Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-3/Chapter 7 - Revision history

Ragnarr49 at 00:32, 24 March 2025

2025-03-24T00:32:41Z

Ragnarr49 at 16:41, 15 February 2025

2025-02-15T16:41:57Z

Ragnarr49 at 15:58, 15 February 2025

2025-02-15T15:58:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:58, 15 February 2025
Line 33:		Line 33:
	\|{{p\|641}} Et nota quod illud est inferius ad aliud quando ab illo ad aliud est consequentia formalis affirmative, et non e converso; sicut sequitur formaliter `Sortes est homo albus, igitur Sortes est homo', et ideo non sufficit ad hoc quod aliquid sit superius quod praedicetur de omnibus de quibus aliud et de pluribus.		\|{{p\|641}} Et nota quod illud est inferius ad aliud quando ab illo ad aliud est consequentia formalis affirmative, et non e converso; sicut sequitur formaliter `Sortes est homo albus, igitur Sortes est homo', et ideo non sufficit ad hoc quod aliquid sit superius quod praedicetur de omnibus de quibus aliud et de pluribus.

	\|And note that it is inferior to another when from that to another there is a formal consequence in the affirmative, and not the other way around; as it formally follows, `Socrates is a white man, therefore ~~Sores~~ is a man,' and therefore it is not sufficient for this to be something superior that is predicated of all of which one thing and of more.		\|And note that it is inferior to another when from that to another there is a formal consequence in the affirmative, and not the other way around; as it formally follows, `Socrates is a white man, therefore Socrates is a man,' and therefore it is not sufficient for this to be something superior that is predicated of all of which one thing and of more.

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

Ragnarr49 at 15:56, 15 February 2025

2025-02-15T15:56:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:56, 15 February 2025
Line 88:		Line 88:
	\|Aut pro toto aut pro parte. Similiter est de hac humanitate: pro quo supponit? Et manifestum est quod non pro alio quam pro quo supponit hic homo. Similiter `humanitas' supponit pro hac humanitate, cum haec humanitas sit humanitas. Sed `haec humanitas' includit tam naturam quam differentiam individualem, si esset aliqua talis, igitur supponit pro eodem pro {{p\|613}} quo supponit `homo'. Sed non sic se habent `animatum' et `anima', nam `animatum' supponit pro toto composito ex materia et forma, `anima' supponit pro parte tantum, et ideo non valet `homo est animatus, igitur humanitas est anima'. Haec regula `si abstractum de abstracto et concretum de concreto' habet intelligi quando subiectum et praedicatum sunt termini positivi; non enim sequitur `grammatica est non musica, igitur grammaticus est non-musicus'. Regula etiam est intelligenda quando nullum syncategorema vel aequivalens includitur in abstracto quod non includitur in concreto.		\|Aut pro toto aut pro parte. Similiter est de hac humanitate: pro quo supponit? Et manifestum est quod non pro alio quam pro quo supponit hic homo. Similiter `humanitas' supponit pro hac humanitate, cum haec humanitas sit humanitas. Sed `haec humanitas' includit tam naturam quam differentiam individualem, si esset aliqua talis, igitur supponit pro eodem pro {{p\|613}} quo supponit `homo'. Sed non sic se habent `animatum' et `anima', nam `animatum' supponit pro toto composito ex materia et forma, `anima' supponit pro parte tantum, et ideo non valet `homo est animatus, igitur humanitas est anima'. Haec regula `si abstractum de abstracto et concretum de concreto' habet intelligi quando subiectum et praedicatum sunt termini positivi; non enim sequitur `grammatica est non musica, igitur grammaticus est non-musicus'. Regula etiam est intelligenda quando nullum syncategorema vel aequivalens includitur in abstracto quod non includitur in concreto.

