E565

Encyclopaedia of
the Sciences Philosophical
I

VOLUME

LOGIC
BY

ARNOLD

RUGE,
ROYCE,

WILHELM

WINDELBAND COUTURAT

JOSIAH
BENEDETTO

LOUIS FEDERIGO
AND

CROCE,

ENRIQUES

NICOLAJ

LOSSKIJ

TRANSLATED

BY

B.

ETHEL

MEYER

MACMILLAN ST.

AND

CO.,

LIMITED LONDON

MARTIN'S

STREET,
1913

PREFACE.

WISH

to

indicate

in

few

words

the

main is

purpose

which
to

the
serve,

Encyclopaedia
and
the

of

the

Philosophical
which,
the
same

Sciences
to

intended

special
other

features of

owing
class.
volume

that

purpose,

distinguish

it from In

works first
one

the with

place,
main

each

of

the

Encyclopaedia including

will

deal
others The

philosophical
Aesthetics,
The

subject,

amongst
and

Logic, Philosophy
In the

Ethics,

Philosophy

of History

of Religion. place, each

in them
"

second

volume

will with

consist,
a

not

of

brief
of
to

articles,

summary of

character,
of

dealing

great
and

variety
intended

topics
convey exhaustive

many

secondary

importance,
but of

philosophical
discussions The But

information,"
of
as

original
aspects volume,
of the
;

and
of

relatively
each be main few eminent above of in

fundamental
in the

subject.
number.

Articles,

present

will
most

they
thinkers the

will in

be

written

by
and

some

philosophical
they
will
be upon
at

Europe
of the

America

and,

all,
their

exposition
the

determining
of

principles

thought
tion,
and

great
same

departments
time indicate

philosophical
attitude

specula
the

the

their

towards

living experience
Nowhere
is
;

of

their

times.

there

greater
there

diversity
is
no

of such In

view
witness

than
to

amongst
the

philosophers
of of human

nevertheless,
as

unity

interests
to

philosophy
this

itself. in the

fact

it is the of

mission

philosophy
At
no

realize in the

unity
of

the
human
to

sphere
race

reflexion.
has either the been

time the
as

history
of

need
so

or

opportunity
at

philosophy
the
one

fulfil the

its

mission

great
the

present.
to

On

hand,

surface

tendencies Whether
we

of
we

day

seem
"

be

altogether
of

towards
"

divergency.
or

survey the

the
same

world process

thought
of

that

of

"

practice,"

discover
and of

greater
field of

and the

greater
thinker's

specialization,

segregation.

The

inquiry

is

vi

PREFACE

becoming
ever more

ever

narrower,

and So

the

function
are

of

the

practical
services
of

man

particular.
civilization

intensive that around

the

which

modern group devote

demands

whole

schools

thought
and of

themselves themselves

together
to

technical of

problems,
aspects

the

investigation

abstract

reality.
But,
virtue and
even on

the these

other

hand,

and towards

not

only

over

against

but

in

of

tendencies theoretical and

specialization, the
intercourse and full. of

practical
civilized And
a

the is

speculative
more

peoples
intercourse

always

becoming

intimate mutual of

this

implies community,
a

understanding,

certain

dispositional identity, aspirations, gives

its

unity

wants,
all the

desires, powers,

aims,
which from

which

is
to

deeper
"

than

diversity, and
it

character

our

age," making

distinguishable

all others. The the

most

promoters
difficult
to

of but

the also

Encyclopaedia
the
most
means

have

set

themselves of

significant
of

task

giving
and service.

expression variety
It is the of

this
writers

unity
whom who and of

by

the

very

freedom
in

the

they
is
most

have

enlisted child who

the his
own

philosopher
its the

fully the
its

of

age,

uttering
to

thoughts
spectator
he of
of

lisping
all
a

language,
and all

is best In

fitted
the

be

"

time

existence." of be the world

degree
the
the

in

which of view

gives
his

faithful

rendering
he will the

from
to

point

own

station,

contributing

emancipation
which and
not

human
arise

thought
from the

from

one-sidedness and limitations

and of

abstractness individual It has those the

is

divergencies

national
my

character.
to

part
in
to

estimate

the

degree
or

in

which
be from

this achieved

task
in

been

achieved
are

the

present
;

volume,
I
cannot

will

which
generous

follow

but the

refrain

approving

magnitude

of

enterprise.
HENRY

JONES,
English
Editor.

TRANSLATOR'S

PREFACE.

IN

endeavouring
a

to

present
while
the

to

the

English

readers with
of I times the

of techni

this

volume

version

which, present

dealing

faithfully
thoughts

calities,
writers in

should
form

complex
and would

various

at

once

accurate

readable,
at

found
have

myself
been of

confronted

with
but

difficulties for the This

which

overwhelming
the

unfailing
was

help

and the

encouragement
case

English
Dr.

Editor.
and

notably
when

in

the

articles
at

by
times

Ruge
almost I

Prof.

Windelband
of

language

seemed
to

incapable
am

expressing
have this

what

they

wished of
most

com

municate.

glad
to

to

opportunity
Jones,
who

offering kindly

my

very

warm

thanks all
the

Sir

Henry
and and from

read

through
innumerable

proof-sheets,
suggestions

whom of

I received

throughout
I may

solutions

difficulties.
two

add,
contained

for

the
in have

solace the

of

the

reader

that
i.e.

only
those

of
MM.

the Croce

articles

present
suffered
a

volume,
double

by
of

and
M.

Enriques,
Couturat's
M. that

process

translation.

article

was

translated
in the

from first hands

his instance

own

MS.,
in

while

that
I

by

Losskij
in

was

written

German.

hope
as

passing
so

through differing
native

my

these
of is

articles,
may

expressing
retained
the their

they
much

do
of have

many their

points
as

view,

have
with in in

as

flavour and that

compatible
will

process

they
readers

undergone,
no

they

awake done

English
translator.

less

interest

than

they

have

their

B.

ETHEL

MEYER.

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION
...

BY

ARNOLD

RUGE

THE

PRINCIPLES
BY WILHELM

OF

LOGIC
. .

WINDELBAND

(Heidelberg)

I.

PHENOMENOLOGY

OF

KNOWLEDGE
. .

II.
",

PURE

OR

FORMAL

LOGIC
. . .

.23

III.

METHODOLOGY
......

43

IV.

THEORY

OF

KNOWLEDGE
...

54

THE

PRINCIPLES BY

OF

LOGIC

JOSIAH

ROYCE

(Cambridge)

I.

THE

RELATION
AS THE

OF

LOGIC
OF

AS

METHODOLOGY

TO

LOGIC

SCIENCE

ORDER
. .

.67
OF

II.

GENERAL

SURVEY

OF

THE

TYPES

ORDER
.

93

III.

THE

LOGICAL

GENESIS

OF

THE

TYPES

OF

ORDER
.

120

THE

PRINCIPLES BY Louis

OF
COUTURAT

LOGIC
. . .

.136
(Paris)

I.

THE

LOGIC

OF

PROPOSITIONS
. . .

.138 .148
. . .

II.

PROPOSITIONAL

FUNCTIONS

III.
v

THE

LOGIC

OF

CONCEPTS
.
. .

.156
.170

IV.

THE

LOGIC

OF

RELATIONS
. . .

V.

METHODOLOGY
. . .

.180
.
.

VI.

LOGIC

AND

LANGUAGE
.....

189

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

PAGE

THE

TASK
BY

OF

LOGIC
. . . .

199
CROCE

BENEDETTO

(Naples)

THE

PROBLEMS

OF

LOGIC

BY

FEDERIGO

ENRIQUES

(Bologna)

INTRODUCTION
. . . . .

.216

I.

LOGIC

AS

THE

SCIENCE

OF

EXACT

THINKING
.

218
.

II.

LOGIC

AND

REALITY
. . . .

.231

CONCLUSION
......

239

THE

TRANSFORMATION SCIOUSNESS BEARING ON

IN

OF MODERN

THE EPISTEMOLOGY

CONCEPT

OF
AND

CON ITS

LOGIC

BY

NICOLAJ

LOSSKIJ

(St.

Petersburg)

I.

THE

STRUCTURE

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

AND

OF

KNOWLEDGE

240

II.

THE

TRANSFORMATION

OF

LOGIC
. . .

249

(1)

Analysis Judgment

and

Synthesis
. . .

249

(2)

and

Syllogism
.

250
.

INDEX

OF

PROPER

NAMES

268

INTRODUCTION

BY

ARNOLD

RUGE.

THE

arrangement

and Sciences

composition
demands
of his

of from

an

Encyclopaedia
Editor
He
more

of than

the
a

Philosophical systematic
above the
very

its

justification
all, give
name

undertaking.
of

must

also,

and
in any
secure

the

grounds
It

the
seem

implications
certain
stress

contained

and

title.
to

would
or

that,
upon,
a

before

science

can

hope
for

attain,

lay

fairly
Biblio
a

starting-point
or

further
it

progress
must

by
have
Even

means

of

graphy
certain up of
a

Encyclopaedia,
stage
of

already
in
more

reached the

definite

development.
involves technical

drawing
than
an

Bibliography,
mechanical

which
and

nothing

apparently
of contributions

collecting
conception
for has it is
not

and of
a

arranging
the science
of

already
be

made,

the
;

concerned

must

firmly

grasped
which which
the

question
on

putting subject,

together
but
of

everything
selecting conception
progress

been

produced
a

the
and way

that
of of

falls
science.

within

definite
in

comprehensive
can

Only
science
as a

that be

the
the

historical

the

particular
serve

secured
for

and later

contributions

already
the of
as

made

criterion

writers.
a

If, then,
certain
a

modest

compilation
of
matter

of

Bibliography
direction
on

involves the
much may

stage
both

maturity, regards
of
an

unity

of

part
more

of

science

and

method,
! But results

how if
of
we

the
the

compilation
task of of

Encyclopaedia
together
not

confront

collecting
research
to

the without

particular confidence,
as

sphere
we

scientific

joy
and

and

cannot

attempt
of
a

gather
of

together

present

final

the
much of

results

period
For,

philosophical
we

speculation
understand of

without the
idea

misgiving.

however
as

may

Philosophy,

whether

the

comprehending

spirit

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

something alien to itself, there always lurks in the notion of Philosophy the idea of an towards a unitywhich in its totality and timeunceasingstriving lessness can be grasped and reduced to a fixed formula by never finite minds. But if this idea of unity and timelessness be involved in the very notion of Philosophy, we can never hope to results. We of can colligate only point to the multiplicity points of departureand of paths which lead towards this unity. Hence the only object of our Encyclopaediaof the Philosophical Sciences is to give some idea of this vital striving towards the idea of unity, and by no fixed results. We to record means can speak here not of bringing together but of working together. The Encyclopaedia of the PhilosophicalSciences shows thinkers in their efforts towards us philosophical unity, working for the idea of unity. It takes us into the inner most workshop of thought and leaves it to the individual to observe the lines of direction followed by these independent
as

by

itself or

the

comprehending

of

thinkers. The

necessityof
the who

thus

of Encyclopaedia
to sent

formulatingthe Sciences Philosophical

any

task

to an proper will be apparent

everyone

is able to form of

mental

of picture
For

the

pre

than ever more philosophical thought. before does philosophical under the pressure of the age, thinking, tend to split to pure specialization, following up and to descend in the wake in technic, of the special sciences,of the advance of life ; and we and of the general conditions threatened are with a time when shall no we longer be able to follow the threads of this multifarious development. On the one hand Philosophy borrows largely from the and both as specialsciences, regards method content, and on the other the sundered view
of

conditions

and the

exclusive world
as a

ways

of life demand

from of

Philosophy a

whole which
to

which

shall be
course

practical value,a strong crutch upon

And through time. sophy from itself to else to isolate it in and
a

lean in its
to

these the
a

causes

tend ends

either which

divert
are

Philo

pursuitof
to

or special,

bleak

cut loneliness,

off from

sources

of

nourishment

stranger

the world.

Should, however, our

Encyclopaediasucceed in bringinginto co-operationthe acknow shall at any be able to rate ledged leaders of the age, we the main the central meaning of lines, recognize perhaps even this development. To how these main tendencies see clearly

INTRODUCTION

developing ought to help us to overcome any one-sidedness from the compulsion of special which might come problems. But if the idea of an Encyclopaedia is also to find justification
are

amongst those who are not philosophers, sphere, sciences and unphilosophicallife, and in its relation to the special from inner ground, of a justification yet the postulateof an be in the least not must within outwards, from Philosophyitself, modified. or Hegel's Encyclopaediaof the degree weakened all force us above Sciences should to ask whether Philosophical defined has been made he so clearly the conception which good.
outside
its
own

that we birth should, as it were, bring to a new fitting manner particular great thoughts developedby Hegel in his own Is it

the
;

and and
to
"

carry
as

them

over
"

into
a

an

age

which
years

is

hundred This

years

older
as

it believes

hundred

riper?

question

an

inner
was

laid justification,
done

upon

us

by
of the

the

memory

of that

which
of
must

the

by one of the greatest of the form which justification

easy
on

thinkers,involves that
new

Encyclopaedia

take.
It
was

for
one

Hegel
hand

to

see

in his

Encyclopaedia authentic

evidence
the other
on

the the

of

assured

unity of Philosophy and on position of philosophical speculation.

of the

As,

the
up

springs
so

Hegelian method, every system of Philosophy naturally as the result of the preceding system,
of

Philosophy is,for him, the whole of Philo Sciences is sophy, and the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical not only the ground-plan of the entire Hegelian philosophy but also of Philosophy in general. Hence, with Hegel, the of his unity Philosophy within Encyclopaedia of the Philo sophical Sciences is secured, not only a parte subjecti(i.e.by the philosopher) but also a parte objecti of (i.e. by the content Philosophy). In the form of the new Encyclopaediaof the PhilosophicalSciences,however, this thought of unity, a parte is torn and subjecti, rejected,and many philosophersare up for one substituted the idea of unity,a parte objecti (i.e. ; but the unityof Philosophyitself towards which all the philosophers is held fast. are striving) But in every fixed and closed philosophical system which claims to be a rational reflection both of Philosophy itself and of its bearing on there lurks a tendency to one concrete life, sided appraisement and It is preciselyin Hegel evaluation. that we this tendency in its rudest form. meet The Hegelian
every

system

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy, appearing as
was

it did

at

the

dawn

of

an

age

which

by the infinite differentiation of the and hypostasizedlogicalthought once specialsciences, more, of sight the made it omnipotent. It allowed to fade out consciousness, always present in all knowledge, that in the of notidea of knowing is implied that of not-knowing and and in the will towards truth the affirmation being-abie-to-know, The proud over-lordship of the untrue. of rational knowledge,
to

be

characterized

which been

turned

blind

eye

to

the

limits of

the

has irrational,

destroyed by knowledge itself. moderation To revivify this instinct towards is the aim of our new Encyclopaedia. It binds itself to, and allies itself with, that idea of the unity of Philosophy and of knowledge in general which less consciously informs all knowledge. or more It will strive to draw the boundaries between more distinctly knowledge in general and the person knowing. But in so doing it must emphasize the notion of the temporal develop which of truth and throw a clearer light the connexion on ment that which is timelessly and that exists and must exist between For which is temporally valid. even though philosophical stretch itself that last to to were thought point of union which lies beyond all time, yet it has its birth in and rises out of the individuals in time. life of particular It is true that the value of philosophical thought rests in its timeless validity ; nevertheless this value can only be attained in the process of overcoming the this process of overcoming the temporal with temporal. And regard to and in favour of the timeless we may watch in our time own developing in a manner peculiarto itself. The struggleof present-dayphilosophy with the rich results and the methods of the specialsciences is more than the severe old combat of the individual againsta dominant system, a com moods. To manding dogma, or, in the last resort, subjective
extend show these results and how methods
to

they are conditioned aims of knowledge and to rise beyond these to absolute values is a greater,less egoistic, but also a less eventful enterprise than the attempt to reduce one's own to subjective world-conception This aim of the Philosophyof our time a own generalformula. in the new will be reflected in a double manner Encyclopaedia S ciences. the of Philosophical In the firstplace, as already remarked, the thoughtspresented

their final consequences, to and by subjective temporal

INTRODUCTION

by any one thinker, And but by a multiplicity of thinkers. not one secondly, every of Philosophy ; of these thinkers will present a complete system the ground-plan of one will only sketch some particularphilo Moreover, as regards the selection of these sophical science.
in the
out not

Encyclopaedia will

be

worked

workers, once
who have
;
a

again
chosen much

it is not
out

any of

one

individual multitude
more

or

his

advisers

them
more

the and

of

philosophical
of

thinkers the

powerful
is

objective editor
has itself,
as a

Encyclopaedia,namely, the present

Any
the
new one

age

made

the

choice.
may

who

to-day recognized
his Thus

philosopher
Encyclo
come

unfold

the

principlesof

philosophizing in this
a

paedia of
when after vidual exhibit For the this

Philosophical Sciences. Encyclopaedia of

the

time

will

Philosophical Sciences,

it has

completed and the principlesof the indi have been it, will disciplines fully developed within the ground-plan of the Philosophy of the present age.
is valued of what the is in
"

been

whoever

an

age

works

in

that

age

this is

definition
As

touching

temporally valid." separation of the philosophicwhole

for
our 1
one

into
new

do better than particularspheres,we cannot quote the Encyclopaedia opinion expressed by Hegel in

Par.

of of

his
the upon
as

and formulated follows : as Encyclopaedia, whole, parts of philosophy is a philosophic b ut the Idea itself, philosophical expresses

"

Every
circle

closing
the

itself therein

qualified or as a particularcircle is in Element, and becomes

whole
a

particular element.
itself
a

Hence,
breaks wider

though

it Totality,

the limits of its

the
as

ground
a

of

sphere.
one

Hence
of which

the is

exhibits

itself

circle of that

circles, every
the

necessary

moment

of

it,so

system

of

their

par

ticular in each As of

elements
of the

constitutes

the whole

Idea, which

also

appears

particulars."
system
the of

every

Philosophy must
the of of
"

begin with

the doctrine

thought,
the

Encyclopaedia of
doctrine

begins with
Hence

the

first volume
has

PhilosophicalSciences thought-forms, namely, with Logic. the Encyclopaedia of the Philo

"

sophical Sciences
the the first onset,
to

Logic
in the

for

its

sub-title,and
far it is whole

treats

of

of thought principles realize

general.
idea of
than

How
the

at possible, Encyclopaedia

question subject.
a

is

for the

critic rather

for the

expositor

of

the

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

BY

WILHELM

WINDELBAND.

To is

discuss
no

the

principles
undertaking.
Its way

of

Logic
For

within

strictly
no

limited

space
to

small
sciences. from of the

Logic
first

is

exception

the
and pro

other value
cess

principles
in

gain

their
themselves forth

significance
in
own

which

they
and

verify
setting

the

establishing,
system
of

ordering
doctrine.

their

special
are

concrete

Since
the

they
evidence

themselves
in
to

from is and uni

their

very
to

nature

underivable,
as

their

favour

only

be

found

they
their

prove
means

applicable
are

the

particular
and

manifold,
versalized.
A easy whose

which

by

to

be

simplified

special
and
main

inquiry
from

into

principles is, however,

in the
case

comparatively
science And
we

free

danger
is

of and in

particular accepted.
this

structure

relatively
found
a

fixed

should

perhaps
to

have about

ourselves

position
ago.

with
then

regard
stood
as

Logic
a

century

and
based

half
on

It

well-built
to

edifice

firmly

the
had in of

Aristotelian
the its
course

foundation,
of made

which

subsequent changes prominent

known,
The
in

exposition
the

time
more

contributed
or

arrangements

parts,

or

less

additions.

But,

as

is

well

this

state

of

things point
the
an

was

entirely
which

changed
the
and

by

Kant.

transcendental introduced
widened

of

view

Critical
this
was

Philosophy
only
has

logical problem,
entire

the been

first

step

in

change
that
time of

of in

principles
different
at

which and

proceeding
directions.
exact

since The of

partly opposing day

structure to

position
a

Logic
and
contra

the

present

is
:

the its

opposite
are

uniform the

commanding
dictions which

principles
between

fluid,
them

are

be

found

involve

not

so

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

much

individual

dogmas

as

fundamental

points of

view

and

view of these difficult most no problems of method ; and writer may questionswhich a particular hope to present can establish itself by means of a general discussion, unless it can itself by its pregnant formulation of the special material verify into which it is inquiring. I have If,nevertheless,
to

resolved

"

not

without

reluctance

"

of

publisha so doing
up

critical survey of logical the possibility principles, I have been able to is given in the attitude which

take been

with

regard
In

to

treated.

the

in which different ways Logic has trouble and confusion of the present

the

of these principles movement one has, from philosophical every its own been developed in a more less valid way. or standpoint, indeed be incomprehensiblewere It would least there not at
some

kernel

of relevant

truth

in each

of them.
is

The

error

of

one-sidedness
own
"

only begins when

asserts

that which

place
has

itself it

as

alone

truth, when
who

it thinks
on

looked

ought to long enough at

in its justifiable valid and the complete as exclude all else. Any one

the interaction

of different

points of view, or has himself been engaged therewith,must convinced that an exhaustive solution of the great be finally problems can only grow up out of the union aggregate of logical of all the different methods which to of treatment Logic has of been subjectedin virtue of the inner essential manifoldness But no weak its nature. puttingtogetheror eclectic indecision is requiredis a systematic What can bring about this union. whole, in which the different specialproblems and the prin developed cipleswhereby they can be solved are organically from the fundamental problem in their articulated order.
In order task of
to

do

this, however, it

is necessary

to

conceive

the

be It must Logic in the most comprehensive way. of Knowledge, as the Doctrine regarded as the Philosophical theory of Theoretical Reason. Metaphysics and Natural Philo sophy which, according to the ancient division of Philosophy, included under were Physics,fall,according to post-Kantian of Knowledge and thought,within the provinceof the Critique Theory of Science ; and if we are to regard these as integral of theoretic parts of Logic then it comprises the entire contents be confined Philosophy. And on this account Logic cannot the different points of to the abstract questions raised from the other view from which its aspects have been grasped. On

io

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

alreadydeveloped out
Thus Ethics
to

of the former
the
"

by
his

deals
every

with

volitional with

familiar his what from

individual and

empiricalsciences. experiences which are moral judgments and

But the it also deals
action with

the

general moral
it learns

from

legalrelations. Psychology as to

of

motives,

to the historical and as systematicestablish Jurisprudence from of legal institutions, ment Ethnology and the science of History as to the development of moralityand all the changing

forms will. The

in

of

the

relation

between

the

individual

and

the

social

data empirical

of

another rational
as

respect.
functions the
as

This

Philosophy have a arises necessarily

human

two-fold from the

on

character fact that the which

one
are

the hand

activities of the of the and

mind

individual which
are

appear consciousness

everywhere
on

same

governed by

natural

laws,
race.

the

other the

results of the of

entire historical life of the

/Esthetics consist,on the one philosophical and feeling, of enjoying and hand, of the processes of intuiting taken by Art among different creating ; on the other of the forms of its origin and its nations and of the historical inter-connexion Thus data valuation. The data of distinction between the data of

experience and

the

theory,and also the distinction between what empirical and in the to all men nature is given in the mental common differentiated forms of humanity reappear, although historically within the province of outline, with a certain fluidity of course We understand of the Phenomenology of Knowledge. by this of total of the empirical phenomena the sum latter term of Logic knowledge which constitute the given presuppositions
as

theoretical

philosophy. We
speak from
our

find

these

first of

all in the
we

familiar
mean we

processes
we

of the individual

consciousness

which

all

when find them

immediate which

also in the theories

of knowing; experience the empiricalsciences,

by Psychology, have developed in order to describe and causallyexplain these phenomena. But, in addition to these, of underlie Logic are given in the entire group the facts which
led sciences ; for the sciences exhibit the historical forms of human knowledge, and it is in or by them, in their historical sequence,

sought to determine thought has progressively logical of knowledge and the value nature, the meaning and
that science.

the of

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

the different stages of the critically from the funda start Phenomenology of Knowledge we must all logical underlies reflection. It is that we mental/act which make a distinction, from the point of view of value, between the the false. But though this fundamental and true presupposition with universal acceptance in this very general of Logic may meet it shall soon see that, in its different moments, form, yet we definition. exact For, on the one hand, it may requiresa more

If,

now,

we

survey

be

asked

what

are precisely

the
between

ideational
true

forms

to

which

this

applicable ; and on in practicebe tolerably the other,though we agreed may when attribute to what as we mean we or deny the value of truth mental certain to forms, yet directly we a try to form
more

distinction logical

of value

and

false is

exact

conception, and
of this evaluation

to
we

formulate find

more

the definitely
involved in

meaning
the of very

ourselves

difficulties whose latest and

we

solution
most
see

can

be

delicate
once

expected to follow only from developments of the problems

even

Logic. So prolegomena and questions,

to
one

at

that

these

phenomenological
to

cannot

be

treated

without

reference

ultimate

that

all those

attempts
are

which

restrict themselves

of these is

empirical stages
true

pre-eminently logical problems. Psychology must,

foundation.
processes and For there
are

This

of the

necessarily inadequate. of treatment psychological in any case, supply the first

that it is
as

is

no

doubt
of

that

we

first aware

although Philosophy may

of treatment,
are

method
that

yet she
and

apprehending and apply to them her own particular is compelled to take for granted
terms

psychical knowing,

there

settled

exact

for

these

universally

indis experiences ; and this assumption is the more pensable in proportion as the expressions for the different kinds and and indefinite in all phases of mental activity are vague languages. This condition of popular speech is indeed quite com and even unavoidable in face of the fineness and deli prehensible cacy with which
:

familiar

the manifold

threads of mental
which
on a

interwoven Ethics
of and

hence

the firstdemand
to

graded and Logic (and by analogy,

preparatory
and labours

life are

has ^Esthetics) is the

make
of

the settled

Psychology

creation

unambiguous
of
was

in the case terminology,and this requirement is, precisely satisfied. When, for example, it Logic, not yet perfectly said which above that has there
to
are

ideational
the

forms

the

truth-value
as

of

Logic

and discuss,

question

arises

to

which

12

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

these

forms

are,

the

word

idea and

general sense
means

Kant (after

the entire theoretic and

is taken in the (Vorstellung) Herbart),according to which it of con disinterested functioning

in contradistinction sciousness, which

appear
as

to

those

interested states

of mind

this wide of will. But acts or as feelings is far from being generally meaning of idea (Vorstellung) and logicians idea,taken accepted: many psychologists oppose in the narrower "immediate to thinking as sense perception," itself as, for instance, it is said something may be conceived but not intuited (yorgestellf). Such disagreements, regrettable which doubtless due involve logical uncertainties, are necessarily the fact that Psychology was for so to long pursued by w ho laid the chief emphasis on its generalproblems philosophers and doctrines. Not till Psychology has become an empirical that different so discipline, completelyindependentof Philosophy, thinkers work till then at it continuously, not can we may hope that Logic (and Philosophy in general)will be able to data which it has to accept from speak of the psychological exactitude and unambiguity empiricalscience with the same it can as speak to-day, when working with the concepts of and Mathematics Physics. Until this goal is reached every in order to logician, safeguard his own inquiry and ensure absence of ambiguity, must begin by definingas clearlyas he possible the fundamental psychological concepts which requires. from the logical The next consideration, point of view, is a and this is the business of descriptive systematicterminology, is herein as Psychology. But such a formal arrangement involved for methodologicalreasons (see below, p. 5 i f.), can, if it is to be scientifically only be acquired and established, Hence be Logic cannot satisfactory, by the genetic method. indifferent to theoretical Psychology, which has always occupied and by what stages judging and know itself in examining how and most have developed the highest as activities, significant ing, from the elementary beginningsof sensuous presentation. The of this psychogenetical most inquiry important presupposition is the view which, since the time of Locke, has been accepted and has seldom been called in question, almost as self-evident, into which constituents viz. that the ultimate can we analyse conscious of the content our experience always complex From this existed elements. as originally simple point of
"

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

13

view

it

is

usual

to

take
of

physical foundation
based
and
out
on

sense-perceptions as the psychothe all perceptual life, and theory

the of

the to discuss what this goes on are laws accordingto which complex ideas these from
how simple ideas, and, finally, the has various
concrete.

gradated series
are

constructed abstract
is

the

derived

This

construction
out most

of the theoretical

consciousness

been

worked

fully in its
century, in

stages
the

by

the

which
on

shipwrecked
The whether

impulse to Metaphysics indemnified

of

and care delicately Ideology of the eighteenth system-making which had

itself in various
the

ways.
to

controversy
such
a

that time

centred

round

as principle

transformation

of the lower

of elementary into finer states of or automaticallyaccordingto the laws of physicalmechanism psychical chemistry (as the Associationist psychologistssay),or

the

higher,of consciousness, takes place

forms into

whether

the various

faculties and
to

and
one

consciousness finally
must

itself

as

continuous essentially prolonged dispute as

also

be

invoked. itself
to

The

innate

ideas
of

reduced
all these

this

question in the end. blems, however, while

death,
cance, not

The
for

decision
the

genetical pro

and is for

for

Theoretical
itself

of life and matter a Ideologist Psychology of the greatest signifi

; for

Logic

quite irrelevant
with these
the

Logic

is concerned

with
is
as

the

origin but
in

Logic
so

interested

validityor truth of ideas. psychogenetic inquiriesonly in

the different fitted to make or they are necessary clear and distinct through their types of presentation-processes inter-relations. if this evolutionaryhistory of knowing, But it has actually taken as wished, and is,as the Ideologists place, certain to a still wish, put in the place of Logic itself extent it only shows far as that they have not yet penetrated as of Psychology (as logical problems. There are logical principles of every of but there are no science), principles psychological Logic. The most important point for Logic in the phenomenological of psychologicalpre-suppositionswill always be the survey of which of the ideas with the validity question as to the nature it is concerned and what These this validity two itself signifies. as questions, himself, are intimately any one easily satisfy may connected this stage, but therefore be decided at ; they cannot can only be discussed with a view to a preliminary orientation. The naive consciousness is indeed only too ready to declare
far

I4

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

and presentations
to

also
sense

ideas,whatever
that the

their

nature

and

origin,

is real presented content that that which or independently of the ideational activity, in intellectu must also be supposed to possess an esse possesses in re. This view is then appliedto concepts and judg an esse in the same to the sense-perceptions out of which ments as sense view of the world has this connected of the naive presentation of truth, defined which is usually been developed. This conception I will call tran the correspondenceof the idea with reality, as scendental and the underlyingtheory the representative theory ; its meaning is that the task of apprehending is to present the it is and be applied to world of course this demand can as artificial. idea whatsoever, simple or complex, primitive or any
true

be

in

the

Nevertheless,a little reflection suffices

to

show
once

to

us

that the
us

employment
we
can

of this

conceptionof
we

truth at the

involves

in

for when difficulties,

wish

to

test

correspondencewe

find

idea with other ideas, never with its an only compare putativeobject. Moreover, there are actual truths,such as for instance, of which the not arithmetical even propositions, in what their show most sense ingenious explanation can be said to correspond with any kind of reality. content can So we get, side by side with the first concept of truth a second is
"

the

immanent
not

; and

it
one

is

self-evident idea but

that

this truth relation the

concerned

with ideas. and

any

with

the

between ideational the

cannot

different
content

How

far

the

relation

between

world

still

here

be

objectof the naive view of stands in the background less clearly more or inquiredinto. At this point it is of far more
the
us

so-called

for significance the the

one

that, amongst
in

the

different

kinds

of

ideas,

which

itself concerns
appears

the relation between the

ideas,namely

judgment,
But the

foreground of

the

logicalfield

of interest.

psychology of the judgment had discovered even of thought which it un in antiquity, in addition to the act which the Stoics doubtedly contains, a still further moment the accept or called a-vyKaraOeo-is : it is the affirmation negation, of the the adoption or refusal of the content or ance rejection, was again brought neglectthis moment judgment. After some forward by Descartes, but it has only obtained full and express the logiciansand psychologistsof the recognitionamongst to-day we may stillsay that,as regards present day ; and even

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

15

unani no respects also in essentials, terminology and in many been If the has reached. and mous unambiguous decision there be can judgment is regarded as a psychical activity the theoretical and the practical, that both doubt moments, no as they have been called, are equally essential, a conceived
"

content

and

the

attitude

taken

up

towards

its

truth-value.
is
so

In

the

psychological sense,
it constitutes

however, the second

the difference specific

moment

essential that

between

the

judgment and the remaining kinds of ideas, or of thought. is concerned with Logical thought,on the other hand, which with of the conceptual content, and not the essential value
whether it is
or

is not
to

will recognizedby empiricalsubjects,

remain

inclined

determine

the

judgment
and

as

did
to

Aristotle,
treat

by essentially
acceptance
mination.
even
or

its theoretical

and significance,
an

hence

its

rejectionas
main

empirical

secondary deter
the fact that
that

The

however, difficulty,
the
true

lies in
to

Pure

(or Normative) Logic, owing

between and

fundamental

"distinction affirmation Hence of

and the

the

false,cannot
of

separate

negation from

essence

the

judgment.
questions
the towards

it is that the

attitude taken

up

by

on logician

is so largely determined by principle quality of the judgment ; hence, too, important role played by the theory

his attitude

the
of

explanation of the negation in modern

stillfurther

literature. logical
The
moment
are

of

"assent," however,presents
for interesting the

aspects,

which
In

psychogenetic investigation. of thinking it exhibits contrast itself partlyas a function of feeling, of will,and partlyas one such it may, as according to general psychological principles, be explained both and to character as origin in various ways. The has the characteristic of bringing with it ideational content the feeling of approval,and is hence regarded as evidence ; while the feelingitself has several different shades of meaning, such of conviction,the feeling of validity, the feeling the as belief, consciousness of validity, It is by means that of this feeling etc. true ideas are distinguishedfrom others and declared to be
its
to

extremely

theoretical

act

"

"

"valid."

Acceptance and validity may

either be transcendental
or

here have

as

secondary
but

meaning
may
case

immanent these

truth,

they

also

quite destitute of they imply nothing more

We
will call this last

thought.

meanings, in which than immediate necessity of concept of truth formal, because

both

16

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

however, objects. It is, task for Psychology to establish and interesting a far-reaching and accordingto what laws this feeling in which cases of value does actually occur. Opinion and belief as well as perception and knowledge fall within the sphere of this inquiry; indeed, Ithe task of Psychology here is to establish the marks which the purely from the psychological point of view distinguish which theoretical grounds on perception and knowledge are Hume, in accepted from those of opinion and belief. David has carried through with exemplary subtletythe his Treatise, analysisof the ideational process in which belief is transferred idea to another by means of association : but precisely from one because of the purelypsychological of his inquiryhe principle valid distinction between not able to establish any logically was
no

in itself it involves

sort

of relation to

the different kinds

of association.
"

Further, if the

acceptance

"

which

is contained

in

the

volitional act, the a as judgment be treated psychologically complex of conscious questionas to its place in the teleological life, namely, as to its aims and motives, must be raised. The implying as it does approbation judging of ideas as true or false, can or only take place in a process of thought, disapprobation, is either itself purposiveor which what which pronounces upon and that truth exhibits some it presupposes is not purposive, value for the judging consciousness. Now, psychogenetically, Like all the results truth has no primary value for mankind. of many of civilization it attains value by means media, and, in becomes accordance with a general law, begins as means j.nd_ .itself. Undoubtedly it ha"Tvalue only within the an^encMn^ there only for a small fragment of kingdom of science and even of men truth is for the great mass the body of investigators : of all kinds of other aims. stillonly a means to the attainment truth attains value,whether in If we the stages by which trace dear that it only becomes the individual or in the race, we see
to
man as

he finds it useful and the direction

at

as

he needs

it to

carry

on

his

affairs ; hence for truths

more

and been

the

have

all times

sphere in which he seeks determined by his simple or

We thus understand complex, lower or higher needs. that for this psychogeneticand, in the last instance, biological idea as of grounds for accepting an all kinds examination into motor led to practical true results, changing sensuous pro In this in different ways. cesses perception respect,therefore,

i8

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

genericconcepts,
words.
powers

are

ever

empirically given without

learns
to

the think
on

help of
as

As of

matter

speech
be
as

of fact every man But however grow,

an
nor

his

dependent

speech

thought
Ibound

may up with

actual

it

function, yet it is neither entirely identical with it. Not essentially only
as

but also whole stretches of aphasia, both in imagination conscious movement and in thought, normal in the idea or state of mind struggles in vain for expression when is independentof of consciousness speech, prove that the content speech. And on the other hand, speech may run on mechanically without bearing with it the corresponding of ideas in movement In any case, however,speechis essentially different consciousness. have only to consider the multiplicity of from thought. We this often overlooked relation clear. The languages to make didactic value of being able to speak several languages consists in this, that the possibility of different expressionsfor precisely is continually the same ideational content experienced; and that the thing is necessarily with this the naive belief, given and self-evident in the word, falls to pieces. But it must, above all, that the linguistic relational forms are be clearlylaid down and nothing less than imitations of the forms of the movement association of ideas. They are in themselves something quite i different namely, signsfor these. And it is to this symbolical and capacity their amazing mutability character that they owe
"

pathological states, such

for modulation. between the

mous

Bound

up

with this is the fact that the relation far from

thought- and
On and sometimes

speech-forms is
words

same.

the contrary, as

are

sometimes

being always homony-

speech
same

sometimes of

also the same forms of so synonymous, stand for different forms of thought,and the
are

forms

thought

expressed
secret

in

different
"

forms

of

speech.

Herein

lies the marvellous

of

speech, that

its fluid

small part of its aesthetic charm, which is no indeterminateness, under to mutual is,as a general rule,in no way prejudicial standing. Moreover, speech,whose business it is to give living community as a whole, and to all its expressionto the spiritual has interests, and the besides that of knowledge, other purposes many all of these have co-operatedin forming it. At any rate evolution of the of

speech expresses of ideas rather than the purposed processes of critical thought which the discipline was itselfin the language of civilized people. In
natural

capricious play knowledge. It

of of light all these

first left traces the

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

19

considerations

we

shall be

able

to

decide

what

the significance

phenomenology of knowledge has to attribute to the appearance in speech of thought and perception. The fundamental logical form in the finds its verbal proposition; act, the judgment, it is historically hence comprehensible why the first logical of the proposition, the theories did not get beyond the analysis

discoveryof
was

its constituent

parts, its
at

forms

and

kinds.

This

the

originof the attempts

and Sophists,
among the and
we

made investigation logical

of this in

by

the Greek
still
more

find echoes
:

and Aristotle,

Stoics

the

amalgamation

of

Logic partly

partlywith Rhetoric was, as is well known, in Ramism, and has also appeared later here revived in principle have alreadyseen, we In opposition and to this,as there. we form dawned consciousness upon may say that, though logical be confused hand in hand with speech form, yet it must never
with Grammar with the latter.
forms of

The

relation

is,indeed, rather

the

reverse

"

the

concerned are culture, so far as we linguistic life of ideas, can the with really only be understood by of their logical means significance. There are certainly logical of Grammar, but there are no grammatical principles principles

riper

of

Logic.
The

and psychical within the

a

forms linguistic

of

knowledge

are

to

be and

found

entire

circle of the

ideational

life where

whether question of knowledge and perception, But from this great mass that knowledge be purposive or not. of material those historical forms which, as Sciences, emerge of make the narrower object logical inquiry. For by up understand that knowledge which itself Science knows we of its aim of its grounds, as as such, being as conscious of of the solve of its manner to as problem it has these grounds that there falls within knowing. It is on the all that knowledge has which sphere of logical values been brought into existence by the experience and reflexion of daily life ; nevertheless, in its own field, Logic proper the philosophicaltheory of science, and it is in this as appears that the sciences evolved sense as they exist as historically facts form the empirical foundation Logic has to by which orientate itself. We cannot state that too clearlyat the outset of interfering of the with the work dream never Logic must it has seldom special sciences (which indeed attempted very It is in no wise its object to shake to do). their foundations, whenever it is
" "

20

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

but, taking them

as

actual

knowledge, to study

their

How much this amounts to phicalsignificance. developed in Logic itself, partlyas Methodology, only be really partlyas Theory of Knowledge. In this preliminaryphenomenologicaldiscussion all we have to do is to repudiatein toto claims the other sciences which have those unjustifiable on been time it equallybehoves imputed to Logic. At the same itself with to make us quite clear that Logic does not content the methods of procedure of the different merely registering sciences. Nor does it study the actual theories with which themselves in order to distil out of them general they occupy results. and abstract must Every science,it is self-evident, have its
own

philoso can positively

ways

and

purposes.

Occasions

will

not

be

when, for instance, it will feel wanting to any discipline either of considering, the necessity a problems propos of new of treatment, or of finding its method a as systematic they arise, instructive synthesisof results arrived at, etc.,etc. for an form whether worked out Thus within every special science, by itself or not, lies a method, and hence a fragment of Logic ; and modern Comte is inclined, Positivism as avowedly did, to regard the ascending series of these methods as an alternative for a special science of Logic. But to do this is to lose sight of the fact and thus that in the selecting mustering of the disciplines assumed which would collated general points of view are not from of these specialsciences; and the be obtained one any of this fact leads us back to the field once more recognition science. that is to say, as a Philosophical, of Logic as a special,

Phenomenology of Knowledge was almost had to show that because into polemics, bound we to lead us materials only,not prin to be found within these spheres are of ciplesof Logic. It follows from this that all those ways other or or treatingLogic which do not advance beyond one do not do justice several of these preliminaries to the even problems of our science. On the other hand, philosophical to emphasize the fact in conclusion, I should like, more once that all these phenomenological preliminariesthe fixingof a terminology,the tracingof the genetic process psychological of value, the insight into the delicate which produces the feeling between relations existing thoughts and their verbal expression, of work in the the comprehensive knowledge of the methods
This sketch of the
"

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

21

different

sciences for any

a

"

that

all these

preparatory

labours

are

indis

pensable
But
most

such

logicalinquiry and theory. theory and its articulation must

start

from We
at

the

this

generalcharacter of the theoretic consciousness. in Kant's principleof synthesis. Every idea,

a

find
every

stage, has
while
another of

of moments, multiplicity from

one

howevc"

limited, which,
with
The
one

distinct

another,
of relation

are

yet
a

connected

by

some

sort

into

unity.

content

simple and indivisible ; it is the of the of ideating which indivisible act brings the plurality the synthetic into a unity contents unity higher than any connexion. which On could be brought about by a formal
consciousness is
never
"

"

this the

rests

the
of

fundamental
an

distinction
These
must

between
not

the

content
as

and
two
;

form
of

idea.

be with

understood
one

separate
act
was

which realities, psychical

:

unite has

another

in the
,

knowing

as, for

instance, it
content

been

held

that the form

within reality

the

permanent,
can never

the

the
to

changing
say that

consciousness. facts there

of
a

It would be
contents
not

be

truer
a

among

psychical
is not
a

found

single form

which

that

manifold
which
a

of has

united

together by it; or
are a

single

content

many

elements, which
form.
content
a

together into thought that

synthetic unity by
separate
the
form form

It is
:

only bound only abstract

but
since
"

can

from

in

doing
of
an

so

it turns
cannot

itself into

content

(or
and
to

object ")
some

idea,it
;

form

while its

in

help thinking it again trying to isolate the content

in turn

under

separate
in

it from another
we see

form, it is

obliged to
another

think
form.

the

various

moments

under i.e. relation,

once more

But

in this abstraction is the

how
content.

complicated peculiarly
Often

relation
may
con

between embrace
tent

form very

and

enough the
and

same

form
same

different contents, and

in different

the occasionally

may
to

appear be

forms,

it is this which

enables

them

it is not
moments

separatedin abstract thinking. possible to apply every form to

of

On
any

the

other

hand,

of multiplicity

content,
form.

nor

is

every
we

content
come on

compatible with
an

any

Jdnd

of

And

here form

inner

and

essential of which

relation
now (till

between
rather

and

content,
on

the
the

investigation
borderland the embraces

overlooked)lies
the which

between
whole

Psychology and
gamut
of of the

Logic : for from possibilities

content,
to

this relation clear is

and

necessary

formulation

that

contingent and

22

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

that which it itself rejects. The to by it, or even closer inquiries which demanded are by this perhaps most difficult problem of the theoretical consciousness can, of course, here only be indicated in the most In a certain generalway. of logical we sense theory,as it will may say that the course be sketched in the out in the following pages, consists precisely systematicadvance from the analysisof the form of thought this exists between to the understandingof the relation which form and Our forms of its content. first
is task,therefore,

allowed

truth in evidence. inasmuch

thought which and perceiving

We
as

call this here

we

by abstraction those of to the attainment are indispensable knowing, and to exhibit their immediate Pure Logicy Formal or part of our inquiry,
to

isolate

have

to

abstract

from

every

relation to any

of course, not from con knowledge-content, particular although, which would in general, be impossible. The forms tent so valid for all kinds of thinkingwhich discovered have truth are whether scientific; and as we or can as their object, pre-scientific deal still pay no attention to the especial are we subject-matter, ing with the kind of truth which we have on that very ground decided above
to

call formal.

It. is the deals with the

second

part of Logic, namely Methodology, that

of

knowledge and the objects for which it stands ; for the task of Methodology is to exhibit of logical the purposive inter-connexion forms, by which the attain their end with regard both to the sciences particular must of these objects. And formal and the essential nature we the individual disciplines different ways show in how are many of all the elements inter-connexion able to exhibit the systematic lie within their province. In this sense of knowledge which concerned with immanent truth,i.e.the Methodology is chiefly
content particular

agreement

of ideas amongst

themselves. sciences the

grows up

of the of the labour out Finally, to which, in opposition world-conception

the

subjective opinions has a purelytheoretic founda and convictions of the individual, criticism has not to questionthe objective tion. Philosophical but rather to ask as a final problem of this conception, validity is related to the absolute how such an objective world-conception of the naive which, according to the pre-suppositions reality Theory of Knowledge to consciousness, forms its object. The which we assignthis problem can bring forward for its solution

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

23

no

other

sciences

arguments than those which themselves, and by the first

of these shall in what
we

are

offered

two

parts of
to

by the special Logic. Only

whether

by
how

means

be finally human hovers all

able

decide

and

far and

sense

transcendental undefined

truth

which

knowledge guarantees that in the background the as

of presupposition

pre-philosophical knowledge.

II.

PURE

OR

FORMAL

LOGIC.

Pure

Logic, or
as

Logic
the

in the

narrower

sense

of of

the word, is
But

defined generally this definition

at

doctrine

of

the

forms

thought.

and we make clear must requires qualification, that Logic deals only with the forms of rightthinking, starting
those

with

which

are

selected deliberately
of ideational

from

all the
as

psycho
to

forms logically possible

movement, be

conducive
to

the attainment

of truth.

