You are on page 1of 460

PRINCIPLES

OF
LOGIC

ROEHAMPTON

GRIFFIN

JOHN
BY

PRINTED

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

By
GEORGE

HAYWARD
M.A.,
PROFESSOR

ORIEL
OF

JOYCE,
COLLEGE,

OXFORD

ST.

MARY*S

LOGIC,

S.J.

HALL,

STONYHUR8T

SECOND

EDITION

GREEN

LONGMANS,
39,

ROW,

PATERNOSTER

FOURTH

AVENUE

BOMBAY,

"

3oxH

CALCUTTA,

CO.

AND
LONDON

STREET,
AND

MADRAS

NEW

YORK

PREFACE
IN

TO

issuing this

welcome

the

thanks

to

work

Scholastic

kind

very

The

such

expressing my

as

friendlynotices
in

were

those

by

manner

sympathy

whose

altogetherdifferent, tend
time

present

interest

new

principlesit

whose

system,

of

me

sophical
philoshow

to

is felt in

was

my

that

purpose

defend.

to

Since

publicationof

the

Traditional

the

More

that,

analysisof

an

as

worthless
a

than

Such

science.

possiblebecause
to

integralpart.

it

though

one

writer

our

mental

were

that

fail
.hariily

"But 'when

to

the

For
been
and

true

purpose

of the

carefullyrevised,
a

few

sections

is

been

has

re-

IV

studied

out

it forms

an

been

treated

Under

such

in the
value

becomes

as

cumstances
cir-

light of
is

seen.

the
Its

apparent, and

put beyond all dispute.

corrections

been

regarded

misinterpretedand

present edition

certain

have

be

its true

science

maintained

to be

of which

it is viewed

analysisof thought

be

long

whole.

validityas
to

hostile

convinced, is only

are

so

Schol'ist:cism

its claim

claim

we

principlesof
an

has

of

work

operations,it is entirely

fragment

independent

an

of this

object

of mark

philosophy

detailed

it could

undervalued.

for

has

the

of any

estimate,

an

Logic

of all relation

first edition

been

it is destitute

that

the

has

Logic

criticism.

as

affords

only by

Principlesof Logic

my

general standpoint, but


the

at

of

received.

positionwas
that

EDITION

critics for the

was

it, not

to

its

with

various

the

accorded

edition

new

opportunity it

my

which

in

SECOND

written.

the

have

work

been

has

made,

INTRODUCTION

work

THIS

is
termed

who

those

for

definite

principles.

Logic,

rational
be

The

interest.

the

with

made

been

From
of

source

of

Logic,

accord.

the

In

connected

whole

in it, have

each

When

that
in

parts
in

of

his

treatment

of them

its

with

harmony

adopts
Logic
his

scheme.

in

And

his

of

of

less

and

is that

book

compatible
has

attempt

some

principles

work,

should

on

With
and

the

its

our

must

be

though
yet

if it is to

principles.
there

these
it

treated

it is

standpoint,

remodelled,

science,

is

system

place.

other

some

of

full

in

are

subjects, traditionally
legitimate

tem
sys-

principles

rules
the

prove

elaborated

who

philosophical

traditional

the

Indeed

collection

is

as

Scholasticism,

of
the

his

far

position

thinkers

and

writer

this

fundamental

doctrines

light
;

mere

work,

this

view,

its

philosophy,

that

sarily
neces-

system.

in

as

Scholastics.

were

must

is based.

The

strength.

the

the

of

point

and

mind's

importance

adopted

of

purpose

philosophy

one

view

vindicate

to

that

which

of

save

the

of

validity,

little

of

philosophy

and

size

their

epistemolo-

and

theory

it becomes

case,

point

Scholastic

the

of

of

rules, possessed

technical

the

as

in

even

logical questions

larger philosophical

the

is not

this

when

of

part

with

impossible,

metaphysical

regard

in

processes

deal

to

with

connexion

gical

this,

as

it is

Yet

time.

first

such

text-book
in

the

for

philosophical

with

acquaintance

making

is intended

and

Logic,

is frequently

what

of

presentment

Traditional

the
are

questions

at

attempt

an

will

will

be

subjects
be

For
no

may

manifest

evitable
inbe

some

place
find
that

vi

INTRODUCTION

they are

present

of deference

demand.

to

In

unwelcome

as

and

custom

such

case,

guests, only tolerated


the

exigenciesof
student

young

out

popular

well be

may

excused, if he fails to grasp the bearingof the questionat


issue.
From

point of view,

another

be

principlesmust

it

it will be

asked, the universities,one

discarded

Scholasticism

this is true

That
submitted

At

ancient

our

neglect of

the
of

Albert
are

the

found

that

there

that

famous

once

been

school.

are

Scotus

The

knowing.

writers

From

universal.

Duns

they are weighed


ignored. It is assumed

(derSprung

ages

of

names

that

worth

German

certain

The

Aquinas, of

It is not

the middle

leap over
has

franklyadmitted.
there has been a complete
seats of learning,
philosophers,the repregreat mediaeval
sentatives

wanting. They
is nothing in them

of what

have

which

be

influences,must

mentioned.

and

not,

all,long since

universities

Great, of St. Thomas

never

and

Have

of all those

to secular

tic
that Scholas-

seem

of weakness.

source

might

have

the

Mittelalter),'

Bacon

to

'

termed

uber das

Plotinus

tice
prac-

has

been

regardedas a blank in the historyof philosophy.1


the period thus ignored was
Yet by common
consent
of intense philosophicactivity. Metaphysicalproone
blems
were

with

since unknown

; and

world

seen

day.
those

has
Nor

the

was

immature

problems
two
*

ever

It is with

Thomas
Summa,
Littera

is

now

contra

philosophy of

universe.

pleasure

we

Gentiles has
But
so

to

been

that

Arabian
at Oxford

candidates
made

this welcome

long prevailed.

an

in the
the

had

men

schools

of the

Scholastics

first time

the

acumen

greatest intellects the

arise when

These

and

notice

recommended

has

nurtured

were

of Greek

humaniores.

neglect which

of the

some

grapple for

of the

streams

interest,a zeal, an

an

systems, which

is called to

man

discussed

the

with

one

of

mind

of

the

inherited

thought. They
the

Summa

great
the

had

Theologica of St.

for theological honours, and his


optional subject in the school of

change only

testifies to

the

complete

vii

INTRODUCTION

themselves

set

to

and

master

develop

to

Plato, of Aristotle, of Avicenna,

of

the

conclusions

of Averroes.

They

Peripateticschool alone, but


further by Stoicism, Neo-platonism,Augustinianism.1 It
of those
is significant
that
nearly every thinker, even
enough
occupying a hostile position,who has devoted
influenced

were

and

time

attention

Scholastic

the

themselves

in the
The

Neo-Scholastics

results attained

of the

that

conclusions.

of their

this is

They

are

of the

great inheritance

ignoringof

deliberate

matter

For

for reflection.

progress.

Advance

must

of

in that

no

wise

likelyto impair the


but claiming their

value

epoch,

so

famous

Europe, may
be

won

well
law

as

laid

by

our

one

provide

of human
the

by buildingon

predecessors. The nature


social,involves his subjectionto
essentially

foundations

share

period,and

continuity is the
ever

avail

to-day

past.

fruitful for the civilization of

so

has

matter,

philosophers.2

will consider

man

the

great synthesiseffected

the

for

therefore, the

When,

understand

to

admiration

expressedhis
by

the

by

not

of man,

this law.

Cf. de Wulf, Scholasticism


Old and New, trans, by P. Coffey, p. 45. Picavet.
Esquisse d'une histoire des philosophies medi"vales.
2
The
of sympathy
be accused
can
opinions of two authors neither of whom
Professor Huxley writes
Scholasticism
follows :
with
be of interest.
as
may
The
Scholastic
of the patience and
monument
philosophy is a wonderful
mind
toiled to build up a logicallyconsistent
ingenuity with which the human
And
that philosophy is by no
dead
and
means
theory of the Universe.
of men
buried
of no mean
On the contrary, numbers
as many
vainly suppose.
and
of rare
sometimes
and
subtlety of
learning and accomplishment
power
it
the
And
best theory of things which has yet been stated.
as
thought, hold by
what is still more
who
remarkable,
men
speak the language of modern
sophy,
philothink the thoughts of the Schoolmen."
Science and Culture,
nevertheless
Lect. 2. Universities,p. 41.
Hartmann
Somewhat
similarly von
speaks of
Scholasticism
and close-knit system of thought, of which none
a wonderful
as
think
the bias of partythose
who
have not yet overcome
can
lightly save
learnt
view
from
Die Selbstto
an
feeling nor
things
objective standpoint."
des
Christenthums, p. 75.
zersetzung
It would
from the great minds
not be difficult to multiply such testimonies
of every
Ubi
in
Thus
morali consentiunt
Grotius
re
writes,
century.
Hugo
vix est ut errent.'
De Jure Belli et Pads, Proleg : " 52.
Cf. also
[Scholastici]
Leibniz, Epist. ad Thomasium, 49, and Trots Lettres a M. de Montmort, Lettre
III.
On
the other hand
of Scholasticism, Cette
the atheist Diderot
says
philosophic a 6t6 une des plus grandes plaiesdel'esprithumain."
CEuvres,torn.
"

"

'

'

xix. p. 372.

viii

INTRODUCTION

Pascal
'

'

'

has

well

la suite des

said,

"

C'est grace

hommes

le

pendant

doit

etre

siste

toujours et qui apprend


to

attempt
former

considered

break

beginning,has
fundamental

initiated

; for

to

aside

what

make

fresh

forward

step has

is to

act

down

violate

Movements

thus

progressive.
to do

civilization of the

middle

ages.

the

of
past, the repudiation

the

The

strove

hardly-won

Of that

effort.

centuries of strenuous

pull

to

sub-

qui

of the Renaissance

men

valueless

as

so

nature.

our

the Christian

regard to

They put

No

retrograde,not

the

si"cles

continuellement."

in failure.
way

of

been

have

this is what

Yet
in

law

de

tant

past, to dispense with

the

in that

toute

que

homme,

meme

un

ended

ever

taken

been

with

de

cours

generations have
accomplished,
they have laboriouslybuilt and to

what

ever

comme

la tradition

the

results

of five

great revolt against

traditional

philosophywas

integralpart.

an

It

Descartes

was

which

in

Scholastic

And

without

worthless,that

be

but

of many

Since the

differ

as

other

any

it

the

was

work

of

not

the

has

philosophy.

that

note

by

man,

of modern

its lesson to

he

assigns

the School
a

to

singlemind

minds.2

days of Descartes, many

sensationalist
system, idealist,
offered

held

holding the philosophy of

for

reason

than

more

synthesis,

new

place once

the father

regarded as

it is not
his

as

He,

system.

be

rightto

filled the

measure

some

first framed

who

solution

widely

among

differentiates

them

all

any

been

aptly termed

system
1
a

which

riddles.
But

the
Preface

main
to the

one

from

alike

systems

common

ture
fea-

Scholasticism.

of

stream
treatise Du
I.

of

some

sential
es-

inseparable

seems

itself from

Descartes, Meditation

These

omission

the

characteristic
severs

philosophical

materialist,has been

themselves.

This

from

and

of the world's

They simplifythe problem by


element.

another

that

which

has

European thought.

Vide.

ix

INTRODUCTION

The

factors, with

the

faced

philosophy
shirked

the

on

Contingent Being

Absolute

and

guishing
distin-

the

world

order

which

with

it is

as

regardsthe soul, it is

materialist
in relation to the
not
; and
spiritualist,
of knowledge, it is objectivist,
teaching that
intellect is capable of valid cognitionin regard of

external

it

Unconditioned

and

soul
As

the other.

on

completeness

and

the

"

Scholastic

The

its

three

are

creationist,thus

It is

as

hand,

one

in

problem

God

between

soul.

human

of it.

element

no

Being

the

world, and

the

God,

deal,

philosophymust

which

into

brought

blem
prothe
that

contact

by

substitutes

for

the senses.1
In

novel

the

philosophiesproposed

Scholasticism, sometimes

of the

one

another, is omitted

; and

that

both

with

God

and

thus

Neo-Hegelianism

which

life of the

Divine

aside, and

the

in the

soul

the soul alone

and

of this.

Men

scheme

which

does

of

the

pointsof
Of

not

from

distinction

to

la

pas
le

is but

conscious
is set
in

again,as

; God

all the

with

by

any
The

facts.

be with

it may

or

more,

natural

the

satisfied

singleprejudice

truth, it will

continually

in succession

move

all

to

ualite
spirit

ranger

which
philosophies,

modern

acceptance,

our

entre

not

one

can

claim

Toute
Philosophic M edievale,p. 222.
de la personalite humaine,
Fame
ou

offer

Dieu

parmi

la

et

de
les

la

creature,
scolastique.

est

adversaires

materialisme, la migration

des

ames,

nos

yeux,

be

to

theorie

"

de

principes fondamentaux

"nseigne

in

as

the compass.

essentielle

n'hesitons

any

it traces, and

Cf. deVfulf.Histoiredela

negatrice

only

it is biassed

surely as

as

curve

themselves

de

for

account

multiplicityof

the

others,

is eliminated

systems
long rest

will not

withholdingit
change

In

others

world

thought swings, with

velocity,but

less

Materialism,

the

In

kept.

fall of

and

result

pendulum

soul.

e.g.

remain.

rapid rise

The

des

is

as

consciousness, God

human

alone

solution remains

the

finds

philosophyof Berkeley,the

the

the

times
factors, some-

three

and inadequate. Some,


unsatisfactory

dispense

as

ou

de

la

subversive

pourquoi nous
scolastique quiconque
1'atheisme ou le pantheisme."
de

Voila

la

INTRODUCTION

more

than

and

honour

who

the

shibboleth

them.

propounded

given

to

from

science

of

state

But

the

the

more

As

men

of the least evils that

one

things,that

of

of

than
at

have

look

now

many

dress.

our

the

We

convenient

physical
given to any

the

at

so

thought-forms of

it in accordance
the

with

the

and

come

doctrines

go

like

them

representingfacts.
universe

on

of Kant

basis

they do

age

systems, and

other

this

regard

not

of

present

from

philosophy as a
particularage.

should

mode

arisen

on

period interpretedthe

one

Aristotelianism,

adopt

it is not

philosophy.

fashions

as

set

of

it is not

so

they

As

whole

body of doctrines purely relative to


Philosophicalsystems, they hold, must
the

recognize

may

task, which

reconstruct

its first foundations,

to reconstruct

It is not

to

man

any

We

great for their powers.

too

was

school.

full,the great abilityof the thinkers

to the

themselves,

of

well

to

interpret
of

or

Hegel.

scepticismof such a view, NeoScholasticism


utters its protest. Philosophy is a science
the
highest of the sciences.
Just as in the natural
sciences, the long line of investigators
graduallypushes
the frontiers of human
forward
knowledge, and age by
Against

corrosive

"

increases

age

the

number

permanent conquests of
Wherever
is true

advance

by
'

'

Professor

the

real

"

de Wulf.
to

'

teenth, is in itself

an

completelychange

from

'

'

'

of

seven

out

relativism

years
is

an

and

epoch

that
to

ago, is true
error

that

philosophia
perennis
"

that

made,

plantdown

sort

"

of

deeply

century, the

the Scholasticism

admission

sophy.
philo-

he writes,

twentieth

of the

thir-

philosophy cannot

epoch

that

the

truth

to-day : that out and


down
through all the

oscillations of historical systems, there


with

been

endeavour,"

of the

animated

hundred

it is in

so

the

are

point has been well put

The

controversies

which
principles

'

has

advance

The

which

truths

mind,

re-establish

'

'

the human

for all time.

Neo-Scholasticism
among

of those

of

is

ever

to

be

atmosphere of

met

truth

INTRODUCTION

'

the centuries

up
'

undiluted

and

pure
'

brightclear rays have lighted


of the darkest
through the shadows

whose

even

gloomiest clouds

and

For
.

'deceptive aspiration
'

'

'

'

xi

if

'

after

be

reason

aught

but

the

absolutelyinaccessible,
has
been
surely whatever
brought to light,whatever
have
ancestors
our
unearthed, and
acquired in their
have
pioneer labours, cannot
proved entirelyworthless
"*
posterity.'

to

It is not
ticism

of

of

to-day is in

of
of

the

to be

course

the

middle

mediseval

Moreover

all

supposed

points identical
The

ages.

doctors

the Scholasticism

with

astronomical

physics

theoreticallyerroneous.

were

questions have

new

the Neo-Scholas-

that

arisen,

difficulties

new

been

been
made.
The
discoveries have
suggested,new
adversaries
of to-day are not the adversaries againstwhom
the mediseval
doctors
called to contend.
In adaptwere
ing
methods
of the day, we do not discard
to the needs
our
the

principlesof

belongs to
and

it

employs

It has
the

the

the

Scholastics.

twentieth
the weapons

seemed

advisable

standpointadopted
little is known
which

its

century,

has

taken

strength is better

of

new

make

to

in this

But

Neo-Scholasticism

not

to

the

this brief

of the reaction

understood.

age.

book, since in

place in

thirteenth

recent

apology for
paratively
England com-

towards
years.

ticism
ScholasAbroad

The

importance of the
works
of men
such as Mercier, de Regnon, de
philosophical
de Vorges, Carra
de Vaux,
Wulf, Nys, Farges, Domet
Mandonnet,
Seeberg, Asin y Palacios, is acknowledged
by all competent judges.2 In England, for obvious
1

De Wulf, Scholasticism
Old and New, trans, by Coffey, p. 161.
Mercier, Cours de Philosophic,Louvain
1897-1903 ; de Regnon, Metaphysique
des Causes, Paris 1886 ; de Wulf, Histoire de la Philosophic Medievale,
Louvain
2

Philosophiques, Paris
Farges, Etudes
de
Vorges, Abrege
Metaphysique, Paris 1906 ; Carra
de
Avicenne, Gazali, Paris 1900, 1904 ; Mandonnet,
Vaux,
Siger de Brabant
latin au
et V Averroisme
xiiie Siecle,Fribourg-en-Suisse 1899 ; Seeberg, Die Theologie des Johannes Duns
Scoius, Leipzig 1900 : Asin y Palacios, El Averroisme
de S. Thomas
the
de Aquino, Saragoza 1904.
add
To these
must
we
teologico
valuable
work
most
Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittclalters edited
and G. von
Dante
et la philosophic
Ozanam's
by C. Baumker
Hertling, Mlinster.
1900

Nys,

1892-1907

Cosmologie,

Domet

de

Louvain

1900

INTRODUCTION

xii

the

reasons,

of those

who

significance.

In

least

follows

his

in

Britannica
*

'

trine, and

catching

Hegel,

and

Caird,

Martineau,

out

Universal

a
'

this

However

'visible

for

alike

and

Maher

service

will

result

catholique
to

a
1

as

wider

xiiie

au

circle

M.

Picavet,

follows

in

Allemagne
cited

by

in

no

leur

Mercier,

the

over

at

others

Sorbonne,
for

la

Origines

avec

Belgique
grandit
de

en

la Psych,

be

mentioned,

we

no

friend

1896

on

contemp.

the

generous

as

book

appealing

named.

of

"

Les

the

avec
meme

eux
en

c.

8.

writes

movement,

catholiques,

information

compte

France,

the

friends.

other

have

of

prove

written,

to

and

ample

une

been

Rev.

the

to

work

due

also

may

the

Philosophique

influence

it has

ther
fur-

I must

If my

these

by

and

suggestions,

Rigby.

measure

than

and

S. Hitchcock

obligations

small

1855,

completent
de

T.

G.

my

use

me

professor
Revue

maitres

les

is

movement

proof-sheets.

whose

siecle, Paris

qu'ils

Thomisme,
devenus

for

of readers

the

the

reading

accorded

assistance

metaphysics.

the

Rev.

criticisms

Rev.

the

be

of

ground

to

Thomism

the

to

acknowledge

those

to

due

are

in

gratefully
M.

of

spread

valuable

many

kindness

his

for

effort

while

thanks

sincerest

My

the

with-

faith

their

of

Green,

succession,

system

power

from

now

from

every

sane

the

be,

world."

"civilized

of

basis

doc-

of

wind

Kant,

in

making

on

from

enough

the

are

may

Ward

the

seeing

at

home

at

as

Encyclopedia

every

from

or

and

considered

Church

by

Balfour

the

its

writes

Case

regret

now

Lotze

Catholics

Roman

the

straws,

from

now

having

ever

at

about

at

some

underrated

not

in

feel

but

blown

But

Professor

Metaphysics

cannot

Churches

it have

it

to

on

One

Reformed

regard

felt.

less

noticed

have

article
"

been

has

movement

unis

en

Hollande

le

par

scientifique,

sent

Amerique

et

et

Suisse-'

en

en

CONTENTS

PART

LOGIC

THE

OF

THOUGHT

CHAPTER

NATURE

THE

AND

AIM

OF

LOGIC

PAGE

"

DEFINITION

i.

2.

"

3.

"
"

OF

DIVISIONS

"

4.

THE

LOGIC

OF

LOGIC

PLACE

OF

OF

LOGIC

PHILOSOPHY

IN

Note.
"

LOGIC

OF

8
VIEWS

DIFFERENT

AS

CONCEPT

THE

i.

THE

"

2.

REPUGNANT

"

4.

"

5.

"

6.

NAME

THE

TERM

CONCEPT

"

3.

LOGIC.

OF

II

THE

SCOPE

THE

TO

CHAPTER

"

....

SCOPE
HISTORY

5.

LOGIC

15
CONCEPTS

18

CLEAR

ADEQUATE,

CONCEPTS

OBSCURE

AND

18
.

THE

NAME

AND

TERM

THE

CATEGOREMATIC

19

SYNCATEGOREMATIC

AND

WORDS
.

DIVISIONS

TERMS

OF

"

7.

SINGULAR,

"

8.

ABSTRACT

"

9.

CONNOTATIVE

19
20

GENERAL

COLLECTIVE

AND

TERMS

21
.

CONCRETE

AND

TERMS

23

NON-CONNOTATIVE

AND

TERMS
.

"

10.

POSITIVE

"

ii.

ABSOLUTE

"

12.

TERMS

NEGATIVE

AND

RELATIVE

AND
OF

FIRST

TERMS

31

TERMS
SECOND

AND

32
INTENTION

34

...

"

13.

UNIVOCAL,

"

14.

OPPOSITION

15.

THE

"

EQUIVOCAL

AND

ANALOGOUS

TERMS
.

'

OF

SUPPOSITIO

TERMS

25

35

36

'

OF

THE

xiii

TERM

37

xiv

CONTENTS

III

CHAPTER
THE

PROPOSITION

THE

AND

JUDGMENT

PAGE
i.

THE

2.

ANALYSIS

"
"
"

PROPOSITION
OF

4.

QUALITY
QUANTITY

"

5.

THE

"

6.

ANALYTIC

"

7.

COMPLEX

"

8.

COMPOUND

"

9.

"

3.

OF

41

46

PROPOSITIONS

OF

46

SCHEME

PROPOSITIONS

OF

SYNTHETIC

AND

PROPOSITIONS

...

50

...

51

PROPOSITIONS

55

CATEGORICAL

MODAL

PROPOSITIONS

56

....

PROPOSITIONS

10.

REDUCTION

"

ii.

HYPOTHETICAL

12.

JUDGMENT

THE

PROPOSITIONS

FOURFOLD

"

"

39

58

PROPOSITIONS

OF

TO

FORM

LOGICAL

61
.

PROPOSITIONS

63

PROPOSITIONS

DISJUNCTIVE

65

CHAPTER

THE

LAWS

OF

"

i.

THE

LAWS

"

2.

THE

LAW

OF

CONTRADICTION

" 3.

THE

LAW

OF

IDENTITY

" 4.

THE

LAW

OF

EXCLUDED

" 5.

OTHER

OF

VIEWS

IV

THOUGHT

THOUGHT

AS

67
69
71
MIDDLE
SOURCE

THE

TO

73
OF

LAWS

THE

OF

THOUGHT

75

CHAPTER
DIAGRAMMATIC

i.

OF

REPRESENTATION
:

"

OPPOSITION

DIAGRAMMATIC
EULER'S

TIONS
PROPOSI-

PROPOSITIONS

OF

REPRESENTATION

PROPOSITIONS

OF

CIRCLES

"

2.

DISTRIBUTION

"

3.

OTHER

OF

77
TERMS

METHODS

IN

PROPOSITION

TION
REPRESENTA-

DIAGRAMMATIC

OF

81

...

82

" 4.
" 5.

"

6.

THE

OPPOSITION

OPPOSITION

AS

CONTRADICTORY

OF
A

84

PROPOSITIONS

MEANS

OF

INFERENCE

OPPOSITION

THE

OUTSIDE

88

....

FOLD
FOUR-

SCHEME

" 7.

CONTRARY

SCHEME

OPPOSITION

89
OUTSIDE

THE

FOURFOLD
90

CONTENTS

xv

VI

CHAPTER
IMMEDIATE

INFERENCE
PAGE

"

i.

IMMEDIATE

"

2.

CONVERSION

"
"

3.
4.

EQUIPOLLENCE

6.

" 7.

"

8.

92
93

ARISTOTLE'S

" 5.

"

INFERENCE

PROOF

CONVERSION

OF

98

CONTRAPOSITION

99

INVERSION
TABLE

101
OF

RESULTS

102

VARIETIES

OTHER

IMMEDIATE

OF

INFERENCE
.

CHAPTER
THE

IMPORT

"

i.

IMPORT

"

2.

THE

CLASS-INCLUSION

"

3.

THE

ATTRIBUTIVE

4.

IMPLICATION

"

OF

6.

MR.

BRADLEY

" 7.

PREDICATIVE

"

109
no

Il6

PROPOSITION

THE

CHAPTER

THE

PREDICABLES

"

2.

THE

TREE

" 3.
" 4.

THE

CONTROVERSY

"

THE

UNIVERSAL

PREDICABLES
121

129

PREDICABLES

131
UNIVERSALS

ON
IN

THE

MODERN

CATEGORIES

THE

CATEGORIES

IN

THE

CATEGORIES

AND

4.

THE

"

5.

MILL'S

132

LOGIC

135

IX

CATEGORIES

THE

"

119

VIII

CHAPTER

" i.
" 2.
" 3.

PORPHYRY

OF

ARISTOTLE'S

5.

117
PROPOSITION
.

THE

105
106

HYPOTHETICAL

THE

i.

VlEW
ON

"

VIEW

EXISTENCE

COMPARTMENTAL

OF

VIEW

OF

102

PROPOSITIONS

OF

VIEW

THE

IMPORT

VII

PROPOSITIONS

" 5.

"

97

OBVERSION

OR

IN

METAPHYSICAL

THEIR

LOGICAL

THEIR

ASPECT
.

CATEGORIES

SCIENCES

THE

AS

137

ASPECT.
.

142
144

CLASSIFICATION

OF

CATES
PREDI145

" 6.
" 7.

SCHEME

THE

CATEGORIES

THE

CONCEPT

CATEGORIES

OF
OF

OF

147

KANT

148

BEING
.

,."...

149

CONTENTS

xvi

CHAPTER
DEFINITION

AND

DIVISION
PAGE

"

"

i.

DEFINITION

2.

VARIOUS

150
KINDS

DEFINITION

OF

152

" 3.

LIMITS

OF

DEFINITION

159

" 4.

RULES

OF

DEFINITION

159

"

5.

LOGICAL

"

6.

RULES

165

DICHOTOMY

BY

KINDS

VARIOUS

8.

161

DIVISION

OF

DIVISION

" 7.

"

DIVISION

i6j6

DIVISION

OF

168

CHAPTER
CATEGORICAL

THE

i.

THE

"

2.

RELATION
TO

"
"
"
"

OF

4.

FIGURES

5.

SPECIAL

6.

THE

" 7.
" 8.

PREMISSES

169
CONCLUSION

TO

AND

OF

FOUR

SUPERIORITY

"

THE

"

3.

EXPRESSION

"

4.

PROGRESSIVE

OF

OF

FIG.

VALIDITY

SYLLOGISM

INFERENCES

8.

MR.

187
191

FORM

193

....

SYLLOGISMS

REGRESSIVE

SYLLOGISM

THE

OTHER

199
SYLLOGISTIC

THAN

THEORY

AND

HYPOTHETICAL
HYPOTHETICAL
OF

194
195

REASONING

BRADLEY'S

REDUCTION

(II)

REASONING

SYLLOGISTIC

AND
OF

7.

MIXED

179

186

FIGURE
IN

MATHEMATICAL

2.

XII

OF

....

200

....

201

INFERENCE

XIII

CHAPTER

"

177

181

SYLLOGISTIC

FOURTH

6.

i.

LINES

CATEGORICAL

2.

"

182

CANON

"

FIGURES

REDUCTION

i.

"

172

SYLLOGISM,

THE

THE

OF

MNEMONIC

"

"

REGARD

SYLLOGISM

THE

OF

MOODS

RULES

THE

5.

IN

172
RULES

CHAPTER

"

(I)

TRUTH

GENERAL

3.

SYLLOGISM

SYLLOGISM

CATEGORICAL

"

XI

DISJUNCTIVE

SYLLOGISMS

SYLLOGISMS

HYPOTHETICAL

203

SYLLOGISMS

206

xvill

CONTENTS

PAGE

"

8.

FIGURE

"

9.

ACCIDENT

SPEECH

OF

272

274
ABSOLUTE

MENT
STATE-

10.

CONFUSION

ii.

IGNORATIO

12.

PETITIO

13.

FALLACY

"

14.

FALSE

CAUSE

280

"

15.

MANY

QUESTIONS

281

"

16.

MILL'S

"

OF

QUALIFIED

AND

275

"
"
"

ELENCHI

276

PRINCIPII
OF

278
CONSEQUENT

THE

CLASSIFICATION

OF

LOGIC,

282

FALLACIES

PART

APPLIED

279

....

II

OR

THE

OF

METHOD

SCIENCE

CHAPTER
LOGIC

APPLIED

AND

XVIII

THE

LOGIC

OF

THOUGHT

"

i.

SCIENCE

"

2.

THE

"

3.

LOGIC

"

4.

THE

"

5.

BACON

304

"

6.

MILL

306

PHILOSOPHY

AND

SUBDIVISIONS

OF

289
PHILOSOPHY

BREACH

WITH

298
PAST

THE

300

CHAPTER
OBSERVATION

"
"

i.

THE

2.

IN

FUNCTION
WHAT

" 3.

CONDITIONS

"

4.

EXPERIMENT

"

5.

NATURAL

"

6.

RELATIVE

293

METAPHYSICS

AND

EXPERIMENT

AND

OF

OBSERVATION
OF

XIX

OBSERVATION

AND

EXPERIMENT.

310

CONSISTS

311

OBSERVATION
.

313

315
EXPERIMENTS
ADVANTAGES

317
OF

OBSERVATION

AND

PERIMENT
EX-

317

CONTENTS

xix

CHAPTER
METHODS

OF

XX

INDUCTIVE

ENQUIRY
PAGE

i.

THE

2.

FURTHER

"

EXPERIMENTAL

FOUR

METHODS

320

....

"

OF

METHODS

THE

" 3.

THE

FUNCTION

OF

"

ILLUSTRATIONS

4.

OF

METHODS

THE

IN

PROVING

325

LAW

NATURE

CRITICISM

330
MILL'S

OF

CANONS

333

CHAPTER

XXI

EXPLANATION

"

i.

EXPLANATION

"

2.

EXPLANATION

BY

REGRESSIVE

3.

EXPLANATION

BY

HYPOTHETICAL

4.

HYPOTHETICAL

337
REASONING
.

"
"

" 5.

"

6.

DEDUCTION
EMPLOYED

AS

RULES

OF

339

341

343

NEWTON

BY

NEWTON'S

INDUCTION

AND

EXPLANATION

DEDUCTION

344

PHILOSOPHIZING

CHAPTER

349

XXII

HYPOTHESIS

"

i.

HYPOTHESIS

"

2.

ORIGIN

"

3.

CONDITIONS

"

4.

VARIOUS

354
OF

HYPOTHESIS
OF

KINDS

357

LEGITIMATE

A
OF

HYPOTHESIS
.

HYPOTHESES

CHAPTER

359

361

XXIII

DETERMINATION:

QUANTITATIVE

ELIMINATION

OF

CHANCE

"

i.

MEASUREMENT

," 2.

METHODS

"

3.

CHANCE

4.

ELIMINATION

5.

PROBABILITY

"
"

363
OF

367

APPROXIMATION

369
OF

CHANCE

372
373

CHAPTER

XXIV

CLASSIFICATION

"

i.

CLASSIFICATION

380

CONTENTS

xx

PAGE

"

2.

"

3.

ARTIFICIAL

CLASSIFICATION

382

"

"
"

4.
5.

THE

DOCTRINE

NATURAL

SPECIES

NATURAL

OF

CLASSIFICATION

CLASSIFICATION

384
389

SERIES

BY

393

CHAPTER

XXV

METHOD

"

i.

SCIENTIFIC

METHOD

395

"

2.

"

3.

"
"

4.

5.

THE

METHODIC

PURSUIT

PHILOSOPHIC

OF

TRUTH

398

TERMINOLOGY
400

DESCARTES'

LEIBNIZ'S

RULES
VIEWS

OF

ON

METHOD
402
METHOD

404

PRINCIPLES

PART:

THE
N.B.
marked

OF

LOGIC

The

with

THOUGHT

is recommended

student

(*) for

asterisk

an

LOGIC

OF

to

second

CHAPTER

THE

"

which

attainment

of

truth.

we

mean

it

when

true

outward

our

For

present
the

if

Thus

white/

my

thought

the

the

said

therefore,

purposes,
of

conformity

the

horse,

and

judgment

is said

to

the

with

corresponds

true
we

'

judge
be

thing

true,
about

in

the

to
the

merely
It

is

ous.
errone-

or

define

may

its

with

intellect

white

see

is
within.

be

to

the

which

statement

thought

properly

are

of

reality

as

is said

assertion

verbal

of

expression
which

as

the

mind

of the

An

to

defined

maybe

truth

But

thoughts

truth

Logic

corresponds

made.

is

assertion

work.

LOGIC.

OF

operations

by

the

reading of

AIM

Logic.
the

passages

I.

AND

directs

do

What

the

of

Definition

i.

science

be

NATURE

the

reserve

That

object.
is

horse

because

my
I

which

am

judging.
The
true

aim

of

all

judgment,
there

alone,

are

our

which
certain

operations

If I endeavour

judgments.
proposition,

mental

our

object

my
is

in

to

is

to

definite

thinking faculty

ways

establish

in

the

arrive

conformity
in

with

attain

to

cal
geometriend

reality.

which,

proceed

must

is

and

in

at

Now
which

achieve

if it is to
B

PRINCIPLES

enables

the
if

mental

types of
rules, which

we

arrive

to

are

us, it is very

shows

truth,

to

us, not

to

better

cause.

conclusions

if their

to

are

definition

of the

It

For,
a

as

reasoning,
experience

men

true.

be

given

will

boast

they could make


They effected

be

learn

we

that

way

was

mind

catalogue these

this way
in
observe

rules which

violatingthe
by skilfully

tion
Reflec-

In

in

argue

that

to

result.

error.

Greece

the

be

to

appear

needs
true

easy
but
to

ancient

Sophistsin

at

and

action.

must

we

real order.

operations

to know

able

are

we

the

observe

to

us

hence

common

LOGIC

faithfully
representingthe

its task of

and

OF

bring

of
the

the

worse

this

end

observe,

must

of

Logic,in which
in a different aspect. Logic is
the science is considered
the science which
treats of the conceptualrepresentation
of the real order ; in other words, which has for its subjectmatter
things as they are representedin our thought.
Another

may

this definition

difference between

The

that which

we

this definition expresses


We
Logic, the former its aim.

first instance, is that

in the

gave

and

subject-matterof
shall find as we
proceed that
the

understood, unless

both

these

the

science

aspects

are

scarcelybe
kept in view.

can

Logic therefore is not to teach us some


facts. This
of discovering new
belongs to the
way
sphere. It assists us in
specialsciences,each in its own
the

of

work

The

of truth, because

attainment

what

mind

the

which

which

represents things,and

those

are

must

be

it treats

general
observed

conditions
whatever

of the
thus

way
shows

in
us

of

be

right thinking,
the subjectwhich

occupies us.
Where

we

have

lished
systematic body of securely estab-

drawn
principlesand of conclusions legitimately
there we
in
Thus
these principles,
have a science.
from
start
from certain general
the science of Astronomy we
laws, and have a body of conclusions derived from these.
tute
Mere
facts not brought under generallaws do not constiWe
are
a science.
rightlysaid to have a science of
ples
Logic,for, as we shall see, it consists of a body of princiand legitimate
conclusions,such as we have described.

THE

"

Divisions

2.

in which
which

the mind

else.

That

called

an

which

LOGIC

simplest act
is the judgment
"

of the mind
the

something of something
(or denied) of the other is
which
it is said to belong

that

to

belong) is called a subject. Hence


judgment as the act by which the mind

to

define

denies

attribute

an

of

involves

attribute.

must

We

these

mind

mind

the

gives
two

therefore

of the

we

may

affirms

subject.

however

judgment
object: for it

by

act

denies

or

is affirmed
:

OF

The

truth

affirms

attribute

(or not
or

of Logic.
attain

it can

AIM

AND

NATURE

complex
subject and
a

parts

"

take

of

account

more

judgment, viz. : Simple


Apprehension.
Simple apprehension is the act by which
the mind
without
judging,forms a concept of something.
Thus
if I should conceive
without
the notion of a triangle,
however
making any judgment about it, I should
be said to have
formed
angle.
a
simple apprehension of a triThe
words
false cannot
be applied to
true
or
that
the
cannot
simple apprehensions, just as we
say
words
in a dictionaryare
false.
true
Some
or
phers
philosoindeed
forms
a
deny that the mind ever
simple
ment
judgapprehension; they hold that in every case some
is made.
this
need
not
enter
into
We
question.
We
at least analyse the judgment into simple apprecan
hensions
for
two
:
concepts, one
every judgment requires
elementary act

in which
which

given

the

mind

elements

'

to

say

which

go

of

judgment, and they


it. Logic therefore
from
is

There

from

third

Inference.
two

constitute

must

deal

of the

with

Thus
roses

these, but

if I say

wither

flower is

in
rose

as,

of

These

complex

act

in isolation
the

concept.

to

third

implicitlycontained

"

the autumn

the act by which


passes

one

ing
mind, namely Reason-

given judgments, the mind

hi them.

the

in

example

horse,and

considered

be

can

in the

other

is white.'

horse

is defined

This

distinct from

\This

to

process

judgment
(All

The

the

subject,and

Thus
it expresses
the attribute.
have a concept of
above, I must

the

or

the

expresses

whiteness, in order
are

than

PRINCIPLES

Therefore
if I argue
'Whatever

or

LOGIC

in the autumn;

flower will wither

This

"

displaysthe

parts is due
The

OF

to

harmonious

an

displaysthe

world,

orderingof
cause
;
intelligent
harmonious
orderingof

many

many

parts;
Therefore

said in each

am

case

form

of the

inference

examples, is called
as
given are known
from

the

three

science

divisions,
"

due

to

an

intelligent

the

to infer the third

judgment. An
have
which
we
employed in these
a
syllogism. The two
judgments
the premisses. The
rived
judgment deconclusion.

is the

them

It is of these
and

is

cause

world

The

acts

of the

mind

that

Logic treats

falls

correspondinglyinto three main


Logic (i)of the Concept, (2)of the ment,
Judg-

(3) of Inference.
Since Logic deals with
to

account

of

different

thought. It
point of view

is concerned
the

words

extent

some

with

words

thought, it necessarilytakes
of language the verbal
sion
expresdoes
however
from
so
quite a
"

that

to
as

of Grammar.

such.

Grammar

It is the art

by

which

in

significant
speech are combined
accordingto the conventional rules of a language. Hence
in it each of the nine parts of speech is treated independently,
and rules are given for their respectiveuse.
On
the other hand, the simplestobjectof which
Logic takes
of words,
is the Concept. In its consideration
account
employed

therefore, it does

not

deal

with

any

of

those

parts

of

taken
are
speech, which
by themselves
incapable of
not
giving us an independent concept. It is conversant
with
ance,
utternine, but with two forms only of significant
viz.: the Name, the verbal expressionof the Concept,
the Proposition,the verbal
and
ment.1
expressionof the JudgThe propositionconsists of three parts. These
1

Cf.

and

De

ad Syll.Cat. (Migne P. L. vol. 64, col. 766. A),


Boethius, IntroducL
Syll. Cat. lib. I. (ibid.col. 766. D). Another
important difference
is to be found
between
in the fact that Logic is concerned
Logic and Grammar
with
but one
the Indicative, Grammar
mood
with
all the moods
equally,
Seo below, Ch. 3, " i.
"

PRINCIPLES

directs

his

actions

OF

LOGIC

the

work.1
performance of some
Hence
they held Logic to be the art of reasoning,as well
the science of the reasoningprocess.
as
Perhaps a more
satisfactoryterminology is that at present in vogue,
art/ is reserved to mean
a
accordingto which the term
external
body of precepts for the production of some
is not
result, and hence
applicableto the normative
to

'

sciences.

Aesthetics, the

science

which

deals

with

beauty

and

objectsof the external senses, is now


reckoned
with Ethics and Logic, as a normative
science.
treated
By the mediaeval writers it was
theoretically
rather than practically,
and was
reckoned
physics.
part of Metaproportion

It may

some

in the

be

well

Logic and
affinity.

to
two

indicate
other

Logic and Metaphysics.


stands

brieflythe
sciences,

The

which

to

tween
be-

it bears

Metaphysics
general: sometimes
term

times
some-

with
philosophy in
restricted meaning it stands
for that part of
more
a
as
philosophy known
Ontology. In this latter sense
Metaphysics deals not with thoughts,as does Logic,but
with things,not with
the conceptual order but with
the
It
real order.
investigatesthe meaning of certain
notions
which
all the specialsciences presuppose,
such
It deals
as
Substance, Accident, Cause, Effect,Action.
with
which
the specialsciences do not prove,
principles
but on which
they rest, such as e.g., Every event must have
it is called the science of Being, since its
Hence
a cause.
objectis not limited to some
specialsphere, but embraces
all that is, whether
the
material or spiritual.Logic on
other hand deals with the conceptualorder, with thoughts.
Its conclusions
do not relate to things,but to the way
in which
the mind
represents things.
Logic and Psychology. The object of Psychology is
the human
soul and
all its activities.
It investigates
1

St. Thomas

quam

certa

actus

humani

for

distinction

in An.

ordinatio

Post.
rationis

perveniunt.'

/., lect.
qua

per

'

i.

Nihil

determinata

enim

aliud

media

ad

ars

esse

debitum

videtur,
finem

THE

the

NATURE

is concerned

regard
under

the

to

as

as

it, merely in
the

mental

act

deals ;

and

other

has

ought

we

nothing

"

the

do

to

nature

4. The

to

objectivetruth
asks

whether

with

seeks

think.

to

With

of the

this

which

it follows

it is based.

which

on

activity.

in which

way

it

mately
legiti-

Moreover,

prescriberules
this Psychology

only asks, What


mind's
activity?

it

of mental
the

regulativescience,

how

thought
a
ment,
judg-

take

we

it

consider

considers

if

form

hand, examines

if necessary,
the grounds

fact is the

Thus

in

even

three

it is

as

expresses

from

Logic, as

far

And

angles of a triangleare
right angles,'
Psychology considers

to two

so

soul.

The

e.g.,

togetherequal

to

sciences

two

Psychology

of the
'

such

as

LOGIC

the intellect alone.

aspects.

act

an

Logic on

with

intellect,the

different

merely

OF

will,imagination,
operations of intellect,
its object is far wider
than that of Logic,

Thus

which

AIM

and

nature

sense.

AND

as

of

matter

Scope of Logic.

Logicians are
frequently
divided
into three
classes, according as they hold that
the science is concerned
(i) with names
only, (2) with
the form
of thought alone, (3)with thought as representative
of

(1) The
with

reality.
first of these

only,

names

"

is however

solely in
the
of

conclusion

held

verbal

is, he

that

"

found

has

taught by

(1715-1780),who

views

the

but

Logic
few

is concerned

defenders.

It

philosopherCondillac
of reasoningconsists
process

French

that

the

transformations.

The

thought, ever

identical

meaning
with

of

that

the

originalproposition.
(2) The theory that Logic deals only with the forms of
thought, irrespectiveof their relation to reality,was
others by Hamilton
taught among
(1788-1856)and Mansel
(1820-1871). Both of these held that Logic is no way
with the truth of our
concerned
thoughts,but only with
their

consistency.

In this
the

form

sense

of

Hamilton

thought, to
I. p. 15). By
(Lectures,

"

says

the
these

Logic is

exclusion

conversant

of

logiciansa

the

with

matter"

distinction

is

PRINCIPLES

'

and

material

'

and

true

'
.

that

i.e., self-consistency

truth/

i.e.,conformity with

Logic

Mill

this view

On

formal

truth/

it is said

and

'

between

drawn

LOGIC

OF

deals with

well

false will force its way


from
abstract
We
may

the

even

object;

truth

alone.

notion

of the

formal
"

observes

the

Logic.

into Formal

actual

truth, but

the

validityof reasoning is always a question of condibe true


tional truth, whether
one
propositionmust
if the others
one
are
true, or whether
propositioncan
be true if others are true
(Exam, of Hamilton, p. 399).
(3)According to the third theory, Logic deals with
Mill,
by which we attain truth.
thought as the means
have justquoted, may
stand as a representative
whom
we
is the theory of valid
of this view.
Logic/' he says,
thought, not of thinking, but of correct thinking
(Exam, of Hamilton, p. 388).
his
Aristotle
and
class of logiciansshould
To
which
writers
Scholastic followers be assigned?
Many modern
'

'

"

'

"

'

"

"

"

them

rank

in the

second

of these

groups,

and

term

them

conception
miswhat
a
on
Logicians. It will soon
appear
how
this opinion rests, and
completelythe
that
taken
of Logic by the Scholastics
differs from
view
of the Formal
Logicians. In their eyes, the aim of the
ency,
self-consistscience
most
was
assuredly not to secure
the mind
how
but theoretically
to know
represents
to arrive at truth.
its object,and practically

Formal

The

terms

Realist

Nominalist, Conceptualist, and

frequentlyemployed to denote these


ate
This
classes.
three
terminology is singularlyunfortunand Realist,
Nominalist, Conceptualist
: for the names,
for centuries
have
been
employed to distinguishthree
each other
from
schools of philosophy, divided
famous
has nothing to do with the scope of
on
a question which
Logic. In this work we shall as far as possibleavoid
Logicians

using

"

the

are

terms

now

in their novel

5. History of
B.C.)who laid the

Logic.

meaning.
It

foundations

was

of

Aristotle
the

logicalquestions separatelyfrom

science
other

(384-322
by

ing
treat-

parts of

THE

NATURE

Six

philosophy.

subject : they
The

1.

of his treatises

De

"

3. Prior

Analytics,

"

treatise

Analytics,
"

primary classes
divided.
and

terms

on

positions.
pro-

inference.

on

treatise

the

ground.

the ten

treatise

"

with

on

the

logical
analysis

science.

of reasoning to
Topics, a treatise on the method
be employed in philosophicalquestions, when
demonstrative
proof is not obtainable.
of fallacious
SophisticalRefutations, an account
reasonings.

5.

"

6.

"

This

of treatises

group
Organon. It

separate

works.

he

whether

Logic was
The

Aristotle

afterwards
be

himself

known

noticed
had

as

the

that
no

they are
singleword

doubtful
Logic, and it seems
The
it as
name
a
single science.
byZeno the Stoic (about300 B.C.).

whole

of

viewed

introduced

of Aristotle added

successors

value

was

should, however,

signifythe

to

whole

on

concerned

concepts of thingsare

our

pretatione,a

4. Posterior

LOGIC

OF

are

the

treatise

Categories,a
Inter

of

almost

cover

into which
2.

AIM

AND

but

little of permanent

ance
Enduring importhowever
attaches
to a small
treatise by the NeoplatonistPorphyry (233-304 A.D.)entitled the Isagogeor
Introduction to the Categories
of Aristotle.
In a certain sense
the name
of Boethius
(B. Severinus
in the
Boethius
landmark
a
A.D.) constitutes
470-525
of his
history of Logic : for it was
through the medium
translation
of the Organon, and his commentaries
the
on
Categoriesand the Isagoge,that the works of Aristotle
and
available
for educational
Porphyry were
purposes
in Western
from
the
the
sixth
to
thirteenth
Europe
century.1 Through this period some
knowledge of Logic
of the seven
liberal
was
one
widely possessed, as it was
arts
Grammar, Dialectic i.e.,Logic,Rhetoric, Geometry,
to

his

great

achievement.

"

at

the

Two
this

works

attributed

to

fathers.

St. Augustine

were

also

recognized authorities
by all
Logica

St. Augustine's interest in the science


not shared
was
told of St. Ambrose,
A
We
that he used to exclaim
are

period.

Augustini, libera

me

Domine.

PRINCIPLES

io

OF

Arithmetic, Astronomy,
education
At

held

was

the

to

beginning of

other

Arabian

treatises

Averroes

translated

into

themselves

science

Roshd

Latin, and

gave

main

greater

of

The

Logic.
on

higher

to

build

ous
numer-

of

works

Scholastics

his

availed

thoroughly systematic

up

It may

which

the

(Ibn Sina 980-1037


1126-1189 A.D.) were
immense
an
impetus to

said that

be

perhaps

Aristotle's

with

accuracy

the

mediaeval

works,

advance

which

century

Aristotle,and

(Ibn

of these

of

"

thirteenth

Avicenna

philosophicstudy.

their

the

of

Music

consist.

commentators

A.D.) and

and

LOGIC

lay

treatment

in

discriminated

they

the
the

respectivespheres of Logic and Metaphysics, and


their more
precisearrangement of the various parts
Logic itself.
i5th and i6th
of Scholasticism, and
The

the

Bacon

criticism
of

in

Logic

of

attack

an

the

his Novum

to

was

discoveries

of nature.

1620

the

witnessed

Yet

it

provide men
regarding the

was

made

Aristotelian

of service

with
laws
in

that
means

and

on

Logic by
Much

Organum.

of

decadence

was

ill-founded,since he believed

was

making

in

foundations

very

Francis

centuries

in

of
the

his
pose
pur-

towards

phenomena

callingfresh

tion
atten-

theory of Induction, a part of Logic to which


had been givenby the later Scholastics.
too littleattention
Since the time of Bacon
the whole
tion
questionof Induchas been
fullydiscussed by writers on Logic.
very
eminent
The most
of these among
English thinkers was
of the
treatment
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873),whose
subjectlong held rank as the classical work on Induction.
Many of the points, however, raised by these writers
do not strictly
speaking belong to the province of Logic.
dealt not
For, influenced by Bacon, they have
merely
with
Induction
of thought, but also with
a
as
a
process
different subject,namely the general theory of
very
scientific investigation.It was
that
natural
indeed
a
keen interest should be felt in this question. The rapid
ing
growth and multiplicationof the physicalsciences durto

the

the last three

centuries

could

not

but

lead to the codi.

of their

fication

and

to

to

the

formation

Such

evidence.

OF

rules

words

other

"in

AIM

AND

NATURE

THE

science

LOGIC

reflection

their

on

of

methods,
philosophy of

impossible

was

in the

middle

of

physical investigationhad
of this
At
the
dawned.
present day the treatment
subjectforms a part of every work on Logic. By many
Material
Inductive Logic,the traditional
writers it is termed
or
part of the science receivingby way of distinction
Deductive
of Formal
the name
or
are
Logic. These names
misleading. The traditional Logic was, as we have seen
of
And
though the treatment
(" 4),not purely formal.
of the mediaeval
Induction, properly so called, by many
writers was
inadequate,yet they all regarded it as falling
therefore
within
their
We
have
preferred to
scope.
The
Logic of
designatethe two portions of this volume
of Science
Thought and Applied Logic or the Method
of thought, finds
as
a
respectively.Induction
process
its place in the first of these two
divisions.
the

ere

ages,

great

era

NOTE
DIFFERENT
*

The

would

than

which

is that

the

is,

it

in

this

group
with

or

true

of

scope

tripledivision

is treated.
to

open

the

Scholastic
of Mill,

somewhat

enter

Moreover

that

of

either

with

give

we

the

Logic is far
given in " 4,

of

and

special

the

point

the

threefold

further

of

objection

logicians either with


though they have ^ttle

these.
into

more

of

purpose

It
detail

therefore,

seems,

the

on

subject.

the

explanation

Formal

would
present work
systems out of place. As

of the

availed

ourselves

various

an

Scholastic

account

the

to

us

to, viz.

Modern
The

LOGIC.

OF

specialdesignations
:
Logic,
Logic, Symbolic Logic,
Idea,
Logic, Logic of the Pure
Logic, Transcendental
Logic. The notice in each case is necessarilyvery brief.

note

Inductive

SCOPE

the

the

noticed,

have

we

common

to

referred

THE

to

as

from

science

of Mansel

desirable
In

as

the

compels

school

enough

opinion

appear

which

from

division

TO

AS

usually recognized in logicaltext-books


now
employed by logicians to indicate

are

names

that

of

difference

wider

view

VIEWS

I.

CHAPTER

TO

the

views,

of

citations

in

order

to

from

render
far

as

authors

elucidate

the

more

detailed

possiblewe have
representative of

meaning

of the

ferent
dif-

terms.

(i)

Scholastic

Scholastic

or

Logic.

Traditional

We

have

Logic

holds

explained
the

above

that

subject-matter of

the
the

PRINCIPLES

11

science

be

LOGIC

OF

the

conceptual representation of the real order.


expressed by saying that it deals with
may
things, not as they are in themselves, but as they are in thought.
There
Cardinal
Mercier
sciences
whose
two
are
object is
says :
universal
in the highest degree abstract, and hence
in its applicaare
Logic. The
Metaphysics and
bility. These
object of
in abstraction
from
all inMetaphysics is Being considered
determinations
and
dividual
material
in
other
words
properties,
the Real as such.
Logic also has Being for its object.
be thought that Logic and
It must
not however
Metaphysics
from
the
of
consider
view.
The
same
Being
point
object
of Metaphysics is the thing considered
real substance
as
a
enThe
with
real attributes.
dowed
object of Logic is likewise
with
the thing,but considered
an
as
object of thought endowed
attributes
of the conceptual order
(Logique," 23 [ed. 3]).
of this school
is to consider
Logic. The characteristic
(2) Formal
to

be

This

otherwise

"

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

"

'

the

mental

abstraction

in entire

processes

from

relation

the

concept bears to the real order.


Logic, says Dean
and
Mansel,
accepts as valid, all such
concepts, judgments
do
contradictions
not directlyor indirectly
:
reasonings, as
imply
them
thus
far
be
to
as
legitimate
pronouncing
thoughts,
the

which

"

'

'

"

analysis destroy themselves


they do not in ultimate
Mr.
deciding
Keynes abstains from
(Proleg. Logica, p. 265).
'

that

the
Logic constitutes
The
observance
says in its regard :
will
do more
not
Logic investigates,
Formal

whether

whole

logicis that

'

of

'

such

'

of

is

for
that the rules of a calculus
be substituted
may
way
Mr.
conscious
its
ablest
Venn,
reasoning.'
exponent
actively

country,

ralizes

the

"

for it the

claims

great advantages, that it


genethe
as
ordinary Logic," showing them
with
relation
bolic
(Symproblems dealing

of

processes
of

wider

particularcases
xxi,-xxiii.) Though
Logic, Introd.
pp.
it
engaged the attention of several able men,

the

to

considered

be

adopted

his

science.

system

own

be mentioned,

that

of

for

believe

developed

on

basis

Mill
Organum.
Evidence," and

terms
"

of
it

the
"

of

views

philosophy

claim

It should

that

has

yet
has

further
it affords
in

any

the
or

reasoning process.
Applied Logic is a science

set forth

general theory
of

no

although
possibly contribute

it cannot

the

subject

investigator

every
notation.

symbolic

thinkers

many

much

has

Almost

ingenuity,
to
whatever
our
knowledge
way
(4) Inductive, Empirical, Material
scope

'

from

in this
'

form

and

terms

freedom

secure

'

defined

is thus

Formal

which

inconsistency" (Formal Logic, " i).


further
development of Formal
Logic.
Diet, of Philosophy.
in Baldwin's
Symbolic
of logicin which
the combinations
and relations
propositions,are represented by symbols, in

(3) Symbolic Logic


'

than

laws

science, but

and

'self-contradiction

It

of the

of the

"

Evidence

in Bacon's
of the
and

Novum

sufficiencyof
of the

Investi-

PRINCIPLES

14

his

to

It

system.

manner

to

this

because

of

its

admit

the
of

order

bearing
of

Logic

the

"

science

has

But

thought.

which

of

that

to

origin

thinkers

who

deny

to

institute

had

hitherto

he
'

"

if

differs

evolution

'

instead
from

'

call

Logic

at
of

of
the
of

this

and

view
the
is

Mr.

universe

in
all

into

in
in

world

analyse

evolving

are

itself

is

mode

of

the

vital
'

the

is

intellectually
process

of

its

by

the

value

in

and

"

under

no

doubt,"

which

constituted.

and
the

tracing

import,

import
The

apart
tions
opera-

according

are
'

is

ference
dif-

only

and

I. 248).

constitution

England

aspect

make

"

the

logicians
the

value

reasoning

functions,

of

Metaphysics,

treatment,

(Logic,

and

with

its
"

in
"

of

were

mental

however,

German

lies

light

evolution

work,

Bosanquet

one

in

is

order

those

Logic

their

matter.

Logic

judgment
as

Modern

Mr.

the

representative

eminent

to

It

within,

of

nature

known

philosophy.

thought

as

of

summarize

to
its

the

the

subject

same

of
"

things

between

of

Metaphysics

content

regarded

to

and

knowledge

mind

real

order

of

According

attempting

the

Hegelian

Bosanquet

simply

details

Mind

it

logical problems

regarded

that

on

the

that

says,

'

'

view

they

the

been

Logic

between
which

of

reality.

the

as

distinction

the

enquiry

new

Sigwart.

and

Lotze

of

the

to

and

us,

based

largely

very

verse
Uni-

thought

into

In

Divine

principal exponents

Bradley

Mr.

are

itself

Pantheism.

treatment

its

The

of
are

owes

order.

real

the

"

over

passes

The

categories

development

realizes

form

The

external

which

acts,

the

in

Universe.

the

Logic.

name

bound

and

found
coincides

38).

p.

an

reality.

sense

of

necessity

Idea

thoughts

of

process

things

fact

in

these

Modern

plain

our

not

and

be

to

is

would

thought

is

of Hegel,

fullest

its

things,

is

and

thoughts,

this

Logic

feature

constitutes

in

Logic

Absolute

the

or

Hegelianism

(7)

"

inner

in

salient

Metaphysics,

"

concerned

Hegel

him,

to

only

of

briefest

the

know.

we

the

the

in

an

"

in

are

Its

order

according
real

(Wallace,

becomes

Thought

Metaphysics.

orders

thought

thought

Whole

the

of

by

of

origin

its

Logic.

two

the

Metaphysics"

'with

in

of

we

and

Logic

advert

to

us

which

Modern

Thought,

science

LOGIC

for

with

on

of

reality.
the

sufficient

philosophy,

existence

Hence

be

will

identification

the

OF

the

totality
The

(ibid.

p.

task

3).

to
we

of

CHAPTER

CONCEPT

THE

"

The

i.

grounds,

the

are

Concept.

which

Considered

in

termed

the

true

which

mental

our

of

judgment
the

that

'

truth

close."

the

In

the

first

between

Concept

an

object,

'

sensible

such

as

will

serve

nor

does
a

De

Parvus
z

c.

he

grasped.

which

in the
is at

huge

the

proportions

do

virtue,'

the

the

If

think

but

intellect

of

sun.

Some-

subject,
'

is

'

virtue

requisite,

in

save

is

myself

word

image

some

judge

sun

abstract

mere

operate

ever

the

some

the

The
to

of
of

image

'

imagining
or

sensible

instance

that

so

Whenever

form

for

or

fish,

properly

picture.

without
of

purpose

idea

simultaneously

so

when

as

distinguish carefully

mental

vertebrate,'

cannot

my

connexion

phantasm.2
Caelo,
error

The

8,

science

importance

What

to

to

imagination.

my
are

indeed,
'

swells

or

representation

times,

with

it in

Fishes

round,'

"

proverb

Hence

the

vital

of

Every

accurately

intellectual

or

of

in

Aristotle's,

it is necessary

Phantasm

that

place

the

picture

of

error,

called, and
of

into

be

be

material

concepts.

it is of

an

the

think

the

are

the

neither

can

false, consist.

should

small

It

is fundamental

saying

of

is not

concept

two

science

passed

but

beginning

that

the

and

what

cognizance

concepts

concept
every

in

takes

contains

notions

had

ages

at

in

primary

is

middle
'

And

the

There

the

explained

truth.

true

acts,

of

Logic.

But

TERM.

already

Logic

necessity

treatment

of

have

attains

false.

THE

isolation,

mind

nor

NAME

We

on

which

by

act

THE

Concept.

II.

term

tells

I.
in

c.

rb

5.

lv

principio

'phantasm'
us

that

"

[UKpbv

apxy

fit magnus

in

tv

rrj reXevrrj

is Aristotle's.
((f"dvTu"r/j.a.)
when

we

yiveral

Tra^^ycdes.

fine.

contemplate

anything,

Thus
we

in
are

De

Anima,

forced

to

III.
con-

PRINCIPLES

16

LOGIC

OF

pictureis however very different from the


notice
concept. This will be easilyunderstood, if we
is round/ I must
in thoughthave
that to judge The sun
from
the thing I
separated the attribute of roundness
sensible
No
effect such
the sun.'
term
a
image can
only picture the single object a
separation. It can
If again I say,
This glassis transparent/
sun/
round
I have in thought separatedthe attribute
transparency
of separation
from the thing glass/ This power
requires
a
higher faculty than that of the imagination, namely
the faculty of thoughtor intelligence.
It is the intellect
of distinguishing
alone that has this wonderful
power
of
two
things which in nature are inseparablyconjoined,
severingits roundness from the sun, its transparency from
I can
the glass. Thus
look at a singleobject,e.g., the
I am
using,and consider separatelyits whiteness,
paper
its smoothness, its oblong shape, its opacity,etc.
of thus separatingin thought things
The mind's
power
This

mental

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

real order

in the

which

are

is known

one,

its power

as

of

abstraction.
characteristic

if I

Thus

figureI
But

place.

individual
circle

is of

must

I form

before

is universal

in

every

the

In
:

other

the

forms

concept

of

words

man/

is in

my

the

all circles.
a

circle that

the

of

particular
omits

concept

these
of

definition.

Euclid's

phantasm

phantasm
'

but

me,

act of abstraction

an

necessarilyrepresent

dimensions.

by

applicableto

however

When

characteristics,and

is

the

definite size,and

mind

my

on

circle

it is enunciated

as

concept

of

see

by

black-board, the concept


that geometricalfigure will express
not

individual

the

merely

form

circle drawn

I form

which

The

see

feature

which

Concept differs
is its universality. A
from
the Phantasm,
Concept is
of all objectsof the same
character.
equallyrepresentative
The

ever

was

This
drawn.

circle/my phantasm
figureof particular
a

concept

of

the

circle

is

singular. Similarly,if I
concept is applicableto all
"

(Srav re dewprj,
template it in conjunction with a phantasm
between
and he proceeds to distinguish carefully
:
TI
"f)dvTao-/jid
Beajpelv)
phantasm and the concept (v67jfj.a).

the

THE

CONCEPT

But

men.

possessed of
hair

of

We

THE

NAME

THE

phantasm of a man
with
certain height,
a

TERM

17

representhim

must

certain

as

features,with

definite colour, etc.

have

consider

only to

concepts which

form

can

we

objectto

any

of it,have

that

see

this universal

all the
acter.
char-

Thus, glancingout of the window, I see a garden


My mind conceives it as a roller,as cylindrical,
-

roller.

iron, as dusty, cold and


concepts is universal,and

The

roller in that

it may
roller
is

'

of

any

other

attribute,

one

differ from

much

how

matter

no

of these

on.

thus

the

resembles

thing which

Every one
applicableto

so

as

it in others.

'

equally applicableto the


ponderous machine with which the county-councilrepairs
the highways : that of
cylindricalexpresses perfectly
the shape of the candle on
mantel-piece: while the
my
cold
is appropriateto the water
in the
concept of
These various concepts are not,
neighbouringfountain.
concept

'

'

of course,
to form

so

'

isolated units

many

in the mind.
But

singlecomposite concept.

concept

'

is

universal, and

would

that

They unite
composite
all similar

express

rollers.1
It must
of

knowing

advertence
idea

be

not

It

individuals.
to

the

knows

But

of

that

the

is to

sense
,

in
object of sense-perception
Thus
conceive

to

at.

'

as
1
'

it is the

vertebrate/

The

doctriue

'

or

as

of this section

is evident

to

the

of

means

the

the

by

universal

intellect,
as

the individual
express
series oi universal concepts.

intellectual

individual

the

which

work

no

individual

the

from

phantasm
2

is abstracted

distinct from

the intellect has

thought that

facultywhich

Socrates

'

as

enables

man,'

or

father.'

is insisted

on

intelligence,the

by Aristotle.
individual

"

The

universal

sense-perception.
For the intelligencedeals with
what
is universal,and sense-perception with
what
is particular (6 fj"v yap
Ka66\ov, i) 82 afodrjonsrod Kara
\6yos rou
Physics, I. c. 5, " 8. " The phantasm is as the perceptions of sense,
[j."pos),"
embodiment
material
that it is without
save
(rd yap (pavTaa/mara ""nrep
tan
III. c. 8.
For
further
a
irXrjv fiivev #X?7s),"De Anima,
alaQ'/i/j.aTa
of the point, see Maher, Psychology (6th ed.),235-238.
consideration
2
de Anima, III. lect. 8.
Vide
St. Thomas,
The
interpretationhere given
St.
the
d^
of
III.
Thomas
c.
"
Anima,
7, is not only in full accord
by
passage
4,
with
that proAristotle's general doctrine, but is substantially the same
as
posed
and
by Themistius
by Simplicius. Cf. Rodier, Traite de I'dme, I.e.
Cf. also De Veritate, Q. II. Art. 6.
nature

to

'

'

'

'

PRINCIPLES

"

Concepts.

Repugnant

2.

OF

LOGIC

Concepts

said

are

repugnant, when, as mutually exclusive, they


united
in one
composite concept.
It is not
form

to

all

concepts which
composite concept
There

last section.

the

that

so

the

Thus

it is
'

stone

These

concept
concept

the

intelligence.Just
both

live and

in

as

live, so

not

of
'

The

difference

between

things,that

many

which

instance,
hand, some

'

colour

cannot

real

in the

of

lifeless

expresses
'

living

expresses

order

order

things

is

of

thing

cannot

thought such

be

inconceivable

carefully

blind

no

form

can

to be

adequate

make

things

an

up

such

when

every

thinking
A

Concepts.

hence

image.

stone.

concept

is

it

are

impossible.
of

characteristic
have

however

can

Obscure

other

the

of

for

as

which
represents distinctlyall the notes
object. It is plain that in regard to individual

concepts

representing

and

"

and

kind

some

are

tion,
imagina-

our

repugnance
birth.
On

from

what

There

in

quite inconceivable,

are

which

Clear

and

noted.

represented

contain

the

to

" 3. Adequate,

We

'

thinking

Perhaps, it is possibleto imagine

to

exclusion

'

stone

the

be

nevertheless

impossible,of

go

incompatible,

are

repugnant concepts.
concept of a thinking

the

what

should

unimaginable

said

in

is inconceivable.

thing
is

described

as

form

impossibleto

and

matter,

which

known

are

for the

those

as

he

cannot

brought together

necessarilypostulates the

one

other.

the

such

some

are

be

can

be

to

adequate

We
even

form

cannot

the

concepts

concept

smallest
of

flower.

mathematical

definitions
figures in their universal
aspect. Euclid's
express
which
A
adequate
figures with
they deal.
concepts of the
is clear
when,
although it does not represent all l.he
concept
of an
number
tinguish
disnotes
to
it
sufficient
a
object,
yet contains
Thus
of
that
other.
our
object from
knowledge
any
nature

of

may

very

may

timidity,

have

limited, but

our

concepts

of the

chief

tribes

able
degree of definiteness
amply sufficient to enA concept
from
another.
us
accurately to distinguish one
is
insufficient
to
is obscure
when
our
distinguish the
knowledge
have
other
a
man
things. Thus
object of thought from
may
is meant
a
general idea of what
by prudence and by fortitude

and

animals

be

nevertheless
fortitude

be
from

incapable of distinguishing prudence


rashness.

from

THE

CONCEPT:

NAME:

THE

THE

TETCM

19

have
intimated
and the Term.
We
" 4. The Name
not only of thought,
(Ch. i, " 2) that Logic takes account
but of language the verbal
expressionof thought. Hence
of the Concept, we
must
after the consideration
thing
say some-

of the
which

by convention

and

Name

is

that

word

or

of words

group

signifiesthe concept of the speaker,


It is of

object of that concept.

the

the
say,
the

can

the

name

is

give the

same

name

importance

the

because

termed

to

universal

same

For

man.

and

one

different

many

concept

Socrates, Plato, Peter, Paul

all.

them

of them

each

are

acteristics,
all,in virtue of similar char-

truly representedby the same


Names
signifythe particularcharacteristics
the concept, which
they express, but they are

of the
The
of

thing,

concept.

names

the

distinctions

as
speak of them
immediately following

distinction

"
a

concept represents to

enumerate,
that

reasons

5-

will

names

us.

which

distinctions
constitutes

of
an

are

about
The

terms.

exception

for

is not
can

Syncategorematic Words.

and
every

only

be

word, which
so

used

in

words, e.g., in, but, well, me.

distinguishwords

we

appear.

