Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-1/Chapter 58 - Revision history

Ragnarr49 at 20:49, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T20:49:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:49, 20 April 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|\|Cap. 58. De mixtione propositionum de possibili et aliarum modalium in prima figura		\|\|Cap. 58. De mixtione propositionum de possibili et aliarum modalium in prima figura

	\|\|Chapter 58. On the mixture of propositions ~~of possibility~~ and of other modals in the first figure.		\|\|Chapter 58. On the mixture of propositions de possibili and of other modals in the first figure.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|De mixtione propositionis de possibili et aliarum modalium a quatuor famosis dicendum est post haec. Et primo in prima figura.		\|\|De mixtione propositionis de possibili et aliarum modalium a quatuor famosis dicendum est post haec. Et primo in prima figura.

	\|\|The mixture of a proposition ~~of possibility~~ and modals other than the four famous ones will be discussed next, and first in the first figure.		\|\|The mixture of a proposition de possibili and modals other than the four famous ones will be discussed next, and first in the first figure.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Et est sciendum quod talis mixtio non valet si ambae praemissae sumantur in sensu compositionis. Sicut non sequitur 'omne animal esse hominem est scitum a te; omnem asinum esse animal est possibile; igitur omnem asinum esse hominem est possibile vel scitum a te’. Tamen quandocumque aliquis modus sumptus est inferior ad necessarium, cuiusmodi {{p\|491}} sunt tales modi 'per se demonstrabile', 'per se notum’ et huiusmodi, semper ex tali maiore de tali modo et minore de possibili sequitur conclusio de possibili; et etiam si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de tali		\|\|Et est sciendum quod talis mixtio non valet si ambae praemissae sumantur in sensu compositionis. Sicut non sequitur 'omne animal esse hominem est scitum a te; omnem asinum esse animal est possibile; igitur omnem asinum esse hominem est possibile vel scitum a te’. Tamen quandocumque aliquis modus sumptus est inferior ad necessarium, cuiusmodi {{p\|491}} sunt tales modi 'per se demonstrabile', 'per se notum’ et huiusmodi, semper ex tali maiore de tali modo et minore de possibili sequitur conclusio de possibili; et etiam si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de tali

	\|\|And it should be known that such a mixture is not valid if both premises are taken in the sense of composition. Just as it does not follow: 'that every animal is a man is known by you; that every donkey is an animal is possible; therefore that every donkey is a man is possible or known by you'. However, whenever any mode taken is inferior to the necessary, of which are such modes as 'per se demonstrable', 'per se known' and the like, always from such a major of such a mode and minor ~~of possibility~~ the conclusion ~~of possibility~~ follows; and even if the major is ~~of possibility~~ and the minor of such a mode.		\|\|And it should be known that such a mixture is not valid if both premises are taken in the sense of composition. Just as it does not follow: 'that every animal is a man is known by you; that every donkey is an animal is possible; therefore that every donkey is a man is possible or known by you'. However, whenever any mode taken is inferior to the necessary, of which are such modes as 'per se demonstrable', 'per se known' and the like, always from such a major of such a mode and minor de possibili the conclusion de possibili follows; and even if the major is de possibili and the minor of such a mode.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
Line 25:		Line 25:

	\|\|		\|\|
	And the reason is that the proposition of such a mode infers that ~~of necessity~~ in the same sense; but it was said before<ref> Supra, cap. 44.</ref> that from such a proposition ~~of necessity~~ and such a proposition ~~of possibility~~ the mixture is valid with respect to a conclusion ~~of possibility~~,		And the reason is that the proposition of such a mode infers that de necessario in the same sense; but it was said before<ref> Supra, cap. 44.</ref> that from such a proposition de necessario and such a proposition de possibili the mixture is valid with respect to a conclusion de possibili,

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Proportionaliter dicendum est de ista mixtione quando altera sumitur in sensu divisionis et altera in sensu compositionis. Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de alio modo, valet quandocumque illa de alio modo infert suam de inesse; quia ex tali de possibili et illa de inesse sequitur conclusio de possibili in eodem sensu, sicut dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 34, lin. 26-38.</ref>. Si autem minor non inferat suam de inesse, non valet. Non enim sequitur ‘omnis homo potest esse Deus; Sortes creditur esse homo; igitur Sortes potest esse Deus'.		\|\|Proportionaliter dicendum est de ista mixtione quando altera sumitur in sensu divisionis et altera in sensu compositionis. Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de alio modo, valet quandocumque illa de alio modo infert suam de inesse; quia ex tali de possibili et illa de inesse sequitur conclusio de possibili in eodem sensu, sicut dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 34, lin. 26-38.</ref>. Si autem minor non inferat suam de inesse, non valet. Non enim sequitur ‘omnis homo potest esse Deus; Sortes creditur esse homo; igitur Sortes potest esse Deus'.