It

must

not

supposed
think
if

teach

how

think,but how they should people actually think rightly. Further, while this customary

they want to definition sufficiently in principlebetween marks the difference out Logic and Psy the reference overlook must not implied in it to chology,we fundamental that have already part of empiricalthought we has to touched is that it and to exposed namely, error, upon,
decide And false towards whether

the results it arrives

to

at

are

correct

or

incorrect.
true
assume

though this reference

cannot

the any

alternative

between
we

and

be

excluded

by

attitude

may

at to point out logicalproblems, yet it is necessary of these the forms beginning that the validity must, in the last instance, be entirelyindependent of the strivings towards of the human knowledge of the empirical and, more especially,

consciousness. This 'of the agrees progress

with
of

the view

which

makes

the

general validity
and logical the empirical

thought the
even

criterion this

between
to

forms ; but psychological of subjects can plurality

reference

significance only as emanating from essential the inner and necessity of the logical. In any actual agreement about of thought, looked truth,the universality for instance, at fundamentally (as, by Socrates in contradistinction to the Sophists), only furnishes the empirical occasion and handle
for the fact

have

attempt
therefore

to

prove

the

truth. demanded

This

is evident than

from

the

that

universal

is validity of
a

rather rather

value

is that

derivative

than

given : its an original

24

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

and if we take it as our sign, starting point it is only because are we obligedto start from the real life of ideas. determine the sense in Finally,all these considerations which the logical thought-formmay be described as the norm \ and formal Logic as a normative of For, as a matter discipline. the side which it turns towards empirical on fact, thought, Logic, the art of rightthinking, has to establish norms as ; but the and the basis, the original of these norms significance validity be quiteindependent of whether there are subjects must capable of erring, whose ideas follow and sometimes some empirical times conflict with them.
:

And
on

here
one

we

come

on

double
"

they are rules for the empiricalconsciousness, according to which all thinkingwhich has truth for its aim should be carried on ; on the other they have their inner and independent significance and being,quite independent of the actual happening of ideational processes,
which
are
or are

laws aspect of all logical

the

hand

not

in accordance

with

them. their
men

We

may

call

the latter their where vidual

among
" "

the former value-in-themselves,

not

value-for-us,
any and indi

understand we by us whatever who, subjects their ideas between

only
and

us

but
to

like

have ourselves, false

or

distinguish
in

true

correct

Starting from "us" the logicalis an "ought," but this ought must be grounded in something whose value con sists in itself, and which only through its relation to a conscious for this latter a precept, a norm. ness capable of error becomes A prominent example of this double aspect meets the us on threshold of Formal Logic as -soon as we ask how we can at all count on coming to an agreement as to the forms of universally and valid,that is,of correct thinking. For all investigation all proof or refutation both in generaland with regard reflexion, if the rational con to the logical problem would be purposeless constraint as soon sciousness did not recognize as an a normative assertion is made. It is only through such a constraining norm that we assertion to others, assertion can proceed from one I should being used here to include affirmations and denials.
" " " "
"

correct.1

1E.
see

Lask

in his Lehre

vom

Urteil

was correcting my in the sense of these the two pairs as a rule, of opposites, used promiscuously distinguish to me two on meanings (a.a.O. p. 13 ff.). The terminology employed by him seems inverse than the of ibid. the whole more a nd the to Bergmann (cf. appropriate purpose false in opposition to true to use (Wahr) rather than p. 26),only I should prefer
" " " "

until I

has proofs,

did not (Tubingen,1912) which I unfortunately that we should made the happy suggestion

to

"correct"

(Richtig).

26

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

between has had in primitiveconnexion Logic and Grammar effect : as in the synthetic this respect a long-lasting reconstruc taken as the elements, the sentence tion of speech words were and the paragraph as the combination their combination of as sentences, so it was thought that Logic ought to start with the concept and proceed from the concept to the judgment and This trichotomyprevails from the judgment to the conclusion. in the scholastic Logic even of the present day. to a great extent of distinguishing Here, then, we are met with the necessity and methodologicallybetween linguistic logicalforms, \6yo? and \6yo? evSidOeros. The concept as a logical 7rpo"poptKos be carefully must form, which distinguishedfrom the idea consciousness of the primitive expressed in a word, is always it is founded. The the result of a judgment on which concept thus

attained, however, when

be and analysed, attributes
to

it has received it thus

one

fixed name, of
a

may

afterwards
ment

forms
own

the

which

it

of its

ground judg signs. Only these

judgments presuppose concepts sense)analytical the synthetic their ground, whereas as judgments, on the other form and found concepts. If consists, hand, in which perception the meanings of the linguistic between we expressions distinguish all so used,we may say: (mean promiscuously perception usually ing that thinkingwhich while it seeks the truth is stillin a state in syntheticjudgments and thus produces of flux)terminates has concepts embody the knowledge which concepts. These be and for all ; in further perceptionit may been secured once and may be used in analytical fluid once made more judgments for new it is not uncon in thought. In this process advances sometimes, indeed,it can only be secured ditionally necessary (for have here of speech) that what we artificially by awkwardness be called a expressed in a single word. concept should Logicallyconsidered,the concept is perceptioncongealed into knowledge : in the judgment and in perceptionwe gain, in the But for this concept and in knowledge we possess the truth. of the concept is identical with that the logical structure reason of the judgment ; only the different stages of the ideational life and as proposi word after truth generally in its striving as find, I say: "the will is free" I think different expressions.When tion, in the and will free relation between as exactlythe same the freedom-of-the-will ; but in the judgment I assert word truth of the relation while in the concept I may only think it (inthe
Kantian
" " " "

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

27

without

taking

up

any

attitude make

towards up

its truth-value.

The

concepts,
confirmed the
moment

however,

been knowledge have hence of perception,and they preserve by means from these those We must of validity. distinguish

which

auxiliary concepts
the their
course

which

are

formed

and
any for

used

in provisionally
to

of
as

without investigation

attempt
time

determine

value

truth

they

remain

the

problematicor
one

hypothetical.
If
ence

we

add

to

these considerations

the

further

that

infer

judgments, and is nothing else but a way of establishing of judgments, it becomes clear indeed a judgment by means from this point of view too that Formal be nothing Logic can else but a doctrine ofjudgments. But by judgment as the funda mental function of perceptionwe that must only understand which us (see above, p. 14), namely Phenomenology has shown the evaluation of a relation between act of the synthetic an ideas, In a consciousness which is judged accordingto its truth-value.
is

completed judgment the two moments are, as a of ideational contents A plurality always united.
each other is also

matter

of

fact,
of

in relation to

present when,
such
as,

as

in certain

verbal

forms

fragmentary judgments
existential
idea which raised the
as

for
to

we propositions,

appear

example, impersonal or be dealing with only one

some propositions,

the object of the

seem

assertion.
some subject,

Such
to

of

to

have

no

have

no

have predicate,
to

difficulties only because

form

it has

been

customary, owing

to regard the whole doctrine proposition, of the judgment as the attribution of a predicate to a subject. This customary schematization, however, is not altogether have We harmless, simple and evident as it may seem. only to sentence try to reduce any scientific exposition, by sentence, to

verbal

of the

the

formula, S
great

is P will

or

is not

P, and

we

shall

soon

see

that

living thought
The write
contents

not

let itself be the

majorityof
a

pressed into the schema. that we propositions think,speak and

manifold of
contents

present
are

much-articulated
to
one

; these

related

another

in different ways of
a

and

can

only
of
a

be

transformed of

into the
an

affirmation
unnatural

group

of

predicates
even

group

subjectsby
cases

constraint.
treats
as

But

in the

those

simple
is

which
no means

Formal

Logic

normal

affirmation
best For

by

univocal.

verbally indicated rather than in reality the copula is only the

significanceis at expressed in the copula.

Its substitute for the verbal

28

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

and substantives which do predicateslike adjectives admit of conjugation here is one of the leading ex not : mentioned above amples of those economies (p. 18), where the same colourless form of speech serves of very for a number different forms of thought. The thought-form as such never the logicalpoint of from to expressionin speech and comes view the affirmation consists in attributing to the subject not the predicatebut the relation to the predicated Of the errors which have arisen from the logically accidental of the use existential verb as copula this is not the place to treat at here that verbally the it is chiefly length: we will only mention apperceptiveprocess that decides which of the two ideas is to be taken the subject, and as drawing attention first to itself, the predicateto be attributed to it. In reality which the as relation asserted between and b can also be expressed as a
a

form

in

relation between where

are

b and

a, with

the inversion

of the

of relation,

course, ments
not

all judg Hence, in the logical sense, while in their verbal form this is simply convertible, necessary. It

the kind of relation : when on depends entirely this is reciprocal, as nothing stands in the way of e.g.in equality, verbal conversion. If I say that ^4 is equal to 2, I can just well is the other I to as hand, say of If,on ^4 equal say 2 gold that it possesses the property of yellowness(which is the logical meaning of the propositionthat affirms of the subject I may so gold the predicate yellow"), equally well say of of the conversion yellow it is a property of gold ; but verbally gold is yellow to yellow is gold would appear as incorrect, the exchange of subjectand at least not or as predicatebut and inverse form of proposition.For the only as an uncommon inherence which, in this case, is the logically expressedrelation the relation of the thing to its qualities, belongs to those forms and of union in which the united contents not interchangeable, are of equalvalue. We therefore speak of a natural not really are may which is independent and predicate, and actual order of subject In the case of inherence this habit of the apperceiving process. and speaking is indeed so strong that Aristotle could of thinking of a proposition. be the predicate that a thingcould never assert the
case.
.

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

Urteil (p. 58),has come to the con grounds Lask, in his Lehre vom of is predicated the category which is in every case clusion that the logical predicate material of the judgment." In this way the Aristotelian and the Kantian the whole of "category" would be approximatedas nearly as possible. significance
1

On

similar

"

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

29

If

we

are

to

escape

the

secret

snares

of

speech
of
a

we

must

define
and
our

the

by so showed analysis psychological

we

the assertion as judgment logically doing we should re-unite those two

us

relation ; l
which
onea

moments

to

be

the
a

essential
criticism

But

arrive of

at

the

same as

result

through
taken
over

of the in

division

judgments
table
as

they

were

well-known
Formal

the the

result

of

the

by dogmatic

Kant

his
of

structure

Logic.
can

Since
no

of Sigwart and investigations

to

Lotze,

however, it
did in the

longer pretend
It
can

last of

century.

obviouslytrue, as it that the easilybe shown

be the function
of

distinction

quantity does
a concerns

not

concern

the

judgment
value for inference

as

such, but only

difference between the doctrine

of

whose subjects,

knowledge

concepts

and

of

theory),and, more (according to the customary In the of methodology. of modality the relations case especially, rather more are complicated. If modality, according to Kant, of the judgment, but only contributes nothing to the content the value of the copula for thought in general, concerns yet we
must
not to inquirehow forget

it differentiates itself from of

most

which

includes

this
a

determination
of

denying. modality
a

As
are

matter

fact,in
must

quality, value in affirming or discussions, qualityand

where

very

much

confused. be

But

moment

of the

its own,
measure

there
and

assigned a remains hardlyanything else than the gradation of kind in the grounds which the individual con
judgment
its assertion
" "
"

modality as of significance

sciousness verbal

requires for ambiguities(of

relation.
as

differences
must
are

which, through
reflected in the

can

and

"

"), are

sphere of
relation trine of

And
most

so,

we finally,

left with

qualityand
in

the

two

pregnant

points of view
leads
us

the

doc

judgments.
doctrine of the of judgments quality and

The
to

necessarily
the
name

the

norms

of affirmation

negation,which,

under

of

the known most as of thought,are general logical if we principles. In this sphere,certainly, neglectcertain diffi culties arisingfrom their verbal expression, it is easy to overlook

laws

their
remains which
1

relation
the is

to

qualities anthropological ;
to
some

nevertheless

there

reference

and capable of erring,

cut

or other, empirical consciousness this account the form on requires

This

would

off at their roots

all the unnecessary

difficultieswhich

have

been and

started by the question(which has only arisen how far the copula should

owing

to

whether verbal confusion)

imply the

existence of the

and predicate. subject

30

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

of denial.

But

the last

problem

which

arises for

us

out

of this

reference has just been to which made, doubling of norms, follows be How the as : can comprehensivelyexpressed may in themselves of objectivevalidity, which determinations are become for the relations between norms affirming purelypositive, and denying ? admit that denial means must we For, first of all, something o f affirmative other than the mere an rejection judgment. It is,

indeed,true that the number

of correct

but aimless

and

senseless

and that negativejudgments can be increased at will to infinity, other is in or we only reasonablydeny that which in some way This point has rightly danger of being erroneouslyaffirmed. been emphasized in modern Logic ; but it stillremains an open this proves that the act of denial is purely question whether in character and limited to a subjectcapable of error. subjective The
me
more

I consider

these

relations the

clearer it becomes

to

have been adduced indeed that all the arguments which are and the actual process valid for the occurrence of denying in the both in general empiricalconsciousness ; but that,nevertheless, of true denial there must exist some case especial which actual ground correspondingto it. The incompatibility negativejudgment denotes,or, in other words, the failure every of the judgment together of the attempt to bring the elements somehow be implied in the elements them in thought,must And relation between here that peculiar the form and selves. of consciousness, according to which content they have only a another (see of free movement limited power over againstone and, as far as I can see, not above, p. 21), appears as a chief, be accepted as given further resolvable condition,which must evidence of assertion and denial in reality for the logical ; and that there must be implied in negation a moment this means of is independent of the movements which of essential validity a possibly erringconsciousness. In normative Logic the relation between affirmation and which forbids denial is expressed in the principle of contradiction, and
in every

the

denial

of what

is affirmed been

and

the

affirmation

of what
is
unneces

is

denied.
sary

It has indeed

thought

that this veto

same

because

the affirmation and

as, eg.y

denial of the

content
on

is

as

excluded naturally

and desiring

: detesting

the other
to

hand, it has been

what
we

may

urged that we must not be forbidden have previously and affirmed, erroneously

deny
con-

the

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

31

contradictory disjunction valid in order to furnish a ground be in itself essentially must for the psychological for the interdictions which result therefrom
verse.

Here

again

it is evident

that

movement

of ideas. for

It is true of this latter that,while exist side side with

psychical
those
for in

motives

denying, the
one

of

them that

affirming may by for material ground deciding can and it may though practically :
any
one

exist
very

only

seldom
in

happen
one

affirms and

denies
of the

the
Law

same

content

value breath,yet the significant when

of Contradiction

appears

it is combined

with

the

of inference, principle
an

follow according to which nothing can is contradictory either itself or to

assertion. doctrine
.even

from
to
some

assertion other

which

These of

relations and

must

be

developed at
Nevertheless

assigned length in the

proof

refutation.
made and

they justify

here

the

demand

satisfied

of contradiction also must be principle this is given in either of the familiar formulae, But when
not

by Aristotle that the formulated. objectively

"

is

impossiblethat a thing can both be and not be," we or an get a metaphysical principle epistemological that reality postulate by which it is meant rejectsa contra It is not for Formal diction. this Logic to attempt to justify has a far wider bearing. For these reasons it is axiom, which to be recommended that with the new terminologythe law of
or,

not-A,"

"

It is

contradiction
assertion and
we

should

be

expressed
same

in the

indifferent form both

the

denial of the
have
so

relation

cannot

be true.

But

far

disjunction ; its
denial cannot This
is

other

only analysed half of the contradictory half consists in stating that assertion and
i.e.that false,
Law
one or

both

be

other

must

be

true.

expressed
cannot

in the

of Excluded
here

Middle,
is that

the

validity
Law of

of which

be The

exceptions.
Excluded
and

destroyedby any only peculiarpoint

can

apparent, i.e.purelyverbal
the

Middle
no norm

is

expressed as having objectivevalidity only,

be deduced
from

hence
of

it.

From
more

the stand
necessary

point
without

the

empirical consciousness

it is far

that the

of possibility

affirming
the

perception the that neither affirmation nor very negation can but justified, both are forbidden by the logical conscience.
process

exception every altogether rejected.1 In

often
arises

and denying unconditionally be should possible thought-relation

or

of

case

be For

These

distinctions

are

of

for special significance

the

theoryof

the truth-value of

disjunctive judgments.
C

32

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

it is at this into

point that

the third so-called law Reason. of Sufficient

of It

thought comes
expresses the

force,the Law

that every assertion must have a logicaldemand universally valid ground, and hence is opposed to the of multiplicity which produce in the individual the feeling that causes psychical But here again we must opinion and belief are true. emphasize the fact that the universal validity of the ground does not mean but rather the actual necessityof principle, quantitative any thought. But with this,this law also takes on the character of a prohibition neither not : we we assert, that is, may may affirm nor deny where there is no sufficient ground, and this and with Descartes, prohibition may, as with the ancient sceptics be expressed as the law of suspended affirmation or of relation. problematical Hence of
a

we

can

represent the relations imposed by the laws

the two
two moments

thought upon
relation

of the
can

between

ideas

be

judgment, as follows : regarded indifferently.

reference is made to its value as truth, we Directly get the ques in its verbal and thought-forms. The decision .of the tion arising questionis either the assertion in which it is affirmed or denied, else the problematical relation in which or (either provisionally asserted. is the or permanently) its insolubility Theoretically relation is thought in exactly the same at all these five way the form of speech as a term, under occur stages, and it may with the same of words in all cases combination or proposition, Which of the four kinds of attitude, content. however, logical of is to be recognizedas the to me a question judgment seems terminology. Many thinkers have been inclined to regard the question as the judgment in a preliminary stage and therefore alreadyas a kind of qualityof judgment : others have not been willingto admit this on the ground that the decision belongs the same to the completed judgment, and argument has been brought forward against my proposal to rank the problematic relation as a third kind of qualityby the side of affirmation and it, it is negation. If, in spite of this, I still maintain of the relation (discussedabove) of this chieflyon account of Sufficient Ground. critical indifference the principle to and for the empirical, the norm the latter is essentially That be an inadequateform of consciousness, therefore for what may often violate itself in this, that our real thinking must shows sufficient ground for asserting or there is no it ; since,where
" "

"

"

34

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

from which the to find a principle important point is, conversely, and with this, that of judgments, can be system of categories, deduced. But this seems I have alreadypointed out, to me, as in my in Sigwart'shonour Festschrift (Tubingen, 1900) to be other than that of synthesis no which, as said above, constitutes the universal condition
essence

of which
on

and consciousness, connected

indicates the ultimate is

we

under

thought
shall

alone succeed

possible.
in dis

Only by coveringthe highestforms

which
can

reflexion

this condition

of relation, the fundamental into in the

thus

be articulated advance the

of principle possible of categories is that

moments

specialrelations. development of this system be further can alreadywon

another. need
to

categories The only

related

to

and

combined

with does

one

systematicdevelopment
ations from

not

this way the bring in determin off at its different

In

without, and however,

divide

yet it
at

can

throw

stages the forms

see, may of relations must

of relation which

are

well-known. empirically the whole

We

the outset, that

system

itself into two

distinct

between series,

which
to
or

to

obtains. Indeed, if any one were correspondence collect togethereverythingthat has been treated as relations in the different logical he would be forced doctrines, categories the necessity for a real principle of division, such as recognize
a

certain

Kant

had

in view

in his four-fold

division

with

its subordinate

where meta a classification, trichotomy of stages. Such make their way into physical or epistemologicalprinciples of Logic, might easilybe regarded as divi the categories a sion of the spheres of knowledge or of the spheresof objectivity. in this way that Plotinus set side by side with the It was Aristotelian world, and categoriesthose of the intelligible that Hegel divided the self-developmentof the Idea into dialectical relations and
content

the

fundamental

determinations of

of the

of Hartmann

the

natural has with

and

world spiritual
energy

E.

v.

great

exhibited

of the

throughout the three different categories and the the objectively-real subjectively-ideal, Lask while finally (The Logic of Philosophy and the Doctrine the development of the without entering upon of Categories^ has brought forward sketch different series, a highlysignificant of another trilogyof the categorical system, which he divides of being, and of the super-existential into the spheresof validity, far a corresponding serial structure ought (Ueberseins).How

experience. the parallelism spheresof the metaphysical;

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

35

to,

or

can

be, carried
demand
for

out

here

it is not

as

yet possible to

say

with

certainty.
This
a

structure to me to be met seems parallel and constitutive between reflective by the proposalto distinguish lies in the different relations of con categories. Its principle

sciousness
moment

to

its

objects; that
which
any

is to

say,
sense

in

the

fundamental deter

of

in perceiving,

the

of truth-value
an

object. Hence we constitutive should call those categories or objectivewhich are objects; and thought to be really existing relations between reflective which, although determined those by the special of objects, exist at first as relations in consciousness qualities
mines

itselfwhen

reference is made

to

and

only

for

consciousness.
be
to

In

this

sense

the two and

kinds immanent

of

categories may
in their relation tive

as distinguished

transcendent
I would the say

truth ;

so

that

that the constitu

are

categoriesare
final task of series and

existential and the

to

reflective

valid.
the

It is
two

the

system
discover

of the

categoriesto reunite
forms of

divided
two

thought in

which

the

fundamental

combined
From the

the valid and the existential, are categories, into a unity. of the categories of reflexion, the point of view the
to

first and

fundamental
relate ideas them

function in any

of other

judgment
way
we

is
must

to

distinguish ; for them distinguish

The habit in

and

keep

distinguishedfrom
in
a as

each

other.

speech of expressing distinction

not to

positionought propositions.
every every has
seems

mislead

us

to

the

negative pro of such logicalsense

axiom,
that

The of

elementary
consciousness
over

and
must

self-evident
be

moment

other

and been
to

maintained

indeed

expressed as
reserve

the

from distinguished against it in its idiosyncrasy Principleof Identity;but it

shall find we categories the objective important positions among occupying the most forms.1 This which all other presupposition,on categorical which thinking rests, acts as a norm guarantees the identity of meaning in words ideas, and also gives expressing common for the
to fixity

better

this term

individual

ideas.
of

The
as

limiting case
evident,
the
some

distinction

is

is

contents

declared
or

equality. In be to equal
From the

this
must

case,

be ways

distinguishedin
JCf. my treatise
der
"

way

another.
und Identitat"

many

Ueber

Gleichheit
d.

the Sitz. Ber.

Akad. Hcidelberger

Wiss.

and Identity) in (on Similarity philos.hist. Klasse" 1910, Nr. 14.

36 and

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

stages of
in
two

similarities and follow and

and distinguishing the dissimilarities) which series, In the

may

called identifying (usually other categories of reflexion be called the mathematical funda consists this of
are

the

discursive. form for the

former

of these

series the

mental of

synthesisof
is

the

manifold, which
From
or

distinct,equal moments,
the further the fundamental relation

number.

developed
with

categoriesof number,
of the the whole
to

quantity,
of

its parts, and

the relations of
measure

and

magnitude with of degree. How

mathematical will
one come

different determinations in

far in this and

subsequent
relations I will not

extensions of time

of the and

series the intuitable under

must

emphasized, that is, the logical that within series they never signifylogicalprin for logicalprinciples, but only spheres of application ciples, that the fundamental function of counting and, more especially, time in no other sense and in as a psychicalact presupposes other synthesisof the manifold. than any other measure no derivation of all these categories from the relations of The shows itself also in the fact that and identifying distinguishing all mathematical judgments may be expressed as judgments of equality, and that this relation of equality (as that of dis this depends the ex is absolutelyreciprocal.On tinction) of an of the members equation,their capacity changeability with for the other, and this the for being substituted one fundamental of all the doctrines of number. structure logical In the discursive series there develops out of distinction and and at this point in the comparison the conceptual relations, theory of judgment the customary theory of the concept finds its proper thinking is the place. For the first task of logical of experiences into transformation means concepts. This and synthesiswhich reconstructs. analysiswhich distinguishes in the con become If in this way we clearly conscious effectuated in the intuition (so that previously cept of what was of avdjjLv*i"ri^ here speak of a kind must we we bring may that the unavoidable chief out two imper points: first, in the fection of the analysisnecessitates a selective spontaneity that here already the so objects which are further synthesis, in thought exhibit themselves elaborated as products of the that these firstconcepts, and secondly, consciousness itself; logical and in form to the primary ideas while akin indeed in content
here

space discuss ; but

consideration be

thing

"

"

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

37

yet

differ

considerably from
selection and Here also
we

them,
in
at

both form

in which
root

content

which
to

is
a

limited

by

is raised of the

certain elaboration.
and

get

the
so

difficulties

the frequently when for the primary idea is also stood which word same originally have the right, and to a the concept ; here too we used to denote of its indeed the duty, of science to assign names certain extent to the concepts coined by itself. own between the In distinguishing concepts reciprocalaction and comparing develops anew. Every concept is not merely a

misunderstandings

which

appear

but collection, which tive

an

ordered

and

related

whole

of

elements,
a

in

their intimate

connexion

through (chiefly
way

constitu

In this category)is thought,i.e.asserted. of comparison, which, by together the possibility the

they offer
from
to

abstraction leads

different and
of

reflexion

on

the

similar

marks,

the

be not generic concepts ; these, again, must "confused with the general ideas, often homonymous with them, ideational process. of the uncontrolled By continuing the pro and on the other hand, by converting it into of abstraction, cess determination (for the theory of which Lotze's finely thoughtdoctrine of the undetermined out general marks first provided a there arises that well-known satisfactory basis), gradation of formation

-concepts which

includes

the

relations and

of their subordination

and

disjunction. Of the (mostly "analytical) judgments, in which these categoriesof the relations between concepts are expressed,the judgments of subordination have from acquired a rather dangerous significance especially the fact that (as far back as Aristotle) Logic has given way to the as temptation of regarding the subject thus conceived falling within the sphere of the predicate as the type of all judgment, "and subordination or subsumption as the prevailingmeaning of the copula. This is an error of the scholastic in principle logic. Gold is a metal is indeed real subordination a gold is ; but in livingthought that gold ought to be means yellow never subsumed under be obviously nonsense yellow, which would and certainlynot always that gold is to be reckoned among but of rather that gold has the property yellow bodies, yellow ness. Subsumption may be thought of as a side issue, but it is the precise meaning of the judgment. not neither is it But of and careful way Aristotle's more always predication, even of the concept, making the predicate proceeding from the content
" " " "
"

co-ordination, their division

38
mark

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

a
a

is in subject, Pure gold as : proposition

"

of

the

cases many is sometimes

not

correct.
"

Such

found

falls under

neither Our
us

of the two discussion the

schemata. of these relations

must
was

necessary
govern
our

to

enable

to

discover

which principle
is founded

attitude to
our

the

which Syllogistic
we

upon

them. is to

From

point
forms

view i,of under

may
one

say

that

its task

determine Even

the

which

conceptholds good of others.

could not

in determina

with the defin dispense which the generic ing significance concept possesses in thought for all parts of its logical denotation (thatis,for the genericand to it) singular concepts which are subordinate ; but this comes still more out generallyin the fact that every determination which is valid of the generic concept, as such, is also valid for denotation. The concept implicitly every part of its empirical all its exemplars,it represents them, and its entire contains
" " " "

division and disjunction tion, we

denotation

the on dependence of the particular universal is verbally expressedby saying that every conceptual the form of the universal or the apodeictic judgment can assume is P, all S's are be P ; hence : S P, every S must proposition
" "

may relation logical

be of

substituted the

for it.

Thus

the

fundamental

we

may

be excused
may

culties which

any closer discussion here of the diffi arise for the dictum de omni et nullo out of the

from

ambiguity of the negation of the universal judgment. that we can It is only by reference to these linguistic matters since the understand the theoryof inference as it has been current
time and of Aristotle. difference
of
one

It confines obtain
; that

itself to the relations of between is to

say,

sameness

which

the it

connotation

and into

the
con

denotation sideration constitutive

to

concepts
kind

only
and

takes
passes

of reflective relations

categorieswith complete unconcern.

was

which the

Aristotle details

able
we

to

develop the
not

by the The perfection syllogistic system,

was

into

of which

need

enter,

due

to

this

limitation.

of the four It is easy to show that the "false subtlety figures and all their modes can be traced back to the syllogistic
"

language. That, indeed, is abundantly evident ir of the remaining figures i.e.to the the reducibility to the first, is precisely which the one that expresses subaltern conclusion, the dependence of the particular the universal. on most clearly Under it belongsalso the so-called inference through opposition, is rightly the negative relation in the conclusion as soon as
influence of

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

conjoinedwith
closer

the

of principle
we

consequence

; but

this

requires
of this

discussion,for which
last

have
sense

here

no

space.

The

and

in

certain

effect justifiable
to

limitation of the between found

theory of

inference

the

relation

of

equality
is to
a

the connotation
in the In

and

denotation
in

of the concept

be

attempts, renewed

modern

times,

at

logical
"

of inferences conformity with the schematization in antiquity by circles or angles apparently favoured even in and followingthe erroneous opinion that the copula signifies an some equalityof subject and predicate,thinkers have way always returned to the idea of writing judgments as equations, of treating them mathematical and finally as equations. The in the Quantity of the of doing this, since feasible way one alreadydetermined, was judgment the extent of the subjectwas that of quantifying the predicate it was then possible : obviously calculus.
"

to

compare

the

denotations from the

on

both

sides and how

narrow

to

reckon
is the
:

with

them.

Still it is clear
to

the above

circle
real

of relations inferences of

which

inference

is thus

limited

of the

livingthought this theory of inference only applies

to

without
more we

over-refinement
arrive
at
no

mathematical
:

ones.

Here

once

the

result

there

are

of logical principles

Mathematics

but

mathematical the constitutive

of Logic. principles

The of the

sphere of
forms

coincides categories

with

that

thought which Kant claimed for his Transcen Formal dental as against Logic, namely objectiverelations ; and it was his great creative genius which that this taught us exhibits itself for our actual perceptual life in rela objectivity tion to experience, and is restricted to experience. Kant, it is also of the opinion that his (objective) true, was categoriesin
themselves
are as

of

valid

for
come

all

forms, which "analytical"

tion.

thinking whatsoever of under the principle

of significance these

as

the

contradic

Hence

the last

transcendental

categories,
of

should, in the
any
owe

instance, be independent of the

also of
our

conditions

and

therefore

perception.
we are

But

these

categories

that

with objectivity,
their

which

here

mainly concerned,
and
even

preciselyto
in

schematization Herein

in

temporal
paramount

partly
Kant and

spatial forms.
in
as

lies the

of significance For what of space

schematism

the

Transcendental
in the
sensuous

Logic.

represents
time be

immersion
so

schemata

is in fact

essential

for the

objectiverelations
makes

regarded precisely as

the

quality which

that it may distinct a

40

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

categories. If we exclude this mark shall have only a formal logical a reflective category : relation, we should once in placeof the category of being (existence) more we This relation is illuminative and most have that of validity.1 characteristic in causality most : if we stripit of its temporal left with character are we nothing but the general form of principleof dependence or determination, the fundamental :2 this is the dependence of the particular the general which on timeless or mathematical is Spinoza's causality. according to which the Accordingly I regard the principle related to be as series of categoriesare follows : since the reflective relations (sameness and are difference) thought as coloured in the determinations objects, they are by existing from the temporal and, to a certain degree also,from the spatial and order. Time then, have this place in Logic, that space, reflective into constitutive categories. We they turn may speciesof
mention have

this series of

here, in

answer

to

the

many

ill-founded

views

which

around the psychological prejudices, "intuitive" from the "logical" forms, and inseparable that the constitutive category is in itself a single and intuitive the logical stand for unity in which the another be separated from one the two can sides,which only which make Every one of the perceptions by abstraction. up of sensuous our qualities experience contains a manifold is never ordered into a unity ; but this order merely of a time cate time-and-spacecharacter, but is always at the same orders are not even bound these two so : and gorical up with another that each one one might exist for itself. They form an
" " " "

of out up, sprung of the critical separation

We

must

Kant not, therefore, reproach of

because of
common
: we

he

sought in
hold

the relation of the the two

to the kinds categories

judgment
and

ground

for principles
must

parts

firmlyto the inner transcendental analytic is only that The defect of the "connexion between the two. is For the division raked the "table of judgments" historically. together entirely of the judgment, but was taken over derivable from the essence is neither derived nor scholastic trimmed and the from Logic "empirically up into a symmetricaltrichotomy. relation he the the when Kant himself indicated again and againdistinguished right from their objective tc as in themselves application empty thought-forms, categories, der reinen Abschn. cf. for Kritik : Vernunft, example, perception time-and-space ; und fiber Phaenomena Noumena, I Ed. p. 241, Ab. Ausg. iv. 158ff.
of his

Logic
"

the formal

the transcendental

"

"

"

"

206. 10). Generally this state of Ed. p. 301 (iii. 2 to by Kant in the relation of the categories brought out especially clearly editions the difference in the formula in the of the two : hence employed principles and instructive. Kritik der reinen Vernunft is most significant 2Cf. ibid. p. 243 (iv.159. 24),

thingsis

42

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

belong to the causal and not to the true teleological forms of happening.) Necessity, then, is either a sequence or distinction also appliesto the complex demand. The a same of events, and which themselves things that arise in the course in turn form things of a higher order : here either the whole is determined through its parts as mechanical productor, conversely, the part through the whole as organism or, as Driesch has called individual. We these relations any further must not spin out it, here : we must only emphasize the fact that the question of the of these different kinds of constitutive categories application falls within the sphere of Methodology. call attention to the point In conclusion, however, we must of change must that all possibilities somehow reside and be of the thing. This is usually nature grounded in the persistent expressed as the relation of the attribute to its modes and as that of force or faculty look But if we to activities and states. shall find that it is that of the at this relation we more closely i.e.that that reflective relation of universal to the particular,
motive determination
one

has

here

become

constitutive. the

The

universal

is

of the moments

which

bring about

et nullo if the dictum de omni this, that the class notion is logical point of view, to signify strictly find livingthought valid for its entire logical denotation, we

tion to

In addi particular. only seems, from the

of all its empirical to regard it as the measure quiteaccustomed And and content here, determining all its actual instances. the sense of the so-called general remark in passing, we may to negativejudgment passes over from conceptualimpossibility different events real exclusion. occur togetherin all Finally, be unique in character circumstances (eventhough the occurrence is regarded as necessary and is not repeated) ; their concurrence by a universal only because the temporal relation is determined call this universal rule a (causal law We rule. or teleological) uni conceive and in this highestand concluding category we a subsumed under it not which is valid for the particulars versal, but also constitutively, we although in reality only reflectively have the faintest conception of the realityof such cannot genericconcepts of changes and of their real relation to that Neither Nominalism which takes placeas conditioned by them. here ; but even Realism nor applies pure Logic leads us, through to the view that validity of the system of categories, this structure be separatedfrom one and being, however carefully they must
"
"

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

43

another, yet
moments.

in

the

last

instance

cannot

be

exclusive entirely

III.

METHODOLOGY.

of its own. Methodology has no principles speaking, Strictly in pure Logic, and Methodology has Its principles to be found are of the to the different aims only to deal with their application

special sciences.
also be

So

far,it

is

technical

and discipline,
or

might
of the

called the

organon

of the

sciences

the

doctrine

of thought. of must note matter one systematic forms be defined must namely that every method principle, only by reference to the particular logicaland actual character of the
to subject-matter

We

which

it is to be

applied ;

so

that

as

the sciences

progress and be

in actual their the

extend
left to

insightthey have to complete, improve, refine This development must, of course, methods.

itself. Logic has neither particulardiscipline the duty nor the power the right, to excogitate fertile methods; and Methodology has only to see that, while taking,the most of the work of the specialsciences, concrete possible survey their problems and of procedure, clear the methods it makes which thus made different applications of the logicalforms are and to serve norms as some particular they are brought together

Methodology complete part of Logic. In

present it has
to Analytic,

end.

Hence

must

always
universal

remain

the

most

in
to

the

development of Logic
in practice,

up the

the

been make

the

almost
use

tasks

to just described,

of the determinations of those of

of Formal

,and

the exclusion

Transcendental, Logic.
concerns

This

aspect of

far as so fullyjustified Methodology, which deals with

seems are

the

universal

the methods

ofproof and

which of refutation

equally valid for all the sciences and also for extra-scientific thought. For all these are less or only more complicated ways of inference and therefore have their principles in syllogistic.We are, however, obliged to pass beyond this
formal

schematization

as

soon

as

we

reflect
not

on

the

character
must

of

the
as

major premisses which, themselves

immediate certainties form
the

demonstrable,

startingpoint of all proof. Here, from the formal standpoint, the quantity of the judg will ment be decisive methodologically ; for the major premisses either axioms, i.e. general presuppositions, are be which cannot grounded in experience or facts which are given in perception. It is on this (Aristotelian) ground that the distinction between

44

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

rational and

sciences empirical
can

is based.

But

Mathematics

alone

of all the sciences

grounding its proofson And axioms : it is the sole purelyrational discipline. if we call sciences empirical the remaining special must not imply that we but merely that we facts, can they are based exclusively upon
work up these facts
so

attain the ideal of

as

to

be

suitable

for the

purposes

or

knowledge only with

a

rule the less these

As help of axiomatic presuppositions. work of knowing in their living disciplines

the

the axiomatic of structure bring expresslyinto consciousness of course, the more their proofs which they take as a matter is it for Logic to work it out as as systematically necessary possible. For, as I have shown in the Prdludien (II.108), it is task of Philosophyto establish, reflexion the special by empirical valid evaluations, the norms the functions of universally whose on indeed be illustrated by facts and actual axiomatic can validity be proved by brought to consciousness in them, but can never of Philosophy, The method them. then, is neither rational nor but critical ; and Formal above all con empirical, Logic must firm this by its example (cf. above, p. 26 f.). kinds of proof,of which The two one proceeds from the and the other from the particular universal to the particular, to known under the names of apodeictic and the universal are deductive and inductive methods. But the deduc or epagogic, of proofplays a part not only in rational, but also tive method is possible in empiricalscience. advance For the syllogistic in value. when the general premisses differ very much They the need be in strictest also axioms not : sense they may of hypothetical consist of definingdeterminations or conceptand judgment-constructions or finally, they may be more ; or since the truth of less certain results of inductive thought. And the conclusion is conditioned by, that is,is dependent upon the the results of the deductive truth of the premisses, proof are they are, on the only in the first case apodeictic ; in the second in the third only probable. In all and contrary, problematic, of arrivingat a particular from a however, this way cases, is kind of real or assumed universal proposition of some validity, called a priori deduction ; and Logic ought not to allow any abused term into other meaning of this much to exist or to come however, plainfrom the above that in the empirical being. It is, sciences but often quite also not only specialdemonstrations deductive be entirely or a priori mportant facts are and must

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

45

in character. discussions consequences in

As

examples
from

of the

first case

we

may

quote those

which,

physicalor

chemical

the hypotheses,

by which they can be verified are deduced, and for the second case large portionsof systematic Jurisprudence. formal conditions of Indtictive proof are also to be found The to the logical in syllogistic reasoning. In this respect it amounts universal proposition is to be based on process of reduction : a would judgments, which syllogistically singular or particular
follow from it

by subalternation.
in

This

inference, which
be

is in
a

itself

must formally illicit,

each

instance

justified by

relation logical the

one

between is to be

which

and judgments alreadyestablished established. This holds good even of

the

is by no a means mere perfect induction, which but universal establishes a shorthand abridgement, (conceptually universal)judgment through the corresponding generaljudgment, There is no way which is empirical and comes by enumeration. so-called of
this justifying

transition in

principle except

as

in the

case

of

have that the ordering to show we imperfect induction, where is the generic concept which of individuals or species under in the be assumed premisses can proved in no other way. The of collateral and exclusion the probabilitythat causes have different cases the the nothing in common except the generic character and predicate corresponding to it in in very different the concluding proposition, be confirmed may inter alia,by a very of premisses. But a large number ways of instances is never in itselfa proof : under certain largenumber circumstances in experiment) a single case suffice for (e.g. may the induction, as long as it satisfies (as a so-called "pure" case) the logical of inductive proof. The demands theory of the latter therefore be confused must not with the theory of probabilities,, which and means something quite different ; for it rests upon also results in numerically determinable disjunctions. The probability of the inductive proof,on the other hand, means holding a thing true on insufficient grounds (cf. above, p. 34 f.), and the kind and degree of proof which is contained therein have
"

"

"

to

be determined. The ultimate

is

presuppositionof induction tulate of the uniformity of natural law, and not only that the same causes produce the same
that the
same

always the
in

pos
sense

this

the

effects but also

But

effects have
is at
once

the

same

causes.

which reciprocity,

causal

and

simple above, (cf. teleological

a

such

46

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

to considerable only be assumed subject limitations; it is open For to objections this reason on grounds. many induction with all its expedients, such as analogy,etc.,is in the last instance little more than a method of inquiry, the results of which when only attain to full certainty they coincide with that of a deductive proof from valid premisses. But the important of inductive inference is that point brought out by this analysis the logical of the conclusion turns out to lie not only significance in the formal which moment belongs to syllogismbut in a con stitutive category,i.e.causality. Out of this grows the task of providing a methodological theoryof inferenceto complete the doctrine of syllogism just as Kant in (formal and reflective) tended his Transcendental Logic to supplement the Formal Logic. Contributions towards this end are to be found in Hegel's SubjectiveLogic and also in J. Stuart Mill's and Lotze's

p. 43

can f.)

"

"

"

doctrine taken

of causal

inferences.

But

this work

has

never

yet been

and from all pointsof view. systematically led still deeper into the particularity We of the objects are of perception by the logicalanalysis of the methods of in if the first and universal part of Methodology : and vestigation refers us to Formal tc Logic the second part looks at once scientific Epistemology, since by the light it throws upon whole it corrects the naive idea of the relation a as investigation which of knowledge to its object? For the decidingprinciple, dominates that the objectsof everything here, consists in this, knowledge are never immediately given as such but have to be of a synthetic produced by every science for itself by means It is comparativelyeasy to see this, conceptual construction. and it is currently acceptedin the case of the one purelyrational That it produces its magnitudes by a science, Mathematics. construction of concepts and not by any sort of copy synthetic since Kant's time, as one ing from experiencemay be regarded,
"

in hand

of the most

secure

and

self-evident of doctrines.
to its own

Moreover, in
self-constructed

Mathematics, the relation of knowledge

For though it highly instructive transparency. of choice in any inquiryas to what particular be a matter may shall be taken as its objects, forms or spatial numerical figures the object is constructed, the thought cognizing it is yet once bound immanent to it and to the object's conformityto entirely and solution of problems can The formation law. proceed from nothing other than the development of the relations of magni-

objectsis

of

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

47

tildes created

construction itself. Mathematical synthetic free it is in the production of its objects, thought, however is essentially which experiences just that coercion of objectivity and which victoriously it has constructed in the forms contained

by

the

opposes We

its

sovereign power

will call this

Psychology must
the

against every caprice of assertion. which from the standpoint of subjective relation, of wonders, the Logic of the wonder as appear
of all the

object.
The
same

but it is concealed sciences, empirical of thought which characteristic of are by the pre-scientific ways insist all the more Hence Realism. naive logicaltheory must relate itself to no other objectsthan that perception can strongly those it has itself conceptually determined. It is an illusion to
is true in experience whatsoever is taken such which as reproduced. The truth reality up or in non-purposiveperception, is rather that,just as only a very is experienced comes into conscious limited part of what of turning a perception the first logical work even so ness, believe that there
can ever

be

any

of reconstruction and implies a selection is this (cf.above, p. 37); and perceived moments process of conceptual thinking. continued in all the farther constructions of generic concepts In the discursive working out scholastic [Logic calls this the inverse relation of the growth of the con notation and of concepts. And denotation similarly,in all other cases, the combining functions of scientific inquiry depend creative free selection within the given material, and on on a into
a

concept

in synthesis the
"

the

new

of disposition
"

its moments.

But

here, too,

object reigns supreme ; for though the direc tion followed in selection and synthesis be determined by the goal towards which the inquiryis consciously marching, yet the results of this new creation are equally determined by the essen tial necessityimmanent in the objectsso produced. Logic
of the

Methodology, which is indeed a kind of comparative mor phology of science, has accordinglyto inquire what are the in the different disciplines, principles by which the selection and in the production of objects is effectuated. synthesis If,in our search after these guiding threads, we proceed first of all accord
ing
this which
to

the

formal

marks,
have

we

shall the

be

met

again by
and the

the

quanti
sciences

tative

opposition between
we

universal

singular. In
those

connexion
are

to

distinguishbetween
and those which

governed by laws

deal

with

events,

48
between

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

nomothetic the

and

ideographicinquiry.
in intellectual But Humanities.
we

It is this which between

really makes
Natural
too

difference the
are

interest
cannot

Science that
we

and

repeat
aims

often hence

here

only speaking
which of appear Science
as

of

ultimate

and

of those which the

sciences real work

polar opposites,
in

between

moves

manifold

that in any particular so case we can gradations, only speak of the other moment as or a preponderance of one Rickert,in his of this relation, has pointed out. The ulti analysis penetrating of Nature is to attain time mate goal of all investigation less generic concepts of being and happening, but that does
"

not

exclude

the

fact that

the

way

thereto it rests

leads and

over

stages

of

simpler inter-connexions
For it is

in which

provisionally

in the real that the nomothetic precisely rationalization of Reality must find its limits. On the other hand, the specific objectof all historical inquiryis a construction which is significant because it can never chiefly recur, and which has to be lifted out of its entanglement in the non-significant elements such a construc lying all around it. To understand tion, however, History requiresgeneral concepts and axioms, which she is certainly from to borrow more likely successfully general experience than from the natural sciences (to which, from this point of view, Psychology also belongs) ; and it creates of characterizing for itself the possibility this unique object by kind of genericconcept and by a comparative study a peculiar of the conformity of events law. Thus and to generalizing needs the other, : the one individualizing thought inter-penetrate and the methodologicalcharacter of the particular science will decide
means.

halts.

which

of the

two

shall

serve

it

as

end

and

which

as

But other

the

same

fundamental First human be

distinction of all
we

developsitself also
must

at

actual

moments.

remember

that

expresslydrawn from anthropological data. Hence of Nature it now that the investigation appears concerned in dealing with perceptions, it is essentially (since, with the formation of generic concepts and the discoveryof a purely theoretic and trans-anthropological laws), possesses of of selection and principle synthesis. That the application is in the empiricalpursuit of Natural this principle Science determined needs and interests concerns only partlyby human

Methodology treats of normative Logic must

sciences,and

in it that,therefore,

5o

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

This

complex physicaland psychicalfacts are that the whole is regarded as the result of its parts so conceived and determined But this way of con as entirely by them. the objectis inadequatewithin the sphere of historical stituting itself whether knowledge. For with whatever it may concern and their aims, and the actions resulting with persons therefrom ; with nations with their languages and political or states, their and laws, their societies and religions, their arts and customs sciences its objects or are always those personal supra-personal unities which have the structure that we call organic and in which the whole determines the parts justas much the parts as These the whole. are methodological distinctions of farand are reaching significance, grounded in actual differences in the things known. When, therefore,the outlines of the blurred latter become scientific the by subtle transitions,
means

that

the

"

"

methods
is

of treatment

will exhibit

similar characteristics.

This

in the biological Here the sciences. actually the case des phenomenes only suffices for the descriptive decomposition the historyof disciplines ; and it is only the historical moment, which evolution, promises to shed lighton the facts of morpho On the other hand, the theory of evolu co-existence. logical tion can, in the strictest sense, attain to historical significance only if it introduces into the gradated scale of livingbeings, which appear for it as lower,"relations of value higher and
" "

"

of many kinds. In another direction relations the problem, which can we because
in
nuce
"

as it,

it were, far its

can

unites

of these there grows out here only touch upon, all the difficulties of Methodology

how

which, with
methods

psychicallife be grasped by Psychology follows the mechanical of association^ causality

sciences ? that the fundamental say may universal and the particular in the sciences special be charac may intuition it is a relation, the parts and the For

of the natural

we Speaking generally, between the thought-relation

three fundamental terized

as

forms
:

of the

follows all

For

mathematical

independentof
natural

of origin, between questions

case

a whole, and here itis entirely

of relations of

magnitude.
the law

by which becoming : it is recognized as a here the particular is explained when specialcase of the universal. The sciences of humanity are everywhere concerned with the category emphasized by Hegel of

science the universal is the abstract concept or is determined the particular in its being and

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

51

the
and

concrete

which universal, itself in

it is

goes

out

from

itself

as

living unity
individual
of is
a

instances

understood

when

here : particular recognizedas a necessary the the

the

constituent

whole. significant
We
can

now,

without

detriment the
forms

to

above-mentioned

distinction of
a

between principle

sciences,establish empirical
of

number
said
to

of be

methodological
common

which investigation
of

may
sense

be that

to

both

kinds of

sciences, in the

Here thought-movement. they present analogous remark must that, so far, Logic has developed the again we theory of these on the side of the natural sciences rather than In marking out its sphere of investiga the historical side. on
tion
not must

kinds

and

in its first orientation

a

therein

every

science,which

is

merely
start

of an already existing science, specialbranch and from ideas the opinions or pre-scientific

For this purpose the knowledge already contained therein. conceptualdeterminations, which are what we ought provisional nominal and the provisional to mean definitions, by the term divisions for
at

which

all may

kinds

of

schematic
The

disjunctions are
customary
formal
:

generally
demands
on

hand,
both
of

be need

used.
not

these

here

be

set

forth in detail

they
that

may

be satisfied without It is of much

any
more

serviceableness.

lastingguarantee of scientific importance in this respect

limits,extends, adds and investigation corrects, justifies, changes in many only as the result of the whole ; and ways
do investigation
we

get

real

of systematic significance all the different disciplines.

