| Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library |
| Aristotle Prior Analytics IntraText - Concordances (Hapax - words occurring once) |
bold = Main text
Book, Paragraph grey = Comment text
1 I, 28| 28~If men wish to establish
2 I, 29| 29~Syllogisms which lead to
3 I, 30| 30~The method is the same in
4 I, 31| 31~It is easy to see that division
5 I, 32| 32~Our next business is to
6 I, 33| 33~Men are frequently deceived
7 I, 34| 34~Men will frequently fall
8 I, 35| 35~We must not always seek
9 I, 36| 36~That the first term belongs
10 I, 37| 37~The expressions "this belongs
11 I, 38| 38~A term which is repeated
12 I, 39| 39~We ought also to exchange
13 I, 40| 40~Since the expressions "pleasure
14 I, 41| 41~It is not the same, either
15 I, 42| 42~We should not forget that
16 I, 43| 43~In reference to those arguments
17 I, 44| 44~Further we must not try
18 I, 45| 45~Whatever problems are proved
19 I, 46| 46~In establishing or refuting,
20 I, 17| But if this is assumed, no absurdity results: consequently no
21 I, 36| double of this", or the accusative, e.g. "that which strikes
22 II, 21| of the particulars, by an act (as it were) of recognition.
23 I, 38| that which is", but if we add the qualification "that
24 I, 24| pleasure is good without adding "all", no syllogism will
25 I, 25| Similarly with any further additions. And similarly too if the
26 I, 30| once the phenomena were adequately apprehended, the demonstrations
27 II, 19| men to beware of in their admissions, they ought in attack to
28 I, 19| that which is necessary is admittedly distinct from that which
29 I, 1 | dialectical premiss depends on the adversary’s choice between two contradictories.
30 I, 1 | premiss then is a sentence affirming or denying one thing of
31 I, 4 | arrangement of terms will not afford a syllogism: otherwise one
32 II, 11| the contradictory has been agreed to already, but because
33 I, 43| reference to those arguments aiming at a definition which have
34 I, 22| shall have a syllogism by altering the premiss into its complementary
35 II, 20| conceded, or the answers alternate (one, I mean, being affirmative,
36 I, 25| terms odd; but they will alternate-when the premisses are even,
37 I, 25| terms odd, we must make them alternately even and odd at each addition.
38 I, 31| pursue the other method altogether, never even suspecting the
39 II, 10| concerns the minor extreme is alway refuted through the middle
40 II, 21| to two right angles" is ambiguous, meaning to have the knowledge
41 I, 13| impossible. We say indeed ambiguously of the necessary that it
42 I, 42| another. Clearly then we must analyse arguments in accordance
43 I, 38| with a good. In this way an analysis of the argument can be made.
44 [Title] | Prior Analytics~
45 I, 22| first figure once more: and-since the negative premiss is
46 I, 20| relation take the terms animal-man-white; to illustrate the negative,
47 I, 31| that man should be a mortal animal-this is begged: and this is what
48 I, 16| illustrate the negative, animal-white-inanimate. For the relation of animal
49 I, 16| the positive relation, or animal-white-pitch to illustrate the negative;
50 I, 16| negative we may take the terms animal-white-raven to illustrate the positive
51 I, 16| the positive relation, and animal-white-snow to illustrate the negative
52 I, 16| affirmative we may take the terms animal-white-swan to illustrate the positive
53 I, 6 | affirmative relation are animate, man, animal. For the universal
54 I, 32| is not annihilated by the annihilation of what is not substance,
55 II, 16| uncertain as the question to be answered cannot be a principle of
56 II, 20| everything is conceded, or the answers alternate (one, I mean,
57 II, 16| or he may establish the antecedent by means of its consequents;
58 I, 1 | assertion of that which is apparent and generally admitted,
59 I, 27| of the latter those which apparently and those which really belong.
60 I, 16| or both particular. Terms applicable in either case to illustrate
61 II, 24| by example does make this application and does not draw its proof
62 II, 4 | belongs to all. The same applies to negative statements.~
63 II, 24| the middle, and does not apply the syllogistic conclusion
64 I, 27| and in proportion as he apprehends those which are truer, the
65 II, 25| cases it turns out that we approach more nearly to knowledge.
66 I, 27| Socrates, or that that which approaches is Callias. We shall explain
67 II, 2 | true, but the premisses arc false.~
68 I, 14| predicates cover unequal areas. Let C be that by which
69 II, 21| the terms, so error may arise in our thought about them,
70 II, 10| For either both premisses arrived at by the conversion must
71 II, 22| of the other desires and arts.~
72 II, 17| one takes the terms in an ascending series. Consequently since
73 II, 19| belongs to E, instead of asking whether B belongs to C;
74 II, 19| care, whenever an opponent asks us to admit the reason without
75 I, 44| proved by syllogism, but assented to by agreement. For instance
76 I, 12| both premisses are simple assertions, but a necessary conclusion
77 I, 30| apprehended, the demonstrations of astronomy were discovered. Similarly
78 II, 24| war against neighbours, C Athenians against Thebans, D Thebans
79 II, 19| admissions, they ought in attack to try to conceal. This
80 I, 5 | affirmative conclusion is not attained by means of this figure,
81 I, 31| method of division; and they attempted to persuade men that it
82 I, 4 | the middle term cannot be attributed. Suppose the terms are animal,
83 II, 19| 19~In order to avoid having a syllogism drawn
84 II, 5 | A belongs to C, and C to B-so A belongs to B: but in the
85 I, 24| e.g. that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle
86 | begin
87 I, 3 | conversion these premisses will behave like the other affirmative
88 II, 21| to which B belongs, these beliefs are wholly or partially
89 I, 14| not possible that A should belong-either to all or to none or to
90 | below
91 II, 19| That which we urge men to beware of in their admissions,
92 II, 23| B also ("not possessing bile") belongs to all C. If then
93 II, 4 | man, and beautiful to some bipeds. If then it is assumed that
94 I, 10| is possible for man to be born white, not however so long
95 II, 1 | investigate a given problem in any branch of inquiry, also by what
96 I, 41| line" or "this line without breadth" exists although it does
97 I, 11| not belong to some of the Bs-but not of necessity; for it
98 II, 8 | belong, not to no C at all, but-not to some C. And if A belongs
99 I, 25| and C. But if this can be called one syllogism, not many,
100 I, 46| he is able not to walk", capacity to walk and incapacity to
101 II, 19| against us we must take care, whenever an opponent asks
102 II, 21| other hand has his thought caused an error contrary to his
103 II, 5 | to prove both the premiss CB, and the premiss BA: for
104 I, 24| B have been drawn to the centre. If then one should assume
105 I, 13| generally what happens by chance: for none of these inclines
106 I, 13| must state the nature and characteristics of the syllogism which arises
107 I, 30| terms, both how they are characterized and how we must hunt for
108 I, 8 | reference to this: with terms so chosen the conclusion will necessarily
109 I, 31| to see that division into classes is a small part of the method
110 I, 27| truly and universally, e.g. Cleon and Callias, i.e. the individual
111 II, 19| to propositions which are closely connected they take as far
112 II, 3 | no C, e.g. a genus to its co-ordinate species. For animal belongs
113 I, 27| which are truer, the more cogently will he demonstrate. But
114 II, 27| then this is so, and we can collect signs of this sort in these
115 I, 35| individual thing, but sometimes a complex of words, as happens in
116 I, 35| for we shall often have complexes of words to which a single
117 I, 29| figures, and these cannot be composed through other terms than
118 I, 32| than into small, and the composite parts are larger than the
119 I, 37| and further as simple or compound: the same holds good of
120 I, 31| always be inferior to and not comprehend the first of the extremes.
121 II, 19| ought in attack to try to conceal. This will be possible first,
122 I, 8 | related terms, one syllogism concluding from what is necessary,
123 II, 27| women with child and is a concomitant of this woman, people suppose
124 II, 27| signs which are its proper concomitants is the sign of a particular
125 I, 23| between the two, which will connect the predications, if we
126 I, 1 | are indeed the necessary consequences of the terms set down, but
127 I, 23| aforesaid figures; these considerations will show that reductiones
128 II, 21| and who has not previously considered the particular question.
129 I, 11| point may be made clear by considering the terms. Let the term
130 II, 21| belongs to C, unless he considers the two propositions together.
