imperishable or those of Christen Press Drakter perishable things are perishable. Further (11) there is the question which is hardest of all and most perplexing, whether unity and being, as the Pythagoreans Karim Rekik Drakter and Plato said, are not attributes of something else but the substance of existing things, or this is not the case, but the substratum is something else,-as Empedocles says, love; as some one else says, fire; while another says water or air. Again (12) we ask whether the principles are universal or like individual things, and (13) whether they exist potentially or actually, and further, whether they are potential or actual in Thiago Motta Drakter any other sense than in reference to movement; for these questions also would present much difficulty. Further (14), are numbers and Kingsley Coman Drakter lines and figures and points a kind of substance or not, and if they are substances are they separate from sensible things or present in them? With regard to all these matters not only is it hard to get possession of the truth, but it is not easy even to think out the difficulties well.
Book III Chapter 2
(1) First then with regard to Originals Honey what we mentioned first, does it belong to one or to more sciences to investigate all the kinds of causes? How could it Gyasi Zardes Drakter belong to one science to recognize the principles if these are not contrary?
Further, there are many things to which not all the principles pertain. For how can a principle of change or Singapore the nature of the good exist Orbelin Pineda Drakter for unchangeable things, since everything America Jersey that in itself and by its own nature is good is an end, and a cause in the sense that for its sake the other things both come to be and are, and since an end or purpose is the end of some action, and all actions imply change? So in the case of unchangeable things this principle could not exist, nor could there be a good itself. This is Luka Modric Drakter why in mathematics nothing is proved by means of this kind of cause, nor is there any demonstration of this kind-’because it is better, or worse’; indeed no one even mentions anything of the kind. And so for this reason some of the Sophists, e.g. Aristippus, used to ridicule mathematics; for in the arts (he maintained), even in the industrial arts, e.g. in carpentry and cobbling, the reason always given is ‘because it is better, or worse,’ but the mathematical sciences take no account of goods and evils.
But if there are several sciences of the causes, and a different science for each different principle, which of these sciences should be said to be that which we seek, or which of the people who possess them has the most scientific knowledge of the object in question? The same thing may have all the kinds of causes, e.g. the moving cause of a house is the art or the builder, the final cause is the function it fulfils, the matter is earth and stones, and the form is the definition. To judge from our previous discussion of the question which of the sciences Gel Hyper 33 2 should be called Wisdom, there is reason for applying the name to each of them. For inasmuch as it is most architectonic and authoritative and Joe Gomez Drakter the other sciences, like slavewomen, may nlinks:
http://mt.fresheye.com/ft_form.cgi
http://snowstorm.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/site.cgi
http://www.northhills-sp.com/store/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi |
