Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-1/Chapter 63 - Revision history

Ragnarr49 at 21:14, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T21:14:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 20 April 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|\|Cap. 63. De mixtione propositionum de contingenti et aliarum modalium in tertia figura		\|\|Cap. 63. De mixtione propositionum de contingenti et aliarum modalium in tertia figura

	\|\|Chapter 63. On the mixture of ~~contingent~~ propositions and of other modals in the third figure.		\|\|Chapter 63. On the mixture of de contingenti propositions and of other modals in the third figure.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|In tertia figura, si utraque 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. Sicut {{p\|496}} non sequitur ‘omnem hominem esse Deum est scitum a te; omnem hominem esse humanitatem est contingens; igitur aliquam humanitatem esse Deum est possibile'. Consimiliter est dicendum quando illa de contingenti sumitur in sensu compositionis et alia in sensu divisionis.		\|\|In tertia figura, si utraque 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. Sicut {{p\|496}} non sequitur ‘omnem hominem esse Deum est scitum a te; omnem hominem esse humanitatem est contingens; igitur aliquam humanitatem esse Deum est possibile'. Consimiliter est dicendum quando illa de contingenti sumitur in sensu compositionis et alia in sensu divisionis.

	\|\|In the third figure, if both are taken in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid with respect to a conclusion ~~of contingency~~ nor with respect to a conclusion ~~of possibility~~, unless the latter infers the former ~~of necessity~~ from another mode. Just as it does not follow: ‘It is known by you that every man is God; that every man is human is contingent; therefore, it is possible that some human is God’. The same must be said when the former is taken ~~of contingency~~ in the sense of composition and the latter in the sense of division.		\|\|In the third figure, if both are taken in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid with respect to a conclusion de contingenti nor with respect to a conclusion de possibili, unless the latter infers the former de necessario from another mode. Just as it does not follow: ‘It is known by you that every man is God; that every man is human is contingent; therefore, it is possible that some human is God’. The same must be said when the former is taken de contingenti in the sense of composition and the latter in the sense of division.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et subiectum supponat pro his quae sunt et fuerit universalis et alia de modo inferat suam de inesse, sequitur conclusio de contingenti. Et similiter est quando est e converso Consimiliter, si utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, valet mixtio quando illa de alio modo inferat sua de inesse.		\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et subiectum supponat pro his quae sunt et fuerit universalis et alia de modo inferat suam de inesse, sequitur conclusio de contingenti. Et similiter est quando est e converso Consimiliter, si utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, valet mixtio quando illa de alio modo inferat sua de inesse.

	\|\|But if the latter is taken ~~of contingency~~ in the sense of division and the subject supposits for those things which are and were universal and another in a mode infers its own ~~of inherence~~, the conclusion ~~of contingency~~ follows. And the same is true when it is the converse. Similarly, if both are taken in the sense of division, the mixture is valid when the former infers its own ~~of inherence~~ from another mode.		\|\|But if the latter is taken de contingenti in the sense of division and the subject supposits for those things which are and were universal and another in a mode infers its own assertoric, the conclusion de contingenti follows. And the same is true when it is the converse. Similarly, if both are taken in the sense of division, the mixture is valid when the former infers its own assertoric from another mode.

	\|}		\|}

Ragnarr49 at 01:51, 20 March 2025

2025-03-20T01:51:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 19 March 2025
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|\|In tertia figura, si utraque 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. Sicut {{p\|496}} non sequitur ‘omnem hominem esse Deum est scitum a te; omnem hominem esse humanitatem est contingens; igitur aliquam humanitatem esse Deum est possibile'. Consimiliter est dicendum quando illa de contingenti sumitur in sensu compositionis et alia in sensu divisionis.		\|\|In tertia figura, si utraque 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. Sicut {{p\|496}} non sequitur ‘omnem hominem esse Deum est scitum a te; omnem hominem esse humanitatem est contingens; igitur aliquam humanitatem esse Deum est possibile'. Consimiliter est dicendum quando illa de contingenti sumitur in sensu compositionis et alia in sensu divisionis.

	\|\|In the third figure, if both are taken in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid with respect to ~~the~~ conclusion of contingency nor with respect to a conclusion of possibility, unless the latter infers the former of necessity from another mode. Just as does not follow ‘It is known by you that every man is God; that every man is human is contingent; therefore it is possible that some human is God’. The same must be said when the former is taken of contingency in the sense of composition and the latter in the sense of division.		\|\|In the third figure, if both are taken in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid with respect to a conclusion of contingency nor with respect to a conclusion of possibility, unless the latter infers the former of necessity from another mode. Just as it does not follow: ‘It is known by you that every man is God; that every man is human is contingent; therefore, it is possible that some human is God’. The same must be said when the former is taken of contingency in the sense of composition and the latter in the sense of division.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et subiectum supponat pro his quae sunt et fuerit universalis et alia de modo inferat suam de inesse, sequitur conclusio de contingenti. Et similiter est quando est e converso Consimiliter, si utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, valet mixtio quando illa de alio modo inferat sua de inesse.		\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et subiectum supponat pro his quae sunt et fuerit universalis et alia de modo inferat suam de inesse, sequitur conclusio de contingenti. Et similiter est quando est e converso Consimiliter, si utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, valet mixtio quando illa de alio modo inferat sua de inesse.

	\|\|But if the latter is taken of contingency in the sense of division and the subject supposits for those things which are and were universal and another in a ~~way~~ infers its own of inherence, the conclusion of contingency follows. And the same is true when it is the converse. Similarly, if both are taken in the sense of division, the mixture is valid when the former infers its own of inherence from another mode.		\|\|But if the latter is taken of contingency in the sense of division and the subject supposits for those things which are and were universal and another in a mode infers its own of inherence, the conclusion of contingency follows. And the same is true when it is the converse. Similarly, if both are taken in the sense of division, the mixture is valid when the former infers its own of inherence from another mode.

	\|}		\|}

Ragnarr49 at 23:02, 13 March 2025

2025-03-13T23:02:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:02, 13 March 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|\|Cap. 63. De mixtione propositionum de contingenti et aliarum modalium in tertia figura		\|\|Cap. 63. De mixtione propositionum de contingenti et aliarum modalium in tertia figura

	\|\|		\|\|Chapter 63. On the mixture of contingent propositions and of other modals in the third figure.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|In tertia figura, si utraque 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. Sicut {{p\|496}} non sequitur ‘omnem hominem esse Deum est scitum a te; omnem hominem esse humanitatem est contingens; igitur aliquam humanitatem esse Deum est possibile'. Consimiliter est dicendum quando illa de contingenti sumitur in sensu compositionis et alia in sensu divisionis.		\|\|In tertia figura, si utraque 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. Sicut {{p\|496}} non sequitur ‘omnem hominem esse Deum est scitum a te; omnem hominem esse humanitatem est contingens; igitur aliquam humanitatem esse Deum est possibile'. Consimiliter est dicendum quando illa de contingenti sumitur in sensu compositionis et alia in sensu divisionis.

	\|\|		\|\|In the third figure, if both are taken in the sense of composition, the mixture is not valid with respect to the conclusion of contingency nor with respect to a conclusion of possibility, unless the latter infers the former of necessity from another mode. Just as does not follow ‘It is known by you that every man is God; that every man is human is contingent; therefore it is possible that some human is God’. The same must be said when the former is taken of contingency in the sense of composition and the latter in the sense of division.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et subiectum supponat pro his quae sunt et fuerit universalis et alia de modo inferat suam de inesse, sequitur conclusio de contingenti. Et similiter est quando est e converso Consimiliter, si utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, valet mixtio quando illa de alio modo inferat sua de inesse.		\|\|Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et subiectum supponat pro his quae sunt et fuerit universalis et alia de modo inferat suam de inesse, sequitur conclusio de contingenti. Et similiter est quando est e converso Consimiliter, si utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, valet mixtio quando illa de alio modo inferat sua de inesse.

	\|\|		\|\|But if the latter is taken of contingency in the sense of division and the subject supposits for those things which are and were universal and another in a way infers its own of inherence, the conclusion of contingency follows. And the same is true when it is the converse. Similarly, if both are taken in the sense of division, the mixture is valid when the former infers its own of inherence from another mode.

	\|}		\|}

Edward Ockham at 09:22, 13 June 2015

2015-06-13T09:22:46Z

New page

{{Nextpage|[[../Chapter 62|Chapter 62]]|[[../Chapter 64|Chapter 64]]}}

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

|- valign = top
||Cap. 63. De mixtione propositionum de contingenti et aliarum modalium in tertia figura

||

|- valign = top
||In tertia figura, si utraque 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. Sicut {{p|496}} non sequitur ‘omnem hominem esse Deum est scitum a te; omnem hominem esse humanitatem est contingens; igitur aliquam humanitatem esse Deum est possibile'. Consimiliter est dicendum quando illa de contingenti sumitur in sensu compositionis et alia in sensu divisionis.

||

|- valign = top
||Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis et subiectum supponat pro his quae sunt et fuerit universalis et alia de modo inferat suam de inesse, sequitur conclusio de contingenti. Et similiter est quando est e converso Consimiliter, si utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, valet mixtio quando illa de alio modo inferat sua de inesse.

||

|}

==Notes==
<references/>