Sunteți pe pagina 1din 163

Prolegomena

On
Formal Logic
PROLEGOMENA (proh-li-gom-uh-nah) is from the
Greek ‘pro’ means ‘before’ and ‘legomen’ means
‘we speak’. Prolegomena refers to introductory
words on a course of study.

(Logic is the antidote to Propaganda campaign.


Please! nourish your reasoning ability)

Dr. Godwin Gunewe


(LLB., B.Th., MTh., DRE., Th.D.)

This is a free book for all people in the


world, but if you want the hard copy,
please contact the author
Email: ggunewe@tyndale.edu
WhattsApp number: +255784442128
Prolegomena on Formal Logic

ISBN 978-9987-727- 69-8


© By Dr. Godwin M. Gunewe
Email: ggunewe@tyndale.edu

Gunewe Publishers
P.O. Box 322, Mwanza-Tanzania.
Phone: +255784442128/+255752239825

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be


reproduced or stored in retrieval system or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopy, recording, or any other-except for brief
quotations in printed reviews, without the prior
written permission from the author.

ii
CONTENTS

Preface

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC ...............................7


What is logic? ...........................................................8
Reasoning/Inference/Arguments ...................11
Historical Background of Logic........................14
The Purpose of Logic...........................................19
Groups of Logic .....................................................19
TYPES OF LOGIC ...................................................22
Object of Logic ......................................................24
The Relationship between Logic and
other Disciplines ...................................................25
Logic as Science and Art ...................................25
Logic and Psychology..........................................27
FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF LOGIC .................29
LOGICAL IMPLICATION ....................................33
Validity and Truth.................................................36
The relationship between Validity
and Truth .................................................................38
STAGES OF REASONING...................................40
Stages of Thinking ..............................................41
Nature and Modality of Terms.........................42
The Difference between Terms and
iii
Words ........................................................................42
Kinds of Words ......................................................43
Universality of Concepts ....................................45
Predicatibility..........................................................45
Differentia/Specific Difference ........................47
Predicaments ........................................................49
Types of Qualities/Properties ..........................50
Connotation and Denotation as
Properties of the Term .......................................51
The Relation between Connotation
and Denotation......................................................52
Rules in Classifying Concepts ..........................53
Classes of Terms ..................................................54
Division of a Single Term ..................................55
THE NATURE AND MODALITY
OF JUDGMENT ........................................................61
The Difference between Proposition
and Sentence .........................................................61
Parts of Proposition .............................................63
Classification of Proposition .............................63
Properties of Proposition ...................................67
Terms Distribution in Four
Categorical Proposition (AEIO) .......................71
Rules in Reducing Sentences to

iv
Logical Form ...........................................................74
DEDUCTIVE REASONING .................................86
Kinds of Deductive Reasoning.........................86
General Rules in Converting Propositions ..92
Specific Rules in Conversion ............................93
Specific Rules for Obversion ............................97
Specific Rules in Contraposition .....................99
MEDIATE REASONING .....................................101
The Difference between Deduction
and Induction .......................................................102
Syllogism ...............................................................103
Major Types of syllogism .........................104
Propositions of Syllogism ..........................106
Four Figures of Syllogism .........................107
Moods of Syllogism .....................................109
Rules of Syllogism .......................................114
How to Determine the Validity
of a Mood ........................................................121
CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM ..........................144
Hypothetical Syllogism ..............................144
Disjunctive Syllogism .................................148
Logical Dilemma ...........................................152
FALLACIES ..............................................................156
References ..................................................................162
v
PREFACE

This is a special book for both beginners


and professionals who intend to get
acquainted with the philosophical studies. It is
an introductory book dealing with formal logic
deepened with notion of concepts, its
properties and classification. Norms of
reduction, judgments, various syllogisms, and
fallacies of practical thinking.

It is undeniable that Logic is fundamental


course, for it provides norms, principles,
standards or criteria of correct reasoning in all
disciplines. For that case, the book isolates no
one because everyone is a citizen in the Logic
nation.

(B.Th., MTh. M.D., Ph.D.)

vi
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC
The great developments caused by
science and technology and the enormous
amount of knowledge being collected every
day are direct outcomes of logical thinking.
Logic as the branch of philosophy sets
justly firm guiding principles to judge or
calculate the quality, importance, amount or
value of the processes by which knowledge is
obtained.
It is undeniable that all disciplines rely on
logic to arrive to their truths as logic provides
norms, principles, standards or criteria of
correct reasoning. Any knowledge obtained
without logic is chaos. Dr. Johson C. Philip and
Dr. Sanesh Cherian said, “Superstition is
knowledge deduced or obtained without logic.”

7
What is logic?
Logic comes from the Greek term
"logos", which has a diversity of meanings
including reason, word, thought, idea,
argument, account or principle. Countless
number of definitions have been offered by
various logicians, including the following;

“Logic is the new and necessary


reasoning.” By Aristotle. It is new
because it permits us to embark into new
knowledge. It is necessary because its
conclusions are inevitable.

“Logic is that branch of learning


that tells how human experiences and
speculations are to be evaluated.” Dr.
Johnson C. Philip and Dr. Sanesh
Cherian.

8
“Logic is the art of reasoning” by Henry
Aldrich

“Logic is the organized body of


knowledge, or science, that evaluates
arguments” by Patrick J. Hurley

“Logic is the formal laws of thought” by


Sir William Hamilton

“Logic is the science of the laws of


thought” by Thomson

“Logic is the science and art of valid


reasoning” by Fr. Sahaya Celestine.

It is fair to judge that the definition of Fr.


Sahaya is the finest one for it entails four
important ingredients that make logic
palatable;
9
 Logic as science; firstly, it is guided by
rules within a system. Secondly, as a
normative science, it describes things as
they should be. Logic is not descriptive
science that describes things as they are,
like Physics, Chemistry etc.

 Logic as an art, the rules are applied by


skill and not by mechanical imitation. Skills
are required to officially establish certain
rules for the achievement of truth and the
removal of errors. As the art of valid
reasoning logic becomes the common basis
of all knowledge or arts, e.g., Business,
literature, medicine etc.

 Logic as reasoning, it entails the process


of passing from something given (premise)
to something unknown (conclusion).
Reasoning is the same as the argument.
10
The provided aspect of the reasoning is
called “the premise,” while the unknown
aspect which finally its information is found
is called ‘conclusion.’ The derivative process
from the premises to the conclusion is
called ‘inference.’
 Logic as valid reasoning. In Logic,
reasoning by itself is not a standalone fact,
this is because thinking logically is not the
end, rather logically correct. Well-grounded
reasoning is what makes logic functional.
Logic is not an empirical (experimental or
observational) science like physics, biology, or
psychology. Rather, Logic is a non-empirical
science like mathematics.

Reasoning/Inference/Arguments
Reasoning is a special mental activity
called inferring, what can also be called
making or performing inferences. An
11
inference is drawing conclusions from
premises.

Examples of Inference:
 You see smoke and infer that there is a
fire.
 You see ambulance making alarm then you
infer that there is a seriously sick person.

There is a difference between ‘infer’ and


‘imply.’ These two words are sometimes
confused. We infer the fire on the basis of the
smoke, but we do not imply the fire. On the
other hand, we can say that the smoke
implies the fire, but it does not infer the fire.
An argument is a collection of
statements, one of which is designated as
the conclusion, and the remainder of which
are designated as the premises. In an

12
argument, the premises are envisioned to
back up the conclusion.
In any reasoning, there is a premise
(premises) and a conclusion
e.g. (a) Wherever there is smoke there is fire
(b) There is smoke
(c) Therefore. There is fire.

(a) All men are sinners


(b) Godwin is a man
(c) Therefore, Godwin is a sinner.

It should be noted that ‘a' is called a


Major premise, ‘b’ is called a Minor Premise
while ‘c’ is called a conclusion.
Logic is the gift from God exclusively
given to the only man, for he has mind and
power of thinking.

13
Historical Background of Logic
The history of logic goes as far back in
the ancient world. For example in India, there
were Nasadiya Sukta of the Rig Veda holds
many different logical parts that at a time in
the future changed in four circles of catuskoti:
"A", "not A", "A and not A" and "not A and not
A"
There were texts of Aksapada Gautama
from around the 2nd century B.C. called the
‘Nyaya Sutra.’ These texts were studied and
applied by the Nyaya school of Indian
philosophical speculation. When a careful
study of these texts is done, it is found that its
inferential methodology is grounded on the
logic system because induction and deduction
are combined. As a result, the majority of the
other Indian schools adopted this logic system.
The contemporary logic has been
developed mainly from the ancient Greek
14
tradition. Plato and Aristotle understood logic
as the study of argument.
Six works on logic were released by
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) jointly known as
the ‘Organon.’
1. Categories - deals with terms whereby
ten classes of ideas and the division of
the world of concepts have been
expounded.
2. Interpretation (De Interpretatione) -
deals with statements whereby
judgments and their verbal expressions
have been explained.
3. Prior Analytics - deals with the theory
of inference whereby syllogism in its
various forms and rules governing its
validity have been analyzed.
4. Posterior Analytics - deals with the
axiomatic structure of a science whereby

15
the true premises that are applied for
true conclusions have been studied.
5. Topics - a manual of argumentation
whereby premises yielding probable
conclusions have been dealt.
6. Sophism (De Soph. Elench.) – a
manual on fallacies whereby the fallacies
or erroneous conclusions have been
discussed.

Aristotle’s followers, known as


the Peripatetics, further refined his work on
logic.
After the death of Aristotle, Chrysippus
(280 BC–206 BC) arose. He is one of the
founders of the Stoic school, he developed a
logic in which the basic elements were whole
propositions.
Peter Abelard (1079–1142) remodeled
and polished the logic of Aristotle and
16
Chrysippus by originating a theory of
universals that followed the universal
character of general terms to concepts in mind
rather than to "natures" existing outside the
mind, as Aristotle had held. 1

The development of Avicennian logic in


Islamic philosophy also contributed to the
improvement of modern logic. This logic
introduced hypothetical syllogism, temporal
logic, modal logic, and inductive logic
resembles Aristotelian logic.
The logic got great achievement towards
the end of 19th century when Gottlop Frege
(1848–1925), Alfred North Whithead (1861–
1947) and Berthrand Russell (1872–1970)
introduced symbolic Logic. Symbolic Logic was
explained in details in the collective work
called “Principia Mathematica." This Logic is

1
Hurly Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Clark Baxter Publishers. U.S.A
1960.
17
wider than that of Aristotle. Furthermore, it
contains classical logic. It bears a
resemblance to a mathematical
calculus and deals with the relations of
symbols to each other.
In the 20th century, the work in logic
gave much attention to making logical
systems formal.
Kurt Godel (1906-1978) proved a
theorem which states that in any formal
system adequate for number theory there
exists an undecidable formula—that is, a
formula such that neither it nor its negation is
derivable from the axioms of the system.
Multivalued logic and the formalization of
modal logic are other developments made in
logic in the 20th century.
Generally, a major contribution made by
logic to technology is the provision of the basic

18
concepts which have been applied for the
electronic circuitry of digital computers.