Categorematic

plain,that it
term.
Many

other

the

out
thought, considered
expression of our
to its position in a proposition. Since
siders
Logic conin
far
actual
as they are
so
or
merely
possibleterms,

shall, in dealing with

to

contained

is the

Name

all relation

we

is

the

which

viduals,
indi-

expresses

are

in

to

immediately significativeof
concept, and only mediately of the thing : that is to
it is the name
of the thing in question,because
cept
concept, which it immediately expresses, is the conbe easilyseen.
of that thing. That
this is so may

observe

Name.

into

two

classes

be

can

It

used

as

conjunction with

Hence,

we

at

once

:
"

Categorematic word is one, which can be used as a


term without
being accompanied by any other word.
A Syncategorematic word
is one, that can
only enter
into a term in conjunction with other words.
These
words
expressions are derived from the Greek
to predicate,
and crw
togetherwith.
Karyyopeiv
Substantives, Pronouns, Adjectives and
Participles
A

"

"

PRINCIPLES

20

OF

LOGIC

It will be noticed, however,


categorematicwords.
that
can
adjectivesand participles
only be predicates:
stand
the subject of a sentence, except
as
they cannot
there
is ellipsis
of the substantive.
where
If we
say,
The
unjust shall perish/ unjust stands for unjust

are

'

'

'

'

men.'

Adverbs, Prepositions,
Conjunctions,and
are
as

Interjections
it is true employ them
can
syncategorematic. We
the subjectsof those propositions in which
we
speak

of the
'

words

mere

is

When

letters/

namely

themselves

an

adverb

But

in this

of
case

we

for

as
'

time/

the
signifying

as

When

is

them

use

vocal

mere

instance, if we
in

say,
of four

word

different sense,

sound,

the

or

written

characters.
A term

Terms
known

which

composed of categorematicand syncategorematic


is
of
worded
term.
words,
as
a
spoken
manyare
consistingof a singlecategorematic word

as

The

is

single-worded terms.

student

should

be

on

his

guard againstspeaking

If a word
syncategorematic terms.
syncategorematic, it is thereby affirmed
of being a term.
of

"

Divisions

6.

various
every

divisions of terms.

term

may

since the various

We

of Terms.

receive
divisions

are

based

be

to

be

each
on

to

observed

of the

different

be

incapable

here

enumerate

It should

place in

said

is

the
that

divisions,

principles.

characteristics of a term, are


logical
expressed by referringit to its due positionunder each
All
the
of
head.
divisions are
considerable
logical
importance.
(1) General and Singular Terms.
Terms.
and Abstract
(2) Concrete
and Non-connotative
Terms.
(3) Connotative
(4) Positive and Negative Terms.
(5) Absolute and Relative Terms.
of Second
of First
Intention
Terms
and
(6) Terms
What

are

called

the

Intention.

(7) Univocal,

Equivocal

and

Analogous

Terms.

PRINCIPLES

22

It will be
which

well

when

terms

is, or

present in other
features

attention

the

to

formed.

are

in

way

The

mind,

feature
to some
object, attends
be, preciselysimilar to features

consideringsome

it,which

in

LOGIC

give careful

to

General

these

OF

may

and

objects:

it abstracts

all other

from

I may
look at the ink in my
abstractingfrom its liquid state, its taste,
this.

save

bottle, and

Thus

consider

etc., may

it

simply

black.

as

The

ink

has

an
qualitiesbesides this. It is, moreover,
have
individual
something in
thing, and as such must
is absolutelypeculiarto itself,
and is possessed
it,which
by nothing else. But all this, my concept and the term

many

other

which

manifests

'

'

black

indeed

may

not

that

If

attributes.

other

blackness,' involved

the

attribute

ink

is

The

word

the

exclusion

'

alone,
'

black

other

of

in

black

far

so

all.

It is

it is

It

they

I observe

step.

General

is

that

all

that

of

e.g., that

possessed of
are

term
are

horse

said

the
to

expresses

signifying

word

and

thus

constitute

We

term

in

into

we

it

Comprehension

to

which

its Extension.

Since

concept,
animal

horse.

The

concept

of the

term

group

an

common

or

the

see
a

For

possessing

all alike.

wherever

expressed

individuals

animals

characteristics

we

arise.

terms

certain
to

features,

styledthe Intension
:

us

common

of these

these

characteristics

distinguishthe
of black things,

the

General

our

experienceshows
marked

more

black

all other

concept

same

concept,and

peculiarcharacteristics
the

The

concept

my

term.

thus

instance,

black.

are

Universal

explicitly

nor

attributes.

is

as

'

The
say,
blackink is ness/

excludes,

equally representativeof
objects. Mentally there is nothing to
of an indefinite number
representations
of

word

the

not

The

say,

neither

many

everything save

could

we

also

like

black/

'

cannot

we

follows another

Then
'

'

term

the

expresses

the

of blackness

black/ just as

'

term

all the
implicitly
the supposition

said to include

be

The

express.

for it does
exclude
not
qualities,
is black, possesses
the subject which

other

'

concept do

the

is

General

applicable

the

time

of

THE

CONCEPT

Mill, English writers


Connotation

words

and

Intension

NAME

have

or

name,

Thus

term.

is

that is applied to

one

not

is

also

'

term.

The

'

armies.

Alps

'

It

is

either

General

collective,since
as

it is

and

group,

National

Collective

or

term, for it is
The

be

may

not

applicableto

Portrait

lery
Gal-

signifyingthe pictures taken


is also a significant
Singular

term

group.

term

is

taken

General

Collective

together as

'

army

soldiers

the

of

group

being applicable to the

Collective

'

term

different
'

the

signifyrespectively

to

significant
Singularterm,

the

predicableof
singly. It is
many

23

Extension.

objects, the term


objects taken
singly. A
proper

TERM

usually employed

more

similar

THE

Denotation

and

Collective term

THE

term, which

is

proper

name.

It

is

should
of view

requisiteto a Collective term


be capable of being considered
to

common

in
though differing
home.

one

The
'

lead,'

Thus

be

'

similar

names

of

are

sometimes

the

the

from

some

of

members
alike

points,are

many

this reason,

For

should

there

all.

that

definition

the

objects
point
family,

sharers

as

in

requiresthat

objects.'

substances,

spoken

'

such
of

as

water,'

Substantial

as

'

gold/
terms.

they are used to signifyall the water or gold that


be ranked
When
as
exists, they may
Singular terms.
they are employed to signifydifferent portions of the
General
terms.
substance, they become
When

and

" 8. Abstract
Abstract

An

considered

in

inheres, e.g.,
A

is the

Terms.

name

separation from

of

nature

or

attribute

subject in which
whiteness, height,ebullition,humanity.1

Concrete

attribute

or

term

Concrete

term

is

inherent

as

which

name

in

the

expresses

it

nature

subject, e.g., white, high,

ebullient,man.
1

from that in which


Subject in these definitions is used in a different sense
hitherto
have been
ject
we
employed it. Hitherto
speaking of the subof a proposition
the subject of predication,as
it is termed
by logicians.
inhere
in
But
the subjects of the qualitieswhich
real things are
also termed
is
the
It
in
them
inhesion.
that
word
is
:
this sense
they are subjects of

we

have

"

here

used.

PRINCIPLES

24

have

We

dealt with

'

whiteness.'

operation,if
and

we

sever

form

to

Light

will

notice

the

from

such

be

Concept (" i)
mind, in virtue

attribute

an

Accident.

an

of the

of the

power

inheres, and

it

LOGIC

speaking

abstractive

it is able to

in which
of

already when
the

of which

OF

the

subject

concepts

thrown

mental

this

on

distinction

between

Substance

is

that

as

stance
Sub-

thing which

independent existence, as e.g., Peter, Paul,


An
lion.
Accident
can
only exist as inhering in
man,
Substance, e.g., whiteness, prudence, transparency.
a
can

possess

In

Abstract

the

though they

concept
isolated

were

Accidents

represent

we

from

the

as

which

subject in

they inhere.
of conceivingthem, is found in
basis for this way
which
inheres
in a Substance
fact that the Accident

The
the

identical

is not

is not

animal

the

individual

led

determined

Abstract

which

and

it

though
form

the

The

the

of

whiteness

of the

colour

be

would

animal

the

mind

the

is

naturally
an
independent entity,
has, and by which it is

Hence

quality as
animal

Accidents

By
were

which

alone
act

an

be

can

of

between

'

substantial

the

humanity/ though
the

form,

abstract

this

Thus

determination.

accidental

an

expressedby

are

mind

of the

representedin

concept

real distinction
human

itself.

yet

the

The

qualified.

terms.

itself

nature

we

animal

before.

the

it is not

But

as

the

as

conceive

to

something

as

Substance.

the

might alter, and

animal
same

with

individual

is

there

and

Peter

no

his

nature.

Since
whole

these

terms

represent

if it existed

entity,as

of

single feature

the

tion,
in isola-

independently and

tion
attencharacteristic to which
a logical
possess
called in the last section, viz. : that they cannot

they
was

be

predicatedof
'

can
'

say,

The

the

horse

which

subject to
is white

'

white/

though it expresses
implicitlyincludes the whole
'

The

horse

excludes

is

the

whiteness/

for the

subject in

which

for

but

they belong.
the
one

object.We
abstract
it inheres.

concrete

We

term

attribute, yet
cannot
term

We

say,

positively
can

say

THE

'

is man.'

Socrates

'

humanity
that

alone

which

has

in

shows

common

exclusion

the

is his

'

is called

he

plural.

no

in the

conceive

we

of which

real

man/

of

those

it in

pluralitythat
acquiresin virtue

The

order, it

individuals, in which

concrete

when

have

have

'

Socrates

to

25

himself.

to

terms

qualitymay

virtue

TERM

Socrates
say
of the word

form

considered,

proper

THE

cannot

we

abstract

in

be

to

are

of the

the

men,

Abstract
a

But

NAME:

characteristics,which

other

are

for

the

with

THE

CONCEPT:

Hence

it inheres.
have

isolation,we

of

means

no

conceivingit multiplied. Where


pluralforms are used,
when
enthusiasms
we
as
or
ineptitudes,'
speak of
the
the
various
instances
in which
we
merely mean
capable
realized.
The
quality was
quality as abstract, is inof multiplication.It follows
from
this that
the only Abstract
which
terms
are
general,are those
which
of qualities.Thus
virtue
embrace
a whole
group
is a
term
general Abstract
including justice/ prudence/
temperance/ fortitude/ etc. But these latter
all singular.
names
are
'

'

'

'

'

Mill

'

finds

Locke,

'

ing

the

'

the

result

'

to

all

has

fault

gained

general
in
is

St.

the

abstraction

9-

Its

is

Theol.

the

words

old
has

has

been

We

shall

Q.

40,

Art.

'

such

therefore

on

the

deal

is, as

Mill

are

sidered
con-

as

General

to

abstraction

of

see

3.

This

Terms.
of

divisions

it used

which

that

imposed

terms.

and

on

the

distinction

in the

first

other
in

ing
mean-

oblivion

hand

with

of

sense

its novel

place

bear.

to

new

former
terminology. The
fallen almost
altogether into

written

are

consequently

name

application

kinds

Mill, who

to

which

English Logic is, however,

recent

English writers,

among

Its

by
apply-

of

example,

to

traditional

from

introduced

all names,

Non-Connotative

of the

one

to

usage

two

I.

and

altogetherdifferent
The
change is due
the

the

On

his

Abstract

present paragraph.

significationin

on

'

term

traditional

by

if not

generalization,and

The

Connotative

distinction

'

name

or

names."

Summa

Thomas,

"

'

mistake.

practice,which
chieflyfrom

currency
Abstract

expression
of

"

with

notices, restricted
terms

'

the

much
sense.

terms

PRINCIPLES

26

in

their

of

traditional

their

definitions

The

given by

Connotative

implies

and

which

one

attribute.

an

(i) Connotative
to

both
'

it is

which

to

these
'

Mill

are

an

attribute

by logicians
name

individual
which

Connotative.

only.

mentioned

signifiedby
term

is

Term

already

the

subject

is understood

mean

is termed

"

denotes

or

have

applicable. Every

features

Non-connotative

characteristics
to

follows

as

which

one

Connotation

Denotation,

word

the

an

meaning.

We

Terms.

the

mean

subsequently add

subject only,

word

the

is

Term

denotes

(" 6) that

LOGIC

acceptation, and

recent

account

OF

objects
possesses

Thus

'

horse/

'

terms.
courageous/ are Connotative
They are applicableto individual objects,and they are
definite
acteristics
charcertain
given to these objects,because
are
present in them.
signifiedby the name
Not
all the characteristics possessedby the individuals
of the
into
in question enter
the connotation
name.

man/

the

Czar/

which

characteristics

The

those

are

only, because

constitute

of which

the

the

connotation
is

name

given,and

of which it would be refused. Thus,


of
though before the discovery of Australia all swans
the
had
civilized world
which
white,
experience were
of refusingthe name
to the newlydreamed
swan
no
one
do we
black variety. Nor
discovered
deny the name
cats because
of cat to Manx
they lack a tail. But the
would
of a singleessential attribute
absence
deprive the
Were
animal
an
object of its right to the class-name.
in the absence

of any

like

the

feet, it should

not

discovered, otherwise
with

cloven

horse
be

in

termed

appearance,
a

but

horse.

that words
explanationjustgiven assumes
possess
ideal
fixed and precisemeaning. This is of course
an
a
The English language, perhaps
not altogetherrealized.
than
others, is lacking in this scientific premore
even
cision.
the
that
it will usually be found
Yet
among
educated, there are definite and assignablecharacteristics
in default of which
it is not applied
implied by a name,

The

to

an

individual.

It is true

that'this

connotation

may

THE

Our

vary.

increases

fish.

knowledge

as

term

We

have

'

are

In

the

the

law

the

connotation

hitherto

when

term,

reckoned

for

the

the

advance

ought to

name

other

of

the

views

writers

as

the

to

of Prof.

the

constitute

Jevons

held

have

object of

unknown,

trical
geome-

"

to

"

alter the
more

those

merely
is

the

vative.
deri-

tending
discovery of
ever

of

connotation
of them

that

all the attributes

they

its connotation.
taken

term

call

is defensible.

whether

name,

term

changes

which,

are

knowledge

when

even

some

to

it,

mean.

mention, though neither

Some

by

But

its connotation

as

greater fixityof connotation,


Two

know

of

found

it has

to

tion.
connota-

we
figures,

characteristic,in relation

Thus

what

ultimate

grasp.

things, as

is

of

fundamental

to

few

of

fish but

construction

mental

our

stood
under-

have

susceptibleof change, these


arbitrary. Science only calls on us to

not

are

of mathematical

within

the

is not

the

possess

determining

connotation

whale

the

we

things
tion
significa-

connoting a special kind

comparatively

that

case

figureis
a

that

27

of

nature

would

writers

as

are

sure

real

TERM

insensibly alter
'

learnt

THE

the

to

we

whale

There
we

NAME:

Mediaeval

the

which

thus

name.

mammal.

for

THE

and

of

CONCEPT:

are

This

possessed
known

is the

in its intent

or

view

conno(i.e.

tation)has for its meaning the whole infinite series of


qualitiesand circumstances, which a thing possesses."
It is plain that
if the
term
primarily represents the
the thing as it is
must
concern
concept,its connotation
known, not the thing in its objectivereality. The meaning
of the term
is what
the thought represents to us.
have
be taken
Others
to signify
held that it should
about
the thing at the present time.
all that we
know
But
of these
attributes
are
quite unimportant,
many
'

'

and
name

to

their
to

speak

would

absence
an

object. Hence

of them

as

the

cause

never

it is

meaning

us

to

refuse

the

manifestly inaccurate

of the

term.

The

only

takes
of connotation
is that which
account
satisfactory
it to
characteristics, which
signify the fundamental
determine
the applicationof the term.

28

PRINCIPLES

It is

OF

frequentlygiven

as

increases, denotation

'

subordination.
mammals

vertebrates
"

series.
than

'

of

that

animal
'

of

connotation

lion

of
the

'

is the

denotation

only

true

must

when

arranged in

the

"

'

as

however

of classes

'

connotation

This

felidae lions,

"

connotation

The

is

in

As

and

rule

Thus

'

that,

decreases.'

The
rightlyunderstood.
dealingwith a number

are

rule

decreases

'increases, connotation
be

LOGIC

we

archical
hier-

series, Animals
such

have

we

'

vertebrate

"

is

greater

is less.

denotation

greatest of all

The

tion
its denota-

is least.
where

Except
rule is not

we

member

of

Here

but

makes

this

language,
1

between

the

the

is found

instance

crow

rule

Connotation

One

two.

the

state

is

There

immense

an

increase

tion
connota-

in every

black

"

crow.

of
place. Again the denotation
individuals :
by the birth of new
It is,
change in the connotation.
to

"

ratio."

in inverse

make

no

thus

classes, the

such

takes

inaccurate

moreover,

for

class, as

is increased

term

the

I may

attribute, which

some

change

no

Thus

verified.

by adding

dealing with

are

and

denotation

vary

relation

mathematical

no

in

alteration

change

in mathematical

connotation

in denotation,

may
zebra
e.g.

as

"

zebra.

tame

(2) Non-connotative
connotative

denote

terms

Terms.
mentioned

The

first kind

of

Non-

by Mill are those which


connoting any attribute.

subject only, not


This
consists
These
are
solelyof proper names.
group
of the individuals, and are
merely distinguishingmarks
held conditionally
their retainingcertain definite
not
on
hand
the
other
are
names
on
qualities.Connotative
the quality changes : the man
once
we
changed when
called

'

names

and
are

this
he

afterwards

thin,' we

call

'

stout.'

primarily signifythe characteristic

secondarily the individual object


applied. It is entitled to the name,
the quality. Proper names
have
sense.

possesses

man

cannot

certain

claim

proper
However
qualities.
a

tive
Connota-

For

to

or

quality,

which

they

it sesses
posmeaning in

because
no

name

because
zealous

PRINCIPLES

30

that
it

an

real order.

Scholastic

in which
no
way
These
therefore
terms
attached

just

is

term

denotation.

no

division

of

which

one

expresses

that

which

follows

as

attribute

an

the

by

terms

"

ing
qualify-

as

subject.

Non-connotative

have

altogether different from


They distinguishthem

discussed.

Connotative

this

to

logicians was

have
A

though

as

is to say, it sents
repreattribute
exist in the
can

meaning

The

we

attribute

our

it in

LOGIC

concept represents the


independent entity. That

term

were

OF

which

one

expresses a

nature

bute
attri-

or

independent entity.

an

as

is

term

terms
: for each
adjectivesare connotative
adjectivesignifies
some
specialattribute as qualifyingsome
person or thing. Thus
the attribute
of
as
signifies
determining
courageous
courage
Prudent
the
attribute
of
some
subject.
similarly signifies
the
On
other
hand
all
as
qualifying a person.
prudence
substantives, as
father,' humanity,'
man,'
nify
paternity,'sigthat
is
conceived
and
not
some
as
as
entity
independent
the qualification
of a subject.
value
of the distinction
The
logical
depends on the difference
All

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

is in the

there

that

Substances

not

an

'

'

between

real order

Substances

Accidents
on
expressed by nouns-substantive.
are
expressed by adjectives: for an accident is
stance.
qualificationof a subindependent entity, but a mere
hand

Hence

distinction

between

them

the

order

real
conceptual representation of
is expressed by the Non-connotative
have
term.
Yet, as we
already had

of the

power
than

enables

intellect

exist.

it to

abstract

conceive

It

is

term

tion
distinc-

notice, the

to

the

otherwise

accident

it does

so

substantive

the

Connotative

things

When

in

this

the

conceive

that

and

term,

and

occasion

it
the

is necessary

and

can
they actually
an
were
entity.2
independent

as

though

Accidents.

and

are

other

the

'

as

it

ploys
em-

is

and

non-connotative.

It

corresponds
and

without

to

the

is therefore

fundamental

of

logic

philosophicallyjustified.
in

difference
the

concept

mental

our

be

would

ceptions,
con-

incomplete

it.

Mill,

an

as

These

adherent

between

distinction
1

distinction

Scholastic

The

Connotative

of

the

substance
terms

when

Empiricist school, rejected the


and

There

accident.

considered

in relation

to

there-

was

the

istic,
character-

they are etymologically


presence of which they signify,and from which
called Denominatives
(-n-apuvvfjia.
Categ. c. i, " 5, c. 8, " 27).
derived, were
termed
the Denominant.
abstract
attribute was
The
the

'

abstract

The

simply

as

an

substance.

term

does

independent

not

represent

determination.

the

accident

Only

concrete

as

substance,

terms

can

but

sent
repre-

NAME:

THE

CONCEPT:

THE

TERM

THE

31

which
involved
place in his logic for a division of terms
solved
the
its recognition. He
difficultythat thus presented
on
a
itself,by putting all general terms
signifyingsubstances
transferred
bloc
to the
them
class
with
en
adjectives, and
par
division
The
is
devoid
of
of connotative
names.
resulting
sophical
philoof Logic must
in the science
of terms
value.
A division
when
of conceiving the real order : and
different
ways
express
should
this
terms
of
is
class
a
designated by a common
name,
fore

no

that

indicate
This

is

all these

certainlynot
Proper names

terms.

nothing
concept

in

terms

the

in

case

in

have

names

Proper
they simply denominate
names

similar

manner.

to Mill's Non-connotative

regard

Abstract

and

common.

at all :

conceived

are

conceptually

significantof

not

are

individual

objectsof

any

sense-

perception.

" 10. Positive and

Negative Terms.

is

of

Positive Term
some

of

some

'

signifiesthe absence

which

one

attribute.

'

'

'

'

lifeless/ absent/

the absence

of the

of

as

take

we

may
examples of

'

nonentity/ A specialclass
called
are
by what

express

terms,

as

terms
'

is

examples of Positive
living/ present/ equal ; and
Thus

presence

attribute.

Negative Term

signifiesthe

which

one

'

tive
Nega-

'

unequal/ not-man/
is constituted
Negative terms

Privative

attribute

in

an

Terms.

These

objectin

which

'

been

blind/
expectedto exist,as for instance
dumb/
It would
be correct
to speak of some
animalblind
culae as
:
eyeless/but not as
sightless or
for the term
blind
impliesthe absence of sight where
it is normally to be found.1
It should be noted that very many
Negative terms, such
stood
underare
as, e.g., 'impatient/ 'careless/ 'inhospitable/
of positivequalities,
to imply the presence
opposite
to those designatedby the corresponding Positive
terms.
There is,however, one
class of Negative terms
to which
no
can
adhere, and which have
positivesignification
possible
as Mr.
Keynes says, a thorough-goingnegativecharacter.

it

might have

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

These

They
1

On

are

denote
Privative

terms

of

the

everything
terms

see

form
which

St. Thomas,

'

not-man/
does

SummaTheol.

not

i.

Q.

'

not-white/

possess
33,

Art.

the

4, ad.

2.

PRINCIPLES

32

which

positivequalityto

OF

the

LOGIC

negation

is attached.

They
called Infinite (Le. Indeterminate) terms
are
(nomen
infinitum,ovo/ma
was
aopurrov). The name
given them
they do not fulfil the natural
by Aristotle, because
of the name,
which
is to designatesome
minate
deterpurpose
character
definite individual.
or
some
They
in
their
the
are
:
wholly indeterminate
signification
is equallyapplicableto what
term
not-man
is real and
'

'

to the

griffinis

'

unreal.

can

say

horse

is

not-man,' and

'

not-man.'

Certain

denied

logicianshave

recent

form

of

'

that

it lies within

not-man.'

They assert
that we
hold togetherin a singlethought things
cannot
It is quite true that
have
which
nothing in common.
hold together things which
cannot
have
we
nothing in
of a positive concept. We
can
by means
common,
however
do
so
by a negative concept. The logical
of the Negative term
lies in this very fact,
significance
our

to

power

that
of

concept

it witnesses

to

to

power

our

conceive

the

absence

a
positivereality.
quality as though it were
conceive
real things:
negations as though they were
give them
conceptual realization. The very fact
stand as the subject or predicate
these terms
can
there
is a proof that
is a thought corsentence
responding

some

We
we

that
of

Were

them.1

to

it

not

for this

power

of

have
should
no
conceiving by negations, we
thought
nothing.' It is true we cannot
correspondingto the word
it. The
imagine nothing : but we can conceive
position
proCreated
once
Being was
nothing gives an
form
can
sense.
Similarly we
intelligible
concepts of
'

'

'

'

'

not-man,'

"

ii.

An

'

Absolute

Absolute

implies no

and
term

reference

Relative

not-white.'

term

Relative
is

name,

Terms.
which

anything else.
is one, which, over

in its meaning

to

and

above

the

nominis
quod
Quia tamen
[nomen infinitum] significat per modum
in
ad
minus
et
suppositum
apprehen
subjici
praedicari,
requiritur
potest
lect. 4, If.
Excludit
sione."
St. Thomas
in Periherm.
quaedam.
1

'

THE

CONCEPT

THE

NAME

THE

TERM

33

object it denotes, implies in its signification another


from
the same
fact which
object also receiving a name
is the ground
We

all familiar

are

in

given
of the
also

of the first name.

pairs ;

if

that

certain

an

so

are

an

'

Such

which

names

objectexists,to which one


be applied,we
that there must
know
may
be applied.
object to which the other may

two

be

with

'

'

servant/
master,
parent, child/
king,
subject/ husband, wife/ equal, equal/ etc., etc. If
are

'

it

then
is

be

can

'

truly affirmed

there

is also

and

each

Such

is

terms

known

are

there

master,

parent,

'

also

must

Relative

as

does

involve

not

be

terms

When

correlative, it is known

'

child

is said to be the correlative of the other.

term

some

If there

predicated.
servant.

of any
that he is
one
of whom
the term
one

as

Absolute.
It
of

should

Relative

Relative

and

two

be

must

the
not

mere

fact

make

their

Andrew
be

men

not

are

For

brothers.

such

to

as

express

relation is the

the

Peter, without

his brotherhood

may

field of

But

mind's

the

Relative, it

conceive

can

brother

my

though

in which

concept
a

be

to

Peter

names.

names,

name

Now

carefullyobserved that
between
two
objects,does

relation

names

be

vision.

object of thought.
thinking of him as
be altogetheroutside

if I

think

of

him

as

in my
referhim to
thought I necessarily
whose
brother
he is, and
thought is a
my

brother, then
the

person

relative

The

concept.
be

question must

Relative

'brother'
A
the

c.
(Categ.

Relative

7,

Andrew

term

relative, e.g.,

'

concrete

'

master/
from

in

separation

belongs, it

is

abstract, e.g.,

Abstract
'

relatives
'

have

father.'
the

the

term

'

dominion/

'

If

abstract.
have

the

If

express
which
it

we

object to

correlative

their

paternity corresponds to

or

object,we

relation

the

be

it must

"8).

be
may
the related
signifies

name

in

case

such
relative concept.
a
signifies
Peter precisely
under the aspect

express
connexion
with

his

the

that

one

It must
of

for

term

'

crete
con-

paternity.'
Thus

terms.
'

filiation/ dominion
D

'

to

PRINCIPLES

34

'

'

LOGIC

OF

'

'

friendship of the one


subjection/ the
equality
friendship of the other, the
of one
of two
equals,to that which

'

'

'

friend

to

which

is predicated

is

the

predicated

other.

of the

will
of this division of terms
logicalsignificance
have
not
escaped notice. We are here dealing with a
the mind
in which
can
represent the real
specialway
the one
It is capable on
hand
of representing
order.
the other it can
its object in isolation : and on
represent
it is related
it in the light of the connexion
by which
fashion
to
relations,
something else. Further, it can
when
even
they do not exist in the real order. Thus it
conceive
a
can
thing,which is viewed under one aspect,
The

'

as

in

Yet

'

identical

itself viewed

with

real order

the

there

under
be

can

another
such

no

aspect.

thing

as

'

identity.'To have a real, as distinguished


from
be two
a
merely conceptual relation, there must
things,not one only.
of

relation

"

Second

omitted

been

has

distinction

and

First

of

Terms

12.

by

English logicians.1It is,however,


;

and

the

student

will find
significance,
much
lightened.

is

of

the

recent

of the

highestimportance
thoroughly grasped its
in the study of Logic
which

one

is applicable

Intention is

of Second

object, only

as

which

one

it exists in the

is applicable

conceptual order.2

predicated of an object
signifyingits attributes, not all belong to it as it is
the real order.
Some
belong to it only in so far as
I may
Thus
is represented in the mind.
not
only

Of
as

in
it

'

say,
but
1

the

terms

The

oak

I may

go

which

is
on

'

but
2

may

be

'

forest-tree,'The

to

'

say,

The

oak

oak
is the

is deciduous

'

subject of my

Hamilton
in Edinburgh
by Sir William
to be
distinction," he there says, "is necessary
account
own
as
a highly philosophical
determination,
of any
the condition
as
understanding of the Scholastic Philosophy."
Cf. St. Thomas,
Opusc. 39, De Natura Generis, c. 12.

See however

an

accurate

Review, vol. 57, p. 210.


known, not only on its
'

labour

many

This

object,as it exists in the real order.

term

to the

his

has

of First Intention

term

to the

who

Intention.

"

The

account

THE

CONCEPT

'

judgment/

is

oak

The

NAME

THE

universal

TETCM

THE

35

concept.' Here,

totallydifferent orders of predicates.


One
sort belongs to the objectin its own
natural
the other
of existence
mode
:
belongs to it in so far as
it is representedconceptually,in so far that is, as it is
To
this class of terms
realized in the logicalorder.
manifest, I have

is

as

belong

with

many

two

which
such

chapters,

shall

we
as

middle

term,

These

two

are

called

respectivelyterms

of

Second

of

terms

used

mind.'

of the

act

in the

real order

which

it knows

the

why

reason

importance, is

primary
the

with

consideration

order,
"

and
universal
order

as

hence

such, but
with

that

as

'

salia
'

Second

Intentions

as

It is however

(1640-1695)

Goudin
rationis

seu

secundas

Logica Maj. Quaest.


in

the

"
A

works

13-

of

the

it is

as

is that

distinction

by

is of

it

real

the

the

mind

wholly

cerned
con-

without

not

was

logiciansdefined

it

simply

Intentions.
de

quotes

Universalibus,
the

applied
said
says,

to

Art.

Arabian

i.

that

'

Logic
he

in that

occur

deals

with

attributes

formali

distinction
on

to

works.

assignant

objecto

commentators

Univer-

author's

Thomistae
pro
This

Logica princi-

2,

First,' which

Omnes

intentiones

'

c.

Scotus, Super

saying

to

not
'

Prae.

is

Logic

and

with

in which

intentionibus.'

secundis
3,

by

conceptual order.

concerned

Hence

Intentions

Opusc.

Porphyrii, Q.

Boethius.

'

de

paliter est

mind

the

manner

mediaeval

St. Thomas,

Thus

the

of Second

Science

the

It is not

real order.

the

an

is that

thing

'

that

with

Second

that

is

Logic is wholly concerned


of things as they are
in the conceptual
things as they are mentally represented,
as
they are
subjects, predicates,

etc.

terms,

represents that
cause

with

of the

act

claim

we

the

be

signify

mind

it is in the

thing as

intentio

that

of the

and

will

terminology

knows

second

the

and

in subsequent

Intention

logiciansto

first act

conceives

the

The

The

mind

which

The

mediaeval

the

by

First

it is remembered

when

understood,
word

Intention.

deal

to

species,major, minor
orders of predicates

genus,

and

etc.

have

ens

Logicae.'

first appears

Aristotle.

Univocal, Equivocal and Analogous Terms.

Univocal

Term

is one

which

is always employed with

PRINCIPLES

36
the

An

intension.

same

hand, is

which

one

different

terms

are

morsel
of

no

be

to

'

word

bit

entirely

two
'

other

the

on

express

is used

to

or

is not

which

one

but

one

is

two

An

terms.

employed

partly, but not wholly, the

meanings

term,

vocal
Equipart of a horse's harness.
ing
importance. Properly speaklogical

is

Term

Analogous

used

e.g. the

as

equivocal term

an

LOGIC

Equivocal

can

meanings,

signifyeither

OF

to

express

These

same.

terms

kinds,

(i) One class do not, for our purpose,


word
The
differ from
Equivocal terms.
healthy may
that
serve
as
an
example. As appliedto a man, it means
is satisfactory.As appliedto food,
his physicalcondition
it signifies,
not that the food is physically
sound, but that
The
two
to
it is calculated
produce health in man.
meanings here, are as distinct as those of an Equivocal
be
term.
(2) The other class of Analogous terms must
do not, it is true, like
terms
These
carefullynoticed.
Univocal
terms, convey
meaning
preciselythe same
wherever
an
Analogous term
they are employed. When
the analogy exists,
which
is applied to objectsbetween
that the
is in so far different,
its meaning in the two
cases
is present in different
characteristic signified
grades. Yet
of two

are

'

'

can

we

express

by
them

instance

'

'

cause

forms

of the

in tion
quesbetween

characteristic

there
exists
singleconcept, because
When
of proportion (ai/aXo-yio),
likeness

we

the

that

both

say

that

God

is the
'

sculptoris the
is analogous.

'

cause
'

of the

of the statue,

cause

God

'

the

causes

world

for

world, and
the
in

word
ent
differ-

the
sculptor causes
tween
beYet
statue.
owing to the proportionalresemblance
the two
form an Analogous concept,
can
cases, we
the word
and employ an Analogous term.
thing
Similarly
is a
is analogous. WTe say that a man
thing/ and that
and a thought are
a
thing ; but a man
thought is a
not
sense.
things in the same
from

sense

that

in

which

the

'

'

'

"
each

14.

'

Opposition of Terms.

other

in the

Terms

followingways

(i) Contradictory Opposition

can

be

opposed to

:
"

is the

opposition between

PRINCIPLES

38

The

term

same

Although

for').
will

it

ways

affirmed

either

apply

of

denied

or

separately,

taken

of

tributiva)

term

When

as

The

collective^

is

may

subject,
The

group.

dis-

(suppositio
collective

the

as

among

the

use

latter

involved,

predicate

constitute

taken

the

stand

to

anything

the

subject,

distributive

'

used.

be

may

who

Latin

principal

use.

them

the

as

the

(suppositio

term

the

be

the

here

to

or

known

is

former

may

individuals,

the

to

repetition

plural

by

supponere,

Distributive

and

Collective

(1)

termed

(from

which

in

different.

something

were

distinguish

to

different

the

term

little

well

be

the

suppositiones,

its

logicians

of

uses

LOGIC

for

stand

may

various

These

OF

'

propositions,

use

The

citizens

raised

the

two

and

order,

of

my
'

is

"

'

To

refers

in

at
"

'

say,

said
'

is

be

Windsor,"

the

The

of

is

use

in

used

verb."

"

'

Run

the

suppositio
'

is

word

the
The

(suppositio
'

is

is

word
written

the

three

ject
sub-

logica).
taken

to

symbol,

materialis,
of

in

say

(suppositio

When

its

is

"

real

England

or

it

as

if

is

use

logical

sound,

spolcen

object
Thus,

concept.

King

depends

distinction

the

to

materialist

the

to

his

the

sentence,"

Suppositio

run

is

is

signify simply
it

it

as

or

If

realis).

(3)

The

illustrate

sufficiently

This

use.

speaker

England

of

King

Logical

the

whether

real

will

election,'

the

'

and

statesman,'

cases.

Real

(2)
on

in

voted

citizens

dead

the

to

monument

e.g.

letters.''*

III.

CHAPTER

THE

"

The

i.

of
of

expression
defined

or

deny

It

is

either

'

e.g.

is

affirm

"i).

6,

c.

expression

i)

c.

it

that

of

lion

The

p.

(de Interp.

form

The

may

we

verbal

proposition

every

false.

or

Inter

as

falsity

or

of

(or is not) P,

for

it
be

must

is

proposition

the

'

vertebrate/

is

Caesar

alive.'

not

from

Conditional
of

attribute

the

that,
to

the

to

be

In

the

wish

the

attribute

of

affirmed

of

falsity.

For

order.

the

subject

(2)

'

'

So

the

The

the

May

subject

it

attribute

In

it.

to

an

we

only

when

that

the

mind

when

we

judge

not

expresses
that

have,

The

speak

is

ger
messen-

'

'

Speak,

attribute

the

the

it

(or deny)

affirm
'

are

mood.

injunction

belongs

logical proposition

regard

points

but

is

which

affirm

subject,

messenger

is attained

merely

does

alone
Thus

we

mind

gives

or

indicative

too

truth
an

so,

assert

indicative

the

the
the

to

it

not

following

in

moods,

do

we

belongs

always

subject.

the

speaking/

messenger

the

be

In

so.

attribute
is

is

belongs

it may

that
be

should

It

(i)

"

these

the

proposition,

grammatical

other
the

that

it

conditions,

Categorical
noted

In

commonly

distinguish

to

subject absolutely

the

certain

given

Proposition,

propositions.

is

described,

have

we

Categorical

the

as

kind

of the

proposition

known

truth

true

is

defined

which

(de

subject

sometimes

also

characteristic

is

of

attribute

an

Proposition
in

the

is

Proposition

The

expression

external

the

is

the

so

Judgment.

verbal

Term

the

Concept,

the

as

enunciating

the

PROPOSITION.

THE

As

Proposition.

expression

be

AND

JUDGMENT

is

reaches

truth

or

mind

assigns

to

to

it

always

in

the

stated

'real
in

PRINCIPLES

4o

the

is to

Our

tense.

present

study

the

in

purpose

Logic,as

have

we

seen,

represents the
question of present, past

in which

mode

LOGIC

OF

mind

the

regardsthis the
is purely accidental.
future
The time-determination
or
such. Hence
does not affect the mental
as
representation
in the use
of language
differences of tense so necessary
have
for practicalends
no
place in Logic. (3) The
logicalpredicate is always separated from the copula.
In the language of common
life,we
frequentlyexpress
As

real order.

in

them

Logic
This

word,

one

'

must

we

same

Logic demands
grammatical form,

that

Sir W.

represent

every

closelyas

as

stated

Hamilton

as

be

shall

'

The

bird

flies/

so

In

is

flying.'
performed whenever

be

must

process

For

to

bird

The

say,

such
expressions,

mutilated

as

for instance,

as

Wolf

'

'

Fire

sentence,

we
'

'

get

Rain

'

its

whatever

analysed and expressed,


possiblethe intellectual act.

this in what

termed

is sometimes

'

Logic postulatesto be allowed


in language, whatever
is implicitly
'to
state explicitly
Our
mutilated
three
in thought/
contained
sions
expresbe respectively
resolved into, A wolf is near/
may
is falling/
Rain
A fire is burning/
the
is of the
between
must
We
carefullydistinguish
exist/
word
when
it means
to
copula, and the same
The
copula does not signifythat the subject exists.1
A
I may
chiliagonis a geometricalfigure/ even
say
existed.
The
copula in
though no chiliagonhas ever

Hamilton's

Postulate,viz.

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

affirmative

subject and

the

denotes

sentences

predicate:

objective identity of
they are expressions representing
the

object. In negative sentences


the objectivediversityof
the copula 'is not'
signifies
the terms
: the predicateis not
applicableto the object
brate/
denoted
by the subject. I may say, The lion is verteis rightlyapplied
the term
vertebrate
because
I cannot
lion/
to the
same
object as the term
say
one

and

the

same

'

'

'

'

'

The

octopus

subject and
1

more

predicateof

question of
fully dealt with

The

This

is vertebrate/

the

'

in Ch.

the

between

proposition,arises

Implication of
7.

relation

Existence

'

in

the

the

immedi-

copula, will

be

THE

the

ately from

of the

'

'

also
is

as

The

'

vertebrate/
Here

how

the

'

as

the

expressions
expressed in one

is

'

judgment,

the

But

I cannot

octopus/

position
pro-

affirmative

vertebrate/

as

Hence

is

41

which

act

object

same

I conceive

vertebrate/

as

mental

lion/ in another

which

object

terms

object.

same

concept

two

PROPOSITION

judgment. In every
different mental
are

the

represents
the

of the

nature
"

judgment

THE

AND

JUDGMENT

conceive

The

octopus

impossible.
totally Scholastic

Logic differs from


Formal
Logic. Strictly,Formal
Logic should take no
of the content
of the subjectand predicate. To
account
it every
Scholastic
judgment is simply 5 is P.
Logic
rejectsany judgments in which the concepts do not represent
we

the
'

Cows

see

lions/

are

'

objective reality,e.g.

same

In these

the two

Men

notions

The

circles/

are

repugnant

are

impossible.
judgment
Although as we have
" 2. Analysis of the Judgment.
the
subject and
predicate of the judgment are
seen,
different concepts of the same
thing, it is important to
that
it is the subject which
in mind
bear
presses
directlyexto which
the thing,i.e. that
attributes
belong.
the thing as
The
qualifiedby a parpredicateexpresses
ticular
the

the

to

one

attribute

other.

or

form.'1

is

Whenever

fix

we

attention

our

mind

to abstract
immediately commences
from
the
the attributes
object of thought, and affirm
It judges :
of it one
The thing is hard
them
by one.
Here
the predicate in each
is brittle, etc/2
is black
on

thing, our

'

"

"

attribute

is the

case

qualifyingthe thing.
develop into
2
'

Cf. St. Thomas,


"

Cost

firmables

done

les

Summa

grace
des

the

It

is easy

Theol.

to

I.

1'abstraction

Q.

13, Art.

in

attribute
which

considered

how

see

complex

more

the

object

blackness, etc., but

inheres, i.e. hardness,

indeed

not

"

separation from

in

considered

form

or

ones.

it
as

such

ments
judg-

The

hard,

12.

intellectuelle

que

les choses

sont

ai-

autres, et peuvent faire fonction de predicat dans les


'propositions." Mercier, "31.
Arist.
Similarly Themistius, commenting
on
De Anima, III. vi. " 2, says
"v
ws
TOT
"pavTd"cTai
~
2(i}Kpd.Tr)v,
17 i^ev yap
fiadifovTa
unes

'

'

'

'

The
oicupe? XU^HS /J.et" rbv S., xwP"* ^ TO fiadtfa
sense-faculty
of Socrates walking as a single whole
intellect
gives us the phantasm
: the
abstracts, and separates Socrates on the one
hand
from
is walking on
the
6

vovs

"other."

de

'

Them.

202,

10

cited

in

Rodier,

Traite

de

"

I'dme, II. 471.

PRINCIPLES

42

LOGIC

OF

'

'

thing will be called coal : and the judgment


will take predicatesof a less primary character.1
A judgment is said to be true when
the form expressed
by the predicateis reallyfound in the object denoted
object,e.g. Socrates,
by the subject. Thus, if I see some
and I judge Socrates is walking/ my judgment is a true
if the attribute
one
walking/ which I affirm of Socrates
in thought,does in fact belong to him in the real order.
truth is defined as the conformityof the mind with
Hence
its object.For in every true affirmative judgment the
mental
formity
concept expressed in the predicateis in conwith a real attribute belongingto the external
what
object. As regardsnegativejudgments the case is somebrittle

'

'

different.

In

them

declare

we

that

form

the

pressed
ex-

predicateis not to be found in the object


the judgment refers. Yet in a somewhat
to which
wide
can
we
sense
say that in negative judgments also the
is conformed
to its object. In judginga form
mind
not
to belong to an
objectwhich in fact does not possess it,
is in correspondencewith reality.But negamind
tion
my
is a secondary and subsidiaryform
In
of truth.
affirmation there is perfectcorrespondencebetween
the
mental form
expressedin the predicateand the objective
reality.2
Grammatically the subjectdoes not always take the
first place. It is the meaning of the proposition,
not
in the

the

arrangement of

subjectand
or

it is the

the

The
1

When

in the
form

who

the
must

verb
reason

'

Blessed

last,is the
the

are

meek/

logicalsubject.

previous section

that

the

be/

to

if

will appear

the attribute

Cf. St. Thomas,

we

what

examine

is meant

by

expressed by the predicate is not something perceived


of judgment is not by direct abstraction.
ence
Experithe

another

ground or
subject, and judge, e.g.,
one

first or

fies
quali-

copula
cate.
objectiveidentityof the subjectand prediis
this
now
identity expressed
enquirewhy

senses, the process


and
store
education

On

the

stated in the

the

by

words,

is the

which

term

it comes
'

which

tells us

predicate. The

other,whether

Thus

meek

have

expresses
We

by

the

defines the

predicate.
We

which

which

words,

the

'

we

Caius

/. Sent.

mind

with

recognize
is
XIX.

concepts

cowurd,'

Q.

of

numerous

of

the
'

one

presence
iUil'ous is wise.'

5, Art.

i, ad

i.

attributes.
of these

in the

THE

'

the

AND

JUDGMENT
'

THE

PROPOSITION

43

object. If we speak of the real order,


The
at once
of the term.
we
can
distinguishtwo senses
being of an object may signify(i) its existence, that
in virtue
of which
the thing is : or it may
signify(2)
the nature
of the thing that in virtue of which
it is what
being

'

of

an

'

"

"

it is.
man

Thus
:

of

for instance

Bucephalus, that

characteristics than
For

it is
'

or

we

these

plain that

horse/

he is

the

other

that

And

horse.

to

of them.
'

make

its

representationin

vidual
indi-

an

of

'

the

Our

mind.

thoughts,and

words

the

are

'

man

object what it is. Size, colour, etc. etc., all


constitute
the complete entity.
In consideringthe
of the copula,we
to be
are
not
concerned
directlywith the real order, but
*

other

essential nature

qualities
go

is

he

many

of each

be affirmed

may

besides

numerous

of Socrates

say

go

to

ever
howwith
festation
mani-

speak of things,
we
as
speak of them
they are
mentally represented.
Now
when
mind
ject,
forms a judgment concerning an obour
the function
that some
of the copula is to declare
attribute
belongs to that object, to tell us what the object
is. In other words
of the copula represents
the
to be
the
of
not
sense
being of existence, but the second
the nature
of the
being/ that namely in which it means
still more
thing. This will appear
plainlyif we reflect
that we
make
series of true
can
a
judgments about an
it exists or
Our
not.
object,irrespectiveof whether
judgment, e.g. that 'the horse is a quadruped' would be
true
the last member
of the speciesequus exeven
were
tinct.
Indeed
little has the
is of the copula to do
so
our

when

we

"

'

'

'

'

'

'

with

existence, that
do

existence, we
sentence

But

here

must

we

It should

to the

nature

apart from

be
of

noticed

desire

we

employ
simply

that

finite being.

'

to

remembered

The

nature

fact of

the

is.' l

Socrates

say

existence

to affirm

subject-copula-predicate

the

call attention

It will be

importance.
1

not

all,but

at

when

'

adds
is

point

that

no

new

complete

note

of very

when

or

great

discussdetermination

in all its characteristics

Hence
confers.
actuality which existence
our
concept of the
the thing exists
without
respect to the question, whether
If it were
possible to have Singular concepts, the concept, say of Socrates,
would
he existed
be the same
in all its determinations, whether
not.
or

nature

the

is complete

PRINCIPLES

44

OF

LOGIC

ingNegative terms (Ch.2, " q) we saw that we are able to


conceive
real entities,things which
as
though they were
in fact simply the negations of entities.
And
thus
are
find that in many
of our
we
judgments, the predicateis
not
in the real order.
It is a
a
qualityor determination
negation, which

mere

in the

conceptual order I conceive


positive characteristic,as e.g. in

a
though it were
the proposition,The horse is riderless/
To be riderless
is no
of the
horse.
Sometimes
positive characteristic
both
subject and predicate are of this character : for
of much
instance, Blindness
deprives men
happiness/
if it were
Here not merely is a privationconceived
as
a
real subject; but a purely negative result is conceived
as
a
positiveaction.
this it will easilyappear
From
cannot
that we
strictly
speaking say that the is of the copula expresses that the
in some
for the predicate
:
subject is determined
way
as

'

'

'

'

'

not

may

be

'

real determination

all.

at

It expresses

that

As
in some
subjectis conceived as determined
way.
the objectiveidentity
have already said, it expresses
we
of subject and
predicate.
Mill gravely informs
that
his father was
the first
us
in the sense
to be
of
philosophersto notice that
among
to exist/ has not the same
it means
as when
signification
to be a man
adds
to be some
specifiedthing,as
; and
the

'

'

'

'

that

'

and

all the

ancients

meaning

wherever

used.

Aristotle

common

which

'

from

rose

this

believed
"The

spot

narrow

it to

have

fog/'he adds,
itself at

diffused

"

'

earlyperiod over the whole surface of Metaphysics


(Logic,Bk. I. c. 4, " i). Mill frequentlyfalls into error
the
when
criticizing
philosophy of Aristotle and his
but
followers, with whose
writings he was
imperfectly
acquainted. Nowhere
perhaps is he more
astray than
the
here.
Not
distinction
merely was
carefullynoted
the various
of
by Aristotle
senses
: but
Being was
of the points most
canvassed
in the writingsof the
one
an

'

'

Scholastics.
1

(' To

Thus
be

in Soph. Elenchi,C.
something is not the

5, he says,
same

as

ou

to

yap

ravrbv

dt"ai rt

ri

be.') Cf. de Interp. c.

Kal

eu/cu

air\3s

n,

"" 9,

10.

PRINCIPLES

46

'being,' in

between

V.

truth, Met.

"

c.

real

the

"

4,

endeavoured

true,

to

5.

of

alternative

This

must

(2) negative. This


logicians have, it is
all propositionsto the

or

Some

ultimate.

is

division

signifies

proposition, which

the

(i) affirmative,

either

be

which

propositionP

In every

denied

or

Quality of

the

being'

i.

be either affirmed

determines

'

order, and

Quality of Propositions.

3.

must

LOGIC

OF

reduce

But
the
writing 5 is not-P.
be thus bridged. 5 *s not-P is,of course,
difference cannot
equivalentto S is not P. But they differ the one from the
other : since in S is not P we
deny the positiveconcept P
affirm the negativeconcept
of S, and in 5 is not-P
we
The
not-P of 5.
negative and affirmative forms remain
radicallydistinct.
form

affirmative

is P,

three

admits

Kant
S

P, S

is not

to

judgment
with

by

is not-P.
a

Affirmatives

the

forms, Affirmative, Negative, Infinite,


His

motive

assigning the

which

finite
In-

them

of

reckoning
they rightly belong, seems

separate class,
to

instead

in

to

Categories should
sent
preA
division
harmonious
was
required
an
triple
appearance.
in its other
portions,and a tripledivision must perforcebe found
for the Quality of judgments.
desire

the

been

have

that

his

scheme

of

In

" 4. Quantity of Propositions.

any

affirmation

or

be affirmed
denied, (i) of all the
or
negation,P may
are
by the subject-term,e.g. All men
objectsdenoted
of these
mortal
objects,e.g.
or
(2) of only some
;
be no
or
Some
:
are
sign
men
(3)there may
negroes
the predicaterefers to some
whether
only or to
to mark
is not
Pleasure
a
good : or (4) the subject
all,e.g.
is wise/ 'The
be a singularterm, e.g. 'Socrates
may
These
various
scaled.'
highest of the Alps has been
alternatives lead to the division of propositions
according
'

'

'

'

'

'

quantity.

to

A
h

Universal

affirmed

extension
We

have

proposition is

(or denied) of

and

one,

in which

the

subject, taken

predicate

in its whole

distributively.

alreadyexplained(Ch.2, " 14)that

when

sub-

THE

AND

JUDGMENT

THE

PROPOSITION

4;

the predicate is affirmed


ject is employed distributively,
denoted
individual
of every
we
by the subject. When
All sparrows
that every
vidual
indiare
winged/ we mean
say,
is possessed of wings. A
proposition
sparrow
is not uniin which
the subject is understood
versal.
collectively
Thus
the proposition,All the slates covered
the
roof/ is not a universal proposition. The predicateis not
of each
individual
affirmable
denoted
by the subject,
but of the individuals
as
Hence,
forming one
group.
All (and not
the word
whenever
Every) is employed to
qualifythe subject,care must be taken to observe whether
it be understood
or
distributively.
collectively
Universal
It is plain that though the Affirmative
is of
will not
the form All S is P, the Negative Universal
be
'

'

All S is not
does
at

P, but
P

exclude

not

once

S is P.

No

from

The
'

men

of the

mortal/

are

supposing

that

'

subject

This

not

is, of

number

not

multiply

the

nature

also

as

not

are

are

member

every

the

universal

the

'

of individuals.

concept,
'

man

belongs, to

the

'

form

is the

The

to

entity the

into

number

The

mental

Omnis

act

homo

universal

adjective

signifiesthat
that

student

conceives

impossible.

course,

but

proposition,e.g.

mislead

intellect

more

man/

S,

Englishmen

from

truly represented by the Latin


The
mortalis.'
subject of the judgment

is

soldiers

No

attribute

plural in a
possibly

may

the

in

individuals.

of

All

class.

employment

All

'

I say,

individual

every

proposition

generals/ If, however,


the
negroes/ I exclude
of the

and

each

All S is not

form

'

in the

appears

The

'

est

nature

All

whatever

'

does

entity
'

attribute

'

mortal

belongs.

Particular propositionis one

affirmed

(ordenied)of

in which

the

predicate is

part only of the extension of the

subject.
of the

form

The

(or are

not) P

'

rich

Some

the
from
use,

word
that
when

for instance,

men

are

'

'

some

in which
we

Particular

not

is here
it is

propositionis
'

Some

soldiers

generous/

The

are

are

brave/
in which

sense,

used, differs in certain

respects

In

ordinary

ordinarily
employed.

speak, e.g.

Some

of

'

'

some

men,

we

are

under-

PRINCIPLES

48
stood

to

mean

suppositionthat
'

'

Some

of

than

more

what

'

and

one,

we

say

but

several

means

LOGIC

OF

all.' In

particularproposition,may
predicatemight be truly affirmed
a

used

also

could

if there

even

be

applied. Thus
wings/ even
though it
them

'

and

there

fact

but

be

extension

Some

men

be

but

to

which

the

true

of all

of all

and

individual
'

be

whom

it
have

possess
though in

high/

is made

reference

it may

birds

'

Some

man.

the

all birds

that

'

'

some

to

Some

say,

men.

where

even
:

the

'

Logic,the

eight feet

such

exclude

used

case

are

one

be

one

I may
be

be

may

not

to

also

leaves

the

minate.
indeter-

wholly

Particular

the

to

them

process

'

counting.

All

birds

such

are

incalculable

an

future.

'

attained

indeed

number

But

of

of nature

establish

deal

indeterminate

of two

by
I

can.

sorts.

mere

can

meration
enu-

arrive at

Jews/ by
apostleswere
propositionsof this character

All the

propositions as,

of this character.
to

.an

and

it is well to call attention

oviparous/ Here,

All laws

enquiry is

with

will not

Enumeration

moment.

regard to

Universals

be

Some

truth, that

of minor

are

in

of

this, that

propositionsare

cannot

of instances.
the universal

in

here

fact,that universal

majority of

The

And

class.

the

Universal

class,Particulars

whole

portionof

between

then

propositionslies

the

with

distinction

essential

The

All

I refer

known
aim

universal

me

mortal/

merely

not

to science

and

serve

are

men

past instances, but

The
such

'

to

also to the
are

tions
proposi-

object of scientific
truths.

predicateof individuals,
which
within
have not come
planation
our
experience? The exlies in the fact, that in these propositions
we
the predicateto be invariablyconnected
with
the
know
universal
class-notion
employed in the subject. In a
later part of Logic, we
reach
this
shall consider how
we
How

is it that

we

can

affirm

for this is easy to see.


When
the word
has the significance
reason
affirmative,
only," it is really equivalent to two propositions, one
it is used
in reference
definite
one
to certain
individuals,
negative. When
A.
B.
It is only in its
C., it is equivalent to so many
singular judgments.
indeterminate
reference
that it is an
independent and elementary thoughtThe

"

some

form.

THE

It is sufficient

knowledge.

individuals
'

AND

JUDGMENT

'

mortal

here

is

observe

to
'

'

the notion

PROPOSITION

THE

man

is

49

that

to whatever

the predicate
applicable,

applicable also.

In

virtue

of

their

being men, they possess the attribute of mortality. The


tion,
universalityof these propositions rests not on enumerabut
connexion
on
our
knowledge of the constant
between
the concepts of the subjectand predicate.
It remains
to consider
Indesignateand Singular propositions.
Indesignate propositions are
As

quantity.
universal,
men

far

they

or

form

as

melancholy,' it

are

is

be

may

such

have

as

concerned,

they

particular. If

does

not

sign

no

'

Old

whether

appear,

be

may

I say,

of

am

speaking of all old men, or of some


only. Hence indesignate
propositionshave no place in Logic, until a sign of
In some
indeed
the
cases
quantity is affixed to them.
nected
Indesignateis used to signifythat the predicateis conwith the subject,e.g.
Man
is mortal/
necessarily
is of course
Here the proposition
equivalentto a universal.
For these judgments in which
the Indesignateform stands
'

for

not

individuals,but for the class-nature,

employ

the

it should

be

convenient

observed

from

character

the

term

that

we

Generic
do not

logicalform,

but

authors

some

judgments.

But

their universal

know
from

previous

our

Very
acquaintancewith the matter under consideration.
often the Indesignateis used
for what
termed
moral
are
are
universals,as in the example alreadygiven, Old men
melancholy.' A moral universal admits exceptions,and
hence
is logically
a
particular.
'

The

Singular propositionis,as we have said, one whose


subject is either a significant
Singular term or a proper
These
On
anomalies.
name.
propositions present some
the

hand,

one

the

class,and
were

it appears
itself a class.

Universal
is
the

individual

object is a
incongruous to treat
On

the

other, the

member
it

as

of

though

definition

of

it
a

proposition is applicableto them, for the predicate


affirmed
of the subject in its whole
extension,

extension

in this

case

being restricted

to

vidual.
singleindi-

PRINCIPLES

50

Modern
as

have
logicians

Universal, and

LOGIC

OF

resolved

to treat this

it will be convenient

proposition

to adhere

that

to

arrangement.
The

older

logiciansclassifythe Singularproposition
and assignit neither to the Universal nor
to the
separately,
Particular.1

This

For

course.

the

the

by

Universal

the

seem,

and

scientific

more

Particular

in which

manner

subjectis understood
have
explainedabove
Hence

it would

was,

the

concept employed

as

in

But as we
regard to extension.
cepts.
(Ch.2, " i),we have no singularconis

there

fundamental

difference between

'

such

guished
distin-

are

'

Socrates
are
mortal/ and
propositionas, All men
is a philosopher.'
are
Propositionswhose
subject is a Collective term
Singularpropositions.Thus if I say, All the applesfilled
the bowl/ it is clear that I refer to this group
of apples
considered
as
a
singleobject.
a

'

" 5. The
last

Fourfold

paragraph

forms

of

the

be

known

If

Universal
the

whole

good,

it

known

Affirmative,

its whole

extension,

the

of

the

two

Latin

the

with

the

use

that

scheme, viz.

These

letters,A.I.E.O.
The

we

case,

based

Universal

Affirmative, Universal

the

St. Thomas,

be

fourfold

are

Negative,
cated
respectivelyindi-

These

letters

the

are

words, Affirmo (I affirm)and

first
second

Opusc. 44, Summa


found
the
though
Opusculum,
among
hand.)
.

to

by

Universal,
Cf

the

Negative.

(I deny).

the

this

Particular

Particular

Nego

is either

made

distinction,combined

quality,gives us

vowels

truth

hold

to

know

not

This

Particular.
on

the

the
use
good, we
proposition.If it does not hold good as regards
of the subject,or if,though it holds
extension

do

we

is

subjectin

and

known

every

assertion

The

fundamental

two

Universal

two,

the

of the

the

the

these

For

Propositions.

that

us

of

one

expressed.
to hold good

not.

or

shown

of

proposition are

In

Particular.
can

has

Scheme

vowel

in

vowel

for

Totius
works

each

Logicae,

the

de

stands

Particular.

Interp.

of St. Thomas,

for

c.

is from

6.

(This

another

notation,which

Another
SoP

SeP,

this

THE

AND

JUDGMENT

THE

is found

notation

has

PROPOSITION

51

convenient, is SaP, SiP,


for

subject
quality.Hence,

symbols

the

well as for quantity and


as
predicate,
four propositionsmay
be thus
expressed.

and
our

All

Some

5
5

No

P.

A.

SaP.

are

P.

/.

SiP.

are

P.

E.

SeP.

are

not

0.

SoP.

are

Some

" 6. Analytic and


is based
is based
The

on

Synthetic Propositions.
other

or

will

fact that

the

on

one

P.

of

be

two

tinction
dis-

This

Judgments

each

of

very

different

our

motives.

by a few examples.
If we
consider
the followingpropositions, The
angles
of every
triangleare equal to two rightangles/ The
whole
is greater than
its part,' Every square
has
four
them
with
such
sides/ and compare
propositions
point

best

elucidated

'

'

'

'

as

Water

black/

freezes
shall at

we

between
of the
has

different

second.

In

as

classes.

two

of

case

consider

we

in

the

is

concepts of

are

ence
differ-

certainty

our

class, and

first class of

the

the

first

cows

indeed, certain

are,

propositions. But

motive

the

We

Some

there

recognizethat

once

of all these

truth

soon

the

'

32" Fahrenheit/

at

in

the

Judgments,as

the

subject
they are necessarilybound
have
its angles equal to

and

gether.
topredicate,we see that
A trianglemust
two
it would
not
be what
we
mean
rightangles; otherwise
by a triangle.Were we told of any figurethat its interior
angles were
greater or less than two
right angles,we
should
be justified
in affirmingthat it was
not, and

could

under

not

In
'

'

whole

that
the

'

term
to

are

same

way
'

part

greater
whole/
the

different.

conviction
cows

'

and

is not

regard
very

the

that

black.

circumstances

any

is

excludes
than
'

second
It

the

that

its

water

There

of

part

which

the

for

the

consists
motive

nothing in

my

of

of
has
and

angle.
tri-

concepts

supposition of

the

experience that
freezes at 32" F.,
is

rectilinear

intension

class, the
is

be

whole

meaning
parts.'
assent

our

led
that

notion

of

of
In
is

to

my
certain
'

'

cow

PRINCIPLES

52

LOGIC

'

which

'

prescribes blackness,' nor in my notion of water/


compels me to think of it as possessingthis particular
of
In
neither
freezing-pointat the sea-level.
propositionsare the two concepts linked together

which

these

of their

in virtue
The

former

latter

the

OF

The

intension.

class of

propositionsis

termed

Analytic,

Synthetic.

definition

of

Analytic and
Synthetic propositions
is differently
given by Scholastic philosophers
the one
of Logicians
on
hand, and by the greater number
since the days of Kant, on
The
the other.
difference is
of primary importance in philosophy. We
place the
Scholastic

definitions

first.

either the
Analytic proposition is one, in which
predicate is contained in the intension of the subject,
or the subject in the intension of the predicate.
An

Synthetic proposition is one in which the connexion


of subject and predicate is not involved in the intension
of the terms.
It will be
kinds.

of two

Analytic propositionsare

first kind

The

predicateis

that

seen

of

consists

those

in

which

the

signifyingeither the whole intension,


of the subject. Such
is the
or
part of the intension
proposition, Every square has four sides.' The second
the predicateis an
bute
attrikind consists of those in which
from
the nature
of the
which
results necessarily
subject.1 For where this is the case the subjectis found
of the predicate. An
nished
in the intension
example is furby the proposition, A triangleis a figurehaving
its interior
angles equal to two
right angles.' The
tion
predicate here is not found in the intension or definiof
sarily
triangle.'But it is an attribute which necesa

term

'

'

'

results from
of
'

and

triangle. And
having its interior
1

An

attribute

which

resultnncy is termed
in Ch. 8, " i.

if

is involved
we

define

desire to

angles equal

is thus

in tl.e characteristics

connected

property of that

to

with

subject.

two

the
The

the

attribute

right angles,'

subject by
term

will be

necessary

cussed
fully dis-

PRINCIPLES

54

the

ignores

analysis

in

case,

of

the

LOGIC

OF

which

subject-term

the
What

predicate.

is revealed

then

account

by

is to

be

an

given

that
propositions
analyrelating to the square on the hypotenuse ? If they are not tic,
Either
two
(i) we
accept
hypotheses only are possible.

of

conviction

our

them

on

be

can

of

dictate

to

as

our

given. They are


(2) their truth

Or

for

saying, that
have

is

three

been

of

such

as

understanding, of which
synthetica priori. This is

they must
property

the

has

triangle
(b) There

truth

conclusion,

of individual

examination

an

the

which

at

instances, but
be

true, that

described.

we

Kant's

we

possess

e.g. every
is Mill's

to the

as

tion.
solufrom

arrive
no

ground

right-angled

This

theories

account

no

solution.

object of Analytic
that
cerned
they are con-

(followingHobbes) holds
them
Verbal
meaning of names
only, and terms
that
held
with
our
they are concerned
propositions. Leibniz
taught that they are truths relating
concepts. The Scholastics
known
to things, though
through our
concepts, and expressed
The
Professor
Case well says,
division of propositions
in words.
propositions.
with

Mill

the

"

'

'

into

to

opposed

'

characteristic

'

and

'

'

'

and

verbal

there

such

are

are

that

means

the

extended,
the

is not

necessarily

whole

verbal, e.g. the

and

is

which

greater

whole

is

greater

analyticaljudgment

same

real, notional

'

verbal

not cease
proposition,a
of its
of a thing by becoming the meaning
verbal
and
some
are
propositions which

Sometimes
.

predicate does

all bodies

as,

part.

is defective.

real

real

than

its

name,

part

real,

than

is at

is, is conceived,
"

be

to

its
once

and

(Physical Realism,

340).
comes
said, that every
synthetic judgment be(c) It is sometimes
of
that
our
knowledge,
analytic with the growth
e.g.
is
died
in
who
to
III.
an
1820,'
one
analytic judgment
'George
ous.
the history of that period. The
knows
argument is quite fallacip.

The
not

are

of the

facts, which
notes

necessary

which

concept
as

such

occur

we

to

of his

expresses

have

no

an

individual

nature,
it.

forming
In

concepts

member

the

all

the

first

of

place,of

concepts

class,

connotation

are

viduals
indi-

universal

have a concept
secondly,
(Ch. 2, " i).
expressing the essential nature of the individual, the purely
would
Of
not be part of it.
contingent facts relating to him
if I form
a complex
concept applicableto George III.,such
course,
The
as
King of England at the beginning of the nineteenth
e.g,
died
in 1820,' then
who
I
century,'and to this add the note
of
at
The
form
the
England
King
analytic proposition,
may
nineteenth
who
died
in 1820,
the
of
the
century,
beginning
of
But
the value
died
in 1820.'
an
analyticpropositionof this
And

even

it

were

possibleto

'

'

'

kind

is not

great.
(d) Analytic propositions are
a

priori,Verbal

and

also

termed

Essential, Explicative,

correspondingly,synthetic proposi-

THE

tions
On

known

are

this

334-353,

may

have

as

55

posteriori,Real.
Physical Realism, pp.
advantage.
a

Case's

with

consulted

PROPOSITION

Ampliative,

Professor

subject,
be

" 7. Complex
such

Accidental,

as

whole

THE

AND

JUDGMENT

Propositions. Complex propositions are


for
their
a
subject or
complex term

their

a
predicate. By a complex term is understood
distinct
many-worded term, consistingof two or more
parts, so that it expresses, not merely the nature of the
or
more
thing denoted, but also one
qualifications
the
white
to
it, e.g.
belonging
knight,' the roller
which
is in my
These
garden/ and the like.
cations
qualifioften
in
the
second
of
the
instances
are
(as
just given),expressedby subordinate clauses,introduced
Yet
it is manifest
if a
that, even
by a relative.
involves
two
three such
or
clauses, the
complex term
is but
constitutes
and
term
a
one,
single subject or
be.
predicate,as the case
may
Two
of complex propositions are
forms
ordinarily
is gramdistinction
distinguishedby logicians.The
matical,
is
in
order
a
nd
not
to
logical,
given
put us on
our
guard against ambiguity.
(1) Propositionswith an explicativequalification.In
these the qualification
belongs to every individual signified
it belongs. Thus
to which
by the general name,
in the proposition, Whales, which
are
are
mammals,
aquatic animals/ the relative clause is applicableto
individual, that is signified
by the general name
every
'

'

'

'

whales/

(2) Propositionswith a restrictive (or determinative)


restricts
the
qualification.In these, the qualification
of the general name
certain
to a
signification
part of
its

denotation.

that

have

been

Thus

does
qualification

the

class indicated.

past

time
and

not

cultivated

belong

to

all nations

determination

involved

in

tenses

the

of the

'

sentence,

Not

future

complexity

the

civilized,have

the

The

in

all the

proposition. This

nations,

philosophy/
members

of

civilized.

are

in

verb, is

All

the

use

of

specialform
however,

as

the
of
we

PRINCIPLES

56

LOGIC

OF

disregard. Another
that
produced by the
employment of transitive verbs, followed by an object,
slew
his benefactor,' which
Brutus
gives as the
e.g.
a
slayer of his
logicalpredicate,the complex term
Logic is enabled
is
constantly recurring form
noted,

have

to

'

'

benefactor/

Categorical Propositions.

" 8. Compound
what

resolvable

is

its

with

own

the

have

we

of

kind

this

is

into

divided

are

character

whose

those

grammatically is

often

single assertion,
into
two
more
or
propositions,each
subject and
predicate. In such cases,
positions
Compound CategoricalProposition. Pro-

that

happens

It

from

apparent

"

their

those

and
(apertecomposite),

structure

classes,

two

matical
gram-

in which

grammatical form does not manifest their composite


termed
latter are
nature
(occultecompositi). These
Exponibles.
in form.
Of these there
(a) Propositions compound
the

three

are

classes

"

Copulativepropositions.These

1.

in

which

of

number

Peter

and

there

both.

predicatesor
'

two

are

Hence

affirmative

Paul

their

'

positions,
pro-

subjects or

resolvable

are

independent
ended

more

or

they

affirmative

are

into

propositions:

days
his days
at

Rome.'

e.g.

This

is

Paul
Peter
ended
at Rome.
equivalent to
his days at Rome.'
ended
larly
Remotive
2.
propositions.These are negations simiThe
united.
conjunctionsemployed will be such
For
the negative form
demands.
as
example, Neither
honours
banish
riches nor
can
anxiety ; this sentence
'

'

may

be

'

resolved, Riches

cannot
eat

swine's

banish
flesh

anxiety.'

No

'

Mohammedan

No

'

No

wine.'

Mohammedan
will

or

Adversative

drink

anxiety.

Mohammedan

This, in

its

will eat

ours
Honwill

logical
swine's

wine.'

we
propositions.Here
tive
affirmaaffirmative propositions,
either tw6
an
or
connected
and a negative proposition,
by an adver-

3. Discretive

have

drink

or

expression,becomes,
flesh.

banish

cannot

THE

sative
'

conjunction,such
I.

William

gives

the

us

I.

