The CDTRs serve as a key component of the NIDDK-supported research program to translate efficacious research findings into practice and the community to improve the health of Americans with, or at risk for, diabetes. CDTRs will enhance scientific progress and improve the uptake of research by providing support and expertise for rigorous translation research aimed at prevention and improved treatment of diabetes (type 1, type 2 and gestational) and related conditions. To meet these goals, CDTRs will provide core services and consultation locally, regionally, and nationally in areas relevant to the NIDDK translation research agenda. To learn more about the NIDDK type II translation research priorities in diabetes, please see the Clinical Research to Practice: Translational Research chapter in Advances and Emerging Opportunities in Diabetes Research: A Strategic Planning Report of the Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee (DMICC) .
He then starts an objection to his own position, as if, indeed, another person had raised it, and says: 'A man,' you will say, 'may possibly be [without sin ]; but it is by the grace of God .' He then at once subjoins the following, as if in answer to his own suggestion: I thank you for your kindness, because you are not merely content to withdraw your opposition to my statement, which you just now opposed, or barely to acknowledge it; but you actually go so far as to approve it. For to say, 'A man may possibly, but by this or by that,' is in fact nothing else than not only to assent to its possibility, but also to show the mode and condition of its possibility. Nobody , therefore, gives a better assent to the possibility of anything than the man who allows the condition thereof; because, without the thing itself, it is not possible for a condition to be. After this he raises another objection against. himself: But, you will say, 'you here seem to reject the grace of God , inasmuch as you do not even mention it;' and he then answers the objection: Now, is it I that reject grace , who by acknowledging the thing must needs also confess the means by which it may be effected, or you, who by denying the thing do undoubtedly also deny whatever may be the means through which the thing is accomplished? He forgot that he was now answering one who does not deny the thing, and whose objection he had just before set forth in these words: A man may possibly be [without sin ]; but it is by the grace of God . How then does that man deny the possibility, in defence of which his opponent earnestly contends, when he makes the admission to that opponent that the thing is possible, but only by the grace of God ? That, however, after he is dismissed who already acknowledges the essential thing, he still has a question against those who maintain the impossibility of a man's being without sin , what is it to us? Let him ply his questions against any opponents he pleases, provided he only confesses this, which cannot be denied without the most criminal impiety, that without the grace of God a man cannot be without sin . He says, indeed: Whether he confesses it to be by grace , or by aid, or by mercy, whatever that be by which a man can be without sin —every one acknowledges the thing itself.
Ross' full account of motion as actualization ( Aristotle , New York, 1966, pp. 81-82) cites no passages from Aristotle, and no authorities, but patiently explains that motion is motion and cannot, therefore, be an actuality. There are authorities he could have cited, including Moses Maimonides, the twelfth century Jewish philosopher who sought to reconcile Aristotle's philosophy with the Old Testament and Talmud, and who defined motion as "the transition from potentiality to actuality," and the most famous Aristotelian commentator of all time, Averroes, the twelfth century Spanish Muslim thinker, who called motion a passage from non-being to actuality and complete reality. In each case the circular definition is chosen in preference to the one which seems laden with contradictions. A circular statement, to the extent that it is circular, is at least not false, and can as a whole have some content: Descartes' definition amounts to saying "whatever motion is, it is possible only with respect to place," and that of Averroes, Maimonides, and Ross amounts to saying "whatever motion is, it results always in an actuality." An accurate rendering of Aristotle's definition would amount to saying (a) that motion is rest, and (b) that a potentiality, which must be, at a minimum, a privation of actuality, is at the same time that actuality of which it is the lack. There has been one major commentator on Aristotle who was prepared to take seriously and to make sense of both these claims.