A NEW

LOGIC

THE

MODERN

CRIMINAL

SCIENCE

SERIES

Each

Volume

Royal

8vo.

(i.)

Modern

Theories

of

Criminality.
QUIROS
of

By

C.

BERNALDO

DE

Madrid.

Price

145.

net.

(ii.)

Criminal

Psychology.
HANS

By

GROSS,

Professor

of

Criminal

Law

in

the

University

of

Graz,

Austria.

Price

175.

net.

(iii.)

Crime:

Its

Causes

and

Remedies.

By

CESARE

LOMBROSO.

Price

i6s.

net.

(iv.)

The

Individualization

of

Punishment.

By
in

RAYMOND

SALEILLES,

Professor

of

Comparative by
GABRIEL

Law

the

University
Professor

of

Paris.

Introduction

TARDE,
France.

of

Philosophy

in

the

College
Price
165.
net.

of

LONDON:

WILLIAM

HEINEMANN

LOGIC
BY

CHARLES
PHYSICIAN MENTAL FOR

MERCIER,
MENTAL DISEASES AUTHOR OF DISEASES AND CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY AT

M.D.,
CHARING IN
THE

F.R.C.P.,
HOSPITAL;
OF EXAMINER LONDON OF UNIVERSITY

F.R.C.S
IN

CROSS

RESPONSIBILITY NORMAL
ITS

A AND

TEXT-BOOK
MORBID

INSANITY;
CONDUCT

PSYCHOLOGY,
AND
AND

DISORDERS

', CRIME

INSANITY,

"C., "C.

'The

present
after

system
truth

of
the
; and

Logic
errors

rather

assists
on

rendering searching

inveterate

founded

in confirming and vulgar notions, than in

is therefore

more

hurtful

than

useful.' BACON.

The

Greek

mind

must

have

had

some

vital

fault.' CALVERLY.

'

My

brethren,
it

beseech

you, you may

in

the be

name

of

common

sense,

to

believe

possible that

mistaken.'
OLIVER

CROMWELL.

LONDON

WILLIAM

HEINEMANN

MCMXII

Copyright
London

1912

by
William

Heinemann

To

SIR

H.

BRYAN

DONKIN,

M.A.,

M.D.

OXON.
;

F.R.C.R,

"c,

IN

PLEASANT

MEMORY

OF

THIRTY

YEARS

OF

CLOSE

FRIENDSHIP,

VARIEGATED

BY

MANY

STRENUOUS

ARGUMENT,

BEGUN,

CONTINUED,

AND

ENDED

WITHOUT

RECOURSE

TO

THE

SYLLOGISM

PREFACE

BOOK

on

Logic

by
either

practising physician
as a

is
a

not

calculated His pro

to

benefit fessional
upon

its

author,

physician
upon
as

or

logician.
who

brethren such
to
a

will frivolous

look

askance

physician
time disease that
;

wastes,

subject
his the

Logic,
of

might

be

devoted

increasing
him all the

knowledge
contemptuous
over,

and

logicians
that
upon is

will

regard

with
world

abhorrence

bestowed,
amateur.

by

the

professional

the

In

foro
upon

Medicines the of mercy

have
of the
more

valid Court. than

defence,

and

need

not

throw

myself
on

Engaged
vital

daily

in
I

reasoning
find that from

matters

vital, and
can

importance,

valid
the

conclusions

be

reached

only by
;

strictly departing
studied the the

methods which
am

of Traditional
I

Logic
that

and
are,

having
upon my these

methods

by
I

arrive

at

results

whole,

successful,
to

bound world the will with and

by

the

salutary by
me

rule which

of

profession,
results
book
are

give
attained.
to
com

to

the

methods
not

Candour

allow

to

ascribe rule. has

the

wholly
the the

pliance

this

beneficent what moved

Upon
been the
same

reading
said
on

works

of

logicians,
them of
ago

studying
I
am

subject
animatedthe
are

by

old

time,
sorry

by
of them.

spirit
of
men,

that

long
of his

that

comforter
failed

the

man

Uz,
I

when

words
not

companions
wise,
'

Great

found,

always
ment.

nor

do I
am

men

of

antiquity
to

always
me

understand will

judge
show
within
no

Therefore
for
I
me.

said full

hearken of my

I also the

mine
me

opinion

matter,

and is
as

spirit
that hath

constraineth it is

Behold,
like
new

belly
bottles.'

wine

vent

ready

to

burst

An

enlarged
to

knowledge
anatomical
my

of

physiology
region,
But but
I
even.

would

ascribe and the

the

fulness
the words

another express
a

broadly
in

generally
Court years
as

motive.

have,

of

Medicine,
I

better

defence the

than doctrine
of order

this, that,

It is many mental disorder

since in

began

to

preach
the

in

bodily disorder,

study

Vlll

PREFACE

indispensable preliminaryto the study of disorder; the should always precede the study of the study of the normal far successful that the subject been In this I have so morbid.
is
an

of
for

Psychology is
every

now

made in

diploma
but

compulsory part of the curriculum Psychiatry. This, however, is only

a me

|beginning, and
disorder
'

stimulates
my

to

further

effort.

Insanity is
for the
to

of conduct, and
conduct

next

endeavour

is to
is
now

obtain

study of normal

the

recognitionthat

given

the

is And the Psychological aspect of mind study of normal mind. The of disorder. that is susceptible not the only aspect of mind often of reasoning logicallyis very impaired in mental power in this respect again, a knowledge of the normal disease ; and
is
an

indispensable preliminary
we

to

knowledge

of the

morbid.

Until

have
or

appreciate
normal
or

adequate appraise the

an

and
erroneous

correct

Logic, we

cannot

duly
of
to

reasoning either
as a

the the
of

the

morbid

mind.
I
wras

It

was

prolegomenon
examine the

I study

of

Insanity that
to

first moved for it the

to

Logic

Tradition, and propounded.

From

substitute

New

Logic that is
no

here

the
attacked

professionallogician
his
and him
most

can

expect
his

mercy.

I
.

have
sacred

cherished held that

up
most

opinions, disputed his

to

most

dogmas,
To

have
I
am

derision noxious

most

revered the

authorities.

of all vermin, deal the with

me

irregular practitioner ; after the manner fully,

he would

and

I expect

him

to to

faith
If

of

the

orthodox of weapons I should

heterodox. that
are

only restrict his choice

of Traditional
a

to rest

those in the

in

the

arsenal

Logic,

complacent
arrows

security of
but
ments
no

modern

battleship attacked
he be illustrates the

by bows

and

logicianreasons
with which will

syllogistically, except
winged with
feathers

in the formal the

argu
arrows

syllogism, and

that
own

pierce me logicaltail.

plucked from

my

Two

subjects of
far the
ago
as

academic academic
Greek
to the
"

study have

been

pursued
more

con

as tinuously,

study has been

continuous, from
than
two

the

time

of years
"

great
down

philosophers of
time of the

thousand
One

present

generation.
the is

of these

Geometry
words

was

taught, until yesterday, upon

The other
extent
"

lines and

in the

of

Euclid.
to
a

Logic
in

"

taught
of

to-day

on

the

lines, and

great

the

words,

PREFACE Euclid

ix

Aristotle.
the

few

years

ago, of
was

authorised
was

exponent

attacked,
abandoned,
been been

defended,
and it is

formally superseded as openly Geometry. system was attacked formally again ; until it was
was

His

taught
all

no

more.

The

fate has

of

Logic
I in

has

different.

Aristotle's

system
the

of

Logic

never,

believe,
the the

openly
of

attacked

along
was

line.

It is true and

that,
burnt

thirteenth

century, his works

Paris
; but

were

proscribed
to
was no

by

synod
which

this

owing
It because of

destructive rather
because

criticism

found
was so

them

fallacious.

their
use

tendency
reason,

heretical, and
were

they fostered authority. With

is still

the
this

of
brief of
a

and

subversive been and

savours no

exception, there has Aristotelian Logic ;

reverence

whole-hearted

condemnation

Aristotle
of

regarded
Aristotelian

with

is still the

superstition. subject of formal teaching and examination the learning of It still engages University in the world.
the

that

almost

Logic

in every scholars It is issue in

nation. subtlety of dialecticians in every Western to text books, that stillcontinue expounded in innumerable and from the press, its immense and
run

into in

edition

after

edition.

But

of spijte

prestige ;
men

of innumerable

eminent its

; in

spiteof the professedallegiance spiteof its prominence in every

Under distrust.
an

University;
exists in
a

positionis undermined. profound dissatisfaction and

it to
been their have

the surface
Its very

there

exponents,
tone.

commending
who

readers, adopt
the

apologetic
have taken

Those

through

mill,
in and

and

their
an

degrees in Arts, of which Logic is, important constituent, privatelyderide professors,though they cherish
sacred the the

some

Universities,
it. Its of

contemn

very
as a

Organon
errors

Aristotle

text, and

contend
as

that

and

imperfections
due in
so

of

Traditional

Logic,
the and in
errors

departure from
admit
is and
now

taught in the text books, are teaching of Aristotle, yet, pure

to their

the

much

the ago,

imperfections. In short, Traditional hundred position that was occupied, two

Without

doing, Logic

fifty years
it is
men.

attacked,
minds
of

by witchcraft. crumbling into ruin, and

Modern

being formally
upon the

losing its hold

Logicians, indeed, profess that they disregardthe old formulae, and give us a Logic that purports to A be new; but it is new of lacking the clearness more by reason of the old j jand intelligibility Logic than by any novelty of doctrine. It still clingsto the syllogism, and tries to put the new
,x

PREFACE
of scientific

The bottle. discovery into the old syllogistic the foundation Logic represent,not so much exponents of Modern school of Logic, as the despairing effort of the old to of a new

wine

defend

the last ditch.

In these

circumstances,

it

seems

that

if left

alone, Aristotelian
is founded
to
or

Logic, and the whole

upon

fabric of Traditional

Logic that

it,will speedily perish; and that it is scarcelyworth while stuff a pillow into its mouth, and suffocate the dying creature ;
to

deliver

seems,

that is already moribund. coup de grace to one however, expedient to deliver a formal attack, and
a :
"

It

for

these

reasons

few defenders Traditional Logic may place,however it yet occupies a very have in private, conspicuous and important it is,in my to which opinion, not entitled. It is public position, attack all very Traditional well that an on to Logic is say
In the first the slain,or, slaying
as one

adviser distinguished
in order
to

put it,that it is
there stares
us

digging
in the

up

dead

horse

flogit ;

but

face the

plain, indisputablefact,that Traditional

Logic is

for many compulsory subject of study and examination important and honourable degrees and distinctions ; and that have innocent students, who passed or failed in these many examinations, stillbelieve, with pathetic confidingness,that the syllogism is, as Whately called it, the Universal Principleof reasoning.
a

still

place,it is impossible to tell,as matters stand, what the true position of Traditional how far those Logic is,or who profess and call themselves logicians, are, in fact, followers
second of Aristotle ; who

In the

is for him,

and and

who how

indifferent to far he is

him

how his

far his hold

is

grip;

whether

slipping away, the worship of

still retains

Aristotle of true

already extinct, or

whether

there is stilla remnant

believers.

Lastly, my
propose,
not

I object is not solely,nor mainly, iconoclastic. merely to demolish the system of Traditional Logic, for it
errors

but to substitute
and upon the
correct
a

the

until the site,

Logic, that shall supply the defects of the old ; and it is not practicable to build ramshackle that already cumbers structure
a new

ground is cleared
these reasons, the true

away. I accompany

For
are

criticism

of principles applied to Traditional

expositionof what I pretend of reasoning,by a running commentary

my

Logic.

can

scarcely suppose

PREFACE

xi

that anyone

who

is

this book, will not

vogue have with
; and

interested in the subject to sufficiently already be acquainted with the system now
not

read in

it would
a new

formulated

practicableto establish my claim to Logic, unless I compared it point by point

be of Traditional under

the old. central doctrine

The
is the

Logic

is that

reasoning jill

cases bringing of particular

was difficulty

to

determine
debates

covered. this

The

in the way of the Schools

were

general rules : its insoluble which general rules are dis raged
for
were

centuries discussed

about

subject.

Three

doctrines

held, and

with

in bloodshed. terminated acrimony and obstinacy that sometimes Are general rules,principles, or Universals, Universalia ante rem,

Universalia
Universal
a

in re,

or

Universalia post rem

In

other

words,

is the
not

noumenal

Idea, having
mind that

an

hypostatised existence,
it,but
antecedent alone
that and
on

only apart from the it things in which things that manifest

it ?
taken
most

conceives
; or

to

the

is manifested it ;
or

is it resident mind alone

in

the

is it in the
themes
were

conceives
the view

For

generationsthese
nature

debated,

of the sacred

of the esoteric

Universal

depended
of the

doctrines At the

of the

and

mysteries
of these any
consensus

Church.

long

length,the utter barrenness of arrivingat impossibility

the Baconian

discussions, and
dialectic

proved

Universal, and
that it refused

alone, led to by reaction, which repudiated altogether the a priori the very suggestion of such abhorred a so thing, to allow the legitimacy of an hypothesis even ; for
a savour

hypothesis long severance experience was

this
was

in

it smelt of
to

of the

priori Universal.
to
were a

The

Logic

from

experienceled
Facts and

reaction,in whicK
to

supersede Logic.
doctrine
to was,
"

be

collected
were

"

the

Baconian

whatever for the

the

agreements
true

observed The

among

facts,were
reaction
re.

be in

taken
a

Universals.
of the it

Baconian in

sense,

triumph
be that

Universalis

Not

until

more

generations
to

had

passed, was
the Universal in

discovered

that agreement

among is taken

facts will not

the facts
can
"

found, unless

expectation of agreement
must

first exist in the

was

mind, before
and

it

be

This
were as

the

discovery of the
the
was

Inductive
S. Mill.
as

Herschell, Whewell,
distinct from and

J.

experience. School, whose apostles the practice, Of course,

as

found

teaching,existed
no more

far back

the

dawn

of of

intelligence ;

discovered

by

the

prophets by
the

Induction, than

grammatical

speech

was

invented

first

Xll

PREFACE
first

\i
I,

grammarians ; but the Inductive School and the function value of hypothesis,
dominance of this school
was

taught

the

use

and

The

performs in reasoning. the triumph of the Universalis

it that the
not

post run.
Of late years, Inductive
a

suspicionhas
true

arisen

doctrines
cover

of the

School,
It is

though they may

as

be, do

the whole
are

ground.
ways,
or

discerned, dimly,
way,

think, that there

other

arrivingat general rules,besides testing of that direct appeal to experience by the erection and is the cardinal feature in the teaching of the which hypotheses,
there is another of Inductive School
; moreover,

there

is

an

uneasy does

feelingabroad
not

that the Aristotelian

word
a

scheme
;

of Deduction
and

say

the

last of

in its

own

department

this has led to the formation

Foreshadowed by by Kant, founded body of doctrine. Hegel, and developed by Sigwart, Lotze, Green, Bradley, Hodgson, Logic seeks to supersede both Bosanquet, and others, Modern Traditional and Inductive Logic. Its teachings,however, like all fourth the
of writings

its founder, with what

to

are

vague

and

nebulous.
a

It expresses

dissatisfaction should the When

be.

is, rather
make

than

statement

of

what of

It is unable

emancipate itself from

itself its exponents

the

tyranny
*

and syllogism,
we

it fails to of

generallyintelligible.
as

find form
to
one

one

declaring that

the

fundamental

change
respect
here
ante

and
at

knowledge the judgement tends to overcome sub specie view phenomena and is in this czternitatis,
Platonic of
an
"

of

with

forms,"
to

'

it is evident the

that

we

are

in the presence
rem

attempt
the

rehabilitate

Universalis

so

strangely does

whirligig of time

bring in its

revenges.
/

From Traditional be thus explained : position may My own Logic I differ in every principleand in every detail. Its cardinal doctrine,that all reasoning is the subsumption of the particular
"

under

the Universal,

was

contested

by Mill, who
I
am

held that

reason

and to particular, ing is from particular

not

therefore, singular,

quarrel with Traditional Logic is far wider and deeper than Mill's. In my opinion,its concepts of the and of the constituent composition of the proposition, parts of the of Quantity and Quality erroneous are proposition, ; its doctrines
my
are

in

that disputing

; but

wrong

; its Immediate

Inferences
an are

are

but

poor

few

out

of

multitudes Immediate

that may be obtained by Inferences it does obtain

adequate Logic ; the few faulty; its doctrine of the

PREFACE

xiii

syllogism is artificial and

all wrong
be reached
;

mistaken

; the

rules

of the

syllogismare
that cannot

there

are

multitudes

of Mediate

Inferences

by

the in

syllogism ; Traditional
mater

Logic

fails to
ex

distinguish
system
end.
"

the argumentum
so

id from

the

argumentum
from is
now

and postulate,

involves

itself in endless

confusion
erroneous,
"

whole ; in short, its

is

defective, and insufficient,

From the
no

beginning
a

to

Inductive less

School

no

one

pure

Baconian*
the

I differ scheme

profoundly. Logic
with

This
; and

school
in this

accepts
I cannot
;

Deductive
it. It of

of Traditional

follow its

supplements
Induction

Deduction
my mode

Induction

but

scheme

is, in

opinion, faulty.
of
to

The
"

Inductive the direct

in

logician appeal.
materid
in

recognisesbut
The
are

indirect

one appeal appeal, by which most

experience
of
our

arguments

conducted, he confuses
that he is wrong. I confess in their
a

with

syllogistic reasoning, and

not

this

I hold
/

Modern

Logic
emulate

I do

understand. my

It

is,by

some

of

its votaries, couched

language beyond Hegel,

him
*

comprehension.
of their of

They

may

master,

in the in

profundity obscurity
and real

speculations: they certainlyfollow

diction. When
'

the

their

am

told
'

that
as

the

fundamental

activity of
as

thought

is to be

regarded

the

same a

throughout
universal of
a

always identity,
the pre

consisting in the presented

sented the
even

reproduction by
of contents also
are

in

content,
which
no

distinguishablefrom
of the
same

content,
convey discuss
to

differences notion
to

universal,'
I
am

words
to

distinct As range of of

my

mind, and
understand

unable

them.
me

far

as

can

it, Modern
of

Logic

seems

to

far

beyond
In

the

realm

Logic.
the

In

examining
it invades the

the the

nature

Judgement, Psychology. Quantity,

and

Conception,

and

Perception,
Infinite,
on

domain

discussing
Law,

Absolute, Abstract
In

Necessity, it trenches
of

Metaphysics.
of the
to
a

treating of the nature

on

of Causation,
In

and

prioriTruth, it encroaches
nature

Philosophy.
the of
on

investigating
of

of

Truth, of Knowledge, and

various

relation

Knowledge
No

its

it is in the realm postulates,

at
on

Epistemology.
all these
at

doubt,
every but

Logic touches
science
touches

points neighbouring
,

subjects, as
various
.

sciences

points;

the the

British

Association of the

that

is

being held,
he

as

these

proofs
a

are

being corrected,
to name,

President of

Mathematical whether

Section

advocated Bacon

return

the I

system

Bacon,

though

mentioned

by

pure don't

XIV

PREFACE
; and to obliterate the distinctions

Logic
between

has

its proper it and

boundaries

its

applied to those who Nothing is said in this Jevons,

upon
a

neighbours, incurs the objurgations justly their neighbours' landmarks. remove

book

of the
is
a

Symbolic
kind

Logic of Boole,
It rests and

Venn

and

others. between

This the

of calculus. the

confusion

province of Logic
upon

province
seems

of Mathematics.
me

It is based
erroneous,

the

which postulate, from

to

completely

and

far remote

fact, that

every

expressed as an equation. It is mathematics is put out scheme The of the whole mad. utter illogicality gone of doubt by the fact that the operations of symbolic Logic can be proposition can
be

conducted
In

by machinery.
course,

This

is materialism before

with

vengeance.
are

fact,of

all the
;

thinking is done
all the machine subtract.

the data all

put

into the

machine

and

does, and
exclusion

Logic
This

can

do, is to add

and

Traditional

Symbolic Logic pretends

from classes.

that all is

reasoning is inclusion
narrow

in classes and

enough, and shallow enough, goodness knows ; but all reasoning to addition what is to be said of a Logic that reduces and subtraction ? Poor is my opinion of Traditional as Logic, yet
if I had for
to choose

between

it and

Symbolic Logic, I should

at

plump pretend

the

Logic of Tradition, which

can reason.

any

rate

does

not

that
In

cogwheels

Logic, callingthe system of Logic here propounded a New I do not pretend that it is in every part wholly novel. Parts of it been been have adumbrated, anticipated, and by parts have previous writers.
the

Mill, for instance, made

and
to

the distinction
;

between

Logic

of

Consistency perceived reasoning

Deduction

the

Logic of Truth
Aristotelian Hamilton
and

Spencer

adumbrated Induction
;

the indirect
and
a

appeal
that

experience that

I call Mediate

the
;

Euclidean the

Analogy
doctrine
in the

is

process

adumbrated is

that

is but

the
as

explicationof what
others had done that

implicit
him,
the
in

premisses,and
that

laid down,
may his be

before

the

rule

nothing

concluded of

is not
of

premisses ; Jevons, in of the anticipated one

doubt other
are

doctrine

Substitution
of

Similars,
and
no

Minor of

Canons

Explication ;
be found.

instances
but

forestallment

could

These,

however,
there.
the and As whole

fragments. They are details scattered here and an organised and coherent body of doctrine, covering field of reasoning,growing naturally from a singleroot,
harmonious and

forming an

whole, the system interdependent

PREFACE

xv

here
warrant

propounded
the

is

so

different
to

from NEW I

all

previous expositions as
LOGIC. of

to

title I it is in of

give
old
not

it,of A

Though
such

principle new, Logic

in
as

have

course

incorporated
and

parts

the
I do be

seemed

sound;
it is

though adapt
taken
to

my

system
ness an

is new,
to

pretend that
a

complete.
and I may

Complete
to

is not

expected

first essay, of Let

it his
a

apposite
essay

exhortation
on

of the

Father
'

Logic with
this then be

respect

to

first

another since
. . .

subject.
it is

for

rough
the
man

sketch

probably
what and

the And is

right way
it would in the in

give
that

first any

outline, and
may time

fill it in afterwards. and

seem

improve
is
in
a

complete
all for

good
in the

sketch, and
matters. arts

that

good
that

discoverer

co-operator

such

It is thus been

fact

improvements
any
man

various
a

have
'

brought
Book

about,

may

fill up

deficiency Logic
may

(Ethics:
stood been
two

I., Chapter
years

V.).
of
no

By

the

time

the

New

has

thousand in ; and

commentary, doubt,
like

its details

have
it will super

filled had

then,
taken

its

predecessor, ripe
which criticisms. for

have

all the

guts

out

of

it,and

will be

session Here

by

better. express who read and

many

I must

the

deep obligations
me

under

I lie to Mr. it the

three

friends
who

have the
to

assisted first two trenchant

with
of

their the

Cannan,

drafts

book, condemned
the book
to
owes

unsparingly,
elimination
book
an

his

criticisms
Sir

of

crudities.
a

Bryan

Donkin,
of both
not
errors

whom
matter

the
and I have his

is

dedicated, suggested
in

re-arrangement

the

important improvement
;

nomenclature,
Read of lore has

of which

adopted

and

Professor
to

Carveth correction the

only applied
that my
more me

profound learning
fall the and
me.

the

sundry
of

superficial acquaintance with

into,but when
I
to
was

Logic
on

had very the their

allowed

to

taken from

ill suddenly,

the

day

on

which

proofs began
the

issue

the
to

press,

he

had

great kindness,
correction
for
so

equally great
here

courage,

undertake
a sense

It is difficult to but

express
as

adequately
well
as

of

obligation
and

deep,
up,

I express,

I can, for

my

gratitude,heaped
so

pressed down,

and

running

over,

services

great

so

timely.
CHAS. LONDON,
W,

MERCIER.

xviii

CONTENTS

CHAPTER
KINDS
OF

II.

PROPOSITIONS.
PAGE

Incomplete and Complete propositions Complete propositions : Categorical and Analogical Modal propositions : their exclusion from Logic is illogical
......

30 32
....

33

Modality of the Hypothetical proposition The Compound proposition of kinds of propositions Summary
.....

36
......

38
-39

.........

CHAPTER
THE CONSTITUENTS the
OF

III. PROPOSITIONS.

The The The

Aristotelian Scholastic

analysis of

analysis into

proposed analysis into

less Propositions in which more Propositions in which Rules for analysing propositions. Examples

proposition into Subject and Predicate Subject, Copula and Predicate Subject, Ratio and Object than three elements are expressed than three elements to be expressed appear
....

40 40 42 43

....

45

45

CHAPTER
THE The its four RATIO.

IV.

meanings as declared by Logic Assumptions Logic with respect to the Copula Examination and rejectionof these assumptions Relations expressibleby the Ratio Copula
:

53
....

of Traditional

54 55
...

....

56
.

How

Traditional

Logic distorts
and

the

proposition
distortion
not

to make

it fit into the

....

syllogism

57

Instances The

of unnecessary is

vicious

of propositions
......

58 64 65

copula

ambiguous,
on

and

should

be used

Preliminary

note

the Categories

CHAPTER

V. ORIGIN

TERMS,

THEIR

AND

KINDS.

QUANTITY.
How
terms
are

formed

by

the

process and

of

Syncrisis

67 67
68

Generalisation, Classification
Definitions
and

Abstraction

of Quality, Concrete, Class

Attribute, Abstract, Connotation, Denotation,

and

Concept,
Terms
are

divisible into

Quantitative
of

Qualitative

70
70

Table
The

I.

Primary Classification
doctrine

of Terms
:

Traditional

Quantity

its faults

71

Quantification of the Quantification of

Hamilton's
the

Predicate

74

Object-term rejectedby logicians illogically

75
77

doctrine

CONTENTS

xix

CHAPTER
NEW DOCTRINE
OF

VI.

QUANTITY.
PAGE

New Table Table

doctrine
II. III.

of Quantity stated
Scheme of

80
81

General Scheme

of Extensive

Quantity Quantities

82 82

Quantities The Indesignate Quantity The Designate Quantity Distributive The Quantity Table IV. Distributive Quantities Distributive Universal Quantities
Extensive The Particular V. Forms faults Distributive Distributive

83 85 85
86

87
88

Table
The The

Particular
of

Quantities
Maximal of the

89
and
Exact 90
....

Quantity, Minimal,
Traditional
'

of the

view
'

Particular

Quantity

91 95

Various

meanings of

Some

CHAPTER
PARTICULAR The The The Enumerative Indefinite DISTRIBUTIVE

VII.

QUANTITIES.
98

Quantity
Enumerative
..........

98

Semi-definite

Quantity

its set of

degrees
.

99
100 102

Quantities this Quantity Arguments concerning The Definite Enumerative Quantity Distinction between Logical and Arithmetical
Enumerative
.........

Semi-definite

103

number
.
. . . . .

103 .105
.

Proportional Quantity Indefinite Proportional Quantity Semi-definite Proportional Quantity Definite Proportional Quantity
. .

105 105 106 108 108 108 109

in 112

.........

Ordinal

Quantity

Indefinite Ordinal

Quantity Definite Ordinal Quantity Residual Quantity Comparative Quantity The Selected Quantity The Selected Indefinitely Quantity The DefinitelySelected Quantity The Purposive Quantity The Collective Quantity
............
. .

113 113 115 116

CHAPTER THE The The Kinds Table The Unit THE

VIII.

INDIVIDUAL.

SINGULAR

QUANTITY.
120
121

Individual
of VI.

of defining an : difficulty conceptual creation Individuals. Simple and Compound Individual

is
a

individual

Units

122

Kinds

of Individuals

123 123

Simple Individual

6"2

xx

CONTENTS

PAGE

The The

Aggregate Corporate Individual

Uniform Individual Serial Individual
Term

Individual

.123 124

The
The The

.125 .126 127 127 127

Singular Table VII. Singular Terms

............

The
The The

Proper
Definite

Name

Singular

Term

129 129
. . . . . . . .

Singular Term The Representative Singular Term Traditional Logic and the Singular
Indefinite
The

.130 131 133

Term

Composite

Individual

CHAPTER INTENSIVE Table

Positive

IX.

QUANTITY.
137
137

VIII.

Intensive

Quantities Quantities Degree

Degree
IX.
Positive Intensive
........

Table

138 138
139

Arguments
The The Table

concerning Positive Comparative Degree

Indefinite

Comparative Comparative

..........

139 139

Semi-definite
X. XI.

Semi-definite Semi-definite

Comparative Comparative

Abstracts Attributes

140 140 141

Table
The The

Definite

Comparative
. . .
. . . . . .

Superlative Degree

142 143

The The

Purposive Degree Emphatic or Unexpected

Degree

143

CHAPTER COMPREHENSIVE

X.

QUANTITY.

CLASSIFICATION.
Class
Class Generic Generic Individual

Quality
Property Quality

............. ............. ............

...........

I44
I44 I44 I4e

Property Property

and and

Difference,and
Accident
and

Class Genus

Accident
.....

145 I45 I4e

Specific Difference
Table The Table XII.

of the

......

Description, Identification Comprehensive

..........

Definition
........
.......

Quantities

I45
' ' '

Predicables
XIII. Terms
. . . . . . .

147

Classification
The

or

Differentiation
.........
........

I4g
jcO
........

reference

of Classification

The

steps and

requisitesof Classification

II

CONTENTS

xxi

PAGE

The

Basis

of Classification
not
a

depends

on

the

purpose

in view

152 153

Dichotomy
The The The
nomen

necessary
.

principle
.
. . . . . . . " " "

indefinitum fundamentum divisionis Categories

J53 J54

"

"

"

i56

CHAPTER

XI.

NEGATIVE
The

TERMS.

Negative
Terms Privative

Proposition Negative

159 159
160 161

Negative
The The The The

Limiting Negatives
Exclusive

...........

Negative Negative

162

Exceptive

163 164
166

Types of Negative Propositions The Duplicated Negative

...........

Incongruity
The The Excluded Infinite

of Terms
. . . . . . . . . .

.166
.

Middle

167 169

Negative

CHAPTER

XII.

MODES

OF

DENIAL.

Pre-negative
Modes

Affirmation
.............

171 172
. . . . . . . .

of Denial

Inconsistency of Quantitative Terms

Denial Denial Denial Denial Denial Denial Denial The of the of the of the

.172 173 174

Singular Quantity Collective Quantity

.

Universal

Distributive
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175 175

of Particular of the of the of the Minimal Maximal Exact

Distributives Particular
. . . . . . . .

.176 .176
177

Particular
. . . . . . . .

Particular of

Traditional of

Square

Opposition
Collectives

177

Square

Opposition

of Maximal of Minimal of Maximal of

Distributives
. .

.178
179
.

Quantities of Residual Quantities Square of Opposition of Purposive Quantities Inconsistency of Qualitative Terms Singly Unlimited Qualities Doubly Unlimited Qualities
. . .........

Square of Opposition Square of Opposition Square of Opposition Square of Opposition

Collectives
. . . . . .

179
180

Comparative

.180 .181

182 182

182

Singly Doubly
The

Qualities Limited Qualities Ingraduate Qualities

........

Limited

183 183
. . .

184

Traditional

Modes Ratios

of Denial
.........

their

inadequacy

.184

Inconsistency of

187

xxii

CONTENTS

BOOK
EMPIRICAL

II. REASONING.

CHAPTER
EMPIRICAL

XIII. REASONING.
PAGE

thoughts Experience is the ultimate source Meaning of Experience Scholastic Logic ignored the appeal to experience
The function

of all

191 I91 192

of Induction

is to solve

problems

of all

kinds, not

of Causation
i92

only
The

Logic to appeal to experience is not necessarilymade Reference to reality by a proposition of statement The Problem : examples : mode : its nature of and definiteness The problems scope modes The of solving problems are two only The Direct and the Indirect appeals to Experience
crude
effort of Modern
.

....

193 194 195

....

196
197

.....

198
.

The

Direct

appeal is

often

impracticable

198

CHAPTER THE INDIRECT

to

XIV. EXPERIENCE.
means

APPEAL

TO

Method
Datum

of the Indirect

appeal

Experience

"

findinga premiss by

of

a
201

The

Nature

of Induction between between

in

202

Differences Differences

Induction
Induction is the
...........

and and

Syllogism
Deduction

.......

203 204 207

210

Constancy
The

experience
of Induction

ground of Induction
in

Canons
First

The

Canon.

Constancy
The Datum
means

experience

is

the

Universal

of

Inductive
210

reasoning
The The
1

Second Terms
'

Canon.

Datum
must
'

216

of the
in

be alike in respects material

Material
to

to

the argument
. . .

219

Essential
Third

Logic

The The The How

Canon.

The

argument' Identical Homologues

are

the

.219 219
220 220

Identical
Fourth

Homologues
Fifth

not

middle

term
......

and

Canons.
.

The

Quaesitum
. . . . . . . . .

the Sixth

Quaesitum
Canon
:

is obtained

221

The

forbids

unwarranted

assumptions

.....

223 224

Nature

and

conditions

of Induction

CHAPTER
IMPERFECT

XV. INDUCTION.

Induction
Four

imperfect without being fallacious are possible imperfections be obtainable, the problem cannot Datum then be solved No 1. may The Datum 2. yield no premiss, and again the problem cannot may
may
..........

be

225 225 226

.

be 227

solved

CONTENTS

xxiii

PAGE

3.

The is

Datum
an

may

be

approximate only, and

...........

the conclusion

of the Induction 228

Hypothesis
Premiss
a

4.

The then

may

not
...........

be

constant

in

experience

the

conclusion

is 232

Conjecture is wrongly Imperfect Induction

Essential Criticisms

called

Analogy by logicians
purpose

....

234
.
. .

likeness,

means

likeness answered

for the
.........

of the

argument

236
239

anticipatedand

BOOK
INFERENCE THE METHOD
OR

III. DEDUCTION. EXPLICATION.

OF

CHAPTER
IMPLICATION Immediate
AND

XVI. LAWS of what

THE

OF

THOUGHT.
is

Inference
.............

is

the

explication
of

implied
in

in

Simple

Pro 245

positions
Mediate

Inference

is the

explication

what

is

implied

Compound

Pro 245

An

positions implication of a proposition is the result of contemplating from a different point of view the relation expressed in the proposition to questions Otherwise, the implications of a proposition are the direct answers
....

246
247 249 250

that The Laws

are

are

answered of

indirectlyby
are

the

proposition
Laws

......

Thought
also
to

said behests

to

be

Natural
.........

They

said

be

Statements

of the

Laws

of

Thought
Laws of the
not to

.251 252 253

Accepted
Mr. The

meanings
of

of the

of

Thought
of
of

.......

Bosanquet's meaning
Laws
are

first Law

Thought
as

are

Laws

Thought Thought
. .

......

254
. . . .

They

valueless

guides

Inference
.

-255

CHAPTER THE The The The Postulated License First and

to

XVII.
OF

CANONS

INFERENCE.

proposition
Postulate Second has

256
but
one

limitation

"

the
.......

Self

Contradictory

259 259 259 260 261

Canons

of Inference Canon
........

Hamilton's

adumbration of
to
'

of this
'

Meaning
Reference The Third drawn The

Formal

Logic realityin the postulated proposition

of Inference in the
:"

......

Canon
or

postulate,
........

once

granted,
be assumed

must

not

be

with 262

ignored
Canon of
.............

argument
:
"

Fourth

Inference

Nothing
a

may

that

is not

in

the

postulate
The Fifth tions The

264
:
"

Canon
are

of Inference

When

postulate
in deductive

is

granted,

all its

implica
264 265

granted reasoning
.

is necessarilypresent principii petitio

xxiv

CONTENTS

CHAPTER
IMMEDIATE THE IMPLICATIONS
OF

XVIII. INFERENCE.
SIMPLE

PROPOSITIONS.
PAGE

The The

Canons
First

of Explication of Simple Propositions

Canon:
"

267

Every
:

postulate implies

every

equivalent and

included
268

proposition
The
first Minor of the of the Contrast

.............

Canon

"

implies its reciprocal Every postulate

the Converse

268

Reciprocal with
Converse
...........

269
270

Defects
The

rules for conversion

Some
converses
are

are

faulty. Many

propositions

cannot

be

converted.
272

nonsensical
.........

Conversion The second

of the Minor

Proposition
:
"

274 of Similar

Canon Canon
:
"

The
The

Substitution Substitution
term
........

Ratios
. ....

275

The

third Minor

of Similar

Terms

276 276
279 280
neces

(a) Substitution (b) Substitution

by

an

equivalent

The

by an included term (c) Substitution by an implied term Canon Second of Explication : Every postulate implieseverything the to postulate sary
"

...........

283

The

Third

Canon

of

Explication :
with
"

"

Every
.........

postulate denies
Ratios

and

is denied

by
285
286 286 288

everything inconsistent
The The The The The The fourth Minor Canon Canon its
:
"

it

Denial

of inconsistent of inconsistent

....

fifth Minor

Denial

terms

Obverse,
sixth

imperfections
Canon
:
"

..........

Minor its

Denial
...........

of inconsistent

implications
conditions

....

289
290

Inverse,
seventh view XIV.

invalidity
Canon

Minor

"

Denial
..........

of inconsistent

....

290 291 293

Lotze's Table

of Contradiction The Canons

of Explication unknown
to

Examples

of Arguments

Traditional

Logic

295

CHAPTER
THE The The

XIX.
AND ITS

COMPOUND

PROPOSITION

IMPLICATIONS.

Proposition : its varieties a syllogism are a Compound Proposition premisses of The Canons Explication of Compound Propositions The Proposition with multiple Ratio Compound Implications of this Proposition of the Compound Value Proposition and the The Method of Explication compared Syllogism which the Syllogism cannot be applied Propositions to Compound The Argument a fortiori Compound
........

297

of

....

298
299 300 301 303 304
. . .

.....

..........

.........

304 305 305 309

...........

The Other

Axioms such

of Mathematics

arguments
of the
term

Further

limitations the middle of

syllogism
into the

.310 313

Bringing
The

conclusion
. . .

Method

Comparison
The

Method Rules

Explication has no figuresor moods of Explication with Reduction valid of Explication is self-evidently
.

-314 .315 317 317

The

of the

Syllogism are

erroneous

xxvi

CONTENTS

CHAPTER COMPOSITE

XXIII. REASONING.
PAGE

All modes But

are are

of reasoning grow distinct when often used

from

one

root

357

developed
same

358
train

And

alternatelyin the

of reasoning

....

358 358

Examples

CHAPTER

XXIV.

FALLACIES.

Traditional

Logic does
Modern

not
............

recognise that

must fallacy

be

breach

of

some

rule of reasoning
Nor The

363
363 364 365 366 366

does

Logic
Elenchi Sophistici
...........

Fallacies

of the

Classification Fallacies

of Fallacies

in dictione

Equivocation
Bivocation

369
.............

Amphiboly
Fallacies Fallacies

370 372

in Punctuation

of Accent

and

Emphasis

374

CHAPTER FALLACIES Fallacies Fallacies The

Extra Dictionem

XXV.

(continued}.
377

of Confusion

of the Modes

of Reasoning
.........

377
379

in the syllogism petitio principii Fallacies of Empirical Reasoning Jumping to a Conclusion

381
382 383

The
Non

Accident
idem

pro eodem

............

384
386

Indiscrimination The Previous

Question
or

Fallacies The

of Inference

Deduction

.........

Contradiction in Terms Neglect of the Purpose of

. .

the

Argument
. . . . . . . . .

387 388 389 389

-391
.

IgnoratioElenchi
Non
.

sequitur Fallacies of Analogy The Fallacy of Assimilating the

. . .

392 399

Terms
.......

399 400 400 401 401

The
The

Fallacy of Assimilating unlike Ratios Fallacy of Discriminating similar Ratios

..............

Paradox Enumeration

of Fallacies

CONTENTS

xxvii

CHAPTER

XXVI.

FAULTS

OF

THE

EXISTING

SYSTEMS

OF

LOGIC,
PAGE

Uncertainty
Confusion Erroneous of

as

to

the Modes of

Province of the of of of of the the the

and

Functions

of

Logic
.....

403
404

the

Reasoning
Import
the of

doctrine of the

Propositions
........

404 405

Neglect
Irrational Erroneous Erroneous Confusion Definition The

Purpose

Argument
scope of

limitations

Logic
.......

405

analysis
doctrine of of the the

Proposition
........

406 406

Copula
of the

meanings
Particular of

Copula
to

with the

the

kinds

of

Subject
. . . ....

406
407

so

as

include and

Universal defective
to

logical ineptitude

doctrines

Quantity

Quality

are

the

point

of

407
.............

Logic

lays Thought,

down the these of

no

rules

for and

the the

conduct Canons of

of the

reasoning Syllogism

except
....

the

Laws

of
410 410

Dictum,
rules
............

Defects

of knows Immediate

Logic
The

but

four

forms
of

of

Immediate is

Inference

out

of

hundreds
. .

410

Inference

Logic

awkward,

cumbrous,

inefficient,

and

of

limited

application
not

411

Logic
nor

knows does

of

analogical

reasoning,
between

nor

of and modes

the

reasoning

of

mathematics,
.

it

distinguish
but few it of does

logical
fallacious
to

arithmetical

quantity
and does
not

.411

Logic

recognises
refer the of

the

of

reasoning,
of any rule

fallacies Modern

recognise
"

the

breach

of

reasoning
.

412 413

The The

fault

Logic

obscurity
disuse
"

fate

of

Traditional

Logic

-415
. . . . . . .

APPENDIX.

CLASSIFICATION

OF

SCIENCES.
.

417

INTRODUCTION

THE

PROVINCE

OF

LOGIC

IT
on

is

scarcely
no

too
are

much

to
on

say

that,
what

of the

innumerable

writers

Logic,
are,

two
or even

agreed
whether

its
a

subject-matter
or an

is, what
Aldrich

its

limits

it

is

Science
;

Art. the

regards
Formal

it

as

the

Art
; ^

of

Reasoning
as

Mansel,
Art
as

as

Science Science
of

of
of the

Reasoning
;

Whately, Royal

the

and the

Reasoning

the the

P"tfst

logicians,
in the Laws the
a

Science
; ;

operations of
as

understanding
the

pursuit
of Science

of Truth

Hamilton,
as

the of

Science Correct

of

Necessary
and
as

Thought
of
or

Mill,

the of

Art

Thinking,
;

the

conditions

Correct the
to

Thinking

Bain,
of

Theoretical and
a

abstract of Method

Science,

Practical the search Carveth of says and

Science for Read Truth.

Proof,
Of
it the that with

body

auxiliary Logic,
the Dr. valid

recent

writers of

on

Deductive
Mr.

Prof.

calls

Science

Proof;
valid

Welton,
; and

Science
Mellone

the

Principles
it deals the do

regulate
the

thought
that

that
on

principles
of

regulate

thought,
of the
of

which
School

validity
not

thought
define

depends.
the scope
in of
not

^Logicians
or

Modern Mr.
'

formally
does
more

province
second

Logic.

Bosanquet Logic
which is
a

say

incidentally,
than does
an

his
the

volume,
and modes

tEat
in

little

account

forms the
other

universal
it of

or

does but I

affect
no

differences indication
even

through
of

which

persists/

find
are

the
the

province

Logic.
of

Logicians Logic.
that
it

not

agreed
it

about

subject-matter Propositions
its
;

Some
treats

say of

is
;

concerned

with that concerned of of

others

Concepts
say and and that

yet

others
is

subject
with
others

is Real
process

Existence.

Some of

Logic

the that

only
to

thought, only,

is is

regardless
regardless
In and

results;
processes. this

it looks

results

spite of
what

immense

diversity of opinion
writers
on

as

to

what much them

on

Logic is,
the in
same

it treats and way.

of,

all
on

Logic

include
treat

subjects,
the
same

all writers The

Traditional

Logic
with
a

much
Names

latter

begin

discussion

N.L.

NEW

LOGIC

or

Terms
;

consider
on,

the after

Proposition
in

as

the

unit

of

Logical
of deal

doctrine

pass

discussing the
the and

various

forms

propositions,to
exhaustively with
institution ; and

their the treat,

combination
modes
as

syllogism ;
that

figures of
or

venerable

incidental

Classification, Definition, and

of

subsidiarysubjects, of Some Fallacies. logicianstreat

;

Probability and
add, under
of

Analogy
the
name

also
of

others

do
a

not.

Modern

text

books
means an

Induction,
I

consideration
as

of the of

ascertainingCausation, which of Logic. intruder into the domain Logic

do
not

regard

somewhat what

Writers

on

is called them
nature

Modern
as mere

exclude
an

these

but they topics, of the

so

treat

incidents

in

examination

fundamental

of

Judgement, Conception, Inference, and

to

forth, and

pay

but

little attention
To
extent

Methodology of reasoning. write upon a subject without ascertaining the of the subject-matter, does to not me appear
or seems

the

nature
a

or

very

reasonable

useful

course

and

before

doctrines, it
any As

best

to

settle what
to

discussing logical is meant by Logic, or, at Logic

; and
are

rate, what
has

meaning is attached
shown

it in this book.
on

been

above, writers
or an

not

agreed
some

on are

whether of
one

it is a Science

Art,
and

or

both

although

opinion,and usually fortified by

who discusses
or as

others
reasons

of another,
;

Mill

not opinions are is,I think, the only writer

these

the

nature

and between

limits them.

of Science

and

Art,

or

the
the

differences
matter

relations follows.
as

My

own

opinion on

is the

endeavour, motive, of all human a nd fundamental, original, two consuming desires, the desire of know, and the desire to do. Curiosity is the foundation
At
"

root, and

the

are

to

all

Science
Arts.

; the

desire
as comes

to

exercise

Capacity

is the

origin of all the

to

As

soon

further achieve

desire

and Curiosity Capacity begin into play. We desire to

; but
we

be

exerted,
achieve
and
we

find out, and

to
;

to

other ends

desire also, to find out, and

these other
soon

ends, with

the least

find

that, by acting,we

expenditure of assist Curiosity to

exertion attain

knowledge;
well.
know

and
As

by knowing, we assist Action to do things easily and soon as anything attracts attention, we act in order to
We look at it,we
to
move

it better.

towards
taste

it,we
it.

touch

it,handle
and

it,perhaps listen
we Investigation,

it,smell it, and

Thus, by the Art of

assist

Curiosityto

attain

Knowledge,

the

SCIENCE

AND

ART

knowledge
purposes

thus the

gained enables us thing thus better

action
two
are

the known.

better So

to

utilise for

our

on depends much the In practice, we are

knowledge and action depends much on knowledge. inseparable; it is only by analysis that
Science until

that

able

to

separate them.
is not Art

Knowledge, however,
action is not
not

until it is methodised.
but of

organised; and Organising is a mode,

it is

of

knowing,
do
an

into
order
an

existence
to

without
act act
we

Science cannot come doing ; and hence the practice of Art. Correspondingly, in
must

at

all, we
must

know

how
that

to

do

it ; and

to do

elaborate way

be

assisted

of the in and
come

to do

it,that

constitutes

question.
grow

up into existence

knowledge and together into Sciences

without
nor can

Thus

organised knowledge the methodology of the Art action depend on each other, by
and Arts. Arts

Science
of

cannot

the Science

aid

of the

Investigation
or

and

Organisation;
so

become
as

elaborate

extended

without

the aid of other

Arts, such

Nomenclature,
may be called

Description,
the Arts

and analysis, Science. Arts purposes express and

forth ; all of which

of

purposes, attain be

and

strive after results.

To

achieve
the

these
Art

these

results,the
to the

action, of which
in which these
on

consists, must

adapted

circumstances
first among
or

it takes

place,and which it modifies ; and of the Art, is the subject-matter

is exercised. For

circumstances
which the Art

the

material

action

to

be be

successful,the
known known
; ; and

circumstances
must

in the
is

which

it takes the

place

must

especially
when

properties of
elaborate, it

subject-matter be
treat

the Art

subject-matterto the best advantage unless the knowledge of this subject-matter is organised into Science. The art, for instance, of making objectsof steel requires of steel. Thus, Science be an organisedknowledge of the properties
cannot
comes

its

the

more

necessary

to

Arts,

as

Arts ways

become than

more

intricate.

by furnishingan of organised knowledge common subject-matter. Modes action are themselves the knowledge subjectsof investigation ; and of them thus attained be organised into a Science, which may then raises the Technique of an Art into its Methodology ; and without such an organised knowledge of technique, the more such elaborate arts, of be that as working in steel, cannot profitably pursued.
of their
B 2

But

Science

aids

Arts

in

other

NEW

LOGIC

Lastly,the products of Art, no less than the subject-matterand be and form the subjectthe methods, may investigated, may
matter

of

science ; and

in

this

way

arise

the

sciences

of

of Archaeology, of Architecture, of flint implements, of Philology,

Numismatics,
In

and ways, Art

so

forth.

several
ways

therefore, Science
is served

is

dependent
Art and

on

Art; in
are

several

by Science.

Science

but distinct, their

numerous

inseparable. They are a happily married and of both are vigorous offspring
extensions
Art

pair ;
sexes
"

and

the is
can

products of arts, and organised knowledge,

be attained Science without
and Art

of

knowledge.
; and

If Science neither

is

systematicaction
in this
an :

the other.

differ,moreover,
;

"

that

to

science,a
a

subject-matter is necessary subject-matter. There can

known,
without
The
as

but
no

art

can

proceed without
without

be

knowledge

something

material
no

from the knower be doing distinguished ; but there may from the doer. a product, as distinguished of dancing, for instance, is not exercised art upon any in change anything but the dancer ; leaves ; produces no
Most

result,except in him.
on

arts, however, have

doer whose

their
;

subjectwhich
as

matter,

which

the

skill of the
;

is exercised form

is
a

changed by his exertions

permanent
Science the
nature

and

changed
in two

remains

result of the exercise

of the art.

regards its subject matter

of the

aspects.

It considers
; and

its relations and subject-matter,

its kinds be

analyses it into its constituent

statical in

parts. This

may

called

the

aspect.
the

Further,
It

Science

regards its subject-matter

ways and

its time-relations. which

investigates the
became
It

stages

by
if

subject-matter

what
treats

it is, and of the

in

forecasts, temporal

what possible,

it will become-

history and
its

future of its

subject-matter,and
that have

thus

regards it

aspect.
alter this subject-matter subject-matter, of attainingresults,and for the purpose the methodology of the what alterations are and how best for the purpose, art shows they best be achieved. can Methodology, therefore, treats its subjectarts
a

Those

matter

in its

dynamical aspect.
considerations
to

Applying these
to

Logic, we
or an

are

now

in

position
science,
What

decide

how

it stands.

Is it a science If it is an

art ?

If it is a

what

is its

subject-matter?

art, what

does it do ?

NEW

LOGIC

the

inclusion
no

in it of books

topics foreignto the subject;

the

and

the

fact

that that

two
are

take

they

rather

order, indicates topics in the same gathered together by somewhat haphazard

than aggregation
Modern

the result of discusses much

organic growth from

the
and
same

singleroot.
them

Logic
different

but discusses topics,

from

point of view,
aim of Modern

rather
seems

psychologicallythan
to

The logically.

Logic

be to dive into the

nature

deepest

recesses

of the mind, to search

out

the ultimate
to do
a no more.

of

in judgement, concerned the processes Traditional Logic does, expound not, as

and

It does

Methodology reasoning
with

of the
may

subject,or attempt
conducted. In
common

to

furnish

rules

by which
'

be

'

use,

logical

'

means

consistent

'

reason

and,
main

in the

aim

of the Art of

and both Traditional Modern, the practiceof logicians, how is show to reasoning Logic undoubtedly

is, and
other and
so

should

be, conducted.

Whatever

attention

is

given

to

such Nomenclature, Classification, as Probability, topics, because forth, is given to them they are contributory or the art of into

to ancillary

reasoning.

For

the purpose

of this book, I of which

have two Logic primary departments, both first department of the propositionfor their subject-matter. The Logic is the Science and Art of the proposition; it is an investiga tion of the nature,
and

divide

the kinds
of

and

the components of

of

propositions,
in

it is the

Art

or propositionising,

expressing
minds.
of

verbal second
; it is

the propositions of

department an investigationof the

constructed it is the
The
out

thoughts we Logic is the Science

ways

have

in
and

our

The

Art
new

reasoning

in which

propositions can

be

of old

Art

of

and propositionsalreadyin our possession, from materials. these constructing propositions

to

first Book

is devoted
Books

the
to

Science Science the Art

and and
are

Art Art

of the
of

proposi

tion, the remaining

and in both
cases

the
and

reasoning,

The have

concurrently. Science of the proposition and the Art of propositionising reached, in Logic as hitherto expounded, a very rudimentary
treated

the Science

stage

only.
I in
to

I do

not

tively,but
Book,
ance

have

pretend that I have treated them exhaus treated them I regard the first fully ; and

which

these

topics are
The
most

dealt with,

as

equal

in

import
of
an

all the rest.

and

important
be is

effect of the

study
even

correct Logic may adequate of precisionof statement ; which

expected
more

to be the cultivation

important

than

VALUE

OF

CLEAR

EXPRESSION

knowledge
valid

of the processes in but itself, Aristotle

of is

desirable end

reasoning,for it is not only a more also an indispensablepreliminary to

to

reasoning.
his
are

seems

have

realised fallacies.

this

when

he in

included dictione
ment
"

fallacies in
mistakes
statements

dictione in

among

Fallacies

not

in
enter

the

reasoning ; they are mistakes in state which on reasoning is founded, and

The

which

into

reasoning.
the

prime
of
not

value

of the

adequate Logic is in of thought, by which

but
never

cultivation

thought is
or

precisionin clearlyexpressed, only more

and made

study of an the expression

in

the

process

is itself clarified
too

be too

emphatically
means

precise. It can asserted that slovenly positively

It is

expression
as a

slovenly thinking.
course,

nowadays
means

assumed,

matter

of

that

obscurity of diction
the very
reverse

profundity conspicuous
and

of

thought, the truth being

of
a

; and

the

success

few

writers, in attaining celebrity by confused

has raised
was

unintelligible utterance,
cult.
of It is time that

confusion

of utterance

into

this bladder stand

pricked, and
what

that
the

obscurity

expressionshould able literarysin.

apparent
on a

exposed
whose

for

it is
"

writer

meaning

is not

unpardon immediately

reading, is either muddleheaded, and in that is not worth case reading ; or he is too lazy and slovenlyto put his is offering his reader and in that case insult ; meaning clearly, an he is trying to obtain is or a cheap reputation for profundity,and then contemptible.
No has nobler
ever a

first

instrument
devised

of

expression than
the mind of
man,

the

English language
which
cannot
con

been

by

ceive It is bosom with

an are

thought that this language is incapable of expressing. eminently plastic,and not only takes readily to its ample
new

formations

that

are

legitimatelyborn,
that
are

but marked

adopts,
with

almost

others regrettable facility,

bar

ineffaceable
too

sinister.
to

He

who

pretends that his thoughts

profound
must

language
called
are

not

gullible to
upon
to

accept
to

stand

in the expressed intelligibly English count on always finding readers sufficiently his pretension. Sooner later he will be or and if his wallets deliver his meaning, and he

be

found

be

empty,

will have

no

one

but

himself

to

thank

for his humiliation.

A
saucers

self-respecting potter
that
;
a are

does

not

put

on

the

market

cups

and

out

of

shape, warped
consider

in the

colour

joinerwould

himself

or smudged in firing, disgraced if he offered for

NEW with

LOGIC

or gaping joints, legsout of truth ; hold that it is no craftsmen authors alone among disgrace to utter the carelessness, the that proclaim aloud the unskilfulness, wares

sale

table

or

bench

ignorance, of their
loaf of bread, and

maker.

Such that
us

authors of him who

are

to

be

blamed

but

their fault is venial beside

gives

to

understand heaven.
us

foists upon stale us a that it is four-year-old

An
to

mutton,
is
an

or

even

manna

direct from

adequate Logic
take
to

Adulteration

Act, that
test

empowers
to

samples

of

to literary wares, what they are. as

them,

analyse them, and

and

stamp them

The in
'

remaining Books
book

treat

of the Science

Art of

Reasoning
come

propositions ; and
The is
on

this art is exercised

in three
means

several ways.
may I into
see

the table.'

By what
There
are

of possession the book

this

proposition?

three ways. from

I

I may

by

there ; I may get my of sense the evidence by

"

direct proposition

experience,

perception.
is established
in

When
in my

perceivethe
between relation is

book

on

the table, a relation

mind

the two

things,and

is

given direct
'

experience.

This

expressedin the proposition The book is on the table.' It is true of reasoning ; but it is that perceptionis a rudimentary process of reasoningas reasoning is understood in Logic. I not a process
do not
'

reason

the matter
or

out.'

I do

not

arrive

at

the

result

by

the rearrangement
my
to

combination

of materials

already present in

mind.

It it.

adopt

is

smashed,

ready made, and all I did was presented to me If a jug slips out of my hand, falls on the floor,and I get, direct from experience,the proposition The
was
'

jug is broken.'

No

process

of

reasoning is needed,

and

none

is

employed.
is
one

I get my

mode

of

direct from experience this proposition ; and originof propositions. It is the ultimate originof of

all

but it is outside the realm propositions,

way

Logic.
made is to

Another them
I
am

of

obtainingpropositionsready
hand.
I ask
a new

get
told

from

experience second
on

I ask where

the book
I
am

and is,

told it is
broke

the table.
cases

where

the

and jug is,

the cat

it. In both

relation is established

in the

mind, and
established

is

is it expressed in a proposition; but in neither case by reasoning. I do not form the relation by the my
: own

operation of
from

mental

exertion

I receive
exert

it

ready made
to

without whether

I
to

get it by hearsay. I may accept it or

not not ; but

reasoning

decide

if I accept it,I accept it

ready made, and do

myself

take any

part in its establishment.

THE

NATURE

OF

REASONING

The

process

of

attainingit,is
no

process,

not

of

reasoning,but

of

learning,and
It is the that alone

has

third

mode

place in Logic. of attaining propositions from

to

experience

is the formation mode or Logic. This of new establishment propositions,by combining, dividing or otherwise fresh experience,propositionsalready without altering,

belongs

present in the mind.

the told

can

get the proposition

'

The

book
or

is

on

table
that

'

in

this way,

without there

seeing
are

the

book ways
on

there,
of

being
that

it is there

; and

three

constructing

of the propositionsby the activity it already possesses. By the first of these processes the book
on

mind

working myself
answer

materials

I ask
to

the this

question

'

Is

the

table ? I

'

If I

seek the

searching the
which But
never

table,
have

employ

is not,
I
must

solve and what

speaking, among strictly some experience ad hoc this problem by interrogating my

I

question by direct appeal to experience, the operations of Logic.

to
own

go

upon.

can

inner

conscious

ness,

combining, dividing, and

find book is the
to the

alteringwhat
of
some

I find

there,
of the

unless
relation

memory table. book But

experience
me some

of the the

give
me

bearing on
that book is
on

relation of the
not

to the

table, and
the

experience even though

'

experience may
the the form

directlygive
may be able remembered

table,' I
of

by indirectly,
mind
on

help of
remember

proposition The to arrive at this proposition experiences present in my

see a

in the

propositions. If, for instance, I

that I tied the book
of that
can

parcel parcel,
is

the

table,and
from

up

in that

then,
the made

the

combination

experienced proposition with

'

this remembered table.'

of If I

I proposition,

get the result

the

The

book
the

on

know, by experience or
has been

by hearsay,that
on

jug is
com

glass,and

dropped

stones

then,

propositionwith another, already present in my mind, that glass things break when so obtain, by logical dropped, I can process, the proposition The jug is broken.' In the foregoing cases, the logical is tied to experience, process and reasoning in which appeal to experience is an integralfactor
'

bining this

forms

the

most

only domain.
the The

ground

of

Logic. But it is not the We if we ties us to cut the stringthat please, can, into the air of imagination. experience,and soar
we or

important

domain

of

knowledge^ that
experience more

from

experience less completely. It must

gain

from

may

be

severed

always remain,

TO

NEW

LOGIC

never can by the limits of experience,for we the limits of experience,but in this sense completelytranscend appealing to experience experience are extremely elastic. Without of propositions derived, as all take components at all, we may

in

sense,

bounded

such them
or
'

components
in various
not
'

must

ultimately be, from

so as

experience,and
that propositions,
From
' '

treat

ways

to

form

new

may and Men

may

be
we

consistent
can,

with

experience.
derive with the

men
'

immortal

if

we

choose,

proposition
to

are

immortal,' which
still is
a

is inconsistent

experience,it is true,
the rules
ways

but

constructed proposition,

according
modified form
ever/
new

of
in

logicalart,
accordance
*

and

susceptible of being
those

in

many

with
do
not

rules,so
'

as

to

such propositions, Or
we can

as

Men

die,'
divide

Men

live

for

take

proposition appeal
*

and

it into
*

components,
mortal
rest
'

still without
be

any into

to
men

experience.
are

Men

are

can men

divided
are can

Some
we or

mortal

and

the

of

also
Or
we

mortal.'
combine

Here
two

get
more

two

propositionsout of one. propositionstogether, still

' '

without this
is
man

experience of their subject-matter. From is English,'and that man the other man
'

appealing to is English,'

get the single proposition All three

'

of these

can English,' we are men English.'

still without modify the construction of a proposition, appealing to any experience of its subject-matter,and still be
Or
we can

proceeding according to the rules Men mortal into are change Men far from are exhausting the modes
'
' '

of

logical art,
are

as

when

we

not

immortal.'
new

These

in

which of

propositions

may

be

constructed
As

in the
as we are

department
tied to

experience.
we

long

ignores the Logic of experience,

to

logic that

cannot

reason

except of the things that experience presents

choose
to

us;
reason

but

if

we

leave

of whatever
even

things our
words
we can

can Logic behind us, we imagination is capable of picturing,

this

and

of any
creatures

form.

We

can

reason

about

the

gods
all

and

of heathen

mythology, about

the

characters

about of fiction,

and infinity, eternity, other kinds of imaginary things.

and impossible quantities,

In

all these efforts of There is but

and
one

reasoning we
limit
to
our

are

bound
and
as

rule.

power

by one dominant libertyof altering,

form
new

combining,
this is that

dividingpropositionsso
new

to

ones,

and may

the

must

be consistent

with

the

old.

We

alter,combine, divide,transform, and

transmogrifya proposition

THREE

KINDS

OF

REASONING

in any

the consistency of please,so long as we preserve this field of Logic is the the original. Hence product with sometimes called the Logic of Consistency. There is yet a third method new propositions are by which way
we

constructed

by
and
or

the may

art

of

reasoning.
to

Two like in
a or

relations unlike

may
; and

be this It is

compared,
likeness evident

be

discerned may of be

be

unlikeness

stated

proposition.

that

this method

independent of any of reasoning. first mode

it makes it pay
to
no

forming propositions is,like the last, appeal to experience, and so differs from the
It differs also from the second

mode,

for does

alteration

in the their

any

regard
but

to

nor propositions it compares, consistency or inconsistency. It or

looks

nothing

the

likeness

unlikeness

of the

relations

they

express. The first

of
so

these called

three because

modes
an

of

reasoning
to

is

Empirical

Reasoning, integraland Discovery ;

with that is here

appeal
Matter.

indispensable part
of Truth
as

of the process.
; of

experience is an It is the Logic of

It

; of

Fact

is coterminous
; but

Induction,

Induction of the

ought
of the
as

to

be understood

the view Inductive

taken

mode

discoveringtruth by
doctrine
true

reasoning,is not the same though it is called by the

tion
as seems

prevalent
The that

of

Induction,
of Induc

same

name.

process is

to

me

very the

different second

from

which

usuallyso called,
to

of

explained in Reasoning.
The second

is

Book, which

is devoted

this mode

mode
or

of

reasoning
Inference,
The

includes of

the

Immediate

and and it
text

Mediate

Deduction,
a

Traditional
deduced

Logic,

includes
books

great deal

more.

inferences

in the

but a small are propositions, fraction of those that can be deduced by proper methods, which set forth in the third Book. The are Logic expounded in that book is the Logic of Inference and ; of Consistency ; of Proof Useless in the discovery of Fact Disproof ; of Form. ; ignoring

from

simple

and

compound

the

truth

or

of the falsity in

matter

of which
; in

it treats

its value

is in

testing Consistency ; refuting. This is the

The cerned Proof. Its sole third mode of

argument

explicating ; convincing ;

Logic. reasoning Logic of Analogy. As con with qualitativerelations,it aids neither Discovery nor It is concerned with neither with Fact nor Consistency. value is in explaining, expounding and enforcingstatements.
is the

field of Traditional

12

NEW

LOGIC

But
most

as

applied to quantitative relations,Analogy

is

one

of

the

of man. The powerful engines in the hands largest and most important part of mathematical reasoning is analogical. Most of the operations of algebra and of geometry, and of their higher developments,are reasonings by analogy ; and the higher
and
more

abstruse

calculi

are

founded

on entirely

analogy

; which

has

been

strangely neglected by logicians. The

have

Mathematics

always
;

been

excluded

from
to

reasonings of Logic, and most

the Science and
or

excluded illogically
Art

for, if Logic purports

must

be

of

reasoning,it
own

show

how The

all

reasoning is conducted,

confess its

inadequacy.
been

reasoning has
does
not

excluded mathematics

from

ground on which mathematical that Logic Logic is,apparently,

does

include

; nor

it.

Nor

does

it include
be
com

chemistry,or protozoology ;
plete must
chemist
must

but

Logic that pretends to

of

find

place for the

modes

reasoning by which
so

the it the

and
a

the

find

reach their conclusions ; and protozoologist of reasoning by which place for the modes reaches
its

By excluding Analogical reasoning purview ; or rather, by its incompetence to of reasoning distinct recognise Analogical reasoning, as a mode from Induction and it does alone recognise, Deduction, which
his conclusions. from

mathematician

Logic has shut

fertile field of of the human

out

from

its

cognisance
some

reasoning, in which
intellect have been
and

large, important, and of the greatest triumphs

a

achieved. describe what

It is true

that

many

logiciansmention reasoning, but

Induction
; and

Analogy,
this of

they

call

analogical
name

is,

in

their

mouths, but

another

for

defined as Analogy in its proper sense, Aristotle and Euclid, they are profoundly ignorant. In actual practice, these three modes of reasoning,or any often combined, or of them, are rather alternated, in order arrive
at

by
two to

results ;

and

chapter

is

given

to

the

modes

of

combination.
In order
or

Canons,
and book Canons

correctlyby any of these methods, certain be observed rules,appropriateto the method, must ;
to
reason

the
that

Canons

appropriate to each investigatesthat method.

method

are

stated of any

in

the

Violation
and

of these
be

results in fallacious

reasoning ;
are

fallacy cannot

in any other way than by provisionsof a rule. All the fallacies committed
set

violating or

exceeding the collected together,and

forth in separate

chaptersat

the close of the volume.

BOOK

THE PROPOSITION

CHAPTER

THE

NATURE

AND

MEANING

OF

PROPOSITIONS

THE

subject-matter
;

of

the

science is the

and verbal

art

of

Logic

is of

the

proposition
formation Words
or

and

the

proposition
of
to
a

expression

the

establishment
not

mental

relation. and in

are

necessary

reasoning,
of
our

fact
are

an

immense conducted

number,
without

perhaps
the
use

the
of

majority
words,
even

reasonings, unspoken
in

of

words.
we

Without that
to

formally
book-case that if
we

expressing
is too cab the will

the

judgements
to

words,
tea

judge
hot

the
;

heavy
come

lift ; that

the

is

too

drink

the

if whistled that if
we

for ; that
out

the

door
we

will be
shall
;

opened
get
wet ;

ring
the
to

bell

go

in the

the

rain

that far
cross

wind
walk in

is too
the

strong
time
at

to
our

put

up

umbrella
;

that

it is too
to

disposal
;

that

it is

dangerous
others.

the

street
on

till the abstract

traffic

thins

and

innumerable the

But

reasonings
for it And locked the often

subjects usually require

in the and

use

of

words,

abstract exists

is embodied

word,
but

and

until formed
must
as

so

embodied,
the mind. for
ever

vaguely
that

only,

half

in remain the words

reasoning
up

is

not

expressed
reasoner.

in words

in

the of of

mind

of the

Logic, expressed

science
;

and

methodology subject-matter
a

reasoning, Logic
;

must

be

in verbal

and

the of

is, as
is to

aforesaid, the
say, the what
'

expression

mental

relation

that

proposition. they
call
'

Logicians
tions,
is and

distinguish

between
'

verbal

'

proposi

what

they call
in several

real

propositions.
for
'

The

nomenclature
to

inappropriate
is used in

ways,
senses

real

'

as

applied
;

proposi
as a

tion,

several
some

by

logicians
and

and

'

verbal,'
is

distinction

between for all

propositions
are

others,
in
outset

clearly
and
are

misnomer,
therefore

propositions
Here,

expressed
at

words,
of
our

verbal.
we

therefore,

the

very the

logical
many,

studies,
the

meet

with

striking instance,
and used

first of very

of the

inaccuracy, looseness,
of their

ambiguity

with

which

words,

material
'

craft,

are

by logicians.
terms

Verbal

propositions,' like by
different

other Some

of their them
'

art,

are

differently
that

defined
N.L.

logicians.

call

Propositions
c

i8

NEW

LOGIC
but in

appear define
'

to

convey
*

knowledge,

realitydo
we

not.' learn

Others

Propositions from which Propositionsonly by satisfyingthe forms

them
as
*

nothing,'
not

of

language,

by

instances conveying a knowledge of facts,'and so forth. The A triangle is a rectilinear figure with three usually given are sides.'
'

The
It

functions
may

of

an

archdeacon that such

are

archi-diaconal
as

functions.'
-

be

admitted
we

sentences

these

convey

little knowledge ; that

learn littlefrom

them

; that

they

the forms of language, and not only by satisfying propositions j by conveying a knowledge of facts : all this may be true, but a proposition may be real in the logicalsense, and yet we may

j are

'

learn
a new
*

nothing from
be and
'

it,and
'

it may
'

convey

no

knowledge
and the

of fact ;
convey
to

propositionmay
useful verbal

verbal

in the

logical sense,
any
no

yet

information

and, in
convey

case,

objection

learn

propositions that nothing from them,

comes

they
and

information, that
no

we

that

they convey

knowledge of
and

facts,

strangely from
*

logicians,who
'

unanimously

of all law strenuously assert that the primary and fundamental A thing is identical with itself.' or thought is Whatever is,is,' That
'

Rain
'

falls

from

above the

'

and

'

bird
no

has

feathers

'

are

real

in propositions neither been

; and

logical sense,
conveys
seen us no a

logician would
to

dispute ; yet
who from has
ever

of

these

any

knowledge
We

anyone

in the rain and

bird.

learn
But
'

nothing they
*

them

they

convey
or

to

information.
'

do

the satisfy

third definition
a

descriptionof the
?

real

? proposition
'

They

do

convey

knowledge of fact
to

Yes, these particular real

us

happen propositions
is still alive.'
says
mean

do

so,

but
to

let

take

another, that
"

no

logicianwill have the hardihood

Does
'

this convey
I don't
mean

deny is 'real' 'JuliusCaesar Oh, but,' knowledge of fact ?

'

the

logician,
'

fact in the
answer,

same
'

sense

that you

it.'

My

things,they are
If you
meant

is my good friend,' bound by what they different from

when

people they
a

say

say, not

by what
you you
must
use

mean.

something
your from
use

what

said, you

should word in the of

learn to express
a sense

meaning
it,or
'

accurately. If
use,

different
in which you

its customary
you
must

you

define

sense

suffer the
to

consequence

having its customary

On

the
be
*

other

meaning attached A hand, quadruped by

every and

it.'
a

is

four-footed
in the

animal

'

would
sense,
a

acknowledged
verbal
'

logician to be,
yet
every

logical
not

proposition ;

child

who

does

INSIGNIFICANT
the

PROPOSITIONS

19

know

meaning
To him

of

'

quadruped

proposition.
fact. It
or seems

it conveys

something from this information, and a knowledge of

learns is triangle
are
'

'

clear that to say that of

an

three-angledfigure,
functions,
sense

that the functions

use

archdeacon
'

archi-diaconal

that are propositions animal A quadruped is a four-footed that in which be classified, with in my and view, propositionsmay in the followingway. their significance, is to
' '

verbal

in

quite another

than
'

is

'

verbal

respect

to

words relation between a alone, proposition may express be without regard to their meaning. Such propositionsmay termed Insignificant. between the meanings of words Or it may as a relation express the the words reference to more words, without things to which
A

refer than

is

inseparable from
be termed

the

use

of

the

words.

Such

propositionmay
Or named it may

Definitive, or
to
a

Defining. things proposition.

to

refer
words

not primarily, ; and

the words, but Substantial

the

by the

is then

INSIGNIFICANT

PROPOSITIONS.

in which a relation is predicated between propositions words alone, without regard to the meanings of the words. not true Strictlyspeaking, such propositions are propositions, but bastard|j3"ftudo, qnasi-pyopositions. since the relation such o" a proposition purporte to express has no answering relation in the mind. Since, however, such propositions are occasionally used either legitimately, with full knowledge of their emptiness ; or without that they are illegitimately, but appreciationby the user
are

These

empty
three

forms

of of
"

words, it

is

necessary

to

include

them

in

an

enumeration

kinds,

propositions. Insignificant propositions are of the Synonymous proposition, the Unintelligible

the

and proposition,

Contradiction

in terms.

The

Synonymous Proposition.
forms
one

This

kind

by logicians. It is a
the face of them, such
diaconal
1
'

propositions that propositionwhose terms are

'

of the

are

called

verbal
on

synonymous
are

as

The

functions of

an

archdeacon

archi'

virtue of its soporific Opium causes sleepby means ; A quadruped is a four-footed animal A brighter lightimplies ; increased luminosity.' In each there of these quasi-propositions,
;
' '

'

20

NEW

LOGIC indication the

same

are

two

verbal
as

terms,

connected

by
terms

verbal

of relation

ship ; but
there
cannot
are

each
two

of the verbal mental with

had
a

expresses
one

concept,
a

not

terms,
one

but
term

only;

and

relation be
a

be

established has
never

father who there

The
no

is

nothing above

it ;

only. A man A child. thing cannot nor before, if nothing

cannot

be below
comes

if

after.

Synonymous
fraction, or

the fraction J, which is propositionresembles is no the equation i equation,but i, which

=

means,

after all, no
synonymous

more

than

one.

proposition is
That is to say,
a one

synonymous. and
are

if it is not insignificant which is synonymous, proposition

not

therefore

to insignificant,

person,

who

knows

that the terms

to another the to whom significant person, until they were declared not synonymous to be so terms were by the very propositionin question. To a child who does not know

synonymous,

is

the is him
a

meaning
the terms

of the term

four-footed
are

animal
not

quadruped, the proposition,A quadruped is a significant because to proposition,

'
'

synonymous

until

they
any

are

made

proposition. So
proposition when

the

dictionarymeaning of

word and

is a

by the significant
so

it first becomes

known,

thereafter

is in

significant.
The

Unintelligible Proposition.
the or quasi-proposition, proposition
as one or

In this

terms

are

verbally

answering concept resembles the fraction g, or the in the mind, the proposition is an 0. unintelligible equation 0 Brillig is a slithy tove
but different,

both

of them

have

no

'

'

proposition. It
it is
a

has the form

and

appearance

of

but proposition,
no man

pseudo-propositiononly,for its terms

The form
.

represent
A

mental is
a

concepts.
matross'

is

empty.

So,

seafaring

proposition. Englishmen, an unintelligible One of the object-term is significant, term but the insignificance reduces the whole propositionto insignificance. The so long only as its Unintelligible propositionis insignificant the without remain terms meaning, and to those only to whom
is, to
most

meaning
you,

of its terms
do

are

unknown.

'

Ponos

is Kala-azar

'

is to

meanings of both it is significant, the terms, an unintelligible proposition ; but to me is I happen to know the meanings of the terms. because Brillig
reader, if you
not

happen

to

know

the

slithytove

'

is

I expect, unintelligible,

to

both

of

us.

22

NEW

LOGIC the Ratio.

to examine their proper place when we come is the place to consider the reference of the terms.

But of

this its

propositionand

Every proposition expresses

treated in

in words

mental
as

and relation,

is
a

Logic,not
but with the

as

form

of words, but does

not

the

expression of

thought
connected the mine
express

this statement

clear up

all the

difficulties

meaning
a

of the

proposition. Granting that

have

proposition expresses
whether
a

mental

relation,we
does

yet

to

deter

this is all that

it expresses.

Does

the

proposition
of the

relation in the mind here ;

or

alone, and

the reference
a

end proposition things having an

does

it not also express

relation between

existence

outside of and

independent of the mind,

When
I state

which

are

represented in the mental

*

relation ?

the

proposition Brutus
a

killed Caesar,'this verbal

"

propositionexpresses
idea of the

relation in my

mind

the

imagination or
to

killingof
a

by Brutus. question. When

express

Caesar

All will agree

I think of the

this

but

there

is

further
and

of killing

Caesar I

by Brutus,

this

thought in the proposition,am

in my

expressing merely
historical and
as

the

thought
"

mind,

or

am

I not
an was

also actual
known

an expressing

fact

that

real man,
my

who

had

existence
to

outside real
men

independent of
Brutus, did
So

mind, and
admits

other

actuallykill another
not

man existing really

named

Caesar ?

stated, the problem

but

of but

one

answer. one

The mental
Caesar

proposi
idea

tion expresses,

the idea

of the
a

killingof
man

by
real

another,
man

the real
Brutus.

of killing The
answer

real

named

by

named

is prompt,
But

and

is

given in favour of the Realists.

for the

clear, there is something to

decisive,and

be

which be to to seems me Conceptualists, Logic, who insufficiently appreciated by the exponents of Modern uncompromising Realists. In the judgement, Gold are, to a man, is yellow,' the logical subject is not the idea of gold, says Lotze, said
* *

but
*

gold

the

one

idea

is

not

predicated of the
f

other.'

proper,'says Mr. Bradley, is the act which refers an ideal content, recognised as such, to a Reality beyond the act.' Judgement
*

Judgement,' says idea to significant

Minto,
*

content

is the reference of a Bosanquet, of an a subject in Reality by means identity of between Our judgements express,' them.' says Professor beliefs about things and relations among things in rerum Professor
* '

nature!

when
never

anyone

understands
to

them, and

gives his
of

assent

to

them, he

stops

think

of the

speaker's state

mind,

but

REFERENCE

TO

REALITY

23

of what
to
some

be

represent.' These doctrines must be admitted confess accurate, as far as they are intelligibleand I must in clearly apprehending the meaning of some of difficulty
the words
"

them and

"

as

long

as

the

subjects of
as

the

admitted

realities
'

Brutus killed the

judgement and gold.

*

are

such

known my
a

But A

suppose

propositionis,not now phoenix.' How

Does that it
we

Brutus ? Does

Caesar,' but

centaur

killed

refer to reality ? propositionnow that a real centaur, reallyexistingin the real world mean know, really killed a real phoenix ? Mr. Bradley, if I him

understand Mr.

aright,

says

that

it

does;

and

so

does

be sure, for in Bosanquet ; but as to the latter, I cannot another place he speaks of what is really real, as distinguished from sham to me to darken expressions seem reality. Such counsel anyone
to
;

but
a

it is

clear,or

I think

it would
the

be considered word in
*

clear

but

Modern

centaurs

and

that logician, be phoenixes, must in

real,'as
sense

by applied
very

used

some

different from
and

that

which

it is

applied to Brutus,

and

Caesar,

gold.
are

There
to
me

here

two

distinct and
confused

different

questions,which

seem

to

have
The

been first
a a we

together by logiciansof the

Do
we

Modern

School. the

question is
relation

understand

a or

proposition as
we

expression of
it mind
as

in the mind
to

alone,

do

not

under

stand the

having
?
'

further reference
understand killed
a

things outside
*

and Brutus
an

beyond
killed

Do A

the

proposition
express

Caesar,' or

centaur

to phoenix,'

imaginary
the

of the ideas of Caesar killing and

and

the

phoenix by
we

the ideas of Brutus

the centaur

action of
between Caesar and

do or respectively, as killing taking place in

not

rather

represent
the

the

world

outside and that

mind,
last that
of

the the

agents

Brutus To

and my

the
mind

centaur,
it the
we seems

the

sufferers,

phoenix ?
must

it is the

question that
Professor
the Minto

be

answered

in
that

affirmative; and
never

is

right in saying
of

stop
of what

to

think

speaker's state
other
to

mind,

but

think

only

the

words

represent.
The

question is a

very

different
is

one.

It

is this

"

Is in

the

reference

which externality,

admittedly

contained

every

of experience ; to the real world proposition,necessarily a reference it not be to an in the mind or alone, imaginary world, existing may but referred
to
as

if it

were

real ?

It

seems

to

me

that of

the

second

instance, of the death

of the

phoenix

at the

hands

the

centaur,

24
answers conclusively see

NEW

LOGIC

this

question in the latter

that the centaur
or

sense.

do

not

how

it is

to possible

contend

and

the

phoenix
of

real,in any are real ; and word

'

known,
when

understood,
*

admissible School

sense

the

logiciansof the Modern

'

judgement as referringa content,' or to me Reality beyond the act,'it seems

taken,
sense,

speak of the idea,' to a significant they

are

that

either mis
and

they are using the term which unfortunately they

or

Reality in
never

some

new

special
includes

define, and
the this,

which
most

unreality. The
term

want most

of any

definition of

important
their whole

in

their

fundamental the

doctrine,
I

renders
can

to system unintelligible

uninitiated.

scarcely suppose
to

that the exponents

of Modern
centaurs
we or

Logic
real

mean,

by their reference reallyexisted

used

Reality,that real
the real world these what
to

phoenixes ever
the
to

in

in which

live,though
understood

expressions

by

logicians may

be certainly

If by reality they mean they do mean. I agree and which or objectivity, externality
and proposition

imply that this is merely that reference

maintain
I

is inherent

in every
agree
more

with

them, and

in every regret that

judgement, then they do

not

respectfully
themselves

express

clearly.
In my

is this: view, the position there

are

"

With
two

respect
distinct

to their external

or

objectivereference,
; or

kinds

of

propo

sitions in two

perhaps
senses.

more

different
and

propositions are understood accurately, is the material proposition, There that

as

is

understood
an

accepted
which

to real existence, to fact, to referring

external

world

is the

world

of

experience ;

and

these

the basis of Empirical or Material propositionsare which is founded. Conduct This is the reasoningon

reasoning.
This
is the

reasoning that determines

which
we

our

action.

This

is the
us

reasoning by
and

solve the

problems that confront

of

hourly, daily,
we

momentarily in the world

is the

experience in
are
"

which

live.

This

reasoning by which
*

truths
'

discovered.

The

unit of such

reasoning is the
truth
be
"

real

and, without
To
must
on

of fact, of proposition the statement such propositions, Empirical reasoning cannot

conducted.

attain
base

truth,
our

we

must
on

start

from

truth.
reason

To

reach

fact,we

reasoning

fact.
to

Material

ing is based
conclusions is vital.

material

and, propositions,
of

the

validityof
of its

the

of this mode

reasoning, the

truth

premisses

POSTULATION

25

But

Empirical reasoning
the
on

is not

the

only

mode

of

Besides
on

vast

field of
we

material
to

reasoning,which
be
;

is based

reasoning. solely
field of
no or

fact,or

what
even

believe

fact,there
which

is another fact is in

reasoning of
concerned
of their

greater
in

extent
are

with

way

; whose

conclusions
which

unaffected

by
to

the truth

falsity

premisses ;
of real

any

appeal
world which is the In the

rience
not

is out

place and

irrelevant
to

; in which

the of

realityor expe propositionsdo

to

refer to

existence,or

the

experience,but
of

to

postulatedexistence, and to a world be wholly imaginary. This but may

of
the

is

it is true, objectified,

Logic
mode of world

Postulation,
of

Consistency,of Form, of Proof. proposition is postulated for

be
true
or

this

reasoning,
argument.

purpose of the
;

the

It may
or

false ; it may

be true absurd

of

experience,

it may

be

wildly impossible or
of it
as

but

it is

postulated for
may

the
argue

purpose from

the

argument
were

and, being postulated, we

and maintain the

if it in

true, of

its

realityor
that
must

truth
we

spite

please, so
argument
that
not to

remain conducted

be

experience, and as detached from experience. But the throughout on the understanding They
truth may adds
or

postulate of long as we

the be the be

propositions are
true

postulated only.
if
or

may

in

fact,
cogency,

but

force,

they are, validity

their of the

nothing They
their from
are

argument.
even

may

manifestly false, impossible,inconceivable

; but

detracts or impossibility, inconceivability nothing falsity, them. that rest upon the validityof the arguments They

postulated for

the

purpose

of the argument,

and

for this purpose,

postulationis sufficient. A defined, by proposition has been verbal expression of a truth or falsity;
'

recent

writer,
is added

'

as

the
a

and

it

that claims

propositionimpliesbelief in the statement logical assent. My concept of the propositionis the

of this.
are

made,
direct of
to

and

In

my

view
are

there known

is

an

immense

class

contradictory propositions
be both false, and

that

false,and

and

understood receive There

or

and those who utter by those who of Logic. within the domain strictly of truth propositions,whose range
and

them,

yet
immense

are

is another

falsityis
truth which

unknown
or

to

disregarded by utterlyirrelevant to but yet they may be reasoning.

the the the

utterer, and

whose

is falsity

arguments

into

they

may

enter;

valid,and subjectsof strict,

useful

logical

26

NEW

LOGIC the of
'

'

The

earth is

larger than
and
me

sun

is

proposition having

definite

meaning,
not, to

capable
at

but it does
nor

entering logicalargument least, imply belief in the statement made

into
the
assent

; ;

do

I, in making it,claim
from

of the hearer.

Yet

can

argue

it,and
the

deduce
sun,

valid conclusions. perfectly then the

sun

If the earth

is

largerthan they
are

is smaller earth
and

than
sun

the

earth;
be

then

the relative movements

of the
to be.

the
are on

cannot

what
are

supposed
are

These

arguments
not rest

valid. the

They
of
true

irrefragable ; but
premiss. They
false. Mill also denies false.
a

their

does validity

truth

the
or

equallyvalid
a

whether

the

premiss is

true

or

false,there is
as an

necessarily be either He and beyond the true and the says that between third possibility the Unmeaning he gives ; and
"

that

propositionmust

example

'

Abracadabra

is

second

intention.'
not

Mill

seems

to have

thought that unmeaning

propositions are
so, he
was as as

susceptible
We

of
can

but if he did think treatment, logical and as cogently,and argue as easily,

'

mistaken.

with
'

complete validity,
from
"

from

Abracadabra If

is

second is do
a

intention
second but
; then ; then

'

All I
one

men

are

mortal.' whether intention

Abracadabra
or

intention
if it is
"

don't

say

it is

not,

nor

I care,

then

second
a

at least is Abracadabra
a

Abracadabra it is not All strict

is not

first

intention, nor
that

third is
are

intention
a

possible to deny
these

Abracadabra
; all

second

intention.
of any

arguments
from

valid ;
none

all follow pays

logical logical necessity

are

the

postulate ;
unknown. pay

of them
way

regard
if the

to the

meaning
of the

of the

or postulate,

is in any

vitiated

meaning
of the

postulateis

Logic

must

regard
; but

to the

objectivereference
not

propo
or

sitions it

employs

it need

pay
a

regard

to

their truth

unless falsity,

the
to

argument
the

is

material

argument.

If the
must

argument
not

belongs regard
is

Logic of Consistency, this Logic

pay

to the

truth of its

propositions.Chalk
" . .

is harmo This

nious ; Whatever

is harmonious
It is

is black ;

Chalk

is black.

argument
nonsensical
be

stated
no

in

perfectlygood in form, but it is of its matter. A logicalargument account must on and these are for they not propositions, propositions,
nonsense.

have

answering relations
as a

in the mind. and

as as a a

The

argument

is

stated,
it is it is

however,
absurd

material

argument,
; but

material formal

argument argument,

and

nonsensical

if stated

POSTULATION

27

sound. perfectly what is harmonious

Chalk black

is not,
;

in
we

fact,harmonious,
may,

nor,

in

fact,is
argu that

but

for the

purpose

of and

ment,
what may chalk chalk

postulate or
is harmonious

pretend
is black of and

that
;

chalk

is harmonious,
on

and

then,

these is

build

an

argument

consistencythat if what
and the

we postulates, perfectlysound. //

is harmonious,
is

is harmonious

is

black, then

indisputably black,
but

irrefragable.The
nonsensical
;

unescapable and postulates are false, indeed ; in fact,they are of this falsity and nonsensicality the Logic of
heed. As
a

inference

is

Consistency takes no and worse ing is silly,

or a

material
an

argument,
from In the

the

reason

than
it is

silly. As
be in

argument

postulates,
of

formal

argument,

sound. perfectly

argument
or

our consistency,

postulatesmay
can

false,or nonsensical,
this

merely
as

symbolic. validlyfrom
harmonious,'
either
case,

We
*

reason,

Logic,
the
'

as

readily and
'

If the
*

earth

is

largerthan
as

sun,'
men

or

If chalk

is In in

or

If S

is M,'

from you
are

If

are

mortal.' and of you

Formal your

volved

in

Logic will show postulates, what

what
you If your
not

what
the

is

implied

consequences

your made affair.

and postulation, your

In

to

committed

yourself when
the
conclusions
at

assumptions.
case,

postulatesare
act

false,that is your
that

that

you
or

must

upon

formal

Logic attains; Logic is a mill

will turn
was

if you will

do

so, you

do

so

your

peril. Formal
it to

that

grind whatever
a

you

give
from

grind, and
in which

out

the

gristin
flour ;
or even

form

different

that

it

put into the mill.

into wholesome
hemlock all the

If you

up
or

seed,

give it sound wheat, it will grind it but if you give it canary seed, or linseed, flints and broken glass,it will grind
if you
on are own

them
eat not

impartiallyinto
the mill.

flour ; and
are

foolish head.

enough
You

to

the grist,

consequences

your

must

blame Some

adumbration minds may To

of this doctrine

seems

to

have
every is

been

present

in

the

of those
be stated
state

logicianswho
an

say

that This

categorical imperfect
argument

argument
half-truth.

hypothetically. Empirical
of

an

or

Material

hypotheticallywould
often is result from often undertaken but the

be

destructive

its nature. this mode of

Empirical reasoning,and
for the
an

Hypotheses of reasoning obtaining

an

very

purpose

hypothesis ;
must not

be
out

premiss of hypothetical. So
of the range of

argument

and Empirical argument cannot take the to state the premiss would it Empirical reasoning,and remove

28

NEW

LOGIC

into the realm

of

reasoning from
must must

postulation. But
be be

in the

Logic of
or,

consistency,the argument not actually so stated, it

are,

stated

hypothetically ;
that the
The

if

understood

premisses

in fact, hypothetical or
as

postulated.
supposes,
a mere

hypotheticalform
that alternative,
may

is not,
be

Traditional
or

Logic

adopted

not

at

pleasure; and
one

that, if adopted, merely fails to

mode
worst

vitiate the argument. if omitted, is the

It is vital to the

of

reasoning ; and,
of

productive of

of the

forms

fallacy
"

of argument, which will be fallacyof confusion of the mode in the chapter on fallacies. described Postulation of premisses, in the Logic of Consistency, is not

duty ; it is not only a necessity; it is also a very valuable immense realm an privilege. Postulation places at our command of reasoning that, without It gives us it,would be inaccessible. merely
a

control of that
us

powerful engine,the things whose

not

reductio

ad absurdum.

It enables

to

reason

about

real existence

is not

only doubtful,
It enables

but
us

impossible ;
to reason, ; not not

only impossible,but inconceivable.

the

in Mars the

Regent's canal, but of possiblecanals but of only of the mounting of the forty-foot telescope,
a

only of

mounting of
what
;

forty-mile telescope ;
square
root

not

only of
one.

the square enables

us

root to
a

of four, but of the

argue space
were

of minus

It

would

happen
were

if two
or

straightlines
of

should

enclose
; if matter

if space

of four
and

forty dimensions

imponderable,

the

ether

impenetrable ; of frictionless

infinitesimal quantities, infinite rods, perfectcircles, machines, rigid other things that are outside, or inconsistent series,and a thousand with limit

experience.
to

For

the purpose

of argument,

there

is but

one

the

argument,
the

of privilegeof postulation;and, for the purpose the truth or falsityof our postulatesis utterlybeside
no

question,and of
discussion

account.

This

of the nature

and

meaning

of the
:
"

Proposition

has led us, therefore, to the

1.

following conclusions
mental
a

proposition is a verbal relation.

verbal relation
more

2.

The
a

expresses

relation, sometimes

called

Judgement,
mental

3. The

accurately called relation expressed by

objective reference, or refers to a outside the conceiving or judging mind.

4. The

Thought. a proposition has an relation conceived as existing

external kinds
:
"

reference

of the

relation or proposited predicated

is of two

CHAPTER

II

KINDS

OF

PROPOSITIONS

THE
numerous,

kinds

of

propositions
the

distinguished
the

by

logicians
and

are

including
;

Categorical,
and

Inferential,
;

the

Disjunctive
and the

the

Affirmative
;

the

Negative
the
;

the

Universal
and

Particular
;

the
and

Discretive,
the
matter

Remotive,
and several
to

the

Exponible
Those
text

the
are

Analytic
curious

Synthetic
may

others.

who
books

in the

be

referred
appear I

the

larger

for

explanations
purposes

of these of

terms,

which
Here

especially
will
confine

adapted

for the
to
a

examinations.

myself
are

less

complete
the of

enumeration,
are

believing that
in the
can

those of

who

interested
to

in modes the

subject, and expressing

habit

paying
out

attention

thoughts,

easily work

for themselves
For

varieties the is

usually described.
most

logical

purposes,

important
the
to

distinction

between and it is
one

different

propositions
This is
a

that

between
new

Incomplete
but

the of its

Complete.
the title

distinction
An

Logic,

greatest

importance.
a

Incomplete
an

proposition is,
is shall
related

as

implies,

proposition
a

of which
;

element
as we

missing.
find

Every
on,

proposition
a

expresses

relation

and,
"

further
and
one

relation
which

consists

of three
the be

elements relation

two

terms,

the of

ratio these

expresses may
'

between
as

them. the

Any

elements
A

missing.
may
or

Taking
be

type the generalised

this if
a a

proposition
the
term

is B,' there
term

missing
*

from But

proposition

A, the

B,
three the

the

ratio and

is.'

proposition
one

necessarily contains
element is

elements,
two

if from

proposition
are

missing,
but We is
two

remaining
and form

elements

not

proposition, necessarily.
one

incoherent retain the

unrelated of the
in

elements

Not if

may

proposition, even
its

element that

missing,
serve

by
to

introducing keep
the

place
be

dummy
as a

element,

may

proposition
can

together, supplied,
'

proposition,
substituted the form
term

until for the

the

missing

element
in
can

and

dummy. missing

Thus,
; but
we

the

proposition
the and

is B,'
in

may

be

keep

proposition
at

until

the

missing

element

can

be

supplied,

the

same

THE

PROBLEM

31

time be

introduce

reminder

that

the

term

is

missing, and
term

needs

to

supplied,by putting in place of By

is B. this
means we

the the

missing

the

relative

'what.' What

obtain
is

incomplete proposition,
can

if B Similarly, the be

missing, we
A is what.
as

throw
are

the

incom

pletepropositioninto questions,and
of the should

form,
and

These

manifestly
the addition

characterised
we

questionsby
get
at

interrogation sign ;

then

the
once

incomplete
preserve

is B ?, A What propositions, form of the proposition,and

is what remind

?, which
us

the

that

the

proposition is

incomplete
is the
we

and

clamours link that

for

completion.

relational thus
no

connects

cannot

and
an

though

supply a dummy logician is ever adopting

a

missing element the terms together in a relation, for it. A what B ? is not English,
deterred,

If the

by

the

hideousness

of

expression, from
New

it way,

into
and

his

scheme,

it behoves

Logic

to

show

better that

Remembering,
put in the form
is

however,
of
a

aspire to better things. be the incomplete proposition may

'

missing,
' '

throw

the link of the relation question,we can, when Is the incomplete proposition into the form A and B of ?
a
'

A, B ?
These
be be

or are

What
ways
a

is the relation between

in which

the
so

missing element
the form

problem

may

supplied by

dummy,

that
not

of the ways.

proposition may
We may
; and

preserved ; but these are for the missing element tute

express the
are

the

only

substi
may

the

sign of
Problem

the

unknown
; A
x

incomplete
three forms

proposition X
that
a

is B
may

B,

or

is X,

which
The be

the

assume.

incomplete proposition is,in Logic, a Problem,

as a

and

should

is the foundation of problem ; and the Problem Material and or Empirical Reasoning. The whole only function of Empirical reasoning, or Induction, is to solve problems by dis

known

covering the
discovered

element

in them for in the

that

is

missing, and
element.

the substituting

element
understood and the

commonly
causation,

dummy logical text

Induction,

as

books,

is the

discovery of
to

discovery of

causation

by the direct appeal supply the missing element

or

experience. Induction, as I understand missing element in a Problem, whatever

be ; and whether and
one

it, is

the

of

the
may

it refers to relations
is

causation,
we

to

any
to

other

of

the

thousand whether

that

may

desire

discover
the

; and

this element
to

appeal

supplied by the direct or by is still a experience, the logical process

indirect of

process

Induction.

32 The
to

NEW

LOGIC

first division
nature

of

Complete

propositions is
The be
terms

made

according
may be

the

of

their terms.
may

of

relation The is
*

simple,or
form
more or

they

themselves relation This with form

relations.

generalised
A

type of the

simple
of
term

terms

is B,' or,

generally,A : B. Instead of bringing an

term

propositionwe
B

will call P. with

an

indivisible
may,

into

relation

indivisible

A,

we

however,
a

bring into
when

relation
*

two

terms,

each

of which
a

is itself and

relation, as
'

we

say

the

relation between between three The

and
a

parson

his

parishionersis
;
or
'

like the

relation
between

shepherd
six

and the

his flock relation

the

relation
and

is unlike

between

seven

twelve.'
'

generalisedform, or type, of this kind of relation is a : b is like (or unlike)c : d,'or (a : b) is like (or unlike) (c : d),'or '(a: b) :
'

(c : d).9 Let
the
term

us

call this form

in that if,

of
we

It is manifest

Q, Q

proposition Q. replacethe term

therefore the

(a

: :

b) by A, and
B, which
in form

(c

d) by B,
P. P

we

get the
are

proposition A
character
in

is
in

identical material which

are

with

and

identical

respects, and

differ

only in
are

of their terms,
are

simple
In

or

indivisible
terms

in P, and

themselves

relations. wholes

P, the

indivisible wholes three elements

are

; in

Q, they

are

discriminable

into

the

of which the

every

relation consists. of Deductive

Propositions of the type P

propositions

reasoning ; those of the type Q are the propositionsof Analogicalreasoning. We thus find that each of the three modes
of

reasoning employs its own

of Inductive
It has
no

form

of

proposition. The
in

Problem

is the foundation alone.

reasoning,and is used
or

in Induction

Analogy. Propositions of the type Q are or analogies,and are analogical propositions, used in Analogical reasoning only. Propositions of the type P are
used in Deductive in

place in Deduction

reasoning, and

no

other

form

of

propositionis
this call
as

employed
type
them
are

Deduction.

Since, however, also, it would

are

propositionsof
be

utilised in Induction

misleading
in

to

Deductive

propositions. They
of the
some

known

Logic

Categoricalpropositions.
Many
in that forms

Categorical proposition are

of the distinctions
some no

distinguishedin

Traditional

Logic,
and
; and

Logic

in this ;
some

of them

being important both important in Traditional

Logic only
In

of

importance
utmost

at all.

Traditional

division

importance is attached to the of propositions according to their Quantity, into the

Logic, the

MODAL

PROPOSITIONS
In the

33

Logic here propounded, the this ground has division on no place. I do not agree that quantity inheres in the propositionat all. In my view, quantity resides, not in the proposition as a whole, but in its terms, and
Universal and
the Particular.
may be

in either

term, in both,

or

in neither.

I do

not

agree

that

quantity is limited to the Universal and the Particular ; I think views on of terms are the quantities quantities are ; but my many and need not that subject, set forth in the subsequent chapter on
be

given here.
Another of the

great divisions

of

made propositions and

as

by Tradi
a

tional

Logic
now

is that
to

according
it,I need
I differ in

to

Quality ;
consider
the

this also has All that of need

chapter devoted
be

not

it here.

said

is that

toto from

doctrines

quality

held The

by Traditional
next

Logic.
of

propositionsmade by Traditional proposi Logic is the division into Pure propositionsand Modal alone admitted into tions. Pure are propositions wittingly that Traditional I am to reasons utterlyunable Logic. For from proposition is ejected and excluded appreciate,the Modal Traditional itself to inefficiency thereby condemns Logic, which uselessness. and practical Modal The propositionis that in which an assertion or denial is modo with a qualification. made, not simply,but cum Originally, of a proposition meant the degree of certaintywith the mode the proposition was stated. which Aristotle distinguishedfour such modes, Necessary, Contingent, Possible, and Impossible. of the Schools The the scope of modality,until extended logicians it included form of propositionwith the excep every conceivable tion of an thus reduced and insignificant remnant; Logic to it the contempt impotence, and went far to bring upon practical that it now enjoys. Mediaeval logicians regarded every modifica tion or of the qualification as a copula, however insignificant, mode and modal no ; proposition is susceptible of logical To such lengths was this ridiculous formalitycarried, treatment.
great division
" "

'

that
as

even

the

past and

future

tenses

of the
'

copula
is not

were

excluded,

modals,

from

logicalargument.

Caius

truthful,' was,

according to Scholastic Logic, an admissible proposition. It could form the ground of Inference into a syllogism; it enter ; it could could be converted, denied, contraposited,and subjected to all the operationsof logical art ; but extraAnanias was was a liar
'
'

N.I..

34

NEW

LOGIC

logical. It could
be

not

form

a even

ground of Inference.
the
useful
not

Nothing could

inferred
some

from liar
was

it, not

and

that the

Ananias.

It could

elegant deduction be subjected to any of

propositions. Such for the neglect with which absurdities go far to account Tradi tional Logic is treated by practical and for the contempt reasoners,
upon into
not

operations that logiciansperformed

which
now

it is fallen

and

although

even

Traditional
and

Logic
are

does still

countenance most

such

nonsense,* its scope it,numbing

range

and artificially,

unnecessarilyrestricted.
over

The
and

withered

hand

of the Schools

paralysing its To be admitted usefulness. within the sacred precinctsof Logic, the basis of any process of logicalinference, to form a proposition be be still must purged of all suspicion of modality.' It must
'

still stretches

either

B,

or

apodeicticor assertory. It must that deny without qualification

of the affirmation
or

affirm A

that A
If the way

is

necessarily

is B.

assurance

denial
out

is in any
and
are

certaintyand impaired or
forbidden
"

the proposition is qualified, the You burn

cast

and rejected, seldom

joys of the logicalheaven.

cannot

Things

what

often catch fingers ;

;
"

an

old
very

bird with

chaff; He

they seem will probably

his

It looks
are

certain to win
have It

all these with

almost to rain ; They are likely Traditional Logic will extra-logical. It is

nothing

to do
as

them.

incapable of treatingthem.
and
can

them rejects
from Yet

impracticable and
them,
nor

refractory ;
them
as

draw

no

conclusion inference.
act
our

admit

the

ground of
we

any
to

how

have throughout life, continually,

drawn

not

upon

inferences
to

from

uncertainties

If

we

could

limit

how guidance of certainty, simple, and how uninterestingwould life not be ? Butler, is Probability,' says is Logic if it does the guide of life ; and of what earthly use not for ? assist us in the guidance of life ? What else is reason
' ' '

conduct

the

The

exclusion

of

Modals

is

but

one

of the

ways

in

which

Traditional

tillall the subject-matter, from blood taken flesh and it, and nothing is left but dry are it is perhaps the but most bones; comprehensive, the most

Logic has whittled

away

its

important, and
the

the

most

vital omission.

More

than
an

any

other

of
and

futilities of

Traditional
to

Logic,
of

it reduces
a

important
we

useful machine
I assert, and
*

the dimensions without

I find that

useless

toy.
can

assert

fear of contradiction, that

one

This is premature. tains this doctrine.

authoritative

text

book

still main

MODAL

PROPOSITIONS

35

constantly argue, and what is more, we found our the arguments, conduct on on grounds of all degrees of certainty A is almost A is necessarilyB,' though and likelihood, from A is not likelyto be B,' and 'It is scarcely certainly B,' to be B.' On that A can reasonings from such grounds we possible act daily in the most buy and sell, important affairs of life. We and are at home, marry and rest, travel and remain work given in marriage,on the faith and on the strength of reasonings founded but such a one logician,it is on propositions. To every that indefeasible and undeniable as or long as the qualification
argue, and do
' ' '

mode

runs

through

the
not

argument,
affect the

and

appears

unweakened

in

the

conclusion, it does
least. home. If he If it

validityof the argument in the is probably travelling abroad, he is probably not at is very unlikelythat he can walk a mile, it is very
can

unlikelythat
way,
we

he
or

walk
not

two.
meet

If he him.

may

or

may
can

not

come

this his

may
can

may

If he
to

scarcely get
If it that Not is

breath, he
certain that

scarcely be expected
started
too

sing.
certain ?

almost

he What

it late, with

is almost

he missed
? logical I

his train.
know

is wrong

these

arguments

That they are not. is the What complain of. such elementary inferences that Traditional Logic does

I grievance. That is what of a logic that cannot use compass If it is frankly admitted these ? as not professto be of any use or value, it is high time we had one to say, except that I have no more of some that is ; but if Traditional Logic claims, as by the mouths of its votaries it does claim, to furnish the Universal Principle of

is my

reasoning,then
that
So

I say

that for

these
ever.

instances

are

enough

to

demolish

claim far

at

once

and

from

Logic excluding
maintain that
a

from

its

I proposition,

competent
;

purview Logic must

get
on

the

Modal all

include

forms which and

and

varieties

of the exclude
some

Modal the

and

even

Traditional

Logic,
it ;

professes to
them

Modal,

cannot

without

does, in fact,admit

forms

of the

discusses

and freely,

formally,and
nature,
or

least

recognising their
cannot

true

and proposition, in the at length,without appreciatingthat they are, Modal

in fact, Modals.

possiblybe B and as such, proposition, is a Modal, possiblybe B

'

'

is,in Traditional
admissible
as
'

Logic, an
Logic.

apodeictic
'A
'

is and
B

into

may
cannot
'

'

such

is inadmissible.

under

any

circumstances

be

is

and apodeictic,

logical.
D

is

36
under
some

NEW
B
'

LOGIC is Modal, and

to

circumstances

extra-logical.Every
If, however,
and if If
to
' '

logician will, I think,

'

agree

these
B
'

statements.

is under
it be

some

circumstances
that
'

is modal

extra-logical,
alter
is in
'

can

contended
'

it ceases

to

be modal
'

we

some some

circumstances circumstances altered into the

cum
*

to

these

circumstances
does

B' A

is

Modal,
in

it

cease

be

modal
one

if it is
case,

is in these circumstances
made

If in the

assertion

the

proposition

is

and qualified,

made

in the other, and made cum modo, in qualified that even would I can that other also ? a logician hardly suppose the two thus placed before the distinction when make are cases

modo,

is it not

him.

propositionwhen we say A is under these circumstances B,' is this proposition any the less modal the circumstances, and say if we A, provided particularise
But if
we are

using

Modal

'

it is C, is B,'

'

or

A, whenever

is D, is B
not
me

'

If these
a

are

not

Modals,
and
cum

if these

propositions are
it
seems

stated

with

qualification,
between is
no

modo, then
and

to

that the distinction

the

Modal

the

Pure

disappears,and proposition
'

there

longer any
But
'

thing as a Modal. A, provided it is C, is B

such
'

may

be

written

If A

is C, it
C of is

is B,' and
A

A, whenever
these
are

is B,' and

'If is D, is B,' may be written the ordinary stock examples in every

text

D,

the

given Hypotheticalproposition, Logic.

all Modal Modals that
It is not

book

of Traditional

true, therefore,that Traditional its

Logic excludes
excludes those others

propositions from
that it
to

purview.
but

It

recognises as

Modals,

it

admits freely

recognise. If Traditional Logic chose to say that the hypothetical proposition is a Modal distinct sufficiently
in construction I should
to

it fails

from
no

other

Modals it
on

to

deserve

separate treatment,
and
'

have
; but

quarrel with
is not
a

this

ground,
my

no

objection
no

make

this

what Modal

it says. within

It says,

Under

cir
'

cumstances

will I admit
a

sacred
a

precincts
an

and

then, when
any
one

Modal
a

presents

itself under
see

disguiseso thin
in

that

but

logician can
Modal is

Traditional Otherwise with

a

Logic welcomes
put, the

through it the impostor with open

a

instant,
modo

arms. cum

proposition stated

"

To in what element the qualification. Very well. is the qualification attached ? Which does it element proposition It certainlydoes not qualify? qualifythe subject. If it did,
*

All

is B,' and

'some

is B

'

would

be

Modal

propositions;

38
? hypothesis

NEW

LOGIC

They
to

cling to it all
reasoners,
a a

the

more

tenaciously.
to

Incon and

sistency is,
avoided. Whether
not
a

other

vice

be

condemned

To

guiding principle. the Hypothetical or Conditional proposition is

to not

it is logicians,

or

is the

Modal, is of great importance

Traditional
matter

Logic.
What

To

New
matter

Logic here expounded, it

to

does

at all.

does

both

schemes from
and
to

is that the
be

distinct sufficiently

proposition is ordinary Categorical to demand

the

Conditional

regarded as a distinct variety. A third variety distinct of the Categoricalproposition, sufficiently to or require separate treatment, is the combined Compound in which two proposition, or more having a common propositions,
separate treatment,

element,
both

are
'

combined,
has

and

expressed
is

'

as
*

one

as

and

B C.'

are

C,'

been, will be, and

more

B,'

is both

and

In

each is
more

of these

cases,
one

than

one

relation is

expressed,and
the
two

there

than
'

proposition.
B
'

The

first contains

tions, A is C and
*

is C

'

; the second

contains
'

three

proposi propositions,
contains
more case

has
two
one

been

B,'

will be

B,' and
'

A A

is B

'

; the third

the

propositions,'A

is B

and

is C.'

In

each
to

than
if
mere a

propositionis expressed in what purports compound proposition; and the combination

artifice of relations
in

be
more

single,
than
a

is

language.
the If there

the
common

corresponds with mind, through and by means

It

combination

of

of the element
no

to both.

is

no

common
'

element,
is B, and
common

Compound
'

proposition can pound

is B and C

be

constructed.

is C

is

Com
'

proposition, by virtue of the

is D
a
'

element

B ; but
cannot

A be

is not

Compound
of

and proposition,

combined

into

Compound
the
of

proposition.
Traditional

According to primary kinds

thetical
;

scheme

proposition,the by
as

but

as

it is admitted be

all
an

proposition may
breaks down in in Traditional

expressed

Logic, there are two Categorical and the Hypo logiciansthat the Categorical the distinction hypothetical,

practice; and, for practicalpurposes, there are, distinguished Logic, but four kinds of proposition,
and qualityin quantity
as

by variations
These The The The The kinds

of
are

the

proposition. Categorical
"

follows

"

Universal Universal Particular Particular

Affirmative

or or

Negative

E
or

Affirmative

Negative or

proposition All A is B. proposition No A is B. A is B. I proposition Some A is not proposition Some

" " "

B.

KINDS

OF

PROPOSITIONS

39

For

this
the

classification,

substitute,

in

the

Logic

here

pro

pounded,
1.

following

"

The The

Incomplete Complete Proposition Complete Proposition

between of these
C

Proposition, proposition
A
"

or

Problem
"

What unified

is

2.

with

terms,

or

the

Categorical
3.

is

B. with relation relations between A for and terms, B is

or

The

proposition
The
"

the the

Analogical
relation Each of The that is

like

and of

D.

forms

proposition
and
some

is

divisible

into

sub-varieties,

some

which forms

are

important,
the Problem

unimportant. according
to

of

are

three,

the

element

missing
The The The forms The The The forms of The The

"

a.

missing missing missing

of the

element element element

is is is

the the the

Subject
Ratio
"

What
"

is
B

b.

Is A
"

A,
is

?
?

c.

Object

what

The

Categorical

Proposition
A
"

also

are

three

"

a.

Categorical Compound
Conditional of the relation relation divisions will the

Proper

is A
"

B. and is B both C. B.

b.

proposition proposition Analogical

:
"

are

c.

A
"

conditionally
are

The the
nature

Proposition

two,

according

to

relation of of

a.

to
to

b b

is is

like unlike

the

relation the relation and consider of

of

to

d.
to

b. Further

of the them

d.

of into

the view

Problem,
when
we

Categorical separately

proposition
and in
more

come

detail.

CHAPTER

III

THE

CONSTITUENTS

OF

PROPOSITIONS

THE

constituents and
way

of

propositions
may be

are

to

be
in

discovered three the

and ways,
worst.

by
of

analysis ;
which

propositions
of Traditional

analysed
is

the

Logic

incomparably
into

Aristotle
or

analysed
and

the

proposition
which the is

Subject

Predicate the

the

Subject,

that
to
were

predicated

concerning
Man
"

Subject.
A
"

According
to

him,
thus
;

propositions
The

is
is
a

mortal,
reason

is

unequal

B,

divided. but the

;

division

able

and

defensible for it does

division
not

it is not
true
nor

well

adapted
of
a

to

logical

purposes,
as

reveal relation
For

structure

proposition, readily
so

the

expression

of

does
a

it lend

itself

to

the

operations
be
we

of Inference.
or

instance,
If Is

proposition
attempt
to

divided
opera
; which

cannot

reciprocated
get
Is

converted.
man,

we

these
B
"

tions
are

mortal

"

and

unequal

useless
It may

and have

nonsensical. been divided

mode

this

insusceptibility to
that the is led

conversion,
the Schoolmen
;
a

of

the
to

Aristotelianly
devise

proposition,
of

another
endured
to

analysing
day,

proposition taught
in

mode
text

that
book

has
of

the

present

and

every

Logic, although

it is

and manifestly, radically,

incurably vicious.
from the
pre

The

logicians of the
and

Schools the

detached

the into title of

copula
three

dicate,

divided the third

proposition
the

elements,

still

retaining
as a

for

element

predicate, although, According

of
"

predicate, it is destroyed
Scholastic
and

by the

mutilation. consists
Man

to

the

analysis,
Predicate
to
;

the
and

proposition
is
in the

Subject,
"

Copula,
A
"

form

is

mortal,

is

"

unequal

B.
'

It

is manifest
and
*

that, in

this

division, the
are

so-called
cates at

predicates
all.

mortal,'
not
a

unequal

to

B,'
of

not

predi

They
is
no

do
more

predicate

anything
after has
*

their

subjects.
is
torn

predicate
than
a

predicate
after he

its

copula
beheaded.
'

away,

man

is

man

been Mortal

The
*

so-called
to

predicate predicates
us

nothing.
and 'A'

and

unequal
the

B,' tell
is

nothing
to

about them.

'

man'

respectively,until
copula
is

copula

added

Not

until

the

explicitly

ANALYSIS

OF

PROPOSITIONS
it is affirmative Modern the

41

stated Mr.

do

we

know
as an

even

whether of

or

negative.
of the

Bosanquet,
as a

exponent
declares

Logic, speaks of the

copula

and fiction, Predicate the

that

propositionconsists
he understands

Subject
and he
so uses

and

only;
that is

but
sense,

whether
as

predicate in

Aristotelian

incorporating the copula,

the is not and

expressing all
the word he
mere

predicated of
sense,

Subject, or
clear.
In

whether another
are

in the that To

Scholastic

place
them

declares fictions.

Subject, Copula,
this I do
not

Predicate,
The

all of

agree.

division of the

Aristotelian

predicateinto copula
a

nately,
fiction this

not

fiction. the Mr.

It

is

a a

unfortu is, pseudo-predicate, patent and deplorable fact. The and

is that

division

is

natural

or

logicaldivision
he says that

and

if

is what and
as

Bosanquet
are

means

when

Subject,
with
I

Copula,
him
;

Predicate I

all

mere

I should fictions,

agree

but
to

scarcelyever
or

know

what

he

does

mean,

always

hesitate The and the

agree

disagree.

into Subject,Copula, analysisof the proposition, of effect that convertibility pseudo-predicate,does not even propositionthat may be conjectured to have been its purpose.
Scholastic
"

Mortal

is
"

man

is
"

no

converse an

of

Man

"

is
"

mortal
or

nor

is

Unequal
A
"

to

is
"

A,
B.

converse intelligible

reciprocal of
and is

unequal to of a proposition so transmogrified,and

"

is

In order

to must
can

obtain be

an

converse intelligible

divided, it
then all
we

further is

manipulated
'

obtain

Some

mortal

man one even

Something unequal to B is A,' propositionswhich no but a logician would of devising,and which dream not ever could find any use a logician for, outside of his text book, or
and
'

'

the

examination of
'

room.

If it is
to

permissibleto
into A
"

make

the Scholastic
to
"

division
reason

is

equal
not

'

is
"

equal
is
to

B,
to

see

no

why
;

it may

be

divided
converse,

into

"

equal
B
"

B.

The is

Scholastic
nonsense

division
but
a

it

yields a yields no

Equal reciprocal. The

'To B
B
*

is
"

A, which

other is
'
"

division

yields
but
a

not

only

nonsensical

converse,
"

equal A,'
and

nonsensical

reciprocal also

To

equals A

is therefore,

presumably, superior.
One tion it is the
must

merit, however, the

does
possess.

Scholastic

division

of

the

It

does

indicate, erroneously and

the of
structure
a

proposi imperfectly
nature A

true,

but

it does
the

indicate

and

of

proposition, as
contain

expression
; and

relation.

relation of the

three

elements

the

Scholastic

division

42

NEW

LOGIC
in

does yield three elements, proposition

place of the
of

two

of the

Aristotelian

division.

The

two

elements
a

the

Aristotelian
sense

division,do, however, correspond with

and

real division in the

meaning
does

of the
not

proposition.
contain
must
one

The

three-fold

division

of the

Schools

correspond with
must

any

in the meaning. partition

Every relation
two

three contain of

elements. also the

It must link

contain
relates and

related
Take

terms,
away

and any Master

that

them.
relation

these

three
are

elements,
is neither

the

vanishes.
Take Take Take

and

servant

united

in the relation service

master
nor nor

of service.
servant. servant.
or

away away away and

the master the the

and

there there there

service,and
servant, and
are

is neither is
no

longer
of
:

master

service. the

Slayer

slain

united

Without the

slayer,there
is neither

is neither

by the relation slain slaying nor

slain
:

slaying.
without

there slaying, is neither

slayer nor
a

without

the slain,
suppose,

there

slayer nor
must

slaying. Every logicianis,I

relation; and
the
link the

agreed that the proposition expresses

a

if it expresses of which every

relation,then it
consists
"

contain
two

three elements
and

relation

the

terms,

that

binds

them

together.
The
first term,

that about

which

the
and

of predication
as

the

proposi

tion is made, is called the

I propose
to

Subject ;
But, for

the

name

is

appropriate, proposition;

retain it.

reasons

already given, Predicate

term

is

very

title for inappropriate

in

the second

of the
;
a

and

I propose and

future to call it the

Object-term
it is

name

that
to the

expresses

emphasises the fact that

balances
and
as

complementary

Subject, and
that

the

binds

Subject
; but

Subject in the proposition.The link is the relation Object in the proposition,

'

between

them

the

name

relation

'

is often

given

to the

completed whole, consisting of Subject, link, and Object, it is of the inappropriate to apply it to one parts of this whole. Traditional Logic calls the link the Copula ; but the Copula of
Traditional

Logic,

even

when

it includes, which the terms,

and

it

usually
one

does form

not, the
of

whole

of the

link between is
an

is but

this link, and

moreover,

ambiguous
to

misleading word.
of the

I propose, the

therefore, in future, to call the

a name

link

proposition

Ratio,

that

is

already given

relations, quantitative
in

and

that undergoes, therefore,but

same

little diversion

being applied,
the

in the
matter

sense,

to

the

relations that qualitative

are

subject-

of

Logic.

CONSTITUENTS

OF

PROPOSITIONS

43

According unequal
Ratio
B
to

to

this is

mode

of

division, the
the between is the
to
"

proposition
A

'

is the

'

analysed into
subsists Ratio the
"

terms

and A

B,
is the is

and

of

that inequality and A

to

is the

The mode

Object : propositionis
of

is the

unequal
division and

division

of

Subject : expression unequal to.' of this The B. superiority Traditional is Logic, A

'
"

them.

"

unequal to B, is apparent are complementary elements

other.
not

great.

The

terms

'

'

and

'

'

The

terms

'

and
"

and balance each proposition, unequal to B are incongruous, and in the

'

in
B
"

pan
is

materid.

A
"

is
a

unequal
rational of the The

to

"

B, admits

of

conversion

into

distortion
to

A, unequal to or manipulation
be
so

converse,

obtained
*

without
"

convertend.
one

"

is

unequal
repre

'

cannot

converted.

mode

of division which them.

'

sents, and
A

expresses and

the judgement; accurately,

contemplates
The and
*

and

B,

discerns the

inequality between
is concerned them minds
to
a

other

pretends
to not

that

thought
between in the

with

'

unequal
I know the
not

B,' and
what

discerns may 'A be is

relation

of existence.

of

logicianswhen
I
am

they
that

form I do

judgement
'

unequal
A
I doubt

B,' but
in
a

very

sure

that myself mean unequal to B,' and mind

stands

relation whether

of

existence

towards

very
a

much

that is the

meaning

in the

of anyone

but

Every
to
a

propositionand
here

logician. then, according every judgement consists, Object

Ratio,
are a

the

doctrine

advanced, of Subject and

then

related

by

certain many in

Ratio, and
other elements. all three
to

forming,
but

with
two

the

Relation.

In and

propositions,however,
many

elements

apparent
to

Simple
elements
to

propositions there important

present
in all ; and

appear in any

be

more

than
sure

three that and

to

It is very
are

reasoning to be propositionwe
less

use,

be

able

identifythem they
of
are

it is not
are

impor
Condi

tant

between distinguish in the

sense

propositionsthat
are

complicated, but
nor

Simple
as

that
consist which

neither than
or one

Compound

tional ; those
one

that those

more

propositionexpressed qualified in
the each Ratio. of the

; and

Modal,
of

Not

less

important
in
a

is it to

and identify None

discriminate
tasks is

elements
In many fell ;

proposition. two propositions,

II. abdicated
are

these

elements

only are
III. died
;

always easy. Babylon apparent.

It rains ; The each
a

James

William
sound

ether
a

exists. definite

All these

notion,

propositions; complete thought, and therefore

good

expresses

relation ; and

44

NEW

LOGIC elements

yet each
is true

appears of every

to

consist of two

only ;

and

the

same

Of

course,

only,there
elements
find what

verb. proposition expressed by an a proposition consists of Subject and Predicate is nothing in these propositionsto explain ; but if a intransitive if
expresses
are a

proposition

relation, it
in every element

must

contain
our

the
task

three is to

that

present
of the

relation ; and

is become

is that, in these propositions,

missing. James II. abdicated, seems, incomplete expression. The full sentence
say To

that

on

the

face of
be
'

an it,

would verb

James
to

II.

abdicated
and

the

throne

'

; and

the

intransitive

seems

be,

in this perhaps is, and

case,

formed

by merely omittingthe ObjectBut

'

term, is
a

leaving it
case.

to

be understood.
no as

William
is

III. died' and

different
sentence
we

Here,

such

Object-term
If
we

missing ;
at the

the

is
see

complete
that
or

it stands. the

look

sense,

however,
relation

the

relation

propositionexpresses

is

be more sufferingchange ; and would III. changed from living completelyexpressed by saying 'William III. underwent the experience of to dead,' or better, 'William

of

change,

of

dying.'
course

These but

expressions to be used in ordinary dis dimen they expand the proposition to its proper
are

not

sions, and
contain. Such

reveal the whole

of the

three

elements

it does, in fact,

The plant grew,' Babylon fell,'Carthage expressionsas but other cases all be expanded in the same perished,' way; may
*

'

'

are
*

less

'

easy. struck

He
'

walked,'
cannot

'

She

danced,'
on
'

'

The

tiger sprang,'
We
cannot

The
or

snake

be

expanded
He

this

plan.
the of

say,

it would
' '

be incorrect She
underwent

to say

underwent

experience
'

of
so

walking
forth.
a

The

expressionsare
into
'

do,
very
'

relation of action well

experience dancing ; and as translating, inappropriate, they relation of passion. But we can

the

He into performed the act of walking,' expand them These She performed the act of dancing,'and so forth. express that and the meaning accurately, display all the three elements

exist in the relation.

'

It rains

'

may

be

correctlyexpanded
'

into

'

Rain

is

but falling,'

We difficult case. is a more cannot Pyramids endure say that they that the Pyramids perform the act of enduring, nor undergo the experienceof enduring. To get at the true relation
'

The

we

must

violate the

practiceof Traditional

Logic, and

go

behind

46
modifications took the it,' of the Ratio

NEW

LOGIC

the Ratio quickly,'

postulate are is simple, and is qualified as

to to

part of
to

the

Ratio.
In
* '

In

He

unqualified.
manner.

He

took

it

In
'

He

took it then

it at and it

once,' the Ratio

from

is

as qualified

time.
and

In

He

took In
'

as there,'it is qualified

both

time
to

place.

He
'

took
He

your

as hands,' it is qualified on suspicion

circumstance.

In

took
'

it to throw took
'

it because
took

he

was

you,' it is qualifiedas to motive to cause as greedy,'it is qualified suspicionfell on

cases answers

; in

He

; and

in

He
to

it with the result that

in every
one

it you,'

is

qualified
that is

as

effect ; but

of these

it is the
any

Ratio

qualified. Any
How,
cause,

expression which
In

of the

questions
to

When,
With

Where,
what

what
or

circumstances,
what

Owing
or

what

motive,
Ratio

With

result,the fundamental
existed

relation which is
a

is asserted the

in the

judgement
be known

part
or

of

; and

may

by

its

place, as an quality,
is

took

adverb the
2.

adverbial

the principal verb, which phrase, qualifying

gistof the Ratio.

Next

find the Terms.

expresses

positionwhich
assertion discovered is
or

denial

is

Subject is that part of the pro the the person or thing about which It may always be primarily made.
?
or

The

by askingWho
in
' '

What
or

? of the Ratio.
a

The

Subject
To

always, therefore, a substantive Subject

is He. He
'

substantival took

phrase.
it ? and

find the
answer

took

we it,'

ask, Who
it may
and
a

the
In

He

is the

Subject of the
been had

proposition.
be

this case,
any the who
extent.

the
*

but Subject is unqualified,

to qualified

The of

man

who

had

born

refinements had been

luxury

; who

never

had

brought up amid want unsupplied ; religion and University educa

of

nourished

amid

the

influences
a

morality,and
tion ; who
every

enjoyed all the advantages of

land
and

owned

houses,
;

stocks
a

and

shares, wealth
from
a

in

form, and
In

luxury unlimited
' '

stole

penny

blind man's

the whole of the clauses preceding the proposition, verb stole of the Subject. are principal qualifications the Object is,of Subject and the Ratio being identified, 3. The

hat.'

this

proposition. It expresses that which is asserted, by the Ratio, of the Subject stands that which to the Subject in the is relation expressed by the Ratio, and ascertained ? or What ? by following the Ratio by Whom Now apply these rules to the sample propositiongiven above. First find the Ratio, which is expressed by the principal verb.
course,
"

the remainder

of the

"

ANALYSIS

OF

PROPOSITIONS

47 have
not

What
What

does

the

proposition assert?
is
'

We made
'

far to have

seek. made Is
'

is asserted the

It would
or

have

'

Would
the

is therefore Ratio the

Ratio,
any

the ?

principalpart
Yes.
answer

of

Ratio.
we

the
find

in qualified words made

'

way

little further the

to

much ?

better,' which

along question,How

would

it have
'

This, therefore, belongs

made much better.' Ratio
to

the

Ratio, which

is,in
of

full, Would
Now
to
:

have find the

making
say

to

find have ?

Object. The the Object, we are

made much
'

expresses ask

relation
?

making
have

what
made

You what is the

;

it would better We

better.

It would

much

The have
now

answer

is, My
two

story.' This, then,

out

Object.
it remains who
or

identified

of the

three

elements

only
better
my

to

find

the

Subject.
or

This

is found have face. whole

by asking
made my It would

what

of the

Ratio.
? The

Who
answer

what
us

would in the is
a

story much
have made

stares

story much
'

better.

There

complete

what in the world is all the rest, from 'to proposition. Then of the sentence have ? to at the end Shandy arms begun down all three of the necessary If we have elements, already found
' '

superfluousmatter apposition. The proposition says,

much better.
'

what

is all this

It is the

Subject,placed
made my better

in

It would made
'

have

story
?

What

would

have

my

story much

all the rest of the sentence. begun with telling you been If, however, this long Subject had placed in its natural have been in front of the to Ratio, it would position, necessary of the utterance suspend the expectation during the whole

Why,

to

have

Subject, and Few people

into confusion

to
are

keep it suspended until

the

Ratio

was

reached.

capable
;

of

so

long
case,

suspension without
it is
an

falling
of

and,
the

in

any

immense

saving
at

fatigue to
Therefore

have the

necessity for
is

such

suspension abolished. Subject is

in
our

sentence
' '

rearranged.

The

first
;

represented by It until we have the Ratio clear and then, having apprehended the general relation in the have attention to proposition, we spare elaborate o f the that follows. qualification Subject
Further,
the may
'

minds

of the elements for the

long

we

learn
not

from be

Ratio be

need

separated from
the

of example, that the qualification the to Ratio, but immediately attached it by the interposition of the Object.

this

When the

scintillations of frolicsome

to

flippancy of

vanity betake levity,and

themselves
would

for

aid

question the

48
sage

NEW

LOGIC

conclusions divine ;

of the
must

and philosopher,

the moral with that

inculcations
grave

of

the

they
can

expect

to

meet

reproba

only be properly awarded by the asperity of virtuous indignation.' In this proposition, the Ratio is manifestly
'

tion, which

must

expect
to
'

to

meet

with.' what find

answer

To ?

find the
and

Object,
answer

we
'

ask, Must
that
or are

expect

meet

with To
the

the

is ask

grave

reprobation
must

"c.

the is
to

Subject, we
'

who

what

expect ? and
an
'

They.'

But

who

they ?
we

For
1

explanation we
refers to
'

look

the

previous clause,

and
rest

find

they

the

scintillations of
a

vanity.' The

of this

clause
when

is not, however, the

action In takes

of the qualification

Subject.

It states

the

Ratio.

of place, and is therefore a qualification The logical order, the proposition should run
'

scintillations of

vanity must,
with
'

when

they betake
'

themselves

"c.,

expect

the dire consequences ' It is clear that, in this proposition, When

to meet
*

by If,'and then it would proposition, If A is B, it is

"

predicted. might be replaced of a conditional be in the regular form

C.

We

learn, therefore, that

a

the

condition

of

Conditional

proposition is

of the qualification

Ratio.
'

In later

and

the imperative,and the plural English, the infinitive, first person singular of the present indicative of the derived the
same

verb, have

form
be
not

as

the

primary noun,

so

that what
but
come

takes

place

seems

to

as a using of a noun the principal verb we exemplified,

word making of a new verb.' Reading this sentence, we rules have,' and, following the
'

the

the
to

already
These

find the

that
rest

the

Subject is
to
'

'

the

the infinitive, verb.'

imperative/
are

and

of it down

derived

the Subject. The therefore, Object is clearly the same form as the primary noun ; for this is what in shows In The later English they have. opening clause what circumstances they have, and therefore is a qualification

what

have, and
'

these are,

'

'

'

of

the
'

Ratio
to

; but
*

what
'

is the This has

rest

of the

sentence, of
a

from

'

so

that

down

verb

the

appearance

separate

proposition. It
'
"

has
The

separate
whole

and

seems an

to

be.'

sentence two

but

argument,
have the
"c.'

consisting of
*

independent principalverb, is not a simple proposition, propositions. It could be

the

equally well expressed by

of them takes
same

Because
as

infinitive and
noun,

the

rest

form

the

primary
in

what therefore

place

It could

be

expressed

Conditional

form,

"

ANALYSIS

OF

PROPOSITIONS

49 then

//
"c.

the

infinitive "c. But

we

have

the

same

form,

what

takes

place

that the condition which under already seen of the Ratio. We a a postulate is granted forms qualification of therefore,regard the first proposition as a qualification may, the pro of the the Ratio in strict logicalorder second, and The verb, not the as a run : using of a noun positionwould word, seems (since the infinitive "c. have the making of a new the takes place. Here of the primary noun) to be what form Ratio, Subject is in its natural place,heading the sentence ; the intervenes of its qualification, between with the whole Subject the Object terminates the proposition. This and Object ; and in the unless the form, however, proposition is skeletonised be too cumbrous, and would manner just shown, would require of the too long a suspension of attention during the consideration in practice. intelligible part in brackets, to be easily modification of introduced In this example, we to a new are the proposition, which received attention does not to have seem in books is not on this, but that.' This Logic, the form of the form A is both B and C, evidentlya compound proposition with the modification that one of the constituent propositions is negative A is is not and The C. B, form, A is not B but C,' means than It implies that the more this, however. hearer would have expected A to be B, and that this expectation is disappointed. It implies that the is C is 'A statement paradoxical. The distinction of these nice shades of meaning to Logic. to composition than belongs,however, more In the found the that analysis of the last sentence, we Subject and Object had been transposed, the order being what takes place seems to be the using of a noun as a verb,' whereas the logicalorder is the using of a noun verb to a as seems be what takes place.' This is rhetorical inversion. That is to have
"

'

"

'

"

'

'

'

emphasis from the Subject to the Object. The emphatic portion of the propositionis the beginning, and whatever part of a proposition wish to emphasise, we choose. we place at the opening if we may The whole in the In modern sentence example, with opens, that it is desired to emphasise, English.' This is the condition for this reason and this it is placed at the beginning; and transfer of emphasis is one for the operation of conversion reason of propositionswhich Book. In will be explained in the next
say,
to
'

the

inversion

is made

in

order

transfer

the

N.L.

50

NEW
be

LOGIC

spoken language, emphasis

voice in
;

can

conveyed by inflections
these inflections

of

the

and

poor

attempt

to

convey in
are

is made,
words
we

and writing by underlining,

the print by italicising,

poor and

desire to The

emphasise ;
way
to

but these indicate

inefficient
and
to

expedients.
the When
and

proper is

emphasis,
order

balance

sentence,

by the arrangement
are

of its constituent
of

parts.

the constituents

in their natural much

Subject, Ratio
it is in the
of

Object, the Subject is not

in which transferred
we

emphasised,for
if either

place
is

expect
to

to

find

it ; but

the

others

this the

place, it gains emphasis,

surprisewe
not

not

but by position, robbed robbed the

'

feel at its unusual

merely by position. He
*

me me

states, but does

*

emphasise, that it
'

was

he
I

who
was

; but

Me
;

he and

robbed
'

states
me

emphatically that
did
'

person
on

robbed the

Rob

he

throws of

dominant

emphasis

conveying rather than to Logic, to Rhetoric emphasis belongs, of course, for alteringthe but it is desirable here to show of the reasons one
means

action

of

robbing. The

natural
So

order

of the elements find that the demands

not
we a

far,we

proposition. into their analysisof propositions logical

a

in

three

elements

little care,
a

but presents
to
a

no

great diffi
person.

and ought culty,

So

to

be

stumbling block
at
some

careful avoid

far, however,
cases

have

been

pains to
be

the
ever,

really
and

difficult should

; and

difficulties cannot

put off for

to prepare

not

be

put off longer than

is necessary

against
has

them,

in

succeeded

spite of the practice of Traditional in evading for two thousand years

Logic, which
some

of the main

difficulties The
say, the

by which it is confronted. logicalproposition is the grammatical

same

sentence

; that

is to

form

of words

that
as a

sentence, is regarded in Logic

form of words is the
same,

as a regarded in grammar proposition. But althoughthe

is

the the

different mode
and

of

contemplation

introduces

differences certain

into

contemplate,
from the

position has
which
A need

differences

logical pro grammatical sentence

than
one

the

explanation. grammatical sentence

presents
more

may

have
more

more

verb, but
When
con

logical proposition cannot

Grammar
to the
one

have

than of

one a

Ratio.
sentence

consideration

taining
sentence

than The
no

verb, how
'

Logic is Logic to
is but
one

understand
'

the
no

proposition

Brutus

killed Caesar

presents

and difficulty,

ambiguity.

There

possibleSubject,

COMPLEX

PROPOSITIONS

51 But

but the

one

possibleRatio, and
'

but

one

possibleObject-term.
'

sentence
two two

Brutus

tried to kill Caesar It is

contains

two

verbs, and

therefore contains

possible Ratios.

propositions ; yet it is for the are two contained, not simul propositionsit contains as accept the sentence taneously,but alternatively.Logic may of the is one kill Caesar, which tried to meaning Brutus" alternative propositions meaning Brutus accept it as ; or may tried to kill Caesar, which is the other alternative. Logic has
" "

but it sentence, only one not a compound proposition,

"

the

these alternatives between its selection right to make ; and but charged with Logic is not only possessed of the right, more, until the selection is made, the duty of selecting Logic is ; and debarred from a as proposition. The accepting the sentence intention either Brutus the
may at

in the it
was

mind that

of the
Brutus
one

proposer tried
case,

may

have
or

been it
'

to
was

assert

what

to

do,

whom
'

that

tried to

kill.

In the

the it

verb

to kill to

belongs to
Ratio.
to

Object-term ; in the belong to either, at

once.

other

case,

belongs
it cannot

the

It

discretion

; but

belong

both

grammatical sentence logical proposition cannot

A

may

have

more more

than than
two

one one

have beans
'

Object, but Object.

"

In

Grammar,
'

'

She

gave

Object, beans,'what
whom
she
a

gave

them.

Objects, the direct the indirect Object, him, to she gave ; and The however, which Logical proposition,
him has have
more

expresses
common

cannot relation,

than

the

three
two

elements

to

all

and relations, But have

as

cannot, it may
more

therefore, have
have
than
'

Objectone

terms

simultaneously.
Ratio,
so

more

than

alter

native and
as as

it may

one

alternative
"
"

Object,
'

beans Logic may regard the proposition She gave him statingwhat it was she gave him, or may accept the proposition to meaning She him,' that is to say, as stating gave beans
'
" "

to whom

the beans

were

for the purpose

both and

in view

given. Logic may select not read ; but Logic may

we

either alternative into the sentence its selection,

propositions simultaneously.It is bound

until the

to make
us no

selection is made,
a

have

before

logical pro
Ratio,
and

but only position, It is evident

more

grammatical
with
more

sentence.

that

than

one

alternative

than that

one

alternative
be

tions become

may

Object, the possiblealternative proposi contained in a grammatical sentence may

and

quite numerous,

it may

become

an

academic
E

exercise
2

52

NEW

LOGIC

requiring
that
some are

some

ingenuity
in
to

to

state

all
sentence

the

possible
'

logical
He

propositions
to

contained them cliff.'

such
to

as

tried
to

persuade
attempt
to

of
the

seek

prevail
of

upon

the such

others

scale catch

The

prospect
to

devising
far

elaborate

traps

to

the

unwary

ought
the loss of

go

towards

consoling by

professional
the

logicians
and

for of

the

flat-traps

constituted

Figures

Moods

the

Syllogism.

54
Persons

NEW

LOGIC

4.

of logicians the qualities the attribute possessing possess

of

being mistaken.
These
are

the

meanings the propositionmay

it ought logicians,
to

express.

According always

to

the precepts of most

second
sense.

be understood

in the

According
first.
are

to the

practiceof

all,it is

always
the

understood

in the

Though
universal

these

the accepted respectively

is not be

doctrine

and

it practiceof logicians,
can

quite correct
conceived

to say that the

that other relations possibility

by

the

mind, and

expressed
Traditional
express any

in

propositions, has Logic.

of

been

completely
that the

Mill
five and

admitted relations

ignored by proposition may

the

of

Existence, Coexistence,
;

Sequence, Causation,
Martineau

Resemblance
there
are

and

sixty years
that
are

ago,
not

pointed
a

out

that

other

relations

and attributive,

cannot

without
expresses
a

much

artificial

manipulation
most

be

put into
books
*

form
corner

that of
'

attribution.
to

Moreover,
of such
*

text
as

give a

page

the

mention

relations

is before

B,'
a

George
few
and

I. succeeded Even

Anne,'
whatever

England
other

is north
adds
are

of

Spain,'and

others.
space

Martineau,

however,
relations

relations of time allowed

only, and

such as those of father and child, king and by logicians, with reference to their and servant, are considered subject,master terms to be the expressible only in terms ; and only ; are assumed
are

ignored when
relations be
can

propositionsare
be

treated

of.

It is assumed

that
and

these
cannot

conveyed only by appropriate terms,

the

conveyed by

Copula. interpre
logicians,

late years, still further latitude has crept into the tation of the according to some copula. It may, Of
express may
are

coexists with, coinheres

with, is like,is identical with, and

But
no

meanings. formallyallowed, they have

or

have certain other

though these interpretations leavening influence on logical

doctrine

influence the no on practice. They exercise allowed of the syllogism grudgingly, and interpretation ; they are
not

by
For

all all

logicians. practical
purposes, the

doctrine
"

of

the

Copula
are

as

applied by Traditional
1.

The

Logic, is as follows : conceivable by the only relations

attribution.
are

mind

class

inclusion
2.

and

If there
or

any

other

mental

relations, they
or

can

be

reduced

to,

expressed as, those of class inclusion

attribution.

THE

COPULA

55

3.

Whatever
to

other

relations, if any,
or

are

conceivable,
before

must

be

reduced
enter

either class-inclusion

attribution of

into

argument,
relations

from

the

basis

reasoning,or
attribution
are

they can the ground

of inference. 4. The of class-inclusion

cannot

and

by
any

the

copula, and
way. two

be

properly or
be

expressed logically expressed in

the

other 5. These 6. One I do

not

relations but
not

alone

can

expressed by
every

of them, say

both, is expressed in
doctrines
are

copula. proposition.

that

these

book the the

on manner

Traditional in which books

;

Logic ; but I affirm propositions are understood

that, unless
the it is assumed the whole

in any stated explicitly that they are implied in and that

treatment

treated
are

in

text

and

these

the

doctrines sitions
to

applicableto

Copula,

of propo

by logiciansis unintelligible.It of these doctrines, examine the validity

Are

is necessary,

therefore,

i.

relations that
own can answer. a

of be

class-inclusion conceived
'

and the

attribution
mind? The

the

only
'

relations carries its

by
can

question
the mind
on a

Relations of
on

be conceived

by

itself expresses
one

relation mind

conception between
other.
a

relations
may be

the class ;

hand, and
the mind

the is

the

Relations
nor

but

certainlynot
to

class ;

is

it, nor
in

is it in this
; nor

propositionaffirmed

be,

an

attribute
are

of relations included
to

does

the
of

proposition declare that mental things, or that the

If do logicians have
not

relations mind

the

class

is attributed relation

relations.
than

recogniseany

other

these
and

two,

grammarians
processes response
states
are

recognised others.
need that We
are a

Mental words felt for

sure, to

states

mental

expressed in words, and

the has may safe been be

have

originated in
mental

to

expressing

and

processes. of words and

therefore, that
the

the of

different mental relations kind

kinds
states

guide

different kinds
of words every

processes.

What
express
a

class

express
sort

Verbs. is

Verbs

relations ; and
verb. Hence

and

of relation

expressed by
are

there
of Are

facielikelihood
express

that, if there
kinds of ? Grammarians of

different kinds
relations.
say

primd verbs, they will

a

is

different of verbs

mental

there

different
say there of

kinds
are

there

are.

They

three

kinds

relations verbs, expressing, respectively,

and of

Being, of Doing,
Passion. For the

Suffering;
of

or

Existence, Action, and

these
are

purposes

Grammar,

doubtless

56

NEW

LOGIC

enough
under The

but

Logic
can

demands reduced

not recognition of other relations, to

all of which
them.

be

any

of these

three,

or

brought

fundamental
on

relation all

of

Logic,

as

of

Psychology, the

all reasoning depends, and out of which reasoning develops, is the primary relation of Likeness, which, with its complement, Unlikeness, is the foundation of all thought.

relation

which

exist precedes likeness, for things must before be compared ; but mentally, likeness precedes they can be known as existence, for things cannot existing, except by their

Materially, existence

likeness and

unlikeness

to

other
and

things. gives
of the
to
us

Appreciation of likeness
discrimination of

unlikeness

knowledge

and

things as existing,and
unlike, and
thus
to
we come

respects in which
know of Existence

they are
and

alike and

of the relation of Substance processes of mind

are

Attribute.
and serial,

The

in their nature

therefore

in series unlikeness the relation of temporal ; and gives us Change, as well as of Sequence, or Time. Experiences of our own activity, together with the changes that it, give us, in well-known knowledge of the accompany ways,

Causation. of Space, of Action, of Passion, and in a way that will be explained hereafter in treatingof the Finally, attain the origin of terms, we conception of classes,with the the and Exclusion. Thus corresponding relations of Inclusion relations
of several kinds of relations that may
are

subsist between

terms,

and

are

predicable of them

Likeness

and and

Unlikeness.

Existence Attribution

Change.
Non-attribution. Causation.

and

Action, Passion, and

Temporal

and

Spatial relations.
and

Class-inclusion

Class-exclusion.

and of the infinite predicablerelations, under multitude contained them, Logic recognises four only, viz: their negatives. It is Attribution, Class-inclusion, and indisputableand manifest, and needs no insistence,argument, or
"

Of these twelve

classes of

proof,mat
express

the

mind

can

and

does

entertain, and
orders.

can

and

does that

in words, relations of all these

Logic

denies

ERRONEOUS

DOCTRINE

OF

THE

COPULA

57

we

can

express

in but

propositions,or
those
a

modify by argument,
class-inclusion
to ;

any

relation whatever
so can

whatever other

of attribution and

and

relation be

propositionmay
to
one

purport

Logic asserts,
be The deduced
reason

reduced it.

of these

before

express, must, inference any

from

of this strange

contention, manifestlyuntrue
we

as

it is,
of

is

utterly incomprehensible
is the the which of alone

until
on

remember which the

to

that

the

relation

class-inclusion with

relation

syllogism rests,
deal. Without and
as

and the the

syllogismis competent
can

relation

there class-inclusion, of the

be

no

syllogism;
known
to

syllogism is the only mode Logic, this Logic, without

with its fins and tail
no

reasoning
off. It

Traditional
a

relation

of class-inclusion, is
cannot
move.

fish

chopped

But

this

explanation takes
is
very

account

of the

relation

of

attribution,which
is admitted into of attribution, it
account

different

from ? If

class-inclusion, and

Traditional does
narrowness

Logic
restrict is

Logic

admits

the

relation my

not

itself to

and class-inclusion, The

as answer a

of its

exaggerated.
in fact admitted

is that

though

Logic

professes to
relation
'

admit

attribution

possible relation, yet this

is not
'

attributive

term
or

admitted

into

'distributed'

'undistributed'
into
a

Every by Logic into argument. Logic is instantlyinvested with that it is means quantity, which
a

turned instantly any other

class,or part of
class-inclusion

class.

Once
at

admit

that

other relation
relation
can

than

exists,or

least, that any

time-honoured
Is
so

be reasoned

about, and
comes

the whole

structure

of Traditional

it any

wonder

crashing to the ground. that Logicians guard the meaning of the copula Logic
so

and carefully, Unless under of

we

restrict it

keep in view bolstering up

be

narrowly ? the necessity that Traditional Logic is the syllogism, the restrictions,and
are

and futilitiesof this Logic artificialities, should

possesses
'

we

allowed

to

argue

from
to

the

unintelligible.Why proposition Caesar

'

ambition,' and
possesses

forbidden ? land

argue
we

from be

the

proposition
to
'

Caesar
'

land

'

Why
'

should allowed be

forbidden from

argue

from

Caesar
'

possesses

and
we

to argue

Caesar
'

is

landowner
is
a

Why
'

should

permitted to
that the
'

draw
some

from

Caesar is

landowner
be

the

astonishinginference
to

landowner
'

Caesar,'and
possesses

forbidden

draw,
and

from obvious

proposition
'

Caesar land
set

land,' the very natural

inference

Some
one

is possessed

by

Caesar

'

Simply

and

solelybecause

the

58
of
can propositions

NEW into the

LOGIC

enter

while syllogism, the for

an

the

other

can

not.

But

for

the

of bolstering up necessity

syllogism,the
hour. In fact

doctrine logical

of the

copula could

not

stand

it has
Not

stood

for hundreds
infatuated
even a

being
or

of years. with the syllogism ; not

necessary,

very

useful,mode

regarding it as of reasoning ; I am free

can are

to

admit
and

into

propositionsall the relations that the mind

can

conceive

that words

express.

My view is that relations

expressed

by verbs; that a propositionmay contain any verb ; and that any pro what verb it contains, no matter what relation matter no position,
it expresses,
can as

well

form

the

basis

of

argument,

and

the

ground
reduce

of valid the

inference, as the propositionwith the copula. To

' '

propositionto logicalform by twisting it about and garbling its meaning until it can be expressed by the copula,seems like loading oneself with fetters as a preparation for march to me ing. It appears to me that arguments as valid can be formed from
*

Logicians
Thus,

make

mistakes

'

as

from

'

Logicians are
answered
are

mistaken.'
in

the of

first three

questions are
and

the
not

negative.
the
are

Relations

class-inclusion That

attribution
of other

only
con

relations conceivable. ceivable devised is

abundance

relations that

proved by the abundance

to express not
can use

of

verbs

have

been
and

in order
are we are

them.

Relations

of class-inclusion

attribution

the

words, for
These
two

be expressed in only relations that can please to form a proposition. any verb we

not
we

the

only relations
as

that

can

form from

the
one

subject of
relation
as

argument,
from

for

find it is There is

easy

to

argue

another.

no

need, therefore, except the need

express

of that

to dry-nursingthe syllogism,

relations
as

in the

form

alone

is

regarded by Traditional
to

Reduction

ingenuity. It of the proposition ; it may

legitimate form. this form is an exercise of perverted unnecessary often be done without cannot garbling the meaning

Logic

the

from monstrosities linguistic deters practical which the mind revolts ; and it effectually reasoners from seeking the aid or adopting the formulae of logic,since they

result in

cannot

do that when

so are

without

distortingthe propositions concerned

reach, and
are

into

forms
sense

difficult to

abhorrent

to

common

attained.
on

safe ground, I will not make perfectly any translation but will take an of my own, example from a popular text book. Democracy ends in despotism.' To reduce this to logicalform,
To

keep

LOGICAL

FORM

OF

THE

PROPOSITION
and

59 the

so

that

it can

enter

into
of
a

logicalargument, place in
and the

perhaps attain
in

supreme into We since that

'

distinction all democratic the

governments
cumbrous bound
to consider
sense same

it must syllogism, are things ending

be translated

despotism.' paraphrase,
pass

will pass

inelegantform
of

of the

Logic

is not

it materiallyalters the
not
mean

elegance ; but we cannot the original. The two

Not is
not

pro

positionsdo
the
terms
are

the
'

thing.
'

only
the
'

the
same

Ratio, but
'

altered.

Democracy
'

as

All

democratic

governments.'
'

Ends in

in

despotism
' '

has

not

the
'

same

meaning
different

as

are
'

things ending
all democratic
concrete.

despotism.'

Democracy
the

is

as

from from
"

governments
The of

as

abstract

is of

different

the
a

original asserts
"

something
abstract.

of Democracy, substitute logical

form

of

government

an

The govern what

affirms of

ments,

"

of

group

something else concrete things.

becomes. what democratic The

of all democratic The

a

asserts original

Democracy
The affirms
as

ends

in, or
asserts

It affirms

relation

of

Change.
are.

substitute
a

governments

It

relation

of

Existence. The

two

things

are

as

different

existing and changing. democracy in despotism an

"

original asserts
The

the

ending of
asserts
"

abstract.
are

substitute

that

all democratic

governments

things that
Would the satisfied to
'

are

clearlydifferent

things ending in despotism concrete from the state in which they end.
this the the substitution be

value

'

for

made ingenious logician who exchange a contract, giving him for a contract a thing, giving him
'

right to receive a rightto receive

'

valuable
an

thing in obligationthat

lieu of it ? 'value'

Would
from him?

he him

be

content
an

is due due from

into
The The

exchange obligationthat
to

'All valuable

things' are
does

answers original

the

question What
the

democracy
is

end

in ?

substitute ? The

answers

question What are prophecy : the second

And

democratic
a

governments
or a

first is

definition
a

this translation
a

into

description. awkward cumbrous, proposition,

in the

having
the
to

different

meaning,
enter

is not
an

least necessary
It is necessary,
to

to

enable

propositionto
make the the it express

into

argument.
thus this shall

indeed,
entrance to

class-inclusion,and
on

fit it for

into
when

syllogism; and syllogism comes

for the purpose

have

something

say

under of

review

; but

it is not

in the ends

least in

necessary

reasoning.

If

Democracy
the

The despotism, then Despotism terminates democracy. is manifestly sound itself to and valid. It commends

conversion
reason

60

NEW

LOGIC

'some as just as conclusively just as completely,just as effectually, follows things ending in despotism are democratic governments from 'All democratic are things ending in despotism.' governments
'

If,indeed, the mind

class-inclusion and

could

conceive

no

relation other than

would be
some

those of for
case,
come

there "attribution,

reason

retainingthe copula with its restricted meaning ; no expressingany other meaning would proposition
into existence
form logical
; there

but
ever no

in that

have

would

be

no

other
But

verbs, and
likeness

reduction does
con

to

would

be

needed. of

in fact, the
"

mind
and

stantly form
existence
rest ; and

relations

all orders

unlikeness,
the from

and

change, sequence,
as

causation, action, passion and

inferences from
any
one as

is

competent

to

draw

in despotism ; then not it does democracy ends in freedom end despotism terminates ; then democracy ; then democracy ends in autocracy ; then democracy leads to despotism any and

other.

If

autocracy

then

democracy has
so

termination
on.

; it does

not
are

last

indefinitely ; and

forth, and
commend
to

so

These

arguments
to

manifestly valid. They Supposing the premiss

conduct
on

themselves
we

the

reason. our

be

true,

could conduct

safely found
us

them do
we

and
?

if arguments
The
as answer
'

to

this result,

what

more

want

of Traditional
:
"

Logic

would be

probably
sound

be

somewhat

follows

These

arguments
not
sure

may

; but

they have this inherent vice,that

cannot

being in syllogistic
that
or

form, they
not

be

tested.
an

We

cannot

be

there
an

may

be
or

lurking somewhere
minor.' This of the and
we

undistributed

middle,

illicit

major
the

the consideration

to objection may be left over until we come syllogism. At present we are dealing with
are

copula only;
of

arrived be

at

this conclusion

"

that
means

the of

relation the

sequence

cannot

correctlyexpressed by
be
so

copula.
can a

Nor Caesar.'
must

relation

of

action

expressed.
then
sense

'

Brutus

killed

According to the precepts be reduced to logical form, and

who killed Caesar.'

and

this practice of logicians, becomes and

'

Brutus

was

person

Again the
The

meaning
or

of the
a

proposition are
tion
of

seriouslyaltered.
The
one

originalexpresses
a

rela of

action.
The

substitute
asserts

expresses Brutus Brutus any

relation
to

mode

existence.
asserts

what

did
was.

Caesar, the other

what

kind

of

person

The

meanings

are

widely

and different,
are

cannot,
same.

by

be artifice,

identified.

The
are

Subjects alone

the

The

Ratios

and

Object-terms

62

NEW

LOGIC

Approximate expressions, ambiguous sions, slipshod expressions,are frequent enough in the

no room

for doubt

expres

spoken
in

communications,

even

of

educated and down

care

and
are

careful

persons,

the
In

hurry
in the

and

worry

of

daily life ;
with
for

then
sent to

pardonable.
press,

deliberate

compositions, written
revised
and

and that

corrected

proof, and
with
an

for the reader excusable

regard

inspired by respect the reputation of the writer, they are

is to be said of the the
very

the

is

difficulty ; but what

practice of
of

choosing
Nor

ambiguous expression, as reasoning, in works on Logic ?

is the confusion that
between lurks between
same

foundation

class-inclusion
in

and

attribution

the

only ambiguity
no

the the
as

copula. Traditional
verb
an

logic
inde calf

makes

discrimination the
'

'to

be

'

as
'

an

pendent verb, and

will be

verb

auxiliary.

The

slaughtered is in the form of the conventional logical all complete. But proposition,with subject,copula, and predicate, it has not the meaning of the conventional logical proposition. in slaughtered It means neither that the calf will be included
animals,
of
nor

that the calf will have

It
means

the attribute

of

having been
will The

slaughtered.
to the calf.

that the calf will

It
means

undergo the experience happen

form
*

being slaughtered.
The

that

is what slaughter
same as

proposition has the

*
'

calf will

be dead,' but the

In the different. meaning of the verb is totally is the copula, and will be last proposition, the verb expresses

the state be and acted

tence
ever

of existence

in which
'

the calf will be. will be

'

In

'

The
'

calf will

slaughtered,'the verb
expresses,
on,
or

not

existence

slaughtered,' in the future, but passion, or being meanings

text
are as on

is auxiliary to

undergoing.

The

distinct

as

exis

and

been
The

and yet, in every suffering, written in English, they are

book

Logic that has

respect
to

confused.

fifth

assumption of Traditional
no

Logic with

the

copula

expressed by it except those of additional One class-inclusion and attribution. meaning has just The copula, in its strict been given, and this is not the only one.
is that relation
can

be

meaning,
are

expresses modes may

never

existence, not
of existence
be

solelyexistence
existence
in

in
or

class. There of
a

many

besides

out

class,

and

all these Britons

never never

expressed by the copula.

slaves,what
in is meant

When

it is asserted that that

ever

that shall shall

shall be

is not

they

be have

included

the

class

of slaves, nor
No
one

they
made

the attributes

of slaves.

who

MEANING

OF

THE

COPULA

63
of classes
to
or

the

declaration
What he

ever

had
he

in

his

mind

any

thought
he

attributes.
and that what

has in his mind, what

intends

convey, is
a

is understood shall
never

by
stand

every

one

of his hearers
of

to convey,

Britons
or a

in the that

relation
were

slaverytowards
drowned,
What

tyrant

despot. If I hear all that they were understand that they all possessedthe or
understand, and
that
'

they

all drowned, class of the

I do not

included attribute

in the of
meant

drownedness.
me

what

my

informant

to

understand, is
When the I say attribute of
an ass

they
are

all underwent

the
I

experience of drowning.
'

mules

barren,'
; but

do, indeed, predicate of mules

I say
a

of barrenness and
a

when
not

mule

is the

product
it the
am

mare,' I do
an

assert

that
mare,

it is included
nor

in the class of of I
a

things
of

produced by
being
hood.
so

ass

and

assert

attribute

everyone

produced. What but a logician to

That, I
say,

I mean,
mean,

and

what

understood of

by

is to assert

relation

parent

is the

parentage

of

mule.
every
not

Lastly,it
expresses this
as or

is assumed

by Traditional
or

Logic that negatives.

express

proposition
I meet first

either class-inclusion
with the In five

but attribution,

both.

assumption
attribution.

different
not

In the

place,

already shown,

copula need
the and

either class-inclusion
of

second,

multitudes
are

other
in

relations

besides tions.

class-inclusion
In

attribution

expressed
express

proposi
and simul

the

third, a propositionmay
the in the the fifth, the

express

class-inclusion

attribution

alternately. In
and understand
to

fourth, it may
universal

them

taneously; Logic
When

itself is to

practice of Traditional proposition as expressing class?

inclusion

alone, and
it is said
'

rejectattribution altogether. Logicians are mistaken,' what is meant

and

What
?

is the relation The four

propositionasserts, conveys, that meanings logiciansread into it have

mean

that the

expresses

given.
the

It may of

that

all persons
or

in the class of

already been logicianshave

in

attribute

being mistaken,
persons
; or

that
mean

they
are

are

included
same

the

class of mistaken

it may

the

of

persons

having
it may
may
may

the
mean,

attributes but

of

logicians.
does in it

These

what ? in
I

logicians say
assert

what

actuallyconvey
and who
utterer

that
; that

it
it of be in

mean mean

logicians both
the In any class of

intention

extension
the

persons the

have
or

attributes may but

logicians. thinking more

that
case

given

case,

the
or

receiver
vice versa; He

in intention
express

than

in extension,

he should

himself

without

ambiguity.

should

64
say,
*

NEW class

LOGIC

in

the

'

one

case,

the

men

having

the

of qualities

logicians and logicians.' If he means

so

of

'

in

the the

other

in
'

extension, he
But the
to

should

be careful

to express

himself

Object by saying

mistaken

persons.'
exponents
the

of Traditional

service

intensive that
are a

meaning
is
ever

Logic, though they pay lipof the proposition,do not, in

to

allow practice, So

term

be

understood

in

intention.

long
and

as

they
assert

discussing the
a

allow
stood
on

that

import of propositions, they be and be under proposition may ought to

the moment
seem

but attributively,

the last page

to

of the

chapter
from

import is turned, they

never

obliterate

the

assertion

again. According to traditional the Logic, the Subject should usually be understood in intention, Predicate in extension. The Subject is a thing,or class of things, the Predicate an attribute of the Subject. Yet, when they convert a proposition, they invariablydrop the intensive character of the
Predicate, and
search

their minds, and

refer to it

regard
to

the books Inconsistence into

'

into

In vain shall we solely in extension. find converted Logicians are inconsistent is a quality of logicians.' It is always con
* '

it

verted

Some

inconsistent

persons

are

logicians.' The

reason

for this strange

is
a

is evident volte-face

enough.

reasoning about

class-inclusion,and

Syllogistic reasoning nothing else ; and unless

into a enter class-inclusion,it cannot proposition expresses syllogism. Since the syllogismis the only form of reasoning,it it into reasoning unless follows that no enter proposition can
expresses In

class-inclusion.
to

contradistinction
reasons

Traditional
a are

given

to

show, that
relations

whatever

; that

Logic, I assert, and have propositionmay express any relation expressed by verbs ; that any pro

be reasoned from, and positioncontaining any verb whatever can argued about, as readily as any other ; that the copula is an be employed should as ambiguous form of expression, which seldom as possible; that, so far from every propositionbeing translated into
one

containing the
should,
far from

verb

'

to

be,' every

proposition
into
a more

containing this verb

accurate

if possible, be translated every

form
one

that, so
be

proposition being

trans

latable into

containing the copula, none,

so

except those express

ing existence,can

translated without

most while,contrarily, accuratelyby expressed more

pervertingits meaning; containing the copula can be propositions

some

other

verb.

THE

RATIO
be
'

65
; and

If the in
a

Ratio

must

be

the verb

'to

if the verb

'to

be

'

proposition is always the copula ; and if,in construing a and never at to look always at the verbal form are we proposition, in the proposition He the consequence then observe the sense, has the form of the conventional is certain to fall.' This logical all complete. proposition,with Subject, Copula and Predicate is the construction is certain to fall. That He according to the is the Traditional sense proposition Logic. But what him ? it predicate certaintyof Does ? Manifestly it expresses but one of certainty, The relation expressed is not one does not. will certainly construction of happening. The correct is,He
'
" "
"

"

will certainly undergo correctness, He logical modal is of It the experience a proposition; and, if falling. this be inadmissible Traditional on consistent,would Logic were it would be allowed the mode but as is apodeictic, to account, is come in, though not in the form that expresses accuratelywhat in Traditional in the mind The of the proposer. Logic, converse,

fall, or,

in strict

"

"

is
a
'

'

person

who

is certain

to

fall is
In

he,' which,
sense,

as

Pepys
the
'

says,

is

pretty strange expression.

common

converse

is,

Fallingis the experience he is certain what will certainly happen to him.' Such being,in my view, the nature
What presents itself, This
are

to

undergo,'or

Falling is question
express?

of the the

Ratio, the
Ratio
may

the

relations
can

that be

predicatedof a Subject, the Predicables ? It also asks What the Categories ? or What are are for these also are predicableof a Subject. It is true that logicians as possibleterms, and the regard the Categories or Predicaments Predicables as possible Predicates ; but as the predicate is, in the distinction is what Logic, a term, it is difficult to understand them. The that between discussion to what as Logic makes Aristotle's purpose have been in enumerating the Categories, may
and what value is to be

question asks, in effect,What

attached
a

to

them,

has

been

favourite

battle with of
an

and ground for logicians,

account

volume

of these discussions.

controversy that raged between Little-endians; and the questions at

What in the his soldier when
matter

the

might easilybe rilled They remind me irresistibly the Big-endians and the issue seem to me equally
evidence his does
;

important.
Aristotle
had

said is not
he
to

and scheme
not
are F

what of

mind
not

formulated
anyone who

Categoriesreallydoes
Aristotle
N.L.
as an

regard
to

inspired writer, whose

lightestwords

be

66

NEW

LOGIC

treasured received telian

as

precious

possessions,
reverence.

and

whose
At

opinions
first

are

to

be

with

unquestioning
appear
to

sight,
of
but

the

Aristo
and

Categories
words,
that

be

hodge-podge anyhow
parts
;

irrelevant
examination

disconnected

thrown relate
are

together
to

on

it the

is

found

they
and

the

various left

or

constituents until
these

of

proposition,
have

best examined.

over,

therefore,

constituents

all

been

CHAPTER

TERMS,

THEIR

ORIGIN

AND

KINDS

QUANTITY
THE
are

proposition
related
are

expresses These
terms

relation, and

in

every which The of

a

relation
the

there

two

things.
the

things,
of and the

between relation.

relation

exists,
expresses

called the
terms
or

proposition
relation;
which in
we

formation,
of
a

in

by

the

mind,
mental
may

and
are

the

verbal

proposition
all of

express which into

terms,
be

images, ideas,
term

concepts,
When
into
we

included of terms,

the
are

thoughts.

inquire
the

the

origin

inquiring, therefore,
All derived and

origin of thoughts.
from and

thoughts directly
that

are

derived

experience.
are

They images
;
or

may of

be

and have
or

immediately,
been

then
sense

things
may be

events

presented
from derived in

to

they

derived of This
ness

indirectly
mind
upon

mediately
the

experience, by the directly

from

operation experience.
and unlikemind mind
process
mere

the

images
consists in

mental between
are

operation things,
discerned discerned and due.
to to

discerning
or

likeness in

combining
be

associating
in

the the

what what of

to

alike,

and

separating
is the

in

are

be

different. process all

This

primitive
that
are

thought,
are

this

thoughts,

not

images,
When certain discerned

chalk,
other
to

foam,

snow,
are

certain

flowers,

certain

clouds,

and
are

things,
be all mind

successively
in
a

contemplated,
respect.
or

they
fundamental

alike enables

certain
to

capacity
in the

of

the

us

combine,
we

associate
to

together
in
any

mind,
This of the thus

all

the

things

that

discern

be A

alike

respect.

capacity
mind

is called
us

Generalisation.
to set

fundamental

capacity
of
one

enables

apart

in

the of

mind

the group
likeness
some

things

generalised
to

by

the that

discernment

their
in

in

respect,
from
or

and other

discern

they

are

different is called

other

respect

things.

This
A

capacity

Differentiation
of
are F

Division,
enables
us

Classification.
to

fundamental

capacity things

the

mind
or

contemplate

the

respect

in which

alike
2

68

NEW

LOGIC This

different, separatelyfrom the things themselves.

called Abstraction.
I have

capacityis

these distinguished
are

as

different

of the mind, capacities

are

but of

they
one

not

process.

different processes. mental In the same

They
act

different aspects
we are

in which

discern unlike
are

that other
one

things are things,and

another

like
we

one

another,
the other

we

discern

that

they
whole
us

discern
unlike

respects in which

they
an

like
I

and

things. The
of
terms

process

call

and Syncrisis,
to

this account fundamental

Syncrisisaffords
of

introduction

many

of the

Logic, and
to be

an

explanation
or

of them.
The

respect in which
a

is called

Quality of

thingsare discerned those things.

qualitiesare
as

alike

different

Things which
Concretes.
A
a

possess

called

Concrete

things, or by,
not

qualitymay
:

be

contemplated qualitiesare

inherent from

in,or

manifested
but

concrete

it is then Such

abstractible

the

concrete,

abstracted. Attributes"
A

called

Attributive

qualitiesor
the

e.g., a white horse.

quality may,
it inheres
or

however, be contemplated apart from

or

things
called

in which
an

by which

it is manifested.
an

It is then
"

Abstracted

Abstract

or quality,

Abstract

e.g.twhiteness,

hardness.
An

abstract

of qualityhas qualities

its own,

abstractible

from

it
"

e.g., moderate
to

hardness, excessive hardness.

Contemplated with

respect

these

qualitiesof its

own,

quality is
with

Concrete

Quality.
The
concrete
same

qualityis, therefore,
which These

abstract

respect
with discerned
;

to

the
to

from

it is abstracted, and

concrete

respect
in
so

the

it possesses. qualities

qualities may
not

be

it

while
an

it is stillabstractible, and
as

Attribute

well

as

an

completely abstracted be Abstract quality may necessarily opposed

not
or

that

concrete.

Concreteness

is, therefore,not
to

to abstractness.

It is

complementary
The but

abstractness, but

inconsistent

with is is

abstractness.
not

true

opposite
The

Concrete,

Attributive.

contradictory of Abstract true opposite of Concrete

several
concretes A
a are

Qualitative.
The called in respect quality
a

of

which

alike is is

Common
some

quality of those
concretes

concretes.

quality that

possessed by

and

not

by others is

Proper quality

70

NEW

LOGIC

again, logicaldifferences depend on the different ways in which the subject-matteris contemplated by the mind; and the several kinds of terms be disentangled from may and another one disposed in distinct classes,if we rightlycon When template them. we speak or think of an individual, we
as we

shall find

again

and

are

contemplating
alone ; and
is
a

the thus

subject of thought from contemplated, it does

or a an

its

quantitative
whether
a

aspect
does

not

matter

the individual
not matter

concrete

quality;

and
or

if it is
an

quality,it
We

whether

it is

attribute

abstract.

it is an and regard it purely quantitatively, quantitatively individual. we Similarly,when speak or think of a class, we contemplate the subject of thought in its quantitative aspect

only.
as

We up

contemplate the class

of
a

as

that quantitative,
; and

is to
contem

say

made

group

of concrete
and

individuals individuals

thus

plated,it is evident that classes together as Quantitative Terms.

A

may

be associated

qualitymay,
or

as

we

have
as

found, be
a

concrete

; but

when

it is

viewed

contemplated
is
as a

concrete,
as

it is

no

longer regarded
It is

It qualitatively.

regarded
not

itself
or

and possessing qualities, class.

therefore

concrete

individual

regarded

and quantitatively,

quantitative terms.
respect
been
to

falls into the class of and qualitatively, But when a quality is contemplated with
in which

the concretes

it inheres, or

from

which

it has
so

abstracted, then

it

is

regarded
or

qualitatively ; and,
abstract, from
them when
a

whether regarded, qualities, of terms

are

attributive that which

class

quitedistinct
two

from

includes

they

regarded quantitatively.
The

primordial kinds of
the into

terms

are,

therefore,the Quantita
are are

tive

and

Qualitative; and, while

Individuals Abstracts
terms

divisible divided

and

Quantitative terms Classes, Qualitative terms

These,
consider

into

and that

Attributes.
we are

then,

are

the

primary classes of

to

in detail.

TABLE PRIMARY
CLASSIFICATION

I.
OF

TERMS.

Quantitative I
Terms

J.-.L

*-"

( Individuals.

I Classes.
Abstracts.

Qualitative

Attributes.

LOGICAL

QUANTITY
of such

71

The

Traditional
but
to
are

doctrine also
any

quantity

is

not

only miserably
that it The
;

defective,
is difficult
statements
are

is

in

inextricable of
text

confusion it.

give

account intelligible

following
them every

authorised

by
able

leading
to

book all but

all of
one

corroborated book the that

by
I have

other been and

text

books, and
consult.

by

text

In

examination
;

mentioned

description of terms, quantity is divided into nevertheless, terms are Singular

General
terms

not

and

General,
Universal
not

and

into

Collective the

and

Distributive.

Quantity
or

means,

in

Logic,
The which

Particular.
to
at

quantity of propositions,as of quantity does logical doctrine

be either Universal
term
nor or

apply
;

terms,
any

cannot

Particular Particular every

means

rate,
ever

neither mentioned

the
in

Universal

the

term must

is be

Logic.
or

Nevertheless,
; which
one

term

either

distributed

undistributed
must

that these
two

it

is viewed

and quantitatively,

possess

of

The
"

quantities. to Traditional quantities known

the

Logic

are

two

only, viz
the

the

Universal,

Particular,the Distributed, the Undistributed,

the the Collective, and Distributive,

the

Singular,the

General,

Indesignate. The predicate of

however,
of either

propositionis
or are

never

: quantified

it is

always,

distributed

undistributed those of the in

quantity.
which the

Universal

propositions

predicate

refers to the whole explicitly Particular propositions are

not

subject.
in

those

which

the

predicate does
not

refer to the There is whole

on no

whole

of the

subject.
which This

proposition in subject.

the
rule

predicate does
to

refer any

to

the

of the

is not

be

found

in

Logic. It is,however, indisputablytrue. minds several in their these How own logicians reconcile Whether of mine. is no business they forget,when statements,
book

they
or

come

to

one

page,

what

they
the

have the
as

said
same

on as

previous page
the Distributed
; or

whether

the

Universal
the

quantity is
same

quantity,and
whether

Particular

the

Undistributed

the same and sometimes respectivelysometimes ia different ; or whether the Singular and General quantities are, the estimation of Logic, not whether Logic does quantities ; or Distributive what know not quantity is or quantity is ; or whether is not the same Distributed logiciansare as quantity ; or whether

they

are

72 unable business
to count to to

NEW

LOGIC

up

more

than

two

; I do

not

know, and

it is

no

of mine
acumen

determine.

These

subtle
;

questions must
one

be

left to the
on

of

themselves logicians that is that in

no

but there is

matter

which the

am

clear,and

circumstances

whatever

refer to part only of the subject predicateof a proposition of that proposition. The subject of a proposition indeed, be may,
does

but
a

small part of an individual or of a class,but however refers to the whole of that part. If part it may be, the predicate
a

small

recognisable host of stars is brighter quantity,or that one of the innumerable of the countless grains of sand on than the rest, or that one the
a a a

I say

that

ten-millionth

of

grain of radium

is

sea-shore
of the

is blown

into my

eye,

the

refers predication
a

not

to

part
small

one-millionth, very
to

small
or

part though it is of
multitude. The

very
one

part

; nor

part of the
is of
to
an

star

part of the grain of sand,

only

though each
in each
case

incalculable whole

predicate refers

the

of the

though that subject is. What

a

subject,small part of a whole when mean logicians they say that

in

Particular refer
to
a

propositionis
the whole of Particular

one

which

the

predicate does
doubt,
that
the

not

the

subject, is, no
of
a

subject of though
do
not

is part proposition true, is at any rate universally

class ; and
true

this,
; but

sometimes
say, and

this is not
say

what
never a

they
true.

say,

or

what

most

of them

what

they
is
no

is

such

thing as

According to their definition, there Particular proposition.

between Universal the
and

Another

distinction
to

Particular of the

pro

positions is said
is understood
in

be

that, while

subject

Universal of the

its whole

denotation, the

denotation

subject of the Particular

to

is left proposition of the

men were

indefinite. killed
'

this distinction, Some

'

is

According particular
But
were
'

and proposition,

to

this

would, logicians
' '

suppose,

agree.
men

according
killed
'

to
a

this

distinction, Twenty-two

of

the

is

Universal

proposition ; yet

twenty-two

of them

is

certainly part of a class,so that the proposition is Particular definition of Particular, and not Particular" according to one in fact Universal No according to another definition. doubt,
"

if twenty-two and killed,

doubt if

of them

were

killed, all of the

the

twenty-two
; and not not

were no

in this sense,

propositionis Universal
were

twenty-two
more

of them than

killed,it is
of them the
were

specifically
killed,and

asserted

that

twenty-two
this

logiciansmay

claim

that

renders

numbers

indefinite,

LOGICAL

QUANTITY
the

73

and

determines

that decisively

logicians make
exactness, I
am

which
to

unable
'

propositionis Particular; but if this claim, they are with confusing definiteness different are own things. For my part, very of Traditional the decide, on Logic, principles
of them
were

whether Universal

Twenty-two
or a

killed and

'

is, in that
I shall

Logic,
much

Particular

proposition;

be

very

the question. to answer surprised if logiciansgive a unanimous Fortunately for themselves, however, logicians are always ready in difficulties. If any example, found with a short way to deal with of argument, or a mode experience,of a Ratio, a term, a quantity, of Traditional Logic, anything else,will not fit in with the scheme that has such Such such out to go. Ratio, a a a example term,

quantity,such
count.

a are

mode

of

argument,
of

is

not

logical.' It
offer to of his
a

doesn't

We

reminded

little Curran's
unfairness
a

his

gigantic
between
on

antagonist who
them. Curran of his the

complained
offered
to

of the
out to not

duel

chalk

figureof
that

own

size

the hit

body
to
a

huge adversary,and
chalk marks should whose be

agree
count.

every

bullet

that

outside

It is little consolation

reasoner,

arguments
the
of

have

been

smashed,
of his

shattered

and is

to pulverised,

told that

outside who that The

were

the

scheme defeated

crushing retort Traditional The Logic.

to
not

adversary
satisfaction rules of
war.

Austrian
own

generals

by Napoleon proved
were was

their

Napoleon's
demonstration of

methods

warranted

by
altered

the

but irrefragable,

it did

not
were

alter the

the rules

results of
war.

the

campaigns.
of Traditional
to
me

What

were

The

doctrine

Logic, that quantity inheres

erroneous.

in the

seems proposition,

fundamentally
alone, and
or

In

my
a

view,
whole
or

quantity resides
can no more

in the be

terms

the

propositionas
than it in
can

Universal

Particular

be

white of

soft.

A
;
a

proposition
and

expresses with be
some

the

formation

the

mind

relation

though,
may

straining of
to

the
or

meaning
If there may of is

of

words,
formation relation be

relation
of that
a

said

be

Universal

Particular,the
a

relation

cannot

possibly be either.
all that things,
sense

subsists

between
; and

relation

properly
space in and the

termed
are

Universal

in this Universal.

the relations

time

approximately
universe. between But the And

They
as

are

universal
and

material that

such relations,

likeness be

unlikeness,
Particular be

exist

certain

things only, may

of
a

termed

relations.

formation

relation, cannot

either

74 Universal is
or

NEW

LOGIC

Particular
a

; and

it is the

formation

of

relation that

expressed by
Traditional

proposition.

Predicate Hamiltonian

now Logic, as taught, denies utterly that the is quantified; and abjures, abhors, and repudiates the

doctrine
and

of

the

quantificationof
of
those

the

Predicate, as

utterlyheretical
still teaches,

damnable.

Nevertheless, Traditional
very

Logic
pour

by the mouths
the
be

logicianswho
that
or

contempt
every

upon

Hamiltonian
either

doctrine,
distributed

the

predicate of
Of

propositionmust
of

undistributed.

propositionsthat alone exist,E and O distribute their predicates, A and I leave the predicate undistributed. In no but in every proposition proposition is the predicate quantified, the predicate possesses either distributed or undistributed quantity. That is the doctrine taught by every logicianat the present time.
How

the four forms

the two
am

portions of the
thankful
to

doctrine

are

reconciled

is

no

business
up in flat

of mine, I Traditional

say,
some

for, not

having been brought

Logic,
view,
we

find

in difficulty

reconciling

contradictories.
In my may
or a

may

not

quantify the predicate,or

and
to

rather, the Object-term, of

proposition;
must

if

we

do

choose

to

quantify the Object-term, we

apply

it a

quantity that

is

that is inapplicable. There and not one is one to it, applicable mode that is applicable of quantity the Extensive to quantitative be terms cannot alone, and applied to qualitative rightfully
"
"

terms.

There

is another

mode

of

is

applicable to
to

qualitativeterms

quantity only, and

"

the
cannot

Intensive

"

that

applied

quantitativeterms.
formally deny these

Traditional

be rightfully not Logic does its

or explicitly

doctrines, but

practice is
take

therefore completely inconsistent with them, and we may of them, it would that if Traditional Logic did know them.

it

deny

Logic, though it formallyand already shown, Traditional verballydenies that the predicateis quantified, yet declares that the predicate always possesses moreover quantity. It declares that the predicate is always, or ought always, to be understood term that, being a qualitative term, it must as a qualitative ; and
As

be invested
not
'

with

extensive
I say

of quantity, in
'

which

terms qualitative

are

susceptible.
'

that

All

gold is heavy,' the predicate

is to say, But
as a

heavy

is to

be

understood
to

that qualitatively,
and
so

qualitybelonging

gold ;

far

Logic

agrees.

I say

LOGICAL

QUANTITY
be
or

75
few

further, that
many

'

heavy
or

'

cannot

every

heavy,
other

or

heavy,

or

heavy,
to

half As
a

heavy,

have

any

numerical

quantity quantity
or or

attached

it.

it is quality,
or

of intensive susceptible

be very heavy, only. It may heavy, or extremely heavy. This does found
not

moderately heavy, Logic does not admit,

of intensive

rather
at

least

declare books in the

in

'heavy'
for

quantity is to be on Logic. On the contrary, Logic declares that extensive does possess given proposition, quantity,
no

; for

mention

it is undistributed,
'

and
'

an

undistributed the
extent

term

'

refers

to

portion of a class absolutely indefinite.'

disenable
to

and

leaves
sole

of

the and

denotation

The

aim, purpose,
upon
term
a

meaning
enable
us,

of
or are

conferring distributive
us,

quantity
some

term

is to it.

include their

other that

within

Logicians
is inclusion
term
a

compelled, by
classes
or

doctrine from able

all

reasoning
make the
or
*

in

exclusion
not
seem

classes, to
to

every

class.
a

They change
'

do

appreciate
the
term

difference
to

between
any

quantitativeterm
has taken

and

qualitative term,
when

place

recognise that is altered heavy

'

into

heavy things.'
But

although logiciansare
to

forced every

reasoning
and occurred

pretend that
a

by their erroneous qualitativeterm

a

doctrine is

of

quantitative,
to

expresses
to

class

or

part of
the the
a

class, it

seems

never

have this of
a

any of

from logician,

present
All

time

writing,that
is

to days of Aristotle down predicate or Object-term

propositionmay
men are

explicitly express
a

class

or

part of

class.

That

mortal

propositionthat
admit within
the attribute

every

and stand, appreciate, that

range

logiciancan under precinctsof Logic ; but

is

Mortality can
of his

be

an

of all men,

beyond
to

the utmost

The stood every

imagination. teaching of every logicianis

Extension, the
to
'

that

the

subject is
The
' "

be

under

in

Predicate both

in Intension. in Extension.

practiceof
All
men are

logicianis
say and

understand
'

mortal,"

logicians, means
therefore
we

Every

man

has it to
man

the attribute
mean

of

mortality; belongs to
No will
man

will

always
"

take No

Every
"

man

the class of mortal possesses take the it to

beings.
of
man

is

perfect
in the

means we

attribute
mean

perfection;
is included

and

therefore

always
sole

No

class of

perfect beings.'

justification no, that is for the constant infraction justification

"

The

wrong;

there rule

can

be

no

of

that is laid down

76
as

NEW

LOGIC sole foundation for this strange

universallyapplicable. The
of

of the predicate,which quantification logicians and formally repudiate adopt, is the fancied necessity universally of finding means the propositionaccording to the to convert conventional
mean
'

doctrine

the

rule.
men are

Unless

we

understand

'

All

men

are

mortal

'

to

All

included
'

in the class of mortals the

are

we mortals,'

cannot

get the
this
board. In my

logical converse,
the Moods

Some

men,' and
must

without

converse,

of

Syllogism

go

by the
or

view, the

signs
as

of

whether quantity,

of

Extensive

Intensive
to

can quantity,

readilybe affixed
are,
one

to the

the

Subject-term, and
affixed to the

in the
as

actual other.

Object-term as reasonings of daily

Either Extensive

often life, as
or

to the

Intensive

quantitymay
or

be
or

expressed in the Subject alone,in the

in neither.

Object alone,

in

both,

Extensive

Quantity.
men are

Subject alone quantified

"

All

liars.
to

Object alone
Neither
term

quantified Lying is common quantified Cloven-footed

" "

all

men. are

mammals

rumi

nants.

Both

terms

quantified One
"

volunteer

is worth

twenty pressed

men.

Intensive
"

Quantity.

Subject alone quantified Gross ignorance is deplorable. Object alone quantified Lying is very shameful.
"

Neither

term terms

quantified
"

Patience
Intense

is virtuous.

Both

quantified
"

hunger is very demoralising.

the

All

of

these be

variations

of

quantity except
'

would, first,

not but, as I owe logical,' rejected by logicians as all, and no Logic, I accept them allegiance to Traditional in arguing and have no difficulty drawing conclusions from them.

suppose,

If

Lying

is

common

to

all men,
are

then

All

men we

are

liars.

If

Cloven-footed cloven-footed

mammals
mammal

ruminants, then
ruminate. If One

may

expect any
is worth
men.

to

volunteer
ten not

twenty

he is worth than more pressed men, should If Gross ignorance is deplorable, we If Lying is very shameful, it is not to be

pressed
encourage

it.
If

commended.

78
Hamilton's
A propositions,
1. 2.

NEW

LOGIC

scheme,
and

as

far

as

it relates

to

the

affirmative
:
"

I, of Traditional
Toto-total"
"

Logic, is as follows
is all B.
A A

The
The

All A

Toto-partial All
Parti-total"
"

is

some

B.

3.

The

Some

is all B.
A

4. The and

Some Parti-partial

is

some

B,

there

is

corresponding series of negatives.

be

Now,
state
a

it cannot

denied, that if the propositiondoes

in fact from

the inclusion

of the

Subject in
are

its exclusion or class, do

class,these alternatives
the

and possible,
"

give us
more

more

insight
All A

into

meaning

of the

proposition, do
"

state
mere

clearlythe
the

relation of

predicateto Subject

than

the

statement

(or some
series is
and

Logicians find,however, that A) is B. examined, it leads to self-contradiction

reason

when and

negative
;

absurdities scheme

for this

they reject the

the

Hamiltonian
do
not

of

of quantification
that

predicate. They
that if it is

recognise,however,
and

that scheme
own

is

extension strictly logical

application of
own

their
must

doctrine

; and

their rejected,

doctrine

go

with

it.

absurdity and hypothesis is erroneous.

allow the
not us,

when leads to hypothesis, strictly applied, is that the conclusion the logical self-contradiction, If
an

No
case, to

Logic but
retain the

Traditional

Logic

would
to

in such it covers, The

hypothesiswith

respect

cases cover.

it does rejectit with respect to the cases Ptolemaic hypothesisof crystalspheres accounts
and

for the perfectly

to

movements

of the fixed stars

but

when

applied

the movements found

of the

planets and

comets,

it breaks

down, and
in justified

is

inefficient.
case are a

Would

astronomers,

then, be

retainingit in the planets and comets

countenance

of the stars, and

concerned
?
a

No

it as rejecting reasoner practical

; but

far

as

the

would

such
do

proceeding for
to the

moment

this is what

of the predicate. quantification of other propositions also destroys the scheme Consideration of killed by Caesar was quantity enunciated by Traditional Logic.

Logicians

with

respect

'

Brutus.'

Neither

the

Subject
very

nor

the

Predicate
'

is

class, and

neither, therefore, can

some

well

be

considered

distributed.'

By

proposition is regarded as a Universal, since the Predicate refers to the whole of the Subject ; but in the first the place, as already shown, in every particular proposition,
Predicate refers to the whole of the

the logicians,

Subject;

and

in the

second,

ABSURDITY

OF

LOGICAL

QUANTITY

79

it is

incongruous
killed. We

and do of Caesar

anomalous
not

to

speak
Caesar,
of do
or as

of in

the this

whole

of

Caesar
as a

being
whole if
we

think We

of

connection,
individual
we are

composed
think of of

parts.
as a

think
we

him

as

an

and

whole,
as a

not,
an

unless attribute.

logicians, proposi
that Brutus. Caesar

think

killed-bydoes Caesar
not
an

Brutus
not

class
as

The
asserts

tion

certainly
that

express,
one

Traditional class Caesar

as

Logic
killed but
an

it does, It

was

of

the of

of

persons in
a

by
that

expresses,

the

inclusion

class,
suffered

underwent
at

experience
of the

"

that

he,

patient,
Some

experience recognising
a

the

hands

agent,

Brutus. the

logicians,
to

these

difficulties, relegate
that of is neither

singular
nor

proposition
;

separate

class,
scheme

Universal
falls
to

Particular

but

then

the

logical

quantity
is that which from

the is not

ground.
vital consists
in

My Logic,
exclusion
ance

view
in

quantity
all

reasoning.
in

In in

Traditional

reasoning quantity
which

inclusion
of

classes,

or

classes,
a

is, of
at

course,

paramount

import large,
of and class is of

but of

to

Logic
of

looks

reasoning
which
small the

by

and

reasons

relations exclusion

all

orders,
but

of
a

relations

inclusion less But be To other and

cannot

and

form

minority,

quantity

importance.
if

quantity

is to and

be in

admitted all its

into

reasoning
and

at

all, it

must

admitted admit

freely,
the
two

kinds,
and is in the

degrees,
and
as

and
to

varieties. exclude
as

quantities,
every
one

All which

Some,

all

quantities, quite
be
as

of

quite

important
is

these,
and which

frequently

employed
but would

argument,
blind render and

monstrous,
with

allowed.

Nothing
the

infatuation
such
a course

logicians
and that have is
come,

regard

syllogism,
for of the

possible;
infatuation,

it

speaks

loudly

strength
other for
so

depth
All

of and

this

the been

multitude ostracised

quantities by Logic
down

than
many absurd

Some The

should time

generations.
restriction.

however,

to

break

this

CHAPTER

VI

NEW

DOCTRINE

OF

QUANTITY

MY

view

of whether

quantities

is

as

follows
or

"

Terms,

quantitative
is to
say,

qualitative,may
regard
to

be
term

contemplated
of the
; the

that intrinsically, kind of

;

without
are

any

other

and

thus

regarded,
terms

susceptible of quantity
different in kind from

quantity
of

quantitative
terms.

being

the

quantity
association

qualitative
Or
terms
a

of of

either the
terms

kind

may
as

be

contemplated
:
"

in

with

term

other
may
;

kind,
be

follows

Quantitative qualities they

of

contemplated contemplated,

with

respect

to

the

possess

and, thus

become

susceptible

classification.

Qualitative terms,
respect
form
It
to

on

the

other

hand,
;

may

be

contemplated contemplated,

with

the
means

concretes

they qualify

and, thus

they

the

of classification. that terms, the

our

follows

task the

is first

to

investigate the

quantity
and process

of

quantitative
to

then
means

quantity of qualitative terms,

of

then of

investigate

classification,

and

the

classification.

Quantitative
which of
may

terms

are

either

individuals

or

classes,
both

each

of

has

its characteristic have the

common

intrinsic

quantity,
of

but

these the

kinds
two

quantity
be

character
as

extensity, and quantities.

considered
terms

together
are

Extensive abstracts
or

Qualitative again, has quantity

the
two

either

attributes, each
but
or

of which, kinds of
and

its characteristic the

be
common

intrinsic character

quantity,
of
as

both

have
may

intensity
Intensive

degree,
or

considered

together

Graduate

quantities.
Extensive

quantity
to

is, then,

of

two

kinds,
are

one

of
as

which

is

applicable
and
are

individuals

only, while
or

they
or

regarded

individuals, associated,

not

compared,
individuals.
as a

grouped,

contrasted,
an

or

with of

other

Thus

regarded, composed

individual and

is
we

susceptible
may
con-

contemplation

whole

of parts,

SCHEME

OF

QUANTITY
or on a

81

centrate

our

attention
or

on on

the whole,

part,

or

on

whole When

and
con

part in association,

parts associated

together.
its parts,
a

templated

as

whole,

without its

regard
is

to

thing

is

an

contem Singular; when plated with respect to its parts it is a Composite individual,and is susceptible but that for of a quantity that is no longer Singular, of a better name I call Massive want quantity. The other kind of Extensive to individuals, quantityis applicable contemplated, not singly, but with respect to other individuals,

individual,or

unit, and

quantity

associated

together
Numerical

in

one

or

more

classes.

Such

Extensive

quantity is
Intensive

quantity.
also
or
"

quantity
Abstract absolute

is of

two

kinds, according

as

it is

to applicable

to

Attributive
sense,

quality.
is,that
concrete

Abstract

quality qualityis
is is

is in

sense

in the

that any

abstract but

absolved

from

its connection alone.

to the

with

and itself,

contemplated always related

fore may absolute
more

Attributive
concrete

on quality,

the

other

hand,
there

by

which

it is

manifested, and

be termed and

relative. this

It must

be admitted,
mean

however,

that

in relative, and

connection,

if anything little,

than

abstract

attributive.
of

The

complete scheme

quantity will therefore

TABLE II.

be

as

follows

"

SCHEME The

OF

QUANTITY.
to

Quantitative term
viduals
"

refers

indi-

Kind EXTENSIVE.

of Quantity.

Singly,and
As As
not

contemplated composite composed

of parts
...

Singular.
Unit. Massive. Class.

wholes

and Grouped in classes, Unspecified as to Discrimination Specifiedas taken Indiscriminately Discriminately The refers to quali Qualitativeterm
... ...

...

Indesignate. Designate.
Collective. Distributive.

...

...

...

...

...

ties-

Regarded

as

to

their

degree

in

INTENSIVE. Absolute Relative

Abstracts
Attributes
N.L.

degree.
degree.
G

82

NEW

LOGIC the COMPREHENSIVE. Common.

regarded with respect Qualities, concretes are they qualify

Either Or Individuals the

to

Proper. regarded with respect qualities they manifest, con

to

stitute Either
Or A A

Class Class

of individuals. of classes. within

a

Or This
enormous

Classes is the proper

class.

order, but logical

to the

Traditional

Logic givessuch
in order that of with

preponderance
my

Distributive
and
to bow

that quantity,
contrast

to

bring

scheme

into

comparison
the Extensive

Traditional of Rimmon,

Logic, it will be desirable

and rearrange

myself in the House quantitiesso as to take

The order
:
"

the Distributive in which these

before the

Singular and
be taken

the Collective. is therefore

as

will quantities

follows

TABLE EXTENSIVE The

III.

QUANTITIES.
indi

Quantitativeterm
viduals
"

refers to

Quantity.
EXTENSIVE.

Grouped

in classes and
to

Class.

Unspecified as Specified as
taken
"

discrimination... and

Indesignate. Designate.
Distributive. Collective.

to

discrimination

Discriminately Indiscriminately Singly and contemplated

...

as

Singular.
Massive.
to
com

Wholes

composed
without
...

of parts

Individuals

regard

position
Extensive
or

Unit.

quantities refer
class is of

to

individual
the

things, either
some

singly,
to

aggregated into classes by

The
we

quality.
when

course

possessionof conceptual;

common

that

is

say,

associated, or speak of things being grouped, or that the things do not mean aggregated, together in classes, we are together in physical propinquity ; grouped or associated

INDESIGNATE

QUANTITY
or

83

contemplated together by all logical quanti the mind, as alike in some respect. Similarly, ties are conceptual. They are aspects of things. They are ways be looked at of looking at things ; and, as the same thing may from different aspects and contemplated with respect to different different have it may according to the so quantities, qualities,
we mean

that

they

are

regarded

contemplation. When we contemplate individual things as grouped togetherin thus grouped. as we classes, contemplate them in two ways may in the class discriminately, one We or contemplate them may another, and one by one, preserving their separateness from saying what we have to say of them of each and every indvidual in the class. Thus contemplated discontemplated, they are
mode Extensive. But the quantity is the Distributive and tributively, otherwise. We contemplate we contemplate them may may from them without another, one indiscriminately, distinguishing or predi keeping them separate in thought ; and then whatever them cation is made about is made of all taken together in bulk Thus
or

of

in the

mass,

and

is

not

true

of
are

each

and

every

one.

contemplated, the and the quantity is tively,

one

individuals the

contemplated
Extensive.
In
term
'

collec
'

Collective
'

Every
Dis

of the

books In
'

is All

first edition books

the

Subject
"300

is

tributive.
term

the

together

cost

the

Subject

is Collective.

THE An many
or

INDESIGNATE

QUANTITY.

in

indesignate quantity is,strictly speaking,no quantity. In propositionsno quantity is designated,either in the Subject Traditional the Object term con Logic cannot ; and, as
an

such unquantified propositions, propo sitions have such In always been to it a stumbling block. The weather is fine,' Beauty is skin deep,' propositions as The falling of faithful friends renewing is of love,' there is no out Traditional This quantity in either term. being so, what can with construct an Logic do, since it cannot an argument The obvious ? unquantified proposition expedient, and one that is adopted by cautious is to refuse to such logicians, many propositionsany place in Logic. Such logicians are wise in their own generation, for they evade an insuperable difficulty. the price paid for this That relief is such a narrowing and
struct

argument
'

with

'

84
restriction of the

NEW

LOGIC

it to inefficiency province of Logic as reduces in a large field of reasoning, is a consideration that has never troubled logicians. Indeed, there is no reason why it should trouble when
and

them

in

this

case

for, when
All of and the

all the
Some

Modals

are are

excluded excluded
;

; ;

all when

not propositions

expressed by

copula
are

all

but quantities the exclusion that

and
to

excluded
out

the the

diminution,
attenuated

by
remnant

Indesignate

of

is left, is

reallyof

little consequence.

When

man's
to

arms

legshave
one

difference

him

lose

amputated, it makes little of the difficulty of his ears ; and

been scheme of Tra who those
are logicians

bringing the
ditional exclude Other

Indesignate proposition into the

is
so

Logic
this

great,

that

wisest

altogether. proposition
admit it ;
and

logicians,however,

the

of difficulty

is neatly sur it is Universal Particular or deciding whether others mounted, by some logicians making it Particular, and A third class declare that it is Universal making it Universal. in
some cases

and

Particular

in

others

while

fourth

decide
on

that

the

indesignatequantity
who

results

from

carelessness

the

part of the proposer,

might have investigatedand declared the quantity of the indesignate Subject, but failed to do so. In my Universal is neither nor view, the Indesignate term Particular,but Indesignate. It remains indesignate until its it is just as quantity is designated, and capable of entering
into

arguments
as

and
are

of

forming the
are

basis
are

of

sound

and

valid

conclusions

that propositions
'

and definitely specifically

' '

quantified.If I say The poor Logic is unduly restricted,' my

worth;
and any

discontented
must

or

Traditional it is be
as

statement

go

for what it must

conclusion

I may

draw

from

I started ; but indesignatein quantity as the premiss from which as long as it remains indesignate throughout the argument, and appears

indesignatein
are,
as as

conclusion and
argue

far

as

and the argument quantity is concerned, perfectlysound ;

the

conclusion, the

it is

just
an

from

to just as logical,just as permissible, a indesignate, as from quantified definitely

easy,

proposition.
The The
' . .

poor poor

are are

always with
discontented
are

us

;
us.

The

discontented

always with

86 examination

NEW of

LOGIC
No

at

the hands

logicians. quantity as
and

logicianknown
as

to

me

that recognises

the Collective Universal the

well

the
no

Distributive of logician
aware

is divisible into the

recent
more

the
of the

Particular;

times than

discusses kinds

nature

Individual, or is class,and
ever

of the the

two

of Individual.
the
no

Every logician confuses

both

Aggregate individual with

Uniform there is
an

Collective

with

individual ; and Intensive

logicianhas
well
as a

yet recognised that

quantityas

Numerical

quantity;
one

nor

has any logicianregarded the Comprehensive quantity as the quantities of terms, or relegatedit to its proper place in To all intents
to

of

and

purposes,

the

scheme logical

of

Logic. quantity is
scheme

limited
Nor

the Distributive the irrational

quantity alone.
limitation the of the

does

logical

of

quantity end
the

here.
and

Logic divides
the

Distributive then sits down

quantity into
contentedly
no

Universal

Particular,and
It

in the belief that the last word division is the minds

has been
not

said,and
to

that

further upon

required.
of

does

appear

have

dawned
is

that logicians

any

further

division

possible or
terms

that there or practicable, than the bare Universal

All

are, in

fact,any
bare
Some.
; of

other

of quantities
or

and and
one

the

Particular;
Of the three innumerable

any

other

signs of quantity than

the Universal it knows and

varieties of

but

the

classes,sub

classes, varieties
Traditional The

sub-varieties

of the

Particular

quantity,

not one. Logic knows following is the skeleton Table

of Distributive

: quantities

TABLE DISTRIBUTIVE

IV.

QUANTITIES. Sign.

Reference of Term.
The Distributive individuals
term

Quantity.

refers to all
a

the

in

class
one,

disand

Distributive,

or one criminately, by regards the class as

whole,

and

refers

to

the
All
...

individuals

Universal.
Simultaneous.

Simultaneously
In turn At random
...

Every
Each

Successive.
Alternate.

...

Any
Some
...

Part

of

class larger

Particular.

UNIVERSAL

DISTRIBUTIVE

QUANTITY

87

THE

UNIVERSAL all the

to

DISTRIBUTIVE. individuals in

When
are

class,regarded
one

as

whole

class,
The

referred

or discriminately,

by

one,

the

quantity is the
is All.
a

Universal Universal
includes The

Distributive,and
Distributive three

the

sign of this quantity

itself
:
"

quantity is, however,

follows Universal

class, and

separate individuals,as

Simultaneous

quantity

is characterised

by

the

of Traditional Logic, and the sign Every. This is the Universal When Traditional to that body of doctrine. only Universal known Logic uses the sign All, it means Every one, and has not, until All includes three different meanings. lately,recognised that
' '

The

Universal

Distributive

term
one

refers to

all the

individuals

in

class taken
one

or discriminately,

by
one

one

in different in each hand

take

by one ; but things can be taken If two things are on the table, we may ways. then take we simultaneously,and every one
were fiftythings on the table, and we them all, simultaneously and separately, one

of them.

If there could should

were

Briareus, we
and then
we

lift

lift every
of

of

them

and

the

universal

is lifting

the may

Universal

Traditional

them,

contemplate them same predicationsimultaneously of each separate one, and stillwe contemplate and speak of every one. But there is another of taking them one by one, besides way in lift them one taking them simultaneously. We by one may lifted ; or we after the other until all are one turn, taking them in turn, going on contemplate or speak of them one by one may
we

lifting Logic. Or without the simultaneously, and make

until all have this

case we

been deal

thus
with

contemplated
one.

or

predicated of
we mean we one

and

in
one

each

By
If
we :

Each take
we

by
not

in turn the

until all have until the

been

taken.

each,
must

may
on

arrest

process

tale is

complete
every

go

to

the

end. all
.

Any predicationmade about each But a predicationmade about

of any of any
any
one one

is not

true

unless
of

it includes
a

individual
; and

class is true what is true

of them of

taken

at random
as

vice versa,

them, is true,
of every

far

as we

the

class likeness
one,
as we we

extends, of
must

other, and
them other
one

other.
we are

If
not

select

if we

take every

in turn, then
one,
to

entitled,until
all what that it is
was

have

selected that
a

predicate
the in
very
some

of

predicable of
selected
from the

selected

; because

fact

raises

presumption that it was

respect different

rest.

88

NEW

LOGIC the
fact

But

if

we

take

one

at

random,
of any
one

very

that

it is

so

taken

indicates what is

the absence

difference between
at random

it and

the rest, and far

as

predicableof

taken

is

predicable,as

the class likeness it refers

extends, of every
an

other.

Hence

to ostensibly

individual
we

only, is in

Any one, though practicea sign of

Universal,
'

the Universal. is very

This, which
to

may

call the Alternative

akin closely
'

is useful

has very
not

thing.'
shown

It has
we

Representative Individual. Any pen A pen is a useful nearly the same meaning as meaning, however, as will be quite the same
*

the

when

examine

the

These, then, are

the three

Individual. Representative varieties of the Universal quantity; but

though they are here explained in detail in connection with the Dis be clearly understood that the Universal tributive quantity,it must
is not with restricted to the Distributive the Collective

quantity,but is
the
one

common

to

it

quantity

and

Unified
form

Individual.
of Universal.

The

Collective

quantity,however, has but

DISTRIBUTIVE.

THE

PARTICULAR

If Traditional

not merely the three varieties Logic lumps together

of the Distributive of the Individual different

as

Universal, but the

; if it makes
no

Collective

and

some

forms

distinction

between

things

so

Aggregate and the Corporate Individuals ; if it is blind to Intensive quantity and deaf to Indesignate quantity, we be surprised that it fails to distinguish need of the not some varieties of the particular Distributive,for the characterisation of
the
some

of them

is subtle

and

elusive; but
any

that

Logic
whatever

should
of

fail the of

to

or distinguish

acknowledge
a

variety
one

Particular,except, in
'

halting way,
Thomas
must
an

additional mind
*

meaning

Some,' is reallyportentous, and

respect
;

calls to Sheridan.

