登陆注册
5270400000059

第59章

In the case of some properties it mostly happens that some error is incurred because of a failure to define how as well as to what things the property is stated to belong. For every one tries to render as the property of a thing something that belongs to it either naturally, as 'biped' belongs to 'man', or actually, as 'having four fingers' belongs to a particular man, or specifically, as 'consisting of most rarefied particles' belongs to 'fire', or absolutely, as 'life' to 'living being', or one that belongs to a thing only as called after something else, as 'wisdom' to the 'soul', or on the other hand primarily, as 'wisdom' to the 'rational faculty', or because the thing is in a certain state, as 'incontrovertible by argument' belongs to a 'scientist' (for simply and solely by reason of his being in a certain state will he be 'incontrovertible by argument'), or because it is the state possessed by something, as 'incontrovertible by argument' belongs to 'science', or because it is partaken of, as 'sensation' belongs to 'animal' (for other things as well have sensation, e.g. man, but they have it because they already partake of 'animal'), or because it partakes of something else, as 'life' belongs to a particular kind of 'living being'. Accordingly he makes a mistake if he has failed to add the word 'naturally', because what belongs naturally may fail to belong to the thing to which it naturally belongs, as (e.g.) it belongs to a man to have two feet: so too he errs if he does not make a definite proviso that he is rendering what actually belongs, because one day that attribute will not be what it now is, e.g. the man's possession of four fingers. So he errs if he has not shown that he states a thing to be such and such primarily, or that he calls it so after something else, because then its name too will not be true of that of which the deion is true, as is the case with 'coloured', whether rendered as a property of 'surface' or of 'body'. So he errs if he has not said beforehand that he has rendered a property to a thing either because that thing possesses a state, or because it is a state possessed by something; because then it will not be a property. For, supposing he renders the property to something as being a state possessed, it will belong to what possesses that state; while supposing he renders it to what possesses the state, it will belong to the state possessed, as did 'incontrovertible by argument' when stated as a property of 'science' or of the 'scientist'. So he errs if he has not indicated beforehand that the property belongs because the thing partakes of, or is partaken of by, something; because then the property will belong to certain other things as well. For if he renders it because its subject is partaken of, it will belong to the things which partake of it; whereas if he renders it because its subject partakes of something else, it will belong to the things partaken of, as (e.g.) if he were to state 'life' to be a property of a 'particular kind of living being', or just of 'living being. So he errs if he has not expressly distinguished the property that belongs specifically, because then it will belong only to one of the things that fall under the term of which he states the property: for the superlative belongs only to one of them, e.g. 'lightest' as applied to 'fire'. Sometimes, too, a man may even add the word 'specifically', and still make a mistake.

For the things in question should all be of one species, whenever the word 'specifically' is added: and in some cases this does not occur, as it does not, in fact, in the case of fire. For fire is not all of one species; for live coals and flame and light are each of them 'fire', but are of different species. The reason why, whenever 'specifically' is added, there should not be any species other than the one mentioned, is this, that if there be, then the property in question will belong to some of them in a greater and to others in a less degree, as happens with 'consisting of most rarefied particles' in the case of fire: for 'light' consists of more rarefied particles than live coals and flame. And this should not happen unless the name too be predicated in a greater degree of that of which the deion is truer; otherwise the rule that where the deion is truer the name too should be truer is not fulfilled. Moreover, in addition to this, the same attribute will be the property both of the term which has it absolutely and of that element therein which has it in the highest degree, as is the condition of the property 'consisting of most rarefied particles' in the case of 'fire': for this same attribute will be the property of 'light' as well: for it is 'light' that 'consists of the most rarefied particles'. If, then, any one else renders a property in this way one should attack it; for oneself, one should not give occasion for this objection, but should define in what manner one states the property at the actual time of making the statement.

