Aristotelis Opera (Bekker Edition, Vol. 2): Metaphysica, Ethica, Politica, Rhetorica, Poetica

...whether it is or is not? And we say, yes, it was doubted among the ancients whether it is genus or species. For Antisthenes said it is neither genus nor species; for he says, "I see a man, but I do not see humanity; I see a horse, but I do not see horseness," so the universal is not one. But those who say this are babbling.

The definition that says the universal is that which is numerically one in form, but shared by many, is well-put.

That there is a necessary inquiry (whether they are incorporeal or extended in three dimensions) is clear from the fact that some say all beings are bodies, just as the Stoics—men born from a sowed crop of oak and stone, according to the poem a reference to the mythical origin of humanity from trees and rocks. For they cared nothing for the profession of philosophy, unless it was that they adorned it through the grandiloquence of names; for they say the philosopher is alone rich, alone king, alone happy. And alone rich, insofar as he suffices for his own needs and needs nothing else; for this is what it is to be rich, even if the present time teaches the opposite, showing that those who possess wealth have no satiety. And alone king, insofar as he prevails over his enemies, namely, anger and desire; for this is the proof of a king. And alone happy, insofar as he obtains what he desires, and desires those things which he is able to obtain; and he always desires to acquire virtue. These men, having assembled these two, hold their knowledge to be low-lying and base, saying that all beings are bodies, and that even among them there is a subtle divine body passing through all things; but this is holy among them, and the life surpassing. Since such an inquiry has arisen from doubt among the ancients—the Aristotelians, Platonists, and Pythagoreans saying that of beings some are bodies and others are extended in three dimensions, while the Stoics say all beings are bodies, clearly including the forms and the genera—come, let us also show in our customary instruction that the proposed voices are incorporeal and through these arguments.

Come, let us also tell of the disagreement that seems to exist between Aristotle and Plato, and later we shall settle it Ammonius, fol. 30b: It must be known that Aristotle and Plato seem to disagree on these matters; for Aristotle says they are inseparable from matter, but Plato says they are separable..

The difference in Platonic doctrines has not been slight. Some of the Platonists said that we also speak of this as being prior to the many, insofar as God creates all things according to reason. Others said that we also speak of this as being prior to the many because there are certain self-subsistent ideas, having no sensation, according to the image of which God creates all things. Others said that there are certain ideas having no sensation, according to the image of which God creates all things; for they said there is a universal Mind toward which the Creator God looks and creates the mind among us, and a universal man toward which God looks and creates the man among us; and altogether that such things pre-exist our generation. For this reason, then, it appeared different even before the many. For which reason Aristotle seemed not to believe in them as being prior to the many, not consenting to these; for he said these show the powerlessness of the divine, as they require sensation itself.

Having bestowed the prizes of the struggles upon the universals in three ways—that they are not mere empty thoughts but subsistent, and that they are not bodies but incorporeal, and that they are prior to the many, in the many, and after the many—let us set aside the things contrary to these so that we may know the accurate.

Immediately, having spoken a few preliminary considerations, let us proceed to the text itself. The arrangement is as follows: "I shall deliver a brief [introduction] to you."

It is worth inquiring how "notion" differs from "empty notion."

Why, then, did he mention the Peripatetics? Some say that the Peripatetics were moved more sharply toward dialectic; wishing to make this [book] useful, he mentioned them. Others say, since he was called a Platonist based on his assumptions, he wanted to show himself following Aristotle, which he wished to demonstrate in his writings. It is worth inquiring why the Aristotelians were called Peripatetics. They say Aristotle was called Peripatetic because he conducted his discussions while walking, out of reverence for his teacher; he did not dare to conduct discussions in a chair while Plato was still alive. Others say this is false; on the contrary, he opposed him. These people dare to say something; for even if he opposed him, he always honored him, as the epigram Aristotle wrote for Plato’s tomb shows: "An altar to Aristotle—it is right."

Some cry out against Porphyry, saying that he did not go through all the genera; for he passed over the five genera of Plato (Sophist. p. 249). For Plato says there are five genera of all beings: being, sameness, difference, motion, and rest. These, then, they say, Porphyry passed over. And not only these, but other things too; they say that in his Physics, Aristotle says that matter is a genus, but he did not mention this. Furthermore, he did not mention the genera according to the grammarians, that is, masculine, feminine, and neuter.

"Simply" is taken in four ways; for it is taken properly, as universal, as chance, and instead of "solitary" and "unvaried." This is what the tragic poet himself says: "The word of truth is simple by nature."

They say that long ago Attica was divided into villages. Therefore, a genus far removed to Plato would be Attica, but a proximate one would be one of the villages... In the time of Pindar, he says the opposite, that Pindar, being called a Theban, has his genus far removed from his fatherland; for he is not from Thebes, but from the village of the Cynocephalae.

Knowing the order, one can bestow accuracy upon the instruction; come, let us speak a little about this. It must be inquired what genera he will place first, whether those in philosophy or those in custom... In fact, the author himself, knowing this, says: "As we were sailing upon the Ionian sea, we had Epidamnos on our right." Such a position is optional; for it is not for this reason he said "sailing," as it is clear that while going out, we had Epidamnos on the left.

Some ask if this definition (of the genus) also includes the universal genus according to Plato, I mean the ideas. We know from two ways that it includes them.