William

57

Thus
This

magnanimous/

not
'

William

I.

brave.

was

magnanimous.'

not

was

but

propositions

two

PROPOSITION

but, although,yet.

as

brave

was

THE

AND

JUDGMENT

have
(b)Exponible propositions. In these, as we
of
said, there is nothing in the grammatical structure
the sentence
to indicate
that
it is equivalent to more
than
one
logicalproposition. Here also, three classes
are
ordinarilyenumerated.
contain
word,
a
(1) Exclusive
propositions.These
such as
to the subject,
and thus excluding
alone/ attached
'

the

predicate

Hence

one.

full

the

'

meaning,

God

'

God

is

is

No

omnipotent.

the

which

save,

All

the

excludes
crew

save

For

instance,

is

word

of

such

its

except

as

"

denotation

drowned.'

were

this

equivalent to
is omnipotent.'
these, the subjectterm

other

one

predicate of

This

portion

this

declare

to

all others.

(2) Exceptivepropositions.In
restricted in its application
by

is

'

deny it of
omnipotent.'
to

than

subject
necessary

affirm

to

one

another

alone

other

any

propositionsare

two

subject, and

from

e.g.

"

Here

again,

propositionsare needed, the one denying


the predicateof the excepted part, the other
affirming
it of the remainder.
The example justgiven will become,
One
of the crew
drowned.
The
not
was
remaining
two

exponent

'

members

drowned.'

were

If the

order

of the

is altered, then

terms

be

Exceptives may
expressed by
God
is omnipotent,' will become
All
'

'

and
of

All

the

the

crew

original order
The
in

reasons

Ch.

crew

save

that

was

is to

one

not

is made

something

the

'

about

was

preserved, two
justifya change

which

is

omnipotent
will be

one

'

of

will

order

'

portion

But

propositionsare

Only

is God

The

man.'

and
'

if the

necessary.
dealt
with

be

5.

statement

'

that

drowned/

drowned

Exclusives

single exponent.

be

(3) Inceptive and


of

were

both

the

to

as

propositions.In
commencement

'

fifteenth
the

Desitive

year

Printing became
century,' Paganism
700

A.D/

These

ceased

are

in

resolved

ending

or

customary

e.g.

'

these

after

England
by two

PRINCIPLES

58
one
propositions,

the

time

relatingto

indicated, and
Thus

subsequently.
Printing was
*

fifteenth

not

LOGIC

the

state

first

things before
what

Printing was

occurred

will

example
before

customary

century.

of

relatingto

one

the

OF

the

become

close

of

the

that

after

customary

date.'

" 9. Modal
affords

Propositions. The

another

us

case

differs from
Kant.

Here

understood
deal

with

The

too

by
the

in

which

that

Kantian

characteristic

proposition

traditional

since

the

minology
ter-

of

days

first

Scholastic

the

the

in vogue

shall

we

Modal

explain modality as
philosophers,and then

account.

of

the

Modal,

is that

the

copula

undergoes modification,in order to express the manner


in which
the predicatebelongs to the subject. There
in which
the attribute
affirmed
are
propositions,
belongs
the subject by strict necessity. Thus
to
mortality
is an
attribute
that
is necessarilyconnected
with
the
In other cases
the element
of necessity
subject man/
'

'

'

'

is absent.

only.
the

To

be

It is not

nature

'

learned

an

man.'

between

the

connexion

pure

these

copula is,'whether
But

attribute

The

'

in

'

cases.

the

the

of

some

men

belonging necessarilyto
tinction
categoricaldraws no disWe
employ the same

connexion

Modal

between

is affirmable

is necessary

proposition, the

attribute

and

or

tingent.
con-

of

nature

subject receives

expression.
It has

been

frequentlyobjected,that this whole question


not
to
belongs
Logic but to Metaphysics. Thus
Sir W. Hamilton
etc.
Necessity,Possibility,
says,
do not relate to the connexion
of the subject and predicate
in thought, but
terms
realities in
as
as
existence
:
they are metaphysical,not logicalconditions."
This objectionrests on
a
misconception as to
the
province of Logic. Necessity and Possibilityas
But as mentally
objectivefacts, belong to the real order.
expressed by us, they belong to the logicalorder ;
and
treatise on
a
Logic would be incomplete without
"

'

'

...

'

'

THE

of the

mention

some

ment

The

relation

the

59

mental

judg~

metaphysical conditions.

of the

determined

PROPOSITION

in which

manner

these

represents

THE

AND

JUDGMENT

attribute

by

of

one

(i) the Necessary, in which


to the subject. This

the

to

three

the

subject is, objectively,


modes.

These

are

attribute

sarily
belongs necesis expressed by a proposition
of the form,
Men
are
necessarilymortal/ Equilateral
necessarily equiangular.' (2) The
triangles are
the predicate is repugnant to
Impossible : in this case
It is impossiblefor irrational creatures
the subject,
to
e.g.
exercise free will.' And
(3)the Possible (or Contingent).
In this case
the predicatebelongs to the subject in some
'

'

'

instances, while
it.

no

This
We

Thus

in
'

other

instances

It is

possiblefor
The
conjunctionof the
but on
the other
impossibility,
e.g.

relation
may

asserted

be

may

assert

it is not

the

man

be

to

attributes

two

hand

from

possibilityof

found

is not

two

the

with

marian.'
gram-

involves

necessary.

points of

connexion

view.

between

subject and predicate,and express the propositionas it


Or we
is expressed above.
declare the possibility
may
in this case
of their separation: and
the proposition
It is possiblefor a man
will take the form,
to be a
not
grammarian.' Hence
though there are but three modes,
four fundamental
forms of Modal
there are
propositions,
forms
there
four fundamental
of Categorical.
are
as
is occasioned
A difficulty
by the fact that ambiguity
'

attaches

to

'

word

the

in which

possible.'

'

Possible

'

may

have

have

just explained it. It may


the Necessary also ;
however, include in its signification
for if a predicatebelongs necessarilyto a subject,we
can
truth
that that subject is capable of receiving
say with
have
must
three angles,
it.1 If all triangles
it is true to
three angles.
say that it is possiblefor a triangleto have
the

sense

Totius

we

Logicae, Tract.

"

Notandum
quod possibile
significato,et tune
comprehendit
Alio
necessarium
et contingens.
solum
modo, sumitur
contingenpro
that
tells us
"tibus."
in regard of
used
Similarly Aristotle
'possible' when
is employed in a distinct sense
what
is necessary,
TO
yhp hvayKaiov d/muvtifjius
On
this subject see
also De
Myoftev,' An. Prior. I. c. 13, " x.
fr5tx.ecr("ai
Interp. c. 13, " 9.
1

Summa

dupliciter potest sumi

vel

in

toto

6,

c.

13.

suo

'

'

And

LOGIC

OF

PRINCIPLES

60

possiblefor a subject
have
not
to
have
such
such
and
a
a
predicate,may
in which
it includes
the Impossible.
sense
Modal
be expressed in two
forms.
The
In the
may
first of these, the mode
itselfconstitutes the predicate,
having
for its subjectthe propositionwhose
copula it affects,
That
should be mortal is necessary/ that a
man
e.g.
have
of
bird should
plumage is possible/ Modals
gay
this form
all singular,
since the subject is not a term,
are
the
whole.
Nevertheless
but a propositiontaken
a
as
modes
of necessityand impossibility
a
are
sure
sign that
the proposition in question is universal ; while
the
on
the mode
of possibility,
in the sense
of merely
other hand
in which
from
the case
ity
possibilpossible(asdistinguished
is predicated of a necessary
judgment) is indicative
forms
of the
of a particularproposition. In the second
gles
the mode
Modal
the copula itself : e.g. All trianqualifies
are
necessarily
three-angled. Modals of this form are
not
singularbut take their quantity from their subject.
similarlythe

assertion

it is

that

'

'

Kant's

division

of

relation

the

predicate

the

thinker.

certaintyof
'

i.e.

dictic,i.e.
says
'

be

may
'

He

be

must

is

not

the

Assertoric,i.e.
Of
free

'

the

on

subject, but
divides
judgments

P.'
"

based,

the

on

into

objective
subjective

the

is P,' and

atic,
Problemthe

Apoproblematic judgment he
of admitting such
a
pro-

the

choice

of it into the underpurely optional admission


assertoric
judgment
implies logicalreality or
'truth."
The
the
us
same
gives
apodictic
toric,
judgment as the asserwhen
it is recognized as
determined
laws
by the formal
of the
as
understanding, and therefore
subjectively necessary
i.
Ch.
In
this
division
note
to
it may
be said
(see
regard
(5)).
in the first place that
such
5 may
be P
is of
a
proposition as
value
to the logician. It is a mere
declaration
of ignorance,
no
and
not
a
judgment at all. Secondly, since the apodictic judgment
enunciates
the
truth
the
volving
same
as
assertoric, merely inthe speaker recognizes more
that
the
subjective
clearly
which
he lies of thus
necessity under
judging, there is no reason
'

position,and
standing."

to

P,' the

it expresses

that

Modals

of

"

The

'

why
the

he

apodictic

not
'

see

that

expresses

the

failure
but

should

to

its attribute

in the

the

express

must
the

be

P.'

assertoric
The

is not

root

copula
objective connexion
real order
(seeCh.

in

" 4).

form

same

mental

between
9,

the

of this

error

mere

'

the

view

act

as

is the

of union,

subject

and

PRINCIPLES

62

few

examples will illustrate


(1) 'Fools despise wisdom.'

This

will

(2) 'All's
This

will

This

well

be, 'All

'

(3)

'

become,

Firm

All

fools

that

ends

that
his

at

OF

LOGIC

the

process

"

despisersof

are

ends

well

is well'

(A).

'

logical form
(A).
post

(A )

well.'

dangerous post he stood.'


is standing firm
is, He

in

'

wisdom

his

at

gerous
dan-

'

'

(4)
Here

As

man

have

we

propositionsgive
'

of

...

of

In

the

every

of

character
If

the

his
'

words

character

sowing

of

there

of
the

clauses, the

these
words

relation

us,

man's

'

harvest

then,'

used,

are

if 'When

place:

of

the

clauses
Where

is like

(A).

Where
.

relation

'

two

relation.

are

instance, the

reap.'

The

sentence.

terms

employed to introduce
The
likeness.
analysis gives
so

one
'

the

us

he

'

As

is

relative

shall

so

sows,

have

we

re]ation

of

time.

(5) 'Where
thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.'
Logically,this is, In every instance, the place of your treasure
heart
is the place of your
(A )
is akin
to madness.'
(6) 'Love
the subject is used
Here
without
sign of quantity, but
any
for
stands
the
whole
denotation
of
the term.
The
clearly
position
pro'

'

'

becomes,
Where
need

have

we

(7)
This

Lions

gives
'

their

love

are

parts,

tigers
four propositions.

lions

lived wild

once

animals, that

are

akin

madness.'

to

exponible propositions,they

or

component

and

us

Some

of

cases

compound

into

resolving
'

All

once

in

e.g.

:
"

Europe, but

lived

not

'

now.

wild

in

Europe

'

wild

in

Europe

'

(/).
'

Some

tigers are

that

animals,

once

lived

(I)'

'

No

lions

No

tigers

(8) 'Only
This

'

Here

we

be
term

'

All

He

the

save

have

Europe now
in Europe now

'

(E)
(E)
.

'

of mind.'

just

enjoying peace
just,are enjoying

are

not

are

he

had

in
to

of
peace

mind'

(/).
(E).

of mind

'

fled.'

where

case,

brought out
by which

gives
'

into

who

None,

(9)
cannot

of

in

living wild
just enjoy peace

are

the

is resolved
'Some

living wild

are

the

full force

of the

proposition
versal
unino
analysis,since we have
all
The
the
remainder.
duction
redesignate
the

"

is not

'

fleeing (E)
Some
(the rest) are fleeing (/).
(10) 'The great is not good, but the good is great.'
Notice
should be taken of the
reduplicative use of the word
.

'

'

'

'

THE

AND

JUDGMENT

PROPOSITION

THE

63

'

It signifies the great as such,' or


great in the first clause.
be expressed
the great, just in so far as it is great.' This must
in the analysis :
The
great, merely in virtue of its greatness,is not good
'

"

'

'

(").
'The

is

great' (A).
It will
Other Signs of Quantity*
of expressing Quantity
other modes
good

useful

be

besides

mention

to

those

we

few

have

already

noticed.
A.

The

affirmative

universal

Whoever,

expressions,Any,
I

be

may

be

may

has

word

The

'

that

has

Some

S's

of instances
P.

'

been

does

P.'

been

Never.

not, Not

a//

All

are,

...

placed

P,' but
not

case.

Most.

not.

S's

are

have

word

Most

proposition
are

few
.

Most

half) S's

than

in A

Certain

not, Few,

The

the

expressed by

the

by

In

who, Always,
every
few, Certain, Often, Generally,

by

equivalents

are

I.

denoted

occasionallydenoted

is
He

as

of

one

the

equivalents of
Some
(more

'

'

that
signifies
not
necessarily imply in addition
that the majority
merely signifies
P

are

It

examined,

found

and
'

Thus

to

possess

the

bute
attri-

Most

we
English flowering-plants
might say,
ourselves
to
dicotyledonous,' without
desiring to commit
flora :
or
again, after looking at
opinion as to the whole
any
Most
hand
of the
out
cards
of
at whist, we
seven
a
might say,
cards in this hand
court-cards,' knowing that it was
are
possible
Few
to be so.
Similarly we
they might all prove
might say,
if we
even
monocotyledonous,'
English flowering-plants are
of
whether
that
there
Hence
character.
were
were
ignorant
any
Few
reckoned
is commonly
as
merely a sign of the proposition
O.1
The
words
Hardly any, Scarcely any are also regarded as
O.
of All with
to
The
a
use
negative to signify O
equivalent
should
Not
all the crew
be carefullynoticed.
were
lost,'will
are

'

'

'

be

expressed
Special note
such

words

as

tributively
collective
is

whole

Some

of
be

All, A

few,

to
S's

are

of

difference
"

some.

not

were

to whether

as

etc.

etc.

is

men

building

lost.'
the

terms, to which

attached,

are

the

Wherever
the

men

be

used

are

built

'

may

between

Few,"
be

says

regarded

few and
Mr.
as

is

raft

expressed,

'

'

The

raft.'

class

is another

dis-

use

the
Hypothetical Propositions. Besides
hitherto
have
we
propositions which

ii.

The

crew

taken

collectively(Ch. 2, " 14).


All
proposition is singular.
point. The proposition may

there
considering,
1

the

should

'

in

body

"

or

the

case

'

of

"

a
'

negative force.

Most

been
called

judgments

is to be observed.

Few

has
Keynes,
equivalent to

gorical
Cate-

S's

are

not

few is equivalent
And

P.'

"

'

Few

PRINCIPLES

64
Conditional.

These

OF

LOGIC

distinguishedfrom
Categoricals
the
fact
that
in
them
the
by
predicate is not asserted
absolutely of the subject. They are divided into two
classes, termed
Hypothetical and Disjunctive. In the
with the Hypothetical.
present section we are concerned
Hypothetical Proposition is one in which
made
in one
proposition,is asserted

that

from
the

which

on

are

Antecedent
called

truth
that

the

made

in

of

the

another.

other

which

Consequent.

Thus

its

on

in

as

The

quence
conse-

proposition

depends,

follows

cation
predi-

the

is called

the

admission,

is
'

the

proposition, If
the
shepherd be negligent,the sheep go astray/ the
antecedent
is If the shepherd be negligent ; the consequent
is
the sheep go astray.' It will be seen
that
neither
part of the propositionis independently asserted
do not
true.
We
affirm that
the shepherd is neglias
gent/
the sheep go
nor
yet that
astray/ It is the
between
the two, the dependence of consequent
nexus
'

'

'

'

'

antecedent, which

on

There
may

forms

two

are

(2) If S
according to the
manipulation be
But

it is incorrect
than

type

in

which

expressed.

be

and

D,

is affirmed.

is

the

tence
hypotheticalsenare
(i) If A is B, C is
Judgments constructed
usuallyby a little
may

These

it is P.

M,

first

formula,

expressed
to say

that

in

second

the

the

latter is

form

mental
funda-

more

also.

former.

the

Hypothetical of the second form, can be expressed


by substitutingin the place of If S is
categorically,
'

M, it is P/

the

form

Similarlyfor
write, If anything
is P.'

'

writers

Some

'

All 5

Logic

on

categoricalAll

have

maintained

we

state

unconditionally that
S is P, if certain
that
of the

parts
:
parts
Nor
consequent.
the

The

fact

to

be

of

is P.

conditions

categoricalare
a
hypothetical

is it

All SM
we

may

only

the

mental

are

the

categorical
equivalent. There
In the categorical

the

In

hypothetical we

fulfilled.The

are

related

expressed

or

S is P/

that

can

state

'

P/

S, it is P.'

in fact
hypothetical propositions are
doubt
that
this
is
be no
opinion erroneous.

and

is

'

the
is

is M

that

as

subject and

related
forms

positivelydemands

as

that
one

stituent
con-

bute
attriand

reason
are

form

different.
to

the

THE

exclusion
'

of

Such

other.

the

THE

AND

JUDGMENT

PROPOSITION

'

propositionsas

65

Gold

is

yellow,

'

If the

will be fired,' are


salute
distorted
a
King comes,
when
they are expressed as 'If anything is gold, it is yellow,'
'The
of the King's arrival is a case
and
of firing a salute.'
case
of the one
form
In regard to the employment
in place of the
Case
has
well said :
other, Professor
Taking the carelesslyexof
life
pressed propositions
[logicians]do not perceive
ordinary
and

"

'

'

that

'

'

'

'

being a man
and
conversely
In

expressed.
'

All

that

different

ordinary

candidates

of these

'

mortal,' and

am

life

universal

differentlyexpressed,e.g.

If I

am

'

may

say
minutes

five

propositions,the

man

judgments

we

arriving

But

often

propositions are

'.
'

similar

often

are

All

men

late

'

mortal

am

similarly
mortal,'

are

fined.'

are

first expresses

cate-

the
other
is a
'gorical belief
slipshod expression of the
If
candidates
arrive
late, they are
hypothetical belief,
any
Brit.
'fined.''
vol.
Encycl.
Logic.
(loth ed.),
30, p. 333, Art.
.

'

'

Quantity and Quality of Hypothetical.


If .we
propositionsare affirmative.

All

with

must

meet

hypothetical

what

between

the

by the form
negativeof
he

That

it affirms.

is poor,

do

is to say

antecedent

negation,

to

deny

the

deny

must

we

we

desire

nexus

and

This
is done
consequent.
Although 5 is M, it need not be P.' The
If he is poor, he is uneducated/ is Although
'

'

he

not

be

not

may

uneducated.'

are

not

themselves

assert

the

dependence

forms, however,

they

its

thetical
hypo-

These

negative
hypotheticals: for
of

consequent

on

antecedent.
There

"

be

of

quantity in hypotheticals,
The
because
there is no
question of extension.
affirmation, as we have seen, relates solelyto the nexus
of the proposition. Hence
between
the two
members
hypotheticalis singular.
every
can

no

differences

Disjunctive Propositions.

12.

Disjunctive Proposition is
alternative predication.
A

Disjunctiveslike
(i) Either A is B,
Q,

'

e.g.

Either
were

or

the

one

Hypotheticals are
or

is D

generalwas

disobedient,'

'

which
of

makes

Religionsare

forms

two

(2) S is
incompetent

and

either
or

an

:
or

his subordinates

either

true.'
F

false

PRINCIPLES

66

It
in

been

has

disjunctive

whether

words,

also

but

that

conclude
in

is not

The

Q.

not

represent
be

siveness
'

viz.,

is

form

their

in

'

form

the
'

as,

Some
form

gives

formula

Its

and

The

whole

and

is

the

accepted

or

is

that

hypothetica

conjuncta

sitions
propo-

is

it is

P,

mutual

exclu-

will

suffice,

affirmative.

are

The

it may

or

native
alter-

difference

proposition

'

The

However,

of

virtue

By

be

of

be

may

particular,

Q.'

or

termed
the

Scholastics

the

by

form

negative

bothP

is not

junction
dis-

the

Q.'

or

practically

and

of

Q,'

'

of

The

Conditionals

preferred
several

by

called

division

are

that

hypothetical
have

If the

Q.

asserted.

terminology

subsequently

we

is

thetical
Hypo-

Conjunctive

the

Disjunctive.
is not

King

both

at

Windsor.'

followed

have

'

is

possible.

is
is

London

it

proposition

what

us

that

single hypothetical

disjunctives

are

of

point

of

means

Quality of Disjunctives.

is

All

we

can

hypothetical

two

P, it

necessarily

quantity

either

this

disjunctive, viz., (i) If

P,

not

all

is

is

P,'

consider

true,

certainly

is

maintained

need

is not

and

Quantity

'

'5

expressed by

we

denied,

If

If

shall

If it be

exclusive,

(2)

We

be

can

propositions.
to

is

that

that

other

other

be

must

one

aware

in

chapter.1

Disjunctive
is

are

alternatives

not

or

the

informed

the

that

true,

we

then

subsequent

is

one

supposing

that

know

only

not

are

whether

exclusive

mutually

are

if the

and

Q,'

or

LOGIC

disputed

we

Thus

false.
P

much

OF

and

genus,

This

of

Mill

(I. 91).

Boethius.

indifferently,

(connexa)

and

See

the

Some

and

calls

below,

Ch.

found

the

most

the
the

disjuncta.

14,

" 4.

I.

236)

logicians

is

division

terms

confusion.

conditional

name

Perhaps

He

in

(Logic,

authors.

give

hypothetical.
by

Hamilton

by

other

is

genus

species

to

in

We
and
make
those

Whately

satisfactory
conditionalis

respectively

CHAPTER

THE

"

The

i.

certain

Laws

which

claims

validity

Geometry
laws
each

and

science,

in
the

however,

They

the

limits

of

of

apply

to

all that

Being

or

Thing.

For

that

every

lays down
as

sciences,

but

universal

is,

this.

principle

is

been

Just

there

are

as

of

Being,

are

laws

to

"

which

it

whatever

are

form

three

(i)

in

The

Law

judgments
true.

law

law

the
These

subject

of

It

to

are

the

special
to

of

the

that
which

realm

whole
"

too

so

conceptual

the

of

of

order,

Thought,

chapter.

present

there

judgment,

every

Laws

the

such

the

belongs

its full extent,

validity

which

is

of

of

name

3.

apply

of

which

causality

Ontology,
"

within

the

to

one

or

whole

There

but

cause,

of

i,

that

or

confined

of

have

Ch.

in

the

this

right

things.

in

order

be.

number

the

which

depends

the

all

laws

real

may

not

said

of

not

has

Metaphysics

govern

which

on

which

the

is

sphere

operative.

are

must

event

of

of

has

that

ics.
Mechan-

own

special sciences,

instance

true

something

which

of

their

not

are

the

all

to

It

science

they

laws,

one

any

have

to

extension),

science

principles

are

it

certain

the

for

regard

in

spatial

to

principles

beyond

are,

regard

its

Such

principles.
Euclid

as

for

depends

abstract

are

conclusion

Every

of

of

there

recognized

are

those

definitions

case

science

science.

of

of motion

each

demonstrated,

science

application.

and

which

truth

(the

In
of

laws,

have

the

are

the

In

that

to

THOUGHT.

Thought.
or

the

on

instance

and

of

within

it

OF

LAWS

principles

fundamental

IV.

They

"

of

Contradiction,

(e.g. A

is

B, A

viz.
is not

B)

Contradictory
cannot

both

be

68

PRINCIPLES

OF

(2) The

Law

of Identity,viz.

(3)The

Law

of Excluded

judgments
must

be true, the

three

These

laws

they

termed

are

is

(A

other

first,it will be well

But

laws.

Everything is what it is.

Middle, viz.

shall

we

LOGIC

By A

is not

ask

For

dictory
contrathe

B)

one

false.

proceed to

to

Of two

consider

ourselves

the

word

in detail.

in what
'

law

sense

is used

in

In its

it means
an
primary signification
ordinance
imposed by a legitimatesuperioron the body
and carryingwith it an
obligationof obedience.
politic,
of
it is also employed to signifya uniform
mode
But
natural agent. In this sense
acting observed by some
laws of nature/ e.g. the law of gravitathe term
we
use
tion,

various

senses.

'

law

the

32" F.,
analogy :
is

simply

agent

does

be.

In

to

or

norm

one

achieve

our

no

will

ought to
descriptionof
It tells

Thus

end.

observe

we

we

wish

our

the

in

way

by

use

what

it to

conform

the
The

which

is,not

what

us

the

ought

denote

in order

to

speak of the laws


drawing to be accurate,
may

Otherwise,

them.

freezes

only called laws


question here of
yieldto another.

yet another
meaning we
standard, to which we must

some

pressure

are

course,

in fact act.

perspective. If
must

certain

of nature

is of

there
which

obedience

under

water

Laws

etc.

at

law

that

we

shall not

attain

of
we
our

object.
employ the word, when we
the laws of thought. It is certainly
the case
unable
to judge a pair of contradictory
positions
pro-

It is in this last

speak
that

about

we

are

be

to

But

sense

true, if
it

that

we

are

we

of the

conscious

diction.
contra-

infrequentlyhappens that men


tory
unconsciouslyhold opinions,which are really contradicof the
the
one
other, though because
they are
confusion
of
expressed in different words, or from some
mind, their mutual
opposition is not recognized. Hence
be termed
the laws of thought cannot
laws in
strictly
the
since

of

second
in

the

senses

mental

we

have

noticed

judgments our
truth, they are rightlytermed

all

is to attain

not

our

above.

end
laws

and

But

object

in the last

PRINCIPLES

70

Another

LOGIC

OF

frequentlyexpressed,is :
It is impossiblefor the same
thing both to be and not
How
to be, at the same
time." l
principle
closelythe logical
be seen,
if
represents the metaphysical will at once
form

in

which

it is

"

we

at

and

one

of the

former

the

express

the

as

time

same

The

"

both

be

attribute

same

cannot

denied

and

affirmed

thing." But the student should be careful


of the law, and when
to distinguish
the various expressions
dealing with logicalquestionsnot to state the principle
in a metaphysical form, nor
vice versa.
same

declares to be the first of all

This law Aristotle


and

the most

The

certain

question

this is asserted
will show

principleof

proposition,which
notion

primary
This
calls

notion

notion, which

for

We

we

the

"

brief

'

of

grounds

first Analytic

is the

analysisof

an
'

"i).

brief examination

Contradiction

through

5,

c.

most

our

'

or
Being
thing.'
apply equally to all entities whatever,

we

consideration.

accustomed

are

attain

axioms,

what

suggest itself,on

first of all axioms.

the

the

that

us

doubtless

will

to be

(Met. X.,
principles

of all

to

their

objects from

name

minations
deter-

various
'

and

cause
term
runner,' beone
man
a
perfections. We
denoted
the
word
characterizes
to run,'
perfection
by
similar
for
reason.
him, and we call another
a
a
Further,
painter
to
them, even
we
though the perapply these denominatives
fection
'

the

'

is not

running
these

'

acts.

applied
by the verb

us

We
is
it

Being

'

'

primary

3,

of

that

understood

" 2, namely

he

has

the
of

'

characteristic

to

of

he is

capacity
this

actually
to

type.

elicit
It

is

primary perfectionsignified

in the
The

exist.'
'

The

actualization.

because

denominative

virtue

be,'as

to

because

is

of

state

painter,'not

or

objects in

in Ch.
this

'

painting, but

or

to

'

runner

in

moment

'

is called

man

the

at

'

'

first of

the

notion
'

tioned
men-

senses

which

expresses

is clear
actuality,'

to
Being or
from
the dawn
of our
intelligence. It is absolutelysimple.
cannot
explain it by any that is simpler : for its simplicity
ultimate.
Indeed
of this kind,
there not primary notions
were
would
be impossible to explain anything. The
would
mind
lost in

be

did

which
What

infinite

of this

It is to be
de

to

find

some

idea

unfolds
the
Analytic proposition which
from
is the first principleto emerge
term, which
Its
of our
simplicity
primary concept ?
very

is

consideration

necessario

regress, as it endeavoured
itself need
elucidation.

not
then

intension
the

an

the

observed

that

impossibili, and
(Ch. 3. " 9).

the

the

is
principle of Contradiction
Middle
principle of Excluded

modal

a
a

modal

position
pro-

de

LAWS

THE

prohibits

explaining it

our

from

its

opposite,

non-existence.1
is that
is

which

Yet

than

viz.

it is

otherwise

as

both

be

to

phrased,

and

not

is

at the

be

to

It

principleof Contradiction,
by analysis from the primary
In

its

its nature
be

principlemay

former,
the

but

mode

The

attribute

belong

have

the

to

which

by

at the

cannot

we

judge

same

time

of

same

The

the

it what

it is.

determines

get the

form

both

thing

it refers
'

and

The

the

to

and
we

mental

attribute

same

denied

the

to

belong
logical expression, as

affirmed

both

merely

not

entity

an

time

that

this, save

about
be

have

we

in reference

expressed, we

the

at

thing.'
with

principlesderived

makes

merely

nature

thus

As

same

then

'

thing

same

consider

which

not

for the

the

Here

must

we

that

cannot

is identical

seen,

act

latter

be
be

not

notion.

enunciated

of its existence.

same

not

the

to

time

for

first of

'

Being

present exist, but


A chiliagon may

same

time.'

the

as

'

noticed,

proposition must

the

impossible

Being, however,

existence, but

The

'

of each

regard

Our
at

same

the

at

exist.

can

is,cannot
'

have

we

Being.'

'

see

we
'

'

does

which

as

'

as

71

ence
by declaring its differessentiallyopposed to
A Being
principleas

the

state

that

not

'

or

that

non-existent,' for

is not

merely to
to such
objects of thought
be termed
a
or
thing
which
A
Being
expressed,

applied

otherwise

cannot

we

THOUGHT

OF

of the

same

thing.'

"

3. The

stated

in

of Identity. This

Law
the

form

formula, and

'

Whatever

A=A.
not

principle. Locke

principle is often
This, however, is manifestly
enunciation
of a philosophic

the

(Essay,Bk.

is,is/ and
Like

4,

this form

c.

7)

enunciates
to

appears

be

it

as

phically
philoso-

principleof Contradiction,
is
this
law
an
Analytic proposition explicative of
the concept of Being. Its connexion
with
that
ple
princiwill appear
A Being which
plainlyif we express it as
tween
is,is.' In this form we see that the only difference bethe two is that in the one
affirm that things
case
we
which
exist,exist : in the other, that thingswhich exist,
correct.

the

'

cannot

Like

not

exist.

the

principle of Contradiction

enunciated
the
1

see

dum.

in reference

existence.
On

Leibniz

Being and Not-being as


Opusc. 44, Summa
Cf. Summa
Theol. I., Q.

the

to

has
the

St. Thomas,

nature, which

determines

given expression to

the

law

primary concepts of the understanding,


videnLogicae, Tract 3, c. I, U Ad

Totius
n,

be

also, it may

Art.

2.

ad 4.

PRINCIPLES

72

He

form.

in this

form

Leibniz's

words

will

understood

it be

LOGIC

is,i.e. that

subject,is

logicalorder, if
subjectof predication

also for the

us

every

attribute

an

is

attribute

whatever

in fact

it is.'

is what

Everything

signifyingthat

it

of any

'

it

serve

as

is what

affirmed

OF

that

of

subject.
Mill somewhat

introduces
unnecessarily
expression.He enunciates the law

verbal

in

is true

which

words,

of

form

one

of

words, is
the

conveys

as

"

in every

true

Whatever
form

other

meaning

same

question of

the

"

(Exam, of

Hamilton,

p. 409).
It is the universal

ple
practiceat present to treat the princidiction.
Identityseparatelyfrom the principleof Contra-

of

Scholastic
to rank

do

authors, however,

admit

not

its

reallyindependent principle. At most


they admit that it is a rudimentary form of the principle
of Contradiction.1
They urge that the predicateof an
in some
Analytic propositionmust
explicatethe
way
notion
of the subject. This
principledoes not do so.
The predicateand the subjectare the same
concept. It
is mere
tautology.
There
be owned, some
force in this objection.
is,it may
The
remember
principletells us nothing. Yet we must
that Being is a concept which
does not admit of analysis
be
properly so called. Hence perhaps justification
may
for a tautologousprinciplehere, which
could not
found
in any
other case.
The form is permissible,
be adduced
claim

the

of all

limits

principleto

convey

service, it must

The

Eleatic

be

separate

after the

usual

(circa B.C.

Cf.

quod

Pesch.

coiitirict et

Est

enim

germen

fact,that

explanation.
any

of

of Leibniz.

490)

had

foundation

But

we

the

two

of his

law

the

to

arrived
for

be

that

the

of any

of Contradiction.

principlesfirst

It is true

enunciated

have

in order

information, and

developed into

Instit. Logicae, vol.

attinet, illud

videmus.

of the

treatment

time

the
as
(eov e/A/xei'cu)
1

it is indicative

because
at

as

Parmenides

became
the

the

principle Being is
philosophy. But Aristotle

Ad
usum
principiiidentitatis
3, "1230.
adhibit um
in sua
Peripateticisnunquam
propria forma
et indetcrniinatum, et priiicipiorumpotius radicem
vagum
imperfectum.

LAWS

THE

THOUGHT

OF

73

is the first
umphatically affirms that the law of Contradiction
for long went
his decision
of all principles: and
undisputed.
Scotist
Antonius
Andreae
authors
the
mediaeval
Spanish
Among

belong to the principle


(ob. 1320) argues that the first place should
Ens
in
Met.
is
est
Ens, Qq.
a
Being
(Omme
Every Being
IV., Q. 4). But the authority both of St. Thomas
(Met. IV., lect.
against him :
6) and of Scotus
(Quaest.sup. Met. IV., Q. 3) was
Suarez
Met.
and
he is expressly refuted
III., " 3).
(Disp.
by
he gives
Leibniz
makes
however
the principleof Identity, which
'

'

'

of

is what

Everything

as

which

reason
'

negative

first
and

affirmative,

are

either

proposition is

of the

primitive truths
diction,
principle of Contra-

the

true

'

false

or

first of

the

the

(Nouv. Ess. IV., 2, " i). He further says, "the


that
it is, is prior to the statement
a
thing is what
another
not
(Nouv. Ess. IV., 7, " 9). Here as
thing
real ground
for the
introduction
is the
of the
seem,

truths

statement
that

the

it is/

it is

it would

"

It
principleof Identity as distinct from that of Contradiction.
that
the
should
appeared impossible
primary analytic principle
be

If

negative.

accurate, the

primary

the

however,
form

negative
of

character

the

view

is the

principle.

of Excluded

in

necessary

perfectlysimple by distinguishing

" 4. The Law

taken

We

the

is

of the

only explain

that

Middle.

section

consequence
can

it from

last

which

the

it is not.

Aristotle enunciates
"

Of two
dictory
contraprinciplein the form given above,
be true and the other
judgments, the one must
false
tween
(Met. III., c. 8, "" 3, 4). He says also, Bethis

"

"

the
middle
As
either

of

members

contradiction,there is no
term"
(Met. III., c. 7, " i).1
metaphysicalprinciple,it is stated, A thing must
two

'

be

or

be/

not

The

immediacy of
being. The truth

the

demonstration

follows.

the

we

If the

as

of

have

member

judgment
1

not

is false.

the

Where
and

mind
in

That

has

have

we

negation,is
the

it be

attained

say,

the

dictories,
contra-

and

mental

conformity with
is to

two

is not.

judgment

in affirmation

Should

truth.
its

mind

object,the
either

has

avdyKrj yap TTJS d"Ti0dcrews


ddrepov elvai TO fj.bpi.ov
a\r)0"s
Qarepov
""?Tt.v (III.,C. 8). 'AXXd
[J.tpos
rrjs dfrt^dcrews \f/"vdos
/J.T]V ovdt ^cra|u
ovdev (III.,c. 7) : and
see
Cat., c. 10, "" 31-40.
.

yap

from

being and notlogicalprincipleis capable of

reality,whether

the
be

of this is evident

opposition between

constitutes

the

negation, then

it, however,

truth

affirmation

which

correspondswith
or

PRINCIPLES

74

judged that

what

LOGIC

OF

is,is not,

or

is not, is.

that what

ever,
Wher-

therefore, the judgment is false,the contradictory


whether

judgment,

is not, will
the

The
the
in

be

be

must

one

it be

the

not

possess

therefore

present

appears,

when

are

the

contradictories,

logicalprincipleand

the

attributinga
subject; in negation,we
this being (Ch. 3, " 2).
we

tive
nega-

false.1

between
once

the

is,or

of two

true, the other

metaphysical at

being to

affirmative

Hence

true.

close connexion

affirmation,

the

alternative

that
reflect,

we

conceptual

certain
assert

it does

that

All contradictories

between

being and

not

being.
principleis expressedby certain
logicians, Of any two
contradictorypredicates,one
must
belong to every subject,"is unsatisfactory. It
that
the predicates,
the propositions,
not
and
supposes
are
contradictoryto each other, and is representedby
The

in which

way

the

"

'

the

formula,

'

is either

or

not-B/

But,

as

have

we

negation is the negative


judgment, not an affirmative judgment with a negative
law,
predicate; and in the expressionof a fundamental
Mill employs the
it is the primary form that we
need.
It is allowable to substitute for the
followingformula :
denial of either of two
contradictorypropositions,the
assertion
of the other
(Exam, of Hamilton, p. 416).
It should be carefully
noted
that the law of Excluded
Middle
with
is in no
concerned
Contrary terms.2
way
We
have
those
which
press
exas
explained Contrary terms
the widest possibledifference among
classes belonging
the

seen,

primary

form

of

"

"

"

to

concave/
between

Arist.

Mr.

the
'

'

same

genus,

love,

terms

hatred.'

such

as

e.g.

There

these.

white, black/
is, of

course,

convex,
a

mean

Objects possessedof

any

Met. III., 7, " i ; St. Thomas,


Met. IV., lect. 16.
in
He holds
Bosanquet's views as to negation lead him into this error.
that the true value
that negation qua, negation is void of all significance,and
is to be sought in its positive content.
Hence
of a negative judgment
he
concludes
that the principle of Excluded
Middle
relates to contraries
(Logic,
A
II. 210).
full treatment
of the import of the negative judgment
and
of
the relation between
contradictory and contrary propositions, will be found
in St. Thomas,
Opusc. 33, De Quatuor Oppositis, cc. i, 2.

LAWS

THE

other

of colour

variety
is neither

that

convex

The

for

thought,
and

qualification.

'

true

'

treated

its

with

that

the

but

the
in

in

two

and
from

given

as

to

notice

in

the

to

the

here

but

large

possi-

third

is a

scarcely

can

that

if it be

be

'

'

light, though
the

of

state

three

and

theories

sections.

'

which

men

dawn

at

is not

not

abstraction

by

that

It

does

can

we

day,'

and

that

by these
alleged,contradictory opposites,
'

and

by

light

can

we

'

and

is

dawn

that

of

out

dialectic

development
mentally abstract

these

dawn.

Source

of the

origin
differingwidely
These

views

of Thought.

Laws

various
very
laws.
of these

thought (i) as subjective laws


whose
we
objective, validity, however,
guarantee, (2) as principlesdetermining
of

obtained

urged

and

philosophy,

nature

are

traries
con-

as

to the

as

individual

the

view,

opposites,it is answered

not,

dark

constituted

preceding

the

they

day

against this
opposites are in fact

that

and

It is

are
'

Views
5. Other
other
schools
of

laws

except

further,

As

lies A.

is constituted

moments

"

In

and

Thus
'

truth

sense

any

concepts

Hegel's system

contraries

darkness

the

individual.

of dawn

state

goes

of Nature
Not-Being, and the whole
Hegel
by this dialectic development.
Middle
by pointing
principleof Excluded

contradictories,

equal

that

not

between

originto them,

the

the

he

with

argument

an

grounds,

unmeaning

and

Being

against

that

urged

An

constituted

as

not

say

of

argues

out

from

Such

he

false there

and

the true

be

to

intention,' is neither

second

the

in

law

no

Indeed
true

is

the

have

Unmeaning."

union

himself

owe

do not

we

ment
proposition is not a judgis
the
at all.
Of more
moment
tion.
objecHegelian
perhaps
The
basis
ciliation
of
the
Hegelian
philosophy is the reconvery
its
is
to
of opposites.
origin
owe
Becoming
supposed

regarded

it is

We

even

Abracadabra

serious.

as

the

to

is

declared

necessary.

is not

Between

false.

bility,the

'
.

as

"it

that

'

nor

it

regarding

maintains

particular

any
that

or

convex

passed unchallenged. Mill,

not

empiricistphilosophy,
generalization from
experience.

mere

to

do

the

of

white,

not

or

we

ence
indiffer-

; and

manifest, however,

regard

that

him.

has

principle

interests

in

is either true

towards

feel love

It is

hatred.

black

nor

convex

nor

that

75

white

be either white

and

individual,it

concave

nor

objectmust

an

not

or

love

THOUGHT

neither

are

is neither

plane surface

OF

from

accounts
It

that

are

well

seems

set forth
the

respectivelyregard
of

the
can

understanding,
have

growth
erroneously distinguish into
the

no

of

of

rational
that

thought

'

perience,'
exon

the

things on
experience.

'

'

"

'

which

and

of

ditions

itself

in

all."

at

of

have

impossibleto

what

that

"It

correspond

is to

the
"

that

such

to

con-

inconceivable

us

evidence

ne-

adds,

he

be,"

may

this, from

any
out

than

otherwise

transgress,

But

non-existent.

It is needless

the

tions
generaliza-

mere

English logiciansit
the principles
that
us
mind
is compelled to

possible thought

possible being,

'case, it is

tells

He

think
of

Among

which

cannot

to

conditions

the

that

hand, (3)as

Kant.

under

it

gatively by ceasing

of

LOGIC

other

Mansel.

explicitlytaught by
laws
thought are

think,

"

'

is that

first view

The

of

the

hand, and

one

from

is

OF

PRINCIPLES

76

is

of

nature

the

Logica,
(Proleg.
view

this

71,

leads

point
72).
directly to philosophic scepticism.
We
have
is represented by Mr.
second
view
The
Bosanquet.
to the
theory held by
already (Ch. i, note (7))called attention
the
the
neo-hegelian school of logicians,according to which
the
so-called
which
functions
mind
vital
of
the
are
by
operations
'

real

'

world

has

to

been

aspect Mr.

this

It is under

constituted.

as

Bradley regards the laws of thought. He holds that we cannot


principlesare merely laws of thought, if by that
say that these
mean
we
thought as distinguishedfrom things : Since a separabetween
tion
intelligenceand experience is purely fictitious,
of
the content
there
is nothing to be gained by cutting down
in the hope of restrictingtheir
these
principlesto a minimum
the
reference
to thought as
opposed to things." They are
the
which
of
development
animating principles growth
govern
ledge,"
them
of experience : and if we
as
postulatesof knowrecognize
this is because
on
analysis of experience, they are
the first
found
factors in it from
to be active
(Logic,II. 205"

'

'

'

"

'

"

"

"

"

'

207).
of Hamilton, p. 417) explicitly
(Logic,I., p. 308. Exam,
repudiates the view that these principlesare subjective laws of
derived
the thinking faculty. He holds that they are conclusions
have
We
never
as
from
constant
a
experience of their truth.
Mill

of

matter

have

been

general but
for

that

holds

of

It must,

the

'

inconceivabilityis
those

'

who

circumstances

posed

one

know
and

necessities

character

opposite

as

As

that

he

we

of

little

have

already
it

can

value

laws
as

to

alterable

thought

is, in his view, sufficient


inconceivable.

"

lead

we

as

cannot

But

of

the

truth

creatures

this
to

of

of the

most

supexperience of

Constant
to

admitted

true.

criterion

by circumstances,
are."

be

seen

that
be

artificial,modifiable,

how

of

these

we

admits, be owned

he

opposite of

'

'

Middle,

contradictories

two

rightly lay down


principleto that effect.

Hence

qualificationbefore

it needs

conceive

now

where

case

any

Excluded

universally true.
'

known

simultaneously true.
empirically discovered

law

the

fact

us

to

regard

its

Circles.

Euler's

It

devised

was

(1707-1803).

Euler

LOGIC

OF

PRINCIPLES

78

it 5

In

by
P

and

Swiss

the

logician

represented each

are

circle,the circle standingfor the collection of objects


denoted
By the aid of these circles,the
by the term.

by

various

relations

compatible with

A.E.I.O

all of them

are

each

of the

capable

of

four

positions
pro-

matic
diagram-

expression.

FIG.

FIG.

2.

propositions. The proposition S a P will be represented


The class signified
either by Fig.i or by Fig.2.
by
fall within the extension
of the predicate
the subjectmay
All trianglesare
are
mortal/
term, as in All men
plane
figures.'In this case, Fig. i accuratelyrepresents the
A

'

'

relation of the
terms

may
'

'

this case,
is

be

All
the

classes.

two

identical,as

Or
in

two

circles must
the

men

are

rational

two
mals
ani-

be

equiangular/ In
coincident, and Fig. 2

proposition.

FIG.

All

of the

extension

equilateraltrianglesare

representativeof

the

'

propositions. In every
P, we deny that the two

3.

proposition of
classes

have

any

the

form

members

REPRESENTATION

DIAGRAMMATIC

in

The

common.

outside

79

class is declared

one

the other, e.g.

'

fishes have

No

to fall

lungs/

these
equiangular.' Hence
triangles are
are
representedby Fig. 3.
us
I propositions. Figs.4 and
5 show
it is some
of the proposition5 i P, in which

FIG.

S.

of

'

are

which

are

not

Aryans/

'

are

S i P

But

'

to

of the

elements

instances
does

not

of such

to

some

mean,

some,

not

Fig.4

all

sents
repreof the

the extension
as

example.

an

the

class

the

case

'

black/

in which

those

save
'

metals/
the

'

'

and

cases

Some

which

men

are

propositions.

exclude
'

P,

two

members

serve

class
are

the

within

will

scalene

in

truth

of S

for,

particularproposition

it may

be

all/

It is true

equilateraltrianglesare
equiangular/
The
though every equilateraltrianglebe such.
form
of the propositiondoes not tell us which
tion
rela-

say,

even
mere

Some

in fact exists between


terms.

Fig. i

Hence

and

not

Fig.2

refers.

may

When

the

two

classes

merely Fig. 4
be

the relation

this

and

denoted

Fig.

to which

by

5, but

the
also

the I proposition

propositionis used,

there

are

possiblecases.
S o P,
0 propositions. In propositionsof the form
of the objectsdenoted
that some
assert
by the object

four

we

found

No

5.

exist other

'

altogether

propositions

class P.

objects belonging to
men.
Fig. 5 stands for

Some

is understood

the

are

black

remembered,

will be

as

which

members

no

are

there

are

men

many

also 5.

are

those

Some

There

there

in which

case

besides

class P

fall within

S, which

of the class
the

FIG.

4.

'

PRINCIPLES

80

term, fall outside


it is the

while
of

the extension

within

some

LOGIC

predicate. When

of the

extension

the

that

case

OF

P, then

the S

representedby Figs.4 and


P not only has
case, in which

like 5 i P, be
the
within

class

the

S,

also

but

also fall

outside, some

are

propositionwill,
5. Fig.4 represents

outside

some

members

some

it,e.g.

'

Some

Fig. 5 givesus the class in which P


within
is a class fallingentirely
are
men
S, e.g. Some
not Aryans.'
But here too, the form of the propositionis compatible
when
the classes are
the case
with
mutually exclusive,
in
members
when
and
no
common,
e.g.
they have
it
not equiangular." Where
scalene triangles
Some
are
is thus
employed, the classes will stand in the relation
representedby Fig.3. For the S o P propositionthere
therefore,three possiblecases.
are,
tory,
to be thoroughly satisfacFor a diagrammatic scheme
be
conditions
must
it is usuallystated that three
black.'

not

are

men

'

"

fulfilled :"
relation

(1) The

evident, as

be
expressed by the diagram must
the
soon
as
tion
principleof representa-

is understood.

(2) Each

diagram

must

relation and

represent one

only

one.

propositionin the
be representedby

(3) Each
must

Euler's circles have


that

they

been

found

schedule
one

of

propositions,
diagram alone.

fault with
The

fail to fulfilthis condition.

ground

the

on

of this

reason

tion
Diagrammatic representaThe
true
is only possiblein regard to extension.
however
to
function of the propositionis not
express

failure is easy

the extension
in

the

to understand.

of the

terms, but

the
five

inherence

of

an

bute
attri-

possiblerelations

subject.

There

are

extension

of two

classes,and

there

are

but

tween
befour

be idle to
it would
propositions.Hence
look for a perfectsystem of representation.
Other
systems of representationhave been suggested
of the
by various writers on Logic : but by the nature

fundamental

case

none

of them

is

reallysatisfactory. Two

of these

REPRESENTATION

DIAGRAMMATIC

methods
deal

have

to

Distribution of Terms

2.

of the

important bearingson

propositionis

in

Proposition.
proposition,when
a

know

such

not

consider

indicate

to

as

to, it is said

the

the

to

term

from

form

that

be

it must

that

When

extension.

is referred

extension

in

propositionwe

its whole

in

taken

distributed

be

to

form

If

first it is necessary
to
of terms
in a proposition, a

questionsin Logic.

is said
the

But

"

found

will be

that

several

"

distribution

the

with

point

shall describe.

we

81

be

of

the

the

whole

undistributed.

affirmative

propositionsA and 7,
shall see that neither of them
distributes the predicate.
we
All equilateral
When
we
are
triangles
equiangular,'
say,
it is true that the predicate equiangular refers here to
all equiangulartriangles
are
no
; for there
equiangular
those
that
b
esides
are
equilateral.But we do
triangles
the form
of the proposition.The
not
know
this from
judgment All crocodiles are amphibious/ is of precisely
the same
form, and here the predicatedoes not refer
to all amphibious creatures, but only to those which
are
we

'

'

'

'

crocodiles.
The

reasoningholds good

same

We

7.
whether
in the
'

whole

the

predicateis

Some

flowers

whales/

within
class

In

of the

proposition,
employed

term

the

proposition

fragrant/the predicateis

are

every

contained

of the

not.

or

In the

proposition Some

member

of

the

within

this from

mammals.

the

form

of the

class

'

for whales
But

we

taken

not

'

reference of the term

the

discover

to

of the proposition

case

the form

extension

referred

in its full extension.


are

tell from

cannot

in the

mammals
'

whale
are

falls
small

could

proposition.

In the
case.

E and 0, the reverse


is
negative propositions
The
subject of a propositionis excluded from

whole

extension

term.

Thus
the

if I say,

'

the

signified
by the predicate
fishes are
clude
amphibious/ I ex-

No

subject fishes/from

Aryan/

the

class

'

If I say,
I exclude
the

creatures.

not

of the

not

'

the whole

Some

class of

European
European races

bious
amphi-

nations
of

which
G

are

PRINCIPLES

82

LOGIC

OF

subjectfrom the whole extension of the class


denominated
Aryan/
As regards the subjectit is plain that it is distributed
in all
and left undistributed
in all universal
propositions,
particularpropositions.Universal propositions,of their
class signified
by the
nature, refer to the whole
very
subject term.
be
the followingrules, which
have
should
Hence
we
carefullynoted :
Universal propositions (A.E) distribute their subject.
Negative propositions(".0) distribute their predicate.
speak

in the

'

"

noticed

It will be
while

both

distributes

/ distributes

hand

other

the

on

that

its terms,

neither

subjectnor

predicate.
*

ways

"

Methods

3. Other
of

of Diagrammatic

representing

have

been

Representation. Other
of
grams
diaproposition by means
of
various
To
two
by
logicians.

the

suggested
call

attention

here.

They are (i) that proposed


logicianLambert
(1728-1777),and (2)that
by the German
in his Symbolic Logic.
makes
Dr. Venn
which
use
Lambert
method.
employed a system in which
(i) Lambert's

these

of

two
terms

systems

we

horizontal
of

straight lines, one

above

the

The

lower

represents

proposition.
predicate.
higher
line is partly continuous
the

Should

the

the
the

there

is

continuous

the

above

dotted

no

affirmative, the

continuous

be

term

the

subject,

undistributed,

and

If it be distributed,
partly dotted.
the
portion. When
proposition is
of
the
diately
part
predicate line is imme-

part
portions

negative the continuous


but
are
separated by a small
propositions,will thus be :
is

the

other, represent the

of

the

subject

not

are

interval.

line

above

one

The

when

the
of

forms

it

other,

the

four

"

"

figure

here

himself, but

one

The

given

I is not

for

proposed

figure is

own

"S.
that

in lieu of it

suggested by
Dr.

by

Lambert
Lambert's

Venn.

_
'

which,

as

Dr.

Venn

observes, "might

con-

o
........

'

sistentlybe interpretedto

'

as

In

cover

of
suggesting the possibility

Logic,

p.

regard

to

the

case

there

of

being

No

no

is P,'
at

all

"

as

well

bolic
(Sym-

431).
this

system,

it may

be

said

that

it

certainlyful-

REPRESENTATION

DIAGRAMMATIC

requirements of having
of being based
and
on

fils the

representation.
of

value

The

to

the

assists

is, as

the

by

if

Hence

employ

As

term,

soon

have

we

as

is.

really

chief
stop.
(2) Dr. Venn's
is only available

is

quite

method.
for the

employed

are

different

We

our

do

utilityof

The

Circles

seek

we

confess

to

to

form

same

clear

but

they

each

proposition,
principleof

little assistance.
able

are

extension

of

to

the

sent
repreclasses

that
often
point of view
of proposition,however,

relations.
of a variety of such
significative
but
one
biguous.
figure,it must
necessarilybe am-

seen,

we

extension

The

gives

that

the

concrete

"

it

fact

between

terms,

beginner.
have

we

lies in the

relation

and

simple

for

diagram

one

all will feel that

diagrams
the

us

denoted

Yet

but

83

in

what

represent the
ignorance of what

undistributed

to

not

know

the

the

where

relation
line

in

should

the

figure is thus lost.


The
sj^stem employed by Dr. Venn
representationof universal
propositions.
this
we

scheme,
have

but

the

in the

seen

of them

made

use

Eulerian

diagrams.

The

primary diagram consists of two intersecting circles x and y.


provides us with four compartments, viz., x which isy (xy),
is not y (xy),y which
is not
x
X which
(xy), and things which
neither
is sufficiently
last compartment
x
nor
are
y (xy}. This
the
blank
the
outside
circles.
represented by
space
This

FIG.

The

method

i.

versal
proceeds on Dr. Venn's view that all unibe adequately represented by denying
propositions may
the existence
of certain
classes.
is adequately
All x is y
Thus,
is not
represented by the denial that there is any x which
y :
now

'

'

No
'

y
y

'

is y
that
denies
denies
(a) that there

not

yt

X.

shading

The

there
is any

is any
x

representation of

not

the

'

which

is y

'

All

(b)that there is any


propositions is effected by

y,

and

whose
is denied.
existence
compartment,
followingdiagrams represent the propositionsjust mentioned
out

the

FIG.

2.

is all

FIG.

3.

The
:

"

'

]
Fig. 2.
Fig.
xy.'.

All

is y

"

'All

4.

'

excludes

is all

itself to
than

more

excludes

y'

to introduce

existing,and
will

terms

"

circle

new

thus

entail

All

e.g.

of

need

is y

'

is y

excludes

The

xy.

system

propositionswith

universal

or

their

z."

In

this

All x is y

case,

we

have

compartments already

the

number

for

'

or

the

use

of

viz., xyz, xyz

eight compartments,
'

xyz, xyz, xyz. xyz, xyz, xyz.


of the compartment
xyz

No

and

xy

intersectingall

doubling

'

4.

representation of

the

terms,

Fig. 3.

xy.

FIG.

lends

LOGIC

OF

PRINCIPLES

84

denies

the

existence

(Fig. 5).
X

FIG.

5.

utilityof the system is materially diminished


by its being
propositions. Moreover, the view
applicable solely to universal
obtain
that
an
can
we
adequate representation of affirmative
existence
the
of classes, is one
to which,
universals
by denying
serious
show
later
shall
(Ch. 7, " 5),
we
as
objectionsmaybe urged^
The

" 4. The Opposition of Propositions.


The Opposition of Propositions is the relation which
exists between
propositions having the same
subject
and predicate, but differingin quantity, or in quality,
both.

or

The

The

various

difference

In this

case

and

an

differences

be

may

it must

give rise to

be

in both

either

or
proposition,

four kinds

quality and

between

else between

an

an

of

tion.
opposi-

quantity.
proposition
proposition

PRINCIPLES

86

We

shall

proceed

now

LOGIC

OF

the

examine

to

kinds

various

oppositionin detail :
contradictory
(1) ContradictoryOpposition. Of two
be
must
the one
be true, the other must
propositions,
are
false. For example, the two propositions,All crows
of

"

'

'

black/
true,

of 5

whole

the

must

either be such

part

is outside.

On

that

outside

part

no

is

if

false,and

said

if

that

case

P, and

be

the

the

be

true.

be

has

portion
false.
it

of which

only form,

other

that

some

must

that

it both

propositionsis true,

is false the

one

part

such

must

time,

same
or

or

that

such

either

P,

or

at the

of the

one

be

Contradictoryopposition is
is the

is outside

either

Hence

P.

it cannot

portion outside

no

either
proposition,
It is plain
outside P.

Hence

the

of the circle 5 falls outside

In the

falls

hand

other

the

both

will be

part

no

of the circle P.

limits
or

in which

be

neither

',can

easilyseen by the aid of


propositionis representedby Fig.

This

The

black

not

are

false.

circles.

Fig.2

or

crows

both

nor

Euler's
i

Some

the other
it is

Hence

is true.

opposition. The
characteristic to which
have
we
just adverted, gives to
this kind of oppositiona specialimportance in controversy,
shall refer in the followingsection.
to which
we
The
rule of contradictoryoppositionis easilyproved
from
the laws
of contradicof thought. In every
tion,
case
have judgments which
we
are
opposed as A is B,
A is not B.
Thus in the judgments, All crows
are
black/
Some crows
not black/ the negativeproposition
denies
are
black
that the attribute
belongsto each and all of those
to

perfect form

most

of

'

'

'

'

individuals,of
and

denied

of

which

one

has shewn
of this

form,

Middle

has

one

it has

and
us

the

been

But

same

is asserted

the law of Contradiction

that

where

be

false

must

asserted

we
:

have

and

propositions

two

the law

of Excluded

taught us that one must be true.


(2) Contrary Opposition. Propositionswhich
as

false.
'

contraries,cannot both be true,but may

Thus

All metals

are

are

heavier

it cannot
are

than

heavier
water.'

be

at

than

the

time

same

water/ and

For

if it be

that

true

both

that

No

be

that

true
'

posed
op-

metals

there

are

OPPOSITION

metals

no

than

'

No

heavier

are

metals

metals

certainly

most

may

heavier

not

are

'

Hence

than

the

All

judgment,
of

the truth

water/ excludes

judgment, All metals are heavier than water/


It is possible
for each of two contraries to be false. For
be false together,is simply to
assert
that both
can
'

true

that is,that

But

together.

It may

case.

and

have

we

be

alike true

Some

men

of these

S with

time.

But

5 may

be

cannot

it may

happen

'

Some

be

can
can

be the

are

black/

this
men

true

diagrams will confirm the


The
A proposition(Figs,

conclusions.

These

simultaneously

black/

Euler's

2) shews us the circle


E
proposition shews

separated.

that,
not

are

of

be

can

propositionsI and
alreadyseen that

the

consideration

accuracy

the

'

that,

or

contradictories

that their two

assert

Some

water/

than

heavier

are

the

to

we

87

This, however, is the contradictoryof

water.'

metals

'

proposition:

the

assert

water, then

than

heavier

PROPOSITIONS

OF

us

the

both

be

that

part of it outside P

no

entirely

circles

two

the

at

case

is the

neither

the

same

For

case.

partly within, and partly without P.


(3)Sub-contraryOpposition. Propositions,which

opposed

both be true.
their
true.
may

They

be false ; for in that

contradictories,viz., A

two

And
both

this

have

we

be true.

For,

involved
impossibility
'

black/ and,
the

both

cannot

Some

in

men

shewn

be

impossible. They

be

justbeen said, there


assertingboth, Some men

as

case,

both

E, would

and

to

are

be false,but may

both

sub-contraries, cannot

as

is

has

no

'

are

black/

not

For

this

are
reason

older

of oppositionboth
logiciansrefused the name
to
subaltern
subcontrary and
propositions (Summa
Totius Logicae,Tract 6, c. 8).
Here
illustrations.
us
as
again Euler's circles serve
The
/ proposition is represented by Figs,i, 2, 4, and 5 :
the 0 proposition by Figs. 3, 4 and
Figs. 4
5. Hence

and
true.
must

5 represent
But
be

cases

if I is

true

where

are

simultaneously

false,the contradictorypropositionE

and

this

being

represent the relation of the


the

/ and

contradictoryA

must

the

case,

true

and

the

will

alone

Similarlyif 0

terms.

be

Fig. 3

is

false,

relation

of

8g

PRINCIPLES

the terms
is

be

must

OF

LOGIC

represented by Figs,i

incompatiblewith either of these.


(4) Subaltern Opposition. In regard to
the

truth

of the

But

2.

or

Fig.3

subaltern

positions,
pro-

universal involves the

truth

of the

particular,but not vice versa ; and the falsityof


the particularinvolves the falsity
of the universal,but not
vice

versa.

The

truth

I is

true.
certainly

is true, then
the

of 7 follows from

truth

It would

needs

proof,as

no

the

truth

may

not

of A.
be the

Some

of A

by

said that

to

of Identity.

of individuals,

of / does not
be

may
men

involve

black, and

are

yet

falsityof the particularinvolves the truth


But the
contradictory,
e.g. If / is false,E is true.
subaltern

If then

ternant.

it be

is the

admitted

it

so.

The

of the

it

that

say

affirmed.

the truth

all

If A

the law

accurate

more

men

that

case

commonly

alreadybeen

is,however, clear that

the

It is

attribute is asserted

same

it has

rules is easilyseen.

that

be

perhaps

of which

It

of these

contrary

of the

tradictory
con-

subal-

universal

true, the

as

of its

subalternant

propositionis false,e.g., E being admitted

as

true, A

be false.

be

must

false,and

the

But

if it be the universal

which

be true, it
contradictoryparticular

follow that the subaltern


sub-contraries

be

may

of the universal
true

is false.

does not
For

two

together.

The
be

explanationsalreadygiven of the use, which may


made
have
of Euler's circles,
probably been sufficient

to

enable

the student

illustrated

by

been

between

escaped notice
by

which

truth
as

the

or

to

the

first
table

we

the

how

these

rules

also

are

as

Means

of Inference.

We

have

isting
treating of opposition as a relation extwo
propositions.But it will not have
that it also provides us with
a
means,

may

pass
of a
falsity

truth

by

notice

them.

" 5- Opposition
hitherto

to

the

from

inferences,which

from

statement

as

to

the

given propositionto a statement


related to
of other propositions
or
falsity
ing
followkinds of opposition. The
various
the
Mansel
(Aldrich,p. 52) enumerates
we

may

thus

draw

"

OF

OPPOSITION

0 is

PROPOSITIONS

89

1.

If A

is true

2.

If A

is false ;

0 is true, E

unknown,

/ unknown.

is true

/ is

false,

true.

unknown,

unknown.

3. If E
If E

4.

false,A

is false ; / is true, A

5. If / is true ;
6. If / is false ;
7. If 0 is true ;
8. If 0 is false ;
Thus

false,E false,

from

false,A unknown,

is

is true, 0

is

is true, / true,

0 unknown.
A

true,

I unknown.

false,E unknown,
of

false.

false.

(Nos. i and 3), or


from
the falsehood of a particular(Nos. 6 and 8) we
may
infer the quality of all the opposed propositions
but
:
from the falsehood of a universal
(Nos.2 and 4) and from
the truth of a particular,
can
we
only infer the quality
of its contradictory.
from the truth of 0 to the falseSince we
hood
argue directly
of A, contradictory opposition acquires primary
importance in controversy. By the productionof a single
is at once
negative instance, a whole general statement
The
is destroyed,not by showing
confuted.
generalization
the

all its

that

truth

/ true.

universal

parts, but

that

alone, is

one

" 6. Contradictory Opposition outside


We

Scheme.

have

that

seen

that
propositions

the

of contradictory

it is characteristic

be

must

one

Fourfold

the
false,

other true.

dictories
generaldefinition of contrain that case
it is possibleto find a contradictory
: and
to every
proposition,and not simply to those
be placed in a square of opposition.
which
can
tive
Exponible propositionsare contradicted by a disjuncassertingthat at least one or other of the exponents
Thus
All the crew
the contradictoryof
is false.
save

is often

This

assumed

the

untrue.

the

as

'

one

were

drowned/
drowned,

were

not

It is

plain that

for both

that

save

Either

the

or

unless

propositions to

propositionto
crew

'

is

one

and

the

not

even

have
were

negation
one

of the

crew

in

denied

would
crew

be

in
both

drowned/

of the

remainder

questionwas not saved.'


disjunctiveis used, it is possible
be false.
Thus, supposing the
one

been
not

the

the
the

form,

'

All

tion
originalasser-

untrue, if the facts


was

saved.

the

were

PRINCIPLES

90

The

contradiction

of

assertion,depends
When

they
a

numerical

amount

For

and

Thus

the

candidates

form,

'

putation,
com-

dictory
contraare

Either

senting
pre-

propositionis true
form
the disjunctive

of at

the

the

or

more

understood

be

must

assertion

'

169 years/
Henry Jenkins of Swaledale

age of

exact

an

presentingthemselves/

are

then

instance

Swaledale

the

statements

signifythat

to

sense

required.
Jenkins of
The

will take

understood.

be

to

are

conveying

as

fifteen candidates

Sometimes

least that

they

disjunctivemust be used.
the proposition, Fifteen

than

in the

how

on

themselves/

numerical

propositions
containinga

understood

are

LOGIC

'

of

fewer

OF

was

is not

The

age of Henry
is contradicted
by,
was

less than

169

years.'
however
dicted
Any proposition,
complicated,may be contraof
by prefixing It is false that.' This method
for instance, be usefullyemployed if
contradiction
may,
'

we

called

are
"

This

not, under

on

to deal with

such

policy,being foolish
any

sentence

and

circumstances, have

ing
the follow-

as

ill-considered,could
succeeded."

Opposition of Singular Propositions. In Ch. 3 we


called attention
to the fact that
although the Singular
as
a
propositionis frequentlyreckoned
specialtype of
the
Universal
judgment, yet strictly
speaking it stands
by itself and is neither universal nor particular.This
in relation to our
it is considered
plainlywhen
appears
present subject. In the square of oppositionit has no
place. If the originalterms be retained, it admits of one
kind of oppositionalone, viz.,a contradictory. Caesar was
'

killed
the

Ides

the

on

of

Ides

March/

in the
must

of

March/
are

present

be true, the

'

Caesar

was

contradictories
section.
other

One

not

in the

of the

two

sense

plained
ex-

tions
proposi-

Scheme.
'

extended

on

false.

" 7. Contrary Opposition outside the Fourfold


The

killed

dictory
contrasignification
given to the term
in the
necessitates
a
corresponding extension
contrary.' A contradictory,
employment of the term
as
justexplained,is a propositionassertingj-istsufficient
'

OF

OPPOSITION

render

to

the

destroy

of

contraries

the

both

but

in

sense

is
the

we

absent.

Any
is

where

as

barely

of

either

contrary.
and

denial

are

are

either
not

the

the

are

voters/

voters.'

of

In

the

of

is

sufficient,

of

one

For

they

the

or

by

as

Some

'

very

signifies

proposition
embraced

by

signification
is

altogether

further

singly,

receives

voters,"

others

been

than

Thus,

contrary.

proposition,

'

that

the

contradictory,

taken

proposition,
'

goes

as

the

are

sense

which

members

alone,
the

by

secondary

reckoned

instance

case

be

may
seen

contrary

every

needed

is

be
has

this

denial,

plained,
ex-

the

both

contrary

concerned,

now

form

'

A,

truth

will

used,

term

and

thus

that
it

is

term

to

necessary

characterizes

But

the

further

Contraries

opposition,

Where

disjunctive

denial

which

is

contrary
goes

absolutely

which

true.

judgment.

which

what

be

cannot

which

rebuts.

of

square

denies

which

opposed

with

the

is

property

between

opposition
one

it

the

altered.

materially
the

than

proposition

false.

negative

more

possess

false,

as

denying

this,

91

statement

understood

accordingly
than

original

the

PROPOSITIONS

"

is

All

counted
holders,
house-

contrary

Some

householders

besides

householders

CHAPTER

VI.

IMMEDIATE

"
be

denned

as

judgment,
in

Inference.

Immediate

i.

the

It

former.

Immediate

by which

process

derive

we

INFERENCE.

from

another, whose
thus

differs

Inference

may

single given
truth
is implied
a

essentiallyfrom

gistic
syllo-

(Ch. i, " 2), in which the mind


passes
truths already known
to a third truth
from
two
distinct
In the syllogism there is a real
either of them.
from
in knowledge. The
is not
conclusion
advance
formally
in
contained
either premiss taken
separately. Here
have
in
advance
no
we
however,
knowledge. The
inference

of

conclusion

immediate

an

already formally asserted


the premiss,we
understood
this ground the
On
name
denied

Immediate

inference
in

declares

some

fact

have
premiss. If we
already know the conclusion.
the

of

Inference

Inferences.

is sometimes

Mr.

