ot even contradict it, the science of the end and of the good is of the nature of Wisdom (for the other things are for the sake of the end). But inasmuch as it was described’ as dealing with the first causes and that which is in the highest sense object of knowledge, the science of substance must be of the nature of Wisdom. For since men may know the same thing in many ways, we say that Parajumpers Kvinne he who recognizes what a thing is by its being so and so knows more fully than he who recognizes it by its not being so and so, and in the former class itself one knows more fully than another, and he knows most fully who knows Xherdan Shaqiri Pelipaita what a thing is, not he who Nike Air Max 93 Moški knows its quantity or quality or what it can by nature do or have done to it. And further in all cases also we think that the knowledge of each even Womens Air Jordan 7 of the things of which demonstration is possible is present only when we know what the thing is, Serdar Tasci Pelipaita e.g. what squaring a rectangle is, viz. that it Guilherme Siqueira Pelipaita is the finding of a mean; and similarly in all other cases. And we know about becomings and actions and about every change when we know the source of the movement; and this is other than and opposed to the end. Therefore it would seem to belong to different sciences to investigate these causes severally.
But (2), taking the Andrea Bertolacci Pelipaita starting-points of demonstration as well as the causes, it is a disputable question whether they are the object of one science or of more (by the starting-points of demonstration I mean the common beliefs, on which all men base Kerim Mrabti Pelipaita their proofs); e.g. that everything must be either affirmed or denied, and that a thing cannot at the same time be and not be, and all other such premisses:-the question is whether the same science deals with them as with substance, or a different science, and if it is not one science, which of the two must be identified with that which we now seek.-It is not reasonable that these topics should be the object of one science; for why should it be peculiarly appropriate to geometry or to any other science to understand these matters? If England Damen then it belongs to every science alike, and cannot belong to all, it is not peculiar to the science which investigates substances, any more than to any other science, to know about these topics.-And, at the same time, in what way can there be a science of the first principles? For we are aware even now what each of them in fact is (at least even other sciences use them as familiar); but if there is a demonstrative science which deals with them, there will have to be an underlying kind, and some of them must be demonstrable attributes and others must be axioms (for Wojciech Szczesny Pelipaita it is impossible that there should be demonstration about all of them); for the demonstration must start from certain premisses and be about a certain Sven Kums Pelipaita subject and prove certain attributes. Therefore it follows that all attributes that are proved must belong to a single class; for all demonstrative sciences use the axioms.
But if the science of substance and the science which deals with the axioms are different, which of them is by Jordi Alba Pelipaita nature more authoritativlinks:
http://www13.plala.or.jp/white_roots/gwbbs/gwbbs.cgi
http://www13.plala.or.jp/white_roots/gwbbs/gwbbs.cgi
http://www.northhills-sp.com/store/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi |
