Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library
Alphabetical    [«  »]
proposed 107
proposes 25
proposing 6
proposition 184
propositions 46
propounded 11
propounding 1
Frequency    [«  »]
184 contempt
184 contra
184 fruits
184 proposition
184 unjust
183 destroyed
183 determined
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica

IntraText - Concordances

proposition

    Part, Question
1 1, 2 | inquiry:~(1) Whether the proposition "God exists" is self-evident?~( 2 1, 2 | actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident. ~ 3 1, 2 | does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is ~ 4 1, 2 | But the opposite of the ~proposition "God is" can be mentally 5 1, 2 | in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because ~ 6 1, 2 | subject be known to all, the proposition ~will be self-evident to 7 1, 2 | subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in 8 1, 2 | predicate and subject ~of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, 9 1, 2 | Therefore I say that this proposition, "God ~exists," of itself 10 1, 2 | the essence of God, the ~proposition is not self-evident to us; 11 1, 3 | mean the composition of a proposition effected by ~the mind in 12 1, 3 | sense. We know that this proposition which we form about God ~ 13 1, 12 | thus when any demonstrable proposition is known by probable ~reason 14 1, 12 | probable opinion that a proposition is demonstrable, although 15 1, 13 | about which an ~affirmative proposition is made is taken as a subject. 16 1, 13 | Therefore an ~affirmative proposition cannot be formed about God.~ 17 1, 13 | that a true affirmative ~proposition about God cannot be made.~ 18 1, 13 | in every true affirmative proposition the ~predicate and the subject 19 1, 13 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This proposition, "The intellect understanding 20 1, 13 | the thing understood, the proposition is true, and ~the meaning 21 1, 13 | intellect, when forming a proposition about God, does ~not affirm 22 1, 13 | one who understands, the proposition is false. For the ~mode 23 1, 14 | instance, a demonstrable proposition is comprehended ~when known 24 1, 14 | Further, every conditional proposition of which the antecedent 25 1, 14 | this is a true conditional proposition, "If ~God knew that this 26 1, 14 | as the chief part of the ~proposition. Hence its contingency or 27 1, 14 | necessity or contingency of the proposition, or to its being true or ~ 28 1, 14 | causes. Hence also this proposition, "Everything known by God 29 1, 14 | for the sense is, ~"This proposition, 'that which is known by 30 1, 14 | He knows; because such a proposition implies that ~first of all 31 1, 14 | because it would follow that a proposition which is ~true once would 32 1, 14 | must be conceded that this proposition is not true, "Whatever God 33 1, 14 | God knows an enunciable proposition is ~sometime true, and sometime 34 1, 16 | dividing: for in every ~proposition it either applies to, or 35 1, 16 | future. But as the truth of a proposition regarding the ~present is 36 1, 16 | created truth, so is that of a proposition regarding the ~future. Therefore 37 1, 16 | concerning ~it. But this proposition that "Socrates sits", receives 38 1, 16 | Therefore the truth of the ~proposition in no way changes.~Aquin.: 39 1, 16 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: A proposition not only has truth, as other 40 1, 16 | consequently the truth ~of the proposition. So therefore this proposition, " 41 1, 16 | proposition. So therefore this proposition, "Socrates sits," is ~true, 42 1, 16 | cause of the truth of ~the proposition, "Socrates sits," has not 43 1, 25 | reason why a conditional proposition should not be true, though 44 1, 25 | taken substantively, this proposition is true. ~For He can always 45 1, 31 | essential ~term. For this proposition, "God alone is Father," 46 1, 31 | 1~On the contrary, This proposition "The Father alone is God" 47 1, 31 | is God. But this second proposition is false, for the Son is ~ 48 1, 31 | Father alone is God," such a ~proposition can be taken in several 49 1, 31 | predicate. And thus the proposition is false if it excludes ~ 50 1, 36 | anything, the converse ~proposition is not always true. For 51 1, 36 | OBJ 2: Further, in this proposition "the Father and the Son 52 1, 36 | is false. Therefore this ~proposition also is false, that the 53 1, 36 | however, assert that this proposition is incorrect: "The Father ~ 54 1, 36 | 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: In the proposition "the Father and the Son 55 1, 36 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 5: This proposition is also true: - The one 56 1, 37 | 1/1~OBJ 2: Further, the proposition, "The Father and the Son 57 1, 37 | Therefore in no way is this ~proposition true: "'The Father and the 58 1, 37 | begotten." Others say that ~the proposition is inaccurate and ought 59 1, 39 | person of the Son, this ~proposition, for