Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-1/Chapter 62 - Revision history

Ragnarr49 at 21:10, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T21:10:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 20 April 2025
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|\|In secunda figura, si utraque propositionum sumatur in sensu compositionis, non valet mixtio respectu conclusionis de contingenti nec respectu conclusionis de possibili, nisi illa de alio modo inferat illam de necessario. Unde non sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est scitum a te; quamlibet personam divinam non esse hominem est contingens; igitur quamlibet personam divinam non esse Deum est possibile', Nec sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est scitum a te; quamlibet personam divinam esse hominem est contingens; igitur quamlibet personam divinam non esse Deum est possibile’. Si autem illa de modo inferat illam de necessario, est mixtio bona.		\|\|In secunda figura, si utraque propositionum sumatur in sensu compositionis, non valet mixtio respectu conclusionis de contingenti nec respectu conclusionis de possibili, nisi illa de alio modo inferat illam de necessario. Unde non sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est scitum a te; quamlibet personam divinam non esse hominem est contingens; igitur quamlibet personam divinam non esse Deum est possibile', Nec sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est scitum a te; quamlibet personam divinam esse hominem est contingens; igitur quamlibet personam divinam non esse Deum est possibile’. Si autem illa de modo inferat illam de necessario, est mixtio bona.

	\|\|In the second figure, if both propositions are taken in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid with respect to the conclusion of ~~contingency~~ nor with respect to the conclusion ~~of possibility~~, unless the latter infers it ~~of necessity~~ from another mode. Hence it does not follow that 'every God is known by you to be a man; it is contingent that any divine person is not a man; therefore it is possible that any divine person is not God', nor does it follow that 'no God is known by you to be a man; it is contingent that any divine person is man; therefore it is possible that any divine person is not God'. But if the former infers it ~~of necessity~~ from a mode, the mixture is good.		\|\|In the second figure, if both propositions are taken in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid with respect to the conclusion of de contingenti nor with respect to the conclusion de possibili, unless the latter infers it de necessario from another mode. Hence it does not follow that 'every God is known by you to be a man; it is contingent that any divine person is not a man; therefore it is possible that any divine person is not God', nor does it follow that 'no God is known by you to be a man; it is contingent that any divine person is man; therefore it is possible that any divine person is not God'. But if the former infers it de necessario from a mode, the mixture is good.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu compositionis et illa de alio modo in sensu divisionis, si illa de contingenti fuerit negativa, non valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus. Similiter, si affrmativa fuerit de contingenti, non valet. Non enim sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur non esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus'.		\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu compositionis et illa de alio modo in sensu divisionis, si illa de contingenti fuerit negativa, non valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus. Similiter, si affrmativa fuerit de contingenti, non valet. Non enim sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur non esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus'.

	\|\|But if the one is taken ~~of contingency~~ in the sense of composition and the other of another mode in the sense of division, if the one ~~of contingency~~ is negative, the mixture is not valid. Just as it does not follow that 'it is contingent for no God to be a man; every divine person is known to be a man; therefore it is possible that every divine person is not God'. Similarly, if the affirmative is taken ~~from the contingent~~, it is not valid. For it does not follow that 'it is contingent for every God to be a man; every divine person is known to be not a man; therefore it is possible that every divine person is not God'.		\|\|But if the one is taken de contingenti in the sense of composition and the other of another mode in the sense of division, if the one de contingenti is negative, the mixture is not valid. Just as it does not follow that 'it is contingent for no God to be a man; every divine person is known to be a man; therefore it is possible that every divine person is not God'. Similarly, if the affirmative is taken de contingenti, it is not valid. For it does not follow that 'it is contingent for every God to be a man; every divine person is known to be not a man; therefore it is possible that every divine person is not God'.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et alia in sensu compositionis, non valet mixtio. Patet per eosdem terminos. Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, non valet mixtio, sicut per eosdem terminos patet,		\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et alia in sensu compositionis, non valet mixtio. Patet per eosdem terminos. Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, non valet mixtio, sicut per eosdem terminos patet,

	\|\|But if one of the ~~contingents~~ is taken in the sense of division and the other in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid. This is clear from the same terms. But if both are taken in the sense of division, the mixture is not valid, as is clear from the same terms.		\|\|But if one of the de contingenti is taken in the sense of division and the other in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid. This is clear from the same terms. But if both are taken in the sense of division, the mixture is not valid, as is clear from the same terms.

	\|}		\|}

Ragnarr49 at 01:49, 20 March 2025

2025-03-20T01:49:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:49, 19 March 2025
Line 19:		Line 19:
	\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu compositionis et illa de alio modo in sensu divisionis, si illa de contingenti fuerit negativa, non valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus. Similiter, si affrmativa fuerit de contingenti, non valet. Non enim sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur non esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus'.		\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu compositionis et illa de alio modo in sensu divisionis, si illa de contingenti fuerit negativa, non valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus. Similiter, si affrmativa fuerit de contingenti, non valet. Non enim sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur non esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus'.

	\|\|But if the one is taken of contingency in the sense of composition and the other of another mode in the sense of division, if the one of contingency is negative, the mixture is not valid. Just as it does not follow that 'it is contingent for no God to be a man; every divine person is known to be a man; therefore it is possible that every divine person is not God. Similarly, if the affirmative is taken from the contingent, it is not valid. For it does not follow that 'it is contingent for every God to be a man; every divine person is known to be not a man; therefore it is possible that every divine person is not God'.		\|\|But if the one is taken of contingency in the sense of composition and the other of another mode in the sense of division, if the one of contingency is negative, the mixture is not valid. Just as it does not follow that 'it is contingent for no God to be a man; every divine person is known to be a man; therefore it is possible that every divine person is not God'. Similarly, if the affirmative is taken from the contingent, it is not valid. For it does not follow that 'it is contingent for every God to be a man; every divine person is known to be not a man; therefore it is possible that every divine person is not God'.

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

Ragnarr49 at 22:55, 13 March 2025

2025-03-13T22:55:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:55, 13 March 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|\|Cap. 62. De mixtione propositionum de contingenti et aliarum in secunda figura		\|\|Cap. 62. De mixtione propositionum de contingenti et aliarum in secunda figura

	\|\|		\|\|Chapter 62. On the mixture of contingent propositions and of other modals in the second figure.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|In secunda figura, si utraque propositionum sumatur in sensu compositionis, non valet mixtio respectu conclusionis de contingenti nec respectu conclusionis de possibili, nisi illa de alio modo inferat illam de necessario. Unde non sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est scitum a te; quamlibet personam divinam non esse hominem est contingens; igitur quamlibet personam divinam non esse Deum est possibile', Nec sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est scitum a te; quamlibet personam divinam esse hominem est contingens; igitur quamlibet personam divinam non esse Deum est possibile’. Si autem illa de modo inferat illam de necessario, est mixtio bona.		\|\|In secunda figura, si utraque propositionum sumatur in sensu compositionis, non valet mixtio respectu conclusionis de contingenti nec respectu conclusionis de possibili, nisi illa de alio modo inferat illam de necessario. Unde non sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est scitum a te; quamlibet personam divinam non esse hominem est contingens; igitur quamlibet personam divinam non esse Deum est possibile', Nec sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est scitum a te; quamlibet personam divinam esse hominem est contingens; igitur quamlibet personam divinam non esse Deum est possibile’. Si autem illa de modo inferat illam de necessario, est mixtio bona.

	\|\|		\|\|In the second figure, if both propositions are taken in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid with respect to the conclusion of contingency nor with respect to the conclusion of possibility, unless the latter infers it of necessity from another mode. Hence it does not follow that 'every God is known by you to be a man; it is contingent that any divine person is not a man; therefore it is possible that any divine person is not God', nor does it follow that 'no God is known by you to be a man; it is contingent that any divine person is man; therefore it is possible that any divine person is not God'. But if the former infers it of necessity from a mode, the mixture is good.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu compositionis et illa de alio modo in sensu divisionis, si illa de contingenti fuerit negativa, non valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus. Similiter, si affrmativa fuerit de contingenti, non valet. Non enim sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur non esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus'.		\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu compositionis et illa de alio modo in sensu divisionis, si illa de contingenti fuerit negativa, non valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus. Similiter, si affrmativa fuerit de contingenti, non valet. Non enim sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur non esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus'.

	\|\|		\|\|But if the one is taken of contingency in the sense of composition and the other of another mode in the sense of division, if the one of contingency is negative, the mixture is not valid. Just as it does not follow that 'it is contingent for no God to be a man; every divine person is known to be a man; therefore it is possible that every divine person is not God. Similarly, if the affirmative is taken from the contingent, it is not valid. For it does not follow that 'it is contingent for every God to be a man; every divine person is known to be not a man; therefore it is possible that every divine person is not God'.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et alia in sensu compositionis, non valet mixtio. Patet per eosdem terminos. Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, non valet mixtio, sicut per eosdem terminos patet,		\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et alia in sensu compositionis, non valet mixtio. Patet per eosdem terminos. Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, non valet mixtio, sicut per eosdem terminos patet,

	\|\|		\|\|But if one of the contingents is taken in the sense of division and the other in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid. This is clear from the same terms. But if both are taken in the sense of division, the mixture is not valid, as is clear from the same terms.

	\|}		\|}

Edward Ockham at 09:22, 13 June 2015

2015-06-13T09:22:18Z

New page

{{Nextpage|[[../Chapter 61|Chapter 61]]|[[../Chapter 63|Chapter 63]]}}

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

|- valign = top
||Cap. 62. De mixtione propositionum de contingenti et aliarum in secunda figura

||

|- valign = top
||In secunda figura, si utraque propositionum sumatur in sensu compositionis, non valet mixtio respectu conclusionis de contingenti nec respectu conclusionis de possibili, nisi illa de alio modo inferat illam de necessario. Unde non sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est scitum a te; quamlibet personam divinam non esse hominem est contingens; igitur quamlibet personam divinam non esse Deum est possibile', Nec sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est scitum a te; quamlibet personam divinam esse hominem est contingens; igitur quamlibet personam divinam non esse Deum est possibile’. Si autem illa de modo inferat illam de necessario, est mixtio bona.

||

|- valign = top
||Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu compositionis et illa de alio modo in sensu divisionis, si illa de contingenti fuerit negativa, non valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'nullum Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus. Similiter, si affrmativa fuerit de contingenti, non valet. Non enim sequitur 'omnem Deum esse hominem est contingens; quaelibet persona divina scitur non esse homo; igitur quaelibet persona divina potest non esse Deus'.

||

|- valign = top
||Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et alia in sensu compositionis, non valet mixtio. Patet per eosdem terminos. Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, non valet mixtio, sicut per eosdem terminos patet,

||

|}

==Notes==
<references/>