Book, Paragraph

  1      I,  3 |            is, B must be; if B is, C must be; therefore if A
  2      I,  3 |        must be; therefore if A is, C must be. Since then-by the
  3      I,  3 |           A may be substituted for C above. Then "if B is, A
  4      I,  3 |           is, A must be"="if B is, C must be", which above gave
  5      I,  3 |           the conclusion "if A is, C must be": but C and A have
  6      I,  3 |           if A is, C must be": but C and A have been identified.
  7      I,  3 |        then, A is implied in B and C, and B and C are reciprocally
  8      I,  3 |      implied in B and C, and B and C are reciprocally implied
  9      I,  6 |           A necessarily inheres in C, yet B, the middle term
 10      I,  6 |   necessarily connected with A and C, then the man who argues
 11      I,  6 |           predicated of B and B of C, then A is necessarily predicated
 12      I,  6 |          necessarily predicated of C. But when the conclusion
 13      I,  6 |      predicated non-necessarily of C but necessarily of B, and
 14      I,  6 |           a necessary predicate of C; then A too will be a necessary
 15      I,  6 |           a necessary predicate of C, which by hypothesis it
 16      I,  12|           is predicated of B, B of C, C of D, and so indefinitely.
 17      I,  12|           predicated of B, B of C, C of D, and so indefinitely.
 18      I,  12|           be proved of two minors, C and E. Thus let A represent
 19      I,  12|            determinate odd number; C any particular odd number.
 20      I,  12|            can then predicate A of C. Next let D represent determinate
 21      I,  13|           they do not twinkle: let C be the planets, B not twinkling,
 22      I,  13|            Then B is predicable of C; for the planets do not
 23      I,  13|           a necessary predicate of C; so that we have demonstrated
 24      I,  13|           reasoned fact. Thus: let C be the planets, B proximity,
 25      I,  13|          Then B is an attribute of C, and A-not twinkling-of
 26      I,  13|    Consequently A is predicable of C, and the syllogism proves
 27      I,  13|      because it is spherical. (Let C be the moon, B spherical,
 28      I,  13|          be animal, B respiration, C wall. Then A is predicable
 29      I,  13|     breathes is animal), but of no C; and consequently B is predicable
 30      I,  13| consequently B is predicable of no C; that is, the wall does
 31      I,  15|       cannot be primary. Thus: let C be the genus of A. Then,
 32      I,  15|           the genus of A. Then, if C is not the genus of B-for
 33      I,  15| disconnexion from B thus:~all A is C,~no B is C,~therefore no
 34      I,  15|          thus:~all A is C,~no B is C,~therefore no B is A.~ ~
 35      I,  16|     inferred through a middle term C, that all B is A, will be
 36      I,  16|           A is an attribute of any C nor C of any B, whereas
 37      I,  16|          an attribute of any C nor C of any B, whereas the contrary
 38      I,  16|          premisses will be false. (C may quite well be so related
 39      I,  16|            related to A and B that C is neither subordinate to
 40      I,  16|         related atomically to both C and B; because when the
 41      I,  16|           premisses in each case.~(c) It may occur when both
 42      I,  16|     atomically connected with both C and B, if it be then assumed
 43      I,  16|            be then assumed that no C is and all B is C, both
 44      I,  16|          that no C is and all B is C, both premisses are false.~(
 45      I,  16|          things, C-B false because C, which never has the attribute
 46      I,  16|            A-C false; e.g. if both C and A contain B as genera,
 47      I,  16|          premiss takes the form No C is A, it will be false.
 48      I,  16|         e.g. if actually some A is C and some B is C, then if
 49      I,  16|          some A is C and some B is C, then if it is premised
 50      I,  16|          is premised that all A is C and no B is C, both premisses
 51      I,  16|        that all A is C and no B is C, both premisses are false,
 52      I,  16|        attribute of all B, then if C is yet taken to be a universal
 53      I,  16|    contrary to supposition; but if C be nevertheless assumed
 54      I,  16|          if it be yet assumed that C is universally non-attributable
 55      I,  16|       attribute of some A. If then C is nevertheless assumed
