範疇論
- 言語:
- 英語
- 状態:
- 完全な作品
- 著者性:
- 著者自身による
- テキストの状態:
- 良好なテキスト
- 分量:
- 約 14,700 語 · 70 節
この作品を引用
- APAアリストテレス. (n.d.). 範疇論. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/aristotle/the-categories
- MLAアリストテレス. "範疇論." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/aristotle/the-categories.
- Chicagoアリストテレス. 範疇論. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/aristotle/the-categories.
何についての本か
西洋の論理学がここから始まった書物。あるものについて何かを言う、その十の基本的な仕方の一覧である。
背景と歴史
実体、量、質、関係、場所、時、姿勢、所有、能動、受動。一覧は短く、書物も短い。だがその背後にある考えが二千年の形而上学を決めた。言われうるすべてのもののうち、それ自体で在るものが一つある——第一実体、この人間、この馬——そして残りのすべては、それについて言われることによってのみ在る。ボエティウスがこれをラテン語に移し、中世を通じて、ポルフュリオスの『イサゴーゲー』とともに、学び始める者が最初に読む書物であった。普遍論争はここから出ている。アリストテレスの論理的著作の総称『オルガノン』の巻頭に置かれ、性質からして短い。それでも難所はある。
これは編集上の背景であり、引用できる典拠ではありません。作品本文の一節とは異なり、これらの記述はコーパスで検証できません。
Things are said to be named 'equivocally' when, though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each. Thus, a real man and a figure in a picture can both lay claim to the name 'animal'; yet these are equivocally so named, for, though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each. For should any one define in what sense each is an animal, his definition in the one case will be appropriate to that case only. On the other hand, things are said to be named 'univocally' which have both the name and the definition answering to the name in common. A man and an ox are both 'animal', and these are univocally so named, inasmuch as not only the name, but also the definition, is the same in both cases: for if a man should state in what sense each is an animal, the statement in the one case would be identical with that in the other. Things are said to be named 'derivatively', which derive their name from some other name, but differ from it in termination. Thus the grammarian derives his name from the word 'grammar', and the courageous man from the word 'courage'. Part 2 Forms of speech are either simple or composite. Examples of the latter are such expressions as 'the man runs', 'the man wins'; of the former 'man', 'ox', 'runs', 'wins'. Of things themselves some are predicable of a subject, and are never present in a subject. Thus 'man' is predicable of the individual man, and is never present in a subject. By being 'present in a subject' I do not mean present as parts are present in a whole, but being incapable of existence apart from the said subject. Some things, again, are present in a subject, but are never predicable of a subject.…