| Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library | ||
| Alphabetical [« »] preference 2 preliminary 3 premises 1 premiss 324 premisses 295 presence 1 present 11 | Frequency [« »] 377 we 352 then 350 which 324 premiss 315 negative 312 conclusion 295 premisses | Aristotle Prior Analytics IntraText - Concordances premiss |
Book, Paragraph
1 I, 1 | science. We must next define a premiss, a term, and a syllogism, 2 I, 1 | or none, of another.~A premiss then is a sentence affirming 3 I, 1 | good". The demonstrative premiss differs from the dialectical, 4 I, 1 | because the demonstrative premiss is the assertion of one 5 I, 1 | demonstrator does not ask for his premiss, but lays it down), whereas 6 I, 1 | whereas the dialectical premiss depends on the adversary’ 7 I, 1 | Therefore a syllogistic premiss without qualification will 8 I, 1 | science; while a dialectical premiss is the giving of a choice 9 I, 1 | Topics. The nature then of a premiss and the difference between 10 I, 1 | that a term into which the premiss is resolved, i.e. both the 11 I, 2 | 2~Every premiss states that something either 12 I, 2 | the terms of the negative premiss should be convertible, e.g. 13 I, 2 | A. Similarly too, if the premiss is particular. For if some 14 I, 3 | that it should: and the premiss converts like other negative 15 I, 3 | the universal negative premiss does not convert, and the 16 I, 4 | This holds good also if the premiss BC should be indefinite, 17 I, 4 | same syllogism whether the premiss is indefinite or particular.~ 18 I, 4 | possible, whether the major premiss is positive or negative, 19 I, 4 | may be taken also if the premiss BA is indefinite.~Nor when 20 I, 4 | indefinite.~Nor when the major premiss is universal, whether affirmative 21 I, 4 | negative, and the minor premiss is negative and particular, 22 I, 4 | syllogism, whether the minor premiss be indefinite or particular: 23 I, 4 | universal negative minor premiss. A similar proof may also 24 I, 4 | be given if the universal premiss is negative.~Nor can there 25 I, 5 | negative, and let the major premiss be universal, e.g. let M 26 I, 5 | affirmative, and let the major premiss as before be universal, 27 I, 5 | statement. But if the minor premiss is universal, and M belongs 28 I, 6 | before by converting the premiss RS. It might be proved also 29 I, 6 | first figure again, if the premiss RS is converted.~But when 30 I, 7 | converting the negative premiss, each of the particular 31 I, 9 | sometimes also that when one premiss is necessary the conclusion 32 I, 9 | not however when either premiss is necessary, but only when 33 I, 9 | necessarily. But if the major premiss is not necessary, but the 34 I, 9 | Similarly also if the major premiss is negative; for the proof 35 I, 9 | syllogisms, if the universal premiss is necessary, then the conclusion 36 I, 9 | necessary, whether the universal premiss is negative or affirmative. 37 I, 9 | same. But if the particular premiss is necessary, the conclusion 38 I, 10| figure, if the negative premiss is necessary, then the conclusion 39 I, 10| be obtained if the minor premiss were negative: for if A 40 I, 10| But if the affirmative premiss is necessary, the conclusion 41 I, 10| simply. If then the negative premiss is converted, the first 42 I, 10| that if the negative major premiss is not necessary the conclusion 43 I, 10| For whenever the negative premiss is both universal and necessary, 44 I, 10| whenever the affirmative premiss is universal, the negative 45 I, 10| First then let the negative premiss be both universal and necessary: 46 I, 10| Again let the affirmative premiss be both universal and necessary, 47 I, 10| necessary, and let the major premiss be affirmative. If then 48 I, 11| affirmative, and let the negative premiss be necessary. Since then 49 I, 11| figure, that if the negative premiss is not necessary, neither 50 I, 11| be necessary. But if one premiss is universal, the other 51 I, 11| C. But if the particular premiss is necessary, the conclusion 52 I, 11| not be necessary. Let the premiss BC be both particular and 53 I, 11| formed, and the universal premiss is not necessary, but the 54 I, 11| and necessary.~But if one premiss is affirmative, the other 55 I, 12| it is necessary that one premiss should be similar to the 56 I, 12| a simple assertion, the premiss must be simple; if the conclusion 57 I, 12| conclusion is necessary, the premiss must be necessary. Consequently 58 I, 12| unless a necessary or simple premiss is assumed.~ 59 I, 13| of which B is true, one premiss is a simple assertion, the 60 I, 14| premisses assumed, but if the premiss BC is converted after the 61 I, 14| clear then that if the minor premiss is negative, or if both 62 I, 14| particular, when the major premiss is universal there will 63 I, 14| above. But if the particular premiss is negative, and the universal 64 I, 14| premisses, but if the particular premiss is converted and it is laid 65 I, 14| beginning.