§ 6. Questionableness of analogy of being

converge into one (as their end). or is it rather similar according to 'analogy'? For just as the eyes are what sees in the body, so is νοῦς in the soul and so others in other cases ... Here the κατ' ἀναλογίαν (according to analogy) is differentiated, by means of the comparing but excluding ἢ—ἢ, from the ἀφ' ἑνός (from one; compare ἐξ οὗ τὰ ἄλλα ἤρηται, p. 33 above) and from the πρὸς ἓν συντελεῖν (the converging into one). It should also be observed that in this same passage another concept of analogy is presented that is not identical to the categorial relationships (see p. 48f. below).

However little all this may be clear in the end, we see in what direction Aristotle positively seeks the oneness of the ὅν for the multiplicity. And thus the oneness of_the realm of the questioning ought to be able to be determined, that is, the how according to which the ὅν πολλαχῶς λεγόμενον is—ἕν. However, we recall: Aristotle uses the πολλαχῶς in a broad and in a more restricted sense. What we have just now been discussing is the πολλαχῶς in the more restricted sense in which the multiplicity of the categories is meant. But all the categories together with the first still make up only one of the τετραχῶς within the πολλαχῶς in the broad sense.

Already in the Middle Ages, on the basis of the above sentence from the beginning of Met. Θ 1, it was concluded that the first guiding fundamental meaning of being in general–for the four ways together as well. not only for the one and its multiplicity–was οὐσία, which is usually translated as "substance." As if being possible and actual and true also had to be led back to being in the sense of substance. They were even more inclined to conclude this in the nineteenth century (especially Brentano), since in the meantime, being, being possible, and being actual had come to be perceived as categories. Hence it is a generally accepted opinion that the Aristotelian doctrine of being is a "substance doctrine." This is an error, in part resulting from the inadequate interpretation of the πολλαχῶς; more precisely: it was overlooked that only a question is here first of all being prepared. (W. Jaeger's reconstruction of Aristotle is built upon the basis of this fundamental error.)

And so now for the first time the decisive question arises: What is the kind of unity in which this broad πολλαχῶς is held together (that is, τὸ ὂν κατὰ τὰ σχήματα τῆς κατηγορίας, κατὰ δύναμιν ἤ