For, besides other reasons, it is impossible to enumerate its accidental attributes, which are infinite in number; let him, then, enumerate either all or none. Similarly, therefore, even if the same thing is a thousand times a man and a not-man, he must not, in answering the question Boston Bruins Pipot whether this is a man, add that it is also at the same time a not-man, unless he is bound to add also all the other accidents, Bruno Peres Drakter all that the subject is or is not; and if he does this, he is not observing the rules of argument.
And in general Phil Jones Drakter those who say this do away with substance and essence. For they must Yannick Carrasco Drakter say that all Adnan Januzaj Drakter attributes are accidents, and that there is no such Camilo Vargas Drakter thing as ‘being essentially a man’ or ‘an animal’. For if there is to be any such thing as ‘being essentially a man’ this will not be ‘being a not-man’ or ‘not being a man’ (yet these are negations of it); for there was one thing which it meant, and this was the substance of something. And denoting the substance of a thing means that the essence of the thing is nothing else. But if its being essentially a man is to be the same as either being essentially a not-man or essentially not being a man, then its essence will be something else. Therefore our opponents must say that there cannot be such a definition of anything, but that all attributes are accidental; for this is the distinction between substance and accident-’white’ is accidental to man, because though he Sean Goss Drakter is white, whiteness is not his essence. But if all statements are accidental, there will be nothing primary about which they are made, if the accidental always implies predication about a subject. The predication, then, must go on ad infinitum. But this is impossible; for not even more than two terms can be combined in accidental predication. For (1) an accident is not an accident of an accident, unless it be because both are accidents of the same subject. I mean, for instance, that the white is musical and the latter is white, only because both are accidental to man. But (2) Socrates is musical, not in this sense, that both Sergio Aguero Drakter terms are accidental to something else. Since then some predicates are Rodrigo Bentancur Drakter accidental in this and some in that sense, (a) those which are accidental in the latter sense, in which white is accidental to Socrates, cannot form an infinite series in the upward direction; e.g. Socrates the white has not yet another accident; for Ken Griffen Max no unity can be got out of such a sum. Nor again (b) will ‘white’ have another term accidental to it, e.g. ‘musical’. For this is no more accidental to that than that is to this; and at Bruno Zuculini Drakter the same time we have drawn the distinction, that Kenny Tete Drakter while some predicates are accidental in this sense, others are so in the sense in which ‘musical’ is accidental to Socrates; and the accident is an accident of an accident not in cases of the latter kind, but only in cases of the other kind, so that not all terms will be accidental. There must, then, even so be something which denotes substance. And if this is so, it has been shown that contradictories calinks:
http://www.matsue-yado.com/otoku/clip.cgi
http://www.orthopaedicweblinks.com/cgi-bin/owl/search.cgi
http://120.37.137.166:81/nkjwb/E_GuestBook.asp |
