and neither can exist without the body. Indeed, according to most of those who affirm its existence, even the indivisible atom cannot exist without a body.

[Seventh]

It may be said: Your assertion that “the composite that is necessary in itself depends upon each of its parts, since the composite necessarily cannot exist without its parts, whereas none of them depends upon it” is false. The reverse is more plausible.

For if something posited as a part is that upon which the whole depends, it must be necessary in itself. If it is necessary in itself, then either it is independent, not dependent upon the existence of the other part or of the whole, or it requires them. If it is independent in itself, depending neither upon another part nor upon the aggregate, this entails a plurality of independent things that are necessary in themselves: each can exist without the others, and none depends upon another or upon the whole.

Clearly, if this is possible, there must be an aggregate whose members are each necessary in themselves, while the aggregate is necessary by virtue of those necessary members. Thus, positing a plurality of things necessary in themselves invalidates the very foundation of this argument, let alone its subsidiary conclusions.