Book, Paragraph

  1      I, 1 |              another. This is either universal or particular or indefinite.
  2      I, 1 |         particular or indefinite. By universal I mean the statement that
  3      I, 1 |           mark to show whether it is universal or particular, e.g. "contraries
  4      I, 2 |           and negative premisses are universal, others particular, others
  5      I, 2 |            is necessary then that in universal attribution the terms of
  6      I, 2 |            animal.~First then take a universal negative with the terms
  7      I, 3 |             necessary premisses. The universal negative converts universally;
  8      I, 3 |            the simple negatives; the universal negative premiss does not
  9      I, 4 |           neither a particular nor a universal conclusion is necessary.
 10      I, 4 |        premisses. As an example of a universal affirmative relation between
 11      I, 4 |             animal, man, horse; of a universal negative relation, the terms
 12      I, 4 |            when the major premiss is universal, whether affirmative or
 13      I, 4 |            have been possible with a universal negative minor premiss.
 14      I, 4 |             may also be given if the universal premiss is negative.~Nor
 15      I, 4 |          proved by this figure, viz. universal and particular, affirmative
 16      I, 5 |              opposite to that of the universal statement: by "an opposite
 17      I, 5 |      opposite manner" I mean, if the universal statement is negative, the
 18      I, 5 |    particular is affirmative: if the universal is affirmative, the particular
 19      I, 5 |      substance, science.~If then the universal statement is opposed to
 20      I, 5 |             let the major premiss be universal, e.g. let M belong to no
 21      I, 5 |           major premiss as before be universal, e.g. let M belong to all
 22      I, 5 |              terms to illustrate the universal affirmative relation, for
 23      I, 5 |              if the minor premiss is universal, and M belongs to no O,
 24      I, 5 |          similar in form, and one is universal, the other particular, a
 25      I, 5 |            all are negative, whether universal or particular.~
 26      I, 6 |             middle term.~If they are universal, whenever both P and R belong
 27      I, 6 |            which of the premisses is universal. For if R belongs to all
 28      I, 6 |            and if the affirmative is universal, a syllogism will be possible
 29      I, 6 |             to some S. Terms for the universal affirmative relation are
 30      I, 6 |        animate, man, animal. For the universal negative relation it is
 31      I, 6 |              if the negative term is universal, whenever the major is negative
 32      I, 6 |             the negative, but one is universal, the other particular. When
 33      I, 6 |           not be possible to reach a universal conclusion by means of this
 34      I, 7 |         reduce all syllogisms to the universal syllogisms in the first
 35      I, 7 |             all in the same way; the universal syllogisms are made perfect
 36      I, 7 |             figure can be reduced to universal syllogisms in the first
 37      I, 7 |         syllogisms can be reduced to universal syllogisms in the first
 38      I, 7 |             figure, if the terms are universal, are directly made perfect
 39      I, 7 |          seen) may be reduced to the universal syllogisms in the first
 40      I, 7 |     syllogisms may be reduced to the universal syllogisms in the first
 41      I, 8 |           the middle figure when the universal statement is affirmative,
 42      I, 8 |            the third figure when the universal is affirmative and the particular
 43      I, 9 |        particular syllogisms, if the universal premiss is necessary, then
 44      I, 9 |            be necessary, whether the universal premiss is negative or affirmative.
 45      I, 9 |           affirmative. First let the universal be necessary, and let A
 46      I, 9 |           just as it does not in the universal syllogisms. The same is
 47      I, 10|             negative premiss is both universal and necessary, then the
 48      I, 10|           the affirmative premiss is universal, the negative particular,
 49      I, 10|             negative premiss be both universal and necessary: let it be
 50      I, 10|          affirmative premiss be both universal and necessary, and let the
 51      I, 10|               which were used in the universal syllogisms. Nor again, if
 52      I, 11|        belong to some B, because the universal is convertible into the
 53      I, 11|              then, the premisses are universal, we have stated when the
 54      I, 11|     necessary. But if one premiss is universal, the other particular, and
 55      I, 11|            affirmative, whenever the universal is necessary the conclusion
 56      I, 11|              should be necessary and universal: for B falls under C. But
 57      I, 11|            figure is formed, and the universal premiss is not necessary,
 58      I, 11|         other negative, whenever the universal is both negative and necessary
 59      I, 11|    proposition is necessary, whether universal or particular, or the negative
