Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
OF
LOGIC
ROEHAMPTON
GRIFFIN
JOHN
BY
PRINTED
PRINCIPLES
OF
LOGIC
By
GEORGE
HAYWARD
M.A.,
PROFESSOR
ORIEL
OF
JOYCE,
COLLEGE,
OXFORD
ST.
MARY*S
LOGIC,
S.J.
HALL,
STONYHUR8T
SECOND
EDITION
GREEN
LONGMANS,
39,
ROW,
PATERNOSTER
FOURTH
AVENUE
BOMBAY,
"
3oxH
CALCUTTA,
CO.
AND
LONDON
STREET,
AND
MADRAS
NEW
YORK
PREFACE
IN
TO
issuing this
welcome
the
thanks
to
work
Scholastic
kind
very
The
such
expressing my
as
friendlynotices
in
were
those
by
manner
sympathy
whose
altogetherdifferent, tend
time
present
interest
new
principlesit
whose
system,
of
me
sophical
philoshow
to
is felt in
was
my
that
purpose
defend.
to
Since
publicationof
the
Traditional
the
More
that,
analysisof
an
as
worthless
a
than
Such
science.
possiblebecause
to
integralpart.
it
though
one
writer
our
mental
were
that
fail
.hariily
"But 'when
to
the
For
been
and
true
purpose
of the
carefullyrevised,
a
few
sections
is
been
has
re-
IV
studied
out
it forms
an
been
treated
Under
such
in the
value
becomes
as
cumstances
cir-
light of
is
seen.
the
Its
apparent, and
corrections
been
regarded
misinterpretedand
present edition
certain
have
be
its true
science
maintained
to be
of which
it is viewed
analysisof thought
be
long
whole.
validityas
to
hostile
convinced, is only
are
so
Schol'ist:cism
its claim
claim
we
principlesof
an
has
of
work
operations,it is entirely
fragment
independent
an
of this
object
of mark
philosophy
detailed
it could
undervalued.
for
has
the
of any
estimate,
an
Logic
of all relation
first edition
been
it is destitute
that
the
has
Logic
criticism.
as
affords
only by
Principlesof Logic
my
at
of
received.
positionwas
that
EDITION
was
it, not
to
its
with
various
the
accorded
edition
new
opportunity it
my
which
in
SECOND
written.
the
have
work
been
has
made,
INTRODUCTION
work
THIS
is
termed
who
those
for
definite
principles.
Logic,
rational
be
The
interest.
the
with
made
been
From
of
source
of
Logic,
accord.
the
In
connected
whole
in it, have
each
When
that
in
parts
in
of
his
treatment
of them
its
with
harmony
adopts
Logic
his
scheme.
in
And
his
of
of
less
and
is that
book
compatible
has
attempt
some
principles
work,
should
on
With
and
the
its
our
must
be
though
yet
if it is to
principles.
there
these
it
treated
it is
standpoint,
remodelled,
science,
is
system
place.
other
some
of
full
in
are
subjects, traditionally
legitimate
tem
sys-
principles
rules
the
prove
elaborated
who
philosophical
traditional
the
Indeed
collection
is
as
Scholasticism,
of
the
his
far
position
thinkers
and
writer
this
fundamental
doctrines
light
;
mere
work,
this
view,
its
philosophy,
that
sarily
neces-
system.
in
as
Scholastics.
were
must
is based.
The
strength.
the
the
of
point
and
mind's
importance
adopted
of
purpose
philosophy
one
view
vindicate
to
that
which
of
save
the
of
validity,
little
of
philosophy
and
size
their
epistemolo-
and
theory
it becomes
case,
point
Scholastic
the
of
of
rules, possessed
technical
the
as
in
even
logical questions
larger philosophical
the
is not
this
when
of
part
with
impossible,
metaphysical
regard
in
processes
deal
to
with
connexion
gical
this,
as
it is
Yet
time.
first
such
text-book
in
the
for
philosophical
with
acquaintance
making
is intended
and
Logic,
is frequently
what
of
presentment
Traditional
the
are
questions
at
attempt
an
will
will
be
subjects
be
For
no
may
manifest
evitable
inbe
some
place
find
that
vi
INTRODUCTION
they are
present
of deference
demand.
to
In
unwelcome
as
and
custom
such
case,
exigenciesof
student
young
out
popular
well be
may
point of view,
another
be
principlesmust
it
it will be
discarded
Scholasticism
this is true
That
submitted
At
ancient
our
neglect of
the
of
Albert
are
the
found
that
there
that
famous
once
been
school.
are
Scotus
The
knowing.
writers
From
universal.
Duns
(derSprung
ages
of
names
that
worth
German
certain
The
Aquinas, of
It is not
the middle
leap over
has
franklyadmitted.
there has been a complete
seats of learning,
philosophers,the repregreat mediaeval
sentatives
wanting. They
is nothing in them
of what
have
which
be
influences,must
mentioned.
and
not,
all,long since
universities
never
and
Have
of all those
to secular
tic
that Scholas-
seem
of weakness.
source
might
have
the
Mittelalter),'
Bacon
to
'
termed
uber das
Plotinus
tice
prac-
has
been
with
since unknown
; and
world
seen
day.
those
has
Nor
the
was
immature
problems
two
*
ever
It is with
Thomas
Summa,
Littera
is
now
contra
philosophy of
universe.
pleasure
we
Gentiles has
But
so
to
been
that
Arabian
at Oxford
candidates
made
this welcome
long prevailed.
an
in the
the
had
men
schools
of the
Scholastics
first time
the
acumen
arise when
These
and
notice
recommended
has
nurtured
were
of Greek
humaniores.
neglect which
of the
some
grapple for
of the
streams
interest,a zeal, an
an
systems, which
is called to
man
discussed
the
with
one
of
mind
of
the
inherited
thought. They
the
Summa
great
the
had
Theologica of St.
change only
testifies to
the
complete
vii
INTRODUCTION
themselves
set
to
and
master
develop
to
of
the
conclusions
of Averroes.
They
were
and
time
attention
Scholastic
the
themselves
in the
The
Neo-Scholastics
results attained
of the
that
conclusions.
of their
this is
They
are
of the
great inheritance
ignoringof
deliberate
matter
For
for reflection.
progress.
Advance
must
of
in that
no
wise
value
epoch,
so
famous
Europe, may
be
won
well
law
as
laid
by
our
one
provide
of human
the
by buildingon
foundations
share
period,and
continuity is the
ever
avail
to-day
past.
so
has
matter,
philosophers.2
will consider
man
the
great synthesiseffected
the
for
therefore, the
When,
understand
to
admiration
expressedhis
by
the
by
not
of man,
this law.
"
'
'
xix. p. 372.
viii
INTRODUCTION
Pascal
'
'
'
has
well
la suite des
said,
"
C'est grace
hommes
le
pendant
doit
etre
siste
attempt
former
considered
break
beginning,has
fundamental
initiated
; for
to
aside
what
make
fresh
forward
step has
is to
act
down
violate
Movements
thus
progressive.
to do
civilization of the
middle
ages.
the
of
past, the repudiation
the
The
strove
hardly-won
Of that
effort.
centuries of strenuous
pull
to
sub-
qui
of the Renaissance
men
valueless
as
so
nature.
our
the Christian
regard to
They put
No
retrograde,not
the
si"cles
continuellement."
in failure.
way
of
been
have
this is what
Yet
in
law
de
tant
the
in that
toute
que
homme,
meme
un
ended
ever
taken
been
with
de
cours
generations have
accomplished,
they have laboriouslybuilt and to
what
ever
comme
la tradition
the
results
of five
traditional
philosophywas
integralpart.
an
It
Descartes
was
which
in
Scholastic
And
without
worthless,that
be
but
of many
Since the
differ
as
other
any
it
the
was
work
of
not
the
has
philosophy.
that
note
by
man,
of modern
its lesson to
he
assigns
the School
a
to
singlemind
minds.2
sensationalist
system, idealist,
offered
held
for
reason
than
more
synthesis,
new
place once
the father
regarded as
it is not
his
as
He,
system.
be
rightto
filled the
measure
some
first framed
who
solution
widely
among
differentiates
them
all
any
been
aptly termed
system
1
a
which
riddles.
But
the
Preface
main
to the
one
from
alike
systems
common
ture
fea-
Scholasticism.
of
stream
treatise Du
I.
of
some
sential
es-
inseparable
seems
itself from
Descartes, Meditation
These
omission
the
characteristic
severs
philosophical
materialist,has been
themselves.
This
from
and
of the world's
another
that
which
has
European thought.
Vide.
ix
INTRODUCTION
The
factors, with
the
faced
philosophy
shirked
the
on
Contingent Being
Absolute
and
guishing
distin-
the
world
order
which
with
it is
as
regardsthe soul, it is
materialist
in relation to the
not
; and
spiritualist,
of knowledge, it is objectivist,
teaching that
intellect is capable of valid cognitionin regard of
external
it
Unconditioned
and
soul
As
the other.
on
completeness
and
the
"
Scholastic
The
its
three
are
creationist,thus
It is
as
hand,
one
in
problem
God
between
soul.
human
of it.
element
no
Being
the
world, and
the
God,
deal,
philosophymust
which
into
brought
blem
prothe
that
contact
by
substitutes
for
the senses.1
In
novel
the
philosophiesproposed
Scholasticism, sometimes
of the
one
another, is omitted
; and
that
both
with
God
and
thus
Neo-Hegelianism
which
life of the
Divine
aside, and
the
in the
soul
and
of this.
Men
scheme
which
does
of
the
pointsof
Of
not
from
distinction
to
la
pas
le
is but
conscious
is set
in
again,as
; God
all the
with
by
any
The
facts.
be with
it may
or
more,
natural
the
satisfied
singleprejudice
truth, it will
continually
in succession
move
all
to
ualite
spirit
ranger
which
philosophies,
modern
acceptance,
our
entre
not
one
can
claim
Toute
Philosophic M edievale,p. 222.
de la personalite humaine,
Fame
ou
offer
Dieu
parmi
la
et
de
les
la
creature,
scolastique.
est
adversaires
materialisme, la migration
des
ames,
nos
yeux,
be
to
theorie
"
de
principes fondamentaux
"nseigne
in
as
the compass.
essentielle
n'hesitons
any
it traces, and
Cf. deVfulf.Histoiredela
negatrice
only
it is biassed
surely as
as
curve
themselves
de
for
account
multiplicityof
the
others,
is eliminated
systems
long rest
will not
withholdingit
change
In
others
world
velocity,but
less
Materialism,
the
In
kept.
fall of
and
result
pendulum
soul.
e.g.
remain.
rapid rise
The
des
is
as
consciousness, God
human
alone
solution remains
the
finds
philosophyof Berkeley,the
the
the
times
factors, some-
three
dispense
as
ou
de
la
subversive
pourquoi nous
scolastique quiconque
1'atheisme ou le pantheisme."
de
Voila
la
INTRODUCTION
more
than
and
honour
who
the
shibboleth
them.
propounded
given
to
from
science
of
state
But
the
the
more
As
men
one
things,that
of
of
than
at
have
look
now
many
dress.
our
the
We
convenient
physical
given to any
the
at
so
thought-forms of
it in accordance
the
with
the
and
come
doctrines
go
like
them
representingfacts.
universe
on
of Kant
basis
they do
age
systems, and
other
this
regard
not
of
present
from
philosophy as a
particularage.
should
mode
arisen
on
period interpretedthe
one
Aristotelianism,
adopt
it is not
philosophy.
fashions
as
set
of
it is not
so
they
As
whole
recognize
may
task, which
reconstruct
to reconstruct
It is not
to
man
any
We
too
was
school.
to the
themselves,
of
well
to
interpret
of
or
Hegel.
corrosive
"
increases
age
the
number
permanent conquests of
Wherever
is true
advance
by
'
'
Professor
the
real
"
de Wulf.
to
'
teenth, is in itself
an
completelychange
from
'
'
'
of
seven
out
relativism
years
is
an
and
epoch
that
to
ago, is true
error
that
philosophia
perennis
"
that
made,
plantdown
sort
"
of
deeply
century, the
the Scholasticism
admission
sophy.
philo-
he writes,
twentieth
of the
thir-
philosophy cannot
epoch
that
the
truth
been
endeavour,"
of the
animated
hundred
it is in
so
the
are
The
controversies
which
principles
'
has
advance
The
which
truths
mind,
re-establish
'
'
the human
Neo-Scholasticism
among
of those
of
is
ever
to
be
atmosphere of
met
truth
INTRODUCTION
'
the centuries
up
'
undiluted
and
pure
'
whose
even
gloomiest clouds
and
For
.
'deceptive aspiration
'
'
'
'
xi
if
'
after
be
reason
aught
but
the
absolutelyinaccessible,
has
been
surely whatever
brought to light,whatever
have
ancestors
our
unearthed, and
acquired in their
have
pioneer labours, cannot
proved entirelyworthless
"*
posterity.'
to
It is not
ticism
of
of
to-day is in
of
of
the
to be
course
the
middle
mediseval
Moreover
all
supposed
points identical
The
ages.
doctors
the Scholasticism
with
astronomical
physics
theoreticallyerroneous.
were
questions have
new
the Neo-Scholas-
that
arisen,
difficulties
new
been
been
made.
The
discoveries have
suggested,new
adversaries
of to-day are not the adversaries againstwhom
the mediseval
doctors
called to contend.
In adaptwere
ing
methods
of the day, we do not discard
to the needs
our
the
principlesof
belongs to
and
it
employs
It has
the
the
the
Scholastics.
twentieth
the weapons
seemed
advisable
standpointadopted
little is known
which
its
century,
has
taken
strength is better
of
new
make
to
in this
But
Neo-Scholasticism
not
to
the
this brief
of the reaction
understood.
age.
book, since in
place in
thirteenth
recent
apology for
paratively
England com-
towards
years.
ticism
ScholasAbroad
The
importance of the
works
of men
such as Mercier, de Regnon, de
philosophical
de Vorges, Carra
de Vaux,
Wulf, Nys, Farges, Domet
Mandonnet,
Seeberg, Asin y Palacios, is acknowledged
by all competent judges.2 In England, for obvious
1
De Wulf, Scholasticism
Old and New, trans, by Coffey, p. 161.
Mercier, Cours de Philosophic,Louvain
1897-1903 ; de Regnon, Metaphysique
des Causes, Paris 1886 ; de Wulf, Histoire de la Philosophic Medievale,
Louvain
2
Philosophiques, Paris
Farges, Etudes
de
Vorges, Abrege
Metaphysique, Paris 1906 ; Carra
de
Avicenne, Gazali, Paris 1900, 1904 ; Mandonnet,
Vaux,
Siger de Brabant
latin au
et V Averroisme
xiiie Siecle,Fribourg-en-Suisse 1899 ; Seeberg, Die Theologie des Johannes Duns
Scoius, Leipzig 1900 : Asin y Palacios, El Averroisme
de S. Thomas
the
de Aquino, Saragoza 1904.
add
To these
must
we
teologico
valuable
work
most
Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittclalters edited
and G. von
Dante
et la philosophic
Ozanam's
by C. Baumker
Hertling, Mlinster.
1900
Nys,
1892-1907
Cosmologie,
Domet
de
Louvain
1900
INTRODUCTION
xii
the
reasons,
of those
who
significance.
In
least
follows
his
in
Britannica
*
'
trine, and
catching
Hegel,
and
Caird,
Martineau,
out
Universal
a
'
this
However
'visible
for
alike
and
Maher
service
will
result
catholique
to
a
1
as
wider
xiiie
au
circle
M.
Picavet,
follows
in
Allemagne
cited
by
in
no
leur
Mercier,
the
over
at
others
Sorbonne,
for
la
Origines
avec
Belgique
grandit
de
en
la Psych,
be
mentioned,
we
no
friend
1896
on
contemp.
the
generous
as
book
appealing
named.
of
"
Les
the
avec
meme
eux
en
c.
8.
writes
movement,
catholiques,
information
compte
France,
the
friends.
other
have
of
prove
written,
to
and
ample
une
been
Rev.
the
to
work
due
also
may
the
Philosophique
influence
it has
ther
fur-
I must
If my
these
by
and
suggestions,
Rigby.
measure
than
and
S. Hitchcock
obligations
small
1855,
completent
de
T.
G.
my
use
me
professor
Revue
maitres
les
is
movement
proof-sheets.
whose
siecle, Paris
qu'ils
Thomisme,
devenus
for
of readers
the
the
reading
accorded
assistance
metaphysics.
the
Rev.
criticisms
Rev.
the
be
of
ground
to
Thomism
the
to
acknowledge
those
to
due
are
in
gratefully
M.
of
spread
valuable
many
kindness
his
for
effort
while
thanks
sincerest
My
the
with-
faith
their
of
Green,
succession,
system
power
from
now
from
every
sane
the
be,
world."
"civilized
of
basis
doc-
of
wind
Kant,
in
making
on
from
enough
the
are
may
Ward
the
seeing
at
home
at
as
Encyclopedia
every
from
or
and
considered
Church
by
Balfour
the
its
writes
Case
regret
now
Lotze
Catholics
Roman
the
straws,
from
now
having
ever
at
about
at
some
underrated
not
in
feel
but
blown
But
Professor
Metaphysics
cannot
Churches
it have
it
to
on
One
Reformed
regard
felt.
less
noticed
have
article
"
been
has
movement
unis
en
Hollande
le
par
scientifique,
sent
Amerique
et
et
Suisse-'
en
en
CONTENTS
PART
LOGIC
THE
OF
THOUGHT
CHAPTER
NATURE
THE
AND
AIM
OF
LOGIC
PAGE
"
DEFINITION
i.
2.
"
3.
"
"
OF
DIVISIONS
"
4.
THE
LOGIC
OF
LOGIC
PLACE
OF
OF
LOGIC
PHILOSOPHY
IN
Note.
"
LOGIC
OF
8
VIEWS
DIFFERENT
AS
CONCEPT
THE
i.
THE
"
2.
REPUGNANT
"
4.
"
5.
"
6.
NAME
THE
TERM
CONCEPT
"
3.
LOGIC.
OF
II
THE
SCOPE
THE
TO
CHAPTER
"
....
SCOPE
HISTORY
5.
LOGIC
15
CONCEPTS
18
CLEAR
ADEQUATE,
CONCEPTS
OBSCURE
AND
18
.
THE
NAME
AND
TERM
THE
CATEGOREMATIC
19
SYNCATEGOREMATIC
AND
WORDS
.
DIVISIONS
TERMS
OF
"
7.
SINGULAR,
"
8.
ABSTRACT
"
9.
CONNOTATIVE
19
20
GENERAL
COLLECTIVE
AND
TERMS
21
.
CONCRETE
AND
TERMS
23
NON-CONNOTATIVE
AND
TERMS
.
"
10.
POSITIVE
"
ii.
ABSOLUTE
"
12.
TERMS
NEGATIVE
AND
RELATIVE
AND
OF
FIRST
TERMS
31
TERMS
SECOND
AND
32
INTENTION
34
...
"
13.
UNIVOCAL,
"
14.
OPPOSITION
15.
THE
"
EQUIVOCAL
AND
ANALOGOUS
TERMS
.
'
OF
SUPPOSITIO
TERMS
25
35
36
'
OF
THE
xiii
TERM
37
xiv
CONTENTS
III
CHAPTER
THE
PROPOSITION
THE
AND
JUDGMENT
PAGE
i.
THE
2.
ANALYSIS
"
"
"
PROPOSITION
OF
4.
QUALITY
QUANTITY
"
5.
THE
"
6.
ANALYTIC
"
7.
COMPLEX
"
8.
COMPOUND
"
9.
"
3.
OF
41
46
PROPOSITIONS
OF
46
SCHEME
PROPOSITIONS
OF
SYNTHETIC
AND
PROPOSITIONS
...
50
...
51
PROPOSITIONS
55
CATEGORICAL
MODAL
PROPOSITIONS
56
....
PROPOSITIONS
10.
REDUCTION
"
ii.
HYPOTHETICAL
12.
JUDGMENT
THE
PROPOSITIONS
FOURFOLD
"
"
39
58
PROPOSITIONS
OF
TO
FORM
LOGICAL
61
.
PROPOSITIONS
63
PROPOSITIONS
DISJUNCTIVE
65
CHAPTER
THE
LAWS
OF
"
i.
THE
LAWS
"
2.
THE
LAW
OF
CONTRADICTION
" 3.
THE
LAW
OF
IDENTITY
" 4.
THE
LAW
OF
EXCLUDED
" 5.
OTHER
OF
VIEWS
IV
THOUGHT
THOUGHT
AS
67
69
71
MIDDLE
SOURCE
THE
TO
73
OF
LAWS
THE
OF
THOUGHT
75
CHAPTER
DIAGRAMMATIC
i.
OF
REPRESENTATION
:
"
OPPOSITION
DIAGRAMMATIC
EULER'S
TIONS
PROPOSI-
PROPOSITIONS
OF
REPRESENTATION
PROPOSITIONS
OF
CIRCLES
"
2.
DISTRIBUTION
"
3.
OTHER
OF
77
TERMS
METHODS
IN
PROPOSITION
TION
REPRESENTA-
DIAGRAMMATIC
OF
81
...
82
" 4.
" 5.
"
6.
THE
OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION
AS
CONTRADICTORY
OF
A
84
PROPOSITIONS
MEANS
OF
INFERENCE
OPPOSITION
THE
OUTSIDE
88
....
FOLD
FOUR-
SCHEME
" 7.
CONTRARY
SCHEME
OPPOSITION
89
OUTSIDE
THE
FOURFOLD
90
CONTENTS
xv
VI
CHAPTER
IMMEDIATE
INFERENCE
PAGE
"
i.
IMMEDIATE
"
2.
CONVERSION
"
"
3.
4.
EQUIPOLLENCE
6.
" 7.
"
8.
92
93
ARISTOTLE'S
" 5.
"
INFERENCE
PROOF
CONVERSION
OF
98
CONTRAPOSITION
99
INVERSION
TABLE
101
OF
RESULTS
102
VARIETIES
OTHER
IMMEDIATE
OF
INFERENCE
.
CHAPTER
THE
IMPORT
"
i.
IMPORT
"
2.
THE
CLASS-INCLUSION
"
3.
THE
ATTRIBUTIVE
4.
IMPLICATION
"
OF
6.
MR.
BRADLEY
" 7.
PREDICATIVE
"
109
no
Il6
PROPOSITION
THE
CHAPTER
THE
PREDICABLES
"
2.
THE
TREE
" 3.
" 4.
THE
CONTROVERSY
"
THE
UNIVERSAL
PREDICABLES
121
129
PREDICABLES
131
UNIVERSALS
ON
IN
THE
MODERN
CATEGORIES
THE
CATEGORIES
IN
THE
CATEGORIES
AND
4.
THE
"
5.
MILL'S
132
LOGIC
135
IX
CATEGORIES
THE
"
119
VIII
CHAPTER
" i.
" 2.
" 3.
PORPHYRY
OF
ARISTOTLE'S
5.
117
PROPOSITION
.
THE
105
106
HYPOTHETICAL
THE
i.
VlEW
ON
"
VIEW
EXISTENCE
COMPARTMENTAL
OF
VIEW
OF
102
PROPOSITIONS
OF
VIEW
THE
IMPORT
VII
PROPOSITIONS
" 5.
"
97
OBVERSION
OR
IN
METAPHYSICAL
THEIR
LOGICAL
THEIR
ASPECT
.
CATEGORIES
SCIENCES
THE
AS
137
ASPECT.
.
142
144
CLASSIFICATION
OF
CATES
PREDI145
" 6.
" 7.
SCHEME
THE
CATEGORIES
THE
CONCEPT
CATEGORIES
OF
OF
OF
147
KANT
148
BEING
.
,."...
149
CONTENTS
xvi
CHAPTER
DEFINITION
AND
DIVISION
PAGE
"
"
i.
DEFINITION
2.
VARIOUS
150
KINDS
DEFINITION
OF
152
" 3.
LIMITS
OF
DEFINITION
159
" 4.
RULES
OF
DEFINITION
159
"
5.
LOGICAL
"
6.
RULES
165
DICHOTOMY
BY
KINDS
VARIOUS
8.
161
DIVISION
OF
DIVISION
" 7.
"
DIVISION
i6j6
DIVISION
OF
168
CHAPTER
CATEGORICAL
THE
i.
THE
"
2.
RELATION
TO
"
"
"
"
OF
4.
FIGURES
5.
SPECIAL
6.
THE
" 7.
" 8.
PREMISSES
169
CONCLUSION
TO
AND
OF
FOUR
SUPERIORITY
"
THE
"
3.
EXPRESSION
"
4.
PROGRESSIVE
OF
OF
FIG.
VALIDITY
SYLLOGISM
INFERENCES
8.
MR.
187
191
FORM
193
....
SYLLOGISMS
REGRESSIVE
SYLLOGISM
THE
OTHER
199
SYLLOGISTIC
THAN
THEORY
AND
HYPOTHETICAL
HYPOTHETICAL
OF
194
195
REASONING
BRADLEY'S
REDUCTION
(II)
REASONING
SYLLOGISTIC
AND
OF
7.
MIXED
179
186
FIGURE
IN
MATHEMATICAL
2.
XII
OF
....
200
....
201
INFERENCE
XIII
CHAPTER
"
177
181
SYLLOGISTIC
FOURTH
6.
i.
LINES
CATEGORICAL
2.
"
182
CANON
"
FIGURES
REDUCTION
i.
"
172
SYLLOGISM,
THE
THE
OF
MNEMONIC
"
"
REGARD
SYLLOGISM
THE
OF
MOODS
RULES
THE
5.
IN
172
RULES
CHAPTER
"
(I)
TRUTH
GENERAL
3.
SYLLOGISM
SYLLOGISM
CATEGORICAL
"
XI
DISJUNCTIVE
SYLLOGISMS
SYLLOGISMS
HYPOTHETICAL
203
SYLLOGISMS
206
xvill
CONTENTS
PAGE
"
8.
FIGURE
"
9.
ACCIDENT
SPEECH
OF
272
274
ABSOLUTE
MENT
STATE-
10.
CONFUSION
ii.
IGNORATIO
12.
PETITIO
13.
FALLACY
"
14.
FALSE
CAUSE
280
"
15.
MANY
QUESTIONS
281
"
16.
MILL'S
"
OF
QUALIFIED
AND
275
"
"
"
ELENCHI
276
PRINCIPII
OF
278
CONSEQUENT
THE
CLASSIFICATION
OF
LOGIC,
282
FALLACIES
PART
APPLIED
279
....
II
OR
THE
OF
METHOD
SCIENCE
CHAPTER
LOGIC
APPLIED
AND
XVIII
THE
LOGIC
OF
THOUGHT
"
i.
SCIENCE
"
2.
THE
"
3.
LOGIC
"
4.
THE
"
5.
BACON
304
"
6.
MILL
306
PHILOSOPHY
AND
SUBDIVISIONS
OF
289
PHILOSOPHY
BREACH
WITH
298
PAST
THE
300
CHAPTER
OBSERVATION
"
"
i.
THE
2.
IN
FUNCTION
WHAT
" 3.
CONDITIONS
"
4.
EXPERIMENT
"
5.
NATURAL
"
6.
RELATIVE
293
METAPHYSICS
AND
EXPERIMENT
AND
OF
OBSERVATION
OF
XIX
OBSERVATION
AND
EXPERIMENT.
310
CONSISTS
311
OBSERVATION
.
313
315
EXPERIMENTS
ADVANTAGES
317
OF
OBSERVATION
AND
PERIMENT
EX-
317
CONTENTS
xix
CHAPTER
METHODS
OF
XX
INDUCTIVE
ENQUIRY
PAGE
i.
THE
2.
FURTHER
"
EXPERIMENTAL
FOUR
METHODS
320
....
"
OF
METHODS
THE
" 3.
THE
FUNCTION
OF
"
ILLUSTRATIONS
4.
OF
METHODS
THE
IN
PROVING
325
LAW
NATURE
CRITICISM
330
MILL'S
OF
CANONS
333
CHAPTER
XXI
EXPLANATION
"
i.
EXPLANATION
"
2.
EXPLANATION
BY
REGRESSIVE
3.
EXPLANATION
BY
HYPOTHETICAL
4.
HYPOTHETICAL
337
REASONING
.
"
"
" 5.
"
6.
DEDUCTION
EMPLOYED
AS
RULES
OF
339
341
343
NEWTON
BY
NEWTON'S
INDUCTION
AND
EXPLANATION
DEDUCTION
344
PHILOSOPHIZING
CHAPTER
349
XXII
HYPOTHESIS
"
i.
HYPOTHESIS
"
2.
ORIGIN
"
3.
CONDITIONS
"
4.
VARIOUS
354
OF
HYPOTHESIS
OF
KINDS
357
LEGITIMATE
A
OF
HYPOTHESIS
.
HYPOTHESES
CHAPTER
359
361
XXIII
DETERMINATION:
QUANTITATIVE
ELIMINATION
OF
CHANCE
"
i.
MEASUREMENT
," 2.
METHODS
"
3.
CHANCE
4.
ELIMINATION
5.
PROBABILITY
"
"
363
OF
367
APPROXIMATION
369
OF
CHANCE
372
373
CHAPTER
XXIV
CLASSIFICATION
"
i.
CLASSIFICATION
380
CONTENTS
xx
PAGE
"
2.
"
3.
ARTIFICIAL
CLASSIFICATION
382
"
"
"
4.
5.
THE
DOCTRINE
NATURAL
SPECIES
NATURAL
OF
CLASSIFICATION
CLASSIFICATION
384
389
SERIES
BY
393
CHAPTER
XXV
METHOD
"
i.
SCIENTIFIC
METHOD
395
"
2.
"
3.
"
"
4.
5.
THE
METHODIC
PURSUIT
PHILOSOPHIC
OF
TRUTH
398
TERMINOLOGY
400
DESCARTES'
LEIBNIZ'S
RULES
VIEWS
OF
ON
METHOD
402
METHOD
404
PRINCIPLES
PART:
THE
N.B.
marked
OF
LOGIC
The
with
THOUGHT
is recommended
student
(*) for
asterisk
an
LOGIC
OF
to
second
CHAPTER
THE
"
which
attainment
of
truth.
we
mean
it
when
true
outward
our
For
present
the
if
Thus
white/
my
thought
the
the
said
therefore,
purposes,
of
conformity
the
horse,
and
judgment
is said
to
the
with
corresponds
true
we
'
judge
be
thing
true,
about
in
the
to
the
merely
It
is
ous.
errone-
or
define
may
its
with
intellect
white
see
is
within.
be
to
the
which
statement
thought
properly
are
of
reality
as
is said
assertion
verbal
of
expression
which
as
the
mind
of the
An
to
defined
maybe
truth
But
thoughts
truth
Logic
corresponds
made.
is
assertion
work.
LOGIC.
OF
operations
by
the
reading of
AIM
Logic.
the
passages
I.
AND
directs
do
What
the
of
Definition
i.
science
be
NATURE
the
reserve
That
object.
is
horse
because
my
I
which
am
judging.
The
true
aim
of
all
judgment,
there
alone,
are
our
which
certain
operations
If I endeavour
judgments.
proposition,
mental
our
object
my
is
in
to
is
to
definite
thinking faculty
ways
establish
in
the
arrive
conformity
in
with
attain
to
cal
geometriend
reality.
which,
proceed
must
is
and
in
at
Now
which
achieve
if it is to
B
PRINCIPLES
enables
the
if
mental
types of
rules, which
we
arrive
to
are
us, it is very
shows
truth,
to
us, not
to
better
cause.
conclusions
if their
to
are
definition
of the
It
For,
a
as
reasoning,
experience
men
true.
be
given
will
boast
be
learn
we
that
way
was
mind
catalogue these
this way
in
observe
rules which
violatingthe
by skilfully
tion
Reflec-
In
in
argue
that
to
result.
error.
Greece
the
be
to
appear
needs
true
easy
but
to
ancient
Sophistsin
at
and
action.
must
we
real order.
operations
to know
able
are
we
the
observe
to
us
hence
common
LOGIC
faithfully
representingthe
its task of
and
OF
bring
of
the
the
worse
this
end
observe,
must
of
Logic,in which
in a different aspect. Logic is
the science is considered
the science which
treats of the conceptualrepresentation
of the real order ; in other words, which has for its subjectmatter
things as they are representedin our thought.
Another
may
this definition
difference between
The
that which
we
in the
gave
and
subject-matterof
shall find as we
proceed that
the
understood, unless
both
these
the
science
aspects
are
scarcelybe
kept in view.
can
of
work
The
of truth, because
attainment
what
mind
the
which
which
represents things,and
those
are
must
be
it treats
general
observed
conditions
whatever
of the
thus
way
shows
in
us
of
be
right thinking,
the subjectwhich
occupies us.
Where
we
have
lished
systematic body of securely estab-
drawn
principlesand of conclusions legitimately
there we
in
Thus
these principles,
have a science.
from
start
from certain general
the science of Astronomy we
laws, and have a body of conclusions derived from these.
tute
Mere
facts not brought under generallaws do not constiWe
are
a science.
rightlysaid to have a science of
ples
Logic,for, as we shall see, it consists of a body of princiand legitimate
conclusions,such as we have described.
THE
"
Divisions
2.
in which
which
the mind
else.
That
called
an
which
LOGIC
simplest act
is the judgment
"
of the mind
the
something of something
(or denied) of the other is
which
it is said to belong
that
to
to
define
denies
attribute
an
of
involves
attribute.
must
We
these
mind
mind
the
gives
two
therefore
of the
we
may
affirms
subject.
however
judgment
object: for it
by
act
denies
or
is affirmed
:
OF
The
truth
affirms
attribute
(or not
or
of Logic.
attain
it can
AIM
AND
NATURE
complex
subject and
a
parts
"
take
of
account
more
in which
which
given
the
mind
elements
'
to
say
which
go
of
There
from
third
Inference.
two
constitute
must
deal
of the
with
Thus
roses
these, but
if I say
wither
flower is
in
rose
as,
of
These
complex
act
in isolation
the
concept.
to
third
implicitlycontained
"
the autumn
one
ing
mind, namely Reason-
hi them.
the
in
example
horse,and
considered
be
can
in the
other
is white.'
horse
is defined
This
distinct from
\This
to
process
judgment
(All
The
the
subject,and
Thus
it expresses
the attribute.
have a concept of
above, I must
the
or
the
expresses
whiteness, in order
are
than
PRINCIPLES
Therefore
if I argue
'Whatever
or
LOGIC
in the autumn;
This
"
displaysthe
parts is due
The
OF
to
harmonious
an
displaysthe
world,
orderingof
cause
;
intelligent
harmonious
orderingof
many
many
parts;
Therefore
said in each
am
case
form
of the
inference
examples, is called
as
given are known
from
the
three
science
divisions,
"
due
to
an
intelligent
the
judgment. An
have
which
we
employed in these
a
syllogism. The two
judgments
the premisses. The
rived
judgment deconclusion.
is the
them
It is of these
and
is
cause
world
The
acts
of the
mind
that
Logic treats
falls
(3) of Inference.
Since Logic deals with
to
account
of
different
thought. It
point of view
is concerned
the
words
extent
some
with
words
thought, it necessarilytakes
of language the verbal
sion
expresdoes
however
from
so
quite a
"
that
to
as
of Grammar.
such.
Grammar
It is the art
by
which
in
significant
speech are combined
accordingto the conventional rules of a language. Hence
in it each of the nine parts of speech is treated independently,
and rules are given for their respectiveuse.
On
the other hand, the simplestobjectof which
Logic takes
of words,
is the Concept. In its consideration
account
employed
therefore, it does
not
deal
with
any
of
those
parts
of
taken
are
speech, which
by themselves
incapable of
not
giving us an independent concept. It is conversant
with
ance,
utternine, but with two forms only of significant
viz.: the Name, the verbal expressionof the Concept,
the Proposition,the verbal
and
ment.1
expressionof the JudgThe propositionconsists of three parts. These
1
Cf.
and
De
PRINCIPLES
directs
his
actions
OF
LOGIC
the
work.1
performance of some
Hence
they held Logic to be the art of reasoning,as well
the science of the reasoningprocess.
as
Perhaps a more
satisfactoryterminology is that at present in vogue,
art/ is reserved to mean
a
accordingto which the term
external
body of precepts for the production of some
is not
result, and hence
applicableto the normative
to
'
sciences.
Aesthetics, the
science
which
deals
with
beauty
and
It may
some
in the
be
well
Logic and
affinity.
to
two
indicate
other
brieflythe
sciences,
The
which
to
tween
be-
it bears
Metaphysics
general: sometimes
term
times
some-
with
philosophy in
restricted meaning it stands
for that part of
more
a
as
philosophy known
Ontology. In this latter sense
Metaphysics deals not with thoughts,as does Logic,but
with things,not with
the conceptual order but with
the
It
real order.
investigatesthe meaning of certain
notions
which
all the specialsciences presuppose,
such
It deals
as
Substance, Accident, Cause, Effect,Action.
with
which
the specialsciences do not prove,
principles
but on which
they rest, such as e.g., Every event must have
it is called the science of Being, since its
Hence
a cause.
objectis not limited to some
specialsphere, but embraces
all that is, whether
the
material or spiritual.Logic on
other hand deals with the conceptualorder, with thoughts.
Its conclusions
do not relate to things,but to the way
in which
the mind
represents things.
Logic and Psychology. The object of Psychology is
the human
soul and
all its activities.
It investigates
1
St. Thomas
quam
certa
actus
humani
for
distinction
in An.
ordinatio
Post.
rationis
perveniunt.'
/., lect.
qua
per
'
i.
Nihil
determinata
enim
aliud
media
ad
ars
esse
debitum
videtur,
finem
THE
the
NATURE
is concerned
regard
under
the
to
as
as
it, merely in
the
mental
act
deals ;
and
other
has
ought
we
nothing
"
the
do
to
nature
4. The
to
objectivetruth
asks
whether
with
seeks
think.
to
With
of the
this
which
it follows
it is based.
which
on
activity.
in which
way
it
mately
legiti-
Moreover,
prescriberules
this Psychology
it
of mental
the
regulativescience,
how
thought
a
ment,
judg-
take
we
it
consider
considers
if
form
hand, examines
if necessary,
the grounds
fact is the
Thus
in
even
three
it is
as
expresses
from
Logic, as
far
And
angles of a triangleare
right angles,'
Psychology considers
to two
so
soul.
The
e.g.,
togetherequal
to
sciences
two
Psychology
of the
'
such
as
LOGIC
aspects.
act
an
Logic on
with
intellect,the
different
merely
OF
will,imagination,
operations of intellect,
its object is far wider
than that of Logic,
Thus
which
AIM
and
nature
sense.
AND
as
of
matter
Scope of Logic.
Logicians are
frequently
divided
into three
classes, according as they hold that
the science is concerned
(i) with names
only, (2) with
the form
of thought alone, (3)with thought as representative
of
(1) The
with
reality.
first of these
only,
names
"
is however
solely in
the
of
conclusion
held
verbal
is, he
that
"
found
has
taught by
(1715-1780),who
views
the
but
Logic
few
is concerned
defenders.
It
philosopherCondillac
of reasoningconsists
process
French
that
the
transformations.
The
thought, ever
identical
meaning
with
of
that
the
originalproposition.
(2) The theory that Logic deals only with the forms of
thought, irrespectiveof their relation to reality,was
others by Hamilton
taught among
(1788-1856)and Mansel
(1820-1871). Both of these held that Logic is no way
with the truth of our
concerned
thoughts,but only with
their
consistency.
In this
the
form
sense
of
Hamilton
thought, to
I. p. 15). By
(Lectures,
"
says
the
these
Logic is
exclusion
conversant
of
logiciansa
the
with
matter"
distinction
is
PRINCIPLES
'
and
material
'
and
true
'
.
that
i.e., self-consistency
truth/
i.e.,conformity with
Logic
Mill
this view
On
formal
truth/
it is said
and
'
between
drawn
LOGIC
OF
deals with
well
the
even
object;
truth
alone.
notion
of the
formal
"
observes
the
Logic.
into Formal
actual
truth, but
the
'
"
'
"
'
"
"
"
them
rank
in the
second
of these
groups,
and
term
them
conception
miswhat
a
on
Logicians. It will soon
appear
how
this opinion rests, and
completelythe
that
taken
of Logic by the Scholastics
differs from
view
of the Formal
Logicians. In their eyes, the aim of the
ency,
self-consistscience
most
was
assuredly not to secure
the mind
how
but theoretically
to know
represents
to arrive at truth.
its object,and practically
Formal
The
terms
Realist
using
"
the
are
terms
now
in their novel
5. History of
B.C.)who laid the
Logic.
meaning.
It
foundations
was
of
Aristotle
the
logicalquestions separatelyfrom
science
other
(384-322
by
ing
treat-
parts of
THE
NATURE
Six
philosophy.
subject : they
The
1.
of his treatises
De
"
3. Prior
Analytics,
"
treatise
Analytics,
"
primary classes
divided.
and
terms
on
positions.
pro-
inference.
on
treatise
the
ground.
the ten
treatise
"
with
on
the
logical
analysis
science.
of reasoning to
Topics, a treatise on the method
be employed in philosophicalquestions, when
demonstrative
proof is not obtainable.
of fallacious
SophisticalRefutations, an account
reasonings.
5.
"
6.
"
This
of treatises
group
Organon. It
separate
works.
he
whether
Logic was
The
Aristotle
afterwards
be
himself
known
noticed
had
as
the
that
no
they are
singleword
doubtful
Logic, and it seems
The
it as
name
a
single science.
byZeno the Stoic (about300 B.C.).
whole
of
viewed
introduced
of Aristotle added
successors
value
was
should, however,
signifythe
to
whole
on
concerned
concepts of thingsare
our
pretatione,a
4. Posterior
LOGIC
OF
are
the
treatise
Categories,a
Inter
of
almost
cover
into which
2.
AIM
AND
but
little of permanent
ance
Enduring importhowever
attaches
to a small
treatise by the NeoplatonistPorphyry (233-304 A.D.)entitled the Isagogeor
Introduction to the Categories
of Aristotle.
In a certain sense
the name
of Boethius
(B. Severinus
in the
Boethius
landmark
a
A.D.) constitutes
470-525
of his
history of Logic : for it was
through the medium
translation
of the Organon, and his commentaries
the
on
Categoriesand the Isagoge,that the works of Aristotle
and
available
for educational
Porphyry were
purposes
in Western
from
the
the
sixth
to
thirteenth
Europe
century.1 Through this period some
knowledge of Logic
of the seven
liberal
was
one
widely possessed, as it was
arts
Grammar, Dialectic i.e.,Logic,Rhetoric, Geometry,
to
his
great
achievement.
"
at
the
Two
this
works
attributed
to
fathers.
St. Augustine
were
also
recognized authorities
by all
Logica
period.
Augustini, libera
me
Domine.
PRINCIPLES
io
OF
Arithmetic, Astronomy,
education
At
held
was
the
to
beginning of
other
Arabian
treatises
Averroes
translated
into
themselves
science
Roshd
Latin, and
gave
main
greater
of
The
Logic.
on
higher
to
build
ous
numer-
of
works
Scholastics
his
availed
thoroughly systematic
up
It may
which
the
said that
be
perhaps
Aristotle's
with
accuracy
the
mediaeval
works,
advance
which
century
Aristotle,and
(Ibn
of these
of
"
thirteenth
Avicenna
philosophicstudy.
their
the
of
Music
consist.
commentators
A.D.) and
and
LOGIC
lay
treatment
in
discriminated
they
the
the
the
Bacon
criticism
of
in
Logic
of
attack
an
the
his Novum
to
was
discoveries
of nature.
1620
the
witnessed
Yet
it
provide men
regarding the
was
made
Aristotelian
of service
with
laws
in
that
means
and
on
Logic by
Much
Organum.
of
decadence
was
ill-founded,since he believed
was
making
in
foundations
very
Francis
centuries
in
of
the
his
pose
pur-
towards
phenomena
callingfresh
tion
atten-
the
centuries
could
not
but
of their
fication
and
to
to
the
formation
Such
evidence.
OF
rules
words
other
"in
AIM
AND
NATURE
THE
science
LOGIC
reflection
their
on
of
methods,
philosophy of
impossible
was
in the
middle
of
physical investigationhad
of this
At
the
dawned.
present day the treatment
subjectforms a part of every work on Logic. By many
Material
Inductive Logic,the traditional
writers it is termed
or
part of the science receivingby way of distinction
Deductive
of Formal
the name
or
are
Logic. These names
misleading. The traditional Logic was, as we have seen
of
And
though the treatment
(" 4),not purely formal.
of the mediaeval
Induction, properly so called, by many
writers was
inadequate,yet they all regarded it as falling
therefore
within
their
We
have
preferred to
scope.
The
Logic of
designatethe two portions of this volume
of Science
Thought and Applied Logic or the Method
of thought, finds
as
a
respectively.Induction
process
its place in the first of these two
divisions.
the
ere
ages,
great
era
NOTE
DIFFERENT
*
The
would
than
which
is that
the
is,
it
in
this
group
with
or
true
of
scope
tripledivision
is treated.
to
open
the
Scholastic
of Mill,
somewhat
enter
Moreover
that
of
either
with
give
we
the
Logic is far
given in " 4,
of
and
special
the
point
the
threefold
further
of
objection
these.
into
more
of
purpose
It
detail
therefore,
seems,
the
on
subject.
the
explanation
Formal
would
present work
systems out of place. As
of the
availed
ourselves
various
an
Scholastic
account
the
to
us
to, viz.
Modern
The
LOGIC.
OF
specialdesignations
:
Logic,
Logic, Symbolic Logic,
Idea,
Logic, Logic of the Pure
Logic, Transcendental
Logic. The notice in each case is necessarilyvery brief.
note
Inductive
SCOPE
the
the
noticed,
have
we
common
to
referred
THE
to
as
from
science
of Mansel
desirable
In
as
the
compels
school
enough
opinion
appear
which
from
division
TO
AS
are
names
that
of
difference
wider
view
VIEWS
I.
CHAPTER
TO
the
views,
of
citations
in
order
to
from
render
far
as
authors
elucidate
the
more
detailed
possiblewe have
representative of
meaning
of the
ferent
dif-
terms.
(i)
Scholastic
Scholastic
or
Logic.
Traditional
We
have
Logic
holds
explained
the
above
that
subject-matter of
the
the
PRINCIPLES
11
science
be
LOGIC
OF
the
be
This
otherwise
"
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
"
'
the
mental
abstraction
in entire
processes
from
relation
the
which
"
'
'
"
that
the
Logic constitutes
The
observance
says in its regard :
will
do more
not
Logic investigates,
Formal
whether
whole
logicis that
'
of
'
such
'
of
is
for
that the rules of a calculus
be substituted
may
way
Mr.
conscious
its
ablest
Venn,
reasoning.'
exponent
actively
country,
ralizes
the
"
for it the
claims
of
processes
of
wider
particularcases
xxi,-xxiii.) Though
Logic, Introd.
pp.
it
engaged the attention of several able men,
the
to
considered
be
adopted
his
science.
system
own
be mentioned,
that
of
for
believe
developed
on
basis
Mill
Organum.
Evidence," and
terms
"
of
it
the
"
of
views
philosophy
claim
It should
that
has
yet
has
further
it affords
in
any
the
or
reasoning process.
Applied Logic is a science
set forth
general theory
of
no
although
possibly contribute
it cannot
the
subject
investigator
every
notation.
symbolic
thinkers
many
much
has
Almost
ingenuity,
to
whatever
our
knowledge
way
(4) Inductive, Empirical, Material
scope
'
from
in this
'
form
and
terms
freedom
secure
'
defined
is thus
Formal
which
than
laws
science, but
and
'self-contradiction
It
of the
of the
"
Evidence
in Bacon's
of the
and
Novum
sufficiencyof
of the
Investi-
PRINCIPLES
14
his
to
It
system.
manner
to
this
because
of
its
admit
the
of
order
bearing
of
Logic
the
"
science
has
But
thought.
which
of
that
to
origin
thinkers
who
deny
to
institute
had
hitherto
he
'
"
if
differs
evolution
'
instead
from
'
call
Logic
at
of
of
the
of
this
and
view
the
is
Mr.
universe
in
all
into
in
in
world
analyse
evolving
are
itself
is
mode
of
the
vital
'
the
is
intellectually
process
of
its
by
the
value
in
and
"
under
no
doubt,"
which
constituted.
and
the
tracing
import,
import
The
apart
tions
opera-
according
are
'
is
ference
dif-
only
and
I. 248).
constitution
England
aspect
make
"
the
logicians
the
value
reasoning
functions,
of
Metaphysics,
treatment,
(Logic,
and
with
its
"
in
"
of
were
mental
however,
German
lies
light
evolution
work,
Bosanquet
one
in
is
order
those
Logic
their
matter.
Logic
judgment
as
Modern
Mr.
the
representative
eminent
to
It
within,
of
nature
known
philosophy.
thought
as
of
summarize
to
its
the
the
subject
same
of
"
things
between
of
Metaphysics
content
regarded
to
and
knowledge
mind
real
order
of
According
attempting
the
Hegelian
Bosanquet
simply
details
Mind
it
logical problems
regarded
that
on
the
that
says,
'
'
view
they
the
been
Logic
between
which
of
reality.
the
as
distinction
the
enquiry
new
Sigwart.
and
Lotze
of
the
to
and
us,
based
largely
very
verse
Uni-
thought
into
In
Divine
principal exponents
Bradley
Mr.
are
itself
Pantheism.
treatment
its
The
of
are
owes
order.
real
the
"
over
passes
The
categories
development
realizes
form
The
external
which
acts,
the
in
Universe.
the
Logic.
name
bound
and
found
coincides
38).
p.
an
reality.
sense
of
necessity
Idea
thoughts
of
process
things
fact
in
these
Modern
plain
our
not
and
be
to
is
would
thought
is
of Hegel,
fullest
its
things,
is
and
thoughts,
this
Logic
feature
constitutes
in
Logic
Absolute
the
or
Hegelianism
(7)
"
inner
in
salient
Metaphysics,
"
concerned
Hegel
him,
to
only
of
briefest
the
know.
we
the
the
in
an
"
in
are
Its
order
according
real
(Wallace,
becomes
Thought
Metaphysics.
orders
thought
thought
Whole
the
of
by
of
origin
its
Logic.
two
the
Metaphysics"
'with
in
of
we
and
Logic
advert
to
us
which
Modern
Thought,
science
LOGIC
for
with
on
of
reality.
the
sufficient
philosophy,
existence
Hence
be
will
identification
the
OF
the
totality
The
(ibid.
p.
task
3).
to
we
of
CHAPTER
CONCEPT
THE
"
The
i.
grounds,
the
are
Concept.
which
Considered
in
termed
the
true
which
mental
our
of
judgment
the
that
'
truth
close."
the
In
the
first
between
Concept
an
object,
'
sensible
such
as
will
serve
nor
does
a
De
Parvus
z
c.
he
grasped.
which
in the
is at
huge
the
proportions
do
virtue,'
the
the
If
think
but
intellect
of
sun.
Some-
subject,
'
is
'
virtue
requisite,
in
save
is
myself
word
image
some
judge
sun
abstract
mere
operate
ever
the
some
the
The
to
of
of
image
'
imagining
or
sensible
instance
that
so
Whenever
form
for
or
fish,
properly
picture.
without
of
purpose
idea
simultaneously
so
when
as
distinguish carefully
mental
vertebrate,'
cannot
my
connexion
phantasm.2
Caelo,
error
The
8,
science
importance
What
to
to
imagination.
my
are
indeed,
'
swells
or
representation
times,
with
it in
Fishes
round,'
"
proverb
Hence
the
vital
of
Every
accurately
intellectual
or
of
in
Aristotle's,
it is necessary
Phantasm
that
place
the
picture
of
error,
called, and
of
into
be
be
material
concepts.
it is of
an
the
think
the
are
the
neither
can
false, consist.
should
small
It
is fundamental
saying
of
is not
concept
two
science
passed
but
beginning
that
the
and
what
cognizance
concepts
concept
every
in
takes
contains
notions
had
ages
at
in
primary
is
middle
'
And
the
There
the
explained
truth.
true
acts,
of
Logic.
But
TERM.
already
Logic
necessity
treatment
of
have
attains
false.
THE
isolation,
mind
nor
NAME
We
on
which
by
act
THE
Concept.
II.
term
tells
I.
in
c.
rb
5.
lv
principio
'phantasm'
us
that
"
[UKpbv
apxy
fit magnus
in
tv
rrj reXevrrj
is Aristotle's.
((f"dvTu"r/j.a.)
when
we
yiveral
Tra^^ycdes.
fine.
contemplate
anything,
Thus
we
in
are
De
Anima,
forced
to
III.
con-
PRINCIPLES
16
LOGIC
OF
mental
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
real order
in the
which
are
is known
one,
its power
as
of
abstraction.
characteristic
if I
Thus
figureI
But
place.
individual
circle
is of
must
I form
before
is universal
in
every
the
In
:
other
the
forms
concept
of
words
man/
is in
my
the
all circles.
a
circle that
the
of
particular
omits
concept
these
of
definition.
Euclid's
phantasm
phantasm
'
but
me,
act of abstraction
an
necessarilyrepresent
dimensions.
by
applicableto
however
When
characteristics,and
is
the
definite size,and
mind
my
on
circle
it is enunciated
as
concept
of
see
by
individual
the
merely
form
circle drawn
I form
which
The
see
feature
which
Concept differs
is its universality. A
from
the Phantasm,
Concept is
of all objectsof the same
character.
equallyrepresentative
The
ever
was
This
drawn.
circle/my phantasm
figureof particular
a
concept
of
the
circle
is
singular. Similarly,if I
concept is applicableto all
"
(Srav re dewprj,
template it in conjunction with a phantasm
between
and he proceeds to distinguish carefully
:
TI
"f)dvTao-/jid
Beajpelv)
phantasm and the concept (v67jfj.a).
the
THE
CONCEPT
But
men.
possessed of
hair
of
We
THE
NAME
THE
phantasm of a man
with
certain height,
a
TERM
17
representhim
must
certain
as
features,with
have
consider
only to
concepts which
form
can
we
objectto
any
of it,have
that
see
this universal
all the
acter.
char-
roller.
The
roller in that
it may
roller
is
'
of
any
other
attribute,
one
differ from
much
how
matter
no
of these
on.
thus
the
resembles
thing which
Every one
applicableto
so
as
it in others.
'
'
'
of course,
to form
so
'
isolated units
many
in the mind.
But
singlecomposite concept.
concept
'
is
universal, and
would
that
They unite
composite
all similar
express
rollers.1
It must
of
knowing
advertence
idea
be
not
It
individuals.
to
the
knows
But
of
that
the
is to
sense
,
in
object of sense-perception
Thus
conceive
to
at.
'
as
1
'
it is the
vertebrate/
The
doctriue
'
or
as
of this section
is evident
to
the
of
means
the
the
by
universal
intellect,
as
the individual
express
series oi universal concepts.
intellectual
individual
the
which
work
no
individual
the
from
phantasm
2
is abstracted
distinct from
thought that
facultywhich
Socrates
'
as
enables
man,'
or
father.'
is insisted
on
intelligence,the
by Aristotle.
individual
"
The
universal
sense-perception.
For the intelligencedeals with
what
is universal,and sense-perception with
what
is particular (6 fj"v yap
Ka66\ov, i) 82 afodrjonsrod Kara
\6yos rou
Physics, I. c. 5, " 8. " The phantasm is as the perceptions of sense,
[j."pos),"
embodiment
material
that it is without
save
(rd yap (pavTaa/mara ""nrep
tan
III. c. 8.
For
further
a
irXrjv fiivev #X?7s),"De Anima,
alaQ'/i/j.aTa
of the point, see Maher, Psychology (6th ed.),235-238.
consideration
2
de Anima, III. lect. 8.
Vide
St. Thomas,
The
interpretationhere given
St.
the
d^
of
III.
Thomas
c.
"
Anima,
7, is not only in full accord
by
passage
4,
with
that proAristotle's general doctrine, but is substantially the same
as
posed
and
by Themistius
by Simplicius. Cf. Rodier, Traite de I'dme, I.e.
Cf. also De Veritate, Q. II. Art. 6.
nature
to
'
'
'
'
PRINCIPLES
"
Concepts.
Repugnant
2.
OF
LOGIC
Concepts
said
are
to
all
concepts which
composite concept
There
last section.
the
that
so
the
Thus
it is
'
stone
These
concept
concept
the
intelligence.Just
both
live and
in
as
live, so
not
of
'
The
difference
between
things,that
many
which
instance,
hand, some
'
colour
cannot
real
in the
of
lifeless
expresses
'
living
expresses
order
order
things
is
of
thing
cannot
thought such
be
inconceivable
carefully
blind
no
form
can
to be
adequate
make
things
an
up
such
when
every
thinking
A
Concepts.
hence
image.
stone.
concept
is
it
are
impossible.
of
characteristic
have
however
can
Obscure
other
the
of
for
as
which
represents distinctlyall the notes
object. It is plain that in regard to individual
concepts
representing
and
"
and
kind
some
are
tion,
imagina-
our
repugnance
birth.
On
from
what
There
in
quite inconceivable,
are
which
Clear
and
noted.
represented
contain
the
to
" 3. Adequate,
We
'
thinking
to
exclusion
'
stone
the
be
nevertheless
impossible,of
go
incompatible,
are
repugnant concepts.
concept of a thinking
the
what
should
unimaginable
said
in
is inconceivable.
thing
is
described
as
form
impossibleto
and
matter,
which
known
are
for the
those
as
he
cannot
brought together
necessarilypostulates the
one
other.
the
such
some
are
be
can
be
to
adequate
We
even
form
cannot
the
concepts
concept
smallest
of
flower.
mathematical
definitions
figures in their universal
aspect. Euclid's
express
which
A
adequate
figures with
they deal.
concepts of the
is clear
when,
although it does not represent all l.he
concept
of an
number
tinguish
disnotes
to
it
sufficient
a
object,
yet contains
Thus
of
that
other.
our
object from
knowledge
any
nature
of
may
very
may
timidity,
have
limited, but
our
concepts
of the
chief
tribes
able
degree of definiteness
amply sufficient to enA concept
from
another.
us
accurately to distinguish one
is
insufficient
to
is obscure
when
our
distinguish the
knowledge
have
other
a
man
things. Thus
object of thought from
may
is meant
a
general idea of what
by prudence and by fortitude
and
animals
be
nevertheless
fortitude
be
from
from
THE
CONCEPT:
NAME:
THE
THE
TETCM
19
have
intimated
and the Term.
We
" 4. The Name
not only of thought,
(Ch. i, " 2) that Logic takes account
but of language the verbal
expressionof thought. Hence
of the Concept, we
must
after the consideration
thing
say some-
of the
which
by convention
and
Name
is
that
word
or
of words
group
the
the
say,
the
can
the
name
is
give the
same
name
importance
the
because
termed
to
universal
same
For
man.
and
one
different
many
concept
all.
them
of them
each
are
acteristics,
all,in virtue of similar char-
of the
The
of
thing,
concept.
names
the
distinctions
as
speak of them
immediately following
distinction
"
a
concept represents to
enumerate,
that
reasons
5-
will
names
us.
which
distinctions
constitutes
of
an
are
about
The
terms.
exception
for
is not
can
Syncategorematic Words.
and
every
only
be
word, which
so
used
in
distinguishwords
we
appear.
Categorematic
plain,that it
term.
Many
other
the
out
thought, considered
expression of our
to its position in a proposition. Since
siders
Logic conin
far
actual
as they are
so
or
merely
possibleterms,
to
contained
is the
Name
all relation
we
is
the
which
viduals,
indi-
expresses
are
in
to
immediately significativeof
concept, and only mediately of the thing : that is to
it is the name
of the thing in question,because
cept
concept, which it immediately expresses, is the conbe easilyseen.
of that thing. That
this is so may
observe
Name.
into
two
classes
be
can
It
used
as
conjunction with
Hence,
we
at
once
:
"
"
"
PRINCIPLES
20
OF
LOGIC
are
'
'
'
'
men.'
Adverbs, Prepositions,
Conjunctions,and
are
as
Interjections
it is true employ them
can
syncategorematic. We
the subjectsof those propositions in which
we
speak
of the
'
words
mere
is
When
letters/
namely
themselves
an
adverb
But
in this
of
case
we
for
as
'
time/
the
signifying
as
When
is
them
use
vocal
mere
instance, if we
in
say,
of four
word
different sense,
sound,
the
or
written
characters.
A term
Terms
known
which
as
The
is
single-worded terms.
student
should
be
on
his
guard againstspeaking
If a word
syncategorematic terms.
syncategorematic, it is thereby affirmed
of being a term.
of
"
Divisions
6.
various
every
divisions of terms.
term
may
We
of Terms.
receive
divisions
are
based
be
to
be
each
on
to
observed
of the
different
be
incapable
here
enumerate
It should
place in
said
is
the
that
divisions,
principles.
are
called
the
Intention.
(7) Univocal,
Equivocal
and
Analogous
Terms.
PRINCIPLES
22
It will be
which
well
when
terms
is, or
present in other
features
attention
the
to
formed.
are
in
way
The
mind,
feature
to some
object, attends
be, preciselysimilar to features
consideringsome
it,which
in
LOGIC
give careful
to
General
these
OF
may
and
objects:
it abstracts
all other
from
I may
look at the ink in my
abstractingfrom its liquid state, its taste,
this.
save
bottle, and
Thus
consider
etc., may
it
simply
black.
as
The
ink
has
an
qualitiesbesides this. It is, moreover,
have
individual
something in
thing, and as such must
is absolutelypeculiarto itself,
and is possessed
it,which
by nothing else. But all this, my concept and the term
many
other
which
manifests
'
'
black
indeed
may
not
that
If
attributes.
other
blackness,' involved
the
attribute
ink
is
The
word
the
exclusion
'
alone,
'
black
other
of
in
black
far
so
all.
It is
it is
It
they
I observe
step.
General
is
that
all
that
of
e.g., that
possessed of
are
term
are
horse
said
the
to
expresses
signifying
word
and
thus
constitute
We
term
in
into
we
it
Comprehension
to
which
its Extension.
Since
concept,
animal
horse.
The
concept
of the
term
group
an
common
or
the
see
a
For
possessing
all alike.
wherever
expressed
individuals
animals
characteristics
we
arise.
terms
certain
to
features,
styledthe Intension
:
us
common
of these
these
characteristics
distinguishthe
of black things,
the
General
our
experienceshows
marked
more
black
all other
concept
same
concept,and
peculiarcharacteristics
the
The
concept
my
term.
thus
instance,
black.
are
Universal
explicitly
nor
attributes.
is
as
'
The
say,
blackink is ness/
excludes,
equally representativeof
objects. Mentally there is nothing to
of an indefinite number
representations
of
word
the
not
The
say,
neither
many
everything save
could
we
also
like
black/
'
cannot
we
follows another
Then
'
'
term
the
expresses
the
of blackness
black/ just as
'
term
all the
implicitly
the supposition
said to include
be
The
express.
for it does
exclude
not
qualities,
is black, possesses
the subject which
other
'
concept do
the
is
General
applicable
the
time
of
THE
CONCEPT
words
and
Intension
NAME
have
or
name,
Thus
term.
is
that is applied to
one
not
is
also
'
term.
The
'
armies.
Alps
'
It
is
either
General
collective,since
as
it is
and
group,
National
Collective
or
term, for it is
The
be
may
not
applicableto
Portrait
lery
Gal-
term
group.
term
is
taken
General
Collective
together as
'
army
soldiers
the
of
group
Collective
'
term
different
'
the
signifyrespectively
to
significant
Singularterm,
the
predicableof
singly. It is
many
23
Extension.
TERM
usually employed
more
similar
THE
Denotation
and
Collective term
THE
term, which
is
proper
name.
It
is
should
of view
common
in
though differing
home.
one
The
'
lead,'
Thus
be
'
similar
names
of
are
sometimes
the
the
from
some
of
members
alike
points,are
many
this reason,
For
should
there
all.
that
definition
the
objects
point
family,
sharers
as
in
requiresthat
objects.'
substances,
spoken
'
such
of
as
water,'
Substantial
as
'
gold/
terms.
and
" 8. Abstract
Abstract
An
considered
in
inheres, e.g.,
A
is the
Terms.
name
separation from
of
nature
or
attribute
subject in which
whiteness, height,ebullition,humanity.1
Concrete
attribute
or
term
Concrete
term
is
inherent
as
which
name
in
the
expresses
it
nature
ebullient,man.
1
we
have
"
here
used.
PRINCIPLES
24
have
We
dealt with
'
whiteness.'
operation,if
and
we
sever
form
to
Light
will
notice
the
from
such
be
Concept (" i)
mind, in virtue
attribute
an
Accident.
an
of the
of the
power
inheres, and
it
LOGIC
speaking
abstractive
it is able to
in which
of
already when
the
of which
OF
the
subject
concepts
thrown
mental
this
on
distinction
between
Substance
is
that
as
stance
Sub-
thing which
possess
In
Abstract
the
though they
concept
isolated
were
Accidents
represent
we
from
the
as
which
subject in
they inhere.
of conceivingthem, is found in
basis for this way
which
inheres
in a Substance
fact that the Accident
The
the
identical
is not
is not
animal
the
individual
led
determined
Abstract
which
and
it
though
form
the
The
the
of
whiteness
of the
colour
be
would
animal
the
mind
the
is
naturally
an
independent entity,
has, and by which it is
Hence
quality as
animal
Accidents
By
were
which
alone
act
an
be
can
of
between
'
substantial
the
humanity/ though
the
form,
abstract
this
Thus
determination.
accidental
an
expressedby
are
mind
of the
representedin
concept
real distinction
human
itself.
yet
the
The
qualified.
terms.
itself
nature
we
animal
before.
the
it is not
But
as
the
as
conceive
to
something
as
Substance.
the
animal
same
with
individual
is
there
and
Peter
no
his
nature.
Since
whole
these
terms
represent
if it existed
entity,as
of
single feature
the
tion,
in isola-
independently and
tion
attencharacteristic to which
a logical
possess
called in the last section, viz. : that they cannot
they
was
be
predicatedof
'
can
'
say,
The
the
horse
which
subject to
is white
'
white/
though it expresses
implicitlyincludes the whole
'
The
horse
excludes
is
the
whiteness/
for the
subject in
which
for
but
they belong.
the
one
object.We
abstract
it inheres.
concrete
We
term
attribute, yet
cannot
term
We
say,
positively
can
say
THE
'
is man.'
Socrates
'
humanity
that
alone
which
has
in
shows
common
exclusion
the
is his
'
is called
he
plural.
no
in the
conceive
we
of which
real
man/
of
those
it in
pluralitythat
acquiresin virtue
The
order, it
individuals, in which
concrete
when
have
have
'
Socrates
to
25
himself.
to
terms
qualitymay
virtue
TERM
Socrates
say
of the word
form
considered,
proper
THE
cannot
we
abstract
in
be
to
are
of the
the
men,
Abstract
a
But
NAME:
characteristics,which
other
are
for
the
with
THE
CONCEPT:
Hence
it inheres.
have
isolation,we
of
means
no
'
'
'
'
Mill
'
finds
Locke,
'
ing
the
'
the
result
'
to
all
has
fault
gained
general
in
is
St.
the
abstraction
9-
Its
is
Theol.
the
words
old
has
has
been
We
shall
Q.
40,
Art.
'
such
therefore
on
the
deal
is, as
Mill
are
sidered
con-
as
General
to
abstraction
of
see
3.
This
Terms.
of
divisions
it used
which
that
imposed
terms.
and
on
the
distinction
in the
first
other
in
ing
mean-
oblivion
hand
with
of
sense
its novel
place
bear.
to
new
former
terminology. The
fallen almost
altogether into
written
are
consequently
name
application
kinds
Mill, who
to
which
recent
English writers,
among
Its
by
apply-
of
example,
to
traditional
from
introduced
all names,
Non-Connotative
of the
one
to
usage
two
I.
and
altogetherdifferent
The
change is due
the
the
On
his
Abstract
present paragraph.
significationin
on
'
term
traditional
by
if not
generalization,and
The
Connotative
distinction
'
name
or
names."
Summa
Thomas,
"
'
mistake.
practice,which
chieflyfrom
currency
Abstract
expression
of
"
with
notices, restricted
terms
'
the
much
sense.
terms
PRINCIPLES
26
in
their
of
traditional
their
definitions
The
given by
Connotative
implies
and
which
one
attribute.
an
(i) Connotative
to
both
'
it is
which
to
these
'
Mill
are
an
attribute
by logicians
name
individual
which
Connotative.
only.
mentioned
signifiedby
term
is
Term
already
the
subject
is understood
mean
is termed
"
denotes
or
have
applicable. Every
features
Non-connotative
characteristics
to
follows
as
which
one
Connotation
Denotation,
word
the
an
meaning.
We
Terms.
the
mean
subsequently add
subject only,
word
the
is
Term
denotes
(" 6) that
LOGIC
acceptation, and
recent
account
OF
objects
possesses
Thus
'
horse/
'
terms.
courageous/ are Connotative
They are applicableto individual objects,and they are
definite
acteristics
charcertain
given to these objects,because
are
present in them.
signifiedby the name
Not
all the characteristics possessedby the individuals
of the
into
in question enter
the connotation
name.
man/
the
Czar/
which
characteristics
The
those
are
only, because
constitute
of which
the
the
connotation
is
name
given,and
of any
like
the
feet, it should
not
discovered, otherwise
with
cloven
horse
be
in
termed
appearance,
a
but
horse.
that words
explanationjustgiven assumes
possess
ideal
fixed and precisemeaning. This is of course
an
a
The English language, perhaps
not altogetherrealized.
than
others, is lacking in this scientific premore
even
cision.
the
that
it will usually be found
Yet
among
educated, there are definite and assignablecharacteristics
in default of which
it is not applied
implied by a name,
The
to
an
individual.
It is true
that'this
connotation
may
THE
Our
vary.
increases
fish.
knowledge
as
term
We
have
'
are
In
the
the
law
the
connotation
hitherto
when
term,
reckoned
for
the
the
advance
ought to
name
other
of
the
views
writers
as
the
to
of Prof.
the
constitute
Jevons
held
have
object of
unknown,
trical
geome-
"
to
"
alter the
more
those
merely
is
the
vative.
deri-
tending
discovery of
ever
of
connotation
of them
that
they
its connotation.
taken
term
call
is defensible.
whether
name,
term
changes
which,
are
knowledge
when
even
some
to
it,
mean.
Some
by
But
its connotation
as
know
of
found
it has
to
tion.
connota-
we
figures,
characteristic,in relation
Thus
what
ultimate
grasp.
things, as
is
of
fundamental
to
few
of
fish but
construction
mental
our
stood
under-
have
not
are
of mathematical
within
the
is not
the
possess
determining
connotation
whale
the
we
things
tion
significa-
comparatively
that
case
figureis
a
that
27
of
nature
would
writers
as
are
sure
real
TERM
insensibly alter
'
learnt
THE
the
to
we
whale
There
we
NAME:
Mediaeval
the
which
thus
name.
mammal.
for
THE
and
of
CONCEPT:
are
This
possessed
known
is the
in its intent
or
view
conno(i.e.
'
and
name
to
their
to
speak
would
absence
an
object. Hence
of them
as
the
cause
never
it is
meaning
us
to
refuse
the
manifestly inaccurate
of the
term.
The
only
takes
of connotation
is that which
account
satisfactory
it to
characteristics, which
signify the fundamental
determine
the applicationof the term.
28
PRINCIPLES
It is
OF
frequentlygiven
as
increases, denotation
'
subordination.
mammals
vertebrates
"
series.
than
'
of
that
animal
'
of
connotation
lion
of
the
'
is the
denotation
only
true
must
when
arranged in
the
"
'
as
however
of classes
'
connotation
This
felidae lions,
"
connotation
The
is
in
As
and
rule
Thus
'
that,
decreases.'
The
rightlyunderstood.
dealingwith a number
are
rule
decreases
'increases, connotation
be
LOGIC
we
archical
hier-
series, Animals
such
have
we
'
vertebrate
"
is
greater
is less.
denotation
greatest of all
The
tion
its denota-
is least.
where
Except
rule is not
we
member
of
Here
but
makes
this
language,
1
between
the
the
is found
instance
crow
rule
Connotation
One
two.
the
state
is
There
immense
an
increase
tion
connota-
in every
black
"
crow.
of
place. Again the denotation
individuals :
by the birth of new
It is,
change in the connotation.
to
"
ratio."
in inverse
make
no
thus
classes, the
such
takes
inaccurate
moreover,
for
class, as
is increased
term
the
I may
attribute, which
some
change
no
Thus
verified.
by adding
dealing with
are
and
denotation
vary
relation
mathematical
no
in
alteration
change
in mathematical
connotation
in denotation,
may
zebra
e.g.
as
"
zebra.
tame
(2) Non-connotative
connotative
denote
terms
Terms.
mentioned
The
first kind
of
Non-
'
names
and
are
this
he
afterwards
thin,' we
call
'
stout.'
possesses
man
cannot
certain
claim
proper
However
qualities.
a
tive
Connota-
For
to
or
quality,
which
they
it sesses
posmeaning in
because
no
name
because
zealous
PRINCIPLES
30
that
it
an
real order.
Scholastic
in which
no
way
These
therefore
terms
attached
just
is
term
denotation.
no
division
of
which
one
expresses
that
which
follows
as
attribute
an
the
by
terms
"
ing
qualify-
as
subject.
Non-connotative
have
discussed.
Connotative
this
to
logicians was
have
A
though
as
is to say, it sents
repreattribute
exist in the
can
meaning
The
we
attribute
our
it in
LOGIC
term
were
OF
which
one
expresses a
nature
bute
attri-
or
independent entity.
an
as
is
term
terms
: for each
adjectivesare connotative
adjectivesignifies
some
specialattribute as qualifyingsome
person or thing. Thus
the attribute
of
as
signifies
determining
courageous
courage
Prudent
the
attribute
of
some
subject.
similarly signifies
the
On
other
hand
all
as
qualifying a person.
prudence
substantives, as
father,' humanity,'
man,'
nify
paternity,'sigthat
is
conceived
and
not
some
as
as
entity
independent
the qualification
of a subject.
value
of the distinction
The
logical
depends on the difference
All
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
is in the
there
that
Substances
not
an
'
'
between
real order
Substances
Accidents
on
expressed by nouns-substantive.
are
expressed by adjectives: for an accident is
stance.
qualificationof a subindependent entity, but a mere
hand
Hence
distinction
between
them
the
order
real
conceptual representation of
is expressed by the Non-connotative
have
term.
Yet, as we
already had
of the
power
than
enables
intellect
exist.
it to
abstract
conceive
It
is
term
tion
distinc-
notice, the
to
the
otherwise
accident
it does
so
substantive
the
Connotative
things
When
in
this
the
conceive
that
and
term,
and
occasion
it
the
is necessary
and
can
they actually
an
were
entity.2
independent
as
though
Accidents.
and
are
other
the
'
as
it
ploys
em-
is
and
non-connotative.
It
corresponds
and
without
to
the
is therefore
fundamental
of
logic
philosophicallyjustified.
in
difference
the
concept
mental
our
be
would
ceptions,
con-
incomplete
it.
Mill,
an
as
These
adherent
between
distinction
1
distinction
Scholastic
The
Connotative
of
the
substance
terms
when
There
accident.
considered
in relation
to
there-
was
the
istic,
character-
'
abstract
The
simply
as
an
substance.
term
does
independent
not
represent
determination.
the
accident
Only
concrete
as
substance,
terms
can
but
sent
repre-
NAME:
THE
CONCEPT:
THE
TERM
THE
31
which
involved
place in his logic for a division of terms
solved
the
its recognition. He
difficultythat thus presented
on
a
itself,by putting all general terms
signifyingsubstances
transferred
bloc
to the
them
class
with
en
adjectives, and
par
division
The
is
devoid
of
of connotative
names.
resulting
sophical
philoof Logic must
in the science
of terms
value.
A division
when
of conceiving the real order : and
different
ways
express
should
this
terms
of
is
class
a
designated by a common
name,
fore
no
that
indicate
This
is
all these
certainlynot
Proper names
terms.
nothing
concept
in
terms
the
in
case
in
have
names
Proper
they simply denominate
names
similar
manner.
to Mill's Non-connotative
regard
Abstract
and
common.
at all :
conceived
are
conceptually
significantof
not
are
individual
objectsof
any
sense-
perception.
Negative Terms.
is
of
Positive Term
some
of
some
'
signifiesthe absence
which
one
attribute.
'
'
'
'
lifeless/ absent/
the absence
of the
of
as
take
we
may
examples of
'
nonentity/ A specialclass
called
are
by what
express
terms,
as
terms
'
is
examples of Positive
living/ present/ equal ; and
Thus
presence
attribute.
Negative Term
signifiesthe
which
one
'
tive
Nega-
'
unequal/ not-man/
is constituted
Negative terms
Privative
attribute
in
an
Terms.
These
objectin
which
'
been
blind/
expectedto exist,as for instance
dumb/
It would
be correct
to speak of some
animalblind
culae as
:
eyeless/but not as
sightless or
for the term
blind
impliesthe absence of sight where
it is normally to be found.1
It should be noted that very many
Negative terms, such
stood
underare
as, e.g., 'impatient/ 'careless/ 'inhospitable/
of positivequalities,
to imply the presence
opposite
to those designatedby the corresponding Positive
terms.
There is,however, one
class of Negative terms
to which
no
can
adhere, and which have
positivesignification
possible
as Mr.
Keynes says, a thorough-goingnegativecharacter.
it
might have
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
These
They
1
On
are
denote
Privative
terms
of
the
everything
terms
see
form
which
St. Thomas,
'
not-man/
does
SummaTheol.
not
i.
Q.
'
not-white/
possess
33,
Art.
the
4, ad.
2.
PRINCIPLES
32
which
positivequalityto
OF
the
LOGIC
negation
is attached.
They
called Infinite (Le. Indeterminate) terms
are
(nomen
infinitum,ovo/ma
was
aopurrov). The name
given them
they do not fulfil the natural
by Aristotle, because
of the name,
which
is to designatesome
minate
deterpurpose
character
definite individual.
or
some
They
in
their
the
are
:
wholly indeterminate
signification
is equallyapplicableto what
term
not-man
is real and
'
'
to the
griffinis
'
unreal.
can
say
horse
is
not-man,' and
'
not-man.'
Certain
denied
logicianshave
recent
form
of
'
that
it lies within
not-man.'
They assert
that we
hold togetherin a singlethought things
cannot
It is quite true that
have
which
nothing in common.
hold together things which
cannot
have
we
nothing in
of a positive concept. We
can
by means
common,
however
do
so
by a negative concept. The logical
of the Negative term
lies in this very fact,
significance
our
to
power
that
of
concept
it witnesses
to
to
power
our
conceive
the
absence
a
positivereality.
quality as though it were
conceive
real things:
negations as though they were
give them
conceptual realization. The very fact
stand as the subject or predicate
these terms
can
there
is a proof that
is a thought corsentence
responding
some
We
we
that
of
Were
them.1
to
it
not
for this
power
of
have
should
no
conceiving by negations, we
thought
nothing.' It is true we cannot
correspondingto the word
it. The
imagine nothing : but we can conceive
position
proCreated
once
Being was
nothing gives an
form
can
sense.
Similarly we
intelligible
concepts of
'
'
'
'
'
not-man,'
"
ii.
An
'
Absolute
Absolute
implies no
and
term
reference
Relative
not-white.'
term
Relative
is
name,
Terms.
which
anything else.
is one, which, over
in its meaning
to
and
above
the
nominis
quod
Quia tamen
[nomen infinitum] significat per modum
in
ad
minus
et
suppositum
apprehen
subjici
praedicari,
requiritur
potest
lect. 4, If.
Excludit
sione."
St. Thomas
in Periherm.
quaedam.
1
'
THE
CONCEPT
THE
NAME
THE
TERM
33
all familiar
are
in
given
of the
also
pairs ;
if
that
certain
an
so
are
an
'
Such
which
names
two
be
with
'
'
servant/
master,
parent, child/
king,
subject/ husband, wife/ equal, equal/ etc., etc. If
are
'
it
then
is
be
can
'
truly affirmed
there
is also
and
each
Such
is
terms
known
are
there
master,
parent,
'
also
must
Relative
as
does
involve
not
be
terms
When
correlative, it is known
'
child
term
some
If there
predicated.
servant.
of any
that he is
one
of whom
the term
one
as
Absolute.
It
of
should
Relative
Relative
and
two
be
must
the
not
mere
fact
make
their
Andrew
be
men
not
are
For
brothers.
such
to
as
express
relation is the
the
Peter, without
his brotherhood
may
field of
But
mind's
the
Relative, it
conceive
can
brother
my
though
in which
concept
a
be
to
Peter
names.
names,
name
Now
carefullyobserved that
between
two
objects,does
relation
names
be
vision.
object of thought.
thinking of him as
be altogetheroutside
if I
think
of
him
as
in my
referhim to
thought I necessarily
whose
brother
he is, and
thought is a
my
brother, then
the
person
relative
The
concept.
be
question must
Relative
'brother'
A
the
c.
(Categ.
Relative
7,
Andrew
term
relative, e.g.,
'
concrete
'
master/
from
in
separation
belongs, it
is
abstract, e.g.,
Abstract
'
relatives
'
have
father.'
the
the
term
'
dominion/
'
If
abstract.
have
the
If
express
which
it
we
object to
correlative
their
paternity corresponds to
or
object,we
relation
the
be
it must
"8).
be
may
the related
signifies
name
in
case
such
relative concept.
a
signifies
Peter precisely
under the aspect
express
connexion
with
his
the
that
one
It must
of
for
term
'
crete
con-
paternity.'
Thus
terms.
'
filiation/ dominion
D
'
to
PRINCIPLES
34
'
'
LOGIC
OF
'
'
'
'
'
friend
to
which
is predicated
is
the
predicated
other.
of the
will
of this division of terms
logicalsignificance
have
not
escaped notice. We are here dealing with a
the mind
in which
can
represent the real
specialway
the one
It is capable on
hand
of representing
order.
the other it can
its object in isolation : and on
represent
it is related
it in the light of the connexion
by which
fashion
to
relations,
something else. Further, it can
when
even
they do not exist in the real order. Thus it
conceive
a
can
thing,which is viewed under one aspect,
The
'
as
in
Yet
'
identical
itself viewed
with
real order
the
there
under
be
can
another
such
no
aspect.
thing
as
'
relation
"
Second
omitted
been
has
distinction
and
First
of
Terms
12.
by
and
the
student
will find
significance,
much
lightened.
is
of
the
recent
of the
highestimportance
thoroughly grasped its
in the study of Logic
which
one
is applicable
Intention is
of Second
object, only
as
which
one
it exists in the
is applicable
conceptual order.2
predicated of an object
signifyingits attributes, not all belong to it as it is
the real order.
Some
belong to it only in so far as
I may
Thus
is represented in the mind.
not
only
Of
as
in
it
'
say,
but
1
the
terms
The
oak
I may
go
which
is
on
'
but
2
may
be
'
forest-tree,'The
to
'
say,
The
oak
oak
is the
is deciduous
'
subject of my
Hamilton
in Edinburgh
by Sir William
to be
distinction," he there says, "is necessary
account
own
as
a highly philosophical
determination,
of any
the condition
as
understanding of the Scholastic Philosophy."
Cf. St. Thomas,
Opusc. 39, De Natura Generis, c. 12.
See however
an
accurate
labour
many
This
term
to the
his
has
of First Intention
term
to the
who
Intention.
"
The
account
THE
CONCEPT
'
judgment/
is
oak
The
NAME
THE
universal
TETCM
THE
35
concept.' Here,
is
as
belong
with
many
two
which
such
chapters,
shall
we
as
middle
term,
These
two
are
called
respectivelyterms
of
Second
of
terms
used
mind.'
of the
act
in the
real order
which
it knows
the
why
reason
importance, is
primary
the
with
consideration
order,
"
and
universal
order
as
hence
such, but
with
that
as
'
salia
'
Second
Intentions
as
It is however
(1640-1695)
Goudin
rationis
seu
secundas
the
"
A
works
13-
of
the
it is
as
is that
distinction
by
is of
it
real
the
the
mind
wholly
cerned
con-
without
not
was
logiciansdefined
it
simply
Intentions.
de
quotes
Universalibus,
the
applied
said
says,
to
Art.
Arabian
i.
that
'
Logic
he
in that
occur
deals
with
attributes
formali
distinction
on
to
works.
assignant
objecto
commentators
Univer-
author's
Thomistae
pro
This
Logica princi-
2,
First,' which
Omnes
intentiones
'
c.
Scotus, Super
saying
to
not
'
Prae.
is
Logic
and
with
in which
intentionibus.'
secundis
3,
by
conceptual order.
concerned
Hence
Intentions
Opusc.
Porphyrii, Q.
Boethius.
'
de
paliter est
mind
the
manner
mediaeval
St. Thomas,
Thus
the
of Second
Science
the
It is not
real order.
the
an
is that
thing
'
that
with
Second
that
is
etc.
terms,
represents that
cause
with
of the
act
claim
we
the
be
signify
mind
it is in the
thing as
intentio
that
of the
and
will
terminology
knows
second
the
and
in subsequent
Intention
logiciansto
first act
conceives
the
The
The
mind
which
The
mediaeval
the
by
First
it is remembered
when
understood,
word
Intention.
deal
to
species,major, minor
orders of predicates
genus,
and
etc.
have
ens
Logicae.'
first appears
Aristotle.
Univocal
Term
is one
which
PRINCIPLES
36
the
An
intension.
same
hand, is
which
one
different
terms
are
morsel
of
no
be
to
'
word
bit
entirely
two
'
other
the
on
express
is used
to
or
is not
which
one
but
one
is
two
An
terms.
employed
meanings
term,
vocal
Equipart of a horse's harness.
ing
importance. Properly speaklogical
is
Term
Analogous
used
e.g. the
as
equivocal term
an
LOGIC
Equivocal
can
meanings,
signifyeither
OF
to
express
These
same.
terms
kinds,
are
'
'
can
we
express
by
them
instance
'
'
cause
forms
of the
in tion
quesbetween
characteristic
there
exists
singleconcept, because
When
of proportion (ai/aXo-yio),
likeness
we
the
that
both
say
that
God
is the
'
sculptoris the
is analogous.
'
cause
'
of the
of the statue,
cause
God
'
the
causes
world
for
world, and
the
in
word
ent
differ-
the
sculptor causes
tween
beYet
statue.
owing to the proportionalresemblance
the two
form an Analogous concept,
can
cases, we
the word
and employ an Analogous term.
thing
Similarly
is a
is analogous. WTe say that a man
thing/ and that
and a thought are
a
thing ; but a man
thought is a
not
sense.
things in the same
from
sense
that
in
which
the
'
'
'
"
each
14.
'
Opposition of Terms.
other
in the
Terms
followingways
can
be
opposed to
:
"
is the
opposition between
PRINCIPLES
38
The
term
same
Although
for').
will
it
ways
affirmed
either
apply
of
denied
or
separately,
taken
of
tributiva)
term
When
as
The
collective^
is
may
subject,
The
group.
dis-
(suppositio
collective
the
as
among
the
use
latter
involved,
predicate
constitute
taken
the
stand
to
anything
the
subject,
distributive
'
used.
be
may
who
Latin
principal
use.
them
the
as
the
(suppositio
term
the
be
the
here
to
or
known
is
former
may
individuals,
the
to
repetition
plural
by
supponere,
Distributive
and
Collective
(1)
termed
(from
which
in
different.
something
were
distinguish
to
different
the
term
little
well
be
the
suppositiones,
its
logicians
of
uses
LOGIC
for
stand
may
various
These
OF
'
propositions,
use
The
citizens
raised
the
two
and
order,
of
my
'
is
"
'
To
refers
in
at
"
'
say,
said
'
is
be
Windsor,"
the
The
of
is
use
in
used
verb."
"
'
Run
the
suppositio
'
is
word
the
The
(suppositio
'
is
is
word
written
the
three
ject
sub-
logica).
taken
to
symbol,
materialis,
of
in
say
(suppositio
When
its
is
"
real
England
or
it
as
if
is
use
logical
sound,
spolcen
object
Thus,
concept.
King
depends
distinction
the
to
materialist
the
to
his
the
sentence,"
Suppositio
run
is
is
signify simply
it
it
as
or
If
realis).
(3)
The
illustrate
sufficiently
This
use.
speaker
England
of
King
Logical
the
whether
real
will
election,'
the
'
and
statesman,'
cases.
Real
(2)
on
in
voted
citizens
dead
the
to
monument
e.g.
letters.''*
III.
CHAPTER
THE
"
The
i.
of
of
expression
defined
or
deny
It
is
either
'
e.g.
is
affirm
"i).
6,
c.
expression
i)
c.
it
that
of
lion
The
p.
(de Interp.
form
The
may
we
verbal
proposition
every
false.
or
Inter
as
falsity
or
of
(or is not) P,
for
it
be
must
is
proposition
the
'
vertebrate/
is
Caesar
alive.'
not
from
Conditional
of
attribute
the
that,
to
the
to
be
In
the
wish
the
attribute
of
affirmed
of
falsity.
For
order.
the
subject
(2)
'
'
So
the
The
the
May
subject
it
attribute
In
it.
to
an
we
only
when
that
the
mind
when
we
judge
not
expresses
that
have,
The
speak
is
ger
messen-
'
'
Speak,
attribute
the
the
it
(or deny)
affirm
'
are
mood.
injunction
belongs
logical proposition
regard
points
but
is
which
affirm
subject,
messenger
is attained
merely
does
alone
Thus
we
mind
gives
or
indicative
too
truth
an
so,
assert
indicative
the
the
the
to
it
not
following
in
moods,
do
we
belongs
always
subject.
the
speaking/
messenger
the
be
In
so.
attribute
is
is
belongs
it may
that
be
should
It
(i)
"
these
the
proposition,
grammatical
other
the
that
it
conditions,
Categorical
noted
In
commonly
distinguish
to
subject absolutely
the
certain
given
Proposition,
propositions.
is
described,
have
we
Categorical
the
as
kind
of the
proposition
known
truth
true
is
defined
which
(de
subject
sometimes
also
characteristic
is
of
attribute
an
Proposition
in
the
is
Proposition
The
expression
external
the
is
the
so
Judgment.
verbal
Term
the
Concept,
the
as
enunciating
the
PROPOSITION.