Bradley even
affirmatives,
long as you keep to categorical
says : "As
but
conversion
rational
or
opposition is not
your
simply grammatical (Principles^.392). The question
these
have
to whether
a
as
right to the
processes
of Inference, must
name
depend on the precisemeaning
If it is understood
to
term.
attach
to that
we
signify
this would
in knowledge, and
to
advance
an
appear
it is wrongly applied",
correct
be the
to
more
sense,
to

'

"

'

"

"

If

them.

however

it includes

any

mental

transition

something involved in that datum,


is justified.For
it is certainlyerroneous
here
its use
the change is purely grammatical.
that
to say
Take,
for
Inference
Immediate
as
example, so simple an
from
Some
not
that
men
are
by which we
pass
not-wise.'
The
Some
are
wise/ to
men
change is
from

datum

to

'

'

PRINCIPLES

94

of

pressions

and

one

expressions,the
the

'

some

"

the

subject
form

when

LOGIC

reality. Of

same

is understood

these

two

mental

signifyingthe

as
thing,
teristic
characthing qualifiedby some
determining
of being ', which
of the
assert
we
thing.
is
less
a
significant term, it, no
subject

the

predicate as

OF

"

the

Manifestly
than
the
some
predicate, contains
determining characteristic.
If e.g. we
This bronze
the term
bronze,'
object is spherical,'
say,
less
than
the
term
attribute
no
'spherical/ expresses an
ing
belongHence
that
the
to the thing.
declares
we
proposition
may
say
the coinherence
in the same
forms
of being
subject of the two
the
form
the
the
terms, though
signifiedby
expressed by
subject
that
is assumed,
This
signified by the predicate is asserted.
of forms
coinherence
as
regards truth, be expressed in
may,
either
order
In
concerned
with
are
Logic we
indifferently.
known
and
in
the
forms
to
to
our
as
things
regard
knowledge
us,
order.
It
take
is
either
to
That
true
as
running thing
may
say,
is
is a dog,' as it
That
to say,
dog is running.' It follows that
the
of the terms,
order
and
we
legitimatelytranspose
may
may
replace a propositionof the type 5 is P, by one of the type P i S,
should
the
not
assert
provided we are careful that the converse
of S and
P in relation
coinherence
to any
which
side
outwas
entity
of the original proposition.
the scope
'

'

'

'

'

'

The

followingrules

conversion

ensure

the

validityof

"

term

not

was

of

negative

as

"

the
the

distributed

be

may

distributed
of Rule

reason

be

must

converse
or

The

to

(1) The
(2) No

given

are

in

the

is obvious.

same

quality
"

mative
affir-

convertend.
in the

converse,

which

convertend.
In

every

affirmative

the two terms


different mental
are
proposition
expressions
of the same
objector objects. The inferred proposition
in a conversion, refers to the identical objectto which
the
It is then
terms.
premissreferred,and employs the same
manifestlyimpossiblethat it should be negative: for a
admissible
negativepropositionasserts that one of the terms is inas a mental
expressionof the thingin question.
In the same
it is equallyimpossiblethat a negative
way
tive.
should, after conversion, appear as an affirmaproposition

As

regardsRule

" 2) that
in the

where

form

2,
term

of the

we

have
is

alreadypointed out

undistributed, there is

propositionto

show

that

(Ch.5,
nothing

it is to

be

INFERENCE

IMMEDIATE

understood
the

of

of the

extension

class of

whole

the

asserted

in

the

the

point

we

which

to

be

say

add

we

true,

shall

will

originalproposition. It
of this will appear
which

we

are

(a) Conversion
the

All

convert
so

would

be

explained.
shew

us

this.

Such

into

to

violate

can
'

that,

largerclass lay

All
say,
All animals

careful

to

will

appear
This
kind

keep

men

per accidens
It is true

is P

the

the

rule which

within

as

Some

of

in

'

the

in

assertion

Because
not

follow

therefore

be

which

animals

Some

are

as

Conversio

by

limitation.

is known

the

cases

contained

converse,

conversion

as

just

circles,will

must

the

do

To

have

we

it does

is 5,

conversion

certain

form

in

is S.

smaller.

the

We

undistributed

cannot

we

Euler's

animals/

men.'

propositions

All

form

sometimes

or

that

are
are

thus

men/

glance
Fig. I
be
would
fallacy which
conversion
might well involve

amples
Ex-

proposition,

Hence

of

'

we

In

the

at

the

the

that

the

discuss.

to

undistributed.

is

it from

of the A

case

the

if what

inference.

an

propositions.

of A
is

predicate

in the

about

now

be

not

in

Even

drawn

have

not

is

going beyond

are

extends.

warrant

more

contained

we

to

conversion,

distributed,

was

anything,

our
we

is

than

converse

If

convertend.

objects belonging

If then, after

term.

previously undistributed

term

95

of All

conversion

give us a true result.


Thus
it is not only true that
right-angledtriangles
have
the square
the hypotenuse equal to the sum
on
of the squares
sides containing the right
the two
on
be asserted
angle," but the converse
propositionmay
to

All

is S

may
All
"

'

'

'

in the
from

be

form
the

All P

form

inferred

from

is S.

of

the

it.

does

not

appear

originalproposition,and

cannot

This

We

learn

however

it from

other

sources.

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

(b) Conversion of E and I propositions. In E and I


propositions,there is no need to change the quantity
which
No S is P becomes
convert.
of the proposition,
we
P

No

is

In

conversion.

both

and

the

circles will
S

P is

both

same

the

in the

its converse,

us

to

the

as

the

Thus

them.

is

plant.'

4 and

5.

It is manifest

exclude

'

we

that

No

say

plant

4.

class

altogether
converse
deny
will be
No
being capable
P is representedby Figs.
one

also

must

'

It

between

of sensation

if

Euler's

5.

the

Hence

larly
Simi-

i S.

FIG.

we

tribute
dis-

of the process.

3.

other.

union

any

correctness

representedby Fig. 3.

capable of sensation/

not

convertend.

of

assure

this

P distributes

S does

in

predicateundistributed

subject and

FIG.

from

simple

as

propositions,

is true

FIG.

is

is known

converse

Some

form

to the

5
proposition

undistributed

was

has

5 iP

The

Hence

its terms.
what

these

converting

rule is violated.

no

way

is converted

of this character

Conversion

is S.

S is P

5, and Some

in either

case

we

may

with

propositionof the form P i S. If


Some
have
affirmed, e.g.
Europeans are Englishmen
we
Some
also say,
Englishmen are
(Fig.5),we may
Europeans.' Should, however, 5 i P be employed where
in discussing
saw
S aP might have been used, there too, as we
the A proposition,
we
legitimatelyconvert
may
perfecttruth

frame

'

'

'

to

i S.

INFERENCE

IMMEDIATE

(c)The
does
the

conversion.

propositionand

of

admit

not

of the

observance

particularnegative:

conversion

rules.

The

sition
propo-

consistentlywith

The
its

such

as

97

proposition S o P is
subject is undistributed,

would
Conversion
necessitate
predicatedistributed.
P o S.
But
that the proposition
should be of the form
This
be distributed.
in P
5, the predicate5 must
o
in the convertend.
is impossible,
it is undistributed
as
said
have
we
Fig. 5 will render this clear. Because
not
cannot
Some
Englishmen/ we
Europeans are
conclude, Some
Englishmen are not Europeans.' The
this proposition,is
in regard to
place of conversion
will be seen,
as
filled,
by Contraposition.
of Singular propositions. Only those
(d) Conversion
singularpropositionsin which the predicateas well as
the subject is a singularterm, are capable of conversion.
the transposition
In all others
of the terms
alters the
grammatical form, but not the logical.We may express
Plato
the sentence
of the
One
was
a
philosopher/as
philosophersis (was)Plato ; but Plato is still the subject
its

'

'

'

'

'

"that

of which

where

both

terms

are

legitimatelytake the
coming towards us is
converted
simply.
It will not

is said.

something

On

the

other

hand

singular,either of the two may


The
man
place of subject,e.g.
Socrates/
Such propositionsare
'

have

it is desired to conescaped notice that when


vert
it
is
first
to express
it
proposition,
absolutelynecessaiy
in full logical form, with
and
subject, copula and
predicate,
with
the
mistakes
sign of quantity prefixed. Otherwise
are
a

bound

to

occur

The

usually
wealthy

should

first be

'

who

men

to

by

become

'

proposition,
become

'

Aristotle

(i)

the

Prior

propositions.

the

/., c.

If No

'

as,

the

converted

converse

wealthy

process

The
of

The

e.g.

to

The

(most) of the

of Conversion.

validity of

in An.

be

become

who

men

" 3. Aristotle's Proof

establish

Some
and

such

industrious.'

'

as

wealthy
Some

will

wealthy/

usually
expressed

become

correctly as

and

trious
indus-

the

proposition

industrious

will
are

form

then

are

appear

industrious.'

following proofs
are
given

conversion,

"" 2, 3.
S is P, then it will
2,

follow

that
H

No

PRINCIPLES

98
is S

P
P

for if not,

can

of

is S.

have

is both

is the

it, and

the

5 and

direct

P,

dictory
contra-

supposition

on

false.

shewn

is P, it will

that
that

is

this
when

follow

that

is false, then
No

No

Some
P

is S.

is S, it follows

incompatible with

that

datum

our

that

is P.

propositions. If

(3) 7
P

is S.

is P.

Some

if not, then

For

It is manifest
of

of which

something

since

however

therefore

that

Then

This

this result

But

is P.

All

is P.

are

already

LOGIC

supposed

C, is S.

propositions. If All
if it be supposed
For

we

No

datum

our

it is based,

(2)
But

Some

that

it follows

which

let it be

predicated,say

be

OF

No

that every

it will

is P,

follow

is S.

But

in this

proof rests

step

this

that

involves

upon

Some

that

the

No

Laws

Thought.

" 4. Equipollence
Eauipollence

or

Obversion

is

the

ing
judgment, while retainfor its predicate the contradictory

in which

inference

Obversion.1

or

inferred

originalsubject,has
of the original predicate.
is termed
the
Obvertend,

the

the
Obverse

It

Obverse.
have

we

is

substituted

for

we
contradictory term,
qualityof the proposition: thus,

the

is

stated

not

not-P.

The

rule

we

for

originalproposition
inferred

the
that

as

in

position
prothe

originalpredicate
also
change the

must

The

evident

its

to

of immediate

process

from 5 is P
pass
the process
be
may

:
"

Change the quality of the proposition,and substitute


for the predicateits contradictoryterm.
The
process is applicableto all the four fundamental
propositions.The subjoinedtable will shew the equipollent
forms

"

Originalproposition.

Obverse.

S eP

The
1

of each

followingwill

serve

as

i P

a~P

examples

P.

S i P.

:
"

Equipollence is the term employed by the majority of the Latin writers,


The
English logicianshas the authority both of Mill and Mansel.
among
in this sense, appears
to be due to Bain.
Obversion
ton
of the term
use
By Hamilwith
Conversion
it is used
as
(Logic, I. 262). The process
synonymous
on
is briefly touched
by Aristotle, de Interp., c. 10, " 15.
and

IMMEDIATE

INFERENCE

99

Original proposition.
All

men

No

philosophers

Obverse.

mortal.

are

No

are

judges are

Some

ministers

philosophers
practical.

Some

just.

judges
just.

wise.

not

are

not-mortal.

are

All

prao

tical.

Some

men

Some

are

ministers

are

not-

not

not-

not-

are

wise.
it is

Where

find

possibleto

rately
accusingleword, which
of
the
the
sense
contradictoryterm,
expresses
word
such
should be employed in place of it. Thus
a
with
in these
the
advantage use
examples, we
may
words
immortal/
unpractical/ unjust/ unwise
'

'

'

of

in lieu

'

not-mortal/

'

'

etc.

validityof the process is proved by the Laws of


shews
that
if
us
Thought. The law of Contradiction
All S is P, then
No
S is not-P : for according to this
principle,if anything is P, it is thereby proved not
of the negativejudgment,
to be not-P.
The Ob version
The

either

or

conclude
A

the

Law

not-P

from

follows

mortal/
limit

apparent
the

of

no

can

be

will

diagrams

we

assert

that

'

'

the

denotes

'

'

P,

we

All

from

the

-^

2.

-P

of

four

within

It

is

are

the
thus

found

but

ences
infer-

fundamental
the

only

not

follows

" 5. Contraposition.
Contraposition is a, process

men

immediate

the

reckoned

as

these

non-mortals.'

Among

will be

Converse.

is

is to be

men

propositionsthemselves,

This

be

must

confirm
'

'

circle

derived
be

Converse.

Obverted

if

Converse.

propositions,must
Converse.

the

part of

which

of the

No

'

that

which

falls
representing men
circle representing mortal.'

the

space

know

we

circle

Obverted

forms

since

Middle.

is not-P.

Thus,

the

of

and

consideration

conclusions.

in

All

that

of Excluded

the

Obverse
Obverted

:
"

$_

immediate

none-

none.

inference

PRINCIPLES

TOO

in which

from

OF

LOGIC

judgment is

another

given judgment

inferred,having for its subject the contradictory of the


obtain
the
position
contrato
rule
original predicate. The
be shortly stated :
of a propositionmay
"

Obverse

the

Convert

of the

proposition.

'

'

has
proposition, All reptilesare vertebrates
the
No
its Obverse,
:
reptilesare non-vertebrates
as
vertebrates
nonContrapositivewill therefore be 'No
right
reptiles.'Similarly,the proposition Some
are
after Contraposition,
not
actions are
agreeable/ will become
Some
not-agreeablethingsare right actions/
The
by
following table will shew the forms assumed
:"
the various propositions

The

'

'

'

'

Originalproposition. S_aP
P e S
Contrapositive.
It will be

the

that

seen

does
proposition

admit

not

S_eP

none

it becomes

SjoP.

i S

propositionhas

after Obversion

positive. For

SiP

i S.

Contra-

no

P, and

this

of Conversion.

S a P.
This
by Obversion
propositionbecomes
Conversion, must
change its quantity to particular.
on
what
has been
termed
have
here we
Hence
Contrapositio
The

per accidens.
Obverted Contrapositive.1 It is plain that
in each

and

change

This

will

case

the

give

us

itself

"

Contrapositive.
Obverted
Contrap.
1

It will be

observed

of the

We
capable of Obversion.
alter the quality of the proposition,
predicate to its contradictoryterm.

Contrapositives is
can

each

that

the
The

none

5_

i S.

none

Obverted
older

S.

Contrapositive retains the quality


position
Contralogicians considered

Latin

original proposition.
of the terms, and
for obtaining the conversion
merely as a method
the
that
it was
fact
in
this
its
from
possible to
importance
as
deriving
way
Conversio
the 0 proposition. They called it not Contrapositio,but
convert
the
obvertedfor
reserved
the
Hence
name
Contrapositionem.
they
per
that the quality
contrapositive,since it alone follows the rule of Conversion
Cf. e.g. Sylv. Maurus
remains
(Quaest.Phil. I., p. 65). In this
unchanged.
they followed Boethius, DC Syll. Cat. I. (P. L. vol. 64, c. 807). Contraposition
is recognized by Aristotle in Topics, II. 8.

of

the

PRINCIPLES

tf"2

Obverted

Inverse.

possibleto obtain
Contrapositive,so
which

have

we

S~i P

will be

Just
we

just

which

of

the

Originalproposition.

S aP

S iP

S eP

Obverse.

SeP

SoP

S aP

Converse.

PiS

PiS

PeS

?i"^
PeS_

PoS

PaS

Converse.

the

for

formula

The

Sa

subjectand

SiP

SoP

is Pa.

therefore

For
'

art/

'

This

form

the

determinant

the

same

statue

Inference.

added

by

determinants

instance,
beautiful

'

of immediate

statue
is

statue

is

Canova

by

qualifiesthe
I

Thus,

aspect.

work

inference

consists

the

will be

process

P.

Si P.

SoP

predicateby

the

PoS.

inference, which

of immediate

process
both

inference

P_oS
S_iP

Varieties of Immediate

(1) Immediate

PiS.

Inverse.

" 8. Other

results

PiS

Contrapositive.
Obverted
Contrapositive.Pa
Inverse.

follows.

as

Obverted

P.

Obverted

forms

of

summarize

may

and

Inverse

Obverse

S" o

it is

Converse

the

will be

We

that

seen

the

obvert
may
reached.
The

arrived

have

we

have

forms

of S i P

that

LOGIC

we

as

obverted

" 7. Table of Results.


at

OF

limiting

determinant.

same

in

is

is

P, therefora
of art

'

beautiful

work

of

of art

Canova.'

is

work

by

is

only possible,when
under
terms
precisely

cannot

argue

that

because

'A

'A good prizefighter


is a man,' therefore
prizefighter
In this case
is a good man.'
good as qualifying man,'
that
the
himself
realizes
in
the
ideal
man
signifies
of man
with the prescrip; that is,he lives in accordance
tions
As
of his rational
nature.
qualifying prizefighter,'
the word
that
he
realizes
good merely means
in himself the ideal of a prizefighter
; that is,he possesses
in a high degree the art of knocking other
down.
men
Here
have
we
(2) Inference by omitted determinants.
from
an
a
inference,in which
propositionaffirmingof
'

'

'

'

'

'

IMMEDIATE

attribute

qualifiedby a determinant,
subject
propositionaffirming of the same
Men
without
qualification.Thus, from

rational

mortals/

infer

we

the
are

103

attribute

given subjectan

INFERENCE

'

fallacymay

to

alter the

'

facts,'to

mortals.'

are

determinant

here, if the

arise

Men

'

is such

as

predicate. Thus, we cannot


manifestations
are
pretended
Spiritualistic
manifestations
facts.' 1
are
Spiritualistic
of the

meaning
'

from

argue

conclude

we

inference by complex conception. This


(3) Immediate
inference
is closely analogous to
by added
process
determinants.
and

It consists in

conception.
in

bronze

is
'

therefore
In

the

predicateof
'

these

Bronze

is

The

death
the

cases,

of

the

what

relation

which

in

stands

proposition stating the


stands

which

name

The

Q.

to

attributed

was

to

original

introduced,
cies
Falla-

5,

to

those

to

infer

'

from

All

of the

is

relation

infer

we

relation

the

have

we

majority

another
which

in

transposed,and

are

man.'

proposition stating

converse

terms

is

man,'

determinants.

as

from

of inference, by which

is

predicateof

'

the

statue

of

cannot
Thus, we
already examined.
A
judges are lawyers,'that therefore
judges is a majority of lawyers/
inference
by converse
(4) Immediate

process

'

negro

here, similar

arise

subject
complex

death

by

employed

of course,

may,

is the

determined

themselves

are

'

metal.'

negro
subject and

not

the

metal,' therefore

in

statue

propositionare
but

employing both
originalas parts of a more

relative

the

previous subject,is

butable
consequentlyreplacedby the correlative,which is attrithe
Socrates
to
new
subject. Thus, from
of Xantippe,' we
conclude
the husband
was
Xantippe
'

'

Venn,

three

or

This form
of immediate
inference
Symbolic Logic, p. 286.
discussed
II., c.
8,
Topics,
Aristotle,
delnterp.,c.
"
by
n,

times

Soph. Elenchi, c. 25.


The
principle governing
stated

in

form

the

simpliciter, quando
35,

deFallaciis,

c.

its

determinatio

n,

de

application was
secundum-quid
non

Potentia, Q.

est

9, Art.

5,

2.

Latin

illatio

valet

diminuens.

obj.

the

by

dicto

is two
u,

logicians
ad

dictum

Opusc.

St. Thomas,
See

also

"4

Ch.

17,

"

10

below.
Mr.

he

has

Bradley's criticisms
overlooked

(Principles,p. 394) would


appear
discussion of the point.

Aristotle's

to

indicate

that

PRINCIPLES

104

wife

the

was

of

slave

of

'

Socrates

Philemon/

LOGIC

OF

'

to

'

from

Philemon

Onesimus
the

was

the

was

of

master

Onesimus/
Some
mode

of

Formal

the

immediate

of

logicianshave
inference

is, they
Logic. There
we
thought, by which
pass
of

'

to

'

is the

child

falls

within
no

urge,

do

To

that

the

is

the

this

province
law

of

father

of

necessary
'

from

of A.'

denied

it is necessary

so,

The
meaning of the terms.
be symbolically represented.
cannot
process
of the
Formal
the
From
point of view
logician the
But
force.
to the
Scholastic
cian,
logiobjection has much
who
holds that the object of Logic is the conceptual
ever
expression of the real, it presents no difficulty.Who-

acquainted

be

to

the

employs
his

in

mind

'

to

is

child

of

inference,

of

A!

'

The

is

to

the

', must

hence

the

is

pass

of

B,'

expressly

" 6).

7,

By

consequence.
from

fact

have

can

father

inference

conclude

we

father

child,' and

(Categ.,c.

is necessary,

something

'

by modal

inference

'

concept
from

Aristotle

recognized by
method

relative

inference

the

Immediate

the

correlative

the

immediate

by

with

that

the
it is

fact

this
that

possible.

for
proposition It is necessary
It is
an
equilateral triangle to be equiangular/ to
equilateraltriangle to be equiangular.'
possible for an
first sight there
At
a
difficultyin concluding
appears
from
necessity to possibility. But if it is not the case
is possible,then
is necessary
what
that
by the principle
of Excluded
Middle, the contradictory is true, and
we
it is impossible (de Interp.,c.
that
must
13, " 9).
say
is false, we
is
As
this
conclusion
recognize that what
is also
possible, and similarlythat whenever
necessary
that
also
assert
we
something is impossible, we can
can
In this case,
that it is possiblefor this not to be.
assert
For

instance

from

the

'

we

in

use

Ch.

the

3,

words

" 9.

in

the

second

of

the

two

senses

noted

CHAPTER

THE

"
this

IMPORT

Import

i.

of

chapter

various

in

already

shall

on

this

to

treat

the

subject
of

""
in

the

and

subject
to

some

the

the

thing,

affirm

we

that

the

the

the

as

order

is

subject

in

it

is

iiie

to

what

is

it

denote

place

of

this
of

the

the

function

the

subject

the
proper

the

attribute,

natural

is ;

the
and

order

when

is

predicate
when

which

copula

declares

we

and

that

object

is

first,

stand

affirmed
have

may

whose

special

thing,
'

Logically,

office
in

object

ition
transposFor

perfectly legitimate.
is

simply

define

the

to

tell

stands

That

this

the

as

be

may

say,

no

predication.

we

we

is

it

as

know

of

pressed
ex-

much
inas-

there
we

may

name

to

attribute

order

concrete

as

construed

object

Thus

is Socrates.'

way,

of

under

Further,

subject,

attribute.

subject

judgment

the

an

version,
con-

Briefly
the

subject,

attribute,

individual

the

both

knowledge

of

possible

between

The

natural

name,

view

relation

the

with

the

own

of

some

our

the

naturally

were

to

have

not

identical.

are

mere

our

being

the

aspect

of

thing.

deals

reverse

may

which

coming

which

said,

by

regard

naturally

to

in

as

though

case

the

predicate

as

judgment

as

of

We

understood.

be

predicate

judgment

and

known,

What

the

relation

process

the

however

subject

the

was

the

how

object

object expressed
by

fixed

the

(or deny)

of

or

have

we

express

aspect,

signify

what

it

For

should

predicate

predicate

explained

indicating

of

nature

In

considering

predication.

detail.

some

first

recapitulate

and

6, "

2, Ch.

i,

of

act

View.

in

occupied

proposition,

without

Predicative

precise

mental

3,

PROPOSITIONS.

be

the

to

as

in Ch,

OF

Propositions"

we

theories

expressed

VII.

us

subject

what
to

be

io6

PRINCIPLES

this

or

that

individual
particular
most
certainlydone.

this is

"

That

there

is

natural

the

order

is

rightlysays
'

form

The

as,

of the

where

but

the

it

and

exist

is not

generality,

its

as

Aristotle

is Callias,'such

per accidens.

stance
sub-

the

in such

proposition

our

the

characterizes

They
right. Hence

subject

wider

of

term

order

an

accident,

an

'That

e.g.

but

is

man

Socrates.'

propositionaccording to which the


the thing and the predicateas
as

of the

view

understood

subject is

attribute,

the

characterize

own

seen

accident

supports

existence.

their

natural

and

which

determines

though we can
express
this
object coming
way

is true

same

substantial

This

it, and

in

not

is not

terms

The

and

Socrates,

man

substance

substance

which

that

to be the

"

predicationwill easily be

something
independent
possesses

It

LOGIC

between

is the

not

determinations,

of

distinction

recalling
(Ch. 2, " 7). Clearly it
accidents.
They determine
on

them.

OF

or

"

it is sometimes

as

subject is

construed

in

intension,

is known

as

"

put,

extension, and

in which

the

the

predicatein

Predicative View.

the

theories
diverse
During the past century the most
this point have
been held by logicians.The principal
on
shall proceed to examine.
In the course
of these
we
shall be brought across
of the
another
discussion, we
problem, which of recent years has afforded matter for
debate, the question namely, whether
a
categorical
proposition implies that things corresponding to its
terms
actuallyexist.
"

"
both

An.

Prior
such

proposition

'

'

'

the

'

white

That
did

An.

"

I.,

c.

object is

become

not

follows.

view,

conceived

Post.

white

interpret

22,
a

hold
in

" 2, where
stick

stick, but

that
exten-

he

points

'

is predication
vice versa.
On

fithoc quod praedicatur


dicere
Cum
sit verum
ipso sicut de subjecto.
quod Album
ergo non
est quod album
est lignum proprie et per se
fiat lignum, manifestum
non
Album
est lignum, intelligitur
loquendo. Sed si hoc concedatur
per accidens,
Iste
quia scilicet illud particulare subjectum, cui accidit album, est lignum.
esC sensus
hujusmodi praedicationis in qua subjectum praedicatur de
ergo

this St. Thomas


1

'

'

as

who

class-inclusion

See also

I., 0.27, "3.


a

per accidens, since


'

Those

propositionon
subject and predicate are

that

out

Class-inclusion View.

The

the

the

2.

comments

as

de

'accidente,"

in An.

Post.

Subjectum

I., lect. 33.

Jevons (Principlesof Science,p. 39) has completely misunderstood


meaning on this subject.
a

See

below,

Ch.

8, "

i.

Aristotle's

IMPORT

THE

PROPOSITIONS

OF

107

of a proposition
significance
is to assert that the objects denoted
by the subjec; are
the class signified
from
included in, or excluded
by the
mortal
that all men
asserts
are
predicate, e.g. Men
fall within
mortal/
The
this
the class
predicate on
be read
interpretationmust
necessarily
collectivelyas
sion.

believe

They

the

true

'

'

'

"

mortal

included

not

are

The

within

real

order, inclusion

and
propositions,
and

that

in

exclusion

it is due

to

either

that

in

regard

class

that

this

separately.

be

from

in
in

proposition does

the

does

or

mental
fundais not

indicate

not

the

frame

to

diagrams corresponding to the four


propositions.But the questionbefore us,

whether

of

negations:

of

scheme

tively
collec-

affirmative

able

are

we

they

may

class is involved

whole

tributive
dis-

included

are

taken

each

them,

unit.

be

subject on the other hand


used.
or
distributively
have
already pointed out

We

as

impossible. All men


things,as these constitute

would

use

within

class considered

whole

signifyingthe

the

objectiveorder : but whether


this is the relation
conceived
by the mind, and verbally
expressedby the subjectcopula and predicate.
A fatal objectionto the theory is the fact, that were
it true, we
not
should
our
propositionsin the
express
existence

'

form

If

All

men

'

inaccurate
not

'

urged

that

which
those

are

which

class

of

men

statement

what

men

there

the

are

certain

sometimes

Lions

affirm

we
are

relation

Felidae,'we

in

Felidae,'

quite

Every

'

mortal

of

number

'

this

signify that

is

man

is

'

every

true

propositions,
namely
way,

Daisies

two

indeed

judgments

inaccurate

between

is

things,it

is sometimes

termed

'

'

It

are.

mortals.'

hand, on the predicative


predicateare the

and

for

some

among

mortal

other

naturally understood
are

assume

mortal.'

subject,copula

Lions
are
e.g.
positae.' It is, however,
here

of

are

On

of

mode

expression

included

are

All
say
mortal.'

would

They

'

view, the
natural

men

the
signifies

to

the class

mortal.'

All

as

mortals

in the

are
'

form

such
'

of classes

of classification,'
Com-

are

to

say

classes.
lion

has

that

By
the

PRINCIPLES

io8

attributes

that

mark

OF

LOGIC

Felis.

The

It declares
inclusive signification.

of

the
*

drawn

be

from

class-inclusion

time

one

it

quite untenable,

to be

held

that

notions

two

If this

be

of

predicate,even

the

This,

it follows

so,

predicate,like

the

The

the

All

e.g.

All

Y.

e.g.

Some

/.

e.g. Some

Some

is

(No

is

P.

E.

P.

some

/'Some

P.

some

is any

is not

e.g.

recognized

quantity

be

known.

mentally

least

at

gular.
sin-

or

sequently
con-

e.g.

all trilateral.

triangles are
triangles are

No

77. e.g. No
O. e.g. Some

P.

any

the

must

"

e.g.

some

been

as

U.

is all P.

that

so

case,

A.

is

rNo

the

P.

note,

that

course

expressed,

not

follows

is all P.

rSome

(All

of

At

subject,is always either universal


fundamental
propositions becomes

of

scheme

of

matter

is in fact

eightfold,
5

of

Hamilton.

possesses

as

as

fAll

special form

logicians
long since

It has

though

maintained,

he

owe

we

is

Sir W.

to

ton
only historic interest. Hamilessential
function
of a proposition is to compare
in respect of their quantity (Logic,II., p. 257).

the

and

This

several

accepted by
Dr. Baynes.

and

Thomson,

Dr.

ment
argu-

propositions in support

Predicate.

view, which

was

No

view.

the

Quantificationof
Class-inclusion

the

these

no

identitybetween
subject,and the same

things denoted
by the
in the predicate.
conceived
things differently
can

has

the

of the

each

copula here

figures.

some

figures

all

are

triangles

are

triangles.
regular
ir-

some

figures.
trianglesare any
trianglesare some
figures are

squares.

figures.
not

any

triangles.

1 Some

is not

P.

some

Some

trianglesare
figures.

e.g.

u".

I
The

has

theory

nothing

quantify the predicate.

not

have
the

on

Further,
relation
such

of

list of

redundancy
A
in

similar

of the

there

compatible

with

members

17 express

the

about

the
of

the

our

of the

All rhinoceroses
manner

any

of Euler's

propositionis to
as

appears

Y
"D

relation between

forms,

no

conveys
the

even

as

The

it is

amined.
ex-

correspond
no

classes.

with

express

more.

soon

and

five

but

are

consideration

proposition

other

do

we

single-horned.
expressive of a different

relation.

same

some

are

be five forms, and

must

Finally the
any

'

that

reflectingin

in

saw

eightfold scheme

manner.

whatever

we

function

essential

and

without

thought

classes, is impossible. There

possible,as

quantitativerelation

In

e.g. affirm

eight propositionseach
the

If the

it.

may

class, whose

the

between

relations

circles.

We

single horn,'

extent
a

recommend

to

not

U.

mation
inforIt is
'

All

PRINCIPLES

no

OF

LOGIC

predicate constantlyaccompany the attributes of the


subject,and that the propositionjust quoted should be
butes
interpreted, Mortalityconstantlyaccompanies the attriof man
(Logic,L, c. 5, " 4).
Mill is correct
when
he says
that
we
can
only form
the ground that
they possess
things into classes on
attributes.
Yet it by no
follows from
common
means
this, that the true
import of a proposition is simply
of the predicatealways (or somethat the
attributes
times)
those
of the subject. The
subject in
accompany
All men
such
is conceived
mortal/
are
a
judgment as
'

'

'

concrete

as
'

we

not

'

man/

but

humanity/

since

affirm that

do

it is

conceive

Of

the

abstract

this concrete

notion

subject,we

qualifiedby mortality,it

is mortal.

in his explanation of
only therefore is he wrong
he is in error
the
too
as
subject, but
regards the
copula. The copula does not express concomitance, it
the subject is.
what
tells us
Not

Mill

in fact makes

admissions,

which

in

'

great measure
true/ he says

It is
deprive his argument of its force.
the subject of a proposition
that
we
usually construe
And
in regard to propositions,
in which
in extension/
the subjectis non-connotative, he owns
that their import
the
individual
is that
thing denoted
by the subject,
over,
has
connoted
the attributes
by the predicate. Morehe interpretsthe proposition All men
when
are
'

'

mortal/

in

form

the

'

Whatever

has

by the subject,has also those


predicate/ he practicallyconcedes all
for subject,not
here
have
the mere
We
connoted

the

abstract

concrete
These
that

the

attributes, but

things,

'

admissions
Mill had

traditional

Whatever
should

sequence

not

interpretation. A
of

that

statements

attributes,

was

general philosophicposition.

is

attributes/

the

us

Attributive

theory
in

to

view

which
the

of

number

lead

about

by the
required.

intension, viz.:

indefinite

however
the

attributes

connoted

entity has

abandoned

generalpropositionsto
and

an

the

pose
supfor

reduced

coexistence

harmony

with

his

IMPORT

THE

PROPOSITIONS

OF

IIT

It has

" 4. Implication of Existence.

been

matter

whether
in a
logicians,
sponding
categoricalproposition,the existence of objects correthe predicate, is implied.
to the subject and
first been
The
raised explicitly
to have
question seems
(1776-1841). Very
by the German
philosopherHerbart
been
taken.
views
have
various
Ueberweg (System of
ence
imply the existLogic," 68) teaches that all propositions
of the subject,save
those
in which
the predicate
the subject-notion,
is such
An absoto abolish
lutely
as
e.g.
is impossible." Mill (Logic,I.,
greatest number
do not
involve
that analyticpropositions
p. 124) holds
of their subjects,
but
the existence
that syntheticpropositions
do so.
Mr. Keynes and Dr. Venn
alike teach
such
that universal
implication,
propositionshave no
that where
but
thing
a
particularpropositionis used, someexist.
This
corresponding to the subject must
strange in the face of such a judgment as
appear
may
Some
told that
have
But we
are
griffins
long claws.'
need not be in the physicaluniverse
the existence
; it is
universe
of discourse.'
It will be necessary
in the
briefly
of much

discussion

recent

among

"

'

examine

to

this notion

'

of the

universe

of discourse.'

first employed,
of discourse. As
(i) Universe
than
that by a convention
no
more
phrase signified
restricted
propositions,as verbally expressed, are
their

reference.1

Thus

if I

chain-armour,' I refer only


under

consideration

constitute

to

As

used

now

my

in

the

and

universe

are

told

our

in

'

No
say,
to soldiers.

hence
of

soldiers

one

now

Actors

might

wears

are

not

be

said

discourse.

however, the phrase has taken

We
signification.
exist

the

that

things,which

actual

different
do

not

physical universe, can exist in the


of mythology,' the universe
universe
of folk-lore,' the
of the imaginable,' the universe
universe
of heraldry.'
various
forms
These
of existence
called
are
empirical
them
from logical
to distinguish
existence, which belongs
to mere
objectsof thought.2
'

'

'

'

'

De

Morgan, Formal
Logic, c. iv.
Keynes, Formal
Logic, Part II., c. 7Bradley, Appearance and Reality,p. 367.
*

'

Venn,

Symbolic Logic, p. 127.

Cf.

PRINCIPLES

H2

It

is

OF

scarcely necessary

LOGIC

bring serious arguments


It is rightlytermed
against this view.
by Mr. Wolf
not
does
an
extravagant conception, which
really
what
to
it
mean
seems
mean
(Studieson Logic,p. 71).
to

"

'

"

It

however

may

various

be

well

indicate

to

what

to

these

universes

Now
in the first place
reallyamount.
it is evident that if a thing possesses
actual existence at
The
of
all,it exists in this physical universe.
griffins
heraldry exist. At the present day, they are usually
of paint and
need
made
not
pasteboard. We
expect
in any other world
to find them
than this. Many indeed
of the
form
objects,concerning which we
judgments
have
actual existence at all. They are
no
mere
objects
of thought. The
idea by which
they are represented,
the object thought of
exists as a physical fact : but
belongs not to the real but to the conceptual order.

distinction

classes

of

thought

such

about

should
ideal
which

however

be

entities.

Some

judgments

enunciated, are
;

'

The

was

the

drawn

are

creatures

mere

between

of the

two

objects of

framed, and

positions
pro-

of the

imagination
verse
physicaluni-

imagine as existingin the


conditioned
Thus
I may
by place and time.
say
of
the
is
Homeric
wrath
terrible,' Hamlet
gods
these,

we

'

of

Prince
mere

Denmark/

approach

to

'

which

The

upas-tree is the

involves

death/

tree,

But

subject as verballyexpressedis elliptical.


be
full form
of the
The
The
judgment would
described
of the gods imagined and
wrath
by Homer,
class
of
is terrible/
The
second
objects possessing
is of far more
moment.
merely conceptual existence
with
not
concerned
individuals
Here
we
are
pictured
This
consists
of
the
class
entities,
by
imagination.
which
though they do not exist, are not repugnant to
which
of the physical universe
the constitution
; and
are
expressed in universal concepts. Such for instance
have
those
mathematical
so
are
figures,which
never,
and properties
nature
far as we
know, existed, but whose
Here
be
our
can
accurately determined.
proposition
it stands.
We
needs
it is true
as
no
:
amplification
all these

cases

the

in

'

THE

IMPORT

may
and

affirm that,

that

if

'

PROPOSITIONS

OF

113

Some

are
geometricalfigures
chiliagons,'
of the statement
is indisputable.This
the accuracy
point will appear clearlyin what follows.
determined
(2)Implicationof existence. Having now

entity exists

an

spirit,it exists
in

not

in this

another,

we

the

may

be

can

such, contains

as

pointed

such

no

universe

as

and

the

categoricalform
implication.We have already

that

(Ch. 4, " 2)

out

that

or

securely face the


is implied in categorical

more

existence

doubt,

no

matter

as

actual

physicalor

not
or
question,whether
propositions.

There

all,whether

at

concepts, while

our

they

of the thing conceived,


accuratelyrepresent the nature
abstract
altogetherfrom the question of its existence.
In regard to the subjectthey tell us what it is, they do
that it is.

tell us

not

of

nature

entity,and

some

determine

which

If then

abstract

we

its nature, and

judgment

entity, our

concept represents the

our

question be a mere
animal
perishfrom the
that

it would

be

and

that

the

assertion

if animals

were

is true
'

affirm this note


should

even

the

possible.'Even

face of the
to

untrue

of the

one

earth,

of the

thing in

should

e^ery

cannot

we

hold

mortalityof animal,

affirm

would

notes

become

true

once

more

It is this that

again created.1

explains
have
as
a
chiliagons
thousand
angles.' The propositionis true even
though
existed : for the predicate
the chiliagon
affirmed
has never
is one
that necessarily
belongs to the subjectwhich my
and

'

such
propositions,
justifies

All

concept represents.
It is
as

plainthat

universals

have

particulars. I

do

angles/ or
chiliagons.'

not, however,

mean

'

may

formed

be

propositions
may

thousand

figuresare
We

and

such

say,

All
'

may

to

say

assert

both

chiliagons
Some
plane

that

there

are

propositions,which
categorical
imply the existence
of their subjectterms.
have
We
merely asserted that
the categorical
form as such does not imply it. There
of
classes of categoricals,
certain
which
are
by reason
no

Bradley, Principles,p. 47.


I

PRINCIPLES

14

in

is affirmed

what

LOGIC

OF

them, do contain

such

(i) all propositions,in which

Thus

predicated,of
God

e.g.

course,

exists.

signifythe
(2) Wherever

implication.

an

is

existence

existence

actually

of the

subject,
predicate affirms
been
of
the recipient

the

subject has acted, or has


of the
an
action, the propositionimplies the existence
subject. We may define an entity,and assert of it the
flow from
its nature, even
properties,which
though it
But
existed.
has
cannot
never
we
truthfullyaffirm
that

the

that

it has

acted, unless it has existed.

Propositions such

act.

cannot

'

benefactor/

existence

imply the
in
the

to

which

fell to

of their

subjects.

is

pronoun

is

slew

his

earth,' certainly
And

(3) the judgments,


is attached

pronoun

said to fall within

be

subject,which

the

demonstrative

nature

mere

Brutus

as

meteor

subject,may
The

with

The

The
'

the

gory.
cate-

same

concerned
are
sign that we
not
merely existingbut under

observation.1

the

that

view

to

'

read
S

All

of

the

maintained

which

'

All
of

have

been
'

e.g.

which

It is

mistake

The
'

adjacente,

'

concluditur

ad
:

'

nunciatis

mal, ergo homo

'

All
it

Si mortui
est."

of

All

by a process
chiliagons have a
communicates,
that

to suppose

necessariis

have

e.g.

All

non

of

with

are

is

thousand

P,'

concerns

not

adjacens,
miseri, ergo

item.

Non

enim

mortui

sunt.

necessario

'

but

intellectual

angles.'

The

nature,

and

raised

it succinctly.

position
pro-

through

black

the

was

The

purely

in enunciationibus

sunt

such.
reached

crows

this question

deals

as

been

reached

est secundum
ut

categorical

indeed

"

lastics.
by the SchoAb

est

tertio

contingentibus recte
in proAtqui veto

infertur Homo

est ani-

Logica, p. 103 (ed. Antwerp, 1589). The


been
of Cambray,
had
work, John Sanderson, Canon
Logicof the exiles for religionunder
Elizabeth.
one
Cambridge, but became
is dedicated
to Cardinal
prefatory verses
Allen, and contains
by
of that notable
and
other members
Martin, B. Edmund
Campion
Sanderson,

of this

Gregory
2

the

may

following citation

'

group

of

'

existing things,

conception,

at

'

showing

our

'

scope

is P

information

book

on

All 5

the

outside

it may

reader

that

'

experience

The

been

'

'

author

logicians of eminence,
the categorical
defending, reduces

Some
5 is P,' should
(if5 exists)is P,' and
2
5 (ifS exists)is P.'
Some
To
this we
reply,
may
5
P
is
is
inaccurate
a
(if
quite
exists)
representation
understand
existence
it.
The
of 5 is
as
we
proposition

wholly

have

we

several

by

hypothetical,and

be read

should
be

been

has

It

scholars.

Venn, Symbolic Logic, pp.

135-137.

IMPORT

THE

the

alone

nature

the

what

expresses

and

PROPOSITIONS

OF

the

is.

if it

is true,

proposition

nature

115

Chiliagons

accurately
possible entities,

are

'

Some
we
actually existing things. Similarly, when
say,
the
that
last thing
intend
we
geometrical figures are chiliagons,'
If any
to assert, is that
of
these
exist,
some
geometrical figures
figures are chiliagons.'
and
Immediate
ing
bearImplication of Existence
Inference. The
of the various
to the implication of existence, upon
views
as
not

'

the

the

summarize

effect
of

his

be

Mr.

by

conclusions

respectivelyof

In

inference, has

thoroughness

customary
to

immediate

of

processes

the

been
It

Keynes.
which

to

traditional

he

is

will

sufficient

be

brought,

doctrine

with

discussed

here

the

to

as

and

defended,

doctrine.

own

regard

to

that

his

discussion

he

starts

of the

doctrine, it is

to

presupposition that the propositions


to be interpreted according to the explanation we
are
All S is P
have just rejected, viz.:
All S (if
as
equivalent to
5
this erroneous
exists) is P.'
Starting from
hypothesis he
of A
is invalid.
From
All 5
(a) that the conversion
argues
there
be
is
conclude
Some
P
that
cannot
P,' we
(if
5)
(if
any
there be any
the
of
7
is
invalid.
conversion
P) is 5.'
Similarly
The
involves
position
invalidity of these conversions
(b)that the contraand
that
the
inversion
of
and
of E and
A
E are
O,
(c)
of Opposition, (d) Contradiction
also invalid.
In regard to the doctrine
noted

from

traditional

the

'

'

'

'

'

does
that
'

there

'

in

there

No

are

no

and

some

of

discourse,'

and

the

results

P.'

both

that,

asserts

does

exist

not

propositions may

hold

not
:

Where

denies

merely
'

is not

these

true

'

good.

for it is alike

not-P's, when

all based

are

to

of
his

the

on

All

the

be

is P,'
that

case

found

is not

in

the

view, viz.

implication,but
of their

existence

understood

have

it,

valid.

are

universal

that

tion
interpreta-

erroneous

we

inference

immediate
own

existential

imply

'

is P

discourse.'

processes

no

be
5

no

Some

does

All

proposition. Interpreted as

regard

have

SP's

'

not

are

both

may

conclusions

all the
In

'

is P

of the

propositions
particularpropositions

that

subjects, he

arrives

at the

following

"

(a) The
above

and

inversion

and
we
a

of A

conversion

given
(c) the

are

valid.

may

infer

is invalid, for the

similarly (b)

of

and

These
a

results

universal

particular,but

not

are

from
a

the

be

may
a

to

same

reason

as

contraposition of E,

invalid.

The

conversions

summarized

particular

from

was

and
of

by saying

universal, and

Opposition (d) Subalternation


good, and (e)Contrariety for the

regard
hold

5,

any

of

These

from

any

universe

universe

that

5 not

'

For

good.

Finally (e)Contrariety
'

and

be

the

true.

'

are

If there

hold

not

particular

universal.

manifestly does
reasons
alleged above

In
not

is

PRINCIPLES

u6

(/)Sub-contrariety is

invalid.

sub-contraries

both

found,
Mr.

Keynes

also

invalid

may

for

where

is not

false.

be

results, notwithstanding the

these

that

holds

LOGIC

OF

doctrine
of immediate
in the
inference, are
they make
view, since they
more
satisfactorythan those of the traditional
diction,
of
the
the
two
secure
important processes of (i) contravalidity
But, as we have seen, his estimate
(2)simple conversion.
view
is vitiated
of the traditional
to
as
by the initial mistake
the interpretationof the proposition.
havoc

implication
some
lighton

of

theories
view

The

discussion

Our

View.

propositions will, we
to their import, which

in

existence
the

discuss.

to

Compartmental

" 5. The

as

to

propose

we

consider

the

on

trust, throw
have

we

in

yet
present

the

cepted
Keynes also has acwhen
Dr. Venn,
it.
dealing with the import of propositions,
calls attention
to the fact that, though it is quite impossible
be
understood
universal
admit
that
to
as
propositions should
of
all
them
of
their
do
existence
the
subjects, yet
signifying
If I affirm
All x is y,'
exist.
do
not
that
certain
things
imply
information
that
the
such
the
assertion
no
certainly contains
has
mortal
the
All
Thus
exist.
are
men
nonthings as xy

section,

owes

Mr.

Venn.

Dr.

origin to

its

'

'

'

'

implication,

existential

such
respect of what
regarded as conditional,but
"in

that

urges
'

only

'

it may

be

regarded

be

the

declares

'
.

non-mortal

No

of

'

whether

'

also

which

things

both

are

is any

there

and

All

'

viz.

compartment
xy.
things as x, then
derivative
secondary and

such

who
our

direct

is

y,' is

affirmation

Secondly,
is the

we

in
of

maintain

first
no
an

mere

is

sense

that

inference

because
the

in
'

is y

xy

;
'

y,'

is

No

If

that

the

empties

import,

are

fact

'

compartment
x's

the

versal
uni-

it

partment
com-

is

there

regarded

y,'
are

as

to

disagree

be

with

what
this

to

was

view.

accept
prepared
the categoricalproposition,
conditional
proposition,but the
to a known
in relation
subject.

place, that
a

attribute

secondary

All

reason

no

primary import,
the

form

is

us

implication.

the

in

'

the

all

will not

last section

maintain

All

found

have

consisting

affirmative

The

in

tell
there

Compartmental view,
essential
import of

as

is x,' the

the

form

can

is y

not

be, whether

the

is that

feature

'

xy ;

Those

it does

But

if there

or

the

called

proposition is regarded
empties a definite compartment.

form

All

combination,

certain

not-y.

all ;

at

been

has

view

its characteristic

'

'

proposition

it

it denies,

#."

any

This

We

respect

of what

he

'

said

in

of

non-existence

Hence

proposition affirms,

The

absolute.

as

exist.'

men

it is not
and
but

from

the
on

the

the

so-called
the

that

case

the

conditional

contrary,

affirmative

the

form.

negative
tive
affirma-

negative

PRINCIPLES

n8

LOGIC

OF

subject of a judgment is, he tells us, not the grammatical


subject, but the reality itself. The whole
judgment is of the
of a predicate representing attributes
which
referred
nature
are
A precedes B,' this whole
relation
to the real world.
Thus, "in
A-B
is the predicate,and
in saying this is true, we
it as
treat
It is a quality of something
an
adjective of the real world.
A-B.
But
if this is so, the realityto which
the
beyond mere
is
the
of
A-B
is
A-B
referred,
subject
adjective
(Principles,
true

'

'

'

'

'

"

Bk.

I.,c.

If this

" 17).

i,

view

be

correct, and

the

two

of

terms

the

judgment form in fact a single predicate,it follows, of course,


the
clusion.
copula is meaningless. Mr. Bradley accepts the conIn its ordinary acceptation,he tells us, the copula is a
of the
account
traditional
judgment, that
superstition.' The
it is a synthesis of ideas, he rejects as
manifestly false. Not
ment,
only is it the case, he urges, that one idea is sufficient for a judganimal
in motion,
I point to an
and
when
ning
Runas
say
in
consist
of
but
did
further,
a synthesis
ideas,
judgment
;
it would
be confined
universals.
When
to a sphere of unreal
I say
Gold
is yellow,'then
fact is present to
certainly some
But
and
universal
mind.
universal
gold
yellow are not
my
Hence
he
'realities
Bk.
concludes
that
I.,
c.
2, " 5).
(Principles,
that

'

'

'

"

'

'

'

"

the

true

refer

Mr.
'

ideal

is

more

for which
the

Subject

The

'

term
metal.
the

of

their

'

gold represents,namely

the

real
'

the

determination

belong

are,

it is true, universal

the

several

to

the

intellect, but

the

true

the

means

the

is

thing

real entities

as

they omit the


gold. But they

through

'

yellow,'
ment,
judgpredicate.

the

that

intellectual

conceived.

ing
individualizdo

not

them.

'

concepts

proposition

the real determination

predicate

of the

order.

be

to

it

showing,

pieces of
from
:
they merely abstract
presence
Gold
be used
can
as
representativeof
Further, since we possess knowledge,

notes

their

On

'

Gold

we

judgment as meaning
gold is qualifiedby the

of

idea

are

than

more

and

concepts

'

that

saying
real

In the

weight.

term

qualified
by
entity is not the subject of

real

'

universal

of

concept

the

in
the

to

interpret the

yellowness.

it stands,

any
'

of

the

of little

hold

to

the

found

be

assertion

our
are

who

bound

that

idea

which

But

content

not

than

universal
that

of

yellow,' those

subject, are

is to

judgment

Bradley's arguments

Gold

no

of

account

the

Thus

deny
the

piece of that
merely through

every
not

senses

which

ceive
per-

employ the universal


concept to
may
designate a particular individual, by using the demonstrative
and
This
gold is yellow.'
saying
pronoun
The
contention
that we
can
a
judgment
by a single
express
word
without
either
cized
subject or copula, has already been critiis
An
1
such
a
as
mere
(Ch. 3, " i).
Running
expression
mutilated
abbreviated
and
sentence,
proposition. It is an
represents the mental
judgment 'That object is running.'
individual,

we

'

'

'

IMPORT

THE

of

" 7. Import
Ch. 3, " 2, we

judgment
'

being

'

the

found

be

to

was

explanation of

The

antecedent

in

they flow.

the

antecedent, it

well

as

to

In

as

from
It

property.

to

effect in the

remote

very

antecedent

real

in

anterior

if

Thus
the

the
on

of

the

that

'

If

'

If

What

is

diate
imme-

Scholastics
anterior

is

we

should

be

in the

in

borne

of

Ground

express

that

thought deals
and

God

real order

is posterior
world

the

importance that
mind, for in the study

utmost

in

with

the order

with

mode

the

of

in

reality.

employed
something depends in the

Reason

which

on

finite world

logicalorder

explicitlyconcerned

are

of

existence

It is of the

terms

The

God,

Him.

the order

which

what

world, though in the

distinction

Logic

from

argue

existence

depends

to

that

the

The

conceptual order.

in the

from

and
what
is
being (priusin or dine reali),
the order of thought (priusin or dine logico).

we

to

of

and

of

order

the

the

property

effect

order, is often

accurately distinguishedbetween

to

from

only judges

not

which

limited.

thus

cause,

cause

must

from

natures

is not

effect to

conceptual

real order, effects

the

the

of

bomb

the

of

'

explodes,the king will be killed/ but


flagsare half-mast high, the king is dead.'

the

from

argues

substance

comparison

order

conceptual order

The

substance,

to

gorical
Cate-

the

admits
being. If the mind
perforceadmit the consequent.
depend on causes, propertieson

mind

the

'

the

on

The

in the

the

clue

the

us

that

In

conceptual order, with


being in the
A somewhat
similar comparison will afford
to the meaning of the hypotheticalproposition.
latter expresses
the dependenceof the consequent

in

order.

real

119

Hypothetical Proposition.

the

saw

PROPOSITIONS

OF

are

sometimes

with the term


Cause which
thought, in contrast
that
which
on
signifies
something depends in the real
order

of

order.

To

the followers

difference

between

of the

Idealist school

conceptual dependence

dependence presents a problem for which


to offer any satisfactory
solution.
They
world

to

relations

expressed by

philosophicalprincipleswould

they
reduce

thought

appear

to

fest
mani-

the
and

are

the
and

involve

real

unable
whole
their
that

PRINCIPLES

120

of

death

the
as

little

of

the

the

the

on

LOGIC

king depends

just

of

position
Thus

bomb.

from

OF

Mr.

"

of causation

"

cannot

somewhat

Logic

on

the

question

be

the

consequent

can

sense

fact

this

is

acorn

such, that

according

to

Our

fired.'
what

they
The

souls

which

If

the

which

about

"

correspond

to

class

second
brutes

may

for

real

more

:
'

say,

If

nature

is

to
its

conditions

such

they
"

as

under

have

salute

assertion

no

solely

happen,

because

not

truth

are

systems

would

arrive,

make

would
be

what

to

of

necessarily develop
find

we

those

true,
we

what

are

determine

its

consist

For

it must

what

classes

true

oak.'

Similarly

In

nothing

is

to

somehow

two

and
it

an

said

real, there

acorn

become

are

Yet

not

to

antecedent

classes,

does

Hence

though
king were

judgments

is,

of

even

these

actually

conditions,

custom,

of

an

tree.

it will

laws.

e.g.

is

be

entirety.
reality ?

order

actually

oak

an

suitable

'

occurred,

to

is

real

devoted

the

distinguish

first

what

is

acorn

conditions,

definite

the

definite

social

and

law

that

planted,

given

the

to

"

works

recent

its

with

must

we

Besides

potentialities. An
but
potentially it

In

true.

are

of

conditioned

neither

in

correspond

to

regard

is actual.

what

assertion

question

the

on

to

In

ticals.

hypo the
depends

separately

the

said

this

solve

To

of

be

it

case

entia
differ-

relation

the

being

that

apart

natural

Propositions.

the

be

taken

truth

of

explosion

have
been
lengthy discussions
a
can
hypothetical judgment

well

may

attribute

we

how

to

as

It

true.1

nor

Hypothetical

the

of

Truth

the

just

that

us

how

see

that

conditioning differs from


(Logic II. 262, 264).
*

is

which

he

"

and

the

the

flag, as on
Bosanquet tells

succession

temporal

much

as

never

would

be

correspond
but

because

be.

illustrated

by

spiritual, they
its validity, not

the

immortal.'

are

'

If the

Here

the

judgment,

on
a
depends
potentiality, but on
judgment
The
the
spiritual soul as such
generic categorical proposition,
immortal.'
This
abstracts
is
from
principle, being universal,
therefore
of
It
is
and
in
time
application
capable
place.
regard
If
the
and
B
time
such
is C,'
to any
as
judgment
place.
any
'

'

is

then

known,

that
it is

object
merely
1

is
an

Cf.

we

B,

may

it is C.'

application
e.g.

Bradley,

regarding

assert
Such
of

'

any

given object, If

be
must
judgment
true, for
principle already acknowledged.
a

Principles,

Bk.

I., c.

2,

"" 49,

50.

CHAPTER

THE

"

The

i.

PREDICABLES.

Predicables.

Predicables

The

terms

they

predicated.

the

Isagoge

stand

may

The

Scholastic

the

given by

the

are

universal
are

VIII.

of

details, which

relations

in

which

to

subjects

of

which

the

of

account

Predicables

the

philosophers,is derived
(Ch. i, " 5). Porphyry's

Porphyry
subject differs

of the

various

from

shall

of Aristotle

that

in

explain

from
ment
treat-

in

one

subsequent
It is however,
it explicitly
section.
as
professesto be,
with
the principlesof his philosophy.
in full accord
five possiblerelations,which
The
a
Isagoge enumerates
term
universal
holding the position of predicate,may
it is predicated. It may
to the
bear
subject of which
the
stand
Genus, or the Species,or the Differentia,
as
as
a
or
Property,or an Accident of the entity,of which
two

or

we

it is affirmed.
it is important to point
explaining these terms
of the
the
that
out
Predicables,
Porphyrian account
depends on a fact stronglyemphasized by Aristotle (Categ.,
cc.
subject of all predication is the
2, 5) that the ultimate

Before

We

individual.
'

as

Man

is

of

may

in which

mortal/

form

course

the

propositions

subject is
'

not

such
vidual,
indi-

an

'

But
man
can
general term.
only stand
because
it is itself capthe subject of this proposition,
able
of being predicated of the
singulars, Socrates/
but

as

'

'

Plato/

far

as

etc., etc.

individual

affirmed

of the

men

'

Man
exist

'

has
;

and

individual,that

existence

no

it is because
the

in

save

general term

it

can

so

be

is able

PRINCIPLES

122

become

to

the

substance, e.g. Socrates, and


which

LOGIC

This
subject of attribution.
singular term, denoting the

between

OF

the

universal

class-nature

the

expresses

the

distinction
individual
'

term

man/

Socrates, Aristotle

of

Primary and Secondary Substances.


The
is the
individual
Primary Substance : the classhe called Secondary Substance.
nature
It is evident
therefore, that when
we
are
considering
the case
term
the
of some
general
employed as
predicate
animal
in
Man
of a proposition,
is an
e.g. the term
marked

by

names

'

'

'

consider
the relation of
animal/ not
may
to its subject man/
but to the ultimate subject

animal,'

we

'

merely
of

'

individual

namely
predication,

such

men

Socrates,

as

Plato, etc.
those

abstract

these

also

'

will

considerations

Similar

of

force

in

regard to
which
signifya quality. Amongst
such
as
colour/
general terms

terms

'

there

are

like, which

the

virtue/ and

be

sometimes

are

found

as

the

subject of propositions.But here too, the right of a


generalterm to stand as a subject,is due to the fact that
it is itself used as a predicateof the individual
quality,
whiteness/ as exhibited in the individual object.1
e.g. of
'

both

So that

in reference

terms

We

their

to

enumerated

(i)Species.
Socrates,
be

are

proceed to

now

may

have

can

of substances, and

case

we
qualities,

abstract

we

in the

we

If

ultimate

all

general

subject.
the five predicables

consider

take

we

that

see

individual

an

class-nature, viz.

which

term

It consists of what

we

may

of that

is

substance, e.g.

predicateswhich

which

one

What

man.

the

among

of him, there

of the

consider

to

of

case

above.

shall

affirmed

characteristics

able

in the

is

now

this
signifies
call the

nature.

expresses
the

hension
compre-

class-nature

constitutive

By

the

his

word

notes
'

?
or

constitu-

'

'

"
is numerically
In short, individuals and whatever
Arist. Categ.,c. 2, " 3.
them
be predicated of a subject.
cannot
Nothing however
prevents
one,
instance
of
from inhering in a subject. Thus, an individual
in some
cases,

the science
but

it is not

of grammar

predicated

is

one

of any

of

those

subject."

entities

that

inhere

in

subject,

PREDICABLES

THE

to make
signifythose notes which are requisite
it repreentitythe kind of thing it is,which make
sentative
the comof the type to which it belongs. Thus
prehension

live/
the

we

of the

only

not

man

animal,
An

entity in which
of these

The

concept
which

were

which

the

term

the

all the

notes

absent

he

individual

rational

are

animal.'

of

note

would

be

no

class

rationality.

is

found

For

wider

of the

notes

distinctive

these

thus

'

is

man

possesses

also

but

one

by

123

man.

If

longer such.

expresses the constitutive notes


is what he is,is said to represent

other terms
Two
of the individual.
(ova-La)
also employed to signify
called
the essence.
It was
were
the quiddity (TO ri rjv elvai),
because it is by the term
which
declares the essential nature, that we
reply to the
is it ? (quidsit),
in regard to any
object.
question,What
It was
i.e. characterizing
also called the species (eZSo?),
therefore define the speciesas the sum
of
form.
We may
the

essence

the essential attributes of

an

entity. Or, since

are

we

here

constitutingone of the relations which


exist between
predicate and subject,we
put
may
may
the
thus : Whenever
the predicate
the matter
sumexpresses
it is said to
total of the essential attributes of the subject,
be the species
ofthe subject.Thus, if I affirm the proposition
is said to be the species
Bucephalus is a horse,' horse
of Bucephalus, since the concept of
horse/ has for its
of its subject.
comprehension the full class-nature
When
it is said that the notes expressedby the species
make
the thingwhat it is,we must
those which
not be
are
that these concepts giveus some
supposed to signify
liar
pecuinto
the
constitution
inner
of
class-natures.
insight
of mathematical
It is only in the case
as
figures,
e.g. of
the triangle
of their extreme
or circle,
by reason
simplicity,
that our minds
can
represent the actual constitutive
ciple
princonsidering it

as

'

'

'

'

of their

object. Here indeed our


(Ch.II, " 3). In regard to natural

do

concepts

are

classes all

we

quate
adecan

is to form

notes

that

be content

Though

concepts representingcertain characteristic


We
must
distinguishone class from another.
that

the

our

concepts

shall

be

clear.

of the
primary signification

word

'

species'

PRINCIPLES

124

as

is

to

have

we

of

it is almost

to

the

reference

to

nature

intension,but

objectsof

shall

in

that

possess

in

not

in reference
but

it expresses,
which

LOGIC

justexplained,that

term, not

OF

in
it

which

be

the

denotes

'

word

objects

it is

words,
In

predicated.

with

synonymous

which

individual

the

extension, and

can

applied

essential nature

in other

is often

name

taken

the group
this sense

class.'

And

we

that

though the definition given above is the more


based on the extensive
accurate, another
philosophically
is frequentlyemployed.
signification
Genus.
(ii)
Among the notes constitutive of the specific
see

notion,

there

class in
indicated

this

part

which
predicate,

from

that

stands

it has

'

is a

man,'

relation
When

of

that part of the

common

with

other

in relation

lion,' horse,' etc.

to

several

the

species,we

'

not

mal
ani-

is
'

species
generic in

scalene/
the

expresses

must

'

various

to the

triangle

genus

subject

species. Thus

equiangular,' isosceles,'and
that

to

cative
signifi-

term

of the

essence

'

it is said

alike

common

provides us with a
tion
subjectin a different relaspecies. Such a predicate
its subject. A genus
may

'

'

are

notes

essence,

the genus

genericconcept
'

to

common

the

the

in

'

the

to

the

Thus

tribes of brutes.

occupiedby
as

both

common

classes.

animal

the

be defined

'

'

to

is said to express

which

of

are

other

to

the various

to

of

thus

which

some

question and
by the term

and

man,

are

be

notes

understood

is a collection of attributes,
signifythat an essence
that are
mutually independent, and separableone from
another.
Such a view would be quiteforeignto the truth.
The speciesdiffers from the genus because it is the nature
pletely
is incomthe
as
completely determined, whereas
genus
determined.
the notion
Thus
triangle is less
than
isosceles triangle.'
that of
completely determined
butes
But
isosceles and
triangle are not two different attrithe note
in the sense
that it is possibleto have
isosceles
we
existingapart from a triangle. Nor can
have
which
is not either isosceles,
or
a triangle
equilateral,
scalene.
But we can form a genericconcept of triangle,'
because
intellect can
abstract from the determining
our
to

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

PRINCIPLES

126

LOGIC

OF

'

'

'

triangle/isosceles triangle/scalene
equilateral
triangle.'What we have said as to the genus, will show

becomes

that
not

and
genus
parts of the nature.

real order

in the

different

two

separate between

real order

larity.

form
differentiating

nature, and

view

can

the

between
and

the

In the

it is

what

essence

possesses

of

thing in

of which
which

the

there is

Thus

make

soul

human

and

body.

here
the

ference
great dif-

the real order,

are

we

parts
real parts. Socrates is

are

its

which

alone

logicalessence
real order

in the

cannot

triangleand

distinct.

isosceles,as

or

We

are

equianguthe
can
distinguish
from
the
indeterminate
generic
the triangleand its form
as
gular
equian-

mind

It is the

differentia

the

the

man

The

treating.
thing to be
because

he

parts of the
real parts but

not
the other hand
are
on
logicalessence
conceptual parts the incompletely determined
genus
and the determining differentia.
in the ascendingscale,is marked
off from
Each species
the other classes contained under its genus by a differentia.
is termed
differentia of the infimaspecies
The
a
specific
The others are known
as
genericdifferentiae.
differentia.
(iv)Property. Besides the notes which go to make
hitherto been considering,
which
have
the essence,
we
be predicatedof a subject.
other attributes may
many
of these are
Some
directlyand necessarilyconnected
"

with

the

characteristics.

essential

properties(propria
"

A
the

property is
essence

an

18ia),and

are

attribute which

These
thus

termed

are

denned

does not form

:
"

part of

of its subject,but results necessarilyfrom

that

as formingpart
are not reckoned
properties
not
because they are derivative qualities,
of the essence,
primary. But the fact that they follow from it by resultthat nature
that they are found
wherever
ancy, ensures
is present, that they are
found nowhere
else, and that
Hence
the extension of the specific
they are constant.
of the
the extension
as
property is preciselythe same
species. The classical example is the facultyof laughter
This
the
in man.
is immediately dependent alike on
and the corporealstructure
of human
nature.
intelligence
his power of intelligent
Similarly,
speech,and his practice

essence.

These

PREDICABLES

THE

of

food,

cooking his

assignedas propertiesof

been

have

127

properties,there will be others,


specific
of the nature.
result from the genericnotes
These
which
but will be
will,of course, not be limited to the species,
with the genus
to which
coextensive
they belong.
fifth of the predicablesembraces
The
(v) Accident.
the

Besides

man.

attributes, which

all those

defined

It is thus

essence.

accident

An

the essence,

is

Where
a

we

singleindividual,but

accident

is

which

one

class

of the

an
distinguishes

If

attribute

an

found
of

the

to

is

part of

essence

of the

is found

be

them
relation

in

not.

or

not

to

species,the inseparable

whole

well

without

accidents

present in

separableis

; the

It may

members.

neither

ing
separableor inseparableaccord-

are

subject is ever
are
speaking

the

the

"

necessarilyresults from

nor

with

attribute,which

an

subject.1 Accidents
as

unconnected

are

one

asked

found
what

individual

every

in certain

only
it then

inseparableaccident from
is found to belong to all the

is,which

property.

of

members

species,should we not rank it as a property, not as an


dent
accident ?
Porphyry repliesthat the inseparableacciis found
in
present in other speciesbesides the one
question. The property on the contrary is peculiarto
the black
colour
its own
c. 16, " 4). Thus
species(/sag.,
is an
If an
of the crow
inseparableaccident.
entity
should be found lackingan attribute of this character, it
be placed in a different species
would not on that account
in fact what
the
occurred when
c. 5, " 2). This
was
(ibid.
black

of Australia

swans

them

they

entitled to

as

without

were

what

In

from

the

The

case

of

in which

it to denote
in substance.

real

as

it

was

had

entities

termed

which
are

of the

speciesbut

signifying the fifth practicablehas


employed in Ch. 2, " 7, Ch. 7, " i.
connatural

Such

garded
re-

specific
though
name,
heretofore
been
regarded as

entity whose

signifiesa predicate
proposition. These
the logicalorder.

one

different

accidents,not

term. Accident

that

No

characteristic.

absolutelyconstant

an

discovered.

were

are

stands

termed

in

mode

Real
certain

Accidents.
relation

Logical Accidents.

The

There

we

sense

used

is by inherence

predicate it
subject of the
relation belongs to
As

to

different

of existence

of the

the

PRINCIPLES

128

OF

LOGIC

individual, separableand inseparableaccidents

wise
other-

are

distinguished.An inseparableaccident is one which


belongs to the subjectat all times, e.g. To be a Mantuan
is an
inseparableaccident in regard to Virgil. A separable
accident is one, which
can
only be predicatedof its
if it be affirmed, Virgil
Thus
subjectat certain times.
is writingpoetry/ this is a separableaccident.
'

'

'

five Predicables

the

Besides

have

we

phyry
Por-

mentioned,

the case
in which
c. 2, " 37) notices
a singular
(Isag.,
Socrates is the son
is predicatedof a subject,e.g.
term
of Sophroniscus/ This, however, has no claim to constitute
The
a
primary praedicabilia
separate Predicable.
which
be
terms
can
predicated of something are
attribute
some
They express
necessarily universal.
be affirmed of a subject: and the attribute or
which
can
A singularterm
conceived.
is always universally
nature
is not one
of the primary predicable
that is predicated,
We
the singular term
form
terms.
by limiting some
universal notion in regard of place and time.
of
be easilyshewn, that settingaside the case
It may
For when
the list is exhaustive.
the singularpredicate,
either
is predicated of a subject,it must
attribute
an
If it is
belong to that subjectby strict necessityor not.
'

"

"

not

of

one

the

belongs to the constitutives of


from
necessarily
resulting
it is

case

property.

of the
in which

the

We

the

is

have

pointed

we

other

is the

isosceles.'

differentia

that, e.g. the

must
form

essence.

or

of

the

tives
constitu-

whole

essence,

be

part of

that

classes

other

the

bute
attri-

an

In the latter

the

it must

is

or

belong to

to

part

"

the

peculiarto

essence

differentia.
that

above

work

distinguish

cannot
'

out

the

common

or

differentia

itself
the

species:

finallythe
species,viz. : the
:

the

and

which

essence

genus

it is

case

essence,

either be

it must

essence,

the

it

Should

accident.

an

attribute, it either

hand, it is a necessary

the other

If,on

attributes, it is

necessary

From

of the
two

the

mind

separation of
:

parts, one

this

it would

and

that

of which
seem

is
to

the

genus

in the
'

thing
triangle,'

follow

that

of the
genus,
implicitlyinvolve the presence
the figure as isosceles,necessarilysupposes

of

THE

figure determined

the

that

'

essence.1

the

difficultymay
does

urged,

in

here
'

involve

not

fact, is the

tells us,

gives

suggest

itself.

man.'

Do

we

desires/ 'rational actions'


etc., etc.?
speak
this it is replied that the term
rational,' as predicated on
'

To
the

of man,
and
on
and
not
univocal.

hand

one

analogous

is

substantial

his

that

directed

in

this

sense

is

natural

of

by

rational

it signifies
applied to man
from
that
of
distinguished
As

reason.

desires

actions

with

the

synonymous
the

and

'

with

angels

in

view

directed

differ from

by

act

same

to

are

right.

no

sense

preserve
but as
;

reason

performed

as

that

the

must

intelligent.'Not

'

term
be

not

alone,

man

intelligence.

possess

as

prescribes as

reason

Eating

of desires

used

and

It may
be further
noted
signifyingthe differentia of man,

as

desires,

and

purely accidental, and

class.

not

of actions

animals.

as

God

but

what

is

action, because

it does

'

understood

natural

rational

act

with

attribute

the

lower

the

As

itself is

nature

accordance

constitutive
health

other

by the facultyof
merely signifiessuch

it

actions

In

the

animals

all other

and

triangle. Such
specificdifferentia,he

be

129

'rational

of

not

'

Yet

Rational,' it may

is

The

of Aristotle.

teaching
us

PREDICABLES

Rational

'

of a
is
particular kind, viz. one that
intelligence
dependent on sense perceptionand arrives at its conclusions
by
discursive reasoning (Cf.St. Thomas, De Pot. Q. ix.,art. 2, ad. 10).
denotes

The

an

case

is somewhat

similar

'

regards the term


living.' It
attribute
not
living belongs
merely
as

'

been

'

objectedthat the
but
to
all incorporealbeings.
to certain corporeal substances
It is repliedthat the life animating a body and
rendering it
action, and the life of a pure
capable of immanent
spiritare
The
is
differentia
animate
found
in cordissimilar.
poreal
totally

has

'

substances

alone.

in their

primary

various

analogous

that

in several

the

differentia

be

common

senses

is not

convertible

that

terms, which

many

differentia,have

in their

reference, explainshow

wider

Aristotle tells

speciesthan

more

with
one

that

the

it is

signifying
speciessince it may
(Cf.e.g. Top. I. c. 8, " 3).
us

term

the

has been
Porphyry. After what
said in the last section,the figurecommonly termed the

"

The

fact

the

denote
signification

passages

to

Yet

'

2.

Tree

of

of

Porphyry needs no explanation.It shews us


from
the series of speciesand genera
the highestgenus
down to the lowest species,
togetherwith the differentiae,
which go to constitute each species.
tree

Met.

oixria
Natura

TOU

VI., c.

12,

BTJOVTWS

"TTCU Kal
irp6.yfjt,a.TO$

Generis,c.
But

" 9.

8.

with these

"

Tota

passages,

reXevrata 8ia"f"opari
STJSri -fj
"xei"(fxivepov
Cf.
St.
Thomas, Opusc. 39, De
6/"i0yi6s.

namque
compare

constituitur definitio

Topics,VI.

c.

ex

tia."
differen-

ultima

6, " 10, and

St.

Thomas,

Opusc. 26, De Ente et Essentia,c. 3. The differentia implies the genus as the
subject of which, and of which alone it is a determining principle: but it is
not a logicalwhole
containing the genus.
K

PRINCIPLES

I30

OF

LOGIC

Substance

Corporeal

Incorporeal

Animate

Inanimate

Sensible

Insensible

Rational

Irrational

Plato, etc.

Socrates
It is evident
the
in

the

genera
tree

of

that

schemes

drawn

up to represent
of substances
as

and

not merely
species,
Porphyry, but also of those

qualifysubstance,

which

be

may

it.

but

which

can

be

attributes,
conceived

in

The

followingscheme gives us the


divisions of abstract figure. It will be observed
that a
since in
separate line is not given for the differentiae,
this case
our
language does not possess different terms
for the differentia and the species.
abstraction

from

Figure
J
I
Plane

Solid

Rectilineal

r
Triangles

Curvilinear

I II

Quadrilaterals,
Pentagons,etc., etc.

PREDICABLES

THE

"

in

Porphyry is
philosophy.
on

the

on

is the

individual, and
of nature.

order

he

yet

does
the

regard

their

to

explains
"

cate

it be

subject

'

definition

and

affirmed

coextensive

It

being.

of

with

predicate is

without

is thus

that

gives
property.
a
property. For

property, as that
belongs, while

not

which

forming part

the

predicate

be

not

coextensive,

'

the

attributes

comprised

'

If it be

the

the
the

us

is coextensive

of

the

is the
the

explained

the

entity
form

either
of the

to

which

however,

If

essence.

it must

it

essence,

with
of its

definition

have

we

definition

in the

subject, the prediIf


subject or not.

any

either

it

it

of

part

subject

not.

or

of

those
difattributes, it is either a genus
one
or
a
ferentia, since the definition is composed of the genus and the dif-

'ferentiae.
'

it, but

considered

P,

of

scale

'

'

saw,

predicables upon

if not,

we

of

"

If

or

arranged
as

coextensive, the

'

'

be

of
5

the

predicate is

either

must

between

system
a

is,

ultimate

division

position in

his

Whenever

'

this

his

relation

scheme

subject
predication
possible to frame
and
species corresponding to the
is part of the teaching of Aristotle,

genera

base

not

scheme

us

of

Aristotelian

it is in consequence,

Though

solely on
he

of

scale

ascending

that

the

division

the

gives

Porphyrian

principlethat

based

an

The

system.

principles of

himself

Aristotle

Yet

different

the

with

accord

fivefold

The

Predicables.

Aristotle's

3.

If it is not

definition, it is clear that

the

of

one

it is

an

attributes
"

accident

contained

in

the

(Topics,I.,c. 8, ""

3).

2,

This

gives

us

the

following

scheme.

(1) Definition.

Containing

Coextensive

(2) Propria.

with

subject.

the

essen-

tial attributes.

Containing attributes
not
sence.
belonging to es-

I
(3) Genera

and

Containing

Differentiae.
coextensive

Not

(4) Accidents.

subject.

Containing
the

this

call

for

system

of

Predicables,

only
The

'

case

definition

differentia.
is

tribute.
at-

there

are

attributes

connected

with

essence.

two

points

which

notice.

of
(i) The omission
the principleon which
The

tion
por-

with

not

In

some

of essential

Thus

in

which

the
the
a

This

readilyexplained if
be kept in view.
system is constructed
the species is,
predicate can
express
species.

is ordinarily expressed by the


definition of man
is ' rational

the

sensitive livingbeing.'

is

proximate
animal

'

its
and
genus
that
of animal

PRINCIPLES

32

as

man.'

the

when

saw,

we

But

the

with
here

under

of

constitutive

all the

the

give
which
separates him
(2) The ranking of
cannot

us

that

is

individual

with

This

have

species

he

declares

species,though expressing

of the

either

extensive
co-

attributes, militate
whole

of

In

is

the

fact that

type, the

subject.
'

reckons

the

essential

the

them

is
the

terms,

of

the

others

extension.'

it in

of the

the

differentiae

the

differentia

the

exceeds

from

the

from

in extension

of

essence

Aristotle
does

Socrates

'

of the

neither

genus

Nor

genus.

notes

extension

Hence

to

genus

individual, e.g.

an

the

part
only
express
against this explanation. For

the

LOGIC

relative

subject.

head

the

the

from

differ

not

is

subject

regards

as

species does

OF

differentia

species.

same

the

with

class-essence,
the

c.

with

is the

accurate

more

"

2,

coextensive

differing

as

genus

Topics, IV.,

the

which

he

says

species or
statement.

the

a
determining
Occasionally we
expresses
isosceles
in regard
of
such,
as
a
particularspecies
principle
e.g.
to various
to
triangle.' More often our term is common
species.
rational
be
the
Thus
term
intelligent or
employed as
may
and
also
be
differentia of man,
the
predicated of spiritual
may
beings.

term

'

'

'

'

'

4. The

Controversy

the

Predicables

renders

the

question

"

'

round,'

which

instance

for

If

see

we

it retains

be

"

that

the

it is one,
answers

(i) that

this

answer

common

objective counterpart
doctrine
the

are

only

TrtyvKev.

as

'

We

in

C.

"

13,

2.

been

given

TOVTO

yap

that

is

thought

\eyeTca

logiciansHamilton

and

we

Ka66\ov

this

They

were

at

point agreed

that

with

period known
those

of the

Mansel

were

as

modern

Nominalists.

to

real.

say

(2)

without
of

this

(3) that
variety of

say
a

8 ir\elo(riv virdpxfiv

it is to

the Idealist logicians,whose


be reckoned
also may
and
the doctrines
of Kant
is based
on
Hegel.
Among
of Ockham
the teaching of William
this was
school.

may
mind

may

nature

such

on

question.

adherents

given

name,

whose

We

the

to many

something

in the

The

Plato,
is one,
of

to this

Realists.

order.

is the

of

which

member
every
time
at the same

ing
mean-

rightly

to

Conceptualists.2 Or

call Universal

modern

nature

white,'

meaning,
the

Socrates, and

termed
a

'

though
predicated,and

is

of
with

reallysignifies.

man,'

Yet

nature

real

'

human

common

merely

term

of

"

have

the

element

common

Met., VI.

many.'
8
Among

known

'

man

belongs

are

is

nature

deal

perfectlystable

relation

same

we

terms

employed.

is this

Various

give this

who

Those

hold

may

the

though
?

individuals
We

What

in

has

'

full discussion
should

universal
the

individuals

different

stands

which

class,

it is

wherever

of Kant.

of Mill, and

yet

of these

invariable, the term

thus

predicated, of
and

each

The

that

consider

we

that

Universals.

on

it necessary
it is that the

to what

as

'

'

belong

at

once

to

Conceptualists. As
theory of knowledge
the medieval
sophers,
philo(1280-1349) and his
But

their tenets

Conceptualists.

PRINCIPLES

134

I could

cept.

not

It

concept.

my

Socrates

'

say

LOGIC

OF

is

if the

fied
predicate signirepresented in my

man,'

signifiesthe

nature

concept.
Nor

it be

can

identityof

Socrates

abstracted

from

Socrates

'

is

that

urged
with

the

what

human

'

it includes

on

The

that

are

'

remaining notes.
being possessed of

all the

other

It does

pressly
ex-

all

to

common

of the

notes

assert

while

man

human

being,

we

'

'

concept

only

notes

his

showing

our

the

nature,' but

human

that

the

affirm

explanation, we
is only a part of

most

nature.'

exclude

not

at

remainder

representing the
alike,does

this

on

men

signify

not

nature.'

plicitly
Im-

of whom

individual

it is affirmed.
conclusions

Our

proposed

we

What

of

human

time

same

ourselves

to

is the

the

and

one

fact

that

universal
known

in

intellect

and

is in

judgment,

the

the

though

the

affirmed,

the

laws

members
in

nature

my

makes

mind

subject of my
the objects of

the

it is found

order, and
Hence

only as it
simply in the

all the

know

regarding

and

one

and

it consists

we

at

as

as

itself,which

I affirm

real

nature

that

and

section, viz.:

this characteristic

reply that
the

to

nature

which

it is affirmed.1

which

We

of

concept represents
But

question.

me,

same

concept, yet
to

of the

think

we

question, which

the

answer

beginning

which

many

the

and

one

class

the

at

unity, belongs

in the

is conceived

to

us

nature,

multiplicityin

of the

enable

now

in

of science, and

all

our

tell

general
us)
the common
which
stands
name
as
merely about
subject,nor
have
our
it) about
yet (as the Conceptualists would
concepts,
the objects themselves, in which
but
about
teristics
characthe common
found.
It is as maintaining this position that
the
are
adherents
of the traditional Scholastic
doctrine
are
rightlytermed
statements

are

(as the

not

Nominalists

Realists.
of

is therefore

It

what

between

is termed
is

universal

direct

e.g.
when

by

'

nature

the

St. Thomas

concept

as
'

mentally conceived,
tells

us

direct

the

which

we

see

that that

is that in which

'

formatum
tur

ad

et

expressum

intellectum

'

in

the

can

we

in anima

from

affirm

consider

the

mind

the nature.
40, De

dicitur

of
this

subject,

nature

of each

"

Substantia

But
as

and

ergo
"

Anitnae.

it is
every

nature

rei est id

Istud

ergo

sic

interius, et ideo compara-

sicut id quo intellectus intelligit,


sed sicut in quo in
isto sic expresso
rei intellectae."
et formato
videt naturam
non

telligit,
quia
Opusc. 12, De Differentia Verbi Divini et Humani.
in quo
cernitur."
res
speculum
tanquam
Opusc.

"

[Verbum

'

Intellects.

Socrates.

contemplates is the

Potentiis
verbum

The

ing
individualizof

affirmable

it is affirmable

which

it knows

distinction

the

reflexuniversal.

abstracted

reflection,we
that

notice

to

abstracted

quod intellectus intelligit."


Opusc.,
'

and

nature

thus

man

of

act

an

the

simply

and

conditions,
the

prime importance

13,

De

interius] est
Natura

Verb*

PREDICABLES

THE

that

man

"

the

reflex

It

it

five

the

thus
the

us

conceived
in

relations

within

the

This

many.

is

stand

we

the

to

the

of

Predicables.

For

possible divisions

of the

and

one

stand

can

otherwise

may

of which

subject

They

many.

class-notion

as

or

discussion

is the

being

as

which

class,

predicate can

and

one

five

the

simply

are

mentally

five

things

which

to

Predicables

universal

give

it is

"

apparent how
necessary
the
of
understanding

be

now

question

the

all, that

to

universal.1

will

this

belongs

135

to

in

put it,

it is affirmed.

have
be
predicate, must, as we
seen,
five
These
Species, Genus, Differentia, Property or Accident.
therefore
terms
Second
Intentions
are
(Ch. 2, " n).
They are
which
in
the conceptual
be
affirmed
of
the
it
is
nature
can
as
only
order
We
:
they do not belong to the object in the real order.
universal

cannot

because

argue
therefore

that
the

real

the

in

term

Socrates

Socrates

order, while

is

man

is

and

man,

man

Socrates

For

species.
is a species in

the

is

species,

is

man

in
order

conceptual

alone.
The
the

above

account

prevalent

view

resemblance

order
be

as

real

and

tells

two

that

us

Nevertheless
mention

the

teaching
fundamental
cautious

"

represent
objective reality of
as

universal

taken

and
2

On

consists

Direct

and

from

of the

of

any

Reflex

on

error

student

writers

The

Logic.
and

Mr.

theories

the

Maher,

Universals, see
as

to

even

ordinarily

as

the

as

so

very

pass

may

the

the
is

Bosanquet
to

its

in

of Plato.

nature,
this

to

difference"

Psychology, Ch.

doctrine

of

view

According

persistent identity

is famous

fail

An

such

considered.

"a

Averroes.3

ages.

Bradley

hitherto
in

sqq. (ed. 6).


Exaggerated Realism

similar

terms,

that

Scholastics

render

Modern

Mr.

by

have

we

it

in

asserted.2

are

rule

to

with

universals.

middle

are

and

as

which

criticism

the

Universal

radicallydifferent
view

of

the

this, should

point
accepting any

5. The

Logic,

on

and

view,

Aristotelians

which

writers

held

in express

Aristotelians, Avicenna

in

the

on

his

English

this

they

real

in the

objectiveexistence
species and the genus
of which

no

doctrine

extravagant

has

individuals

"

philosophers,bore

the

Realism,

Realism

Moderate

again rejects such a view


own
teaching is identical

Arabian

great

Scholastic

the

the

things beyond
Thomas
again and

St.

the

the universal

universal, and

that

among

which

this

shewn

Exaggerated

to

according to

has

14,

pp.

294

somewhat

(d. 1121).
3
The
as
a
following will serve
Opusc. 39, De Natura
typical passage.
"In
multis, quia quidquid est in re
Generis, c. 5.
re
igitur nihil est commune
est singulare,uni soli communicabile.
commune
est, dicitur per
Quod autem
view

was

maintained

by

William

of

Champeaux

"

intellectuni.

"

mentator

Intellectus

[i.e.Averroes]

enim
supra

facit universalitatem
librum

de

Anima."

in rebus, ut

dicit

Com-

II.,

(Bosanquet,

the

not

'that
'

same

to

and

mean

alike,"

are

they

that

are

as

Mr.

says
far

so

"If

"

If

same.

say

we

taken

be

must

we

and

order

real

identity.

Bradley,

the

as

the

in

are

real

understood

not

which

things,
but

similar,

but

is

identity

expressing

identity

conceptual

This

92).

p.

LOGIC

OF

PRINCIPLES

36

for

...

'

both

instance

Bk.

(Principles,
'

the

he

which

conception
Mr.

Similarly
all

'

them

of
be

'can

presented
(Logic,

identity

is
have

we

and

thought
is

"

the

38).

"

There

things

they

aspect,

the

Secondly,
which

the

be

can

real

persists

through

is

confused

with

subtlety

of

Logic
with

expressed
of

the

be

the

and

it

is

Bk.

I.

and

is

bond

identity
such

defended,

under

in

of
of

as

these,

must

needs

tain
cer-

concept.

same

thing

the

First,

theory.

the

individual

an

errors

The

because

because,

one

conceptual
on

it

identical,

by

changes

based

which

be

trine
doc-

same

(Principles,

in

errors

to

identity

it

theory

fallacious.

asserted

are

which,

210.)

p.

fundamental

two

involves

universal.

"

judg-

between

the

Bradley,

diversity

I.,

Bosanquet,

thus

are

distinct

(Cf.

internal

own

as

Mr.

says

of

distinction

individual

concrete

that

philosophy,

of

be

to

universality

any

of

through

subject

development

universal,

its

of

" 8).

affirmed

content

no

Hegelian

existence

further

is

of

the

pre-

unity

in

that

sive
exclu-

running

individual

view,

of

the

the

regard

identity

6,

c.

denies

individual

finite

result

things.

to

This

148).

(ibid.

(ibid.

is

nature

designating

as

"

fact

real

absent

wholly

thought

I., p.

seen,

be

to

to

take

"

inherited

Mortality
of

oneness

is

same,

except

mere

"

that

must

we

natural

"a

is

same

the

reality

no

"

the

diversity

any

itself

us

of

virtue

and

degree,

'ment"

as

tells

therefore

and

It

think

to

got

in

men

all

'matter

has

is

far

so

seems

by

there

proved.

are

What

different
that

Bosanquet

individual

'

made

not

"

" 3).

6,

c.

urges,

is

particulars,
*

gills, they

or

i,

be

cannot

belief,

The

" 5).

Pt.

II.,

and

same

lungs

have

butes,
attri-

many

the

of

virtue

universal.

whatever
be

be

radically

IX.

CHAPTER

CATEGORIES.

THE

"

Categories in

The

i.

their

Metaphysical

Categories (or Predicaments)

The

considered

be

may

Aspect.

belonging to the real order, and as belonging to


in other
the conceptual order,
words, both metaphysically
to treat of Ihem
and logically. It will be convenient
to deal with
their metaphysical aspect first,and
under
their logicalaspect afterwards.
termed
Viewed
as
belonging to the real order, they were
of things the
by the Scholastics the ten summa
genera
could be
of which
all things whatever
ten
classes,to one
of the Categories,the word
But in this account
referred.
In ordinary discourse,
be rightly understood.
things must
both

as

"

"

'

'

of

mean
by things we
things into classes would

This

substances.
'

things

'

from
be

It

is in

this

we

term

the

sense

The

of

word
For

substances.

"

natures

which

but

their

in

classification
exist
own

word, when

the

not

of
as

'

things/
mere

minations,
deter-

right, e.g. Socrates,

animal.

Quantity
a

understand

must

we

followinglist

Substance

man,

3.

as

division

real entities, though

are

to

2.

well

here.

is meant
as

and

classification

signify a

what

accidents

includes

exist apart
they cannot
It is one
substances.
thing to be a horse, another
phalus
Yet Buceto be carrying a rider.
black, another
time.
and the same
be all these things at one
may

accidents

1.

is not

substances

"

the

spatial extension, 'height,breadth

of

substance.

Quality
nature.

:
"

determinations

which

characterize

the

PRINCIPLES

138
Aristotle in the
viz.

OF

LOGIC

Categories distinguishesfour

of

kinds

qualities,

:
"

(1) Habits

and

itself,e.g. knowledge in the


and

(2) Capacity

Incapacity,

of the

determinations

Dispositions, i.e.

nature

in the

intellect, health

of the

i.e. determinations

body.
active

Incapacity
but
of the determination,
signifiesnot the total absence
in
its possession
an
degree.
undeveloped and immature
Passive
i.e.
determinations
or
on
(3)
consequent
Qualities,
productive of physicalchange, e.g. the sensible qualitiesof
powers,

e.g.

cold, heat

(4) Figure,
It should

the

capacity

to

The

term

colour.

and

of

i.e. determinations

however

walk.

observed

be

extension.

quantitative

that

these

four

classes

are

not

even
as
as
mutually exclusive, nor
by Aristotle
put forward
exhaustive
necessarily
(Categ.,c. 8, "" 3, 6, 23). They merely
the
distinctions
vocabulary
embody
recognized in the current
of the Greek
language.

4. Relation

the

:
"

and

which

order

holds

Thus

another.

between
substances

two

quality,equalin quantity,the

alike in

be

may
in

same

stance
sub-

one

specific

nature.

5. Place

position in

"

positionin

"

surrounding
Abbey.

to

in Westminster

London,

e.g. at
6. Time
:

relation

relation

to

the

of

course

space,

events,

e.g. last year.


7. Posture : the relative

positionof parts in the object


itself,
lying down.
e.g. sitting,
Habit : the determinations
cal
accruing from the physiadjuncts,which belong to the full integrityof
the substance
as
a necessary
equipment for its work
"

8.

"

Nature, e.g. armed,

in

cloaked.

production of a change in some


object,e.g. digging,
Passion : the receptionof change from some
e.g. being struck.

Action

9.

10.

the

:
"

"

These
an

Categories may

ten

individual.

may

fillhis

We

find that

place as

in all these ten


one

that

whom
is not

I know.
a

be

illustrated in the

in order

that

other

agent,
case

of

the individual

mined
be deterpart of Nature, he must
Here, for instance, is some
ways.

As

man,

he

determination, but

is substance
can

receive

"

something
determina-

CATEGORIES

THE

139

regardsquantity,he is six feet high. Among


be noted
that he is (i)a mathematician,
his qualities
it may
(3) swarthy, (4) square(2) a skilful carver,
He closely
resembles
his father,to whom
he
shouldered.
tions.

As

is thus

related

the

by

relation of likeness.

He

is in the

it is October, 1907
(place)
city of York
(t'me).
; and
dressed
in cloth, and provided
He is stooping (posture)
;
with
hammer
and chisel (habit)
a
; he is carving wood
and his tool has just cut him
(action),
(passion).
In what
the nine categories
of Accidents
called
sense
are
can
we
things ? How
regard the quality of swarthiIf indeed
the relation of likeness as
ness
or
a thing ?
considered
we
are
as
speaking of these accidents
ate
separthen they are
not
entities,
thingsat all : there is no
such thing as
walking or sitting or health existing
cause
independently. These accidents are said to be, not be'

'

'

'

they

'

'

existence

possess

'

'

'

themselves, but

'

because

the

The
crete
consubjectis what it is,through them.1
totle
subjectis walking,and is healthy. Hence, as ArisThey are called
things,'because in their
says,
respectiveways, they determine that which is a thing in
2
the sense
of being a substance."
In speaking of the Categories
of
the
summa
as
genera
things/we have employed a traditional expression. But
their nature
would
perhaps be more
clearlyindicated, by
callingthem the ten modes of beingin which an individual
For the various
kinds of determination
thing is realized.
"the
classes of
from
another
things differ one
by
the mode
of being, which
they confer on the individual.
It is now
clear why there is not one
summum
genus only,
viz. : Thing or Being, of which
these classes are
dinate
suborspecies. Genus and speciesare only found, when
the various classes can
unibe expressed in a common
vocal concept, and are
differendistinguishedby specific

concrete

"

'

'

'

'

'

"

1
'

'

St.Thomas,

habet

Summa
Theol, I.,Q. 45, Art. 4. " Illiproprieconvenit Esse, quod
Esse, et est subsistens in suo Esse.
Formae
autem
et accidentia et alia

hujusmodi,

dicuntur

entia

quasi ipsa sunt, sed quia eis aliquid est : ut


ea
quia
subjectum est album."
ens,
2
5' dXXct X^yercu 8vra
6vros TO. ptv
Met., VI., C. I, " 2.
TO.
T$ TOV ourws
5" irdOr),
5" #XXo n
e""at,rd 8t Troi^TTjras,
TCI
iroff6ri]Ta.s
TO
TOIOVTOV.
'albedo

ea

non

ratione

dicitur

PRINCIPLES

I4o

There

tiae.

find

we
'

is

differentiae,
by

'

concept of

univocal

no

LOGIC

OF

which

the

thing/ nor

can

is determined.

notion

'

It has a different meaning


Thing is an analogous term.
as
: and
though
appliedto each of the ten categories
notion
form a universal
we
can
expressive of Thing in
of an analogous,not
general,it possesses the universality

of

univocal

'

common

For

concept.

genus

the

Accident.'

same

The

nine

is

there

reason

no

of accident

kinds

irreducible.

are

It

has

asserted

been

by

order of the

Categoriesis based on
Aristotle apparentlydrew

that

no

up

the

that

authorities

some

ple,
princiintelligible
his list in a haphazard

fashion.1
Most

assuredly,this

feature

in

As
missed

doctrine
a

us

to

be

of fact those

matter

order

the law

in

extraordinary

very

Aristotle

which

important feature

most

Categories. The
reveals to

would

which

who

in the

they

say

this,have

doctrine
are

quently.
fre-

so

recurs

of the

enumerated,
in

governing the synthesisof forms

the

tion.
consideraon
easilybe seen
ing
The substantial nature
givesus as it were the startpendent
point. In virtue of this, the thing possesses indeexistence, and is the kind of thing it is. But

the

substantial

individual.

This

nature

will

cannot

exist

without

dental
acci-

those

complement of its
being.2 Of these the first is magnitude or extension
the
second
Category. Physical qualitiespresuppose
extension
as
:
supported by the substance
they are
From
these three primary Categoriesresult
extended.
which
three kinds of relation,
give an order and harmony
in the manifold
of the universe, viz.: likeness of quality,
The
of specificform.
equality of quantity, sameness
extrinsic determinations.
are
They
remainingcategories
in the physical
add nothing to the entity itself. But
not
universe, each entity is determined
merely by its
forms

which

constitute

the

"

ten

Thus

Wallace

Categories would

2
The
It is in

Q.

Dr.

order
no

5- art.

sense

3.

p. 25),
says (Outlinesof the Philosophy of Aristotle,
to be arranged on little or no
principle."
seem

"

These

order of relative subordination,


of the Categories is of course
an
order of time.
St. Thomas,
an
Opusc. 63 in Boeth, de Trin.

PRINCIPLES

i42

LOGIC

OF

stance
subrelated
extraneous
to the
complete substance
have
is predicated of him.
which
as
But, as we
seen,
received
the
has
he
until
he
is incomplete
part of Nature

looked

as

on

Action

conferred

determination

additional

include

and

relations, but

passion
that Category, inasmuch
as
they
its reception.
of change, or
It

of

divergence
value

opinion

may

be

the

to

de

the

been

always

authors

of the

Metaphysique, II.,

cc.

production

regarding
certain

of

classes.

independent

as

treatment

from

considerable

whether

to

as

reckoned

referred

involve

Scholastic

among

habit.'

differentiated

the
the
The

Domet

subject by
25-36.

Categoriesin their Logical Aspect.

The

2.

has

there

'

adjacent

are

further

division, and

justly
be

Verges, Abrege

"

that

tenfold

can

reader
de

this

of

number

noted

be

may

the

by

In

theii

oi
no
longer modes
logicalaspect the Categories are
It
real being : they belong to the conceptual order.
thus
is as
regarded that they belong properly to our
attention as a classification
of
subject. They claim our
thingsas mentallyrepresented.
It is under

this

that

work

known

in his famous

understood, they

Aristotle

aspect

defined

are

that

by

as

treats

the

to the individual

entities.1 The

gories
Cate-

As

name.

thus

orderly classification

species,and individuals from the

of genera,

the

genera

summa

of this

treatment

subject

to the Logic of the Concept, not to the


.belongsof course
Logic of the Judgment.
stances,
Things in the real order are all singular. The subqualitiesand quantitieswhich are found in the
be universals.
The singularalone
external world cannot
But when
exists.
we
pass to the order of knowledge we
find not merely thingssingularbut thingsuniversal.
Our

intellect shews
substance.
can

and
the

they
1

all be

terms

time

affirmed

exist

in

S. Thoma.

they
our

are

mind

such

natures

as

man,

signifyreal substances,

is identical with

what
same

universal

These

and

one

us

of
the

the

concrete

universal

alone.

In

for

they

individual

is real.

individual

animal,

Yet

at

though as universal
preciselythe same
"

Praedicamentum
nihil
(1590-1644), Log., Q. 14, Art. i.
series seu co-ordinatio praedicatorum superiorum et inferiorum ab
'aliud est quam
ad individuum
uno
quod praedicatur de omni inferiori,usque
genere
supremo
Proem.
quod subjicitur omni superiori." Cf. Suarez, Disp. Met., XXXIX.
'

Joan,

CATEGORIES

THE

way,

The

lar
merely the singucolour.
but
the
universal
this
whiteness,
quality
quality
of the real
of these conceptualrepresentations
store
order

the mental

order

which

at any

the elements
that

are

Of

143

careful

reveals

our

of which

our

scrutiny
fact that

the

to

one

not

us

in

minds, constitutes

our

knowledge is resolvable.
mental

and

judgments

our

to

is found

time

into which

out

them

reveals

Some

another.

in

dination
subor-

that

such

are

concepts

hierarchical

up.

all formed.

of these

character

stand

they

is built

reasoningsare

our

of the

furniture

They

not
they cansome
again,

predicateduniversallyof any other ;


while they can
themselves
be predicatedof others, can
while a last group
stand
the subjectsof predication
as
:
the
can
only occupy
position of predicates,and are
incapableof receivingpredication(An. Prior /., c. 27,
" 2) The first of these three classes consists of individual
found
all those
are
things singulars. In the second
stand
themselves
universal
as
terms, which
speciesto
wider
generic conceptions. In the third class are the
be

"

Thus
alone.
genera
Man
is vertebrate/

summa
'

man/
but

cannot

we

vertebrates/

reverse
'

wider
shall

we

falls into

say,

Vertebrates

are
'

and

men/

are

Socrates

say,
l

Of

is

animals

Animals

a
'

:
are

mental
funda-

what

Logic is this law, in virtue of which


restricted,
concept is predicatedof the more
in subsequent chapters.
see

It further

as

'

can

order

the

Vertebrates

importance
the

'

we

appears

distinct
the

in

that
groups,

this
"

Categories. We

the

hierarchical
groups

we

arrangement
have

predicatea

cannot

nated
desigterm

"

This

be-

We
point is well put by Mr. Joseph (Introd.to Logic, p. 236).
say
diamonds
than
r
ather
that
:
glitter,
some
glitteringthings are
that blue is a colour, rather than that a colour is blue.
To say that a colour
be blue is natural enough : just as it is to say that a stone
be a diamay
may
mond
: but still we
the
not
the
the
of
and
predicate
species of
species,
genus
the genus
the genus
in
but
: it is not
colour
case
particular
some
; not
colour,
the genus stone, but some
is
is
that
diamond.
mineral
that
blue
or
particular
Commonly,
coincident
attributes, the predicate
they are mere
except where
'is a wider
term
or
The fact to
more
genericthan the subject in judgment."
which
Mr.
Some
stones
Joseph here calls attention,viz. : that when we say
are
diamonds,' we are predicating the species of individuals,not of the genus,
if we
at once
reflect that we
Stone (as such) is diamond,'
cannot
appears,
say,
'
The triangle (as such) is equilateral.'
'

that

diamonds

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

PRINCIPLES

I44

OF

LOGIC

Category of another, except where the two


determinations
subject. The
happen to belong to one
mentally
fundanatures
are
expressedby the different Categories,
longingto

one

distinct.1

investigationof

The

fact that it is not

the

revealed

less than

that, no

conceptual order

the

the real

of

chaos

order,it

is

has

thus

concepts, but

governedby

definite

est
discoverymust ever rank as one of the greatresults of Aristotle's genius.2
Each
Category then consists,as we have said, of an
of
of a specialmode
ordered series of terms
significative
being, commencing with the term that designatesthe
summum
genus, and ending with singularterms, e.g. this
Each series developsinto a tree of Porphyry. But,
man.
This

laws.

noted

have

we

as

sals of the

Categoriesmust

the universals

abstracted

and

of which

it is

hand

other

only with

'

"

3.

The

'

far

as

rational

jects
subare

the

We

are

not

with

As

universal.
the

nature

cerned
con-

the

ing
belong'

'

man

is

animal.'

Categoriesin their Relation to the Sciences.

important bearing

The

Intention.

substance

the

to

not

Category of
species/but is

so

the

to

Categorieson

expressed,and

the nature

relation

the Predicables

The

Intention.

of the nature

character

stands

nature

view

we

consider in what

we

of First

the uni-

with

Predicables

predicated. Thus

terms

are

universal

of Second

all terms

be confused

In the

universals

as

occasion, the univer-

one

not

Predicables.

versals of the

the

than

more

on

of

the

predicamentallines

on

arranged in ascending series according to their several categories,


stract,
of accidents are expressed in the abthe terms
belonging to the nine genera
not
virtue,'
prudent,'
not in the concrete
prudence,'
form, e.g. as
*
the accident
virtuous.'
The
as
latter form
qualifying something
expresses
is qualifiedby whiteness.
which
substance
white
else. Thus
signifiessome
mination
the accident as a deteralone
that
is
the
abstract
term
we
can
signify
It
by
it inheres (vide Pesch. Inst. Log.,
distinct from the subject in which
do not, however, as has been
objected, transform the accident
" 1449). We
term
alone
concrete
the
The
abstract
term.
into a substance
employing
by
substance
to
(S.
Thomas,
which
the
subsistent
reality
belongs
expresses
Summa
TheoL, I., Q. 3, ad. 3).
2
Negative
The
Categories provide a complete classification of concepts.
and Privative terms
belong to the category to which belongs the positiveterm,
1

Hence

as

'

'

'

by

means

to the

'

'

of which
they are conceived.
Category of Relation.

Terms

of Second

Intention belong

CATEGORIES

THE

of

organized bodies

those

sciences,should

be

not

145

which

knowledge
In

overlooked.

such

any
of
wider
their
in
scale
ascending
concepts

the

generalityfurnish

with

us

scientific consideration.

so

Provided

and

distinct

many

that

term

we

line,
wider

objectsof

abstractions

our

grounded on the nature of


things,the objectsexpressedby the several concepts have
of attributes peculiarto itself.
of them
each
a
group
Thus
in the series horse-equidae-ungulate-mammaL-vertetive
distincbrate,etc.,each of the types expressedhas many
properties.These propertiesare affirmed of the
type in a system of true universal,i.e.genericjudgments :
the last
e.g. Equidae as such tread onlyon the hoof upon
phalanx of the third digit.'The group of genericjudgments
known
in regard of any
object,constitutes the
science of that object.
It is not merely in regard of substances
that the predicament
In other
has this function.
Categoriesalso,
mind
this basis. Thus
science organizes
itself in our
on
quantity continuous quantity extension plane surface
heads
of scientific
triangle,
provide us with so many
able
knowledge. Did science in any case reach its unattainarbitrary,but

not

are

are

'

"

"

"

"

ideal,it would

consist of the

definition of

accurate

object thus universallyconceived, togetherwith


of it,whether
the complete series of attributes predicable
its own
as
constituting
propertiesor as belongingto it
in virtue of some
type higher in the scale. Thus the
Categoriesprovide us with the principleon which the
analysisof the sciences must be based. They shew how
some

the various

each
or

as

The

are

correlated in

our

"
The

and

they

their

Posterior

which
have
scribed
dewe
Analyticsof Aristotle,
above (Ch.i, " 5)as a treatise on the logical
analysis
the

of science, throughout considers


this

mind

from
objectsare distinguished
respective
within
different Categories,
other, either as falling
differentiated by various
degrees of abstraction.
how

shew

sciences

aspect and
4.

The

in the

lightof

Categoriesas

Categoriesmay

further

these

sciences

under

principles.

Classificationof Predicates.
be viewed

in

their

bearing
L

PRINCIPLES

146

OF

LOGIC

cation
logicalproposition. As such they form a classifiof possible
predicates. It is under this aspect they
introduced
are
by Aristotle in his Topics (I., c. 9).
it is as thus conceived
received
that they have
the
And
of Category (/caryyopia,
name
tcaryyopeivto predicate),
and its Latin equivalentPredicament.
The very purpose
of the proposition,
is to tell us
what
the subject is
to
form
of being in its regard. Since then
assert
the
some
of
Categoriesare our mental
representations
being in
its various
modes, it follows of necessity that the predicates
of all propositions may
be grouped according to
the particularkind
of
being asserted,in other words
according to the ten Categories.1
From
this it appears
that the doctrine of the Categories
throws
and most
new
a
important lighton the meaning
is of the copula. The discussion as to the import
of the
is in fact incomplete,apart from the
of the proposition,
of the Categories. The
doctrine
copula,as we saw, signifies
in some
that the subjectis (oris not)determined
way.
The Categories
shew
that it does not express one
mode
us
of determination
only, but a variety, according to the
different modes
of
being/ According to the predicate
that the subjectis determined
either
employed, it signifies
or
or
or
substantially,
quantitatively,
qualitatively,
by
relation, etc., etc.2
ous
erronesome
Nothing can be more
is always of one
than
to hold that the determination
the

on

"

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

kind.3

This

is the

mistake

which

we

noticed

have

part of those who hold the equationaltheory as


the import of propositions.They regard the copula
by
always signifyingthat the subject is determined

the

relation

of

on

to
as
a

equality.
"

Met., V., lect. 9.


Propter hoc ea in quae dividitur ens
diversum
esse
praedicamenta quia distinguuntur secundum
'primo, dicuntur
'modum
praedicandi."
2
Eorum
Generis.
autem
St. Thomas, Opusc. 39, De Natura
praedicanquae
significantquid, quaedam
quaedam quale, et sic de
quantum,
tur, quaedam
idem significet
ceteris : ideo oportet quod unicuique modo
:
praedicandi esse
dicitur
dicitur
homoest
substantiam, cum
vero
ut cum
animal,' esse significet
homo
est albus,' esse
significetqualitatem, et sic de aliis praedicamentis."
Cf. in Met., V. lect. 9.
3
in Sidgwick's Fallacies,p. 53.
Such
be found
a theory of the
copula may
Cf. St. Thomas

in

"

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

CATEGORIES

THE

It

the

say, e.g.
for the

we

figure

'

nature

the

as

in

in

Hence

connotes.
is conceived
the

to

in any

of the

'

more

shews

cases

the

'of

the

the

to

is

predicate

attributes

in

any
"

'

'

'

it

belonging

imperfect

such

examination."
better

under

recommence

therefore

auspices, the
the

by

success

He

attempt

founder

great

as

way

States

(i) Feelings, or
(2) The Minds,
(3) The Bodies

those

taken

which

of

or

for

them

experience

these

in the

(4) The

Successions,

Unlikenesses
It

criticism
to

between

would

that

note

no

substantial

no

justificationfor

Cf. Joan,

is not

the

placing
true
from

S. Thoma.,

from

the

of

this

It

be

I
of

to
must

enter

in
the

its
in

own.
a

regard

and

sufficient

the

He

his

sensations

has
:

that

has, therefore,

bodies.

by

Logica, II., Q. 5, Art.

own

mind

separate category
to

upon

be
with

that

of

can-

such

warranted

strongly
it experiences
feelingswhich
minds

is

Likenesses

consistent

even

holds

com-

consciousness."

work

views.

in

which

to

appears

states

of

existence

recognition

Coexistences,
of

rather
their

language
the

certain

propertieswhereby

because

existences

and

He

proposed

excite

included

because

existence

is
same
feelings. The
realities
existing
apart

than

beyond
scope
Mill's metaphysical

philosophical position.
that
of
no
realitysave
it has

and

common

scheme

is not

gether
is alto-

feelings.'
or

being

the

this

of view

he

which

powers

feelingsor

be
of

the
last

real

scheme

"

those

objects,

opinion,

common

granted

concepts

the

Consciousness.'

external

prudently deviate,
or
propertiesas
powers
sound
by
philosophy.

'

of

feelings,
together with

they excite
pliance with

'

of

classification

'not

'

it

generic term,

lengthy discussion, the following is


It should
be premised that the point
gives us.
metaphysical. It is a list of things, and

'

attributes

logic."
After

'

understood

determinations

or

minute

"

with

made

reward

to
to

proposes

same

subject.1

'sufficient

the

us

subject being

advertence

where

even

generic
the
subject
triangle is a plane

But
it
abstractly conceived.
propositionthe predicate alone

more

formal

dicate
preterm

"

the

'

but

these

in

the

determine

not

animal,'

an

comprehension,

one

as

do

of

speak

to

it is

of Categories. Mill, after enumerating


" 5. Mill's Scheme
that
the
imperfections
Categories of Aristotle, remarks
its merits
classification
too
and
not
this
obvious,
are

'

is

that

without

extension

We

predicate

remembered

be

must

Man

subject

is understood

subject, when

the

category.

same

'

when

inaccurate

sight appear

determining

as

within

first

at

may

147

from

Bodies,
which

2, ad. 4.

we

as
are

PRINCIPLES

148
of

conscious

bodies,

imagination. They
the

of

category
that

us

fare

Relations
but

have

should

then

anything

is

him,

to

according

are,
too

Feelings.

relation

no

LOGIC

OF

been

of Mill, is in fact

The

incompatible
reduces
a
realityof

philosophy
Categories at all : for it
mere
subjective feeling.

of
to

(Ch.
of

(5)),assumed

i, note

of

data

mind

The

in

the

are

such

world

data,

our

as

subjective principlesof
on

the

us

into

thus

the

our

afforded, is all

The

hypothesis that the


subjective states
states

are

in

him

The

to possess.

mere

time

present

nor

explain

to

was

can

result, he

world.

hope

can

we

noted

with

us

held, is due

impressions, fashion

of

appearance

have

cognitive faculties, which

mental

unconnected

kind

we

these

experience

it.

scheme

any

whatever

feelings,neither

our

know

we

as

relation.

the

therefore, before

problem,

space.
if these

how,

the
in

that

unconnected

and

instantaneous

solely

further

and

Kant,

certain

as

consist

knowledge
own

our

Kant.

Categories of

6. The

"

such

with

tells

He

better.

no

feeling of

our

figment of the
relegated to

to

operating
within

them

internal

knowledge

It is due, he

taught,

in time

and
impressions appear
forms
The
intellectual
faculty, also, provides twelve
space.
of its own,
ments.1
corresponding to the twelve different speciesof judg'forms'
he
termed
These
twelve
Categories. They
the
list
in
shewn
:
are
following
the

to

faculty that

sensitive

our

'

'

"

I.

Quantity.
1.
Singular (This S
Particular
2.
(Some
3.

II.

Categories.

of Judgment.

Forms

Universal

is

(All

P)

is

is

P)

i.

P)

2.

3.

Quality.
4. Affirmative(S is P)
5. Negative (S is not P)
6. Infinite (S is not-P)

4.
5.

Unity.
Plurality.
Totality.
Reality.
Negation.

6, Limitation.

Relation.

III.

7.

Categorical(S

is

7. Substance

P)

and

Attribute.

Kant

various

8.

Hypothetical (If S

9.

Disjunctive (S

believed
kinds

of

that

or

is

must

intellect to

R)

Q)

all thought is judgment,

judgment

it is possible for the

is P

is P,

8. Cause

9.

and

that

and

Reciprocal

for that

the various
necessarilyshew
knowledge.
shape our

modes

reason

fect.
Ef-

tion.
Ac-

the

in which

CHAPTER

X.

DEFINITION

"
with

two

Logic

We

Definition.

i.

the

concerned

are

of

which

Judgment,

but

to

Definition

Neither

DIVISION.

both

processes,

of

AND

in

belong,
of

that

treated, unless

Predicables

the

convenient

place

definition

The

essential

at

which

of

an

deal

to

object

Hence,

characteristics.

be

factorily
satis-

previously

be

the

most

them.

with

declaration
definition

the

to

Concept.

can

to

is the

not

have

explained. This, therefore, seems

been

chapter

the

Division, however,

nor

this

is

of

its

given

proposition,in which the object defined


the essential
characteristics
the subject, and
stands
as
is the
the
form
predicate. It is this predicate which
of the
called.
The
discussion
definition
properly so
have
said, to the Logic of the
question belongs,as we
act, the definition
Concept : for considered as a mental
is the

concept

thing
It

of

form

in the

which

the

expresses

true

of

nature

the

defined.

is

carefullyto

be

observed

that

is

definition

the

thing. For by some


logiciansit is explained as being simply the connotation
of the subject term, as it is understood
by competent
concerned

with

thinkers,

Now

the

it

nature

is, of

known,

these

will

of

the

course,

the essential characteristics


are

of

thing
"

constitute

that

case

its true

the

whenever

nature,"

intension
'

of

its

triangle,'is
a
by three straightlines.' But
plane figurecontained
is applied to a group
it will often happen that a name
of objects,which
we
are
perfectlyable to identifyby
certain
common
properties they possess, while at the
Thus,
are
time, we
same
ignorant of their real nature.
name.
'

Thus

the

intension

of

the

term

for instance, when

it

give
The

which

by
found

yet

unfold

has

definition

able

are

define

to

it.

connotation, viz.: the symptoms


is known

have

we

The

not

definition

true

It must

recognizeit.

to

us

but

of the thing.

enable

than

more

they

disease

the

the

do

must

before

in this case,

term

ness,
sleepingsickrecognize it and

doctors

appearance,

long

name,

151

disease, e.g. the

new

its

makes

DIVISION

AND

DEFINITION

its nature.

Aristotle

expressed this, by saying that the definition


the
of the thing.1 The
definition
Man
why

is

rational

Socrates

animal

an

He

true.

are

The

is

his

because

man

study

the

Definition

is

contain
we

kinds

always

of

of

to

individual

classes, the
all

are

different

which

by

it differs from

is to

seize

malarial
"

in

the

definition

Post.

Ko.1 Sia

An.

are

II.,
rl

c.

2,

"OTLV.

Post. II.,

c.

13,

is

tout

un

which

moyen

no

alone

Nature
occur

gives
subject

of

the

these

phenomena,

characteristics,

The

of definition

aim

all

amid

is constant

sleepingsickness,

another

rightlysaid

o$v
" 5.
'fiffTrep
Cf. ibid. c. 8, " i.

in

or

hundred

intensity, in

collateral

importance to

tion
the defini-

is essential

with

what

to be

the aim

"

\"yo(j.evrb

rl

tcrnv

of science.3

eldtvai

ravrb

" 19.

Cf. Rabier, Logique, p. 180. La


la science, est la fin de la science.
avant

acteristics.
char-

when

see

members

other.

in
of

animal.

type.2

permanent

Hence

An.

These

is

actually to

shall

which

of

attack, e.g. of

for it is concerned

type,

he

statements

able

accidental

every

duration,

effects,etc., etc.
with

has

fever, differs from

particulars,

tern

the

on

variety. One

this
of

because

universal.

the

instances

each

tool-

definition.

general classes,and phenomena


The
individual
general laws.

us

'

essential

the

are

possesses

is

rational

definitions,we

our

various

is

he

extent

ideal in

realize this
we

what

he

he

yet

nor

asked

are

food/ though these

ideal definition will then


To

because

man,

we

reply that

is not

is

If

point.

we

man,

he

cooks

that

in

case

It

that

using animal/

characteristics.

these

'

'

animal/ is

makes

what

'

'

gives us

de concept
resumant
definition, au
sens
Mercier, op. cit.,"153. La definition est

d'asseoir les bases

de

la science.

PRINCIPLES

152

Science

determined
of

the

It is often

in

it has

these

terms

are

Genus

than

attributes

in

"

are

Real

by

common

the

class, and

the

definition

nature

on

the

other

meaning of
already noticed,
the

It

of

they merely unfold

is

than

the

no

class

more

of

(i)

and

Real

in

what

expression which

an

tion
defini-

Nominal

expression declaring
logicians,as we have

an

Some

more

of

amount

meaning

shewed

we

maintained

have
do

to

is

hand,

fined,
de-

differentia.

or

the

some

be

objects
the notes
signifies
distinguishit from others.1
to

thing.

In

certain

they

as

differentia

last section

word.

words

genus

Definition,

of

consists.

the

intended

are

assign

can

we

ferentia.
dif-

and

genus

eclipsecan

an

as

alike

classes

declares

are

law

the

Predicables.

the

understood

Kinds

In

Nominal.

be

other

to

Various

with

impossible.
properly speaking a
here
employed with

as

to

proper

2.

be

Thus

should

question, and

which

accurately
or

in which

cases

is

not

latitude.
such

connexion

this

however,

Hence

certain

should

differentia, understanding those

employed
but

indeed

are

and

genus

cases,

it has

substance,

some

all definition

that

said

There

were

object,when

of

nature

LOGIC

phenomenon.

some

the

its

achieved

has

OF

that

this ;

definitions

no

that

all

Aristotle

of terms.

connotation

and

one

question at length,and

two
distinguishes
definitions.
In the first place,there
kinds
of Nominal
which
are
signifyimaginary
(i) definitions of names
to which
sponds.
objects,
nothing either actual or possiblecorreWe
find an
example in the definition of
may
An impossible
a
a
dragon as
serpent breathing flame/
a
provide us with
self-contradictory
concept cannot
this

considers

'

Real
essence
essence

1
4

definition
-which

S.

for

that

contains

all.2

at

Cf. Joan,

Indeed

Thoma.,

must

state

repugnant
the

Logica,

the

characteristics
'

expression,
II., c. 3.

Bk.

An

essence.

"Deftnitio

is

dragon
fit per

no

is

genus

et

complectatur defmitionem
'
sed etiam
et differentia,
descripessentialem,
proprie invenitur genus
e
sed aliquid
in qua non
et differentia,
tivam
et accidentalem
est proprie genus
differentiae
nomine
loco illius; ideo intelligitur
nomine
generisaliquidcommune,
'aliquid distinctivum
particulare."
2
rb yap
An.
Post. II., c. 7, " 2.
ivrlv, dXXd ri
dv, ovdels oWev 8 n
M
ri 8' 2"
eforw Tpayt\a"j"ost
/j.tv
cry/miveio \6yos r) rb oj/o/xa, QTO.V
'

differentiam

; et
in qua

cum

haec

conditio

non

solum

DIVISION

AND

DEFINITION

153

serpent breathing flame,' is elliptical.Fully stated,


'

propositionshould be
writers
the
of fables)is
(Ch. 7. " 4).
the

further

Aristotle
in

those

which

dragon (as imagined by


serpent breathing flame
'

reckons

we

unable

are

as

it describes

what

of the

nature
All

be

their

But

and

reasons

to

be

Mill holds

mentioned

explicativeof
the

the

of

meaning

from

derived

not

are

is led to consider

definitions.

sciences, e.g. Geometry,

some

to

as

he

of

of

of

Is

it the

he

asks,

statements
the

from

at all, but

length

case,

from

is that

answer

merely

are

at some

deduced

are

His

definitions

the

existence

rightly

sciences

the

implied

Thus

the
thing
question.
definition
of triangle
but
two
obviously comprises not one
is, There
one
propositions,perfectly distinguishable. The
exist a figurebounded
by three straightlines ; the other,
may
And
this figure may
former
of
be
termed
a
triangle.' The

postulate

the

names

those

save

definitions

positionthat

the

Hence

names.

alleged importance

that

the

strongly to

none

the

has

carefullynoticed, for
of importance.

is

existence

thing. This distinction


largelyfallen into disuse for
presently. But it should be
is one
principleit embodies

of

Nominal

ence
exist-

deny

characteristics,can

essential

the

the

8, "7).

c.

i,

latter class

this

thunder,

unfold

not

Aristotle's view,

in

definitions

of Real

In

objects.

express

termed

"

10,

c.
,

of

not

definitions,therefore,do

presupposed.
which

II.

object(An. Post.

indicate

nominal, because

yet does

and

is meant,

Nominal
to

definition

clouds,' is nominal

noise in the

essential

assign the
merely able to
to

propertiesof a thing, and are


it by a description.Thus, the
'

definitions,(2)

Nominal

as

in

the

"

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

these

of

all

analysis is
the

to

and

it.

For

When

setting
basis

existed

sun

forth

at

of the

as

length,
the

law

for reasoning.

that

fact, long
it

The

which

latter

is

is the

object
the

before

process,
the ground

it is true

This

expressed

was

of the
But

former

Often

object.
of the

knew

men

all.

at

basis

triangle."
fault.

at

existence

instance

definition
It is the

the

here

existence

definition, the

us.

about

reasoning

Mill's

definition.

Nominal

mere
'

is not

propositions

'

when,

occurs

has

been

relative

motion

knew

in

definition

then

do

suppose
pre-

previous

manifested

they
they

we

how

of
to

earth
define

accurately

possessed a

of reasoning

to

was

not

sure

tho

PRINCIPLES

154

existence

of the
in

the
he

phenomenon,

itself, but

definition.

Mill

definition

has

combined

the

nature,

of

that

be
of

matter

existence

is

made

fact

is

with

dealing
objects,but their
are

of

many

is

essence

from

From

deduced

rational

figurecontained
In

of

the

except

by

We

must
as

or

far

so

then

the

science,aims.
properties of
1

the

are

definitions

differentia in the stricter


definition of

'

man

as

from

'

of

Cf. Arist. De

npds r6 fltevai rb

that

content

the
Amma,
ri e"m",

called

of

peculiar
recognize

we

determines

the

needs

be

horse,

we

can

of the

two

principles,

never

their

by

properties.
definition by properties,

with
"

It is at

of natural
to

with

I.,C, I, " 8.
The

nition.
defi-

seeks

type

type

its

lion, must

manifested

Definition.

'

which

While

us.

knowledge

be

He

to

of, e.g.

any

student

definitions of mathematical

our

principle,which

they are

it is often

that

its

as

Distinctive
(iii)
kind

flow

a
by which
plane figure
differentia.
A plane
specific
straightlines/ is the essential
triangle.

characteristics

penetrate to

except in

which

right-angledtriangle Pythagoras

These

is unknown

totally different

the

limits

three

substantial

distinctive

to

When

properties

differentia,from
specific

propertiesflow,

hope

existence
of science

existed.

the

that

recognize
the

of

essential

other
natural
every
it is impossibleto obtain an
Essential

man,

the

then

reasoning.

its

foundation

never

to

It is not

are

are

however,

case,

The

that

and

postulate

of

mind

the

deduce
of

too

rectilinear

the
and

47.

Such

constitute

bounded,

definition

the

by

figures. The
is

for

Definitions.

animal/

words,

of

train

statement

and
genus
for instance
is our

Such

sense.

menon
pheno-

existence

triangle,the

have

can

we

of

proposition :

of

the

that

definition

formed

are

since

Euclid, I.,

(ii)Essential
which

case

figures

the

of

sufficient

known,

once

it.

foundation

essences

mathematical

first

possible essence.

other

in

postulate

his

of the

nature

"

is neither
proposition, which
it
informs
a
definition,
styling
us

the

quite

known

second

the

in

the

even
as

in

unnecessary,

characteristics
we

to

LOGIC

the

definition, and

nor

it cannot

As

nor

its nature

triumphantly points

postulate

OF

state
which

definitions of this

history or
the most
he

is

of

physical

characteristic

dealing.1 More-

rcl crt^/Se/ST/Kora,
(ru^tySaXXerai
^ue-yct //.epos
in a
knowledge of the properties contributes

AND

DEFINITION

DIVISION

155

recognizesthat he can scarcelyhope to attain


of distinctive
finalityin his quest. For the number
propertiesin every natural type is vast, and it is always
property of primary
possiblethat he may discover some
he

over

overlooked.

hitherto

moment

definitions

These

it is

For

science.

of

classification

is

the

definitions attainable

that

Aristotle's

of

definition

nature.

which

states

which

definition

we

But
the

For

difference.

the

they
Yet

classes,

Nominal

tions
defini-

be

of

fail to reveal

unfolds

the

wherever

we

from

we

cannot

from

the

essence,

tial
Essen-

there

is

to

the

to

the

perties.
proin

essence.

different

under

Essential

properties given

definition, conclude
substance

specific

the

the

essence

the

the

Distinctive

the

possess

their

ranked

science,were

properties only, and

reason

same

satisfactory
manifestlyun-

between

can

Distinctive

Moreover,

would

the

are

definitions,which, within

because

the

chapter.

of natural

and

highestresult

the

definition

great

It

scientific

the

definitions

case

Real

of

class of

merely Nominal,

essence

in the

discarded.

sphere, are

own
as

division

later

in

application of

This

Distinctive

only

if

is based

that

types.
subject of

these

been

highest importance

natural

because

has

the

them

on

definition will form


It

of

are

stances,
circum-

properties.

Thus

propertiesof phosphorus are totallydifferent


is termed
those of what
amorphous phosphorus :

from

itself

manifests

by

different

the

it is needless

to

graphite and

diamond

point

out

how

much

differ from

each

those

of

other.

while

carbon,
Yet

in

supposed to be dealingwith
the
same
substance, manifesting itself by different
affected by different conditions.
properties when
(iv)Genetic Definitions give us neither the essential
but
of the thing nor
its properties,
the elements
nature
which, taken in conjunction,result in its produc ion.

each

of these

cases,

we

are

'

and St. Thomas,


:
Opusc. 26,
knowledge of the essence
In rebus
Ente
enim
DC
tials
sensibilibus ipsae differentiae essenet Essentia, c. 5.
nobis
significanturper differentias accidentales
ignotae suht : unde
effectum.
csscntialibus
ex
ormntur, sicut causa
significaturper suuin
quae

great

measure

to

PRINCIPLES

i$6
The

is most

term

mathematical

figureby

Thus

the

in which

manner

of

it may

Here

extremities.

the

nafure

the

express

certain

to

be denned, as a figure
circle may
of a line in a plane round
revolution

the

its

when

of

statement

graduallytraced by
Yet

in reference

definitions,which

by

of

one

LOGIC

frequentlyused

be constructed.
formed

OF

the

line

the

several
themselves

not

are

segments
circle.

is

complete, and all the parts are


in conjunction,they constitute
the
circle. But
seen
a
limited
employment of Genetic definitions is by no means
to this specialcase.
istry
The definitions employed in chemof this

are
'

process

type,

definition of water

e.g. the

as,

as

weights of hydrogen chemically combined


of oxygen/
these
not
For
definitions do
regarding the qualitiesof the substance.
what
constituents
us
are
requisiteto its production.

atomic

two

with

one

inform

us

tell

They

(v) Causal Definitions are of two kinds,


(a) One class
of
defines by indicating the Final
cause
or
purpose
the object (Arist,Met., VII., c. 2, "" 7, 8). This form of
definition is the one
of the
ordinarilyused in the case
works of human
ingenuity. We define a clock by saying
it is

that

of the

'

day/

destined

mechanism

of
purpose
(b)The other

the

foot

supporting the
class

first discovered

to

illness caused

hardly
the

Lodoicea

the

by the

be

Some

defined

double

into

things,e.g.

in any

cocoa-nut

other
'

as

by
that

the

of

nature

the

diseases

certain

introduction

defines

happen

since

of

bacillus anthracis.'

define

often

microbes, it is a
specific
(wool-sorter's
disease)to say

the presence

of anthrax

can

that

for

hoop
riding.'

definitions

of Causal

hours

the

metal

when

It may
cause.
statingthe Efficient
the most
satisfactory
explanation of
Thus
thing,is given in this manner.

Koch, who

'

it

stirrup by terming

indicate

to

days
were

of

due

true

definition

that

it is

'

an

body of the
natural products,
the

We
way.
the fruit of

naturally
the

tree

'

Seychellarum
,

(vi)Accidental
define those

Definitions.

sub-classes,which

These
do

not

are

employed

constitute

to

distinct

PRINCIPLES

158
formal

the

stated

the

us

principlegives its
above

cause

from

is

But

final

list,and

our

definition

form

can

is

attributes

is definition
here

is, as

the

notion

attributes

other

many

But
it
philosopher,etc., etc.
which
belong to his humanity/
'

'

definition

The
which

are

rational

found

in

FinallyGenetic
Even

cause.

does

not,

in internal
in the

as

animal
formal

this

the

in the

case

he
is

this

which

make

cause

He

may

Greek,

those

only

attributes
him

'

the

expresses

man.

notes

cause.2

conjunctionof
of chemical

of material

order

be

may

by

the

material

constitutive

parts

combination, result

changes, the parts always

relation

an

man.

definition is definition

when

of which

formal

the

humanity/

conceptual

humanity is viewed as though it were


the individual
is constituted
by which

formal

seen,

'

of

mal
for-

the

the

have

we

plicitly
ex-

further

by

of

'

'

been

be

not

alone, in virtue

In

man.

definitions

have

causes

need

abstract

an

sometimes

The

us.

speaking

not

are

expressingthose
individual

mentioned.1

another
to

real order, which

we

formed

are

have

we

than

fully known

in

We
the

in

have

statue

always gives

Definitions

which

causes

Essential

cause.

definition

true

efficient and

the

discussed.

the

rather

cause

noticed

soul.

the

satisfactory
explanation is given by

more

assigningone
cause
only one

cause

In

character.

thing defined.

four

of the

Sometimes

drawn

that

of the

each

from

LOGIC

marble.

it is the
We

OF

stand

For

to

the

whole

taken

separately
they lack the distinctive attributes of the thing in question.
It is only to the whole
produced by their conjunction,
that the attributes
belong.3
1

Cf. St. Thomas,

The

abstract

cause.

An.

Post. II., lect. 4.


conceived
specificessence

though

it

were
a
form, was
subject see
Thomas,
Opusc. 26,
et Essentia, c. 3, and
De Ente
An.
Post. II., lect. 20.
In the latter passage
St. Thomas
humanitas
is someguards his readers against supposing that
thing
to the various members
of the species homo,' and points
real, common
it belongs to the conceptual order, Socrates
in
out that
est similis Platoni
humanitate
una
in
existente.'
humanitate, non
numero
utroque
quasi
3
For this aspect of the material
An.
Post. II., c. n,
see
"" 1,2.
cause,
Physics, II.,c. 3, " 7.

termed

the

forma

totius.

On

as

this

St.

'

'

'

'

will

highest genera
We

called.

so

assign

cannot

Much

with

the

transcend

which
and

found

are

scale, there

be

is

of

this

At

of

case

the

highest

the

definition

no

under

the

and

the

the

properly

higher genus

any

Being, Unity
limits

that

of definition

more

in all of them.

can

159

manifest

is

incapable

be

fall.
they may
as
concepts such

which

It

Definition.

of

3. Limits

"

DIVISION

AND

DEFINITION

other

like,

genera,

end

of the

individuals.

They

defined

for

definition

is
:
only be described, not
Further
it is impossibleto define
always of the universal.
data of sensewhich
the immediate
the simplequalities
are
perception,e.g. sweetness, cold, whiteness, pain, etc.
can

The

of definition

purpose

objectby
These

of

can,

Here

is

there

from

elements

the

are

We

analysis.

an

unfold

is to

for

room

properties of

the

red
that
say
e.g. we
itself through vibrations

is

as
when,
qualities,

manifests

which

billions to

360

billions

500

properly speaking
information

rules

traditional
number

is not
this

from

apart

the

must

consider

now

These

the

four

are

in

"

definition must

applicableto
other

every

We

name.

wide

too

is a

machine

reduces

excess

objects.

are

too

or

for

the

Hence

it
the

whole

follows,
terms

adequate to

member

of the

It

thus

must

science

be

of

pium et finem, quia


quasi primum
genus
'in speciebus, sed est

both

as

of

its

and

est

St. Thomas

stare

in

nee

etiam

"

the

'

too

of the

definition

point out, that

Definitiones
in

habent

generibus,sed

est descendere

specie specialissima." De

It

narrow.

is, in fact,one

in infinitum

ascendere

generalissimum

with

to

definition, Logic

the

definition in infinitum.

non

is,be

definitions which

properties. Mill's

Aristotle

that

convertible

across

what

to

object ;

class defined, and

Thus

narrow.

its

It must,

defect.

nor

is far
combating fallacy,'

important

define

be

constantlycome

'

'

We

definition.

of

erring neither by

this

(i) The

least

from

varying

perfectlyclear conception of

of Definition.

" 4. Rules

class

colour

the

But

for

such

itself.

colour

no

definition

have

we

second.

per

of the

nature

analysis.
knowledge begins.1

no

which

enumerate

course,

the

Anima,

we

of

not
can-

priuciaccipitur

in infinitum

I.,lect. 8.

160

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

'

the power
of influencing
the feelings
eloquence as
by
too
It
is
ence
influis
to
wide.
speech or writing/
possible
men's
feelings
by speech without eloquence. So too,
to
define religionas
the
totalityof man's relations
with God,' is to err by excess.
This rule must
(2) The definition must not be obscure.
not be misunderstood.
It does not signify
that the definition
'

in

must

Sometimes

case

no

the

uninstructed
defined.

elements

be

In

obscure

appear

less

of the

of

definition

definitions

many

to the
may
the
than
thing

scientific definition,e.g. of

unavoidable.1
and

definition

comprehensible

philosophicdefinition,
say

uninstructed.

the

to

obscurities
free-will,

is the

result

those

will, to

lightning,or

of

are

long study,
minds

whose

are

obscure than the thing


more
unprepared for them, seem
the mind
of the learner
they professto explain. When
has been prepared by the requisite
instruction,he will
he
definition,

realize that in the

results of science.

against this
phenomenon
class of

Where,
brief

into its

and

they are true


simplerelements.
of the

explanation for
in

to define

convey
violated when
'

those

versed

not

simple terms.
explainobscurum

forbid

to

in

Those

who

serve

the

as

special

it should

violate

this

per obscurius.
not be tautologous. This fault

horse

'

as

have

we

is
'

An

what

definition reappears

the
the

member

information

no

endo, e.g. A day


four hours/ and
1

is to

that
consideration,it is requisite

said to

would

rule

definition is intended

the

(3) The definitionmust


when
the subjectof
is committed
either explicitly
in
or
implicitly
Thus

reallyoffend
analyses of the
In regard to this
not

metaphoricalexpressions.

however,

couched

rule, are

for

rule ;

subjectunder
be

definitions do

the purpose
definitions,

ambiguous
a

Such

the summarized

has received

definingpredicate.
speciesequus/

of the

whatever.
is termed

This

circulus in

rule

is

defini-

periodof time
hour

is

of twentyconsisting
twenty-fourthpart of a

Rabier, Logique, p. 198. 'Les trois quarts des definitions 6tant donnees
d'emblee, seront pour qui les entend pour la premiere fois,Verba et voces praea moins
tereaque nihil
cependant qu'ellesne soient une suggestion d'idees
bizarres ou fausses.'
Cf. An. Post. II.,c. 13, "" 19, 20.
...

when, in the

of two

case

definition of the

in the

'

of

mention

without

other

'

of

mention

without

in

it consists
'

antecedent.'

There

two

are

of

avoidance

are
'

antecedent

'

consequent

nor

'

negative if it

be

define

appears

concepts
'

define

cannot

not

their

tion
defini-

wisdom

can

be

by saying that
'

folly

health

nor

as

of sickness.'

absence

the

the

since

circular

terms, each

consequent/

(4) The definition must


not
to
are
positive. We
'

relative

We

mutually dependent.

161

regarded as

It is not, however,

day/

DIVISION

AND

DEFINITION

positivedefinitions

where

cases

cannot

given. The first of these is when we have to define


Our
are
incorporeal or unextended.
objects which
cognitivefaculties have direct knowledge only of what is
We
therefore compelled to
are
corporealand extended.
unextended
define
the
by negative expressions.2We
breadth
define a line as
length without
; a point as
3
that which
has no
immaterial
as
an
a spirit
parts ;
The
second
in regard to negasubstance.'
case
occurs
tions
in
and
These
consist
essentially the
privations.
absence
must
of a positivequality,and hence
be
mere
be

'

'

'

'

'

defined

sight

in

that

in

Darkness

Blindness

manner.

animal

an

is

'

the

usually

absence

of

found

is

'

the

with

absence
that

of

sense.'

light/

" 5. Logical Division.


A Logical Division is the analysis of a logicalwhole
into its parts ; in other words, the analysisof a genus
into its species. It is expressedin a propositionin which

occupies the place of subject,while


the subordinate
in
disjunctively
speciesare enumerated
the
is either
Substance
predicate,e.g.
corporeal or
or
discrete/
incorporeal/ Quantity is either continuous
the

generic term

'

'

Topics, VI., c.

"

Cf. St. Thomas, Summa


Theol., I., Q. u, Art. 2, ad. 4.
This definition (oO /xepos ovdtv) is that of Euclid.
Fault

with

it

the

4,

" 13.

ground that

it contains

has

been

found

at all. A point
positive element
has position, and
belongs to continuous
quantity. Aristotle,An. Post. I.,
"" obffla.0er6s : and St. Thomas,
Summa
c. 27, defines it any/ATI
TheoL, I.,Q. 52,
indivisibile
Punctum
est
Art.
habens
situm.'
also
Pythagoras had
2,
its positive aspect as
denned
it by
unit
a
having
position
Cf. Arist.,De Anima, I.,c, 4, " 7.
on

no

'

'

'

PRINCIPLES

62

fish

is either

Vertebrate

The
or

mammal/

LOGIC

OF

amphibian

reptileor

or

bird

or

Logical divisions are ordinarilydistinguishedinto (i)


Natural, and (2)Artificial. A Natural division (divisio
the essential modifications
of the
per se) is based on
constitutive attributes
Artificial division
a

few

is

attributes,or

while

based

one

of

even

three
distinguished

which

other

the

modifications

kinds

of such

hand

The

older

an

of

cians
logi-

artificialdivisions,

accidens?

per

of substances

(1) Divisions
of

on

the

singleone.

divisiones

they termed

on

according to the presence


quality,e.g. Men are either
'

accidental

some

Europeans, or Asiatics, or Africans, or Americans,


Australians, or Polynesians/
or
(2) Division of an accidental qualityaccording to the
in which
it is found, e.g.
substances
Beings with
'

vocal

are

organs

either

men

or

brutes/

accidental quality
(3) Division of things having some
other accidental
according to the modifications of some
quality,e.g. Inhabitants of Scotland are
either
or
English-speaking,or Gaelic-speaking,
bilingual/
which
forms
the subjectof a logical
The genericnotion
It expresses
division is necessarilyindeterminate.
no
of its subordinate
speciesin particular: but it must
one
other
of these
be realized in one
or
species. For this
the division is correctlyexpressedby a disjunctive
reason
bers
proposition.The subordinate speciesare termed mem'

of the division.
mination

of the

Each

genus
in which

variety of mode

in

of them
some

the

removes

manner

the indetermination

difference

and

indeterit is the

is actualized

of

teristic
species. The characvarieties
thus
whose
modify the indeterminate
is called the basis of the division (fundamentum
genus
divisionis)
that

constitutes

the

Definition

of the former

Division

and
is to

reply

to

may

be distinguished by saying that the purpose


is the thing ?), and

the question Quid sit? (What

of the latter to reply to the


the purpose
is the
forms
thing realized ?).
8

Boethius, De

question Quotuplex sit ? (In how

Divisione, ed. Migne, col. 877.

many

AND

DEFINITION

essential difference

The

DIVISION

between

163

divisio per
fact

divisiones per accidens, lies in the

that

genus is divided into the species which


to it, and
subordinate
belong to its own

the

to

genus

It is most

naturally
category. In

parts of

the

with

because

genus

The

extension.
of them

each

individuals,which

of

number

are

is something accidental
note
differentiating
other category.
and belonging to some
important to observe that in logicaldivision

concerned

not

are

we

the

in the former

the

the latter the

and

se

taken

speciesare

contains

not

certain

all

tute
together constilogicalwhole and

largerclass. The relation of


of
logicalpart arises entirelyfrom the indeterminateness
realized
in the conceptual order, and
as
genericnature
the

the

of the subordinate

determination

contains
of

species. The

whole

in other words, it is
:
parts potentially
being determined
by various differentiae to
its

Thus

of them.

the notion
'

'

'

triangle contains

'

'

able
capeach

potentially
a
logical

equilateral,'isosceles and
noticeable characteristics,
of this kind belong two
whole
viz., (i)it is found in each of its parts.2 As the whole
the part contains
the part potentially,
the whole
contains
so
tained
actually. The generic nature
triangle is actuallyconnotion
scalene triangle.'And
in the specific
(2)
when
of
the
it is,as we
saw
treating
Categories(Ch.9, " 2),
predicableof all its parts.3 The generic notion is predicated
of the specific
notion of the
notion, not the specific
brates
Verteare
vertebrates,'not
generic. We say, Mammals
'

scalene.'