	\|		\|Either in whole or in part. The same is true of this humanity: for what does it stand? And it is clear that it is for no other than that for which this man supposits. Similarly, `humanity' stands for this humanity, since this humanity is humanity. But `humanity' includes both nature and individual difference, if there were any such, therefore it stands for the same thing that `man' stands for. But 'animated' and 'soul' are not related in this way, for 'animated' stands for the whole composed of matter and form, 'soul' stands for a part only, and therefore it does not apply to 'man is animate, therefore humanity is a soul'. This rule, `if the abstract is from the abstract and the concrete from the concrete', is to be understood when the subject and the predicate are positive terms; for it does not follow that 'grammar is not music, therefore a grammarian is a non-musician'. There is also a rule to be understood when no syncategoric term or equivalent is included in the abstract that is not included in the concrete.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Alia regula est: si aliqua consequentia est bona, eodem addito utrobique erit consequentia bona; sicut si ista consequentia sit bona `homo currit, igitur animal currit' ista consequentia est bona `homo albus currit, igitur animal album currit'.		\|Alia regula est: si aliqua consequentia est bona, eodem addito utrobique erit consequentia bona; sicut si ista consequentia sit bona `homo currit, igitur animal currit' ista consequentia est bona `homo albus currit, igitur animal album currit'.

	\|		\|Another rule is: if any consequence is good, by the same addition, both consequences will be good; just as if the following conclusion is good: `a man runs, therefore an animal runs', this conclusion is good: `a white man runs, therefore a white animal runs'.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Sciendum est quod ista regula debet intelligi quando illud additum est adiectivum vel substantivum respectu illius cui additur et est purum categorema, non includens aequivalenter aliquod syncategorema; et propter istud quamvis sequatur `homo currit, igitur animal currit', tamen addito eodem signo utrobique, non valet consequentia.		\|Sciendum est quod ista regula debet intelligi quando illud additum est adiectivum vel substantivum respectu illius cui additur et est purum categorema, non includens aequivalenter aliquod syncategorema; et propter istud quamvis sequatur `homo currit, igitur animal currit', tamen addito eodem signo utrobique, non valet consequentia.

	\|		\|It must be known that this rule must be understood when it is added to an adjective or substantive in relation to that to which it is added and is a pure category, not including any syncategorematic word equivalently; and for this reason, although it follows that `a man runs, therefore an animal runs,' yet by adding the same sign on both sides, the conclusion is invalid.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Non enim sequitur `omnis homo currit, igitur omne animal currit'. Similiter sequitur `Sortes est albus, ergo Sortes est coloratus', et tamen addito utrobique `nunc primo' non valet consequentia.		\|Non enim sequitur `omnis homo currit, igitur omne animal currit'. Similiter sequitur `Sortes est albus, ergo Sortes est coloratus', et tamen addito utrobique `nunc primo' non valet consequentia.

	\|		\|For it does not follow that 'every man runs, therefore every animal runs'. Similarly, it follows that `Socrates is white, therefore Socrates is colored,' and yet by adding `now first' in both cases, the conclusion does not hold.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Non enim sequitur `Sortes nunc primo est albus, igitur Sortes nunc primo est coloratus', nam `primo' vel est syncategorema vel includit aequivalenter aliquod syncategorema, scilicet hoc syncategorema `non'.		\|Non enim sequitur `Sortes nunc primo est albus, igitur Sortes nunc primo est coloratus', nam `primo' vel est syncategorema vel includit aequivalenter aliquod syncategorema, scilicet hoc syncategorema `non'.

	\|		\|For it does not follow that `Socrates is now first white, therefore Socrates now is first colored', for `first' is either a syncategorematic word or equivalently includes some syncategorematic word, namely this syncategormatic word `not'.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Propter idem bene sequitur `homo currit, ergo animal currit', etiam si homo non sit, et tamen negatione addita utrobique non valet.		\|Propter idem bene sequitur `homo currit, ergo animal currit', etiam si homo non sit, et tamen negatione addita utrobique non valet.

	\|		\|For the same reason it follows well that `a man runs, therefore an animal runs,' even if it is not a man, and yet the addition of the negation does not hold either way.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Non enim sequitur `homo non currit, igitur animal non currit'. Si enim nullum animal esset nisi unus asinus, et ille curreret, antecedens esset verum et consequens falsum.		\|Non enim sequitur `homo non currit, igitur animal non currit'. Si enim nullum animal esset nisi unus asinus, et ille curreret, antecedens esset verum et consequens falsum.

	\|		\|For it does not follow that `a man does not run, therefore an animal does not run.' For if there were no animal but one donkey, and it ran, the antecedent would be true and the consequent false.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|{{p\|614}} Alia regula est: quod sapiens dicit, est verum.		\|{{p\|614}} Alia regula est: quod sapiens dicit, est verum.

