| Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library | ||
| Alphabetical [« »] conclude 7 concluded 5 concluding 1 conclusion 312 conclusions 14 concomitant 1 concomitants 1 | Frequency [« »] 350 which 324 premiss 315 negative 312 conclusion 295 premisses 289 one 287 as | Aristotle Prior Analytics IntraText - Concordances conclusion |
Book, Paragraph
1 I, 4 | particular nor a universal conclusion is necessary. But if there 2 I, 4 | figure with a particular conclusion, the terms must be related 3 I, 5 | raven. Nor will there be a conclusion when M is predicated of 4 I, 5 | evident that an affirmative conclusion is not attained by means 5 I, 6 | possible to reach a universal conclusion by means of this figure, 6 I, 7 | For all are brought to a conclusion either ostensively or per 7 I, 7 | saw) all are brought to a conclusion by means of conversion, 8 I, 8 | exceptions to be made below, the conclusion will be proved to be necessary 9 I, 8 | with terms so chosen the conclusion will necessarily follow. 10 I, 9 | premiss is necessary the conclusion is necessary, not however 11 I, 9 | minor is necessary, the conclusion will not be necessary. For 12 I, 9 | makes it clear that the conclusion not be necessary, e.g. if 13 I, 9 | premiss is necessary, then the conclusion will be necessary; but if 14 I, 9 | but if the particular, the conclusion will not be necessary, whether 15 I, 9 | premiss is necessary, the conclusion will not be necessary: for 16 I, 9 | from the denial of such a conclusion nothing impossible results, 17 I, 10| premiss is necessary, then the conclusion will be necessary, but if 18 I, 10| premiss is necessary, the conclusion will not be necessary. Let 19 I, 10| premiss is not necessary the conclusion will not be necessary either. 20 I, 10| obtain here. Further, if the conclusion is necessary, it follows 21 I, 10| exposition of terms that the conclusion is not necessary without 22 I, 10| though it is a necessary conclusion from the premisses. For 23 I, 10| under these conditions the conclusion will be necessary, but it 24 I, 10| and necessary, then the conclusion will be necessary: but whenever 25 I, 10| negative particular, the conclusion will not be necessary. First 26 I, 10| but particular, will the conclusion be necessary. The point 27 I, 11| two is necessary, then the conclusion will be necessary. But if 28 I, 11| negative is necessary the conclusion also will be necessary, 29 I, 11| affirmative is necessary the conclusion will not be necessary. First 30 I, 11| affirmative is necessary, the conclusion will not be necessary. For 31 I, 11| necessary, neither will the conclusion be necessary. Further, the 32 I, 11| we have stated when the conclusion will be necessary. But if 33 I, 11| universal is necessary the conclusion also must be necessary. 34 I, 11| premiss is necessary, the conclusion will not be necessary. Let 35 I, 11| premisses were thus, the conclusion (as we proved was not necessary: 36 I, 11| negative and necessary the conclusion also will be necessary. 37 I, 11| negative is particular, the conclusion will not be necessary. The 38 I, 12| clear then that a simple conclusion is not reached unless both 39 I, 12| assertions, but a necessary conclusion is possible although one 40 I, 12| should be similar to the conclusion. I mean by "similar", if 41 I, 12| mean by "similar", if the conclusion is a simple assertion, the 42 I, 12| premiss must be simple; if the conclusion is necessary, the premiss 43 I, 12| also is clear, that the conclusion will be neither necessary 44 I, 14| we shall have the same conclusion as before, as in the cases 45 I, 15| if each is possible, the conclusion also is possible. If then, 46 I, 15| premisses by A, and the conclusion by B, it would not only 47 I, 15| and not impossible, the conclusion is impossible. It is possible 48 I, 15| will be as before, but the conclusion necessary, not possible. 49 I, 15| from an example that the conclusion will not establish possibility. 50 I, 15| belongs to no C: so the conclusion does not establish possibility. 51 I, 15| possible for all C. And the conclusion will not be necessary. For 52 I, 15| should move. Clearly then the conclusion establishes that one term 53 I, 16| premisses are affirmative the conclusion will be problematic, not 54 I, 16| affirmative is necessary the conclusion will be problematic, not 55 I, 16| negative is necessary the conclusion will be problematic negative, 56 I, 16| not. Possibility in the conclusion must be understood in the 57 I, 16| affirmative, clearly the conclusion which follows is not necessary. 58 I, 16| to prove the assertoric conclusion per impossibile. For if 59 I, 16| proposition is necessary, the conclusion will be negative assertoric: 60 I, 16| will not be an assertoric conclusion. The demonstration is the 61 I, 16| premiss is assertoric the conclusion is problematic, but if the 62 I, 16| premiss is necessary the conclusion is both problematic and 63 I, 17| negative is assertoric a conclusion can always be drawn. Similarly 64 I, 17| the term "possible" in the conclusion, in the same sense as before.~ 65 I, 17| syllogism, it is clear that its conclusion will be problematic because 66 I, 17| is possible. Suppose the conclusion is affirmative: it will 67 I, 17| the subject. Suppose the conclusion is negative: it will be 68 I, 18| proposition is assertoric, a conclusion can be drawn by means of 69 I, 18| is universal, although no conclusion follows from the actual 70 I, 18| affirmative or negative. Nor can a conclusion be drawn when both premisses 71 I, 19| necessary a syllogistic conclusion can be drawn, not merely 72 I, 19| also a negative assertoric conclusion; but if the affirmative 73 I, 19| premiss is necessary, no conclusion is possible. Suppose that 74 I, 19| to all C: so once more a conclusion is drawn by the first figure 75 I, 19| cannot draw a problematic conclusion; for that which is necessary 76 I, 19| can we draw a necessary conclusion: for that presupposes that 77 I, 19| animal. Clearly then the conclusion cannot be the negative assertion, 78 I, 19| a syllogism. Clearly the conclusion cannot be a negative assertoric 79 I, 19| necessary mode. Nor can the conclusion be a problematic negative 80 I, 19| necessary, no syllogistic conclusion can be drawn. This can be 81 I, 19| terms. Nor is a syllogistic conclusion possible when both premisses 82 I, 19| premisses as they are stated, a conclusion can be drawn as above if 83 I, 19| premiss is necessary no conclusion can be drawn. It is clear 84 I, 20| premisses are problematic the conclusion will be problematic; and 85 I, 20| if it is affirmative the conclusion will be neither necessary 86 I, 20| expression "possible" in the conclusion in the same way as before.~ 87 I, 20| particular-although no syllogistic conclusion will follow from the premisses 88 I, 21| the other problematic, the conclusion will be problematic, not 89 I, 21| the first figure, and the conclusion that A may possibly belong 90 I, 21| figure is problematic, the conclusion also (as we saw) is problematic. 91 I, 21| pure; in both cases the conclusion will be problematic: for 92 I, 21| problematic in that figure the conclusion also will be problematic. 93 I, 21| negative, no syllogistic conclusion can be drawn from the premisses 94 I, 21| problematic syllogistic conclusion. But if the affirmative 95 I, 22| problematic affirmative conclusion can always be drawn; when 96 I, 22| problematic and a pure negative conclusion are possible. But a necessary 97 I, 22| But a necessary negative conclusion will not be possible, any 98 I, 22| problematic-it is clear that the conclusion will be problematic: for 99 I, 22| in the first figure, the conclusion (as we found) is problematic. 100 I, 22| premiss is necessary, the conclusion will be not only that A 101 I, 22| premisses are affirmative, the conclusion will be problematic, not 102 I, 22| premiss is necessary, the conclusion also will be a pure negative 103 I, 22| be formed, and when the conclusion is problematic, and when 104 I, 23| and prove the original conclusion hypothetically when something 105 I, 23| syllogism, and the original conclusion is proved hypothetically, 106 I, 24| only: consequently if the conclusion is universal, the premisses 107 I, 24| it is possible that the conclusion may not be universal. And 108 I, 24| premisses must be like the conclusion. I mean not only in being 109 I, 25| no more, unless the same conclusion is established by different 110 I, 25| of propositions; e.g. the conclusion E may be established through 111 I, 25| syllogism, not many, the same conclusion may be reached by more than 112 I, 25| this relation to B. Some conclusion then follows from them. 113 I, 25| whole, the other part, some conclusion will follow from them also; 114 I, 25| possible. But if (iii) the conclusion is other than E or A or 115 I, 25| follows not E but some other conclusion, and if from C and D either 116 I, 25| they do not establish the conclusion proposed: for we assumed 117 I, 25| syllogism proved E. And if no conclusion follows from C and D, it 118 I, 25| clear that a syllogistic conclusion follows from two premisses 119 I, 25| premisses through which the main conclusion follows (for some of the 120 I, 25| premisses. But whenever a conclusion is reached by means of prosyllogisms 121 I, 25| pre-existing terms: for the conclusion is drawn not in relation 122 I, 26| concerned, what sort of conclusion is established in each figure, 123 I, 27| quickly will he reach a conclusion; and in proportion as he 124 I, 27| character of normality. For the conclusion of each syllogism resembles 