On the Difference between Platonic and Aristotelian Philosophy (Unknown) - Page 15

...is Being original: "ens" itself not unequivocal? Certainly, if it were equivocal An "equivocal" term is one that uses the same word for different things, like "bank" (of a river) and "bank" (for money). The author argues "Being" must have a single, unified meaning., it would no longer be one. Moreover, Aristotle himself affirms in a certain place that Beings do not wish to be governed poorly, and that it is not good for many to rule, but rather that there ought to be one leader and king. He proclaims this most piously and wisely in words, yet in reality, he himself introduces a "bad government" among beings, insofar as he divides Being into many parts and does not allow it to be one. From these things we have discussed, we shall form the following division:

Being

Substance — Accident A "substance" is a thing that exists in itself (like a tree), while an "accident" is a quality that exists only in something else (like the greenness of the tree).

Corporeal — Incorporeal

Animate — Inanimate

Animal — Plant

Rational — Irrational

Human — Angel

Socrates

Plato

The union makes the part smaller; since he [Aristotle] wishes individuals to be primary substances, but species and genera to be secondary substances: inferior to those first ones.

CHAPTER VIII.

Aristotle also falls under the same accusation of ignorance for this reason: that he simply makes the universal The general category or "species," like "Humanity." less than the particular The specific individual, like "Socrates.", while he calls singular and individual essences "primary" and "principal" substances, but calls their species and genera "secondary substances," and these he considers inferior and lesser than the first. Yet if substance, as...