ON THE CATEGORIES.

...soul separates from the body; for those souls that love the body, not awaiting death from the bodies, say that the phenomena around tombs are shadow-like phantoms.

Pythagoras says that philosophy is the love of wisdom, first correcting the error among the ancients; since they used to call rhetoric a wise art, of which one was Archilochus, saying "a noble spearman or a wise helmsman" or "well knowing the counsel of Athena's wisdom," they should transfer this name to God, as only He is called wise among the gods.

Between these (the theological and the physiological) is the mathematical, since it holds a middle order by nature. Some of the ancients placed this before the physiological, those following Plato, in order, they say, that we might recognize the ideas already lying within the soul, or remember them by viewing those in particulars, using the mathematical as a sort of ladder. Others following Aristotle assigned it the middle order... Philosophy is divided, as has already been said, into theoretical and practical... Why not into more, but into two? There are two reasons for this. Since we say philosophy is an assimilation to God, and God has twofold energies—the cognitive of all beings, and the providential of us, the inferior ones—it is reasonable that philosophy is divided into theoretical and practical; through the theoretical we know beings, and through the practical we provide for the inferior.

The ethical law sets this for itself when it says Golden Verses, 9: "Accustom yourself to master these: first the belly, and sleep, and lust." And again when Isocrates Ad Demonicum 16, Bekker edition says: "Fear the gods, honor your parents, and respect your friends."

But if there is anything out of order or superfluous in the parts of a human, such as a six-fingered or six-handed person, like the Giants mentioned by the poet Apollonius.

Conversely, in the teaching (of the ten categories), Aristotle lists five sounds unknown to us in common usage: genus, difference, species, property, and accident. The philosopher Porphyry wrote this book in a way that is at once kind and philosophical, teaching us what each sound signifies.

EXPLANATION OF THE MOST WISE PHILOPONUS ON THE FIVE SOUNDS OF PORPHYRY Codex Bodleianus (Barocc.) 145 f. 119–137 b..

And it is established as the most beautiful of all beautiful things, and truly most dear to God, to provide for the benefit not only of one's own students but of all who have devoted themselves to study and who sweat while immersing themselves in these things, becoming a teacher of the authors' own writings. And to transform the obscurity, difficulty, and wordiness—or more appropriately, the babbling—of ancient writings or their interpreters into something clearer and easily understood is the work of a man possessing a burning zeal for the study and care of those being taught, a teacher in the true and absolute sense, who claims as his own not only his own students but all. Therefore, our mentor, knowing this to be beneficial, precious, and of great utility to those who desire it, thought it necessary, if the ancient commentators had explained anything regarding the study of the five sounds in a riddling or dark way, and which is not yet fully illuminated but capable of being cast down—especially for those of introductory reasoning—to extract it and cast it away like some stinging nettle. And it provides no small benefit to those who encounter it; even if it is obscure, he will not only transform it into something easily understood and clearer, but will also add from his own store whatever is lacking, and not only this, but he will also interpret the very terminology of the five sounds, setting such a teaching before the young in the middle like a mixing bowl, so that those who wish may draw from it abundantly and tirelessly. If our humility makes the writing entirely clear, so that it results in being brought to a lower level, let no one accuse this of ignorance or lack of refinement; it is not, by the Trinity itself and its teachings, if one honors them. Otherwise, it is not possible to lead men who are dull, truly godless, and unyielding toward the highest theorems of philosophy and to lift their minds to their height, unless we redirect the obscurity and wordiness into what is clear, easily understood, and concise. This is indeed the teacher's way, producing learning in the student through what is concise and clear. And I embrace this interpretation. Some teachers say that one should first teach the introductory exercises of rhetoric, and after these, the five sounds. As I will ask: do you, most wise ones, do this as you introduce the young to the easier and familiar path—that is, the mythical—so that you do not cloud their reasoning with the theorems of philosophy, or because one must learn the easier things first and then the more complex? For it is proper for a young person to learn the preliminary training first, that is, the enumeration of elements, syllables, and words, and then to write, then to be taught the art of grammar, and after that rhetoric, and then philosophy. If you maintain these things, most learned ones, I shall apologize while allowing room for your position. Regarding your discourse, most wise ones, we should have followed the sequence of the preliminary exercises.