tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post8434584844601950123..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Plurality of (Substantial) FormsLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-36181193547591878952010-09-07T14:29:14.496-04:002010-09-07T14:29:14.496-04:00The latin text can now be found on p. 255-6 of the...The latin text can now be found on p. 255-6 of the vol. 12 of the critical edition. The reference has changed:<br /><br />Ordinatio IV d. 11 pars 1 a. 2 q. 1Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-40479249477177024262007-08-10T19:34:00.000-04:002007-08-10T19:34:00.000-04:00non determinat sibi esse simplex praeciseTry, "doe...<I>non determinat sibi esse simplex praecise</I><BR/><BR/>Try, "does not exactly determine it to be simple", i.e. per se unity does not require that composition (a certain amount of plurality or multiplicity) be excluded.<BR/><BR/>It just so happens that this text is quite relevant to a discussion I'm involved in over at Maverick Philosopher; I think I'll mention it there.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.com