Aristotle - The Organon - index for TOPICA Book 6 Part 6 - Whether the differentiae be those of the genus

Aristotle - The Organon - index for TOPICA Book 6 Part 6

Whether the differentiae be those of the genus

Paragraph 1 Again, in regard to the differentiae, we must examine in like manner whether the differentiae, too, that he has stated be those of the genus.

Paragraph 2 Moreover, see if he divides the genus by a negation, as those do who define line as 'length without breadth':

Paragraph 3 It may be that in some cases the definer is obliged to employ a negation as well, e.g. in defining privations.

Paragraph 4 Again, see if he rendered the species as a differentia, as do those who define 'contumely' as 'insolence accompanied by jeering';

Paragraph 5 Moreover, see if he has stated the genus as the differentia, e.g. Virtue is a good or noble state:

Paragraph 6 Look and see, further, whether the differentia belongs only by accident to the object defined.

Paragraph 7 Moreover, if either the differentia or the species, or any of the things which are under the species, is predicable of the genus, then he could not have defined the term.

Paragraph 8 Likewise you must inquire also if the species or any of the objects that come under it is predicated of the differentia:

Paragraph 9 Look and see also if the differentia mentioned belongs to a different genus, neither contained in nor containing the genus in question.

Paragraph 10 See, too, if he has rendered 'existence in' something as the differentia of a thing's essence:

Paragraph 11 Again, see if he has rendered an affection as the differentia:

Paragraph 12 Again, see if he has failed to render the differentia of a relative term relatively to something else;

Paragraph 13 Look and see also if the definer renders each relative term relatively to its natural purpose:

Paragraph 14 Or see if, whenever a term happens to be used in a number of relations, he has failed to introduce it in its primary relation:

Paragraph 15 Moreover, if the thing of which the term defined has been stated to be an affection or disposition, or whatever it may be, be unable to admit it, the definer has made a mistake.

Paragraph 16 Moreover, with regard to all periods of time look and see whether there be any discrepancy between the differentia and the thing defined:

HTML by

created 1996/11/25 modified 2009/04/26


Paragraph 1	Again, in regard to the differentiae, we must examine in like manner whether the differentiae, too, that he has stated be those of the genus.
Paragraph 2	Moreover, see if he divides the genus by a negation, as those do who define line as 'length without breadth':
Paragraph 3	It may be that in some cases the definer is obliged to employ a negation as well, e.g. in defining privations.
Paragraph 4	Again, see if he rendered the species as a differentia, as do those who define 'contumely' as 'insolence accompanied by jeering';
Paragraph 5	Moreover, see if he has stated the genus as the differentia, e.g. Virtue is a good or noble state:
Paragraph 6	Look and see, further, whether the differentia belongs only by accident to the object defined.
Paragraph 7	Moreover, if either the differentia or the species, or any of the things which are under the species, is predicable of the genus, then he could not have defined the term.
Paragraph 8	Likewise you must inquire also if the species or any of the objects that come under it is predicated of the differentia:
Paragraph 9	Look and see also if the differentia mentioned belongs to a different genus, neither contained in nor containing the genus in question.
Paragraph 10	See, too, if he has rendered 'existence in' something as the differentia of a thing's essence:
Paragraph 11	Again, see if he has rendered an affection as the differentia:
Paragraph 12	Again, see if he has failed to render the differentia of a relative term relatively to something else;
Paragraph 13	Look and see also if the definer renders each relative term relatively to its natural purpose:
Paragraph 14	Or see if, whenever a term happens to be used in a number of relations, he has failed to introduce it in its primary relation:
Paragraph 15	Moreover, if the thing of which the term defined has been stated to be an affection or disposition, or whatever it may be, be unable to admit it, the definer has made a mistake.
Paragraph 16	Moreover, with regard to all periods of time look and see whether there be any discrepancy between the differentia and the thing defined: