Book, Paragraph

 1   I, 1|      thinkers, he affirms that the elements are many. Thus Empedocles
 2   I, 1|           holds that the corporeal elements are four, while all the
 3   I, 1|            and Democritus that the elements are infinite.~(Anaxagoras
 4   I, 1|    infinite.~(Anaxagoras posits as elements the "homoeomeries", viz.
 5   I, 1|            Air, and Earth are four elements, and are thus "simple" rather
 6   I, 1|      homoeomeries" as "simple" and elements, whilst they affirm that
 7   I, 1|    differences characterizing the "elements". The actual words of Empedocles
 8   I, 1|        characterizes his remaining elements in a similar manner. Since,
 9   I, 1|         denies that any one of his elements comes-to-be out of any other,
10   I, 1|          and for each of the other elements to undergo a similar transformation-not
11   I, 1|        this same conflict that the elements were generated from a One
12   I, 2| coming-to-be, but only that of the elements. He asked no questions as
13   I, 2|        magnitude should consist of elements, which are not magnitudes.
14   I, 6|        matter, i.e. the so-called "elements". We must ask whether they
15   I, 6|            those who generate the "elements" as well as those who generate
16   I, 6|         that are compounded of the elements—make use of "dissociation"
17   I, 6|           postulate a plurality of elements employ their reciprocal
18   I, 8|         composed, and the ultimate elements into which they are dissolved-are
19   I, 8|          other bodies down to the "elements" have their coming-to-be
20   I, 8|           it is not clear how the "elements" themselves, severally in
21   I, 8|            every one of his other "elements") possesses "elementary
22  II, 1|         investigate the so-called "elements" of bodies.~For the complex
23  II, 1|          originative sources, i.e. elements". But (i) those thinkers
24  II, 1|            in separation from the "elements"; nor does he make any use
25  II, 1|            prior to the so-called "elements"-underlying them, as gold
26  II, 1|       carries his analysis of the "elements"-solids though they are-back
27  II, 2|             other things. But the "elements" must be reciprocally active
28  II, 3|            make the simple bodies "elements" postulate either one, or
29  II, 4|            of contraries, and the "elements" all involve a contrariety
30  II, 4|         from Earth, since the two "elements" in both these couples have
31  II, 4|            quality in each of two "elements" pass-away, the transformation,
32  II, 4|            quality in each of two "elements" when they are taken in
33  II, 4|           for all the consecutive "elements" contain one identical,
34  II, 4|            one of the consecutive "elements" is transformed into one,
35  II, 4|          have stated that all the "elements" come-to-be out of any one
36  II, 5|       argument applies to all the "elements", proving that there is
37  II, 5|      indifferently any one of the "elements", or else it is nothing.~
38  II, 5|      relatively quick between the "elements" with a "complementary factor",
39  II, 5|           transformed, is one, the elements" will inevitably be two:
40  II, 5|         them. Since, however, the "elements" are seen to be more than
41  II, 5|      contrarieties being two, the "elements" must be four (as they evidently
42  II, 5|          it clear that, since the "elements" are transformed into one
43  II, 5|           is evident that all the "elements" will be able to be transformed
44  II, 5|       contrariety to the preceding elements". Consequently, if the "
45  II, 5|              Consequently, if the "elements" are infinitely many, there
46  II, 5|        Consequently (i) into some "elements" transformation will never
47  II, 5|            as they must be if the "elements" are infinitely many: further (
48  II, 5|            moreover (iii) all the "elements" become one. For all the
49  II, 5|          the contrarieties of the "elements" above F must belong to
50  II, 6|          with Empedocles that the "elements" of body are more than one,
51  II, 6|         them to maintain that the "elements" are comparable. Yet Empedocles
52  II, 6|           Bone comes-to-be if the "elements" be put together in such-and
53  II, 6|           mingling". (And yet the "elements" at all events are "dissociated"
54  II, 6|            but by Love: since the "elements" are by nature prior to
55  II, 6|          the "first mover" of the "elements"? What causes their motion?
56  II, 6|        soul should consist of the "elements", or that it should be one
57  II, 6|           be compounded out of the elements", only the corporeal modifications
58  II, 7|              let us return to the "elements" of which bodies are composed.
59  II, 7|       something common to all the "elements"", and that they are reciprocally
60  II, 7|       suppose that any one of the "elements" comes-to-be out of any
61  II, 7|      compounds to result from the "elements" taken together?~Indeed,
62  II, 7|            those who generate the "elements" out of one another. In
63  II, 7|       other than, and beside, the "elements" come-to-be out of them?
64  II, 7|           will be composed of the "elements", these being preserved
65  II, 7|         compound results from the "elements". Consequently, it follows
66  II, 7|            single matter of their "elements" there is a certain difficulty
67  II, 7|          the resultant of the two "elements" with their matter? For
68  II, 7|    contraries, or rather from the "elements", in so far as these have
69  II, 7|         been "combined": while the elements" will result from the contraries,
70  II, 7|            in the first place the "elements" are transformed; and that (
71  II, 7|          second place) out of the "elements" there come-to-be flesh