[327] Ibid. b. 24-30. οὐ γὰρ ὁ λάθρᾳ λαμβάνων, ἀλλ’ ὁ βουλόμενος λάθρᾳ λαμβάνειν, κλέπτης ἐστίν.
32. Again, another error consists in defining what is desirable in itself and on its own account, as if it were desirable as a means towards some other end — as productive or preservative thereof. For example, if a man defines justice — that which is preservative of the laws; or wisdom — that which is productive of happiness, he presents them as if they were desirable, not for themselves but, with reference to something different from themselves. This is a mistake; and it is not less a mistake, though very possibly the same subject may be desirable both for itself and for the sake of something else. For the definition ought to enunciate what is best in the definiend; and the best of everything resides most in its essence, not in what it is relatively to something else. It is better to be desirable per se, than alterius causâ.[328]
[328] Topic. VI. xii. p. 149, b. 31-39. ἑκάστου γὰρ τὸ βέλτιστον ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ μάλιστα, βέλτιον δὲ τὸ δι’ αὑτὸ αἱρετὸν εἶναι τοῦ δι’ ἕτερον, ὥστε τοῦτο καὶ τὸν ὁρισμὸν ἔδει μᾶλλον σημαίνειν.
33. Perhaps the definition tendered may be a complex proposition, enunciating two terms either jointly or severally, in one or other of three combinations. Either the definiend is A and B; or it is that which springs out of A and B; or it is A with B.[329] In each of these three cases you may find arguments for impugning the definition.
[329] Ibid. xiii. p. 150, a. 1-4: σκοπεῖν δὲ καὶ εἴ τινος ὁρισμὸν ἀποδιδοὺς τάδε, ἢ τὸ ἐκ τούτων, ἢ τόδε μετὰ τοῦδε ὡρίσατο.
a. Thus, take the first of the three. Suppose the respondent to define justice by saying, It is temperance and courage. You may urge against him, that two men, one of whom is temperate without being courageous, while the other is courageous without being temperate, will be just together, though neither of them separately is just; nay, that each of them separately (the one being temperate and cowardly, the other courageous and intemperate), will be both just and unjust; since, if justice is temperance and courage, injustice will be intemperance and cowardice.[330] The definer is open to the farther objection that he treats enumeration of parts as identical with the whole; as if he defined a house — bricks and mortar, forgetting the peculiar mode of putting them together. Bricks and mortar may exist, and yet there may be no house.[331]
[330] Ibid. a. 4-14.
[331] Ibid. a. 15-21. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τῶν μερῶν ὄντων οὐδὲν κωλύει τὸ ὅλον μὴ εἶναι· ὥστε οὐ ταὐτὸν τὰ μέρη τῷ ὅλῳ.
b. Next, suppose the definition to declare, that the definiend is that which springs from A and B — is a result or compound of A and B. You will then examine whether A and B are such as to yield any result; for some couples (as a line and a number) yield no result. Or, perhaps, the definiend may by its own nature inhere in some first subject, while A and B do not inhere in any one first subject, but one in the other; in which case the definition is assailable.[332] Or, even granting that it is the nature of A and B to inhere in the same first subject, you may find that that first subject is not the same as the one in which the definiend inheres. Now the whole cannot thus inhere in one, and the parts in another: you will here have a good objection. Or, perhaps, it may appear that, if the whole be destroyed, the parts will be destroyed also; which ought not to be, but the reverse; for, when the parts are destroyed, the whole must necessarily vanish. Or, perhaps, the definiend may be good or bad, while the parts of the definition (A and B) are neither one nor the other. (Yet this last is not a conclusive objection; for it will sometimes happen in compound medicines that each of the ingredients is good, while they are bad if given in conjunction.)[333] Or, perhaps, the whole may bear the same name as one of its parts: this, also, will render the definition impeachable. Still more will it be impeachable, if it enunciates simply a result or compound of A and B, without specifying the manner of composition; it ought to declare not merely the parts of the compound, but also the way in which they are put together to form the compound.[334]
[332] Ibid. a. 22-30. ἔτι εἰ τὸ μὲν ὡρισμένον ἐν ἑνί τινι πέφυκε τῷ πρώτῳ γίνεσθαι, ἐξ ὧν δ’ ἔφησεν αὐτὸ εἶναι, μὴ ἐν ἑνί τινι τῷ πρώτῳ, ἀλλ’ ἑκάτερον ἐν ἑκατέρῳ.