'

To

'

'

'

mammals.'

are

further

point
called

properly so
is

by

sense,

not

members
is to

reveal

universal

'

by

stops
a

unity

On

Cf. St. Thomas,

Arist.,Met.

own

noticed
short

at

intellect that

by
of

its

be

to

species :
in

is that

ultima

the
we

species.

the
distinguish

the function

multiplicity.The
differentiae

logicaldivision

stops

It

vidual
indi-

of the intellect
division

short

at

the

of

the

com-

the logicalwhole, cf. Hamilton, Logic, I.,pp. 204-207.


Summa
TheoL, I., Q. 77, Art. i, ad. i.
Totum
enim universale adest cuilibet parti secundum
totam
essentiam
et virtutem, ut
suam
homini
animal
et equo.

IV.,

c.

26, "

a.

PRINCIPLES

r64

LOGIC

OF

Yet
a
though this is the case
plete specificnature.1
found : and the expreslooser terminologyis sometimes
sion
logicalpart is applied to all subordinates of the
as
class-notion,whether
they be subordinated
speciesto
to a species. Owing to the
individuals
or
as
a genus,
of this terminology,we
shall occasionally
convenience
employ it.
between
to distinguish
Several recent
logicians,
failing
the science of the conceptualorder and the sciences which
identified logicaldivision
deal with the real order, have
The
with the general theory of Classification.
subject
'

'

to consider
of Classification will occupy us when
come
we
of Science.
It deals mainly with the printhe Method
ciples
which

on

the
The

types offered by

ordinate
co-

to

his

individuals,the
comparison of numerous
comparison being registeredin definitions.

results of the

definitions

the

should

contemplation.
types is effected through

Nature

of these

co-ordination

real order

of the

careful

long and
As

student

the

framed, the mutual

are

relationships

selves
conceptuallyexpressed reveal themment
a
as
logicaldivision. Together with the attainattain
of a scientific classification of real things,we
a
logicaldivision in regard to our concepts. The whole
and the parts in the two cases, are widely different. The

of the

natures

is a whole

one

as

of many

concrete

individuals,the other whole

The
treatise on Classification
singlegenericnature.
sion
belongs to the natural sciences ; that on logicaldivibelongs to the science of the conceptual order.

is

It is evident

Subdivision.
be

subdivisions

science.

For

it is

by

classifications

so

knowledge of
largea part in

a
are

itself

of

is called

division.
sub-

importance

to

that

subdivisions

systematic
mentally represented. Hence,

the elaborate
many

This

are

series of

ate
subordin-

of the

of division, may

in an
act
speciesenumerated
subjected to a similar process.
These

our

each

that

which
classifications,

sciences,is summed

up

in

play
logical

divisions.
1

Joseph, Introduction to Logic, p. 116.


Post. II., c.
An.
species 'indivisible.'
r"
ci$
ei'Set
rd
"TO/J.O.
rtf
yevos

Thus
13,

Aristotle

terms

" 6, XP*) 5^

...

the

ultimae

SieXet?

TO

PRINCIPLES

166

be

that

complete,

omitted.
and

Hamitic

into

men

leave

we

subclasses

the

divide

we

races,

out

condition

is

'

genus

as

'

nation

nations

if it be the

true, even

of the

plain that

etc., etc., it is
considered

the

mutually exclusive.

first rule

be

observed.

tions
by different determinagenericnotion, it follows that

is adhered

long as one basis


necessarilyexclusive
as

e.g., the

Aryan, Semitic,

is constituted

indeterminate

of the

be

if the
fulfilled,

division

the

Since

be

varieties,and

many

(3) The constituent speciesmust


This

should

exhausted.

is not

genus

of

none

If, e.g.,

LOGIC

OF

are

to,

other.

into

Thus, if

is

divide,

we

English,French, German,
members

the

mutually
that certain

case

determination

one

of

this

division

exclusive.

individual

This
men

is

have

in more
than one
country.
rightto citizenship
mate
(4) Each step in a continued division must be a proxithis rule is
one
(Divisione fiatper saltum). When
The
rule would,
speciesare omitted.
neglected,some
for instance, be broken, if after dividingquantity into
should
at once
continuous
and discrete, we
proceed to
divide continuous
quadrilaterals,
quantity into triangles,
etc., etc.
By neglectingthe step, in which continuous
quantity is first divided into plane and solid,we should
omitted
all the speciesof solid figures.
have
a

" 7. Division

given

to

method

each

steps,in

by

This

Dichotomy.
division

of

of which

division

has

name

consistingof

successive

into two

is made

been

classes

bute.
given attriaccordingto the presence or absence of some
held
By thus repeatedly subdividing, it was
notion
that we
might arrive at last at a fullydetermined
of
this method
advocated
of the last species. Plato
the
Thus
definitions.1
of discovering
division as a means
definition
of man,
might be supposed to be reached by
successive

severelycriticized

Aristotle
hence
in most

of

subdivisions

some

mention

of

the
this

of

view

clichotomous

substance.

of

notion

Plato's, and

division

treatises.2
logical
1
8

Cf. Plato, Protagoras, 332.


De
Cf. An. Prior I.,c. 31.

Phaedrus, 266.
Part. Anim.,

I., cc.

2, 3.

is found

DEFINITION

Regarded
is

object, it

as

division

already know

must

unless

we

nothing to

that

divide

substance

member

Again
of

the

method

consider

Let

us

AB

and

Either

(i)we

Thus,

extent.

the absence

in

the

and
under

constitute

to

dividinga
thingsmust
this

class

of B.

absence

mere

be

the

case.

real

are

If this be

different

class.

class A into

there

differentiae.
specific
many

avail

know

not

in

of two

by

own

which

to

man.

which

on

that

their

that

to

invalid, because

One

they belong to
them

class

an

assignthe entity,we

should

we

know

objects marked

objectshave

for

is involved

what

know

to

of

corporeal, it would
into corporeal substance

basis

no

definition

is

is

non-B.

order

should

man

should

we

attribute,is

an

In

its definition

knew

167

findingthe

we

incorporeal substances
which

of

clearlyuseless.

of the

member

method

DIVISION

AND

these

so,

In all

species,and

ability
prob-

to rank

all

together as A non-B, is calculated to mislead


over,
people into supposing they have a generic unity. Moreif we
the class A non-B
distinguish
by subsequent
in their wrong
division, the specieswill appear
position
in the classification.
For they will not be placed where
they should be placed,viz., as co-ordinate specieswith
the class AB.
Or (2)we
be supposed to be unaware
may
of the existence
of other objectssave
those we
are
sidering.
conIn

that

each

shall, at

we

case,

division,be introducinga class,whose


doubtful.
be carried

At

this rate,

very

dichotomous

our

We

step

of

existence

division

divide

the
is

might

into

men
men
might
length.
with wings (ifany) and men
without
wings.
Division
by dichotomy is ranked
by Kant
(Logic,
method
which
is applicablein purely formal
" 113) as a
siderations.
Logic,and which is entirelyindependent of material conMansel
has rightlypointed out that this is

to any

We

cannot, e.g., divide

not

so.1

and

rational,unless

irrational
into

two

animals.

we

know

We

determinations

which
1

that

that

we

are

notion

Proleg. Logica,

there

divide

cannot

classes,unless

animal

pp.

into
are

any

irrational

rational

and

generic notion

acquainted with the


is capable of receiving.
192,

193.

PRINCIPLES

68

"

8.

Various

its

which

processes

Divisione

are

calls

following

(2)

its

parts

'

is

colour,

Theol.,

I., Q.

quite

distinct

and
his

readers
its

other

the

de

other
The

parts.
in

from

the

Liber

to

into

into

the

mentioned

this

those

nexion.
con-

ated
enumer-

cit.,

shape,

Art.

8.

of

etc.,

of

e.g.

in

The

further

the

between

e.g.
an

soul

the

the

man.

object,

an

the

orange.

into

memory,

will.

'

ed.

of

from

between

signify

to

etc.

genus

'

rationality

qualities

the

between

signifying

76,

'

the

the

house

glass,

distinguish

we

employed
the

and

of

viz.,

when

of

partition
timber,

bricks,

of faculties,

between

op,

roof,

the

e.g.

fragrance,

Distinction

Boethius,

whole

in

slightly

as

and

of

intellect,

as

his

resolved

very

sometimes

Distinction

e.g.

of

that

seen

logical

Boethius

usually

as

distinction

(4)

division

of

distinction,

animality

term

(3)

have

rendering

is

"

differentia,

the

of

termed,

but

Metaphysical

'

kind

partition,

Physical
into

this

now

differ

We

list.1

his

in

of

whole

those

They

view

attention

are

Division.

analysis

so

the

which

in

(1)

the

between

difference

cases

is

With

parts.

of

Kinds

division

logical

LOGIC

OF

'

church
the

Migrie,

various
as

whole

col.

meanings
building,
of

body

877,

878

and

and

'

term,

church

faithful.

the

cf.

of

S.

Thomas,

Summa

'

CHAPTER

The

i.

discussed

Judgment.
of

the

Syllogism.

Categorical

the

both

Logic

It

of
for

remains

mental

(l.).

SYLLOGISM

CATEGORICAL

THE

"

XL

the

of

the

the

at

now

and

of

treat

mentioned

processes

have

Concept,

to

us

We

the

third

beginning

of this work

ence.
Infer(Ch. i, "2),viz.,Reasoning or Mediate
This
has
already been defined as the process by
which
from certain truths already known, the mind
passes
to another
truth
distinct from these.
The
two
principal
forms

of

inference

to

induction,

argue

the

general.

are

at

The
A

the

the

It is with

deductive

the

particular

or

of the

truth

of which

that

two,

'All

may

mammals

All horses

inference

from

In
to
we

An.

Prior

/., c.
Kei/j.evui'

as

proposition
a

necessary

vertebrates.

vertebrates.
it
the

does, of three
formula

"

P.
M.
P.

" 5.
2v\\oyiff(j.bsd" "m
rifravra
e" dvdyKtjsffvfj.f3a.lvei

i,

third

mammals.'

are

Therefore,All horses are


This syllogism,consisting,
as
be represented by
may

rdv
TI
"re/3oJ'

syllogism.

by which, from

these two

argue
are

the

as

proceed to

follows

Thus

is known
an

as

given propositions,we

Arist.

from

individual.

the

former

the

induction

passes

individual

the

inference

is defined

consequence.1

mind

the

particular or
from

and

present concerned.

syllogism

two

deduction

deduction,

In

respectively.
more
general
we

termed

are

\6yos
elvcu.

tv

sitions,
propo-

PRINCIPLES

170

LOGIC

OF

known
the premisses
are
as
given propositions
follows from
them
praemissae); that which
(Trporaa-eis,
the conclusion (o-viuLTrepacrju.a,
or
as
consequent.1
conclusio)
In all deductive
inference,we argue, as has been just
stated, from the more
generalto the less general. Hence,
be a universal proposiat least of the premisses must
one
tion.
of
lies
the
in the
And
essence
syllogistic
reasoning
that
falls
applicationof a general principleto a case
that
under
it. In the example justgiven,it will be seen
the generalprinciple,All mammals
are
vertebrates/ is
appliedto the particularcase of the horse.
It is evident that no
inference is possibleunless there
to the two
which is common
is a term
premisses. This
the middle
term (TO /*"ror).Aristotle
is known
term
as
for his selection
of this name.
gives us two reasons

The

two

'

term, he says, is the

middle

The

in

others

of the

one

is itself

which

term

(P),while

the

tained
con-

remaining term

he here
(S) is contained in it. The relation of which
The middle
whole.
part to logical
speaks,is that of logical
term is a logical
part in regard to one of the other terms,
A logical
whole in regard of the third.
and a logical
part,
as

we

of

" 6, stands
concept to one

in Ch.

saw

subordinate

cannot

be

by

meant

too

to its whole

10,

that

is

'

whole

'

and

'

part

'

general.

more

this

clearlyrecognized that

the terms

in the relation

It

is what

is

in this connexion.

cal
belongs,not to extension, but to the hierarchiof speciesand genus in the conceptual
subordination
order. When
we
predicateone term of another, it is the
is the predicate: the genus is affirmed
wider notion which
is subject
term
of the species. Hence, since the middle
of one
premiss,and predicateof the other, it is a logical
whole
part in relation to the term predicatedof it,a logical
relation

The

earlier writers
employ a different terminology, calling the
the
Quorespectively
premisses
sumptio (orsumptum) and the assumptio.
omnis
'niam
syllogismus ex propositionibus texitur,prima vel propositio vel
his quae
infertur
secunda
dicitur assumptio : ex
vocatur
:
vero
sumptum
'conclusio
Syll. Hypoth, (Migne, t. 64, col.
nuticupatur."
Boethius, De
1

Some

of the

"

two

'

844).
2

An.

Prior
,

/.,c.
KO.L

ry

4,

" 3.

dfoei

KO.\W

8t

firtrtu
peaov.

^aov pkv

Cf. also

KOJ.

c.

CLUTO

41,

ev

" 5-

d\Ay

nal a\/\o tv

CATEGORICAL

THE

in relation
Aristotle
view

the

to

he looked

that

extension, and
because

called

in extension
second

method

to

say,

middle-term

lay

between

not

cians,
logi-

syllogismin their

the

that

gives,is

This

name

others.

two

that

the

is of less

reason

It rested

us.

in this

many

by

Aristotle

detain

do

as

of the

by position.

stand

terms

the

which

reason,

and need

moment,

it

is such

term

the

the terms

on

171

predicated.1
syllogism ever
keeps in

of the

entirelyerroneous

(I)

it itself is

in which

typicalcase

It is

order.

middle

of which

term

in his treatment

the

The

SYLLOGISM

telian
the Aristo-

on

we
statingthe syllogism. Where
say
M is P, and S is M, therefore
S is P, he employed the form,
P is predicated
of M, M is predicatedof S, thereforeP
is predicatedof S.
character
the
as
Regarding a syllogismof the same
standard
type, the term which is subjectin the conclusion
is aptly known
the minor
as
term, and the term which is
the major term.
These
as
predicatein the conclusion
adhered
in negative conclusions, and
to even
names
are

in

other

of

found.

not

spoken
which
that

where

cases

of

the

The

major

the

as

major

which

minor

and

extremes

term

the

terms

is called the

minor

and

part, is

sometimes

are

(TO.aKpa).

occurs,

contains

of whole

relation

the

The

premiss in
major premiss :
minor

is called the

term

premiss.
A

distinction

and

form

the

three

of

is sometimes

drawn

the

between

matter

of the syllogism
syllogism. The matter
consists of the terms
and propositionsemployed in it.
The
form lies in the specialarrangement of the terms
in

follows
It

propositions,in virtue of which


from
the premisses by necessary

is evident

while

in

untrue.

that

conclusion

the

consequence.

be

formally valid,
regard to the matter, every propositionmay be
The greater part of the Logic of the syllogism,

is concerned
ways

with
in which

the
a

syllogismmay

form

We

alone.

process

of

treat

of the

reasoning may

be

ous
varicon-

1
An. Prior I., c. I, " 7.
Se eV 6Xy elvat Zrtpovere'pw xal rb /card TTOLVT^
TO
that
To
one
K.a.Triyopeitfda.1
thing is
darepov Odrepov Tavrbv cffriv.
say
in another
contained
be
that the second can
as
a whole, is the same
as to say
predicated universallyof the first.'
'

PRINCIPLES

17*
structed

OF

LOGIC

conclude

to

validly. It is chieflybecause
this important branch
of Logic deals wholly with the selfconsistencyof our
thought with securing conclusions
consistent with their premisses, that the Formal
cians
logiled to hold that Logic deals only with selfwere
consistency,and abstracts altogetherfrom the question
of truth.
The answer
to this contention
is that the theory
of syllogistic
form, is but one portion of Logic ; and that
in it,we
treat of formal truth only as a means
even
by
so

as

"

"

which

mind

the

from

passes

true

premisses

to

true

conclusion.

"

Relation

2.

It

Truth.
furnish

are

All

yet

owls
the

is

conclusion.

vertebrates/

minor

because

of the
be

with

the

the

from

it is M.

The

is true.

conclusion

per accidens

it appears
be true
must

that

because

is true.

For

" 3. General

Rules

of

is not

that

the

is true.

true, and

P,
so

nected
con-

that

Syllogism. The

misses
pre-

On

the
the

ment
arguconclusion

legitimatelydrawn,
in
implicitlycontained
2, " i, c. 4, " 13).

the

is

it is not

conclusion

nothing that is not


premisses (An. Prior //., c.

argument.

argue

sure

mals
mam-

of this kind

conclusion

hand, if the premissesare


be
is rightlystated, we
may

other

may

therefore
is false,

that

P, but

the

to

this occurs,

; i.e. its truth

the

All

premiss
in which

conclusion

cannot

we

'

mammals,

is

assignedin

reason

premisses

I assert

that

alleged.

reason

true

way

diagram.

It is true

the

the

in regard

if I argue,

Thus

are

because

Hence

false

vertebrates, All owls


are

is said to

to Conclusion

quite possible that

true

easilyseen

is

of Premisses

tains
con-

the

following

PRINCIPLES

r74

incapable of sin,
thereforeSlaves
free

'

in the

Socrates

'

'

premiss civil

one

reference

in Ch.

of

case

equivocal.

But

the

to

'

8, " 4,
is

ambiguous

in reference

case

to

free,

not

are

word
of the

freedom.

Socrates
therefore

man,

is not

man

in the

free,are

not

the
Here
incapable of sin/
major premiss denotes the freedom

another

with

us

Slaves

example, given
is

Beings,who are
are
beings who

are

will, in the minor


The

LOGIC

'

is meant.

illustrate what

'

OF

when
the

Man

is

species/provides

The

middle.
a

species,

term

is

real, in the

term

employed
other

in

conceptual order, ambiguity necessarily

arises.
Rule

2.

The

second

rule follows

immediately from

the

ence,
syllogism,which states that it is an inferfrom
two
in which
we
given propositions,
pass to a
shall see, forms
of
third proposition. There
we
are, as
of propositions.These
argument, which contain a number
not syllogisms,
are
though they consist of syllogisms. A
syllogismmust have but three propositions.
Rule 3. The
objectof the third rule is to guard against
It prescribes
known
undistributed middle.
the fallacy
as
that in one
premiss at least the middle term should refer

definition of

to

whole

the

The

of its extension.

reason

for this

is

ing
discover the relation existwe
syllogism,
the major and minor
between
terms, by comparing
It is therefore absolutely
the middle
with
each
term.
be the same
of comparison should
essential that the term
of comparing
have
in both cases, otherwise
means
no
we
buted,
is undistriWhen
the middle
term
major and minor.
refer
have no guarantee that both propositions
we

obvious.

to

the

the

same

In the

part

of the

This

extension.

accompanying diagram.

may

may

assert

be
with

seen

in

truth

concludingthat

Hence

is P.

the

term

to be

data, and

whole

extent,

about

error

As

minor.

sion
conclu-

case

occurs,

it is known

as

'

All

not

'

All
e.g.
Brutes

take

are

not

Illicit process

animals.'

not

are

term

of the

take

an

are

invalidity
example
is false :

therefore

men,

of

the

immor-

an

that the conclusion

animals, Brutes

are

men

'

of the minor

we

its

illicitprocess

destiny.' The

is precisely
similar,save

which

in the

thereforeBrutes

manifest, if

is

When

illicitprocess

men,

immortal

lated
vio-

information

may
with
beings

are

be

it in

former, we

men

are

argument

an

of the

instance

an

takes

premisses gave
fallacyis termed

it be in the

destiny,Brutes
beings with an

of such

conclusion

Should

followingargument,
not

It forbids

in the

more

the

part only, the

the

that

'

assert

the

though

major.

of the

tal

we

the

by

is, when

conclusion, that

'

negroes

premisses. It can
both as regardsthe minor and the maj or term.
distribution
major term receives illegitimate
is warranted

than

the

appears
substitute

'

for this rule is obvious.

our

ground
though

This

true.

'

All

fishes/

or

reason

beyond

to go

us

birds

4. The

Rule

'

'

'

as

are

happens in fact
proposition
if in place of the term
once,
'

in
justified

not

am

175

premisses,such

that
at

(I)

mortal/ give no
All negroes
are
men/

'

that

conclusion

for the

But

M.

mortal, All negroes

are

men

Pis

that

M, and

5 is

that

SYLLOGISM

CATEGORICAL

THE

the

minor

'

All birds
by, No birds are viviparous,
No bipeds are viviparous.'In this
are
bipeds,therefore
syllogismthe premisses only,justifyus in concluding,

maybe

illustrated

'

'

Some
Rule

Should

of the

viviparous.'
5 forbids that both premissesshould be negative.
have
this occur,
of drawing a conno
means
we
clusion.
In a negative premiss,we
deny the connexion
bipeds are

middle

premiss.

term

If both

with

the

We

conjoined or

not.

recent

with

the

extremes

middle

them.

Certain

not

are

term,

cannot

contained

extreme

we

say

declared
have
whether

no

in that

be

to

nected
uncon-

of

means

they

paring
com-

found

are

logicians have called in question the universa


Prof. Jevons (Principles
law.
of Science, p. 63)

validityof this
gives us the followingsyllogism as

an

exception

to

it

"

PRINCIPLES

176
What

is not

Carbon

metallic

Mr.

is not

Bradley
"

he

'

metallic
the

from

'

powerful magnetic

fluence.
in-

metallic.'

"

that

'

we

have
mind

have

proved

difficultywill be
proposition, Carbon
have

we

middle

no

is not
In

term.

what-is-not-metallic,' and

replaces this

easily

'

if the

it stands,

The

somehow

you
the
to

solution

as

major premiss

minor

of

powerful magnetic influence.


fact remains,"
The
Jevons.

denials

two

The

is taken

of

Prof.

it is observed

when

seen,

with

denial."

further

capable

capable

concurs

that

says,

is not

metallic.

is not

.'. Carbon

LOGIC

OF

in

the

proposition with

the

'

is a-thing-which-is-not-metallic,'
equivalent affirmative, Carbon
of rule.1
the syllogism concludes
without
and
breach

6. The

Rule

is

premiss

the

one

the

connexion

for the sixth rule is evident.

reason

of

affirmative,and

the

other

with

the

middle

extreme

one

of

connexion

asserted, the

is denied.

term

must

necessarilydeny

viz.

se.

that

The

middle

same

with

term

conclusion

it must

the

part of

involves

nected
con-

the

rule,

negative

this cannot

be

and

the

with

one

the

because
other

are

If the conclusion

extremes,

be

the

conclusion

extremes

connected

are

is

term

with

the

way.

of the two

this term, and

7. This

Rule

that

two

similar

of them

both

because

in

the

negative,

extreme

of the second

truth

connexion

denies the

that

negative

premiss, is shewn

other

It follows

same

inter

the

When

is

one

nected
con-

is not.

be proved by examining the


rule may
of two
particularpremisses,and testing

possiblecases
them
by the preceding rules. Since there are but two
/ and
tions
0, the possiblecombinaparticularpropositions,
these

Of
and

hence

the

first //

combination

viz.

the

terms, the
in the
*

to
c.

The

contains

violates Rule

10

has

predicateof
middle

0.
the

and

premisses.

3.
thus

negativepremisses,and
The

//, 10, 00.

limited to three

are

The

00

third

contains
term

one

distributed

no

gives us

breach
alone

term,
two

of Rule

5.

distributed,

But

that two
it is necessary
major, should be distributed

distributed

middle

is

requiredby

difficultyis of respectable antiquity. Ueberweg, " 106, calls attention


by Boethius, in Lib. de Interp.,Ed. 2** (ed. Migne, t. 64,

its solution

551) ; and

Boethius

refers

us

back

to

Alexander

of

Aphrodisias.

Rule

3 ; and

be

distributed

of

El, EO.

AO,

term.

EO

Since

disregarded. A I

be

Since the middle

two

be

distributed

Hence

term.

one

since
negative,
But

the

The

conclusion

distributed

one

AO

alone

term

cases

negativeE

both
be

contain

the

is

middle
in

the

necessarilybe
negativepremiss.

both terms

has

conclusion

distributed
must

there

El

must

is

conclusion

the

The

and

of these

One

may

term.

distributed,it follows that

universal.

in both

universal

be

negatives,it

two

but

four, AI,

are

in the conclusion.

terms.

But

conclusion.

term,

must

term

therefore cannot

contains

contains

is distributed

term

no

premiss is particular,the
tion
proved by an examina-

one

is also
particular,
The
possiblecombinations

cases.

177

is also

major

that, if

rule

is

conclusion

(I)

needed, for,since
be negativeby Rule 6, the predicate

must

8. The

Rule

distributed

the conclusion
must

SYLLOGISM

CATEGORICAL

THE

therefore,since it has but

distributed.
distributed

one

only be particular.

can

Figures and Moods of the Syllogism.


(i)Figure is the form of the syllogism as determined
by the positionof the middle term in the two premisses.
"

4.

usual supposes
that in
arrangement of figuresnow
which
of the
statingthe premisses,we are already aware
is to be the subjectof the conclusion,and which
extremes

The

predicate,in other words, which of our two


is the minor
premiss,and which the major.
propositions
This givesus a fourfold division,
(i) In the first figure,
the middle
is subject in the major premiss, and
term
predicatein the minor premiss. (2) In the second figure,
the middle
is predicatein both
term
premisses. (3) In
the third figure,
the middle
term
is subjectin both
misses.
preIn
the
fourth
the
term
is
(4)
figure, middle
cate
prediin the major, and subject in the minor
premiss.
The
figuresare representedby the followingforms :
is to be

the

"

Fig. i.
M

S
S

Fig. 2.

Fig.

3.

Af_S

Fig.

4.

5~P
N

PRINCIPLES

178
*

For

the

no

major

was

taken

which

the

account

and

term

LOGIC

logicians employed

centuries

many

which

in

OF

division

of

which

to

as

premiss
Nothing was

minor.

figures

contained
considered

term, and three figuresonly were


positionof the middle
which
thus
were
distinguished(i)Fig. i, M, subject
recognized,
in the one
premiss,predicatein the other, (2)Fig. 2, M, predicate
be
The
in both, (3) Fig. 3, M,
figures may
subject in both.
follows
:
represented as
(3)
(i)
(2)
the

save

"

B
AM

first of these

The

according
The

MB
AM

as

the

subject

system
arrangement

This

differs

It

B, the

the

to

make

we

in

in

now

the

which

vogue,
of

little from

of the

subject
is

predicatein
those

are

constitute

Theophrastus,
Aristotle's

own

its

premiss,

ing
which, accord-

the
a

conclusion.

fourth

of

figure.

discipleof
treatment

in Ch. 1 2, " 2
figures,in a point which will be mentioned
is still preferred by
The
Theophrastean arrangement
logicians.

is the form

eties,
vari-

necessarilyprovides two

conclusion,

that

was

or

term

the

MB
MA

however,
figures,

in which

forms

becomes

totle.
Aris-

of

below.
many

syllogism as determined
the quantity and qualityof its premisses. Since there

(ii)Mood

but
be

the

by
are

premissesin a syllogism,and each of these must


of the four propositions,
A,E,I,0, it follows that
but sixteen possiblearrangements
of premisses,
are
of the syllogismcan
be selected,
the mood
which

two
one

there
from
viz.

AA

IA
//

AI

OA
01

El

AE

IE

EE

OE

AO

10

EO

00

all of these

Not

EA

sixteen

combinations, however,

can

premisses of a syllogism. The rule


syllogism prohibiting two negative premisses,

be

employed

of

the

excludes

four

in the

of the
excluded

sixteen, viz.

EE,

EO,

OE,

00.

tells us
that
by the rule, which
two
particularpremisses give no conclusion, viz. : //,
The
last of these had alreadybeen rejected
10, 01, 00.
Of the nine remaining cases, one,
the previouscount.
on
to involve
illicitprocess of the major
an
IE, can be shewn

Four

also

are

For

term.

SYLLOGISM

CATEGORICAL

THE

it contains

since

negative. A
and
hence
its predicate,

is distributed

term

no

drawn

conclusion

vitiated

by

from

combinations, which
examine,

in

of

be

can

El, and
the

rules.

rules of the

Figure

IE,

Therefore
needs

be

may

in

number,

possible

seven

A.
be

We

must

employed

Figures. Though, as we
eight possiblemoods, not all of them

are

employed

these

in

of the Four

each

in

figure. Every figurehas


in the

peculiarto it,and only admits


to

the

premiss

moods

these

specialrules, involved

own

major

figures.

there

seen,

But

premiss.

major.
therefore
eight

contain

" 5. SpecialRules
have

the

of the

are

which

several

the

that

major premiss, I.
these premisses must

of the' combination

consist

now

in its

illicit process

an

necessitates

in the

possiblemoods

The
and

distributed

be

should

term

179

clusion
negativepremiss, the conbutes
negativeconclusion distri-

be

must

(I)

four

In

this

arrangement of
moods

those

section, we

figuresin

which

shall deal

its

terms

conform
with

the

succession.

i.

S_M
T~P
Rules,

be affirmative.
(i) The minor premiss must
(2) The major premiss must be universal.1
(1) If the minor premiss were
negative,the conclusion
would
be negative. A negative conclusion
requiresthat
the major term
should
be distributed
in the conclusion,
But
and therefore in the major premiss also.
the major
is predicate in its premiss : hence
term
buted,
it distriwere
the premiss must
be negative. Thus
should
we
have

two

negative premisses.
(2) Since the minor premiss is affirmative, the middle
term
in that premiss is undistributed.
It must
therefore
in the major premiss. In that premiss, it
be distributed
1

The

Sit minor

older logics give

affirmans,major

us

these rules

vero

in the

generalis.

following mnemonic

hexameter

PRINCIPLES

i8o

OF

LOGIC

subject: the subjectis distributed


propositionsalone.

stands

excludes

moods
we

to

in this

be

drawn

the

letter

them, AAA,

from

and

AO, and

therefore

remain

viz.
figure,

with

them

express

AE

There

OA.

and

IA

moods

the

(i) excludes

Rule

in universal

the

as

A, AI, EA,

denoting the
EAE,

Rule

(2)

four

able
avail-

EL

Or, if

conclusion

All, EIO.

Figure 2.

Rules,

(2) The

P
be

(i) One premiss must


major premiss must

(1) Since

middle

the
both

were

the

(2) Since
distributed.

It

is

term

predicate in

affirmative, it would

Therefore

in either.

negative.

be universal.1

one

must

is

conclusion

misses,
pre-

be distributed

be

negative.
negative,the major

therefore

must

not

both

be

distributed

term

is

in

its

major premiss,it stands as subject. The


distribution of the subjectinvolves a universal proposition.
Rule
Here
(i) excludes A A, AI, IA\ and Rule (2)
of this figurewill therefore
The valid moods
I A and OA
premiss.

In the

be

EAE,

Figure

AEE,

EIO, AGO.

3.
M

premiss must be affirmative.


be particular.2
(2) The conclusion must
(1) The former of these rules is established by the same
affirmative
the necessityof an
shewed
considerations
as
minor
premissin Fig. i. A negativeminor would involve
therefore there would be two negative
a negativemajor, and
the
the
of
fifth
rule
to
syllogism.
premisses,contrary
tributed.
(2)Since the minor is affirmative,its predicateis undisThe
term.
conThis predicateis the minor
Rules,

(i) The

1
2

Una

minor

negans

Sit minor

esto, major vero generalis.


affirmans,conclusio particularis.

PRINCIPLES

i8z

however, if

may

is

that

The

of

name

given to
Fesapo,

the

They

clusion
premissesa conis nothing to prevent
premisses would

there

than

our

of course,

are,

of

known

ance.
import-

no

strengthened syllogisms is occasionally

moods,

for the

and

Darapti,Felapton,Bramantip,
that

reason

could

conclusion

since

the

moods, Barbari, Celaront,etc.,are

subaltern moods.

as

LOGIC

from

assertingless

These

warrant.

will,draw

we

particular;

from

us

OF

of

in each

the

them,

same

obtained

be

by a particularpremiss in
In
lieu of one
of the universal premisses employed.
Darapti,Felapton,and Fesapo, the middle term is twice
In Bramantip, the
is distridistributed.
buted
major term
in the premiss,and undistributed
in the conclusion.
The
termed
fundamental
are
remaining fifteen moods
syllogisms.
Aristotle held that only in the first
" 7. Reduction.
figureis the validityof our conclusion absolutelyevident.

Figs.2 and 3 he regards as valid, but as destitute of the


peculiarevidential quality,which marks Fig. i. That
perfect
alone is the perfect(re'Aeio?)
syllogism.The others are imis only manifest,
(areXels).Their conclusiveness
after the conversion

when
the

of

one

syllogismis rearrangedin

mood

some

of the

other

or

premisses,

of the first figure.

by the Scholastics,and
be defined as the process
by which a syllogism in
may
of the imperfect figuresis expressed as a syllogism
one
of the first figure.

This

process

The
the

was

called Reduction

of the

names

Mnemonic

lines,

"

ingeniousplan,so as
to which
figure,
they are
necessary

It will be

of the

four

to

observed

consonants

to

indicate the

to

to be

that

composing

the

the

of the

or

body

on

first

tions
opera-

begins with
These

F.

mood

in

result.

in

Celarent, Darii
the

given

constructed

moods

name

every

letters,B, C, D,
Barbara,

they are

reduced, and what

achieve

signifyrespectivelythat
reduced

as

Barbara, etc./' are

an

are

moods

various

of the

initial ietters

question is
or

one

Ferio.

word, the

to

Of

be
the

letters

THE

S, p,

m,

CATEGORICAL

SYLLOGISM

employed

are

to obtain

to

tell

syllogism in

that
simpliciter]
signifies

the

by the preceding vowel must


that
(= per accidens)signifies

converted

183

changes

of these

one

(=

be

what

us

must

(I)
are

four moods

quired
re:
"

premiss indicated
converted
simply.
preceding premiss

be
the

per accidens.

(= muta),that the premissesare to be transposed.


tion
( per contradictor iam propositionem)that the reducis to be indirect or per impossibile.
=

These

four
but

in each

therefore,

were,

denote

case

selected

not

Latin

the

trarily,
arbiof the

name

employed.

process
One
these

letters

We

methods.

second

will illustrate

examples

two

or

the

application of

give first a syllogismin

figure:
Englishmen

Cesare

of the

"

No
All

Hottentots

The

letter

negroes.

Englishmen.

are

in Cesare

converted

be

must

negroes.

are

Hottentots

.;. No

are

tells

simply,

the

syllogismwill be in the mood


be symbolized
process
may
the

the

that

us

initial C
Celarent

major premiss
indicatingthat
of Fig. i.
The

"

The
No

negroes

All

Hottentots

.-.

The
to

S~TP

are

are

is not

Disamis, but,
to

it

Englishmen.

are

All

as

the

is in Disamis.

actual
final

by simple

murderers

Some

Here

the

murderers

Some

the

negroes.

the

unsafe

companions.

men.

unsafe

companions.
symbolic representation becomes,

men

are

we

have

transpose the order

conversion.

are
are

to

Here

resultingconclusion
of the syllogismin
conclusion
indicates,is shewn to be equivalent

premisses. Moreover,

Fig. i

major premiss gives us,


Englishmen.

major premiss, and

the

followingexample

convert

/.

Hottentots

of the two
in

of the

conversion

No

PRINCIPLES

84

M
S
The

murderers

Some

Some

.*.

i M
P

i S

conversion

By
the

Darii will therefore be,

men.

companions
companions

unsafe

murderers.

are
are

this conclusion

conclusion

i P

are

unsafe

LOGIC

P^^M
S^-P

syllogismas expressedin

All

to

OF

men.

is shewn

to be

equivalent

Disamis

of the

syllogism.
This process, which
givesus a syllogismin the first figure
preciselyequivalentto the originalsyllogism,is termed
Direct

Ostensive Reduction.

or

There

are,

however,

two

moods, Baroco

(Fig.2) and Bocardo


(Fig.3),to which it
be applied. In these
cannot
moods, another
method,
that of Indirect Reduction, is employed. This consists in
admittingby way of hypothesisthat the conclusion of the
mood
be false,and
in showing by a syllogismin
may
that this suppositioninvolves the falsity
of one
Barbara
ever,
of the original
premisses. The originalpremisses,howto be true.
Hence
ex
are
we
are
hypothesiknown
forced

admit

to

Baroco

valid.

are

in

the

Thus,

conclusions
take

may

we

in

the

Bocardo

and

following
syllogism

Baroco,

All whales
Some

are

mammals

Some

.-.

that

aquatic animals.
not
are
aquatic animals.

mammals

are

conclusion

If the

true, i.e. we

is false, its
admit

must

whales.

not

that

'

be

contradictorymust

All mammals

are

whales.'

syllogismin Barbara, using as our premisses


of the original
this proposition,
and that one
premisses
which
is a universal affirmative.
This gives us,
All whales
are
aquatic animals.

We

form

now

All

mammals

are

All mammals

whales.

aquatic animals.
This conclusion
is, however, the contradictoryof the
not
mals,'
are
originalpremiss, Some mammals
aquatic ani/.

are

'

and

is therefore

false.

reasoning,for that is in
therefore be
premisses must
in the

But

the

the first

false.

error

does

lie

not

figure. One of
The
premiss

'

the

All

CATEGORICAL

THE

SYLLOGISM

'

aquatic animals
premiss All mammals

(I)

185

is,however,

given as true.
whales
is consequently
The
are
the erroneous
one
; and since it is false,its contradictory,
conclusion
of the Baroco
the original
syllogism,is true.
of indirect Reduction
be applied to
This method
may
whales

are

'

'

mood, in lieu of the ostensive

any

syllogismin Felapton,M

be

false,S
Barbara

syllogismin
with

is true.

We

the

conclusion

form

now

may

P.

But

and

the

If

P.

originalpremiss M e P,
follows that the suppositionS

It

S.

S
S

take,

us

eP

M
e.g.,

Let

process.

is inconsistent

is therefore
P

is

false.

false,and

that

is true.

Indirect

Reduction
for

Aristotle

however,

dealing
make

we

mosk, indicate

only method

with

Baroco

of

use

ostensively.The

is the

Bocardo.

Obversion, they may


words

mnemonic

the

employed by

and

and

operations for

necessary

treated

be

Faksoko

If,
Doksa-

the

direct

of

to Ferio
syllogismsin Baroco and Bocardo
the ob verand Darii respectively.The letter k signifies
sion
of the
combination
ks
preceding premiss. The
that the premiss must
be first obverted, and then
signifies
The
converted.
as
an
following syllogism will serve

reduction

illustration
Some

"

ministers

straightforward.
All ministers
are
privy-councillors.
not
Some
are
privy-councillors
straightforward.

/.

This

will become

All

ministers

Some

men,

Some

men,

not

are

"

privy-councillors.
not straightforward
ministers.
are
are
not
are
straightforwardare privy-

are

who
who

councillors.
*

Further

(An.

Prior

employment of
7, " 4) how

I., c.
to

that

he

should

Barbara
think

and
that

Reduction.
Darii

and

Celarent.
these

moods

Aristotle
Ferio
It may

may

also
be

appear

shews
reduced

us
spectively
re-

remarkable

gain anything by

reduc-

186

PRINCIPLES

he

tion, since
'

'

perfect

if

what

he

In

moods

and

the

that

the

the

be

to

have

longer

his

middle-term

universal

the

In

concepts.

in the

what

Aristotle's

in

of

process
The

method

of

cumbrous.
it in
be

moods

the

case

reduction

resort

become

can

this

reason

attain

not

standard

absolute

Aristotle

method

is

IfSiP

S,

of

one

is the

last

of

the

ferential
in-

intellect.

Darii.

to

employing

the

simpler
of

converted

view

we

lar
particu-

is

particular propositions always depend


sensible
on
experience.1 Only a universal
judgment
the object of an
intellectual
intuition.
For
entirely
a
one
syllogism in which
premiss is particular does
to

the

contains

minor

and

process.

particular
The

us

logical part

as

either

major-term
it.

seen,

give

inferential

related

are

be

alone

moods

the

among
will

reason

absolutely typical

and

three

being

as

universal

two

the

subject

But

syllogism.

the
logical whole, while
excludes
or
absolutely

middle
no

of

holds

them

them

explicitly recognizes

remember

we

LOGIC

OF

and

the

be

here

employs, is
possible. We
may
false, 5

ob verted

form

original premisses

illustrate
This

is true.

Pa's.

to

somewhat

may

We

may

the

syllogism

by

now,

in

PaS
Barbara

which

to

gives the

conclusion

or

S,

MaS

equivalent
5

Ferio

M.

as

which

render

arrive

at

that

Fig.

is the

2,

once

argument
a

student

is

an

syllogism
An.

reXeura.
the
2

in

he

not

are

of

Barbara

will

find

the
that

Law

pains
each

negatives

to

or
"

or

to

affirmative
how

great

clusion,
con-

portance
im-

an

we

at

see

figures. Every

type

of

whether
what

analyse
step

as

important still,

other

special case

may

quantitative

character,

of all the

in

at

this

we

and

More

consider

we

means

universal

the

figure excel

characteristics

limited

Fig. $.2

in

way.

of

under

case

subject

our

If

not.
a

short

advance

the

position
prois

mood.
KaffoXov
f'-^v
vo'irfi,i] 5e /card /*epos
proposition is the object of intellectual
in sense-perception."

Post. I., c. 24, " 15,


"
The
universal

particular

ends

An.

I., c. 5, "

Prior

qualitative

Physics, Ethics,

Euclid,
this

the

that

be

first

its

argument

will, for instance,

the

(i) By

obtain

bring

we

does

them,

When

which

original premiss

precisely similar

has

the

other

conclusions

in

of

two

can

utility exceeds

of

we

to

Mathematics,

be

it

its

general rule,

It

all

Barbara.

attaches
that

in

by

in

viz.

to

in

only

possible. We
particulars as

are

fact, that

with

Not

superior

to

nor

dealt

inference.

conclusions

varieties
in

of

it

contradictory

of Pig. 1.

mode

be

may

" 8. Superiority
others

the

M,

15.

v)

cts

alaQ"]"ri.v
intuition

CHAPTER

CATEGORICAL

THE

"

last

the
the
is

Canon

i.

of

section

only

evident.

absolutely

the
a

de

Omni

stated
of

of

the

of

part
of

passage

ultimate

the

as

It

be

must

of

subject

The

which
as

is thus

principle

de

Pars

/., Lib.

from
I.

each

l^yS^

77

Q.

7.

I.,

Aa/3eti"rCjv

TOV
'

fjir)8cvbsuxrairrws.
'

'

when
not

The

there

is

definition
Some

valuable

c.

say
of

one

and

major

recent
de
note

in

An.

the

Mr.

Kad'

parts

et

in

of

As

the

Nullo.

Joseph's

of

it is

TO

ddrepov

the

Scotus

of

universal

says

slightly

Sup.

/cat

All

Lib.
are

the

gives

TO

Kara

is

attribute
of

None."

which
the

us

OTO.V

subject,

predicated

proposition,

(I.e.),it

(Logica

but

represents,

of

which

it is

quidquid

Karriyopelffdac

predicated

subject,

the

it

Xex^crercu

ou

in which

case,

9.

Scotus,

as

dicitur

differ

which

is

taken

subjecto

stated,

TT"VTOS

Kara

is

tali

lect.

Aristotle,

o5

of

/.,

be

may

continetur

sub

the

would

universaliter

subjecto

contento

attribute

the

significance

tali

8"

who

Quidqvid

Post.

Keyopev

an

give

made,

This

Thomas,

St.

in which

of

words

that

have

writers

omni

Thomas

premiss.

Omni

sub

de

forms

similarly
the

quod

various

" 8.

I,

theory

not

is

individuals.

school.

et

vTroKeifj.evov,

(quid nominis)

Dictum

onini

actual

We

explains

passage

the

the

no

predicated

St.

The

Prior

An.

in

Cf.

other.

Priorum,

found

The

x).

c.

3,

de

subjecto, negatur

aliquo

principle,

denial

or

of

John

Thomistic

the

subjecto, dicitur

aliquo

negatur

by

of

this

in

affirmation

given

of

on

his

does

it

every

based

is

of

that

collection

of

reasoning.1

noticed

the

fairly representative
de

of

universally

represents

expression

canon

carefully

regarded

not

accurately

his

though

Dictum

The

thus

be

may

(or denied)

affirmed

and

Dictum

fundamental

(or denied)

subject.

Aristotle,

inference,

it

that

It

figure,

the

the

process.

affirmed

thereby

the

of

be

to

expressed

of

name

they held

is

followers

the

be

to

inference

the

reasoning

gave

reasoning
is

subject

logical

This

Whatever

any

of

they

et Nullo.

principle

the

figure

of

Scholastic

governs

which

to

canon

first

the

conclusiveness

His

which

principle,

in

the

held

in

stated

We

Reasoning.

Aristotle

which

(ll.).

SYLLOGISM

Syllogistic
that

in

one

XII.

stitutes
con-

Nominal

universal.

erroneously
On

the

Introduction
187

identified

Arist., Cat.,

meaning

true
to

Logic,

of
p.

that
275.

c.

3,

passage,

"

with
see

PRINCIPLES

88

reduce

inference

to

OF

barren

LOGIC

for if the

tautology:

subject

of individuals, no
regarded as a
of them
taken
is requiredto affirm the attribute
singly.
The generalpropositionhas already affirmed it of each.
of
Such
judgments as these, which are reallya matter
called
Enumerative
judgments.
counting heads, are
the universal
In the Dictum
subject is the species or
This
as
such, the logicalwhole.
clearly
appears
genus
Man
is
if we
state the propositionin the genericform,
The
salmon
has
vertebrate/
scales,' The
nightshade
for
is poisonous/ Our
reason
employing the prefix
All/ is to emphasize the distributive force of the subject,
that our
not
to show
knowledge is to be viewed as the
It is possible to attain
result of an
enumeration.
a
knowledge of the specieswithout
knowing each member
have
We
cannot
of the class.
experimental knowledge
of all salmon, or all plants of nightshade.
of all men,
or
infer from
There
is therefore
we
no
tautology, when
of its parts.1
the logicalwhole
to one
that
all reasoning in Fig i, is of this
It is manifest
bute
attritype : the major premiss affirms (or denies)some
of a universal
subject in its distributive
tion,
acceptahave
lungs.' The minor premiss
e.g. All mammals
collection

is

inference

'

'

'

'

that

states

of

universal

this

Dictum

The

is

principle of
of

attribute

part of
1

may

That

this

from

the

The

whole

the

we

immediate

understood
as

in

subordinate
affirms

and

we

then

violate

the

question.
from

deduction

Were

should

conclusion

individual

generic whole,

the Scholastics

seen

an

or

is

individual

some

Contradiction.

the predicate, not


be

or

subject.

of the class

attribute

and

class

some

to

assert

the
any

it of

some
deny
that primary law

terms
constitutingthe subject
extension, but as logicalwholes,

the universal

classes reckoned

followingpassage

from

in

Versorius

Parisiensis, a Scholastic

de Omni
When
dealing with the Dictum
Hispanus.
the two
et Nullo, he distinguishes as follows, between
expressions employed
by Aristotle (An. Prior I.,c. i, "8) of the universal proposition. Primo sciendici de omni
dum
est conditio praedicati in ordine ad subjectum
quod
sed
in toto
est conditio
esse
subjecti in ordine ad praedicatum, quia subPetrus
universali."
jectum est in praedicato sicut pars subjectivain toto suo
If the subject is a pars subjectiva of the
Hispanus (Venice, 1597), p. 217.
be viewed
as
a
logicalunity, and not as a collection,even
predicate it must
All.'
though it be qualifiedby the term
commentator

on

Petrus

"

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

PRINCIPLES

TOO

the

mind

LOGIC

OF

employ, it can
reasoning. We
hardly be
of
doubted, Figs. 2 and 3 as independent instruments
have
such
premisses as,
thought. Where
e.g. we
All heliotrope is sweet-smelling.
flower is not
This
sweet-smelling,
the negative premiss : we
need
convert
not
we
nize
recogin

that

conclusion

other

any
'

involve

heliotrope would
process by which
is not
That

is

only

found

in such

when

relation

This

the

to

each

the

of

the

conclusion
the

concepts

mind.

which

gether
to-

intellectual act, stand

other,

of the terms

is not

But.

in the

process

three

objectof

flower

contradiction.

inferential

the

constitute

'

premisses result

the

connatural

the

than

themselves

as

give

to

of the conclusion.1

relation
logical
recent
It is asserted by many
logiciansthat Aristotle
in holding the first figureto be the only
in error
was
the inferential process is absolutelyevident.
in which
one
are
given for the other figures:
Independent canons
the

us

whole

the

and

of

Reduction

The

useless.

followingcanons
suggested.

been

have

process

are

is declared
those

among

be

to

which

"

If a certain attribute can


Fig. 2. Dictum de diverso.
be predicatedaffirmatively
or
negativelyof every member
it cannot
be so predicated,
of a class,any subjectof which
of that class" (Mansel,Aldrich, p. 84).
member
is not
a
If a certain attribute
de excmplo.
Fig, 3. (I)Dictum
of a class,
be affirmed of any portionof the members
can
of that class
it is not incompatiblewith the attributes
(ibid.)
If a certain
de excepto.
attribute can
(II)Dictum
of a class, it
of any
be denied
portion of the members
"

"

"

No

argument

syllogisms in the

can

third

be

drawn

against the doctrine

figure,in which

the middle

term

of Reduction
is

those

from

singular term

"

the

syllogismus expositorius,e.g. Socrates


men

are

This

poor.

is not

an

is poor,
Socrates
is wise.'. Some
wise
inferential process
at all, but an
perience
appeal to ex-

The
mind
does not pass to a new
truth it did
particular case.
est vere
not possess.
Syllogismus expositorius non
syllogismus, sed magis
ad hoc
sensibilis demonstratio, seu
resolutio facta ad sensum,
quod consein
intellectualem
est secundum
quentia quae vera
cognitionem, declaretur
sensibili."
St. Thomas, Opusc. 43, De Natura
Syllogism*. It is in that manner
that it is employed by Aristotle in the proof of Fig. 3.
in

"

'

'

'

THE

SYLLOGISM

CATEGORICAL

(II)

197

the
distinctive attributes
inseparablefrom
that class
(ibid.)
has been
found
in
Considerable
difficulty
Fig. 4.
shall serve
which
as
canon
a
any principle,
Dictum
de
this figure. Lambert's
reciprocoruns
is

of

not

"

"

follows

If

this

is not

or

is

no

B,

Those

that

Bs

which

as

if C

:
are

or

reject Aristotle's doctrine, regard


a
totallydifferent point of view, and

who

syllogismfrom
most

of

be

to

appear

cases

theory
of

is
are

class

another

foreignto

in

taken

about

the

extension.

The

idea

that of the
any save
absolutely self-evident.

rejectsthe
merely amounts

Mill

'

whatever

'

those

the

"

is

this

which

is sufficient

bers
mem-

of the

2,

attributes.

questioned
to be

claim

ground that
propositionthat
the

on

of each
is true
objects,
" 2). He prefersthe canon

conceptual order

of

not

we

are

with

marks, but

principleis

The

be

to

are

be

figurecan

identical

say that in the


with
thingsand

to

canons

of that
of any
mark, is a mark
In regard to this it
mark
of."

mark

last is

concerned

and

"

certain

objects (II.,c.

Whatever

not

to

first

de omni

Dictum

of

is true

if the

character, it may

their

whether

it

just cited, the

canons

But

of extension.

logicalin
strictly

"

of his

nature

statement

mere

in

premissesas objectsof thought related one


as
quite
logicalwhole and logicalpart, was
It is easy enough to draw
them.
up canons

basis

the

on

the

the

to

the

of the

terms
to

"

ignorant as
In

inference.1

is a
generalproposition

'

are

or

for

C."

not

"

is this

B, there

that

or

no

covering
dis-

subjects
logicalprinciple

all.2

at
*

"

The

2.

Fourth

Figure.

The

Fourth

Figure

calls

for

Aristotelian theory of the syllogism fell into almost complete oblivion.


that it was
to note
explained and defended by the
interestinghowever
See Dugald Stewart's
eighteenth century Scottish writer Lord Monboddo.
Mind, vol. II., ch. 3, " I.
Philosophy of the Human
2
eadem
Many recent Scholastic writers give the principles:
Quae sunt
The

It is

'

uni tertio sunt

eadem

inter
inter

se

Si

ex

duobus

ilia duo identica

unum

cum

iertio identicum

est,

possunt.' But in the logical


order
the subject and predicate are not the same.
The
identity is in the real
the
To
the
not
need
a principle referwe
ring
conceptual.
order,
justify
syllogism
to thought not
things.

alterum

non

est, neque

se

esse

PRINCIPLES

192

treatment.

separate
of

inference.

of

B, B

It

the

which
mind

safely be

may

subordinate

A,

to

Fig.

with

is

on

the

and

the

with

conclusion

asked

A,

process

logical part
to
regard

as

never

simply

Fig.

is

in

part

(Braman-

first three

The

i.

this

in

moods

the

converted.

in
acts

that
of the

normal

conclusion

mind

Three

in fact

is

to

conclusion

invalid.
are

are

we

the

natural

no
'

subordinate

that

course,

is not

'

parity

tip, Camenes, Dimaris),


of

of

asserted

of

though,

way

in

of

working

corresponds to
premisses tell us that

logical part

conclusion

LOGIC

It

The

OF

two

moods

remaining

But
(Fesapo, Fresisori)are not of this character.
they
need
therefore
not
be relegated to a special figure. Aristotle
(An. Prior I.,c. 7) views them as cases of Fig. i, in which the minor
moods

W--

premiss

is

be

can

the

universal

the

i M

The

more

merely

of the

is subordinate
the

four

different

to

that

Galen

till the
was

clusion
con-

but

the

in

major,

them
the

on

The

the

of
was

decadence

of

five

i, but

of

them

this

method

in

reckons

by

is

question

them

Fig.

1.1

as

did

in

mediaeval

the

apart

Scholasticism,

i,

conclusion,

moods

Moods

'

Fig.

valid

followed

rank

But

in

but

the

Fig.

first to

recognizes the

an

is

pendent
inde-

become

not

when

It

excessive

paid to the mechanical


arrangement of terms and
neglected.2
were
philosophic considerations

connexion

other

mnemonic

abnormal

Indirect

reasoning.

conception of
if they be
best understood,
mental
organization of our
lines (Ch. 9, " 3). In Fig.
and

discipleTheophrastus,

conclusion

adds

This

Aristotle's

establish

of the

system

was

of

premisses, and

we

his

by

normal

moods

termed

mode

attention

S.'

This

class.

prevalent

also

Aristotelian

logicians, who
stated

made

satisfactory. He

appear,

to P,' but

subordinate

to

premisses be converted
will be predicated of

term

arrangement

would

not
possibility,

Here, he says,

S.

it

was,

'

minor

'

"

eS.

viz. P
.-.

if the

obtained,

conclusion
M

negative,

either
lines

as

the

figuresof

considered

the

syllogism is perhaps
applicationto the
along the predicamental

in their

knowledge
i, employing

between

property

of the

given by

Petrus

species

on

genus

Hispanus

middle

as

genus

the
or

follow

one

some

this

term

hand,
higher
ment
arrange-

:
"

p.

"

Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferio.


Baralipet
Deinde
Celantes, Dabitis, Fapesmo, Frisesmo.
Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco.
Darapti.
Felapton, Disamis, Datisi, Bocardo, Ferison
(Petrus Hisp., Venice, 1597,
249).
8
On
Fig. 4, vide Joseph, Introduction to Logic, pp. 301-305.
Ueberweg,
103.

THE

which

under

genus

Fig. 3

if the

only give

the

negative

the

same

holds

Form.
Expression in Syllogistic
valuable

of

some

books

which

Whenever

in

from

student

into

will

syllogistic
with

meet

may

in

ordinaryconversation.
general principleto

falls

which

particular case

the

reads, and

conclude

we

genera,
relation

last

The

throw

to

reasonings he

he

genus

two

This

lation
re-

particularconclusion.

exercise

the

between

both.

to

3.
it

193

shew

we

which

subordinate

(II)

fall under

not

course,

form

Fig.

do

relation

species is

same

find

the

the

shew

we

in

which

of

can,

"

it falls

species

between
in

SYLLOGISM

CATEGORICAL

under

is

that

principle,
syllogismmay

the

syllogistic,
though
be expressed in full. An
not
argument stated with its
full paraphernalia of major, minor, and
conclusion may
be compared to a specimen beetle set out for exhibition.
When
at largeand
to display
alive,it is not accustomed
argument

its members

in
do

Nor

premisses,and

the conclusion

not
or

the

state

for himself.

judgment,
examples will

as

two

'This

but

whose
This

may

No

to

to

written

omit

may

the

hearer

Or
to

member,

one

rhetorical

failure.

to

No

lack

One

ceeds
enterprise sucprudence.'

and

foresight
syllogism,
promoters lack foresightand

enterprise,whose

one

supply it.

put

we

word,

"

promoters
expressed by the

be

We

leave

Or

is doomed

undertaking

or

logist.
entomo-

question.
illustrate the point:

as

serve

for the

spoken

every

may

draw

in the

step of our argument.


hearers
premisses,leaving our

express
of the
we

either

we,

convenient

so

manner

prudence,

is successful.
This

undertaking is

an

whose
enterprise,

promoters

lack

sight
fore-

and

prudence.
undertaking will not

This

/.

The

following example
'

There

is

real

reason

judgments,
of

based

men

correction
The

since
on

which

is

complex :
common-sense
distrustingmany
the
are
general opinion
largely

for

mature

will

are

to

more

"

sense-perception,

mere

expression
syllogistic
general opinions,based

successful.

little

these

All

etc., etc.,

be

on

be

reflection
be
mere

without

the

affords.'

:
"

sense-perception and

distrusted.
O

out,
with-

Many

mere

Many

The

LOGIC

judgments are general opinions, based


sense-perception,etc., etc.

common-sense
on

.-.

is

OF

PRINCIPLES

194

common

judgments

sense

which

example provides a case in


question
expressed as a rhetorical
next

'

Can

any

That

his

was

will

This

general, whose

become

No

general

He

was

He

.".

of the

one

members

"

disheartened, attain victory?

lay

the

of his failure/

cause

"

is disheartened

army
whose

disheartened.

was

army

is victorious.

victorious.

not

was

there

distrusted.

whose

general

army

; and

case

is

be

to

are

" 4. Progressive and Regressive Syllogisms.


Progressive Syllogisms are those in which we reason
to its effect. Regressive Syllogisms are
from
cause
a
those

in which

Thus

I may

tube

of

we

from

argue

barometer,

from

reason

the

ascent

effect to the

of the

conclusion

the

to

the

Or I
subject to atmospheric pressure.
a
previous knowledge of the existence
to

pressure,

The

result.

the

in

ascends

The

.*.

may

mercury

the

of

atmospheric

as

necessary

the

form

"

given circumstances)
be subject to
tube, must

pressure.
a

barometer

is a

liquidwhich

circumstances

stated.

of

is subjectto

mercury

from

argue

the

exhausted

of

mercury

under

(under

an

atmospheric
The

the

in the
mercury
be
that it must

Regressivesyllogismwill take

liquid, which

of

ascent

cause.

barometer

ascends

atmospheric

pressure.

Progressivesyllogism will proceed

A
way

in

the

converse

"

atmosphericpressure will (under


given circumstances)ascend in the tube.
is subjectedto atmospheric
of the barometer
The mercury

What

is subjectedto

pressure.
/.

The

mercury

barometer

of the

will ascend

in the

tube.

In

Progressivesyllogismsit

expresses

The
be

the

cause

either the

is the

middle

term

which

cause.

from

which

immediate

we
or

conclude
the

remoter

to

the
cause.

effect

may

Thus, if

I argue
is

with

'

class

narrower

'

class

When

it in

reach

animal

an

place, that

It

way.
of

cause

is when

that

cause,

ourselves

when

we

know

we

thing,the

regard

we

the

of his sensation.

cause

other

any

precise immediate
takes

being

the

belongs to
belongs to

of

knowledge

our

he

he

is endowed

thing through its immediate


than
it is of a highercharacter

know

we

he

because

195

because

He

cause.

It is in his

animal.'

(II)

sensation

because

but

man,'

immediate

find the

we

remoter

capacityto feel, not

the

wider

from

I argue

capable of

is

Socrates

that

man,

SYLLOGISM

CATEGORICAL

THE

the

why it
standing
fully under-

reason
as

it.

rise in

must

the

which

syllogismin

In the

the

But

four

of the

of

presence

efficient

the

on

(Ch. 10, " 2) may be


employed in a Progressiveargument (An. Post. II.,c. n).1
The
to afford us
inference
an
syllogismis thus seen
based on our knowledge of law. It is our knowledge of a law
cause.

enables

which

'

All

St.

/.

causes

to infer either

us

from

was

of

made

the

truth

to

Jew,'

which

on

name

the

reasoning.
another.
the

for those

have

is

major
For

enumeration,

they asserted

those
there

who
is

knew

They
major.2

consider

Syllogisms in which
which

taken

view

or

the

middle

term

the
the

right to

passage

the

is the

no

know

themselves

no

certain

by

who

based,

" 5. Validity of the Syllogism. It

cause,

effect.

Paul

grounds

to

effect to

syllogismin which the major premiss


enumerative
mere
other
judgment, is an inference of anand
far inferior kind.
Arguments such as, e.g.
the apostleswere
an
Jews ; St. Paul was
apostle;
to

cause

is

each

the

based

reasoningwas

our

that the mercury

of

because

barometer

atmosphere,

argued

we

have

from

one

before

conclusion

is necessary

for

us

logicians,
belonging
immediate

cause

of the

bute
attri-

major, are
styled by Aristotle Syllogisms of the
Cause
("rv\\oyiff(j.ol
rov
5i6n). All others are classed as Syllogisms of the
Fact
TOV
It is Syllogisms of the
("rv\\oyiff/j.oi
8n). Cf. An. Post. I.,c. 13.
which
he regards as the true syllogisms of science : in them
Cause
alone
our
mental
expression of things is in harmonious
with the order
correspondence
of

constitutes

the

Nature.
2

On

the

two

kinds

of universal, see

Summa

Totius

Logicae, Tract

9,

c.

2.

PRINCIPLES

ip6
to the
as

Empiricistschool, to

method

OF

of

effect that

the

syllogism

inference,is formallyinvalid.

conspicuous recent

logicianwho

In

is Mill.
which

the

LOGIC

he

this section

has

most

this

tion
posi-

adopted

shall

we

The

the

notice

tions
objec-

the
syllogism,and
of the mind's
account
in reasoning which
he
process
regardsas presentinga more
satisfactory
analysis.
He
that the major premiss, if literally
preted,
interargues
is a manifest
begging of the question. In it,
the

assert

we

against the

urges

very

fact, which

in

the

conclusion,

we

The
state it, contains
conclusion, as we
professto prove.
reassertion of what
: it is merely a
nothing new
have
In
we
already affirmed in the major.
every
syllogism,considered as an argument to prove the conelusion, there is a petitioprincipii.When
we
say,
"

'

'

'

All

men

is

'

of the

'

is

'

tion, All

'

mortal, Socrates is a

are

'

therefore Socrates

man,

mortal/ it is unanswerably urged by the

adversaries

syllogistic
theory,that the propositionSocrates
mortal, is presupposed by the more
general assumpmen

mortal

are

that

be

cannot

we

assured

of the

mortalityof all men, unless we are alreadyassured


of the mortality of every
individual man
(Logic,Bk.
II.,c. 3, " 2). It is clear, that if this be admitted, we
'

"

do

reach

not

from

the

Mill holds
in every

and

are

pass

to

deaths

be

found

person

Socrates

that

for

men,

in whose

we

need

not

do

so

We

and

John
the

case

not

grounds.

facts.

fairly tried, that the person


speaking is mortal like the rest. We
through the stage of assertingthat

mortal, but

mortal

conclusion,

our

of

is

other

some

in individual

of individual

other

every
been

has

conclusion

major premiss, but on


that the true grounds

case

the

from

the

are

argue

Thomas

experiment

of

whom

may
All

we

indeed
men

are

iota is added

one

the

proof by interpolatinga general proposition.


of fact,
Indeed, experienceassures
us, that as a matter
without
from
the
we
habituallydo reason
particulars,
interpolation of the general proposition. All our
to

"

'

earlest

who,

inferences

having

burnt

are

his

of this

The

nature.
.

fingers,avoids

to

thrust

child,
them

PRINCIPLES

198
is
a

is

is not

the

record

inference

tive

other

to

(forwe
judgments

the
'

'

ruminant

be

found

mentioned

number
that

that

deny

abstraction.

By

so

of

breathe
a

this

is

the

asserted

have

has to do, not


but

with

know
not

known

whales

infer it when

that
I

the

all mammals

imagine

facts.

breathe
But

in the

And

that

breathe
universal

major
so.

of

unaware

that whales

do

is

while,

us,

be

may

they are

of the

breathe
I made

as

inference

to

all mammals
whales

foundations

major premiss.

yet because

the facts

knowledge

our

that

with

the

the

or

intellectual

whole

learnt

not be aware
may
It is true
that

through lungs.
proposition,
assertingthat
lungs,covered the factthat

is to

Empiricist

of

away

fish,I

and

The

power

cut

that

through lungs, and

whale

we

e.g.

cow,

is realized.

say

I may

said,

often

When

of the

be
well
major premiss may
through ignorance of the minor, we

conclusion.

tion
collec-

that the attribute

mean

The

the

to

have

we

enumera-

individuals,past, present

doing they

have

we

the

abstract.
we

possess

to

as

nature

nature

we

erroneous

finished, when

the

the

with

" i) relates,not

ruminant/

belongs to

in any

Logic.
(2) It is

in

instances,but,

future,in whom
school

here concerned

not

universal

proposition
facts, together with an
particulars.The true universal proposition,

are

is

cow

the

individual

regarded in

nature

The

say,

that

case

of

of observed
to

three

to

"

mere

by

error

(1) It

of

LOGIC

Hence
discover our
manifestlyuntrue.
we
reductio ad impossibile.
Our
criticism on
this theory shall be confined

issues

'

OF

through
inference

real order,
if I do

not

through lungs,I certainlydid


the

assertion

that all mammals

breathe
know
may

even
through lungs. It may
happen that I
both the major and the minor
premiss, and yet
be ignorant of the conclusion.
For unless I think

of the

two
I

premisses together

may

"

never

reach

unless

the

conclusion

them.1
1

Cf. An.

Prior

//., c.

I make

ax,

" 9.

the

involved

thesis,
synin

(3) If
which

find that
from

another, because

to

case

one

attributes.

But

propositionapplicableto

each

these

on

attributes

such

is

mathematics
of

inferences

The
The

of

arithmetic

triangle ABC
triangle GHI
triangle GHI

The

/.

not

in

in which

logicians
in
reasoning employed
in point they allege
syllogistic.As cases
enough in
following character, common

the

and

geometry

universal

case

every

Several

Reasoning.

much

that

maintained

have

sion
conclu-

our

present.

are

Mathematical

6.

"

argue

base

involves

and

We

certain

we

this

shall

we

they possess

is to say,

That

attributes.

common

about

conclusion

resembles
them,
particular which
universal propositionis involved.
a

another

199

inference, by

the

of

nature

particularsto

from

pass

we

the

examine

we

(II)

SYLLOGISM

CATEGORICAL

THE

recent

the

"

is
is
is

equal
equal
equal

to

the

to

the

triangle DEF.
triangle DEF.

to

the

triangleABC.

and
+

12=7

12=20

5,

8,

"

7 + 5=20

.-.

8.