THE
As
Proposition.
expression
be
AND
JUDGMENT
is
reaches
truth
or
mind
assigns
to
to
it
always
in
the
stated
'real
in
PRINCIPLES
4o
the
is to
Our
tense.
present
study
the
in
purpose
Logic,as
have
we
seen,
represents the
question of present, past
in which
mode
LOGIC
OF
mind
the
regardsthis the
is purely accidental.
future
The time-determination
or
such. Hence
does not affect the mental
as
representation
in the use
of language
differences of tense so necessary
have
for practicalends
no
place in Logic. (3) The
logicalpredicate is always separated from the copula.
In the language of common
life,we
frequentlyexpress
As
real order.
in
them
Logic
This
word,
one
'
must
we
same
Logic demands
grammatical form,
that
Sir W.
represent
every
closelyas
as
stated
Hamilton
as
be
shall
'
The
bird
flies/
so
In
is
flying.'
performed whenever
be
must
process
For
to
bird
The
say,
such
expressions,
mutilated
as
for instance,
as
Wolf
'
'
Fire
sentence,
we
'
'
get
Rain
'
its
whatever
this in what
termed
is sometimes
'
Hamilton's
Postulate,viz.
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
affirmative
subject and
the
denotes
sentences
predicate:
objective identity of
they are expressions representing
the
and
the
same
'
'
'
'
'
The
octopus
subject and
1
more
predicateof
question of
fully dealt with
The
This
is vertebrate/
the
'
in Ch.
the
between
proposition,arises
Implication of
7.
relation
Existence
'
in
the
the
immedi-
copula, will
be
THE
the
ately from
of the
'
'
also
is
as
The
'
vertebrate/
Here
how
the
'
as
the
expressions
expressed in one
is
'
judgment,
the
But
I cannot
octopus/
position
pro-
affirmative
vertebrate/
as
Hence
is
41
which
act
object
same
I conceive
vertebrate/
as
mental
lion/ in another
which
object
terms
object.
same
concept
two
PROPOSITION
judgment. In every
different mental
are
the
represents
the
of the
nature
"
judgment
THE
AND
JUDGMENT
conceive
The
octopus
impossible.
totally Scholastic
the
'
Cows
see
lions/
are
'
objective reality,e.g.
same
In these
the two
Men
notions
The
circles/
are
repugnant
are
impossible.
judgment
Although as we have
" 2. Analysis of the Judgment.
the
subject and
predicate of the judgment are
seen,
different concepts of the same
thing, it is important to
that
it is the subject which
in mind
bear
presses
directlyexto which
the thing,i.e. that
attributes
belong.
the thing as
The
qualifiedby a parpredicateexpresses
ticular
the
the
to
one
attribute
other.
or
form.'1
is
Whenever
fix
we
attention
our
mind
to abstract
immediately commences
from
the
the attributes
object of thought, and affirm
It judges :
of it one
The thing is hard
them
by one.
Here
the predicate in each
is brittle, etc/2
is black
on
thing, our
'
"
"
attribute
is the
case
qualifyingthe thing.
develop into
2
'
Cost
firmables
done
les
Summa
grace
des
the
It
is easy
Theol.
to
I.
1'abstraction
Q.
13, Art.
in
attribute
which
considered
how
see
complex
more
the
object
indeed
not
"
separation from
in
considered
form
or
ones.
it
as
such
ments
judg-
The
hard,
12.
intellectuelle
que
les choses
sont
ai-
'
'
'
'
The
oicupe? XU^HS /J.et" rbv S., xwP"* ^ TO fiadtfa
sense-faculty
of Socrates walking as a single whole
intellect
gives us the phantasm
: the
abstracts, and separates Socrates on the one
hand
from
is walking on
the
6
vovs
"other."
de
'
Them.
202,
10
cited
in
Rodier,
Traite
de
"
PRINCIPLES
42
LOGIC
OF
'
'
'
'
different.
In
them
declare
we
that
form
the
pressed
ex-
the
arrangement of
subjectand
or
it is the
the
The
1
When
in the
form
who
the
must
verb
reason
'
Blessed
last,is the
the
are
meek/
logicalsubject.
previous section
that
the
be/
to
if
will appear
the attribute
we
what
examine
is meant
by
another
ground or
subject, and judge, e.g.,
one
first or
fies
quali-
copula
cate.
objectiveidentityof the subjectand prediis
this
now
identity expressed
enquirewhy
On
the
stated in the
the
by
words,
is the
which
term
it comes
'
which
tells us
predicate. The
other,whether
Thus
meek
have
expresses
We
by
the
defines the
predicate.
We
which
which
words,
the
'
we
Caius
/. Sent.
mind
with
recognize
is
XIX.
concepts
cowurd,'
Q.
of
numerous
of
the
'
one
presence
iUil'ous is wise.'
5, Art.
i, ad
i.
attributes.
of these
in the
THE
'
the
AND
JUDGMENT
'
THE
PROPOSITION
43
'
of
an
'
"
"
it is.
man
Thus
:
of
for instance
Bucephalus, that
characteristics than
For
it is
'
or
we
these
plain that
horse/
he is
the
other
that
And
horse.
to
of them.
'
make
its
representationin
vidual
indi-
an
of
'
the
Our
mind.
thoughts,and
words
the
are
'
man
other
essential nature
qualities
go
is
he
many
of each
be affirmed
may
besides
numerous
of Socrates
say
go
to
ever
howwith
festation
mani-
speak of things,
we
as
speak of them
they are
mentally represented.
Now
when
mind
ject,
forms a judgment concerning an obour
the function
that some
of the copula is to declare
attribute
belongs to that object, to tell us what the object
is. In other words
of the copula represents
the
to be
the
of
not
sense
being of existence, but the second
the nature
of the
being/ that namely in which it means
still more
thing. This will appear
plainlyif we reflect
that we
make
series of true
can
a
judgments about an
it exists or
Our
not.
object,irrespectiveof whether
judgment, e.g. that 'the horse is a quadruped' would be
true
the last member
of the speciesequus exeven
were
tinct.
Indeed
little has the
is of the copula to do
so
our
when
we
"
'
'
'
'
'
'
with
existence, that
do
existence, we
sentence
But
here
must
we
It should
to the
nature
apart from
be
of
noticed
desire
we
employ
simply
that
finite being.
'
to
remembered
The
nature
fact of
the
is.' l
Socrates
say
existence
to affirm
subject-copula-predicate
the
call attention
It will be
importance.
1
not
all,but
at
when
'
adds
is
point
that
no
new
complete
note
of very
when
or
great
discussdetermination
Hence
confers.
actuality which existence
our
concept of the
the thing exists
without
respect to the question, whether
If it were
possible to have Singular concepts, the concept, say of Socrates,
would
he existed
be the same
in all its determinations, whether
not.
or
nature
the
is complete
PRINCIPLES
44
OF
LOGIC
mere
in the
a
though it were
the proposition,The horse is riderless/
To be riderless
is no
of the
horse.
Sometimes
positive characteristic
both
subject and predicate are of this character : for
of much
instance, Blindness
deprives men
happiness/
if it were
Here not merely is a privationconceived
as
a
real subject; but a purely negative result is conceived
as
a
positiveaction.
this it will easilyappear
From
cannot
that we
strictly
speaking say that the is of the copula expresses that the
in some
for the predicate
:
subject is determined
way
as
'
'
'
'
'
not
may
be
'
real determination
all.
at
It expresses
that
As
in some
subjectis conceived as determined
way.
the objectiveidentity
have already said, it expresses
we
of subject and
predicate.
Mill gravely informs
that
his father was
the first
us
in the sense
to be
of
philosophersto notice that
among
to exist/ has not the same
it means
as when
signification
to be a man
adds
to be some
specifiedthing,as
; and
the
'
'
'
'
that
'
and
all the
ancients
meaning
wherever
used.
Aristotle
common
which
'
from
rose
this
believed
"The
spot
narrow
it to
have
fog/'he adds,
itself at
diffused
"
'
'
'
Scholastics.
1
(' To
Thus
be
in Soph. Elenchi,C.
something is not the
5, he says,
same
as
ou
to
yap
ravrbv
dt"ai rt
ri
Kal
eu/cu
air\3s
n,
"" 9,
10.
PRINCIPLES
46
'being,' in
between
V.
truth, Met.
"
c.
real
the
"
4,
endeavoured
true,
to
5.
of
alternative
This
must
or
Some
ultimate.
is
division
signifies
proposition, which
the
(i) affirmative,
either
be
which
propositionP
In every
denied
or
Quality of
the
being'
i.
be either affirmed
determines
'
order, and
Quality of Propositions.
3.
must
LOGIC
OF
reduce
But
the
writing 5 is not-P.
be thus bridged. 5 *s not-P is,of course,
difference cannot
equivalentto S is not P. But they differ the one from the
other : since in S is not P we
deny the positiveconcept P
affirm the negativeconcept
of S, and in 5 is not-P
we
The
not-P of 5.
negative and affirmative forms remain
radicallydistinct.
form
affirmative
is P,
three
admits
Kant
S
P, S
is not
to
judgment
with
by
is not-P.
a
Affirmatives
the
motive
assigning the
which
finite
In-
them
of
reckoning
they rightly belong, seems
separate class,
to
instead
in
to
Categories should
sent
preA
division
harmonious
was
required
an
triple
appearance.
in its other
portions,and a tripledivision must perforcebe found
for the Quality of judgments.
desire
the
been
have
that
his
scheme
of
In
any
affirmation
or
be affirmed
denied, (i) of all the
or
negation,P may
are
by the subject-term,e.g. All men
objectsdenoted
of these
mortal
objects,e.g.
or
(2) of only some
;
be no
or
Some
:
are
sign
men
(3)there may
negroes
the predicaterefers to some
whether
only or to
to mark
is not
Pleasure
a
good : or (4) the subject
all,e.g.
is wise/ 'The
be a singularterm, e.g. 'Socrates
may
These
various
scaled.'
highest of the Alps has been
alternatives lead to the division of propositions
according
'
'
'
'
'
'
quantity.
to
A
h
Universal
affirmed
extension
We
have
proposition is
(or denied) of
and
one,
in which
the
subject, taken
predicate
in its whole
distributively.
when
sub-
THE
AND
JUDGMENT
THE
PROPOSITION
4;
'
All S is not
does
at
P, but
P
exclude
not
once
S is P.
No
from
The
'
men
of the
mortal/
are
supposing
that
'
subject
This
not
is, of
number
not
multiply
the
nature
also
as
not
are
are
member
every
the
universal
the
'
of individuals.
concept,
'
man
belongs, to
the
'
form
is the
The
to
entity the
into
number
The
mental
Omnis
act
homo
universal
adjective
signifiesthat
that
student
conceives
impossible.
course,
but
proposition,e.g.
mislead
intellect
more
man/
S,
Englishmen
from
is
soldiers
No
attribute
plural in a
possibly
may
the
in
individuals.
of
All
class.
employment
All
'
I say,
individual
every
proposition
and
each
All S is not
form
'
in the
appears
The
'
est
nature
All
whatever
'
does
entity
'
attribute
'
mortal
belongs.
affirmed
(ordenied)of
in which
the
predicate is
subject.
of the
form
The
(or are
not) P
'
rich
Some
the
from
use,
word
that
when
for instance,
men
are
'
'
some
in which
we
Particular
not
is here
it is
propositionis
'
Some
soldiers
generous/
The
are
are
brave/
in which
sense,
respects
In
ordinary
ordinarily
employed.
speak, e.g.
Some
of
'
'
some
men,
we
are
under-
PRINCIPLES
48
stood
to
mean
suppositionthat
'
'
Some
of
than
more
what
'
and
one,
we
say
but
several
means
LOGIC
OF
all.' In
particularproposition,may
predicatemight be truly affirmed
a
used
also
could
if there
even
be
applied. Thus
wings/ even
though it
them
'
and
there
fact
but
be
extension
Some
men
be
but
to
which
the
true
of all
of all
and
individual
'
be
whom
it
have
possess
though in
high/
is made
reference
it may
birds
'
Some
man.
the
all birds
that
'
'
some
to
Some
say,
men.
where
even
:
the
'
Logic,the
eight feet
such
exclude
used
case
are
one
be
one
I may
be
be
may
not
to
also
leaves
the
minate.
indeter-
wholly
Particular
the
to
them
process
'
counting.
All
birds
such
are
incalculable
an
future.
'
attained
indeed
number
But
of
of nature
establish
deal
indeterminate
of two
by
I
can.
sorts.
mere
can
meration
enu-
arrive at
Jews/ by
apostleswere
propositionsof this character
All the
propositions as,
of this character.
to
.an
and
oviparous/ Here,
All laws
enquiry is
with
will not
Enumeration
moment.
regard to
Universals
be
Some
truth, that
of minor
are
in
of
this, that
propositionsare
cannot
of instances.
the universal
in
here
fact,that universal
majority of
The
And
class.
the
Universal
class,Particulars
whole
portionof
between
then
propositionslies
the
with
distinction
essential
The
All
I refer
known
aim
universal
me
mortal/
merely
not
to science
and
serve
are
men
The
such
'
to
also to the
are
tions
proposi-
object of scientific
truths.
predicateof individuals,
which
within
have not come
planation
our
experience? The exlies in the fact, that in these propositions
we
the predicateto be invariablyconnected
with
the
know
universal
class-notion
employed in the subject. In a
later part of Logic, we
reach
this
shall consider how
we
How
is it that
we
can
affirm
"
some
form.
THE
It is sufficient
knowledge.
individuals
'
AND
JUDGMENT
'
mortal
here
is
observe
to
'
'
the notion
PROPOSITION
THE
man
is
49
that
to whatever
the predicate
applicable,
applicable also.
In
virtue
of
their
quantity.
universal,
men
far
they
or
form
as
melancholy,' it
are
is
be
may
such
have
as
concerned,
they
particular. If
does
not
sign
no
'
Old
whether
appear,
be
may
I say,
of
am
for
not
employ
the
it should
be
convenient
observed
from
character
the
term
that
we
Generic
do not
logicalform,
but
authors
some
judgments.
But
their universal
know
from
previous
our
Very
acquaintancewith the matter under consideration.
often the Indesignateis used
for what
termed
moral
are
are
universals,as in the example alreadygiven, Old men
melancholy.' A moral universal admits exceptions,and
hence
is logically
a
particular.
'
The
hand,
one
the
class,and
were
it appears
itself a class.
Universal
is
the
individual
object is a
incongruous to treat
On
the
other, the
member
it
as
of
though
definition
of
it
a
extension
in this
case
being restricted
to
vidual.
singleindi-
PRINCIPLES
50
Modern
as
have
logicians
Universal, and
LOGIC
OF
resolved
to treat this
it will be convenient
proposition
to adhere
that
to
arrangement.
The
older
logiciansclassifythe Singularproposition
and assignit neither to the Universal nor
to the
separately,
Particular.1
This
For
course.
the
the
by
Universal
the
seem,
and
scientific
more
Particular
in which
manner
subjectis understood
have
explainedabove
Hence
it would
was,
the
concept employed
as
in
But as we
regard to extension.
cepts.
(Ch.2, " i),we have no singularconis
there
fundamental
difference between
'
such
guished
distin-
are
'
Socrates
are
mortal/ and
propositionas, All men
is a philosopher.'
are
Propositionswhose
subject is a Collective term
Singularpropositions.Thus if I say, All the applesfilled
the bowl/ it is clear that I refer to this group
of apples
considered
as
a
singleobject.
a
'
" 5. The
last
Fourfold
paragraph
forms
of
the
be
known
If
Universal
the
whole
good,
it
known
Affirmative,
its whole
extension,
the
of
the
two
Latin
the
with
the
use
that
scheme, viz.
These
letters,A.I.E.O.
The
we
case,
based
Universal
Affirmative, Universal
the
St. Thomas,
be
fourfold
are
Negative,
cated
respectivelyindi-
These
letters
the
are
first
second
to
by
Universal,
Cf
the
Negative.
(I deny).
the
this
Particular
Particular
Nego
is either
made
distinction,combined
quality,gives us
vowels
truth
hold
to
know
not
This
Particular.
on
the
the
use
good, we
proposition.If it does not hold good as regards
of the subject,or if,though it holds
extension
do
we
is
subjectin
and
known
every
assertion
The
fundamental
two
Universal
two,
the
of the
the
the
these
For
Propositions.
that
us
of
one
expressed.
to hold good
not.
or
shown
of
proposition are
In
Particular.
can
has
Scheme
vowel
in
vowel
for
Totius
works
each
Logicae,
the
de
stands
Particular.
Interp.
of St. Thomas,
for
c.
is from
6.
(This
another
notation,which
Another
SoP
SeP,
this
THE
AND
JUDGMENT
THE
is found
notation
has
PROPOSITION
51
subject
quality.Hence,
symbols
the
and
our
All
Some
5
5
No
P.
A.
SaP.
are
P.
/.
SiP.
are
P.
E.
SeP.
are
not
0.
SoP.
are
Some
on
Synthetic Propositions.
other
or
will
fact that
the
on
one
P.
of
be
two
tinction
dis-
This
Judgments
each
of
very
different
our
motives.
by a few examples.
If we
consider
the followingpropositions, The
angles
of every
triangleare equal to two rightangles/ The
whole
is greater than
its part,' Every square
has
four
them
with
such
sides/ and compare
propositions
point
best
elucidated
'
'
'
'
as
Water
black/
freezes
shall at
we
between
of the
has
different
second.
In
as
classes.
two
of
case
consider
we
in
the
is
concepts of
are
ence
differ-
certainty
our
class, and
first class of
the
the
first
cows
indeed, certain
are,
propositions. But
motive
the
We
Some
there
recognizethat
once
of all these
truth
soon
the
'
32" Fahrenheit/
at
in
the
Judgments,as
the
subject
they are necessarilybound
have
its angles equal to
and
gether.
topredicate,we see that
A trianglemust
two
it would
not
be what
we
mean
rightangles; otherwise
by a triangle.Were we told of any figurethat its interior
angles were
greater or less than two
right angles,we
should
be justified
in affirmingthat it was
not, and
could
under
not
In
'
'
whole
that
the
'
term
to
are
same
way
'
part
greater
whole/
the
different.
conviction
cows
'
and
is not
regard
very
the
that
black.
circumstances
any
is
excludes
than
'
second
It
the
that
its
water
There
of
part
which
the
for
the
consists
motive
nothing in
my
of
of
has
and
angle.
tri-
concepts
supposition of
the
experience that
freezes at 32" F.,
is
rectilinear
intension
class, the
is
be
whole
meaning
parts.'
assent
our
led
that
notion
of
of
In
is
to
my
certain
'
'
cow
PRINCIPLES
52
LOGIC
'
which
'
which
these
of their
in virtue
The
former
latter
the
OF
The
intension.
class of
propositionsis
termed
Analytic,
Synthetic.
definition
of
Analytic and
Synthetic propositions
is differently
given by Scholastic philosophers
the one
of Logicians
on
hand, and by the greater number
since the days of Kant, on
The
the other.
difference is
of primary importance in philosophy. We
place the
Scholastic
definitions
first.
either the
Analytic proposition is one, in which
predicate is contained in the intension of the subject,
or the subject in the intension of the predicate.
An
of two
Analytic propositionsare
first kind
The
predicateis
that
seen
of
consists
those
in
which
the
term
'
'
'
results from
of
'
and
triangle. And
having its interior
1
An
attribute
which
resultnncy is termed
in Ch. 8, " i.
if
is involved
we
define
desire to
angles equal
is thus
in tl.e characteristics
connected
property of that
to
with
subject.
two
the
The
the
attribute
right angles,'
subject by
term
will be
necessary
cussed
fully dis-
PRINCIPLES
54
the
ignores
analysis
in
case,
of
the
LOGIC
OF
which
subject-term
the
What
predicate.
is revealed
then
account
by
is to
be
an
given
that
propositions
analyrelating to the square on the hypotenuse ? If they are not tic,
Either
two
(i) we
accept
hypotheses only are possible.
of
conviction
our
them
on
be
can
of
dictate
to
as
our
Or
for
saying, that
have
is
three
been
of
such
as
understanding, of which
synthetica priori. This is
they must
property
the
has
triangle
(b) There
truth
conclusion,
of individual
examination
an
the
which
at
instances, but
be
true, that
described.
we
Kant's
we
possess
e.g. every
is Mill's
to the
as
tion.
solufrom
arrive
no
ground
right-angled
This
theories
account
no
solution.
object of Analytic
that
cerned
they are con-
(followingHobbes) holds
them
Verbal
meaning of names
only, and terms
that
held
with
our
they are concerned
propositions. Leibniz
taught that they are truths relating
concepts. The Scholastics
known
to things, though
through our
concepts, and expressed
The
Professor
Case well says,
division of propositions
in words.
propositions.
with
Mill
the
"
'
'
into
to
opposed
'
characteristic
'
and
'
'
'
and
verbal
there
such
are
are
that
means
the
extended,
the
is not
necessarily
whole
and
is
which
greater
whole
is
greater
analyticaljudgment
same
real, notional
'
verbal
not cease
proposition,a
of its
of a thing by becoming the meaning
verbal
and
some
are
propositions which
Sometimes
.
predicate does
all bodies
as,
part.
is defective.
real
real
than
its
name,
part
real,
than
is at
is, is conceived,
"
be
to
its
once
and
(Physical Realism,
340).
comes
said, that every
synthetic judgment be(c) It is sometimes
of
that
our
knowledge,
analytic with the growth
e.g.
is
died
in
who
to
III.
an
1820,'
one
analytic judgment
'George
ous.
the history of that period. The
knows
argument is quite fallacip.
The
not
are
of the
facts, which
notes
necessary
which
concept
as
such
occur
we
to
of his
expresses
have
no
an
individual
nature,
it.
forming
In
concepts
member
the
all
the
first
of
place,of
concepts
class,
connotation
are
viduals
indi-
universal
have a concept
secondly,
(Ch. 2, " i).
expressing the essential nature of the individual, the purely
would
Of
not be part of it.
contingent facts relating to him
if I form
a complex
concept applicableto George III.,such
course,
The
as
King of England at the beginning of the nineteenth
e.g,
died
in 1820,' then
who
I
century,'and to this add the note
of
at
The
form
the
England
King
analytic proposition,
may
nineteenth
who
died
in 1820,
the
of
the
century,
beginning
of
But
the value
died
in 1820.'
an
analyticpropositionof this
And
even
it
were
possibleto
'
'
'
kind
is not
great.
(d) Analytic propositions are
a
priori,Verbal
and
also
termed
Essential, Explicative,
correspondingly,synthetic proposi-
THE
tions
On
known
are
this
334-353,
may
have
as
55
posteriori,Real.
Physical Realism, pp.
advantage.
a
Case's
with
consulted
PROPOSITION
Ampliative,
Professor
subject,
be
" 7. Complex
such
Accidental,
as
whole
THE
AND
JUDGMENT
their
a
predicate. By a complex term is understood
distinct
many-worded term, consistingof two or more
parts, so that it expresses, not merely the nature of the
or
more
thing denoted, but also one
qualifications
the
white
to
it, e.g.
belonging
knight,' the roller
which
is in my
These
garden/ and the like.
cations
qualifioften
in
the
second
of
the
instances
are
(as
just given),expressedby subordinate clauses,introduced
Yet
it is manifest
if a
that, even
by a relative.
involves
two
three such
or
clauses, the
complex term
is but
constitutes
and
term
a
one,
single subject or
be.
predicate,as the case
may
Two
of complex propositions are
forms
ordinarily
is gramdistinction
distinguishedby logicians.The
matical,
is
in
order
a
nd
not
to
logical,
given
put us on
our
guard against ambiguity.
(1) Propositionswith an explicativequalification.In
these the qualification
belongs to every individual signified
it belongs. Thus
to which
by the general name,
in the proposition, Whales, which
are
are
mammals,
aquatic animals/ the relative clause is applicableto
individual, that is signified
by the general name
every
'
'
'
'
whales/
denotation.
that
have
been
Thus
does
qualification
the
class indicated.
past
time
and
not
cultivated
belong
to
all nations
determination
involved
in
tenses
the
of the
'
sentence,
Not
future
complexity
the
civilized,have
the
The
in
all the
proposition. This
nations,
philosophy/
members
of
civilized.
are
in
verb, is
All
the
use
of
specialform
however,
as
the
of
we
PRINCIPLES
56
LOGIC
OF
disregard. Another
that
produced by the
employment of transitive verbs, followed by an object,
slew
his benefactor,' which
Brutus
gives as the
e.g.
a
slayer of his
logicalpredicate,the complex term
Logic is enabled
is
constantly recurring form
noted,
have
to
'
'
benefactor/
Categorical Propositions.
" 8. Compound
what
resolvable
is
its
with
own
the
have
we
of
kind
this
is
into
divided
are
character
whose
those
grammatically is
often
single assertion,
into
two
more
or
propositions,each
subject and
predicate. In such cases,
positions
Compound CategoricalProposition. Pro-
that
happens
It
from
apparent
"
their
those
and
(apertecomposite),
structure
classes,
two
matical
gram-
in which
three
are
classes
"
Copulativepropositions.These
1.
in
which
of
number
Peter
and
there
both.
predicatesor
'
two
are
Hence
affirmative
Paul
their
'
positions,
pro-
subjects or
resolvable
are
independent
ended
more
or
they
affirmative
are
into
propositions:
days
his days
at
Rome.'
e.g.
This
is
Paul
Peter
ended
at Rome.
equivalent to
his days at Rome.'
ended
larly
Remotive
2.
propositions.These are negations simiThe
united.
conjunctionsemployed will be such
For
the negative form
demands.
as
example, Neither
honours
banish
riches nor
can
anxiety ; this sentence
'
'
may
be
'
resolved, Riches
cannot
eat
swine's
banish
flesh
anxiety.'
No
'
Mohammedan
No
'
No
wine.'
Mohammedan
will
or
Adversative
drink
anxiety.
Mohammedan
This, in
its
will eat
ours
Honwill
logical
swine's
wine.'
we
propositions.Here
tive
affirmaaffirmative propositions,
either tw6
an
or
connected
and a negative proposition,
by an adver-
3. Discretive
have
drink
or
expression,becomes,
flesh.
banish
cannot
THE
sative
'
conjunction,such
I.
William
gives
the
us
I.
William
57
Thus
This
magnanimous/
not
'
William
I.
brave.
was
magnanimous.'
not
was
but
propositions
two
PROPOSITION
but, although,yet.
as
brave
was
THE
AND
JUDGMENT
have
(b)Exponible propositions. In these, as we
of
said, there is nothing in the grammatical structure
the sentence
to indicate
that
it is equivalent to more
than
one
logicalproposition. Here also, three classes
are
ordinarilyenumerated.
contain
word,
a
(1) Exclusive
propositions.These
such as
to the subject,
and thus excluding
alone/ attached
'
the
predicate
Hence
one.
full
the
'
meaning,
God
'
God
is
is
No
omnipotent.
the
which
save,
All
the
excludes
crew
save
For
instance,
is
word
of
such
its
except
as
"
denotation
drowned.'
were
this
equivalent to
is omnipotent.'
these, the subjectterm
other
one
predicate of
This
portion
this
declare
to
all others.
(2) Exceptivepropositions.In
restricted in its application
by
is
'
deny it of
omnipotent.'
to
than
subject
necessary
affirm
to
one
another
alone
other
any
propositionsare
two
subject, and
from
e.g.
"
Here
again,
exponent
'
members
drowned.'
were
If the
order
of the
is altered, then
terms
be
Exceptives may
expressed by
God
is omnipotent,' will become
All
'
'
and
of
All
the
the
crew
original order
The
in
reasons
Ch.
crew
save
that
was
is to
one
not
is made
something
the
'
about
was
preserved, two
justifya change
which
is
omnipotent
will be
one
'
of
will
order
'
portion
But
propositionsare
Only
is God
The
man.'
and
'
if the
necessary.
dealt
with
be
5.
statement
'
that
drowned/
drowned
Exclusives
single exponent.
be
were
both
the
to
as
propositions.In
commencement
'
fifteenth
the
Desitive
year
Printing became
century,' Paganism
700
A.D/
These
ceased
are
in
resolved
ending
or
customary
e.g.
'
these
after
England
by two
PRINCIPLES
58
one
propositions,
the
time
relatingto
indicated, and
Thus
subsequently.
Printing was
*
fifteenth
not
LOGIC
the
state
first
things before
what
Printing was
occurred
will
example
before
customary
century.
of
relatingto
one
the
OF
the
become
close
of
the
that
after
customary
date.'
" 9. Modal
affords
Propositions. The
another
us
case
differs from
Kant.
Here
understood
deal
with
The
too
by
the
in
which
that
Kantian
characteristic
proposition
traditional
since
the
minology
ter-
of
days
first
Scholastic
the
the
in vogue
shall
we
Modal
explain modality as
philosophers,and then
account.
of
the
Modal,
is that
the
copula
'
'
'
is absent.
only.
the
To
be
It is not
nature
'
learned
an
man.'
between
the
connexion
pure
these
copula is,'whether
But
attribute
The
'
in
'
cases.
the
the
of
some
men
belonging necessarilyto
tinction
categoricaldraws no disWe
employ the same
connexion
Modal
between
is affirmable
is necessary
proposition, the
attribute
and
or
tingent.
con-
of
nature
subject receives
expression.
It has
been
'
'
...
'
'
THE
of the
mention
some
ment
The
relation
the
59
mental
judg~
metaphysical conditions.
of the
determined
PROPOSITION
in which
manner
these
represents
THE
AND
JUDGMENT
attribute
by
of
one
the
to
three
the
These
are
attribute
sarily
belongs necesis expressed by a proposition
of the form,
Men
are
necessarilymortal/ Equilateral
necessarily equiangular.' (2) The
triangles are
the predicate is repugnant to
Impossible : in this case
It is impossiblefor irrational creatures
the subject,
to
e.g.
exercise free will.' And
(3)the Possible (or Contingent).
In this case
the predicatebelongs to the subject in some
'
'
'
instances, while
it.
no
This
We
Thus
in
'
other
instances
It is
possiblefor
The
conjunctionof the
but on
the other
impossibility,
e.g.
relation
may
asserted
be
may
assert
it is not
the
man
be
to
attributes
two
hand
from
possibilityof
found
is not
two
the
with
marian.'
gram-
involves
necessary.
points of
connexion
view.
between
attaches
to
'
word
the
in which
possible.'
'
Possible
'
may
have
have
sense
Totius
we
Logicae, Tract.
"
Notandum
quod possibile
significato,et tune
comprehendit
Alio
necessarium
et contingens.
solum
modo, sumitur
contingenpro
that
tells us
"tibus."
in regard of
used
Similarly Aristotle
'possible' when
is employed in a distinct sense
what
is necessary,
TO
yhp hvayKaiov d/muvtifjius
On
this subject see
also De
Myoftev,' An. Prior. I. c. 13, " x.
fr5tx.ecr("ai
Interp. c. 13, " 9.
1
Summa
vel
in
toto
6,
c.
13.
suo
'
'
And
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
60
possiblefor a subject
have
not
to
have
such
such
and
a
a
predicate,may
in which
it includes
the Impossible.
sense
Modal
be expressed in two
forms.
The
In the
may
first of these, the mode
itselfconstitutes the predicate,
having
for its subjectthe propositionwhose
copula it affects,
That
should be mortal is necessary/ that a
man
e.g.
have
of
bird should
plumage is possible/ Modals
gay
this form
all singular,
since the subject is not a term,
are
the
whole.
Nevertheless
but a propositiontaken
a
as
modes
of necessityand impossibility
a
are
sure
sign that
the proposition in question is universal ; while
the
on
the mode
of possibility,
in the sense
of merely
other hand
in which
from
the case
ity
possibilpossible(asdistinguished
is predicated of a necessary
judgment) is indicative
forms
of the
of a particularproposition. In the second
gles
the mode
Modal
the copula itself : e.g. All trianqualifies
are
necessarily
three-angled. Modals of this form are
not
singularbut take their quantity from their subject.
similarlythe
assertion
it is
that
'
'
Kant's
division
of
relation
the
predicate
the
thinker.
certaintyof
'
i.e.
dictic,i.e.
says
'
be
may
'
He
be
must
is
not
the
Assertoric,i.e.
Of
free
'
the
on
subject, but
divides
judgments
P.'
"
based,
the
on
into
objective
subjective
the
is P,' and
atic,
Problemthe
Apoproblematic judgment he
of admitting such
a
pro-
the
choice
position,and
standing."
to
P,' the
it expresses
that
Modals
of
"
The
'
why
the
he
apodictic
not
'
see
that
expresses
the
failure
but
should
to
its attribute
in the
the
express
must
the
be
P.'
assertoric
The
is not
root
copula
objective connexion
real order
(seeCh.
in
" 4).
form
same
mental
between
9,
the
of this
error
mere
'
the
view
act
as
is the
of union,
subject
and
PRINCIPLES
62
few
This
will
(2) 'All's
This
will
This
well
be, 'All
'
(3)
'
become,
Firm
All
fools
that
ends
that
his
at
OF
LOGIC
the
process
"
despisersof
are
ends
well
is well'
(A).
'
logical form
(A).
post
(A )
well.'
in
'
wisdom
his
at
gerous
dan-
'
'
(4)
Here
As
man
have
we
propositionsgive
'
of
...
of
In
the
every
of
character
If
the
his
'
words
character
sowing
of
there
of
the
clauses, the
these
words
relation
us,
man's
'
harvest
then,'
used,
are
if 'When
place:
of
the
clauses
Where
is like
(A).
Where
.
relation
'
two
relation.
are
instance, the
reap.'
The
sentence.
terms
employed to introduce
The
likeness.
analysis gives
so
one
'
the
us
he
'
As
is
relative
shall
so
sows,
have
we
re]ation
of
time.
(5) 'Where
thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.'
Logically,this is, In every instance, the place of your treasure
heart
is the place of your
(A )
is akin
to madness.'
(6) 'Love
the subject is used
Here
without
sign of quantity, but
any
for
stands
the
whole
denotation
of
the term.
The
clearly
position
pro'
'
'
becomes,
Where
need
have
we
(7)
This
Lions
gives
'
their
love
are
parts,
tigers
four propositions.
lions
lived wild
once
animals, that
are
akin
madness.'
to
exponible propositions,they
or
component
and
us
Some
of
cases
compound
into
resolving
'
All
once
in
e.g.
:
"
Europe, but
lived
not
'
now.
wild
in
Europe
'
wild
in
Europe
'
(/).
'
Some
tigers are
that
animals,
once
lived
(I)'
'
No
lions
No
tigers
(8) 'Only
This
'
Here
we
be
term
'
All
He
the
save
have
Europe now
in Europe now
'
(E)
(E)
.
'
of mind.'
just
enjoying peace
just,are enjoying
are
not
are
he
had
in
to
of
peace
mind'
(/).
(E).
of mind
'
fled.'
where
case,
brought out
by which
gives
'
into
who
None,
(9)
cannot
of
in
living wild
just enjoy peace
are
the
is resolved
'Some
living wild
are
the
full force
of the
proposition
versal
unino
analysis,since we have
all
The
the
remainder.
duction
redesignate
the
"
is not
'
fleeing (E)
Some
(the rest) are fleeing (/).
(10) 'The great is not good, but the good is great.'
Notice
should be taken of the
reduplicative use of the word
.
'
'
'
'
THE
AND
JUDGMENT
PROPOSITION
THE
63
'
"
'
'
(").
'The
is
great' (A).
It will
Other Signs of Quantity*
of expressing Quantity
other modes
good
useful
be
besides
mention
to
those
we
few
have
already
noticed.
A.
The
affirmative
universal
Whoever,
expressions,Any,
I
be
may
be
may
has
word
The
'
that
has
Some
S's
of instances
P.
'
been
does
P.'
been
Never.
not, Not
a//
All
are,
...
placed
P,' but
not
case.
Most.
not.
S's
are
have
word
Most
proposition
are
few
.
Most
half) S's
than
in A
Certain
not, Few,
The
the
expressed by
the
by
In
who, Always,
every
few, Certain, Often, Generally,
by
equivalents
are
I.
denoted
occasionallydenoted
is
He
as
of
one
the
equivalents of
Some
(more
'
'
that
signifies
not
necessarily imply in addition
that the majority
merely signifies
P
are
It
examined,
found
and
'
Thus
to
possess
the
bute
attri-
Most
we
English flowering-plants
might say,
ourselves
to
dicotyledonous,' without
desiring to commit
flora :
or
again, after looking at
opinion as to the whole
any
Most
hand
of the
out
cards
of
at whist, we
seven
a
might say,
cards in this hand
court-cards,' knowing that it was
are
possible
Few
to be so.
Similarly we
they might all prove
might say,
if we
even
monocotyledonous,'
English flowering-plants are
of
whether
that
there
Hence
character.
were
were
ignorant
any
Few
reckoned
is commonly
as
merely a sign of the proposition
O.1
The
words
Hardly any, Scarcely any are also regarded as
O.
of All with
to
The
a
use
negative to signify O
equivalent
should
Not
all the crew
be carefullynoticed.
were
lost,'will
are
'
'
'
be
expressed
Special note
such
words
as
tributively
collective
is
whole
Some
of
be
All, A
few,
to
S's
are
of
difference
"
some.
not
were
to whether
as
etc.
etc.
is
men
building
lost.'
the
terms, to which
attached,
are
the
Wherever
the
men
be
used
are
built
'
may
between
Few,"
be
says
regarded
few and
Mr.
as
is
raft
expressed,
'
'
The
raft.'
class
is another
dis-
use
the
Hypothetical Propositions. Besides
hitherto
have
we
propositions which
ii.
The
crew
taken
there
considering,
1
the
should
'
in
body
"
or
the
case
'
of
"
a
'
negative force.
Most
been
called
judgments
is to be observed.
Few
has
Keynes,
equivalent to
gorical
Cate-
S's
are
not
few is equivalent
And
P.'
"
'
Few
PRINCIPLES
64
Conditional.
These
OF
LOGIC
distinguishedfrom
Categoricals
the
fact
that
in
them
the
by
predicate is not asserted
absolutely of the subject. They are divided into two
classes, termed
Hypothetical and Disjunctive. In the
with the Hypothetical.
present section we are concerned
Hypothetical Proposition is one in which
made
in one
proposition,is asserted
that
from
the
which
on
are
Antecedent
called
truth
that
the
made
in
of
the
another.
other
which
Consequent.
Thus
its
on
in
as
The
quence
conse-
proposition
depends,
follows
cation
predi-
the
is called
the
admission,
is
'
the
proposition, If
the
shepherd be negligent,the sheep go astray/ the
antecedent
is If the shepherd be negligent ; the consequent
is
the sheep go astray.' It will be seen
that
neither
part of the propositionis independently asserted
do not
true.
We
affirm that
the shepherd is neglias
gent/
the sheep go
nor
yet that
astray/ It is the
between
the two, the dependence of consequent
nexus
'
'
'
'
'
antecedent, which
on
There
may
forms
two
are
(2) If S
according to the
manipulation be
But
it is incorrect
than
type
in
which
expressed.
be
and
D,
is affirmed.
is
the
tence
hypotheticalsenare
(i) If A is B, C is
Judgments constructed
usuallyby a little
may
These
it is P.
M,
first
formula,
expressed
to say
that
in
second
the
the
latter is
form
mental
funda-
more
also.
former.
the
M, it is P/
the
form
Similarlyfor
write, If anything
is P.'
'
writers
Some
'
All 5
Logic
on
categoricalAll
have
maintained
we
state
unconditionally that
S is P, if certain
that
of the
parts
:
parts
Nor
consequent.
the
The
fact
to
be
of
is P.
conditions
categoricalare
a
hypothetical
is it
All SM
we
may
only
the
mental
are
the
categorical
equivalent. There
In the categorical
the
In
hypothetical we
fulfilled.The
are
related
expressed
or
S is P/
that
can
state
'
P/
S, it is P.'
in fact
hypothetical propositions are
doubt
that
this
is
be no
opinion erroneous.
and
is
'
the
is
is M
that
as
subject and
related
forms
positivelydemands
as
that
one
stituent
con-
bute
attriand
reason
are
form
different.
to
the
THE
exclusion
'
of
Such
other.
the
THE
AND
JUDGMENT
PROPOSITION
'
propositionsas
65
Gold
is
yellow,
'
If the
"
'
'
that
'
'
'
'
being a man
and
conversely
In
expressed.
'
All
that
different
ordinary
candidates
of these
'
mortal,' and
am
life
universal
differentlyexpressed,e.g.
If I
am
'
may
say
minutes
five
propositions,the
man
judgments
we
arriving
But
often
propositions are
'.
'
similar
often
are
All
men
late
'
mortal
am
similarly
mortal,'
are
fined.'
are
first expresses
cate-
the
other
is a
'gorical belief
slipshod expression of the
If
candidates
arrive
late, they are
hypothetical belief,
any
Brit.
'fined.''
vol.
Encycl.
Logic.
(loth ed.),
30, p. 333, Art.
.
'
'
All
with
must
meet
hypothetical
what
between
the
by the form
negativeof
he
That
it affirms.
is poor,
do
is to say
antecedent
negation,
to
deny
the
deny
must
we
we
desire
nexus
and
This
is done
consequent.
Although 5 is M, it need not be P.' The
If he is poor, he is uneducated/ is Although
'
'
he
not
be
not
may
uneducated.'
are
not
themselves
assert
the
dependence
forms, however,
they
its
thetical
hypo-
These
negative
hypotheticals: for
of
consequent
on
antecedent.
There
"
be
of
quantity in hypotheticals,
The
because
there is no
question of extension.
affirmation, as we have seen, relates solelyto the nexus
of the proposition. Hence
between
the two
members
hypotheticalis singular.
every
can
no
differences
Disjunctive Propositions.
12.
Disjunctive Proposition is
alternative predication.
A
Disjunctiveslike
(i) Either A is B,
Q,
'
e.g.
Either
were
or
the
one
Hypotheticals are
or
is D
generalwas
disobedient,'
'
which
of
makes
Religionsare
forms
two
(2) S is
incompetent
and
either
or
an
:
or
his subordinates
either
true.'
F
false
PRINCIPLES
66
It
in
been
has
disjunctive
whether
words,
also
but
that
conclude
in
is not
The
Q.
not
represent
be
siveness
'
viz.,
is
form
their
in
'
form
the
'
as,
Some
form
gives
formula
Its
and
The
whole
and
is
the
accepted
or
is
that
hypothetica
conjuncta
sitions
propo-
is
it is
P,
mutual
exclu-
will
suffice,
affirmative.
are
The
it may
or
native
alter-
difference
proposition
'
The
However,
of
virtue
By
be
of
be
may
particular,
Q.'
or
termed
the
Scholastics
the
by
form
negative
bothP
is not
junction
dis-
the
Q.'
or
practically
and
of
Q,'
'
of
The
Conditionals
preferred
several
by
called
division
are
that
hypothetical
have
If the
Q.
asserted.
terminology
subsequently
we
is
thetical
Hypo-
Conjunctive
the
Disjunctive.
is not
King
both
at
Windsor.'
followed
have
'
is
possible.
is
is
London
it
proposition
what
us
that
single hypothetical
disjunctives
are
of
point
of
means
Quality of Disjunctives.
is
All
we
can
hypothetical
two
P, it
necessarily
quantity
either
this
P,
not
all
is
is
P,'
consider
true,
certainly
is
maintained
need
is not
and
Quantity
'
'5
expressed by
we
denied,
If
If
shall
If it be
exclusive,
(2)
We
be
can
propositions.
to
is
that
that
other
other
be
must
one
aware
in
chapter.1
Disjunctive
is
are
alternatives
not
or
the
informed
the
that
true,
we
then
subsequent
is
one
supposing
that
know
only
not
are
whether
exclusive
mutually
are
if the
and
Q,'
or
LOGIC
disputed
we
Thus
false.
P
much
OF
and
genus,
This
of
Mill
(I. 91).
Boethius.
indifferently,
(connexa)
and
See
the
Some
and
calls
below,
Ch.
found
the
most
the
the
disjuncta.
14,
" 4.
I.
236)
logicians
is
division
terms
confusion.
conditional
name
Perhaps
He
in
(Logic,
authors.
give
hypothetical.
by
Hamilton
by
other
is
genus
species
to
in
We
and
make
those
Whately
satisfactory
conditionalis
respectively
CHAPTER
THE
"
The
i.
certain
Laws
which
claims
validity
Geometry
laws
each
and
science,
in
the
however,
They
the
limits
of
of
apply
to
all that
Being
or
Thing.
For
that
every
lays down
as
sciences,
but
universal
is,
this.
principle
is
been
Just
there
are
as
of
Being,
are
laws
to
"
which
it
whatever
are
form
three
(i)
in
The
Law
judgments
true.
law
law
the
These
subject
of
It
to
are
the
special
to
of
the
that
which
realm
whole
"
too
so
conceptual
the
of
of
order,
Thought,
chapter.
present
there
judgment,
every
Laws
the
such
the
belongs
validity
which
is
of
of
name
3.
apply
of
which
causality
Ontology,
"
within
the
to
one
or
whole
There
but
cause,
of
i,
that
or
confined
of
have
Ch.
in
the
this
right
things.
in
order
be.
number
the
which
depends
the
all
laws
real
may
not
said
of
not
has
Metaphysics
govern
which
on
which
the
is
sphere
operative.
are
must
event
of
of
has
that
ics.
Mechan-
own
special sciences,
instance
true
something
which
of
their
not
are
the
all
to
It
science
they
laws,
one
any
have
to
extension),
science
principles
are
it
certain
the
for
regard
in
spatial
to
principles
beyond
are,
regard
its
Such
principles.
Euclid
as
for
depends
abstract
are
conclusion
Every
of
of
there
recognized
are
those
definitions
case
science
science.
of
of motion
each
demonstrated,
science
application.
and
which
truth
(the
In
of
laws,
have
the
are
the
In
that
to
THOUGHT.
Thought.
or
the
on
instance
and
of
within
it
OF
LAWS
principles
fundamental
IV.
They
"
of
Contradiction,
(e.g. A
is
B, A
viz.
is not
B)
Contradictory
cannot
both
be
68
PRINCIPLES
OF
(2) The
Law
of Identity,viz.
(3)The
Law
of Excluded
judgments
must
be true, the
three
These
laws
they
termed
are
is
(A
other
But
laws.
Middle, viz.
shall
we
LOGIC
By A
is not
ask
For
dictory
contrathe
B)
one
false.
proceed to
to
Of two
consider
ourselves
the
word
in detail.
in what
'
law
sense
is used
in
In its
it means
an
primary signification
ordinance
imposed by a legitimatesuperioron the body
and carryingwith it an
obligationof obedience.
politic,
of
it is also employed to signifya uniform
mode
But
natural agent. In this sense
acting observed by some
laws of nature/ e.g. the law of gravitathe term
we
use
tion,
various
senses.
'
law
the
32" F.,
analogy :
is
simply
agent
does
be.
In
to
or
norm
one
achieve
our
no
will
ought to
descriptionof
It tells
Thus
end.
observe
we
we
wish
our
the
in
way
by
use
what
it to
conform
the
The
which
is,not
what
us
the
ought
denote
in order
to
Otherwise,
them.
freezes
yet another
meaning we
standard, to which we must
some
pressure
are
course,
in fact act.
perspective. If
must
certain
of nature
is of
there
which
obedience
under
water
Laws
etc.
at
law
that
we
shall not
attain
of
we
our
object.
employ the word, when we
the laws of thought. It is certainly
the case
unable
to judge a pair of contradictory
positions
pro-
It is in this last
speak
that
about
we
are
be
to
But
sense
true, if
it
that
we
are
we
of the
conscious
diction.
contra-
of
second
in
the
senses
mental
we
have
noticed
judgments our
truth, they are rightlytermed
all
is to attain
not
our
above.
end
laws
and
But
object
in the last
PRINCIPLES
70
Another
LOGIC
OF
frequentlyexpressed,is :
It is impossiblefor the same
thing both to be and not
How
to be, at the same
time." l
principle
closelythe logical
be seen,
if
represents the metaphysical will at once
form
in
which
it is
"
we
at
and
one
of the
former
the
express
the
as
time
same
The
"
both
be
attribute
same
cannot
denied
and
affirmed
the most
The
certain
question
this is asserted
will show
principleof
proposition,which
notion
primary
This
calls
notion
notion, which
for
We
we
the
"
brief
'
of
grounds
first Analytic
is the
analysisof
an
'
"i).
brief examination
Contradiction
through
5,
c.
most
our
'
or
Being
thing.'
apply equally to all entities whatever,
we
consideration.
accustomed
are
attain
axioms,
what
suggest itself,on
the
the
that
us
doubtless
will
to be
(Met. X.,
principles
of all
to
their
objects from
name
minations
deter-
various
'
and
cause
term
runner,' beone
man
a
perfections. We
denoted
the
word
characterizes
to run,'
perfection
by
similar
for
reason.
him, and we call another
a
a
Further,
painter
to
them, even
we
though the perapply these denominatives
fection
'
the
'
is not
running
these
'
acts.
applied
by the verb
us
We
is
it
Being
'
'
primary
3,
of
that
understood
" 2, namely
he
has
the
of
'
characteristic
to
of
he is
capacity
this
actually
to
type.
elicit
It
is
primary perfectionsignified
in the
The
exist.'
'
The
actualization.
because
denominative
virtue
be,'as
to
because
is
of
state
painter,'not
or
objects in
in Ch.
this
'
painting, but
or
to
'
runner
in
moment
'
is called
man
the
at
'
'
first of
the
notion
'
tioned
men-
senses
which
expresses
is clear
actuality,'
to
Being or
from
the dawn
of our
intelligence. It is absolutelysimple.
cannot
explain it by any that is simpler : for its simplicity
ultimate.
Indeed
of this kind,
there not primary notions
were
would
be impossible to explain anything. The
would
mind
lost in
be
did
which
What
infinite
of this
It is to be
de
to
find
some
idea
unfolds
the
Analytic proposition which
from
is the first principleto emerge
term, which
Its
of our
simplicity
primary concept ?
very
is
consideration
necessario
regress, as it endeavoured
itself need
elucidation.
not
then
intension
the
an
the
observed
that
impossibili, and
(Ch. 3. " 9).
the
the
is
principle of Contradiction
Middle
principle of Excluded
modal
a
a
modal
position
pro-
de
LAWS
THE
prohibits
explaining it
our
from
its
opposite,
non-existence.1
is that
is
which
Yet
than
viz.
it is
otherwise
as
both
be
to
phrased,
and
not
is
at the
be
to
It
principleof Contradiction,
by analysis from the primary
In
its
its nature
be
principlemay
former,
the
but
mode
The
attribute
belong
have
the
to
which
by
at the
cannot
we
judge
same
time
of
same
The
the
it what
it is.
determines
get the
form
both
thing
it refers
'
and
The
the
to
and
we
mental
attribute
same
denied
the
to
belong
logical expression, as
affirmed
both
merely
not
entity
an
time
that
this, save
about
be
have
we
in reference
expressed, we
the
at
thing.'
with
principlesderived
makes
merely
nature
thus
As
same
then
'
thing
same
consider
which
not
for the
the
Here
must
we
that
cannot
is identical
seen,
act
latter
be
be
not
notion.
enunciated
of its existence.
same
not
the
to
time
for
first of
'
Being
same
time.'
the
as
'
noticed,
proposition must
the
impossible
Being, however,
existence, but
The
'
of each
regard
Our
at
same
the
at
exist.
can
is,cannot
'
have
we
Being.'
'
see
we
'
'
does
which
as
'
as
71
ence
by declaring its differessentiallyopposed to
A Being
principleas
the
state
that
not
'
or
that
non-existent,' for
is not
merely to
to such
objects of thought
be termed
a
or
thing
which
A
Being
expressed,
applied
otherwise
cannot
we
THOUGHT
OF
of the
same
thing.'
"
3. The
stated
in
of Identity. This
Law
the
form
formula, and
'
Whatever
A=A.
not
principle. Locke
principle is often
This, however, is manifestly
enunciation
of a philosophic
the
(Essay,Bk.
is,is/ and
Like
4,
this form
c.
7)
enunciates
to
appears
be
it
as
phically
philoso-
principleof Contradiction,
is
this
law
an
Analytic proposition explicative of
the concept of Being. Its connexion
with
that
ple
princiwill appear
A Being which
plainlyif we express it as
tween
is,is.' In this form we see that the only difference bethe two is that in the one
affirm that things
case
we
which
exist,exist : in the other, that thingswhich exist,
correct.
the
'
cannot
Like
not
exist.
the
principle of Contradiction
enunciated
the
1
see
dum.
in reference
existence.
On
Leibniz
the
to
has
the
St. Thomas,
nature, which
determines
given expression to
the
law
Totius
n,
be
also, it may
Art.
2.
ad 4.
PRINCIPLES
72
He
form.
in this
form
Leibniz's
words
will
understood
it be
LOGIC
is,i.e. that
subject,is
logicalorder, if
subjectof predication
us
every
attribute
an
is
attribute
whatever
in fact
it is.'
is what
Everything
signifyingthat
it
of any
'
it
serve
as
is what
affirmed
OF
that
of
subject.
Mill somewhat
introduces
unnecessarily
expression.He enunciates the law
verbal
in
is true
which
words,
of
form
one
of
words, is
the
conveys
as
"
in every
true
Whatever
form
other
meaning
same
question of
the
"
(Exam, of
Hamilton,
p. 409).
It is the universal
ple
practiceat present to treat the princidiction.
Identityseparatelyfrom the principleof Contra-
of
Scholastic
to rank
do
authors, however,
admit
not
its
the
of all
limits
principleto
convey
service, it must
The
Eleatic
be
separate
after the
usual
(circa B.C.
Cf.
quod
Pesch.
coiitirict et
Est
enim
germen
fact,that
explanation.
any
of
of Leibniz.
490)
had
foundation
But
we
the
two
of his
law
the
to
arrived
for
be
that
the
of any
of Contradiction.
principlesfirst
It is true
enunciated
have
in order
information, and
developed into
attinet, illud
videmus.
of the
treatment
time
the
as
(eov e/A/xei'cu)
1
it is indicative
because
at
as
Parmenides
became
the
the
principle Being is
philosophy. But Aristotle
Ad
usum
principiiidentitatis
3, "1230.
adhibit um
in sua
Peripateticisnunquam
propria forma
et indetcrniinatum, et priiicipiorumpotius radicem
vagum
imperfectum.
LAWS
THE
THOUGHT
OF
73
is the first
umphatically affirms that the law of Contradiction
for long went
his decision
of all principles: and
undisputed.
Scotist
Antonius
Andreae
authors
the
mediaeval
Spanish
Among
'
'
of
is what
Everything
as
which
reason
'
negative
first
and
affirmative,
are
either
proposition is
of the
primitive truths
diction,
principle of Contra-
the
true
'
false
or
first of
the
the
truths
statement
that
the
it is/
it is
it would
"
It
principleof Identity as distinct from that of Contradiction.
that
the
should
appeared impossible
primary analytic principle
be
If
negative.
accurate, the
primary
the
however,
form
negative
of
character
the
view
is the
principle.
of Excluded
in
necessary
perfectlysimple by distinguishing
taken
We
the
is
of the
only explain
that
Middle.
section
consequence
can
it from
last
which
the
it is not.
Aristotle enunciates
"
Of two
dictory
contraprinciplein the form given above,
be true and the other
judgments, the one must
false
tween
(Met. III., c. 8, "" 3, 4). He says also, Bethis
"
"
the
middle
As
either
of
members
contradiction,there is no
term"
(Met. III., c. 7, " i).1
metaphysicalprinciple,it is stated, A thing must
two
'
be
or
be/
not
The
immediacy of
being. The truth
the
demonstration
follows.
the
we
If the
as
of
have
member
judgment
1
not
is false.
the
Where
and
mind
in
That
has
have
we
negation,is
the
it be
attained
say,
the
dictories,
contra-
and
mental
conformity with
is to
two
is not.
judgment
in affirmation
Should
truth.
its
mind
object,the
either
has
yap
from
reality,whether
the
be
of this is evident
opposition between
constitutes
the
negation, then
it, however,
truth
affirmation
which
correspondswith
or
PRINCIPLES
74
judged that
what
LOGIC
OF
is,is not,
or
is not, is.
that what
ever,
Wher-
judgment,
is not, will
the
The
the
in
be
be
must
one
it be
the
not
possess
therefore
present
appears,
when
are
the
contradictories,
logicalprincipleand
the
attributinga
subject; in negation,we
this being (Ch. 3, " 2).
we
tive
nega-
false.1
between
once
the
is,or
of two
metaphysical at
being to
affirmative
Hence
true.
close connexion
affirmation,
the
alternative
that
reflect,
we
conceptual
certain
assert
it does
that
All contradictories
between
being and
not
being.
principleis expressedby certain
logicians, Of any two
contradictorypredicates,one
must
belong to every subject,"is unsatisfactory. It
that
the predicates,
the propositions,
not
and
supposes
are
contradictoryto each other, and is representedby
The
in which
way
the
"
'
the
formula,
'
is either
or
not-B/
But,
as
have
we
seen,
primary
form
of
"
"
"
to
concave/
between
Arist.
Mr.
the
'
'
same
genus,
love,
terms
hatred.'
such
as
e.g.
There
these.
white, black/
is, of
course,
convex,
a
mean
Objects possessedof
any
LAWS
THE
other
of colour
variety
is neither
that
convex
The
for
thought,
and
qualification.
'
true
'
treated
its
with
that
the
but
the
in
in
two
and
from
given
as
to
notice
in
the
to
the
here
but
large
possi-
third
is a
scarcely
can
that
if it be
be
'
'
light, though
the
of
state
three
and
theories
sections.
'
which
men
dawn
at
is not
not
abstraction
by
that
It
does
can
we
day,'
and
that
by these
alleged,contradictory opposites,
'
and
by
light
can
we
'
and
is
dawn
that
of
out
dialectic
development
mentally abstract
these
dawn.
Source
of the
origin
differingwidely
These
views
of Thought.
Laws
various
very
laws.
of these
obtained
urged
and
philosophy,
nature
are
traries
con-
as
to the
as
individual
the
view,
opposites,it is answered
not,
dark
constituted
preceding
the
they
day
against this
opposites are in fact
that
and
It is
are
'
Views
5. Other
other
schools
of
laws
except
further,
As
lies A.
is constituted
moments
"
In
and
Thus
'
truth
sense
any
concepts
Hegel's system
contraries
darkness
the
individual.
of dawn
state
goes
of Nature
Not-Being, and the whole
Hegel
by this dialectic development.
Middle
by pointing
principleof Excluded
contradictories,
equal
that
not
between
originto them,
the
the
he
with
argument
an
grounds,
unmeaning
and
Being
against
that
urged
An
constituted
as
not
say
of
argues
out
from
Such
he
false there
and
the true
be
to
intention,' is neither
second
the
in
law
no
Indeed
true
is
the
have
Unmeaning."
union
himself
owe
do not
we
ment
proposition is not a judgis
the
at all.
Of more
moment
tion.
objecHegelian
perhaps
The
basis
ciliation
of
the
Hegelian
philosophy is the reconvery
its
is
to
of opposites.
origin
owe
Becoming
supposed
regarded
it is
We
even
Abracadabra
serious.
as
the
to
is
declared
necessary.
is not
Between
false.
bility,the
'
.
as
"it
that
'
nor
it
regarding
maintains
particular
any
that
or
convex
not
empiricistphilosophy,
generalization from
experience.
mere
to
do
the
of
white,
not
or
we
ence
indiffer-
; and
manifest, however,
regard
that
him.
has
principle
interests
in
is either true
towards
feel love
It is
hatred.
black
nor
convex
nor
that
75
white
be either white
and
individual,it
concave
nor
objectmust
an
not
or
love
THOUGHT
neither
are
is neither
plane surface
OF
from
accounts
It
that
are
well
seems
set forth
the
respectivelyregard
of
the
can
understanding,
have
growth
erroneously distinguish into
the
no
of
of
rational
that
thought
'
perience,'
exon
the
things on
experience.
'
'
"
'
which
and
of
ditions
itself
in
all."
at
of
have
impossibleto
what
that
"It
correspond
is to
the
"
that
such
to
con-
inconceivable
us
evidence
ne-
adds,
he
be,"
may
this, from
any
out
than
otherwise
transgress,
But
non-existent.
It is needless
the
tions
generaliza-
mere
English logiciansit
the principles
that
us
mind
is compelled to
possible thought
possible being,
'case, it is
tells
He
think
of
Among
which
cannot
to
conditions
the
that
hand, (3)as
Kant.
under
it
gatively by ceasing
of
LOGIC
other
Mansel.
explicitlytaught by
laws
thought are
think,
"
'
is that
first view
The
of
the
hand, and
one
from
is
OF
PRINCIPLES
76
is
of
nature
the
Logica,
(Proleg.
view
this
71,
leads
point
72).
directly to philosophic scepticism.
We
have
is represented by Mr.
second
view
The
Bosanquet.
to the
theory held by
already (Ch. i, note (7))called attention
the
the
neo-hegelian school of logicians,according to which
the
so-called
which
functions
mind
vital
of
the
are
by
operations
'
real
'
world
has
to
been
aspect Mr.
this
It is under
constituted.
as
'
'
'
"
'
"
"
"
"
'
207).
of Hamilton, p. 417) explicitly
(Logic,I., p. 308. Exam,
repudiates the view that these principlesare subjective laws of
derived
the thinking faculty. He holds that they are conclusions
have
We
never
as
from
constant
a
experience of their truth.
Mill
of
matter
have
been
general but
for
that
holds
of
It must,
the
'
inconceivabilityis
those
'
who
circumstances
posed
one
know
and
necessities
character
opposite
as
As
that
he
we
of
little
have
already
it
can
value
laws
as
to
alterable
thought
"
lead
we
as
cannot
But
of
the
truth
creatures
this
to
of
of the
most
supexperience of
Constant
to
admitted
true.
criterion
by circumstances,
are."
be
seen
that
be
artificial,modifiable,
how
of
these
we
admits, be owned
he
opposite of
'
'
Middle,
contradictories
two
Hence
qualificationbefore
it needs
conceive
now
where
case
any
Excluded
universally true.
'
known
simultaneously true.
empirically discovered
law
the
fact
us
to
regard
its
Circles.
Euler's
It
devised
was
(1707-1803).
Euler
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
78
it 5
In
by
P
and
Swiss
the
logician
represented each
are
by
various
relations
compatible with
A.E.I.O
all of them
are
each
of the
capable
of
four
positions
pro-
matic
diagram-
expression.
FIG.
FIG.
2.
'
'
relation of the
terms
may
'
'
this case,
is
be
All
the
classes.
two
identical,as
Or
in
two
circles must
the
men
are
rational
two
mals
ani-
be
equiangular/ In
coincident, and Fig. 2
proposition.
FIG.
All
of the
extension
equilateraltrianglesare
representativeof
the
'
propositions. In every
P, we deny that the two
3.
proposition of
classes
have
any
the
form
members
REPRESENTATION
DIAGRAMMATIC
in
The
common.
outside
79
class is declared
one
'
fishes have
No
to fall
lungs/
these
equiangular.' Hence
triangles are
are
representedby Fig. 3.
us
I propositions. Figs.4 and
5 show
it is some
of the proposition5 i P, in which
FIG.
S.
of
'
are
which
are
not
Aryans/
'
are
S i P
But
'
to
of the
elements
instances
does
not
of such
to
some
mean,
some,
not
Fig.4
all
sents
repreof the
the extension
as
example.
an
the
class
the
case
'
black/
in which
those
save
'
metals/
the
'
'
and
cases
Some
which
men
are
propositions.
exclude
'
P,
two
members
serve
class
are
the
within
will
scalene
in
truth
of S
for,
particularproposition
it may
be
all/
It is true
equilateraltrianglesare
equiangular/
The
though every equilateraltrianglebe such.
form
of the propositiondoes not tell us which
tion
rela-
say,
even
mere
Some
Fig. i
Hence
and
not
Fig.2
refers.
may
When
the
two
classes
merely Fig. 4
be
the relation
this
and
denoted
Fig.
to which
by
5, but
the
also
the I proposition
propositionis used,
there
are
possiblecases.
S o P,
0 propositions. In propositionsof the form
of the objectsdenoted
that some
assert
by the object
four
we
found
No
5.
exist other
'
altogether
propositions
class P.
objects belonging to
men.
Fig. 5 stands for
Some
is understood
the
are
black
remembered,
will be
as
which
members
no
are
there
are
men
many
also 5.
are
those
Some
There
there
in which
case
besides
class P
fall within
S, which
of the class
the
FIG.
4.
'
PRINCIPLES
80
while
of
the extension
within
some
LOGIC
predicate. When
of the
extension
the
that
case
OF
P, then
the S
like 5 i P, be
the
within
class
the
S,
also
but
also fall
outside, some
are
propositionwill,
5. Fig.4 represents
outside
some
members
some
it,e.g.
'
Some
not
are
men
'
"
fulfilled :"
relation
(1) The
evident, as
be
expressed by the diagram must
the
soon
as
tion
principleof representa-
is understood.
(2) Each
diagram
must
relation and
represent one
only
one.
propositionin the
be representedby
(3) Each
must
they
been
found
schedule
one
of
propositions,
diagram alone.
fault with
The
ground
the
on
of this
reason
tion
Diagrammatic representaThe
true
is only possiblein regard to extension.
however
to
function of the propositionis not
express
failure is easy
the extension
in
the
to understand.
of the
terms, but
the
five
inherence
of
an
bute
attri-
possiblerelations
subject.
There
are
extension
of two
classes,and
there
are
but
tween
befour
be idle to
it would
propositions.Hence
look for a perfectsystem of representation.
Other
systems of representationhave been suggested
of the
by various writers on Logic : but by the nature
fundamental
case
none
of them
is
reallysatisfactory. Two
of these
REPRESENTATION
DIAGRAMMATIC
methods
deal
have
to
Distribution of Terms
2.
of the
important bearingson
propositionis
in
Proposition.
proposition,when
a
know
such
not
consider
indicate
to
as
to, it is said
the
the
to
term
from
form
that
be
it must
that
When
extension.
is referred
extension
in
propositionwe
its whole
in
taken
distributed
be
to
form
If
first it is necessary
to
of terms
in a proposition, a
questionsin Logic.
is said
the
But
"
found
will be
that
several
"
distribution
the
with
point
shall describe.
we
81
be
of
the
the
whole
undistributed.
affirmative
propositionsA and 7,
shall see that neither of them
distributes the predicate.
we
All equilateral
When
we
are
triangles
equiangular,'
say,
it is true that the predicate equiangular refers here to
all equiangulartriangles
are
no
; for there
equiangular
those
that
b
esides
are
equilateral.But we do
triangles
the form
of the proposition.The
not
know
this from
judgment All crocodiles are amphibious/ is of precisely
the same
form, and here the predicatedoes not refer
to all amphibious creatures, but only to those which
are
we
'
'
'
'
crocodiles.
The
reasoningholds good
same
We
7.
whether
in the
'
whole
the
predicateis
Some
flowers
whales/
within
class
In
of the
proposition,
employed
term
the
proposition
fragrant/the predicateis
are
every
contained
of the
not.
or
In the
proposition Some
member
of
the
within
this from
mammals.
the
form
of the
class
'
for whales
But
we
taken
not
'
the
discover
to
of the proposition
case
the form
extension
referred
tell from
cannot
in the
mammals
'
whale
are
falls
small
could
proposition.
In the
case.
whole
extension
term.
Thus
the
if I say,
'
the
signified
by the predicate
fishes are
clude
amphibious/ I ex-
No
subject fishes/from
Aryan/
the
class
'
If I say,
I exclude
the
creatures.
not
of the
not
'
the whole
Some
class of
European
European races
bious
amphi-
nations
of
which
G
are
PRINCIPLES
82
LOGIC
OF
in the
'
"
noticed
It will be
while
both
distributes
/ distributes
hand
other
the
on
that
its terms,
neither
subjectnor
predicate.
*
ways
"
Methods
3. Other
of
of Diagrammatic
representing
have
been
Representation. Other
of
grams
diaproposition by means
of
various
To
two
by
logicians.
the
suggested
call
attention
here.
these
of
two
terms
systems
we
horizontal
of
above
the
The
lower
represents
proposition.
predicate.
higher
line is partly continuous
the
Should
the
the
the
there
is
continuous
the
above
dotted
no
affirmative, the
continuous
be
term
the
subject,
undistributed,
and
If it be distributed,
partly dotted.
the
portion. When
proposition is
of
the
diately
part
predicate line is imme-
part
portions
the
of
the
subject
not
are
interval.
line
above
one
The
when
the
of
forms
it
other,
the
four
"
"
figure
here
himself, but
one
The
given
I is not
for
proposed
figure is
own
"S.
that
in lieu of it
suggested by
Dr.
by
Lambert
Lambert's
Venn.
_
'
which,
as
Dr.
Venn
observes, "might
con-
o
........
'
sistentlybe interpretedto
'
as
In
cover
of
suggesting the possibility
Logic,
p.
regard
to
the
case
there
of
being
No
no
is P,'
at
all
"
as
well
bolic
(Sym-
431).
this
system,
it may
be
said
that
it
certainlyful-
REPRESENTATION
DIAGRAMMATIC
requirements of having
of being based
and
on
fils the
representation.
of
value
The
to
the
assists
is, as
the
by
if
Hence
employ
As
term,
soon
have
we
as
is.
really
chief
stop.
(2) Dr. Venn's
is only available
is
quite
method.
for the
employed
are
different
We
our
do
utilityof
The
Circles
seek
we
confess
to
to
form
same
clear
but
they
each
proposition,
principleof
little assistance.
able
are
extension
of
to
the
sent
repreclasses
that
often
point of view
of proposition,however,
relations.
of a variety of such
significative
but
one
biguous.
figure,it must
necessarilybe am-
seen,
we
extension
The
gives
that
the
concrete
"
it
fact
between
terms,
beginner.
have
we
lies in the
relation
and
simple
for
diagram
one
diagrams
the
us
denoted
Yet
but
83
in
what
represent the
ignorance of what
undistributed
to
not
know
the
the
where
relation
line
in
should
the
scheme,
have
but
the
in the
seen
of them
made
use
Eulerian
diagrams.
The
FIG.
The
method
i.
versal
proceeds on Dr. Venn's view that all unibe adequately represented by denying
propositions may
the existence
of certain
classes.
is adequately
All x is y
Thus,
is not
represented by the denial that there is any x which
y :
now
'
'
No
'
y
y
'
is y
that
denies
denies
(a) that there
not
yt
X.
shading
The
there
is any
is any
x
representation of
not
the
'
which
is y
'
All
y,
and
whose
is denied.
existence
compartment,
followingdiagrams represent the propositionsjust mentioned
out
the
FIG.
2.
is all
FIG.
3.
The
:
"
'
]
Fig. 2.
Fig.
xy.'.
All
is y
"
'All
4.
'
excludes
is all
itself to
than
more
excludes
y'
to introduce
existing,and
will
terms
"
circle
new
thus
entail
All
e.g.
of
need
is y
'
is y
excludes
The
xy.
system
propositionswith
universal
or
their
z."
In
this
All x is y
case,
we
have
compartments already
the
number
for
'
or
the
use
of
eight compartments,
'
No
and
xy
intersectingall
doubling
'
4.
representation of
the
terms,
Fig. 3.
xy.
FIG.
lends
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
84
denies
the
existence
(Fig. 5).
X
FIG.
5.
or
The
The
various
difference
In this
case
and
an
differences
be
may
it must
give rise to
be
in both
either
or
proposition,
four kinds
quality and
between
else between
an
an
of
tion.
opposi-
quantity.
proposition
proposition
PRINCIPLES
86
We
shall
proceed
now
LOGIC
OF
the
examine
to
kinds
various
oppositionin detail :
contradictory
(1) ContradictoryOpposition. Of two
be
must
the one
be true, the other must
propositions,
are
false. For example, the two propositions,All crows
of
"
'
'
black/
true,
of 5
whole
the
must
either be such
part
is outside.
On
that
outside
part
no
is
if
false,and
said
if
that
case
P, and
be
the
the
be
true.
be
has
portion
false.
it
of which
only form,
other
that
some
must
that
it both
propositionsis true,
is false the
one
part
such
must
time,
same
or
or
that
such
either
P,
or
at the
of the
one
be
Contradictoryopposition is
is the
is outside
either
Hence
P.
it cannot
portion outside
no
either
proposition,
It is plain
outside P.
Hence
the
In the
falls
hand
other
the
both
will be
part
no
of the circle P.
limits
or
in which
be
neither
',can
This
The
black
not
are
false.
circles.
Fig.2
or
crows
both
nor
Euler's
i
Some
the other
it is
Hence
is true.
opposition. The
characteristic to which
have
we
just adverted, gives to
this kind of oppositiona specialimportance in controversy,
shall refer in the followingsection.
to which
we
The
rule of contradictoryoppositionis easilyproved
from
the laws
of contradicof thought. In every
tion,
case
have judgments which
we
are
opposed as A is B,
A is not B.
Thus in the judgments, All crows
are
black/
Some crows
not black/ the negativeproposition
denies
are
black
that the attribute
belongsto each and all of those
to
perfect form
most
of
'
'
'
'
individuals,of
and
denied
of
which
one
has shewn
of this
form,
Middle
has
one
it has
and
us
the
been
But
same
is asserted
that
where
be
false
must
asserted
we
:
have
and
propositions
two
the law
of Excluded
false.
'
Thus
All metals
are
are
heavier
it cannot
are
than
heavier
water.'
be
at
than
the
time
same
water/ and
For
if it be
that
true
both
that
No
be
that
true
'
posed
op-
metals
there
are
OPPOSITION
metals
no
than
'
No
heavier
are
metals
metals
certainly
most
may
heavier
not
are
'
Hence
than
the
All
judgment,
of
the truth
water/ excludes
true
that is,that
But
together.
It may
case.
and
have
we
be
alike true
Some
men
of these
S with
time.
But
5 may
be
cannot
it may
happen
'
Some
be
can
can
be the
are
black/
this
men
true
conclusions.
These
simultaneously
black/
Euler's
separated.
that,
not
are
of
be
can
propositionsI and
alreadyseen that
the
consideration
accuracy
the
'
that,
or
contradictories
assert
Some
water/
than
heavier
are
the
to
we
87
water.'
metals
'
proposition:
the
assert
water, then
than
heavier
PROPOSITIONS
OF
us
the
both
be
that
part of it outside P
no
entirely
circles
two
the
at
case
is the
neither
the
same
For
case.
opposed
both be true.
their
true.
may
They
contradictories,viz., A
two
And
both
this
have
we
be true.
For,
involved
impossibility
'
black/ and,
the
both
cannot
Some
in
men
shewn
be
impossible. They
be
as
case,
both
E, would
and
to
are
be false,but may
both
sub-contraries, cannot
as
is
has
no
'
are
black/
not
For
this
are
reason
older
of oppositionboth
logiciansrefused the name
to
subaltern
subcontrary and
propositions (Summa
Totius Logicae,Tract 6, c. 8).
Here
illustrations.
us
as
again Euler's circles serve
The
/ proposition is represented by Figs,i, 2, 4, and 5 :
the 0 proposition by Figs. 3, 4 and
Figs. 4
5. Hence
and
true.
must
5 represent
But
be
cases
if I is
true
where
are
simultaneously
false,the contradictorypropositionE
and
this
being
/ and
contradictoryA
must
the
case,
true
and
the
will
alone
Similarlyif 0
terms.
be
Fig. 3
is
false,
relation
of
8g
PRINCIPLES
the terms
is
be
must
OF
LOGIC
represented by Figs,i
truth
of the
But
2.
or
Fig.3
subaltern
positions,
pro-
truth
of the
versa.
The
truth
I is
true.
certainly
is true, then
the
of 7 follows from
truth
It would
needs
proof,as
no
the
truth
may
not
of A.
be the
Some
of A
by
said that
to
of Identity.
of individuals,
of / does not
be
may
men
involve
black, and
are
yet
If then
ternant.
it be
is the
admitted
it
so.
The
of the
it
that
say
affirmed.
the truth
all
If A
the law
accurate
more
men
that
case
commonly
alreadybeen
the
It is
attribute is asserted
same
it has
rules is easilyseen.
that
be
perhaps
of which
It
of these
contrary
of the
tradictory
con-
subal-
universal
true, the
as
of its
subalternant
as
true, A
be false.
be
must
false,and
the
But
if it be the universal
which
be true, it
contradictoryparticular
be
may
of the universal
true
is false.
does not
For
two
together.
The
be
to
enable
the student
illustrated
by
been
between
escaped notice
by
which
truth
as
the
or
to
the
first
table
we
the
how
these
rules
also
are
as
Means
of Inference.
We
have
isting
treating of opposition as a relation extwo
propositions.But it will not have
that it also provides us with
a
means,
may
pass
of a
falsity
truth
by
notice
them.
" 5- Opposition
hitherto
to
the
from
inferences,which
from
statement
as
to
the
may
thus
draw
"
OF
OPPOSITION
0 is
PROPOSITIONS
89
1.
If A
is true
2.
If A
is false ;
0 is true, E
unknown,
/ unknown.
is true
/ is
false,
true.
unknown,
unknown.
3. If E
If E
4.
false,A
is false ; / is true, A
5. If / is true ;
6. If / is false ;
7. If 0 is true ;
8. If 0 is false ;
Thus
false,E false,
from
false,A unknown,
is
is true, 0
is
is true, / true,
0 unknown.
A
true,
I unknown.
false,E unknown,
of
false.
false.
all its
that
truth
/ true.
universal
parts, but
that
alone, is
one
Scheme.
have
that
seen
that
propositions
the
of contradictory
it is characteristic
be
must
one
Fourfold
the
false,
other true.
dictories
generaldefinition of contrain that case
it is possibleto find a contradictory
: and
to every
proposition,and not simply to those
be placed in a square of opposition.
which
can
tive
Exponible propositionsare contradicted by a disjuncassertingthat at least one or other of the exponents
Thus
All the crew
the contradictoryof
is false.
save
is often
This
assumed
the
untrue.
the
as
'
one
were
drowned/
drowned,
were
not
It is
plain that
for both
that
save
Either
the
or
unless
propositions to
propositionto
crew
'
is
one
and
the
not
even
have
were
negation
one
of the
crew
in
denied
would
crew
be
in
both
drowned/
of the
remainder
been
not
the
the
the
form,
'
All
tion
originalasser-
saved.
the
were
PRINCIPLES
90
The
contradiction
of
assertion,depends
When
they
a
numerical
amount
For
and
Thus
the
candidates
form,
'
putation,
com-
dictory
contraare
Either
senting
pre-
propositionis true
form
the disjunctive
of at
the
the
or
more
understood
be
must
assertion
'
169 years/
Henry Jenkins of Swaledale
age of
exact
an
presentingthemselves/
are
then
instance
Swaledale
the
statements
signifythat
to
sense
required.
Jenkins of
The
will take
understood.
be
to
are
conveying
as
fifteen candidates
Sometimes
least that
they
disjunctivemust be used.
the proposition, Fifteen
than
in the
how
on
themselves/
numerical
propositions
containinga
understood
are
LOGIC
'
of
fewer
OF
was
is not
The
age of Henry
is contradicted
by,
was
less than
169
years.'
however
dicted
Any proposition,
complicated,may be contraof
by prefixing It is false that.' This method
for instance, be usefullyemployed if
contradiction
may,
'
we
called
are
"
This
not, under
on
to deal with
such
policy,being foolish
any
sentence
and
circumstances, have
ing
the follow-
as
ill-considered,could
succeeded."
killed
the
Ides
the
on
of
Ides
March/
in the
must
of
March/
are
present
be true, the
'
Caesar
was
contradictories
section.
other
One
not
in the
of the
two
sense
plained
ex-
tions
proposi-
Scheme.
'
extended
on
false.
killed
dictory
contrasignification
given to the term
in the
necessitates
a
corresponding extension
contrary.' A contradictory,
employment of the term
as
justexplained,is a propositionassertingj-istsufficient
'
OF
OPPOSITION
render
to
the
destroy
of
contraries
the
both
but
in
sense
is
the
we
absent.
Any
is
where
as
barely
of
either
contrary.
and
denial
are
are
either
not
the
the
are
voters/
voters.'
of
In
the
of
is
sufficient,
of
one
For
they
the
or
by
as
Some
'
very
signifies
proposition
embraced
by
signification
is
altogether
further
singly,
receives
voters,"
others
been
than
Thus,
contrary.
proposition,
'
that
the
contradictory,
taken
proposition,
'
goes
as
the
are
sense
which
members
alone,
the
by
secondary
reckoned
instance
case
be
may
seen
contrary
every
needed
is
be
has
this
denial,
plained,
ex-
the
both
contrary
concerned,
now
form
'
A,
truth
will
used,
term
and
thus
that
it
is
term
to
necessary
characterizes
But
the
further
Contraries
opposition,
Where
disjunctive
denial
which
is
contrary
goes
absolutely
which
true.
judgment.
which
what
be
cannot
which
rebuts.
of
square
denies
which
opposed
with
the
is
property
between
opposition
one
it
the
altered.
materially
the
than
proposition
false.
negative
more
possess
false,
as
denying
this,
91
statement
understood
accordingly
than
original
the
PROPOSITIONS
"
is
All
counted
holders,
house-
contrary
Some
householders
besides
householders
CHAPTER
VI.
IMMEDIATE
"
be
denned
as
judgment,
in
Inference.
Immediate
i.
the
It
former.
Immediate
by which
process
derive
we
INFERENCE.
from
another, whose
thus
differs
Inference
may
single given
truth
is implied
a
essentiallyfrom
gistic
syllo-
of
conclusion
immediate
an
Immediate
inference
in
declares
some
fact
have
premiss. If we
already know the conclusion.
the
of
Inference
Inferences.
is sometimes
Mr.
Bradley even
affirmatives,
long as you keep to categorical
says : "As
but
conversion
rational
or
opposition is not
your
simply grammatical (Principles^.392). The question
these
have
to whether
a
as
right to the
processes
of Inference, must
name
depend on the precisemeaning
If it is understood
to
term.
attach
to that
we
signify
this would
in knowledge, and
to
advance
an
appear
it is wrongly applied",
correct
be the
to
more
sense,
to
'
"
'
"
"
If
them.
however
it includes
any
mental
transition
datum
to
'
'
PRINCIPLES
94
of
pressions
and
one
expressions,the
the
'
some
"
the
subject
form
when
LOGIC
reality. Of
same
is understood
these
two
mental
signifyingthe
as
thing,
teristic
characthing qualifiedby some
determining
of being ', which
of the
assert
we
thing.
is
less
a
significant term, it, no
subject
the
predicate as
OF
"
the
Manifestly
than
the
some
predicate, contains
determining characteristic.
If e.g. we
This bronze
the term
bronze,'
object is spherical,'
say,
less
than
the
term
attribute
no
'spherical/ expresses an
ing
belongHence
that
the
to the thing.
declares
we
proposition
may
say
the coinherence
in the same
forms
of being
subject of the two
the
form
the
the
terms, though
signifiedby
expressed by
subject
that
is assumed,
This
signified by the predicate is asserted.
of forms
coinherence
as
regards truth, be expressed in
may,
either
order
In
concerned
with
are
Logic we
indifferently.
known
and
in
the
forms
to
to
our
as
things
regard
knowledge
us,
order.
It
take
is
either
to
That
true
as
running thing
may
say,
is
is a dog,' as it
That
to say,
dog is running.' It follows that
the
of the terms,
order
and
we
legitimatelytranspose
may
may
replace a propositionof the type 5 is P, by one of the type P i S,
should
the
not
assert
provided we are careful that the converse
of S and
P in relation
coinherence
to any
which
side
outwas
entity
of the original proposition.
the scope
'
'
'
'
'
'
The
followingrules
conversion
ensure
the
validityof
"
term
not
was
of
negative
as
"
the
the
distributed
be
may
distributed
of Rule
reason
be
must
converse
or
The
to
(1) The
(2) No
given
are
in
the
is obvious.
same
quality
"
mative
affir-
convertend.
in the
converse,
which
convertend.
In
every
affirmative
As
regardsRule
" 2) that
in the
where
form
2,
term
of the
we
have
is
alreadypointed out
undistributed, there is
propositionto
show
that
(Ch.5,
nothing
it is to
be
INFERENCE
IMMEDIATE
understood
the
of
of the
extension
class of
whole
the
asserted
in
the
the
point
we
which
to
be
say
add
we
true,
shall
will
originalproposition. It
of this will appear
which
we
are
(a) Conversion
the
All
convert
so
would
be
explained.
shew
us
this.
Such
into
to
violate
can
'
that,
largerclass lay
All
say,
All animals
careful
to
will
appear
This
kind
keep
men
per accidens
It is true
is P
the
the
rule which
within
as
Some
of
in
'
the
in
assertion
Because
not
follow
therefore
be
which
animals
Some
are
as
Conversio
by
limitation.
is known
the
cases
contained
converse,
conversion
as
just
circles,will
must
the
do
To
have
we
it does
is 5,
conversion
certain
form
in
is S.
smaller.
the
We
undistributed
cannot
we
Euler's
animals/
men.'
propositions
All
form
sometimes
or
that
are
are
thus
men/
glance
Fig. I
be
would
fallacy which
conversion
might well involve
amples
Ex-
proposition,
Hence
of
'
we
In
the
at
the
the
that
the
discuss.
to
undistributed.
is
it from
of the A
case
the
if what
inference.
an
propositions.
of A
is
predicate
in the
about
now
be
not
in
Even
drawn
have
not
is
going beyond
are
extends.
warrant
more
contained
we
to
conversion,
distributed,
was
anything,
our
we
is
than
converse
If
convertend.
objects belonging
If then, after
term.
previously undistributed
term
95
of All
conversion
All
is S
may
All
"
'
'
'
in the
from
be
form
the
All P
form
inferred
from
is S.
of
the
it.
does
not
appear
originalproposition,and
cannot
This
We
learn
however
it from
other
sources.
PRINCIPLES
OF
LOGIC
No
is
In
conversion.
both
and
the
circles will
S
P is
both
same
the
in the
its converse,
us
to
the
as
the
Thus
them.
is
plant.'
4 and
5.
It is manifest
exclude
'
we
that
No
say
plant
4.
class
altogether
converse
deny
will be
No
being capable
P is representedby Figs.
one
also
must
'
It
between
of sensation
if
Euler's
5.
the
Hence
larly
Simi-
i S.
FIG.
we
tribute
dis-
of the process.
3.
other.
union
any
correctness
representedby Fig. 3.
capable of sensation/
not
convertend.
of
assure
this
P distributes
S does
in
predicateundistributed
subject and
FIG.
from
simple
as
propositions,
is true
FIG.
is
is known
converse
Some
form
to the
5
proposition
undistributed
was
has
5 iP
The
Hence
its terms.
what
these
converting
rule is violated.
no
way
is converted
of this character
Conversion
is S.
S is P
5, and Some
in either
case
we
may
with
frame
'
'
'
to
i S.
INFERENCE
IMMEDIATE
(c)The
does
the
conversion.
propositionand
of
admit
not
of the
observance
particularnegative:
conversion
rules.
The
sition
propo-
consistentlywith
The
its
such
as
97
proposition S o P is
subject is undistributed,
would
Conversion
necessitate
predicatedistributed.
P o S.
But
that the proposition
should be of the form
This
be distributed.
in P
5, the predicate5 must
o
in the convertend.
is impossible,
it is undistributed
as
said
have
we
Fig. 5 will render this clear. Because
not
cannot
Some
Englishmen/ we
Europeans are
conclude, Some
Englishmen are not Europeans.' The
this proposition,is
in regard to
place of conversion
will be seen,
as
filled,
by Contraposition.
of Singular propositions. Only those
(d) Conversion
singularpropositionsin which the predicateas well as
the subject is a singularterm, are capable of conversion.
the transposition
In all others
of the terms
alters the
grammatical form, but not the logical.We may express
Plato
the sentence
of the
One
was
a
philosopher/as
philosophersis (was)Plato ; but Plato is still the subject
its
'
'
'
'
'
"that
of which
where
both
terms
are
legitimatelytake the
coming towards us is
converted
simply.
It will not
is said.
something
On
the
other
hand
have
bound
to
occur
The
usually
wealthy
should
first be
'
who
men
to
by
become
'
proposition,
become
'
Aristotle
(i)
the
Prior
propositions.
the
/., c.
If No
'
as,
the
converted
converse
wealthy
process
The
of
The
e.g.
to
The
(most) of the
of Conversion.
validity of
in An.
be
become
who
men
establish
Some
and
such
industrious.'
'
as
wealthy
Some
will
wealthy/
usually
expressed
become
correctly as
and
trious
indus-
the
proposition
industrious
will
are
form
then
are
appear
industrious.'
following proofs
are
given
conversion,
"" 2, 3.
S is P, then it will
2,
follow
that
H
No
PRINCIPLES
98
is S
P
P
for if not,
can
of
is S.
have
is both
is the
it, and
the
5 and
direct
P,
dictory
contra-
supposition
on
false.
shewn
is P, it will
that
that
is
this
when
follow
that
is false, then
No
No
Some
P
is S.
is S, it follows
incompatible with
that
datum
our
that
is P.
propositions. If
(3) 7
P
is S.
is P.
Some
if not, then
For
It is manifest
of
of which
something
since
however
therefore
that
Then
This
this result
But
is P.
All
is P.
are
already
LOGIC
supposed
C, is S.
propositions. If All
if it be supposed
For
we
No
datum
our
it is based,
(2)
But
Some
that
it follows
which
let it be
predicated,say
be
OF
No
that every
it will
is P,
follow
is S.
But
in this
proof rests
step
this
that
involves
upon
Some
that
the
No
Laws
Thought.
" 4. Equipollence
Eauipollence
or
Obversion
is
the
ing
judgment, while retainfor its predicate the contradictory
in which
inference
Obversion.1
or
inferred
originalsubject,has
of the original predicate.
is termed
the
Obvertend,
the
the
Obverse
It
Obverse.
have
we
is
substituted
for
we
contradictory term,
qualityof the proposition: thus,
the
is
stated
not
not-P.
The
rule
we
for
originalproposition
inferred
the
that
as
in
position
prothe
originalpredicate
also
change the
must
The
evident
its
to
of immediate
process
from 5 is P
pass
the process
be
may
:
"
"
Originalproposition.
Obverse.
S eP
The
1
of each
followingwill
serve
as
i P
a~P
examples
P.