	\|		\|Another rule is: what a wise man says is true.

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

Ragnarr49 at 15:29, 15 February 2025

2025-02-15T15:29:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, 15 February 2025
Line 83:		Line 83:
	\|Nec valet dicere quod `homo' supponat pro toto composito ex humanitate et differentia individuali contrahente humanitatem, nam idem argumentum est de Sorteitate: pro quo supponit?		\|Nec valet dicere quod `homo' supponat pro toto composito ex humanitate et differentia individuali contrahente humanitatem, nam idem argumentum est de Sorteitate: pro quo supponit?

	\|and it is valid to say that `a man' stands for a whole composed of humanity and individual difference ~~contracting~~ humanity, for the same argument is made about Socrates: for what does it stand?		\|and it is valid to say that `a man' stands for a whole composed of humanity and individual difference constraining humanity, for the same argument is made about Socrates: for what does it stand?

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

Ragnarr49 at 15:28, 15 February 2025

2025-02-15T15:28:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 15 February 2025
Line 83:		Line 83:
	\|Nec valet dicere quod `homo' supponat pro toto composito ex humanitate et differentia individuali contrahente humanitatem, nam idem argumentum est de Sorteitate: pro quo supponit?		\|Nec valet dicere quod `homo' supponat pro toto composito ex humanitate et differentia individuali contrahente humanitatem, nam idem argumentum est de Sorteitate: pro quo supponit?

	\|and it is valid to say that `man' stands for a whole composed of humanity and individual difference contracting humanity, for the same argument is made about Socrates: for what does it stand?		\|and it is valid to say that `a man' stands for a whole composed of humanity and individual difference contracting humanity, for the same argument is made about Socrates: for what does it stand?

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

Ragnarr49 at 15:28, 15 February 2025

2025-02-15T15:28:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 15 February 2025
Line 68:		Line 68:
	\|Unde si unum concretum supponat pro alio quam suum abstractum et aliud concretum supponat pro eodem pro quo supponit suum abstractum, non oportet quod si concretum praedicetur de concreto quod abstractum praedicetur de abstracto.		\|Unde si unum concretum supponat pro alio quam suum abstractum et aliud concretum supponat pro eodem pro quo supponit suum abstractum, non oportet quod si concretum praedicetur de concreto quod abstractum praedicetur de abstracto.

	\|		\|Hence, if one concrete supposits for other than its abstract, and another concrete supposits for the same for which it supposits its abstract, it is not necessary that if the concrete is predicated of the concrete that the abstract be another concrete predicated of the abstract.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Et propter hoc ista consequentia non valet `homo est animatus, igitur humanitas est anima', nam `homo' supponit pro eodem pro quo supponit `humanitas', vel saltem supponere potest.		\|Et propter hoc ista consequentia non valet `homo est animatus, igitur humanitas est anima', nam `homo' supponit pro eodem pro quo supponit `humanitas', vel saltem supponere potest.

	\|		\|And because of this reason this conclusion does not hold, `man is animate, therefore humanity is a soul', for `man' stands for the same thing for which `humanity' stands, or at least it can stand for it.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Nam si nulla humanitas esset assumpta, manifestum est quod non pro alio supponerent subiecta istarum propositionum `homo est animal', `humanitas est animal'; nam cum `homo' supponat pro toto composito ex omnibus partibus essentialibus hominis, `humanitas' supponeret pro aliqua parte hominis vel pro aliquo quod nec esset illud totum nec pars, si non supponat pro toto.		\|Nam si nulla humanitas esset assumpta, manifestum est quod non pro alio supponerent subiecta istarum propositionum `homo est animal', `humanitas est animal'; nam cum `homo' supponat pro toto composito ex omnibus partibus essentialibus hominis, `humanitas' supponeret pro aliqua parte hominis vel pro aliquo quod nec esset illud totum nec pars, si non supponat pro toto.

	\|		\|For if no humanity were assumed, it is clear that the subjects of these propositions would not suppose for something else, `man is an animal,' and `humanity is an animal,' for another. for when 'man' supposits to be a whole composed of all the essential parts of man, 'humanity' supposits to be some part of man, or for something which is neither the whole nor a part, if it does not suppose it to be the whole.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Nec valet dicere quod `homo' supponat pro toto composito ex humanitate et differentia individuali contrahente humanitatem, nam idem argumentum est de Sorteitate: pro quo supponit?		\|Nec valet dicere quod `homo' supponat pro toto composito ex humanitate et differentia individuali contrahente humanitatem, nam idem argumentum est de Sorteitate: pro quo supponit?

