9
Moreover，ifthedefinitionbeofthestateofanything，lookatwhatisinthestate，whileifitbeofwhatisinthestate，lookatthestate：andlikewisealsoinothercasesofthekind。Thusifthepleasantbeidenticalwiththebeneficial，then，too，themanwhoispleasedisbenefited。Speakinggenerally，indefinitionsofthissortithappensthatwhatthedefinerdefinesisinasensemorethanonething：forindefiningknowledge，amaninasensedefinesignoranceaswell，andlikewisealsowhathasknowledgeandwhatlacksit，andwhatitistoknowandtobeignorant。Forifthefirstbemadeclear，theothersbecomeinacertainsenseclearaswell。Wehave，then，tobeonourguardinallsuchcasesagainstdiscrepancy，usingtheelementaryprinciplesdrawnfromconsiderationofcontrariesandofcoordinates。
Moreover，inthecaseofrelativeterms，seeifthespeciesisrenderedasrelativetoaspeciesofthattowhichthegenusisrenderedasrelative，e。g。supposingbelieftoberelativetosomeobjectofbelief，seewhetheraparticularbeliefismaderelativetosomeparticularobjectofbelief：and，ifamultipleberelativetoafraction，seewhetheraparticularmultiplebemaderelativetoaparticularfraction。Forifitbenotsorendered，clearlyamistakehasbeenmade。
See，also，iftheoppositeofthetermhastheoppositedefinition，whether（e。g。）thedefinitionof’half’istheoppositeofthatof’double’：forif’double’is’thatwhichexceedsanotherbyanequalamounttothatother’，’half’is’thatwhichisexceededbyanamountequaltoitself’。Inthesameway，too，withcontraries。Fortothecontrarytermwillapplythedefinitionthatiscontraryinsomeoneofthewaysinwhichcontrariesareconjoined。Thus（e。g。）if’useful’=’productiveofgood’，’injurious’=productiveofevil’or’destructiveofgood’，foroneortheotheroftheeisboundtobecontrarytothetermoriginallyused。Suppose，then，neitherofthesethingstobethecontraryofthetermoriginallyused，thenclearlyneitherofthedefinitionsrenderedlatercouldbethedefinitionofthecontraryofthetermoriginallydefined：andthereforethedefinitionoriginallyrenderedoftheoriginaltermhasnotbeenrightlyrenderedeither。Seeing，moreover，thatofcontraries，theoneissometimesawordforcedtodenotetheprivationoftheother，as（e。g。）inequalityisgenerallyheldtobetheprivationofequality（for’unequal’merelydescribesthingsthatarenotequal’），itisthereforeclearthatthatcontrarywhoseformdenotestheprivationmustofnecessitybedefinedthroughtheother；whereastheothercannotthenbedefinedthroughtheonewhoseformdenotestheprivation；forelseweshouldfindthateachisbeinginterpretedbytheother。Wemustinthecaseofcontrarytermskeepaneyeonthismistake，e。g。supposinganyoneweretodefineequalityasthecontraryofinequality：forthenheisdefiningitthroughthetermwhichdenotesprivationofit。Moreover，amanwhosodefinesisboundtouseinhisdefinitiontheverytermheisdefining；andthisbecomesclear，ifforthewordwesubstituteitsdefinition。Fortosay’inequality’isthesameastosay’privationofequality’。Thereforeequalitysodefinedwillbe’thecontraryoftheprivationofequality’，sothathewouldhaveusedtheverywordtobedefined。Suppose，however，thatneitherofthecontrariesbesoformedastodenoteprivation，butyetthedefinitionofitberenderedinamannerliketheabove，e。g。suppose’good’tobedefinedas’thecontraryofevil’，then，sinceitisclearthat’evil’toowillbe’thecontraryofgood’（forthedefinitionofthingsthatarecontraryinthismustberenderedinalikemanner），theresultagainisthatheusestheverytermbeingdefined：for’good’isinherentinthedefinitionof’evil’。If，then，’good’bethecontraryofevil，andevilbenothingotherthanthe’contraryofgood’，then’good’willbethe’contraryofthecontraryofgood’。Clearly，then，hehasusedtheverywordtobedefined。
Moreover，seeifinrenderingatermformedtodenoteprivation，hehasfailedtorenderthetermofwhichitistheprivation，e。g。