Book, Paragraph

  1 III, 3 |  principles in both ways. For the formula of the essence is one; but
  2   V, 8 |      things.-(4) The essence, the formula of which is a definition,
  3 VII, 4 |     surface" itself is added. The formula, therefore, in which the
  4 VII, 4 |         is expressed, this is the formula of the essence of each thing.
  5 VII, 4 |        inquire whether there is a formula of the essence of each of
  6 VII, 4 |       white one were to state the formula of white man; the other
  7 VII, 4 |         which is expressed in the formula, e.g. if "cloak" meant "
  8 VII, 4 |        only of those things whose formula is a definition. But we
  9 VII, 4 |        where we have a word and a formula identical in meaning (for
 10 VII, 4 | definition), but where there is a formula of something primary; and
 11 VII, 4 |         it has a name, there be a formula of its meaning-viz. that
 12 VII, 4 |            or instead of a simple formula we shall be able to give
 13 VII, 4 |       which means the same as any formula; it must mean the same as
 14 VII, 4 |           as a particular kind of formula; and this condition is satisfied
 15 VII, 4 |           is satisfied if it is a formula of something which is one,
 16 VII, 4 |    quality. And so there can be a formula or definition even of white
 17 VII, 5 |    question, if one denies that a formula with an added determinant
 18 VII, 5 |      which is involved either the formula or the name of the subject
 19 VII, 5 |           then, definition is the formula of the essence, and essence
 20 VII, 6 |          its essence one, but the formula of them is also the same,
 21 VII, 7 |        health); and health is the formula in the soul or the knowledge
 22 VII, 7 |     matter an element even in the formula? We certainly describe in
 23 VII, 7 |       then, has its matter in its formula.~As for that out of which
 24 VII, 10|           Since a definition is a formula, and every formula has parts,
 25 VII, 10|           is a formula, and every formula has parts, and as the formula
 26 VII, 10|     formula has parts, and as the formula is to the thing, so is the
 27 VII, 10|      thing, so is the part of the formula to the part of the thing,
 28 VII, 10|           being asked whether the formula of the parts must be present
 29 VII, 10|      parts must be present in the formula of the whole or not. For
 30 VII, 10|     present, and in some not. The formula of the circle does not include
 31 VII, 10|       thought to be prior; for in formula the parts are explained
 32 VII, 10|         the elements of which the formula of the form consists. E.g.
 33 VII, 10|        said to be so.) And so the formula of the circle does not include
 34 VII, 10|          of the segments, but the formula of the syllable includes
 35 VII, 10|          letters are parts of the formula of the form, and not matter,
 36 VII, 10|     letter will be present in the formula of the syllable, e.g. particular
 37 VII, 10|         i.e. of that to which the formula refers; wherefore also they
 38 VII, 10|          formulae. In one kind of formula, then, the formula of such
 39 VII, 10|        kind of formula, then, the formula of such parts will be present,
 40 VII, 10|         not be present, where the formula does not refer to the concrete
 41 VII, 10|           again. The parts of the formula, into which the formula
 42 VII, 10|           formula, into which the formula is divided, are prior to
 43 VII, 10|          all or some of them. The formula of the right angle, however,
 44 VII, 10|     however, does not include the formula of the acute, but the formula
 45 VII, 10|     formula of the acute, but the formula of the acute includes that
 46 VII, 10|        the nature of parts of the formula, and of the substance according
 47 VII, 10|        substance according to its formula, are prior, either all or
 48 VII, 10|        substance according to the formula, i.e. the form and the essence
 49 VII, 10|         dominant and in which the formula, i.e. the essential substance,
 50 VII, 10|       composed of this particular formula and this particular matter
 51 VII, 10|         the form are parts of the formula, and the formula is of the
 52 VII, 10|           of the formula, and the formula is of the universal; for "
 53 VII, 10|         by means of the universal formula. But matter is unknowable
 54 VII, 10|         the parts included in the formula and to the parts of the
 55 VII, 10|         the parts included in the formula, but prior to those included
 56 VII, 11|         are not, neither will the formula of the thing be evident.
 57 VII, 11|         parts of the form and the formula? No, they are matter; but
 58 VII, 11|         numbers, and they say the formula of "line" is that of "two".
 59 VII, 11|       semicircles included in the formula of the circle? It cannot