	\|		\|and it is valid to say that `man' stands for a whole composed of humanity and individual difference contracting humanity, for the same argument is made about Socrates: for what does it stand?

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

Ragnarr49 at 14:38, 15 February 2025

2025-02-15T14:38:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:38, 15 February 2025
Line 38:		Line 38:
	\|Unde quamvis omnia animalia essent alba, adhuc album non esset superius ad hominem, quantumcumque `album' praedicaretur de omni homine et de pluribus aliis; et hoc quia ista consequentia non est simplex `Sortes est homo, igitur Sortes est albus'.		\|Unde quamvis omnia animalia essent alba, adhuc album non esset superius ad hominem, quantumcumque `album' praedicaretur de omni homine et de pluribus aliis; et hoc quia ista consequentia non est simplex `Sortes est homo, igitur Sortes est albus'.

	\|		\|Hence, even if all animals were white, white would still not be superior to man, no matter how much 'white' was predicated of every man and of many others; and this is because this conclusion is not a simple one: `Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is white.''

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Et propter hoc non valet ista consequentia `Deus est homo, igitur deitas est humanitas', quantumcumque quilibet Deus et quaelibet persona divina esset homo; et hoc quia Deus non est inferius ad hominem, sicut nec Filius Dei est inferius ad hominem.		\|Et propter hoc non valet ista consequentia `Deus est homo, igitur deitas est humanitas', quantumcumque quilibet Deus et quaelibet persona divina esset homo; et hoc quia Deus non est inferius ad hominem, sicut nec Filius Dei est inferius ad hominem.

	\|		\|And for this reason the following conclusion, `God is man, therefore deity is humanity,' is not valid, no matter how much every God and every divine person were a man; and this because God is not inferior to man, just as neither is the Son of God inferior to man.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Nec hic praedicatur superius de inferiori `Filius Dei est homo' sicut nec hic `Sortes est albus'. Et si dicatur quod hic est praedicatio superioris de inferiori `Christus est homo'; igitur sequitur `Christus est homo, ergo deitas est humanitas', quia Christus non habet aliud abstractum: Dicendum est quod si hic sit praedicatio superioris de inferiori, hoc est quia subiectum aequivalet duobus concretis habentibus duo abstracta, quorum unum est `deitas' et aliud `humanitas', et concreta sunt `Deus' vel `Filius Dei' et `hic homo', quia `Christus' tunc aequivalebit isti toti `Filius Dei qui est hic homo'. Et quia Christus non est inferius ad hominem nisi quia includit aequivalenter illud concretum `hic homo' et non quia includit aequivalenter hoc concretum `Filius Dei' vel `Verbum', ideo ex ista `Christus est homo', si sit in ea praedicatio superioris de inferiori, contingit inferre istam `haec humanitas est humanitas' et non istam `deitas est humanitas'.		\|Nec hic praedicatur superius de inferiori `Filius Dei est homo' sicut nec hic `Sortes est albus'. Et si dicatur quod hic est praedicatio superioris de inferiori `Christus est homo'; igitur sequitur `Christus est homo, ergo deitas est humanitas', quia Christus non habet aliud abstractum: Dicendum est quod si hic sit praedicatio superioris de inferiori, hoc est quia subiectum aequivalet duobus concretis habentibus duo abstracta, quorum unum est `deitas' et aliud `humanitas', et concreta sunt `Deus' vel `Filius Dei' et `hic homo', quia `Christus' tunc aequivalebit isti toti `Filius Dei qui est hic homo'. Et quia Christus non est inferius ad hominem nisi quia includit aequivalenter illud concretum `hic homo' et non quia includit aequivalenter hoc concretum `Filius Dei' vel `Verbum', ideo ex ista `Christus est homo', si sit in ea praedicatio superioris de inferiori, contingit inferre istam `haec humanitas est humanitas' et non istam `deitas est humanitas'.