S i P.
:
"
IMMEDIATE
INFERENCE
99
Original proposition.
All
men
No
philosophers
Obverse.
mortal.
are
No
are
judges are
Some
ministers
philosophers
practical.
Some
just.
judges
just.
wise.
not
are
not-mortal.
are
All
prao
tical.
Some
men
Some
are
ministers
are
not-
not
not-
not-
are
wise.
it is
Where
find
possibleto
rately
accusingleword, which
of
the
the
sense
contradictoryterm,
expresses
word
such
should be employed in place of it. Thus
a
with
in these
the
advantage use
examples, we
may
words
immortal/
unpractical/ unjust/ unwise
'
'
'
of
in lieu
'
not-mortal/
'
'
etc.
either
or
conclude
A
the
Law
not-P
from
follows
mortal/
limit
apparent
the
of
no
can
be
will
diagrams
we
assert
that
'
'
the
denotes
'
'
P,
we
All
from
the
-^
2.
-P
of
four
within
It
is
are
the
thus
found
but
ences
infer-
fundamental
the
only
not
follows
" 5. Contraposition.
Contraposition is a, process
men
immediate
the
reckoned
as
these
non-mortals.'
Among
will be
Converse.
is
is to be
men
propositionsthemselves,
This
be
must
confirm
'
'
circle
derived
be
Converse.
Obverted
if
Converse.
propositions,must
Converse.
the
part of
which
of the
No
'
that
which
falls
representing men
circle representing mortal.'
the
space
know
we
circle
Obverted
forms
since
Middle.
is not-P.
Thus,
the
of
and
consideration
conclusions.
in
All
that
of Excluded
the
Obverse
Obverted
:
"
$_
immediate
none-
none.
inference
PRINCIPLES
TOO
in which
from
OF
LOGIC
judgment is
another
given judgment
Obverse
the
Convert
of the
proposition.
'
'
has
proposition, All reptilesare vertebrates
the
No
its Obverse,
:
reptilesare non-vertebrates
as
vertebrates
nonContrapositivewill therefore be 'No
right
reptiles.'Similarly,the proposition Some
are
after Contraposition,
not
actions are
agreeable/ will become
Some
not-agreeablethingsare right actions/
The
by
following table will shew the forms assumed
:"
the various propositions
The
'
'
'
'
Originalproposition. S_aP
P e S
Contrapositive.
It will be
the
that
seen
does
proposition
admit
not
S_eP
none
it becomes
SjoP.
i S
propositionhas
after Obversion
positive. For
SiP
i S.
Contra-
no
P, and
this
of Conversion.
S a P.
This
by Obversion
propositionbecomes
Conversion, must
change its quantity to particular.
on
what
has been
termed
have
here we
Hence
Contrapositio
The
per accidens.
Obverted Contrapositive.1 It is plain that
in each
and
change
This
will
case
the
give
us
itself
"
Contrapositive.
Obverted
Contrap.
1
It will be
observed
of the
We
capable of Obversion.
alter the quality of the proposition,
predicate to its contradictoryterm.
Contrapositives is
can
each
that
the
The
none
5_
i S.
none
Obverted
older
S.
Latin
original proposition.
of the terms, and
for obtaining the conversion
merely as a method
the
that
it was
fact
in
this
its
from
possible to
importance
as
deriving
way
Conversio
the 0 proposition. They called it not Contrapositio,but
convert
the
obvertedfor
reserved
the
Hence
name
Contrapositionem.
they
per
that the quality
contrapositive,since it alone follows the rule of Conversion
Cf. e.g. Sylv. Maurus
remains
(Quaest.Phil. I., p. 65). In this
unchanged.
they followed Boethius, DC Syll. Cat. I. (P. L. vol. 64, c. 807). Contraposition
is recognized by Aristotle in Topics, II. 8.
of
the
PRINCIPLES
tf"2
Obverted
Inverse.
possibleto obtain
Contrapositive,so
which
have
we
S~i P
will be
Just
we
just
which
of
the
Originalproposition.
S aP
S iP
S eP
Obverse.
SeP
SoP
S aP
Converse.
PiS
PiS
PeS
?i"^
PeS_
PoS
PaS
Converse.
the
for
formula
The
Sa
subjectand
SiP
SoP
is Pa.
therefore
For
'
art/
'
This
form
the
determinant
the
same
statue
Inference.
added
by
determinants
instance,
beautiful
'
of immediate
statue
is
statue
is
Canova
by
qualifiesthe
I
Thus,
aspect.
work
inference
consists
the
will be
process
P.
Si P.
SoP
predicateby
the
PoS.
inference, which
of immediate
process
both
inference
P_oS
S_iP
Varieties of Immediate
(1) Immediate
PiS.
Inverse.
" 8. Other
results
PiS
Contrapositive.
Obverted
Contrapositive.Pa
Inverse.
follows.
as
Obverted
P.
Obverted
forms
of
summarize
may
and
Inverse
Obverse
S" o
it is
Converse
the
will be
We
that
seen
the
obvert
may
reached.
The
arrived
have
we
have
forms
of S i P
that
LOGIC
we
as
obverted
OF
limiting
determinant.
same
in
is
is
P, therefora
of art
'
beautiful
work
of
of art
Canova.'
is
work
by
is
only possible,when
under
terms
precisely
cannot
argue
that
because
'A
'
'
'
'
'
IMMEDIATE
attribute
qualifiedby a determinant,
subject
propositionaffirming of the same
Men
without
qualification.Thus, from
rational
mortals/
infer
we
the
are
103
attribute
given subjectan
INFERENCE
'
fallacymay
to
alter the
'
facts,'to
mortals.'
are
determinant
here, if the
arise
Men
'
is such
as
meaning
'
from
argue
conclude
we
It consists in
conception.
in
bronze
is
'
therefore
In
the
predicateof
'
these
Bronze
is
The
death
the
cases,
of
the
what
relation
which
in
stands
which
name
The
Q.
to
attributed
was
to
original
introduced,
cies
Falla-
5,
to
those
to
infer
'
from
All
of the
is
relation
infer
we
relation
the
have
we
majority
another
which
in
transposed,and
are
man.'
proposition stating
converse
terms
is
man,'
determinants.
as
from
of inference, by which
is
predicateof
'
the
statue
of
cannot
Thus, we
already examined.
A
judges are lawyers,'that therefore
judges is a majority of lawyers/
inference
by converse
(4) Immediate
process
'
negro
here, similar
arise
subject
complex
death
by
employed
of course,
may,
is the
determined
themselves
are
'
metal.'
negro
subject and
not
the
metal,' therefore
in
statue
propositionare
but
employing both
originalas parts of a more
relative
the
previous subject,is
butable
consequentlyreplacedby the correlative,which is attrithe
Socrates
to
new
subject. Thus, from
of Xantippe,' we
conclude
the husband
was
Xantippe
'
'
Venn,
three
or
This form
of immediate
inference
Symbolic Logic, p. 286.
discussed
II., c.
8,
Topics,
Aristotle,
delnterp.,c.
"
by
n,
times
in
form
the
simpliciter, quando
35,
deFallaciis,
c.
its
determinatio
n,
de
application was
secundum-quid
non
Potentia, Q.
est
9, Art.
5,
2.
Latin
illatio
valet
diminuens.
obj.
the
by
dicto
is two
u,
logicians
ad
dictum
Opusc.
St. Thomas,
See
also
"4
Ch.
17,
"
10
below.
Mr.
he
has
Bradley's criticisms
overlooked
Aristotle's
to
indicate
that
PRINCIPLES
104
wife
the
was
of
slave
of
'
Socrates
Philemon/
LOGIC
OF
'
to
'
from
Philemon
Onesimus
the
was
the
was
of
master
Onesimus/
Some
mode
of
Formal
the
immediate
of
logicianshave
inference
is, they
Logic. There
we
thought, by which
pass
of
'
to
'
is the
child
falls
within
no
urge,
do
To
that
the
is
the
this
province
law
of
father
of
necessary
'
from
of A.'
denied
it is necessary
so,
The
meaning of the terms.
be symbolically represented.
cannot
process
of the
Formal
the
From
point of view
logician the
But
force.
to the
Scholastic
cian,
logiobjection has much
who
holds that the object of Logic is the conceptual
ever
expression of the real, it presents no difficulty.Who-
acquainted
be
to
the
employs
his
in
mind
'
to
is
child
of
inference,
of
A!
'
The
is
to
the
', must
hence
the
is
pass
of
B,'
expressly
" 6).
7,
By
consequence.
from
fact
have
can
father
inference
conclude
we
father
child,' and
(Categ.,c.
is necessary,
something
'
by modal
inference
'
concept
from
Aristotle
recognized by
method
relative
inference
the
Immediate
the
correlative
the
immediate
by
with
that
the
it is
fact
this
that
possible.
for
proposition It is necessary
It is
an
equilateral triangle to be equiangular/ to
equilateraltriangle to be equiangular.'
possible for an
first sight there
At
a
difficultyin concluding
appears
from
necessity to possibility. But if it is not the case
is possible,then
is necessary
what
that
by the principle
of Excluded
Middle, the contradictory is true, and
we
it is impossible (de Interp.,c.
that
must
13, " 9).
say
is false, we
is
As
this
conclusion
recognize that what
is also
possible, and similarlythat whenever
necessary
that
also
assert
we
something is impossible, we can
can
In this case,
that it is possiblefor this not to be.
assert
For
instance
from
the
'
we
in
use
Ch.
the
3,
words
" 9.
in
the
second
of
the
two
senses
noted
CHAPTER
THE
"
this
IMPORT
Import
i.
of
chapter
various
in
already
shall
on
this
to
treat
the
subject
of
""
in
the
and
subject
to
some
the
the
thing,
affirm
we
that
the
the
the
as
order
is
subject
in
it
is
iiie
to
what
is
it
denote
place
of
this
of
the
the
function
the
subject
the
proper
the
attribute,
natural
is ;
the
and
order
when
is
predicate
when
which
copula
declares
we
and
that
object
is
first,
stand
affirmed
have
may
whose
special
thing,
'
Logically,
office
in
object
ition
transposFor
perfectly legitimate.
is
simply
define
the
to
tell
stands
That
this
the
as
be
may
say,
no
predication.
we
we
is
it
as
know
of
pressed
ex-
much
inas-
there
we
may
name
to
attribute
order
concrete
as
construed
object
Thus
is Socrates.'
way,
of
under
Further,
subject,
attribute.
subject
judgment
the
an
version,
con-
Briefly
the
subject,
attribute,
individual
the
both
knowledge
of
possible
between
The
natural
name,
view
relation
the
with
the
own
of
some
our
the
naturally
were
to
have
not
identical.
are
mere
our
being
the
aspect
of
thing.
deals
reverse
may
which
coming
which
said,
by
regard
naturally
to
in
as
though
case
the
predicate
as
judgment
as
of
We
understood.
be
predicate
judgment
and
known,
What
the
relation
process
the
however
subject
the
was
the
how
object
object expressed
by
fixed
the
(or deny)
of
or
have
we
express
aspect,
signify
what
it
For
should
predicate
predicate
explained
indicating
of
nature
In
considering
predication.
detail.
some
first
recapitulate
and
6, "
2, Ch.
i,
of
act
View.
in
occupied
proposition,
without
Predicative
precise
mental
3,
PROPOSITIONS.
be
the
to
as
in Ch,
OF
Propositions"
we
theories
expressed
VII.
us
subject
what
to
be
io6
PRINCIPLES
this
or
that
individual
particular
most
certainlydone.
this is
"
That
there
is
natural
the
order
is
rightlysays
'
form
The
as,
of the
where
but
the
it
and
exist
is not
generality,
its
as
Aristotle
is Callias,'such
per accidens.
stance
sub-
the
in such
proposition
our
the
characterizes
They
right. Hence
subject
wider
of
term
order
an
accident,
an
'That
e.g.
but
is
man
Socrates.'
of the
view
understood
subject is
attribute,
the
characterize
own
seen
accident
supports
existence.
their
natural
and
which
determines
though we can
express
this
object coming
way
is true
same
substantial
This
it, and
in
not
is not
terms
The
and
Socrates,
man
substance
substance
which
that
to be the
"
predicationwill easily be
something
independent
possesses
It
LOGIC
between
is the
not
determinations,
of
distinction
recalling
(Ch. 2, " 7). Clearly it
accidents.
They determine
on
them.
OF
or
"
it is sometimes
as
subject is
construed
in
intension,
is known
as
"
put,
extension, and
in which
the
the
predicatein
Predicative View.
the
theories
diverse
During the past century the most
this point have
been held by logicians.The principal
on
shall proceed to examine.
In the course
of these
we
shall be brought across
of the
another
discussion, we
problem, which of recent years has afforded matter for
debate, the question namely, whether
a
categorical
proposition implies that things corresponding to its
terms
actuallyexist.
"
"
both
An.
Prior
such
proposition
'
'
'
the
'
white
That
did
An.
"
I.,
c.
object is
become
not
follows.
view,
conceived
Post.
white
interpret
22,
a
hold
in
" 2, where
stick
stick, but
that
exten-
he
points
'
is predication
vice versa.
On
'
'
as
who
class-inclusion
See also
Those
propositionon
subject and predicate are
that
out
Class-inclusion View.
The
the
the
2.
comments
as
de
'accidente,"
in An.
Post.
Subjectum
See
below,
Ch.
8, "
i.
Aristotle's
IMPORT
THE
PROPOSITIONS
OF
107
of a proposition
significance
is to assert that the objects denoted
by the subjec; are
the class signified
from
included in, or excluded
by the
mortal
that all men
asserts
are
predicate, e.g. Men
fall within
mortal/
The
this
the class
predicate on
be read
interpretationmust
necessarily
collectivelyas
sion.
believe
They
the
true
'
'
'
"
mortal
included
not
are
The
within
real
order, inclusion
and
propositions,
and
that
in
exclusion
it is due
to
either
that
in
regard
class
that
this
separately.
be
from
in
in
proposition does
the
does
or
mental
fundais not
indicate
not
the
frame
to
whether
of
negations:
of
scheme
tively
collec-
affirmative
able
are
we
they
may
class is involved
whole
tributive
dis-
included
are
taken
each
them,
unit.
be
We
as
would
use
within
class considered
whole
signifyingthe
the
'
form
If
All
men
'
inaccurate
not
'
urged
that
which
those
are
which
class
of
men
statement
what
men
there
the
are
certain
sometimes
Lions
affirm
we
are
relation
Felidae,'we
in
Felidae,'
quite
Every
'
mortal
of
number
'
this
signify that
is
man
is
'
every
true
propositions,
namely
way,
Daisies
two
indeed
judgments
inaccurate
between
is
things,it
is sometimes
termed
'
'
It
are.
mortals.'
and
for
some
among
mortal
other
naturally understood
are
assume
mortal.'
subject,copula
Lions
are
e.g.
positae.' It is, however,
here
of
are
On
of
mode
expression
included
are
All
say
mortal.'
would
They
'
view, the
natural
men
the
signifies
to
the class
mortal.'
All
as
mortals
in the
are
'
form
such
'
of classes
of classification,'
Com-
are
to
say
classes.
lion
has
that
By
the
PRINCIPLES
io8
attributes
that
mark
OF
LOGIC
Felis.
The
It declares
inclusive signification.
of
the
*
drawn
be
from
class-inclusion
time
one
it
quite untenable,
to be
held
that
notions
two
If this
be
of
predicate,even
the
This,
it follows
so,
predicate,like
the
The
the
All
e.g.
All
Y.
e.g.
Some
/.
e.g. Some
Some
is
(No
is
P.
E.
P.
some
/'Some
P.
some
is any
is not
e.g.
recognized
quantity
be
known.
mentally
least
at
gular.
sin-
or
sequently
con-
e.g.
all trilateral.
triangles are
triangles are
No
77. e.g. No
O. e.g. Some
P.
any
the
must
"
e.g.
some
been
as
U.
is all P.
that
so
case,
A.
is
rNo
the
P.
note,
that
course
expressed,
not
follows
is all P.
rSome
(All
of
At
of
scheme
of
matter
is in fact
eightfold,
5
of
Hamilton.
possesses
as
as
fAll
special form
logicians
long since
It has
though
maintained,
he
owe
we
is
Sir W.
to
ton
only historic interest. Hamilessential
function
of a proposition is to compare
in respect of their quantity (Logic,II., p. 257).
the
and
This
several
accepted by
Dr. Baynes.
and
Thomson,
Dr.
ment
argu-
propositions in support
Predicate.
view, which
was
No
view.
the
Quantificationof
Class-inclusion
the
these
no
identitybetween
subject,and the same
things denoted
by the
in the predicate.
conceived
things differently
can
has
the
of the
each
copula here
figures.
some
figures
all
are
triangles
are
triangles.
regular
ir-
some
figures.
trianglesare any
trianglesare some
figures are
squares.
figures.
not
any
triangles.
1 Some
is not
P.
some
Some
trianglesare
figures.
e.g.
u".
I
The
has
theory
nothing
not
have
the
on
Further,
relation
such
of
list of
redundancy
A
in
similar
of the
there
compatible
with
members
17 express
the
about
the
of
the
our
of the
All rhinoceroses
manner
any
of Euler's
propositionis to
as
appears
Y
"D
relation between
forms,
no
conveys
the
even
as
The
it is
amined.
ex-
correspond
no
classes.
with
express
more.
soon
and
five
but
are
consideration
proposition
other
do
we
single-horned.
expressive of a different
relation.
same
some
are
must
Finally the
any
'
that
reflectingin
in
saw
eightfold scheme
manner.
whatever
we
function
essential
and
without
thought
possible,as
quantitativerelation
In
e.g. affirm
eight propositionseach
the
If the
it.
may
class, whose
the
between
relations
circles.
We
single horn,'
extent
a
recommend
to
not
U.
mation
inforIt is
'
All
PRINCIPLES
no
OF
LOGIC
'
'
concrete
as
'
we
not
'
man/
but
humanity/
since
affirm that
do
it is
conceive
Of
the
abstract
this concrete
notion
subject,we
qualifiedby mortality,it
is mortal.
in his explanation of
only therefore is he wrong
he is in error
the
too
as
subject, but
regards the
copula. The copula does not express concomitance, it
the subject is.
what
tells us
Not
Mill
in fact makes
admissions,
which
in
'
great measure
true/ he says
It is
deprive his argument of its force.
the subject of a proposition
that
we
usually construe
And
in regard to propositions,
in which
in extension/
the subjectis non-connotative, he owns
that their import
the
individual
is that
thing denoted
by the subject,
over,
has
connoted
the attributes
by the predicate. Morehe interpretsthe proposition All men
when
are
'
'
mortal/
in
form
the
'
Whatever
has
the
abstract
concrete
These
that
the
attributes, but
things,
'
admissions
Mill had
traditional
Whatever
should
sequence
not
interpretation. A
of
that
statements
attributes,
was
general philosophicposition.
is
attributes/
the
us
Attributive
theory
in
to
view
which
the
of
number
lead
about
by the
required.
intension, viz.:
indefinite
however
the
attributes
connoted
entity has
abandoned
generalpropositionsto
and
an
the
pose
supfor
reduced
coexistence
harmony
with
his
IMPORT
THE
PROPOSITIONS
OF
IIT
It has
been
matter
whether
in a
logicians,
sponding
categoricalproposition,the existence of objects correthe predicate, is implied.
to the subject and
first been
The
raised explicitly
to have
question seems
(1776-1841). Very
by the German
philosopherHerbart
been
taken.
views
have
various
Ueberweg (System of
ence
imply the existLogic," 68) teaches that all propositions
of the subject,save
those
in which
the predicate
the subject-notion,
is such
An absoto abolish
lutely
as
e.g.
is impossible." Mill (Logic,I.,
greatest number
do not
involve
that analyticpropositions
p. 124) holds
of their subjects,
but
the existence
that syntheticpropositions
do so.
Mr. Keynes and Dr. Venn
alike teach
such
that universal
implication,
propositionshave no
that where
but
thing
a
particularpropositionis used, someexist.
This
corresponding to the subject must
strange in the face of such a judgment as
appear
may
Some
told that
have
But we
are
griffins
long claws.'
need not be in the physicaluniverse
the existence
; it is
universe
of discourse.'
It will be necessary
in the
briefly
of much
discussion
recent
among
"
'
examine
to
this notion
'
of the
universe
of discourse.'
first employed,
of discourse. As
(i) Universe
than
that by a convention
no
more
phrase signified
restricted
propositions,as verbally expressed, are
their
reference.1
Thus
if I
consideration
constitute
to
As
used
now
my
in
the
and
universe
are
told
our
in
'
No
say,
to soldiers.
hence
of
soldiers
one
now
Actors
might
wears
are
not
be
said
discourse.
We
signification.
exist
the
that
things,which
actual
different
do
not
'
'
'
'
De
Morgan, Formal
Logic, c. iv.
Keynes, Formal
Logic, Part II., c. 7Bradley, Appearance and Reality,p. 367.
*
'
Venn,
Cf.
PRINCIPLES
H2
It
is
OF
scarcely necessary
LOGIC
"
'
"
It
however
may
various
be
well
indicate
to
what
to
these
universes
Now
in the first place
reallyamount.
it is evident that if a thing possesses
actual existence at
The
of
all,it exists in this physical universe.
griffins
heraldry exist. At the present day, they are usually
of paint and
need
made
not
pasteboard. We
expect
in any other world
to find them
than this. Many indeed
of the
form
objects,concerning which we
judgments
have
actual existence at all. They are
no
mere
objects
of thought. The
idea by which
they are represented,
the object thought of
exists as a physical fact : but
belongs not to the real but to the conceptual order.
distinction
classes
of
thought
such
about
should
ideal
which
however
be
entities.
Some
judgments
enunciated, are
;
'
The
was
the
drawn
are
creatures
mere
between
of the
two
objects of
framed, and
positions
pro-
of the
imagination
verse
physicaluni-
we
'
of
Prince
mere
Denmark/
approach
to
'
which
The
upas-tree is the
involves
death/
tree,
But
cases
the
in
'
THE
IMPORT
may
and
affirm that,
that
if
'
PROPOSITIONS
OF
113
Some
are
geometricalfigures
chiliagons,'
of the statement
is indisputable.This
the accuracy
point will appear clearlyin what follows.
determined
(2)Implicationof existence. Having now
entity exists
an
spirit,it exists
in
not
in this
another,
we
the
may
be
can
such, contains
as
pointed
such
no
universe
as
and
the
categoricalform
implication.We have already
that
(Ch. 4, " 2)
out
that
or
more
existence
doubt,
no
matter
as
actual
physicalor
not
or
question,whether
propositions.
There
all,whether
at
concepts, while
our
they
tell us
not
of
nature
entity,and
some
determine
which
If then
abstract
we
judgment
entity, our
our
question be a mere
animal
perishfrom the
that
it would
be
and
that
the
assertion
if animals
were
is true
'
even
the
possible.'Even
face of the
to
untrue
of the
one
earth,
of the
thing in
should
e^ery
cannot
we
hold
mortalityof animal,
affirm
would
notes
become
true
once
more
It is this that
again created.1
explains
have
as
a
chiliagons
thousand
angles.' The propositionis true even
though
existed : for the predicate
the chiliagon
affirmed
has never
is one
that necessarily
belongs to the subjectwhich my
and
'
such
propositions,
justifies
All
concept represents.
It is
as
plainthat
universals
have
particulars. I
do
angles/ or
chiliagons.'
not, however,
mean
'
may
formed
be
propositions
may
thousand
figuresare
We
and
such
say,
All
'
may
to
say
assert
both
chiliagons
Some
plane
that
there
are
propositions,which
categorical
imply the existence
of their subjectterms.
have
We
merely asserted that
the categorical
form as such does not imply it. There
of
classes of categoricals,
certain
which
are
by reason
no
PRINCIPLES
14
in
is affirmed
what
LOGIC
OF
them, do contain
such
Thus
predicated,of
God
e.g.
course,
exists.
signifythe
(2) Wherever
implication.
an
is
existence
existence
actually
of the
subject,
predicate affirms
been
of
the recipient
the
the
that
it has
Propositions such
act.
cannot
'
benefactor/
existence
imply the
in
the
to
which
fell to
of their
subjects.
is
pronoun
is
slew
his
earth,' certainly
And
pronoun
be
subject,which
the
demonstrative
nature
mere
Brutus
as
meteor
subject,may
The
with
The
The
'
the
gory.
cate-
same
concerned
are
sign that we
not
merely existingbut under
observation.1
the
that
view
to
'
read
S
All
of
the
maintained
which
'
All
of
have
been
'
e.g.
which
It is
mistake
The
'
adjacente,
'
concluditur
ad
:
'
nunciatis
'
All
it
Si mortui
est."
of
All
by a process
chiliagons have a
communicates,
that
to suppose
necessariis
have
e.g.
All
non
of
with
are
is
thousand
P,'
concerns
not
adjacens,
miseri, ergo
item.
Non
enim
mortui
sunt.
necessario
'
but
intellectual
angles.'
The
nature,
and
raised
it succinctly.
position
pro-
through
black
the
was
The
purely
in enunciationibus
sunt
such.
reached
crows
this question
deals
as
been
reached
est secundum
ut
categorical
indeed
"
lastics.
by the SchoAb
est
tertio
contingentibus recte
in proAtqui veto
infertur Homo
est ani-
of this
Gregory
2
the
may
following citation
'
group
of
'
existing things,
conception,
at
'
showing
our
'
scope
is P
information
book
on
All 5
the
outside
it may
reader
that
'
experience
The
been
'
'
author
logicians of eminence,
the categorical
defending, reduces
Some
5 is P,' should
(if5 exists)is P,' and
2
5 (ifS exists)is P.'
Some
To
this we
reply,
may
5
P
is
is
inaccurate
a
(if
quite
exists)
representation
understand
existence
it.
The
of 5 is
as
we
proposition
wholly
have
we
several
by
hypothetical,and
be read
should
be
been
has
It
scholars.
135-137.
IMPORT
THE
the
alone
nature
the
what
expresses
and
PROPOSITIONS
OF
the
is.
if it
is true,
proposition
nature
115
Chiliagons
accurately
possible entities,
are
'
Some
we
actually existing things. Similarly, when
say,
the
that
last thing
intend
we
geometrical figures are chiliagons,'
If any
to assert, is that
of
these
exist,
some
geometrical figures
figures are chiliagons.'
and
Immediate
ing
bearImplication of Existence
Inference. The
of the various
to the implication of existence, upon
views
as
not
'
the
the
summarize
effect
of
his
be
Mr.
by
conclusions
respectivelyof
In
inference, has
thoroughness
customary
to
immediate
of
processes
the
been
It
Keynes.
which
to
traditional
he
is
will
sufficient
be
brought,
doctrine
with
discussed
here
the
to
as
and
defended,
doctrine.
own
regard
to
that
his
discussion
he
starts
of the
doctrine, it is
to
from
traditional
the
'
'
'
'
'
does
that
'
there
'
in
there
No
are
no
and
some
of
discourse,'
and
the
results
P.'
both
that,
asserts
does
exist
not
propositions may
hold
not
:
Where
denies
merely
'
is not
these
true
'
good.
for it is alike
not-P's, when
all based
are
to
of
his
the
on
All
the
be
is P,'
that
case
found
is not
in
the
view, viz.
implication,but
of their
existence
understood
have
it,
valid.
are
universal
that
tion
interpreta-
erroneous
we
inference
immediate
own
existential
imply
'
is P
discourse.'
processes
no
be
5
no
Some
does
All
proposition. Interpreted as
regard
have
SP's
'
not
are
both
may
conclusions
all the
In
'
is P
of the
propositions
particularpropositions
that
subjects, he
arrives
at the
following
"
(a) The
above
and
inversion
and
we
a
of A
conversion
given
(c) the
are
valid.
may
infer
similarly (b)
of
and
These
a
results
universal
particular,but
not
are
from
a
the
be
may
a
to
same
reason
as
contraposition of E,
invalid.
The
conversions
summarized
particular
from
was
and
of
by saying
universal, and
regard
hold
5,
any
of
These
from
any
universe
universe
that
5 not
'
For
good.
Finally (e)Contrariety
'
and
be
the
true.
'
are
If there
hold
not
particular
universal.
manifestly does
reasons
alleged above
In
not
is
PRINCIPLES
u6
(/)Sub-contrariety is
invalid.
sub-contraries
both
found,
Mr.
Keynes
also
invalid
may
for
where
is not
false.
be
these
that
holds
LOGIC
OF
doctrine
of immediate
in the
inference, are
they make
view, since they
more
satisfactorythan those of the traditional
diction,
of
the
the
two
secure
important processes of (i) contravalidity
But, as we have seen, his estimate
(2)simple conversion.
view
is vitiated
of the traditional
to
as
by the initial mistake
the interpretationof the proposition.
havoc
implication
some
lighton
of
theories
view
The
discussion
Our
View.
propositions will, we
to their import, which
in
existence
the
discuss.
to
Compartmental
" 5. The
as
to
propose
we
consider
the
on
trust, throw
have
we
in
yet
present
the
cepted
Keynes also has acwhen
Dr. Venn,
it.
dealing with the import of propositions,
calls attention
to the fact that, though it is quite impossible
be
understood
universal
admit
that
to
as
propositions should
of
all
them
of
their
do
existence
the
subjects, yet
signifying
If I affirm
All x is y,'
exist.
do
not
that
certain
things
imply
information
that
the
such
the
assertion
no
certainly contains
has
mortal
the
All
Thus
exist.
are
men
nonthings as xy
section,
owes
Mr.
Venn.
Dr.
origin to
its
'
'
'
'
implication,
existential
such
respect of what
regarded as conditional,but
"in
that
urges
'
only
'
it may
be
regarded
be
the
declares
'
.
non-mortal
No
of
'
whether
'
also
which
things
both
are
is any
there
and
All
'
viz.
compartment
xy.
things as x, then
derivative
secondary and
such
who
our
direct
is
y,' is
affirmation
Secondly,
is the
we
in
of
maintain
first
no
an
mere
is
sense
that
inference
because
the
in
'
is y
xy
;
'
y,'
is
No
If
that
the
empties
import,
are
fact
'
compartment
x's
the
versal
uni-
it
partment
com-
is
there
regarded
y,'
are
as
to
disagree
be
with
what
this
to
was
view.
accept
prepared
the categoricalproposition,
conditional
proposition,but the
to a known
in relation
subject.
place, that
a
attribute
secondary
All
reason
no
primary import,
the
form
is
us
implication.
the
in
'
the
all
will not
last section
maintain
All
found
have
consisting
affirmative
The
in
tell
there
Compartmental view,
essential
import of
as
is x,' the
the
form
can
is y
not
be, whether
the
is that
feature
'
xy ;
Those
it does
But
if there
or
the
called
proposition is regarded
empties a definite compartment.
form
All
combination,
certain
not-y.
all ;
at
been
has
view
its characteristic
'
'
proposition
it
it denies,
#."
any
This
We
respect
of what
he
'
said
in
of
non-existence
Hence
proposition affirms,
The
absolute.
as
exist.'
men
it is not
and
but
from
the
on
the
the
so-called
the
that
case
the
conditional
contrary,
affirmative
the
form.
negative
tive
affirma-
negative
PRINCIPLES
n8
LOGIC
OF
'
'
'
'
'
"
Bk.
I.,c.
If this
" 17).
i,
view
be
correct, and
the
two
of
terms
the
'
'
'
"
'
'
'
"
the
true
refer
Mr.
'
ideal
is
more
for which
the
Subject
The
'
term
metal.
the
of
their
'
gold represents,namely
the
real
'
the
determination
belong
are,
it is true, universal
the
several
to
the
intellect, but
the
true
the
means
the
is
thing
real entities
as
through
'
yellow,'
ment,
judgpredicate.
the
that
intellectual
conceived.
ing
individualizdo
not
them.
'
concepts
proposition
predicate
of the
order.
be
to
it
showing,
pieces of
from
:
they merely abstract
presence
Gold
be used
can
as
representativeof
Further, since we possess knowledge,
notes
their
On
'
Gold
we
judgment as meaning
gold is qualifiedby the
of
idea
are
than
more
and
concepts
'
that
saying
real
In the
weight.
term
qualified
by
entity is not the subject of
real
'
universal
of
concept
the
in
the
to
interpret the
yellowness.
it stands,
any
'
of
the
of little
hold
to
the
found
be
assertion
our
are
who
bound
that
idea
which
But
content
not
than
universal
that
of
yellow,' those
subject, are
is to
judgment
Bradley's arguments
Gold
no
of
account
the
Thus
deny
the
piece of that
merely through
every
not
senses
which
ceive
per-
we
'
'
'
IMPORT
THE
of
" 7. Import
Ch. 3, " 2, we
judgment
'
being
'
the
found
be
to
was
explanation of
The
antecedent
in
they flow.
the
antecedent, it
well
as
to
In
as
from
It
property.
to
effect in the
remote
very
antecedent
real
in
anterior
if
Thus
the
the
on
of
the
that
'
If
'
If
What
is
diate
imme-
Scholastics
anterior
is
we
should
be
in the
in
borne
of
Ground
express
that
thought deals
and
God
real order
is posterior
world
the
importance that
mind, for in the study
utmost
in
with
the order
with
mode
the
of
in
reality.
employed
something depends in the
Reason
which
on
finite world
logicalorder
explicitlyconcerned
are
of
existence
It is of the
terms
The
God,
Him.
the order
which
what
distinction
Logic
from
argue
existence
depends
to
that
the
The
conceptual order.
in the
from
and
what
is
being (priusin or dine reali),
the order of thought (priusin or dine logico).
we
to
of
and
of
order
the
the
property
effect
order, is often
accurately distinguishedbetween
to
from
only judges
not
which
limited.
thus
cause,
cause
must
from
natures
is not
effect to
conceptual
the
the
of
bomb
the
of
'
the
from
argues
substance
comparison
order
conceptual order
The
substance,
to
gorical
Cate-
the
admits
being. If the mind
perforceadmit the consequent.
depend on causes, propertieson
mind
the
'
the
on
The
in the
the
clue
the
us
that
In
in
order.
real
119
Hypothetical Proposition.
the
saw
PROPOSITIONS
OF
are
sometimes
of
order.
To
the followers
difference
between
of the
Idealist school
conceptual dependence
to
relations
expressed by
philosophicalprincipleswould
they
reduce
thought
appear
to
fest
mani-
the
and
are
the
and
involve
real
unable
whole
their
that
PRINCIPLES
120
of
death
the
as
little
of
the
the
the
on
LOGIC
king depends
just
of
position
Thus
bomb.
from
OF
Mr.
"
of causation
"
cannot
somewhat
Logic
on
the
question
be
the
consequent
can
sense
fact
this
is
acorn
such, that
according
to
Our
fired.'
what
they
The
souls
which
If
the
which
about
"
correspond
to
class
second
brutes
may
for
real
more
:
'
say,
If
nature
is
to
its
conditions
such
they
"
as
under
have
salute
assertion
no
solely
happen,
because
not
truth
are
systems
would
arrive,
make
would
be
what
to
of
necessarily develop
find
we
those
true,
we
what
are
determine
its
consist
For
it must
what
classes
true
oak.'
Similarly
In
nothing
is
to
somehow
two
and
it
an
said
real, there
acorn
become
are
Yet
not
to
antecedent
classes,
does
Hence
though
king were
judgments
is,
of
even
these
actually
conditions,
custom,
of
an
tree.
it will
laws.
e.g.
is
be
entirety.
reality ?
order
actually
oak
an
suitable
'
occurred,
to
is
real
devoted
the
distinguish
first
what
is
acorn
conditions,
definite
the
definite
social
and
law
that
planted,
given
the
to
"
works
recent
its
with
must
we
Besides
potentialities. An
but
potentially it
In
true.
are
of
conditioned
neither
in
correspond
to
regard
is actual.
what
assertion
question
the
on
to
In
ticals.
hypo the
depends
separately
the
said
this
solve
To
of
be
it
case
entia
differ-
relation
the
being
that
apart
natural
Propositions.
the
be
taken
truth
of
explosion
have
been
lengthy discussions
a
can
hypothetical judgment
well
may
attribute
we
how
to
as
It
true.1
nor
Hypothetical
the
of
Truth
the
just
that
us
how
see
that
is
which
he
"
and
the
the
flag, as on
Bosanquet tells
succession
temporal
much
as
never
would
be
correspond
but
because
be.
illustrated
by
spiritual, they
its validity, not
the
immortal.'
are
'
If the
Here
the
judgment,
on
a
depends
potentiality, but on
judgment
The
the
spiritual soul as such
generic categorical proposition,
immortal.'
This
abstracts
is
from
principle, being universal,
therefore
of
It
is
and
in
time
application
capable
place.
regard
If
the
and
B
time
such
is C,'
to any
as
judgment
place.
any
'
'
is
then
known,
that
it is
object
merely
1
is
an
Cf.
we
B,
may
it is C.'
application
e.g.
Bradley,
regarding
assert
Such
of
'
any
given object, If
be
must
judgment
true, for
principle already acknowledged.
a
Principles,
Bk.
I., c.
2,
"" 49,
50.
CHAPTER
THE
"
The
i.
PREDICABLES.
Predicables.
Predicables
The
terms
they
predicated.
the
Isagoge
stand
may
The
Scholastic
the
given by
the
are
universal
are
VIII.
of
details, which
relations
in
which
to
subjects
of
which
the
of
account
Predicables
the
philosophers,is derived
(Ch. i, " 5). Porphyry's
Porphyry
subject differs
of the
various
from
shall
of Aristotle
that
in
explain
from
ment
treat-
in
one
subsequent
It is however,
it explicitly
section.
as
professesto be,
with
the principlesof his philosophy.
in full accord
five possiblerelations,which
The
a
Isagoge enumerates
term
universal
holding the position of predicate,may
it is predicated. It may
to the
bear
subject of which
the
stand
Genus, or the Species,or the Differentia,
as
as
a
or
Property,or an Accident of the entity,of which
two
or
we
it is affirmed.
it is important to point
explaining these terms
of the
the
that
out
Predicables,
Porphyrian account
depends on a fact stronglyemphasized by Aristotle (Categ.,
cc.
subject of all predication is the
2, 5) that the ultimate
Before
We
individual.
'
as
Man
is
of
may
in which
mortal/
form
course
the
propositions
subject is
'
not
such
vidual,
indi-
an
'
But
man
can
general term.
only stand
because
it is itself capthe subject of this proposition,
able
of being predicated of the
singulars, Socrates/
but
as
'
'
Plato/
far
as
etc., etc.
individual
affirmed
of the
men
'
Man
exist
'
has
;
and
individual,that
existence
no
it is because
the
in
save
general term
it
can
so
be
is able
PRINCIPLES
122
become
to
the
LOGIC
This
subject of attribution.
singular term, denoting the
between
OF
the
universal
class-nature
the
expresses
the
distinction
individual
'
term
man/
Socrates, Aristotle
of
by
names
'
'
'
consider
the relation of
animal/ not
may
to its subject man/
but to the ultimate subject
animal,'
we
'
merely
of
'
individual
namely
predication,
such
men
Socrates,
as
Plato, etc.
those
abstract
these
also
'
will
considerations
Similar
of
force
in
regard to
which
signifya quality. Amongst
such
as
colour/
general terms
terms
'
there
are
like, which
the
virtue/ and
be
sometimes
are
found
as
the
both
So that
in reference
terms
We
their
to
enumerated
(i)Species.
Socrates,
be
are
proceed to
now
may
have
can
of substances, and
case
we
qualities,
abstract
we
in the
we
If
ultimate
all
general
subject.
the five predicables
consider
take
we
that
see
individual
an
class-nature, viz.
which
term
It consists of what
we
may
of that
is
substance, e.g.
predicateswhich
which
one
What
man.
the
among
of him, there
of the
consider
to
of
case
above.
shall
affirmed
characteristics
able
in the
is
now
this
signifies
call the
nature.
expresses
the
hension
compre-
class-nature
constitutive
By
the
his
word
notes
'
?
or
constitu-
'
'
"
is numerically
In short, individuals and whatever
Arist. Categ.,c. 2, " 3.
them
be predicated of a subject.
cannot
Nothing however
prevents
one,
instance
of
from inhering in a subject. Thus, an individual
in some
cases,
the science
but
it is not
of grammar
predicated
is
one
of any
of
those
subject."
entities
that
inhere
in
subject,
PREDICABLES
THE
to make
signifythose notes which are requisite
it repreentitythe kind of thing it is,which make
sentative
the comof the type to which it belongs. Thus
prehension
live/
the
we
of the
only
not
man
animal,
An
entity in which
of these
The
concept
which
were
which
the
term
the
all the
notes
absent
he
individual
rational
are
animal.'
of
note
would
be
no
class
rationality.
is
found
For
wider
of the
notes
distinctive
these
thus
'
is
man
possesses
also
but
one
by
123
man.
If
longer such.
other terms
Two
of the individual.
(ova-La)
also employed to signify
called
the essence.
It was
were
the quiddity (TO ri rjv elvai),
because it is by the term
which
declares the essential nature, that we
reply to the
is it ? (quidsit),
in regard to any
object.
question,What
It was
i.e. characterizing
also called the species (eZSo?),
therefore define the speciesas the sum
of
form.
We may
the
essence
an
are
we
here
as
'
'
'
'
of their
do
concepts
are
classes all
we
quate
adecan
is to form
notes
that
be content
Though
the
our
concepts
shall
be
clear.
of the
primary signification
word
'
species'
PRINCIPLES
124
as
is
to
have
we
of
it is almost
to
the
reference
to
nature
intension,but
objectsof
shall
in
that
possess
in
not
in reference
but
it expresses,
which
LOGIC
justexplained,that
term, not
OF
in
it
which
be
the
denotes
'
word
objects
it is
words,
In
predicated.
with
synonymous
which
individual
the
extension, and
can
applied
essential nature
in other
is often
name
taken
the group
this sense
class.'
And
we
that
notion,
there
class in
indicated
this
part
which
predicate,
from
that
stands
it has
'
is a
man,'
relation
When
of
common
with
other
in relation
to
several
the
species,we
'
not
mal
ani-
is
'
species
generic in
scalene/
the
expresses
must
'
various
to the
triangle
genus
subject
species. Thus
equiangular,' isosceles,'and
that
to
cative
signifi-
term
of the
essence
'
it is said
alike
common
provides us with a
tion
subjectin a different relaspecies. Such a predicate
its subject. A genus
may
'
'
are
notes
essence,
the genus
genericconcept
'
to
common
the
the
in
'
the
to
the
Thus
tribes of brutes.
occupiedby
as
both
common
classes.
animal
the
be defined
'
'
to
is said to express
which
of
are
other
to
the various
to
of
thus
which
some
question and
by the term
and
man,
are
be
notes
understood
is a collection of attributes,
signifythat an essence
that are
mutually independent, and separableone from
another.
Such a view would be quiteforeignto the truth.
The speciesdiffers from the genus because it is the nature
pletely
is incomthe
as
completely determined, whereas
genus
determined.
the notion
Thus
triangle is less
than
isosceles triangle.'
that of
completely determined
butes
But
isosceles and
triangle are not two different attrithe note
in the sense
that it is possibleto have
isosceles
we
existingapart from a triangle. Nor can
have
which
is not either isosceles,
or
a triangle
equilateral,
scalene.
But we can form a genericconcept of triangle,'
because
intellect can
abstract from the determining
our
to
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
PRINCIPLES
126
LOGIC
OF
'
'
'
triangle/isosceles triangle/scalene
equilateral
triangle.'What we have said as to the genus, will show
becomes
that
not
and
genus
parts of the nature.
real order
in the
different
two
separate between
real order
larity.
form
differentiating
nature, and
view
can
the
between
and
the
In the
it is
what
essence
possesses
of
thing in
of which
which
the
there is
Thus
make
soul
human
and
body.
here
the
ference
great dif-
are
we
parts
real parts. Socrates is
are
its
which
alone
logicalessence
real order
in the
cannot
triangleand
distinct.
isosceles,as
or
We
are
equianguthe
can
distinguish
from
the
indeterminate
generic
the triangleand its form
as
gular
equian-
mind
It is the
differentia
the
the
man
The
treating.
thing to be
because
he
parts of the
real parts but
not
the other hand
are
on
logicalessence
conceptual parts the incompletely determined
genus
and the determining differentia.
in the ascendingscale,is marked
off from
Each species
the other classes contained under its genus by a differentia.
is termed
differentia of the infimaspecies
The
a
specific
The others are known
as
genericdifferentiae.
differentia.
(iv)Property. Besides the notes which go to make
hitherto been considering,
which
have
the essence,
we
be predicatedof a subject.
other attributes may
many
of these are
Some
directlyand necessarilyconnected
"
with
the
characteristics.
essential
properties(propria
"
A
the
property is
essence
an
18ia),and
are
attribute which
These
thus
termed
are
denned
:
"
part of
that
as formingpart
are not reckoned
properties
not
because they are derivative qualities,
of the essence,
primary. But the fact that they follow from it by resultthat nature
that they are found
wherever
ancy, ensures
is present, that they are
found nowhere
else, and that
Hence
the extension of the specific
they are constant.
of the
the extension
as
property is preciselythe same
species. The classical example is the facultyof laughter
This
the
in man.
is immediately dependent alike on
and the corporealstructure
of human
nature.
intelligence
his power of intelligent
Similarly,
speech,and his practice
essence.
These
PREDICABLES
THE
of
food,
cooking his
assignedas propertiesof
been
have
127
Besides
man.
attributes, which
all those
defined
It is thus
essence.
accident
An
the essence,
is
Where
a
we
singleindividual,but
accident
is
which
one
class
of the
an
distinguishes
If
attribute
an
found
of
the
to
is
part of
essence
of the
is found
be
them
relation
in
not.
or
not
to
species,the inseparable
whole
well
without
accidents
present in
separableis
; the
It may
members.
neither
ing
separableor inseparableaccord-
are
subject is ever
are
speaking
the
the
"
necessarilyresults from
nor
with
attribute,which
an
subject.1 Accidents
as
unconnected
are
one
asked
found
what
individual
every
in certain
only
it then
inseparableaccident from
is found to belong to all the
is,which
property.
of
members
of Australia
swans
them
they
entitled to
as
without
were
what
In
from
the
The
case
of
in which
it to denote
in substance.
real
as
it
was
had
entities
termed
which
are
of the
speciesbut
Such
garded
re-
specific
though
name,
heretofore
been
regarded as
entity whose
signifiesa predicate
proposition. These
the logicalorder.
one
different
accidents,not
term. Accident
that
No
characteristic.
absolutelyconstant
an
discovered.
were
are
stands
termed
in
mode
Real
certain
Accidents.
relation
Logical Accidents.
The
There
we
sense
used
is by inherence
predicate it
subject of the
relation belongs to
As
to
different
of existence
of the
the
PRINCIPLES
128
OF
LOGIC
wise
other-
are
'
'
five Predicables
the
Besides
have
we
phyry
Por-
mentioned,
the case
in which
c. 2, " 37) notices
a singular
(Isag.,
Socrates is the son
is predicatedof a subject,e.g.
term
of Sophroniscus/ This, however, has no claim to constitute
The
a
primary praedicabilia
separate Predicable.
which
be
terms
can
predicated of something are
attribute
some
They express
necessarily universal.
be affirmed of a subject: and the attribute or
which
can
A singularterm
conceived.
is always universally
nature
is not one
of the primary predicable
that is predicated,
We
the singular term
form
terms.
by limiting some
universal notion in regard of place and time.
of
be easilyshewn, that settingaside the case
It may
For when
the list is exhaustive.
the singularpredicate,
either
is predicated of a subject,it must
attribute
an
If it is
belong to that subjectby strict necessityor not.
'
"
"
not
of
one
the
case
property.
of the
in which
the
We
the
is
have
pointed
we
other
is the
isosceles.'
differentia
must
form
essence.
or
of
the
tives
constitu-
whole
essence,
be
part of
that
classes
other
the
bute
attri-
an
In the latter
the
it must
is
or
belong to
to
part
"
the
peculiarto
essence
differentia.
that
above
work
distinguish
cannot
'
out
the
common
or
differentia
itself
the
species:
finallythe
species,viz. : the
:
the
and
which
essence
genus
it is
case
essence,
either be
it must
essence,
the
it
Should
accident.
an
attribute, it either
hand, it is a necessary
the other
If,on
attributes, it is
necessary
From
of the
two
the
mind
separation of
:
parts, one
this
it would
and
that
of which
seem
is
to
the
genus
in the
'
thing
triangle,'
follow
that
of the
genus,
implicitlyinvolve the presence
the figure as isosceles,necessarilysupposes
of
THE
figure determined
the
that
'
essence.1
the
difficultymay
does
urged,
in
here
'
involve
not
fact, is the
tells us,
gives
suggest
itself.
man.'
Do
we
To
the
of man,
and
on
and
not
univocal.
hand
one
analogous
is
substantial
his
that
directed
in
this
sense
is
natural
of
by
rational
it signifies
applied to man
from
that
of
distinguished
As
reason.
desires
actions
with
the
synonymous
the
and
'
with
angels
in
view
directed
differ from
by
act
same
to
are
right.
no
sense
preserve
but as
;
reason
performed
as
that
the
must
intelligent.'Not
'
term
be
not
alone,
man
intelligence.
possess
as
prescribes as
reason
Eating
of desires
used
and
It may
be further
noted
signifyingthe differentia of man,
as
desires,
and
class.
not
of actions
animals.
as
God
but
what
is
action, because
it does
'
understood
natural
rational
act
with
attribute
the
lower
the
As
itself is
nature
accordance
constitutive
health
other
by the facultyof
merely signifiessuch
it
actions
In
the
animals
all other
and
triangle. Such
specificdifferentia,he
be
129
'rational
of
not
'
Yet
Rational,' it may
is
The
of Aristotle.
teaching
us
PREDICABLES
Rational
'
of a
is
particular kind, viz. one that
intelligence
dependent on sense perceptionand arrives at its conclusions
by
discursive reasoning (Cf.St. Thomas, De Pot. Q. ix.,art. 2, ad. 10).
denotes
The
an
case
is somewhat
similar
'
'
been
'
objectedthat the
but
to
all incorporealbeings.
to certain corporeal substances
It is repliedthat the life animating a body and
rendering it
action, and the life of a pure
capable of immanent
spiritare
The
is
differentia
animate
found
in cordissimilar.
poreal
totally
has
'
substances
alone.
in their
primary
various
analogous
that
in several
the
differentia
be
common
senses
is not
convertible
that
terms, which
many
differentia,have
in their
reference, explainshow
wider
Aristotle tells
speciesthan
more
with
one
that
the
it is
signifying
speciessince it may
(Cf.e.g. Top. I. c. 8, " 3).
us
term
the
has been
Porphyry. After what
said in the last section,the figurecommonly termed the
"
The
fact
the
denote
signification
passages
to
Yet
'
2.
Tree
of
of
Met.
oixria
Natura
TOU
VI., c.
12,
BTJOVTWS
"TTCU Kal
irp6.yfjt,a.TO$
Generis,c.
But
" 9.
8.
with these
"
Tota
passages,
reXevrata 8ia"f"opari
STJSri -fj
"xei"(fxivepov
Cf.
St.
Thomas, Opusc. 39, De
6/"i0yi6s.
namque
compare
constituitur definitio
Topics,VI.
c.
ex
tia."
differen-
ultima
St.
Thomas,
Opusc. 26, De Ente et Essentia,c. 3. The differentia implies the genus as the
subject of which, and of which alone it is a determining principle: but it is
not a logicalwhole
containing the genus.
K
PRINCIPLES
I30
OF
LOGIC
Substance
Corporeal
Incorporeal
Animate
Inanimate
Sensible
Insensible
Rational
Irrational
Plato, etc.
Socrates
It is evident
the
in
the
genera
tree
of
that
schemes
drawn
up to represent
of substances
as
and
not merely
species,
Porphyry, but also of those
qualifysubstance,
which
be
may
it.
but
which
can
be
attributes,
conceived
in
The
from
Figure
J
I
Plane
Solid
Rectilineal
r
Triangles
Curvilinear
I II
Quadrilaterals,
Pentagons,etc., etc.
PREDICABLES
THE
"
in
Porphyry is
philosophy.
on
the
on
is the
individual, and
of nature.
order
he
yet
does
the
regard
their
to
explains
"
cate
it be
subject
'
definition
and
affirmed
coextensive
It
being.
of
with
predicate is
without
is thus
that
gives
property.
a
property. For
property, as that
belongs, while
not
which
forming part
the
predicate
be
not
coextensive,
'
the
attributes
comprised
'
If it be
the
the
the
us
is coextensive
of
the
is the
the
explained
the
entity
form
either
of the
to
which
however,
If
essence.
it must
it
essence,
with
of its
definition
have
we
definition
in the
any
either
it
it
of
part
subject
not.
or
of
those
difattributes, it is either a genus
one
or
a
ferentia, since the definition is composed of the genus and the dif-
'ferentiae.
'
it, but
considered
P,
of
scale
'
'
saw,
predicables upon
if not,
we
of
"
If
or
arranged
as
coextensive, the
'
'
be
of
5
the
predicate is
either
must
between
system
a
is,
ultimate
division
position in
his
Whenever
'
this
his
relation
scheme
subject
predication
possible to frame
and
species corresponding to the
is part of the teaching of Aristotle,
genera
base
not
scheme
us
of
Aristotelian
it is in consequence,
Though
solely on
he
of
scale
ascending
that
the
division
the
gives
Porphyrian
principlethat
based
an
The
system.
principles of
himself
Aristotle
Yet
different
the
with
accord
fivefold
The
Predicables.
Aristotle's
3.
If it is not
the
of
one
it is
an
attributes
"
accident
contained
in
the
(Topics,I.,c. 8, ""
3).
2,
This
gives
us
the
following
scheme.
(1) Definition.
Containing
Coextensive
(2) Propria.
with
subject.
the
essen-
tial attributes.
Containing attributes
not
sence.
belonging to es-
I
(3) Genera
and
Containing
Differentiae.
coextensive
Not
(4) Accidents.
subject.
Containing
the
this
call
for
system
of
Predicables,
only
The
'
case
definition
differentia.
is
tribute.
at-
there
are
attributes
connected
with
essence.
two
points
which
notice.
of
(i) The omission
the principleon which
The
tion
por-
with
not
In
some
of essential
Thus
in
which
the
the
a
This
readilyexplained if
be kept in view.
system is constructed
the species is,
predicate can
express
species.
the
sensitive livingbeing.'
is
proximate
animal
'
its
and
genus
that
of animal
PRINCIPLES
32
as
man.'
the
when
saw,
we
But
the
with
here
under
of
constitutive
all the
the
give
which
separates him
(2) The ranking of
cannot
us
that
is
individual
with
This
have
species
he
declares
species,though expressing
of the
either
extensive
co-
attributes, militate
whole
of
In
is
the
fact that
type, the
subject.
'
reckons
the
essential
the
them
is
the
terms,
of
the
others
extension.'
it in
of the
the
differentiae
the
differentia
the
exceeds
from
the
from
in extension
of
essence
Aristotle
does
Socrates
'
of the
neither
genus
Nor
genus.
notes
extension
Hence
to
genus
individual, e.g.
an
the
part
only
express
against this explanation. For
the
LOGIC
relative
subject.
head
the
the
from
differ
not
is
subject
regards
as
species does
OF
differentia
species.
same
the
with
class-essence,
the
c.
with
is the
accurate
more
"
2,
coextensive
differing
as
genus
Topics, IV.,
the
which
he
says
species or
statement.
the
a
determining
Occasionally we
expresses
isosceles
in regard
of
such,
as
a
particularspecies
principle
e.g.
to various
to
triangle.' More often our term is common
species.
rational
be
the
Thus
term
intelligent or
employed as
may
and
also
be
differentia of man,
the
predicated of spiritual
may
beings.
term
'
'
'
'
'
4. The
Controversy
the
Predicables
renders
the
question
"
'
round,'
which
instance
for
If
see
we
it retains
be
"
that
the
it is one,
answers
(i) that
this
answer
common
objective counterpart
doctrine
the
are
only
TrtyvKev.
as
'
We
in
C.
"
13,
2.
been
given
TOVTO
yap
that
is
thought
\eyeTca
logiciansHamilton
and
we
Ka66\ov
this
They
were
at
point agreed
that
with
period known
those
of the
Mansel
were
as
modern
Nominalists.
to
real.
say
(2)
without
of
this
(3) that
variety of
say
a
8 ir\elo(riv virdpxfiv
it is to
may
mind
may
nature
such
on
question.
adherents
given
name,
whose
We
the
to many
something
in the
The
Plato,
is one,
of
to this
Realists.
order.
is the
of
which
member
every
time
at the same
ing
mean-
rightly
to
Conceptualists.2 Or
call Universal
modern
nature
white,'
meaning,
the
Socrates, and
termed
a
'
though
predicated,and
is
of
with
reallysignifies.
man,'
Yet
nature
real
'
human
common
merely
term
of
"
have
the
element
common
Met., VI.
many.'
8
Among
known
'
man
belongs
are
is
nature
deal
perfectlystable
relation
same
we
terms
employed.
is this
Various
give this
who
Those
hold
may
the
though
?
individuals
We
What
in
has
'
full discussion
should
universal
the
individuals
different
stands
which
class,
it is
wherever
of Kant.
of Mill, and
yet
of these
thus
predicated, of
and
each
The
that
consider
we
that
Universals.
on
it necessary
it is that the
to what
as
'
'
belong
at
once
to
Conceptualists. As
theory of knowledge
the medieval
sophers,
philo(1280-1349) and his
But
their tenets
Conceptualists.
PRINCIPLES
134
I could
cept.
not
It
concept.
my
Socrates
'
say
LOGIC
OF
is
if the
fied
predicate signirepresented in my
man,'
signifiesthe
nature
concept.
Nor
it be
can
identityof
Socrates
abstracted
from
Socrates
'
is
that
urged
with
the
what
human
'
it includes
on
The
that
are
'
remaining notes.
being possessed of
all the
other
It does
pressly
ex-
all
to
common
of the
notes
assert
while
man
human
being,
we
'
'
concept
only
notes
his
showing
our
the
nature,' but
human
that
the
affirm
explanation, we
is only a part of
most
nature.'
exclude
not
at
remainder
representing the
alike,does
this
on
men
signify
not
nature.'
plicitly
Im-
of whom
individual
it is affirmed.
conclusions
Our
proposed
we
What
of
human
time
same
ourselves
to
is the
the
and
one
fact
that
universal
known
in
intellect
and
is in
judgment,
the
the
though
the
affirmed,
the
laws
members
in
nature
my
makes
mind
subject of my
the objects of
the
it is found
order, and
Hence
only as it
simply in the
all the
know
regarding
and
one
and
it consists
we
at
as
as
itself,which
I affirm
real
nature
that
and
section, viz.:
this characteristic
reply that
the
to
nature
which
it is affirmed.1
which
We
of
concept represents
But
question.
me,
same
concept, yet
to
of the
think
we
question, which
the
answer
beginning
which
many
the
and
one
class
the
at
unity, belongs
in the
is conceived
to
us
nature,
multiplicityin
of the
enable
now
in
of science, and
all
our
tell
general
us)
the common
which
stands
name
as
merely about
subject,nor
have
our
it) about
yet (as the Conceptualists would
concepts,
the objects themselves, in which
but
about
teristics
characthe common
found.
It is as maintaining this position that
the
are
adherents
of the traditional Scholastic
doctrine
are
rightlytermed
statements
are
(as the
not
Nominalists
Realists.
of
is therefore
It
what
between
is termed
is
universal
direct
e.g.
when
by
'
nature
the
St. Thomas
concept
as
'
mentally conceived,
tells
us
direct
the
which
we
see
that that
is that in which
'
formatum
tur
ad
et
expressum
intellectum
'
in
the
can
we
in anima
from
affirm
consider
the
mind
the nature.
40, De
dicitur
of
this
subject,
nature
of each
"
Substantia
But
as
and
ergo
"
Anitnae.
it is
every
nature
rei est id
Istud
ergo
sic
telligit,
quia
Opusc. 12, De Differentia Verbi Divini et Humani.
in quo
cernitur."
res
speculum
tanquam
Opusc.
"
[Verbum
'
Intellects.
Socrates.
contemplates is the
Potentiis
verbum
The
ing
individualizof
affirmable
it is affirmable
which
it knows
distinction
the
reflexuniversal.
abstracted
reflection,we
that
notice
to
abstracted
and
nature
thus
man
of
act
an
the
simply
and
conditions,
the
prime importance
13,
De
interius] est
Natura
Verb*
PREDICABLES
THE
that
man
"
the
reflex
It
it
five
the
thus
the
us
conceived
in
relations
within
the
This
many.
is
stand
we
the
to
the
of
Predicables.
For
possible divisions
of the
and
one
stand
can
otherwise
may
of which
subject
They
many.
class-notion
as
or
discussion
is the
being
as
which
class,
predicate can
and
one
five
the
simply
are
mentally
five
things
which
to
Predicables
universal
give
it is
"
apparent how
necessary
the
of
understanding
be
now
question
the
all, that
to
universal.1
will
this
belongs
135
to
in
put it,
it is affirmed.
have
be
predicate, must, as we
seen,
five
These
Species, Genus, Differentia, Property or Accident.
therefore
terms
Second
Intentions
are
(Ch. 2, " n).
They are
which
in
the conceptual
be
affirmed
of
the
it
is
nature
can
as
only
order
We
:
they do not belong to the object in the real order.
universal
cannot
because
argue
therefore
that
the
real
the
in
term
Socrates
Socrates
order, while
is
man
is
and
man,
man
Socrates
For
species.
is a species in
the
is
species,
is
man
in
order
conceptual
alone.
The
the
above
account
prevalent
view
resemblance
order
be
as
real
and
tells
two
that
us
Nevertheless
mention
the
teaching
fundamental
cautious
"
represent
objective reality of
as
universal
taken
and
2
On
consists
Direct
and
from
of the
of
any
Reflex
on
error
student
writers
The
Logic.
and
Mr.
theories
the
Maher,
Universals, see
as
to
even
ordinarily
as
the
as
so
very
pass
may
the
the
is
Bosanquet
to
its
in
of Plato.
nature,
this
to
difference"
Psychology, Ch.
doctrine
of
view
According
persistent identity
is famous
fail
An
such
considered.
"a
Averroes.3
ages.
Bradley
hitherto
in
similar
terms,
that
Scholastics
render
Modern
Mr.
by
have
we
it
in
asserted.2
are
rule
to
with
universals.
middle
are
and
as
which
criticism
the
Universal
radicallydifferent
view
of
the
this, should
point
accepting any
5. The
Logic,
on
and
view,
Aristotelians
which
writers
held
in express
Aristotelians, Avicenna
in
the
on
his
English
this
they
real
in the
objectiveexistence
species and the genus
of which
no
doctrine
extravagant
has
individuals
"
philosophers,bore
the
Realism,
Realism
Moderate
Arabian
great
Scholastic
the
the
things beyond
Thomas
again and
St.
the
the universal
universal, and
that
among
which
this
shewn
Exaggerated
to
according to
has
14,
pp.
294
somewhat
(d. 1121).
3
The
as
a
following will serve
Opusc. 39, De Natura
typical passage.
"In
multis, quia quidquid est in re
Generis, c. 5.
re
igitur nihil est commune
est singulare,uni soli communicabile.
commune
est, dicitur per
Quod autem
view
was
maintained
by
William
of
Champeaux
"
intellectuni.
"
mentator
Intellectus
[i.e.Averroes]
enim
supra
facit universalitatem
librum
de
Anima."
in rebus, ut
dicit
Com-
II.,
(Bosanquet,
the
not
'that
'
same
to
and
mean
alike,"
are
they
that
are
as
Mr.
says
far
so
"If
"
If
same.
say
we
taken
be
must
we
and
order
real
identity.
Bradley,
the
as
the
in
are
real
understood
not
which
things,
but
similar,
but
is
identity
expressing
identity
conceptual
This
92).
p.
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
36
for
...
'
both
instance
Bk.
(Principles,
'
the
he
which
conception
Mr.
Similarly
all
'
them
of
be
'can
presented
(Logic,
identity
is
have
we
and
thought
is
"
the
38).
"
There
things
they
aspect,
the
Secondly,
which
the
be
can
real
persists
through
is
confused
with
subtlety
of
Logic
with
expressed
of
the
be
the
and
it
is
Bk.
I.
and
is
bond
identity
such
defended,
under
in
of
of
as
these,
must
needs
tain
cer-
concept.
same
thing
the
First,
theory.
the
individual
an
errors
The
because
because,
one
conceptual
on
it
identical,
by
changes
based
which
be
trine
doc-
same
(Principles,
in
errors
to
identity
it
theory
fallacious.
asserted
are
which,
210.)
p.
fundamental
two
involves
universal.
"
judg-
between
the
Bradley,
diversity
I.,
Bosanquet,
thus
are
distinct
(Cf.
internal
own
as
Mr.
says
of
distinction
individual
concrete
that
philosophy,
of
be
to
universality
any
of
through
subject
development
universal,
its
of
" 8).
affirmed
content
no
Hegelian
existence
further
is
of
the
pre-
unity
in
that
sive
exclu-
running
individual
view,
of
the
the
regard
identity
6,
c.
denies
individual
finite
result
things.
to
This
148).
(ibid.
(ibid.
is
nature
designating
as
"
fact
real
absent
wholly
thought
I., p.
seen,
be
to
to
take
"
inherited
Mortality
of
oneness
is
same,
except
mere
"
that
must
we
natural
"a
is
same
the
reality
no
"
the
diversity
any
itself
us
of
virtue
and
degree,
'ment"
as
tells
therefore
and
It
think
to
got
in
men
all
'matter
has
is
far
so
seems
by
there
proved.
are
What
different
that
Bosanquet
individual
'
made
not
"
" 3).
6,
c.
urges,
is
particulars,
*
gills, they
or
i,
be
cannot
belief,
The
" 5).
Pt.
II.,
and
same
lungs
have
butes,
attri-
many
the
of
virtue
universal.
whatever
be
be
radically
IX.
CHAPTER
CATEGORIES.
THE
"
Categories in
The
i.
their
Metaphysical
The
considered
be
may
Aspect.
as
"
"
'
'
of
mean
by things we
things into classes would
This
substances.
'
things
'
from
be
It
is in
this
we
term
the
sense
The
of
word
For
substances.
"
natures
which
but
their
in
classification
exist
own
word, when
the
not
of
as
'
things/
mere
minations,
deter-
animal.
Quantity
a
understand
must
we
followinglist
Substance
man,
3.
as
division
are
to
2.
well
here.
is meant
as
and
classification
signify a
what
accidents
includes
exist apart
they cannot
It is one
substances.
thing to be a horse, another
phalus
Yet Buceto be carrying a rider.
black, another
time.
and the same
be all these things at one
may
accidents
1.
is not
substances
"
the
of
substance.
Quality
nature.
:
"
determinations
which
characterize
the
PRINCIPLES
138
Aristotle in the
viz.
OF
LOGIC
Categories distinguishesfour
of
kinds
qualities,
:
"
(1) Habits
and
(2) Capacity
Incapacity,
of the
determinations
Dispositions, i.e.
nature
in the
intellect, health
of the
i.e. determinations
body.
active
Incapacity
but
of the determination,
signifiesnot the total absence
in
its possession
an
degree.
undeveloped and immature
Passive
i.e.
determinations
or
on
(3)
consequent
Qualities,
productive of physicalchange, e.g. the sensible qualitiesof
powers,
e.g.
cold, heat
(4) Figure,
It should
the
capacity
to
The
term
colour.
and
of
i.e. determinations
however
walk.
observed
be
extension.
quantitative
that
these
four
classes
are
not
even
as
as
mutually exclusive, nor
by Aristotle
put forward
exhaustive
necessarily
(Categ.,c. 8, "" 3, 6, 23). They merely
the
distinctions
vocabulary
embody
recognized in the current
of the Greek
language.
4. Relation
the
:
"
and
which
order
holds
Thus
another.
between
substances
two
quality,equalin quantity,the
alike in
be
may
in
same
stance
sub-
one
specific
nature.
5. Place
position in
"
positionin
"
surrounding
Abbey.
to
in Westminster
London,
e.g. at
6. Time
:
relation
relation
to
the
of
course
space,
events,
8.
"
in
cloaked.
Action
9.
10.
the
:
"
"
These
an
Categories may
ten
individual.
may
fillhis
We
find that
place as
that
whom
is not
I know.
a
be
illustrated in the
in order
that
other
agent,
case
of
the individual
mined
be deterpart of Nature, he must
Here, for instance, is some
ways.
As
man,
he
determination, but
is substance
can
receive
"
something
determina-
CATEGORIES
THE
139
As
is thus
related
the
by
relation of likeness.
He
is in the
it is October, 1907
(place)
city of York
(t'me).
; and
dressed
in cloth, and provided
He is stooping (posture)
;
with
hammer
and chisel (habit)
a
; he is carving wood
and his tool has just cut him
(action),
(passion).
In what
the nine categories
of Accidents
called
sense
are
can
we
things ? How
regard the quality of swarthiIf indeed
the relation of likeness as
ness
or
a thing ?
considered
we
are
as
speaking of these accidents
ate
separthen they are
not
entities,
thingsat all : there is no
such thing as
walking or sitting or health existing
cause
independently. These accidents are said to be, not be'
'
'
'
they
'
'
existence
possess
'
'
'
themselves, but
'
because
the
The
crete
consubjectis what it is,through them.1
totle
subjectis walking,and is healthy. Hence, as ArisThey are called
things,'because in their
says,
respectiveways, they determine that which is a thing in
2
the sense
of being a substance."
In speaking of the Categories
of
the
summa
as
genera
things/we have employed a traditional expression. But
their nature
would
perhaps be more
clearlyindicated, by
callingthem the ten modes of beingin which an individual
For the various
kinds of determination
thing is realized.
"the
classes of
from
another
things differ one
by
the mode
of being, which
they confer on the individual.
It is now
clear why there is not one
summum
genus only,
viz. : Thing or Being, of which
these classes are
dinate
suborspecies. Genus and speciesare only found, when
the various classes can
unibe expressed in a common
vocal concept, and are
differendistinguishedby specific
concrete
"
'
'
'
'
'
"
1
'
'
St.Thomas,
habet
Summa
Theol, I.,Q. 45, Art. 4. " Illiproprieconvenit Esse, quod
Esse, et est subsistens in suo Esse.
Formae
autem
et accidentia et alia
hujusmodi,
dicuntur
entia
ea
non
ratione
dicitur
PRINCIPLES
I4o
There
tiae.
find
we
'
is
differentiae,
by
'
concept of
univocal
no
LOGIC
OF
which
the
thing/ nor
can
is determined.
notion
'
of
univocal
'
common
For
concept.
genus
the
Accident.'
same
The
nine
is
there
reason
no
of accident
kinds
irreducible.
are
It
has
asserted
been
by
order of the
Categoriesis based on
Aristotle apparentlydrew
that
no
up
the
that
authorities
some
ple,
princiintelligible
his list in a haphazard
fashion.1
Most
assuredly,this
feature
in
As
missed
doctrine
a
us
to
be
of fact those
matter
order
the law
in
extraordinary
very
Aristotle
which
important feature
most
Categories. The
reveals to
would
which
who
in the
they
say
this,have
doctrine
are
quently.
fre-
so
recurs
of the
enumerated,
in
the
tion.
consideraon
easilybe seen
ing
The substantial nature
givesus as it were the startpendent
point. In virtue of this, the thing possesses indeexistence, and is the kind of thing it is. But
the
substantial
individual.
This
nature
will
cannot
exist
without
dental
acci-
those
complement of its
being.2 Of these the first is magnitude or extension
the
second
Category. Physical qualitiespresuppose
extension
as
:
supported by the substance
they are
From
these three primary Categoriesresult
extended.
which
three kinds of relation,
give an order and harmony
in the manifold
of the universe, viz.: likeness of quality,
The
of specificform.
equality of quantity, sameness
extrinsic determinations.
are
They
remainingcategories
in the physical
add nothing to the entity itself. But
not
universe, each entity is determined
merely by its
forms
which
constitute
the
"
ten
Thus
Wallace
Categories would
2
The
It is in
Q.
Dr.
order
no
5- art.
sense
3.
p. 25),
says (Outlinesof the Philosophy of Aristotle,
to be arranged on little or no
principle."
seem
"
These
PRINCIPLES
i42
LOGIC
OF
stance
subrelated
extraneous
to the
complete substance
have
is predicated of him.
which
as
But, as we
seen,
received
the
has
he
until
he
is incomplete
part of Nature
looked
as
on
Action
conferred
determination
additional
include
and
relations, but
passion
that Category, inasmuch
as
they
its reception.
of change, or
It
of
divergence
value
opinion
may
be
the
to
de
the
been
always
authors
of the
Metaphysique, II.,
cc.
production
regarding
certain
of
classes.
independent
as
treatment
from
considerable
whether
to
as
reckoned
referred
involve
Scholastic
among
habit.'
differentiated
the
the
The
Domet
subject by
25-36.
The
2.
has
there
'
adjacent
are
further
division, and
justly
be
Verges, Abrege
"
that
tenfold
can
reader
de
this
of
number
noted
be
may
the
by
In
theii
oi
no
longer modes
logicalaspect the Categories are
It
real being : they belong to the conceptual order.
thus
is as
regarded that they belong properly to our
attention as a classification
of
subject. They claim our
thingsas mentallyrepresented.
It is under
this
that
work
known
in his famous
understood, they
Aristotle
aspect
defined
are
that
by
as
treats
the
to the individual
entities.1 The
gories
Cate-
As
name.
thus
orderly classification
of genera,
the
genera
summa
of this
treatment
subject
intellect shews
substance.
can
and
the
they
1
all be
terms
time
affirmed
exist
in
S. Thoma.
they
our
are
mind
such
natures
as
man,
signifyreal substances,
is identical with
what
same
universal
These
and
one
us
of
the
the
concrete
universal
alone.
In
for
they
individual
is real.
individual
animal,
Yet
at
though as universal
preciselythe same
"
Praedicamentum
nihil
(1590-1644), Log., Q. 14, Art. i.
series seu co-ordinatio praedicatorum superiorum et inferiorum ab
'aliud est quam
ad individuum
uno
quod praedicatur de omni inferiori,usque
genere
supremo
Proem.
quod subjicitur omni superiori." Cf. Suarez, Disp. Met., XXXIX.
'
Joan,
CATEGORIES
THE
way,
The
lar
merely the singucolour.
but
the
universal
this
whiteness,
quality
quality
of the real
of these conceptualrepresentations
store
order
the mental
order
which
at any
the elements
that
are
Of
143
careful
reveals
our
of which
our
scrutiny
fact that
the
to
one
not
us
in
minds, constitutes
our
knowledge is resolvable.
mental
and
judgments
our
to
is found
time
into which
out
them
reveals
Some
another.
in
dination
subor-
that
such
are
concepts
hierarchical
up.
all formed.
of these
character
stand
they
is built
reasoningsare
our
of the
furniture
They
not
they cansome
again,
"
Thus
alone.
genera
Man
is vertebrate/
summa
'
man/
but
cannot
we
vertebrates/
reverse
'
wider
shall
we
falls into
say,
Vertebrates
are
'
and
men/
are
Socrates
say,
l
Of
is
animals
Animals
a
'
:
are
mental
funda-
what
It further
as
'
can
order
the
Vertebrates
importance
the
'
we
appears
distinct
the
in
that
groups,
this
"
Categories. We
the
hierarchical
groups
we
arrangement
have
predicatea
cannot
nated
desigterm
"
This
be-
We
point is well put by Mr. Joseph (Introd.to Logic, p. 236).
say
diamonds
than
r
ather
that
:
glitter,
some
glitteringthings are
that blue is a colour, rather than that a colour is blue.
To say that a colour
be blue is natural enough : just as it is to say that a stone
be a diamay
may
mond
: but still we
the
not
the
the
of
and
predicate
species of
species,
genus
the genus
the genus
in
but
: it is not
colour
case
particular
some
; not
colour,
the genus stone, but some
is
is
that
diamond.
mineral
that
blue
or
particular
Commonly,
coincident
attributes, the predicate
they are mere
except where
'is a wider
term
or
The fact to
more
genericthan the subject in judgment."
which
Mr.
Some
stones
Joseph here calls attention,viz. : that when we say
are
diamonds,' we are predicating the species of individuals,not of the genus,
if we
at once
reflect that we
Stone (as such) is diamond,'
cannot
appears,
say,
'
The triangle (as such) is equilateral.'
'
that
diamonds
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
PRINCIPLES
I44
OF
LOGIC
one
distinct.1
investigationof
The
the
revealed
less than
that, no
conceptual order
the
the real
of
chaos
order,it
is
has
thus
concepts, but
governedby
definite
est
discoverymust ever rank as one of the greatresults of Aristotle's genius.2
Each
Category then consists,as we have said, of an
of
of a specialmode
ordered series of terms
significative
being, commencing with the term that designatesthe
summum
genus, and ending with singularterms, e.g. this
Each series developsinto a tree of Porphyry. But,
man.
This
laws.
noted
have
we
as
sals of the
Categoriesmust
the universals
abstracted
and
of which
it is
hand
other
only with
'
"
3.
The
'
far
as
rational
jects
subare
the
We
are
not
with
As
universal.
the
nature
cerned
con-
the
ing
belong'
'
man
is
animal.'
important bearing
The
Intention.
substance
the
to
not
Category of
species/but is
so
the
to
Categorieson
expressed,and
the nature
relation
the Predicables
The
Intention.
of the nature
character
stands
nature
view
we
consider in what
we
of First
the uni-
with
Predicables
predicated. Thus
terms
are
universal
of Second
all terms
be confused
In the
universals
as
one
not
Predicables.
versals of the
the
than
more
on
of
the
predicamentallines
on
Hence
as
'
'
'
by
means
to the
'
'
of which
they are conceived.
Category of Relation.
Terms
of Second
Intention belong
CATEGORIES
THE
of
organized bodies
those
sciences,should
be
not
145
which
knowledge
In
overlooked.
such
any
of
wider
their
in
scale
ascending
concepts
the
generalityfurnish
with
us
scientific consideration.
so
Provided
and
distinct
many
that
term
we
line,
wider
objectsof
abstractions
our
not
are
are
'
"
"
"
"
ideal,it would
consist of the
definition of
accurate
the various
each
or
as
The
are
correlated in
our
"
The
and
they
their
Posterior
which
have
scribed
dewe
Analyticsof Aristotle,
above (Ch.i, " 5)as a treatise on the logical
analysis
the
mind
from
objectsare distinguished
respective
within
different Categories,
other, either as falling
differentiated by various
degrees of abstraction.
how
shew
sciences
aspect and
4.
The
in the
lightof
Categoriesas
Categoriesmay
further
these
sciences
under
principles.
Classificationof Predicates.
be viewed
in
their
bearing
L
PRINCIPLES
146
OF
LOGIC
cation
logicalproposition. As such they form a classifiof possible
predicates. It is under this aspect they
introduced
are
by Aristotle in his Topics (I., c. 9).
it is as thus conceived
received
that they have
the
And
of Category (/caryyopia,
name
tcaryyopeivto predicate),
and its Latin equivalentPredicament.
The very purpose
of the proposition,
is to tell us
what
the subject is
to
form
of being in its regard. Since then
assert
the
some
of
Categoriesare our mental
representations
being in
its various
modes, it follows of necessity that the predicates
of all propositions may
be grouped according to
the particularkind
of
being asserted,in other words
according to the ten Categories.1
From
this it appears
that the doctrine of the Categories
throws
and most
new
a
important lighton the meaning
is of the copula. The discussion as to the import
of the
is in fact incomplete,apart from the
of the proposition,
of the Categories. The
doctrine
copula,as we saw, signifies
in some
that the subjectis (oris not)determined
way.
The Categories
shew
that it does not express one
mode
us
of determination
only, but a variety, according to the
different modes
of
being/ According to the predicate
that the subjectis determined
either
employed, it signifies
or
or
or
substantially,
quantitatively,
qualitatively,
by
relation, etc., etc.2
ous
erronesome
Nothing can be more
is always of one
than
to hold that the determination
the
on
"
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
kind.3
This
is the
mistake
which
we
noticed
have
the
relation
of
on
to
as
a
equality.
"
in
"
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
CATEGORIES
THE
It
the
say, e.g.
for the
we
figure
'
nature
the
as
in
in
Hence
connotes.
is conceived
the
to
in any
of the
'
more
shews
cases
the
'of
the
the
to
is
predicate
attributes
in
any
"
'
'
'
it
belonging
imperfect
such
examination."
better
under
recommence
therefore
auspices, the
the
by
success
He
attempt
founder
great
as
way
States
(i) Feelings, or
(2) The Minds,
(3) The Bodies
those
taken
which
of
or
for
them
experience
these
in the
(4) The
Successions,
Unlikenesses
It
criticism
to
between
would
that
note
no
substantial
no
justificationfor
Cf. Joan,
is not
the
placing
true
from
S. Thoma.,
from
the
of
this
It
be
I
of
to
must
enter
in
the
its
in
own.
a
regard
and
sufficient
the
He
his
sensations
has
:
that
has, therefore,
bodies.
by
own
mind
separate category
to
upon
be
with
that
of
can-
such
warranted
strongly
it experiences
feelingswhich
minds
is
Likenesses
consistent
even
holds
com-
consciousness."
work
views.
in
which
to
appears
states
of
existence
recognition
Coexistences,
of
rather
their
language
the
certain
propertieswhereby
because
existences
and
He
proposed
excite
included
because
existence
is
same
feelings. The
realities
existing
apart
than
beyond
scope
Mill's metaphysical
philosophical position.
that
of
no
realitysave
it has
and
common
scheme
is not
gether
is alto-
feelings.'
or
being
the
this
of view
he
which
powers
feelingsor
be
of
the
last
real
scheme
"
those
objects,
opinion,
common
granted
concepts
the
Consciousness.'
external
prudently deviate,
or
propertiesas
powers
sound
by
philosophy.
'
of
feelings,
together with
they excite
pliance with
'
of
classification
'not
'
it
generic term,
'
attributes
logic."
After
'
understood
determinations
or
minute
"
with
made
reward
to
to
proposes
same
subject.1
'sufficient
the
us
subject being
advertence
where
even
generic
the
subject
triangle is a plane
But
it
abstractly conceived.
propositionthe predicate alone
more
formal
dicate
preterm
"
the
'
but
these
in
the
determine
not
animal,'
an
comprehension,
one
as
do
of
speak
to
it is
'
is
that
without
extension
We
predicate
remembered
be
must
Man
subject
is understood
subject, when
the
category.
same
'
when
inaccurate
sight appear
determining
as
within
first
at
may
147
from
Bodies,
which
2, ad. 4.
we
as
are
PRINCIPLES
148
of
conscious
bodies,
imagination. They
the
of
category
that
us
fare
Relations
but
have
should
then
anything
is
him,
to
according
are,
too
Feelings.
relation
no
LOGIC
OF
been
of Mill, is in fact
The
incompatible
reduces
a
realityof
philosophy
Categories at all : for it
mere
subjective feeling.
of
to
(Ch.
of
(5)),assumed
i, note
of
data
mind
The
in
the
are
such
world
data,
our
as
subjective principlesof
on
the
us
into
thus
the
our
afforded, is all
The
are
in
him
The
to possess.
mere
time
present
nor
explain
to
was
can
result, he
world.
hope
can
we
noted
with
us
held, is due
impressions, fashion
of
appearance
have
mental
unconnected
kind
we
these
experience
it.
scheme
any
whatever
feelings,neither
our
know
we
as
relation.
the
therefore, before
problem,
space.
if these
how,
the
in
that
unconnected
and
instantaneous
solely
further
and
Kant,
certain
as
consist
knowledge
own
our
Kant.
Categories of
6. The
"
such
with
tells
He
better.
no
feeling of
our
figment of the
relegated to
to
operating
within
them
internal
knowledge
It is due, he
taught,
in time
and
impressions appear
forms
The
intellectual
faculty, also, provides twelve
space.
of its own,
ments.1
corresponding to the twelve different speciesof judg'forms'
he
termed
These
twelve
Categories. They
the
list
in
shewn
:
are
following
the
to
faculty that
sensitive
our
'
'
"
I.
Quantity.
1.
Singular (This S
Particular
2.
(Some
3.
II.
Categories.
of Judgment.
Forms
Universal
is
(All
P)
is
is
P)
i.
P)
2.
3.
Quality.
4. Affirmative(S is P)
5. Negative (S is not P)
6. Infinite (S is not-P)
4.
5.
Unity.
Plurality.
Totality.
Reality.
Negation.
6, Limitation.
Relation.
III.
7.
Categorical(S
is
7. Substance
P)
and
Attribute.
Kant
various
8.
Hypothetical (If S
9.
Disjunctive (S
believed
kinds
of
that
or
is
must
intellect to
R)
Q)
judgment
is P
is P,
8. Cause
9.
and
that
and
Reciprocal
for that
the various
necessarilyshew
knowledge.
shape our
modes
reason
fect.
Ef-
tion.
Ac-
the
in which
CHAPTER
X.
DEFINITION
"
with
two
Logic
We
Definition.
i.
the
concerned
are
of
which
Judgment,
but
to
Definition
Neither
DIVISION.
both
processes,
of
AND
in
belong,
of
that
treated, unless
Predicables
the
convenient
place
definition
The
essential
at
which
of
an
deal
to
object
Hence,
characteristics.
be
factorily
satis-
previously
be
the
most
them.
with
declaration
definition
the
to
Concept.
can
to
is the
not
have
been
chapter
the
Division, however,
nor
this
is
of
its
given
concept
thing
It
of
form
in the
which
the
expresses
true
of
nature
the
defined.
is
carefullyto
be
observed
that
is
definition
the
with
thinkers,
Now
the
it
nature
is, of
known,
these
will
of
the
course,
of
thing
"
constitute
that
case
its true
the
whenever
nature,"
intension
'
of
its
triangle,'is
a
by three straightlines.' But
plane figurecontained
is applied to a group
it will often happen that a name
of objects,which
we
are
perfectlyable to identifyby
certain
common
properties they possess, while at the
Thus,
are
time, we
same
ignorant of their real nature.
name.
'
Thus
the
intension
of
the
term
it
give
The
which
by
found
yet
unfold
has
definition
able
are
define
to
it.
have
we
The
not
definition
true
It must
recognizeit.
to
us
but
of the thing.
enable
than
more
they
disease
the
the
do
must
before
in this case,
term
ness,
sleepingsickrecognize it and
doctors
appearance,
long
name,
151
new
its
makes
DIVISION
AND
DEFINITION
its nature.
Aristotle
is
rational
Socrates
animal
an
He
true.
are
The
is
his
because
man
study
the
Definition
is
contain
we
kinds
always
of
of
to
individual
classes, the
all
are
different
which
by
it differs from
is to
seize
malarial
"
in
the
definition
Post.
Ko.1 Sia
An.
are
II.,
rl
c.
2,
"OTLV.
Post. II.,
c.
13,
is
tout
un
which
moyen
no
alone
Nature
occur
gives
subject
of
the
these
phenomena,
characteristics,
The
of definition
aim
all
amid
is constant
sleepingsickness,
another
rightlysaid
o$v
" 5.
'fiffTrep
Cf. ibid. c. 8, " i.
in
or
hundred
intensity, in
collateral
importance to
tion
the defini-
is essential
with
what
to be
the aim
"
\"yo(j.evrb
rl
tcrnv
of science.3
eldtvai
ravrb
" 19.
acteristics.
char-
when
see
members
other.
in
of
animal.
type.2
permanent
Hence
An.
These
is
actually to
shall
which
of
attack, e.g. of
for it is concerned
type,
he
statements
able
accidental
every
duration,
effects,etc., etc.
with
has
particulars,
tern
the
on
variety. One
this
of
because
universal.
the
instances
each
tool-
definition.
us
'
essential
the
are
possesses
is
rational
definitions,we
our
various
is
he
extent
ideal in
realize this
we
what
he
he
yet
nor
asked
are
because
man,
we
reply that
is not
is
If
point.
we
man,
he
cooks
that
in
case
It
that
using animal/
characteristics.
these
'
'
animal/ is
makes
what
'
'
gives us
de concept
resumant
definition, au
sens
Mercier, op. cit.,"153. La definition est
de
la science.
PRINCIPLES
152
Science
determined
of
the
It is often
in
it has
these
terms
are
Genus
than
attributes
in
"
are
Real
by
common
the
class, and
the
definition
nature
on
the
other
meaning of
already noticed,
the
It
of
is
than
the
no
class
more
of
(i)
and
Real
in
what
expression which
an
tion
defini-
Nominal
expression declaring
logicians,as we have
an
Some
more
of
amount
meaning
shewed
we
maintained
have
do
to
is
hand,
fined,
de-
differentia.
or
the
some
be
objects
the notes
signifies
distinguishit from others.1
to
thing.
In
certain
they
as
differentia
last section
word.
words
genus
Definition,
of
consists.
the
intended
are
assign
can
we
ferentia.
dif-
and
genus
eclipsecan
an
as
alike
classes
declares
are
law
the
Predicables.
the
understood
Kinds
In
Nominal.
be
other
to
Various
with
impossible.
properly speaking a
here
employed with
as
to
proper
2.
be
Thus
should
question, and
which
accurately
or
in which
cases
is
not
latitude.
such
connexion
this
however,
Hence
certain
should
employed
but
indeed
are
and
genus
cases,
it has
substance,
some
all definition
that
said
There
were
object,when
of
nature
LOGIC
phenomenon.
some
the
its
achieved
has
OF
that
this ;
definitions
no
that
all
Aristotle
of terms.
connotation
and
one
question at length,and
two
distinguishes
definitions.
In the first place,there
kinds
of Nominal
which
are
signifyimaginary
(i) definitions of names
to which
sponds.
objects,
nothing either actual or possiblecorreWe
find an
example in the definition of
may
An impossible
a
a
dragon as
serpent breathing flame/
a
provide us with
self-contradictory
concept cannot
this
considers
'
Real
essence
essence
1
4
definition
-which
S.
for
that
contains
all.2
at
Cf. Joan,
Indeed
Thoma.,
must
state
repugnant
the
Logica,
the
characteristics
'
expression,
II., c. 3.
Bk.
An
essence.
"Deftnitio
is
dragon
fit per
no
is
genus
et
complectatur defmitionem
'
sed etiam
et differentia,
descripessentialem,
proprie invenitur genus
e
sed aliquid
in qua non
et differentia,
tivam
et accidentalem
est proprie genus
differentiae
nomine
loco illius; ideo intelligitur
nomine
generisaliquidcommune,
'aliquid distinctivum
particulare."
