the independence of either contradicts the independence of the other. This will be discussed in detail later (1).

The point here is that it is impossible for either to confer its perfection upon the other. It is also impossible for that which is necessary in itself to depend upon another for its perfection; hence it cannot depend upon another in any respect.

For dependence consists either in attaining perfection or in preventing that perfection from being taken away. If it is perfect in itself and no other being (2) can deprive it of its perfection, then it is in no need whatsoever. As for anything that does not constitute a perfection for it, the existence thereof is not something of which one can say, “It needs [it] (3).” For it is impossible for a thing to need that which does not constitute part of its perfection. It has already been established that it does not depend upon another for the attainment of its perfection. Likewise (4), it does not depend upon another to prevent its perfection from being taken away, as by the introduction of some deficiency into it. This is because if its essence (5) entails that perfection, then that which entails something cannot exist without its necessary concomitant. It is therefore impossible for it to be deprived of that perfection, given that it is necessarily existent in itself and that its necessary concomitants cannot fail to exist.

If it is said that its essence does not entail its perfection (6), it would then depend upon another for the attainment of that perfection, and it has already been established that this is impossible.

It has thus become clear that it cannot depend upon another either to obtain something or to ward something off. This is the intended conclusion, for need arises only in connection with obtaining something or warding off