The Purpose of Logic


Informing the mind is a good thing, but
that is not the purpose of Logic. The main
purpose of logic is to form the mind as Fr.
Sahaya Celestine states in his book titled
‘Essentials of Formal logic.’ Through Logic, our
thinking pattern should be shaped/molded.
Subsequently; a formed mind should be able;
 To reason logically correct to avoid
mistakes.
 To distinguish the good from the bad.
 To acquire new ideas and insights.
 To acquire skills for handling abstract
ideas.
Groups of Logic
There are two major groups of Logic,
namely;
19
1. Natural Logic
2. Scientific Logic

Natural Logic is the one which we were


born with (innate). Every human being does
logic.
Scientific Logic is the one wherein the
natural power of reasoning is systematized.
Scientific knowledge logic is necessary to
improve and perfect natural logic. We need
scientific logic because a man may fall into
inaccuracy.

Generally, Logic has to do with helping


man to avoid mistakes in his reasoning and
sense errors. Through Logic, one finds out
fallacies, where they are and why they are
fallacies.
The only thing Logic does in our lives is
to arrange our thinking pattern. People should
20
neither regard Logic a solution for all problems
nor as a substitute for our thinking, it only
orders our thinking so that you may think
correctly even in the problematic scenario.
Logic is not Moses’ miracle stick.

21
Chapter 2
TYPES OF LOGIC

There are two types of reasoning, which


are deductive and inductive.
Deductive reasoning is the one from
the universal (general) premises to the
particular conclusion (From general to
particular). For example;
All Seminarians are intelligent
Gershom is a seminarian
Therefore, Gershom is intelligent.

Note: In deductive reasoning, the premises


state more than the conclusion. The conclusion
is less in quantity.

Inductive reasoning is the one from


particular premises to the universal (general)

22
conclusion (from a particular to general). For
example:
Gunewe is a sinner.
Lilian is a sinner
Therefore, all men are sinners

Note: In Inductive reasoning the conclusion


states more than the premises. The conclusion
is greater in quantity than the premises.

Before reasoning either deductively or


inductively; please note the following;
 The inductive reasoning is concerned with
only material truth.
 The deductive reasoning is based on the
formal truth and it deals with deductive
arguments.
 The deductive reasoning is not concerned
with the truthful of the statement (reality).

23
Object of Logic
Logic as science its object is designated
in two ways; material object and formal
object. Any object has its matter and form.
The matter is the material of which the
object is made, while the form is the shape or
nature of the object.
For example, a stool, a chair, a table may be
made of wood, so they possess the same
matter. But their forms are different, that's
why they have different names.
Also, we have several chairs with the same
form, but made of different materials (wood,
plastic, marble etc.) so have a different
matter.
Now, when we come to Logic, the
material object of studying Logic is the human
operations of thinking, while the formal object
of studying Logic is thinking as correct
thinking.
24
Thinking logically is better for it is the
material object of Logic, but thinking logically
correct is the best, for it is the formal object of
Logic.
The Relationship between Logic
and other Disciplines.
As I have said earlier that all disciplines
rely on logic to arrive at their truths as logic
provides norms, principles, standards or
criteria of correct reasoning. Therefore, there
is a close relationship between Logic and other
disciplines.

Logic as Science and Art


 Logic as science
 Science originated from the Latin term
‘Scientia’ to mean an organized and
systematic body of knowledge.

25
 Science can be categorized into two;
the positive (descriptive) and
normative.
 The positive science describes things
as they are, for example; Physics,
Chemistry, Biology etc.
 The normative science describes things
as they should be, for example;
Aesthetics, Ethics etc.
 For that case, Logic is a Normative
Science because it provides principles,
norms, and standards of correct
thinking.
 Logic as Art
 Art comes from the Latin word ‘artem
nominative ars’ to mean as a work of
art, practical skill, a business or craft.
 Logic is an art for it lays down certain
rules for the attainment of truth and
removal of errors. It is an art of valid
26
reasoning. Logic is the basis of all
artistic disciplines.

Logic and Psychology


 Logic and Psychology are both mental
sciences. They both deal with the operation
of the mind.
 In scientific procedure of psychological
investigations, always Psychology needs
Logic.
 In discovery and the formulation of thought,
always Logic needs psychology.

The difference between them is as follows;


 Psychology is a positive science which tells
things how they are. However, it depends
upon the investigation of persons. While
Logic is a normative science which tells
things how they should be by discovering
certain norms to which facts have to
27
conform so as to judge correctness or
incorrectness.
 Logic deals with only thinking while
psychology deals with thinking, feeling and
willing.

28
Chapter 3
FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF LOGIC

In this chapter, we are going to discuss


the fundamental laws or principles. The
fundamental laws of Logic are the truths which
are accepted or assumed without question or
proof.
According to Aristotelian logic, there are
three fundamental laws of thought;
1. The law of Identity (A thing is what it is)
This law states that each thing is identical
with itself. We can interpret it by saying
that, each general or particular thing is
composed of its own unique set of
characteristic qualities or features (‘essence’
the term used by ancient Greeks).
The formula is: “A is A” OR “A thing is what
it is.” For that case, in an argument, if we

29
use a term in one meaning we must hold on
to the same meaning throughout the
argument.
The law forbids additional information
regarding the thing. The data with which we
start in Deductive Logic must remain
unchanged.
2. The law of Non-Contradiction
The law states that contradictory
statements cannot both be true in the same
sense at the same time. Or nothing can
both be and not be at one and the same
time.
The formula is: “Nothing can be both ‘A’ and
‘not A’”
For example; snow cannot be both white
and not white at the same time.
Or a plain paper cannot be both ‘white’ and
‘not white’ at the same time. Which means

30
two contradictory qualities cannot both be
true on one thing.
3. The law of Excluded Middle
The law states that everything must either
be or not be.
The formula is: “A is either B or not B.”
Which means if a plain paper is white, it
cannot be not-white. Two contradictory
qualities cannot be both false of one and the
same thing.

Note: By giving these fundamental laws


Aristotle was not merely showing ways that
people should think rather he was describing
the fundamental principles by which thought
can occur at all. These are necessary
conditions for thought. Some people confuse
these laws by producing counterexamples to
these laws by pointing out how the statement

31
can become true or false depending on the
conditions.

32
Chapter 4
LOGICAL IMPLICATION

The logical implication is the relationship


between the premises and the conclusion.
Implication is a formal relation between
propositions.
A proposition is a statement or assertion
that explains a judgment or it is a judgment
expressed in words.
The logical implication is formal or
objective because it clamps between all
propositions, no matter how dissimilar they
are, provided they stand to each other in
certain relations. For example;

All men are sinner All M are P


Gunewe is a man S is M
Therefore, John is a sinner Therefore, S is P

33
All Kings are rich All M are P
Herod is a king S is M
Therefore, Herod is rich Therefore, S is P

When a careful observation is made, it is


found that the matter in these arguments is
different but the form of the two arguments is
the same.
A form may have certain variables and
constants. A variable is a symbol which can
represent any one of a given set or class of
things.
The variables used in the above
arguments are as follows;
M as Middle Term
P as Major Term
S as Minor Term

34
Middle Term
Middle Term is a term which appears in both
premises and not in conclusion. ‘M’ appears in
the first and the second premises.
All M are P
S is M
S is P

Major Term
Major Term is the one which appears in the
major (first) premise and in the predicate of
the conclusion.
All M are P
S is M
S is P

Minor Term
Minor Term is the one which appears in the
minor (second) premise and in the subject of
the conclusion.
35
All M are P
S is M
S is P
The words like ‘all’ ‘is’ ‘are’ etc. are called
constants in the form. What is important is the
correct form.

Validity and Truth


Truth can be categorized into two,
namely; Material truth and formal truth.
Material truth is the one which
corresponds to worldly truth. In epistemology,
the correspondence theory of truth states that
the truth or falsity of a statement is
determined only by how it relates to the
world and whether it accurately describes
that world. Inductive Logic is concerned with
material truth and the reasoning is materially
true if the premises agree, corresponding to
the actual facts.
36
Formal Truth is the one which is
concerned with accurate process of reasoning
where the conclusion lawfully follows from the
premises. Deductive Logic is concerned with
formal truth. It deals with validity of an
argument.
It is possible for an argument to be
materially false but formally correct. For
example;
All Tanzanians are uneducated
Godwin is a Tanzanian.
Godwin is uneducated
The above argument is formally correct
because it has followed the rules of the
process of the argument. However, it is
materially false because the first premise and
the conclusion do not agree with the facts.
It is also possible for an argument to be
materially true, but formally false. For
example;
37
All cows are mortal
All men are mortal
But cows are not men
In the above argument, the premises and
the conclusion conform to the facts. For that
case, the argument is materially correct but
formally is not correct for it doesn’t lawfully
follow the procedure from premises to the
conclusion.
The relationship between
Validity and Truth
It should be noted that the true premises
and a valid argument guarantee a true
conclusion. In a valid argument with a false
conclusion, at least one premise must be false.
The validity or invalidity of argument is
determined by truth and falsity of the
premises and the conclusion respectively.
The following is the way we state the
relationship between validity and truth;
38
Truth ------- Truth ------- True
True ------- False ------- False
False ------- True ------- False
False ------- False ------- False

39
Chapter 5
STAGES OF REASONING

Logically and epistemologically, the


operations of mind is the one which produces
knowledge.

For a mind to operate, it relies on the


functioning of external and internal senses.
External senses are; seeing, hearing, smelling,
tasting and feeling. Internal senses are
practical intelligence (common sense) and
imagination.

The work of external senses is to give the


first presentation of the objects by seeing,
hearing, touching etc. then common sense
organizes the sensation of the senses together
and imagination recalls our earlier sensations
from memory.

40
Stages of Thinking

The operation of mind (thinking) takes


place in three stages;

a) Simple Apprehension

b) Judgment

c) Reasoning/ argument

Simple Apprehension
The first act of operation of mind is called
simple apprehension. It the stage which mind
produces the idea of an object perceived via
senses. Here notions of various things are
born since it is the comprehension of the
minimum unity of thought.
An act by which the mind understands
the general meaning of an object without
affirming or denying anything about it is called
apprehension.

41
NATURE AND MODALITY OF TERMS

The concept is the end of the mental


operation. It is called ‘concept' because it is
conceived by the intellect. When a concept is
expressed in words usually in Logic is called a
term. It is called a ‘term’ because it is the end
(terminus) of an intellectual activity.

The Difference between


Terms and Words
In Logic, a ‘term’ is to be distinguished
from a ‘word’. A term is the instant sign of a
concept and only by means of concept it
indicates things. A concept is a sensible
expression of the term. There is a big
difference between a concept and the verbal
form.
Different words may have one concept;
for example father, Abba, baba, papa. Also,

42
one word may connote numerous concepts;
for example lie, fair, trunk, plain etc.
A word is either a single or group of
letters expressing a definite meaning. Not
every word is a term because every word by
itself doesn’t convey a meaning.
Kinds of Words
There are different kinds of words like;
1. The Categorimatic words: these are
independent words because they don’t need
the help of other words to express their
meaning. For example; Moses, mortal,
prudence etc.
2. The Syn-Categorematic words: these are
the words which don't express meaning
when they stand alone. For example, an, to,
but etc. always in short adverbs,
prepositions, conjunctions, articles.
3. The Acategorimatic words: these are the
words which express emotions and
43
sentiments of human thoughts. This
includes all interjections e.g. alas! Wow!
etc.
Note: Only categorematic words can be used
as Subject Term or Predicate Term of a
proposition.

A term may either be as a single word like a


man, mortal, sinner etc. or be as many words
like; the queen of Africa, the successful
philosopher in the world.

Note: A term as a single word or group of


words can be used as subject and predicate of
a logical proposition.
For example; Men are mortal
In the above proposition ‘men’ is a term used
as subject and ‘mortal' is a term used as a
predicate. It should be noted that every term
is a word, but every word is not a term.
44
Universality of Concepts
In Logic, the universality has a wider
sense, it is something that can be referred to
many or to all. For example; man is a name or
sign which designates a universal nature, (the
ancient Greek call it essence) common to all
women and men. It should be noted that
universality is a logical property of concepts.

Predicatibility
Predicatibility is the operation of logic
which follows from the universality of
concepts. The names of different classes of
predicates in relation to the subjects are called
Predicables.
The term which is either affirmed or
denied of the subject is called the Predicate.
They convey the modes through which a
‘genus' is related to its lower levels.

45
The Neoplatonic philosopher who was
born in Tyre in the Roman Empire called
Porphyry (234-305 A.D), in his work titled in
Greek “Isagoge” or ‘Introduction to Aristotle's'
category' has listed five predicables which are;
 Genus
 Specific difference
 Species
 Property
 Logical Accident
Genus
Genus is a superspecies. It is called
Genus when two or more terms are so related
to each other that the denotation of one is
already contained or included in the others. It
is a species which contains within itself other
species.
Species
Species is a class of individuals with the
same essential characteristics.
46
Differentia/Specific Difference
Differentia is the essential characteristics
which distinguish one species from another
belonging to the same genus.
Property
It is a non-essential characteristic by
which each individual necessarily has.
Accidents
These are some accidental quality which
may or may not belong to a subject.
Note: any class which can be subdivided is a
Genus while any class which cannot be
subdivided is a Species. For example:
Man is an animal ---------Genus
Man is a rational animal -----Species
Man’s rationality -----------Specific Difference
Man is capable of speech –-- Property
Man is an African (maybe or not) --- Accident
A Genus can either be supreme, remote
or proximate.
47
Supreme Genus is a class which cannot
be subsumed into a higher class.
Remote Genus is the one which can be
subdivided into at least two general (plural of
genus).
Proximate Genus is the one which is
subsumed into a super genus.

The term used in Classical Logic as a


substitute of the supreme genus is
SUBSTANCE.
The Tree of Porphyry

48
A real definition is expressed by the
approximate genus and by a specific
difference. For example;
Animality --------- Proximate Genus
Rationality --------- Specific Difference
Predicaments
In Classical Logic, Predicaments are
commonly used as categories. Aristotle is the
father of predicaments. According to Aristotle,
there are ten (10) predicaments which he calls
them as ‘Supreme classes of Predicates.’
These are; Substance, Quantity, Quality,
Relation, Action, Passion, Time, Place, Posture,
Possession.
1. He is man (belongs to the category
‘Substance’)
2. He is short and fat (belongs to the category
‘Quantity’)
3. He is healthy, capable and blackish (belongs
to the category ‘Quality’)
49
4. He is the husband of Lilian (belongs to the
category ‘Relation’)
5. He works hard and walks fast (belongs to
the category ‘Action’)
6. He is loved by all; he is praised by all
(belongs to the category ‘Passion’)
7. He is 40 years old; he was born in 1979
(belongs to the category ‘Time’)
8. He lives in Mwanza; he is from Morogoro
(belongs to the category ‘Place’)
9. He is sitting on a couch; he is sleeping on
the bed (belongs to the category ‘Posture’)
10. He is wearing a suit; he is the owner of a
printing company (belongs to the category
‘Possession’)
Types of Qualities/Properties
There are two types of qualities, which
are; accidental and essential. Accidental
qualities are the ones that may or may not
belong to a subject, without changing its
50
characteristic features. Accidental qualities are
subjected to change. While essential qualities
of an object are the most basic qualities that
an object must have, without which it loses its
identity.
Connotation and Denotation as
Properties of the Term
Connotation comes from Latin origin
‘con’ means ‘with’ and ‘notare’ means ‘to
note.’ It refers to the group of notes,
characteristics or qualities essential to a term.
With connotation often intention and
signification are synonymous. The connotation
of ‘man’ is rationality and animality, which is
to say without the essential quality the
creature loses its identity.
The denotation of a term is the thing or
set of things to which the term refers. it is also
called extension. The denotation of a term

51
points out to particular in a class (sub-class).
For example;
 Man denotes – all men (rich and poor; black
and white; short and tall).
 Man connotes-essential attribute (animality
and rationality).
Note: Connotation of a term is the full
meaning of a term as expressed by the sum
total of its essential characteristics (intention).
The Relation between Connotation and
Denotation
Connotation and Denotation are related
in inverse ratio. Inverse ratio relation is the
one between two qualities such that one
increases in proportion and the other
decreases and vice versa.
For example;
1. Man – denotation – all men (decreased)
Man – connotation – rationality, animality
(increased).
52
2. Man – denotation – all animals (increase)
Man – connotation – animality (decreased)
3. Man – connotation – honesty (increases)
Man – denotation – only honest men
(Decreases).
4. Man – connotation – excluding rationality
(Decreases)
Man – denotation – animality is not only
possessed by all men, but also by animals
(increases)
Rules in Classifying Concepts
Concepts are divided so as to bring to
them more clarity. The following are a few
rules in classifying concepts;
1) Each division must exclude the other.
2) No part should be equal to the whole.
3) All parts put together must constitute the
whole.
4) No number may be included in the other in
a grouping.
53
Classes of Terms
(a) Simple and Composite (Compound)
Term
 A simple term is the one which consists
of only one word; e.g. Black
 A composite (compound term) is the
one which consists of a combination of
several words; e.g. the intelligent
woman, this boy.
(b) Singular and General Term
 A singular term is the one which when
used in the same sense can denote only
one single object; e.g the largest snake
in the World, Mwanza, Godwin Gunewe.
 A general term is the one which can be
applied in the same sense to an
indefinite number of similar objects;
e.g. Star, Man etc.

54
Division of a Single Term
A singular term can be subdivided into
two;
i. Significant Singular Term: these terms
point out someone or individual thing by
referring to some attribute peculiar to it.
For example; the highest mountain in
Africa, the fifth President of Tanzania.
ii. Non-Significant Singular Terms: these
terms do not imply any attribute. For
example; Dar-es-salaam, Napoleon.
(c) Collective and Distribute Terms
 A collective term is one which is applied
to a group of similar things, not
separately, but as constitution as a
whole. E.g. Army, Library.
 A Distributive term is the one which is
not only used to the whole class but also
each and every individual. E.g. All men
are mortal.
55
(d) Concrete and Abstractive Term
 Concrete terms are those terms which
refer to an individual person or thing.
E.g. man, cow
 Abstract terms are those which refer to
qualities in common to more than
individual. e.g animality, justice,
prudence etc.
Note: Prudent is concrete while
Prudence is abstract.
-Some words can be used as either
concrete or as abstract terms depending
according to the meaning;
Justice --- noun --- concrete
Justice --- quality -- abstract
(e) Positive, Negative and Privative
Terms
 A positive term is the one which shows
its presence. E.g. light, table, sad etc.

56
 A negative term is the one which implies
the absence of something or denial of
someone or something. These include;
-negative prefixes like im, in, un, dis,
etc.
-words preceded by not
-negations without prefixes like evil,
darkness.
 Private terms refer to the absence of an
attribute in an object which it might
have been expected to exist. E.g. Deaf,
blind etc.
(f) Contradictory and Contrary Terms
 Contradictory terms are the ones when
two terms when mutually exclude each
other and at the same time exhaust the
entire denotation. E.g. Black and not
black
 Contrary terms are the ones when two
terms connote the greatest degree of
57
difference between the things denoted
by them. E.g. black and white, tall and
short etc.
(g) Relative and Absolute Terms
 Relative terms are the ones which
express a relation between two or
more persons or things in relation. E.g.
husband, wife, daughter etc.
 Absolute terms are the ones which at
least in meaning do not express such
relation. E.g. Man, Boy, Girl etc.
(h) Particular and Universal Terms
 Particular terms are those terms which
are referred to one or more individuals
of a whole class but not to the whole
class.
 Universal terms are those terms which
refer to all the individuals of the whole
class. E.g. every man, all the students
etc.
58
-Universal terms include singular
terms which include a single individual
person or thing or words with ‘this' or
‘that'
-Universal terms can either be
collective or distributive.
E.g All proper names (Godwin, Lillian)
This book, that nation
(i) Univocal, Equivocal and Analogous
 Univocal terms are those which are used
for many persons or things exactly in
the same sense. Terms are univocal if
they exhibit similarity in meaning or
signification even though they are used
in at least two occasions.
e.g. Honey Pie is a photographer
Tweety Cute is a photographer
 Equivocal terms are those which are
used for many persons or things
completely in a different sense.
59
e.g. Note – taking note
notebook
Bull - the letter of the Pope
- Animal
Analogous is the midway between
univocal and equivocal. Terms are
analogous if they express partly the
same and partly different meanings
when used in at least two occasions. An
analogous term is applied to related
things that used in meaning that is
partly same and partly different.
e.g. Healthy man, healthy medicine.
Healthy is used analogically.
Or Orange is fruit, orange is colour.

60
Chapter 6
THE NATURE AND MODALITY OF
JUDGMENT

A Proposition is a judgment expressed in


words. It is a statement about anything which
can be conveyed to either ‘true’ or ‘false.’

Judgment is the act by which the intellect


unites two concepts by affirmation or
separates them by negation.

Note: it is only through the propositions we


arrive at the truth.

The Difference between Proposition and


Sentence

A proposition is expressed in either word


or in non-verbal symbols. These words
together constitute a sentence. In grammar,
proposition is different from a sentence. A
61
sentence is a word or group of words with a
complete meaning while a proposition is a
statement about anything which can be
conveyed to either ‘true’ or ‘false.

In grammar, sentences classified


according to their purpose may be;

 A Declarative/Assertive; It is the one


which makes a statement.
 An Imperative; It is the one which makes
a command or request.
 An Interrogative; It is the one which asks
questions. Always it ends with a question
mark.
 An Exclamatory; It is the one which shows
a sudden or strong feeling. It always ends
with an exclamatory point.
 Optative; It is the one which shows wish.

62
In Logic, we deal with Assertive
sentences only.

Parts of Proposition
A proposition has three parts, namely; a
subject, a predicate, and copula (a
connecting link).
A subject term is a term about which
something is stated.
The predicate term is a term which states
something about the subject term.
A copula is the sign of the relationship
between them. It is the connecting word. It
may be present tense of the verb ‘to be' i.e.
am, is, are. It may be also affirmative i.e. am
not, is not, are not.
Classification of Proposition
Traditional thinkers classify the
propositions from the viewpoint of relation,
quantity and quality.
63
1. Relational Proposition
On the basis of relation, we can classify
propositions into; Categorical, Conjunctive,
Disjunctive, and Hypothetical.
a) Categorical Proposition
A categorical proposition is the one which
affirms or denies the predicate of the
subject. It is a simple statement without
any condition or qualification.
 All S are P (A form)
 No S are P (E form)
 Some S are P (I form)
 Some S are not P (O form)
e.g.
Name English Standard Form
Sentence
A All cows have All S is P
four legs

64
E No cows have No S is P
eight legs
I Some cows are Some S is P
red
O Some cows are Some S is not P
not black

On the basis of their quality and quantity


or their distribution of terms, we can
categorize propositions into four types which
are;
 A in Latin ‘affirm’ (I affirm) (affirmative
proposition A).
E in Latin nego (I deny) (negative
proposition E).
 I in Latin affirm (I affirm) (affirmative
proposition I).
 O in Latin ‘nego’ (I deny) (negative
proposition O).

65
b) Conjunctive Proposition
The conjunctive proposition is the one
with a combination of two categorical
propositions by using ‘and' or ‘but.'
e.g. he studies hard but he fails exams
The day is hot and the night is cold
c) Disjunctive Proposition
The disjunctive proposition is also known as
the conditional proposition. It is the one
which makes an alternative statement. Two
propositions are combined by using two
disjuncts which are ‘either …or…'
e.g. he is either insane or pretending
he will either call me or I will call him.
d) Hypothetical Proposition
The hypothetical proposition has two parts,
which are antecedent and consequent. This
kind of proposition is also a conditional one.
The antecedent contains the condition and
the consequent contains the statement. The
66
antecedent and consequent are combined
by “if…..then…”
e.g. If you work hard, then you will be rich
-‘if you work hard’ is antecedent which
imposes the condition.
-‘you will be rich’ is consequent which is
imposes the result of the antecedent
(condition).
Properties of Proposition
In this part, we are going to talk about
quantity and quality as properties of a
proposition.

➠ Propositions of Quantity
Quantity is the number of members of
the subject class that are used in the
proposition. Based on quantity we can classify
proposition into two; universal and
particular proposition.

67
If the proposition refers to all members of
the subject class the proposition is called
universal.
When the subject is taken in its entire
meaning or denotation the proposition is
universal. In the universal proposition the
predicate is affirmed or denied of the subject.
e.g.
-All men are mortal – A (Universal Affirmative)
-No man is perfect – E (Universal Negative)
The universal affirmative propositions
start with ‘all,’ ‘every,’ ‘any' etc. while the
universal negative proposition starts with ‘no,’
‘not one,’ etc.
If the proposition doesn’t employ all
members of the subject class, the proposition
is called particular. When the subject is
taken in its partial meaning or denotation, the
proposition is particular. In a particular

68
proposition, the predicate is affirmed or denied
of a part of the subject.
e.g.
-Some men are prudent – I (Particular
Affirmative)
-Some men are not prudent – O (Particular
negative).
The particular propositions begin with
‘some.' In Logic, some refer to ‘one’ or ‘more’
which could mean ‘all’.

➠ Proposition of Quality
Based on the quality, the categorical
propositions are divided into; affirmative and
negative. The copula is affirmative in an
affirmative proposition while in an affirmative
proposition, the predicate is affirmed of the
subject.
e.g.
-All men are mortal–A (Universal Affirmative)
-Some men are wise–I (Particular Affirmative)
69
In a negative proposition, a copula is
generally negative. In the negative
proposition, the predicate is denied of the
subject. It states the exclusion of one class or
part of a class from another.
e.g.
-No man is perfect-E Universal Negative
-Some men are not wise-O Particular Negative

Name Statement Quantity Quality


A All S is P Universal Affirmative
E No S is P Universal Negative
I Some S is P Particular Affirmative
O Some S is not P Particular Negative

Generally, ‘A’ and ‘E’ are universal in


quantity and ‘I’ and ‘O’ are particular in
quantity. While ‘A’ and ‘I’ are affirmative in
quality and ‘E’ and ‘O’ are Negative in quality.
Note:

70
 Propositions with infinite and Gerund,
the subject should be considered as
universal.
e.g. To err is human – is considered as
universal proposition.
 Singular proposition is treated as
universal if the singular proposition is
taken is its total extension which
happens to only one object of the group.
e.g. John is at home – in this example,
John is the only member of the class, so
John is regarded as universal
Proposition.
Terms Distribution in Four Categorical
Proposition (AEIO)
A term distribution is when a term is
taken in its entire meaning. Or it is when a
term is taken universally or with reference to
all parts of it.
(a) ‘A’ – All men are mortal
71
In the above Universal Affirmative
proposition, the subject term is said to be
distributed since the subject ‘All Men’ are
taken in its entirety. On the other hand, the
predicate term is not distributed because
‘mortal’ is only a part of the denotation.
Mortality is not exclusively confined to
‘men.’
(b) ‘E’ – No man is perfect
The above example is Universal Negative
proposition. Since the entire humanity is
excluded from the predicate ‘perfect.’ So, in
‘E’ proposition both subject and predicate
are distributed, for both terms are taken in
entirety.
(c) ‘I’ – Some men are kind
The above example is for Particular
Affirmative. ‘Some men’ shows that the
entire denotation of the subject is not
considered, so the subject is not distributed.
72
(d) ‘O’ – Some men are not kind
The above example is Particular Negative
proposition. Here, ‘some men’ is excluded
from the entirety, hence the subject is not
distributed. The predicate is distributed.
In a nut shell:
‘A’ – distributes the Subject Term (S) only
‘E’ – distributes the Subject Term (S) and
predicate term (P)
‘I’ – does not distribute any term
‘O’ – distributes the Predicate Term (P) only
Additional Principles
 If the copula is affirmative the
predicate is particular
In ‘A’ and ‘I’ propositions the copula is
affirmative, hence the predicate is not
distributed.
 If the copula is negative the predicate
is universal

73
In ‘E’ and ‘O’ propositions the copula is
Negative, hence the predicate is distributed.
Rules in Reducing Sentences
to Logical Form
Logical propositions which are categorical
sentences have only three parts;
 Subject (S)
 Predicate (P)
 Copula
Since sentences that are in AEIO forms
are in logical forms, so there is a need to
reduce the ordinary sentences into logical form
by following rules.
1. General Rules for the Reduction
1) The subject and the predicate of the
given sentences should be shown in their
proper places.
2) Identify quantity of the sentence
(whether the whole subject or part of the
subject).
74
3) Identify the quality (Affirmative or
Negative) of the proposition.
4) The copula must be in the present tense
indicate mood (am, is, are) and the
original tense of the proposition may be
shown with the predicate.
5) While rewriting, the meaning of the
sentence should not be changed.
For example;
-Kenya was under the British rule.
The above sentence is not in logical form.
It order to be in logical from it should be;
-Kenya is the country, which was under the
British rule.
2. Special Rules for the Reduction
1) All affirmative sentences containing words
like all, each, every, any are to be
reduced to ‘A’ proposition.
e.g. i) Every man is a sinner
All men are sinners– A (Logical form)
75
ii) Anybody can say it
All men are men who can say it – A
(Logical form)
2) All negative sentences with all, every,
each, any are to be reduced to ‘O’
proposition.
e.g. All men are not kind
Some men are not kind (Logical Form)
The second example is in a logical form for
it has been reduced to ‘O’ proposition
according to the rule.

3) If the subject of a sentence is a definite,


singular term, the sentence has to be
reduced to a universal proposition (A or E)
depending on whether the predicate is
affirmed or denied of the subject.
e.g. i) Gunewe is a logician
Gunewe is a person who is logician – A
(Logical Form).
76
ii) Gunewe is not a medical doctor
Gunewe is not a person who is a
medical doctor – A (Logical Form)
4) If the subject of the sentence is an
indefinite, singular term, the sentence has
to be reduced to a particular proposition (I
or O) depending on whether the predicate is
affirmed or denied of the subject.
e.g.
i) One orange is greed
Some oranges are green – I (Logical
Form)
ii) One orange is not orange
Some oranges are not orange– O (Logical
Form)
5) All sentences, containing such words like
no, no one, not one, never, not a single
are to be reduced to ‘E’ proposition.
e.g.
i) One should never follow unrighteous way
77
No person is one who should follow
unrighteous way – ‘E’ (Logical Form).
ii) Soldiers are not all coward
No soldiers are coward –E (Logical Form)
6) Sentences, containing words such as most,
many, a few, certain, almost all,
generally, frequently, often, some, all
but one are to be reduced to a particular
proposition (I or O), depending on whether
the predicate is affirmed or denied of the
subject.
e.g.
i. Most of women are fond of decorations
Some women are fond of decorations – I
(Logical Form)
ii. A few soldiers are brave
Some soldiers are brave –I (Logical
Form)
iii. Good speakers are not generally good
doers.
78
Some good speakers are not good doers -
O (Logical Form)
7) Sentences with few, seldom, hardly,
scarcely are to be reduced to ‘O’
proposition, if there is no sign of negation;
and to proposition ‘I’ if there is a sign of
negation.
e.g.
i. Few men are dependable.
Some men are not dependable – ‘O’
(Logical Form)
ii. Students seldom pass this examination in
the first attempt.
Some students are not those who pass
this examination – O (Logical Form)
8) Sentences containing words such as alone,
none but, only, no one else, which limit the
subject are to be reduced to ‘A’ or ‘E’
propositions.

79
a. ‘A’ proposition can be obtained by
interchanging the places of the subject
and predicate of the given sentences.
e.g.
i. Only PhDs are required for
Presidential post.
All those who are required for this
post are PhDs - A (Logical Form)
ii. None but a wife deserves care.
All who deserves care are wives – A
(Logical Form)
b. ‘E’ proposition can be obtained by
making the subject of the original
sentence negative.
e.g.
i. Only PhDs are required for
Presidential post.
No non-PhDs are required for the
presidential post.
ii. None but the serious deserves fair
80
No non-serious person deserves
the fair – E (Logical Form)
9) Sentences containing the words like
except, but, all but etc. and whose
predicate is affirmed or denied of the
subject with some exceptions, are to be
‘reduced to ‘A’ and ‘E’ or ‘I’ and ‘O’
proposition.
i. When the exceptions are definitely
stated, the sentences are to be reduced
to universal propositions – ‘A’ or ‘E’
e.g.
All professors except Gunewe have gone
All professors except Gunewe are those
who have gone – A (Logical Form)
No professor except Gunewe have gone
No professor except Gunewe are those
who have gone – E (Logical Form).
ii. When the exceptions are not definitely
asserted, the sentences are to be
81
reduced to particular propositions ‘I’ or
‘O’
e.g.
All professors except a few have gone.
Some professors are those who have
gone – I (Logical Form).

No professors except a few have gone.


Some professors are not those who
have gone – O (Logical Form).
10) Sentences with problems are to be
reduced to a particular propositions – ‘I’ or
‘O’
e.g.
i. The poor men may be are from Tanzania
Some poor men are from Tanzania – I
(Logical Form)
ii. The poor children are not lazy
Some poor children are not lazy – O
(Logical Form).
82
11) Sentences which express a wish
(Optative Sentences) are to be made to
bring out the copula clearly.
e.g. May God flourish you!
My wish is that God may flourish you –
A (Logical Form)
12) Exclamatory Sentences are to be reduced
to particular propositions ‘I’ or ‘O’
e.g. How wonderful!
Some things are wonderful – I (Logical
Form)
Help! Help!
Someone is in trouble – I (Logical Form)
13) Sentences which asks questions
(Interrogative sentences) are to be reduced
to logical form according to their meaning.
e.g.
i. Will a mother forget her biological child?

83
No mother is a person who will forget her
biological child – E (Logical Form)
ii. Is there any a wise man who rapes his
own daughter?
No wise person is one who rapes his own
daughter – E (Logical Form)
14) Inverted sentences and proverbs are
reduced to universal propositions ‘A’ or ‘E’,
by exchanging the subject and predicate in
their proper order.
e.g. blessed are the peace makers
All the peace makers are blessed – A
(Logical Form)

Gone are the peaceful days


All the peaceful days are gone – A
(Logical Form)
15) Indefinite sentences with predicate
expressing the essential quality of the
subject has to be reduced to ‘A’ proposition.

84
e.g. A wheel is round
All wheels are round – A (Logical Form)

Explosive is flammable
All explosives are flammable – A
(Logical Form)

-Crystal is transparent.
All crystal is transparent – A (Logical
Form)
Note:
 It is impossible to provide all rules for
reducing sentences to logical form.
 When reducing sentences to logical form,
make sure that the original sentences
remain unaltered.

85
Chapter 7
DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Deductive reasoning is the type of


reasoning which we proceed from the
universal to particular; therefore the
conclusion is less in quantity than the
premises.
Kinds of deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning can be grouped into
two kinds;
1. Immediate Deductive Reasoning
2. Mediate Deductive Reasoning
IMMEDIATE DEDUCTIVE REASONING
This is the type of reasoning which its
conclusion is obtained directly without the
second premise.
Immediate deductive reasoning can be
divided into two types;

86
a) Opposition of Proposition
b) Education
a) Opposition of Proposition
Opposition of proposition is understood
in a broad sense in classical logic as ‘how
proposition stand against one another
when one have the same subject and
predicate and differ in quantity or quality
or both.’
Aristotle expounded how the four types
of terms can be placed in a square form giving
illustration on the various oppositions between
them. Then, he kept on characterizing each
types of opposition.

Aristotle’s Square of Opposition


87
Note: In the above diagram
 ‘A’ represents ‘Affirmative Universal
Proposition’ e.g. All men are wise
 ‘E’ represents ‘Negative Universal
Proposition’ e.g. No man is wise.
 ‘I’ represents ‘Affirmative particular
proposition’ e.g. Some men are wise
 ‘O’ represents ‘Negative Particular
Proposition’ e.g. Some men are not wise.
There are four types of opposition of
propositions;
1) Contradiction
2) Contrary / Contrariety
3) Sub-contrariety
4) Sub-alternation
Contradictory Propositions
Are the type of proposition formed when
the propositions differ both in quantity and
quality. The contradictory of ‘A’ is ‘O’ and the
contradictory of ‘E’ is ‘I’ and vice versa.
88
Note: In contradictory proposition the relation
works that both the propositions cannot be
true or false at the same time. If one is true
the other one is false and vice versa.
Contrary Propositions
Contrary propositions are the type of
proposition formed when two universal
propositions differ only in quality. The contrary
proposition of ‘A’ is ‘E’ and ‘E’ is ‘A’.
Note: In contrary proposition the relation
works that both can be false but cannot be
true at the same time.
Sub-contrary Propositions
These are the type of propositions formed
between two particular propositions which
differ only in ‘quality.’ The sub-contrary
proposition of ‘I’ is ‘O’ and ‘O’ is ‘I’.
Note: The relation between them is that both
cannot be false but can be true at the same
time.
89
Sub-alternation Propositions
It is the one which takes place between
two propositions which differ only in quantity.
There are two forms of sub-alternation which
are; Superalterns (A-I and E-O) and
Subalterns (I-A and O-E).
Note: The relation between the superalterns is
that both can be true and both can be false.
The truth of universal one can infer the truth
of the particular.
The Modern Square of Oppositions
The oppositions of propositions between
that of Aristotle and the modern differ
dramatically. This difference has been
illustrated by George Boole, in what now has
become the modern version of the Square of
Propositions.
The only difference between modern logic
and ancient is that there a simply replacement
of the universal with the general as abstract.
90
This can be attained by using labels and the
logic becomes symbolic logic. So the term
‘All men’ is replaced by the abstract version
‘All X’.

The modern logic version of the oppositions


b) Education
This refers to the process of inferring
from single given proposition other new
proposition is implied in it. Logicians remark
that this form of immediate reasoning is a
proper of inference. There are three kinds of
education;
a. Conversion
b. Obversion
c. Contraposition

91
A. Conversion of Proposition
This is a form of immediate reasoning in
which there is licit transportation of the
subject and predicate of a proposition. In
conversion of proposition, the given
proposition is called the convertend, while
the inferred proposition is called the
converse.
The purpose of conversion is to explain
the truth of a proposition in a different way.
General Rules in Converting Propositions
1. The subject of the converted turn out to be
the predicate of the converse.
2. The quality of the converse must be the
same as that of the converted.
3. The predicate of the converted becomes the
subject of the converse.
4. No term can be distributed in the converse
unless it is distributed in the converted.

92
5. If the quantity of the convertend is the
same as that of the converse, it is called
simple conversion. If the quantity of the
convertend is different from that of
converse, it called conversion by
limitation. If the convertend is universal,
the converse is called particular.
Specific Rules in Conversion
 Conversion ‘A’ is ‘I’ proposition
For example;
All men are mortal -A All S is P
Some mortal beings are men -I Some P is S
Note:
Converting ‘A’ proposition is impossible
because of violation of rules of distribution. On
the other hand, when the subject and
predicate of ‘A’ proposition are definite
singular terms ‘A’ proposition can be simply
converted to ‘A’ proposition.

93
e.g. -Kilimanjaro is the highest mountain in
Africa – A All S is P
-The highest mountain in Africa is the
Kilimanjaro – A All P is S
 Conversion ‘I’ is ‘I’ proposition
For example;
Some women are brave -I Some S is P
Some brave being are women – I Some P is S
The ‘I’ proposition has no distribution of terms,
therefore the interchange of terms will not be
problem.
 Conversion ‘E’ is ‘E’ proposition
e.g. No man is perfect - E No S is P
No perfect beings are men – No P is S
In the ‘E’ proposition both the terms are
distributed, and therefore the interchange of
terms will not be a problem. For that case, an
‘E’ proposition is converted to another ‘E’.

94
 Conversion of ‘O’ proposition
Conversion of proposition ‘O’ doesn’t guide to
a valid conclusion.
e.g. Some women are not faithful - O Some S
is not P
In converting the ‘O’ proposition the
quality should remain unaltered, which means
the conclusion must remain negative. A
particular negative ‘O’ distributes the predicate
term. The predicate of the converse is
distributed but the term is not distributed in
the given. The distribution is violated.
 Inverse by Converse Relation
This is immediate reasoning, in which we
pass from one statement of relation to
another. For example;
1. Gershom is the son of Dr. Gunewe
Dr. Gunewe is the father of Gershom
2. Train is heavier than a car
A car is lighter than a train.
95
B. Obversion of Proposition
It is the type of immediate reasoning in
which there is an alteration in the quality of
the provided proposition, at the same time its
meaning remains unaltered. Obvertend is the
provided proposition, and Obverse is the
conclusion, while the whole process is called
obversion. The obversion stand as agent of
re-stating in opposite quality.

General Rules for Conversion


a. The obverse and obvertend have the same
subject.
b. If the obvertend is affirmative, then the
obverse is Negative, you are allowed to
change the quality of the proposition.
c. Quality remains unaltered (Universal –
Universal; Particular – Particular).

96
d. The predicate of the obverse is the
contradictory of the predicate of the
obvertend.
Specific Rules for Obversion
 The obversion of A is E
e.g. All women are beautiful -A All S is P
No women are not beautiful- E No S is
non P
The obversion of ‘A’ is ‘E’. For the sake of
maintaining the quantity of the proposition
and alteration of the quality the predicate has
been rewritten in its contradictory form.
 The Obversion of ‘E’ is ‘A’
e.g. No man is reliable -E No S is P
All men are not reliable -A All S is non P
The obversion of ‘E’ is ‘A’. For the sake of
maintaining the quantity of the proposition
and altering quality the predicate has been
rewritten in its contradictory form.

97
 The Obversion of ‘I’ is ‘O’
e.g. Some Pastors are faithful –I Some S is P
Some Pastors are not non faithful –O
Some S is not non P
The obversion of ‘I’ is ‘O’. For the sake of
maintaining the quantity of the proposition
and alteration of the quality the predicate has
been written in its contradictory form.
 Obversion of ‘O’ is ‘I’
e.g. -Some metals are not heavy - O Some S
is not P
-Some metals are non-heavy – I Some S
is non-P
The obversion of ‘O’ is ‘I’. For the sake of
maintaining the quantity of the proposition
and alteration of the quality the predicate has
been written in its contradictory form.
C. Contraposition
It is a type of immediate reasoning in
which combines both obversion and
98
conversion. The procedure is as follows; first
the obversion of a given proposition is done,
then follows the conversion of a obverted
proposition. The conclusion obtained is called
contrapositive.
Specific Rules in Contraposition
 Contrapositive of ‘A’ is ‘E’
All men are mortal (A) All S is P
No man is non-mortal (E) No S is non P
No non-mortal beings are man (E) No non-P is S
 Contrapositive of ‘E’ is ‘I’
No tilapia is mammal (E) No S is P
All tilapia is non-mammal (A) All S is non-P
Some non-mammal is tilapia (I) Some non-P
is S
 Contrapositive of ‘O’ is ‘I’
Some men are not honest – (O) Some S is not P
Some men are non-honest – (I) Some S is non P
Some non-honest beings are men (I) Some non-P
is S

99
 The contrapositive of ‘I’ is impossible
because when ‘I’ is obverted it
produces ‘O’ and the ‘O’ proposition
cannot be converted due to the
violation if distribution.

100
Chapter 8
MEDIATE REASONING

Mediate reasoning is drawing conclusion


from a previously known truth through a
medium. It is sometimes known as syllogism.

We can divide mediate reasoning into two


types, namely; Deduction and Induction.

Deduction (to deduce or reduce)

Is the process when one moves from a more


general truth to arrive at a particular truth.
Which means from general truth to particular
truth.

e.g. All men are mortal

Aristotle is a man

Therefore, Aristotle is a mortal

101
Induction (to induce)

Is the process from particular provided


proposition, arriving to the general truth.

e.g. Jane is imperfect

John is imperfect

All men are imperfect.

The Difference between Deduction and


Induction

 Deduction is used in logic and in


mathematics while induction is used is all
the sciences.

 Deduction is concerned with the validity of


the conclusion while induction is concerned
with truth of the conclusion.

102
Syllogism

A syllogism comes from a Greek word


‘syllogismos’ to mean inference. A mediate
inference where the conclusion is drawn from
two premises is called syllogism or Syllogism
is defined as an argument that takes several
parts, typically with two statements which are
assumed to be true (or premises) that lead to
a conclusion.

The validity of syllogistic argument is


when conclusion follows from the given
propositions done in a legitimate way.

A syllogism is a form of mediate


deductive reasoning in which the conclusion is
drawn from two premises taken together as
follows;

E.g. All philosophers are Intelligent

Dr. Gunewe is a philosopher


103
Therefore, Dr. Gunewe is intelligent.

Major Types of syllogism

There are three major types of syllogism


as follows;

(a) Categorical Syllogism


It states that ‘If A is in C then B is in C.’
This is the type of syllogism that typically
has three components.
E.g. All philosophers are Intelligent (Major
Premise)

Dr. Gunewe is a philosopher (Minor


Premise)

Therefore, Dr. Gunewe is intelligent


(Conclusion)
(b) Conditional Syllogism

It states that ‘If A is true then B is true


(If A then B).’ They are also called

104
hypothetical syllogisms because the
arguments are not always valid and are
sometimes are not accepted as truth.
Major premise: Gershom is clever.
Conclusion: Gershom’s parents are clever.

(c) Disjunctive Syllogism

It states that ‘If A is true, then B is false


(A or B).’ This type of syllogism doesn't state if
a major or minor premise is correct, but it is
understood that one of them is correct.

Example:
This carpet is either blue or yellow.
(Major Premise)
It's not yellow. (Minor Premise)
This carpet is blue. (Conclusion)
Note: There are other minor types of syllogism
as follows;
 Enthymemes is a syllogism with an
incomplete argument.
105
 Modus Ponens is a syllogism which states
that ‘If X is true then Y is true; X is true,
therefore Y is true.
 Modus Tollens is a type of syllogism which
states that ‘If X is true then Y is true; Y is
false, therefore X is false.
 Set Theory refers to the basics of
overlapping groups.
Propositions of Syllogism
There are three propositions in syllogism,
which two are given and the other proposition
is inferred from them. The two given
propositions are called premises while the
inferred one is called as the conclusion.

A syllogism with three propositions has


three terms;

1. Middle Term (M)

2. The Subject Term/ Minor Term (S)

106
3. The Predicate Term/ Major Term (P)

The middle term is the one which


occurs in both premises but doesn’t occur in
the conclusion. This is the link to make us
pass legitimately from premises to the
conclusion. Minor term is the subject of the
conclusion. Major Term is the predicate of
the conclusion.

Four Figures of Syllogism

The form of a syllogism as determined by


the position of the middle term is the premises
is called figures of syllogism. Since the
middle term has four possible positions, for
that there are four figures of syllogism;

1. The first figure

The middle term (M) is the subject of the


major premise and the predicate in the
minor premise.
107
2. The second Figure

The middle term (M) is the predicate in both


the premises.

3. The third figure

The middle term (M) is the subject of both


the premises.

4. The fourth figure

The middle term (M) is the predicate in the


major premise and the subject in the minor
premise.

A diagram showing figures of syllogism

1 2 3 4

M----P P----M M----P P----M

S----M S----M M----S M----S

S=P S=P S=P S=P

108
Moods of Syllogism

The quality and quantity of the


propositions determines the mood of a
syllogism. On the basis of quality and quantity
we can classify propositions into four; A, E, I,
O. These letters have been used since the
medieval Schools, and there are names given
called mnemonic whereby ‘Barbara’ stands
for ‘AAA’

In Syllogistic logic the word ‘mood’ is


used in three distinct senses;

1. The first sense; the mood of a syllogism is


determined by the quality and quantity of
the component premises. The mood of a
given syllogism is obtained by writing the
logical form of each of the constituent
premises. The total number of possible
configurations on moods would be 4x4=16.
This is called mood in a wide sense.
109
AA EA IA OA

AE EE IE OE

AI EI II OI

AO EO IO OO

Because there are four figures, the total


number of possible moods in four figures
would be 16 x 4 which is equal to 64. There
are only 19 moods which are valid in this
sense as follows;

Figure 1: AA, EA, AI, EI

Figure 2: EA, AE, AI, AO

Figure 3: AA, IA, AI, EA, OA, EI

Figure 4: AA, AE, IA, EA, EI

110
Note that; ‘EA’ and ‘EI’ are valid in every
figure.

2. The second sense; the mood of syllogism is


determined by the quality and quantity of
the constituent propositions. The mood of a
syllogism is obtained by specifying the
logical forms of each of the component
propositions. It is different from the first
sense since in this sense we need to
consider the logical form of conclusion in
addition to the logical forms of the
premises. Since a syllogism has three
propositions and each of these propositions
allows any one of the four possible logical
forms, so the total number of possible
moods would be 4x4x4 = 64

AAA EAA IAA OAA

AAE EAE IAE OAE

111
AAI EAI IAI OAI

AAO EAO IAO OAO

AEA EEA IEA OEA

AEE EEE IEE OEE

AEI EEI IEI OEI

AEO EEO IEO OEO

AIA EIA IIA OIA

AIE EIE IIE OIE

AII EII III OII

AIO EIO IIO OIO

AOA EOA IOA OOA

AOE EOE IOE OOE

AOI EOI IOI OOI

AOO EOO IOO OOO

112
The total number of moods in all would
be 64x4=256. This is the mood in wider sense.
The valid moods in this sense will be 24 as
follows;

Figure 1: AAA, AAI, EAE, EAO, AII, EI

Figure 2: EAE, EAO, AEE, AEO, EIO, AOO

Figure 3: AAI, IAI, AII, EAO, OAO, EIO

Figure 4: AAI, AEE, AEO, IAI, EAO, EIO

Note that; ‘EAO’ and ‘EIO’ are valid in every


figure.

3. The third sense is narrow sense since the


word ‘mood’ is used in the sense of valid
moods of syllogism. In other language,
‘mood’ is defined in a highly confined sense
to mean only valid moods.

113
Rules of Syllogism

In this part I’m going to explain ten rules


of syllogism. The first six rules are called
Primary Rules and the last four rules are
called Secondary Rules.

Note below:

➠ The first and the second rules deal with


structure of the syllogism.

➠ The third and fourth rules deal with


distribution of terms.

➠ The fifth, the sixth and seventh deal with


quality.

➠ The eighth and ninth rules deal with


quantity

➠ The tenth rule deals with mixed questions of


quantity and quality.

114
1) Every syllogism must have only three
terms.

 If violated to four terms is called


fallacy of four terms.

 If any one of the three terms in a


syllogism be ambiguous, it is called the
fallacy of ambiguous/equivocation.

 If ambiguous word appears in the


major term is known as fallacy of
ambiguous major.

For example;

Light removes darkness


Feathers do not remove darkness
Therefore, feathers are not light.

Light is essential to guide our steps


Lead is not essential to guide our steps
Therefore, lead is not light.
115
‘Light’ as the major term used in the
major premise means ‘something opposed to
darkness’ but in the conclusion ‘light’ means
‘not heavy.’
 If ambiguous word appears in the
minor term is known as fallacy of
ambiguous minor

For example;

No man is made of paper


All pages are men
Therefore, no pages are made of paper
The term ‘page’ used in the minor
premise means ‘‘a boy who worked as a
servant for a knight and who was learning to
become a knight.’ But in the conclusion the
term page means ‘‘a side of one of the pieces
of paper in a book or notebook.’

116
 If the middle term is used
ambiguously, it is known as fallacy of
ambiguous middle.

For example;

All pages are attached to the book


Joseph is a page
Therefore, John is attached to the book

In the above example, the middle term


‘page’ in the major premise means ‘a side of
one of the pieces of paper in a book,
newspaper or magazine, usually with a
number printed on it’ but in the minor premise
the word ‘page’ means ‘a boy who worked as a
servant for a knight and who was learning to
become a knight.’

2) A syllogism must have only three


propositions.

117
3) The middle term must be distributed at
least once in the premises. If this rule is
violated is called fallacy of undistributed
middle. If the middle term is not
distributed there will be no establishment of
a common link between the major and the
minor term.

E.g. All cows are quadrupeds


All elephants quadrupeds
Therefore, all cows are elephants
4) No term can be distributed in the
conclusion unless it is distributed in the
premise; this means that conclusion
cannot be more general than the premise. If
this rule is violated it is called fallacy of illicit
process.

If Major term is distributed in the


conclusion while it is not distributed in the

118
major premise, then it is called the fallacy
of illicit Major.

e.g. All goats are quadrupeds.

No cows are goats

Therefore, No goats are quadrupeds

If Minor term is distributed in the


conclusion while it is not distributed in the
minor premise, then it is called the fallacy
of illicit Minor.

e.g. All men are mortal

All men are rational

Therefore, all rational beings are mortal.

5) No conclusion can be drawn from two


negative premises. If both premises are
negative it implies that neither the major
term nor the minor term is connected to the

119
middle term. If this rule is violated it
creates the fallacy of negative premise.

e.g. No men are perfect

No monkeys are men

Therefore, no monkeys are perfect.

In the above syllogism there is no


connection between middle term with the
extremes, for that case conclusion could not
be drawn logically. The violation of this rule is
called the fallacy of Negative Premises.

6) If one premise be negative the conclusion


must be negative or to have a negative
conclusion at least one premise must be
negative.

e.g. All men are rational

The robot is not a man

Therefore, the robot is not rational


120
7) If both the premises are affirmative, the
conclusion is affirmative the same in an
opposite way if the conclusion is affirmative
both premises must be affirmative.

e.g. All philosophers are educated

Dr. Gunewe is a philosopher

Therefore, Dr. Gunewe is educated

8) No inference if both premises are particular

9) If one premise be particular, the conclusion


also will be a particular.

10) From a particular major and a negative


minor no conclusion follows.

How to Determine the Validity of a Mood

 Figure 1: The middle term takes the


place of subject in the major premise
while predicate in the minor premise.

121
 ‘AA’

All men are mortal (All M is P) -A

All kings are men (All S is M) -A

All kings are mortal (All S is P) -A

This is valid mood since the middle term


is distributed in the major premise and the
minor term which is distributed in the
conclusion is also distributed in the minor
premise. No violation of any rule of
syllogism. The cute name given to this
mood is BARBARA.

 ‘AE’

All men are mortal (All M is P) -A

No monkeys are men (No S is M) -E

No monkeys are mortal (No S is P) -E

122
As stipulated in the rule 6, since the
minor premise is negative the conclusion
should be negative. The major premise is
affirmative and the major term is not
distributed. This is the fallacy of illicit major,
so no conclusion is obtained. So, AEE is not
a valid mood.

 ‘AI’

All men are rational (All M is P) -A

Some animals are men (Some S is M) -I

Some animals are rational (Some S is P) –I

In this syllogism rules number 7 and 9


have been observed. The middle term is
distributed in the major premise and no
term is distributed in the conclusion. This
mood is valid. The cute name given for this
mood is DARII.

123
 ‘AO’

All men are rational (All M is P) -A

Some giraffes are not men (Some S

is not M) -O

Some giraffes are not rational (Some S

is not P) -O

The middle term is distributed in the


major premise, but the minor premise is
negative the conclusion will negative (Rule
number 6). If the conclusion is negative
then the major term is the conclusion
should be distributed, since it is not
distributed creates the fallacy if illicit major.
Therefore, no valid conclusion and the mood
is not valid.

 ‘EA’

No animals are immortal (No M is P) -E


124
All men are animals (All S is M) -A

No men are immortal (No S is P) -E

The above syllogism follows rule number


6 which states that if major premise is
negative, the conclusion will be negative.
The minor term is distributed in the
conclusion, which is also distributed in the
minor premise. Similarly, the major term is
distributed in the conclusion, which is
distributed also in the major premise. For
that case this mood (EAE) is valid. The cute
name given to this mood is CELATENT.

 ‘EI’

No quadrupeds are men (No M is P) -E

Some animals are quadrupeds (Some

S is P) -I

Some animals are not men (Some

S is not P) -O

125
The above syllogism has followed rules
number 6 and 9. Logically the conclusion
will be particular. The major term is
distributed in the conclusion, which is also
distributed in the major premise. Therefore,
the conclusion is valid making the mood
‘EIO’ become valid. The cute name given to
this mood is FERIO.

 ‘IA’

Some animals are quadrupeds (Some

M is P) -I

All cows are animals (All S is M) -A

Some cows are quadrupeds (Some

S is P) -I

No valid conclusion drawn from the above


syllogism due to the fallacy of undistributed
middle. The mood IAI is not valid.

 OA
126
Some animals are not quadrupeds (Some M
is not P) -O

All cows are animals (All S is M) -A

Some cows are not quadrupeds (Some S

is not P) -O

 Figure 2: In this figure, the middle term


is the predicate in both the premises.
On this course, the distribution affects
the positions of terms leading to
changing conclusion from that of figure
one.

 AA

All mortals are men (All P is M) -A

All rational are men (All S is M) -A

All rational are mortal (All S is P) -A

No valid conclusion in this syllogism


because the middle term which is the
predicate of both premise is not distributed
creating the fallacy of undistributed middle.
127
 AE

All minerals are elements (All P is M) -A

No mixtures are elements (No S is M) -E

No mixtures are minerals (No S is P) -E

The syllogism has followed rule number

6. The middle term is distributed in the

minor premise. In the conclusion, both the

terms are distributed and they are also

distributed in the premises. The conclusion

is valid leading to a valid mood. The cute

name for this mood is CAMESTRES.

 AI

All men are mortal (All P is M) -A

Some monkeys are mortal (Some S is M) –I

Some goats are men (Some S is P) -I

128
There is no valid conclusion is this
syllogism, for that case there is no valid
mood because there is violation of rule
leading to the fallacy of undistributed
middle.

 AO

All goats walk are quadrupeds (All P is M) -A

Some animals are not quadrupeds (Some S


is not M) -O

Some animals are not goats (Some S is not


P) -O

The syllogism has followed rules number


6 and 9. The major term which is
distributed in the conclusion is also
distributed in the major premise. Therefore,
this mood is valid. The cute name given to
this mood is BAROCO.

 EA

No perfect beings are mortal (No P is M) -E


129
All men are mortal (All S is M) -A

No men are perfect beings (No S is P) -E

The rule 6 has been followed. The middle


term is distributed in the major premise.
Both the terms are distributed in the
conclusion which are also found to be
distributed in both the premises creating
valid conclusion hence valid mood. The cute
name given to this mood is CESARE.

 EI

No substance are mortal (No P is M) -E

Some objects are mortal (Some S is M) –I

Some objects are not substance (Some S is


not P) -O

Rules number 6 and 9 have been followed.


The conclusion is valid since the middle
term is distributed in the major premise. In
the conclusion the major term is distributed,
which is also distributed in the major
130
premise making it a valid mood. The name
given is FESTINO.

 IA

Some men are good (Some P is M) -I

All dogs are good (Some S is M) -A

Some dogs are men (Some S is P) -I

This syllogism has valid conclusion for the


middle term is not distributed (Rule 3)
creating the fallacy of undistributed middle.

 ‘OA’

Some police officers are not honest (Some P


is not M) -O

All monkey are honest (All S is M) -A

Some monkeys are not police officers


(Some S is not P) -O

The syllogism has followed rules number


6 and 9. The middle term is distributed in
131
the major premise and the conclusion
distributes the predicate while it is not
distributed in the premise, so this created a
fallacy of illicit major. The mood is not valid.

 Figure 3: in this figure, the middle term


is the subject of both the premises. Due
to this change of position of middle
term, the validity of mood in syllogism
differs from figure 1 and 2.

 AA

All men are rational (All M is P) -A

All men are animals (All M is S) -A

Some animals are rational (Some S is P) -I

In the above syllogism, the middle term


is distributed in both the premises. The rule
number 7 has been observed. We have
avoided the fallacy of either illicit major or
illicit minor by drawing an ‘I’ proposition as a

132
conclusion, which result to a valid mood. The
cute name for this valid mood is DARAPTI.

 AE

All men are rational (All M is P) -A

No men are animal (No M is S) -E

No animals are rational (No S is P) -E

The rule number 6 has been observed,


the violation arises is in the major premise
which is not distributed though the negative
conclusion distributes in the major premise.
It has resulted to the fallacy of illicit major,
obviously no valid conclusion is obtained.

 AI

All accidents are destructive (All M is P) -A

Some accidents are avoidable (Some M

is S) -I

Some avoidable things are destructive


(Some S is P) -I

133
The syllogism has followed rules 7 and 9.
The middle term is distributed in the major
premise. Because ‘I’ proposition has no
distribution, the possibility of violating the
rule is omitted. Therefore, the conclusion is
valid creating the valid mood called DATISI.

 AO

All men are rational (All M is P) -A

Some men are not honest (Some M is

not S) -O

Some honest beings are not rational (Some


S is not P) -O

The syllogism must follow the rules


number 6 and 9. Proposition ‘O’ is not
distributed in the major premise that is the
fallacy of illicit major.

 EA

No men are perfect (No M is P) -E

134
All men are animals (All M is S) -A

Some animals are not perfect (Some S is

not P -O

In the above syllogism, we have avoided


the fallacy of illicit minor by making the
conclusion to be ‘O’ instead of ‘E’ proposition
as the minor term is not distributed in the
minor premise. For that case, the conclusion
of ‘EA’ could be ‘O’ proposition as valid
conclusion. The valid mood is called
FELAPTON.

 EI

No battle is good (No M is P) -E

Some battles are successful (Some M is S) -I

Some successful things are not good (Some


S is not P) -O

The middle term is distributed in the


major premise. The major term is distributed
in the conclusion and it is also distributed in
135
the major premise. Therefore, ‘O’ is valid
conclusion, leading to valid mood called
FERISON.

 IA

Some men are faithful (Some M is P) -I

All men are mortal (All M is S) -A

Some mortals are faithful (Some S is P) -I

The middle term is distributed in the


minor premise. In the conclusion ‘I’
distributes nothing. What is produced is valid
mood called DISAMIS.

 OA

Some women are not faithful (Some M is

not P) -O

All women are mortal (All M is S) -A

136
Some mortals are not faithful (Some S is

not P) -O

One of the premises is negative, the


conclusion will be negative (rule 6). Also one
of the premises is particular, then the
conclusion will be particular (rule 9). The
major term which is predicate is distributed
which is also distributed in the major
premise. The middle term is distributed in
the minor premise. The conclusion is valid
leading to valid mood called BOCARDO.

 Figure 4: in this figure the middle term


is the predicate in the major premise,
and the subject in the minor premise.
The position of the figure is just
opposite to the first figure.

 AA

All men are mortal (All P is M) -A


137
All mortals animals (All M is S) -A

Some animals are men (Some S is P) -I

All premises are affirmative, the


conclusion must be affirmative (Rule 7). The
middle is distributed in the minor premise.
The conclusion becomes ‘I’ proposition and
not ‘A’ proposition for the fear of the fallacy
of illicit minor. The result is valid mood
called BRAMANTIP.

 AE

All men are animals (All P is M) -A

No animals are perfect (No M is S) -E

No perfect beings are men (No S is P) -E

The middle term is distributed in the


minor premise. In the conclusion, both the
major term and the minor term are
distributed, which are also distributed in the
138
premises. The conclusion becomes valid, and
the valid mood obtained is CAMENES.

 AI

All men are animals (All P is M) -A

Some animals are lions (Some M is S) -I

Some lions are men (Some S is P) -I

In the above syllogism there is no valid


conclusion for there is the fallacy of
undistributed middle, since the middle terms
remains undistributed either in major premise
or minor premise.

 AO

All men are animals (All P is M) -A

Some animals are not mammals (Some M

is not S) -O

139
Some mammals are not men (Some S is

not P) -O

Due to the fallacy of undistributed


middle, the AO proposition does not produce
valid conclusion.

 EA

No quadrupeds are men (No P is M) -E

All men are animals (All M is S) -A

Some animals are not quadrupeds (Some S


is not P) -O

The syllogism has respected the law of


distribution by concluding with ‘O’
proposition. The middle term is also
distributed in both premises. The valid mood
produced is called FESAPO.

 EI

140
No man is perfect (No P is M) -E

Some perfect beings are monkeys (Some

M is S) -I

Some monkeys are not man (Some S

is not P) -O

The middle term is distributed in the


major premise, and in the conclusion ‘O’
distributes the predicate, which is also
distributed in the major premise. Therefore,
this is a valid mood called FRESION.

 IA

Some animals are men (Some P is M) -I

All men are rational (All M is S) -A

Some rational beings are animals (Some S

is P) -I

141
The middle term is distributed in the
minor premise and the conclusion has no
distribution. The mood produced is the valid
one called DIMARIS.

 OA

Some goats are not men (Some P is

not M) -O

All men are mortal (All M is S) -A

Some mortals are goats (Some S is not P)-O

The above syllogism does not lead to a


valid conclusion. Though the middle term is
distributed in the major premise, yet in
conclusion the predicate which is distributed
is not distributed in the premise, causing the
fallacy of illicit major.

142
The Nine Valid Moods from All Four Figures

FIGURE MOOD CUTE NAME


First Figure AAA Barbara
EAE Celarent
AII Darii
EIO Ferio
Second Figure AOO Baroco
EAE Cesare
AEE Camestres
EIO Festino
Third Figure OAO Bocardo
AAI Darapti
AII Datisi
IAI Disamis
EAO Felapton
EIO Felison
Fourth Figure AAI Bramantip
AEE Camenes
IAI Dimaris
EAO Fesapo
EIO Fresion

143
Chapter 9
CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM

Conditional syllogism is a type of


syllogism in which the constituent proposition
is not of the same relation. It is divided into
three;

a. Hypothetical Syllogism

b. Disjunctive Syllogism

c. Dilema

Hypothetical Syllogism

This group of syllogism are short, two-


premise deductive arguments, in which at
least one of the premises is a conditional, the
antecedent or consequent of which also
appears in the other premise. There are two
types of hypothetical syllogism;

144
1)Pure hypothetical Syllogisms (HS)
In this syllogism, both of the premises as
well as the conclusion are conditionals.
The validity of this syllogism relies on the
match of the antecedent of the one
premise with the consequent of the
other.
Antecedent ----------condition
Consequent ----------Result
2)Mixed hypothetical syllogism
In this syllogism, one of the premises is a
conditional while the other serves to
register affirmation or denial with either
the antecedent or consequent of that
conditional. There are four possible forms
of mixed hypothetical syllogism, two are
valid and two are invalid.
The valid forms;
A. (AA) Affirming the Antecedent (Modus
Ponens) ----- If p, then q
145
P
q
e.g. If parrot is a bird, then parrot flies
Parrot is a bird.
Parrot flies

B. (DC) Denying the Consequent (Modus


Ponens) ------ If p, then q
Not q
Not p
e.g. If Parrot is a bird, then Parrot flies
Parrot is not a bird.
Parrot doesn’t fly

The Invalid forms


C. (AC) Affirming the consequent
If p, then q
q
p
e.g. If parrot is a bird, then parrot flies
Parrot flies.
Parrot is a bird.

146
D. (DA) Denying the Antecedent
If p, then q.
Not p
Not q
e.g. If parrot is a bird, then parrot flies.
Parrot doesn’t fly.
Parrot is not a bird.

How to Reduce Hypothetical Syllogism


1) From hypothetical syllogism
If I study well, I will pass in Philosophy
I study well
Therefore, I will pass in Philosophy
To Classical Logic
Those who study well will pass in Philosophy
I study well
Therefore, I will pass in Philosophy

2) From Categorical
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man

147
Therefore, Socrates is a mortal
To Hypothetical syllogism
If Socrates is a man then he is mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.

3) From Hypothetical Syllogism


If P is Q a then R is S
R is not S
Therefore, P is not Q
To Another Hypothetical Syllogism
If R is not S then P is not Q
R is not Q
Therefore, A is not B
Disjunctive Syllogism
Historically this syllogism is known by
Latin word ‘modus tollendo ponens (MTP)’
means mode that affirms by denying. There
are two kinds of disjunctive syllogism;
(a) Strong Disjunctive Syllogism
148
(b) Weak Disjunctive Syllogism
a) Strong Disjunctive Syllogism
This is the one which uses format of
“either…or…”. In this syllogism, the two
possibilities are mutually exclusive. Both the
cases (Q and P) cannot be true or false at
the same time.
e.g. John is either dead of alive
Heifer is either a dog or a girl
b) Weak Disjunctive Syllogism
This is the one which the format
‘either…or…” does not apply. In this
syllogism there are possibilities for both to
be false at the same time.
e.g. He is stupid or idiotic
He is arrogant or stubborn.
General Rules for a Valid Disjunctive
Syllogism
I) In the case strong disjunctive syllogism it is
crystal clear that if the minor premise
149
affirms the conclusion must deny the other.
For that case, all four kinds are valid.
a. Either A or B
A
Therefore, not B

b. Either A or B
B
Therefore, not A

c. Either A or B
Not A
Therefore, B

d. Either A or B
Not B
Therefore, A
II) In weak disjunctive syllogism, the rules
states that, only a negative minor premise

150
gives us a valid conclusion. For that case,
only two forms are valid.
a. Either A or B
Not A
Therefore, B

b. Either A or B
Not B
Therefore, A

Complex Disjunctive Syllogism


In this type the major premise of
disjunctive syllogism may take in more than
two disjuncts.
The rules are also applied in this type of
syllogism, what should be considered is
whether it is strong or weak disjunction.
Note:
 If it is STRONG DISJUCNTION then what is
denied is in the minor must not be
affirmed in the conclusion.
151
 If it is WEAK DISJUNCTION then, only a
negative minor can give a valid conclusion.
e.g. She is either A or B or C or D or E or …
She is A
Therefore, she is neither B nor C nor D nor E
nor …. (Valid)

e.g. She is either A or B or C or D or ….


She is not B
Therefore, She is either A or C or D or..(Valid)

Logical Dilemma
The word originated from the two Greek
words ‘DI’ and ‘LEMMA’ to mean
‘double/two’ for ‘DI’ while ‘assumption’ for
‘LEMMA.’
Dilemma can be understood in a broad
and strict sense. In a broad sense, dilemma
plays as disjunctive arguments in general. In a
strict sense, dilemma plays as an argument in

152
which an alternative having been posited, it is
proved that both the alternates point to the
same conclusion.
e.g. Either A or B
If A then C
If B then C
Therefore, C
How to Analyze a Dilemma
A dilemma basically consists of a major
proposition which is always a disjunctive
proposition. Minor proposition is a compound
hypothetical proposition and its conclusion can
be either a categorical proposition or
disjunctive proposition. There are two types of
dilemma;
① Constructive Dilemma, which consists of
Simple Constructive and Complex
Constructive dilemma.
 A Simple Constructive
e.g. Either A or B (Major Premise)
153
If A then C (Minor Premise)
If B then C
Therefore, C (Conclusion)
Exampe;
He is either Gunewe or Gershom
If he is Gunewe then he is male
If he is Gershom then he is male
Therefore, he is male
 Complex Constructive
Either A or B (Major Premise)
If A then C (Minor Premise)
If B then D
Therefore, either C or D (Conclusion)
Example;
If the wife acts as the husband say the
neighbors will be unhappy.
If the wife acts as the neighbors say the
husband will be unhappy.

154
② Destructive Dilemma, which consists of
Simple Destructive and Complex
Destructive dilemma.

155
Chapter 10
FALLACIES

A fallacy is a violation of the rules and


principles of logic. Wherever there is a rule,
there is a possibility of its violation which leads
to fallacies. There are two types of fallacies;
a) Formal Fallacies
A formal fallacy is a violation of the form of
a valid syllogism.
b) Material Fallacies
A material fallacy is any erroneous
reasoning caused by the falsity of one or
the other of its premises.

There are two main categories of


fallacy,

1) Fallacies of Ambiguity
2) Contextual Fallacies (Subject Matter)

156
Fallacies of Ambiguity are the ones
which happen if terms have more than one
meaning.

 Fallacy of equivocation
This happens when one of the three terms in a
syllogism become ambiguous. If it happens in
the major term then it becomes ‘fallacy of
ambiguous major.’ If happens in the minor
term then it becomes ‘fallacy of ambiguous
minor.’
 Fallacy of Amphibology
It happens in the ambiguous construction of
a sentence.
e.g. Gershom Gunewe will come.
1st meaning: Gershom Gunewe (as one
person) will come
2nd meaning: telling Gershom that Gunewe
will come.

157
 Fallacy of Accent
The error comes from the accent or
emphasis on wrong word.
Ice cream ---- I scream
 Fallacy of Figures of Speech
Errors come from making mistake in
constructing similar words or similarity in
meaning.
Coarse – rough and not smooth or soft, or
not in very small pieces
Course- a set of classes or a plan of study
on a particular subject, usually resulting in
an examination or qualification
 Fallacy of composition
It happens when taking words as a unit
when they have to be taken separately.
e.g. Each brick in that building weighs less
than a pound. Therefore, the building
weighs less than a pound.

158
 Fallacy of division
It happens when taking words separately
when they should be taken as a unit or
collectively.
e.g. His house is about half the size of most
houses in the neighborhood. Therefore, his
doors must all be about 3 1/2 feet high.

Contextual Fallacies are the ones which


depend on the context or circumstances in
which sentences are used.

 Fallacy of Accident
The error comes from one’s confusing or
mixing some accidental quality of something
or somebody with the essential quality.

Logical Form:

X is a common and accepted rule.

Therefore, there are no exceptions to X.

159
Example:

I believe one should never deliberately hurt


another person, that’s why I can never be a
surgeon.

 Fallacy of Secundum Quid (stating as


absolutely truth)
The error comes in stating absolutely true.
e.g. the best wives come Tanzania (This is
not absolutely true but only relatively true.)
 Ignoring Refutation (Ignoratio Elenchi)
The error comes from not paying attention
to the question at the issue or problem in
discussion.
 Begging the question (Petitio Principii)
It is a logical fallacy which involves using a
premise to support itself. If the premise is
questionable, then the argument is bad.
 Fallacy of the Consequent
The error come when it is thought that the
antecedent and the consequent of a
160
hypothetical reasoning work
interchangeably.
e.g. If the Pastor is a good teacher, the
members will understand the Word of God.
 Fallacy of False Cause
The error come when wrongly assuring the
cause for why somebody came to a certain
conclusion whereas that was not real reason
at all.
 Fallacy of many questions
The error come when more than one
questions are asked as if they are one
question.

161
REFERENCES

1. Fisher Jennifer, On the Philosophy of Logic,


Thomas Wadworth, 2008.
2. Goble, Lou, ed., 2001. (Philosophical Logic).
Oxford: Blackwell.
3. Grayling, A. C., 1997. An Introduction to
Philosophical Logic. 3rd ed. Oxford:
Blackwell.
4. Jacquette, Dale, ed., 2002. A Companion to
Philosophical Logic. Oxford Blackwell.
5. Kneale, W&M (1962). The Development of
Logic. Oxford.
6. Quine, Willard Van Orman
(1970). Philosophy of Logic. Prentice Hall:
New Jersey USA.
7. Sainsbury, Mark, 2001. An Introduction to
Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Blackwell.
8. Strawson, PF (1967). Philosophical Logic.
OUP.
9. Wolfram, Sybil, 1989. Philosophical Logic:
An Intriduction. London: Routledge. 290
pages

162
10. Celestine Sahaya S. Essentials of Formal
Logic. Salvatorianum, Morogoro, Tanzania,
2010.
11. Journal of Philosophical Logic, Springer
SBM.
12. Hurly Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to
Logic. Clark Baxter Publishers. U.S.A
13. Phillip Jonhson C. Logic and Errors. Trinity
Graduate School of Apologetics and
Theology. Unpublished Module. India.
14. J Lear, Aristotle and logical
theory (Cambridge-New York, 1980).
15. J Lukasiewicz, Aristotle's Syllogistic from
the Standpoint of Modern Formal
Logic (1967).
16. J P Lynch, Aristotle's school: A Study of a
Greek Educational Institution (Berkeley,
1972).
17. https://en.wikipedia.org
18. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nyaya
19. https://www.iep.utm.edu/republic/

163