-man', and of 'to be a white man' it is 'not to be a white man', but not 'to be a white non-man'.
Εἰ γὰρ κατὰ παντὸς ἡ κατάφασις ἢ ἡ ἀπόφασις, τὸ ξύλον ἔσται ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν εἶναι μὴ λευκὸν ἄνθρωπον.
For if of everything the affirmation or the negation is true, it will be true to say of wood that it is 'a white non-man'.
Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο οὕτως, καὶ ὅσοις τὸ εἶναι μὴ προστίθεται, τὸ αὐτὸ ποιήσει τὸ ἀντὶ τοῦ εἶναι λεγόμενον, οἷον τοῦ ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει οὐ τὸ οὐκ ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει ἀπόφασις ἔσται, ἀλλὰ τὸ οὐ βαδίζει ἄνθρωπος· οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει εἰπεῖν ἄνθρωπον βαδίζειν ἢ ἄνθρωπον βαδίζοντα εἶναι.
But if this is so, also in those cases where 'to be' is not added, that which is said instead of 'to be' will do the same thing; for example, the negation of 'a man walks' will not be 'a non-man walks', but 'a man does not walk'; for it makes no difference to say that a man walks or that a man is walking.
Ὥστε εἰ οὕτως πανταχοῦ, καὶ τοῦ δυνατὸν εἶναι ἀπόφασις ἔσται τὸ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τὸ μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι.
Consequently, if it is so everywhere, the negation of 'to be possible' will also be 'to be possible not to be', but not 'not to be possible'.
Δοκεῖ δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ δύνασθαι καὶ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι· πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δυνατὸν τέμνεσθαι ἢ βαδίζειν καὶ μὴ βαδίζειν καὶ μὴ τέμνεσθαι δυνατόν.
But it seems that the same thing is capable both of being and of not being; for everything that is capable of being cut or of walking is capable also of not walking and of not being cut.
Λόγος δέ, ὅτι ἅπαν τὸ οὕτω δυνατὸν οὐκ ἀεὶ ἐνεργεῖ, ὥστε ὑπάρξει αὐτῷ καὶ ἡ ἀπόφασις· δύναται γὰρ καὶ μὴ βαδίζειν τὸ βαδιστικὸν καὶ μὴ ὁρᾶσθαι τὸ ὁρατόν.
And the reason is that everything that is possible in this way is not always acting, so that the negation will also belong to it; for that which is capable of walking is capable also of not walking, and the visible is capable of not being seen.
Ἀλλὰ μὴν ἀδύνατον κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀληθεύεσθαι τὰς ἀντικειμένας φάσεις· οὐκ ἄρα τοῦ δυνατὸν εἶναι ἀπόφασίς ἐστι τὸ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι.
But surely it is impossible for opposing statements to be true of the same thing; therefore, the negation of 'to be possible' is not 'to be possible not to be'.
Συμβαίνει γὰρ ἐκ τούτων ἢ τὸ αὐτὸ φάναι καὶ ἀποφάναι ἅμα καὶ κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἢ μὴ κατὰ τὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι τὰ προστιθέμενα γίνεσθαι φάσεις καὶ ἀποφάσεις.
For from these it follows either that we affirm and deny the same thing at the same time of the same thing, or that the additions are not made into affirmations and negations according to 'being' and 'not being'.
Εἰ οὖν ἐκεῖνο ἀδύνατον, τοῦτ᾿ ἂν εἴη αἱρετόν.
If, then, the former is impossible, the latter must be chosen.
Ἔστιν ἄρα ἀπόφασις τοῦ δυνατὸν εἶναι τὸ μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι.
Therefore, the negation of 'to be possible' is 'not to be possible'.
Ὁ δ᾿ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἐνδεχόμενον εἶναι· καὶ γὰρ τούτου ἀπόφασις τὸ μὴ ἐνδεχόμενον εἶναι.
And the same account holds also of 'to be contingent '; for the negation of this is 'not to be contingent'.
Καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ ὁμοιοτρόπως, οἷον ἀναγκαίου τε καὶ ἀδυνάτου.