2
rb yap
An.
Post. II., c. 7, " 2.
ivrlv, dXXd ri
dv, ovdels oWev 8 n
M
ri 8' 2"
eforw Tpayt\a"j"ost
/j.tv
cry/miveio \6yos r) rb oj/o/xa, QTO.V
'
differentiam
; et
in qua
cum
haec
conditio
non
solum
DIVISION
AND
DEFINITION
153
propositionshould be
writers
the
of fables)is
(Ch. 7. " 4).
the
further
Aristotle
in
those
which
reckons
we
unable
are
as
it describes
what
of the
nature
All
be
their
But
and
reasons
to
be
Mill holds
mentioned
explicativeof
the
the
of
meaning
from
derived
not
are
is led to consider
definitions.
some
to
as
he
of
of
of
Is
it the
he
asks,
statements
the
from
at all, but
length
case,
from
is that
answer
merely
are
at some
deduced
are
His
definitions
the
existence
rightly
sciences
the
implied
Thus
the
thing
question.
definition
of triangle
but
two
obviously comprises not one
is, There
one
propositions,perfectly distinguishable. The
exist a figurebounded
by three straightlines ; the other,
may
And
this figure may
former
of
be
termed
a
triangle.' The
postulate
the
names
those
save
definitions
positionthat
the
Hence
names.
alleged importance
that
the
strongly to
none
the
has
carefullynoticed, for
of importance.
is
existence
of
Nominal
ence
exist-
deny
characteristics,can
essential
the
the
8, "7).
c.
i,
latter class
this
thunder,
unfold
not
Aristotle's view,
in
definitions
of Real
In
objects.
express
termed
"
10,
c.
,
of
not
definitions,therefore,do
presupposed.
which
II.
object(An. Post.
indicate
nominal, because
yet does
and
is meant,
Nominal
to
definition
clouds,' is nominal
noise in the
essential
assign the
merely able to
to
definitions,(2)
Nominal
as
in
the
"
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
these
of
all
analysis is
the
to
and
it.
For
When
setting
basis
existed
sun
forth
at
of the
as
length,
the
law
for reasoning.
that
fact, long
it
The
which
latter
is
is the
object
the
before
process,
the ground
it is true
This
expressed
was
of the
But
former
Often
object.
of the
knew
men
all.
at
basis
triangle."
fault.
at
existence
instance
definition
It is the
the
here
existence
definition, the
us.
about
reasoning
Mill's
definition.
Nominal
mere
'
is not
propositions
'
when,
occurs
has
been
relative
motion
knew
in
definition
then
do
suppose
pre-
previous
manifested
they
they
we
how
of
to
earth
define
accurately
possessed a
of reasoning
to
was
not
sure
tho
PRINCIPLES
154
existence
of the
in
the
he
phenomenon,
itself, but
definition.
Mill
definition
has
combined
the
nature,
of
that
be
of
matter
existence
is
made
fact
is
with
dealing
objects,but their
are
of
many
is
essence
from
From
deduced
rational
figurecontained
In
of
the
except
by
We
must
as
or
far
so
then
the
science,aims.
properties of
1
the
are
definitions
'
man
as
from
'
of
Cf. Arist. De
npds r6 fltevai rb
that
content
the
Amma,
ri e"m",
called
of
peculiar
recognize
we
determines
the
needs
be
horse,
we
can
of the
two
principles,
never
their
by
properties.
definition by properties,
with
"
It is at
of natural
to
with
I.,C, I, " 8.
The
nition.
defi-
seeks
type
type
its
lion, must
manifested
Definition.
'
which
While
us.
knowledge
be
He
to
of, e.g.
any
student
definitions of mathematical
our
principle,which
they are
it is often
that
its
as
Distinctive
(iii)
kind
flow
a
by which
plane figure
differentia.
A plane
specific
straightlines/ is the essential
triangle.
characteristics
penetrate to
except in
which
right-angledtriangle Pythagoras
These
is unknown
totally different
the
limits
three
substantial
distinctive
to
When
properties
differentia,from
specific
propertiesflow,
hope
existence
of science
existed.
the
that
recognize
the
of
essential
other
natural
every
it is impossibleto obtain an
Essential
man,
the
then
reasoning.
its
foundation
never
to
It is not
are
are
however,
case,
The
that
and
postulate
of
mind
the
deduce
of
too
rectilinear
the
and
47.
Such
constitute
bounded,
definition
the
by
figures. The
is
for
Definitions.
animal/
words,
of
train
statement
and
genus
for instance
is our
Such
sense.
menon
pheno-
existence
triangle,the
have
can
we
of
proposition :
of
the
that
definition
formed
are
since
Euclid, I.,
(ii)Essential
which
case
figures
the
of
sufficient
known,
once
it.
foundation
essences
mathematical
first
possible essence.
other
in
postulate
his
of the
nature
"
is neither
proposition, which
it
informs
a
definition,
styling
us
the
quite
known
second
the
in
the
even
as
in
unnecessary,
characteristics
we
to
LOGIC
the
definition, and
nor
it cannot
As
nor
its nature
triumphantly points
postulate
OF
state
which
definitions of this
history or
the most
he
is
of
physical
characteristic
dealing.1 More-
rcl crt^/Se/ST/Kora,
(ru^tySaXXerai
^ue-yct //.epos
in a
knowledge of the properties contributes
AND
DEFINITION
DIVISION
155
over
overlooked.
hitherto
moment
definitions
These
it is
For
science.
of
classification
is
the
definitions attainable
that
Aristotle's
of
definition
nature.
which
states
which
definition
we
But
the
For
difference.
the
they
Yet
classes,
Nominal
tions
defini-
be
of
fail to reveal
unfolds
the
wherever
we
from
we
cannot
from
the
essence,
tial
Essen-
there
is
to
the
to
the
perties.
proin
essence.
different
under
Essential
properties given
definition, conclude
substance
specific
the
the
essence
the
the
Distinctive
the
possess
their
ranked
science,were
reason
same
satisfactory
manifestlyun-
between
can
Distinctive
Moreover,
would
the
are
definitions,which, within
because
the
chapter.
of natural
and
highestresult
the
definition
great
It
scientific
the
definitions
case
Real
of
class of
merely Nominal,
essence
in the
discarded.
sphere, are
own
as
division
later
in
application of
This
Distinctive
only
if
is based
that
types.
subject of
these
been
highest importance
natural
because
has
the
them
on
of
are
stances,
circum-
properties.
Thus
from
itself
manifests
by
different
the
it is needless
to
graphite and
diamond
point
out
how
much
differ from
each
those
of
other.
while
carbon,
Yet
in
supposed to be dealingwith
the
same
substance, manifesting itself by different
affected by different conditions.
properties when
(iv)Genetic Definitions give us neither the essential
but
of the thing nor
its properties,
the elements
nature
which, taken in conjunction,result in its produc ion.
each
of these
cases,
we
are
'
great
measure
to
PRINCIPLES
i$6
The
is most
term
mathematical
figureby
Thus
the
in which
manner
of
it may
Here
extremities.
the
nafure
the
express
certain
to
be denned, as a figure
circle may
of a line in a plane round
revolution
the
its
when
of
statement
graduallytraced by
Yet
in reference
definitions,which
by
of
one
LOGIC
frequentlyused
be constructed.
formed
OF
the
line
the
several
themselves
not
are
segments
circle.
is
are
'
process
type,
definition of water
e.g. the
as,
as
atomic
two
with
one
inform
us
tell
They
that
of the
'
day/
destined
mechanism
of
purpose
(b)The other
the
foot
supporting the
class
first discovered
to
illness caused
hardly
the
Lodoicea
the
by the
be
Some
defined
double
into
things,e.g.
in any
cocoa-nut
other
'
as
by
that
the
of
nature
the
diseases
certain
introduction
defines
happen
since
of
bacillus anthracis.'
define
often
microbes, it is a
specific
(wool-sorter's
disease)to say
the presence
of anthrax
can
that
for
hoop
riding.'
definitions
of Causal
hours
the
metal
when
It may
cause.
statingthe Efficient
the most
satisfactory
explanation of
Thus
thing,is given in this manner.
Koch, who
'
it
stirrup by terming
indicate
to
days
were
of
due
true
definition
that
it is
'
an
body of the
natural products,
the
We
way.
the fruit of
naturally
the
tree
'
Seychellarum
,
(vi)Accidental
define those
Definitions.
sub-classes,which
These
do
not
are
employed
constitute
to
distinct
PRINCIPLES
158
formal
the
stated
the
us
principlegives its
above
cause
from
is
But
final
list,and
our
definition
form
can
is
attributes
is definition
here
is, as
the
notion
attributes
other
many
But
it
philosopher,etc., etc.
which
belong to his humanity/
'
'
definition
The
which
are
rational
found
in
FinallyGenetic
Even
cause.
does
not,
in internal
in the
as
animal
formal
this
the
in the
case
he
is
this
which
make
cause
He
may
Greek,
those
only
attributes
him
'
the
expresses
man.
notes
cause.2
conjunctionof
of chemical
of material
order
be
may
by
the
material
constitutive
parts
combination, result
relation
an
man.
definition is definition
when
of which
formal
the
humanity/
conceptual
formal
seen,
'
of
mal
for-
the
the
have
we
plicitly
ex-
further
by
of
'
'
been
be
not
alone, in virtue
In
man.
definitions
have
causes
need
abstract
an
sometimes
The
us.
speaking
not
are
expressingthose
individual
mentioned.1
another
to
we
formed
are
have
we
than
fully known
in
We
the
in
have
statue
always gives
Definitions
which
causes
Essential
cause.
definition
true
efficient and
the
discussed.
the
rather
cause
noticed
soul.
the
satisfactory
explanation is given by
more
assigningone
cause
only one
cause
In
character.
thing defined.
four
of the
Sometimes
drawn
that
of the
each
from
LOGIC
marble.
it is the
We
OF
stand
For
to
the
whole
taken
separately
they lack the distinctive attributes of the thing in question.
It is only to the whole
produced by their conjunction,
that the attributes
belong.3
1
The
abstract
cause.
An.
though
it
were
a
form, was
subject see
Thomas,
Opusc. 26,
et Essentia, c. 3, and
De Ente
An.
Post. II., lect. 20.
In the latter passage
St. Thomas
humanitas
is someguards his readers against supposing that
thing
to the various members
of the species homo,' and points
real, common
it belongs to the conceptual order, Socrates
in
out that
est similis Platoni
humanitate
una
in
existente.'
humanitate, non
numero
utroque
quasi
3
For this aspect of the material
An.
Post. II., c. n,
see
"" 1,2.
cause,
Physics, II.,c. 3, " 7.
termed
the
forma
totius.
On
as
this
St.
'
'
'
'
will
highest genera
We
called.
so
assign
cannot
Much
with
the
transcend
which
and
found
are
scale, there
be
is
of
this
At
of
case
the
highest
the
definition
no
under
the
and
the
the
properly
higher genus
any
Being, Unity
limits
that
of definition
more
in all of them.
can
159
manifest
is
incapable
be
fall.
they may
as
concepts such
which
It
Definition.
of
3. Limits
"
DIVISION
AND
DEFINITION
other
like,
genera,
end
of the
individuals.
They
defined
for
definition
is
:
only be described, not
Further
it is impossibleto define
always of the universal.
data of sensewhich
the immediate
the simplequalities
are
perception,e.g. sweetness, cold, whiteness, pain, etc.
can
The
of definition
purpose
objectby
These
of
can,
Here
is
there
from
elements
the
are
We
analysis.
an
unfold
is to
for
room
properties of
the
red
that
say
e.g. we
itself through vibrations
is
as
when,
qualities,
manifests
which
billions to
360
billions
500
properly speaking
information
rules
traditional
number
is not
this
from
apart
the
must
consider
now
These
the
four
are
in
"
definition must
applicableto
other
every
We
name.
wide
too
is a
machine
reduces
excess
objects.
are
too
or
for
the
Hence
it
the
whole
follows,
terms
adequate to
member
of the
It
thus
must
science
be
of
both
as
of
its
and
est
St. Thomas
stare
in
nee
etiam
"
the
'
too
of the
definition
Definitiones
in
habent
generibus,sed
est descendere
specie specialissima." De
It
narrow.
is, in fact,one
in infinitum
ascendere
generalissimum
with
to
definition, Logic
the
definition in infinitum.
non
is,be
definitions which
properties. Mill's
Aristotle
that
convertible
across
what
to
object ;
Thus
narrow.
its
It must,
defect.
nor
is far
combating fallacy,'
important
define
be
constantlycome
'
'
We
definition.
of
erring neither by
this
(i) The
least
from
varying
perfectlyclear conception of
of Definition.
" 4. Rules
class
colour
the
But
for
such
itself.
colour
no
definition
have
we
second.
per
of the
nature
analysis.
knowledge begins.1
no
which
enumerate
course,
the
Anima,
we
of
not
can-
priuciaccipitur
in infinitum
I.,lect. 8.
160
PRINCIPLES
OF
LOGIC
'
the power
of influencing
the feelings
eloquence as
by
too
It
is
ence
influis
to
wide.
speech or writing/
possible
men's
feelings
by speech without eloquence. So too,
to
define religionas
the
totalityof man's relations
with God,' is to err by excess.
This rule must
(2) The definition must not be obscure.
not be misunderstood.
It does not signify
that the definition
'
in
must
Sometimes
case
no
the
uninstructed
defined.
elements
be
In
obscure
appear
less
of the
of
definition
definitions
many
to the
may
the
than
thing
scientific definition,e.g. of
unavoidable.1
and
definition
comprehensible
philosophicdefinition,
say
uninstructed.
the
to
obscurities
free-will,
is the
result
those
will, to
lightning,or
of
are
long study,
minds
whose
are
results of science.
against this
phenomenon
class of
Where,
brief
into its
and
explanation for
in
to define
convey
violated when
'
those
versed
not
simple terms.
explainobscurum
forbid
to
in
Those
who
serve
the
as
special
it should
violate
this
per obscurius.
not be tautologous. This fault
horse
'
as
have
we
is
'
An
what
definition reappears
the
the
member
information
no
is to
that
consideration,it is requisite
said to
would
rule
definition is intended
the
reallyoffend
analyses of the
In regard to this
not
metaphoricalexpressions.
however,
couched
rule, are
for
rule ;
subjectunder
be
definitions do
the purpose
definitions,
ambiguous
a
Such
the summarized
has received
definingpredicate.
speciesequus/
of the
whatever.
is termed
This
circulus in
rule
is
defini-
periodof time
hour
is
of twentyconsisting
twenty-fourthpart of a
Rabier, Logique, p. 198. 'Les trois quarts des definitions 6tant donnees
d'emblee, seront pour qui les entend pour la premiere fois,Verba et voces praea moins
tereaque nihil
cependant qu'ellesne soient une suggestion d'idees
bizarres ou fausses.'
Cf. An. Post. II.,c. 13, "" 19, 20.
...
when, in the
of two
case
definition of the
in the
'
of
mention
without
other
'
of
mention
without
in
it consists
'
antecedent.'
There
two
are
of
avoidance
are
'
antecedent
'
consequent
nor
'
negative if it
be
define
appears
concepts
'
define
cannot
not
their
tion
defini-
wisdom
can
be
by saying that
'
folly
health
nor
as
of sickness.'
absence
the
the
since
circular
terms, each
consequent/
relative
We
mutually dependent.
161
regarded as
It is not, however,
day/
DIVISION
AND
DEFINITION
positivedefinitions
where
cases
cannot
'
'
'
'
'
defined
sight
in
that
in
Darkness
Blindness
manner.
animal
an
is
'
the
usually
absence
of
found
is
'
the
with
absence
that
of
sense.'
light/
generic term
'
'
Topics, VI., c.
"
with
it
the
4,
" 13.
ground that
it contains
has
been
found
at all. A point
positive element
has position, and
belongs to continuous
quantity. Aristotle,An. Post. I.,
"" obffla.0er6s : and St. Thomas,
Summa
c. 27, defines it any/ATI
TheoL, I.,Q. 52,
indivisibile
Punctum
est
Art.
habens
situm.'
also
Pythagoras had
2,
its positive aspect as
denned
it by
unit
a
having
position
Cf. Arist.,De Anima, I.,c, 4, " 7.
on
no
'
'
'
PRINCIPLES
62
fish
is either
Vertebrate
The
or
mammal/
LOGIC
OF
amphibian
reptileor
or
bird
or
few
is
attributes,or
while
based
one
of
even
three
distinguished
which
other
the
modifications
kinds
of such
hand
The
older
an
of
cians
logi-
artificialdivisions,
accidens?
per
of substances
(1) Divisions
of
on
the
singleone.
divisiones
they termed
on
accidental
some
vocal
are
organs
either
men
or
brutes/
accidental quality
(3) Division of things having some
other accidental
according to the modifications of some
quality,e.g. Inhabitants of Scotland are
either
or
English-speaking,or Gaelic-speaking,
bilingual/
which
forms
the subjectof a logical
The genericnotion
It expresses
division is necessarilyindeterminate.
no
of its subordinate
speciesin particular: but it must
one
other
of these
be realized in one
or
species. For this
the division is correctlyexpressedby a disjunctive
reason
bers
proposition.The subordinate speciesare termed mem'
of the division.
mination
of the
Each
genus
in which
variety of mode
in
of them
some
the
removes
manner
the indetermination
difference
and
indeterit is the
is actualized
of
teristic
species. The characvarieties
thus
whose
modify the indeterminate
is called the basis of the division (fundamentum
genus
divisionis)
that
constitutes
the
Definition
of the former
Division
and
is to
reply
to
may
Boethius, De
many
AND
DEFINITION
essential difference
The
DIVISION
between
163
divisio per
fact
that
the
to
genus
It is most
naturally
category. In
parts of
the
with
because
genus
The
extension.
of them
each
individuals,which
of
number
are
is something accidental
note
differentiating
other category.
and belonging to some
important to observe that in logicaldivision
concerned
not
are
we
the
in the former
the
and
se
taken
speciesare
contains
not
certain
all
tute
together constilogicalwhole and
the
of the subordinate
determination
contains
of
species. The
whole
in other words, it is
:
parts potentially
being determined
by various differentiae to
its
Thus
of them.
the notion
'
'
'
triangle contains
'
'
able
capeach
potentially
a
logical
equilateral,'isosceles and
noticeable characteristics,
of this kind belong two
whole
viz., (i)it is found in each of its parts.2 As the whole
the part contains
the part potentially,
the whole
contains
so
tained
actually. The generic nature
triangle is actuallyconnotion
scalene triangle.'And
in the specific
(2)
when
of
the
it is,as we
saw
treating
Categories(Ch.9, " 2),
predicableof all its parts.3 The generic notion is predicated
of the specific
notion of the
notion, not the specific
brates
Verteare
vertebrates,'not
generic. We say, Mammals
'
scalene.'
'
To
'
'
'
mammals.'
are
further
point
called
properly so
is
by
sense,
not
members
is to
reveal
universal
'
by
stops
a
unity
On
Arist.,Met.
own
noticed
short
at
intellect that
by
of
its
be
to
species :
in
is that
ultima
the
we
species.
the
distinguish
the function
multiplicity.The
differentiae
logicaldivision
stops
It
vidual
indi-
of the intellect
division
short
at
the
of
the
com-
IV.,
c.
26, "
a.
PRINCIPLES
r64
LOGIC
OF
Yet
a
though this is the case
plete specificnature.1
found : and the expreslooser terminologyis sometimes
sion
logicalpart is applied to all subordinates of the
as
class-notion,whether
they be subordinated
speciesto
to a species. Owing to the
individuals
or
as
a genus,
of this terminology,we
shall occasionally
convenience
employ it.
between
to distinguish
Several recent
logicians,
failing
the science of the conceptualorder and the sciences which
identified logicaldivision
deal with the real order, have
The
with the general theory of Classification.
subject
'
'
to consider
of Classification will occupy us when
come
we
of Science.
It deals mainly with the printhe Method
ciples
which
on
the
The
types offered by
ordinate
co-
to
his
individuals,the
comparison of numerous
comparison being registeredin definitions.
results of the
definitions
the
should
contemplation.
types is effected through
Nature
of these
co-ordination
real order
of the
careful
long and
As
student
the
are
relationships
selves
conceptuallyexpressed reveal themment
a
as
logicaldivision. Together with the attainattain
of a scientific classification of real things,we
a
logicaldivision in regard to our concepts. The whole
and the parts in the two cases, are widely different. The
of the
natures
is a whole
one
as
of many
concrete
The
treatise on Classification
singlegenericnature.
sion
belongs to the natural sciences ; that on logicaldivibelongs to the science of the conceptual order.
is
It is evident
Subdivision.
be
subdivisions
science.
For
it is
by
classifications
so
knowledge of
largea part in
a
are
itself
of
is called
division.
sub-
importance
to
that
subdivisions
systematic
mentally represented. Hence,
the elaborate
many
This
are
series of
ate
subordin-
of the
of division, may
in an
act
speciesenumerated
subjected to a similar process.
These
our
each
that
which
classifications,
sciences,is summed
up
in
play
logical
divisions.
1
Thus
13,
Aristotle
terms
" 6, XP*) 5^
...
the
ultimae
SieXet?
TO
PRINCIPLES
166
be
that
complete,
omitted.
and
Hamitic
into
men
leave
we
subclasses
the
divide
we
races,
out
condition
is
'
genus
as
'
nation
nations
if it be the
true, even
of the
plain that
etc., etc., it is
considered
the
mutually exclusive.
first rule
be
observed.
tions
by different determinagenericnotion, it follows that
is adhered
e.g., the
Aryan, Semitic,
is constituted
indeterminate
of the
be
if the
fulfilled,
division
the
Since
be
varieties,and
many
should
exhausted.
is not
genus
of
none
If, e.g.,
LOGIC
OF
are
to,
other.
into
Thus, if
is
divide,
we
English,French, German,
members
the
mutually
that certain
case
determination
one
of
this
division
exclusive.
individual
This
men
is
have
in more
than one
country.
rightto citizenship
mate
(4) Each step in a continued division must be a proxithis rule is
one
(Divisione fiatper saltum). When
The
rule would,
speciesare omitted.
neglected,some
for instance, be broken, if after dividingquantity into
should
at once
continuous
and discrete, we
proceed to
divide continuous
quadrilaterals,
quantity into triangles,
etc., etc.
By neglectingthe step, in which continuous
quantity is first divided into plane and solid,we should
omitted
all the speciesof solid figures.
have
a
" 7. Division
given
to
method
each
steps,in
by
This
Dichotomy.
division
of
of which
division
has
name
consistingof
successive
into two
is made
been
classes
bute.
given attriaccordingto the presence or absence of some
held
By thus repeatedly subdividing, it was
notion
that we
might arrive at last at a fullydetermined
of
this method
advocated
of the last species. Plato
the
Thus
definitions.1
of discovering
division as a means
definition
of man,
might be supposed to be reached by
successive
severelycriticized
Aristotle
hence
in most
of
subdivisions
some
mention
of
the
this
of
view
clichotomous
substance.
of
notion
Plato's, and
division
treatises.2
logical
1
8
Phaedrus, 266.
Part. Anim.,
I., cc.
2, 3.
is found
DEFINITION
Regarded
is
object, it
as
division
already know
must
unless
we
nothing to
that
divide
substance
member
Again
of
the
method
consider
Let
us
AB
and
Either
(i)we
Thus,
extent.
the absence
in
the
and
under
constitute
to
dividinga
thingsmust
this
class
of B.
absence
mere
be
the
case.
real
are
If this be
different
class.
class A into
there
differentiae.
specific
many
avail
know
not
in
of two
by
own
which
to
man.
which
on
that
their
that
to
invalid, because
One
they belong to
them
class
an
assignthe entity,we
should
we
know
objects marked
objectshave
for
is involved
what
know
to
of
corporeal, it would
into corporeal substance
basis
no
definition
is
is
non-B.
order
should
man
should
we
attribute,is
an
In
its definition
knew
167
findingthe
we
incorporeal substances
which
of
clearlyuseless.
of the
member
method
DIVISION
AND
these
so,
In all
species,and
ability
prob-
to rank
all
that
each
shall, at
we
case,
At
this rate,
very
dichotomous
our
We
step
of
existence
division
divide
the
is
might
into
men
men
might
length.
with wings (ifany) and men
without
wings.
Division
by dichotomy is ranked
by Kant
(Logic,
method
which
is applicablein purely formal
" 113) as a
siderations.
Logic,and which is entirelyindependent of material conMansel
has rightlypointed out that this is
to any
We
not
so.1
and
rational,unless
irrational
into
two
animals.
we
know
We
determinations
which
1
that
that
we
are
notion
Proleg. Logica,
there
divide
cannot
classes,unless
animal
pp.
into
are
any
irrational
rational
and
generic notion
193.
PRINCIPLES
68
"
8.
Various
its
which
processes
Divisione
are
calls
following
(2)
its
parts
'
is
colour,
Theol.,
I., Q.
quite
distinct
and
his
readers
its
other
the
de
other
The
parts.
in
from
the
Liber
to
into
into
the
mentioned
this
those
nexion.
con-
ated
enumer-
cit.,
shape,
Art.
8.
of
etc.,
of
e.g.
in
The
further
the
between
e.g.
an
soul
the
the
man.
object,
an
the
orange.
into
memory,
will.
'
ed.
of
from
between
signify
to
etc.
genus
'
rationality
qualities
the
between
signifying
76,
'
the
the
house
glass,
distinguish
we
employed
the
and
of
viz.,
when
of
partition
timber,
bricks,
of faculties,
between
op,
roof,
the
e.g.
fragrance,
Distinction
Boethius,
whole
in
slightly
as
and
of
intellect,
as
his
resolved
very
sometimes
Distinction
e.g.
of
that
seen
logical
Boethius
usually
as
distinction
(4)
division
of
distinction,
animality
term
(3)
have
rendering
is
"
differentia,
the
of
termed,
but
Metaphysical
'
kind
partition,
Physical
into
this
now
differ
We
list.1
his
in
of
whole
those
They
view
attention
are
Division.
analysis
so
the
which
in
(1)
the
between
difference
cases
is
With
parts.
of
Kinds
division
logical
LOGIC
OF
'
church
the
Migrie,
various
as
whole
col.
meanings
building,
of
body
877,
878
and
and
'
term,
church
faithful.
the
cf.
of
S.
Thomas,
Summa
'
CHAPTER
The
i.
discussed
Judgment.
of
the
Syllogism.
Categorical
the
both
Logic
It
of
for
remains
mental
(l.).
SYLLOGISM
CATEGORICAL
THE
"
XL
the
of
the
the
at
now
and
of
treat
mentioned
processes
have
Concept,
to
us
We
the
third
beginning
of this work
ence.
Infer(Ch. i, "2),viz.,Reasoning or Mediate
This
has
already been defined as the process by
which
from certain truths already known, the mind
passes
to another
truth
distinct from these.
The
two
principal
forms
of
inference
to
induction,
argue
the
general.
are
at
The
A
the
the
It is with
deductive
the
particular
or
of the
truth
of which
that
two,
'All
may
mammals
All horses
inference
from
In
to
we
An.
Prior
/., c.
Kei/j.evui'
as
proposition
a
necessary
vertebrates.
vertebrates.
it
the
does, of three
formula
"
P.
M.
P.
" 5.
2v\\oyiff(j.bsd" "m
rifravra
e" dvdyKtjsffvfj.f3a.lvei
i,
third
mammals.'
are
rdv
TI
"re/3oJ'
syllogism.
by which, from
these two
argue
are
the
as
proceed to
follows
Thus
is known
an
as
given propositions,we
Arist.
from
individual.
the
former
the
induction
passes
individual
the
inference
is defined
consequence.1
mind
the
particular or
from
and
present concerned.
syllogism
two
deduction
deduction,
In
respectively.
more
general
we
termed
are
\6yos
elvcu.
tv
sitions,
propo-
PRINCIPLES
170
LOGIC
OF
known
the premisses
are
as
given propositions
follows from
them
praemissae); that which
(Trporaa-eis,
the conclusion (o-viuLTrepacrju.a,
or
as
consequent.1
conclusio)
In all deductive
inference,we argue, as has been just
stated, from the more
generalto the less general. Hence,
be a universal proposiat least of the premisses must
one
tion.
of
lies
the
in the
And
essence
syllogistic
reasoning
that
falls
applicationof a general principleto a case
that
under
it. In the example justgiven,it will be seen
the generalprinciple,All mammals
are
vertebrates/ is
appliedto the particularcase of the horse.
It is evident that no
inference is possibleunless there
to the two
which is common
is a term
premisses. This
the middle
term (TO /*"ror).Aristotle
is known
term
as
for his selection
of this name.
gives us two reasons
The
two
'
middle
The
in
others
of the
one
is itself
which
term
(P),while
the
tained
con-
remaining term
he here
(S) is contained in it. The relation of which
The middle
whole.
part to logical
speaks,is that of logical
term is a logical
part in regard to one of the other terms,
A logical
whole in regard of the third.
and a logical
part,
as
we
of
" 6, stands
concept to one
in Ch.
saw
subordinate
cannot
be
by
meant
too
to its whole
10,
that
is
'
whole
'
and
'
part
'
general.
more
this
clearlyrecognized that
the terms
in the relation
It
is what
is
in this connexion.
cal
belongs,not to extension, but to the hierarchiof speciesand genus in the conceptual
subordination
order. When
we
predicateone term of another, it is the
is the predicate: the genus is affirmed
wider notion which
is subject
term
of the species. Hence, since the middle
of one
premiss,and predicateof the other, it is a logical
whole
part in relation to the term predicatedof it,a logical
relation
The
earlier writers
employ a different terminology, calling the
the
Quorespectively
premisses
sumptio (orsumptum) and the assumptio.
omnis
'niam
syllogismus ex propositionibus texitur,prima vel propositio vel
his quae
infertur
secunda
dicitur assumptio : ex
vocatur
:
vero
sumptum
'conclusio
Syll. Hypoth, (Migne, t. 64, col.
nuticupatur."
Boethius, De
1
Some
of the
"
two
'
844).
2
An.
Prior
,
/.,c.
KO.L
ry
4,
" 3.
dfoei
KO.\W
8t
firtrtu
peaov.
^aov pkv
Cf. also
KOJ.
c.
CLUTO
41,
ev
" 5-
d\Ay
nal a\/\o tv
CATEGORICAL
THE
in relation
Aristotle
view
the
to
he looked
that
extension, and
because
called
in extension
second
method
to
say,
middle-term
lay
between
not
cians,
logi-
syllogismin their
the
that
gives,is
This
name
others.
two
that
the
is of less
reason
It rested
us.
in this
many
by
Aristotle
detain
do
as
of the
by position.
stand
terms
the
which
reason,
and need
moment,
it
is such
term
the
the terms
on
171
predicated.1
syllogism ever
keeps in
of the
entirelyerroneous
(I)
it itself is
in which
typicalcase
It is
order.
middle
of which
term
in his treatment
the
The
SYLLOGISM
telian
the Aristo-
on
we
statingthe syllogism. Where
say
M is P, and S is M, therefore
S is P, he employed the form,
P is predicated
of M, M is predicatedof S, thereforeP
is predicatedof S.
character
the
as
Regarding a syllogismof the same
standard
type, the term which is subjectin the conclusion
is aptly known
the minor
as
term, and the term which is
the major term.
These
as
predicatein the conclusion
adhered
in negative conclusions, and
to even
names
are
in
other
of
found.
not
spoken
which
that
where
cases
of
the
The
major
the
as
major
which
minor
and
extremes
term
the
terms
is called the
minor
and
part, is
sometimes
are
(TO.aKpa).
occurs,
contains
of whole
relation
the
The
premiss in
major premiss :
minor
is called the
term
premiss.
A
distinction
and
form
the
three
of
is sometimes
drawn
the
between
matter
of the syllogism
syllogism. The matter
consists of the terms
and propositionsemployed in it.
The
form lies in the specialarrangement of the terms
in
follows
It
is evident
while
in
untrue.
that
conclusion
the
consequence.
be
formally valid,
regard to the matter, every propositionmay be
The greater part of the Logic of the syllogism,
is concerned
ways
with
in which
the
a
syllogismmay
form
We
alone.
process
of
treat
of the
reasoning may
be
ous
varicon-
1
An. Prior I., c. I, " 7.
Se eV 6Xy elvat Zrtpovere'pw xal rb /card TTOLVT^
TO
that
To
one
K.a.Triyopeitfda.1
thing is
darepov Odrepov Tavrbv cffriv.
say
in another
contained
be
that the second can
as
a whole, is the same
as to say
predicated universallyof the first.'
'
PRINCIPLES
17*
structed
OF
LOGIC
conclude
to
validly. It is chieflybecause
this important branch
of Logic deals wholly with the selfconsistencyof our
thought with securing conclusions
consistent with their premisses, that the Formal
cians
logiled to hold that Logic deals only with selfwere
consistency,and abstracts altogetherfrom the question
of truth.
The answer
to this contention
is that the theory
of syllogistic
form, is but one portion of Logic ; and that
in it,we
treat of formal truth only as a means
even
by
so
as
"
"
which
mind
the
from
passes
true
premisses
to
true
conclusion.
"
Relation
2.
It
Truth.
furnish
are
All
yet
owls
the
is
conclusion.
vertebrates/
minor
because
of the
be
with
the
the
from
it is M.
The
is true.
conclusion
per accidens
it appears
be true
must
that
because
is true.
For
" 3. General
Rules
of
is not
that
the
is true.
true, and
P,
so
nected
con-
that
Syllogism. The
misses
pre-
On
the
the
ment
arguconclusion
legitimatelydrawn,
in
implicitlycontained
2, " i, c. 4, " 13).
the
is
it is not
conclusion
argument.
argue
sure
mals
mam-
of this kind
conclusion
other
may
therefore
is false,
that
P, but
the
to
this occurs,
the
All
premiss
in which
conclusion
cannot
we
'
mammals,
is
assignedin
reason
premisses
I assert
that
alleged.
reason
true
way
diagram.
It is true
the
the
in regard
if I argue,
Thus
are
because
Hence
false
is said to
to Conclusion
true
easilyseen
is
of Premisses
tains
con-
the
following
PRINCIPLES
r74
incapable of sin,
thereforeSlaves
free
'
in the
Socrates
'
'
premiss civil
one
reference
in Ch.
of
case
equivocal.
But
the
to
'
8, " 4,
is
ambiguous
in reference
case
to
free,
not
are
word
of the
freedom.
Socrates
therefore
man,
is not
man
in the
free,are
not
the
Here
incapable of sin/
major premiss denotes the freedom
another
with
us
Slaves
example, given
is
Beings,who are
are
beings who
are
LOGIC
'
is meant.
illustrate what
'
OF
when
the
Man
is
species/provides
The
middle.
a
species,
term
is
real, in the
term
employed
other
in
arises.
Rule
2.
The
second
rule follows
immediately from
the
ence,
syllogism,which states that it is an inferfrom
two
in which
we
given propositions,
pass to a
shall see, forms
of
third proposition. There
we
are, as
of propositions.These
argument, which contain a number
not syllogisms,
are
though they consist of syllogisms. A
syllogismmust have but three propositions.
Rule 3. The
objectof the third rule is to guard against
It prescribes
known
undistributed middle.
the fallacy
as
that in one
premiss at least the middle term should refer
definition of
to
whole
the
The
of its extension.
reason
for this
is
ing
discover the relation existwe
syllogism,
the major and minor
between
terms, by comparing
It is therefore absolutely
the middle
with
each
term.
be the same
of comparison should
essential that the term
of comparing
have
in both cases, otherwise
means
no
we
buted,
is undistriWhen
the middle
term
major and minor.
refer
have no guarantee that both propositions
we
obvious.
to
the
the
same
In the
part
of the
This
extension.
accompanying diagram.
may
may
assert
be
with
seen
in
truth
concludingthat
Hence
is P.
the
term
to be
data, and
whole
extent,
about
error
As
minor.
sion
conclu-
case
occurs,
it is known
as
'
All
not
'
All
e.g.
Brutes
take
are
not
Illicit process
animals.'
not
are
term
of the
take
an
are
invalidity
example
is false :
therefore
men,
of
the
immor-
an
animals, Brutes
are
men
'
of the minor
we
its
illicitprocess
destiny.' The
is precisely
similar,save
which
in the
thereforeBrutes
manifest, if
is
When
illicitprocess
men,
immortal
lated
vio-
information
may
with
beings
are
be
it in
former, we
men
are
argument
an
of the
instance
an
takes
premisses gave
fallacyis termed
it be in the
destiny,Brutes
beings with an
of such
conclusion
Should
followingargument,
not
It forbids
in the
more
the
the
that
'
assert
the
though
major.
of the
tal
we
the
by
is, when
conclusion, that
'
negroes
premisses. It can
both as regardsthe minor and the maj or term.
distribution
major term receives illegitimate
is warranted
than
the
appears
substitute
'
our
ground
though
This
true.
'
All
fishes/
or
reason
beyond
to go
us
birds
4. The
Rule
'
'
'
as
are
happens in fact
proposition
if in place of the term
once,
'
in
justified
not
am
175
premisses,such
that
at
(I)
mortal/ give no
All negroes
are
men/
'
that
conclusion
for the
But
M.
are
men
Pis
that
M, and
5 is
that
SYLLOGISM
CATEGORICAL
THE
the
minor
'
All birds
by, No birds are viviparous,
No bipeds are viviparous.'In this
are
bipeds,therefore
syllogismthe premisses only,justifyus in concluding,
maybe
illustrated
'
'
Some
Rule
Should
of the
viviparous.'
5 forbids that both premissesshould be negative.
have
this occur,
of drawing a conno
means
we
clusion.
In a negative premiss,we
deny the connexion
bipeds are
middle
premiss.
term
If both
with
the
We
conjoined or
not.
recent
with
the
extremes
middle
them.
Certain
not
are
term,
cannot
contained
extreme
we
say
declared
have
whether
no
in that
be
to
nected
uncon-
of
means
they
paring
com-
found
are
validityof this
gives us the followingsyllogism as
an
exception
to
it
"
PRINCIPLES
176
What
is not
Carbon
metallic
Mr.
is not
Bradley
"
he
'
metallic
the
from
'
powerful magnetic
fluence.
in-
metallic.'
"
that
'
we
have
mind
have
proved
difficultywill be
proposition, Carbon
have
we
middle
no
is not
In
term.
what-is-not-metallic,' and
replaces this
easily
'
if the
it stands,
The
somehow
you
the
to
solution
as
major premiss
minor
of
denials
two
The
is taken
of
Prof.
it is observed
when
seen,
with
denial."
further
capable
capable
concurs
that
says,
is not
metallic.
is not
.'. Carbon
LOGIC
OF
in
the
proposition with
the
'
is a-thing-which-is-not-metallic,'
equivalent affirmative, Carbon
of rule.1
the syllogism concludes
without
and
breach
6. The
Rule
is
premiss
the
one
the
connexion
reason
of
affirmative,and
the
other
with
the
middle
extreme
one
of
connexion
asserted, the
is denied.
term
must
necessarilydeny
viz.
se.
that
The
middle
same
with
term
conclusion
it must
the
part of
involves
nected
con-
the
rule,
negative
this cannot
be
and
the
with
one
the
because
other
are
If the conclusion
extremes,
be
the
conclusion
extremes
connected
are
is
term
with
the
way.
of the two
7. This
Rule
that
two
similar
of them
both
because
in
the
negative,
extreme
of the second
truth
connexion
denies the
that
negative
premiss, is shewn
other
It follows
same
inter
the
When
is
one
nected
con-
is not.
possiblecases
them
by the preceding rules. Since there are but two
/ and
tions
0, the possiblecombinaparticularpropositions,
these
Of
and
hence
the
first //
combination
viz.
the
terms, the
in the
*
to
c.
The
contains
violates Rule
10
has
predicateof
middle
0.
the
and
premisses.
3.
thus
negativepremisses,and
The
limited to three
are
The
00
third
contains
term
one
distributed
no
gives us
breach
alone
term,
two
of Rule
5.
distributed,
But
that two
it is necessary
major, should be distributed
distributed
middle
is
requiredby
its solution
551) ; and
Boethius
refers
us
back
to
Alexander
of
Aphrodisias.
Rule
3 ; and
be
distributed
of
El, EO.
AO,
term.
EO
Since
disregarded. A I
be
two
be
distributed
Hence
term.
one
since
negative,
But
the
The
conclusion
distributed
one
AO
alone
term
cases
negativeE
both
be
contain
the
is
middle
in
the
necessarilybe
negativepremiss.
both terms
has
conclusion
distributed
must
there
El
must
is
conclusion
the
The
and
of these
One
may
term.
universal.
in both
universal
be
negatives,it
two
but
four, AI,
are
in the conclusion.
terms.
But
conclusion.
term,
must
term
therefore cannot
contains
contains
is distributed
term
no
premiss is particular,the
tion
proved by an examina-
one
is also
particular,
The
possiblecombinations
cases.
177
is also
major
that, if
rule
is
conclusion
(I)
needed, for,since
be negativeby Rule 6, the predicate
must
8. The
Rule
distributed
the conclusion
must
SYLLOGISM
CATEGORICAL
THE
distributed.
distributed
one
only be particular.
can
4.
usual supposes
that in
arrangement of figuresnow
which
of the
statingthe premisses,we are already aware
is to be the subjectof the conclusion,and which
extremes
The
the
"
Fig. i.
M
S
S
Fig. 2.
Fig.
3.
Af_S
Fig.
4.
5~P
N
PRINCIPLES
178
*
For
the
no
major
was
taken
which
the
account
and
term
LOGIC
logicians employed
centuries
many
which
in
OF
division
of
which
to
as
premiss
Nothing was
minor.
figures
contained
considered
save
"
B
AM
first of these
The
according
The
MB
AM
as
the
subject
system
arrangement
This
differs
It
B, the
the
to
make
we
in
in
now
the
which
vogue,
of
little from
of the
subject
is
predicatein
those
are
constitute
Theophrastus,
Aristotle's
own
its
premiss,
ing
which, accord-
the
a
conclusion.
fourth
of
figure.
discipleof
treatment
in Ch. 1 2, " 2
figures,in a point which will be mentioned
is still preferred by
The
Theophrastean arrangement
logicians.
is the form
eties,
vari-
necessarilyprovides two
conclusion,
that
was
or
term
the
MB
MA
however,
figures,
in which
forms
becomes
totle.
Aris-
of
below.
many
syllogism as determined
the quantity and qualityof its premisses. Since there
(ii)Mood
but
be
the
by
are
two
one
there
from
viz.
AA
IA
//
AI
OA
01
El
AE
IE
EE
OE
AO
10
EO
00
all of these
Not
EA
sixteen
combinations, however,
can
be
employed
of
the
excludes
four
in the
of the
excluded
sixteen, viz.
EE,
EO,
OE,
00.
tells us
that
by the rule, which
two
particularpremisses give no conclusion, viz. : //,
The
last of these had alreadybeen rejected
10, 01, 00.
Of the nine remaining cases, one,
the previouscount.
on
to involve
illicitprocess of the major
an
IE, can be shewn
Four
also
are
For
term.
SYLLOGISM
CATEGORICAL
THE
it contains
since
negative. A
and
hence
its predicate,
is distributed
term
no
drawn
conclusion
vitiated
by
from
combinations, which
examine,
in
of
be
can
El, and
the
rules.
rules of the
Figure
IE,
Therefore
needs
be
may
in
number,
possible
seven
A.
be
We
must
employed
Figures. Though, as we
eight possiblemoods, not all of them
are
employed
these
in
of the Four
each
in
the
premiss
moods
these
specialrules, involved
own
major
figures.
there
seen,
But
premiss.
major.
therefore
eight
contain
" 5. SpecialRules
have
the
of the
are
which
several
the
that
major premiss, I.
these premisses must
of the' combination
consist
now
in its
illicit process
an
necessitates
in the
possiblemoods
The
and
distributed
be
should
term
179
clusion
negativepremiss, the conbutes
negativeconclusion distri-
be
must
(I)
four
In
this
arrangement of
moods
those
section, we
figuresin
which
shall deal
its
terms
conform
with
the
succession.
i.
S_M
T~P
Rules,
be affirmative.
(i) The minor premiss must
(2) The major premiss must be universal.1
(1) If the minor premiss were
negative,the conclusion
would
be negative. A negative conclusion
requiresthat
the major term
should
be distributed
in the conclusion,
But
and therefore in the major premiss also.
the major
is predicate in its premiss : hence
term
buted,
it distriwere
the premiss must
be negative. Thus
should
we
have
two
negative premisses.
(2) Since the minor premiss is affirmative, the middle
term
in that premiss is undistributed.
It must
therefore
in the major premiss. In that premiss, it
be distributed
1
The
Sit minor
affirmans,major
us
these rules
vero
in the
generalis.
following mnemonic
hexameter
PRINCIPLES
i8o
OF
LOGIC
stands
excludes
moods
we
to
in this
be
drawn
the
letter
them, AAA,
from
and
AO, and
therefore
remain
viz.
figure,
with
them
express
AE
There
OA.
and
IA
moods
the
(i) excludes
Rule
in universal
the
as
A, AI, EA,
denoting the
EAE,
Rule
(2)
four
able
avail-
EL
Or, if
conclusion
All, EIO.
Figure 2.
Rules,
(2) The
P
be
(1) Since
middle
the
both
were
the
(2) Since
distributed.
It
is
term
predicate in
affirmative, it would
Therefore
in either.
negative.
be universal.1
one
must
is
conclusion
misses,
pre-
be distributed
be
negative.
negative,the major
therefore
must
not
both
be
distributed
term
is
in
its
In the
be
EAE,
Figure
AEE,
EIO, AGO.
3.
M
(i) The
1
2
Una
minor
negans
Sit minor
PRINCIPLES
i8z
however, if
may
is
that
The
of
name
given to
Fesapo,
the
They
clusion
premissesa conis nothing to prevent
premisses would
there
than
our
of course,
are,
of
known
ance.
import-
no
moods,
for the
and
Darapti,Felapton,Bramantip,
that
reason
could
conclusion
since
the
subaltern moods.
as
LOGIC
from
assertingless
These
warrant.
will,draw
we
particular;
from
us
OF
of
in each
the
them,
same
obtained
be
by a particularpremiss in
In
lieu of one
of the universal premisses employed.
Darapti,Felapton,and Fesapo, the middle term is twice
In Bramantip, the
is distridistributed.
buted
major term
in the premiss,and undistributed
in the conclusion.
The
termed
fundamental
are
remaining fifteen moods
syllogisms.
Aristotle held that only in the first
" 7. Reduction.
figureis the validityof our conclusion absolutelyevident.
when
the
of
one
syllogismis rearrangedin
mood
some
of the
other
or
premisses,
by the Scholastics,and
be defined as the process
by which a syllogism in
may
of the imperfect figuresis expressed as a syllogism
one
of the first figure.
This
process
The
the
was
called Reduction
of the
names
Mnemonic
lines,
"
ingeniousplan,so as
to which
figure,
they are
necessary
It will be
of the
four
to
observed
consonants
to
indicate the
to
to be
that
composing
the
the
of the
or
body
on
first
tions
opera-
begins with
These
F.
mood
in
result.
in
Celarent, Darii
the
given
constructed
moods
name
every
letters,B, C, D,
Barbara,
they are
achieve
signifyrespectivelythat
reduced
as
an
are
moods
various
of the
initial ietters
question is
or
one
Ferio.
word, the
to
Of
be
the
letters
THE
S, p,
m,
CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISM
employed
are
to obtain
to
tell
syllogism in
that
simpliciter]
signifies
the
converted
183
changes
of these
one
(=
be
what
us
must
(I)
are
four moods
quired
re:
"
premiss indicated
converted
simply.
preceding premiss
be
the
per accidens.
These
four
but
in each
therefore,
were,
denote
case
selected
not
Latin
the
trarily,
arbiof the
name
employed.
process
One
these
letters
We
methods.
second
will illustrate
examples
two
or
the
application of
figure:
Englishmen
Cesare
of the
"
No
All
Hottentots
The
letter
negroes.
Englishmen.
are
in Cesare
converted
be
must
negroes.
are
Hottentots
.;. No
are
tells
simply,
the
the
that
us
initial C
Celarent
major premiss
indicatingthat
of Fig. i.
The
"
The
No
negroes
All
Hottentots
.-.
The
to
S~TP
are
are
is not
Disamis, but,
to
it
Englishmen.
are
All
as
the
is in Disamis.
actual
final
by simple
murderers
Some
Here
the
murderers
Some
the
negroes.
the
unsafe
companions.
men.
unsafe
companions.
symbolic representation becomes,
men
are
we
have
conversion.
are
are
to
Here
resultingconclusion
of the syllogismin
conclusion
indicates,is shewn to be equivalent
premisses. Moreover,
Fig. i
the
followingexample
convert
/.
Hottentots
of the two
in
of the
conversion
No
PRINCIPLES
84
M
S
The
murderers
Some
Some
.*.
i M
P
i S
conversion
By
the
men.
companions
companions
unsafe
murderers.
are
are
this conclusion
conclusion
i P
are
unsafe
LOGIC
P^^M
S^-P
syllogismas expressedin
All
to
OF
men.
is shewn
to be
equivalent
Disamis
of the
syllogism.
This process, which
givesus a syllogismin the first figure
preciselyequivalentto the originalsyllogism,is termed
Direct
Ostensive Reduction.
or
There
are,
however,
two
moods, Baroco
admit
to
Baroco
valid.
are
in
the
Thus,
conclusions
take
may
we
in
the
Bocardo
and
following
syllogism
Baroco,
All whales
Some
are
mammals
Some
.-.
that
aquatic animals.
not
are
aquatic animals.
mammals
are
conclusion
If the
true, i.e. we
is false, its
admit
must
whales.
not
that
'
be
contradictorymust
All mammals
are
whales.'
We
form
now
All
mammals
are
All mammals
whales.
aquatic animals.
This conclusion
is, however, the contradictoryof the
not
mals,'
are
originalpremiss, Some mammals
aquatic ani/.
are
'
and
is therefore
false.
reasoning,for that is in
therefore be
premisses must
in the
But
the
the first
false.
error
does
lie
not
figure. One of
The
premiss
'
the
All
CATEGORICAL
THE
SYLLOGISM
'
aquatic animals
premiss All mammals
(I)
185
is,however,
given as true.
whales
is consequently
The
are
the erroneous
one
; and since it is false,its contradictory,
conclusion
of the Baroco
the original
syllogism,is true.
of indirect Reduction
be applied to
This method
may
whales
are
'
'
any
syllogismin Felapton,M
be
false,S
Barbara
syllogismin
with
is true.
We
the
conclusion
form
now
may
P.
But
and
the
If
P.
originalpremiss M e P,
follows that the suppositionS
It
S.
S
S
take,
us
eP
M
e.g.,
Let
process.
is inconsistent
is therefore
P
is
false.
false,and
that
is true.
Indirect
Reduction
for
Aristotle
however,
dealing
make
we
mosk, indicate
only method
with
Baroco
of
use
ostensively.The
is the
Bocardo.
mnemonic
the
employed by
and
and
operations for
necessary
treated
be
Faksoko
If,
Doksa-
the
direct
of
to Ferio
syllogismsin Baroco and Bocardo
the ob verand Darii respectively.The letter k signifies
sion
of the
combination
ks
preceding premiss. The
that the premiss must
be first obverted, and then
signifies
The
converted.
as
an
following syllogism will serve
reduction
illustration
Some
"
ministers
straightforward.
All ministers
are
privy-councillors.
not
Some
are
privy-councillors
straightforward.
/.
This
will become
All
ministers
Some
men,
Some
men,
not
are
"
privy-councillors.
not straightforward
ministers.
are
are
not
are
straightforwardare privy-
are
who
who
councillors.
*
Further
(An.
Prior
employment of
7, " 4) how
I., c.
to
that
he
should
Barbara
think
and
that
Reduction.
Darii
and
Celarent.
these
moods
Aristotle
Ferio
It may
may
also
be
appear
shews
reduced
us
spectively
re-
remarkable
gain anything by
reduc-
186
PRINCIPLES
he
tion, since
'
'
perfect
if
what
he
In
moods
and
the
that
the
the
be
to
have
longer
his
middle-term
universal
the
In
concepts.
in the
what
Aristotle's
in
of
process
The
method
of
cumbrous.
it in
be
moods
the
case
reduction
resort
become
can
this
reason
attain
not
standard
absolute
Aristotle
method
is
IfSiP
S,
of
one
is the
last
of
the
ferential
in-
intellect.
Darii.
to
employing
the
simpler
of
converted
view
we
lar
particu-
is
the
contains
minor
and
process.
particular
The
us
logical part
as
either
major-term
it.
seen,
give
inferential
related
are
be
alone
moods
the
among
will
reason
absolutely typical
and
three
being
as
universal
two
the
subject
But
syllogism.
the
logical whole, while
excludes
or
absolutely
middle
no
of
holds
them
them
explicitly recognizes
remember
we
LOGIC
OF
and
the
be
here
employs, is
possible. We
may
false, 5
ob verted
form
original premisses
illustrate
This
is true.
Pa's.
to
somewhat
may
We
may
the
syllogism
by
now,
in
PaS
Barbara
which
to
gives the
conclusion
or
S,
MaS
equivalent
5
Ferio
M.
as
which
render
arrive
at
that
Fig.
is the
2,
once
argument
a
student
is
an
syllogism
An.
reXeura.
the
2
in
he
not
are
of
Barbara
will
find
the
that
Law
pains
each
negatives
to
or
"
or
to
affirmative
how
great
clusion,
con-
portance
im-
an
we
at
see
figures. Every
type
of
whether
what
analyse
step
as
important still,
other
special case
may
quantitative
character,
of all the
in
at
this
we
and
More
consider
we
means
universal
the
figure excel
characteristics
limited
Fig. $.2
in
way.
of
under
case
subject
our
If
not.
a
short
advance
the
position
prois
mood.
KaffoXov
f'-^v
vo'irfi,i] 5e /card /*epos
proposition is the object of intellectual
in sense-perception."
particular
ends
An.
I., c. 5, "
Prior
qualitative
Physics, Ethics,
Euclid,
this
the
that
be
first
its
argument
the
(i) By
obtain
bring
we
does
them,
When
which
original premiss
precisely similar
has
the
other
conclusions
in
of
two
can
utility exceeds
of
we
to
Mathematics,
be
it
its
general rule,
It
all
Barbara.
attaches
that
in
by
in
viz.
to
in
only
possible. We
particulars as
are
fact, that
with
Not
superior
to
nor
dealt
inference.
conclusions
varieties
in
of
it
contradictory
of Pig. 1.
mode
be
may
" 8. Superiority
others
the
M,
15.
v)
cts
alaQ"]"ri.v
intuition
CHAPTER
CATEGORICAL
THE
"
last
the
the
is
Canon
i.
of
section
only
evident.
absolutely
the
a
de
Omni
stated
of
of
the
of
part
of
passage
ultimate
the
as
It
be
must
of
subject
The
which
as
is thus
principle
de
Pars
/., Lib.
from
I.
each
l^yS^
77
Q.
7.
I.,
Aa/3eti"rCjv
TOV
'
fjir)8cvbsuxrairrws.
'
'
when
not
The
there
is
definition
Some
valuable
c.
say
of
one
and
major
recent
de
note
in
An.
the
Mr.
Kad'
parts
et
in
of
As
the
Nullo.
Joseph's
of
it is
TO
ddrepov
the
Scotus
of
universal
says
slightly
Sup.
/cat
All
Lib.
are
the
gives
TO
Kara
is
attribute
of
None."
which
the
us
OTO.V
subject,
predicated
proposition,
(I.e.),it
(Logica
but
represents,
of
which
it is
quidquid
Karriyopelffdac
predicated
subject,
the
it
Xex^crercu
ou
in which
case,
9.
Scotus,
as
dicitur
differ
which
is
taken
subjecto
stated,
TT"VTOS
Kara
is
tali
lect.
Aristotle,
o5
of
/.,
be
may
continetur
sub
the
would
universaliter
subjecto
contento
attribute
the
significance
tali
8"
who
Quidqvid
Post.
Keyopev
an
give
made,
This
Thomas,
St.
in which
of
words
that
have
writers
omni
Thomas
premiss.
Omni
sub
de
forms
similarly
the
quod
various
" 8.
I,
theory
not
is
individuals.
school.
et
vTroKeifj.evov,
(quid nominis)
Dictum
onini
actual
We
explains
passage
the
the
no
predicated
St.
The
Prior
An.
in
Cf.
other.
Priorum,
found
The
x).
c.
3,
de
subjecto, negatur
aliquo
principle,
denial
or
of
John
Thomistic
the
subjecto, dicitur
aliquo
negatur
by
of
this
in
affirmation
given
of
on
his
does
it
every
based
is
of
that
collection
of
reasoning.1
noticed
the
fairly representative
de
of
universally
represents
expression
canon
carefully
regarded
not
accurately
his
though
Dictum
The
thus
be
may
(or denied)
affirmed
and
Dictum
fundamental
(or denied)
subject.
Aristotle,
inference,
it
that
It
figure,
the
the
process.
affirmed
thereby
the
of
be
to
expressed
of
name
they held
is
followers
the
be
to
inference
the
reasoning
gave
reasoning
is
subject
logical
This
Whatever
any
of
they
et Nullo.
principle
the
figure
of
Scholastic
governs
which
to
canon
first
the
conclusiveness
His
which
principle,
in
the
held
in
stated
We
Reasoning.
Aristotle
which
(ll.).
SYLLOGISM
Syllogistic
that
in
one
XII.
stitutes
con-
Nominal
universal.
erroneously
On
the
Introduction
187
identified
Arist., Cat.,
meaning
true
to
Logic,
of
p.
that
275.
c.
3,
passage,
"
with
see
PRINCIPLES
88
reduce
inference
to
OF
barren
LOGIC
for if the
tautology:
subject
of individuals, no
regarded as a
of them
taken
is requiredto affirm the attribute
singly.
The generalpropositionhas already affirmed it of each.
of
Such
judgments as these, which are reallya matter
called
Enumerative
judgments.
counting heads, are
the universal
In the Dictum
subject is the species or
This
as
such, the logicalwhole.
clearly
appears
genus
Man
is
if we
state the propositionin the genericform,
The
salmon
has
vertebrate/
scales,' The
nightshade
for
is poisonous/ Our
reason
employing the prefix
All/ is to emphasize the distributive force of the subject,
that our
not
to show
knowledge is to be viewed as the
It is possible to attain
result of an
enumeration.
a
knowledge of the specieswithout
knowing each member
have
We
cannot
of the class.
experimental knowledge
of all salmon, or all plants of nightshade.
of all men,
or
infer from
There
is therefore
we
no
tautology, when
of its parts.1
the logicalwhole
to one
that
all reasoning in Fig i, is of this
It is manifest
bute
attritype : the major premiss affirms (or denies)some
of a universal
subject in its distributive
tion,
acceptahave
lungs.' The minor premiss
e.g. All mammals
collection
is
inference
'
'
'
'
that
states
of
universal
this
Dictum
The
is
principle of
of
attribute
part of
1
may
That
this
from
the
The
whole
the
we
immediate
understood
as
in
subordinate
affirms
and
we
then
violate
the
question.
from
deduction
Were
should
conclusion
individual
generic whole,
the Scholastics
seen
an
or
is
individual
some
Contradiction.
or
subject.
of the class
attribute
and
class
some
to
assert
the
any
it of
some
deny
that primary law
terms
constitutingthe subject
extension, but as logicalwholes,
the universal
classes reckoned
followingpassage
from
in
Versorius
Parisiensis, a Scholastic
de Omni
When
dealing with the Dictum
Hispanus.
the two
et Nullo, he distinguishes as follows, between
expressions employed
by Aristotle (An. Prior I.,c. i, "8) of the universal proposition. Primo sciendici de omni
dum
est conditio praedicati in ordine ad subjectum
quod
sed
in toto
est conditio
esse
subjecti in ordine ad praedicatum, quia subPetrus
universali."
jectum est in praedicato sicut pars subjectivain toto suo
If the subject is a pars subjectiva of the
Hispanus (Venice, 1597), p. 217.
be viewed
as
a
logicalunity, and not as a collection,even
predicate it must
All.'
though it be qualifiedby the term
commentator
on
Petrus
"
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
PRINCIPLES
TOO
the
mind
LOGIC
OF
employ, it can
reasoning. We
hardly be
of
doubted, Figs. 2 and 3 as independent instruments
have
such
premisses as,
thought. Where
e.g. we
All heliotrope is sweet-smelling.
flower is not
This
sweet-smelling,
the negative premiss : we
need
convert
not
we
nize
recogin
that
conclusion
other
any
'
involve
heliotrope would
process by which
is not
That
is
only
found
in such
when
relation
This
the
to
each
the
of
the
conclusion
the
concepts
mind.
which
gether
to-
other,
of the terms
is not
But.
in the
process
three
objectof
flower
contradiction.
inferential
the
constitute
'
premisses result
the
connatural
the
than
themselves
as
give
to
of the conclusion.1
relation
logical
recent
It is asserted by many
logiciansthat Aristotle
in holding the first figureto be the only
in error
was
the inferential process is absolutelyevident.
in which
one
are
given for the other figures:
Independent canons
the
us
whole
the
and
of
Reduction
The
useless.
followingcanons
suggested.
been
have
process
are
is declared
those
among
be
to
which
"
"
"
No
argument
syllogisms in the
can
third
be
drawn
figure,in which
the middle
term
of Reduction
is
those
from
singular term
"
the
are
This
poor.
is not
an
is poor,
Socrates
is wise.'. Some
wise
inferential process
at all, but an
perience
appeal to ex-
The
mind
does not pass to a new
truth it did
particular case.
est vere
not possess.
Syllogismus expositorius non
syllogismus, sed magis
ad hoc
sensibilis demonstratio, seu
resolutio facta ad sensum,
quod consein
intellectualem
est secundum
quentia quae vera
cognitionem, declaretur
sensibili."
St. Thomas, Opusc. 43, De Natura
Syllogism*. It is in that manner
that it is employed by Aristotle in the proof of Fig. 3.
in
"
'
'
'
THE
SYLLOGISM
CATEGORICAL
(II)
197
the
distinctive attributes
inseparablefrom
that class
(ibid.)
has been
found
in
Considerable
difficulty
Fig. 4.
shall serve
which
as
canon
a
any principle,
Dictum
de
this figure. Lambert's
reciprocoruns
is
of
not
"
"
follows
If
this
is not
or
is
no
B,
Those
that
Bs
which
as
if C
:
are
or
who
syllogismfrom
most
of
be
to
appear
cases
theory
of
is
are
class
another
foreignto
in
taken
about
the
extension.
The
idea
that of the
any save
absolutely self-evident.
rejectsthe
merely amounts
Mill
'
whatever
'
those
the
"
is
this
which
is sufficient
bers
mem-
of the
2,
attributes.
questioned
to be
claim
ground that
propositionthat
the
on
of each
is true
objects,
" 2). He prefersthe canon
conceptual order
of
not
we
are
with
marks, but
principleis
The
be
to
are
be
figurecan
identical
to
canons
of that
of any
mark, is a mark
In regard to this it
mark
of."
mark
last is
concerned
and
"
certain
objects (II.,c.
Whatever
not
to
first
de omni
Dictum
of
is true
if the
character, it may
their
whether
it
canons
But
of extension.
logicalin
strictly
"
of his
nature
statement
mere
in
basis
the
on
the
the
to
the
of the
terms
to
"
ignorant as
In
inference.1
is a
generalproposition
'
are
or
for
C."
not
"
is this
B, there
that
or
no
covering
dis-
subjects
logicalprinciple
all.2
at
*
"
The
2.
Fourth
Figure.
The
Fourth
Figure
calls
for
It is
'
eadem
inter
inter
se
Si
ex
duobus
unum
cum
iertio identicum
est,
alterum
non
est, neque
se
esse
PRINCIPLES
192
treatment.
separate
of
inference.
of
B, B
It
the
which
mind
safely be
may
subordinate
A,
to
Fig.
with
is
on
the
and
the
with
conclusion
asked
A,
process
logical part
to
regard
as
never
simply
Fig.
is
in
part
(Braman-
first three
The
i.
this
in
moods
the
converted.
in
acts
that
of the
normal
conclusion
mind
Three
in fact
is
to
conclusion
invalid.
are
are
we
the
natural
no
'
subordinate
that
course,
is not
'
parity
of
asserted
of
though,
way
in
of
working
corresponds to
premisses tell us that
logical part
conclusion
LOGIC
It
The
OF
two
moods
remaining
But
(Fesapo, Fresisori)are not of this character.
they
need
therefore
not
be relegated to a special figure. Aristotle
(An. Prior I.,c. 7) views them as cases of Fig. i, in which the minor
moods
W--
premiss
is
be
can
the
universal
the
i M
The
more
merely
of the
is subordinate
the
four
different
to
that
Galen
till the
was
clusion
con-
but
the
in
major,
them
the
on
The
the
of
was
decadence
of
five
i, but
of
them
this
method
in
reckons
by
is
question
them
Fig.
1.1
as
did
in
mediaeval
the
apart
Scholasticism,
i,
conclusion,
moods
Moods
'
Fig.
valid
followed
rank
But
in
but
the
Fig.
first to
recognizes the
an
is
pendent
inde-
become
not
when
It
excessive
connexion
other
mnemonic
abnormal
Indirect
reasoning.
conception of
if they be
best understood,
mental
organization of our
lines (Ch. 9, " 3). In Fig.
and
discipleTheophrastus,
conclusion
adds
This
Aristotle's
establish
of the
system
was
of
premisses, and
we
his
by
normal
moods
termed
mode
attention
S.'
This
class.
prevalent
also
Aristotelian
logicians, who
stated
made
satisfactory. He
appear,
to P,' but
subordinate
to
premisses be converted
will be predicated of
term
arrangement
would
not
possibility,
Here, he says,
S.
it
was,
'
minor
'
"
eS.
viz. P
.-.
if the
obtained,
conclusion
M
negative,
either
lines
as
the
figuresof
considered
the
syllogism is perhaps
applicationto the
along the predicamental
in their
knowledge
i, employing
between
property
of the
given by
Petrus
species
on
genus
Hispanus
middle
as
genus
the
or
follow
one
some
this
term
hand,
higher
ment
arrange-
:
"
p.
"
THE
which
under
genus
Fig. 3
if the
only give
the
negative
the
same
holds
Form.
Expression in Syllogistic
valuable
of
some
books
which
Whenever
in
from
student
into
will
syllogistic
with
meet
may
in
ordinaryconversation.
general principleto
falls
which
particular case
the
reads, and
conclude
we
genera,
relation
last
The
throw
to
reasonings he
he
genus
two
This
lation
re-
particularconclusion.
exercise
the
between
both.
to
3.
it
193
shew
we
which
subordinate
(II)
fall under
not
course,
form
Fig.
do
relation
species is
same
find
the
the
shew
we
in
which
of
can,
"
it falls
species
between
in
SYLLOGISM
CATEGORICAL
under
is
that
principle,
syllogismmay
the
syllogistic,
though
be expressed in full. An
not
argument stated with its
full paraphernalia of major, minor, and
conclusion may
be compared to a specimen beetle set out for exhibition.
When
at largeand
to display
alive,it is not accustomed
argument
its members
in
do
Nor
premisses,and
the conclusion
not
or
the
state
for himself.
judgment,
examples will
as
two
'This
but
whose
This
may
No
to
to
written
omit
may
the
hearer
Or
to
member,
one
rhetorical
failure.
to
No
lack
One
ceeds
enterprise sucprudence.'
and
foresight
syllogism,
promoters lack foresightand
enterprise,whose
one
supply it.
put
we
word,
"
promoters
expressed by the
be
We
leave
Or
is doomed
undertaking
or
logist.
entomo-
question.
illustrate the point:
as
serve
for the
spoken
every
may
draw
in the
express
of the
we
either
we,
convenient
so
manner
prudence,
is successful.
This
undertaking is
an
whose
enterprise,
promoters
lack
sight
fore-
and
prudence.
undertaking will not
This
/.
The
following example
'
There
is
real
reason
judgments,
of
based
men
correction
The
since
on
which
is
complex :
common-sense
distrustingmany
the
are
general opinion
largely
for
mature
will
are
to
more
"
sense-perception,
mere
expression
syllogistic
general opinions,based
successful.
little
these
All
etc., etc.,
be
on
be
reflection
be
mere
without
the
affords.'
:
"
sense-perception and
distrusted.
O
out,
with-
Many
mere
Many
The
LOGIC
common-sense
on
.-.
is
OF
PRINCIPLES
194
common
judgments
sense
which
'
Can
any
That
his
was
will
This
general, whose
become
No
general
He
was
He
.".
of the
one
members
"
lay
the
of his failure/
cause
"
is disheartened
army
whose
disheartened.
was
army
is victorious.
victorious.
not
was
there
distrusted.
whose
general
army
; and
case
is
be
to
are
in which
Thus
I may
tube
of
we
from
argue
barometer,
from
reason
the
ascent
effect to the
of the
conclusion
the
to
the
Or I
subject to atmospheric pressure.
a
previous knowledge of the existence
to
pressure,
The
result.
the
in
ascends
The
.*.
may
mercury
the
of
atmospheric
as
necessary
the
form
"
given circumstances)
be subject to
tube, must
pressure.
a
barometer
is a
liquidwhich
circumstances
stated.
of
is subjectto
mercury
from
argue
the
exhausted
of
mercury
under
(under
an
atmospheric
The
the
in the
mercury
be
that it must
Regressivesyllogismwill take
liquid, which
of
ascent
cause.
barometer
ascends
atmospheric
pressure.
A
way
in
the
converse
"
What
is subjectedto
pressure.
/.
The
mercury
barometer
of the
will ascend
in the
tube.
In
Progressivesyllogismsit
expresses
The
be
the
cause
either the
is the
middle
term
which
cause.
from
which
immediate
we
or
conclude
the
remoter
to
the
cause.
effect
may
Thus, if
I argue
is
with
'
class
narrower
'
class
When
it in
reach
animal
an
place, that
It
way.
of
cause
is when
that
cause,
ourselves
when
we
know
we
thing,the
regard
we
the
of his sensation.
cause
other
any
precise immediate
takes
being
the
belongs to
belongs to
of
knowledge
our
he
he
is endowed
know
we
he
because
195
because
He
cause.
It is in his
animal.'
(II)
sensation
because
but
man,'
immediate
find the
we
remoter
the
wider
from
I argue
capable of
is
Socrates
that
man,
SYLLOGISM
CATEGORICAL
THE
the
why it
standing
fully under-
reason
as
it.
rise in
must
the
which
syllogismin
In the
the
But
four
of the
of
presence
efficient
the
on
enables
which
'
All
St.
/.
causes
to infer either
us
from
was
of
made
the
truth
to
Jew,'
which
on
name
the
reasoning.
another.
the
for those
have
is
major
For
enumeration,
they asserted
those
there
who
is
knew
They
major.2
consider
Syllogisms in which
which
taken
view
or
the
middle
term
the
the
right to
passage
the
is the
no
know
themselves
no
certain
by
who
based,
cause,
effect.
Paul
grounds
to
effect to
cause
is
each
the
based
reasoningwas
our
of
because
barometer
atmosphere,
argued
we
have
from
one
before
conclusion
is necessary
for
us
logicians,
belonging
immediate
cause
of the
bute
attri-
major, are
styled by Aristotle Syllogisms of the
Cause
("rv\\oyiff(j.ol
rov
5i6n). All others are classed as Syllogisms of the
Fact
TOV
It is Syllogisms of the
("rv\\oyiff/j.oi
8n). Cf. An. Post. I.,c. 13.
which
he regards as the true syllogisms of science : in them
Cause
alone
our
mental
expression of things is in harmonious
with the order
correspondence
of
constitutes
the
Nature.
2
On
the
two
kinds
of universal, see
Summa
Totius
Logicae, Tract
9,
c.
2.
PRINCIPLES
ip6
to the
as
Empiricistschool, to
method
OF
of
effect that
the
syllogism
inference,is formallyinvalid.
conspicuous recent
logicianwho
In
is Mill.
which
the
LOGIC
he
this section
has
most
this
tion
posi-
adopted
shall
we
The
the
notice
tions
objec-
the
syllogism,and
of the mind's
account
in reasoning which
he
process
regardsas presentinga more
satisfactory
analysis.
He
that the major premiss, if literally
preted,
interargues
is a manifest
begging of the question. In it,
the
assert
we
against the
urges
very
fact, which
in
the
conclusion,
we
The
state it, contains
conclusion, as we
professto prove.
reassertion of what
: it is merely a
nothing new
have
In
we
already affirmed in the major.
every
syllogism,considered as an argument to prove the conelusion, there is a petitioprincipii.When
we
say,
"
'
'
'
All
men
is
'
of the
'
is
'
tion, All
'
mortal, Socrates is a
are
'
therefore Socrates
man,
adversaries
syllogistic
theory,that the propositionSocrates
mortal, is presupposed by the more
general assumpmen
mortal
are
that
be
cannot
we
assured
of the
"
do
reach
not
from
the
Mill holds
in every
and
are
pass
to
deaths
be
found
person
Socrates
that
for
men,
in whose
we
need
not
do
so
We
and
John
the
case
not
grounds.
facts.
mortal, but
mortal
conclusion,
our
of
is
other
some
in individual
of individual
other
every
been
has
conclusion
case
the
from
the
are
argue
Thomas
experiment
of
whom
may
All
we
indeed
men
are
iota is added
one
the
"
'
earlest
who,
inferences
having
burnt
are
his
of this
The
nature.
.
fingers,avoids
to
thrust
child,
them
PRINCIPLES
198
is
a
is
is not
the
record
inference
tive
other
to
(forwe
judgments
the
'
'
ruminant
be
found
mentioned
number
that
that
deny
abstraction.
By
so
of
breathe
a
this
is
the
asserted
have
with
know
not
known
whales
infer it when
that
I
the
all mammals
imagine
facts.
breathe
But
in the
And
that
breathe
universal
major
so.
of
unaware
that whales
do
is
while,
us,
be
may
they are
of the
breathe
I made
as
inference
to
all mammals
whales
foundations
major premiss.
yet because
the facts
knowledge
our
that
with
the
the
or
intellectual
whole
learnt
not be aware
may
It is true
that
through lungs.
proposition,
assertingthat
lungs,covered the factthat
is to
Empiricist
of
away
fish,I
and
The
power
cut
that
whale
we
e.g.
cow,
is realized.
say
I may
said,
often
When
of the
be
well
major premiss may
through ignorance of the minor, we
conclusion.
tion
collec-
mean
The
the
to
have
we
enumera-
individuals,past, present
doing they
have
we
the
abstract.
we
possess
to
as
nature
nature
we
erroneous
finished, when
the
the
with
" i) relates,not
ruminant/
belongs to
in any
Logic.
(2) It is
in
instances,but,
future,in whom
school
here concerned
not
universal
proposition
facts, together with an
particulars.The true universal proposition,
are
is
cow
the
individual
regarded in
nature
The
say,
that
case
of
of observed
to
three
to
"
mere
by
error
(1) It
of
LOGIC
Hence
discover our
manifestlyuntrue.
we
reductio ad impossibile.
Our
criticism on
this theory shall be confined
issues
'
OF
through
inference
real order,
if I do
not
assertion
breathe
know
may
even
through lungs. It may
happen that I
both the major and the minor
premiss, and yet
be ignorant of the conclusion.
For unless I think
of the
two
I
premisses together
may
"
never
reach
unless
the
conclusion
them.1
1
Cf. An.
Prior
//., c.
I make
ax,
" 9.
the
involved
thesis,
synin
(3) If
which
find that
from
another, because
to
case
one
attributes.
But
propositionapplicableto
each
these
on
attributes
such
is
mathematics
of
inferences
The
The
of
arithmetic
triangle ABC
triangle GHI
triangle GHI
The
/.
not
in
in which
logicians
in
reasoning employed
in point they allege
syllogistic.As cases
enough in
following character, common
the
and
geometry
universal
case
every
Several
Reasoning.
much
that
maintained
have
sion
conclu-
our
present.
are
Mathematical
6.
"
argue
base
involves
and
We
certain
we
this
shall
we
they possess
is to say,
That
attributes.
common
about
conclusion
resembles
them,
particular which
universal propositionis involved.
a
another
199
inference, by
the
of
nature
particularsto
from
pass
we
the
examine
we
(II)
SYLLOGISM
CATEGORICAL
THE
recent
the
"
is
is
is
equal
equal
equal
to
the
to
the
triangle DEF.
triangle DEF.
to
the
triangleABC.
and
+
12=7
12=20
5,
8,
"
7 + 5=20
.-.
8.
"
clearlynon-syllogistic.Our
do not
data
give us a subject-attributerelation, but a relation
two
between
quantities. The argument if carefullyinspected,
the
And
the
three.
four
has
not
principle on which
terms,
of the syllogism,but the axiom
reasoning is based, is not a canon
the
same
thing are equal to each
are
equal to
Things which
Here,
it is
argued,
the
is
process
'
other.'
We
believe
this
view
to
be
In
erroneous.
first
the
place
the
data
most
'
'
'
process
reference
to
find
our
predicated
is
its
parts.
our
data
as
it has
must
conceptual
of
to
show
this
in
how
the
The
canon.
evolved
order.
the
Here,
But
in
the
may
not
is
argument
mind
has
if this be
form
:
"
no
have
must
as
be
need
tells
us
we
that
predicatedof
so
to
arrange
justifiedby
its
need
of
more
plicit
ex-
elsewhere,
which
Dictum,
logical whole,
practice we do
of reduction.
be
inference
the
Doubtless,
with
than
the
of
canon
justificationin
ultimate
what
itself.
inferential
formity
con-
this
ment
required of us, the argu-
PRINCIPLES
200
Any
quantities, each
two
and
ABC
and
other
third
same
defenders
Syllogistic. Some
than
have
syllogism
the
to the
equal
other.
are
" 7. Inferences
of
is
GHI
each
.*.
of which
equal to each
two
are
quantities
(as being equal to DEF)
third
of which
is equal to the
same
quantity.
GHI
are
equal to each other.
quantity,
ABC
LOGIC
OF
far
so
gone
maintain
to
as
ence.
thing as non-syllogisticinfermate
They represent the syllogism as the only legitihold
that
whenever
the
of reasoning, and
form
of necessity proceed syllogisticmind
infers, it must
to
restrict the term
inference
ally. If we
signifythe
derivation
of a truth
it is
from
propositionsin which
In the syllogism,and
contained, this is true.
implicitly
in the syllogism alone, is the conclusion
tained
implicitlyconin given premisses. But
is frequently
inference
is
there
that
used
in
wider
conclusion
such
no
to
sense,
from
include
facts
concrete
a
judgment. When
jury
acquit or condemn
they may be rightlysaid to
been
find out
to
but
propositions,
or
of
Their
of what
the
this
mass
dence
of evi-
of
of
case
is
in
inference
to
than
are
patible
com-
be, with
simply
at
certain
in certain
the
critical
Newman
Cardinal
the difference
more
has not
concern
facts
may
involve.
familiar
burglary,
length
between
in
the
the two
St. Thomas,
and
is
once.1
St. Thomas
facts, they
See
critical
is involved
conclusion
facts
form
the
of the
implicitlycontained
these
of
Mr.
(2)A
1
their
that
But
of Assent.
forms
of reasoning was
carefullynoted, by him
as
infer. But
They decide
incompatible, as
Grammar
accused
what
discussed
has
man
find out
to
innocence.
estimate
by an act
weighing
after
facts.
concrete
man's
is
what
derivation
also the
Summa
are
north
of
holds
that
as
these
is due
of C, therefore
west
inferences
are
effected
TheoL,
B, B
solelyconcerned
which
sense
and
with
is north-
particular
intellect
meet
of
west
the
It
seems
relies
It is
as
is situated
thing
*
what
the
to
of that
right
8. Mr.
Mr.
things which
the
prepared
us,
'
"
same
have
we
into
assertion
'
or
'
more
sist in
'
gether,
'
tion,
'
'
so
'
'
in
thus
by
is
It
of
this
'possibly be
The
from
view
'
in
as
'
"
'
known
invented"
useless
"
we
for
He
inference
differences
to
proceed
consists
depends
of
from
of
is,however,
common
content
universals
on
Hav.
proceed to
inspection we
is the
intuition
for
construction
either
can
at
in
with
real
content,
cess
pro-
Mr.
"
because
in
Mr.
respects
of the
Bradley
shared
identity
by
It is possible,"
one
exhibited
various
account
universal.
to
B,
operation
by
237-8).
"
datum
rules
down
we
we
this
models
in A
one
By
C,
"
to construct,
The
of
to-
construc-
Thus
C.
"
them
B, B
links.
one
"
are
whole
lay
to
points.
relation, and
(ibid.,pp.
construction.'
that
the
world
differences, and
He
denies
Bradley's respect for the theory of the syllogism is small.
major premiss is necessary in inference.
Begotten by an old metaphysical blunder, nourished
by a senseless choice of examples, fostered by
the stupid conservatism
of logicians,this chimaera
has had a good deal more
than its day."
The
syllogism itself like the major premiss is a superstition."
in
than three terms
Perhaps we may
who
more
cannot
use
say that a man
in any subject
reasoning, is unlikelyto do much
(Principles,pp. 228-9).
that
'
various
says,
'
'
"
he
If
taken
holding
the
"
Mr.
as
to
judgments
two
are
enlargement
No
process.
able
are
fasten
of
instead
connect
and
new
is the
same,
we
the
several, and
select
the
tells
axiom,' wherever
must
identity of common
premisses into one
mere
inspection.
our
conclusion.
part
We
terminal
the
...
'
of the
means
and
the
unites
Thus
we
some
regarding
term,
(ibid.,
p. 236).
and
to
"
be
to
extension
turned
discover
"
taken
Inference," he
of this
common
whole.
cease
same,
the
conclusion
our
into
whole.
"
same
so
the
identityof
is the
others, by
ing
"
have
C, B
"
'
'
"
they
the
to pass
to
permits the mind
The
two
are
premisses
data
these
will
on
conoperation
and
and
individual
one
'"consists
'
that
must
we
1
new
the
to
have
will
seems
virtue
relation.
judgments,
joining them
have
must
whole,
of
object,
view
theory
what
construction,' which
individual
an
the
ideal
an
his
inference.
the
on
'
effect
for
of
question
principle that
(Principles,
p. 264). In
two
premisses with a
rests
principle.
an
itself to
The
Inference.
(Ch. 8, " 5)
reader
closely connected
"
of
other.
Universals
to
as
first
equal
are
in
as
section, the
right
entity, is
third
last
be
to
cases,
the
locallyto
of
right
in these
in the
201
him
believe
we
self-evident
but
Bradley
extent
is
that
entity, as
equal to each
are
"
by
that
(II)
that
considered
unexpressed,
an
on
these,
to
indubitable,
inferences
self-evident
which
regard
be
to
mathematical
mind
In
C, etc., etc.
mistaken.
SYLLOGISM
CATEGORICAL
THE
"
"
"
PRINCIPLES
202
'
the
'
shut
'
from
contents
vading
their
identical
inference
through
Socrates
good
both
(ibid.
As
we
be
can
is
term
is
identity,
is
The
there
note.
reader
from
was
in
any
order
the
abstractive
an
which
that
Greek
to
to
us
be
since
be
may
enables
with
objects
a
that
in
these
basis
the
intellect,
for
Scholastic
syllogismi
we
them
us
which
to
vading
perceptual
con-
cal.
identi-
not
represent
concept
all
the
and
similar,
of
and
by
real
the
are
which
things
united
of
power
reminded
process
that
are
things
the
universal
provides
need
view
varieties
regard
inferential
this
confusion
the
real
This
not
therefore
universal
same
individual
thus
will
out,
on
of
concept.
and
pointed
the
the
virtue
valid
Greek,
based
In
in
in
argue
the
of
example
we
per-
are
syllogism
when
as
name,
the
in
they
simplest
finds
he
on
under
common
applied,
190,
and
brought
prescind
good
already
statements
that
proper
have
But
200).
p.
order.
can
universal
The
which
not
are
depend
of
universal,
2).
p.
proceed,
we
but
selves,
or
II.,
LOGIC
which
to
respective
(Logic,
middle
and
character
'differences"
the
which
within
up
OF
it
to
by
make
be
may
inference.
authors
expositorii:
denied
see
p.
CHAPTER
HYPOTHETICAL
"
which
both
propositions,
both
as
than
is
as
the
denying
formulas
the
the
is
denied.
Ex.
If
i.
Ex.
2.
the
is
is
B,
is
B.
.-.
is
D.
If
is
B,
is
not
D.
is
not
B.
of
the
/.
affirmation
The
it
the
modus
tollens
respectively,
of
the
To
syllogism,
posit
sublate
to
It
1
these
is
Posito
antccedens.
more
the
two
These
are
which
consequent
convenient
antecedente
ponitur
2,
the
is
B,
is
B.
is
D.
is
B,
is
not
is
not
being
is
thus
is
is
to
to
to
posit
the
D.
is
D.
D.
B.
denial
of
mixed
modus
and
syllogism),
syllogism)
the
canon
"
the
sublate
is
the
from
stated
Ex.
in
the
as
derived
employ
consequens
of
hypothetical
destructive
consequent
the
known
hypothetical
names
following
The
moods
antecedent
the
and
antecedent,
antecedent
the
the
(or the
If
or
/.
constructive
the
If
or
D.
is
it
hypothetical syllogism.
(or
Ex.
.'.
constitute
consequent
ponens
D.
premiss
minor
reasoning
the
in
premiss
major
major.
of
character
is affirmed
antecedent
i,
the
the
of
consequent
show
the
affirming
either
The
Syllogism.
Hypothetical
and
portance
im-
less
far
of
is
is
syllogism
the
This
If
syllogisms.
character,
proposition,
hypothetical
are
syllogism, in which
proposition
categorical
or
Mixed
hypothetical
this
Hypothetical.
the
is defined
latter
premisses
hypothetical
of
are
Pure
the
termed
are
premisses
known
of
in
Syllogisms,
Syllogisms.
Hypothetical
or
one
SYLLOGISMS.
DISJUNCTIVE
AND
Mixed
i.
XIII.
consequent
the
antecedent.
terms
sublato
'
posit
consequente
and
;
*
'
and
tollitur
PRINCIPLES
204
'
OF
LOGIC
'
For
antecedent
the
contain
may
'
affirm
deny.
in this
and
negative;
'
and
case
could
the
by
If
only
is
patient much
/.
He
is not
He
will
Here
skilful,he
not
this
be
to
denied, the
patient much
antecedent
observed
that
will
conclusion
by
be
the
will
this
cause
pain.
cause
It is further
is
is illustrated
feature
skilful.
posit the
we
This
followingsyllogism,
doctor
the
confusion.
cause
pain.
negativesentence.
when
the
the
consequent
not
contradictory,
it denies.
Thus
in the
syllogism,
If all
men
of
sanction
The
by the highestmotives,
punishment would be unnecessary.
of
sanction
that
only conclude
It
highestmotives.'
can
the
by
that
none
There
liable.
are
fact
it may
well be
to
the
that
the
other
some
will not
to
Similarly,
no
ground
We
for
the
denied,
consequent
take
we
for
place,but
I cannot
argue thus :
he will fail to hit the bull's-
hit
the
bull's-eye.
the
truth
of the
concluding to
the
consequent affords
truth
of
the
cedent.
ante-
possesses
real
merit,
literary
read.
widely read.
possesses real literarymerit.
It will be
be
can
damaged.
cannot,
widely
/. It
actuated
these
result may
same
cause.
fail to
assert
If the novel
falsityof
damaged,
eye.
His rifle is not
us
not
fallacious to argue
antecedent
the
to
If his rifleis
/.
are
be
would
fallacies to which
that
conclude
He
men
syllogismsare
These
cedent,
are
(i) the fallacyof denying the anteand
(2) the fallacyof affirmingthe consequent.
cannot
owing
Some
unnecessary
actuated.
so
two
are
the
From
is not
punishment
'
we
the
actuated
were
it will be
PRINCIPLES
206
all the
observed,
is of
the
form
is D,
If A
is B,
is D.
If A
is B,
is F.
If
.'.
LOGIC
OF
propositionsare
"
is F.
the
gards
no
hypothetical proposition admits
variety as rebut
is
both
affirmative
or
quality,
quantity
necessarily
form
and
no
more.
singular,this syllogism has but one
Since
and
"
Reduction
2.
of
modus
syllogisms,the
these
reduced
be
consequent for
the
for the
antecedent
substitute
to
the
antecedent, and
negation of
negation of
the
Modus
Modus
If A
be
expressed If
.-.
is B.
is D.
It
will
.-.
be
that
seen
second
'
conclusion
the
tollens,since
the
the
the
form
is
tollens
D, A
is not
not
versa.
Thus,
consequent.
ponens
is B, C is Dt may
In
culty
diffi-
without
ponens may
modus
tollens,and vice
the
required is
is
All that
to
Syllogisms.
Hypothetical
B.
is B.
is D.
is
Z)/
Modus
true
is
contradicts
the
of the
major premiss.
to categorical
Reduction
said
form. It is sometimes
be reduced
to categorical
that all these syllogismscan
form.
In regard to this point, the essential difference
antecedent
the
between
classes
two
of
proposition
must
be
borne
The
cepts
categoricalpropositiongives us two conrelated as
subject and attribute : the hypothetical
propositiongives us two judgments related not as
tion,
as
a
thing and its determinasubject and attribute
and
but
as
reason
safely
consequent. It may
in mind.
"
be
said that
to
do
in
the
to
express
violence
The
to
in terms
our
opium habit
facultyis
one
thought.
followingexample.
If the
/.
the
whole
is
of the
This
appears
other, is
plainly
medical
deluded.
medical
facultyis
not
deluded.
The
naturally be
HYPOTHETICAL
as
sometimes
achieved,
of the
case
The
"
is
innocuous
being
medical
of the whole
case
habit
opium
whole
of the
case
follows
as
207
result, it is true, is
categorical.The
expressed
The
SYLLOGISMS
DISJUNCTIVE
AND
medical
deluded
facultybeing
suppositionnot to be admitted.
of the opium habit
is a
.'. The
case
being innocuous
suppositionnot to be admitted.