This

and the definitions classifications, is certainly for the same which not

whole

progress,

however,

from

is carried on of the definitive, by means categoricalmanipulation of facts all processes

"

to the provisional orderingand collecting,

the

which

exhibit
It

purposive
in this

selection that

and naive

re-combination

of

experiences.

is

way into
course,

transformed

depend, of

perception becomes methodically experience. The methods applicable scientific of the objects under the specific nature upon
their the The
essence

and investigation,

ledge of these knowledge has

the its
more
own

development upon objects alreadyattained. alreadypenetrated into the

secure are

degree
more

of

know

of it
can

thoroughly its objects,

devise for

delicate and

the

methods

science grows perfectioning.Hence in geometrical progression, true qualitatively

and quantitatively
to

the

fundamental

52

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

principle of
hath shall be

all

to spiritualdevelopment that of observation given." The methods

"

him and

that

experi

ment^ which
way human

the natural

science of the external

senses

has in this

partlyto extend or subtilize in their functioning, partly to isolate the sense-organs determination of object,and to subject it to a quantitative It is true that it is not possible either to determine measure. objects numericallyor to contrive the observation of them (e.g. by the of same experiment) to degree in the different branches On natural investigation. the contrary, inner perception which forms the foundation of Psychology can make hardly any use of these advantages. This science therefore,by the must, make the more use thoroughness of its conceptualanalysis, of those which it derives from the constant and general acces of its fundamental facts. From sibility physiologicalor so-called psycho-physical it must investigations expect but little help, and that only in its most elementary investigations. The human much later than sciences, too, although certainly for the unambiguous and the natural sciences, have created valid determination of their facts a widely ramified universally makes it possible for technique of critical procedure which to work investigators together on a given plan. The many fine and thoughtfully developed rules and instruments very stand in rich variety at the disposalof which, in some cases, the criticism and of tradition, have interpretation up to the elaborated the side of their on present not been sufficiently I am inclined to find the reason for this, logicalstructure. interests formerly apart from the generaldirection which logical of the subject. For followed,in the great intrinsic difficulty of facts,which and rational inter-connexion the significant is forms the ultimate pre-supposition, always in such cases the than even logically perhaps much less exactlydeterminable forms the major universal conformity of Nature to law which premiss of all scientific empiricism. Hence there must always which it is for historical investigation last moment remain a and which lies in to formulate never methodologically, possible different personalor the intuitive apprehensionof those utterly wholes of which we have alreadyspoken. living supra-personal
We in
can
now

have elaborated,

for their aim

understand

that

the the

establishment whole every

of

facts of its

not presupposes methodologicalinstruments

science

only
but

apparatus

also at

stage of inquiry

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

53

the

knowledge alreadyacquired. Hence, in the strict sciences ; these of the word, there are no purely descriptive sense the at most are preliminarystages of theoretical disciplines. the a Even perceived pre-scientifk description in which had words whose to be expressed, use to general object was
results of
" "

meaning
to
ness

was

familiar.

These

words
the

correspond most

nearly

the
:

undefined and
when into

general ideas of these, by means

concepts

transformed

conscious pre-scientific of logical thinking,are (cf.above, p. 37) in order that and many has

they
The

acquire the clearness scientific usage, the comparison of

may in particular

definiteness

for requisite

perceptionsis necessary.
never

itself alone

scientific
in natural
cannot

validity.
science imme

Moreover,
or

the

critical

establishment, whether

in

historical

inquiry, of everything that

a

be

demands diatelyexperienced, connexions

which these

knowledge
the

of the the

which

exist

between of

facts,
the

geneticinter knowledge of
From

constitutes
reasons
we

the
see are

essence

explanatorytheory.
that
of of

all
con

not

only
basis

and description
are

firmation themselves
latter.

of

facts

the

explanation, but

only
of the

to possible

any

degree

perfection by

means

makes assumptions; and Every inquiry, then, inevitably these assumptions,though they have co-operatedin the estab lishment
as

of the their

facts, are
would

yet, in the last instance, to

be

tested
in

to

correctness

by
be
and

means

of
as a

them.

That

which

demonstration

forbidden fruitful

"vicious

circle"
as

is in

inquiry a
geometry

sanctioned
assumes

auxiliary. Just
is

analytic
be

that

problem

solved, in order

to

able,

of the solution,so too by construction,to derive the conditions she can with which empirical science works presuppositions be afterwards to only prove by the consequences developed
therefrom.

Thus,
inference

e.g., inductive axiom in

inquiry may
order from be
to

lay

down
from

pro it

a blematically general

deduce

by
or

subaltern

analogous
it
can

cases,

the

actual existence refuted.

non-existence too,

of which

either

proved or

Thus,

hermeneutics from the construc starts philologico-historical tion of a significant whole in order to fill out the lacunae to or correct the Hence down to us. corruptionsin what has come is the most logic of hypothesis important part of the Methodology of inquiry; and here again the logicalstructure has, up to the

present, been

worked

out

much

more

for clearly

Natural

Science

54

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

than

however, a distinction has to spheres, be made between particularand universal hypotheses. The involve the assumption of particular, former not directly per determinations ceived events the second, general conceptual ; of thingsand their ways of acting. The proof to the essence as
for

History.

In both

of the

hypothesis may
from

in the

first case,

under

certain circum

or (observation supplementary perceptions and is then called verification. In all other cases experiment), it exhibits once again a process of reduction in which it is deduced be entirely shown that the observed can consequences be deduced from from the assumed grounds and cannot any

stances, follow

others. The consists

are never

of knowledge of reality in this

:

the

out

of the endless

then, empirical sciences, which of perceptions mass

unifiable in the human consciousness it builds entirely of carefully com planned selection and synthetic up, by means less comprehensiveconceptual interconnexions, or more bination, In this sense causal or teleological which in structure. it are immanent truth in the agreement of the theorywith the possesses

facts.
IV. THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE.

What and

is taughtby the sciences of individuals

has,as opposed
or

to the

opinions
of
men,

convictions

of

single groups
acceptance

universal objective

and validity; but disturb,

this universal
must

logical
uncon

theory ditionally.The
must

not

rather

acknowledge
the

only questionwhich

remains with

to be considered

in view the

of these results is concerned

is consciousness how : pre-scientific it is referred as its to which knowledge related to the reality I object ? involves a revision of the na'ive identification The answer and reality, of the relation of objective or thought to of object conscious reality or, in the last instance, of the relation between and being. For those,then,who would ness regard Logic as than the art of rightthinking this question and nothing more its solution is indeed directed towards the whole investigation and, since it is impossibleto speak of the relation metalogical\ of thought to reality without of consciousness to being and themselves, the Epistemological speakingof being and of reality also ontological or metaphysical. inquiry are problem and Critical that in Indeed must we Philosophy the Theory say
" "

of presuppositions this generally valid

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

55

of

of the Knowledge has, with regard to the content pro blem, entirely superseded the old Ontology and Metaphysic. the methodological dis All the more however, must clearly,

emphasized. The Theory of Knowledge, according not the Critical Philosophy,does to or profess to possess of absolute : it borrows assert reality knowledge of its own any
tinction be
its

arguments

in

support
On

of

its attitude

to

these

problems
it
uncon

from entirely

the sciences themselves, whose

the

existence this
must

ditionallyrecognizes.
taken
as
"

other

hand
to

not
"

be

defence of

of feeble attempts

put together a
results

Meta

physic
The rather selves

out

the

so-called
of

general
of

of the

sciences.

critical method

the

Theory

Knowledge
do

is concerned

with teach

the
us

generalquestion :

What

the

sciences

them

by their activities and their theories as to the relation of knowing to reality ? If we thus referring the ultimate and most difficult pro are
blems,
to

in fact the final tasks

can

of Theoretical

Epistemology,we
most

in this sketch view

us

the

important points of
have enabled
of elaboration
can

from

Philosophyin general, only attempt to indicate which Logic and pure

such

Methodology
actual

to

treat

problems

the

the

Metaphysics
lines.
First of of of

thus

Theory of Knowledge or only be indicated in its most

relation of which
a more

Critical

general

all,that fundamental
has
to

the

theory

knowledge
the
two

treat

demands
are

exact to

specification
one

terms

which
we

to
not
a or

be

related

another.

By
or as

"consciousness"

must

still psychical activity,

less

psychical state psychicalbeing,a "subject,"

activities
:

understand

bearer

of

psychicalstates
real

for
to

all these
which

are

themselves
or

something
is
a

and

belong
rather

to

that

being

existence such

attributed,i.e.to the existent.

the
is ideated

What
content

is meant,

when
ness,

question is asked, is
or

of conscious
must

that

which

further
relation

for we specified, of objective, that with

thought; and this too here are only concerned valid thought is,universally
of the here is not

be

with
to

the

being.

So

too

the other

members is meant

relation under that

discussion,

relation categorical which constitutes the fundamental of all constitutive significance categories(cf. above, p. 41), but something to which being is attributed.

namely,being ; what

If,then, the establishment

of the

relation

between

that

which

56

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

objectively thoughtand that which exists is the general formula for the problem of Epistemology,we must pass in review the different possibilities of its solution offered by the doctrine of must : for there categories always be some category or other by of which such a relation is expressed and asserted in a means rid judgment. But here again,as in Methodology, we must ourselves of the preconceivedidea that this category must be for all kinds of knowing, that is to say, for all sciences. the same Such a preconceived idea is just as injurious and productive of in the Theory of Knowledge as in Methodology, which has error
is

often suffered for all other

from

its attempt

to

discover

universal
to

method

and with this object in view sciences,

method which some one disciplines its own particular sphere. The autonomy of the special sciences, the difference of their objects, which rests on make itself must of the Logic of the Object,not only in the good by means of uniqueness of its procedure but also in the specific colouring the
sense

force upon the has been found valid in

it attributes

to

the

truth

which

it claims

for

its

results. The other very sciences

comparison slightest
warns
us

of

Mathematics

with

the

precaution. For, first of of the relation between formula what is thought and all,our Mathematics what exists seems to Pure inapplicable absolutely ; and hence Kant of Pure Reason, (forexample), in his Critique and in the Prolegomena,only treated of Mathematics as applied of of the to objects an i.e. as integral experience, theory of part
to

take

this

Natural

Science.

And,

on

the other

hand, it

must

not

be

for

which gotten that the truth of the propositions

pure

Mathematics

in Synthetic or lays down, either in the Theory of Numbers reference to a Geometry, is entirelyindependent of any the Neverthe in of sciences. the sense empirical reality less,as already stated (p. 46), the Logic of the Object is
" "

to

be

found

even

in
in

Pure

Mathematics.

Kant, in

most

instructive
out

passage
we

that

cannot

Prolegomena help "attributinga

his

("38),
nature"

has
to

pointed
a

geo

metrical

such as a to show, on thing, goes Idealism from the point of view (again, Mathematics as it is true, dilatingon applied to Natural of this "nature" that the obedience to law in which Science), only spring from the geometrical constructions consists can the behoof of the which determines understanding," space (for
"

circle ; and he then of Transcendental

58
is

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

distinctions. For the first questionof terminological of these two paths necessarily leads to the metaphysicaltheory of two worlds, to the assumption of a higher existence (Sein) different from the empirical. Such a or metaphysical being," other content no however, can have, logically, "over-being," than the existent ; and the kind archetypes of the (empirical) of existence which it has, if it is not (as thing-in-itself) to be be that of consciousness undetermined, must (Bewustentirely that it be has This been the historical is, must sein), psychical. of the ambiguity of the aarwjULarov in Platonism, and of result
no

mere

"

"

"

the

"

"

super-sensuous

in Kant.

Indeed, apart from

" "

this trans
"

mutation

into

that spiritual reality,

super-existent or
what therefore
cannot

over-

being
wise
more

"

be

threatens to (Uberseiri) presentedin thought,and from the modern

become has

in
more

any

been

and

Theory of Knowledge and however, all being Metaphysic. If we follow this line of thought, and since sensuous acquiresthe character of the empirical, the includes sensuous,"according to the Kantian terminology, the determination consciousness of the inner as as psychical, The shades of meaning which the constitutive categories, sense. the forms and the relations of being acquire through the or intuitive moments of time and space, are in complete accord
" " "

eliminated

with

this view. All the

more

Lotze

followed

out, which necessary, then, is the second way he coined the term when validity."But the
"

convenience

of the

which expression,

does not absolve us supplies, in logical use. significance less the psychological of the word, which more or means sense the fact that it is believed on the part of the actual recognition, But we also exclude the norma consciousness. must empirical in so far as tive significance of that-which-ought-to-be-believed, itself in its entiretythe this is supposed to include within of these only contain the Both of general consent. postulate that normative whether or actual, between secondary relation, which is valid and the knowing consciousness ; and justfor that inde element the valid-in-itself as an reason they presuppose of the empiricalideational process. pendent of the movements But the
nature

happily chosen word from the task of fixingexactly its exclude In the first place we must

this

of this constituent the of

which

can

determine

the

as judgment while,

certain

amount

shows, it also acquires theoryof categories constitutive significance (and this is also

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

59

true

of

the

Nature

relations for the theory of of mathematical validity is and for Nature itself) this kind of existent,which
"

yet

"being," forms the chief metalogical the problem of the theory of knowledge. It is in the main the beginning in the existed from has which same difficulty also which of Kant's consciousness-in-general, interpretation either does claim to be, and not ought not to be, conceived from as we or see metaphysically ; although, psychologically may of avoiding this double Kant himself, the difficulty danger is
not to

involve

any

extreme.

That

which

remains

to

us

after the

exclusion

of

all the

of both these psychological misinterpretations well as of the valid as consciousness-in-general," terms, of than be the sum-total of the' else in opinion, nothing can, my and inter-connexions relations between existents. They are not themselves as existents,either as things, states, or as activities ; actual of the psychical the content as they can only become But in itself the realm functions of knowing. of the valid is
" " " " "

metaphysicaland

nothing else than

is determined. valid

the form

and

order under
are

which in

that which

exists
are

These which
their

forms
and

valid

themselves, they
for the
process

for that
; but

exists

they

are

valid

of

knowing
grounded order,nor
which

in the

for being and for knowing is only validity which purely essential validity belongs to them existent

in themselves.

The

does

not

bring about
; but
so as

this form
no

and

does
not

knowing produce them

exist in this
not

there is
is
no

being
of

does

form
use

there The
for

process between

knowing
the
valid

which

does the

make

of it.

relation all

and

existent

holds

good

Mathematics,

and holds it also geometrical or arithmetical, good of all the purely logical categories,whether constitu reflective or tive. For the laws of thought of the reflective series of even which categorieshave been found to be grounded in postulates that the existent is subject to form and order (cf. above, signify P. 29 ff.). This other than relation

between of

validity and
and

existence, which
ultimate and

is

no

that

form
of

content, is the the

irre

ducible
pass.
no

point,beyond
That
order
to

which the

of knowledge cannot analysis which existent validitymeans

is
to

stranger
to

being itself, although it appertains neither

in it
nor

that which

is contained

to

that

which

is derived which

from
to

it,but

something in

it which

is movable

and

is akin

60

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

"

explanation of this relation would refer us to a still higher point of union, above and validity being, and is therefore altogether impossible. But we here catch sightof the take no other path than reason can speculation why metalogical that of a spiritualistic the to make Metaphysic. If we want the forms of validitywhich to conceive impossiblepossible, in their being and knowing, as themselves equally determine turn something existent and active, there remains nothing left to us, since they are given to us as objects of our knowing, than to think the formal that is to say, in psychical actuality, of the valid as a "spiritual order" and to connect it structure firstprinciple.The with a spiritual central Monad of Leibniz, Intellectus Berkeley's God," Kant's archetypus, Fichte's all attempts, assertorical or Ego, and Hegel's Idea," are to But least must at we satisfythis want. problematical, kind of psychical as a remember, if we try to conceive validity such a being or over-being,that between world-ordering and our human there is about as much simi spirituality spirit Canis signum between to speak Spinozistically, as obtains, larity
an
" "

it.

Hence

"

"

coeleste and This

is

cants

animal
out

latrans. the fact that,for human

there yet another between discrepancy

knowing, and being : i.e. the validity All the ultimate problems form and content. of the old Ontology and that the to this, Metaphysics came contained which in the demonstrative and are presuppositions are never completely satis determining forms of consciousness fied in the data of experience. The conceptualreconstruction of philosophy, which, e.g., B. Herbart regarded as the essence has precisely but inadequate its task to transform the naive as
comes

in clearly

relation between

connexion other
can

between

form

and

content

till these But

render

each

complete

mutual

satisfaction. from the

nature

this antinomianism

never seems

be eradicated

only to indicate that the forms and all-pervading of reason elements to their can never come either perfectly or own purelyin the fragmentaryand superficial of human content experience. Hence the construction of objects be more than pro in human experience and science can never and the attempt to think pure form objectively must visional^ lead to its complete emptying of all content and necessarily hence to its uselessness for the intellectual mastering of experi
it
ence.

thought,and grounded in the general

of human

Thus, within

the

category of inherence

lies the

presup-

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

61

but : identity positionof persisting do this full justice. Hence perception

none

of the

"

things
and

"

of

science
"

supersedes them

by the concept
these

of substances
to be

as

true

real

"

things;

since

dependent on the constructional needs of the various Chemistry, Organology, disciplines, e.g. Physics, Psychology,this line of thought ends in the concept of thingconcepts prove
But in-itself.
as

the

idea

of

"

thing-in-itselfhas
manifold

"

no

content

whatsoever, the
becomes similar
we

synthesisof
and,
the in progress

the

which
sense,

dissolved

the

strictest of

signifies objectless. A
be
seen we

it

tragedy in
what

knowing
the

may

when
pass causal

ask

is meant

by happening. The
isolate elements the

further of

beyond

experience
more

and

the

connexion, the
sequent

livingactivityis lost,in which, after

between antecedent
and
con

all,the synthetic interconnexion

consists.

in this antinomian of Finally, insufficiency remind existence ourselves of the we as opposed to validity may for Plato, namely, that mathe fact which was even significant realized in that which matical relations are is. never perfectly We

need

only point here

of the

to

the

analogous
that
as

and

more

palpable

antinomies

ethical and life of

aesthetic

consciousness. which is

where
and and
can Toiavra

in

the

human

reason

Every super-human
in
a

universallyvalid
which

appears

embedded

being
it but

happening never completely assimilate

etvai
otov

indeed

accommodates

itself

to

it.

eKeivo,

CCTTL

$e

IIpoOvjULeirai jmei" -rravra avrou (pavXorepa(Plato,

Phdd.
But

7Sb).
let
us

the

problem categories ; for

which We
exists shall

recall the fact that the different ways of solving of Epistemology depends upon of the doctrine
the

relation

between

is

always
that

determined the
way

objectivethought by some category

from
naive

and
or

that other.

find

all

to

advanced

scientific
a

thought it is the category of which rules. category of reflexion,

condition
is the of
our

Likeness It is of
;

(Gleichheit\
taken
as

the

fundamental truth.
as we

apprehension
naive

transcendent

This

standpointof
here
show

Realism

the world

is

perceiveit.
But
I need
not

in detail how itself to

this way
our

of

look

ing

at

things,so
nature,

far has

as

it relates

external

been If my

empirical sciences.
inner

perception in

which

knowledge of driven out step by step by the view is right there remains only of or likeness,as a image, is copy

62

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

accepted as the criterion of truth for memory reproducing the actual experience. Here alone, where the actual fact is itself is the knowledge of the fact either just the fact consciousness, itself or an immediate and image of it ; that is to repetition has distorted or medium image which no intervening say, an obscured. It is only Psychology which can comply with the demands of this naive it can conception of Truth ; and even deduced from do so only under strict limitations, methodically
the
nature

of

memory

for memory

underlies

even

the

laws

ordering, selecting, completing and transformingapper ception. But as to our perceptualknowledge of the things of the external world, reflective thought has long been accustomed of the ancient Symbolism. Its to regard it from the standpoint univocal signswhich, while they operate upon elements the are perceivingconsciousness,are not therefore to be regarded as This view applies the category copiesof the thingsthemselves. of causality to the relation between knowing and being,and we
can

of the

understand

how

it

was

that

its final result

was

to

put

the

of signs and of combinations of signs in the serviceability place of their truth. The simple semeiology of earlier times of this view to be that the data took the theoretical significance do not exist as such really, but are only of sensuous perception then called, ideas. This is the presentations they were or, as historical meaning of the term Idealism, which ought never It holds, have confused with other been to significations.
not

that

existence

must

be be

denied

to

sense-data,but
to

that this

"

psychical existence must in spite of common

their value that
a

attributed
"

them
so

and

opinion derogates
can

little from

Lotze

say

consciousness valuable than

of these

effects of which

anything

blossoming in things is unspeakably more take place between may

that the

things. thought and thing can after all be only is thought as annulled : for that which never totally, partially, of consciousness itself always remains the empirical content (as of Idealism witnessed transformation all is historically by the
But the likeness of into
an Spiritualism)

existent.

lie Hence, in this direction,

distin which are epistemologicalpossibilities guished from one another by the fact that they bring different strata of ideas under the symbolicstandpoint While elementary data of Realism the sensualistic as sensuous perception accepts multitude of

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

63

real, and,in
all concepts

accordance and

with the Nominalistic

as

prescription, regards

merely the effects of these Rationalistic Realism consciousness, converselycombines the upon of the sense-qualities with the view doctrine of the subjectivity of converting real things into similar concepts. and the purpose either according to the Mathematical Realism It conceives them the of scientific theory under purely quantitative deter
relations logical

minations Realism
relations
"

of space,
of but
"

time
old

and

motion

or

with

the

Ontological
accordance
as we

the in

metaphysic
cases

under

purely categorical
in is

both

alike
"

it

proceeds
the

with

the

dogmatic
think
it. I leave

postulate that
the

world

are

obligedto
While

it to

reader

to

draw

out

the

schema

of

of the Theory of Knowledge, finding possibilities categorical for such historical curiosities as Positivism, them a place among version of the one more etc., I shall bring forward Solipsism, The relation between thought and existence. symbolic and

the

idealistic of
cause

theories and

have

been

prone

to

substitute

for the

relation

that had

in which effect, they had their historical beginnings, of Reality and Appearance ( Wesen und which Erscheinung), another meaning, within the series of the categories of
"

inherence.

Phenomenon
one

the way
and

in which

the one on side, (appearance) means, is thing presentedto another, but, on the existence would

"

other, the

in which way There conditions.

exhibits therefore
be

itself in its states

no

Phenomenalism it
as

if,combining
content

the

two

objection to meanings of the word,

in human

represented the
an

of consciousness the
nature

knowledge
a

appearance exhibits
not

in

which But

of

being

after for

certain
most
accen

fashion

itself. draw
this

modern
;

Philosophy
on

the

part does
the

conclusion

the

contrary, it
as an

and tuates, one-sidedly

are

that deliberately,
seems

and reality

appearance

not

same.

It

to

be

accepted almost
its appearance
of the

axiom
that

that

the

real the

therefore
carried which
to
"

from different determination qualitative

must to

be

and
must

latter
of

not

be

over

the
none

former.
of the

The

Idealism

Natural
of

attributes
real

contents qualitative

Science, perception

but determines things,"

this difference

the latter

has

adopted principle ; and

even

between

entirely quantitatively, and as a reality appearance

temporal moments,
in appearance,

and
was

when, later,the spatialand the psychicalstates, were included

the

there
had
to

absolutely nothing left for

(which thing-in-itself

64
be

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

something quitedifferent from the appearance)of the content became Agnosticism. But experienced. Thus Phenomenalism the thing-in-itself and the phenomenon the difference between be established : it ought,therefore, to be posited never can never Nor does it follow from but only problematically. assertorically the causal relation : for this relation holds good whether cause
and effect The
are

like

or

unlike. of this fundamental

critical revision of

Theory
among
are can ance

any be
"

Knowledge bringsus therefore to the the different pointsof view of the natural sciences, there arguments which compel us to regardthe existence which dealt with as the experiencedand scientifically appear is a thingwhich of a higher existence, of an over-being
"

problem of the whether, question

in-itself and affirmative theoretical

are

therefore
answer

unknowable. this the in

So

far is of

as

can

see

the

to
:

question
limitations another

not

arguments
to

supported by human knowledge

All scientific

rather

be

found

direction.

knowledge, as Methodology shows, presents a piece cut out of Reality^which, as synthetically complete, never really
exists. but We
to

must,
the it includes

in

this

sense,

attribute

not

existence

value and

object:
them

still it contains in
an

being

of moments pure which interconnexion is valid facts which into

can ever

for that

object. No comprise or imitate

it
can weave

of description the reality with

completely
:

it is concerned
a

but

the selected

constituents This

form

which

with

their

real interconnexion. theories.

are

is true,

however,
and

agrees in the

highestdegree,of
of Natural
cut

The
course

genericconcepts
abstractions

the laws
as

Science all

of

which,

such,

do not "exist" : but they comprise particulars, all these particulars, they hold good for them, they are the of the thingsstands. order or system in which the actual nature of the human sciences abstract from the endless mass Finally, aloof interconnexions events which, as they present them to us from and unaffected by all the other things round about them off from
" "

have

never

come

to
"

pass.
"

And

yet these

interconnexions,
that which

which

object the significance and value out happened. actually

Thus,
cosmos, out

represent the

of historical which

bring investigation,
within

lay

of the of is the

and historical universe,out of the physical sciences

a

each which

forms

in is

its still

"

world

only

piece,but

object a a piece,of

"

little that

66

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

seen

that

this

is

denied

to

man.

All

that the

we

can

do worlds

is

to

go

on

building
over

up,

by

steady

work,
of words

particular
we are

of
in

knowledge
the eine

the

construction in Goethe's

which

masters,
kommt wohl

hope
Streckel

expressed

Nun,

man

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

BY

JOSIAH

ROYCE.

SECTION

I.

THE

RELATION LOGIC AS

OF
THE

LOGIC SCIENCE

AS

METHODOLOGY OF ORDER.

TO

"

i.

VERY
as

frequent
follows
"

account

of is
a

the

office

of

Logic
Science.

runs

substantially
deals, namely,

Logic

Normative sound
or

It

with

the
from

Norms

whereby

correct

think
of
two

ing

is
"

distinguished
a

incorrect

thinking.
Logic,
to

It

consists

parts,

general
or

part,

called

Formal

which which

defines all

the

universal

formal

normative and
or a

principles special and

correct

thinking
called
norms

must

conform,

very

extended deals methods with

part
the

Applied
of

Logic,
in

Methodology,
application
to

which the

thought

their

used*

various From

special sciences."
this conventional A
account

the of
some

present
of the
in be

sketch
more

will

de

liberately depart.
problems
The
of

discussion will
of be

important
first section.
to

Methodology paragraphs

comprised
paper of
a

our

remaining
very

this
nature

will

devoted
of

indi the

cating,

summarily,
General
or

the

doctrine
a

which in

traditional
a

Formal

Logic
To

is but

part, and,
the
name

fact,
"The

very

subordinate
of

part.
may

this

doctrine
It is
a

Science
indeed process.

Order"

be

given.
with
as a

science of the

which

is

incidentally
But
to

concerned

the^nbrms
normative

thinking
is

its

character features for

doctrine
it is of the
most

wholly
funda
a

subordinate
mental

other

which

make
It

importance
condition.

philosophy.
It
is in
some

to-day
respects
progress.

in
new.

very It

progressive
offers

notable future

inexhaustible

opportunities

for

68

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT.

" 2. Everyone
has the been

will agree that throughout its historyLogic and with the results of concerned with the conduct Now the

thinkingprocess.

thinkingprocess
human

its very nature, methodical. In every art that is teachable at every human
appears

indeed,from science,and in
else
as

is

the thinking process all,

either and
or

as

the

creator

and

the

guide, or
which

the

formulator this science duct

the
art.

of analyzer, If and
an

the methods up

characterize
pro

art

grows

the as instinctively,
to

of social need
so

of individual pass from

the efforts talent,

master to

teach

this art,
sooner
or

that

it may
an

lead apprentice,

and thoughtful formulation of the analysis methods And when art an employed by the skilful workman. advanced science is deliberately invented or a or by the con scious skill of the individual inquirer the procedure or discoverer, used either includes a purposefulapplication of already known effort to methods else involves to or new an undertakings, of methods. create new Everywhere, then, the consciousness method in proportion as to play a thought comes grows life. successful part in the organization of human used vary with the different Since,however, the methods and sciences, and yet have certain important features that
common

later to

arts
are

of these arts and undertakings should it is natural a comparativestudy of methods sciences, form the topicof a more less independent body of doctrine. or such a Methodology, such a "Normative doctrine," And, as a fact,
to

all

or

to

many that

of the

such

an

effort to

or by all, by one has repeatedly constituted

used the methods survey and to systematize another workers, or great body of thoughtful task assigned to Logic, principal General Formal between or Logic and Logic as a branch emphasized or not. the

whether

the

distinction

Applied Logic has been of philosophy began, as is well known, when the differences of when the dialectical opinion amongst the various philosophers, the and when problems brought to notice by the Eleatic school, less practical of the Sophistsinto the arts of or more inquiries and of persuasion, had led to a conscious need for a disputation of rightthinking. In Aristotle's generalstudy of the methods the task of surveying, and in part of creating, a systematic case body of sciences constituted an additional ground for under And taking a general methodology of the thinking process. since Aristotle the view that one main purpose of Logic is ever Art of Thinking,"or the definition of Logic to expound the
"

SECT.

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

69

exclusivelymethodologicalfashion, And this science. has played a large part in the history of our Science is still so is why the definition of Logic as a Normative and in its place useful. common, As a fact, as however, Methodology, taken in its usual sense of in various the and methods thought used a study of the norms of in taken the other and arts Logic sciences,is the mother
in
some

other

more

or

less

sense

hereafter

to

be
to

expounded.
certain
to

Methodology
and

lead

undertakings of special problems,such as Plato

study,
and such
as

For

the

Aristotle

already began
and

recent

more more important. These inquiry makes an sake, assume problems,when considered for their own aspect from differentiates them the that problems of pretty sharply the not They are problems regarding, Methodology proper.

manifold

and

of by which the thinker succeeds, nor yet the norms but rather the correct as thinking viewed norms, the^Forms, characterize of the Types of Order, which Categories, any realm in mastering,or /L"M objectswhich a thinker has actuallysucceeded in his in methods. succeed Taken can mastering, by possibly Science this sense, Logic is the General of Order, the Theory of real or ideal. Forms of any Orderly Realm of Objects, the^ has resulted Just because Logic,viewed as such a doctrine,

methods

from the

the efforts to formulate how

the

norms

and

methods

of

thinking,
yet
be To of

and question Logic as Methodology gives birth to Logic conceived as the Science of Order, must summarily indicated in the rest of our opening section. differs from
this

end,

we

must

consider

some

of

the

problems principal
mention of
some

Methodology.

" 3.
the

Let

us

then

first return

to

brief

of

which characterized the well known problems of method for instance, as earlystages of logical inquiry, they are represented, in remarks in the Platonic that frequently recur dialogues. The of Platonic the plasticyouth dialogues, is to be instructed by Socrates in the right method of thinking,and is to be warned against the false arts of the Sophists. The instruc tion that he most receives relates : (I ) To the proper frequently method of definition ; (2) To the task of systematic classifica of sake of dichotomy for the tion, with the prevailing use dividing a wider class into its constituent a species ; (3) To
" "

study of the evidence which watchful propositions a ; (4) To

careful

attaches examination

to

certain
of

notable of

modes

yo

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT.

inference.

The the
not

repeated in
matters, do
to to
a

which considerations are special Platonic dialogues in regard to

so

frequently
of these

each

recall

It is enough concern detail, us. for instance,according few facts only. Definition, and Platonic

here, in any

the Socratic collection of

depends methodology,
of the often

indeed

upon

specialinstances
no

concept that
For
we

is to

be

defined.

merely by remembering or by naming several different sorts of clay. One must conceive, in universal terms, what is common it is if we to these sorts of clay. And too so want to define justice, or or virtue, knowledge. Definition gets instances at the essence, at the at the type, which special Idea," and depends upon exemplify, taking the universal as such, and But a bringing it to our knowledge with clearness. upon
"

merely as what clay

But, as Socrates such, constitute

is

points out, instances,taken

do
not

definition.

learn

thus formulated the basis of the instances once definition, upon One first chosen, needs to be further tested. tests it, according to this methodological doctrine, instances, by applying it to new

by a deliberate search of trulyuniversal account fall that rightfully cases

defined,and
to must

and

for
a

possibleinconsistencies. provide for concept must

the

For

all the be

under

concept which
which do
are

is to
not

exclude

all instances

belong

by

inconsistencies the type in question. In case findingthat the definition includes too much first attempted must of that be amended. is

discovered,, too or little,

But in such

the definition consideration

one right definitions,

no

greatly aided

by
And

remembering
here The
more

universal

types exist in isolation.

of Plato's

very and

important feature
the less inclusive

methodology
There
or

universals,the "Ideas"

form

universals.

system. Instances,

appears. the are classes

of

to instances,which mutually inconsistent possess appear still be conceived members of the same as characters,may if and in so far as illustrating the same universal, largerclass,

only they through a

more

can

be

shown

to

be

determined

to

be

thus

distinct

of the whereby the essence process of classification, inclusive universal is in fact more portrayed than clearly be

it could

through

merely abstract definition.

essence,
as even
so

One

knows

number, in its universal

to

all the and

the numbers classify not perfect as squares, made best commonly

learns when one better, odd, as perfect squares or classifications

are

and

on.

Such

very

in the form

of dichotomies.

SECT.

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

71

The
that

class A

may

be divided
of classes

into

the A

that is
may

b,and
be

the A

is not

b.

Arrays
a

and

sub-classes

arranged
traits

by
are

repeating such
very

process.
"

And

then

sub-class whose

be defined in universal terms by highly specific, may in of the terms first A (some highestgenus,"as, considering, B, which comprises later logic, it) we ; then alreadyname may whatever A B

possesses

the character

b ; then

C,

which
so

comprises
on.

mark c, and possesses the differential and both consistent be rendered definitions may whatever the

Thus

and systematic, be
at

system
As

or

true not

Order

of

the

universals

may

least

approached,if
for the
must

grasped. fully
which
in

evidence
be

attaches
the

that
must

also be

considered

made

subjectedto the criterion of familiar by repeatedexamination.

and re-examination the

single propositions, light of special test-cases, and be must consistency,

to

In

the

course

of such
most

examination
interest

of the

convictions

which

the importance of a clear conscious philosopher, of correct inference often comes to ness regarding the nature is when not infers rightly, one light. One is clear that one of persuasive carried away torrent by the Sophist's oratory, but when observes the necessity of each individual transition one from
a

thought
not

to

thought.

If

one

believes

that

"

All

is

B,"

closer examination

may
or a

under

general truth that one Yet in hasty discourse,, thence infer that "All B is A." the influence of a Sophist's might let such oratory, one
shows readily the
pass may

false inference

unheeded. here suffice

as a mere

" 4.
of

So

much

hint

and

reminder

seem thoughtswhich now which, at that early stage of

for the whole

still repeat
context

future of the the substance

commonplaces, but methodological of Logic,were the history momentous subject. The elementary text-books
of

these

observations, even
in Plato's
a

if their

is

no

longerthat
at
once

which

appears

It will be noted leads

to
a

that such and

as

dialogues. methodology naturally

of the world of far

view

of the

nature

constitution

whose truth,

at least significance,

Plato

conceived

it, goes

beyond
of the in

the value
art

of

precepts as guides for the learner thinking. If, namely, these things are so, thenr
realm
" "

of these

Ideas of the Universals or unity and order are of the first because importance for the philosopher ; (2) Inferenceis possible

opinion : (i ) The is essentially a System^ whose

momentous

Plato's

truths have

Relations,definable objective

in precisely

72

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT.

so

far

as

the

process
"

of inference
our

is definable

(3)

The

"Order

and

Connection
is
a

of

methods,
individual
to

sort

of

rational processes, when follow right we order and connection which the copy of an
not

thinker the

formulate

but does finds, right method. realm

to
"

make.

One

thus

sets

out

a new very effort, All these appear

realm least

discovers, through this of types,offorms, of relations.

as

One

be

at

real

as

the

facts of

the far
to
a

physicalworld.
more

And

in Plato's individual Thus of the

real than

the latter. The world

opinion they are Methodology leads Plato

Forms
its

new

Ontology.
the the
are

becomes

the world

of for
to

the Platonic
Plato

Ideas ; and of

with Dialectic,

methods, becomes
he finds the

gateway
not

unlock We

Metaphysics. of Being. mystery

in

Here

key
in

the

least
or
"

concerned
even

to

estimate

this

discussion of the It is false

the

correctness

the

historical thus
if

Platonic

Metaphysic,
to

doctrine
even

significance merely suggested.

sets

enough
or

note, however, that

one

aside

as

principal metaphysicalconclusions that in any case the Methodology of the of Plato, one sees in this early stage of the doctrine, inevitably even logician, objectiveorder gives rise to the problem as to the relatively the methodoand system of those objectsof thought to which appeals when he formulates his procedure. The Platonic logist theory of Ideas,Aristotle's later theory of Forms, the innumer the subsequent able variations of the Platonic tradition which historyof thought contains, all these may or may not be of in formulatinga sound use metaphysic. But in any case this indeed formulate to light can : If a comes logician any sound do so only valid way, he can method in any generally at all, he considers when he thinks, because certain objectswhich be these objects definitions, classes, propositions, types, relations, form a more less or inferences,numbers, or other principles," orderly system, or group of systems, whose constitution predeter
as
" "

irrelevant all the

"

"

mines

the
or

methods these
or

that

he

must

use

when

he

thinks. in

This
some

system,
sense more

systems, and

their
is

are constitution, :

less

objective. That

What

constitutes

order,
"

is not the product of possible, orderlymethod he the thinker's personal and privatecaprice. Nor can by alter the most essential facts and taking thought" wilfully relations upon which his methods depend. If an orderlyclassi fication of a general class of objectsis possible, then, however and what makes

74

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

science. mind modern

Let

us

come

to directly

the

present day; let

us

re

ourselves

of

some

of the most

familiar of the doctrines

of

Methodology; and then let us see how these doctrines also lead us their own to problems which demand specialtreatment, and which again force us to define a Science of Order, science distinct from a Methodology proper, but to a true understanding of the latter. necessary It is a commonplace of modern Methodology that our know and upon the basis ledge of nature is gained through induction, of experience. It is equallya commonplace that scientific in duction does not consist merely of the heaping up of the records of the facts of crude experience. Science is never merely know ledge; it is orderlyknowledge. It aims at controlling systems of facts. methods which various Amongst the vastlynumerous stand out as which sciences employ in our day, there are some universal and characteristic means of accomplishing especially the most the aim justemphasized. Let us mention prominent Such methods. these mention will of at once bring us again with the fundamental into contact problems whose nature we here attempting to illustrate. are in dealingwith the facts of ex And so, first, every science, is so and far still employs Methods of Classification, perience, of the lessons that Socrates taught. There use making its own science of nature, a stage in in the development of every new is, advanced into the laws to which, in the absence of more insight classification is the most which the facts are subject, prominent earlier and their the science. in feature of Botany Zoology, stages of growth,were, for a considerable time, sciences in which of classification predominated. Anthropology, in its treatment the problems presentedby the racial distinctions of mankind, is in the stage of classification ; while in other of stillvery largely in its comparativestudy of the its fields of work, as, for instance, forms and results of human culture, Anthropology now pursues methods which subordinate classification to the higher types of methodical procedure. Amongst the medical sciences, Psychi the where of from the classification is justemerging stage atry
scientific
"

of symptoms, and of disorders made up the bulk of the science;and has begun to live upon a higherplane of methods.
cases,

In the
stances

Organic
remind

Sciences

us)

very

the stage of classification (as such in generallyendures long,and is with And the
more

transcended. difficulty

complex

the facts to be

SECT,

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

75

understood,
to

the

harder

it is for any
In

science,organic or inorganic,
the
case

get
a

beyond
notable

this first stage.

instance the

of the

Chemistry

we

have

of

science
to

the facts
enumeration

long forced
and

science

classification of
the

and perties, methods used of very

reactions, despite
were

complexity of consist in large part of the elements, compounds, pro fact that the experimental
to

where

well adapted especially

exact

lead

to

know

ledge
ever,

general and
far science passes

laws.

Recent
mere

Chemistry,how
classification.
to
one

has

grown
a

beyond

the from

stage of
this

Where

early stage

of

less sharply distinct types of two more or insight, either separately or (as oftener happens) in combination, fre These quently play a large part in determining the transition.
are

higher methods,

(i) The

type

of

the

methods

that

involve
or

comparing
and

the

corresponding stages in
Evolution with

the various the

processes
has
to

products of natural
deal;

which

science that

(2)
uses

The
exact

Statistical Method
enumerations
as

proper,

is the

method

which

of inductions. " 6. In the wholly or partly organic sciences,the Compara tive methods just mentioned play a very large part. How they of know to higher sorts lead,beyond the stage of classification, ledge,is well exemplified by the case of Geology. That science But began with classifications of rocks and of formations.
almost
these results The from the
outset
were

the bases

of
not

the

science

it became

evident
had been

that

formations
of

sudden
had

creations,but
"

the
time.

processes

that
"

required long periods of

and
"

earlier efforts of universal showed

one

Vulcanists
of

Plutonists in be the

"

to

furnish
or

adequate

theories

these

processes
must

more

less The

simple terms, key to unlock

was

that other

methods

used.
new

portion of the mysteries which

furnished
found

science
the

to

explore,was
When this

by
in

the

comparative study of
regions
for of

formations geological
crust.

various

the

earth's

comparison showed,
a new

instance, correspond

ing
the of
one

series of

fossil-bearing strata,
the earth. To of formations
resources

of history

be sure,
and

thrown lightwas upon such comparative study

of constitutes fossils,

geologicalseries portion of the

different ones,

but
and

of their

Geology.

Other

methods,

very the

play

part in Dynamical

importance of the comparative study of for Historical geological formations Geology, of what the makes example comparative method,

Geology. But corresponding

serves as

one

in

its various

76

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT.

in great numbers of scientific analogous forms, significant investigations. Suppose, namely, that what is to be studied consists of the stages or of the results of any evolutionary process whatever. Something has grown, or has resulted from the ageing or from from the slow the or weathering of the crust of a planet,
" "

accretion the

of the

results of

civilization. of various
as

Rock

formations,or
social
or or folklore,

anatomical
as

constitution those of

organisms, or
customs,

systems such

law, or such
One

language,are
But the herewith

to

be understood. is

begins with
matured.

classification. For it is

science

not only initiated,

the system of such processes, or itself, evolutionary process which is to be comprehended. The comparativeprocedure it is which first correlates the corresponding stages of 'many analogous and thus or homologous evolutionary processes and products, but to unify our enables not us facts, by merely to classify how be the various most turn out to phenomena may seeing one great process. stages in the expressionof some " 7. Side by side with the Comparative Methods stand the
" "

Statistical Methods.

These
very

two

sorts

of methods be

are,

in

fact,

by
are

no

means

always
numerous

sharplyto
one

various

transitions

from

to

distinguished.There the other. Every com

or

parison of
such enumeration But

evolutionary processes,
involves
cases

of the results of
or

processes,

of

course

some

more

less exact

of the

compared.
not be the main may statistical enumerations

object of con sideration. are guided by Very many the comparative the definite purpose to carry out with precision methods applications justexemplified. But, as the well known and to other highlypractical of statistical methods to insurance, undertakings show us, the most characteristic features of the statistical procedure are independent of any such interest as forma leads the geologist to his correlations of corresponding of corre to his analysis tions, or the comparative philologist sponding grammatical forms in different related languages. The
such enumeration

Statistical Methods

are

often

used whose

as

short

road

to

know

deeper laws knowledge. Mortalitytables are good guides to the escape our of insurance companies,even when medical knowledge of many in a very elementary stage. The of death remains the causes of suicide and of crime, or of statistics of marriage and divorce, ledge of
uniformities of nature
true

basis and

SECT.

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

77

commerce

and
even

of

furnish industry, there

to

search,
science But in

when

is

no

re sociological present hope of reducing the

bases

for

in

question

any

exact

form. Statistical Methods

to

whatever

their uses,

the have

involve correlation
array

us
,

certain

series

problems which A of f?tGtt(?imfttft glance

serves

do any

with

the

of\
of up
as

at
us

considerable the
mere

statistical results
of enumerations the
mere

to

show

how

heaping
as

of classes

of facts would

be almost any

useless

collection of disordered

facts without

enumeration.

properlytreated, serve to describe for us the constitution of objectswhose generaltype when he defined his Collectivgegenstdnde. Fechner had in mind is a conceptual object which results Such a Collectivgegenstand
in fact,when Statistical results,

they

are

when

we

conceive

a a

great number
process of
:
"

of

individual

facts of the

ex

to perience subjected

thought whereof
classified with
to

following
to

stages may
certain features
of their

here be

mentioned facts

(a) These
of the
are

individual

are

reference

features with

respect

which
sizes of

they vary.
of members

Such

exemplified by the varying by the various numbers organs,

organisms and
which dif

interestingparts of the individual objects in question of certain recorded observations to which possess, by the extent a quantity differ from another, and so on. physical
ferent

(3) This classification of the facts with reference to their variations the Statistical having been in general accomplished,
Method
as

enumerates

the members
is

of each

of the

in classes,

so

far

such

enumeration various

possibleor useful.
once

(c) The

enumerations,
reference
to to

made,
are

are

arranged
be answered
are

in

with series, orderly regardingthe laws

questionsthat
variations in

to

which
case

the

question
or more

sub pre

ject. Such
cise in their

in series,

they are
to

definite sufficiently
us

and

character, tend
in

show

how
vary

two

aspects
for
mean

of

the

phenomena
human
of
a

question tend

to

together, as,
"

in

stance, how

temperature
latitude
an or or

mortalityvaries with age; place on the earth's surface

the
season

how
varies how

the

with
size

its of
are

with
an

of varies

the

year

the

organ
to
so

organism

with

conditions

that

known

be

determined

by heredity or
once one

by

environment

and

on.

(d)

Various

when series,
with

defined

with reference
means

to

such the

features,are

correlated

another, by

which

78

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT.

Methodology
consider.

of the various

Statistical Sciences

has

further

to

(e) And,
to

as
"

result of such
" "

deal with
to

aggregates
a

or

processes, the statisticiancomes of facts which, taken blocks

"

as

higher order, appear as possessinga in which laws of nature structure are exemplifiedand revealed. Such ordered aggregates treated as units of a higher order are Collectivgegenstdnde.
Now cedure and when
of

units,so

speak, of

it is obvious

presupposes of the correlation

that every step of such and uses the concepts of

methodical

pro

number, of series,
whole
process,
an

of series ; and

that

the of

leads to the establishment successful, and thought,

to the revelation

orderly array

of nature of objects and the description of this order. through the establishment The Conceptof Order is thus a fundamental one both for the Comparative and for the Statistical Methods. and the Statistical " 8. Both the Comparative Methods Methods are used, in the more developed sciences that employ to a method them, in as close a relation as possible which, in the most tends to highlydeveloped regionsof physicalscience, consists in The Orga supersedethem altogether. This Method nized Combination of Theory and Experience. This combination reaches its highestlevels in the best known regions of physical science. Its various

of the laws

stages

are

at least in their familiar,

most

general features. But the methodological problems involved and the effort to understand of great complexity, them leads are with peculiardirectness to the definition of the task of the Let us briefly show how this is the generalScience of Order.
case.