	\|		\|Neither here is the superior predicated from the inferior, `The Son of God is a man,' just as neither here is `Socrates is white.' And if it be said that here is the predication of the superior from the inferior, `Christ is man'; therefore it follows that Christ is man, therefore deity is humanity, because Christ has no other abstract: It must be said that if this is the predication of the superior from the inferior, this is because the subject is equivalent to two concretes having two abstracts, one of which is 'deity' and the other 'humanity', and concrete are 'God' or 'Son of God' and 'this man', because 'Christ' will then be equivalent to the whole 'Son of God who is this man'. And since Christ is not inferior to man except because he includes equivalently the concrete `this man' and not because he includes equivalently this concrete `Son of God' or `the Word', therefore from this `Christ is man', if there is in it a predication of the superior from the inferior, it happens to infer that `this humanity is humanity' and not that `deity is humanity'.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Exemplum est ad hoc: nam hic est praedicatio superioris de inferiori `homo albus est albus', non quia homo sit inferius ad album, sed quia `hoc album', demonstrando quemcumque hominem album, est inferius; et ideo ex {{p\|612}} ista `homo albus est albus' non sequitur ista `humanitas est albedo' sed ista `haec albedo' --- demonstrando albedinem hominis --- `est albedo'.		\|Exemplum est ad hoc: nam hic est praedicatio superioris de inferiori `homo albus est albus', non quia homo sit inferius ad album, sed quia `hoc album', demonstrando quemcumque hominem album, est inferius; et ideo ex {{p\|612}} ista `homo albus est albus' non sequitur ista `humanitas est albedo' sed ista `haec albedo' --- demonstrando albedinem hominis --- `est albedo'.

	\|		\|There is an example of this: for here is the predication of the superior over the inferior, `a white man is white,' not because a man is inferior to white, but because `this white,' indicating any white man, is inferior; and therefore from that `a white man is white' does not follow that `humanity is white' but that `this white thing' --- showing the whiteness of man --- `is white'.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Ex isto patet quod tales consequentiae sunt bonae `homo est animal, igitur humanitas est animalitas'; `equus est animal, igitur equinitas est animalitas'. Secundo est intelligendum quod ista regula est intelligenda quando concreta eodem modo se habent ad sua abstracta.		\|Ex isto patet quod tales consequentiae sunt bonae `homo est animal, igitur humanitas est animalitas'; `equus est animal, igitur equinitas est animalitas'. Secundo est intelligendum quod ista regula est intelligenda quando concreta eodem modo se habent ad sua abstracta.

	\|		\|From this it is clear that such conclusions are good: 'man is an animal, therefore humanity is animality'; `a horse is an animal, therefore equineness is animality'. Secondly, it is to be understood that this rule is to be understood when concrete things have the same relation to their abstract counterparts.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Ita scilicet quod si unum concretum necessario supponat pro alia re quam suum abstractum, vel denotetur supponere in propositione, quod aliud similiter supponat pro alia re quam suum abstractum.		\|Ita scilicet quod si unum concretum necessario supponat pro alia re quam suum abstractum, vel denotetur supponere in propositione, quod aliud similiter supponat pro alia re quam suum abstractum.

	\|		\|That is to say, if one concrete thing necessarily supposits for another thing than its abstract, or is denoted to supposit in a proposition, that it likewise supposits something else for another thing than its abstract.

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

Ragnarr49 at 14:25, 15 February 2025

2025-02-15T14:25:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:25, 15 February 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|Datis aliquibus regulis deservientibus consequentiis inferentibus affirmativam ex affirmativa per medium intrinsecum, dicendum est de regulis inferentibus affirmativam ex affirmativa per medium extrinsecum.		\|Datis aliquibus regulis deservientibus consequentiis inferentibus affirmativam ex affirmativa per medium intrinsecum, dicendum est de regulis inferentibus affirmativam ex affirmativa per medium extrinsecum.

	\|Given some rules that ~~serve as~~ consequences inferring an affirmative from an affirmative through an intrinsic medium, we must speak of the rules inferring an affirmative from an affirmative through an external medium.		\|Given some rules that govern consequences inferring an affirmative from an affirmative through an intrinsic medium, we must speak of the rules inferring an affirmative from an affirmative through an external medium.