"

clearlynon-syllogistic.Our
do not
data
give us a subject-attributerelation, but a relation
two
between
quantities. The argument if carefullyinspected,
the
And
the
three.
four
has
not
principle on which
terms,
of the syllogism,but the axiom
reasoning is based, is not a canon
the
same
thing are equal to each
are
equal to
Things which
Here,

it is

argued,

the

is

process

'

other.'
We

believe

this

view

to

be

In

erroneous.

first

the

place

the

certainly give us a subject-attributerelation : for


this is inseparable from
predicate the attribute
judgment. We
GHI.
and
of the two
Secondly,
subjectsABC
equal to DEF
the axiom
it is impossible that
are
equal to the
Things which
It is
be a principle of inference.
same
thing, etc., etc.' should
truth
a
relating to the real order, not to the conceptual. It is
to the
inference, but it is not a canon
governing the
necessary

data

most

'

'

'

process
reference
to

find

our

predicated

is

its

parts.

our

data

as

it has
must

conceptual

of

to

show

this

in

how

the
The

canon.

evolved

order.

the

Here,

But
in

the

may
not
is

argument
mind

has

if this be

form

:
"

no

have

must
as

be
need

tells

us

we

that

predicatedof
so

to

arrange

justifiedby

its

need

of

more

plicit
ex-

elsewhere,

which

Dictum,

logical whole,
practice we do

of reduction.

be

inference

the

Doubtless,

with
than

the

of

canon

justificationin

ultimate

what

itself.

inferential

formity
con-

this

ment
required of us, the argu-

PRINCIPLES

200

Any

quantities, each

two

and

ABC

and

other

third

same

defenders

Syllogistic. Some

than

have

syllogism

the

to the

equal

other.

are

" 7. Inferences
of

is

GHI

each
.*.

of which

equal to each
two
are
quantities
(as being equal to DEF)
third
of which
is equal to the
same
quantity.
GHI
are
equal to each other.

quantity,
ABC

LOGIC

OF

far

so

gone

maintain

to

as

ence.
thing as non-syllogisticinfermate
They represent the syllogism as the only legitihold
that
whenever
the
of reasoning, and
form
of necessity proceed syllogisticmind
infers, it must
to
restrict the term
inference
ally. If we
signifythe
derivation
of a truth
it is
from
propositionsin which
In the syllogism,and
contained, this is true.
implicitly
in the syllogism alone, is the conclusion
tained
implicitlyconin given premisses. But
is frequently
inference
is

there

that

used

in

wider

conclusion

such

no

to

sense,

from

include
facts

concrete

a
judgment. When
jury
acquit or condemn
they may be rightlysaid to

been

find out

to

but
propositions,

or

of

Their

of what

the

this

mass

dence
of evi-

of

of

case

is

in

inference

to

than

are

patible
com-

be, with

simply
at

certain

in certain

the

critical

Newman

Cardinal

the difference

more

has not

concern

facts

may

involve.

familiar

burglary,

length

between

in

the

the two

St. Thomas,

and

is

once.1

Bradley, dealing with this question, gives the following


:
specimens of non-syllogistic inference
(i) A is to the right
of
therefore
A
is to the right of C :
C,
B, B is to the right
is due

St. Thomas

facts, they
See

critical

is involved

conclusion

facts

form

the

of the

implicitlycontained
these

of

Mr.

(2)A
1

their

that

But
of Assent.
forms
of reasoning was
carefullynoted, by him

as

infer. But

They decide
incompatible, as

Grammar

accused

what

discussed

has

man

find out

to

innocence.

estimate

by an act
weighing

after

facts.

concrete

man's

is

what

derivation

also the

Summa

are

north

of

holds

that

as

these

is due

of C, therefore

west

inferences

are

by the vis cogitativa,in


II. IIae.,Q. 2, Art. i.

effected

TheoL,

B, B

solelyconcerned
which

sense

and

with

is north-

particular

intellect

meet

of

west

the

It

seems

relies

It is

as

is situated

thing
*

what

the

to

of that

right

8. Mr.

Mr.

things which

the

prepared

us,
'

"

same

have

we

into

assertion

'

or
'

more

sist in

'

gether,

'

tion,

'

'

so

'

'

in

thus

by

is

It

of

this

'possibly be
The
from

view

'

in

as

'

"

'

known

invented"

useless

"

we

for

He

inference

differences
to

proceed
consists

depends

of
from

of

is,however,

common

content

universals

on

Hav.

proceed to
inspection we
is the

intuition

for

construction

either
can

at

in

with

real

content,

cess
pro-

Mr.

"

because
in

Mr.

respects

of the

Bradley
shared
identity
by
It is possible,"

one

exhibited

various

account

universal.
to

B,

operation
by

237-8).

"

datum

rules

down

we

we

this

models

in A

one

By

C,

"

to construct,

The

of

to-

construc-

Thus

C.

"

them

B, B

links.

one
"

are

whole

lay

to

points.

relation, and

(ibid.,pp.

construction.'
that

the

world

differences, and

He
denies
Bradley's respect for the theory of the syllogism is small.
major premiss is necessary in inference.
Begotten by an old metaphysical blunder, nourished
by a senseless choice of examples, fostered by
the stupid conservatism
of logicians,this chimaera
has had a good deal more
than its day."
The
syllogism itself like the major premiss is a superstition."
in
than three terms
Perhaps we may
who
more
cannot
use
say that a man
in any subject
reasoning, is unlikelyto do much
(Principles,pp. 228-9).

that

'

various
says,

'

'

"

he

If

taken

holding

the

"

by Mr. Bosanquet differs


Bradley's theory. He rejectsthe

Mr.
as

to

judgments

two

are

enlargement

No

process.

able

are

fasten

of

instead

connect

and

new

is the

same,

we

the

several, and

select

the
tells

axiom,' wherever

must

identity of common
premisses into one
mere
inspection.

our

conclusion.

part

We

terminal

the

...

'

of the

means

and

the

unites

Thus

we

some

regarding

term,

(ibid.,
p. 236).

and

to

"

be

to

extension

turned

discover

"

taken

Inference," he

of this

common

whole.

cease

same,

the

conclusion

our

into

whole.

"

same

so

the

identityof

is the

others, by

ing

"

have

C, B

"

'

'

"

they

the

to pass
to
permits the mind
The
two
are
premisses
data
these
will
on
conoperation

and

and

individual

one

'"consists

'

that

must

we
1

new

the

to

have

will

seems

virtue

relation.

judgments,
joining them

have

must

whole,

of

object,

view

theory

what

construction,' which

individual

an

the

ideal

an

his

inference.

the

on

'

effect

for

of

question
principle that
(Principles,
p. 264). In
two
premisses with a

rests

principle.
an

itself to

The

Inference.

(Ch. 8, " 5)

reader

closely connected
"

of

other.

Universals

to

as

first

equal

are

in

as

section, the

right
entity, is

third

last

be

to

cases,

the

locallyto

of

right

in these

in the

201

him

believe

we

self-evident

but

Bradley 's theory of

Bradley

extent

is

that

entity, as
equal to each

are

"

by

that

(II)

that

considered

unexpressed,

an

on

these,

to

indubitable,

inferences

self-evident

which

regard

be

to

mathematical

mind

In

C, etc., etc.

mistaken.

SYLLOGISM

CATEGORICAL

THE

"

"

"

PRINCIPLES

202

'

the

'

shut

'

from

contents

vading

their

identical

inference

through

Socrates

good

both

(ibid.

As

we

be

can

is

term

is

identity,

is

The
there
note.

reader

from

was

in

any

order

the

abstractive

an

which

that

Greek

to

to

us

be

since
be

may

enables

with

objects
a

that
in

these

basis

the

intellect,

for

Scholastic

syllogismi

we

them

us

which

to

vading
perceptual
con-

cal.
identi-

not

represent

concept
all

the

and

similar,
of

and

by
real

the

are

which

things

united

of

power

reminded

process

that
are

things

the

universal

provides

need

view

varieties

regard

inferential

this

confusion

the

real

This

not

therefore

universal

same

individual

thus

will

out,

on

of

concept.

and

pointed
the

the

virtue

valid

Greek,

based

In

in

in

argue

the
of

example

we

per-

are

syllogism

when

as

name,

the

in

they

simplest

finds

he

on

under

common

applied,

190,

and

brought

prescind

good

already

statements

that

proper

have

But

200).

p.

order.

can

universal

The

which

not

are

depend

of

universal,

2).

p.

proceed,

we

but

selves,

or

II.,

LOGIC

which

to

respective

(Logic,

middle

and

character

'differences"

the

which

within

up

OF

it

to

by
make
be

may

inference.

authors

expositorii:

denied
see

p.

CHAPTER

HYPOTHETICAL

"
which

both

propositions,
both

as

than

is

as

the

denying

formulas

the

the

is

denied.
Ex.

If

i.

Ex.

2.

the

is

is

B,

is

B.

.-.

is

D.

If

is

B,

is

not

D.

is

not

B.

of

the

/.

affirmation

The

it

the

modus

tollens

respectively,
of

the
To

syllogism,
posit

sublate

to

It
1

these

is

Posito

antccedens.

more

the

two

These

are

which

consequent
convenient

antecedente

ponitur

2,

the

is

B,

is

B.

is

D.

is

B,

is

not

is

not

being
is

thus
is

is
to

to
to

posit

the

D.

is

D.

D.
B.
denial

of

mixed

modus
and

syllogism),

syllogism)
the

canon

"

the

sublate

is

the

from

stated

Ex.

in

the

as

derived

employ

consequens

of

hypothetical

destructive

consequent

the

known

hypothetical

names

following

The

moods

antecedent

the

and

antecedent,

antecedent

the

the

(or the

If

or

/.

constructive

the

If

or

D.

is

it

hypothetical syllogism.
(or

Ex.

.'.

constitute

consequent

ponens

D.

premiss

minor

reasoning

the

in

premiss

major

major.

of

character
is affirmed

antecedent

i,

the

the

of

consequent

show

the

affirming

either

The

Syllogism.

Hypothetical
and

portance
im-

less

far

of

is

is

syllogism

the

This

If

syllogisms.

character,

proposition,

hypothetical

are

syllogism, in which

proposition

categorical
or

Mixed

hypothetical

this

Hypothetical.

the

is defined

latter

premisses
hypothetical

of

are

Pure

the

termed

are

premisses

known

of

in

Syllogisms,

Syllogisms.

Hypothetical
or

one

SYLLOGISMS.

DISJUNCTIVE

AND

Mixed

i.

XIII.

consequent

the

antecedent.

terms

sublato

'

posit

consequente

and

;
*

'

and

tollitur

PRINCIPLES

204

'

OF

LOGIC

'

sublate,'in this connexion, than

For

antecedent

the

contain

may

'

affirm

deny.
in this

and

negative;

'

and

propositionpositingit,will also be of negative


tions,
quality. To speak of negative propositionsas affirmathe

case

could

the

by
If

only

is

patient much
/.

He

is not

He

will

Here

skilful,he

not

this

be

to

denied, the

patient much

antecedent
observed

that

will

conclusion

by
be

contrary, of the antecedent

the

will

this

cause

pain.

cause

It is further
is

is illustrated

feature

skilful.

posit the

we

This

followingsyllogism,

doctor

the

confusion.

cause

pain.
negativesentence.

when
the

the

consequent
not
contradictory,

it denies.

Thus

in the

syllogism,
If all

men

of

sanction
The

by the highestmotives,
punishment would be unnecessary.
of

sanction

that
only conclude
It
highestmotives.'

can

the

by

that

none

There
liable.

are

fact

it may

well be
to

the

that

the

other

some

will not

to
Similarly,
no
ground

We

for

the

denied,

consequent
take

we

for

place,but

I cannot

argue thus :
he will fail to hit the bull's-

hit

the

bull's-eye.

the

truth

of the

concluding to

the

consequent affords
truth

of

the

cedent.
ante-

for instance, argue

possesses

real

merit,
literary

read.

widely read.
possesses real literarymerit.

It will be

be

can

damaged.

cannot,

widely
/. It

actuated

these

result may

same

cause.

fail to

assert

If the novel

falsityof

damaged,

eye.
His rifle is not

us

not

fallacious to argue

antecedent

the

to

If his rifleis

/.

are

be

would

fallacies to which

that

conclude

He

men

syllogismsare
These
cedent,
are
(i) the fallacyof denying the anteand
(2) the fallacyof affirmingthe consequent.

cannot

owing

Some

unnecessary

actuated.

so

two

are

the

From

is not

punishment
'

we

the

actuated

were

it will be

PRINCIPLES

206

Syllogism,as has already been


hypothetical. The argument

all the

observed,
is of

the

form

is D,

If A

is B,

is D.

If A

is B,

is F.

If

.'.

LOGIC

OF

propositionsare

"

is F.

the

gards
no
hypothetical proposition admits
variety as rebut
is
both
affirmative
or
quality,
quantity
necessarily
form
and
no
more.
singular,this syllogism has but one

Since

and

"

Reduction

2.

of

modus

syllogisms,the

these

reduced

be

consequent for

the

for the

antecedent

substitute

to

the

antecedent, and

negation of
negation of

the

Modus

Modus
If A

be

expressed If

.-.

is B.

is D.

It

will

.-.

be

that

seen

second
'

conclusion

the

tollens,since

the

the
the

form
is

tollens

D, A

is not
not

versa.

Thus,

consequent.

ponens
is B, C is Dt may

In
culty
diffi-

without
ponens may
modus
tollens,and vice

the

required is

is

All that

to

Syllogisms.

Hypothetical

B.

is B.

is D.

is

Z)/

Modus

true

is

contradicts

the

of the

major premiss.
to categorical
Reduction
said
form. It is sometimes
be reduced
to categorical
that all these syllogismscan
form.
In regard to this point, the essential difference
antecedent

the

between

classes

two

of

proposition

must

be

borne

The

cepts
categoricalpropositiongives us two conrelated as
subject and attribute : the hypothetical
propositiongives us two judgments related not as
tion,
as
a
thing and its determinasubject and attribute
and
but
as
reason
safely
consequent. It may

in mind.

"

be

said that

to

do

in

the

to

express

violence

The

to

in terms

our

opium habit

facultyis

one

thought.
followingexample.

If the

/.

the

whole

is

of the

This

appears

innocuous, the whole

other, is

plainly
medical

deluded.
medical

facultyis

not

deluded.

opium habit is not innocuous.


cannot
syllogism of this character

The

naturally be

HYPOTHETICAL

as

sometimes

achieved,

of the

case

The

"

is

innocuous

being

faculty being deluded.

medical

of the whole

case

habit

opium

whole

of the

case

follows

as

207

result, it is true, is

categorical.The

expressed
The

SYLLOGISMS

DISJUNCTIVE

AND

medical

deluded

facultybeing

suppositionnot to be admitted.
of the opium habit
is a
.'. The
case
being innocuous
suppositionnot to be admitted.
But
it is lightlyurged that the altered major premiss
has no
meaning, unless it is translated back into its
hypothetical significance.The latter clause does not
The
mind
of the former.
attribute
an
really express
is

understand

must

the

whatever

called.

The

the

there

Hence,

employ.
so

be

clauses

two

and

reason

as

clumsy phraseology we
here

is

mental

reduction

no

the

remains

process

quent,
conse-

elect

to

properly
It

same.

the
only that have been changed. And
result of the change is thoroughly misleading,since it
which
induces
to regard as
are
identical, processes
us
fundamentally distinct.

words

is the

"

junctive
DisjunctiveSyllogism, (a) Import of the Dis-

3. The

Judgment. Before explaining the disjunctive


be said as to the import of the
syllogism,a word must
iently
disjunctivejudgment. This point could not be conventhe import of categoricals
treated in Ch. 7, where
have
and hypothetical was
discussed : for, as we
seen
(Ch. 10, " 5),one form of the disjunctiveexpresses the
relation

of the

consequence,
that

relation

genus

cannot

has

species,and

its constituent

to

understood

be
been

till the

explained.

The

nature

in
of

disjunctive

be termed
the
propositionis of two kinds. One may
In it the subject is a
Disjunctiveof Logical Division.
junctive
genericwhole, while the predicateis formed by the dis-

enumeration
form

of

the
The

of

judgment

kind
already.
of Ignorance. In this we
more) predicateswhich
other

subordinate

the

has
may

been
be

affirm
we

parts. This

discussed

termed
that

one

enumerate,

the
out

sufficiently
Disjunctive
of two
(or

belongs

to

the

PRINCIPLES

208

Our

subject.
the

that
do

we

knowledge
lies with

truth
know

not

OF

with

LOGIC

is sufficient
of

one
:

e.g.

assert

to

us

alternatives, but

these
'

which

for

This

is either

curve

'

ellipse/ He is either very thoughtfulor


stupid/ In disjunctivesof this class the subject
very
but a subordinate
is not the logicalwhole
part. It is
of the predicate to express
the whole, as
the function
in doubt
in the
to
but we
:
are
categoricalsentence
the subject should
which
be reof two
ferred.1
logicalwholes
a

circle

or

an

in a disjunctive
Logicianshave disputed as to whether
of the disjunctionare
mutually
judgment the members
In

exclusive.

Q,' do we intend
particular5 may
the

to

is

first class of

evident.

quite
each

from

other.

ignorance,it would
gives us no
must

be

very

be understood

to

exclude

be

both

we

is P

suppositionthat

the

at the

'

assert

time

same

In

or

some

regard

the mutual
exclusiveness
disjunctives,
The
be
distinguished
species must
in
the
But
regard to
disjunctivesof
the

that

seem

or

very

exclude

of the sition
propoHe
If I say

form

mere

the

point.
painstaking/ I
suppositionthat

on

assurance

clever
to

when

words,

other

the

'

can

the

hardly
person

Often
the members
however
question may be both.
formed
of the disjunctionare
by repugnant terms, e.g.
have
either bay or chestnut.'
Here we
horse was
The
exclusion : but it is not due to the disjunctive
mutual

in

'

form

as

such.

Syllogism.
(b)The Disjunctive

This

may

be

defined

as

syllogism in which the major premiss is a disjunctive


a
categorical proposition,
proposition, and the minor
of the opposition.
either affirmingor denying one member
a

It is to

be

noted

that

regard to the
proposition. It
Ignorance alone.
respectivelythe

in

The

form

Ignorance.

'Either

syllogismhas

first of the
is

concerned

with

argument

modus

ponendo

is JB,or

forms

two

The

The

tollendo ponens.

this

the

has

two

tollens

affirmation
C is D,' is also

in
a

the
case

application
of disjunctive
Disjunctive of
no

moods, called
and

the

minor
of the

modus

premiss

Disjunction of

SYLLOGISMS

DISJUNCTIVE

HYPOTHETICAL

AND

of

alternatives,gives us

of the two

one

tollens

is either

is P.

is not

in which
be

the

conclude

is

always valid.

of the

both

tollendo

is either

is not

is

other.

The

"

ponens.

Q.

or

only valid in those cases,


to
disjunctionare known
it would

Dilemma

be

sible
impos-

alternative

one

tollendo

is

hypothetical and

the

P.

of
presence
The
modus

the

from

cases

Q.

Otherwise

Dilemma.

" 4. The
which

tollens is

of the

absence

the

illustrate these
Modus

exclusive.

to

in

tollendo

.-.

members

mutually
to

alternative, the modus

Q.

or

Q.
ponendo

modus

The

an

ponendo

tollens.

ponendo

Modus

of

the modus

followingformulas

The

ponens.

.'.

denial

the

209

ponens

argument

an

the

disjunctive

employed. It is defined as an argument


the major premiss is a compound hypothetical
in which
a
disjunctive.In actual
proposition,and the minor
the disjunctive
is often placed first. Its chief importuse
ance
judgment

are

arises from
The

its effectiveness

as

rhetorical weapon.
the
alternatives

disjunctiveapparently exhausts
the adversary ; and
the
to
hypothetical, which

open

follows,shows
unwelcome
this

rhetoricians.1

Hence
first

was

Where

the Trilemma

where

it is not

analysed

three

leads

of them

one

conclusion.

argument

have

each

that

and

alternatives

him

to

an

that
surprising
explained by

offered, we

are

four, the Tetralemma.

Like

other

hypotheticalsyllogismsit has a constructive and a


destructive form, accordingas the disjunctive
proposition
affirms
one

the

of

that
the

of the antecedents

one

consequents

Constructive

Simple

or

and

Complex.

consequents of the
In

the

manifest
no

Complex
that

in

question of

two

must

be

be

must

false.

the

Destructive

In

the

Moreover

Dilemma

both

Simple Constructive,the
hypotheticalclauses are identical.

they are different.


Constructive
Dilemma, there

the
1

See

be

may

Constructive
a

that

true, or

antecedents

Ueberweg, "

being

identical

123.
P

It
can
:

is
be
for

PRINCIPLES

zio

they

were

in

the

In

minor.

is the

the

LOGIC

be

not

asserted
disjunctively

destructive

form,

The

case.

; the

formulas

could

they

so,

OF

Simple Destructive
Complex Destructive has
their

show

varieties

Constructive.

(1) Simple

but

has

The

two.

cedent
ante-

one

following

is

Either

is F

B, E

is

D, E

is

and

if

is F.

B,

C is D.

or

is F.

(2) Complex Constructive.

opposite

"

If A

/.

the

If A

is F

B, E

is

and

if

C is Z), G is #.
Either

B, or C is D.
Either E is F, or G is #.
G
If ^4 is B, E is F, and

/.

Destructive.

(3)Simple

is

is #.

Either

Destructive.

(4) Complex

^4 is not
H

is

(i) We
notorious
to

prove
the

into

If

and

if

is

is H.

is not

F,

or

H.
^4

is

is not

B,

not

or

D.

structive
Simple Conin the
Dilemma
Empson, the
by which
argument
agent of Henry VII., is said to have always been able
that his victim
was
capable of paying a large amount
find

may

treasury
the

accused

made

him

is F

B, E

not

Either

is

B.

is Z), G

Either

/.

JP, or G

H.

not
.*.

is not

"

suitable

illustration

of

the

"

lives
very

at

rich

small

a
:

if, on

his

large household,

rate, his
the

savings

other

expenditure

hand,
proves

have

must

he maintains
him

to

be

wealthy.
But

he lives at

either

small

rate, or

he

maintains

heavily to

the

large

expenditure.
He
.*'.

is rich,

and

king.
piece of reasoning was known, as the reader will remember,
which
is a strikingparallelto the
as
Empson's fork,' a name,
as
being impaled on the horns
expression,which
speaks of a man
"

consequently

can

pay

This
'

"

of

dilemma.

alternative

The

argument

is selected, the

leaves

result

is

no

escape.

Whichever

equally disagreeable,

(2)

As

Tertullian's

take

may

Marcus

by

crimes,

committed

have

they are guiltyof crimes, your


enquiry is irrational ; if they have
it is

Unfortunately
neither
justice nor
of

offence,

unjust.

or

Nero

the

to

much

weighed

have

reason

public

no

day,

present

with

the

cutors
perse-

Church.

the

(3) The

of

time

the

from

not.

or

committed

irrational

is either

conduct

Your

"

them.

punish

to

unjust

permit

to

we

employed

Christians

the

refusal

If

/.

methods

the

of

persecution

his

Christians

the

Either

against

argument
in

Aurelius

211

Dilemma,

Constructive

Complex

of the

example

an

SYLLOGISMS

DISJUNCTIVE

AND

HYPOTHETICAL

following may

illustrate

to

serve

the

Simple

tive
Destruc-

"

If he would

Scylla
either

But

the

pass

and

straits

he

unharmed,

must

both

escape

Charybdis.

he

will

not

he

Scylla, or

escape

will not

escape

Charybdis.
the straits unharmed.
pass
example of the Complex Destructive

He

/.

will

not

(4) This
given by

some

authors

If he

were

he
intelligent,
; if he

arguments
either

But
or

/.

Either

The

student

Simple

is

that

see

of

himself

own

his

his

wrong.

worthless

in the

the

premiss of the Simple


material
point from the

the

The

Destructive

be

If A

is

is not

Z),

is not

B.

According

to

minor
this is not

both

nor

our

is

denial
not

An

antecedent.

denied

Z), or

If A

the

in the
E

of

one

is

were
or

necessarily
argument
consequents

minor

"

is F.

is E, F.

definition, which

premiss

true dilemma.

few

are

'

for this is,that

reason

constructed, in which

B, either

the

Dilemma,

:
disjunctive

premiss would

minor

falsityof

that the

In

is F.'

are

consequents alternatives, the

of them

that not

honest,

were

not

the worthlessness

see

he would

copulative,not

and
disjunctive,

.*.

would

differs in

of course,

can,
are

form

and

two

involve

"

Constructive.

B, C is D
other

will observe

consequent

the

is

arguments
himself
in the wrong.
seeing it, he will not own
he is wanting in intelligence,
he
is dishonest.
or

Destructive

the

he does

Dilemma

as

essential

It should

postulatesa
to

the

however

junctive
dis-

argument,
be noticed

logicians(e.g.Hamilton, Thomson,

Ueber-

PRINCIPLES

212

LOGIC

OF

tion
adopt a different definiThus
Mr. Joseph (Introd.
to Logic,
of the argument.
"an
as
argument offering
p. 331) defines the dilemma
'alternatives, and proving something against an adverThe
in either case."
point is not of first-class
sary
have
quires
repreferred the view, which
importance. We
minor
the disjunctive
premiss,since the separate

it to be such, and

hold
etc.),

weg,

'

should

form

this

of

treatment

be

argument
and

one

the

demand

to

seems

that

its

in all its varieties.

same

We
have already called
" 5. Answering the Dilemma.
of the Dilemma
to the
attention
to the great value
that attention
It is,therefore,not surprising
rhetorician.
should
be

been

have

answered.

paid

Three

to

the

ways

manner

of

in which

dealing with

it

it should
are

merated
enu-

"

by the horns. Here the person against


offered
it is brought, accepts the alternatives
whom
him, but shows that they do not involve the consequents
this is shown
in the major. Where
to them
attributed
of the alternatives, he is said to
in respect of only one
take the dilemma
Thus, in the Complex
by one horn.
Destructive
given in the last section, the controversialist
such a dilemma
was
urged, would probably
againstwhom
ligent,
reply that he would willinglyadmit himself to be intelfollowed he would
but that it by no means
nize
recog-

(1) Taking

his
he

it

arguments
them

knew

be

to

invalid

as

that,

on

the

contrary,

valid.

This is the method


(2) Escaping between the horns.
the disjunctionis not
that
it is shown
adopted, when
remains.
For
alternative
complete, and that another
to some
it to be pointed out
man,
example, suppose
he

that

must

liberal candidate
case

he

would

either

vote

in

some

for

the

conservative

election, and

materiallyinjure his

that

business

or

in

the

either

prospects

by giving offence to a section of his clients. He might


for it might
reply that there was yet another possibility,
happen that he would be enjoying a well earned holiday
abroad

at

the

time

of

the

election.

PRINCIPLES

2T4

This

argument
the

If

of

terms

But
I

.*.

it

the

by

of

been

in

the

said

of

that

this

original
of

suggested.

is

in

"

free

am

decided

favour,

your

should

question
be

it

the

by

favour,

my

court.

decided

independently

have

puzzle

if

discharged

case

should

terms
with

dealt

be

the

follows

as

favour,

your
:

of

order

knotty

it

in

agreement

either

any

this

Perhaps,

by

must
in

am

How

the

free

am

decided

is

LOGIC

Euathlus

by

met

was

case

OF

my

debt.

be

solved,

case

my

still

should

various

judges,

in

dubious.

have

solutions

we

favour.

contemplated

not

and

But

The

is

was

compact,
it.

or

told,

are

been
to

the

left

the

undecided.1

case

For

authorities

list
where

of

the

they

more

are

famous

of

found,

vide

such

dilemmas

Hamilton,

with

Logic,

references
I.

466.

to

the

CHAPTER

XIV.

INDUCTION.

"

i.

Nature

The

of

Induction.

In

the

chapters on
length with

CategoricalSyllogism,we dealt at some


it is
how
the subject of deductive
reasoning. We saw
the
mind
from
the
a
general
by which
passes
process
that
falls under
principle to a particular case, which
at
principle. In order, therefore,to employ Deduction
have
reached
the knowledge of some
must
all,the mind
The
do
universal
truth.
we
arises, how
question now
We
the
to
come
knowledge of these general truths.
must
reply to this enquiry, by drawing a distinction,
between
such as are
analytic,and such as are synthetic
The
of
universal
in character.
source
our
analytic
us
no
judgments need cause
difficulty. In these propositions
the

the

of
of

the

and

necessary,

therefore

universal,
the

subjectand

predicate,appears on
themselves.
Every object

notions

of

nexion
con-

analysis

which

the

subject can be affirmed, is necessarily such that of it the


ever
Thus, for instance, whenpredicatetoo can be affirmed.
term
can
we
can
a
figure a regularhexagon, we
that
of its angles equals 120".
It is
also affirm
each
with the other class of general truths, with those namely
that
are
synthetic, that Induction, the subject of our
In
these
judgments
present chapter, is concerned.
the predicate is found
to belong to the
subject not by
tion
the analysis of the notions, but
by experience. Inducis the

individual

Here, it
Our

legitimatederivation of universal

laws

from

cases.

at

once

there

appears,

experience

is

limited
215

is

to

tion.
problem for solua
comparatively

PRINCIPLES

216

small number
hold

we

of individual

ourselves

of nature, which

observed, but
'

that

say

floats in
of

of

law

relation of

kind

of

examination

effect is found

cause

few

occur,

of

although

in

effect,is

potassium

the

number

compared

viewed

hold

with
It

is made.

we

not

are

that

to

cause

expressinga

as

in

is it that
which

ourselves

to

certain

effect
that

is in

to

a
are

we

fact the

circumstance, which

some

it

certain
which

after

in
justified

attributingthis

instances

these

All

cases

Now, when

we

It is when

name

'

We

refer.

we

instances

law

of the effect,and

reason

be

effect.

universal

assertinga
giving the

to

have

we

class.

assertion

which

may

cases

law

carefullytested observation
sufficient to justify
universal
a

to

of nature
and

universal

the

is held

cause

the

instances,

same

infinitesimal

which

that

of the

Every

is

of

singlecase

certain

of the

combustible/

are

observed

happen

conclusion

the

in many

water/ though in each of these

even
a

Yet

cases.

members

All diamonds

full number

may

LOGIC

in assertinga
justified
embraces
not merely the

all other

instances

the

OF

is found

itself the true

in

connexion

why the effect


the precisequality
discovered
When
have
we
occurs.
of which
the effect is produced, we
in virtue
say with
confidence
that, given these circumstances, this quality
this same
result.
to
will always have
Thus
take
a
familiar example, a few experiments with hydrogen and
satisfyus that these elements
produce water,
oxygen
in virtue
of anything peculiar to the individual
not
of their character
as
instances, but
simply because
and
have
hesitation in
we
no
:
hydrogen and oxygen
holding that they will always produce water.
The
logicalprocess by which we pass to this universal
is purely abstractive.
result a be
Should
conclusion
a
determine
the
endeavour
to
produced, we
particular

with

the

not

characteristic

A,

neglectingall

that

individuals,
we
is very

which

many

it

belongs

affirm

different
among

which

by

that

from

is
the

to
as

reason

effected
instances

such

and

then

simply

produces a.

as

This

object,
saying that a concrete
other
qualitieshas the quality A9

INDUCTION

is the
A

of

cause

all others, and

from

proceeds.

object

no

of

abstract

we

universal

this that

it is from

assert that

we

quality,namely

one

by the very fact


longer conceived

But

it is
the

For

a.

217

individual

as

Our

concept.

stracted,
ab-

is thus

that

it is

is

statement

of a, but that the


particularA is the cause
to
A
is such, that
nature
(givensimilar circumstances
Thus
in the
those under
review),it has a as its effect.
that
as
instance
cited, we
hydrogen and oxygen
say
ratiocinative.
This
such
produce water.
process is not
Our
from
We
do not
premisses to conclusion.
argue
have
work
is done when
we
separatedthe essential from
this

that

not

non-essential, when

the

Induction

of
difficulty
practicalrather

The

from

mind
does

not

But

as

of

the

admit
the

laws

of

sense

of science

is

the

easy

no

physical order

be

therefore

may

to

may

does

the

tell us,

the

as

to

The

matter.

syllogism.
discovery
complexity

circumstances1

is

prodigious: the
operation of natural
causes,

multifarious, and

said

of the
passage
universal
principle,

varietyof forms,

history

affect

which

true

logical. The

than

data

the

universal

of

the

discovered

have

relation.1

causal

be

we

their

accurate

so

are

determination

rounded
sur-

that
the progress
of
difficulties,
by so many
human
at the
knowledge is slow, and its victories won
of prolonged toil.
culties
diffiWe
illustrate the
cost
may
of determining a causal relation by an
example.
Let us suppose
that a certain herb
produces favourable
results on
patients sufferingfrom a particularillness.
it therefore
be assumed
that
Can
the
plant possesses
definite
curative
propertiesin regard to that illness ?
May there not be something peculiarto the constitution
of the patients in question, owing to which
the result
1

Cf. Ueberweg,

" 129.

'

related to the formation

'

For

'

'

'

'

'

the

"

The

formation

of notions

of valid

according

to their

inductions

of properties and relations stand


in
essential attributes of the object of which
the notion
a

great number

is very

closely

essential attributes.
a

causal
is formed

with

nexus
on

this

this comes
From
the
depends the validity of the induction.
logicalright to refer properties to the whole species which have been observed
of a species,in so far as they are not evidently conditioned
in singleindividuals

causal

by

mere

nexus

individual

relations."

PRINCIPLES

2i8

is

OF

LOGIC

produced ? Even granted that it can be shewn that


this region the results are invariablyfavourable, can

in

be

we

the

that

sure

ailment

the

would

discover

alone

Even

example

how

us

in

It is often
the

so

All relations
in other

or

different climate

plant
in

such,

as

can

or

and

it,to which

effect should

attributed

be

suffice to show
when

us,

is essential

from

we

is

what

physical process.

stated

This

the

and

medicine

the

simple as this, will


the
problem before

Induction

that

great principleof

devoted.

to

curative

consideration

the

in

same

separate what

to

non-essential

on

the

difficult is

undertake

the

between

specialconstituent

some

to which
an

be

result due

Further, is the
we

relation

of

the

which

Uniformity of Nature,

The

stated

and

to

will be

follows

as

constant

:"

uniform ;

will under

cause

same

chapter

next

our

be
principlemay
and effect
are
of cause

words,

depends altogether

the

same

circumstances

and reciprocally,
;
always produce the same
effect
kind are the results of the same
of the same
effects
who
The logicians
tell us that Induction
cause.
depends
this principle,
on
ployed
usuallysignifythat it is actuallyemin the inferential process by which
arrive at
we
universal
conclusion.
formity
our
They assert that the Uniof Nature
is the major premiss of all Induction,
and
that our
conclusion
is reached
by a syllogism of
the followingtype :
Every relation of causalityis constant.
"

and

and

cause
/.

The

in

the

instances

examined,

are

related

as

effect.
relation

between

and

as

cause

and

effect

is constant.1
It is easy to see
that this explanation is erroneous.
The minor premiss in this syllogismis itselfthe statement
of

universal

instances
1

This

examined

formula

syllogistic,since
in the

conclusion.

Logique,
c. a,

"

I.

law.

For
A

if,when

is the

it is said that
of

cause

a,

it be

in the

still left

is given by Rabier.
He
denies that it is strictlyspeaking
minor
is particular in the premiss, and universal
term
of formulation.
This distinction, however, depends on the manner

the

p. 149.

Cf. Mill, Logic, Bk.

III.

c.

3,

"

i.

Bain, Induction,

INDUCTION

whether

uncertain

reallydue to A as
circumstance
peculiar to the
have
no
ground for a universal

other

some

instance, we
The

meaning
of

cause

left

The

when

assertion

It

sense.

have

far

universal

be

that

guarantee
in

fact.

a,

would

of

knew

such
have

is the

already
have
by

law.
the Uniformity

on

in

understood
in

that

principle,
judgment

universal

our

another

Our

judgment that A as such


unless we
help us but little,

in the

that

conclusion.

as

depends

however

to

or

individual

behind, and

merely signifythat

may

cause

further

that

asserted, we

Induction

that

verified

is the

this is

our

may

the

will be

be

instance

reached

of Nature

we

therefore

must

individual

abstraction

such

was

But

a.

the

219

real order

the

same

does

cause

effect.
The principle
actuallyalways produce the same
corresponds to the logicalprocess.
Just as in our act
of abstraction
we
judge that the universal nature A is
with
connected
the
so
intrinsically
metaphysical
a,
all A 's must
us
effect,
produce the same
principleassures

whatever

be.
may
again,it must not
that

Once

of

Uniformity is

which

the

Dictum

the

reasoning.

Omni

same

effect ?

order

of

"
us

2.

It

Cause and

that

determination

lay down

precise nature

real

belongs
not

of

to

to

cause

universal
of the

that

relation

of deductive

the
a

does
A

nature

? ; but

to

of

order

to

"

is
the
the
the

thought.

last section has shewn

effect.

law, until

in

sense

always produce

depends

and

in the

different

The

principle

question,How

effect

cause
a

the

canon

that

the order

Condition.
induction

every

the

with

same

things,and

the

conclusion

to the
pass
necessarilyconnected

the

is the

reply to

not

the mind

question,Does

thought

of Induction

canon

de

It does

be

we

in the

upon

the

It is not
have
case

accurate

possibleto

discovered
with

which

the
we

How
meets
can
us.
dealing. Yet here a difficulty
consideringthe complexity of Nature, say what is
we,
the cause
As I
is not ?
of any phenomenon, and what
of
write at my table, can
is the cause
I reallysay what
are

PRINCIPLES

220

the letters I form


not

the

the

carrier

the

cause

who

Must

to fix

of

certain

How

in

we,

of

May

materials, all claim


for the

not

were

that

fine, own

it is

or

pens,

be

to

of

laws

hopeless

excellence

the

define

to

we

Cause

One

us.

and

Many
is

that

various
Dr.

given by

to come
(Laws of Thought, p. 218),seems
very
We
we
mean,"
reallysignifyby that term.
of the facts
of a thing,the sum
by the cause
definition
it owes
its being." A
practically
with
in
fact
this, was
frequentlyemployed by
"

says,

to which

identical

to

open

of

and

cause

consider

us

four

define

as

definition

our

enumerated

causes

in Ch.

example of the statue


assuredly,we
may
say
for which
purpose
what
it is. Its
reference

in

to

the

altar,and

will

The

this.

The

est id

cause

quod

for that
is.

No

He

it.

too

which

agent

of the nature.

'

is defined

est.'

The

makes
can

as

two
a

final

cause

"

on

the

make

fill a

niche

has

Id

to

cause

same

that

of the existence, which

the
his

it is.

larly,
Simi-

causes.

If

intrinsic

as

of

and

it ;

be

quod influitesse in rent,'and


be rightly regarded
may
be, is the

an

fiftyfeet

detail

it what

(4),the

over

statuary himself"

conceived

made

it

it in

column

speak. Every
brain

made

will

the

"

determined

definitions

thing

be the

it to

the

Most

cause

has

"

are

material, it would

different

the

statuary

again

purpose.

carved

was

it to stand

regard to (3) and

of

Once

2.
our

(i)

intends

if he

Of

in

"

serve

statue

if he intends

executed

made

thing to

it is verified in the

as

10,

that

(2)the efficient
to
it is hardly necessary
His
carving is his work.
hand

makes

special characteristics

different manner,

high.

that which

it is.1

what
Let

preferableto avail
ambiguity, it seems
another
expressionhaving the same
cance,
signifi-

certain

ourselves

be

is,as will appear,

since this formula

But

the Scholastics.

it

maker

cause

"

he
'

the

my

definitions offered

what

near

or

write, if it

condition

Thomson

I the

cause
as
anything special,
par
between
effect,or is it possibleto distinguish

are

the

are

Am

on

and

cause

Could

task
a

brings me

LOGIC

the paper

on

manufacturer,

paper

gravity?

OF

something
'

as
as

Id

quo

res

equivalent

which

makes

is not

also the

it what
cause

PRINCIPLES

222

live
has

OF

they possessed. Yet

powers

specialcharacter, since

which

free

set

requisitefor
as

does

are

in

one

in motion

set

the

sense

originof

originativecharacter,
without

known

reason

Other

the
the

the

; but

whole

condition, such as
the determining
as

be

may

they do not,

They

process.
In virtue

effect.

act

impulse,

conditions

another

or

reason

this

undoubtedly

it communicated

forces.

these

this one,
no

LOGIC

of this

this, is

not

(causa

cause

determinants).1
Aim

3. The

"

of the

which

It may

of Inductive Enquiry.

various

causes

have

we

be asked,

enumerated, is

the

be
object of inductive investigation.To this it must
Sometimes
replied,that it is not in all cases the same.
the knowledge of one
sometimes
that of another,
cause,
is important to us ; and
frequently it happens,
very
has only put the knowledge of one
that Nature
cause

within
"

'

'

Man

our

reach.

has

to

knows

when

and

he

'

act

'

as
'

when

the

of

force

'

compose
'

'

'

Case

Nature

as

present facts

than

knows

on

causes,

another
chemist

has
best

about

it is sometimes

of the forces
sometimes

knows

the

the

well
he

put it,
He

can.

past

causes

efficient

which

bodies

material

cause,

by

elements

out

of which

composed, without
having discovered the
chemical
affinityso-called,by which
they
it : sometimes
again the final cause, as in

morals, where

we

know

for what

end

we

act, without

and
fullyunderstanding the voluntary,nervous,
cular forces by which
we
perform our actions."
Often

the

is

body

a
'

one

on

Professor

in the mechanics

as

cause,
'

fasten

about

more

As

indeed, what
cause.

For

we

wish

to

discover

instance, it had

long

mus*

is the
been

mining
deterknown

plants,fertilization takes place by the


of pollen from
communication
one
plant to another.
of communication
But
the method
remained
a
problem
to
for science
was
resolve, till the determining cause
in the insects that pass from
discovered
one
plant to
that

in unisexual

De

Lectures

Regnon, Metaphysique des Causes, pp. 129, 207, 596.


the Method
on
of Science (ed. by T. B. Strong), p. 5.

INDUCTION

When

another.

is motived

search

our

223

by

end, the knowledge of the determining cause


far

greatermoment

so-called
the

about,

for what

inner

how

us
we

that of the

than
desire

know

to

of

be

may

properly

causes

is not

much

so

of the

nature

or

desire to

to

practical

phenomenon, as how to bring it


prevent it. Thus, for instance, if we

to

prevent

the

spread of

increase

epidemic,to

some

productivityof soil,etc., etc., in all such cases, it is


rather
is
than any
the determining cause,
other, which
the object of the scientist's search.
the word
is used in a loose sense.
cause
Colloquially,
of the antecedent
be appliedto any one
It may
conditions,
the

in the

of which

absence

the

would

event

taken

have

not

it may
be desirable
reason
place,and on which for some
of a railway
to lay stress.
We
say that the construction
of the increase
in the
in the neighbourhood,is the cause
construction
value of land.
But the mere
of the railway
the value, unless the railway
would
not in itself increase
such as to bring the neighbourhood into connexion
were
with
Inductive
some
populous centre.
enquiry is not
in this popular sense
with
concerned
and
causes
we
:
be on
must
our
guard against confusing the word as
thus
its more
accurate
colloquiallyemployed, with
this distinction,
It is the failure to draw
signification.
which
alone
has
given plausibilityto the erroneous
in not
few
works
assertion contained
a
on
Logic, that
there
is no
difference,scientifically
speaking, between

and

cause

condition.

" 4. Recognition of the


sections

clear notion
We

must
a

easy,

to

the

examine

are

and

cases,

way,

in

which

consideringa
are
question, we

the

in which

cause

relation ; and
instances, induce
a
general

to

inductive

and

after

causalityin
abstract

certain

object of
the

relation between

There

Relation.

The

preceding
reader
a

have, it is hoped, given the

as

now

Causal

few

the mind

nizes
recog-

its effect.
this

recognitionis

concrete

able
thus

investigation.

cases

without
from

the

proposition. We

of

the

hesitation

particular
'

say

LOGIC

OF

PRINCIPLES

2i4

leaves

cases,'for ordinarilya singleinstance

few

Were

observation.
this

there

whether

doubt,

danger,

made

my

make

like this

mark

be the effect of

must

It

us.1

yieldingmaterial
that such
conversely,

and

I do not

foot.

human

by a syllogism.I see my foot make


recognizesthe
impression: and my mind
shape of

the

between

it has

relation

the

ground

to

understand

character

man

in

simple

evident.

was

minute

its

from

of

nature

the

effect should

an

the

action

is of

"

induces

Great

scientists

'

only occurring

'

experiment

'

so

nerves,
'

The

Abb"

that
much

It is said that

did

Haiiy lets fall

thousand

'

fact

'

value

of

the

of the

cases.

this

the

law

that

tion,
relathis

wherever

follow.

must

the

the

abstracts

of

worth

Sir C. Bell

difference

would

between

significantfact, though
not

the

repeat the famous

motor

and

sensory

his feelingsrecoil from

fracture, he concludes

'

effect

established

havoc

what

mind

universal

rarely mistake

once.

known

was

too, the

operates, this

cause

Here

case

the
blood-corpuscles,
among
how
the
evident
illness followed

became

cause.

and

it

worked

creature

immediately

it

'

When

the

island.

just described.
fever long escaped observation
of malarial
The
cause
But
its origin
of its minuteness.
because
as
as
soon
in a specialmicrobe, and the activityof
discovered
was
in the body had
been studied, the nature
this microbe
its cause
united the malady and
of the relation which
less

than

the

when

even

the

on

such

why

cause,

the shore, he knew

on
footprints

able

such

of

shape

this induction.

often

from

the

formed

had

men,

reason

relation

conclusion.

another

the

and leave

universal

was

"

to my

of this causal

there

relation

causal

for

mark

knowledge

that

for certain
are

the

the

he

and

cause

as

saw

So when

follow

In

Crusoe, like other

Robinson

We

foot

the

effect.

impression as

the

an

it will

pass

conclusion
its

is

this

foot is pressedon

human

suffice

avoided

had

we

our

kind, if,for instance, I see the impression


the sand, and judge that as often
foot on

of this

as

in

error

some

that

would

instance

induction

by

convinced

we

one

be

not

may

in

us

that

The

coincidence

he

has

discovered

law

of nature.

So

the
in

...

repetition itself,but in the


to the
only the repetition evidently adds much
Janet, Final Causes (English trans.),p. 431,

knot

coincidence."

causing animals to suffer.


piece of quartz, and merely by observing
then

is not

in

the

INDUCTION

Yet
can

there

than

relation

why
be

cannot

This

examples.

in

cases,

particulareffect

other, and

some

of

number

vast

reason

no

see

rather

are

225

in which

which

should

therefore

we

follow

the causal

it is recognizedin these
as
recognized,
in regard to
is especiallynoticeable

of the
physical constituents, considered as the cause
between
resultingcompound. There is no resemblance
hydrogen and oxygen on the one side, and water on the
The
other.
propertiesof the effect bear no likeness to
the properties
of the cause.
hope to
Again, we cannot
discover any reason
for the properties
to account
possessed
for
different
natural
substances.
instance,
by the
Why,
should galenacrystalsbe cubical while quartz crystallizes
in hexagonal prisms ?
should
gold resist the
Why
of solvents, which
action
efficacious against other
are
metals ? Why should sulphur,when
heated, first liquefy,
then
thicken, and then liquefy again ? In all these
tion.
cases, our
experienceassures us as to the factof the relaBut
should
why such a cause
produce such a
must
We
result,remains
altogetherconcealed from us.
be

content

thingsare
water,
In

the

of such

causes

and

bare

fact
such

and

that

and

such

effects.

We

found

and

are
:
hydrogen
oxygen
and the result
hydrogen and oxygen,
knowledge in these cases
saying that our

not

to the

we

must

not

intellect.
intellect

In thus

of the causal connexion

reason

perceivedby

it is

know

to

In

be
sense.

The

to

fact here

singularswhich
recognizesand abstracts

causal

relation

experimentsis
established.

even

is

more

thesize
syn-

is water.
relates

to the

fact,

perceives, the

sense

universal

the

than

connexion,

where

the

the law

not

is looked

If

been

nature
of

number

repetitionis not
is preliminaryto

It
part of the logicalprocess.
is merely a guarantee that we
have
of the experiment.
in the
nature

tion.
rela-

causal

recognized,that

before
necessary,
But
here
too
the

we

singularfact as
is recognizedby the

determiningexperimentallya
case,

analyse

the

mean

the

usually the

of the

thought

but

such

on

as

itself
it.

It

deceived

for instance
Q

we

226

PRINCIPLES

the

suppose
and

view

universal

the

water,
of

with

should

we

the

to

truth

LOGIC

synthesisof hydrogen
establishingfor the first

to be

experiment

oxygen,

time

OF

that

these

order

in

and

ingredientbut hydrogen
in our
synthesis,that the result
peculiarto the individual case.
other

to

fact is

the

induction.

our

fact that
been

has

We

which

water

to

concrete

universal

and

hydrogen
the

water

cases

elements,

and

we

are
oxygen
assertion is made,

particlesof hydrogen and


experimented,but of hydrogen and

we

"

viewed

elements

of these

such,

as

that

proceed
lished
securelyestab-

the

such

these

no

fied
satis-

are

we

individual

of the

with

from

once

it,then

from

and

assert

causallyrelated

When

induce

such

in

was

that

was
present
oxygen
not due to something

conceive

we

We

produced

conclusion.

not

as

variety

satisfyourselves

to

of

causes

repeat the experiment under

circumstances,

that

the

are

oxygen
oxygen

in abstraction

from

conditions.
individualizing
The

of the

value
almost

them.

Evidence

with

reveal

will

alreadyversed
investigatorof

An

considers

untrained

mind

has

this kind

evidence

the

sees

facts previouslyknown.
light of a hundred
in
recognize that the suggestion contained
may
lead
evidence, is preciselywhat these facts would

expect,

false.

he

or

particularcase,
the

on

of the

nature
which

it is

the

mind

well

stored

the

tyro.

It will follow from


for

shall be

us

to

Deduction.
outline the

to

give a

evidence.

can

it

what

or

what
do

no

principalways

more

the

must

in
He
the
him
be

by the
to depend altogether
the
It depends also on

has been

canon

they

or

universal

presented. What
with knowledge

Induction
We

made

be

cannot

to

mind

of the

manifestation

The

either

that

see

may

no

certaintya universal law to


in the subjectunder consideration.

the

to

will

conviction

intellect which

the

to

is

who

one

which

produce

to

the

entirelyon

depend

meaning,

instances

law

is sufficient for

is insufficient for

said that it is

series of canons,

Dictum
than

in which

de

describe
evidence

which

omni
in

of

sible
imposis to

general
a

causal

INDUCTION

methods

termed

however

does

the

Method

to

altered

sum

individual

question,that

in

is not

that it

this is known

And
nature

of

the

(2) by

rational

in which

manner

defer

its

part of this work.


a

effect is not

the

circumstance, but

of the

but a purely
syllogistic,
It becomes
as
we
possibleas soon
instance
(orinstances)of the cause

process.

in the

see

called,but

therefore

shall

may

subject

logicalground

the different

We

Induction

up,

This

for the

second

the

to

abstractive

to

by

what

enquiry.
Logic strictlyso

appears.

consideration
To

belong

of Science

evidence

indicate

to

of inductive

not

is not

induction
the

thus

presents itself,and

connexion
be

227

either

due

to

accidental

some

to the type.
belongsessentially
(i)by rational insightinto the

between

connexion

recognitionof

and

cause

the

fact

from

the

of

effect, or
the

causal

connexion.
*

induction

The

manner

we

An.

Post.
"It

'

/.,

is

'

that

'

but

sight

'

the

and

the

'

ive

power

'

dividual

In

would

theory

Aristotle
of

stand

place
"

tamen

Ex

the

in

attain

the

glass,

of its illuminat-

would

the

perceive

that

recognize

inthis

mind.
need

Since
of

The

commentary
multoties

facta

one

passage

ing
approvis his

as

uses,

c.

circa
:

"
19

4.
he

from

treats
the

of

the

ation
observ-

many

dividual
in-

:
Experience (e/ATreipt'a)
an

abstract

itself is

of St. Thomas

singularibus, fit experimentum

as

memory

exposition,we

some

i,

conclusion

possessionof
the

c.

II.,

Post.

particulars.
in the

He

II.,

Post.

An.

constitutes, he tells us,


results

understood

illustration.

an

as

An.

be

mentions.

universal

our

of

lucid

memoria

knowledge
should

cause

would

not

he

chapter

number

Experience
principlein the

should

which

opinion

draw

we

this

Sense

intellect

occurs

passage

in which

to

light

well-known

instances

its

the

contemporary

of

as

the

indeed

law."

passage

the

case

saw

we

manifest.

and

instance,

similar

In

be

scientific

us

takes

Not

we
through
the
perforations in

means

if

solution.

certain

what

see

which

coming through,
light-particles

this
the

wont,

Thus

universal

was

the

that

senses,

but

we

seeking
sight would
give

of

be

our

could

For

still be

not

act

universal.

'

unsolved.

would

the

inabilityto apply

our

should

'

particular in the
succinctly taught by Aristotle,

31.
to

remain

mere

universal

the

described, is

c.

owing

questions
place, we

'

of

have

eandem

universal

compressed
prefer to give in
so

"

rem

in

diversis

quia experimentum

nihil

228

PRINCIPLES

aliud

videtur,
Sed

tentis.

OF

accipere aliquid

quam

tamen

experimentum

circa

particularia,
per quam
Puta
cum
proprium rationis.

sanavit

multos

herba

LOGIC

multis

ex

in memoria

indiget aliqua

confertur

ad

unum

talis recordatur

febre, dicitur

re-

ratiocinatione

aliud, quod

talis herba

quod

quod talis
febris.
Ratio autem
sistit in experimento
non
sed ex
multis
particularibus in quibus expertus
a

sit sanativa

experimentum

esse

particularium :
in anima,
et
commune
est, accipit unum
quod firmatur
siderat
illud absque consideratione
alicujussingularium, et
Puta
diu medicus
accipitut principium artis et scientiae.
sideravit

herbam

hanc

tonem

multos

et

consideratio

est

sanasse

alios
hoc

ad

Socratem

singulares
quod

febrientem,

homines

ascendit,

cum

hoc
con-

Pla-

et

autem

talis

con-

sua

herbae

cognitionem

species
regula artis
accipitur ut quaedam
Posset
credere
autem
quod solus sensus
aliquis
singularium sufficiat ad causandum
intelligibilem
principiorum, sicut posuerunt quidam antiqui non

discernentes

inter

simpliciter,hoc

febrientem
medicinae.
.

vel

cludendum

memoria

intellectum

et

sensum

Philosophus subdit, quod


talem

supponere
sit

animae

naturam

of

the

its

"

et

ideo

ad

hoc

ex-

oportet praeposset pati hoc, id est


sensu

(An.

II., lect. 20).

Post.
no

passages

word

use

experimentum

is made

(e/xTrei/na)

place.

" 5. The Inductive Syllogism.

specialmode
general, different
The
principleof
is

cum

in these

The

Induction.

term

takes

that

will observe

reader

quae

susceptiva cognitionisuniversalis

The

sanat

attribute which

of

The

arguing from

from
this

Induction
method

of

Inductive

Syllogism
the particularto the
properly so-called.
inference

is that

an

(or denied) of all the logical


be affirmed (or denied) of the logicalwhole.
parts, may
The
validityof the argument depends on our certainty
that

overlooked

have

we

is affirmed

no

of the

one

parts. Hence

in
reasoning is only available for the cases
which we
are
dealingwith the several speciesof a genus.
be counted
The individuals belongingto a speciescannot
:
is indefinite.1 But the speciesare
their number
always
of

this mode

limited
The

when

number.

syllogism may

formula
1

in

represented by

the

following

:
"

Aristotle
he

be

tells

held
us

supposes

the number

of individuals

that

the enumeration

that

we

are

in

species to be infinite.

Hence

be complete, he evidently
of the parts must
dealing with species, not with individuals.

PRINCIPLES

230

In

order

shew

to

is the

be

it should

that

necessary

OF

regard to

in

same

than

more

the

that

LOGIC

be

inherence

of

for the

reason

all the

this, it would

parts of M.1

example of this Syllogism, given by Aristotle


some
owing to the brevity of its expression,caused

has

The

It

is

follows

as

perplexity.

"

Man,

horse,

ass

Man,

horse,

ass

...

without

animals

/.All

often,

lived.

are

long

are

animals

bile

without

bile.

long lived.2

are

ties.
difficulsight presents two considerable
festly
In the first place the minor
premiss as it stands, is maniIn
second
the
untrue.
place, a complete enumeration
would
of animals
without
bile,
impossible. As a matter
appear
doubtless
of fact, by the
bile,' Aristotle
expression without
of choleric
in question have
that
the animals
excess
no
signifies
bile.3
without
from
different
humours
a
being totally
thing
The

example

at

first

'

"

Further

the

be

understood,

of

not

animals

in

for in An.
:
highly organized animals
Thus
plete
coma
17, " 7 he restricts it to quadrupeds.
difficulties.
would
enumeration
not
present insuperable
Aristotle
another
ing
gives the following,as exemplifypassage

general, but
Post. II.,c.
In

'

of

the

inductive

an
man

the

who

man

more

argument

is best, and

that

'

should

assertion

"

skilful

the

If

we

that

know

driver, and

is skilful is best

so

on,

skilful

the
we

may

steers-

conclude

occupation." 4

at every

But,

misleading to employ this here as an illustration.


For
given as an example of dialectical argument, in which
be
must
certitude
tent
condemonstrative
being unattainable, we
intended
with
as
a typical
probabilities. It is by no means
form.
in
its
instance
of the argument
perfect

it would

be

it is

'elSos 8' otf irav." I.e. " 5.


(" For he does
belong to the triangle,as such : nor does he know
of mere
all is understood
it to belong to all triangles,except in so far as
numerical
reckoning. He does not know it to be a property of the species.")
He describes this proof ("i) as that which
occurs
orav
rvyx^-g 8" ws tv /xe/""
6\ov ^0'$ deiKwrai."
it happens that our
a whole,
proof concerns
(" When
not as a whole, but in its logicalparts.")
1
Euclid is generally able to do this. The proposition may
require different
is
mutandis
mutatis
constructions
the same
ordinarily employed.
: but
proof
2
An. Prior II., c. 23, " 2 ; cf. An. Post. II., c. 17, " 7 ; DePart.
Anim.IV., c. 2.
8
in
The reader
of the importance attached
will not need to be reminded
of the
ancient physiology, to the four humours, on
the temperament
which
pend.
held to deindividual
was
sanguine, choleric, melancholic, or phlegmatic
of
doctrine
borrowed
the
Of this doctrine
Wundt
Psychology
says,
the
And
of
Galen.
the medical
from
the four temperaments
though
system
its physiological basis is now
obsolete,
was
theory of the humours, which

rpiywvov,d\\' ^
'

know

not

the

/car' aptdfj-bvKO.T
'

attribute

to

'

'

'

'

"

"

"

"

'

"

yet the
4

distinction

of the temperaments

psychological observation,"
Topics, I., c. 12.

'acute

seems

to

have

been

Psychologic, III., 637.

derived

from

INDUCTION

The

This

Syllogism

Inductive

Fig.3

with

universal

231

resembles

instead

of

syllogism in
particularconclusion.
a

is known
to
legitimate,since the enumeration
be complete. The
minor
is sometimes
expressed in the
This form is however
form
missible.
inadSt,S2, 53 are all M.'
It suggests that the significance
of the copula
its ordinary import :
here
is different from
that
it
J
If this were
the
Af/
means
S19 S2, S3 constitute
M would
meaning, the conclusion would be illegitimate.
be used
in the minor
collectively
premiss,and distributively in the conclusion.
is

'

'

" 6. Perfect and


Induction

which

belonging to
the

class

as

The

is

employed to signifythe
a
given attribute of all the
class, and then proceed to

affirm

we

Imperfect Induction.

a
a

whole.

Thus

I may

apostlestaken separately, that he was


to the general proposition, All
pass
Jews/ The process may, of course, be
form
of an
Inductive
Syllogism. But
'

the

by

process

individuals
affirm

of each

assert

fect
Per-

term

it of
of the

Jew,

and

so

apostleswere

drawn

in the

up

it differs

widely
it. The
enumeration
from
there
is of logicalparts.
It is an
intellectual process : for it is not by sense-perception
that we
the isosceles
the equilateral,
sum
up
and the scalene as completingthe list of possible
triangles.
in Perfect
But
Induction
the
enumeration
is purely
sensible.
It is a simple counting of heads.
Further,
the

obtained

conclusions

from

the

Perfect

be

presupposes

conclusion.
Inductive

On

the

hand

other

Syllogism is

individuals,and
new

value

the

one

general proposition obtained


by
is a mere
and
though
;
summary
drawn
from it, yet this general proposition
the
of
so-called
knowledge
every

Induction
may

of different

other.

inferences

are

affords

of

true
us

the

conclusion

indefinite

an

of

number

solid basis for inference

an

of
to

facts.
When
some

we

draw

members

universal

only
1

Hansel,

of

conclusion

class,we

Aldrich, App.

G-

are

after enumerating
said

to

employ

PRINCIPLES

232

LOGIC

OF

drawn

Imperfect Induction. A conclusion


is of such a precarious character
as
have

we

But

if

grounds

for

have

reason

we

causallyconnected
something else than
liable

how
this

the

if

manner,

with

the

to

indicate

influence

of

heat, and

cases

had

of

Numbers

verified,though

was

it should

be

found

this rule.

to

As

so.

rubber, clay and


under

the
been

would

have

proved

relyingon

are

no

reason

we

are

Water

time, experience

one

all bodies
when

examined

been

expand under
exposed to cold.

in which
be

could

ing,
of contract-

similarly,india-

39*4 F. ; and
other

substances,

Had

the rule

assigned why
exceptions are

well aware,
expands instead

of heat.

in this

drawn

at

contract

certain

influence

how

that

it fails below

when

be

to

trate
illusIt may
in
conclusions drawn

are

remember

seemed

attribute

subject,we

frustration

we

the

connexion.1

enumeration.

mere

to

causal

believe

this way

valueless,unless

to be

supposing some
to

in

contract

sion
conclu-

universal

by Imperfect Induction,

case

it

false.

of Logic, that
commonly stated in English text-books
Scholastic
of no
inductive
the
save
philosophers knew
process
that
Perfect
and
Imperfect Induction, and that they believed
based
on
mere
meration.
enuour
certainty as to the laws of nature, was
how
have
had
occasion
out
We
to
already
point
our
popular logicianssay of
cautiously we should receive what
that the subject
It
indeed
be
owned
Scholastic
philosophy.
may
*

It is

Induction

of

than

writers
as

to

received
it merits.
the

laws

far
Yet

less

to say

of nature,

to

that
rest

they
on

enumeration,

by
argues
acquaintance with their writings. There
the Scholastics
variety of opinion among
Induction

mere

from

attention

"

the

believed

process

is indeed
on

this

our

of

remarkable

mediaeval
ledge
know-

Imperfect
of

want

considerable

subject.

But

Nam
si universalia nihil aliud
point is forciblyput by Leibniz.
scientiam
haberi
nullam
sunt
singularium
collectiones,
sequetur
per
quam
demonstrationem
um
(quod et infra colligitNizolius) sed collectionem singular!
inductionem.
Certitude
perfecta ab inductione
sperari plane non
seu
Totum
quibuscunque
adminiculis, et propositionem bane
potest, additis
Mox
enim
scimus.
perfecte
parie sola inductione
magis esse sua
nunquam
tenrationem
in aliis nondum
prodibit, qui negabit ob peculiarena
quandam
facto scimus
ex
tatis veram
Gregorium a S. Vincentio
esse, quemadmodum
alios in
totum
:
esse
majus sua parte, in angulis saltern contactus
negasse
virum
infinite : et Thomam
Hobbes
?) coepisse dubitare de pro(at quern
sacrificio
a
positione ilia Geometrica
Pythagora demonstrata, et hecatombae
sine stupore legi." Leibniz, De Stilo Philosophico
digna habita : quod ego non
This

INDUCTION

the

233

them

base

certainty in regard
the
the
natural
laws
on
principle,that when
operation of
and
natural
habitually some
agent produces regularly
ticular
pareminent

more

to
some

amongst

result, this result is not due


but

is

an

having

other

words,

that

the

not

individual

the

the

condition

by

a.'

of

of A

instance

constitute

which

is

our

Anything

The

the

the

abstraction,
than

Scholastic
The

error

famous

of the

have

to

seems

arisen

held

from

this

do

not

They

are

the

doctrine

by the whole
imagined.

the

that

fact

Albert

the

not

the

The

experientia).

It

vague.
the

this

employed

as

the

most

Great, Scotus)

form

of

that

out,

Inductive

an

in these

it
of

for

few

Moreover

it

the

was

times
some-

the

into

the

enumeration

have

we

that

Induction

thrown

be

though

instances

equivalently

Induction
generation
restricted
to its present signification.Incautious
readers,
was
as
Syllogism described
finding in certain passages the Inductive
formula
of
the
inductive
to
the
argument, jumped too hastily
ledge
conclusion
the mediaeval
that
philosophers rested their know-

seen

of the
have

We
The

taken.

enim

is

Thomas

of

imply
will

Scotus

was

orto

criticized in "

major premiss

in

et

inebriationem

apprehendit

sensu,

ex

p. 70.

quod
post

Leibniz's

this
the

the

subject, in "

view

show
same

as

autem

the

position

that

potationem
view
the

wc*ild

quod
sensus

vini

St.

quas

scimus
.

own

of

sunt

inebriat

vinum

4.
here

have

we

that

sicut

above, according to which

syllogistic
reasoning.

term

enumeration.

on

extracts

choleram

purgat

that

St.

but

[Propositiones] experimentales
intellectu

Nizolii,Op. phil.(Erdmann),
been

basis

no

his words

and

Magnus
"

scamonea

cited

that

see

on

following brief

of Albertus

accipimus

of nature

laws

will

The

Thomas.

already

reader

later

what
some-

particular to
II., Q. 8) it might
was
more
usually
Perfect

might

argument

was

the

Prior

But

process

Syllogism

incomplete, yet
all.
It was
by

was

from

Syllogism.

our

Induction

in Scotus, An.

formal

the

distinctive

term

others.

Inductive

an

the

argument

among

denote

pointed

all

(as e.g.

meaning

to

arranged

covered

Hence

general.

include

significance of

the

body

of
term
as
name
employ
establish
of nature.
the inference
universal
laws
we
by which
end
of
at the
Following the terminology of Aristotle, noticed
it
the
from
" 4, they call
proof
experimentum,
experience (e/x7rei/oia,
do

Induction

nature
to

is followed

such

as

be

from

(St.Thomas,

Scholastics

the

understood,

judge

to

incident

this

usually asserted to have been


hardly
philosophers,can

is

with

conclusion.
'

the

of instances

investigator

thus

universal

remote

of

specificnature

circumstance

circumstance,

enumeration

instances

of
of

more

the

really connected

act

accidental

an

cause

held

some

premisses
of

to

it enables

as

phenomenon
merely with

and

its

they

of value, inasmuch

be

A,

effect

In

agent.
to

for

our

saepius

seem

uniformity of

to have
Nature

PRINCIPLES

234

factam,
si

et

casuale

esset

illius

generatur

Mag.

An.

scire,

universale

principium

est

Scotus

quod
sed

licet
de

Quidquid
effectus
Cf.

experientia

also

et

hoc
evenit

natumlis
De

istam

ut

in

illius

Regnon,

Post.

quod

quod

est,

et

causae."

Metaphysique

I.

Sent.
des

3.
dico

tamen

Dist.

Causes,

3,

nibus
om-

anima

in

libera,

non

causa

ex-

in

et

semper,

quiescentem

aliqua

ab

nobis

in

singularibus,

pluries,

quod

dictum

experientiam

omnibus

propositionem
pluribus

c.

i,

per

quod

sed

ita

Tract

est

non

universale,

de

semper

sentire

habitis

cognitis

De

Alb.

dubium,"

est

intellectu

in

ante

II.,

habeatur

quod

novit

per

"

non

nee

infallibiter
:

follows,

as

pluribus,

pertus

An.

in

fit

sic

et

Quamvis

sicut

abstractionem

per

accidit

virtute

non

qua

2.

sensibile,

scientiae."

writes

c.

i,

est

sensibile

de

"

Tract

vini

hoc

saepissime

firma,

scientia

I.,

LOGIC

quod

contingeret

non

rei

Post.

nee

sed

est,

intellectus

percipit

et

OF

q.
pp.

4,

n.

40-54.

est
9.

CHAPTER

UNIFORMITY

THE

"

The

i.

as

That

principle,as

assures

us

the

that

of the

it
in
be

chapter

we

kind

same

will, under

cause

same

the
to

are

effect

same

be

the

referred

cumstances
cir-

same

and

that

the

to

same

pointed out that this principle


not
a
logicalprinciple. It belongs to the real order :
the way
the nature
of things,not about
tells us about
think
which
Yet Logic can
and reason.
we
scarcely
cient
discussingit. It is insuffiadequately treated without
the general proposition A
to show
how
such,
as
from
the particularsof
the cause
of a,' is abstracted
It

cause.

is

this

the

always produce
effects

In

Nature.

Uniformity of Nature, or
termed, the Uniformity of Causation.
in the
we
saw
preceding chapter,

principleof

it is sometimes

NATURE.

OF

of

Uniformity

the

consider

XV.

further

was

'

is

experience, unless

also

we

that

show

in

the

order

of

Nature
reality,
prescribesthat given A, a shall follow.
be understood
The principleas we
have enunciated
it,must
with
a
qualification.It refers exclusivelyto the
universe
Hence
material
laws.
governed by natural
it can
claim no
higher degree of necessitythan belongs
to

the

which

of

constitution

established

the

of its laws, and


shall

produce

This

is

an

this

natural

universe

bring

abnormal

can

it about

order.

suspend
that

effect, or

no

Power

The

the

tion
opera-

given
effect

cause

at

all.

expressed in Scholastic philosophy by saying


that the principleof Uniformity is physicallynecessary,
not
metaphysically.
We
in the
following paragraphs to explain
propose
formity
which
(i) the reasons
justifyus in holding that the uniof Nature
is physically necessary
(2) the
; and
136

236

PRINCIPLES

of

and
physicalnecessity,
scientific certainty.

limits

for

(i) It

will

be

the distinction

other

of its

never

have

it to

and

effect

the

considered

we

condition,we
of

that

saw

it from

to

come

Hermes

The

it affords

grounds

when

that

cause

causes.

marble.

is not

We

between

the

or

one

could

Praxiteles

teles
possessedits beauty of form, had not Praxithat form in his imagination: it would
conceived
have
which
has preserved
possessedthe durability
own
our
days, had its material cause been clay and

never

not

remembered

propertiesof

all the

The
time

mere

connexion

between

the

cause

effect possesses : and it is


that they are all communicated

the

cause

It is further manifest
to its nature, and

that

every

in

act

can

and

of every

reason

consequent.

characteristic
action

the

by

effect

and

cause

of antecedent

sequence

find in the

can

that

to

the

agent

acts

of the

effect.

according

When
we
way.
nest of the starling,

other

no

in the
the young
cuckoo appear
dream
that it is the starling's
never
offspring.We

see

we

do not
a

LOGIC

OF

to

reason

locutus est in

Bos
it

no

saw

as

the

the

know

the

active

the

of

act in

but

determines

manner

does not

not

it has
mean

variety of
The

an

the

for

character

that

it must

circumstances
a

in

in the

which

relation to the
the

that

we

the

festation
mani-

essence

is the

"

the

Indeed

or

"

ciple
prin-

powers.
it must
free-will,
with

nature.

give what

that it will act

fact

of these

possesses
in
accordance
merely

depends not merely on


patient. But it does involve
hence

essence

agent

not

action involves

nature

occur.

regarded
proportioned

through

The

that

us

he

in

are

regard

not

nature.

nature

absolutelyprescribedby

give what

told

are

they

that

permanent

unless

Moreover

least, who

of its active powers.


term
for nature is but another
which

should

we

powers

agent

expression

connatural

only

of

nature

and

why such things should


foro,says Livy : but even

portent. The

thorns

eccentric, to say

as

man

he

from

gathergrapes

its nature,
It

cannot

it has.