In order

to

do

so

we

must

call attention

to

familiar from

generalproblem
this sketch.

of method

which

has

so

far been

omitted

Comparative methods, laws of with any absolute certainty, be discovered, but not nature can The degree of prob only with a certain degree of probability. the number of instances in questiondepends (i) upon ability in applying these methods, observed that have been empirically and (2) and that have been compared, or statistically arrayed, By by
upon Since the
every

the Statistical and

the

fairness

with

which has
as

these its basis number

facts
a

have

been

chosen.
of
em

induction in

finite number that

data, and pirical comparison with

general a

the whole

wealth

of the

is very small natural facts that

in
are

SECT,

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

79

result of the comparative or of the investigation, any human is subjectto correction statisticalmethods as experience enlarges. A question that has always been prominent in the discussion of the generalmethodology of the empiricalsciences, is the question as to our from a limited set of right to generalize about assertions about a or an un data, so as to make larger, under

facts,in which our learns Comparative Method, one

limited
set

of

data that

are

included.
and
"

By
sets

the
or

such

such for

series that the

of the

facts

are

thus

and
so

thus

correlated,
in
a

as

instance
of
a

strata geological

far observed

given region
laid and

earth's surface

show these

signs of having been

and these
so

down
non-con

in

certain

order, with
has

conformities
on.

and formities, foldings, faultings,

sense
one a

How

far and
"

in what

right, by what has been called extrapolation," thus the order-system less nearly defined to more to extend or adjacent regions,and to hold that any still unobserved geo features of those other regions will be, in their char?cter logical
and

order, of

the

type that
a
"

one

has

observed? alreadyactually
one

Or

again,by
one

the
to
one or

Statistical Method, define

learns that certain

certain

facts

enable How tical that

of a Collectivgegenstand and extrapolate,"

type.
fact

far
curves

can

rightly
other

extend

one's statis

statistical

to regions of order-types,

have
far of
can

not

yet been
one

subject to
use

enumeration

For

instance,
upon

how
basis

make

of

tables,framed mortality

the

of insuring previous records of death, for the purpose lives in a population which in at least some differs, inevitably with its fate, respects, from the population that has alreadymet

and

that

has

had

its deaths

recorded

in the

to this questionhas generalanswer and has usually taken the form of asserting by methodologists, that such the extrapolation logically depends, either upon is uniform" or the still more principle, That nature upon That sometimes event general principle : (or,as one every It reason? asserts, "every individual fact") "has its sufficient is commonly supposed, then, that the basis of our right to from a limited set of data to a wider range of natural generalize
" " " " "

The

tables ? mortality often been attempted

some facts,

of which
one

have ways

not
:
"

yet been

observed,may
and these

be facts

stated
have

in either been

of
to

two

(I.)
"

These

observed

exemplifya
is,nature's

certain various
one

is uniform.

That
as

order-system. But are order-systems

invariant type, or
a

nature

all of certain

them

such

to

exemplifyeither
F

8o

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT.

number

of definable facts
can

and

invariant due

types.

Hence

the

type of

the observed the unobserved of Sufficient

be, with
Or

facts."

extended to generalization, again,using the so-called Principle

"

Reason," one

has often stated the warrant

:

for extra
are

thus polation substantially as they are, and conform

"The (II.)
to

facts observed

such

their

own

not order-system,

by

Sufficient Reason. But a sufficient reason chance, but for some and is something that,from its nature, is general, capable of

being formulated
will therefore this
same

as

law of nature.
to

The order

facts stillunobserved

conform

this

same

type (willexemplify

law),unless
not

there

is

some

reason sufficient

why they
can exists,

should also be
must

conform
in
case

to

this type.
as

This

reason,

if it

stated

general terms,

another the
reason

law

of nature, and the law that

in any the observed

be consistent with

and

facts have

exemplified. Since
what
we

law thus and

universally
since

reignsin
observed
reason, terms

the natural facts not

world, since all

is necessary,

the

must

be

merely are what they are,

the observed

they are, but, for sufficient ought to regard the laws in

been is formulated
a

of

which

facts have

as

applicableto probable reason

conclusion

unobserved

unless facts, should

case

there

known To be

and
sure,

why they

not

so

conform.

in any one our probable,because it must there

may

of such

is extrapolation
as a

be

admitted,

only that possibility,

some

be

sufficient

reason

why
to

at
now

least

of

the But

unobserved the

facts should

conform

laws

unknown.

unless sufficient presumption is in favour of extrapolations is known reason why they should not be attempted." for " 9. Familiar as such modes of stating the warrant little and it requires but generalizations extrapolations are, reflection to see that the formulations juststated leave untouched the most important features of the very problem that theypropose that one in regard to a given Let us suppose who to solve. is, scientific field of investigation, a layman, hears the expert give
an

account

of certain

uniformities

of the data So

that

have the

been

observed

in the field in

question.

far,of

course,

layman

the expert for the correctness of the report. is dependent upon "What If the questionthen arises, right is there to generalize from

apply them to un observed facts that belong to this same general field ? is the able to use a general principle That Nature is layman now uniform,"to decide this matter ? No ! The layman, if properly
these observed
so uniformities,
as

to

"

"

82

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT.

that have
"

the abstract alreadybeen observed ? Surely, by itself, if fullygranted, only Principleof Sufficient Reason," even and so, of course, every order-system that every fact, us assures of facts, sufficient reason, is what it is by virtue of some which is of course stateable in general terms sort of a law. as some But, the still unobserved the very questionat issue is whether facts of any given field of inquiryconform to the same laws, and so have This when then the
same

"sufficient

the thus far observed as reasons," answered

come

data.

question can
the all
now

admittedlybe
"

with
to

certainty only
Till the
"

unobserved

facts have

be observed.

remains, at best,only
"

of Sufficient Reason

does

not

probable." Now by itself state

of sufficient

any

reason

Principle why

should with reasons only "few laws, or a. few sorts be viewed It does not, there as probability governing nature. fore, of itself establish any definable probability why there should not actually be a sufficient reason why the unobserved facts should Thus conform the
to
new

laws.
"

of the principle Uniformity of of Nature abstract principle Sufficient the still more nor definite probability of any that to assure us Reason," serves uniformities warrant observed extra a or given generalization into regionsnot as yet subjectedto observation. The polation observed uniformities are such as to warrant question What is a question whose in a given field ? a probablegeneralization of either of answer depends not upon any generalapplication the foregoing principles. They could both hold true in a world neither abstract
" " " "

whose uniform
were

facts

were

such

as

defied

our

efforts to find out what sufficient

what

the there

were, types in question

and

reasons

"

for any fact that took place. is it, consideration What 10. then, which and the basis of

makes

generali logician,
to

extrapolations, upon ? uniformities, probable To this questionthe has given the answer Mr. Charles S. Peirce,
zations summarized.1 This
answer

alreadyobserved
is here be

American that

aid us in understandingwhy the especially methods of comparison,and the statistical methods, inevitably they succeed,to a stage of science wherein the lead,whenever will
1

See

Peirce's article of the

Members and and

Logic of Induction in the "Studies and his article on (1883), Johns Hopkins University"
on

the

"

Logic by Uniformity,"

in

several passages

in his other

contributions

to

Baldwin's

DictionaryofPsychology

Philosophy.

SECT,

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

83

method
becomes be

which
the
to

organicallyunites
paramount
see

method. the

Theory and And hereby

of

Observation,
we

shall

also

helped

why
proper

types
the

Order

whose
of

methodical the natural

employment
sciences,are

characterizes the

highest stages

science topic of a special with their logical originand with their forms.

that shall deal

Suppose
exists realm these
at
a

that there exists

human of

any

finite set

of facts such that

as

are

of possibleobjects
finite set of facts

that experience, facts

is, suppose

there

calls the belonging to what Kant mogliche Erfahrung. One presupposition regarding
we

may

here

make,

for the

sake

of argument,

without

this

the

point attempting to criticize that presupposition. It is simple presupposition that these facts, and so the whole
of

aggregate
stitution.

them, whatever is,according

they
to

are,

have

some

con definite are

That

our

there presupposition,

possibleassertions to be made about these facts which are either individual fact in the set in question. And, true or false of each of possible assertions which here need within some we range
not
*

attempt
such if

further

to

define, it
about
have
to

may any
a

be
one

presupposed
of those

that

Every
or

if made assertion,
so

individual

and facts,
true

defined
true

as

is not

of that fact."
"

precise meaning, either is Thus, if our realm of objects

"

of

possibleexperience
to

is

realm

wherein
man

men a

may

be

con

ceived
then
a

be present, and

if the term of any is not

one

has
A

meaning, precise
realm,
and
"A is of

the

assertion,made
is true
to
an or

object
true

in that

man," either

of A. consists

And

if our

realm

objectsis supposed
balls
made

be

which the

of black is
a

white

deposited in
about
one

urn,

assertion,"A
urn,

white
or

ball,"
is false.

of the

balls in the

either is

true

presuppositionof the determinate constitution of any set of facts such as are is by no subject to inductive investigation, not self-evident means a simple, even a presupposition. This,
" "

This

indeed,

we

shall

later have

occasion

to
one

see.

But

this and

pre indis it is have

Peirce has shown, is the as supposition, pensable presuppositionin all inductive

further made
commonsense

natural

inquiries. And
methodologist,
to

Peirce's merit, as
in the

an

inductive

consideration a explicit

which~is implicitly employed by

ordinaryinductive
any other

reasonings used
of
our

in the

market
This

place, or
consideration

in is

region
once

life. practical

that, if we

grant

the

of

the determinate

constitution

set of any finite

singleprinciple offacts ofpossible

84

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

we experience,

can a

draw

probableconclusions regardingthe
case
we

con

stitution this with the

of such

in set offacts,

and observe collection, due

"fairsamples" of their constitution, and then generalize

to not
we

choose

in order thus precautions. And do we sample to the whole collection, the collection

from generalize need

any

pre

suppositionthat
'"

of facts

which

samples has a constitution determined by any than is at once involved in the assertion that of uniformity" the collection sampled has in the sense some just illustrated, determinate constitution. In other words, given a finite collec
tion of facts which be
reason

judge by the further principle

has any
more

determinate
or

constitution

whatever

"

this constitution
"

less
some reasons

for this

constitution
"

"uniform," be the "sufficient one law, or any possible

"

aggregate of heterogeneous
that
we

whatever

"

it remains

true

can,

with

probability, although,of
the constitution which of the
"

course,

only
"

with

judge probability,
the constitution when

whole

collection

by

of

parts

are

fair

whole, even
are

the

collection

is very

samples of that large and the samples

our

comparativelysmall.
That
we

all of the

us

make

in inductions,
"

daily business,
"

see. employ Peirce has emphasized the fair sample" is not a concept which requires any special pre constitution of the collection suppositionabout the uniform take our from which to judge by we samples. It is possible samples the probableconstitution of otherwise unknown cargoes of forests, the generalcharacteristics of soils, of wheat or of coal, of people,of ores, of rubbish of crowds heaps, of clusters of

which

of principle

sampling,"is easy to fact that the concept of the

fair

stars, or
or a

of collections of the most

varied
"

constitution.
"

mob

be judged by heap can samples almost as an as organizedarmy or an orderlyarray of objects, successfully choose from the largecollection that is to be sampled if only we of representative And instances. the com a sufficient number useful samples employed when other large or mercially cargoes, small collections are to be judged,are frequently surprisingly collection that is to be in proportionto the size of the whole of them. judged by means "11. The reason why such a procedure gives good results of the simplest can readilybe illustrated. Let us take one Suppose that a certain collection consists possibleinstances. which we will designateby the letters a, b, c, d. of four objects, rubbish

SECT,

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

85
that
are

And
our

to

make

our

instance
in fact

still of

more

concrete, wooden

suppose

collection

consists

four

blocks, which

by the letters (a, b, c, d). Suppose respectively, that blocks these are preciselyalike, except that they are Let that us hereupon suppose painted either red or white. somebody is required to judge how all the four blocks are random from of them at a colored, by drawing two bag in which they are concealed, and by then forming the hypothesis
marked, that, just as
that he

the

colors

white

and

red

are

present in the
will be

pair
and if he

so draws, precisely

these
of

colors

present

distributed
draws say
:

in white four

the

whole
he

set

four. be

In

other
to

words,

two

blocks of the

shall
are

required
If he

generalizeand
one

"All
one

blocks shall

white."

draws
"

white of the

and

red

block, he
of
next
c

be
are

required to
red, and
Let
four the blocks
us

say

Half

blocks

(that is,two
the
a

them)
a

others
a

white."
b
are

Suppose
while
of such

that, as
and
of d
are

fact,the

and

red,

blocks
process
two

white.

consider
a

what

results
com

judging the
are

objects by
the

sample

posed

of

of the

them,

now,

under

agreed conditions,
"

possible. Of
Six different

(a,b, c, d\ there are six pairs: (a,b) (a,c) (a,d) (b, d). c) (b,d} (c,

four blocks

samples,then, could be made from the collection of blocks under the supposed conditions. Of these six possible consist, by samples, One, namely, the sample (a, b) would of two Whoever red blocks. chanced to draw that hypothesis, sample, so that he was consequently required, by the agreement, to judge the whole would set by that pair, judge erroneously ;
for

he

would
to
are

say

"All

the

four

blocks

are

red."
to

Whoever

chanced
blocks

draw white."
one

the

pair (c, d\ would

he
too

have
be

And

would

wrong.

the say: "All But whoever

four samples, (a, c) (a,d) (b,c] (b,d\ would by agreement be obliged to say : Two of the blocks are red and two be obliged,by the are white," since he would
any
"

drew

of

the

agreement,
same

to

judge that
drawn.

the whole and red

collection of four showed

as was

the

distribution he
had

of white

shown

in

the

pair

inde possiblepairs were pendently drawn by successive judges,each one drawing one of the possible pairs from the bag in which the four blocks hidden were then, under the supposed agreement, two of the be wrong, and judges would four of them right in their

that

Thus,

if all the

judgments.

86

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

This in his

choose the

which*Peirce uses simple case illustrates the principle theory of the inductive procedure. In general,if we and partialcollections from a largercollection, judge of the whole attention collection
upon

constitution

from

chosen, fixing our

or

definable

that of the parts characters present

"

aided towards we are partialcollections, probable inferences by the fact that there are more possible t hat least at samples,"or partialcollections, approximately

absent,

in

the

agree

in their constitution there

are

with

the

constitution

of the

whole,

of the samples that widely disagree. Two four possiblesamples in the foregoing simple case disagree, with the collection which is, agree, in the character in question, by the supposed agreement, to be judged by the samples. That the possible of successful sampling are in this case twice is, ways the possible unsuccessful ways. as as numerous What holds in this simple case im holds in a vastlymore the collections sampled are pressiveway when large. Only then, to be sure, the probable inferences are, in general, only approximations. Suppose a large collection containing m objects. Suppose that a proportionr per cent, of these objects have some character q, while the rest lack this char actually acter. Suppose that the whole largecollection of m objectsis absence of q, by to be judged,with reference to the presence or of these objects. n some comparativelysmall sample containing The of the judgment will depend upon how far the success sample of n objectsthat happens to be chosen differs from or with reference to the propor collection, agrees with the whole tion r' per cent, of the n objects which possess the character q. Of course it is possible that r"rt.

than

large collections and fairly large samples,this will not often be exactlytrue. consider all possible But if we if n selections of n objects from the collection of m objects, even is a comparatively small number, while m is a very large num ber, a direct calculation will readilyshow that decidedlymore will some of the possible sets of n objects samples containing in their constitution the whole what closely resemble collection absence of q than will very widely in respect of the presence or
In
case
" "

of

differ in their will here in

constitution
one

from
of

that

collection.

The

matter

general be
of

results. the

If,once

members

approximation,not of exact of r' per cent, represents the proportion more, a given sample of n objectsthat possess the

SECT.

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

87

character of is of
or

q, while whole

per

cent,

is the possess

proportion of
this
same

the

members q, it

the

collection

that

character

to compute possible
n

the number

of

possible samples consisting

r x.

objectseach,
not
more

in which
a

/ will differ from

amount,

by

not

less than

by

than

determinate this
amount

The

computa

tion will show number

In of

that, as

of difference

increases,the
inductive
as

samples in question will rapidlydecrease. possible

as

consequence,
can

Peirce

points out,

our

in

ferences the direct

"

be stated thus, in so generally of sampling collections : processes

"

far

they involve
character
q.

proportion rf
The P's
are a

per
*

cent,

of

the
'

P's

have

the

fair

"

Hence, probablyand
of the

sample of the large collection M. a proportion r approximately, per cent.

M

large collection
for this

have

the

character

q?
the
uni

The

ground
"

thus probability

rests, not

upon

the fact that more of formity of the collection M, but upon the possible fair samples agree approximately with the whole than widely disagree therewith.
"

Now

"

fair

sample
we

"

of the
no reason

largecollection
or

is

sample
been

concerning which
chosen from otherwise among Thus

have
"

to suppose that

it has

than

at

random"

in

representative way,
that
we

the the

objectsof the
of the

large collection
inductive
methods
are

judge.
far
as

methodology
the

so generalization,

the statistical and

comparative
which

concerned,
we

rests
a

simply upon
determinate

that principle

the facts which

we can

study have

constitution,to
its very is therefore

approximate,

with
of all

probability, by fairly sampling

parts.
such tion From
cases
as

through a selection the procedure in question in nature is subject to correc tentative, essentially
statistical enumeration
is

the whole

comparison and
to

advance

from

earlier
rate

may

of approximately accu productive results, and, in general,of approximations only. From this point of view we see why it is that experience be said to teach an not only what expert in a given field,

later stages, and

but what approxi field, from the observed probable right one has to generalize to still unobserved uniformities in precisely that region of ex perience. For the process of sampling tends,in the long run,
mate

uniformities
and

have

been

observed

in that

"U^ \^^

to show to so as improve itself, the not to what although generally layman, ways
to correct to
"

and

the
of

expert,
For

sampling

are

fair

"

in their

application

to

given region

of

facts.

88

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT.

the expert is different ways

one

who

has

had

experience of
own

many

samples

of

of sampling in
we are

his

field.

"

a prepared to understand step for ward in methodical procedure which took place early in the and which has since become in very possible historyof physics, It is obvious that such a step might various regionsof science. be expected to consist in some improvement in the choice and the selection of in the definition of the regions within which fair samples should be made possible.As Peirce has pointed out, it is justsuch improvement that takes placewhen induction the form of sampling the possible assumes of given consequences the the constitution laws of realm or some hypotheses concerning of natural phenomena, or of samplingfacts viewed with reference to their relation to such hypotheses. The reasoningwhich is used when hypotheses are tested, instance furnished well known is of a fairly by type. The Newton's the earth's surface body near hypothesisthat a falling in its orbit were alike subjectto a force that and the moon inverse squares," has been repeatedly followed the law of the of the Logic of Induc used as an illustration in the text-books
" "

"12. Herewith

tion.

We

need

not

here
"

dwell

upon

the

more
"

working hypothesis and of observation. Our of its correction in the light or verification, interest lies in the bearingof the whole matter upon the Theory This bearing is neither familiar to most of Order. minds, nor immediately obvious. in which the general way the therefore sketch We must is accomplished in the more union of Theory and Observation
of the method of the
exact

familiar aspects of its successful

natural

and sciences,
most

must

then

try

to

show

that

what

of effective, depends upon the possibility in terms order-systems of certain conceptual hypotheses defining in ideal, the grade whose exactness of structure far transcends, be given to our that can ever physicalobservations of exactness
makes this union themselves. of induction here in simplest form, the method question appears as a discoveryof natural processes, structures, of what or they may laws, through an imaginativeanticipation the of anticipations by subsequent be,and through a testing of an obvious use directly experience. The first and most observable which thus anticipates an fact,lies of Hypothesis, In its
course

in

its heuristic value.

It

leads

an

observer

to

look

90

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

theory should agree as nearlyas they do with so For in such a large a sample of the results of observation. selected from the one of realm two a case samples of facts, observed physical phenomena, the other selected from the realm of the ideal consequences theoryof gravitation^ of the Newtonian but in detail ; so that the are compared, not merely in general, correspondenceof theory with observation is a correspondence of the two by member, each samples, so to speak, member of each of the two element samples approximately agreeing
results of the with
some

element

of the

other

with

which,

in

case

Newton's

ought to agree. "13. What here takes place is,mutatis mutandis, identical the most constitutes with what important feature in any of successtul and highly organized combination Hypothesis, The stages of the process are these. Theory, and Observation. (1) A Hypothesis is suggested regardingthe constitution the laws of some or regionof physicalfact. (2) This hypothesisis such as to permit an extensive and Deductive exact Theory as to what ought to be present in the The more in case the hypothesis is true. region in question, and exact systematicthe theory thus made possible extensive, the possible the larger are samplesof the "consequences proves to be, whenever they are needed, of the hypothesis which are available, facts. for comparison with the physical field open from chosen to a (3) Samples of facts are then compared with the and experiment, and observation are the larger results of theory. The more complete the theory,
true, it
"

hypothesisis original

the

range

of facts that

can

be

called for to

meet

the

need

for

longer is confined (as is the case in their the comparative methods when the statistical and / per cent, similar forms are used) to noting what proportion, of a sample have a certain relatively of the members simple the deductive theory in the contrary, in case On character q. the sample of the questionis highlydeveloped and systematic, is accessible for comparison is not only results of theory which for instance, of its own (is, order-system complex, but has a precise which be must physicalquantities) a system of ideallyexact the original in detail in case hypothesis verifiable approximately The is true. comparison of theory and fact is therefore here of of individual detail which, in case with a minuteness possible
no

comparison. (4) This comparison

SECT,

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

91

successful the

verification, may

system
with

determinate agrees

highly probable that if has any of real physical facts under investigation constitution whatever, its constitution closely very the hypothesis under that which investigation
make it very obvious that the value of the

requires.
It thus in becomes

method

here

question very greatlydepends upon the exactness, the order, character and the systematic of which the of the concepts in terms tested are defined. If these concepts hypothesesthus indirectly and thus exact and systematic, they may are permit extended precisedeductions, and the result will be that largesamples of the
exact

consequences with and

be

compared

will be such hypothesis, large samples correspondingly of

a

that of the

they

can

facts of

observation

experiment.

The

be made, not then samples can by element, minutely, with reference and of

such comparison of two merely in general,but element

to

the
a

Order
chance

presented
agreement
is

conceived, and

in such

wise

as

to

make

theory and
The will

fact

extremely improbable.
that the

result will be
still be
at

truth

of the

hypothesisthat
as

tested
the

best
to

only probable and

become closer
as

approximate,but
while possible,
as

the

will probability approximation

more

tend

great

will grow
more

and and

closer

the
of

theory

reaches

and and
as

exactness

fulness

deductive

development,
An almost

it is confirmed

by larger and
theory with
doctrine
of

largerranges
a

of observations.

ideal union
is found

of deductive
modern

vast

range

of observations

in the

Energy.

can now foregoing considerations,we readilysee that this,the most perfect of the scientific methods, namely the organized union of Theory with Observation requires for its perfection concepts and systems of concepts which permit of such as the Newtonian preciseand extended deductive reasonings, theory of Gravitation and the modern theory of Energy exem plify. It is a commonplace of Methodology that hypotheses which stated in quantitatively are precise terms, especially meet, at present, this requirement,and lead to physical theories of the

"

14.

In view

of the

desired
shows

type. Our

account,

Peirce's following
are so

view

of

induction,
"

important for the study of possible consequences which furnish the require are they especially adapted to meet of a minute ments comparison, element by element, with the
"

why,

general,such theories The nature. samples of

in

92

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT.

samples question

of
are

observed
to

facts tested. sketch that

in

terms

of

which

the

theories

in

be
our

Meanwhile hereafter
tance

of

the

general
concepts

Theory
get

of

Order

will

show for deductive

us

quantitative
purposes is

their the

impor
fact
that

theoretical

simply
so

from
and
not

the
a

Order-System
system.

of
to

the be it the

quantities
sure,

precise
are

controllable

Herein,

the be

quantities
part
of the Exact
means

alone

amongst
our

conceptual
sketch and
to

objects,
show

and

will
two

business Deductive

of

later

that

concepts,

Theory
The

Quantitative
of is may

Theory, quantitative
that
we

are

by
concepts
can

no

coextensive.
our

prominence
theories There

in
as

present

physical
necessary. be
as

nothing
be,
and
in

regard
sciences

absolutely
that will

future,
will it

physical
not
use

highly
their
exact

theoretical,

that Yet

quantitative
that

concepts
will
use some

principal
conceptual But,
one
:
"

ones.

is

certain

they

Orderhowever

System.
this may

be,

our

result

so

far

is

the

following

sketch and

of the

Methodology
Statistical and

has

shown,
and all the

in

the of

case

of Method

the

Com which

parative,
unites

Methods,

the

Observation
upon

Theory,
concept
subordinate of

that of

these

methods

use

and of of
ob

depend jects
of

the

general
with its and All the And

Orderly
of

Array
Series,
such
as

thought,
of

concepts

the that the

Correlation of the

Series,

special

Order-Systems
are

Quantities.
of

these

concepts
that
a

essential

to

understanding
with leads its
us

methods thus of

thought
review of

employs
of

in

dealing

objects.
to

general
Science

Methodology

the

problems

the

Order.

SECTION

II.

GENERAL

SURVEY

OF

THE

TYPES

OF

ORDER.

"15.
well known

WHEN

the has

methodical led
to success,

procedure
the
gave such

of

any is
one

more

exact

physicalscience
Mechanics
are

result

which
science

the
of

definition

that
The

Kirchhoff facts of

of
a

the

exemplifies.
with
a as

science, namely,
in
as

"described"

certain fashion

that used
we

is,in
in shall

orderly a
a

completeness,and as possible. The

at
"

"simple,"

types of order
of

such
soon our

descriptionare
see

once

forms

thought,"
forms of

as

when

we

enumerate

them, and

the

physical experiences in so far, but only in so far of the world our descriptions "probably," as, "approximately" and of the facts of "possiblephysicalexperience" in these terms are The accurate. philosophicalproblem as to how and why the given facts of physical experience conform as nearly as they do the forms be fairly to of our thought,is a question that can considered have been the types of order themselves only when forms of thought, that is as "constructions" discussed precisely as or creations," or otherwise stated, as inventions,"or logical of thinking can which either be said to entities," our processes
world of
" " " "

construct

"

or

else

be

said

to

"

find

"

when

we

consider,

not

the

but physical,

the
to

logicalrealm
the

itself, studying the

or no

order-

types without
world That

regard

question whether

the

physical

exemplifiesthem.
this mode
of

procedure,namely the study of the orderour types apart from physical experience, is important for our whole understanding of our logicalsituation (as beings whose scientific or thoughtful interpretation of nature is in question), is especially shown which with our by the considerations sketch of Methodology has just closed. For that it is notable all highly developed scientific theories make use of concepts,
"

94

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

quantitative concepts, whose logical is of a grade that simply defies exactness preciseverifi absolutely cation in physicalterms. The Newtonian of theory gravitation, for instance, be v erified. For the conception can never precisely of a force varying inversely with the square of the distance, of the concept of a with its use material involves particle, whose precisecomputation (even if the theory consequences
as
"

such

for instance

the

itself did not deductive

also involve

the well

known, still insurmountable,

behaviour problem of the gravitative of three or more would result in the mutuallyattracting bodies), definition of physicalquantities that,according to the theory, would have to be expressed, in general, by irrational numbers. But actual physical measurements can to never even appear verify any values but those expressed in rational numbers. Theory, in a word, demands, in such cases, an absolute precision in the definition of certain ideal entities.

difficulties of the

Measurement,

in

its

is otherwise than an and empirical approximation, sense, never at best,when a absolutely compared with the ideal, rough one. be shown to represent Why such concepts, which can never with exactness nevertheless of such value are fact, any physical for physicalscience, shown our methodologicalstudy has now Their very unverifiability, as us. exactly definedconcepts about the physical world, is the source of their fecundityas guides to For what the observers approximatephysicalverification. if but approximate correspondences the detailed, even are verify between large samples of empiricaldata, and samples of very of hypotheses. The the consequences of the theo exactness retical concepts enables the consequences of hypotheses to be with a wealth and computed, that is, predetermined, deductively but varietywhich far transcend precisephysical verification, which, for that very reason, constantlycall for and anticipate larger and largersamples of facts of experience such as can furnish the relative and approximate verifications. It is with

theoretical science the ideals done with

to

as

it is with
it is
we so

conduct.

The

more more

unattainable work
can

by which bring what

guided,the rationally
far possess
as

be

or

control

into

conformity thought
at

the ideal. The viewed order-systems,

"

ideals
a sense

that

our

once,
"

in

sense
"

creates," and, in
be studied with

"finds" of
a

as

the

facts

or

entities

of
to

purelylogical (and
a

not true

are

therefore

world, physical) understanding, only

SECT,

ii

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

95

when
"

one

considers
"

them

in abstraction

from

the

"probable" and
in the

approximate

which exemplifications

they get

physical

world.

" 1 6.
is
not

Yet

the

also,in considering his order-types, logician

abstracting from all experience. His world too is, in have intentionally a perfectly genuine sense, empirical. We used ambiguous language in speaking of his facts as either his
or

"creations"
he
seems

his "data."
"

For

if

we

say

that, in

one

sense,

to

create

"

his

order-types (just as
"

Dedekind,
case,

for

instance,calls the whole

lichen

numbers

des "freie Schb'pfungen

menschan

Geistes

"), his

so-called

creation

"

is, in this
"

of the way in which his own experience thinks, expresses itself. His so-called
types
is in fact
a

rational
"

will,when
of his

he

creation that

orderall

finding of
so

the
as

forms

characterize

just in orderlyactivity,

far
his

it is

and orderly,

is therefore

capriciouscreation In his study desire.

no

of of

private and
Science of
are

the these

or personal whim Order, the logician

the fact experiences

that

forms

present
in of

world, and

constitute

of all
world
A

rational

it, just because they are, union activity. This synthetic

we

logical fact,the forms

creation
"

in his

"

and

"discovery" is, as
of

shall

see,

the

central

character

of the

the

"

Pure the

Forms."
forms of

survey

of

order

may of

therefore

well

set as a by viewing them empirically, the to logicianby the experience

phenomena
the
one

begin presented
or

which
to

theoretical who

deductive
what human
an

aspect of science

furnishes done.
The

any
most

considers
source

thought

has

notable

of

such

experience

is of

course

furnished

by

the realm

of the

mathematical

whose sciences,

deductive conclusions
If
as,
one

from

any of

considers

the work

generalbusiness it is to draw exact set of sufficiently precisehypotheses. Mathematics, analyzingthat work

"

for

instance,the
have
in
recent

Italian
years

school been
use

of

Peano
"

and

his

fellow
the

workers
various and

doing,
certain

one

finds that

Mathematical

Sciences that

fundamental
for their

concepts
upon
us

and order-systems,

they depend

results

the
next

properties of
and

these
in

concepts and
an are.

order-systems.
some

Let

simply report,

outline

sketch,what

of

these

concepts

systems

" 17.

Relations.

(to use Mr. Bertrand of Mathematics)one

"

or "concept," one "logicalentity," Russell's term, employed in his Principles is of the utmost which constant," logical

One

96

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

importance in
term

the whole Without

Theory

of

Order,

is

expressed by

the

Relation.

subject. Yet without using other

for their definition

the

in this concept we can advance make no there is no way of definingthis term relation
terms

that,in their turn,

of what
a

knowledge

presuppose relation is. In order, of

us

must

the gate of the Science to wait outside then, not endlessly show Order, for some presuppositionless concept that can the way that observations in,we may well begin with some
"
"

can

help
A

us

to

formal

is meant grasp what definition " without

we

speak of a relation. presuppositions is impossible,

when
we
"

whenever

deal

with

any

terms

that

are

of

fundamental

in philosophy. significance whereof can or we Any object, physicalor psychical logical, think at all,possesses characters, traits, whereby we features, it from other objects. Of these characters, some distinguish Ex such as we are qualities, ordinarily by adjectives. express These etc. as we usually amples are hard, sweet, bitter, qualities, conceive of them, often seem to belong to their objectwithout reference to other objects. At all events explicit they may be viewed. When think of qualities, so such, we abstract we as from other things than the possessors of the qualities, and the the rela themselves. with qualities, But, in contrast qualities tions in which characters that are viewed any object stands are to it when it is considered with explicit as to, reference belonging that is, with in ideal or real company with another object, or as several other objects.To be viewed be viewed as a father is to with explicit is father. To be reference to a child of whom one an equal is to possess a character that belongs to an objectonly when it exists along with another object to which it is equal ; and
so on.

relation is a character that an object a brief, possessesas a member an "-ad, a club,a family, of a collection (a pair, a triad, would and which not a nation, etc.), conceive), (as one may

In

belong
extend

to

that

were object,

it not

such

member.

One

can

this definition from

a

by saying that
when the considered

objectto any set of objects any one relation is a character belonging to such a set
of the
set
are

members

either taken

or together,

are

along with
assumed
; that

the members that

of stillother sets.
are

It is often their nature of

a

pairas

such

dyadic in essentially characters which are is, belong to a member member, or to the pair itself as a pair. The
relations

98

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

Non-symmetrical relations.
sometimes relation.
ever

A that

symmetrical dyadic
is identical with its

relation

is

defined Or

as

one

own

inverse

again,if

is

then, when symmetrical relation,

assertion

the

assertion

(a S b)

is true, the

(b S a) is true,

objectsa and b may be. The relation of equality, is a relation of this nature, for if (a b), then symbolized by always (b a). If a relation is ^^-symmetrical,various possibilities still are R be a non-symmetricalrelation, and if (c R d\ Thus, if open. be such that the assertion (d R c) is always the relation R may excluded by the proposition be true at (cR d\ so that both cannot of whatever of the rela once (c, d) one may use as the terms tion,then,in this case, the relation R is totally non-symmetrical. Russell proposes to call such relation Asymmetrical. The relation is of this type in the world of quantities.But greater than the relation R may be such that (cR d} does not in other cases exclude but only in certain instances. (d R c) in every instance, of different relations, the exceptional In the case instances may be for a given R, unique, or may be many, and may be in certain determined laws of their own. cases by precise subordinate be the law that (c R d) excludes Thus it may (d R c),unless other relational proposition (e R'/) is true ; while if (e R'/) some is true, then (c R' d} necessitates (d R c) ; and so on. reference to the foregoing concept of symmetry, Without be classified afresh, the dyadic relations may by another and divides them and which into Transitive independent principle,
whatever
=

"

"

"

"

Non-Transitive considerations

relations. which

This

new we

division consider

is based various

upon

arise when

relation R. with reference to some one If,in objects the relation R may be such that (a R c] is, (a R b) and (b R c), the objects under the supposed conditions always true, whatever the relation R is transitive. (a,b, c) may be, then in this case If such a law does not universally hold, the relation R is nonThe transitive. relation,equal to, is a transitive relation, which are according to all the various definitions of equality used that
"

pairs of particular,

in the

different

exact

sciences.
same

The

so-called

"

axiom

"

thing are equal to each other awkward in fact, a somewhat is, expressionof this transitivity, in any exact science to is always assigned, which, by definition, The the relation expression is awkward, because, by the of each other in the so-called of axiom," the transitivity use Things equal to
the
=
.

"

"

"

"

SECT,

ii

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

99

the relation
from the

is
,

so

stated
which

as

not

to

be

clearly distinguished

relation. belongs to the same Yet and symmetry are mutually independentrelational transitivity The characters. superiorto" etc., are, relations, "greater than" but they are totally like the relation transitive, non-symmetrical. and relations The contradictory of" are both of opposed to!'

symmetry

also

"

"

"

them

but symmetrical,

are

also non-transitive.

Fewer confuse

formulations minds

of this

general type
the familiar
to
"

have
axiom

done :""

more

to

untrained
to

than
are

Things
the

equal
form

the

same

thing

equal

each

other," because
= ,

possesses expression used suggests that the relation, feels its transitivity because of its symmetry. Everybody easily of the relation the symmetry Everyone admits (although is one of definition, usuallywithout knowing whether the matter
of
=
.

or

is

one our

of

some

objectively necessary
the

law
=

of

true apart reality,

from

that definitions),

relation

is transitive.

The

by its mode of expression that this symmetry and this transitivity at least in this case, necessarily united. are of The result is a wide-spread impression that the symmetry relation always implies some of transitivity of this same sort a has relation, an impression which occasionally appeared in But discussions. is a sharp distinction nowhere philosophical
"axiom"

suggests

"

between
conceive

two

characters
as,

more

needed

than

when

we

are

to

them

united, whether

specialtype of cases necessarily definition of the nature or by arbitrary by

some

in

things.
If
some

dyadic relation, say X,

one

is

at

least

instance
of

in which
true
case

(e X

/)

are

both

them

of

then there non-transitive, the propositions(d X e] and some objects (d,e, f),while

is

(d X f)
so

is false.
case

As in the

of the

non-symmetricalrelations,
may
a or

in the

of the non-transitive

this non-transitivity, relations,

appear in R

like
form

the
of

before
an

mentioned

non-symmetry,
form of

the
all

universal

law, forbiddingfor
one

given relation
more

transitivity ; or
where
a

else in the

specialcases

given relation does not conform to the law that the of principle would transitivity require. These specialcases be themselves A may T, is subjectto special laws. relation, in case assertions totally the two non-transitive, (a T b} and
(b
T

c] if both
Thus

at

once
"

true, exclude is father of b

"

the and

that (a T c) possibility
"

is true.

if

b is father of c" it is be true. The relation

impossiblethat

"*

is father of c"

should

ioo

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

father of, is

totallynon-symmetrical and also totally non-transitive. That relation between which is propositions or contradicts," by the expression is expressed by the verb contradictoryof," is symmetrical, but totallynon-transitive. contradict the same which For propositions propositionare propositions.The relation "greater than" mutually equivalent but totally have seen, is transitive, as we non-symmetrical. The is both transitive and relation symmetrical. And thus the and symmetry, as relational mutual independence of transitivity obvious. becomes sufficiently properties, Still a third, and again an independent classification of consider the number we of dyadic relations appears, when related does of which terms two can one stand, or objectsto in the inverse relation ft. If stand, in a given relation R, or and frequent that there should is father of b," it is possible a is also father. If be several other beings, a c, d, etc.,to whom of n" then, by the very definition of the is twin-brother m stand in viz. #, to whom there is but one being, m can relation, If "e is child of/," there are two beings, this relation. namely
" "

both

"

"

the In and
a

father and
case

the

mother,
of
a

to
an

whom

stands

in this relation.
is to be

where

the estate is

insolvent debtor

settled,
in

where
a one

the debtor

singleperson
the transactions

nor (not a partnership

yet
this

then corporation), settlement

one

to

be

considered

may

involve far
are as

thesis, only
of each of x"

debtor,so in question. Here, there

of whom But
so

creditors, but, by hypo many alone is this insolvent's estate

several be of

then
can case

beings,(p,q,
:
"

r,

etc.),
con

the far
as

assertion this
one

made

"/

is creditor

alone insolvency viewed

as a

is

cerned, all the

to

creditors
one

in

whom

only

debtor

question are as corresponds,

many

the debtor

here

in

question. The are obviously questions suggested by such cases multiplexanswers, accordingto the rela capableof very variously Of most tional systems concerned. importanceare the instances where some generallaw characterizes a given relation R^ in such be raise can wise that such questionsas the foregoingcases such The forms which in universal terms. answered principal indicated by the three following take are laws can sufficiently
classes of
I.
some cases
:
"

that,if (a R b) is true of (a,b),then, in case we consider pair of individual objects

The relation R may be such

SECT,

ii

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

101

one

of

these
a,
"

besides

", there are or are objects, objectsm, n, etc., of which

"

possible other objects, the assertions (m R b),

time,
if
we are

(n

b),etc., are
upon

true

; while

at

the

same

fix

our

attention

the other

member

of the

pair,"?, there

other

of the relation objects(/, q" r) either actual,or, from the nature such that (a R p),(a R q), etc.,are true propositions. JZ,possible,

Such
"

relation

is called laws

by

Russell make

and it such

others
may

"

manymore
"

many less

relation.

The

that

be

or

general and important. Thus latitude south of" is such a many-many

exact,
"

the
"

relation

i"

of

relation, subject to (a
R

exact
2.

general laws.
The

relation R

may

be

such

that,when

b) is

true

of
the
some

some

pair (a,b),the selection of a is uniquely determined selection of b while, given a, then, in place of b, any one
more
or

by
of be

less if
"

determined precisely
a

set

of

objectscould

placed. a pair of
some
one

Thus

sovereign of b" where the pair (a,b) is and where the relation sovereignof is that of persons, wholly independent kingdom (whose king'ssovereign
is

rightsare untramelled by feudal or federal or imperialrelation ships to other sovereigns),then, by law, there is only one a is sovereign of b is true. But whereof the assertion : if we a
"

"

"

first choose
in

a, there

will be

many

beings that
is the

could

be

chosen
A
case

place of bywithout
a

the altering
exact

truth of the assertion.

"

of such of the

relation

in the

sciences

case

is centre

circle b?

determined.
of
an

Here, given the circle ", its But any one point may be the
of circles. Its inverse Such
R
a

centre

is

uniquely
a

infinite number relation.

of any one relation R is called

centre

"one-many"
"

would

be

called

"

many-

one

relation. there
are

be such that (whether or no 3. A relation R may different pairs that exemplify it), in case (a R many any what one
b of

b) is

true

pair whatever, the selection of a uniquely determines b it is of which (a R b) is true, while the selection of
what
a a

uniquely determines
a

it is of

which

(a

b)
"

is true.

Such the

relation is called
"

"one-one"

relation.
case.

Couturat The

prefers
"

name

bi-univocal
as

"

relation in this often called in the

"

one-one

relations, or,
are

they are
make

one-one

correspondences,"
of the
exact

of

inestimable

value

order

systems
a

sciences.

They
"

possible extremely important deductive

those
upon
"

for example inferences, modern

which

great part of the

Theory

of

Assemblages

depends.

102

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

that have dyadic relationships be applied, with suitable modifications, been defined,may now and other polyadic relations. Only, as the to triadic, tetradic, the possible of related terms classifications sets are increased, varied and become, in general,more complicated. A few the way be classifications of the polyadicrelations would remarks
must

The

various

classifications of

here

suffice to

indicate

in

which

such

.)means symmetrical polyadic relation S" then the objectsin questioncan be mutually substituted one for another, be interchanged in the fore i.e. the symbols a, b, c, etc.,can without altering the relation that is in question, going expression, and without the truth of the assertion in question. affecting This is for instance the case if S (a b c d : "a, b,c, d, .)means fellow-members of a certain club,"or : are are points on the same straightline,"so long as no other relation of the of the fellow-members or points is in question except S (a b c d the one thus asserted. In such cases S (b c d a .), equivalentpropositions.Such a relation "S is .), etc., are polyadic and symmetrical. The relation R, expressed by the if or symbol R (a b c d},is non-symmetrical(partially totally)
c :
.

If the

symbol
in the

(a

"

The

possible. objects a, b,c, dy

etc., stand

"

...

"

"

"

"

in

one,

in

asserted

many, there is
some

or

in

all

cases

where

this relation

is thus of the is not

objects,
"

or interchangingof the terms of one for another, which substituting

some

"

without permitted destruction of This

an

alteration truth
case

of the the

relation R,

the

of

relational

possible propositionfirst
or a
"

asserted.
to ten
c

is the

if R of d

(a b

in consideration or for, dollars to

c

;" or, in

: d) means case a special

a
"

owes
a

owes non-

for

one

week's

wages?

Such

relation is

of terms used greatlyincreases the symmetrical. The number are regardingwhat sorts of non-symmetry range of possibilities in certain of the each time in question terms some cases, ; since, be interchanged, of a given polyadic relational assertion can alteration of be interchangedwithout while others cannot an meaning or the change of a true into a false assertion. Thus and b are pointslyingon if the assertion R (a b c d) means a of a straight line whose extremities are c and a certain segment be inter be interchanged, d" then a and b can and c and d can the truth or falsity of the assertion ; changed, without altering but if the pair (a,b) is substituted for the pair (c, d\ and con the assertion would in generalbe changed in its meaning, versely,
"
"

SECT,

ii

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

103

and
was

might be
made.

true

in

one

form, but

false when

the

interchange

Consequently we have to say, in general,that a R, is symmetrical or non-symmetrical given polyadic relation, that pair or triad or other partial with set to this or reference
of its terms,
or

with

reference
; and

to
so

this
on.

or

that
In

of pair of triads,

its terms
as

pair of pairs,or of complicated case

such order-systems,

those

mathematics, definable, and systems

In of

or

of sets

functions in various branches of etc., in geometry, the of points,of lines,

of be
at
once

resultingcomplications may
very

extremely
permit
most

exact

and

elaborate, and
inferences.

may

notable

deductive

a elementary concept of transitivity, place of the more time but at the same more more plastic concept, in general, of polyadic relations can certain of which be terms properties familiar so defined,is suggested by the process of elimination,

in

the

deductive

inferences

of

the

mathematical

sciences.

Suppose R (a b c d} is a tetradic relation, symmetrical or non-symmetrical; suppose that the relation is such that if the R (a b c d} and R (c d ef) are at once propositions true, then R A very of such follows. notable instance (a b e f) necessarily relation exists in the case of the entities of Pure a Logic of which shall speak later. We could here easily we generalize the concept of transitivity R is relation that this to so as say transitive by pairs." But such the well as as transitivity, of a dyadic relation, is a special instance of a general transitivity
" " "

relational property which

of certain terms that are to two relational propositions, in such common or more wise that relational determinate a proposition concerningthe remaining terms can be asserted to be true in case the propositions permits
with
not
or

the elimination

Let the symbol began are true. but any determinate a necessarily singleobject, 7z-ad of objects. Let /3 represent another such
we

which

represent,

pair,triad,
determinate be

set

of

and objects, such

means

relations

y that R

third

set.

Let
R'

and The

R'

polyadic
these

and (a ($)
"

(/3 "y).
set

first of

symbols
of the

the

assertion of the

The

of

objects consisting

combination mode

minate

relation R"

preted

in

an

deter /3 (taken in some or sequence),is a set of objects standing in the The second symbol, viz. R' (/37) is to be inter that either analogous way. Hereupon, suppose
sets
a

and

always,or and (a /3)

in

some

definable
true

set

of

cases,

the

propositionsR
R"

R'

if (/3 "y),

together, imply that

(a 7),where

io4

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

which may be,upon polyadicrelation, occasion, identical with either or both of the foregoingrelations, R' and In such a case, the information R. and expressed in R (a /3) R' (/3 y) is such as to permit the elimination of the set or collection relational proposition, that a determinate results from so /3, It is plain that transitivity, this elimination. above defined, as instance where such an elimination is possible.1 is a special With and one-one," many-one regard to the manyclassification of here we dyadic relations, finally many may that for and variations vast a generalizations point out range of the concepts in questionis presented, in case of triadic, and, of polyadic relations, in general, by the operations of the which have their numerous exact or sciences, operations more less approximate analogues in the realm of ordinaryexperi These inferences ence. operations make possibledeductive of application is inexhaustible. whose range addition An such as is or operation," multiplication," (in the most familiar cases that are used in the exact sciences) If R (a be) means founded The sum upon a triadic relation. of a and b is c? or in the usual symbolic form, a -f b c, then the triadic relation in questionis that of two numbers or quan As is tities to a third number or quantitycalled their sum." of these elements, namely the well known, the choice of two choice of the a and b that are to be added together(the sumin rnands "), determines That is, c uniquely, ordinaryaddition. to the pair(#, b} the third element of the triad (a,b, c) uniquely R (a b c) is to be true. On the other hand, corresponds ',in case often infinitely various, given ", the sum," there are in general, ^,),etc., of which the propositions, pairs(d, e\ (/", numerous, be true. But in case of ordinary d-fe c, f-}-g c, etc.,may addition if c, the sum," is first given,and if then one of the summands," say a, is given,the other, say 6, can always be
some
" " "

R" is

third

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

closing chapterof his Psychology ',in a beautiful sketch of the psychological Professor Wm. of James characterizes the transitivity aspects of scientific thinking, w hich often in the used that natural so those dyadicrelations, are sciences, by saying whose relations are of this transitive type follow what he calls The axiom the objects This is a characteristically of the of skippedintermediaries." concrete stating way
In the
"

fact that

one

main

deductive

use

of

as a relational property,lies in transitivity,

the fact b

certain familiar eliminations. that it permits is greaterthan r," we

a

If,namely: "a

is greaterthan by and

may We

eliminate
are

the

bt and intermediary
our

conclude

that deductively

is greater than

c.

here

concerned, in
class of Norms

text, with the fact that dyadic

that make of deductive elimination inference. in general

is only a transitivity and possible,

instance of the conditions special

a

that determine

whole

106

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

set

or

i.e.of collection,
are

class of there

objectsas
are we
as

already known.
Yet
if
we
so

Relations

unless impossible

also classes.
can one
"

attempt
As
we

to

define this latter concept,

do

only by

pre

supposing the
have inevitable in mental The

conceptionof Relation

understood. already
"

alreadypointed out, such a circle in definition is dealingwith all philosophical concepts of a funda
a

nature.

concept of
the most

Class
once

or

Set
one

or

Collection
most

(Menge) of
one

is at objects,

of the

Assemblage elementary and

or

constructions. complex and difficult of human The Method apparent commonplaces of the Socratic-Platonic ology, and their intimate relation to the profound problems touched of the Platonic in " 3, Metaphysic, which we upon
of

have

shown

us

from

the

outset

how

the

most

obvious

and
"

the

burn deepest considerations are united in this problem. The Theory of Assemblages as they ing questions of the new of our in the latest logical-mathematical investigations appear novel aspects of the same ancient days, illustrate surprisingly topic. The depends (i) sense, concept of a Class, in the logical Element which or or Individual, Upon the concept of an Object, does or does not belongto a given class ; (2) Upon the concept of of the relation of belonging or of a class, to,i.e.beinga member true or false, not so belonging', (3)Upon the concept of assertions, which declare that an of a given object is or is not a member class ; (4) Upon the concept of a Principle, Norm, or Universal
" " "

which and

enables which
are

us

to

decide

which

of these

assertions

are

true

false.

