Part, Question
1 1, 10 | is ~a negative one. But negation only belongs to what is
2 1, 10 | usually defined by way of negation; as "a ~point is that which
3 1, 10 | not to be taken as if the ~negation belonged to their essence,
4 1, 11 | being"; but is only a ~negation of division; for "one" means
5 1, 11 | inasmuch as privation means "negation in the subject," according
6 1, 11 | understood from the very negation of being: so ~what first
7 1, 13 | way of causality, and of negation as ~stated above (Q[12],
8 1, 13 | contradiction of affirmation and ~negation; for equivocation prevents
9 1, 14 | are to be taken by way of ~negation. But as God is said to be
10 1, 17 | only. But affirmation and negation do not belong to ~the senses.
11 1, 17 | said, as affirmation and negation. In proof of which it must
12 1, 17 | must be ~considered that negation neither asserts anything
13 1, 17 | its subject, for it is "negation in a subject," as stated
14 1, 30 | anything to being, ~except a negation of division, as we saw when
15 1, 30 | and beyond this they add negation only, as stated (Sent. i,
16 1, 30 | signification of such names adds a negation of division, beyond ~substance
17 1, 33 | unbegotten" imports ~the negation of passive generation. For
18 1, 33 | be ~understood to imply negation in the genus of principle
19 1, 33 | a relative term; just as negation is reduced to the ~genus
20 1, 39 | simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same things ~in the
21 1, 39 | true. But affirmation and negation are true ~of essence and
22 1, 39 | affirmation, is open also to negation.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[
23 1, 40 | positive and is only a negation, as he himself says. But
24 1, 42 | equality ~signifies the negation of greater or less. Now
25 1, 45 | ex] can ~comprise the negation implied when I say the word "
26 1, 45 | non-existence. ~But if the negation includes the preposition,
27 1, 45 | or that affirmation and negation are both true at the same ~
28 1, 48 | neither a habit nor a pure negation, but a ~privation.~Aquin.:
29 1, 48 | subject; but privation is negation in a subject, as the Philosopher
30 1, 48 | of good, and not a mere ~negation, as was said above (A[3]),
31 1, 58 | Para. 1/1~OBJ 2: Further, negation is far more remote from
32 1, 58 | that of ~affirmation and negation. But the angel knows certain
33 1, 58 | must know affirmation and negation by diverse species. And ~
34 1, 58 | than do affirmation and negation. Yet, as to the way in which ~
35 1, 58 | are known, affirmation and negation have something more in common; ~
36 1, 58 | falsehood of ~the opposite negation is known also.~Aquin.: SMT
37 1, 77 | divided by affirmation and negation, that is, according ~to
38 1, 39 | simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same things ~in the
39 1, 39 | true. But affirmation and negation are true ~of essence and
40 1, 39 | affirmation, is open also to negation.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[
41 1, 40 | positive and is only a negation, as he himself says. But
42 1, 42 | equality ~signifies the negation of greater or less. Now
43 1, 46 | ex] can ~comprise the negation implied when I say the word "
44 1, 46 | non-existence. ~But if the negation includes the preposition,
45 1, 46 | or that affirmation and negation are both true at the same ~
46 1, 49 | neither a habit nor a pure negation, but a ~privation.~Aquin.:
47 1, 49 | subject; but privation is negation in a subject, as the Philosopher
48 1, 49 | of good, and not a mere ~negation, as was said above (A[3]),
49 1, 59 | Para. 1/1~OBJ 2: Further, negation is far more remote from
50 1, 59 | that of ~affirmation and negation. But the angel knows certain
51 1, 59 | must know affirmation and negation by diverse species. And ~
52 1, 59 | than do affirmation and negation. Yet, as to the way in which ~
53 1, 59 | are known, affirmation and negation have something more in common; ~
54 1, 59 | falsehood of the opposite negation is known also.~Aquin.: SMT
55 1, 76 | divided by affirmation and negation, that is, according ~to
56 1, 84 | divides by ~affirmation and negation. The reason of this is that
57 1, 87 | things principally by way of ~negation. Thus Aristotle (De Coel.
