Book, Paragraph

 1   I, 1 |              another obscurity in the theory Empedocles. Are we to regard
 2   I, 3 |              would be the case on the theory set forth in Parmenides:
 3   I, 7 |             thinkers and maintained a theory peculiar to himself. He
 4   I, 8 |             pores to be. Such was the theory which some philosophers (
 5   I, 8 |             systematic and consistent theory, however, and one that applied
 6   I, 8 |           views of this kind as their theory of "The Truth".... Moreover,
 7   I, 8 |             however, thought he had a theory which harmonized with sense-perception
 8   I, 8 |               a void. The result is a theory which he states as follows: "
 9   I, 8 |               bound to adopt the same theory as Leucippus. For he must
10   I, 8 |               is precisely Leucippus" theory of action and passion.~Such,
11   I, 8 |             for instance, how, on the theory of Empedocles, there is
12   I, 9 |          bodies being split. For this theory abolishes "alteration":
13   I, 9 | congealed-uniformly all through. This theory, it must be added, makes
14   I, 10|              this is a blemish in the theory of those who assert that "
15  II, 3 |               a manner consonant with theory. For Fire is hot and dry,
16  II, 3 |              latter is consonant with theory. For all who make the simple
17  II, 4 |           nevertheless supplement our theory by the following speculations
18  II, 5 |               Fire or Earth, and this theory amounts to the assertion
19  II, 6 |              further objection to the theory of Empedocles is that it
20  II, 7 |              a paradox. How, on their theory, are flesh and bones or
21  II, 7 |               by those who maintain a theory like that of Empedocles?
22  II, 7 |             however, who maintain the theory in question, are not at
23  II, 9 |               for a grasp of the true theory of any universal facilitates
24  II, 9 |              Nevertheless this second theory is not right either.~For,
25  II, 10|              sufficient reason on our theory. For in all things, as we