2. Scotus’ own Opinion

250. On the intention of these philosophers, Aristotle and Avicenna. - I do not wish to impute to them things more absurd than they themselves say or than follows necessarily from what they say, and I wish to take from their sayings the more reasonable understanding that I can take.

251. I respond then that Aristotle posited, and Avicenna likewise, that God is necessarily disposed to other things outside himself, and from this it follows that some other thing is necessarily disposed to God (which is as it were immediately compared to him), or disposed not by an intermediate motion, because from a uniformity in the movable whole they posited a lack of uniformity in the parts of the movable, and that by intermediate motion generable and corruptible things were non-uniformly compared to God.

252. By holding this false foundation, Aristotle does not seem, in positing that God is a necessary cause, to contradict himself by positing a necessary caused thing (as he intends in the Metaphysics 5, that of certain necessary things there is some other cause, and in Metaphysics 2 that “of eternal things the principles must be the truest,” as was argued [n.239]), and so he posited not only the third way but also the first [n.232].Note cancelled by Scotus: “Again, there is the following argument: he [Aristotle] set down the first mover to be of infinite power; infinite power cannot immediately move the globe, because it moves neither in time nor in the ‘now’; therefore he posited that it precisely moves mediately. But this can be understood in three ways, but none of these three ways [see footnote to n.290] is possible unless it produces into being the proximate mover, because the other two modes are there [ibid.] rejected; therefore he intends to posit such a production.” Another note cancelled by Scotus: “This also proves [sc. the previous paragraph in this footnote] that Aristotle posited that all the intelligences are immediately produced by the first intelligence (against Avicenna Metaphysics IX ch.4 (104vb-105ra)), because a cause of infinite power causes every infinite motion, and this mediately (but no other cause besides the first is of infinite power, because any cause is conjoined to some sphere; therefore it is finite); therefore any motion whatever is from the first cause by an intermediate mover and from its proper mover immediately moving it; therefore the first cause produced that proximate mover. Thus too the intellect is produced from outside (On the Generation of Animals 2.3.736b27-29), because, although he did not posit that the first thing acted without second causes, together with a matter disposed to the effect of the first thing, the first thing, according to him, necessarily informs the matter, so that this informing is the only change (not two changes, as in positing creation and informing). Thus too in On Good Fortune [Eudemian Ethics 7.15.1248a22-b7] he says that a separate cause moves immediately a man so disposed to what is of advantage to him, etc.” ⁹⁴

253. Also Avicenna seems immediately to contradict himself when positing the [caused thing] to be a possible [n.248], because then a necessary thing is not necessarily compared to it.

But there is an argument on Avicenna’s behalf: if it is from another, then in the quiddity of it is not included its being of itself; therefore it is of itself a possible being and a non-being, just as humanity is not a being of itself, whether one or several. This way of possibility is conceded, namely the possibility which is just that, in the order of nature, this thing is capable of that, but it is not that quidditatively.

254. From this the response is plain to the first argument made against Avicenna [n.249], as though he were contradicting himself, because [from ‘possible not to be’] there does not follow ‘it is possible that it is not’, nor [from ‘it is possible’] does there follow ‘it can be posited [that it is not]’ - just as neither ‘a being that is not one’ - and thus Aristotle would concede something necessary from another to be a possible, but that ‘it is possible for potency to be prior to act’ he rejects in On the Heavens [n.249].

255. Therefore Aristotle and Avicenna agree in the things that follow from one false principle - in which principle they agree - namely that God is necessarily disposed to something that is outside himself, to which immediately, or by mediation of something immutable, he is compared.Note by Scotus: “And do they both say the first way [sc. immediately]? - Avicenna in Metaphysics [footnote to n.252]. But whether Aristotle thought so about one produced intelligence only [sc. whether Aristotle like Avicenna thought God was compared immediately to one intelligence only or to all] is doubtful; however he posited nothing else immediately from the first thing save intelligence, which, if it did not produce it, would altogether not move it, because not according to any of the three ways contained here [footnote to n.290].” ⁹⁵

256. To the things first adduced, to prove that Aristotle denied the first way [nn.233, 235-238].

To the first, that he tries to prove a contradiction [n.233], perhaps Aristotle would say that ‘possible objectively’ is not repugnant to the necessary if the producer necessarily produces; for it is not required that the possible could really not be such [sc. existent], but that ‘in the order of nature’ be implicitly understood when understanding it not to be such [sc. it is possible in its nature, but, because of its cause, it is necessary]. This is proved by the confirmation to the argument adduced by Henry [n.233], which is that from quasi-subjective potency - according to him - the Son is generated in divine reality; for it is certain that that quasi-subjective possibility does not prevent necessity; nor does the quasi-objective potency of the Son, because the generator necessarily generates.

257. To what is adduced from On the Heavens - “unless one nature were to change into another” - it can be said that the substance has permanent existence, and so there is not given to it always a new and a new existence. Therefore from the causer, causing necessarily according to Aristotle, there is given to it a necessary nature formally, and thus if it were able not to be it would change its nature.

258. Through the same point an answer is plain to the passage from the Metaphysics about motion [nn.235, 238], because, since it is of itself possible, not only can it be perpetual for the reason that it is from another, but also that, along with this, it always has a new existence, and so it never has a form which is necessity; but it necessarily always comes to be, because the whole movable is necessarily disposed uniformly to what gives it uniform existence necessarily, according to them [Aristotle and Averroes] (and this necessarily uniform disposition of the movable to the mover is the cause that motion necessarily comes to be, although the motion never has necessary existence formally, - there is also here a necessity of inevitability in the motion without a necessity of immutability in the motion, but from a necessity of immutability in the causes of the motion), such that both authorities are hereby solved. But a permanent thing, if it is necessary, has at the same time to be what is formally necessary, and thus, if it is corruptible, there will be a contradiction, - motion is not like this. Or the argument of Aristotle against Plato (On the Heavens n.237) proceeds on the supposition of a necessary agent, and then I conclude in this way: if the heaven could be perpetual, and from a necessary agent, then it will necessarily be perpetual; but to this ‘necessarily’ is repugnant the act ‘to corrupt’, therefore also the potency for this act, because anything to which the act is ‘necessarily’ repugnant, to that same thing the potency to such act is repugnant, although not to anything contingent; therefore potency to corruption only stands if potency to opposites at the same time stands. And by this the position keeps itself in place, for, from the positing of what is possible to be, no impossibility follows -nor a new incompossibility - on anything necessary.