AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 105 



Thus, there comes into something like distinct view 

 the one central conception which has been gradually 

 focusing into definite utterance throughout the whole of 

 our inquiry, thus far. 



Before proceeding with the further stages of the argu- 

 ment, it seems worth while to notice that the result here 

 reached is altogether in agreement with the doctrine re- 

 garding the relation between substance and its attributes, 

 as defined by Spinoza. That is, to use his phrase, " attri- 

 butes are what we may know of substance." So, also, the 

 same results may be reached through a consideration of 

 the interdependence of the categories of Aristotle. 



It has been claimed that Aristotle gathered his cate- 

 gories together in more or less arbitrary fashion, from the 

 current speech of his time. But it is also to be borne 

 in mind that his writings have reached us in exceedingly 

 fragmentary form, and that our judgment regarding the 

 arbitrariness of his mode of procedure ought to be guarded 

 accordingly. In any case, the categories as they stand in 

 the list handed down to us as the one he proposed, are 

 open for interpretation. And it seems but reasonable 

 and just to allow that the most adequate and consistent 

 interpretation which can be given them is the one which 

 Aristotle himself put upon them, in more or less explicit 

 fashion. Or if not so much as this, at least it ought to 

 be allowed that such interpretation is not inconsistent 

 with the general estimate he gave them. 



Let us see, then, what interpretation will be borne by 

 these categories as presented in the Organon. They are 

 as follows: Substance (ob<rta), Quantity (xoffov], Quality 

 (noiov), Relation (npos r:), Where (nob), When (TTOT^), 



