http://logicmuseum.com/x/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Authors%2FAristotle%2Fpriora%2FLiber_1%2FC12 2026-10-23T23:55:20Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.39.17 http://logicmuseum.com/x/index.php?title=Authors/Aristotle/priora/Liber_1/C12&diff=15068&oldid=prev 2021-04-17T15:37:24Z

<p>Created page with &quot;==Chapter 12== {| border=1 cellpadding=10 !valign = top width=33.33%|Greek !valign = top width=33.33%|Latin !valign = top width=33.33%|English |- valign = top | | |12 |- va...&quot;</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>==Chapter 12==<br /> {| border=1 cellpadding=10<br /> !valign = top width=33.33%|Greek<br /> !valign = top width=33.33%|Latin<br /> !valign = top width=33.33%|English<br /> |- valign = top<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |12<br /> <br /> |- valign = top<br /> |{{a|bk32a6|32a6}} Φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι τοῦ μὲν ὑπάρχειν οὐκ ἔστι συλλογισμός, ἐὰν μὴ ἀμφότεραι ὦσιν αἱ προτάσεις ἐν τῶι ὑπάρχειν, τοῦ δ᾽ ἀναγκαίου ἔστι καὶ τῆς ἑτέρας μόνον ἀναγκαίας οὔσης. ἐν ἀμφοτέροις δέ, καὶ καταφατικῶν καὶ στερητικῶν ὄντων τῶν συλλογισμῶν, ἀνάγκη τὴν ἑτέραν πρότασιν ὁμοίαν εἶναι τῶι συμπεράσματι. λέγω δὲ τὸ ὁμοίαν, εἰ μὲν ὑπάρχον, ὑπάρχουσαν, εἰ δ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀναγκαίαν. ὥστε καὶ τοῦτο δῆλον, ὅτι οὐκ ἔσται τὸ συμπέρασμα οὔτ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον οὔθ᾽ ὑπάρχον εἶναι μὴ ληφθείσης ἀναγκαίας ἢ ὑπαρχούσης προτάσεως. <br /> <br /> |Manifestum igitur quoniam inesse quidem non est syllogismus, si utraeque propositiones non sunt in eo quod est inesse, necessaria vero est, et altera solum existente necessaria. In utrisque autem affirmativis et privativis existentibus syllogismis necesse est alteram propositionem similem esse conclusioni. Dico autem similem, si inesse quidem, inexistentem, si autem necessaria, necessariam. Quare et hoc palam, quoniam non erit conclusio neque necessaria, neque inesse, non sumpta vel necessaria, vel quae inesse significet propositione. <br /> <br /> |It is clear then that a simple conclusion is not reached unless both premisses are simple assertions, but a necessary conclusion is possible although one only of the premisses is necessary. But in both cases, whether the syllogisms are affirmative or negative, it is necessary that one premiss should be similar to the conclusion. I mean by ‘similar’, if the conclusion is a simple assertion, the premiss must be simple; if the conclusion is necessary, the premiss must be necessary. Consequently this also is clear, that the conclusion will be neither necessary nor simple unless a necessary or simple premiss is assumed.<br /> <br /> |- valign = top<br /> |Περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ἀναγκαίου, πῶς γίγνεται καὶ τίνα διαφορὰν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ὑπάρχον, εἴρηται σχεδὸν ἱκανῶς·<br /> <br /> |Igitur de necessario quomodo fit, et quam differentiam habeat ad inesse, sufficienter pene dictum est.<br /> <br /> |Perhaps enough has been said about the proof of necessity, how it comes about and how it differs from the proof of a simple statement.<br /> <br /> |}<br /> &lt;noinclude&gt;<br /> ==Notes==<br /> {{reflist}}&lt;/noinclude&gt;</div>

Edward Ockham