 60      I, 11|           terms are wanted, when the universal affirmative is necessary,
 61      I, 14|              one of the premisses is universal, the other particular, when
 62      I, 14|            when the major premiss is universal there will be a perfect
 63      I, 14|         premiss is negative, and the universal is affirmative, the major
 64      I, 14|   affirmative, the major still being universal and the minor particular,
 65      I, 14|           major premiss is the minor universal, whether both are affirmative,
 66      I, 14|          clear that if the terms are universal in possible premisses a
 67      I, 15|            It is clear then that the universal must be understood simply,
 68      I, 15|          Again let the premiss AB be universal and negative, and assume
 69      I, 15|        Clearly then if the terms are universal, and one of the premisses
 70      I, 15|              one of the relations is universal, the other particular, then
 71      I, 15|        whenever the major premiss is universal and problematic, whether
 72      I, 15|           just as when the terms are universal. The demonstration is the
 73      I, 15|        whenever the major premiss is universal, but assertoric, not problematic,
 74      I, 15|            when the major premiss is universal and assertoric, whether
 75      I, 15|              if the minor premiss is universal, and the major particular,
 76      I, 15|              if the major premiss is universal, a syllogism always results,
 77      I, 15|         results, but if the minor is universal nothing at all can ever
 78      I, 16|            whether the premisses are universal or not: but if one is affirmative,
 79      I, 16|            whether the premisses are universal or not. Possibility in the
 80      I, 16|            the minor premiss, or the universal proposition in the affirmative
 81      I, 16|              if the minor premiss is universal, and problematic, whether
 82      I, 16|   animal-white-garment. But when the universal is necessary, the particular
 83      I, 16|       particular problematic, if the universal is negative we may take
 84      I, 16|             the negative; and if the universal is affirmative we may take
 85      I, 17|             affirmative or negative, universal or particular. But when
 86      I, 17|              is possible, but if the universal negative is assertoric a
 87      I, 17|              whenever one premiss is universal, the other particular, or
 88      I, 18|            whether the premisses are universal or particular. The proof
 89      I, 18|   proposition is assertoric, whether universal or particular, no syllogism
 90      I, 18|            assertoric proposition is universal, although no conclusion
 91      I, 19|              negative proposition is universal and necessary, a syllogism
 92      I, 19|           affirmative proposition is universal and necessary, no syllogistic
 93      I, 19|        proved in the same way as for universal propositions, and by the
 94      I, 19|             disconnects two terms is universal and necessary, though nothing
 95      I, 19|            has been said that if the universal and negative premiss is
 96      I, 20|              one of the premisses is universal, the other particular, a
 97      I, 20|             if the proposition BC is universal. Likewise also if the proposition
 98      I, 20|           should be negative-the one universal and the other particular-although
 99      I, 21|              one of the premisses is universal, the other particular, then
100      I, 21|             affirmative, or when the universal is negative, the particular
101      I, 21|           the affirmative premiss is universal, the negative particular,
102      I, 21|             was given in the case of universal premisses, and proceeds
103      I, 22|          given whether the terms are universal or not. For the syllogisms
104      I, 22|              premiss is negative and universal, if it is problematic a
105      I, 22|              where the premisses are universal; and the same terms may
106      I, 23|             made perfect by means of universal syllogisms in the first
107      I, 23|              and is reducible to the universal syllogisms in this figure.~
108      I, 24|              one of the premisses is universal either a syllogism will
109      I, 24|            syllogism there must be a universal premiss, and that a universal
110      I, 24|        universal premiss, and that a universal statement is proved only
111      I, 24|           when all the premisses are universal, while a particular statement
112      I, 24|              is proved both from two universal premisses and from one only:
113      I, 24|    consequently if the conclusion is universal, the premisses also must
114      I, 24|           the premisses also must be universal, but if the premisses are
115      I, 24|             but if the premisses are universal it is possible that the
116      I, 24|            the conclusion may not be universal. And it is clear also that
117      I, 26|            difficult to attempt. The universal affirmative is proved by
118      I, 26|           this in only one mood; the universal negative is proved both
