| | |
| Paragraph 1 |
Again, if he have described the whole compounded as the
'composition' of these things (e.g. 'a living creature' as a
'composition of soul and body'), first of all see whether he has
omitted to state the kind of composition, as (e.g.) in a
definition of
'flesh' or 'bone' as the
'composition of fire, earth, and air'. |
| Paragraph 2 |
Again, if in the nature of a thing two contraries are
equally liable
to occur, and the thing has been defined through the one, clearly it
has not been defined; |
| Paragraph 3 |
Also, even when one cannot attack the definition as a
whole for lack
of acquaintance with the whole, one should attack some part of it,
if one knows that part and sees it to be incorrectly rendered: |
| Paragraph 4 |
In combating definitions it is always one of the chief elementary
principles to take by oneself a happy shot at a definition of the
object before one, or to adopt some correctly expressed definition. |
| Paragraph 5 |
As to definitions, then, let so much suffice. |
HTML by 
created 1996/11/25 modified 2009/04/26