131 I, 25| premisses, every syllogism will consist of an even number of premisses
132 I, 25| a syllogism will not be constructed. Consequently the conclusions
133 II, 16| who suppose that they are constructing parallel straight lines:
134 I, 27| only to investigate the construction of syllogisms, but also
135 I, 46| way for both are proved constructively by means of the first figure.
136 I, 23| pointed out the truth of our contention will be clear with regard
137 II, 17| reduction. For unless a man has contradicted this proposition he will
138 I, 23| falsehood results through contradicting this. For this we found
139 II, 15| shall get a result that contradicts our hypothesis. But we must
140 II, 15| For the syllogism owed its contrariety to its contradictory premisses;
141 II, 3 | the premisses are stated contrariwise and it is assumed that A
142 I, 28| predicate in question: or conversely to the attributes which
143 I, 17| not possible to prove the convertibility of these propositions by
144 I, 13| definition of the possible is correct is clear from the phrases
145 I, 14| A, so that as predicates cover unequal areas. Let C be
146 I, 14| definition laid down, not as covering necessity. This is sometimes
147 II, 21| learning is recollection may be criticized in a similar way. For it
148 II, 19| leave the conclusions in the dark; secondly if instead of
149 I, 36| of each term-either the dative, e.g. "equal to this", or
150 I, 3 | must be treated like those dealt with above. But if anything
151 I, 13| turning grey or growing or decaying, or generally what naturally
152 II, 19| way he will most likely deceive his opponent.~
153 I, 33| shown) is possible.~This deception then arises through ignoring
154 II, 5 | one of the premisses, and deduce the remaining premiss.~In
155 I, 27| down the subject and the definitions and the properties of the
156 I, 35| proposition AB, although it is demonstrable. For it is clear that the
157 II, 17| proof; for here what one denies is not assumed as a premiss.
158 I, 1 | a sentence affirming or denying one thing of another. This
159 I, 44| mark out clearly. We shall describe in the sequel their differences,
160 II, 27| way stated, and among them designate the middle term as the index (
161 I, 26| are easier game for the destroyer than particulars: for whether
162 I, 46| is not musical is proved destructively in the three ways mentioned.~
163 I, 29| But we must consider and determine in how many ways hypothetical
164 I, 32| for the middle term is determined in the same way. Clearly
165 II, 21| triangle, C for a particular diagram of a triangle. A man might
166 I, 41| not, but does not use the diagrams in the sense that he reasons
167 I, 30| the treatise concerning dialectic.~
168 I, 1 | the demonstrator and the dialectician argue syllogistically after
169 I, 44| an hypothesis. But these differ from the previous arguments:
170 I, 31| of demonstration and the differentiae. In conclusion, they do
171 I, 8 | relations, and syllogisms with differently related terms, one syllogism
172 II, 11| it resembles conversion, differing only in this: conversion
173 II, 17| impossible conclusion will disappear if B is eliminated. Similarly
174 I, 19| premiss that definitely disconnects two terms is universal and
175 I, 1 | vice versa.~A syllogism is discourse in which, certain things
176 I, 30| survey, we should be able to discover the proof and demonstrate
177 I, 30| demonstrations of astronomy were discovered. Similarly with any other
178 I, 32| syllogisms and had the power of discovering them, and further if we
179 I, 32| either in writing or in discussion: or men put forward the
180 I, 34| possibility. For health and diseae and knowledge and ignorance,
181 I, 33| through ignoring a small distinction. For if we accept the conclusion
182 I, 27| attributes which follow we must distinguish those which fall within
183 I, 43| shall be less likely to be disturbed by the length of the term:
184 I, 28| middle term must be not diverse but identical. Secondly,
185 I, 31| signified by D. The man who divides assumes that every animal
186 II, 16| conversion, then he would be doing what we have described and
187 I, 36| or the genitive, e.g. "double of this", or the accusative,
188 II, 19| possible first, if, instead of drawing the conclusions of preliminary
189 I, 29| every E: and again if the Ds and the Gs should be identical,
190 II, 16| prove when the failure is due to the thesis to be proved
191 II, 22| is to the same extent as each-the one an object of aversion,
192 I, 13| an animal’s walking or an earthquake’s taking place while it
193 II, 16| what we have described and effecting a reciprocal proof with
194 II, 26| particular objection cannot be elicited from the first figure or
195 II, 26| figure: for the term which embraces the original subject becomes
196 II, 27| when I speak of natural emotions. If then this were granted
197 | enough
198 II, 27| come into being. Now an enthymeme is a syllogism starting
199 II, 23| induction proceeds through an enumeration of all the cases.~Such is
200 II, 27| a probability, e.g. "the envious hate", "the beloved show
201 I, 31| First, this very point had escaped all those who used the method
202 I, 5 | relation, white, animal, swan. Evidently then, whenever the premisses
203 I, 18| similarly and by the same examples as above), but when the
204 II, 11| impossibile in all the figures, excepting the universal affirmative,
205 I, 16| or necessity, with this exception, that if the negative premiss
206 I, 8 | of something". With the exceptions to be made below, the conclusion
207 I, 39| 39~We ought also to exchange terms which have the same
208 I, 4 | either contained in, or excluded from, the first as in or
209 I, 30| business will then be to exhibit readily the demonstrations.
210 I, 38| object of knowledge qua not existing, or man perishable qua an
211 I, 27| approaches is Callias. We shall explain in another place that there
212 I, 1 | down, but have not been expressly stated as premisses.~That
213 I, 14| Let C be that by which B extends beyond A. To C it is not
214 II, 23| middle term is not wider in extension, it is necessary that A
215 II, 17| angle is greater than the exterior and on the assumption that
216 I, 25| premisses by one (for the extra term must either be added
217 II, 16| see that they are assuming facts which it is impossible to
218 II, 16| straight lines: for they fail to see that they are assuming
219 I, 28| necessary way because they have failed to observe the identity
220 II, 16| of itself, in other words failing to prove when the failure
221 I, 30| general then we have explained fairly well how we must select
222 II, 15| is evident also that in fallacious reasonings nothing prevents
223 I, 19| for nothing prevents C falling under B, A being possible
224 I, 29| the premisses is assumed falsely.~These points will be made
225 II, 20| conceded universally: since the fields of refutation and syllogism
226 II, 7 | third and through the first figure-if the conclusion is affirmative
227 I, 41| who says that "this line a foot long" or "this straight
228 I, 46| true" stands on a similar footing to "it is". For the negation
229 II, 21| that a man starts with a foreknowledge of the particular, but along
230 I, 14| necessity. This is sometimes forgotten.~
231 I, 24| consider also the other forms of predication.~It is clear
232 II, 17| argument; nor will he use the formula in the case of an ostensive
233 II, 15| clear in this way. Verbally four kinds of opposition are
234 II, 22| then is more dependent on friendship than on intercourse. And
235 II, 26| middle figure would require a fuller argument, e.g. if it should
236 I, 26| general, universals are easier game for the destroyer than particulars:
237 II, 6 | for the same reason as we gave above, but the particular
238 I, 36| equal to this", or the genitive, e.g. "double of this",
239 II, 15| particular negative. Of the genuine opposites I call those which
240 I, 24| This is more obvious in geometrical proofs, e.g. that the angles
241 I, 41| particular thing, but imitate the geometrician who says that "this line
242 I, 1 | dialectical premiss is the giving of a choice between two
243 I, 38| of knowledge qua good, of goat-stag an object of knowledge qua
244 I, 28| this manner are looking gratuitously for some other way than
245 I, 13| possible that a man should not grow grey) and what is indefinite
246 I, 13| e.g. man’s turning grey or growing or decaying, or generally
247 I, 25| the conclusions will be half the number of the premisses.
248 I, 8 | what is possible.~There is hardly any difference between syllogisms
249 II, 27| probability, e.g. "the envious hate", "the beloved show affection".
250 I, 27| follows or does not follow the highest term universally must not
251 | him
252 I, 30| had been omitted in the historical survey, we should be able
253 I, 20| negative, take the terms horse-man-white—white being the middle term.~
