Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-1/Chapter 57: Difference between revisions

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
||Sequitur videre de mixtione possibilis et impossibilis. Sed de ea potest patere ex illis quae dicta sunt circa mixtionem necessarii et possibles<ref>Supra, cap. 44-46.</ref>, pro eo quod semper illa de impossibili aequivalet alicui de necessario, et ideo de ea non plus ad praesens.
||Sequitur videre de mixtione possibilis et impossibilis. Sed de ea potest patere ex illis quae dicta sunt circa mixtionem necessarii et possibles<ref>Supra, cap. 44-46.</ref>, pro eo quod semper illa de impossibili aequivalet alicui de necessario, et ideo de ea non plus ad praesens.


||It follows to see about the mixture of possible and impossible. But it can be clear about it from what was said about the mixture of necessary and possible<ref>Supra, chap. 44-46.</ref>, because the impossible is always equivalent to something necessary, and therefore about it no more for the present.
||It follows to see about the mixture of possible and impossible. But it can be clear about it from what was said about the mixture of necessary and possible<ref>Supra, chap. 44-46.</ref>, because that de impossibili is always equivalent to something de necessario, and therefore no more about it for the present.


|}
|}

Latest revision as of 15:45, 20 April 2025


Latin English
Cap. 57. De mixtione possibilis et impossibilis in omni figura Chapter 57. On the mixture of possible and impossible in every figure.
Sequitur videre de mixtione possibilis et impossibilis. Sed de ea potest patere ex illis quae dicta sunt circa mixtionem necessarii et possibles[1], pro eo quod semper illa de impossibili aequivalet alicui de necessario, et ideo de ea non plus ad praesens. It follows to see about the mixture of possible and impossible. But it can be clear about it from what was said about the mixture of necessary and possible[2], because that de impossibili is always equivalent to something de necessario, and therefore no more about it for the present.

Notes

  1. ↑ Supra, cap. 44-46.
  2. ↑ Supra, chap. 44-46.