Book, Paragraph

 1      I, 1 |         sufficiently defined by us in relation to our present need, but
 2      I, 4 |               a universal affirmative relation between the extremes we
 3      I, 4 |               of a universal negative relation, the terms animal, man,
 4      I, 4 |              an example of a positive relation between the extremes take
 5      I, 4 |               medicine: of a negative relation science, line, unit.~If
 6      I, 4 |            universality is posited in relation to the minor term, or the
 7      I, 4 |              an example of a positive relation between the extremes take
 8      I, 4 |          state, wisdom: of a negative relation, good, state, ignorance.
 9      I, 5 |         matter which has the negative relation), but in no other way. Let
10      I, 5 |             Since, then, the negative relation is convertible, N will belong
11      I, 5 |                But since the negative relation is convertible, N will belong
12      I, 5 |              to illustrate a positive relation between the extremes are
13      I, 5 |               animal, man; a negative relation, substance, animal, number-substance
14      I, 5 |              to illustrate a positive relation are line, animal, man: a
15      I, 5 |               animal, man: a negative relation, line, animal, stone.~It
16      I, 5 |              to illustrate a positive relation between the extremes are
17      I, 5 |           substance, unit: a negative relation, animal, substance, science.~
18      I, 5 |               illustrate the negative relation are black, snow, animal.
19      I, 5 |               illustrate the negative relation are white, swan, stone.
20      I, 5 |             the universal affirmative relation, for the reason already
21      I, 5 |                Terms for the positive relation are white, animal, raven:
22      I, 5 |               raven: for the negative relation, white, stone, raven. If
23      I, 5 |                terms for the negative relation are white, animal, snow;
24      I, 5 |                snow; for the positive relation, white, animal, swan. Evidently
25      I, 6 |                Terms for the positive relation are animal, horse, man:
26      I, 6 |          horse, man: for the negative relation animal, inanimate, man.~
27      I, 6 |                Terms for the positive relation are animal, horse, inanimate;
28      I, 6 |           inanimate; for the negative relation man, horse, inanimate-inanimate
29      I, 6 |              of the other: but if the relation is reversed, no syllogism
30      I, 6 |             the universal affirmative relation are animate, man, animal.
31      I, 6 |            For the universal negative relation it is not possible to get
32      I, 6 |                Terms for the positive relation are animal, man, wild: for
33      I, 6 |                wild: for the negative relation, animal, science, wild-the
34      I, 6 |               as terms for a negative relation raven, snow, white. For
35      I, 6 |           snow, white. For a positive relation terms cannot be found, if
36      I, 8 |        necessarily follow. But if the relation is necessary in respect
37      I, 9 |              positive or the negative relation to A will hold necessarily.
38      I, 10|        possible without modifying the relation.~But if the affirmative
39      I, 15|              a necessary and positive relation we may take the terms white-animal-snow:
40      I, 15|              a necessary and negative relation, white-animal-pitch. Clearly
41      I, 15|             instances of the positive relation we may take the terms white-animal-snow;
42      I, 15|            the necessary and positive relation we may take the terms animal-white-man;
43      I, 15|            the necessary and negative relation, animal-white-garment. It
44      I, 16|               to any B, no impossible relation between B and C follows
45      I, 16| relation-white-animal-pitch.~The same relation will obtain in particular
46      I, 16|               possible both where the relation is positive and necessary,
47      I, 16|               illustrate the positive relation, or animal-white-pitch to
48      I, 16|               illustrate the positive relation, and animal-white-snow to
49      I, 16|            the negative and necessary relation. Nor again is a syllogism
50      I, 16|               illustrate the positive relation are animal-white-man: to
51      I, 16|       animal-white-inanimate. For the relation of animal to some white,
52      I, 16|            negative. Similarly if the relation is problematic: so the terms
53      I, 17|              It is clear then that in relation to what is possible and
54      I, 18|             is possible both when the relation is positive, e.g. health,
55      I, 19|            negative assertion, if the relation must be positive when the
56      I, 20|            illustrate the affirmative relation take the terms animal-man-white;
57      I, 23|         formed, but it will not be in relation to B through the premisses
58      I, 23|          possible concerning A in its relation to B. For in general we
59      I, 23|              take something common in relation to both, and this is possible
60      I, 23|            necessary to establish the relation to B; for the figure will
61      I, 25|            then that A stands in this relation to B. Some conclusion then
62      I, 25|            conclusion is drawn not in relation to the single term last
63      I, 25|               term last added, but in relation to all the rest, e.g. if
64      I, 25|             are thereby added, one in relation to A, the other in relation
65      I, 25|           relation to A, the other in relation to B. Similarly with any
66      I, 25|        inserted in the middle: for in relation to one term only, a syllogism
67      I, 26|        through which it proceeds, the relation of the premisses to one
68      I, 29|               is the same whether the relation is necessary or possible.
69      I, 29|          which establishes a possible relation proceeds through these terms
70      I, 36|             same holds good where the relation is negative. For "that does
71      I, 36|               in a particular way, in relation to the terms of the thesis.
72      I, 45|              alike are convertible in relation to A, so that B belongs
73      I, 46|               this is as follows. The relation of "he can walk" to "he
74      I, 46|           not-walk" is similar to the relation of "it is white" to "it
75      I, 46|              it is not not-good". The relation of these statements to one
76      I, 46|               and A follows C but the relation cannot be reversed, then
77      I, 46|               D must follow B and the relation cannot be reversed. And
78     II, 2 |              to no C, e.g. a genus in relation to the species of another
79     II, 3 |               some C, e.g. a genus in relation to its species and difference:
80     II, 15|               the other; here too the relation between the terms may be
81     II, 21|           into error. And this is the relation of knowledge of the universal
82     II, 22|            And if C is convertible in relation to A and to B, B also is
83     II, 22|              B also is convertible in relation to A. For C belongs to that
84     II, 23|        establishing syllogistically a relation between one extreme and
85     II, 24|        Similarly if the belief in the relation of the middle term to the
86     II, 25|        belongs to the middle, but the relation of the middle to the last