Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-1/Chapter 67 - Revision history

Ragnarr49 at 21:19, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T21:19:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 20 April 2025
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|\|Circa exceptivas autem est sciendum quod ex omnibus exceptivis in prima figura non sequitur conclusio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo praeter Sortem currit; omne animal praeter animal irrationale est homo; igitur omne animal praeter animal irrationale currit'. Similiter ex maiore exceptiva et minore de inesse non sequitur generaliter conclusio, quia non sequitur 'omnis substantia praeter substantiam corpoream est substantia incorporea; homo est substantia; igitur homo est substantia incorporea'. Similiter in secunda figura et in tertia non valet.		\|\|Circa exceptivas autem est sciendum quod ex omnibus exceptivis in prima figura non sequitur conclusio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo praeter Sortem currit; omne animal praeter animal irrationale est homo; igitur omne animal praeter animal irrationale currit'. Similiter ex maiore exceptiva et minore de inesse non sequitur generaliter conclusio, quia non sequitur 'omnis substantia praeter substantiam corpoream est substantia incorporea; homo est substantia; igitur homo est substantia incorporea'. Similiter in secunda figura et in tertia non valet.

	\|\|Regarding exceptives, however, it should be noted that no conclusion follows from all exceptives in the first figure. Just as it does not follow that 'every man except Socrates runs; every animal except an irrational animal is a man; therefore every animal except an irrational animal runs'. Similarly, no conclusion generally follows from the major exceptive and the minor ~~of inherence~~, because it does not follow that 'every substance except a corporeal substance is an incorporeal substance; man is a substance; therefore man is an incorporeal substance'. Similarly, it does not hold in the second figure and in the third.		\|\|Regarding exceptives, however, it should be noted that no conclusion follows from all exceptives in the first figure. Just as it does not follow that 'every man except Socrates runs; every animal except an irrational animal is a man; therefore every animal except an irrational animal runs'. Similarly, no conclusion generally follows from the major exceptive and the minor assertoric, because it does not follow that 'every substance except a corporeal substance is an incorporeal substance; man is a substance; therefore man is an incorporeal substance'. Similarly, it does not hold in the second figure and in the third.

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

Ragnarr49 at 23:56, 20 March 2025

2025-03-20T23:56:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 20 March 2025
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|\|Circa exceptivas autem est sciendum quod ex omnibus exceptivis in prima figura non sequitur conclusio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo praeter Sortem currit; omne animal praeter animal irrationale est homo; igitur omne animal praeter animal irrationale currit'. Similiter ex maiore exceptiva et minore de inesse non sequitur generaliter conclusio, quia non sequitur 'omnis substantia praeter substantiam corpoream est substantia incorporea; homo est substantia; igitur homo est substantia incorporea'. Similiter in secunda figura et in tertia non valet.		\|\|Circa exceptivas autem est sciendum quod ex omnibus exceptivis in prima figura non sequitur conclusio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo praeter Sortem currit; omne animal praeter animal irrationale est homo; igitur omne animal praeter animal irrationale currit'. Similiter ex maiore exceptiva et minore de inesse non sequitur generaliter conclusio, quia non sequitur 'omnis substantia praeter substantiam corpoream est substantia incorporea; homo est substantia; igitur homo est substantia incorporea'. Similiter in secunda figura et in tertia non valet.

	\|\|Regarding ~~exceptionves~~, however, it should be noted that no conclusion follows from all exceptives in the first figure. Just as it does not follow that 'every man except Socrates runs; every animal except an irrational animal is a man; therefore every animal except an irrational animal runs'. Similarly, no conclusion generally follows from the major exceptive and the minor of inherence, because it does not follow that 'every substance except a corporeal substance is an incorporeal substance; man is a substance; therefore man is an incorporeal substance'. Similarly, it does not hold in the second figure and in the third.		\|\|Regarding exceptives, however, it should be noted that no conclusion follows from all exceptives in the first figure. Just as it does not follow that 'every man except Socrates runs; every animal except an irrational animal is a man; therefore every animal except an irrational animal runs'. Similarly, no conclusion generally follows from the major exceptive and the minor of inherence, because it does not follow that 'every substance except a corporeal substance is an incorporeal substance; man is a substance; therefore man is an incorporeal substance'. Similarly, it does not hold in the second figure and in the third.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
Line 24:		Line 24:
	\|\|Per praedicta etiam a principio istius tractatus potest sciri quomodo differenter syllogizandum est ex illis de modo et aliis propositionibus habentibus plures exponentes quando propositiones sunt de praesenti, quando de praeterito, quando de futuro, quando de recto et quando de obliquo. Et ista de syllogismis ad praesens sufficiant.		\|\|Per praedicta etiam a principio istius tractatus potest sciri quomodo differenter syllogizandum est ex illis de modo et aliis propositionibus habentibus plures exponentes quando propositiones sunt de praesenti, quando de praeterito, quando de futuro, quando de recto et quando de obliquo. Et ista de syllogismis ad praesens sufficiant.

