Prior
and posterior
mean: (1.) (a) In one sense (assuming that there is in each genus some primary thing or starting-point) that which is nearer to some starting-point, determined either absolutely and naturally, or relatively, or locally, or by some agency; e.g., things are prior in space because they are nearer either to some place naturally determined, such as the middle or the extreme, or to some chance relation; and that which is further is posterior.
(b) In another sense, prior or posterior in time . Some things are prior as being further from the present, as in the case of past events (for the Trojan is prior to the Persian war, because it is further distant from the present); and others as being nearer the present, as in the case of future events (for the Nemean are prior to the Pythian games because they are nearer to the present, regarded as a starting-point and as primary).
(c) In another sense, in respect of motion (for that which is nearer to the prime mover is prior; e.g., the boy is prior to the man). This too is a kind of starting point in an absolute sense. (d) In respect of potency; for that which is superior in potency, or more potent, is prior. Such is that in accordance with whose will the other, or posterior, thing must follow, so that according as the former moves or does not move, the latter is or is not moved. And the will is a starting-point.
(e) In respect of order; such are all things which are systematically arranged in relation to some one determinate object. E.g., he who is next to the leader of the chorus is prior to him who is next but one, and the seventh string is prior to the eighth Footnote 1The octachord to which Aristotle refers was composed of the following notes: E (ὑπάτη ) F (παρυπάτη) G (λιχανός) A (μέση) B (παραμέση) C (τρίτη) D (παρανήτη) E (νήτη). ; for in one case the leader is the starting-point, and in the other the middle Footnote 2Strictly speaking there was no middle string in the octachord; the name was taken over from the earlier heptachord EFGABbCD, in which there was no παραμέση. The μέση was apparently what we should call the tonic. Cf. Aristot. Met. 14.6.5; Aristot. Problemata 919b 20. string.
In these examples prior
has this sense; but (2.) in another sense that which is prior in knowledge is treated as absolutely prior; and of things which are prior in this sense the prior in formula are different from the prior in perception . Universals are prior in formula, but particulars in perception. And in formula the attribute is prior to the concrete whole: e.g. cultured
to the cultured man
; for the formula will not be a whole without the part.
Yet cultured
cannot exist apart from some cultured person.
Again, (3.) attributes of prior subjects are called prior; e.g., straightness is prior to smoothness, because the former is an attribute of the line in itself, and the latter of a surface.
Some things, then, are called prior and posterior in this sense; but others (iv.) in virtue of their nature and substance, namely all things which can exist apart from other things, whereas other things cannot exist without them. This distinction was used by Plato. Footnote 3Not, apparently, in his writings. (And since being
has various meanings, (a) the substrate, and therefore substance, is prior; (b) potential priority is different from actual priority.
Some things are prior potentially, and some actually; e.g., potentially the half-line is prior to the whole, or the part to the whole, or the matter to the substance; but actually it is posterior, because it is only upon dissolution that it will actually exist.)
Indeed, in a sense all things which are called prior
or posterior
are so called in this connection; for some things can exist apart from others in generation (e.g. the whole without the parts), and others in destruction (e.g. the parts without the whole). And similarly with the other examples.