| Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library | ||
| Alphabetical [« »] ter 1 term 178 term-either 1 terms 259 than 47 that 1148 the 3220 | Frequency [« »] 287 as 280 this 276 necessary 259 terms 250 must 236 by 235 universal | Aristotle Prior Analytics IntraText - Concordances terms |
Book, Paragraph
1 I, 1 | necessary consequences of the terms set down, but have not been 2 I, 2 | universal attribution the terms of the negative premiss 3 I, 2 | good will be pleasure; the terms of the affirmative must 4 I, 2 | universal negative with the terms A and B. If no B is A, neither 5 I, 3 | every case, whatever the terms to which it is added, in 6 I, 4 | demonstration.~Whenever three terms are so related to one another 7 I, 4 | necessary follows from the terms being so related; for it 8 I, 4 | extremes we may take the terms animal, man, horse; of a 9 I, 4 | universal negative relation, the terms animal, man, stone. Nor 10 I, 4 | between the extremes take the terms science, line, medicine: 11 I, 4 | line, unit.~If then the terms are universally related, 12 I, 4 | syllogism is possible the terms must be related as described, 13 I, 4 | to the minor term, or the terms are related in any other 14 I, 4 | between the extremes take the terms good, state, wisdom: of 15 I, 4 | be a syllogism. Take the terms white, horse, swan: white, 16 I, 4 | horse, raven. The same terms may be taken also if the 17 I, 4 | attributed. Suppose the terms are animal, man, white: 18 I, 4 | some C not be B. Take the terms inanimate, man, white: then 19 I, 4 | all C is B, and since if terms are assumed such that no 20 I, 4 | that this arrangement of terms will not afford a syllogism: 21 I, 4 | definite, or both indefinite. Terms common to all the above 22 I, 4 | particular conclusion, the terms must be related as we have 23 I, 5 | subjects, by extremes the terms of which this is said, by 24 I, 5 | may be valid whether the terms are related universally 25 I, 5 | universally or not.~If then the terms are related universally 26 I, 5 | syllogism is formed when the terms are so related, but not 27 I, 5 | there cannot be a syllogism. Terms to illustrate a positive 28 I, 5 | neither of any N nor of any O. Terms to illustrate a positive 29 I, 5 | syllogism is formed when the terms are universally related, 30 I, 5 | universally related, the terms must be related as we stated 31 I, 5 | be no syllogism. Take the terms animal, substance, raven; 32 I, 5 | of no O, but of some N. Terms to illustrate a positive 33 I, 5 | either to all O or to no O. Terms to illustrate the negative 34 I, 5 | is not possible to find terms of which the extremes are 35 I, 5 | is not admissible to take terms: our point must be proved 36 I, 5 | belong to all O or to no O. Terms to illustrate the negative 37 I, 5 | is not possible to take terms to illustrate the universal 38 I, 5 | either to all O or to no O. Terms for the positive relation 39 I, 5 | premisses are affirmative, terms for the negative relation 40 I, 5 | them indefinitely. Common terms for all the above are white, 41 I, 5 | has been said that if the terms are related to one another 42 I, 5 | there is a syllogism, the terms must be so related. But 43 I, 5 | either are contained in the terms of necessity or are assumed 44 I, 6 | may be valid whether the terms are related universally 45 I, 6 | there will be no syllogism. Terms for the positive relation 46 I, 6 | be a syllogism when both terms are asserted of no S. Terms 47 I, 6 | terms are asserted of no S. Terms for the positive relation 48 I, 6 | possible and when not, if the terms are related universally. 49 I, 6 | universally. For whenever both the terms are affirmative, there will 50 I, 6 | does not belong to some S. Terms for the universal affirmative 51 I, 6 | it is not possible to get terms, if R belongs to some S, 52 I, 6 | there will be no syllogism. Terms for the positive relation 53 I, 6 | to the middle, take the terms animal, science, wild; animal, 54 I, 6 | universally to the middle, take as terms for a negative relation 55 I, 6 | For a positive relation terms cannot be found, if R belongs 56 I, 6 | premisses are indefinite. Common terms for all are animal, man, 57 I, 6 | when not; and that if the terms are as stated, a syllogism 58 I, 6 | there is a syllogism, the terms must be so related. It is 59 I, 7 | not result, if both the terms are affirmative or negative 60 I, 7 | the third figure, if the terms are universal, are directly 61 I, 8 | with differently related terms, one syllogism concluding 62 I, 8 | merely assert. When the terms are put in the same way, 63 I, 8 | expression "necessarily" to the terms. For the negative statement 64 I, 8 | reference to this: with terms so chosen the conclusion 65 I, 9 | negative syllogisms. Try the terms movement, animal, white.