Boethius states in paragraph 9, "I shall set out a few points regarding he dilemma raised by the question. After that I shall try to untie the same knot of doubt and to explain it" (emphasis mine). In making his argument against universals, Boethius presents an aporia – a figure of speech in which the speaker expresses or purports to be in doubt about a question – an insoluble contradiction or paradox in a text's meanings.
             Boethius structures the argument by first stating that genera and species cannot exist then states why this is so. Boethius posits that if something is common in a great many things then it cannot be one thing for then how could it exist in many things. On the other hand, it must be one thing because otherwise if it were multiple things there would be another genus that would recognize these multiple things and thus create another genus to infinity. But if a genus is not one thing, then how could it exist in our world. Then it could exist only in our mind, and thus not be based on things of this world.
             In paragraphs 14 through 18, Boethius looks to the question of genus being only one – and whether it can be common to other things. If it is common by parts, then its whole thing is not common but merely parts of it; or if it is common because of those who use it then this use can change over time, thus lose its common character as well – let us say like a common room (to use a term with more currency). Or at one time there is commonness but that commonness can abruptly change (and an audience viewing a performance does seem to be a readily accessible example).
             So Boethius concludes that in this one aspect, it appears that nothing can be common to a species below it because it will only part of the thing which is common to the species or that it will be common but only temporarily. The discussion regarding commonness in these paragraphs thus addresses that aspect o
             ...