The blematic

firstof
an are

the most these concepts is in many ways pro sciences. What of all the concepts used in the exact what Individual, individuals known is the
to
"

constitutes how tion,"

of principle
at

individuaare

exist

how all,

they

they can be identified in our in from one another, or how they can be distinguished vestigations, whether numericallydistinct and yet wholly or they can be similar or identical, these are central problems of partially which we in vain endeavour to escape by asserting philosophy, individuals are in the usual way that presented to us as em Whoever has had occasion to by our senses." objects, pirical of the doubtful or disputedidentity study any problem involving direct sense-experience that no knows individual object, any
related to universal

types, how
"

"

"

"

SECT,

ii

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

107

ever

ceive rules

merely presents to us an individual object such as of,where we subjectour processes of identification

and For
tests.

we

con

to

exact

that we Individual an Object is one logical purposes, or throughout identifiable propose to regardat once as recognizable the range and as unique within some of process of investigation kind that no other instance of any mere that investigation, so of
,

can suggestedby experience, object

take

the
as

precise place of any

one

individual, when
dividual

we

view
to

ourselves

having
an as we

found
as

any

in

object. under recognizable

for
"

Thus

propose

to

treat

object
such
treat

always
no

certain

conditions,and
so

that
it
as our can

sub

stitute

it is

in possible,
an

far

as

this in
sensenever

dividual,
prove

all this involves

attitude
more or

of
less
as

will

which

experience can
warranted
The

illustrate and
or

sustain,but

to be necessary,

present
individual

to

us

and finally successfully

by
are

mere

data.
an our

concept of
due
to

is thus

one

whose so-called and

not

meaning
motives. We do

We
not

to our to interest, will, activelypostulate individuals

origin and pragmatic

that the

individuality.
mean

motives

merely find them. which guide our will

are

Yet

this does

in this

postulateare
some we

wholly arbi
active and
cannot

trary, or
to take

merely relative value. There are which our voluntaryattitudes towards experience
without

of

refuse
any

deprivingourselves
as

of the power
world. Without
no no

to

conceive

order ceived classes

whatever
as we we

present in
have
no

our

objectscon
Without

we unique individuals,

can

have define
But

Classes.

can,
can

as

we

seen,

Relations, without
is to
con

relations

have

Order.
or

to be reasonable

ceive

real of order-systems, need logical

to

absolute
ments

of our

ideal order

of

definingclearly any
here

have an Therefore,we conceive of individual objects the ele as systems. This postulateis the condition theoretical conception whatever. The

ideal.

metaphysical aspects of the concept of an individual we is a necessary ignore. To conceive of individual objects may presupposition of all orderlyactivity.
An

further

individual

once

postulated as
If the various

present

may

be in

classed

question as are if they were alreadygiven,the act of classing them that is of asserting that these individuals belong in the thus, same class,is again an act of will. Its value is so far prag matic. We accomplish in this way some purpose of our own,
viewed

with

other

individuals.

individuals

io8

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

dis reason treating thingsas for some special the other hand, undistinguished. In this sense, tinguished or, on all classes are subjectively distinguished from other classes by the selected Norms, or principles which we voluntarily of classification use. will,our world contains no Apart from some classifying classes. Yet without classifications can we carry on no process of rational activity, can defineno orderlyrealm whatever, real or ideal. In this sense, the act of defining at least some or norms is an act whose logical value is not only of classification principles pragmatic,but also absolute. For a world that we might con ceive as wholly without classes, would be simply no world at all. We could do nothing with it or in it. For to act, consciously and voluntarily, in any way whatever is to classify individuals into the objectsthat do and into those that do not concern, meet, serve, correspond to, stimulate or result from each sort of in another creations," activity. Thus classes are in one sense absolute presuppositions of all our and sense voluntaryactivity,
some

purpose

of

"

so

of all If
we

our

theories. in mind
some norm

of classification, principle this norm defines at least one inevitably pairof classes, namely and class its class. For if the or a given negative contradictory class x is defined by a given norm, defines then the same norm the class consisting of whatever not x, a class here are objects to be symbolized by x. Whenever to classify set out we world, any region of our real or ideal, of course we always do so because we know, or at least postulate, that there are some individuals in that regionto be classified. And considered with reference to a given norm, which defines a class x, these individuals will belong either to x
or

have

of

else to

x.

But
are

of
any

course

our

norm

does

not

of itself tell

us

whether which class

"

there
are

in the individuals,
x.

regionto be
a

classified,
for
so a

of the and

class

We

can,
"

then, define

norm

x,

later
no

discover In

that

Everything
we

is x" define
turn
or
one

that

There

are

x*s"

then, when general,

one

by
out
"

its
to

norm

the

class x, either
x.

of
"

two

assertions may
no

be true
at

about
one

Either

(i)
Of

has

member,"
assertions

(2)
x.

has

least

member." uttered
are

these two
any

is true, the

other

when false,

about

determinate

class

That

is,these assertions
be very said to be A
vast

mutuallycontradictory.
of the assertions of the exact
or

range of one

sciences

can

the

other

of these

two

comparatively

SECT,

ii

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

109

simple types.
"

class that has

"

no
"

members,
may

an

empty
that
to

class," or
case
a

zero-class

nothing-class," It be symbolized by o.
a

"

is in
not
or

class

sharply defined objectsthat

of the
we

by
world

its norm,

but
to

known

contain

any
as

of the

have

chosen

to

define
we

the

individuals

or (real

regard ideal)with

dealing. If a class x has no members, its nega viz. xy comprises everythingthat belongs to the realm or (in tive, De the phrase of the English logician, Morgan) to the universe
which
are
"

of discourse
can

"

with

which

we

symbolized by I. the symbol, in the present as using between equivalenceor identity logical
=

be

dealing. The Regarding o and

are

class
I
as

everything
classes,and
relation

case,

of the

of
can

any

two

we classes,

assert,
can

as

formally true
:
"

of

any

world, which

for any

reason,

we

that classify,

(i)
That
each
"

0=1

(2) 5=i.

is,the class nothingand the class everything are negatives of the other, whenever these terms used of any one are
of discourse
"

universe

into which

definite classification has

been

introduced. Given and y, defined by different x classes, of classification, and without then inevitably, principles
any
two

distinct

norms

or

regard
that
is

to

whether

and y

are,

either
very

or

both

of them
of
x

"

zero,"
of y
as

"empty"
two

the classes,
new
or

definitions should

and

require that
classes that world. the
"

classes resulting
may
not
are

be
in
our

present,
"

may
new

have
:

members,
"

classified of
our

These
x

classes
y,

(i ) The
class of
at

Logical Product
those
to

classes

and

that
"

is,the

objects in
the
norm
once

universe
to

of discourse
norm
x

that conform

once

of
to
x

and

the

of y, and

that,therefore, belong at

both and the

and y\ (2) The the class of those y, that is,

norm

the classes

Logical Sum bbjectsthat

of

the classes

conform

either to

belong to one the two classes (x, y). We symbolize by xy the In logical product of x and y, and by x+y" their logical sum. extended discussion of classes logical and products every sums
x or

of

to

the

norm

of 7, and

that therefore

at

least

of

are

sure

to

occur.

Between
a

two

classes, /
so

and

q, there

may

or

may

not

exist
for

certain

relation which and classes,

is of

fundamental science.

importance
This

all

study
tion

of

for all exact

a

is the rela
not

of

subsumption.

It is

relation

but non-symmetrical,

no

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

totally non-symmetrical.
"

We

".

also may say, the class p is included in the class q. If (p " q) and (q " p) are at once true, then (p q). In case the relation (p " q) holds true, the logical
as

forms

If p" "q, then whatever of q ; or, to the norm

symbolize this relation by may conforms to the norm of/ con

we
"

"

"

productof p and q has no members, or sub sumption relation is transitive, that

"If As the modern
"

in

symbols,pq
"

o.

The

is : then

(p-"q)

and

(q -" r)

(p -" r)."

study of the topic has shown, the entire tradi tional as a sort of com theoryof the syllogism can be expressed ment simple application of,this transitivity of upon, and relatively the sub sumption-relation. does the theory of the Thus norms of thought form merely a subordinate part of the theory of Logical Order. here to be explicitly One relation remains characterized, a with the subsumption relation, but relation often confounded times therefrom, in recent distinguished by Frege, carefully
" " "
"

Peano, and
stands member.
to

Russell. the The class to school

to
:

It is the relation in which which of it

an

individual it is
a

Peano
name a

belongs,and of symbolize this

of

which

Thus, supposing i symbol (i e x) means

class x?
as logically

be
"

the i is

member
can

by e. individual object, the an of,that is, belongs to the

sometimes is treated

relation

Since
an
a

class itself

be

and

member
"

of

powers of the classes of whole tion But

x
e

The

this class is taken in case as one individual, set of classes (as,for instance,when one says of 2, such as 22,23,etc.,form a class that is one numbers
some we "), can

to

be
a

true

of

class .r,y

the proposi suppose being a class of classes. the assertion is

in such

case, if

(iex) and (xsy\

So that the

then

(iey)

is, in general,false.
while the relation
"

e-relation

non-transitive^
is transitive.

", the

subsumption

relation

They are, then, quite different relations. i" whereof 2, /', x, consists of the individuals, Any class, assertions (tex\ (i' From the corresponding ex\ etc.,are true. and in fact,for the formal point of view it is thus possible, to develop the certain logical Theory of necessary, purposes Pro Classes Theory of Propositions." upon the basis of the relations, themselves,have certain characteristic logical positions, and so on. To these relations of of contradiction, implication, have those relations of classes which named, we propositions
. .

.,

"

"

"

SECT,

ii

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

in

viz. ways.

negation, subsumption, etc., correspond in

There the is
two

certain of

exact
"

therefore doctrines

possiblea
have for

"

calculus notable

although
each
of

certain

classes ; differences
in

regarding the
them. The
may be

available principles

deductive

purposes

which classifications assertions of the type (i e x) upon the aforesaid paradoxicalcharacter. said to rest, have

of postulates, or acts, voluntary namely, the expressions less arbitrary since all classification involves a more or norm or laws Yet the such to which of classification. proposi principle

They

are,

tions,as

well

as

any
are

nevertheless

exact,

logicalsystem of definable (as we

classes have

are

are subject,

seen) in

terms

of

in not precise dyadic,triadic and tetradic relations,and are the least arbitrary. In fact, despitethe arbitrariness of each of logic possess the general laws individual classification, an absoluteness

the basis The

be surpassed, and lie at conceivably of all theory. of all order-system and the question as to how the to only possibleanswer which
cannot

absoluteness

of the

is logicalprinciples

thus

consistent
we

with

the
in of

arbitrariness of each

of the

classifications which

make, lies
nature

saying
the
" "

that
to

the
act

the logicalprinciplesdefine precisely

in
an

Will
to

orderlyfashion
The

"

or

in other words

of the

Will

be

rational."

" 20.
modern
in With have
exact

The

Types of Order.
and

Relation, of Relational
terms

and Properties, other

foregoing concepts of of Classes, have enabled

of of define to logic,
range

mathematicians,
a

students

vast surprisingly

order-systems.
which
may

almost seemed

dramatic
so

suddenness

the considerations
and

varied, disunited

abstract
once

in

the

foregoing
the order

sketch, suddenlygive us, when

an

they are
is most of

properlycombined,
about

what into precisely insight of

momentous

present in the worlds

of Theoretical

Number,

Natural

Science

For,
wherever

in the

what first place,

of Geometry, and Quantity, generally. order-typeis universally present

The there is any order in the world ? Serial is, answer is a Series ? Order. What Any row, array, rank, order of or precedence,numerical quantitativeset of values,any straight

line, any

geometrical figureemploying straight lines,yes all Serial object involves serial order. space, all time, any such order may exist in two and series, principal open types, the the "closed" series or cycle. Since the latter type of order may
"

"

"

H2

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

be

reduced

to to not

the

former

by

certain

well-known that

devices, it
is

suffices here i.e.that A class does

characterize
return

any

serial order So

"open,"
:
"

into

itself.

viewed, a

Series is

of individuals or elements such that there exists a single and totally relation R, dyadic, while nontransitive, symmetrical, whatever pair (a, this relation R is of such a nature that, b) of dis be chosen, either (a R b) or tinct elements of the class in question
a) is
true.

else (b R

Since
R

the relation R

is

by

definition

totally

of at once (a a) non-symmetrical, chosen pair of objectsbelonging to the series defined in any If we of R. terms begin with any pair, (c, h},of elements of a the place of any other element a or g is deter given series, with reference to c and h by such assertions as (a R c) mined while the transitivity and (c R g), (g R h),etc., of the relation R enables us to use such assertions as a basis for deductive inferences element appear in the course whenever two pairs with common a
cannot
" "

b) and

(b R

be true

of
are

our

determinations.

Chains

of

inference, eliminations, etc.,

of deductive

result.

Thus,

once

more,

certain

norms

inference

determined Now in terms

by

relational

properties.
this definition of series
a

of the variations which

permits to
series may

be present in the classes and sub-classes of which infinite variety of distinct serial types can an consist,
upon

be defined and of the

the

basis

of the

singledefinition juststated,

of classes.1 logical properties is whole The series of the positive numbers, for instance, of the class characterized by the fact that there is one member stands in a relation R which in question, to namely the first, other whole number, R being the transitive and totally every while relation of no predecessor," positive non-symmetrical
"

whole

number further

stands

in the

relation R number

to

this first one

; and

by

the

fact that

whatever

(say 3, or n+ chooses,there is one number that,while (n R n + i ) is true, no whole number

that

(say 2, or n) one i) and only one, such

m

exists such called

(n
The

m)

while

(m

(n + i)).
And

In this

case

(n + i) is

the next
1

successor

of n.

thus the relation "next

successor"

serial types and the classifications of possible definition, foregoing of have now become which the definition permits, common property. The significance that could be stated in terms of it, and the wealth of ordinal properties the definition, half of the nineteenth century throughthe in the latter were brought to light gradually and researches of C. S. Peirce,of Dedekind, of Cantor, and of various other logical in various and mathematical writers. The results have been summed new placed up,
use

of the

in lights,

Russell's

of Mathematics. Principles

u4

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

(pq

r)are

defined.

The
are

momentous

problem
related
to

arises

as

to

how

these triadic relations relations with

themselves This modern

the has

dyadic ordinal
been attacked founda

of the number-series.
success

problem

complete

by

the

students

of the

tions of mathematics. series of the enable and

us

It has been

that the simple shown, first,

to

numbers, defined as above, is such as to of the addition define for that series the operations

whole

of its own terms multiplication upon the basis of considera of this tions that involve solely the dyadic relational properties whole-number such
as

series whole

as

it stands.

That

in is,

case

of

series

the

and numbers, positive and

relations involved in terms But

more

in addition

of the
case

dyadic
"

relations

the triadic negative, in multiplication, be defined can whereby the series is ordered.

in

of the dense of the

series of the rational arithmetical

more

numbers, and still

"

in

case

continuum of the

of

the

"

real

numbers," and
of

again yet

in

case

"complex

numbers"

such a reduction of the triadic relations of these numbers algebra, numbers be accomplished to the dyadicrelations of the whole can of special which enable us definitions, by means onlyindirectly, to regard these other series and in fact the whole system of the logical complex numbers," as derived, through a sort of series number whole f rom the a series, of original by genesis,"
" "

combinations and series,

of the

and terms, classes,

"

of the relations,

latter first
to

by

further combinations All this

to
"

of the results of these

we

combinations. follow.
to

genesis

have

not

here

room

It is that

enough
all the

say that

the

result of this research

is

make which the numbers of properties ordinary algebra subject to the endlesslyvaried operations be reduced of calculation, to can depend : propertieswhich in the hold (i) Upon the dyadic relations of order which and and (2) Upon the properties whole-number system itself, ordinal relations of certain derived logicalentities (pairs of whole numbers, classes of these pairs, pairsof real numbers, etc.). of the numbers in brief, And we can say : All the properties of their orderwhich are used in ordinaryalgebra, are properties the on definable system, while this order-system is indirectly of the whole-number basis of the properties system, and of which of certain classes and relations of objects the properties show the whole-number The it is

system enables

us

to

define.

number-system of ordinaryalgebrabeing once defined, possibleto deal,in a systematic way, with the problems

SECT,

ii

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

115

with physicaland ideal Quantities deal. which mathematical theories so frequently are Quantities either physical or ideal,that fall into series by virtue of objects, of greater and less. They have therefore relations of the nature their serial order-systems.They also,in general, are subject to Intertsive In relations of equality. case they are Quantities, of such dyadic their order-systems are definable only by means of relations of greater-less, and that is,by means relations, by of the means symmetrical relation of equality. Extensive Quantitiesare such as, over and above these dyadic relations, of greater,less, of are subject to triadic relations in terms equal, of any two which the sum extensive quantitiesthat belong to

which

are

presentedby

the

the

same

system

of

quantitiescan
is it for possible

be
no us

defined.

In

the of
"

realm

of the

however, there quantities,

makes
b
=

general mode
to

logical

which genesis"
of the

define triadic relations

type (a + and greater, less,

from objects,

c) upon the sole basis of the dyadic relations the quantities differ, as equal. Herein logical
number-series
"

the The
"

viewed
"

as

pure

algebra views
and of

the
"real

latter.
"

numbers,

logicalgenesis genesisof which

of
we

the
have

rational

the

justmade

mention,

has
of

no

precise and

generalcorrespondentprocess

in the world

sets quantities. Therefore, those triadic relations of most of extensive quantitiesupon which their addition depends, are either (i ) upon the basis of empirical inductions (as is defined,

with quantitiesof energy, physical weights, etc.), of the basis or a ssumed (2) upon postulates(as is voluntarily the case with many for such as systems of ideal quantities, instance the extensive Metrical quantitiesof Pure Geometry as of union they are some usually treated),or (3) upon postulate and of physical experience (as is frequentlythe in the applications case of geometry, and in such a science as Mechanics).1 workable and Given, however, some sufficiently general definition of a triadic relation upon which an addition-operation be founded, then the number-system can can be at once intro duced into the theory of any system of quantities.The exact of a physicaltheory of such a set of quantitiesdepends ness
case
i
"

the

with

In the very notable

"

metrical

to

the

"

ordinal
can

of metrical geometry in

that is,in projective,

cannot

form of reduction of the a special geometrical theory, of space-forms also exists, properties whereby the bases be indirectly reduced to principles that are stateable wholly ordinal terms. This case is of vast importancefor the logic of
case
"

of

geometry, but

further be studied here.

n6

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

upon

such

an

introduction.

The

extensive either of real

or

becomes quantities
a

order-systemof such a realm of correspondentto the order-system

or

part of the numbers,

of the

of the

complex

numbers. of

Thus,

entire system of the what makes deductive

inference

in the realm

depends solely quantitypossible upon

of this realm. properties of the foregoingprinciples The application regardingserial of more to the theory and order-types description complicated which involves a set of processes to have now we order-systems, made frequent reference,namely : The Correlation of Series. Func Upon such correlations the whole theory of Mathematical tions depends, a theory which of infinitely admits numerous variations and applications, and which its plays part in every
"

the ordinal

extended inference but

and

exact
are

theoretical science. definable here

are

The
numerous

norms

of deductive and

which

complex, place
of

The when
a

vastlyimportant. simplest type of

relation of "one-one the members

correlation

is that

which

takes

correspondence"can
between or series, In other
cases,

be established the members

a

between definable relation

of two

parts of such
can

series.

established, whereby to every of a given series S, there correspondssome determinate number, a pair (q, r) or a triad (q,r, s) of elements,chosen from some series S',or else so that q belongs to S',r to S", etc. ; while,

be

"one-many" member (say/)

given (q,r, etc.), / thus suggested may

sacrifice of exactness where especially the

is

uniquely determined.
In very

The

possibilities
any

be stillfurther varied without of definition.

numerous

necessary

instances,

in case of numbers and possible operations have a correspondenceand we quantitiesare in question, may correlation of series so established that,to each of a set of pairs (p,q),or of triads (/,q, r) etc. (whereof/ shall be chosen from and so on), another or from the same series, one series, q from there correspondssome element determinate set of some x, or elements while the element x (or the set x, y, etc.) (x, y, 2, etc.), be defined as elements of some series or order-systemthat can thus results from or that is definable in terms of the "functional relation" whose laws lie at the basis of the correlation in question. and 7 be, not now In general, let a, /3, singleindividuals viewed other sets of objects. Let or triads, merely as such, but pairs,

the elements all chosen in

whereof
a

each

of the way

sets

a,

and /?,

7,

be consists,

determinate

from

certain

series of

objects

SECT,

ii

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

117

series of lines or points on lines, alreadydefined (number-series, of other geometrical figures, etc.). Suppose quantities, physical that
"

some

general law exists which

one

can

state

in

the

form

If R'

(a) and
such
a

R"

are (/3)

both
a

of

them

true, R"

(7)
a

is true."

Then

law

establishes

or functional relation,

system of
which
the

functional elements For

relations^ amongst
of a, of

the various

series

from chosen.

and /3,

of 7,

are respectively,

instance, R'

(a) may
forms

stand
of

for

some

combination

of

quantities of different
water-power

physical energy

(coal burned,

be forms of energy etc.). These may supplied, of certain industrial products. Each combined in the production be a member of in a special of these quantities, case, will then of water used at a certain series (weight of coal,amount its own of the of be a combination costs head," etc.). R" (/3) may
"

these
under

various certain

forms

of

energy,

when

the

energy each

is obtained of

conditions.

And
its

then, again,
its
own

these

elements

of cost

will have

place in
per

determined series,
per cubic

correspond to R" (/3), R' (a) and combination a a a given given combination set of costs of a set of industrial products, expressed by R'" (7). in "func the costs of the productswill appear In such a case as
may tional relations of each
or
"

(priceof by a price-list etc.).Hereupon, in ways by the waste or the use

coal

ton, of water

metre,

determined
of energy,

by

the mode

of

production,

etc.,there

to

the

sources

of energy such

used, and
a

to

the costs of series,

an

of these
or

sources.

Wherever
of series

correlation

of

sets

systems

appears,

the

result is

Order

determined
As

by

the correlations.

Klein

long

since

Geometrical

Science, the

pointed out, the various types of different geometries (metrical, pro-

of the "invariants" be classified in terms jective, etc.), (that may of the unchanging laws of the results of correlation) to which is, the different geometrical transformations are subject. And the geometrical transformations systematic de (projections, of correlations formations, dualities, inversions, etc.)involve
" " " "

sets

of

series

such

that

(with the foregoing definition

of

the

and R" (/3), symbols used),R' (a), etc., imply, as their combined in ways result R"' (7), which the relational properties of the

geometrical world
mathematical
of relations

enable

the

geometer
means a

to

define.

In
one

general a
system
law

"transformation"

definition of
other
"

by

means

of

correspondence with
Its
"

systems of
a or a

relations

and

of related

terms.

invariant

is

n8

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

relational property or construction which and by all of the correlated systems. A very

is

exemplified by

each

highlyimportant condition
such
" "

of the

orderlycharacter
of relational

of the systems within which

"

functional the

and such relations,"

transformations

are

is possible,

existence

of the type discussed in that admit of eliminations, properties the close). What of relations ("18, near our general account is in the definition the more series, of a single general transitivity relational properties which permit elimination are, in the definition which admit and physical of the complexgeometrical order-systems and lawfully correlations and transformations. of definite repeated of the Sym It remains to say a word to the significance as metrical Relations in the constitution of all such order-types.If b a c d, etc.,the set of objectsbetween any two of which such a dyadic symmetricaltransitive relation as obtains, may be called a Level. that in lines On a topographical the map, dicate levels, the run contour-lines," through pointsany two of which stand for physicalpoints, the surface mapped, such on that they are at equalheightsabove some base-level (usually above sea-level). of latitude, Isothermal lines, isobars, parallels and countless other symbols for levels, are conspicuousfeatures of of the diagrams that are used to depict the orderlystructure real or ideal objects. Yet the members of such a level are not rela ordered by means of their symmetrical transitive levelling in terms of ser.nl relations, tions. They are ordered, if at all, of the in terms or foregoing correlations of systems of used series. Yet levelling processes and relations are constantly in the definition of order-systems. The or topographical map,
=

"

"

"

the

"

weather

"

map

illustrates this fact.

And

the vast

usefulness best known

which

the

Equation

has in mathematics

range of of the is one

features do
not

of that science.

Why

are

relations which

by

themselves

order,so useful in the definition of types

of order ?

questionis three-fold : 1. The especiallythe sym symmetrical relations,and and so form enable us to classify, metrical transitive relations, the basis for all the most of the classifications definable exactly
The
answer

to

this

"

Science
2.

of Order.
For

in the

this very reason, theoretical sciences

are

of the most important series many Series of Levels. Such, for in are
a

stance,

the series of

contour-lines, isobars, etc., on

map.

SECT,

ii

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

119

3.

And
laws

again,
of
an
"

for

the

same

reason,
are

many

of in

the
terms
"

most

im

portant
The
"

ordered
of
a

world of
"

defined

of

levels.
in
are

invariants
such

system
That
"

transformations
two
or more

establish,
systems
of such

general,
correlated
relation

levels.
a

is, when

through
leave certain the

transformation,"
relations from
one

the

results
to

cor

that

belong
system
the law
to

each

system
Thus

un

changed
level of
two

by

passage
For law B

the of

other. the

is

established.
is A
a

instance,

Conservation between the

any

Energy
states

expressed
of
a a

by
"

asserting
system

that,
"

and obtains relation in

given
certain

closed

in

physical
relation,,

world

there the

symmetrical

transitive that
is in
"

namely
energy
to

expressed
the

by
in

saying
state

The
in

total

present
total

system
present
in

the
the

equal
the

quantity
B."
In

the

energy

system

state

other

words,

the

total
Thus

energy the
statement

remains of

invariant the
"

through
"

the law
of

transformation.
any
some

invariant

system
elements

of

correlations that
can

or

of

transformations

always

includes transitive
union

be the
and

expressed
result
of

by
the

symmetrical
same

relations.

All

this

is

inseparable
union of

of

the

concepts
from

of

Class

of Relation,
of
now
our

"

which Order. that the

cases

we

have

illustrated It
norms

the

beginning
as we

sketch look

will
of

be

noted,

back,
the
various

various

deductive

inference,
upon
are

in

all

here the orderthe

Formal

in

question,
systems

depend
which
upon
"

the under

relational

properties
and
so,

of

consideration,
of

in

last

analysis, Logic,
of the
as

the

properties

single
is

relations.
to

Thus the
of

Normative
of

science,"
Order
to

incidental that

application
deductive

Theory

this

or

process

inference.

SECTION
LOGICAL

III.
OF
THE

THE

GENESIS

TYPES

OF

ORDER.

"21.
us

IN

our

first

section,the study of methodology showed

have Order

the
our

relation second

of all scientific section

we

In

procedure to the Theory of Order. portrayed,in a largelyempirical

which characterize the
to exact

fashion, the
sciences. Two

Types
of

of the

concepts

absolutely

essential

the

Theory of Order, we have already treated,indeed, so as to show These the concepts of Relation and are why they are necessary. of Class. For not only are these concepts actuallyused in the
definition of every

type

of

order, but

as

we

have them

seen,
no

their

necessitydepends upon activityof

that tion
"

the

fact that
in

without have

rational insisted
"

any

kind

is possible. We unite
a

consequently
way
"

these and

concepts
"

very

characteristic of

crea

discovery," an
That
as

element
a

element

of absoluteness. that

an contingency and particular physicalor psychical

such relation, the

of father

and
as

child,should
the existence

be

present in
or

world,
is

is

as

empirical a
should

fact be

of colors

tones.

That
a

there

again

matter

fication

of real
a

instance, by
and be else

this physical objects to classify, of experience. And furthermore, every classi of ideal objects is determined in any special or norm or we principle of classification which And
to

choose. voluntarily may said the

in

so

far classifications
or

are

arbitrary,
Yet,
reason
a

be

"creations"

"constructions."

whatever able
is

world and

contains, if it only contains

intends his
own

being who
of
a

knows certain

acts, then
between
in

aware

the relation,
any
act

relation he

being performing
advance such
even

this

and

not

performing
And thus

which

considers
acts
are

of wise
in
at

action.
necessary

relations whoever

amongst
acts at

in

facts,that

all,or

whoever,

ideal, contemplates possiblecourses

of action, must

regard

122

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

nr

of the rational will,which we reinstate and activity ', certain laws to presuppose that these verify, through the very act of attempting do not exist, that these laws are modes not or valid. of activity
classes whatever in his no Thus, whoever says that there are classifies. Whoever that for him there asserts world, inevitably and that,in particular real relations, the logical relation no are affirmation and denial does not exist, between that for him so
yes
means

the
so

same

as a

no,

"

on

the

one

hand

himself and

asserts
no

and
on

denies, and
the
even

makes

difference the

between of

yes
a

and,

other in

hand,

asserts

existence

relational

sameness

denying the difference between yes and no. whatever In brief, actions are such,whatever types of action whatever are such, whatever results of activity, conceptualcon that the very act of getting structions are such, rid of them, or of impliestheir presence, are. known thinking them away, logically indeed both empirically and pragmatically note to us (since we their presence and learn of them through action) ; but they are which also absolute. And succeeds in telling what any account construction or they are has absolute truth. Such truth is a determines its nature. creation" for activity It is "found" for
" "

"

we

observe it when It

we

act.

follows consequently

that whoever

attempts

to

the justify

existence
we

have for

of any of the more complicatedsystems of order that in the foregoing has a rightto been describing section,
some

seek what

absolute

criterion, whereby he may

are

distinguish
world, that
"

systems of order
that and

necessary

facts in the
a

is, in the world

necessary,
"

the

logicianhas
or

right to regard
forms
are

as

what, if any, amongst

unnecessary, else
are

these

either par

and capricious, ticular facts of

suggested by
as

the

experience in such
is the

wise

to

remain

merely
of

contingent. world The logician's

and theories, theories and of the

world

of

hypotheses,and
are

ideal constructions

that

used

in these be
we

hypotheses. Now theories and hypotheses may merely suggested to us by physicalphenomena, so that,if
different sensations
some

had

from

our

present
than

ones,

or

if our

percep
one,
we

tions followed should In

so

other

routine

the

observed

have

no

need

for these

the hypotheses are far, only conditional value. Furthermore, indeed

so arbitrary,

theories. hypothesesand resulting and the theories have contingent,

some

of
common

our

activities

are

that

we

may,

as

the

expressionis,

SECT,

in

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

123

"

activity play their hypotheses, the part in the choice or in the definition of our But such as logical regard them logician cannot necessary. and not facts as the difference between are dependent no, yes
do
as we

like."

And

when

such

modes

of

on

the

contingent aspect
of what
we

of

our

sensations,but
to

on

our

rational

"consciousness have
not
some

intend
of the

do

or

not

to

do.

Such

facts
sense.

the

contingency
of

of empirical particulars
as

And

modes

action, such

affirmation

and

denial, are
and

absolute

modes.
can

We
but
we

indeed

suspend the
to

process

of affirmation

denial,
what

only by suppressingevery
ourselves But purpose the do.

rational consciousness
The

about

trary.
not

absolute
cannot

modes choose choice

be arbi deed may particular of activityjust suggested are

to

arbitrary. We seeking to choose,

stance, the aforesaid
that
we
mean

do

without

them, without involves,for

in

since

is

action, and

difference
thus and of
a

between thus.

affirmingand
show
the the upon
not
us

denying Theory
has in has

to

do

" 22.
of Order

Considerations
must

this sort task

which that

that

the

undertake
It
now

foregoing sketch
which

only suggested.
it
some

appears

world logician's

necessary be

elements But

and

laws

order-systems
to

may
us

founded.
ones

this fact does

the

of itself suffice

tell

what

amongst
indeed

of

mathematics
ones are own

include

enormously complicatedorder-systems elements, and contingent and arbitrary

wise necessary

what what

in such

that whoever

knows

must is, recognize that these orderorderly activity world. Let us illustrate the issue systems belong to his logical thus brought to our attention. In the physical world, we meet with the difference between with this difference meet greater weights and less weights. We and test it by experiment. result is that we The empirically, get tests, such as the balance,whereby we can physical arrange in series of Levels, each level consisting of observed a weights

his

weights

any

two

of

which

are

equal,while
The
a

the

series of these

levels is determined

by

the transitive and

relation of greater and

two

less.

familiar

non-symmetrical totally operations of putting

and

will balance them, scale-pan, enables us to define for the weights an operation of summation, triadic relation of weights. This a operation empirically conforms to the laws of the addition of quantities. Hereupon,
"

weights in one weight that, put

scale-panof
into

balance

finding a single

the

other

i24

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

in

by

processes
an

not

further

to

be

followed

in this

we discussion,

correlation between hypothetical physical arithmetic and the of and the so weights number-system ; physicalworld, so far as weights are concerned, is conceived in orderly terms, in a way that makes physical theories many possible. logically of physical it is obvious that the existence Now weights, and that all of the aforegoing relations, far so as they are of human our view, both physical relations, point are, from and contingent. We conceive of a physical can easily empirical For world without any such phenomena. if all our knowledge and smell alone, in the form of of nature to us through sight came saw colours,odours,etc.,and if we never anything that suggested should of course know of no to us the comparing of weights, we physicalfacts that would define for us this order-system. On the other hand, in defining the system of the weights as of any other extensive quantities, in the case use we our empiri cal facts for the sake of establishing kind of correlation some world and the facts and between of our the quantities physical what shall we laws of the number-system. But say about the first principles number- system itself? It is a system, whose can be stated as hypotheses of a very general nature concerning Is our be distinguished, numbered, etc. objects that can as con experience of the existence of such objectsaltogether tingent as our experience of the existence of weights in the is suggested by the fact obvious answer world ? One physical to charac that we can apply the system of the whole numbers acts. terize our own Any orderlysuccession of deeds in which ideal and
we

establish

pass

from

one

to

the

next

has

certain In

of the any

characters

of

the that

series of ordinal
we
a

whole
a

numbers.

orderlyactivity
second, followed
to
our

we begin,

have
so on.

first act

followed
may

by

by
that

third,and
our

It therefore least the

occur

minds
our

knowledge of at knowledge of the difference

the consciousness characters. obvious
of

whole and

numbers, like
no, may
some

between
our

yes

be founded of its

upon

own

and activity

necessary

with

the very

first stated,meets view, when that,during our actual human difficulty But best
a

this

we lives,

perform only at
the whole
an

very

limited

number

of distinct

acts, while ceives the

it is

the mathematician as con number-series, Furthermore, nothing about infinite sequence. of

our as activity

empiricalnature

human

beings seems

to

SECT,

in

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

125

determine
lives. But

the the
as

number whole

of

deeds

that of such

we

shall do

in

our

short

numbers

the
that No

mathematician
every
mere

present
of

themselves
series the
must

an

order-system
its next

member

the
of

have

successor.

observation

of our own empiricaldeeds can there contingent sequence that the infinite sequence of the necessity fore by itself warrant world numbers should have a the whole place in the logician's
at

all.
Yet

this consideration
not
a

is,once

more,

only a suggestion of
the whole-number

but difficulty,
is devoid of

decisive

proof that
For of
our

series
is indeed

absolute the

necessity.
nature

perhaps

there

in so far as it is activity, necessitates deed a possible next rational, something which this after any deed that has been actually accomplished. And have it. to about something absolute possibility prove may

something
"

about

Such
To

considerations
sum

deserve The

at

least

further

study.

are order-systems of mathematics cases by contingent empiricalphenomena. suggested in some In other aspects these order-systems may analysis prove upon in which the to be absolutely sense facts,in the same necessary

up

"

existence facts in
our

of

classes

and
And

relations thus
may

of

some

sort

are

necessary

world.

be stated the central

is :
"

problem
What

of the
"

Theory of
the

Order.
and

This what

problem
are

What

are

the necessary ?

entities" logical

their

necessary

laws

world contain ? What logician's order-systems he conceive, and arbitrary, but as so implied must not as contingent in the nature them that the effort to remove of our rational activity from our world would inevitably imply their reinstatement, just
must objects
as

the

effort to involve

remove

relations and

classes from
relations

the
as, in

world
some

would
new

recognizingboth classes and

this form that the

way, It is

present.
in precisely

problem of the theory of order appears to be, at the present time, undergoing a most enrichments. progressive series of changes, enlargements, and The of the Categories is taking on Deduction decidedly new forms in recent discussion. The t hat enable us will principles
" "

in the
at

future to make

an

indubitable
very

endless be

progress

in this field
as our

least

remain possible,

to briefly

considered

sketch

closes. Common the

to

" 23.

all the

recent

who logicians
is the

have

dealt reduce

with seriously

problem thus defined

tendency to

126

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

in

all the
as

of order-systems in terms of possible,

"

mathematics
a

to

form

defined,so far
"

few

and entities,"

fundamental about the

properties and question.

In

simple and hypotheses objects whose

"

logical necessary about relational

relations
are

in

all the older attempts to characterize the mathematical laid upon the systems of an orderly type, great stress was

assumption
of Euclid

of so-called his

"

self-evident

"

Axioms.

in

Geometry,and
were

the Aristotelian

example logical theory

"immediate"

The

of founding all proof upon regardingthe necessity these certainties,

"

the paramount
more

influences in

determining
the so-called

this
"

tendency.
"

But

the

the

considers logician mathematical

self-evident
more

of principles does he

the older
see

statements,
as

the

reason

to

condemn

self-evidence

in

call an assertion selfwe guide. When fitting logical do so because we have not yet sufficiently evident we generally considered the complexity And of the relations involved. many be have been self-evident truths that supposed to propositions turned closer acquaintance have be decidedly out to upon incorrect. inexact in their meaning, or altogether in the foregoing discussion, have had In two we cases, occasion indicate for logical how to inadequate the purposes and of mathematics older assumptions regarding the axioms first case The other sciences have been. was presented to us of induction, to the effect that the realm by the presupposition of possible of the objects experiencehas in any of its definable constitution. In mentioning collections of fact a determinate stated that it is not self-evident. in " 10, we this presupposition In " 19 this presupposition appeared in the form of the pos Individuals. The substantial there are tulate : That identity due reflection. of the two postulates But, as we upon appears there are individuals, is remarked : That (in" 1 9),the postulate the other hand, too although, complex to be self-evident, upon of an individual led us to the assertion, a study of the conception in this sketch,that this postulateis not very fullydiscussed indeed at once said, in our pragmatic and absolute. As we the principlein question has metaphysical former passage,

itself a

aspects that
At

cannot

here

be

discussed.
we

all events,

however,

regarding the postulateof the expression of but as

gain,and we do not lose,by "self-evident" not as individuality an extremely complex, but at the

SECT,

in

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

127

same

time

fundamental
our

demand

of the

rational

will,
"

demand

without The

which
other
we

becomes activity of
a

rationally meaningless.
"

case

so-called
the

axiom

"

was

mentioned

in

" 1 8, where

things equal to We the same gain instead of thing are equal to each other. because no self-evident, longer seems losing when this principle it involves a synthesisof the that observe have to come we and symmetry, logicallyindependent characters, transitivity be needs to either by which justified, always a synthesis if or by demonstration, or finally, experience or by definition,

spoke

of

That principle:

"

that in

is

by possible,
the
a

the method

which

we

have

alreadyapplied
the

dealing with
As of

concepts of class and

modern have

of relation.

fact, therefore, most

Order
of

investigatorsof
view that of
the

Theory
mental
evident be
"

abandoned
can

the

funda
"

types

order

be

defined

in terms

merely
come

selfto

axioms.

These
two

have investigators classes:

therefore

into divided, largely, the

(i) those who,

in company

of the Pragmatists,are disposedto admit a maximum empiricaland the contingent into the theory of order ; and (2) who those like the present writer, to regard the are disposed, of logicas sufficient to require the exis fundamental principles of ideal, i.e. of possible of a realm is in which tence objects, which contains systems such as the order-systemof rich, finitely

with

the numbers, and

the
same
as

which

conforms
to

to
one

laws

that

are

in foundation

the

laws
yes

which
no, and

conforms he

when the

he

dis

tinguishes between
The that have writers
or

and

when

defines

logical

of classes and properties

relations. first class would distinctions

and
as

of the
no

maintain,
that between that which

for

instance,
and
no

whether
a

such

yes

necessary

over validity

above

belongs to

such systems as the ordinal whole numbers physicalobjects, are from simply hypothetical generalizations experience, are em known to be valid so far as our of counting pirically process extends, and are regarded in mathematics as absolute, so to by courtesy. The field within which such logical speak, empiricists very

find their most is the field naturally persuasive instances, presented by geometrical theories. Geometry is a field in which and very highly contingent purely logicalconsiderations, have been, in the past,brought into physicalfacts and relations, most a research has extraordinaryunion, which only recent begun to disentangle. Is Geometry at bottom a physical

128

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

in

science ? of
an

Or

is it rather

a order-system or logically possess modern discussion ideal necessity The of ? the Principles of Geometry has indeed greatlyemphasized the enormous part that a purelylogical Theory of Order plays in the development But such a theory depends after all upon of geometry. as of these assumptions, such as the famous sumptions. Some Euclidian of the to some postulateregardingparallels, appear writers in questionto have an obviouslyempiricalfoundation, law of gravitation, and as much as contingentas is the physical subject to verifications which are only approximate as that

of pure order-systemsthat
a

branch

the logic,

discussion

law

is. Over

there are those who, againstthese logical empiricists that of geometry, however as they analyze such specialcases Russell (in his Principles with Mr. Bertrand of Mathe agree in viewing the pure Theory of Order as dependent upon matics} Such certain Mr. logicalconstants logicalconstants."
" " "

Russell

assumes

to

be

fundamental world of

and

inevitable

facts of

conceived realistically relation to

to
our

whose entities, purely logical Russell the would

"

will

or

Mr. activity

indeed

declare

be factitious and

irrelevant.

Given

constants," logical

of definition ; as creatures order-systems from his point of view, definition also appears to be a although, by which one reports the existence,in the logician's process relation, realm, of certain beings, series, orders, namely, classes, sketch. of the degrees of complexity described in our foregoing The Theory of Order for Mr. Russell is the systematicchar Mr. Russell acterization of these creatures these of definition. It asserts that the And
p

regardsthe

of properties pure
"

systems follow from

consists of

their definitions.
"

mathematics

of the pliesq," propositions p and entities there be logicalconstants,"and so, that, whatever of pro (Mr. Russell's variables ") which are defined in terms In position q holds of them. p, are also such that proposition the main Mr. Russell's procedure carries out with great finish Mr. Russell's ideas alreadydeveloped by the school of Peano. doctrines serve, then, as examples of logical opinionswhich are not, in the ordinarysense, empiristic. But the as promi burning questions already mentioned how difficult it is to in recent nent logical theory have shown similar the somewhat make articulate the theory of Mr. Russell,
" " "

of the type propositions q being defined,in terms

im

130

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

in

In

1905

the

in the present writer published, Mathematical

Transactions
"

entitled The Society ', a paper of Logic to the Foundations Relation of the Principles of Geo metry." This paper attempts (i) to show that the principles be stated in a different, which Mr. Kempe developed can and in a somewhat the author believes, as more preciseway ; and in question, which (2) that the principles namely the principles involved in any account of the nature of logical classes and are in terms their relations, of which are capable of a restatement define an extremely we can generalorder-system. This orderwhich Mr. Kempe had partially defined,but system is the one the present author's paper which attempted to characterize and novel way. The thesis of that paper, develop in a somewhat taken in conjunction with Mr. Kempe' s results may be restated thus
:
"

of the American

Both

classes and

are propositions

without objects laws

which have

the

stir a step. Their cannot logician fore,in the foregoingsense, an

state

relations and absolute

a

there if
we

validity. But,

these define

relations
a

upon

definite way, and if we there further principle regardingthe existence of certain

as

laws

in

entities which in many logical respects are similar to classes considered not heretofore expressly a principle propositions, logicians,we hereupon find ourselves forced to conceive
" "

and

by
the

existence

of

system

called, in the

paper

of

1905,

"The

This system has an is determined order which System 2" and by the one addi entirely by the fundamental laws of logic, tional principle thus mentioned. The new in question principle in is precisely which is fundamental analogous to a principle that, between geometricaltheory. This is the principle any there intermediate is that the two on so an a line, points point, for geometricaltheory, at least a points on a line constitute, dense series. In its application to the entities of pure logicthis indeed and at first sight to be extraneous principle appears correspondingto the geometrical arbitrary. For the principle which defines dense series of points, does not apply at principle world of propositions. all to the logical And, again,it does not classes. to the objectsknown as apply with absolute generality in the foregoing But it does apply to a set of objects, to which This set of objects be repeatedreference has been made. may certain possible modes defined as, of action that are to open also reflect and who act at all, can any rational being who can
"

SECT,

in

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

131

upon

his

own

modes
"

of

modes

of action

have

the Such action." objects as possible been regarded heretofore as logical never
"

entities in the
so same

sense

in which in fact
to
our

regarded. But general laws

is
:"

which

propositionshave been of action are modes subject to the and classes are subject. propositions
classes

and

That

(1) To any "mode of action,"such as "to sing"or "singing" (expressedin English either by the infinitive or by the present of action,which of the verb) there correspondsa mode participle for example "not to sing" or "not is the contradictory of the first, singing." Thus, in this realm, to every x there correspondsone, and only one, x. essentially (2) Any pair of modes of action,such for instance as "sing as precisely dancing,"have their logicalproduct," ing and and their classes have a product, sum," again, precisely logical
" " " "

as

the

classes

possess

a
"

sum.

Thus

the
to

"

mode
"

of
is the

action

"

expressed by the phrase :

To

sing and
"to

dance

logical

product
The
or

to

These
upon
to

sing" and "to dance." mode of action expressed by the phrase, Either to sing of to sing and to dance." dance," is the logicalsum operations of addition and multiplication depend logical of action, precisely triadic relations of modes analogous
of

the "modes

of action"

"

"

"

"

the triadic relation

of

classes.
y and

So

then,
action

to

any

and

y, in

this realm, there

correspondx
any
two

x+y.
of
a

(3)

Between
not

modes

certain

dyadic,

transitive and

either non-symmetrical relation may totally be expressed by the obtain or not obtain. This relation may verb the same relational properties implies." It has precisely class the relation as or " of one proposition to another. Thus the of action mode expressed by the phrase, To sing and of action expressed by the mode to dance," implies the phrase to sing." In other words Singing and dancing," implies singing." of action which be symbolized (4) There is a mode may This mode of action be expressed in language by a o. may or by the phrase, to do nothing," doing nothing." There is another of action which mode This be symbolized by I. may is the mode of action expressed in language by the phrase to do in any whatever something,"that is,to act positively way which involves not of action modes doing nothing." The
"
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

and

are

contradictories

each

of

the

other.

132

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

in

are

In consequence of these considerations, the modes case a set of entities that in any conform to the same
to

of action

logical
so-called of modes

laws

which of

classes and

"Algebra
of action

Logic"

may of principles Now

may therefore be viewed

must

conform. propositions A be applied to them.

as a

The
set

system within

which

the

order logical

it would
exactness

with Such

any
an

regarded as applicable. indeed be impossibleto attempt to define modes of action." the totality of all possible
"

be

attempt would
of

meet

with

all the

difficultieswhich

the

with in its efforts to met Assemblages has recently define certain extremely inclusive classes. the Thus, just as class of all classes has been shown by Mr. Russell to involve and just as obvious and the fairly elementary contradictions, in the Cantorian theory of greatest possiblecardinal number cardinal numbers, and equally the greatest possibleordinal number have been shown to involve logical so contradictions, of all possible the concept of the (and unquestionably) totality

Theory

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

modes such

of action

"

involves

contradiction.