119      I, 26|            It is clear then that the universal affirmative is most difficult
120      I, 26|              in all the figures, the universal negative in two. Similarly
121      I, 26|      negative in two. Similarly with universal negatives: the original
122      I, 26|              of one another, I mean, universal statements by means of particular,
123      I, 26|    particular statements by means of universal: but it is not possible
124      I, 26|            not possible to establish universal statements by means of particular,
125      I, 26|    particular statements by means of universal. At the same time it is
126      I, 27|           syllogism proceeds through universal premisses. If the statement
127      I, 27|     uncertain whether the premiss is universal, but if the statement is
128      I, 28|        purpose is to establish not a universal but a particular proposition,
129      I, 28|              possible to convert the universal statement into a particular.~
130      I, 28|           which are primary and most universal, e.g. in reference to E
131      I, 29| syllogistically in another way, e.g. universal problems by the inquiry
132      I, 31|          intention: for it takes the universal as middle. Let animal be
133      I, 31|       logicians assume as middle the universal term, and as extremes that
134      I, 32|            we must inquire which are universal and which particular, and
135      I, 32|        sometimes men put forward the universal premiss, but do not posit
136      I, 32|             if the premisses are not universal: for the middle term is
137      I, 32|             figure, and in which the universal, in what sort the particular
138      I, 45|              if the syllogism is not universal but particular, e.g. if
139      I, 45|          have the middle figure.~The universal syllogisms in the second
140      I, 45|            negative statement is not universal: all the rest can be resolved.
141      I, 45|         negative, when the terms are universal we must take them in a similar
142      I, 45|            the negative statement is universal, the affirmative particular:
143      I, 45|           third figure. Whenever the universal statement is negative, resolution
144      I, 45|          neither of the premisses is universal after conversion.~Syllogisms
145      I, 45|            the negative statement is universal, e.g. if A belongs to no
146     II, 1 |            Since some syllogisms are universal, others particular, all
147     II, 1 |           others particular, all the universal syllogisms give more than
148     II, 1 |            to all syllogisms whether universal or particular. But it is
149     II, 1 |           concerning those which are universal. For all the things that
150     II, 1 |            syllogism, just as in the universal syllogisms what is subordinate
151     II, 1 |              possible in the case of universal syllogisms or else it is
152     II, 3 |           whether the syllogisms are universal or particular, viz. when
153     II, 3 |              no B and to some C, the universal premiss is wholly false,
154     II, 3 |              the premiss AB which is universal is wholly false, the premiss
155     II, 3 |      conclusion is possible when the universal premiss is true, and the
156     II, 3 |     conclusion will be true, and the universal premiss true, but the particular
157     II, 3 |            not belong to some C, the universal premiss is true, the particular
158     II, 3 |            is true. Similarly if the universal premiss is affirmative and
159     II, 4 |         taken when the premisses are universal, positive terms in positive
160     II, 5 |          possible to demonstrate the universal premiss through the other
161     II, 5 |        impossible to demonstrate the universal premiss: for what is universal
162     II, 5 |       universal premiss: for what is universal is proved through propositions
163     II, 5 |       through propositions which are universal, but the conclusion is not
164     II, 5 |            but the conclusion is not universal, and the proof must start
165     II, 5 |            not possible to prove the universal premiss, for the reason
166     II, 5 |            AB is converted as in the universal syllogism, i.e "B belongs
167     II, 6 |             But if the syllogism not universal, the universal premiss cannot
168     II, 6 |         syllogism not universal, the universal premiss cannot be proved,
169     II, 6 |           can be proved whenever the universal statement is affirmative.
170     II, 6 |             being middle. But if the universal premiss is negative, the
171     II, 6 |         proof will proceed as in the universal syllogisms, if it is assumed
172     II, 7 |      reciprocally: for that which is universal is proved through statements
173     II, 7 |         through statements which are universal, but the conclusion in this
174     II, 7 |              through this figure the universal premiss. But if one premiss
175     II, 7 |       premiss. But if one premiss is universal, the other particular, proof
176     II, 7 |             are affirmative, and the universal concerns the minor extreme,
