Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  2 |         ground of our knowledge-i.e. of our conviction-of a
 2      I,  2 |          cause of our knowledge-i.e. of our conviction-it follows
 3      I,  4 |      premisses of demonstration-i.e. what is their character:
 4      I,  12|       proved of two minors, C and E. Thus let A represent number-a
 5      I,  12|      determinate even number, and E even number. Then A is predicable
 6      I,  12|           Then A is predicable of E.~
 7      I,  17|         which the contradictory-i.e. the true-conclusion is
 8      I,  17|       becomes its contradictory-i.e. true. Similarly (ii) if
 9      I,  18|          only through induction-i.e. only because each subject
10      I,  19|        immediate; suppose further E related immediately to F,
11      I,  21|      shall take as premisses, all E is B, some E is not C, and
12      I,  21|       premisses, all E is B, some E is not C, and this premiss
13      I,  22| acceptance of certain premisses-i.e. hypothetically-the series
14      I,  23|           If we have to show that E is not D by means of the
15      I,  23|         premisses, all D is C; no E, or not all E, is C; then
16      I,  23|          D is C; no E, or not all E, is C; then the middle will
17      I,  23|     middle will never fall beyond E, and E is the subject of
18      I,  23|          never fall beyond E, and E is the subject of which
19      I,  24|          definition of triangle-i.e. the term is not equivocal-and
20      I,  25|          of the inherence of A in E, the one proving it through
21      I,  25|  interpose D between A and B, and E between B and C. Then clearly
22      I,  25|     between B and C. Then clearly E is affirmatively related
23      I,  28|           entities of the genus-i.e. the parts of this total
24      I,  28|           fall within one genus-i.e. are homogeneous.~
25      I,  33|           is essentially animal-i.e. cannot be other than animal-and (
26     II,  2 |       fact or that the thing is-i.e. ascertained either the
27     II,  4 |      question whether syllogism-i.e. demonstration-of the definable
28     II,  4 |  premisses do predicate essence-i.e. definable form-C’s definable
29     II,  4 |          only the two premisses-i.e. in which the premisses
30     II,  8 |           there is no syllogism-i.e. no demonstrative syllogism-of
31     II,  12|           embody a general rule-i.e. which exist or come to
32     II,  13|           not further divisible-i.e. that as soon as we have
33     II,  13|      observing a set of similar-i.e. specifically identical-individuals,
34     II,  14|   properties of every animal, C D E various species of animal.
35     II,  14|          that it inheres in C and E for the same reason: and
36     II,  16|            let D be broad-leaved, E deciduous, F vine. Then
37     II,  16|           deciduous, F vine. Then E inheres in F (since every
38     II,  16|           is deciduous), and D in E (for every deciduous plant
39     II,  16|           subject of A, and D and E primary subjects of B and
40     II,  16|         will then inhere in D and E, and B will be the cause
41     II,  16|          D, C of A’s inherence in E. The presence of the cause
42     II,  16| commensurately to those species-i.e. either to all species of
43     II,  17|   attribute of all the species of E, all the species of E will
44     II,  17|          of E, all the species of E will be united by possessing
45     II,  17|        predicable of all of which E is predicable, while E is
46     II,  17|      which E is predicable, while E is not predicable of all
47     II,  17|         cause of A’s inherence in E, as there was of A’s inherence
48     II,  17|           Then are the species of E, too, united by possessing
49     II,  19|           From experience again-i.e. from the universal now