58 1, 87 | knowledge of them by ~way of negation and by their relation to
59 2, 23 | not of contrariety but of negation or privation.~Aquin.: SMT
60 2, 64 | contrariety of affirmation and ~negation, which are contraries, as
61 2, 67 | opposition of affirmation and ~negation. Now in some things we find
62 2, 71 | Reply OBJ 1: Affirmation and negation are reduced to one same
63 2, 72 | differ as affirmation and ~negation. Now affirmation and negation
64 2, 72 | negation. Now affirmation and negation cannot be in the same species, ~
65 2, 72 | the same species, ~since negation has no species; for "there
66 2, 72 | broad sense, in so far as negation and ~privation may have
67 2, 72 | other sins: for in things, negation is always founded on affirmation, ~
68 2, 72 | in this respect it is a negation or privation, but by that
69 2, 72 | although, properly speaking, negation is ~not in a species, yet
70 2, 75 | cause, in the same way as a negation or ~privation can have a
71 2, 75 | causes may be assigned to a negation: ~in the first place, absence
72 2, 75 | of affirmation; i.e. the ~negation of the cause itself, is
73 2, 75 | itself, is the cause of the negation in itself; ~since the result
74 2, 75 | affirmation, of which a negation is a sequel, is ~the accidental
75 2, 75 | accidental cause of the resulting negation: thus fire by causing heat ~
76 2, 75 | suffices to cause a simple negation. But, since ~the inordinateness
77 2, 75 | every evil is not a simple negation, but ~the privation of that
78 2, 100 | black, it is white: ~because negation extends further than affirmation.
79 2, 10 | first, by way of pure ~negation, so that a man be called
80 2, 10 | we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those ~
81 2, 10 | unbelief as denoting a pure negation.~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[10] A[
82 2, 12 | merely as affirmation and negation. For ~this diversity does
83 2, 19 | vi, 2) affirmation ~and negation in the intellect correspond
84 2, 26 | way of pre-eminence or ~negation as Dionysius states (Div.
85 2, 44 | opposed to it as a pure negation: since the fatuous man ~
86 2, 51 | speaking it is not taken as ~a negation, so as merely to signify
87 2, 77 | does ~not denote a pure negation, viz."not to do evil"; for
88 2, 77 | but for as much as the negation of an act ~is reduced to
89 2, 77 | contrary than from its simple negation; thus black is further removed ~
90 2, 77 | while omission denotes the negation thereof: for instance it
91 2, 105 | opposite affirmation includes negation, it follows that it belongs
92 2, 120 | affirmation is naturally prior to negation.~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[122] A[
93 2, 120 | affirmation naturally ~precedes negation, yet in the process of generation,
94 2, 120 | the process of generation, negation, whereby ~obstacles are
95 2, 120 | matters concerning God, where negation is preferable to ~affirmation,
96 2, 121 | the other than its ~mere negation. Now to endure is merely
97 2, 145 | food, consists in a pure negation, ~wherefore it cannot be
98 3, 34 | opposite to it, ~either by negation or by privation: thus white
99 3, 34 | man and not holy; but by negation - that is, when He ~was
100 3, 60 | invalidated: as ~happens when a negation is made to precede or follow
101 Suppl, 50| according to affirmation and negation. Therefore ~there cannot
102 Suppl, 50| according to affirmation and negation), that which ~is somewhat
103 Suppl, 79| Now ~impassibility is a negation or privation of passibility.
104 Suppl, 79| since ~it denotes a mere negation or privation, it is not
105 Suppl, 81| between affirmation and negation or ~privation there is no
106 Suppl, 81| wherefore that which is in the ~negation may be nearer to or more
107 Suppl, 81| moved is wholly under a negation it ~is changed into affirmation,
|