~But if the major premiss is the minor universal, 66 I, 15| 15~If one premiss is a simple proposition, 67 I, 15| problematic, whenever the major premiss indicates possibility all 68 I, 15| but whenever the minor premiss indicates possibility all 69 I, 15| results. Likewise if the premiss AB is negative, and the 70 I, 15| AB is negative, and the premiss BC is affirmative, the former 71 I, 15| syllogisms result if the minor premiss states simple belonging: 72 I, 15| syllogisms, since if the premiss is understood with reference 73 I, 15| respect of time.~Again let the premiss AB be universal and negative, 74 I, 15| terms better.~If the minor premiss is negative and indicates 75 I, 15| but if the problematic premiss is converted, a syllogism 76 I, 15| are negative, if the major premiss states that A does not belong 77 I, 15| belong to B, and the minor premiss indicates that B may possibly 78 I, 15| but if the problematic premiss is converted, we shall have 79 I, 15| this is true) and if the premiss AB remains as before, we 80 I, 15| syllogism anyhow, whether the premiss AB is negative or affirmative. 81 I, 15| problematic, whenever the minor premiss is problematic a syllogism 82 I, 15| requires the conversion of one premiss. We have stated when each 83 I, 15| then whenever the major premiss is universal and problematic, 84 I, 15| But whenever the major premiss is universal, but assertoric, 85 I, 15| conversion of the problematic premiss, as has been shown above. 86 I, 15| conversion when the major premiss is universal and assertoric, 87 I, 15| belong to some C. For if the premiss BC is converted in respect 88 I, 15| whenever the particular premiss is assertoric and negative, 89 I, 15| nature of the particular premiss. But if the minor premiss 90 I, 15| premiss. But if the minor premiss is universal, and the major 91 I, 15| particular, whether either premiss is negative or affirmative, 92 I, 15| evident then that if the major premiss is universal, a syllogism 93 I, 16| 16~Whenever one premiss is necessary, the other 94 I, 16| syllogism when the minor premiss is necessary. If the premisses 95 I, 16| first that the negative premiss is necessary, and let necessarily 96 I, 16| Again, let the affirmative premiss be necessary, and let A 97 I, 16| negative. For the major premiss was problematic, and further 98 I, 16| premisses. But if the minor premiss is negative, when it is 99 I, 16| syllogism, e.g. BC the minor premiss, or the universal proposition 100 I, 16| syllogism, e.g. AB the major premiss, is necessary, there will 101 I, 16| before. But if the minor premiss is universal, and problematic, 102 I, 16| negative, and the major premiss is particular and necessary, 103 I, 16| exception, that if the negative premiss is assertoric the conclusion 104 I, 16| problematic, but if the negative premiss is necessary the conclusion 105 I, 17| particular. But when one premiss is assertoric, the other 106 I, 17| drawn. Similarly when one premiss is necessary, the other 107 I, 17| will result: for the major premiss, as has been said, is not 108 I, 17| can be given if the major premiss is negative, the minor affirmative, 109 I, 17| terms. And whenever one premiss is universal, the other 110 I, 18| 18~But if one premiss is assertoric, the other 111 I, 18| But when the affirmative premiss is problematic, and the 112 I, 18| Similarly also if the minor premiss is negative. But if both 113 I, 18| but if the problematic premiss is converted into its complementary 114 I, 18| converting the problematic premiss into its complementary affirmative 115 I, 18| possible, whether the other premiss is affirmative or negative. 116 I, 19| but if the affirmative premiss is necessary, no conclusion 117 I, 19| to all C. If the negative premiss is converted B will belong 118 I, 19| can be given if the minor premiss is negative. Again let the 119 I, 19| at any rate the negative premiss. (3) Further it is possible 120 I, 19| is possible if the major premiss is affirmative.