 56      I,  17|            B through a middle term C: then, since to produce
 57      I,  17|           either of them. Thus, if C is actually an attribute
 58      I,  17|             C-B false: or again if C be assumed to be attributable
 59      I,  19|            prove that A inheres in C by showing that A inheres
 60      I,  19|            A inheres in B and B in C; the other is negative and
 61      I,  19|     follow-proof that A inheres in C through B, and again that
 62      I,  19|        similarly that B inheres in C. If our reasoning aims at
 63      I,  19|         predicates. Suppose, then, C such a term not itself attributable
 64      I,  19|          example that A inheres in C and B is intermediate between
 65      I,  21|        proved thus: no B is A, all C is B. In packing the interval
 66      I,  21|       syllogism is, all A is B, no C is B,..no C is A. If proof
 67      I,  21|         all A is B, no C is B,..no C is A. If proof of this is
 68      I,  21|            follows: all B is D, no C is D..., since it is required
 69      I,  21|            proved not to belong to C, then D has a further predicate
 70      I,  21|       predicate which is denied of C. Therefore, since the succession
 71      I,  21|          all B is A, some B is not C. Therefore some A is not
 72      I,  21|            Therefore some A is not C. This premiss, i.e. C-B,
 73      I,  21|          all E is B, some E is not C, and this premiss again
 74      I,  22|           biped, biped is animal, &c., nor the series predicating
 75      I,  22|           of which some attribute (C) is primarily predicable;
 76      I,  23|   attribute A inheres in two terms C and D predicable either
 77      I,  23|       virtue of which A inheres in C and D, clearly B would inhere
 78      I,  23|          clearly B would inhere in C and D through a second common
 79      I,  23|            in turn would inhere in C and D through a third, so
 80      I,  23|            similarly predicable of C. If we proceed in this manner,
 81      I,  23|          to prove through a middle C that A does not inhere in
 82      I,  23|   premisses required are, all B is C, no C is A. Then if it has
 83      I,  23|       required are, all B is C, no C is A. Then if it has to
 84      I,  23|           has to be proved that no C is A, a middle must be found
 85      I,  23|          must be found between and C; and this procedure will
 86      I,  23|            the premisses, all D is C; no E, or not all E, is
 87      I,  23|             no E, or not all E, is C; then the middle will never
 88      I,  24|         and the middles were B and C, B being the higher term
 89      I,  25|          it through the middles B, C and D, the other through
 90      I,  25|         suppose no B is A, and all C is B. Then if both the premisses
 91      I,  25|         and B, and E between B and C. Then clearly E is affirmatively
 92      I,  25|     affirmatively related to B and C, while D is affirmatively
 93      I,  26|            no B is A, and that all C is B: the conclusion necessarily
 94      I,  26|        necessarily follows that no C is A. If these premisses
 95      I,  26|     negative demonstration that no C is A is direct. Reductio
 96      I,  26|          further that B inheres in C, with the resulting inference
 97      I,  26|        inference that A inheres in C. This we have to suppose
 98      I,  26|           if the inherence of B in C is not questioned, A’s inherence
 99      I,  26|            or the one denying A of C. When the falsity of the
100      I,  26|         prior to that denying A of C; for premisses are prior
101      I,  26|         follows from them, and "no C is A" is the conclusion, "
102      I,  29|       cohering term e.g. by taking C, D, and F severally to prove
103      I,  32|             is truly predicable of C, but B, the middle, is false,
104      I,  34|             lighted from the sun", C the moon. Then B, "lighted
105      I,  34|          the sun" is predicable of C, the moon, and A, "having
106      I,  34|           B. So A is predicable of C through B.~ ~
107     II,  4 |            another; for if A is to C, obviously A is "peculiar"
108     II,  4 |      predicated universally of all C as belonging to C’s essence,
109     II,  4 |           of all C as belonging to C’s essence, A also must be
110     II,  4 |         also must be predicated of C as belonging to its essence.~
