Book, Paragraph

  1      I, 4 |          evident also that all the syllogisms in this figure are perfect (
  2      I, 5 |          evident also that all the syllogisms in this figure are imperfect:
  3      I, 6 |            clear also that all the syllogisms in this figure are imperfect (
  4      I, 7 |         too that all the imperfect syllogisms are made perfect by means
  5      I, 7 |        possible also to reduce all syllogisms to the universal syllogisms
  6      I, 7 |        syllogisms to the universal syllogisms in the first figure. Those
  7      I, 7 |            same way; the universal syllogisms are made perfect by converting
  8      I, 7 |             each of the particular syllogisms by reductio ad impossibile.
  9      I, 7 |            first figure particular syllogisms are indeed made perfect
 10      I, 7 |            Consequently, since all syllogisms in the middle figure can
 11      I, 7 |            be reduced to universal syllogisms in the first figure, and
 12      I, 7 |       figure, and since particular syllogisms in the first figure can
 13      I, 7 |           figure can be reduced to syllogisms in the middle figure, it
 14      I, 7 |           is clear that particular syllogisms can be reduced to universal
 15      I, 7 |            be reduced to universal syllogisms in the first figure. Syllogisms
 16      I, 7 |    syllogisms in the first figure. Syllogisms in the third figure, if
 17      I, 7 |          perfect by means of those syllogisms; but, when one of the premisses
 18      I, 7 |            means of the particular syllogisms in the first figure: and
 19      I, 7 |           reduced to the universal syllogisms in the first figure: consequently
 20      I, 7 |   consequently also the particular syllogisms in the third figure may
 21      I, 7 |          It is clear then that all syllogisms may be reduced to the universal
 22      I, 7 |           reduced to the universal syllogisms in the first figure.~We
 23      I, 7 |            We have stated then how syllogisms which prove that something
 24      I, 7 |          are constituted, both how syllogisms of the same figure are constituted
 25      I, 7 | constituted in themselves, and how syllogisms of different figures are
 26      I, 8 |            there will be different syllogisms to prove each of these relations,
 27      I, 8 |            of these relations, and syllogisms with differently related
 28      I, 8 |      hardly any difference between syllogisms from necessary premisses
 29      I, 8 |            necessary premisses and syllogisms from premisses which merely
 30      I, 8 |          And each of the resulting syllogisms is in the appropriate figure.~
 31      I, 9 |            the same.~In particular syllogisms, if the universal premiss
 32      I, 9 |          does not in the universal syllogisms. The same is true of negative
 33      I, 9 |           same is true of negative syllogisms. Try the terms movement,
 34      I, 10|          obtain also in particular syllogisms. For whenever the negative
 35      I, 10|         were used in the universal syllogisms. Nor again, if the negative
 36      I, 12|            both cases, whether the syllogisms are affirmative or negative,
 37      I, 13|            possible in this sense. Syllogisms indeed can be made about
 38      I, 15|      indicates possibility all the syllogisms will be perfect and establish
 39      I, 15|      indicates possibility all the syllogisms will be imperfect, and those
 40      I, 15|           It is clear that perfect syllogisms result if the minor premiss
 41      I, 15|         simple belonging: but that syllogisms will result if the modality
 42      I, 15|        such premisses that we make syllogisms, since if the premiss is
 43      I, 16|          will obtain in particular syllogisms. Whenever the negative proposition
 44      I, 16|            clear also that all the syllogisms are imperfect and are perfected
 45      I, 18|         same will hold good if the syllogisms are particular. Whenever
 46      I, 19|          will obtain in particular syllogisms. For whenever the negative
 47      I, 19|           it is clear that all the syllogisms are imperfect, and are completed
 48      I, 21|        shall have the same sort of syllogisms: for all are completed by
 49      I, 22|          universal or not. For the syllogisms must be made perfect by
 50      I, 22|           is evident also that all syllogisms in this figure are imperfect,
 51      I, 23|        what has been said that the syllogisms in these figures are made
 52      I, 23|      perfect by means of universal syllogisms in the first figure and
 53      I, 23|           speak first of ostensive syllogisms: for after these have been
 54      I, 23|            then that the ostensive syllogisms are effected by means of
 55      I, 23|      already stated that ostensive syllogisms are effected by means of
 56      I, 23|        figures, it is evident that syllogisms per impossibile also will
 57      I, 23|         all the other hypothetical syllogisms: for in every case the syllogism
 58      I, 23|         reducible to the universal syllogisms in this figure.~
 59      I, 25|       there is not one but several syllogisms. Or again when each of the
 60      I, 25|       inference. But thus also the syllogisms are many; for the conclusions
 61      I, 25|             A or B, either (i) the syllogisms will be more than one, or (
 62      I, 25|        other than E or A or B, the syllogisms will be many, and unconnected
 63      I, 25|             then there are several syllogisms, and they do not establish
 64      I, 25|          beginning, to perfect the syllogisms. It is clear therefore that
 65      I, 25|      establish its thesis.~If then syllogisms are taken with respect to
 66      I, 26|            the subjects with which syllogisms are concerned, what sort
 67      I, 27|            always have a supply of syllogisms in reference to the problem
 68      I, 27|    investigate the construction of syllogisms, but also to have the power
 69      I, 28|     predicate in question: for all syllogisms proceed through these. But