	\|\|This mixture must be said proportionally when one is taken in the sense of division and the other in the sense of composition. But if both are taken in the sense of division, if the major is ~~of possibility~~ and the minor in the other mode, it is valid whenever the latter infers its ~~inherence~~ in another way; because from such a proposition ~~of possibility~~ and that ~~of inherence~~ the conclusion ~~of possibility~~ in the same sense follows, as was said before<ref>Supra, cap. 34, lin. 26-38.</ref>. But if the minor does not infer its ~~inherence~~, it is not valid. For it does not follow that ‘every man can be God; Socrates is believed to be man; therefore Socrates can be God’.		\|\|This mixture must be said proportionally when one is taken in the sense of division and the other in the sense of composition. But if both are taken in the sense of division, if the major is de possibili and the minor in the other mode, it is valid whenever the latter infers its assertoric in another way; because from such a proposition de possibili and that assertoric the conclusion de possibili in the same sense follows, as was said before<ref>Supra, cap. 34, lin. 26-38.</ref>. But if the minor does not infer its assertoric, it is not valid. For it does not follow that ‘every man can be God; Socrates is believed to be man; therefore Socrates can be God’.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Si autem illa de possibili fuerit minor, raro vel numquam valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo scitur esse Deus; humanitas potest esse homo; igitur humanitas potest esse Deus, vel scitur esse Deus'.		\|\|Si autem illa de possibili fuerit minor, raro vel numquam valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo scitur esse Deus; humanitas potest esse homo; igitur humanitas potest esse Deus, vel scitur esse Deus'.

	\|\|But if the proposition ~~of possibility~~ is minor, the mixture is rarely or never valid. Just as it does not follow that 'every man is known to be God; a human can be man; therefore a human can be God, or is known to be God'.		\|\|But if the proposition de possibili is minor, the mixture is rarely or never valid. Just as it does not follow that 'every man is known to be God; a human can be man; therefore a human can be God, or is known to be God'.
	\|}		\|}

	==Notes==		==Notes==
	<references/>		<references/>

Ragnarr49 at 01:39, 20 March 2025

2025-03-20T01:39:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:39, 19 March 2025
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|\|De mixtione propositionis de possibili et aliarum modalium a quatuor famosis dicendum est post haec. Et primo in prima figura.		\|\|De mixtione propositionis de possibili et aliarum modalium a quatuor famosis dicendum est post haec. Et primo in prima figura.

	\|\|The mixture of ~~the~~ proposition of possibility and modals other than the four famous ones will be discussed next, and first in the first figure.		\|\|The mixture of a proposition of possibility and modals other than the four famous ones will be discussed next, and first in the first figure.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Et est sciendum quod talis mixtio non valet si ambae praemissae sumantur in sensu compositionis. Sicut non sequitur 'omne animal esse hominem est scitum a re; omnem asinum esse animal est possibile; igitur omnem asinum esse hominem est possibile vel scitum a te’. Tamen quandocumque aliquis modus sumptus est inferior ad necessarium, cuiusmodi {{p\|491}} sunt tales modi 'per se demonstrabile', 'per se notum’ et huiusmodi, semper ex tali maiore de tali modo et minore de possibili sequitur conclusio de possibili; et etiam si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de tali		\|\|Et est sciendum quod talis mixtio non valet si ambae praemissae sumantur in sensu compositionis. Sicut non sequitur 'omne animal esse hominem est scitum a te; omnem asinum esse animal est possibile; igitur omnem asinum esse hominem est possibile vel scitum a te’. Tamen quandocumque aliquis modus sumptus est inferior ad necessarium, cuiusmodi {{p\|491}} sunt tales modi 'per se demonstrabile', 'per se notum’ et huiusmodi, semper ex tali maiore de tali modo et minore de possibili sequitur conclusio de possibili; et etiam si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de tali

	\|\|And it should be known that such a mixture is not valid if both premises are taken in the sense of composition. Just as it does not follow: 'that every animal is a man is known ~~from reality~~; that every donkey is an animal is possible; therefore that every donkey is a man is possible or known by you'. However, whenever any mode taken is inferior to the necessary, of which are such modes as 'per se demonstrable', 'per se ~~notum~~' and the like, always from such a major ~~about~~ such a mode and minor ~~about possible~~ the conclusion ~~about possible~~ follows; and even if the major is ~~about possible~~ and the minor ~~about~~ such a		\|\|And it should be known that such a mixture is not valid if both premises are taken in the sense of composition. Just as it does not follow: 'that every animal is a man is known by you; that every donkey is an animal is possible; therefore that every donkey is a man is possible or known by you'. However, whenever any mode taken is inferior to the necessary, of which are such modes as 'per se demonstrable', 'per se known' and the like, always from such a major of such a mode and minor of possibility the conclusion of possibility follows; and even if the major is of possibility and the minor of such a mode.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
Line 25:		Line 25:

