THE CATEGORIES OR &quot; PRAEDICAMENTA &quot;. 149 



HAMILTON suggests a rearrangement of the categories, in 

 which &quot; Being &quot; (Ens\ as the sole Summum Genus, is divided 

 immediately into Substance and Attribute (or Accident}. But 

 substance and accident are not two species, into which Being,&quot; 

 as genus, can be divided by any differentia other than itself; nor 

 can it be predicated of them univocaUy (or in the same sense] as a 

 true genus, as &quot; animal &quot; can be predicated of its species &quot; man &quot; 

 and &quot;horse&quot;: but only analogically (27), as ultimately different 

 modes or determinations of being. 1 



It is true, however, that whatever we think of we conceive 

 either as subsisting in itself or as qualifying something else in 

 which it inheres, i.e. either as a substance or as an accident : a 

 fact which has induced Hamilton to divide being into substance 

 and accident, and then to subdivide the latter into certain subordi 

 nate species ; but accident is not a genus divisible by differ 

 entiae distinct from itself into such subordinate species, and uni- 

 vocally predicable of the latter. The concept .&quot; accident &quot; may 

 be predicated of Aristotle s nine latter categories only in an 

 analogical sense : as ultimate determinations of being they are 

 each as immediately co-ordinate with substance as they are with 

 one another. 



The STOICS, subordinating the categories to the notion of real being 

 (TO oV) of which they regarded them as highest classes, reduced them to four ; 



1. TO vTTOKfifjievov . . . substrate or substance. 



2. TTOLOV . . . essential property. 



3. 7T&amp;lt;off ex ov - accidental property. 



4. npos TI Trots *x ov relation. 



This scheme has in turn influenced the enumeration of DESCARTES and 

 SPINOZA i Substance, Attribute and Mode ; and that of LOCKE i Substance, 

 Mode and Relation. 



MILL regarded the categories primarily as a classification of the modes 

 or forms of real being. That is to say, he viewed them from the meta 

 physical standpoint. For him their study is an investigation into the ultimate 

 nature of real being. In this he rather misread Aristotle s main purpose. 

 It is, however, interesting to see how he dealt with them as modes of real 

 being : gradually reducing them as species to higher genera, until finally, in 

 admirable consistency with his own philosophical doctrine of phenomenal 



1 The notions of BEING in itself; of Being as ONE or undivided, or identical 

 with itself and distinct from what is &quot; Other &quot; ; of Being as TRUE, or as object of 

 knowledge; and of Being as GOOD, or as object of desire : are called TRANS 

 CENDENTAL notions, as transcending (or surpassing in range of application) all con 

 ceivable species and genera, and as being predicable, not univocally or in exactly the 

 same sense, but analogically, i.e. in cognate or similar senses, of every known or 

 knowable individual being. 



