Book, Paragraph
1 I, 2 | maintained for the sake of argument (such as the Heraclitean
2 I, 2 | not follow. Or rather the argument of Melissus is gross and
3 I, 2 | relevant to the present argument, yet deserving consideration
4 I, 3 | not follow. Or rather the argument of Melissus is gross and
5 I, 3 | other.~The same kind of argument holds good against Parmenides
6 I, 3 | to both arguments. To the argument that all things are one
7 I, 6 | we accept both the former argument and this one, we must, to
8 II, 4 | to some cause (as the old argument said which denied chance),
9 III, 5 | begin with a dialectical argument and show as follows that
10 III, 5 | things become fire. (The same argument applies also to the one
11 IV, 3 | distinguished; and it can be seen by argument that it is impossible. For
12 IV, 6 | things that exist.~This argument, then, is one way in which
13 IV, 7 | air.~In general, both the argument about increase of size and
14 IV, 7 | means of void. The same argument applies to the ashes.~It
15 IV, 8 | whole of the void. The same argument applies as against those
16 IV, 8 | or rest? Much the same argument will apply to the void as
17 V, 4 | after an interval? The same argument applies in each case. There
18 VI, 2 | both respects.~Hence Zeno’s argument makes a false assumption
19 VI, 2 | not only from the present argument but from the consideration
20 VI, 4 | to the same motion), the argument being the same as that whereby
21 VI, 6 | evident by the following argument. Let ChRh be the primary
22 VI, 8 | distinct from itself, the argument being the same as that which
23 VI, 9 | always hold a lead. This argument is the same in principle
24 VI, 9 | halves. The result of the argument is that the slower is not
25 VI, 9 | will not follow.~The fourth argument is that concerning the two
26 VI, 9 | For instance (so runs the argument), let A, A...be the stationary
27 VI, 9 | all the A’s. This is the argument, but it presupposed the
28 VI, 9 | anything unanswerable in the argument that if a thing is changing
29 VII, 1 | thus been shown, but our argument so far does not prove it,
30 VII, 1 | difference to our present argument; for in any case since the
31 VII, 3 | then, from the preceding argument that alteration and being
32 VII, 4 | make any difference to the argument to say that the one motion
33 VIII, 1 | universe. Then, again, some argument is needed to explain why
34 VIII, 5 | moved by itself.~This same argument may also be stated in another
35 VIII, 6 | irrelevant to our present argument: but the following considerations
36 VIII, 6 | everything else.~The following argument also makes it evident that
37 VIII, 6 | motion. In the course of our argument directed to this end we
38 VIII, 6 | in motion.~The foregoing argument, then, has served to clear
39 VIII, 7 | of no importance to the argument. Nor does it matter if the
40 VIII, 8 | of Z to H: then, says the argument, D will have reached H before
41 VIII, 8 | here we cannot apply the argument used to solve the difficulty
42 VIII, 8 | in the terms of Zeno’s argument, whether we admit that before
43 VIII, 8 | on the lines of this same argument put the questions in another
44 VIII, 8 | are not affected by this argument: according to them D has
45 VIII, 8 | Further, the following argument will serve better to make
46 VIII, 8 | motion from G. The foregoing argument, then, makes it plain that
47 VIII, 8 | not continuous.~Our next argument has a more special bearing
48 VIII, 8 | On the other hand, our argument has enabled us to assert
49 VIII, 10| moves it?~Resuming our main argument, we proceed from the positions
|