instance, "God begotten 60 1, 39 | distinction of Godhead. Yet this proposition "He begot another God" ~ 61 1, 39 | Wherefore the negative of ~the proposition is true, "He begot God Who 62 1, 39 | contrary, the affirmative proposition ~is true, and the negative 63 1, 39 | simply that the affirmative ~proposition is false, and the negative 64 1, 39 | Who" in the affirmative proposition can be referred to the " 65 1, 39 | the ~person, so that this proposition is true, "Essence begets 66 1, 39 | man. In the ~same way this proposition, "God is the Trinity," cannot 67 1, 39 | singular. Hence, ~as this proposition, "The Father is God" is 68 1, 39 | of itself true, so this ~proposition "God is the Father" is true 69 1, 44 | not. For this conditional proposition is true, ~whether the antecedent 70 1, 45 | 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: In the proposition "the first of created things 71 1, 48 | conveys the truth of a ~proposition which unites together subject 72 1, 58 | as forming parts of one proposition; and also two things ~compared 73 1, 37 | 1/1~OBJ 2: Further, the proposition, "The Father and the Son 74 1, 37 | Therefore in no way is this ~proposition true: "'The Father and the 75 1, 37 | begotten." Others say that ~the proposition is inaccurate and ought 76 1, 39 | person of the Son, this ~proposition, for instance, "God begotten 77 1, 39 | distinction of Godhead. Yet this proposition "He begot another God" ~ 78 1, 39 | Wherefore the negative of ~the proposition is true, "He begot God Who 79 1, 39 | contrary, the affirmative proposition ~is true, and the negative 80 1, 39 | simply that the affirmative ~proposition is false, and the negative 81 1, 39 | Who" in the affirmative proposition can be referred to the " 82 1, 39 | the ~person, so that this proposition is true, "Essence begets 83 1, 39 | man. In the ~same way this proposition, "God is the Trinity," cannot 84 1, 39 | singular. Hence, ~as this proposition, "The Father is God" is 85 1, 39 | of itself true, so this ~proposition "God is the Father" is true 86 1, 45 | not. For this conditional proposition is true, ~whether the antecedent 87 1, 46 | 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: In the proposition "the first of created things 88 1, 49 | conveys the truth of a ~proposition which unites together subject 89 1, 59 | as forming parts of one proposition; and also two things ~compared 90 1, 84 | is its definition; and a proposition conveys the ~intellect's 91 1, 85 | the ~intellect to form a proposition. Therefore our intellect 92 1, 85 | And thus it ~forms the proposition "Socrates is a man." Wherefore 93 1, 85 | vii, 3. But a singular proposition cannot be directly concluded ~ 94 1, 85 | concluded ~from a universal proposition, except through the medium 95 1, 85 | the medium of a singular ~proposition. Therefore the universal 96 1, 86 | De Anima iii) that the proposition quoted is ~true only of 97 1, 103 | being by God. The middle proposition is ~proved thus. That which 98 1, 115 | intellect ~could not form this proposition: "The digger of a grave 99 2, 51 | principle in a ~self-evident proposition. Wherefore by such acts 100 2, 51 | principle: thus one self-evident proposition convinces the intellect, 101 2, 51 | conclusion, but a probable proposition ~cannot do this. Wherefore 102 2, 74 | final ~sentence touching any proposition is delivered by referring 103 2, 76 | syllogism is a ~singular proposition. But a singular proposition 104 2, 76 | proposition. But a singular proposition does not follow from a ~ 105 2, 76 | follow from a ~universal proposition, except through the medium 106 2, 76 | medium of a particular ~proposition: thus a man is restrained 107 2, 77 | universal and a particular ~proposition be opposed, they are opposed 108 2, 77 | lawful," knows this general proposition to contain, for example, 109 2, 77 | example, the ~particular proposition, "This is an act of fornication." 110 2, 77 | a universal affirmative proposition, and at the same ~time a 111 2, 77 | about a particular negative proposition, or vice ~versa: but it 112 2, 77 | a universal affirmative proposition, and actually a false opinion ~ 113 2, 77 | about another universal proposition ~suggested by the inclination 114 2, 77 | concluding ~under the first proposition; so that while the passions 115 2, 90 | definition; secondly, ~the proposition; thirdly, the syllogism 116 2, 90 | speculative intellect, the proposition holds in regard to ~conclusions. 117 2, 94 | appointed by reason, just as a proposition is a work of reason. ~Now 118 2, 94 | in relation to us. Any proposition is ~said to be self-evident 119 2, 94 | it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For ~ 120 2, 94 | self-evident. For ~instance, this proposition, "Man is a rational being," 121 2, 94 | not what a man is, this proposition is not ~self-evident. Hence 122 2, 96 | in human acts no general proposition can be so ~certain as not 123 2, 102 | the ark; the "table of proposition," with the twelve loaves 124 2, 102 | with the twelve loaves of ~proposition on it, which stood on the 125 2, 102 | eating of the loaves of proposition and ~of other things that 126 2, 1 | whether it is a thing or a proposition?