Authors/Thomas Aquinas/perihermenias/perihermenias II/L5

LECTURE 5

Latin	English
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 5 n. 1 Postquam Aristoteles determinavit diversitatem enunciationis unius provenientem ex additione negationis infinitatis, hic intendit determinare quid accidat enunciationi ex hoc quod additur aliquid subiecto vel praedicato tollens eius unitatem. Et circa hoc duo facit: quia primo, determinat diversitatem earum; secundo, consequentias earum; ibi: quoniam vero haec quidem et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ponit earum diversitatem; secundo, probat omnes enunciationes esse plures; ibi: si ergo dialectica et cetera. Dicit ergo quoad primum, resumendo quod in primo dictum fuerat, quod affirmare vel negare unum de pluribus, vel plura de uno, si ex illis pluribus non fit unum, non est enunciatio una affirmativa vel negativa. Et declarando quomodo intelligatur unum debere esse subiectum aut praedicatum, subdit quod unum dico non si nomen unum impositum sit, idest ex unitate nominis, sed ex unitate significati. Cum enim plura conveniunt in uno nomine, ita quod ex eis non fiat unum illius nominis significatum, tunc solum vocis unitas est. Cum autem unum nomen pluribus impositum est, sive partibus subiectivis, sive integralibus, ut eadem significatione concludat, tunc et vocis et significati unitas est, et enunciationis unitas non impeditur.	1. After the Philosopher has treated the diversity in an enunciation arising from the addition of the infinite negation, he explains what happens to an enunciation when something is added to the subject or predicate which takes away its unity. He first determines their diversity, and then proves that all the enunciations are many where he says, In fact, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, etc. Secondly, he determines their consequences, where he says, Some things predicated separately are such that they unite to form one predicate, etc. He begins by taking up something he said in the first book: there is not one affirmative enunciation nor one negative enunciation when one thing is affirmed or denied of many or many of one, if one thing is not constituted from the many. Then he explains what he means by the subject or predicate having to be one where he says, I do not use "one” of those things which, although one name may be imposed, do not constitute something one, i.e., a subject or predicate is one, not from the unity of the name, but from the unity of what is signified. For when many things are brought together under one name in such a way that what is signified by that name is not one, then the unity is only one of vocal sound. But when one name has been imposed for many, whether for subjective or for integral parts, so that it encloses them in the same signification, then there is unity both of vocal sound and what is signified. In the latter case, unity of the enunciation is not impeded.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 5 n. 2 Secundum quod subiungit: ut homo est fortasse animal et mansuetum et bipes obscuritate non caret. Potest enim intelligi ut sit exemplum ab opposito, quasi diceret: unum dico non ex unitate nominis impositi pluribus ex quibus non fit tale unum, quemadmodum homo est unum quoddam ex animali et mansueto et bipede, partibus suae definitionis. Et ne quis crederet quod hae essent verae definitionis nominis partes, interposuit, fortasse. Porphyrius autem, Boethio referente et approbante, separat has textus particulas, dicens quod Aristoteles hucusque declaravit enunciationem illam esse plures, in qua plura subiicerentur uni, vel de uno praedicarentur plura, ex quibus non fit unum. In istis autem verbis: ut homo est fortasse etc., intendit declarare enunciationem aliquam esse plures, in qua plura ex quibus fit unum subiiciuntur vel praedicantur; sicut cum dicitur, homo est animal et mansuetum et bipes, copula interiecta, vel morula, ut oratores faciunt. Ideo autem addidisse aiunt, fortasse, ut insinuaret hoc contingere posse, necessarium autem non esse.	2. Then he adds, For example, man probably is an animal and biped and civilized. This, however, is obscure, for it can be understood as all example of the opposite, as if he were saying, "I do not mean by ‘one’ such a ‘one’ as the unity of the name imposed upon many from which one thing is not constituted, for instance, ‘man’ as ‘one’ from the parts of the definition, animal and civilized and biped.” And to prevent anyone from thinking these are true parts of the definition of the name he interposes perhaps. Porphyry, however, referred to with approval by Boethius, separates these parts of the text. He says Aristotle first states that that enunciation is many in which many are subjected to one, or many are predicated of one, when one thing is not constituted from these. And when he says, For example, man perhaps is, etc., he intends to show that an enunciation is many when many from which one thing is constituted are subjected or predicated, as in the example "Man is an animal and civilized and biped,” with copulas interjected or a pause such as orators make. He added perhaps, they say, to imply that this could happen, but it need not.