Dr.

Johnson's

saying with
what
we see

to

dull naturally

but

he Such

have
excess

him.

Sherry is dull, Sir, taken great pains to become of stupidityis not in nature.'
;

Logiciansare
have taken the Particular.
A

blind to the obvious,

not to
excess see

naturallyblind
at

but

they must
in nature.

great pains
Such

some

least of the

varieties of

an

of unobservation

is not

Particular
in
a a

Distributive

term

refers is

to discriminately not
as a

the

indi

viduals
as

class ; but

the class

regarded,
Now,

whole, but

part of

larger and
we

including class.

in

examining the
compos

Universal

term,

have

ing

class may,

when

alreadyfound that the individuals or one contemplated discriminately,

by

one,

PARTICULAR
be

DISTRIBUTIVE

QUANTITY

89

or alternately; contemplated simultaneously,or successively, the class they compose is or is not and this is equally true whether the individuals when But a class part of a largerclass. compose double within a largerclass, the composition offers us more ways than when of contemplating them they are regarded as forming a

primary
class,or

class

only.
may

The

sub-class,
either
to

templated
with

with other

composing the subordinate be grouped together in the mind, and con respect to the larger or including class,or
within that

individuals

respect

sub-classes its

including class.

to a appropriatesign,which, when prefixed such sign is the quantity of the term term, determines ; and every be put with respect to the quantity the answer to a questionthat may The of the term. followingTable gives a fairlycomplete list of the Particular Distributive quantities,together with a specimen

Every quantity has

sign of

each. TABLE PARTICULAR DISTRIBUTIVE V.

QUANTITIES. Quantity. Specimen Sign.

of Term. Reference
The Particular Distributive
term

refers

to discriminately

all the

individuals
as

in
a

class,regarded

part of

larger class,and
them

contemplates
As
to

Simultaneously
their number
..

Enumerative

Many.
Most.

As

to their to

proportion Proportional
to

the

whole
as

Successively
order

their Ordinal The first,

Alternatively
with

respect

to

the Residual The

rest.

whole with

respect

to

other

parts
with

Comparative
to
one

More.

respect

another

Selective Indefinite Demonstrative

Indefinitely Definitely
with

Certain.
This.

...

respect

to

the
...

purpose

in hand

Purposive

Enough.

go

NEW

LOGIC

Each

of these
; and

is a class,and quantities
most

includes
are

several

distinct

sub-classes varieties and in

many

of the

sub-classes the

again divisible into

members
are,

of which sub-varieties,
numerous. indefinitely

individual The

cases,

Enumerative,
and the

the

Proportional,the
Selective, have
sub-classes.
The

Ordinal, the
each their Residual

Comparative,

Indefinite
Definite

Indefinite,Semi-definite, and
Residual The
; and

quantity is divisible into the Universal

has
as

Residual,
of these
as

and

the Particular

many

varieties

has the whole

class.
and

Demonstrative
and

quantity is
each

divisible into into

Appropriative
Plural ;

Repudiative,
the

of these

Purposive quantityis divisible into the Suitable and the Unsuitable, the latter being again sub divided. The of Particular total number is therefore quantities
multitudinous. indefinitely The
weary student

Singular and

and

will be
no means

disquietedto learn that the varieties

exhaust
all the

enumerated

above

by

recognisable and quantity.

varieties of the Particular distinguishable

Distributive

Every particular quantity is further susceptibleof three Forms, in addition to the unqualified, or Indesignate form that alone vague
has hitherto the been
the

referred

to.

The

three

additional

Forms

are

Minimal,

Maximal,
form which of the

and
a

the Exact.
a no

The

Minimal below
and does

minimum, maximum,
the term,
to the

quantity fixes that quantity as quantitydoes not extend, but fixes

whether the part referred
and
to

leaves it uncertain
or

in

does

not

extend

beyond the minimum,

the minimum
Some
to at
'

even
'

whole

class.

The

signsof
'

are

not
a

less than

and

'at

and least,'
case an

the indefinite

least' fixes

minimum,
which the lets it be extend

in this
term

indefinite minimum, leaves the the

the
in

quantityto
doubt,
and

refers, but
that

maximum for

understood
to

quantity may,
of the
a

aught
the

it expresses,

the whole The

class. form

Maximal
as a

quantity has
It

opposite effect.
to

It

fixes

maximum

quantity referred

by the term,
but

but

leaves the minimum

uncertain. than
as

quantityis
no

not

more

gives us the assurance is expressed by the term,

or even
'

that the

gives
any
at

us

assurance

that it is

many,

that
Not

there
more

are

all.

The

sign of the maximum

be
to

is
some

'

Only,' or
cases,

than,' to which
of

it may

necessary, add
'

in

for the
'

sake Some
assures

greater pre

cision,

If

any.'
maximum

The
at

indefinite
some,

only
us

if any

'

fixes positively

the

and

that

it is

ABSURD

RESTRICTIONS

OF

LOGIC

gi
'

not

all ; but

it fixes

no

minimum,
or even

and
none

the

'

Some

may

be

an

inappreciably small
The Exact and
to

number,
of
a

at all.

form
assures

quantity fixes
us,

both

the

maximum
not

and

the

minimum,
to

that the quantity does first, the

extend

all,nor
the

any of

more

that

whole of the
or

the

quantity expressed, and second, quantity expressed is certainlywithin the

which, therefore, does
a

than

reference form

term,

not,

as

the The
any

maximal indefinite

does,

may,

quantity cannot
cumbrous but much than
'

vanishing quantity. form be expressed in its exact by but some Some only,' or certainly,
express
'

sign

less

'Some it admits of

only,
of

however, quantities, certainly some ; in other neater expression,and there are several forms
the

quantity
in
a

in which

quantity itself
three

and

its form

can

be

expressed
enumerated

singleword.
Out Table of the
p.

primary

kinds

of

quantity
the
reason

in

II.,

81, Traditional
declares implicitly

Logic selects
that
we can

Extensive, and
of selects declare it did
to
no

or explicitly

other.
one,

Out

of the

two

kinds

of Extensive

quantity,Logic
does
a more

the
we

and, though Logic Class-quantity,

can reason

not

now

that

of

no

other, there
it
now

was no

time

when attention

make

this

declaration, and

gives

the

Singular
of Class-

quantity than

is

barely decent.
selects of the selects the
one,

Out the

of the

two

kinds

quantity, Logic to reason inability quantity,Logic

so

Designate,
Out of two

and kinds

other.

proclaims its of Designate though

not

one,

the

Distributive,and
of the

it goes allow

far

as

to

admit

existence

other, Logic does

that

this

other, the

Collective
The
two

ordinate

quantities.

quantity, is susceptible of sub of Distributive primary kinds

the

Universal quantity, the tinguished by Logic, but

ends.

and here of

Particular,

are,

indeed, dis
or

its discrimination

ends,
uses

almost
one,

Of
it is

the

three
of

kinds the

Universals, Logic
of the other
two

but of

aware though classes of Particular eight

existence

; and

the its

Distributive

sub-classes

and selects

varieties, Logic knows

one

Logic
Particular

form

of

one

each with quantities, nothing at all. of kind variety of one another form

the

quantity,and

excludes explicitly

of this

variety; while of all other kinds, with their varieties and forms, incalculably numerous though they are, Logic is profoundly ignorant. It never recognisestheir existence, and apparently has
never

realised

or

imagined

that

they

do

or

can

exist.

Out

of

92

NEW

LOGIC Indefinite

them

all,Logic selects the

that this is the
It would
we reason

Minimal

Enumerative,
which
we

and

declares
or can

only Particular
be
nearer

quantityof
mark
to

do

reason.

the

say

that it is the
we are we

quantity of which
to must

least often.
and and
none

It is clear that if All and

restrict

our

statements

reasoningsto
reasonings
but vague

Some,
That

divest these statements

can

of all

precision and
the

and definiteness,

reach

conclusions.

be apparent to everyone must reasonings of Logic are but vague first thing who has ever opened a book on the subject. The with respect to these reasonings that strikes a new is that comer

they
seeks

seem

to
reason

have

so

little practical application ; and

and

when

he

the

for this detachment

aloofness

from

practical

he affairs,

finds it in the indefiniteness is used.

do
not to

of the

Particular
and
'

that alone

In the

we daily life,

statements practical restrict our dealings to

quantity reasonings of
We
never

Some.'

do
one

and
more

never

ought
definite.

employ this quantity

In
our

if it is

household

and in the

possibleto use family affairs,in

the
and

business

and

in Parliament, professions,

in pulpit, in
What

the

factory,the mine, and

if we
can use help it,

the the much

railway,in work
indefinite business
'

shop, play, we
sort

never,
a

Some.' be

of

world

would

it

be, how
be ? Some
some

could

transacted, how

many

things could
distance
annum,

done, if assertion
'

and

reasoning
some rooms some some some

were

limited to All and

some

house in
some some

to

let,with
county,

in

it,

from

town

rent

pounds
miles. time.'
me some

per

fare from
run me

London

money,

distance
takes and

The
'

trains sell in
in
some

sometimes,
some

and in

the
some

journey
stocks is
some

Please

shares stocks.
*

buy
number

shares
street
some

other

My
is
vote
'

address
sure

in

some

some are

town.'

He
to

to

be

elected, for though

some

voters

pledged
for him.' owed
'

for
not

his

adversary,
last

have

promised
is true

to vote

am

in your

debt, for though it week,

to

that

you

some some

money

paid
of

you

yesterday all
live to live to
a a

I had.'

Since

people live
that the
same

and fifty,

some

hundred, it is evident
hundred
as

number

people

fifty.'No ? Do you doubt ? Well, to express perhaps have reason, but Logic has no terms you may All and differences of quantity more precise than that between
Some,
would train
and be

live to

therefore unfair
to

in

matters

of

such

extreme
'

exactitude
An

it

will start

expect guidance from Logic. for some place next week, at some

excursion time in the

94

NEW

LOGIC

maximal
there is

Some
no reason

only, Logic gives neither rhyme

for it. There
can

nor

reason.
*

And

be
as

no

reason.

Some

only
as

'

is

quantityas

useful, as
from

accurate,
statement

frequentlyemployed,
reasoning, as
*

capable of entering into

and least,1
If Some

and

Some

at

its exclusion
were

drowned,
will not

Logic is utterlyunwarrantable. Logic declares that all may have

the
us

been have

drowned,
been
some

and
;

admit

that possibility
to count
a on

some

must

saved
may

nor

will it allow
been

the

that probability modals if

some are

have from
"

saved, for this is

I aver,
on

modal, and

excluded
were

Logic,
a

the contrary, that Traditional

were

only
not

drowned
"

that possibility that

some

Logic

will
; and

admit

then

it is certain
are

not to

drowned the

the
at

anxiety of
anxious

us, who

not

logicians,as

fate of Some still remain

least of the party, is relieved ; but

logicians must

in

know that, if uncertainty. We, who are not logicians, modes of argument logicians recognise some only, and some Particular quantities only, it is certain that there are other modes and other Particular quantities of argument that logicians not are of; but logicians themselves are aware precluded by their own rules from drawing this inference, or making this admission. They modes of argument claim that as they are acquainted with Some and Some and as Some has, in'Logic, but the particular quantities,

the modes meaning of Some, it may be all,' with which the quantities they are acquainted
'

one

of argument
may
a

and

be

all there

are.

We

know

better, but
every Some

we

cannot

convince

logician of his

error,

for to him If And

is

All. potentially
at least
are

Some Fish

aquatic animals
are

fish,
true

the

only animals
*

that have

fins,
that

then

Logic permits
Some

and

compels

us

to draw

the conclusion
"

and

leaves
But And

us

if

aquaticanimals at least have true fins ; groping in the dark as to the rest of aquatic animals. Some aquatic animals only are fish,
Fish
sense are

the

only animals
and

then

common

allows

compels
do
not

that possess true fins, that to conclude us

possess
true
I

Some
*

aquaticanimals
to

fins.
that

I
a

am

ashamed

say

that

not

until too

late did

recognise

this is

not and

logicalargument at all. The predicate of the major is explicitly quantified, be be it must the of must predicate proposition though quantified, every
must
not
a

sub rosd, and quantified the major not quently,

brazenly

avow

its

quantification.Conse
argument
is not
a

being

the logical proposition,

VARIOUS

MEANINGS

OF

'SOME'

95

This such

conclusion
a

Such an Logic forbids us to draw. argument, and conclusion, is illicit, impossible. illogical, illegitimate,

Why?
If do know logicians know all

of

some

particularquantitiesonly, then
then there
are

they
some

not

particular quantities ;

their ignorant ; then they are particular quantities of which knowledge of particularquantities is imperfect, it is defective : These then there are and quantitiesof which they do not know. the premiss, but logicians from all valid inferences are happily are ignorant of them, and doubly ignorant ; for, in the first place,the

premiss
clusions

is inadmissible
are

into

Logic, and,
process unknown
none

in the

second,
is

the

con

arrived

at

by

to Traditional

Logic.
converse,

They
an

are

Immediate
a

Inferences, but

of them

obverse,
If
one

an or contra-positive, particularquantity only

inverse. is to best be that

cover

chosen could

to

represent

them it may

all,the
be
a as

indefinite with
a

Some little

is the

be

chosen,
the three

for

made, few,
many,

to difficulty,
one,

nearly all
few

rest. more,

Many,
twice

very the

few,

two,

most,

of,

rest, the
too

others, the
and
so

first, the

last, certain,
definite

this, those, enough,

under Some
;

many,

forth, may
from
'

all be included
more

but

apart

altogether
'

these

bare indefinite Some interpretations, thirtydifferent meanings, as against and

'

is

the

of twenty or susceptible that are two recognised

the Some

one
'

that may

is used
mean an

by Logic.
indefinite
mean an

and

unselected but

number selected

taken number

distributively ; or
taken number taken

it may

indefinite
mean an

or distributively;

it may
an

indefinite

unselected taken

collectively ; or
or

indefinite selected
an

number

collectively ;
selected
or

it may

mean

indefinite
case

unselected, and
or

in
mean

either
an

proportion, either taken or distributively

ordinal

collectively ;
selected
or

it

may

indefinite

number,
undis-

unselected,
in any

and
case

taken it may

distributively or
mean

tributively;and

the

particularSome
is,
without

minimally, maximally, exactly, or vaguely, that whether it is minimal, maximal, or exact. specifying
I can logicalargument. Logic are so extremely make
one
a

only plead
narrow,

in extenuation
a mere

that the limits of Traditional

cannot
are

that shot. that

amateur

be
'

at bull's-eye to

every

So the

few
more

valid

arguments
an

expected to that logical,'

the

the

reallyought presumption

recognise
it is
'

cogent

argument,

stronger

that

not

logical/

96
The

NEW

LOGIC
of all these

exclusion
one,

from

Traditional

Logic
and

meanings,
and

except

of the indefinite Some,

of all the

semi-definite

in both the distributive particular quantity, and the collective quantities, and in all the three or four forms of this quantity, is not, however, as important as it seems at first

definite varieties of the

sight; for already,by excluding Modals,

and

all Ratios

except the
field of

copula,
and

Traditional
to

Logic
one more

had

so

narrowed all

the

its
;

operations as
the

depriveitself
of

of almost
unnecessary

practicalusefulness
restriction makes
can no no

addition

important difference.
reference
may
to any

Logicians declare that they

make

part of a class without be the whole. Well, if their minds

is true
not

assuming that that part

are so

constituted that

that

this
must

of them,
seek
are

have

no

more same

to

say, except upon

they

to
more

impose

the

restrictions

others,

whose

minds
are so

capacious.
are

The
so

restrictions of Traditional

Logic

surprising, and
if it should

discrepant
that it
can

from

common no are

experience, that
argument,
written
ment

declare

entertain

and

accept

no

conclusion, unless
black
as

the

premisses

in red

ink,
a are

or

in

letter,I should
true

accept the

state

without
as

murmur,

long
to

they

engaged

in

logicians themselves, as reasonings that they are pleased

of
not

call

logical ; but

I should

accept

it, any
other
at

more

than
*

accept the exclusion

Particular

of Modals, of Ratios than

'

than

is

'

or

of of

quantities other
of
reasoners

Some of

least,' as

true

myself, or
apart from
The

in

general, or

logicians themselves,
and

their books. from definite

Logic of all the semi-definite forms of all exact and maximal Particular quantities,
exclusion of the Residual
and

of

quantity,

reasoningsas
most cases,

not only deprives such Purposive quantities, and of all precision, therefore, in effect, Logic can

of all

practicalusefulness, but
an

it also shuts

out

from
are

Traditional
constant terms

Logic
use,

immense

range

of arguments
compass,

that

in
of

but

that
to

this
express

Logic

cannot

for want

in

which

them.

When

these

subordinate

varieties

of the Particular that the

it is found formulated

into argument, quantity are admitted and methods principlesof reasoning, as

only defective, but also The rules of the Syllogism are applicable to erroneous. very deductive reasoning so long only as that reasoning is confined As indefinite distributive quantity. as soon minimal to the

by

Traditional

Logic,

are

not

THE

PROPOSITION

97

other
every

quantities are
one

admitted of the

into

statement

and

argument,
to

of the

Canons of

Syllogism
is the blown
cost

is found
to

be It

false,
will
to

and be

the

Square

Opposition
at

pieces.
some

therefore, even necessary, in detail each of the examine

enumerated.

of

tedium,
has

Particular

that quantities

been

N.L.

CHAPTER

VII

PARTICULAR

DISTRIBUTIVE

QUANTITIES

THE

ENUMERATIVE

QUANTITY.
refers
as

WHEN

term

discriminately
of
a

to

all

the

individuals

in them

class, regarded

part
with

larger class, and

to

contemplates
the
many ?

simultaneously
Enumerative,
The Definite. The which Enumerative

respect
the

their

number,

quantity

is

and

answers

question. How
may

quantity

be

Indefinite,

Semi-definite,

or

Indefinite Enumerative.
includes,
not

"

The
'

sign of this quantity

at

is Some, be all
'
'

only
also
'

the
Some

Some

least
may

it may

of

Traditional

Logic,
not

but

only, it
in

be

none,' and form,

and
'

Some
at exact
on a

certainly, but

all.'

Of

these, the
the

minimal
text

Some

least,'is sufficientlyexplained
form,
'

books,
been maximal

the

Some page.

only, but

some

certainly,' has
to

examined

previous only, and

often if

It remains none.'

consider

the

form,
is not

'

Some very
*

perhaps

This

maximal semi-definite
so

indefinite
and

used, though
and
'

the
more

maximal than

definite,
occur

Few in It

any,'

Not

many,'
is
an

frequently
is

reasoning.
may
or

The
not

maximal exist
;

quantity
and
as

uncertain

quantity.
it may

may
an

its

existence

uncertain,
from

lead

to

uncertain
on

conclusion. the double

It is excluded

Traditional
'

Logic, therefore,
least
Its
'

ground,
into which need in

that

it

is

not

Some

at

and

that

the

proposition
Traditional

it enters

may

be

Modal.
us

exclusion

from

Logic
and then saved.
some

not, however,
If that

hinder
Some
some,

from
and

employing perhaps
none

it in statement
were

reasoning.
it is certain If
at
some

only
and

drowned,
have been

possible that
none

all, may
messengers
were

only

and

perhaps
all,
were

of

the
or

arrived,
on

least, and
all the
none

perhaps
messages

stopped
not

diverted If
some

the

way,

and

delivered.
some

only and perhaps

will

perhaps
be

of
;

the

eggs

hatch
some

out,
will

at

least
out

and
;

all will be
;

addled

certainly
than
eggs

not

hatch clutch

there

fewer and the

chickens
money

; the

whole

may

be

failure

paid

for

it

will

ENUMERATIVE

QUANTITY
What is the
matter

99

be

partly or
?

wholly

wasted.

with

these

inferences

If

There

were

some

only

and

perhaps

no

days

on

which

he

And Then

played truant, He was never punished unless he played truant, He was not punished every day.
If
Some of

only and perhaps their Logic,

a

no

logiciansappreciatethe Logic
are numerous

defects

And Then

The

defects of Traditional
class must

and

glaring,

Logicians as
Indefinite

be blind.

the qualify not quantity may of or Subject-term only, but the Object-term, either instead togetherwith the Subject-term. Vegetarianism is adopted by some of the traps. This form of Some rats were men. caught in some Traditional is unknown to Logic, but the statements proposition
The Enumerative thus them. made If
are

valid ; and

valid arguments

may

be

deduced

from

men vegetarianism is adopted by some only, it is not If some of the rats only were caught in some adopted by all men. of the traps, all the rats were not caught in those traps ; and if other rats were some caught in some only of the traps, there were caught. traps in which no rats were

If And Then If And Some

Vegetarianism is adopted by some Vegetarianism is a faultydiet, A faultydiet is adopted by some

rats
were were

men,

men.

caught caught

in

some

of the

traps,
with cheese.

All the Some

traps
rats
were

baited

with

cheese,

Then

in traps baited

THE

SEMI-DEFINITE of the

QUANTITY.
Semi-definite features
certain

"

Before

entering
common

on neces

the

examination
sary
to

Enumerative,
that
are

it is

consider

to

all

semi-definite

quantities. The first of these is the Emphatic or Such So.' Unexpected form, the sign of which is Such or So many,' The a great many,' Such a few,' So few.' mean of the semiing conveyed by the addition of this qualification
'
'

'

'

'

'

definite there

is that be

the
so

quantity is unexpected.
many
or so

It

surprises us
H

that

should

few

as

we

find.
2

TOO

NEW is

LOGIC

The

next

modification

more

important. Every semi-definite,

described
; but in addition

like every

other
exact.

exists in three forms, the minimal, maxi quantity, These

have

mal, and
to

already been
differences of

differences of form, and

in which

emphasis, there is a third

be classified.
and
or

way

semi-definite
a

quantities may
or

They
be

may

be referred to

certain standard
as

medium,
above below five

may

arranged
of this
may be
or

in

sets,

according
or

they reach, exceed,

the the
us a excess

fall short standard be

standard. moderate

Moreover, great, and

this
one

the it may

defect
set

moderate

great, and
to quantity,

gives
of

of

which

every

such

The

numerous degrees may be made more This set of degrees appliesto every enough for most purposes. Com semi-definite quantity,whether Enumerative, Proportional,

degrees of semi-definite be referred. quantity may than this, but five are

Ordinal parative, sive

or

Selective.

Omitting intermediate

and
:
"

exces

the degrees of degrees, The The The The The

semi-definite Maximative.

quantityinclude

Magnative.
Medium. Parvative. Minimative.

Combining these degrees with the forms alreadydiscovered, and table : omitting the Indesignate form, we arrive at the following
"

SEMI-DEFINITE

ENUMERATIVE

QUANTITIES.
Maximal.
Exact.

Minimal. Maximative
...

A
...

great many

Very

many.

Magnative
Medium

(A) many
A

...

good
few

many

Many. A good
Few
A A

many.

Parvative
...

A
...

at least

few.
very

Minimative
'

Very few
'

few. terms, it

great many
'

is
It

minimal

form, though, like other

'

is often misused. all.

A

means men are

great many
of
are men a are

and possibly a large number, certainly that certainly honest states a large
for
on

number
'

honest, and
many
we are.

aught
the

we

know, all may

be.
is
an are

There

great

people
know

cricket

ground
to

'

incorrect
not

for expression,

that the

all the

people there

The

large quantity referred

number is

there
an

exact,

102

NEW

LOGIC

upwards, just as, at the other end of the scale,the addition of the shouts not ampliative to Many fixes a minimal limit. Very few In this,as many,' says few only,'and whispers perhaps none.'
' '

'

'

'

in the

other

cases,

the addition

of the

article at

once

invests

the

quantitywith positivecharacter, minimises

the addition but
'

it,and

is
'

equivalentto
small
num

of

very

mean certainly.' Very few may few means Certainly some, but a
' '

'

'

'

perhaps none,'

very

ber,'and
The there
'

is therefore

exact

in form.

degrees that have

'

been

enumerated there

are
'

not

all the
very

degrees
'

are.

An A

enormous

are Beyond great many,' number,' and so on ; between are

*

A A

great many/
many and
'

'

good
very

'

few

'

there

'

good few
insist upon

'

and

below
so on.

'

few

'

are

very

few

indeed,' Extremely few,' and

to

It is unnecessary

semi-definite

Enumerative That
is at and
once

frequency with which quantitiesenter into statement

the
to
are

the
and

argument.
able to construction
"

apparent

everyone many

; but

it is desir for the

point out

insist that there the semi-definite

arguments
are

of which

enumeratives

necessary

arguments

that cannot

be effected except

by

means

of these quan
to

and arguments tities, Traditional Logic.

that lead to conclusions The illustrate following

inaccessible utterly
a

few

types of these
then
a

arguments
If there
must

:
"

are a

great many great deal of

all.

books
room,

in the British Museum,

and

they long

occupy
to

it would

take

very
are

time

read

them

If very
not

few

modes

of argument

known

to Traditional to to

Logic, it does
when it it

know
eggs,
a

of many. it will

keep

hen

laysa

few
If

profitable be profitable certainly

If it is

keep it when
come a more

lays many. people, and

come

good
than it.

many

people
leave

go

out

for

wool, and
to

home few

shorn, this unpleasant experiencehappens

more a

than

few

their wool

behind
If And Then

them, Many
Few More
Some

and

home

without

are
are are

called,
chosen,
called than
are are are

chosen
not

And

who

called

chosen, and

some

are

both

called and If
And

chosen.
a

There's

Then

twix't the cup and slip Every such slipis a disappointment, There are disappointmentsin life. many
many

the

lip,

DEFINITE
If And Then And

ENUMERATIVES

103

Many
Few Some

overladen

ships go
lost at sea,

to

sea,

ships are
overladen

Overloading ship.

does

ships reach port in safety; result in the not necessarily

loss of the

If And Then If And Then

Few Few

birds

are

of these few

incapable of flying, destitute of wings, birds are

are

Very
There

birds

destitute

of

wings.

are

very

many

Logic
There

knows
are

of very many

quantities, particular few particular quantities, Logic is

of which particularquantities

ignorant.
In the

last

example,

it is the

object-term that
is valid.

is

semi-defmitely

quantified ; yet the

The

argument

Tradi quantity is a cardinal number. tional do not though the text books Logic always assumes, definitely state, that Logic has nothing to do with the cardinal numbers, which are supposed to be susceptibleof mathematical reasoningonly,and to be outside the province of Logic. This doc

DefiniteEnumerative

if it be trine,

doctrine,is doubly

erroneous.

It is

erroneous

in sup

excluded from are posing that numerical quantities Logic, and it is in supposing that mathematical erroneous reasoning is distinct from in it. Still, and is not included Logical reasoning, although Logic is mistaken in supposing that its powers it to reason do not enable of numerical the numerical quantities, quantitiesof which Logic the same those not reasons are as employed in the reasonings of numbers mathematics. Arithmetical are doubly limited. They in form. exact are Logical numbers, unless formally stated to be not limited, either minimally or maximally. In Arithmetic, so, are that number neither three hundred, means or three,or thirty, exactly, less. No is permitted,for if any more nor excess or deficiency
were

allowed, the operations of Arithmetic

could from add two satisfactorily three, if the two might be
not
or more a

would

be

impossible.
subtract and the

We
two

and
more

three
or

or together,

less than

two,

three less
men

than does

three
not

entered

house

Logic, the statement that preclude the possibility

that
at
one man

; but

in

that two three it.

men

entered

and it, number

necessarily implies
means

entered

In

Logic, a

that

number

least,or that number

only ;

104

NEW

LOGIC

and than

if that number

only,it may
Since

be that number

or exactly,

not

more

that
and
more

number.

Mathematics

cannot, except
of inexact

under

very

limited

rigidlydenned
than
seven,
or

conditions, reason
fewer than

numbers,

such

as

it follows,if numerical five,

reason

reasonings are ing that

arguments

excluded

from

Logic, that there is a field of

nor

is neither

Mathematical
?

belong
men

They

belong

to

do such Logical. Where the New Logic here pro

pounded.
If two
assures one us

left the

house, and three

of
men

men

entered
was

it,Arithmetic

that the number

in
so

in the house

; and

concluding, Arithmetic
its limitations.
and
nor

augmented by is reasoningaccording to its

lights,and

within
two

Arithmetic, that

three mean,
more,

Granting the assumptions of and three two respectively,

is

exactly,neither
to

less

Arithmetic
a

justifiedin coming
would be
be

this

conclusion. in

But

such Before
of

conclusion

wholly
con

unwarranted

Logic.
number

Logic would
men

in justified
was

cluding that by
the
and
one, two
or men

the
was

in the

house
must at

augmented
whether
two
or or

augmented
left the

at

all, Logic
were

know least

who

house entered

two
were

only,

whether

the three who

it

three

only

three at

least. If ten
assures
men us

entered that
two

the

house

and

two

men

left it, Arithmetic

if ten
men

eight remained
at

indoors.

But
not at

only
con

entered

and

least

departed, Logic is
The
two

in justified least may be

cluding that
whole
ten.
men

any

at all remained.

the

If ten then

at least entered
can

the house, and

men

eight men

only left it,

in the also ;

Logic
a

tell

us

that two is within

at

least remained of Arithmetic entered the

house,
but than

conclusion
can

that

the
more

scope
men

Logic

conclude this

further, that
conclusion

the house

left it, and

is

beyond
not

capacity of
than
at
'

Arithmetic.
If ten
men

at least entered
can

the house, and the

knows
no

more seven as

three least
more

left it, remained than If not

Logic
;

derive

conclusion
no

that number from

seven can

but

Arithmetic
can

such

not

three,'and
more can

derive
ten
men no

conclusion

these
at least

premisses. departed,
that there
none

than

entered, and
than

Arithmetic remained
at all.

arrive at house

result,but Logic
more

tell us

in the

not

three, and

perhaps

PROPORTIONAL

QUANTITY

105

THE

PROPORTIONAL the

QUANTITY.
in
a

When

individuals

class, regarded

as

part of
to

larger
pro

class,are

contemplated
to

with discriminately of the

respect

their

portion

the is

whole the

contemplated

larger class, the quantity thus be an Proportional quantity, which may

a

proportion of the whole. well as the Indefi The Indefinite as Proportional. This quantity, nite Numerical, is signified by Some, and it is another disadvantage
indefinite, a semi-definite, or
definite
"

meaning is not multiguous adjectivethat its enumerative clearlydistinguished from its meaning as a proportion of a class.
of this It is true whether but that
*

it does
'

not

greatly matter,
as

when

'

some or
'

is

used,

the

some

is understood
constant

enumerative
use

proportional,
in both
senses

it does
to

matter

that the
the
to

of

some

tends between

confuse

two

to quantities, to

obscure

the of
more

differences
definite

them, and

lead

the
'

employment
' '

is enumerative. signs ambiguously. Generally, some simpliciter The of the.' Some proportionalindefinite is signified by Some
'

men

are

honest
men are

'

means

that
'

an

uncertain of the the

men men

number
'

of the

whole
means are

class of
that
an

honest.

Some

are a

honest

uncertain The

proportion of
is not
"

in

certain

class

honest.
The and

distinction

made

in Traditional

Logic.

forms Semi-definite Proportional. This is subjectto the same the same semi-definite set of degrees as other quantities.
SEMI-DEFINITE Minimal. PROPORTIONAL Maximal.

QUANTITIES.
Exact.

Maximative
...

Nearly all
Most

Nearly,
Most. A Few of A A

but

not

quite all. Magnative

Medium
... ...

moiety
few
of

moiety.
few
very of.

Parvative
...

A
...

Minimative
It is

Scarcely any

few

of.

scarcelynecessary to go through these quantitiesand show that they answer generally to the description implied by their The reader who places in the table. has followed me thus far can
do

that for himself. few

The

Proportional Parvative
form, 'Few
a

is,in its minimal

of.' 'A few of

form, 'A
means
'

of,' in its maximal

and of 'Few

a small, certainly

perhaps
means

maybe

the

whole.'

'A

large proportion,and it small proportion only,

166

tfEW

LOGIC

perhaps none.' vanishing into none

and
'

the of of 'Few possibility Commonly, is emphasised by adding if any,'but this is of is already maximal. Few not necessary. The of the proportionalquantity enables to conduct us use
'

many

arguments
not

and

reach many
If most

conclusions
men men are are

that

are

unattainable all
out

by Traditional
men

Logic.
men.

honest,
in

dishonest, but honest

dishonest
If

only are the majority,and

not

number
a

few

of them
not

only,in

drowned, nearlyall were saved fact scarcely any, were drowned, then
a

it follows
; and

that

if

nearly,
were

but

were quite all,

very

few

of them

certainly saved.
If

Nearly
Most

all

people can
reason reason

reason,

And
It follows

Scarcelyanyone
people Ability to

learns

that And

logic, without learning Logic

does
not

depend

on

knowledge
If And Most

of

Logic.

Then

miners, pit were killed, Nearly all those in the pit were and probably most, of the Certainly some,
of those in the
killed
were

miners.

If
And

Most Most

of the of them
were

speakerswere
were some

teetotallers,

sensible,
sensible teetotallers.

Then

There

The
two

of is, DefiniteProportion

course,

fraction. numerical the

It

is

half,

thirds, three

fourths,
excludes

or

some

other

proportion.

on ground that, quantities, of Mathematics, they are necessarily lying within the domain Enumerative outside realm of Logic; but in examining the found that the boundaries of Logic and Mathematics we quantities, marked not are rigidly by the exclusion and inclusion of definite numerical with exact definite quantities. An argument concerned numerical that is with figures, whether quantities, integers or and with nothing else, fractions, exactly limited in both directions,

Logic, of course,

such

is

an

arithmetical

argument
inexact

;
as

but

many

arguments

contain

indefinite
and many

proportionalas well
contain
as

definite
as

well

exact

proportional quantities, proportions; and such

a

mixed mixture

arguments

belong
and

to

of definite

Logic, just as those which contain indefinite integers belong to Logic.

PROPORTIONAL

QUANTITY
company here
at least
were

to?

aver

that

if two
to

thirds New

of the

drunk, then,
half of them
this conclusion
;

according
were

the

Logic

propounded,
to

not

sober. this

Traditional

Logic,
to

in order

reach

from the
"

premiss, must
is not
a

call in the

aid
'

of Mind

Mathematician
your
own

and

Mathematician half"

is entitled

say

business. is not

Not

mathematical
See ye

quantity.
to

The

argument
no

arithmetical, but
such In and
so

logical.
two

it,for I will be fourths, nineteen

judge

of

matters.'

Arithmetic,
forth, are

thirds, three
fractions
some

twentieths,
are

exact

of

an

integer;

in

Logic, they
may fraction
:

classes, each
exact
an or

containing
a no

definite
In

proportion, that
Arithmetic, each
form is known
or

be is in

inexact, of form, and

thirds

larger class.
maximal
be
two
or

exact

minimal

but be

Logic, two
thirds
at

may

thirds
or

exactly;
be
two

it may

two

least, and
less
or none.

perhaps
cannot

all ;

it may
two

thirds

only, and
were

perhaps Logic
were can

If at least tell
us

thirds

of the

company

drunk, Arithmetic
conclude

without
not

sober proportion were than one that not more difficulty of them
were

what

; but

third
more

sober, and
one were more

that
were

half

sober. tell
us

If not what

than

third

sober, Arithmetic
but

cannot

propor not

tion

drunk,
than

Logic
at

concludes

without

that difficulty, of them

were

only
The
a

half, but

least two-thirds

drunk,

Proportionalquantityis,therefore,in strict propriety, logical quantity ; and Logic is very incomplete without it.
If And Two Not

Definite

thirds of the company

half
to

were were

drunk drunk

;
were

of

those

who

able Then either The New

stand,
can

Logic
or

reach

the

conclusion, unattainable

by Arithmetic
At

by
a

Traditional

Logic, that
the
company
were

least
unable

third

of

to stand.

If

The

ship
half

carries she of

two

thirds

only

of

the

number And

is licensed

for,
land
at the
next

Nearly
port,
There
more,

these will

Then

will

be

plenty of
port she
as

room

on

board

for

And

At

the twice

next
as

can

take

in

nearly

many

will land.

io8
These
*

NEW

LOGIC
Not

are

not

arithmetical
'

arguments.

'

half,' at least
'

not arithmetical are plenty,' quantities, her and exclude the from would Arithmetic rightly arguments domain. Traditional them, and Logic is incapable of effecting

and third,' nearly a half,'

would

shirk

them

on

to

Arithmetic
course

if it could.
to

the only consistent effort,

open

deny that they are arguments at all. however, by saying that they are itself,
then feel that its

It
'

Failing this Traditional Logic is to would probably content

not

and logical,'

would

duty

was

done.

THE

ORDINAL
we

QUANTITY.

contemplate parts of classes in succession, with respect to the order in which they present themselves,or in which choose to take we them, the quantity is Ordinal, and, like the
When
other

that quantities indefinite.

we

have

examined,
noted

may

be the

semidefinite, order is

or definite,

It will be

that

always
'

definite ; it is the

quantitythat varies in definition. is signified Ordinal quantity The Indefinite by the Former,' the Latter.' It indicates the positionin order of the individuals, but
*

does

not

indicate

their number

nor

does it indicate with

precision
to
one

the ordinal other

The

position. It indicates
to

the

positionwith
other

respect

part only of the class,not

every

part.

number almost

is characterised Ordinal term by an ordinal Semi-definite followed by the sign of a semi-definite quantity,which is

always few

"

the first few, the last few.

We
we

do

not

speak
not.

of the first many, though there is no reason is an ordinal The Definite Ordinal

why
number

should the

"

first,the

second,

etc.

It

does

not

specifyan
same

individual individual the

same

except by his

position in the
occupy
more

class,for the
one

may

successively
be

than

and position,

position may

occupied successively by different individuals ; but it indicates with precisionthe individual that for the time being occupiesthat

place.
Predications
are

and

arguments
therefore

with be

respect

to

Ordinal

quantities
of
not

not

infrequent; they cannot

the
comer

this

and quantity,

expressed without the use Traditional has Logic, which

to

discovered the
first

quantity,is incompetent
is first served, he is not last
;

deal

with

them. others

If
are

put

off until

served, he is
he

not

served

second,

or

he has the
; he

choice largest
not

; to

has the

opportunityof getting first away

does

have

no

NEW

LOGIC the Particular

of cases,
we

which
of

remains

when undistinguished
in the

is selected
not

out

the

class ; but into

majority
It

do

take that

the
we

residuum
possess

account.

has

already

been

shown

the
a or

aspect of
we

select

concentrating our contemplation on any subject before us, and neglecting the rest ; and when we distinguisha part of a class, commonly ignore the
power But

of

remainder.
use us

there

are

occasions

on

which

the

of the Residual
to

quantityare

of the utmost be

recognitionand and enable service,

with

reach

conclusions

that would

unattainable utterly

out

it.

Every Particular quantitymay

it would If
are
seem are

of

course

leave its residuum leave

This in
a

; but

that

no

Universal
can

quantity can
none

residuum.
if all
or

all

taken, there
is at
a

be

left.
are

is true

taken

simultaneously; but
any
rate

if all
a

taken

succession

there alternately,
man

temporary
rest

residuum. remain
out

If each time

in

turn

takes
and be

step forward, the

any

for the
of
a

stationary;
the rest may The

though

stick ma}/

be

taken

bundle,
residue,
of the

left in it. Particular

or

Minimal
as

may
not

or

may
to

not

leave

a one

according
virtues form the there
some

it does

does

extend

all ; and

of the

residual

the quantity is that it settles decisively

Some. appears If
some men

of the otherwise
some are :

formless

desire money, be all

may, but

for if
some

aught that
men

in the
and
cannot

statement,
others

desire money

do not, the

is fixed at its maximal

form, and

be some,

perhaps

all. for their statement, Many arguments requirethe residual quantity

and
cannot

be

effected without in that other

it.

It differs from

the
a

quantities
there
in the

hitherto

examined
some

it must

be

preceded by
must

proposition

containing

quantity,to which

it is residual, and be stated of the

fore every argument of a compound form what

men

containing the residual

and must proposition, is called, in Traditional Logic, Mediate money

be

nature

of

Inference. the

If

some

desire

and
among

others
men

do
; and

not, then
with three

is not
money,

universal
men were were are

respect
men were

desire for money to the desire for

divided.

If two

or were

drowned, and
nor were

the then then

rest

saved, then
saved
at least

neither
or

all drowned

all saved drowned

; and

; ;

all
some

but two
were

three ; then very few

some

saved, and
was

only
the
same.

were

drowned

then, moreover,

the fate of all

not

COMPARATIVE

QUANTITY
more a

in

The and many

were

Residual

may may

be be

preceded by
founded
on

than

one

other

quantity,
balls
were

argument members,

compound
If
some

proposition of
of the
as

containing many
were

quantities.
were

red, others
crimson,
was

blue, four
were an

green,

twice

many

black, certain
rest

of them

then

it is

were purple, and yellow, more that none conclusion irrefragable

the
of

them
None

white. of

known

to

reasonings can Traditional Logic.

these Three All As children
on a

be

conducted

by

any

method

on sliding

the
; ;

ice,

summer's

day

it fell out, The

they all fell in rest, they ran away.

knows
not

Traditional

Logic,
not.

which

the
and

Residual
cannot

quantity,is
whether

incapable of examining this statement,

it is valid
or

tell us

COMPARATIVE

QUANTITY.
in
a

When
as

the individuals
a

class

are

contemplated discriminately,
respect
to

part of

larger class,and larger class,the

in the may formation be

with alternatively

other

parts of the parts results

the the of

comparison with the other part or of the Comparative quantity,and

definite,and

comparison

or indefinite,semi-definite,

resultingquantity shares the degree of definition. The result the be that the are respective numbers comparison must
to

adjudged
the
more

be

alike is the

or

and different,

if

the different,

number
to

in be

class
or

that less

chief
that

object of attention, is adjudged

the other. Thus

than

in

the
the

comparative
is

quantities are
indefinite, are
Without
more

primarily three, and, when

More,

comparison
may

Fewer,
this.

and

About

as

being completely definite, the

than

Many. comparison

be

definite

On that is

comparing
the lower

these

two

lines
two count

of
more

dots,

it is at than

once

apparent
upper. know
It

line

contains
to

dots

the
to

quite unnecessary

each

series, or

how

H2

NEW

LOGIC

many

dots

in

all each the

series contains.
can

The

excess

of one,

and

the

defect

of

other,
are

be
; and

stated thus
more,

without definitely,
the So

the

totals

being

stated definitely So

definite
many.

Comparative

many

signs of the Semifewer, and As many

The Twice forth.

It

Comparative is Definite
as

multiple or
Half
as

sub-multiple. It
many

is
so

many,

Two

thirds

as

many,

again, and
have

seems

incredible

that Traditional

Logic should

ignored
valuable its

is it employed, so so frequently Comparative quantity, its uses, and so are impossible is it to reach, without conclusions of the utmost practical importance. the
If
more

aid,

money

is put into the bank

If
more

than

is taken

out

of

the it, is

balance

will increase.

money If

is withdrawn
more

than
swans

paid
now

in,the balance
more live,

will be diminished.

geese

than

fools than
are rarer

wise, then
than Calcutta of them fools.

the
If

geese
more

outnumber

the

swans,

and the

the wise Black

people were
air would If there
go
are

thrust into it
was

Hole that
are more

at
some

than should

the

support,
fewer without. three
one

inevitable than
are

die.

teats

there three

little pigs, one

little pig must there

are a

If there

people
unless
as

than

seats, then with

some

people
else. If
carts

cannot

sit down
are

they share
carts
as

seat

there
must

twice

many

horses, at least half the

go

unhorsed.
If And

There
There

are
are are

more

geese
as more

than

swans,
as

twice
many

many

ducks

geese,
swans.

Then If And
'

There
true

ducks

than

The

bug had been

in

The
as

humbug many,'

the

organisedwith only two antennae, copperplatewould have them twice

was

Then

The

copperplateengraving
QUANTITY.

erroneous.

THE As

SELECTED

its

name
or

implies,the
certain individuals
be

Selective
out

term

selects

certain

individual
selected

of

class, and
definite

the individuals in two

senses.

may be

definite

or

less

than
and

They
or

may

definite in

selected, indefinitely number they may ; or

semi-definite, indefinite, selected,and definitely

be

definite in number. or semi-definite, indefinite,

SELECTED

QUANTITY
the

113

'

Selected Quantity is characterised by Indefinitely is a Certain,'and Certain, standing alone, completely The and
means some

sign
class,

indefinite of
a

enumerative,
but We neither
may,

individuals
nor

selected mentions

out

indicates

the

individuals
a

their

number.

proportion of a class,and indicate our select a selection by the sign A certain proportion/ and we may and signify number out of the residue or a proportion of the residue, selection by Certain others,' or 'A certain proportion of the our selected indefinite quantities. all indefinitely others.' These are the Indefinitely Selected But Enumerative, quantity,whether
however,
select
' *

Proportional,or
the number

Residual,
Certain may be.

may

be

semi-definite
; and

with

respect

to

of individuals
'

it indicates

then

is characterised
or

by the signs,
rest, as
Or the
case

few,'

'

certain

few,'of the whole,

the

quantity may be completely definite as to the number indefinite. or proportion selected, though this selection remains The in A certain one,' A certain as sign is then, A certain three,' A certain half or quarter.' The individuals be selected and not or definitely may may may be in number definite or proportion. The signs of definite
' ' ' *
'

this

'

'

selection
a

are

This, These, That,

or

Those.

This, These, apply

at hand
or or

to
;
a

selected and
or

That

distance
'

proportion near Those apply to a selected repudiated.

man

number

appropriated

number

proportion at
one was man man

A the

certain
army,

drew

bow

at

venture,' selects
in his
was

out

of
man

and army fact

places the
who that
He

bow the
not

hand.
a

It

not

any
; but

in the the

drew it
may
was

bow, it
any been
or man

selected
at
or

beyond
not

taken
man

random,
that ; he

he may

is

identified. been the He

have

this

have

first in the army is not

the he

last,or

in any

intermediate

position.

but identified,

is identifiable.

Swans Did This

sing before they die ; 'twere no bad certain people die before they sing.
does
not

thing

selects, but
may be these
or are or

identify,the
those
you ;

people
be the

in

They
you

people or
last that
you

they
to

may

first

question. people
may,

meet,
we

the

wish
me,

meet;
;

they
may

for
two

aught
in Madame
N.L.

told, be

and be

reader

they
in
as

be but world

number,

they
;

may

all the
are

people

the

except
some

Albani

but

they

selected

possessing
I

ii4

NEW

LOGIC

quality,and, though
know

not

identified, are

identifiable, provided we

their distinctive
and

only select,but identify the individuals they characterise ; and not only do they identify the individuals,but they indicate also the proximity or otherwise
not

This

quality. These, That and Those,

of those
or

individuals

to

ourselves, or
them.

our

attitude,as

appropriative

towards repudiative, The Selective

'forms.'
Exact. may be
'

Any
at
or

quantity is not free from the complication of Selective quantity may be Minimal, Maximal, or
'

Certain,'

certain

least, only, or
Demonstrative
at

Certain others proportion and the definitely exactly; and similarly,

'

'

'

selected That
or

Those

least,or

quantity exactly.
therefore

may

be

This

or

These

only,
con

Many
ducted

and predications,

many

arguments,
; and

can

be

by
die

means

of the Selective

quantityonly

many

others

by the
should

Demonstrative before

quantity only. If certain people only they sing, then other people should not die
it is not he
true

before

they sing,and
to

that

any

one

taken

at

random

ought
other

die before

people should
If
A

sings. Moreover, it follows sing before they die.

man

that

certain

certain
way

And

The

from

Jerusalem to Jericho; Jerusalem to Jerichowas infested

went
a

from

with

thieves ; Then If And Then That

He
man ran

risk of

being robbed.
;

lectured

to certain
were

students

Those Those

students students
to

attentive ; have benefited. there

was
a

may

If this little pig went

went to

market, then
not at home.

little pig who

to

market

; it

was

that little pig who

went

market

and

this little pig did not the

stay
barn

If this is the house built ; it is not

that

it is not Jack built, that Tom

no

that

Jack
way. way

the house
If there is

built ; but
goes,

nor

is that the house

is
no

that

Jack

built.

way

this,there
then
we

other
in

If that

is the way
goes,

the in

money

know
go.
our

what

the money

and

what

ways

it does If

not

This Our Our That

is

portion,
our

And
Then And

lot is this ;

portion and

lot

are
are

the

same
ours.

thing,

portion and that lot

not

PURPOSIVE
If And Then All of these

QUANTITY
of is

115

Any
This

book book book

that treats

This

Logic of treats Logic ; is uninteresting.

are

uninteresting,

arguments

beyond the

range

of Traditional

Logic, and
THE The

ultra vires of it.

PURPOSIVE last

QUANTITY.

quantity on our long list is the Purposive. In using with the this quantity, we regard the individuals respect to the purpose in of their number to or unsuitability suitability hand ; and if it is unsuitable,as unsuitable or by defect. by excess The and Suitable exact forms, but the quantity has its minimal in the exact form only. We Unsuitable are known cannot say too few only, or too few at too at least, or only, or too many many if we least, or do, such expressionsare meaningless ; but we can that it is enough at least, or enough only, if by say of a number only we mean just enough, for though a certain quantity may be suitable the to the perhaps not be may purpose, purpose defeated if we have more There than enough. be no maximal can suitable quantity, however, for if there are less than enough there
are

not

enough.
is

We
more

see,

therefore, that

there

is

clear

difference between

than

enough
not

and defeat

too

many.

More in

than hand.

enough
If

excessive, but
more

does

the

purpose

there
can

are

letters

still all

for the pots, all the

many

enough stamps for all the letters,the be stamped ; but if there are too many plants be if there are too plants cannot potted,and
be

than

letters for the stamps, all the letters cannot

number is
a

stamped.
or

If the

unsuitable, it

may
a

be

deficient

excessive the

by

an

enumerative,
or

excessive

or proportional, defective quantity may

selective

quantity,and
too

be
or

semi-definite, or definite,
many

indefinite. than

It

may

be

one

too

many,

few,

or a

more

enough
be

; it may

be too
too

many many,

by half,or deficient by
or

third be

it may

this
a

one

that,

or

those,

or

may

defective
As with

by

certain

few.

field of Purposive has its own and enters into predications and arguments that cannot reasoning, be conducted its aid. without If there are enough glasses to go need go without have and every round, no one a one can a glass, If there glass to himself. not are enough glasses to go round,
the quantities,
i

other

n6

NEW

LOGIC share
; he

some one

one

must

go

without,

or

with
would

some

one

else.
away

If he is
;

too

many,

he is not

wanted
If too
too

be better

there

are
a

enough without him. disadvantage to have

all leave
our some

many

cooks

spoilthe broth, it is
If the
are

many

cooks.

Universal few for

and

Particular

quantities of Traditional

Logic

too

the

expression of quantitiesor
number of

must employ additional thoughts, we of our thoughts unexpressed. If the

quantitiesenumerated
it will need follow that
an

here

is too commit than

many

to to

be

easily

remembered,
but it does
our

effort to
are more

them

memory, express

not

they

enough

to

thoughts.
If And Too many

cooks

the broth, spoil

meat
are a

Broth Too
If

spoiltmeans
many cooks

wasted

Then

cause

of waste.

Enough
A

is

as

good
than

as

feast,
;

And

feast is

more

enough
more

Then

Enough

is as

good

as

than

enough.

THE If the be able to We

have

COLLECTIVE back
to

QUANTITY.
the Table
into III.
on

reader
see

will turn far

none we our

p. 82 he

will

how

researches but Extensive examined

quantity have

extended.
of the two

examined of these,

and quantities,

classes

have

part only of

the

Class-

of quantity,namely, the Indesignate,and the Distributive variety the Collective quantity the Designate. When have examined we of the Class-quantities, shall have completed the consideration we of the Singular. and may to the examination turn The is recognised by Traditional Collective term Logic, and is from by it distinguished Traditional and the Distributive term, but the notion that

Logic
some

has of the Collective

quantityis sadly defective,

to

is,in

respects,
term

completelyerroneous.
brieflyreferred
of
term

The books

Collective
on

is
treats

in

that

chapter

in

Logic that
the

terms,
is

but

when

propositions are

considered,

completely ignored, and no in a proposition that a term logician entertains the possibility be other be Collective, or if it can, that its quantity can can
Collective Universal. the whole The
Collective

than
and

Particular of

is unknown is based

to
on

Logic,
the

logicalscheme

quantity

n8

NEW

LOGIC

of the Worcester
as

factory ;

but

if
of

one

is broken, the set

no

longer,

collective class,consists

pieces. thirty

Traditional the

chapter

on

Logic recognises the Collective Universal, and, in of Logic distinguishes the Terms, every text book
from
dawned

Collective
not

Universal have is

the Distributive
upon any may

Universal of any

; but

it does

the
In
are

appear to Collective

the

mind

that logician Universal. there

as

susceptibleof
the Collective
as

quantity but
be

the

fact, however,
as

Particular,and
every
statement
a

many
are

varieties and of the

made

many

degrees of the Collective

be

there

Distributive
of the
one

Quantity,and
can

and
or

argument argument

paralleledby

statement

only Distributive quantities in the Collective series, that have no parallels the subordinate are Universals. not Every, Each, and Any, refer discriminately, and therefore to all the individuals in a class, are indiscriminately, from Collective quantities. excluded

made

of the

other.

The

sign the following

The
cannot

quantity is the definite article, common sign of quantity ; but though the Collective the use of the definite be accurately conveyed without
not

of

the

Collective

this article is article, be took it used

characteristic also.
not
'

of the Collective,but the

men

may

for the Distributive

All

in the
men

regiment
men
'

does part in the charge,'

every
man were men

convey

all the

: collectively

means

taken

But discriminately.

'All

the

in does

the
mean

regiment
all the the

only just enough to man The test by collectively.

and the substitute without
'

the which
'

rampart
we
'

distinguish
the is
we our

between

Collective

Distributive

All All.'

ability or
make the
way

to inability

Every

'

for

'

If

can

the

substitution

the meaning, or altering destroying not, it is Collective. The

quantityis Distributive ; if Collective to designate the

to

only

quantity without
'

of possibility

mistake, is

add

to the to

term

the words

taken

together.'
all

It is unnecessary that quantities

to

have

been

the Particular through again and enumerated in the previouschapter,

go may
sense

show
as

that each
in
a

of them

be

understood it is

in

Collective
to

as

well

Distributive

; but

expedient
as a

show

by

examples that the

inference Traditional If the
can library

Collective
as

quantity is just
the Distributive
to be
aware. no

susceptible of
fact of which

and

argument
not

Logic does
have fetched

seem

whole

fetched library
as

"3000, then
as

one

book
a

in the

much

this ; then

neither

few,

nor

COLLECTIVE

QUANTITY

119

very

many, after
set

nor

half,
were

nor

third

of certain have

the

books,
of

nor

the this

rest

of

the that
as

books selected much

some

sold,
can

nor

them,
more,

nor

nor

of

volumes,
If

fetched
for
most

nor

even

as

"3000.
all all thirds of of of

"50
then the it

was

given they
were

of

the in

books,
value.
to

and If

"

1000

for

them,
about

very

unequal "50
was

they
for All
two

were

same

value,
too

and
to

enough
the of

give

them,
are

was

much the

give

for

remainder. Traditional

these

arguments

beyond

competence

Logic.

CHAPTER

VIII

THE

INDIVIDUAL.

THE

SINGULAR

QUANTITY

REFERENCE

to

the be

scheme

of

Quantity
in
two

on

p. ways.

Si

will

show
may

that be
as

individuals

may

contemplated
as

They

contemplated composed
and is used of

primarily
parts, the
to

wholes,
is
as

and
a

if

contemplated

composition

secondary
from

consideration,
other

only

distinguish them,
Or
so

wholes,
be

wholes,

differently constituted.
as

they
the

may

contemplated
of

primarily
whole,
or

composed
and

of

parts,

that main

contrast

part

and

of part the is
a

part, is the
the

purpose

of the with in

contemplation.
as a

In

first case,
never

individual
In

is dealt second
case,

thought
with the

unit, and
as

divided.
or

the

it is dealt between the

in

thought

composite,
and

quasi-class, the
the

difference

individual,
of

so

regarded,
class
are

class, being that, while

and
are

constituents

the

individuals,
of the

therefore individual

necessarily
are

discrete, the
and need
not

constituents be discrete.

Composite

parts,

THE

INDIVIDUAL.

The
to

first

difficulty that
what is meant
seem

confronts

us

in

this

part
To

of the

our

task

is

determine
task may

by

an

individual. but is

uninitiated know
as

the

easy

enough,
A
tree
as an

biologists
usually

that
an

nothing

is

more

difficult.

regarded
man.

individual,
roots

as

strictly distinct
may

individual buds which These

But

the the
grow
must

of
and

tree

contain

buds of the buds

"

are

parts
may and

of

root,
into

therefore which
be

parts
are

tree.
more

buds

suckers,

but

developed,
the
to

still, therefore,
grow
at
a

considered from the

parts
tree, and

of

tree,

though
who does

they
not

distance the
as

anyone
to

know
as

of distinct
tree

underground
the the the
tree

connection,
The the
or

appear may be

be
severed up

individuals,
between
and
trans

itself. and

root

the

and into

sucker,
next

sucker
a

taken

planted

parish

into

distant

county,

where

it

THE

INDIVIDUAL

121

may

grow

into

tree
a

as

large as
trees

its parent.

Does

it become

by this
a

severance

separate
two

individual, or

does
a

it still remain
?

part of the
that
in and
at

tree, the
the

making

up

single individual being

cut, withers the
con

Suppose
away,

connecting root,
course

instead

of

the

of years does

perishesand
the
one

destroys
the
tree

nection,
That the

what

moment
are one

individual that

become

two

? its

flowers from

part of the

tree, and

with

flowers
would

are,

point

of

view,

single individual, few

dispute; and if this is so with the tree in flower, it is equally so with the tree in fruit. Yet each fruit may be severed of the tree, and may into without impairing the individuality grow
a

separate individual.
An

animal

may

be cut
an

in two,

and

each

half is then
But suppose,
grows

an as a

individual

half, but
with
some

is not

individual

animal. the there head

happens
and tail, is the

simple animals, that

a

part
two

the
there
two

tail part grows

head,
if there

are are an

then
at

individuals,or
moment

only
halves

one cease

? and
to

two,

what

did

be

parts of

individual,and

become

separate

individuals The old

problems
A

of the sorites and

the calvities
an

provide us with thing.

We is left. the If
we

similar
take go what
cease on one

puzzles.
stone

heap
the
one

of stones

is

individual
an

away,

heap
stone
cease

stillremains after another

to be
a

individual.

may At

taking
to be
an

away the

till

none

stage does

heap

heap

? does

individual

individual
monster

? may
at

Again, a human
the latter fused Is

consist of two the

heads

and

torsos,
in
one

together
it
one

pelvis,and
two

terminating
found
in

pair of legs.
The solution
as

individual,or

? be

of these

individual

constituted mind. The the

problems by the way

mind

is to

regarding an
are

in which

things

contem

plated by
observed

the

like the class, is a conceptual individual,

creation,existingin facts, but

colour

itself

corresponding, indeed, with real.' When conceptual, and not we

'

alone ;

experience the
resident

blue,

we

think intuitively

of
see.

the
Not

colour until that

; and

as we

in the extra-mental

blue

thing that
do in the
some

we we

study
colour

the

psychologicalaspect
in the blue the

of vision

discover alone

the that
seen

is not

thing, but

mind

although
that

colour

object,yet the

corresponds with qualityin the object is

colour
in
our

quality in
colour, but

the

not

something

gives rise to the

minds.

Similarly, individuality

122

NEW

LOGIC

is

mental

concept.
some

It is in the

mind

alone

; and

though it

corre

sponds with
the

quality

in

the the else.

individual

thing, the
of

quality in
not

in us thing that arouses but something individuality,

concept

is individuality,

Although
existence
any
more

the
do

individual
not

is

a us

mental from mental kinds

"

creation, its mental

origin and
into

prevent
the

dividing individuals
existence of colour

kinds,
us

than

purely
into

prevents

from

dividing colours

red, blue, "c.

Thus

regarded, individuals
as

are

susceptible of arrangement

into into

kinds, primarily according

parts.
Some may
we

they
as

are

or

are

not

divisible

individuals, such
be divided
may

colour, likeness, "c., though

cannot

they
is and Hence
are

into

kinds,

be

divided and

into

parts.

Though
a

divide

colour
not

into

red,

green,

blue, this
Red

division
green and

of

colour,
are

into

parts but
individuals that
and
are

into

kinds.

blue

not

parts of colour, but

of
is

kinds into

of colour. those into that

the

first classification into

indivisible former

parts, and

those

divisible latter

parts,

the

being Qualitative Units,

is divisible
as

the

Quantitative
such follow units
one

Units.

Every Quantitative Unit

are

into

parts, and
or

of

two

kinds, according
The former

the

parts coexist,

another

in time. Units. Units

are

may

be called

Coexistent

Units, the

latter Serial Coexistent of which

are

divisible
are

into kinds
or are

according as
not

the

parts
with

they
to

constituted
or

contemplated
either
or

respect
If

their
are so

continuity
individual

discontinuity.
are

they
case or

contemplated, the parts

is
a

continuous, in
are

which tinuous

the

Simple
case

Unit,

they

discon

discrete, in which
in the

the

individual

joins the Serial

be alike Unit

Individual The unlike.

class of

Compound

Units. Unit is
an

parts of the Compound

If

Coexistent individual

may

or

they

are

alike, the
a

Aggregate
the

; if

they

are

unlike, it is
the

Corporate Unit.
or

If,however,
individual Uniform Thus
runs as we

continuity
taken
or a

discontinuityof
the

parts

of the is
a

is not

into Unit.

consideration,

individual

Individual arrive at
:
"

complete classification

of

individuals, which

follows

KINDS

OF

INDIVIDUALS
VI. INDIVIDUALS.

123

TABLE KINDS
OF

Individuals

are

either
... ... ... ...

Indivisible Divisible

QualitativeUnits. Quantitative Units.

Coexistent Units.

into parts that

are

...

Coexistent
and

regarded

as

Continuous Discrete
... ... ...

Simple Units. Compound

Units.
Units Units.

and and and

or

alike
... ... ...

unlike
...

Aggregate Corporate
Uniform

not

regarded
...

as

continuous Units.
... ...

discrete

Successive

Serial

Units.

When
and

an

individual
a

is divisible

into
or or

parts that

are

coexistent

continuous, it is
not
a

Simple Unit,
parts
a are

matters

whether

the
a

like

Simple Individual, and it unlike. A man, a ship,a

house
"

country,
material
vidual.
are a

machine,
whose

road,
are

table, a

each is
a

of these

is

unit A

parts

unlike, and
a

each cubic
are

simple indi
oxygen, The be

piece of gold, a pint of water,

or or

foot of

simple individuals piece of wood may

on

units may in view

whose
not ;

parts
be

alike.
to

parts of
alike ; it
a

considered in any
case,

depends
When

the purpose
or

but

it is

simple

individual
an

unit.

individual
be unit alike
or

is made unlike.

up

of parts that If the

as a

are

discrete,the alike, it is
an

parts may

parts
crowd
a

are

Aggregate
paper,
a

individual, such

of

men,

ream a

of

fleet of
a

ships,a

street

of houses,

bushel

of corn, is

layer

of dust, books
on

Corporate Individual, and with the Collective Class ; and confused with the usually all are Uniform Individual, though this last is sometimes distinguished the Substantial These all discriminable term. as things are quite
and distinct. There is
some excuse

pair of boots. Logic, confused

The with

Aggregate
the

individual

always, in

for

confusing
group

the of

Aggregate

with

the Corporate
either the

Individual, for the

one or

same

things
manner

may

constitute which
we

the

other, according
; but

to the

in the

contemplate
Individual
and

them

the

distinction
Class is much

between
more

Uniform

the Collective

easily

124

NEW between

LOGIC them is therefore the less

made,
The

and

the

confusion

excusable.

parts of the
be
we

Aggregate
us

Individual

are an

alike,and

it is this

alikeness need
ness

that enables

to

unify them
It is

into
if

Individual. such
a

They
like

not

closelyalike.
can so

enough

they have

that
we

unifythem.
to

A mob

is stillan

aggregate individual,
of
men,

if

choose
and
so

contemplate it, though it consists

A fleet is stillan

women,

children.
to

aggregate

individual,if we

contemplate it, even though it consists of many different kinds and sizes of ships. A street of houses is still an though it consists of residential houses, aggregate individual,even shops,banks, warehouses, and so forth. The parts of the Collective closely alike or may have enough likeness to one they must them together in a class. The group
class also
may

choose

be

be

different inter se, but

to

another
very
or same a

enable

us

to

collection collective
not

of

individuals

may
as we

be

an

aggregate

individual
but

class,

according
the

contemplate it ;

this does

constitute

and the the collective class same aggregate individual for, as already explained,both the individual and the class thing,
are

of

purelyconceptual ; and if we things in any particular way,

in
a

contemplate
we

thing or

number

cannot

plate them
and perse

different way.
first
an as a

We

may

simultaneouslycontem contemplate successively

an

collection of

men

mob, which

is

aggregate

individual,
dis

still remains
;
or we

individual

though

half

its members

contemplate it as a collective class,capable and now of overcoming the policeopposed to it, destroyed,as that collective class, if half its members con disperse; but we cannot
may

template
class. When but them
so

it

simultaneouslyas
a

both

an

individual

and

collective

the parts of dissimilar

Compound
we

Individual

are

not

that

cannot,

by their

likeness

only discrete, alone, unify

but

into

an

individual,or if the unification is not

the individual is not
an

in fact effected

by their likeness, then

a

aggregate,

individual cannot But if the parts of an Corporate individual. be unified by their similarity to one are another, how they to be unified ? What is the basis of the unification
to
a common

It is to be found army,
a

in their devotion

purpose. of

regiment, an
blind,
are a

a hive a university, college,

bees, a Venetian house,

railway, a Corporate

table

laid

for

dinner,
are

furnished

all

Individuals.

They

all

signified by

the indefinite article.

They

i26

NEW

LOGIC

whether
then
we

or

not

the

specimens
of

are

continuous

or

discontinuous,
so

form

concepts

water,

gold, air, and

it is Class.
not

forth, as
at

Uniform The

Individuals. Uniform

Individual, in
is confused
an

as

far

as

recognised

all

by

Traditional

Logic,
one

with

the may

Lastly,the parts of
may

individual in

be coexistent.

They
a or

follow

another
or

succession, constituting together

It

Serial

Individual,

Series.

would

need

no

insistence

show that we to regard a series as a single argument may it not that Traditional individual,were Logic is altogetherignorant of it.
a

We

constantly think
election,which
series of sounds
a

and
are

speak, however, of
series of events;
a

revolution,
a a

journey, an
is

of is

melody,
series of

which

; of

disease, which

bodily changes ; of a process of manufacture, which is a series of manipulations ; of a lecture,which is a series of spoken words ; of
a

din, which
a

is

series of noises ; of the of the

growth of

tree, which

is

series of

changes ;
we

flightof
of man, think

movements

; of the ; and

evolution

bird,which is a series of which again is a series of

of these series the
as an one

changes
which series.
every the

speak and
or

of each

individual
we

thing,
most

unit.

The

simplest series,and
and

of

frequently think
we

speak, is the

numerical

When number

up

mean speak of three, or of three hundred, we to and including three, or three hundred,

as

case

may
we

be.

We

indicate

the

series

by its final number,

not
mean

but three also.

when

hundredth

do we speak of three hundred alone, but all the previousnumbers

the series

in the

There of sisting

are a

certain

serial individuals

series of parts, each

a

complex, con part being composed of coexisting

are

that

parts.

Thus

shower

of rain is

drops fallingin succession,but drops are, in fact,fallingat the many

struction of
a

composed of individual, is so the succession rapid that

a

serial

same

time

; and

the

con

battleshipis
or

serial individual, of many

devoted
a

composed

of

succession

of processes,

rather

successions
to

of processes, purpose.

proceeding simultaneously, and serial individuals, Some such as

measure

the the

same

of corn,
as a

have

journey, or definite beginning and

a are

emptying
end;
while

of

in
a

others, such
is unnecessary

rebellion, or
end

reformation
more or

in

religion,or

disease, the beginning and

less

arbitrary; but it

here to pursue

these

nice distinctions.

SINGULAR

QUANTITY
SINGULAR the
same

127

THE The The

TERM.
as

Singular
Individual

Term

is not
is

the
is
a

Individual
mental

thing.

thing
or

corresponding,more
The
means

conceptual. It less accurately, with

the
name we

concept,
reference.

its external
to

Singular Term whereby we

For of the

is
are

apply
it,and

the

concept, the
about
it in

able of

to

express

reason

words. kind unit

on a

purpose
may

Singular term
; and

individual

thus from

plan

different

expression and reasoning,the same be applied indifferently to any kind of it is necessary to classify Singular terms that which things. applies to individual
term to
a a

The

reference

of the
as

Singular
such, but

is not

to

simple

or

com

pound individual
individual,
scheme
the of
an

specifiedindividual,a

definite The

indefinite, or
terms

representative individual.
on as

Singular

is therefore

very

different lines from

:"

scheme

of individual

things,and
TABLE SINGULAR

is

follows

VII. TERMS.

Quantity.
The A

Sign.
A
...

Singular Term

refers to The

individual... specified

SpecificSingular
Definite Indefinite

proper
name.

A An
A

definite individual
...

The The

indefinite

individual

Singular Singular

The.
...

A.
...

representative indi
vidual
... ...

The lar

Representative Singu
A.

The

Specific Singular
abstract

term
as

is

the
or

Proper
hardness

name, ; or

and
a

may

specifyan
unit, as
an

unit,

blueness,
The
or

simple
; or

John Jones, Helvellyn, The

individual,as
The House
a

Saucy Arethusa,
of Commons,

Carfax

aggregate

the

Cabinet,
as

Stonehenge,
Devil's uniform

Needles;

corporate

individual,
The
soot

The
or a

Own,

Trinity House,
as as

Parliament,
dust,
the

Louvre;
;
or a

individual,

gold, water,
The

serial

individual,
The and

Measles,

Messiah,

Reformation,

the

Restoration, twenty.
individual Proper Name specifies a certain not formally or explicitly of a member as a
as an

individual,
In this it

class.

128

NEW

LOGIC Selective

differs

from also

the

Singular Demonstrative
certain

which certain
as

a specifies

quantity, individual,but specifiesit as a

or a

member

of

class.

When

member carries
and

of

class is it the
the

specified
common

such, the
class. of the

mention form
The

of the the

class

with

qualitiesthat
into
name a

concept,

combine

individuals

class

class
name.

need be mentioned, but the not qualities in every individual implies their presence

speak of this is pretty plainly intimated, though it is not

we

bearing that

When

man

or

that man, in
so

it

stated

many

words, that
common

we

mean

this
men.

or

that
But

individual when
we

having the qualities specifyan

individual

to
a

the class of
name,

by

proper

belongs, do we Some logicianssay

connotative, that

he mentioning the class to which ? that he possesses thereby convey any qualities
we

without

do not.
say, named. proper

is to

Proper they convey

This
name

names,
no

they

say,

are

not

qualitiesin the
has it
none.

thing misunderstanding. The

If it has certain
a a specifies a

meaning
individual
and

to

any

implication of any to seems me a complete either has a meaning, or it who hears it, one uses or

; it

indicates known
name

thing; If by its qualities.

to
us some a or

certain

if

points out a denotation ; it that thing is known to us, it is

known
to us, either the

it is not

proper proper of

connotes

or qualities,

it is to
must

us

not

name,

but

meaningless
it is not
a

word.
name.

name

be
a a an

the

name

something,
mark,
mark
paper,
a or or or a an

To

call

name

meaningless
A
on

arbitraryand
in

sign does not,

a

unmeaning sign, is this connection, mean

even a a

misnomer.
ink mark

written

or sign,

mark
a

of

something
nor

sign is
a

public-house sign. A mark sign of something ; or the one

And
a

is
is

not

mark,

is the other

sign.

thing is

known

alone. or mark, or by its qualities Any name, it is of that thing, or the qualities of any thing, must convey is Kala-azar, and neither name, mark, nor sign. I say that Ponos
and qualities,

by its sign,

if you
you

know

the
names

qualitiesof
; but
or

Ponos do
not

and

Kala-azar, these
to

are

to

proper

if you

happen
cannot to
are

know

any

of the

qualitiesof
them
to
a

Ponos

Kala-azar, and
these words

therefore
you
not

relegate
but

class,then

names,

When speaks to me meaningless sounds or characters. any one not only all the common to me, of John Jones, the name conveys of but also the additional common qualities qualitiesof men, that the John Jones of which tell me If you Welshmen. you

THE

DEFINITE

SINGULAR
but the of

129

speak

is the

name,

not

of

man,

goat,

or

leek, or

rarebit, you

do

not

thereby abolish
tell
me

connotation,
the
name

you
a

merely
man,

change
is the
not

it.

If you of the

that

it is not refuse

of

but do

name

something else,you
connotation,
you If you

to say

what,

then

you

abolish

merely

reduce the
at

it to the
name

connota
even

tion of individual

thing. empty connotation, then it is no longer a name The is indicated Definite Singular term
It is true
to

of

this

vocis. all ; it is flatus

by
have

the the

definite article. definite article

the Reforma of
a

that

certain
as

proper

names

attached tion ; Definite of the

them,
in

the
cases

Dreadnought,
the that proper become the has

the
name

Cabinet,
is the proper

but

these

residue the

Singular name,
name

by

omission

of the

class to which is the

definite individual
the Cabinet

belongs.
is the

The

Dreadnought
Council sixteenth become
to
me a

ship Dreadnought;
The
name

Cabinet
in
term
seems

the

Reformation

is the Reformation

of

the
can

century.
proper

fact that

the

definite

religion Singular
name

to

difference between
The
"

by the omission of the show conclusively that there is no them as some contend. logicians
its denotation than the proper
name

class

such

wide

definite

article marks

subjectas expressed in denotation

marks the
no

in strictly subject, but more

less

its

Selective without

marks

its

strictlyin subject. As
each is

denotation

than be

Definite

there
terms

can

denotation
in
some

connotation,
the
'

of these

is connotative

degree ; but amplitude.

part of the
at

degree
Ben
'

degree
term

in

not explicitness,

degree

in

Big

a specifies

certain

individual

clock, and

connotation
'

of the

is the
clock
*

situation of the clock

'

Westminster.
as

The

Westminster

denotes

the

same
'

individual
denotes than
one

clock by Big Ben ; but the Westminster the individual less explicitly, because there may be more clock at Westminster, and the connotes more explicitly
at

is denoted

situation individual
denoted
same

Westminster,
or

and denotes. is the

the

horologicalpropertiesof the
Since, however,
the
must

it refers to the
two

individual
have the

by

terms

same

individual,it
The all the

connotation, however
terms

it is denoted.
one some

difference

between

the two while The which

is that the

connotes

the

other connotes
kind of

of them
term

next

is

Singular characterised by the

refers to
one

is

implicitly, qualities explicitly. Indefinite the Singular,

article.
The Indefinite of
K
a

indefinite

Singular term
N.L.

unspecifiedindefinite

member

130

NEW

LOGIC

class ;
not

as

man, term

a mob, quality,

a disease college, one

; but

this is The

the

only

that thus

refers to

member

of
the

class.
*

Alternative

Distributive
an

term, characterised

by

adjective any,'
of
'

also refers to
'
'

unspecifiedand
mean

indefinite member
*

class,but
man

man

does
were were

not

the
'

same

as

any

man.'
'

called called the The

while while

you you

out

cannot

be

replaced by

Any

man

out.'

What,
and

then, is the difference

Alternative

between ?

Indefinite

Singular
is this
;

the

Distributive
'

difference
an

the
of

Indefinite
a

unchosen

member

Individual, e.g., a man,' is class, determined, beyond alternative, Distributive, e.g., any
"

by
is

circumstances. member been

The chosen

Alternative
out

'

man,'

one

of the rest
"

any

other

of which
not

might

have

chosen alternatively
In

and

therefore the

determined Individual is

by circumstances.
is determined determined The

other

words,

Indefinite

by circumstances, the

Alternative

Distributive

by

the choice

of the proposer. is characterised

Indefinite

Individual the

by

the

indefinite

article ; but indefinite

this is not The

only individual
When
we

characterised

by the
also the

article.

indefinite

article characterises
'

Representative Individual.
mammal has not
were
' '

say

man

is
term
'

a a

biped
'

or

man

is

being,'the responsible
as
'

man

the

same

meaning
last
case

it has
a man

in
'

'

man a

called while determinate when

'

you

out.'
man,

In the

means

indi
we

vidual
'

man

is
sense

identitycannot responsiblebeing we
'

whose

be
are

altered ; but

say

using
not
a

'

man

very

much

in the but
a

of

any

man.'

We

mean

determinate
"

individual,
any
man
"

take a man individual. We representative and whatever the representativeof men in general,

as

is

predicated

of

man representative

is

predicated of
*

men

generally.
preciselythe
How
one

Yet
same we

the form

Representative Individual,
as

a
'

man,' has
a

the Indefinite the

term

Individual,
is

man.' in

then
sense,

are

to

know it is

when

being used

the

and

when

being used

in the other ?

Very simply and

a

very
an

easily.
attribu

Whenever tive
or a

the indefinite article characterises

term
a

in

defining proposition,the
; in every
a

term

marks
an

Representative
up

individual
'

other

case,
'

it marks A

Indefinite individual. of

A A

man

is

responsible being,' panic,'

'

regimentis made
plague
of
a
*

soldiers,'
and any

'

mob

is liable to

An

attack of
nature
a

is very
'

dangerous,'
Privates
may
at

'

Responsibility is part of the

to

man,'

officers go

the

composition of

regiment,' Panic

THE

SINGULAR
'"in
a

QUANTITY
the term characterised

131

time the
case
'

attack

mob

all these cases,

by
say

indefinite the
man

article is

Representative individual,and
were

in every
we

propositionis attributive
called while
'

you

defining. But out,' A regiment

or
' ' '

when
marched bale

forty
fell
on a

miles

in
*

man,'
a

The
we

mob,'

sacked the Tuileries,' The day,' A mob destroyed a regiment,' Walworth artillery ; and are using substantive propositions
term

confronted in these pro

positionsevery
Indefinite Mediseval

characterised

by the indefinite article is an

individual.

Logic did not recognise or admit the Singular term, be no that there can declared and thereby tacitly reasoning about about be made that no statement individual can things,and even that is evidentlyself-contradic individual an thing,a declaration doctrine with common of a logical inconsistency tory. The mere deterred logiciansfrom maintaining or sense plain fact has never doctrine it ; but one would have supposed that a self-contradictory would have hesitation or uneasiness. Logic some given them of reasoning is by the began by assuming that the only mode inclusion of things in classes, and the exclusion of things from
classes.
would If it had been few
content

with and

this of

its reasonings limitation,

have

been

enough,

with this not content Logic was always been possessed by a passion to exclude from as they possiblycould ; and in view Logic as much fection wise. and Not

enough value ; but limitation. Logicians have

little the

realm

of

of the
was

limitation

of their

method,

the

desire

imper possibly

and declare that there can be no they assume of the reasoning about anything that is not certain, as if one aims of reasoning were that certain which is main not to render be no reasoning uncertain ; not only do they declare that there can

only

do

except
universal

about

classes

and but

parts of classes,which
assert they positively
at

is contrary

to
no

experience;
a

that there
no

is

part of part of

class but class

can

the indefinite part, or,

be reasoned
are

least,that
with
indefinite

definite
existence

of.

Confronted
nor

the

of individuals, which

neither classes
took fact

parts of
course

class, Logic
of Christian that the did it knew

nonplussed, and ignoring their existence. Logic in

was

the

simple
the

of

forestalled
an

methods

Science.
not
course

When
to account

it

came

upon
or

inconvenient

fact,
that it

how
of Of

for
that

to deal

with, Logic adopted

simple
not

ignoring
recent

fact, and

pretending
K 2

exist.

years,

Logic has, indeed, admitted

132

NEW

LOGIC but when

nor

into Singular terms Logic knew not what On its

own

its system,
to

they
where

were

admitted,

do

with
are,

them,
and
in

to

place them.
can

showing, there
two
"

reasoning there
to

be,

no

but quantities
"

the class and

two

the

indefinite part of the class, individual be

a one

and

to

which
seem

of these that
an

is the

be

allocated
very
; and

It would
nature

individual of

cannot
more

class,for the
individual

of
an

class

is to consist
may
not

than

though
class
or

individual

be, and
an

other, yet it is
and restricted have logicians
a

a part of some always is, indefinite part. It is an extremely

in fact

definite different the

part.
solved

Confronted it in

with

this

difficulty,
Some

individual from

third the

variety of
class and

different ways. which of term, indefinite

call it is,

course a

distinct but

both

the

part of

class ;

this distinction When

holds

good
come

so

considered.

they

are long only as terms to propositions, these

being
very

logicians forgetall about

the

individual

term,

and

declare

that

be particularor universal,and be nothing must can propositions Other that the singularpro else. declare, consistently, logicians be either particular or universal, and after some positionmust hesitation for, they they usually plump for his universality,
say,

when

it is affirmed
of

that

Taffy is

Welshman,
to
an

the

affirma

tion him.

refers to the whole Whatever

Taffy, and

not

indefinite

part of
has
at

Taffy's moral deficiencies least the satisfaction of knowing that, in the

not
an

may eye
a

be,
of

he

Logic, he
a

is

individual

nor

an

indefinite

part of

but class,

whole

class all to himself. Either the

Subject-term, the
may be any

Object-term,
be
as

or

both,

may

be any

singular,and
kind about

kind

of individual, expressed in conducted

about
not not
as

of

term singular arguments ; and may predicationconcerning individuals

well other

any
a

subjects.
Catholic. Pillicock's

If

Angus

McNab sits
on

is

he is presbyterian,

Roman stand in

If Pillicock

he does Pillicock's hill,

valley. If the King is in his counting-house, we know is in the garden, she is not at where to find him ; and if the maid If St. Paul's was with the baker. the back door flirting designed designed St. Paul's,and Inigo Jones did not. by Wren, then Wren he in the counting-house,counting out his money, If the King was he and in the parlour eating bread was not honey ; nor was in the with the maid compromising his royal rank by flirting garden.

134 whole of susceptible

NEW

LOGIC

distributive

quantity,but they
Nor

are

sus

ceptible of collective quantity also.

here, for it is
a

does

the

end parallel of

no

more

necessary

that

the

quantity of the parts

the

whole

should
in
a

be class.

designated, than
We
can as

for

quantity of
and

the

individuals
as

and think, speak,predicate,

argue

as readily,

and intelligibly,
we can

of gold, validly,
or

of water,

and
As

of

Logic, as

are logicians though they are

of the poor, or of definitions. in fact familiar with the composite individual, for the
as

of the rich

here

first time

presented with arguing about

be the
to

it

as

discriminated it under there is the

no

thing, and
mistaken need
and

state arguments they frequently

about

belief that

they
be

are

classes,

to insist upon

the fact that it can

of statement
some

argument.

It may

useful, however,
that
are

subject parallel
out

of

our

instances

of class arguments others of massive

out

of the reach
are

of Traditional its reach.

If

Logic, by
the

quantitythat

of

part only of
cannot cannot

machine of it is not

is rusty, part at

least remains

and bright,
you
a man

the whole touch

any

rusty.

If every

part is greasy,
hands. that If he follow the

part of it without
whole of

soiling your
not

lift the

it, it does
great

cannot

liftit in parts Massive

was

(thislast argument
a

employs
part
at

Particular the
been
cost not

Collective embankment extensive. much much

to

quantity). If
washed
away,

least of

the

If

small part

only was
little
most

have damage must damaged, it should not

was

repairit. If nearly all the beer

if
a

drunk, there
gone,

was

left; but If he

very away

only

was

the

greater part
he had

remained.
very

gave

of his
very

property, and
poor.

little to

begin with, he left himself

and

If he omitted the best part of

it

the last part of his sermon, the

sermon,

the best

perorationwas
part.
flows become
If
must out

he

omitted
not

the the If

part of
have

only
tank

was

written, and
best flows flows is not have
too

that

best
more

part, he
water

preached the
than
more

part extempore.
into
the it,

of the

tank

will in

time

empty
want

; and

if

in than

flows wine had

to

out, the tank

to

will in time
and you
more.

overflow.
every

If there
one

enough
some,

go

round, get
some

to

you

better the

If there

has
not

been been
can

much

rain

do

plants good, and

None

they

have

sheltered,they will
be

suffer in health.

of these arguments

compassed by the contains a quantitythat

methods

of Traditional

Logic, for each

not

Traditional

Logic does

admit

; and

VICIOUS

LOGICAL

PRACTICE

135

though
and

Traditional
construct

Logic

could,

no

doubt,
would

violate

its

own

principles
prove in
no

quasi-syllogisms
the the actual reached.

that
so

appear would

to

the
case

conclusions,
represent
were

arguments
course

constructed

of

thought
who that

by
is not

which
blinded

the

conclusions

in

practice

Anyone
will
see

by
are

familiarity
reached
route

with

Traditional
from

Logic
the

these and

conclusions that does is

intuitively through
mental
a a

premisses
or

given,

circuitous

syllogism actually
that

quasi-syllogism employed.
to

not

represent
than
to

the fake

process

Nothing
show the
so as

easier
of
an

syllogism
have then

purports

process
to

argument.
into
'

We

only
to

to

garble

the
that

premiss
the

bring
an

it

logical
and
to

form,'
invent

pretend
to

argument
and

is

enthymeme,
have the
a

premiss
in
a

suit

the

purpose, The

we

argument
of argu
to

expressed
ment

syllogism.
artificial
and

facts
;

that

such
it is

mode

is

utterly
of
no

unreal

that
in

utterly
the

foreign
conclusion would

the and

course

thought
one

actually
of do
not

pursued
or a

reaching
book
on

;
ever

that in

outside

Bedlam

Logic
this

argue

such

way

deter

logicians

from

deplorable

practice.

CHAPTER

IX

INTENSIVE

QUANTITY

IN

the

foregoing chapters,
to

the

varieties been

of

quantity
and and

that

can

be

attached
and
now

Quantitative
of

terms

have

enumerated

examined,
It

the

meanings
to

their

signs discriminated

identified.

remains

examine

the
terms

quantities of Qualitative terms,

are

and
of

although

Qualitative
"

susceptible

of
"

two
as

kinds

quantity,
one

the

Intensive

and

the

Comprehensive,
terms, and than the the
is

against
will

the be

Extensive
to

quantity
know that
are

of

Quantitative
Intensive
numerous

the

reader

relieved

the far less

Comprehensive
Extensive.

quantities together
Intensive
to

quantity
and
to same, not

is

quantity
the

of

degree,

and

applicable
both
are

both of

abstracts

attributes. but

The

degrees

of

kinds

qualities are
to

the
are

signs of intensity that

to
one

applicable
are

the

one

applicable signs, the

to

the

other

so

that

there
to

two

parallel

ranges

of other of

range

applicable
the
not

Abstract

qualities, the

Attributes.

Unlike
are

signs of Extensive always

the of
or same

quantities, those
the
same

Intensive

quantity

for

quantity.
to

Corresponding
series, that
not
or

quantities, even
is,
to

qualities
to

belonging
Attributive

the

same

the

Abstract
same

the
A
or

series, are
be of
or

always
great

indicated

by the
it cannot

sign.
of small it cannot

thing
great
be
not

may

small

size, but
be
may

be

whiteness hot
or

definition.

It may A

bitter be

cold, but

bitter

bitter

long.
do
we

thing

intensely heavy,

but

intensely light, nor

or

speak of intense light

same,
or

weight.

It may

be

light

dark the

green,
are

but
not

not

dark

savoury.

Nevertheless,
and
we

though
may

signs
find

the

the

degrees correspond,
in

always
the There

sign that
to

will

correspond

degree

with

that

of

sign applied
are

another

quality.
are

many
may

qualities that
be

not

themselves but

susceptible of
can

degree.
present

They
in is their

present

or

absent,
not ;

if present,

be
A

fulness

only,
or

and

in

graduated
are no

degrees. degrees
there
It
are

thing

either
It

perfect
may

imperfect
or

there be

of
no

perfection. degrees
of

be
or

full

it may

empty,

but

emptiness

fulness, properly

speaking.

may

be

INTENSIVE

QUANTITY
are no or degrees of rigidity

but there circular, or or straight, rigid,

of these straightnessor circularity.If it falls short of any of a shade, the qualitiesby the shadow quality is, in truth, absent. altogether But

though
can

there all

cannot

be of

themselves, degrees of such qualities

there
cannot
or

be

degrees or partlyperfect,
but it can
or intenselyfull,

be

A thing approximation to them. rather perfect, or considerablyperfect,

very

perfect ;
be it

be

nearly perfector
most

far from

cannot

full,or
far

very

full, or
or

perfect. It or straight,

circular ; but
or

can

be

very

nearly,or

from,

approximately,
examined in the

not

The

circular. or or straight, nearly,full, different varieties of Quality will be

further

chapter on
These classes of

Negation, to
Intensive

which

the

reader

is referred. may the

set

we preliminariesbeing settled,

forth

the

several

quantity,
:
"

in

both

Abstract

and

the

Attributive

follows series, as

TABLE INTENSIVE

VIII.

QUANTITIES. Specimen Signs. Quantity.

A bstract. A ttributive.

Referenceof
The

Term. refers

intensive

term
a

to the

degree of
with

quality
DEGREE.

compared Its degree in Other things rally

One
or more
...

gene

Positive.
...

Moderate.

Rather.

things
as

indiscriminated
to

intensity
than
one

Comparative. thing
as

More.

More.

More

discriminated
to

intensity
in

...

Superlative. Purposive. Emphatic.

DEGREE. the
same

Greatest.

Most.
"

The

purpose

hand

Enough.
Such.

Enough.
So.

Expectation

POSITIVE Since Intensive it

quantity
would found
to

is

as same

Degree,
set

we

might
as

anticipate that
have

present
obtain

the in the

of

degrees

already been

Semi-definite

Extensive

138

NEW
find

LOGIC
be the The

this we quantities ; and is signified in intensity

'

to

case.

Medium
'

term qualitative by and in the Attributive or Rather.' Moderate,' by this medium, as a central plane, intensity varies upwards
'

the Abstract

Some From

'

towards

maximum,
the
set

and of

downwards
or more

towards

minimum,
have

and

thus

we

get
three have forms
page
set

five

enumerated.

Moreover,
of
to

degrees already Intensive quantities exhibit the same

and Exact

that

been

forms found

Mimimal,

Maximal,

pertain to Extensive in mind, however, it will not be

forth
in and full,

quantity that we quantities. If we keep the

necessary
we

to encumber

the

as

by settingthem comprising

may

take the

following

TABLE

IX.

POSITIVE

INTENSIVE

QUANTITIES.
A ttributive.

A bstract.

Maximative

Intense.

Magnative
Medium Parvative Minimative
Statements and

Considerable.
Moderate.

Intensely. Very.
Rather.

Slight. Very slight.

arguments

Slightly. Very slightly.

quantity,and
are,

containing the Positive Intensive without it, are frequent enough. They inexpressible
outside of Traditional

of course,

Logic, which
an

knows

not

the

quantity.
If the very
cancer

is very

small, it is stillin
not

operable stage

; if it is
was

large, operation may

exception can
not to

be

practicable. If the
to

sentence

just,no ought

be taken been

it, but if it was

very

unjust, it

be very to passed, and it would wrong it cannot If there is some about it, slight difficulty carry it out. if the difficulty it be done with complete ease, but is very slight,
may
to

have

be

neglected.
If the
matter.

If his fate is rather

hard, he
is very

is not

very

much

be envied. much
very

stain

on

the

wall

very
not

If the wall

is very

it does not slight, out of plumb, it is slightly

insecure. If And His

He
nose

is very
very

red, hard,
connection between the two

drinks
may

Then

There

be

things.

COMPARATIVE
If And Then If it was
a

DEGREE
of

139

Little good
Much harm

can

come

it,
it ;

may

result

from

It is better left alone. song, If and very both the tide well started sung, from

very

good
the

it must

have

been
one

well worth
ran run

hearing.
fast indeed.

they
won

scratch, and
must

very very

fast,but

other

match,
was

the winner

have

If the

only rather high to-day, it was

COMPARATIVE

high yesterday and higher yesterday than to-day.

very

DEGREE.
term

in another intensity thing, in other or things regarded indiscriminatelyas possessing the quality in the same degree. If the other things are regarded in different degrees,the as discriminately, possessing the quality with

Comparative Intensive qualityin one thing,compared

The

refers its

to

the

intensityof

degree is not Comparative, Comparative Degrees are

and the

but

Superlative.
"

three,

the

Medium,
may

the be

Excessive, Indefinite,

Defective

; and

moreover,

each

of these

Semi-definite, or
The

Definite.

Indefinite Comparative. sign of the

of
'

The which
the

Medium

Indefinite

Comparative
hard,'
'

is

'

About

as,'
needs

suffices for the Attributive the same.'

as
'

but quality, About

as

for the Abstract

addition
as

about

as

near,'
in
'

'about

just,' 'about
but
to

definite,' are Abstract,

same we

Attributives
must

this

quantity ;
the
same

express 'about

the the

add

About
same

hardness,'
the

nearness,' 'about

the

'about justice,' The

same

definiteness.' in

Comparative is, for of the More Attributes, more,' or the addition syllable-er. definite. more hard, harder; more just,juster; more near, nearer; the addition of the syllableis other In the last, and many cases, For the Abstract, the sign and is not often employed. inelegant, of indefinite excess is more, intense, or some equiva greater, more sign
'

of

Excess

the

Indefinite

lent.

More
more

or

greater
or

or

more nearness

intense
; more

hardness intense

; more

or or

greater
both

justice ;
The Attributes

greater
in Abstract

heat

cold.

sign of
and

Defect

the

Indefinite
'

Comparative is,for
Less
near,

qualities, less.'

less

hard,

less

less hardness, less justice. just; less nearness, intensive The quantity, Semi-definiteComparative. This
"

as

140

NEW

LOGIC
the
Exact

applied
have

to

Abstracts, exhibits

form three

only;
forms

but that

as
we :
"

applicable to Attributes
found
to

it exists in all the

to

belong

semi-definite
as

extensive
as

quantity,viz qualityare

the minimal The

and

the maximal,

well

the exact.

semi-definite

to Abstract degrees as pertaining

TABLE SEMI-DEFINITE

X. ABSTRACTS.

COMPARATIVE

Maximative

Much
More
... ...
...

more

intense.

Magnative
Medium

intense. intense. intense. less intense.

are

As
... ...

Parvative
...

Less
..,

Minimative
As
to pertaining

Much
...
...

Attributive

they quality,
XL

TABLE SEMI-DEFINITE

COMPARATIVE

ATTRIBUTES. Exact.
more.

Minimal. Maximative

Maximal.
more.

Very much
Much
more. as.

Not

very

much

Very much
more.

Magnative..
Medium
...

Not

much
as.

more.

Much
As.

more.

Quite

Only
Not

Parvative... Minimative
It does
not

Not need much

quite as. nearly as.

show that

Nearly
Much these

as.

less.

degrees of intensityhave generally the meanings implied by their places in the table. If one harder, or thing is very much softer,or
more

explanationto

definite,than

another the

or

others,
one,

downward

or

minimal

limit is

imposed

on

degree of the

by the degree possessed

the
two

by that

other, plus the interval between

degrees that is
more.' But be
a no

expressed by the sign of quantity 'very much upward limit is imposed, and the very much degree
minimal swift
or
'

more

may

any

more.

Much

'

more

hard

or

soft

or

definite fixes
'

lower
or

limit,but
of any

fixes

no

maximal
'

limit.

Quite

'

as

hard

definite has the

force of

at

least as,'and

still shows

the

absence
All

upward limit. the maximal degrees fix,by their

very

terms,

an

upward limit

142

NEW

LOGIC

general than Wellington, and

than than

Wellington
have been of

was a

greater general

Marmont,
Marmont.

Bill

Adams
modes

must

far greater
of course,

These

reasoning are,

general beyond

the reach

of Traditional

Logic.
DEGREE. the of intensity
a

SUPERLATIVE

The

Superlativeterm

refers to

of quality

one

in two or more other things thing compared with its intensity Its sign is most,' least,' other regarded discriminately. or some in the superlative adjective. With respect to the degrees of quality
' '

other

things with
at

which the end

or

comparison is made,
of the scale. the minimal
It may,
; and

the

degree is always
differ from
may

superlative however, be at
case

either end, the maximal the other

or

in either

it may

be the most
a

examples of the qualityby various degrees. It the least by a little, or by much, or by a great
Since

deal, or

very

great deal.

comparison of qualityis made cannot themselves, the Superlative

the
very

things with which in degree among ex differ, hypothesi,

be

the

other

definite.

It

can

be
can

by
be

far

but largest,

it cannot

be the

largest by twice.

far the least definite, but it cannot The of

by be the least definite by a

two

It

tenth. modes

therefore, of only Superlativeis susceptible, quantity the Indefinite and the Semi-definite.
"

If this is the hottest

day

in

the year, it is hotter

than

any

other

day in the year ; it is hotter than yesterday or the day before ; no previous day in the year has been as hot as this ; nor has any day
been
of

the

same

temperature.
an

If he

is the

greatest rascal
; there
are

in

Christendom,
more

he has not than

exemplary character
a a man

others
go

moral

he ; he is not
to
man

to

be trusted ; you

must
as

beyond Christendom Salisbury said, the best

then
my it is easy
to
man

find

greater rascal.

If,

Lord

hands, the

I like best, place is the man the selection,and if the appointment is in make is by far the I like best will get it. If this one for the
one

nearly as hot, yesterday was this is not by much the hottest day. If he is the least to be be trusted of any, and none are worthy of trust, he must very decidedlyuntrustworthy. If the best time to bathe is the morning, in the afternoon, he might have bathed at a better and he bathed
but time. outside
These

this is the best for my purpose, is the hottest day in the year,

I should

like to have.

If this

arguments

are

all valid

and

all useful, but

are

all

the scope

of Traditional

Logic.

PURPOSIVE

DEGREE

143

PURPOSIVE This also

to

DEGREE.

exists the

in

three

modes,
in

according
unsuitable

as

the

degree is
excess,
or

suitable unsuitable
'

purpose defect. The

hand,
suitable

by
is

by

degree

expressed
the

by

precedes the Abstract, and follows Enough,' which The hardness ; hard tive quality, Enough enough. in the Abstract by too much degrees are indicated
"

Attribu

unsuitable
'

'

and

'

too

in the Attributive little,'

or

by
too

'

too,' and
sweet
or

'

not

"

too

little sweetness,

not
"

enough.' Too sweet enough.

the

much The

Purposive Degree
and other

exists in all three after what

not

forms

minimal, maximal,
respect
to

exact,

but

has

been
to

said
pursue

with
the

the

it is quantities,
and

necessary

degree through
It will
cannot

all its forms

all its
a

enough
conducted
cannot

to

give

few this

degrees examples
intensive

of of

definiteness,"c.
arguments
and that

be

be

without be conducted
are

If his for his

feet feet.

too

by Traditional big for his boots,

quantity, Logic.
his

that, therefore,
small

boots

are

too

only just large enough, it is not too large; If but if it is more than large enough, there will be some over. hard the diamond, the the sapphire is not enough to scratch be hard the diamond enough to scratch sapphire. If the may
If it is

speed

is

too

great for the

lubrication, the
float air
a

If there

is not
to

enough
the
human

enough depth of water to float a battleship. If the

a

bearings will a barge, there

foul to
air to the air

heat. is not

is too purer

support support
is too

flame

of

candle,
to

and

it
the

requires
flame of
a

life than

support
life.

candle,

foul to support
to preserve

human will go

it,it

been is
soon

long enough in the left too long, it will be

it will be underdone.

salted sufficiently bad if it is kept long enough. If it has it will be cooked through, and if it oven,
meat

If the

is not

overdone

; but

if you

take

it out

too

EMPHATIC This

OR

UNEXPECTED

DEGREE.

degree may be added to almost any of the foregoing. It in the Abstract and in the Attributive by is signified by Such hard ; so So So.' Such brightness; such very great tension. that the long ; so sweet, so cool, so calm, so bright. It conveys degree of qualityexperienced is unexpected, that we did not antici
* ' '

pate that it would

be

so

much

or

so

little, as

the

case

may

be.

CHAPTER

COMPREHENSIVE

QUANTITY.

CLASSIFICATION

VIEWED

in
to

comprehension,
and

qualities
different with
or

are

contemplated
of
to

with

respect
sion
cretes

concretes,
as

have

modes

comprehen
those
con

according only
in

they

are

regarded
inhere

respect
from
to

which
or

they
with and
a

which
concretes

they
in
cannot

have which be

been

abstracted,
do
not

respect
from

also

they

inhere,
When
to

which,
is

therefore,

they

abstracted.
to

quality
which it

contemplated
it

with
called

respect
a

solely

the

concretes
;

belongs,

is

Common
to

Quality
concretes not

and
to

when which

it is it
a

contemplated belongs Proper

and
to

with

respect
to to

both which which

those it does

those of those

belong, it is called

Quality

it does

belong.
From

this
among

description

it appears

that

Comprehensive
only.
It

quantity
truth,
every
a

appears kind of

quantities
that

by

courtesy
to

is, in
and

quality
must

pertains
their

qualities only,

that

quality
With

possess.
to
or

respect

comprehensiveness,
A
or

qualities
may,
as

may

be

regarded singly
be

in groups.
Common
as common

single quality
If

just shown,
Common,
in

regarded
be

as

Proper.
to

regarded

as

it may
case

regarded
or

several
to

individuals, and
the

that

it may If it is
so

may

not

be

selected is

form

basis

of

class.

selected, the
so

quality

Class-quality.
is
a

If it is not Or

selected, the
may

quality
be

Property
as common

of the

class.
to

the
;

single quality
and in
a

regarded
or

several
to

classes the the

If

that

case,

it may

may

not

be

selected that

form

basis
common

of

larger class, including

all

the

classes

exhibit

quality.
so

it is

selected,
a

the

quality

is

Generic the

quality,
term

and

is is

sometimes

called

Genus,
to

though
a

nowadays
class
common

Genus of

usually employed
classes,
these
and
not to

characterise characterise
in

composed

smaller unites

the

quality that

smaller

classes

the

larger.