125 I, 29| syllogism establishing the false conclusion may relate, so that if this 126 I, 29| leads up to a particular conclusion, with the addition of an 127 I, 31| belonging to it. Now the true conclusion is that every D is either 128 I, 31| and the differentiae. In conclusion, they do not make it clear, 129 I, 31| division, nor to draw a conclusion about an accident or property 130 I, 32| problem would be brought to a conclusion. It will happen at the same 131 I, 32| man does: but as yet the conclusion has not been drawn syllogistically: 132 I, 33| distinction. For if we accept the conclusion as though it made no difference 133 I, 34| unless this is assumed no conclusion results, save in respect 134 I, 34| possibility: but such a conclusion is not impossible: for it 135 I, 36| wisdom is of the good, the conclusion is that there is knowledge 136 I, 36| contrary and has a quality, the conclusion is that there is a science 137 I, 38| good" were added to B, the conclusion will not follow: for A will 138 I, 42| figure, it is clear from the conclusion in what figure the premisses 139 I, 44| arguments which are brought to a conclusion per impossibile. These cannot 140 I, 44| argument cannot, because the conclusion is reached from an hypothesis. 141 I, 44| if one is to accept the conclusion; e.g. an agreement that 142 I, 44| arguments are brought to a conclusion by the help of an hypothesis; 143 II, 1 | negative yield only the stated conclusion. For all propositions are 144 II, 1 | particular negative: and the conclusion states one definite thing 145 II, 1 | negative yield more than one conclusion, e.g. if A has been proved 146 II, 1 | no A. This is a different conclusion from the former. But if 147 II, 1 | the middle term or to the conclusion may be proved by the same 148 II, 1 | middle, the latter in the conclusion; e.g. if the conclusion 149 II, 1 | conclusion; e.g. if the conclusion AB is proved through C, 150 II, 1 | which is subordinate to the conclusion, e.g. if A belongs to no 151 II, 1 | what is subordinate to the conclusion (for a syllogism does not 152 II, 1 | which is subordinate to the conclusion cannot be proved; the other 153 II, 1 | demonstrated: consequently either a conclusion is not possible in the case 154 II, 2 | true, the other false. The conclusion is either true or false 155 II, 2 | possible to draw a false conclusion, but a true conclusion may 156 II, 2 | false conclusion, but a true conclusion may be drawn from false 157 II, 2 | possible to draw a false conclusion from true premisses, is 158 II, 2 | results necessarily is the conclusion, and the means by which 159 II, 2 | possible to prove a false conclusion from true premisses.~But 160 II, 2 | from what is false a true conclusion may be drawn, whether both 161 II, 2 | premisses are false the conclusion is true: for every man is 162 II, 2 | premisses are false the conclusion will be true. (2) A similar 163 II, 2 | wholly false, e.g. AB, the conclusion will not be true, but if 164 II, 2 | is wholly false, a true conclusion will be possible. I mean 165 II, 2 | it is impossible that the conclusion should be true: for A belonged 166 II, 2 | Similarly there cannot be a true conclusion if A belongs to all B, and 167 II, 2 | which B belongs: here the conclusion must be false. For A will 168 II, 2 | other premiss is true, the conclusion cannot be true.~(4) But 169 II, 2 | not wholly false, a true conclusion is possible. For if A belongs 170 II, 2 | all B and B to all C, the conclusion will be true, although the 171 II, 2 | no B, and B to all C, the conclusion will be true.~(6) And if 172 II, 2 | in part only, even so the conclusion may be true. For nothing 173 II, 2 | the other true, that the conclusion should be true; also when 174 II, 2 | premiss BC true, and the conclusion true. Similarly if the premiss 175 II, 2 | B belongs to some C, the conclusion will be true although the 176 II, 2 | AB is false in part, the conclusion may be true. For nothing 177 II, 2 | BC will be true, and the conclusion true. Similarly if the premiss 178 II, 2 | premiss BC is false, the conclusion may be true. For nothing 179 II, 2 | B, and B to some C, the conclusion will be true, although the 180 II, 2 | premiss BC is false too, the conclusion may be true. For nothing 181 II, 2 | B, and B to some C, the conclusion will be true. Similarly 182 II, 2 | premisses are false the conclusion may be true. For it is possible 183 II, 2 | all B and B to some C, the conclusion will be true, though both 184 II, 2 | not belong to some C. The conclusion then is true, but the premisses 185 II, 3 | every way to reach a true conclusion through false premisses, 186 II, 3 | false they will yield a true conclusion. Similarly if A belongs 187 II, 3 | other wholly true, and the conclusion will be true whichever term 188 II, 3 | AC wholly true, and the conclusion true. Similarly if the negative 189 II, 3 | negative wholly true, a true conclusion is possible. For nothing 190 II, 3 | is wholly true, and the conclusion is true.