Part, Question

 1   1, 13  |     there is no contradiction of affirmation and ~negation; for equivocation
 2   1, 17  |         complex things only. But affirmation and negation do not belong
 3   1, 17  |           as ~some have said, as affirmation and negation. In proof of
 4   1, 33  |         reduced to the ~genus of affirmation, as "not man" is reduced
 5   1, 39  |         2: Further, simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same
 6   1, 39  |      respect cannot be true. But affirmation and negation are true ~of
 7   1, 39  |      Herm. ii), what is open to ~affirmation, is open also to negation.~
 8   1, 45  |           than its part, or that affirmation and negation are both true
 9   1, 58  |          is far more remote from affirmation than any ~two opposite natures
10   1, 58  |         distinctions is that of ~affirmation and negation. But the angel
11   1, 58  |           Therefore he must know affirmation and negation by diverse
12   1, 58  |        mode ~of existing than do affirmation and negation. Yet, as to
13   1, 58  |        in which ~they are known, affirmation and negation have something
14   1, 58  |         directly the truth of an affirmation is known, the falsehood
15   1, 77  |      because they are divided by affirmation and negation, that is, according ~
16   1, 39  |         2: Further, simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same
17   1, 39  |      respect cannot be true. But affirmation and negation are true ~of
18   1, 39  |      Herm. ii), what is open to ~affirmation, is open also to negation.~
19   1, 46  |           than its part, or that affirmation and negation are both true
20   1, 59  |          is far more remote from affirmation than any ~two opposite natures
21   1, 59  |         distinctions is that of ~affirmation and negation. But the angel
22   1, 59  |           Therefore he must know affirmation and negation by diverse
23   1, 59  |        mode ~of existing than do affirmation and negation. Yet, as to
24   1, 59  |        in which ~they are known, affirmation and negation have something
25   1, 59  |         directly the truth of an affirmation is known, the falsehood
26   1, 76  |      because they are divided by affirmation and negation, that is, according ~
27   1, 84  |         disposes and divides by ~affirmation and negation. The reason
28   2, 35  | fittingness and likeness in the ~affirmation of one contrary and the
29   2, 35  |        are to the appetite, what affirmation and denial are to the intellect" ~(
30   2, 41  |         in the appetite are what affirmation and denial are in the ~intellect."
31   2, 41  |        intellect, as neither is ~affirmation, but something common to
32   2, 64  |         intellect contrariety of affirmation and ~negation, which are
33   2, 67  |   another, we find opposition of affirmation and ~negation. Now in some
34   2, 71  |         1 Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: Affirmation and negation are reduced
35   2, 72  |         and commission differ as affirmation and ~negation. Now affirmation
36   2, 72  |   affirmation and ~negation. Now affirmation and negation cannot be in
37   2, 72  |    negation is always founded on affirmation, ~which, in a manner, is
38   2, 72  |     species by reduction to the ~affirmation on which it is based.~Aquin.:
39   2, 75  |          absence of the cause of affirmation; i.e. the ~negation of the
40   2, 75  |           place, the cause of an affirmation, of which a negation is
41   2, 100 |         Rm. 3:20). Wherefore the affirmation ~precept demanded the first
42   2, 100 |         1 Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: Affirmation of one thing always leads
43   2, 100 |          not always lead to the ~affirmation of the other. For it follows
44   2, 100 |    negation extends further than affirmation. And hence too, that ~one
45   2, 113 |       united in the order of one affirmation. And in the ~same manner
46   2, 12  |         of God, differ merely as affirmation and negation. For ~this
47   2, 19  |       Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 2) affirmation ~and negation in the intellect
48   2, 105 |        Moreover, since ~opposite affirmation includes negation, it follows
49   2, 120 |     affirmatively, especially as affirmation is naturally prior to negation.~
50   2, 120 |     might be removed. For though affirmation naturally ~precedes negation,
51   2, 120 |       negation is preferable to ~affirmation, on account of our insufficiency,
52 Suppl, 46|      oath rather than by a mere ~affirmation. Therefore if a man consent
53 Suppl, 46|       marry a woman by a simple ~affirmation expressed in words of the
54 Suppl, 50|         are opposed according to affirmation and negation. Therefore ~
55 Suppl, 50| contrariety and not according to affirmation and negation), that which ~
56 Suppl, 81|         privation, since between affirmation and negation or ~privation
57 Suppl, 81|    nearer to or more remote from affirmation, and ~conversely, by reason
58 Suppl, 81|     negation it ~is changed into affirmation, and "vice versa"; wherefore