And likewise for the others, such as 'necessary' and 'impossible'.
Γίνεται γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνων τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ μὴ εἶναι προσθέσεις, τὰ δ᾿ ὑποκείμενα πράγματα τὸ μὲν λευκὸν τὸ δ᾿ ἄνθρωπος; οὕτως ἐνταῦθα τὸ μὲν εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι ὡς ὑποκείμενον γίνεται, τὸ δὲ δύνασθαι καὶ τὸ ἐνδέχεσθαι προσθέσεις διορίζουσαι, ὥσπερ ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνων τὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι, τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος, ὁμοίως αὗται ἐπὶ τοῦ εἶναι δυνατὸν καὶ εἶναι οὐ δυνατόν.
For just as in those cases 'to be' and 'not to be' are additions, while the underlying things are 'white' on the one hand and 'man' on the other, so here 'to be' and 'not to be' become as it were the subject, while 'to be able' and 'to be contingent' are the additions which determine them, just as 'to be' and 'not to be' in those other cases determine the true and the false, so these similarly do in the case of 'to be possible' and 'to be not possible'.
Τοῦ δὲ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι ἀπόφασις οὐ τὸ οὐ δυνατὸν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τὸ οὐ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι, καὶ τοῦ δυνατὸν εἶναι οὐ τὸ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι.
And the negation of 'to be possible not to be' is not 'not to be possible to be', but 'not to be possible not to be'; and of 'to be possible to be' it is not 'to be possible not to be', but 'not to be possible to be'.
Διὸ καὶ ἀκολουθεῖν ἂν δόξειαν ἀλλήλαις αἱ τοῦ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι· τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι· οὐ γὰρ ἀντιφάσεις ἀλλήλων αἱ τοιαῦται, τὸ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι.
Hence 'to be possible to be' and 'to be possible not to be' might seem to follow from one another; for the same thing can both be and not be; for such things as 'to be possible to be' and 'to be possible not to be' are not contradictions of one another.
Ἀλλὰ τὸ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι οὐδέποτε ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἅμα ἀληθεύονται· ἀντίκεινται γάρ.
But 'to be possible to be' and 'not to be possible to be' are never true at the same time of the same thing; for they are opposed.
Οὐδέ γε τὸ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι καὶ οὐ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι οὐδέποτε ἅμα ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀληθεύονται.
Nor indeed are 'to be possible not to be' and 'not to be possible not to be' ever true at the same time of the same thing.
Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι ἀπόφασις οὐ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι· τοῦ δὲ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι τὸ μὴ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι.
And similarly, the negation of 'to be necessary' is not 'to be necessary not to be', but 'not to be necessary to be'; and of 'to be necessary not to be' it is 'not to be necessary not to be'.
Καὶ τοῦ ἀδύνατον εἶναι οὐ τὸ ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ἀδύνατον εἶναι· τοῦ δὲ ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι τὸ οὐκ ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι.
And of 'to be impossible' the negation is not 'to be impossible not to be', but 'not to be impossible to be'; and of 'to be impossible not to be' it is 'not to be impossible not to be'.
Καὶ καθόλου δέ, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, τὸ μὲν εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι δεῖ τιθέναι ὡς τὰ ὑποκείμενα, κατάφασιν δὲ καὶ ἀπόφασιν ταῦτα ποιοῦντα πρὸς τὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι. συντάττειν.
And universally, as has been said, one must place 'to be' and 'not to be' as the subjects, and combine with 'to be' and 'not to be' those things which make them into affirmation and negation.
Καὶ ταύτας οἴεσθαι χρὴ εἶναι τὰς ἀντικειμένας φάσεις, δυνατόν — οὐ δυνατόν, ἐνδεχόμενον — οὐκ ἀνδεχόμενον, ἀδύνατον — οὐκ ἀδύνατον, ἀναγκαῖον — οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀληθές — οὐκ ἀληθές.
And these must be thought to be the opposing statements: 'possible—not possible', 'contingent—not contingent', 'impossible—not impossible', 'necessary—not necessary', 'true—not true'.