~(4) And if both 191 II, 3 | are partially false, the conclusion may be true. For it is possible 192 II, 3 | partially false, but the conclusion is true. Similarly, if the 193 II, 3 | premiss is true, and the conclusion is true. Similarly if the 194 II, 3 | premiss AC is true, and the conclusion is true. Also a true conclusion 195 II, 3 | conclusion is true. Also a true conclusion is possible when the universal 196 II, 3 | no B and to some C, the conclusion will be true, and the universal 197 II, 3 | particular false, and the conclusion true.~(6) It is clear too 198 II, 3 | false they may yield a true conclusion, since it is possible that 199 II, 3 | are both false, but the conclusion is true. Similarly if the 200 II, 3 | premisses are false but the conclusion is true.~ 201 II, 4 | In the last figure a true conclusion may come through what is 202 II, 4 | be wholly false, but the conclusion true. Similarly if one premiss 203 II, 4 | belong to some B: and the conclusion is true, though the premisses 204 II, 4 | premiss is partly false, the conclusion may be true. For nothing 205 II, 4 | partially false, but the conclusion is true. Similarly if the 206 II, 4 | are partly false, but the conclusion is true.~(3) Similarly if 207 II, 4 | AC wholly false, and the conclusion true. Similarly if the statement 208 II, 4 | the statement AC true, the conclusion may be true. The same terms 209 II, 4 | assumed are affirmative, the conclusion may be true. For nothing 210 II, 4 | is wholly false, and the conclusion is true. Similarly if the 211 II, 4 | other partly false, the conclusion may be true. For it is possible 212 II, 4 | premiss AC partly false, the conclusion true. Similarly if of the 213 II, 4 | BC partly false, a true conclusion is possible: this can be 214 II, 4 | are transposed. Also the conclusion may be true if one premiss 215 II, 4 | premiss wholly true, and the conclusion is true. Again since it 216 II, 4 | it is possible that the conclusion should be true. For if it 217 II, 4 | particular syllogisms that a true conclusion may come through what is 218 II, 4 | is clear then that if the conclusion is false, the premisses 219 II, 4 | some of them; but when the conclusion is true, it is not necessary 220 II, 4 | syllogism is true, that the conclusion may none the less be true; 221 II, 5 | means proof by means of the conclusion, i.e. by converting one 222 II, 5 | belong to C, which was the conclusion of the first syllogism, 223 II, 5 | them are taken the same conclusion as before will result: but 224 II, 5 | proposition AB through the conclusion and the premiss BC converted, 225 II, 5 | proposition BC through the conclusion and the premiss AB converted. 226 II, 5 | premisses, so that we use the conclusion for the demonstration.~In 227 II, 5 | which was the previous conclusion) and assume that B belongs 228 II, 5 | propositions has been made a conclusion, and this is circular demonstration, 229 II, 5 | demonstration, to assume the conclusion and the converse of one 230 II, 5 | which are universal, but the conclusion is not universal, and the 231 II, 5 | proof must start from the conclusion and the other premiss. Further 232 II, 5 | belongs to all A and the conclusion is retained, B will belong 233 II, 6 | not affirmative (for the conclusion is negative) but an affirmative 234 II, 6 | belong to B. Through the conclusion, therefore, and one premiss, 235 II, 6 | B, and not to all C: the conclusion is BC. If then it is assumed 236 II, 7 | which are universal, but the conclusion in this figure is always 237 II, 7 | all C and B to some C: the conclusion is the statement AB. If 238 II, 7 | longer results from the conclusion and the other premiss. But 239 II, 7 | and A not to some C: the conclusion is that A does not belong 240 II, 7 | C, and B to some C: the conclusion is that A does not belong 241 II, 7 | the first figure-if the conclusion is affirmative through the 242 II, 7 | through the first; if the conclusion is negative through the 243 II, 8 | syllogism means to alter the conclusion and make another syllogism 244 II, 8 | it is necessary, if the conclusion has been changed into its 245 II, 8 | if it should stand, the conclusion also must stand. It makes 246 II, 8 | a difference whether the conclusion is converted into its contradictory 247 II, 8 | belonged to no B.~If the conclusion is converted into its contradictory, 248 II, 8 | particular, so that the conclusion also will be particular. 249 II, 8 | particular syllogisms when the conclusion is converted into its contradictory, 250 II, 8 | refutation in which the conclusion reached by O, conversion 251 II, 8 | neither can be refuted if the conclusion is converted into its contrary. 