Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  1 |       induction, or enthymeme, a form of syllogism.~The pre-existent
 2      I,  1 |   premiss is ever couched in the form "every number which you
 3      I,  3 |    according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since
 4      I,  3 |     Perhaps, however, the second form of demonstration, that which
 5      I,  11|          to be expressed in that form; in which case the proof
 6      I,  12|          it is the interrogative form of the premisses from which
 7      I,  12|        will be geometrical which form premisses for the proof
 8      I,  12|      such that it could take the form of a premiss, either demonstrative
 9      I,  13|        is spherical. Put in this form, the syllogism turns out
10      I,  16|         these causes and in this form only-for we found that no
11      I,  16|         if the premiss takes the form No C is A, it will be false.
12      I,  22|        other words, if essential form is knowable, and an infinite
13      I,  22|          the descending subjects form an infinite series; e.g.
14      I,  24|       the question arises, which form is the better? And the same
15      I,  24|       commensurate and universal form, being more truly demonstration,
16      I,  25|          be set out in universal form as follows. Assuming that
17      I,  25|         of the nature of a basic form of proof, because it is
18     II,  4 |     definable form-C’s definable form will appear in the middle
19     II,  4 |         account be the definable form of C: A will merely be what
20     II,  4 |          that A is the definable form and essence of C: but if
21     II,  4 |   conclusion, what the definable form of C is; so that there has
22     II,  5 |    essential nature or definable form? Again, what guarantee is
23     II,  5 |    constituents of the definable form, and if, postulating the
24     II,  6 | premising (1) that its definable form is constituted by the "peculiar"
25     II,  6 |       middle term, the definable form is once more assumed in
26     II,  6 |          part), so the definable form must not fall within the
27     II,  6 |          proved is the definable form that we have to defend it
28     II,  6 |          definition of definable form which we assumed. Hence
29     II,  6 |   syllogism is or what definable form is.~The following type of
30     II,  6 |         begged because definable form is assumed as a premiss,
31     II,  6 |      which is to prove definable form. "But not the same definable
32     II,  6 |       But not the same definable form", you may object. That I
33     II,  8 |    apprehend a thing’s definable form without apprehending that
34     II,  10|      statement takes a different form: in one form it is continuous
35     II,  10|         a different form: in one form it is continuous demonstration,
36     II,  10|     demonstration in grammatical form, or (c) the conclusion of
37     II,  11|        causes: (1) the definable form, (2) an antecedent which
38     II,  11|  identical with (b) the defining form of A, since it is what A’
39     II,  12|         B has occurred, and will form when B shall occur.~This
40     II,  12|       different from one another form, as they seem to us to form,
41     II,  12|      form, as they seem to us to form, a continuous succession,
42     II,  12|      middle and major terms must form an immediate premiss; e.g.
43     II,  12|         risen cloud was bound to form, and from the formation
44     II,  13|       constituting the definable form.~Now of the attributes which
45     II,  13|        elements in the definable form, (2) the arrangement of
46     II,  13|        elements in the definable form have been omitted: we have
47     II,  13|          the last differentia to form the concrete totality, this
48     II,  13|        elements in the definable form; and nothing lacking, since
49     II,  19|          innate in a determinate form, nor developed from other