QUALITIES
If it is not
so

IN

COMPREHENSION

145
the

selected,it

is

Property of
as

Genus,

or

Generic

Property.
If the
as

single qualityis regarded

to
an

proper

individual,or
to
an

to

it may be class of individuals.

proper, be

regarded
in

If the
any
one

qualityis proper
of three

individual,it may
to

regarded

aspects.
with other

If it is

regarded
of the

respect
and

the

individual

primarily,the
of the class
a

consideration

individuals

in the

class,and
the

itself, being secondary

subordinate, then

quality is

Property
If it is

of the

Individual.

regarded with
and
to

respect equally to the individual in which

individuals
in
no

it is found,

other the

the

class

to

which

the

individual

belongs,then
is
an

qualityis

longer a Property

of the

Individual, but
If it is it
an

Individual

Difference.

regarded with respect equally to the individual to which belongs and to the class that includes that individual,then it is
Accident of the
as

Class.
to to
a

Regarded
with

proper

class,a quality may

members
to

be class

contemplated
to

respect
that

not

only
not

the

of the

which
the
a same

it

belongs,but
genus,

also with do

respect
exhibit

other

classes
It

within

the

quality.

is then

Specific
class

Difference. or Differentia, Specific

Regarded with respect, not only to the members it belongs, but also with to which respect to the includes that class,the proper qualityof the class is
of the But
not

of the
genus
an

which Accident

Genus.

with

respect

to

comprehension, qualities may

; and

the

only followingmanner.
group

but singly,

in groups

may

be

regarded grouped together in

the

be

of the Class-qualityand qualitiesformed Class- Propertiesis a Descriptionof the Class. The Generic quality plus the Generic properties form Descriptionof the Genus. The Class-qualityplus the Individual Difference form The

of

the

the

Identification of the
The Generic of the

Individual.

Definition

quality plus the Species.

of

Specific Difference

form

the

In Tabular

form, the scheme

Comprehensive Quantity

is

as

follows.

N.L.

146

NEW
TABLE

LOGIC

XII.

COMPREHENSIVE

QUANTITIES.

Referenceof Term.
The
A

Quality.
refers to
as

Comprehensive
Common
to

Term

singlequality regarded
several individuals

and
...

forming the basis of a class not forming the basis of a class

to

Class-quality,
Property of the Class,
Generic

...

several classes and

forming the basis of

largerclass
class larger

Quality,
Genus.

not forming the basis of a

Property of the

Proper
to
an

individual,contemplated

alone

Property of the
Individual. others the in the class Individual Accident Difference. of the Class.

with with
A group

including class

of

qualities, consistingof
the Class.

The

of and Class-properties Description Class-quality

The

Generic

and properties quality Individual

... ...

...

of Description

the
Genus.

The

and Class-quality
...

Dif Identification
...

ference

of

the

Individual. The Generic and quality

... ...

SpecificDif
Definition
... ...

ference

of the

Species.
From

ponent

this table it appears that a Genus is a class whose com individuals are themselves classes ; and that the component
a

classes of

Genus

are

Species.
that the

It will be

immediately apparent
the Predicables these that
The

comprehensive quanti
Logic, and it will be
numerous

ties include evident also

of Traditional
more

quantitiesare Logic

than
want

the

Predicables. distinction in

difference is accounted between

for

by the
the

of any
pro from

Traditional

Individual

perty,
the

the Generic, and of

the Class

properties ; by the omission

of the Identification

Predicables

and Descriptions,

of the

SUBSTANTIAL
Individual.
to

TERMS

147

Nevertheless,

these

are

that it is desirable quantities

and for,though definitions are of incalculable use distinguish, and argument, have their place in statement value, descriptions and or nothing that pertainsgenerally to statement argument much be excluded from In to are as we ought Logic. practice, and as often concerned and to identify to define. to describe as If we look back the long array of quantities that have been on back I., the summary turn to described, and given in Table
p. 70,
we

shall of

find

that We

there find

is yet that

one

more

division

that

may

be

made alone

terms.

Attributive

cannot qualities

stand

proposition except as Object terms, unless the define what we mean proposition is merely Defining. If we as by hard, or just,or savoury, or white, or take these words in the dictionary and their find them we predicate of them dictionarymeanings, then, and then only, can they stand alone as Subjects in a proposition. On all other occasions of their use either qualify a concrete they must thing, as a hard fate, a be dish, a white horse, or they must just sentence, a savoury attributed to a concrete hard, His sentence thing ; as His fate was The dish is savoury, This from "c. follows of necessity was just, the fact that an attribute is contemplated as inherent in its concrete.
a

in

The

it is an abstract or it separated from its concrete is nothing. Abstract or qualitiesmay be regarded as qualitative in the latter aspect they may and stand as Subjects quantitative, in propositions. Patience is a virtue. Beauty is skin deep. Honesty is the best policy. Those terms, whether quantitative that have the capacity of standing as Subject in a or qualitative, all grammatically noun substantives ; and for this are proposition,
moment
reason

it is

may
as

be

called

Substantial and attributes, We may

as

terms.

Those

which
term

cannot
we are

stand

Subjects are
with.
on

the

attributive

already familiar primordial terms

therefore

supplement

the

table of

p. 70

follows.
XIII.
OF

TABLE TABLE

TERMS.

Quantitative
1 erms

|Individuals
IClasses
Substantial
^

lerms.

Qualitative

iac

(Attributes

AttriDimve
L

148

NEW

LOGIC

CLASSIFICATION.
and its ramifications are so Logic is so large a subject, and complicated, that it is not easy, when we as arrive,
now

numerous

we

have

done,

at the end

of

one

ramification branch
we

of the
away go

subject,to keep in
from

mind how
next to p.

at what

point the
towards that
we

next

starts must

the trunk,
to

or

far back branch

the trunk

in order

reach

the back

ought
the

to follow. account

If the reader three-fold will

will turn
or

67, and
of

refer to

of the

four-fold that the

process

that Syncrisis

is there
are

given, he
form

find

three

aspects of the process

and Generalisation, Classification,

we

Abstraction. Classification tion

we

By Generalisation
we

concepts of classes ; by and by Abstrac separate classes into sub-classes,

of

reach and

the concept sub-classes

Quality.
may.
as we

Classes

have

already found, be
in which
"

regarded from various points of view

have hitherto

; but

all the ways

we

that they contemplated them have this in common all contemplated classes numerically. Nothing has been have considered classes numerically but number. have considered We
as

complete

or

incomplete,
as

as

to

their numerical number whole

or

proportion
number

to

other

classes,and
numerical.

to the

cardinal
The

ordinal

of

the individuals been

they contain.

treatment

of classes has

Qualitieshave been considered as to their degree and as to their comprehensiveness ; and in the latter or intensity, respect we have, it is evident,reached the frontier of classification.
For

classification results from

in qualities ; and have contemplated them we they belong. Classification

their

contemplating classes with respect to comprehensively, contemplating qualities

with is the

respect
converse

to

the

classes to

which
con

of this.

It is the

they manifest. templation of classes with respect to the qualities of Logic that we to consider. This is the branch now are from of a thing is discriminated a When, by abstraction, quality
its the remainder remaining qualities, from
the

is 'at the

same

time

discri

minated

qualityabstracted.
is the

Every

process

of abstraction

results, therefore,in the formation

and
two

of two

abstracts,or of abstract

remainder, each of which

or more so

from
two

each,
or more

complement of the other. If quality is abstracted thingsare taken, and the same in a general idea or concept, that they are combined
remainders remainders
are

left, one
may

belonging
different
as

to

each

concrete

thing.

These

be

as

but they possible,

150

NEW

LOGIC

the doctrine of the syllogism as though thought is not limited, of classes and to nothing else. to the formation Prelimi implies, to all thinking,there is a limitation,or classification, defi or nary

nition,more

or

less definite, but

always understood, of the

to
reason

always present, always presumed, It is impossible things thought about.

or

about mental

men,

or

of law, principles
or

modes

of

action,

or

or shirts,

anything else,without first delimit classifica ing the subjectof thought from other things. Without
processes,

tion, the
that discourse. Formal of this
accurate
some

Universe

is chaos.

It

is this the

have logicians

denominated

preliminarydelimitation of Universe or suppositio,

are

classification and

formal

definition with

and practice,

its execution
of

merely extensions exactitude. They are the

classes.
As
a

delimitation
and

classes,and

of classes within of the of any

vague

necessary

general delimitation preliminary to thinking

of the

subject of thought is kind, so the accurate

delimitation
to accurate

subject
Hence

of

thinking.

thought is a necessary preliminary the great importance of classifica

and is

tion.
No

It

requires accuracy,
exercise is
so as

indispensable to
to
a

accuracy.
accurate
us

intellectual the

conducive
and

habit

of

thought,
see,

practice of defining
are

classifying. Let

then, what
the

the

essentials of what

The What
are

first essential is to know

are

good classification. it is that we intend to classify.

a

things to which

the classification is to
Here
we

apply ?
are

What

to

be the limits of the classification ?

introduced reference

to to
or

another

aspect of the problem already treated of with

we

do propositions. In classifying,

classify names,
go
over

or

thoughts, ground
of its

things ?

It

is not

necessary
to

to

the
to

whole certain

again, but
features.
In every

it is necessary

give attention
which The

settlingthe subject-matterwith
one

admits

that it includes

words. and

Logic is concerned, only questions have

things as well. In settling the opposite assumption is the subject-matter of classification, usuallymade ; we speak of classifying things,and make littleor no
been whether it includes

thoughts

reference

to

the part that

thoughts

and

names

take

in the process.

Classification, as
to

things
"

ordinarilyunderstood, not to things alone. certainly

a

does

not, however,

apply
heap,
fourth,

When,

indeed,
notes

cashier

and full of money, the gold in another, the silver in

takes

drawer

puts the bank third,and the

in
in

one a

copper

CLASSIFICATION

151

he

in the things themselves classify ; but this is not the sense When which classification is customarily understood. we speak of of animals, we do not mean a segregation of the a classification does animals themselves
a

into groups birds

"

putting
cages,

the

deer
so on.

into

pen,

the

pigs

into

sty, the

into

and

We
not

mean,

undoubtedly, a classification
animals At
as

of the

concepts

of

animals,
of

of the

themselves.
same

the

time,

our

classifications When
we

are

not

mere we an

concepts,

mental
not

states
as our

only.
of
our

classifyanimals,
as

classify
existence
we

them,
outside in the

states

minds,
other
an

but

thingshaving
We

of

minds.

In

words, the thoughts that

reference. the

utilise

classification of the

have
in

external

our classify

concepts
differences This

things
we

conformity with
to exist in the

resemblances

and

that

believe

things.

being settled,the first step in classification is to form a about to generalisationof the things to be classified. Are we animals Then form includ ? must a general concept, classify we ing all animals,
denotation
must

and

excluding all
intend is to
to

other

things.
as

We

must
we
"

fix the
can.

and what

connotation
we

of animals
understand and

nearly as by
what make like such animals
are

We
are

say

what

the

this qualities

term

connote,

the

things
; we

to

which

this connotation
animals the
to

tion between make clear appear In draw into

a

applies. We must the things most and

which from different

clear the them

as

distinc
must

qualitiesby
be

things,
animals,
the
off
accurate

zoophytes,
among
a are

which
them.
or

are

included form

short, the first step in classification

a

is to

class,
to
"

to

definite

boundary
to

around them
an

things that
from other

be
to

divided
convert course,
or more

classes

"

mark into
our

things

vague

concept
that

concept.
is to be
sense,
or a

This, of
scientific
means no

presupposes

classification

accurate

classification
accurate.

; for

in this scientific,
we

than

In

short,
of

cannot

speak
of But

think

of its
a

anything
concept concept
so

without from from the other

it, in classifying concept

other is to

the

sense

separating
to

things.
define the

separate

concepts
and

thing conceived,
is
a

that, while

complete

accurate

definition
a

result of

tentative classification,
to classification.

definition

is also

necessary

preliminary
it should be be

The

second

requisiteof

classification
any

is that
can

adapted

to its purpose.

Before

classification

effected,

152
its purpose in books
"

NEW

LOGIC Classification
were
"

must
on

be decided

on.

is often

spoken of,
of
wrong.

Logic, as if there
Classification

but

one

ideally right mode

modes
us were our

it, the Natural

This
ence

and
are

all other
made

is

mistake. whether
or

Classifications
a

by

for

conveni
on

; and

classification is

right or
; to

wrong

depends
us

whether

it is

is not
are

suitable to the purpose

economise

for which enable

it is made.
to

Classifications

to

thought
We

think

of

and things separately

we

orderly.
more

things classify
in which the

in order

that
them

may
our

the better and

purposes, and

think about them, subdue clearly

to
are

attain the ends

nature

thingsclassified
we

concerned.

The

of the basis

classification that
or

make

the the

mode

of

classifying ; the
classification

of principle

classification ;
to the purpose
as

fundamentwn divisionis ;
the

must

have

direct

regard
as

for which

is

required.
a as
'

In

far

it

serves

this purpose, the ' artificial it may

'

classification is be.
In
as

however good classification, it does

not
'

far

serve

this purpose, be.

must
'

it is

bad

however classification,

natural

it may

Natural fall with

'

classification is classification into natural the doctrine tion is that

are a

kinds, and
A
are

of Natural

Kinds,

now

abandoned.

classification in which
most

those

things
view,
are

good classifica grouped together

those

separated
purpose

alike for the purpose which, for the purpose is to

group

in view in

; and

things are
When the

unlike.

in view

together those
*

closest
most

and affinities, genealogical

things that have the therefore are usually alike in

Natural
'

respects, the classification is called

this
'

or

since
'

is the and
'

purpose

of
But
'

that when

classification
we
'

Scientific ; that we call

purpose

Natural

Scientific. Natural and

'

have

some

other

in

view, the
unnatural
a

and

Scientific
one.

Classification Natural

may

be

very

unscientific

The

classification of

of revealing the good classification for the purpose of the cultiva but for the purpose affinities of plants, genealogical tion of a garden it is a very unnatural classification. The gardener and the onion, the does not apply the rose and the apple, the lily

plants is

potato
he does

and
not

the winter

cherry,to

the

same

purpose

; and
a

therefore

these pairs together,and classify

such

classification,

of the botanist, is bad for the purpose of the good for the purpose natural classification of books for gardener. The best and most is according to subject or author; for the purpose of the librarian, the purpose of the

bookbinder,

it is

of binding. style

The

classification

according to size,price,and by the gardener, of plantsinto

TREE

OF

PORPHYRY

153

he is making good classification when out his seed list, or arranging his plants in the garden ; but it is a he is sowing his seeds. bad He classification when wants now into hardy, half-hardy, tender, and quite a different classification,

useful and

ornamental, is

stove

plants; and
the

his

classification into useful and

ornamental

is

useless.

When
purpose find
a

things to

be

classified

have

been

delimited, and
next

the
to

of the

classification has

been

settled,the

step is

or by principle of classification, fundamentum division/is, of the this and be divided which the things may nature principle ; in view. Traditional must Logic evidently depend on the purpose the that the division must asserts or proceed upon presence of a singlequality, that venerable absence and tree of Porphyry,

antiquitywith the great baobab, is put forward as the of the model the of perfect system of Division process mode But dichotomy is by no the only proper means Dichotomy. of division. Instead of dividingCorpus,in the Porphyrian method, into Animatum and divide it into Perfectly Inanimatum, we may of dividing Inelastic. Instead elastic,Imperfectly elastic,and
which vies in
"

Animal
most

into Rationale
animals
are

and
some

Irrationals
extent

"

very

faultydivision,since
the limits of

to

rational, and
"

divide it into twowe accuratelyfixed may footed, four-footed, six-footed, eight-footed,and -footed; many this division will be far sharper and than that and better into
cannot rationality

be

Rationale

and

Irrationale. and

So

we

may into

divide that

Corpus Viveus,
which

not

into

Sensibile

but Insensibile,

is locomotor

that which throughout life,

that which is locomotor
at

is non-locomotor
one

and throughout life,

time

and of life,

non-locomotor

at

another. While
true
or

I must reliable

deny that
method of certain

the

method

of

Porphyry is the only

on

I must, classification,

the

other

hand, defend
it. It is said
a

it from

criticisms that have

that division
no

according
at

to the
we

passed upon possessionor absence

know the

been

of

quality has
indicated
not

value

all, for, if
in

of the things qualities

to
we we

included and
not

the

negative group,
not
a

positive it ought
if

be do

by them,
them, the
made
even

know
not

by a nomen negative class is

formal
This

indefinitum ; and,
of
to
me

and class at all,

a

have

division,for the absence

criticism
seems

quality cannot
ill founded.

indicate
The

anything.

positivequalitiesare

already enumerated

in

154 those that

we

NEW

LOGIC

of the
are

universe or suppositio,

of

discourse, or
or

sumtnum

genus,

dividing ; and

the presence

absence

of

an

additional

qualitywithin

this genus, is a good, valid, and useful distinction. The instances in the tree of Porphyry are, indeed, not very happy, the defect in the but it is easy to find instances that are ; and that are indefinite, not Porphyrian tree is the selection of qualities in the method itself. To have divide insects into which those

which, in the
be
a

imago state,
valid
and

jaws, and
of the

those It

have

not, would

useful

classification.

would,
into
a

indeed, be

absurd have

to

divide the contents

and
not

Universe
In
a

things which
and

jaws
have
be
a

things which jaws would

of

have
be

not.

such

division,things which
it would

indeed
says,

nomen

indefinitum ;

impossible,as
chaos

Lotze

to

hold

disparatethings. The triangles, beauty, sulphuric acid, and applies to

without basis. and
A
a

together in the mind things without jaws would

so

such

include rational criticism

forth.

But

no

of such absurdity. The system of classification is guilty division of

things,into things with

not

jaws

and
on

things
that air

jaws, but it does

that do
on

apply to
be
open

division of insects that tarnish

in
a

division of elements

into those
to
some

damp

those

not, would
same

criticism ; but
purposes, be and of

division

of metals sound.
A

the

basis would, for of substances

open
to

perfectly aphaneplants on

division
be

into

phanerogamic
a

rogamic
the
same

would

criticism, but
to

division

basis has been is

found
a.

be

not

without

value. is that it shall be

a

What

required in
absence

fundamentum

divisionis

singleattribute.
presence
or

Whether

the division

is made

according
as

to

the
or

of this attribute,or
matter

according long

to its modes

degrees, does not and remains single,

1. 2.

in

the

least, as

the

attribute

The

classes
must must

They They

3.
to

following conditions are observed. be mutually exclusive. must together include all the things to be classified. of things include nothing that is not in the group
the
are a

be

classified.

If these conditions
to not

observed, and
if any
worst

the classification is adapted

If the

its purpose,

it is

good classification.
or

classification is is broken,

adapted
a

to its purpose,

of these defect

conditions
in
a

it is

bad

classification.

The

classification is of the
;
same

neglect of its purpose, thing

in
more

the next
one

grave

is the inclusion
same

than

group

of the

rank

the
;

next

is the

failure to include

something that ought

to

be

included

and

CLASSIFICATION
in the classification

155
as itself,

fourth is
definition

defect, not
of the group

so

much

in the

things to be classified. the principles which Classification should These are proceed ; on it is often difficult to give effect to them, and they but, in practice, of the difficulty of often neglected. Non-compliance because are
of

compliance
The

is to

be

condoned

but

non-compliance

from

neglect
of

of rules is not

excusable. of

preliminary process,
be

delimiting the
between

genus,

or

group

things to
There In may

divided, is often
be
no

difficult from

the nature them and

of the other

sharp

differences

things. things.

classifying Insanity,for instance, what are we to include, and what ? Are we to exclude to include Hypochondriasis, Delirium,
Coma,
would exclude purpose his mind The

Drunkenness,
include
some some

Hysteria,
of these

Hallucination

? others

Some
;
some

persons

and

exclude

would For the

up

all; and
of

would,

perhaps, include
must

all.

the classification, he

classifier any
a

first of

all make

whether
next to

will include choose in view.

of them, and

which.

step
the and

is to

fundamentum
The purpose

that is divisionis,
must

adapted
Suppose
a so

purpose the

conceived,
the

principle of
be classified of the

division
are

chosen
to

clearly accordingly.
stowed the in

be

things to
The may trim

the

goods
is to

be

hold. ship's that

purpose the

stevedore be

stow

goods
the has

they
for

ship,and
destined.

accessible

when

wanted. and

He

classifies them, therefore, according to their

which

weights

ports
another
to

they
His

are

But

the his

underwriter

purpose. and value risk. and

purpose

is

to

charge

premium

according

value

He,

therefore, classifies the

purpose is to confiscate

goods according
is contraband
to

to their

perishability.The

of the captor is yet of is

different.
war.

His

purpose

what

He,

therefore, classifies the

and and
one

goods according

what

contraband,
The
on more

what
most

is not.

worst

than

is to proceed frequent vice in classifying, for classes of the same principle, rank, in the same is
no

classification.

than objection to proceeding on more one principle if the principles are applied successively ; those created by the applicationof the first principlebeing sub groups divided bookseller by the application of a second; as when a divides his into books into bound and
octavo.

There

unbound,
There

and is
no

each

of

these
to

again

folio,quarto, and

objection
that

in different classifications, applying different principles so

the

156
bookseller
purpose, may
same

NEW

LOGIC into bound

may and

divide his books

and

unbound

for
But

one

into folio, quarto, octavo, them

on

"c., for another.

he

not

divide

both

principlessimultaneouslyin the
called

classification. The
process

here described

is sometimes

Division,and

is

which is then said to be the reverse from Classification, distinguished of collecting these into things, first into small groups, process and these into largerstill. Such be called a larger, process may but it is indistinguishable from Generalisation Classification, ; in successive it is Generalisation steps ; and, although it is the practicein Mental Science, of which Logic is an outlyingmember,
to

call the
same

same name

the
I

thing by different ; the practiceis one

Classification
and
are

names,

and

different
not

things by

that should Division

names

be

have

treated

under

encouraged. one heading

because, in my
Division has

opinion,they
one name

two

for

one

thing.
be

It is

desirable that the

Classification should which

alone

used, for

alreadyother meanings,
THE

Classification has not.

CATEGORIES. the and several constituents

are

Now

that

we

have

examined numbers the

nature

of pro
a

in all their positions to estimate position

varieties, we
and

at

length in
Logic, is

meaning
in books

of the
on

Aristotelian
so

Categories,the discussion lengthy

and
so

of

which,

notion of Every logician has his own in making out Aristotle intended what his list of to enumerate and I am barren speculationto not going to add another Categories, of speculating as what Aristotle's the tale ; but if, instead to

barren.

intention it
can never

was,

that speculation verified estimate

a an or

has

the

demerit examine

or

merit

that

be

disproved,we they
are,

the

themselves, and
that

what

it appears

Categories plain enough

true

they constitute
or

list of the

things that
a

propositions may
it is list,
"

express

refer to

"

and imperfect list,

some

crude

but stillthey do
some

enumerate

of the most that

are

important,as well

as

of the most

trivial matters

expressed or referred
and

to

in

propositions.
The first of the
as

Aristotelian

Categoriesis Substance,
among
or

the

meaning,
is that about

I take

it,of placing Substance

to

the
says

the

propositionrefers
"

Substance, is, or
we

Categories, something
or

Substance

that

Substance

may

be, expressed
found
to

referred to in every

proposition.This

have

be

the

158

NEW

LOGIC

When

and and

Where their
and

have inclusion

been in

shown

to

be

qualifications
the of his and
"

of

the

Ratio,
into
a

proposition
it from Where him
at

converts

proposition
Traditional

modal,

thereby
When
if I

excludes
and

the

ambit

Logic.
Aristotle
doesn't

By

including

among

Categories,
if
I don't

signified,
matter
"

understand these modals

aright
least

it

that

may

be

legitimately

included
Posture

among and and

logical
Habit
may

propositions. qualify
Their of
a

term

if the
and

term

happens

to

be

singular
blemishes with
I

personal
in the scheme
and the

also.

triviality
and calibre
that

unimportance

are

Categories,

are

scarcely
of Aristotle's

consistent mind.

the should
later

enlarged
hazard
and

philosophical conjecture
inferior
I

they
If
we

are

interpolations
Posture

by
and

some

very

hand.
warrant

include

Habit

among

Categories,
of Vision.

see

no

for

excluding
at

Complexion

and

Acuteness

De

minimis

non

cur

lex.

CHAPTER
NEGATIVE TERMS

XI

HITHERTO in the affirm have

course

we

have

treated

of affirmative
as

propositionsonly frequent
denial
to

; but
as

of

thought,
of
a

it is almost
;

deny

to

the been

existence

relation

and

until

and

its modes is deficient

examined,

the treatment

of the

proposition

by
of
is

full

moiety.
is
a

Denial
a a

denial and

of

relation,just as

affirmation

is affirmation

relation

therefore,strictly speaking, a negative proposition

with
a

proposition
term

negative

Ratio.

It

is

usually possible,
a

however, though it is
into
a

not
are

to introduce always possible,

negative
Pro

; and

there

many
a

terms,

such

as

immortal, ignorant,
the the

unwise, disorganised, in which

negative is incorporated.
have, when

positions in which
is
a

there

is

negative term negative

when is in
a

negative
Ratio
is have into
an a

Privative
;

negative, a negative force, even

but
terms

though
form
a

affirmative
a

that

are

in

very

often

positive signification ; and proposition,that proposition

affirmative

such
sense

term

enters

affirmative, if it has

Ratio,
in Ratio

even

though
term

term
a

is

negative.

In many be

cases,

though
from

not

all, as
to

logiciansassert,
a

negative may
mortal,'
of
we

transferred

the

without
are

altering the
not
are

meaning
may

of the

proposition. Thus,
'No

for

'Angels
'

substitute

angels

are

mortal,' and
may be
some

Angels by

immortal.'
use a

Since is

negation
to

effected

the
to

negative term,
and

it

necessary
terms.

give

attention

the

nature

varieties of

these

Negative
be

terms

may

be

contemplated
to

in

two

ways.
on

They
the

may
term

regarded
to
to term

with

respect

the
;

effect of the
or

negative
be

alone

which other

it is attached
terms.

they

may

contemplated
effect

with

respect
upon
a

We

will consider

first the

produced
of

by attaching to it a negative.
of
a

The

attachment

negative
Three of
a
'

to

term
we

may
are

have

any

one

five different with. The

effects. attachment

of

these

already
a

familiar either
as

negative
not

may than

limit
'

term,

minimally,

as

when

we

add

less

or

maximally,

160

NEW than
;
or
'

LOGIC

when neither

we more

add
nor

'

not

more

less than

all contents,

putting nothing in
or

add we exactly, as when it may merely empty the term of and is then a Privative their place,
;
or

Negative
substitute
one,

it may

take

out

all the
In every

contents
case

of the

term

and

other

contents. term

except the
the until

last but

it leaves the term

the

and still positive,

propositioninto
a

which

enters

unless and is stillaffirmative,

negative

is introduced The
a

into the Ratio.

Privative results

term

Negative. When in the emptying

"

the attachment of the

term

of

to negative

of all its contents,

so produced by other contents, the term be called the Privative Negative. The negative so attached may be a negative prefix,such in-, dis-, or nonas ; or un-, may not.' To say that a thing is it may be the negative word no or imperfect, merely deprives that thing of perfection,without

without

replacingthem

'

'

'

the perfectionby replacing

any
or

other

quality.

To

say

that

it is
no

incomplete
more.

or

unsuitable,
that
a man

unintelligible, usually does

or untravelled,

inexperienced,or or uninterested,merely deprives him of having travelled, gained exhibited and ascribes to him or no interest, positive experience,
in place of quality
no man

To

affirm

is

those

that

are

removed.

If it is asserted
us no

that

has of

three

legs,the assertion

gives

inkling of the
at all.

of whether legs he possesses, nor even All the negative term gives us is that, if he has number
be
no more

he has any
any

legs, they must

con

or

fewer

in number
am

than
not

three.

If I
assume

am

told that there is that Gilead

no

balm

in

Gilead, I
at all.

entitled to
know
or

tains

anything

now

that

it contains

balm, but

whether
no

it contains and

anything else
no care

not, the

gives me proposition
a

information It needs
a

hint whatever.
to construct

good deal of

negativequalitative

and shall contain no hint of a purely Privative, When is attached to an adjective, the content. a negative positive is generally term but more less explicitly not privative, or resulting positive. To say that Angels are immortal, affirms not only that To they do not die, but that they go on livingfor ever. say that
term
a

that shall be

thing is immobile,
it stays where

asserts

not

only that it
less

does

not

move,

but

such terms as explicitly, dishonest, unhappy, have all a positive unjustifiable, inexpedient, that The less pronounced. term or flavour,more qualitative is most is the past easilykept free from positivesignification that it is; and

NEGATIVE

TERMS

161

participle.Unmarried, unfinished, undefended, undefeated, are positive implication; and though unnerved, pretty free from they are far from having the unhung, unlicked, are not wholly free, that attaches to improper,imprudent depth of positive significance the past participle, and dishonest. Even however, may convey in the case of disorganised. as signification, very positive much more are easily kept free of positive Quantitativeterms class of things, no no no brilliancy, litigation, meaning. No man, not not a penny, are a bit, a friend,not purelyprivative negatives ; deal of carries and but a positivemeaning, no good gentleman does not so a genius.' The limiting negativeswe have already made acquaintance with in our of quantities. There examination found that we every has three the which than minimal, assignable forms, quantity
' ' '

it the

can

be

no

less ; which which

'

the

maximal,
three than

that

it cannot in either
are
'

exceed

and

exact, from

it cannot these No
more

depart
forms
'

direction.

The

negatives by
'

severallyconveyed
more nor

are

No

less than,'

and

Neither

less

than.'

though logicians reject the maximal positive examine and the Maximal quantity Some only they mention Exclusive or than,' in its equivalent form Negative, Not more that though they welcome None but form the minimal of ; and the Particular Some mention at least, they do not examine or it is expressed the negative by which Not of less than ; and course they have no place for the sign of the Definitive or Exact
" "

It is odd

that

'

'

'

"

"

'

'

"

form

'
"

Neither forms

more

nor

less than.' referred

These and

of

quantityhave alreadybeen
all that
now

to, examined,
is

utilised

; and

remains

to

be said of them of the

that,

terms negative limitations they the Privative Negative does, empty the of contents, but they limit its extension term in one strictly or other direction,or in both ; and, as has been already sufficiently all of quantity, both forms explained, they are applicable to

rightly regarded,they are qualify. They do not, as

Extensive fair in
'

and
a

Intensive. limitation feathers.'

'

'

None

but

the
as

brave
'

deserve
are

the

is

maximal but

of class ; 'Fish

is
no

Birds air

clothed is
not

nothing

breathe

that
a

dissolved

in water 'The

is

maximal
is
at

limitation least
as
'

of part of hard
as

uniform is
a

individual.
minimal
N.L.

diamond
of
an

glass'
M

limitation

attribute ; and

His

manner

amounted

162

NEW

LOGIC

to

neither
an

more

nor

less than

piggishness is
the the

'

an

exact

limitation

of

Abstract.

The

Exceptive Negative
it does

differs from
not

Limiting negativesjust
term to

considered, in that
Here
term

limit

which

it is

attached, but, like the Privative negative, empties it of all

the Privative

contents.

Negative
here the the

ceases

its

operations,and
does
an

leaves
not

the

empty,
goes
on

but
to

Exceptive Negative
vacancy

cease.

It

fill up

with

alternative, and
'

is

most general form of the Excep always positive. The tive Negative is,in the Subject-term, What is not,' as in What

therefore

is not
as

mortal
'

is not

'

man

and

in the field

Object-term, Except,'
except
the
are
'

'

in

He

ploughed
at
once

the
that
"

whole

headlands.'

It is manifest

Exceptive Negatives
'

extremely
' '

of Some than the so even comprehensive quantities, more Traditional Some does, all Logic ; for they include not only, as but all Universal Particular Hence, quantitiesalso. quantities, there are as many varieties of the Exceptive negative as there are

of Extensive each

quantities.What
that
a

is not is not

desirable desirable.
a

may

be

everything,
some are

thing, or anything things,a great many, many,

not

It includes

few, and

very

few

things that
the

desirable.
to

It includes
;

every and

proportion of
not

such

things, from
the first, be if there certain

nearlyall
more,

scarcelyany
the rest
if fewer

only

some,

but
more

last,others, and
and
are

of them.
are

It includes

fewer

possible.
as are

It includes

things
well

that

not

desirable, as
many

well

this and
not

that

and

it includes,
as

moreover,

only too
too
our

things that
of

desirable, as

enough and
Thus

few. forms

three

quantity
and in
secures

are

increased
and 'At

to

four.

The

minimal the

form, signified by 'Not

undefined

less than' it

least,'limits

quantity downwards,
or

against defect, while

of

leaving it quite
proportion,
'

the The

direction maximal
'

magnitude.
*

greater number, form, signifiedby

Not

more

than,'

At

most,' and
secures

upwards, or maximally, and defect. to leaving it open

may

Only,' limits the quantity while it against excess,

less than
' '

As
'

'

not

and
'

'

at
'

least

'

and than not more only may perhaps all,'so this It is usual, if it is intended to convey imply perhaps none.' if any that it is logically I do not know to add possibility, ; but
' ' '

include

'

necessary

in all cases,

though it

seems

to

be
we

necessary

in

some.

It is necessary

with

the

as singular quantity,

shall find,and

its

NEGATIVE

TERMS

163
other

use

is desirable, though
the

perhaps
be

not
'

in imperative, is intended. both that that

quantities
; and

when The

meaning
form

'

it may limits

none

Exact

the

lastly,the Exceptive form beyond the quantity of the term. be applicableto a term, it may
that
may
term

quantity in applies to all

In

directions
is outside the

of

or

order

Exceptive
the form of
term

is necessary

that
a none

should
to to

be

exact

or

maximal,
there

for
are

minimal left for

extend

all, and
to.

if it

does,

the

Exceptive
The

apply
form

Exact and

is not

often

assumed,
Traditional

term,
tells
us

the

usually is Logic,that when quantity of that

the minimal

stated, but it may explicitly in spite of the teaching assumed,

no

be of
a

indication is to be

of form taken
as

is attached
exact.

to

term

Logic

understood, at always but Logic gives no authoritybut quantities, any rate in Particular its own for the dictum, and have learnt that the authorityof we Traditional Logic is not decisive. In fact,the universal practice, outside of books on Logic, is to take as exact quantity every form is not explicitly stated. whose If we adhere in mind and bear to this practice, that any form of negativeSubject-term may be combined in a proposition with of negative Object-term ; and that in any such any form propo sition the Ratio also may be negative,we the choice that of see into which is very the negative enters propositions large. If we for the No-A and No-B Privative not-A use negative,and for the and not-B frame six leading we can Exceptive negative, the different shades and pursue of negation types of propositions, through at least three and twenty degrees.

that

form

should

be

The
1. 2.

six
The The

leading types
Affirmative.

of A A

propositionare
is B. is not
B.

as

follows
are are

"

Birds
Birds

clothed
not

in feathers.

Negative.
Privative.
Obverse.

clothed

in

feathers.
3. The

A A
A

is no-B. is not no-B.

Birds
Birds Birds
are

are are are

featherless.
not

4. The 5. The

featherless. in

Exceptive.
Exclusive.

is not-B.

clothed feathers. clothed in

what

not
are

6. The

A is not not-B.

Birds
but

nothing
2

feathers.
M

164
Each of these

NEW

LOGIC

values
:

of the

Object

may

be

combined

with

the

Privative 7. No
8. No 9. No
10.
11.

Subject
A A A A A

is B. is not
is no-B. is not no-B. B.

No No No No No

bird is clothed bird is not

in feathers.

feathered.

bird is featherless. bird is not bird featherless.

in

No No

is not-B.

is clothed

anything

but feathers.
12.

No

A is not

not-B.

No

bird but

is

clothed

in

nothing

feathers.
may

Or

the different values

of the

Object

be

combined

with

the

Exceptive Subject :
Not-A Not-A is B.

13.

Everything
B.

but but

bird is feathered.
a

14.

is not

Everything
feathered.

bird

is

not

15. Not-A

is no-B.

Everything but
less.

bird

is feather-

16.

Not-A

is not

no-B.

Everything
Everything
in

but

bird

is

not

featherless. 17. Not-A is not-B.

but
are a

bird

is clothed

what

not
a

feathers. bird is clothed

18.

Not-A

is not

not-B.

Everything
in

but

nothing but
duplicated:

feathers.

Or 19.
20. 21. 22.

the
No No No No No

negative Subject
not-A not-A not-A not-A

may

be

is B. is not is no-B. is not

no-B. B.

Birds Birds

alone alone

are are are are are

feathered.
not

feathered.

Birds alone Birds Birds

are

featherless.
not

alone alone
not

featherless. in what

23.

not-A

is not-B.

clothed

feathers.
are

24.

No

not-A

is not

not-B.

Birds

alone

clothed

in

nothing but feathers.

This list of is long, but it is negative propositions The Exceptive term has been treated as
far if it

from
were

exhaustive.
one,

whereas

discovered
and

it is in fact many. reside in terms, to

Any
may have

of the

already quantities
term,
of

qualifythe Exceptive
a

thus

the
as

meanings

Exceptive term may has already been shown.

very

large

number

166

NEW

LOGIC

and quitebeyond its competence ; but they are so clearly manifestlyvalid, that a Logic that does not provide for them confesses its own futility. It is often asserted, not, indeed, by logicians, but in common affirmative. an discourse, that, in English, two negatives make

They

are

An

inspectionof the examples of the

will show
'

double

negative given
true.
*

on

previous page,
featherless but
*

that this is not

always
'

No

bird

is
'

is indeed

equivalentto
a

'

Every bird
does

has
not

feathers

Nothing
'

that is not

bird

has

feathers

positively
We still be

imply, though
might
within be
say

it strongly suggests, that

not
a

birds have
five

feathers.
'

Nothing that is
corners

bird has

legs
we

and

the four the

of strict truth ;
birds that

though
the
; and

should
five

certainly
It

of guilty

falsithat suggestio
accurate to

possess

legs.

is,
is

therefore, more

say

double
we

negative
go

always consistent
and

with

the

affirmative thus
even,
:
"

may

further

generalisethe
of therefore with

statement

Every

proposition in which
with the affirmative, from the while

the number
and

negatives is
every

is consistent

other

proposition derived
are even

affirmative, in which
every

the

negatives
the such

in

number;
is

proposition
with

in which

number

of

negatives

odd, is
the

consistent
same

every

other

derived proposition,

from

but is incongruous with the affirmative,and affirmative,

even a

with

all its Even

negatives. single negative,introduced

not

into

an

affirmative

propo with

does sition,

make necessarily it is

propositioninconsistent
it

that from
gruous.
'

which

derived, but

always

makes

them

incon

Any
have have

birds

into the proposition, single negative introduced inconsistent No proposition. feathers,' gives an
'

birds

feathers,'
have

Birds

have with
' *

not

feathers,'
have

'

Birds
'

are

featherless,' are
'

all inconsistent
no

Birds

feathers with
'

; but

Some

birds

feathers The
two to

is not
not
same

inconsistent

Some

birds have

feathers.'
If

are

inconsistent, but

they are
incon

incongruous.

they refer

the

Subject, they
'

are

sistent ; if they refer to different

In Subjects,they are irrelevant. either case, Everything but a bird is they are incongruous. contains three negatives,and is incongruous with not featherless,'

'

Birds

are

feathered,' from
it refers to If
a

which

it is

derived.

It is incon
;

gruous,

because

different
a

Subject

but

it is not

inconsistent. is

everything but
not

bird is not
of

that featherless,
are

is,
not

feathered,it does

follow

necessity that birds

SIGNIFICANT

DENIAL

167 they
are

feathered, though
*

it is
but
a

strongly suggested that

bird has
a

not.

Every vertebrate

backbone

'

is

materiallytrue

vertebrate has, in fact, a backbone; proposition. Every such but though I have strongly suggested that birds have no back refrained from bone, I have actually making the assertion. The not statements formally are incongruous, but they are inconsistent.
In

books and

on

Logic
two to

there muddles

are

two
are

muddles in
some

about books

the

negative
up
as a

term,

the
as

muddled

together,so
text

make

confusion

worse

confounded.
asserts

Taking
that
to

the

Law

of the either

Excluded be
or

Middle, which
and the virtue soul

every

thing
cases

must

not

be, logiciansapply this law

the
ask
not

of

the it is

soul

being

square, that write Most

being red,
be

and
or

whether square, should

or,

as

really necessary they prefer to

or

should

square that that

it, not-square, and

virtue these the The the

be

red
are

not-red.

logicians assert
that
we one are or

alternatives
Law Law other of the of the Laws

inescapable, and
Middle Middle in
a

compelled by
the other.

Excluded Excluded

to

accept
be

will

discussed, together with

this

of

Thought,
its
to

subsequent chapter, but

terms.
as

is the

place to
With is

discuss

respect

applicationto such examples

Bosanquet

virtue

is not-square, the soul

'

not-red, Professor

argues

that

bare the the

denial, whether
mere

disguised as spurious affirmation, or taken as in of mere suggested predicates, amounts nothing.' It is difficult to imagine a statement
truth. Does
a

exclusion
sense

strict
more

to

contrary
man

to

it amount
woman

to

nothing
she is

to

deny
or

of
a a

that that

he he he

is is is

honest, of brave, of
? logical
a

that that she is

virtuous, of
of it may,

soldier

ship
If bare

seaworthy,
as

denial and for

amounts,
no

logician that to nothing, it

is for

the very
not

reason,

other

than

this,that the predicate has

always refers,as will be explained suggested. Denial Denial is denial of some to pre-negative affirmation. directly, affirmation, made, suggested, thing. Of what then ? Of some conjectured,or possible. It is this pre-negative affirmation that
been

gives to
of
a

denial

its whole

content

and

meaning.
made,

The and

bare

denial has

always be suggested predicate may for the very reason, which significance, on
that
or

always
is soul is

all denial that the the

founded, red,

the that

suggestion has
virtue is square,

been

made.

To

deny

is nonsense,

because

corresponding

168

NEW

LOGIC been made but if it

affirmative

suggestions have

not

were

suggested that the soul is red, or that virtue is square, I seriously The no denied. see reason why it should not be as seriously of denial rests, not upon the congruity or incongruity significance
of the terms absence
or

of the relation that is denied, but

of

pre-negative suggestion. Denial

is square, is without because

the presence or that the soul is red,

on

that virtue
are

not significance,

because

the
not

terms

incongruous,but

and

if the

relation has

in the next is room suggested. Denial that there is anyone equally devoid of significanceif there has been no pre-negative should tell me, of nothing, that suggestion. If one apropos

been

there

is

no

one me

in
as

the

next

room,

the that and

denial the soul

is

as

devoid
;

of if

to significance

is the

denial
room,

is red
or

but

I have

heard there

crash

in the next
some one

have denial

said

that

must

be

there, the
"

thought is immediately
"

invested

with
on

significance. Much
muddle about the

fortune, life, honour

is

may

depend
The muddle. but two.
and

it.

other
To It

negative term
to
answer

again a compound
not
one

clear it up
concerns

it is necessary

question,

the possibility of the Privative negative, first,

scope

second, the
we

and

range and

of

the

Exceptive negative.
we

When

speak of only that

that
is not

not-man

not-white,do
are

mean,

by the

former, livingbeings only that

surfaces thinkable
are man

not
or

men,

and
we mean

not
or

white,
not

do

by the latter, everything

Lotze

as white, including,

puts
The

it, triangles,melancholy, sulphuric acid, controversy

described
on a seems

and

so

forth ?

par
not

fallacyhereinafter the fallacyof the previous question. The problem is as with the problem, Why of does the weight of a bowl
to
me

to

be

founded

on

the

water

increase the

when

fish is put into of

a

it ?

In

other

words,
not,

it

assumes

previous solution
It is

problem

that

has

in fact, been

have determined asking, before we there whether is anything at all in the jug, whether it is half full at least ; or quite full. Not-man be excep and not-white may tive negatives, it is true, but they need be exceptive: they not
may be

solved.

privative ; and
is to ask how
are

if

they are,
much infinite

then

to

ask

the
an

range

of their
:

denotation
to

beer there is in

empty jug

and

ask

whether

they

negatives or indefinite negatives

is to ask whether
or more

jug is quite full or only partly full; the empty accurately, perhaps, whether jug contains
the empty

THE

INFINITE

NEGATIVE

169

all the beer of beer. A tion.

cases

in

the

universe, or

only
have

an

indefinitely large quantity

have
a

negative term
But it has
room,

may,
not

as

we a

seen,

positivesignifica
in
many

it need
none.

have
I

and positivesignification, told that

I

When
I take

am

that the

there
room mean

is

no

one

in of

the

next women,

do

it to
or

mean

is empty that

men,

and

children,

do

take

it

to

it contains Fools'

triangles, melancholy, sulphuric acid, fixed thinkable and all other things except men,
No
one can

stars, All
women, not

day,
?

and be this
'

children
entertained last
no

foretell what

strange notions
of them
the

may
say

when and some by logicians, meaning that they understand

must

that

is the

by
a

negative term
is what

one,'

suppose

that

they
but
own

believe

that

this

understand mistaken do
not
as

by it ;
to

I have

shrewd I

they ought to suspicion that they are

am

their
read
not

myself
is

any

meaning, and such meaning

quite certain
the
term.

that

into
to

If

silver

gold, then, according

Traditional

Logic,

not-gold. Silver is, therefore, accprding to pre-Lotzian logicians, triangles, melancholy, and the rest. A logicianto whom
said not-gold means, he, Silver is some not-gold. If this be so, then Logic is compelled the Hamiltonian of the predicate, which to accept quantification all logicians reject: and it is compelled, moreover, to accept demurred. is
'
'

silver is

put this consequence

Silver

some

in

unanimous
'Silver

only, which teaching of logicians.

sense some

the

of

is

opposed

to

the

not-gold,may assert of silver either a privative negative or an exceptive negative. If not-gold is the proposition asserts privative, merely that silver is not gold, in the least implying what without silver is, or whether even silver exists. if not-gold is an But exceptive negative, then to that silver is not-gold denies, indeed, that silver is gold, but assert that it is something. asserts The full expressionof this exceptive of course, Silver is something that is not gold. But this negative is, gold,'or
is not the

is not

only exceptivenegative included

the

in

not-gold.
that

I can,

if I

limit please,

exceptive to
one

one

of the
;

elements

is not
one

gold ;
of the

and, further, to
noble need

of the is not

metals

to and, further still,

metals, that
not ; and

be

universal

gold. An exceptive negative,therefore, negative, but it may be a universal nega

be
a

tive
'

if universal, it may
term

limited

or

an

unlimited
'

universal. has for its

Every

that

is not

quantitativeis qualitative

170

NEW

LOGIC

subject
that

universal mental
Lotze

limited is is The

to

the
'

universe has for

of its

terms.

'

Everything
unlimited than
or

is

not

material

subject

an

universal. his

therefore Universal
and

no

more

completely
may

correct

antagonists.
unlimited Infinite

Exceptive
it is

be

limited

an

universal,

if unlimited,
very

an

Infinite but occasion it

Negative.
is
not
an

The

negative negative,
and and

is

unusual is
at

negative,
least
one

impossible
it is

there

on

which

requisite

necessary.

CHAPTER

XII

MODES

OF

DENIAL

THE is
a

foregoing discussion
introduction Affirmation and
to

on

the

character of

of the modes

negative term
of denial
or

suitable

the denial

discussion
are

negation.
When
we

complementary
has

opposites. might
have affirma If
an

deny,

we

deny something
suggests
possess
at least

that has

been,

or

been,
tive. I say

affirmed. It
'

The

negative always
a

reference

to

an

implies or
do

conceivable
I must have do

affirmative.
in my possess occasion been mind

Birds

not

hoofs/

antecedent and

assertion, or
or

suggestion, that
is the

birds

hoofs of the

this assertion Unless

have been the
no

suggestion
affirmative
reason or

basis

and

denial,
would

suggestion meaning
'

had

there, there

in the
or

denial.
is

Similarly,
birds have the the

every

affirmation If I say
;

suggests,
Birds
are

suggested by,
must

corresponding
had
As

denial. abodes

migrants,' I deny that

denial, I
have mind. denies

fixed

and
some

to

elicit this
extent

denied

relation
denies
'

to

before explicitly

my

negative
killed

the

affirmative, so
'

the

affirmative
steel is
not

the
'

negative.
the

Steel
'

is hard denies
not

denies

that

hard.

Brutus

Caesar

that
the

Brutus antecedent

did

not

kill Caesar. the

But

affirmative

does

need

suggestion of
need

negative as urgently as
of the affirmative
at ;

the

negative needs
cases,

the antecedent does

not any

suggestion negative
there did stand

and, in many
There would that

suggestion
even

all.

be

no

need, occasion, utility, or

sense,

in
some

denying
antecedent the

Brutus assertion that without This

killed
or

Cassius, unless
that Brutus
can

had

been

suggestion
killed

kill Cassius
as by itself,

; but
a

assertion of
news,

Brutus any relative

Caesar

piece
not

antecedent urgency with the

suggestion
of antecedent

that

Brutus

did

kill Caesar.
two cases,

suggestion, in
law, that
crimination of

the

corresponds

psychological
dis does difference of

discernment

of

likeness

precedes always explicitly

of discernment and

difference, but
so

discrimination

not,

or

does

not

explicitly, precede
are

likeness.

Affirmation Each supposes

and

denial and

complementary
the

inseparable. usually

implies

other;

but

affirmation

172

NEW

LOGIC

suggests
The

consequent

denial

only,while
to

denial

suggests

previous

affirmation.

opposition
one

of

affirmation of
a

denial, is but
and every
more

instance

law
:
"

corresponding direct of opposition of much wider Every propositiondenies

from this law

the

viz general application,

that

proposition inconsistent
U

with

it ; and
or

(which
of
a

is

proposition
we

in

Hamiltonian, deduce, that

rather, Thomsonian,
is the

nomenclature)

may

Denial

assertion
; that the ; and

is denied propositioninconsistent with that which of denial is by assertion of the inconsistent mode assertion with- it. denied
*

only

that the

of every

Thus,
not not
'

'

propositiondenies He has just had

*

every
a

propositioninconsistent
and

good dinner,' denies

a a

is

by
has
'

only
dined has is

He
' *

has
He

not

just had just had

good dinner,' but also

bad
' *

He

has

dinner
His

'

'

He

is is

hungry
empty
'

;
*

He

been

long without
'

food other

stomach

He

starving

and

many

incon propositions

sistent with

the

original.
to determine

Hence, in order made,

A
we

the modes what

ways

in which
a

denial may
may

be be

must

discover

in
; and

proposition

inconsistent

with another
be

done. this,in general terms, is easily

propositionmay

inconsistent

with
;

another

in proposition
case

its

Subject, in its Object, or

this other
we

in its Ratio So
are

and

in either is

will deny
but

proposition.
terms

far,the

matter

simple :
what

when
are

enquire what
be examined

inconsistent, and

Ratios
and

inconsistent,our
must

difficulties begin.

Evidently, Terms
respect
; and
we

Ratios

separatelywith
and

to

their

inconsistency

with
to

other Terms the

other

Ratios
of

shall find it necessary

examine the

inconsistency

from

inconsistencyof

QuantitativeTerms Terms. Qualitative

TERMS.

separately

INCONSISTENCY

OF

QuantitativeTerms.
The other
or

of quantitative terms or consistency inconsistency

is determined The

with

each

exact.

maximal
the

form and
be

entirely by their form, as minimal, maximal, minimal form of a quantity may flatlydeny the of another, and yet may be wholly consistent with
exact

minimal

form

of that

other, and
None

vice vend

so

that

no

quantity can
forms

denied
stated.

by affirming another
All and
are

quantity,unless
both consistent

the with

of both

are

174

NEW

LOGIC

deny each
does
*

other.

'

A
one

if any logician, should be

one,

should

be

consistent does it

'

not

deny
besides Others

'

No

consistent,' nor
alone

deny

Others
'

should logicians besides

be consistent.'

All that it denies

is that

should logicians
COLLECTIVE

be consistent.'

DENIAL

OF

QUANTITY.
Universal Universal. is None,
None

The
not

antithesis of the Distributive antithesis

one, one,

but is
no

this is
one,

the
no

of the

Collective

and

denies though it effectually

not

Each

does

together does not all taken together with

1 '

Every one, Any one, and effectually deny All taken together. All taken assert or posit one, and therefore to confront
'
'

none
'

is irrelevant.

The

true

antithesis

of out together' is not all.' 'All the ships sailing is Liverpool are together enough to bridge the Irish Channel of the ships sailing out denied of Liverpool is not by None The enough to bridgethe Irish Channel.' negative is irrelevant,
of
'

all taken

'

'

and

does

not
or

of denial

the affirmative assertion,either in the way The only way to deny the assertion of corroboration. bear upon
'

by
out

means

is
can

Not all the ships sailing negative term, is to assert of Liverpool are This enough to bridge the Irish Channel.' and in no other way denial,and a relevant and effective denial,

of

an a

effective denial of the Collective

Universal

be made,

except
If all

by
are

negative Ratio.
Collective Universal
may
true cannot not

The

be be

maximal
more

in form.

taken
be be

they together,
fewer, and
than.' the
An

than is
'

all, but
more,

they
it

cannot

maximal

not

and

may

fewer

All that is minimal there

But
seems a no

appears
room

for all must

more,

be all at least,and
are

for

tautological, a possible
will If the all.

if all

accounted
are

for.

little consideration
for
more

show

that there
can

plenty of occasions
and
a

than
in

engine
can

draw
more

all the coaches than

one

guard's van
in the

addition, it
conducted

draw

all the coaches. sale of 150

and lots,

If the auctioneer

in the

morning
'

afternoon

another

than all the 150 lots of day he sold more All taken the first sale. together denies, therefore, not all and and is denied by them less than all,' ; but it does not deny 'None' is it denied by these quantities. More than all,' nor or The Particular rules for denying the Collective quantitiesare the same those for denying the Distributive Particular,and are as sale of 50, then
in the
' ' ' '

given below.

DENIAL

OF

QUANTITIES

175

DENIAL The Distributive

OF

DISTRIBUTIVE

QUANTITIES.
we

Universal
Each and be
'

exists,as

have

found,

in three

varieties, Every,
'

Any.
or one

Every
or

'

one

may

exact

inexact, and
at

if inexact

may

be

minimal and be in
more

maximal.

Every
as

least

'

impliespossiblymore, quantity, there

for
every
one

the

distributive
all. least the
' ' *

in

the
was

collective

may the

than
at

There

transport
there
may
'

of

wounded for with been

some
a

suggests

that

have

been least also

was

transport
armed

of

unwounded.

Every
some

officer at of the
'

revolver armed.
'

suggests
The

that
'

men

may

have

so

minimal every and

by
not
*

'

None

and
own

by

is denied denies and Every one maximal particular quantity. It does maximal 'A
every

deny
Every

its

exact

forms. medal combatant

a one was

one

combatant denies

only' is only asserts

'

exact.

given
received
; and
a

to
a

every medal
;

that

that
not
'

any very

non-combatant

received
no

medal

denies,
medal.

though
'

emphatically, that

received

each the and to only applies distributively one, is none. distributive quantity less than one Consequently, to make explicitlymaximal, that is to say, so to Every one

Every

one

'

'

express it
'

it that

it may

mean

that

quantity or less,we
'

must

express

Every one if any one,' or use combatant to every given,if at all,

one as nor

some

maximal.

Such

maximal of the
nor

one,

is it denied under Some

every

by
at

any

equivalent. A medal was only,'fixes the form of Every is not denied by None, or No minimal quantities particular by
All
or

included

least ;

is it denied

Every;
Some if any
at

but

it is denied
'

by
'

maximal

included particular
exact

under
'

only.
'

Each

one

is almost but

always
often

in form. and

Each
'

is
'

possible form,

is not

employed,
is denied

Each

least

Each denies and scarcely ever. maximal particular quantities.

* '

by None,

and

by
'

all

be if any is an maximal. cannot Any one Any one impossiblequantity. It may, however, be minimal. Any decked boat at least (and perhaps some the without a deck) can cross
'

North maximal

Sea.

Denial
to

Any denies and is denied by None, particular quantities. is said Quantities. What of Particular
"

No

one,

and

all

here

with

respect

the

denial

of Particular

and

the

Distributive.

quantities appliesto both the Collective I will confine For the sake of brevity, my

176
examination denials
to
a

NEW

LOGIC

of the other
an

modes

of denial of the
same

of

Particular Those

quantities to
who
desire

by

members

series.

know

how

Enumerative

quantitycan

deny, or be denied

or an Ordinal, or any other kind of Proportional in the lightof easilywork the problem out for themselves

by, can particular,

what

follows.
In

the

Particular,as
on

in the

Universal

the quantities,

mode

of

denial
or

depends

the form

of the

quantity,as
the

minimal, maximal
same

exact.

minimal
None.

denies, of quantity particular

less quantities than

series,

All maximal
It does
not

itself.

deny,

the Universal. even quantity greater than itself, Any maximal whether Any other minimal quantity, greater or less than itself.
Its For
'

own

exact

form.
at

instance, ' A great many

least
t

'

denies few

and

is denied
*

by
few

Many

only,'
'

'

good
'

many

only,'

only,'
*

very

only,'and
It does Nor

None.'

not

deny
deny deny

A A

very

does

it

'

or Every one.' only,' great many few at least,' A few at least,'' A very
'

good
Nor Nor A

many

at least.'
a

does does
maximal

it

'

Not A

more

than

very

great many.'
more same or

it deny

'

great many,

neither

fewer.'

particularquantitydenies, of the

series,

All

minimal Universal.

quantitiesgreater

than

itself,including the

It does

not

deny
even quantityless than itself, maximal or quantity,

Any minimal Any other

Its For
two
excess own

None

exact
'

form.
Not
more

instance,
*

than

half

'

denies

'

Not

less than

thirds,' than
of
a

three fourths,' and

to
'
'

all minimal

proportionsin
less

half,up

all.'
*

It does

not

deny

fourth at least,' A minimal

' third at least,' Not

than
None.

fifth,' or any
not

other

quantity less than

third,' Not
'

even itself,

It does

deny
any

'

Not

more

than

more

than
a

three half,

fourths,'nor
Nor does

other
an

maximal
exact

quantitymore

or

less than

it deny

half.

SQUARES
The
exact

OF

OPPOSITION

177

form

of

any

series, All and

maximal
A

None,
minimal

particularquantity denies, of the same all other and quantities except its own
these

and

forms. of

consistency and incon in the Square of Opposition. sistency are expressed by logicians The into the quantitiesthat enter Square of Opposition are Distributive quantitiesonly, and of distributive quantities none
relations of
but the Universal and the and the Indefinite Particular form Particular
none

small

number

and
exact

of

the form As
a

Universal
of

Indefinite and the

but

the

the

Universal

minimal

of the

Particular.

the Square of general guide to the inconsistency of quantities, Even to displaythe Opposition is, therefore,almost worthless. of the only quantities the Universal and it includes inconsistency the Indefinite Particular it must be supplemented by three
" "

other each then

squares, for the it will

one

for the and

maximal minimal

Distributive
Collective
'

'

Some
'

'

and

one even

maximal
not

Some

; and

display the inconsistency of semi-definite and definite quantities. The Traditional Square of Opposition is as follows. I discard the symbols A, E, I and O, and substitute for them their equivalents All are, None not. are is,Some are, Some
"

THE All
are
" "

TRADITIONAL
" "

SQUARE
Contraries
"

OF

OPPOSITION.
" " "

None

is

I
Some
N.L. at least
are
" "

Sub

-contraries

"

Some

at least

are

not

178
is all very is distributive and
This

NEW

LOGIC it goes,
at

well the

as

far

as

and

as

long
or

as

the All

Some

is Some

least ; but

if,the All
not
more

the remaining distributive, than

must

Some

is made

maximal,
be

Some,
be

or

Some

only, the Square

as

must

remodelled, and

expressed somewhat

follows.

SQUARE

OF

OPPOSITION

OF

MAXIMAL

DISTRIBUTIVE

QUANTITIES.

All

are

"

"

"

"

Contraries

"

"

"

"

None

is

IN
I

/I
I

|
1

\
/

/
v/
*P ""C %
\

'
I

"
w

\
\ \

I
I
I

Some

only

are

not

"

"

Sub-contraries

"

"

Some

only are

In

the
A

nomenclature is

of Traditional with
E

Logic, this would

its

mean

that

compatible
Scheme; O, instead
and

Traditional
I. A and E and

contradictory in the is subalternans, not to O, but to

O, I, become contradictories, and
that every quantity four pair of con instead
of subalterns.
seen are

of E

and

I become

contradictories
on

In the square

top of p. 179 it will be

therefore
no

has

two

and contradictories,

there

tradictories,no
manifest.
there And taken is Some
as no

contrary,
'

Between

All

is reason sub-contrary. The All together are and not,' are together and
' '

third alternative,and
at

these be is

are

therefore
must

contradictory.
therefore be

least,is Some, it

may

and all,

contradictoryto whatever

contradictoryof all.

SQUARES
SQUARE
Some
OF

OF

OPPOSITION

179

OPPOSITION

OF

MINIMAL

COLLECTIVE

QUANTITIES.
All /
are

at least

are

"

"

Contradictories

"

"

not

'
v

I
1

/I

\
/I

'

l\

i
I
/

V
/ x

!
I

\
\ '
" " "

i i i

i
All
are

Contradictories

"

"

Some

at least

are

not

THE

SQUARE
Some

OF

OPPOSITION

OF

MAXIMAL

COLLECTIVE

QUANTITIES.
"

only are

"

"

Contradictories

"

"

All

are

not

IN
I
N

/I
/I

'
I

\
\ /

,'

' I

i
I

\y
cT
^
x"

"
%
\ \

"

/
/

I
All
are

/
" " "

I
Contraries
" "

Some

only are
N

not
2

i8o
THE

NEW
OF

LOGIC
INDEFINITE
" "

SQUARE
More
are

OF

OPPOSITION
" " "

COMPARATIVE
"

QUANTITIES.
Fewer
are

Contraries

"

IN
I '
N

I |

\
/I

'

IN

1
I I
/

"/ \
N

1
I I

I I
I
Fewer
are

/
/
not

\
N X Sub -contraries
"
"

'

|
I
are

More

not

The
*

is necessarily exact. complement of the Residual quantity

at

Some

it may least,
one

can

be but
THE Some

be all may leave no residue ; hence Square for the Residual quantity.
OPPOSITION
" "

'

there

SQUARE

OF

OF

THE

UNIVERSAL
" "

RESIDUAL
"

QUANTITY. only are

not

only are

Equivalents

Some

IN
I
.

/I
N \
\

|
/
.

IN
I
w

/I
' C

I
eo

K0^

\
73

*
vA

/ / not
" "

N X Contradictories
" "

I
I
rest
are

I
The

rest are

The

i8a

NEW

LOGIC

Terms. Qualitative

With
terms
1. are

respect

to

and possibilities

modes

of

denial,qualitative proceed
in

divisible into five classes.

are

There

from which, starting qualities

zero,

one

without only, and in that direction increase in intensity of which red, loud, wonderful, assignable limit. Such qualities, horrible,are instances, can have no Contrary or Opposite, and are deniable only. If we wish to deny that negative by the privative direction
a

thing is red, or loud,

our

or

wonderful,

or

horrible,there is
not

no

means

at not

disposalexcept that of saying that it is

or

red, not
or

loud,

wonderful,

not

horrible,as the

case

may

be ;

of

asserting

desire qualityinconsistent with that which we thing some in toto cannot be denied to deny. Although, however, the quality whether except in these two ways : any given degree of intensity, be denied maximal, minimal, or exact, may by the assertion of of the
some

inconsistent
be

degree ;
from

and

the the

degrees that
examination

are

inconsistent inconsistent for

may

ascertained

of

just concluded, degree being quantities Quantitiesof this class

2.

substituted

quantity.

I call

Singly Unlimited.

The
a

next
zero

from
and

consists of those which, starting qualities point,depart from this point in opposite directions, class of
' '

hard starts proceed in both directions without limit. Thus from a zero point, and proceeds through degrees of increasing hardness without we limit,there being no limitingpoint at which deny that a can say of a thing that it is completely hard, or

greater

degree of hardness
in

is conceivable.

From range

the of

same

zero

point starts,
softness,which

the

opposite direction,a

degrees of

without assignablelimit. similarly I call Doubly which Such Unlimited, are deniable, qualities, the Singly Unlimited, but also by as not only in the same ways the assertion of any degree of the opposing series. Very hard is is
not

denied,
very

only by
so on

not

very

hard, but

also

by soft,rather soft,

and soft,

; and

by the assertion of any series is negative with respect to every degree of the other series, with each and such negatives are called Contrary. Contrasted called scales are other, the degrees at opposite ends of the two Opposites.
3. A

similarly, any degree of softness is denied Every degree of each degree of hardness.

third

class of

consists qualities

of those

which, starting

DENIAL

OF

QUALITIES

183

point,proceed by successive degrees along a scale,but instead of proceeding without of the previous limit,as in the cases classes, arrive at length at a limit of completeness beyond which More we they cannot proceed. correctly, contemplate the may series as beginning at completeness, and from this point departing
from
a zero

without

limit.

Such
so

are qualities

definiteness, and
admits the
are

forth.

If

truth, purity,safety, perfection, thing is perfect, pure, or true, it

It either has

of

no

purity or truth. degrees of perfection,

has

quality or
conceivable.

it not, and
But

of it admits intensity, completeness. departure from

degrees of the possessed quality though the qualityadmits of no degrees of unlimited degrees of approximation to, or
no

degrees of illimitable degrees of imperfection. but it may have perfection, be complete or incomplete. If com Purity and definiteness must if incomplete, ; but plete,they admit of no degrees of intensity limit. A be incomplete through all degrees without they may be completely unjust, or completely imperfect or thing cannot be very unsafe, but it may or extremely unjust, imperfect, or
A

thing

cannot

have

unsafe.
be denied like other qualities, by the Complete qualities, may privativenegative. It is a sufficient denial of perfection,or that a thing is not perfect, to say not or or just,or safety, justice, of denial, completeness of unsafe ; but in addition this mode to be denied quality that is susceptibleof completeness may any by asserting any degree of incompleteness. Complementarity,

assertion
and
any

which

completeness denies incompleteness in all its degrees ; degree of incompleteness denies every other degree with of inconsistent it is inconsistent,according to the scheme
of

quantities.
4. The limited
a

fourth

class
at

of both

qualitiesconsists
ends of of
a

of

those

which scale

are

abruptly
not

scale, the

scale,

of

but intensity,

departure.
closes the

In the scale
to

previous class,an
one

degrees of abrupt limit

this end
now

being approximation or
of
we

at
our

end, and

from

completeness depart, may

considera

without

limit

excursion. closed

In the class

under

tion, the
extent

by
at

the the

by completion at both ends, and the of our departure from completeness at one end is limited attainment of a complementary and oppositecompleteness
other.

scale

is

Fulness

is

complete quality.
fulness, and

There

can

be

degrees of approximation

to

degrees of departure

184
from

NEW
be

LOGIC

it ;
we

but

there

can

no

degrees of intensityof fulness.

we

depart from it indefinite extent, as to can an we depart from justice and perfection. A point is reached at length at which we are brought find that we with a round can turn, and proceed no further, up with emptiness, which confronted is itself a complete for we are
cannot

When

depart from fulness,however,

quality.
back
we

We the

have

now we

reached
recede
we

blank

wall, and

must
nearer

turn

; and

farther

from
are

emptiness, the again brought

do
a

approach
turn at

to
a

fulness, until

up

with

complete quality. Qualities thus limited by completion at both ends of the scale of departure or than approximation, are deniable in more ways Fulness is deniable, not but singly limited. those which are are only by the privativenegative, not full, and by all degrees of
round

"

than half full, nearly full only, not more and so on but also by all degrees of approximation to emptiness, also by complete and partly empty, half empty, nearly empty

departure from
"

fulness

"

"

emptiness, a

mode

of denial

that

cannot

be used

in the

case

of

limited quality. Other other singly or just,or perfect, pairs any of complete opposites are legible and transparent and opaque, awake and illegible, asleep,wide open and shut.

Lastly, there are either of intensity or

5.

of that admit qualities of approximation, but

as

no

degrees at all,
are

that

simply
complete

present

or

absent,
Such

such

metallic, moving, fallen, favourite,

be

previous.
mediate

cases

may

viewed

as

doubly

like those qualities,

of

the

last class,in which

the scale of inter

degrees of approximation has been removed, and the ends Such be can brought togetherand coalesced into one. qualities denied only by the privativenegative,or by the assertion of a

qualitywhich
cannot

is

equivalentto
except

the

privativenegative. Metallic
;

be both

denied

by non-metallic

but

moving
rest
can

may

be
no no

denied

by not-moving and by at rest ; but at and less than not Such terms more no moving. Contraries,but Contradictories only.
Traditional

means

have

Logic admits

into

its scheme

quantitative terms
two

only,

two

only of it recognises that

terms,
it does

quantitiesonly of quantitativeterms, and that it admits. denying the quantitativeterms

there mention
are

ways

Though
of

contrary
denial of

and

opposite qualitative
its scheme

not

qualityin

CONTRADICTION

185

but two Logic, there are negation. According to Traditional red coats.' of denying the proposition All soldiers wear ways soldiers do not be denied It may by the Contradictory, Some
'

wear

red these

coats, and
denials
resources

by
are

the

Contrary, No

soldiers

wear

red

coats.
are

To

Traditional

Logic

is

limited, and
in the
wear can

when

they
may

made, its
denied soldiers the like. in

exhausted. that different

are

But

actual red be Some

practice of
coats

daily life,the
a wear

assertion of

all soldiers
ways.
not

be All do

score

It

denied

by

coats

that be

red, and

by

soldiers
that

It may it. It

denied
be

sistent

with

can or

by any assertion denied by Some, or all

also
coats.
can

is incon
wear

soldiers denied

black, blue, green,

Soldiers
no

yellow
It be

It

can

be

by
wear or are

do
at

not

wear

coats.

be

denied
Soldiers denied

by
wear

Soldiers smocks Soldiers

coats

all.

It of

can

denied
It
can

by
be

blouses

instead in their merits

coats.

by

always
The denial

shirt-sleeves.
claimed

by

Traditional the them

one

by

the

Contrary
between

and

Logic for the Contradictory, are

universe be
true

modes that Con

of

tradictories therefore while

exhaust

the
must

of and of

discourse, and
the other false ;

of Contradictories do
may
; and

Contraries both do third

not

not

exhaust

the

universe All soldiers

discourse, and
red

therefore
or

be

false. is
no

Either

wear

coats,

Some

there

third alternative.
to

It is the absence the universe every

case wear

of any

alternative It
means

that

is said the

exhaust

of

discourse. is

that But

between the
wear some

two

alternatives All

provided
coats,
"

for. and that

to

between soldiers do the and

Contraries,
red do

soldiers is
a

red

No
some

coats,
not.

there Hence
;

third

alternative
are

Contraries
it is

said both

not

exhaust
be false.

universe

of discourse

and

that

may

There

is, no

doubt,

certain

plain utilityin
fuss

though whether making this distinction, that logicians make about it,is another
Contradiction, the
and between None and
are

it is worth
matter.

all the

opposition between
"

All

are

"

some

are

not,

some

are,

is called form

perfectform

the

most

important

by logiciansthe most of logicalopposition.

be degrees there can whether Why it should be considered perfect, of perfection, and what the meaning is of perfect,as applied to which do not enlighten matters are logical opposition, on logicians
us

; but

from

the may

logical square
'

of

opposition degree

'

we

that denial

have

more

than

one

of

gather this" comprehensiveness.

may

186

NEW

LOGIC
'

'

No

is B
*

'

is

more are
'

comprehensive denial of
not

All A's B
'

are

B,'
so

than

is

Some

A's

B.'

'

Some
'

A's

are

does
'

not

All A's are B denies it. are comprehensively deny No B,' as So far, Traditional Logic is justified;but from the square of wider generalisation that opposition we cannot gather the much denial may have many degrees of comprehensiveness, and that in
A's
some cases

the

number the

of

degrees may
a

become

infinite.
are

According to
two

Logic of Tradition, there

two

ways

and

ways

only of denying

proposition. We

may

deny

by
But

affirmingthe Contradictory, or
of pure denial

by affirmingthe Contrary. of quantity there are degrees, which many

either Contraries
as or

may,

indeed, all be
which
as are more

grouped as convenientlyregarded
than is
'

Contradictories, but
;

of three kinds
a

according

they deny exactly what

more

is asserted, or what is asserted.

portion only of what

is asserted, or

in the regiment has all his teeth Every man has sound,' the propositionis invalidated if I can show that one man
one

If the assertion

tooth

decayed. slightly
and is

This
a

is

denial

of the

least

possible
the

comprehensiveness,
assertion. has not

disproof or
that Not
every

of contradictory
man man

If,however, I affirm that Every

or

in

the

regiment regiment
and go

all his teeth sound,

in the

has all his teeth sound, I neither

cover more nor

deny exactly,in form, what

my

is asserted,
may

less ; but

denial

is, in fact, vague,

But I may

every

degree of comprehensiveness.
this. tooth
was

much
army It

further than has

a

can

assert

that not This

a

man

in the whole

sound

in his

head.

is knock-down

denial.

denies
assertor

all that stark

asserted, and
of every

naked

It strips the great deal more. leaves him rag of affirmation, and

his shame. The first denial is a to cover nothing wherewith the or perfect,' Contradictory;but so far from being 'the most most important mode of denial, it is manifest that it is little more all the evidence that could be if this were than a quibble; and adduced assertion mode
in

contradiction, the
escape

dentist
even
a

who

made

the

original

would

without
must

of denial

also

reprimand. The second be regarded as a Contradictory ; but

though a perfectlyvalid denial, it is in a form that Traditional not as a Contradictory. The third denial might be Logic knows called a Contrary, but it is much more comprehensive than the Contrary known
it into their
to

Logic.

I dare

say
a

if they admitted logicians,

scheme, would

call it

super-Contrary ; but

at

any

DENIAL

OF

RATIOS

187
denial
who
not

rate

it is

far

more

effective
Prove teeth be of

and

conclusive
the dentist would

than certified escape

either
to

of
the
a

the

Contradictories.
of he the

it, and
the

soundness

regiment

with

reprimand:

would

cashiered.

INCONSISTENCY

OF

RATIOS.

Inconsistency
treatment
as

of

Ratios

is

not

susceptible
terms.

of

such
may it may

systematic always
be denied be

is

inconsistency
of
a

of

A and

Ratio

denied in other

by

the

insertion

negative,
various

usually
of

ways

also, and
have
denies
'

with

degrees

comprehensiveness.
is
'

Most in

Ratios

complementary
and is denied
not

opposite, which by its opposite.

affirmative

form,

but

He

hit

it

'

is

deniable

by
'

He

did it.'

hit
this

it,' but
case,
*

it
the

is

also

denied is of other

by,
denied
the

and

denies,
other
'

He

missed

In

affirmative
went

by

affirmative
very

Ratios,
hit
as

such

as

He

wide

mark,'
than

He

nearly

it,' and
'

by
not

negative
reach is

Ratios,
'

the it.'

direct In

denial, such
cases,

He

did

it,' He
the sole

did

not

go of

near

other

the Ratios

negative
may be Caesar' Brutus but

Ratio

mode

denial,
incon
'

though
sistent. did with
not
*

other
'

incongruous,
is not saved
the

without

being by

Brutus Caesar.'

killed
'

deniable
Caesar's
two
are

except
life
not
'

Brutus

kill Brutus

is

incongruous
for

killed
to

Caesar,'
different

inconsistent,
in that

they
means

may of

refer
an

occasions.

Of
must

course,

denying
the

by

inconsistent

Ratio,
and
not
'

care

be

taken

Ratio
'

is

actually
he

inconsistent,
do it
'

is

not

merely
denied

incongruous. by
not
'

He

said would
even

would
not

it
nor

'

is

necessarily
declared
what he

He do he

said
it
'

he
nor

do He

by

He

would
be he

by
All

'

emphatically
he do
to

stated

he'd

before have

would

do

it '.

these
to

may it.
one

have
Even

said, and
Peter

yet
denied

may his

previously
If the then

undertaken assertion these is

'

Master.

refers
effective
not

particular
;

occasion then

of the

his

utterance,

are

denials
he

but do

if not,

only effective

denial

He

did

say

would

it '.

CHAPTER

XIII

EMPIRICAL

REASONING

THE

Art
or

of

Reasoning
or

has

already

been
new

defined

as

that

of

attaining,

constructing,
in
own

establishing,

propositions,
process

from

propositions already
mind,
them the
new

possession.
contents,
It

It is the rearranges

by which
and

the

working
into
new

on

its

them,
ones.

brings
form
out

forms.

gives
is the

new

lamps

for old

The material

knowledge
the
new

takes

proposition.

The

of which
or

judgement

is constructed
as

consists
we

of

propositions,
see,
con

of those
from in the

consolidated

relations, that,
But that

shall

presently
are

result
structed back with from

propositionising.
this
way,

though
this

propositions
does
not

it is clear

process

take

us

to

ultimate

origin
of
the

of

propositions.
and egg If the
comes

We
If
an

are

confronted owl which

from the
comes

the
an

problem
egg, and
or

owl
owl's

egg. from

every

every
an

owl,
comes

was

first,

an

owl

egg?
and of

every

proposition
what

previous proposition,
of
not

this
all ?

from

another,

was

origin
does
are

the
come

first

proposition
a

Every

proposition, however,
Some

from

previous proposition.
remainder
or come

propositions only
and

thus
are

derived. derived ultimate

The

directly,

all

propositions
is

directly
source

indirectly, from
all

experience.

Experience

the

of

thoughts.
has
arisen
as

Some and

little controversy
some,

to
mean

the

meaning
the
were mere

of

experience;
of

by

empiricism
made
on

is taken
senses,
case. as

to

succession

impressions
This of
course

the the

if

they
mind
mean

received

passively.
in

is not
;

The
I

is that

active active

receiving
commerce

impressions
between the

and self

by
and

experience,

its circumstances,
but
a

by
The

which
unit of

the

mind

not

merely
not
a

is

impressed,
but

perceives.

knowledge

is

Sensation,
radical
to

Percept. Logic
its of the
to

The

vice

of the
; and

Schools

was

its failure
that all know

to

appeal ledge
the

experience
on

failure
and the

appreciate
from modes but

is founded

experience,
meant,
to

drawn three

experience.
of

To

Schoolmen,
in

Logic

not

reasoning
second

specified

the

Introduction

this

volume,

solely the

192

NEW

LOGIC

of these with

modes

"

Deduction.

Their

efforts

were

concerned

explicatingthe implications of propositions ; with results from speculating on postulated principles ; with
sequences

solely deducing
the
con

that followed
no

from

suppositions.In
not

this there

would

have

been

harm

if they had

mistaken of

and for facts, postulates

to

for suppositions

truths.

Instead
spun

going
out

experience for their

of their away,
next
own

principiaor universals,they
Some have of their cobwebs and and have

them

bowels. but
as we

long been

swept
the

alreadyfound,
the broom the
was

shall find

again in

Book,

many

still await It

dustpan

of the reformer.

of recognition

this defect in Scholastic

Logic that led

of the
and

to

the institution
The

of Inductive

Logic, as
between
one

separate branch
Deductive
to

\ subject.
j Inductive

radical

difference

Logic, is that the

not.

appeals
of the

Logic and experience,

was

the

1other
J

does

The

mistake is the

Schoolmen of

that

they
the

applied Deduction, which

Logic

Consistencyonly, to
Inductive

discoveryof

Truth.

The

mistake

of the

School, and of

that the direct is that,though they recognise present-day logicians, be made by any of the processes of appeal to experience cannot Deduction, they confuse the indirect appeal to experience with the deductive
process
same

of
as

syllogising ; and
Mediate Inference

fancy
;

that

Mediate the two,

Induction

is the

whereas

despite a
different. direction

and are deceptive similarity, superficial profoundly in one the Inductive School broke Moreover, though

through the
to

narrow

and

artificiallimitations
ways

of Scholastic that
was

Logic,yet
necessary
reasoners.

it falls short

in two

of the

revolution with whole

as

bring this Logic

In

into accordance the

the

practiceof
of

the

first

place, it leaves
erroneous

structure

Deduction,

limited,defective,and
In

it

is, practically
its

unchanged. ignoresthe
and

the

second the

place, it confines

appeal

to

to experience practically

discoveryof
us

causation

alone, and

multitude

of other relations that exist in the real world,

to discover. ; and

that it is

and importantfor interesting

The that
are

function confront

of Induction
us,

is to solve

problems

the
to

and

demand
to

solution

by appeal

problems experience,
is
a

by

no

means

limited doubt
to

causation.

Causation

very

no important relation,

; but

it is far from that

our we

being
must

the

only
if
a

relation that
we

we

desire

discover,and

discover
As

are

to adjust ourselves

favourablyto
that
we

circumstances.

guide to conduct,

it is necessary

should

solve innumerable

REFERENCE

TO

REALITY

193 relations.
was

other

problems discover raining? Will it be fine

"

innumerable
to-morrow

other
?
my

Is

it

Who hat ?

it that

called
ever

when
exist ?

was

out

Where of

did

put
?

Did
a

Babylon

Do

any and

ruins

it remain

Do in the

birds of what
fleet

feather flock
in

together;
what home
or

if so, at in what

what

times,
Is

circumstances,
efficient ?
? Have ?

numbers,

places?
men,

Is it in all the Is ponos ? Which ? Is he

foreignwaters ? How ships their full complements of

kala-azar is the rich
or

is it distributed of guns,

of stores

If not, what
way to

are

the differences

between

tKem

best

get

to

Bath,

to

Jericho,to

Coventry

stupid or clever,honest or dishonest ? All these and and are more impor problems that it may be interesting many is a problem in causation. of them tant to discover ; none of Traditional Logic, _Modern Logic,recognisingthe narrowness
poor,
to bring Logic experience,"seelcs witH experienceby declaring that all judgement_refers_
trom

and

its severance

into
to

toucTT

Reality.

The

effort

seems

to
are

me

as

naive

and

crude

as

the

efforts of the

Reasoning cannot partialand restricted. be based on experience by merely saying that it refers to reality. The Modern is flatlyopposed to fact. statement Logic, in making the assertion,neglects that very appeal to experience on which of If space statement were ought to rest. every material four dimensions, I could tie a knot in a stringwithout lettinggo the ends. and supposing you were Supposing I were me, you, and supposing we identities would both were somebody else, our be confused. If all the earth were apple pie,and all the seas and bread were ink, and all the trees were cheese, why then, inferences could be drawn from these propositions ; but to many in forming the judgements, in the propositions, say that in stating in drawing the conclusions, I am making any reference to reality, of the word admissible to or sense seems reality, any recognisable
Inductive School
me

the

merest

moonshine.
are
*

That that
of
a

there
to

real

'

in the propositions, affirm the

sense

of in the

propositions
real

refer

and reality, real

existence

world

whose things,as well as propositions relations and whose terms are merely postulatedfor the purpose of the argument, Both have I not only admit, but also contend. their appropriateplacesin Logic, the one the unit of the Logic as of Experience, the other as the unit of the Logic of Consistency. Either being wanting, Logic is deficient by a moiety; but no
N.L
.

relation between

194

NEW

LOGIC

be served by confusing them with one can another, good purpose refers that a or by pretending postulated proposition necessarily when its very nature is to be indifferent to reality. to reality, I from Far agreeing that every proposition refers to reality, consider
f ;
;

it of the the

greatest importance

to

between the

and postulated proposition

the distinction recognise and the real proposition; the

corresponding distinctions between and the Logic of Experience sistency,

and postulate

Logic of
the

mere

Con-

; between

argumentum
the

ex

the

argumentum
a

in materid

; between

tion of what fact.

not
as

is

implied in
was

and proposition,

explica of the investigation

was

This

distinction

drawn

by Mill, but his distinction

it. make complete and thoroughgoing as I would to complement method recognised that a new was necessary that he and method Logic of Consistency ; but the new
successors

He

the his of of

have

adopted, is widely different from

that

the

method

solving problems
Induction is

is

here

propounded.
of the method

Mill's Logic

a practically experimentally. Supposing

method that

determining
can

causation

be

applied,
those

mutatis

mutandis, to the
in

solution
one

of other

problems
two sets

than

of

it sets forth causation,still,

only of the
It

methods forth the

by

which of

problems
which
never

are,

practice,solved.
Induction,
as a was

modes

to experience. The appealing directly

indirect
known

appeal to experience,
to

call Mediate described well

as

him,

but
is

has
an

been
as

it is described direct

here.
to

That

there

indirect
common

appeal
well
as

knowledge
the Inductive

; but

this indirect
as

experience,is, indeed, appeal is confused by Mill

by Logic, with the misleading resemblance.
Modern

and

School,
it has
a

to which syllogism,

What and

I believe to be its true

and superficial nature, togetherwith the resemblances

differences

between

it and

the

will syllogism,

be set forth in

the next
In the

chapter. that is the grist the proposition Logic of Consistency,

; and
a

is is

put into the inferential mill

to

the
new

sole function form. Until

of inference

grind it up,
a

and

present it in
a

it is furnished
cannot

with

and proposition,

inference complete proposition,

the material reasonings of actual life, is not a complete, but an presented to the reasoning process incomplete proposition; and the main task of reasoning,the sole task of Empirical reasoning,is the completion of the incomplete

begin.

But

in most

of the

propositions that

are

confronting continually

us.

In

short, the

PROBLEMS

195
of the

of proposi implications tions ; the task of Empirical Reasoning is the solvingof problems. of Consistency; the aim The aim of Inference is the maintenance of Empirical Reasoning is the discovery of Truth. task of Inference

is the

extraction

Well,
illness ? of your What house
to
"

Doctor,

have

you

discovered found

the

cause

of

my

child's

Why,
drains

yes, I have
; and

that it was you

to

caused

by

the foulness in order. from the

I

I should

advise

put them
about

would
the you is
sewer a

it cost, Mr. ?
"

Builder, to relaymy
it would
cost

drains

reckon

"160,

but

will send

detailed estimate.

What
landlord all. Your

the

prospect, Mr.
of

Solicitor,of recovering from

drains ?
"

my
at

the cost

relayingthe
is not

There
you

is

no

prospect
the

landlord

liable,and

must

pay

cost

yourself.
For the

moment,

we

will not

enquire how

these

conclusions

are

All we is that these three reached. to notice now are severally their respective are questionsare problems ; and the three answers It is quite clear that in each case solutions. the solution is more extraction of what and than the mere is implied in a proposition, therefore the is reached of

by

process

different radically in the

next

from

any

of
no

processes

Inference

described

process

of

the explicating I discover

implications of
the the
cause

any

By propositionin
the illness,
to

Book.

my

possession can of relaying my

cost.

of my

child's my

cost

drains, or
to

of liability

landlord

pay

this

problems, I must go outside the for in fact,I have no proposition, complete proposition at my service ; I have a problem only, and first of all, I must ascertain
the nature A

In

order

solve

these

problem. an problem incomplete proposition. It is a propositionin of the three which one is wanting ; and is temporarily elements replaced by a dummy ; and the problem is solved by supplying the of the child's illness ? In this missing element. What is the cause
a

of

is

case

the

problem is, The

cost

cause

of

the drains
:

illness is
? The Can

find

x.

What

will be the

will be the cost

be made
to
x

of the

relayingthe relayingthe drains

expense ?
In

of

problem is,X
the landlord

find X.
case

pay

this

the

problem is, The

find the
x.

landlord
In

the

first

it is the

(can,or cannot be made to pay) the expense : problem, the Object-term is missing ; in Subject-term that is missing; and in the

second,
the

third,
O

196
element

NEW

LOGIC Ratio.

that

is

missing is the
be

Thus, any

element the

in
pro

proposition may positioninto

a

missing,

and

its absence

converts

problem. In any case, the solution of the problem lies in the supply of the missing element. It will be seen by the examples given, that the scope of a The and the problem varies much. problems of the doctor
builder solution
were

set at

large.

No

hint

was

given

to them

of what
was

the
not
was was

of the missing element might be. The nature restricted. suggested. The solicitor's problem was more
not to

He

search

the

universe All he in
was

for
to

the do
was

missing element;
to

it

suggested to
alternatives. themselves Robin
? is

him.

decide

between

two

And with

any

practicewe find that problems may present killed Cock Who degree of definiteness. problem.
an

an

indefinite Robin

Was

it or

was

it not

Sparrow
more

that killed Cock

? is

alternative problem

of much

restricted scope. Is there any relation between insanity? Is there a causal relation between
? insanity

drunkenness drunkenness

and and

The if
us

latter is
an

much

more

restricted is found

problem
for the

than

the

former; but
still leaves

affirmative doubt

solution the

latter,it
the both

in

whether the
or causes cause

drunkenness
or

causes

the insanity causes or insanity,

are

drunkenness,
of
some

whether

not
or

concurrent

effects drunkenness

third
narrows

condition. the issue

Does

does

not

insanity?

to these

definite alternatives. of
a

The
our

indefiniteness
and

problem
a

may

reside in the scantiness with which

of

experience ;

in such and

case,

the vagueness it may it is avoidable

Or

it is

expressed is
of Did

proper

unavoidable.
and

lie in the mode

and and

stating the problem,

then

improper.
separate
it

Robin ? sets three Sparrow kill Cock from to tell, problems, and it is impossible ment, which that
was

distinct the form

It may
mean, mean,

of the state
mean,
was was

of

the

three
Cock

is intended. Robin
? ? ? It

Sparrow
Robin what

killed killed
did
to

may

it Cock
was

that

by Sparrow
Cock Robin

Or

it may

killing Subject,

Sparrow
or

It is

from to tell, impossible it is the

the way

in which

the

problem is stated, whether

the Ratio,
way
to

Object that is to be supplied. Hence, the best state~a problem is to substitute x fbr the missing element.
the this statement
Inference and

From

of the nature

of the

problem,the

distinction

between view.

Inference

clearly into Empirical Reasoning comes a requisite, needs, as its first and indispensable

ig8
than I

NEW
bite me,

LOGIC

that of
or

him letting
And

and
to

waiting
know
go

to

discover whether the look. there is

a moon

live

die.

if I want

whether there and

is

to inhabited, it is quite impracticable

Nevertheless,
of with

there

are

means

at my

command,

mode

to experience, by which all these problems can be solved appealing assured as a as by the direct appeal. Without certainty ascertain with certaintythat it is fragile breakingmy jug, I can ;

without be

having

seen

this mountain
once

upheaved from
was a

the sea,

can

that its summit quite sure being bitten by the cobra, I can would it has
be
no

sea-bottom

; without

make
to

quite certain that its bite

I
can

fatal ; without human

In these

going
as

the moon, if I had

no

be

as

sure

that

inhabitants
cases

surface. but
I
can

I make

explored every foot of its direct appeal to experience,

thus solve
my

and appeal experience indirectly, problems with complete certitude.

to

When

the

direct

appeal
and

to

experiencetakes

the

materials

of

j".

as they experience

any

alteration in

merely notes them, without them, the appeal is called Observation.

are,

making
But it

often

affords no happens that the real world experience that appliespreciselyto the problem, and then we must create a quasiartificial experience ad hoc. Such quasi-artificial experience is called

Experiment.
room,
a

If I want go and

to

know

whether

the next
me

can

look

; and

there is anyone in the experience furnishes

any

with

solution

of the

problem, without
me.

artificial manipu
to

lation of the the

materials

by

But

if I want

know

whether

jug will break if it falls on the stones, the only way of appeal ing direct to experience is to create an artificial experience,ad hoc,
it fall on by letting fallen be
sure on

the stones

"

unless, indeed,
In

I wait

until it has

the stones that such

we are an

by
not

accident. accident
in
a

the

case

of the
sooner

will

happen
we

jug, we may or later,and

to wait

therefore, if ^

hurry,

may

be

content

I until the accident

happens, and then we shall know ; but in many the precise experience we need is not likely to happen cases, to experiment. [ accidentally;and then we must have recourse
The direct

appeal

often inconvenient,
are more

to be often experience has been shown These defects dangerous, often impracticable. to ; but

great and

important

it has

yet another
that
now we

defect, perhaps
from
or

important appeal to experience

From it

still. The

knowledge
obtain
no

obtain exists

direct
now

is limited
can

to what

what

^happens.

we

knowledge

of the

past

or

OBSERVATION the future.

forward into

AND

EXPERIMENT back

igg

We
the

cannot

transport ourselves
and
or

into the past,

existed

or or

future,

observe

directly what
Neither

happen. by observation of by any combination alone, nor by experiment alone, nor either the the and observation experiment alone, can past or the Yet future be ascertained. majority of the problems that happened, what
will exist

will

confront
the
new cause

us

in life

belong
are

to

the

past
What
the
or

or

the

future. be the
cost

What of

was

of my ?

child's These

illness ?

will
common

laying

drains

types

of

To
must

conclude,
have

from

any

observation

problems of life. made, what experiment now

will be
in the
to

been

in the

past,

or

what

future, is

an

exercise, not of the direct,but of the indirect

All that
now

appeal
now

experience.

the

direct
; in

appeal

can

give us
is

is what

what exists, or

presented to perception. direct The appeal to experience is valid in proportion faithfulness with which the experience fulfils the conditions happens

short, what

to the

of the

this jug will break if it is problem. If the problem is whether be solved dropped on a stone floor, the problem cannot by obser vation or experiment alone, except by dropping this very jug upon floor of stone. If I drop another a jug upon a stone floor, and argue from the result
or

what if I

the

fate of this this

jug
a

would

be

under
or

similar water,
result

experience ;
or on a

drop
or

jug

on

feather

bed,

into the
am

wooden

floor

an

iron

plate,and
it
on a

argue
stone

from

what

would
not

happen
the

if I

dropped
the of
to

floor,I
The

employing appeal requires an

very these
terms

direct, but

indirect the very

appeal.
relation

direct the from

experience
am

between

that

seeking
an

establish.
of

Any departure
indirectness
into

conditions

imports
neither
to

element

the

appeal.
It is
true

that this

observation
the direct

nor

experiment
of the

is

often in
to

applied, in
hand. afford
,

sense,

solution

Both,
a

and for

basis

the

especially experiment, are this indirect appeal ; and

association, second,
the in
; and

problem usually made

teaches the
us

two

things
"

first,the
indirect

intimate

practice,of
the

direct

and the

the

appeal
to

immense

indirect
are

appeal

experience,by which
to

importance of great majority of

its nature, has

problems
The
not

solved.

indirect hitherto of the

appeal
been

experience,as
or even

I conceive

described,

recognised, by logicians,
or

either

Traditional, the

Inductive,

the

Modern

School.

200

NEW

LOGIC

No

doubt there

all
are

of

them,

and
as

especially
problems,

the

two

last, do

recognise
not

that
a

such show
and

things
in
no

though
or even

they

do

define

problem,
problems
for

or

what doubt of
me

it consists,

explicitly allude
school
;

to

logicians
certain
to

of

each

do

propose do
not

methods

the

solution
seems

problems
the the the
true

but

they
of the

recognise
appeal
to

what

to
or

be is

nature

indirect

experience,
"

that

it

general
great

mode of

of

solving

problems
can

the

only

mode

by which

majority

problems

be The

solved. direct

appeal
"

to
a

experience
of

"

Imm^iat^Induction,
as

as

we

may

call in

it

is not

mode

reasoning, and
;

reasoning
are

is

under in

stood which and the The and

Logic.

Observation is
in

experiment
and

processes

reasoning experiment
elimination
more

rudiment
on

the

validity
of
can

of

observation
"

depends
of

the
as

minimisation
as

reasoning
be the

on

reasoning,
the the
to
as

far

reasoning
of
or

eliminated.
more

complete
is

elimination observation

reasoning,
the

valid
In

trustworthy
direct
in

experiment.
results that
as

other
trust

words,

appeal

experience
the

gives
is

are

worthy appeal
is

proportion
eliminated.
:

appeal
total

direct, and
of
reduce

the

indirect

is

The all that had

a we

exclusion
do is to

the

indirect it to
a

appeal

impracticable
is

can

minimum. what
may
.

This observe

what is

Mill

in

his

mind

when

he

said
one

that tenth
'

we

usually
and my

compound remaining
I
...

result, of which
nine tenths
saw a

be

observation,
that
I I
...

the brother

inference. coloured
In

I affirm
. .

saw

only
my

surface
. . .

and

concluded is the
as

that

saw

brother.'
sensory

other

words,
;

per in
same

ception

interpretation interpretation
the

of
enters

impressions perception,
in

and

proportion
proportion
tions, and
to

into
error.

the of

enters

liabilityto
and
out two

Interpretation
into

sensa

their

combination
and
are

elaboration

percepts,
but this

pertain
is
one

Psychology,
points
at

of

place

in
come

Logic
into

of

the

which

the

sciences

contact.

CHAPTER

XIV

THE

INDIRECT

APPEAL

TO

EXPERIENCE

MEDIATE

INDUCTION.

THE

direct

appeal

to

experience
in

we

have

found

to

be

limited

in

practicability, and
number of
are

restricted that
at

usefulness.
confront the ?
us

By
must

far be

the

greater
if

the
be

problems
solved of

solved,

they
then,

to

all, by

indirect
It seeks of

appeal.
to

What,
this

is

the

nature

this
to
a our

appeal

solve

problem
It seeks

by
in

appealing experience applies

the

experience

similar that
to

problems.
has
the been solution
are

similar of

problem
that

solved of this.

; and

solution

problem
in
or

The

problem
and
to
a

is

proposition
element,
we

which

there

two

given
indirect

elements

missing

qusesitum.
for

In
a

the
pro
our

appeal
similar the similar third

experience,
the element

search
;

experience
and
we

position problem
The will is
to

in

given
of

elements that

adopt
our

into

proposition
is discovered

as

qusesitum. experience,
Induction
difference Deduction
we

proposition premiss.
Then At

that the
once

in in the

call

the
a

first
we

step
see

Mediate radical

find

premiss.
process

between
cannot

this
stir
a

and unless Inference

a

Inference,

or

Deduction.

step
of
a

complete
is
founded

premiss
and

is based knows

given.
on a

The

whole

process
"

given
of
Its

premiss

on

postulate.
To Mediate of

Mediate Induction find

a

Induction
no

nothing
is
in

postulates.
function
of
an

premiss
; and

given.
the

is, first

all, to

premiss
the

it is
and

finding
of

appropriate
are

premiss
most

that

skill He

acumen

the
;

investigator
and that

first and

displayed.
selects whatever

searches
relation

experience
it contains the

from
most

experience
resembles,
of the

he in

its

homologous

elements,

given

elements
The

problem.
is asked

doctor ? He

what himself
I
a am
"

was
'

the
The
x.

cause

of

Johnny

Jones' Jones'

illness
illness for
a

puts

it to
x.

problem
I must

is, Johnny
search
I

is caused

by
"

to
as

find

experience
must

similar

case

for

case

like

as

possible.

find

202

NEW illness illnesses

cause

LOGIC

case

in

which
sure

similar
the

was are one

traced

to

cause,

and

may

be

that, if
of the

really similar
illness
or was

in

material

respects,and
the
cause

if the true

of the the

discovered,
similar in
he in

other

will be searches

same,

will be
he

material
wants.

respects.' He
He

experience,and
Brown's

finds what
was,

remembers

Jenny
to

which illness,
;

material

respects, similar

Johnny's

he

remembers foul and

was

that

illness was traced without doubt to Jenny Brown's to suppurating gums, what to faultydiet, or not ; that Johnny's illness cludes,with assured certainty, the What
For
same

drains,
he
con

due

to

cause,

or

to

one so

that

is similar

in material

respects.

his warrant the

is for it is

we concluding,

shall consider what the

course

presently.
of the

moment,

enough

to

show

reasoning is.
This, then, is the
that
is I call
nature
or

of the Mediate

indirect

appeal
When

to

experience
a

Induction,

Induction.

of solution presented to us that does not admit we appeal to experience, appeal to experience indirectly, by com paring the problem with some previous experience that is similar in material
we

problem by direct

respects. We
not

cannot
same

reproduce Johnny's illness.

but illness,
to

If

could, it would
set

be the
in

another

one.

We

produce the illness,for ex the cause is unknown. Direct appeal to experience hypothesi, be made. therefore appeal to experience indirectly, We cannot of some similar problem, the solution of through the medium which is known. search experience for a premiss for a pro We like as to be true in fact, and as positionknown possible to the the problem with this premiss ; and, if problem. We compare
cannot
cause

the

motion

"

they

are

like in the that

two

given elements
in the

of

the

problem,
Thus into

we we

conclude

supply the
the

they are like missing element

element
; the

third

element

also.

in the

problem, by adopting

it be

homologous

of the

represented thus

mark

premiss. The reasoning may || being the sign of assimilation.

was

Jenny Brown's

illness

caused

by

foul drains

Johnny Jones' illness

That this is the actual

was

caused

by

(x)fouldrains.
in

process

of

reasoning

the

case

INDUCTION who
I

AND

SYLLOGISM

203

supposed,
his
own

no

one

follows

it,and
any

traces

the
At

operations of
least,it
the
so. com

mind,
in
never common as

can,

think,
on reason

have

doubt.

pares have

this

respect
any form

equal

terms

with

the

syllogism;

for

heard

for the

assertion,that

syllogism
Modern

is the

of all

reasoning,except

that it is

than more represented by Mr. Bosanquet, enumerates of reasoning ten of judgement, dealing with modes twenty thirteen of Inference, dealing with Com ; and Simple propositions pound propositions. I find it difficult to appreciate the niceties

Logic,

"

of distinction that
I find any
one

separate these
that

forms

from

one

another
as

; nor

do

of them
or

is

not

either Inference
as

understood

in the next

Book,

Mediate

Induction

here

explained.
we syllogising,

Comparing Induction, as here described, with them : find the following differences between
"

1.

The

syllogism has

three

terms,

and

no

more

than

three.

The

fallacyof four terms facto falsifies any ipso

contains
2.

is the

cardinal

of the fallacy
it occurs.

syllogism,and
The Induction four. three
con

syllogism in
and
cannot

which

four terms,

be of be of

constructed and
no

with
more

less than than

The

syllogism consists

three,
which

all of which must propositions, sists of two propositions,one

enters

complete.
is is

The

Induction

into

the

Induction,

and

incomplete when completed by the process

it of

the marks assimilation be can reasoning. Since, however, in three expressed in words, it is possibleto express the Induction be expressed in two, which the syllogism propositions ; but it may
can

not.

3.

The

syllogism contains
with
one more or

two

premisses ;
two.
can

and The be

no

syllogism can
Induction need

be

constructed but with

less than

contain
two
or

premiss ;

but

Inductions

constructed

with

three

4. The Without
a

foundation

premisses,as will hereafter be shown. of the syllogism is the Universal proposition.

must

Universal, there
It needs from

be

an

undistributed
is founded
; but

middle, with
on an

all its dire consequences.

to

The
a

Induction

appeal

experience.
different Traditional

Universal,
of

it is true

its Universal The

is very of

that
is
a

Traditional

Logic.

