Kitap 7
2
Why, then, is this a unity and not a plurality, animal and two-footed? For in the case of man and white we have a plurality when the latter does not refer to the former, but a unity when it does refer to it, and the subject, man, has an attribute; for then they become a unity and we have the white man.
3
But in the case before us one term does not partake of the other; the genus is not considered to partake of its differentiae, for then the same thing would be partaking simultaneously of contraries, since the differentiae by which the genus is distinguished are contrary. And even if it does partake of them, the same argument applies, since the differentiae are many; e.g. terrestrial, two-footed, wingless.
4
Why is it that these are a unity and not a plurality? Not because they are present in one genus, for in that case all the differentiae of the genus will form a unity. But all the elements in the definition must form a unity, because the definition is a kind of formula which is one and defines substance, so that it must be a formula of one particular thing; because the substance denotes one thing and an individual, as we say.
4
We must firstThe other type of definition, that which states the constituent parts of a thing, is not discussed here. examine definitions which are reached by the process of division.
