text:
Page:O. F. Owen's Organon of Aristotle Vol. 2 (1853).djvu/151

 also should be inherent, so that the whole would not be in one first, but in many. Still if the parts and the whole are in one first, consider whether they are not in the same, but the whole in one, and the parts in another. Again, whether the parts are destroyed together with the whole, since it is necessary that it should happen vice versâ, the parts being destroyed that the whole should perish, but the whole being destroyed it is not necessary that the parts also should be destroyed. Or whether the whole be good or evil, but the parts neither, or vice versâ the parts indeed good or evil, but the whole neither, for neither is it possible that any good or evil should be produced from neither, nor that neither should be produced from evil or good. Or whether the one be more good than the other is evil, but what consists of these be not more good than evil; for instance, if impudence (should be said to consist) of fortitude and false opinion. For fortitude is more a good, than false opinion is an evil, wherefore it is necessary that what results from these, should be consequent to the more, and should either be simply good, or more good than evil. Or indeed is this unnecessary, unless each be good or evil, per se, for many effective things are not per se, good, but when mingled; or on the contrary each of them is good, but when mingled is evil, or neither (good nor evil). What has been now stated is especially apparent in the case of things wholesome and hurtful, since some drugs are of such a nature as that each is good, but if both be given mixed together, (the compound is) bad.

Again, (consider whether a thing be stated to consist) from the better and the worse, of which the whole is not worse than the better, but is better than the worse; or is neither this necessary, unless those of which the thing consists, be of themselves good? for there is nothing to prevent the whole not being good, as in the instances just now adduced.

Besides, whether the whole be synonymous with the other part, which it ought not to be, as neither


text:
Page:A colonial autocracy, New South Wales under Governor Macquarie, 1810-1821.djvu/159

 for settlers were selected from the remainder. Applications were made for them to the principal superintendent, who sent whomsoever he thought fit. Occasionally the Governor gave him directions to supply some well-known settler with men of a particular stamp. But the settlers generally were not permitted to apply to the Governor, and applications for men of particular trades were forbidden. Those prisoners who were still left were sent to country districts in numbers proportionate to the requisitions made by the resident magistrates. Large proprietors applied to the superintendent, but smaller folk applied through the magistrates who distributed the convicts on their arrival from Sydney. A few even of the large landowners preferred to get their servants in this way, not caring to have anything to do with the superintendent, who had himself been a convict. They disliked Macquarie's system, which took the place of drawing lots and then choosing from the whole number of convicts in the order thus ascertained. The magistrates often conducted the distribution in this way, and Marsden introduced a refinement upon it which was very illustrative of colonial feeling. The lots were drawn in two divisions, and those of the first division chose their men before the second draw took place. The first division consisted of free men and the second of emancipists.

Such was the manner of distributing the prisoners on the arrival of a transport. But throughout the year constant applications for servants were made both to the superintendent and the magistrates. These were satisfied by assignments from the Government gangs in Sydney by the superintendent and in the other districts by the magistrates. But in 1820 the latter were ordered to refer all applications to Sydney on the ground that the superintendent would best know what men could be spared from Government service.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead)/Volume 1/The Statute of the Leap Year (21 Hen3.)


text:
Page:O. F. Owen's Organon of Aristotle Vol. 2 (1853).djvu/152

 is it in syllables, for a syllable is synonymous with no one of the elements of which it consists.

Moreover, (observe) whether a person has explained the mode of composition. For it is not sufficient to a knowledge of a thing, to say that it consists of these, because not merely to consist of these, but to consist of them in this manner, is the essence of composites; as in the case of a house, for the composition of these in any way whatever, is not a house.

If again this thing is assigned together with that, we must first state that this is with that, or is the same with these, or because this is from those; for he who says, honey with water, either says honey and water, or what consists of honey and water, so that whichever of these he allows to be the same as this with that, the same things it will be suitable to say, as were before urged against each of these. Further, distinguishing in how many ways one thing is said to be with another, consider whether this be in no way with that; e. g. if it is said that one is with another, either as in one same recipient, as justice and fortitude in the soul; or in the same place or time, but what is asserted as to these, should be by no means true, the assigned definition would, it is evident, not be the definition of any thing, as this is by no means with that. If, however, when the things are distinguished, it is true that each is in the same time, examine whether it is possible that each may not be referred to the same thing; as if (some one) should define fortitude to be daring joined with right conception, for it is possible for a man to have the daring to defraud, yet a right conception about things wholesome; still he is not yet a brave man, who has this, together with that, in the same time. Again, if both are referred to the same thing, as to things medical, since nothing prevents a man's having boldness and right conception about medical concerns, yet nevertheless he is not a brave man who possesses this with that; for neither ought each of them to be referred to different things, nor to any thing casually the same, but to the end of fortitude, as to warlike dangers, or if there be any thing more the end, than this.


text:
Organon (Owen)/Topics/Book 7

Chap. 1. Of the Question whether a Thing be the same or different.
 * 1.1. Identity proved by cases, conjugates, opposites, efficients, and corruptives.
 * 1.2. Observe whether wherein the the thing is prevalent, the other also is.
 * 1.3. Whether each is equivalent to the same third thing.
 * 1.4. If the accidents are the same.
 * 1.5. If both be in the same category, the same genus, and have the same differences.
 * 1.6. If both be simultaneously increased and diminished.
 * 1.7. If both are equal, having undergone the same accession or diminution.
 * 1.8. Whether the consequences of both, upon a given hypothesis, be discrepant.
 * 1.9. Whether the same things may be predicated of each.
 * 1.10. Whether they are the same generically, or specifically, not numerically.
 * 1.11. Whether one can subsist without the other.

Chap. 2. Distinction between Confirmative and Subversive Places of Definition.
 * 2.1. The topics of the last chapter useful for subversion, not for confirmation of, definition.

Chap. 3. Of Topics suitable to confirming Definition.
 * 3.1. Method of confirming definition.
 * 3.2. How genus and difference, are to be elicited from contraries; so that the definition itself, may be constructed from the definition of the contrary.
 * 3.3. How to employ cases, and derivatives, for the construction of definition.
 * 3.4. And those things also, which have mutual similar subsistence.
 * 3.5. How the comparison of other definitions, conduces to the formation of definition.

Chap. 4. That the Places already mentioned, are the most appropriate of all.
 * 4.1. What places are especially useful.

Chap. 5. Of Confirmation and Subversion of Definition.
 * 5.1. Reason why definition is more easily subverted, than constructed.
 * 5.2. The same to be said of property.
 * 5.3. Also of genus.
 * 5.4. Accident, if universal, more easily subverted; if particular, more easily confirmed.
 * 5.5. Definition of all things most easily destroyed, most hardly confirmed.
 * 5.6. Of all the remainder, property is the easiest of subversion.
 * 5.7. Accident, of all, most difficult of subversion, and most easily confirmed.

title: Organon (Owen)/Topics/Book 7


text:
Portal:Arbor Day

Works

 * Oklahoma Arbor and Bird Day, Friday, March Twelfth, 1909

Articles

 * Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History/Arbor Day
 * Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History/Arbor Day

Announcements

 * Proclamation 5804
 * Proclamation 6122
 * Proclamation 6554
 * Arbour Day Forestry Announcement (Ethiopia)

title: Portal:Arbor Day