ble thing. The same account holds good for imperishableness also; for both are attributes which are present of necessity. The characteristics, then, in respect of which and in direct consequence of which one thing is perishable and another imperishable, are opposite, so that the things must be different Dominik Reimann Drakter in kind.
Evidently, then, there cannot be Forms such as some maintain, for then one Sebastian Holmen Drakter man would be perishable and another imperishable. Yet the Forms are said to be the same in form with the individuals and not merely to have the same name; but things which differ in kind are farther apart than those which differ in form.
Book XI Chapter 1
THAT Wisdom is a science of first principles is evident from the introductory chapters, in which we have raised objections to the statements of others Federico Marchetti Drakter about the first principles; but one might Diego Rolan Drakter ask the question whether Wisdom is to be conceived as one science or as several. If as one, it may be objected that one science always deals with contraries, but the first principles are not contrary. If it is not one, what sort of sciences are those with which it is to be identified?
Further, is it the business of one science, or of more than one, to examine the first principles of demonstration? If of one, why of this rather than of any other? If of more, what sort of Darlington Nagbe Drakter sciences must these be said to be?
Further, does Wisdom investigate all substances or Phil Jones Drakter not? If not all, it is hard to say which; but if, being one, it investigates them all, it is doubtful how the same science can embrace several subject-matters.
Further, does it deal with substances only or also with their attributes? If in the case of attributes demonstration is possible, in that of substances it is not. But if the two sciences are different, what is each of them and which is Wisdom? If we think of it as demonstrative, the science of the attributes is Wisdom, but if as dealing with what is Dayro Moreno Drakter primary, the science of substances claims the tide.
But again the science we are looking for must not be supposed to deal with the causes which have been mentioned Lindsey Horan Drakter in the Physics. For (A) it does not deal with the final cause (for that is the nature of the good, and this is found in the field of action and movement; and it is the first mover-for that Hugo Lloris Drakter is the nature of the end-but in the case of things unmovable there is nothing that moved them first), and (B) in general it is hard to say whether perchance the science we are now looking for deals with perceptible substances or not with them, but with certain others. If with others, it must deal either with the Forms or with the objects of mathematics. Now (a) evidently the Forms do not exist. (But it is hard to say, even if one suppose them to exist, why in Pepe Drakter the world the same is not true of the other things of which there are Forms, as of the objects of mathematics. I mean that these thinkers place the Italia Drakter objects of mathematics between the Forms and perceptible things, as a kind of third set Stefano Sturaro Drakter of things apart both from the Forms and from the things in this world; but there is not a tlinks:
http://www13.plala.or.jp/white_roots/gwbbs/gwbbs.cgi
http://goobike.com/cgi-bin/search/zaiko_bike.cgi
http://www13.plala.or.jp/white_roots/gwbbs/gwbbs.cgi |
