This is likewise the case with regard to perception: for the object of perception is, it appears, prior to the act of perception.If the perceptible is annihilated, perception also will cease to exist; but the annihilation ofperception does not cancel the existence of the perceptible.For perception implies a body perceived and a body in which perception takes place.Now if that which is perceptible is annihilated, it follows that the body is annihilated, for the body is a perceptible thing; and if the body does not exist, it follows that perception also ceases to exist.Thus the annihilation of the perceptible involves that of perception.
But the annihilation of perception does not involve that of the perceptible.For if the animal is annihilated, it follows that perception also is annihilated, but perceptibles such as body, heat, sweetness, bitterness, and so on, will remain.
Again, perception is generated at the same time as the perceiving subject, for it comes into existence at the same time as the animal.But the perceptible surely exists before perception; for fire and water and such elements, out of which the animal is itself composed, exist before the animal is an animal at all, and before perception.Thus it would seem that the perceptible exists before perception.
It may be questioned whether it is true that no substance is relative, as seems to be the case, or whether exception is to be made in the case of certain secondary substances.With regard to primary substances, it is quite true that there is no such possibility, for neither wholes nor parts of primary substances are relative.The individual man or ox is not defined with reference to something external.Similarly with the parts: a particular hand or head is not defined as a particular hand or head of a particular person, but as the hand or head of a particular person.It is true also, for the most part at least, in the case of secondary substances; the species 'man' and the species 'ox' are not defined with reference to anything outside themselves.Wood, again, is only relative in so far as it is some one's property, not in so far as it is wood.It is plain, then, that in the cases mentioned substance is not relative.But with regard to some secondary substances there is a difference of opinion; thus, such terms as 'head' and 'hand' are defined with reference to that of which the things indicated are a part, and so it comes about that these appear to have a relative character.Indeed, if our definition of that which is relative was complete, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that no substance is relative.If,however, our definition was not complete, if those things only are properly called relative in the case of which relation to an external object is a necessary condition of existence, perhaps some explanation of the dilemma may be found.
The former definition does indeed apply to all relatives, but the fact that a thing is explained with reference to something else does not make it essentially relative.
>From this it is plain that, if a man definitely apprehends a relative thing, he will also definitely apprehend that to which it is relative.Indeed this is self-evident: for if a man knows that some particular thing is relative, assuming that we call that a relative in the case of which relation to something is a necessary condition of existence, he knows that also to which it is related.For if he does not know at all that to which it is related, he will not know whether or not it is relative.This is clear, moreover, in particular instances.If a man knows definitely that such and such a thing is 'double', he will also forthwith know definitely that of which it is the double.For if there is nothing definite of which he knows it to be the double, he does not know at all that it is double.Again, if he knows that a thing is more beautiful, it follows necessarily that he will forthwith definitely know that also than which it is more beautiful.He will not merely know indefinitely that it is more beautiful than something which is less beautiful, for this would be supposition, not knowledge.For if he does not know definitely that than which it is more beautiful, he can no longer claim to know definitely that it is more beautiful than something else which is less beautiful: for it might be that nothing was less beautiful.It is, therefore, evident that if a man apprehends some relative thing definitely, he necessarily knows that also definitely to which it is related.
Now the head, the hand, and such things are substances, and it is possible to know their essential character definitely, but it does not necessarily follow that we should know that to which they are related.It is not possible to know forthwith whose head or hand is meant.Thus these are not relatives, and, this being the case, it would be true to say that no substance is relative in character.It is perhaps a difficult matter, in such cases, to make a positive statement without more exhaustive examination,but to have raised questions with regard to details is not without advantage.