But
it is lightlyurged that the altered major premiss
has no
meaning, unless it is translated back into its
hypothetical significance.The latter clause does not
The
mind
of the former.
attribute
an
really express
is
understand
must
the
whatever
called.
The
the
there
Hence,
employ.
so
be
clauses
two
and
reason
as
clumsy phraseology we
here
is
mental
reduction
no
the
remains
process
quent,
conse-
elect
to
properly
It
same.
the
only that have been changed. And
result of the change is thoroughly misleading,since it
which
induces
to regard as
are
identical, processes
us
fundamentally distinct.
words
is the
"
junctive
DisjunctiveSyllogism, (a) Import of the Dis-
3. The
of the
consequence,
that
relation
genus
cannot
has
species,and
its constituent
to
understood
be
been
till the
explained.
The
nature
in
of
disjunctive
be termed
the
propositionis of two kinds. One may
In it the subject is a
Disjunctiveof Logical Division.
junctive
genericwhole, while the predicateis formed by the dis-
enumeration
form
of
the
The
of
judgment
kind
already.
of Ignorance. In this we
more) predicateswhich
other
subordinate
the
has
may
been
be
affirm
we
parts. This
discussed
termed
that
one
enumerate,
the
out
sufficiently
Disjunctive
of two
(or
belongs
to
the
PRINCIPLES
208
Our
subject.
the
that
do
we
knowledge
lies with
truth
know
not
OF
with
LOGIC
is sufficient
of
one
:
e.g.
assert
to
us
alternatives, but
these
'
which
for
This
is either
curve
'
circle
or
an
in a disjunctive
Logicianshave disputed as to whether
of the disjunctionare
mutually
judgment the members
In
exclusive.
Q,' do we intend
particular5 may
the
to
is
first class of
evident.
quite
each
from
other.
ignorance,it would
gives us no
must
be
very
be understood
to
exclude
be
both
we
is P
suppositionthat
the
at the
'
assert
time
same
In
or
some
regard
the mutual
exclusiveness
disjunctives,
The
be
distinguished
species must
in
the
But
regard to
disjunctivesof
the
that
seem
or
very
exclude
of the sition
propoHe
If I say
form
mere
the
point.
painstaking/ I
suppositionthat
on
assurance
clever
to
when
words,
other
the
'
can
the
hardly
person
Often
the members
however
question may be both.
formed
of the disjunctionare
by repugnant terms, e.g.
have
either bay or chestnut.'
Here we
horse was
The
exclusion : but it is not due to the disjunctive
mutual
in
'
form
as
such.
Syllogism.
(b)The Disjunctive
This
may
be
defined
as
It is to
be
noted
that
regard to the
proposition. It
Ignorance alone.
respectivelythe
in
The
form
Ignorance.
'Either
syllogismhas
first of the
is
concerned
with
argument
modus
ponendo
is JB,or
forms
two
The
The
tollendo ponens.
this
the
has
two
tollens
affirmation
C is D,' is also
in
a
the
case
application
of disjunctive
Disjunctive of
no
moods, called
and
the
minor
of the
modus
premiss
Disjunction of
SYLLOGISMS
DISJUNCTIVE
HYPOTHETICAL
AND
of
alternatives,gives us
of the two
one
tollens
is either
is P.
is not
in which
be
the
conclude
is
always valid.
of the
both
tollendo
is either
is not
is
other.
The
"
ponens.
Q.
or
Dilemma
be
sible
impos-
alternative
one
tollendo
is
hypothetical and
the
P.
of
presence
The
modus
the
from
cases
Q.
Otherwise
Dilemma.
" 4. The
which
tollens is
of the
absence
the
illustrate these
Modus
exclusive.
to
in
tollendo
.-.
members
mutually
to
Q.
or
Q.
ponendo
modus
The
an
ponendo
tollens.
ponendo
Modus
of
the modus
followingformulas
The
ponens.
.'.
denial
the
209
ponens
argument
an
the
disjunctive
are
arises from
The
its effectiveness
as
rhetorical weapon.
the
alternatives
disjunctiveapparently exhausts
the adversary ; and
the
to
hypothetical, which
open
follows,shows
unwelcome
this
rhetoricians.1
Hence
first
was
Where
the Trilemma
where
it is not
analysed
three
leads
of them
one
conclusion.
argument
have
each
that
and
alternatives
him
to
an
that
surprising
explained by
offered, we
are
Like
other
the
of
that
the
of the antecedents
one
consequents
Constructive
Simple
or
and
Complex.
consequents of the
In
the
manifest
no
Complex
that
in
question of
two
must
be
be
must
false.
the
Destructive
In
the
Moreover
Dilemma
both
Simple Constructive,the
hypotheticalclauses are identical.
the
1
See
be
may
Constructive
a
that
true, or
antecedents
Ueberweg, "
being
identical
123.
P
It
can
:
is
be
for
PRINCIPLES
zio
they
were
in
the
In
minor.
is the
the
LOGIC
be
not
asserted
disjunctively
destructive
form,
The
case.
; the
formulas
could
they
so,
OF
Simple Destructive
Complex Destructive has
their
show
varieties
Constructive.
(1) Simple
but
has
The
two.
cedent
ante-
one
following
is
Either
is F
B, E
is
D, E
is
and
if
is F.
B,
C is D.
or
is F.
opposite
"
If A
/.
the
If A
is F
B, E
is
and
if
C is Z), G is #.
Either
B, or C is D.
Either E is F, or G is #.
G
If ^4 is B, E is F, and
/.
Destructive.
(3)Simple
is
is #.
Either
Destructive.
(4) Complex
^4 is not
H
is
(i) We
notorious
to
prove
the
into
If
and
if
is
is H.
is not
F,
or
H.
^4
is
is not
B,
not
or
D.
structive
Simple Conin the
Dilemma
Empson, the
by which
argument
agent of Henry VII., is said to have always been able
that his victim
was
capable of paying a large amount
find
may
treasury
the
accused
made
him
is F
B, E
not
Either
is
B.
is Z), G
Either
/.
JP, or G
H.
not
.*.
is not
"
suitable
illustration
of
the
"
lives
very
at
rich
small
a
:
if, on
his
large household,
rate, his
the
savings
other
expenditure
hand,
proves
have
must
he maintains
him
to
be
wealthy.
But
he lives at
either
small
rate, or
he
maintains
heavily to
the
large
expenditure.
He
.*'.
is rich,
and
king.
piece of reasoning was known, as the reader will remember,
which
is a strikingparallelto the
as
Empson's fork,' a name,
as
being impaled on the horns
expression,which
speaks of a man
"
consequently
can
pay
This
'
"
of
dilemma.
alternative
The
argument
is selected, the
leaves
result
is
no
escape.
Whichever
equally disagreeable,
(2)
As
Tertullian's
take
may
Marcus
by
crimes,
committed
have
Unfortunately
neither
justice nor
of
offence,
unjust.
or
Nero
the
to
much
weighed
have
reason
public
no
day,
present
with
the
cutors
perse-
Church.
the
(3) The
of
time
the
from
not.
or
committed
irrational
is either
conduct
Your
"
them.
punish
to
unjust
permit
to
we
employed
Christians
the
refusal
If
/.
methods
the
of
persecution
his
Christians
the
Either
against
argument
in
Aurelius
211
Dilemma,
Constructive
Complex
of the
example
an
SYLLOGISMS
DISJUNCTIVE
AND
HYPOTHETICAL
following may
illustrate
to
serve
the
Simple
tive
Destruc-
"
If he would
Scylla
either
But
the
pass
and
straits
he
unharmed,
must
both
escape
Charybdis.
he
will
not
he
Scylla, or
escape
will not
escape
Charybdis.
the straits unharmed.
pass
example of the Complex Destructive
He
/.
will
not
(4) This
given by
some
authors
If he
were
he
intelligent,
; if he
arguments
either
But
or
/.
Either
The
student
Simple
is
that
see
of
himself
own
his
his
wrong.
worthless
in the
the
the
The
Destructive
be
If A
is
is not
Z),
is not
B.
According
to
minor
this is not
both
nor
our
is
denial
not
An
antecedent.
denied
Z), or
If A
the
in the
E
of
one
is
were
or
necessarily
argument
consequents
minor
"
is F.
is E, F.
definition, which
premiss
true dilemma.
few
are
'
reason
constructed, in which
B, either
the
Dilemma,
:
disjunctive
premiss would
minor
falsityof
that the
In
is F.'
are
of them
that not
honest,
were
not
the worthlessness
see
he would
copulative,not
and
disjunctive,
.*.
would
differs in
of course,
can,
are
form
and
two
involve
"
Constructive.
B, C is D
other
will observe
consequent
the
is
arguments
himself
in the wrong.
seeing it, he will not own
he is wanting in intelligence,
he
is dishonest.
or
Destructive
the
he does
Dilemma
as
essential
It should
postulatesa
to
the
however
junctive
dis-
argument,
be noticed
logicians(e.g.Hamilton, Thomson,
Ueber-
PRINCIPLES
212
LOGIC
OF
tion
adopt a different definiThus
Mr. Joseph (Introd.
to Logic,
of the argument.
"an
as
argument offering
p. 331) defines the dilemma
'alternatives, and proving something against an adverThe
in either case."
point is not of first-class
sary
have
quires
repreferred the view, which
importance. We
minor
the disjunctive
premiss,since the separate
it to be such, and
hold
etc.),
weg,
'
should
form
this
of
treatment
be
argument
and
one
the
demand
to
seems
that
its
same
We
have already called
" 5. Answering the Dilemma.
of the Dilemma
to the
attention
to the great value
that attention
It is,therefore,not surprising
rhetorician.
should
be
been
have
answered.
paid
Three
to
the
ways
manner
of
in which
dealing with
it
it should
are
merated
enu-
"
(1) Taking
his
he
it
arguments
them
knew
be
to
invalid
as
that,
on
the
contrary,
valid.
that
must
liberal candidate
case
he
would
either
vote
in
some
for
the
conservative
election, and
materiallyinjure his
that
business
or
in
the
either
prospects
at
the
time
of
the
election.
PRINCIPLES
2T4
This
argument
the
If
of
terms
But
I
.*.
it
the
by
of
been
in
the
said
of
that
this
original
of
suggested.
is
in
"
free
am
decided
favour,
your
should
question
be
it
the
by
favour,
my
court.
decided
independently
have
puzzle
if
discharged
case
should
terms
with
dealt
be
the
follows
as
favour,
your
:
of
order
knotty
it
in
agreement
either
any
this
Perhaps,
by
must
in
am
How
the
free
am
decided
is
LOGIC
Euathlus
by
met
was
case
OF
my
debt.
be
solved,
case
my
still
should
various
judges,
in
dubious.
have
solutions
we
favour.
contemplated
not
and
But
The
is
was
compact,
it.
or
told,
are
been
to
the
left
the
undecided.1
case
For
authorities
list
where
of
the
they
more
are
famous
of
found,
vide
such
dilemmas
Hamilton,
with
Logic,
references
I.
466.
to
the
CHAPTER
XIV.
INDUCTION.
"
i.
Nature
The
of
Induction.
In
the
chapters on
length with
the
of
of
the
and
necessary,
therefore
universal,
the
subjectand
predicate,appears on
themselves.
Every object
notions
of
nexion
con-
analysis
which
the
individual
Here, it
Our
legitimatederivation of universal
laws
from
cases.
at
once
there
appears,
experience
is
limited
215
is
to
tion.
problem for solua
comparatively
PRINCIPLES
216
small number
hold
we
of individual
ourselves
of nature, which
observed, but
'
that
say
floats in
of
of
law
relation of
kind
of
examination
effect is found
cause
few
occur,
of
although
in
effect,is
potassium
the
number
compared
viewed
hold
with
It
is made.
we
not
are
that
to
cause
expressinga
as
in
is it that
which
ourselves
to
certain
effect
that
is in
to
a
are
we
fact the
circumstance, which
some
it
certain
which
after
in
justified
attributingthis
instances
these
All
cases
Now, when
we
It is when
name
'
We
refer.
we
instances
law
of the effect,and
reason
be
effect.
universal
assertinga
giving the
to
have
we
class.
assertion
which
may
cases
law
carefullytested observation
sufficient to justify
universal
a
to
of nature
and
universal
the
is held
cause
the
instances,
same
infinitesimal
which
that
of the
Every
is
of
singlecase
certain
of the
combustible/
are
observed
happen
conclusion
the
in many
even
a
Yet
cases.
members
All diamonds
full number
may
LOGIC
in assertinga
justified
embraces
not merely the
all other
instances
the
OF
is found
in
connexion
with
the
not
characteristic
A,
neglectingall
that
individuals,
we
is very
which
many
it
belongs
affirm
different
among
which
by
that
from
is
the
to
as
reason
effected
instances
such
and
then
simply
produces a.
as
This
object,
saying that a concrete
other
qualitieshas the quality A9
INDUCTION
is the
A
of
cause
from
proceeds.
object
no
of
abstract
we
universal
this that
it is from
assert that
we
quality,namely
one
But
it is
the
For
a.
217
individual
as
Our
concept.
stracted,
ab-
is thus
that
it is
is
statement
that
not
non-essential, when
the
Induction
of
difficulty
practicalrather
The
from
mind
does
not
But
as
of
the
admit
the
laws
of
sense
of science
is
the
easy
no
physical order
be
therefore
may
to
may
does
the
tell us,
the
as
to
The
matter.
syllogism.
discovery
complexity
circumstances1
is
prodigious: the
operation of natural
causes,
multifarious, and
said
of the
passage
universal
principle,
varietyof forms,
history
affect
which
true
logical. The
than
data
the
universal
of
the
discovered
have
relation.1
causal
be
we
their
accurate
so
are
determination
rounded
sur-
that
the progress
of
difficulties,
by so many
human
at the
knowledge is slow, and its victories won
of prolonged toil.
culties
diffiWe
illustrate the
cost
may
of determining a causal relation by an
example.
Let us suppose
that a certain herb
produces favourable
results on
patients sufferingfrom a particularillness.
it therefore
be assumed
that
Can
the
plant possesses
definite
curative
propertiesin regard to that illness ?
May there not be something peculiarto the constitution
of the patients in question, owing to which
the result
1
Cf. Ueberweg,
" 129.
'
'
For
'
'
'
'
'
the
"
The
formation
of notions
of valid
according
to their
inductions
great number
is very
closely
essential attributes.
a
causal
is formed
with
nexus
on
this
this comes
From
the
depends the validity of the induction.
logicalright to refer properties to the whole species which have been observed
of a species,in so far as they are not evidently conditioned
in singleindividuals
causal
by
mere
nexus
individual
relations."
PRINCIPLES
2i8
is
OF
LOGIC
in
be
we
the
that
sure
ailment
the
would
discover
alone
Even
example
how
us
in
It is often
the
so
All relations
in other
or
different climate
plant
in
such,
as
can
or
and
it,to which
effect should
attributed
be
suffice to show
when
us,
is essential
from
we
is
what
physical process.
stated
This
the
and
medicine
the
Induction
that
great principleof
devoted.
to
curative
consideration
the
in
same
separate what
to
non-essential
on
the
difficult is
undertake
the
between
specialconstituent
some
to which
an
be
result due
Further, is the
we
relation
of
the
which
Uniformity of Nature,
The
stated
and
to
will be
follows
as
constant
:"
uniform ;
will under
cause
same
chapter
next
our
be
principlemay
and effect
are
of cause
words,
depends altogether
the
same
circumstances
and reciprocally,
;
always produce the same
effect
kind are the results of the same
of the same
effects
who
The logicians
tell us that Induction
cause.
depends
this principle,
on
ployed
usuallysignifythat it is actuallyemin the inferential process by which
arrive at
we
universal
conclusion.
formity
our
They assert that the Uniof Nature
is the major premiss of all Induction,
and
that our
conclusion
is reached
by a syllogism of
the followingtype :
Every relation of causalityis constant.
"
and
and
cause
/.
The
in
the
instances
examined,
are
related
as
effect.
relation
between
and
as
cause
and
effect
is constant.1
It is easy to see
that this explanation is erroneous.
The minor premiss in this syllogismis itselfthe statement
of
universal
instances
1
This
examined
formula
syllogistic,since
in the
conclusion.
Logique,
c. a,
"
I.
law.
For
A
if,when
is the
it is said that
of
cause
a,
it be
in the
still left
is given by Rabier.
He
denies that it is strictlyspeaking
minor
is particular in the premiss, and universal
term
of formulation.
This distinction, however, depends on the manner
the
p. 149.
III.
c.
3,
"
i.
Bain, Induction,
INDUCTION
whether
uncertain
reallydue to A as
circumstance
peculiar to the
have
no
ground for a universal
other
some
instance, we
The
meaning
of
cause
left
The
when
assertion
It
sense.
have
far
universal
be
that
guarantee
in
fact.
a,
would
of
knew
such
have
is the
already
have
by
law.
the Uniformity
on
in
understood
in
that
principle,
judgment
universal
our
another
Our
in the
that
conclusion.
as
depends
however
to
or
individual
behind, and
merely signifythat
may
cause
further
that
asserted, we
Induction
that
verified
is the
this is
our
may
the
will be
be
instance
reached
of Nature
we
therefore
must
individual
abstraction
such
was
But
a.
the
219
real order
the
same
does
cause
effect.
The principle
actuallyalways produce the same
corresponds to the logicalprocess.
Just as in our act
of abstraction
we
judge that the universal nature A is
with
connected
the
so
intrinsically
metaphysical
a,
all A 's must
us
effect,
produce the same
principleassures
whatever
be.
may
again,it must not
that
Once
of
Uniformity is
which
the
Dictum
the
reasoning.
Omni
same
effect ?
order
of
"
us
2.
It
Cause and
that
determination
lay down
precise nature
real
belongs
not
of
to
to
cause
universal
of the
that
relation
of deductive
the
a
does
A
nature
? ; but
to
of
order
to
"
is
the
the
the
thought.
effect.
law, until
in
sense
always produce
depends
and
in the
different
The
principle
question,How
effect
cause
a
the
canon
that
the order
Condition.
induction
every
the
with
same
things,and
the
conclusion
to the
pass
necessarilyconnected
the
is the
reply to
not
the mind
question,Does
thought
of Induction
canon
de
It does
be
we
in the
upon
the
It is not
have
case
accurate
possibleto
discovered
with
which
the
we
How
meets
can
us.
dealing. Yet here a difficulty
consideringthe complexity of Nature, say what is
we,
the cause
As I
is not ?
of any phenomenon, and what
of
write at my table, can
is the cause
I reallysay what
are
PRINCIPLES
220
the
the
carrier
the
cause
who
Must
to fix
of
certain
How
in
we,
of
May
not
were
that
fine, own
it is
or
pens,
be
to
of
laws
hopeless
excellence
the
define
to
we
Cause
One
us.
and
Many
is
that
various
Dr.
given by
to come
(Laws of Thought, p. 218),seems
very
We
we
mean,"
reallysignifyby that term.
of the facts
of a thing,the sum
by the cause
definition
it owes
its being." A
practically
with
in
fact
this, was
frequentlyemployed by
"
says,
to which
identical
to
open
of
and
cause
consider
us
four
define
as
definition
our
enumerated
causes
in Ch.
in
to
the
altar,and
will
The
this.
The
est id
cause
quod
for that
is.
No
He
it.
too
which
agent
of the nature.
'
is defined
est.'
The
makes
can
as
two
a
final
cause
"
on
the
make
fill a
niche
has
Id
to
cause
same
that
the
his
it is.
larly,
Simi-
causes.
If
intrinsic
as
of
and
it ;
be
an
fiftyfeet
detail
it what
(4),the
over
statuary himself"
conceived
made
it
it in
column
speak. Every
brain
made
will
the
"
determined
definitions
thing
be the
it to
the
Most
cause
has
"
are
material, it would
different
the
statuary
again
purpose.
carved
was
it to stand
of
Once
2.
our
(i)
intends
if he
Of
in
"
serve
statue
if he intends
executed
made
thing to
it is verified in the
as
10,
that
(2)the efficient
to
it is hardly necessary
His
carving is his work.
hand
makes
special characteristics
different manner,
high.
that which
it is.1
what
Let
preferableto avail
ambiguity, it seems
another
expressionhaving the same
cance,
signifi-
certain
ourselves
be
But
the Scholastics.
it
maker
cause
"
he
'
the
my
definitions offered
what
near
or
write, if it
condition
Thomson
I the
cause
as
anything special,
par
between
effect,or is it possibleto distinguish
are
the
are
Am
on
and
cause
Could
task
a
brings me
LOGIC
the paper
on
manufacturer,
paper
gravity?
OF
something
'
as
as
Id
quo
res
equivalent
which
makes
is not
also the
it what
cause
PRINCIPLES
222
live
has
OF
powers
specialcharacter, since
which
free
set
requisitefor
as
does
are
in
one
in motion
set
the
sense
originof
originativecharacter,
without
known
reason
Other
the
the
the
; but
whole
condition, such as
the determining
as
be
may
they do not,
They
process.
In virtue
effect.
act
impulse,
conditions
another
or
reason
this
undoubtedly
it communicated
forces.
these
this one,
no
LOGIC
of this
this, is
not
(causa
cause
determinants).1
Aim
3. The
"
of the
which
It may
of Inductive Enquiry.
various
causes
have
we
be asked,
enumerated, is
the
be
object of inductive investigation.To this it must
Sometimes
replied,that it is not in all cases the same.
the knowledge of one
sometimes
that of another,
cause,
is important to us ; and
frequently it happens,
very
has only put the knowledge of one
that Nature
cause
within
"
'
'
Man
our
reach.
has
to
knows
when
and
he
'
act
'
as
'
when
the
of
force
'
compose
'
'
'
Case
Nature
as
present facts
than
knows
on
causes,
another
chemist
has
best
about
it is sometimes
of the forces
sometimes
knows
the
the
well
he
put it,
He
can.
past
causes
efficient
which
bodies
material
cause,
by
elements
out
of which
composed, without
having discovered the
chemical
affinityso-called,by which
they
it : sometimes
again the final cause, as in
morals, where
we
know
for what
end
we
act, without
and
fullyunderstanding the voluntary,nervous,
cular forces by which
we
perform our actions."
Often
the
is
body
a
'
one
on
Professor
in the mechanics
as
cause,
'
fasten
about
more
As
indeed, what
cause.
For
we
wish
to
discover
instance, it had
long
mus*
is the
been
mining
deterknown
in unisexual
De
Lectures
INDUCTION
When
another.
is motived
search
our
223
by
greatermoment
so-called
the
about,
for what
inner
how
us
we
that of the
than
desire
know
to
of
be
may
properly
causes
is not
much
so
of the
nature
or
desire to
to
practical
to
prevent
the
spread of
increase
epidemic,to
some
in the
of which
absence
the
would
event
taken
have
not
it may
be desirable
reason
place,and on which for some
of a railway
to lay stress.
We
say that the construction
of the increase
in the
in the neighbourhood,is the cause
construction
value of land.
But the mere
of the railway
the value, unless the railway
would
not in itself increase
such as to bring the neighbourhood into connexion
were
with
Inductive
some
populous centre.
enquiry is not
in this popular sense
with
concerned
and
causes
we
:
be on
must
our
guard against confusing the word as
thus
its more
accurate
colloquiallyemployed, with
this distinction,
It is the failure to draw
signification.
which
alone
has
given plausibilityto the erroneous
in not
few
works
assertion contained
a
on
Logic, that
there
is no
difference,scientifically
speaking, between
and
cause
condition.
clear notion
We
must
a
easy,
to
the
examine
are
and
cases,
way,
in
which
consideringa
are
question, we
the
in which
cause
relation ; and
instances, induce
a
general
to
inductive
and
after
causalityin
abstract
certain
object of
the
relation between
There
Relation.
The
preceding
reader
a
as
now
Causal
few
the mind
nizes
recog-
its effect.
this
recognitionis
concrete
able
thus
investigation.
cases
without
from
the
proposition. We
of
the
hesitation
particular
'
say
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
2i4
leaves
few
Were
observation.
this
there
whether
doubt,
danger,
made
my
make
like this
mark
be the effect of
must
It
us.1
yieldingmaterial
that such
conversely,
and
I do not
foot.
human
the
between
it has
relation
the
ground
to
understand
character
man
in
simple
evident.
was
minute
its
from
of
nature
the
effect should
an
the
action
is of
"
induces
Great
scientists
'
only occurring
'
experiment
'
so
nerves,
'
The
Abb"
that
much
It is said that
did
thousand
'
fact
'
value
of
the
of the
cases.
this
the
law
that
tion,
relathis
wherever
follow.
must
the
the
abstracts
of
worth
Sir C. Bell
difference
would
between
significantfact, though
not
the
motor
and
sensory
fracture, he concludes
'
effect
established
havoc
what
mind
universal
rarely mistake
once.
known
was
too, the
operates, this
cause
Here
case
the
blood-corpuscles,
among
how
the
evident
illness followed
became
cause.
and
it
worked
creature
immediately
it
'
When
the
island.
just described.
fever long escaped observation
of malarial
The
cause
But
its origin
of its minuteness.
because
as
as
soon
in a specialmicrobe, and the activityof
discovered
was
in the body had
been studied, the nature
this microbe
its cause
united the malady and
of the relation which
less
than
the
when
even
the
on
such
why
cause,
on
footprints
able
such
of
shape
this induction.
often
from
the
formed
had
men,
reason
relation
conclusion.
another
the
and leave
universal
was
"
to my
of this causal
there
relation
causal
for
mark
knowledge
that
for certain
are
the
the
he
and
cause
as
saw
So when
follow
In
Robinson
We
foot
the
effect.
impression as
the
an
it will
pass
conclusion
its
is
this
foot is pressedon
human
suffice
avoided
had
we
our
of this
as
in
error
some
that
would
instance
induction
by
convinced
we
one
be
not
may
in
us
that
The
coincidence
he
has
discovered
law
of nature.
So
the
in
...
knot
coincidence."
is not
in
the
INDUCTION
Yet
can
there
than
relation
why
be
cannot
This
examples.
in
cases,
particulareffect
other, and
some
of
number
vast
reason
no
see
rather
are
225
in which
which
should
therefore
we
follow
the causal
it is recognizedin these
as
recognized,
in regard to
is especiallynoticeable
of the
physical constituents, considered as the cause
between
resultingcompound. There is no resemblance
hydrogen and oxygen on the one side, and water on the
The
other.
propertiesof the effect bear no likeness to
the properties
of the cause.
hope to
Again, we cannot
discover any reason
for the properties
to account
possessed
for
different
natural
substances.
instance,
by the
Why,
should galenacrystalsbe cubical while quartz crystallizes
in hexagonal prisms ?
should
gold resist the
Why
of solvents, which
action
efficacious against other
are
metals ? Why should sulphur,when
heated, first liquefy,
then
thicken, and then liquefy again ? In all these
tion.
cases, our
experienceassures us as to the factof the relaBut
should
why such a cause
produce such a
must
We
result,remains
altogetherconcealed from us.
be
content
thingsare
water,
In
the
of such
causes
and
bare
fact
such
and
that
and
such
effects.
We
found
and
are
:
hydrogen
oxygen
and the result
hydrogen and oxygen,
knowledge in these cases
saying that our
not
to the
we
must
not
intellect.
intellect
In thus
reason
perceivedby
it is
know
to
In
be
sense.
The
to
fact here
singularswhich
recognizesand abstracts
causal
relation
experimentsis
established.
even
is
more
thesize
syn-
is water.
relates
to the
fact,
perceives, the
sense
universal
the
than
connexion,
where
the
the law
not
is looked
If
been
nature
of
number
repetitionis not
is preliminaryto
It
part of the logicalprocess.
is merely a guarantee that we
have
of the experiment.
in the
nature
tion.
rela-
causal
recognized,that
before
necessary,
But
here
too
the
we
singularfact as
is recognizedby the
determiningexperimentallya
case,
analyse
the
mean
the
usually the
of the
thought
but
such
on
as
itself
it.
It
deceived
for instance
Q
we
226
PRINCIPLES
the
suppose
and
view
universal
the
water,
of
with
should
we
the
to
truth
LOGIC
synthesisof hydrogen
establishingfor the first
to be
experiment
oxygen,
time
OF
that
these
order
in
and
ingredientbut hydrogen
in our
synthesis,that the result
peculiarto the individual case.
other
to
fact is
the
induction.
our
fact that
been
has
We
which
water
to
concrete
universal
and
hydrogen
the
water
cases
elements,
and
we
are
oxygen
assertion is made,
we
"
viewed
elements
of these
such,
as
that
proceed
lished
securelyestab-
the
such
these
no
fied
satis-
are
we
individual
of the
with
from
once
it,then
from
and
assert
causallyrelated
When
induce
such
in
was
that
was
present
oxygen
not due to something
conceive
we
We
produced
conclusion.
not
as
variety
satisfyourselves
to
of
causes
circumstances,
that
the
are
oxygen
oxygen
in abstraction
from
conditions.
individualizing
The
of the
value
almost
them.
Evidence
with
reveal
will
alreadyversed
investigatorof
An
considers
untrained
mind
has
this kind
evidence
the
sees
facts previouslyknown.
light of a hundred
in
recognize that the suggestion contained
may
lead
evidence, is preciselywhat these facts would
expect,
false.
he
or
particularcase,
the
on
of the
nature
which
it is
the
mind
well
stored
the
tyro.
shall be
us
to
Deduction.
outline the
to
give a
evidence.
can
it
what
or
what
do
no
principalways
more
the
must
in
He
the
him
be
by the
to depend altogether
the
It depends also on
has been
canon
they
or
universal
presented. What
with knowledge
Induction
We
made
be
cannot
to
mind
of the
manifestation
The
either
that
see
may
no
the
to
will
conviction
intellect which
the
to
is
who
one
which
produce
to
the
entirelyon
depend
meaning,
instances
law
is sufficient for
is insufficient for
said that it is
series of canons,
Dictum
than
in which
de
describe
evidence
which
omni
in
of
sible
imposis to
general
a
causal
INDUCTION
methods
termed
however
does
the
Method
to
altered
sum
individual
question,that
in
is not
that it
this is known
And
nature
of
the
(2) by
rational
in which
manner
defer
its
effect is not
the
circumstance, but
of the
but a purely
syllogistic,
It becomes
as
we
possibleas soon
instance
(orinstances)of the cause
process.
in the
see
called,but
therefore
shall
may
subject
logicalground
the different
We
Induction
up,
This
for the
second
the
to
abstractive
to
by
what
enquiry.
Logic strictlyso
appears.
consideration
To
belong
of Science
evidence
indicate
to
of inductive
not
is not
induction
the
thus
presents itself,and
connexion
be
227
either
due
to
accidental
some
to the type.
belongsessentially
(i)by rational insightinto the
between
connexion
recognitionof
and
cause
the
fact
from
the
of
effect, or
the
causal
connexion.
*
induction
The
manner
we
An.
Post.
"It
'
/.,
is
'
that
'
but
sight
'
the
and
the
'
ive
power
'
dividual
In
would
theory
Aristotle
of
stand
place
"
tamen
Ex
the
in
attain
the
glass,
of its illuminat-
would
the
perceive
that
recognize
inthis
mind.
need
Since
of
The
commentary
multoties
facta
one
passage
ing
approvis his
as
uses,
c.
circa
:
"
19
4.
he
from
treats
the
of
the
ation
observ-
many
dividual
in-
:
Experience (e/ATreipt'a)
an
abstract
itself is
of St. Thomas
as
memory
exposition,we
some
i,
conclusion
possessionof
the
c.
II.,
Post.
particulars.
in the
He
II.,
Post.
An.
understood
illustration.
an
as
An.
be
mentions.
universal
our
of
lucid
memoria
knowledge
should
cause
would
not
he
chapter
number
Experience
principlein the
should
which
opinion
draw
we
this
Sense
intellect
occurs
passage
in which
to
light
well-known
instances
its
the
contemporary
of
as
the
indeed
law."
passage
the
case
saw
we
manifest.
and
instance,
similar
In
be
scientific
us
takes
Not
we
through
the
perforations in
means
if
solution.
certain
what
see
which
coming through,
light-particles
this
the
wont,
Thus
universal
was
the
that
senses,
but
we
seeking
sight would
give
of
be
our
could
For
still be
not
act
universal.
'
unsolved.
would
the
inabilityto apply
our
should
'
particular in the
succinctly taught by Aristotle,
31.
to
remain
mere
universal
the
described, is
c.
owing
questions
place, we
'
of
have
eandem
universal
compressed
prefer to give in
so
"
rem
in
diversis
quia experimentum
nihil
228
PRINCIPLES
aliud
videtur,
Sed
tentis.
OF
accipere aliquid
quam
tamen
experimentum
circa
particularia,
per quam
Puta
cum
proprium rationis.
sanavit
multos
herba
LOGIC
multis
ex
in memoria
indiget aliqua
confertur
ad
unum
talis recordatur
febre, dicitur
re-
ratiocinatione
aliud, quod
talis herba
quod
quod talis
febris.
Ratio autem
sistit in experimento
non
sed ex
multis
particularibus in quibus expertus
a
sit sanativa
experimentum
esse
particularium :
in anima,
et
commune
est, accipit unum
quod firmatur
siderat
illud absque consideratione
alicujussingularium, et
Puta
diu medicus
accipitut principium artis et scientiae.
sideravit
herbam
hanc
tonem
multos
et
consideratio
est
sanasse
alios
hoc
ad
Socratem
singulares
quod
febrientem,
homines
ascendit,
cum
hoc
con-
Pla-
et
autem
talis
con-
sua
herbae
cognitionem
species
regula artis
accipitur ut quaedam
Posset
credere
autem
quod solus sensus
aliquis
singularium sufficiat ad causandum
intelligibilem
principiorum, sicut posuerunt quidam antiqui non
discernentes
inter
simpliciter,hoc
febrientem
medicinae.
.
vel
cludendum
memoria
intellectum
et
sensum
supponere
sit
animae
naturam
of
the
its
"
et
ideo
ad
hoc
ex-
(An.
Post.
no
passages
word
use
experimentum
is made
(e/xTrei/na)
place.
specialmode
general, different
The
principleof
is
cum
in these
The
Induction.
term
takes
that
will observe
reader
quae
susceptiva cognitionisuniversalis
The
sanat
attribute which
of
The
arguing from
from
this
Induction
method
of
Inductive
Syllogism
the particularto the
properly so-called.
inference
is that
an
overlooked
have
we
is affirmed
no
of the
one
parts. Hence
in
reasoning is only available for the cases
which we
are
dealingwith the several speciesof a genus.
be counted
The individuals belongingto a speciescannot
:
is indefinite.1 But the speciesare
their number
always
of
this mode
limited
The
when
number.
syllogism may
formula
1
in
represented by
the
following
:
"
Aristotle
he
be
tells
held
us
supposes
the number
of individuals
that
the enumeration
that
we
are
in
species to be infinite.
Hence
be complete, he evidently
of the parts must
dealing with species, not with individuals.
PRINCIPLES
230
In
order
shew
to
is the
be
it should
that
necessary
OF
regard to
in
same
than
more
the
that
LOGIC
be
inherence
of
for the
reason
all the
this, it would
parts of M.1
has
The
It
is
follows
as
perplexity.
"
Man,
horse,
ass
Man,
horse,
ass
...
without
animals
/.All
often,
lived.
are
long
are
animals
bile
without
bile.
long lived.2
are
ties.
difficulsight presents two considerable
festly
In the first place the minor
premiss as it stands, is maniIn
second
the
untrue.
place, a complete enumeration
would
of animals
without
bile,
impossible. As a matter
appear
doubtless
of fact, by the
bile,' Aristotle
expression without
of choleric
in question have
that
the animals
excess
no
signifies
bile.3
without
from
different
humours
a
being totally
thing
The
example
at
first
'
"
Further
the
be
understood,
of
not
animals
in
for in An.
:
highly organized animals
Thus
plete
coma
17, " 7 he restricts it to quadrupeds.
difficulties.
would
enumeration
not
present insuperable
Aristotle
another
ing
gives the following,as exemplifypassage
general, but
Post. II.,c.
In
'
of
the
inductive
an
man
the
who
man
more
argument
is best, and
that
'
should
assertion
"
skilful
the
If
we
that
know
driver, and
is skilful is best
so
on,
skilful
the
we
may
steers-
conclude
occupation." 4
at every
But,
it would
be
it is
rpiywvov,d\\' ^
'
know
not
the
/car' aptdfj-bvKO.T
'
attribute
to
'
'
'
'
"
"
"
"
'
"
yet the
4
distinction
of the temperaments
psychological observation,"
Topics, I., c. 12.
'acute
seems
to
have
been
derived
from
INDUCTION
The
This
Syllogism
Inductive
Fig.3
with
universal
231
resembles
instead
of
syllogism in
particularconclusion.
a
is known
to
legitimate,since the enumeration
be complete. The
minor
is sometimes
expressed in the
This form is however
form
missible.
inadSt,S2, 53 are all M.'
It suggests that the significance
of the copula
its ordinary import :
here
is different from
that
it
J
If this were
the
Af/
means
S19 S2, S3 constitute
M would
meaning, the conclusion would be illegitimate.
be used
in the minor
collectively
premiss,and distributively in the conclusion.
is
'
'
which
belonging to
the
class
as
The
is
employed to signifythe
a
given attribute of all the
class, and then proceed to
affirm
we
Imperfect Induction.
a
a
whole.
Thus
I may
the
by
process
individuals
affirm
of each
assert
fect
Per-
term
it of
of the
Jew,
and
so
apostleswere
drawn
in the
up
it differs
widely
it. The
enumeration
from
there
is of logicalparts.
It is an
intellectual process : for it is not by sense-perception
that we
the isosceles
the equilateral,
sum
up
and the scalene as completingthe list of possible
triangles.
in Perfect
But
Induction
the
enumeration
is purely
sensible.
It is a simple counting of heads.
Further,
the
obtained
conclusions
from
the
Perfect
be
presupposes
conclusion.
Inductive
On
the
hand
other
Syllogism is
individuals,and
new
value
the
one
Induction
may
of different
other.
inferences
are
affords
of
true
us
the
conclusion
indefinite
an
of
number
an
of
to
facts.
When
some
we
draw
members
universal
only
1
Hansel,
of
conclusion
class,we
Aldrich, App.
G-
are
after enumerating
said
to
employ
PRINCIPLES
232
LOGIC
OF
drawn
we
But
if
grounds
for
have
reason
we
causallyconnected
something else than
liable
how
this
the
if
manner,
with
the
to
indicate
influence
of
heat, and
cases
had
of
Numbers
verified,though
was
it should
be
found
this rule.
to
As
so.
the
been
would
have
proved
relyingon
are
no
reason
we
are
Water
time, experience
one
all bodies
when
examined
been
expand under
exposed to cold.
in which
be
could
ing,
of contract-
similarly,india-
39*4 F. ; and
other
substances,
Had
the rule
assigned why
exceptions are
well aware,
expands instead
of heat.
in this
drawn
at
contract
certain
influence
how
that
it fails below
when
be
to
trate
illusIt may
in
conclusions drawn
are
remember
seemed
attribute
subject,we
frustration
we
the
connexion.1
enumeration.
mere
to
causal
believe
this way
valueless,unless
to be
supposing some
to
in
contract
sion
conclu-
universal
by Imperfect Induction,
case
it
false.
of Logic, that
commonly stated in English text-books
Scholastic
of no
inductive
the
save
philosophers knew
process
that
Perfect
and
Imperfect Induction, and that they believed
based
on
mere
meration.
enuour
certainty as to the laws of nature, was
how
have
had
occasion
out
We
to
already
point
our
popular logicianssay of
cautiously we should receive what
that the subject
It
indeed
be
owned
Scholastic
philosophy.
may
*
It is
Induction
of
than
writers
as
to
received
it merits.
the
laws
far
Yet
less
to say
of nature,
to
that
rest
they
on
enumeration,
by
argues
acquaintance with their writings. There
the Scholastics
variety of opinion among
Induction
mere
from
attention
"
the
believed
process
is indeed
on
this
our
of
remarkable
mediaeval
ledge
know-
Imperfect
of
want
considerable
subject.
But
Nam
si universalia nihil aliud
point is forciblyput by Leibniz.
scientiam
haberi
nullam
sunt
singularium
collectiones,
sequetur
per
quam
demonstrationem
um
(quod et infra colligitNizolius) sed collectionem singular!
inductionem.
Certitude
perfecta ab inductione
sperari plane non
seu
Totum
quibuscunque
adminiculis, et propositionem bane
potest, additis
Mox
enim
scimus.
perfecte
parie sola inductione
magis esse sua
nunquam
tenrationem
in aliis nondum
prodibit, qui negabit ob peculiarena
quandam
facto scimus
ex
tatis veram
Gregorium a S. Vincentio
esse, quemadmodum
alios in
totum
:
esse
majus sua parte, in angulis saltern contactus
negasse
virum
infinite : et Thomam
Hobbes
?) coepisse dubitare de pro(at quern
sacrificio
a
positione ilia Geometrica
Pythagora demonstrata, et hecatombae
sine stupore legi." Leibniz, De Stilo Philosophico
digna habita : quod ego non
This
INDUCTION
the
233
them
base
certainty in regard
the
the
natural
laws
on
principle,that when
operation of
and
natural
habitually some
agent produces regularly
ticular
pareminent
more
to
some
amongst
is
an
having
other
words,
that
the
not
individual
the
the
condition
by
a.'
of
of A
instance
constitute
which
is
our
Anything
The
the
the
abstraction,
than
Scholastic
The
error
famous
of the
have
to
seems
arisen
held
from
this
do
not
They
are
the
doctrine
by the whole
imagined.
the
that
fact
Albert
the
not
the
The
experientia).
It
vague.
the
this
employed
as
the
most
Great, Scotus)
form
of
that
out,
Inductive
an
in these
it
of
for
few
Moreover
it
the
was
times
some-
the
into
the
enumeration
have
we
that
Induction
thrown
be
though
instances
equivalently
Induction
generation
restricted
to its present signification.Incautious
readers,
was
as
Syllogism described
finding in certain passages the Inductive
formula
of
the
inductive
to
the
argument, jumped too hastily
ledge
conclusion
the mediaeval
that
philosophers rested their know-
seen
of the
have
We
The
taken.
enim
is
Thomas
of
imply
will
Scotus
was
orto
criticized in "
major premiss
in
et
inebriationem
apprehendit
sensu,
ex
p. 70.
quod
post
Leibniz's
this
the
the
subject, in "
view
show
same
as
autem
the
position
that
potationem
view
the
wc*ild
quod
sensus
vini
St.
quas
scimus
.
own
of
sunt
inebriat
vinum
4.
here
have
we
that
sicut
syllogistic
reasoning.
term
enumeration.
on
extracts
choleram
purgat
that
St.
but
[Propositiones] experimentales
intellectu
Nizolii,Op. phil.(Erdmann),
been
basis
no
his words
and
Magnus
"
scamonea
cited
that
see
on
following brief
of Albertus
accipimus
of nature
laws
will
The
Thomas.
already
reader
later
what
some-
particular to
II., Q. 8) it might
was
more
usually
Perfect
might
argument
was
the
Prior
But
process
Syllogism
incomplete, yet
all.
It was
by
was
from
Syllogism.
our
Induction
in Scotus, An.
formal
the
distinctive
term
others.
Inductive
an
the
argument
among
denote
pointed
all
(as e.g.
meaning
to
arranged
covered
Hence
general.
include
significance of
the
body
of
term
as
name
employ
establish
of nature.
the inference
universal
laws
we
by which
end
of
at the
Following the terminology of Aristotle, noticed
it
the
from
" 4, they call
proof
experimentum,
experience (e/x7rei/oia,
do
Induction
nature
to
is followed
such
as
be
from
(St.Thomas,
Scholastics
the
understood,
judge
to
incident
this
is
with
conclusion.
'
the
of instances
investigator
thus
universal
remote
of
specificnature
circumstance
circumstance,
enumeration
instances
of
of
more
the
really connected
act
accidental
an
cause
held
some
premisses
of
to
it enables
as
phenomenon
merely with
and
its
they
of value, inasmuch
be
A,
effect
In
agent.
to
for
our
saepius
seem
uniformity of
to have
Nature
PRINCIPLES
234
factam,
si
et
casuale
esset
illius
generatur
Mag.
An.
scire,
universale
principium
est
Scotus
quod
sed
licet
de
Quidquid
effectus
Cf.
experientia
also
et
hoc
evenit
natumlis
De
istam
ut
in
illius
Regnon,
Post.
quod
quod
est,
et
causae."
Metaphysique
I.
Sent.
des
3.
dico
tamen
Dist.
Causes,
3,
nibus
om-
anima
in
libera,
non
causa
ex-
in
et
semper,
quiescentem
aliqua
ab
nobis
in
singularibus,
pluries,
quod
dictum
experientiam
omnibus
propositionem
pluribus
c.
i,
per
quod
sed
ita
Tract
est
non
universale,
de
semper
sentire
habitis
cognitis
De
Alb.
dubium,"
est
intellectu
in
ante
II.,
habeatur
quod
novit
per
"
non
nee
infallibiter
:
follows,
as
pluribus,
pertus
An.
in
fit
sic
et
Quamvis
sicut
abstractionem
per
accidit
virtute
non
qua
2.
sensibile,
scientiae."
writes
c.
i,
est
sensibile
de
"
Tract
vini
hoc
saepissime
firma,
scientia
I.,
LOGIC
quod
contingeret
non
rei
Post.
nee
sed
est,
intellectus
percipit
et
OF
q.
pp.
4,
n.
40-54.
est
9.
CHAPTER
UNIFORMITY
THE
"
The
i.
as
That
principle,as
assures
us
the
that
of the
it
in
be
chapter
we
kind
same
will, under
cause
same
the
to
are
effect
same
be
the
referred
cumstances
cir-
same
and
that
the
to
same
cause.
is
this
the
always produce
effects
In
Nature.
Uniformity of Nature, or
termed, the Uniformity of Causation.
in the
we
saw
preceding chapter,
principleof
it is sometimes
NATURE.
OF
of
Uniformity
the
consider
XV.
further
was
'
is
experience, unless
also
we
that
show
in
the
order
of
Nature
reality,
prescribesthat given A, a shall follow.
be understood
The principleas we
have enunciated
it,must
with
a
qualification.It refers exclusivelyto the
universe
Hence
material
laws.
governed by natural
it can
claim no
higher degree of necessitythan belongs
to
the
which
of
constitution
established
the
produce
This
is
an
this
natural
universe
bring
abnormal
can
it about
order.
suspend
that
effect, or
no
Power
The
the
tion
opera-
given
effect
cause
at
all.
236
PRINCIPLES
of
and
physicalnecessity,
scientific certainty.
limits
for
(i) It
will
be
the distinction
other
of its
never
have
it to
and
effect
the
considered
we
condition,we
of
that
saw
it from
to
come
Hermes
The
it affords
grounds
when
that
cause
causes.
marble.
is not
We
between
the
or
one
could
Praxiteles
teles
possessedits beauty of form, had not Praxithat form in his imagination: it would
conceived
have
which
has preserved
possessedthe durability
own
our
days, had its material cause been clay and
never
not
remembered
propertiesof
all the
The
time
mere
connexion
between
the
cause
the
cause
It is further manifest
to its nature, and
that
every
in
act
can
and
of every
reason
consequent.
characteristic
action
the
by
effect
and
cause
of antecedent
sequence
find in the
can
that
to
the
agent
acts
of the
effect.
according
When
we
way.
nest of the starling,
other
no
in the
the young
cuckoo appear
dream
that it is the starling's
never
offspring.We
see
we
do not
a
LOGIC
OF
to
reason
locutus est in
Bos
it
no
saw
as
the
the
know
the
active
the
of
act in
but
determines
manner
does not
not
it has
mean
variety of
The
an
the
for
character
that
it must
circumstances
a
in
in the
which
relation to the
the
that
we
the
festation
mani-
essence
is the
"
the
Indeed
or
"
ciple
prin-
powers.
it must
free-will,
with
nature.
give what
fact
of these
possesses
in
accordance
merely
essence
agent
not
action involves
nature
occur.
regarded
proportioned
through
The
that
us
he
in
are
regard
not
nature.
nature
absolutelyprescribedby
give what
told
are
they
that
permanent
unless
Moreover
least, who
should
we
powers
agent
expression
connatural
only
of
nature
and
portent. The
thorns
eccentric, to say
as
man
he
from
gathergrapes
its nature,
It
cannot
it has.
This
in every
way
it may
be placed.
same
objectacted
agent
where
on,
and
the
but
on
the
relation
PRINCIPLES
238
the
duce
OF
necessityof
effect,the
same
LOGIC
this
principleis
could
not
view
to
the
future.
one
thingto
but
hypothetical,
miraculous
own
that the
absolute.
intervention.
In
Axioms
it there
such
as
is
no
the
scope
for
of
principle
into beingmust
have a cause,
Causalitythat Whatever comes
of Contradiction
and the principle
that, It is impossible
for
not to be at the same
time,togetherwith
a thingboth to be and
all the truths of Mathematics
possess this higher degree
be asked, justifies
the distinction
of necessity. What, it may
these
?
be that
The
must
answer
principles
because
metaphysicallynecessary,
they are altogether
are
cases
we
independent of any physicalprocess. In some
that certain concepts statically
considered, stand in
see
under
tradiction
pain of a cona relation of identity(ordifference)
in terms.
To assert that the same
thing can
at the
same
time
both
be and
not
be, is to
assert
what
is
THE
UNIFORMITY
NATURE
OF
239
relation
causal
the abstract
is involved
in the
very
In other
of
nature
dynamic efficiency.
This is exemplifiedin the case
of geometricalfigures
and
their resultant
properties. A figure which has three
sides
of necessityhave
three angles. Here
must
no
physical activityis in question, and consequently the
cause
produces its effect by an absolute, and not a
no
merely hypotheticalnecessity. Where
physicalprocess
is involved, to suppose
effect,is
to
suppose
Since
cause
is
consideration
of the
and
divine
even
self-contradictory.
principleof uniformity is
the
its connatural
without
contradiction
produce what
cannot
power
any
evident
from
concepts involved,
the
it
might
that we
seem
analyticalproposition,
possess in it an
yet
differs from
which
other analyticaljudgments in
one
being liable to frustration. Undoubtedly an analytical
be framed
propositioncan
regarding the uniformity of
mere
which
'
this
But
Nature.
have
we
natural
just noticed,
agent devoid
of the
concurrence
must
proposition
First
always produce
and
the condition
express
it will take the form
Cause,, must
the
in
similar circumstances
effect/
The
principle
thus enunciated
belonging
possesses the absolute necessity
to all analyticaljudgments. The
necessityof the laws
is not
of nature
themselves
absolute
but hypothetical.
It may
perhaps be urged that if the truth of the principle
thus
it
would be more
ally
universwere
readilyapparent,
valid.
Yet savages
look for
recognizedas necessarily
capriciousaction on the part of natural phenomena,
and
children recognizethe truth of the multiplication
table more
easilythan that of this principle.To this it
be repliedthat even
where
are
analyticalprinciples
may
concerned, not all are immediately self-evident.
Every
conclusion in pure mathematics
is analytical
: yet many
of these are unintelligible
to the untrained
mind.
To realize
the necessary character of the principlein question,
we
must
see
what
is involved
same
in the
concept of
natural
mind, anthropo-
PRINCIPLES
240
in
morphic
all its
merely
of Nature.
In
as
the
animals
to
far
so
and
expect the
influence
distinguishbetween
the
to
to
cause
free and
powers
uneducated
the
same
attribute
the
to
even
this may
be
attributed
way,
of experience, and
partly to the
same
to
but
children
as
of fact
matter
LOGIC
representations,is apt
free-will not
do
OF
act
in
partly to the
growing capacity
determined
the
agent.
We
have
throughout
alike that
which
similar effects,and
be
to
are
treated
that
asserts
that which
referred
both
similar
principle,
produce
causes
asserts
similar
to
parts of the
causes,
equally valid.
as
this is so.
But it must
be borne in mind
Philosophically
that not uncommonly
the object of scientific search
is
a
determining cause, and not a cause
properly so called.
Moreover
agents altogetherdiverse may
possess some
similar characteristic in virtue
of which
they produce
similar effects. Here
the
same
cause
strictlyspeaking
is operativein all. But
in common
parlance,we speak
of the
few
A
in
effect
lines
should
regard
exception
is the
agent,
has
his
different
man.
made
must
to
perhaps
will of
to the
the
due
as
added
On
what
human
to the
as
depends
action
do
the
exception
it may
the
on
grounds,
If all action
not
be
causes.
asked,
of
nature
Each
same
be
made
man
character
life.
not
Will
free.
To
whether
would
the
be
mode
extend
that
to
it to the
will
in which
acts.
For
and
the
the
testimony
1
On
the
be
the
of
natural
Free-Will
human
free
or
whole
will without
not,
We
agents
human
soul
act
to
be
must
consciousness,
and
discovered
by
It is
by
a
an
mere
spiritual,
appeal to
analogy
agents.1
see
Maher's
Psychology,
c.
xix., pp.
It
from
argue
in which
the
mode
them.
not
arbitrary.
cannot
the
is unlike
ing
first discover-
be
would
case.
natural
of its action
mode
from
the
prejudge
will
drawn
not
394-424.
"
all
to
J. S. Mill
2.
is the
logicians,
the enquiryinto
the process,
He
of nature.
laws
know
to
has
who
one
241
Uniformity of Nature.
the
on
NATURE
OF
UNIFORMITY
THE
devoted
by
Mill, of
attention
most
which
the mind
comes
recognizesthat
apart
ledge
uniformityof causation, such knowthis principle
the foundation
is impossible,
and makes
of all inductive inference.
Thus, he tells us (Logic,
first observe
must
that there is
Bk. III.,c. 3, " i) "We
of what
tion
Induca principle
impliedin the very statement
is
namely that what happens once, will under
of circumstances
a sufficient degree of similarity
happen
"Every induction may be
'again''; and he says (ibid.)
of a syllogism,
thrown
into the form
by supplying a
major premiss. If this be actuallydone, the principle
that of the uniformity
which
now
we
are
considering,
from
belief in the
'
'
'
'
'
'
of
'
the
of
course
of
explanationof
the
it.
theory is, of
His
He
which
it is
"
the
section
he
enunciates
he
it
abilityof
'
between
'
every
which
has
is termed
effect
fact
preceded
the
cause
in
cause
the
'
and
causal
different
in
account
Causation,and
every
fact which
in the
"
by
observation
and
to
the
invariable
Mill
givesto
law
of
invari-
obtain
other
some
invariable
the
...
has
following
The
tells
fact
antecedent
consequent
the
"
'
The
with
knowledge of
the Empiricist
on
of
nature,
his
it
(ibid." 2).
The explanationwhich
entirelyon the meaning
'
Law
is found
succession
at
...
'
'
ultimate
leading exponent.
the
is but
Causation
was
truth, that
cause
with
based
course,
"
has
beginning,
arrive
we
the
principle
the
terms
that
us
and
principle,
the
in which
manner
philosophy,of
'
the
as
his
from
last
question is
which
he
attaches
rests
principle
to
the
terms
effect.'
relation, as
the account
conceived
we
have
chapter. According
one
the
of
succession
to
in
by him, is totally
given of that relation
his
whole
view, the
time,
"
of
before
R
and
PRINCIPLES
242
after.
The
effect.
He
does
cause
the
LOGIC
exert
any
that
the
expresslydesires
by him, should
"
not
OF
be
not
viewed
which
with
influence
the
on
treated
causes
of
possessed of efficiency
:
as
concern
"
'
"
'
'
'
"
'
"
'
'
conditions
'
may
should
it
relation
of
absence
the
namely,
" 3). Yet
all summed
be
be
succession
of
causality,unless
say,
supposition we
Invariable
things:
whatever
the
unless
it would
in
(ibid.
variability
in-
mere
constitute
is
also
take
regard
place
all
to
is not
sequence
synonymous
besides being invariable,
with
"
succession
make
may
head,
one
sufficient to
"
other
under
up
is not
is to
counteractingcauses
carefullynoted that
of
unconditional,that
is also unconditional."
There
for
various
are
criticism
points in
which
"
of
efficient
causalityto
time-relation, is
tells us
have
hence
that
it must
this must
that
before
nothing cannot
comes
in
why
from
itself,it
receive
existence
it exists.
has
never
eternity.
cannot
from
mere
Reason
possibly
be self-created
else.
something
if it be remembered
plainly,
thing exists, it is nothing ; and what is
Hence, everything
give itself existence.
cedent
anteinto being, must
have, not a mere
be
time, but
efficient cause,
Who
its existence
That
which
call
reduction
(i) The
this account
In
so
appears
efficient
an
case
one
namely
come
in
into
cause
alone
the
which
is there
case
being,but
of
has
the
is the
no
need
First
existed
reason
of
an
Cause,
from
all
between
discuss
We
have
these
two
the
NATURE
and
cause
dwelt
It
point again.
fails to
On
in time.
succession
to
cognizant of
be
difference
it is unnecessary
that
with
the
On
other,
we
told
are
must
the
'
is
connexion
about
if
evident, that
however,
able to affirm
are
we
unconditional/
this
why
reason
that
have
we
the
consequent to
consequent must
passed
of
this
from
some
antecedent,
record
mere
the
some
antecedent,
follow
far away
that
know
must
we
of
supposition
things. It is,
other
linking the
bond
and
make
to
that
character
we
we
the
effect is reduced
unconditional
the
be
must
itself.
and
cause
to
account
any
distinguishthem,
relation between
the
hand
is inadmissible.
the
on
is clear
fundamentally misleading.
theory is inconsistent
(3) The
one
243
condition
length
at
causation, which
of
of
identification
(2) The
OF
UNIFORMITY
THE
of sequences.
(4) Another
inconsistencyis
of the
This
only
can
occurs,
such
cause
that
mean,
it is
always
view
contradicts
the
tells us,
true," he
'always produced by
the
arise from
'
sometimes
the
be
found
invariable
whenever
doctrine,
same
pluralityof
the
same
same
cause
sometimes
causes
may
produce motion
many
But
cause.
Mill
is
phenomenon
is
the
from
lays
"It
causes.
effect
B.
.
'
scription
de-
antecedent/
which
on
"that
in his
particulareffect
result of the
the
of
as
to
'
causes
may
may
Many
produce
'death/'
doctrine
The
due
to
the
of
the
fact that
pluralityof
Mill's
theory
is, of
causes
did
not
admit
course,
of his
and
between
causes
distinguishing
determining causes,
properly so called.
(5)Finally,it should be noticed that he has confused
two
sality
entirelydistinct principles,
(a)the principleof cauthat everythingwhich
begins to be must have an
efficient cause
(b)the principleof uniformity. The
; and
"
latter includes
in its reference
material, final.
Each
one
of
all cause?,
these
formal,
efficient,
will, under
similar
PRINCIPLES
244
OF
LOGIC
circumstances,
effect. The
former
produce the same
relates
There
is no
expressly to efficient causation.
need for a thing,which
beginsto be, to have an antecedent
material
have
We
Were
cause.
taken
place,or
must
it so,
matter
consider
either
could
creation
have
must
Mill's account
always
never
existed.
of the
grounds,
which
on
we
accept this principle, the major premiss
of all induction/ in virtue
of which
our
knowledge as
of nature
is based on
to the laws
something firmer than
It is evident
that
an
simple enumeration.
empiricist
have
the
done, base it on
philosopher cannot, as we
of
of things. To
this school, the sole sources
nature
individual
a
knowledge are
sense-experiences; and
number
of such
a
general truth does but summarize
experiences.
covered
The
Uniformity of Nature, Mill tells us, is itself disof simple
by the loose and uncertain method
'enumeration
is,he holds,
(Ch. 21, " 2). The principle
number
of particular uniformities
a
gathered from
in nature, which
observed
justifyus in regarding the
lishment
law as of universal application. But before the estabformities,
of the wider
principle,these particularuninow
'
"
"
which
on
certaintyas
they could
now
not
it
was
belongs to
based, had
laws
of nature.
confirmation
receive
not
from
the
same
For
since
the
principle
establishment
they
uniformity,antecedently to its
of instances.
were
merely based on the enumeration
of inconsistency
Mill recognizes
that he will be accused
in thus first contrastingthe uncertainty of simple enumeration,
from the principle
with
the certaintyderived
is the
of uniformity,and then teaching that the former
looks as if he
foundation
of the latter : and it certainly
house
moveable
immoveable
on
a
were
building an
he
that
the
foundation.
But
inconsistencyis
argues
of
the
to
the
that
possibility
observations
which
our
within
certain
limits
tion
uncertainty of simple enumera-
of
the
establish, may
place, time
and
empiricallaw
be
true
only
circumstance.
PRINCIPLES
246
'
vert
'
and
of
'
the
law
science, is the
to
the
absolute
of
OF
confession
of
This
the
universalityof order,
and
at all places,of
all times
validity,in
causation.
LOGIC
confession
is
of
act
an
faith, be-
'
'
is
not
"
the
constitutes
Effect.
Compound
the
effect
is
Sometimes
totallyunlike
of Causes, and
"
3.
that
shewn
the
Cessante
"
of Causes
Composition
and
the
theory, which
effect
reduces
fall to
chemical
compounds
is called
"
tion
Combina-
If it
effectus."
are
causal
be
can
poraneous
absolutelycontem-
ever
other, it is evident
the
the
is called
effect
Heteropathic Effect.
cessat
with
one
the
This
causes.
effect,
causa,
cause
in
as
"
the
and
relation to
that
time-
mere
sequence
to devote
the
"
"
'
'
continuance
the
'
generally
once
'
at
were
'
tinuance
'
A
.
'
'
'
without
and
after
been
of the temper
have
understand
Vide
of
any
the
these
two
to
heated
his
fathers."
in which
2, and
passages.
Mill
of the
Phys. II.
c.
3,
con-
ceased.
ploughshare,
hammering,
and
hammered
This
criticism
approached
must
axiom,
"
there
the
had
doctrine.
him, that he
meaning
of
causes
who
heating and
Aristotelian
occurred
Arist.,Met. V., c.
on
man
gathered to
consideration
the
remains
of
continuance
been
Yet
.
instances
after their
made
have
to
doctrine.
familiar
many
long
ploughshare once
even
to
effect,seems
of effects
is indicative
seems
the
received
all times
any
it, has
to
of
13, and
It
never
failed
have
and
the
that
St. Thomas's
in
mentaries
com-
UNIFORMITY
THE
the
absurd
have
been
of its true
review
of
elucidation
of
example
own
efficient
becomes
what
work
is at
formal
Had
We
then
kinds
two
two
causes
does not
the
cause
into
he
the
ceases
of
new
to
stops. But
it is
same
Causa
if it
it would
its
the smith
smith
in fieri
(Cause
esse
If
effect.
either
effect
of
of
ceases.
dies,the ploughshare
is not,
as
have
we
said,
he
has
are
transition
time
other
on
which
causes
his
done
in
causa
task, it remains
be
may
fieriand
position. Yet
The
modifications.
in
these
esse
in
any
and
esse
to
their
and
sustains
it
are
cause
the
causes
sustains
useful
question are
created
to
being
one
proceeds from
lightwhich
effects
No
calls into
instances
in
causa
the
of
ray
for
existing
an
said to be at
the
both
sun
causes.
being
the
It is
state.
in
causa
and
Causa
in
Thus
and
the
"
effects.
to
and
its
longer in a
thing,and depends
the
their
ploughshare.
stance,
yieldingsub-
some
operate,
when
for the
no
There
be
of
proper
to
that
mean
of
cause
can
we
cause
the
ceases
to be
ceases
the
as
longer:
no
it to
of
soon
as
It
made.
one.
have
these
final and
the
ploughshare at all ;
lose its shape,
and
what
it.
thing is
them
Mill's
consider
"
But
iron, but
down
melted
be
be
take
us
causes
other
make
of
not
not
Let
the
as
the
what
are
it would
to
soon
On
made
be
the
among
as
end.
an
it been
cease
two
not
in the further
help us
relation.
through them.
is,it depends on
it
causes
should
will
it is
of it that
say
causes
ceases,
"
it,it could
to
ploughshare, and
hold in regard to
the
efficacyof
247
schools.
meaning
causal
the
NATURE
attributed
of the
dogma
he
which
sense
OF
mercury
it in that
chieflyas
complete entity;
trations.
illus-
accidental
mere
is both
and
causa
and
in
fieri
this fact
248
PRINCIPLES
reveals
to
that
us
other
hand
alike
called it into
of
its existence.
imagine
that
and
as
Each
no
cause
and
effect
view
caused
itself
by
Further,
action
of the
the
"
4.
the
are
is
cause
efficient
itself must
Unity of Nature.
of Nature,
Uniformity
Unity of Nature.
This
is
by
is
name
are
be
is
with
it
be
prior to
the
effect,
the
effect.
act.
can
principlewhich
The
effect
all,must
at
for
self-contradictory.
distinct,but though the
two
exist before
so,
of certain
and
contemporaneous
cause
must
cause
the
only
not
do
words
caused
suppositionthat
"
it be
call attention
to
cause
that
imply
We
the
and
cause
causality,the
appear
implied by
plain that if
which
cause
not
same.
it may
as
effect,if
the
the
to
right,
own
as
its
does
be
to
It is
then
same,
The
and
one
are
be
Him.1
related
This
instant
every
would
the
on
is
"
universe.
in its
to exercise
ceases
seems
writers.
recent
cause
this, unnecessary
yet
far
so
dependent
as
they are
the
Himself
whole
from
perfect
im-
an
On
God
"
existence
to
the
is
in
cause.
to the
esse
effect communicated
an
If the
effect
Cause
possess
effect then
effect.
of
concept
it could
produces it, in
such
full
great First
in fieri
and causa
in
He
LOGIC
the
causa
not
created
the
manner
OF
we
have
logicians spoken
some
preferred by
those
termed
of
as
the
adherents
of
Idealist
School.
The
doctrine
the
on
point
esse
directe
quantum
actione
cessante
rei
potest
secundum
'
Dei
'
"essaret
ab
we
shall
have
Green
in
sui
est
enim
fieri,sed
esse
cessante
etiam
creata
est
actione
secundum
sunt
species,omnisque
regendis si
Natura
section.
effectus dependet
tantum,
et
est
secundum
effectus
est
Ideo
causa
autem
potest remanere,
fieri : ita
effectus
nee
esse
solum
non
'
Virtus
Augustinus dicit
aliquando, simul et illorum
cessaret
concideret.'
naturali-
non
non
quod
directe
non
ejus fieri,
igiturfieri rei
agentis quod
esse.
Omnis
considerandum
ad
quantum
Sicut
causa
teaching
present
in artificialibus et in rebus
domus
causa
"
fieri
secundum
effectus
ejus.
agentis quod
ad
remanere
eis quae
est
Sed
it is his
the
in
Art. i,
ejus.
causa
and
view
Theol, I.,Q.104,
quod
causa
H.
Aedificator
bus.
T.
Summa
est
agens
secundum
Prof.
secundum
causa
aliquod
late
that
sua
the
was
"
UNIFORMITY
THE
The
the
hold
it
all the
that
mind
the
feelingsinto
The
the
mine
one
it first exists
'
mind
mind.
relations
of
successively
not
'
which
'
without
form
'
the
'
exists,
'
not
the
For
other.
of
even
this
the
"
Of
words
as
many
that
just
far
related
after
or
which
so
united
so
before
succession
'
are
in
related, exist
two
objects
exist
objectsbetween
of
and
entities
exist
cannot
(Green,
work
admit
are
cannot
rela-
of the
we
mind.
of succession,
other
they
as
relation, one
reason
In
successive.
far
so
i.e. in
"
mind,
two
that
case
all
mystery
Thus
therefore
relation
the
them.
deter-
various
at
for
from
many,
the
into
inexplicable,unless
together
other, and
the
involves
is
wholly
relations
exist
exist
only
can
unites
terms
it is
the
essentially
are
selves
them-
of ourselves,
that
many
not
intellect
Green,
ask
we
brought
it would
succession, in
but
is
relations
that
Prof.
They being
unity. It is not
then
term
we
the
nothing.
they
thus
which
relation
is
relation
every
the
Abstract
mind.
motion.
find
shall
of
simply subjective
are
and
urged by
origin. If
"
Now
mystery
"
it is mind
a
intellect, and
matter
our
consciousness
our
it is
relations
the
as
For
one,
by
of
its definite
in
nothing
in themselves
world
unity, and
in
Without
tions.
the
be
knowledge,
constitute
and
of the
could
It is the
of
objects
spiritualprinciplewhich
by relations ;
thing, and there
constituted
the
work
in
is within
states
are
are
the
also
are
in what
of
merely
not
what
orderly
an
objects
experience
defenders
what
save
mit
ad-
not
Its
reality.
nothing
our
they
sensations.
transforms
alone, which
does
of the
intellect, there
or
of
mind,
activity
transitory
save
the
and
know
objects
249
already noted,
thought
we
Further,
within
knowledge
Apart from
have
we
indubitable, that
as
consciousness.
own
as
between
difference
and
us,
school,
Idealist
NATURE
OF
relation
as
related
always implies
of
succession
which
a
can
something else than the terms
itself
simultaneto
not
as
objects
existing
simultaneously present
the other"
before
(ibid." 31).
'ously, but one
be
the
The
can
arises, what
question now
meaning of the
.
'
distinction, which
real and
the
the
that
independent
an
seen
to
be
but
other
the
equally
real
existence
of
For
on
'
unreal
if it be
in relations, and
(ibid." 12).
Is
without
is the
This
own.
the
one
are
themselves
really the
has
then
no
the
less
hand,
between
which
claim
No.
we
can
is
possessed
distinction
real
be
If
only
by
answer
sists
con-
the
consists
looked
from
of
now
on
mind,
drawn
"
is
itself
mental
to
hold
distinguished
are
the
the
to
apt
other
of the
work
distinction
meaning
real ?
the
mind,
its
relations, which
wholly
question, What
sense
'
'
of the
work
untenable.
in
unphilosophic mind
real, fancy and fact,
the
the
one
make
to
The
and
unreal
the
being
as
unreal
accustomed
are
men
on
as
common-
the
futile
by saying
PRINCIPLES
250
'
that
the
'
How
do
'
really
'
we
it
which
consists
uniform
in the
'
in
difference
very
order
of
all
of relations
the
real
"
or
qualitieswhich
'
certain
of relations,'
the objects
constitutes
mind
perience
organizes our ex-
unalterable
Nature
is
is therefore involved
uniformity of Nature
and
reality
unreality,and is thus
"
is the
of
That
there
"
appearances
of
is
presupposition of
...
the
theory
have
we
governed
between
knowledge.
nature
set
unalterable
an
all
is not
the
world
little which
summarized
contains,
is based
as
Prof.
calls for
we
us,
is due
it.
Hence
on
as
of
Nature.
more
The
criticism.
mental
funda-
believe, several
It
It is thus
(ibid." 26).
as
enquiry
our
known
uniformity
by
to the unity of the spiritual
principlewhich constitutes
the expression Unity of Nature
justlybe looked
may
phrase Uniformity
philosophic than the commoner
that
seen
is
be, that
must
of the
The
laws.
postulate
'into
unalterableness
hopeful
object
more
answer
the
in unalterable
the
spiritualprinciplewithin us
experience. But to say that the
our
by
?
...
the
one
particularevent
any
be
to
seems
to
pass
it."
to
Reality then
of
we
whether
by testing
so
ascribe
by
everything,
decide
what
do
we
'we
is
real
LOGIC
OF
three
on
main
them.
(1) It
the
is true,
of the
mystery
many
Green
in
points out,
one.
that
relation
relations
is
link,
involve
a
bond
"
order
an
according to the old definition
and
another
do
unius
ad aliud)."
one
thing
(or
relation
There
is in every
a unity of the manifold,
a multiplicity
of that which
is one.
that this is inexplicable
We may
freelyown
without
gether
a
combining intelligence: and yet we may
deny altothat
the
ordered
must
entities
needs
exist only in an
intelligence. When
things are united by a relation of succession,
which
the mind
thus
related
indeed
have
them, must
grasped
their
them
in a single thought : but
as
own
regards
existence,
but
All the motions
successive.
in
they are not simultaneous
the working of a watch,
related to each
other.
these
Yet
are
motions
do not
exist simultaneously : they follow each
other.
the world
of our
Although therefore
experience is bound
by a
myriad relations, this lends no support to the theory that it
for a mind.
It merely proves
exists only in and
that
it owes
of
'
connexion
that
its
holds
origin
(2) It
it is
between
to
an
intelligent First
is difficult to
understand
Cause.
how
it
can
be
maintained
UNIFORMITY
THE
that
of
individual
an
the
definition
is, for
It
is
It
one
related
the
by
character
is
relations.
the
of
these
characteristic
qualities,
there
all
categories
of
the
other
relation,
is
admits
reality
no
(3)
real
The
and
the
thought
this
he
is
unreal,
if
even
this
been
hypothesis
of
twofold
mean
that
in
to
We
conclude
us
no
though
real
nothing
order
or
order
to
therefore
of
of
Nature.
science
these
reason
down
no
of
any
to
less
every
basis.
than
the
the
never
it is
when
an
men
what
in
they
thought,
there
is
mind.
of
point,
account
the
existence
unreal,'
exist
" 22).
testimony
And
theory
may
the
represent,
of
at
has
and
as
cit.
roneous
er-
that
contrary
should
we
(op.
to
from
and
the
'
that
and
this
conceptual.
Idealist
Idealist
showing
"
testify
creations
which
in
hypothesis
represented
the
his
to
And
alike
the
between
else
On
thought
Idealism
destitute
to
objects
by
to
which
imagination
the
imagination
breaks
whatever
the
anything
the
that
relations
of
proved.
which
empty
doctrine
thought
existence.
and
an
the
certain
not
To
owing
real
on
These
real
correspond
means
physical
the
as
both
contrary
judgment
is, that
be
faculties.
order,
of
speak
yet
is
cognitive
our
of
which
is
all
cannot
stituted
con-
everything
difficulty
no
valid
embraces
not
distinctive
distinction
Green,
by
real
only
is
it
Empiricist
the
to
figments
as
similar,
alone.
course
the
is
and
proved,
the
erroneous,
are
order
is
as
"
conclusion
conceptual
be
it
judgments
But
of
that
concludes
reduce
others.
as
own
to
and
misstated
has,
He
assumptions.
issue
at
question
it
relations.
sensation
save
But
no
being
as
on.
be
could
unphilosophic
as
agent,
Had
bute
attri-
to
to
relations.
it
ties
quanti-
every
relations
its
what
or
and
contrary
The
connected,
patient
so
the
On
ground
as
and
consequent
as
thus
substance
by
one
is
else,
substances
bound
patient,
to
agent
as
accuracy
between
disputed.
are
are
every
another,
or
which
entities
that
be
nothing
They
is true
The
holding
hardly
and
this,
the
reason
antecedent,
as
think,
connexions.
qualities.
or
order
an
we
that
Now
themselves
not
as
can,
relation.
by
means
relation
recognizes
intelligence
'
251
relations.
in
solely
'
another
and
thing
are
consists
of
NATURE
OF
an
able
unalter-
and
for
Empiricism
affords
the
formity
Unileaves
CHAPTER
ENTHYMEME
"
have
which
with
exhibit
into
the
an
are
The
concerned
are
ANALOGY.
in
of the
methods
forms
this
mind.
followed
of these
by
forms
ence
of infer-
of
argument
chapter,
All
deduction.
differs in certain
do
one,
save
: and
purely syllogistic
Analogy
induction
structure
discussed.
process
new
any
Analogy,
we
fundamental
The
been
now
SORITES
Enthymeme.
i.
XVI.
not
viz.
is resolvable
Yet
because
particulars
them
to treat
type, it is convenient
in a separate chapter.
is a syllogism, abridged by the omission
An Enthymeme
from
of
the
standard
premiss
of the
conclusion.
The
Enthymeme
usual
in which
is the
manner
syllogisticreasoning is
verbally expressed. It has already been
pointed out
think in syllogisms,whenever
that, though we
reason
we
from
do not
to a specialcase, yet we
a general principle
each
constituent
of the three
ordinarily express
ments.
judgWe
words
our
are
are
usually satisfied when
hearers
to
sufficient to bring our
our
meaning home
with
this can
be done
clearness
and precision: and
by
in lieu of the
fully-stated
employing the Enthymeme
syllogism. We have only to read any page of reasoned
ourselves
shorter
is
that
the
form
thought, to assure
employed more
frequently than the longer and complete
it is preciselythis fact, which
rendered
Indeed
form.
the section
the
on
expressionof arguments in
necessary
It is plain,therefore, that the
form (Ch.12, " 3)
syllogistic
between
the Enthymeme
the Syllogism
distinction
and
of language, and in no
is purely one
of thought.
one
sense
of the major premiss,
According as omission is made
the minor
premiss, or the conclusion, the Enthymeme
one
or
PRINCIPLES
254
affords
so
he
points
to
likelihoods
which
or
and
of such
instance
the
in
clause
will
They
the
late
does
be
Cecil
from
the
had,
sign or
usually trouble
proof.
syllogism from
as
the
be
to
as
he
conclusive
for
is to
Mr.
not
and
to
is
proposition,which
a probable conclusion.
found
in
Rhodes
world
well-known
"
are
children
as
in
affairs.
business
fellows
Resident
basis
argument
an
of
live secluded
who
Those
affords
thus
coming
serve
may
Nor
therefore, is defined
likelihood
is a
signs.1 The
usually true,
.".
fact,
anything resembling
secure
for
principlesare
is correct.
of cases,
majority
Enthymeme,
The
An
the
in
such
some
view
LOGIC
to his audience
Where
to
his
that
himself
motive
desires.
orator
evidence
if it is verified
reasonable
decision
the
him
for
sufficient
OF
are
of
collegeslive
children
as
secluded
business
in
from
the
world.
affairs.
would
fellows
not preclude some
piece of reasoning, which
in
such
of colleges from
matters.
being highly capable
which
affords
is
evidence
either
for the
The
fact,
some
sign
of some
other
truth
general principleor for the existence of some
fall
here
into
The
of
the
fact.
argument
figure
gism,
sylloany
may
A
the
different
is of very
and
is
sign
indication
of
effect
an
of
value
fact
the
the
its presence,
in the
in
different
question,
syllogism
is
and
in
(a)
cases,
If
infallible
an
Fig.
i,
and
is
perfectly conclusive.
.-.
That
house
is
That
house
contains
(ft)The
which
wise
in
good,
Fig.
if
3, and
is wise.
wise
The
the
is
good.'
is
seen
in
This
to
be
'
general law,
is in fact
The
syllogism
form
of this
e.g.
"
good.
are
We
Reid
with
meet
and
general
the
(y) When
this
Hamilton
are
Murderers
argument
and
Scotsmen,
from
tremble
in
the
in
the
man
trembles
This
man
is the
fj.tvo5v
'Ei'flifywj/ia
when
we
told
are
therefore
that
men
Scots-
metaphysicians.'
This
argument,
were
C.
'
Hume,
of
from
(orinstances),
good.'
/.
instance
existence
analysed,
good (s).
Pittacus
(s).
fire.
Pittacus
is
minor.
are
for
smoke
out
individual
an
to
Pittacus
The
'
conclude
is fire.
there
smoke,
giving
sign maybe
we
are
.-.
is
there
Wherever
eori
the
since
For
the
not
second
justify
instance,
presence
of
the
murdered
presence
of
the
murdered
man,
man,
murderer.
ffv\\oyi"r/JL6s
4" elxdruv
(An. Prior
r) o"r)fj.eiuv
II.,
SORITES:
ENTHYMEME:
with
man
it is the
where
countries
In
the
of
body
the
custom
weight.
'the
act
be
seem
result
signify a thought
"
Mansel
'
'
suggestions
guished from
this
bear
to
Possibly
the
Aristotle
says
audience,
"
of
that, if
being
used
we
the
is
that which
given to
is
an
the
to
who
Those
who
the
/.
to
The
/.
The
.'. The
to
who
the
the
series,the
premiss
chain
ment,
argusion
conclu-
of another.
of
reasoning,
Polysyllogism. The syllogism,
the
the
its
premiss
name
of
of the
other,
Episyllogism
premiss from
the
other.
serve
as
an
example.
the
lesser
sacrifice
good.
temporal things
to
gain eternal,
wise.
men
martyrs were
gain eternal.
wise.
martyrs were
eighteen Carthusians
eighteen Carthusians
this
instance, it is the
case
suppliedby
Sophocles,Oed.
to
third.
greater
The
known
which
Those
are
each
well
sustained
any
followingpolysyllogismmay
(1) Those
In
borrows
in
passage,
clear.
The
(3)
In
becomes
Prosyllogism :
so
three
relation
(2)
it ceased
is not
i,
connected
called
the
premiss.2
said to have
are
conclusion
in
that
form
to
"
premisses is
omit
in
found
Reasoning.
is termed
Should
be
as
distin-
as
How
to
by logicians to signify
employed
syllogismsform
whose
would
is used
It
rhetoric,
science."
considered
of the
one
it is sometimes
as
of
of
was
should
of
this occurs,
When
and
orator
one
'
enthymeme
reflection.'
of
demonstrations
syllogisms
explanation may
Chains
3.
the
or
the
the
'
word
persuasive arguments
or
meaning,
abbreviated
the
an
the
the
suspected
particularEnthymeme
this
or
suggested by a person
thing.1 Hence,
is naturally enough
term
applicable to
the
says,
of
of
255
confront
to
victim,
to carry
still appears
some
The
etymological meaning
to
ANALOGY
Col. 292,
the
1199,
who
sacrificed
temporal things
were
martyrs.
were
wise.
e\a.Tr6vuv ?)^
^ 6\iywi" re xal TroAAa/a?
ou8"
Set X^yetr avrbs
Tr/xSros
(Ti/AAoyttr
/u,6s ""v y"p rjn TOIUTUV
yvd)ptfj.ov,
6 eUpoctT^s (Rhet. I., c. a, " 13).
irpoo-Tldrjaiv
"yap TOVTO
TO
"v
5t tv6ti/j.T}fji.a,
(cat
0-uAXoytoTids,
*
"
OF
PRINCIPLES
256
illustrates the
example
is the
in which
case
borrowed
be
to
one
LOGIC
the
"
against
Napoleon's campaign
.-.
premiss
minor
of
act
an
was
gression.
ag-
unjust.
was
to fail of their
intention.
(2) All unjust acts deserve
Russia
was
unjust.
Napoleon's campaign against
Russia
deserved
against
.'. Napoleon's
campaign
its intention.
fail of
the
from
have
we
method
is first stated
conclusion
then
given
reasons
as
is
the
All
sciences
is
Logic
And
All
(2) Now,
the
fashion.
Such
Regressive.
mode
Thus
"
of
study : for,
deserving of study,
are
science.
sciences
assists
Whatever
it often
final
adopted. The
premisses,which establish
the proof of these
; and
is termed
deserving
quently
conse-
is
similar
premisses follows in a
of statingan
argument
(1) Logic
; the
and
But
Progressive reasoning.
another
that
happens
it, are
proceeded
of the
In each
to
are
deserving
perfect the
to
of
study
intellect
is
for,
deserving
of
study,
all the
And
" 4. Epichirema.
to
chirema, when
a
in
reason
Whatever
The
.*.
The
one
or
is
spiritualis
soul
soul
is
perfect the
to
intellect.
Episyllogism is termed
an
both of its premisses is annexed
support of it.
human
human
assist
sciences
Thus
immortal
:"
for it is
incapable of
ruption.
cor-
spiritual.
is immortal.
Epichirema is equivalentto a
Polysyllogism: the Episyllogism is expressed
regressive
In
in full,the Prosyllogismappears
as
an
Enthymeme.
written
in
the
example given, the Enthymeme, when
It will be
seen
that
the
full,will be,
Whatever
is
Whatever
is
Whatever
is
ENTHYMEME
Where
have
are
SORITES
is attached
reason
ANALOGY
premiss alone, we
both
of the premisses
to
SingleEpichirema : where
thus supported,it is called a
257
one
Double
Epichirema.
" 5. Sorites.
Sorites is
The
middle
many
of
In
terms.1
Dictum
the
syllogism in
this
Omni
de
the
reasoning
Nullo, that
et
the
'
principle
whatever
is
of any
and
.".
Socrates
is
All
men
are
All
mammals
All
animals
All
living
Socrates
An
living
are
creatures
a
highest.
as
many
in the
"
creatures
substances
are
substance.
of this character
analysed into
first figure,
there
separate syllogismsas
there
be
may
of regularsyllogismsin the
number
Thus
animals
are
is
lowest
the
mammals
argument
being
man
that
states
to the
term
conclusion
the
Hence
middle
are
is
Sorites
frequently
defined as a polysyllogism
clusions
abridgedby omittingthe conhave
of the prosyllogisms.In the example we
given, the analysiswill be :
terms
Sorites.
"
(1)
(2) /.
Socrates
is
All
are
Socrates
All
(3)
/.
/.
.-.
Socrates
It will be noticed
premissof
1
This
Summa
its
mammal.
animals
are
is
living creatures
living creature.
creatures
is
are
substances
substance.
that
the first
and
syllogism,
that
propositionis the
in each
definition
Totius
animal.
an
are
is
living
mammals
animals
Socrates
All
is
man
mammals
Socrates
All
(4)
men
"
to
case,
the omitted
Logic, p. 385.
tali
minor
See
etc.
discursu,"
S
also
the
forms
conclusion
Aristotle
himself
the
though
be
cannot
does
discussion
infinite
an
the
subject and
(An. Post. II.
c.
,
treat
not
summum
20).
he
which
tells
held
be
us
stating an
shows
that
that
ment
arguthere
the ultimate
between
terms
may
genus
Hamilton
of
of this mode
in
subsequent
Aristotelian Sorites.1
the
of middle
series
of the
premiss
minor
is termed
episyllogism.This
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
258
to
Greek
the
among
it
imply
of
known
by the name
Empire, it was
logiciansof the Lower
that
the
and
name
o-w^crds),
Complex Syllogism (crvAAoyicr^io?
does
not
author
before
in
Sorites
("ru"po9a heap)
appear
any
Valla
Laurentius
(1415-1465).
"
are
two
"
"
"
The
only
1
The
second
in
the
variety of
arrangement
Sorites is not
form
Sorites
of the
differs from
of reasoning which
viii. 29,
first
propositionscomposing
attention
however, in his Logic (1725), calls our
is thus stated,
the argument
St. Paul, where
the
frequently occurs.
to
"
30.
For
well-known
whom
he
Dr.
Watts,
passage
in
foreknew, he
ENTHYMEME
is called
It
it.
Goclenius,
of
Aristotle.
of the
lowest
All
living
All
animals
All
mammals
All
men
is
is
which
man
substance.
substances
"
as
stated, is analysed,it is
thus
major premissesof
omitted, and
of
Thus
argument,
restatement
become
attention
Sorites,the minor
a
genus.
creatures
mammals
it is the
are
summum
animals
are
Socrates
that
seen
are
living
are
are
the
the
to
creatures
Socrates
When
Marburg,
Rodolphus
first drew
who
he
subordinate
/.
259
work
it in
ANALOGY
Sorites, from
Goclenian
the
professorat
to
SORITES
the
not,
as
in the
the
episyllogisms,
of the
case
telian
Aristo-
"
be
premiss, and that the first,may
(1) Only one
negative.
be
premiss,and that the last,may
(2)Only one
particular.
since
These
(i) here all the
changes are necessary,
the first are
minor
premisses; hence a
premisses save
negation in any of them would involve an illicit process
the last,
of the major. And
(2)were
premiss,save
any
have
should
a
particularconclusion to
particular,we
of the prosyllogisms,
and in consequence
a particular
one
major premiss involvingan undistributed middle.
"
6.
of
logicalform
with
those
(oras
it is termed
have
we
(TrapaSciy/uLa))
Example
are
In Analogy
Analogy.
comparatively
which
have
we
to
deal,not
little moment,
hitherto
been
in this
not
with
such
which
discoveries
without
of
has
also
science.
much
pointed the
It
is however
caution, misleads
to
way
many
a
as
occupied
of inference,which
chapter, but with a mode
only employ constantly in the practicalconcerns
life,but
used
totle,
Aris-
by
we
of
of the
guide, which,
instead of assisting.
a
PRINCIPLES
260
Analogy
The
similitude.
be
may
thus
defined
be
may
OF
LOGIC
formula
inference based
an
as
for
this
mode
of
on
argument
represented:
"
is P.
5,
S2 resembles St in being M.
.-. S2 is P.
The
with
which
followingis the illustration,
provides us :
Aristotle
"
The
of
war
Thebans
the
the
against
Phocians
proved
calamitous.
War
between
Athens
Thebans
with
and
the
Thebes
Phocians
resembles
in
being
the
of
war
with
war
the
bouring
neigh-
state.
War
between
The
of
value
the
on
Athens
inference
the
supposition that
M
between
no
reason
regard
is the
and
causal
the
causal
of
cause
becomes
the
relation, we
P,
argument
our
1
4
instance
an
thus
describes
'
from
'
both
fall under
have
must
for
no
more
believingit
we
certain
are
to be
ceases
must
that
Analogy
an
"
the
to
All M
P, S2
are
are
is
'
contain
conclude
we
; and
M,
.*.
both
then
we
52
is P.'1
"
The
Example :
Example is
[induction],nor
logical parts to the logical whole
its parts [deduction], but from part to part, when
the
common
argument
genus,
but
one
from
of the
two
is better
known
to
us
than
same
'term
the other
'
S" that
deductively, All
Aristotle
is
'
argue
inference
the
case,
perfectsyllogism.
The
analogicalargument may be said to
induction and deduction.
By an induction
from
connexion
not
are
not
depends altogether
is
than
this
to
here
calamitous.
cious
causallyrelated, it is fallathe mere
fact that S2 is M, would
then give
for supposing that it was
also P.
in
But
for
will prove
there
If this be
P.
and
legitimate. If they
us
Thebes
and
passage,
of the
applies to
major term
the
(An.
Prior
Aristotle
middle, by
inductive
terms
a
term
it
an
which
inference,
resembles
part of it alone.