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 5 n. 3 Possumus in eamdem Porphyrii, Boethii et Alberti sententiam incidentes subtilius textum introducere, ut quatuor hic faciat. Et primo quidem, resumit quae sit enunciatio in communi dicens: enunciatio plures est, in qua unum de pluribus, vel plura de uno enunciantur. Si tamen ex illis pluribus non fit unum, ut in primo dictum et expositum fuit. Deinde dilucidat illum terminum de uno, sive unum, dicens: dico autem unum, idest, unum nomen voco, non propter unitatem vocis, sed significationis, ut supra dictum est. Deinde tertio, dividendo declarat, et declarando dividit, quot modis contingit unum nomen imponi pluribus ex quibus non fit unum, ut ex hoc diversitatem enunciationis multiplicis insinuet. Et ponit duos modos, quorum prior est, quando unum nomen imponitur pluribus ex quibus fit unum, non tamen in quantum ex eis fit unum. Tunc enim, licet materialiter et per accidens loquendo nomen imponatur pluribus ex quibus fit unum, formaliter tamen et per se loquendo nomen unum imponitur pluribus, ex quibus non fit unum: quia imponitur eis non in quantum ex eis est unum, ut fortasse est hoc nomen, homo, impositum ad significandum animal et mansuetum et bipes, idest, partes suae definitionis, non in quantum adunantur in unam hominis naturam per modum actus et potentiae, sed ut distinctae sint inter se actualitates. Et insinuavit quod accipit partes definitionis ut distinctas per illam coniunctionem, et per illud quoque adversative additum: sed si ex his unum fit, quasi diceret, cum hoc tamen stat quod ex eis unum fit. Addidit autem, fortasse, quia hoc nomen, homo, non est impositum ad significandum partes sui definitivas, ut distinctae sunt. Sed si impositum esset aut imponeretur, esset unum nomen pluribus impositum ex quibus non fit unum. Et quia idem iudicium est de tali nomine, et illis pluribus; ideo similiter illae plures partes definitivae possunt dupliciter accipi. Uno modo, per modum actualis et possibilis, et sic unum faciunt; et sic formaliter loquendo vocantur plura, ex quibus fit unum, et pronunciandae sunt continuata oratione, et faciunt enunciationem unam dicendo, animal rationale mortale currit. Est enim ista una sicut et ista, homo currit. Alio modo, accipiuntur praedictae definitionis partes ut distinctae sunt inter se actualitates, et sic non faciunt unum: ex duobus enim actibus ut sic, non fit unum, ut dicitur VII metaphysicae; et sic faciunt enunciationes plures et pronunciandae sunt vel cum pausa, vel coniunctione interposita, dicendo, homo est animal et mansuetum et bipes; sive, homo est animal, mansuetum, bipes, rhetorico more. Quaelibet enim istarum est enunciatio multiplex. Et similiter ista, Socrates est homo, si homo est impositum ad illa, ut distinctae actualitates sunt, significandum. Secundus autem modus, quo unum nomen impositum est pluribus ex quibus non fit unum, subiungitur, cum dicit: ex albo autem et homine et ambulante etc., idest, alio modo hoc fit, quando unum nomen imponitur pluribus, ex quibus non potest fieri unum, qualia sunt: homo, album, et ambulans. Cum enim ex his nullo modo possit fieri aliqua una natura, sicut poterat fieri ex partibus definitivis, clare liquet quod nomen aliquod si eis imponeretur, esset nomen non unum significans, ut in primo dictum fuit de hoc nomine, tunica, imposito homini et equo.	3. While agreeing with the opinion of Porphyry, Boethius, and Albert, we think a more subtle construction can be made of the text. According to it Aristotle makes four points here. First, he reviews what an enunciation is in general when he says, The enunciation is many in which one is enunciated of many or many of one, unless from the many something one is constituted... as he stated and explained in the first book. Secondly, he clarifies the term "one,” when he says, I do not use "one” of those things, etc., i.e., I call a name one, not by reason of the unity of vocal sound, but of signification, as was said above. Thirdly, he manifests (by dividing) and divides (by manifesting) the number of ways in which one name may be imposed on many things from which one thing is not constituted. From this he implies the diversity of the multiple enunciation. And he posits two ways in which one name may be imposed on many things from which one thing is not constituted: first, when one name is imposed upon many things from which one thing is constituted but not as one thing is constituted from them. In this case, materially and accidentally speaking, the name is imposed on many from which one thing is constituted, but it is formally and per se imposed on many from which one thing is not constituted; for it is not imposed upon them in the respect in which they constitute one thing; as perhaps the name "man” is imposed to signify animal and civilized and biped (i.e., parts of its definition) not as they are united in the one nature of man in the mode of act and potency, but as they are themselves distinct actualities. Aristotle implies that he is taking these parts of the definition as distinct by the conjunctions and by also adding adversatively, but if there is something one formed from these, Neither the Greek nor the Latin text of Aristotle has the "if” that Cajetan puts into this phrase.The correct reading is "...but there is something one formed from these.” Close as if to say, "when however it holds that one thing is constituted from these.” He adds perhaps because the name "man” is not imposed to signify its definitive parts as they are distinct. But if it had been so imposed or were imposed, it would be one name imposed on many things from which no one thing is constituted. And since the judgment with respect to such a name and those many things is the same, the many definitive parts can also be taken in two ways: first, in the mode of the actual and possible, and thus they constitute one thing, and formally speaking are called many from which one thing is constituted, and they are to be pronounced in continuous speech and they make one enunciation, for example, "A mortal rational animal is running.” For this is one enunciation, just as is "Man is running.” In the second way, the foresaid parts of the definition are taken as they are distinct actualities, and thus they do not constitute one thing, for one thing is not constituted from two acts as such, as Aristotle says in VII Metaphysicae [13: 1039a 5]. In this case they constitute many enunciations and are pronounced either with conjunctions interposed or with a pause in the rhetorical manner, for example, "Man is an animal and civilized and biped” or "Man is an animal–civilized–biped.” Each of these is a multiple enunciation. And so is the enunciation, "Socrates is a man” if "man” is imposed to signify animal, civilized, and biped as they are distinct actualities. Aristotle takes up the second way in which one name is imposed on many from which one thing is not constituted where he says, whereas from "white” and "man” and "walking” there is not [something one formed]. Since in no way can any one nature be constituted from "man,” white,” and "walking” (as there can be from the definitive parts), it is evident that if a name were imposed on these it would be a name that does not signify one thing, as was said in the first book of the name "cloak” imposed for man and horse.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 5 n. 4 Habemus ergo enunciationis pluris seu multiplicis duos modos, quorum, quia uterque fit dupliciter, efficiuntur quatuor modi. Primus est, quando subiicitur vel praedicatur unum nomen impositum pluribus, ex quibus fit unum, non in quantum sunt unum; secundus est, quando ipsa plura ex quibus fit unum, in quantum sunt distinctae actualitates, subiiciuntur vel praedicantur; tertius est, quando ibi est unum nomen impositum pluribus ex quibus non fit unum; quartus est, quando ista plura ex quibus non fit unum, subiiciuntur vel praedicantur. Et notato quod cum enunciatio secundum membra divisionis illius, qua divisa est, in unam et plures, quadrupliciter variari possit, scilicet cum unum de uno praedicatur, vel unum de pluribus, vel plura de uno, vel plura de pluribus; postremum sub silentio praeterivit, quia vel eius pluralitas de se clara est, vel quia, ut inquit Albertus, non intendebat nisi de enunciatione, quae aliquo modo una est, tractare. Demum concludit totam sententiam, dicens: quare nec si aliquis affirmet unum de his pluribus, erit affirmatio una secundum rem: sed vocaliter quidem erit una, significative autem non una, sed multae fient affirmationes. Nec si e converso de uno ista plura affirmabuntur, fiet affirmatio una. Ista namque, homo est albus, ambulans et musicus, importat tres affirmationes, scilicet, homo est albus et est ambulans et est musicus, ut patet ex illius contradictione. Triplex enim negatio illi opponitur correspondens triplici affirmationi positae.	4. We have, therefore, two modes of the many (i.e., the multiple enunciation) and since both are constituted in two ways, there will be four modes: first, when one name imposed on many from which one thing is constituted is subjected or predicated as though the name stands for many; the second, when the many from one which one thing is constituted are subjected or predicated as distinct actualities; the third, when one name is imposed for a many from which nothing one is constituted; the fourth, when many which do not constitute one thing are subjected or predicated. Note that the enunciation, according to the members of the division by which it has been divided into one and many, can be varied in four ways, i.e., one is predicated of one, one of many, many of one, and many of many. Aristotle has not spoken of the last one, either because its plurality is clear enough or because, as Albert says, he only intends to treat of the enunciation which is one in some way. Finally [fourthly], he concludes with this summary: Consequently, if someone affirms something one of these latter there will not be one affirmation according to the thing: vocally it will be one; significatively, it will not be one, but many. And conversely, if the many are affirmed of one subject, there will not be one affirmation. For example, "Man is white, walking, and musical” implies three affirmations, i.e., "Man is white” and "is walking” and "is musical,” as is clear from its contradiction, for a threefold negation is opposed to it, corresponding to the threefold affirmation.