Next, for destructive purposes, see if he has stated a thing as a property of itself: for then what has been stated to be a property will not be a property. For a thing itself always shows its own essence, and what shows the essence is not a property but a definition. Thus (e.g.) he who has said that 'becoming' is a property of 'beautiful' has rendered the term as a property of itself (for 'beautiful' and 'becoming' are the same); and so 'becoming' could not be a property of 'beautiful'. For constructive purposes, on the other hand, see if he has avoided rendering a thing as a property of itself, but has yet stated a convertible predicate: for then what is stated not to be a property will be a property.

Thus he who has stated 'animate substance' as a property of 'living-creature' has not stated 'living-creature' as a property of itself, but has rendered a convertible predicate, so that 'animate substance' would be a property of 'living-creature'.

Next, in the case of things consisting of like parts, you should look and see, for destructive purposes, if the property of the whole be not true of the part, or if that of the part be not predicated of the whole: for then what has been stated to be the property will not be a property. In some cases it happens that this is so: for sometimes in rendering a property in the case of things that consist of like parts a man may have his eye on the whole, while sometimes he may address himself to what is predicated of the part: and then in neither case will it have been rightly rendered. Take an instance referring to the whole: the man who has said that it is a property of the 'sea' to be 'the largest volume of salt water', has stated the property of something that consists of like parts, but has rendered an attribute of such a kind as is not true of the part (for a particular sea is not 'the largest volume of salt water'); and so the largest volume of salt water' could not be a property of the 'sea'. Now take one referring to the part: the man who has stated that it is a property of 'air' to be 'breathable' has stated the property of something that consists of like parts, but he has stated an attribute such as, though true of some air, is still not predicable of the whole (for the whole of the air is not breathable); and so 'breathable' could not be a property of 'air'. For constructive purposes, on the other hand, see whether, while it is true of each of the things with similar parts, it is on the other hand a property of them taken as a collective whole: for then what has been stated not to be a property will be a property.

Thus (e.g.) while it is true of earth everywhere that it naturally falls downwards, it is a property of the various particular pieces of earth taken as 'the Earth', so that it would be a property of 'earth' 'naturally to fall downwards'.

同类推荐
  • 闽事纪略

    闽事纪略

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • The Argonauts of North Liberty

    The Argonauts of North Liberty

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • Moon of Israel

    Moon of Israel

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 佛说阿鸠留经

    佛说阿鸠留经

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • Three Elephant Power

    Three Elephant Power

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
热门推荐
  • 嫡女凰途:废后要爬墙

    嫡女凰途:废后要爬墙

    世人皆道,她是最最狠毒之女子,弑君杀夫,翻覆皇权。所幸苍天有眼,让她死在至亲手里,万箭穿心。世人皆道,她是最最懦弱之女子,空守中宫六年,一朝流落尼寺,还要被小三暗算,孤苦死去。当她变成她,翻手云,覆手雨,偷天换日。誓要世间辱她、欺她、负她者,不得好死!皇帝前夫回头?对不起不稀罕。公侯世子青眼?不好意思跟你很熟吗。至于这只前世的冤家……冯蓁忍无可忍:“这位兄台,我们已经和离了,能别缠着我么!”
  • 大学中庸(国学启蒙书系列)

    大学中庸(国学启蒙书系列)

    修身齐家治国平天下,应以德为本。博学之,审问之,慎思之,明辨之,笃行之。诚是实现中庸之道的关键。在本书中,编者韩震等人采用活泼插图的表现方式,编选相关的精彩故事,融知识性与趣味性于一体,让青少年在诵读中轻松快乐地亲近本书,更直观、真切地感受本书的魅力,在阅读中积淀文化底蕴,培养良好道德品质,从而受益一生。
  • 聘金无价:国民少爷追爱记

