Paragraph 2:
Sentence 1:
“A premiss then is a sentence affirming or denying one thing of another.”
A subject was introduced an act of affirming or not. All acts as deduction are of one thing from another. A premises was also termed, but was the same as the act itself of deduction.
Sentence 2:
“This is either universal or particular or indefinite.”
A deduction as act was a class called the …… Here begins a discourse. All deduction was accorded a universal term and I do know the term misapplied. So I alter to translated. It should read.
“This is either abstract or particular or not definite.”
I replace abstract for the word universal. An exact use was to be left for later works. Abstracting is defined elsewhere while the introduction simply demands a reader to understand the term. Abstract deduction was a class while the certain element of the class was the particular and if the term was unclear a not clear term was used for the class of deduction.
Particular inference means a sets element while the abstract set of elements denoted abstract deduction. Equating inference with deduction exactly. Not clear usage denoted the alternative to precise set terminology. Abstract existence was accorded by the Greeks so a set of all elements was a true transcendental set. Modern computer architecture has affirmed this correct view.
Sentence 3:
“By universal I mean the statement that something belongs to all or none of something else; by particular that it belongs to some or not to some or not to all; by indefinite that it does or does not belong, without any mark to show whether it is universal or particular, e.g. ‘contraries are subjects of the same science’, or ‘pleasure is not good’.”
So the terms are clarified as symmetric relative. A set as abstract then classifies the certain element while a term as particular was deduced. Here I inverted the abstract to allow the term symmetric. Aristotle is assured to have intended to discuss the symmetric for this reason. Its non-presence in his works indicates its likely lost status.
Symmetry allows classification as inference of deduction and the term particular implies the set element where existence itself may be all that is known. Ability to classify the set given any element was found impossible, making all classified set abstract. It is like the color red was to be classified without knowledge of the color itself.
Aristotle used the correct term, ‘belongs to all or none of something’ and scales the certain to allow function, terming, ‘belongs to some or not to some or not to all’ to allow partial set. A partial set was the term:
F(S(x,y,z)) = D(x,y)
A function to remove the element inverted a set test. A clear demonstration of the need to deeply consider his exact terms. Indefinite was then simply the term. A simple term was indefinite because it was unrelatable to its set. “contraries are subjects of the same science” defines any indefinite as a science itself of all only.
All indefinite are hardly expressable where as the set tests another. A set to cause the next was an exact test.
“pleasure is not good” terms a subject as not the element of good, but never defined either. Without any defined relation who could ever then be left to infer. A set existence as opposed to element existence is an exact reality. Declaring, ‘pleasure’ existent without stating its cause allows a like relation of indefinite set with ‘good’. Knowing of colors existence without a means to cause a red to exist is useless in deduction/inference.
Sentence 4:
“The demonstrative premises differs from the dialectical, because the demonstrative premises is the assertion of one of two contradictory statements(the demonstrator does not ask for his premises, but lays it down),whereas the dialectical premises depends on the adversary’s choice between two contradictories.”
A classification of two types was deducable given this statement.
True statement then becomes a fashioned statement. A human constructs a statement and was given a choice of the persons or the adversary’s. A prior as the relation of premise was the meaning. Adversary was the other human not necessarily understanding while demonstrative requires the a priori to be then adversary known. A dialect requires a prior knowledge and to require this was the distinction. A long sentence to demand the two humans to be required.
Sentence 5:
“But this will make no difference to the production of a syllogism in either case ; for both the demonstrator and the dialectician argue syllogistically after stating that something does of does not belong to something else.”
A set was created by the two classes and the frequent dialectician was to always demand the completion. “does or does not belong” then becomes a prior. A knowledge as the relation was the sets demonstration. A class.
Sentence 6:
“Therefore a syllogistic premises without qualification will be an affirmation or denial of something concerning something else in the way we have described; it will be demonstrative, if it is true and obtained through the first principles of its science; while a dialectical premises is the giving of a choice between two contradictories, when a man is proceeding by question, but when he is syllogizing it is the assertion of that which is apparent and generally admitted, as has been said in the Topics.”
A human must then read the sentence to the maximum extent and the two contradictories are the unknown a priori. A falsehood as the assertion then demands a choice of proceeding by common acceptance, and never set. One syllogism is science while the dialectical is of set never, making the dialectical assertion contradictory. Science was defined.
Science where the a priori was set. A class was to be admitted in implication as always in old Greek. Implication was the a priori while common users must not use this method as their a priori was not existent. A contradictory set was to never exist. It takes a few hours to decompose sentence 6.