Universal

postulated universal, and need not be in fact. of It may Universal true be wildly impossible. The is founded Induction Mediate on experience. It must, therefore, be consistent with experience; and Induction contain must every an appeal to experience. Logic

204

NEW

LOGIC

syllogismmust premisses. The Induction

tions that have but
one

5. The

have has

middle middle

term,
term.

common

to

both

no

Those

induc

have a middle term. premiss, cannot 6. According to Traditional Logic, one premiss at least of the be affirmative. The singlepremissof an induction must syllogism
may

be affirmative differences
are,

or

negative.
between Mediate Inference and Mediate

The Induction

therefore, profound and

far-reaching. In all the

above, they differ ; but the main difference, respects enumerated the important difference, the difference from which it results that
Induction
on

is in

daily and

hourly use,
Inference

while

Inference

is

employed

and takes appliesto postulates, of Truth of experience; while Induction account rests no or on Whether the are experience alone. postulates of Inference of the materiallytrue or not, has nothing to do with the course

occasion

only,is that

argument,

and
too

is of

no

concern

to

it.

For

the purpose

of Inference,
to
serve

nothing is
as a

impossible,too
can

absurd,
from

too

preposterous,

postulate. We imponderable,that
virtue is red and if the

argue

the
can

postulatethat
enclose
our a

matter

is that

two

straightlines
soul is
is square

space,

the

; and

inferences
But

will be

sound

argument

properly conducted.
the admits
"

Induction truth

knows of its that

are

"To Induction, nothing of postulates.

premiss is vital.
consistent
in fact. A

material

Induction

those

premisses only
believed
to

with

be,
or

true

experience, that are, or are premiss which is at variance with

in has experience, maintenance truth of
"

experience,
Induction.

which

has

no

basis

no

place

in

In

short, Inference
is the

is the

of

consistency only ;
Inference its be that
a

Induction
be and

discoveryof
sense

of

fact.l An

may

valid, in the perfectly

may stand every
test

consisting with
can

postulate,

of consistency that
a

applied to
we

it, and
never

yet may
dream

be

of

such
our

crazy

character
on

should bird
I I

of
on

founding
any
to

conduct
one

it.)If
in
a

canary

cannot cannot

live

diet

except
a

of wild alive The

elephants,then
cage

expect

keep

canary

bird

unless is

provide a

diet of wild

elephants for

rigorous, unescapable. But of this inference,I validity

Africa
upon. canary for
a

plain, in spite of the unexceptionable of sending to should dream never

it. wild

Inference

consignment of
to

elephants

to

feed

my

canary

If I want

solve the

problem, What

the proper

diet for

is,I

must

either

to experience, appeal directly by trying

206 occurred. the death

/

NEW

LOGIC that has

A of

fact is all
men

an

event not

happened, and

the event
be
*

of
no
'

has In

discussion that all

men

about
are

it.

yet happened, or there would literal truth, therefore, it is not a

all
in fact mortal If all
men

fact

mortal.

In the second

place,whether
do

men

are

or

not
are

has

nothing
and
so

to

with is
a

the
man,

process

of

inference.
no

mortal

Socrates is it true

he
men

is mortal,
are

doubt.
and

That
Socrates

is
is

true, and
a

that if all Both

on

immortal,
are

man,

he
cannot

is immortal. be founded
on

inferences

valid, but perfectly

either of them
not

both is not

fact, and
if
so

whether

is

or

founded

fact, and

which, makes

the

slightest
in

difference to the
In
sense

of the inferences. validity

we

the third
that all be

place, if
men some now

believe that all

men

are

mortal,

the that

livingwill die, it
in

is

clear perfectly

there must
V

ground
that

experience for
will die
are
men

the belief.

It is clear
not
on

that

the

knowledge

Socrates

depends,
on

the

postulatedproposition that
grounds.
In the fourth

all

mortal, but

empirical

place,if it is assumed
for the purpose from it will be
as

that All of
true
a some as

men

are

mortal, this
and any

is assumed postulate conclusion will have

on a no

argument,
the

derived other the

more

assumption
and

and

authorisation.

It is

conventional

assumption,

par

with

assumptions about
nor

centaurs
an

and
are.

of neither
If the

less
goes

as validity,

jabberwocks, assumption, than these

to

assumption
of

further, and
are

is assumed

be true
we

in
are

the limits fact,

in another

of Deduction

ipsofacto exceeded, and

should of
'

it is necessary that we province reasoning. Now the grounds state the grounds of the assumption, and once
are

an

assumption
who
? Is

stated, it ceases
'

to to

be

an

assumption.

Socrates

is mortal

is

an

answer

three

main

questions.
attribute the
'

'

Is

it Socrates
Socrates

is mortal
or

Is it

mortality that is an
mortal
?
'

of last

is not
to

Socrates that
to

Commonly,
is mortal
not

question is taken
answer.

be

which

'

Socrates It does

is the the

But any
to

this is not doubt

explicit enough.
wants to know

express

doubt, if
he wants is whether solution he

in the mind exists,

of the

questioner. What
on

know, if he
Socrates

anything
is
no

the

subject,
the

will There

die.

If Socrates

already dead,
It is

is known.
we

is then

problem.
to

only if
he is

is alive that

can

possiblywant

know

whether

mortal.

INDUCTION That

AND

SYLLOGISM

207

Will

Socrates

die ?

is the
:

problem.
find
x.

is Socrates* how do
we

(willor

will

not) die

To

Formally stated, it solve this problem,

proceed ? I say that we proceed to find a premiss in experience. We search experience for the relation most resembling We ask what the relation stated in the problem. our experience
is of the Socrates
we

mortality of beings
with
other
men

most

like to Socrates.

We

compare

in the

material

respect of
men are

and mortality,

find, in experience,that, in this respect,

classes
"

divisible into
those those whose

two

those
not

whose
"

mortality is proved,
those
to

and

mortality is
"alive. much,
as

Socrates

proved belongs
more,

who

are

dead, and
We

who

are

the

latter class.

have

preciselyas
will

and

no

warrant every to

for and

concluding that
any other
man

Socrates
now

die,
who Old

for

concluding
Our task

that

living will

die.
are

is,not
would find

dead, which
but
to

bring Socrates into the class of those result in proceedings againstus at the
how far Socrates, and other

Bailey ;
can

out

livingmen,
those is this
our

be

assimilated, in the material

demonstrated ? What have their
we

respect

of

mortality,to
How influences

who
to

have be done in All

an men

mortality by dying.
go

to

upon

What

minds that prove,

concluding that
are

Socrates

will die ?

Clearly
we

it is not have
to

mortal, for this is assuming what

even

and assumption quite legitimate,

necessary,
sense,

in the in mate

Logic
rial

of

Inference, but preposterous, in the literal

The

reasoning.

respect of

enables to assimilate,in us question is What of living men with the mortality,the great multitude of
men

greater multitude

who

have of

died

Mill

says for
one

it is

our

knowledge
Nature this that will

of

the

Uniformity
as assurance we

Nature.
; but

Well,
if it and

thing,

is not
we

uniform,
get
our

Mill admits that

be, and
other the

if it is from

Socrates

livingmen
of

die, whence
? On that and vague be had

do

get this
and the

knowledge
silent.
rest

of
I

Uniformity
we

Nature
assurance

this, logicians are

Socrates

say

that

get
no

our

of
we

us

will die

from

such

vague be
can as

inaccurate
and
out
as

assumption.
as

If

did, our
in it. will Our

assurance

would

inaccurate
a

the

since nothing assumption itself,

assurance

of the

Socrates

and
as

premiss that is not rest of living mankind

and do the
manner,
we nor

that
vague,

die, is neither
It is
we

except

to

time

inaccurate.
it ?
I

and precise, it from innu

it is true.

Whence
"

obtain

say

that of

obtain for

experience, from
merable

uniform

experience

mankind

and generations,

in innumerable

millions

of instances, that

208 has

NEW

LOGIC

no

man

permanently escaped death.

Given

time, no
and

man

has

failed to
man

exhibit

mortality.
constant

In

other

words, the relation

that will die.

between

and
our

is mortality

in

That, experience.
that Socrates
man

alone,
be

is
"

warrant
can

for the conclusion

But
constant not

the relation between in

and

mortalitybe
of
man men

said to who

experience,if there are multitudes proved their mortality ? Yes, for every
lived for
a

have died
now

who the

has
men

has

certain

time

before

dying,
men

and

livingresemble
among

in all material

respects the

who

have

died

"

other
a

material

respects,they resemble

those who

have

died,
rela
in

in that

certain

tion,in
the

men,

The periodof livingprecedes their death. between livingand eventuallydying, is constant

of

experienceof the whole

mankind, without
in

singlepermanent

enables, and experience than enables, that compels us to conclude, that the relation more in experience. The will continue to be constant men are living

exception.

It is this constancy

that

temporary exceptions to this constancy

unable
to

in

experience,but
eventual

we

are

regard them
we

as

permanent
constant

exceptions, because
sequence

the of

relation that death

upon

have
There

found have

is the

life.

always been

multitudes

of temporary

been a exception; and exceptions : there has never permanent in experience allows, and compels, us this undeviating constancy will be a permanent that there never to conclude exception, and

that Socrates

and

the rest of warranted

us

will
? Are

die. ultimately
we

in concluding justified that since, in the experience of mankind, a thing always has been, therefore it always will be? This problem does not belong to Is this conclusion

pertainsto Epistemology,and need not be considered who the subject on these lines will here. Those wish to pursue find it treated in my book on Psychology. As far as Logic is Logic.
It

concerned, it is enough that

"

constancy
"

in

form

the sole ground of ground from Formal reasoning. Of course, this doctrine is open to the that very that it lays down, as the criterion of certainty, objection
"

the

experiencedoes in fact Material, as distinguished

inductio

per enumerationem
Bacon agree hold
as

simplicem,ubi
put
as

non

instantia reperiiur form

con-

which tradictoria,
In this I do
not
we

the

weakest
I hold

of Induction.

with
most

Bacon.

truths that instances all matter

of the that every one of certain,rests upon the accumulation

Is
on

without

exception.
And

anything
what

more

certain than this

that

? gravitates

does

certainty rest,

INDUCTION
the
more

AND

SYLLOGISM

209

except
from
are we

accumulation certain ? that for The the than

of

instances

without
is
never

exception?
found

Z"j^
any

anything

that

resistance
on

apart

extension certain

rests certainty
sun

the

same

ground.
? Have
we

Why

will rise to-morrow the

know

better without of the

injury be accompanied by pain ? Is it healthybody will certainly the same not from unvarying experience? "o far from the inductio simplicembeing untrustworthy, it is the ground per enumerationem
we

our ground exception?

belief than
How do

accumulation that mutilation

of instances and

S
.

"

gf
aim

every
was

one

of

our

most

certain

convictions.

Of course,

Bacon's

as deprecate the reception of simple enumeration sufficient proof, without searching for contrary instances, and suchT~ aim is wholly laudable has been widely held to an ; but his maxim under that simple enumeration cannot mean any circumstances and I this opinion, hold, is wrong. give a valid induction, the consistency of the The Deduction we by which prove conclusion, that Socrates is mortal, with the postulates that All

to

men

are

mortal
:

and
"

Socrates

is

man,

is stated

in the

form

of

thus syllogism,

If And Then

All

men

are

mortal
a man

Socrates Socrates

is

is mortal.

The

Induction
as

by which
in form

we

prove

that

Socrates

will, in
It is this
:
"

fact,

die, is
Men

different

as

it is in conclusion.

been have, constantlyin experience,

found

mortal

Socrates

(x) will be found

state the argument we propositions, may in have, constantly experience,been found

mortal.

Or, in formal
Since
men

thus
mortal

"

and

Since

Socrates
men

resembles, in respects material

have died
;

to the

argument,

who

Therefore, Socrates
In
common

will die.

this
to

argument
all Mediate

will be

found

certain and

characters
the

that

are

Inductions,

that form

conditions

of

of all such Inductions. validity

N.L.
p

210

NEW

LOGIC

1.

The in

Ratio

of the

premiss predicatesa relation that is constant

in the Problem
to

experience.
of the

2.

One

given elements

(in this

case

the

3.

Subject) is assimilated The other given element Object) is

homologue in the Premiss. in the Problem the (in this case identical with its homologue in the Premiss.
its the the

4. The

quaesitum is obtained by adopting into the Problem the Ratio) of remaining element (in this case Premiss, with which the quaesitumis homologous.
difference,as
elements conclusion. of the well
as

5. The

the and

likeness, of the assimilated Premiss, is reflected in the

the
men

Problem

Socrates

differs from

who

have

proved their mortality by dying, in Jhe fact that he is the Hence alive. the quaesitum 'will be found' is not
same as

its

homologue

have

been between

found

'

in

the and

Premiss dead If these

men.

; but

reflects the difference

Socrates

statements

are

severally changed
of Induction

from

assertions
may

to

mandates, they become

thus
i. :
"

Canons

; and

be stated

The

First

Canon

of

Induction in

is that

the

premiss

must

a predicate

relation that that is constant

is constant in

under

one

or experience, experience.

is subsumable

Constancy in experience,of the relation expressed in the premiss,

is the very sine qua of assured Induction non ; for note If Cassius of its absence. is found murdered, why conclude
Brutus

the effect
cannot

I
was one

that, since
who murdered

Brutus Cassius

murdered also ?
In

Caesar, therefore

it

all respects but the

in

the argument question,

is valid.

Brutus

murdered

Caesar

II

II
murdered

II
Cassius.

(X) Brutus
Here
are

all the One

Induction. identical element with in

to

the one in question, of valid save conditions, in the problem the Ratio is given element
" "

its

homologue
"

in

the

premiss.
"

The

other

given

respects
dead.

problem its homologue

Caesar

the

Object is similar in all material in the premiss. Cassius, like Caesar, is

the of violence
on

Like

he died

the

Ides

of March

CANONS stabbed

OF

INDUCTION
foot of

211

like Caesar, he

was

at

the

Pompey's

statue.

In

all respects material to the argument, he resembles Caesar. killed him that Brutus to conclude then, is it unjustifiable
Brutus killed unquestionably Brutus
are,

Why,
? for

Csesar.

Because, and
men

only because,
constant

the relation between

and

murdered

is not

in

experience.
men

There

in

experience,many by
ever

exceptions. Many
than If

have

been

murdered

persons

other be drawn. murdered

Brutus,
no one

and

hence

it is that the conclusion

cannot

in the

history of the world

and if Brutus had

had

been
to

except by Brutus,

been

known be

murder very
onus

many

people
lie
on

besides

Caesar, the
was

suggestion would by Brutus,

and
not

strong indeed
would
;

that Cassius
Brutus stand
"

killed

the

of

proving that he did experience being what is the only evidence the magistrate would charge.
But does relation
not

kill Cassius
"

but

as

matters

it is
in

if the fact that Brutus of his

killed

Caesar

support
have
no

having

murdered
to

Cassius,
the

alternative

but

dismiss

this prove
in

too

much

How
must

is the Canon,
be
constant

that
in of

the

expressed

the the

premiss
argument

experience, consistent In Johnny's illness ?

to

with this from

about

the

cause we

instance, a conclusion
a

which

feel

be

valid,is
and

drawn
can

only ;
in Caesar The

how

it
more

experience, any
? difference from that

premiss stating a single instance be said that any singleinstance is constant than the single instance of Brutus killing
the causation of the

is that

illness

was

not

inferred the the mind

is another but

premiss alone. Lurking in the background mentioned premiss,which is not explicitly

which
is in the

of in

argument,

argument,
come

and

is essential to
and
assert

the argument.
and if,
one case

It is there,ready to called upon.

to

forward

itself from

when,

It would

be unless

impossible to
it
were same

argue

of causation

another,

assumed
cause

that, in

experience, causation is constant: and the effect, produces the same

same cause.

that
same

the

always
due
to the

effect is
cause

always
effect

This

relation

between hence

and

is,in fact,
on

constant
are

in

and experience,

material

reasoningsbased

it

valid,if valid
Then

in other respects.

Induction, like syllogising, does, after all, requiretwo

Not premisses? relation, necessarily. If the individual in experience, it expressed in the premiss,is not itself constant
P

212

NEW

LOGIC

must

be

subsumed
; but

under

more

comprehensive relation that is

constancy in experience inheres in the very relation of the premiss itself, then this premiss alone is sufficient
constant to warrant

if the

the in

conclusion.
can

Since

the

mortality of
from this number
not

men

is

constant

experience, I
or

safelyconclude,
or

premiss
are

alone, that Socrates,

mortal the
;

any

other man,

any

of men,

but, when

the constancy in

experience is
us

expressed in
nature

premiss,but is assumed, something further in the

Let

of

premiss is evidently required.

I my
see a

take another
seen

case. once

snake, the like of which

was

I have
a

but

before bit my
on

in

and that life, died in ten which

yesterday,when
That similar precisely What
?

similar snake
I

which

minutes.
is

snake
in

killed

; and

dog, seeing
at

this one,
once

appearance, process

I conclude

that it is

venomous.

is the

of

reasoning,and

what

is its warrant

The

problem is This
'

snake snake

is not) venomous or (is

was venomous

'

; and

the

induction

is

That

ii
This snake

ii

ii
venomous.

(x) is
and

The should
in

conclusion
pay
sense

is
my

irrefragable ;

if I

were

to

disregard it,I

with

the

There is no Universal, lifefor my indiscretion. attached to that word by Traditional Logic, in the afford to
of

reasoning.
individuals under

I cannot

wait

until I have

collected all the

one now

that

exist
;

that

species, including the

to bite
or an

observation whether
to

procured each of them

live

animal is the

and

observed
way known

the bitten animals

die.

This

only

without had

Logic of obtaining a Universal, and, I Universal, Traditional Logic is powerless. When

Traditional

completed the laborious

a

task, then, and

not

till then, should

I be in

to position

argue

All snakes

of this
snake

speciesare

venomous

This
.'.

is

of this

species;

This

snake

is venomous. could
not

And

this conclusion

be

reached
of

until I had

actually
not

determined is
venomous.

in the by experiment,

case

this very

snake, that it

The

Universal

would,

therefore, be

only
and

impracticable, but

utterly superfluous, and

redundant,

214

NEW which
on

LOGIC

Uniformity
do
not

of

Nature,
than

they

infer

from

uninterrupted

experience,rather
understand.
true
reason

the

I uninterrupted experience itself,

The

that
*

we

can

argue

from is

'That

snake

was

venomous,'
'

to

This
we

snake, which
cannot

exactly like that,

'

is
'

venomous

; while

argue
to

from
me

Brutus

killed Caesar
:

to

Brutus

killed Cassius,' seems lurks the that

'

to

be

this

Behind
'

the

first is

argument
of

uniform,'but

supplementary premiss, not In experience, the relation

their that
venomousness,
are

that

Nature

between
'

the
;
or

appearance
'

snakes, and

is constant
are

The

experience that snakes

and
was

alike in appearance The inference

alike

in structure

is constant.' qualities,
venomous,

that, since
between

that

snake

this snake, which

not
a

exactly resembles
likeness

that, is
of what
and
a

venomous,

does
upon

rest

on solely

the

the snakes.
? A

It rests

constancy
is not
we

in

experience. Constancy
sense;

singleinstance

single instance

is all

constancy, in any proper have, so far,to go upon.

The the

second, the

underlying, the silent premiss, which

validates

the first snake its and reasoning, is that the relation between is subsumable under a relation, or venomousness belongs to a class, that is constant between
constant

in

experience.
of
I

It is not

merely that
their

the relation is
same one

the in

appearance

snakes

and
and

venomousness

experience.
never

could,
or

should, draw
of any The than
to

the

inference that bit my

if I had

seen

heard
one.

snake

except the
It

dog yesterday,and this

and
more

underlying premiss
this. is that the

is far wider
appearance nay,

comprehensive
is
an

of all animals

index

their other
appearance,
not

properties
"

it is wider, much

wider, still. The

not

only of

all

animals, but

of all

organic beings ;

beings, but of all bodies whatever, is an

The
race,

only of all organic index to their properties.

of the whole
human
one

experience, not
is constant, in
some one

only of ourselves,but
the
more more

that

closelythings

resemble

another

the properties, another

snake
was was

they resemble
that the second

in

closely,on the whole, do other properties. The conclusion,

was

venomous,

felt at

once

to

be

irrefragable. It
was

not

merely arrived
upon
me. was

at without
now see

but difficulty,

thrust

and

forced
"

We

why
of

it

was on

so a

readily accepted generalisation

"

why
a

on

inescapable. It in experience constancy

"

it

rested

boundless

extent.

CONSTANCY In every
be
man

IN

EXPERIENCE

215
must

Induction, the relation expressed in the premiss

in be

itself constant
; or

experience,as
subsumable
case

in

the
a

case

of the

mortalityof
It

it must

under

relation

that is constant
of the snake.

in

as experience,

in the

of the

venomousness

may,

indeed, be
or

plausibly argued
be subsumable from the

that
one

every
more man

must,
Even

may,

under

premised relation comprehensive.

does
not

the

argument
wider

mortality of
alone.
"

rest

upon sub of all

the constancy sumed under

a

of that

relation relation

The

relation

may

be but

that, not
one, to

animals, of which

man

is but We

only of man, mortality. Nor

the back
to

does
our

the

subsumption
unavowed,
action

end

here.

have

at

of be

minds,
into in

latent,tacit,but
the

ready

in

reserve

called
constant

if necessary,

still wider

relations, still

and vegetable, are experience, that all organic beings, animal mortal; and that all material things are subject to decay and

dissolution.
In this all
sense,
"

the contention
all

of

Traditional
"

Logic is true,
upon that
a

that

reasoning
in

Constancy
the
was

Empirical reasoning experience is the Unknown

rests

Universal. of logicians

God

the

Schools
some

but think that it ignorantly worshipped. I cannot dim, undefined, vague, approximate appreciationof this led to the As

necessitythat
Universals.

interminable

discussions
of Postulation

on

the
was

nature not

of dis

tinguishedfrom
to
one

long as the Logic the Logic of Material

true nature

Argument,
Universal
an or

it

was

impossible
of the The

arrive at the
is

of

Universals, for the Universal

the

profoundly
than
the

different
can

from
never

of the other.

postulated Universal
any
more

validate
of centaurs

argument

in materid,

true

nature to

ascertained of the made

by appeal
discussion
in circles.

distinction all

between
on

jabberwocks can be the non-recognition experience. It was the discrete departments of Logic that
barren, and
of the
a

Universals Universal

led of

to

endless

arguments
is
a

The

Logic
the

Postulation the

term

having'a certain quantity,in

of argument of the is
; and

relation
to

postulated for
argument
conclusion The It is

purpose the

all that

is vital

is that is not

quantity Logic
of

greater than
the that that

in the corresponding term warranted by the premisses. is not in

a

Universal
a

of
"

Induction is constant

term

at
"

all. and

relation
to

relation

experience
be
men
'

it is vital Discussion

the rages

argument
round

this relation of

should All

constant.
'

the

meaning

the

in

'

All

men

are

mortal,'

216

NEW

LOGIC

question actuallyat issue is the meaning, is meant term, but of the copula. It is not what by but what is meant In the mortal. are by All men
when Postulation
men are

the

not
'

of the

All

men,'
all

Logic of

this

'

means

For

the

purpose

of

this argument,

credited it
or

with
In
men

the

possess

not.'

the relation between The difference in of the

serve

mortality,whether they it In Material means Logic experience, and mortality has been found constant.'
'

attribute

of

meaning
purpose
on

is

as

profound as
other

the

difference in the
the
one

purposes

arguments,
the

and

it is the attempt to make that has

meaning
secular What

of the

sterilised the

discussions

the nature
or

of Universals.
mean,

logicians mean,
in

should

by Uniformity of Nature,

of experience, that is to say, the accumulation instances without instances are exception. How required many the before we effect is can regard an experience as constant, what of meeting with exceptions,and of the ratio between the mind on

is constancy

instances
and
are

and
out

exceptions these of place in Logic.

"

are

problems

in

Epistemology,
of them
will

An

examination

Psychology. All that need be said here is that what is called by logicians the Uniformityof Nature, means constancy in experience; that, in every material argument, the
be found in my book
on

relation

in

the

premiss
under
one

must

be

constant

in in

experience,or

must

be subsumable

that is constant

experience.

The
must

second

Canon

of Induction
to its

is that One element in the problem

in the

be assimilated
canon

homologous element
utmost

premiss.
reasoning.
the
first step in

This
The

is of the
a

importance
been
of
an

in material

finding of
;

premiss has
assimilation relation
a

said

to

be

Induction
an

and

the

element in

in the

element

in
in

some

that

is constant

problem, to experience,is the

which this

first step

finding

premiss. The
the
cause

propositionin

similar element
In

then becomes exists,

the

Induction

by which
was

the

premiss. of Johnny's illness

to

was

ascertained, his illness

was

assimilated

the

first step

in the

argument.
an

Jenny's illness. That to be found, premiss was

in the

containing an

element

similar to

problem contains but two its supply being the solution

found, such
that
one

problem. The elements, the third being wanting, and

of

element

the

problem.

premiss
to
one

must

be

of

its elements

is assimilable
necessary,

of the

given elements

of the

problem.

It is not

for the solution

THE

DATUM

217

of the
or

be

should be precisely problem, that the assimilated elements exactly similar. Preciselyor exactly similar things are not to similar in material found in Nature. It is enough if they are
"

respects
for in kind of

in respects material
not

to the

argument.

The

two

illnesses,

instance, need
and the

have
at every

presented symptoms
stage, and
on

degree
illness.
as

similar precisely corresponding every

are so

day

It
to

is

enough
us

if

they

similar
are

in
to

material similar Socrates

to
men same

respects
causes.

give

confidence

that

they

due

In

the

Induction

by

which in

it is discovered all material that should

are

that

will

die, Socrates
have

is assimilated It is not necessary he

respects
have
same

who

died.

he

should the

the

colour
or

stature, material

of eyes and speak the same

hair, that

have
not

language.
It is

These that he

respects
in those

enough in organisation, respects which are material to mortality;in origin, in what is vaguely termed of maintenance, Nature. in mode
argument.
"

to the

is similar

When

I assimilated did
not

the

snake
to

to
measure

the

one

which
to

bit

my

dog
if it
as

the

day before, I exactly the

snake in
I had

stop

it,or
same was

find out

were

same

size,or
venomous.

had

the It

number

of rattles that it all

we are was

the

found

enough
These how

similar
were

shape, colours,
to

and

markings.
argument
and

were

that
to

material what is

the

argument.
to the

If it is asked

know

is material

what

is not, the the

venomous

only answer
of
or

is by a scrutiny of the problem. What Is this snake problem ? The problems run

nature

the
not

Will
In

Socrates

die ? that the

What

is the of the
to

cause

of

the

child's the I
am

illness ?
of

deciding
on

length
nature

snake, and
the

number influenced

rattles

its

tail, are

not

material

argument,

by

my

that

knowledge reject these

to

of the

of snakes. I

Logicians would

say

factors because
I

essential and

venomousness.

implications of
has
never
'

Traditional
come

recognise that they are not prefer to discard the phraseology made has never Logic, which
any

clear,which
what is meant

to

permanent

agreement

as

to

phraseology and implications that belong to Traditional is practically coincident Logic, which with the Logic of Postulation, are out of place in Material Logic. Whether the qualities that I discard from consideration or are
are

by

essential.'

The

not

essential, is beside
from
to

the is

mark.

The

reason

discard
are

them
material

consideration
the

that, in
In this

experience, they
as

not

argument.

in

all

else, Material

2i8

NEW

LOGIC

reasoning rests
to men,

on same

experience. It is empiricalfrom
reason, to

beginning
to

end. in
not

For

the

in the

Socrates assimilating

other

respects material
take
or

argument
the colour
:

about

his

mortality,
and

I do

into the

consideration

of his eyes
and I
are

hair,
these

his

stature,
from
nature
as

language
"

he

speaks
because

discard
not

matters to

consideration,not
of Socrates for
a

they
know
a

essential be
reason as

the

aught

I
or

they

may

essential discard found

the

possession of
one or

stomach

mind.

The

I
not
or

them
men

from
of

consideration colour less

is that, in
or

I experience,
or

have

of hair
to

eyes,

of

one

stature
men

language, more
are

subject

than mortality

other

; and

for the therefore,

not

purpose

of the

argument
I have

about

they mortality,
I wish

material.
us

Let
to

take

new

argument.

glassflower, and

know

if it is it to
to

assimilate material

Canon, I must fragile.According to this second some thing or things that it resembles in respects
argument.
The of which

the

only respect material

it is made,
and

to

the

argument

is the substance

I assimilate

it,

to other glassthings,and thus obtain the induction therefore,

Glass This This with

Datum.

things
glassflower

are,

in experience, constantly

fragile

(x) is
one

fragile.
of the

of assimilation,

of the

given elements

problem
call the

the

homologous
It is at
once

element

in the discovered

premiss,I

apparent that the Datum

of the induction

and has by corresponds with the minor premiss in the syllogism, of searching in for it. If, instead mistaken logicians been or toughness of things experience for a knowledge of the fragility similar to the flower, I assume as a postulate, Glass things are
'

then brittle,'

upon

this

principium I

can

found

: syllogism
"

All This
" . .

glassthings are
flower is
a

fragile;

glassthing ; This flower is fragile.

minor

In

this
a

syllogismthe

premiss
"

'

This
'

flower

is

glass

'
"

has

to the deceptive similarity

Datum
to the

"

This

flower is like other

glassthings in respects material

fact, however,
minor the
says
two
'

are,

or

may is

In argument of fragility.' The be, widely different.

we

premiss

This

flower

and glass,'

know

that

in

THIRD

CANON

OF

INDUCTION
'

219 in
'

Traditional
attribute of the

Logic, the Copula

This
is very In this

means

is included
'

or

has

'

the

of.'

different

from

is like for the

purpose

not matter, argument.' particular argument though we are freely at libertyto take as our postulate'glass If it is vital. things are unbreakable arguments ; but in many complete validity, dogs are paralysed by curare, I can argue, with
'

it does

that,

since
men

men can

are

therefore
same curare. as

saying that
This is the stated
can

of the argument, dogs for the purpose this is not the be paralysed by curare ; but since men are dogs, they can be paralysed by like form in which the
course,

argument
for the there from is

must

be

put if it
of Infer in

is

to

be
we

Of syllogistically.

purpose is
no

ence,

postulatewhat
of

we

please,and
prevent
us

barrier

the
men

conditions
are

Inference
But the

to

postulatingthat
an

dogs.
What
we

present
to

argument
is not

argument
in the world and if
men

in of
are

materid.

want

know

whether,
curare,

postulation,if dogs can dogs, certain conclusions

world,
cannot

be
can

paralysed by
be

drawn,

but real
a

whether
men

in the and this

real
we

real do

curare

will

really paralyse
our men

;
so

with the

by founding experience as that

argument
and
must

argument
are

on

premiss
attain
a a

inconsistent

dogs.
not

To
on

real

conclusion,
on

be

founded,
of
a

experience ;
is B,
like B The material about is that form
we

in

place
the

minor drawn

postulate, but premiss, postulatingthat

from

A is

must

have

datum,
to

experience,that
in
cares

in respects material Datum

to

the

argument.
to

requires
the
or

its terms

be

assimilated
and

respects

argument.
attribution.

It knows All that in the

nothing
is

nothing

classes
the

homologous
should other

elements

required in the Datum, problem and premiss, that

respects. However
will still hold
much

its terms, differ in the

be alike in material

they
but

respects, the

argument

good

with

stated qualification of

in the fifth Canon

of Induction.

The

third Canon
second

Induction,
in the the

or

argument
other in
a common.

about

is Realities, with its

that The

given element
in
must

problem must
In

be identical

homologous
and We element Of the have is

element

premiss.
an

words,

the

problem
one

premiss
seen

have
a

element
is

that

problem
to

proposition in which
as

missing.
one

Two

elements, therefore, remain,

an

given.
in the

these,

is assimilated the

homologous
on

element

premiss

; and

premiss is founded

this

assimilation.

The

220

NEW the other

LOGIC

third Canon
must

be

in the problem given element identical with its homologue in the premiss.
states

that

This

Canon

has have the of

some a

resemblance middle
term

to ; but

the
the

condition
common

that element

the
of

syllogism must
the
the

problem
middle
of

and
term

premiss in Induction
a

is not
one a

syllogism.
need
not

For

comparable with thing, the common

at all.
:
"

element the

the

Induction

be

term

It may

be

Ratio, as in the argument

That This illness illness
since the
was was

about

the child's illness

caused caused

by
by

foul drains

(x)foul drains.

Object-term of the problem is the quaesitum, either the Subject or the Ratio, which alone are given, must be in the premiss. The identical with its homologue Subjects are
not

In this case,

identical, they
If

are

assimilated

consequently the remaining

we see

elements, the Ratios,

so. we

must

be identical ; and Ratio of the

that

they
which

are

substitute,for the If, for

t

premiss, one

is be
sub

not

identical with

the ratio of the That

was

drawn.

illness

was

problem, no conclusion can caused by foul drains,' we

or

stitute
or

'

That

illness

preceded,
foul drains.

followed,
no

or

accompanied,
that
this

not

caused
was

by foul drains,' we
caused

can

longer
men

argue

illness

by
and

If

are,

constantly in
men

mortal, experience,
material
Socrates
to

Socrates

resembles
we can on

other

in

respects
that

the

argument,

then
we

safely conclude
this If it is
we a

is in fact mortal is

; but

cannot

ground conclude
a

that he

reasonable, or
heat heat that will

polite,or
metals
cause

wealthy.
to

constant

experience that
conclude
to to

causes

expand,
in

may

safely

the

mercury

thermometer

expand, since
the argument that
For may

mercury
; but
we cause

resembles
may

other metals
on

in respects material

not,

the

ground of this premiss,

a

argue
tract.

cold will

the

mercury
a

in

thermometer
once

to

con

aught the premiss tells us,

remain

thing

expanded by

on permanently expanded, and fail to contract drawn the applicationof cold, just as the temper of steel,once by heat, remains permanently absent.

heat

4 and the

qucesitumis obtained by adoptinginto the problem well as as remaining element of the premiss; and The difference,
5. The assimilated elements
in of the datum, is reflected

the likeness, of the the conclusion.

222

NEW

LOGIC ratio quantitative

ratio of the

but quantitative,
terms

will have
In

exactlythe
this case,

same

as

the

of the

datum.
term

the

quaesitum,to
of the
cost

its

homologous
the

in the

premiss, is the ratio

for
a

of the datum. of and

When

builder is asked searches

rough estimate
a

laying the drains, he

he the finds
one

experience for
in all material
He

similar

job ;

which
was as

is similar
as

drain twice

twice much.

long.
The

respects,except that concludes, therefore, that

may

it cost

Induction

be

expressed thus

"

That This

drain drain

cost

(halfas long)
of the

costs

(x)halfas much.
this drain
to

As
are
"

far

as

the terms

datum

"

and

that

drain

"

alike,the quaesitumcan

be assimilated and
we

its

homologous
that
a

term

"100

"

in
a

the

premiss;
the
terms

may

conclude will cost

are

since

that

drain
sum.

cost

considerable
as

sum,

this drain of
a

considerable

As

far
must

the

datum

different,this

difference

be

reflected in
in

difference of the
As

qusesitumfrom
in

its

homologous
is be
a

term

the

premiss.

the

difference the the the the

the

datum
must
as

difference,the difference in quantitative have difference,and must quantitative

Since
one

conclusion
same

ratio

the datum.

drain

is half

as

long
the
i : 2.

as

other, the
new

difference in the cost will cost is

i :

and will reflect this difference,

as

drain

half

as

much

the

old.

Since

ratio of the datum

2, the

ratio of the conclusion that

of

will be

But between

it

happens
the
were
now.

the the

length is
datum.

not

the that
10

only
drain
per cent,

difference
was

terms
a

When
was

laid,
in

materials than

fourth These

dearer, labour
differences
same

cheaper,
the of the

it is

also

will be
On

reflected
account

conclusion
first
on

; and

reflected in the
new

ratios.

the difference,

drain will be

cheaper

in the

ratio of 3:4; in the ratio the terms

account
10
:

of the second

it will be difference,

dearer

of

g ;

whatever and, generally,

ratio exists between the

of the datum, and its

will be reflected in the ratio between

in the

quaesitum,

homologue

premiss.
is
not applicable,

It is clear,from

this

example, that Induction

which alone are within the compass only to qualitative reasonings, of the syllogism,but also to quantitative reasonings. It has of the reasonings of mathematics alreadybeen shown that some those which have equality, and the ratios of greater and less, for
"

SIXTH

CANON

OF

INDUCTION

223

their

subject which
"

are

altogether outside
in the scheme of

the

range

of

Traditional

Logic, are

included

for and propounded, and are accounted the basis of proportionalreasoning. It is clear that mathematical reasoning is outside the scope of the syllogism,for mathematical with attribution of qualities, with reasoning is not concerned nor inclusion in classes and exclusion is from

reasoning here now see explained. We

them.

But, undoubtedly,

of Logic, reasoning ; and no scheme from which mathematical reasoning is excluded, is complete. of reasoning in general, and to Logic purports to give an account its purview is to confess omit of reasoning from its own any form inadequacy and imperfection.

mathematical

reasoning

6. Another

Canon

must

be

added
are

to

before the conditions

is this
:
"

of Induction
be

already enumerated complete. The sixth Canon

more

those

problem must not facts allow ; or Nothing must warranted by experience.

A

stated

be assumed

in

than the definitely the problem that is not

Who of
a

killed

Cock

Robin

This

problem
; and

assumes

the solution
until these

number
are

of

preliminary problems
solved
"

unless and
of
to

problems problem.
unless
assumes

unless

experience
ultra Robin It vires ? is
assumes an

their
set

solution

is

obtained, it is improper and

Who Robin
killed
was

the

consequent
killed. he any

Cock killed. of ?

illegitimate problem,
that he
was

Cock the
or

It of

solution
of disease these

other
Is he

problems
dead ? be Was

also. there

Did
ever

die

violence
person
must

such

? be the

All

problems
with

must

solved, and
we can

the

solutions

consistent

experience, before
killed him ? The

legitimately

problem that Charles II. is illegitimate is said to have the Royal Society, in this to set does a bowl of water after a fish is weigh no more respect. Why that the problem assumes put into it, than it did before ? This bowl does under these more circumstances, weigh no an which inconsistent is with experience, and renders assumption problem Who illegitimate.Are the rectilinear markings on the surface of the planet Mars the product of the intelligent activity of its inhabitants? This there such that are problem assumes markings on the planet,and, if they do not exist,is illegitimate. that he has not returned, and Why has he not returned ? assumes problem
if he the

frame

has

returned, is illegitimate. What

is the

cause

of the

224

NEW

LOGIC

child's What drains

assumes

illness will
can

assumes

that of
Can

the

child

has,
drains be
made ?

in
assumes

fact,

been that
new

ill.

be be

the laid.
I

cost

laying
my

new

landlord
as

to

pay drain

the

cost

that and that

have
it

landlord,
cost

well

as

that Socrates

the

can

be is

laid,

will

something.
does
not

Is

mortal

an

illegitimate

problem

if Socrates

exist.

We conditions
1.

are

now

in

position
Induction.

to

state

in

full

the

nature

and

of

Assured is the

Induction

solving

of

problems

by

indirect

appeal

to

experience.
2.

problem
quaesitum
"

is

proposition
unknown.
a

of

which

one

element
"

the

is
of

3.
4.

The
A

solution

problem by

is

the

discovery
it with
a

of

the

qusesitum.

problem premiss
constant

is

solved is
a

comparing

premiss.
a

5.

The

proposition
or

expressing
that
can

relation
under

that

is
one

in is
constant

experience,
in

be

subsumed

that
6.

experience.
such is

The the

premiss

must

be
one

that,
similar
in

of in

the

two

given

elements
to

in its is

problem,

material and in of

respects
the the

homologous
identical 7. The likeness with of is

element its the the

in

the

premiss,
element elements

other

homologous
assimilated
Datum.

premiss.
problem
and

premiss
8.

called

The

third

element
as

the

premiss
subject
between
to

is

adopted
such
terms

into

the
as

problem

the the

qusesitum,
difference

difference of the

is

required

by

the

datum.

CHAPTER

XV

IMPERFECT

INDUCTION

INDUCTION conducted cious

as we as

may

be

imperfect
one or more

in

two

ways.

It and its

may
so canons

be be

so

to violate

of its canons, with be

falla
as

; or
are

it may able
to

be

conducted

in accordance but
may

far of of

observe is
to

them,

matter.

Jnduction
not

reasoning in experience ; knowledge

the value.

materiel. and

imperfect from lack It is the solving

be
to

problems by appeal
does afford In
us

it may

that

experience
a

the

necessary be

furnish

full

solution. that
can

this case, is it without but

reasoning will

account

Conclusions

they will not be assured More will be tentative,hypothetical,or conjecturalconclusions. have a great importance in showing us over, reasonings of this kind in what knowledge is defective, and in indicating respects our
still be drawn, the directions such
are

but not on imperfect, of great importance conclusions. They

in

which
are

extensions

of

knowledge
no

are

needed condi

whether tions

extensions

practicableor
and how
to

; under

what

they

practicable ;
second

set about

them. Fallacies
;

Fallacious

inductions

will be considered in the

sense,

in the

chapter on
discover
; that

Imperfect

Induction,
The

falls to be is to

considered
a

here.

first step in is found elements

induction
means

premiss
one some

by

of

datum
to

premiss ; and the is, by assimilating

of the

of the

problem
found

the

relation that without

has

been

constant

in homologous element in experience. This be

process, ways.
1. 2.

being fallacious,
be

may

imperfect

in

four

No The

datum

may if

obtainable.
may
are

datum,
of

obtained,
cases,
we

yield no
at
a

premiss.
argument

In cannot 3.

either

these

and standstill,

proceed.
What datum
can

be

obtained

may

not

be

alike sufficiently

in its terms 4. The

to

an justify

assured
not

conclusion. be may
constant

premiss, if obtained,
of these
cases,
a

may

in

experience.
but will

In either be

conclusion

be

reached,

hypothetical or conjectural.
N.L.
o

226
datum be

NEW

LOGIC

i.

No

may

obtainable.

We

may

not

be able

to

find

like the problem to enable experience sufficiently to us datum. Let the construct be What is a the connection problem
any between in such
we a

mind
way find elements

and

matter matter

?
:

or

formallystated, Mind
x.

(isconnected

with)
a

find

In

order

to solve the
one

problem,
of
we

must

datum

; that

is, we
to

must

assimilate

the

given

in the which

problem
is like But either that

something of which given element

is
in

have

experience,and
material which We
we

the there of the

respects
to

to the
can

argument.
assimilate

nothing
to

in

experience
mind

elements

of the

problem.
can

know

of

nothing
to

is not
not

mind,

which

be

assimilated

; of

nothing that is
the
; and

matter, which

matter

is like in
no

respects material
material
for
one a

argument.
the the

Experience furnishes
cannot

datum

argument
atoms
we

proceed.
are

Accord
to

ing
so

to

theory, indeed,
not

of matter have
no

assimilable

vortices

in the ether ; but

then

experience of the ether,

is theory,matter of electricity are

that does

help
of

us.

According to

another

composed

of ions

imaged
imaged
does
not

in
as

ions but when electricity; of matter, this connection, as components small of particles it is not
so

they

are

very

matter

; and
an

the

assimilation
an

help us,
seen, not

because
one

much

assimilation, as

identification.
we

But

given element
with
of

have
we

be

identified
use no

problem must, as its homologue in the premiss.

for the identified term
are

of the

May
If
we

then
are

this value better

matter
we

do,
is
"

we

off, for
be

stillwithout the other

datum.

There
"

nothing in experience
in the

to which

given element
a

mind

problem,

can

assimilated, and
which

until

datum

is

found, reasoning cannot

of
a

begin. The

problem is insoluble for lack

a

datum

"

for lack of the

experiencein
absolute absolute
construct to

datum

can

be

sought.
What is the
nature nature
we

of the of the
must

Formally stated,
x a
:

the
to

problem is,the
solve
nature

is

find

x.

In in

order

this

problem,

datum,

which

the

of the absolute
had

is assimilated
But there

have

experience.
the absolute

is in

we something of which experience no such thing. we can

Experience contains
compare

to which nothing, except the relative, ; and

are

the relative is not

assimilable
be

to

the

absolute, since they

proves
nature too

contradictories.

But, it may

said, this

much,

for it

prohibitsus equally from

there is

ascertainingthe
in

of the

relative ; since

nothing

experienceto

IMPERFECT

INDUCTION

227

which
not
so,

the

relative

can

however.

This is compared except the absolute. innumerable from is a generalisation Relativity be

from of relatives. The absolute is an abstract obtained experiences been of which has ever of abstraction,none innumerable operations abstract We cannot qualities in experience ; we complete. the operationmentally only ; and conduct experience affords can
us no

instance

of

it.
or

We

have another
to

experience of relatives
; before ; but
we or

"

of

one

thing being above

in other colour kinds without
can

below

after another
no

; and

of relations

others

have

experienceof
Conse find
cannot
we

surface,or
find the

of hardness
nature

without

substance.

quently,we
the
nature

of the

but relative,
as

cannot

of the
; and

absolute,
no

In such
can

cases

these,a
in

datum

be found

when

datum

be found

ing cannot
a

proceed.

datum, just as

Reasoning in materid reasoning ex postulateis

reason experience, of is arrested by want of a arrested by want

postulate.
2.

The

second

way

in which when

Induction

may

be

with imperfect,

out

is being fallacious, be obtainable In this in

it fails at the second but when

stage.

A datum

may
no

experience;

obtained, it yields

premiss.

case

also,argument

is arrested.

the cause of desired to know generation, datum traumatic fever. A Traumatic was easily obtainable. fever is closely similar, in material fevers, respects, to specific its resemblance and fevers furnished an to specific unimpeach of specific the cause able datum fevers was unknown, ; but, as the afforded datum not no premiss, and the reasoning could proceed. last What of

Doctors, in the

elements
The

Jupiter?
x.

find
are

datum
"

assimilable
"

composition of the satellites satellites of Jupiter are composed mainly of x : is readily obtainable. The satellites of Jupiter perhaps not in all material respects, but they are
preponderate
our own moon

in the

assimilable

to

but, as
fails to

we

do

not
a

know

the

com

positionof
argument

the
cannot

moon,

the

datum

yield

premiss, and
the

the

be

pursued.
run

Why
run

do

the Andes West ?

North
are

and

South, while
of data
run

Himalayas
The South. But and

East

and

There

plenty
run

available. North and

Rockies, the Apennines, the

The

Aral

mountains,
know

Pyrenees, the Alps, the Caucasus,

none

East what

West.

since,in

of

these

cases

do

we

determined
Q2

the

228 direction of the mountain

NEW

LOGIC

chain, these data

is arrested.

fail to

afford

us

any

premiss, and
3. The

argument

datum,

even

if it

a premiss,may yields

not

be

sufficiently
In

alike in its terms this case, clusion

to

or yielda satisfactory

definite conclusion.

argument
is attained

is not
;

arrested.
we

It still

but

have

proceeds, and a con that when already seen

conclusion

is attained

by

not induction, it reflects,

only
datum.

the
If

likeness,but the difference between

these the likenesses conclusion
and is

the

terms

of the

differences

are

clear,and definite,
;

sharp cut,
likeness
vague, and

correspondingly definite
of the datum

but

if the

between

the terms

is but

approximate
and vague.

the

conclusion
so

also

is but

approximate
an

Such

conclusion,
What that
a

obtained, is termed
cause
"

hypothesis.
We have

is the

of specificfever ? valid in the

sense

already seen
being closely
the
was

valid datum in material

of its terms obtained from

similar of

respects
"

can

be

likeness

fevers specific the

was,
cause

to

traumatic of

fever ; but this datum fever

was

useless,
unknown.

because There
datum

traumatic datum

equally
and

however, another
useful of
a

available

far less

in that its terms satisfactory,

more

employed, a could be but vaguely

assimilated, but
therefore
some

in

that

it did could
cases

yield a premiss, and

be obtained of from it.

sort

conclusion
to

Among
observed

the features that

common

most

fever,it is specific

de novo. Small pox, they do not, as a rule,originate scarlet fever, measles, typhus, whooping cough, croup, plague, to be chicken pox, and so forth, are well known catching.' Those affected association with persons into contact who by or come
*

these diseases,are the

more

apt

to
cases

be

themselves
are

attacked
more

soon

after seldom be

and

closely the
that such
a

observed, the
or

is it

found

previouscontact
of communicable
one
"

association reach

can

excluded.
that

Thus, by
these

process
are

we generalisation,

the conclusion

diseases

that
to

something conveying the

At
a once

disease passes searches but

no

from
a

person

another.

the

mind

for

datum

"

searches

experience for
and
we a so

similar

case,"

datum it is to
an

is yet obtainable, be noticed that

remain
person has

baffled. has been

in
con

Next
tact

when
and

with

affected
does

person,
not

fevers,the disease
infection
;

declare
an

caught one itself immediately

an

of these
upon the

but

only after

interval, usually

interval

of

230

NEW

LOGIC

Specific fevers Specific fevers

duration
:

and
are,

tuberculosis for the is

a

are

widely unlike,
acute

it is true.
of short

most

part,

illnesses of

tuberculosis
are

chronic

disease

long duration.

Specific fevers
tuberculosis

mostly evidenced
is
: none.

there

by a rash on the skin : in Specific fevers are, for the most

was an

part, communicable
municable. culosis
of
was

tuberculosis have
an

not

recognised to
stage stage.
raised

be
:

com

Specific fevers
not

incubation

tuber

known

to

have
are

incubation

Yet, in spite

these
are

differences, there
fevers
"

important similarities. by
most
a

Specific
;

fevers
so

they are

accompanied
are

temperature
;
so

is tuberculosis. The
a

Specific fevers
datum,
what

wasting diseases
influenced is between there

is

tuberculosis. in

fact,however, that
likeness that

observers

adopting, as

specific
we

fevers and
seen,

tuberculosis,was

specificfevers

had,

as

have

minute long been suspected to be due to infection by some found to such to be due an organism, and tuberculosis was now organism. The suspicion was an hypothesis, based on the vague assimilation
a case an

already stated.

That
to warrant

hypothesis was
a

now

in verified,

similar sufficiently

conclusion
not

that
many

is

more

than
as

had hypothesis. Tuberculosis like specific fevers ; but beingclosely

a

struck
rate

observers
a

at any

it is these
datum. been

disease

it is

febrile disease, and

were

wasting disease
to
a some

; and

important
It wras, found in

similarities

enough
is in

furnish

reliable had

therefore, argued that, since

tuberculosis, which

micro-organism
material be found
in

respects like
these
in for

specific
also.

fevers, micro-organisms would

diseases

Micro-organisms
and

were,

therefore, searched
Now

fevers, specific
so was

they

were

found.

the it
led

datum
to
no

that

had

long before
revived.
;

been

dropped,
we

because

premiss,
to
are

Traumatic hence

fever is,in material

may argue

respects, similar
due
to

specificfever
due
to

that, since specificfevers

fevers
are

micro Search

organisms, traumatic
was were

micro-organisms.
found,
the
or we

made

for the
;

micro-organisms of traumatic
not

fevers,and
should
The

they

found

but if they had

been

still have

been

in concluding their justified

existence.

in similarity,
warrants ;
us

material

respects,

of

the the

terms

of

datum,

in

attaching certainty to
every
case

conclusion

conclusions

for, in
scarlet
known

of Induction, the

conclusion
to
are

is double. fevers which

Since
are

fever is like,in material

to

respects,

other

be

due

to

we micro-organisms,

in concluding, nay, justified

HYPOTHESIS

231

we

are

compelled
from the

to

conclude, that
since

scarlet

fever

also

is due

to

micro-organism.
different in

And,

scarlet of those
to

fever other

exhibits
are

symptoms

symptoms
from

fevers,we
that it is due

justified
a

concluding, and compelled

Some

conclude,

to

micro

organism different

theirs.
are

diseases,which
to

respect of being due

specific fevers in the material micro-organisms, arise apparently spon

like person has those
to

taneously,without
in association may

the

affected who

having
the who
are

been

in contact
; and

or

with
live for

anyone

disease
not

affected

persons
out

long
the
a

among

affected,with
? We search of such
a

communicating
How is
a

disease

them.

The

problem presents
the
same

itself:

such datum.

disease

communicated ague
as

experience for
disease,we
we

Taking
disease disease
as

type

look

for another fever

a

having
of much

the

incidence, and
same

find

in

yellow
us a

the

incidence.
is

This

gives

datum

; but

the datum

way

in which

yellow fever
no

communicated

is unknown,
cannot

the

yields us
cattle has
men,

argument

proceed.
a

However,
disease
which

premiss, and bitten by the tsetse

characters
of
a

flysuffer thereafter from Cattle are fever. specific

the purpose of the

the

not

closelylike

it is true, but

for in

argument,
of

the

material
is not in
we

respect
like ague, material
a

assimilable to men they are fairly from disease. The disease suffering
for the of purpose of the

in

cattle similar

but,
and

argument,

it is

the

respect
a

being communicable.
conclusion may
not

Here,
indeed
a

then,
From

get

datum but

premiss, affording,not
"

positiveconclusion,
this datum and
to

tentative
we

an

hypothesis.
that ague

this
men

premiss by
the

conclude
we

is communicated the

tsetse

but fly,

may

fairly get

to man hypothesis : May not ague be communicated by the bite of some fly? Investigationbeing made, it is found that ague is communicated this by the bites of mosquitoes. At once for the disease of similar incidence, yellow gives us a datum

fever
cated

and

we

conclude bites
we

that

this

too

may

be

communi is found

by

the
now

of
a

mosquitoes.
group of

This,

also,

correct, and

get
of

respects of bitinghuman
of their certain insects
own,

and

beings,and the bodies infesting

hypotheses. In the material of fosteringinternal parasites

of those who suffer from certain

specificfevers, fleas,bugs, lice,ticks, and

resemble

other

mosquitoes.
then,
of

communicators,

May not these parasites be the other starts specific fevers ? This

232

NEW

LOGIC the

us

on

whole

series of

and investigations,

hypotheses prove
derived from
are an

fruitful.
An

then, hypothesis,
that is

is

tentative

conclusion
terms

induction

imperfect,in that the

in material

of its datum

not

assimilable closely the datum tentative become and

of the terms as respects. As soon to be closely assimilable,the conclusion ceases

becomes

assured
an

; the

hypothesis
belief. whose
So

ceases

to
as

be

an

and hypothesis,

becomes
entered

assured
a

long
term

the
was

con-

tagium of fevers of plants or eggs premiss

to
was

into

datum,

other

seeds
no

of insects,no
But

conclusion
even

could

be formed, for

obtainable.

if

premiss had been obtain

argument,
of diseases

able, the likeness,in respects material

to the

plants and
not
an

insects assured of

is

so

remote,

that the conclusion

an

would

have

been The

conclusion, but
Pasteur
an

hypothesis only.
nature to

researches
doctors

into

the

of

fermentation
of
a

furnished
Fever

with

hypothesis as
in several

the

nature

fever.

is like fermentation

respects.
into
a

When
vat

relatively
a

minute

quantityof yeast
ensues

is introduced

of wort,
a

wide

spread change
but
a

the whole
vat

of the wort
no

after the

time ferments, When

the

walls

of the

take

part

in

change.
of fever

minute relatively

quantityof

the

contagium

is intro

duced
one

to

be relatively minute, for no body (itmust it was it pass),a widespread change ensues sees argued ; and in that this change was be like fermentation confined to the into the human

fluid part of the

body

"

the blood
nature

"

and

the

solid tissues took

no was

part in it.
likened
mere

Moreover, the
fermentation.

of this

change in the blood

were,

to

These

conclusions of the the

data
"

however,
blood
and

since hypotheses, the wort

in the
"

the terms
case, not

the

human

and

one were

and

contagium of fever
material since

the

yeast in the other

to warrant
an

alike,in sufficiently

respects
found

assured

conclusion.

They have

been

erroneous.

4. The

fourth

occasion

on

which
a

Induction datum

without

being fallacious,is when,

the of its terms, the

imperfect being found, and

may

be

furnishing a premiss, and

close assimilation is not
constant

datum

in the being satisfactory relation expressed by the premiss

experience. is found An example of this imperfection Logic, though they do not assign to it what

in

in most

text

books

on

I consider

its proper

CONJECTURE place in
that and the scheme
i

233 is the

of
a

reasoning.
great many
since it is
a

This

discoveryby
a

Fermat

22

is,for

values

of x, number In

prime number,
for
a

his argument of x, it is
a

that

prime
is

great many
the
datum
case

values is

prime

number

for all. value

to

this case,
to

unimpeachable.
i

Whatever

given

x, that

of all

22* +
other number relation

is,in respects material If, therefore, the

in is constant in

the argument,
relation
can

like precisely
I

cases.

of

22* +

to

prime
a

is constant that

experience, or

be

subsumed that

under

the conclusion, experience,

for any and has been be

a

given value of x, 22* + i is a prime number, of cases in which irrefragable.But the number the been experienced that is to say, in which
"

is certain the
sum

relation has
to

worked

out

for
"

different

values

of x, and of

the

result

found

prime

number

falls far short enables

in
us

constitutingthat
an

constancy
What

in

experience which
constitutes

to draw

assured

conclusion.

is, experience for the purpose of Induction for Logic. has been It belongs more to as said, scarcelya matter in which the sum has cases Epistemology. But the few dozen been worked do not compare out for different values of x certainly
constancy
with
been the the number

of

cases

in which, sequence and number

for

instance, constancy
life and
Korean

has
or

experienced
coexistence
formula that
to

in the

between

death,

in

of resistance
a

extension.
be

the relation under

a

of the relation

prime
in

subsumed

wider

experience. In the language of every be given why it should be a prime number reason can no day life, ; since is in relation neither the constant and, experience nor subsumable that in experience, is under relation constant a wider have no for concluding that it is true for any value of warrant we that has not actually been worked is well In fact,as x out.
known,
In the there is
a

is constant

value

of
our

for which ancestors,

so

the the far

as

relation relation

is not that

true.

experience of
than

metals

are

heavier
was so a

water, limited
the
water

was

constant

experience went
known
were

; but
were

it

very

experience.
constancy
was

The

metals

to

them

few, that
than

with

which

they
for the

found

to

be

heavier

not

constancy
the

purpose that

of sound

Induction. discovered

Although, therefore, any

would
to known

new

metal the

be, for

purpose and thus

a

of

might be closely argument,

assimilable
be found in

metals,

would although this datum experience, metals had been found heavier

; and

would datum satisfactory furnish a premiss,since, than

water;

yet,

234

NEW

LOGIC

since the relation the

logicalsense,

not expressed by this premiss was constant, in in experience ; the conclusion, that all metals

thereafter

discovered

would

sink shown

in

water,

would

not

have
been

been false.

and justified; If
a

experience has

that it would

have

running punctually to time that it will run punctually to time on every day, the argument, datum The any given day, will have a high degree of assurance.
is The

certain train has been

for years

unimpeachable

in

the
on

closeness
the

of assimilation
in

of

its terms.

running to in experience, far as experience goes ; as punctualityis constant extend but it is a limited experience. It does not to anything approaching the illimitable number of times on which, for instance, similar causes have been found to produce similar effects. Although,
past. therefore,we
of assurance, attach
The
terms to

running of the train like its running in the

given day is
The relation

material
its

respects

of

may
we

attach
do
not

to the

conclusion
to

a same

considerable
assurance

degree
that
we

attach

it the
sun

the conclusion

that the

will rise to-morrow from

an a

morning.
whose the
not

unassured
are

conclusion

that is reached
is called

datum

assimilated, imperfectly
conclusion in that is reached
a

Hypothesis :

unassured
constant

from

premiss that is
attached

experience,is called meanings

one

Conjecture.
have
been

Among
to the word

the many

that

by logicians
two

Analogy,

includes

the Induction, especially

forms

last lead considered, which imperfect Induction and conjecture. As Mill puts it, Two to hypothesis respectively
'

of

things resemble
*

each

other

in

one

or

more

respects

certain

propositionis true of the one, therefore it is true of the other.' Two or more propositionsresemble each other in one respects.' Datum. A certain is of the That an imperfectexpression pro That is an is true of the one.' imperfect expression of position
'

the

Premiss.

Therefore

it is true

of the

other.'

That

is

an

unwarranted
Mill
saw

conclusion. that this argument what is not valid

in

all cases,
the
*

and

he

proceeded
which
His which be
a

to discuss

resemblances

between

two

things,'
in
to
con

I call the terms

of the

a conclusive datum, justifies

'

argument.

first statement

is very

similar to mine.
may

The

circumstance

the two material

cases

resemble,
be

be be

capable of being shown

that
on

circumstance
to

; to

which
in

all the the

as

sequences,

necessary

taken

into much

account

discussion, depend.'

This

is very

the

same

particular saying that

ESSENTIAL

LIKENESS

235

the

resemblance that

must
warrants

be
a

material conclusion have

a

to

the

argument.
the

As

to

the

condition the says,

terms

from

premiss, providing

of the
'

datum been is

that

it has

it is, he satisfactory similarity, previously shown, by due comparison of

an

instances,
former what
must

that

there
or

invariable
the

conjunction
latter the in relation of

between This

the is

property
I
mean

properties and
in

property.'
the

by
no

the

condition, that
'

be says,

constant
'

he

such Mill's

experience. conjunction has

sense

But been

premiss Analogical reasoning,'

out.'

made

Analogical
I call
a

reasoning Imperfect
If Mill have wavered
no

in
or

is, therefore,that varietyof what

Induction that
to

Unassured been
content

terminates

had

to adhere

this
;

conjecture. expression, I should

he which of

in

material in his

difference
statement.

with 'The
very

him
cases

but in

subsequently analogical probability,

close and

evidence
are

affords those
In

in in this

itself any

high degree
is that and Thus it that the deserts

only
has

which

the

resemblance

very

extensive.'
he

expression he
to

materialitywhich
accepts, instead,
it has

previously asserted
extensiveness

be

necessary,

closeness and that

of resemblance.
taken

happened
an

subsequent logicianshave
'two

validityof
between number is the

Induction
the

depends on things,' or
and
a

the upon number

number the

of the ratio

resemblances

between

of

resemblances
unsound
as

the

of differences. and that

not
as as

basis

for argument, contended

other the
to

manifestly logicianshave per

between
nor as

This

ceived
'

this, and

have be

likenesses their

the
to
or

two

things
ratio

'

must

estimated,

number,

their

to

the

differences, but
The
;

to

their
say,

fundamental
must

essential mental then

to
or

quality.
essential

resemblances, they
the

be

funda
;

differences
valid.
a

and superficial
I
cannot

unessential it
a

the

argument
into

will be

but is the

think

pity

import

Material

Logic

word

which

perty of Traditional

Logic, has
not

been

the

whose Logic, and a word subject of endless discussion, and

not
seem

peculiar pro meaning, in this

is
even now

defined.
to

It does afford

to

me

to

advance

the

matter

any

further,nor
the

any

firmer

ground

for argument,
must

to

say

that
or

resemblances
to

between say

the
must

things
be

be
numerous

fundamental than

essential,than
differences. Glass
or more

they
'

more

the

and

silver
'

are
'

two

things that

resemble
'
"

each it

other
can

in

one

respects

certain

proposition

that

be

drawn

236
into threads
In this case,
'
"

NEW

LOGIC therefore

is true

of the one,

it is true

of the

other.'

the conclusion silver

are a

is warranted. other
can

Glass
or more

and

two

respects;
"

things that resemble each certain proposition that it

"

in

one

be

made

into

table-utensils
In this and
case

is true

of the

one

therefore is true.

it is true

of the

other. Glass
or more

also,the conclusion
are a

silver

two

things that resemble proposition that

"

each it is

other
a

in

one con

respects;
of
"

certain

good

ductor

is true electricity
case

of the

one

therefore

it is true

of the

other. Glass
or more one

In this and

the conclusion
are a

is false.
in
one

silver
;

two

respects

certain

things that resemble each other proposition that it is fragile

" "

is true

of the

; therefore

it is true

of the

other.

In

this case,

also,
and
or

the conclusion

is false. the

Now,
silver
are

whether
numerous

resemblances
or

and

differences

of

glass

few

whether
or

they
drawn

are

fundamental
;

superficial ; whether
the
same

they are
in

essential
are

unessential

they remain
otherwise absolute
nor

whether

these substances

into threads, made

or

into

table-utensils,used
It
nor

electrical

apparatus,

treated.
number

is clear, therefore, that the relative number, the

it is neither

the

neither the
in

fundamental

the
and

essential
differ from

of quality,
one

characters

which

they resemble

another, that

deprives
is clear

it

of

gives validityto the argument, or quality is it then, in these validity.What

? I think
"

of the argument resemblances, that affects the validity that

the
are are

it
in

resemblance material

must

be

in

material If
to

respects
are

respects that
so

to the

argument.

they
the

alike,and
the

far

as

they

alike,in respects material

is true of the
one

argument,

argument, that what

is true
one

of the other, is valid, is

provided that what is true of experience. Glass is very unlike

fundamental,
of
and I suppose

the

constantly
not

true

in

silver in many

respects ; in the

essential, respects of

being transparent ; of being brittle ; of not ; manufactured of being a compound product,and so forth ; but for of being used for making mirrors, glass is like silver, the purpose and in the material reflecting, respects of taking a high polish, under circumstances, a large proportion of the incident proper in experience. light; and in these respects, the likeness is constant a good Consequently,we may safelyargue that, if silver makes mirror,glass also will make
a

being a metal being an element

good

mirror.

238
This

NEW

LOGIC of it, conclusive.

If the

argument

is, on

the

face

flints

really have edges and places for handles ; and if such things constantly in experience, cutting tools ; these flints are, are, without doubt, cutting tools. Mr. Bosanquet omits, as he is quite entitled to do, the constancy in experience. He omits it, but because, as however, not deliberatelyand of set purpose, occurred it seems its importance has not to him ; and to me, consequently he
variance with all.' with
in

is

obliged
is true
to

to

admit

that

the
no

argument
inferential

'

is at

its matter, This

and

represents respect
The
to

neces

sity at
not true

with mine.

his

argument
the

it is
con

respect

importation of
from
As
an an

stancy
ex

experience

converts

the
in

argument
materid.

argument
ex

postulateinto an postulate,all that

characters tools
Canon
; and

argument
we are are

argument

of the
to

flints
more

infer

inferring,is that the with their consistent being cutting than this would infringe the fourth
warranted

in

of Inference.

But

when

we

know,

or

if

we

know, that

in experience,related edges and places for handles are, constantly in inducing, and to cutting tools, we are justified compelled to

induce, that the

flints

are

related certainly

in the

same

way

to

cutting tools.
The
want

of constancy in
as an

in

experienceof

the

premiss, is
of
be that

not

the

only
under

way

which

the

imperfect
our

induction.

Analogical Argument Its imperfection may

the want
"

logiciansis
noted

third

heading

"

of likeness in material
'

respects
resemble of Mr.

of the each

terms

of the datum
in
one or more

of the

two

things which

'

'

other

respects.' Another
is

instance

Bosanquet's will illustrate this. A peculiar herring-bone structure gonia with the characters
The of the seed

conjoined
;
our

in

the

Pelar-

Geraniese
as

flowers with the characters

such

vessels

exist in

wild

geraniums

have
* . .

of the Geranieae

That

these flowers, e.g., our is

wild

geraniums, should have the

to

herring-bone structure peculiar

As

exceedingly probable.
very easy

thus stated, the

argument

is not well
as

follow

; and
as an

think

it gains in clearness, as
:
"

in

force,by being stated

induction, thus
Premiss.

Pelargonia have, constantly in experience,a peculiar of petal; structure

ANSWERS

TO

CRITICISMS

239 the

Datum.

Wild

geraniums resemble
of Geranieae

Pelargonia in
;

common

characters

Wild
of

geraniums (probably)have this peculiarstructure petal.

of
into this conclusion probability
to

The is the

reason

for the introduction

terms

failure of the

of

the

datum know
to

resemble

each

other

completely in Pelargonia in
know how

material all the

respects. We
common qualities

that

geraniums
;

resemble
we

Geranieae with

but

do not
to

far this

resemblance

is material This

respect

the

peculiarstructure
material of the
an

of the

petals.
terms

imperfect assimilation,in
vitiates the
to

respects, of the

of the it from

datum,
an

certainty
rank of

conclusion, and
this

lowers

assurance

the

hypothesis.
From discussion of it appears
an

that

an

Hypothesis
is
terms

is

the the the in be

tentative

conclusion

induction material

that

imperfect, in
of of Induction known
to

incomplete assimilation,in
datum which
constant
;

respects, of the
an

Conjecture is the conclusion the relation predicated in the premiss

while
a

is not

relation under a experience, and is not subsumable that is constant in experience; and that the Analogical reasoning of is not, properly speaking,Analogy at all, but is Imperfect logicians in
or

Unassured Some

Induction.
must acute

criticisms

be

anticipatedat
respects

this

point.
to

It has
I

been admit

contended resemblance

by

an

critic of these
as

doctrines, that if
necessary I
am

in

material
are a

Induction,
of the

the material

respects

Universal, and
the that incurable if

in the trap

and petitio principii, It is further

all

vices

of
is

the

syllogism.
in is

contended

subsumption
for

admissible

Induction, then

is the

syllogism admissible,

the

syllogism

subsumption.
With

respect
a

to the first contention, that resemblance

am

in material
or

respects is
the

Universal, I
'

not

concerned
'

either to admit in
so

impeachment. logicians,that one

Universal.
sition
'

Universal
never

is used
in

many

senses

deny by
a

is
term

safe

If the

'Sir Wren

denying anything to be Christopher Wren,' in the propo designed

a

Sir

Christopher
some

St.

Paul's,'or

if that

pro

positionis,as
that it would

contend, logicians
unsafe
a

Universal, then
material the

it is clear
any

be very

to

deny

that

respects, or

thing else,constitute

Universal; but

that

acknowledgement

240 that
I

NEW in

LOGIC

employ Universals
the

reasoning lands
incurable

me

in the trap of the

and principiiy petitio do

most

other

vices of the

strenuously and
It is
a

apparatus.
its Universal

utterlydeny. The machine of complicated construction, of which

one

syllogism,I syllogismis a definite

doubt but still
or a a

is but

part

"

necessary If
not

part, no
a

"

only the mainspring or flywheel. flywheel in my machine, it does

I utilise

mainspring
a

follow be
a

that this machine

is

timepieceor
engine.
argument,
The
minor
as

steam

engine.
is the

It

may

bottle-jackor
are

gas

My

Universal

respects that
terms

material
must

to

the

in which

respects the

of my

datum

be alike. which the

Universal

of the
must

is the generalrule,under syllogism

come as an

premiss

instance.
cannot

The
more

two

are

as

different

likeness and

subsumption,

and

be

nearlyassimilated.
with respect to the of animals resemble sub

that for the purpose storage and liberation of

I say

of certain arguments

motion, the brains

in material

respects electric accumulators

brain under
to

; but

this is not
or

suming the animal

that the brain The
second

the electric accumulator,

saying
in

belongs

the class of electric accumulators. that if

argument,

subsumption

is admissible

which Induction, then the syllogism, is fallacious by the rules of clearly stated. For is syllogistically ment into Induction relation
of the

is subsumption, is admissible, if itself, syllogism the argu

is

the the

subsumption that alone

an

admissible
under
a

is subsumption of is constant
in

relation experienced
but

that

experience;
of any

the

sub-

sumption
any

syllogism is the subsumption

it.
As
a

relation under is
;

relation that contains

Some

syllogismthe argument
admissible
;

forms

of

subsumption
of

are

into Induction

The
.'.

syllogism is a form
undistributed

subsumption

The

is admissible syllogism

into Induction.

Fallacy of
Another

middle.
statement

criticism

the questions

that Induction

knows

not nothing of postulates; for, says the critic, are working hypotheses postulates? Certainly,they are; but Induction cannot utilise them as premisses. The only positionthat an hypothesis
can

hold

in

Induction

is that

of

tentative

conclusion
may

from
a

material

premiss. This

tentative conclusion

become

work
true

ing hypothesis ;

for the purpose it. Yes; deduced.

be that is to say, it may of argument, and conclusions

postulated to
may

be

be deduced

from

That

is to say, the moment

it is

postulated,

INDUCTION

AND

DEDUCTION

241

it is taken Deduction. and

out

of the realm
I do
not

of Induction and in
a

and

introduced

into that of

deny,

proclaim, that the conclusions form the premisses of another; but no place in Induction except as a result
So, the conclusions
known ascertain
see

subsequent chapter I assert of reasoning of one mode may that hypothesis has I maintain
of the Inductive
; but

process. be

of Deduction

may

be true

they cannot

to

be

true

merely
we

because

their truth

must

if they agree. be true, and the

It is true deduction
an

to

To they are valid deductions. and apply them direct to experience, that if the postulatedpremiss happens is properlycarried out, the conclusion result. that be
true.

will be true

; but

this is

accidental

It is no

necessary should

or

of Deduction inseparable condition true, or that its premisses should

its conclusions

be

N.L.

BOOK

III

INFERENCE

OR

DEDUCTION

THE

METHOD

OF

EXPLICATION

246
No
name special

NEW

LOGIC

extractingthe
included
Some

to the process given by logicians implicationsof Conditional propositions ; which

has

been

of is

under of the

Mediate

Inference. manifest of the the

;
so

are so implications of propositions thinlydisguised; appear so plainly in the statement

pro

positionitself;grin at of the proposition ; that

them with fictitious
a

us

so

impudently through
inferences
to
seems seems

structure to

to

call them
; and

invest of
ex a

importance
of

call the
to

process

tractingthem
very

process

inference,
in

dignify unduly

simple

affair.

Hence,

the

text

books, the
is
a

question
process
remote

is of

usually
inference
recesses

debated
at all.

whether Other

Immediate

Inference
so

implicationsare

hidden, in such

that it is a real, if not a postulate, very difficult, exercise of ingenuity to explicatethem ; and to these the title of of the process is allowed less grudgingly; but the nature Inference of the is not
and
are

affected

by the
title is
*

ease

or

whatever mortal
the
'

given
are

to

with which it is performed; difficulty such a simple transfer as from Men

'

to

Men

not

immortal from
'

'

may Men

be given consistently
are

to

less
'

obvious
to
*

transfer

both

mortal

and

responsible
from
In
'

Mortality is
do

consistent

with

or responsibility,'

saw

him
text

it to
on

'

was

there when

he did it.' debate whether

;

most

books

Logic, there
more

is much
a

Immediate

Inference
no

effects
more

than
a

verbal

change

and

whether, if it effects
to the

than

verbal

change,

it is entitled

verbal

It is clear that glory of being called Inference. change ; and it is clear that, in such an instance from
more a

it is
as

the

inference

Man than

is mortal
a

to

Man

is not

immortal, it is littleor

nothing
to

verbal of

change.
All

It would

detect

difference

meaning

between

puzzle a sophist these two propositions.

in

But

it is clear that between

is featherless is

birds
a

are

clothed

feathers,and
is
a

Anything that
difference The
one

is not

bird, there

certain

that

difference
statement

be useful. occasion on appreciable, and may The is not altogether a difference in meaning. is implied in the other ; and the meanings cannot, But

therefore, be diverse.
fact from
different The

the two
of view.

look propositions
The

at the

same

different

points
same

attention

is directed

to

aspects of the
from
"

fact.
are

of Logic propositions their context

"

considered

by the
the of their

text

books
in

in

isolation

apart from

discourse

which

they

appear

and,

so

considered, much

is significance

USES
The

OF

INFERENCE

247
be known of

lost.

full

use

and the

value
queer

of

propositioncan
obscure

only
Modern

by Logic
and in
an

its context.
"

In

and

phraseology
such
wearisome

in its statement,
so

repeated with judgement

iteration

in

many
"

ways,

that

is the

synthesisof differences

that every judge to lie a discernment Identity there seems is an ment organised part of an organic whole; and that no one judgement can have its full value assigned to it,except by estimating of knowledge. its relations to the general scheme It would need I can to interpretthe lay claim to possess, greater temerity than true Logic concerning the meaning of the doctrines of Modern judgement ; but if this is the meaning, or one of the meanings of
these the

doctrines, I respectfully signifymy time, I think

that Modern

agreement

with

it.

At

Logic, impressed by the bald and superficiality of Traditional in the ness Logic, errs opposite and its asseveration that confusion constant courts direction, by knowledge is a singleIdentity. Nevertheless, if its teaching may
same

the interconnection of the various on interpretedas insisting constitutents of knowledge, and thus implying that a proposition,
be

considered

apart
then it

from

its context, Modern

to state

is divested

of

much

of

its

meaning,
Whether birds
are

I think is best in
a

Logic has reason. the judgement

in
on

in
'

the

form

'

All

clothed is not

or feathers,'

the
the the

form

Anything that
; that

is

featherless
on

bird,'depends discussion, or
or

context

is to say,

the

matter

under

purpose

of the

argument.
are

If the clothed

question,or doubt,
in

conjecture,is whether
birds in But is not
'

All birds

feathers, or
'

is What
are

are

clothed
'

withal, then

the

proposition
direct this
*

All

birds

clothed

feathers if the
a

and

appropriate answer.
creature

gives the most question is whether

the

featherless birds the

are

is

or

bird, then
not

proposition
answer.

All

clothed
or

in feathers
'

does

give a direct
is featherless

But

variant

implication Whatever

is not The each between

two

give a direct and an appropriate answer. propositions have precisely the same meaning, and Both the same relation implied in the other. express
birds
not

bird,'does

is

and

their

clothing
Each

in

feathers ; but
every

the
or

same

explicationis
purpose
some more

equally appropriate
argument.

for

context,

for the

of

every

special aspect or appropriate than propositionis,in

explicationbrings into prominence is implication of the relation, which

rest

the

for

some

special purpose
for
some

and,

as

every

actual

reasoning,stated

purpose,

regard

248
should
be

NEW

LOGIC

in this purpose the radical defects of Traditional

to

had

statingthe proposition. One of Logic is that it steadilyignores

of the

the

purpose of

of

its arguments. here

One

merits

claimed

for the

system
the
text

Logic
of

expounded,
as a

is that it keeps

in view steadily appears in

purpose

the

argument.
mode is its of

For of

aught that
argument,
to.
an we

the
no

books, Inference,
at all.

might
But

have

purpose of
course an

Its purpose

never

alluded

inference of the

is vital

to

as validity

the purpose inference. In the 'shall

come one

consideration

Inference,
that
are

upon purpose of

abundance
and

of instances

of inferences
;

valid for the

a

invalid is
a

for

another

and

to to

ignore

purpose certain

the
to

argument

direct incitement

and fallacy,

road

fallacy.
To

put the

matter

the

light

of

the
as

crudely, a propositionmay it is an questions to which

answer

be
answer

regarded
;

in is

and

modifiable, so
such the rules

to

modification

being

an

directlyeach of these questions; each implication,and being derivable by

a

of Inference.
'

Such
at least

simple proposition as
questions ;
Caesar
answers was

Brutus say

killed Caesar
many
more.

answers

twenty
killed It

and

dare

It
was

answers

Who

and

the

reciprocal,
did
Brutus ? It

By

whom and the

Caesar

killed ?

Whom killed

kill ?
answers

the

reciprocal, Who
did
Brutus Brutus do do

by
the

Brutus ? the
more

Did specificquestion,

Brutus
to

kill Caesar ?

question, What question,

and Did

Caesar
to

general general
more

anything

Caesar? Brutus

the

still

general question,What
the

took

place between
These
answer. one are

and

Caesar

yet
Brutus the

more

general question, Did

Caesar ?
an

anything
all the

take

place
was

between
to

and

far from
It
answers

questions
protect
Did any ? Caesar
ever

which

propositionis
killed ?
Brutus

also Who
Brutus ?

killed ? Who
Caesar
one

Was defend
?

any

killed ? from
it Brutus Did
same

Did

Did
Brutus

Caesar Was

his enemies who

but

kill Caesar

killed and
so

Was
meet
so on.

it Caesar
?

who

was

killed ? the

Brutus

Caesar

Were

they living at

time

? and

forth, and
'

All

these

questions are
all
are

answered
not

killed Caesar,' but with

To
so

by the proposition Brutus with equal efficacy,or answered

of

equal directness, by this give each

mode
answer,

expressing
the

the

relation. be

question a
that, while

direct the

proposition must

modified

information

it contains, that

is, the

THE

LAWS

OF

THOUGHT

249

relation

it expresses, in such the

a

is the
manner

same,
as

the

information
to

or

relation

is
or

expressed
is fitted

is suitable

the This

occasion,
is done the

to

purpose

of

the

argument.
As

by

explicatingthe appropriate implication. of the proposition is concerned, it matters

*

far
not
was

as

content
we

whether Caesar

say
was more

It

was

Brutus

who

killed Both
are

Caesar,'

'

or same

It

who

killed
nor

by
are

Brutus.' but

express

the
to

neither relation, different different mind

less;

they

appropriate
the
purpose

very
very

occasions.

They They
the the

germane

to

of of the

arguments.
towards

indicate

different

attitudes

proposer's
The first Caesar ?
'

fact

expressed in question Who

'

the
was

propositions.
it the it that second

answers

directly
for the

killed

and

purpose

of this argument,
an

propositionis inappropriate.
an

It

gives

answer,

but

gives

indirect

and

inappropriate
the
form is the that is

answer. or

To

every of

argument,
the

its purpose
must

is vital ; and be

implication
for and
our

proposition
of the

found,
This

appropriate
function,
us

the

purpose
use,

argument.
Inference. It shows from in

this is the

of Immediate
in form. telling

It enables
us a

to

put

arguments

what

is

implied in a proposition; enables us to extract all its implications against error ; guards us
teaches
us

proposition
; and

the process
the
purpose

to

keep
of in

in

view,

in

every

argument,
is not,
mere

for

which
The often

the

argument

is undertaken. Immediate the On

text

process

Inference

therefore,
exercise of

as

it
of

appears

books,
It

useless

perverted ingenuity.
assistance,
ascertain and
even

the

contrary, it is,on
is not
a

occasion,
waste

real
to

necessity.
ways, be be

of

time

in

what may
can

propositions
inferences
say
even

by what explicated ;
extracted

rules,
or

the
are

implications
the

of

what them.
text

immediate
is not
to

that
the

from

this Still, books

are

that

immediate

inferences

of the

useful,or

valid. THE Under this LAWS

OF

THOUGHT.

title, logicians state

in two
In
a

what
The

are, term

in
'

their
law
'

view,

the

underlying conditions
known
to

of valid inference.
senses. one

is very

well

be used and

sense,

it is

means

observed and
are

uniformity,
invariable the Laws in of

expresses and

relation
that
man

that
cannot

constant

experience, Motion,
of

alter.

Such

Gravitation,

of

Combining

Proportion, of

250

NEW

LOGIC forth.
means a

Evolution, of Survival
'

of the Fittest, and rule

are we course

so

In

the other
or

sense,
a

law

'

means

a we

of conduct. told choose

of
we

It

mandate,
we are

that prohibition,

to

observe, but
to

that

at

libertyto so doing.
that The
we

disregard, if
It
means a or

take

the

consequences
us,

of

conduct

enjoined upon
wide
and

but

may

follow

not

as

please. enough
to

which is logicians, discrepancy among from prevent them agreeing as to the nature

Logic, is deep enough

nature

to

prevent

them

from
to

province of agreeing as to the

the logicians,
of observed

of the
are

Laws

of

Thought.
sense.

According

some

Laws

laws

in the first
are

They

are

statements to

uniformity ; they
must

of conditions descriptions
are

which
;
'

thought they are As really

scientific
second

conform

they

inviolable
no are

laws
can

of be

nature

necessary

laws, from

which

departure
laws in

made
sense

obeyed
sense.

by

all

minds, they

the
are

of

uniformities.'

According
are

to

others, they
we

laws

in the

They
observe either

rules
our

that

ought
are

to

observe, and
that

that
we

we

must

if

Inferences

to

be

valid; but
on

may

break,

or deliberately

by inadvertence,
this view,
to

peril

of

the

consequence,

that

the

reasonings conducted
to

in violation

of them

will be invalid.
set
or

According
that
'

they are

^precepts. They
that the
we

up may

standard
not
as

it is desirable

follow ; but with

may

attain.

They

may

Grammar A
are

regards correct third opinion is that the

laws
our we

compared speaking and writing.'

are

be

laws

of

Laws

laws
we

in both
are

senses.

They

inviolable of if

of

Nature,
to

that

constitution
and

minds

observe, but
text ;

compelled by the that we can disregard

violate
are or as

please.
in

Some
senses

books

the Laws whether them

we are

laws
no

both

all,I
as

state that explicitly think, without exception,

they speak
Whether the

of them these

laws
are our

of Nature, laws minds

to

interpret
that
or

behests.

laws of

of Nature
to

compelled by
they
if
we are

constitution that
we

observe,
I feel

whether

behests

ought
now

observe, but
; but

may
con some

disregard
siderable

choose,

I will

not

argue

in difficulty
are

accepting the doctrine, inculcated

both. the
Law of
'

by

that they logicians,

The first Law As

of

Thought"
rate

Identity" is Whatever
to

is,is.'
this

it is difficult for the

mind non-logical in the

us sense

understand

proposition, at any understand it, they have

in

which

logicians
alternative

furnished

with

several

THE

LAWS

OF

THOUGHT

251

as expressions, such A is A ; Everything

'
'

'

Everything
it is
'

is
*

identical

with

itself

'

'

is what A

Every object of thought

it is
' '

is
'

conceived
and
so
'

as

itself ;

'

thing is what
find the

If B

is A, it is A
'

forth.
;

I do not may
a

law

Eggs
law. The
states
are
'

but

this

be

It is

perhaps
Law

second that

only an corruption of of Thought

"

anywhere example, not

'

stated
a

as

Eggs

is

statement,

of the

X the
not

is X Law

'.

of

Contradiction

"

Nothing
A is not and
not

can

both

be and

be ; and better

of this also there than

'

many is B

variants, each
and B be
I B

logicianstating it
cannot
' *

any
'

other.
cannot

both
A

be

true
'

together
;

both B

be B and

is not

non-A
a

'A

cannot

be

both of
;

non-B

'.

have

collected

dozen

other
to

methods
them and

while expressing this Law, but it is not worth is as good as in the ordinary sense, taken one another than to arrive one helps us more

give
the

for,
no

another;
at
sense

that

logiciansread
The
'

into Law
must
more

them. of either variants who

comes

third

Thought
be
or

"

the
be
'

Excluded
'

Middle
or

"

runs

Everything
a

not
same

A is either B

not

B' ;

and

dozen
a

of the
not

theme. suckled and weaned

on

When

person

has

been

Traditional
same

Logic,
and and

upon be in the

these
the
*

Laws, and
same

finds them which

set

in the

book,

it may

chapter, in proposition
' '

the
forth

uselessness with

tautology of

verbal

are

emphatic insistence,his first impulse is to hold up his hands in respectfulamazement.' If these are indeed the ultimate and underlying laws of all thought ; if this is the grand climax of
Traditional and concentrated Logic; if this is the sublimation quintessence of the result of two thousand years of investigation ; the novice is inclined it is
so

then

to

say,

with
while

the
to

alphabet, that
in order
to

scarcely worth
little.

boy who learnt the go through so much

attain

The

first is

thing that strikes

are we

us,

upon

an

examination
nor

of these

Laws,

that, in form, they

us

neither
are

mandatory
to

prohibitive. they
tell
us

They

tell

nothing that
we are

do,
form

nor

do is

anything They assert,

be
not

that

not

to do.

Their
to

purely assertory.
what
are

not

what

ought
what of

be

done,
of
as

or

must

not

done of

but

what

is, and

is not.

They
fact

in the of

form,
the

but legislation, Yet

most

statements

"

generalisa
when

tions.

logiciansinterpretthem

rules ; and

252 of exegesis
to

NEW

LOGIC

these

is examined, it is found interpreters

to

amount

this

"

The
is

first Law
to

of
used Law

Thought
in the
means

means same

that
sense we

term,
same

or

proposition,
contradict

always
The

be

in the

argument.
to

second

that

ought

not

ourselves. The third Law

means

that

every

propositionought
words
in

to

mean

something.
These
are

not, indeed, the

very

which

the
are

Laws

are

expounded
is boiled

but, when
this
in

the is the

chapter in which
residue

they

down,

that

is left.

explained The question

naturally arises
the
words Laws ?
are

the mind
to

of the
mean,
are

reader, Why,

if this is what

intended

they

not

It
a

requiressome

them, and then,

plain man understood, until they

cast

ingenuity to read would scarcelyguess that they

are

expressed in these these meanings into

are

to

be

so

thus that

expounded
expresses

to

him.

Why

not,

them

in the
?

form

clearlythe

meaning

that is intended
Modern

Logic, however,

possesses and

much

the

ordinaryman

is amazed,

almost that

deeper insight ; and appalled, by the revela

Modern

tion of the

profundity of meaning
Thus Modern

logiciansfind
Mr.

lurking unsuspectedlyin the deceptively simple-looking formula

1

is

A.'

says

Logic,
be taken

as

interpretedby
at signify
a

Bosanquet.
*

i.
'

The

Law

of

Identity must

to

least that
and
are

it is
true.
'

possible to
In

make

judgments that have

"

meaning
which

'

a.
*

the bare form

is A," however,

form

is not
not

'

from Aristotle or from Plato, the law directly and therefore indeed primd faciepossess this significance,
drawn If it
means

does
not

any.

that A

is A

and

no

more,

or

is

mere

A, then

it is

aggressively untrue,
which
as a

for it denies
a

the

synthesis of

differences

'

alone
mere

can

make

symbol
not
as

If,again, the law is taken judgement. of the pervading unity of the Logical
to

'

subject,and

intended

exclude

all differences from

enter-

ing into it,then it is an though not by exclusion.

or

inadequate symbol, erring by omission

In
an

absolute

tautologywhich
the

excludes

'

omits

difference,identityitself disappears and

with it.
can

judgment
law A

'

vanishes
'

Therefore, /3. We

only assigna meaning

to the

is

254

NEW of

LOGIC

they

are

called the Laws that

Thought,
reference

it is manifest
to

and

unmis-

takeable refer to

they

make

no

whatever

Thought.
does
not

They
say It

The Things, not to Thought. is thought, is thought ; it Whatever

first Law
says

Whatever been
*

is, is.
Whatever

beyond question,and it has certainly never Whatever means questioned by any logician,that
seems
'
'

directly

thing.'

Some

of

the

alternative

declare expressly A thing is identical Things.

*

that the Laws

refer to with

expressions distinctlyand of things,and are Laws

'

itself

Nothing

can

both

be

and
not
are

Everything must either be or not be.' These are reference to thought. They of Thought. They make Laws no thought, but about things. Logicians, statements, not about
not

be

'

in

discussingthem,
the nature
we

understand

by them,
sometimes

sometimes

statements

about which
way

of
to

things ;
think of think

statements

of the ways

in

ought
we

things ; sometimes
of

statements
no

of the is

in which
to.

must

things ; but

meaning
do, no
'

long

adhered

In

the
us

we practical affairs of daily life,

doubt,

those of especially

that is

are
'

unaccustomed

to accurate

thought and
This
and
seems

expression,say
me

'

This

so

when

we

ought
most
'

to

say

to

to

be
or

'

so

; but

I do not
ever
uses

think
'

the

inaccurate for
'

slipshod
I

thinker
to think

speaker
use.

This of

is

so

This

is what

ought

is so.'
own

This

extreme

inaccuracyis reserved
means
"

by logicians
Whatever
a

for their

If the first Law is ; of

a

of

Thought

what
I

it says

"

is,
Law

thing is identical with itself, then

at

submit, it is not
'

Thought

but all,
*

statement

about
to think

things, the objects of

or
*

thought.
to

If it

means

We

ought
or

We

are

compelled
with in which the
see

think,'that whatever
of these
*

is, is ;

that

thing
be

is identical
stated
states to

submit, it should itself; then, I respectfully

ever

forms
can

is intended be and Law of

who by the jurist

not

law.
a

If

Nothing

both
a

be,' it is difficult
can

how

thing which
If
Law
*

is not

Thought
or

be

Law
must

of

Thought.
be
a

Everything must
of

either be

not

be,' a law

either

Things or not be a Law of Things. JtfjheLaws of Thought of Things, why are Laws are they not so called ? If they are of Thought, why do they not refer to thought ? If they are Laws

Thought and Things, why and why do they not refer to both ? Why of Things of Thought and stated as Laws
Laws

of both

are are

they

not

so

called,

they called Laws

Granting, however,

any

and

all of the

meanings that

logicians

THE

LAWS

OF

THOUGHT

255

so

ingeniously they
in full
to
are

read Laws

into of

these

simple
and be
not

statements

and

granting
;

that

Thought
that
can

Laws them

of

Things
;
we are

accept

ing
it

every
me,

gloss
far from

put

upon code

still, as

seems

possessing
The
we

any

of that

rules

for

drawing Logic
must

inferences
finds in

from

postulates.
Laws
are

meanings
must
not not
nonsense

Traditional
;

these

that and
must

equivocate
;

not

contradict
ance

ourselves

talk

and the

the

import

of

observing
;

these

behests

appears

from
as

foregoing
behests,

discussion the But

some mere

from

which

it appears, of them of does

also, that
not
secure

with their

other

inculcation the

observance.
us

though glaring things

do,
that
nor
'

observance
;

these the do
;

rules

will thus do
not

preserve

from tell
us

blunders that
we

though
not to

rules,

interpreted,
tell
us

some

may
are

they
It it is

what

we

may know

how
A is all of from

we

do

it.

important,
and

no

doubt,
in
a

to

A,' if
that

we

consider

sufficiently,
in in

proper this

spirit, means amplitude

inferences further that

Modern

Logic
does
not

discovers

it ;

but

even

interpretation postulates, including

of
'

help

us

the

task

of the It

drawing
Law may
a

unless,
an

indeed,
code

we

read

into

meaning,
such
a

entire
is

of

Rules. in could the be

be

code

rules is A,'

really inherent
that

deceptively
extracted
to

simple by
a

expression

and

the

code

sufficiently competent
an

intelligence; by
a mere

just

as,

according
to

Holmes,

archangel
a

could,
of the the in

gesture,
but it

convey would be

another
to

archangel
demand is not
an

history
a

Universe;
average order

unfair after task

such

feat

from
;

undergraduate,
to

who,
in

all,
of

archangel
conclusions

and,
from

assist
and

him

the

drawing
from

postulates,
the

of

distinguishing
of

valid

invalid

inference,
His In

without

necessity

having

cogitative faculties cogibundity

formulate
of

immersed

cogitation,
Canons

have
to

ventured
me

to

certain and
to
secure

of
end

Inference,
in

which

seem

to

be

required,

the

view.

CHAPTER

XVII

THE

CANONS

OF

INFERENCE

THE
or

unit

of

Logic Logic

is the is the
or

proposition.
proposition

The derived

unit from

of

Empirical
experience.
pro It

Inductive unit of

The

Inference
nature

Deductive been

Logic explained
that
we

is the in the
are

postulated
first

position, whose
was

has

Chapter.
main

explained
Reasoning,
and
never

in

the

Introduction,
first of which

there hold

three the the

a

forms

of

in the
go

fast to travel to,

we on

facts of expe
firm

rience,
of
we

beyond
do,
firm
we

them.
or never

We

ground

experience
are

and of of

never

ought
on

take

step, until
In

assured mode

the

ground
put
and
out

which
to
sea.

stand.

the

second
land

reasoning,
behind
our

We
the

leave

the
ocean

dry

of

experience
All

us,

sail upon

illimitable

of

postulation.
or

postulates do,
in the

it is true,
and

originate in analyses
we

some

experience
in the

other, but
we

combinations the

make,

rearrangements
we are

effect, in

transformations in the least. with

we

bring
We
are

about,
in the

not

influenced of of

by experience
and
no

fairy

realm

imagination
has

fancy,
concern.

which

the

work-a-day Experience long

as we

world

experience
us

teaches in

the

forms of
of

of

men

and

of
we

horses
may

and

as

remain about

the

realm forms
But

Induction,
and
we

make
are

no

suppositions
warranted

the

men

horses
on

that
sea

not

by experience.
we

when
cut

sail
man

the
at

of

postu
cut to

lation,
the

may,
at

in

imagination,
of
so

off the

the

waist,
man

off

horse

the

root

the
create

neck, join the

a

mutilated him
make
or a

the

mutilated with
any

horse,
other
"

and

centaur

invest
may

with
him
"

life,and
still in
or a

qualitieswe
an

please.
or a

We

imagination
Drunkard. fish
argue

Archer,
may
;

Butcher,
serpent

Chemist, tail,
and
a

We
a

give
if
man

him

for these
If his
reason a

cuttle
can

for

head them

and
as

having they
were

created real.

postulates,
centaur

we

from

has
If he

the
has

body
the

of

horse, then
of mind
a

could then

ride he
can

on

back.

intelligence
indeed,
his

man,

logically, unless, study

of Traditional

has

been

vitiated

by

the

Logic.

THE

SCOPE

OF

INFERENCE

257

But

it is that

not

only,
power

nor

centaurs,
supreme For the

the

of

chiefly,of concrete enables postulation

it

imaginings
us

like Its

to

reason.

value is in the power

purpose of argument,

givesus
may

to

reason

of abstractions.

postulate lines that are without are straight perfect ; rigid levers ; strings ; circles that friction ; perfectly without flexible ; machines weight, and perfectly in an elastic bodies ; vacua hypothetical ; hypothetical vortices things ether; asymptotes; infinitesimal quantities a thousand ; and
we

besides.

It

places at
us

our

physics.
than lines three may

It allows dimensions enclose

a

disposalthe to speculate
us

whole
as

field of mathematical
space

to

of

more

or

less

; it allows

to

postulatethat
sides of
a

two

straight

triangleare equal to, or less than, the third ; that lightis corpuscular or unduthese postulates, latory. It allows us, having granted or assumed if they were that would flow from them to trace the consequences Whether true. Reasoning they are in fact true or not, Deductive
space
; that

any

two

deductivelyfrom postu from that are lates materially postulates those that from false ; and from those that are materiallyfalse, as from It is easy, and it is legitimate, to argue are materiallytrue. We truth or falsity is doubtful unknown whose to us. or postulates is improbable, but what is impossible; not only what postulate may is inconceivable but what not only only what is impossible, ; not
does
not

inquire. It is as easy that are materially true, as

to

reason

what
founded

is

inconceivable, but what

on

is nonsensical

and

arguments
incon
one

any

of these

if they are testable, limit

to

the

power

postulateswill be sound, conducted according to rule. There of postulation, and that will be

valid,and

is but

indicated

presently. It is improbable that an the City of London ; but and this postulate, to show
of

finance, of

commerce,
were

of
to

catastrophe,if it postulate,for the destroyed to-morrow

argument
of the It is is not

to-morrow earthquake will devastate it is quite legitimate to argue from; the widespread ruin, the dislocation from that would such a ensue politics, take place. In other words, we may

purpose

of
an

argument,
the

that

London the

will

be

by

earthquake
way
or

one affected,

of the validity other,by the improbability

; and

postulate. impossiblefor
it,I
should The

me come

to

jump
down

over

the
a

house;
tremendous is not

but

if I could

jump
the
N.L.

over

with the

thump
in the
s

on

other side.

of validity

argument

least

258
affected say

NEW

LOGIC

by

your
not.
;

denial
I
am

that I could
not
so

jump
as

over

the and I

house.
I
can was

I dare
never a

I could

active

I was,

good jumper
that
I

could
can

for the purpose the moon jump over deduce

the

but

of argument,
;

postulate
this
if it
ensue

and

having
that would
not

assumed

postulate,I
were

consequences
or

true.