In
"
in which
we
the minor."
that
part,
we
prove
This
major
description
conclude
the
that
the
(P) may
universallypredicated of the middle (M), on the ground
eventual
that it is predicable of Sit a term
which
resembles
the subject of our
conclusion
S.
be
PRINCIPLES
262
electrical in
its
OF
LOGIC
character, and
due
was
the
to
clouds
with
result
resemble
to
other
concluded
itself
only
give
off electrical
establish
Mill
value
from
'
resemblance,
'
difference, and
'
of unascertained
of nine
'
of A."
one
that
has
of
the
is
depends
that
supposing
with
really connected
not,
must
as
They
the
that
are
are
wanting
Mill's
the
and
the
incapable
of
it contains,
must
attempt
point
the
on
of
ascertained
unexplored region
if after much
with
conclude
in nine
with
of
out
probability
The
which
to
common
number
mere
The
of little moment.
reasons,
we
the
argument : and
mere
guess-work.
Since
estimate
needs
be
should
on
unascertained
the
of the
fruitless.
region
number
reasons
to
it is
where
is
of
the
tainty.
cer-
they
they
Moreover,
instituted
difference
and
of
be
for
objects
two
of the
becomes
value
possess
But
conclusive.
not
comparison
an
the
that
difficulties.
probable,
fulfilment.
form
of
analogy
to
evidence
of ascertained
extent
amount
of
may
points of agreement
unexplored region
known
the
it agrees
many
foundation
that
resemblance
one
the
be
must
true
demand
'
have
we
on
characteristic
the
c.
is in fact
inference
III.
...
that
analogy presents
of resemblances,
the
extent
properties,we
What
for
basis
find
we
lightning
phenomena.
antecedent
any
it follows
properties :
to
that
inferring
with
the
sufficient
"
depends
with
next
of B,
to
without
compared
would
ject
20) to the subthe force
of an
ference,
analogical innumber
of points of similarity
he says
(I.e." 3), Since the
Logic (Bk.
first
inference
clouds
was
viz.
electrical
that
holds
this
the
this
moment,
of his
them,
of its known
'
He
between
observation
ten
fact that
among
resemblances
other
connexion
'
of vast
cipated
anti-
proved
analogical
the
that
true
But
The
phenomena
two
'
'
the
it.
to
point also
is
sparks.
chapter
Analogy.
between
'
It
to
reckoned
devotes
of
'
be
to
was
truth
The
in this
correct.
was
attached
obtained.
was
each
inference
wire
between
one
hand,
properties,' is
unexplored, any
propertieswhich
ENTHYMEME
Analogy
is
various
the
their
is
the
the
on
of
the
used
the
etymological
the
among
definition
it
is
part.
based,
gained
are
by
not
restricting
signify
to
similarities
of
use
of
citizens
the
term
closely
which
form
was
As
one
of
on
Nothing
to
narrower
ing
reason-
plays
resemblances
in
organ
proportion.
which
the
and
adheres
The
relations.
the
to
argument
(dva/Voyia),
term
is
the
cases
many
the
Analogy
human
reasons
an
between
numerical
Analogy,
as
such
of
inconveniences.
some
In
the
the
then
group
of
compares
of
"
of
other
account
of
meaning
known
the
the
on
This
Greeks
presents
traditionally
important
and
body.
basis
and
ity
similar-
on
which
parts
etc.,
eyes,
whole
based
inference
different
between
relations
hand,
one
and
question
The
263
argument
an
the
the
the
hands,
duties.
similarity
is
to
ANALOGY
as
kind
citizens
the
respective
state
to
of
head,
"
this
Of
orders
body
defined
occasionally
relations.
of
SORITES
very
which
it
be
would
scope.
CHAPTER
XVII.
FALLACIES.
"
perhaps
We
fallacies have
that
seem
Fallacies
of
in
no
Logic.
place
It
in this
might
work.
have
deals
So
order.
no
Treatment
The
i.
far, then,
which
but
contributes
it is the
work
little to
conform
For
here
operations
of
concerned,
but
is
plausibility
represents
different
two
chief
the
to
is
of those
any
middle
of
one
with
fact that
those
be
legitimate
the
science
vocal
same
is
whose
argument,
the
It
is ambiguous.
term
which
counterfeit
mere
due
not
mind,
the
to
Logic to explain.
knowledge of Logic, to
have
we
fallacious,it
of
warned
is
argument
an
fails to
It
longer logical.
processes,
as
sound
ideas.
fallacies almost
invariably form
constituent
a
Logic is historical.
part of treatises on
The
last portion of the Organon of Aristotle,the Sophistici
with
Elenchi, or Refutationsof the Sophists,is concerned
that
it came
about
Hence
them.
subsequent writers
them
within
the
the subject also included
of
on
scope
We
shall realize
work.
their
why Aristotle treated
this point at some
length, if we recall the circumstances
At
that
of his day.
period, the pursuit of knowledge
depended far less on written books than on the spoken
The
word.
Verbal
merely
the
by
which
were
method
three
by
'
intercourse
friends
truth, and
why
reason
of
of
also
the search
controversy
kinds
Discussion
instruction,but
co-operated in
which
main
or
these
was
was
the
for
carried
reasoned
'
not
method,
philosophic
on.
There
discussions
FALLACIES
265
demonstrative
(1) The
arguments
relating to some
specialscience, proposed by a teacher to learners.
(2)Friendly co-operation in the search for truth.
between
(3) Intellectual skirmishes
opponents.1 To
this class,belonged the arguments of the Sophists. The
of
boast
side
in
these
men
To
for the
them
not
but
with
claims
the
of
truth,
merely
not
to
of
with
carried
as
discusses
Aristotle
internal
the
between
on
in
tending
con-
methods, by which
the
be
might
pursued,
tested, and
suggested solutions
the
Sophists avoided.
subject of the Topics and
the
to
employed,
win
popular
at, that
discussions,truth
arguments
form
but
either
opponent
means
wondered
argument
verbal
these
be
deals
parties. He
in
their
reasoningwas
to
logicaltreatises
reason,
defend
pecuniary gain.2
secure
It is therefore
his
reduce
discovery of the
applause and
could
they
and
argument,
any
discomfiture.
not
that
was
the
These
the
cious
fallations
ques-
Sophistici
Elenchi.
It
is not,
however,
fallacies is useless
class of
cause
for
thesis.
the
appear
thought
afford
talents.
these
Some
fallacymay
men
the
of real service
in
it will
undoubtedly
render
us
indeed
not
defend
to
'
exercise
the
of their
types of
main
guarding
of
making the
has
its adepts.
versy,
religiouscontro-
aspects of
with
study
of
art
better,' still
acquaintance
be
have
consideration
But
Politics,philosophy,certain
the
that
We
ourselves.
to
prepared
men
to be
against
us
that
ensure
we
acceptance
our
capable of doing
more
so.
"
2.
What
manifest
that
such
every
as
could
1
8
pp.
vitiate
Errors
in
are
as
Fallacies?
treatingof fallacies,we
error
the
which, occurring in
conclusion.
reckoned
of the
To
such
do
an
a
not
It
is
reckon
argument,
task, there
266
PRINCIPLES
could
be
such
errors
if
even
of
consider
part of Logic,
as
of
class of
matter
false
but
wrong,
errors
because
the
to
in
case
Achilles
and
Breaches
middle
questionis appliedin
of
rules
these
it.
these
has
arisen, as
scarcely know
who
made
the
which
are
not.
fallacy
syllogism,
versed
men
in the
qualitiesnecessary
days, indeed,
for
term,
our
of the
many
acceptance,
the
err
prevalence of
de
The
discovery (or
of argument
are
sive,
conclu-
philosophers,"he
what
has
been
says,
allowed
In
which
to
respects. Perhaps
of Aristotelian
study
and
these
minor
But
truth.
essential
propounded
arguments
errors
In
of
the
undistributed
list of fallacies.
the
violated,
are
dispute,lacked
these
men
from
out
preciselyin
the
famous
semblance
recommend
false
reasoning.
argument, relatingto
tortoise.1
ruled
present
art
the
priate
inappro-
the
rule,such as
syllogistic
illicitprocess of the major or
further
in which
of solution
also of
and
must
the
method
some
are
is
similarlyexcluded, because
the
detection belongs to the specialscience,with
the
of which
syllogism deals. In these, the
conclusion
the premisses are
not
because
occurs,
their
Hence,
of fallacies.
Another
"
of Discussion
of
most
treatment
to
Art
the
the function
it is not
the
Moreover
possible termination.
belong to some
special science.
no
we
LOGIC
OF
FALLACIES
( to
'
'
'
for
pass
one)
267
invented
Bacon
that
supersede that
Logic, which
was
to
succeeded
false
history, and
by
from
out
The
and
errors
the
form,
but
"
A
of
in
driving
then
fallacymay
be
have
we
defined
logicalprinciple,disguised under
as
show
we
premisses
follows
conclusion
nevertheless
which
in
which
in
cases,
syllogism,whose
whose
and
those
to
of
appearance
undeniable,
are
theory,
all
limited
thus
fallacies,are
have
Aristotle, have
of
falser
species of
new
between
study of the connexion
language" (Formal Logic, p. 241).
reckoned
in argumentation, which
as
are
system
our
'thought
in
false
due
clusion.
con-
violation
validity.
of
with
as
occasionally used
following terms
synonymous
be noted.
Sophism, a false syllogism fabricated
fallacy,should
of
for the
Paralogism : this
deceiving others.
special purpose
is explained by Hamilton
word
(following Kant) as a fallacy,
It is more
falsehood
the
of whose
employer is not conscious.
of
rules
of the
formal
frequently employed to signify a breach
inference.
Paradox, something contrary to received
opinion.
The
"
3. Aristotle's
fallacies into
two
List
Fallacies.
of
groups.
arising from
Trapa TV\V \e)"iv.)
(1) Those
dictione
"
(2) Those
than
source
These
in
source
The
were
in
which
the
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
language (fallaciaein
arises from
error
language (fallaciaeextra
called
matter
A.
1.
the
the
by
some
of
the
dictionem
in the
'
Schoolmen,
'
Fallacies
other
some
in re),since in
(fallaciae
of the confusion
is in the thing stated.
followingis the list of these two classes
the
divided
Aristotle
them
"
cies
Fallathe
"
language.
"
"
"
"
"
268
PRINCIPLES
Fallacies
B.
LOGIC
OF
in
the matter.
1.
Accident.
(Accidentis wapa
2.
Confusion
of
absolute
(A dicto secundum
quid ad
aw\u"s r}Try XeyeirOai.)
4.
"
"
dp'xyXau/Sdveiv.)
ev
5. Consequent.
6. False Cause.
#
tf
aiTiov
ft)?
TO.
(Consequentis wapa TO
(Non Causa pro Causa
ewofjLevov.)
"
"
TO
wapa
utj
aiTLov.
Many
7.
dictum
qualified statement.
simpliciterwapa TO
"
wapa
TO
and
point. (IgnoratioElenchi
Refuting the wrong
TY\V TOV
eXey^ou ayi-oiav.)
Begging the question. (PetitioPrincipn wapa
3.
TO
o-u/x/
TO
"
wapa
The
is exhaustive,
in
the
the
fallacies in
all which
including
argument.1
the
language, Aristotle
arise
can
St. Thomas
the
from
the
that
proves
says, three
tells us,
words
this
is
ployed
emso
in
: There
following manner
are, he
possible sources
misapprehension as to the meaning of the language, (a) The
words
be really ambiguous.
This
employed may
gives us two
viz. : (i) when
the
ambiguity belongs to a single word
cases,
and
(Equivocation),
(2)when it belongs to a phrase (Amphibology}.
The
second
of error
when
the words
not
source
occurs
are
(b)
be rendered
so
really ambiguous, but may
by a change of pronunciation.
This also gives us two
the quasicases, viz. : (i)when
in a single word
it
ambiguity is found
(Accent),and (2)when
and
to
The
a
biguity
amDivision), (c)
belongs
phrase (Composition
due
the
to
be
the
on
merely
misunderstanding
may
part
of the disputant (Figure of Speech).2
of
"
4.
Equivocation. Equivocation
arises from
is the
fallacywhich
word
in different
employment of the same
The premissesappear
senses.
undeniable, for the context
in questionto an appropriatesense
the word
determines
;
unwelcome
but we
false
to
conclusion.
are
or
a
brought
Many examples given in illustration of the fallacyare
lowing
simple enough. De Morgan suppliesus with the folthe
"
All criminal
actions
1
ought
to
be
punished by
St. Thomas,
3.
law.
PRINCIPLES
270
Often
OF
LOGIC
is that between
the possessor
signified
the
and
frequently some
thing possessed. But
very
is in question,such as, e.g. that between
different relation
of the old logicians
author and his book.
Thus
some
an
give this example :
relation
the
"
is Aristotle's
This
is Aristotle's
What
This
/.
book.
book
Aristotle.
belongs to
Aristotle.
belongs to
The
how
to show
followinginstance may serve
bology
amphigive rise to a philosophicaldifficulty.
may
It is impossible that
out
of
anything can be made
nothing (Ex nihilo nihil fit).
To
to
is defined
make
create
as
something out of
nothing.
is impossible.
.*. Creation
the
Here
fallacyarises from the ambiguity of the
of nothing/ In the
out
old axiom
phrase to make
Ex nihilo nihil fit,
that
be
we
mean
nothing cannot
substratum, out of which
a
something is made ; in
turn
other words, no
one
can
nothing into something.
'
'
however,
When,
make
to
mean
Division.
of
propositionconsists
be understood
sometimes
must
several
three,' the
'
words
conjunction
it is stated
when
philosopher,'we
the
sentence
The
fallacyof
the
be
members
of the
and
House
'
that
have
substratum.
words,
say,
three
'
these
Five
must
of
term
one
members
times
some-
is two
be
and
taken
in
Bacon
was
statesman
and
of such
kept separate.
Peers
we
constituting
as
When
'
and
two
there
as
and
conjunctively,
if
disjunctively.Thus
in this,
as
of
out
substratum
any
is involved
impossibility
idea of employing nonentity
is in the
without
make
to
as
No
all.'
at
'
define creation
we
'
nothing,'we
'
two
term, in
Thus
ecclesiastics
of Commons.
if
are
we
case
where
they
should
argue,
excluded
from
membership
FALLACIES
Two
Two
.*.
the
only
men
fallacy. For
this
it is not
excluded, and
be alike
and
peer
The
argument
what
should
be
loves
that
necessary
is the
of
reward
classes
two
should
man
of the
converse
separate
we
love
all who
preceding.
their
friends
enemies.
friends.
his
will be
Heaven
/.
the
by this fallacywhen
together. Thus,
taken
forgivetheir
Caius
of
each
is vitiated
is the
Heaven
and
of
membership
to be disqualified.
ecclesiastic,
an
fallacyof Division
The
from
excluded
are
of Commons,
commit
is
ecclesiastics.
and
peers
only
men
House
we
are
271
the
of Caius.
reward
interesting
example of the fallacyof Composition
is furnished
tive
by Mr. Bradley. In treatingof the Disjuncthat
the
evident
as
proposition he lays it down
to
cannot
possibly answer
expression A is b or c
An
'
No
'real fact.
he
bases
of
meaning
simply a
real fact
and
long
"
'
the
be
can
'either
or.'"
"
intricate discussion
this
the
real
is
alleged difficulty
The
proposition.
to
as
On
'
either b or
fallacy. The words
been read conjunctively
instead of disjunctively
have
c
(Principles,
p. 122).
of
case
this
'
An
is
he
all
that
the
'
in
his
in
occurs
strive, is the
of Mill's works,
one
Utilitarianism, when
bonum,
summum
greatest happiness
desires
after
of the
which
greatest
his
own
happithe
which
case
proof
being
of
that
each person'shappiness is a good to that
and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggreinvolves
a
persons." The argument
syllogism of this
He
'admits
Each
"
says,
This
ness.
It
found
be
fallacyto
establish
to
should
men
the
famous.
seeking
number.'
'
of
instance
become
has
person
all the
have
fact, we
...
'
person,
of
'gate
character
The
"
happiness
of
The
Each
the
Here
same
of
a,
b,
a,
b, c, d
several
aggregate
in the
understood
term
is the
.
happiness
of the
gate
aggre-
persons.
individuals
happiness
.*.
of a, b, c, d
in
of
appears
individual
desire their
happiness (the
own
.).
[should]
desire
the
happiness
of
persons.
minor
sensu
c, d
premiss,as
is evident, the
diviso.
the
as
In
subject in
predicate must
major premiss
sensu
composite.
however
It
is
be
the
quite
PRINCIPLES
272
that
untrue
the
the
all others,
happiness.
known
and
fact
aim
it is the
end
as
of
should
he
b, c, d, etc., is the
a,
taken
when
LOGIC
severally
we
say
of
is
another
that
course
to
this
the
error
that
concludes
appear
that
exhaustive
the
he
his
criticism
only
list of
Within
on
introduces
the
errors,
the
instead
that
it, in order
can
Aristotle
hardly
written
It would
poets."1
which
well
do
'
controversy and
fallacy
as
in unwritten
discourse can
says, "Accentuation
furnish
fallacious reasoning, but
a
only in
'
own
men
all
fallacyof Accent,
the
his
Moreover
discuss
conclusion
general happiness, he
which
aim.
they should
As
" 7. Accent.
desires
to
illegitimatealteration, which
the
draw
of relation
out
each
of
happiness
worthless.
at the
at
and
by
we
particularlywhen
Speech. For he slipsinto
more
Figure
as
when
are
vitiated
notice
shall
are
conclusion
The
it is further
we
they
they
as
of
happiness
if
aggregate
OF
render
to
arise
from
the
"
'
contrasted
from
it with
God, had
he
the
made
'
treatment
His
he
would
have
received
This
when
the
fallacyoccurs
of a word
structure
or
expressionleads us erroneously
that its meaning is analogous to that of words
to suppose
A term
form is similar.3
whose
reallybelonging to one
1
FALLACIES
category
quantity
and
be
can
Utilitarianism, to
Mill's
in
found
example
better
No
belonging to
as
another
for
taken
be
may
on.
so
understood
be
may
273
than
given
one
reference
which
has
from
already been made in " 6. In the same
passage
The only
which our
previouscitation was taken, he says,
proof capable of being given that an object is visible,
it. The
is that people actuallysee
only proof that a
In like
is audible, is that people hear it.
sound
it is possible
I apprehend, the sole evidence
manner,
to give that
anything is desirable, is that people do
actuallydesire it." Here the whole force of the argument
lies in the similarity
of the words
visible/ audible/
visible
and
audible
Yet
desirable/
signifythat
be
be seen, and is heard, or can
the objectwseen
or
can
But
heard.
desirable/ though it implies that the
much
and deals with
more,
objectcan be desired,means
that the object ought
order ; for it signifies
the moral
"
'
'
'
...
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
be desired.1
to
reasonably be
grounds exception may
taken to the use, by certain authors, of the term
a
ception/
perof
the
to signifyan
objectperceived.The form
such
word
as
perception is similar to that of terms
denote
subjective
emotion/
passion/ etc., which
identical
On
'
'
'
'
'
affections, and
hence
the
paves
that the immediate
conclusion
objectsof
fallacious
the
to
way
sense
are
likewise
subjective.
includes
Aristotle
from
illegitimatetransition
an
example,
in
succeed
which
question
lost
that
readily
conceded
has
had,
once
(e.g.bona
feminine
It is true
that
this
he
viz.
proposed,
had,
it is
so.
dice, and
ten
ten
to
category.
how
illustrates
Whether
and
The
loses
has
The
have
not
Sophist then
It
:
argues
longer has what
no
one,
ing
follow-
longer.
no
is
Sophist might
a
difficulty.
must
man
now
into
dialectician
there
where
cases,
is
"
he
dice.
poeta), and
case
category
unskilled
once
that
fallacyall
gives, well
an
is first
which
who
He
he
putting
The
this
under
the like.
is mentioned
Such
an
by Aristotle
error
but
is not
logical at all.
it should
be
bered
remem-
their opponents
to make
that one
objects of the Sophists was
into grammatical solecisms.
ridiculous by driving them
1
the fallacy carries us
from
In this argument,
one
species of relation to
of the
another
totally different
in kind.
T
PRINCIPLES
274
He
who
lost
He
.-.
who
words
the
he
what
he
what
had
once
'
what
he
from
'
in
here
which
The
Here
when,
The
5
and
in
and
to
body.
the
precisely
be
Or
(2) they
the
'
different, e.g.
definitions
'
animal/
may
Man
what
is asserted
far
'
is P
The
horse
have
something in
to
definition.
leads
by
us
to
this
we
but
regard
mean
considered
different unless
Viewed
same.
stand
each
to
other
is
which
is black.'
scabbard/
entirely
again, (3)the
are
Or
'
common,
We
cannot
in
having
synonymous,
A sheath
definitions
that
Categories.
a
subject,
same
if
so,
'
from
nine last
'
'
accident
e.g.
Man
conclude
is
that
of the
is true
so
Predicables,and
the
(i) be
is risible/
what
in
lectively
colof
illegitimate
an
accidental
may
may
have
may
dice,
this relation
term
of the
not
definition,
e.g.
same
the
Objects
is here
individual
terms
They
the
of
members
as
of the
one
it has
same
aspect, two
relations.2
three
sarily
neces-
to
different both
'
the
applied
not
understood
are
in
from
sarily
neces-
original question
be removed,
one
there
proposition S
identical.
They are
as
the
had,'
it denotes
far as,
so
they denote
that
If
of the
form
not
relation.'
'
to
predicateis said
has
had,
relation
meaning
when
it has
in
mutual
employed, is somewhat
it bears as applied to
that
from
'
substance
" 9. Accident.
as
has
once,
once
once
of such
extent.
and such
group
Hence
each
and
all.
lost
is
by
transition
had
independently. As
signifiesthe collective
stand
considered
that
fact
longer
no
object considered
an
'
have
to
he
it.1
fallacy lies in
'
dice
ten
has
longer
no
LOGIC
dice.
ten
lost
The
the
has
longer
no
OF
its definition
as
is identical
with
that
of
the
Do
not/
you
'
know
Do
you
the
man
know
1
2
8
with
Coriscus
'
'I
S. Thomas,
do/
10.
c.
5, "
i.
'
The
I do
man
FALLACIES
with
and
denied
the
'
that
know
he
and
not
know
to
'
another
It is perfectly
possibleat the
'
the
have
is that
be
to
thing
one
muffled
'
know
muffled
with
man
to
of
solution
it is
with
time
same
asserted
both
The
Coriscus/
points out,
Coriscus/ and
to be
You
is Coriscus.
you
as
difficulty,
275
face.'
Coriscus,'
In
face.'
the
'
same
and
yours,
The
we
way,
he
'
terms
two
'
yours
one,
as
Of
Risible
It is true
'
'
it is
that
follow
"
Confusion
10.
because
character
they refer to a
is the argument,
property.
'
be
'
'
contains
that
affirmed
'
'
; but
man
of
its
it does
affirmed
be
can
and
of Absolute
part of
as
man
property of
everything
likewise
risible/ can
merely
treated
be
cannot
property.
risible
definition,because
not
'
father
similar
is
is
Man
that
'
is risible.
Man
/.
and
of
man.'
Qualified Statement.
the fallacySecundum
as
fallacyis commonly known
its Latin
fallaciaa dicto simpliciter
quid, from
name,
secundum
ad dictum
quid. A predicate is said to be
affirmed secundum
particular
quid,i.e.only in some
respect,
the
is
word
added
when
a
applicationof the
qualifying
be
of
predicate to the subject. Qualificationmay
This
two
kinds.
It may
be such
to limit and
as
to
narrow
the
'
Gibbon
not
is
But
cannot
it is the
sacrifice,is
conclude
that
'
See
Ch.
in
c.
'
statement
because
aged parents
we
absolute
the
true.1
of
ii.
Gibbon
case
a
the
Inference
not
'
that
duty
same
is
To
among
is
be
were
historian/
an
offer up
the
duty
by the omission
true,
your
Triballi/
elsewhere.2
of determinants.'
PRINCIPLES
276
OF
LOGIC
It is in
'
'
is
is conducive
made, e.g. Laudanum
in certain illnesses,'It is lawful to take life
to health
in a justwar,' etc., etc.1 In none
of these cases, can
we
from the limited,infer the truth of the absolute statement.
A centaur
is laudanum, speaking
is not an
animal; nor
'
'
conducive
absolutely,'
This fallacymay
be
of
We
man.
found
useful
needs
be
It is
so
all
are
within
said to be
apt
our
other
to
nation
connatural
to
believe
own
narrow
and
men,
health.
to
what
race
been
has
experience,must
in
circumstances.
other
persuade
to
can
that
the
to
and
of
inhabitant
an
out
happy, withtrial by jury. Indeed,
prosper
be
government and
representative
done
it is commonly said that we
have in certain cases
on
positiveharm
by imposing English methods
races,
Our
to which
unsuited.
they were
legislators,
arguing
dicto
too
secundum
hastilya
quid ad dictum simpliciter,
was
judged that what
adapted to Englishmen would
be equally serviceable
to the Hindoo.
"
is
Ignoratio Elenchi.
ii.
applied to all
the point which
establishes,not
but
prove,
other
some
of the term
It
who
statement
which
may
have
we
'
same
is
For
is the
does
is
more
he
prove
advanced
by
mistaken
detailed
the
his
the
in
man
undertaken
the
true
nature
to
cance
signifi-
of refutation.'
controversy by
the
contradictoryof the
opponent, but something
true
for it.
true
refutation,
"
when
(Ch.4, " 2),only occurs
denied
of the same
subject in
St. Thomas,
has
But
ignorance of
fault committed
already seen
predicate is
limited, see
'
in which
cases,
conclusion.
not
be
IgnoratioElenchi
name
commonly
now
man
The
ways
in
which
the
as
the
the
predicate
PRINCIPLES
278
history
should
of
is
man
with
OF
urged
it
rendering
as
consistency hold
LOGIC
certain
that
impossible
he
views.
totle
employed by Aristhis fallacy,
to denote
signifies
literallyto assume
the very pointproposed for debate at the outset.'
Hence
our
English expression to beg the question/ renders
the original
with
sense
fidelity.For the question (quaesused by the old logicians
for the conclusion,
tio)is the name
which
the disputant undertakes
for
but
to prove,
"
12.
term
'
'
which
he
has
of course,
assume
At
the
but
without
any
least, he
must
the
by
this is
be
yet advanced
rarely that it
the
House
of Lords
that
an
upper
Aristotle
which
conceal
escape
the
the
point
indecency of
detection.
chamber
enumerates
in
is
is,
to
the
ceeding
pro-
Where
It would
England
It
issue.
at
of different words.
perhaps
that
ment
argu-
ism.
anachron-
an
in which
five ways
the question
in
The
first of these is the case
begged.1
propositionitself
the
is
be
may
arguments.
possible for a man
circumlocution
employment
done, he may
possibleat
the
his
not
is assumed.
The
example
other
The
four
just given will illustrate this method.
are
:
(2)the assumption of a universal propositionwhich
the
involves
to
conclusion
be established : (3) if the
propositionneeding proof is universal, the assumption
of a particularcase
involvingit : (4)the assumption of
in regard to each part of the
the truth of the conclusion
subject,of which as a whole it is to be proved : (5)the
assumption of a proposition,the truth of which carries
with
it the truth
Of
these
which
of the
various
affords
the
escaping detection.2
the
1
2
famous
to be
established.
kinds
perhaps
disputant the
A
argument by
notable
which
in the
This
was
the
apparently implying
this he
is in
error.
sense
that
in which
they did
the
not
the
second
is the
one
greatest facilityfor
instance is afforded by
Mr.
'
says
one
term
this
was
Monadology
of Petitio
form
used
recognize the
Opusc. 35, c.
Leibniz
Principit,
by the Scholastics,'
o'her
13.
f"*jr forms.
In
FALLACIES
seeks
of
show
to
that
simple and
compound
is
substances
'
'
needs
must
substances,
The
'What
viz.
be
know
we
that
yet is
continuous, which
each
or
is made
the
simple
simple
ciple,
supposed prin-
the
on
pound
com-
are
is not
formed
form
of
drawn
be
fifth
the
circle,in which
for
depend
to
But
tive,
alternaof actual
each
other,
simple entity.
vicious
may
of
not
well-known
mentando
of
are
what
'
there
there
that
relies
argument
that
aggregate
an
know
we
argues
simple is actuallycompound/
assumption. For there is a third
the
He
constituted
are
is not
mere
bodies
monads.
hence, since
substances.1
this is
all material
indivisible
'
279
from
its
the
is the
case
of two
circulus
correlative
proof
the
upon
of Mr.
works
in
argu-
propositions,
other.
An
Allen,
Grant
stance
inone
"
the
popularizers of
extreme
his
In
work
'
In
this
This
to
connexion
form
of
argument
instances
really amount
writing
Tacitus
does
"
13.
cited
of
Fallacy of
the
the
from
the
the
is
assertion
antecedent
Monadologie, "
des
composes
2.
: car
as
II faut
the
Many
based
of Antioch,
Christ.
name
Martial
and
another.
This
consequent
instance
qu'il y
le compost
simples.
Cf. Fr. J. Gerard, Science
thus
Seneca,
ait
or
fallacy
is
and
the
denial
of
:
"
des
n'est autre
substances
chose
qu'un
des
tum
it.
clusion,
condenoting the illegitimate
in a
hypothetical syllogism
drawn
for
of
once
Consequent.
as
of
was
Theophilus
not
tragedies
one
ordinarilyunderstood
which
Thus
silence.
unknown
mention
conclusions
Christianity,does
mention
never
event
some
that
from
argument
existingworks
show
to
mention
not
Statius
of his
petitioprincipii.
to
defence
and
be
might
that
assumes
none
the
mention
may
we
writer, because
'
Scientists,pp.
84,
94.
simples
amas
ou
puisqu'il
aggrega-
PRINCIPLES
28o
If
student
with
his
These
of the
with
in his
has
occurrence,
It
in
involved
man
'
subject.1 Thus,
both
The
cTro/xei/a of
treat the consequent
of
the
fallacyof
convertible
as
with
Men
of
dress
This
man
dresses
This
man
is of
.".
fallacy,he
axiom,
'
two
identical
are
with
one
fallacies
of
the
he
'
mal,'
is ani-
man
the
among
when
occurs,
says,
we
torical
Rhe-
antecedent.
vitiated
this
by
misapplication of the
with
the
same
thing,
identical
are
the
upon
other.'
that
the
obtains
Indeed,
error
word
fact, the
character.*
loose
things, which
the
that
syllogism
elaborately.
elaborately.
is based
says,
the
the
character
in
consequent
are,
loose
of
propositions
predicates are
(of Fig. 3)
illustrates
this by
he
deal with
matter
the
in
Enthymemes
fault, and
no
ism.
hypothetical syllog-
he should
a
gives
quent
it is of frelogical treatises, where
buted
attridifferent
meaning from that now
which
is
necessarily
predicate,
any
denotes
man.'
Aristotle
to the
scended
de-
it is not
his
is mortal,'
'
But
treatises.
As
has
but
text-books,
account.
behind
tradition
long
modern
logicalworks
" i, and
afresh.
mediaeval
unlikely that
(kiro^vov]in
it.
the
of fallacies.
enumeration
Consequent
them
Aristotelian
the
It is therefore
The
subject,
his
in Ch. 13,
noticed
fallacyhas
the
from
separate treatment
to
of
novelty
them
to
identical
in his
deal with
to
explanation
It is not
it.
acquaintance
acquaintance with
alreadybeen
have
need
no
This
little
has
errors
is
there
little
have
is idle.
He
,\
will
subject.
student
This
idle,he
is
LOGIC
OF
consequent,
Those
this
who
relation
is that
predicate of their
he
adds,
unversed
are
are
which
premisses.
subordinate
The
difference
between
them
is
species of fallacies of accident.
in
the
concerned
with
that
latter, we are
a singlesubject :
merely
with
its
affirm
of the
this we
and
accident
accident,
identify
what
In fallacies
of the
really belongs to the subject alone.
have
of
which
the
accident
two
same
subjects,
consequent we
and
these
the
is affirmed
on
:
subjects.3
grounds we identify
"
pro
14.
False
and
causa
the
though
incident
to
ancient
Athens,
are
Cf. Bonitz
the
Both
Cause.
followingone
disputation,as
not
in Arist. Met.
a.
c.
'
it
was
those
among
A. 981,
Ibid.
fallacy of
of
Many
6, "
10.
causa
questions/
carried
errors,
*
27.
non
on
at
into which
Soph. Elenchi,
c.
5,
"
9.
FALLACIES
the
mind
of
'
False
to
his
this
show
absurd
that
as
the
result.
conclusion
adversary.
For
of his
one
assertions ;
and
time
brieflytreated.
employed by the Sophist,when
was
absurd
an
the
to
therefore
may
'
Cause
desired
keeps falling,
irrespectiveof
man
place. They
281
it
be
his
due
although he
premisses,he
was
from
that
the
he
opponent led
argument, however,
own
not
was
The
of his
statement
In
and
had
had
to
the
of
statement
feignedto employ
joined to it other
these, and
reductio
not
his
from
ad
impossibile
attained.
was
Thus, if we suppose the Sophist's
opponent
is
to have
affirmed that the death-penaltyfor murder
just,the Sophistmight argue as follows : The position
leads to an
absurdity: for granting that the deathis just, and
that punishment is to
penalty for murder
be held just in so far as it is efficacious as a deterrent,
then
it follows that it would
be equallyjust to inflict
the death-penaltyfor pocket-picking.'Here the original
has nothing to do with the conclusion obtained.
statement
This follows from the principle
that the justiceof a punishment
is measured
by its efficacyas a deterrent, a
with
the statement
principlewhich is in no way connected
that
the death
is just. For
penalty for murder
hold
those
who
almost
this, would
certainlybase it on
different principle,
the very
that the punishment must
be
The
proportioned to the crime.
opponent would
therefore reply that the Sophist had
ment
allegedhis stateof the conclusion, though in fact it
the cause
as
thus guiltyof the fallacyNon
not so : that he was
was
opponent's doctrine,
'
'
'
'
'
"
pro
causa
causa.
'
Questions.
The
PRINCIPLES
282
OF
LOGIC
fact
in
one
complex, and required two answers,
affirmative and one
such
as
negative. Thus a question,
of your
Do
not
time
the useless
on
spend much
you
study of Logic ? contains two members, viz. : Do you
'Is not that
spend your time on the study of Logic ?
It cannot
be
answered
study useless ?
by a single
reply. If the respondent attempts to do so, his opponent
has a manifest
be
advantage. For should the answer
was
'
'
'
'
'
affirmative, he
the
reply to
that
assumes
which
member,
it
intended
was
needed
the
as
the
negative answer,
a
a
negative reply, he makes
similar misapplicationof that.
Such
questionsare still
effective rhetorically,
and
a
schoolboy has felt
many
whether
himself aggrieved on being asked by his master
he has not wasted
his whole
totle
Arismorning on cricket.
his disciples
that they must
insist on resolving
warns
the question into its constituent
parts, and replyingto
each
separately.
should
and
has
It
been
committed
in
to
there
is
be
to
we
Accident
holding
the
take
we
truths
conditioned
fact
same
in
quid,
confuse
we
conclusion
under
asserted
to be
Cause,
its
we
reason
an
interrogationreferringto two
to
one.1
two
J.
the
consider
S. Mill.
in
from
errors.
that
of
With
scheme
Petitio
forms,
to
be
the
condition
imagine
what
is not
; in
of
is based
St. Thomas,
with
opposed
principii,
two
ferent
dif-
and
the
the
reason
Many Questions, we
accept
it
had
reference
though
It is necessary
fallacies
on
proposed by
different
wider
a
Aristotle,and embraces
he, as a
new
classification,
a
1
due
facts, as
classification
This
seems
limited
is not
what
the
confuse
Consequent, we
in False
it
all to be
in
and
one
Yet
the
in Secundum
slightest.
IgnoratioElenchi, we take
originalthesis to be opposed to it ;
the
of the
is of the
for
justification
to
as
identical
absolute
the
resemblance
real
confusion
fallacy of
to
the
that
conceded
that
that
the
seven
frequently asserted
preceding
in
that
and
no
a
was
point
common,
logicalerror
It may
be freely
referringthem to a singlegroup.
have
fallacies
receive
he
Opusc.
35,
c.
9.
system
field of
natural
FALLACIES
introduced
consequence,
has
to
greater
been
and
this
adopted by
many
Logic.
on
scheme
Aristotelian
The
terminology
new
less extent
or
writers
subsequent
283
as
was,
have
we
seen,
fication
classi-
not
principalcases, in which statements
in themselves
untrue, are so presented to the mind, that
it is misled into forming a wrong
judgment as to their
significance.Moreover, it only professesto enumerate
of the
which
difficulties,
those
occasion
"
'
The
to
as
ordinary capacity.
enumerate
Aristotle, must
"
apparent proofs,apparent
of
sources
character
of
man
dialectician," says
the
'
perplexity to
such
of
are
people of
that
is, not
intelligence
;
the
to enquire into
be an
endless work
for it would
It was
further pointed
of every idiotic belief/' *
sources
to
out, that the subject belongs properly, not
Logic,
ignoramus,but
to any
to
average
'
'
but
to the
his
is the
placeof
to the
as
who
investigatesinto
treat
of
'
'
'
"
what
opinions for
are
the
he
Bk.
(Logic,
of
treatment
science
draws
viz.
i.
truth.
is bound
of health
nature
the
of
up
there
which
"
conclusive
the
at
fallacies in
dangerous
most
the
arrive
discuss
to
to
of the
Logic is different,
view
of Logic itself is different.
Logic,he defines,
the scientist
science of Evidence
as
; and precisely
Mill's view
as
is itself one
does
V.,
persons
exist
not
7,
should
fallacies
c.
" i).
be
are
on
Evidence
of
varieties
misled
evidence
It follows
coextensive
this
Logic ;
and
scheme
proceeding on
to
into
really
that
with
principle,
of fallacy,
"
Fallacies
antecedent
to all evidence.
The
errors
are
essential character
the
"
Soph. Elenchi,
c.
9,
(Poste's trans.).
PRINCIPLES
1*4
dence
OF
LOGIC
is
two
the
Classes
and
termed
are
Inductive
fallacies.
In these, the
lies
error
of Observation.
in not sufficiently
the facts on
which
ascertaining
the theory is grounded.
This
class
contains
Fallacies
of Generalization.
(i) Illicit Inductions, and (2) False Analogies.
Fallacies
2.
3.
fallacies.
Deductive
To
this class are
to be
4. Fallacies of Ratiocination.
referred faults againstthe laws both of mediate
immediate
and
telian
inference,togetherwith the Aristo-
fallacies of Accident
Secundum
quid.
confused
apprehension of evidence.
of Confusion. The remaining Aristotelian
due
Errors
and
to
5. Fallacies
fallacies.
shall
We
Fallacies
The
"
but
Some
of Simple Inspectionare
those
errors
the
uninstructed
of the
errors
the
or
superstitious,such
that words
of ill omen
Rome
belief in pagan
this
Were
would
all, there
bring disaster.
sufficient
appear
class.
But
it
with
must
he
which
number
did not
produced by
be
Fallacies
a
agree,
the
of Observation.
the
as
introduction
e.g. that
same
of
this
the
same
effect
cause.
The
claim
and
of
the
This
of
errors
falls with
in observation
the
ricist
Empi-
have
theory, as we
times
several
noticed, does not
distinguishbetween
sense-perceptionand intellectual cognition. It follows
take
of knowledge must
science
from
this,that any
thus
the Empiricist
of sense-perception
account
; and
of
for some
consideration
to find room
Logic is bound
view
science.
scarcely
some
assumes
considerable
to
it
for
reason
as
would
the
to
as
groups
not
as
proposition is embraced
proved,
as
requiringno proof ; as a self-evident truth."
cited by Mill are
the vulgar
few of the instances
where
'
of these
such
to
seem
brieflywith
deal
286
PRINCIPLES
drawn
from
the
LOGIC
able
conceivfor every
lecture
for instance, in a valuable
theory
Thus
purpose.
OF
of Evolution
'
'
one
mention
can
selves,in obedience
'heirs
to
the natural
their
law
them-
owners
the
of heredity,
the
ages."1 Any comparison between
the history of coinage,is
law of natural heredity and
the merest
metaphor. Hence the analogicalargument,
is ever
The race
of man
advancing in perfection.
in being subject
Shillingsand sixpencesare like men
to the law of heredity.
ever
/.
sixpences are
advancing in
Shillingsand
perfection,
is from
a
logicalpoint of view, almost grotesque.
cite
As another
example of false analogy, we
may
interested
in
the
of those
some
argument by which
mental
abnormal
states, have
sought to explain as a
possessed by certain
hypnotic phenomenon the power
saints of the Catholic
Church to read the secret thoughts
of
with
whom
those
explanation
they spoke. The
them
to
enabled
as
represent the alleged miracles
of
circumstances
naturally incident to the condition
The
subjectto hypnotic influences.
argument
persons
takes
of
all like
are
...
the
this form
Some
"
persons
manifestingabnormal
phenomena
are
hypnotic.
The
able
.*.
resemble
saints
The
to
read
saints
the
the
thoughts
hypnotic.
were
aforesaid
persons
in
being
of others.
"
Ferrer, and
1
Lectures
of
St. Catherine
on
St. Theresa
the Method
Sienna,"
divine
of Science:
the
edited
he
"
says,
St. Vincent
thoughts,not of those
by
T.
B. Strong, p. 215.
FALLACIES
dominate
who
They
rightly
are
but
the
to
of
and
it
mediate
nature
the
have,
Fallacies
of
Charcot
the
not
diviners."
as
it
the
against
this
by
quid
and
what
various
of
of
and
immediate
the
Psychology
of
the
Saints,
Eng.
trans.,
to
of
the
p.
68.
our
present
explained
Confusion.
Joly,
has
faults,
familiar
time
sufficiently
Accident
Fallacies
to
rules
sections
hoped,
is
add
The
subject.
are
and
to
foregoing
Secundum
of
and
hypnotized
even
Ratiocination
of
the
on
inference,
And
chapter
'
dominate.
the
to
latter,
unnecessary
committed
be
readers.
the
divined
seems
said
been
can
not
But
Fallacies
the
to
Confusion,
which
they
regard
already
whom
compared
'
the
are
.
be
to
those
of
hypnotizer.
himself,
In
but
them,
287
various
the
PART
II
APPLIED
LOGIC
CHAPTER
APPLIED
"
LOGIC
AND
and
Science
i.
XVIII.
THE
Philosophy.
the
precise meaning
the
connexion
of
the
between
designated,and
to
explain with
the
somewhat
Ch.
I., the
Thought
and
the
sciences
of the
In
subject.
the
between
order
detail
relation
of
the
present section,
and
science
than
between
real
present chapter
Science
understand
to
'
more
in
sections
In
THOUGHT.
of
Logic
OF
term
the
advisable
three
LOGIC
the
Logic
order.
The
devoted
are
Philosophy, and
of their
of
first
to
of the
treat
we
seemed
this
tion
distincmutual
relations.
What
is
truth
of
organized body
We
may
define
regarding
science
as
an
special object
some
of
the
Wherever
1
'
'
'
"
By
When
we
mind
speak
definitely expressed as
of general knowledge,
world."
H.
an
can
'
of
'
the
the
each
abstract
Sciences,' we
special sciences
concerned
Sidgwick, Philosophy,
what
moan
'
with
its
aspect of
an
Scope
"
some
and
group
the
know-
is sometimes
of
aspect
more
organized
of
Relations,
the
p.
bodies
knowable
4.
PRINCIPLES
290
properties,principles,and
organizedbody of knowledge, there
world,
able
provide an
LOGIC
OF
whose
causes
have
we
science.1
that
It will be observed
from
abstraction
in
it is
fact that
of the
scientific
knowledge, in
of the
knowledge
virtue
considered
type
the
not
are
concerned
with
individual
the
the
'
of the
dictum
in
thought
same
of science
tion
follows
must,
we
...
as
de
Mr.
And
ancients.
we
of
peculiarities
the
was
of
far
so
as
universalibus
Sidgwick
"To
it
get
think, take
presses
ex-
defini-
the
char-
'
'
'
of
acteristic
'
'
'
'
...
'
"
'
"
'
of the
knowable,
which
but
in
embrace
their reference
The
mind
can
objects of all the specialsciences.
frame
can
view the objectsof all the sciences in common,
a
system of the knowledge which relates to them as thus
the
considered, and
It is this universal
The
which
they
rest.
their
Post. I., c.
Arist. An.
They
own
10,
which
to
we
universal
science.
Philosophy.2
being on
very
term
science.
details within
science
specialsciences
universal
the
attain
thus
can
foundations
on
it is true,
develop many
provinces,organizingknowledge
can,
" 4.
is used in various
significations. The meaning
Philosophy
the most
For
the
usual.
and
is
we
here
traditional,
believe,
still,
assigned
account
Introd.
different
somewhat
see
of
Philosophy,
History
Erdmann,
a
The
word
'
'
APPLIED
LOGIC
LOGIC
THE
AND
OF
THOUGHT
291
"
"
In
order
accept
of
of
power
the
another,
its
bodies
itself forced
these
of
causality.
Thus
This
import.
part of Philosophy
conditions
the
of
things, and
which
account
the
having
facts of universal
universal
the
e.g.
time,
in
act
upon
notwithstanding
matics,
principlesof mathe-
science
to
must
substance
for
as,
duration
thing
parts, the
It is the
that
their
of
seek
to
facts
such
space,
of
unity
law
real
material
one
multiplicity
the
in
they
commencement,
objectively
as
movement
the
make
to
even
it affords
intellect
for
science
to
so
to
of them
deal
its
finds
object
is Philosophy.
with
explain
the
them
is consistent
it does
this, the
experience. When
When
in
validityof the specialsciences is vindicated.
the
lieu of explaining them,
it explains them
away,
specialsciences collapse. No science could lay claim
the objecto be true, if the principlesof mathematics,
or
tive
of temporal duration,
or
realityof local motion
facts
with
the
were
denied.
any
of
Not
validity. The
one
of its conclusions
sciences
can
no
more
would
divorce
possess
selves
them-
from
sense
have
from
commonPhilosophy than they can
they would
experience. In the latter case
data, in the former
they would have no justification.
or
no
Philosophy
then
principlesand
the
universe
1
as
science
is the
which
characteristics which
treats
of
the
belong to the
whole.1
6i'0/j.a"o/J.evr)v
ffofoavireptra irpdra atria Kal
All
ras
regard philosophy as the science,
apxas
of primary causes
'which
treats
and principles.' St. Thomas,
commenting
of the Metaphysics, says,
this passage
on
Sapientia est scientia quae considerat
Mr.
himself
to the same
'primaset universalescausas.'
Sidgwick expresses
to me
effect, when he says (op. cit. p. 38), As to Rational Theology, it seems
it deals
which
that the questions with
are
primd facie philosophical
i.e.they belong to the contemplation of the universe
as
a whole.''
'questions
Elsewhere,
however, he explains philosophy somewhat
differently.
distinrecent
to find Scienc
philosophers, it is not uncommon
Among
Cf. Arist., Met., I., c.
i.
TTJV
'
-rr"VTes.
viro\a/ji.(3d.i"oviTi
'
"
'
PRINCIPLES
292
character
The
its
it from
noted
other
of the
We
feature
one
Two
generality.
the
LOGIC
scientific knowledge.
of
OF
have
the
in
of scientific
ledge,
know-
characteristics
guish
distin-
Science
of true
"
At
certain.
assents
we
the
"
provisional: it lacks
expression of the facts is of course
There
is no
need
the full certainty of science
strictlyso called.
which
has
with
the
extended
the
to quarrel
terminology,
cation
signifiSuch
an
of the
be
that
noted
the
defined
as
things by
their
demand
has
This
been
has
as
have
we
this
to
also.
case
science
here
not
in the
occasion
that
to
rests
on
cause.'
all the
to
attribute
such
As
this
But
fullest
we
too
it should
of
meaning
e.g. that
adverse
there
to Aristotle
knowledge,
as
by
or
stration.
priori demon-
no
have
includes
Aristotle.
pressed
ex-
ever
what-
reason
St. Thomas.
interpretationof
term
It
knowledge
no
is
causam.
comment.
of
sulphuric acid
and
sulphur, is scientific knowledge
oxygen,
incomplete and capable of immense
very
such
knowledge
propriam
admitted
But
that
seen,
rei per
the
capable
spiritsmay
perhaps
narrow
enumerated
causes
further
were
effect.
opinion
an
have
as
shallower
altogether
an
four
truths
of the
much
to
Schoolmen
the
scientific,except such
was
cognitio certa
"
given
themselves
ancients,
the
by
causes
asserted
Some
'
'
science
term.
Science
of
'
word
in
consists
the
its
Thus
It
word
meaning
understood,
of
hydrogen,
of its nature,
though
Indeed
extension.
with
ground that Science is concerned
Metaphysics with the Reality, which lies
This distinction we
to Kant, and by many
behind
writers
owe
appearances.
however
are
it is accepted without
to
question. There
'signsof a return
view.
the
Thus, Mr. Sidgwick (op. cit.
hold, saner
traditional, and, as we
beMetaphysics on this basis,
p. 93) declines to distinguish Physics from
cause
Physics regards its object as real, and itself requires the distinction
'
And
somewhat
between
similarly, Professor
Reality and Appearance."
It
is
scientific or semito
a
hardly possible
Pringle-Pattison writes,
open
'
admission
without
the
that our
meeting
complacent
philosophical work,
'
Or
of
writer
the
the
tells
that
science
is
us
phenomena.'
knowledge
only
*
in question, so far as he is concerned, treats only of phenomena,
the conof the corresponding noumena
sideration
being relegated to philosophy or
rest assured
that the best result
[These writers] may
metaphysics.
of this contemned
times has been just this
to exmetaphysics in modern
help
plode the conception of such duplicate entities as they still cannot
brand
the
of that
half believing in, and to repudiate in consequence
only
before phenomena
(Scottish Philosophy, pp. 175, 176).
Philosophy, on
guished from
alone, Philosophy
Appearance
the
or
"
'
'
'
'
'
'
"
'
'
'
'
'
'
PRINCIPLES
294
particularlywith
philosophy,which
the
LOGIC
OF
threefold
we
division
the
to
owe
of
speculative
profound insightof
Aristotle.1
All
the
science, as
individual,
nature, which
in
which
have
we
but
considers
seen,
the
general type
intellect abstracts
our
primarily,not
"
the
universal
the
singulars,
from
it is realized.
intend to
By this, we
that science
is concerned
assert
only with our abstract
concepts, and not with things. This would be to fall
of the Conceptualists.Science
into the
is conerror
cerned
with
things,but solelyin so far as the universal
is found
type
to
the
do
If the
in them.2
of
study
the
scientist
devotes
manifested
phenomena
electrical machine,
not
the motions
or
of
himself
by a particular
particular
it is that he may
discover
laws of universal
spinning-top,
import. Nor is his knowledge of the individual fact
scientific knowledge, save
in so
far as he, to use
St.
Thomas's
expression, applies the abstracted universal
There
is not, nor
there be,
to the particular
case.
can
of particulars
is in peras such
a science
; for the particular
petual
flux.
We
make
ment
stateIt is ever
some
changing.
'
'
it ; and
about
mouth,
they
Plato
are
before
the
words
It
longer true.
no
world
his
well
are
out
of
this, that
was
our
led
of
super-sensibleentities,
which
he held, the true objectof all scientific knowledge.
were,
The
keener
insight of Aristotle perceived that
direction.
the solution of the difficulty
lay in another
not
to be sought for in the
The
object of science was
world of Ideas, but in those universal and
super-sensible
to
stable
which
types,
See
Metaphysics
2
suppose
in
relation
i.
to
the
Opusc. 63,
in
est
lib. Boethii
sic
de
aliquibus secundario,
de
rebus
illis est
quarum
sunt
discusses
the
the
place of
sciences.
de
'
Scientia est de aliquo dupliciter. Uno
ad. 4.
rationibus
et sic scientia est de universalibus
modo
from
abstracts
intellect
our
et
quasi
illae
Trinitate, Q.
modo
per
super
primo
quas
reflexionem
rationes, in
quantum
et
5,
Art.
2*
principaliter
fundatur.
quandam
rationes
Alio
:
et
illas
virium.'
inferiorum
sunt, adminiculo
applicat ad res etiam particularesquarum
is here spoken
to the individual, which
The
application of the universal
affirm
Socrates is a man,'
When
we
in the conceptual order.
of, is of course
Socrates.
to the individual
the form
humanity
apply
we
mentally
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
APPLIED
LOGIC
AND
LOGIC
THE
in the
ever-changingsingulars,and
far
so
as
the
grades of
There
We
is the
basis
abstraction
must
Aristotle
as
are,
Such
is the
special sciences
abstraction,
which
of
science,and
has
shewn
us,
from
the
abstraction
dealing with
we
the
is the
moreover,
considers
singularsthemselves
the
to
correspond distinct
abstract
simply
may
295
is realized in them.1
type
Abstraction
THOUGHT
OF
three
different
sciences.
such
grades.
ditions.
individuatingcon-
material
all the
in
employ
world.
foundation
of the
This
science,
the
further
from
it
Physics.
abstraction
those
sensible
enables
to
us
qualitieswhich
prescindaltogether
conditions
the
are
of all
'
with
quantity,
is Mathematics.2
The
will show
that this ancient difficulty
is with us yet :
following passage
fact nothing ever
is ; everything becomes, and turns
most
our
scientious
conThe
real is here, there
and
predications into falsehoods.
where,
everyuntil we
nal
eterstop breathless in the chase, and point gasping. The
with
truths
unable
to sustain the pace
to reside
have long since ceased
have
down
directions
about
or
cannot
be
(one
precise
really
us, and
gone
up,
in these Copernican days,) into
the TOTTOS
vofjT6s,where it is possible to
F. C. Schiller,Axioms
one's dignity without
doing any work."
preserve
In
strict
'
'
as
Mr.
that
philosophic thought
here
is identical
of Greek
It
than
more
with
philosophy,
that
it
two
which
thousand
years
not
blind
which
The
ago.
taught. Even
quickly lecognized that such
was
us
to
Aristotle
Heraclitus
fact
contained
error
early days
in the
a
the
delivered
doctrine
does
not
account
2
he
is not
assertion
that
the
extended
and
the
in the
uncommon
works
deals with
Mathematics
of non-scholastic
merely
mental
writers
to
creations, and
find
not
the
with
perfect square,
understanding
of
the
which
real world.
are
It
the
"
"
"
PRINCIPLES
ap6
third
degree
abstract
from
A
we
Being
and
notions
universal
these
of abstraction
matter
must
be
true
as
material
universe, since
not
in
as
far
they
yet remains.
endowed
those
all
dominate
of
as
spiritual
good of things,
well of the
they
material
are
this
By
consider
altogether,and
principles,which
the
so
LOGIC
OF
hold
bodies, nor
yet
in
so
with
as
they
reference.
are
This
science
distinct from
alone
enables
revelation,from
us
to
ascend
by
the
contemplation
to some
of the visible universe
knowledge of the
whom
all proceeds,from the creature
First Cause, from
it was
not
Hence
to the Creator.
undeservedly termed
by Aristotle and his followers,the science of Theology.1
reason
as
know
the realization of geometrical forms is, as far as we
recipientis. Thus
A
of the material.
less imperfect, according to the nature
or
always more
from
In
black-board
is very remote
the ideal.
on
a
plane surface as shewn
removed
measure
: but
perfection
polished metal the imperfection is in some
Yet the intellect in the act of abstraction, seizes the type.
attain.
cannot
we
the real world : and
deals not with figments, but with
a
Hence
Geometry
proposition,e.g. in Trigonometry, gives us the real height of a real building.
the subject of discrete (arithmetical) quantity.
A word
be added
on
may
of abstraction.
Arithmetical
number
This is reached
by a similar process
is obtained
quantity into equal parts. The
by the division of continuous
undivided
whole : and
unit is a portion of continuous
as
an
quantity viewed
is produced by the repetition of the unit.
the arithmetical
Were
number
The
pression
exunit not of this nature, there could be no such things as fractions.
as
applied to a line or other continuum, but
e.g. '123 is intelligible
On this subject see Summa
Totius
not so if applied to a quality or relation.
Logicae, Tract 3, C. i.
1
sunt
vero
secunspeculabilia,quae non
dependent a materia
Quaedam
sine
materia
sive
sint in materia
dum
esse
quia
possunt :
esse,
nunquam
suit in materia, et in quibusdam
sicut Deus
et Angelus, sive in quibusdam
ut
et
et multa
et hujusmodi :
substantia, qualitas,potentia
actus, unum
non,
omnibus
id
de
est
divina
Theologia,
est,
quibus
scientia, quia praecipuum
Alio nomine
dicitur Metaphysica, id est transcognitorum in ea est Deus.
occurrit nobis, quibus ex sensibilibus
physica, quia post Physicam discenda
Dicitur etiam Philosophia prima in quantum
competit in insensibilia devenire.
scientiae aliae ab ea principia sua
accipientes earn
sequuntur.' St. Thomas,
It is a
Opusc. 63, in lib. Boethii de Trin. Q. 5, Art. i.
disputed point
here
the name
whether
was
Metaphysics
given for the reason
assigned, or
Aristotle's work
of that name
next
to his treatise on
came
simply because
Physics.
'
'
'
LOGIC
APPLIED
In
this
THE
AND
of
hierarchy
LOGIC
THOUGHT
OF
inferior
sciences, the
297
are,
we
as
dependent
precedingsection,essentially
for their justification
the
and
abstract.
on
more
higher
If the value
of the higher science be impugned, nothing
in the
pointed out
can
lower.
the
save
conclusions
are
of
contradiction
is idle
their
to
in
of
reality,or
avail
*
fictions
establish
cannot
the
to look for
In
this
in Ethics
but
as
His
reasons
the
to
as
them,
different
that
have
we
The
did
with
of
there
such
was
'
into
as
Logic
sciences,
the
which
bodies
best
appear
reckon
other
instrument
on
Ethics
given by St.
arrangement
not
the
no
sciences.
is
requisite
knowledge,
different footing
of
relegate it to a
tle's
no
place for it in Aristospeculative,'practical
to
'
'
'
by
'
function
will to choose
He
stand
sciences
objective
if Physics
with
This
organized
easily
of the
For
productive.'
what
to
seems
whether
Astronomy.
division
acquirement,
all those
Moreover,
division
tual
intellec-
to
of
note).
an
That
might
category.
famous
'
it
relative
mere
Logic
level
to, and
sciences,
term
reckoned
to
the conclusions
on
evident.
are
And
following the
science
effects
calculations
mind.
(see p. 5,
of Aristotle.
that
introduction
an
we
from
the
this
right ordering of
which
and
in
from
reference
the
have
we
/., 1.
(TO,dyaAuriKa)
of
certaintyin
regulative science,
Thomas
principle
causality,it
of
light,are
have
of
validity
paragraph,
the
Mathematics
are
law
the
and
Mathematics
defend
scientific
of heat
if the
of
special sciences
long
phenomena
truths
without
the
The
amusement,
the
and
argue
causes.
the
to
The
of
the
'
right
'
practical
The
course.
science
will
is
being
to
able
determine
to choose
the
either
be
says,
"the
principleofaction
Logic provides
that
with
us
is the choice
rules
; but
of the will
it is not
the
Tr/oocupecns)."1
(rj
choice
of the
will
is determined
As
them, the
as
soon
we
by them.
grasp
the
them.
Hence
spontaneously
Peripatetic
obeys
school regarded Logic not as a constitutive
part of philosophy,
the instrument,
science.
but
able to attain
as
are
we
by which
Accordingly they gave to Aristotle's logical treatises the name
of the Organon
or
Instrument.2
intellect
us
Met., V.,
Ammonius
that
the
c.
i,
the
" 5.
son
Peripatetic
of
and
Hermias,
Stoic
in
his comment
schools
were
the
on
Categories, tells
distinguished by the place
PRINCIPLES
298
"
3.
this
work,
definitions
two
be
explained to
was
LOGIC
OF
At
of
Logic
the science
which
former
The
definition
practicalscience, which
The
intellect.
it, the
latter
It would
be
operations of
of the
science
indicates
also
real
the
its scope
as
the
as
it is conversant.
which
It
offered.
were
of
the commencement
the
mind
term
'
for it
operations the
of conceiving,judging, and
reasoning, but
processes
It considers
the result of these
things as
processes.
expressed in concepts and in judgments, and as made
in conclusions
known
to
us
resultingfrom premisses.
The subjectof the science is,as we have seen in the course
of the foregoingpages, the characteristics which
things
things as possessed
possess as thus expressed. It views
them
term
of those
we
properties,in virtue of which
subject,predicate,genus, species,logicalpart, middleterm
etc., etc. ; and it is through the knowledge it gives
to tread
of realitythus expressed,that it enables
us
us
istics,
characterthe difficult path of reasoningsecurely. The
which
things possess solely in virtue of their
termed
mental
expression,were
by the ancient logicians
Intentions
Logical Entities (entiarationis}or Second
with
them
contrasted
(Ch. 2, " n). The former name
Real Entities (entia
were
signified
realia),
by which name
does
in
not
consider
to
erroneous
fact
the
actual
"
"
the
actual
possesses
substance
in
order
all those
is
treats
of the
ens
Logic
is
attributes, which
of existence.
frequentlydefined simply
Logic
When
the
and
as
In
these
the
science
it
writers,
which
rationis.
seen
to
be
the
science, which
treats
of
Stoics held it to be a
The
assigned to Logic in their respective systems.
the
it
instrument
the
of
as
Philosophy,
by which
Peripateticsregarded
part
it. Trendelenburg, Elem.
reach
we
Log. Ar., p. 48.
of the speculative sciences.
St. Augustine De Civ. Dei, viii. reckons
it as one
this St. Thomas
sub
On
continetur
non
philosophia speculativa
Logica
says,
ad earn, prout ministrat
reductum
quasi principals pars, sed quasi quoddam
instrumenta."
speculationi sua
Opusc. 63, Q. 5, Art. i, ad. 2.
in Porph., Lib I. (Migne, P. L. t. 64, col. 74).
Cf. also Boethius, Comment,
"
AND
LOGIC
APPLIED
Logic. They
and
and
is
vested
appear
so
are
all
to
common
very
the
is
with
the
different,and
all
far
so
so
enter
on
cation,
appli-
things which
conceptual
of
of the
conditions
as
they
of these
thus
can
science
science
For
whatever
and
of the
those
provinces
yet
universal
universal
universal
things,in
order, the
unlimited, and
the
physics
Meta-
its reference.
characteristics
the
fact that
in
real
objectof thought,
an
it deals
299
sciences.
to
universal
intellect
with
order
The
of
common
Metaphysics is
order, so Logic is the
real
universal
science
As
order.
are
less
no
also be
exist,can
can
the
are
of the
range
attributes
the
Logic
are.
THOUGHT
investigatesprinciplesof
which
science
OF
universal
is the
the
is
there
that
appears
LOGIC
in the
exist
they
things as
THE
are
the
ceptual
con-
which
thought.1
sciences
two
renders it
closelyparallel,
their study to be on
their
that
properties,which
guard lest they should suppose
belong only to the thing as thought, must
belong to it
as it exists in the real order
lest,because
; and
conversely,
existence
in the
the
hold
involves
certain
definite
ditions,
con-
exist under
needs
things must
conditions
in the conceptual order.
The
tory
hissame
of philosophy is full of errors
fusion
arisingfrom this conthe logical. Plato, recognizing
of the real and
it is repreof the nature
or
essence
as
universality
sented,
they
the
order
real
affirmed
that
real
the
existence
of universal
natures.
The
Cf.
St.
Natura
Sciendum
Opusc. 39, De
Generis, c. 4.
ergo quod sicut in 4 Metaph. dicitur,Logicus et Metaphysicus circa omnia
Sicut enim
Primi Philosophi est loqui de Ente
operantur, differenter tamen.
in communi,
ita et Logici.
Ens
et radupliciterdicitur scilicet naturae
tionis.
Ens
autem
rationis proprie dicitur
de illis intentionibus
ratio
quas
in rebus adinvenit
sicut est intentio generis et speciei quae
:
inveniuntur
non
"
Thomas,
est
in
rerum
natura,
modi
ens
est
nihil
est
in
lect. 4 ; in
sed
subjectum
rerum
An.
actiones
sequuntur
Logicae
natura
Post.
de
/., lect.
quo
20.
intellectus
et illud
ratio
ens
non
et
rationis
et
hujus-
PRINCIPLES
300
in which
udgments,
itself,which
That
with
involved
difficulty
mental
processes
in their
foundations
such
sufficient
testimony
real, and
the
the
to
great Stagiritewho
both
found
con-
analysisof
accurate
an
nature
these
as
relation to the
of the
acumen
securelythe
thinkers
in
the
phenomenon
another, is
to the
marvellous
the
on
it.
to
order
one
the
confers
attribute
we
LOGIC
of the
nature
OF
laid
so
of
soon
it is
as
be
to
seen
representationof things in
evident
it is not
that
the
intelligent
subject,it
an
of those
one
deals with
sciences
which
is
are
specialsphere of being,
but that it is concerned
with attributes which
belong to
real and
all things,both
possible. The universalityof
Ethics is closelyanalogous to that of Logic. Here
too
have to deal with an order of things,totallydifferent
we
from
of
that
with
real.
the
which
The
to
some
we
are
science
concerned
which
in the
of
treats
sciences
the
moral
be
obligationsof a free self-determining
agent, cannot
brought into the same
category as they. Ethics, in
in
not
deals with them
dealing with these obligations,
regard of any particularcircumstances, but as general
of universal
laws
in which
the
reference,valid
agent
rightlytermed
be
may
in
step
between
in
save
that
achievement
retraced.
be
to
age
and
European thought.
where
is
philosophy.
permanent
not
circumstances
It also therefore
placed.
all
the
the
It must
of
Yet,
Scholasticism, that
their
of
as
main
influence
all the
all
of the
Aristotelian
great
mind
are
well
has
taken
seats of
Catholic
system
divisions,
human
the
this, a revolution
In
seemed
have
no
"
aware,
place
learning,
is ponderant,
prefinds
longer
Church
unconciliatory.They
of
intellectual
face the
to
of the Arabian
all that
good in
Learning in
was
New
the
did
their
imitate
not
occasioned
ferment
great predecessors
called
when
century, who
thirteenth
the
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
302
the
by
duction
intro-
adopted
philosophy,had resolutely
the novel ideas.
They regarded
the lightof a connatural
foe,and
of
men
by their hostilityto all innovation, drove many
towards
the oppositecamp.
ability
the
tending still further to weaken
Amongst causes
positionof Scholasticism two others call for mention.
sixteenth
the
In
its defenders
century
became
too
rowly
nar-
The
sciences.
and
of Ockham
pioneerwork
the
classical revival
The
the
nothing to
had
interest
the other
to
spare
to the reaction occasioned
owing
no
the
into
forward
fields is bound
new
contributed
has
ceased
votees
deYet
matters.
about
by it,it came
cared for nothingsave
the
hand
for such
to
in this direction.
Buridanus
its
:
physicalinvestigation
of
cause
on
great debt
that
for
to
press
decadent
and
to become
All
gone.
was
of
credit
confidence
Eventually,in
of thought arose,
almost
In
Elector
views
every
1425
to
the
answer
of St.
the
to
thinker
heads
in it
of that
course
one
who
of the
was
or
at
least,
lost.
century, two
other of which
we
may
currents
assign
to the
Thomas,
APPLIED
THE
AND
LOGIC
LOGIC
OF
THOUGHT
303
Idealism
commanding influence in Europe. These were
had
its origin in Descartes
and
Empiricism. Idealism
Idealist in the
an
(1596-1650). Though not himself
his system was
based
full sense,
on
suppositionswhich
The
inevitably led to that doctrine.
philosophy of
Locke
(1632-1704) gave rise to the Empiricist school.
of
Neither
of
theory
the
does
concepts
is the
With
with
any
stood
under-
was
them,
Logic
of
the
of the
conceptual
mode
such
figment,and
perception by
our
be
the
mind
no
of concrete
sense
which
We
reality outside
is equally impossible, if
only form of knowledge
science
in
order.
singulars. In
the
of writers
hands
the
are
Logic
writers.
order, if there
real
And
thought.
in which
sense
that
theory
represents the
compatible
Idealism
have
is
of the
science
Empiricism
cannot
the
Aristotelian
the
But
real.
doctrines
two
Logic, in
by
was
these
ancient
roughly
would
It
handled.
become
very
be
it would
inevitable
was
that
uncertain, that,
parts of
the other, that
discarded
its boundaries
the
on
hand,
one
meaningless,and on
to it would
be assignedthe treatment
of
topics,which the Scholastics would not reckon as falling
within
its province.
With
Logic, as interpretedin an Idealist sense, we
concerned.
is called Applied Logic
not
What
now
are
its incorporationinto the treatises of the present
owes
day as an integralpart of the science, to the influence of
Mill, an
empiricist. Though the subject is dealt with
in idealist
influence
limits
for the
by
theory, it
views
is necessary
to
of Francis
Bacon
Professor Minto
was
'
'
first made
has well
"
to
there
treatment
Mill
science.
as
is due
establishingtraditional
Yet
before
dealing with Mill's
say something in regard to the
(1561-1626). For although, as
said, it was
the
in
by
incorporatescientific
to
new
in the
wing
Novum
to
the
attempt
method
with
Aristotelian
Organum
of
Bacon
PRINCIPLES
304
OF
undertaking was
always been regarded as a
the
that
Logic, which
groundwork
been
the
little
worth, and
it
that
when
the
fact
that
liberal
story
of the
the
his
days
Organon
conviction
of Cicero
come
lived
at
had
of but
education, was
had
time
the
with
the
has
supersede
to
better.
by something
Bacon
Francis
" 5. Bacon.
since
ever
of
book
work
title,the writer
strong relief
into
threw
of Aristotle, and
its very
By
for his
challenged comparison
in the
landmark
Scholasticism.
from
revolt
That
suggested.
this
that
LOGIC
the
very
time
of
chaos
most
plete.
comphilosophicalopinion was
with
Endowed
an
intelligencenaturally both
it to every
and capacious,he turned
kind of
inquisitive
problem both philosophicaland scientific,and believed
of his
himself capable of solvingall. In the fifth book
he exposes
De Augmentis Scientiarum
work
a
completely
thing
somenew
system of Logic. But by Logic he signifies
his predecessors
the science
different from
very
be gathered from
the
had known
as
by that name,
may
of
Memory
Grammar,
reckons
he
as
parts
of
Rhetoric
blames
entirelyuseless ; he
recognizing no other Induction
holds
to
be
This
enumeration.
settingforth
the
new
he
defect
save
undertakes
Inductive
the
Art
Scholastic
The
Logic.
and
Method.
Logic he
it especially
for
that by simple
to remedy by
For
this method
Its
loftiest claims.
discovery would, he
averred, do for science what the discoveryof the compass
done
for navigation. Its efficacywas
had
such, that
of all men
it would
on
an
put the intelligence
equality.
science he does not treat in the De Augmentis :
Of this new
he
it
makes
for another
reserved
was
volume,
famous
the
Novum
Organum.
The
up
value
with
believed
natures.
is
Bacon's
of
certain
every
Induction
is
philosophicalviews
substance
to
heavy, yellow,malleable to
Each
of these
simple natures
be
an
the
a
intimately bound
his
of
He
own.
aggregate of simple
followingnatures
certain
"
extent, etc.,
depends,
he
holds, on
it
etc.
a
APPLIED
THE
AND
LOGIC
LOGIC
OF
THOUGHT
305
particles.
specialdispositionof the component
The
thus
be regarded
of the particles
disposition
may
the constitutive
as
principleof a nature, and is termed
certain
the
Form
of that
discovery of
'
the
Form
'
these
'
The
nature.
of Induction
aim
When
Forms.'
able
be
simple nature
correspondingto
Thus
an
acquaintance with the
it
unite
substance, and
In
the
so
Novum
conceives
to
be
observations
our
of
'
the
first
induce
to
other
on
'
Forms
wherein
the
substances.
of
yellowness,
them
in
another
it into
gold (II.v.).
Organum Bacon
prescribeswhat he
the most
for directing
suitable method
and our
experiments to the discovery
Form.'
step
to
us
transform
'
know
we
shall
consists, we
is the
This
is to draw
is
various
up
Inductive
his
tables
Method.
The
containingrespectively
be
should
forthwith
it, we
examine
tables, and
our
know
we
x,
that
be
may
alternatives.
Finally all
and
that
In
has
of
know
we
been
never
Secondly,it
was,
than
new
method,
found
discoveries.
no
forms
this is the
this
regard to
of any
No
excluded
but
objectof
one
Bacon
as
way,
The
method
logicalprocess.
is not
direction
in any
list of
rejected,
search.
may
say
It has
service.
has
the
are
our
we
of science
man
from
first,that
it
fruitful
been
used
ever
maintained
is little
it.
it
more
"
It is not
/.
The
It is
Novum
or
b.
c.
Organum
is not, in fact, a
logicaltreatise
x
PRINCIPLES
306
Induction
on
with
There
from
pass
the
LOGIC
is in it
logicalexplanationof
the
we
all.
at
OF
individual
the
mental
instances
to
deal
to
attempt
no
which
act
by
the
universal
principle.
his
has
method,
In
the
we
the
employed by
sufficient
of
process
will
lie between
nature
must
fortunate
be
may
acquired
following case,
choice
which
term
the
discovered,
Our
This
Instance.
Crucial
he
says,
Forms
by
enough
to find
an
the
planation.
ex-
Form
is
occasionallyoccur.
only,
In
describing
separate
which
will
attributed.
in
claim
to
exclusion
two
be
note
Bacon
to
one
instance
or
other
of
circumstances
these
which
absolutely
This he
establishingthe other.
Instantia
the
from
the
calls an
Crucis, taking
metaphor
cross-posts,
which
where
II.
stand
roads
two
meet
(Nov. Org.,
36). The
an
ment
experiexpression has passed into the language, and when
excludes
alternative, thus
one
shows
the
of
one
truth
hypotheses
two
to
Mill
Crucial
thus
lishes
estab-
Experiment.
suggestion contained in
his hands, Logic became
Novum
the
a
Organum.
science having for its primary objectthe proof of natural
he tells us
Like the older logicians,
laws.
indeed, that
with
the
attainment
of Truth
Logic is concerned
(Exam.,p. 397) ; but he makes use of this expressionin
butes
a
sense
quite other than theirs. In his view, it contribecause
it deals with
the general
to this end, not
but because
conditions of all intellectual representation,
it prescribesthe methods
by which we obtain evidence
" 6. Mill.
took
false and
be
the
up
In
'
of nature.
formal
The
in a
into the science, but
Logic are indeed admitted
position. Their office is to secure
purely subordinate
In
self-contradiction.
us
against inconsistency and
this way,
they fulfil a subsidiary,but not unimportant
function
This
in the
for truth.
search
nation
in the Examitheory of Logic is clearlylaid down
The doctrine [ofSir W. Hamilton
of Hamilton.
that with the exception of the rules of Formal,
"
'
'
'
'
'
assumes
that
which
from
Bacon
is,of Syllogistic
Logic,no
other
rules
can
be
framed,
set
before
hjmself, and
led
the
way
towards
'
THE
AND
LOGIC
APPLIED
LOGIC
THOUGHT
OF
307
resolvingis
an
'
'
'
"
'
"
'
'it."
his
But
of
account
deal, is
with
subjectof
'
of
'
their
not
in accordance
the
theory
those
mind,
the
but
he
with
the
to
view.
find the
sketch
there
forth in the
Examination
abundantly
clear that
its scope.
volumes,
to
is not
Professor
that
me
the
of
it
the
operations
Nature
and
Axiom
the
of
in the
'
of matters
subsidiaryto
'
Laws, such
as
cation,
etc.
Nature
are
the
'
Logic,
about
itself,
we
It appears
"
his
traditional
work
understood
'
'
it
the
Proof.
.
set
renders
says,
immortal
'
in the
well
Read
'
'
yet
so,
in fact that
thus
Carveth
'
with
which
of Hamilton,
'
harmony
this be
treated,
given,but
introductorychapter to
he is
subject with which
the
in
more
though
science
was
in the
that
It is true
and
First
It will be
Books
Fourth
there
is much
discussion
the
plain to
who
followed
have
the
going
fore-
here
paragraphs, that Mill was
combining two
are
absolutely incompatible,namely, a
things, which
science
of the
which
the
of
investigation
relates
traditional
order.
No
subjectwith
one
the
Logic,
be
can
which
1
to
Mill
Carveth
"
blind
Read,
"
real order,
which
was
nature
concern
branch
and
the
the
of knowledge
the
rules
of
conceptual
importance of the
concerned, namely
principally
to
Theory of Logic, p. 7.
PRINCIPLES
308
the
of the
methodology
which
called
for
to
at
it
LOGIC
sciences.
the
were
The
and
treatment,
inadequate attention
contributions
OF
subject was
had
hands
of
hitherto
received
philosophers. His
his
great, and
very
one
work
will
each
be
should
to
case
the
science
to
which
it,
not
incorporated with
Reference
has
been
made
in
Ch.
to
it
with
the
refers, and
Logic.1
novelty, entitled
are
applied to
mathematical
methods
Symbolic Logic, in which
and
If
the
propositions.
analysis of the sciences, which
be
have
the
we
correct,
given,
pursuit can lead to no result of
For
it consists
in nothing else than
value.
in the applicaany
tion
of principlesbelonging peculiarlyto one
science, to obtain
the
solution
of problems belonging to another.
Of
the
bolic
Symin Faust, it may
be said that,
Logician, as of the alchemist
terms
He
fused
Things
1
and
which
fused
by
by
rule
nature
are
and
recipe
antagonistic.
Cf. S. Thomas,
in
omnibus
'
'
Der
Sich
Und
Das
in
Gesellschaft
Adepten
schloss,
nach unendlichen
Recepten
Widrige zusammengoss.'
Faust, Act
in die schwarze
von
Kiiche
i, Sc. i.
XIX.
CHAPTER
AND
OBSERVATION
"
As
are
of
Function
have
we
we
The
i.
EXPERIMENT.
in the
now
order, but
with
not
those
with
and
Observation
preceding chapter,
science
Experiment.
of the
real.
of the
We
are
ceptual
con-
not
in passing from
it is that
us
justifies
consideringwhat
from
the premisses of a syllogism to its conclusion, or
versal
the experience of one
two
or
particularfacts to a unijudgment. All that belongs to the sphere of Logic
ject
We
consider, with
specialreference to the subproper.
we
are
studying, how we are to obtain our data, and
how
must
we
apply to these data our knowledge of Logic,
to the
them
in order
from
to
generalizationsof
pass
It is
This
science.
Methodology.
study is termed
termed
of what
the
methods
in particular,with
are
shall be dealing in the
the
Natural
Sciences, that we
followingchapters.
The
objects which Nature offers to our contemplation
of two kinds.
are
They are either static forms or dynamic
activities. The study of the former
gives us the sciences
of natural
types, e.g. systematic botany and zoology,
the
in general what
be termed
and
classificatory
may
of physical
the
sciences
sciences.
The
latter give us
The
cussion
dislaw, e.g. chemistry, electricity,
light,heat, etc.
of the general methods
employed in these two
great groups
the
processes
For
it is
of natural
advance.
that
we
of
sciences, involves
known
as
from
Nature
we
of scientific
condition
:
of
Experiment.
that
knowledge
attain
is the
data
consideration
and
Observation
that
through them
phenomena, which
They give us our
win
the
it is
knowledge
by
their
of her
means
laws.
OBSERVATION
does
Nature
to
recognizefrom
of
an
ordered
in the
colours
transmitted
of
the
ear, and
to the
mysterious web
searching alone. Mere
little in establishing
a
that
to
true
cause
of the
since
that
needed
of
secrets
closer
in which
the
Nature's
we
connecting
two
such
is not
an
the
2.
In
among
was
cause
and
We
process
appear
matic
pris-
is sound
The
threads
by diligent
time
for
counts
effect ; for
and
and
the
what
at
may
stands
the
we
various
found.
It is
that
we
be
phenomenon
may
to
consists.
by
the
case,
rational
and
find the
effect
data of
that
such
be the cause,
to
a
nevertheless
cedents
ante-
Nature's
our
cause
observed
was
some
able to assert
believed
have
Observation
last find
relation of
Or
There
the
revealed
hitherto
for
cause,
illness.
Experiment,
argument, and
antecedent
in its absence
"
How
that
same
antecedents
of the
recognizethe
phenomena.
eliminative
and
true
detected.
insight,and
an
cause
many
examination
Observation
are
are
the
in
of
antecedent
an
before
help
relation
do
unravelled
antecedence
of
rainbow
the eye
be
may
laws
midst
in
was
waterfall
the
lies
difficulty
is the
there
event,
every
the
why
lightto
in
the
are
? and
shower
upon
stand
we
does
Why
not.
play
what
but
cosmos,
311
secrets
first that
the
after the
sky
full of
and
know
we
cosmos,
her
reveal
not
hidden
are
EXPERIMENT
AND
where
case
occurred.
Observation
is
the
ation
applicationof our faculties to the accurate determinof natural
phenomena. The faculties we
employ
But these do not
immediately are our external senses.
alone.
Man
is essentiallyrational.
He
act
cannot,
if he wishes, first apply his senses,
even
as
though they
to
were
machines, and then set to work
unintelligent
use
his
reason.
He
cannot
dull gaze
look
out
on
Nature
with
the
It is the intelligence
of man,
of vacancy.
that
is the true observer ; and the senses
but instruments
are
of the
observant
mind.
PRINCIPLES
312
It
is for this
that
reason
necessarilyselective.
The
LOGIC
observation
mind
is
presents
but
it,
to
sense-perception
itself to
concentrates
and
always
cannot
the
on
OF
take
of
note
one
One
of the
the
that
facts which
which
those
should
observer
the
between
essential conditions
most
of
Many
is
carefullydistinguish
most
infers.
he
of observation
facts
the
him, and
to
which
we
man
brother
with
assert
may
in
the
street.
confidence
Yet
what
that
he
he
has
his
seen
reallysaw
it
was,
istic
resemblinghis brother in a few characternotes.
was
Imagination filled in what
lacking,
and he unhesitatingly
his brother.
judged that this was
If his observation
was
hastilymade, the judgment may
have
well have been mistaken.
often asserted
Again men
stances
under circumthat a thing does not exist,merely because
it
in which
they believed they would have seen
be,
may
if it did
man
the assertion
be that
It may
faculties were
are
phenomenon
not
capable
of those
The
who
of
such
was
of
it.
see
conclusion
the
characteristic
observation.
is the
failed to
festly,
Here, mani-
hasty inference.
their unaided
as
perceiving. Such
unversed
are
scientific observer
must
observation, though intelligent,
knows
be
errors
in scientific
that
free from
true
ential
infer-
conclusions.
Though
nature
to
the
external
observe
the
senses
natural
are
the
instrument
given
inventive
to
us
by
power
has
found
registering facts
An
obtain
to
means
outside
is afforded
in
Hence
about
when
the
of
of
action
the
limits
the
of the
retina
and
second,
faint
is too
that
been
for
pression
im-
reaches
eye,
after
sensibilityhave
ray
The
photography.
in
light on
r\Tth of
to
ceases
of
313
auxiliary instruments,
capable of
of
ken
immediate
sense-perception.
the
interesting example
made
by a ray
its maximum
EXPERIMENT
AND
OBSERVATION
time
reached.
it to
become
that
unable
the object
to see
are
period, we
perceptible within
with
the sensibility
whence
it proceeds. It is not
so, however,
of the photographic plate. Here
the effect continues
to accumulate
continues.
Thus
as
objects, which
long as exposure
many
the
to
the
eye
invisible, leave
are
impression
permanent
on
value
"
of
Conditions
3.
up a set of
of observation.
draw
case
'
naked
practicalrules
As
of
minuteness
and
It
Observation.
Mill
the
well
observation
impossible to
followed
be
to
has
is
"
said,
which
in every
The
extent
be
may
re-
'
it
quisite,and the degree of decomposition to which
the mental
to carry
'may be necessary
analysis,depend
in view
the particular
c. 7, " i). We
on
(III.
purpose
certain general conditions, which
can, however, indicate
"
'
the
of observation
work
These
it.
conditions
demands
in those
undertake
who
intellectual,physicaland
are
spiritof
of things,to have
inquiry the desire to know the reason
This
an
explanation of what we see.
spiritof inquiry
is as natural to the healthy mind, as is the appetitefor
It is to this desire to
food and
exercise to the body.
find an
explanation for things, that Aristotle rightly
the
attributes
origin of science and philosophy.1 The
atrophied.
craving may, and often indeed does become
In
the
intellect,observation
calls for
moral.
the
"
But
when
faculty
this
will
make
Physically,it
employed, should
1
Met.,
I.,c.
2.
no
occurs,
mere
competent
is necessary
be
Sict y"p
TO
sound.
of the
excellence
sense-
observer.
that
Those
the
sense
senses
suffer
who
KO,\
ol HvdpuTTQi.
6av/j.d"eiv
or
vvv
Ka.1
TO
from
PRINCIPLES
3i4
colour-blindness
LOGIC
observations,in
undertake
cannot
of colours
discrimination
the
OF
is in
question,nor
which
the
can
if a man
Yet
has once
distinguishsounds.
and has been deprivedof it through
possessedthe faculty,
illness or advancing years, he is not
wholly debarred
tone-deaf
the
of other
eyes
him
enables
the
He
the
what
has
polarizationof light,employing
aid him
to
with
observe
may
facultyof imagination
to
they communicate
after blindness
the
into
of others
the eyes
For
men.
Arago,
his researches
observer.
reconstruct
to
Thus
him.
of the
work
the
from
in his work.1
Where,
ever,
how-
been
possessed,there this
observation
is impossible; for the imagination
mediate
is powerlessto reproduce phenomena
unlike to anything
sense
of which
had
have
we
chief moral
The
never
experience.2
which
requisite,
'
find
to
easy
'
who
persons
unbiassed.
beliefs of his
and
own
he
be
of
such
by
confident
It
belief ;
candour
situated
to be
and
to
wishes
refrain
to
Some
the
have
They
beliefs
1
the
and
one
comes
task
to the
have
not
exaggerate
hypothesis.
into
them
first
duty
it be
the
preserve
it is his
that
which
of the
welcome
observer
or
come.
unwel-
which
sphere, within
this openness
he
of mind.
urged
that
is
of mind, for a
openness
impartialin his study of facts,
it is the
to
observer
and
reading
is bound
the
cherished
some
truth, whether
writers
observer
from
Yet
see.
accept
is not
has opinions
investigator
it is made
requiresgreat
thus
"it
desires that
it will confirm
that
man
to
the
cases
many
that
solutions to
seekingnew
Indeed, in
No
Each
it is
which
perfect fairness,
against their own
peculiar
"
of observation
one
with
can
demands,
observation
Cf. An.
OBSERVATION
liable
scientific,as
of
his
view
as
results
such
is built
sand, and
religionhave
this
be futile indeed.
in the
in
But
possessionof
ourselves
natural
the
to
should
who
of
or
is not
order,
to hold
causalityas
Thus,
are
confine
to
gence,
lack intelli-
of
principle
diction
contra-
We
must
revision.
to
Both
science, we
would
the
open
of
rock
effort would
desperate.
so
man
hold
To
the
on
all intellectual
the
as
knowledge
philosophy
in
foothold
any
case
propose
human
neither
religionand in that
verities.
irrefragable
of
sphere
so,
our
that
that
found
we
revision
prescribe.1
may
this,is to maintain
the
315
and
correction
to
certainty. Were
of
EXPERIMENT
observations
upon
in
nor
AND
what
is certain, and what, although
distinguishbetween
facts, is
be, supported by many
probable and, it may
It is the latter alone, not the
not
yet fullyestablished.
be ready to relinquish.
must
former, that the observer
truth
For
certaintyhas been
contradictory evidence
absolute
of
"
physicallaw,
relation
antecedent
Observation, in
so
under
phenomenon
far
as
in
that
the
We
complex.
of
which
the
have
this
arises
in
therefore
antecedents
many
phenomenon,
latter
1
the
should
were
circumstances
only
which
necessity of
conditions, as they occur
simplified.The
in
be
was
causal
differs
observe
we
been
Nature,
at
sciences
or
cedent
particularante-
some
Experiment
conditions
of
purpose
consequent,
Experiment
cause.
in the
existence
and
that
elimination
the
that
the
once
the
Experiment
an
the
is not
of
when
supposition
absurdity.
an
seen
establish
by
prove
becomes
is to
between
else to
attained, then
have
and
of Observation
both
of
We
Experiment.
4.
itself. And
with
is consistent
loss to
the
the
artificially
the
from
are
from
fact
extremely
distinguish
true
cause
of
it not
de
philosophique, dont il s'agitici,ne consiste pas a douter
ni de 1'esprit
humain
en
general, mais a tenir momentanSles
douteuses
et corrigees par
et susceptibles d'etre redressees
ment
comme
lecons
de la r6alit6 toutes
les opinions, soit religieuses,soit metaphysiques,
les plus justinees
d'ailleurs comme
consid6rons
soit scimtifiques, que
nous
et les plus certaines."
Rabier, Logique, p. 103.
"
Le
la science
doute
elle-meme,
"
PRINCIPLES
316
OF
LOGIC
the
to exclude
are
suppositionthat any causes
operative,
in
those
are
we
save
engaged
considering. A good
is afforded
example of such artificial simplification
by
the
and
feather
well-known
guinea
experiment, in
substances
which
the two
are
placed in an exhausted
to
fall from
the
allowed
receiver, and
top together.
the
bottom
the
of
the
receiver at
same
moment,
They reach
'
and
demonstrate
thus
air and
the
all bodies
plain that
it
to
'
obtain
to
that
us
when
the
resistance
of
influences are
allowed
for,
interfering
tend to the earth with equal rapidity. It is
of simplifyingthe conwithout
method
some
ditions,
have
been
if not
would
difficult,
impossible,
other
conclusive
It will be
evidence
that
seen
of this truth.
although
and
Observation
indeed
take
may
history of
discoveries made
science records not a few famous
by
be
called chance,
what
Experiment necessarily
may
frame
some
requires an hypothesis. Unless we
position,
supand make
our
experiment to the end that we
whether
this suppositionis correct
know
or
not, no
may
experiment can take place. To experiment is to question
Nature
questionmust take some
clearlydefined
; and our
place
without
set
purpose,
"
the
"
form.
