o that the ‘this’ and the ‘such’ and the ‘so much’ and the other categories that indicate each some one class of being will all be one? But it is strange, or rather impossible, that the coming into play of a single thing should bring it about that part of that which is is a ‘this’, part a ‘such’, part a ‘so much’, part a ‘here’.
Secondly, of what sort of non-being and being do the things that are consist? For ‘nonbeing’ also has many senses, since ‘being’ has; and ‘not being a man’ means not being a certain substance, Nike Air Max Thea Print Męskie ‘not being straight’ not being of a certain quality, ‘not being three cubits Salomon X Ultra 2 Gore-Tex Kengät long’ not being of a certain quantity. What sort Jaden Schwartz Jersey of being and Naiset Nike Roshe Trainers non-being, then, by their union pluralize the things that are? This thinker means by the non-being the union of which with being pluralizes the things that are, the false and the character of falsity. This is also why it used to be said that we must assume something Mats Zuccarello Jersey that is false, as geometers assume the line which is not a foot long to be a foot long. But this cannot be so. For neither do geometers assume anything false (for the enunciation is extraneous to the inference), nor is it non-being in this sense that the things that are are generated from or Elias Lindholm Jersey resolved Mikko Koivu Jersey into. Scarfs&Hats But since ‘non-being’ taken in its various cases has as many senses as there are categories, and besides this the false is said not to be, and so is the potential, it is Buckle Mini Škornji 1058 from this that generation proceeds, man from that which is not man but potentially man, and white from that which is not white but potentially white, and this whether it is some one thing that is generated or many.
The question evidently is, how being, in the sense of ‘the substances’, is many; for the things that are generated are numbers and lines and bodies. Now it is strange to inquire how NHL Mens Chicago Blackhawks Red Hoodie being in the sense of the ‘what’ is many, and not how either qualities or quantities are many. For surely the indefinite dyad or ‘the great and the small’ is not a reason why there should be two kinds of white or many colours or flavours or shapes; for then these also would be numbers and units. But if they had attacked these other categories, they would Rivet Škornji 5838 have seen the cause of the plurality in substances also; for the same thing or something analogous Michael Stone Jersey is the cause. This aberration is the reason also why in seeking the opposite of being and the one, from which with being and the one the things that are proceed, they posited the relative term (i.e. the unequal), which is neither the contrary nor the contradictory of these, and is one kind of being as ‘what’ and quality also are.
They should have asked this question also, how relative terms are many and not one. But as it is, they inquire how there are many units besides the first 1, but do not go on to inquire how there are many unequals besides the unequal. Yet they use them and speak of great and small, many and few (from which proceed numbers), long and short (from which proceeds the line), broad and narrow (from which plinks:
http://www.travelan.biz/cgi-bin/search.cgi
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/read.cgi
http://www.orthopaedicweblinks.com/cgi-bin/owl/search.cgi |
