This is from John philoponos In Aristotelis De anima libros commentaria http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24782185 ... ntaria_...
(και ταυτα διαιρει εισ το δυναμει και ἐνεργειᾶι και δεικνυσι ταυτα παντα ἐν τῆι ψυχῆι ὀντα, και το μεν δυναμει ἐπιστασθαι τα δυναμει, και το ἐνεργειᾶι τα ἐνεργειᾶι.
Someone please let me know how to imput the small iota, as in energeia^i, psyche^i in this page http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tayl0010/polyton ... utter.html
)
And he (Aristotle) divides the aistheta and noeta (the sense-objects and intellectual objects) into two cases, the one regarded as dynamis (state), the other regarded as energeia (motion),
and explains that these are in the mind in every manner,
and that the aistheta and noeta as dynamis (state = knowledge) are known by the mind as dynamis (state = knowledge-holder), and those as energeia (motion = momentary cognition) are known by the mind as energeia .
42
My question :
I need a consultation on dynamis, whether you can render it as state, though there is no such definition in the dictionaries.
But in this sentence, it incurrs a strange translation if you take dynamis as power or potentiality,
since it is strange to say that the knower in potentiality knows the objects in potentiality.
I think the translatiomn goes natural if you take dynamis as state in contrast to energeia (motion).
+ kai
+ tauta : those
+ diairei : diaireo^ : to divide / to distinguish (= mentally divide)
+ eis
+ to
+ dynamei :
+ kai
+ energeia^i :
+ kai
+ deiknysi :
+ tauta : those
+ panta
+ en
+ te^i
+ psyche^i :
+ onta
+ , (comma)
+ kai
+ to
+ men
+ dynamei :
+ epistasthai :
+ ta
+ dynamei
+ , (comma)
+ kai
+ to
+ energeia^i :
+ ta
+ energeia^i
+ . (period)