254 I, 30| characterized and how we must hunt for them, so as not to look
255 I, 28| have failed to observe the identity of the Bs with the Hs.~
256 II, 21| nothing prevents his being ignorant that C exists; e.g. let
257 I, 33| deception then arises through ignoring a small distinction. For
258 I, 25| to be possible. But if (iii) the conclusion is other
259 I, 41| demonstrate without these illustrative terms, as it is to demonstrate
260 I, 41| this particular thing, but imitate the geometrician who says
261 I, 27| because the negative statement implied above is convertible. Of
262 I, 46| not a white log" do not imply one another’s truth. For
263 I, 29| some of the Es and this is impossible-if now it is assumed that B
264 I, 6 | negative relation man, horse, inanimate-inanimate being the middle term.~It
265 I, 46| walk", capacity to walk and incapacity to walk will belong at the
266 I, 28| some of the Hs: for that includes everything which cannot
267 I, 1 | syllogism; and after that, the inclusion or noninclusion of one term
268 I, 23| proves hypothetically the incommensurability of the diagonal, since a
269 I, 17| these propositions are not incompatible, "A may belong to no B", "
270 I, 5 | universally, or is related to them indefinitely. Common terms for all the
271 II, 17| false conclusion results independently of the assumption, in the
272 I, 15| for example, one should indicate the premisses by A, and
273 I, 27| other things. Neither can individuals be predicated of other things,
274 II, 23| manner in which we make inductions. For example let A stand
275 I, 25| syllogistic, the other by inductive inference. But thus also
276 I, 23| to be commensurate. One infers syllogistically that odd
277 I, 31| assumes in the same way that A inheres either in B or in C (for
278 I, 38| is good" is false and not intelligible. Similarly if it should
279 I, 31| division has a contrary intention: for it takes the universal
280 II, 17| the assumption that the interior angle is greater than the
281 II, 15| animal". Either we must introduce the contradiction by an
282 I, 29| problem, but the new terms introduced; and the method of the inquiry
283 I, 32| which they are inferred, and invite the concession of others
284 II, 19| secondly if instead of inviting assent to propositions which
285 I, 29| cases the same inquiry is involved. For what is proved ostensively
286 II, 27| through the first figure is irrefutable if it is true (for it is
287 II, 17| most obvious case of the irrelevance of an assumption to a conclusion
288 II, 26| science: the former argument issues from the first, the latter
289 II, 27| courage in the lion also. To judge character from features,
290 I, 28| reference to A we must look to KC rather than to C alone.
291 II, 21| did not exist, though he knew that every triangle contains
292 II, 8 | reached by O, conversion lacks universality, but no refutation
293 | later
294 I, 41| is formed. We (I mean the learner) use the process of setting
295 II, 19| necessary premisses and leave the conclusions in the dark;
296 II, 21| with the process of being led to see the general principle
297 I, 14| fall under the term B is left out of account. But whenever
298 I, 27| that there is an upward limit also to the process of predicating:
299 I, 27| Whatever lies between these limits can be spoken of in both
300 II, 27| individual kind, e.g. courage to lions, it is necessary that there
301 I, 43| that water is a drinkable liquid, we must take as terms drinkable
302 I, 31| it turns out that these logicians assume as middle the universal
303 II, 5 | of that to none of which longs. Let A belong to none of
304 I, 28| inquire in this manner are looking gratuitously for some other
305 II, 22| aversion than B. If then every lover in virtue of his love would
306 II, 25| rectilinear figure by the help of lunules), we should be near to knowledge.
307 II, 19| since we know how we are maintaining the argument.~That which
308 I, 36| belong" to have as many meanings as the senses in which the
309 I, 35| belongs to B without the mediation of another term: for the
310 II, 17| hypotheses, e.g. that parallels meet, both on the assumption
311 II, 21| ignorance. The argument in the Meno that learning is recollection
312 I, 28| is clear too that other methods of inquiry by selection
313 I, 25| prevents there being several middles for the same terms. But
314 I, 23| So we must take something midway between the two, which will