~But if the 121 I, 19| converting the problematic premiss into its complementary affirmative 122 I, 19| Similarly if the minor premiss is negative. But if the 123 I, 19| proposition because no negative premiss has been laid down either 124 I, 19| premisses are negative, and the premiss that definitely disconnects 125 I, 19| above if the problematic premiss is converted into its complementary 126 I, 19| the universal and negative premiss is necessary, a syllogism 127 I, 19| but if the affirmative premiss is necessary no conclusion 128 I, 20| problematic; and also when one premiss is problematic, the other 129 I, 20| assertoric. But when the other premiss is necessary, if it is affirmative 130 I, 20| again if the particular premiss is converted. For if A is 131 I, 21| 21~If one premiss is pure, the other problematic, 132 I, 21| been proved that if one premiss is problematic in that figure 133 I, 21| problematic. But if the minor premiss BC is negative, or if both 134 I, 21| But if the affirmative premiss is universal, the negative 135 I, 22| and-since the negative premiss is problematic-it is clear 136 I, 22| problematic. But if the negative premiss is necessary, the conclusion 137 I, 22| figure, and the negative premiss is necessary. But when the 138 I, 22| some B. But when the minor premiss is negative, if it is problematic 139 I, 22| syllogism by altering the premiss into its complementary affirmative, 140 I, 22| pure; and also when one premiss is negative, the other affirmative, 141 I, 22| necessary. But when the negative premiss is necessary, the conclusion 142 I, 22| third. But when the minor premiss is negative and universal, 143 I, 23| Thus we must take another premiss as well. If then A be asserted 144 I, 23| is impossible to take a premiss in reference to B, if we 145 I, 23| of it; or again to take a premiss relating A to B, if we take 146 I, 24| If one should claim as a premiss that pleasure is good without 147 I, 24| there must be a universal premiss, and that a universal statement 148 I, 25| premisses, unless a new premiss is assumed, as was said 149 I, 25| along with one term one premiss is added, if a term is added 150 I, 27| is uncertain whether the premiss is universal, but if the 151 I, 28| first figure with its minor premiss negative. If attributes 152 I, 29| relate, so that if this premiss is converted, and the other 153 I, 32| put forward the universal premiss, but do not posit the premiss 154 I, 32| premiss, but do not posit the premiss which is contained in it, 155 I, 33| that required that the premiss AB should be stated universally. 156 I, 34| setting out the terms of the premiss well, e.g. suppose A to 157 I, 36| opportunity-right time-God: but the premiss must be understood according 158 I, 36| way the word falls in the premiss.~ 159 I, 45| figures into one another the premiss which concerns the minor 160 I, 45| the figures: for when this premiss is altered, the transition 161 II, 1 | does not result when this premiss is particular), but whatever 162 II, 1 | proved (as we saw) from a premiss which is not demonstrated: 163 II, 2 | wholly false: but if the premiss is not taken as wholly false, 164 II, 2 | proof may be given if each premiss is partially false.~(3) 165 II, 2 | is false, when the first premiss is wholly false, e.g. AB, 166 II, 2 | not be true, but if the premiss BC is wholly false, a true 167 II, 2 | B to all C. If then the premiss BC which I take is true, 168 II, 2 | I take is true, and the premiss AB is wholly false, viz. 169 II, 2 | all C, but while the true premiss BC is assumed, the wholly 170 II, 2 | assumed, the wholly false premiss AB is also assumed, viz. 171 II, 2 | then that when the first premiss is wholly false, whether 172 II, 2 | negative, and the other premiss is true, the conclusion 173 II, 2 | be true.~(4) But if the premiss is not wholly false, a true 174 II, 2 | to no C.~(5) But if the premiss AB, which is assumed, is 175 II, 2 | is wholly true, and the premiss BC is wholly false, a true 176 II, 2 | will be true, although the premiss BC is wholly false. Similarly 177 II, 2 | false. Similarly if the premiss AB is negative. For it is 178 II, 2 | be true.~(6) And if the premiss BC is not wholly false but 179 II, 2 | is true. Similarly if the premiss AB is negative. For it is 180 II, 2 | possible when the first premiss is wholly false, and the 181 II, 2 | true; also when the first premiss is false in part, and the 182 II, 2 | and B to some C, then the premiss BC is wholly false, the 183 II, 2 | BC is wholly false, the premiss BC true, and the conclusion 184 II, 2 | conclusion true. Similarly if the premiss AB is negative: for it is 185 II, 2 | will be true although the premiss AB is wholly false. (If 186 II, 2 | is wholly false. (If the premiss AB is false in part, the 187 II, 2 | and B to some C, the a premiss AB will be partially false, 188 II, 2 | be partially false, the premiss BC will be true, and the 189 II, 2 | conclusion true. Similarly if the premiss AB is negative. For the 190 II, 2 | point.~(9) Again if the premiss AB is true, and the premiss 191 II, 2 | premiss AB is true, and the premiss BC is false, the conclusion 192 II, 2 | false. Similarly if the premiss AB is negative. For it is 193 II, 2 | hypothesi is true. And the premiss AB is true, the premiss 194 II, 2 | premiss AB is true, the premiss BC false.