Whether
my
we

it is true

not

does

in the

least affect

the

of validity

argument.
exhausted
we

Not purpose

yet have
of

the powers
may is my
; of
me

of

postulation.
not

For

the

argument,
; not

postulate
and postulate,
a

only
is argue
can

what

is

improbable
root

only what
Grant
me one

impossible ; but what

I

actually
of

inconceivable.
square of

the
; of

minus

fourth
my

dimension

in space
I
can a

and eternity,

infinity.Grant
follow
sides if two

and postulate,

show
space
;

what if any whole these

would
two
were

straight lines should triangle wrere

less than
it is ad
on

enclose the such

of

third

; if the
as

less than the

its part;

and

postulates
of Euclid

that

familiar

reductiones

absurdum

are

founded. The
power
even

of

extends postulation

beyond

the

inconceivable.
and

It includes is harmonious the

the nonsenical. is

If chalk

is harmonious,
; and

what

black, then
no

chalk

is black

the the

validityof
nonsensical books
on

deduction of

is in the

way

diminished

by

character
1

postulates. Much
statements to

play is
as

made

in

Logic by such nonsensical

soul is square
; but

that virtue is red and

the

if I

that the soul is square,

cannot

postulate that virtue is red or all the king's horses and all the king's men
choose

prevent

me

from

assuming
out
are more

these

postulates for
I

the
in If

purpose the

of argument. it will then

If virtue
come

is red, and white

ordinary way,
No
even

in the

photograph it photograph.
its these.

the soul is square,

its sides could

be

equal,and
valid than

angles rightIt
^

angles.
Not extends I

arguments

yet

are

the

powers

of

postulationexhausted.

to the unintelligible.I may, beyond the nonsensical please, postulate that Brillig is a slithy tove, and that
can

if any
can

slithytove
draw It is used

gyre

and

gimble
to

; and

from

these

I postulates

the
no

deduction irrefragable
more a

that
a

necessary

read

Brilligcan gyre and gimble. meaning into the terms specific

it is necessary the
to

in

deductive

argument,
the
terms
as

than
in

read
=

specific meaning
We
may

into the

equation

+
as

xy.
as

deal

with

terms

symbols only, and,

long

THE

FIRST

CANON

OF

INFERENCE

259

our

will operationsare conducted secundum artem, their conclusion that this unimpugnability it is evident But be unimpugnable. refers to consistency only. The assumption of a postulate can
never

guarantee
with

the

truth

of

conclusion

from that

it ; but the

the

correct

performance
consistent

of deduction the

does

guarantee
This Its

conclusion

is the

postulate.

is the

function, and

province is not to ascertain consistency,and to explicatemeanings that truth, but to ensure be immediately apparent. but that may not in the postulate, are only function, of
Deduction.
I have

said that the

there

is

one

limitation is

to

the

power

of postu-

important. We postulate may is inconceivable, is impossible,what is improbable, what what is unintelligible what is nonsenical, even what we ; but may what We is self-contradictory. not postulatethat postulate may hundred becomes there is a whale two yards long ; that wax
lation
; and

limitation

harder

the

more

it is

heated;
not

that
and

time

is eternal

and

space
a

infinite ; that

the

soul is square
we an

virtue red ; that

an

Brilligis
is
an

slithytove ; but can impinge on

unconscious into that mode

may

postulate that body

; that ;

irresistible force
there
can a an

immoveable

that

of consciousness that
a

matter

be

refined
;

immateriality ;
an

privativenegative has
;
or

denotation

infinite is of

series

is terminable

that

infinitesimal
we

quantity
may may

appreciable magnitude. not postulate; but short of what postulatewhat we please.

first Canon of Inference
a or

Self

contradictories

is

we self-contradictory,

The

Deduction,
and

is,therefore, that
the
we

is deduced from Every Inference For the

postulate ;

second

is that

purpose of argument
that

we

may

what postulate

please, saving
seems

-contradictories. onlyself It is curious

to have

had

any

Hamilton logician but Sir William inklingof this doctrine ; and it is more
no

curious

that

though

Hamilton But

stumbled

on

it,he
like arrived

thought
all
at

Induction.
considered

then
Induction

Hamilton,
was

applied to other logicians,

means

it

that

by
occurs

of his

the

and syllogism,
ment
m

his statement
he calls the has

of the

doctrine

in
a

treat

of what
my

Jnductive Syllogism ;
except
in the
*

creature

that

no opinion misguided logicians.

existence
*

suppose
no

any

material of what

account

he logician,' says, material impossibility, any is objectivelyimpossible or

The

imaginations of has a right to falsity ; he takes

false,and
S

has

260

NEW

LOGIC

rightto
involve that it
seems

assume a

what

premisses he pleases,provided they

in terms.'

do

not

contradiction with

This

is

the precisely
; and

doctrine

I advocate
to
me

respect

to

Deduction
; but

for

Deduction
could

indisputablytrue

how

Hamilton

have

applicableto Induction, or that it is possible derive a materially true conclusion from to a premiss that is materiallyfalse,passes my comprehension, and corroborates my supposed opinion that
entertain.
I should from
no

that it is

doctrine doctrine

is too could

extraordinaryfor
involve
a

logician to
in terms,

If any

contradiction
we

have

thought that
and truth.

this did.
to

If,however,

separate it
what
I

Induction,
Hamilton's

apply it

Deduction, it

expresses

believe
If

is the exact

doctrine, as
that of

applied
some

to

Induction,is strange, it
One

is not

stranger than

of his commentators.
*

of

these says that Hamilton's doctrine, quoted above, does not leave it at all clear that logic thus regarded has any value whatever.'
" "

If this

were

said

of Hamilton's

doctrine

as

Logic only, I should agree with it ; but it whole of logic. Is there,then, no use in the Infinitesimal Calculus,
in Mathematical reductio
are

applied to Inductive manifestly refers to the

in the generally,

in Higher Physics, ? It is true

Mathematics that

ad

absurdum

mathematical
of

reasonings

by formally excluded, are only another

understood. which

excluded

Logic, or, if not consent ignored ; but this is by common of Logic as instance of the inefficiency hitherto Mathematical reasoning is reasoning,and a science expound the nature of reasoning must include reasoning,or stand convicted of inefficiency.
to

logicians from

the

realm

purports

mathematical
Some

adumbration

of this doctrine

seems

to

have

been

in the
most

minds

of those

logiciansof whom
have

Hamilton,
term
'

again, is the
'

conspicuous, who
is
as possible, are

appliedthe

Formal

that
and

not

just contended, to argue merely impossible and inconceivable, but nonsensical

not
see

I have

Logic. If it from postulates

to

I do unintelligible,
any

how

it
;

can

be

denied, that the

mode

latter, at
argument
all. That

rate,
same

are

purely formal

and, since the

in one,

of
in

is the all

in is is

all,if it is formal

it is formal

Logic Logic

that Deductive
Those

formal, I should strenuously deny ; but formal, cannot, in my view, be contested.

confess material who
and

logicians who,
argument
; and

like Thomson, between of those

that

they

do
are

not out
a

understand
of this

the distinction
most

formal,

deny that Logic is

262 of the so-called

ever

NEW

LOGIC whatever
of may

Laws

of
for

Thought
the thus
we

"

is,is
"

to

mean

what form the of

is

postulated

purpose

argument
read

may

ground of argument
Inference

; and

the second

Canon

into the first ' Law

of

Thought/

Since

all Inference
must

is based

begun,
other

proceed on assumption ; and

; the

the argument, once postulation, the basis of the postulate,and on no this gives us Canons two of more
on

Deduction
must not

first of

which

is that
in

once postulate, course on

granted,
argument.
of the

be withdrawn
must

nor

ignored

the

of
the

the

The

argument

proceed throughout
if centaurs

basis

postulate.
The

argument
The

that

existed, they
not

would

make
centaurs

cannot splendidcavalry,

be controverted
be

by denying that
in the
course

exist.

postulatemay
If it is

denied, but
must

of the

argument. argument
must not

it questioned,
once

be

questioned before the

allowed
or

begins ; but having

be denied
cause,

been

assumed, it
If Consols may
contro

in the
I say,

course was

of the this
or

argument.
you

fell to
vert

84, the
it

that, and
did

my

argument

by
That

any

reasoning you
be you

please,but
so

you

may

not

controvert

by denying that Consols

must

fall.

That
at

is outside

the argument. the do

so

settled,if it is settled

all,before

argument
at

begins. If
; you
a

the outset

may

question the postulate,you must not postpone your objection until

distasteful to you.
To

the argument the

ment

has led to
not

conclusion the
I may

deny
argu

does postulate
on

invalidate

argument
argue

; it renders
women

that basis

impossible.
any my
means

that if and
you

have
seek
to to

votes,

they will
even

involve

the country

in war, that
or

may

refute my
you,

argument

by by breaking

commend

themselves

windows,

chairs and that

women

tables ; but you do not will have votes.

may

chaining yourselfto my refute the argument by denying

be denied
on :

Not

only

the

postulate not
must

it must basis

not

be the

ignored. The and postulate,

would
make

argument
on

proceed
I say you

the

of

that alone.

that if centaurs do not

existed,they
argument

and splendid cavalry,

refute my

by sayingthat the horses of the other cavalry would be frightened need Such state large tents. by them, or that they would very do not proceed on the basis of the postulate. They ments ignore
it. If Consols fell to

84, I say the

cause

was

this

or

that ; and

THE

SECOND

CANON

OF

INFERENCE

263

you

do

not

refute

my

argument

opportunity to pick them up It ignores the postulate. I

would

by saying that cheap. That is beside

say
war

that
; and

if

women no

good the question. had votes, they

was a

it

involve

the

country
never

in

it is
war

counter

argument
not

to say that

they
the

would

vote

for any

that

was

just.

This It

deserts

basis of the

postulate.
can

It is outside

the argument.

ignores the postulate. this Canon With a little ingenuity, of Thought. Law Nothing can both
'

be

read
not to

into the second be

two
'

be and
assent

may

be

held

to

mean are

that

we

must

not

or

cannot

propositions
as a

that
ment

inconsistent

with

each

other.

If this

is made

state

it is certainly not true ; for many pairs of beliefs, reality, Multitudes who held in common by multitudes, are inconsistent. has a surplus of population,which is bad hold that the country hold and for the country, are appalled at the declining birth-rate, of

that
mean

this that
to
a

also
we

is bad
cannot

for the
assent to

country.
two

If,however,
this Law
on

it is held
we

to

propositionswhen
other,then
To the

believe

them
has

be inconsistent and
a

with
true

each

of

Thought
of
a

meaning,

meaning.

argue

basis

is to hold two and to deny the postulate, to ignore it, or postulate, inconsistent positionsat once. The of Thought the of the Law Excluded remaining Law that everything must We Middle either be or not be. asserts
"
"

be that a perhaps, interpretthis to mean postulate must either granted or refused, and that we must deductively on argue the basis of a postulateor not at all. If this seems free render a in excuse that free ing of the Law, I can only put forward may,

renderings of
moreover,
can

Thought if these interpretations of

well without Traditional
do but
are

the

Laws

of

are

the Laws

rule
are

in
not

Logic, and,
admitted,
I

the

do So

very

them.
Laws real
not
nor

far, the
senses,
;

of

Thought,
that
means

if
are

interpreted
necessary all the
con

in

these

express

conditions

for

Inference

they
all.

do

by
can are

any

express any

ditions that
to

necessary,

they, by
two

be artifice, Canons that

to

made
are

express

them

There
are

other if and

necessary
at

if Deductions and
as

to
as

be much

valid, or
value

they
as

are

be

made

all ;
are new

these

are

of

great
If the
;

cogency, first of the is

they
the second

indispensable, as

those

already

stated. invalid The

Canons

is violated, Inference
is

is

unless

is admitted, Inference

impossible.

first Canon

264
stated

NEW

LOGIC

by Hamilton,
it ;

but

no

subsequent writer,except Prof. Carveth

or or

Read, has

adopt
no

to repeat it recognised its importance sufficiently and the second, though it has been tacitly assumed,

inference

could

ever

have

been

made, has not,

The
of omission
most

as

far
of

as

know,
these

been
Canons

formulated
from

by

any
text

logician.
book is in is
one

both

every

the

surprisingthings
may be assumed

in

Logic, fertile as Logic

The

Fourth

Canon

surprises. of Inference is : Nothing

course,
on a

that rule

is not in the

postulate. This is,of

must to

from corollary basis of the

and

the

that the
but Canon may

argument

proceed
divide

the

postulate,
the fourth
we

it is

expedient
outside

this rule

into two,
to

is its second
not ;
me

implication. According
our

this

Canon,

go
we

evidence
Grant

the

not premisses ; we may go beyond the advance brief. nothing that is not in our may and I may postulate that his evidence was false,

infer that it was calculated to mislead the jury ; but I may rightly not infer,from this postulate alone, that he committed perjury. draw have the further postulate that To that conclusion, I must he knew but
I

his evidence
may
or

was

false.

Granted this

that he

was

found

dead
was

not

conclude, from
Laws

postulate alone, that he

Postulate
we

murdered,
have from this

that he committed three of

suicide.

that
not

logicians
conclude,

stated

Thought, but they have

Postulate

may

alone, postulate
to
we

that

stated

all the conditions drink

can cause

necessary

valid
may

inference.
not to

that this

insanity, yet
his
must

conclude, from
drink.
matter not

postulatealone, that
Inductive

insanity was
take
account

due
of

Granted

that

Logic
not

the

of which
a

it treats

; it does

follow
No

that Deductive
Canon

Logic is
is
more

of Inference of this Canon consist.

the breach Inference

tutes

that most

Logic of pure form. important than this,for it is in of the recognised fallacies of

of this Canon that consti and
many

It is the

violation

all the

formal

fallacies of

Traditional
not

Logic,

other

fallacies that that

are

Logic

does

recognise.

of Inference, degrees of importance in the Canons is the most then the Fifth Canon important of all, for it and it inference possible; it alone allows inferences to be alone renders If there

deduced, and
When other shows
a

all deduction

is based
its

directly upon
are implications

it.

It is this The

is granted, all postulate

state
or

granted.
The

Canons

the

conditions

of Inference.
It tells us

fifth Canon inferences

the mode

method

of Inference.

what

THE

FIFTH

CANON

OF

INFERENCE

265 presently be the practical

the

are,

and

how
into

they
a

are

effected.

This which

Canon

will

expanded
rules that tions of
a

series of Lemmas, process and of how

constitute

regulatethe
the that

Inference.

What
be

implica
from

postulate are,

they

may

deduced

it,

will form
to

notice

and

that, when
or

are subject of the followingchapters ; at present we every postulated proposition contains implications, it is assumed all its implicationsare or postulated,

postulatedalong with it. is meant What by an implicationof a propositionhas already been explained in the last chapter. An implicationof a proposition of of the proposition,or of stating the matter is another way in the present chapter it from the discussion a part of it ; and
assumed follows

that every
be

inference, like the proposition from

The process

which

it is is the

extracted, must
extraction in the
ment.
are or

implication or meaning latent of the argu proposition that is postulated for the purpose We cannot begin to draw an inference until its premisses
If this doctrine
are

hypothetical. explication of some

of inference

postulated.
here

is correct, and and

if the any
to

Canons

of

Inference

stated

sound the

valid,then

doubt be

remain
in

ing

of the existence

of

said petitio principii,

inherent
any

If the conclusion is laid at rest. syllogism, thing that is not postulated in the premisses,the every

contains fourth
sense

Canon of

is

violated and

the

argument

is unsound.

In another cardinal
term

petitio
very

principii
"

for this, like

"

every

other

of Traditional is that is in
purpose

the whole basis of Inference Logic, is ambiguous begging of the principium,or major premiss, that

question.
of the
'

Unless

the

premisses are
argument
'
"

assumed

or

begged

for the

proceed. State your syllogism. mortal men are Stop there ! I deny your major. There the to Enoch, Elijah,Struldbrugs. Until cases contrary is settled, you cannot preliminary difficulty proceed with
argument,
cannot
"

All
are

this your
on.

argument.
But

You

are

arrested in the

at

the
*

outset, and
men are

cannot

go

put your
me. are

premiss
I
am

form

If all and

mortal,' and
hinder you.

you If all is
I

disarm
men

powerless now,
Socrates
I
nor

cannot

mortal, and
; and

is

man,

then, indeed, Socrates

the

mortal
have

however

may

deplore
to

prospect
But
now

before
you

him,
have

neither your

hope

comfort

offer.

begged
the whole
on tirely

that principium; and it is on this very petitio principii of your inference rests. The conclusion rests en validity the validity of the premiss ; and this premiss is postulated

266

NEW

LOGIC

or

begged
for

for

the

purpose

of

the but
I

argument.
cannot

I do

can

demand
Deductive

the

warrant

your As
a mere

postulate,
deducer

so

as

logician.
question
have
any

you

are

safe.

am

powerless
Before of and
your
enter

to

the

validity
to

of
demand

your

inference the the of

as

an

inference.

right
I

grounds
domain Inference wheel basket.
of

or

justification
Inference,
no more

principium,
another realm.

must

leave The

Logic
a man

can

question
in
a

its

own

premisses
or

than himself

can

himself As

along
as

wheel

barrow,

lift is

up
to

in

long

the

Deductive

logician postulated
the
moment

content

argue

on

an

admitted
waters

assumption
of that Inference is
is
not ;

or

premiss,
he in

he

sails
to

on

the

calm

but

attempts

show he strikes

conclusion
rock.

already
trying
but This will

begged
to

his

principium,
land. the the last
He

on

He firm
meet

now

sail

on

dry
is

may,
a

indeed,

be

on

ground,
with.

firm

ground
on

thing

ship

desires in

to

discussion be resumed

petitio
chapter

principii,
on

inherent

every

syllogism,

in

the

the

syllogism.

CHAPTER

XVIII

IMMEDIATE

INFERENCE

THE

IMPLICATIONS

OF

SIMPLE

PROPOSITIONS.

THE

implications Logic
as

of

Simple
the
are

Propositions
Inferences
narrow

are

known

in

Traditional in others

Immediate

but and down

in this

field,as

already

examined,

conventional

boundaries

of Traditional
and

Logic
the

broken

by
found in the

the

New The the

use.

Logic here expounded,

two

field is

indefinitely enlarged.
been
are are

Quantities
two

of Traditional of
very

Logic have
many

to

be

meagre The
remnant

representatives Negatives
of
scores

that

actual

of

Traditional
can

Logic
be of

attenuated and
are

of

negatives that
the
;

constructed,
Traditional
the

in
are

daily use.
three
to
or

The

Immediate

Inferences

Logic

four
some

"

the Converse,
add the Inverse

Obverse,
the of

these

Contrapositive,and implications of simple propo Explication here

laid down

sitions,derivable
are

by
Canons

the

method

expounded,
in

multitudinous. indefinitely
The

general
and

of

Inference

are

the
to

last be

chapter ; and,
made,
in Inference
one

in accordance

with
are

them made

all inferences
; moreover,

ought
a

all valid inferences is

when
to

fallacy
of may
we

perpetrated,its perpetration is
;

due

the

breach

of these drawn

Canons

but

in order

to discover

what
to

inferences
be

be

from

propositions,and
more or

how
these

they

are

extracted,
The fifth

need scope which tions ways but

guidance
of
asserts
are

than specific

Canons

afford.

whole

Inference,
that

Deduction,
a

is indicated is

by

the

Canon,
other
;

when with it.

proposition
Since the

granted,

all its

implica

granted
Canon

implications are
indication

merely
of be what

of this

statingthe proposition,or
does
or

part of it,this is self-evident

any the

not

give
ways these these

us

implications are,
from
or

of For

the

in which purposes rules

or or we

they
licences

may

extracted

the

postulate.
licences of

require further
are

rules,
same

further

; and

not

the

for all classes

propositions;
call

rather, the

Canons

of

Explica
of the

tion,

as

we

may

them, that

suffice for

the

extraction

268

NEW

LOGIC the addition

are

of Simple propositions, need implications enable

us

of others contained

to

to

extract

all the

implications that

in

with Compound propositions.In this chapter, we are concerned for their explication Simple propositionsonly, and the Canons
may

be
:
"

stated, as

Lemmas

to

the

fifth Canon

of

Inference,as

follows

THE

CANONS

OF

EXPLICATION

OF

SIMPLE

PROPOSITIONS.

propositionimplies Every postulated and included 1. proposition. Every equivalent

2.

Every condition
denial of

necessary every

to the

postulate.
with the

3. The

proposition inconsistent

postulate.
i.

and included implies proposition Every postulated every equivalent

proposition. Of these equivalentor

varieties ; and Minor
A. Canons
to

included
to extract

enable

us

propositions there are three them all,we require three

:
"

of

Explication,as follows

its reciprocal. implies proposition Every postulated have already found, The proposition as we expresses, between
two terms.

relation

The

first Minor

Canon

of

Explication declares
"

that every relation implies a reciprocal relation ; the Subject, is relation the Object holds towards the
the If A is the father

that

whatever

reciprocatedby

of B, then B Object. Subject towards If A is above is reciprocally the child of A. B, then B is recipro If A strikes and B kills B, then is callybelow A. reciprocally If A includes, or is included struck and killed by A. in, B, then
B of

is reciprocally

included

in, or

includes

A.

If A

is

an

attribute

the attribute A. reciprocally possesses Traditional Logic knows nothing of the reciprocalproposition,
B

B, then

or

of the

of reciprocity

terms.

I know makes

of any

no

exponent

except Prof. Carveth

or even

Read, who

allusion to

Logic reciprocity,

of

mentions attaches
no

Read
In

Prof. Carveth reciprocal proposition ; and it. great importance to it,and merely mentions the

Traditional place of the reciprocal, is

a a

Logic

offers

us

the converse,
no

which
one

conventional

and

unnatural
of in

which implication,
a

but

would logician
in
cannot

think

extracting from
argument
from
any

proposition;
of

which

is never,
; which

fact,used

outside

books

on

Logic

be extracted

but proposition

those

270

NEW

LOGIC

natural, a complete, and

terms
are

an

accurate

converse,

identical; the
that is not
are

relation is in the

reciprocal. The is reciprocal. Everything

or converse.

expressed in the convertend

in the
*

There
But
are

is
we

nothing
convert

converse

in the convertend.
*

if

All

trees

tall
on

'

into

Some

tall

things
mind that

trees,'the
a

first
very

impressionmade
unnatural with think about violent the of.
'

the unaccustomed

is that this is
no one

and

artificialinference.

It is one

peculiar conventions
The
convertend

of Traditional
says

unacquainted ever Logic would

suggests

nothing,
term

and

Some

tall

things.'

The

is
It

an

nothing, importation. It is a
not

wrenching of the meaning.

threatens, if it does

of the fourth Canon of Inference, actually invade, the integrity which forbids us to assume anything that is not in the postulate. The and is dragged in neck is stuffed term into heels, and a position for which it is palpably unfit. Moreover, the conver tend
trees.
*

says

All trees in

are

but the tall,'

converse

says

nothing

of all

Nothing
are

Traditional

Logic

is

more

settled, about
more

nothing
than buted. tall

the

warnings of Traditional
an our

Logic
what
*

emphatic,
undistri
*

that the
If
we are

predicate of
reconvert trees
'

affirmative
converse,
converse

is proposition
do Some
we

get
trees

Some

things

yieldsthe

are

tall tall and class the

trees are not conveying the suggestion that some is contradictoryof the original postulate; things,which

things,'so

transmogrifies the
which predicate,
is

original attributive
understood
'

predicate into
Traditional
'

contradictory of the logicaldoctrine

in
some
'

that

predicate is
would,
no

to

be

intention.
'

Logic
would it

doubt, deny that

conventional limit the
'

suggests
some

not

and all,'

refer to the

meaning
'

at

least,'to

which

attempts
is to
is not

to

some

of

be
to

generallyapplicable to
be restricted
to
a

ordinary discourse ; but if Logic the reasonings of dailylife, and

conventional of words
and

few

forms, it
in
common

must
use

not ; and
a

thus

restrict the meanings arbitrarily

a

if it is to be

purely technical
If
we

science
to

art, restricted

to

few be
case

artificial conventions, abandoned.

to

its claim
as or

adhere,

general usefulness must submit we ought in this

value of the
'

adhere, to the connotative

is indicated
as
'

attributive

predicate,
This
once,

which
we

plainly as

possible by the adjective tall,'

is
an

get the reciprocal, Tallness

first

attribute

of all trees.'
us

is,in the
as a

place,natural.
of implication

It commends

itself to
In

at

manifest

the

postulate.

the

second

place,

THE

CONVERSE

271

it is accurate.

If the convertend of attribute this

expresses,
to

as

logicians tell
then the
to

us

it

does,
should In the

the

relation
as

substance,

converse

express,

does,
is

the

relation of substance
and

attribute.
the
con

third
says

place,it
of all

complete
and of If the

ample.

Whatever

vertend

of all trees
trees.

the tallness,

reciprocalsays

of

tallness and
reappears In
converse a

in the

exact

form and
man

comprehensive
of
'

proposition is reconverted, of the original. book authoritative text on Logic,

has been
a

it

the

Every old

boy

'

is said

to

be

'

Some

It will be noted that, in the boys are old men.' has been altered ; a pro first place, the quantity of both terms ceeding that I regard as doubly inadmissible, and one that strikes of Traditional us as an Logic, which strange from exponent who

have

been

with respect to quantity. In requiressuch punctilious accuracy the second the same not meaning as place,the converse conveys, the convertend, but different a meaning. Every old man very has been a boy the possibility that any old man excludes entirely
*
'

could
'

have does

been
not

girl.

But nay,

'

Some

who

have

been

boys

are

old

men

that tend from tions the

distinctly suggests, the possibility have been old men. others who From the conver are girls old man has but been we can a girl,' get the obverse, No the converse obtain this negative. If the implica cannot we
exclude,
'

it

of the

converse

are

not

the

same

as

those
cannot

of the

convertend,
same

and convertend meanings of converse in this case, they are plainlynot the same. reciprocal,should exactly what express neither
same. more nor

be the
true

; and
or

The

converse,

is in

the

convertend,

less ; and

the
to

terms

should
in

remain

preciselythe
term

It is not

allowable
is it

alter them

quantity,as Traditional
an

Logic does,
a

neither this

permissibleto alter
*

abstract

into

The true reciprocal Logic constantly does. old of Every old man has been a boy,' is A boy is what every with has been.' identical the terms In this reciprocal, man are the terms of the postulate: the Subject is become Object, and the Object, Subject, without alteration of either; and the Ratio alone is changed into its reciprocal. These the are only alterations. The It meaning of the proposition remains preciselythe same.

concrete,
'

as

is not The of

extended
text

it is not do
not
some

contracted all

it is not rules
two

modified. for the

books

give the

same

conversion

and propositions,
are

of them

give

rules
are

themselves,

for they manifestlyinsufficient,

only, which, by both negative,

272

NEW

LOGIC

and
way

us telling only what we the thing is to be done.

must

avoid, they say

first rule is that

nothing of the
the

The be in the

quality of
is that
no

the
term

proposition
converse.

must

not

changed

the

second
must

that is undistributed Both

be converted
to not

convertend,

be distributed

in the

rules

are

that cannot
not term

without

faulty. There are propositions altering the quality; and it is

enough
must

prohibitan extension of distribution of a term. The only remain unincreased in quantity : it must remain
except in
case,

unaltered

respect.
are

in any respect whatever And these rules omit

and

in

one

other

altogetherto

state

that the terms

to be

transposed.
scheme is of

Adding this condition, however, the whole

wrong.

radically
converse

that has
us no

gives us, at best, the already been examined.

It
at

very To

imperfect form
many
or

propositions it gives
correct
converse.

converse

all, or
of the O
as

no

reasonable

It of

give us a giving a converse

may

converse

that

is nonsensical.

It
a

is

incapable

which, by proposition,
any

correct

method,
is with

is

as

easilyconvertible
to
none

other.
It

The

reciprocalrelation
in every
a

open
out

of these

objections.
cannot

gives us
mistaken

case,

and without difficulty, that intelligible reciprocal,

altering the
be

sense,

true, accurate,

for
a

anything else.
except
what

Moreover,
rule:
"

this transformation the

from
terms

is effected without
any

by

singlevery simple change the Ratio

Transpose

alteration

follows necessarily

the

and transposition,

into its reciprocal.

There
are

two

alterations of terms

which

follow from necessarily

either of these alterations is when transposition ; and that alteration must, of course, consequential on the transposition, their
mere

be

made

; but

no or

other

alteration
is

of

term
case an

is

permissible.
must

If

either when of

Subject
it is be

Object
and

inflected, its
abstract

be

altered
must
as

transposed;
converted

if the
an

Object is

attribute,it
it
can

course

into

before

stand

Subject.
There
correct
are

many

converse,

propositionsthat admit of no converse, by the Traditional plan of conversion.

to
me an

or

of

no

In

no a

text

book

of

Logic known

positionconstituted
How
to convert

by

is any attempt made As intransitive verb.

do
not

to convert

pro

far

as

conversion

is concerned, intransitive verbs

He He fell,
not

exist for Traditional

so

Logic.
know.

dances, It rains, and

and

forth, Tradi
to

tional

Logic

does

tell us,

does

not

appear

CONVERSE

AND

RECIPROCAL

273

'

He

fell.'

How

is this

propositionto

be converted

or must, by hook Logic ? First we that has no copula is inconvertible. duce the copula. A proposition be expressed That the relation that the proposition expresses cannot by the copula, is a matter to which Traditional Logic is indifferent. the worse for the relation. be so expressed,so much If it cannot The of Traditional mandate Logic is simple : Alter it into one of the mind that in so doing you alter the sense that can. Never with sense. Logic is not concerned proposition. Traditional Rem. Si possis, recte ; sed rem. Get the copula in somehow.

Traditional

by the rules of by crook, intro

"

'

He

fell
'

'

must

therefore
a we
'

be who

altered fell.'

into

'

He

was

person

who
to

or fell,'

He

is

person

Convert fell
was

this he.'

according
This

rule,and logical
the
"

get

'

person
*

who
'

is not

converse

of
he

He

fell.'

He

fell tells us
converse

what

he tell
'

experienced
us

what

underwent.

The

should It does
not.

what
person

was

experiencedor undergone by
fell who
true
was a

him. he

who
but The
t

he

'

tells us, not who

or

what
was.

experienced
is not

or

underwent,
we

person

fell

This
'

what

want.

is short for He which reciprocalof He fell,' is Fallingwas experiencedfalling,' experienced by him.' the plan of be converted, on cannot Similarly, He danced Traditional into He was a person Logic, until it is transformed
converse
* ' ' '

who

danced

'

; that
a

is to say, until
or was a

statement

of

historical

fact

is

changed
1

into

definition danced
'

description. Then
he.' But who
'

it is converted danced The

'

into the

person

who of

He

is not

abbreviation of this

He

was
'

person
was a

danced.'

abbreviation
this

is proposition
'

He

dancer,' and
was
'

it is of
'

proposi
'

tion that
danced and
'

A
'

person He
was

who
a

danced dancer

he
very

is

converse.

He

and

have have
'

different different

their
'

converses respective

must

very

meanings ; meanings

also.

He
'

danced the

'

is

short

dancing
'

; and

converse,
was

The

act

of
was

dancing
what
convert
*

of performed the act of this is or rather, the reciprocal, performed by him,' or colloquially, He

for

'

Dancing
In order

he did,'
You

to

shall have

jam

for tea

'

by the
'

method
a

of Traditional person
'

who

it into You Logic, we must first transform are shall have jam for tea,' and the converse will then

be

person

who

shall have
to

are logicians

welcome

jam keep

for tea for

is

you,'a propositionwhich
own use

their

and

delectation. and
T

But

if

we

look at the relation the

proposition expresses,

find

N.L.

274 the

NEW

LOGIC

of that relation,its conversion reciprocal

easy

into
for tea

a
'

rational propo
are a

sition becomes tion of the shall have had for tea

enough.
in

The

words

'

qualifica
'

Ratio, and
for tea
"

logicalorder, the proposition is,

The in literal reciprocal is

You

"

jam.'
'

'Jam
do
not

shall be
express

by
with
*

you

; but

common

discourse,we exactitude,
and for tea.'
to

ourselves

this

pedantic
you is

the

colloquial by

reciprocalis Jam is what

shall have

'Anything
but

but

water
'

wholesome wholesome
and

drink'
to

becomes,
is

logical conversion,
water,' which
' '

Something

drink

anything

is not

English,
to

reciprocalis
water ; which

Wholesomeness is both

drink

The scarcely sense. in anything but is found

is

good English and good sense. The logical rule, that the qualityof the propositionmust and would changed in conversion, is unnecessary, prevent
'
'

not
us

be

from

conversions that otherwise some are effecting possible. Nothing is as painful as humiliation of Tra becomes, by the conversion ditional Logic, Something as painful as humiliation is nothing,' which is very like a contradiction in terms. The true reciprocal
'

is,of
In

course, to

'

Humiliation
true

order

get the

painfulthan anything (else).' violate the practice must we reciprocal,

more

is

of Traditional

Logic, and

look

behind

the words, to the

sense

that

of they express ; we must violate its rule, and change the quality the proposition. It is unanimously asserted by the text books that the O A B is not is Negative Some proposition the Particular
"
"

"

inconvertible; and
looks if we
words
to

so

it is

by their mechanical
no

process,
sense.

which But that the

the words behind

only, and takes

pay

account

of the
to

go

the words, and it is convertible lines that

regard

the The

sense

express,

enough. easily

impossibility
the floor,and
'

is like the

chalk

hypnotisers draw

upon

insurmountable barriers. If persuade their victims are then it is true enough that we cannot not honest,' men are

Some

convert
are

this,according men,'
but
or, if
we

to

logical rule, into

we

'

Some

honest

beings

not

do,
from

shall make

material

mistake.

But

this

arises inability from

nothing inherent in the Particular Negative, the applicationto it of a vicious method. It arises from
the

pretending that

negative proposition must express a relation of class exclusion ; which it may not, and, according to logicians If we take it, themselves, it usually does not. as they tell us it it is convertible ought to be taken, as expressing non-attribution,

THE

SECOND
The do

MINOR

CANON

275

easily enough.
which
some men

reciprocal then not possess/ or

but
one

is
'

Honesty is Honesty is not

'

a a

quality quality

of

some

men.'

implications of Simple that are called, in Traditional Logic, Immediate propositions that have We Inferences. seen postulated proposition every implies every proposition that is equivalent to it,or is included is one. There the reciprocal in it. Of those that are equivalent,
The

reciprocal is

of

those

are

others,however,
B. The second

and

these

are

now

to

be considered.

Explication states that Every in which the Ratio impliesevery proposition of postulated proposition that is, for the purpose of the is replacedby a Ratio the postulate argument, equivalentto, included in, or implied in, the postulated
Minor Canon of Ratio.

expressed differently, by of a different Ratio, without the use enlarging the meaning of the it may be so expressed; and such expression is a proposition, Inference from the legitimate Immediate proposition. Every of expressing the postulate, is another Inference or part of way if the Ratio is susceptible the postulate of being expressed ; and
In other
a

words, if

propositioncan

be

otherwise

than

it is the

expressed, and
If Brutus killed and slew

expressed in expression is a
Caesar, then
; Brutus

the valid Brutus

postulate,it
inference. and wilfully of malice the

may

be

so

murdered Cassar

feloniously
not

killed Caesar

aforethought;
devil, and

Brutus,

being prompted

and

instigatedby

before his eyes, did wilfully, having the fear of God maliciously, kill and and feloniously, slay Caesar, against the Peace of our and his dignity. These Lord the King, his crown, substituted Ratios are equivalentto the postulatedRatio murdered,' and may in the proposition, and the Immediate therefore replace this Ratio
'

Inferences If there that balm If

are

valid.
no

is

balm

in from

Gilead, then Gilead;

we

may balm

infer legitimately
does
not

is absent
men

that

exist in

Gilead.
are

flattery, they are pleased by flattery ; they rather gratified by flattery flattery ; they welcome ; they would
than
not.
are

like

be flattered These

Ratios but

replace;
Ratio

is not

equivalent, severally,to is legitimate when inference an equivalent,if only it is included

the
the

Ratios

they
in

substituted

in, or

implied
T 2

276
the

NEW

LOGIC

postulated
is not

Ratio.

If Brutus

murdered

Caesar, then
;

Brutus the

killed Caesar, for

converse

killingis included
We
cannot

in murder infer from

but of

course

true.

Brutus

killed Caesar
of purpose in killing.

to

Brutus

murdered

Caesar, for murder

nor

is not, for the

nor

the argument, If there that

no use

to, equivalent
no

included,
we

implied
; and
are

is

balm
be

in

Gilead, then
out

may

infer legitimately that there

is

balm
in

cannot

extracted
to

of Gilead
; for these

going to Gilead postulate, though they are

These
commend the

get balm

implied

in the

inferences themselves of them.

be
or

are

to

equivalent to the postulate. manifestlylegitimate and valid. They the hearer, and carry their validityon
not cannot

face

They
reached

be doubted of the

nor

questioned ; but
of Inference, That neither

they

cannot

by

any

processes

Immediate Immediate

Mediate, of Traditional
is manifest.

Logic.
are

they
are

are

not

Inferences

They

converses,

nor obverses, contrapositives,

inverses,
We

and

these

the
can

only

Immediate

Inferences

of Traditional

Logic.

Neither

they
might

be
a

through the syllogism. that would quasi-syllogism give us

:

reached

might, indeed, construct

We

the conclusion.

say

All the persons

Brutus
' . .

that

man

murders, he kills ;
;

murdered

Caesar

Brutus

killed Caesar. admit this to

be

Whether do
not

logicianswould
; but

valid argument,

certainlynot a syllogism. The proposi and tions are not are logicalpropositions, incapable of entering for they contain no into a syllogism, copula. There are four terms, three ; be constructed than and with more a syllogism cannot and there is no A nearer middle term. approach to a syllogism
know
on

it is

the The

subject must
person

be

constructed

somewhat the

in this way person

"

who

murdered

Caesar

was

who

killed

Caesar,
Brutus
" . .

was

the person the person

a

who who

murdered
killed

Caesar

Brutus

was

Caesar.

This
to

is not

syllogism ;
nearest
we

at any term

rate

some

would logicians

refuse

recognise it,for the middle

This is the
can

is

singular.
even

get ; but form,

It

this does

not

give us
was

our

conclusion

in

its proper

givesus

that Brutus

278
Lord of

NEW

LOGIC

of Treasury.' These are, it is true, so many ways Inference is another saying the same thing ; but then every of saying the same thing, or of saying a part of the way
same

the

thing.
in how
are

The

whole

aim

of

Immediate

Inference

is to

discover
new

ways

of the a thing may be said. Some ways many little different from the postulate itself, that so

logicians grudge to them the title of inferences ; but this is because Other new logiciansmisapprehend the true nature of Inference.
ways

of

saying
; but

thing put
the

the
to

matter

in

form

so

and different,

perhaps so unexpected, that

allowed the
same. or

them

the title of Inference is the same, in

a

is

freely

in nature

process

and
new

the result is form of the

whole

Every inference is a part of the postulate.

restatement

instances of the substitution scarcelynecessary to give more of equivalent terms, which is included under Jevons'Substitution of Similars
; but

It is

it is worth

while

to

notice that Similars similar

to

are

not

always
there
are

substitutable.
many

Pinchbeck in which
we

is very

gold;

but

arguments

pinchbeck
in

cannot

validlybe
is the
no

substituted
and

for

gold.

When

speak,
remember similar

Logic, of equivalents
that what
we mean

it is important similars, that

are

to
or

things

equivalent
is
a

for

the

purpose

of

argument.
attention

This
; but

matter

to utmost

which

logicians have
as

given

it is of the

importance,
For

will be shown of many

again

and

again in the following pages.

two
crown

the purpose

equivalent to half a sovereign; it will not but if half a sovereign will go through a certain slot, do to infer that two For crown pieces will go through the same.
arguments,

pieces

are

the purpose

pieces are not equivalent of to half a sovereign ; nor are they equivalent for the purpose the argument that half a sovereign weighs so many grains. For the purpose of carrying certain information through the post, a
of this argument,
two
crown

of carrying postcard is equivalent to a letter ; but for the purpose the information and for the purpose derived of the revenue privately, from the carrying,the postcard is not equivalent to the letter. The substitution

modification
to

equivalent of the postulate, that it

an

of

term
seems

produces so slight a scarcelyworth while

an

call it
an

an

inference. of great

Nevertheless, it is

inference, and
and

may

be

inference find that that

importance.
us

In

subsequent chapter we
ease

shall

it enables have

problems

certainty, for generations; and we puzzled logicians

to

solve,with

SUBSTITUTION
that

OF

TERMS
for

may
one

note

at

once

it is the sole warrant

of
an

proceeding from
next.

step in the

solution

equation

to

the

When

we

say, because

(a +

6)2 (a + 6)2

(a +
a* +

b)(a + b),therefore
2
a

b +

62,
the of
we

what

is

our

warrant

for

arguing
On what ? founded

that Law
Do

equivalent to
is principle, that the
can

the

first ?

equation is Thought, or logical

second
rest
our

the

inference of these whatever

not

assurance,

the maxim both be

second that be and

or

equations
is,is ?
or on we or

is
on

equivalent to
the maxim that

the that

first, on

be ? Do the is

the
rest

maxim it
on

nothing everything must

de omni
et

either

not

be ? that what

the

Dictum

nullo,and
the

argue

second

first because of Our any is

be equivalentto equation must predicated of everything in a class is that class ?

predicated
ridiculous.

anything
warrant
term

in

and is, plainly, in

a

suppositions are manifestly,and without

be
a

The

doubt, that
term to

proposition may
it.

that

equivalentto
b), and

Here, a2 +
may

replaced by any + b2 is equivalent postulate. reasonings,

(a +

b) (a +

therefore

replace
some on

it in the

As and

stated in

elsewhere, logicians fightshy of mathematical

most
cases

assume,

and

in

are reasonings of mathematics qualitative reasoning. They

' '

conducted say, for

boldly state, that the a plan different from logical

instance, that the

argument
A B is conducted
"

is
"

equal

to

B, and
C

"

is
"

equal to

on

plan

different

from

that

of the

mathematical

argument
A B It would of
=

B C. that the of mode

be

premature

and

superfluous to deny
cases.

reasoning is different in these two that they are different lies on those
we are

The make

burden

proving
;

who

the assertion

and

in ignoring it until it is proved. justified b. Either term of a proposition be replaced by one that is, for the may purpose of the argument, included in it. If every building in the town was destroyed by the earthquake, the
town

hall

was

destroyed.

If it

was

cheap

at

fifty guineas,it

28o

NEW

LOGIC

was

fifty pounds. If every dog has his day, many dogs have their days. If all men are mortal, some at least are men mortal ; and any particularman is mortal. If the whole of the
at

cheap

milk

was

contaminated
or

or

adulterated, each
food.
term must

pint

of

it

was

con

taminated
and oranges

adulterated.
are

If all fruit is wholesome

food, grapes
that is

wholesome

It is not

to replace a permissible

by

one

merely
of the
town

included

in

it. it

The

substituted
be

term

not

only be included
If the whole

in the term

replaces; it must
the inference
will

included

for the purpose

argument,
was was were

or

not

be valid.

destroyed by the earthquake, it follows destroyed ;

are

that
the

the

town

hall

but

it does

not

follow

that

school

children the school

town

destroyed,for,for the
not

purpose

of this argument,
town.

children
was

included

in the

But

if the whole
are,

depopulated by cholera, the

of this argument,
For

school

children
and
'

for

the

purpose

included of the

in the town,

the

town-hall
at
a

is not.

the

purpose

argument,

It

was

cheap

of guinea,'a pound is included in a guinea; but for the purpose A guinea is so called from the source the argument, of the gold from which the first guineas were made,' a pound is not included
'

in

guinea.
; but

For

the

purpose

of the

argument,
*

Milk

should

be
in

sterilised before milk

it is consumed,'

contaminated

milk

is included

for the purpose

of the argument,
milk
'

Milk
in

is wholesome milk.
For

for the

children,' contaminated
purpose
are

is not

included

of the

argument,

All animals

requireorganic food,'beetles
'

included

in animals animals
the

; but
are

hollow-horned animals.

All for the purpose of the argument, ruminants,' beetles are not included in All hollow-horned and

Of course,

statement,

animals

are

ruminants, if it is taken

ought not to be made discourse,in inexact writing,and in books ; but in colloquial animal hollow-horned on usually means Logic, hollow-horned
mammal
; and

is untrue, literally,

the
'

statement

is allowed

to pass.

For

of the argument,

Man

is

mortal,' woman
*

is included is the masculine

'

the purpose in man ; but

sex

for the purpose

human

of the argument,
is not

Man in

of the

woman race,'

included

man.

Fruit is wholesome
or

food,' does
the
'

not

include

in fruit, castor
but

oil beans
purpose of

the berries of the

deadly nightshade ;
follows
tenn

for the
are

argument,
that It

Fruit
c.

the

flower,'these
a

included be

in fruit.
term

Either

of

proposition may

replaced by another

term. is,for the purpose of the argument, implied in the replaced

SUBSTITUTION
is not
or are

OF

TERMS

281
term

always
in

easy

to

say

whether
it

substitutable
does

is included
;

implied

the

term

replaces,nor
'

it matter
'

for

both
'

equally substitutable.
London';
of this
or
'

He

lives is not

in

Cheapside
in
'

implies

He

lives in
purpose

but London of any

are

included

Cheapside
are

for the

other fish

argument.
in the of the

There

eels in the
are

river

'

implies

There

river,' and argument,

yet fish
or

not

included
purpose.

in eels for the It is easy

to

purpose
see,

for any

other
are

however,

why

these

arguments

legitimate. Though fish are not included in eels,the of in the connotation of fish is included of having the qualities in Cheapside, the quality is not included eels ; and though London in the connotation of Cheapside. is included of being in London is not included in denotation, London Hence, though in Cheapside,
first of each the inference
nor are

connotation

fish

included
terms

in

eels,yet in connotation
in the second
cancer

the
;

of these is
on a

pairs of
that disease if he
ate

is included valid.

and is
are a

account
;

Similarly,if
are

fatal

disease, it is

if these
a

counters

beans,
a

they
if he

vegetable products ;
tuberculous The may, from

called what

taxi,he called

cab

ate

meat,

he

is unwholesome.
are we

question arises, How

for the
one

to

distinguisha
substituted

term

that

purpose may

of
not

an

argument,
This
cases,

be

for

another,
cannot

that

is it

question that Logic

on

always
the

answer,

for in many the

a

depends
argument

the is

purpose

of the

argument,
whole Dictum We all find of

and

purpose

of the

extra-logical.If
the the

quantity of
a

term

is

Distributive,we
thus
we

may

always replace

term

by

its part, and in

a

discover scheme

de omni

et nullo

comprehensive being
small of the
a

place of the of reasoning.

upon

that, so

far from

its

universal
a

rule

which
a

reasoning depends,
of
one

it is

part of

sub-rule

of

Minor
are

Canon Lemmas But

of the
one

Canons

Explication,all three
of is
: on

of which

to

of the

five Canons the

term

Inference.

if the

quantity of
whole
we some

Collective,the
the
some

part
we

can now were

no

longer be
substitute clad in

substituted the

for the for the

whole

contrary,
of the

may

part.
soldiers

If

soldiers
were

kharki,
;

may

not

infer that

all the soldiers

were

clad
man

in the

kharki

but
or were

if
to

of the

the

sufficient

to

rampart
soldiers
enemy. If I

defeat

enemy,
man

then

it is certain
or

that
to

all the the

sufficient to

the

rampart,

defeat

infer

from

The

Marquis

of

Salisbury was

prime

minister

'

282
to
*

NEW

LOGIC
First Lord of the

Treasury,'it is clear that this inference is not based solely the postulate, that upon the Marquis was prime minister. I must have the further postulate that the prime minister isequivalent of the Treasury. to the First Lord If every building in the town was destroyed by the earthquake, I infer from this postulatethat the town hall was destroyed ; but may I cannot do so until I have assumed the further postulatethat the hall was If from town town. the postulatethat a building in the it was cheap at fiftyguineas I infer that it was cheap at fifty pounds, I make fifty guineas.
the silent
It is true

The

was Marquis of Salisbury

assumption that fifty pounds is less than that in each case the silent premiss is so
a

known, is so intimate universally do not that we recognise that we

equipment, are making any assumption at all ; but it is there, nevertheless speaking, all these strictly ; and inferences are drawn, not from simple, but from compound propositions. But so to consider them would be pedanticformalism. For all practical they are inferences from a single purposes, are we postulate accurately, put it otherwise, and more ; or, to
our

part of

mental

entitled,when

postulate is granted
is

to

us,

to

add

to

it what

knowledge of its terms

Otherwise, the

alreadyin
the

or replaceability on

possession. of non-replaceability
our

one

term

by

another

depends

purpose

of the

argument;
? That

and

the

purpose

of the

argument
Is

is extrachina

and logical,
a

is determined

by

other
on

considerations. of the

clay
For

mineral

the purpose

argument.
of
a

the purpose

depends of Geology, it
of Law
a

is ; but for the purpose

must

lease of minerals, the the

Courts

be

invoked
a

to determine

question.
not

Is

marriage with
it may
con

sister-in-law law
or

valid
the

marriage, or
purpose
to

For

the purpose
conscientice

of civil

it is.
may
not

For

of the

the

forum

be, according
the
purpose in

conscience

of the
of

person

cerned.

For

of

administration
a

the

Sacrament,
in the

it is

valid
some

marriage
of the
an

law ; it is not
Is

valid

marriage
an

opinion of
not.

clergy.
? For

the

bursting of
purpose of

aneurism

equivalentto
For

accident
purpose

the

medicine, it is

the

of of
an

the

Workmen's

it is ; for the may

not

purpose

accident

Compensation Act, insurance or policy,it may

answer on

be.
are

that Logic questions singlepostulate. They depend on

These

cannot

the basis of the

the purpose

of

argument,

and

for every

different purpose,

different accessory

postulates are

THE

SECOND

CANON

OF

EXPLICATION
what
as soon

283
pos
as

required;
tulates the it

though the Logic of Inference may assume limited pleases, yet this assumption is rigidly
and of the

purpose

argument
It

is determined.

The and The

purpose
not

of
to

the
;

argument
and

is material. the scope

belongs

to

matter,

form of the

is outside

of Deductive
own

Logic.

purpose

argument
cannot

prescribesits
interfere.
to

Deductive its

Deduction and with them postulates, has have no Logic, as we seen, That is the

power

question
or

postulates.
All it assumes,

function

of do it.

Empirical
is to work

Material the

Logic.

that
or

Deductive that shows is

us

Logic
how
a

can

upon its

material

presented to
to

Having
them
on our

postulates,Deductive
forms lantern and
to
'

Logic
to

mould

into different
way,
a

according
our

its rules ; it is
up
are

feet ; it puts ! here when

you
we

dangerous crossings,saying
astray
erroneous

Beware

guide to us sign-posts at likelyto go

reached
an we us a

mind

your

steps

'

it

points out,
what

have

conclusion, exactly at
the wrong

took but
route
or

turning.
determine shows
we can

All

point of the journey this Deductive Logic can do for

purpose
we

it cannot book

the
us

of
can no

our

argument.
reach
our

It is

which
how

whether

destination
can

not, and
our

get there

; but

route

book

decide

what

destination

is to be.

The

Second

Canon

of

Explication states

everythingnecessary implies proposition speaking, and if we adhere Strictly

we

Every postulated to the postulate. form, rigidlyto pure logical

that

should

require
necessary
must

an

additional
our

conditions But there

to
some

main limit to

postulate, setting forth the to be formally stated. postulate,

formalism,
What
The
or

be
to

arguments
'

would

be too
must

voluminous be assumed

be be

serviceable. known.

is common

knowledge
Brutus and
once

to

postulate
that time
;

killed Caesar
at

Caesar' both

implies the
; ;

necessary
at

conditions the
same

Brutus

lived
met

that

they lived
Brutus
was

that

least

they
are

that

and capable of killing,

are

Caesar

of

being
all arrive

killed.

All these

conditions it.

necessary

to

the
that

and postulate,
we

therefore the

implied in
*

It is absurd
once

to say
'

cannot
*

at

conclusion

Caesar
we

lived

from

killed killed

Caesar,'unless
once

assume

also the
Deductive

lived; for though

postulate Brutus postulatethat he who is Logic is the Logic of

to

the

Form,
such

it would

deprive it
as

of

formalism

this.

nearly all its usefulness Some knowledge must

insist
taken

on

be

for

a84 granted,
down that
were or we

A should

NEW

LOGIC

never

get

on. was

If he

saw

her

as was

he

ran

it is the hill,
he

implied that he
he looked
time
;
was

there ; that she

there ;

could

see

; that
same

in her

there
was

at the
;

that
a

direction ; that he and she she could be seen from where he

was

he

running
; and

that there

hill ; that

higher
not too

up

at to

and lower first,

run

down
so

afterwards

; that the
on.

hill was

steep

down
To

forth, and

so

state

these the

implicationsformally,as
postulate, may
are seem

deductions

worth
are so

making
manifest.
are

from
But

to

be

trifling : they

they are
that

inferences

of trifling by no means importance. They frequentlydrawn, and that are often of the

importance to draw. They are inferences on which fortune and lifemay depend ; and yet neither Traditional Logic nor Modern Logic knows anything about them, or has a word to say of them. has not heard in a Court of Law, or on some other important Who
utmost

occasion, some
that he of the
saw

such

argument
within

as

this ?

'

The

prisoner admits
of the commission that

the prosecutor

five minutes five

crime, therefore, within

on

minutes shown
that

of

time,
was a

the

prisoner was
wall between
seen

the

spot.'

'

I have

there

high
have
man

them, and

therefore the

the

prosecutor could
'

not

the is

prisoner commit
been
met
one

crime.'

who

alleged to have
have
'

murdered
you

If I prove that the died two before years

the

prisoner could
the
are

him,
has
snow.'

must

acquit the prisoner of

the

murder.'

Some in the
some run
'

been
*

in

garden, for there

have touched
'

footmarks

The

ship

must

at

Singapore, for
will
never

of her
out

passengers

landed

there.'

The the

water

of

this

gutter, for it slopes in

out

wrong
must

direction.' have been

If you fish in it.'

caught fish
*

It has

been

pond, there for the ground raining,

of

that

is wet.'
to the of the conditions Apart from the implication necessary or postulate, there is no validityin these arguments. cogency Yet they are irresistibly manifestly valid. They are cogent, and unknown to Traditional Logic, to Inductive Logic, and to Modern Logic. In order to arrive at them by recognised logicalmethods, her do it, he them convert into syllogisms. If he saw must we
*

must

have

been

there

when
reason as

she

did

it

'

is

an

argument
would

that

commends

itself to the

unimpugnably
enthymeme,
in this way

valid. and
:
"

Traditional

call it an Logic would, I suppose, a missing major premiss somewhat

supply

286

NEW

LOGIC

postulateare
every

of

several

different classes,and with

any

the

propositionthat is inconsistent
We
must

postulatedenies implicationin any

thus first of

of these classes.

take the classes

Canons

separately,and

get several additional

these is

Minor

of

Explication. The

D. in

the denial of every proposition implies proposition Every postulated is replaced which the Ratio of the postulate by a Ratio that is, for the
it.

purpose of th" argument, inconsistent with

inconsistent plainly
are

The

Ratio

that is most
*

with

the

is its negative. postulate with

may, open
'

All

men

not

mortal'

is

inconsistent plainly
We

'All

men

are

mortal,'
the
men are

and

is denied

by this postulate.
in any
men

therefore,on
to us, that
'

basis
are

of this
not

deny, postulate,
Hence
' '

way
are

all
men

mortal.

All
are

mortal
'

implies All
all
men
'

not

immortal,'
'

No

men

not
men

mortal,' Not
are

are

immortal,'
double
sea'
not

It is not

true

that

all

not

mortal sail all

on

and

other

negatives of the
*

postulate. 'All ships

sail
true
on

the

implies
sail
on so

No

ships do
'

not

the

sea,' Not
not
*
'

'

ships do
on

the sea/ forth. did not The

not
'

It is not

that ships do

sail

the sea,' and

true

Brutus

killed Caesar

implies
be

It is not

that

Brutus

kill Caesar.' Ratio of the

postulate may
and
a

replacedby

Ratio

that

is

the direct This

as

negative of that Ratio, but important

If stones very

yet is inconsistent

with

it.
and

is a very

it is inconsistent

with

all such

negatives.

frequent mode of denial ; the postulate denies the postulate, sink in water, then this postulate
Stones do of
a

impliesthe denial, not only of

of
'

not

sink

in water,' but flock of

a

Stones
we

float in water.' infer the

If Birds

feather
'

together,
feather do
;

then
not

may

denial, not
'

only of

Birds

habit but of Birds of a feather are of solitary together,' If curses live dispersedly lonely ; segregate themselves.' ; are flock
come

home

to
come

roost, home

they do

not

go

abroad

to

roost, neither

do

they fail to
E. The

to roost.

fifth Minor

Canon
a

of
term

in which Every proposition that is, for the

Explicationpermits us to deny is replaced by one of the postulate

purpose of the argument, inconsistent with the term it manifestly inconsistent with any replaces. The term that is most is its direct negative; and we always deny a pro term may is replaced by its direct of the postulate in which a term position

THE

FIFTH

MINOR

CANON

287

negative, provided
purpose
on

the

direct with

negative
the
term

is

inconsistent, for the

This
seems,

of the argument, face of

it

replaces.
It
seems

the

it, an
a

unnecessary
term term
must ; but

proviso. always
it is not and
so.
*

that

the
be
not

direct

negative of
with
one men
'

for all purposes

'

inconsistent clever

that
sense,
are

Men Clever

who

are

is,in
clever
are

the

direct

negative of
be Clever

men,'
to

yet,
that

though
men are

mortal,
are

it would

unsafe
men

deny
men

who
not

not
are

clever

mortal. purpose

and

who
incon of
'

clever The

not, for the

'

of this
'

argument,
'

sistent.

negative of
inconsistent
men are

clever
with
'

men

that
men

is,for the
'

purpose
men

this argument,
and clever mortal. If
men are

clever
we are

is

no

clever

;
no are

if clever
men are

mortal,

safe in
no

denying
men

that

mortal, and
mortal, then
If
we

that there

are

clever

who

may

deny that
inconsistent

men

are

immortal
purpose

for mortality and this

immortalityare

for

the

of

deny that just acts are expedient, we may not they are inexpedient; but we may deny that unjust acts are expedient ; for just and unjust,though generallyinconsistent,are
argument.
not

inconsistent
are

for

the

purpose may

of

this

argument.

But

if

expedient acts
the purpose of
terms.

just,we

this

argument,

deny that they are just and unjust

is
no more

unjust,for, for
are

inconsistent

The

direct

negative of
the

term

the

only

term
a

incon Ratio is last

sistent with the

straw

affirmative,than
inconsistent
with

the direct

negative of
warranted

only

Ratio

its affirmative.
we are

If it is the in back.

that

breaks

the camel's

back,

denying
If it

that is

it is the

first straw

that

breaks
we soon

the may

camel's

the

first step

only
If
a

that

costs,

second

step
is

costs.

little pot is
a

safely deny that the hot, we may deny that a

of may
not

big pot
this

soon

hot, for
with
same a

big pot

is

inconsistent,for the purpose

we

argument,
the

little pot

; but
a

deny,
soon

on

the

authority of
for the If
one

that postulate,

little pot is cold

are

cold ; for, inconsistent.

and
one are

purpose and
one

of this argument,
are

hot and
may

not
one

two, then three

are

we

deny that
for

three, for
argument
the than
not

two
; but

and

inconsistent
are

the
one,

purpose
we

of

the
on

if two

heads

better

than

may
are

not,

authority of this
one,

postulate, deny that Logic

three

heads
two to

better
are

for, for the purpose

Traditional

of this argument, is oblivious

and the

three purpose

inconsistent.

of

288 its arguments

; such

NEW

LOGIC these

inferences

as

are,

therefore, altogether
made

beyond its purview.

When direct the denial of
an

affirmative in
the

is proposition term,
a

by

negative, negative must be made

this reason,
a a

whether

Ratio

or

the

denial

of this

by

insertion of
Canon

second

negative. For
combined with

portion of this Minor

statement

may

be

in the portion of the last,

that

Every postulated propo

which
the
'

sition

impliesall its double

mortal
No No Not Not
'

inconsistent with the elements

men

negatives are theyreplace.Thus, the postulate All

in negatives,

are

implies
are
are men men are are are no no

men men

immortal.
not
are are

mortal. immortal.
not

all all
men

mortal.

All

not
men men

immortal. who who

men are are

There

not

mortal.

There There

immortal.
are

are

not

any

who
"c.

not

mortal,

"c.,
Of all these double Traditional of all the books for

negatives which
of
one

are

implied in

the

postulate,

Logic knows
remainder

only, which it calls the Obverse : it is ignorant. The rule given in the text
'

is Change the quality of the obtaining the Obverse proposition,and substitute for the predicate its contradictory.' The rule is lamentably defective. It does give us, from the immortal are mortal, the obverse, No men are postulateAll men ; but here its powers
end. It
cannot

furnish

any

of the

other

double
many
some

negativesinstanced
terms terms

above

; it is often

for impracticable,

have have

no more

contradictories than
us one an

; it is often

ambiguous, for
it sometimes

contradictory ;
obverse

and

and gives plays us false,

that is

not

implied in

the

postulate.
The
terms

rule of Traditional have

no

Logic

is often

for impracticable,

many

understand unless indeed, we contradictory, by the the Infinite Negative ; and even if we do, the contra contradictory that is dictory may fail to give us an obverse, or may give one

absurd

or

unwarrantable. with the

If

indeed,

we

admit
may

that constructed such

copula, the rule

of the power

proposition but but be practicable,

no

limitation arbitrary

of

I propositionising

have

THE

OBVERSE

289

this obverse can we construct, on already repudiated. What killed Caesar ? We can change plan,of the proposition Brutus becomes It then the qualityof the propositionreadily enough. what is the kill Caesar. But Brutus did not contradictory of Caesar
one

Is it some
was

one

who
?

was

not

Caesar
case,

or

every

one,
so

or

any

who

not

Caesar

In either

the

obverse

obtained

is not What
sea

warranted is the

fallacious. is ultra vires, and by the postulate, the of the predicateof All ships sail on contradictory is not that
No

? the

Is it what
statement

the

sea

Then

the what

obverse is not the

commits

us

to

is not
us

to
on

implied in the deny that ships sail

the
sea

ships sail on postulate. The

on

sea, which
not

postulate does

rivers,lakes
we

sail

also.

Are

to

take

permit if they and canals, even the contradictory, the as

the
sea no

Infinite obverse

Negative, Everything
commits
us

that

is not

Then

the

ships sail on triangles, melancholy, sulphuricacid, and other things outside the is the contradictoryof Dry land suppositio. Be it said that the the sea, I deny that it so necessarily. If it were, postulate The would compel us The is His, and He made to deny it,' sea
to

the

statement

that

'

'

'

'

dry

land

is

His,
the

and

He land

made is the

it.'

But

for

the

purpose

of the

argument,
but likely, the
as

purpose if there
same. can

the

obverse
can

contradictoryof the sea? Very reference to the rule of Traditional no Logic makes It says substitute the contradictory, of the argument. and were one always contradictory, always available, rule of do. Traditional It won't the Logic, no By the of be obtained. But by Method Explication we dry
double

get the
is

which

negative,No ships do not sail on clearly implied in the postulate'All ships sail on
sixth Minor Canon of

the
the

sea,

sea.'

Explication permits us to deny inconsistent with any Every proposition implication of the postulate. To go through all the implications of the postulate, find all and the double would be an endless task ; but negatives of them all, since Traditional Logic has essayed a single instance, we may this instance, and examine test its validity. Traditional Logic of its Immediate one as Inferences,the Contrapositive, recognises,
which shown is the
to
one

F.

The

Converse and faulty,

of the the

Obverse. obverse
a

As has been

the

converse

has
to

been

be

shown

be

faulty,

it is

of those

arguments,

admits
N.L.

its

to inability

Traditional which Logic fortiori, explain, that the Contrapositiveis faulty.

U

2go

NEW

LOGIC the
and

Whatever

objections apply
force
to

to

converse

the

obverse,

apply with
mortal,' is
*

at least undiminished

to the

contrapositive.
of
converse
'

According
'

Traditional
men are

Logic, the

obverse

All

men

are

No

immortal,' and

the

of this is

This is the contrapositive beings are not men.' Inference that can and is the only Immediate be of the postulate, this plan. In my view, not one double formed on only, but many Some

immortal

are negatives

obtainable
In
'

from

this
true
an

and postulate,

each
'

yieldsits
men are

reciprocal.
immortal
'

my

view, the

reciprocal of
of
no

No

is

Immortality is
' '

attribute

men.'

In

this

the Subject, now reciprocal,

' '

become

Object, is
Ratio
become

not

changed from changed

to not
;

no a

men

to

men

the the

affirmative

is not

negative Ratio

; and

to a quantitativeconcrete changed from an and An inadmissible. four changes that I regard as unnecessary is that, like the obverse additional objection to the contrapositive it is derived,it is not always implied in,or even from which con

Object, now indesignate abstract

Subject, is

sistent with, its

in

postulate.

All

things

are

thinkable
*

'

becomes,

the

contrapositiveof Traditional
not

Logic,
fourth

Some

unthinkable

things are
In

things.'
may

this

place we

dispose of the Logic, a

at recent

of the

Immediate is called
I

Inferences

of Traditional is arrived
to

which discovery,
so

the Inverse, and will not

text
"

by

method

complicated that
a

trust

myself

attempt

it,but will take, from

'

standard
'

book, the following example.

'

Every truthful
not

man

is trusted

Inverse, Some

untruthful

men

are

trusted.'
; and
no man

Some I must
reason

logicians
confess

doubt
to not
'

the legitimacy of this form

of Inference

misgivings about it ; for, if equally valid

untruthful is
to infer from
men are

it is
*

valid, I

see

why

it is

Every truthful
This

is mortal,' to

Some

not

mortal.'

a puts on" inveracity

premium, which
dence; and, what

to be expected from scarcely

more

the
not

of justice
to
me

Provi
to be

is

to the

purpose,

does

seem

implied in the postulate. I cannot help suspecting,therefore,that have reason, those logicians who find, in the complicated process by which ought not
G. the Inverse is

obtained,

some

term

distributed

which

to be

distributed.

The

last

implication of

the
a

postulate is
necessary

that proposition This

is inconsistentwith

of every condition of the postulate.

is postulate unknown

The

denial

of extremelyimportant implication

the

CONTRADICTION
to Traditional

291

Logic, though

it is the

one

most

frequentlyutilised
Court of Law,
as or on :

in

has not life. Who heard, practical other some important occasion, some
'

in

such
you

argument
have be true

this that
you
are

How
were

could
not

you

have

seen

him he did

do

when it,
'

admitted
that clothes
;

you

there

when
a

it ?

'It cannot

have

just come quite dry.'

prove there

in from
'

You

say

long stayed you

the you soil

walk

in the
at
an
'

rain, for your

hotel You
no

in

Herm of
or

I
a

will train

is no

hotel

on

island.'
can on

fell out bruise

'

going sixtymiles an hour, yet on or your body, and no rent

the conditions necessary
statements.
to

show your

scratch

clothing!

Apart from

in these
nor even

pairsof
are

contraries. All of
are
"

The
some

there is no contradiction postulate, In Logic they are not contradictories, to Traditional only contradictories known the
are

Logic
been
as

not. None

are

"

some

are.

What
have useless

perverseness

combined

what cataractous ingenuity, to discover so implications

blindness,
far-fetched

must

and

and the Inverse, and to overlook manifest so Contrapositive and important an implication as the denial of the inconsistent condition ! No prisonerhas ever been prosecuted in a Court of without Counsel for the prosecutionseeking to show Law that the the evidence be denied. the
was

inconsistent
No Bill has

with
ever

innocence,

which

could

therefore
without

been

opposed

in Parliament

inconsistent with seekingto show that the Bill was condition of justice some or expediency, and so inferringthat the Yet the impli or justice expediency of the Bill could be denied. denial of cations of consistency, and inconsistency,with its

opponent

necessary been

conditions, that
and
to

are

contained every Is

in every

have postulate, the that time of

ignored
has ? view

neglected by
present
hour.

logician,from
wonder

Aristotle its turn

reasoners

the been

it any

ignored, neglected, and

taken there
a

Logic in derided, by practical Logic

two

The

of contradiction
'

by
are

Modern

by

Lotze

thus

"

If however

predicate, only one as predicateof the negation of the other,but also the negation of the one S involve involves the definite affirmation of the other ; p1 and p* are then diffidence that It is with opposed to one another contradictorily.' I attempt to interpret this dictum, but I do not think it can be so that the predicates saw him and there can not interpreted was
then
not

P, plandp2, and

S must the

have

only form specific

of

expressed forms of specific

is

of P for its

does

affirmation

of them

'

'

'

292 stand

NEW

LOGIC
'

as

Many
and

forms of predicatethat only specific be predicated of the first other things can the
in the present

'

is

person
was

capable of. singular;

even

connection,
my eyes

'

was

blind,'* I
of

the other
*

way,'

'

I had

shut,' equally carry

; and

looking the negation of

that

saw

him.'

These
to Modern

are,

therefore, modes

contradiction

are

unknown

Logic

in

fact,it never
to
an

the

implication of what
is inconsistent

is necessary with such

the

contemplates the postulate,nor

a

denial of what

as implication,

further

implicationof the postulate.

Yet between
'

I
a

saw

him

do

it

'

and

'

was

not

there when strikes home

he
to

did it,' there is the conviction either of the have

to

manifest
one

which inconsistency, who

other
not

of every

realises the
may be

circumstances
on

; and

being postulated,the postulate. If I was

him
do

denied
he did

the

strength
could
am

there when
to

it,I

not

seen

it ; and, if I

swear

both

assertions,I

liable

perjury. Yet, in utteringthis manifest and palp able contradiction, I am infringingno rule of Logic, Traditional,
indictment

for

Inductive,

or

Modern.
one

But

surely
the other

the

clear

and
one

inescapable
that

that if inference,

is true

is false, is

Logic

We that they are incom at once see ought to be able to reach. patible. They are so manifestly incompatible that it might be advanced plausibly
be any of

that
need

no

reason

for their
in

need incompatibility

shown.
case

Nor
traces

it be

shown
of

the processes

practice; but if Logic in reasoning,and shows the grounds

as

do so in such a case surely it should of such Logic provides rules showing the incompatibility

judgement,
men men are are

this.

All
some

mortal

"

some

men

are

immortal

; No

man

pairs as is perfect
"

perfect. It is not, therefore,because of the plainness of their incompatibilitythat such inconsistent propositionshave been neglected : it is because they have been overlooked ; or per
and of not to the form haps because they pertain to the matter the postulate, and Logic fetters itself to verbal forms. Traditional You Logic would perhaps say that the argument have broken your leg on that day, for you the cannot ran race a and Immediate not an day after,'is a syllogistic argument,
*

Inference.
I should be

That

it

in strictness, an requires,
to

additional

postulate,

prepared
process

admit

; but

that the

the

mental

syllogism by which be something like this

actually performed, I the conclusion is supposed

:
"

syllogism represents should deny. The

to

be reached

would

294

NEW

LOGIC Ratio

postulateis replaced by
purpose of the argument,

that

is, for the

in, or
C.

implied

in

equivalentto, included the Ratio of the postulate.

in which of the postulate a term Every proposition of that is,for the purpose is replaced by one the in, or equivalent to, included argument,

implied
2.

in the

term to

it the

replaces.
with the
say,

Every condition
denial

necessary every any

3. The

of

postulate. proposition inconsistent

of its
Canons

with or postulate,

implications ; that is to
:

Minor
It

impliesD.

The

denial of every

in proposition

which
a

the Ratio that is,

of the for the

is replaced by postulate
purpose

Ratio

of the of the

argument,

inconsistent

with the Ratio

E.

postulate.
term

The

denial of every the postulate is

in which a proposition replacedby a term which

of

for is, with

the purpose the

F.

of the

argument,

inconsistent

displaced term. proposition inconsistent

with

The
any

denial of every

implicationof the postulate.

denial of every condition

G.

The any

proposition inconsistent of the postulate.

in this

with

Of all the

contained implications
every knows

eight classes in all,and Traditional Logic

"

long array of classes class containing many implications

"

of

four

implications only
the Inverse. class
a

:
"

the Of of

Converse,

the

and Obverse, the Contrapositive, is

these, the

Converse

applicable to strictly

small

only

those, namely, that express class inclusion,though it propositions, is usually appliedwrongly to attributive propositions ; the Obverse
is not

always

to

be

had ; the

Contrapositive,being the Converse

; and

of the Obverse, is

partakes of the defects of both

If,therefore,these
extracted
so were

the

Inverse

altogether invalid.
that them would could would
in

the

only implica
reasonings
no or

tions from
and

be
be

from
as

our propositions,

restricted
be

to

be

of little

value

many

cases

actual been
argue

reasoning, the behests

from
'

Fortunately, however, in of Traditional Logic have always

nursery

invalid.

disregarded. Every child in the

Treacle is

knows

better than to

sticky

'

to

'

Some

stickything is treacle,'

COMMON
and
to

IMPLICATIONS

295
'

is

quite capable
Who
was a on

of

forming
this
'

treacle.'
'

reciprocal Stickiness earth, except a logician,ever

the
to
'

belongs argued
or
'

from
'

Brutus

Roman

Some

Roman

was

Brutus,'

from

Logicians

bind

themselves
not

do people who not logicians ?

'

bind who
as

Some to by pedantic restrictions,' themselves by pedantic restrictions are is there these ?

"

But

that
'

has but

not
one

upon

occasion

used

some

such the

argument

If

prehistoric man
was

crossed trable it with

*

Channel, it shows
to

that the Channel from the Continent.' that he

a was

not
'

an

barrier

immigration
we

If he

impene accepted
it.' is better

enthusiasm,
a

may than
'

conclude
no

pleased with
cake

If half

loaf is better

bread, then
words break

whole
no

than will

If nothing to eat.' break none.' certainly the

cost

hard
'

bones, soft words

You

admit you

that

the

price

of labour

determines
cost

of

production, for by
with him papers,

said

just now

that
'

the

of

production is
must

determined

the

price

of labour.'

If you

find that he took

own

the money find my

use,

you

been
'

meddling

with

converting it to his has one guiltyof stealing.' Some for they are I left them.' not as
* '

the intention

of

He

is there, for unknown

*

I hear
to

his voice.' Traditional say that

If

there

are

many

modes

of is

reasoning
defective.'

Logic,
the goose

Traditional is

Logic

You

cannot

despised,for

Of

all the The

Poultry in
is most much of

the Yard

Goose is
so

prefer'd ;
Nutriment,
Bird.' could medical her
was

There

In that
'

weak-minded the has

swears

If his wife

was
'

burden says

on

rates, he
had he
'

not

have

been

singleman.'
three both years,
cannot

She

she

no

attendance last
summer

for
:

and be is

the

doctor

attended If there should

speaking the
no reason

truth.'

enough
not

to

go

round, there
'

If he

was

better

after

why everyone taking the medicine,

of

have
did

some.'

it

him

no

harm.' These
are are

samples they
some

of modes
are

reasoning in they
any
are

useful,and
none

valid, and

but

of them

is attainable of them would

can

by

method be

day use. They commonly employed ; of Traditional Logic,

every into process
true

unless, indeed,

may

concocted artificially the form

or

syllogisms, which
of sion

not I

display
find these in

thought.
to

Neither of

Modern

arguments

any

of

classes.

allu Logic any The only logician

2g6

NEW

LOGIC

who

has

given
;

any

formula
states

under that what of

which is
true

they
in
any

can

be

subsumed form of
it

is
words
covers

Hamilton
is
true

who

one

in of of merit

any

other instances
in

form

words;
does
not

but tell

this,
us

although
how
to

many

the words of

given,
a

find
I
to

another claim them it

form

which Method

proposition
of of

may

be that

stated.

as

the in the

Explication reasoning.

it

assigns

due

position

scheme

CHAPTER

XIX

THE

COMPOUND

PROPOSITION

AND

ITS

IMPLICATIONS

COMPOUND
a common

proposition consists
element. element
term

of

two

or

more

propositions
be
term

having
The and

common

may

be

the

Ratio,
the
of one,

or same

it may

the

common

may

occupy

position in
the

both

or propositions,

may

be

the

Subject

and

Object

of the

other.
1.

The

common

element
a

may

be the
'

Ratio. made

'

He

was

murdered, it,
any find

robbed, and
cut

flung into
buttered the

ditch.'
gave

She it

the I

bread, baked
cannot

it up,
to

it, and

away.'
of

reference in any in of
use

implicationsof this
;

form

Compound
not

proposition infrequent

text ;

book

but

it is

sound

valid

proposition;
and

containing various
the basis element

implications;
be
a

capable, therefore,
there three

forming
2.

of argument. may
a

The

common

term

and

are

or

four forms
a.

of
common

proposition having
term
*

term

in

common.

The and

may

be
was
*

the

Subject
good
and

in

both

propositions.
'

is B

C.

Washington
thunder.'

great.'

Electricity
Burke and and the but this

causes

lightningand
'

He

was

murdered both the the

by

Hare.'

Many
In is

of the the

audience

applauded
not

actors

actresses.' the is Ratio

foregoing examples,
to

only

Subject,
but

common

the

two

constituent

propositions;
is still Ratios the

by

no

means

necessary.

The
common, man,

proposition
the achieved

Compound
different. of

if the
*

Subject
was
'

alone
a

is

being

Washington
He

great

and

independence
street
'

America.'
*

causes Electricity

lightning and
and stifled

propels
Hare.'

cars.' of

was

drugged by
hissed
common are

Burke

by

Many

the

audience 6. The A and C

the

actors term

and may

applauded the
be the

actresses.' in both

Object
are

propositions.
'

B.

Titanium
*

and

Uranium and

metals.'
are

Paul

and

Julius were previous

shipwrecked.'
'

Lightning
not

thunder

caused As
two

by
the pro

electricity.'
case,
'

Cancer the

and Ratio

phthisis are
need be

fatal
common

diseases.'
to

in

the

positions.

Some

of them

served, others

betrayed, their party.'

298
'

NEW

LOGIC
'

Burke

drugged,
a

and

Hare

stifled him.'
'

Cancer

is, and
and

catarrh
moisture

is

not,

fatal

disease.'

Dryness
be

preserves,

deteriorates, most
c.

things.'
element may

The

common

the

Subject

of

one

of the
B and

constituent
B

propositionsand
A is B and
'

the
'

is C,

or

is A.

Object of the other. A is Rain brings out slugs,and

'

slugs

The its efficiency, of labour depends on cost bring out birds.' and the rate of profit depends on the cost of labour.' Democracy tends Faith to despotism, and despotism tends to revolution.'
*

excludes in

scepticism and
the Ratios
out

scepticism excludes
may be
are

confidence.'
or

Again,
'

this case,

the
eaten

same

different.
'

Rain is

brings
attracted
'

slugs, and by the

sun,

slugs
and

by birds.'
revolves
core,

The the
core

earth

the

moon

round

earth.'
reacts

The

current

in the coil
'

magnetises the
master

and

the

on

the

current.'

The

scolds

the

butler, and
of the

the

butler

boxes

the

page's ears.'
once a

It is at

apparent
common

that
term

the

forms

with position

correspond with
be written A A is B

Compound pro the figuresof the

syllogism.

is B

and

may

is C;

which
term

are

the

premisses of
of both

the third

in which the middle figure, premisses. The Compound proposition with the

is the

Subject

common

Object-term forms
B
are

premisses of the

second

figure.
A B

and

may

be written

is C
is C.

is the in which the common term Compound proposition, Subject of one and the Object of the other constituent, includes the premisses of the first and fourth figures. The A

is B

and

is C, and

is A
A B

and

is B

may

be written

is B

is C ; which

are

the

premisses of

the

fourth, or
B C is A

is B, which

are

the

premisses of

the first figure.

CANONS

OF

EXPLICATION

299
to

The

syllogism is, therefore, closely related

at

the

or proposition,

least,to those
element

forms is
a

of the
;

Compound
a

Compound proposition
of

in which
may
one

the

common

term

the syllogism and, in fact, mode

be of

nor regarded as neither more the implications contained a

less than in these

extracting Compound
case,
a com a

forms
are,

of in

proposition. The premisses of or proposition, compound may

syllogism
stated in

every of

be

the

form

of a syllogism is one of the pound proposition. The conclusion the pre forms implications of the compound proposition which This implicationis extracted misses. by dealing with the syllogism

according

to

its rules.

To of its be

this

pound propositionone all which they may Explication,whose

of Inference. Three been Since
may

extracting from a com alternative I offer an implications, by

mode
I

of

extracted, which
are a

call

the
to

Method

of

rules

series of Lemmas

the

Canons

of

these
as are

Lemmas,
Canons of

with

their derivatives,have
of

already

stated

the

Explication

they
be
must

re-stated be

applicable to Compound here, together with two

in order
to

Simple Propositions. Propositions also, they

Canons,
us

new

with

which all the

they

supplemented Compound

enable

to

extract

implicationsfrom
THE

Propositions.
OF

CANONS

OF

EXPLICATION

COMPOUND

PROPOSITIONS.

Every postulatedpropositionimplies in 1. included Every proposition equivalent to or postulate. 2. to the postulate. Every condition necessary denial of every 3. The proposition inconsistent with postulate. apply equally to Compound The Compound propositionneeds for following additional Canons :
"

the

the

These

and its

to

Simple propositions.

complete explicationthe
same

4. When

two

terms

are

postulated in the
that

relation

to

third, it is
or are

implied

they
one

are

equivalent to, resemble,

with

consistent

with

another

respect

to

that

third. 5. When
a

two

terms

third, it is
respect

postulated in inconsistent implied that they differ from

are

relations
one

to

another marks
a

with

to

that

third, and

that

the

third

difference between

them.

300

NEW

LOGIC

Compound
common

propositionsare,
as we

as

we

have

seen,

of four

or

five main the

forms, according
element of
form
own

reckon

them.

The
to

in which first,

is the Ratio, is unknown

in
common

propositionis
are

use,

and

logicians ; yet this has implications of its Logic

may claim

that

not

neglectable. Traditional
constituent

that

it can

take

the two

position that contains into the premisses of a

of the
If he

propositionsof any compound pro constituents them two only, and combine the common element syllogism; but when
Traditional

is the Ratio, propositions

was

Logic
a

cannot

do

this.

murdered, robbed, and

take
a

flung into

ditch,Traditional
as

Logic

may

two

of these

premisses of

syllogism or
He He
was was one

propositions and posit them thus quasi-syllogism,

;
;
was

the

murdered robbed who

* . .

Some

robbed

was

murdered.

I should

doubt
no

Logic makes auxiliary ; but

and

properly a syllogism. Traditional distinction between the true copula and the is important ; think the distinction is clear, and
whether this is
case,

premisses is in true logical form. Waiving this objection,however, and the objection that Some that this, and the middle term is singular, it remains one that the only conclusions who murdered was robbed,' are was from these premisses ; and that Traditional be drawn can Logic
that, in this
neither
of

the

'

must
once.

take the
The

premisses two
need
was

Canons

clusions, and
infer

consider all at by two, and cannot of Explication allow us to draw con many not can disjoin the argument. By them we he
was

that

he

there ; that he is dead

; that

not

alone ; that

he

was

assaulted
was

; that

he did not
; did not

retain all his property ; die

a

not

left

lying in the road

;

natural robbed
a

death,
him
; and

or

commit

suicide
his

that

some

one

murdered

and

and
so

disposed of
forth,and
it away,
and
can so

body

; that

he

was

the

subject of

crime

on,

If she made then

be
a

and all proper the bread, baked number

legitimateinferences.
it,cut
it up, buttered it,and gave lie latent in the proposition,

of inferences

but not by the of Explication, explicatedby the Canons syllogism. No proposition that is not in logicalform may enter in logicalform. into a syllogism; and these propositions are not

They contain
bined in
a

no

copula.

The

syllogism,unless
with
two

several

are

com a

sorites,can

deal

premisses only

at

time,

302 words
or

NEW

LOGIC

what

is

given in the postulateis the

It

nature
as

of all inference
Mill the and known

deduction.

is

mistake deduction it can

to

to

suppose,

other
to
was

logicians suppose,
the unknown.'
obscure.
more

that

'proceeds from
do is to render that
we can

The
a

utmost

manifest

what of
a

It is there

mistake

suppose
out

get

out

thing

than

is in it, or

of two

than a a pint pot, or possibleto get more more than two pints out of two pint pots ; and it is impossibleto get out of a premiss or postulate,or out of two premisses or postulates, of Inference The object and than they contain. is more purpose
It is not
to extract not

things more pint out of

than

is in them.

and be

state

plainlywhat
;

is

implied in
of

proposition,but
the pro is violated, and

may

plainly apparent
is invalid.

and Canon

if more

is inferred than Inference

positioncontains, the fourth

the
and
one more

syllogism is a method, a clumsy roundabout from a Compound method, of extracting proposition of its implications. The Method of Explication is,I submit, a
The

inference

direct,and
In

more

efficacious method
common

of

extractingthem
element
in

all.
two

the

foregoing examples, the

them Traditional

the

that combines propositions, is the Ratio.

into
does

Logic

not

Compound proposition, profess to treat Com

its ministrations
term
;

pound propositionsof this class.

those in which
to

It confines

to

the

common

element that the

is

and

it is with

respect

these

alone into

Syllogism and
Before

the

Method

of
two

Explication come

competition.

contrasting the

the important difference, to note methods, however, it is necessary the Simple and the from the point of view of Inference, between

Compound
The
any
term

propositions.
Canon of

third Minor in
a

Explication permits

us

to

replace

for the

postulated proposition, by any other term which is, of the argument, equivalent to, included in, or purpose

implied in the term replaced. Our field of search, fora substitute is limited to the known in a simple proposition, to replace a term from equivalents, contents, or implications of that term, as drawn its connotation of denotation ; and, by the fourth Canon or The Inference, we are forbidden to go beyond them. compound it this that propositiongives us supplies us with great advantage, that may be obtainable not an equivalent,content, or implication,
from be the
mere

connotation

or

denotation

of that term,

and

would

unless speciallygranted utterly inaccessible and unattainable by the second postulategiven in the compound proposition.

THE

SECOND

POSTULATE

303

simple proposition, Democracy ends in despotism,' of Explication, Mob-rule Canon can we get, by the third Minor in autocracy,' Democracy ends in despotism/ ends Democracy in tyranny,' and ends few cannot more a equivalents; but we infer any relation between democracy and anything that is not in, or implied in, despotism. We clearlyequivalent to, included from this cannot relation, for instance, postulate infer any between democracy and revolution, or between democracy and the character the morality of the governing of the governed, or the Simple classes. the additional But postulate,that converts a proposition, may proposition into a give us Compound
From the
' ' * '

substitute
any

for
means

democracy
obtain.

or

for

other

It may leads the

despotism, that we could not by tell us that democracy leads to

to

despotism, and
that, for
the

despotism
purpose of

revolution

; and

then is

it is clear

argument,

revolution

implied
'

in

replace it in the first part of the postulate. despotism, and may we so By this means get Democracy leads to revolution ; and could obtained from obtain not have an implication that we any if democracy leads Simple proposition. By the same means,
'

the character of the despotism, and despotism deteriorates of the character of governed, democracy leads to the deterioration leads to despotism, and the governed. If democracy despotism
to
to

corrupt government,

democracy
that these

leads

to

corrupt

government.
be reached

Logicians

may

declare the

conclusions
:
"

could

equally well by

syllogism,thus
leads leads leads

Despotism
Democracy
* . .

to to
to

revolution,

despotism
revolution.

Democracy

in syllogistic I fetters, being bound perfectlyvalid argument ; but Traditional Not its
are own

rules in

not

regarding it. The form : they have no logical copula.

from
so

regard this as a Logic is precluded by constituent propositions

The middle

should

term,

despotism, is undistributed
the rule is that of the
an

; for

it is

indesignate term
School

indesignatein quantity,and is to be taken as particular. precluded by

as

Logicians
by
this

Traditional

are

their the

own

principlesfrom
method.

attaining this conclusion,

them of
a

well

as

others,

Granting specimen as a syllogism,and stillthe syllogistic as process,

the thus of

mode

libertyof regarding this attaining the conclusion, inference,is immeasurably

304

NEW

LOGIC
; and

inferior to the Method for the

1.

of

Explication here propounded

:
"

is

so

following reasons
are

There

many be

syllogism
2.

cannot

compound propositionsto that are none applied. There

inferences that
cannot

which
do
not

the

yield by the

to the Method

of
are

Explication.
be
be

There

many
are

attained

syllogism. There
Canons 3.

none

that

cannot

extracted

by the

of

Explication.
divided
be

Syllogismsare
must

into four

all of which
knows

remembered
moods.

figures and nineteen moods, by the student. Explication

nothing

of

figuresor

4. The To render

reasoning of the syllogism is not always self-evident. of figures other than the first, it so, syllogisms, be must
to the

reduced

first

by figure,
error.

process

that

is often

complicated,
Method

and

therefore

liable to

The
As

reasoning of the
are no

of
no

is Explication reduction. 5. The have

overcome an

self-evident.

there

there is figures,

Canons appearance

of the
of

Syllogism are

not

self-evident.

They

arbitrariness, which
The have

cation truisms.
6. Canons

by explanation and argument. I think, self-evident, and are,

say

logicians seek to of Expli Canons

the
appearance

of

Finally,I
of the

it with

bated

breath, but in

my

opinion the
Canons

Explication seem
This indictment the claims
appear
not

not true ; while syllogism are to me true. self-evidently

the

of

of the

formidable is sufficiently syllogism method

now

and

of the alternative
; but
reason.

that

I propose
to

must,

fear,

extravagant

I will

endeavour

show

that I have

spoken without

i.

In

the first place,there

which

the

syllogism cannot
which
cannot

Inference

be

to Compound propositions of Mediate be applied ; many cases methods. brought under syllogistic
are

many

This
in

needs

no

proof.
modern
a

It is
text

nearlyevery
There is

time.

whole
a

range

It is admitted notorious. sufficiently of old book on Logic, and in many of Compound typified propositions, A
"

by

the

argument

and fortiori,

Ct A"B"C,

which

implicationsupon us ; which shout aloud their implications; whose implications jump at us and hit us in the face ; and yet, the how when to them, and to show we try to apply the syllogism
thrust

REASONING

FORTIORI

305

implications may
our

be
A

failure.
;
or

If if A

formally obtained, we are obliged to confess B precedes or follows B, and precedes or

cause

follows C
controls A

is the
on

of B

and

the
or

cause

of

C ;
on

if A C
;

depends
B
saves

B, and B, and
the

controls B with C

depends
if A every
case

if

is simultaneous of

with
C

kills B, and
a

the

death

from

gallows ;
the of
assertor

in

plain,
of

unmistakeable, unavoidable, inference,not

but

merely presents itself,

and
cases

flings itself

violently at
in
one even

receiver is the the

the

proposition. Yet applicable ; in not

the

not
can

one

these

syllogism
grounds mortal,
of centuries and

Traditional that

Logic give
For if
man

inference,or
is

assert

it is valid.

twenty
is that

Traditional Socrates is mortal. the

we a

Logic
man,

has
we

been
can

explaining how,
arrive
at

the

conclusion

Socrates shirked

For

twenty
if A

centuries

Traditional

Logic has
B
to

problem How,
infer that A

is greater than C.

B, and

is greater than
this

C,
of

is greater than appears is not

to among

With

respect
a

problem,

Traditional the

Logic syllogismwhich
of that It must All
run

have
any

employed
of the

modification

authorised
it does

moods
avow.

venerable

and institution,
as

which
:
"

figuresor not openly

somewhat

follows

* . .

reasoning is syllogistic, Reasoning a fortioriis not syllogistic ; The less said about the better. reasoning a fortiori,
is

the explained in the chapter on to the Ratio, the limitation of the Ratio of the logical proposition that logiciansplace on the copula, and the limited interpretation of any relation copula,preclude the syllogism from taking count but those In of class inclusion exclusion. and spite of the asseveration is to be understood of logicians, that the Predicate in intention shown connotation, their practice, or as by the rule of conversion, is to understand proposition as expressing every inclusion or exclusion ; and consequently,no other relation can be dealt with by the syllogism. This is the reason it is incapable of class. following reasoningof the a fortiori If A is equal to B, and B is equal to C, then, to the non-logical But mind, it is an inescapable inference that A is equal to C. It has Traditional Logic is incapable of drawing the inference. been attempting for many by generations to find the process The

plain truth

that,

as

which
N.L.

the

conclusion

is reached

; and

it has

failed.

It has failed
x

306

NEW

LOGIC adherence the

As

mainly

because
in
a

of its unreasonable

to

copula.

explained Compound
thus
:
"

the that previous chapter, Logic demands proposition shall be stated in the form of premisses,

A B Here

"

is is

"

"

"

equal to equal to
the

B ; C.

there
a

are

four terms, and

If

is fatal to

syllogism.
state

fallacyquaternio tenninorum of to adopt the method Logic were

:
"

Mathematics, and

the
A B

premisses thus
is

"

"

equal to is equal to
seems

"

B ;

"

C,
the
as

which,

to

the
and

non-logical mind,
expresses

natural

and

proper in the

statement,

the

relations

they actuallyexist

mind, this particularfallacywould disappear ; but the doctrine of the copula forbids the adoption of this form, and Logic accordingly mode that there is one of Reasoning in rejectsit. To suppose
Mathematics,
me a

and

another

mode

of

reasoning

in

Logic, seems
=

to

gratuitous and
the conclusion
A

unwarranted
=

that

C, from
C

assumption. If it the premisses A

that

is asserted B
=

C, is
the and
B

reached

by
A

process

different from from

seems

by which
is

we

reach

conclusion
B
so

is

equal to

the
to

premissesA
me

equal to
of

is

equal
a

to

C, then
thesis lies

it
on

that
assert

the

onus

strange

those

who

it ; and in every

proving though the

text

assertion

is

made,
of

or no

the

assumption begged,
to

book

of

Logic,
The thus
:"

I know

attempt

prove

it. books of

argument

may

be, and

in many

Logic is,stated

Things that
another,
A
" . .

are

equal

to the

same

thing are

equal

to

one

and and

C C

are are

equal to the equal to one

same

thing;
;

another

but
course.

there

are

fatal
one

objections,both
is
to
no as

logical and
of B
same
'

other,

to

this
;

For

there thing,
is

mention the

in this

argument
there

and,
and B

though it
to

alluded whether
same

thing/

is

considerable be

doubt
the

Traditional
a

thing without
whether

B admit Logic would to preliminary syllogism

or,
on

prove

it.

Indeed, I doubt

Logic would,

its

own

EXAMPLES

OF

EXPLICATION
*

307 C

principles, ought, to admit, another is equivalentto A

'

that C.

and

are

equal

to

one

admit the not Logic would or would equivalenceof this syllogismwith the argument that since A and C are both equal to B, they are equal to one another, I should rejectthe syllogismon the ground that it is not the process of reasoning that the mind through in order to reach the goes conclusion from the postulate. In my view, the conclusion can be reached, and the postulate alone, is in fact reached, from without praying in aid a. principimn of such giganticdimensions, for Traditional which the

But

whether

postulate gives
is
*

no

warrant

whatever. and B
not

All

that C.'

the This

postulate grants
grants
us

is

equal to
but
we

is

equal to
us

the It

particular case,
may be
not
use

it does

grant

the

general
our

principle. minds, but

that
to
we

that

have that

the
we

in general principle
are

it does

follow

entitled to conclusion
A

use

it,or

actuallydo
For
my

it,in reaching the

'

is

equal

I deny both the one and the other. in the postulate A is equal to B and B is equal to C,' no see for assuming the more warrant 'Things that are general case in I see than another equal to the same thing are equal to one the in a storm the postulate The ship went to sea and foundered when general case ; and Ships that go to sea founder in storms is equal to C,' B and receive the postulate A is equal to B we to the conclu and in my we opinion we do, proceed at once can, is equal to C,' without sion A begging any principium, and C.

part I should

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

without

the

intermediation for
case,

of any

major premiss.
of the

Granting, however,
conclusion
of this

the

sake

argument,

that

the

is, in

this

reached if the C ? We

major premiss, how

B

through the postulate is A

cannot
same now

intermediation
is greater than

B, and
*

is greater than
are

beg
are

the

major
a

Things which
another,'
We than

greater than
if
we

the

thing
a

greater than
valid

one

or,

do, it does

not

conclusion.
is greater

could, indeed, beg as other another, which

third of
'

help us major,
the

towards
'

thing which
a

is greater than
case

third, is
as

greater than
well
more as

that lack

; but

in

this
the

lack

of warrant,
even

the

for necessity,

is imported principium,

fui, pars minima plainlyapparent. Many logicians, qitcrum de omni et nullo by a more have attempted to supplant the Dictum the argument include should comprehensive formula, which
a

and fortiori

its congeners

; but

no

one

has

succeeded
X 2

to

the

3o8
satisfaction of
any
one

NEW

LOGIC
if such
warrant

else ;
some

and

formula

could

be
as

found,
a

we

should
our so

still need

for
still be

introducingit
going beyond
the Method

major into
When,

arguments.

We

should

the

and postulate,

the fourth violating

we

Canon

of Inference.
of

however,

apply
we see

to

these
; and
once

arguments
not

all Explication, reached

difficulties vanish
at

only
B

is the conclusion

directly,but

that
and

it is inevitable, and is

why
is

it is inevitable.

If A

is

equal to B,

equal
of

to

C, it
is

given that C, for the purpose manifestly to B, and by the third Minor equivalent may,
of the
A is

of the
Canon

argument,

Explica
then

tion, replace B in the first constituent

becomes

which postulate,

given also that, for the purpose of the argument, A is equivalent to B, and replace B in the may second moiety of the postulate; and thus again we get A is equal equal
to

C.

It is

to

C. If A

is greater than of the

B, and
C is

is greater than

C, then, for the

may B
"

purpose

argument,

implied
"

in

B,

and

be

sub

stituted for B

in the first constituent purpose

is greater than
A

of the

postulate. Also, for the

B,
and
may and

of the argument,
in

is

implied in
of the

be

substituted thus

for B

the

second

moiety
C. any
term

postulate;
An

again

we

get A is greater than

us

obvious

postulate may
is

confronts difficulty be replaced by one

here. is

If

in

that

implied in it,and
for B, not
than

if C in the

implied
second

in

B, then
of

may

be

substituted
"

only
B
"

first constituent

the

postulate
we

is greater should then

but

in

the than

constituent

also ; and The stated

get C is greater
valid perfectly rule is that
The

C, which
rule
were

is absurd.
as

objectionwould
; but

be

if the
any

just

it is not.

term

may in

implied
it ; and is the between

replaced by any other term, not that is generally it,but that for the purpose of the argument is implied in
be

the
purpose A

words

italicised make
? B

all the It is not and

difference.
to

For
a

what

of the argument

establish

relation
are

and

B, B,
A

or

between

C, for those
B
or

relations

already given.
what else than
A between

It is to

find what in

else than
;

is greater than what

exceeds For

magnitude
purpose is

the relation is
A

and
B

C.

the

of this argument,

is not
not

implied in
become

in the

A proposition B

greater than
into

B.

does

implied, until

is introduced

the second

constituent C C is not is not

postulate. For the purpose B implied in B in the proposition

of the

of the

argument,
C.

is greater than

3io therefore Minor will

NEW

LOGIC
to

we

may

second method class.

2.

A is equal deny the proposition Canon, this implies A is unequal to in

C. The

By

the

C.

same

give corresponding results

the argument
range
a

all

of propositions

the

Apart from
immense

and fortiori

its congeners,
the
:

there

is

an

of

to propositions

which

syllogism is
all of these

in which and inapplicable, yield readilyto the Method It is my

out

it of

gives

no

assistance

knife

I know

it

Explication. by a nick in the blade, and

my

chip
than

of the
He
not

handle. had been

It is not

knife, for mine

name was room

is smaller

that.
He
was

there, for his

I searched

in the visitors' book.

there, for

every

in the house

without

Europeans differ from Asiatics,for the former are finding him. capable of self-government, and the latter are not. Europeans resemble Asiatics,for they both have the same physical structure.
These
or,

arguments
a

are

either not

attainable

at all

by the syllogism,
conclusion
can

if

can syllogism

be constructed

by which

the

be

reached,
in It is my

it

employed
out

clearlydoes not represent the mental attaining the conclusion.

:

transaction

knife

I know

it

by

nick

in the

blade

and

chip

of

the

handle.

If I reach ?

this Is it
'

conclusion All knives

by the syllogism,
with
to
me a
'

What blade

is the
and
a

missing major chip

out

nick in the
? Even More
a

of

the

handle
on

belong
such
an

logicianwould
over,

scarcelyventure
my

assumption.

I know

of the

nick

in I

by the particularsize,shape, and position the blade and of the chip out of the handle. In
it as identify
medium
a

knife

other

words,

individual thing,without particular

a

going through the

Universal, then,
; and

of the

universal.

If

an

individual

is

I suppose,

missing major is universalised

I do be
to not
a see

by

expressing the whole

us

of the knife, but

how

this
and

helps
some

if

singularproposition may
that it
can

Universal,
so or a

logicianscontend
a

and

ought
be
and
more

be

considered

then

a propositionwhose fortiori,

Subject is two,
than the

three, or

several

individuals distinction

of the

same

must class,

universal,and the

between

the universal
?

is submerged. particular

Is this the argument

My knife is one
This
.*.

with with

a a

nick, "c.
nick,

knife is

one

"c. ;

This

knife is my

knife.

EXAMPLES

OF

EXPLICATION

31* term,

This

is

no

premisses
tributed.

the
I

syllogism. predicate of
do
not
see

The
an

middle affirmative the but

being
can

in

both undis

proposition,is
be Method and of

how

conclusion

reached

through syllogistic reasoning ;

the may
are course

by By
in
a

the

Explication,
conclusion

of the reached
to

reasoning
any

is clear

enough,
the

the

be

secundum

artem.
term

third

Minor

Canon,
that

we

allowed the
the
'

for In
to

purpose first of with

a

is, propositionby one of the equivalent to it. Very well. argument, these propositions, My knife is given equivalent

replace

'

'

one
'

nick, "c.'
a

'

My

knife

'

may,

therefore, replace the

term
us

one

with
the
"

nick, "c.,' in the second

we

premiss ;
knife

and

this

gives
No

at

once

conclusion
no

seek
"

'
"

This

is my
none

knife.' is needed.

major premiss
'

Universal

is

employed, for
is smaller

That
an

knife

is not

mine, for mine

is the be

than

that.' I suppose

If this

is

enthymeme, what complete syllogism would

No

missing major ? something like this :

mine than is

the

"

knife,than
knife knife

which

smaller, is mine

My
" . .

is smaller is not
so

that knife ;

That

mine. that

Fesapo. they prefer to invent

to
a

If there

are

people

constituted

principium
that

of this

gruesome their
as

character,

and
means

obtain,
of

or

fancy
no

they obtain, objection,so long

For If my for the my
own

conclusion
not
more

by
direct

it,

have the
same.

part,
of

they do prefera
than

insist upon
route

my
to

doing
my is

destination.

knife

is smaller

that, then
with
may,

that
my

knife knife the

inconsistent,
what Canon mine.
'

purpose with

the
the

argument,

; and

is of

inconsistent

postulate
In

by
that

third

Explication,be
'

denied.

other

words,

knife

is not

He

had

been

there, for his signatureis in the visitors' book

a

can

be

reached

by
in

syllogism assuming
be

if

we

invent had His

the been

major
there
'

'

All

whose
we are

signaturesare
not

in the

visitors' this the

book

; but

warranted

major. only
one

signaturemay,
in the book. the

for We

aught
may,

the

postulate grants,
same

however, get the

of
any

conclusion, without
first Canon necessary in the of
to

intermediation
A

major, by
every his
name

the

Explication.
it. book
was

postulate
condition
must

implies
of been

condition

necessary is that
not

writing
there.

visitors'

he
'

have be

On

the

other

hand,
'

'

He

there
room

cannot

reached

from syllogistically

I searched

every

in

the

house

312 without
in which that

NEW

LOGIC invent
such

finding him,' unless

every
room

person

is not

In all cases major as in a house is searched without findinga person, there.' This is manifestly not the process of
we a
'

thought by which
in

the conclusion

is reached.

fact,be constructed
to

by the

most

major would, enthusiastic syllogiser, unless he

The actual process the fourth Canon of
of

No

such

wished

bring the syllogism into ridicule.

and is that indicated by thought is very different, Explication. Every thing inconsistent with the postulatemay

be

denied.

If I

have

searched

every

room

in the

house
was

without there ;

findinghim, itis inconsistent with this postulateto there may and that he was properly be denied.
'

say he

Europeans differ from Asiatics, for the former are capable of self-government,and the latter are not.' No syllogism can be con structed of thought by which this conclusion to represent the course
is reached will be
seen

from

the

premiss.

If the

argument

is considered, it

that the conclusion that

no

is attained

premiss,and
Canon

major is required; of Explication is taken as a major.

relations to
a

from the single directly unless, indeed, the fifth When

two terms
are one

postulated in inconsistent
another There with is
an a

third,they differ from

respect
old

to

that third.
first discovered

example,

by the
to

Port

Royal
It

of logicians,

conclusion
resources

that is too

manifest

be

questioned,but
to

that baffles all the

runs
as

of Traditional

Logic

attain.

follows

:"

The

Persians
sun

The
* . .

is

an

worship the sun ; insensible thing ;

The

Persians

worship an

insensible

thing.
Universal,
and

This middle
It is

is not
term

for syllogism,

it contains

no

the

is undistributed.
purpose

clear,however, that, for the

the Persians

of the argument

"

that
an

is,of what
insensible

worship,
"

the

sun

is given equivalentto

thing,and may therefore replace it in the first premiss. Could be This replacement gives us the conclusion. process any simple, or more thought ? These examples are
more

manifestly indicate
sufficient to establish

the

actual

process

of

my

first two

theses" which the

that

there

are

many

Compound
many

propositions to
inferences

syllogismcannot

be

applied:

that it cannot

attain ;

LIMITATIONS
and Method
3.

