hings whose substance is animal’; for it is not by accident that ‘man’ has ‘animal’ for one of its elements. Further,Rick Nash Tröjor, many things will be ‘animal-itself’. For (i) the ‘animal’ in each species will be the substance of the species; for it is after nothing else that the species is called; if it were, that other would be an element in ‘man’, i.e. would be the genus of man. And further, (ii) all the elements of which ‘man’ is composed will be Ideas. None of them, then, will be the Idea of one thing and the substance of another; this is impossible. The ‘animal’, then, present in each species of animals will be animal-itself. Further, from what is this ‘animal’ in each species derived, and how will it be derived from animal-itself? Or how can this ‘animal’, whose essence is simply animality, exist apart from animal-itself?
Further,PJS Dameklær Denali Dunjakker, (3)in the case of sensible things both these consequences and others still more absurd follow. If,Dame Moncler Alpin, then,Ryan Reaves Tröjor, these consequences are impossible, clearly there are not Forms of sensible things in the sense in which some maintain their existence.
Book VII Chapter 15
Since substance is of two kinds,Woolrich Parka, the concrete thing and the formula (I mean that one kind of substance is the formula taken with the matter,Brandon Bollig Tröjor, while another kind is the formula in its generality),Dame Moncler Melina, substances in the former sense are capable of destruction (for they are capable also of generation), but there is no destruction of the formula in the sense that it is ever in course of being destroyed (for there is no generation of it either; the being of house is not generated, but only the being of this house), but without generation and destruction formulae are and are not; for it has been shown that no one begets nor makes these. For this reason, also,Dame Moncler Belloy, there is neither definition of nor demonstration about sensible individual substances, because they have matter whose nature is such that they are capable both of being and of not being; for which reason all the individual instances of them are destructible. If then demonstration is of necessary truths and definition is a scientific process,Patrik Nemeth Tröjor, and if,Canada Goose Hybridge Lite Jackor, just as knowledge cannot be sometimes knowledge and sometimes ignorance,Brian Rafalski Tröjor, but the state which varies thus is opinion, so too demonstration and definition cannot vary thus, but it is opinion that deals with that which can be otherwise than as it is,Jason Garrison Tröjor, clearly there can neither be definition of nor demonstration about sensible individuals. For perishing things are obscure to those who have the relevant knowledge, when they have passed from our perception; and though the formulae remain in the soul unchanged, there will no longer be either definition or demonstration. And so when one of the definition-mongers defines any individual, he must recognize that his definition may always be overthrown; for it is not possible to define such things.
Nor is it possible to define any Idea. For the Idea is, as its supporters say, an individual, and can exist apart; and the formula must consist of words; and he who defines mu
相关的主题文章：
http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/gear/search.cgi
http://www13.plala.or.jp/gakuki3/cgi_bin/aska/aska.cgi
http://ohh.sisos.co.jp/cgi-bin/openhh/search.cgi |