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 5 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: si ergo dialectica etc., probat a posteriori supradictas enunciationes esse plures. Circa quod duo facit: primo, ponit rationem ipsam ad hoc probandum per modum consequentiae; deinde probat antecedens dictae consequentiae; ibi: dictum est autem de his et cetera. Quoad primum talem rationem inducit. Si interrogatio dialectica est petitio responsionis, quae sit propositio vel altera pars contradictionis, nulli enunciationum supradictarum interrogative formatae erit responsio una; ergo nec ipsa interrogatio est una, sed plures. Cuius rationis primo ponit antecedens: si ergo et cetera. Ad huius intelligendos terminos nota quod idem sonant enunciatio, interrogatio et responsio. Cum enim dicitur, caelum est animatum, in quantum enunciat praedicatum de subiecto, enunciatio vocatur; in quantum autem quaerendo proponitur, interrogatio; ut vero quaesito redditur, responsio appellatur. Idem ergo erit probare non esse responsionem unam, et interrogationem non esse unam, et enunciationem non esse unam. Adverte secundo interrogationem esse duplicem. Quaedam enim est utram partem contradictionis eligendam proponens; et haec vocatur dialectica, quia dialecticus habet viam ex probabilibus ad utramque contradictionis partem probandam. Altera vero determinatam ad unum responsionem exoptat; et haec est interrogatio demonstrativa, eo quod demonstrator in unum determinate tendit. Considera ulterius quod interrogationi dialecticae dupliciter responderi potest. Uno modo, consentiendo interrogationi, sive affirmative sive negative; ut si quis petat, caelum est animatum? Et respondeatur, est; vel, Deus non movetur? Et respondeatur, non: talis responsio vocatur propositio. Alio modo, potest responderi interimendo; ut si quis petat, caelum est animatum? Et respondeatur, non; vel Deus non movetur? Et respondeatur, movetur: talis responsio vocatur contradictionis altera pars, eo quod affirmationi negatio redditur et negationi affirmatio. Interrogatio ergo dialectica est petitio annuentis responsionis, quae est propositio, vel contradicentis, quae est altera pars contradictionis secundum supradictam Boethii expositionem.	5. Then when he says, In fact, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, etc., he proves a posteriori that the foresaid enunciations are many. First he states an argument to prove this by way of the consequent; then he proves the antecedent of the given consequent where he says, But we have spoken about these things in the Topics, etc. Now if dialectical questioning is a request for an answer, either a proposition or one part of a contradiction, none of the foresaid enunciations, put in the form of a question, will have one answer. Therefore, the question is not one, but many. Aristotle first states the antecedent of the argument, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, etc. To understand this it should be noted that an enunciation, a question, and an answer sound the same. For when we say, "The region of heaven is animated,” we call it an enunciation inasmuch as it enunciates a predicate of a subject, but when it is proposed to obtain an answer we call it an interrogation, and as applied to what was asked we call it a response. Therefore, to prove that there is not one response or one question or one enunciation will be the same thing. It should also be noted that interrogation is twofold. One proposes either of the two parts of a contradiction to choose from. This is called dialectical interrogation because the dialectician knows the way to prove either part of a contradiction from probable positions. The other kind of interrogation seeks one determinate response. This is the demonstrative interrogation, for the demonstrator proceeds determinately toward a single alternative. Note, finally, that it is possible to reply to a dialectical question in two ways. We may consent to the question, either affirmatively or negatively; for example, when someone asks, "Is the region of heaven animated,” we may respond, "It is,” or to the question "Is not God moved,” we may say, "No.” Such a response is called a proposition. The second way of replying is by destroying; for example, when someone asks "Is the region of heaven animated?” and we respond, "No,” or to the question, "Is not God moved?” we respond, "He is moved.” Such a response is called the other part of a contradiction, because a negation is given to an affirmation and an affirmation to a negation. Dialectical interrogation, then, according to the exposition just given, which is that of Boethius, is a request for the admission of a response which is a proposition, or which is one part of a contradiction.