But this will only hold on the assumption that _album_ signifies one and the same thing. If there be one name signifying two things not capable of being generalized into one nature, or not coming under the same definition, then the affirmation is no longer one.[17] Thus if any one applies the term _himation_ to signify both horse and man, then the proposition, _Est himation album_, is not one affirmation, but two; it is either equivalent to _Est homo albus_ and _Est equus albus_--or it means nothing at all; for this or that individual man is not a horse. Accordingly, in this case also, as well as in that mentioned above, it is not indispensable that one of the two propositions constituting the _Antiphasis_ should be true and the other false.[18] [Footnote 17: Aristot. De Interpr. p. 18, a. 13, seq.: [Greek: mi/a de/ e)sti kata/phasis kai\ a)po/phasis ê( e(\n kath' e(no\s sêmai/nousa, ê)\ katho/lou o)/ntos katho/lou ê)\ mê\ o(moi/ôs, oi(=on pa=s a)/nthrôpos leuko/s e)stin . . . _ei) to\ leuko\n e(\n sêmai/nei_. ei) de\ duoi=n e(\n o)/noma kei=tai, e)x ô(=n _mê/ e)stin e(/n_, ou) mi/a kata/phasis], &c., and the Scholion of Ammonius, p. 116, b. 6, seq.] [Footnote 18: Aristot. De Interpr. p. 18, a. 26. The example which Aristotle here gives is one of a _subject_ designated by an equivocal name; when he had begun with the _predicate_. It would have been more pertinent if he had said at first, [Greek: ei) o( a)/nthrôpos e(\n sêmai/nei].] With these exceptions Aristotle lays it down, that, in every _Antiphasis_, one proposition must be true and the other must be false. But (he goes on to say) this is only true in regard to matters past or present; it is not true in regard to events particular and future. To admit it in regard to these latter, would be to affirm that the sequences of events are all necessary, and none of them casual or contingent; whereas we know, by our own personal experience, that many sequences depend upon our deliberation and volition, and are therefore not necessary. If all future sequences are necessary, deliberation on our part must be useless. We must therefore (he continues) recognize one class of sequences which are not uniform--not predetermined by antecedents; events which _may_ happen, but which also _may not_ happen, for they will not happen. Thus, my coat _may_ be cut into two halves, but it never _will_ be so cut; it will wear out without any such bisection occurring.[19] [Footnote 19: Aristot. De Interpr. p. 18, a. 28-p. 19, b. 4.]