these at least are not separable substances, but sections and divisions-the former of surfaces, the latter of bodies (while points are sections and divisions of lines); and further they are limits of these same things; and all these are in other things and none is separable. Further, how are we to suppose that there is a substance of unity and the point? Every substance comes into being by a gradual process, but a point does not; for the point is a division.
A further difficulty is raised by the fact that all knowledge is of universals and of the Jorge Fucile Drakter ‘such’, but substance is not a universal, but is rather a ‘this’-a separable thing, so that if there is knowledge about the first Emiliano Martinez Drakter principles, the question arises, how are we to suppose the first principle to be substance?
Further, is there anything apart from the concrete Theo Hernandez Drakter thing (by which I mean the matter and that which is joined with it), or not? If not, we are met by the objection that all things that Arjen Robben Drakter are in matter are perishable. But if there is something, it must be the form or shape. Now it is hard to determine in which cases this exists apart and in which it Rob Holding Drakter does not; for in some cases the form is evidently not separable, e.g. in the case of a house.
Further, Douglas Costa Drakter are the principles the same in kind or in number? If they are one in number, all things will be the same.
Book XI Chapter 3
Since the science of the philosopher treats of being qua being universally and not in respect of a part of it, and ‘being’ has many senses and is not used in one only, it follows that if the word is used equivocally and in virtue of nothing common to its various uses, being does not fall under one science (for the meanings of an equivocal term do not form one genus); but if the word is used in virtue of something common, being will fall Australia Jerseys fuck google under one science. The term seems to be Mehdi Benatia Drakter used in the way we have mentioned, like ‘medical’ and ‘healthy’. For each of these Lorenzo De Silvestri Drakter also we use in many senses. Terms are used in this way by virtue of some kind of reference, in the one case to medical science, in the other to health, in others to something else, but in each case to one identical concept. For a discussion and a knife are Diego Laxalt Drakter called medical because the former proceeds from medical science, and the latter is useful to Paris Saint-Germain it. And a thing is called healthy in a similar way; one thing because it is indicative of health, another because it is productive of it. And the same is true in the other cases. Everything that is, then, is Mattia De Sciglio Drakter said to ‘be’ in this same way; each thing that is is said to ‘be’ because it is a modification of being qua being or a permanent or a transient state or a movement of it, or something else of the sort. And since everything that is may be referred to something single and common, each of the contrarieties also may be referred to the first differences and contrarieties of being, whether the first differences of being are plurality and unity, or likeness and unlikeness, or some other differences; let these be taken as already discussed. It makes no differenlinks:
http://www.dwats.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi
http://www13.plala.or.jp/white_roots/gwbbs/gwbbs.cgi
http://www.radiologycases.com/casereports/jrcr-mcq.cgi |