~(10) Also if the 195 II, 2 | false.~(10) Also if the premiss AB is partially false, and 196 II, 2 | partially false, and the premiss BC is false too, the conclusion 197 II, 2 | be true. Similarly if the premiss AB is negative: for the 198 II, 2 | false. Similarly also if the premiss AB is negative. For nothing 199 II, 3 | syllogism.~(2) Again if one premiss is wholly false, the other 200 II, 3 | none of the other, the one premiss will be wholly false, the 201 II, 3 | concerns.~(3) Also if one premiss is partially false, the 202 II, 3 | but to the whole of C, the premiss AB is partially false, the 203 II, 3 | is partially false, the premiss AC wholly true, and the 204 II, 3 | Also if the affirmative premiss is partially false, the 205 II, 3 | whole of B, but to no C, the premiss AB is partially false, the 206 II, 3 | is partially false, the premiss AC is wholly true, and the 207 II, 3 | Similarly, if the negative premiss is transposed, the proof 208 II, 3 | to some C, the universal premiss is wholly false, the particular 209 II, 3 | wholly false, the particular premiss is true, and the conclusion 210 II, 3 | is true. Similarly if the premiss AB is affirmative: for it 211 II, 3 | B and not to some C, the premiss AB which is universal is 212 II, 3 | universal is wholly false, the premiss AC is true, and the conclusion 213 II, 3 | possible when the universal premiss is true, and the particular 214 II, 3 | true, and the universal premiss true, but the particular 215 II, 3 | false. Similarly if the premiss which is stated universally 216 II, 3 | to some C, the universal premiss is true, the particular 217 II, 3 | Similarly if the universal premiss is affirmative and the particular 218 II, 4 | is partly false, when one premiss is wholly true, the other 219 II, 4 | the other false, when one premiss is partly false, the other 220 II, 4 | conclusion true. Similarly if one premiss is negative, the other affirmative. 221 II, 4 | false.~(2) Also if each premiss is partly false, the conclusion 222 II, 4 | is true. Similarly if the premiss AC is stated as negative. 223 II, 4 | belong to C at all, the premiss BC will be wholly true, 224 II, 4 | will be wholly true, the premiss AC wholly false, and the 225 II, 4 | B belong to every C, the premiss BC is wholly true, the premiss 226 II, 4 | premiss BC is wholly true, the premiss AC is wholly false, and 227 II, 4 | is true. Similarly if the premiss AC which is assumed is true: 228 II, 4 | terms.~(4) Again if one premiss is wholly true, the other 229 II, 4 | belong to the whole of C, the premiss BC is wholly true, the premiss 230 II, 4 | premiss BC is wholly true, the premiss AC partly false, the conclusion 231 II, 4 | conclusion may be true if one premiss is negative, the other affirmative. 232 II, 4 | A to no C, the negative premiss is partly false, the other 233 II, 4 | partly false, the other premiss wholly true, and the conclusion 234 II, 4 | it is clear that if the premiss AC is wholly true, and the 235 II, 4 | is wholly true, and the premiss BC partly false, it is possible 236 II, 4 | no C, and B to all C, the premiss AC is wholly true, and the 237 II, 4 | is wholly true, and the premiss BC is partly false.~(5) 238 II, 5 | simply and inferring the premiss which was assumed in the 239 II, 5 | through the conclusion and the premiss BC converted, and similarly 240 II, 5 | through the conclusion and the premiss AB converted. But it is 241 II, 5 | necessary to prove both the premiss CB, and the premiss BA: 242 II, 5 | the premiss CB, and the premiss BA: for we have used these 243 II, 5 | both these syllogisms the premiss CA has been assumed without 244 II, 5 | succeed in demonstrating this premiss, all the premisses will 245 II, 5 | all B: thus the previous premiss is reversed. If it is necessary 246 II, 5 | converted as before: for the premiss "B belongs to no A" is identical 247 II, 5 | A" is identical with the premiss "A belongs to no B". But 248 II, 5 | and deduce the remaining premiss.~In particular syllogisms 249 II, 5 | demonstrate the universal premiss through the other propositions, 250 II, 5 | propositions, but the particular premiss can be demonstrated. Clearly 251 II, 5 | demonstrate the universal premiss: for what is universal is 252 II, 5 | conclusion and the other premiss. Further a syllogism cannot 253 II, 5 | made at all if the other premiss is converted: for the result 254 II, 5 | particular. But the particular premiss may be proved. Suppose that 255 II, 5 | possible to prove the universal premiss, for the reason given above. 256 II, 5 | to prove the particular premiss, if the proposition AB is 257 II, 5 | results because the particular premiss is negative.