Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  1 |      implicit in the clearly known particular. Again, the persuasion exerted
 2      I,  1 |         questioner then produces a particular pair, of the existence,
 3      I,  2 |            furthest from sense and particular causes are nearest to sense,
 4      I,  10|   conclusion from the being of the particular line of which he speaks,
 5      I,  10|            are either universal or particular, whereas a definition is
 6      I,  12|      determinate odd number; C any particular odd number. We can then
 7      I,  13|            ignorant of some of its particular instances. These connexions
 8      I,  20|            the descent to the more particular), the middle terms cannot
 9      I,  24|        commensurately universal or particular, and either affirmative
10      I,  24|   commensurately universal and the particular forms, and when we have
11      I,  24|          lead some minds to prefer particular demonstration.~(1) The superior
12      I,  24|        have greater knowledge of a particular individual when we know
13      I,  24|         that triangle is x—whereas particular demonstration proves that
14      I,  24|          If this is so, and if the particular rather than the commensurately
15      I,  24|      universal forms demonstrates, particular demonstration is superior.~(
16      I,  24|            or number, over against particular triangles, figures, and
17      I,  24|          touches reality than does particular demonstration, and creates
18      I,  24|           universal is inferior to particular demonstration.~We may retort
19      I,  24| commensurate and universal than to particular demonstration. If equality
20      I,  24|           is than he who knows the particular; and the inference is that
21      I,  24|           universal is superior to particular demonstration.~(2) If there
22      I,  24|    commensurate universal than the particular which is causative (as may
23      I,  24|         more demonstration becomes particular the more it sinks into an
24      I,  24|         than in so far as they are particular. From this it follows that
25      I,  24|            demonstration knows the particular as well, but he who possesses
26      I,  24|         well, but he who possesses particular demonstration does not know
27      I,  24|          and through intelligible; particular demonstration issues in
28      I,  25|        commensurately universal to particular demonstration. That affirmative
29      I,  31|            perception must be of a particular, whereas scientific knowledge
30     II,  7 |   demonstration can prove that any particular name means any particular
31     II,  7 |          particular name means any particular thing: neither, therefore,
32     II,  19|         sense-perception is of the particular, its content is universal-is