~(3) Whether anything false 127 2, 1 | something complex, by way of a proposition?~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[1] A[2] 128 2, 1 | something complex ~by way of a proposition. For the object of faith 129 2, 1 | object of faith is not a proposition but a thing.~Aquin.: SMT 130 2, 1 | something complex by way of a proposition.~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[1] A[2] 131 2, 1 | does not ~terminate in a proposition, but in a thing. For as 132 2, 1 | will not be by way of a proposition but by way of a ~simple 133 2, 8 | considered in itself of the ~proposition understood. In this way, 134 2, 8 | thing or the truth of a proposition is not known as to its quiddity 135 2, 19 | conclusion from an universal proposition, except ~through the holding 136 2, 19 | holding of a particular proposition. Hence it is that a man, ~ 137 2, 31 | wrongdoer. But the latter proposition is unreasonable: therefore 138 2, 47 | universal and a singular ~proposition. Wherefore the reasoning 139 2, 169 | Further, in a conditional proposition, whenever the antecedent 140 2, 169 | consequent of a conditional proposition stands in the same relation 141 2, 169 | the following conditional proposition must ~needs be true: "If 142 2, 169 | antecedent of this conditional proposition is absolutely necessary, 143 2, 169 | stated above, the conditional proposition: ~"If this was prophesied, 144 2, 169 | in the same way as the ~proposition: "If this was foreknown, 145 3, 16 | For every ~affirmative proposition of remote matter is false. 146 3, 16 | matter is false. Now this proposition, ~"God is man," is on remote 147 3, 16 | Therefore, since the ~aforesaid proposition is affirmative, it would 148 3, 16 | 1/3~I answer that, This proposition "God is man," is admitted 149 3, 16 | all. For some admit the ~proposition, but not in the proper acceptation 150 3, 16 | 11). But some admit this proposition, together with the reality 151 3, 16 | hypostasis; we say that this proposition is true and ~proper, "God 152 3, 16 | in one ~suppositum, the proposition is necessarily in remote 153 3, 16 | essentially. Hence this proposition is ~neither in remote nor 154 3, 16 | borne in mind that in a proposition in which ~something is predicated 155 3, 16 | 1/2~I answer that, This proposition, Man was made God, may be 156 3, 16 | shown (Q[2], AA[2],3), this proposition ~is false, because, when 157 3, 16 | reason. First, for this proposition is simply false, in the 158 3, 16 | Secondly, because even if this ~proposition were true, it ought not 159 3, 16 | than of the subject of the proposition; as when I ~say: "A body 160 3, 16 | to the suppositum, this proposition is to be ~denied rather 161 3, 16 | Man, is God, ~is a truer proposition than Christ as Man is God."~ 162 3, 17 | suppositum, it would be a true proposition - for instance, ~"Christ 163 3, 24 | His human nature; for this proposition is false - "The human ~nature 164 3, 24 | human nature; for ~this proposition is false: "The human nature 165 3, 24 | of God; ~therefore this proposition - "Christ was predestinated 166 3, 24 | Para. 1/1~Whether this proposition is false: "Christ as man 167 3, 24 | It would seem that this proposition is false: "Christ as man 168 3, 24 | place at some time. But this proposition, "The Son of God was made 169 3, 24 | of God." Therefore this ~proposition, "Christ, as the Son of 170 3, 35 | is born twice. But this ~proposition is false; "Christ was born 171 3, 43 | reasons about any particular proposition proves him to be a ~man. 172 3, 75 | must be true. But this ~proposition is false: "After the consecration 173 3, 75 | wherefore they formulated their proposition with an alternative viz. ~ 174 3, 75 | after the consecration this proposition is false: ~"The substance 175 3, 75 | Para. 1/1~Whether this proposition is false: "The body of Christ 176 3, 75 | OBJ 1: It seems that this proposition is false: "The body of Christ 177 3, 75 | that is "made." But this proposition is never true: "The bread ~ 178 3, 75 | is made from it. But this proposition seems to be false: ~"The 179 3, 75 | Therefore it ~seems that this proposition likewise is false: "The 180 3, 75 | be that thing. ~But this proposition is false: "Bread can be 181 3, 80 | works): "If the loaves of Proposition might not be eaten by ~them 182 Suppl, 75| been changed. The ~first proposition is made evident on the authority 183 Suppl, 80| appears from the first proposition of De Causis, therefore 184 Suppl, 81| Some have demurred to this proposition of the ~Philosopher's, as


Best viewed with any browser at 800x600 or 768x1024 on Tablet PC
IntraText® (V89) - Some rights reserved by Èulogos SpA - 1996-2007. Content in this page is licensed under a Creative Commons License