~ 66 I, 10| show by an exposition of terms that the conclusion is not 67 I, 10| necessarily. For the same terms can be used to demonstrate 68 I, 10| demonstrated by means of the same terms.~ 69 I, 11| the last figure when the terms are related universally 70 I, 11| clear by considering the terms. Let the term A be "good", 71 I, 11| clear if we look at the terms. Let A be waking, B biped, 72 I, 11| and by means of the same terms proof can be made, should 73 I, 11| the same as before; but if terms are wanted, when the universal 74 I, 11| affirmative is necessary, take the terms "waking" - "animal" - "man", " 75 I, 11| and necessary, take the terms "waking"- "animal" - "white": 76 I, 11| particular is necessary, take the terms "biped", "moving", "animal", " 77 I, 13| can be proved. I use the terms "to be possible" and "the 78 I, 14| this is obvious if we take terms; for if the premisses are 79 I, 14| belong to all of it. Take as terms common to all the cases 80 I, 14| is clear then that if the terms are related in this manner, 81 I, 14| been proved that if the terms are related in this manner 82 I, 14| It is clear that if the terms are universal in possible 83 I, 15| possibility. Suppose, the terms being so related, that A 84 I, 15| term. But we must take our terms better.~If the minor premiss 85 I, 15| possibly belong to no C. If the terms are arranged thus, nothing 86 I, 15| results as before: for the terms are in the same relative 87 I, 15| relation we may take the terms white-animal-snow: of a 88 I, 15| white-animal-pitch. Clearly then if the terms are universal, and one of 89 I, 15| syllogism, just as when the terms are universal. The demonstration 90 I, 15| relation we may take the terms white-animal-snow; of the 91 I, 15| relation we may take the terms animal-white-man; of the 92 I, 16| be a syllogism when the terms are related as before; and 93 I, 16| minor is necessary. The same terms as before serve both for 94 I, 16| negative we may take the terms animal-white-raven to illustrate 95 I, 16| affirmative we may take the terms animal-white-swan to illustrate 96 I, 16| indefinite, or both particular. Terms applicable in either case 97 I, 16| relation is problematic: so the terms may be used for all cases.~ 98 I, 16| similar relations of the terms whether we are dealing with 99 I, 17| made by means of the same terms. And whenever one premiss 100 I, 17| proceed through the same terms. Clearly then, if both the 101 I, 18| and by means of the same terms. But when the affirmative 102 I, 18| possible. This arrangement of terms is possible both when the 103 I, 18| the same and by the same terms.~ 104 I, 19| belongs to all C. When the terms are arranged in this way, 105 I, 19| possible also, when the terms are so arranged, that B 106 I, 19| must be positive when the terms are related as above. Nor 107 I, 19| proposition. For if the terms are so related, there are 108 I, 19| propositions, and by the same terms. Nor is a syllogistic conclusion 109 I, 19| definitely disconnects two terms is universal and necessary, 110 I, 19| will serve, and the same terms.~It is clear then from what 111 I, 20| under the arrangement of the terms as in the case of assertoric 112 I, 20| affirmative relation take the terms animal-man-white; to illustrate 113 I, 20| illustrate the negative, take the terms horse-man-white—white being 114 I, 21| same arrangement of the terms as before. First let the 115 I, 21| proceeds by means of the same terms.~ 116 I, 22| illustrate the former take the terms sleep-sleeping horse-man; 117 I, 22| illustrate the latter take the terms sleep-waking horse-man.~ 118 I, 22| will obtain if one of the terms is related universally to 119 I, 22| can be given whether the terms are universal or not. For 120 I, 22| universal; and the same terms may be used.~It is clear 121 I, 23| the same if several middle terms should be necessary to establish 122 I, 24| syllogism is formed the terms must be arranged in one 123 I, 25| will proceed through three terms and no more, unless the 124 I, 25| several middles for the same terms. But in that case there 125 I, 25| reached by more than three terms in this way, but it cannot 126 I, 25| syllogism is formed some of its terms must be related in this 127 I, 25| inferred by means of several terms only in the sense which 128 I, 25| will proceed through three terms only.