Paragraph

 1 10| positives" are "blindness" and "sight"; in the sense of affirmatives
 2 10|         the same subject. Thus, sight and blindness have reference
 3 10|        that blind which has not sight, but rather that which has
 4 10|     that which has not teeth or sight at the time when by nature
 5 10|    which from birth are without sight, or without teeth, but these
 6 10|      privative" or "positive". "Sight" is a "positive", "blindness"
 7 10|     privative", but "to possess sight" is not equivalent to "sight", "
 8 10|    sight" is not equivalent to "sight", "to be blind" is not equivalent
 9 10|         blindness is opposed to sight, so is being blind opposed
10 10|         blind opposed to having sight.~That which is affirmed
11 10|         reference to the other; sight is not sight of blindness,
12 10|         the other; sight is not sight of blindness, nor is any
13 10|         said to be blindness of sight, but rather, privation of
14 10|        but rather, privation of sight. Relatives, moreover, reciprocate;
15 10|       But this is not the case. Sight is not called the sight
16 10|         Sight is not called the sight of blindness.~That those
17 10|      advanced to the state when sight is natural is not said either
18 10|         is by nature capable of sight, it will be said either
19 10|       blind does not regain his sight; the man who has become
20 10|       and "privatives" such as "sight" and "blindness". In short,
21 10|        false. For "Socrates has sight" is the opposite of "Socrates