177     II, 7 |               and the affirmative is universal, the other premiss can be
178     II, 7 |              the negative premiss is universal, the other premiss is not
179     II, 7 |           possible by converting the universal premiss to prove the other:
180     II, 7 |        figure, when the syllogism is universal, proof is possible through
181     II, 8 |           all B. For (as we saw) the universal is not proved through the
182     II, 8 |             be contradictory and not universal. For one premiss is particular,
183     II, 8 |              is no longer, as in the universal syllogisms, refutation in
184     II, 8 |            not belong to some C. The universal premiss AB cannot be affected
185     II, 8 |          neither of the premisses is universal. Similarly if the syllogism
186     II, 9 |               as we saw) there is no universal syllogism. The other premiss
187     II, 9 |            of the premisses taken is universal. Consequently the proposition
188     II, 9 |            proof can be given if the universal statement is affirmative.~
189     II, 10|              and the premisses being universal. If then it is assumed that
190     II, 10|             if the premisses are not universal. For either both premisses
191     II, 10|           must be particular, or the universal premiss must refer to the
192     II, 10|              of the premisses is not universal. For if A belongs to no
193     II, 10|             if the premisses are not universal. For AC becomes universal
194     II, 10|            universal. For AC becomes universal and negative, the other
195     II, 11|           the figures, excepting the universal affirmative, which is proved
196     II, 11|             belongs to no B. But the universal affirmative is not necessarily
197     II, 11|              necessarily true if the universal negative is false. But if
198     II, 11|    Consequently it is clear that the universal affirmative cannot be proved
199     II, 11|       particular affirmative and the universal and particular negatives
200     II, 11|            not necessary that if the universal negative is false, the universal
201     II, 11|     universal negative is false, the universal affirmative should be true,
202     II, 12|              all problems except the universal affirmative are proved per
203     II, 13|             and in the last figure a universal conclusion, are proved in
204     II, 14|              If the syllogism is not universal, but proof has been given
205     II, 14|             the demonstration is not universal. The hypothesis will then
206     II, 15|        opposition are possible, viz. universal affirmative to universal
207     II, 15|             universal affirmative to universal negative, universal affirmative
208     II, 15|   affirmative to universal negative, universal affirmative to particular
209     II, 15|            particular affirmative to universal negative, and particular
210     II, 15|     opposites I call those which are universal contraries, the universal
211     II, 15|            universal contraries, the universal affirmative and the universal
212     II, 15|        universal affirmative and the universal negative, e.g. "every science
213     II, 15|      Similarly if one premiss is not universal: for the middle term is
214     II, 15|       possible whether the terms are universal or not. Let B and C stand
215     II, 15|             ways; we may have either universal affirmative and negative,
216     II, 15|         affirmative and negative, or universal affirmative and particular
217     II, 15|           particular affirmative and universal negative, and the relations
218     II, 21|              knowledge either of the universal or of the particulars. Thus
219     II, 21|              with a knowledge of the universal, but not with a knowledge
220     II, 21|         cases.~By a knowledge of the universal then we see the particulars,
221     II, 21|            have the knowledge of the universal but make a mistake in apprehending
222     II, 21|         relation of knowledge of the universal to knowledge of the particular.
223     II, 21|               except by means of the universal and the possession of the
224     II, 21|             to have knowledge of the universal or to have knowledge proper
225     II, 21|              to the knowledge of the universal would be a syllogism.~But
226     II, 26|          particular at all or not in universal syllogisms. An objection
227     II, 26|            every objection is either universal or particular, by two figures
228     II, 26|        figures. If a man maintains a universal affirmative, we reply with
229     II, 26|         affirmative, we reply with a universal or a particular negative;
230     II, 26|             general if a man urges a universal objection he must frame
231     II, 26|  contradiction with reference to the universal of the terms taken by his
232     II, 26|            his opponent’s premiss is universal, e.g. he will point out
233     II, 26|             science: "contraries" is universal relatively to these. And
234     II, 27|             if it is true (for it is universal), that which proceeds through
235     II, 27|           since the syllogism is not universal nor correlative to the matter