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,Adidas Neo Shoes čevlji, of what sort of non-being and being do the things that are consist? For ‘nonbeing’ also has many senses,Houston Texans, since ‘being’ has; and ‘not being a man’ means not being a certain substance, ‘not being straight’ not being of a certain quality, ‘not being three cubits long’ not being of a certain quantity. What sort of being and 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 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 resolved into. 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,Tyskland Drakt Damer, it is from this that generation proceeds,Beats Wireless, man from that which is not man but potentially man, and white from that which is not white but potentially white,New England Patriots Tröjor, 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 being in the sense of the ‘what’ is many,Yeezy Boost 350 čevlji, 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 have seen the cause of the plurality in substances also; for the same thing or something analogous 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,Michael Kors iPhone 4 Cases torebki, 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,Arizona Coyotes Drakter, they inquire how there are many units besides the first 1,Nike Free Run Dam, 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://meimei888.com/discuz/viewthread.php?tid=375893&pid=409900&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid409900
http://www.von-der-jasmin.de/Page/index.php?site=news_comments&newsID=49
http://united-online-racing.de/index.php?site=news_comments&newsID=8<br/ |
