It is possible for relatives to have contraries. Thus virtue has a contrary, vice, these both being relatives; knowledge, too, has a contrary, ignorance. But this is not the mark of all relatives;"double" and "triple" have no contrary, nor indeed has any such term.
It also appears that relatives can admit of variation of degree. For "like" and "unlike", "equal" and "unequal", have the modifications "more" and "less" applied to them, and each of these is relative in character: for the terms "like" and "unequal" bear "unequal" bear a reference to something external. Yet, again, it is not every relative term that admits of variation of degree. No term such as "double" admits of this modification. All relatives have correlatives: by the term "slave" we mean the slave of a master, by the term "master", the master of a slave; by "double", the double of its hall; by "half, the half of its double; by "greater", greater than that which is less; by "less," less than that which is greater.
So it is with every other relative term; but the case we use to express the correlation differs in some instances. Thus, by knowledge we mean knowledge the knowable; by the knowable, that which is to be apprehended by knowledge; by perception, perceptionof the perceptible; by the perceptible, that which is apprehended byperception.
Sometimes, however, reciprocity of correlation does not appear to exist. This comes about when a blunder is made, and that to which the relative is related is not accurately stated. If a man states that a wing is necessarily relative to a bird, the connexion between these two will not be reciprocal, for it will not be possible to say that a bird is a bird by reason of its wings. The reason is that the original statement was inaccurate, for the wing is not said to be relative to the bird qua bird, since many creatures besides birds have wings, but qua winged creature. If, then, the statement is made accurate, the connexion will be reciprocal, for we can speak of a wing, having reference necessarily to a winged creature, and of a winged creature as being such because of its wings.
Occasionally, perhaps, it is necessary to coin words, if no word exists by which a correlation can adequately be explained. If we define a rudder as necessarily having reference to a boat, our definition will not be appropriate, for the rudder does not have this reference to a boat qua boat, as there are boats which have no rudders. Thus we cannot use the terms reciprocally, for the word "boat" cannot be said to find its explanation in the word "rudder". As there is no existing word, our definition would perhaps be more accurate if we coined some word like "ruddered" as the correlative of "rudder". If we express ourselves thus accurately, at any ratethe terms are reciprocally connected, for the "ruddered" thing is"ruddered" in virtue of its rudder. So it is in all other cases. A head will be more accurately defined as the correlative of that which is "headed", than as that of an animal, for the animal does not have a head qua animal, since many animals have no head.
Thus we may perhaps most easily comprehend that to which a thing is related, when a name does not exist, if, from that which has a name, we derive a new name, and apply it to that with which the first is reciprocally connected, as in the aforesaid instances, when we derived the word "winged" from "wing" and from "rudder".
All relatives, then, if properly defined, have a correlative. I add this condition because, if that to which they are related is stated as haphazard and not accurately, the two are not found to be interdependent. Let me state what I mean more clearly. Even in the case of acknowledged correlatives, and where names exist for each, there will be no interdependence if one of the two is denoted, not by that name which expresses the correlative notion, but by one of irrelevant significance. The term "slave," if defined as related, not to a master, but to a man, or a biped, or anything of that sort, is not reciprocally connected with that in relation to which it is defined, for the statement is not exact. Further, if one thing is said to be correlative with another, and the terminology used is correct, then, though all irrelevant attributes should be removed, and onlythat one attribute left in virtue of which it was correctly stated to be correlative with that other, the stated correlation will still exist. If the correlative of "the slave" is said to be "the master", then, though all irrelevant attributes of the said "master", such as "biped", "receptive of knowledge", "human", should be removed, and the attribute "master" alone left, the stated correlation existing between him and the slave will remain the same, for it is of a master that a slave is said to be the slave. On the other hand, if, of two correlatives, one is not correctly termed, then, when all other attributes are removed and that alone is left in virtue of which it was stated to be correlative, the stated correlation will be found to have disappeared.
For suppose the correlative of "the slave" should be said to be "the man", or the correlative of "the wing"the bird"; if the attribute "master" be withdrawn from" the man", the correlation between "the man" and "the slave" will cease to exist, for if the man is not a master, the slave is not a slave. Similarly, if the attribute "winged" be withdrawn from "the bird", "the wing" will no longer be relative; for if the so-called correlative is not winged, it follows that "the wing" has no correlative.
Thus it is essential that the correlated terms should be exactly designated; if there is a name existing, the statement will be easy;if not, it is doubtless our duty to construct names. When theterminology is thus correct, it is evident that all correlatives are interdependent.
Correlatives are thought to come into existence simultaneously. This is for the most part true, as in the case of the double and the half. The existence of the half necessitates the existence of that of which it is a half. Similarly the existence of a master necessitates the existence of a slave, and that of a slave implies that of a master; these are merely instances of a general rule.