The
of
use
mere
scientific instrument
does
not
in
do not
experiment. We
speak of
experimenting,but of observing with a microscope. To
make
an
experiment, it is not enough that the observer
and specialcircumstances.
himself should be set in new
that the object observed
be placed under
It is requisite
itself constitute
an
conditions, and
new
should
in
some
make
is A
always
This
is
attempt
an
followed
it.
the
but
An
and
the
example
that
that
is
this
antecedent
is
Blind
to show
a
by a,
particularantecedent
except when
preceded
is termed
of what
by A : that a
a
particularconsequent,
occurs
conditions
new
use
Experiment.
these
that
way
In scientific
to
further
afforded
or
that
Negative
only
always preceded
always involves
not
consequent
never
question has
by a series of
in
PRINCIPLES
3i8
scientific
investigator's
point
lie in the
fact
Thus,
observe.
to
In
be
must
her,
her
by
as
wait
to
content
In
great laboratory.
the
reports of
like
Tycho
the
the
at
star
Brahe
"
Herschel,
'
returningone
ratory
to
group
of
'
'
sure
was
This
processes
be content
experimenting
concerned.
are
her
We
learn
to
from
work
in the
phenomena,
the
the
when
was
so
of
appearance
it commenced
sudden,
shine
of
star
that
able
temporary
to
of the
appearance
"
been
have
astronomers
the
note
hour
very
heavens.
writes
to
of
means
of many
has
Few
others.
must
we
Nature, and
case
limitations
ducting
opportunity of conhimself, and need not rely on
observation
the
Its
she achieves
cases,
forces
on
methods
own
view.
of Nature's
no
cosmic
geologicaland
where
these
have
we
of
number
vast
imitated.
be
cannot
that
LOGIC
OF
Tycho
in
1572,"
Brahe,
did
not
exist
half
an
hour
before.
It
was
then
as
'
'
similar
kind.
multitude
1
of instances
Herschel, Outlines
does much
of Astronomy
(nth
too
to
protect us
edit.),p. 602.
OBSERVATION
the
against
leads
see
When
observe.
we
one
or
other
are
in
error.
As
(2)
of
the
certain
control
to
simplification,
feather
similar
very
of
is struck
in
production
of
bell
Thus
in
and
vacuum,
and
guinea
the
that
proof
are
obtain
to
the
vibration
to
a
We
and
with
us
due
is
sound
stances
circum-
causes.
of
that
to
we
conditions
conjecture.
mere
provides
experiment,
transmission
of
some
that
any
phenomenon,
instead
knowledge
interfering
as
the
exclude
to
us
the
facts
in
proving
simplify
to
us
operate
may
multiplied,
are
which
the
by
instance
it enables
phenomenon,
able
thus
helps
experiment
that
crucial
(" 3),
confirmed
experiments
find
we
beliefs
own
our
319
mentioned
already
tendency
to
us
EXPERIMENT
AND
the
no
sphere.
atmo-
sound
is
heard.
Of
(3)
the
which
Nature
recent
scientific
freezing
oxygen,
revealed
to
with
which
we
immense
in
very
it
surprise
advanced
led
which
large
and
hardly
us
that
far
more
be
the
former
than
to
Nature
been
all admit
will
of
latter.
to
are
made.
been
of
the
gation,
investi-
possible,
experiment
Physiology,
It
the
trolled
uncon-
regard
has
progress
group
those,
observing.
has
employed.
rapidly
indeed
having
Anatomy,
and
experiments
by experimental
Chemistry
In
extent.
can
of
this
greatest
liquefying
which
but
expect,
in which
the
Physics
to
in
experiments
These
analogous
possessed
sciences
Mechanics,
to
be
in
air.
opportunity
no
advantages
the
those
us
should
we
and
familiar,
are
famous
succeeded
facts
of
series
affords
As
Dewar
those
to
striking examples
in the
investigation,
hydrogen
us
have
we
us,
Professor
which
by
shews
similar
phenomena,
not
ology
Meteor-
therefore
sciences
has
CHAPTER
METHODS
"
The
i.
in this
evidence
the
of
be
shall thus
For
laws.
describe
causal
know
to
of universal
principalways,
the
manifests
itself.
in which
observations
from
laws
purpose
in which
manner
their
win
to
Our
connexion
direct
to
order
in
Methods.
the
describing the
accustomed
are
ENQUIRY.
Experimental
is to
chapter
INDUCTIVE
OF
Four
XX.
Nature
various
appears,
ways
in
is to
know
scientists
and
the
We
ments,
experiof
secret
which
her
the
the
dence
evi-
methods
consideration.
wild
of
bird
If
certain
two
on
kind
occasions
three
or
voice
give
to
of food
making
the
been
may
be
two
to
other
for in
is contained
facts
concerning
the
recorded
the
test
In
in
the
evidence
evidence
abstract
in
phenomenon
two
the
memory,
about
cause
be-
special
be
rash
such
in
case,
circumstances.
of
Deduction,
the
But
a
I should
me,
between
that
accidental
to
syllogism. In Induction,
singularfact from which I
of
to
times
general law.
due
possible to
by a canon
;
evidence
three
or
hurtful
it is
argument
the
has
induction
an
effect
Again,
occurred
specialsong,
it has
hear
deductive
the
whole
of
of
the
premisses
is not
law, but
some
which
the
a
number
of
the
mere
them
law
is
METHODS
and
enunciated,
INDUCTIVE
OF
ENQUIRY
the
concerning
some
321
surrounding
circumstances.
The
they
of
discussion
often
are
termed, is
for them,
canons
distinct
has
of them.
and
believed
object of much
mind, that though
in
methods
he
they were
reasoning. His
his
cannot
We
must
We
and
give here
An
example
of the
the
illustrating application
I. Method
'
'
'
in
If two
under
menon
relation
in
from
is
given
in
instances
of
more
or
have
investigation
the
common,
each
circumstance
only
in
"
the
alone
which
is the
agree,
cause
for
may
The
conclude
Method
stand
that
the
in
capitalletters
we
case,
is the
be
cause
illustrated
of
pheno-
circumstance
one
the
be
their
question:
(or effect)of
'phenomenon"
(III.c. 8, " i).
Mill represents this method
by a formula
instances
practice.
with
in
method
Mill's
to
that
true
of Agreement.
"
Canon.
is their
in tabulated
respective canons.
consideration.
our
what
deviate
shall not
we
be wrong,
from a practical
are
from
bearing on Induction.
The
subject is usually discussed
treatment,
it should
analysismay
determine
to
many
treatment
in scientific investigation.
so
Yet
criticism.
standpointthose employed
We
elaborate
up
that
formulate
to
attempts
drew
He
the
be borne
the
Experimental Methods, as
due
to the
in large measure
in Mill's Logic. He doubtless
of inductive
processes
been
hold
view
mistaken
these
all the
given
which
letters
instances
may
ADE-o^tf, then
a.
the
following
example from Jevons. "Sir D. Brewster accidentally
took
an
impressionfrom a piece of mother-of-pearlin
of resin and bee's-wax, and findingthe colours
a cement
repeated upon the surface of the wax, he proceeded
take
other
to
impressions in balsam, fusible metal,
lead, gum
arabic, isinglass,
etc., and always found that
may
by
'
'
'
'
'
the
iridescent
colours
are
the
same.
He
thus
Y
proved
PRINCIPLES
322
'
chemical
the
that
of indifference,and
'
real
under
'
it does
not
have
occur,
'
circumstance
'
is the
'the
the
of the
is
Here
of
sound
the
and
by
air-pump, and
an
to
are
thus
assured
in
of
preceding
of proof.
ones,
improvement
of
the
method
'
and
'
not
'
"
does
not
which
'
effect
'of the
the
method
have
two
cause
or
have
the
or
two
an
phenomenon"
It is of
least
at
is
We
a.
play
an
hear.
to
"
be
great extension
of
Agreement,
but
of the
nature
course
only
nothing
to
be
in
in
the
which
it
the
in
circumstance
indispensablepart
(III.c. 8, " 4).
that
in
save
common
of instances
understood
the
which
circumstance
one
instances
more
sets
in
instances
circumstance
that
alone
or
consequent
cogent
more
more
or
occurs
occur,
of
absence
'
two
while
common,
'
If
phenomenon
'
'
it to
the
means
Difference."
of
method
as
holds
in
participating
as
Canon.
'
He
and
by
Difference.
by Mill as independent
constitutinga distinct
reckoned
is not
method
This
clearly
by A,
of this antecedent
enabling us
of Agreement and
Joint Method
is
removed
no
present
air is denoted
air must
the
that
indispensablepart
air is
bell
the
of the
removal
the
involve
seen
removal
the
and
vacuum,
air is then
The
a.
cluded
con-
experiment referred
the
of the
presence
of
a.
strikingof
the
differ
be
it may
the
the
indispensablepart
(III.c. 8, " 2).
bell is struck in
the
of
common
instances
whence
which
former
in the
two
an
provided by
receiver, and
audible.
or
cause
In
is heard.
the
in
in
circumstance
EC-be
is the
good example
the
is the
phenomenon
instance
an
phenomenon"
above, in which
in
cause,
the
which
and
alone
ABC-abc,
that
sound
surface
matter
(Principles,
p. 419).
in
every
which
in
Formula.
to
of the
occurringonly
one
effect,or
cause
"
colours
instance
an
that
one,
save
is
form
the
investigationoccurs,
'
substance
of Difference.
"If
Canon.
'
that
of such
condition
LOGIC
of the
nature
'
II. Method
OF
the
differ,is the
of
the
cause
instances
in
OF
METHODS
the
which
the
whence
we
Formula.
the
:
to
occur,
would
Unless
of such
are
other
any
323
but
cause
be
the
good
the
reason
instances
were
afford
CEO-ceo
not
appearance.
to
relevant
suggests
ENQUIRY
question,there
anticipateits
would
it due
were
in
circumstance
thus
does
phenomenon
character, that
to
INDUCTIVE
Darwin
by
that
of the method,
In illustration
made
conclude
we
is the
cause
of
take
the
gations
investi-
may
a.
in
were
to the formation
as
of mould
soil of different
on
kinds.
And
instances.
these
circumstance
one
cases
had
were
thoroughly relevant,
the
in
been
districts
same
for
those
as
detected,
the
was
the surface
The
cases
land
the
which
contained
These
by
the
is
mould.
seven-and-a-half
1
Vide
the
effect.
Welton, Manual,
connexion.
the
either
the
reason,
that the
action
to
the
to
It
test
was
the
" 154.
Mr.
Welton
of the
development
adequacy
per
gives
of
worms
earth-
of
the
certain, experiments
more
estimated
eighteen tons
plated
contem-
large amount
that
was
that
those
are
provide
conclusion
undertaken
soil,earthworms
different
and
conclusion
render
produce the
to
observations
causally related
To
were
of
canon,
for the
evidence
selected
earthworms.
no
classes
two
which
provided
It was
positive instances.
invariablyfound
from
excessive
other
dry ness, or for some
soil here
soil.
observed
had
the
presence
in
examined,
of mould.
increase
no
also
were
there
be
all alike
great quantitiesin
of
number
could
as
to
common
in
of earthworms
far
as
to
acre
this
of the
cause
in cultivated
give between
of
example
castings
in
slightly
PRINCIPLES
324
every
These
year.
from
inch
an
ten
the
Canon.
'
'
fullyadequate
from
of
the
such
phenomenon
any
by previous inductions
effect
is the
to
it.
to
remaining
be
to
certain
every
Residues.
Subduct
is known
as
'
mould
in thickness
therefore
is
cause
of
"
yield a layer of
inch-and-a-half
effect attributed
Method
HE.
LOGIC
results would
an
The
years.
produce
to
OF
effect of
the
of the
part
phenomenon
"
antecedents
(III.c. 8,
" 5).
Formula.
If it be
connected, and
then
further
may
conclude
method
may
we
The
known
ABC-abc
that
that
that
is the
illustrated
be
of a, B
cause
is the
of
cause
of
6,
c.
discovery of
the
by
causally
are
of
the motions
Here
planet Neptune by Leverrier.
Uranus
provided the clue. While their general features
such as the position
of the planet in the solar system
were
would
certain
prescribe,they presented nevertheless
the astronomer
residuary phenomena, which convinced
that yet another
planet existed, to whose influence they
the
be
must
such
cases
the
led
by
the
should
cases
When
by
'
remainder
the
which
causes
are
we
he
"
agent
IV.
Canon.
whenever
"
sought'1
seek
an
canon
its unknown
is not
applicable,and
as
obscure
sought
modes
of
circumstance
(III. c.
that
rule, viz.,
is still
unexplained
further cause
for the
detain
not
validity of
the
investigation his
it, those
not
us
in
cases
likelyto
have
canons
which
been
8, " 5).
Variations.
of Concomitant
Whatever
varies
phenomenon
another
varies
phenomenon
in any
in
some
Mill's
of Residues,
fallingunder
for"
another
assigned,a
point need
vindicate
Hence,
cause.
The
to
In
to
'
We
remaining antecedent.'
in the menon
unexplained element
pheno-
been
what
is
be
to
the
complete phenomenon
shew
unless
Method
to describe.
only
shown
was
regarded as exemplifying
concerned
explicitlymentions
'perceived
here
not
intended
the
an
have
be
must
formula, but
were
be
part of
any
of
presence
to
considering, to
urged that Mill's
been
these
for
do
we
are
we
it has
"
this
as
remaining consequent
are
conclusion
the
justifiedby
In
This
attributed.
manner
par-
OF
PRINCIPLES
326
lead
to
us
This
suppose.
consideringthe
relation
In this section, we
Our
first
the
substances
of
result
the
was
Butler
Mr.
by
of radium
interest
considerable
made
is drawn
is
substances
to
be
to
to
the
test
certain
action
order
to
these
test
found
that
bacteria-like
; that
and
results
active
effect of radio-
He
'
In
scientific
gelatinmedia.
from an enquiry bearing on
in producing life. In 1906,
in some
aroused
experiments
were
Induction.
to
on
gelatinmedia.
their
in
importance
of such
instances
Burke
on
of
methods
the
give two
example
allegedeffect
point
of
investigation.
(i) Effect of radio-active
LOGIC
that
'
as
cells
they appeared
after growing
discover
whether
Mr.
was
the former,
not
cells.
It
without
identical
These
might be
salts
experiment that barium
appeared
radium, produced a growth which
with that caused
by the radium.
experiments were, as is easilyseen, negative
found
was
in
instances
on
methods
the
They
Difference.
and
of
that
radium
the
not
was
of
examination
s} stematic
found
It was
metallic salt.
lead
in
are
and
the
strontium
those
which
1
Vide
form
Proc.
followed
that
it certain
with
those
all kinds
of barium,
which
resulted
only ones
metals
three
the growth. These
insoluble sulphates; and the con-
were
of
appearance
Variations
Concomitant
render
to
appear
of the cells.
cause
(b)A
of
produced the
agent which
the
the
Royal Soc.,Dec.
20,
METHODS
OF
elusion
suggested by
cells developed round
owing to the presence
This
group
the
Method
of
of
INDUCTIVE
the
ENQUIRY
that
experiments, was
precipitates,which
of
327
sulphur
shows
experiments
in
formed
were
medium.
the
us
the
the
application
of
Agreement.
(c)Instead of gelatin,other forms of meat-culture
were
now
tried, fixitybeing given to them
by various
It
etc.
mucilaginous substances, such as starch, gum,
that
if distilled water
found
was
were
employed, no
in all cases
growth appeared, and that the growth was
of sulphur in the water.
proportionate to the amount
Further, between
thirty and forty specimens of gelatin
were
tested, and with three exceptions, all proved to
contain
enough sulphuric acid to give a distinct precipitate.
In
this
the
case,
Method
of Concomitant
Variations
which
all
sulphuric acid
had
been
removed,
with
the
the
vious
pre-
result
that
no
experiments,
applicationof
The
the
be
considered
last may
Method
of Difference.
this
as
an
was
entirely
investigation
in any
to discredit the view
that the phenomenon
was
It was
shown
vital process.
sense
a
(i) that the cells
the growth
form round a precipitateof insoluble sulphate,
of sulphur
of the cell being dependent on
the amount
has no
specificaction in
present ; and (2) that radium
forming cells.
whole
c.
12
Vide
:
and
Guibert,
Rabier's
In
PRINCIPLES
328
and
these
order
experiments
shew
to
exclude
to
that
the
LOGIC
undertaken
were
if sufficient
which
germs
lifewould
no
OF
Pasteur
by
precautions
in
taken
were
in the atmosphere,
plentiful
developed,and no decomposition
be
are
so
take
place.
to be
(a) He first filled a flask with a liquidknown
speciallyliable to decomposition. The
long curved
neck
of this flask was
connected
with
a
platinum tube
which
The
flame.
a
passed over
liquidin the flask was
boiled, and
heated
but
the
at
The
red-hot.
while
it cooled
high temperature,
entered
flask
then
whatever
was
Here
flask
the
so
to
as
we
and
developed
in
of difference.
it
the
have
to
^For it
that
found
was
cool ;
its
at
air which
all germs.
that
The
no
life
liquid.
instance
an
that
seems
the
was
to
kept
was
free from
be
tube
allowed
tube
ensure
closed ;
appear
platinum
then
was
platinum
flask should
the
was
time, the
same
the
of
sole
the
method
circumstance
this case
in which
from one
distinguishing
decomposition
takes
place,is the presence of germs in the air within
the flask.
however
taken
to the
conException was
clusiveness
of
the
experiment. It was
urged that
the presence
spontaneous generation might depend on
of certain conditions
in the
atmosphere, with which
the heating process
had interfered.
(b) Recourse was therefore had to another experiment.
The
air admitted
through
red-hot
cotton-wool
might
have
stopper
Here
is
some
The
the
method
produced
material
have
in
none
circumstance
of vital germs.
effect
was
found
to
be
the
to
of wool, but
not
we
transmitted
not
was
experiment
was
cases
flask
similar
sterile,a
three
stopper.
that
score
the
tube, but
Further, in order
same.
the
into
of
was
made,
in
which
the
of asbestos.
agreement
is
exemplified. The
namely,
life
one
the exclusion
METHODS
(c)Yet
OF
be
it is to
first boiled.
INDUCTIVE
noted
It
ENQUIRY
that
in each
might
329
the
case
be
liquid
this
perhaps
boiling had made
spontaneous
generation impossible.
It was
this suggestion. M. Pasteur
to exclude
necessary
therefore
fresh experiment, this time with blood
made
a
was
obtained
that
direct
from
the
veins
as
this blood
to
with
contact
Though blood is
no
development
that
of
healthy animals, so
all contamination
; he exposed
it was
said
air
purifiedfrom
vital germs.
This
of Agreement.
applicationof the Method
of experi(d)Finally an especiallyinteresting
ments
group
in
the
made
was
followingmanner.
Liquid was
enclosed
flasks
in
number
sealed
were
of flasks.
over
might be contained
boiling. The flasks were
It
necks
in
that the
took
place
it, had
the
those
destroyed by
places,
various
liquidexposed
proportion of
to
in
of all these
been
distributed
broken, and
found
was
necks
blow-pipe,after
that
their
The
those
which
air.
the
to
in which
faction
putre-
escaped, was
what
just
urged,
only
On
of
out
of the
one
twenty,
lower
became
infected.
Mer-de-glace,decomposition set
nineteen
been
remained
due,
could
results
contained
chance
have
the
same
been
the
in
five
on
the
one
have
of life
of germs,
to
see
Where
were
while
case,
development
obtained.
all would
Jura,
And
distribution
liquid,and
conditions, either
same
how
the
but
such
flasks
exposed to the
developed life,
none.
This
as
the
to
not
Had
in
to
or
free.
of Mount
spurs
final
experiment
fallingunder
the
may
Method
legitimatelybe
of Concomitant
reckoned
Variations.
PRINCIPLES
330
Function
3. The
"
It
of Nature.
shewn
was
Methods
Ch.
in
in
proving
that
14,
the
Law
act
of
the
We
of the
LOGIC
is
Induction
by
OF
to
pass
universal
our
consideringthe
facts revealed
precise characteristic,in
and
such
conclusion, when
such
by
effect.
an
apprehends
sense,
of which
virtue
intellect,
the
the
This
agent
be
may
the
duces
pro-
wise
other-
is possible,
expressed by saying that Induction
tute
constiwhich
not
only the complex elements
the
phenomenon are perceivedby the senses, but
also
the relation uniting
the
understands
mind
when
when
them.
The
which
Methods,
Methods
is of
of
case
make
we
The
data
arranging
aid
us
(i) Eliminative
Elimination
Induction
evident
the
that
the
must
properly so
from
in
the
two
in
They
They
data.
our
to
prerequisite
Methods
for
been
how
logicalprocesses.
inference
an
Experimental
considering,assist us in
to
as
course
not
are
special ways
in each
have
we
It
this task.
the
arises
question now
mental
themselves
merely
are
constitute
act,
by
which
facts.
ways.
They provide
the
Syllogisms,(2) Induction.
be
carefully distinguishedfrom
It is of value
called.
it is not
Induction.
as
an
lary
ancil-
Its
importance
is due to that complexity of Nature, which
provides so
difficulties to the scientific investigator.When
many
of some
fact, it is
are
we
seeking to discover the cause
that while we
have good reason
often the case
to suppose
is one
the cause
of several antecedents, there is nothing
with
to indicate
certainty,which of these it is. The
enables us to eliminate many
applicationof the Methods
For
if it can
be shewn
of these antecedents.
(a) that
the fact
some
particularphenomenon is present when
the
when
in question is absent, or (b) that it is absent
relation
bear no
fact is present, or (c)that its variations
process,
to
variations
it is not
cause
the
but
observed
cause
of the
"
at
in
the
fact, then
least not
fact.
The
wre
know
that
cient
complete and suffiarguments by which we
the
OF
METHODS
rejectthese
in
331
deductive
are
syllogisms
"
which
characteristic
is the
/3 is
ENQUIRY
suggested causes,
Celarent
No
INDUCTIVE
of
cause
is
present when
absent,
a.
characteristic,which
is
is
when
present
is
absent.
.-.
/3 is
It
has
the
not
been
by
essentiallyin
is to
eliminated
antecedent
'
'
in
the
of
causal
of
cause
this
conclusions
proved
defective, and
was
in
must
not
the
not
from
and
The
that
the
no
our
data, that
theories
elimina-
of
if
This
they
view
in
drawn
Where
dents
list of antece-
been
has
overlooked.
antecedents
and
covered
disWe
which
positivegrounds
such
is the
are
for asserting
such
fact
other.
provide us
for Elimination,
object
been
had
proceeds from
effect
Methods
The
have
must
we
cause
lies
reasoning,they
The
true
The
"
Joseph,
erroneous
such
those
merely eliminate
cause
that
factor
some
"
cause.
inconclusive.
on
the
ing
remain-
This
argument
ever
sively
succes-
conclusion
incorrect.
be
to
then
Mr.
that
An
based
been
have
often
have
for
remain
would
manner
cause
(Introd.,
p. 395).
untenable.
be
to
is
the
directlythat
only draw
nothing else
which
process
show
"
in
the
disprove
never
can
you
believe
we
be
to
It is
facts will
that
remains.
...
that
show
facts to
our
and
reasoning,"says
connexion.
The
tion.
declared
inductive
the
Elimination
only
one
is then
of
use
'
'
until
of inductive
essence
'
that
some
valid
'
a.
maintained
consists
process
of
cause
that
but
we
we
for
have
shall
with
the
Induction
in view
in
not
merely
properly so
called.
them, is so
longer be
recognizethe
no
material
bewildered
to
simplify
by their
causal relation as it
complexity,but shall
Our
aim
is to see
is exemplifiedin the individual case.
shall
A producing ", and
this so clearlythat the mind
A in
affirm that a proceeds from A qua A, that is from
respect of its being A and nothing else. To quote some
words
of Aristotle already cited (Ch. 14, " 4) : "Not
PRINCIPLES
332
'
'
that
the
knowledge
'
which
but
sight would
should
we
LOGIC
sight would
of
act
mere
OF
attain
give
the
be
through
means,
universal."
the
scientific
us
Such,
to
when
simple example, is the inductive
process,
induce
of Difference, we
after employing the Method
that
the general conclusion
gold is dissolved by aqua
the
to
regia. Previous
applicationof the aqua regia,
dissolution.
It is applied,and
is no
the senses
there
dissolution
the
show
us
liquid
taking place wherever
intellect does not set to work
The
reaches.
eliminating,
that gold as such
is
but abstracts
a general conclusion
dissolved by aqua
regia.
of causation
In certain cases, the evidence
is provided
but by a series of observations.
Pascal's
not by one,
experiments as to the pressure of the atmosphere on the
in point. Taken
with
barometer
furnish
case
us
a
would have been insufficient
each observation
separately,
take
on
viewed
stored
in
mind
is
testimony
to
If,however,
It
tions
observa-
viewed
fact
observer, the
recognizesthe
influx, and
causal
in
are
of the
memory
convincing.
the
series of such
they
together,as
the
draws
effect
combined
its universal
conclusion.
doubt,
Without
vast
of
number
inductions
our
are
the
caused
saw
we
as
by
the
in
believe
We
An.
and
they held
that
this
motion
'
is
relation
roO opav.
8
Cf. Arist. Physics, IV., C. 4, "
i, rb
21.
of
d\\'
T$bpq.v,
^Trei rb
In such
ws
cases,
observation.
and
cause
be
must
effect,not
T" Kado\ov
"xoi/7"ej
fjikvKOV"J"OVrb "va"
IK
PRINCIPLES
334
'
OF
LOGIC
for
'
of the
canons
"
in two
Wherever
it
investigation,
besides
the
is the
instances
.*.
is the
All causal
A
that
of
relations
a.
causal
The
.*.
cause
is
...
circumstance
one
instances,
phenomenon.
of the
the
alone
both
to
common
cause
under
the
phenomenon
circumstance
alone
is
instances.
both
to
common
that
phenomenon
abc,ade, in which
it is found
appears,
of the
is
phenomenon
In the two
a
is found
circumstance
that
instances
a.
in
causal
Nature
constant.
are
relation.
relation
...
is constant.
be
ratiocination.
based
are
on
Now
the
the
same
inductive
canons
one
and
of two
all
facts
without
determining the presence
appear
these two no causal relation.
of the other, there is between
the
This
a
can
one
is the
is shown
E, because
in the
causes
of Agreement.
Here
principleof the Method
not
to be causallyrelated to B or
C or D or
it can
in their absence.
Similarly,
appear
Method
a
of
for
Difference,we
they
can
be
show
that
present
neither
without
it.
nor
And
OF
METHODS
reasoningof
the
"
informs
passage
Variations
may
another
Method
c.
22,
of
" 4).
Agreement
The
the
Method
the
either
with
the
of Difference
that
methods,
of Concomitant
of
those
are
that
peculiarmodification
(III.c. 8, " 5) ; and in
identified
with
or
intimate
that
be
acter.
char-
same
words,
many
"
us
chief
two
Difference
and
so
of Difference
Method
of the
in
us
is in truth
of Residues
Method
is of the
335
tells
He
connexion.
ENQUIRY
methods
other
the
himself
Mill
INDUCTIVE
(III.
Agreement
of elimination
these
circumstances, there
(III.c. 8, "3). Under
of
for enumerating four canons
be no
can
justification
reasoning.
The
further suppose
unreal state of things
an
canons
in
the
For
Nature.
they apparently proceed upon
of antecedents
all
assumption that we have a number
of consequents of a
clearlydetermined, and a number
manifold
the links
In reality,
similar character.
so
are
which
unite natural agents, and so complex the process
and
of action
reaction, that the representationof the
antecedents
quents
by the symbols A, B, C, Dy and of the conseby a, b, c, d is quite deceptive. We have, for
example, seen in the investigationas to the effects of
how
difficulties at once
from
the
arose
radio-activity,
that
been
had
looked.
overunexpected interaction of causes
If Nature
could reallybe representedby Mill's
of little difficulty.
symbols, Induction would be a matter
Again, the employment of the large and small letters,
would
fact
to
seem
is
antecedent, and
frequentlynot
the
find
that
indicate
the
cause,
case.
detect
can
we
which
is
Thus, if
may
often have
and
where
the
at
once
which
consequent. This is
a
patient consults a
reason
effect.
to
doubt
where
If,for instance,
the
same
that
the
certainlyconveys
the
for antecedents
impression,that
and
it
quents
consecan
be
PRINCIPLES
336
no
very
to
A,
recondite
b
the
position,
of
him
to
universal
in
can
the
true
this
In
all
A.
of
little
other
canon,
value
no
other
instances,
which
as
valid
indeed
but
A,
is
criterion
the
if
be
always
of
valid
the
inferring
effect
from
one
judgment
is
examination.
by
to
that
same
our
caused
liable
impossible
of
the
under
one
His
conclude
that
may
it
methods
guarantee
raised.
renders
different
than
case
be
entirely
causes
have
by
philosophical
own
may
Causes
corresponds
etc.
Mill's
may
caused
which
B,
to
as
We
is
from
any
of
canons
judgments.
we
the
objection
the
instance
find
of
view
Plurality
regard
other,
for
of
another
the
follow
to
LOGIC
corresponds
point
yet
doctrine
for
which
the
From
problem
OF
X,
not
frustration,
reasoning.
by
is
CHAPTER
XXI.
EXPLANATION.
"
thing is said
when
intelligible
it is rendered
when
a
Explanation.
i.
facilityto
This
may
may
which
have
"
it, which
grasp
be
understood
in two
special reference
the
nature
to
It may
it is addressed.
lighton
it did
of the
to
the
not
explained,
mind
acquires
possess
before.
The
ways.
explanation
particularmind
the
not
be
be
intended
to
to
throw
but merely by
thing itself,
trations
illus-
or
laws, from
of
was
the
which
round
moon
proved
to
be
it
be
can
the
due
earth
to
Thus
deduced.
the
the
motion
explained,when
was
force
terrestrial
call
we
it
fact is said to be
individual
gravity. Similarly,an
explained,when we are able to point out the laws which
have
Thus
we
explain the fall of a
brought it about.
of the soil,
tree in a storm, by indicatingthe looseness
in conjunctionwith
and the other circumstances, which
it unable
the
force of gravity, rendered
to withstand
the
stress
sense
in
are
to
which
which, when
it
was
we
really explaining a
exposed.
337
For
is indeed
individual
explain an
law.
There
we
are
fact, we
pointing out
PRINCIPLES
338
it is
how
in
necessityof
nature
LOGIC
that
every
such
fall.
In
should
circumstances
similar
OF
it knows
when
the
arrive
soon
laws, which
at
under
bringing them
These
must
we
known
made
for which
be
can
us
reason,
no
of
Logicians
"
the
them
that
view
the
relations
between
is drawn
is to
take
stand
(Ch. 15, "4), underdifferently. By these writers no
somewhat
distinction
Explanation
condition, and
and
cause
of
ascertainment
ditions."
con-
necessary
"
the
confully explained, when
and
of every
are
so
ditions
fully
exactly known,
that
of
that
not
a
general character, but
phenomenon
only
in
just this very phenomenon, with exactly these details, and
is
phenomenon
detail
'
by
themselves.
than
school, who
solelyof
consist
Explanation
'
for
ultimate.
as
Idealist
the
entities
essential
'
wider
We
assigned.
individual
'
limit.
account
cannot
law
of the
or
accept
to
find
must
we
any
law
we
thing as intelligible
produced it.1
this process
that
It is manifest
case,
which
cause
each
of the
situated
tree
this
exactly
of
Since
one
every
analysisof
universal, the
is described
as
we
bring
to
other
phenomena.
of
for
present
it
relations
by Explanation,
which
element
some
which
in
mination
deter-
object or event.
by the mind,
its constitutive
into
relation
Every
the
is, as conceived
event
relation,
is therefore
the
of Generalization
aspect,
some
us
the
process
to light,in each
shows
relations
of these
relations, in which
the
Explanation
relations
constitutive
the
fact
in
are
to consist.
held
object is
the
question
in
conditions."
these
from
follow
must
amount,
conditions
The
in
is
phenomenon,
with
agrees
common
many
other
individuals.
The
from
Explanation
a
part by
school,
things
which
of
Explanation
are
are
explanation
its whole,
is
but
"
parts
complete
in
Welton,
Manual,
" 159.
an
an
II,
to
"
I.
know
effect
by
"
differs
section.
its cause,
According
thing.
unit
which
of
though
related
of
one
$rav
eirlffraadai oto/xefla
a
thing, when
we
mentally
fundaTheir
of
but
to this
individual
organization formed
themselves,
"
of this
body
different
very
; it is not
aMav.
with
of
organism
an
philosophers
in the
described
that
is not
Nature
Idealist
the
are
things,
to
the
d8"fjici"
TTJV
acquainted
EXPLANATION
other.
This
part
of
whole, of which
they
the
on
of
the
it is
Nature
is
whole
composed,
before
understood,
If
the
hand,
of which
out
it is
other
For
to
it is
whole
and
the
is what
they
be
can
of
organism
an
what
are
whole
if there
orders.
our
other
In
be
then
measured,
of
truth.
"
the
of
the
task
law,
with
that
of
attain
is
We
to
the
finite and
the
between
to
we
the
us
in which
way
cause
of
both
if Nature
But
tasks
that
can
have
reason
Logical
must
we
is
acquisition
We
concerned.
are
thought
whole
assignthe
to
true
this
employ regressiveargument
(Ch. 12, " 4). We must
must
the
Explanation is
the
to
permanent
our
grasped
with
begins
All
have
impossible.
forward
which
indicate
principles
effect
step
every
be
must
limit.
the
surveys
Science
units,
organization
an
or
2.
said
and
is
They
not
difference
vision
Science
words,
organized manifold,
an
be
radical
no
mind's
the
understood.
relations,
"
things, till
we
are.
have
cannot
it is, because
related
and
stand
under-
impossible to
have
idea
of the
correct
a
part, unless we
In an
a part.
organism, the parts are what
is
what
it is.
In an organization,
organism
because
are,
is crucial.
in its relation
save
idea
correct
difference
339
from
show
proceed.
the
that
and
the consequent we
are
regards the antecedent
of
is due
to
cause
some
considering,their connexion
wider generality. We
are
given S is P, and our object
as
is to
prove
done
be
that
P, because it is M.
is
that
by showing
M.
presence of the cause
the proposition If M,
'
'
it,
If P
is P
enabled
then
'
to
In
M.'
must
form
"
the
We
then
other
can
only
the
phenomenon
proves
must
not merely establish
P,' but the reciprocalof
words, the proposition All
'
simply convertible.
syllogism:
be
/.
the
This
We
are
thus
"
is M.
is P.
is M.
be
p.
known
393.
rightly, without
PRINCIPLES
340
In this way
demonstrate
we
in
'
S, and
every
All 5 is P.'
To
the
Substances
less than
the
agent
is
it comes
explain
take a simple case, we
may
that
present
about
that
thus
assign
floats in water.
potassium
specificgravity
of water.
that
floats in water.
Potassium
.*.
that
so
which
Potassium
LOGIC
how
of the law
reason
OF
has
specificgravity less
than
of
that
water.
When
the
the
'
conclusion
is Af
/ is thus
established,
in
the
form
"
.-.
form,
middle
the
the
effect
Substances,
is P.
is M.
is P.
and
cause,
The
term.
prove
restated
In this
be
order
the
by
whose
not
of
followed
is
nature
the
as
we
cause.
specific
gravity is
less than
of
that
float in water.
water,
Potassium
has
specificgravity
less
that
than
of
water.
Potassium
.".
These
methods
two
the
as
via
the
and
determine
via
which
the
there
by
Thomas,
Summ.
reasoned
purpose
cause
In
known
were
of
former
is used
from
progressive
TheoL
I. q.
exposition
connexion
of
79,
or
regressive argument
8, 9)
art.
truth
to
veniently
con-
may
inventionis
known
already
the
the
to
The
via
attained.
progressive
owes
(Lectureon
the
we
via
the
of her greatest
many
argument from effect to cause.
that
ancients
unknown,
(S.
is
doctrince
For
method
this
from
effect.
Science
perhaps
the
to
expressions employed,
advance
an
this
naturally proceed by
we
to
The
is
way
fact.
other
two
doctrince.
whether
the
reasoning
via
notice
in
of
and
which
floats in water.
Method,
Scientific
the
most
path
of the
famous
triumphs
Professor
p. 14) instances
of all
Kepler's
planet Mars
"
is
an
to
what
gressive
re-
Case
is
discovery
ellipsewith the
OF
PRINCIPLES
342
LOGIC
speculation,especiallyin England.
theory, Explanation is achieved,
reasoning from
a
effects to
but
causes,
According to this
not
by regressive
by deduction
from
cause
to
that
calculated
with
by deduction,
the
they agree,
therefore
process
fact under
or
consists
of
of
are
compared
in
formation
(1) The
of M
consequences
and they are
experience. If it is found
hypothesis is thereby confirmed.
manifested
as
The
to
then
law
due
be
may
that
The
"
hypothesis
an
explain
to
the
consideration.
the
:
hypothesis being treated as a
(2) Deduction
generalprinciplefrom which conclusions are drawn.
(3) Verification : or comparison of these conclusions
with
the
view
This
account,
the
way,
facts of Nature.
it
Deductive
by
which
This
Method.
we
are
enabled
Deductive
In his
terms
Method
in certain
cases
to
is
mine
deter-
are
of
laws
avail.
no
correct, may
be
But
Hypothetical Deduction
this process only in so far
is
made,
not
from
no
less than
he
that
The
that
problems by
these
regards as
from
conclusion
obtained
from
duction.
De-
differingfrom
deductive
our
law, but
known
assumed.
provisionally
Method,
for
obtained
an
calculation
hypothesis
in the Deductive
the
hypothetical
EXPLANATION
this
step, we
and
cause,
Mill
as
of
out
With-
contributory
some
calculations.
our
of the
one
facts.
with
overlooked
have
may
method
the
by comparison
vitiated
so
quotes
to
owe
verified
be
must
cause,
343
notable
most
discoveries
we
The
in
fact
mere
that
conclusions
the
with
the law
agree
not, it is evident, constitute
hypothesis
does
discovered
the
If M
then
; but
fails
he
is
there
for
observe
to
proof
We
.-.
only
not
desire
we
law.
is true,
other
no
the
of
cause
drawn
is true.
must
if
we
argue
Mill
that
will do
the
shew
must
we
attain
can
have
we
Hence
shew
we
hypothesis which
that
that
our
explain,
to
cannot
facts, but
the
from
But
so.
certainty
on
analysed,is no longer
point,our argument, logically
deduction, but a strict regressive
a hypothetical
syllogism.
Our
sufficient
major premiss is no longer, M is cause
this
'
the
'
for P
account
to
; it
of the
presence
Unfortunately,
insisted
Yet
"
is
without
Hypothetical Deduction
4.
it is
that
impossible
of
account
error
on
identified
terms
p.
proves
obtained
logicallyworthless.
are
an
effect which
an
all
not
hypothesis proposed
is
M.'
cause
absolute
the
on
'
is, P
govern
Mill's
Mill's
agreeing
part.
Deduction
the
Explanation.
the
is the
these
of
laws.
It
Deduction
operation
process,
which
qualities,and
In
Induction,
Deduction
to
was
with
of
true
regarded
from
the
have
as
Jevons
come.
deduction
infers
as
be
seen
Induction.
starts
we
have
We
only
can
mistake
worse
inverse
combination
with
Induction.
accept Hypothetical
Hypothetical
"
Induction
122).
to
Scientific
and
"
He
(Princ.,
laws
that
combinations
the
combina-
PRINCIPLES
344
OF
LOGIC
of
the
qualitiesas our data, and our task is to determine
the
combinations.
This
is
governing
accomplished
by
hypothetical deduction, in the three stages of (i) forming the
and
hypothesis, (2) deducing consequences,
(3) verification.
of inductions
The
value
of
laws
nature
is, he holds,
regarding
than probable. To begin with, it is ordinarilypossible
never
more
rival hypotheses as to the laws
to form
tions,
governing the combinathat each hypothesis will give results approxiin such a way
mating
tions
laws
in
degree
some
the
to
facts.
It would
be
all these
to
necessary
each
of them
rival
to
hypotheses, and hold
their
to
Hence
the
tive
inducproportion
probability.
is based
the mathematical
inference, as regards its validity,
on
had
mined
we
accurately detertheory of probability. Moreover, even
in question, we
have
the law
for
no
ground
certainty as
As far as we
laws
to the uniformity of nature.
can
see, natural
cannot
constant
that
it
reason
are
justifyour conviction
; but
Belief
should
amount
be so.
to certainty till the
must
never
experiment has been tried.
have
the
we
Jevons's theory that in Hypothetical Deduction
entertain
of value
be
in
of
account
true
adherents
the
among
with
of
this
far
in
to
Welton
view.
he
say,
found
be
may
They part
wide
tioned
men-
company
inductive
so
as
Jevons,
argument
be
theory of probability. Certainty,they maintain, can
For
this view, there
can
by hypothetical deduction.
logical justification.
however
the
reached
be
and
Sigwart, Bosanquet
acceptance.
on
has, strange
Induction,
no
" 5. Explanation
section, we
consider
succeeded
Newton
which
employed
as
to
propose
bases
Newton.
by
the
method
In
of
this
proof by
in
establishingthe universal
accordingto the law of the inverse
gravitationof matter
works
recent
In most
attention
on
Logic,some
square.
this subject. Nor
to
been
devoted
feel
has
need
we
surprisedat this. It has been justlysaid by Whewell
that it was
indisputablyand incomparably the greatest
made.
scientific discovery ever
of the
Any one
"
'
'
five
steps
'
which
'
formed
but
of
advance
on
not
"
the
leap
but
metamorphosis
"
Whewell,
itself have
been
would
who
persons
it belonged. All the
tinction
'
'
important
an
'
would
Hist,
not
of Inductive
have
made
considered
conferred
it, and
the
time
five
disto
Sciences
(srd ed.),vol.
2, p.
136.
EXPLANATION
g45
with
in
are
we
concerned.
now
of
detection
the
preciselyof
It
natural
some
did
work
of the
kind
consist
not
phenomenon
we
speak
in which
yet observed, in the sense
of argon,
discovery of galvanicelectricity,
The
the
never
of
the
Rontgen-
ment
essentially
explanatory. A treatof Explanation might justlybe held to be incomplete,
did not
which
show
how
the account
given of
borne
out by this greatestof all explanathe process, was
tory
reasonings.
is another
have
There
as
we
already noted,
reason,
for dealing with
Newton's
arguments. Several eminent
of the reasoning,
have
the nature
misunderstood
logicians
based
their erroneous
have
and on
a false
interpretation
object here is to shew
theory of Explanation. Our
method
is simply the
that
the
employed by Newton
regressivemethod, as we have described it in " 2.
rays.
Of
five
the
attention
to the
viz.
principal,
(1) that
the
to
of their
and
force
is in
two
by
which
case,
Newton
and
which
is
also exerts
it will appear
facts in the
consider,
were
laws, viz.
sun
Second
square
those
with
that
from
of the
cases
to
their
causes.
heavenly bodies,
nature
we
contained
are
gravity.
employed
method
the
first of the
the moon,
on
terrestrial
facts
motions
which
force
of the
are
in
force
about
to
Kepler's
"
First law.
the
such
(i) The
the
argues
planets are
proportion to
inverse
regressivereasoning
was
attracted
the
force is identical
this
In each
shall restrict
we
gravitation,
be regarded as the
which
may
with
the
the earth
that
the
"
distances
(2) that
divides
Whewell
which
the
sun,
into
points
connected
discoveries
our
was
in
The
one
law.
planetsmove
of the
The
areas
in
orbits
elliptical
round
foci.
swept by
lines drawn
from
the
PRINCIPLES
346
to the
sun
in
planet,are
the
motion.1
Third
law.
the cubes
as
It had
to
law
motions.
their
of inverse
attempts
the
in the
squares,
complexity
at solution.
periodic times
from
the
and
sun,
are
sun.2
that
ing
actingaccord-
would
account
of
problem baffled
genius triumphed
the
Newton's
for these
His
obstacles.
the
employed
by several mathematicians
force situated
But
the times
the
distances
mean
surmised
been
of
squares
of the
LOGIC
proportionalto
The
attractive
an
OF
the
three
proofs rest upon
These
he regarded as securely establaws of motion.
lished
these
on
Basing his demonstrations
by induction.
in
theorems
famous
laws, he proved deductively two
in a curve,
mechanics
:
(a) Every body which moves
to a point describes
about
and by a radius drawn
that
is
proportionalto the times of description,
point areas
urged by a centripetalforce to that point (Princ.,Lib.
the squares
of the periodictimes
I, prop. 2) : (b)When
over
are
the
as
of
cubes
radii
(i.e.the
distance
mean
centripetalforces by which
the bodies tend to the centre are inverselyas the squares
the converse
of this propositionis
of the radii ; and
Lib. i, prop. 4, cor.
also true (Princ.,
6).
him
with
all that
conclusions
These
was
provided
requiredto prove that the law of inverse squares governs
the planets in regard of their motion
towards
the sun.
The
proof is given in the second propositionof Bk. III.
of the Principia. The
propositionis as follows :
The forces,by which the planetsare withheld from rectithe
from
central
the
body),
the
"
The
be taken
accompanying figuremay
the
round
ABS
and
the time
between
sun
to
and
represent the
it may
be
CDS
are
equal. Then
employed by the planet
A and
B, will be the same
of a planet
course
supposed that the areas
according to the law,
to
the
cover
that
as
distance
employed
in
C
D.
between
and
For
covering the shorter distance
the times are
proportional, not to the distance covered,
but to the areas
swept by the imaginary lines.
2
Thus
the period of the earth's revolution
is i year : that of
the sun
round
Saturn
The
of these two
are
respectively
30 years.
periodic times
squares
i
and
to the
root
than
900.
The
mean
distance
mean
distance
of Saturn
of the
from
of 900.
In other words, the
nine times the mean
distance
earth
the
sun
mean
of the
from
as
distance
earth.
the
the
sun
cube
wi1! therefore
root
of Saturn
of
is
to the
little
stand
cube
more
EXPLANATION
linear motion
and
347
retained in their
and
forcesvary inverselyas
these
Every body,
i.
which
in
moves
curve,
the
sun.
Proof of part
times
are
the
as
cubes
centripetalforces
of the
squares
When
2.
the
of the
of the
of
squares
the
periodic
bodies
will be
inverselyas the
Lib. i,
(Princ.,
distances
radii,i.e. the
of the
squares
the cubes of their mean
as
of the
periodictimes
distances
from
the
planets are
sun
(Kepler's
3rd law).
.*.
the
from
The
centripetalforces
are
inverselyas the
sun
the
of
the
planets tending
of
squares
their
to
distances
sun.1
have
we
(2) The demonstration
just considered may
be appliedto the case
in its relation to the
of the moon
earth.
Our
data
that
it
regarding its motion
prove
also is subject to the law of inverse squares.
But
we
consider
must
now
when
Newton
moon
in her
known
to
us
that
and
the
orbit
as
caused
we
is
us
the
that
and
one
terrestrial
planets,a
which
shewed
step which
further
the
to
force
the
in the
when
On
this demonstration, see the treatment
a
Mental
ScientificMethod
as
Operation, to
The translation
of the proposition is
of the
force
stars
menon
pheno-
same
in Professor
that
the
the
this identification
was
very
stone
which
retains
with
courses
of the
manifestation
witness
It
gravity.
see
which
same
taken,
was
am
there
Case's
under
given.
lecture
on
tions.
great obliga-
PRINCIPLES
348
addition
In
which
in
required
the
further
of
with
proofs
have
we
two
is
what
to
LOGIC
OF
involves
the
first
run
as
follows.
First Rule.
No
admitted
be
sufficient
kind
same
causes.
The
And
in
referred
of these
of
things are to
true
and
(verae),
these things.
of
the
possibleto
the
argument
will
natural
far
as
rules
as
effects
his
to
follows.
what
supposition that
The
both
are
therefore
be
to
are
importance
appear
as
Rule.
same
of natural
causes
such
than
to
Second
more
force
the
determination.
the
moon,
her orbit,and
the
the
pass
of motion
be
into space
away
force
attractive
influence
at
of
the
earth,
true, would
leave
Hence,
tangent.
exerted
is identical
earth
These
The
the
distance
of
the
the
dealt
one
from
moon
earth's
radii.
radius
fall of the
rate
terrestrial
rules will be
sixty of
that
with
from
moon
with
Newton
the
close
the
in
one
pull
feet in
in the
bodies
at
Here
be
earth
the
were
would
of
second.
one
the
This
drawn
are
to
Newton
then
thus
may
surface
be
it close
summarized.
taken
of the
minute,
which
section.
next
this,may
of the
at which
surface
bodies
gravity.2
centre
'
the
to
which
at
shews
Since
'
earth, the
moon
distance
the
at
precisely16
be
proof, by which
of the
the
the
by
distance
attraction
from
were
earth, would
the
the
stands
moon
exerted,
be
be
to
as
earth
The
equal
of inverse
the
squares,
surface
What
then would
earth, would not be 16 feet,but 16 feet x 6o2.
Galileo's discovery that the distances fallen by bodies
second ?
to
at
are
of the
it be
in
vary
as
one
the
PRINCIPLES
350
merit
they
the
follows
as
admitted
careful
most
LOGIC
consideration.
They
are
:
"
I. "No
Rule
OF
than
of natural
causes
more
such
as
both
are
things are
true, and
be
to
sufficient to
II.
"
And
referred
be
to
are
therefore
natural
far
as
effects of the
possibleto
as
the
same
same
causes.
in
for instance,respiration
As
in
of stones
and
in the
HI.
Rule
and
hearth
the
the
diminished
bodies
in
that
neither
can
intensity,and
are
fall
"
nor
beast
planets."
Those
qualitiesof
increased
be
sun
and
man
to
which
of
our
bodies
whatever/'
somewhat
Newton
lengthy comment,
points
is
these
it
that
that
the
infer
out
on
we
extension,
grounds
and
hardness, impenetrability,
mobility of all bodies,
(In
and
adds,
laws
the
'
is the
Further,
conclude
an
that
of
motion
themselves.
foundation
induction
of all
of
this
'
And
this/ he
[Natural] Philosophy/
kind
will
enable
us
to
of matter
gravitybelongsto every particle
;
though, as it is capable of increase and diminution, it
be regarded as an
essential attribute of material
cannot
substance.)
IV. "In
Rule
experimental philosophy,propositions
collected by Induction from phenomena are to be regarded
as
exactly true or as very nearly true, notwithstanding
contrary hypotheses,until other phenomena occur,
any
rendered
accurate
or
are
by which they are made more
subject to exceptions.
be granted,
lest conclusions based on induction
This must
be denied in favour of hypotheses."
EXPLANATION
The
rules
first two
other.
They
what
By
rules
are
to
ensure
in fact rules
and
should
be
free from
the
To
ensure
hypotheses.
on
that
never
assert
cause,
unless
Then,
the
effect.
not
prodigal in
in
least
the
corollaryof
intends
do
It
suppose
to
second
the
examples
of it
make
any
cause,
produce
for
is
Nature
would
be
that
there
trary
conare
produce precisely
the
to
from
true
so,
must
we
would
as
causes.
first,and
the
Newton
which
Hence
is
cause
destined
each
Philosophy,
being based
proceeds
may
to
advanced
Newton,
is such
we
philosophy
effect.
same
Natural
suspicionof
this
that
indeed,
forces
natural
two
doctrines
this, says
unnecessary
sound
the
phenomenon
know
we
that
to
strangest of
of the
one
attained
conclusions
the
each
frequentlydescribed as stating
requisiteto a valid hypothesis. They
conditions
are
with
connexion
together.
considered
be
must
in close
considered
be
may
mistakes, these
the
stand
351
rule
follows
indicate
the
a
use
motions
the
to
as
as
the
in
moon
first
of the
rule, is derived
the
in
the
order.
Hence,
argument.
If
its truth
all conclusiveness.
such
it
that
motions
is
mark
We
can
the
on
be
of
not
to
attribute
but
reason
in
fundamental
principleis
The
unreason.
it is inadmissible
be
would
what
Nature
and
is of frequent
philosophy.1 It is grounded
is everywhere apparent
evident fact that reason
and purpose
rule the whole
world, that finality
natural
to
Aristotle, and
in Scholastic
occurrence
on
from
of
Newton's
longer assert
no
part of
the
swayed by gravity.
moon
It
that
furnish
becomes
such
proof
perfectly
a
TTOIC?fid-njv,
fi-tyre
fiydtvTJ 0tf"rts
does nothing in vain, and omits
.' Cf. S. Thomas,
nothing that is necessary
Opusc. 13, De Verbo IntellecNatura
the
been
tus.
non
to have
seem
agit aliquid superfine.' It would
perception of this truth which led another great scientist,Clerk Maxwell, to
be
scientific taste
to choose
the more
complicated
say that it would
poor
of two equally well balanced
scientific conceptions.
Arist.,De
airoXelTrei r"v
III.
Anima,
c.
9,
'
avayKaliov.
" 6.
If then
et
ovv
Nature
'
"
"
PRINCIPLES
352
reasonable
say
for
them.
And
is
taken
and
hypotheses
the foundation
that
the
cogency
and
third
another
All
cause.
we
be
capableof accounting
this, the keystone of the whole
The
thetical,
hyporeasoning becomes
boast
that his philosophy does
with
is on
The
to
them
away.
Newton's
of
consist
not
LOGIC
would
gravitation
is that
can
proof
attribute
to
OF
becomes
afforded
by
verbiage. It
empty
this Aristotelian
of the
great argument
fourth
rules summarize
principle
depends.
Newton's
view
as
the
true
"
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
upon
'
'
'
tion
as
so
is the
from
much
more
the
general.
phenomena,
generally. But if
1
stronger,by
the
at
And
conclusion
any
time
how
if
no
may
much
the
exception
be
afterwards
inducoccur
pronounced
any
excep-
by
induction
EXPLANATION
'
'
shall
tion
be
to
The
hand
experiments, it may
such
exceptions as
pronounced with
only difference between
OpticsNewton
while
in the
shew
that
occur."1
on
passage
on
begin
the
fact that
one
in the
some
inductions
this
then
is
propertiesof
whose
from
occur
353
all
truth
reckoned
be
of
laws
depends
the
motion
value
of
the
among
is by
It
corporeal substance.
the
that
is to
such
are
established, on
his
whole
physical
valid science
from
facts
is
possible,grounded
their
to
To
causes.
rigorousreasoning
on
labour
this
at
is, he
"
Philosopher. Later
for
feign hypotheses
philosophers,"he says,
the
whereas
'explaining all things mechanically
of Natural
main
business
Philosophy is to argue from
phenomena without
feigninghypotheses, and to deduce
holds, the
of the Natural
work
true
"
'
'
'
'
'
effects till we
causes
from
which
certainlyis
It will be evident
employed by
none
other
deduction
1
this
not
from
come
to
mechanical."
these
greatest of
the very
2
citations
scientific
that
the method
discoverers
was
that
first cause,
Newton,
Newton,
View
AA
of Newton's
CHAPTER
XXII.
HYPOTHESIS.
"
i.
Hypothesis.
with evidence
hypothesis is a supposition made
for
insufficient,in order to account
recognized as
An
fact
some
or
law
some
known
to be
In
real.
other
tentative
hypothesis is a provisional or
explanation.
Discovery is almost entirelydependent on hypothesis.
is likelyto distinguish
the law which
No
lies hidden
man
the
behind
complex phenomena of experience, unless
and
he hazards
an
hypothesis,and then by observation
to declare
his hypowhether
thesis
experiment forces Nature
The
first task of the investigator
is correct or not.
various hypotheses,in themselves
is to ask himself what
be imagined, which
ing
are
capable of accountpossible,
may
teach
for the
of
art
no
Logic can
phenomena.
which
making suitable hypotheses. The peculiarinsight,
words,
an
enables
is
gift,
"
which
can
to
man
a
be
seize
giftwhich
the
on
be
may
communicated
in
Nature's
cultivated,but
a
code
secrets,
not
one
of rules.1
investigationadvocated
by Francis
Bacon
dispensed with hypotheses. He believed, as we
that
to employ tables of presence,
have
absence,
seen,
in varying degrees,would
and presence
provide a royal
the
would
to
road
on
discovery. The laws of nature
all
reveal themselves, and
applicationof this method
the
minds
stand
level.2
men's
on
same
Hypotheses
The
method
clue to
Cf. Aristotle's
Nov.
to leave
wit
and
of
account
Org. I.,61.
"
of eiVroxta, An.
Our
method
and
Post. I., c.
34,
of discovering the
intellect."
364
Ethics,VI.,
sciences
indeed
c.
is such
rather
10.
as
to level
HYPOTHESIS
have
355
To
of truth.
this
The
hypotheses
scientist
ingenuityof
must
but
are
be
not
and
means
ments.
instru-
captivatedby
so
the
the
'
be
'
Institut
the
investigatorit
asked
face,
to
scientific
great
'
his
'
'
'
to
believe
it
to
follows
as
ordeal
hardest
is the
truth,
desire to make
'
writes
Pasteur
that
he
which
has
"
he
For
can
discovered
be
known,
"
possessed with
and yet to impose
feverish
silence
on
himself
for
certain
employed in
have
besides that we
just
purpose,
of facts relating to
number
a
a
been
gathered together,and the
true
the
DescriptiveHypotheses. Hypotheses
for
science
considered.
When
subject have
explanation of
useful
will
mode
to
them
to
though
us
another
be
of
group
it should
found
facts is still to
round
hardly seem
to
represent
the facts,
as
colligating
describe
them
in terms
are
seek, it is often
hypothesis, even
likelythat this hypothesis
some
actual
the
it has
of
been
truth.
Such
termed, enables
coherent
system, and
afford
may
phenomena
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
356
us
of
the
relatingto future
question. A good instance
hypothesis in regard to
in
order
the
by the Ptolemaic
The
ancients
heavenly bodies.
that
the
is afforded
was
system of cyclesand epicycles
expresslycalls
St. Thomas
that
at
it served
Yet
in
noted
attention
fact
the
that
some
facts.1
generations
It
calculations.
Osiander, in
Andreas
thesis.
hypo-
an
to
assisting
many
their
aware
for the
able to account
better
framing
also that
but
be discovered
it may
useful purpose,
of astronomers
be
time
future
some
suppositionis
other
well
were
may
letter which
the
it and
'
'
by
wrote
of
way
all that
it
involves, as
he writes,
physicalphilosophers,"
possessions,and to believe that
St. Thomas,
inducitur
ter
.
Alio
Sutnma
ratio.
modo
modo
inducitur
ratio
ad
non
radici
to
asked
are
give up
interstellar
our
by
pre-
space
is
Art. i, ad. 2. Ad
aliquam rem duplicisufficienter aliquam radicem
:
quae
sufficienter
consequentes
epicyclorum
ex
effectus.
hoc
Sicut
quod, hac
coelestes :
apparentia sensibilia circa motus
alia
etiam
forte
probans, quia
positione
fa eta salvari possunt.' The
expression salvare apparentia sensibilia is the
Latin
Cf. Ueberweg, " 134.
equivalent for "r""eivra "f"aiv6/jieva.
8
est eas
verisimiles
necesse
ne
Neque vero
hypotheses esse veras, immo
si calculum
observationibus
quidem, sed sufficit hoc unum,
congruentem
exhibeant."
Copernicus,De Revolutionibus,p. i.
non
tamen
"
ratio haec
salvari
"
probandum
"We
true.
est sufficienter
35"
PRINCIPLES
occasion
consider.
to
of
colours
the
LOGIC
OF
Sir D.
When
the
mother-of-pearlon
observed
Brewster
bee's-wax,
his
"
Bodies
of
influence
The
earth, in
Such
moon
too
may
as
bodies
near
it tends
be under
James
was
of steam
force
far
so
of the
earth
under
are
the
gravity.
resembles
moon
The
surface
the
near
Watt's
towards
the
of the
surface
the
the
influence
hypothesisas
earth.
of
gravity.
to the motive
:
"
Steam
There
may
is
no
be
possessed of
motive
power.
the
modes
two
(Ch. 16,
arrivingat hypotheses ; for, as we have seen
" 6), the basis of every analogy is a probable induction,
by which the two classes St and S2 are brought together
of
in
universal
some
An
analogical
hypothesiswill prove
character
to
concept.
the
power,
and
on
which
it is based
attribute
to whose
however,
to
is
valueless,unless
important in
we
presence
between
distinguish
relation
conclude.
what
is
the
The
ant
import-
HYPOTHESIS
3. Conditions
"
of
359
the
conditions
as
following are
proposed
by Jevons (Princ.,p. 511).
allow of the applicationof
(1) The hypothesis must
The
deductive
reasoning, and
inference
the
of
sequences
con-
the results of
observation.
(2) It
must
which
of mind,
laws of nature
any
to be true.
conflict with
not
hold
we
inferred
consequences
facts of observation.
(3) The
needs
conditions
first of these
The
must
or
with
agree
the
The
comment.
no
capable
objectof an hypothesisis to suggest a cause
Hence, unless
accounting for the facts before us.
the phenomena
able to deduce
is such
that we
are
sole
of
it
from
very
for which
purpose
it
exists.
The
with
second
rule that
law
known
any
understood
to
in accordance
All
that
forced
take
to
sometimes
which
to
manner
the
that
that
difficulties,
view
that
we
instance
an
thinkers
we
matter
mind,
which
we
are
always
familiar.
violate
not
be
not
must
law,
We
positiveevidence.
may
which
in a
acts
to posit a cause,
known
have
no
parallel.Thus,
to some
seemed
in point, it has
have
Atomic
theory
it would
is
conflict
not
supposed must
cause
it should
is that
existence
of
or
laws, with
with
is necessary
of whose
be
of nature
that the
mean
act
hypothesis must
the
be
with
is beset
preferableto
continuous, and
that
so
many
adopt the
tinuous,
though conexpansion.
and
capable of contraction
for our
Here, the hypothesis proposes
acceptance a
phenomenon subject to a law quite unlike those with
that ground,
familiar.
Yet it cannot
which
on
we
are
be
dismissed
as
an
impossible supposition. Professor
this subject:
on
Poynting well remarks
it
is
"
"
'
seems
'
and
If
believed
we
to
the
that
eye,
expansion
are
we
piece
should
simple
of matter
have
to
facts, facts
is
admit
like
as
continuous
that
any
as
it
contraction
others.
This
'
supposition
'
his
'
and
'
plained. This
explanation to
'
in
absurd,
which
'
far
so
address
Association
British
by
characterized
was
that
to
excess.
To
Sir
Glasgow,
as
at
be
to
me
say
itself and
by
stands
Principal
that
Riicker
A.
in
unintelligible
and
contraction
it leaves
appears
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
360
simple fact,
any
is unlike
'
hidden
be
likeness, must
'
'
In the
same
the
way,
not
be
strictly
so
inferred
interpretedas to signifythat the consequences
with
all
from
the proposed hypothesis must
so
agree
well be
the facts, as to leave no
perplexities.It may
in accepting an
that we
are
hypothesis on the
justified
though some
ground of its evident reasonableness,even
to
contradict
facts remain, which
prima facie appear
as
yet be suggested.
it, and of which no explanationcan
in regard to the heliocentric theory,
the case
Such
was
to demand
when
first proposed by Copernicus. It seemed
to the earth, should
nearest
that the planetVenus, when
to be
appear
This, of
remote.
most
the
times
of sixteen
course,
it has
size,which
is
the
not
when
case.
Yet
did not
prevent
apparently inexplicabledifficulty
of
the acceptance of the Copernican theory by many
The seeming contradiction
cultivated minds.2
the most
Galileo through his telescopesaw
removed, when
was
that
Venus
phases, and that
through moon-like
passes
of 'the planet,but its
is not the whole
what
area
see
we
is luminous
luminous
portion which
part only. The
the earth, is less than that which
the planet is near
when
when
the planet is more
remote.
is luminous
this
that
It is evident
in
hypothesis
An
1
2
this
'
is
regarded
an
as
the
in
regard
to
in
an
especialmanner
natural
'
and
which
the
to
more
of facts
number
law, is further
more
bability
pro-
it
explains ;
subsequently
to
confirm
greatly
it.
com-
in the Hibbert
Journal, Vol. I.,p. 728 (1903).
prefatory letter before alluded to, states that
of Copernicus's theory
insuperable objection to the acceptance
Physical
Andreas
hypothesis acquires
to
be
to
prove
proportion
if it leads
that
and
an
Law
and
Osiander
an
account
Life
in
the
of the
actual
facts.
HYPOTHESIS
361
mended
"
Crucis,
employed when
experiment, to exclude
mentum
decisive
and
so
4. Various
"
employed
are
The
demonstrate
to
the
Kinds
to
of
of
one
truth
able
are
we
of
important
(1)Hypothesis of Cause.
are
hypotheses,
Different
Hypotheses.
of these
of
test
other.
designatedifferent
most
rival
two
the
the
by
of
kinds
follows
as
This
terms
hypotheses.
:
"
expression
is
used
the
when
we
under
consideration.
belief
that
fermentation
suppositionwas
Pascal's
column
Thus
was
of
hypothesis referringthe
to atmospheric pressure.
also
reckon
Such
cause.
rise
In
of
this
the
too
was
mercury
category
we
the
led to the
was
his
by yeast-cells,
caused
hypothesis
an
Pasteur
when
ancient
"
the
propertiesof
elements
their atomic
would
be found
to vary
odically
peri-
class.
weights,belongs to the same
(3) Working Hypothesis. We have already explained
length the meaning of a Descriptive
Hypothesis. The
as
at
the
362
PRINCIPLES
'
expression
desired
of
the
Working
lay
to
will
be
for
and
theory
need
should
hypothesis
is
theory
term
is
and
be
to
the
longer
no
'
expression
Gravitation.'
by
may
the
termed
one
as
which
who
they
do
The
concrete
used
the
in
Fact
facts
is
of
theory
the
it
facts,
each
that
find
we
'
not
other.
the
the
other
the
writers
Hypothesis
'
and
the
two
is
Such
evolutionary
of
certain
but
of
doctrine
same
tendency
however
use
hypothesis.
an
'
gested
sug-
proved,
between
opinion
that
distinction,
terms
satisfactorily
of
the
the
to
Thus
enough
the
work
scientific
writers
other
tions
significa-
assign
question.
sometimes
restricted
experience.
has
been
Evolution
are
this
to
terms
term
of
There
all
signify
to
fact
by
of
clearly
occur.
whatever
be
theory
adhere
not
to
theory,
indicate
hypothesis,'
in
the
gator
investibefore
contrast
divergence
the
the
science
Gravitation,'
by
a
'
expressions
the
marked
in
have
of
Theory
too
be
physical
question.
to
open
So
schools
In
to
is
character
of
for
understood
held
it
explanation.
an
ordinarily
explanation
provisional
account
employed
are
when
modifications,
to
Fact.
used
conviction
large
provide
Hypothesis
the
on
is
the
on
satisfactorily
it
Theory
stress
and
will
found
which
The
special
it
'
Hypothesis
assumption,
that
LOGIC
OF
been
whose
to
Sometimes
proved
truth
to
signify
it
be
real,
has
been
is
and
the
particular
extended
in
this
established.
to
sense
clude
in-
can
CHAPTER
QUANTITATIVE
"
DETERMINATION
natural
laws,
required.
Lord
'
'
'
'
Accurate
Kelvin,
of
the
of
that
siftingof
the
that
case
been
than
the
all
part of
metre.
expression:
It
those
be
should
says
imagination,
the looking for
grandest dis-
reward
the
numerical
of
accurate
all laws
It
results."
are
in
is not,
tive
capable of quantita-
is
non-scientific
and
minute
course,
have
many
determination
measurement,"
dignifiedwork
But
nearly
science
measurement,
minute
to the
seems
lofty and
something new.
coveries
and
"
CHANCE.
of
ascertainment
precise quantitative
less
'
"
the
OF
ELIMINATION
In
Measurement.
i.
XXIII.
much
law
of nature
wave-length of
is the i, 553,164^1
spectrum of cadmium
The
laws of lightdemand
quantitative
of zoology are
purely qualitative.
noted
that
in
the
those
sciences
in which
tative
employed, the stage of accurate quantiis
determination
always an advance on an earlier
concerned
with quality
was
period in which investigation
Thus
in chemistry the nature
alone.
of the elements
composing a compound is first discovered : the accurate
is
determination
of the precise amount
of each element
a
similarlyin the science
subsequent stage. Somewhat
of astronomy, the
of the
earth's
qualitativecharacter
is
measurement
motion
as
then
form
of
a
methods
ellipseround
the
sun
was
first
established,
the
precise
quantitative methods
that
ascertained.
ellipsewas
treatise
which
has
for its subject the general
employed in the discovery of physical laws,
and
In
an
by
exact
PRINCIPLES
364
LOGIC
OF
something
must
be said
and
the
conditions
to the
as
nature
of measurement,
affectingit.
is an
of comparison. To
All measurement
act
take
the relation
the measure
of a magnitude is to determine
other quantity,which
have
it bears to some
we
adopted
As
the
standard.
as
a
regards spatial measurement,
is the metre
standard
quantity for scientific purposes
to
as
its
and
subdivisions, the
For
the standard
is the period
temporal measurement
constituted
by the earth's revolution on its axis, the
day : this being subdivided into hours, minutes, seconds.
The
act of comparison is beset
by great difficulties.
"
The
conditions
under
which
it is carried
out, forbid
us
for
hope
sense
different
on
To
other.
thousand
times
But
does
back.
with
each
instruments
been
have
accuracy,
enable us to determine
magnitudes many
finer than
the finest sense
can
perceive.2
but
millimetres, but
stillexist.
unaided
variance
one
push the difficulty
stage
it is true, relate now,
discrepancies,
The
capable
at
are
ensure
devised, which
this
occasions,
to millionths
Moreover,
of
far
senses,
millimetre.
the instruments
accurate
more
of
involve
further
not
to
But
they
themselves, though
measurement
imperfections of
than
their
the
own.
?
What
is the metre
The
is a piece of metal
metre
standard
preserved
ten-millionth
Paris, which originallywas intended to represent precisely one
An
artificial standard
of this kind has however
part of the earth's quadrant.
certain inconveniences.
have e.g., no guarantee that it will not change by
We
of its component
molecules.
Hence
the scientific
age through the settlingdown
is understood
standard.
world
has adopted a natural
a
By a metre
piece
of metal
whose
times
length at o" C. at the epoch A.D. 1906=1,553,164
of cadmium,
when
the latter
the wave-length of the red line in the spectrum
in dry air at the temperature
is observed
of 15" C. of the normal
hydrogenat
scale
*
at
Thus
Arcturus.
pressure
Nichol's
of 760
mm.
radiometer
of mercury
detect
can
at
the
o" C.
heat
received
from
Vega
or
PRINCIPLES
366
OF
LOGIC
observer.
of the
effect of such
The
the
by
taken
been
calculated
the
after
the
to
as
made
been
has
which
in
case,
is well
disturbingcauses
to
various
positionof
absolute
ensure
results
are
observations
star, and
found
illustrated
at
effort
every
exactitude
to be
have
in
each,
variance.
but each
places the
approximate closely,
positionslightlydifferent from that indicated
They
star
may
by
in
the
others.
may
instrument
in
and
the
case
personalequation is constant,
he
that
When
this
has
should
take
the
been
of those
observers
this
similarlybe
can
done,
rected.
cor-
prescribes
observations, and
reason
of his
mean
whose
adopt
this
as
nearer
'
any
'
we
of
the
we
way
must
In
this.
in which
now
is to
show
be
the
the
why
section,
next
regarded as
be
must
mean
the
'
mean
of
we
'
shall
determined.
number
equivalentlytheir
'
of
discuss
But
ments
experi-
combined
testimony.
The
examine
reason
the
of
seen,
if,in illustration,
we
particularcause
of error,
namely
the nature
consider
of sensesense-perception.If we
perceptionin the abstract, it is clear that, viewed as a
of error
in the measurement
of a magnitude, it
cause
It tends
to excess
is indifferent
defect.
as
or
equally
either
side.
mistakes
to
The
on
inaccuracy, which
DETERMINATION
QUANTITATIVE
its
characterizes
tendency
inability of
exaggerate
to
the
increased, the
that
defect
mean
the
as
number
the
at
end
special
any
from
the
but
perfect exactitude.
of observations
will grow
error
least
at
"
attain
to
from
not
diminish,
to
or
senses
it follows
Hence
and
testimony, arises
367
less and
of
less,excess
series,
infinite
an
is
"
otherwise
tending to a ratio of equality. To suppose
"to
imagine that the term of the whole process would
effect without
be inequality is to suppose
an
a
cause.
"
that
involves
this
But
when
very
observations
many
this
of
are
character.
The
defect.
or
of
the
They
observations
in
taken
the
opposite direction.
observers
competent
in
of 81
the
practicethat
inverselyas the
whose
be
observations
in
will be
of the
root
Thus
the
3 times
corresponding
experimental
square
is taken.
mean
will be
error
there should
so
multiplied,
approximation to absolute accuracy.
varies
excess
In
are
It is found
to
particularstate
to exaggeration:
perhaps tend
may
will also be days on
which the
there
mean
temperature
but
of
indifferent
are
of
error
ments,
measure-
number
of observations,
contained
error
less than
the
in the
of 9
error
observations.
In
the
any
measurement
the
others.
divergence
Small
cannot
observation
"
These
As
two
2.
been
Methods
the
which
are
the
mean
method
'
'
mean
indicated.
manner
in
or
of Approximation.
(i)the
methods,
the
some
Either
the
way
the
conditions
different.
of
term
in
carelesslymade,
was
have
must
of
collation
has
it will be
number
of
of means,
by
more
custom
There
two
are
observations
may
be
in
ways
found.
(2)the method
been
convenient
of least squares.
assigned to one of these
to
speak
of the
two
as
PRINCIPLES
368
the
shall
describe
for
first of the
(i)Method
the
for instance
as
measurements
observations.
the
to
we
is taken,
of
line
is divided
if four
these
by
the
have
denoted
are
will be
mean
sum
observations
P, and
P4, the
taking
with
The
line.
and
of
dealing
are
of
are
that
appear
second.
the
simple plan
length
Thus
length
of
the
"
the
it will
case
when
only applicable
of the
as
method
This
represented
P.
formula,
the
by
mining
deter-
separately. They
but
practical purposes
;
is really a simple
is
"
made
been
of
Methods
as
methods
two
observed
number
than
two
singlemagnitude,
the
these
of Means.
average,
of
LOGIC
mean.
distinguished
the
rather
of Approximation
Methods
We
OF
4-
method
The
susceptible of
is
modifications.
various
Thus,
vations,
to attribute
weight to their obserinvestigatorsare accustomed
for
value.
in proportion to their assumed
If,
instance,
has
been
made
under
favourable
observation
one
especially
another
circumstances,
less favourable,
under
and
unsatisfactoryconditions, they
attributingto the first of these the weight
the weight of two.
and
to the second
3P1" + 2P2 + P,
somewhat
of
third
would
adopt
of three
This
under
the
plan
tions,
observa-
would
give
as
formula
"
6.
(ii)Method
said,
have
of Least
Such
magnitude.
magnitude
may
be
P.
The
of
root
Pv P2, P3
regard
to
with
deal
the
of
we
simple
Pn
case
squares
the
P
and
series
to
those
greatly
of values.
We
have
values, which
observations
decrease.
We
no
we
of
of P.
qn ;
tions
observa-
our
second
That
and
relating
tration
illus-
our
have
we
equal reliability.How
reason
are
would
One
the
where
case
be
undoubtedly
way
of q, and then
find the arithmetic
But
in combination.
there
is a
increased
have
our
as
P, and
and
of
way
calculating.
between
the
amount
of
supposition, parity
of the q series.
By squaring
thus
of
may
our
as
will suppose
q to be the square
be represented respectivelyby
we
one,
qv q2, q3
values
series, and
reliable
function
q series
to this rough-and-ready
and
have
and
series
of the
Means,
suppose
some
series
two
.
is
may
we
magnitude
relating to P,
series,one
q, which
each
such
objection
according
P
instance,
determining
of two
consist
to
For
in
engaged
are
of
we
are
dealing with a single
applied when
As
is
case
a rule, greater complexity
infrequent.
is involved.
we
Method
be
only
can
The
Squares.
relative
the
take
mean
serious
There
is,
of the
errors
values
error
to
we
to
in
of q,
that
the two
sets
parity between
not
in this way
secured
a
body of equally
the number
in
that
us
as
justify
supposing
destroyed
increases,
longer
have
so
the
the
the
mean
same
error
must
constantly
ELIMINATION
residuals,
those
as
demanding
the
An
of
value
P,
the
other
than
value
of
squares
the
the
it is not
the
method.
of
in
claims
its
effect
between
show
the
'
is
method
of
scope
presence
empirical law/
is
specialcase
usefully
of nature,
law
Elimination
the
method
this
establish
means
two
perty
pro-
general
more
a
arithmetic
sometimes
It is termed
attention.
The
by
adopt this
rightly termed
than
But
It is
the
discoveringand determininga
Chance.
cannot
even
the
the
from
mean.1
can
we
any
take
greater
such.
when
of
Squares.
Another
our
and
the
two
sum
choose
we
will be
as
of
the
differs
given by
metic
arith-
mean
If
value
series.
the
to
below,
or
mean
is limited.
relation
of
We
and
cause
It merely serves
to
phenomena.
of an
This
term
Empirical Law.
used with
some
variety of meaning.
It is sometimes
Thus,
if
we
take
we
of the
on
squares
select a number
squares
the
on
they will
be
new
the
the
three
residuals
either
numbers
(i2 +22), is
above
residuals
32+i2=io.
that
lar
particu-
two
makes
squares
and
of Means
Least
Chance.
3.
service,
no
belongs
that
of these
sum
Method
Method
employed
of
of
be
The
the
now
which
the
the
to
possible.
it above
generically ;
mean
would
"
be
mean,
the
least
discovering
assign
which
of the residuals
squares
of
the
arithmetic
property
of
of
the
to
superior,viz.
arithmetic
or
value
of the
sum
mean
the
quantitiesby
original numbers,
to
us
advisable
relation
average
residuals
the
that
of
is
in
characteristic
have
we
the
on
in
this
the
In
numbers,
squares
stands
that
itself.
mean
consists
the
observed
It will be
more
is
ments
measure-
calculations
question, it
mathematically
This
which
our
wherever
in
which
Squares.
sum
of the squares
enables
algebraic process
makes
which
possible.
or
method
369
which
by
Hence,
mean.
of Least
Method
value
the
called
are
another
employ
quantities
from
differ
CHANCE
OF
will
or
8.
it, we
below
exceed
If instead
8.
Thus
is 10, the
mean
of
taking
shall find
if
we
take
the
the
the
sum
sum
mean,
of the
number
9,
PRINCIPLES
370
know
not.
is, in
our
They
are
LOGIC
connected
but
experience :
that
rationally,
OF
is, in
for
they
us
that
empirically,
connected
not
are
for
observe
We
intelligence.
X is followed by Y.
certain conditions
that under
But
X is the cause
of Y, or whether
whether
they are both
effects proceeding from A, or whether
X is a necessary
condition
of all this we
are
enabling A to produce Y
ignorant. Knowledge of these empiricallaws, imperfect
it is,is of great importance to us ; for it is not infrequently
as
the first stage in discovering
of nature.
a true law
Before proceeding to the discussion of the method
in
question,it will be well to state clearlywhat is meant
by Chance.
The
is accuratelydefined by Mill.
term
Chance
We
say," he writes, that two or more
phenomena
may
chance
are
conjoined by
meaning that they are
in no
related by causation."
And
again, Facts
way
'conjoinedby chance are separatelythe effect of causes,
us
our
"
"
'
"
'
'
'
'
"
and
therefore
facts not
of laws
connected
but
of different causes,
law
and
of
"
was
needed
If
to
the
then
relation
to
effects
such
but
scope
bring it
consider
we
by
many
any
of either
the
causal
of the
It
casual
a
be
should, however,
in
result
that
events
no
such
be
in
rately,
sepa-
take
place are, in
They are not
can
series
the
there
cause,
causal
two
about.
of the
to
duce
pro-
chance
experience; and
that since everything has
thing as chance.
borne
our
in
mind
that
what
is
be
may
to which
OF
ELIMINATION
the two
has
in
causes
servants
two
the
knowledge
meeting is, as
of the
other,
far
they
planned, and
the
directed.
This
are
in
without
concerned, casual.
But
in
relation
spatches
de-
Their
same
of which
its various
how
suggests
if considered
may,
who
master,
point
place.
to
which
to
This
on
as
of
case
to the
was
the
by
371
subordinate.
question are
illustrated
been
CHANCE
stages
action
all
were
lives coincidences
our
to
the
dence,
overrulingProvi-
an
the
true
directlyintended, and constitute
of a chain
of causality. Bain, when
dealingwith
but
that none
the superstitious
subject,remarks
be
term
this
could
have
Oliver
seen
'
'
and
the
of its
out
They
concurred
does
not
in
'
First
who
Cause,
subordinate
it
Each
that
is
discussing. In
this case,
coincidence.
in
that
dice
true
attribute
action
the
urges,
causes.
should
9,
be
ticular
par-
apetitio
existence
of
such
this
and
at
to
box, but
the
that
effect to
on
Yet
faces.
such
latter
be
attribute
been
result is not
it is true, the
held
we
we
physical action
be
the
when
which
sense,
The
sense
fell from
they present
not
he
was
causes.1
from
may
of
implicitlydenies the
disposes and orders
little removed
he
objectioninvolves
to
when
of
of indifference,and
The
to
death
is all that
matter
the
the
event/
(Logic,III.,c.
But
us.
for
principii
;
'
time, and
selected
concern
which,
storm
independent series
own
concerningthem
instance
between
London.
over
grew
said
connexion
Cromwell
expiring,burst
'
any
of
due
the
player
not
reason
only
coming to rest,
the player does
himself, because
his
in
not
designed to produce that
throwing was
own
particularresult. In general,we
regard as our
only those effects which we designedour action to produce.
Here, the action was
solelydirected to ejectingthe dice
from
any
1
On
the
box
it
bore, and
particularface turned
the
could
up.
bear,
Hence,
Summa
relation
no
we
Theol.
do
not
to
attri-
I-
of the throw
good or ill success
regard it as casual, just as we regard
meeting with a friend as casual.
the
bute
We
for
"
4. Elimination
of
method
by
is
Chance
between
in which
other
in
cases
if
hand,
other
that
is followed
of
existence
will
be
that
causal
it is
But
Agreement.
the
with
for
the antecedent
verified,
is not
in
way
are
we
for
evidence
it
principle,
Method
of
Elimination
of
of
number
the
cases
counteracting
causes,
appearing without
termed
are
other
of the
the
by
On
Y.
The
that
allow
to
us
The
balanced
is valid
connexion.
by
stable.
chance, then
mere
peculiar to
what
to
be
the
they
It is based
without
there
is identical
seen,
the law
to
tion
conjunc-
the
will be
by Y,
of
connected
are
accompanies
attributed
unlocked
law.
not
it appears
event
one
the
casual, that
some
will
ourselves.
that
events
connexion
in supposing
justified
the
show
of
to
Elimination
is not
if two
which
be
cannot
The
we
in virtue
alone, their
chance
cases
which
principlethat
the
on
Chance.
circumstances
two
connected
be
must
in
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
372
consequent.
it is
illustrated
is well
method
The
employed
for
detection
the
the
by
case,
in which
If
dice.
of loaded
of
shows
the
marked
Is it not
throw.
action, due
to
We
know
if the
that
six should
If then
it turns
three
times
there
is
In
in every
is not
relied to shew
of
to
the
number
true
is
once
we
bias
within
but
in
may
die ?
the
the
of
figure
in six throws.
once
every
result
six
throws, but
justlyconclude
that
convinces
that
amiss.
reason
casual, is the
that
perfectlynormal
average
four,
case
result
the
not
up,
something
die
the
on
appear
of
the presence
the
natural
and
direct
we
are
of measurements
determination
which
same
as
that
on
us
which
we
PRINCIPLES
374
employed
are
OF
to denote
the
LOGIC
of credence.
measure
tude
Certi-
the
to
of
truth
illustration of the
and
but
the
six, are
motives
Hence
which
ence
influ-
againstits appearance
the probabilityof
been
has
the
favour.
in
propositionthat
What
Here
dice.
expectationof
our
the
the
meaning
as
probability
such
as
to
motives
is the
What
it
here
can
claim.
subject-matterof
proper
the
theory
of
Probability?
There
are
certain
confidence
that, though
particular
propositionwill be true in regard to a definite proportion
affirm this propositionof any
of them, yet we
cannot
member
of the class taken
separately. Let us suppose
that in regard to the populationof England at the present
epoch, reliable statistics,extending over
many
years,
shew
that from
thousand
of twenty-five
men
us
every
In
of age, ninety per cent, live to be thirty-five.
years
that this will hold good
have
such
doubts
no
a
case, we
in the near
whole
of the population as
future ; but
a
vidual
to assert
of any
not
should
venture
we
particularindiis now
who
twenty-fiveyears old, that he will
I may
have good grounds
decade.
live another
Similarly,
we
are
'
Baudot
La
able
to
affirm
probabiliteest
in the
article
done
une
Probability
fraction
in
the
that
toujours inferieure
Nouveau
Dictionnaire
i.'
des
M. Victor
Sciences^
ELIMINATION
for
in
believingthat
of every
be wet.
OF
the
CHANCE
coming
375
five
autumn
days
seven
I cannot
But
venture
it will be
day, whether
It is where
predictof
any
fine
rainy
to
the
among
the
or
out
live,
special
ones.
and
thirty-fivewas
will
continue
to
have
proportionwould
this
from
be
from
each
run,
of
of times,
definite
result
same
ground
no
the
known
face
do
we
so
similar
cannot
the
to
Even
of the
which
believingthat
We
law.
some
laws,
under
for
maintained.
past to future,
except on the ground
equal number
the
produce
should
conditions,we
of
result
the
when
argue
unknown,
hold
we
relyingon
an
principle
event
no
to
as
detail.
the
only
not
is the
the
event
twenty-fiveand
proportion of
hostile
human
to
cases
should
the
have
to
the
in which
proportion of
those
class
of course,
effect
is
one
be such
not
certainty,not
within
that
the
causes
which
in
in which
Englishmen
estimate
select, though it be
operates,must,
class, within
is the
and
thirty-five,
cases,
operation in
some
occurs,
take
we
their
take
what
see
Thus,
occur.
to track
is to
resource
in which
cases,
between
of
attempt
any
it does
we
elude
Our
which
take
can
what
that
The
the
are
class
cause
certain number
produced. Otherwise,
probability.
we
PRINCIPLES
376
to
one
to
another.
he
9 to
knows
of
reason
the
data
The
former
in
so
Some
is
far
probability
I only
whom
concerning
man
who
one
worker
who
those
in
is better
survive
that
say
informed, and
his
chances
but
are
are
deals
case
he is
as
its
as
of this
The
far
same
cent., may
per
the
not
a
LOGIC
an
i.
he
that
so
is
that
say
five, are
of
Thus,
that
I may
80
is often
person,
know
OF
as
the
Englishman
an
he
with
is
worker
chances
; the
latter with
and
such
at
of the
classes.
man,
his
such
4 to i.
fact that
in
chances,
trade.
sense
we
perhaps be asked, in what
regard
event
the chances of that event.
the probabilityof an
as
if we
consider
what
This
is
question will be answered
in the expressionof probabilityas a fraction.
involved
When, for instance, we say that the probability
an
man
Englishto be thirty-five,
is T9Q,
of twenty-fivewill survive
view
that we
the class in question as divided
mean
we
into ten
belong to the survivors,
parts, nine of which
It
and
may
to
one
those
as
representingten
as
when
that
the
of the
one
alternatives
We
alternatives
die is thrown,
the
any
die.
who
are
-f^.
we
consider
these
ten
parts
of
equal likelihood,just
regard it as equallylikely
faces may
appear.
the
the
same,
But
chance
nine
of
favour
of
as
in
In
event
casual
We
is
result.
have
and
probability,
can
discover
of credence
explained
now
by
which
shewn
a
in
what
mathematical
a
are
outline
the
the
cases
meaning
in which
calculus, the
proposition claims.
of
we
measure
It remains
to
ELIMINATION
point
with
of
this
how
out
the
accuracy
calculus
CHANCE
377
assist
can
which
point at
the
determine
to
us
repeatedconjunction
conclusive
affords
events
two
OF
evidence
of
causal
connexion.
Let
take
us
from
bag containingthree
replacingafter each
of drawing a white
trials be
in which
case,
made,
it is
times.
Yet
ball chosen.
f-;
and
if
probable
that
the
it must
be
owned
are
draw
to
balls and
white
trial the
ball
have
we
ball
black,
two
The
chances
large number
white
ball will
iN
appear
that
though
is
this number
more
it will be
that
mathematician
famous
other, the
but
The
remote.
Bernouilli
James
ability
prob-
(1654-1705)
within
what
limits
proposed to himself to determine
of trials,the result actually obtained
in a large number
will approximate to the ideallymost
probable result.
difficult problem occupied his thoughts during
This
theorem.
of the
such
case
Bernouilli'
as
above, where
the
as
trial is f he
in each
event
of it is known
the
showed
ability
prob-
that
the
odds
1,000
are
not
occur
to
that
than
more
in 25,500
15,841 times,
"
It need
moral
hardly be said
certainty.
Further,
of the
the
as
Vide
Prof.
the
occurrence
'
15,300,
the
-"$ of
the
on
probabilityamounts
the
multiplied,
number
the
to
the
with
ratio
of occasions
laws
of
ability,
prob-
less.2
Britan.
Probability in EncycL
Probabilite
in
account
the
Nouveau
of Bernouilli's
Dictionnaire
19,
p.
769)
theorem
des
in M.
Victor
Baudot's
Sciences.
Definissons
d'abord
Bernouilli.ce
qu'on nomme
soit
evenement
et
d'un
qu'on fasse ^
probabilite
p
que
se
successives,pendant lesquelles1'eve'nement
produit m fois : 1'ecart
epreuves
est la difference positive ou
Ainsi, on lance 4040 fois une
negative /*/" m.
piece en 1'air,
v-p
fj.=4040
; la probability p qu'on ait face est J, done
:
supposons
de
Jacques
"
la
"
'
than
on.
Theoreme
'ecart
"
article
Croft
such
agrees
less and
following is the
The
article
"
exceed
not
less
not
from
of trials is
number
will grow
by
that
of deviations
number
which
on
shall
shall
event
of trials.1
number
and
deviation
to
trials,the
PRINCIPLES
378
The
If
is evident.
of
of this
bearing
it is discovered
with
that
we
the
We
case.
in
conjoinedonly by chance,
conjuncturesis determinable
but
is
there
loaded
work.
Were
it not
its
own
after
defeat
which
is able to say
limits of mere
tend
must
die
it would
so,
to
view
the
to
as
of
nature
dealing with
events
of whose
relative number
the
clear
it becomes
mathematical
principles,
of connexion
(or of repugnance) at
results.
gives,it is true, very irregular
law
is
manifestly not
are
number
overstepped, and if
totallyat variance
be
our
of chance
definite
estimate, then
mistaken
were
elimination
result
the
that
mathematical
our
the
will not
limits
trials,certain
LOGIC
are
we
upon
OF
purpose.
on
be
detected
But
there
certain number
at
and
once,
comes
so
point
at
the mathematician
trials,
of
that
face
that
turn
uppermost.
dealing in
Mathematical
this chapter with
Probabilityalone. It
it
few words, in order to distinguish
to add
remains
a
clearlyfrom PhilosophicalProbability the probability
when
concerned
with
which
we
are
judging as to the
this
value of various hypotheses (Ch. 22, " 3). Where
estimate the relative degreeof rational
is in question we
to two
credence
to be attached
suggested explanations.
mine
methods
to deterBut
cannot
we
apply mathematical
tion.
that expresses that relathe quantitativemeasure
not
The
quantitative,
comparison is qualitative,
Philosophical Probability. We
been
have
"
'
si face
'
2,000
montre
se
2,048 fois,on
fois,1'ecart serait
fait
"
on
"
petit par
un
rapport
"
'
'
'
au
vers
zero,
28 ; si elle
revient
montrait
se
a
croissant
des epreuves.'
nombre
Bernouilli
de
ceci
devient
au
Si
infiniment
1'ecart absolu
'
contraire
que
de
c'est
plus
rapport du
derniere
le
des
parties perdues
mais
la difference
des
nombre
'que
'
'
que
theoreme
ind6finiment
nombre
"
20.
1'ecart est
dira
Le
de
par
ces
en
le
meme
deux
parties gagnees
tend
nombres,
plus."
vers
et
par
ELIMINATION
and
it is
calculation
them
it
that
and
of
from
in
the
case
one
and
known
We
them
range
of
degree
numerical
although
"
d'autre
Mais
point
*non
de
"
les
cette
proprie1
'
dans
les
'
1'elcgance
mais
nombres,
lois
de
cause
'
possibles,
te
degr6s
et
Philosophiques.
is
one
part,
de
en
ni
la
soi
divers,
labeaute."
ection
et
par
qui
a
la
sa
nature
constitue
conception
A.
Cournot
de
leur
in
des
nor
the
n'y
But
scientist
other.
essentiellement
lieu
simplicit6,
phenomenes,
Dictionnaire
ni
la
la science
de
nombrer
rapport
par
et
de
nombres
en
dans
grandeurs,
de
Franck's
of
to
the
re*ductible
II
des
theorique
these
alternative
two
connaissances
degr6
as
the
differe
propre.
comme
have
facts,
the
than
pas
nos
We
number
impossible,
n'est
to
manifest.1
philosophique
qu'elle
actuelle
Schelonner
les
forme
ce
other
to
according
probable
more
en
bears
for
of
is
suggested
the
that
differs
degree
such
they
the
hypothesis
values
is
probabilite
1'imperf
de
it
harmony
mathematique,
probabilite
analogy
scale
hesitation
the
explanations
the
the
of
it
its
of
account
calculation
without
affirm
can
and
reason
But
explanation
quantitative
of
out
that
determine
might
series
much
as
junctions
con-
governing
reasonableness.
cannot
in
law
suppose
in
measuring
which
similar
other.
ability
intrinsic
of
laws
possible
is
the
ability
prob-
resemblance
the
the
by
its
means
numerically.
the
by
by
no
of
facts,
the
causes,
indeed
in
as
character
judged
for
account
the
probability
the
is
this
To
imaginary,
not
that
or
them.
when
causes,
and
by
numerical
mathematical
cause
for
mathematical
estimated
la
demand
events
real
is
that
principle
the
on
accounting
question
"
rests
independent
events
resembles
probability
Philosophical
of
379
possible.
is
in
CHANCE
is concerned
quantity
where
only
OF
qui
donne,
symmetric,
des
Sciences
CHAPTER
XXIV.
CLASSIFICATION.
"
Classification. We
i.
the
distinguished
natural
deal
which
those
have
already (Ch.
sciences
into
primarily with
the
deal with
two
19,
" i)
groups"
forms
of
static
her
dynamic activities.
first group
To
the
belong, for instance, Systematic
Botany and SystematicZoology, the portion,that is, of
of Botany and
the sciences
Zoology, which deals with
of animals
distribution
the
and
plants
into
their
genera
and
and
invariable
attribute.
which
it is the
Thus
teaches
connexions
that
us
between
science
of the
each
attribute
and
of
Systematic Zoology
generaltypes,mammals,
birds, reptiles,
amphibians and fishes is characterized
by certain definite properties peculiar to the class in
question,and
found
class
without
exception.
from
in this group
those
make
we
relative
the
in
and
The
every
member
use
of
in
group, is almost
In the
the other.
the
some
direct
and
the
ployed
em-
measure
physical science.
of Observation
importance
of
methods, however,
of sciences, differ in
one
is in
each
The
Experiment
converse
of what
in
it
physicalsciences,Observation
unaided
do comparatively little.
by Experiment can
The
successful investigator
is he who
best devise
can
his experiments. In the sciences dealand best conduct
ing
with
stable forms, Experiment, hitherto
Nature's
at least,has played a smaller
part.1 It is on Observa1
The
discoveries
principles called
of
Abbot
after him
of Experimental
'
Methods
in these
3FO
sciences
in the
future.
PRINCIPLES
382
have
if
deal with
to
find
of
means
be
and
colours, some
some
for their
of them
crimes,
according to
groups
their
The
them.
classifying
arrangement
that
of a biofor
graphical
as
instance,
wholly arbitrary,
of different races
men
dictionary,in which
some
may
holds
name
system could
famous
for their
distributed
are
place which
the
alphabet.
the
in
been
hardly have
for
into
the
A
aim
is that
first letter
may
of
artificial
Yet
is not
we
twenty-six
more
selected.
our
virtue, and
it is well
speculative,
culty
diffi-
without
be
which
LOGIC
of individual objects,
great number
avoid
must
complete bewilderment, we
to
are
we
OF
we
it will be
dealing with Natural Classifications,
well to consider
shortly these Artificial Classifications,
which
those
completely they differ from
noting how
form
the proper
subject of this chapter.
Before
"
may
Artificial Classification.
2.
be chosen
to
serve
provided
be
to the
common
and
enable
only
the
to
the basis of
it fulfil two
that
whole
us
of the
purpose
to
which
different attribute
a
as
man
individuals.
The
same
It must
individual
classes.
in
has
to
one
and
Hence, according
classified
the
conditions.
the
of
group
different men.
and
cation,
Artificial Classifi-
objectsto be classified,
be sufficiently
must
tinct
dis-
assign each
subordinate
an
whatever
of
group
its different modifications
to
one
as
attribute
Any
the same
collection
Thus
by
of engravingsmight be classified by an historian according
to the events
represented,
by an artist accordingto the
schools of art or
various
according to the individual
found
work
in the collection,by a
artists whose
was
according to market value.
print-dealer
The cases, in which
we
employ Artificial Classifications,
of two kinds, which need to be carefully
are
distinguished.
of
We
be concerned
(i) with a limited number
may
classification
of
the
words
in
par-
CLASSIFICATION
ticular
of the
language,of the picturesin a gallery,
in a given region,will serve
instances.
as
This
unlimited.
to
not
first of these
the
select
possess,
confer
the
as
of
basis
wherever
we
recognizeits place in
we
is familiar
to
in
us
force, automobiles,
In the
second
perforce rely
famous
of
its
the
objectsalready
come
ourselves
We
purpose.
of the
class,and
across
any
The
the
affix
then
individual,
classification.
applicationto
to
method
police
army,
etc.
of which
case
on
have
we
natural
some
spoken, we
must
characteristic.
The
Linnaean
instance
which
our
all
we
to
be
class.
member
chance
may
Or
dealing with
are
classification,but
each
to
mobiles
auto-
classified may
characteristic
artificial mark
an
cases,
characteristic
we
natural
some
be
to
when
occurs,
of
members
In
individuals
of
number
(2) the
the
383
In
classification.
such
the classical
us
this
the
system,
various
ing
arranged in genera accordof stamens
and pistils
to the number
they possess,
of
and irrespective any other
similarityor dissimilarity
than
is afforded
Such
a
by this singlecharacteristic.
distribution is rightlytermed
even
artificial,
though it
is
based,
as
have
we
stated,
on
natural
characteristic.
It
species which
brings together into a common
genus,
connected
are
by the sole fact that they have the same
of stamens
and pistils,
but which
in all else are
number
it relegatesto widely
each
other : and
from
remote
order
in the
natural
divergent classes, species which
are
closelyallied.
have
to these classifications,
had recourse
Investigators
the perplexities
of the natural
when
system have been
such
In
as
to
such
better
definite
than
place
each
to
efforts
have
It
chaos.
at
member
to
judged
least
an
enables
is
practicalend
only
in
of
artificial system
to
us
of the
temporary
question,the
classes.
the
arrange
Yet
value.
natural
assign
in virtue
group
marks.
easily recognizable
and
classification
the
they
cases,
distinctive
a
baffle their
Even
of
such
for
classification
PRINCIPLES
384
is far the
OF
convenient, and
most
is discarded
system
long run
could
What
natural
the
classification
in
shall advert
we
and
characteristic
any
other
it
3. The
and
to
and
of
fundamental
is, as
with
natural
We
foundation.
of the
better
than
by
assign to
may
which
to
group
The
of
aim
already noted,
natural
their
to
to
species,
of science
men
species
is
natural
this
that
of
destitute
consider
to
propose
manifest
all solid
questionin
be
it dubious
the
whether
the
species
they
exist
fact of
history,distributed
assemblage of individuals,
types. They
all of them
determinate
are
affirm
group.
question involve,
but
common
not
mere
different the
so
impossibleto
minuteness
of the
members
are, at the
is
theless
never-
not.
It is
in
have
many
It would
present section.
should be classified,
were
or
it is
displayconspicuous
Species.
we
these
Classification,thus
understood,
of species. Yet
the existence
it is
tenet
of
doctrine
To
that
depends entirely on
a
Natural
the
that
subordination.
evident
is
classes
according to their
species according
the
group
co-ordination
It
is true
we
Doctrine
individuals
mammals,
are
features, by which,
Scientific Classification
group
into
might select, we
determinate
place in the
object a
belongs.
"
natural
attribute
each
distinctive
many.
section.
But
subsequent
that
case
artificial
assign such
plantsinto
conifers
and
cycads, or of vertebrates
birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fishes ? It
of
ficial
arti-
classification of
by the
dicotyledons,
monocotyledons,
phanerogamous
riddles
the
afforded
are
as
in the
in its favour.
LOGIC
not
of these
the
other, that
it
universal
On
the
only
certain
multitude
to
from
one
every
of the
most
member
resemblances
broad
notes
detailed
of
the
is often
of
blance,
resem-
istics,
characterclass.
The
extraordinary.
CLASSIFICATION
385
This
'
"
'
the
"
'
'
Chaffinch.
Every
forehead, and
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
every
cock
Chaffinch
head
grey
know
must
one
has
and
black
with
a
nape,
this and
the
oil-greenbetween
chestnut
of his back : the quillfeathers of his wing
of the
have
each a narrow
:
edging of greyish-white
are
white,
always black, and some
wing coverts, some
the
is
at
black
base with a white
and one
row
tip to
each
white
each
feather : the inner primarieshave
a
patch at the base of the outer web, while the pair of
tail feathers next
to
the
outer
and
ones,
have
each
narrow
margin
outer
.
'
bluish
which
half-collar of
narrow
'
bird
I will take
....
'
unmistakeable
exhibits
holds
is it that
tendencies
such
similarities
The
tendencies
are
What
to vary.
in check
"
In
merely external.
themselves
through the
not
every
of
whole
forced upon
seems
us
organism. The conclusion
that the complicated system of characteristics,
of which
in each case
the type consists,constitutes
a morphological
unity. The type is not merely an average standard, to
the
which
less
of the
members
the
of them
roughly,some
and
unite
to
whole, and
each
but
such
the
is identical
process
and
occurs,
individual, and
of
in
all the
or
characteristics
whole
such
that
members
is
closed
morphological
of
the
class ;
as
far
as
These
case
more
of the characteristics,
lackingsome
system in itself.
Moreover, not merely is it the
structure
approximate
lacking others.
some
form
class
our
experience reaches,
generation without
Scientists,
p.
are
change.
70.
CC
386
PRINCIPLES
as
Biologically
well
OF
LOGIC
morphologicallythe
as
type
is
unity.
superseded by the
and so
by Darwin
the
and
of these
doctrine
ence
facts,the existview
of Evolution
entirely
now
enunciated
as
founder
of the
forms
of
their originto
plant life now
existingowe
Selection.
the principleof Natural
Animal
and
plant
is
life
susceptibleof indefinite variation, and in the
strugglefor existence, the weaker and less efficient forms
been
have
extirpated,the stronger and better-equipped
and
animal
the
survived.
have
alone
different
birds
thought, due
The
and
the
to
characteristics
beasts,
impress
not,
are
of
which
had
as
different
mark
been
types. They
are
The
more
Selection
Natural
the
has
different
are
unanimous
distinct
be
is
of the
theory as
present classes.
they
alone
Each
phenomena.
a
followers
recent
On
one
in
types, have
accumulation
of
Darwin
insufficient
to the
to
eminent
more
admit
account
among
that
for
them
explanationof our
point,however, they are agreed :
to us to
holding that what seem
true
all arisen
of small
from
common
stem,
an
"
"
'
'
'
'
CLASSIFICATION
'
law, but
'
human
387
operation
by the purely non-significant
experience."1
Now
maintain
who
those
in
the
existence
concerned
with
of
of
distinct
the
question as
to the manner
they originated. The point at
issue is a different one, namely whether
at the present
is a morphotime there do not exist types, each of which
logical
and
biologicalunity in the sense
explained:
there
is not
real objectiveprinciplepresent
whether
a
species,are
no
way
in which
of the
member
in each
type, in
characteristics
certain
virtue
to
common
of which
it possesses
individual
every
of
that
of
existence
authorities
German
"
'
in
world
The
the
'
winian
'
believe
'
most
cite
may
competent
:
"
"
of
a
on
Wasmann's
inasmuch
as
he
of
chaos
minute
variations.
ordered
system
contrary a well
families,orders, classes, phyla." 2
the
species,genera,
Fr.
the
we
It constitutes
of
effect
of
...
'
types. To this
Wasmann, one of
of Fr.
words
some
such
conclusion
adheres
to
is
the
the
view
more
that
interesting
present
our
He
himself
discovered
'
among
some
'
escape
Die
Die
moderne
Biologic und
Mutationstheorie,1903.
die
p.
316.
PRINCIPLES
"$88
LOGIC
OF
Lamarckiana
(the large-flowered
specimens of Oenothera
novel
forms
which
displayed
evening primrose) several
is the
that persistencyin their characteristics,which
of the true speciesas distinguished
from the mere
mark
variety.
It is urged as a conclusive
objectionto the doctrine
now
are
we
defending,that in some
genera there is found
so
a series of transitional forms
complex and various that
the number
of species into which
they are divided in
the personalpredilection
of the
any system, depends on
attention
is
systematist. As instances in point, our
called
fact that
the
to
the
German
of
number
species
one
rubus
and
that
in certain
the
show
formation
He
animals.
the
of
considers
of
development
by de
objectionin a
it proves
that
of
believes
he
it is true
that
observed
the
meet
and
is
of many
plants such as hieracium
claims that his own
investigations
lower
cases,
instances
Others
reply
he
animal
the
This
end.
an
the
no
more
some
at
moreover
types produces
new
in
the
among
at
yet
case
in
that
classes in which
are
dinarda
regarding the
least
contends
Wasmann
way.
than
appear
Vries.
and
different manner,
hitherto
that
than
the
not
in question, have
species constitutingthe genera
the speciesof any
genus
yet been distinguished.When
considerable
are
closely allied,and there is moreover
the
limits of the
variabilitywithin
attended
their separationis necessarily
In
labour
to
such
it must
be
the types,
distinguish
of each.
in
cases,
question
It has
this task
yet
is
to
be
and
shewn
different
with
great
of
matter
determine
that
impossible,and
species,
prolonged
the
in the
that
culty.
diffi-
we
tion
definigenera
may
PRINCIPLES
390
have
the
oves
the
bovinae
few
LOGIC
OF
additional
of
description,
of another
possess correspondingpeculiarities
All
ruminants
doubtless
kind.
are
distinguishedby
But
that
alike.
characters
are
generically
though the
generaltype of an ox and a sheep, in so far as they are
the actualization
of that general
ruminants, is the same,
is
type
different
in
like
the
sheep is not
expressed in
the
It
between
is
of
out
one
with
in the
to
it
bos.
are
The
explain what
applied to some
is meant
incompatible
are
mammals, but
class. Hence,
which
it
as
belong
ruminant,
which
the
mark
characteristic.
It
be
fundamental
more
mark
the
classifications must
of these
any
those
by
will
our
which
those
to
general
it possesses
as
the lower grades
distinguish
propertieswhich
subordinate
than
those
than
fundamental
are
which
those
realized
The
the
among
whole of that
animal,
the
of the mammal
ruminant
more
are
hand,
than
the
of the
structure
as
what
that
been
only
embraces
characteristics
the
form
is found
of them
none
have
must
other
the
animal
of them
Each
animal
clearlydistinct modes.
is compatible with
on
other
any
in
us
knows
such, he
as
of the
few
They,
modes.
are
order
of mammal
character
both
ruminant
for
concept
;
tion.
demands, ulterior determina-
mammalia
digestivesystem
in
Yet
ox.
an
of
stomach
of subordination
described, is one
gator,
the grades. If, for example, the investidetect a feature
can
fossil,
examining some
the
to
proper
The
of
of, and
hierarchical
who
of
stomach
one
is
form
specific
The
detail.
every
common
concept admits
the
notes
based
This
important
term
is often
the
on
higher.
said
relative
as
that
ance
import-
importance of a property
properties. The
depends on the positionit holds among the characteristics,
of
considered
are
in
the
fundamental
thus
number
their
exercise
most
in the
a
natural
subordination.
important,
structure
determining
of characteristics.
which
of the
Those
are
the
animal, and
influence
on
the
perties
promost
which
greatest
CLASSIFICATION
different
The
frame
the
depends.
by experiment, secured
is achieved
the
which
real order
we
into
have,
we
far
so
attainment
the
When
observation, and
of
definitions,on
classification
process
of
grades
391
true
know
how
to
of
the
careful
experiment is possible,
as
the
by
us
fication
classi-
definitions,the
Nature
has distributed
its classes.
In
have
must, as we
regard to natural classes,we
already noticed (Ch. 10, " 2) define by properties. Our
definitions
are
Distinctive
differentia contain
Definitions. Both
genus
and
indefinitely
large series of notes ;
of knowing when
have
have
we
nor
means
we
any
the propertiesof any
exhausted
class.
will justifythe following
The preceding considerations
those
are
rules, which
usually given for the work of
an
classification.
natural
(1) All
should
groups
from each
other
higher the
(2) The
by
by
Classification
(3) The
constituted
so
the
should
be
with most
groups
and so that the distance
together,
another
their
be
may
an
should
it is constituted.
graduated,
be
affinityshould
the
differ
to
important
more
which
as
of attributes.
multitude
group,
attributes
be the
be
of
indication
one
of the
so
that
nearest
group
amount
from
of
dissimilarity.1
the
case
not
at
classification
riddles.
whole
And
be
both
of
extremities
the
the
hierarchical
lower
of
the
animals
great principlewhich
determines
the
school
of Linnaeus
Cf. Welton,
Manual,
"
01.
PRINCIPLES
392
Cuvier
believed
it to
of the
divisions
lie in
animal
different
the
which
structure,
LOGIC
OF
characterize
kingdom
tomical
ana-
certain
great
in
laws
Darwin,
of
types
the
of descent.
Moreover,
refuses
Nature
into
suited for
there
demand
most
bound
is too
by
made,
progress has been
hard and fast lines.
our
complex
Our
schemata.
our
but
be
to
order
natural
The
where
even
and
system
of the
too
various
be
admirably
vegetableworld ;
may
animal
or
largepart
will always be some
classes,which
totally different arrangement. It
well, to indicate
one
of the
two
or
fit
to
to
seem
be
may
foil
which
difficulties,
the
systematizer.1
(1) In co-ordinate
found
classes, the
different
possess very
the
is
dental
formula
same
values.
to
is often
organ
Thus, in
mals,
mam-
important pioperty,
an
In
other attributes.
determining the character of many
the
parallelclass of fishes, it is relativelyof no value,
while the nature
of the integument is of high importance
of little
fishes,but
among
(2) The
property
same
stages of
the
or
none
mammals.
among
is of different value
different
at
some
Sometimes, organs
life-history.
are
indispensableduring the embryonic stage,
when
it attains
their value
maturity. Further,
animals, if judged by their embryonic characters,
have
which
lose
animal's
would
maturity they
assimilated
denomination
of Cordata.
(3) The
animal
same
characteristic
a
a
1
'
la JNature
une
parement,
are
drawn
ne
de
nettete
fort
accomoderions
sans
s'accomode
from
the
organs,
M.
pas.'
de
la science
divisions,
doute, mais
Rabier's
common
which
are
Sloth
the
has
lowest
it
entitle
Primates.
the
demander
peut pas
ne
possess
grounds such
now
frequently
many
place among
On
under
in their
which
of different
while
mammals,
to
may
formula, which
dental
On
Sea-squirtsare
or
Vertebrates
the
to
class from
far distant.
be
as
in
to be ranked
claim
une
dont
Rabier,
work.
nous
montrer
inflexibilite de
lignes,dont
la
nous
plan de
nous
faire apa
Nature, qui a mieux
follow
The examples which
211.
la
p.
dans
CLASSIFICATION
This
inabilityof ours
Nature's
plan, led
The
by Type.
with
in
different
it.
We
he
always
be
"
is
type
'
the
'
affinitywith
of that
character
'
and
genus,
this
'
'
of
which
'
be
'
and
the
which
To
by
theory
Mill
definitions
but
of any
classifications
"
that
every
'
species which
these
'
'
in
about
there
may
knot,
it than
any
"
is
possessing
The
says,
reference
distinct
wi"h
attain
we
is," he
truth
position
pro-
whereas
in them
as
all these
general
class
first and
composed
framed
were
no
the
far
so
is framed
principally,of
characters."
It
is
class.
he
as
To
these
'
of
and
central
with
exemplar-types,
of Nature.
and
in
this
if classifications
asserted
family
or
agree
characters,
of the
'
be
laws
characters,
to
these
by
could
genus
certain
'
from
consist
type,
while
various
may
the
near
very
further
objects that
and
genus
it is obvious
chieflyvaluable
are
truths
general
to
kind
it in
the
" 3).
7,
c.
other, form
any
closely connected
more
as
Thus
degrees.
yet
are
any
with
approach
not
to
genus,
classif)'
must
place with
straggle
species which
other
'other"
in various
claim
All the
about
will
eminently possessing
specieswhich have a greater
type-species than
species which
several
of
there
of the
We
used
employing
for
it.
to
is considered
class.
been
definition
our
example
an
arranged
are
directions, and
'
we
is here
seen,
have
definition
belonging
as
which
genus,
'
fall outside
reckoned
be
yet must
by type.
species of a
will be
as
in which
classifyby
urges,
which
classes
and
type/
that
coincidingexactly
fication
theory of Classi-
his
advance
to
'
term
final scheme
Whewell
from
sense
cannot,
make
to
393
with
not
*
he
the
almost
rest
resemble
in
an
as
as
equal degree
they
any
Classification
Classifications
conform
of
this
to
understood
it.
Classification
an
have
end
'
thought
'
remembrance
of
view
in
other
Mill devotes
Series
he
from
Natural
regarded
desirable
groups
ascertainment
of Classification finds
Purposes
and
that
and
vegetable
Classification
by
the
...
the
Series
real
should
have
we
a
Natural
fication
classi-
order.
things
best
laws
what
to
Natural
To
sidiary
sub-
operation
an
"that
will
of their
of
in such
of the
it is
is, however,
Classification, as
attainment
conduce
"
do
" 4)
7,
kingdoms
in itself ; since
as
(IV.,c.
chapter
holds
another,
one
group
is
such
and
with
"
possess
to
This
This
agree
speculative knowledge
:
merely a means
induction, which
provides,
we
Mill, classification
General
animal
distinct
We
as
by
the
type.
something quite
much
(IV.,c.
shall
to
7,
be
the
" i).1
Classifications for
expression in the terms
Mill desigClassifications
for Special Purposes, by which
Thus,
the
assist
us
in
of
it
;.
are,
degree
'
exhibit
of
Concomitant
in
the
in
species
in
would
as
it
of
by
that
and
many
any
from
of
portion
value
he
attaches
Classifications
Artificial
logicians
classification
who,
is,
on
the
properly
to
it
to
are
thought
be
drawn
classes
type,
the
that
so
of
disposition
may
and
Comte,
be
regards
whether
doubted
it.
These
respectively.
ground
other
centre.
theory
But
be
leading
to
one
his
the
to
the
as
subordinate
the
the
follows
man
arrange
species
compared
best
importance.
the
Natural
preferred
deny
this
considerable
possesses
from
equidistant
be
the
of
Many
distances
various
at
attributes
nates
involves
would
arrangement
all
that
place
however
not
vary
It
will
and
required,
phenomena
will
should
It
scale.
be
animals
that
tholMethod
consideration.
degree,
progression.
probably
objects
of
highest
descending
linear
Mill
its
in
classification
under
one
Classification
life
of
example
the
as
what
the
exhibit
is
apply
to
that
to
that
arrangement
observe
and
every
those
those
enabled
any
(2)
according
with
quisites
re-
of
and
with
to
two
study
found,
beginning
are
we
The
embrace
series,
of
is
animals,
the
should
is
it,
that
way
ratio
in
method
This
Variations,
Natural
such
this
in
same
that
it
is
it
it
that
terminating
i).
8, "
c.
in
aid
phenomenon
exhibit
and
it,
life.
to
kinds
they
of
(IV.,
because
the
which
most
"
us,
those
arrange
animal
of
(i)
that
which
"
in
least
up
in
things
of
intended
tells
he
LOGIC
classification
laws
the
classification,
hould
'
systematic
discovering
phenomenon,
class
of
object
of
'
OF
PRINCIPLES
394
that
speaking,
there
Natural.
are
no
terms
fixed
are
species,
CHAPTER
XXV.
METHOD.
"
Scientific Method.
i.
part of
forms
Some
works
most
of
treatment
Two
Logic.
on
Method
separate
included
under
the
common
subjects are, however,
:
(i) the different ways in which
designationof Method
be attained
and
scientific knowledge can
presented to
the mind, and
(2) the general rules which should guide
arrangement of
present section
in the
us
the
In
It is
first of these.
the
arguments.
our
concerned
solely with
question,which, strictly
speaking,
we
are
law, from
essence
to
pass
from
it may
hand,
other
the
essence,
from
particularevents
of these
ways,
it must
of
in it
science, that
the
of the
reason
of
fact.
of this
antecedent
kind,
to
we
universal
not
view
a
merely
the fact
In
cause.
either
must
its
consequent,
are
known
on
the
One
laws.
it is characteristic
For
use.
We
property ; or
property to
the
to
know
we
knowledge
the
needs
the
or
the
as
fact, but
the
sion
expres-
to
possess
order
passed from
have
from
consequenl
antecedent.
to
These
and
1
two
ways
Analysis.1
The
Scholastic
The
reader
logicians employ
resolutionis.
respectivelyas
will
the
see
that
synonymous
Vide
St. Thomas,
the
terms
Synthesis
distinction
methodus
com-
Opusc. 63 in Boeth"
PRINCIPLES
39^
between
them
between
OF
is based
"2).
The
somewhat
principleas that
RegressiveReasoning (Ch.12, " 4,
of Synthesisand Analysisis however
scope
wider
of deductive
than
Induction
we
to the
events
that
but
from
argue
universal
Classification is thus
an
same
between
the
Analysis embraces
argument.
Regressive Deduction
the
on
and
Progressive
Ch. 21,
LOGIC
two
merely
for by
:
particular
not
further, Induction
facts to laws
from
principle.Every
analyticprocess.
forms
of Natural
act
in classifying,
For
finds its
ideal,when
mind
the
grasps
first the
of
truth
In
them
to their results.
and from
reasons
principles,
such reasoning,we
trace the same
path as Nature. The
logicalprocess is in full harmony with the ontological,
the conceptual order with the real.
lysis
AnaBut human
science inevitablydepends more
on
than
on
knowledge begins
Synthesis. For our
from the concrete
particular. It is from singularobjects
must
universal
discover
perceived by sense, that we
laws
from
we
effects,
must
pass
their
to
Even
causes.
in exposition,
synthetic method
this is not because
have
we
grasped the truth of the
are
steps
principle first : we
merely retracing the
have
we
previouslytravelled along the via resolutions
(Ch. 21, " 2).
Scholastic distinction
This will explainthe well-known
between
quoad
thingswhich are better known to us (notiora
naturally(notiora
nos) and thingswhich are better known
when
secundum
object
"
II.
The
c.
dark,
their
our
distinction
compares
i, " 2)
but is dazzled
and
connatural
object
faculties but
its range
reallyaffords.
is Aristotle's.
he
the wider
it
universals
than
in its
of
To
simpliciter).1
notiora
naturam,
particulars the
known
the
employ
we
man's
own
better
sense-perceptionare
of
"
while
the
universals
I., c. 2,
to the eye of a
the light of day.
An.
Post.
intellect
blinded
in the
concrete
us
by
particular ; yet,
nature, the
more
the ampler
application,
" 4.
Elsewhere
bat, which
For
if considered
sees
are
(Met.
in the
our
faculties find
not
in relation
to
principle and
be the knowledge which
universal
must
which
is any
PRINCIPLES
3Q8
OF
LOGIC
takes
to what
sphere.
place on a largerscale in the atmofrom the sciences
Puttingtogethersynthetically
and
of chemistry, mechanics
all that
we
electricity,
and
know
of air, wind, cloud
lightning,we are able
takes place in a thunderstorm
to explainwhat
far more
could
do
completely than we
by merely observing
in a storm
what
takes pilace
(Elem.Lessons, p. 207).
ratory
"
'
'
'
'
"
'
of which
which
by
from
with
the
real
we
the
Though
have
universal,
the
recognize it
as
"
first
defined
been
an
as
and
understood
been
have
Jevons
frame
to
can
two
in
that
drawn
has
as
the
of
the
at
animal,
of
is
concrete
general
distance, and
more
then
Truth.
lastly
man,
well
has
the
indeed
might
arrangement of
the
term
Various
sense.
up
Method
of carrying on
definition
times
recent
more
in
object
an
then
in the
guide us
should
which
see
from
than
us
be
as
also be
it may
to
knowledge
our
transition
Pursuit
Such
search
But
known
systematicmanner
for truth.
applied to Method
might signifythe
better
individual.1
Methodic
The
2.
we
substance,
as
such
and
such
Thus
general.
less
in
yet
is first
particularitself,there
to
order.
particularis
concrete
abstract
the
the
pass
been
We
analysis deals
to confuse
not
logical analysis,
treating,with analysis as practised e.g.
been
dealing with the mental
process,
result
to its principles. Chemical
a
have
we
chemistry.
in
careful
will be
student
The
our
has
ings
reason-
often been
lists of such
rules
different authors.
by
remarked
that
it is
quite impossible
No
tions
general direcarrangement of things
the
'
This
minus
quam
8
commune.'
Modus
however
ordinatus
procedendi
'
understands
Method
as
in
METHOD
399
variety of arrangement.
be served
he rightlyurges,
can
useful purpose,
as
find in Aldrich's
rules as we
such
Logic, where we
told that in every
argument we propound :"
be wanting or redundant.
1. Nothing should
which
infinite
require an
The
2.
separate parts
Nothing should be
the subject or purpose.
3.
to
should
with
agree
treated
each
by
are
other.
is suitable
what
save
No
be connected
by suitable
4. The separate parts should
In brief,completeness,harmony, relevancy,
transitions.
and
be
continuitymust
will
student
The
of Method
observed.
observe
that
what
these
so-called
rules
prescribesin
be attained by the employof any end which
must
the case
ment
of various means.
They would be as appropriate
in the case
of a watch-maker
as
they are to the logician.
What
we
need, if it were
possibleto obtain it,is guidance
is wanting and
is redundant
what
what
to distinguish
:
in hand,
matter
and this would
depend on the particular
it supposes
of which
expert knowledge. The Cartesians
brought it as a reproach against the Scholastics,that
they had omitted this part of Logic. In fact, nothing
to be gained by attempting to treat it.
was
Since
included
Mill
the
common-sense
Logic, Method
general rules of argument.
in
research
the
merely
are
the
mean
of successful
method
has
may
in Baldwin's
been
taken
to
scientific research.
accorded
an
Method
Scientific
It
notice
to
the
the
As
subject
article
on
Dictionaryof Philosophy
and
"
five
These
steps
steps in the
are,
in
brief,as
work
of
follows
scientific research.
:
"
idea
(i) To form a perfectly definite and consistent
the problem really is : then
to develop the Mathematics
hand
far as possible: and
to establish
as
subject in
of
what
of
a
the
mathe-
PRINCIPLES
400
method
matical
which
one
(2) To
the
of
consider
the
in
the
In
(3)
should
fourth
the
to
particularproblem,
of the
methodeutic
research
have
subjects
subject be
analogous
place, if the
his
LOGIC
if it be
treatment.
exact
which
third
reform
(4) The
the
appropriate
admits
manner
OF
in hand,
been
broad
and
treated.
one,
the
dent
stu-
metaphysics.
of
enquiry
into
the
stage.
This
is commenced
laws
the
phenomena
by a careful
constitutes
observation
Observation
is followed
by the
phenomena themselves.
of the
which
results
framing of an hypothesis, the deduction
from
the
and
verification
follow
would
a
hypothesis suggested,
the facts.
of the hypothesis by a comparison of its results with
made
mains
out, it re(5) Finally the law of the phenomena once
with
to
measure
precision the values of the coefficients
it.
in the equation, which
expresses
the
of
The
think, be regarded
without
doubt, of
we
satisfactory.Metaphysics are,
essential importance in all scientific questions. But
a
scientific problem, and
on
a
student, who has embarked
knowledge
equipped himself for the task by the requisite
of the question,can
hardly be advised at that stage to
the somewhat
task of
embark
on
reforming his
vague
the
take
Metaphysics.' Logically Metaphysics must
Then
the
follows
basis of all science.
first place, as
Mathematics
as
a
requisitefor every science in which
But
these, together with the
quantity is concerned.
of Mathematics
applicable to the
particular branch
They are
subject in hand, should be supposed known.
essential preliminary to the methodic
an
enquiry into
the phenomenon
under
investigation.As regards this
as
'
part, it
essential
is
method
none
will
other
deduction,
"
21,
"
of
the
noticed
than
that
which
we
Prof.
that
Peirce's
thetical
explanationby hypoin
considered
have
Ch.
3-
3.
our
such
be
instrument
correct
use
and
of terms,
the
support
the
attainment
of truth, yet
the
of
use
of
language,
thought.
of
truth
some
is
On
the
largely
METHOD
401
may
introduce
being
long run
our
wrong
of the
aware
error
mind,
and
result
the
in the
be
'
'
'
"
to
make
(3) Never
use
of technical
terms.
to
of each
of words.
score
In almost
every
case,
the
ology
terminmatter
mere
change of terminology
D
PRINCIPLES
402
LOGIC
OF
in
real difference
regard to some
philosophic
is
which
of
tenet,
frequently
far-reachingimportance.
verbal
What
at first sightappears
a mere
technicality,
closer view,
not meritingserious attention, is found, on
a
fundamental
to involve
a
cleavage of doctrine.
betokens
It will be
contribute
things
careless
employment
of the
The
terms
schools.
different
himself
commit
few
of
selection,he
views, and render
a
inconsistent
to
that
thought than
terminology belonging to
of a
particularschool
such
thought. By
its
embody
confusion
to
more
remember
to
may
clear
He
over,
morethinking an impossibilityto himself.
may,
unconsciouslymould his opinionsin a fashion he
the
little contemplates. For, just as
popular beliefs
of a nation are largelydetermined
by words and phrases
in vogue,
too the terminology we
that are
so
employ,
much
does
"
Hamilton,
'
'
Words,"
what
over
of
to
the
fortresses that
of the
defence
enable
have
we
in
overrun
Sir W.
says
dominion
our
"
views.
our
the
are
realise
to
us
fix
to
school
already
terminology
committed
has
erected.
on
as
he
"
of
knowledge
These
been
make
some
to
as
to
of
possible
the
to
Royal Logic,
They
run
for true
it
as
which
arrive
of
compass
writers, that
them.
'
his
and
powers.'
since
then
advisable
seems
follows
I do
the
at
to
"
not
know
to
in
to
is
divide
parts
many
adequate
many
Port
be
is,
judgment,
comprise nothing more
my
so
presented to my mind
clearlyand distinctlyas
all grounds of doubt.
To
so
the
within
accept anything
that
exclude
II.
by
it would
lay
in
mention
what
than
whatever
cited
I. Never
such
believed
embodied
were
have
be
he
tells us,
each
as
of
the
difficulties
possible, and
as
under
may
be
examination
necessary
into
for
its
solution.
mencing
thoughts in such order, that by comwith
objects the simplest and easiest to know, I may
nd by little and
little,and as it were,
step by step, to the
asc
of
the
more
complex : assigningin thought a certain
knowledge
do not
in their own
nature
to those
order
even
objects,which
III.
stand
conduct
To
in
relation
my
of
antecedence
and
sequence.
METHOD
IV.
In
reviews
It
enumerations
complete, and
nothing is omitted.
so
general, that
so
I may
be assured
that
those
that
logicians,who
is remarkable
rules
make
to
case
every
403
have
cited
these
with
intended
to be
they were
approval, appear to assume
the
to
conduct
of
ing.
reasonsimply common-sense
prescriptionsas
As a matter
of fact, they embody
of
a
particularmethod
scientific
is perhaps the
most
characteristic
research, which
which
and
feature of the Cartesian
would
none
now
philosophy,
defend.
to
care
The
'
the
objects,which
Descartes
by
'
relative
'
The
known
'
absolute
incapable
are
and
a
simple nature,
instance, of the three
For
effect,
'
also
truths
the
No
infallible
induction
it is
be
objects
of
own
correlatives
essence,
is needed
admitted
in
that
them
on
their
what
save
the
undertake
and
cause
"
first
Further,
is greater than
These
Once
establish
these
be
must
and
of
'
to
they
ness.
distinct-
truths.
based.
over,
More-
Nothing
them,
(Rule i).
examination
for
from
distinctness
part,
absolute
presented
true
as
its
'
clearness
"
is derived
and
clearness
such
every
knowable.
"
truth
all science
absolute.'
'relative.'
knowledge.
to
The
multiplicity, the
second,
of
criterium
of
whole
the
'
the
resolution
and
tinguished
dis-
were
relative.'
its
by intellectual intuition.
they are immediately recognized
the
possess
that
as
'
the
into
known
mind,
shares
"
absolute
are
may
unequal,
truths, such
is of
'
and
resolution
of further
know,
can
'
absolute
pairs
unity
'absolute';
is
case
axiomatic
are
and
equal
"
each
intellect
'
only by
is
object
in
be
can
human
into
and
thus
phenomenon
explanation,we must analyse its circumstances,
which
it depends.
the
There
till we
discover
on
simple nature
division
irresolvable.
are
our
simple natures
stops. For
of light, an
Thus, if e.g. the object proposed is the refraction
When
with
we
view
some
to its
'
'
'
'
of
examination
'
the
convince
will
circumstances
that
us
the
do
of
can
be
truths
do
knowledge
where
even
connected
not
be
relation
dence
of antece-
that
imagined
the
great concatenation.
one
of
should
be
to
in
admit
order
in
stand
being arranged
assigned them
in
nected
con-
in
the
tail
us.
(Rule 3).
From
We
fixed
sequence,
mind
Hence,
sequence.
not
it is not
shall
time
come
to
time,
to
our
analysis or
point,
where
synthesis will
our
there
is
break
in
the
chain
PRINCIPLES
404
the
between
simple
Then,
have
must
we
Enumeration
Descartes
Analogy
phenomena
to
what
to
of
similar
recourse
called
process
It is,however,
Induction.
term
we
kind
the
to
tion.
considera-
under
phenomenon
Induction.
or
than
the
and
nature
LOGIC
OF
be
must
All
known
the
and
enumerated,
by
allied
more
by
the
point
Descartes
is discussing the
at issue.
Thus, for instance, when
the
he
solves
of
the
rainbow,
question by an appeal
phenomena
the sun's rays strike a glass ball (Rule 4).
takes place when
to what
Descartes
the method
This
was
hoped to establish
by which
he
mathematical
of science
the whole
basis, and by which
on
a
the principalproblems of natural
solved
he had
believed
sophy.
philoto find in general the
I have
essayed," he writes,
be in the world,
of all that
is or can
principlesor first causes
for this end
without
anything but
taking into consideration
has created
God
himself, who
it, and without educing them from
of
consideration
them,
shall
we
be
able
determine
to
"
"
'
'
'
'
any
in
'
other
our
first and
'
'
causes
the
that
it appears
to me
and
stars
earth, and
and
other
some
could
that
effects
ordinary
germs
what
place, I examined
second
and
minerals
*
certain
from
the
In
most
heavens,
'
than
source
minds.
even
things
of
It
"
due
probably
was
that
Method,
on
I have
way
kind."
the
found
the
on
Method.
Views
on
5. Leibniz's
of Descartes'
influence
writings
this
in
these
from
deduced
be
the
were
to
Leibniz,
at
this subject. To
his attention
to
slightlylater date, turned
portance.
of the first imthe systematization of knowledge
was
his mind
is, he
The
race,
knowledge possessed by the human
it is unorganized and
various
and
dispersed in
: but
urges, vast
be brought into the
authors.
of many
the works
System must
a
The
sciences.
ideal
before
us
be
should
less than
nothing
vast
is represcience
sented,
knowledge, in which
every
and
all the truths constitutingit are
deductively proved
indeed
cannot
this ideal, we
first principles. To
certain
from
be compelled to rely
shall often
We
hope perfectlyto attain.
have
is not
we
self-evident, but which
some
on
principlewhich
be
done
will
No
harm
true.
to suppose
by this, if
good reason
it be frankly stated that the principleis a supposition,and though
the primary
from
apparently correct, has not been demonstrated
of
Encyclopedia
truths
on
which
the
two
straight
improbably a way
suppositions,and
them
should
will
be
possess
to
is based.
lines
cannot
will
have
afterwards
all the
then
be
common
on
he
deductive
we
holds, such
assumption
segment.
Not
proving
these
of
found
value.
complete
Discourse
are,
is Euclid's
conclusions
demonstrative
achieve
There
Such
in mathematics.
suppositions even
that
science
have
Nevertheless,
proof
Method, Pt. 6.
from
deduced
from
our
a
aim
series
QUESTIONS
THESE
questions for
other
of the
one
or
the
examinations
indicated
the
most
part
universities
for H.
in each
M.
by
case
bridge,L=London,
Indian
an
of
numbering
chapters.
Civil
What
be
are
named
three
(a) with
thought
To
the
thanks
exercises
reference
is
to
corresponds
to
extent
me
by
that
of
(b) with
language,
permission
the
the
they
may
reference
(C. Prev.
language ?
with
concerned
? How
Logic
respectiveprovinces of (i) Logic, (2) Grammar,
2.
the
the
I.
?
what
For
accorded
logicaldoctrine
to
is
source
C=Cam-
due.1
are
of
in
or
R.U.I. =Royal
Civil Service.
Indian
parts
The
T.C.D.=Dublin,
EXERCISE
1
or
O=Oxford,
set at
papers
Ireland,
Service.
here, courteously
the
from
Britain
initial letter
I.C.S.=
responsible authorities, my
The
taken
are
of Great
G=Glasgow,
University of Ireland,
to print them
LOGIC
ON
to
1902.)
What
are
(3)Psychology
?
3. Examine
function
of
(a) The
(b) The
are
the
Logic
following statements
as
to
the
province
or
science
not
science
of the
subservient
of Truth
but
of
operationsof
to the
estimation
Consistency.
the
understanding
which
of evidence.
EXERCISE
i.
this
1
Explain the
operation in
For
indebted
leave
to
nature
the
II.
of Abstraction.
formation
of the
Of
what
importance
Logical Concept ?
to the Controller
407
am
is
OF
PRINCIPLES
408
What
do
understand
you
differ from
Define
2.
view
the
Concept
? How
Phantasm
General
the
term
does
tasm
Phan-
from
Term,
process
Is every
by
LOGIC
of
name
class ? Give
your
reasons.
distinction
conciselythe
logicalpoint of
Explain
Abstract
Terms
and
Concrete
(b) between
;
Singular Terms
;
discussion
of
the
teristics
characa
logical
by
explanation
illustrating
your
of the
University of London,
following terms : The
(L.B.Sc. 1906.)
Logic, Iron, Sound, Fallacy.
tive
Collective
and Distribu4. Discuss the distinctions (a)between
Illustrate
and
Terms.
Positive
between
Negative
your
; (b)
discussion by examining the following statements
:
be read in a day.'
All the plays of Shakespeare cannot
idle.'
be accounted
is
industrious
who
must
not
Any one
(C. Prev. 1904.)
consists of the qualities
Connotation
of a name
The
count
acon
5.
the
which
of
was
name
given.'
consists of the qualities
The
Connotation
of a name
implied in
3.
"
"
'
'
'
'
discourse.'
actual
in the
lightof
(a) What
do
names
6.
"
Is
distinction
the
Consider
the
longest
Connotative
of
Non-Connotative
and
(O. Mods.
propositions.
understand
by a Non-Connotative
these
you
river in the world
"
Connotative
1906.)
?
term
or
tive
Non-Connota-
tive
Non-Connota-
?
the
(b) Examine
term
so
long
as
do
we
not
by the word.'
Explain and criticise the view that
inversely.
?
is meant
What
by Infinite terms
mean
7.
vary
8.
been
has
Popocatapetl
"
only
to us,
'
following:
Abstract
How
denied.
terms.
Under
distinction
which
Adjectives ?
10.
Explain the division
of
Analogous : (b) Terms
defended
it be
can
carefully the
9. Consider
head
'
Judgment is
Judgment is an
synthesisof
'
act
Comment
on
these
of division
into
the Mexicans
(L. Matr.
Extension
and
Intension
(O. Mods.
notion
The
1905.)
1904.)
of such
terms
?
Concrete
between
and
either)would
you
1907.)
(O. Mods.
(a)Univocal, Equivocal,
of
Second
tention.
In-
III.
two
concepts.'
rather
than
an
act of
synthesis.
statements.
of the logicalcopula.
Explain the significance
notions
in
consists
comparing together two
Judgment
3.
from
ideas of objects derived
simple apprehension, so as to
2.
"
or
what
Intention, Terms
First
EXERCISE
1.
is
(ifunder
class
of terms
know
ascertain
whether
they
agree
or
differ."
QUESTIONS
examine
Critically
take
you
to hold
LOGIC
ON
409
indicate
carefully the
notions, judgments
between
relation
inferences.
and
the
of the
significancefor logicalpurposes
Analytic and Synthetic Judgments.
between
5. What
is the
"
of
meaning
exact
distinction
"
some
?
the
Express
in logicalform
:
followingsentences
aims
hits
a man
(i) When
blindly,he sometimes
Few
all
men
(ii)
they want.
get
No
Scotsmen
need
(iii)
apply.
(iv)Many a flower is born to blush unseen.
saved.
(v) A few sailors were
"
(vi) Men
alone
Explain the
Propositions,and
be members
can
distinction
6.
show
as
way
the
(G.M.A. 1907.)
Complex and Compound
between
its importance.
show
to
(1) No
(2) Set
2nd
(3)
all
8. Define
the
of
Exclusive
and
if any,
(a)
but
one
Members
in the
11.
Give
alone
by
In
what
law
of
Law
thought
on
"
experienced we
more
their
Contrast
if any
to
own
this
Universal
are
Thought
be
it.
become.
mind.
good enough.
(L. Matr. 1905.)
of Modal
propositionsas understood
Logic.
of
landlord.
admitted.
are
account
sense
the
believe
EXERCISE
Define
1902.)
business.
hypothetical ?
i.
is that
the
is not
brief
was
vote.
really know
traditional
Kant.
are
we
men
except
can
logicalform
to
older
house
idiot would
an
alone
(c} Children
(d) Any answer
10.
(C. Prev.
"
admittance
(b) Few
are
misstatements
bad.
is the
Exceptive propositions. What
between
? Express the following
them
logicalform :
in the
only man
The
stupid
of
commonest
public monuments
our
Reduce
9.
thief.
propositionsin
(d)
1904.)
in such
following sentences
its logicalquantity and
quality :
is good news.
logical relation,
(c) No
Hon.
of the
thief to catch
(a) The
(6) Any
year
"
news
One
of each
sense
mark.
of Parliament.
(T.C.D.
7. Give
the
violated.
system
with
that
duced
intro-
Categorical judgments
(I.C.S.1901.)
IV.
and
explain how
it is
possiblefor
(C. Prev.
1904.)
PRINCIPLES
410
Discuss
2.
the
3. Enunciate
the
to
in the
Science
Excluded
of
logicalsignificance
Excluded
and
LOGIC
OF
of
laws
Give
tradiction,
Identity,Con-
of
that
form
Logic, the
Middle.
the
Middle.
1903.)
appropriate
you
and
Identity,Contradiction
for \preferring the
form
you
to
seems
laws
most
of
reasons
select.
4. Discuss
the
claim
the
of
Law
of
6. Mill
and
rejects two
substitutes
theories
as
Excluded
7. What
theories
take
do you
of Contradiction
and
to be
the
Excluded
ground
the Law
to
which
EXERCISE
use
of circles in
2.
What
are
the
year
of
? Notice
Middle
Is the
Middle
as
diction
of Contra-
Discuss.
own.
1.
of
(I.C.S.1901.)
(T.C.D. 2nd
*
Law
Principleof Contradiction.
common
his
be
Identity to
Thought independent
and
5. Are the principlesof Contradiction
stated by Aristotle, true without
exception ?
of the
you
1904.)
Hon.
validity of the
briefly any
may
be
laws
other
acquainted.
V.
"
(L. Matr.
6. It has
asserted
be false/ is
that
1904.)
'
the
propositions, Some
Some
men
men
(i.e.
Europeans) are black/
(i.e.
Ethiopians) are
it
is urged, particularpropositions of opposite
not
black/ are,
both
the argument.
false.
Examine
are
quality,yet
(where possible)contrary forms
7. Assign contradictory and
for the following propositions:
tell no
Dead
alone
tales/
men
Caius
said that it was
All except the idle
all up with the army/
have
the flock perished of the
of life/ Half
a right to the means
pest.'
cannot
both
been
The
erroneous.
two
'
'
"
'
'
'
ON
QUESTIONS
LOGIC
EXERCISE
Define
1.
of
the
Immediate
following
in each
case
Inference
"
(a) Express
2.
in each
give
(1) Only
(2) Some
(3) No
"
in
following
the
converse
Conversion
Converse
of each
example
Relation
(L.B.Sc. 1903.)
strict logicalform, and
if possible
of the contrapositive:
"
other
are
than
white.
following inference
unusually swift tortoise is
an
unusually
"
tortoise
is
animal.
an
swift
animal.
(L.Matr.
4. Define
who
are
obverse
that
5.
consider
but
educated
(c)Where
the
is smoke
not-5
is P, and
of
Find
obverse
fair ;
not-5
of the
(b) Some
the
converse
of
is fire ;
(d)Not
all is
and
there
the
the
deserve
relations
1904.)
Immediate
(C. Prev.
glitters.
Investigate the formal
(a) All 5 is P, and All
(b) All not-5 is P, and
(c) All
brave
forms
truth.
they give us new
1906.)
(O. Mods.
extent
credulous
are
there
several
Obversion.
and
(a) None
well
of
what
to
Conversion
of
converse
illustrate the
and
Inference, and
ing
giv-
the process.
the
3. Enumerate
really industrious.
only are industrious.
are
insects
an
give an
Subalternation
by
of
justification
case
leaves
(b) Examine
Therefore
the
ants
and
Determinants
brief
VI.
Inference
Contraposition ; Added
411
between
the
gold
1904.)
"
is P.
All not-P
is 5.
All 5 is not-P.
(R.U.I.2^^/5,1896.)
6. Mention
from
7.
Immediate
which
Inferences
may
the
'
the
be
drawn
fair.'
dicate
Inproposition, None but the brave deserve
draw.
of each inference
brieflythe peculiarities
very
you
2nd
Arts, 1896.)
(R.U.I.
'
What
else than
is inferred
the
Explain
many
all the
convertend,
what
valid
is meant
kinds
Logic.
8. (a) Define
this form
the
included
properly something
thing.'
Immediate
by
Obversion
same
is not
within
with
(i) Good
(ii)He
(iii)Any
(iv) No
it
alone
men
who
inferred
is
one
unwise
from
the
not.
or
how
of Formal
range
Arts, Hon. 1901.)
(R.U.I.2nd
point out the principleon
and
which
is based.
be
cannot
so
state
the
proposition
Is this
Inference, and
the
first of the
consistent
but
might be
of inference
(b) State
Conversion
in
good
who
men
are
wise,
is not
is not
are
unwise,
good is unwise,
good.-
holds
the
between
others.
first,say
whether
the
If any
it is
PRINCIPLES
412
LOGIC
OF
wise,
are
unwise
men
are
good.
(G. M.A.
How
9.
to
an
Show
10.
would
or
how
an
involve
or
an
an
or
the
What
views
which
of
Logic
(R.U.I. 2nd
by
logicians
2.
Discuss
this statement.
and
3. State
the
import
have
held
of
Propositions ?
1902.)
State
various
Which
this
on
view
subject.
(L. Inter. Arts, 1903.)
relation
between
(O.
discuss
Arts,
VII.
and why ?
preferable,
General
Propositions assert
"
amounts
expressed formally as an
Does
this change of form
meaning, and is its applicationof
may
to you
seems
denial
proposition.
change
in
is meant
of
be
EXERCISE
1.
denial
(I.C.S.1895.)
material
any
that
statement
practicalvalue
any
show
you
?
affirmation
1906.)
the doctrine
classes."
Mods.
1907.)
of the
quantificationof the
predicate.
1906.)
(G. M.A.
Discuss
various
the
o
f
the
interpretations
logicalproposition
4.
of expressing the judgment
All
implied by the followingmodes
'
men
'
mortal
are
"
(a) Men=men
mortals.
the attribute of
possesses
of mortality constantly
mortality.
accompanies
the
of
humanity.
in reference
of
to the universe
Many propositions which
5.
be meaningless, when
sensible
referred
to the
experience would
universe
discourse
real
of
to be significant
and
true."
are
seen
"
Discuss
*
the
this statement.
'To
6.
the
all A
contains
real world
of
that
say
is B,
is
in fact
merely
to
assert
that
B.'
class
'
appears
*
7.
do, and
their subjects.
*
8.
Explain what
subject in judgment
is meant
is
the
by
Reality as
whole.
EXERCISE
1.
word
2.
What
'
the Predicables
must
with
the
that
belief
or
Exemplify by
reference
the
heads
of
M.A.
1905.)
the
to
the
1907.)
predicables.
(C. Prev. 1902.)
VIII.
(G.
explanation
ultimate
the
(G. M.A
triangle.'
Set down
3. How
in
are
assertion
Predicables
of real kinds
(O. Mods.
1906.)
PRINCIPLES
414
of
nature
this
Can
thing."
is
definition
No
maintained.
be
LOGIC
OF
intended
ever
positionbe
explain
to
sustained
(O. Mods.
5.
In
the
into
examination
an
ordinary
definitions
properly
Are
Genetic
of
nature
definition
distinguishbetween
and
called
definitions
6.
(a) Discuss
the
and
between
the
1904.)
definition,
scientific
must
we
definition
the
the
Hon.
theory
1905.)
definition
of
of the
predicables.
carefullythe following definitions
theory
(b) Consider
"
of motion.
of the
converse
who
cannot
obverse.
who
(L. Matr.
the
and
reason
top.
examples showing
the
pokes
1905.)
nical
techimportance
of a science.
terms
Why is it in defining a species,the
should
be given but no
proprium
proximate genus and differentia
Prev.
?
accidens
or
(C.
1904.)
of Logical Division, and
indicate care8. Explain the nature
fully
7. Give
9.
To
chief
what
Comment
a
and
into
house
division
the
on
soul
11.
of
by
process
Logical
Distinguish
10.
of
defects
the
obviated
be
soul
the
Explain
division, division
Dichotomy
Division
of
and
mortar
intellect
into
'
Can
(O. Mods.
division
from
into
man
timber
stone,
; of the
definingthe
between
relations
the
of
rational
1905.)
of other
'
'
and
; of Socrates
they
kinds.
animal
into
'
body
will.
and
accidens.
the
Scholastic
are
such
in
philosophers meant
virtue
of
common
'
EXERCISE
1.
Explain
meaning
the
of
XI.
the
expression
'
middle-term.'
the
argument.
rules
4.
of
middle-term
its extremes
which
Give
the
an
in which
illustration
one
and
of the
one
(L.B.Sc. 1903.)
is violated.
(a) How
only
is it that
EIO
is
always valid,
and
IEO
is
never
valid, if the
difference
LOGIC
ON
QUESTIONS
between
them
is
415
of
one
order
mere
of
premisses ?
the rules
(b) Determine
of that
the characteristics
does
(a) Why
5.
it the
? Has
mood
never
first
in the
occur
same
6. What
major
is the
Construct
be
term
specialuse
of
example
an
moods
of this
real
figure.
indirectly.
7. Assuming the general rules
is only possiblein Fig. 3.
that
8. Prove
nothing
premisses.
can
the
"
subject ?
of the
be negative
conclusion
must
"
"
if the
of the
figure.
"
if the
A
figure,and enumerate
fully
(R.U.I. 2nd Arts, 1901.)
meaning in
is it that in all figures the conclusion
minor
premiss be negative
; and
(b) Why
is not
third
of the
Reduce
Baroco
directlyand
both
(L. Matr.
logicallybe
inferred
OAO
that
syllogism,deduce
from
1905.)
two
cular
parti-
9.
'
10.
which
reasons
Why
make
O
it illicit.
an
propositionoccur
minor
3, and
in
as
introduced
previous propositionsare
and
EXERCISE
State
1.
'
the
of the
specialrules
What
2.
the
dictum
is the
character
of
and
de
first
object
an
et
nullo, and
figure.'
from
prove
and
how
? Illustrate
your
Cesare
and
far
does
answer
principleof syllogisticinference
"In
no
viewed
as
ways
has
syllogism
genuine syllogisticor
case
a
can
in
been
with
two
deductive
this.
4.
which
the
the
following,or
the
structing
con-
1906.)
ultimate
singular premisses
inference."
arguments
mood
by
formulated.
(L. B.Sc.
Reduce
it alter
Disamis.
(O. Mods.
various
it the
of Reduction,
reducing syllogismsin
3. Criticallyconsider
1903.)
XII.
omni
argument
(L.B.Sc.
how.
Hon.
1905.)
in them
involved
if valid
and
be
Examine
to
fallacy if
"
(a) All
living things
are
interesting,and
some
interesting
PRINCIPLES
4i 6
things
OF
beautiful.
are
LOGIC
Therefore
living things
some
are
beautiful.
(b) No
is unwelcome.
guest
been
not
in
all
Hence
introduced, it follows
been
since
that
the welcome
introduced.
have
guests
some
have
not
Maty.
1904.)
(L.
and
in
form,
following
syllogistic
arguments
5. Express
their validity from
examine
a logicalpoint of view
:
to
Freedom
do
to
forbear
from
means
or
doing
(a)
power
the
will
since
and
act,
:
preference
particular
any
upon
is merely the power
of preference, the question whether
cases
the
"
'
will
the
only
is free
is
unmeaning
an
is whether
question
proper
one
a
the
therefore
his
(not
man
will)
is free.'
'
(b)
Now
lieth.
never
to
be
affirmeth
that
poet, he
the
for
For
therefore
yet because
he
nothing,
and
fore
there-
it, to he
is to
affirm
as
which
true
affirmeth
is
take
false
though
he
them
not
telleth
6.
All
'
All
What
reasoning
reasoning
is from
bearing of
is the
universals
is from
2nd
to
7.
in
general
and
criticise
on
Mill's
'
The
have
we
problem
not
of inference
unless
inference
got
(b) outside
the
is
2nd
something
the
there
9.
On
10.
been
what
and
grounds
attributed
to
the
with
first
Give
the
chief forms
disjunctivepropositions:
principlesas
by the same
2.
what
figureof
Discuss
the
the
of the
1906.)
syllogism.
year
Hon.
of
paradox
1904.)
for
is (a) in the
misses,
pre-
B.A.
Hon.
are
other
any
1901.)
of
forms
views
on
this
1904.)
XIII.
of
argument
and
examine
involving hypothetical or
whether
the
categorical syllogism.
(L. Inter. Arts, Hon. 1903.)
the reasoning of the hypothequestion whether
tico-categorical
syllogism is
mediate
or
immediate.
(T.C.D.
'
Mods.
of the
(O.
EXERCISE
1.
(O.
Notice
figurebe recognized ?
fourth
doctrine
this statement.
(R.U.I.
the opinion that
Criticallyexamine
besides
inference
reasoning.
syllogistic
writers.
defended
recent
by
point
1901.)
the
conclusion
Examine
premisses.'
Arts, Hon.
theory
(T.C.D.
8.
true,
lieth not.'
particulars.'
syllogism ?
State
never
particulars.'
theories
two
poet
things not
for true, he
particularsto
these
the
recount
(R.U.I.
'
but
2nd
year
Hon.
1904.)
be
theory
hypothetical proposition
reduced
not apply to the
to categorical form, does
satisfactorily
be
expressed without
hypothetical syllogism. The latter may
3.
The
that
cannot
ON
QUESTIONS
alteration, modus
material
Fig.
and
Discuss
2.
LOGIC
in
ponens
illustrate
these
Fig.
4.
proof
syllogism
would
Give
offer of the
you
concrete
^nd
in
examples
1905.)
hypothetical
of the
illustration
of
the
rules.
In a disjunctive
following assertion :
propositionthe positing of one assertion does not warrant
the sublating of the other, though the sublating of one
posits the
other.'
(R.U.I. 2nd Arts, 1902.)
If a student
is a man,
he gains his degree either
that
6. Given
the
examiners
or
through satisfying
through payment of a fee,"
be drawn
what
conclusions
from
the following :
can
nor
(a) X has neither satisfied the examiners
paid his fees.
satisfied
X
has
both
the
examiners
and
(b)
paid his fees ?
(L. Matr. 1904.)
Explain
5.
discuss
in
tollens
Arts, Hon.
rules
(L.
and
modus
i,
statements.
(R.U.L
What
417
the
"
"
"
7.
Explain
which
is often
the
"A
dilemma
used
is
illustrate
8. Discuss
Give
remarks.
your
the
because
fallaciously,
possiblealternatives."
to
(a)of
logicalvalue
dilemma.
What
9.
the
are
different
many
the
most
with
arguments,
of Dilemma
ma
example of the dilem2nd
Arts, 1906.)
(R.U.I.
constructing, (b)of rebutting a
(O. Mods.
1905.)
common
of
sources
illustrations.
the
Analyse
conception
of Cause,
Science
of
conception
Can
the
Cause
of which
you
particularfacts
to
for the
views
3. Describe
what
as
the
as
to
carefully
we
scientific
in inductive
1906.)
by the Cause of an
tion
typicalexample of causa-
conception
sum-total
the event
account
popular
of the
relation
it is used
understands
fallacy in dilemmatic
(L. Inter. Arts, 1906.)
as
occurrence
example
an
XIV.
event, and
What
? Give
? How
(G. M.A.
investigation.
Define
2
preciselywhat
as
of the Dilemma
recognized
are
EXERCISE
1.
of
one
of each.
(insymbols)
Indicate
kinds
overlook
concrete
characteristics
essential
often
we
the
of
depends
divergence
the
Cause
the
inductive
of Cause
to
conditions
on
the
the
?
between
the
(L. Inter.
process,
extent
scientific and
Arts, 1905.)
which
by
universal
the
law.
from
sider
Con-
multiplicationof
instances
is necessary
of a valid induction.
to the formation
illustrate
the
Induction
and
of
and its relation
nature
4. Explain
Illustrate
the importance of both
in
to Deduction.
processes
science
by examples
taken
from
any
of the
Natural
Sciences.
(O. Mods.
1907.)
E
OF
PRINCIPLES
4i 8
the
examine
5. State and
has been
'
made
grounds
No
"
LOGIC
the
which
on
is
inference
ment
following statea general
(G. M.A. 1905.)
possibleunless
in the
background.'
Estimate
Inductive
the
6. Describe
Syllogism of Aristotle.
and the practicalutilityof the argument : and
the logicalvalue
inductive
in your opinion it is rightlytermed
an
state whether
somewhere
propositionbe
'
argument.
7.
as
inductive
an
claims
the
Examine
'
of
process.
of
Nature
of the
inductive
the
to
of the
function
the
between
regarded
1905.)
be
XV.
relation
carefullythe
Consider
to
(O. Mods.
EXERCISE
1.
'
Induction
Perfect
Is there
process.
in deduction,
de omni
dictum
formity
Uni-
the
principleof
parity
and
the
?
principleof Uniformity in Induction
the uniformity of
understand
State preciselywhat
2.
by
you
kind
?
Is it capable of proof, and if so, of what
nature."
M.A
1906.)
(G.
"
3. Comment
on
the
the
sun
that
4.
"
it
can
The
implies
it will rise
(Hume}.
Is a pluralityof causes
no
contrary
is
no
contradiction, than
more
matter
the
affirmation
"
"
of every
imply a contradiction.
less intelligible
a proposition
never
rise to-morrow
will not
and
"
following
(G. M.A.
possible?
1908.)
effectus."Explain.
the principleof the uniformity of
Induction.
is arrived
at by
Nature
1906.)
(O. Mods.
How
far
used
in
Science.
Cause
of
Define
the
as
conception
7.
with
the admission
is the conception consistent
(a)of pluralityof
(L.B.Sc. Hon. 1903.)
(b)of pluralityof effects ?
causes,
*
is meant
8. What
by the assertion of certain logicians that
5.
Cessante
"
the
of
Unity
of
by
causa,
Mill's
6. Discuss
former
that
view
"
Nature
Nature
the
cessat
"
is
more
correct
Criticallyexamine
of these
term
the
than
"
doctrine
the
formity
Uni-
posed
presup-
expressions.
EXERCISE
XVI.
i.
"
'
"
ON
QUESTIONS
5.
Induction
Distinguishbetween
?
argument
syllogistic
6.
"In
not
How
Analogy
merely count
is the precept
and
the
weigh
must
we
them."
How
to be
LOGIC
far
carried
gical
Analogy. Is the analo2nd
Arts,
(R.U.I.
1906.)
points of agreement, and
does
Mill
out
EXERCISE
419
this
recognize
(O. Mods.
1906.)
XVII.
"
and
of the
any
under
example
one
incident
are
each
of your
to Formal
divisions.
(R.U.I.
and
Examine
4.
(a) Slang
is
name
is not
(c) Aristotle
is
therefore
No
his
(e) No
"
Socrates
is
of
is
a
four
of four
word
syllables:
slave, because
is acute
become
can
person
what
become
can
syllables.
is born
one
every
on
slave, because
thing.
conditions
phenomena
can
the
no
(R.U.I.
infer
we
ground
? Illustrate
concurrence
with
the
2nd
causal
of the
from
one
all
the
following
There
was
carpet.
Plaintiff: Well,
no
you
Arts, 1901.)
observed
tween
be-
frequency
incident
fallacies
to
such
1903.)
"
written
don't
being
connexion
(L. B.Sc.
Counsel
original rights.
one
6. Consider
for
agreement
have
written
the
sale
of this
when
agreement
you
loaf.
Counsel
You
don't
Neither
cover
do
Plaintiff:
you
distinction
the
7. Explain
of the
illustratingby some
kind.
8. Define
a
therefore
Aristotle
inference.
buy
man
man.
word
acute
Under
their
of
a
a
is born
one
two
followinginferences :
metaphor is poetry : therefore slang
Socrates
is not
Cleon
5.
Arts, 1902.)
2nd
of the
poetry.
(b) Cleon
(d)
three
metaphor
is
commonly
1904.)
Reasoning,
(O. Mods.
fallacies which
Classifythe
give
controversies
current
fallacies.
recognized
3.
from
Illustrate
2.
the term
fallacy from
Test
contain
the
floor with
loaf.
Fallacy as employed
in
Logic,and
distinguish
false belief.
followingarguments,
and
name
any
fallacies
they may
"
OF
PRINCIPLES
420
LOGIC
(R.U.I.
has
Logic
10.
How
been
"
described
far does
this
as
machine
descriptionseem
EXERCISE
Arts, 1896.)
2nd
for
to
lacy."
combating falappropriate ?
you
M.A.
(G.
1905.)
XVIII.
the Aristotelian
division of Philosophy
critically
into Metaphysics, Mathematics,
Physics.
Discuss
the relation
between
2.
Logic and Metaphysics, giving
historical
references.
(I.C.S.1901.)
the position of Logic among
the Sciences.
What
3. Discuss
view
this
is
the
of
the
word
on
subject
use
special
implied by
for Aristotle's
logicaltreatises ?
Organon as a name
Arithmetic
and
its fundamental
principlesare independent
4.
the
and
order
of
the
of our
world
."
Discuss
this statement.
experiences
1.
Consider
"
(L. B.A.
Hon.
1905.)
Ethics
the
of
"
'
'
Discuss
salibus.'
they
claim
to
to you
have
7. What
do
a
we
these
to the
Scholastic
validity?
violated
important
owe
two
to absolute
one
or
features
influence
of
legitimatedevelopment
Logic
1.
has
When
why
is
Observation
2.
prove
it is at
which
seem
novel
element
science
XIX.
Observation
can
3. What
do
experiment
?
far
and
more
Experiment
ascertain
causation."
4. How
difference
far have
present taught,
far is the
(R.U.I.
deduction)
How
systems
principlesof the
?
"
as
? How
EXERCISE
and
any
univer-
of them.
of Bacon
of the
principles.
Notice
other
de
est
you
(supposing
and
sequences
(O. Mods.
to
be
the
essentials
of
truly
(L. Matr.
does
Experiment
fundamental
? Show
differ from
the
1902.)
aid
no
coexistences, but
Examine.
hold
Arts, Hon.
2nd
from
cannot
1904.)
scientific
1904.)
Observation,^Is
dependence
of
the
Observation
PRINCIPLES
422
EXERCISE
What
1.
its
is the
LOGIC
OF
XXI.
object of Explanation
"
2.
"
The
object of Science
Science
simple ones
of
substance
explains
never
of the
and
(O.
Mods.
these
3. Indicate
'
when
as
science.
and
ultimate
truly universal
law
she
with
certain
ultimate
to
events
unit
nomena
pheof
the
magnet."
'
of the
'
law
term
ployed
emas
meaning
between
laws,
empirical
Distinguish
laws.
is not
truth.'
demonstrable
Discuss
Induction, and
Hypothesis,
5. Bring out
and
the
complex
deals
every
this.
4.
1907.)
carefully the
of nature,
A
reduces
only
statements.
in natural
laws
were
illustrate
explanation"
she
by supposing
if it
as
is
kind,
same
magnetism
to act
Consider
to
? Describe
principalforms.
Inverse
different processes
discuss
the
of Induction
relations
Explanation.
full meaning
the
in
included
(C. Mor.
of the
dictum
Sc.
or
to
subservient
Description,
tripos.1905.)
that
'
Induction
is
of Deduction.'
'
mately
ultiAll knowledge
is founded
following :
all
Deduction.'
Induction,
on
reasoning on
(L.B.Sc. 1903.)
The
Method
is not
6.
secondary applicationof the Deductive
Enumerate
to prove
laws
of phenomena,
but to explain them.'
show
the different
kinds
of explanation recognized by Mill, and
in what
each
is deductive.
1906.)
(O. Mods.
way
the phrase Hypotheses non
on
fingo as employed by
7. Comment
the
Newton
and
:
explain
expression vera causa.
Comment
the
on
"
'
EXERCISE
What
is
XXII.
is an
hypothesis ? How
hypothesis verified ?
Which
of the empirical methods
is fruitful in hypotheses ? Which
be
u
sed
for
verification of an hypothesis ?
might
fruitfully
(R.U.I. 2nd Arts, 1901.)
Illustrate
the
of hypothesis in scientific explanation.
2.
use
(C. Prev. 1904.)
and
the
characteristics
Examine
illustrate
of Hypothesis as
3.
1.
conscious
an
process
rejectedhypothesis
of
need
scientific
investigation.
Show
that
"
"
"
QUESTIONS
ON
EXERCISE
the
Explain
1.
Carefullyconsider
2.
is the
determination
in inductive
gation.
investi-
which
principallycontribute
of difficulty.
a task
the statement
that accurate
quantitative
Measurement
to render
XXIII.
circumstances
the
423
of Measurement
importance
Notice
LOGIC
ultimate
establishment
in the
stage
of every
scientific theory.
"
Chance
to
is
There
3.
is
such
no
merely
thing
of
way
Chance.
as
that
saying
To
attribute
we
are
event
an
ignorant
of its
cause."
"
is
There
Chance,
such
What
thing as Chance.
Providence."
attribute
to
rightly
no
should
we
Discuss
these
adequate
account
of Chance
the
4. Determine
be
based
on
that
doubt,
of
theory
what
5. Explain
probability.
of the
province
from
the
the
Discuss
theory
of
Probability in
contain
of inductive
it follow
an
duction.
inis
reasoning
induction
doctrine
the
by
that
(L. Inter.
Probability?
should
Arts, 1905.)
of
philosophical
by examples.
EXERCISE
1.
them
result
no
does
is meant
Illustrate
of
If it be admitted
absolutely free
to
either
Does
statements.
attribute
we
Natural
of
value
XXIV.
Classification
as
scientific
method.
Give
2.
the
which
3. What
rules
Classification
and
the
hold
do you
Classification
of
attend
task
of
and
notice
establishinga
to be the relation
the
valid
between
Logical Division
of each.
by
been
Classification
by
EXERCISE
1.
Explain
felt
by
Natural
and
characteristics
in
some
admitting
is meant
5. What
Series ?
have
objections
this distinction
culties
chief diffi-
Classification.
the
by Type,
and
Classification
XXV.
of Discovery, Method
expressions: Method
Illustrate
by examples the practicalimportance
Instruction.
"
of
of
this distinction.
2.
In
what
these
senses
possess
"
3.
to
by
the
the
writers
by
employed
on
in the
The
eye
have
senses
one
on
the
Logic
hand,
and
physicalsciences
human
of the
brighter
intellect
owl, which
light of
Analysis and
terms
? Is
the
on
the
in the
day.
there
anything
significationwhich
well
was
Synthesis been
Not
other
the
words
compared by
dusk
to
common
can
without
see,
the
but
reason
Schoolmen
is blinded
did
they
Nature,
and
of
things
which
are
better
known
to
possible
it
thought
our
to
the
in
of
scheme
such
any
are
is
extent
conduct
critically
which
those
what
To
4.
those
between
distinguish
LOGIC
OF
PRINCIPLES
424
rules
of
Examine
truth
odic
meth-
the
for
which
with
rules
to
Discuss.
us."
prescribe
pursuit
known
better
you
be
may
familiar.
far
How
5.
it
can
depends
can
Descartes'
Give
be
*7.
thought
the
that
of
attainment
the
of
employment
truth
sophy,
philo-
philosophic
accurate
an
in
terminology
*6.
on
said
be
regarded
Briefly
as
Rules
possessing
his
views
philosophical
theory
on
Show
Method.
any
Leibniz's
explain
regarding
of
Identical
of
that
they
no
longer
value.
Method.
propositions
is
What
?
to
be
INDEX
A
dicto
simpliciter
quid, 275
secundum
Absolute
terms,
Absolute
and
dictum
ad
32
275
terms,
Abstraction,
23
16
142
Accent,
Logical,
Adequate
Adversative
147
Agreement,
Agreement
Method
definition
of
cause,
causes,
246
of
causes,
246
Chains
analogy,
chance,
Analytic propositions, 51
Analytically-formed definitions,
369
ad
Argumentum
Arithmetical
hominem,
view,
389
type,
393
difficulties
etc., 277
109
53n
theorem,
fication,
classication,
classifi-
classification
series,
by
of
incident
to
by
393
Collective
terms,
Collective
use
123
23
of term,
Concept, 3, 15
Conceptualist view
149
377
425
of
cation,
classifi-
38
Compartmental
view,
Complex conception, 103
Complex propositions, 55
Composition and division, 270
effects, 246
Compound
Compound
propositions, 56
Comprehension, 22
Attribute, 3
Bernoulli's
rules
116
Artificial Classification,
382
70,139,
of
392
quantity, 296
esse
106
natural
Concepts, 18,
Co-division, 165
silentio,279
view,
in
artificial classification,
Clear
plurality
372
391
Argumentum
elimination
382
157
Antecedent, 64
Apodictic propositions, 60
Apprehension, Simple, 3
Approximation, Methods
of, 367
cause
Classification, 380
395
tion
composition
combina-
in
Class-inclusion
286
fieri,247
cessat
effectus,246
causa,
of reasoning, 255
Chance,
35
243
cause
Cessante
of, 322
Amphibology, 269
Analysis,352,
222
mining
; deter-
220
of
causes,
and
method
Axioms,
of
cause,
of, 321
difference, Joint
gories,
cate-
categories
definitions, 156
of the four, 157
Causes, doctrine
102
propositions, 46
Analogy,
Mill's
Kant's
148
Affirmative
terms,
145
;
of
Causal
/Esthetics, 6
Analogous
science,
to
classification
predicates,
and
relation
as
127
Real, 24, 30
Action, Category of, 138
Determinants,
their
144
Accidents,
Added
SUBJECTS
Canon
of syllogism, 187
Capacity and incapacity, 138
Categorematic words, 19
Categorical proposition, 39
metaphysical
Categories, their
their
logicalaspect,
aspect, 137 ;
qualified statement,
Fallacy of,
Abstract
OF
Logic,
INDEX
426
Conceptualism,
Conclusion,
OF
Disjunctive propositions, 65
132
variations,
Method
Distinctive
of, 324
Concrete
and
221
positive
;
negative conditions, 242
Conditional
propositions, 64,
Fallacies
Confusion,
Connotative
66
of, 284
terms,
Consequence,
modal
171 ;
Contradictory terms,
sequence,
con-
37
Contraposition, 100
Contrary Opposition, 86,
Contrary terms, 37
Conversion,
proof
38
of
division,
dichotomy,
of division,
kinds
253
Enumerative
judgments, 188,
Epichirema, 256
Episyllogism, 255
Equational view,
Equipollence, 98
109,
Equivocal
35
terms,
Essential
definition,
Exclusive
Fallacy of,
definitions, 57,
limits
rules
of
152
of
nition,
defi-
26
propositions,57
Determining cause, 222
Diagrammatic represenbation,
omni
de
de
nullo,
190
exemplo,
reciproco,191
Difference, Method
Extension,
Extremes,
339
341
by
tical
hypothe-
; Newtonian
22
171
77
Fallacy, 264
et
diverse,
excepto, 190;
113
explanation,344
Exponible propositions,57
Desitive
de
no,
317
kinds
deduction,
Dictum
155
propositions,57
Mill's, 342
30
166
268
123
Existence, Implicationof,
159
Dichotomy,
146
Exceptive propositions,57
Middle, Principle of, 73
various
definition, 159;
Denominatives,
195
Experientia, 233
Experiment, 310, 315 ; negative
periment,
exexperiment, 316 ; natural
Method,
50
Aristotelian
Excluded
169
252
Ethics, 5, 293
circles, 78
Correlatives, 33
Crucial instance, 306
Definition,
93
Enthymeme,
enthymeme,
Euler's
relation, 103
de
various
Essence,
of, 97
Dictum
Equivocation,
90
Aristotle's
93 ;
Denotation,
66
Eduction,
24
104
of
use
168
Deductive
81
of term,
26
Connotation,
Deduction,
of terms,
Distributive
Conjunctive propositions, 66
Converse
definitions, 154
Distribution
terms, 23
Condition,
; dis
3, 170
Concomitant
SUBJECTS
187
Aristotle's
de
190;
False
Cause,
definition
of, 267 ;
Mill's
280
Fact, 362
of, 322
Differentia, 123
Dilemma,
209
Discretive
propositions, 56
Figure, 138
rules
Figures of syllogism, 177;
of the figures,1 79 ; superiority
of fig.i, 1 86 ; fourth
figure,191
INDEX
Figure
of
SUBJECTS
OF
General
definitions
Logic,
21
Generalization,
338
Generalization,
Fallacies
of, 3
of, 284
scope
Generic
propositions, 49
of
Logic,
8 ;
Genetic
definitions, 155
ii
5 ;
science
or
Logic,
7 ;
Scholastic
Logic,
Logic, 12, 308 ;
Logic,
Ground,
119
12
term,
12;
sions
divi-
art,
an
history
Logic,
bolic
Sym-
Inductive
gic,
Lo-
Transcendental
Logic,
Hegelian
3 ;
i,
Formal
124
Grammar,
of,
of
Genus,
the
of
thought,
67 ;
;
ultimate
empirical law, 369 ;
laws, 338 ; derivative
laws, 369
Least
method
of,
368
squares,
syllogisms,182
terms,
of
senses
laws
68
Intention, 34
Forma
totius, i58"
Fundamental
various
Law,
Speech, 273
First
427
Habit,
tative
quali-
of, 138;
Category
habit, 138
Hamilton's
postulate, 40
Major,
;
Whole
and
of, 175
285
import
thesis,
origin of hypo-
355 ;
; conditions
357
hypothesis, 359
of
various
kinds
Identity,Principleof,
113
induction,
syllogism,228
Inference,
3 ;
92
than
Infinite
Minor,
inferences
other
Mnemonic
terms,
Intention,
32
First
Intermixture
Judgment,
41
Second,
170
173 ;
ambiguous
undistributed
174
Illicit process
of, 175
lines, 181
consequence;
Modal
propositions, 58
of
syllogism, 178
moods,
34
104
tern
subal-
182
of effects, 246
method,
Inversion,
and
thought, 398
Modal
Moods
22
of
310
term,
middle,
ence,
infer-
on
364"
middle,
immediate
402
rules
Leibniz
404
conduct
Middle
200
syllogistic,
Intension,
Inverse
perfect Metre,
im-
231
Inductive
29511
Descartes'
method,
Methodology,
Mill's, 321
methods,
sity,
neces-
of, 368
395 ;
Methodic
perfect and
Inductive
of
method,
390
Inceptive propositions, 57
Indesignate propositions, 49
215 ;
363
Method
Method,
Induction,
238
nature,
28
Metaphysics, 6, 296
Metaphysical necessity, 238
71
Important characters,
; their
Measurement,
Means,
hypothesis,361
truths, their
Mathematical
of valid
3 ;
Part, 163
Illicit process
Mai-observation,
and
Modern
Name,
343
101
3 ;
analysis of
ment,
judg-
3, 19
Natural
classification, 389
Natural
division, 162
Natural
selection, Doctrine
Negative terms,
31
of, 386
INDEX
428
OF
SUBJECTS
Negative propositions,46
Rules
of Philosophizing,
Newton's
Prosyllogism, 255
Psychology, 6
349
definition, 152
Nominal
Nominalism,
Quality of propositions, 46
Quality, Category of, 137
133
of
view
Nominalist
Non-connotative
Logic,
terms,
Non-observation,
24
285
Concepts, 18
Observation, 310
Observation, Fallacies of, 284
Ob version, 98
determinants, 102
Omitted
Obscure
Ontology, 6, 296
Opposition, Square
of
Opposition
as
36
terms,
267
Paralogism, 267
Part, Logical, 163
definition, 152
Real
use
subjective
Relation,
Rules
31
Predicative
premisses
Privative
121
terms,
of
189
373
Proposition,
reduction
of
to
"
Intentions,
Simple
34
inspection, Fallacies
Single-worded terms,
21
Singular
terms,
of,
20
singular
propositions,49
267
fourfold
propositions, 50
logicalform, 61
sciences,
the
284
Sophism,
39 ;
; speculative
regulative sciences,
practical sciences, 297 ;
144
21
3,
of, 290
logical analysis of
Second
philosophicalprobability,378
Problematic
propositions,60
Progressivereasoning, 256
Progressivesyllogisms,194
Proper names,
Property, 126
of, 324
Philosophizing,Newton's,
and
31
Probability, Mathematical,
scheme
of
5. 293
conclusion,
to
tion,
reduc-
reduction,
32
Science, definition
relation
indirect
131
105
170
3,
ostensive
Method
Quantificationof, 108
View,
Premisses,
182
;
349
terms,
Residues,
of, 129
Posture,
Predicate, 5
Logic,
propositions, 56
Repugnant
Concepts, 18
of, 138
Predicables,
of
Remotive
Polysyllogisms,255
Aristotle's
ated
Exagger-
Relative
terms,
133
of hypothetical
184 ; reduction
propositions, 206
Regressive reasoning, 256
Regressive syllogisms, 194
Physics, 293
Positive
view
Reasoning,
184
15
Tree
38
Moderate,
Reduction,
Philosophy, 290
Physical necessity, 235
Place, Category
of, 284
realism, 135
Realist
principii.278
Porphyry,
of term,
Realism,
part, 165
Particular
proposition, 47
Passion, Category of, 138
Phantasm,
Fallacies
Real
Paradox,
Petitio
123
Ratiocination,
of, 85 ;
inference, 88
of
means
Quiddity,
Species, 122 ;
species, 384
doctrine
Gocle-
of natural
INDEX
OF
AUTHORS
OF
CITED
NAMES
AND
REFERRED
TO
IN
THE
WORK.1
Magnus,
Albertus
233,
302,
324,
398**
Galen,
192,
230%
Gerard,
Aldrich, 399
of
Alexander
Aphrodisias, 176**
Hermiae,
Ammonius
297**
Andreas,
Antonius
O.S.F., 73
Augustine, St., gn, 298*1
Averroes, 10, 135
Avicenna, 10, 135
Hamilton,
66,
Sir
W.,
69, 98,
7, 8, 34*1, 58,
108,
132*1,
i63n,
205, 258
Francis, 304
Bailie, Louis, S. J., 293**
Herbart,
Bacon,
Hegel,
Hobbes,
19,
54, 133**
Berkeley, 277
Bernouilli, 377
Boethius, 9, 35, 66,
1 68, 176%
Bosanquet, 14, 61,
201,
53",
13,
120,
117,
inw,
201,
74*1,
76, 135,
344
339,
Bradley,
i62w,
IOOM,
61,
135.
Joseph, Mr.,
92"
J76,
200,
Kant,
117
Lambert,
Locke,
Lotze,
Diderot, vii
Mellone,
The
of
names
list.
would
Aristotle,St. Thomas
references
to
them
served by
have been
The
82
71
ix, xi
viii,402
Descartes,
115
14
Wulf,
this
132**,
de
164*?, 187*1,
192*1,
Condillac, 7
Cournot,
A., 379
Cuvier, 389
de
143**,
1031*,
Cajetan, Cardinal, 45
Case, Prof., xi, 54, 55,65, 222, 340
William
of, 135*1
Champeaux,
de
152*1, 187*1
271
B^entano,
de
in
the
Silvester, S.J.,loow
Dr., 333
Aquinas and
J. S. Mill
work
frequent, that
including them.
are
so
132*1,
are
not
no
contained in
useful purpose
INDEX
Mercier,
I46w
Sidgwick,
A.,
Sidgwick,
H.,
of,
14,
344
Spencer,
H.,
13
73
132**
356
Andreas,
Themistius,
41
17,
178,
Theophrastus,
72
Pascal,
viii
Peirce,
Prof.
108,
J.,
S.
Pesch,
T.,
Hispanus,
220
298
260,
Trendelenburg,
S.,
192
Archbp.,
Thomson,
C.
Petrus
291
290*1,
Sigwart,
Suarez,
Parmenides,
i8iw
357
William
Osiander,
William,
191**
344~353.
Ockham,
43
41,
12,
Lord,
Newton,
NAMES
Shyreswood,
Cardinal,
Monboddo,
OF
399
144**
72,
i8iw,
Ueberweg,
192**,
157*1,
122*1,
in.
192**
217,
Picavet,
Plato,
xii
M.,
135**,
Porphyry,
66,
294
121
9,
Prof.,
Poynting,
360
Laurentius,
Venn,
Dr.,
292*1
von
M.,
Prof.,
Scotus,
S.J.,
J.,
M.,
17,
i88"
vii
Hartmann,
Prof.,
F.
35,
C.,
73,
S.
Wasmann,
386
307
61
Watts,
Prof.,
Whewell,
341,
Wundt,
114*1
387
278**,
Mr.,
Welton,
140
J.,
258**
Dr.,
Whetham,
41
John,
Sanderson,
Schiller,
Carveth,
Prof.
Rickaby,
315*1,
151**,
Ray-Lankester,
Rodier,
116
HIM,
103*1,
Parisiensis,
Wallace,
Read,
83,
i6iw
Pythagoras,
Rabier,
258
12,
Versorius
Prof.,
Pringle-Pattison,
Valla,
309
344
230**
295*1
187**,
234
Zeno
the
Stoic,
323*1,
344
THIS
BOOK
IS
DUE
ON
STAMPED
AN
INITIAL
WILL
BE
THIS
BOOK
WCILL
DAY
OVERDUE.
INCREASE
AND
FINE
OF
FOR
FAILURE
THE
TO
TO
LAST
DATE
BELOW
ASSESSED
ON
THE
$1.OO
DATE
SO
TO
DUE.
CENTS
ON
THE
ON
THE
CENTS
25
THE
SEVENTH
RETURN
PENALTY
FOURTH
DAY