Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-1/Chapter 50 - Revision history

Ragnarr49 at 18:30, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T18:30:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 20 April 2025
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|\|De mixtione necessarii et impossibilis dicendum est post haec. Et est sciendum quod cum, sicut dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 40, lin. 4-5.</ref>, quaelibet propositio de impossibili aequivaleat alicui propositioni de necessario, ad sciendum quando mixtio necessarii et impossibilis valet et quando non, oportet scire aequipollentiam propositionis de impossibili et propositionis de necessario, et quando uniformis de necessario valet et quando non. De uniformi dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 20-22.</ref> de aequipollentia autem inter propositionem de necessario et impossibili dictum est alibi<ref>Cf. Guillelmus1 de Ockham, ''Expositio in Periherm. Aristot, II'', ad textum: Causa autem est (ed. Bononiae 1496); vide etiam infra, Parte III-2, c. 16.</ref>, ideo ad praesens haec de ista mixtione sufficiant.		\|\|De mixtione necessarii et impossibilis dicendum est post haec. Et est sciendum quod cum, sicut dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 40, lin. 4-5.</ref>, quaelibet propositio de impossibili aequivaleat alicui propositioni de necessario, ad sciendum quando mixtio necessarii et impossibilis valet et quando non, oportet scire aequipollentiam propositionis de impossibili et propositionis de necessario, et quando uniformis de necessario valet et quando non. De uniformi dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 20-22.</ref> de aequipollentia autem inter propositionem de necessario et impossibili dictum est alibi<ref>Cf. Guillelmus1 de Ockham, ''Expositio in Periherm. Aristot, II'', ad textum: Causa autem est (ed. Bononiae 1496); vide etiam infra, Parte III-2, c. 16.</ref>, ideo ad praesens haec de ista mixtione sufficiant.

	\|\|The mixture of the necessary and the impossible must be discussed later. And it must be known that since, as was said before<ref>Supra, cap. 40, lines 4-5.</ref>, any proposition about the impossible is equivalent to some proposition ~~about the necessary~~, in order to know when the mixture of the necessary and the impossible is valid and when it is not, it is necessary to know the equivalence of the proposition about the impossible and the proposition ~~about the necessary~~, and when the uniform proposition ~~about the necessary~~ is valid and when it is not. The uniform proposition has been discussed before<ref>Supra, cap. 20-22.</ref> but the equivalence between the proposition ~~about the necessary~~ and the impossible has been discussed elsewhere<ref>Cf. William of Ockham, ''Exposition in Periherm. Aristotle, II'', to the text: The cause is (ed. Bologna 1496); see also below, Part III-2, c. 16.</ref>, therefore for the present these things about this mixture will suffice.		\|\|The mixture of the necessary and the impossible must be discussed later. And it must be known that since, as was said before<ref>Supra, cap. 40, lines 4-5.</ref>, any proposition about the impossible is equivalent to some proposition de necessario, in order to know when the mixture of the necessary and the impossible is valid and when it is not, it is necessary to know the equivalence of the proposition about the impossible and the proposition de necessario, and when the uniform proposition de necessario is valid and when it is not. The uniform proposition has been discussed before<ref>Supra, cap. 20-22.</ref> but the equivalence between the proposition de necessario and the impossible has been discussed elsewhere<ref>Cf. William of Ockham, ''Exposition in Periherm. Aristotle, II'', to the text: The cause is (ed. Bologna 1496); see also below, Part III-2, c. 16.</ref>, therefore for the present these things about this mixture will suffice.

	\|}		\|}

Ragnarr49 at 00:45, 10 March 2025

2025-03-10T00:45:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 9 March 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|\|Cap. 50. De mixtione necessarii et impossibilis		\|\|Cap. 50. De mixtione necessarii et impossibilis

	\|\|		\|\|Chapter 50. On the mixture of necessary and impossible propositions.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|De mixtione necessarii et impossibilis dicendum est post haec. Et est sciendum quod cum, sicut dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 40, lin. 4-5.</ref>, quaelibet propositio de impossibili aequivaleat alicui propositioni de necessario, ad sciendum quando mixtio necessarii et impossibilis valet et quando non, oportet scire aequipollentiam propositionis de impossibili et propositionis de necessario, et quando uniformis de necessario valet et quando non. De uniformi dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 20-22.</ref> de aequipollentia autem inter propositionem de necessario et impossibili dictum est alibi<ref>Cf. Guillelmus1 de Ockham, ''Expositio in Periherm. Aristot, II'', ad textum: Causa autem est (ed. Bononiae 1496); vide etiam infra, Parte III-2, c. 16.</ref>, ideo ad praesens haec de ista mixtione sufficiant.		\|\|De mixtione necessarii et impossibilis dicendum est post haec. Et est sciendum quod cum, sicut dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 40, lin. 4-5.</ref>, quaelibet propositio de impossibili aequivaleat alicui propositioni de necessario, ad sciendum quando mixtio necessarii et impossibilis valet et quando non, oportet scire aequipollentiam propositionis de impossibili et propositionis de necessario, et quando uniformis de necessario valet et quando non. De uniformi dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 20-22.</ref> de aequipollentia autem inter propositionem de necessario et impossibili dictum est alibi<ref>Cf. Guillelmus1 de Ockham, ''Expositio in Periherm. Aristot, II'', ad textum: Causa autem est (ed. Bononiae 1496); vide etiam infra, Parte III-2, c. 16.</ref>, ideo ad praesens haec de ista mixtione sufficiant.

	\|\|		\|\|The mixture of the necessary and the impossible must be discussed later. And it must be known that since, as was said before<ref>Supra, cap. 40, lines 4-5.</ref>, any proposition about the impossible is equivalent to some proposition about the necessary, in order to know when the mixture of the necessary and the impossible is valid and when it is not, it is necessary to know the equivalence of the proposition about the impossible and the proposition about the necessary, and when the uniform proposition about the necessary is valid and when it is not. The uniform proposition has been discussed before<ref>Supra, cap. 20-22.</ref> but the equivalence between the proposition about the necessary and the impossible has been discussed elsewhere<ref>Cf. William of Ockham, ''Exposition in Periherm. Aristotle, II'', to the text: The cause is (ed. Bologna 1496); see also below, Part III-2, c. 16.</ref>, therefore for the present these things about this mixture will suffice.

	\|}		\|}

Edward Ockham at 09:18, 13 June 2015

2015-06-13T09:18:54Z

New page

{{Nextpage|[[../Chapter 49|Chapter 49]]|[[../Chapter 51|Chapter 51]]}}

{| border=1 cellpadding=10
!valign = top width=45%|Latin
!valign = top width=55%|English

|- valign = top
||Cap. 50. De mixtione necessarii et impossibilis

||

|- valign = top
||De mixtione necessarii et impossibilis dicendum est post haec. Et est sciendum quod cum, sicut dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 40, lin. 4-5.</ref>, quaelibet propositio de impossibili aequivaleat alicui propositioni de necessario, ad sciendum quando mixtio necessarii et impossibilis valet et quando non, oportet scire aequipollentiam propositionis de impossibili et propositionis de necessario, et quando uniformis de necessario valet et quando non. De uniformi dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 20-22.</ref> de aequipollentia autem inter propositionem de necessario et impossibili dictum est alibi<ref>Cf. Guillelmus1 de Ockham, ''Expositio in Periherm. Aristot, II'', ad textum: Causa autem est (ed. Bononiae 1496); vide etiam infra, Parte III-2, c. 16.</ref>, ideo ad praesens haec de ista mixtione sufficiant.

||

|}

==Notes==
<references/>