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 5 n. 6 Deinde subdit probationem consequentiae, cum ait: propositio vero unius contradictionis est et cetera. Ubi notandum est quod si responsio dialectica posset esse plures, non sequeretur quod responsio enunciationis multiplicis non posset esse dialectica; sed si responsio dialectica non potest esse nisi una enunciatio, tunc recte sequitur quod responsio enunciationis pluris, non est responsio dialectica, quae una est. Notandum etiam quod si enunciatio aliqua plurium contradictionum pars est, una non esse comprobatur: una enim uni tantum contradicit. Si autem unius solum contradictionis pars est, una est eadem ratione, quia scilicet unius affirmationis unica est negatio, et e converso. Probat ergo Aristoteles consequentiam ex eo quod propositio, idest responsio dialectica unius contradictionis est, idest una enunciatio est affirmativa vel negativa. Ex hoc enim, ut iam dictum est, sequitur quod nullius enunciationis multiplicis sit responsio dialectica, et consequenter nec una responsio sit. Nec praetereas quod cum propositionem, vel alteram partem contradictionis, responsionemque praeposuerit dialecticae interrogationis, de sola propositione subiunxit, quod est una; quod ideo fecit, quia illius alterius vocabulum ipsum unitatem praeferebat. Cum enim alteram contradictionis partem audis, unam affirmationem vel negationem statim intelligis. Adiunxit autem antecedenti ly ergo, vel insinuans hoc esse aliunde sumptum, ut postmodum in speciali explicabit, vel, permutato situ, notam consequentiae huius inter antecedens et consequens locandam, antecedenti praeposuit; sicut si diceretur, si ergo Socrates currit, movetur; pro eo quod dici deberet, si Socrates currit, ergo movetur. Sequitur deinde consequens: non erit una responsio ad hoc; et infert principalem conclusionem subdens, quod neque una erit interrogatio et cetera. Si enim responsio non potest esse una, nec interrogatio ipsa una erit.	6. He adds the proof of the consequent when he says, and a proposition is a part of one contradiction. In relation to this it should be noted that if a dialectical response could be many, it would not follow that a response to a multiple enunciation would not be dialectical. However, if the dialectical response can only be one enunciation then it follows that a response to a plural enunciation is not a dialectical response, for it is one [i.e., it inclines to one part of a contradiction at a time]. It should also be noted that if an enunciation is a part of many contradictions, it is thereby proven not to be one, for one contradicts only one. But if an enunciation is a part of only one contradiction, it is one by the same reasoning, i.e., because there is only one negation of one affirmation, and conversely. Hence Aristotle proves the consequent from the fact that the proposition, i.e., the dialectical response, is a part of one contradiction, i.e., it is one affirmative or one negative enunciation. It follows from this, as has been said, that there is no dialectical response of a multiple enunciation, and consequently not one response. It should not be overlooked that when he designates a proposition or one part of a contradiction as the response to a dialectical interrogation, it is only of the proposition that he adds that it is one, because the very wording shows the unity of the other. For when you hear one part of a contradiction, you immediately understand one affirmation or negation. He puts the "therefore” with the antecedent, either implying that this is taken from another place and he will explain in particular afterward, or having changed the structure, he places the sign of the consequent, which should be between the antecedent and consequent before the antecedent, as when one says, "Therefore if Socrates runs, he is moved,” for "If Socrates runs, therefore he is moved.” Then the consequent follows: there will not be one answer to this, etc.; and the inference of the principal conclusion, for there would not be a single question. For if the response cannot be one, the question will not be one.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 5 n. 7 Quod autem addidit: nec si sit vera, eiusmodi est. Posset aliquis credere, quod licet interrogationi pluri non possit dari responsio una, quando id de quo quaestio fit non potest de omnibus illis pluribus affirmari vel negari (ut cum quaeritur, canis est animal? Quia non potest vere de omnibus responderi, est, propter caeleste sidus, nec vere de omnibus responderi, non est, propter canem latrabilem, nulla possit dari responsio una); attamen quando id quod sub interrogatione cadit potest vere de omnibus affirmari aut negari, tunc potest dari responsio una; ut si quaeratur, canis est substantia? Quia potest vere de omnibus responderi, est, quia esse substantiam omnibus canibus convenit, unica responsio dari possit. Hanc erroneam existimationem removet dicens: nec si sit vera, idest, et dato quod responsio data enunciationi multiplici de omnibus verificetur, nihilominus non est una, quia unum non significat, nec unius contradictionis est pars, sed plures responsio illa habet contradictorias, ut de se patet.	