There

is in fact

no

totality.
On the other
"

to define hand, it is perfectly possible

"

certain

set, or
members

universe logical of this set

are

of modes

of action

such

that all the

in case there modes of action," "possible is some rational being who is capable of performing some one singlepossibleact, and is also capable of noting,observing, of action of in some determinate recording, every mode way of action is a mode which he is actuallycapable, and which is required whose possibility is made a necessary is, logically (that this of which of action in terms by the singlemode entity) Such a special of action is defined. system system of modes of possiblemodes be determined, in a precise of action may the rational which mode of action, one way, by naming some and being in questionis supposed to be capable of conceiving, of mode of noting or reflective way recording in some any action once viewed as possible. The result will be that any such system will possess its own order-type. And some logical such system must be recognized as belonging to the realm of genuinelyvalid possibilities by any one who is himself a rational being. The order-typeof this system will therefore possess a be questioned which cannot a genuine validity, logical reality," without abandoning the very conception of rational activity there exists any being itself. For the question is not whether
"

SECT,

in

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

133

of activity in the same modes these actuallyexemplifies in which "singing and dancing" are exemplified in our way The human world. logical questionis whether the specialsets existence set of possible as a of action whose of modes logical there is any rational of action is required(in case one modes of action),is a mode of any conceive one can being who who

genuinely valid system, which Now the logical system of

as

such modes

has

logicalexistence.

such

which, as just admitted, does not principle, does this principle apply,with of Propositions. Nor
to generality,

of action illustrates a apply to the Calculus

complete
may
use

the Calculus
of Modes

of Classes. of

But

what

we

here
of all
use

call the the of of laws the

Calculus
of the

Action, while

it makes

Algebra of Logic, also permits us to in fact, in case here in question,and principle

of
at

make
a

system
be
The "If

modes

action, such

as

has

just been
use

indicated, is to

defined

us all, requires

to

make
be

of this

principle.
thus
:

in question principle there p" p

"

may

dogmatically stated
of
a

exist

two

distinct modes

action

p of

and action

r, such

that that and

q

"r, then
"q
r
"

there

always
p and q

exists
are

mode

such

" r, while

distinct modes

of action be
to

and

are

equallydistinct."
"

This

could principle who is able

otherwise

stated
and
two
to

thus

for any his

own

rational modes such

at

being
one

record
of

of action, if there
of

reflect upon be given any

modes

action exists

that
one

them

impliesthe other,
mode
of and action which of action

there
which

always
is

least

determinate

impliedby

the first of these modes

impliesthe second, and which is yet distinct from both of them." of action which That holds true of the modes this principle are of action is mode rational being to whom to any open any one be shown by considerations for which there is here open, can but of the nature which heretofore repeatedly no are space,
defined
For this paper. the question is not whether actuallylives any body who actuallydoes all these in

there

That, from
is
as

the

to

the And
of

action. modes

impossible. The of definition of a precisely definable set of modes this principle of possible holds for the Calculus
nature
can

of the case,

is

things. question

action, because, as
a

be shown, the denial

of

of such

principle for
involve

rational

being

the

type

in

question,would
and
be

self-contradiction. the consideration

paper of

Now elaborated

developed by Kempe,
1905, before

further

in the

cited, may

applied,

134

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

SECT,

and

in

fact must realm of

be

applied to

the

order-system of
Such 2.
a

such

determinate of the form

of modes the

of action.

realm

is in fact

foregoing system
the
newer

Kempe's

results with

results
:
"

comparison of developed in the author's

or

later paper would (1) That the which both constitute finite and

hereupon
members,
this

show

elements,

"modes 2
"

of

action"

logically necessary
number, and
in fact in all

system
both in

exist in sets dense

"

infinite in and series,

series,

in "continuous"

serial types. possible

(2)
of the
enter

such systems as the whole number the series series, rational numbers, the real numbers, etc., consequently That the The of this system. for instance,is a part of the system constitution arithmetical 2.

into

continuum,

this system also includes in its complexitiesall the types of order which appear to be requiredby the at present and metrical. theories, projective recognizedgeometrical

(3)

That

entities in question, (4) That the relations amongst the logical of which this system 2 is composed, namely the modes of action, not are polyadic in the most only dyadic,but in many cases various way. Kempe, in fact,shows with great definiteness which used in that the triadic relations of ordinarylogic, are and are products," reallydependent upon defining sums
" " "

tetradic

relations
to

into which tetradic

or

i,

one

or

both

may

enter.

In addition also
a

these

relations the

depends for some symmetrical totally

in

of its most tetradic

order-system logical remarkable properties upon

that, in the
These
sense

relation

de

scribed

" 1 8,
of

is transitive

by pairs.

features special

of the system of The

for the sake entities are here mentioned logical merely hintinghow enormously complex this order-systemis.
matter

here

cannot

be

further

discussed

in its technical

details.

The
to

result of these considerations be

appears

possibleto define, upon

is that it at present the basis of purely

and upon the basis of the aforegoing relations, principles logical an order-systemof entities inclusive concerningrational activity, not only of objects having the relation of the number system, but the geometrical also of objects illustrating types of order,and thus all the order-systems including apparently upon which, at least at of present, the theoretical natural sciences dependfor the success their deductions. And
so

much the

must

here of

serve

as

bare

indication

of the

problems of

Theory

Order, problems which, at the present

SECT,

in

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

135

day,

are

rapidly

undergoing topic
for future

reconsideration research. such Of

and the

which

form

an

inexhaustible

fundamental student of
of the

philosophical Categories,
great
in in
no

importance
one

of

problems
the
Truth

no

who

understands who
of

significance

Kant's
to

undertaking,
The

no

one

takes

seriously,
a

ought

be

doubt. the

Theory
of

Order

will

be

fundamental

science

philosophy

the

future.

THE

PRINCIPLES
BY

OF

LOGIC

LOUIS
"

COUTURAT.
as
a

Symbolic logicconsidered
its the
own

calculus

has

undoubtedly much
been
too

interest

on

account

; but

this aspect has

hitherto

much

emphasized

at

aspect in which symbolic logic is merely the most expense of of all the rest." mathematics, and the logical prerequisite elementary part
B. RUSSELL.
1

of the

IT

is not
as

without the

some

embarrassment French

that

I appear

in

this

volume
one

of representative

hand, I entertain
views of I theories

pressingthe
other, the
of diverse the include

philosophy ; for,on the neither the aim nor the pretensionof ex French philosopherson Logic, and, on the am going to present are due to authors
which I

nations, amongst
French.
as

regret

not

to

be

able

to

Liberal
cannot

is the

attempt
theories

which has been assigned to me, I space historical sketch, however of the to offer an brief, of

Logic, for in so doing I should run the risk and even false idea of them, while, if I of giving a superficial I might be unjust to the confined myself to the principal doctrines, of exposition of other systems. authors Moreover, this method individual has the defect of presentingtheories under an form, them of art. But if Philosophy, and of thus assimilating to works and more especiallyLogic, is scientific in character and has theories and should be can objective value, the fundamental This is the best way, too, presentedunder an impersonal form. that this unity is the to bring out their unity,and to show work of many thinkers. collective and progressive the definition of Logic and the I shall not delay over here in the tradi of its sphere. Logic is taken determination
modern tional
1

and

classic
of

sense,

i.e. as
A
mtr.

the

normative

science
vol. xxviii. p.

of

the

"The

Theory

in Implication,"

Journal of Math.

184.

138
of

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

works. We prepared to study original almost cannot, of course, quote all the different symbolizations, the writers on the subject, which have as been numerous as suggested; we have adopted one which is,properly speaking, not that of any one author,but which, owing to its analogy with mathematical the most to convenient. us symbolism, seems M. Peano's system It approximates most to Schroder's. closely of combining in the same formulae is governedby the necessity symbols, hence he was obliged to logicaland mathematical But this motive had a give the former a different form. particularapplicationin view ; while for our theoretical and the contrary, to lay didactic on exposition it behoves us, the formal analogy (though we lose sight must stress not on between the of the the differences) logical calculus and calculus. algebraical

and Logistic,

will be

I.

THE

LOGIC

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

The because

old it

Logic began
restricted

with

was

judgments of concepts (i.e.

take the We
as proposition

theory of concepts, or terms, to the study of the relations between Modern to attribution). Logic prefers
element.
to

the

its ultimate

give a rigorously /^/^/exposi of Logic. Such tion of the principles an expositionis very difficult in any science, but it would probably be impossiblein Logic, for when we are dealing with the primary concepts of thought in generalit is impossibleto find any others by which would be the good, for instance, What be defined. of these can and then going the notion of implication as indefinable, accepting to define the propositionas on implies every thing which
shall not
"

attempt here

itself" ? is it not

Is not

this

reversal of the natural order of

and ideas,

relation between two a implication, proposi the notion of "proposition"? Paradoxical as it tions, presupposes of the exposition appear, it is impossibleto have a logical may condemned in advance of Logic : we to a petitio are principles principiior to a vicious circle. Instead of attempting to disguisethese by an apparatus of forms which should distort order of ideas, we the natural or reverse prefer to admit idle logical them frankly from the beginning, without any vanity. We must begin by admittingtwo fundamental concepts, i.e. clear that

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

139

those

of

true

and

false

these

are

concepts

of

quality,they

We to define the qualifycertain thoughts of ours. may go on be qualified true false. as or judgment as a thought which can be The expression of a judgment is a proposition; it can determined qualifications. by the same that we are here speaking of a concrete It will be understood determined and fully thought,such as the thought of a particular rains in this place at this moment," and not fact : "It simply and incomplete judgment. It rains," which is an indeterminate
41

This

example
is

shows

us

at

the

same

time

that

there

are

judgments judgment

without

terms,

without
assertion

subject or
of
a

attribute.

the essentially

fact is real,it is false if the

(completelydetermined)
the

is

fact. It is true if the fact is not and since the fact real,2 necessarilyeither real or not real
true
or

judgment
The
most

must

be

either

false.
can

fundamental that of

relation

which

exist

between

two

is propositions

tions,then
true."

"

Of the

implication. If A and B are the proposi means impliesB (i) Either A is false or B is four cases possiblefor any two propositions
" "

(i) A

true, B

true

; ;

B (3) A false, the above

true

(2) A true, B B (4) A false,

"

false ; false ;

implicationexcludes the second and the second only. That is to say, it is equivalent to saying (2) It is false that A is true and B false." It is represented by the symbol : A"B If A is true B is true," If and, in speech,by the following : (3) or A (then) We B." cannot regard this translation as a definition, for it takes the meaning of the conjunction if" as known. But this meaning is a subtle one, and look must at definition we its (i) given above for precisedefinition. But this definition (i)contains another conjunction (either or); and if the formula (2) is preferredit contains the conjunc
" " "
"

tion

"

and."
of
"

In

any

case
"

we

have
as

not
a

been

able of

to
one

define

the

meaning
two

implication except
or, and.

function

of these

notions

They

are

the

two
are

essential called

combinations
reasons

into which

enter. propositions

They
or

(from

of

The

definition of these if it be

metaphysical or,
for false
2

is a inquiryinto their signification, for The is true preferred, I and metalogical problem. symbol
two

terms,

the

o.

To

prevent any dispute over

the

expression
not

"

not

real fact,"let us say, to please

everybody,that

the fact represented "does

exist."

140

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

and the logical sum product,and the logical analogy) the logical operations which consist in forming these combinations are called logical addition and multiplication. The logical of two sum A, B, which is written propositions A + B, is a proposition which affirms that one at least of these is true. It is expressed as follows : A or B two propositions is true," A or B." It excludes or nothing except the case in which A and B are both false. It is equivalent, then, to saying : It is false that A and B are both false." We define it by can of the conjunction means and, that is to say, by multiplication. The logical A, B, which is written product of two propositions A x B, A. B, or AB, is a proposition which affirms that A and
" "

"

"

"

B
"

are

both B."

true.
x

It is written It

"

is true
case

and

is

true,"or

and

only admits
the

the

first

of the

table

given

product of two called their simultaneous is sometimes propositions affirmation, and the sum their alternative affirmation their (or alternation}. The used in its temporal sense word simultaneous is not when it has in mathematics here, but in the sense we speak of simultaneous remaining true for the same equations (i.e. time unknowns, and being verifiable at the same by them). o f The equality two i s or equivalence propositions defined as of their implication. The propositions A and B are a function said to be equal(orequivalent) if A impliesB and B impliesA ;
" " " "

above, and

excludes

three

others.

The

this is written

(A
The

B)

(A"B)(B"A).

in no equivalenceof two propositions implies their way We in meaning. identity get a similar equivalenceevery time is true : for a theorem that the converse of a theorem signifies and its converse that its hypothesisimplies its thesis, signifies that its thesis impliesits hypothesis.3
1

If this
"

set explanation
means

up

as

definition it would

be vicious, for

we

have

defined

"

and
2

by

of

"

and."
as
a

This

formula, considered
as

definition of
"

seems equality was

to constitute

vicious it the

for it has circle,

must

its copula the relation that this

which

to

be

defined.

To

which

be answered

real relation of
3

which copula is equality by definition, (cf. v. chap. Methodology). equality

is distinct from

Example : Every trianglewhich has two equal sides has two equal angles. which has two equalangleshas two equal sides. The two Converse : Every triangle has two equal sides ; This triangle has two equalangles, : This are triangle propositions the The is have at all of the not true but same sense. same equivalent corresponding and equilateral triangle. concepts : isosceles triangle

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

141

By definition
false
or

an

is implication

true

if its first member

is

its second

member and
:

true.

Thus be

the

false may

imply
what

anything whatever
ever.

the true

implied by anything

This

gives us

O"X,
whatever
x

X"I
have

may

be.1

We

then, as

particular case,

"

The

false

impliesthe true,"a paradox

in

which

easily finds
It follows

its

explanation
this that if if
a

the

above

given definition.
is

from

propositionimpliesthe false it it implies the true it is equal to it :

equal

to

it,and

(x"o)
These
To

(x

o),

(i"
by
common sense.

equivalenceswill be confirmed
sum

up

and

constitute
ones

and the only propositions, consider an we implication, these

four

that
see :

shall values

values of particular If we have. they can that it can only present

two

combinations

of

o"o,
of these it is
true.

o"i,
for

i"o,

i"i

only false
is
an

the

third,for the three others

for

it is

Negation

operation or relation fundamental

logic.

It may be defined the notions of true Given that

we a

by
and

means

of
as

and addition, and multiplication follows.

a

false

proposition A, its negation is

at

A', proposition

so

have

the AxA'

same

time
=

o, of

A'=i. the
existence of

In

systematizingthe

axioms

Logic

this

that then demonstrate negation has to be postulated. We can is it unique, i.e. that all the possible negations of a given propositionare equivalentto one another. Let the negation of A be symbolized by A'.2 We then in addition demonstrate can
lThis existence formal
must

correctness

may

seem

to

define

and

I, but

in that

case

their

be
an

postulated. "There

whatever, and

entityI which
indicate the

is

exists an entityo which impliesanything (cf.chap. v. implied by anything whatever"

Methodology).
8

If

we

want

to

negativeof
'

we complex expression

put the latter in

brackets

and

place the negative sign after the bracket.

42

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

the law This which

of double

results

is A. i.e.that the negationof non-A negation, immediately from the symmetry of the relations

determine
to

negation. A
This
"

is in relation to A' what

A7 is in

expressed in the aphorism of ordinaryspeech : Two negationsare equal to an affirmation." if we take negation for our primary concept we can Inversely, of multiplication, the it to define addition or use by means round. In fact, other way from the definition of negation we get the two formulae of De Morgan :
relation A. truth
is

(A
i.e."The

By

A'B',

(AB)'

A' + B' ;

is the product of two propositions negation of the sum of of their negations" ; "the negationof their product is the sum be verified by simple formulae their negations." These two can is to true are common sense : to deny that two propositions the affirm that one the other is false : to deny that one or or other is true is to affirm that both admit
are

false.1
can

If, then,we
addition

we negationand multiplication,
:

define

by

means

of the formula A + B
=

(A'By.

41

The

their

is the negationof the product of propositions 2 define multiplication Or inversely, we can negations."
sum

of two

by

means

of addition

A We will leave
to

(A' + By.
the task of

the reader We
see
or

formula
one

in words. of

system
as case

axioms

this last interpreting that accordingto whether we adopt logicalformulas another, the same
or as

appear
every

as principles,

definitions from

theorems.

But

in

one

truth

emerges

axioms

of

that Logic,i.e. the of

and of contradiction, verities

1

into the inquiries the principle the principle of identity, of excluded third are three principle these
one

independent
justbeen
A

another.

In

fact, these

three
of

We

have

two tacitly applying

importantformulae
A'
=

of the calculus

: propositions
=

(A=i),
the assertion
:

(A=o).

4 '

A is equal to proposition A is false."

is true ; its

negationis equal to

the

assertion:
2

and

say that A or B is true is to B cannot be false together. To

deny

that "A

and

"

is false ; it is to say that A

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

143

applied to principles,
following formulae
"

propositions, may
A"A.

be

translated

by

the

impliesA

"

or

if A

is true

A
=

is true."
o.

AA'
Ai

and

not-A

cannot

be true

at

the

same

time."

A + A'=i.
41

Either

is true

or

not-A

is true."
we

Now used

we

two

last

the

formulae
be

which

to

recognize in the define negation.

impossibleto deduce these from the the concept of they assume principleof identity,because is independent of it. of identity negation,while the principle
Moreover,
it would

Whether

we

define
case

negation
we

or

take
a

it

as

our or

fundamental

notion,in either
Hence

introduce reduce

new
"

element laws
of

all attempts
are

to

the three

postulate. thought to a
a
"

singleone
But sufficient to them
most

formallyimpossible.
is not all
:

this

these

three

alone principles
one

are

not

the justify

smallest

deduction,and
are

must

add

to

other

which principles
are
"

independent

of

them.

The

important of these
The

J : principle of syllogism

(A"B)
"

(B"C)"(A"C),
"

and

impliesB, and if B impliesC, A impliesC ; the principle of deduction : If A implies B, and if A is true, then B is true (and affirm this independently)." we can should be tempted to express this principle We by the
If A
"

formula

(A"B)(A=i)"(B=i),
but

this formula

extract

from which we cannot again an implication the thesis (B i ) in order to affirm it separately except
=

is

in virtue

of this the

itself principle limitation

And
of

here

we

have
when

striking
it is
a

proof of

necessary

symbolism

question of formulating principles.It will be remarked that in practical applicationof the principleof syllogism(or of every
1

This is the
are

of which

of the hypothetical the terms principle (not of the categorical) syllogism, that the premisses so and the conclusion are propositions, hypothetical

judgments.
K

144

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

other any invoke the

to

affirm

which contains an principle we implication) of deduction, for we should not be principle the implicationwhich binds the conclusion

tacitly
content to

the

desire is to be able to affirm the conclusion we premisses ; what Now independentlyof the premisseswhen the latter are true. of deduction. this is only permitted in virtue of the principle deduction is possible without this Speaking generally,no its name. and it is this which justifies principle, Once the precedingprinciples and definitions are admitted, demonstrate the laws of multiplication and we can addition, which
we

have The

tillnow

been

content

to

enunciate.

(1)

law AB
=

of commutation
BA.

A + B
:

B + A.

(2)

The

law
=

of association

(AB)C (3) (A
All these
to

A(BC).
of distribution

(A
:

B) +

(B + C).

The law +

B)C

AC

+ BC.

AB

+ C

(A

C) (B + C).
common

formulae, with the exceptionof the last, are

the calculuses. algebraical The

the

and logical

latter

only
of
a

is

peculiar to the logicalcalculus ; thanks to it and more of the formulae to the perfectreciprocity (duality) generally and the logical calculus exhibits addition multiplication, calculus does not possess. symmetry which the algebraical (4)
The law AA
: of tautology
=

A.

A -}A

A.

(5)

The

law

: of absorption
=

A + AB

A.

A(A

B)=A.

(6)

The

law

: of simplification

AB"A.

A"A

+ B.

(7)

The

law

: of composition

(A"B)
The

(A"C)"(A"BC).
laws of

(B" A) (C" A)"(B

of

+ C"

A).

simplifythe terms and simplification

from within
a

sum

or

them,

or

to

absorption permit us to laws of of a sum of a product. The or of composition permit us either to extract is contained which product a consequence combine into a singleone. two implications

tautology and

146
The

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

permit us first just enumerated then to reduce equationsof to reduce to equations, implications is the second member to equationsof which any form whatever these equationsby addition to combine or o i ; finally together for from the law of compositionthere results or multiplication, formulae : the following as a particular case
formulae that
we

have

(A
data

o)(B
we

o) (A-hB
=

o).

(A=i)(B

i)=(AB

i).
its in

Thus
or

can

treat
a

premissesto
one
or

logicalproblem by reducing all which may be resolved equation, single

a or

relation to

several unknowns,

from

which

we

can

draw

The desired by the formal rules. all the consequences ends in a of Logic, then, like the ordinary algebra,

equations. We may their development

insist
on

also and

study
and

in it the

functions We

algebra theory of of Logic,

shall
not

their

transformation.

purely formal side,which is of but will than for philosophers, interest for mathematicians more confine ourselves to indicating that the principles alreadyquoted foundation for a real algebrawhich has its own as can serve a and laws, sometimes analogous to those of arithmetical algebra,
this mathematical sometimes We very different.1 formulae which
For
to give some prefer

portant and
formula

usual

types of reasoning.
:

correspond to example, from

im

the

of transformation

(A"B)
the law
can of contraposition

(AB'

o)
deduced
:

be easily

(A"B)=(B'"A')"

If A

implies B,
formula the is

not-B

implies

not-A

and
:

2 reciprocally."

This
a

is the

of reductio ad

absurdum

to

prove
we

that
suppose nega

in

theorm

hypothesisA
deduce

implies the
from that the

thesis B

that B

and false,

the (i.e. falsity

tion)of A.
We
may

also
a

deduce

the
:

law

of which of transposition,

is contraposition

case special

(A B"C)
1

(AC'"B').

(C"A

B)

(B'"

A +

C).

See

our

also Lczioni 'This

opusculeVAlgebre de la Logique (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1905). See di Algebra della Logica,by A. Delke (Napoli: R. Accademia, 1907).
in the

isindicated "reciprocally" implications.

sign =,

which

is equivalent to two

inverse

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

147

The

two

affirmed, are

in fact, the implications, each equivalent to :

equality of
A'B'C
o.

which

is

ABC' The

o,

first of these
and

propositionsA, B,
deduce not-C from

that the three briefly equations signifies therefore not-C are can incompatible ; we that
A and B

it either

imply C,

or

that

and

Similarly imply not-B, or that B and not-C imply not-A. the advantage of reducing an for the second see equation. We implicationto the more symmetrical form of what the English call an the second i.e. an equation of which inconsistency,
member

We

nought. have again, still in

is

the

same

way,

(A"B+C)=(AC"B).
"

implies B or C, are plications equal to :

If A is the
"

and

not-C

imply B,

for

the

two

im

AB'C=o."
This very A B

commonly
is true, B is true."
or

occurring type
C
is true
:

of

an

alternative

syllogism: If therefore true),

If
we

but

is false

(and A

apply

this transformation

to

the formula
=

(A"B)"(A=o)+(B
we can

i),

deduce

from

it

(A"B)(A=i)"(B=i),
the
"

formula

of

the

direct if A

hypothetical syllogism (inodus ponens)

is true, B it
:

If A

impliesB,
can

and

is true."

We

also

deduce

from

(A"B)(B=o)"(A=o),
the formula
"

of the

inverse
and of if B

(modus syllogism hypothetical

is A false, is false." reductio

: tollens)

If A

implies B,

Another been

type

reasoning by

ad
is
:

absurdum

has

brought forward implies (has

And indeed

by

Vailati ; his formula

"

If A

as :

its

consequence) its (A A
o)
A

own

negation,A

is

false."

(A"
: Inversely
"

A')

(A

o).

If not-A

impliesA,

is true."

.e.

148
These have

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

forms sometimes

of

reasoning,paradoxical but perfectly correct, been employed by mathematicians.

FUNCTIONS.

II. PROPOSITIONAL

the elements as propositions considering of reasoning, and have troubled not to analyse their contents. We have been reversing the traditional order which begins by the theory of terms or penetrate within concepts. We must now in order to distinguish their constitutive elements. propositions Hitherto each proposition have considered an we as individual, and determined Nevertheless as a particular perfectly being. the fact that we mere were reasoning about any proposi tions whatsoever and employing algebraic symbols obligedus to deal with general or indeterminate propositions.For example, if we formulate the law of simplification : So far
we

have

been

AB"A,
we

affirm this

of implication and B. We

all the

which propositions

can

be
B

substituted
are

for A

suppose,

indeed, that A

and

fact

singularand that they can

becomes
B

AB"CA
A and

propositions owing to the ; but be any propositions whatever, the implication because the terms general and indeterminate,
in figure

determined

variables. reality This questionhas been discussed with is a variable ? What A variable is much by Frege and Russell. depth and subtlety
are

which

it

in

an

indeterminate
term
are

term

for which
a

we

can

substitute these

minate
terms
more

(belongingto
called the
is

certain of the

: class)

any deter determinate still

a
,

values

variable.1

Speaking
this

variable a exactly, missing term which can that for the

same

be

simply the sign of an supplied ; but under

same

empty place

condition,
be
any

letter the

value
we

shall
can

everywhere
substitute
must

substituted values

(forexample, in AB"A in place of A whatsoever and

same

B,
A'

but
as

we

substitute the determinate

value

for the second

for the

always A first).

becomes indeterminate when of its one proposition is suppressed or i.e.when it is terms replaced by a variable, assumed that any value whatever be put in its place. An can indeterminate contain one several variables. or proposition may call every expression which contains we Speaking generally,
one
or
1

more

variables
which
are

function,

e.g.

A + A'B
or

-f-A'B'C
fixed.

is

Values

in contradistinction, called, constant

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

149

function

of

A, B, C,
when called
a

if

we

consider

these

three the

letters form
of

as a

variables.

But

logical function

has

prepositional function. Thus what we is not call an indeterminate proposition but reallya proposition, for under its a function. It is not a proposition, propositional
it is proposition,
"

indeterminate

form It becomes

it is neither
a

true

nor

meaning.
substituted

proposition when
it then

false ; it has fixed values

no are

for the

variables ;

determinate consequentlyhas a logical is as function matrix for pro A it were a propositional propositions as there are positions, it engenders as many values assignedto its variables. A proposition can only have
"

acquires meaning, and value (true or false).1

one as

i.e.false value,
many

or

true, but
as

function propositional
can

can

have
or

distinct
of values.

values
Thus
to

its variables

have

values

systems
or

the

general implicationA"B
; we

is true it is

false, according
in the
case

circumstances A is true
are

know

that

only
are

false

when

and

false.
true

But

there
are

propositionalfunctions logicalformulae which

: AB"A. simplification

which
we

always
the very

; such

all the

have From

alreadyquoted,e.g.
fact that which
can

the
a

law law

of

it is

of

formal
to
are

it logic, and B.

is true

for all the

are

values

be

assigned
which

there Similarly,

functions propositional

always false : notably those which deny or violate a logical law. for These are formal truths and falsities, respectively their truth (or falsity) depends on their form and not on their
matter

is

depended on their matter it would be variable.2 It particularly important to distinguish sharplybetween formal
contain
not

; if it

which implications
which
we

variables and

the material

implications
hold truths

which considered, and between singular propositions. All mathematical the formal implications,and, indeed, these are

have

yet

good
are

implications
of the
most

which

are

generallyemployed, even
we

in discussions far
more

diverse

kinds ; for

pass

general
a

frequentlythan
is

particular judgments.
To
1

indicate
these
to

symbolicallythat
not

propositionalfunction
more
we

Because

concepts of variable and function are

be concluded that with

familiar to mathema here

to to
an

ticians than intermixture

it must logicians,

have

illegitimate
from their

of mathematical

logical concepts.
be
common

that generality,
2

these concepts must

both

It is easy to Logic and AB"A

=

see,

Mathematics. with the formula

If

we

compare, the

for example, the always true them

formula

AB"C,
form.

only difference between

is that in the first C

in virtue of its

150

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

always true, i.e.true

we

of the variables^ for any values whatsoever will write these variables as indices after the copula.

For

example

i1

The

presence

of these

indices

is sufficient to
"

indicate

that the
not

formulae

represent functions

and ("general propositions)

singularpropositions. In order to express that a function F will or we (of two variables, always false, x, y) is always true
write
2

: Similarly
"

F(#,y)"Xty$(x,y}

Whatever be the values of x" y, the function : signifies may F impliesthe function 3"." is based The functions on some theory of prepositional ourselves with which will content we merely specialaxioms for their justification would demand long and subtle stating,

arguments
true

of

meaning
values

That which here enter.3 is cannot upon which we the all is true of any ; this evidentlyfollows from of the word all. If a function F(#) is true for all
" "

of the But

variable the
converse

x,

it is true

singly.
"What

of any is of this axiom of all." That of

one

among

them
:

equally necessary
if a function of it is true

is true
true
x.

F(V) is
values

of any for any We if

is true

is to say:
#,

value

whatsoever

all

of

shall
we

the importance and recognize that

To any

necessity
of
we

of this axiom mathematical

note

it is the

hidden
a

nerve

all

reasoning.
or

demonstrate

theorem

argue
are

concerning any number, always particular ; and we

is true
a

triangle
from

or

but they circle,

conclude

them

that the theorem

case a

all circles. This is not or numbers, all triangles, of induction, have believed ; certain empirical as logicians deduction based
on

for all

it is
1

the

preceding axiom,
the

i.e.on

the

fact

It is important to note

that in these formulae for the

a

simply for the true and

we speaking, Strictly

the false but

ought to employ

symbols I and o no longerstand "always true" and the "always false." fresh symbol, but the indices are sufficient to

prevent any confusion.

2

For

lack of this
I,

symbolism we
x

were

implies

whatever of
x.

may

be"

in

o obligedto say above : implies x, and x order the to or specifyclearly generality

"

indetermination
3

See

Russell," Mathematical
vol.
xxx.

Logic as

based

on

the

Theory

of

Types,"in

Amcr*

Journal of Math.

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

151

that

if the demonstration

it holds sometimes
"

good
been is
true

for all. invoked

of

good of any individual whatever of sufficient reason has (The principle of demonstration.) this method to justify
holds
true

What

all is

of

one

axiom of
true
a

is the well-known

of principle
If

all

particular." This applications particular

of
x

in

general theorem.
in

F(X)

is true

for all values

it is

This for the value a, or the value b, etc. particular permits the deduction of a true propositionfrom a principle the general truth i.e.to pass from true function, prepositional It will be noted that truth F(a) i. F(V) x\ to the particular in these two the same not formulae; in the i has signification first it is accompanied by the index x, but not in the second.
= =

There

are

other

axioms, the

character

of

which

is

more

have i.e.which more strictly algorithmic, certain combinations rendering possible

properly the
or

effect of
of

transformations

the

calculus.
We
can

establish

hierarchybetween

according to whether they belong to types. (It is no longer a question of the number be classed,but according to which they can

functions, prepositional less complicated or more

of the variables of
a

property

equations.)An elementary degreeof algebraic and proposition holds good of individuals,i.e. of concrete determinate or objectswhich can be named pointed out one by of these If we individuals or more one. replace one by function of the first order. variables we obtain a prepositional of the first order become functions in But these prepositional their turn objects of thought on which judgments, true or false, be passed. If we functions of the can replace the propositional first order in the latter by variables we obtain propositional functions of the second order, i.e.of which the variables are (or rather represent)functions of the first order. we can Similarly, of fourth third conceive functions the and order successively and the variables functions of so are respectively on, of which the precedingorder. This theory of types permits the resolution of certain of certain contradictions arise when the or paradoxes which is carelessly expression "all possible used; for then propositions" analogous to
the
the and

proposition enunciated
we

seems

to

become The

its

own

object,
of

have

sort

of

vicious of
now

circle.

type
"

these

paradoxes
says that

is the famous all Cretans

are

sophism
liars
:

Epimenides Epimenides. is a Cretan, Epimenides

152

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

therefore

therefore the Cretans not are Epimenides is a liar, The etc. liars," sophism lies in the fact that the assertion of a simply, I am Epimenides ("the Cretans are liars or more in saying is supposed to hold good of itself (I lie even liar") All the to have said : that I lie). Epimenides ought correctly of the firstorder that I assert are false." Now propositions order which this is a propositionof the second might be We cannot true. speak of all the propositions incontrovertibly would the judgment which hold for then assert we possible, But if we speak good of itself and might imply contradiction. of the "th order we assert of the of all propositions a proposition order which does not hold good of itself, and we then (n + I )th
" " "

avoid We

both

contradiction here

and

vicious circle.
over

have

theory of fixed) ; but

close

only skimmed functions prepositional

we

this delicate and

difficult
not to

cannot

leave

(which is,moreover, attention it without calling

between
it and

yet
the of

connexion

which

exists

the

calculus

which owes This classic theory, its development probabilities. and its celebrity to a few illustrious mathematicians, is in reality with propositions branch of Logic,for it deals essentially or a functions. What do we rather with prepositional reallymean be concerned, In the first place,it cannot by probability"? be said to the contrary, with the probability of whatever may is essentially and determinate an particular event, for an event ; it happens or does not happen or, in better words, it exists or middle it is real or imaginary ; there is no does not exist, place. than the of else be certain can nothing quality Probability in order to predictor judgments which we pass upon events If it is a question them. But of what judgments ? conjecture it is once event of a judgment passed on a particular again fully be false. determined it The true or therefore,only can, ; can only be appliedto a judgment which may "probable" epithet be true in certain
cases

and

false in certain others. holds

But

such

general or ently of
extreme

indeterminate
" "

judgment, which
of
a

good
else of

indiffer than the

two
a

any

case

series this

is is

nothing
true
even

function. prepositional
cases,

And

judgment which is always true and the certain and respectively judgment which is always false (called in the calculus of probabilities) ; for they,too, hold impossible good, not of a unique case, but of a series of cases. the probability of a judgment is defined how know We
i.e.of the

154

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

other, for instance, permit

at

the next

throw.
a

equal chance) on
does this
mean

but

predictwhich face will appear They only admit of bettingfairly (or with of throws. What sufficiently large number that they simply express the relation, real or
us

to

of favourable of to the number cases supposed,of the number these numbers are sufficiently possible high ? cases, when The is a upshot of the preceding is that every probability function ; it is as it were its co property of a prepositional of cases in which the proportion of truth,which assesses efficient it verifies itself between of
use
a

becomes (i.e. and

,

true). This

and

attains its two

co-efficient may vary values in the case extreme

This explainsthe proposition alwaysfalse or always true. of these two numerical symbols first for always true and

always false and then for true and false. For here, as every mind has begun with the complex, to mount where, the inventing
afterwards The
on

to

the

simple.
of

existence

the consideration that the

entire system of logical based calculus, of probabilities, i.e.the system of MacColl,

an

proves

calculus
we

of

is probabilities into the

chapter of Logic,
the fact that

especiallywhen
this

take
out

consideration

study of certain problems of MacColl considers generalpropositions only,i.e. probabilities. them he classes and qualifies prepositionalfunctions, and they are certain (value i),impossible according to whether and o i). (valueo),or variable (valuee, intermediate between because all unfortunate ; in the firstplace, These are expressions those which are always true these propositions even are variable, or always false. Secondly,we must guard againstconfounding and the alwaysfalsewith impossi the always true with certainty mathematical truths) (e.g. propositions bility. Only necessary and only their negationsthat of deserve the epithetof certain, impossible.The always true or always false only constitute an certitude ; it is the certitude of throwing actual, empirical purely
system
arose

of

with

die of which
common

all the

sides bear

this number.

It has

nothing
is of

in

quiteanother
to

the certitude of necessary order. Many paradoxes and with

we seem

which truths,
even errors are

due of

the

fact that

thus and

to

associate

in the

calculus

though they In reality, what call certitude is only we were homogeneous. all the of probability that of a lottery in which the maximum is stilla probability. lots draw a prize but which logically
the probabilities certain the

probable as

"

"

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

155

the logicalcalculus and the calculus analogy between if we remark that logical manifest becomes of probabilities more addition and multiplication correspond to arithmetical addition of a com that the probability know We and multiplication. of the is equal to the product of the probabilities positeevent But the distinction between simple simple events involved. has and events no objectivebasis ; it depends composite
The
" " " "

entirely upon
What do
we

our

manner

of

conceiving and
"

expressing them.
"

? We mean by a composite event reallymean a propositionwhich affirms simultaneouslyseveral simple events, is the logical and which product of propositionswhich affirm

separatelyeach
a

one

of them.

And be

this
two

correlation

is based
and

on

combinatory theorem
one

; let there
m

propositionsA
other
to
n

B,
If of
n.

of which
we

is related to
one

cases case
cases

and

the

cases.
case ;;/ x

combine

by

one

each of

of the

first with
obtained

each will be

the

second, the
this is
the if

number

thus
of of A

Now

the precisely

number

cases

of

the On
B

proposition
the other

AB,

simultaneous

affirmation
cases

and
to

of B.
A and

hand,
same

m',

n' be of

the

favourable
to

respectively,
of the

the number

cases

favourable

AB

will

be,

in virtue

theorem, mf

"',and
m'
m

we

have

the arithmetical

equation :

x X

nf
"

mf
vy

n'
n

which

of the composite proposition probability is equal to the arithmetical product (the logicalproduct) AB A and The of the probabilities of the simple propositions B. that the probability is true of logical We know addition. same
means
:

the

of

an

alternative is
events
are

equal
here

to
we

the

sum

of

the

of probabilities that
case

the

simple
events
we

; but

always
hence

suppose

these
in
common

simple
x

unconnected

and

have
of

no

suppose,

too, that the

is the
same.

total number

cases

possiblefor the
and
;",

alternants
number their of

Let

be

this number
two

the ;//,
and

cases

favourable

to

the

alternants What
is the B ?

B,

are probabilities respective

"

"

probability
It has the
to

of their
same
1

i.e.of their logical sum alternation, of possible cases number The n. example, if an
urn

A
cases

favourable

it

For

contain that of We

balls of diverse

colours, if the probability or

of drawing a probability

drawing a
blue
or

blue ball is ^, and

drawing a

red ball ", the that

no

red ball is " + i =

TV

suppose,

of course,

ball is at

once

blue and blue is o.

red ; in other words

that the

of drawing a probability

ball which

is red and

156

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

include, of
in

course, to

all those

favourable
to

to

A, in number
m'
.

mY

addition

all those
two

favourable
no case

B, in number
in
we

By
the

hypothesis these
number of their
sum

have is
n

common,

hence

"

And

have

the

equation :

mr -fn

m'
n

"

of the alternation is equal to the sum of the probability of the simple propositions." probabilities of a very simple mathematical Negation itself is susceptible of possiblecases, expression. Let n again be the number A ; its and m the number of cases favourable to a proposition is probability The number of
"

The

What
.

is the favourable
to

of probability
to

its

negation A'?
"

of
cases

cases

A' is evidently n
its

;;/, the

number

unfavourable
n
"

; then
m

is probability

m
"

i
n

is the difference of the negation of A probability of A. the probability between i and of Boole's have been saying explainsthe origin All that we the first complete system which has served logicalcalculus modern and why his operations for more foundation as a ones, in their symbolic arithmetical operations, modelled on even were and addition are analogous, expression. Logicalmultiplication have to the arithmetical as we operationsof the same seen, in order to render this analogy more name perfectit is ; and

Hence

the

"

necessary

to

admit
is

that

the

summands

have

no

common

what did. Boole That is to say, precisely the negation of A by i he represented A, which is sufficient his logical of calculus on the model to prove that he conceived the calculus of probabilities.

element, which

"

III. THE

LOGIC

OF

CONCEPTS.

We which

are

in

theory of

the theoryof concepts, to attack position ancient Logic occupied the first place,before the if the formation the of concepts were as propositions,
now

in

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

157

primordialand essential business to that this theory is subordinate

by
the definition of the

of

the
of

that

understanding. But is shown propositions

concept itself: "A

This

functionwith one some explanation.

Let If for
us

variable."

fropositional paraSoxicaTdefinition requires

"

concept is a

consider
name

the

: proposition

Paul

has

only one

eye."

Paul, the

of
x,
we

person obtain

substitute
"

the variable

acquaintance, we the prepositionalfunction,

our

of

only one values possible

x

has

eye."
of
x

Let

us

suppose of

that the sum-total

men.

of the

is the sum-total

This
true
we :

prepositional
for
some

function them

would

be false for the of

we

greater part and

last
a

of

; the

sum-total
x.

these
come a on

values

will
every

call

the

extension of with the

name one

Here

generalfact

function

variable
of

determines the
values

which class,

is its

extension, i.e.

is of

"

verifyit. To this class a is applied be and generally can example the name ; in our one-eyed." The function in questionthen defines the class one-eyed? Similarly, one-eyed and constitutes the concept
sum-total which
"

the

function
; the

"

has
"

lost his
x

wife

"

defines

the

concept

of

widower

function

has These

lost
names

(a part of) his

which

hair"

defines

the concept

of

bald, etc.

widower, bald, {one-eyed,

define them
"

etc.) nothing other signify

to

than

the functions

say
"

that
x

"

(some
"

particular person) is
"

that In
one

(some particularperson)has

one-eyed only one eye,"and

(a man) who
And

is to
so

say
on.

other

words,
is

eye,"and
function The

one-eyed with the similarly

a

is

"

one

has

only
of

others. the

the
of

extension the

the

identical

with

extension
"

concept
"

itself.

sum-total

of the
"

people

who

have

only one
axiom

eye

is identical with We

the class above

is

have

in the

definition ; the axiom

function is
a

"

etc. one-eyed," laid down tacitly to corresponding

an

and

every
"

prepositional
; the
a

class which
of

constitutes

its extension We
a

defini
to

tion

is that

this

extension

itself.

need

symbol
Let

represent the class which

correspondsto
:

function. will be

$(x\
read

simply by x 3 ""(3
or

be this function "p,

=

its extension
e

represented
be

the

Greek
...

letter
be

which reversed),
"

may

the understood). Generally, be translated in symbol 3 can by a relative pronoun (either in any other case) who the nominative has only one or eye." The effect of this symbol is to transform into function a a class, is into thus the natural and or a a proposition concept ; it
"x
as

such

""

"

("let

true

"

158

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

transition between necessary the calculus of concepts.1

the

calculus

of

and propositions

Logically the concept and the corresponding class are which defines them. Nevertheless to the proposition posterior in themselves, independently of their be considered they can and we shall have to deal with the symbols a, 6, c, origin,
. . .

which

represent both

the

concepts determined

and

their

cor

a symbol to express responding classes. We shall then require the fact that a given individual belongs to a given class : e.g. is one-eyed." This that Paul symbol (which translates the where its subjectis an is e. individual) copula is in those cases is an a" (belongs reads : x (an individual) The formula xea to the class of #'s). This symbol (the first letter of the word ecrn is the graphicalinverse of the symbol 3, because it is also its transforms class into a proposition, and inverse. It a logical
" " " "

pass from the calculus of classes to that of pro be defined by a function "p: the class a can positions.Similarly, it enables
us

to

and

a conversely,

function

(p can

be defined
a.

by

the class

".re "p(x)

"If
to

is the class of x*s which that

x

verifies

to "",

affirm
we

""of

is

say

is

an

#."

"

The

axiom

by

which

have

affirmed

the existence also takes

"

of

class which

is the extension

of the function
"

(p

the form

of the axiom

of reducibility (Russell).
"

function with variable can be one Every propositional reduced to a judgment which to a judgment of predication (i.e. which affirms that the subject of a subject affirms a predicate or belongs to a certain class which is the extension of this predi function can we cate). Symbolically, say, every propositional But it will is equivalent to a judgment of the form xza. "p(x) be
seen

under of

what

condition
or

this axiom of
a

can

be

i.e. the enunciated, every And

condition

admitting

tional function
go
on

there exists

that to postulating class. corresponding there is

a

proposi
we

may

to

ask ourselves

whether

concept corresponding
this is so

to every class if we admit as

1

(asLeibniz
a

boldlymaintained). Doubtless
"

concept the notion

time into

which-belongs-to-this-class
:

This

at
an

the

same

the logical role explains

a
a quality,

transforms

assertion is
an

of the relative pronoun who into an epithet : "Caesar proposition

it

con

quered

Gaul"

assertion ; "Caesar, who

by accompanied

an

analogousto epithet,

conquered simpleadjective.

Gaul

..." is only

name

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

159

At

any

rate,it is
it

only in
about

this very
an

that every

assertion
a

that we affirm can general sense is equivalentto object(an individual) of

"

to attributing

that predicate,

quality
scope

"

"

or

property."

This

remark

very the

notably
ancient

restricts the

of

concepts,

while

logic reduced
which

all

logic of judgments to
a

the

i.e.those judgments of predication, to a subject.

In

attribute

predicate
that
so

addition

to

the

above

it is

important
have

to

note at

the
are

which we judgments of predication exclusivelysingular judgments, of individual. fundamental show

how

arrived the

far
is

which

subject
now

an

The
are

judgments which the more complex : really

are

ancient
we

logic considered

they
"

translated

and

proceed to in modern interpreted logic.

universal b stand affirmative
for
to

shall

What

is the

of signification
a

the
a

pro

position:
It
also

Every

is b

"

(where

and

? concepts)

that signifies

every

individual
of that

which

belongs

the

class

belongs,in
class
a

virtue

to fact,

the class b ; in other

words,
This

that the
is

is contained

within (entirely) the formal

the class b.

by expressedsymbolically

: implication

(?s ")",(* s");

"

is

"

an

a
"

impliesthat, whatever
"

be the value

of x,
"

"

is

b"

For example : All men are again : If x is an a, it is a b? is is If mortal mortal." We that the x a x see : signifies man, of all,symbol universality, disappearsand is replaced pronoun of this implication, is which or interpreted by the generality indicated by the symbol x used as an index. In the last resort this of x ; its generalityconsists in the indeterminateness

Or

"

ultimate We of
a x

foundation, then, lies

note

in

the

notion

of

the

variable.

must

that carefully
means

in
to

this the

the variability implication

is

by

no

restricted and

class

; for

if

is not

an

hypothesis is false verified (for by definition

Either
x

the

consequently the
equivalent
a

implicationis
the

it is

to

alternative that
a

"

is not this

an

or

it is not
no

of proposition

form
are

in

i.e.that there subject,

a's. be

"). It wise implies the According to a

follows
existence

of its
of

remark

Mr.

in no way prosecuted," implies that there will be trespassers ; it only states are or that if there a's the are no they will be prosecuted. If there are any will be verified ipsofacto. The fictitious proverb : implication
"

will Bradley's, "trespassers

All

the

carts

that go

to

Crowland

have

wheels

of

gold

and

160

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

silver"

means

in

that reality

no

cart

ever

goes

to

Crowland

and shows that on this inaccessible to wheeled (a village traffic), is in accord with the opinion of common sense point ordinary the most rigorous logicians. Thus between to the relation of implication two propositions form: (whether or not reduced to the predicative xzb) xza, correspondsa relation of inclusion between their two extensions (the class a is included in the class b]. It is,then, natural in the calculus of classes, to represent this relation by the same and to write by definition x a"b, when have we sign,

formallyanalogous functions : the or prepositional formulae the same but are differently this are interpreted ; and the formal results from implication and analogy between We will now inclusion. show how are logical operations briefly the calculus i n of classes. interpreted The product of two classes (a X b) is the sum-total of the
of classes of is identical with the calculus elements follows
:

To

the anticipate,

calculus

common

to

these two

classes.

It may

be

defined

as

ax
"

fr=x3[(xza) (x s b)};
of ;r's of which In other words
one
:

ab

is the sum-total
a,
x

can

say

at

the

same

time, x is

is b"

xzab
The
sum

(x"a) (xzb).
(a + ") is the sum-total
or

of

the

two

classes
to
one

of

the
as

elements follows
:

which

belong
a

the

other.

It is defined

+ b=x"s

\(xs. a) 4- (x B b}~\ ;
of which ;r's,
:

"

a a

+ b is the sum-total
or x

of the words

it

can

be said

is

is "."

In other

"

To
1

say
We
must

that

is

or

'

is to say
there is
a

that
no

is
to

or

is b?
because there

notice here that in a",b variable ; it is the

index

the

sign "C,
two

is no
a

longera
b. In

of question

relation between

constant

objects,

and
2

we reality

passedon sign ").

historical.

from But

that to the

the inclusion of one class in another, and have began by considering o f the form of the (which explains implication propositions the first time that the order logical has reversed the

this is not

62

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

of the universal negative proposi What, then,is the signification tion : No is b ? that It simply signifies all a is not-"," a
" " "

i.e.that since

the

class

is

contained (entirely) all which affirmative is with

in
not
a

the b ;

class not-", it

the

latter
a :

contains

is, then,

equivalent to
It is written

universal

negativepredicate.

a"b'.
"

To

that

say that all the classes

a

a a

is not-^ is to say that the class ab is null and element." and b have This no common of
our :

affords noticed

verification
we

symbolic

translation.

It will be

that

also have

equation is symmetrical in relation to a and b ; All a is not-"," All b is not-fl No to then, is equivalent ; or is b is equivalent No b is a." We thus re-discover the a to rule of simple conversion for the universal negativeproposition. We that in this proposition the negation does not apply to see No the subject(inspite of appearances but exclusively : .), to the predicate. We have still to translate particularpropositions.The simplestway of doing this is to note that they are respectively the negationsof the two universals. The the contradictories, i.e. Some is b is the negation of the a : particular affirmative universal It is translated, then, by negative: No a is "" denying the formula of the latter :
" " " " " " " "
.
.

since

the

first

"

"

"

"

"

a"^b ', or
It will be noticed
=

"?"

'o.

here that the

),i.e.to the copula(" or the particularnegativeis

universal affirmative
:

negativesign is applied to the as a whole. proposition Similarly, translated the by negation of the
or

a"^b,
Thus these

ab'=^'o.

deserve to be called negative, while the particulars actuallycalled negative simply have a negative propositions which is a detail of no importance (and all the less so product, is positive since a term or negativeby convention or arbitrarily, is the positive and since the negationof a negative term term correspondingto it : (a')' a1).
=

of the predicate"has nothing in the notorious "quantification in the for the terms all and some what disappear are precisely Logistics, the relation between two of translated being by a expression propositions, symbolical
1

We

see

that

common

with

terms

considered (classes)

in their

It totality.

is therefore absurd

to

consider

these

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

163

These

formulae

show

the

existential

import

of

the

four dis of its

given rise to so many cussions. A universal in no implies the existence way be seen of the correspondingclass), as subject (i.e. may
classical which propositions,
has

from

its definition
not
assume are as

"

All

is b

"

"

means

If

is a,

is b

"

; this does
"

the

existence
are

of

a,

but

that merely signifies

is still
more

If

there
the

they
abf
=

""'s." This
It
:

evident

from

formula

o.

really expresses
"

the

nullity (nonnot

existence)of the
But it neither

class ab'

which

is not-^

does

exist." class
case

expresses
a or

nor

implies the
is still more
a
"

existence evident

of any in the

whatever, either
of
"

"1

This No

the

universal do
not

negative :
This

is b" is

which

ab's

exist."

assertion
a or

to equivalent manifestly compatible

a

is

with

the
The

of the nullity

classes of

b, or

even

and

b.
to

contrary is

fact that

they
of

are

particular propositionsowing Since the the negations of universals.

true

the

latter

deny
"

the

existence

of

certain
To say

classes, the
that
"

former
a

affirm
"

the
say
:

existence ab's

the

same.

Some
of

is b

is to

exist," i.e. to
"

affirm

the
a

existence b.

the

class
say
:

ab, and
"

consequently,of the classes

a

and

to Similarly,

Some

is not-^ also

is to of the
a

affirm

the existence
a

of

the
This

class

a-not-",and
the old
I
are

hence
or

classes

and

not-b.
of

perfect symmetry
on

is reciprocity

Logic mutually contradictory.

But here
is
an

necessary is based, i.e.that the

result

the fact and

which
E and

propositionsA

O,

If a universal has important consequence. existential import, and if a particular has one, it is impossible no infer a particular to from a universal, (that is to say, illogical) for from
a

proposition which
is
no means

affirms of

no

existence

(or which

denies affirms
we

one) there
an see

existence

(shortof

which deducing a proposition as invoking an existential premiss, from

to

shall

It presently).2

results

this that subalternation

attempt, by
means

notations verbal

as

and
or

extension windows
1

purely This so-called also. illusory analogy,to apply them to the predicate of formal Logic, then, consists simply in making false generalization
a

attributes of the subject, or and qualities

of

for the sake of symmetry. the

a a

calculus shows that from logical deduce we can never equation) or (non-implication non-equation).

Indeed

formula formula

with with

a a

(an implication or

copula positive copula negative

It will be understood

that

we

are

speakingalways and only

a

of the existence of
some

class,i.e. of its non-nullity (the class

never

is not

null, i.e. it contains

individuals),

of the existence

of individuals.

64

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

is false which
"

as

well
not

as

conversion

per

accidens.

From

"

All

is

^,"

infer imply the existence of "z,we cannot directly is b" which Some a implies the existence of a, nor, conse to the precedingby quently, Some b is a" which is equivalent this deduction simple conversion.1 If we are to make legiti mately,we must admit as a hypothesisthe existence of a (or a hypothesis which impliesit). Indeed, if we proceed from the premiss:
"

does

tf

'o,
o

or

ab+ab'

'o,
a hypothesis (all

and
we

if

we

assume

ab'

in virtue of the

is

b)

obtain

the result ab
=

'o,
"

i.e. Some
"

is b"

or

Some indifferently,

b is #."

We

shall

see

to the theory importance of this observation when we come of the syllogism. We have just shown that the judgments of the old Logic in reality are complex and derived because they refer to classes and defined by means of singularjudgments, referring to are individuals (xia\ Thus modern Logic not only admits the

the

consideration is
an

of

but is founded individuals, Can

an

upon ?

it.

But

what

individual ? Schroder has is any

more

individual
to

be defined
"

attempted
a

define

individual

"

as or

follows excluded

"

An

individual
to

class which other class

"

contained is entirely in truth, an (for, individual

to cannot

in relation which

contains
or

than

one

ordinary class be entirely

; if it

contained

excluded
two

in reference

only contains
which another other

there individuals, the

one

any class whatever will be at least one the

class under

will contain

and

exclude is
a

other).
that

Or

form,

"

The

individual

class such

in x or class x, it is contained in not-x" defines the individual as a function of the idea of

"

for every But he here

and he class,

defines it as a class" rather than as an individual. really singular class Now between the singular we ought to distinguish strictly and the individual If the
1

which be

constitutes undefinable
valid for the it is the

it.2
we
can

individual

at

least define

the
for of

the

Simple conversion is indeed universal negativeof which

The fact that class

affirmative proposition as particular the and for reason same negation,

symmetry.
2 one
"

even

one singular
an

"

is contained

in another
to
a

is repre

by the symbol ", is represented by singular)

sented

while the

the fact that

individual

belongs

class (even

symbol e.

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

165

This individuals. identityof two : ( being the sign for this identity)
=

can

be

done

as

follows

Definition
every

"

To

say

that

is identical
to
x

with

is to

say

that

function relative prepositional function relative to y" or, as positional The is true of x is also true of y"
course,

impliesthe same prowhich we everything say, inverse implicationis, of

"

equally true, but

formula
say
:

since
not

it

can

be

deduced

from

the We

pre may

ceding
then

it need

be

enunciated

here.1

also

Thus asserted

two

individuals
of
one can

are

identical

when

all

that

can

be

be

asserted

of the

other.
we

It is,in bear
; it

brief,

Leibniz's

but principleof indiscernibles,

must

in mind

the absolute all

of generality

"

all

"

in

our

enunciation
the
"

comprises
is true

possible assertions,and
It is
x

not

only

intrinsic denomina

tions."
of

abundantly evident
of^,
x

that if

everythingwhich
and

is also
one.

true

and

are

indiscernible

only

consti

tute

This

being granted, we
to
:

may

define
means

the
of

singular class, in
the

contradistinction individuals

Schroder, by

identityof

[(at
Definition
not
"

)] [a
=

'o][(*g d)(yB ")"(* -,)].

" "

is

singular class
are

means

: x

The

class

is

null,"and
that
of

if x^ y

individuals

of #,

In virtue of the formal and

analogy between

identical.2 and jj'are the calculus of classes

latter their

all the fundamental formulae of the propositions, hold good for the former. We will recall them, indicating

new

interpretation
"

Principle : of identity
"

a"^a. All
a

is a."

In truth, if 0.*""j"""y, we

0 in relation to y
ever,
2

have also, by contraposition, (thenegationof $'j/"""0'.r the negation of 0 in relation to x} ; but "f" implies beinganythingwhat is to 0. 0' Then the converse is true. equivalent the symbol
I, for this number
a

I represents the number of singular (or the class) classes. To say of

Here

is the

generic concept

cardinal number the Similarly,

a

is

I ; see

Couturat's

singularis to say that its Les Prindpes des Math"matiques" ch. ii. " 13).
class that it is
zero :

zero logical

of classes is identical with the arithmetical is o.

to

say that

class is null is to say that its cardinal number

166

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

of contradiction Principle
"

aa'
not
:

"

o,
at

Nothing

is

and

-a

the
a
"

same

time."

of excluded Principle
"

middle

I
,

is a each individual) Everything (i.e.

or

not-#."

Law

of commutation
ab
"

ba\

a+b

b+

a.

Law

of association
=

(ab]c a(bc] ;
Law

(a + b)+

(b+ c}.

of distribution
=

(a + fr)c ac+bc\
Law
: of tautology aa

a" +

c=(a

c)(b+ c).

"

a\

a-\-a

"

a.

Law

: of absorption a

4- ab

(a + b)

"

a.

Law

: of simplification

ab"^a
"

;
"

a"^a 4- b.
"

All ab is

All

is

or

"."

Zrtw

of composition:
;

(""d) (a"c)"(a"bc)
"If every "If every
#

(^"") (t:"^)"(^+";"^).
every
c #

is ^ and

is ^, all

is fo"
or c

b is "2, and

every

is "z, every

is #."

of Lastly,the principle

the

: syllogism

(a"b} (b"c}"(a"c\
"If every This time
we
a

is " and the

every

" is r, every

is "."

of the categorical syllogism, principle such as was contemplated in the classical Logic. It is the is irre since this principle formula of the mode Barbara. And ducible to any others (especially laws of thought") to the three and the syllogismitself cannot be justified by other principles, Aristotle and the requiresa specialprinciple. This justifies the dictum de schoolmen, who recognized as a specialaxiom rather metaomni et nullo againstcertain modern or logicians, have
" 1

It will be noticed that in these formulae

as

meanings :

the sign " has two (and their analogues) elementary copula (in principal implication copula it signifies ; as

the inclusion of classes. brackets)it signifies

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

167

who claim physicians, one principle.

From

to

be able to

reduce

formal

Logic

to

some

the

of the syllogismwe principle

of

can

deduce
in

the fifteen the pre

valid modes misses and

the classical
conclusion
as are

by making syllogism,
certain

the

(such, namely,
conversion

conformable

legitimate to logicallaws, like simple

transformations

from it But we deduce cannot transposition).1 because the four modes : Darapti,Felapton,Bramantip, Fesapo, they draw from universal premisses a particular(and hence

and

conclusion,which, as we existential) be verified directly in This can

have
each

shown,2
one

is

illegitimate.
modes
; for

of

the

example,

in

Bramantip.

From

its

premisses :

(a"b) (a"c)
we

conclude,

in virtue

of the law

of

composition,

which
To

does

not

permit

of the

elimination
:

of the

middle

term

a.

obtain

the so-called

conclusion

"Some

b is c"

we

must

suppose

that

'o

(an

existential

premiss falsely implied in the universal

and then
:

premisses : #"^, a"^c);

(" 'o)(*"":)"(":= 'o).

=

of the by the letter s in the names modes and transformation (Cesare,Camestres, etc.), by the letter k (Baroko, Bokardo}. of Barbara. And to the formula indeed, if we work the transposition according

We

know

that

simple conversion

is indicated

we

obtain

either

(""
of Baroko,
or :

which

is the formula

which
manner,

is the formula for

of Bokardo.

The

ancient

reallyproceeded logicians
as

in the

same

valid

we

they employed ought to be able to

the reductio ad deduce from

one

absurdum

follows

"

If

of its premisses and

"

the

is a syllogism negationof the Bokarfo

conclusion

the negation of the other

premiss. They

thus reduced have

Barotto and

to Barbara by an inverse procedure from that which we without knowing it, the law of transposition. applied,
2

just indicated.

They

sign of

this

is the invalidity

presence deduced

in the from

names

of the four modes

of the

letter /, which

indicates that

they are
is
an

which (conversion per accident],

reason

the

subaltern

modes

which

Barbara by a partial conversion For the same of inference. mode illegitimate it was the five be from deduced could thought
of valid modes
on

universal modes each

in order to carry up the number

to

twenty-four(sixfor
is
an

for they are are figure) invalid, equally of form inference. illegitimate

founded

which subalternation,

168

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

Thus

all the reduced

valid
to

modes

of the of

syllogismcan

be deduced

Barbara, and their enumera tion would be of no interest.1 As to their number, nineteen (or fifteen after correction) it results entirely as given by Aristotle,
or

from

the formula

from

the

verbal

forms

to

which

he

restricted

himself:

for

in the negative (latent example, he admitted negativepredicates but he did not admit negative subjects.2 so-called), propositions resulted from this rules which, though valid in the condi There which tions under are as enunciated,are as arbitrary they were the rule from conditions themselves for that the two example, ; conclusion can be drawn.3 If we free no negativepropositions the ordinary ourselves from the restrictions founded on entirely shall find not fifteen, but 8192 valid modes. forms of language we has shown that all the syllogisms be Mrs. Ladd-Franklin4 can reduced to a single inconsistency," which she calls antilogism,"
" "

but triad

which
" "

is better

known

under formula
"

the
:

names

of

"

inconsistent

or

Ladd-Franklin

i.e.

be true cannot propositions Now this formula can easilybe reduced to : By transposition (ab d)(b'c o)"(^ o) ;
"

These

three

at the

same

time."

that

of Barbara.

the equationsinto implications we by transforming

get
of the

This

is the

formula

of

Barbara

with

the

exception

accents.5

indeed, played a part of too theory of the syllogism, exclusive importance in the classical Logic. There are many which of valid deduction other forms depend not upon the it other principles.Hence but upon of the syllogism principle
The
JThe distinction of the idle absolutely
2

with figures or subtlety. complication

reason

their

specialrules

becomes

still more

an

And

this is the sole deduction.

why
"

the scholastics
a

of immediate

From

all

is b

"

they deduced

as a form contraposition neglected all not-" is not-a," which,

"

It the forms admitted did not figure as normal. having a negativesubject, among and the affirmative universal of the a manner converting was, nevertheless, legitimate conversion (conversion while partial was illegitimate. per accidens] negative, particular
3

if Similarly, i.e. with

m

we

admit

terms,
4

and

negativeterms, we can have not-w, m being the middle term.

art.

valid

with syllogisms

four

Americana, "Symbolic Logic,"in Encyclopaedia Baldwin, Dictionary ofPhilosophy.

Mrs.

Ladd-Franklin,

and

in

Cf.

Keynes, Formal

Logic," 265 ff.

170

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

the finally, inclusion their

two
or

relation

between

these

classes

is

entirelyone
even

of

non-inclusion
must

equality ; there
inverse
one

inclusions.1
kind of terms

copula is cannot be two to propositions itself to the By limiting

and
to

; the

express the enunciate consideration of

of this classical

this

one

kind

relations,

Logic forgotthat thought takes for its objectall sorts of terms, of which the most simple are individuals (concrete objects), and that it perceivesor establishes between them all sorts of diverse and heterogeneousrelations. And this logic of relations is one of the principal Logic. conquests of modern
IV.
THE

LOGIC

OF

RELATIONS.

To

understand notice

the

importance of
the

the

logicof
of

relations it is

sufficient to

that

greater number

relations. There doubt are no positionsexpress without "it thunders," terms (impersonalverbs), e.g. "it rains," and also propositions with one term, or judgments of predication "the child sleeps." But shines," (intransitive verbs), e.g. "the sun of ordinary propositionscontain the greater number two or terms more (transitive verbs), gives e.g. "Paul loves Jean,""Peter Now book all these relations between to etc. a James," express various terms (Paul and Jean, Peter, James and the book). It is a propositionhaving several What, then, is a relation ? since we terms exactly, ought to consider these terms ; or more variables (empty places), which not are as part of the relation, In Paul it is a prepositional function having several variables. loves Jean we can replace Paul and Jean by any other terms : that which remains the
same

ordinary pro propositions

is the
"

relation

loves
, "

or,

more
"

loves loves y" for has the prepositional function : x exactly, unless it is accompanied by a subject and an no sense object. the verb give has no sense unless it has three terms : Similarly, who the one to whom something is given,and gives,the one what is given. be represented Like all functions, a relation can by symbols or analogous to : ""(*", x, y, z represent terms y, z) when But relations having two for binary relations (i.e. variables. when easily read symbol xRy is preferable, terms) the more
x, y

represent the
so-called
two

terms

and

the relation.
:
"

1The

toto-total of Hamilton
"

All

is all b," is nothingmore

: Symbolically

than the

of synthesis

: propositions

All

is b ; all b is a."

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

171

As

with

a functions, prepositional

relation

is true

for certain The

sum-

systems
total
a

of values

of variables

and

false for others. The

:

of

the

first constitutes
may

its extension. follows in each

extension take
a

of

binaryrelation
ruled

be

as represented

sheet

of

paper

for double
the

entry
same

; arrange

one

of the

entries the

in (by preference relation

2 can

be
3

order) all the defined (i.e. has a sense), one

5678
9 10
11

terms

for which

entry corresponding
14 15 16 17 18 19 20

12

13

to

the

value

of

one

variable
To

the (the first), each

other of

to

the

value

of

having two variables is a there corresponding point on the table, the intersection of the lines corresponding to these values (as in the
system
table values of

the

other

(the second).

values

Pythagoras).
verifies the
which (thefigure

Mark

black
:

point for

every of the

system
extension

of

which

relation

the ensemble

pointsso
of
as

marked
the
an

they make) represents the

is called

relation.

It is what
of
a

the matrix. the relation

We
"

will

give
to

example
of

matrix

that

of

prime

each

other"

the

first twenty

whole

numbers.

172

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

A it is

scheme

of this kind

and condenses synoptic ; the combined in pairs; then 400 judgments on the twenty numbers of a relation in a given it represents at sight the disposition almost at ensemble, and permits of our grasping its qualities the matrix sight(with a littleexercise). Thus given above is which shows diagonal,1 symmetrical with regard to its principal itself is that the relation symmetrical." The principal this shows that the relation is of the matrix is diagonal empty ; with identity (does not take place between a term incompatible and this term itself) ; and so on. We understand, thenceforth,that we can study the matrices of instead of the relations themselves,since all the properties
"

extremely useful: figuregiven above resumes

is

in the first place

the

latter

are

reflected in the

former.

This

method,

in

short,

consists of of

the relations by their extension. replacing Schroder. Other logicians to consider the prefer The first method for the calculus and the formal

It is that relations in
more
con

themselves, in their intension.

venient
more

is

treatment, the second

suited for verbal

deals inter

with

meaning
one

and which

is better
we

pretation.
Relations
"

It is the

are (like classes) and inclusion. i.e.equality relations," be defined by means Inclusion can a

here. to use prefer fundamental capable of two

of

: implication

We

say

that it
same

relation in
a

Rl

is contained

in

relation

R2

if each
occurs

time

that

occurs

system
This

of values is written the

the

relation

R^

for the

system.

by again represented

(the inclusion sign ") : 2

of relations

being

Definition

Thus

the inclusion

of relations is

to equivalent

their
as

in Rz is that Rl is contained : to say implication it. say that it implies The equalityof two relations is defined by

the

same

to

means

of two

inclusions

the

relations
one

R^

R2

are

said

to

be

equal if they

mutually

contain

another.

the

is that which diagonal principal entries. axis of the two symmetrical The It must be which noted
we

starts from

the upper

left-hand

corner

it is

that while

the definition is that the

formula

by

translate it assumes

to any applicable relation is binary.

the relations,

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

173

Definition
be

The

sum logical

and

product
:

of

two

relations

can

defined

by

the

followingformulae

x(Rl x R"=jety(xRly)(*Rty).
Definition
any
two
x
"

To

say

that

the

relation

R^
of

R%

exists exists

between between

terms

x, yy

is to

say

that each

them

the said

and

y." l

Definition between

"

To
two

say
terms

that

the

relation
say

Rl

and
one
or

R2
the

exists

any

x, y, is to
x

that

other

exists between
The

the said

and

y."

negationof

relations may

also be defined

Definition
two terms

"

To

say is to

that the relation not-R

say
3

exists between
R

any exist

x, y,

that

the

relation

does

not

between Thus
to

the

two

terms."

the three

operationsapply to logical

relations

of and to classes, and all the formulae propositions calculus hold good for them also. But in addition of specialoperations. as relations, susceptible, First of

they do the logical

as

they

are

all, an conversion,
one

operation analogous R)
is the

to

negation,
converse

in that
of
a

it transforms

relation into another. relation been

The which
:

relation the

(Rc
same

or

converted

exists

between

terms

after

they

have

inverted

Definition

"

To

say

that the relation Rc

say

exists

between between

and y
y and

(in this order) is to 4 x (in this order)."

Conversion It is
the has the uniform, i.e. of

that the relation R

exists

properties analogous with

converse
converse

converse

the

negation. of a given relation is unique. And reproduces the original relation :

"

those

of

*e.g. "x ofy." *e.g. ",v ofy."

3

is the father and

master

of }"'' =

is father of y, and

JT

is the master

is the father

or

master

of ^ "=".*"

is the father of y

or

is the master

The

relation not-R
R

is true in all the Its matrix

cases

in which from

is false, and

false in all the

cases

where

is

true.

is deduced
all the
;

that of R

by substituting empty
mother) is
round its

for and points places for all the points

empty
converse

places.
of parent (father or is to turn the matrix

the *e.g. child (son

or

converse

of larger is smaller The

the

etc. daughter), principal diagonal.

effect of conversion

174

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

(thelaw of double conversion analogous to the law of double negation). But the most in the calculus of relations importantoperation is that of relative multiplication be confounded not (which must with logical If there exist together two rela multiplication).
=

tions,Rv Ry such
extreme terms #, s,

that

xR^y,yR^,
of the

i.e.that the second

exists

term

of the

the first is the first term

a

second, there

between

relation is

Ry

which

is the relative
*

product

of

Rl

and

Ry

and

which

represented by RI

R^.
the father of father is the It will be

Definition the father

This
is the
son

logical operationis well known of grandfather ; the brother

of the uncle is the cousin

the

uncle ; the noticed

; etc.

of relatives) is multiplication (superposition translated in speech by the preposition and that the generally of, most relative products have received special frequently recurring
names.

that relative

Relative

is multiplication the

not

commutative
or

; thus

the

father

of the brother is not uncle of the

son

uncle,but the father

step-father ; the
or

is not

the cousin, but the brother

brother-in-

does not hold good for the law of tautology Similarly, father of the father is not relative multiplication the ; the but the grandfather. This operation, father, therefore, generates

law, etc.

powers

R We need

R*; R2

R3, and

so

on.1

operationto some for it does not degree symmetrical with relative multiplication, correspond with any intuitive and usual combination, and plays a purely algorithmicrole. Relations are distinguished by the properties they possess with regard to the operationsdefined above. For example : A relation R is said to be symmetrical if, it arises directly between and y, it also arises between y and x (the terms two x inverse order) ; this is written :
not

define relative

an addition,

xRy",t,yRx.
We have
at evidently

the

same

time

and
1

consequently:
It is impossible to make
not
a

xRy"ryyRx.
mistake
as
:

to

the
x

meaning

of these powers,
=

for

logical

does multiplication

engender powers

R"R

and father (father

father).

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

175

Then,

in virtue of the definition of

conversion,

And

the

condition

enunciated

is

to equivalent
or

xRy
Thus
a

^yxRcy,
is
a

RC.
is

symmetrical relation
relation R
x

relation which

equal
as

to

its

converse.1
A is said
to

be y

transitive if, as and

z, it also

soon

it arises
x

between
and
z

and

y, and from

between
x

arises between

(itpasses
:

to

through the intermediate

y)

; this is

written

Now,
therefore,
Thus power the

xRy xyRz=^

2xR2z,
or

xRzz"^zxRz,
transitive relation is
a

relation

of

which

the

second

the relation itself. (the square)is contained in (or implies) is symmetrical and transitive ; the relation of equality The transitive ; the is symmetrical but not relation of non-equality than transitive but relations not are larger than, smaller the converse (Fr. converse) of one symmetrical (they are

another). The relations father,son, uncle, nephew are neither is symmetrical nor transitive. The relation brother (or sister) be true of the would The same symmetrical and transitive. friends of relation friend if we could believe the saying, The
"

our

friends

are

in their

turn

our

friends."

But
a

the

relation

to

love is not

symmetrical;
in
are

it is

possibleto
so on.

love
see

person of

without
"

being loved importance

And in the

return

and

We

what

real

"

these of

it is in virtue

propertiesof the diverse relations. these properties that they can be handled
formal

calculus. logical
are

There

two

relations
to

which that

this calculus, analogous calculus of

play an exceptionalpart in played by o and by I in the

and of classes ; they are those of identity propositions of diversity and (or better,otherness,Fr. alterite). Identityis the relation which exists between and itself, and term every If we in no other case. indicate it by /, we have :
*
or

/=.. change when

it is revolved round its

It results from

this that the matrix

does

not

in respect of this principal diagonal ; that is to say, it is itselfsymmetrical

M

diagonal.

176

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

Or

: expresseddifferently

(*=y}"(xfy =!),(*
This is the is to
as a

""(*/?

o).1

relation is the modulus of arithmetical

not
:

modulus
say, it does

change
I=R, xRy
x

multiplication (as i and logical that multiplication), relative product when it enters
/
=

of relative

factor.

Thus
R

and

R,

for

yly

xRy,

negation of identityis diversityor otherness, represented and hence equal to by r. These two relations are symmetrical, is transitive, their converse.2 but otherness is not so.a Identity A relation R when is reflexive it exists between any term
whatever and itself; that is
to

The

say, if we

have

xRx=.t.i.
This condition
may

be

expressed as

follows

"

If

is identical with y, x stands to y in the relation R." and we that a reflexive Thus it is equivalent to : 7"^, see
is
a

relation

relation which

contains

it).4For
reflexive it
can

example,
relation. between

mathematical it does
terms not

But

identity (or is implied by and logicalequality is a for coincide with identity,

differ from
one

exist

which

another

(i.e. are
A

but It "contains" identity, non-identical). symmetrical and transitive relation is also

is not

goes beyond it. reflexive if its

extension

null.

Indeed have also

if

we

have And

xRy, the relation

since

we being symmetrical,

yRx.

the

relation
to

is

we transitive,

can

from

xRy
be

and

yRx

deduce

xRx, that is
each

say, it is reflexive. A relation is said to there

1

uniform

when

to

antecedent

correspondsa singleconsequent (but a singleconsequent

matrix of this relation contains all the of points the and diagonal principal
no

The

others.
2

The

matrix

of /' contains all the

are

on points

the table,except those of the

principal
conclude

which diagonal,
3

all empty. than y and y other than z,

we

From
x

the

that
4

is other than z, for will be

knowledge that x is other z might be x.

admitted
at

cannot

This

sight,for

its matrix

contains

all the

pointsof

the

diagonal. principal

178
and
an

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

transitive relation R

between

the

objects x, y,

; we

imagine
:

entityt to which they each stand in the the relation xSt, ySt, zSt. Consequently, these is composed of the relation 6" and of

uniform between its

converse.

relation S any
two

of

This 5 and

is

expressed when
Sc.

we

say

that R

is the relative

product of

appliedin the of abstraction is very frequently principle and physicalsciences, in order to define certain mathematical the electric the mass, measurable: "magnitudes" not directly In a word, it permits us to reduce every sym etc. potential, abstract metrical and transitive relation to the equation of an element (often itself imperceptible). It is thus that the of straight lines becomes, in geometry, the identity parallelism of their direction (or of their point at infinity) ; the equivalence and of sense of length, be reduced of vectors to identity can it is that the relation of This etc. explains how direction, in Mathe equalityis preponderant and almost the only one matics. Every symmetrical and transitive relation is there and abstract kind of equation, i.e.to a partial reduced to some identity. of implicit explainsthe frequencyin Mathematics This,again, Here is the type : given definitions or definitions by abstraction.
This
a

and symmetrical "It

transitive relation that aRb? been

"

R,

function

is defined "f)
or

by saying:
This
not

is assumed
we

"^a ^"bby

convention

by

definition whenever form

have

of definition has

and criticized,

being a
no

veritable shows

for this convention definition, the function

even

as rightly, of language

in

way

what

fy is (itis

not

defined

in

or itself, only in its equality)

if it exists.

"

it has been proposedto say : Partlyto evade this reproach, thus defined exists ; it is nothing other than The entity (j) themselves." is equal to one that class of things which among element is defined as the common For example, cardinal number of equivalent classes.1 If it is then asked : What is a cardinal is : It is the class of classes equivalent itself? the answer number three themselves. For example, the number to any one among all equivalent is the class of themselves,and so triads," among
" " "

xTwo

classes

are

said

to

be

equivalentwhen

bi-uniform

relation

can

be

established between

all their elements.

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

179

on.

It is difficult not For in what

are

to

see

in

this method

kind

of

vicious because

circle.
each that
one

the

triads number

equivalentif
three ?

it is not

of them

bears the
be several

And

is it necessary
to

there should
them However

triads in order to be able

of the number

extract ?

from

by abstraction
this may

the idea

three
are

very the

imperfector object defined

the them in

be, definitions by abstraction for they do incomplete definitions,

nor

evidently
determine

not

do

they

in any

way

prove has

its existence. been

Also
of

frequentuse

(not to

say

abuse) which

made

(while conducing to the belief that has con entities can be created simply by a verbal convention) mathematicians and then tributed littleto spread first among no which the kind of nominalism exaggerates philosophers among and indirectly and arbitrary, the part played by the conventional favours fashionable those scepticaltendencies to-day under the of pragmatism, name We have alreadyhad occasion to notice the analogy which
Mathematics
exists

between

concepts and
reduced
in the
a

which relations,

indeed

results

from
con

their definitions

functions). Now (asprepositional logicalcalculus

of the
to
can

just as
the class

cept

can

be

which
to

constitutes

its

extension, so

relation (binary)

be reduced

its extension, which

for it, the
a

is the ensemble

couples which
the
two

verify
of
are

relation

impliesanother
in that
are

relation

when

extension
relations

first is contained when

of the

second, and
identical.

equal
may

their extensions that the calculus the classes of

This of

On

this

point
but

we

remark

of relations

re-enters

into

that of
a

since classes,

couples are,
point of
we

in

short, nothing
from

speciesof
treated

classes.

is the

view

which
to

Schroder discuss
it

the calculus

relations ;
to

will the

not

stop

further here, but will

we

proceed
to

show

transition

by which

pass A

from

relations is
a

concepts.

prepositionalfunction having two (or ") variables ; a concept is a prepositional function having one We variable. to be able to transform a relation ought, therefore, into a concept by suppressing one This is i variables. or n indeed what takes place. Let the relation be : is the father x of y" If for the variable y an is substituted indeterminate term
"

relation

"

we

obtain

"

is father the

of

"

someone

or

simply
relation is the

"

x
"

is father."

By
has

reduction become

to

only variable
"

x,

the

father

of

"

the

concept

father."
"

This

concepts, which

might be called

relative

origin of many concepts!' In treating

i8o

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

these

concepts their originmust

them

not

be

or forgotten,

we

shall

confound
or

with absolute concepts, which express the qualities intrinsic attributes of the object of certain : this is the source

Greek
a

sophisms (forexample, from

"

is

father and Such

possesses

dog" it is deduced that % is the father of a dog). must or as always be considered as incomplete,
latent and variable,
some

concepts

for

"

father

"

we

must

containinga substitute mentally:

of
a

"

father of
a

one."
not

Moreover, this transformation

relation

and it sometimes always possible, yields result. For example, we cannot an insignificant say with any is equal or Common would is similar." : sense % x sense immediately ask : to what ? We how functions relations give birth to logical too see x has only one : (non-propositional). Just as the proposition defines the concept of one-eyed (borgne\ the proposition so : eye it expresses "x begoty" defines the concept of father. In reality, into

concept is
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

a a

relation between
"

and y
of

but this relation is transformed

an

into
or a
"

y" which becomes Similarly,x and y are born property of x. defines the relation of fraternity which can
"

function, father

attribute
same

of the

parents
"

be transformed of

into

the function of

brother

of \

"

is the brother
a

j."
:

Now defines
"

brother
a

y" (where y is determined)is

of brothers
of y.

concept and
the relation

class,

the ensemble

Thus

.r-is-brother-

of-j/" is translated

by a judgment of predication:"x is a brother of y brother of y" i.e.belongs to the class ; for the formula xRy the formula x" ($y) is substituted. Such is the form of speech) by which the classical artifice (founded on a logicattempted to reduce judgments of relation to judgments of
" "

predication.1
V.

METHODOLOGY.
we

regrettedthat and regarded everything,

Pascal the human reasonable. mind. Modern

cannot

define

and

demonstrate

this

They do not content proving everything ; they are and minimum, complete enumeration
the
1

of as an infirmity impossibility more are modest, or more logicians aspire to definingeverything and with
exact

the reduction formulation

to

the all

of

indefinable
It is

notions

and

the

indemonstrable
that
an

propositions.
function implicit
o we

by

an

transformed

into

analogous proceedingin function ; from an explicit

;
x

mathematics
"

is

relation"

4" (x,y) =

extract

(when

"function" a possible)

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

181

And the

this in itself is chimerical ideal

no

easy

task,without
are

attempting

to

pursue

of Pascal.
two to

and Definition
to

demonstration
one

proceedings analogous
indefinable

reduction,
of

the

of

notions

notions,
stop

the

other very

to indemonstrable propositions

propositions. And
reduction
as

it is
at

necessary

that

this

process

of

should for

certain

elements
it could vicious
now

primary, or
be

considered
all without

such,
in

if, by any
we

chance,
have We
two
a

applied to
either
to

exception
the

should

circle

in in

or definiendo

demonstrando. rules of these

will

proceed
to

give

their order

operations.
If
we
are

believe

the writers

logical equation of which while the second defined,

defined but
too
or

is a a Logistics definition is the symbol to be the first member is composed of symbols already member
on

admitted

to

be indefinable.1
it considers
as a

This

conception is exact
members of of

nominalistic
as

; for
or

the

two

the

definition conduces

symbols
the pure view

combination

symbols

which

to
a

that

logicalreasoning (and
rules. What
we

all deductive

is science)

play of symbols manipulated and interchanged

ought
a

accordingto
the less this second

conventional
has
a

to

say

is that
more
or

member and
to

meaning, represents
constitutes

notion is to

complex, meaning

that the the

effect of the definition the

attribute

symbol which

first member

(and which, by hypothesis,does not one). A yet possess then, is at the least the attribution of a meaning to a definition, But this a symbol or the imposition of a name concept. upon
formal and conventional of
a

act

is not

the

most

essential

one

the

important part
tion of the

definition

is the

composition and
A

constitu
; the

concept
a

represented by the second

is

member

imposition of
is

name

only an

accessory.

then, definition,

the construction of a notion. It will be understood essentially that only those notions defined which are are useful, practically i.e. which from the figure frequently in reasonings. But nominalist point of view a new symbol is only adopted to of symbols which, form an ensemble represent in an abbreviated would become recurring frequently, embarrassing and tiresome
*

without that
the

one.

This
to
the

means,

from

the
forms

point of view, conceptualist

a

notion

be

defined
the

stable

and

permanent
the second the

will call definant

first member

definiend

(Fr. MJini) and

from

to distinguish them (Fr. dtfinissant]

better

which definition,

is the

equation of

both.

i82

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

combination
to

which

occurs

give rise to the from the definitions, of names, but they

ideas.
an new a

wish formal
are

in reasonings sufficiently frequently Thus to give it a name. logical of indeed definitions are point view,

also, at the
very

For

the rest, it matters

time, definitions oflittle if it is a question of

same

idea

antecedentlyformed
is constituted

which

is

or being analysed,

of

idea which

by

the definition itself. which in This

This
no

is

psychologicalor
character

historical of the

consideration

way

logical operation. of two which acts ; a synthesis creates always and definitively the notion, and defines it by reducing an analysiswhich it to other notions alreadyknown. We have said that a definition is a logical but this equation, is not altogether have defined A logical exact. as we equation,
consists is it,
a

affects the

relation between
own

two

terms
a

or

members,
an

each

of which

has its

while signification, between has

a

definition is has confer

no

is assumed member

term

which
to

equationwhich meaning and a

the first the
a
a

which

one,

in order An

upon

meaning of the and proposition

convention

second.

equation, strictly speaking,is

false ; but false.1 nor
a

be true or may which is neither true

definition

is

Without

insisting

has often been character of definition which arbitrary exaggerated (for it is very much restricted by methodological that definitions are and we considerations), practical say may and do not pretend to give free (in so far as they are nominal of an idea already the sense of a word or already known from the logical admitted) and consequently, point of view, not to dispute. But the convention once posited it becomes open that is to say, we consider must to a logical equivalent equation, its two members and treat as equal. A definition is not a truth and yet, once for admitted, it must be regarded as a truth, be self-contradictory it would to deny or change it. It is, then, as logical equationsthat definitions appear and function in reasonings and, however different they may be from them from nothing distinguishes equationsby nature and origin, these as premisses or hypotheses. For what is the characteristic upon the
" "

guiltyof

should be we pointof view, if the definition were a true equation in the i.e. b} (a defining writing: equation, ; for this sign of the sign But in reality be to define the sign that would by means from the sign of is equivocal here : the signof a definition ought to be distinguished Df. ; and it ought to be enunciated for example like this : (and is,in an equation,
1

From

the formal

vicious circle in

fact, so enunciated) equalby definition."

"

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

183

mark

of

an

equation
is also

in

deduction

It

is

the

of possibility

one substituting

of its members the

for another

in another of

proposi
:

tion.

This

role and

the

use

definitions

they

permitus to the or (definissant)

if we
want to

substitute either the definiend

definant
a

for the definant (defini) In

for the definiend.

general terms,,

concerning a certain term we proposition make substitute its definant in order to analyse it and must the content, but, after various permitted transformations,, explicit re-constitute the definant (definissant) (a combination we more for it the definiend in substitute less complex) and we or finally be demonstrated. which to order the proposition was to obtain
prove of demonstration : for, then, is an essential element Definition, establish whatever how to about can we anything hope indeed, of its a meaning, of its con by taking account term, if not is furnished Now this content ceptual content? by the to attribute to a definition and by it alone, for it is forbidden in its definition, notion which does not figure i.e.in any element

its construction.1
From

the

above

we

get the

followingconsequence,
propositionsof
notions upon
a

para

that doxical,but yet evident,i.e.

in the refer, it
was

all the

theory
which

last

instance, to

the indefinable

built up. And, indeed, all other notions are of these notions, which their last analysis, by means indefinable definiend
ones

defined,in
are

the

only

hence,
were

if the

precept

of

for every substituting

its definant
enunciations become

tions,the
as

they would
A

to all proposi applied regressively of propositions complicated (prodigiously if this were done) would contain nothing

except

indefinable definition

notions.

usuallyhas a concept as its object,in which must case we guard against the belief that it impliesthe exist of the correspondingclass,i.e.the (logical) existence of an ence In order to evoke this object correspondingto the concept. existence must either prove it or posit it explicitly.And we
since
resort

every

theorem another

of

existence

is demonstrated

in

the

last

all existential judgments existence, in the last instance, to postulatesof existence. amount, A definition may also have for its object an but individual, individual defined by means of general terms, i.e.as a class ; an
1

by

assumed

From

this

springsthe

classical methodical
or,
as

definant

for the definiend

it is usually expressed, replaceeach

: substitute everywhere the principle term by its.

definition.

184

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

there may, definition. existence

be several individuals answeringto the therefore, We of the

must

same

then

prove

not (or postulate)

only

the

but also the uniqueness of the defined class, individual ; in other words, we must prove that the class defined and also that it contains at most contains at least one individual,
one.

This

last demonstration individuals

is

that,if two

respond to

generallyeffected by proving the definition, they are neces

that
we

identical}- Moreover, it is thus sarily is singular. (thedefined class) It in

now

prove

that

class

remains

to

ask

What

is demonstration

It consists

or deducing from givenpremisses hypothesesthe consequences which conclusions or they formallyimply in virtue of the laws the algorithmical of Logic. From point of view it consists in of transforma passing from premissesto conclusions by means be no There tions permittedby the laws of the calculus. can and correct must demonstration ; we logical except at this price laws : take a single not by the logical step which is not justified be rigorously intuition evidence must all recourse to to or excluded. And this rule holds good equally of mathematical demonstration. as demonstration, which is the same logical laws which that the logical are It is important to note do not transition or transformation involved at each play the and must not figureas such in the calculus. part of premisses, They furnish the formula or type for every elementarydeduction, constitutive element. in them but they must not as a appear for example, is the type of all syllo of syllogism, The principle such be the premiss of any, otherwise gisms, but it cannot should would have three premisses we ; in that case syllogisms these three-premissed another formula to justify want syllogisms, and so on to and this formula would constitute a fourth premiss, infinity. there generally Amongst the premisses of the deduction notions the definitions of the principal have said, as we figure, which form the subjectof the argument, and also propositions of the theory (mathematical, relative to the subject-matter then,the laws of Logic ever play economical,etc.).If, physical, of logical it can the part of premisses, only be in demonstrations in it sometimes laws figure science ; and the fact that the same with explains, as premissesand sometimes as rules of deduction, have called attention. the confusion to which we out justifying,
" "

"

"

See in

chap. iii.the

definition of the

of identity

individuals.

186

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

Thus
are

all the contained

scientific and within

its

objectivecontents

of

theory
or

first notions, and

in its axioms

it has been supposed that these latter are postulates. Hence the fundamental to be regarded as notions,since they defining be formallydefined (i.e. cannot by nominal definitions) ; and it that we sometimes is in this sense speak of definition by is kinoTof But for this this incorrect, "ostuLal"s~ expression is really which are notions definition to applied indefinable. is There be in no must one we very importantfact on which doubt, and that is that for any given deductive theory there is
"
"

not

any

one

system

of fundamental

notions
are

nor

any

one

system

of fundamental

propositions ; there
which it is The the theorems.
if
we

several generally

equally
deduce

i.e. from possible, all correctly

on

equally possible to
two

systems, of

course,

depend

one one

another, and
of

even

them,

we

shall

notions,or change the fundamental be obligedto change the axioms, for

Hence
a

these double

are

relative

to

the. notions.

the

choice
extent
a

of

this

system
from

is not

: optional

the if one

but to arbitrary logicalpoint of

certain view

free and
matter

it is

of it
for

and indifference,
is either
on

system appears
reasons

account

of

of

to another preferable convenience and facility or

of order that we will discuss later. This reasons quasi-aesthetic because it shows that there are in them fact is very important, indemonstrable notions nor selves no undefinable propositions ; and certain to so a order, adopted relatively they they are only is another order be such if rate to cease partly) adopted. (at any This destroys the traditional conception of fundamental ideas and fundamental truths, fundamental, that is to say, absolutely and essentially. the metaphysical or epistemological im It also diminishes sometimes are tempted to attribute to one portance that we doubt there No particular system of data above all others. in must always be a system, but a system is not determined and depends (partly) the choice of the of things, the nature on that a theory in its We demonstrator. certainly say may of reality), but we is true (in any domain ensemble cannot say in such and such axioms to the that its truth resides essentially whether of all others, because it depends on exclusion us any theorem theorem and be taken axiom as a particular any particular the order which we as an axiom, according to adopt in our is indeed The deductions. truth of the ensemble something

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

187

objective ; but the positionis an axiom

which

deductive

order, according
a

to

which

this pro

and
our

that

theorem,
and

is
our

depends

on our

methods

something subjective our procedure, on

seems

preference and
illustration
to

convenience, and

which

almost is

an

of the human of the infirmity

mind.
would
see

One

tempted

believe

that

more

powerful mind
entire

the intuitively

simultaneous axioms

truth of the

theory,without
consequences, of all the whole truth

distinguishing

and

and theorems, principles

merely by
propositions.
had the

recognisingthe
It
of
seems
a as

interlacement reciprocal
the of

though

objectiveand
a

form

vicious

in which discursive successive

has no end and complex net which everythingmutually implies everythingelse. It is our truths a linear and reason which, imposing on partial
or circle,

concatenation,

breaks

the

circle

or

the

net

and

less arbitrarily, or a them, more imposes upon beginning or a can we (to a certain point of departure. This explains how extent) start from any point we like and take any propositions
we

like

as

axioms

or

postulates.
we

Nevertheless, as
of fundamental

have

said, we

are

guided

in

our us

choice
see

data

reasons. by quasi-aesthetic

Let

in

what
to

these consist.

For

our

fundamental
are as means

notions, it

is natural

prefera system
no one can as a a

where
can

these

all
a

independentof one
function
of
can

another,
; for
no

i.e.where
if notion

be

defined

of the others

be

defined

by

others be

it is

longer
The
of is to

necessary

primary notion, and

to

suppressed.
the
number

ideal

evidentlyis

reduce

to

minimum

primary notions be preferredin

How
can

and, other things being equal,that system

which
we

this number
prove

is the the

smallest.

that

independent
system
able that
to
we

of

one

another, or
sufficient
one

It is not any
not

to

all are primary notions that they form irreducible an allege that we have not been
a

define
do

of the

them
means we

as

function

of

the

others, or
proves

see

of

doing

so

; for

that The

nothing.
notions, not
axioms
sorts
or

This

is the

method and bind

must

employ.
can together, are

being defined, which postulates

only being
them

characterised

primary by the
all

receive

of

as interpretations long as

the latter

compatiblewith
we

these

axioms, i.e.verifythem.

This

being

so,

prove

that

find two primary notion is independent of the others if we can (both compatible with the system of axioms) interpretations which only differ in the meaning attributed to this primary

88

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

notion notion

for then
not

it will

be

proved
the

that

the

meaning

of

this

meaning of the others (by of the axioms which unite them). This demonstration means be repeatedseparately must for each one of the primary notions, and if we succeed in effecting shall have established it for all we the irreducibility of the system. it is evidently desirable that the system of primary Similarly, should be irreducible, i.e. that no one of them should propositions
can

be deduced

from

be deducible demonstrate sufficient to axiom

so :

from it and
say

the

for otherwise others,

to

we

should

be able to
not
one

hence
we

suppress
not

it. been
see one

Here, too, it is
able the
to
means

that

have
we

deduce
of

from

the

that or others,

do not
is

doing

proves that an proving find that then

that

of means nothing. only axiom is independent of all the others : it is to such an interpretation (from the system of primary notions) it verifies all the axioms For one. except this particular it will be proved that this axiom does not follow as a There
consequence

known

necessary

from

the

others.

This

demonstration

for each one of the axioms, and repeatedseparately if we it for all, succeed in effecting shall have established the we of the system of axioms. irreducibility is another There qualityin a system of axioms which we often neglect but which is essential, i.e. the consistency to verify is often themselves of the axioms or compatibility (this among
to

ought

be

called
tent

"

because non-contradiction,"

if the

axioms

were

inconsis

the

Here i.e. to

negationof one of them would be impliedby the others). again there is only one way to prove this consistency, find an interpretation which verifies (ofthe primary notions)
cannot

all the axioms.1

deny that,from the philosophical point of view, and the the methods the consistency employed to demonstrate and notions are of the primary axioms frankly irreducibility in find character and We intuition. to an empirical appeal ensemble which can be subsumed i.e. of objects an interpretation, the primary notions,and under we confirm, by intuition and We the fact that they verify such and such axioms. experience, whatever submit these objects, be, to a kind of they may admit their ideal or imaginary experimentation. Moreover, we
We
1

It is in

the reality

same

procedureas

that for

of an the irreducibility demonstrating

axiom axioms

to others ; what

of these other is the consistency we prove, in this latter case of the axiom in question. with the negation

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

189

"existence"

and but real), (non-logical

we

assume

that these

ex

istingobjectscannot
answer

be

for it, that these latent manner,

in
our

some

or illogical.But who will contradictory imaginary beings are not impossible to to our or intelligence impenetrable
" "

science,like the phoenix

guarantee
that

or

the

chimera

Above

who all,

is conformable with Logic, and that reality violate of its one even existing beings do not surreptitiously laws ? We that the logicalmethods see employed so lightquite unexpectedlysuggest or point heartedly by mathematicians to metaphysicalproblems of a certain gravity. will

VI.

