Now to define
first principles is just what answerers do not care to do, nor do they
pay any attention if the questioner makes a definition: and yet
until it is clear what it is that is proposed, it is not easy to
discuss it. This sort of thing happens particularly in the case of the
first principles: for while the other propositions are shown through
these, these cannot be shown through anything else: we are obliged
to understand every item of that sort by a definition. The inferences,
too, that lie too close to the first principle are hard to treat in
argument: for it is not possible to bring many arguments in regard
to them, because of the small number of those steps, between the
conclusion and the principle, whereby the succeeding propositions have
to be shown. The hardest, however, of all definitions to treat in
argument are those that employ terms about which, in the first
place, it is uncertain whether they are used in one sense or
several, and, further, whether they are used literally or
metaphorically by the definer. For because of their obscurity, it is
impossible to argue upon such terms; and because of the
impossibility of saying whether this obscurity is due to their being
used metaphorically, it is impossible to refute them.
Pages:
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293