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

Ragnarr49 at 13:33, 15 February 2025

2025-02-15T13:33:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:33, 15 February 2025
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\|CAP. 7. DE REGULIS INFERENTIBUS AFFIRMATIVAM EX AFFIRMATIVA PER MEDIUM EXTRINSECUM.		\|CAP. 7. DE REGULIS INFERENTIBUS AFFIRMATIVAM EX AFFIRMATIVA PER MEDIUM EXTRINSECUM.

	\|		\|Chapter 7. On the rules of inferring an affirmative from an affirmative through an external medium.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Datis aliquibus regulis deservientibus consequentiis inferentibus affirmativam ex affirmativa per medium intrinsecum, dicendum est de regulis inferentibus affirmativam ex affirmativa per medium extrinsecum.		\|Datis aliquibus regulis deservientibus consequentiis inferentibus affirmativam ex affirmativa per medium intrinsecum, dicendum est de regulis inferentibus affirmativam ex affirmativa per medium extrinsecum.

	\|		\|Given some rules that serve as consequences inferring an affirmative from an affirmative through an intrinsic medium, we must speak of the rules inferring an affirmative from an affirmative through an external medium.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Et est una regula talis: si principale de principali et coniugatum de coniugato et casus de casu, et e converso. `Coniugatum' vocatur concretum, `principale' abstractum, et `casus' vocatur adverbium correspondens. Unde sequitur `iustitia est virtus, igitur iustus est virtuosus', et `qui iuste aliquid facit, virtuose aliquid facit'.		\|Et est una regula talis: si principale de principali et coniugatum de coniugato et casus de casu, et e converso. `Coniugatum' vocatur concretum, `principale' abstractum, et `casus' vocatur adverbium correspondens. Unde sequitur `iustitia est virtus, igitur iustus est virtuosus', et `qui iuste aliquid facit, virtuose aliquid facit'.

	\|		\|And there is one rule like this: if the principal is from the principal and the conjugate from the conjugate and the case from the case, and vice versa. The `conjugate' is called the concrete, the `principal' the abstract, and the `case' is called the corresponding adverb. Hence it follows that 'justice is a virtue, therefore the just is virtuous', and 'he who does something justly, does something virtuously'.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Notandum est hic quod ista regula habet intelligi si concretum et abstractum significent idem, et tunc semper verum est `si abstractum de abstracto et concretum de concreto', sed non oportet semper e converso.		\|Notandum est hic quod ista regula habet intelligi si concretum et abstractum significent idem, et tunc semper verum est `si abstractum de abstracto et concretum de concreto', sed non oportet semper e converso.

	\|		\|It must be noted here that this rule must be understood if the concrete and the abstract mean the same thing, and then it is always true 'if the abstract is from the abstract and the concrete from the concrete', but it need not always be so and vice versa.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|Sed ad hoc quod e converso teneat consequentia, oportet quod concreta semper se habeant secundum superius et inferius. Unde bene sequitur `albedo est musica, igitur album est musicum'; sed non sequitur e converso `album est musicum, igitur albedo est musica'.		\|Sed ad hoc quod e converso teneat consequentia, oportet quod concreta semper se habeant secundum superius et inferius. Unde bene sequitur `albedo est musica, igitur album est musicum'; sed non sequitur e converso `album est musicum, igitur albedo est musica'.

	\|		\|But in order for the converse to hold, it is necessary that the concrete should always be according to the superior and the inferior. Whence it well follows that `white is music, therefore white is musical'; but it does not follow on the contrary that `white is musical, therefore white is music'.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|{{p\|641}} Et nota quod illud est inferius ad aliud quando ab illo ad aliud est consequentia formalis affirmative, et non e converso; sicut sequitur formaliter `Sortes est homo albus, igitur Sortes est homo', et ideo non sufficit ad hoc quod aliquid sit superius quod praedicetur de omnibus de quibus aliud et de pluribus.		\|{{p\|641}} Et nota quod illud est inferius ad aliud quando ab illo ad aliud est consequentia formalis affirmative, et non e converso; sicut sequitur formaliter `Sortes est homo albus, igitur Sortes est homo', et ideo non sufficit ad hoc quod aliquid sit superius quod praedicetur de omnibus de quibus aliud et de pluribus.

	\|		\|And note that it is inferior to another when from that to another there is a formal consequence in the affirmative, and not the other way around; as it formally follows, `Socrates is a white man, therefore Sores is a man,' and therefore it is not sufficient for this to be something superior that is predicated of all of which one thing and of more.

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