7. He adds, even if there is a true answer, because someone might think that although one response cannot be given to a plural interrogation when the question concerns something that cannot be affirmed or denied of all of the many (for example, when someone asks, "Is a dog an animal?” no one response can be given, for we cannot truly say of every dog that it is an animal because of the star by that name; nor can we truly say of every dog that it is not an animal, because of the barking dog), nevertheless one response could be given when that which falls tinder the interrogation can be truly said of all. For example, when someone asks, "Is a dog a substance?” a single response can be given because it can truly he said of every dog that it is a substance, for to be a substance belongs to all dogs. Aristotle adds the phrase, even if there is a true answer, to remove such an erroneous judgment. For even if the response to the multiple enunciation is verified of all, it is nonetheless not one, since it does not signify one thing, nor is it a part of one contradiction. Rather, as is evident, this response has many contradictories.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 5 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: dictum est autem de his in Topicis etc., probat antecedens dupliciter: primo, auctoritate eorum quae dicta sunt in Topicis; secundo, a signo. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo, ponit ipsum signum, dicens: quod similiter etc., cum auctoritate topicorum, manifestum est, scilicet, antecedens assumptum, scilicet quod dialectica interrogatio est petitio responsionis affirmativae vel negativae. Quoniam nec ipsum quid est, idest ex eo quod nec ipsa quaestio quid est, est interrogatio dialectica: verbi gratia; si quis quaerat, quid est animal? Talis non quaerit dialectice. Deinde subiungit probationem assumpti, scilicet quod ipsum quid est, non est quaestio dialectica; et intendit quod quia interrogatio dialectica optionem respondenti offerre debet, utram velit contradictionis partem, et ipsa quaestio quid est talem libertatem non proponit (quia cum dicimus, quid est animal? Respondentem ad definitionis assignationem coarctamus, quae non solum ad unum determinata est, sed etiam omni parte contradictionis caret, cum nec esse, nec non esse dicat); ideo ipsa quaestio quid est, non est dialectica interrogatio. Unde dicit: oportet enim ex data, idest ex proposita interrogatione dialectica, hunc respondentem eligere posse utram velit contradictionis partem, quam contradictionis utramque partem interrogantem oportet determinare, idest determinate proponere, hoc modo: utrum hoc animal sit homo an non: ubi evidenter apparet optionem respondenti offerri. Habes ergo pro signo cum quaestio dialectica petat responsionem propositionis, vel alterius contradictionis partem, elongationem quaestionis quid est a quaestionibus dialecticis.	8. Where he says, But we have spoken about these things in the Topics, etc., he proves the antecedent in two ways. First, he proves it on the basis of what was said in the Topics; secondly, by a sign. The sign is given first where he says, Similarly it is clear that the question "What is it?” is not a dialectical one, etc. That is, given the doctrine in the Topics, it is clear (i.e., assuming the antecedent that the dialectical interrogation is a request for an affirmative or negative response) that the question "What is it?” is not a dialectical interrogation, e.g., when someone asks, "What is an animal?” he does not interrogate dialectically. Secondly, he gives the proof of what was assumed, namely, that the question "What is it?” is not a dialectical question. He states that a dialectical interrogation must offer to the one responding the option of whichever part of the contradiction he wishes. The question "What is it?” does not offer such liberty, for in saying "What is an animal?” the one responding is forced to assign a definition, and a definition is not only determined to one but is also entirely devoid of contradiction, since it affirms neither being nor non-being. Therefore, the question "What is it?” is not a dialectical interrogation. Whence he says, For the dialectical interrogation must provide, i.e., from the proposed dialectical interrogation the one responding must be able to choose whichever part of the contradiction he wishes, which parts of the contradiction the interrogator must specify, i.e., he must propose the question in this way: "Is this animal man or not?” wherein the wording of the question clearly offers an option to the one answering. Therefore, you have as a sign that a dialectical question is seeking a response of a proposition or of one part of a contradiction, the setting apart of the question "What is it?” from dialectical questions.