Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library
Alphabetical    [«  »]
singular 189
singularity 18
singularly 4
singulars 100
sinister 2
sink 2
sinking 5
Frequency    [«  »]
100 remained
100 render
100 semen
100 singulars
100 solicitude
100 superstition
100 swear
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica

IntraText - Concordances

singulars

    Part, Question
1 1, 12 | in God. But to know other singulars, ~their thoughts and their 2 1, 15 | species, but also ~genera, singulars, and accidents. But there 3 1, 29 | themselves; for actions belong to singulars. Therefore ~also the individuals 4 1, 57 | 1~Whether an angel knows singulars?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[57] A[ 5 1, 57 | that angels do not know singulars. For the ~Philosopher says ( 6 1, 57 | sense has for its object ~singulars, but the intellect, universals." 7 1, 57 | Consequently they do not know ~singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[57] A[ 8 1, 57 | Therefore the ~angel cannot know singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[57] A[ 9 1, 57 | Further, if an angel does know singulars, it is either by ~singular 10 1, 57 | the angel does ~not know singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[57] A[ 11 1, 57 | Consequently the angels know singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[57] A[ 12 1, 57 | angels all knowledge of ~singulars. In the first place this 13 1, 57 | they ~had no knowledge of singulars, they could exercise no 14 1, 57 | possesses knowledge of ~singulars, but in their universal 15 1, 57 | providence and movement are of singulars, as ~they are here and now 16 1, 57 | Reply OBJ 3: Angels know singulars by universal forms, which ~ 17 1, 58 | 1~Whether an angel knows singulars?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[57] A[ 18 1, 58 | that angels do not know singulars. For the ~Philosopher says ( 19 1, 58 | sense has for its object ~singulars, but the intellect, universals." 20 1, 58 | Consequently they do not know ~singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[57] A[ 21 1, 58 | Therefore the ~angel cannot know singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[57] A[ 22 1, 58 | Further, if an angel does know singulars, it is either by ~singular 23 1, 58 | the angel does ~not know singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[57] A[ 24 1, 58 | Consequently the angels know singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[57] A[ 25 1, 58 | angels all knowledge of ~singulars. In the first place this 26 1, 58 | they ~had no knowledge of singulars, they could exercise no 27 1, 58 | possesses knowledge of ~singulars, but in their universal 28 1, 58 | providence and movement are of singulars, as ~they are here and now 29 1, 58 | Reply OBJ 3: Angels know singulars by universal forms, which ~ 30 1, 84 | principle in regard to the singulars: for the ~singular is the 31 1, 85 | inquiry:~(1) Whether it knows singulars?~(2) Whether it knows the 32 1, 85 | Whether our intellect knows singulars?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[86] A[ 33 1, 85 | that our intellect knows singulars. For whoever ~knows composition, 34 1, 85 | for actions ~belong to singulars. Therefore our intellect 35 1, 85 | Therefore our intellect knows singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[86] A[ 36 1, 88 | understands individuals and singulars?~(5) Whether the habits 37 1, 88 | the separated soul knows singulars?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[89] A[ 38 1, 88 | separated soul does not know singulars. ~For no cognitive power 39 1, 88 | the ~intellect cannot know singulars, as we have shown (Q[86], 40 1, 88 | separated soul cannot know singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[89] A[ 41 1, 88 | therefore much less can it ~know singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[89] A[ 42 1, 88 | Further, if it knew the singulars, yet not by sense, for the 43 1, 88 | reason it would know all singulars. But it does not know all 44 1, 88 | But it does not know all singulars. ~Therefore it knows none. ~ 45 1, 88 | Separated souls know some singulars, but not all, not ~even 46 1, 88 | all, not ~even all present singulars. To understand this, we 47 1, 88 | phantasms, and in this way singulars cannot be directly known 