Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  1 |           this way, and so are the two forms of dialectical reasoning,
 2      I,  1 |           knowledge required is of two kinds. In some cases admission
 3      I,  1 |        every triangle are equal to two right angles; but it was
 4      I,  1 |           its angles were equal to two right angles? No: clearly
 5      I,  3 |       faulty; for there seem to be two kinds of it. Perhaps, however,
 6      I,  3 |          terms or few or even only two are taken. Thus by direct
 7      I,  3 |            a necessary consequent: two premisses constitute the
 8      I,  4 |        related in neither of these two ways to their subjects I
 9      I,  4 |           and triangle as such has two right angles, for it is
10      I,  4 |            is essentially equal to two right angles.~An attribute
11      I,  4 |          equality of its angles to two right angles is not a commensurately
12      I,  4 |            has its angles equal to two right angles, this attribute
13      I,  4 |            angles are not equal to two right angles. On the other
14      I,  4 |            has its angles equal to two right angles, yet isosceles
15      I,  4 |           have its angles equal to two right angles, or to possess
16      I,  4 |           again (2) is equality to two right angles a commensurately
17      I,  5 |           have its angles equal to two right angles qua isosceles.
18      I,  5 |            its angles are equal to two right angles, whether by
19      I,  5 |            has its angles equal to two right angles, nor does one
20      I,  5 |    isosceles triangle are equal to two right angles: but eliminate
21      I,  7 |  demonstration may be identical in two or more sciences: but in
22      I,  7 |       sciences: but in the case of two different genera such as
23      I,  7 |           even that the product of two cubes is a cube. Nor can
24      I,  9 |         possessing angles equal to two right angles as belonging
25      I,  12|   proposition embodying one of the two sides of a contradiction,
26      I,  12|          major A, may be proved of two minors, C and E. Thus let
27      I,  13|            the same science and in two ways: (1) when the premisses
28      I,  13|            the better known of the two reciprocals is taken as
29      I,  13|        taken as the middle; for of two reciprocally predicable
30      I,  14|           the first that the other two figures are developed, and
31      I,  16|        produced by syllogism. Now, two cases are possible. Either (
32      I,  19|           terms can reciprocate by two different modes, by accidental
33      I,  21|            figure or in one of the two figures discussed above.
34      I,  22|         affirmation differs in the two cases. When I affirm "the
35      I,  22|    attributes may be essential for two reasons: either because
36      I,  22|          intermediates between any two terms are also always limited
37      I,  22|        number of terms between any two terms; but this is impossible
38      I,  23|        same attribute A inheres in two terms C and D predicable
39      I,  23|       having their angles equal to two right angles in virtue of
40      I,  23|           a third, so that between two terms an infinity of intermediates
41      I,  23|   attribute to be proved common to two subjects is to be one of
42      I,  24|      demonstration. If equality to two right angles is attributable
43      I,  24|    equivocal-and since equality to two right angles belongs to
44      I,  24|        Demonstration which teaches two things is preferable to
45      I,  24| demonstration is as follows: if of two propositions, a prior and
46      I,  24|         all triangles are equal to two right angles, one knows
47      I,  24|           angles also are equal to two right angles, even if one
48      I,  25|          posterior, we may suppose two demonstrations of the inherence
49      I,  25|            through three terms and two premisses, but whereas the
50      I,  30|         with one or other of these two; for all reasoning proceeds
51      I,  31|            has its angles equal to two right angles, we should
52      I,  32|          fundamental truths are of two kinds, those which are premisses
53      I,  33|         concerned is the same, the two opinions have objects so
54      I,  33|         same thing can co-exist in two different people in the
55     II,  1 |     concerned, then, those are the two questions we ask; but for
56     II,  3 |            has its angles equal to two right angles". An argument
57     II,  3 |            possess angles equal to two right angles, then this
58     II,  4 |           which there are only the two premisses-i.e. in which
59     II,  8 |           property; so that of the two definable natures of a single
60     II,  8 |     triangle equal or not equal to two right angles? When we have
61     II,  10|            be a unity in either of two ways, by conjunction, like
62     II,  11|       minimum-still when there are two it holds on condition that
63     II,  11|         right angle, B the half of two right angles, C the angle
64     II,  11|             C,=B, for C is half of two right angles. Therefore
65     II,  11|       assumption of B, the half of two right angles, from which
66     II,  11|            thing can exist through two causes, can it come to be
67     II,  11|          can it come to be through two causes-as for instance if
68     II,  11|     necessity.~Necessity too is of two kinds. It may work in accordance
69     II,  12|          contiguous", for not even two past events can be "contiguous".
70     II,  12|           or since, as we said, no two events are "contiguous",
71     II,  12|          of middles? No: though no two events are "contiguous",
72     II,  13|         severally apply, the first two to all odd numbers, the
73     II,  13|        definable thing consists of two elements and "animal-tame"
74     II,  13|     opposites and assumed that the two sides exhaust the genus,
75     II,  13|       genus must lie on one of the two sides.~In establishing a
76     II,  13|         subject accepts one of the two as its predicate. Next we
77     II,  13|          reach not one formula but two or more, evidently the definiendum
78     II,  13|          ill fortune, I take these two results and inquire what
79     II,  13|           have none, there will be two genera of pride. Besides,