This

in every
way
it may
be placed.
same

objectacted
agent
where

on,

and
the

but

on

the

relation

PRINCIPLES

238
the

duce

OF

necessityof

effect,the

same

LOGIC

this

principleis

the First Cause


to
hypotheticalnecessity. It supposes
preserve the ordinaryoperationof natural laws.
asserted
that
to admit
It has occasionallybeen
the
of any
interference in regard to the laws of
possibility
of Uniformity nugatory.
Nature, is to render the principle
The
objectionmight have weight if we representedthe
Deity as interferingcapriciouslywith these laws. So
is this from
far however
being the case, that the regularity
of Nature's order is recognizedin Scholastic treatises
of Supreme Wisdom.
Natural
on
Theology as a mark
affords man
This very regularity
a
guide without which
he

could

not

direct his life with

view

to

the

future.

Deity has power to suspend


His own
He does in fact suspend
laws, and that occasionally
of His power
the striking
manifestation
them, when
be for man's
good. It is a very different thing to
may
hold that a capricious
suspensionof law is at any moment
In the long run,
it is better that the
likelyto occur.
to rule Nature
stern
regularityof law should train men
by obeying her, than that they should constantly be
able to obtain exceptionsin their favour.
We
have asserted that there is a higher kind of necessity
This is termed
than belongs to physicallaw.
physical
metanecessity. It is not like physicalnecessity,
It is

one

thingto

but
hypothetical,
miraculous

own

that the

absolute.

intervention.

In

Axioms

it there
such

as

is

no

the

scope

for

of
principle

into beingmust
have a cause,
Causalitythat Whatever comes
of Contradiction
and the principle
that, It is impossible
for
not to be at the same
time,togetherwith
a thingboth to be and
all the truths of Mathematics
possess this higher degree
be asked, justifies
the distinction
of necessity. What, it may
these
?
be that
The
must
answer
principles
because
metaphysicallynecessary,
they are altogether
are
cases
we
independent of any physicalprocess. In some
that certain concepts statically
considered, stand in
see
under
tradiction
pain of a cona relation of identity(ordifference)
in terms.
To assert that the same
thing can
at the

same

time

both

be and

not

be, is to

assert

what

is

THE

UNIFORMITY

NATURE

OF

239

in other words, meaningless.


self-contradictory,
cases

relation

causal

the abstract

is involved

concept, apart from

in the

very

In other
of

nature

dynamic efficiency.
This is exemplifiedin the case
of geometricalfigures
and
their resultant
properties. A figure which has three
sides
of necessityhave
three angles. Here
must
no
physical activityis in question, and consequently the
cause
produces its effect by an absolute, and not a
no
merely hypotheticalnecessity. Where
physicalprocess
is involved, to suppose

effect,is

to

suppose

Since

cause

is

consideration

of the

and

divine

even

self-contradictory.

principleof uniformity is

the

its connatural

without

contradiction

produce what

cannot

power

any

evident

from

concepts involved,

the

it

might
that we
seem
analyticalproposition,
possess in it an
yet
differs from
which
other analyticaljudgments in
one
being liable to frustration. Undoubtedly an analytical
be framed
propositioncan
regarding the uniformity of
mere

which
'

this

But

Nature.

have

we

natural

just noticed,

agent devoid
of the

concurrence

must
proposition

First

always produce

and

the condition
express
it will take the form

of free-will,granted the normal

Cause,, must
the

in

similar circumstances

effect/

The

principle
thus enunciated
belonging
possesses the absolute necessity
to all analyticaljudgments. The
necessityof the laws
is not
of nature
themselves
absolute
but hypothetical.
It may
perhaps be urged that if the truth of the principle
thus
it
would be more
ally
universwere
readilyapparent,
valid.
Yet savages
look for
recognizedas necessarily
capriciousaction on the part of natural phenomena,
and
children recognizethe truth of the multiplication
table more
easilythan that of this principle.To this it
be repliedthat even
where
are
analyticalprinciples
may
concerned, not all are immediately self-evident.
Every
conclusion in pure mathematics
is analytical
: yet many
of these are unintelligible
to the untrained
mind.
To realize
the necessary character of the principlein question,
we

must

see

what

is involved

same

in the

concept of

agent devoid offree-will.The untutored

natural

mind, anthropo-

PRINCIPLES

240

in

morphic

all its

merely

of Nature.

In

as

the

animals

to

far

so

and

expect the

influence

distinguishbetween

the

to

to

cause

free and

powers

uneducated

the

same

attribute

the

to

even

this may
be
attributed
way,
of experience, and
partly to the

same

to

but

children

as

of fact

matter

LOGIC

representations,is apt

free-will not

do

OF

act

in

partly to the
growing capacity
determined

the

agent.
We

have

throughout

alike that

which

similar effects,and
be

to

are

treated

that

asserts

that which

referred

both

similar

principle,
produce

causes

that similar effects

asserts

similar

to

parts of the

causes,

equally valid.

as

this is so.
But it must
be borne in mind
Philosophically
that not uncommonly
the object of scientific search
is
a
determining cause, and not a cause
properly so called.
Moreover
agents altogetherdiverse may
possess some
similar characteristic in virtue
of which
they produce
similar effects. Here
the
same
cause
strictlyspeaking
is operativein all. But
in common
parlance,we speak

of the

few

A
in

effect

lines

should

regard
exception

is the

agent,

has

his

different

man.

made

must

to

perhaps

will of

to the

the

due

as

added

On

what

human

to the

as

depends

action

do

the

exception
it may
the
on

grounds,

If all action

not

be

causes.

asked,
of

nature
Each

same

be

made

man

character

partly inherited, partly the result of his


character
of his act depend on
the circumstances
past
he is placed ?
in which
If we
make
an
exception
not
here, are
we
arguing altogether arbitrarily?
It would, of course,
be out of place to enter
the subject of
on
free-will in a logicaltext-book.
It must
suffice to point out that
our
argument is only valid for such agents as, ex hypothesi,are
own

life.

not

Will

free.

To

whether
would
the

be
mode

extend
that

to

it to the
will

in which

acts.

For

and

the

the

testimony
1

On

the

be
the

of

natural
Free-Will

human

free

or

whole

will without

not,

We

agents

human

soul

act

to

be

must

consciousness,

and

discovered

by

It is

by
a

an
mere

spiritual,
appeal to
analogy

agents.1
see

Maher's

Psychology,

c.

xix., pp.

It

from
argue
in which
the

mode

them.

not

arbitrary.

cannot

the

is unlike

ing
first discover-

be

would

case.

natural

of its action

mode

from

the

prejudge

will

drawn

not

394-424.

"
all
to

J. S. Mill

2.

is the
logicians,
the enquiryinto

the process,
He
of nature.

laws

know

to

has

who

one

241

Uniformity of Nature.

the

on

NATURE

OF

UNIFORMITY

THE

devoted

by

Mill, of
attention

most

which

the mind

comes

recognizesthat

apart

ledge
uniformityof causation, such knowthis principle
the foundation
is impossible,
and makes
of all inductive inference.
Thus, he tells us (Logic,
first observe
must
that there is
Bk. III.,c. 3, " i) "We
of what
tion
Induca principle
impliedin the very statement
is
namely that what happens once, will under
of circumstances
a sufficient degree of similarity
happen
"Every induction may be
'again''; and he says (ibid.)
of a syllogism,
thrown
into the form
by supplying a
major premiss. If this be actuallydone, the principle
that of the uniformity
which
now
we
are
considering,

from

belief in the

'

'

'

'

'

'

of

'

the

of

course

of

explanationof
the

it.

theory is, of

His

He

which

it is

"

the

section

he

enunciates

he

it

abilityof

'

between

'

every

which

has

is termed
effect

fact

preceded
the

cause

in

cause

the

'

and

causal

different
in

account

Causation,and

every

fact which
in the
"

by

observation

and

to

the

invariable

Mill

givesto

law

of

invari-

obtain

other

some

invariable

the
...

has

following

The

tells

fact

antecedent

consequent

the

"

'

The

with

knowledge of
the Empiricist

on

of

nature,

his

familiar truth, that

it

(ibid." 2).
The explanationwhich
entirelyon the meaning
'

Law

is found

succession

at

(c.5, " i). But


more
fully,thus

...

'

'

ultimate

leading exponent.

the

is but

Causation

was

truth, that

cause

with

based

course,

"

has
beginning,

arrive

we

the
principle

the

terms

that

us

and
principle,

the

in which

manner

philosophy,of

'

the

as

major premiss of all inductions."


shall deal shortlyboth
In the present section,we

his

nature, will appear

from

last

question is

which

he

attaches

rests
principle
to

the

terms

effect.'

relation, as
the account

conceived
we

have

chapter. According
one

the

of

succession

to

in

by him, is totally
given of that relation
his

whole

view, the

time,
"

of

before
R

and

PRINCIPLES

242

after.

The

effect.

He

does

cause

the

LOGIC

exert

any

that

the

expresslydesires

by him, should
"

not

OF

be

not

viewed

which

with

influence

the

on

treated

causes

of

possessed of efficiency
:

as

myself,are not efficient


but physicalcauses
(ibid." 2). He finds fault with
the Greek
philosophers,because
they wished to see
the reason
why the physicalantecedent should produce
this particularconsequent
not content
they were
that
one
phenomenon
was
merely to know
always
followed by another
(ibid."9). A cause in fact, in
wise differs from
condition :
The cause,
a
no
phically
philosois
the
total of the conditions,
sum
speaking,
the negative
positiveand negative,taken together
causes

concern

"

'

"

'

'

'

"

'

"

'

'

conditions

'

may

should

it

relation

of

absence

the

namely,
" 3). Yet

all summed

be

be

succession

of

causality,unless
say,

supposition we
Invariable
things:

whatever

the

unless

it would

in

(ibid.

variability
in-

mere

constitute
is

also

take

regard

place
all

to

is not

sequence

synonymous
besides being invariable,

causation, unless the sequence,

with

"

succession

make

may

head,

one

sufficient to

"

other

under

up

is not

is to

counteractingcauses
carefullynoted that

of

unconditional,that

is also unconditional."
There
for

various

are

criticism

points in

which

"

of

efficient

causalityto

time-relation, is
tells us
have
hence

that

it must

this must

that

before

nothing cannot
comes

in

why

from

itself,it

receive

existence

it exists.

has

never

eternity.

cannot

from

mere

Reason

possibly

be self-created

else.

something

if it be remembered
plainly,
thing exists, it is nothing ; and what is
Hence, everything
give itself existence.
cedent
anteinto being, must
have, not a mere
be

time, but

efficient cause,
Who

totally contrary to reason.


thing which beginsto exist,cannot

its existence

That

which

call

reduction

(i) The

this account

In

so

appears

efficient

an

case

one

namely
come

in

into

cause

alone
the

which

is there

case

being,but

of

has

the

is the
no

need
First

existed

reason

of

an

Cause,
from

all

between
discuss

We

have

these

two

the

NATURE

and

cause

dwelt

It

point again.

fails to

On

in time.

succession

to

cognizant of

be

difference

it is unnecessary
that

with

the

On

other,

we

told

are

must

the

connexion, i.e. that it will take place,whatever


choose

'

is

connexion

about

if

evident, that

however,

able to affirm

are

we

unconditional/

this

why

reason

that

have

we

the

consequent to
consequent must

passed

of

this

from

some

antecedent,
record

mere

the
some

antecedent,

follow

far away

that

know

must

we

of

supposition
things. It is,

other

linking the

bond

and

make

to

that

character

we

we

the

effect is reduced

unconditional

the

be

must

itself.

and

cause

to

account

any

distinguishthem,

relation between

the

hand

is inadmissible.

the

on

is clear

fundamentally misleading.
theory is inconsistent
(3) The
one

243

condition

length

at

(Ch. 14, " 2),and

causation, which

of

of

identification

(2) The

OF

UNIFORMITY

THE

of sequences.

(4) Another

inconsistencyis

of the
This

only

can

occurs,

such

cause

that

mean,

it is

always

view

contradicts

the

tells us,

true," he

'always produced by

the

arise from

'

sometimes

the

be

found

invariable

whenever

doctrine,

same

pluralityof
the

same

same

cause

sometimes

causes

may

produce motion

many

But

cause.

Mill

is

phenomenon

is

the

from

lays

"It

causes.

effect

B.
.

'

scription
de-

antecedent/

which

on

"that

in his

particulareffect

result of the

the

of

great stress," that


'not

as

to
'

causes

may

may

Many
produce

'death/'
doctrine

The

due

to

the

of

the

fact that

pluralityof
Mill's

theory

is, of

causes

did

not

admit

course,

of his

and
between
causes
distinguishing
determining causes,
properly so called.
(5)Finally,it should be noticed that he has confused
two
sality
entirelydistinct principles,
(a)the principleof cauthat everythingwhich
begins to be must have an
efficient cause
(b)the principleof uniformity. The
; and
"

latter includes

in its reference

material, final.

Each

one

of

all cause?,
these

formal,
efficient,

will, under

similar

PRINCIPLES

244

OF

LOGIC

circumstances,

effect. The
former
produce the same
relates
There
is no
expressly to efficient causation.
need for a thing,which
beginsto be, to have an antecedent
material
have

We

Were

cause.

taken

place,or

must

it so,
matter

consider

either

could

creation
have

must

Mill's account

always

never

existed.

of the

grounds,
which
on
we
accept this principle, the major premiss
of all induction/ in virtue
of which
our
knowledge as
of nature
is based on
to the laws
something firmer than
It is evident
that
an
simple enumeration.
empiricist
have
the
done, base it on
philosopher cannot, as we
of
of things. To
this school, the sole sources
nature
individual
a
knowledge are
sense-experiences; and
number
of such
a
general truth does but summarize
experiences.
covered
The
Uniformity of Nature, Mill tells us, is itself disof simple
by the loose and uncertain method
'enumeration
is,he holds,
(Ch. 21, " 2). The principle
number
of particular uniformities
a
gathered from
in nature, which
observed
justifyus in regarding the
lishment
law as of universal application. But before the estabformities,
of the wider
principle,these particularuninow

'

"

"

which

on

certaintyas
they could

now

not

it

was

belongs to

based, had
laws

of nature.

confirmation

receive

not

from

the

same

For

since

the

principle
establishment
they

uniformity,antecedently to its
of instances.
were
merely based on the enumeration
of inconsistency
Mill recognizes
that he will be accused
in thus first contrastingthe uncertainty of simple enumeration,
from the principle
with
the certaintyderived
is the
of uniformity,and then teaching that the former
looks as if he
foundation
of the latter : and it certainly
house
moveable
immoveable
on
a
were
building an
he
that
the
foundation.
But
inconsistencyis
argues
of

the

only apparent, because


is due

to

the

that
possibility

observations

which

our

within

certain

limits

tion
uncertainty of simple enumera-

of

the

establish, may

place, time

and

empiricallaw
be
true
only
circumstance.

PRINCIPLES

246
'

vert

'

and

of

'

the

law

science, is the

to

the

absolute

of

OF

confession

of

This

the

universalityof order,
and
at all places,of

all times

validity,in

causation.

LOGIC

confession

is

of

act

an

faith, be-

'

by the nature of the case, the truth of such proposition^


susceptible of proof." To adopt this attitude, is to
the hope of findingany secure
basis for physical science.
renounce
Well
the leap in the dark."
might Bain speak of it as
terms
One
of this
two
or
employed by Mill in his discussion
should
be
observed,
as
are
question
they
occasionallyemployed
The
when
two
intermixture of effects occurs
or
by others also.
combine
to produce a complex
effect. Sometimes
more
causes
kind
the separate laws.
This
this joint effect is of the same
as
cause

'

is

not

"

the

constitutes

Effect.

Compound

the

effect

is

Sometimes

totallyunlike

of Causes, and

"

3.

that

shewn

the

Cessante

"

of Causes

Composition

and

the

theory, which

effect

reduces

fall to

chemical

compounds

is called

"

tion
Combina-

If it

effectus."

are

causal

be

can

poraneous
absolutelycontem-

ever

other, it is evident

the

the

is called

effect

Heteropathic Effect.

cessat

with

one

the

This

causes.

effect,

causa,

cause

in

as

"

the

and

relation to

that

time-

mere

ground. Hence, Mill is led


some
space (Ch. 5, " 6) to the discussion of this
possibility.He quotes against himself the Scholastic
(When the cause
saying Cessante causa, cessat effectus
the
to
ceases
operate, the effect ceases)/'1and says,
to
necessityfor the continued existence of the cause
must

sequence
to devote

the

"

"

'

'

continuance

the

'

generally

once
'

at

were
'

tinuance

'

A
.

'

'

'

without

and

after
been

of the temper

have

understand
Vide

of

any

the

these

two

to

heated

his

fathers."

in which

2, and

passages.

Mill

of the

Phys. II.

c.

3,

con-

ceased.

ploughshare,
hammering,

and

hammered

This

criticism

approached
must

axiom,
"

there

the

had

doctrine.

him, that he

meaning

of

causes

who

heating and

Aristotelian

occurred

Arist.,Met. V., c.
on

man

gathered to

consideration

the

remains

of

continuance

been

Yet
.

instances

after their
made

have

to

doctrine.
familiar

many

long
ploughshare once

even

to

effect,seems

of effects

is indicative

seems

the

received

all times

any

it, has

to

of

13, and

It

never

failed

have

and

the

that

St. Thomas's

in

mentaries
com-

UNIFORMITY

THE

the

absurd

have

been

of its true

review

of

elucidation

of

example

own

part the various


The
the

efficient

becomes

what

work

is at

formal
Had

We

then

kinds

two

two

causes

does not

the

cause

into
he

the

ceases

of
new

to

stops. But
it is

same

Causa

if it

it would

its

the smith

smith

in fieri

(Cause

esse

If

effect.

either

effect

of

of

ceases.

dies,the ploughshare

is not,

as

have

we

said,

being. He is, strictlyspeaking, only


the change,by which the iron is transformed
shape. If, while the change is going on,
the process
exercise his causality,
of change
when

he

has

are

transition

time

other

on

which

causes

his

done

in

causa

task, it remains

be

may

fieriand

of the atmosphere both


pressure
ascend
in the exhausted
tube, and

position. Yet
The

modifications.
in

these

esse

in

any

and

esse

to

their

and

sustains
it

are

cause

the

causes

sustains

useful

question are

created
to

being

one

proceeds from

lightwhich

effects
No

calls into

instances

in

causa

the

of

ray

for

existing

an

said to be at

the

both

sun

causes.

being

the

It is

state.

in

causa

and

Causa

in

Thus

and

the

"

effects.

to

and

its

longer in a
thing,and depends
the

their

ploughshare.
stance,
yieldingsub-

some

operate,

when

for the

no

There

be

of

proper
to

that

mean

of

cause

can

we

hand, the material

cause

the

ceases

to be

ceases

the

as

longer:

no

it to

of

(Cause of becoming) and


being),each with its own
This

soon

as

It

made.

one.

have

these

final and

the

ploughshare at all ;
lose its shape,
and

what

it.

thing is

them

Mill's

consider

"

But

iron, but

down

melted

be

be

take

us

causes

other

make

of

not
not

Let

the

as

the

what

are

it would

to

soon

On

made

be

the

among
as

end.

an

it been

cease

two

not

in the further

help us

relation.

through them.
is,it depends on

it

causes

should

will

it is

of it that

say

causes

ceases,

"

it,it could

to

ploughshare, and
hold in regard to

the

efficacyof

247

schools.

meaning

causal

the

NATURE

attributed

of the

dogma

he

which

sense

OF

mercury
it in that

chieflyas

complete entity;

trations.
illus-

accidental

mere

is both

and

causa

and

in

fieri

this fact

248

PRINCIPLES

reveals

to

that

us

other

hand

alike

called it into

of

its existence.

imagine

that

and

as

Each

no

cause

and

effect

view

caused

itself

by

Further,
action

of the

the

"

4.

the

are

is

cause

efficient

itself must

Unity of Nature.
of Nature,

Uniformity

Unity of Nature.

This

is

by
is

name

are

be

is

with

it

be

prior to

the

effect,

the

effect.

act.

can

principlewhich

The

effect

all,must

at

for

self-contradictory.
distinct,but though the

two

exist before

so,

of certain

and

contemporaneous

cause

must

cause

the

only

not

do

words

caused

suppositionthat

"

it be

call attention
to

cause

that

imply

We

the

and

cause

causality,the

appear

implied by
plain that if

which

cause

not

same.

it may

as

effect,if

the

the

to

right,

own

as

its

does

be

to

It is

then

same,

The

and

one

are

be

Him.1

related

This

instant

every
would

the

on

is

"

universe.

in its

to exercise

ceases

seems

writers.

recent

cause

this, unnecessary

yet

far

so

dependent
as
they are

the

Himself

whole

from

perfect
im-

an

On

God

"

existence

longer takes place.

to

the

is

in

cause.

to the

esse

effect communicated

an

If the

effect

Cause

possess

effect then

effect.

of

concept

being, and sustains it in


To
imagine otherwise

it could

produces it, in

such

full

great First
in fieri
and causa
in

He

LOGIC

agents realize but

the

causa

not

created

the

manner

OF

we

have

logicians spoken

some

preferred by

those

termed
of

as

the

adherents

of

philosophy, who form what is called the Neo-Hegelian


name
Unity of Nature, is regarded by these writers,
better
as
indicating the reason
why, in our
experience, things
and
laws
form
as
as
conforming to unigoverned by uniform
appear
of
the
The
eminent
most
Neo-Hegelian
types.
exponent
the

Idealist

School.

The

doctrine
the

on

point

esse

directe

quantum
actione

cessante
rei

potest

secundum
'

Dei

'

"essaret

ab

we

shall

have

Green
in

sui

est

enim

fieri,sed

esse

cessante

etiam
creata

est

actione

secundum
sunt

species,omnisque

regendis si
Natura

section.

effectus dependet

tantum,

et

est

secundum

effectus

est

Ideo

causa

autem

potest remanere,
fieri : ita
effectus

nee

esse

solum

non
'

Virtus
Augustinus dicit
aliquando, simul et illorum

cessaret

concideret.'

naturali-

non

non

quod

directe

non

ejus fieri,

igiturfieri rei

agentis quod
esse.

Omnis

considerandum

ad

quantum

Sicut
causa

teaching

present

in artificialibus et in rebus

domus

causa

"

fieri

secundum

effectus

ejus.
agentis quod
ad

remanere

eis quae

est

Sed

it is his

the

in

Art. i,

ejus.

causa

and

view

Theol, I.,Q.104,

quod

causa

H.

ejus : quod quidem convenit

Aedificator

bus.

T.

Summa

est

agens

secundum

Prof.

secundum

causa

aliquod

late

that

Cf. St. Thomas,

sua

the

was

"

UNIFORMITY

THE

The
the
hold

it

all the

that

mind

the

feelingsinto
The

the

mine

one

it first exists

'

mind

mind.

relations

of

successively

not
'

which

'

without

form

'

the

'

exists,

'

not

the

For

other.

of

even

this

the

"

Of

words

as

many
that

just

far

related
after

or

which
so

united

so

before

succession

'

are

in

related, exist
two
objects

exist

objectsbetween

of

and

entities

exist

cannot

(Green,
work

admit

are

cannot

rela-

of the

we

mind.

of succession,

other

they

as

relation, one

reason

In

successive.

far

so

i.e. in

"

mind,

two

that

case

all

mystery

Thus

therefore

relation

the

them.

deter-

various

at

for

from

many,
the

into

inexplicable,unless

together

other, and

the

involves

is

wholly

relations

exist

exist

only

can

unites

terms

it is

the
essentially

are

selves
them-

of ourselves,

that

many

not

intellect

Green,

ask

we

brought

it would

succession, in
but

is

relations

that

Prof.

They being
unity. It is not

then

term

we

the

nothing.

they

thus

which

relation

is

relation

every

the

Abstract

mind.

motion.

find

shall

of

simply subjective

are

and

urged by
origin. If

"

Now

mystery

"

it is mind
a

intellect, and

matter

our

consciousness

our

it is

relations

the

as

For

one,

by

of

its definite

Prolegomena, " 28).

in

nothing

in themselves

world

unity, and

in

Without

tions.

the

be

knowledge,

constitute

and

of the

could

It is the

of

objects

spiritualprinciplewhich

by relations ;
thing, and there

constituted

the

work

in

is within

states

are

are

the

also

are

testifyto their intellectual


object reallyconsists, we
any

in what

of

merely

not

what

orderly

an

objects

experience

defenders

what

save

mit
ad-

not

Its

reality.

nothing

our

they

sensations.

transforms

alone, which

does

of the

intellect, there

or

of

mind,

activity

transitory

save

the

and

know

objects

249

already noted,

thought
we

Further,

within

knowledge
Apart from

have

we

indubitable, that

as

consciousness.

own

as

between

difference

and

us,

school,

Idealist

NATURE

OF

relation

as

related

always implies

of

succession
which
a
can
something else than the terms
itself
simultaneto
not
as
objects
existing
simultaneously present
the other"
before
(ibid." 31).
'ously, but one
be
the
The
can
arises, what
question now
meaning of the
.

'

distinction, which
real and

the

the

that

independent

an
seen

to

be

but
other

the

equally
real

existence

of

For

on

'

unreal

if it be

in relations, and

(ibid." 12).

Is

without
is the

This

own.

the

one

are

themselves

really the

has

then

no

the

less

hand,

between

which

claim

No.
we

can

is

possessed

distinction
real

be

If

only

by

answer

sists
con-

the

consists

looked

from

of

now

on

mind,

drawn
"

is

itself

mental

to

hold

distinguished

are

the

the

to

apt

other

of the

work

distinction

meaning
real ?

the

mind,

its

relations, which

wholly
question, What

sense
'

'

of the

work

untenable.
in

unphilosophic mind
real, fancy and fact,

the

the

one

make

to

The

and

unreal
the

being

as

unreal

accustomed

are

men

on

as

common-

the

futile

by saying

PRINCIPLES

250

'

that

the

'

How

do

'

really

'

we

it

which

consists

uniform

in the

'

in

difference

very

order

of

all

of relations
the

real

"

or

qualitieswhich

'

certain

of relations,'
the objects
constitutes
mind
perience
organizes our ex-

unalterable

Nature

is

is therefore involved
uniformity of Nature
and
reality
unreality,and is thus
"

is the
of

That

there

"

appearances
of

is

presupposition of

...

the

In all this there

theory

have

we

governed

between

knowledge.

nature

set

unalterable

an

all

is not

the

world

little which

summarized

contains,

is based

as

Prof.

calls for
we

us,

is due

it.

Hence

on

as

of

Nature.

more

The

criticism.

mental
funda-

believe, several

positions: (i) that


relations
can
existence, (2) that individual
only have a mental
objects consist solely in relations, and
(3) that the real differs
from
unreal
with
the
as
being an unchangeable, as contrasted
order
of
relations.
shall
these
examine
We
a
changeable,
points
Grave
be
each
in succession.
of
objections may
urged against
errors.

It

It is thus

(ibid." 26).
as

enquiry

our

known
uniformity
by
to the unity of the spiritual
principlewhich constitutes
the expression Unity of Nature
justlybe looked
may
phrase Uniformity
philosophic than the commoner
that

seen

is

be, that

must

of the

relations, is to say that

The

laws.

postulate

'into

unalterableness

hopeful
object

more

answer

the

in unalterable

the

spiritualprinciplewithin us
experience. But to say that the

our

by

?
...

the

one

particularevent

any
be

to

seems

to

pass

it."

to

Reality then
of

we

whether

by testing

so

ascribe

by

everything,

decide

what

do

we

'we

is

real

LOGIC

OF

three

on

main

them.

(1) It
the

is true,

of the

mystery

many

Green
in

points out,
one.

that

relation

relations
is

link,

involve
a

bond

"

order
an
according to the old definition
and
another
do
unius
ad aliud)."
one
thing
(or
relation
There
is in every
a unity of the manifold,
a multiplicity
of that which
is one.
that this is inexplicable
We may
freelyown
without
gether
a
combining intelligence: and yet we may
deny altothat
the
ordered
must
entities
needs
exist only in an
intelligence. When
things are united by a relation of succession,
which
the mind
thus
related
indeed
have
them, must
grasped
their
them
in a single thought : but
as
own
regards
existence,
but
All the motions
successive.
in
they are not simultaneous
the working of a watch,
related to each
other.
these
Yet
are
motions
do not
exist simultaneously : they follow each
other.
the world
of our
Although therefore
experience is bound
by a
myriad relations, this lends no support to the theory that it
for a mind.
It merely proves
exists only in and
that
it owes
of
'

connexion

that

its

holds

origin

(2) It

it is

between

to

an

intelligent First

is difficult to

understand

Cause.
how

it

can

be

maintained

UNIFORMITY

THE

that
of

individual

an

the

definition

is, for
It

is

It

one

related

the

by
character

is

relations.

the

of

these

characteristic

qualities,

there

all

categories

of

the

other

relation,

is

admits

reality

no

(3)
real

The

and

the

thought

this

he

is

unreal,

if

even

this

been

hypothesis
of

twofold

mean

that

in

to

We

conclude

us

no

though
real

nothing

order

or

order

to

therefore

of

of

Nature.

science

these

reason

down

no

of

any

to

less

every

basis.

than

the

the

never

it is

when

an

men

what
in

they

thought,
there

is

mind.
of

point,
account

the

existence

unreal,'
exist

" 22).

testimony

And

theory

may

the

represent,
of

at

has

and

as

cit.

roneous
er-

that

contrary

should

we

(op.

to

from

and

the

'

that

and

this

conceptual.

Idealist

Idealist

showing

"

testify

creations

which

in

hypothesis

represented

the

his

to

And

alike

the

between

else

On

thought

Idealism
destitute

to

objects

by

to

which

imagination

the

imagination

breaks

whatever

the

anything

the

that

relations

of

proved.

which

empty

doctrine

thought

existence.

and

an

the

certain

not
To

owing

real

on

These

real

correspond

means

physical

the

as

both

contrary

judgment

is, that

be

faculties.

order,

of

speak

yet

is

cognitive

our

of

which

is

all

cannot

stituted
con-

everything

difficulty

no

valid

embraces

not

distinctive

distinction

Green,

by

real

only

is

it

Empiricist

the

to

figments

as

similar,

alone.

course

the

is

and

proved,

the

erroneous,

are

order

is

as

"

conclusion

conceptual

be

it

judgments
But

of

that

concludes

reduce

others.

as

own

to

and

misstated

has,

He

assumptions.

issue

at

question

it

relations.

sensation

save

But

no

being
as

on.

be

could

unphilosophic

as

agent,

Had

bute
attri-

to

to

relations.

it

ties
quanti-

every

relations

its

what

or

and

contrary

The

connected,

patient
so

the

On

ground

as

and

consequent

as

thus

substance

by

one

is

else,

substances

bound

patient,

to

agent

as

accuracy

between

disputed.

are

are

every

another,

or

which

entities

that

be

nothing

They

is true

The

holding

hardly

and

this,
the

reason

antecedent,

as

think,

connexions.

qualities.

or

order

an

we

that
Now

themselves

not

as

can,

relation.

by

means

relation

recognizes

intelligence

'

251

relations.

in

solely

'

another

and

thing

are

consists
of

NATURE

OF

an

able
unalter-

and
for

Empiricism

affords
the

formity
Unileaves

CHAPTER
ENTHYMEME

"

have

which

with

exhibit

into
the

an

are

The

concerned

are

ANALOGY.

in

of the

methods

forms

this

mind.

followed

of these

by

forms

ence
of infer-

of

argument

chapter,
All

deduction.

differs in certain

do

one,

save

: and
purely syllogistic
Analogy

induction

structure

discussed.

process

new

any

Analogy,

we

fundamental

The

been

now

SORITES

Enthymeme.

i.

XVI.

not

viz.

is resolvable
Yet

because

particulars

them
to treat
type, it is convenient
in a separate chapter.
is a syllogism, abridged by the omission
An Enthymeme

from

of

the

standard

premiss

of the

conclusion.

The

Enthymeme
usual
in which
is the
manner
syllogisticreasoning is
verbally expressed. It has already been
pointed out
think in syllogisms,whenever
that, though we
reason
we
from
do not
to a specialcase, yet we
a general principle
each
constituent
of the three
ordinarily express
ments.
judgWe
words
our
are
are
usually satisfied when
hearers
to
sufficient to bring our
our
meaning home
with
this can
be done
clearness
and precision: and
by
in lieu of the
fully-stated
employing the Enthymeme
syllogism. We have only to read any page of reasoned
ourselves
shorter
is
that
the
form
thought, to assure
employed more
frequently than the longer and complete
it is preciselythis fact, which
rendered
Indeed
form.
the section
the
on
expressionof arguments in
necessary
It is plain,therefore, that the
form (Ch.12, " 3)
syllogistic
between
the Enthymeme
the Syllogism
distinction
and
of language, and in no
is purely one
of thought.
one
sense
of the major premiss,
According as omission is made
the minor
premiss, or the conclusion, the Enthymeme
one

or

PRINCIPLES

254

affords

so

he

points

to

likelihoods

which

or

and

of such

instance
the

in

clause

will

They

the

late

does

be

Cecil

from

the

had,
sign or

usually trouble
proof.
syllogism from

as

the

be

to

as

he

conclusive

for

is to

Mr.

not

and

to

is
proposition,which
a probable conclusion.
found

in

Rhodes

world

well-known

"

are

children

as

in

affairs.

business

fellows

Resident

basis

argument

an

of

live secluded

who

Those

affords

thus

coming

serve

may

Nor

therefore, is defined
likelihood
is a
signs.1 The

usually true,

.".

fact,

anything resembling

secure

for

principlesare

is correct.

of cases,

majority

Enthymeme,

The

An

the

in

such

some

view

LOGIC

to his audience

Where

to

his

that

himself

motive

desires.

orator

evidence

if it is verified

reasonable

decision
the

him

for

sufficient

OF

are

of

collegeslive

children

as

secluded

business

in

from

the

world.

affairs.

would
fellows
not preclude some
piece of reasoning, which
in
such
of colleges from
matters.
being highly capable
which
affords
is
evidence
either
for the
The
fact,
some
sign
of some
other
truth
general principleor for the existence of some
fall
here
into
The
of
the
fact.
argument
figure
gism,
sylloany
may
A

the

different

is of very

and

is

sign

indication

of

effect

an

of

value

fact

the

the

its presence,

in the
in

different

question,

syllogism

is

and

in

(a)

cases,

If

infallible

an

Fig.

i,

and

is

perfectly conclusive.

.-.

That

house

is

That

house

contains

(ft)The
which
wise
in

good,

Fig.

if

3, and

is wise.

wise

The

the

is

good.'

is

seen

in

This

to

be

'

general law,
is in fact

The

syllogism

form

of this

e.g.

"

good.

are

We

Reid

with

meet

and

general
the

(y) When

this

Hamilton
are

Murderers

argument

and

Scotsmen,

from

tremble

in

the

in

the

man

trembles

This

man

is the

fj.tvo5v
'Ei'flifywj/ia

when

we

told

are

therefore

that

men
Scots-

metaphysicians.'

This

27, " 2".

argument,

were

figure,it is of less value still ;


even
a
particularconclusion.

C.

'

Hume,

of

from
(orinstances),

argument is invalid, since there is an illicit process of the


The
is only that
Some
wise men
legitimate conclusion

good.'

/.

instance

existence

analysed,
good (s).

Pittacus

(s).

fire.

Pittacus

is

minor.
are

for

smoke

out

individual

an

to

Pittacus

The

'

conclude

is fire.

there

smoke,

giving

sign maybe

we
are

.-.

is

there

Wherever

eori

the

since

For

sign falls into


the premisses do

the
not

second

justify

instance,

presence

of

the

murdered

presence

of

the

murdered

man,
man,

murderer.

ffv\\oyi"r/JL6s
4" elxdruv

(An. Prior
r) o"r)fj.eiuv

II.,

SORITES:

ENTHYMEME:

with

man

it is the

where

countries

In

the

of

body

the

custom

weight.

'the

act

be

seem

result

signify a thought
"

Mansel
'

'

suggestions
guished from
this

bear

to

Possibly

the

Aristotle

says

audience,

"

of

that, if

being

used

we

the

is

that which

given to

is

an

the

to

who

Those

who

the
/.

to

The

/.

The
.'. The

to

who

the

the

series,the

premiss
chain

ment,
argusion
conclu-

of another.

of

reasoning,
Polysyllogism. The syllogism,
the
the
its

premiss
name

of

of the

other,

Episyllogism

premiss from

the

other.

serve

as

an

example.

the

lesser

sacrifice

good.

temporal things

to

gain eternal,

wise.
men
martyrs were
gain eternal.
wise.
martyrs were
eighteen Carthusians
eighteen Carthusians

this

instance, it is the

case

suppliedby

Sophocles,Oed.

to

third.

greater

The

known

which

prefer the greater to the lesser good, are wise.


sacrifice temporal things to gain eternal, prefer

Those
are

each

well

sustained

any

followingpolysyllogismmay

(1) Those

In

borrows

in

passage,

clear.

syllogismsbe thus connected, the second


episyllogismas regards the first,a prosy llogismin

The

(3)

In

becomes

Prosyllogism :

so

three

relation

(2)

it ceased

is not

i,

connected

called

the

premiss.2

said to have

are

conclusion

in

that

form

to

"

premisses is

omit

in

found

Reasoning.

is termed

Should

be

as

distin-

as

How

to

by logicians to signify

employed

syllogismsform

whose

would

is used

It

rhetoric,

science."

considered

of the

one

it is sometimes

as

of

of

was

should

of

this occurs,

When

and

orator

one

'

enthymeme

reflection.'

of

demonstrations

syllogisms
explanation may

Chains

3.

the

or

the

the

'

word

persuasive arguments

or

meaning,

abbreviated

the

an

the

the

suspected
particularEnthymeme

this

or
suggested by a person
thing.1 Hence,
is naturally enough
term
applicable to

the

says,

of

of

255

confront

to

victim,

to carry
still appears
some
The
etymological meaning
to

ANALOGY

Col. 292,

the

1199,

who

sacrificed

temporal things

were

martyrs.

were

wise.

major premiss which is in


Prosyllogism. The following

vide Mansel, Aldrich., p. 216.

e\a.Tr6vuv ?)^
^ 6\iywi" re xal TroAAa/a?
ou8"
Set X^yetr avrbs
Tr/xSros
(Ti/AAoyttr
/u,6s ""v y"p rjn TOIUTUV
yvd)ptfj.ov,
6 eUpoctT^s (Rhet. I., c. a, " 13).
irpoo-Tldrjaiv
"yap TOVTO
TO

"v

5t tv6ti/j.T}fji.a,
(cat
0-uAXoytoTids,
*

"

OF

PRINCIPLES

256

illustrates the

example
is the

in which

case

borrowed

be

to

one

LOGIC

the

"

(1) All acts of aggression are unjust.


Napoleon's campaign against Russia
Russia

against

Napoleon's campaign

.-.

premiss

minor

of

act

an

was

gression.
ag-

unjust.

was

to fail of their
intention.
(2) All unjust acts deserve
Russia
was
unjust.
Napoleon's campaign against
Russia
deserved
against
.'. Napoleon's
campaign

its intention.

fail of

previous examples, we have


prosyllogismto the episyllogism;

the

from

have

we

method

is first stated

conclusion
then

given

reasons

as

is

the

All

sciences
is

Logic

And

All

(2) Now,

the

fashion.

Such

Regressive.

mode

Thus

"

of

study : for,
deserving of study,

are

science.

sciences

assists

Whatever

it often

final
adopted. The
premisses,which establish
the proof of these
; and

is termed

deserving

quently
conse-

is

similar

premisses follows in a
of statingan
argument
(1) Logic

; the

and

But

Progressive reasoning.

another

that

happens
it, are

proceeded

of the

In each

to

are

deserving

perfect the

to

of

study

intellect

is

for,

deserving

of

study,
all the

And

" 4. Epichirema.
to

chirema, when
a

in

reason
Whatever

The
.*.

The

one

or

is

spiritualis
soul

soul

is

perfect the

to

intellect.

Episyllogism is termed
an
both of its premisses is annexed

support of it.

human
human

assist

sciences

Thus

immortal

:"

for it is

incapable of

ruption.
cor-

spiritual.

is immortal.

Epichirema is equivalentto a
Polysyllogism: the Episyllogism is expressed
regressive
In
in full,the Prosyllogismappears
as
an
Enthymeme.
written
in
the
example given, the Enthymeme, when
It will be

seen

that

the

full,will be,
Whatever

is

Whatever

is

Whatever

is

incapable of corruption is immortal.


spiritualis incapable of corruption.
spiritualis immortal.

ENTHYMEME

Where
have
are

SORITES

is attached

reason

ANALOGY

premiss alone, we
both
of the premisses

to

SingleEpichirema : where
thus supported,it is called a

257

one

Double

Epichirema.

" 5. Sorites.
Sorites is

The

middle

many

of

In

terms.1

Dictum

the

syllogism in

this

Omni

de

first figure with

the

reasoning

Nullo, that

et

the
'

principle

whatever

is

subject,is affirmed of each logicalpart


of that subject,'
is extended
in its application.The
three
not
in the premisses,denote
which
terms
appear
ordination
of speciesarranged in serial subalone, but a number
affirmed

of any

and

.".

Socrates

is

All

men

are

All

mammals

All

animals

All

living

Socrates

An

living

are

creatures
a

highest.

as

many
in the

"

creatures

substances

are

substance.

of this character

analysed into
first figure,
there

separate syllogismsas

there

be

may
of regularsyllogismsin the

number

Thus

animals

are

is

lowest

the

mammals

argument

being

man

that

states

to the

in the series is subordinate

term

conclusion

the

Hence

middle

are

is

Sorites

frequently
defined as a polysyllogism
clusions
abridgedby omittingthe conhave
of the prosyllogisms.In the example we
given, the analysiswill be :
terms

Sorites.

"

(1)
(2) /.

Socrates

is

All

are

Socrates
All

(3)

/.

/.

.-.

Socrates

It will be noticed

premissof
1

This

Summa

its

mammal.

animals

are

is

living creatures
living creature.

creatures

is

are

substances

substance.

that

the first

and
syllogism,

that

propositionis the

in each

is given by Mr. Joseph, Introd.


Et licet in
Logicae, Tract 8, c. 4,

definition

Totius

animal.

an
are

is

living

mammals

animals

Socrates
All

is

man

mammals

Socrates
All

(4)

men

"

to

case,

the omitted

Logic, p. 385.

tali

minor

See

etc.
discursu,"
S

also

the

forms

conclusion

Aristotle

himself
the

though

be

cannot

does

discussion

infinite

an

the

subject and
(An. Post. II.

c.
,

treat

not

summum

20).

he

which

tells

held

be
us

stating an

shows

that

that

ment
arguthere

the ultimate

between

terms

may

genus
Hamilton

of

of this mode
in

subsequent

Aristotelian Sorites.1

the

of middle

series

of the

premiss

minor

is termed

episyllogism.This

LOGIC

OF

PRINCIPLES

258

to

Greek

the

among

it

imply

of
known
by the name
Empire, it was
logiciansof the Lower
that
the
and
name
o-w^crds),
Complex Syllogism (crvAAoyicr^io?
does
not
author
before
in
Sorites
("ru"po9a heap)
appear
any
Valla
Laurentius
(1415-1465).
"

rules for the Aristotelian Sorites:


special
be
premiss, and that the last, may
(1)Only one
negative.
be
premiss, and that the first,may
(2) Only one
particular.
for these rules are easy to see.
The reasons
(i)If any
the
break
other premiss except the last is negative,we
rule, which forbids a syllogismin Fig. i to have a negative
minor
premiss. For the first premiss of the Sorites
is itself a minor
subsequent negation save
; and
any
involve a negative
in the case of the last premiss, would
conclusion, itself a minor
premiss in its episyllogism.
The
result would
inevitablybe an illicitprocess of the
major term.
(2) The second rule is involved in the first. Since
the minor
premiss in each syllogismis affirmative, and
it follows that, unless
of the first figure,
the syllogisms
are
undistributed
to have
middle, the major
an
we
are
But every
of the proone
premiss must be universal.
positions,
the first,
save
plays the part of a major premiss.
The
identical with the two
two rules,then, are
special
minor
that
must
the
be
the
rules of Fig. i,
affirmative,
major universal.
There

are

two

"

"

"

The

only
1

The

second
in

the

variety of

arrangement

Sorites is not

form

Sorites
of the

differs from

of reasoning which

viii. 29,

first

propositionscomposing

attention
however, in his Logic (1725), calls our
is thus stated,
the argument
St. Paul, where

also predestinated, etc., etc." Rom.

the

frequently occurs.
to
"

30.

For

well-known

whom

he

Dr.

Watts,

passage

in

foreknew, he

ENTHYMEME

is called

It

it.

Goclenius,
of

Aristotle.

of the

lowest

All

living

All

animals

All

mammals

All

men

is
is

which

man

substance.

substances

"

as

stated, is analysed,it is

thus

major premissesof

omitted, and
of

Thus

argument,

restatement

become

attention

Sorites,the minor
a

genus.

creatures

mammals

it is the

are

summum

animals

are

Socrates

that

seen

are

living

are

are

the

the

to

creatures

Socrates

When

Marburg,

Rodolphus

first drew

who

he

subordinate

/.

259

published in 1598, on the Organon


In this Sorites, we
begin not with the
diately
logicalparts,but with that which is imme-

work

it in

ANALOGY

Sorites, from

Goclenian

the

professorat

to

SORITES

the

not,

as

in the

the

episyllogisms,
of the

case

telian
Aristo-

premisses. This will necessitate


two
special rules. They now

"

be
premiss, and that the first,may
(1) Only one
negative.
be
premiss,and that the last,may
(2)Only one
particular.
since
These
(i) here all the
changes are necessary,
the first are
minor
premisses; hence a
premisses save
negation in any of them would involve an illicit process
the last,
of the major. And
(2)were
premiss,save
any
have
should
a
particularconclusion to
particular,we
of the prosyllogisms,
and in consequence
a particular
one
major premiss involvingan undistributed middle.

"

6.

of

logicalform

with

those

(oras

it is termed

have
we
(TrapaSciy/uLa))

Example

are

In Analogy

Analogy.

comparatively
which

have

we

to

deal,not

little moment,
hitherto

been

in this
not

with
such

which

discoveries
without

of

has

also

science.
much

pointed the
It

is however

caution, misleads

to

way

many

a
as

occupied

of inference,which
chapter, but with a mode
only employ constantly in the practicalconcerns

life,but
used

totle,
Aris-

by

we

of

of the

guide, which,
instead of assisting.
a

PRINCIPLES

260

Analogy

The

similitude.
be

may

thus

defined

be

may

OF

LOGIC

formula

inference based

an

as

for

this

mode

of

on

argument

represented:
"

is P.

5,

S2 resembles St in being M.
.-. S2 is P.
The
with
which
followingis the illustration,
provides us :

Aristotle

"

The

of

war

Thebans

the

the

against

Phocians

proved

calamitous.
War

between

Athens

Thebans

with

and

the

Thebes

Phocians

resembles

in

being

the

of

war

with

war

the

bouring
neigh-

state.
War

between

The

of

value

the

on

Athens

inference

the

supposition that
M

between

no

reason

regard

is the

and

causal

the

causal

of

cause

becomes

the

relation, we

P,

argument

our

1
4

instance

an

thus

describes

inference, not from


the logicalwhole

'

from

'

both

fall under

have

must

for

no

more

believingit

we

certain

are

to be

ceases

must

that

Analogy

an

"

the
to

All M

P, S2

are

are

is

'

contain

conclude

we

; and

M,

.*.

both

then

we

52

is P.'1

"

The
Example :
Example is
[induction],nor
logical parts to the logical whole
its parts [deduction], but from part to part, when
the

common

argument

genus,

but

one

from

of the

two

is better

known

to

us

II., c. 24, " 3). Thus, in the illustration given, the


inference passes
from S" to S2, both being logicalparts of the genus
M.
The
have
indicated, that P should be a
validity of the argument
requires, as we
ing
property resultingfrom the nature
M, and should not be one of the differentiatcharacteristics of St (cf.Trendelenburg, Elem.
Log. Arist., " 38). In the
4

than

same

'term

the other

'

S" that

deductively, All

Aristotle

is

'

argue

inference

the

case,

perfectsyllogism.
The
analogicalargument may be said to
induction and deduction.
By an induction
from

connexion

not

are

not

depends altogether

is

supposition. Our grounds


as
justifycertainty. As soon

than

this

to

here

calamitous.

cious
causallyrelated, it is fallathe mere
fact that S2 is M, would
then give
for supposing that it was
also P.
in
But

for

will prove

there

If this be

P.

and

legitimate. If they
us

Thebes

and

passage,
of the

applies to
major term

the

(An.

Prior

Aristotle

middle, by
inductive

terms
a

term

it

an

which

inference,
resembles

part of it alone.

In

"

in which

we

the minor."

that

part,

we

prove

This

major
description

conclude

the

that

the

(P) may
universallypredicated of the middle (M), on the ground
eventual
that it is predicable of Sit a term
which
resembles
the subject of our
conclusion
S.
be

PRINCIPLES

262

electrical in

its

OF

LOGIC

character, and

due

was

the

to

clouds

being charged with electricity,


just as the electrical
is charged. Were
this so, then
machine
conductor
a
the clouds should, he judged,give off sparks,
sent among
of the machine.
The
preciselyas does the conductor
A
kite was
tried.
sent
experiment was
during a
up
thunderstorm

with

result
resemble

to

other

concluded

itself

only

give

off electrical

establish

Mill

value
from

'

resemblance,

'

difference, and

'

of unascertained

of nine

'

of A."

one

that

has

of

the

is

depends

that

supposing

with

really connected
not,

must

as

They
the

that

are

are

wanting

Mill's
the
and

the

incapable

of

it contains,

must

attempt

point
the

on

of

ascertained

unexplored region
if after much

with

conclude

in nine

with

of

out

probability

The

which
to

common

number

mere

The

of little moment.

reasons,

we

the

argument : and
mere
guess-work.

Since

estimate

needs

be

should

on

unascertained

the

of the

fruitless.

region
number

reasons

to
it is

where

is
of

the

tainty.
cer-

they
they

Moreover,

instituted

difference

and
of

be

for

objects

two

of the

becomes

value

possess

But

conclusive.

not

comparison

an

the

that

difficulties.

probable,

fulfilment.
form

of

property in question. These


already said, be such as to amount

analogy

to

evidence

of ascertained

extent

amount
of

may

points of agreement
unexplored region

known

the

it agrees

many

foundation

that

resemblance

one

the

be

must

true

demand

'

have

we

on

characteristic

the

c.

it will possess any


given derivative property
such
shown
that
been
said above
will have

is in fact

inference

III.

...

that

analogy presents

of resemblances,

the

extent

properties,we

What

for

basis

find

we

lightning
phenomena.

antecedent

any

it follows

properties :

to

that

inferring

with

the

sufficient

"

depends

with

next

of B,

to

without

compared

would

ject
20) to the subthe force
of an
ference,
analogical innumber
of points of similarity
he says
(I.e." 3), Since the

Logic (Bk.

first

inference

clouds

was

viz.

electrical

that

holds

this

the

this

moment,

of his

them,

of its known

'

He

between

observation
ten

fact that

among

resemblances

other

connexion

'

of vast

cipated
anti-

proved
analogical

the

that

true

But

The

phenomena

two

depends entirely on the


the
two
objects. Thus
of an
analogical argument,

'

'

the

it.

to

point also

is

sparks.

chapter

Analogy.

between

'

It
to

reckoned

devotes

of

'

be

to

was

truth

The

in this

correct.

was

attached

obtained.

was

each

inference

wire

between
one

hand,

properties,' is
unexplored, any
propertieswhich

ENTHYMEME

Analogy

is

various

the

their
is

the

the

on

of

the

used

the

etymological
the

among

definition

it

is

part.

based,

gained

are

by

not

restricting

signify

to

similarities

of
use

of

citizens
the

term

closely
which

form

was

As

one

of

on

Nothing
to

narrower

ing
reason-

plays

resemblances

in

organ

proportion.

which

the

and

adheres

The

relations.
the

to

argument

(dva/Voyia),

term

is
the

cases

many

the

Analogy

human

reasons

an

between

numerical

Analogy,

as

such
of

inconveniences.

some

In

the

the

then

group

of

compares

of

"

of

other

account

of

meaning

known

the
the

on

This

Greeks

presents

traditionally
important

and

body.

basis

and

ity
similar-

on

which

parts

etc.,

eyes,
whole

based

inference

different

between

relations

hand,

one

and

question

The

263

argument

an

the

the
the

hands,

duties.

similarity

is

to

ANALOGY

as

kind

citizens
the

respective

state

to

of

head,

"

this

Of

orders

body

defined

occasionally

relations.

of

SORITES

very

which

it
be

would
scope.

CHAPTER

XVII.

FALLACIES.

"

perhaps
We

fallacies have

that

seem

Fallacies

of

in

no

Logic.

place

It

in this

might
work.

throughout treated Logic as the science which


the
with
conceptual representation of the real

have

deals

So

order.
no

Treatment

The

i.

far, then,
which

but

contributes

it is the

work

little to

conform

For

here

operations

of

concerned,

but

is
plausibility

represents

different

two

chief

the

to

is

of those

any

middle
of

one

with

fact that

those

be

legitimate

the

science

vocal

same

is

whose

argument,

the

It

is ambiguous.

term

which

counterfeit

mere

due

not

mind,

the

to

Logic to explain.
knowledge of Logic, to

have

we

fallacious,it

of

against a syllogism whose

warned

is

argument

an

fails to

It

longer logical.

processes,

as

sound

ideas.
fallacies almost

invariably form
constituent
a
Logic is historical.
part of treatises on
The
last portion of the Organon of Aristotle,the Sophistici
with
Elenchi, or Refutationsof the Sophists,is concerned
that
it came
about
Hence
them.
subsequent writers
them
within
the
the subject also included
of
on
scope
We
shall realize
work.
their
why Aristotle treated
this point at some
length, if we recall the circumstances
At
that
of his day.
period, the pursuit of knowledge
depended far less on written books than on the spoken
The

word.

Verbal

merely

the

by

which

were

method

three

by

'

intercourse

friends

truth, and

why

reason

of

of

also

the search

controversy
kinds

Discussion

instruction,but

co-operated in

which

main

or

these

was

was

the

for

carried

reasoned

'

not

method,

philosophic
on.

There

discussions

FALLACIES

265

demonstrative
(1) The
arguments
relating to some
specialscience, proposed by a teacher to learners.
(2)Friendly co-operation in the search for truth.
between
(3) Intellectual skirmishes
opponents.1 To
this class,belonged the arguments of the Sophists. The
of

boast

side

in

these

men

To

for the

them

not

but

with

claims

the

of

truth,

merely

not

to

of

with

carried

as

discusses

Aristotle

internal

the

between

on

in

tending
con-

methods, by which

the

be

might

pursued,

tested, and

suggested solutions
the

Sophists avoided.
subject of the Topics and

the

to

employed,
win
popular

at, that

discussions,truth

arguments
form

but

either

opponent

means

wondered

argument

verbal

these

be

deals

parties. He
in

their

reasoningwas

to

logicaltreatises

reason,

defend

pecuniary gain.2

secure

It is therefore
his

reduce

discovery of the

applause and

could

they

and

argument,

any

discomfiture.
not

that

was

the

These
the

cious
fallations
ques-

Sophistici

Elenchi.
It

is not,

however,

fallacies is useless
class of

cause

for

thesis.
the

appear

thought

afford
talents.

these

Some

fallacymay

men

the

field for the

of real service

in

it will

undoubtedly

render

us

indeed

not

defend

to

'

exercise

the

of their

types of

main

guarding

pitfalls.It is true, this alone will not


shall detect the sophisms proposed for
but

of

making the
has
its adepts.
versy,
religiouscontro-

aspects of
with

study

of

art

better,' still

acquaintance

be

have

consideration

But

Politics,philosophy,certain

the

that

We

ourselves.

to

prepared

men

either side of any


worse

to be

against

us

that

ensure

we

acceptance

our

capable of doing

more

so.

"

2.

What

manifest

that

such

every

as

could
1
8

pp.

vitiate

Errors
in

are

as

Fallacies?

treatingof fallacies,we

error

the

which, occurring in
conclusion.

Soph. Elenchi, c. 2, " i.


For a discriminating account
104-155.

reckoned

of the

To

such

do
an
a

not

It

is

reckon

argument,
task, there

Sophists,see Grant's Ethics of Aristotle,

266

PRINCIPLES

could

be

such

errors

if

even

of

consider

part of Logic,

as

of

class of

matter

false

but

wrong,

errors

because

the

to

in

case

Achilles

and

Breaches
middle

questionis appliedin

of

rules

these

it.

these

has

arisen, as

scarcely know
who

made

the

which

are

not.

fallacy
syllogism,

versed

men

in the

qualitiesnecessary

days, indeed,
for

term,

our

of the

many

acceptance,
the

err

prevalence of

de

Morgan suggests, because


Logic has been neglected,and
forms
"

The

discovery (or

of argument

are

sive,
conclu-

philosophers,"he
what

has

been

says,

allowed

this fallacy,it was


takes place between
Achilles
supposed that a race
tortoise,and that while Achilles slept,the tortoise gained a small start.
It was
For
overtake
his rival.
if the tortoise
urged that Achilles could never
had a start of,say five yards, then during the time that Achilles was
advancing
this distance, it would
have made
further progress.
In the same
some
way,
while he was
covering the new
ground gained upon
him, the tortoise would
in front ; and so on, ad infmitwn.
stilladvance
But
Achilles,
no
one, not even
infinite number
of distances, however
Achilles
can
cover
small.
an
Therefore
overtake
the tortoise.
can
never
relative
Here
the fallacy lies in an
error
of motion.
to the nature
It is throughout supposed that it is composed
of a
number
of separate parts.
It is in fact like space
continuous ; thus the
itself,
of parts does not
difficultyof traversing an infinite number
occur.
(For
another
solution see
Lewes, Hist, of Philosophy, ist Epoch, c. 3.)
and

In

which

to

respects. Perhaps

of Aristotelian

study
and

these

minor

But

truth.

essential

propounded

arguments
errors

In

of

the

undistributed

list of fallacies.

the

violated,

are

dispute,lacked

these

men

from

out

preciselyin
the

famous

semblance

recommend

false

reasoning.
argument, relatingto

tortoise.1

ruled

present

art

the

priate
inappro-

the

rule,such as
syllogistic
illicitprocess of the major or

further

in which

of solution

also of

and

must

the

method

some

Such, for instance, is

are

is

similarlyexcluded, because
the
detection belongs to the specialscience,with
the
of which
syllogism deals. In these, the
conclusion
the premisses are
not
because
occurs,

their

Hence,

of fallacies.

Another

"

of Discussion

of

most

Logic,but of the science to which


error
belongs,to indicate its falsity.The consideration
the
from
erroneous
premisses,is therefore excluded

treatment

to

Art

the

the function

it is not
the

Moreover
possible termination.
belong to some
special science.

no

we

LOGIC

OF

FALLACIES

( to
'

'

'

for

pass

one)

267
invented

Bacon

that

supersede that

Logic, which

was

to

succeeded

false

history, and

by

from

out

The

and

errors

the

form,

but

"

A
of

in

driving

then

fallacymay

be

have

we

defined

logicalprinciple,disguised under

as

show

we

premisses

follows

conclusion

nevertheless

which

in

which

in

cases,

syllogism,whose

whose

and

those

to

of

appearance

undeniable,

are

theory,

all

limited

thus

fallacies,are
have

Aristotle, have

of

falser

species of

new

between
study of the connexion
language" (Formal Logic, p. 241).
reckoned
in argumentation, which
as
are

system

our

'thought

in

false

due
clusion.
con-

violation

validity.

of

with
as
occasionally used
following terms
synonymous
be noted.
Sophism, a false syllogism fabricated
fallacy,should
of
for the
Paralogism : this
deceiving others.
special purpose
is explained by Hamilton
word
(following Kant) as a fallacy,
It is more
falsehood
the
of whose
employer is not conscious.
of
rules
of the
formal
frequently employed to signify a breach
inference.
Paradox, something contrary to received
opinion.
The

"

3. Aristotle's

fallacies into

two

List

Fallacies.

of

groups.

arising from
Trapa TV\V \e)"iv.)

(1) Those
dictione

"

(2) Those
than

source

These
in
source

The

were

in

which

the

2.

3.
4.

5.
6.

language (fallaciaein
arises from

error

language (fallaciaeextra

called
matter

A.
1.

the

the

by

some

of

the

dictionem

in the

'

Schoolmen,

'

Fallacies

other

some

in re),since in
(fallaciae
of the confusion
is in the thing stated.
followingis the list of these two classes
the

divided

Aristotle

them

"

cies
Fallathe

"

language.

Equivocation. (Aequivocatio Trapa rrjv ofuavvfjiiav.


)
Amphibology. (Amphibologia Trapa rrjv au(pi/3o\iav.
Composition. (Compositio Trapa rrjv crvvOecriv.)
Division.
(Divisio Trapa -rrjv Siatpetriv.)
Accent.
(Accentus Trapa Trjv rrpoo-wSiav.)
Figure of Speech. (Figura dictionis
Trapa TO
"

"

"

"

"

"

268

PRINCIPLES

Fallacies

B.

LOGIC

OF

in

the matter.

1.

Accident.

(Accidentis wapa

2.

Confusion

of

absolute

(A dicto secundum
quid ad
aw\u"s r}Try XeyeirOai.)

4.

"

"

dp'xyXau/Sdveiv.)

ev

5. Consequent.
6. False Cause.
#

tf

aiTiov

ft)?

TO.

(Consequentis wapa TO
(Non Causa pro Causa

ewofjLevov.)

"

"

TO

wapa

utj

aiTLov.

Many

7.

dictum

qualified statement.
simpliciterwapa TO
"

wapa

TO

and

point. (IgnoratioElenchi
Refuting the wrong
TY\V TOV
eXey^ou ayi-oiav.)
Begging the question. (PetitioPrincipn wapa

3.

TO

o-u/x/

TO

"

questions. (Plurium Interrogationum


"

wapa

Suo eaoT^jmaTa eV woielv.


list of

The

is exhaustive,
in

the

the

fallacies in
all which

including
argument.1

the

language, Aristotle
arise

can

St. Thomas

the

from

the

that

proves
says, three

tells us,

words
this

is

ployed
emso

in

: There
following manner
are, he
possible sources
misapprehension as to the meaning of the language, (a) The
words
be really ambiguous.
This
employed may
gives us two
viz. : (i) when
the
ambiguity belongs to a single word
cases,
and
(Equivocation),
(2)when it belongs to a phrase (Amphibology}.
The
second
of error
when
the words
not
source
occurs
are
(b)
be rendered
so
really ambiguous, but may
by a change of pronunciation.
This also gives us two
the quasicases, viz. : (i)when
in a single word
it
ambiguity is found
(Accent),and (2)when
and
to
The
a
biguity
amDivision), (c)
belongs
phrase (Composition
due
the
to
be
the
on
merely
misunderstanding
may
part
of the disputant (Figure of Speech).2

of

"

4.

Equivocation. Equivocation

arises from

is the

fallacywhich

word
in different
employment of the same
The premissesappear
senses.
undeniable, for the context
in questionto an appropriatesense
the word
determines
;
unwelcome
but we
false
to
conclusion.
are
or
a
brought
Many examples given in illustration of the fallacyare
lowing
simple enough. De Morgan suppliesus with the folthe

"

All criminal

actions
1

ought

to

be

punished by

Soph. Elenchi, c. 4, " i.


Opusc. 35, de Fallaciis,c.

St. Thomas,

3.

law.

PRINCIPLES

270

Often

OF

LOGIC

is that between
the possessor
signified
the
and
frequently some
thing possessed. But
very
is in question,such as, e.g. that between
different relation
of the old logicians
author and his book.
Thus
some
an
give this example :

relation

the

"

is Aristotle's

This

is Aristotle's

What
This

/.

book.

book

Aristotle.

belongs to

Aristotle.

belongs to

The

how
to show
followinginstance may serve
bology
amphigive rise to a philosophicaldifficulty.
may
It is impossible that
out
of
anything can be made
nothing (Ex nihilo nihil fit).
To
to
is defined
make
create
as
something out of
nothing.
is impossible.
.*. Creation
the
Here
fallacyarises from the ambiguity of the
of nothing/ In the
out
old axiom
phrase to make
Ex nihilo nihil fit,
that
be
we
mean
nothing cannot
substratum, out of which
a
something is made ; in
turn
other words, no
one
can
nothing into something.
'

'

however,

When,

make

to

mean

" 6. Composition and

Division.
of

propositionconsists

be understood

sometimes

must

several

three,' the

'

words

conjunction

it is stated

when

philosopher,'we
the

sentence

The

fallacyof

the
be

members

of the

and
House

'

that
have

substratum.

words,

say,

three

'

these

Five

must

of

term

one

members
times
some-

is two
be

and

taken

in

single predicate. But

Bacon

was

statesman

and

separate predicates; and


be
can
analysed into two
propositions.
we
Composition occurs, when
join together

of such

kept separate.
Peers

we

constituting

as

When

'

and

two

there

as

and
conjunctively,

if

disjunctively.Thus

in this,
as

of

out

substratum

any

is involved
impossibility
idea of employing nonentity

is in the

without

make

to

as

No

all.'

at

'

define creation

we

'

nothing,'we

'

two

term, in

Thus

ecclesiastics
of Commons.

if
are

we

case

where

they

should

argue,

excluded

from

membership

FALLACIES

Two

Two

.*.

the

only

men

fallacy. For

this

it is not

excluded, and

be alike

and

peer

The

argument

what

should

be

loves

that

necessary

is the

of

reward

classes

two

should

man

of the

converse

separate

we

love

all who

preceding.

their

friends

enemies.

friends.

his

will be

Heaven

/.

the

by this fallacywhen
together. Thus,

taken

forgivetheir

Caius

of

each

is vitiated

is the

Heaven
and

of

membership

to be disqualified.
ecclesiastic,

an

fallacyof Division

The

from

excluded

are

of Commons,

commit

is

ecclesiastics.

and

peers

only

men

House

we

are

271

the

of Caius.

reward

interesting
example of the fallacyof Composition
is furnished
tive
by Mr. Bradley. In treatingof the Disjuncthat
the
evident
as
proposition he lays it down
to
cannot
possibly answer
expression A is b or c
An

'

No

'real fact.
he

bases

of

meaning
simply a

real fact
and

long

"

'

the

be

can

'either

or.'"

"

intricate discussion

this

the

real

is
alleged difficulty

The

proposition.

to

as

On

'

either b or
fallacy. The words
been read conjunctively
instead of disjunctively
have
c
(Principles,
p. 122).
of

case

this

'

An

is

he
all

that

the
'

in

his

in

occurs

strive, is the

of Mill's works,

one

Utilitarianism, when
bonum,

summum

greatest happiness
desires

after

of the

which

greatest

his

own
happithe
which
case
proof
being
of
that
each person'shappiness is a good to that
and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggreinvolves
a
persons." The argument
syllogism of this

He

'admits

Each

"

says,

This

ness.

It

found

be

fallacyto

establish

to

should

men

the

famous.

seeking

number.'
'

of

instance
become

has

person

all the

have

fact, we

...

'

person,
of

'gate

character
The

"

happiness
of

The

Each
the

Here

same

of

a,

b,

a,

b, c, d

several

aggregate
in the

understood
term

is the
.

happiness

of the

gate
aggre-

persons.

individuals

happiness
.*.

of a, b, c, d

in

of

appears

individual

desire their

happiness (the

own

.).

[should]

desire

the

happiness

of

persons.

minor
sensu

c, d

premiss,as

is evident, the

diviso.

the

as

In

subject in

predicate must

major premiss
sensu
composite.

however
It

is

be
the

quite

PRINCIPLES

272

that

untrue
the

the

all others,

happiness.

known
and

fact

aim

it is the

end

as

of

should

he

b, c, d, etc., is the

a,

taken

when

LOGIC

severally
we

say
of

is
another

that

course

to

this

the

error

that

concludes

appear

that

exhaustive
the

he
his

criticism

only
list of

Within

on

introduces
the

errors,

the

instead

that

it, in order
can

Aristotle

hardly
written

It would

poets."1

which

well
do

'

controversy and

fallacy
as

in unwritten
discourse can
says, "Accentuation
furnish
fallacious reasoning, but
a
only in
'

own

men

all

fallacyof Accent,

the

his

Moreover

discuss

conclusion

general happiness, he
which
aim.
they should
As

" 7. Accent.

desires

to

illegitimatealteration, which

the

draw

of relation

out

each

of

happiness

worthless.

at the
at

and

by
we
particularlywhen
Speech. For he slipsinto

more

Figure

as

when

are

vitiated

notice

shall

are

conclusion

The

it is further
we

they

they

as

of

happiness

if

aggregate

OF

render

to

arise

from

sphere to which he inclines


to restrict it, the
ambiguity arisingin this way often
makes
it difficult to fix the precisethought, which
an
author
For
to express.
intended
example the words
addressed by Cardinal Wolsey, when
dying,to Sir William
Kingston, are thus printedby Dr. Brewer, the historian
I but served my
of the reignof Henry VIII.,
Had
God
with as much
served my
zeal as I have
king, He would
in my
enemies." 2
old age to my
not have given me
over
He
to
The stress on the word
gives a new
significance
the passage.
If it be the true reading,Wolsey did not
speak of his deliverance into the hands of the Boleyn
him
faction as
being a punishment inflicted upon
by
it as the act of an ungratefulmaster, and
God ; he saw
language.

the

"

'

contrasted
from

it with

God, had

he

the

made

'

treatment

His

" 8. Figure of Speech.

he

would

have

received

service his chief aim.

This

when
the
fallacyoccurs
of a word
structure
or
expressionleads us erroneously
that its meaning is analogous to that of words
to suppose
A term
form is similar.3
whose
reallybelonging to one
1

Soph. Elenchi, c. 4 (Poste'strans.).


Brewer, Hist, of H