e assume this incompatibility here too in asking which of the two came; for if they might both have come,CG Menn Heli-Arctic Parka, the question would have been absurd; but if they might,Patrick Sharp Tröjor, even so this falls just as much into an antithesis,Glenn Anderson Tröjor, that of the ‘one or many’, i.e. ‘whether both came or one of the two’:-if,Curtis McElhinney Tröjor, then,Kvinnor Vattentät jackor, the question ‘whether’ is always concerned with opposites, and we can ask ‘whether it is greater or less or equal’,Kyle Clifford Tröjor, what is the opposition of the equal to the other two? It is not contrary either to one alone or to both; for why should it be contrary to the greater rather than to the less? Further,Ryan Miller Tröjor, the equal is contrary to the unequal. Therefore if it is contrary to the greater and the less, it will be contrary to more things than one. But if the unequal means the same as both the greater and the less together,Canada Goose Chateau Parka, the equal will be opposite to both (and the difficulty supports those who say the unequal is a ‘two’), but it follows that one thing is contrary to two others, which is impossible. Again,New Tröjor, the equal is evidently intermediate between the great and the small, but no contrariety is either observed to be intermediate, or, from its definition, can be so; for it would not be complete if it were intermediate between any two things, but rather it always has something intermediate between its own terms.
It remains, then, that it is opposed either as negation or as privation. It cannot be the negation or privation of one of the two; for why of the great rather than of the small? It is, then, the privative negation of both. This is why ‘whether’ is said with reference to both, not to one of the two (e.g. ‘whether it is greater or equal’ or ‘whether it is equal or less’); there are always three cases. But it is not a necessary privation; for not everything which is not greater or less is equal, but only the things which are of such a nature as to have these attributes.
The equal,Jansen Harkins Tröjor, then, is that which is neither great nor small but is naturally fitted to be either great or small; and it is opposed to both as a privative negation (and therefore is also intermediate). And that which is neither good nor bad is opposed to both,Brian Rafalski Tröjor, but has no name; for each of these has several meanings and the recipient subject is not one; but that which is neither white nor black has more claim to unity. Yet even this has not one name, though the colours of which this negation is privatively predicated are in a way limited; for they must be either grey or yellow or something else of the kind. Therefore it is an incorrect criticism that is passed by those who think that all such phrases are used in the same way, so that that which is neither a shoe nor a hand would be intermediate between a shoe and a hand,Paul Martin Tröjor, since that which is neither good nor bad is intermediate between the good and the bad-as if there must be an intermediate in all cases. But this does not necessarily follow. For the one phrase is a joint denial of opposites between which there is an intermediate and a certain natural interval; but between the other two
相关的主题文章：
http://www.matsue-yado.com/otoku/clip.cgi
http://www.blackborder.com/cgi-bin/common/index.cgi
http://www13.plala.or.jp/gakuki3/cgi_bin/aska/aska.cgi |