	\|\|By the foregoing, also from the beginning of this treatise, it can be known how differently one should syllogize from modal propositions of and other propositions having several exponents when the propositions are about the present, when about the past, when about the future, when ~~about~~ the direct and when ~~about the~~ oblique. And these things about syllogisms will suffice for the present.		\|\|By the foregoing, also from the beginning of this treatise, it can be known how differently one should syllogize from modal propositions of and other propositions having several exponents when the propositions are about the present, when about the past, when about the future, when in the direct (nominative case) and when in an oblique case. And these things about syllogisms will suffice for the present.

	\|}		\|}

Ragnarr49 at 02:18, 14 March 2025

2025-03-14T02:18:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 13 March 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|\|Cap. 67. De syllogismo facto ex exceptivis		\|\|Cap. 67. De syllogismo facto ex exceptivis

	\|\|		\|\|Chapter 67 On syllogisms made from exceptives.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top.
	\|\|Circa exceptivas autem est sciendum quod ex omnibus exceptivis in prima figura non sequitur conclusio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo praeter Sortem currit; omne animal praeter animal irrationale est homo; igitur omne animal praeter animal irrationale currit'. Similiter ex maiore exceptiva et minore de inesse non sequitur generaliter conclusio, quia non sequitur 'omnis substantia praeter substantiam corpoream est substantia incorporea; homo est substantia; igitur homo est substantia incorporea'. Similiter in secunda figura et in tertia non valet.		\|\|Circa exceptivas autem est sciendum quod ex omnibus exceptivis in prima figura non sequitur conclusio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo praeter Sortem currit; omne animal praeter animal irrationale est homo; igitur omne animal praeter animal irrationale currit'. Similiter ex maiore exceptiva et minore de inesse non sequitur generaliter conclusio, quia non sequitur 'omnis substantia praeter substantiam corpoream est substantia incorporea; homo est substantia; igitur homo est substantia incorporea'. Similiter in secunda figura et in tertia non valet.

	\|\|		\|\|Regarding exceptionves, however, it should be noted that no conclusion follows from all exceptives in the first figure. Just as it does not follow that 'every man except Socrates runs; every animal except an irrational animal is a man; therefore every animal except an irrational animal runs'. Similarly, no conclusion generally follows from the major exceptive and the minor of inherence, because it does not follow that 'every substance except a corporeal substance is an incorporeal substance; man is a substance; therefore man is an incorporeal substance'. Similarly, it does not hold in the second figure and in the third.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Per praedicta potest sciri quomodo syllogizandum est ex ailiis propositionibus habentibus plures exponentes.		\|\|Per praedicta potest sciri quomodo syllogizandum est ex ailiis propositionibus habentibus plures exponentes.

	\|\|		\|\|Through the above it can be known how to syllogize from other propositions having several exponents.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|\|Per praedicta etiam a principio istius tractatus potest sciri quomodo differenter syllogizandum est ex illis de modo et aliis propositionibus habentibus plures exponentes quando propositiones sunt de praesenti, quando de praeterito, quando de futuro, quando de recto et quando de obliquo. Et ista de syllogismis ad praesens sufficiant.		\|\|Per praedicta etiam a principio istius tractatus potest sciri quomodo differenter syllogizandum est ex illis de modo et aliis propositionibus habentibus plures exponentes quando propositiones sunt de praesenti, quando de praeterito, quando de futuro, quando de recto et quando de obliquo. Et ista de syllogismis ad praesens sufficiant.

	\|\|		\|\|By the foregoing, also from the beginning of this treatise, it can be known how differently one should syllogize from modal propositions of and other propositions having several exponents when the propositions are about the present, when about the past, when about the future, when about the direct and when about the oblique. And these things about syllogisms will suffice for the present.

	\|}		\|}

Edward Ockham at 09:24, 13 June 2015

2015-06-13T09:24:23Z

New page

{{Nextpage|[[../Chapter 66|Chapter 66]]|[[../Chapter 68|Chapter 68]]}}

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

|- valign = top
||Cap. 67. De syllogismo facto ex exceptivis

||

|- valign = top
||Circa exceptivas autem est sciendum quod ex omnibus exceptivis in prima figura non sequitur conclusio. Sicut non sequitur 'omnis homo praeter Sortem currit; omne animal praeter animal irrationale est homo; igitur omne animal praeter animal irrationale currit'. Similiter ex maiore exceptiva et minore de inesse non sequitur generaliter conclusio, quia non sequitur 'omnis substantia praeter substantiam corpoream est substantia incorporea; homo est substantia; igitur homo est substantia incorporea'. Similiter in secunda figura et in tertia non valet.

||

|- valign = top
||Per praedicta potest sciri quomodo syllogizandum est ex ailiis propositionibus habentibus plures exponentes.

||

|- valign = top
||Per praedicta etiam a principio istius tractatus potest sciri quomodo differenter syllogizandum est ex illis de modo et aliis propositionibus habentibus plures exponentes quando propositiones sunt de praesenti, quando de praeterito, quando de futuro, quando de recto et quando de obliquo. Et ista de syllogismis ad praesens sufficiant.

||

|}

==Notes==
<references/>