~This being evident, 129 I, 25| than two. For the three terms make two premisses, unless 130 I, 25| premisses and an odd number of terms (for the terms exceed the 131 I, 25| number of terms (for the terms exceed the premisses by 132 I, 25| several continuous middle terms, e.g. the proposition AB 133 I, 25| AB by means of the middle terms C and D, the number of the 134 I, 25| and D, the number of the terms will similarly exceed that 135 I, 25| predication are one fewer than the terms related), and the premisses 136 I, 25| not always be even, the terms odd; but they will alternate-when 137 I, 25| premisses are even, the terms must be odd; when the terms 138 I, 25| terms must be odd; when the terms are even, the premisses 139 I, 25| as we saw) even, and the terms odd, we must make them alternately 140 I, 25| either in respect to the terms or to the premisses. For 141 I, 25| one than the pre-existing terms: for the conclusion is drawn 142 I, 25| much more numerous than the terms or the premisses.~ 143 I, 26| produced, the number of the terms and premisses through which 144 I, 27| consequent upon all the terms: for no syllogism can be 145 I, 28| they must look for the terms of which the terms in question 146 I, 28| for the terms of which the terms in question are predicable: 147 I, 28| are identical, one of the terms in question cannot possibly 148 I, 28| follows that one of the terms in question does not belong 149 I, 28| proceeds through the three terms and the two premisses, and 150 I, 28| select consequents of all the terms, because no syllogism is 151 I, 28| a consequent of both the terms in question: for the middle 152 I, 28| inquiry by selection of middle terms are useless to produce a 153 I, 28| if the consequents of the terms in question are identical, 154 I, 28| that we must find out which terms in this inquiry are identical, 155 I, 28| from taking contraries or terms which cannot belong to the 156 I, 28| syllogism results through these terms. It turns out then that 157 I, 29| consequents and antecedents of the terms in question. In both cases 158 I, 29| impossibile by means of the same terms; and what is proved per 159 I, 29| consequents and antecedents of the terms in question. Whatever the 160 I, 29| demonstrations start from the same terms, e.g. suppose it has been 161 I, 29| ostensive by means of the same terms. For the ostensive syllogism 162 I, 29| clear, that we must look to terms of the kinds mentioned whether 163 I, 29| will be directed to the terms of the problem to be proved-not 164 I, 29| problem to be proved-not the terms of the original problem, 165 I, 29| original problem, but the new terms introduced; and the method 166 I, 29| syllogism will proceed through terms arranged in the same order 167 I, 29| possible relations, as well as terms that belong, terms which 168 I, 29| well as terms that belong, terms which can belong though 169 I, 29| relation proceeds through these terms as well. Similarly also 170 I, 29| be composed through other terms than the consequents and 171 I, 29| consequents and antecedents of the terms in question: for from these 172 I, 29| formed by means of other terms.~ 173 I, 30| the subjects of both our terms, and we must supply ourselves 174 I, 30| them by means of the three terms, refuting statements in 175 I, 30| which the arrangement of the terms is in accordance with truth, 176 I, 30| have been stated in general terms, both how they are characterized 177 I, 30| everything that is said about the terms of the problem or to the 178 I, 32| then divide them into their terms. We must take that term 179 I, 33| similarity in the positing of the terms; and this ought not to escape 180 I, 33| syllogism is possible since the terms stand thus: but nothing 181 I, 33| syllogism was made although the terms stood thus: that required 182 I, 34| through not setting out the terms of the premiss well, e.g. 183 I, 34| reason for this is that the terms are not set out well in 184 I, 34| from the setting out of the terms: for if the things that 185 I, 35| always seek to set out the terms a single word: for we shall 186 I, 35| reduce syllogisms with such terms. Sometimes too fallacies 187 I, 36| way, in relation to the terms of the thesis. Again take 188 I, 36| to God". We must take as terms opportunity-right time-God: 189 I, 36| qualification, that the terms ought always to be stated 190 I, 38| extreme.~The position of the terms is not the same when something 191 I, 38| limited we must take the terms in the way stated.~ 192 I, 39| We ought also to exchange terms which have the same value, 193 I, 39| thus the setting out of the terms will be easier. For example 194 I, 39| is better to take as the terms the supposable and the opinable 195 I, 40| we must not set out the terms in the same way; but if 196 I, 41| all. If then we take three terms it is clear that the expression " 197 I, 41| through setting out the terms: for we do not use the existence 198 I, 41| the process of setting out terms like perception by sense, 199 I, 41| without these illustrative terms, as it is to demonstrate 200 I, 43| liquid, we must take as terms drinkable and water.~ 201 I, 45| syllogism is negative, when the terms are universal we must take 202 I, 46| the same thing.~Privative terms are similarly related positive 203 I, 46| similarly related positive ter terms respect of this arrangement. 204 I, 46| in such an arrangement of terms that one is deceived through 205 I, 46| sequence is reversed in terms so constituted. The fallacy 206 II, 2 | about are at the least three terms, and two relations of subject 207 II, 2 | all B, e.g. if the same terms are taken and man is put 208 II, 2 | is negative. For the same terms will serve, and in the same 209 II, 2 | is negative: for the same terms arranged in the same way 210 II, 3 | made by means of the same terms. Also if the affirmative 211 II, 3 | made by means of the same terms.~It is clear also that our 212 II, 4 | white. Taking these then as terms, if one assumes that B belongs 213 II, 4 | conclusion may be true. The same terms will serve for the proof. 214 II, 4 | be made through the same terms.~(4) Again if one premiss 215 II, 4 | can be proved, if the same terms as before are transposed. 216 II, 4 | possible way. For the same terms must be taken as have been 217 II, 4 | are universal, positive terms in positive syllogisms, 218 II, 4 | positive syllogisms, negative terms in negative. For it makes 219 II, 4 | to the setting out of the terms, whether one assumes that 220 II, 4 | were proved through three terms.~ 221 II, 5 | if one of the accepted terms is taken as middle, only 222 II, 5 | must be different. If the terms are not convertible, one 223 II, 5 | demonstrate through these terms that the third belongs to 224 II, 5 | middle to the first. If the terms are convertible, it is possible 225 II, 5 | clear then that only if the terms are convertible is circular 226 II, 5 | demonstration possible (if the terms are not convertible, the 227 II, 11| clear that it is true. The terms are alike in both, and the 228 II, 11| concerning either of the terms, viz. that C belongs to 229 II, 14| ostensively, through the same terms. Whenever the syllogism 230 II, 14| possible through the same terms to prove each of the problems 231 II, 14| them ad impossibile in the terms which have been taken, whenever 232 II, 15| the relations between the terms are reversed: before, the 233 II, 15| every mood, but only if the terms subordinate to the middle 234 II, 15| is possible whether the terms are universal or not. Let 235 II, 15| premisses are contrary if the terms are taken universally; if 236 II, 15| the relations between the terms may be reversed; e.g. A 237 II, 15| the relation between the terms may be reversed. Similarly 238 II, 15| a contradiction and the terms presupposed are either identical 239 II, 16| belongs to B through those terms if they are convertible. 240 II, 16| middle figure), because the terms in negative syllogisms are 241 II, 16| question is begged when the terms are really related in the 242 II, 17| refuted ostensively by the terms ABC, it cannot be objected 243 II, 17| syllogism drawn from middle terms to an impossible conclusion 244 II, 17| connected with the original terms: in this way it will depend 245 II, 17| related to the original terms, the false conclusion does 246 II, 17| Similarly if one takes the terms in an ascending series. 247 II, 19| not connected by middle terms. For example suppose that 248 II, 19| C, D, and E being middle terms. One ought then to ask whether 249 II, 20| can be formed and how its terms must be related, it is clear 250 II, 20| is possible whether the terms are related in affirmative 251 II, 20| as we saw) when all the terms are negative: therefore 252 II, 21| in the arrangement of the terms, so error may arise in our 253 II, 21| to each of the two middle terms: e.g. that A belongs to 254 II, 23| It is clear then how the terms are related in conversion, 255 II, 25| an argument in which the terms intermediate between the 256 II, 25| Or again suppose that the terms intermediate between B and 257 II, 25| AC, and the intermediate terms are not few, I do not call 258 II, 26| to the universal of the terms taken by his opponent, e.g. 259 II, 27| never be formed when the terms are related in this way: