Paragraph

  1 1 |          combination or separation; "man" and "white", as isolated
  2 5 |           which defines the species "man", if no verb in present,
  3 5 |             it is not possible for a man to speak in this way when
  4 7 |           not thus predicated. Thus "man" is a universal, "Callias"
  5 7 |              individual.~If, then, a man states a positive and a
  6 7 |          such propositions as "every man is white", "no man is white"
  7 7 |             every man is white", "no man is white" are meant. When,
  8 7 |              take the "propositions "man is white", "man is not white". "
  9 7 |        propositions "man is white", "man is not white". "Man" is
 10 7 |         white", "man is not white". "Man" is a universal, but the
 11 7 |               The proposition "every man is every animal" is an example
 12 7 |               The affirmation "every man is white" is the contradictory
 13 7 |             of the denial "not every man is white", or again, the
 14 7 |           again, the proposition "no man is white" is the contradictory
 15 7 |              in the sentences "every man is white", "no man is white", "
 16 7 |             every man is white", "no man is white", "every man is
 17 7 |             no man is white", "every man is just", "no man is just".~
 18 7 |              every man is just", "no man is just".~We see that in
 19 7 |              for instance "not every man is white" and some men are
 20 7 |         possible to state truly that man is white and that man is
 21 7 |           that man is white and that man is not white and that man
 22 7 |            man is not white and that man is beautiful and that man
 23 7 |            man is beautiful and that man is not beautiful; for if
 24 7 |              not beautiful; for if a man is deformed he is the reverse
 25 7 |           fact that the proposition "man is not white" appears to
 26 7 |    equivalent to the proposition "no man is white". This, however,
 27 7 |            to the affirmation "every man is white" is "not every
 28 7 |              is white" is "not every man is white"; that proper to
 29 7 |           some men are white" is "no man is white", while that proper
 30 7 |           proper to the affirmation "man is white" is "man is not
 31 7 |       affirmation "man is white" is "man is not white".~We have shown
 32 8 |             propositions are: "every man is white", "not every man
 33 8 |            man is white", "not every man is white";"man is white","
 34 8 |             not every man is white";"man is white","man is not white"; "
 35 8 |            is white";"man is white","man is not white"; "no man is
 36 8 |               man is not white"; "no man is white", "some men are
 37 8 |           single. For instance, if a man should establish the symbol "
 38 8 |             both of a horse and of a man, the proposition "garment
 39 8 |           the proposition "horse and man are white", which, again,
 40 8 |      propositions "horse is white", "man is white". If, then, these
 41 8 |           has none; for a particular man is not a horse.~This, then,
 42 9 |       subject or not, so that if one man affirms that an event of
 43 9 |              if it is not white, the man who states that it is making
 44 9 |          false statement; and if the man who states that it is white
 45 9 |              would not follow. For a man may predict an event ten
 46 10|             denial are "as follows: "man is", "man is not". Next
 47 10|               as follows: "man is", "man is not". Next to these,
 48 10|             the propositions: "every man is, "every man is not", "
 49 10|  propositions: "every man is, "every man is not", "all that is not-man
 50 10|         sorts. Thus in the sentence "man is just" the verb "is" is
 51 10|             A. Affirmation B. Denial~Man is just Man is not just~\ /~
 52 10|    Affirmation B. Denial~Man is just Man is not just~\ /~X~/ \~D.
 53 10|             D. Denial C. Affirmation~Man is not not-just Man is not-just~
 54 10|      Affirmation~Man is not not-just Man is not-just~Here "is" and "
 55 10|         Affirmation B’. Denial~Every man is just Not every man is
 56 10|          Every man is just Not every man is just~\ /~X~D’. Denial / \
 57 10|                Affirmation~Not every man is not-just Every man is
 58 10|          every man is not-just Every man is not-just~Yet here it
 59 10|             the propositions: "every man enjoys health", "every man
 60 10|           man enjoys health", "every man does-not-enjoy-health", "
 61 10|            the expression "not every man". The negative must be attached
 62 10|             be attached to the word "man", for the word "every" does
 63 10|           from the following pairs: "man enjoys health", "man does
 64 10|         pairs: "man enjoys health", "man does not enjoy health"; "
 65 10|         not-man enjoys health", "not man does not enjoy health".
