FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 17, Art. 4]

Whether True and False Are Contraries?

Objection 1: It seems that true and false are not contraries. For true

and false are opposed, as that which is to that which is not; for

"truth," as Augustine says (Soliloq. ii, 5), "is that which is." But

that which is and that which is not are not opposed as contraries.

Therefore true and false are not contrary things.

Obj. 2: Further, one of two contraries is not in the other. But

falsity is in truth, because, as Augustine says, (Soliloq. ii, 10),

"A tragedian would not be a false Hector, if he were not a true

tragedian." Therefore true and false are not contraries.

Obj. 3: Further, in God there is no contrariety, for "nothing is

contrary to the Divine Substance," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei

xii, 2). But falsity is opposed to God, for an idol is called in

Scripture a lie, "They have laid hold on lying" (Jer. 8:5), that is

to say, "an idol," as a gloss says. Therefore false and true are not

contraries.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Peri Herm. ii), that a false

opinion is contrary to a true one.

_I answer that,_ True and false are opposed as contraries, and not, as

some have said, as affirmation and negation. In proof of which it must

be considered that negation neither asserts anything nor determines

any subject, and can therefore be said of being as of not-being, for

instance not-seeing or not-sitting. But privation asserts nothing,

whereas it determines its subject, for it is "negation in a subject,"

as stated in _Metaph._ iv, 4: v. 27; for blindness is not said except of

one whose nature it is to see. Contraries, however, both assert

something and determine the subject, for blackness is a species of

color. Falsity asserts something, for a thing is false, as the

Philosopher says (Metaph. iv, 27), inasmuch as something is said or

seems to be something that it is not, or not to be what it really is.

For as truth implies an adequate apprehension of a thing, so falsity

implies the contrary. Hence it is clear that true and false are

contraries.

Reply Obj. 1: What is in things is the truth of the thing; but what

is apprehended, is the truth of the intellect, wherein truth

primarily resides. Hence the false is that which is not as

apprehended. To apprehend being, and not-being, implies contrariety;

for, as the Philosopher proves (Peri Herm. ii), the contrary of this

statement "God is good," is, "God is not good."

Reply Obj. 2: Falsity is not founded in the truth which is contrary

to it, just as evil is not founded in the good which is contrary to

it, but in that which is its proper subject. This happens in either,

because true and good are universals, and convertible with being.

Hence, as every privation is founded in a subject, that is a being,

so every evil is founded in some good, and every falsity in some

truth.

Reply Obj. 3: Because contraries, and opposites by way of privation,

are by nature about one and the same thing, therefore there is

nothing contrary to God, considered in Himself, either with respect

to His goodness or His truth, for in His intellect there can be

nothing false. But in our apprehension of Him contraries exist, for

the false opinion concerning Him is contrary to the true. So idols

are called lies, opposed to the divine truth, inasmuch as the false

opinion concerning them is contrary to the true opinion of the divine

unity.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 145 / 722 题