	\|\|		\|\|
	~~mode.~~ And the reason is that ~~that~~ proposition of such a mode infers that of necessity in the same sense; but it was said before~~[1]~~ that from such a proposition of necessity and such a proposition of possibility the mixture is valid with respect to a conclusion of possibility,		And the reason is that the proposition of such a mode infers that of necessity in the same sense; but it was said before<ref> Supra, cap. 44.</ref> that from such a proposition of necessity and such a proposition of possibility the mixture is valid with respect to a conclusion of possibility,

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
Line 35:		Line 35:
	\|\|Si autem illa de possibili fuerit minor, raro vel numquam valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo scitur esse Deus; humanitas potest esse homo; igitur humanitas potest esse Deus, vel scitur esse Deus'.		\|\|Si autem illa de possibili fuerit minor, raro vel numquam valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo scitur esse Deus; humanitas potest esse homo; igitur humanitas potest esse Deus, vel scitur esse Deus'.

	\|\|But if the proposition of possibility is minor, the mixture is rarely or never valid. Just as it does not follow that 'every man is known to be God; ~~humanity~~ can be man; therefore ~~humanity~~ can be God, or is known to be God'.		\|\|But if the proposition of possibility is minor, the mixture is rarely or never valid. Just as it does not follow that 'every man is known to be God; a human can be man; therefore a human can be God, or is known to be God'.
	\|}		\|}

	==Notes==		==Notes==
	<references/>		<references/>

Ragnarr49 at 11:44, 13 March 2025

2025-03-13T11:44:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:44, 13 March 2025
Line 25:		Line 25:

	\|\|		\|\|
			mode. And the reason is that that proposition of such a mode infers that of necessity in the same sense; but it was said before[1] that from such a proposition of necessity and such a proposition of possibility the mixture is valid with respect to a conclusion of possibility,

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Proportionaliter dicendum est de ista mixtione quando altera sumitur in sensu divisionis et altera in sensu compositionis. Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de alio modo, valet quandocumque illa de alio modo infert suam de inesse; quia ex tali de possibili et illa de inesse sequitur conclusio de possibili in eodem sensu, sicut dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 34, lin. 26-38.</ref>. Si autem minor non inferat suam de inesse, non valet. Non enim sequitur ‘omnis homo potest esse Deus; Sortes creditur esse homo; igitur Sortes potest esse Deus'.		\|\|Proportionaliter dicendum est de ista mixtione quando altera sumitur in sensu divisionis et altera in sensu compositionis. Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de alio modo, valet quandocumque illa de alio modo infert suam de inesse; quia ex tali de possibili et illa de inesse sequitur conclusio de possibili in eodem sensu, sicut dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 34, lin. 26-38.</ref>. Si autem minor non inferat suam de inesse, non valet. Non enim sequitur ‘omnis homo potest esse Deus; Sortes creditur esse homo; igitur Sortes potest esse Deus'.

	\|\|		\|\|This mixture must be said proportionally when one is taken in the sense of division and the other in the sense of composition. But if both are taken in the sense of division, if the major is of possibility and the minor in the other mode, it is valid whenever the latter infers its inherence in another way; because from such a proposition of possibility and that of inherence the conclusion of possibility in the same sense follows, as was said before<ref>Supra, cap. 34, lin. 26-38.</ref>. But if the minor does not infer its inherence, it is not valid. For it does not follow that ‘every man can be God; Socrates is believed to be man; therefore Socrates can be God’.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Si autem illa de possibili fuerit minor, raro vel numquam valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo scitur esse Deus; humanitas potest esse homo; igitur humanitas potest esse Deus, vel scitur esse Deus'.		\|\|Si autem illa de possibili fuerit minor, raro vel numquam valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo scitur esse Deus; humanitas potest esse homo; igitur humanitas potest esse Deus, vel scitur esse Deus'.

