, and in a sense there is not; for there is no formula of it with its matter,Ralph Lauren Tee, for this is indefinite, but there is a formula of it with reference to its primary substance-e.g. in the case of man the formula of the soul-, for the substance is the indwelling form,Menn Moncler Baptiste, from which and the matter the so-called concrete substance is derived; e.g. concavity is a form of this sort, for from this and the nose arise ‘snub nose’ and ‘snubness’); but in the concrete substance, e.g. a snub nose or Callias, the matter also will be present. And we have stated that the essence and the thing itself are in some cases the same; ie. in the case of primary substances, e.g. curvature and the essence of curvature if this is primary. (By a ‘primary’ substance I mean one which does not imply the presence of something in something else,Tyler Bozak Tröjor, i.e. in something that underlies it which acts as matter.) But things which are of the nature of matter,Canada Goose Montebello Parka, or of wholes that include matter, are not the same as their essences, nor are accidental unities like that of ‘Socrates’ and ‘musical’; for these are the same only by accident.
Book VII Chapter 12
Now let us treat first of definition, in so far as we have not treated of it in the Analytics; for the problem stated in them is useful for our inquiries concerning substance. I mean this problem:-wherein can consist the unity of that,Connor Murphy Tröjor, the formula of which we call a definition,Ryan Miller Tröjor, as for instance,CG Dame Brookvale Hoody, in the case of man,Buty Nike Foamposite Pro, ‘two-footed animal’; for let this be the formula of man. Why, then, is this one, and not many, viz. ‘animal’ and ‘two-footed’? For in the case of ‘man’ and ‘pale’ there is a plurality when one term does not belong to the other, but a unity when it does belong and the subject,Ralph Lauren ärmlös polo, man, has a certain attribute; for then a unity is produced and we have ‘the pale man’. In the present case, on the other hand, one does not share in the other; the genus is not thought to share in its differentiae (for then the same thing would share in contraries; for the differentiae by which the genus is divided are contrary). And even if the genus does share in them, the same argument applies, since the differentiae present in man are many, e.g. endowed with feet, two-footed,Martin Hanzal Tröjor, featherless. Why are these one and not many? Not because they are present in one thing; for on this principle a unity can be made out of all the attributes of a thing. But surely all the attributes in the definition must be one; for the definition is a single formula and a formula of substance, so that it must be a formula of some one thing; for substance means a ‘one’ and a ‘this’, as we maintain.
We must first inquire about definitions reached by the method of divisions. There is nothing in the definition except the first-named and the differentiae. The other genera are the first genus and along with this the differentiae that are taken with it,Canada Goose Heli-Arctic Parka, e.g. the first may be ‘animal’, the next ‘animal which is two-footed’,Milan Lucic Tröjor, and again ‘animal which is two-footed and featherless’, and similarly if the
相关的主题文章：
http://www.matsue-yado.com/otoku/clip.cgi
http://www13.plala.or.jp/gakuki3/cgi_bin/aska/aska.cgi
http://www13.plala.or.jp/gakuki3/cgi_bin/aska/aska.cgi |