 66 10|         Further, the proposition "no man is just" follows from the
 67 10|          from the proposition "every man is not just" and the proposition "
 68 10|           the proposition "not every man is not just", which is the
 69 10|            is the opposite of "every man is not-just", follows from
 70 10|            to the question "Is every man wise?" the answer is "no",
 71 10|            the inference "Then every man is unwise" is false. But
 72 10|             the inference "Not every man is wise" is correct. This
 73 10|             uses the expression "not man", if nothing more be added,
 74 10|             who uses the expression "man".~The propositions "everything
 75 10|               everything that is not man is just", and the contradictory
 76 10|               everything that is not man is not just" is equivalent
 77 10|     proposition "nothing that is not man is just".~The conversion
 78 10|            its meaning. Thus we say "man is white" and "white is
 79 10|              is white" and "white is man". If these were not equivalent,
 80 10|              For of the proposition "man is white" the appropriate
 81 10|        appropriate contradictory is "man is not white", and of the
 82 10|            the proposition "white is man", if its meaning be different,
 83 10|            not-man" or "white is not man". Now the former of these
 84 10|    contradictory of the proposition "man is white"; thus there will
 85 11|       combine to form a unity. Thus, man may be an animal, and biped,
 86 11|             the predicates "white", "man", and "walking" do not thus
 87 11|           and inquire, e.g.. whether man has such and such a characteristic
 88 11|           separate propositions that man is an animal and that man
 89 11|            man is an animal and that man is a biped, or we may combine
 90 11|              the two, and state that man is an animal with two feet.
 91 11|          feet. Similarly we may use "man" and "white" as separate
 92 11|              them into one. Yet if a man is a shoemaker and is also
 93 11|       results ensue. For instance, a man is man and white. Therefore,
 94 11|               For instance, a man is man and white. Therefore, if
 95 11|              combined, he is a white man. Again, if the predicate "
 96 11|            to say that he is a white man so on indefinitely. Or,
 97 11|           Socrates is Socrates and a man, and that therefore he is
 98 11|             that therefore he is the man Socrates, or that Socrates
 99 11|      Socrates, or that Socrates is a man and a biped, and that therefore
100 11|         therefore he is a two-footed man. Thus it is manifest that
101 11|          Thus it is manifest that if man states unconditionally that
102 11|         unity. Take the proposition "man is white of complexion and
103 11|           Thus, again, whereas, if a man is both good and a shoemaker,
104 11|           and "biped" and say that a man is an animal with two feet,
105 11|            nor is it right to call a man an animal-man or a two-footed
106 11|           animal-man or a two-footed man; for the notions "animal"
107 11|            are implicit in the word "man". On the other hand, it
108 11|             that some one particular man is a man or that some one
109 11|              one particular man is a man or that some one white man
110 11|           man or that some one white man is a white man.~Yet this
111 11|             one white man is a white man.~Yet this is not always
112 11|             not right to call a dead man a man. When, however, this
113 11|           right to call a dead man a man. When, however, this is
114 12|    contradictory of the proposition "man is" is "man is not", not "
115 12|             proposition "man is" is "man is not", not "not-man is",
116 12|            and the contradictory of "man is white" is "man is not
117 12|  contradictory of "man is white" is "man is not white", not "man
118 12|              man is not white", not "man is not-white". For otherwise,
119 12|            that a piece of wood is a man that is not white.~Now if
120 12|           Thus the contradictory of "man walks" is "man does not
121 12|     contradictory of "man walks" is "man does not walk", not "not-man
122 12|          not-man walks"; for to say "man walks" merely equivalent
123 12|         merely equivalent to saying "man is walking".~If then this
124 12|            the sentence "white" and "man", so here "that it should
125 13|          that it cannot be, or, if a man should maintain that this
126 13|             is actualized, as when a man is said to find walking
127 13| conditionally practicable, as when a man is said to find walking
128 14|       whether the proposition "every man is just" finds its contrary
129 14|      contrary in the proposition "no man is just", or in the proposition "
130 14|            in the proposition "every man is unjust". Take the propositions "
131 14|           which the judgement "every man is just" pronounces a contrary
132 14|              by the judgement "every man is unjust", the same must
133 14|      contrary quality. But it is the man who forms that judgement
134 14|        composite. For presumably the man who forms that judgement
135 14|            instance, he who thinks a man is not a man forms a false
136 14|            who thinks a man is not a man forms a false judgement.
137 14|     everything good is good", "every man is good", have for their
138 14|           nothing good is good", "no man is good". The contradictory
139 14|            good is good", "not every man is good".~It is evident,
140 14|             propositions are true, a man may state both at the same