Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 15.djvu/236

222 I. HUSIK : ARISTOTLE ON THE LAW OF CONTRADICTION. Thus, 996 b, 27 Sq., we read Trepi TMV dTroSciKTiKwv dp^wv . . . Xeya> 8' dTroStiKTiKas TCI? KOIVO.S Sofas, e <ov aVavTes oeiKVvouo"iv, oiov OTI TraV dvayKaiov >"; <^>uvai 17 a.Tro<f>a.vai } KOI do'vvaTov ap.a cTvai Kai /AT/ etvai 1005 b, 6 55. . . . TOV <f>iX.o(r6<f>ov . . . ircpl T(av (rvXayi<TTiK<i)v dp^tov ka-Tiv firia-Kfl/a.(r8cu ... TO ... avro aua UTrdp^eiv TC Kai /i^ virdpxciv dSiVaTov TO) avr<3 Kai KaTa TO avrd. 1061 6, 36 sq. OIIK eVSe^cTai TO avro xaQ' eva Kai TOV awTov ^povor civat Kai fjirf eivai . . . ou yap CQ-TIV K Trio-TOTepa? dp^i}? avroii TOVTOU Tron^craa'&aL TOV o~uAAoyr/xov. . . . Is this then inconsistent with his argument in the Posterior Analytics ? I think we can easily reconcile them. In the Pos- terior Analytics he is dealing with the purely formal process of evolving the conclusion out of the premisses, or, more strictly speaking, out of the major premiss. In so far as we merely do- this, the law of contradiction is not involved. In the Metaphysics he is dealing with the significant content of the judgment and the syllogism. If these are to be significant to us in our present mode of thinking, the laws in question must be present at every step. ISAAC HUSIK..