 70      I, 28|        premisses, and that all the syllogisms proceed through the aforesaid
 71      I, 28|            all G. Clearly then all syllogisms proceed through the aforesaid
 72      I, 29|                                 29~Syllogisms which lead to impossible
 73      I, 29|           are similar to ostensive syllogisms; they also are formed by
 74      I, 29|          In the other hypothetical syllogisms, I mean those which proceed
 75      I, 29|         how many ways hypothetical syllogisms are possible.~Each of the
 76      I, 29|        been said not only that all syllogisms can be formed in this way,
 77      I, 30|            we look for dialectical syllogisms we must start from probable
 78      I, 30|       premisses. The principles of syllogisms have been stated in general
 79      I, 32|            state how we can reduce syllogisms to the aforementioned figures:
 80      I, 32|  investigate the production of the syllogisms and had the power of discovering
 81      I, 32|            if we could resolve the syllogisms produced into the aforementioned
 82      I, 32|        escape us, and appear to be syllogisms, because something necessary
 83      I, 33|          frequently deceived about syllogisms because the inference is
 84      I, 35|          it is difficult to reduce syllogisms with such terms. Sometimes
 85      I, 38|          for good. Clearly then in syllogisms which are thus limited we
 86      I, 44|         try to reduce hypothetical syllogisms; for with the given premisses
 87      I, 45|       middle figure.~The universal syllogisms in the second figure can
 88      I, 45|          one of the two particular syllogisms. Let A belong to no B and
 89      I, 45|         syllogism if it did.~Again syllogisms in the third figure cannot
 90      I, 45|         into the first, though all syllogisms in the first figure can
 91      I, 45|           B, and to some C.~Of the syllogisms in the last figure one only
 92      I, 45|         figure is made.~One of the syllogisms in the middle figure can,
 93      I, 45|        universal after conversion.~Syllogisms in the third figure can
 94      I, 45|           clear then that the same syllogisms cannot be resolved in these
 95      I, 45|        first figure, and that when syllogisms are reduced to the first
 96      I, 45|        said how we ought to reduce syllogisms, and that the figures may
 97     II, 1 |           each subject. Since some syllogisms are universal, others particular,
 98     II, 1 |      particular, all the universal syllogisms give more than one result,
 99     II, 1 |          result, and of particular syllogisms the affirmative yield more
100     II, 1 |            thing. Consequently all syllogisms save the particular negative
101     II, 1 |           the reason common to all syllogisms whether universal or particular.
102     II, 1 |            to E.~But in particular syllogisms there will be no necessity
103     II, 1 |           just as in the universal syllogisms what is subordinate to the
104     II, 1 |           in the case of universal syllogisms or else it is possible also
105     II, 1 |          in the case of particular syllogisms.~
106     II, 2 |        same holds good of negative syllogisms: it is not possible to prove
107     II, 2 |   hypothesi is true.~In particular syllogisms it is possible when the
108     II, 3 |       false premisses, whether the syllogisms are universal or particular,
109     II, 3 |         thesis holds in particular syllogisms. For (5) nothing prevents
110     II, 4 |          in the case of particular syllogisms that a true conclusion may
111     II, 4 |         positive terms in positive syllogisms, negative terms in negative.
112     II, 5 |            to all B. In both these syllogisms the premiss CA has been
113     II, 5 |         demonstration.~In negative syllogisms reciprocal proof is as follows.
114     II, 5 |   remaining premiss.~In particular syllogisms it is not possible to demonstrate
115     II, 6 |        proceed as in the universal syllogisms, if it is assumed that A
116     II, 7 |            the middle figure those syllogisms which are not made through
117     II, 8 |        into its contradictory, the syllogisms will be contradictory and
118     II, 8 |           to some B.~In particular syllogisms when the conclusion is converted
119     II, 8 |        longer, as in the universal syllogisms, refutation in which the
120     II, 10|           be refuted in any of the syllogisms, but when the conclusion
121     II, 10|            in the first figure the syllogisms are formed through the middle
122     II, 10|       figure. In the second figure syllogisms proceed through the first
123     II, 11|          to be supposed in all the syllogisms. For thus we shall have
124     II, 12|            clear then that all the syllogisms can be formed in the middle
125     II, 13|         clear then that in all the syllogisms which proceed per impossibile
126     II, 14|            will be possible if the syllogisms are ostensive to reduce
127     II, 14|        taken as a premiss. For the syllogisms become identical with those
128     II, 15|          or we must argue from two syllogisms. In no other way than this,
129     II, 16|      because the terms in negative syllogisms are not convertible. In
130     II, 17|     eliminated. Similarly when the syllogisms are negative.~It is clear
131     II, 19|         conclusions of preliminary syllogisms, they take the necessary
132     II, 21|        premisses of one of the two syllogisms: e.g. A belongs to all B,
133     II, 22|         have been created. For two syllogisms have been put together.
134     II, 23|      dialectical and demonstrative syllogisms are formed by means of the
135     II, 23|       figures, but also rhetorical syllogisms and in general any form
136     II, 26|            all or not in universal syllogisms. An objection is brought
137     II, 26|          in them only are opposite syllogisms possible, since the second
138     II, 27|            wise." In this way then syllogisms are formed, only that which