from anything else. Rather, the only necessary concomitants are those common to everything called a substance or a body.

On this point, I have witnessed astonishing things from these speculative thinkers. Each speaks to each group according to its method, making statements that contradict what he says when following another group’s method, even though each of the two positions is itself contradictory in reality.

This may be because he has not understood that the meaning he affirms in one expression is the very meaning he denies in another. In that case, he has not grasped the true meaning of what he says; rather, his conception is bound to the wording, so that when the meaning is expressed in different words, he does not recognize it as the same. This is unbecoming of someone who claims to investigate purely rational matters, which are not bound to any particular language or wording.

Alternatively, in each context he may forget and lose sight of what he said in the other. This is the more plausible assumption concerning someone possessed of reason and sound understanding. Yet it indicates that he holds two positions on the question, and that in each context he says whatever seems stronger to him there. He does not follow the evidence consistently, but contradicts himself.

Or he may recognize the contradiction. In that case, either he is unconcerned about the inconsistency of his statements, or he regards one position as stronger in one context and the other as stronger in another.