    聘金无价:国民少爷追爱记

    何为国民少爷?举个例子,就像欧阳痕祭这种,有雄厚家底、长得人神共愤,亲和力爆表!可在谢雪尘看来,有雄厚家底,那也是他爸妈的钱;长得人神共愤,也不过是衣冠qin兽一只!亲和力爆表,说白了就一只花花大萝卜!国民少爷对此微微一笑,迅速将高冷千金俘获!最后却让她给逃了!两年后,再次相遇~“欧阳少爷,请你听清楚!以前是以前,现在是现在!我是冷氏千金冷黎雪,而冷黎雪马上要和铭萧踏入神圣的婚姻殿堂了!”国民少爷勾唇,“一个小帮主,确定?”谢雪尘掀桌:“小帮主?Z国最大hei帮的帮主你说小帮主!聘金就有半个hei帮的权利可使!”“那比得上本少暖床暖身更暖心?这可是无价!”“滚!”国民少爷追爱路漫漫其修远兮!~
  • 崔浩

    崔浩

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 湖北人的性情剖析

    湖北人的性情剖析

    湖北人既豪爽又谨慎,既热情又小心,既善于经营世俗人生,又崇尚精神生活。他们可以披肝沥胆,无私助人,也可以小处计较,谨慎处世;他们可以争强好胜,兼济天下,也可以超然物外,独善其身。本书是第一本诠释湖北人性情的精华本,是洞悉湖北人行为特性的全面攻略。本书着重描写了湖北的地理特点、文化和他们生活的各个方面。在本书中,编者突出表现湖北人在经济、教育、社会、性格、人文况味、语言等领域所呈现出的性情特征。其中,尤其对“天上九头鸟、地上湖北佬”这句俗语,做了细致的解释。
  • 玄仙志

    玄仙志

    修炼晋级,大道争锋。扮猪吃虎,以蟒吞龙。修真世界,三千道法,宁安兴以凡俗之身,登凌九天,横压万界。(骗进来一个是一个)
  • 礼仪是一种资本:日常礼仪的300个细节

    礼仪是一种资本:日常礼仪的300个细节

    礼仪就在我们身边。不论你在什么场合,都得讲“礼”。不懂礼仪,会让你处处“献丑”,甚至一个无意识的小动作也可能毁掉你的大好前程。如果说人生中哪门学问时刻与人相关,那这门学问非礼仪莫属。生活在现代社会,拥有良好的礼仪,无疑会为你增加诸多资本。把本书的礼仪细节在你的生活中应用起来吧,争取成为一个拥有良好礼仪、处处给人好感的现代人。
  • 毒医狂后

    毒医狂后

    她被嫡姐囚禁,日日以毒物为食,十年时间,她被炼成至毒无比的人形蛊。直到这日,嫡姐的纤纤玉手插入她的心口,生生摘下她鲜活的心脏!他是二十一世纪第一神偷,被一块神秘黑玉吸引,穿越时空坠入异世。诡异术士将他封印在黑玉之中,植黑玉入她的身体,一身二魂,她乱葬岗离奇复活!至此,一个煞神归来的传说,华丽的拉开了序幕!
  • 孤子

    孤子

    伦理剧的纠结,言情剧的俗套,整体不狗血处处狗血。这是一个关于青梅竹马的现代小清新,这是一个关于欢喜冤家的俗套小虐缘。穿插些许灵异鬼神,人性冷暖。是三个人的情路,还是两代人的纠葛。是一个人的成长还是一辈子的蹉跎,平铺开来,大约不小白,大约不刺激?唔?大抵如此吧!
  • 红警之自由科技

    红警之自由科技

    屠杀,前方战斗的消息不断传来,城市内充满了谣言的恐怖。人们生活在生与死的边缘,但谁又愿意死去,哪怕是蝼蚁也会苟且偷生。所有人都祈求着和平,而战争就像是毒瘾一般强效而致命,惊心动魄后的城市已经没有了往日的安详和宁静,取而代之的是毫无生气的哀嚎和对世间的绝望。灰色的光芒完全的笼罩在这可见的世界中,而黑暗中微弱的亮光还保持着和平守望。