	\|\|		\|\|But if the proposition of possibility is minor, the mixture is rarely or never valid. Just as it does not follow that 'every man is known to be God; humanity can be man; therefore humanity can be God, or is known to be God'.
	\|}		\|}

	==Notes==		==Notes==
	<references/>		<references/>

Ragnarr49 at 02:18, 13 March 2025

2025-03-13T02:18:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 12 March 2025
Line 19:		Line 19:
	\|\|Et est sciendum quod talis mixtio non valet si ambae praemissae sumantur in sensu compositionis. Sicut non sequitur 'omne animal esse hominem est scitum a re; omnem asinum esse animal est possibile; igitur omnem asinum esse hominem est possibile vel scitum a te’. Tamen quandocumque aliquis modus sumptus est inferior ad necessarium, cuiusmodi {{p\|491}} sunt tales modi 'per se demonstrabile', 'per se notum’ et huiusmodi, semper ex tali maiore de tali modo et minore de possibili sequitur conclusio de possibili; et etiam si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de tali		\|\|Et est sciendum quod talis mixtio non valet si ambae praemissae sumantur in sensu compositionis. Sicut non sequitur 'omne animal esse hominem est scitum a re; omnem asinum esse animal est possibile; igitur omnem asinum esse hominem est possibile vel scitum a te’. Tamen quandocumque aliquis modus sumptus est inferior ad necessarium, cuiusmodi {{p\|491}} sunt tales modi 'per se demonstrabile', 'per se notum’ et huiusmodi, semper ex tali maiore de tali modo et minore de possibili sequitur conclusio de possibili; et etiam si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de tali

	\|\|		\|\|And it should be known that such a mixture is not valid if both premises are taken in the sense of composition. Just as it does not follow: 'that every animal is a man is known from reality; that every donkey is an animal is possible; therefore that every donkey is a man is possible or known by you'. However, whenever any mode taken is inferior to the necessary, of which are such modes as 'per se demonstrable', 'per se notum' and the like, always from such a major about such a mode and minor about possible the conclusion about possible follows; and even if the major is about possible and the minor about such a

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top

Ragnarr49 at 01:29, 12 March 2025

2025-03-12T01:29:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:29, 11 March 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|\|Cap. 58. De mixtione propositionum de possibili et aliarum modalium in prima figura		\|\|Cap. 58. De mixtione propositionum de possibili et aliarum modalium in prima figura

	\|\|		\|\|Chapter 58. On the mixture of propositions of possibility and of other modals in the first figure.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|De mixtione propositionis de possibili et aliarum modalium a quatuor famosis dicendum est post haec. Et primo in prima figura.		\|\|De mixtione propositionis de possibili et aliarum modalium a quatuor famosis dicendum est post haec. Et primo in prima figura.

	\|\|		\|\|The mixture of the proposition of possibility and modals other than the four famous ones will be discussed next, and first in the first figure.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top

Edward Ockham at 09:21, 13 June 2015

2015-06-13T09:21:10Z

New page

{{Nextpage|[[../Chapter 57|Chapter 57]]|[[../Chapter 59|Chapter 59]]}}

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

|- valign = top
||Cap. 58. De mixtione propositionum de possibili et aliarum modalium in prima figura

||

|- valign = top
||De mixtione propositionis de possibili et aliarum modalium a quatuor famosis dicendum est post haec. Et primo in prima figura.

||

|- valign = top
||Et est sciendum quod talis mixtio non valet si ambae praemissae sumantur in sensu compositionis. Sicut non sequitur 'omne animal esse hominem est scitum a re; omnem asinum esse animal est possibile; igitur omnem asinum esse hominem est possibile vel scitum a te’. Tamen quandocumque aliquis modus sumptus est inferior ad necessarium, cuiusmodi {{p|491}} sunt tales modi 'per se demonstrabile', 'per se notum’ et huiusmodi, semper ex tali maiore de tali modo et minore de possibili sequitur conclusio de possibili; et etiam si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de tali

||

|- valign = top
||modo. Et ratio est quia illa propositio de tali modo infert illam de necessario in eodem sensu; sed dictum est prius<ref> Supra, cap. 44.</ref> quod ex tali de necessario et tali de possibili mixtio valet respectu conclusionis de possibili,

||

|- valign = top
||Proportionaliter dicendum est de ista mixtione quando altera sumitur in sensu divisionis et altera in sensu compositionis. Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, si maior fuerit de possibili et minor de alio modo, valet quandocumque illa de alio modo infert suam de inesse; quia ex tali de possibili et illa de inesse sequitur conclusio de possibili in eodem sensu, sicut dictum est prius<ref>Supra, cap. 34, lin. 26-38.</ref>. Si autem minor non inferat suam de inesse, non valet. Non enim sequitur ‘omnis homo potest esse Deus; Sortes creditur esse homo; igitur Sortes potest esse Deus'.

||

|- valign = top
||Si autem illa de possibili fuerit minor, raro vel numquam valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo scitur esse Deus; humanitas potest esse homo; igitur humanitas potest esse Deus, vel scitur esse Deus'.

||
|}

==Notes==
<references/>