111     II,  4 |       necessarily be predicated of C as belonging to its essence.
112     II,  4 |         also will be predicated of C as its essence. Since, therefore,
113     II,  4 |       essential nature of man. Let C be man, A man’s essential
114     II,  4 |           consequent of B and B of C, A will not on that account
115     II,  4 |           be the definable form of C: A will merely be what it
116     II,  4 |         what it was true to say of C. Even if A is predicated
117     II,  4 |      definable form and essence of C: but if one does so take
118     II,  4 |         what the definable form of C is; so that there has been
119     II,  8 |          nature. Let A be eclipse, C the moon, B the earth’s
120     II,  8 |         the following example: let C be the moon, A eclipse,
121     II,  8 |         body, is attributable A to C, and eclipse, is attributable
122     II,  8 |          that A is attributable to C and we proceed to ask the
123     II,  8 |        cloud", are equivalent. Let C be cloud, A thunder, B the
124     II,  8 |          Then B is attributable to C, cloud, since fire is quenched
125     II,  10|           in grammatical form, or (c) the conclusion of a demonstration
126     II,  11|          half of two right angles, C the angle in a semicircle.
127     II,  11|          angle, is attributable to C, the angle in a semicircle,
128     II,  11|            B=A and the other, viz. C,=B, for C is half of two
129     II,  11|          the other, viz. C,=B, for C is half of two right angles.
130     II,  11|          that A is attributable to C, i.e. that the angle in
131     II,  11|           shown to be the middle. (c) "Why did the Athenians
132     II,  11|         war, B unprovoked raiding, C the Athenians. Then B, unprovoked
133     II,  11|     unprovoked raiding, is true of C, the Athenians, and A is
134     II,  11|       aggressors, and B is true of C, the Athenians, who were
135     II,  11|            end one must do it. Let C be walking after supper,
136     II,  11|           food, is attributable to C, taking a walk, and that
137     II,  11|            final cause, inheres in C? It is B, the non-regurgitation
138     II,  11|          cause of A’s belonging to C? Because to be in a condition
139     II,  11|      teleological order the minor, C, must first take place,
140     II,  12|           is solidified water, let C be water, A solidified,
141     II,  12|            Then B is attributed to C, and A, solidification,
142     II,  12|          e.g. we argue that, since C has occurred, therefore
143     II,  12|          therefore A occurred: and C’s occurrence was posterior,
144     II,  12|          posterior, A’s prior; but C is the source of the inference
145     II,  12|            has occurred, therefore C occurred. Then we conclude
146     II,  12|         occurred; and the cause is C, for since D has occurred
147     II,  12|           for since D has occurred C must have occurred, and
148     II,  12|           have occurred, and since C has occurred A must previously
149     II,  12|        cause of this conclusion is C; for if D will exist, C
150     II,  12|            C; for if D will exist, C will exist prior to D, and
151     II,  12|           exist prior to D, and if C will exist, A will exist
152     II,  12|          universally of B and B of C, A too must be predicated
153     II,  12|           and in every instance of C, since to hold in every
154     II,  14|        properties of every animal, C D E various species of animal.
155     II,  14|           A-and that it inheres in C and E for the same reason:
156     II,  16|        possession of broad leaves, C vine. Now if A inheres in
157     II,  16|            is deciduous), and B in C (every vine possessing broad
158     II,  16|         leaves); then A inheres in C (every vine is deciduous),
159     II,  16|            in which A inheres, and C another primary subject
160     II,  16|          primary subjects of B and C respectively. A will then
161     II,  16|       cause of A’s inherence in D, C of A’s inherence in E. The
162     II,  17|           look for. Let us call it C.~We conclude, then, that
163     II,  18|            To illustrate formally: C is the cause of B’s inherence
164     II,  18|            s inherence in D; hence C is the cause of A’s inherence
165     II,  18|           D, B of A’s inherence in C, while the cause of A’s