315 I, 32| assume the one which is missing. For sometimes men put forward
316 II, 21| man both knowing and being mistaken about the same thing, provided
317 II, 21| possible that we may make mistakes about them, but not that
318 I, 15| syllogisms will result if the modality of the premisses is reversed,
319 I, 10| conversion is possible without modifying the relation.~But if the
320 I, 15| reference to the present moment, there cannot be a syllogism.
321 | Moreover
322 | my
323 I, 35| words to which a single name is not given. Hence it is
324 | namely
325 II, 25| out that we approach more nearly to knowledge. For example
326 I, 5 | premisses; others also are needed.~But if M is predicated
327 I, 20| both premisses should be negative-the one universal and the other
328 I, 15| problematic or assertoric, nohow is a syllogism possible.
329 I, 1 | after that, the inclusion or noninclusion of one term in another as
330 I, 27| having this character of normality. For the conclusion of each
331 II, 4 | by the being and by the not-being of the same thing. I mean,
332 I, 36| according to the case of the noun. For we state this universally
333 I, 5 | relation, substance, animal, number-substance being the middle term.~Nor
334 II, 26| objection is particular, the objector must frame his contradiction
335 I, 36| good, contraries, not in oblique cases, e.g. of man, of a
336 I, 25| sake of induction or of obscuring the argument or something
337 I, 28| because they have failed to observe the identity of the Bs with
338 I, 34| man. Again the fallacy may occur in a similar way in the
339 | off
340 | often
341 II, 15| syllogism can be made both oLcontradictories and of contraries. Let A
342 I, 32| principal syllogism, but omit those through which they
343 I, 26| can be refuted in one way only-by proving that the predicate
344 II, 21| Similarly therefore with "opine". Perhaps then this is necessary
345 I, 36| We must take as terms opportunity-right time-God: but the premiss
346 II, 15| Topics. Since there are three oppositions to affirmative statements,
347 | over
348 I, 26| establish, most easy to overthrow. In general, universals
349 II, 15| not odd. For the syllogism owed its contrariety to its contradictory
350 II, 16| that they are constructing parallel straight lines: for they
351 I, 20| universal and the other particular-although no syllogistic conclusion
352 I, 4 | affirmatively or negatively, and particularity with reference to the minor
353 I, 5 | positively or negatively, and particularly to the minor and in a manner
354 II, 21| sensible thing, once it has passed beyond the range of our
355 II, 27| to us; rather I refer to passions and desires when I speak
356 I, 44| because the falsity is patent, e.g. the falsity of what
357 II, 21| even if we happen to have perceived it, except by means of the
358 I, 41| of setting out terms like perception by sense, not as though
359 I, 5 | syllogism; for necessity is not perfectly established merely from
360 I, 15| present or to a particular period, but simply without qualification.
361 I, 33| for musical Miccalus might perish to-morrow. But to state
362 I, 33| universally that musical Miccalus perishes to-morrow: but unless this
363 I, 33| musical Miccalus", A for "perishing to-morrow". It is true to
364 I, 46| the same time to the same person (for the same man can both
365 II, 16| itself. This is what those persons do who suppose that they
366 I, 31| division; and they attempted to persuade men that it was possible
367 II, 23| and in general any form of persuasion, however it may be presented.
368 I, 30| astronomical science: for once the phenomena were adequately apprehended,
369 I, 30| the same in all cases, in philosophy, in any art or study. We
370 I, 13| correct is clear from the phrases by which we deny or on the
371 II, 16| identical, or if they are plainly convertible, or the one
372 I, 23| for after these have been pointed out the truth of our contention
373 II, 14| ostensive proof in that it posits what it wishes to refute
374 II, 27| their members, some members possess one of the affections and
375 I, 46| walk and not-walk, and is possessed of knowledge of what is
376 II, 23| long-lived. But B also ("not possessing bile") belongs to all C.
377 I, 3 | not necessary and what is potential is possible), affirmative
378 I, 25| added less by one than the pre-existing terms: for the conclusion
379 I, 15| the spheres of truth and predicability, and the various other spheres
380 I, 23| which will connect the predications, if we are to have a syllogism
381 II, 22| virtue of his love would prefer A, viz. that the beloved
382 II, 26| for contraries. If a man premises that contraries are subjects
383 I, 31| never even suspecting the presence of the rich supply of evidence
384 II, 23| persuasion, however it may be presented. For every belief comes
385 I, 23| so treated, will be clear presently, when it has been proved
386 II, 21| grant the first point. But presumably that is false, that any
387 II, 15| contradiction and the terms presupposed are either identical or
388 I, 19| necessary conclusion: for that presupposes that both premisses are
389 II, 17| make in argument, is made primarily in the case of a reductio
390 I, 32| forward the premisses of the principal syllogism, but omit those
391 I, 46| belong to the same thing.~Privative terms are similarly related
392 II, 27| syllogism starting from probabilities or signs, and a sign may
393 I, 22| the negative premiss is problematic-it is clear that the conclusion
394 I, 1 | contradictories, when a man is proceeding by question, but when he
395 I, 7 | conversion, and conversion produces the first figure: if they
396 I, 31| conclusion about an accident or property of a thing, nor about its
397 I, 27| reach a conclusion; and in proportion as he apprehends those which
398 I, 28| belong to none of the Es by a prosyllogism: for since the negative
399 I, 25| conclusion is reached by means of prosyllogisms or by means of several continuous
400 I, 29| terms of the problem to be proved-not the terms of the original
401 I, 41| part and part to whole, the prover does not prove from them,
402 I, 31| inquiry may be: for they pursue the other method altogether,
403 I, 30| them in another, in the pursuit of truth starting from premisses
404 I, 38| qualification and when it is qualified by some attribute or condition,
405 I, 25| a term is added from any quarter. Consequently since the
406 I, 27| man has of these, the more quickly will he reach a conclusion;
407 II, 21| it has passed beyond the range of our senses, even if we
408 I, 13| possible" is in the same rank as "to be", as was said
409 I, 3 | expression "is possible" ranks along with "is", and "is"
410 I, 14| nothing prevents B from reaching beyond A, so that as predicates
411 I, 30| will then be to exhibit readily the demonstrations. For
412 II, 15| also that in fallacious reasonings nothing prevents a contradiction
413 I, 41| diagrams in the sense that he reasons from them. For in general,
414 II, 17| reductio ad impossibile, to rebut the proposition which was
415 II, 22| granting the favour. To receive affection then is preferable
416 II, 21| by an act (as it were) of recognition. For we know some things
417 II, 21| the Meno that learning is recollection may be criticized in a similar
418 I, 23| the first figure and is reducible to the universal syllogisms
419 I, 7 | means of the second figure, reducing them ad impossibile, e.g.
420 I, 23| considerations will show that reductiones ad also are effected in
421 I, 23| falsehood is established in reductions ad impossibile by an ostensive
422 I, 23| premisses, and a syllogism referring to this out of premisses
423 II, 15| which is the mode in which refutations are made), or we must argue
424 I, 23| contention will be clear with regard to those which are proved
425 II, 11| the other premiss assumed relates to A, no syllogism will
426 I, 16| relation-white-animal-snow, and for the negative relation-white-animal-pitch.~The same relation will
427 I, 16| serve both for the positive relation-white-animal-snow, and for the negative relation-white-animal-pitch.~
428 I, 24| pleasure in music, it is not relevant to the subject proposed;
429 I, 1 | being added and "not being" removed, or vice versa.~A syllogism
430 I, 38| 38~A term which is repeated in the premisses ought to
431 I, 38| true of C: for that which C represents is something. Consequently
432 II, 26| the middle figure would require a fuller argument, e.g.
433 I, 29| with the other propositions requiring proof. The proof per impossibile
434 II, 5 | A and the conclusion is retained, B will belong to some C:
435 II, 23| aforesaid figures, but also rhetorical syllogisms and in general
436 I, 31| suspecting the presence of the rich supply of evidence which
437 I, 46| apprehending the opposites rightly, one of which must belong
438 I, 27| problem proposed and by what road we may reach the principles