 60 VII, 11|        substance expressed in the formula, and even more than about
 61 VII, 11|           how the elements in the formula are parts of the definition,
 62 VII, 11|         why the definition is one formula (for clearly the thing is
 63 VII, 11|      every case, and also why the formula of the essence of some things
 64 VII, 11|           have stated that in the formula of the substance the material
 65 VII, 11|        this there is in a sense a formula, and in a sense there is
 66 VII, 11|           is not; for there is no formula of it with its matter, for
 67 VII, 11|        indefinite, but there is a formula of it with reference to
 68 VII, 11|            in the case of man the formula of the soul - , for the
 69 VII, 12|    consist the unity of that, the formula of which we call a definition,
 70 VII, 12|      animal"; for let this be the formula of man. Why, then, is this
 71 VII, 12|        the definition is a single formula and a formula of substance,
 72 VII, 12|         is a single formula and a formula of substance, so that it
 73 VII, 12|   substance, so that it must be a formula of some one thing; for substance
 74 VII, 12|     clearly the definition is the formula which comprises the differentiae.~
 75 VII, 12|        that the definition is the formula which contains the differentiae,
 76 VII, 13|      horse". Then clearly it is a formula of the essence. And it makes
 77 VII, 13|    difference even if it is not a formula of everything that is in
 78 VII, 13|        impossible; for neither in formula nor in time nor in coming
 79 VII, 13|         there would not even be a formula of any substance. But it
 80 VII, 14|         number, or different. (In formula it is clearly one; for he
 81 VII, 14|        one; for he who states the formula will go through the formula
 82 VII, 14|       formula will go through the formula in either case.) If then
 83 VII, 15|        the concrete thing and the formula (I mean that one kind of
 84 VII, 15|          kind of substance is the formula taken with the matter, while
 85 VII, 15|         while another kind is the formula in its generality), substances
 86 VII, 15|          is no destruction of the formula in the sense that it is
 87 VII, 15|          can exist apart; and the formula must consist of words; and
 88 VII, 15|     clearly it will be a sun; the formula therefore is general. But
 89 VIII, 1|           and the definition is a formula of the essence, for this
 90 VIII, 1|         Since the definition is a formula, and a formula has parts,
 91 VIII, 1|    definition is a formula, and a formula has parts, we had to consider
 92 VIII, 1|          and in another sense the formula or shape (that which being
 93 VIII, 1|       completely expressible in a formula some are separable and some
 94 VIII, 2|        then, the actuality or the formula is different when the matter
 95 VIII, 2|          matter and form (for the formula that gives the differentiae
 96 VIII, 3|        something definable by one formula, but as related to a single
 97 VIII, 3|       defined, since a definitory formula predicates something of
 98 VIII, 4|       principle is the definitory formula, but this is obscure if
 99 VIII, 4|          in between’, this is the formula which includes the cause.
100 VIII, 6|          a sign of the definitory formula, so that the question is,
101 VIII, 6|        some perceptible, and in a formula there is always an element
102 VIII, 6|        people look for a unifying formula, and a difference, between
103  IX, 1 |        definitions is implied the formula if potency in the primary
104  IX, 2 |         accompanied by a rational formula. This is why all arts, i.e.
105  IX, 2 |         accompanied by a rational formula is alike capable of contrary
106  IX, 2 |        that science is a rational formula, and the same rational formula
107  IX, 2 |    formula, and the same rational formula explains a thing and its
108  IX, 2 |          nature; for the rational formula applies to one object in
109  IX, 2 |          possession of a rational formula, and the soul possesses
110  IX, 2 |         effects. For the rational formula is one which applies to
111  IX, 2 |           according to a rational formula act contrariwise to the
112  IX, 2 |  originative source, the rational formula.~It is obvious also that
113  IX, 5 |           practice or by rational formula we must acquire by previous
114  IX, 5 |           according to a rational formula and their potencies involve
115  IX, 5 |          potencies involve such a formula, while other things are
116  IX, 8 |        actuality is prior both in formula and in substantiality; and
117  IX, 8 |            Clearly it is prior in formula; for that which is in the
118  IX, 8 |          other cases, so that the formula and the knowledge of the
119  IX, 8 |           according to a rational formula; and the same non-rational