Let it be reminded that science was inverted dialectical. A prior as implicated set caused two contradictories. It is a hard study.
Sentence 7:
“The nature then of a premises and the difference between syllogistic, demonstrative, and dialectical premises, may be taken as sufficiently defined by us in relation to our present need, but will be stated accurately in sequel.”
A science as defined above was to be us, the two humans linguistically communicating. And the syllogism as related to all premises was left to be inferred. Three kinds of premises occur while two syllogisms happen apon communicating. It must be studied exactly. A student must now defined syllogism.
Syllogism: A test of class where the truth was as experiment would allow. A truth where the set was to be allowed by experiment and not a meager statement as to the set’s existence was demanded by all syllogism. Syllogism is therefore a word inverted.
Inversion logically must be examined and the task was to allow sign such as a bare letter to deny the set. All set as elements were allowed in relation to implied existence and not simply declared existence.
Note: Old Greek theory one page 1 demands utter deep thought. Learning to reverse the word then invert all cases to test for a perfect formal syllogism was the apparent student.
I can only cringe at the paltry examination of the dialectician.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Reading: Page 1, Paragraph 1, Prior Analytics
1: “We must first state the subject of our inquiry and the faculty to which it belongs: its subject is demonstrated and the faculty that carries it out demonstrative science.”
1 sentence was written from page 1 and it demonstrates. A faculty. Which belongs to all subject as science. Read the meaning of the inquiry as the chapter’s, not all of Prior Analytics. A first sentence of a book as a set of chapter was like a first word of the sentence. All chapters relate to each other. Infer the meaning of book. A reverse set. A person must deeply consider each topic and the inter-relation. A reverse set as the introduction was to mean a faculty.
I consider faculty that of the topic of inquiry, a mind’s inquiry and so faculty was an ability.
Sentence one of book one of chapter Prior Analytics, thus defining a Work. He was this exacting amongst all inter-relationship. A pyramid of thought. A single relation exists to allow a work to represent a word. And the inquiry of humans was implied clearly. People inquire.
I could go on to subject clarify, but consider the depth of reading reversed word. A mere word was all his works. A symbol. In Greek theory a symbol as any form to demonstrate the knowledge as sign equates to symbol which equated to word.
2: “We must next define a premiss, a term, and a syllogism, and that nature of a perfect and of an imperfect syllogism; and after that, the inclusion or non-inclusion of one term in another as in a whole, and what we mean by predicating one term of all, or none, or another.”
We, means the human once more.
Nature means the human in the presence of perfect.
Syllogism was the human story as the word reversed. The works are in a complex word relation while the term as related to all premises was an exact reversal of the form. I use the term form as an exact word to replace the relation as a word. A relation of human to perfect nature allows a predicate. So the deep thinker is introduced to the relation to be inferable after reading the word. Implying a single sentence of page one as illegible to cause the word of the first paragraph.
Try to read the number of predicates present in sentence two of paragraph one. It is at least three. And the exact intention was to cause the word. A single relation of all human thought would allow an exact reading of paragraph one.
The word as a collection of defined terms allows a set of sentences. And to correctly represent a relation demands a set of possible words. There are truly minimal sets available to translate. And the word as the “whole” must be taught or the reader will be forever lost translating. A whole as a true word was the exact meaning.
So sit and think of the relation of Greek term. How can reversed sets be caused? And the answer was an inquiry. A symbol to denote the thought as applied to nature. Inquiry. A thought was then to be inferred. And here began.
A non-trivial writer was Aristotle. And the degree of word selection was profound on the translator’s part. A person familiar with the necessary inference was a high candidate as a translator, evidently. Perfect thought as a word.
Note:
I will stop the reading there and not expand on the subjects. Just be reminded that Greek thought was of the perfect nature. And the realist thought was found necessary to read. All thought as opposed to a class of thought separates modern from Greek. Greeks classified thought as objective or sense determined or as subjective or feeling related. Each has a separate realm of nature. One realm is determined by perfect inference of the five senses. The other is debated as subjective or human emotional related. All debate was as the form though. Debating the subjective was allowed and the form of perfect objective stance was applied imperfectly to the subjective.
Perfect inference, objectively, was found by the Greek. So perfect that inverse relation was found to exist.
I will stop here.
1 sentence was written from page 1 and it demonstrates. A faculty. Which belongs to all subject as science. Read the meaning of the inquiry as the chapter’s, not all of Prior Analytics. A first sentence of a book as a set of chapter was like a first word of the sentence. All chapters relate to each other. Infer the meaning of book. A reverse set. A person must deeply consider each topic and the inter-relation. A reverse set as the introduction was to mean a faculty.
I consider faculty that of the topic of inquiry, a mind’s inquiry and so faculty was an ability.
Sentence one of book one of chapter Prior Analytics, thus defining a Work. He was this exacting amongst all inter-relationship. A pyramid of thought. A single relation exists to allow a work to represent a word. And the inquiry of humans was implied clearly. People inquire.
I could go on to subject clarify, but consider the depth of reading reversed word. A mere word was all his works. A symbol. In Greek theory a symbol as any form to demonstrate the knowledge as sign equates to symbol which equated to word.
2: “We must next define a premiss, a term, and a syllogism, and that nature of a perfect and of an imperfect syllogism; and after that, the inclusion or non-inclusion of one term in another as in a whole, and what we mean by predicating one term of all, or none, or another.”
We, means the human once more.
Nature means the human in the presence of perfect.
Syllogism was the human story as the word reversed. The works are in a complex word relation while the term as related to all premises was an exact reversal of the form. I use the term form as an exact word to replace the relation as a word. A relation of human to perfect nature allows a predicate. So the deep thinker is introduced to the relation to be inferable after reading the word. Implying a single sentence of page one as illegible to cause the word of the first paragraph.
Try to read the number of predicates present in sentence two of paragraph one. It is at least three. And the exact intention was to cause the word. A single relation of all human thought would allow an exact reading of paragraph one.
The word as a collection of defined terms allows a set of sentences. And to correctly represent a relation demands a set of possible words. There are truly minimal sets available to translate. And the word as the “whole” must be taught or the reader will be forever lost translating. A whole as a true word was the exact meaning.
So sit and think of the relation of Greek term. How can reversed sets be caused? And the answer was an inquiry. A symbol to denote the thought as applied to nature. Inquiry. A thought was then to be inferred. And here began.
A non-trivial writer was Aristotle. And the degree of word selection was profound on the translator’s part. A person familiar with the necessary inference was a high candidate as a translator, evidently. Perfect thought as a word.
Note:
I will stop the reading there and not expand on the subjects. Just be reminded that Greek thought was of the perfect nature. And the realist thought was found necessary to read. All thought as opposed to a class of thought separates modern from Greek. Greeks classified thought as objective or sense determined or as subjective or feeling related. Each has a separate realm of nature. One realm is determined by perfect inference of the five senses. The other is debated as subjective or human emotional related. All debate was as the form though. Debating the subjective was allowed and the form of perfect objective stance was applied imperfectly to the subjective.
Perfect inference, objectively, was found by the Greek. So perfect that inverse relation was found to exist.
I will stop here.
All Along the Front
At the front of the ground a person was to find the applied form. A seemingly nonsensical sentence to introduce the concept of word abstraction. A front was commonly the side appearing in relation to the rear. Making the rear of the earth nonsensical because we are on a spherical earth.
A person making the geological sand diggings would disagree immediately. A front of time was the top layer of the earth or ground. An older age was the bottom ussually, and the oldest of the rear was lost in time.
Nonsensical sentences are common place but the encounter was to instruct, be careful when ALL sentences are exactly nonsensical. A different form of theory just may be the cause of a lost understanding. No understanding of the sentence may just mean to thing in a deeper larger sense.
Aristotle was written. All the words in English translation are deep. Many abstractions as an order are required to read.
An example was the PAge 1 of Prior Analytics. Aristotle demanded the person to learn on page 1. As a warning for readers of the great works, never preceed beyond this page 1 without a complete understanding. As a warning it is understood the Bertrand Russell read page 1 and never understood Aristotle.
Russell thought Aristotle a failed logician, when in fact Russell utilized a single form of page one as the basis for his great work ".. mathematica". Remember forms are simply relations and a basic inference is a selected relation to unit all encountered.
So read cerefully. I use a paragraph an hour as the correct speed of reading Aristotle.
It might take a lifetime of study to get beyond page 1 unless a teacher instructs. And this blog is dedicated to proper ancient Greek logic instruction.
English translation is very much an isse inproper reading and the edition by McKeon was to be a good to excellent abstract translation. Conversion of this type of translation to proper English was a cause of great concern. What was lost in translation was the whole world of Plato, his mentor.
