Book, Paragraph

 1      V,  2 |           the terms not being more intelligible, one test is to see whether
 2      V,  2 |      property constituted is to be intelligible: the terms therefore in
 3      V,  2 |            rendered should be more intelligible: for in that case it will
 4      V,  2 |         term "soul", which is less intelligible than "fire"-for we know
 5      V,  2 |          subject) fails to be more intelligible. For not only should the
 6      V,  2 |        should the property be more intelligible than its subject, but also
 7      V,  2 |       particular subject is a more intelligible attribution. For he who
 8      V,  2 |            a subject which is less intelligible than "fire", viz. whether
 9      V,  2 |        property is stated are more intelligible, and if they are more intelligible
10      V,  2 | intelligible, and if they are more intelligible in each of the aforesaid
11      V,  2 |         animal" has both used more intelligible terms and has rendered the
12      V,  2 |         rendered the property more intelligible in each of the aforesaid
13      V,  3 |           to it, and so is no more intelligible. Accordingly it is impossible
14      V,  3 |          not make the subject more intelligible: thus, for destructive purposes,
15      V,  3 |          not make its subject more intelligible. Thus (e.g.) any one who
16      V,  6 |          the other living beings, "intelligible living being" could not
17     VI,  4 |            that are prior and more intelligible. For the reason why the
18     VI,  4 |         such as are prior and more intelligible, as is done in demonstrations (
19     VI,  4 |            that are prior and more intelligible has also framed a definition,
20     VI,  4 |            that are prior and more intelligible has not defined it at all.~
21     VI,  4 |         not been made through more intelligible terms may be understood
22     VI,  4 |          terms are absolutely less intelligible, or supposing that they
23     VI,  4 |       supposing that they are less intelligible to us: for either sense
24     VI,  4 |       absolutely the prior is more intelligible than the posterior, a point,
25     VI,  4 |        just as also a unit is more intelligible than a number; for it is
26     VI,  4 |             also, a letter is more intelligible than a syllable. Whereas
27     VI,  4 |  expression through terms that are intelligible to them. Among definitions
28     VI,  4 |        that the same thing is more intelligible both to us and also absolutely,
29     VI,  4 |          which are absolutely more intelligible than, and prior to, the
30     VI,  4 |        species. They are also more intelligible; for if the species be known,
31     VI,  4 |           thus the species is less intelligible. Moreover, those who say
32     VI,  4 |         which proceed from what is intelligible to this, that, or the other
33     VI,  4 |          different things are more intelligible to different people, not
34     VI,  4 |      constructed from what is more intelligible to particular individuals.
35     VI,  4 |          different things are more intelligible at different times; first
36     VI,  4 |      rendered through what is more intelligible to particular individuals
37     VI,  4 |            what is absolutely more intelligible: for only in this way could
38     VI,  4 |           also, what is absolutely intelligible is what is intelligible,
39     VI,  4 |            intelligible is what is intelligible, not to all, but to those
40     VI,  4 |            what is absolutely more intelligible nor yet from what is so
41     VI,  4 |       failure to work through more intelligible terms is the exhibition
42     VI,  4 |           the one is not even more intelligible than the other. One must,
43     VI,  5 |            that are prior and more intelligible: and of this the subdivisions
44     VI,  11|   definition, and moreover is less intelligible when put in that form.~Look
45     VI,  13|           enough to make the thing intelligible. For the essence of any