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM
and

313

that of The those

when

the

syllogism
is that

is insufficient
course

incapable, the reasoning.

extract,
even

Explication displaysthe
next

of the
cannot

thesis

the

syllogism

propositionsto which it can be applied,any but a very few of the implications they contain ; while the Method If all birds fly of Explication can indefinite number. extract an be drawn and no inference can no legitimately pigs fly, syllogistic from form. is in strict logical these premisses, for neither of them compound
But birds if
we

from

waive

this and

objection, we
in

can

get, in Cesare,
No

that

No

are

pigs ;

Camestres,
we

that The

pigs
of

are

birds ; but

beyond these inferences Logic are exhausted.

get much
more

cannot

go.

resources

of Traditional
can no

But

by the Method
We
can

Explication we
can can

than
; and
'

this.
No

get
what

'

All birds all birds

' *

do

what
do.'

pigs can
can

do
*

'

pigs can
do
not

do

We

get
one

Birds

and

pigs
in birds

both
of

from

another between

respect
and

fly ; flying ;
'

Birds
*

and

pigs differ Flying marks a

and

difference The

last three

pigs.' instances propositions are

of middle
term to
are

of

a over

very

important syllogism.
conclusion.
term
no

advantage that the Method In no syllogism does the

Yet the it is often conclusion
a

Explication has
appear result

the the

in

very

valuable many

get the

middle with

into other

; and

arguments
the

undertaken
on

purpose. murdered
on

If Hamlet

lectured then

his mother
same man

virtue, and
lectured

if Hamlet his mother

Polonius,

that
a

virtue,committed

murder.

This and fly, of

can,

is

significant implication of
fish
some

the
are can

postulate.
like
not most

If most in other

birds

birds

respect
birds

fly, and
birds between
a

then fly, flying. If penguins then penguins and

some

fish auks
are

and auks

unlike
a

other

in respect of them. If

and flying,

the

to flymarks ability
a

difference

and

typhoid fever typhus

typhus fever has discrete rash, then typhus

the

confluent

rash,

and marks

typhoid have
a

different rashes, and

between
on

character
Few

of the

rash

difference

and

typhoid.
Are these
or

occasion,
respects
this ?

than
are

inquiriesare more important, things alike or different ? and In

different ?
the

what

they alike

What

is the resemblance

between other but

and
are

that, what

difference between confront

of
us

that and
and

the

These

problems

which

daily
and has

hourly,
us

Traditional
means

without

of

Logic knows solving them.

term

nothing
Modern

them,

leaves

Logic

detected

the
the

omission

of the

middle

from

the conclusion, and

regards

3i4

NEW
in the

LOGIC
nature

omission
as an

as

not

inherent
The

of

but syllogistic inference,

accident.

middle that

term

could

be, and
to

gather that
too

Modern

Logic considers
If this the

it

ought

be, expressed in the

far. the
in

conclusion. Whether conclusion

on

the middle

opinion of Modern Logic, it goes term ought or ought not to appear

the purpose

depends
an

on

of the argument.
we are

It

depends
It
term

the

aspect of the subject-matterin which

inference conclusion is useless
:

interested.
the

may

be that
in
term
on

to

us

unless that the

and

middle

appears

the

it may is

be

presence

of

the It

middle

in the conclusion

surplusage
of

redundancy.

depends
4. The

of the argument. the purpose fourth advantage of the Method

in the Method and

over Explication are no

the

syllogism is that
or

of
no

Explication there
need of

figures
one

moods

to

be

remembered,

reduction

from

the convincing. In some figure to another to make argument syllogisms,the argument is not convincing. It is,at any rate, not It does valid. self-evidently ordinarymind, unaccustomed
not to at
once

carry

conviction

to

an

the
:"

of the syllogistic peculiarities

figures. Take
No

Fesapo, for instance

applewoman sells flowers, Sellingflowers is a profitable occupation

Some

' . .

profitable occupation
seems

is not

followed
Some

by applewomen. reasoning
is
not

There
appears

to

be

an

hiatus here.
The go
over

step in the

to

be left out.
We

sequence it

of the argument
to
assure

self-

evident.

have is

to

again
assurance

ourselves

that

the conclusion

justified. Some
order
to

is of its justification
assurance

lacking.

It

is in

supply this
reduced

that

syllogisms

in the last three

figuresare
case, two
'

to the

first;and
the

this reduction

in this requires,

operations.

First

converted, and
'

becomes next,
*

Sellingflowers is

not

major premiss is followed by apple'

women

and

and

becomes these
new

Some

premiss is converted per accidens, flowers ; and occupation is selling profitable

that the conclusion of the is more than
from

the minor

from

premisses it is contended
those contention it is
a

reached self-evidently

originalsyllogism.
must

Whether

this

is
or

the justified,
no,

reader
my

judge
far
more

for

himself; but whether

to satisfactory

it

is,in

opinion,
is
to

follow

mode

of

reasoning which
no

transparently
mode
con-

and

manifestlyvalid,and
it appear valid.

needs

reduction of

another

to

make

By

the

Method

Explication, the

REDUCTION

315
first Minor
'

elusion

is thus

reached

;
"

Since, by the
'

Canon

of

applepostulate implies its reciprocal, No sells flowers by woman implies Selling flowers is not followed flowers For we by the third Minor selling applewomen.' may, is substitute the term occupation,' which a Canon, profitable Explication, every
' ' ' '

postulated equivalent occupation

in order of the the the
to

to

it ;

and

thus

we

get

'

profitable
is desirable
course

is not

followed

by applewomen.'
conversion of

By this method, whatever

make the and

premisses

argument
is not

is effected in the self-evident,

over

argument,

left

argument

is finished.

By

the

subsequent process after method, in short, syllogistic

to
a

requires further proof before proof of a conclusion of Explication but one fullyaccepted : by the Method assured that we At every step we are proof is necessary. ground
process
assurance

it

can

be of firm the

process
are on

before of

we

go

on

to

the

next.

By
and

the

institution

of
no

reduction, it is admitted
is

declared

that

such

syllogism except the first ; for the purpose of reduction is,by bringing the other figures into the first, of the syllogiser that his argument to carry to the mind of reduction The is to reassure the syllogiser is valid. ; purpose given by
any

figureof

the

to convince

him he

that his argument with the

is not the

mere

this

end

is furnished

mnemonic him

hocus-pocus; and to verses concerning

to

Barbara, Celarent, and

in every it is very tunities the
more : case.

rest, to enable
is

perform reduction
In
some cases

The

process
; and

by

no

means

easy. novice with

elaborate
error.

furnishes
for of

the

ample
let

oppor

for

Take,

instance, Bokardo,
Doksamosk
;

now

known
us

by

euphonious title
"

and

try this

specimen

Some All
* . .

men men are

are

not

vegetarians;
; not

mortals
are

Some reduce

mortals

vegetarians.
first the following figure, the
a

In

order

to

this to Darii

in the

series of processes

must

be conducted. have the

First contrapose
found
to

major
very first

premiss. Contraposition we obtain To simple process.

obvert, and
then
convert

be

not must

contrapositive, we

the obverse.
Some
men men are are

Major premiss:
Obverse Converse
: :

not

vegetarians;

Some Some

non-vegetarians; non-vegetariansare men.

316
Now take

NEW

LOGIC

of your

from the major premiss thus obtained proposition, it the minor premiss of a new and make syllogism, syllogism,

the

premiss of your old syllogism for will then obtain the premisses : having the minor
All
Some
men are

major.

You

mortals

;
men

non-vegetariansare
the

and
are

from

this

you

get

conclusion,

Some Some

non-vegetarians
mortals
you
are non-

mortals.'

This, by conversion, yields

and vegetarians,' end

*

by finally,
are

one

more

obversion,

arrive at the

of your

long journey, and triumphantly attain the conclusion

not

Some

mortals the trouble

vegetarians.'
with the
to

Whether time
and

importance of the result is commensurate

necessary

attain it, the

the reduction
cannot

reader
to

must

judge for
is still

himself; but
unsatisfied

if, notwithstanding
his

Darii, he
convinced

with

syllogism, and
end

be

of

its

without validity that he is not substitute

to reducing it to Barbara, he will be pleased

know

at the

of his

resources.

All he has to

do

is to

for his

major premiss the contradictoryof his conclusion. syllogism in Barbara, the conclusion reduces his original major. Thus he
a

By this
which

means

he gets

of his

contradicts

syllogism to absurdity,a result

It does
seem

not

without

further

significance.

of ensuring the validity simpler method of a syllogism could be found, it would such a be preferable ; and method of Explication. By this is,I submit, found in the Method authorised are to method, we replace any propositionby its and any term its part. We reciprocal, or by its equivalent may, All and mortals men are therefore, replace mortals some by
a
' ' ' '

that if

'

mortals

'

by

'

Some

mortals
purpose

are

all

men.'

Some
'

'

men men we

are

included, for the

may 'Some in

of

the for
*

argument,
all
'

in
;

all

', and
get

therefore mortals

be
are

substituted
some

men

and

thus

men.'

But

'not

is given, vegetarians'
purpose

the

for the major premiss, equivalent,

to
'

of the substituted
'

argu

ment,
'

Some

men,'
Hence
we

and

may

therefore three

be

for

some are

men.'
not

get, in

steps,

Some

mortals

of deriving the the two vegetarians.' Thus processes, carried on conclusion, and assuringourselves of its validity,are and attained in three very simple steps ; and all the simultaneously,
many processes
verses

of reduction, enable
us

together with
to

their rules, the

mne

monic

which

remember

them, and

the

quaint

CHAPTER

XX

THE

FAULTS

OF

THE

RULES

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM

THE
no more

first rule than of the

of

the

syllogism
terms.
are

is that

it must

contain this
means

three,
that

and

three,

Otherwise limited
to

put,

the

powers

syllogism
have
no

explicating those
three
terms.

Compound propositions
in this rule

propositions that
more

more

than

To

comprehensive
its
can

than

this, it is inapplicable, and

to

it confesses

incompetence
be
to

explicate them.
with
as

But
terms

compound
as we

propositions
and
as

constructed

many

like,

it is
to

as

easy

explicate these
with the three

by the
terms

Method

of

Explication multiple
Modern

explicate

those

only.
Traditional

The
and

proposition Logic.
'

is outside

purview

of both

All

wits

are

envious
can

and

malicious.' but
two

From
:

this

postulate,

Traditional

Logic
All
All
' . .

deduce

conclusions

wits wits

are

envious malicious

; ;
are

are

Some

malicious

people
; ;
are

envious.

Darapti.

All

wits wits

are

malicious envious

All
* . .

are

Some

envious

people
that

malicious.

Darapti.

These but
on

are

all the

conclusions these
commended.

Traditional
and
so

Logic
far of

can

give
be

us

it the

can

give
and
'

us

conclusions,
But

it may the
we

patted

back,

if,instead
malicious

Compound give it the

proposition postulate
neither inference
'

All

wits
are

are

envious

and

',

All

wits

envious,

malicious,
Modern

untruthful

and

spiteful,'
any

Traditional
at

Logic They
and
can

nor

Logic

can

extract

all.

only
are

contemplate
fair
and

it with
proper

helpless
of
are

stupefaction.
Inference outside
a

Envy
envy,

malice

subjects

but

malice,

untruthfulness
or,

and
must

spitefulness
come

the

pale of reasoning,
two

if

admitted,

in eye

through
of their

turnstile,

by

two,

like

schoolgirls

under

the

mistress.

FAULTS

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM

319

To
more

the

Method

of

than difficulty

Explication,four terms, or forty,present three. the postulate All wits Grant

'

no are

envious, malicious, untruthful

furnish and
you

and

and spiteful,'
envy,

this

Method

will

with

the

inferences

that

malice, untruthfulness,
these
are

spite are
with and

qualitiesof
one

all wits ;
; that

that

four

qualities are possessing

Method
of

consistent them
;

another
more.

all wits
the

alike in of the

many

Nor

are

powers

Compound All anglers and some Object-term. their addicted to exaggeration of

'

Explication

limited

to the

propositionwith a multiple are untruthful, and golfers

own

success.'
"

This

contains

Subjects,two altogether and I

two
"

Objects, and
do

the

presence Method multitude deal with

of such of of such

eight propositions what Traditional not know Logic could do in and cry ; but a proposition, except sit down
two

Ratios;

to the

Explication it yieldsreadilyenough implications.

a

an

innumer

able
to

If Traditional
must

Logic attempted
first break
up

postulate at all,it

the take what

postulate into its eight constituent them then it two by two ; but even
could it do with
'

propositions,and then would be helpless. For

'

such All

untruthful,'and
'

All anglers are pair of propositionsas golfers are addicted to exaggeration of their
a

own

success

Traditional make
a

hole

before

it could

Logic might syllogism out

refuse
'

scratch of such
to
a

its head

into

pair.
a

Modern

Logic would,
Modern

I suppose,

look

at such

postu
to

late,for,to
of this

Logic, Inference
within
a

is the indirect

reference

of differences reality

Universal

by
'

means

of the exhibition
to

universal
'

in

differences
and
some

Whether
Universal
to

All

anglers
and

directly referred golfers constitute

and lamentable

reality.'
a

together
addiction

whether

their

unanimous

untruthfulness
;

universal in these

exaggeration are whether, if so, all anglers and

;

differences
some

within

this

are golfers

exhibited

differences
to

and
are

whether

or

no

the
I

differences
am

are

directly
to

referred
decide. Mr. three The
must

reality ;
any

questions that
Modern in

not

competent
mouth
must

At

rate,
is
no

Bosanquet,
terms

emphatic
more.'

Logic, through the assertingthat Inference

'

of

have

and

second consist rule

one

Canon of

of the

syllogism
of
no more

states

that
three

the

syllogism

three, and
on

than

This than

seems,

the

face of

it,to deny the

from
any
one

conclusion is
no

being deduced
far
as

propositions. of more possibility pairof premisses.

two

There

rule,as

know, explicitlystating that

320

NEW

LOGIC conclusion
of
a

premisses can
instance, in
from any
one we

lead to
second
text

but

one

; but

such
and

rule

seems no

implicit in the
any

Canon

the

syllogism;
conclusion

there is

book,

of

second

being

drawn

pair
deduce

of
a

premisses,except the weakened

conclusion with

conclusion,
when
we

in which
are

respect

to some,

entitled to
Cesare.

and

predicateit of all ; and the unique case of Camestres I think, therefore, that it is not unfair to interpret
this
sense.

the
not

Canon

in

Yet

how

many

implicationsare
How Take
many
as an

there
;

latent in every
many

Compound
how

proposition!
many ! possible

manifest instance

how

permissible ;
"

the teetotal argument, who who

Every Every
From

one one

drinks

suicide poison commits drinks wine, drinks poison.

these
:
"

premisses

the

syllogism permits

of

but

one

conclusion

* . .

Every
from

one

who

drinks

wine, commits

suicide.

But
extract

the

twenty

the Method will of Explication premisses, in the conclusions, all manifestly contained
same
"

and premisses,
No

all valid ; for instance who drinks

ensures

one

wine

escapes

death

by suicide.

Drinking wine Drinking wine Every

Some Some
one

death suicide
are

by suicide.
commits

and

who

drinks

compatible. wine, drinks poison and

suicide.

people drink poison in the shape of wine. suicide by drinkingwine. people commit
one

Every
Some One

who

drinks

wine

poisons himself. by drinkingwine.

wine.

people poison themselves

way

of

committing
so

suicide is to drink

And

so

forth, and

on,

indefinitely.It

may

be said, and

it may

be

freelyadmitted, that these are alternative conclusions, and that of them in any one can so that, after argument only one appear, I do be but three propositionsin the argument. all,there would
not not
see

why the
a

conclusion

from

itself be

compound

should compound proposition proposition waiving this, and ; but

a

VICES

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM

321

granting
invalidate
than three

for

the

sake

of argument

that

these

rule against the syllogistic in an argument, it is propositions the do violate

examples do not employment of more

easy to construct

very

examples that
If

the rule.

Many
Few

are are

called ; chosen
are

And Then

Still fewer

found who

suitable
are

;
are

Very
are

few

of those

called

found

suitable.
the

If
are

some

green, then
none

more

are

blue, a few

are

yellow,and
In these

rest

brown,

of

them

is white.

advantage
but

is taken

without

valid perfectly for

that Traditional quantities still construct these we quantities, utilising may than two premisses. Take, arguments with more of the
"

examples Logic ignores;

: instance,the following

Ptomaine
Several

poisoning is due
persons suffered
at

to

eating toxic
same

food

the

time

from

ptomaine

poisoning; They
.'.

had

all

partaken of
have
been

the

same

dish;

The

toxin may
Minor

in that dish.

Explication we get out of the first two toxic ate premisses, the implication Several persons The third premiss gives us that these persons had all eaten food.' of that dish, so that by the fourth of Explication, toxic Canon
From the third Canon of
'

food have could been.

and

that

dish

are

consistent. food. This is

In
a

other

words, that
that
no

dish

may

contained
extract.

toxic The

conclusion

syllogism
may
as

syllogism
is
a

knows

The

conclusion from

Modal

nothing proposition,and
But will anyone conclusion

of what

have is the valid

such

excluded

syllogistic Logic.
either that the ?

have
a

temerity
sion may
to

to

maintain,

this

is not

inference from
obtain

premisses,or that it is not a valuable conclu Surely it is as important to prove that that dish
the

have

contained
It may and be

toxin, as
form

it is to here
are

prove
two

that

Socrates

is
not

mortal.
one

objected that
of
one

inferences,and
is
a

only ;
the

that the true

of the

argument
the

in sorites, the way

which
next.

conclusion
not
see name

argument
nature

becomes of the

premiss of
is in any

I do

that the
we

process
or

affected
N.L.

by the

give it.

Call

it Sorites

Baralipton or
Y

322

NEW

LOGIC will alter the

process

anything
conclusion tional

you

please, but
be but

you

not

fact that
to

the

cannot

obtained

by
We

any

known
ease

Tradi

Logic,
Method

is obtained

with

the

greatest
seen

and

certainty

by
of

the

of that

Explication.
the

have
even

in
a

our

examination

Bokardo,

conclusion,

of

syllogism, cannot
ourselves

always be attained by a single step ; but that, to assure of its validity reasoning, may by the strictest syllogistic successive operations. seven as many
The
'

require as
must

third rule of the

'

syllogismis
one

that

the

middle

term

be

distributed

in at least

of

the

two

quantitiesof
"

Traditional

premisses. This is true if the Logic the Particular and the

"

Universal
I

are

the that

that exist. only quantities the

But

if it is true,

as

maintain,

quantitiesfew,
rest

many, of

most,
were

this, that,
devised

scarcely any, nearly all, and the to to satisfyhis needs, and man
which
must
*

them,

by
term

characterise the
in

quantitiesabout
Logic
term
'

he desired
be
'

to

reason

then
sense

rule, that the middle

which the

in the distributed,' and

understands No it

distributed,' is untrue,
admit
all
'

falls to
'

ground.
the

logician quantifies.
of the

would
'

that is
a

'

Nearly all distributes

' '

Nearly

particular. But

some variety of some,' and take the following argument

is the mark

"

Nearly all

in the

pit were pit were

were

miners
killed ;

Nearly
.'.

all in the

Some

of the killed

miners. is the

This

inference

is

unimpugnably

valid ; and

so

following:

"

Very few people are strict vegetarians; Scarcely any strict vegetariansare vigorous ;
' . .

Scarcelyany people
know whether

are

vigorous vegetarians.
admit
but

don't

logicianswould
not
;

that
so

this is much mode

syllogism. Probably they would

worse

then

the of

for Traditional
a

Logic

for it is

indisputablya
be

reasoning,and
The actual

valid mode.

rule, which

ought, in
middle
not

my

opinion, to
is this
:
"

substituted
term

for the rule of the is

distributed

If the middle

(itneed quantitative
the third Minor

be, but
the term of

if it

is)then

it must

not

be

of

less

ample quantity than

that

replacesit. This follows

allows
us

from

Canon

Explication ; which

to

VICES

OF which

THE

SYLLOGISM

323

replaceany
it. A
term

term

by

one

is

which

is of the

same

tivelyequivalent to it. A term other. another is quantitatively It makes included in that no of the argument how limited is difference whatever to the validity substituted the quantity of the middle term, so long as the term for it in the conclusion is not of greater amplitude. In the last in strict vegetarians is undistributed example, the middle term affirmative the major as the predicate of an proposition ; it is in the minor undistributed by the quantification Scarcely any.' the latter term Yet, since vegetarians include vigorous vegetarians,
"

equivalentto it or is included in quantity as another is quantita is of less quantity than which

"

may
as

be

substituted

for

the

former,

and

the

middle,

undistributed

amplitude for the purpose of the argument. be distri fourth rule of the syllogism is that no The term may in a premiss. This in the conclusion that is not distributed buted rule is good as far as it goes ; but it does not go far enough. It is of Traditional sufficient for the two quantities Logic, but it is not into the sufficient if the other allowed to enter quantities are If a semi-definite quantity is admitted, and it has argument. shown that perfectlyvalid arguments been be constructed may be invalid with the semi-definite then the argument quantity, may It will be invalid if even though the rule is punctually observed. in the conclusion, although not distributed, the quantity of a term is yet in excess of the term it replaces.
is of sufficient it is, Most Most
.'.

brave sailors

men are are

are

generous
men

; ;

brave

Most

sailors

generous.

No in
a

term

is distributed the

in this conclusion is invalid.

that is not
As
a

distributed

it is syllogism, invalid because both the premisses are the rule particular ; but against particularpremisses will be shown presentlyto be itself invalid. The in this argument must fallacy rest, therefore,on a

premiss ; yet

argument

different fourth
we

ground
not

; and

it is easy

to

see

what

the

ground

is.

The

Canon

of Inference
assume more

may

we prohibitions,

may

not

According to this Canon, than is in the postulate. Among other replacea term by one of greater quantity.
for any
term

is violated.

term

may
term

be substituted

that

contains

it ; but is done
Y

not

for any

by which

it is contained

; and

this is what

in

324 this argument. tuted

in the first
'

NEW
'

LOGIC
in the second

'

Most

sailors
'

premiss
order
'

are

substi

premiss for
sailors
are

Most

brave

men,' in
But

to

get the
'

conclusion
not
are
'

Most

generous.'
*

Most

sailors

are

given equivalent to, or less than, Most brave men.' given, in the second premiss, equivalentto brave men
'

They
'

; and

most

brave

'

men

is

term

of less
'

ample quantitythan
' '

brave

sailors brave for most substituting most men are we substitutinga term of greater quantity for a term of less" a containing and for a contained term so are violatingthe fourth Canon The of Inference. fallacyis a kind of illicitminor, but a kind unknown to Traditional Logic. The fifth rule of the syllogism is that one of the premisses at

men.'

Hence,

in

'

"

least must

be

affirmative,and

no

conclusion

can

be

drawn

from

negative premisses. Modern Logic repudiates the rule, and I Modern with respectfully Logic. Even signifymy agreement as Logic so devoted Jevons have long exponents of Traditional from be drawn recognised that a conclusion premisses,one may
of which
and

contains
offered
an

have

negative ratio,and the other to me explanation that seems

a

negative term
valid, that
"

;
an

affirmative

ratio with

negative
of

term

makes,
Universal

or

may

make,
agree

in

fact, an
in

affirmative
case,

proposition. With
becomes

this I should

; but

this

what

the

proposition, of Traditional
As

Logic, with
or

Negative, the E its negative subject?

become,
a

far

as

can

see

it becomes,

may

Universal

Affirmative. does
not

of negativepremisses My objectionto the prohibition quibble concerning the negative rest, however, on any both

proposition. When
sense

premisses

are

negative, in the ample possibleto

deduce

of

having negative Ratios,

it is still

from

them

good, valid, and

The coachman
not

useful conclusions. beautiful ;

in
a

is not
necessary

Beauty is
' . .

coachman

The

coachman
not

is not

by incapacitated
a

his want

of

beauty.
care

I do

claim
or

that this is
not ; but

I don't syllogism,and frankly,

a

whether

it is

negative premisses.
We have
no

So

good sound is the following:"

it is
;

argument

from

two

paste
a

Paste
" . .

is not
want

bait for

pike;
not

Our

of paste does

deprive us of

bait for

pike.

326

NEW

LOGIC

perfectlyvalid.
tributed ; both

It has

five terms;

the

middle

term

is not

dis

premisses are particular ; the affirmative conclusion from premisses,one is drawn of which is negative ; the conclusion is universal, though not only one, but both of the premisses are particular. It is true that the argument is no syllogism,and does
not ment

pretend

to

be

for all that.

syllogism ; but it is a good, sound, valid argu be obtained The conclusion cannot by any
but yet it is not
a

syllogistic process,
a

only valid,but
of
to

it is attained The Canon

by
of

single step
a

"

by

single process
us

inference. the

Explication that
second
"

authorises

draw

conclusion
to

is the
some

postulateimplies all that is

for the

necessary

it.

If

of

the

and some were plaintiff not, it is implied that there was a jury; that the jurors had opinions; that some of one of another ; that their opinionswere were opinion and some

jury

were

divided.

Again, Many
Some
" . .

Irish go
do
not

to America

leave it ;
in

Some

Irish remain

America,

affirmative conclusion results from a irrefragable negative premiss, a valid conclusion from two particular premisses.
an

and

Nor
must

is it true be

that

if the

conclusion

is

negative,one

premiss

negative.
Most The
" . .

of the balls
rest

were were

black
white

; ;

of them
was

None

of them

red.

This

is not It
us

it syllogism, exhibits the

a are

is true

but

it is

argument.

power universal

of the

perfectlyvalid Residual quantity in

a

enabling

to

draw

premisses,both of which
Some

from negative conclusion affirmative,and both particular.

were

of the
rest
were men

men

Spaniards;
;

The
* . .

French
were was

All the None

Europeans,
Russian.

and

" . .

of them

Here, again, Universal

are

conclusions, both

and positive It is true

negative,
that
in

drawn

from
we

strictness

particular premisses. require further postulates about

same

the

Russians, and
are

cannot ; but

reach

the conclusions

unless

Europeans and these postulates

be taken

in

our

minds

in every

inference

something must

VICES

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM

327
must
'

for be
*

granted.

Some We

knowledge
cannot
'

on even we

the

part of the
'

reasoner

presupposed.
man

infer from know that

;
'

Man

is mortal
'

to

No

is immortal

unless of the
'

immortal this

excludes is

mortal,' for the purpose

what

argument
and did

and

knowledge
who it meant,

not
never

biologistscall
the
a

an

innate

quality.' A
not

person

had

heard need
most

word

immortal,

know draw

what

would but for

as

further of
us

postulatebefore he
not

could

the inference

do who

need

the

postulate,the
our

it, to

those

do,

escapes

notice and

logicalnecessity and the logical

Russians
in the
a

necessity for
one

postulates
is
'

about

Europeans
than

argument

not

really greater
'

the

necessity for
are

postulateabout
Arguments

immortal which

in the

other. conclusions
conclusions drawn from

in

universal

particular premisses, negative premisses, and

from valid

from
or

affirmative

conclusions, either

negative

affirmative,

is negative,present them both of which or premisses,one it is difficult to make selection selves in such profusion that a but perhaps the following will suffice :" from affirmative Particular negative conclusion premisses : All
Some
' . .

men men

are

mortal
are

vegetarians;
do
not
eat meat.

Some

mortals

Universal

negative conclusion

from

particular affirmative

premisses :
Some Some
' . .

of the of the

jurors were jurors were

not

for the
for the

plaintiff;
defendant
;

The
not
a

jurors were
the
'

unanimous.

This
which
a

is needs

Universal

Negative

'

of

Traditional

Logic,
such

Universal

negative Subject, but it is not difficult to get affirmative premisses : Negative from particular
Some The
" . .

of them
rest went

went

East
;

North
went

None

of them from

South.

Valid

negative conclusion
No No
"

two

negative premisses :
doctrines;
with these doctrines.

logicianagrees with these logicianis infallible;

fallible persons
do
not

Some
.

agree

328
Valid

NEW from
not

LOGIC

affirmative conclusion
Some None
* . .

two

negative premisses :

were were

killed ;
;

cowards
men

Some

brave

escaped.

Finally :
If and

This That The

little pig went little pig other

to

market
at home

; ; to

stayed
;

and

little pigs scattered

different parts

of the country then

and None

of the little pigs remained child in the which

an

together;
reach
a

thus every
an

nursery

can

valid conclusion
one

from

argument
from
that and

violates that

every

rule but

of and

the four
term
a

syllogism ;
undistributed universal clusion of babes
set at

argument
has
no

has
;

eight
that

terms

propositions ;

middle

term

has

every

all its from

premisses particular ;
particularpremisses ; premisses. Thus, out
a

that

reaches

conclusion from
and

negative con
of
the

affirmative

mouths

sucklingsis
of Deduction,

the

syllogism discredited,defeated, and

naught.
view which

of regards it as the explication that lie latent in every proposition, the implications to me seems This
to

have

many

Inference

Neither Immediate Mediate nor advantages. to me, is thus regarded in any book on Logic known
and

though
the

now

then

Hamilton

utters

statements

that

are

con

sistent with

this doctrine.

Logicians

do

admit

that

Deduction

is

logicof Consistency, but in spiteof this admission, they con from the reaches the unknown stantlytry to show how Deduction It merely reveals In my view it does nothing of the kind. known. is implied in the postulate. De Morgan draws what a sharp dis tinction between knowing a thingfrom premisses and knowing it
with them.
are
*

Persons

not two

told that

knowing

spoiledby sophistrywill smile when they lines cannot enclose a space, the straight
"

that good as know the three intersections of opposite sides of a hexagon inscribed be in the same in a circle must straight line. Many of my whole

is greater than

its part, "c.

they

as

readers
them

will learn much

to

this

now

for the
on

first

time

it will

comfort

be it

assured,
ever

many

high authorities, that they

In

knew virtually

since

their childhood.'

this passage,

INDUCTION
De
'

AND

DEDUCTION doctrine
to
an

329

Morgan
us

is
to

insisting on

the

that the

Deduction
'

does
; and

enable

the

proceed from the known in fact, example he gives were,

would be

unknown

if

instance But

of deductive the
reason

reasoning, his contention

unassailable.

generallyare not deductive. ings of geometry and of mathematics They are reasonings by quantitativeanalogy, as will be demon in a subsequent chapter ; and De strated Morgan's contention of the capital grievances that I have One falls to the ground.
of against Traditional Logic is its failure to discover the mode of this mode analogy, and its confusion reasoning by quantitative of reasoning with the syllogism. think that any logiciancan contend I do not that Immediate from is anything but the extraction of implications Inference a

Simple proposition.
whether the Immediate that

The

discussions, in books
are

on or

Logic,
not,
rest

as

to

inferences inference but is

inferences
an

upon

an assumption and immediately apparent ; it from Simple propositions,

is not if this

inference of

if it is the

plainly

is true

inferences from pro

equally true
I
cannot

of inferences
see

positions that
that
if all
men

are are

Compound.
mortal and
or

that
a

the

inference is

Socrates any
more

is

man,

Socrates

mortal, is
the without

any

less apparent, from is

a
'

difficult to extract, than

'

inference

All

birds

are

feathered,' to
the
process

Nothing that
Inference

is

feathers
more

bird.' the
to be

That

of

is,in

fact, nothing
seems postulate,

than
to
me

explicationof meanings implied in a proved beyond question by the results

enables
us

of the

Method that

of

Explication,which
attainable

to

arrive at all the

at
a

inferences
many
more

are

by the
nature

syllogism, and
of Inference
to

great

besides. confusion
as

Part

of the

to the

is due
as

to

the
as

practiceof logiciansof applying

to

this term
to

Induction

well

Deduction.

This
'

seems

to

me

be

regrettable.

If I contem

according plate the postulate The sky to-nightis red,'I can infer, of Explication, Redness is in the sky to-night,' to the Canons
'

sky not plate,

and compare

'

The

is not the

if I contem forth. and But so to-night,' but the fact, that the sky is red to-night, postulate, blue

it with of the
a

previous experience, I
word infer
"

can

argue,
"

or

infer,in

another
that

sense

can

induce

the

conclusion

it will be

fine

day
I

to-morrow.
a

It

is,of
'

course,

possible to

deduce purpose

this conclusion
of

from may

argument

Compound postulate

proposition. For the red sky at night will

330

NEW

LOGIC

the next probably be followed by fine weather day ; and the sky is red to-night.' From this postulateI can deduce the implication It will probably be fine to-morrow explication ; but this verbal is totally distinct from material reasoning, and need have no
' '

relation whatever

postulated; and for of argument the purpose I may postulatewhat I please. I can postulate that if the sky is red at night,it will rain incessantly for ten years, or it will never rain again ; and any implicationI in conjunction with from that postulate, extract the further may will be valid,for the purpose postulate 'The sky is red to-night,'
of the argument, induce
fine if it is conducted secundum
'

to fact.

The

premisses are

artem.
'

But

when

from

'

The

sky is
not

red go

to-morrow,' I do
material

to-night that It will probably be in the on now postulation. I am

I
am

region of

appealing,not to a postulate, but to to the experience ; and am proceeding from the known in a sense unknown which is foreignto the proceedings of Expli
argument.
cation.

proceed from that which is explicitly is implicitly given to that which given from that which is manifest to that which is implied from
or or
" "

In

Inference,

Deduction,

Explication, we

that which

is

avowedly postulated to that which

fact, with
advance
to
'

is

unavowedly
to
as
'

postulated. With
unknown,
unknown
If the
'

from

the
in
as

known

the
the

we

have
a

nothing
for
I

do,

except

far

is

misnomer

the unavowed.'
one

syllogism is,as

contend, merely

way

of

extracting

from

of its implications, then the one proposition Compound inherent in every said to be question of the petitioprincipii If the syllogism,takes on a new aspect ; and solvitur ambulando. is the extraction of an whole implication from syllogistic process the postulate, then it is clear that we can get nothing out of the

the

postulatethat
Canon in the

was

not

in
so.

it.

We

are

forbidden
were

by
not

the

Fourth

of Inference

to do

If the conclusion

contained

premisses, it could not be got out of them. The inherent problem of the petitio principii
been stated it in

in the

syllogism
Read,

has who

by
the

no

one

so

neatly as by
dilemma.
'

Prof.

Carveth

puts

form

of

If all the facts of the

is needless ; and major premiss have been examined, the syllogism of them if some have not been examined, it is a petitio principii.
But

either all have useless

form

been
or

examined fallacious.'

or

some

have dilemma
as

not.

Therefore,

it is either

The

is

notoriouslya
inde-

dangerous

of argument,

epigrammatic

it is, and

THE

PETITIO

PRINCIPII

331

feasible
rule. of the

as

it appears; of

and the

this facts

example
have
or

is

no

exception
to

to

the

Examination

is irrelevant all

the

construction

syllogism. Whether
some

they
not,
difference

been
none

examined,
of them the
no

or

whether been

of them makes inference

have
no

whether
to

have
con

examined,
as an

the

validityof
It makes the with

clusion
ence

from

the the
as

premisses.
conclusion
or

differ

to

the

which pose the

may of the

consistency of be regarded not

If
none

premisses,
the pur

true

false, except
facts have
"

for

argument.
is yet with

of the
as an

been
as a

examined,
deduction
are
"

conclusion

valid the

inference

if it is
or

consistent And

premisses,
to

whether
an

they

true

false.
not
us.

it is not been

useless

have

may before

have

apparent, dragged into

implication, that light and set plainly

truth,
and

If the Prof.

syllogism were
Read's but Prof.

means

of

ascertaining material
be himself of insurmountable
seems

Carveth

dilemma Carveth

would Read

inescapable;
what
'

to

recognise
he says

think discusses

is the the

true

function

Deduction

when

Logic or proof or disproof, testing of Deductive propositions.' If by Logic is meant Logic ; if by proof incon and demonstration of consistencyand disproof is meant
the (briefly) is if by testing of propositions sistency with postulates; and meant testing their consistency with the postulatesfrom which to me punctually they are derived ; then this statement seems
correct.

the truth, does not investigate 'Logic,'says Prof. Read, of its own trustworthiness, or validity principles.' If by Logic is Deductive meant is meant postulated Logic ; and if by principles Other with Prof. Read. premisses, then I am entirely at one I think that these state that Logic is the test of truth. logicians also are logicians right; but that when they say Logic, they mean
'

Logic. I same Logic that tests also postulates can

Inductive

differ the

from

all schools

in

denying that
Inference is
true

the

or validity consistencyof

from

discover

material
now

truth.
some

It

that,
under their Read of of

formally,all writers on these two provinces

Deduction, and
treatment
assumes

Logic
of

make and

distinction
of
; but

between

Logic,
under

treat

the

one

the

other

Induction
assume,
as

throughout
Carveth the

of in

Deduction,
the
passage

they
above

Prof.

quoted, that
accumulation
or

Universal

Deduction material

is

formed
; and

by the

examination

instances

throughout

their treatment

of Induction

332

NEW

LOGIC

that material fact is discovered to show they constantlyendeavour of the syllogism the Inductive syllogism as some by the use of them of Logic known call it. In no book is the to me
"

distinction maintained
It

between

Inferential

throughout, or
that Modern

reasoning and Material fullyappreciated. Logic shifts the ground

'

reasoning
and little,

is true

the Universal of Deduction, not as an enumerative, but interprets as are a generic proposition. By this interpretation, All men mortal
to
a
'

means

not

'

Every

man

has
to

been

examined
'

with

respect

his

mortality, and
* '

found
our

be

mortal,' but
of man.'

Mortality is
is
or

qualityinseparable from

notion instead into

us
'

This

merely
rather,
:

taking mortal
it is does
not

in connotation

of in denotation, connotation the dilemma. then when of

merely insertingmortal
in the least extricate

the

man

and
'

from

If

'

mortal that

is part of the
Socrates and
to

connotation it has
out

of

man,'

it is said

is

man

already been

said

that Socrates

is mortal

that

an formally is merely explicating implication is already there, not to the proceeding from the known

bring this

unknown. If the

Universal

of Deductive contained

Logic is obtained
under If

by
as

enumera

tion

of all the

instances these

it,it is obtained
a

from

experience of
quality of the

instances.

it is obtained,

generic

Universal, by the discovery that

the

predicate is
have been

an

inseparable gained from

subject, this

also

must

are we importing experience into a experience. In either case in which it has no place, is irrelevant and region of argument misleading. The function of the syllogism is not to bring us into

of the implications experience,but to explicate one in a Compound contained Proposition. If an implication stares in the face, a formal syllogism is not needed, though many us
contact

with

inferences syllogistic
obvious
means

are

of this character
in

but

few be

of the

less

implicationscontained
of of the later

postulates can
and

extracted is the it

by
sole

figures of
with much

the

syllogism. This
this function

function

reasoning ; syllogistic

performs,

clumsily, it is true;
with but is
an

expenditureof labour out does perform stillthe syllogism

I
am

creaking, joltingand rattling; of all proportion to the result ;

a

certain

small

function

that

occasionally useful.

not

among
;

those, therefore, who

but
I

rejectthe syllogismas utterly worthless it has the following defects ;

" "

acknowledge that

CHAPTER

XXI

THE

CONDITIONAL

PROPOSITION

AND

ITS

IMPLICATIONS

THE purpose first

second

Canon

of any

Inference

allows
we

us

to

assume,

for

the

of argument,
of any
may

postulate
that
we

please.
assume

It
or

follows, by the
grant
under
a

Canon under

Explication,
condition
be
we

may

postu
which

late
a

please.
or

The

conditions
are

postulate
cannot

granted

assumed

virtually infinite,
classes
may be

and

be

enumerated;

but

certain

main

indicated.
1.

The
or

condition

under
may

which
have

postulate
any

is of

granted

may

be

general
may
stances

specific, and
it that A is

degree
A

specificity. We
some

take

generally B,
state

or

that

is under

circum

B,

or

we

may

the

circumstances
is
:

with

any

degree of
:

minuteness Pneumonia

of

particularity.
some cases

Pneumonia

generally dangerous
when

is in

dangerous

Pneumonia

it is

septic is dangerous.
2.

The

condition
I will
come

may
:

be
am

single
not

or

multiple.
and

If

am

not

detained,
am

if I

detained,

it is fine, and
I will
to
come.

well
3.

enough

to

travel,
may neither.
:

and

nothing
to man,

intervenes,

The

condition
or

attach
A A
: man

the

Subject,

or

the

Object,
to

or

to

both,
with

to
a woman

if he

is young,
to

is prone in
love
are

fall
a

in
woman

love

is

prone

fall
are

with prone
if it

if she fall in love

is attractive with
women, nests.

Men,
if

when
are

they

young,
:

to

they

attractive

Birds,

is

spring time, build

4.

The
or

conditions

under

which

postulate
classed,
are

is

granted
:

may

be

positive
if not 5.

negative.
classed,
condition
are

Ships, if well dangerous

insurable

Ships,

well The

risks.
an

may if

qualify either
is pure,

affirmative
:

or

negative
if

postulate.
contaminated,
6.

Milk,

it

is

wholesome

Milk,

it

is

is not

wholesome.
may

The

condition
text

be

sole
to

or

alternative. alternative

Much condition

space
;

is I
no

given in
do
not

books
any

of

Logic
of

the sole

but

find

mention

the

condition,

though

it

is

by

THE

DISJUNCTIVE
or

PROPOSITION

335

means

unknown

tive but

condition, it
it is
to

Like the alterna unimportant in argument. in a single proposition, be fullystated cannot in form
to

less

complicated
it is

than

the

alternative
an

condi

tion,
The It

which

allied, and

which

it is

appropriate
condition.
no

introduction.
sole condition

is in fact,paradoxically, a double
a

states

that

under

certain

condition, and

under

other
him
"

only way to make condition, is the postulate granted. The conditions includes two pay is to get judgement against him,
you

If

do

not

get judgement
The work

against him,
to

he

will is to

not

pay:

if you
"

do, he will.
you you

only
hard

way you

be will

successful
not

work
:

hard if you

If

do will. This

not

be

successful

do,

example
is it is

of
a

condition

that

is
to

though apparently single,

the alternative

reallydouble,
or,
as a

useful

introduction

condition,
purports
to

which called,the Disjunctiveproposition, in fact contains

be may

but single postulate,

three, and necessarily

is to six propositions : that ambiguously contain say, two of three propositionseach. undistinguishablealternatives, is called the The alternative condition is expressed by what Either and is characterised Disjunctiveproposition, by the words
*
"

or.'

and in

propositionso constituted is,however, approximate construction, and does not express

mind
'

The

an

abbreviated the full

sense

the

of

the

utterer. B
or

For

this

reason,

the

Disjunctive
of secular

proposition, A
controversy,
be
as

is either
to
mean

C,' has been

the may On

subject
be
one

whether
'

it

implies
be

'

and

both,' or should
side
are

accepted
names

to

and

cannot

both.'

the
and

great

of and
on

Whately,
the other

Mansel,
are

Mill, Jevons, Venn,

Keynes
Fowler. such

the

equally great
Bain,
interfere
set to

names

of Kant, and of

Hamilton,

Thomson,
I feel it

Bode,

Ueberweg,
of
me

Bradley,
in
a

presumptuous

battle

giants; but it appears to me that one been looking at one side of the shield, and that both are so right and both are wrong.
The

of

antagonists has
at the

the other

other

peculiar character, and embodies half-a-dozen propositionsin what is ostensibly really one, each of is though reallytwo, propositions, which compounded of
three others.
'

Disjunctive proposition is

of very

is either

or

'

may

mean

rand A
is

if it is B, is not
-r ","/-" if it is C,

C
^

either

or

C{

land j

is

not

-D

B.

336
In may

NEW be both

LOGIC
B and C. But

this case,
be

cannot

the

meaning

rand
_

if it is not
,

B, is C
~
.

is

either B

or

C]

land

if it

.r

.,

is

not

C,

is

^ B.

In

this case,

may

be both
sets
'

B of

and

C.

It is clear that the two

propositionsare
or me we

inconsistent with
'

each

other.

It is clear that

is either B

cannot

have

both that

meanings simultaneously.
have either of the it may this case, as to it. In

But

it seems

to

equally clear
choose

two

meanings that
the
case

to ascribe

in

of 'some,'
to

logicians have
an

attempted
which

to

fix

a arbitrarily single meaning

expression
to

is in its nature declaration

no

ambiguous.

The

meaning is not
or

be

fixed

by

any

of

logiciansthat it is this
their decrees; and

that. still less

Logicians
are

have

power

to

enforce when

their

decrees The

enforceable
way
to

they are,
meaning

as

in

this case,

contradictory.
use

only

fix the

of the

phrase
be

in

is to indi
to it ; and

cate, when this

'

it is used, which

meaning is to
J '

attached

can

easily be
or

is either B
be

the by affixing (and may be both) :

done

necessary A

qualification
or

is either B

(and

cannot

both).'
however authority, of the

Although
tive for
are

high, could

not,
read

even

if it

were

unanimous, fix which

It

meanings is to be
the B
If and

into the
the

Disjunc meaning

the subject-matter may proposition,

us.

determine
C of the

depends
or

upon

whether

compatible
be both
C. B and

incompatible.
and
C.

cannot

If that

they are
a man

proposition incompatible, A they are compatible, A may be both

or

B
we

If it is said

is either honest

dishonest,
are

know

he

cannot

be

both, for honesty and

or

dishonesty
fool,we

: incompatible

if it is said that he is either knave

know Such

he

may

be
or

both, for knavery and

fixations of the
not

folly are

compatible.

extensions
may
not
or

may

be

meaning of Disjunctivepropositions legitimatein logic, according as we are or are

the connotation
are

entitled to take of the

saw

into consideration
we
'

and
to

denota

tion
*

words
do

use.

If
was
'

w7e

not

entitled

infer,from
we
'

He

her

to it,'

He

there when is either

are

she did it,' then

or

are

not
'

entitled to infer from

cannot

He

honest

dishonest
the

that

He

be both.'
case,

If

we

permitted

to make

assumption
first

in the second of the

because

of

our are

knowledge of the subject-matter permitted

to

equally we postulate,

make

it in the

DISJUNCTIVE
case.

PROPOSITIONS

337
is insisted
to

If the with be

Formal

nature
we

of Deduction
are

upon, that

and he the

applied
cannot

rigour, then
honest and

not

entitled
we

infer

both

dishonest, until

have

assumed

postulate that honesty and dishonesty are incompatible. is of the alternatives Unless the compatibility or incompatibility postulatedor known, the Disjunctivepropositionremains ambigu
ous,

further

and

we

are

left in the

dark, with all

our

from authorities,

Kant

and

Keynes and Fowler. There is a cognate problem that may leave this part of the subject. A, if it Whately
to
'

be is not

examined

before
not

we

B, is

'

Aye,

but

may

it not

be

both

Of

course

it may,

but

it would

be ultra

it is or The not. postulate gives us speculate whether happens if A is B ; and to guess what might nothing of what other than it is,is ultra vires and happen if the postulatewere would to speculatewhat extra-logical.So, too, is it extra-logical if the postulatewere other than it is. be the case not but to conditionality, 7. Logicians give a good deal of attention vires to

by them to the restriction or denial, in denial the postulate,of conditionality. Such restriction or is, of however, not infrequent in practice. Since, for the purpose postulate postulate what we please,we may argument, we may is that our without condition, or without postulate any specific
I do
not

find any

reference

any

condition

at

all.

'

Whether
the

I
state

am

ill

or

well,
events.

I
'

will go Whatever
*

'

excludes

on conditionality

of my

health.

happens,
case,

will go
'

'

excludes all

on conditionality

In

any

conditionality. that we here the with It is evident are brought into contact has much apodeictic proposition. It is unconditionallytrue the same It is certainly be true.' It must true meaning as A good many distinctions have been made by logiciansamong the divided into Disjunctive propositions. They have been Conditional, the Hypothetical, the Inferential Disjunctive,the Contingent Disjunctive,the Divisional Disjunctive,and so on.
' ' ' ' '
'

I will go

excludes

'

"

Those in the

who

are

interested

in them

will find these matters

discussed

largertext books, where they will find also that different allocate these names the different kinds logicians differently among of Disjunctives. The divisions are not important enough to
discuss The here. well
as

Consequent, as proposition may vary

N.L.

the

Condition,
It
may

of

Conditional

without

limit.

be

general
z

or

338
sole specific, in its terms.
or

NEW

LOGIC

positiveor negative,and multiple,

In any

of any

quantity
may
more more

fact, any
condition
more

form

of

postulate whatever

be

granted
numerous

under and

whatever.

It is clear that the

the

comprehensive the conditions, the

and vice
l

limited

is the
'

postulate;

versa.
'

It will do

if it is

strong

It will do if it is strong postulate less than if it is I will come and elegant,and cheap.' enough, and light, if it is fine gives us a less restricted postulate than I will come

enough
'

restricts the

'

'

fine,and

if I get my

work

done

in

time, and if I

am

not

prevented.'

THE A

IMPLICATIONS

OF

CONDITIONAL

PROPOSITIONS.

Conditional

proposition contains
each

two

or

more

complete

propositions ; and
that that
we are

of

these
to

contains

all

the

implications
Any
of these

have

already found

reside in of

Simple

and propositions,

explicableby the

Canons

Explication.

implications may be substituted, in either or both the constituent altering the meaning ot propositionsof the Conditional, without
the whole. is not
or
'

If trees

are

pruned, skilfully

their crop

is increased

'

altered

in

in either meaning by substitutingthe reciprocal, It is stilltrue in the form in

'

both

constituents.

If skilful

pruning
is the

is

applied to trees, increase

'

is

produced

their

crop,' nor
'

Conditional

If

men

are

honest, they pay

their debts
'

altered in
are

meaning right, I

by substituting the double

not
'

negatives If
debts.'
sense
*

men

not

dishonest, they do
am

wrong
terms
'

their fail to pay is not altered in writers of

If

are logicians

equivalent
correct, the

If the

text

by substitutingthe books on Logic are

Such been

author
course,

of this book

is mistaken.' has

implications
said
of

follow, of

from

what

already

the

of from the Canons implications of Simple propositions,and Explication. But in addition to these, the Conditional proposition

has, by virtue of its constitution, an

be found
in In books

additional

not implication,

to

Simple propositions. on Logic, it is laid down

from
a

that, in order
and

to

deduce
must

conclusion

Conditional

proposition,the
:

Antecedent
no or

be affirmed, or
can

be

Consequent denied reached, either by denying the

These rules
are reason

the

that

conclusion

Antecedent down
;

by affirming
as

the
have

Consequent.
been

laid

but,
the

far

as

able to ascertain,no

is

given for either of them,

of

except that it is understood

that

the

nature

Conditional

IMPLICATIONS

OF

THE

HYPOTHETICAL

339

applicable. It is not, I think, pretended of Thought, which advanced the Laws as are the only approximation to a of all Inference the Canons ; and is that it is recognised,somehow, that is given for them reason the antecedent is denied, is not justifiable when that a conclusion the consequent affirmed or simply ; while, in the opposite case, a Good conclusion is legitimate. and sufficient reasons may, however, propositionrenders that they rest upon
be found The in the Canons
or,

them

of Inference
as

here it

inculcated.

Antecedent,
not

think because

ought
us

to

be

called, the

Condition, may
and the third the

be

denied,
of of the

it is part of the
to

postulate;
the

Canon
course

Inference

forbids

withdraw

postulatein
not

argument.

The the

be affirmed
a

because unconditionally,
; and
to
assume

Consequent may postulate grants it

this

under

condition of the

it without

condition
us

is

violation

fourth the the

Canon,

which
So

forbids

to

assume

anything that is not in is amply justified by

obtained
from
to

postulate.
Canons of
"

far, the

negative
and
cannot

rule

Inference,
at any

be
of
no

the

Laws it from

of

Thought
text
to

rate, I know

attempt
It is affirm

obtain

them.

said,further, in
the
Antecedent

the and

books, that

we

are

at

libertyto

These, deny the Consequent. vires ultra however, are beyond our powers. They are altogether of Inference, for they go beyond the postulate,and violate the the postulategrants is that If A is B, it is C. fourth Canon. What There is nothing in this postulate to warrant the denial of the Consequent. The postulate does not deny that A is C. On the contrary, it affirms
is

that under

certain

condition C

is C. B.

Yet

it

clear that if A is not sufficiently in conformity with process of explication, is this conclusion under the fifth its reached ? It is

it is not
Canon

By what justifiably,

what

of Inference,

reached, validlyand
that
when
a

Canon,

which

states

postulate is

granted,all

granted. The inference that, if A is not C it is not B, is an implication of the postulate,and is allowed of Explication, which that by the third Canon says We be denied. everything inconsistent with the postulate may have found one meaning of this to be that a postulateimpliesall its double If A is B it is C negatives. Hence implies that if A is not C it is not B. But it is most and especially particularly be that noted this to implicationdoes not deny the Consequent. There is not, in the postulate, of the for the denial warrant any
are implications
' '

340

NEW

LOGIC

Consequent. and to deny

stated
are

The

Consequent
be
us
*

is part of

an

affirmative
the

postulate,
Canon of

it would

violation

of the

fourth

Inference, which
in the

forbids

to go

beyond
C

postulate. What
B,' and
does all that
we

is

implication If warranted by the Canons

C, but that // A is
A and

is not

it is not
in

of Inference
not

is not inferring,
not

that hold

is not

C,

the

condition
a

good,
every

is not

B.

The

postulatebeing
must

conditional

implicationit contains
A

also be conditional.
if it is B
a

postulate, To deny

that

is C,

on

the

ground that
To

it is C, is
must
so

manifestlyand drag in
we a new

grosslyfallacious. postulatein
Canon
assume

make
of the

such

denial, we
of the

the

course

argument, and
course

violate

the fourth
may

of Inference. the
assume

If,in the
A is not

argument,
same

postulate that
that A
to

is not and
so

C, by the
reduce the

authoritywe

may and

B,

postulateto nullity,
Antecedent,
and

the

argument
text

The the

books

absurdity. give us licence

from the

to

affirm

the

stock
"

argument

Conditional

propositionis

thus

given :

If A But
" . .

is B, it is C.
A

is B.

is C.

at extra-logical ; or least,it is outside the logic of Inference from a single postulate, with which concerned. The postulategives that if A we are now
course

Why,

of

it is, but

the

conclusion

is

is B,
and

certain

therefore

consequences the consequences

to

follow.

But,

you

say, No

reallydo follow.
you
must
assume

reallyis B, doubt they postulate,

is all that
I

do, but in

order

get them

another

beyond
you

and
to

in addition go upon

have

which original postulate, in the Conditional proposition.

to your

give

you and

that if A therefore

is B, it is C ; and

you

tell

me

that

is B, really

I thank assertion for nothing. Your reallyis C. you is impertinent. It gives me in explicatingthe assistance no If A I have the postulate, implicationsof the postulate. When

is B,

it is C, the
in
a

assurance

that

really is

carries
I

me

no

forwarder introduces character

must

extracting the
new

implicationsof
It

what
very

have.

It

element.

destroys that
all my of

conditional
from

of the

propositionon
purpose

which

inferences

it

depend. For the the postulate,it is mere

deducing the

implications of
For

surplusage, and

is irrelevant.

the

IV BOOK

ANALOGY,

"c.

CHAPTER

XXII

ANALOGY

ANALOGY

was

defined
:

by
this

Aristotle
uses sense

as

lo-or-qs\oyav
and
to

"

com as

parison

of

Ratios
terms

Euclid
to

Analogy
I propose

Proportion
restore

convertible

; and

the in

term

Analogy, which by logicians.

more

has Mill in

been
'

sadlyperverted and
There is
no

extended

meaning
is used but

says
a

word, however, which

senses,

or loosely,

greater variety of

than
use, he

Analogy,'

instead of
lent the

and restoringit to its original

proper

unfortunately
of of
on

great
to

weight

of

Analogy
unassured

denominate

authority to the employment modes Induction, especially those

his been described this in the

Induction

that have
I

chapter
a

that subject in this book. term, which

regard
a

misapplicationof
and restricted years, from
as

useful

already by
the usage

had of

definite

meaning, regrettable.
Induction
domain of is its
;

sanctioned

two

thousand

Analogy
and

is

reasoning
; and

process
a

quite distinct
of At the

both
a

Deduction

has
to

range

application,and
present

usefulness, peculiar

itself.

time, Analogy
Inference Induction
any

sometimes, used, in the writings of logicians,

though rarely,in
to
mean

original and
sometimes

proper
to
mean

meaning
in
two

sometimes

Induction, especiallyImperfect
sometimes any
a

of kind

low

validity ;

and

slipshod way, things. already

or more

to

mean

of resemblance The
use

between sanctioned each

true

by

Mill in

has
one

been

quoted.
;
a

'

Two

things

resemble

other

respects
of

certain
other.'

proposition is
It is clear Aristotle that and

of the

one,

therefore

it is true of

the
to

this

is

not

that

comparison
and
to

ratios

which been

Euclid

applied the term, comparison,

whole of
not

which
sense

it has

applied ever
terms

since their time.

is the
two

Understood

in the of two

sanctioned of two

by Mill, Analogy
; or

ratios,but

rather, of
with
is
no one

propositions,element homologous
or

beginning
proper,

pair
not

terms.

by element, In Analogy
terms

there

assimilation

comparison
to

of the how

of the
or

sub-relations.

It does

matter
are.

Analogy

dissimilar
of

incomparable these

terms

The

comparison is

and ratios,

346
of

NEW
'

LOGIC
is not

ratios alone.
are

'

is like B
'

an

Analogy,
B

for what

are

compared
C
'

terms.
an

The and

ratio of A
is the
an

to

is like the
true
are

ratio ot

to

'

is

Analogy,
'

Smith

is like Brown 'The

of Brown but

is not

only form of Analogy, for what

to

Analogy. compared
is like the

are

terms.

devotion

of
'

Smith is
an

his business
; for this

devotion is not
not

to his wife

Analogy

comparison
terms
are or

of terms,

of

relations is
no

between

terms.

The with

compared.
Smith's

There

comparison of Smith
Brown's
to

Brown,
relation
are

of

business

with

wife.

The

comparison
the wife

is
of

between
Brown

the relation of Smith

to

his

business,and
and Brown's

his wife.
nor

Smith's

business

neither
are are

compared
alike
or

Smith and comparable; and whether not, has nothing to do with the analogy.

Brown
All

that

compared are the ratios. An Analogy is stated in

of two the
The
terms

proposition; by
a

and

propositionconsists
The
of peculiarity

united

in

relation

Ratio.

Analogicalpropositionis that its terms are themselves relations. abstract or generalised form representing all relations has
been
t '

hitherto

A is B it may be expressed in the form ; but In expressed more correctlyin the more generalised form A : B. the Analogical proposition,each of the terms of this relation is

itself
it
c a : :

relation.

b ; and

Subject-term, A, is a relation : let us call the Object-term, B, also is a relation : let us call it
the whole
:

The

d.

Then
or
a :

analogical proposition becomes

But

(c : d) ;
We is the

: : c

d.

this is the
means

expression of
when he says

(a : b) : proportion.

see, therefore,what
same as

Euclid

that

Analogy
of

Proportion.
as as

Analogy
sub-relations

is

indifferent to Inference
statement

the

nature

of the
to

terms

its its

is indifferent
is itself a

the

truth

of

postulates.(The
The
nature

good example of Analogy.)

Analogy is not altered,and its truth is not altered, of its terms, so long as the proportion by altering the nature is maintained. them between Analogy is still Analogy, whether concrete its terms or abstract,whether they, or either of them, are
of
are
'

persons,

The

or numbers, or what not. things,or qualities, relation of a parson to his parishionersis like the relation or

of

shepherd
and
an
'

to his flock

'

is

an

Analogy.

'

The

relation between
colour and

resistance surface is

extension

is like the
*

relation

between

Analogy.

The

relation between

the

angles

at

the
'

base of

an

isosceles

is like triangle

the relation between

the sides

NATURE

OF

ANALOGY

347
and four is like the

is

an

Analogy.
between

'

The

relation twelve and

'

between is
an

two

relation

six and
an

of relations relations. We A
/7 T =

is

Analogy,
that be

every

Analogy. Analogy

Every comparison
is
a

comparison
the
same

of

have

seen

Analogy

and
:

Proportion are
b
: :

thing.

proportion may
f*

expressed a
discover

d, or

it may

be

expressed
is
of

-j ;
ct

and

thus

we

that
an

the

equation

of fractions

Analogy, and an analogy.

We have

the statement

of such

equation
warrant

is the

assertion

already

seen

that

our

for

arguing

from

is

of Explication, which allows us to given by the third Minor Canon replaceany term in a propositionby its equivalent. But this Canon
us no

will afford
nor can

warrant

for

arguing that

if

b,
if

then from
we

a3 the

b3 ; Laws

any

warrant
or

for this conclusion Dictum

we

be extracted But

of

Thought
of
an

the

de omni
see

et nullo.
once

realise the is

nature

Analogy,
it is
to

at

that
is
a

the

conclusion
of

and why justified, and is indifferent

justified.Analogy
the
nature

comparison
In

ratios,

of

its terms.
to

quantitative
the this the

therefore,it reasonings,
and

is indifferent

the

of quantities them. In with

terms,
case,

regards nothing but the ratios the ratio of equalitybetween and a a3 and b3 ; and though the between
at
once

between b is
terms

compared
have
been them
a

ratio

altered, it is
has
not

recognised
Hence,
a3 and
the b3.

that

the

ratio

between between
a

been

altered. between

whatever The

ratio existed
ratio between b3 is

and
one

b will exist of

and
one

b is of

therefore
case,

ratio between New

a3 and

equality; equality. In this

again, the
and of

of

mathematical
seems

Logic here propounded offers an explanation Traditional reasoning, which Logic does not
to

attempt,
divorce

Mathematical

regard as outside reasoning from

of

its

province. The
appears
to
me

Logic

If Logic purports to discover, describe, and illogical. explain of reasoning, it must modes of reasoning about modes include confess its inadequacy. Logic assumes that quantitative or quantity, from reasonings are so different in nature qualitativereasonings, that
no

the
account

science

and

art

which In

of the

former.

comprise the latter to this, Logic appears

need
me

take
to

be

348

NEW

LOGIC include

profoundlymistaken.
sense

Logic does
teach

not

mathematics, in the

that

Logic

traction,and
mathematical

by what
and

modes

operations of addition and sub of the solution of equations ; but Logic does include that Logic is bound to show reasoning,in the sense of reasoning mathematics conducts its operations
Mathematical
art
are reasonings reason

need

the

reaches

its conclusions. science and

ings,and
kind
on

the

and

of variety

reasoning should include reasoning. The subject will be resumed explained that
of
a a

of

every

later

in this It has

chapter. proposition expresses

formed
or

alreadybeen
or

the

formation relation is
a

establishment

relation. The

established

differently expressed. The

may
a new

established into
a new

relation becomes

term,

which

enter,

as

term,
'

relation,and
'

be the

expressed in
establishment established
*

proposition.
a

Chalk

is white
and

expresses

of

relation is
'

between

chalk
*

whiteness. of

The chalk.'
:

relation

expressed by
the

the

whiteness of
a

Brutus

killed Caesar thus

'

expresses

formation

relation

the

relation
Brutus.'

formed
Some
'

is

men

expressed by 'The killingof Caesar by the formation are vegetarians expresses

'

of the relation

the

of vegetarianism

some

men.'

Analogy is the comparison of relations. It is the comparison, It formed relations. of relations, but of fully not of the formation
is the
are

comparison of relations,not
It expresses

in the
of
same

making, but after they

a

made.

the

formation of the

relation kind.

between
But

the

results of Induction all orders

two

previous processes
and and
"

whereas of
but

Deduction of every

attain the

establishment

of relations

kind, Analogy is capable of forming

its

relations

and equality

opposite, unlikeness; of which derivatives. are identityand non-identity, inequality,

likeness, and
of relations of likeness
and

The base

formation of all

unlikeness

is at

the

the whole

reasoning. In Induction, the first step, depends, is the discovery of a Datum process
of likeness between element in
some an

upon

which is to

; that

say, the discernment and

an

element

in the Problem, from

homologous

propositionderived

; previousexperience. The next step isthe establishment of identity of the second element the between of complete likeness, that is, third in the premiss. The Problem and its homologous element

step is the assimilation

of the third element

one

in the

premiss to
term,

the is

quaesitum.

In

Inference, if

or proposition,

ratio,or
; the

in another or implied to, or included in, equivalent

equivalence,

350 would
were a

NEW

LOGIC maintain that

requiresome
not

hardihood of

to

these discoveries
attained

instances

process

not reasoning. If they were of reasoning, how were they attained ?

Induction then
name

and

Deduction

are

the

sole

processes
must

of

by If, indeed, reasoning,

other
names

the

insight of Oken
then
no

and
a

Goethe
matter

receive
and

some

; but

it will be

of

words,
But

of
we

and
to

I will be

judge
of

of

such

matters.

unless

choose

meaning reasoning arbitrarily, according to the I know how such not preconceptions and prejudices of logicians, these are exercises of high intelligence from to be excluded as reasoning. If there are any who say that these of reasoning, but of imagination ; then I shall
definition of When
are

limit the

not instances,

be

glad to have

imagination that shall exclude

a a

reasoning.
to

it is said that the relation of

parson

his

parishioners

is like the relation of

shepherd

to

his
as

blown,

and
:
"

completely expressed ;

analogy is full it is also in the following

flock,the

examples

The
As

horsemen deer

dashed

among

the rout, broom.

break

through the
like
man a

It is not In

growing
doth make

tree, better be.

bulk

From

rainbow
so

clouds
see,

there

flow not

Drops
As

bright to thy
a

from

presence

showers

rain of

melody.

But

more

often

analogy is left to called an enthymeme,

omitted, and
intransitive verb The
In this

part, sometimes be understood, just

one or

very in

as,

large part, of the what is erroneously

both
"

left to be understood

premisses of an Inference are just as the Object-term of an

is left to be understood. down

of like
a

Assyrian came

wolf

on

the fold. the Ratio

'

analogy, the Object-term

are

one

relation,and
The
a

of

the

other,
'

left to down is
as

be

understood.

full

analogy is
on

The

Assyrian
fold.'

came

(on Israel)like
'

wolf

(comes down)

the

He
one

Object of
the haunts

slug (is slow) leaves both Ratio and relation unexpressed. Ghost-like, I paced round
slow
as a
*

of my

childhood

'

compresses

the whole

of

one

of the

EXAMPLES

OF

ANALOGY
the mark of

351 assimilation

constituent
characteristic On and
so

relations, together with

of

Analogy,
that

into

singleword. compared
pages, thus
an a

the

other

hand, the relations

a

may

be

so

numerous,

complex,
in their

page,

many and the Hind

whole

book, may
is

be

occupied
into
a

expression;
as allegory,

parable or
the Tale is that

in

expanded Pilgrim's Progress, the Holy

and the

analogy

War,

of

Tub,

the

Panther, "c.
called
are course a

An

analogy
while
called with nation
an a

completely expressed is
several

sometimes

Simile,

analogy from which Metaphor. The same

degree
the of fulness. of in relation
*

elements
may

analogy
'

of

dropped out is be expressed

stands
to
a

any

The brain

Government
to

the

the

the

body
'

'

is

fully
'

expressed analogy. is a metaphor ; and

'the
even a

The The

Government brain of the

is the brain nation

as a

of the nation
synonym

for
is not

Government' full

is

metaphorical expression which Analogy

relations

As makes he is

metaphor. already stated,

no as

pure

compares of the

only, and
If I say
to
as

comparison of the terms slow as a slug, I compare

of the

sub-relations.
motion

nothing but his

motions

the
to

motion their

slug ;

and

even

the

I compare

only

of their direction,continuity, rapidity. I take no account other qualities. In drawing the analogy, I make no or comparison him and a slug. I do not liken him between to a slug in shape, in
absence of

limbs, in sliminess,
but
as a a

or

in

the

possession of
But in is

horns.

compare

nothing
is seldom

pair of simple relations.

pure
as

literature,
of

Analogy literary Analogy,

When
he fold,'

this.

There
of

nearly always, in only

a

covert

suggestion
terms

likeness,not
the down but of like the
two

the

relations,but of the homologous

of

relations also.
wolf
on

Byron
does
; but

'

says

The

Assyrian

came

the

formally compare
cover an

nothing
of the

relations of

action
to

under

of this assimilation

Ratios, he contrives
to

sneak

in them

assimilation
some

Assyrians

wolves, and
remorselessness

so

invests of the
gangrene

with
'

of the

ravenousness

and

wolf.

Protestantism members
to

will end of

by destroying the nation,

the human

as

destroys the
is
not to

body.'

Here action

the of

intention

only
the

compare

the action

destructive of gangrene, with is

Protestantism
cover

destructive
to

but, under
some

of this and

comparison,

invest Protestantism
with
a

of the In

horror

loathesomeness

which

gangrene

regarded.
in
some

describing the

stillness of

child, holding its breath

352

NEW rather say is the

LOGIC it is
'

hiding
'as

game,
as

we

should
It

as

still as

'

mouse

than

still

death.'
and

stillness
of

alone
'

that

is

formally
'

emphasis, as still as death is the stronger and more find it appropriate expression; but we difficult to avoid a comparison of the terms also ; and though, speaking, it has nothing to do with the analogy,we feel it strictly more appropriate,as some comparison of the terms will be made,
purpose

compared,

for the

whether

we

like it or
mouse. a

no,

to
we

let the harmless wanted

to
'

the harmless stillness of

we

If

to

snake

about select

strike,or
still
as

compared to find a comparison for the a tiger about to spring,

death,' because
as

child be

should

rather

as

of
as

this

well-nighunavoidable
ratios.
It

comparison of the terms,

of

well

of the

qualitativerelations only that this and in this region the habit also exists, habit of comparing the terms If I say You slow as a slug,' You is inveterate. him are as serve as a as as faithfully dog,' You are as illogical a logician,' my
' ' '

is in the

comparison

interlocutor demand he should

'

would
you

be
say

apt
I
am

to
a

turn

upon
'

me

with

and indignation,
a a

Do do

slug ?
'

'Is you my

thy
take

servant
me

this great

thing?
were

'

Do
not

for

dog, that ? logician

'

Patience, my
not
a

friend ; those

assertions.
a

compared,
you
to

you

to

snail,but

your

motion

to that of
a

snail ; not

dog, but

your

faithfulness

to that of

to that of a but your illogicality the terms but the relations. not

dog ; not you to a logician, logician. I compared, in short, My explanation is

not to likely

however. My interlocutor will still have his give satisfaction, grievance ; for the habit of importing into the comparison of also, is, with relations, a comparison of their constituent terms inveterate. ratios, qualitative This

importation
or

or

inclusion
merge

of

the

terms

into

the

com

parison does
or

not, however,

Analogy into either Induction

to

Deduction,
even

approximate it
it is not like
a

them. When the wolf. of

It remains

distinct
the

process

when down of the

pure.

it is said

that
a

Assyrian came
assimilation
some

wolf
to

on

fold, there
He

is

certain with these

Assyrian
and

the

is invested

of

the

ravening

ruthlessness

the

wolf; but

attributed to the Assyrian by no process of reasoning. are qualities Their implied in the possessionby the Assyrianis not necessarily

analogy ; neither is it given as the solution of merely hinted at. It is suggested. It is sneaked

problem. It is in. It partakes

QUANTITATIVE
of the
nature

ANALOGY

353
not

of

an

assertion, though

it does

attain

to

the

of an actual assertion. As far as it goes, however, it positiveness is merely assertory, and not argumentative. The reasoning is at an end when the relations have been compared ; and process is surplusage. any comparison of the terms to Applied to qualitative relations, Analogy belongs more than It gives to Rhetoric to statement a emphasis, Logic. often intelligibility, that it and impressiveness,picturesqueness, otherwise be given in no other way. would not have, and that can it is especially Hence frequent and valuable in poetry, for it adds assertion a powerful reinforcement. Her feet appeared to mere her petticoat is a dry statement of fact. and disappeared beneath her petticoat, feet beneath like littlemice stole in and out Her raises the dry statement of fact into poetry. He argued forcibly is a statement of fact that we accept without being impressed may is immensely more He argued with sledge-hammer force by it. bullets fell thickly is far less impressivethan impressive. The
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

The But

bullets

fell like hail.'

than relations is of more use comparison of qualitative It merely to add picturesqueness and emphasis to a statement. has a very to high value in explanation. By assimilatingthem what is familiar,it enables to us appreciate and comprehend relations

that

are

unfamiliar,and

that Used of

we

should

find it difficult to way, Few of the

appreciate without
received electrics

Analogy.
name
"

in

this

Analogy
novices

has in

yet another
are

that

Illustration.
of the

able of

to grasp

the

meaning
in

passage of

electricity
difference

along
between of the

wire,

its storage and in

accumulators,

amperage

flow of

water

voltage,without help from the illustration in cisterns, and the pipes,its accumulation
and
a

difference of origin

between all animals

volume
from

pressure.

The

apprehension of

the

form, by variation in innumerable single determined directions, by the competition for food, "c., is greatly assisted of a tree, ramifying in by the analogy of the branches innumerable determined that are directions, by the competition
for

light.
vast

The

majority of
of

words
or

have

been

put
in
a

to their
nearer

present
or

uses

by
ense.

the

agency

analogy
of

metaphor
in

remoter

But
to

the great value

Analogy
when

quantitativeratios
N.L.

; and

reasoning is in its application it ratios, applied to quantitative

A

354
is

NEW includes

LOGIC of that assimilation have

seen

always

pure.

It

never

any
we

of the

terms

compared ratios we qualitative analogy. When

seven never

of the

that

to

be

the rule in
to six with

compare and

the ratio of two declare

the

the ratio of
or or

to

twenty-one,

ratios to be alike

equal, we

take it that this declaration

to
seven or

carries any
We

similarity
compare

equalityof

two

of six to twenty-one.
ends. So

the ratios

only,and

there the

comparison

far from

assimi

of mathematical latingthe terms, the whole validity analogy lies in keeping the comparison of ratios pure, and eschewing altogether any I of If then conclude terms. 6, a comparison by Analogy may
=

that a? has

the

same

ratio of

to equality
same

63 ; but it would ratio between of validity

terms.

vitiate the the terms,

argument
and

altogetherto predicatethe
a
=

to say that

a3

or

63. The
and

whole

the argument if Similarly,

lies in
a

the ratios assimilating

ignoring the

"b, then I intuitively perceive by Analogy that this ratio remains

unaltered

by
or

any

equivalentalteration of the
36.
The several
are

terms

; so

that 3^

is

still greater

than

steps in the solution of every

equation
nitions
terms

Euclidian

theorem

of the

equalityof ratios,in
which
been

analogies. They are spite of the alteration

recog of the

between

the ratios subsist.

Much how
or

ingenuity has
we

it is that

expended by logiciansin explaining parallelogram, apply to every triangle, instantly

about similar proved by Euclid any circle. The explanations given are

the conclusions circle,

triangle,parallelogram, or
various
; but

the

favourite

is that

the

transfer
on on

depends
fact essential

on

the the

essential conclusions
and
me

qualities of
that
on we

these

thus

figures,or transfer depend

the

that

qualities
seems

not to

accidental

qualities. The

explanation

to

these ask what essential we explain nothing. When to be distinguished from nonqualitiesare, and how they are essential qualities, non-plussed. It is the story of logiciansare the Uniformity of Nature over again. It is a verbal explanation that does
It
not

explain.
as

is not
Once

enough.
tion

difficult. It is simple explanation were the explana the nature of Analogy is appreciated,
if the you, and

jumps

at

hits shows

you

in

the

face.

What base

Euclid of
an an

demonstrates, when

he

that

the

angles

at the

triangle are isosceles^ analogy.

the
same

The
as

of ratios. It is equal, is a similarity is shown another ratio of the angles to one to

one

be

the ratio of the sides to

another

; and

the

reason

QUANTITATIVE
we

ANALOGY

355

immediately and intuitively accept this as true of every isosceles which it has been demonstrated, well as of the one on as triangle, of the terms, is that in quantitative analogieswe take no account
but look
to

the

ratios

alone.

The whatever

reason

that

we

accept
the

the

equalityof
whatever sides and

the

angles as true,

the

length of
that the

sides, or
the
are

the

size of the contained

angle,is
not enter

length of
No

the size of the

compared. They have in the length of the sides between them, so long as
alteration the in the the size base
as

angle do nothing to
of
an

into the ratios that the

case.

do with isosceles

alteration the

alters triangle

ratio

the

of the
to
one

angles at

isosceles. No triangle remains contained angle alters the ratio of another. Alteration of the length of alter their
no more or ratio,

the sides,so size of the ratios than

long
the

it does

not

alteration the The

of the

contained
birds

angle,have
and the of the

to do with

compared
sides and

blossoms

of

spring.

the
not

angles are

the

terms
are

ratios ; and

it is the

ratios, and

compared. are thing are Things equal to the same equal to one is an This another.' analogy. To say that two things are each equal to a third,is to state two relations of equality. To say that the two another, is to discern a ratio things are equal to one similar them between each between to that already discerned
'

the terms, that that

of

them
"

and
an

the

third.

The

whole

process this

is

an

assimilation has
to

of ratios been

Analogy.
an

It is true

that has

axiom

regarded as
Canons
to

Inference,and Inference,and

been be

shown

be

by
me

the
open

of

it may

allegedthat

that I have made charge of inconsistency predecessors. But there is no inconsistency. The axiom may my also be regarded as an Induction, without laying me to this open the axiom is in fact a comparison of ratios, and charge. That that the ratios are intuitively is indisputable perceived to be alike, ; therefore it is indisputable that its validity and rests on Analogy. this does not prevent us from But if we choose to do postulating, two things are each of them equal to a third. For the so, that of argument, we what postulate we purpose please; and when may this postulateis granted,we deduce from secundum it, artem, may the inference that,in that case, the thingsare equal to one another. And if any real A is equal to any real B, which, in its turn, is equal to a real C, the problem Is or is not this A equal to this C ? be solved by the method of Induction. may the
'
'

already provable this lays against

356 Analogy
discernment
true

NEW

LOGIC

has

been

defined

as

the

comparison
;

of

Ratios,
this

and

the is But

of their

likeness
with

or

unlikeness
to

and

definition

and

is

adequate
of this. than

respect

qualitative analogies. permits

ratios

the

comparison

quantitative
When the
or

Ratios

of
are

more

extended
we

reasoning than
often discern
go

quantitative
mere

unlike,

may and
not

further
in

discrimination
are

of

unlikeness,
We may
see

what
b

respect
or
-r

degree they
c :

unlike.

only
one

that Ratio

is unlike

dor-S
the
in 4

but

we

may and

discern is
and odds
cannot

that
mode

the of

is greater

or

less than

other,

this

reasoning
useful. another.
I

frequently
am

employed
odds of I to 5 to

mathematics,

extremely
n

offered

by
? of

one,

and I

of

to

by

Which

ought

choose

This

determine
not

except
that than
to

by they

Analogy.
are

Comparison
but

the Ratio

Ratios
of
n

shows
to

only

unequal,
4, and
at

that
are

the
the

8 is greater I

that

of 5 to if I bet

those

odds, therefore, that

car

ought

accept

all.

Which of which
shows

motor
12

has

the

best

chance

of 15

surmounting
cwt.,
or

the

hill, that
20

horse-power weighs
me

which
? of I
20

weighs
cannot to

this

of

h.

p.

28

cwt.

tell except is less than

on

by Analogy,
the

which
12

that

the
me

ratio
to

28

ratio

of

to

15, and

enables

fix my

choice

the The

car

of lower

power.

greater

part of

geometrical

and

algebraical reasoning,

and

large part of purely arithmetical

is manifest when it is avowed
in

reasoning, proceed
that
a

by Analogy,

as

large part
and
are

of mathematical

reasoning
Ratios.
The

consists
The

the

establishment
of
an

manipulation

of

demonstrations
sum

Euclid

successive

analogies. equation, reasoning

that

rule-of-three it deals with

is

analogy.
an

The

algebraic Analogical

when is
of

fractions, is

analogy.
it is
to
a

incalculable
not

importance
discovered,

; but

kind
no

of

reasoning logician
'

logicians have
any

and
do

which

makes

allusion
but

whatever.
in
;
a so

They speaking
pervert

indeed
are

speak of guilty of

reasoning

by

analogy,'

they
the
use

the
and

fallacy of
mean, not

equivocation
Analogy,
but

they

of

words,

totally different

process.

358
in

NEW
and

LOGIC

their

distinct origin,
of

separate

; and

that

we

reasoning we employ, But to so. although the three forms completely distinct and discriminable,it does
if we
do

the mode identify

take of

may the

always
trouble
are

reasoning
not

follow

that
On in
one

either need
the

be

employed alone
seldom

to

the exclusion
in

of the others.
or even

contrary, it very
for

happens
we

argument,

Mathematical
mode

computations, that long together.

than
a

adhere
we

exclusivelyto
pursue
an

Seldom

do

argument
every It is this mode

through
process

more

very

few

steps without
the confusion

employing
of

of

reasoning,and
of argument, with

alternatingthem
and
not

repeatedly.
one

alternation

of
I

argument
understand I
want

another, that constitutes

Method
as

Composite reasoning as
in
some

it,and
to

understood

Text

books.

know

the

nature

of

Light,

and

the

mode It

of
seeks

its
to

promulgation.
ascertain
a

This
"

is
"

Material

argument.
similar

Truth
"

Fact

and

consequently, my
case as

first task
as

is to find

premiss to find in experience a Unfortunately, there is nothing in Light is promulgated

I find in in

experience that
from

possible. is closely
a

similar. What
can

all directions

centre

plenty of
place
to

instances

experience that is at all similar ? I can in experience of things being transferred

arrow

find

from
a a

place
"

an

from

bow,

stone

from

the hand,
dust I in
can

bullet from

a so

gun,

leaves and
; and

lightobjects by the wind,

these
not

storm, and
form the

forth

from

very

similar data

and is projected in hypothesis that light is particulate, the luminous far Mediate So of particlesfrom streams body. into play. If light consists of Inference Induction comes : now off from thrown particles Canon of Explication, we

the luminous
may
to
"

body, then, by the

luminous of

second

infer that the the

amount

body will

waste

away

in

proportion
waste

Follows
Do
consume

Immediate bodies
in

Induction

light it disperses. the direct appeal to experience.

?

luminous
away

away off

Yes, candles, lamps, fires,all

giving

light,and

roughly
amount

and

generally,
off.
to

the

consumption
then, is

is in
some

proportion to the

of

lightgiven appeal

Here,

corroboration, by

the

direct

this hypothesis is not the experience, of the hypothesis ; but only one possible. Light is the promulgation of something in all There other cases of such promul directions from centre. are a When gation that will yielddata. the waves are propagated from
a

stone

is thrown
of

into

pond,
in

centre

disturbance

all

COMPOSITE
directions
in

REASONING

359
is

one

plane.
the

When of

bell

struck,
in is
a

waves

are

propagated
in all three
a

from

centre

disturbance there

all

directions simi of of the

dimensions.

Moreover,
The

further the
waves

larity in
water

material
of air is

respect.

intensity of
the

and

distance

from

their

inversely proportional to place of origin. So, too,

; and

square

is the

of intensity
and

light. Here, then, are data these from premisses we may

terms

data

that

yield premisses ;

draw

conclusions, which, since

the

tentative closely assimilable, are conclusions, or hypotheses only. So far Induction comes ; now consists of into play. If Light Inference undulations, then, by Canon of Explication, there be a medium must of the second
of the data
are

not

which medium

it is
;
so

undulations. is air. Canon As it As of

Water,

we

know,

is than

an

undulatory

lighttravels
travels
same

otherwise

by
not

the

third

Explication,the through
Canon,
find
any
a

undulations
vacuum,
not

through water, of light are

and aerial.

aquatic.
to

through
Direct the

transparent

solids,by the

they are
medium,

appeal

experience fails
is

to

and

therefore

hypothesis

experience than Analogy is called

discovered
than in

the whole, less consistent with dropped, as, on the corpuscular hypothesis. Presently,however, in ; and

by

comparison
in

of

relations

it is

that
air
: an

corpuscular light must undulatory light faster

to

travel

faster in water
in
water.

air than
means

Again direct appeal is made experiment specially devised

shows that that the the
rate

experience, by
the purpose From
;

of

an

for

and

experiment

is faster in air.

this

it is concluded

be undulatory, even promulgation of lightmust though of which it can be undulations. experience yieldsno medium conclusion of the analogical argument be put in the The may form than faster This of in in is
a
'

Conditional

syllogism.'
water
; .'. it

If

light travels
; but

faster it does

in

air

water, it is
air than

propagated by
in and

undulation is

travel

propagated by
that condemned The of

undulation. has led

to
a

perfectlysound

valid

argument,

valuable
on

the

it discovery : why then was Conditional proposition ?

not

in the

chapter
was

condemnation different the modes

launched,

against
a

the

combination
but

of of

reasoning
two

in

composite argument,
The from
a

against
from

confusion

modes
an are

of argument.

argument

If A

is B, it is C
a

is
we

argument
not

entitled

to

and in reasoning from postulate, ; but no go beyond the postulate

postulate,

prohibition

360
was

NEW

LOGIC
the

uttered the

against combining
from

argument

from

postulation

experience,as long as we recognise that of reasoning,and do not we are deceive employing two modes ourselves into the belief that we are using one only. The fault that is charged against Traditional Logic is not that of using the argument that it calls the hypotheticalsyllogism, but of an Inference, and supposing that in thus calling that argument
argument
mode of reasoning. The using but one reasoning is a composite argument, combining Inference with the direct appeal to experience, or Immediate It is a Induction.

with

reasoning, we

are

valid perfectly
not

argument,

and

but against its validity, are it,we employing Inference

raised, objection to it was against the supposition that in using

my
or

Deduction

alone.

Deduction
account

is formal material

Logic,
truth.

and In

exceeds

its function
nature

if it takes

of

fact,by its very

truth. combination Since

it is
'

from incapacitated
'

taking account
is not the formal. material that
no

of material
It is
a

The

syllogism hypothetical
formal

of the

argument

and
con

argument.

it is valid, logicians have

cluded
But
an

objection can be valid, and Analogy may

use

be taken

against it
yet
not

as

an an

Inference. Inference.

be

It is not

the

of the

composite argument
; it is the

called the

hypothetical

syllogismthat
it is
a

is here condemned

failure to discern that

composite argument.
is the
cause

already seen the datum, that they are like living organisms, in how, from coming into existence after the lapse of an interval succeeding a formed that they might be due to contact, the hypothesis was was something of the nature of eggs or seeds ; how this hypothesis specificfevers
?

What

of

We

have

formed how
in the

also,from
direct

another
to

datum,

to

account

for tuberculosis

; and

appeal
;

tuberculosis

but indeed

micro-organisms
constitute
made
to

experience discovered micro-organisms these the crucial question remained, Are Do the cause of the tuberculosis ? they
infection ? Direct

the

tuberculous

organisms were experience. The But is the pigs ; and the guinea-pigs suffered from tuberculosis. due the properties of these organisms as living tuberculosis to irritants ? mechanical organisms, or do they act merely as Recourse tells us that if they act by is had to Inference, which
their vital

again injected into guinea-

appeal

was

properties as
not

living organisms, they will

when

so

act

when
act
as

they

are

but alive,

they

are

dead

; while

if

they

COMPOSITE mechanical well whether irritants alive

or

REASONING chemical
Direct killed

361
will
act

or

as

poisons,they appeal
to

equally
is made

dead.
are

experience

again.
and

The

organisms
does

tuberculosis

not

and again injected; by boiling, follow. The hypothesis that the

organisms produce tuberculosis by their vital activityis verified in some respects by the direct appeal to experience. But like fevers tuberculosis. material the argument, are to specific this datum From Induction, the hypothesis obtain, by Mediate we specificfevers are due to micro-organisms. Similar direct appeal to experience confirms this hypothesis. main The Logic, as expounded in the text topic of Inductive books, is the direct appeal to experience. Inductive Logic lays this appeal should which be made, under in the conditions down
that order
to test

hypothesis and
covers

conjecture.
moiety
of of the

This

is

very

important
The

topic; but
indirect

it

but
to
a

one

field of Induction.

appeal

experience, which
mode
to

is

equally important, is
?

always regarded as
Is fermentation Deduction
occur we can

due

which it is not. syllogising, the presence of livingyeast cells that if it

;

By
not

infer
are or

is,then

fermentation
are

will

if yeast cells
are

excluded

if, though they

not matter

admitted,
cells of

they
will

first killed ;
;

if, though
of
;

killed,their vital activity

other that the

is arrested
not

that

the

presence

than

yeast

produce
active

fermentation

and

introduction

living and
in all the

yeast
matter.

cells All

will these

always produce
are

fermentation

fermentable

Deductions. fermentation do and

not
are

They
is due in

are

explicationsof
the truth from
as

the

postulate
cells. of the

that

to

activityof living yeast

on

They

depend

the
true
are

least
as

postulate,

equally
are or

deductions such

the

postulate, whether
cells ; whether All of there

there is
or can

not
a

things
as

yeast

is not be

such

thing
test

fermentation.

them, however,

put

to

the that

by direct appeal to experience. Yeast cells, supposing be excluded from fermentable they exist, can matter by
no

allowing
cotton

air

to

reach cells

it that
can

has

not

been heat

filtered before
matter

wool.
to

Yeast

be

killed

by

through they are

is

added
at
a

fermentable

matter.

If the vital

fermentable of the does

kept
is

low

temperature,
Under
none

the

activity

yeast

cells

inhibited. take

of these does it take

circumstances

fermentation
are

place.

Neither

place if,while
are

yeast cells
into

excluded, other

living organisms

introduced

fermentable

362

NEW

LOGIC

matter

and

finally,
matter

the
that

introduction
is

of
at

living

yeast

cells

into
and

fermentable
contains

kept
the

proper

temperature,
of direct Induction.
be due
to

nothing
followed
converts

to

prevent
fermentation. the

vital Thus into

activity
the

the

cells,

is
to

always
experience
The action Indirect
is

by

appeal

conjecture
that arrived

proved
may

original
of

conjecture,
yeast,
was

fermentation
at

the

living
or

by

Empirical
in

reasoning
this
way:
"

"

by

Mediate

Inductions
"

something
in

Yeast and

very

often,

perhaps
of

always,
increases
in

present
as

fermenting
fermentation
that

liquor
goes

the
Now

quantity
it is

yeast
constant

the

on.

fairly

experience
takes bears

condition

that when

is

always
the the

present
of

when the

change

place,
a

and
to

especially
the

quantity change,

condition
connected

relation

quantity
It is fair

of
to

is

causally
as

with

that that

change.
it is

conclude,
yeast
not

therefore,
is

conjecture,
with

probable
But if

that

causally causally by

connected

fermentation.

yeast

is

only

connected the vital the

with

fermentation,
of
its
set

but then

produces
Inference
and

fermentation allows
direct
to

activity
consequences

cells,
forth
discover

us

deduce
to

above,
whether of

the these is

appeal

experience
with led

enables

us

to

consequences

tally
and
we

fact,
to

and

thus

the

chain of truth.

reasoning

complete,

are

the

discovery

CHAPTER

XXIV

FALLACIES

OF

all the

anomalies and
so

and

antinomies

of strikes

Traditional
a new-comer

Logic,
as

of
so

all its defects anomalous enumerates, rules. that If

or

futilities, none

extraordinary as

the

fact

that

the

fallacies

it

and breaches of its own not describes, are specifies, the syllogism were the universal principleof reasoning

Traditional

Logic

claims

that

it

is, it would

without impossible to perpetrate any fallacy of the fallacies of of the syllogism. Yet not one is a breach of any rule. The Elenchi syllogistic there
are

clearly be rule some infringing

the very do

Sophistici
fact that
with the

fallacies
can

that be

admittedly

have

nothing
every

to

syllogism,and only
at

perpetrated though
is of itself proof that

is punctually observed, mode of

the

rule syllogistic syllogismis not the

a

reasoning, and
is
some

ought
other

to

have
of

aroused

suspicion,
and have

least, that there

the in the minds

apart from
arisen

syllogism;
of

but

reasoning besides this suspicionseems to never

modes of for

mode

logicians.
many

Modern
are

Logic provides
be

reasoning, but
the Modern
a

these
as

to

regarded, not
of it ; whichever

as

substitutes

syllogism,but

variants does in
not

they
more

may

be, however,

recognise, any

than

Traditional

Logic, that
breach of it

Logic fallacy
some

be a must reasoning,if it is indeed a fallacy, In Canon of Reasoning. complete scheme any be referable the Canon that to fallacy should

of

Logic,

every

violates, thus

revealinghow and position in the attempted in any

different founded
reason on

why
scheme book

it is

on

and fallacy, placing it in its proper of fallacies. Nothing of the sort is There to me. are Logic known many
a

classifications the Canons is

of

but fallacies, that

are

there

is

no

classification
; and

broken fallaciously of Rules any

; and
as

the
can

is that

there

no no

system

to

which book
to
on

fallacies

be referred. such reference

There

is

recognition in
or

Logic

that

is necessary

desirable
as

this

Modern desirability, Inductive

Logic

is

blind"

Traditional

necessity or Logic or

Logic.

364
Not of any

NEW

LOGIC

only

are

the Classical rules of the

no

fallacies extra

dictionem of

not

breaches

of the

Syllogism, or
by
no

those
no

of Immediate these
or as

Inference, but by
fallacies be with
are

means,

skill, by
the

can artifice,

brought into conflict with

de omni
et nullo.

Laws

of

Thought,
marvellous

the Dictum the

Surprising and
Laws

meanings
I do
not

read find it

into

the

of

Thought

by

Modern

contains suggested that any of them a of the of of prohibition fallacy many questions, arguing post hoc, of the of other of the ignoratioelenchi,or ergo propter hoc, any

Logic,

fallacies extra

dictionem of Traditional
of

Logic.
is

If,therefore, a scheme
one a

propounded, in which every of these fallacies falls naturally into place as the breach of recognised Canon, constructed, not with a view to catching Logic
fallacies,but
;

the

with
in

an

eye

solely to
The

the
a

exigencies of
claim
on

the

scheme

surely that
Canons
as

itself substantiates

for the consideration

and the

of that scheme.

Canons in

logicians of Inference,
were

of

Induction,

as

laid down modes

of

this book,

formulated
not

guides to those two

reasoning respectively :
was

until

they were
one one or

completed for this

other of these
to

purpose,

it discovered

that every breach of that the

of the classical fallacies of Traditional

Canons.
assume

Logic is
so,

This
to

being

I submit of

scheme

is entitled

itself

some

the

prescription that
fallacies ; and corroboration scheme.
as an

attaches this

to

the

venerable
may

antiquity of these
claimed of
as a

that
of the any

result

fairly be

accuracy

and

comprehensiveness

the

At

rate, I submit that the New

that

indication

in
can

amplitude
show The
a

and

Logic adequacy to previous systems,

enumerated

this result may be advanced here propounded is superior

none

of which

similar result. and examined include all the

fallacies here

fallacies of the
not
are

hitherto

SophisticiElenchi, together with others, that have been recognised by logicians. One or two of them

sufficiently frequent,and sufficiently important, to have been recognised by practical though no book on Logic treats reasoners, of the fallacyof jumping to a conclusion, and but Prof. no one
Carveth
Read mentions the

of failing to recognise that fallacy

circumstances
The

alter

cases.

Aristotelian
extra

division of fallacies, into fallacies in dictione and

is

fallacies
are

dictionem

scarcely sound.
art

Fallacies

in dictione

mistakes,rather

in the

of

expression,or of interpretation

366

NEW

LOGIC

They
The

are

Fallacies

of Confusion

of

the

Mode

of

Argument,

and

will need

careful attention. classification of fallacies here

adopted is, therefore,

as

follows

"

I.

Fallacies inDictione. Fallacies of Fallacies Fallacies Fallacies Fallacies

Equivocation. Amphiboly. Emphasis.

Dictionem. of the Mode of

of Bivocation. of

of Punctuation. of

II. Fallacies

extra

Fallacies

of Confusion

Argument.

Fallacies of

Empirical Reasoning, or Induction. of Inferential Reasoning, or Deduction. Fallacies Fallacies of Analogy.

I. FALLACIES
IN

DICTIONS.

THE

FALLACY

OF

EQUIVOCATION.
a a

fallacy of Equivocation is fallacy. It varies in subtlety from

The
not

pervading
manifest
most

and pun,

ubiquitous
that would
most

deceive

child,
to

to

confusion

the

subtle, the

recognise, and to avoid, of all fallacies ; and of all fallacies it is the most frequentlyperpetrated. Nothing
difficult to

detect,

is

more use

frequent in reasoning,and
of
a

in disputation, than especially without

the
on

term

in two

or

more

senses,

the part of either of the

it is used in
more

disputants,or
one

appreciation of the single reasoner,

any any
source so

that

than

; nor

is there

fertile of difference
to to
no a

of

opinion.
about

In

be

difference

of

opinion
be useful
to

fact,difference,that appears facts, is very often, unknown

the

the

disputants, difference about

can or

meaning

of
not

words;

and

controversy
definition

that is fertile,

preceded by
about
to too

of the
to most

words

be
to

used, and
them.
It

an

agreement

the

meanings
in

be

attached

is not
uses some

much

say, that

controversies,each
the

party
a

important
term,
first in appre

term,
that
one

on

which

controversy hangs, in
party
; or

sense

different from

understood
sense,

by the other
then
in It

uses

the

and

another, without

any

recognitionor
and effort,
a

ciation of the

equivocation.

requiresan

consider-

EQUIVOCATION
able

367
in

effort, to
and

adhere

to

the

same

meaning

using

word

of

current

throughout a controversy that is large signification, at all prolonged. discuss the advantages and It is idle to disadvantages of the meaning settled and have Socialism, until we agreed upon
that is to be attached
to
'

Socialism.'

When

one

stands the

by
for

it the and

organisation and
another
takes
a

management
mean

State,

it to

the

disputant under of industries by equalisation of

it the abolition will It of each

reward of be

labour, and

third

intends that the

by

private property,
to

it is evident the

argument

the
to

others, beside
discuss communion
man

mark,
it is

irrelevant,arid mistaken.
for he
a

is idle from

whether

right
his

clergyman

to

repel
the have

the
a

table has

(which
attached ?
or some

erroneously
'

calls
we

altar)

who

married

until sister-in-law,
to
canon

settled what
consistent
custom

meaning
with

is to be law
or

right.'
law ?

Does
or

it mean with ?
or

statute

with

the

of the

Church,
the the

of

part of the
?
or

Church code
any

with
of

the

scruples of
While be

clergyman

with

some

or

rule
mean

morality ? ings may

the

dispute is in temporarily uppermost

progress, in the

of

these of

minds

either

of any
;

disputants,and be shortly replaced by another, appreciation, even by himself, that he has shifted
and and word it is
to

without his

ground
the
use

unlikely,unless
to
same

care

is taken both time.

both

to

define will

term

keep
in the

the

that definition,
at

disputants
A

the

sense

the the

same

of

meanings
women

clings
have

about
'

word
'

when the
a

totallydifferent set the question is asked

'

whether

right

to

legal right,a
what right,

constitutional law that

right,or gives
of
'

suffrage. Is the moral right?

them ?
'

right
a

'

If

legal

is the is the with

it to

If ?

constitutional Does it the with it

mean mean

right, what
consistent that taxation

meaning

constitutional
or

established and

custom,

consistent
go

with
or

fiction the

representation

together,
does be
means

that they ought to go together ? Or principle the granting of the suffrage to women would

that
to

beneficial

them,
with
or

or some

to

the

nation of

If

moral with

right, it
whose

consistent ?

scheme
or

morality, but

scheme

Yours,

in

on

Any discussion that ignores these ambiguities the meaning of is barren ab initio. right,' the syllogism contain Does That ? a petitio principii depends the meaning we attach take it in to petitio principii. If we
'

mine,

his ?

368
the literal sense,
of

NEW

LOGIC

premiss, then
for in every
of argument.

assuming a principium, or major contains syllogism certainly a petitio principii, for the purpose syllogism the premisses are assumed
or

begging

the

assuming that the major premiss is true, outside the purpose of the argument, then we beg, not but the truth of the principium, a very different the principium, If we take it in the Aristotelian thing,as will presently be shown.
we

If

take

it

as

sense,

to

mean

the

assumption

that is to

be

proved, then
conclusion fallacies

premiss of the conclusion the syllogism must contain a petitio

not

in

the

the or principii,
The

could

be deduced

from and in

it. Division
are

Aristotelian
of

of

Composition
reside

merely instances
of the word
*

equivocation. They
The
not
'

the

ambiguity
by it is Every
a man

All.'

all
to

'

of the
be
*

Universal What
are
'

propositionis out
is
'

of
'

place, and

ought

used.

meant

is meant by All men every.' What is mortal.' Strictly speaking, all

'

mortal
a

is

'

is

collective, not
the

dis
per
was

tributive

quantity ;
the
'

but wrong
men

Traditional

Logic, with though

'

its usual

versity,chose
available. and
not

word,
mortal
'

right
in

one

If
sense

All

are

is understood
any

the

proper
man we
'

strict

of the

word This

All,' then

individual
out

is
add

mortal. necessarily
'

is
men

clearly brought
will receive
five five

if

the definite article.

not
'

All the

shillings does
Division
are

mean

Every

man

will receive
of

In the Aristo shillings.' and

telian scheme

those of fallacies,

Composition
that
not
"

regarded
treatment,

as

separate forms, but it is manifest

of
any

they are
to

merely
separate

special cases

equivocation, and
than

are

entitled

more

is the

following:

No He
/.

fool is
can no

can

design a battleship ;
a

fool ;

He

design

battleship.
the consists fallacy

This
in the

argument
the

is

and manifestly fallacious,

the
term
'

of equivocation
on

no

fool.'

In

Traditional
are

Logic
It

it is invalid is true but

we

ground that both

that
in

premisses
on

negative.

that have

it is invalid,and
seen,

both

premisses are
the
not

negative ;
the

the

chapter premisses
true

syllogism, that

negative qualityof both

date
an

does

argument.
In the

The

equivocation.
who is
a

ground major premiss no

*

necessarily invali of the invalidity is

' *

fool

means
'

no

one

fool

'

in the

minor,

'

no

fool

'

means

one

who

is not

BIVOCATION

369

reaching the conclusion, the latter meaning has for the former. The substituted been illegitimately equivocation for the major, one is brought out substitute more clearly if we of its implications. No fool can design a battleship may, by transfer of the negative, be explicated, without change of
a

fool

'

; and

in

'

'

meaning, ship,we

into

'

clear that from

are

design a premiss postulatingwho

cannot to

fool

battleship.' It cannot design a

is

now

battle

not

entitled

infer who

can.

THE There is

FALLACY

OF

BIVOCATION.

fallacycognate with the fallacy of Equivocation, and not infrequentlyperpetrated,but unmentioned, as far very De I know, by any writer even on fallacies, Morgan. Equivo as different and cation is giving the same to name things, treating if they were the same. The them in statement as or argument the is giving two to names same thing, fallacyof Bivocation if it were and not or as treating it in statement argument
a

one,

but

two.

Thus

I have the

heard

instances

of deliberation
as

and that

choice,
these
that

exercised
were

by
met

lower

animals,

adduced and these of

case,

proof
have

animals

argument
and of

capable of reasoning; by the objection that

were

heard of of
a

instances
but

deliberation

choice

evidence,
In
to

not

reason,

high degree sagacity and

then treated Instances

sagacity only.
as same

this
the
as

the

two

names,
was

reason, not

of the

given one thing, fallacyare

were

same

thing, which
contrasted in and of those books

but
to

two

things.
on

be

found

Logic which
as

treat

of

Enumerative
; which

Induction

Generalisation Classification
as

different processes

give

the

name

to

successive

steps of Generalisation,and
The It
term

yet regard them

different

things.
bivocal.
and
to

Classification
that
are

is,in Logic, both

it is

equivocal and
to

is

equivocal in
which
as

applied
; it

both

Division bivocal

Generalisation,
as

different
are

is

doubly
the
same

in that it and it
as

well
as

Generalisation
are

applied to
the the
same one

thing, typhus
to

well

Division discovered

applied to
that,
under

thing.
name a

When

Jenner

of

fever,two

distinct diseases

were

included,
symptoms
to
one

he
are

exposed
common

of fallacy both in
one

equivocation. Though
diseases,and class,but
N.L.

certain

thus

led, not

merely
of the

the

inclusion the

of both
;

to the confusion

with

other

yet certain
B B

370
other

NEW each

LOGIC

symptoms
of

are one

proper

to

disease
But

and respectively,

thus

the distinguish
some cases

from

the other.

when

Kraepelin gives to
prsecox,
to

the insanity is any

title of dementia

and
cases a

fails to and

show

that

there

symptom
of

proper

those

unshared bivocation. with

A
treats term

by other
He

cases

he perpetrates insanity,
names,

fallacyof
and

thing by two it as two different things. is,of course, not necessarilybivocal

same

calls the

forth

because

it has

synonym.

Mariner

and

they both refer to the same it is recognised and understood

and
as man

seafaring man thing. They

that
and

are are

not not to

bivocal, though bivocal, because

the
same

they refer
argument
that A.

thing, seafaring
would be

they are equivalents. But

on

used

in

statement

not

bivocally but
is
term
a

if it

were

denied
a

B.

the

ground that he is only

mariner, the

bivocal.
THE FALLACY
or

OF

AMPHIBOLY. in

The

of Amphiboly, fallacy is

ambiguity
in text

the construction of
book
'

of
any

sentences, other *Aio than te,

rarely illustrated
stale
Romanos

books

Logic by
to

the

examples, copied from

vincere
'

book, of

^Eacida, Henry
that it is

posse,' and
we are

The

King yet

lives that
suppose

shall
a

depose
be

; and rare,

fallacyso

that
more

it

consequentlyled to be practically may

It is
one

neglected. Nothing could

of the sitions
most

much

erroneous.

in

of confusion, especiallyin compo frequent sources the English language, which, being destitute of inflection, accuracy of

depends for the

its words.
A

its

meaning

on

the

proper

order

of

familiar

example,
labourer.'

and 'a

one

that

deceives small

no

one,

is

'

small small

labourer's

cottage,' for
a

labourer's

cottage,'or

'a

cottage for

though it generally recognised, and the necessity of inflections, is interesting the use as illustrating of supplementing the absence of inflections by the ordering of
It is not

the words, that the

and

first construction the

may
sense

be made is of of

grammatically
course
'

syntactically accurate, though

the

altered,

by changing
labourer's

inflection.

If, instead

'a write small cottage,'we is univocal. expression is punctually correct, and

now
(

writing a small labourers' cottage,' the

It
cannot

be

understood

ambiguously

excludes labourers,'

pluralof the substantive, the possibility that the singularadjectivecan

; for the

AMPHIBOLY
the

37i

apply
'

to
'

and it,

leaves
'

outstanding,as

that only alternative,

qualifiescottage.' The is not always as transparent as it is in the case just fallacy is grammatically as correct A lady's sound, quiet hack cited. the it does but and not mean 'a lady's hack, sound as quiet,' The first means same. a sound quiet hack, belonging to a lady,' sound the second means a quiet hack, suitable for a lady to
a
'
'

small

'

'

ride.' in of Amphiboly so rampant as fallacy Acts of Parliament, despitethe labours of Parliamentary draughts of legislators. the intentions in interpreting men Habitual drunkard who, not being amenable means a person of in lunacy, is, notwithstanding, by reason to any jurisdiction habitual intemperate drinking of intoxicatingliquor, at times dangerous to himself or others or incapable of managing himself Nowhere do
we

find

the

and

his affairs.' is the

What

effect,on

the
*

of the insertion in
'

of the words

meaning of the rest of the definition, not being amenable to any jurisdiction

it or does it not mean Does that the drunkard must lunacy ? be partially be bordering on insane, or must lunacy, not insane but yet to some disordered extent enough to be certified as a lunatic, in mind ? High authorities are divided on the question. does How of the intemperate drinking of intoxi by reason cating liquor affect the meaning of at times dangerous, "c.' ?
"

'

'

'

Does he is

it

mean

that and

any

person

who

becomes of

drunk,
it

is also

in the be

habit

dangerous, "c., when intemperate drinking of

drunkard may
; or

liquor, intoxicating may

does he
mean

that, however
and however is not

regarded as an habitual dangerous, "c., a man

habitual
may

be when

intemperate an meaning of the Act, if his dangerousness can be ascribed to the singlestate of drunkenness in which he then and need of necessity not was, have been due to his long-continued drinking ? The question had to be taken to the Court of Appeal for decision. At times.' much of the followingclause does this affect ? How it qualify dangerous to himself Does others and only, or does its effect extend to the subsequent clause, incapable of managing himself his and affairs ? divided in are Again, authorities opinion. drinking,he
habitual drunkard within the
' *
'

is

drunk,

be

his

'

'

Incapable of managing

himself

and

his affairs.' Must

B B

he, in
2

372
order
to be
an

NEW

LOGIC within

habitual

drunkard

suffer from

is one or incapacities, authorities interpret the Act in different

As

both

meaning of the Act, enough ? Again, different

the
senses.

with

this Section other Acts.

of this Act

of
more

Parliament,

so

with

other
cases,

Sections than
to

and

Nothing is
of the

in many difficult,

the intention interpret

Statutes
; and

Legislaturefrom
the

the

wording

of the what

the greater part of the

Aristotle

called

Amphiboly

"

arises from difficulty ambiguous or indefinite

construction The

of sentences. fault of
was a

commonest

construction
nest

is in

misplacement of the
the

relative.

'There

swallow's

shed, which
not

was mean

pulled to piecesby sparrows.' The

what
he

writer

probably did

pulled to pieces by sparrows. Even careful writers, even reputed distinguished writers, and of style in English writing, sometimes masters slip into this Not mistake. the bishops obtained any gifts because or graces in
was
*

said, that

the

shed

respected' writes Froude, because the bishops obtained, in their not evidently meaning or consecration,any gifts graces that she herself respected.' And has preventedthem again a feeling approaching to contempt from carrying the weight in the councils of the nation which has
she herself
' '
. . .

this

consecration

which

been

commanded

by by
was

men

of

no

greater intrinsic eminence

mean no

in other has "c.

professions.' Froude
been What
commanded

did not
men

to

convey

that the nation

of the

greater

intrinsic eminence

prevented them from carrying,in the councils of the nation, the weight which has been commanded by "c.
meant

he

that

feelinghas

THE

FALLACY in

OF

PUNCTUATION.

arises meaning of written sentences from neglect of punctuation, and from erroneous punctuation. Punctuation is becoming a lost art. Many writers,perhaps not recognising its importance, and certainly shirking its difficulties,
leave Most it to the

Much

confusion

the

printerto insert what

have

stops

seem

to him

expedient.
with

printing offices
to

their
which

own are

rules

and

conventions

all to applied indifferently and from which writings, some printerswill not be moved by any of the or on to author, objurgation an entreaty part depart. In the meaning, cases, however, the punctuation determines very many with the and, this being so, it is no more to tamper justifiable

respect

punctuation,

374
raw

NEW

LOGIC

till next

day.' What
the
'

was

the

fate of

the

potatoes ?
a

That
comma

cannot

be
*

determined

except by punctuation. Insert

potatoes
meat
'

after
comma
'

potatoes,'and
and

were

cooked.

Take
are

out
raw.

the

insert it after slow

and

the potatoes all the

kept

fools,and
'

of heart

to

believe

spoken they are

all the

characterises slow

the persons addressed as O fools and to believe. slow of heart, to

' '

prophets have unworthy because

believe
as

spoken the opposite reason. precisely

'

prophets have

characterises

them

unworthy for
his and

General

Kharki, the
in

Commander
to are,

in Chief
advance.'

having secured
Kharki
two

communications,
the
Commander
'

determined Chief

General sentence,
in

in

this

different

persons. secured

General

Kharki,

the

Commander

Chief, having
The effect

to advance.' communications, determined of insertingthe comma Kharki is to identify General in Chief, who Commander are no now longer two, but

his

with
one.

the

It is the less excusable

most

to

ignore this
with

source

of

confusion, since
nursery. The

of

us

were are

made

familiar

it in
:
"

the

followinglines
I I I I I I I At
saw saw saw saw saw saw saw a

familiar to most swallow

children whale

little ant
sea

up

the
a a

full of

glass full fifteen

well full of men's

good yards deep

tears

sparklingale ;
; ; ;

that weep

two
a

watery

eyes
as

all in flames
the
moon

of fire

house
sun saw

high
upon the

and

higher ; sight.
as

the

the darkest
man

night ;
this wondrous

least I

who

saw

The stand
and

assertions
; but

are

sufficiently outrageous
the stops
from

and

incredible
ends

they
lines,
are

if

we

insert them

take away after the

the
in

of the

first substantive assertions.

:
"

each

line,they
then
;

changed into
a a

very

commonplace
inversions
sea

They

become up
a

series of rhetorical whale

I
saw

saw

little ant

Swallow
I
saw

the

Full

of

good

sparklingale

glass; "c.
THE FALLACIES
OF

ACCENT

AND

EMPHASIS.

These

two

fallacies may

be treated

together ; the rather, since

insatiable

English logicians have

their gratified

appetite for

FALLACY

OF

EMPHASIS

375

together. In English, by confusing them perpetrating fallacies, of a word the accentuated as we speak of the emphasised syllable the emphasis, and say we syllable, place the accent, when we mean this or that syllable. Then, since emphasis is employed to on
render word in

prominent,
a

not

only

one

syllablein spoken
of
as

word,

but

also
; and

one

sentence,

this word
on

is

accentuated
as an

the of

misplacement of emphasis of the accent. the fallacy

never

words
more

is

regarded

example

transparent

equivocation

has

Aristotelian logicians. The omission the of the accent or was misplacement of the fallacy in a word, and the consequent accent-mark syllable on a letter or have In English, we of the meaning of the word. alteration no accent marks, and the fallacy, strictly speaking,does not exist. It been

perpetrated, even

by

is,however, represented by
the

the

wrongful

omission

or

insertion

of
'

mark. which is conveyed in Greek I by an accent aspirate, 'ill.' 'er hill ; I said she lived at Maida said that nothing made never and This is a fallacy in the Aristotelian it of the accent sense, would of the same kind be a fallacy to speak of the great 'art of the English nation. These are evidentlypuns, and, as such, are

simple
The of much

and

crude

of fallacy

examples of equivocation. more emphasis is much frequent,and, though rarely the

notice. We
cause

not

importance, and standing,deserves a brief problem

which
Did be Brutus

of

serious

misunder

have

already seen
three

that

the

kill Csesar

? contains

distinct

may be

also kill The

explicatedby appropriate construction. of emphasis. brought out by the distribution

? Did Brutus kill
'

problems, They may

Brutus Casar
?

Did
kill

Csesar

Caesar

Did

Brutus

proposition Brutus killed Csesar,' though it cannot three be said to contain is a proposition with three propositions, be so prominent in the mind as to aspects, either of which may relegatethe other two to a positionof insignificance.In speaking, emphasis
of the may stand in the

affirmative

sentence,

since

place emphasis

of
can

formally correct
indicate
be what concentrated

composition
aspect of the
on

propositionit
written

is that

attention

is to

; but

in

the equivalent of emphasis in spoken composition, italics, be to discourse, are to sparingly employed. The proper way the meaning with accuracy, is to compose of the the words convey
sentence

in due

order

; and

in

nothing
order

is mastery and

of

the

English
of words.
terms

language so displayedas
Italics
are

in the due

arrangement
or

permissibleto indicate foreignwords,

technical

376

NEW

LOGIC

of

art,

thus

drawing
from
a

attention

to

change

of

medium,
;

and

saving
are

the

reader

momentary
for

embarrassment
purpose

but

italics

very

rarely

permissible
of in
to

the
in It

of

mere

emphasis.
is writer

The

free with

employment swearing
unable

italics

written shows

discourse that he them the

comparable
who
uses

speaking.
convey

them choice

is of
and
to

the
or

emphasis arranging
adventitious

desires
in and

by

the

appropriate
therefore attain
his

words,
must

by
to
are

appropriate illegitimate
the in
not

order,
means

resort

end.
'

They
This is
a

comparable
'

with
room

Elizabethan the

stage
With
with

directions.

forest

'

palace.'
;

appropriate
appropriate required
Dr. and read in
new

scenery,

such
and

directions

are

required
italics

and
are

choice the

arrangement
of of

of

words,

rarely

for

purpose

emphasis.
the for ninth the
commandment

Johnson's
is,
;
no

reading
correct
are

is well
on

known,

doubt,
there

occasion

which
as

it is
are

usually
words
a

but

as

many

alternative

readings
of

there
word
not

the

sentence,

and

the the

emphasising
sentence.

each shalt
not

imports
bear false

suggestion (but
other

into

Thou Thou shalt wilt hint

true treat
or

false witness

witness

people
thee).
that thou

may).
Thou thou

shalt
not

bear

(for I will

prevent

bear

false Thou

witness shalt
not

(in
not

spite
bear

of false

the

suggestion (but
thou

mayst).
it ?). Thou

witness

mayst
bear

shalt
Thou in

bear
not

false witness
bear

(but
witness
not

mayst
thou false

witness).
him

shalt other

false shalt bear

(but
bear

mayst
witness
in

falsely

ways).
thou

Thou

against favour).

thy
Thou

neighbour
shalt other
not

(but
bear

mayst
witness

false

witness

his

false

against
Thou

thy neighbour
shalt licence
not to

(only
false false

against
witness

people's thy
other

neigh

bours).

bear

against against

neighbour people,

(but
not

hast

free

bear

witness

thy neighbours).

CHAPTER

XXV

FALLACIES

EXTRA

DICTIONEM

FALLACIES

OF

CONFUSION

OF

THE

MODES

OF

REASONING.

THESE

are are

the most

fundamental

and

far-reaching of all fallacies.

and
no

They
which
now

fallacies,hitherto

unrecognised
and
not
we

undescribed,

to

logiciansare
has

especially prone,
but of which
are

which
to

logician up
on

to

escaped

confined

books
to

Logic.
three,
of of The
are

The

several

modes

reasoning

have

found

be

Inference, Empirical Reasoning, and

Logic

includes, also, the

Analogy ; and the subsidiary or preliminary processes

and
:

realm

Abstraction, Generalisation, Classification

last four different
nor seen are

Definition. the first three

different

aspects

of

one

process

processes,

distinct,discrete,and
three be modes of

neither

interchangeable
may, in
as we

miscible. in the of last

These

reasoning
and

have

Chapter,

or employed alternately

succession,
or use

in trains alternate

reasoning, to attain
involves
not

results
no

such

successive
as

employment
does when But

fallacy, as
into with
to

long
each

their
one or

in combination another.
a

degenerate
are

confusion

of

with

they
;
a

confused

other,
a

with

subsidiary process
an

when material

it is

sought

deduce
means

conclusion
;

from
or

Analogy,

or

conclusion Induction of

by

of Inference is

when

Generalisation

is called in the mode

; then

fallacyof confusion
of the
said principii
to

reasoning. syllogism : analogy

has the
ever
'

This

perpetrated a is the fallacy

the

hypothetical syllogism :
be
we

this is the

fallacy of
this is the
;

inherent
'

in the from

petitio fallacyof fallacy

A is B. drawn

supposing
that It is

that

can

reason on

this been

is the

vitiates every

book that

Logic
is C

that

written.
that

postulated
A is B,

under certain that A

condition
may

If, when
from this

it is C, then To add

inferences

be

postulate.
vires of

is really B, when

all that the

postulate gives,and
is C, is ultra

all that

Inference

needs, is that if A is B
fallacious.
actual

it

Inference, irrelevant, and

say, make in the

But

surely,an
which
you

objector
so

may
to

desire

the

processes

to reasonings of life, of Logic apply, such

378
arguments
conclusions
not
are are

NEW

LOGIC
useful ?

often
drawn

stated, and
from Inference my
to

conclusions

and
are,

sound
"

them
; not

Certainly they by
means

but
If

in the

Logic of

of

Deduction.

parsley is fatal to parrots, But parsleyreallyis fatal

my

parrot will die if I feed it on parrots.

it

parsley.
that

Is it not useful to know

on

parrot will

reallydie

is. It is useful in It is useful

as an as an an

parsley ? Certainly it It is useful in the regulationof conduct. materid. proposition. But it is utterlyuseless empirical
to

if I feed

aid

or

adjuvant
to

the argument
if I feed

from
my

the

postulate.
on as

If

parsleyis fatal
will die.
and

parrots, then
from

parrot

it parsley,

This

conclusion

the

premiss is valid
a

it stands,

validityis not enhanced by knowledge that parsley really is fatal

be the most

its

hair's

breadth

by

the
may

to

parrots.

Parsley
and

wholesome

diet in the world

"

for parrots,

yet the

of the conclusion validity this

I do

not

say

its truth

"

the

of validity

will not be conclusion, as an inference from the postulate, I say that if parsley impaired by the breadth of an electric ion. is fatal to parrots, my parrot will die if I feed it on parsley ; and tell me that is fatal parsleyreally
to to

you

parrots. Your
Don't you
see

assurance

is
are

totally irrelevant doing

? You
are

my

argument.
me

what

you

that I

already had
which is

that knowledge unconditionally conditionally.You are destroyingthat very

giving

condition which
and

an

integralpart of the reasoning, and

cannot assert

without

reasoning of that kind

in the
same

exist.
and

In the

same

argument
"

breath, you
a

deny that
a

to

be

condition
tell
me

condition. that its

If you

deny conditionality you which have asserted to be just you that parsley really is fatal to parrots,
is constant in

"

to parrots fatality

experience" that problem,

my
me

is be
a

useful information, for which, in

another solve
or

connection, I should
the if such die

enable to me obliged. It would in my mind, Will problem were feed

it
on

will not
not

parrot
in the
to

if I

parsley ?
the

But

it does
'

assist

least in
'

drawing, from
If,as
Sterne
a

postulate

If
to

parsley is fatal
my
see seen

parrots

the

inference, * Parsley will be fatal

parrot.'
a

speculated,I should
white of
a

white

bear, what
; I must
as a

then
be

? in

Why,
the born and

then
presence

bear white that

would
bear there

be
;
a no

by

me

should have white

white
such

bear

been

; it is not
so

true

is

thing

forth.

All these
are

inferences whether

are

valid

inferences them

bear ; from the

a

and postulate,

valid

the

subjectof

is

white

CONFUSION

OF

ARGUMENTS

379

bear, or
is of
or

centaur,

or

phoenix,orajabberwock.
to

Whether
irrelevant

parsley
and
out

is not, in

experience,fatal

parrots, is

as

white bears, or centaurs, place in the one argument, as whether or phoenixes,or jabberwocks, reallyexist, is irrelevant and out of Socrates place in the other ; or as whether reallyis or is not mortal is out of

place and
every

irrelevant

in the
out

syllogism.
that the conclusion false. of
a

Almost

logician points
be true,

syllogism may
All

though
bottles

its

premisses are
covered with

large glass
volcanoes
;

are

the

craters

of

The
.'.

moon moon

is

largeglass bottle
with
the

The

is covered

craters

of volcanoes.

In this case,

the

conclusion
leaves
are

happens
to

to

be true, desired

though the truth

;

of the
to the

premisses
same

something by
assure

be

and

instances

effect

adduced

most
us

logicians ; who,
A

neverthe
con

less,on
clusion

another

page,
on

blandly

that the truth of the

depends
nature

the truth

of the would

premisses.
have shown
of truth

justappreciation
them that it is of
or

of the
not
an

of

Deduction
to

permissible even
Inference. We
or

discuss
as

the

the

conclusion it is white concerned

might

well

discuss

whether is not

black, transparent
material discuss Confusion

opaque.

Inference

with

truth.
the truth of the

It is concerned of its conclusions Modes of

solely with
is

consistency, and to of It is a fallacy fallacious.

with
the

Reasoning.
in materid

It is this confusion from man's that that

of the argument constitutes the

argument
if
a

postulatesthat reasoning
since if we find is

of supposing that, fallacy

consistent, his
are

conclusions

must must

be be

true

his conclusions
can a

true, his

reasoning

valid

flaw

false ; and be
none

that

if his

be reasoning,his conclusion must conclusions not are true, his reasoning must in his
are

invalid. of them

All these

fallacies among

not

infrequently perpetrated ;
fallacies of
on

is enumerated

the

the

Sophistici
eluded
; but

Elenchi, or in any
even are

the

subsequent chapter vigilantand penetrating eye

the of

fallacies. of De

They

Morgan

they
in
are

brought to lightby Logic system The problem of the petitio principiiin the
ways

here

expounded.

various

in books Socrates

of

Logic.
man,

It

syllogism is put is put variously: If all men

do
we

mortal, and

is

how

know

that

Socrates

is

380
mortal
? Does

NEW

LOGIC

the

conclusion

tell

us

anything
? Have

new we

?
not

Do

we

gain
stated
come are

any

knowledge from
in
me

the argument the

see

already
who

the conclusion thus far with do not

premisses ?
that the
this

Every

reader
to these

has

will

answers

questions
is

really mortal ; the conclusion tells us nothing that is not in the premisses. We gain from the argument, no accession of knowledge ; all that
"

We

know

from

argument, that

Socrates

we

gain is a

new

statement

conclusion

is

and implicit, Read

comes

premisses, in which is explicatedby the argument.

nearer

of part of the

the

Prof. Carveth doctrine character here

and

than

any

other

writer the
As

to

the

propounded.

distinguishesbetween the material character of the syllogism.

He
or

formal

formally
it.
He

stated, it is,he says, useless

who

fallacious

but nevertheless, those

and defend

perceive its material

the material formal the

grounds
and

retain

describes
from

argument,

appreciatesthat
This

it is distinct

argument,

but, like all other

as a

he still logicians,
is the

regards the material argument

at which

syllogism.
with

point
or as

I part company

with

him, and

all my
two

predecessors.
aspects,

He

and

they look

on

the

syllogism as
"

having

the formal use and the material capable of being put to two uses is that the material is a use. never argument My contention and syllogism. To the syllogismit has a superficial deceptive the has blinded resemblance, which logician to profound every and fundamental difference between
but

them.

The

Datum in

resembles
the

the minor minor

premiss ;

it is

different radically

that, while

premiss predicatesinclusion in a class or exclusion from a the datum class, predicateslikeness for the purpose of the argument. The identical elements of problem and premiss simulate the middle
term

of the

syllogism,by appearing in identical

make up the

form

in both
are

the

that propositions

argument
of

; but

they

radically

Empirical Reasoning need The be be Ratios. terms not at all. premiss of They may the major to Empirical Reasoning bears a deceptive resemblance
for the identical elements different,
for both Universals ; but they are are premiss of the syllogism, profoundly different ; for the premiss of Empirical Reasoning in experience, been found constant a relation that has predicates and
a

may

be

syllogism

relation of any kind from is detached

or

whatever

; while

the

premiss of
the

relation

of class inclusion

experience, and class exclusion, and

expresses

that

relation

only.

382

NEW

LOGIC

conjectural only, or drawing

constant
a

it will be from
a

fallacious.

not in Fallacy resides,

conclusion

premiss that

is not
a

known

to

be
as

in

experience,but
is fallacy
so

from

regarding such

conclusion

assured. that it
known

frequent in the reasonings of daily life, has received a colloquial title ; yet it does not appear to be of whom to logicians,not has ever mentioned the one
to
a

The

fallacyof jumping
with female
*

conclusion

; which

is said, I know

not

what
sex.

truth, to

be

perpetrated with
returned
to
were

specialfrequencyby
for, as
I

the

The

Robinsons

have

town,

passed their
a

house, I noticed
Premiss.
a

that their blinds

run :
"

up.' Displayed as

formal

induction, this would

The

raising of blinds

is, constantly in experience,

home.

sign that the householder's

Datum.

family is at
Robinson's

The
to

raisingof
argument,
The

blinds

is like, in respects

material

the

the

raisingof other people's blinds.

blinds that his signifies

Conclusion.

raising of Robinson's
would
be
were,

family is at
This

home.

conclusion
in

unimpeachable,
in

if
in

the

relation

expressed
were

the

premiss
under
one

fact,constant
is constant is not
not

experience,or
but

subsumable

that

in

experience ;
as an

it

is neither, so conclusion. relation

is

that

the conclusion

warranted
constant

assured

Nevertheless, though

in

experience,the
does
The
a justify

tolerably frequent
a

in

experience ; and only.

must

conclusion, but
constancy
of
assurance

conjectural conclusion
the

want
a

of
want

in

experience of
in

premiss
;

be reflected in conclusion

the

conclusion

and

if the

is stated

form of it is unimpeachable. The qualification, proper There is from this premiss is It is probable,' the conclusion or returned I conjecture,'that the Robinsons have evidence,' or with this
' ' '

to

town.
1

His

red

nose

proclaims him
It
assumes

toper

'

is

fallacyof jumping
redness

to

conclusion.
and

that

the

relation between
in

of the it is

nose

excessive
datum

drinking is
is

constant

experience,which
of his
nose

not.

The

satisfactory. The
want

redness

is

like,
the

in all material

respects, to the redness

of the

nose

that is

produced

by drinking ; but the premised relation, that drinking, is

even so

of constancy of the
nose

in is

experienceof

redness
we are

great, that

produced solely by in concluding scarcelyjustified

a

that there is evidence

that he is

toper.

THE

ACCIDENT

383

As of his

long

as

Fermat

was

content
2
*

with
i

surmising, from probably always

and that had
was

the
a

result

calculations, that
he
;

is

prime

number,
conclusion

kept
but
as

within
soon as

his he

warrant,
concluded the in

it

in this justified is so, he certainly

not

jumped to a conclusion; for often to be constant sufficiently

constancy
be subsumed is to be understood under any relation

relation

been
sense

verified in which

experience,in
is constant

the
;

in this connection that

and

it could

not

in

experience.
of the
;

The
must

second be

Canon

of Induction

is that

the
to

terms

datum and
to
an

assimilated, in respects material

a

the

argument
or

argue

from

vague

and

approximate assimilation,
is not material
to

from

assimilation,however
is and fallacious, There is
no

close, that
a

the

argument,

is

fallacyfrequently perpetrated.
from
a

fallacy in arguing
of the is
terms

vague

and

approximate
from
as

assimilation such
a

of
as

the

datum,

if the

conclusion

datum The

accepted
but

tentative, and
an

is not

regarded
is

assured.

conclusion such
;

is then

hypothesis,and taking
an

as justifiable

fallacy lies

in

perfectly hypothesis for an

breach in of this

assured The Canon that

are

conclusion.
main is the
not
source

of the

fallacythat resides
of the
terms

in the datum

assimilation material
a

of

the

respects

to

the

argument. Yes, for it is like

a

Has

this insect

sting?

wasp,

which,
a

con

stantlyin
material which

a sting. But experience,possesses it Has hymenopterous ? respects ? Is it as belonging to the great family of mark

is it like it the bees

in wasp features wasps and and ?

and

No, but
mode mode may of of

it is like

wasp

in do.

size,and
Size and

colour, and
colour
to

marking, marking

flight.
are flight

It won't
not

and

respects material
moths
a or

the

argument.

These
a

all be

imitated

by
of

diptera. To
in these

conclude

that it has

sting because
Will
because in which mile
runs runs

it resembles mile
no

wasp

respects is fallacious.
that ?

this it is

to lay than railway cost more longer. But is length the only or the

No,

chief respect No. That

a a

resemblance
on

is material
run

to

the

argument
a run

That mile
town.

the

flat ; this must

through
this
must ;

tunnel.

through agriculturalland
mile wide
runs over

through
cross

That of

uninterrupted land
extract
an

this must conclusion

bridge
such
a

span.

To

assured

from

datum

is fallacious.

384
Will this
war

NEW
?

LOGIC

be
no

successful
more

Yes, because
was

that

war,

waged
is the

against a
numerousness

nation
of

numerous,

successful.

But
or

the
to

antagonist
argument
well

nation of

the

only,
in
war

the
?

chief,

respect material
We
are

the

success

It is not.

to

consider its

whether
are

it is warlike, wealthy, brave,

whether whether other

The

armies

organised
material
to the

and

well
All

prepared ; disciplined ;
these, and
the
datum
sense.

it is well

supplied with
are some

of

war.

circumstances,
omission the of

material material

argument.
from
in

resemblance

constitutes The

fallacy of the Accident,

in the

the Aristotelian

is usually confused, text fallacy fallacy dicto secundum It is, in fact, very a quid ad dictum simpliciter. The the taking Aristotelian fallacy of the Accident different. was of
seen an

books, with

the

accidental

quality for
'

an
'

essential
may and be

quality.

We

have

already

that the term

to

essential

replaced,with
definiteness

great advan

tage
'

clearness
to

of

expression
'

of

meaning, by
in

material

the

argument

and, if we

make

the

substitution

this case,
a

the

fallacyof the accident

to

is the
a

of taking,for fallacy that similarity

material similarity
;

the

argument,

is not
It is the

material

and

this is the
a

fallacyunder
the
It is
a

consideration.
a

construction material
effect

of

datum

on

ground of

likeness

that

is not

to the

argument.

curious result of the

demoralising

of the
from

depart
while

logicians study of Traditional Logic, that whenever the teaching of Aristotle, they are invariablywrong ;
in which he is wrong

in matters

they follow

him

with

servile

imitation. The in the third Canon

of Induction

is that the

second

given element

problem
at

must

be identical with its homologue in the

an

premiss.
take for rule

It is not

all

infrequentfor
are

inaccurate identical.

thinker
Breach

to

identical, things that

constitutes another of

not

of

this

the

recognised fallacies of Traditional

respects,
to

Logic.
If

Johnny's illness
is constant

Jenny's illness was

causation
a

Jenny's, and if caused by a faultydiet,then, since uniformity of in experience, caused by Johnny's illness was
is like,in material
that is

faultydiet,or by something
As

like,in material
is

respects, to

faulty diet.

already set forth,the Induction

was was

Jenny's illness Johnny's illness

caused

caused

by by

faultydiet (x)faultydiet.

INDISCRIMINATION

In

this argument,
if these alike

the

identical
are

homologous

elements

are

the

ratios ; and
are

elements in material

indeed

and the identical, if causation

illnesses

in

fact

respects; and

is, in
;

the reasoning is unimpeachable constant experience, ; then the cause of Johnny's illness is discovered. how But elements that
are

and

if the ? ?

taken

to

be

identical the

are

not

in fact the
was nor

identical

What
How

effect will this have

if Jenny's illness
was

validityof preceded merely, and

upon if it
was

argument
not

caused,

by
but

unsuitable

diet ?

How

neither

caused

preceded,

is no Then, accompanied, by faulty thus caused. The for supposing that Johnny's illness was reason in this particular reasoning is then fallacious ; and the fallacy, to Traditional Logic as non causa instance, is the fallacyknown pro causa, or post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This fallacyis utterlyout of place in Traditional nothing of causation, Logic, which knows diet ?
or

there clearly,

of the

means

presence

in

whereby that Logic

; and

causation makes second

us

may

be

ascertained first how

and it

its
ever

wonder,

obtained
late

admission

how, being in, it did

rule

not

stimu the

logiciansto fallacy.
The

discover

the

whose

breach

constitutes

relation of causation that is the

is

far,however,

from

being

the

only

is the ratio the subject of investigation ; nor in the problem that is,on occasion, identified with only element its homologue in the premiss ; so that the fallacy causa non pro is fallacies this class. but of the of It how causa a sample may, relation
ever,

be taken

as

type of the class.

in
To

In this, as the

in other

matters,

Traditional
has gone for
a a

Logic,
astray.
cause

departing
ainov JMTJ

from
CLLTLOV

ws a

that
for

which
which

is not
a

cause; ;

teaching of Aristotle^ does not signifytaking it signifies taking that

is

reason

is not

reason

and

thus,

on

the

one

under consideration; fallacynow the on other, is with difficulty distinguishedfrom the current into which logicianshave corrupted meaning of the non sequitur, the Aristotelian Thus, by departing fallacyof the Consequent.

hand,

identified

with

the

and

from
can

Aristotle
be
or

they
be
a

have

got their whole

which has inextricable what Tench
x.

scheme
no

of fallacies, if that

said to

scheme into
an

organisation, arrange
of sewage
x

ment,
Let
water sewage
N.L.

coherence, problem
tench
water

muddle. in
cent,

the will

be With

percentage
will

the of

thrive ?
:

thrive with
in

per

in the

find

It

is found

experience that
C C

carp

386
will live in water
the

NEW

LOGIC

containing, say,
live in thrive in

three per

cent,

of sewage

hence

Induction

"

Carp
Tench
In

three per cent, of sewage. (x) three per cent, of sewage. is sound. The

this
to

induction,the datum
the argument,
; and

Carp

are,

in

respects
All that

material
are

like tench.
we

identified

homologues

the Ratios

these

see,

are

wrongly identified.

experience proves
and if we

is that carp that

concluded

will live in three per cent, of sewage, tench, which are like carp for the purpose
per
cent,

of the should this.

in water

argument,
be We

also will live in three

we

of

sewage,
more

we

abundantly justified.But
have of that the which
not
non

have

concluded

than

concluded

that tench
of

will not in
so

degree
is not
causa

and pollution,

but thrive, only live, concluding we have

committed

fallacyunder
pro

consideration, of
The
true
non

taking

that

for

identical should The

not
even

identical.
causa,

title of

the

fallacy
need

be,

but

idem

pro eodem.
causes,

identified

elements,

so

far from be terms.

being always
Take
an

be Ratios. has

They
served
us

may

example, the
possess
a

like

of which

before.

Does

this

insect

sting ?

Yes, for it is like,in all material

possess

respects, to those

other

insects which Those This

The

what

I take to be

stings. stings;
a

insects insect
is correct
term

possessed (x)possesses
at all

sting.

Induction
second

points, except

in the identification

of the

in is

the

premiss. The
those
possess what
to

datum

problem with its homologue in the quite satisfactory.This insect is so like

had

insects of which
I take
to

I have be The

experience,and
I
am

have

found

to

that stings, relation

safe in

arguing from premiss is,

in the elements taken

the
as

one

the

other.

expressed
one

in the

previously shown,
But
as

subsumable

under

that

is constant

experience.
taken
to

the argument
are

is fallacious because What

are

identical

not

in fact identical. the

I have

be

stings, in

examining

insects,

not

stings, but

ovipositors.Consequently, the argument, that this insect possesses is unsound is unsound because it contains the fallacy a sting, ; and
non

idem

pro eodem.
Fourth and Fifth
Canons

The

of

Induction

are

that

the

quaesitum is obtained

by adopting

into the

problem the

homo-

THE

PREVIOUS

QUESTION
and be that the

387
well
as

logons
the The

element

of the

premiss ;
must

difference, as
in the

likeness

of the

datum,

reflected

conclusion.

adoption into the problem of the homologous term of the the fifth Canon is neglected, and premiss,is fallacious only when
the
not

non-assimilation
allowed for and

in any reflected is due many

respect, of the
in the
a

terms

of

the

datum,

is

conclusion.

If I argue

that is

since like

typhoid fever typhoid in so

fail to

to

micro-organism, typhus, which

to

respects, is due

the
some

same

micro

recognisethat there must be in the bacilli, corresponding with the differences a diseases, I commit fallacy of this nature. organism, or burglary
members has been committed in
my

dissimilarity
the
two
a

between The
as

fact well

that
as

house,
both
"

in

the conclusion Robinson's, justifies of the

same"

that criminal

were

committed but it does

by
not

of the that

class;

justifythe

committed they were by the same It does, however, justify an men. hypothesis that they were com The mitted fact that this picture is like,in men. by the same the material respects of handling, technique, and general nature the con to of the subject, picturesby Corot or Millet, warrants of the school of Corot clusion that it was one painted by some in its design and execution Millet ; but the inferiority forbid or that it was the conclusion painted by Corot or Millet himself. of the recognised fallacies of Traditional This is not one Logic, that circumstances but it is well known by practicalreasoners that there is fallacyin arguing from alter cases one case ; and is that alike in material another not to precisely respects. It of indiscrimination, since might appropriatelybe called the fallacy
'
'

conclusion

it

depends

on

want

of discrimination

between

the

terms

of

the

datum.

Nothing be in the assumed problem that is not warranted by may Breach of this is the known Canon to experience. fallacy Traditional Logic as the fallacyof many questions. It should rather be called the fallacy of the previous question, for it is the to some illegitimate assumption of an answer question that should have been answered, and has not been, before the problem was stated. It is,indeed, a true begging of the question ; for the problem is a question,and it begs the problem. But it is not a for it does not beg a principiumor major premiss. petitio principii,
C C

The

Sixth and

last of the

Canons

of

Induction

is that

388
It does
not

NEW

LOGIC all.

beg

premiss
the

at

Nor

does

like the so-called it, in

a

of principii petitio

What The

it

questions,or, as it should rather be called, of the previous question, is usually considered form of a rare and, like the fallacyof the accident, and of amphibology, fallacy, is usually illustrated by the same stale example copied from one
book
to

begs is the fallacyof many

syllogism,beg the conclusion problem or question.

premiss.

another

usque
one

ad

nauseam.

It is in fact

very

frequent
*
"

form

of

and fallacy,

indeed, does
no,

it appear
you bread
'

that often escapes in the bald form

recognition. Seldom, usually cited,

?
'

Yes

or

Sir, have
does ? is
so a

left off
and

beating your
butter

mother

Why
down it does
moon

of fallacy What

many

always fall with the buttered questions until it is established

'

side that

fall.

is the
of the

connection
? is
a

between

and

changes
makes

weather

changes of the fallacyof the previous

a

questionuntil it is established
is it that is
a

that there

is

connection. vessels

What
?

food that is cooked

in copper

poisonous

fallacy of the previous question until it is established that cooked food so is poisonous. Are the rectilinear markings on
Mars

canals ? is

of fallacy

the

previous questionuntil
are

it is

proved
?

that such is such This

a

markings exist.
not

Why

savage

races

always cruel
are

fallacyuntil it is proved that they always

in

cruel.

is fallacy

the

argument,
statement

nor

in

the conclusion

of
as

the argument.
the
statement

It is in the

of the

problem

and,

problem is the first step in Empirical fundamental of the fallacies Reasoning, the fallacy is the most of Empirical Reasoning, and been con should, perhaps, have first. Whatever sidered its place in Empirical Reasoning, it has we certainly no place in syllogistic reasoning; and, when
it among the classical fallacies of Traditional Logic, know the acumen that discovered not whether to admire most
find
we a

of

the

fallacyto
no

the

nature

and

originof which
that

Traditional
at

Logic gives
that

stopped short and failed to discover the mode of reasoning which finds a the fallacy, place for it, and supplies a
acumen

clue, or

the want

of

stage,
for

accounts

Canon

which

forbids

it.
FALLACIES
OF

INFERENCE.

The from
a

first Canon

of Inference It follows

postulate.

is that every Inference that, in arguing of

is deduced

consistency,

390

NEW

LOGIC

blanche. it does

This
not
come

is

fallacy, gross
any be

as

mountain,
into

open,

palpable ; yet
but

under

of the

recognised fallacies of Traditional

an

Logic.
it is not the

It

might, perhaps,

twisted
The

equivocation ;
in

reallyan

equivocation.

fallacyconsists
argument.
of

applying
pen is
on

postulateoutside the purpose mightier than the sword for the

course

of the
purpose

The

producing
purpose

effects

the
on

and

destinyof nations, not

a

for the

of action

the field of battle. What

is not Court
;

mineral,
of
be

must

be either hold

an

animal China from

or

vegetable;
is not
a

and

the

Appeal

may

that

clay
these

mineral

but it would

fallacious to argue,

postulates,

that their
I do
not
me

lordshipsheld China
it is of

know

but to
The

clay to bean animal or a vegetable. how Traditional Logic would place this fallacy, of the argument. clearlya neglect of the purpose
that
lease

Court purpose

Appeal holds
of
a

China of
of

clay is
the

not

mineral

for

the

certain

minerals; and
argument
purpose

to

apply this

the postulate outside Traditional Logic knows

and

purpose

is fallacious.

nothing of the

of its arguments,

this is one

of the grave

I make

against Traditional
is all
which For

charges of ignorance and neglect that of Logic. In Deduction, the purpose

; and
no

the argument conducted

account.

important
the of of

Deduction of the

can

be

properly
out

leaves

purpose
some

argument
the whole the
as

of

the part

the purpose for the purpose

For

arguments, arguments,

includes

other

part includes
the

the whole.

the purpose

of the argument
in London go

to

positionof
purpose
to

Eastcheap, Eastcheap
of the argument
to
as

is included

; but

for the

to whither

I must in

from

Birmingham
be

get

Eastcheap,
An

London of

is included

instance

Fallacious

Eastcheap. reasoning may often

the
way in every

referred

to

different
The

fallacies, according
of Modern
as we

to

which

it is

regarded.

contention

Logic, that
seen,

Reality, may,
confusion
a

have

be

proposition refers to regarded as a fallacy of

also
be

of the mode

of argument.

It may

of the argument. fallacyof neglecting the purpose is to explicate the of the argument of Consistency, the purpose it is not implications of propositions; and for this purpose, does or does not refer to reality. the proposition material whether Fallacies
mentioned will of the argument neglect of the purpose breaches again, and other examples given, under of Canon be

regarded as In the Logic

of

the fourth

of Inference.

IGNORATIO

ELENCHI

391 the that the

An

argument,

once

begun,
we

must

proceed
third
nor

on

basis
a

of the

postulate; and
once

thus
not

obtain

the

Canon,

postulate,

granted,must
I may,
or

be withdrawn the Brutus purpose killed

ignoredin
; and

argument.
chalk purpose black
I may

for that

of argument, Caesar chalk

or

of the postulate that

course

is

white,
of

I may,

for
or

the is

argument,
that Brutus

postulate
did
not

that

is not saved

white,

; and

kill Caesar, the

same

his life ; but

assume a con

not, for the

purpose
nor

of
may

argument,
once

tradictory postulates ;

I, having

assumed the

postulate,
argument.
in sup

of permit it to be denied or ignored in the course of this Canon, that lies in the breach The fallacy refute posing that by denying a postulate,we founded
on

consists the be

argument

it.

If

I argue

that, if
refute
an

London

were

to

destroyed
would that

by
be

an

earthquake to-morrow,
do
not

the finance this

of the whole

world

dislocated, you
will be

argument
rather

by denying
that if women than

London have and have and

wrong

destroyed by votes, they will always

do
not

earthquake.
for
war

I say

vote

against it ;

you

refute that

this argument if my scheme

votes.

I say
successors

will by denying that women of Logic is valid, Aristotle

to

all his
; and

and do
not

followers, down
refute

the

present day,
that

are

you

this argument

by denying

my

scheme If coal
a so

is valid.

pint of petrol contains

many
; and ;

so

many of coal

calories,and
represents
so

pound
many

of

if

pound
with of
a

foot

pounds
how

of energy

then,

little
are

calculation,I

can a

tell you

many

foot-pounds
You
a

energy

represented by

pint

of

petrol.
to

may

be in

pint of

deny that the number petrolis correct ; you

the of the number

of calories that I have

may

taken

deny

that the number

I

foot-pounds of energy, or postulated to be in a pound

of do
not

of
correct

that calories,
; but
sum

have

coal, is

these

denials

in

the
you

least vitiate do
I my
not

calculation.
me

The

is

correctly

done, and

convict with

of

mistake

in

my
so

arithmetic,

by proving
may the the and The
many

that

began

the wrong

figure. By
but
you

doing

you

invalidate
process

result, no
I reached

doubt;
it. The

do

not

invalidate

by

which

addition
to
a

and

subtraction,

multiplicationand
this is all that the

division, are

correct

decimal

point ;
do. how is to

Logic
in
to

of Inference

and requires,

all it can

Logic
the

of

Inference there
are

cannot
a

determine of

experimentally
All it
can

calories

pint
it,and

petrol.

do

take

postulatesgiven

draw

inferences

from

them.

392

NEW

LOGIC

be ignored ; being specifically denied, the postulate may and this is a very frequent fallacy. I argue that if he is sufficiently good-natured, he will do what I ask ; and to say that he is a fool
if he

Without

does, does
the

not

invalidate
his

my

argument,
and
a

which
not

is founded take account

and it, he is

on solely

postulateof
To say
to

good nature,
be

does

of his wisdom.
not

that he would
controvert

fool to do
ex

in

fact a fool,is
of argument. it or
I

the argumentum is
a

postulatoby
of the

the argumentum mode

in materid, and
If I
were

fallacyof confusion
matter

arguing the
would

of fact,whether
to

he will do
I
am

not, the retort

am

be material
my

the issue ; but

;

not.

arguing from
the conclusion

postulate alone
way

and

in

Inferential argument,
the

is but another

of

stating
contro

postulate itself. The inference verted, except by showing that it is

To say

cannot,
not

therefore,be
in the

contained

postulate.

is another way sufficiently good-natured to do it, of saying that he will do it if I appeal to his good nature if ; and the that
one

that he is

is true, the other is true.

It

is true
asserts

also.

Inference the

does

not

assert
one

either

only

implication of the

in the other. I say

that, if the Bill is passed into law, it will

It is
no answer

remove

grievance.
late,and
to

to

this argument
pass
;
nor

to

deny the postu

is it any
answer

assert

that the

Bill will not

say

and ignore the postulate,

am grievances,

Denial

and

fallacyknown that Logic,

it

imposed so many to talk about removing one. a ignoring of the postulate together make up the in Traditional Logic as the ignoratioelenchi. In is an It violates no rule of the intruder. illogical
fine person

that I, who

have

syllogism; it is a breach
rule of Immediate unaccounted for it. elenchi.
a

of

no

Law

of

Thought, of
Modern

no

recognised
and

Inference.
Nor

It floats in the
nor

air,unattached

for.

has Inductive
Canon

Logic by
the

any

place

Neither

breach
made

not

ignoratio In the scheme here propounded, it fits into its place, as of a recognised and formulated rule of Inference, a rule of providing an explanationof the fallacy, for the purpose
an

provides a

that

is broken

but

forming

integraland

necessary
seems

part of the

scheme.

This both

accidental of its

consequence

of the rule

evidence primd facie

and its necessity. validity

Violation

of the fourth

Canon

of Inference
any

provides

greater

varietyof fallacies than violation of

other.

It is the

illegiti-

SYLLOGISTIC

FALLACIES

393 that

assumption of something that is not the fallacy of four terms, when constitutes
mate

in

the

postulate
an

this is not illicit major

equivo
minor

cation, the
of

undistributed

middle, and

the

and

assumption that we owe syllogistic reasoning. It is to the same of the Consequent, the fallacya dicto secundum the fallacy quid ad secundum ad dictum the fallacy dictum a dicto simpliciter simpliciter, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum alterum quid,De Morgan's fallacy quid ;
as

well If

as

other fish
are

fallacies not

hitherto

recognised.

Some

fly,
fish ;

And

All eels Some

why

may

we

not

conclude

that

eels

fly? Logic, the middle

Method
of We
term

Because,
tributed. assumed

says

Traditional
says

is undis

Because,
what is not the

the

in the
term
'

postulate.
Some fish'

have Explication, we have replaced,in the

term 'some

major premiss,
but
' '

by the

eels';

some

eels
'

'

is not

given equivalentto, included

eels
'

in,or implied in
'

some

fish.'

Some
some

is indeed, included

in

and all eels,' But in

*

the
are

substitution

of

eels for all eels is warranted. of the

all eels

given,for the purpose not given included are

'

argument,
fish
'

included

fish.'
may

They
not,
make

in 'some

; and

therefore
'

they

nor

may

some

eels,'be
is to
assume

substituted what

for

some

fish.'

To

this substitution We may,

is not

in the
a

indeed, give

to

the argument

postulate. specious appearance

terms
:

of

correctness

by statingit thus,
Some

in Hamiltonian

fish
are

fly;
some

All eels
" . .

fish

All

eels

fly.
ascribe of the

Again
tributed

Traditional middle. of the The

'

Logic
The middle.
' '

would

fallacyto
ascribes

the

undis

Method The of

Explication
' '

it to

the
is
or

ambiguity
'

some

of the may

major premiss
be
'

this the

some.' other
some

some

the
to
'

minor

that
we

'

some are never

; and

owing
'

this

ambiguity,

in replacingone some justified by another. The of the illicit major rests on the same fallacy assuming something that is not in the postulate.

ground,

of

Prisoners
He He
was was

who
not not

are

found

guilty are

punished

found

guilty; punished.

394 In Traditional

NEW

LOGIC

Logic, this is
is distributed
;

an

illicitmajor.

The

predicate of

predicate of the major premiss thus is undistributed; and of the major. there is illicitprocess of Explication,the defect is more By the Method easilyidentified. It is said in the conclusion that he was not punished ; but there is nothing in the postulateabout those who are not punished. The
the

the conclusion

postulate applies to
clude from this

those

only

who

are

punished
those who

; and
are

to

con

postulate anything about what is not in the postulate. assume Traditional Logic forbids us to draw
these

not, is to

any

inference

at

all from
not
so

premisses ; but
There

the sound

Method

of

Explication is
an

niggardly.
be

is

inference, and
them.
was

inference

useful, to be drawn

from

If

guilty are punished, and he safely and rightly infer that guiltywas
The Canon

not
on

not

prisoners who found then we guilty, may the ground of being found
breach of the fourth

that may found are

he

punished.
is
even more

illicitminor of Inference. If
and

plainlya

The
Some

is a syllogism

defective

mode

of

argument

logiciansargue

by

the

syllogism ;

why

are

we

not

in concluding that justified

a

All

logiciansemploy

defective

mode

of argument

Because, says Traditional Logic, the Subject of the conclusion is dis is not term distributed,but in the minor premiss the same tributed, and
Method
'

thus

there

is illicit process

of

the

minor.

The

All

direct, Explication gives an explanation,that is more logicians have been substituted for some logicians ; but
of
'

'

'

logicians are implied in some

*

all

'

stitution, we
The

are

postulated equivalentto, included in, or and therefore, in making the sub logicians,' assuming what is not in the postulate.
not
a

fallacyof concluding
a

dido

ad simpliciter It is the

dictum

secundum
some a

quid is thing
term

breach

of the

same

rule.

assumption of
of the

that

is not

in the

postulate.
for

It is the purpose in

replacement of
argument,
is
a

that by another equivalent to, included it is true

For
;

is not,

the

in, or
of

implied
Fowler's
arsenic of the

it.

Arsenic
are

poison,

but

drop
for

doses

solution
means

not

poisonous.
in

the purpose

of the argument, the

purpose

arsenic

appreci
in

able

quantity :

argument,

arsenic

drop

FALLACY

OF

THE

CONSEQUENT

395

doses arsenic does

of

Fowler's

solution doses that of

is

neglectable. Conversely, though

solution is not
not

in

drop
follow
'

Fowler's

not
*

arsenic
*

short,
of

arsenic

and

the
are

is simpliciter quantity of arsenic

poisonous, it poisonous. In
in
a

contained of the To

drop

Fowler's

solution

'

not, for
or assume

the

purpose terms.

argument
substitute

about the thus The and and

one

poisoning,convertible
for the other is to
to violate the

substitutable what of is not

in the

and postulate,

fourth
the

Canon

Inference.

Consequent is usually called the nonsequitur, is denned which is of so loose by Jevons as argument any that discover inconsequent a character no one can any
'

of fallacy

cogency kind. of
a

in it.' As

The

fallacyof
been

the

Consequent

is

nothing

of the

defined

by Aristotle,it
is

is the

unconditional

affirmation

postulate that has

from in of If A the
no

argue

B, it is

To granted subject to a condition. C, to A is C, is a fallacyof the Conse

sense.

quent
breach
not

Aristotelian
rule

In rule

Traditional ad

Logic,
we

it is
may

except

the of it
an

created

hoc, that

affirm

the

consequent

scheme
and If
we

here

propounded,
a

hypotheticalproposition. In the falls into an appropriate place,ready

of the fourth is Canon of Inference. under
a

prepared for it,as

affirm exceed

breach

unconditionally that
the limits of

which

postulated
assume

condition, we
is
not

the

and postulate,

what

postulated.
these but

All
ence,

fallacies
are

are

violations of the

fourth

Canon

of

Infer

these

far from

being
are

all the all the

fallacies that

arise from that

breach

of this Canon.

They
discover

fallacies of this kind

are

Traditional
are

Logic recognises;
To of

but the

they

far from
we

being
go

all that

committed.

remainder,
show how thus the

must

through

the each

Canons
of them

Explication,and
may be

licence rise to

exceeded,
of

and

give
allows
not

granted by a fallacyof
infer,from
us a a

this

description.
first Minor Canon

The every

Explication

us

to

what

proposition,its reciprocal. It does but purports to be the reciprocal,

bears

allow If that

to

infer
tree

is not. follow

peach

sometimes
tree
not

nectarines, it does
bears

not

nectarine

sometimes do
to

peaches.
killed follow

If Brutus Brutus.

killed If

Csesar, it will
ends in

infer that

Caesar
not

Democracy
ends but in Ponos

despotism, it does
Ponos is kala-azar does of kala-azar

that

despotism
ponos, is
a

democracy.
is
a

implies kala-azar is not imply Kala-azar

form The

form

of ponos.

396
converse

NEW

LOGIC

of Traditional
a on

contains books
*

Logic, without being positively untrue, human suggestio falsi. Some beings are writers of converted Logic,' becomes, when according to rule,
' '

Logic are human beings ; thus convey other writers of books ing the distinct suggestion that some on Logic are not human beings. I have been under the painful of this book, of criticising with some necessity,in the course
on

Some

writers of books

severity the
ventured,
outside the and

writers should

of

books
not

on

Logic
to

but

have

never are

venture,

suggest

that

they

from them pale of humanity. This suggestion comes be selves,and I trust they are pleased with it. This fallacy may called the False or Illicit Reciprocal.
The every second

Minor

Canon
a

of

Explicationallows
that

us

to

infer of the

proposition with
It is not

Ratio

is, for the

purpose the

argument,

equivalent to, included

difficult to

in, or

implied in

Ratio

of

the Postulate.

slip into the substitution of a Ratio that is ostensiblyequivalent, "c., to the postulated Ratio, but is not equivalent, He of the argument. "c., for the purpose killed her,'may He be fallaciously taken to mean her.' murdered
' ' 1

He He

stole it,'may

be
'

substituted fallaciously be
break from

for

He
*

took
He

it.'

'

paid willingly
Hard
to

may

inferred fallaciously
no

from
; but

paid
are

promptly.'
be

words

bones, it is true

it would

fallacious

infer
words

this
no

postulate that

hard
not not

words
from
turn

innocuous.

Soft
may
we

butter
a

parsnips ;
answer

but

this away

postulate
wrath.
have In been

infer that

soft

does in

this

instance,

all three

elements

the

proposition

replaced by others ; and the replacement is perfectly elements substitutable are logically legitimateas long as the new the new elements ; as long,that is, for the original are as equivalent in this case, in, or implied in those they replace; but to, included
He spoke at great length does not necessarily they are not. it necessarily does She found tedious ; nor imply that he was looking for it. Such fallacies may be termed imply that she was
' ' ' '

fallacies of the IllicitRatio. The

any
term

third
in
a

Minor

Canon

of
a

Explicationpermits
that

us

to

replace
of the

postulate by
have
to
seen

term

is,for the

purpose in

argument, equivalent to, included

term
;

in, or

implied
this

the

replaced
of
a

and

we

that

the

fallacious substitution
under

term

that purports constitutes

be

substitutable

Canon, but

is not,

the

fallacies, already examined, of the undistributed

398
it would graphicprint,
have been

NEW

LOGIC

be

under-exposed postulate,that under-exposure

of fine
necessary

fallacious to argue that the what ; for this is to assume,

is
a

negative must
is not in the of want
a

necessary

condition
'

detail.

'

He

has
'

just
'

taken

the

medicine
is
*

implies,as
but 'The taken

condition,

The

medicine
does
not

glass imply

empty,'
He

medicine the

glass
of

is He

empty
may

has of
to

just

medicine.'

have

thrown
are

it out

the

window.

Fallacies

this

sub-class knows
may

also

unknown

Traditional of which the False

Logic they
The

; for
are

this

Logic
We

nothing of the argument

call these Fallacies
of

fallacies.

Condition. fourth Minor

Canon of

Explication allows
of of Care the

us

in which proposition

the

Ratio

postulate
argument,
be may be

is

deny any replaced by a

to

Ratio

that

is,for the
of the

purpose

the

inconsistent

with

the Ratio

postulate.
the

must

taken

that the ratios

If he
are

reallyare
we lives,

inconsistent,or
are

inference
that

fallacious.

in denying justified
for the purpose that
are

he

died ; for the ratios

;

inconsistent
cannot

of the
he
not

argument

but

if he

lived,we
of

safelydeny
we

died ;

for, for the

arrived
ever was

purpose

this

argument, these Ratios

at sea,

inconsistent. she

If the

ship foundered
her last
nor

may

deny safely
may
not

that

in port from arrived well

the

voyage

but
was

we

deny that she

nor

in port,

that
none

she

seaworthy,
Ratios
may She

that

she

navigated ; for
Ratio
a

of these

is inconsistent have been

sunk

with

that

she

foundered.
or

by collision with
;

derelict,
sink
cannot

by the explosion of something in her cargo. water, we deny that they float in water safely may safelydeny
the
that

If stones but
we

in

they
of

are

moved

by
are

water

for

this Ratio with the

is not, of

for the purpose

the

argument,
fallacies

inconsistent denials

Ratio

postulate.
fifth Minor

Such

of

the

Consistent

Ratio.
The Canon
a

of

positionin which
is,for the purpose
term
or we

term

deny any pro of the postulate is replaced by one which

to

Explication permitsus
inconsistent that
a

of the argument,
we

with

and may

again

must

be

careful

there brace

fall into

fallacy. If
he

he shot

displaced is inconsistency, of partridges, we

the

incon are nothing, for these terms sistent ; but if he shot a brace of partridges, we not, on the may ground of this postulate,deny that he shot a brace of hares, or of may

safelydeny that

shot

pheasants : for hares

and

pheasants

are

not, for

the

purpose

of

FALLACIES

OF

ANALOGY

399 It may may

are

this argument,
words hard for break words the
no

inconsistent

with
not
on

partridges.
this account
no

be that hard
we

bones, but

deny

that

break

friendships ;
of live the

for

bones with

not

inconsistent,

purpose
men men

argument,
may

friendships. Though
that
men

threatened unthreatened
men are

long, we long;

not

on

ground deny that

and

live

for threatened

unthreatened
Such

not, for the purpose

are

of this argument, Consistent of Term.

inconsistent.

fallacies
The

denials of the
Minor Canon

sixth

Explication
any

allow

us

to

deny
to

any the

proposition postulate.
we

inconsistent We fall into

with

condition the
to

necessary

fallacyif,on
appears of the that his

ground

of the

postulate, typhoid
in the

deny
a

proposition that
condition
may

be, but

is not, inconsistent If he has

with

necessary

postulate.
temperature
to

fever, we

safelydeny
it would in
some

is normal

evening
was

but

be

fallacious
of
we an

deny
not

that

his temperature If the

normal

hour

the
may

twenty-four.
on

plant deny

languishes
that the condition from All
non

and

is stunted,
;

that

account
a

soil is suitable
to
a

since

unsuitable

soil is not It may

necessary

languishing and
infested with

stunted vermin. may the

plant.
be

be

suffering
the
term

drought, or
the

fallacies of this in every

class
case

stigmatised by

for sequitur, the premisses.

conclusion

is unwarranted

by

FALLACIES

OF

ANALOGY.

In

literary or
of

qualitativeAnalogy,
the
to terms

the

chief

fallacy is
which

that has

assimilation been

of the

compared
beset in the three

relations
of

explained
to

be
error

beyond
does
not

the

province
us

temptation analogies.
same as

this
one

The Analogy. forming quantitative ratio of

3 to
as

No

supposes of 8 to

that, since
for

6 is the

the

ratio

16, therefore

is the

same

eight ;
to
a

but

it is not

at all unusual

qualitative Analogy
a

to be confused
as a

with

Inference.

If I say I

that
may

band
met

is

as

good

meal

marching
nonsense,

regiment,
because the the

be

by
eat

the the

reply
music. be

that The
met

that
asser

is

soldiers shark
so,

cannot

tion

that

pike

is the be

of the

river,may
is

by

the the

reply that
shark and is

this cannot

for the

pike

underhung, while

repliesevince overhung. Such of Analogy. They suppose purpose

ignorance of the nature that comparison of ratios

400 carries
instances

NEW

LOGIC

with
are

it

comparison of the
the
;
or

terms

of

the

ratios.

These

assimilate Induction. We

comparable with Analogy to Induction

seen

attempt

of many

to logicians

rather, to make
or literary

it

kind

of

have
to

how
some

difficult it is, in assimilation

qualitative compared
harmless

Analogy,
child is
ness more

avoid and

of the terms the

of the

relations ;
to

how,
of the

in

comparing
would be

stillness of the
we

that

harmless than

mouse,

feel that

the

Analogy
the still
Some

appropriate
of death,
or

comparison
air before
a

with
storm.

the

stillness of the

comparison of the terms, as well as of the ratios,is unavoidable, found, in literary we Analogy ; and is not only unavoidable, but ? It appropriate and satisfying. Wrherein, then, lies the fallacy
lies in this
on :

when

Byron

says

the

Assyrian came
to

down that

like the

wolf

the

fold, we
of the

understand
and
an

him

suggest
of from is
no

Assyrian
but this

rapacity partook suggestionis made, not as ledge, but

is
no as an

savagery

the
our

wolf;
reference

inference it. There

previous know
here
to

addition

to

constancy in experience ; and

substitution of
one

There consequently no Induction. propositionfor another which implies it ;

All

and

consequently no
It is not
a a

Deduction.

that
:

is put
it is not
a

forward

is

a :

suggestion.
it is
covert

assertion positive

conclusion

assertion,or
the

semi-assertion, that the

the wolf. the take the

Assyrian has the

is
no

detestable in

and

of qualities terrifying

There

fallacy

making
and

suggestion : but
If
we

to

suggestion for proof,

that would ment,

on a

be fallacious.

conclude

suggestion into an argu down like a wolf that since the Assyrian came
turn

the fold, therefore he is as

savage

as

wolf, then

we

perpetrate
a mere

fallacy ; but

so

long
not

as

we

receive

the

suggestion as
the ratios
2
=

suggestion,it is

fallacious. is fallacious when

Quantitativeanalogy
and discerned
to

compared
"*-

be
"

alike,are

in fact not

alike.

"

is

fallacious

The ratio between the homologous sides of analogy. is a similar trianglesis equal to the ratio between their areas
"

fallacious

analogy. quantitative
like ratios
base and
or

This
are

of analogy application taken

to

is

equally fallacious when triangleson the same

allowed chosen
to

be
same

unlike, as when
are parallels

between when
20.

the

be

of different areas,

the odds

of 15 to

12

are

in

to preference

odds

of 25 to

PARADOX

401

Fallacies

are

invalid
are

arguments arguments
are

having
that have this

of validity. There
ance

of

and fallacy,

yet

valid ; and

speciousappearance a superficial appear is the most appropriate

a

A Paradox place in which to notice them. sistencythat is not a real inconsistency. beats the tortoise in a race, is a paradox. inconsistent tortoise. An
a

is To It

an

apparent
that the

incon hare

say

the

is,on
the

face of

it,

with

the

fleetness is
a

of the

hare

and

slowness

of the

asymptote

paradox.
never

It is a line that reaches it.

continually
a

approaches
could
states not

straight line, but

That

bird

The

heavier than air,is a paradox. It fly unless it was an apparent inconsistencythat is not a real inconsistency. of Fallacies :" followingis a complete enumeration DICTIONE.

I. FALLACIES

IN

Equivocation.
Bivocation.

Amphiboly.
Fallacies Fallacies of Punctuation. of

Emphasis.
DICTIONEM. of the Modes with of

II.

FALLACIES Fallacies

EXTRA

of Confusion

Reasoning.

Confusion Confusion Confusion

of Induction of Induction of Deduction

Deduction.

with
with

Analogy. Analogy.
or

Fallacies

of

Empirical Reasoning
to
a

Induction.

Jumping
The Non Idem

Conclusion.

Accident.

pro

Eodem.

Indiscrimination. The Previous

Question.
or

Fallacies

of Inference

Deduction.

Contradiction

in Terms.

Neglect
Fallacies The The
N.L.

of the

Purpose

of the

Argument.

Ignoratio Elenchi.
of

Exceeding the Postulate. Fallacy of the Consequent. Reciprocal.

D D

False

402

NEW

LOGIC

The The The Denial Denial Denial

Illicit Illicit False of of of

Ratio.
Term.

Condition. Consistent Consistent Condition. Ratio. Term.

Fallacies

of

Analogy.
of of the Unlike of Like
Terms

Assimilation Assimilation Discrimination

of Ratios. Ratios.

the

sub-relations.

CHAPTER
FAULTS OF THE

XXVI

EXISTING

SYSTEMS

OF

LOGIC

FROM attention scheme Modern

time
to

to
errors

time
and

in

the

course

of this book, I have

seem

called

defects

that

to

me

to

exist in the in

of Traditional

Logic, in the
or

scheme should of

of

Induction, and
be any misunder

Logic.
to

Lest, however, there

nature

disagreement with here the more advisable to summarise them, it seems important of the topics to which The this disagreement extends. promulof what is under gator obligationto make purports to be new, clear in what the novelty consists ; and, irrespectiveof this of superseding Tradi it is germane to obligation, my purpose, tional Logic and Inductive Logic by a Logic that pretends to be more Logic by one that complete and more accurate, and Modern if less profound, to collect pretends to be more intelligible main and defects of to be the to me seem errors together what in all their naked them and deformity. predecessors, expose my standing as
my When I
am

the

the extent

told, as
from

no

doubt
to

I shall be and

told, that
from

my

system

of

beginning to end, I bear the accusation with what must equanimity I can summon ; but that I wish if differences I to the forestall, charge can, my from pre-existing of have been anticipated; that Logic systems Logic
top bottom,

is wrong

they

are

of

trifling importance place,I regard

it

or

that

they
in
are

are

mere

verbal

modifications. In the first

as a

defect scope
to

existingsystems
left

of in

Logic,
doubt.

that No

its nature,
two

purpose,

and
as

by

them

logiciansagree
of, or
how
a

purports
agree
as a

to treat
to

whether
do
not

it is

it as
those No
use

Science who

agree
an

it Logic is, what extends. far its range They do not Those Science Art. who regard or an of its subject-matter to the nature as ;

what

regard

it

as

Art

are

not

agreed

as

to

what

it does.
to

logician up
an

to

the
was

present
not
a

time, except

Spencer, who,

Hibernicism,

logician,has

not two, but three, or has are logical processes properly so called,to a place among reasoning processes.
D D

recognised that admitted Analogy,

The
2

404
two
are

NEW

LOGIC that

processes
not

"

Deduction

clearly or

they do admit, nor completely distinguished by any logician,

and Induction
"

No has the proper distinction between them ever been identified. logicianbut Hamilton, and he only dubiously and incompletely, has

recognised that Deduction

a means

has

no

function

the

implications of propositions.
of

Every

explicate logician regards the

except
to

the to proceeding from the known fact ; every unknown of discovering means a logiciantakes for of granted that Induction, or part of Induction, is an application the syllogism,speaks of the Inductive considers that or syllogism,

syollogism as
"

Induction

is reached
been made

hitherto inference the

reasoning. It has syllogistic clear that Deduction is nothing more by

never

than
to

from

argument

is immaterial truth or falsity whose postulates, though it has been recognised by some ; and
some are

logicians, in

connections, that
in

Induction

is based

on

propositionsthat
as a

materially true, the Universal

of Induction,

relation found
or

clearly

been experience to be constant, has never of the Universal consistently distinguished from is The
a

Deduction, which
the argument. Universals Deductive The

general rule postulated for the

of the secular the be Scholastic

purpose

of of
of

whole
upon

discussion

proceeded

assumption that the Universal

true,
or

reasoning must
of Modern
a

ought
every
to

to

be

true, in fact.
to

assumption

Logic, that
crude attempt
as

refers proposition

or reality,

Reality,is

settle the

question by

As dogmatic assertion. mysterious and involved

the possible to understand Logic, new phraseology of Modern is old Universal writ differently.In short,in Traditional Identity Logic, in Inductive Logic, Deduction, Logic, and in Modern and Analogy are Induction all muddled up together,and endless is the confusion results. A conspicuous example of this confusion riddle of the petitio in the syllogism, which Aristotle and principii
all his
successors

far

it is

have solve ; and

tried to which

solve ; which
must

every

one

of them until the the

argu

has failed to

remain

insoluble

argument
ment

from

from postulatesis clearlydistinguished

from

fact. Deductive

clear distinction between no Logic makes Inductive the reasoning and reasoning between
As
" "

argumentum

and the argumentum in materid, it is not to be expected expostulate, that it will distinguish between the two or imports," or modes of propositions, which the degrees of reference to externality, on
"

406
an

NEW

LOGIC

extensive

and

important mode
of

to

Logic

than

is the mode

reasoning, is reasoning itself.

of

no

more

known

Logic analyses the proposition into its constituents ; and analyses it wrongly. The analysis is so manifestly and glaringly that no it for a day ; logicalmind could countenance erroneous,
with it ; not only does Logic contented logicianwith the exception of Aristotle himself, insist upon every it ; but Modern Logic, as far as Modern Logic can be understood,

yet

not

only is Traditional

adopts
The that
can

and

homologates it.
of Ratio

Logical doctrine, that the Copula is the sole form

form the basis of argument,
be is
so

widely discordant
nearer

with With

truth, that the contrary would

marvellous perverseness of

much

the

mark.

ingenuity, Logic has

are
'

chosen, for its

foundations, expressions that

The
is

every

one

of

them

ambiguous.
Affirmative

ambiguous ; copula ambiguous; the 'some'

or

is

the of

All the

'

of the

Universal

Particular
'
'

proposition has

twenty

of the either thirty meanings ; the hypothetical is ambiguous ; the propositionis ambiguous ; the Predicate classical example of the Universal are proposition All men
' '

doubly, trebly,and quadruply ambiguous. By virtue of a confusion, the like of which can discovered outside of Logical doctrine,Logic contrives
mortal is the

'

scarcely be
to confound

meanings of the copula with the varieties of the Subject. The

be an individual, a class, or a quality; therefore, Subject must anything but the inclusion express says Logic, the Copula cannot

of
a a

individual, or part of a class,in a class,or the attribution qualityto an individual, or a class, or part-of a class. This
an

of is

contrived, that it is difficult to find a place so fallacy ingeniously of the Canons of for it among the long list of fallacies, so many be convenientlyrelegated to reasoning does it violate. It may
that class of fallacies described

by Jevons, as
that
no one

an

argument
can

'

of

so

loose and
cogency The in every

inconsequent
in it.'

character

discover

any

discussion text-book

on

the connotation

of terms,

that

finds

place

published since the researches of the Port Royal is superfluous and misleading. It implies that terms logicians, in connotation be understood are so ; in fact, they never may in Traditional In that Logic, understood Logic, or hardly ever.
every
term must

be

'

distributed

'

'

or

undistributed,'that is to

say,

it must

be understood

in denotation.

QUANTITY Logic divides

and Yet the whole
most

AND

QUALITY
and
on

407

all

propositions into Universal

of the define

Particular;
to include

doctrine

syllogism depends

the distinction.

logicians so
Universals.

the Particular

propositionas

it among
In

supposing that Classification must, or dichotomously, Traditional Logic is as wrong everything

there is any else
"

ought to, proceed

as

it is in almost

as

wrong

as

it

is,for instance, in supposing that

between what it calls Natural

important
other and
true

difference

Classification and
tion
to

classifications.
with

Logic confuses

Generalisa

with

Induction

and Classification, of either. and

consequently fails Logic

is

appreciatethe
In its treatment
to the

nature

of

Quantity
of

Quality, Traditional
It considers in that

deficient inherent

point
whole
Not

ineptitude.
does

quantity is
in

in the

proposition; whereas, only

and

fact,it inheres

the
of
reason

terms

only.
common

the

many all

day long; but astounding defect in all Traditional Logic is its Perhaps the most other than the blindness to the fact that quantities, distributive
* '

Logic ignore by far the most familiar which quantities about we their it practicallydenies existence.

and and
term

the
are,
as

'

can non-distributive,'

be
as

expressed in the Object-term,

in the
a

in fact, as in the
can on

often, and
That

expressed usefully
men are

Objectsacred and of

Subject.
which

All

mortal,
admit
all the

is

proposition
its

that

Logic

appreciate; that
it
can

it

can

into

precincts; and
useful all men,

exercise that
so

complicated
an

operations of its art is a proposition so

that neither formulated
In

; but

Mortality is
bizarre,so
any

attribute

strange,

unheard
other

of, so

monstrous,
has been

Traditional
now,
two
even

Logic, nor
thousand that An
a

Logic that
of all
men

until the

recognises the
and odd

of possibility
years

its existence.

whole

its

existence, Logic has

possess,
so

never

discovered
them the
as

property
inference

that
so

may

be is

amazing,
to

possessed by far,far beyond

power
men were

effect.

Logic admits,
were

startling, of Logic, and beyond its range a logicalproposition, All the

' *

all.

in the house

sportsmen,'and
it in

All the game

a

on

the

estate

pheasants,'and
'

might admit,
the house
was

with

little demur,
'

perhaps,
the

that

All

the all
on

wine the

claret

; but

that

house
all the
"

contained

sportsmen,
estate, and

that drank

the

sportsmen
wine

shot

pheasants
these tions
are

the

all the

in the
are

house,

not

at all.

logicalpropositions. To Logic, they conceived No to have logicianseems

not

proposi

the

possibility

408
that
no on

NEW

LOGIC

such
on

can propositions

exist
any

or

be
to

constructed, for certainly,

book

Logic makes

allusion

propositionsconstructed

plan. It is not that such propositionshave been examined by logiciansand rejected. For Logic they have no existence. That the Object-term of a proposition,as well the Subject, can as
this
express any
*

quantity
course

but
'

the technical, conventional, and

largely
seems

imaginary
never,

distributive

quantity of
thousand

Traditional
years,
to have
a a

Logic,
chalk

in the

of two

occurred

to

any
on

logician.
is not

Traditional

Logic

stands

within line is that

line drawn

and the floor,

declares

that the chalk

but

twenty-foot wall,
to the

that

merely insurmountable, eight classes

of

is also opaque

vision !
Of

the

particularquantitiesin daily
in
to

use,

and

of the

many

quantities included
could wish

these
reason

classes, Logic knows

of few, many, most,
rest ;
never

nothing. That any one scarcely any, nearly all,

or

that, if he did
have occurred
to
common

so

this,that, the other, each, any, the wish, his desire could be satisfied, seems

to

to

Logic. Of the
discourse
and

scores

known

in

negative propositions daily use, Logic knows of five

"

of

limits its purview to two practically propositions.To the rest it resolutely shuts its

only,

and

the

and Of

eyes.

the

thousands and
enter

of forms into the

of

propositionsthat
of

are

used

in

dailydiscourse,

outside logicians
and
or

well as of as reasonings practical men, of four only their books, Logic knows A, E, I,
"

O
at

"

and

gravely declares that

are

no

more

than
but

these these

four

exist,
can

least,that if there
into look

any

besides, none

four

enter

argument.
to to
as

We
as we

the the
our

logician as zoologistas

our our

authorityon
authority on vegetables.

propositions, just
animals, and
If
a

look botanist
were

to
a

the

authority on
told, by
him
a

logician or
are

botanist forms would

not

to

be
"

that zoologist,

there

but
"

four what

of

animals think

cats, dogs, blackbeetles, and

of
our

oysters
Would

they
'

? what

would

they

say ?

they
of

say

We,

with
"

limited

experience, know things innumerable.

of forms there
are

of hundreds

forms

of

animals

cows,

horses, goats,

birds, fishes, creeping, You,

one as an

flying, jumping, and

expert,
known
are

swimming
of hundreds you say

must to us,

know and you

to

for

every four ? If
a

that

is

do
are

only
that

Either

you
a

joking,or

bereft of your told

senses.'

logicianand
are

zoologistwere

be

by

botanist

there

only four

FORMS

OF

PROPOSITIONS

409

forms

of

vegetables oaks, palms,

"

peas,

and

potatoes
say ?
to

"

what

would

they
'

think

of him, who have

more we

and
never

what

would
any

they
In
one

say

We,

paid
than

attention

they not know vegetables,

garden,
have in every enumerated.
must

Would

of

hundreds

forms
see scores

this.

every you

country You, with

be

walk,
your

for every

wider with

and experience, innumerable

your

your

expert knowledge,
that
must
are

acquainted
you
are

forms

unknown advised
go
to

to

us.

Either after

joking, or
when him him the how that

friends

be

look the
are,

you.'
told

But ask

zoologist and
many

the

botanist

to

and logician, and

are

forms
are

of but

statement

by with unquestioning
be horse and
so.

there

propositionsthere four, they receive

Aristotle said
so

the
;

submission.

and
cow

if he said so, it must

In

spiteof

their in

dailyexperience of
their

propositionsand
in every house

propositions ;
every

spite of
of

experience,
on

garden, in
of Traditional

country

walk, and
the

every

occasion

of human
O
a

intercourse,of hundreds

propositionsbesides
assurance on

the A, E, I, and of with logicians

to

Logic

they accept
a

that it would faith, It is the blind the

be
most

libel

the

intelligence
instance the the
ears

of children the
power

call child-like.

astounding
and the

of
to

of

authority to Truly

eyes

deafen

and plain,insistent,
can

clamorous says

fact,that
'

historyof
has
.
.

world

show.

Bacon,

The

mind
.

become vainest
errors,

possessed
idols. than
to

with
art

The

corrupted doctrines, and has tended of Logic

. . .

filled with
more

the

to

confirm

disclose

truth.' Traditional the form

According to into triplets in

four. and taken In

Logic, the combinations

of the

of

fact, if all

in syllogism,amount quantitiesof both Subject- and Object-term, of the

propositions all to sixtyTerms,

all combinations into account, The the

negative

in

Ratio
run

and into

are

millions.

triplecombinations proportion of sixty-fourto department

field of of Inference that

thousands

of

thousands

of millions

represents, therefore, the degree of adequacy of Traditional

in its
own

Logic
out

small the
vast

alone, leaving
it does and of
not

of
to

account

Inference

pretend
solution

explore,and
Of the Problems of

the

still greater field of Induction field of

Analogy.
the

vast ;

Empirical reasoning;
and

of

Logic knows Conjecture ; Traditional nothing. Inductive Empirical reasoning with Logic confuses Inference, with Generalisation, and with Analogy, and so does Hypothesis
Modern

Logic.

410

NEW

LOGIC Traditional
no

of its exponents, According to some Art of Reasoning; but they lay down

Logic is the

general rules for the

of rules available
et

employment
are

of this art.

The

only semblance
de

the

Laws of the Laws

of

Thought, the Dictum

not

omni

nullo, and
If

the

Canons The

Syllogism. Thought
are are

of

Laws

of the

Thought.

they are

laws
'

at
'

all,they

laws

of

verbal

which propositions, that

at
we

no

information, and
find

Things, objects of thought. As they are, Logic tells us they convey learn nothing from them. It is a
with tell Traditional
us

relief to
on one

myself
The
no

last in agreement Laws

of

Logic

matter. to
us

Thought
We
to

convey

information.

learn attain

nothing. They nothing from them.

the

They are bald truisms, that fail platitudes.

The
Canons of

to

dignityeven

of

the
are even

Syllogism
Canons
as

are an

Reasoning.
of incorrect
The and

They
and

of

general Canons small insignificantly

not to

of

part
are

reasoning;
Dictum
than

applicable
is

this

part,

they
no or

misleading.
de

omni

et nullo

truism

no

less bald,
It

less it

empty,
should member class.

the

so-called

Laws

of

Thought.
is
and

asserts,

assert, if of
a

properly stated, that what predicated

it is. of each The it

predicatedof
member
of

every

class is of
course

any

of that

Why,
are
so

meanings
of every

Each,
them and

alike,that closely
to one,

some requires

Every, Any, and skill to distinguish

is true
*

; and

say

that what

is true

one

of each verbal
'

of any

satisfies
say

of completely the description is true

proposition.
one,

To

that what
; but

is to say what
a

is true

is true of each of every one be erected to imagine that it can

into
any

the basis of general principleof reasoning, and be made in other than the restatement, reasoning process that is more is general proposition, of any one but a logician.
a a

words, of part of
enter

notion

too

crazy

to

the mind
Laws
to

The

of

Thought
the

and

the

Dictum and

are

acknowledged
on are

and the

proclaimed
whole with that These The number.

be

foundation

substructure

which

fabric of Traditional

Logic

rests.

They

worshipped

unquestioning reverence
can

be

said for them

the best by all Logicians; and truisms. is that they are empty and silly
!

be

thy Gods, O Israel

Inferences Of these,one

Immediate

of Traditional

Logic

are

four

in

without is,

and doubt, illegitimate

erroneous.

INFERENCE

411 of still

The

others

are

of

doubtful classes

validity,and
that

more

doubtful
Immediate

utility. Of
Inferences that
are

the
; of

eight
in

actually exist
multitude

of

the

numerous indefinitely

of Inferences and
I

included

these

frequent use, Traditional the configuration of the

or

eight classes, all valid, than Logic knows no more

of the other side of which and

all know
moon,

in of

surface

the

of the
the

mental Laws

that

by process of Thought
'

logicianspersuade themselves
the
can

Dictum
no more

de

omni infer

are

of any
'

importance.
saw

Traditional

Logic
was a

from than

She
can

him

do
'

it
He and

to

'

She

there sundial
'

when
to
'

he He

did
was

it

'

it

infer from

designed

conversant

with obtain it
not
was

Astronomy
from these
'

Geometry.' All postulates is Some

'

that

Traditional who
saw

Logic
him
was

can

person

do

she,'
and
'

Some
was

person
not

who that in

did did
not

not

It

he

design a sundial design a sundial.'

and

he,'
these the

Whether

inferences reader
As
must

compare

elegance

value

with

the

first two,

judge.
Mediate

for

Inference, the

crowning

achievement

of

Traditional

this its enormous Logic owes Logic, to which it is applicableto a small proportion only of Compound prestige, it is applicable the small proportion to which propositions ; from it can but extract at most or two, of the multitudes they one, may
cases,

contain
an

; it is not

valid, self-evidently
and
are

but

needs,
be

in

most

awkward,
it appear
a so

cumbrous,
; its rules

to make

complicated faulty; and

of

process

of reduction

it cannot

applied
And

without this

knowledge of clumsy and inefBcient

still
more

the

barbarous

mnemonic

verses.

process,

extremely

limited and
one

applica
flower of the

tion, and
Traditional
reverence

limited its

Logic;
and

is the crown utility, pride and its glory; its

title to
two

years,

so

applause that mankind freely and lavishly bestowed

man,

have,
upon

for it.
so

thousand in the

Never,

long historyof
Of

has

kudos

been

obtained

cheaply.

which is a valid, Analogy, in the strict Aristotelian sense, of reasoning, mode frequently employed telling,useful, and nothing is known by any system of Logic hitherto devised, though value. and not a Spencer, who was logician,recognised its use it with Empirical If logicians mention it at all,they either confuse of reasoning Reasoning, or they fail to appreciatethat it is a mode
at all.

The

reasonings

of

Mathematics

have

no

part

or

lot

in

any

4i2

NEW

LOGIC

scheme

Logic hitherto propounded ; or, if they have, they are misappreciated,and taken to be examples of syllogistic reasoning,
of

which

they
need

very

seldom

are. so

The

understood other
me

doctrine

that

Mathematical

reasoning is
take
no

different from of it,

seems

reasoning,that merely another

about

Logic
instance

heed

to

of the

passionof logiciansfor hedging

and

themselves

with for

conventional, unnecessary,

excluding from

Logic
at

what

and unreasoning restrictions, properly belongs to it. of

Finally, the fallacies in

fallacies speaking, Traditional
enumerate
or

dictione

Aristotle

are

not,

strictly
are,

all, and

the

fallacies extra

dictionem

in
not

Logic, illogicalexcrescences. recognise by any means

One whole

Logicians
all the

do

be

perpetrated.

class
"

of

fallacies that may Fallacies the fallacies of

"

confusion
on

of the mode

of argument

is almost

confined

to

books

Logic, and is cherished by logiciansas their own peculiar pet. down rules Traditional no Logic lays by which the fallacies that be avoided, nor its fallacies extra it does enumerate are may of any of its rules. dictionem A more breaches illogical positionit When has fallen into a pit, would be difficult to invent. a man
it does
not

help

him

much

to

tell him

the

name

of the

pit; but
or

this is all the

aid that

Logic, whether
It
seems a

Traditional, Inductive,
that the least any
do
one,

Modern,

affords him.

to

me

who

and professes
reasoner,

calls himself

can logician,

for the

wandering
boards,
the All

is to stake out
'

his route, and of

to

put up

notice

inscribed
But

Danger
as

Logic,
his

fallacy! Keep to hitherto taught, does nothing of this.

! Beware unwary
'

right.'
it does

is to say broken
that There

to the

reasoner,

who

has fallen into

fallacyand
to

shins, My

poor

friend, it will comfort

you

know

the

elenchi. fallen is called ignoratio into which are fallacy you fallacies farther along your path. I cannot are plenty more how
to

tell you natural

avoid
; but

them

; for this you not

must

trust

to

your

own

acuteness

I will

leave

you

altogether without
names,
or

assistance.
any

Here,

suffering stranger, is a list of their

of
scorn some

at

rate, of the

names

of them.

Whenever
into

you

find

yourselfan
which
you

object of
you
to

from

having fallen
name

another

pit,
into

it will console

the find, in this list,

of the

pit

have

fallen.'

If,in the foregoing pages,

less may

prominence,
think

to

paid less attention, and given the doctrines of Modern Logic than its votaries
own.

I have

it deserves, the fault is their

Supposing

it to

be

414
and light, I shall be

NEW

LOGIC

pleased

to

oblige him
blind

; but

am

under

no

obligationto choke

him into myself by following a region of obscurity and mystery, that I verily believe I could recognise, but for the fog, as a thoroughfare, or a blind alley, with
To

myself and

which

I have

been

familiar from of

childhood. contained in this book, I

the examination

logicaldoctrine

have

brought
no

no

in Greek, to
on

pretend to no scholastic learning. Any logiciancan

text

academic

equipment.

scholarship
tripme
up

knowledge

of the pure

of Aristotle. Bocardo
to

I could

not, without
or

the
to

help of
Ferio,

text-book, reduce
if I
were so

Barbara,

Fesapo

wish to as curiously constituted I bring to to perform the operation. The only qualifications and the task are sense a ordinary common plentifullack of for Greek for authorityin general, and reverence philosophy in
even

particular.
common

The

only
and There
a

weapons

am

armed

with,

are

the

slingof
hitherto

sense,

few

smooth

pebbles of fact from

a

the brook

of

experience.

is, however,

mode

of argument,

unmentioned,

Logic.
the

that I may Traditional pray in aid of my attack upon Darwin's doctrines were fiercely opposed by theologians found
of

until it was

that, if Genesis

is read

aright, the
be
and

doctrine

of

Species by Natural Selection can After that discovery,all went well with Darwin I suggest that if Aristotle is read aright, and Origin
sense

found

therein.

his doctrines.
in the
are

understood doctrines
in

he

intended, it will be
with

found

that

my

in

harmony
In
case

his, and

are

contained potentially

his

Organon.
in the

there

Organon,
that have
my

be found is any doctrine of mine that cannot I submit that it was contained in those of his

books
I

been

lost,and
prove

have
it
was

not

come

down
so

to

us

; and

defy
if
I
are

critics to is

that

not

contained. with the

Moreover,
doctrines

there

anything in Aristotle
passages
not to

inconsistent in which
to

propound, then the

found,
are

these

inconsistencies been for

be attributed from

Aristotle,but have carelessness,

of
or

inserted
own

by transcribers, either
nefarious
purposes.

their

This

mode

argument

is not,

indeed,

taught

Logic ; but it is freelyemployed by those who have been brought up in the Aristotelian atmosphere, and is and of great power an by efficacy. It sometimes argument goes
in Aristotelian

the

name

of the

Higher Criticism.
my

Here and my

I terminate

review
New

of the

Logic
This

of my
New

expositionof the

Logic.

predecessors, be Logic may

THE

END

OF

TRADITIONAL

LOGIC

415
to commend
"

right or
it to the

wrong, assent

and

may

or

may
; but

not

have
this

been I
am

able
sure

of my
can

readers
no or a

of

that
as

the
a

Logic
is struck

of

Tradition
an

longer
valid

stand

before of

the

world Its

complete,

accurate,

scheme
;

doctrine. is

hour The

; its sentence

is delivered
; the

its doom is
and
at

pronounced.
gate
;

handwriting Logic
vain is

is

on

the wall
in taken

enemy

the

Aristotelian
;

weighed
is to be

the

balances,
and the

found
to
one

wanting
more

and

its
In

kingdom
will

away,

given

worthy. plead
follow
no

it

struggle against
Socrates, and
no

inevitable
own

; in

vain

for

longer

existence. of

If it consults

its

dignity,it will
a

the

example
into the

calmly lay
ministers

down
to

life that of
man.

is

longer
To sink

serviceable, and

longer
Giant

the

uses

position of
to

Pope

and

Giant

Pagan

in the

immortal

allegory ; wayfarers
'

sit unheeded

with

by the wayside, threatening indifferent penalties that it is powerless to enforce ; to cry by the
are

Unless

you

reason

syllogism, your
unsound
to
'

arguments
a

have of

no

validity, your

reasonings
in the

is

part unworthy
traditions. Men
to

its and

splendid history ; derogatory

women

its great
as

will continue

the

future,
;

in
so

the

past,

reason

without
continue increase

employing
in and the

syllogism
as

and,
to

reasoning, they will

survive,
to

future,

in

the

past,
; and

prevail, to
the
the
on a

multiply exceedingly
as

they
their

will

justly adduce
on

their

success are

proof beyond fight

look back in
on

cavil

that
as

reasonings, Logic,
had

whole,

sound.

Against fact,
vain.
a

against stupidity,even
Aristotelian

gods

themselves
may

But

its

deathbed,
career.

life well minds of

spent.
men

It has

royal

It has human

dominated
race.

the It has It It

for

sixty generations unprecedented,

of and

the

received
has

honour

homage

unrivalled.

outlived

dynasties, nations,
the

civilisations, and
than

religions.
It in

is older oldest
now

than

Papacy
of the submit

; older

Christianity itself.
that exists doom

is the
;

product
it must all

human
to

intellect inexorable

Europe
soon or

and

the

that,
That

late, overtakes
the
to

earthly things.

spell upon
never

minds

of

men

Breaks,
Pallida Its
mors

unite

again.
tabernas, Regumque
it
rest

cequo

pulsat pede pauperum

;

turres.

fight is fought

its

race

is

run

; may

for

ever

in peace

APPENDIX

A A
some

CLASSIFICATION
on on

OF of the

SCIENCES Sciences is included

to

CHAPTER

the Classification

in how
no an

books

Logic
what

; and

the

reader

is inclined

wonder
to

it got

there, and
with

it is

doing
as an

there. essay

It appears

have

connection

Logic, except
; and

in classification and is itself of the

no

example of
however,
included
a

classification

classification classification that

integral
has,
been have
; but

part of Traditional
with

Logic.
a

The

Sciences have

Logic

connection
to

must,

I suppose,

inarticulately present
a

the

minds

of those in their

classification

of sciences

logicianswho books on Logic

have been been may

connection

they

neither

explainnor
asserted
to

refer to. that words needs that

Early
or

in this book grown,

it was

devised,
felt to be
sure

have

in response
states
are

the

have

mental express if there that

because
as

in

words

; and

of different ways things have presented themselves

we similarly, reasoning about

things, it
aspects,

is
or

in different

of different

natures, which
them. As

have Science

elicited these is

different ways

of

reasoning about as Knowledge facielikelihood

with the
so.

organised Knowledge, and is a primd is acquired largelyby reasoning, there that the different kinds of Science correspond may different kinds of reasoning; and on inquiry we find that
We find that Sciences may three be

this is

divided
of

into three

main

kinds, which

correspond

with

the

modes

correspond also with the three varieties of modes of reasoning. the The fact, subject-matterof Inductive Reasoning is observed fruit of experience: the subject-matterof Deductive Reasoning is the fruit of imagination : the subject-matter postulatedquasi-fact, of Analogy is relation ; and correspondinglywe find that there are characterised. classes of Sciences, similarly three main or groups The Sciences have for their subject-matterfacts of Inductive experience; and treat these facts primarilyand mainly by Inductive Reasoning.
N.L.
E E

reasoning, and of these subject-matter

4i8
The Deductive

NEW have

LOGIC for their

Sciences
treat

subject-matterpostulated
and primarily

quasi-fact ; and
by
Deductive The Sciences

this

postulated matter
have for their

mainly

Reasoning.
of Relations

relations ; subject-matter and treat these relations mainly by Analogical Reasoning. Since, however, all knowledge is relative, it follows that rela be excluded from the tions, and reasoning about relations, cannot
first two

classes of Sciences.

Since

observation that and

and

knowledge
often

of

fact

are

defective,it follows frequently

they are

supple
Science

mented
must

by postulationto
often pray

fill the gaps,

that Inductive

in aid the services of Deductive Deduction

are

reasoning. The
from factors
is

of quasi-facts postulated in

derived
some

experience,
are

that

they

are

experiences from
since

which

postu

lated

away;

and

knowledge
inter-relations
numerous

of relations

gained from
classes
of

reasoning is based ultimately experience,it follows that Analogical

on

observed
are,

fact.

The

of

the
:

different but in

Sciences

therefore,
would

and

close

spiteof this,
what

they
our

are

in distinguishable have
treat

their main

features,and
Kinds.
; and

constitute

forefathers Inductive

called Natural of facts observed

Sciences
or

be mental
group

non-mental, which
be

gives us the

facts may first division of this

these

of Sciences. facts may

in and for themselves, regarded simpliciter, further reference : so and without regarded they are the subjectbe regarded,not of Psychology. Or they may matter simpliciter, but with reference to extra-mental facts, real or postulated,with

Mental

which
process

fact thus regarded is they correspond. If the mental the Science mental is Logic of establishing relations, fact is not the process of
mental establishing

the
; if

the mental
but

relations,

the established

relations,then the Science

are

is

Epistemology.
into two of

Non-mental

facts of observation
"

divisible
and

broadly
Motion.
group

distinguishedclasses
Each of these forms Sciences. Material former
latter

Material the

bodies

Modes
a

subject-matter of Living

large

of

bodies

are

divisible into

and

not-Living;

the

being the subject-matter of the Biological sciences, the of Physical sciences. The of the first group Biological
are

sciences fused
It
;

well

characterised, and

their limits is

are

not

often

con

but

the term

PhysicalScience

by
of

no

means

well defined. that

are

three different groups includes, in fact,

Sciences

well

APPENDIX

419

from distinguished

one

another, of which
bodies of for their Sciences

living natural
the first. This

material
group

having notconstitute subject-matter,

the

Sciences

Astronomy, Geology, Oceanology, Mineralogy, Metallurgy, Crystallology,Chemistry, the of and so next forth, all easily distinguished from group Physical Sciences,
Sciences whose which includes
:
"

includes

observed
motion

facts.
is Molar,

of Motion subject-matterconsists of Modes They are divisible primarily according as

as

the

Molecular,
and

or

Ethereal.

To the

the

first

sub-group

second Molecular Hydraulics ; to belong Ballistics of Gravitation, Heat, Physics; and to the third the Sciences from and observation Magnetism, as ascertained Light, Electricity and

experiment.
outline of the

This

without
obvious

scarcelybe complete further The a expansion of the Biological Sciences. primary division is into Phytology and Zoology. Whether
is included under
a

Inductive

Sciences

will

Anthropology
of

Zoology,
of of
a

or

forms
; but

third
either

class
case

co-ordinate

rank,
is the
may to his

is

matter

taste

in

Anthropology
Individual
man

fruitful mother be

large family of Sciences. and knowledge gained and investigated,

his

systematised,as
and relations,
so

his kinds, properties, He may be

constituents, his
to

forth.

as investigated

his diseases,
He may also

his conduct,
be the is
a

his
as

and history, massed

in many

other

respects.
and

regarded
maker,

together in communities,
of the

then

becomes
man

subject-matterof Sociology in
and
every
one

all its branches.

Finally
may be

things

he

makes

the

in are products of man subject-matter of a science, and many each. makes fact subject-mattersof several sciences He things such and houses, subject-matters respec as material, bridges of Engineering and Architecture; and tively of the sciences he

things immaterial, such of the respectively, subject-matters,

makes

as

laws

and of

sciences

the propositions, Jurisprudence and

Logic.
Deductive

Sciences, like

mainly employ, have for but quasi-facts, postulated for

Reasoning, which observed their subject-matter,not

the purpose of

Deductive

they
facts,
These

argument.

observed derived from facts by abstracting certain are quasi-facts then and postulating away the remainder, and there qualities, if they existed in isolation as treatingthe abstracted qualities upon from their associates, with which, in experience, they are invariably

420 combined. material

or

NEW
thus

LOGIC

The facts ; and

things

treated
case

may

be

mental

facts

or

in the latter

may

be material

bodies, living

modes or molar, molecular, or ethereal. living, Thus, we may postulateaway from the complete mental equipment but desire for gain, industry, of man, all mental qualities honesty, and it is this and abstract that forms the human intelligence ;
not

of motion,

subject-matter of the deductive aspect of Political Economy. From but equi-pressure water we postulateaway all qualities may
and

weight, and
those of

so

form

hydrodynamics.
but

From

subject-matter of hydrostaticsand all qualities lightwe may postulateaway

the

and refraction, radiatingin straightlines,reflection, form the subject-matter of Geometrical and so Optics; Statics of levers postulated to be without treats weight or flexibility ; of pulleys from which friction has been postulated away, and so on. of Physical Sciences, often third These form called a group is mainly numerically Mathematical since their treatment Physics,

quantitative. third primary The

the
nor

group

of Sciences

are

those

which

treat, for

facts part by Analogical reasoning, neither of mental of motion ; neither of observed of material bodies, nor of modes
most
nor

facts

of

but postulatedquasi-facts, mental

of relations ; and bodies

or

not

of of
are
are

relations

between

facts, material
relations of which the

modes

motion, but of relations alone, considered

divisible

abstractedly.They
they treat, and

according
of

to

the

three in number. Science

matter

form Space-relations Numerical

Geometry.
Science

subject-matter of the relations form the subjectBut

of the
to
us

of Mathematics.
"

since

numbers

are

known
count

since when we count, we must primarily in sequence relations originate as serially it is clear that numerical
"

time-relations

; and

Mathematics is the Science

has its foundations of relations of

in relations of
A

Time,
Science

as

Geometry

Space.

third

of relations has for its subject-matterthe relations between

; and

Subject and Object

Postulation
It may be

this is

Metaphysics.
bodies
or

is not limited to material

to modes

of motion.

applied to relations of quantity also ; and such postu lated relations form the subject-matterof the Integral and other
Calculi. These
no are so

connate

with

Mathematics branches
as or

that

they are

and usually,

doubt
;

considered rightly,

sub-sciences

of Mathematics is

though it is clear that,

their

subject-matter
Sciences.
It

postulated, they

speaking,Deductive are, strictly

422

NEW

LOGIC Bodies.

Deductive
Sciences lated

Sciences. of

Material

"

Physical
group).
"

Sciences

(3rd

postu
-

quasi

fact

Modes

of Motion.
"

Mathematical

Physics.

concerning Analogical Sciences.

_

Relations

Integraland other Calculi.

"

(Of
)
"

Number

Mathematics.
~

Of
~r

~r

Sciences

of Relations

_.

Space
0
,.

"

Geometry.
,

[Of Subject and Object

The cation soundness
are

~u

,,

"

Metaphysics.

of

classification, providedthe rules of classifi

on

depends classification is required. For the settingforth resemblances

that are, the
on

observed,

the

purpose

for which

the

purpose

of

mere

arrangement,

and

differences,placingtogether those

the whole, most

are

alike, and

separating those

that,
to

on

whole,
; but

most

unlike, this classification is submitted

be

of actual study, it is not practicalpurposes In practice, the best. Photology is studied as observed necessarily fact and as postulated quasi-fact. Photometry is almost a pure is almost Deductive. Inductive Science. Still, Catoptrics purely is sciences, always regarded as consisting of two Photology and Experimental Photology and Mathematical Photology are in all University curricula. The is the case same distinguished and with the Sciences of which Heat, Electricity, Magnetism form the subject-matter. Chemistry also has its Deductive as

sound

for the

well

as

its Inductive

aspect

; but

as

the Inductive

science

prepon

Sciences have not the Deductive, the two greatly over The hitherto been separatelyconsidered. time is at hand, how Experimental Chemistry will be as completely separated ever, when from Deductive Chemistry as Experimental Mechanics is separated from Statics and Dynamics. As treatingof postulated relations, the Calculi are Deductive Sciences. As treating of relations mainly by Analogical reason Sciences. class they shall Under which ing, they are Analogical be placed depends on the purpose since of the classification ; and this purpose is usuallythat of determining their place in a cur riculum of study, they are usuallyrelegatedto Mathematics, to which also their mode of treatment is most appropriate.

derates

THE

END.

BRADBURY,

AGNEW,

"

CO.,

LD.,

PRINTERS,

LONDON

AND

TONBRIDGE.