/
This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

Folio 1, verso, column 2.
| It is asked whether there can be a science of natural things | 1 |
| It is asked what the subject matter is in this science | 1 |
| It is asked whether it is possible to know | 3 |
| (It is asked whether it is possible to know through a cause) | 4 |
| It is asked whether there is knowing through all the causes | 4 |
| (It is asked whether one should begin with causes in this science) | 5 |
| It is asked whether one should begin from primary or secondary natures | 6 |
| It is asked concerning that proposition: the path is innate to us, from us | 6 |
| It is asked whether that first knowledge is confused through its forms | 7 |
| It is asked whether this knowledge is through its own proper forms | 7 |
| It is asked whether that knowledge occurs through the mirror of the eternal or through the intellect | 8 |
| It is asked whether this knowledge occurs through intention or through information | 8 |
| It is asked whether that confused knowledge can be generated through the forms of the agent in the possible intellect | 9 |
| It is asked what the cause of confusion is in that knowledge when the soul is united to the body | 11 |
| It is asked whether the universal, which is a thing, comes before the particular | 12 |
| It is asked whether that universal, compared to its particular, is prior in terms of intention | 13 |
| (It is asked whether the universal is prior to the particular in terms of the operation of universal nature) | 13 |
| It is asked whether the universal, compared to its particular, is prior or posterior in terms of the intention of universal nature | 13 |
| It is asked concerning the comparison of the universal to its particular |