~ 258 II, 6 | B as middle. But if the premiss AB was negative, and the 259 II, 6 | conclusion, therefore, and one premiss, we get no syllogism, but 260 II, 6 | syllogism, but if another premiss is assumed in addition, 261 II, 6 | universal, the universal premiss cannot be proved, for the 262 II, 6 | above, but the particular premiss can be proved whenever the 263 II, 6 | middle. But if the universal premiss is negative, the premiss 264 II, 6 | premiss is negative, the premiss AC will not be demonstrated 265 II, 7 | this figure the universal premiss. But if one premiss is universal, 266 II, 7 | universal premiss. But if one premiss is universal, the other 267 II, 7 | conclusion and the other premiss. But if B belongs to all 268 II, 7 | middle. And whenever one premiss is affirmative the other 269 II, 7 | is universal, the other premiss can be proved. Let B belong 270 II, 7 | middle. But when the negative premiss is universal, the other 271 II, 7 | is universal, the other premiss is not except as before, 272 II, 7 | converting the universal premiss to prove the other: for 273 II, 8 | premisses stands, that the other premiss should be destroyed. For 274 II, 8 | universally by conversion the premiss which concerns the major 275 II, 8 | some B: but in the original premiss it belonged to no B.~If 276 II, 8 | and not universal. For one premiss is particular, so that the 277 II, 8 | some C. But the original premiss is not yet refuted: for 278 II, 8 | to some C. The universal premiss AB cannot be affected by 279 II, 8 | belongs to some C, neither premiss is refuted. The proof is 280 II, 9 | not possible to refute the premiss which concerns the major 281 II, 9 | universal syllogism. The other premiss can be refuted in a manner 282 II, 9 | the contrary of the minor premiss of the first, if into its 283 II, 9 | into its contradictory, the premiss AB will be refuted as before, 284 II, 9 | be refuted as before, the premiss, AC by its contradictory. 285 II, 9 | contradictory of the minor premiss. A similar proof can be 286 II, 9 | into its contrary neither premiss can be refuted, as also 287 II, 10| particular, or the universal premiss must refer to the minor 288 II, 10| and negative, the other premiss particular and affirmative. 289 II, 10| a result contrary to the premiss, and when a result contradictory 290 II, 10| result contradictory to the premiss, is obtained. It is clear 291 II, 10| the last figures, and the premiss which concerns the minor 292 II, 10| through the middle figure, the premiss which concerns the major 293 II, 10| the last figures, and the premiss which concerns the minor 294 II, 10| through the first figure, the premiss which concerns the major 295 II, 10| the middle figures; the premiss which concerns the major 296 II, 10| through the first figure, the premiss which concerns the minor 297 II, 11| conclusion stated and another premiss is assumed; it can be made 298 II, 11| and take besides another premiss concerning either of the 299 II, 11| whichever term the assumed premiss concerns; but if it is supposed 300 II, 11| belongs to no B, when the premiss BD is assumed as well we 301 II, 11| negative is false. But if the premiss CA is assumed as well, no 302 II, 11| some B. But if the other premiss assumed relates to A, no 303 II, 11| as negative. But if the premiss assumed concerns B, no syllogism 304 II, 11| Similarly if the other premiss taken concerns B; we shall 305 II, 11| Similarly if the other premiss assumed concerns B. The 306 II, 14| B. Similarly too, if the premiss CA should be negative: for 307 II, 14| syllogism is taken as a premiss. For the syllogisms become 308 II, 15| concerns C. Similarly if one premiss is not universal: for the 309 II, 15| science. Similarly if the premiss BA is not assumed universally. 310 II, 15| unless a self-contradictory premiss is at once assumed, e.g. " 311 II, 16| thesis to be proved and the premiss through which it is proved 312 II, 17| denies is not assumed as a premiss. Further when anything is 313 II, 21| turns out that the first premiss of the one syllogism is 314 II, 21| partially contrary to the first premiss of the other. For if he 315 II, 21| prevents a man thinking one premiss of each syllogism of both 316 II, 23| the first and immediate premiss: for where there is a middle 317 II, 26| 26~An objection is a premiss contrary to a premiss. It 318 II, 26| a premiss contrary to a premiss. It differs from a premiss, 319 II, 26| premiss. It differs from a premiss, because it may be particular, 320 II, 26| may be particular, but a premiss either cannot be particular 321 II, 26| brought in opposition to the premiss, and opposites can be proved 322 II, 26| science.~Similarly if the premiss objected to is negative. 323 II, 26| subject of his opponent’s premiss is universal, e.g. he will 324 II, 26| things, but have its new premiss quite clear immediately.