48 1, 88 | for the intellect to know singulars. For as God knows ~all things, 49 1, 88 | separate ~substances can know singulars by species which are a kind 50 1, 88 | of things, but also the singulars contained in those species; ~ 51 1, 88 | species know only those singulars to ~which they are determined 52 1, 88 | the same relation to all ~singulars, but one relation to some, 53 1, 88 | reason why it should know all singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[89] A[ 54 1, 88 | when separated understands ~singulars by species derived from 55 1, 88 | separated soul has knowledge of ~singulars, by being in a way determined 56 2, 2 | especially in contingent singulars, such as are human acts. 57 2, 2 | contains an infinite number of singulars. ~Consequently it is evident 58 2, 6 | acts are concerned with singulars; ~and the singular, as such, 59 2, 9 | choices are in reference to singulars. ~Wherefore from the very 60 2, 14 | concerned with contingent singulars, which by reason of their ~ 61 2, 14 | speaking, with contingent ~singulars. Now the knowledge of the 62 2, 14 | action is ~concerned. But singulars are infinite. Therefore 63 2, 14 | to be had in ~contingent singulars, which are variable and 64 2, 14 | 1 Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: Singulars are infinite; not actually, 65 2, 14 | Reply OBJ 3: In contingent singulars, something may be taken 66 2, 15 | indifferently, whether the singulars be present or absent. And 67 2, 30 | potentially an infinite number of singulars.~Aquin.: SMT FS Q[30] A[ 68 2, 50 | reduced to act in respect of singulars by the intelligible species, " 69 2, 76 | Now actions are ~about singulars: wherefore the conclusion 70 2, 77 | since ~actions are about singulars: wherefore it is not astonishing 71 2, 95 | human actions are about singulars, which are infinite in number, 72 2, 2 | living," and in "knowing singulars," as plants and animals; 73 2, 8 | with inferior things, viz. singulars, about which actions are 74 2, 45 | Whether it takes cognizance of singulars?~(4) Whether it is virtue?~( 75 2, 45 | prudence takes cognizance of singulars?~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[47] A[ 76 2, 45 | not take cognizance of ~singulars. For prudence is in the 77 2, 45 | Para. 1/1~OBJ 2: Further, singulars are infinite in number. 78 2, 45 | right reason, is not about singulars.~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[47] A[ 79 2, 45 | does not take cognizance of singulars.~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[47] A[ 80 2, 45 | needs to take cognizance of ~singulars also."~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[ 81 2, 45 | principles of reason, and the singulars about which actions are ~ 82 2, 45 | because the infinite number of singulars cannot be ~comprehended 83 2, 45 | reduces the infinity of singulars to a ~certain finite number 84 2, 45 | prudence is the ~contingent singulars about which are human actions, 85 2, 45 | sensitive part regards singulars.~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[47] A[ 86 2, 45 | extends to an ~infinity of singulars.~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[47] A[ 87 2, 51 | because actions are about singulars.~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[53] A[ 88 2, 58 | opinion about contingent singulars. Since then human ~judgment 89 2, 58 | the truth of ~contingent singulars in themselves.~Aquin.: SMT 90 2, 104 | since actions are about singulars, in matters of action, we 91 2, 118 | composed ~of contingent singulars and are innumerable in their 92 2, 140 | on the consideration of singulars. It is the other way about ~ 93 3, 11 | of the intellect to ~know singulars. Hence it would seem that 94 3, 11 | of ~Christ did not know singulars.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[11] A[ 95 3, 11 | OBJ 3: The knowledge of singulars pertains to the perfection 96 3, 11 | without the knowledge of singulars, in ~which operations exist, 97 3, 12 | past, present, or future singulars, which, ~nevertheless, He 98 3, 19 | Metaph. i, 1), acts belong to singulars. Hence in Christ ~there 99 3, 20 | belong to supposita and to ~singulars," according to the Philosopher ( 100 Suppl, 51| one ~who has knowledge of singulars which are the matter of


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