Paragraph

 1 1 |         or separation; "man" and "white", as isolated terms, are
 2 7 |     propositions as "every man is white", "no man is white" are
 3 7 |         man is white", "no man is white" are meant. When, on the
 4 7 |         the "propositions "man is white", "man is not white". "Man"
 5 7 |        man is white", "man is not white". "Man" is a universal,
 6 7 |         affirmation "every man is white" is the contradictory of
 7 7 |          denial "not every man is white", or again, the proposition "
 8 7 |        the proposition "no man is white" is the contradictory of
 9 7 |         proposition "some men are white". But propositions are opposed
10 7 |           sentences "every man is white", "no man is white", "every
11 7 |         man is white", "no man is white", "every man is just", "
12 7 |        instance "not every man is white" and some men are white’
13 7 |           white" and some men are white’ are both true. Of such
14 7 |         propositions "Socrates is white", "Socrates is not white".~
15 7 |          white", "Socrates is not white".~When, on the other hand,
16 7 |           state truly that man is white and that man is not white
17 7 |         white and that man is not white and that man is beautiful
18 7 |           proposition "man is not white" appears to be equivalent
19 7 |        the proposition "no man is white". This, however, is not
20 7 |          affirmation "Socrates is white" has its proper denial in
21 7 |      proposition "Socrates is not white". If anything else be negatively
22 7 |         affirmation "every man is white" is "not every man is white";
23 7 |       white" is "not every man is white"; that proper to the affirmation "
24 7 |         affirmation "some men are white" is "no man is white", while
25 7 |          are white" is "no man is white", while that proper to the
26 7 |           the affirmation "man is white" is "man is not white".~
27 7 |          is white" is "man is not white".~We have shown further
28 8 |   propositions are: "every man is white", "not every man is white";"
29 8 |         white", "not every man is white";"man is white","man is
30 8 |       every man is white";"man is white","man is not white"; "no
31 8 |         man is white","man is not white"; "no man is white", "some
32 8 |         is not white"; "no man is white", "some men are white";
33 8 |          is white", "some men are white"; provided the word "white"
34 8 |        white"; provided the word "white" has one meaning. If, on
35 8 |           proposition "garment is white" would not be a single affirmation,
36 8 |    proposition "horse and man are white", which, again, is equivalent
37 8 |        two propositions "horse is white", "man is white". If, then,
38 8 |          horse is white", "man is white". If, then, these two propositions
39 9 |       true to say that a thing is white, it must necessarily be
40 9 |            it must necessarily be white; if the reverse proposition
41 9 |          will of necessity not be white. Again, if it is white,
42 9 |         be white. Again, if it is white, the proposition stating
43 9 |    proposition stating that it is white was true; if it is not white,
44 9 |      white was true; if it is not white, the proposition to the
45 9 |        was true. And if it is not white, the man who states that
46 9 |         man who states that it is white is making a false statement,
47 9 |         it follows that it is not white. It may therefore be argued
48 9 |  directions. Again, if a thing is white now, it was true before
49 9 |           to say that it would be white, so that of anything that
50 9 |         say that a thing was both white and large, both these qualities
51 10|      meaning. Thus we say "man is white" and "white is man". If
52 10|           say "man is white" and "white is man". If these were not
53 10|           the proposition "man is white" the appropriate contradictory
54 10|      contradictory is "man is not white", and of the proposition "
55 10|           and of the proposition "white is man", if its meaning
56 10|     contradictory will either be "white is not not-man" or "white
57 10|         white is not not-man" or "white is not man". Now the former
58 10| contradictory of the proposition "white is not-man", and the latter
59 10|           the proposition "man is white"; thus there will be two
60 11|       other hand, the predicates "white", "man", and "walking" do
61 11|   Similarly we may use "man" and "white" as separate predicates,
62 11|        instance, a man is man and white. Therefore, if predicates
63 11|       always be combined, he is a white man. Again, if the predicate "
64 11|          Again, if the predicate "white" belongs to him, then the
65 11|         right to say that he is a white man so on indefinitely.
66 11|        the predicates "musical", "white", and "walking", and these
67 11|           the proposition "man is white of complexion and musical".
68 11|         to say that that which is white is musical, would the terms "
69 11|          the terms "musical" and "white" form a unity, for it is
70 11|          that which is musical is white; the combination of the
71 11|     cannot combine the predicate "white" again and again with that
72 11|      already contains the notion "white", nor is it right to call
73 11|         is a man or that some one white man is a white man.~Yet
74 11|           some one white man is a white man.~Yet this is not always
75 12|          contradictory of "man is white" is "man is not white",
76 12|          is white" is "man is not white", not "man is not-white".
77 12|         wood is a man that is not white.~Now if this is the case,
78 12|   subject-matter of the sentence "white" and "man", so here "that