So step one: Get the proper Richard McKeon, "The Baisc Works of Aristotle", translation edition, The Modern Library, New York
Step 2: Go to page 1, Prior Analytics, first page.
page 65 of my edition of Mckeon.
Read. And in further posts I will decompose the page to allow all to learn.
A person making the geological sand diggings would disagree immediately. A front of time was the top layer of the earth or ground. An older age was the bottom ussually, and the oldest of the rear was lost in time.
Nonsensical sentences are common place but the encounter was to instruct, be careful when ALL sentences are exactly nonsensical. A different form of theory just may be the cause of a lost understanding. No understanding of the sentence may just mean to thing in a deeper larger sense.
Aristotle was written. All the words in English translation are deep. Many abstractions as an order are required to read.
An example was the PAge 1 of Prior Analytics. Aristotle demanded the person to learn on page 1. As a warning for readers of the great works, never preceed beyond this page 1 without a complete understanding. As a warning it is understood the Bertrand Russell read page 1 and never understood Aristotle.
Russell thought Aristotle a failed logician, when in fact Russell utilized a single form of page one as the basis for his great work ".. mathematica". Remember forms are simply relations and a basic inference is a selected relation to unit all encountered.
So read cerefully. I use a paragraph an hour as the correct speed of reading Aristotle.
It might take a lifetime of study to get beyond page 1 unless a teacher instructs. And this blog is dedicated to proper ancient Greek logic instruction.
English translation is very much an isse inproper reading and the edition by McKeon was to be a good to excellent abstract translation. Conversion of this type of translation to proper English was a cause of great concern. What was lost in translation was the whole world of Plato, his mentor.
So step one: Get the proper Richard McKeon, "The Baisc Works of Aristotle", translation edition, The Modern Library, New York
Step 2: Go to page 1, Prior Analytics, first page.
page 65 of my edition of Mckeon.
Read. And in further posts I will decompose the page to allow all to learn.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Aristotle and the Argument with Plato
A basic misunderstanding exists as regards the large argument of Aristotle with Plato. From page 71 of McKeon's edition of Aristotle's Works,
"It is..."
Was used three time on that page. A basic contention was that Aristotle allows all things to exist as the term "It is.. " implied. So when the form as relation was encountered he would attempt to test the reader. Each term was importent.
'iT IS CLEAR THEN THAT IF A SYLLOGISM IS FORMED when the terms are universally related, the terms must be related as we stated at the outset" for if they are otherwise related no necessary consequence follows."
Paragraph 25 states also the arguemeent. A continual argument for Aristotle claimed schoolmastership.
A syllogism as the concrete as the term was the each. An each aspect. Aristotle would announce the argument and defend the concrete. Lookup Stanford as pertains to concrete versus abstract existance. Aristotle merely formed the contention.
His works always form this argument. So to interprete the form as failed was the mistake, the concrete existance of form was all that was contended.
So be wary of illconsidered terms, such as "Aristotle beleived all forms as failed." Forms as simply relations and the basic form of all forms used in relating the objective transcendental relation was always utilized by Aristotle!
Believe in the simple hard task of schoolmastership. Read Aristotle a word a minute and inter-relate the words as true transcendental relations.
McKeon has a perfect translation and the abstract form was maintianed. Also be wary of bad translations.
"It is..."
Was used three time on that page. A basic contention was that Aristotle allows all things to exist as the term "It is.. " implied. So when the form as relation was encountered he would attempt to test the reader. Each term was importent.
'iT IS CLEAR THEN THAT IF A SYLLOGISM IS FORMED when the terms are universally related, the terms must be related as we stated at the outset" for if they are otherwise related no necessary consequence follows."
Paragraph 25 states also the arguemeent. A continual argument for Aristotle claimed schoolmastership.
A syllogism as the concrete as the term was the each. An each aspect. Aristotle would announce the argument and defend the concrete. Lookup Stanford as pertains to concrete versus abstract existance. Aristotle merely formed the contention.
His works always form this argument. So to interprete the form as failed was the mistake, the concrete existance of form was all that was contended.
So be wary of illconsidered terms, such as "Aristotle beleived all forms as failed." Forms as simply relations and the basic form of all forms used in relating the objective transcendental relation was always utilized by Aristotle!
Believe in the simple hard task of schoolmastership. Read Aristotle a word a minute and inter-relate the words as true transcendental relations.
McKeon has a perfect translation and the abstract form was maintianed. Also be wary of bad translations.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)