252 II, 9 | form the conversion of the conclusion may take. For the conclusion 253 II, 9 | conclusion may take. For the conclusion of the refutation will always 254 II, 9 | conversion: I mean, if the conclusion of the first syllogism is 255 II, 9 | converted into its contrary, the conclusion of the refutation will be 256 II, 9 | belong to all B and to no C: conclusion BC. If then it is assumed 257 II, 9 | is the last. But if the conclusion BC is converted into its 258 II, 9 | is particular, when the conclusion is converted into its contrary 259 II, 9 | the first figure, " if the conclusion is converted into its contradictory, 260 II, 9 | no B, and to some C: the conclusion is BC. If then it is assumed 261 II, 9 | statement AB stands, the conclusion will be that A does not 262 II, 9 | not refuted. But if the conclusion is converted into its contradictory, 263 II, 10| the third figure when the conclusion is converted into its contrary, 264 II, 10| syllogisms, but when the conclusion is converted into its contradictory, 265 II, 10| middle figure. But if the conclusion is converted into its contradictory, 266 II, 10| then the contrary of the conclusion is assumed a syllogism will 267 II, 10| the contradictory of the conclusion is assumed, they are refuted. 268 II, 10| in each figure when the conclusion is converted; when a result 269 II, 11| the contradictory of the conclusion stated and another premiss 270 II, 11| will be possible. Nor can a conclusion be drawn when the contrary 271 II, 11| when the contrary of the conclusion is supposed, e.g. that A 272 II, 11| syllogism and an impossible conclusion, but the problem in hand 273 II, 11| shall have a syllogism and a conclusion which is impossible, but 274 II, 11| as well; for the original conclusion was that A belongs to some 275 II, 11| impossible to draw a false conclusion from true premisses: but 276 II, 13| shall have a syllogism and a conclusion which is impossible: but 277 II, 13| middle figure an affirmative conclusion, and in the last figure 278 II, 13| last figure a universal conclusion, are proved in a way.~ 279 II, 14| contradictory of the original conclusion. Also in the ostensive proof 280 II, 14| is not necessary that the conclusion should be known, nor that 281 II, 14| no difference whether the conclusion is affirmative or negative; 282 II, 14| made and the impossible conclusion reached. But this is the 283 II, 14| the contradictory of the conclusion of the ostensive syllogism 284 II, 15| it is possible to draw a conclusion from premisses which are 285 II, 15| contradictories may lead to a conclusion, though not always or in 286 II, 15| possible to draw a true conclusion, as has been said before, 287 II, 17| related to the impossible conclusion, that the conclusion results 288 II, 17| impossible conclusion, that the conclusion results indifferently whether 289 II, 17| irrelevance of an assumption to a conclusion which is false is when a 290 II, 17| middle terms to an impossible conclusion is independent of the hypothesis, 291 II, 17| is where the impossible conclusion is connected with the hypothesis, 292 II, 17| C and C to D, the false conclusion would not depend on the 293 II, 17| this way too the impossible conclusion would result, though the 294 II, 17| eliminated. But the impossible conclusion ought to be connected with 295 II, 17| downwards, the impossible conclusion must be connected with that 296 II, 17| should belong to D, the false conclusion will no longer result after 297 II, 17| upwards, the impossible conclusion must be connected with that 298 II, 17| belong to B, the impossible conclusion will disappear if B is eliminated. 299 II, 17| original terms, the false conclusion does not result on account 300 II, 17| and C to D, the impossible conclusion would still stand. Similarly 301 II, 17| statement that the false conclusion results independently of 302 II, 18| premisses. If then the false conclusion is drawn from two premisses, 303 II, 18| F, and G. Therefore the conclusion and the error results from 304 II, 19| middle in reference to each conclusion, is evident from our knowing 305 II, 20| down is contrary to the conclusion, a refutation must take 306 II, 22| middle. Similarly if the conclusion is negative, e.g. if B belongs 307 II, 22| this alone starts from the conclusion; the preceding moods do 308 II, 24| not apply the syllogistic conclusion to the minor term, whereas 309 II, 25| or more probable than the conclusion; or again an argument in 310 II, 26| possible to draw the contrary conclusion are what we start from when 311 II, 26| cannot produce an affirmative conclusion.~Besides, an objection in 312 II, 27| is refutable even if the conclusion is true, since the syllogism