439 I, 25| purpose, unless for the sake of induction or of obscuring
440 I, 41| imitate the geometrician who says that "this line a foot long"
441 II, 16| are not convertible. In scientific demonstrations the question
442 I, 35| will result from such a search, e.g. the belief that syllogism
443 I, 35| 35~We must not always seek to set out the terms a single
444 I, 28| through these. But if we are seeking consequents and antecedents
445 I, 36| e.g. "that which strikes or sees this", or the nominative,
446 I, 28| other methods of inquiry by selection of middle terms are useless
447 II, 15| anything of that sort unless a self-contradictory premiss is at once assumed,
448 I, 24| generally that angles of semicircles are equal; and again if
449 I, 1 | another.~A premiss then is a sentence affirming or denying one
450 II, 14| and it is not possible to separate one method from the other.~
451 I, 46| false: for as we proved the sequence is reversed in terms so
452 II, 22| is preferable in love to sexual intercourse. Love then is
453 I, 32| premisses are not in the shape we required. We are deceived
454 I, 13| happen generally and fall short of necessity, e.g. man’s
455 II, 27| it should have a single sign-we shall then be able to infer
456 I, 11| good", let that which B signifies be "animal", let the term
457 I, 33| they are deceived by the similarity in the positing of the terms;
458 II, 26| objection from contraries, from similars, and from common opinion,
459 II, 15| assumed as premisses in six ways; we may have either
460 I, 22| the former take the terms sleep-sleeping horse-man; to illustrate
461 I, 22| the latter take the terms sleep-waking horse-man.~Similar results
462 I, 27| that that white object is Socrates, or that that which approaches
463 I, 25| will have A and B for its sole premisses. But if C and
464 II, 14| which each problem will be solved. It is clear then that every
465 | somehow
466 I, 42| the premisses should be sought.~
467 II, 27| according to our usual manner of speaking. The same thing then will
468 I, 38| something" indicates the thing’s special nature. But if "being" were
469 I, 41| same, either in fact or in speech, that A belongs to all of
470 I, 15| possible not only in the sphere of becoming, but also in
471 II, 17| syllogism is concluded in spite of the refutation of this
472 II, 25| example let D stand for squaring, E for rectilinear figure,
473 II, 21| knowing that every mule is sterile and that this is a mule,
474 I, 36| accusative, e.g. "that which strikes or sees this", or the nominative,
475 I, 30| philosophy, in any art or study. We must look for the attributes
476 I, 4 | every syllogism is produced; subsequently we must speak of demonstration.
477 II, 5 | proved. Consequently if we succeed in demonstrating this premiss,
478 I, 1 | premisses, may be taken as sufficiently defined by us in relation
479 II, 11| But in neither way does it suit to maintain the contrary:
480 I, 30| astronomical experience supplies the principles of astronomical
481 II, 17| the first assumption is suppressed or not, it would appear
482 I, 30| omitted in the historical survey, we should be able to discover
483 I, 31| method altogether, never even suspecting the presence of the rich
484 I, 1 | question, but when he is syllogizing it is the assertion of that
485 I, 46| similarly related positive ter terms respect of this arrangement.
486 I, 36| reference to the cases of each term-either the dative, e.g. "equal
487 II, 27| one affection proper to them-but each affection has its sign,
488 | thereby
489 I, 36| terms opportunity-right time-God: but the premiss must be
490 II, 15| every science is good" one took "the science of medicine
491 II, 17| original hypothesis. Or again trace the connexion upwards; e.g.
492 I, 30| matter accurately in the treatise concerning dialectic.~
493 II, 16| something else), whenever a man tries to prove what is not self-evident
494 I, 27| apprehends those which are truer, the more cogently will
495 I, 13| of necessity, e.g. man’s turning grey or growing or decaying,
496 II, 19| grant him the same term twice over in his premisses, since
497 I, 27| must assume this. Of these ultimate predicates it is not possible
498 I, 13| this has not its necessity unbroken, since man’s existence is
499 I, 25| syllogisms will be many, and unconnected with one another. But if
500 II, 5 | syllogism results must be undemonstrated: for it is not possible