LOGIC

AND

LANGUAGE.

It will

not

fail to

have

struck

the reader
at

of the

preceding
of it

paragraphs that
a

theories logical

suggest

each

step remarks

grammatical nature.

And

this is

natural,for,to put

briefly,

language is but the vulgar and imperfectthough the most usual expression of the thought of which Logic seeks to determine the laws. Nevertheless, the relations between. Logic and language have been generally neglectedby philosopher. If we are to be guided by their scholastic programmes, they are occupiedat most with sole question,i.e.the origin of language. This one pre occupation corresponds to an absolutelyfalse and superannuated conception of Philosophy, accordingto which the object of the latter is the beginning and the end of things." Such questions (in so far as they are at all soluble) evidentlybelong to the and scientific and historical methods have nothing reallyphilo sophical about them (unless by a confusion of ideas springing from the ambiguity of the word principium, "principle" is identified with beginning). It is equally childish to conceive the relations between Logic and language as do certain nominalists
"

who

maintain and

that
who

Logic
do
not

is based
even are

on entirely

the

forms

of

language
absurd The

shrink
as

from

the

extreme

and

conclusion
true

that there

many and

relation

between
"

indicated by Leibniz perfectly

of the human would

Logic Languages

logicsas languages. language has been

are

the

best mirror

words

tions of the
numerous
1 2

of analysisof the signification reveal to us, better than any thing else,the opera And his manuscripts he left among understanding."1
an

mind,

and

exact

attempts
Nouveaux See

at

of logical analysis

the forms

of

language.2

Essais, iii.vii. end. Opuscules et fragments intcHts de Leibniz, edn. Couturat.

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

and strictly positive philo has been almost entirely sophical, neglectedsince his time. On the other hand, philologists too preoccupied with are generally the material and physiological and part of language (phonetics), when even they study its intellectual side (in Semantics or the Science of meaning),they are inclined to dwell on the more or less bizarre and illogical abound (which certainly particularities and jump to the eye) rather than to disengage the general features which the to manifest, in spite of all appearances and contrary, that there is a latent logic in the formation evolution of our languages. Philology is too exclusively historical and descriptive, much in subjection too to particular facts ; it regards all attempts at appreciation and is as heresy, lack the logical to all theory.1 Philologists even averse spirit and critical does fear not to criticise which, essentially normative^ and com it with its aim, i.e.the exact language by confronting pleteexpressionof thought. Words are signs for our ideas; they are signs like other but more convenient than others, because they are at once signs, oral and graphic, visible and audible ; but stillthey have to satisfy the conditions which all signs. The first of these con govern ditions evidently is that there should be a univocal correspondence between the sign and the idea signified ; for every idea a single of sign and for every sign a singleidea. This is the principle by Ostwald. brought to light principally univocity^ little more This principle is so evident that it seems than a But its bearing becomes hackneyed truism. apparent directly of our we languages. Every apply it to the critical analysis and once notion ought to be expressed in language once only would counsel this, if Logic did not). Now even (mere economy the notion of plural is repeated five times in the following phrase : Les bons enfants sont obeissants ; four times by the and and the adjectives, the noun, once plural of the article, the notion of Similarly again in the pluralform of the verb. feminine is expressed four times in the followingphrase : in the idea of mother bonne Une est diligente ; once mere and three times more in the itself (which ought to be sufficient), is the adjectives.Again the notion of article and person
at research,
once
" "

But

this branch

of

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

This

idolatrous

respect for facts goes

the dialect

so

that they far,with certain philologists, of any

a

and actually normal.

declare definitely of apotheosis

place to particular

be

good and

It is the

usage erected into

and single norm. sovereign

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

191

by the pronoun always expressed twice in our languages,once second and time a by the form (or noun) which is the subject, of the verb. And here we lighton the origin of these pleo of our evolution it resides in the nasms : languages which the analytic. to proceeds (speaking roughly)from the synthetic Ancient languages,such as Latin, did not employ the subjectpronoun form the forms with the verb
:

the

person

was

indicated
a

by

the

verbal
to

itself (which had

already absorbed
endings:
the person
;;zz, si, ti
.

pronoun,

witness

primitive Greek
weakened
to
was

and

gradually became
more same

.). As these confused, it was

a

verbal felt

necessary pronoun of the

indicate

and precisely,

added, while, at the

were

separate time, the personal forms

case-endings tended preserved.1 Similarly, at one period (to a certain degree) to replace prepositions and came from older agglutinated themselves, prepositions. But
verb

their

why even employed prepositions,

requirethem.
The

meaning gradually became classical in the epoch

idea
was

confused
the with Latin

and of
cases

faded, and
which

this is

ordinary speech
did
not

the

expressed twice.
the
are

endings have
the

nearlydisappearedfrom
of

daughters

Latin, and

Nowadays caselanguages, replaced (advantageously) by

Romance
a

evolution. logical All this perfectly explainsthe pleonasms which encumber them from the logical our languages,but does not justify point of view. and unconscious that the we see Moreover, popular which the evolution of our over logic presides languages tends
to

This prepositions.2

is the final result of

double uses progressively scious logic,therefore, would only evolution if it suppressed them from inverse phenomenon, but By an interior logic,our languages tend to
express certain ideas which lack

eliminate

and be
now

Con superfluities. natural anticipating onwards.

virtue of

in

the

same

create

specialwords
expression.

to

proper

For

example, interrogation has, in our languages, no proper expression (such as have negation, doubt, etc.), except the
inversion of the which subject, proceeding. This is why many
or

is

an

inconvenient

and

insecure

languages have

forged special
this
has

words
1

locutions

to

give specialexpression to
which
mi

idea ; for

It is

French
1

reduplicative phenomenon analogous to that htu hodie) and in vulgar French: aujotircT (hm
a
=

engendered in hui ! jour d* aujourd*

d lui." The form

Except in
"

certain cases, e.g. becomes

"

Je

lui donne"

41

hii

is a dative which

useless

with the
N

"Je donne a. preposition

and

192

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

example, the English do (they no longer say, dream I ? but, do I dream ? "), the Danish the French est-ce que. And mon, in vulgar French has a interrogative particle very convenient made its appearance : ti,e.g. je sais-ti ? fai-ti couru ? (taken, by analogy,from the third person, est-il venu P).1 Thus the immanent tends logicof our languagesceaselessly of univocity to apply the principle at least of approximating or and tradition, But it is constantlyimpeded by custom to it. i.e.by the secular products of evolution which every language those most bears within it. Our modern even languages, highly evolved, carry profound traces of prehistoric (and prelogical) and they will only disengage themselves from these mentality, artificial very slowly and very incompletely. It is only in an language that we can wipe out the past ; only there could we of univocity, and hope to apply in all its rigour the principle realise the desiderata of Logic. Few people have an idea to such a language could be reduced, what a degree of simplicity and even while at the same time it would provideas adequately, than do our traditional languages, all the elements necessary more and precise of thought.2 for the exact expression should of univocity It goes without saying that the principle but also to the be applied not only to grammatical inflexions, to particles (prepositions meaning of separate words, especially and realise the clearness and conjunctions).Few precision had characterise a language in which each particle which would definite meaning, and one a only,whereas in all our perfectly has a crowd of meanings and different languages every particle use." by capriceand solely uses, determined when But it is above all in derivation, it ought to be applied that the principle with the most of univocityis most rigour, or logical constantlyviolated.3 In principle nothing is more
" " ^ "

"

more

convenient

than

the
to
are

system
roots

of

derivation

of the

Indonotions certain

European prefixes
constant

languages;
and and suffixes

expressing
which

certain
express

added

well-defined

relations,the
93 ff.

Atrides

are

the

See For

in Language^ p. Progress Jespersen,

and logical example, it is perfectly but also in the not only in the indicative, to those comparable and superior resources
2 3

to have the three tenses very convenient infinitive and the participle ; this gives

of ancient dans la

Greek.

See

Couturat, J"tude

sur

la derivation

langue

internationale

(Paris:

Delagrave, 1910).

194

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

passes
veuve,

easilyfrom (une) belle ', (une)

very
roots

one

class

to

another

avare,

aveugle,

blonde ', etc.

On

the

other
:

verbal

form

class

distinct essentially words

can

hand, the dormir, parler,

into

aimer. courir, substantives

:

It is true

these

be

transformed

such but sub sommeil, parole, course, amour, the fact "?/" stantives simply express etc.,they sleeping, speaking,

object(of a concept), strippedof the element of assertion which the verb implies. which some They are, in fact, equivalent to the infinitive languages substantify directly(das Rennen, das Sprechen,le le boire, le dormir). manger, and We thus led to distinguish between immediate are derivation : the latter is effected by means mediate of affixes when affix or no derivation, (prefixes suffixes).In immediate its meaning (invirtue of the principle appears, the root preserves sub of univocity) this is why an a adjectivebecomes ; and stantive of the same meaning ; and the verb also engenders meaning, i.e.expressing immediately a substantive of the same the verbal idea itself (to love, love ; to esteem, esteem ; to of an be derived walk, walk). But the name object cannot of an from a verb, nor verb from the name a directly object; is for notions. This this evident, they are heterogeneous is confirmed by the comparative study of logical consequence which derived our are languages; they all possess participles suffix. Now of some what is a from the verbal root by means derived from a verb, and this noun participle? It is a noun in the in the active the subjectdoing the action, and signifies Le mendiant I'homme the objectwhich suffers it. est passive, The same qu'on envoie." qui mendie ; r envoy e est I'homme and verb is indicated by other suffixes relation between noun suffix is always a (chant-eur expedit-eur, recev-eur). But from verbs,and they must to derive these names not necessary which signify action (chant, be confused with verbal substantives, envoi,etc.). cannot we immediately derive a verb from the Inversely, of an for the same it is here : and reason name object, logical that our frequentlyand most languages sin most seriously patron, aveugler"rendre aveugle, logic. Patronner"etre against
the
an
"

present the action

under

form

of

cou
=

ajouterdu sel ; plumer enlever les plumes ; fleurir=(\) produire des fleurs, (2)garnir immediate derivations In de fleurs, etc. a word, these
ronner
=

orner

d*une

couronne

saler

"

"

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

195

express

crowd
to

of diverse and

even

contrary relations.1
in order
to

This

is

contrary

the

of univocity; principle
a

this satisfy
must

having principleeach derivation effected by a special affix, or, more

of the be
a

special meaning

be

idea

there
=

must

be
es-ar,
or

patron
flowers

patroncrown

each to element generally, To a correspondingword-element. is blind-igar, blind render to to

providewith
duce
of
etc.

a or means

with

salt is kron-izar,sal-izar,to
to

pro

fruit

\s flor-ifarjrukt-ifar (tofructify),deprive

feathers Thus

"to
a

render

featherless," "ad=sen-plum-igart

clear derivation, universally logical perfect and hence international (inspiteof the example to the contrary with idioms of derivation). of our languages which swarm
we

obtain

and does as a matter of ought to verify, which is a corollaryof the fact verify, \h" principle of reversibility, of univocity. This principle be stated as follows : principle may To every derivation of meaning there ought to be a corresponding derivation ofform, i.e.the addition or suppressionof an element

Such

derivation

of

the

word,
of
to
a

for

if

we

can we

pass

from
to

one

word
to

to

another
from

in

virtue second

certain

rule

ought
the

be able

pass For

the

example if the (to quote the most important applicationof this principle) verb action or substantive immediately derived from a signifies the verb derived immediately from a substantive state, inversely action "to be in to do that particular can or mean nothing but
" "

the first in virtue of

inverse

rule.

that

state."
be

Thus
at

from
peace music

paco
;

"

peace,

we
=

can

derive
we

the
can

verb

pacar=\.Q
muzikar"\jQ but peace
krono verb
"

from

muziko

music,

get
peace, from this

make

; for what

is the fact of

being

at

; and the fact of

we

making
=

music, if not

music?

But for from

crown,

cannot

derive kronar=to

crown,
we

we

krono derive, inversely,

two

coronation, and
word.
verb

should

then

have
domo
"

meanings for the same derive the cannot home, we

domo would
mean

Similarly,from
domar=\""

stay

at

home,
From

for then bela

the fact of

stayingat

home.

for derive "etar=to be beautiful, cannot we (beautiful) then belo would be beauty and not a beautiful being ; and so on. We that the principle of reversibility is a sure criterion (and see the logicalvalue a practically one) in verifying very convenient of
a

derivation.
We add

that these relations may differ between one language and another ; dokumentieren \" provide with documents, while the German e.g. Fr. documenter=
may
"

prove

by

documents.

196 But tion which

in

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

we

must

not

turn

aside
one

here

to

discuss

deriva logical
to

detail.
I should

There like to
an

is

form

of

derivation, however,
of
: philosophers

call the attention

it is

that which

of quality of the same to the noun adjective to certain minds quality. It seems (ledastray as they are by the example of their national language)illogical that since beta beta submeans beautiful, beauty should be rendered by belo (i.e. But this is a serious error. Beta, like all qualifying stantified). is a class-concept which adjectives, appliesto all beautiful in but the abstract quality of "beautiful" is not a beautiful dividuals, it is the fact of being beautiful ; and justas to be beautiful object, be expressedby bel-esar, and not belar, the fact of being must so beautiful must formable have G.
a

binds

be rendered the

bel-eso.

Moreover, this
in
our

is

more

con

with

logic immanent
in order
to

languages, which
abstract No

all

specialsuffix

derive

quality, e.g.
doubt

E. Sch'dn-heit,

F. ill-ness,

I. bell-ezza, etc. rich-esse, the verb But

to

primitivelanguages did not have / am beautiful by Me beautiful.

to

be,and expressed
of the verb

the invention

and the more logical spirit, abstract this notion is the later its acquisition.To suppress or this essential element of civilized language and the suffix neglect which is its equivalent would be to mutilate logical thought.
one

be is

of the

conquests

of the

It
noun we

is,moreover,
into
an

this element

which
"

serves

to

transform

attributive

verb, into

must

not

take the traditional which

predication."Doubtless I sing I am analysis literally.

a
=

singing,according to
transformed
is
an

all verbs

of
no

action

or

state

are

into attributive verbs.

It is

less true

that there attributive

of meaning) between not identity (if equivalence and the others. element
es

verbs

(rootof the verb etre)is the inverse or con of the suffix of participles verse (when this is -anf). For indeed, have seen, the latter serves verb to transform as a we inversely into a noun substantive : parolanta=paror (qualifying adjective lant, parolanto orateur, i.e.he who speaks). According to the me analysisquoted above we have the followingequivalence,
=

The

kant-as
common

me

es-as

kant-anta.

If
we :

we
:
=

abstract
es

the
"

elements This
can

to

the two

members,
way
etant

find

-\-anta

o.

be confirmed

in another
=

ful) ;
"

bel-es-anta Thus

beau

(to be (being beautiful)beau (beautiful)

etre
=

bel-esar

beaii

beauti

bela.

es+ant=o,

and

these

two

elements

cancel

one

another.

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

LOGIC

197

Moreover,
role
as

the

relative

pronoun

(qua) plays exactly the

same

is proved by the synonym as : participle, chantant="#* chante. aimant"qui aime (lover he who loves), of the verb (reciproque) Consequently,it too is the reciprocal and bela simply ; qua to be : qua bela esas one esas cancelling

the suffix of the

another.
to

As
a

we

have

said, the effect

a

of the

relative pronoun
an

is

transform is the

into proposition
orator

concept,

into

epithet: who
from

speaks
this
who but
mean

; who

sings,the
be

singer. It results
"

that

all

adjectives can
is the

immediately
=

substantified ;

classical o). Those ("who is the beautiful, the good, the trtie, really expressions, vague is beautiful, what good, true, i.e. objects. We may say, is eternal

Eternal

after Plato, that

these

expressionssignifythe
other

essence

of

the

good, the true, in qualities, beauty, goodness, truth

beautiful, the
Plato
did
or

words,
matters

the

abstract

(it

little whether

existingapart from beautiful, good, etc., objects; that does not affect their nature). the himself Plato insisted on point, paradoxical but evident
did
not

conceive

them

as

after what

we

have

the said,that the beautifulin itself,

be
as qualified causes

essence

cannot of the beautiful,

but beautiful, the

"

is that which form

"

to

beautiful ; it is not itself be beautiful, and is thus

cause

or see

of the beautiful.

We

that these essays

disdained

by
the

certain
to

analysis, grammatical and logical sometimes, as Leibniz philosophers, may

at

foresaw,penetrate
lead
to

the

intimate

foundations

of

language and
no

of forms of thought. analysis to collaborate unworthy task for a philosopher of

a

It is therefore

in the institution of of

language which joins to the theoretical advantage logical and clear the immense practicaladvantage
easier infinitely

being
being
us

than

any

national

of being language,
; while

"

the easiest furnish

more con

for
with

the greatest number

an

of men

"

it would

also

instrument and
more

of

international

communication

venient
As that

in certain respects, than our perfect, languages. illustrious philologist, H. Schuchardt, has said, an inter

national
Is not and

languageis a
language
every

scientific as well
to

as a

desideratum. practical
extent

the

of the sciences

great

artificial ?

is not

science

obliged
as

to

elaborate
a

its

language
of

in

to its development ? proportion of the mind to the highestneeds

Such

language,then, answers
as

well

to

those

ordinary
at

life ; it tends
our

to

realize the

ideal of human
and

language

which

languages are

only

confused

complicated attempts,

g8

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

according
haben Can die

to

the

profound
zerstort."1
that of with

saying,

"

Was

die

Sprache

gewollt,

Sprachen
we

doubt the
savants

existing language
a

languages
?

realize
too

only long

very

imperfectly

ideal

Language,
and almost

regarded
respect,

by
is,

certain after

superstitious
one

mystic

all,
;

nothing
can

but and needs

instrument

(amongst
to

others) modify
if

of

thought according
teaches formed be
if

thought
to

ought
and have teaches

fashion and

and

it

its how

own

convenience, been,
us as a

linguistics
of fact,
to

us

languages Logic
as an

matter

and it
is

evolved,
to
serve

what

language
of of the of this it find elaboration also of has

ought thought.
forms

adequate
an

expression analysis
the
to

Doubtless

observation teach mind and like and

to

and much has make the

exact

of

language
But like Here the all

can

us

as

to

mechanism

thought.

human

the it other

right
fit for

perfect
the end

instrument,
to
serve.

others,

Logic,

all while

sciences,
to

can

practical
of
a

application, language
amelioration

contributing
and life and the

the

truly
of

international human

rational,
progress

may

further

the

civilization.

1See

La and G.

Langue
Pfander

Internationale

et

la

science, 1909).

by

Couturat,

Jespersen,
und

Lorenz,

Ostwald

(Paris 1909).
och

Delagrave,

Wtltsprache
and Science

Wissenschaft
:

(Jena:
1910).

Fischer,

International

Language
(Stockholm
:

(London

Constable,

Varldsspriik

Vetenskap

Bagge,

1910).

THE

TASK
BY

OF

LOGIC

BENEDETTO

CROCE.

UNDER
interests

the
of

present

condition
at

of is

things,a

writer
a

who

has

the

Philosophy
invited

heart
express wisest

placed
his views

in
on

when difficulty In

to

position of some logicalproblems.

to
"

this case,

perhaps

my

course

will be
the
sense

start

cussing the different meanings in which been understood, and explaining in what
to

term

by Logic
"

dis has

myself
the

propose

take

it.

For
a

I shall
naive

then

at

any

rate

avoid

dangers
shall
an

which

attend
save

exposition of
the shall say

personal views, and

of open

perhaps
that

myself
I have

mortification I be

meeting
to

with

unfavourable

reception. Nor
found
to

the
very

reproach
least
to

nothing
and

conduces
are

in the
meant

the furtherance Sciences

of the Sciences

(by which
Moreover,

the

Natural

Mathematics).

shall, I hope, have

and wounding certain guarded against the risk of disappointing have been authors who endless at deserving authors pains to provide their fellows with ready-made and sure logicalinstru
"

ments,
new

and

have

even
once

aspiredto endowing

them

with

an

entirely
refer,of
taken up

language, at
to

course,

the

and simple, exact Logisticians. According the task of

universal.
to

the
in
to

view

by
an

these

gentlemen,
of and
as

Logic

consists
are

drawing
illuminate

inventory
discussion

rules

and

formulae

which

the

investigationof truth.
lineal descendants Such
not
a

They
is the

may

therefore

be

regarded
scholastic its
uses

the

and

logicautens.
;

Logic forget
or, to

representativesof the not altogether without

circumstances
more

but

we

must

which

attended time
at

its which

blossoming time,
it

speak
towards
so

the correctly,
sun.

spread
had

out

its thorns become

the

Philoso

phicalcontroversy

then

external

and

empty,

had

200

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

descended afterwards held

to
an

such

pedantic and
arose

tiresome
among

insurrection The result

that soon quibbling, the spirits it had

insurrection twofold : was captive. effected it as return to direct observa a regardssubject-matter, and to tion, to experiment, to original sources analysis ; of the while, with regard to form, the free-and-easy speech of the world before the man was preferred gnarled and of the monastic dialectician. rugged expressions Nevertheless, modern will at least succeed we honestlyhope that the Logistic in preservingthe advantages,small and unimportant though have been, that formal these may inference brought about in So far this hope has not been realized. its time. Hence the of to-day are in sorry case like pedlars Logisticians ; they are and glittering who crying them up wares, carry round specious the public and for all sorts to of advertisingtheir utility
" " " "

of

this

purposes, embitters
see

but

who

fail to And

attract
no

customers.

Such

misfortune

them.
warmest

their

wonder, for these benefactors wish, namely, to benefit mankind, set at

do
not

this is

nought thereby. Unfortunatelywe good example by ourselves buying

been
a our

feel able
wares.

to

set

of their

It has

long

habit to express ourselves decently and in The of the new formulae comprehensiblemanner. austerity

intention and

We will leave it to a younger and frightensus. stronger generationto appropriatethem. One value point at any rate is certain. Whatever practical rich a future may await it, as Logisticmay embody, however be docens it cannot logica logicautens it can never ; as practice be theory; as a complexof rules and formulae it is not a science. According to our view, on the other hand, Logic is essentially It is no doctrine ', a theory a \ a science. part of its business assist thought, to further the progress of Natural to Science, Mathematics to facilitate research or sciences, any of the special the art of disputation. It is a theory entirely to simplify or into the nature of thought,as devoted to the task of inquiring sciences. exemplifiedin science as a whole and in the particular No one acquainted with the promoters and editors of this when that, Encyclopaedia will doubt for a moment they invited article on to contribute an me Logic,they meant Logic in this
"

theoretical
answer

sense.

I need

not

therefore in my

pause

to

elaborate

the If
to

to

the

questionI
upon

raised

have

touched

it in

opening paragraph. it only in order passing, was

202

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

into

concept, judgment and

conclusion.

This

division involves

the

be distinguished can assumption that three different moments within what and unanalysableact of thought. is really a single As of fact, will ever succeed in thinking a matter a one no

concept,
can

real

concept, which
is to
a

is

not

at

the
own

same essence

time
; at
nor

judgment, that
any
one a same

say,

an or

assertion
a

of its

find

concept

judgment

which
in
a

is not

the with

time

conclusion, being connected

system

other

conceptionsand judgments. The apparent justification for the analysisinto three of a single unanalysable act of thought lies in the fact that, in place of livingthought as
it wells
source

from its up all the sentences, and broken

up

have

been

substituted which
is not

names,

other But

fragments
of

into

speech
the
act

is of

by Grammar. speaking: speech is no by cement, it externally

this mosaic

aggregate
is rather
a

stones

held

together

in which one flowingriver, overtakes The another. of drawing any sharp wave difficulty Formal line between has been Logic-and Logical Grammar And remarked this need not surprise frequently us, for, upon. and empirical sciences,they both proceed to being descriptive of their kind, schematizing do violence after the manner acts of and arrangingthem accordingto accidental and super thought, ficial resemblances.
can

And mark

no

more

than

in the

case

of Grammar

by any sharp line of division of cognition, unless it from the psychology or Psychological Logic, of division is contained in the normative be that such a principle Logic
element
not

Formal

itself off

present in the
essence

latter.

But

this normative

element

is

of the

of the So

of cognition psychology ;
we

well be absent.

that if

show
"

ourselves

it may very tolerant towards

empirical Logic and how, as we have already we deny the rightof existence to any product of certain conditions. ? it is only under It the human spirit be borne in mind not only that such a Logic has nothing must with the true science of Logic,but also that it can in common with philosophical be co-ordinated never Logic at all. It is not of treating method further and legitimate a Logic,a kind of pro form, but is paedeuticor completion of it in its philosophical different. Philosophical Logic must pursue somethingaltogether the of this other Logic,except where its own regardless way, latter steps outside its own provinceto breed errors and nurture be combated. It is the then, indeed, it must prejudices ;
formal,verbal remarked, can
or
"

THE

TASK

OF

LOGIC

203

custom

empiri nowadays to emphasize the opposition between when the former cal and especially Logic more philosophical of Psychological is clothed in the garment Logic by calling
" "

empirical Logic the Logic philosophical

values.
term
"

science has been

of

realityand

of

facts, while
Science
to
recourse

to

assigned the
reason

title :

of

But value

we
"

suspect another
on

for this of

the the

the

part

not

only

Logic, but

also been has

"

of

other
to

sciences. philosophical

We has

believe

they

have

forced

this because

Empiricism
of them
as a man

outwitted
"

them, and
"

unlaw
"

fullypossessed herself
order
to

the

names

bestow

upon
matter
were

her of

fact reality and classificatory concepts

in

and
It is

abstractions,which,
as

fact,are
to

^realities.

though
it

an

honest

obliged

change
" "

his

name

because behaviour the

had
a

of
of

object

disrepute through the member of his family. The is value which and fact Logic is logical reality philosophical
criminal and
norm now nor

fallen

into

itself:

it is
It

value is

working.
her
own

high
does

time

as intrinsically, existing and for the real Logic to claim owe

again ; Empiricists and

once more

she

any

consideration in serious this

to

the

Positivists.

Concessions be
to
a

direction,
Let
to

even

though purely verbal,would

assert
"

mistake.
cease

Logic
content

her
out
as

claim
of

firm

facts and

herself
so

whether

pride or
the

modesty

"

with

any

thing

unsubstantial
we

values.
turn to

But

must

now

consideration
as a

of

another

While difficulty.

Logic
the
one

has

been

defined been

specialphiloso
on

phical science
other
the that universal

on

hand,
an

it has

maintained

the

Philosophy is
cannot

undifferentiated
from from
as

unity,within
the the
lower

which

be

discriminated
upper
are

the particular,

edifice from
And

the

foundation, the
such
we

storeys.

yet, of course,
were a a

distinctions

they
and of

in the past ;

stillspeak, for

customary instance,of
and

to-day as a general

of an introduction special philosophy, is to Logic or Epistemology which of round and investigation, of

a

systematic part,

and
crown

method and

supply the criterion Metaphysic which is to

But

off the
must

itself. investigation be taken

these divisions

strictly.Our only justifi and educational employment on literary and considerations, applies within these spheres alone. Logic., science is unthinkable and incomprehensible, as a special because it can only be thought and understood through the whole of
not

and

distinctions
for their

cation

is based

204

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

which

inseparable part. So, too, thinkingapart from being is incomprehensible incomprehensibleas is knowing ; as reason (the Logos) apart from imagination, apart from willing,
an

it is

the from
as

concrete

apart

from But

the what

abstract,the
is this but
to

individual
say

apart

the

universal.

that

Logic

And science is Philosophy itself? if this is philosophical of the philosophical why do we speak of it as one so, is only one There of this difficulty sciences ? out we : way admit that think when and must out come we really to science expound Logic, or any other specialphilosophical
"

as, to

for instance, Ethics be the whole

of

and

^Esthetics And

"

each indeed

in

turn

proves

Philosophy. only for educational that Logic should be treated apart from purposes the other special and from Philosophy as sciences, philosophical The books in which it is thus preferred before other a whole. from their should be disciplines recognizableas text-books in mind titles. It is only by bearing this constantly that we
it is
can

hope
hand

to

preserve
an

Logic itself from

error

confusions.

Philoso hand

was phicalspecialism

of the last decade

into

; it went

Philosophy fell at that time. that it is responsible for the slackness It is specialism and indolence which then invaded Philosophy. But to-day we forced to recognize the unanalysableunity of Philosophy; are admit of thinking the particular the necessity we through the and of holding fast to the inner bond universal, by which the If we united. distinct moments are are tempted to doubt have only to remind of this interconnexion, we the necessity
in

with

the

discredit

which

ourselves

of the

mass

of absurdities

and

confusions

which

the

introduced into the sphere of Logic by their neglect specialists and ignoranceof other philosophical problems ; such problems, in speech, in Art, in historical involved for instance, as are in the economic etc. will, They hardly paid any investigation, attention at all to these problems ; and when they did so, it was only to take over ready-made solutions of them from other into their books they proceeded to cram specialists ; these their relation to Logic without ever troubling to investigate itself. It is not difficult to trace the results of such a procedure: a an setting side by side,a cementing togetherof aggregating, had fragments of philosophywhich, apart from their inner unity, take up the cudgels here againstthe sepa further life. We no and empiricists. the practicians did justnow as ratists, we against

THE

TASK

OF

LOGIC

205

One
so-called

result effected

of the withdrawal was separatism Elementary Logic from Applied Logic or Methodology,

by

this

by

which

was

meant

constitutive

forms

of

Logic which takes as knowledge and occupies

the the

its

object the
the
process of the

itself with

knowledge-value of
of

specialsciences.
that be
as

Indeed, this

far carried so tearing apart was to of the sciences came classification treated was pendent problem, and

problem regarded as an
such, apart
sort

the

inde all

from

reference
But
must

to

it is

philosophical system or to the not enough to classify

their

any forms

of

basis. logical
;
we

of

knowledge
as soon as

also

understand

significance. And

this

significancewas grasped, and the traditional empirical and it became rectified, apparent that pedagogic groupings were these forms were nothing else than the elementary forms of of history to the highest apprehension developed in the course degree of which they were capable. The recognition of this of no small fact was advantage ; for with the destruction of
the
forms

artificial distinctions
lose

which

divided

them

the

elementary
imme

their abstractness, gain sap and of Forms while the fruitful, diately prove aside
their

force, and

Knowledge
the

lay

and clumsy obscurity had

reveal

to

us

their real nature. driest

which Logic itself,

of of all the

been previously

regarded as
from

sciences, the

furthest
to

removed

the

problems

was now seen dailylife, them problems, influencing

be

and

intimatelyrelated with these in being influenced by them

got rid of the absurd
; for it has

turn.
"

And,
the in

best

of

all, we

have

idea

of

an

applicable"and
activities this

"applied"Logic
of

become

evident

that that
and

applied but develop, and development they preserve intact both their origin
spiritare
not

that there can learn,moreover, spiritual products issuing from heterogeneouselements the working up of external and given materials.
essence.

their

We

be
or

no

from

Now
forms of

that

we

are

convinced the

of the

of identity forms

the

cognition with
we can

elaborated
to

elementary employed by
to

Science,
basis
from

start

our

inquiry as
other,
as are

their

epistemological
suit in
us an

one
we

side have
It
can

or

the

may

happen
to

because,
external whether

as

said, they
make
no

only distinguished
the

way.
we

difference

thing itself
the natural
the

first consider

the

representation (Vorstellungsbethen pass

on

griff)or classificatory concept, and sciences, or whether, inversely, we

to

begin with

natural

206

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

proceed from them to the classificatory concept. For to determine a genericconcept is to establish a piece of Both knowledge within the natural sciences,and vice versa. lead to the same and one goal ; indeed, they are really ways
the
same.

and sciences,

But
is
to

it will conduce
a

to

clearness
as we

here, where
conceive

our

object
we

give
the

survey

of

Logic
of

it,if
these
is

start
we

from will

developed

forms

knowledge.
between

Of

forms

take

four, the

difference

which

Art of Poetry (representing Art in : the generallyrecognized Science and Mathematics. Natural Philosophy, general), The question, however, has been raised as to whether these four forms of knowledge cannot be further reduced, and this has indeed been attempted in the case of some of them, though in my opinionunsuccessfully.It would carry us too far out of and I have done our way here to go into this questionin detail, 1 it elsewhere ; I shall therefore content myself with statingmy proving it. Thus, for example, the Art of Poetry case, without classed under the sciences by Bacon and Hobbes it was ; then afterwards taken out of this classification altogether, but was was re-introduced of in conjunction with Religion as a moment taken it was absolute spirit of Philosophy; then once more or under the head of and ascribed to feeling, out play." It was and sup further confused with a kind of popular Philosophy, type-ideas. But posed to disseminate Poetry concepts and gives us what no other form of cognitioncan give,namely, without either the analysisor the naive acceptance of Reality, In Poetry we the synthesis of reflexion. meet Realityin that back again and again from form to which we must turn virginal and its more complicatedaspects,in order to refresh our memory
"

to

grasp
to

new

features.

It is to this great role which

she is called

which she the place of honour play, that Poetry owes occupiesin the life of humanity, both in education and in adult restricted to if her task were life. This would be inexplicable indeed a kind Science or Philosophy, if she were or duplicating upon of game,
sensuous

or, still worse,

if she ranked

among

the

confused

and

aberrations

Philosophy has been

real character time
1

has

the Positivists

feeling. to similar experiences. Her subjected been impugned again and again. At one attempted to show that she was only a part
Scienza del concetto pur
o.

of

See Benedetto

Croce, Logicacome

2nd edition.

Laterza

et

Bari. Figli,

1909.

THE

TASK

OF

LOGIC

207

of Natural

Science
to

and

Mathematics of

; at

another, her
was

task

was

restricted attained

the
the

derogatory office

puttingtogether the
she

results

assigned a place her of Poetry as within the Art saw only refuge; for men which in Philosophy merely a complex of beautiful fancies,

by

specialsciences,or

was

only
is

to

be

tolerated
we

as

such be

and

could

claim

no

further

recognition.
what
sure

Hence
to

must

happen at the mathematicians in Bologna : l certain scientists and to be held their be able to resist the temptation of serving up will not
formulated beautifully sciences step-sisterly
views
on

for prepared in advance PhilosophicalCongress,shortly

Philosophy;

we

shall have

the

Cinderella,and

raising their voices against the ambiguous compliments will be paid to

But have
to
an

modern the
new

folle du
We

we logis. need only point

answer

to

all these

attacks. its

the

history of
the of what

to Philosophy,

continuous
us

development through
a

centuries.

This

furnishes
is and

with
be
:

brilliant

exhibition
us

Philosophy
the Art of
but

was,

will the

it teaches of

that
nor

it is neither
even amor

Poetry,nor
the search
we Lastly,

Science One

Nature,
the

Mathematics,
Dei
the
or

after the
may

and
our

All"

intellectualis.

remind

readers

that

attempted
a

reduction

of

Philosophy to
of Nature has

Natural

Science
and is

to

mathematical

Science

abandoned to-day entirely ; for Mathematics found itself, was as inevitable, brought up against limitations its prescribed (the indispensable perceptualelement), constitute its which but also the range of not limitations, only the possibility of its application. Corresponding to the four forms of knowledge which we four have enumerated the are elementary forms : perception, or philosophical concept or the Idea, the scientific classificatory and the mathematical abstract or concept concept ; or, according of the corresponding the names to creative imagina activities, tion or intuition, thought, classification and abstraction. They
all denote
one

foundered,

and

the

same

thing,looked

at

from

different
And
we

standpoints and
may any strive
1

therefore

differently designated.

here
sort to

in issuinga warning against join with Schleiermacher of epistemological aristocracy. We should rather establish kind of democracy, pointing out a that
was

This treatise
to

April, 1911,
invited.

which

before the Philosophical presented Congressheld at Bologna in chemists and astronomers were distinguished physicists,

2o8

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

Poetry,Philosophy,Natural Science and Mathematics are no suitable wonderful and for businesses, special high days and the that on holidays only, but, they constitute the contrary, round modest of thinking being. For no one can daily every live without moment at every poetizing, thinking,classifying this is really the reason and abstracting. And why the highest
manifestations in the
"

of these of
in

faculties

"

the

rare

works

of

originality
Natural mag
;

spheres
evoke

Art,
us

Philosophy, Mathematics
great admiration.
it
were

and For

Science nificent blend

such
as

these minds

products come
them and elevate make it

to

meet

our

with

dissolve them.
our

into

them, and
to

by

so

they doing

strengthenand
If four
now
we

business

discover

which

of the

knowledge constitutes the proper subject-matter of Logic,we must begin by excluding the first form, Poetry, intuition, subject-matter perception, imagination; for the logical and does the form not implies generality, poetic pass beyond the of the individual. Hence the art of Poetry finds particularity no place in a discussion of logicalproblems. As a special sphere of knowledge it does not belong here,but to ^Esthetics, raised by Vico to a science under which, as is well known, was the name called it the of Logica Poetica,while Breitinger Logic of the imagination," and Baumgarten Ars analogi rationis and inferior.Of course thought void of intuition or gnoseologia unexpressed and unspoken,were itself unthinkable ; imagination, and we have drawn attention elsewhere to the deplorable effects of the entire neglect of aesthetic problems on the part of logicians. Of course, ^Esthetic conditions Logic ; but for that it cannot constitute the specific logical qua Esthetic very reason
"

forms

of

moment.

enough (too easy, we might say, for the rather to be wished) to usher Poetry out of the contrary were domain of Logic without encounteringoppositionon the part of them intelof modern bitten,as most logicians, are, with
easy

It will be

lectualism. vince the them

We that

shall have neither do

much

more

difficult task abstract

to

con

and classificatory and

concepts,

concepts of Natural

Science

the proper sphere of Logic. nation of those concepts and that they distinctly
are

Mathematics, fall within a Nevertheless, searchingexami

sciences has shown and clearly scientific sides of

concepts,

by

means

of

inadequate to Reality. If take up certain simplification,

210

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

Mathematics

reach

down

the books

from

the
any

and display shelves,

book can particular be found in the quickest and surest manner But possible. they themselves neither write nor these read books ; and were they the rightof conducting the march of to arrogate to themselves human knowledge they would proclaim themselves the enemies of all thinkingpeople. For of the latter they would demand that they should give up thinking according to the principles of truth, and of book be guided instead by the arrangement shelves and catalogues. It may be objected that in limiting the forms and pseudoof forms have knowledge to four we forgotten that of It ought to be clear from Religion. But this is not the case. the foregoing that we have assumed throughout that the identity of Religion and both exhibited and Philosophy has been indeed : not recognized by resolving Philosophy into Religion, but that Religion into Philosophy, so Philosophy partici the in value of true and complete Religion. We pates are, fifth a however, open to the reproach of having overlooked of knowledge, which form plays a prominent part in scientific held by theoretical minds to be in the highestdegree inquiry, essential. We refer to the individual judgment or judgment of and to History, the scientific form which correspondsto it. fact, Historical knowledge obviouslydiffers in kind from mathemati while Natural Science schematizes cal or scientific knowledge; for, If the and classifies, History individualizes and narrates. the other former seeks the typicalin the manifold, History, on from the typical. But though hand, separates the manifold and narrating, in virtue of this individualizing History, approxi be identified with mates not so closelyto Poetry, she must of Poetry, pure and the art simple. For History bears a realistic stamp, and employs a concept of realityof which Poetry is ignorant. History asserts that this and not that took while Poetry knows nothing about real and unreal, the place, and is actual and the possible. She is beyond such categories, absorbed in the ideal world of creative imagination. entirely confronted We thus are by the following alternative : either be recognizedas a form of spirit existing History must be identified with Philosophy. In the in and for itself, or it must and absolutely firstcase we should have two concrete true forms of knowledge" Philosophy and History and two elementary
"

great skill in providingclues by which

THE

TASK

OF

LOGIC

211

forms

corresponding to
or

historical every

individual
is also such
a a

namely, the concept judgment, or, since we have

them,

and
seen

the

that

concept
for
two

judgment,
conclusion

general
would truth be

and

an

individual
no

judgment.
one,

But

to satisfactory

it is inconceivable

that Before the

we

should
a

splititself
fact
so

up

into
to

distinct orders. let

us

accept

contrary

reason,

consider

remaining alternative, accord

ing to which History and Philosophy,the individual and the identical. are Perhaps we general judgment (or definition) shall find that this can be maintained. One thing at any rate the beginning, and certain from that is,that History is seems intimatelyconnected with Philosophy; indeed its relation to it is one of necessary dependence, for it is impossible to narrate of the most History, to pass a singleindividual judgment even character without employing concepts, that is to say, trifling is to narrate begin by Philosophy. If a man History,he must understanding it,and he can only do this by bringing into
"

"

consciousness

the ideas which

lie concealed

within

it.

Historical

has meaning only in so far as it is contrasted with objectivity that passionatesubjectivity histori which is capable of distorting cal truth, and appeals to that higher form of subjectivity \vhich must Idea. only be ascribed to the concept or philosophical But this dependence of History on Philosophy, in virtue of which

Philosophy necessarilyimplies an advance in the understanding of History, does not amount to a proof of their identity. According to this way of looking at in excogitating an extrathem, Philosophy is still absorbed historical concept ; and yet she willingly lends to History,which could live without not it, the light that she has gained by
every
means

advance

in

of
can

We
on

this ? to understand are we excogitation. How only grasp their complete identity by placingourselves

this

the soil of the great idealistic nineteenth

Philosophy of
set

the first half the old

of

the that

century

we

must

aside

notion

Philosophy is a fixed and immovable rendering of the unchanging,and realize that Philosophy itself is History. In truth, Philosophy is nothing else than the eternal solving of and are problems which always different, always yet which of the womb of actual spring out History (History a parte Hence time object?}. Philosophy is at the same History (a In solving the problems which historical condi parte subjecti). tions present to her, Philosophy illumines these conditions

212

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

themselves

; she

characterizes
narrates.

she describes informed

and
a

by
;

truth of which

fresh way goes hand animated

of

they are, that is to say, Hence system is every philosophical the validity and looking at History,
as

them

in hand

with the truth contained

every

in the

system

while,on
and

the other

hand,

narration

of

History is

by Philosophy. The further ques tions as to whether with each new Philosophy the new concep tion of History must be at once brought forward and separately discussed (as is done by some left till later as or philosophers), the new a task,and whether special way of writing History is of the Philosophy immanent within her, these questions, aware I say, do not in the least endanger the identity which has been laid bare. It behoves here rather to explain how it is that, us in spiteof their identity, Philosophy and History may appear different. This is owing to the literary form of their exposi so tion,in which emphasis is laid on different constitutive elements of the logicalform to both common (unity of concept and individual judgment ; synthesisa priori). Thus, Philosophy the category), while emphasizes the universal (the predicate, History,on the contrary, emphasizes the individual (the sub ject) emphasis which makes ; and it is this difference in literary it appear as though Philosophy occupied itself solelywith the is predicate and History with the subject. But appearance and it remains true that History is Philosophy, only appearance, Philo and Philosophy History. By recognizingthis identity, abstractness and History is delivered sophy mitigatesits own impregnated
from
is
a

the tyranny of its

mere

material.

Thus

we

see

that there

on grounds,for the perceptual logical complete justification, in History, often led to the asser moment although it has more between tion of similarity History and Poetry. This sketch of the fundamental forms of knowledge contains and has considerable in nuce a part of the Philosophy of spirit, alreadyindicated the way in which the different theoretical and Thus another. forms arise and succeed one theoretico-practical the transition from intuition (Poetry and Art in have seen we of general)to the concept or individual judgment, by means is reached and fully which the knowledge of reality developed this point cognitionproceeds as History. From Philosophical of of the knowledge attained by means the schematization to classification and the laws of scientific procedure (Natural the spiritual of the natural Science in general,whether or

THE

TASK

OF

LOGIC

213

and the still further transformation to world), and, finally, of these schemata by the help of counting and simplification sciences).But we cannot attempt, measuring (the mathematical in
a

brief

outline

of

Logic,
to

to

develop
form

in

detail

the
has

main

features here
said
more

indicated, or
All
treatment
must

everything that justify

the

been
a

in

passing. Logic
and
and

this must
of

subject-matterof
the

extensive of

Logic.1
the

There

specialpro
nature,
of the

blems

be forms

dealt with, as, for instance, the

of

the marks Realists

the

concept

; the

doctrines

reconciliation by Empiricists,and their eventual and scientificoof the admitted means dualityof the philosophical mathematical concepts, definition, syllogism,perception, the existential counting and measuring, the principlesof predicate, the greatest of all questions that of opposi Logic ; and, finally,
"

tion

or

and dialectic, And

the

relation between
in
a

distinct and
considerable of

contrary

concepts.
that
we can

it is
to

only
find

work
for
a

of

hope
with

place

discussion of

magnitude the problems

connected
Natural
as

the so-called
and of

Methodology
:

Science
nature

Mathematics and

such

Philosophy, History, for instance, problems,

question
as

the

system

the criticism,
in of

to

the

employment
the value

of

empiricalconcepts
Science
and and similar for

Historyor
a

historical

factors,
of

of Natural
etc.

mathematical which have in

science

Nature,
had
a

These

problems
the
most

hitherto
books
on

precarious existence,
or

part

Methodology
now

in the

controversies

of individual in
a

scholars,must
The old

and

brought together by Logic useless ballast of Empirical and

the text-books,
any
must

be

new

focus.

Formal

Logic, which
overboard.

still

encumbers

be

thrown

did
of
a

conceived Logic that gnoseologically discuss the philosophical not theory of error would be guilty serious omission. This theory must take the placeof those

But

expositionof

sections,so
which
the

on quibbles, sophisms and old logic books always contained.

rich

in

their

refutations
error

Now,

is

two-sided.
those
state

On

the

one

side it is real error,

which arbitrary conjunctions of words in reality affirm something, but which

no

by which I mean to only appear nothing, for they

it is tentative
or

express

thinkable

content

on

the

other,

hypotheticalknowledge,and an a partialtruth which serves

"

approximation towards the truth as a stepping-stone to a wider

pitro. 2nd
edition. Laterza

See Benedetto

Croce, Logica come

Scienza del concetto

"et

Bari. Figli,

1909.

214

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

truth. side
as

Hence
a

theory of error and pathologyof thought,

the

may

be

from

regarded from one the other as a pheno

it is taken, it must sense menology of truth. But, in whichever supply us with a deduction of all the necessary forms of errone ous or incompletethinking. Such forms arise where the philo with the other is confused of moments sophical moment theoretical and practical Spirit get, for example, con ; and we fusion between concept and imagination, concept and practical Raised to higher powers, etc. life, concept and pseudo-concept, these errors under well known in the history of names appear Philosophy and in philosophical controversy. They are called Scepticism, Mysticism, Dualism, ^Estheticism, Empiricism, As etc. forms, these Mathematicism, Philosophism, necessary and immortal. in every act of errors are indispensable They perish For truth thought,and in every act of thought are born anew. has its being only in the struggleagainsterror error ; hence and conditions without it with the nourishment which supplies thinkingwould not be actual thinking, or, in other words, would have these
no

existence. and

For

this reason,

because

errors

constitute

straightway of Philosophy. Hegel accept Hegel'sconceptionof the history inclined to was regard historical periods as embodiments thus to confound of ideal forms of error, and the history of Philosophy with the phenomenology of truth. The doctrine of categories, the contrary, does not appearon modelled to be an on empirical integral part of Logic ; it was with it, although Logic, and consequently remains connected between them is a merely external one. the bond Indeed, if of forms the logical to understand are we by the Categories thinking Reality, Logic only knows one : the Idea or Concept. In this concept it exhausts all those other its being ; hence which are usually adduced be regarded either as must categories the nomina not true or on as mere logical categories. But if, understand the elementary and by the categories contrary, we and their deduction archetypalforms of Spiritand of Reality, what is this but to say that it takes the whole dialectical genesis, Indeed such ? of Philosophy to furnish a doctrine of categories is commensurate for Philosophy, with Philosophyitself, a doctrine
cannot

eternal

timeless

conditions,we

in its essence,

is the

science

of

the

necessary

determinations

of

Reality;
as we

in other

words, of the eternal categories. No

itself
a provides

doubt,
doctrine

have

alreadyexplained, Logic

THE

TASK

OF

LOGIC

215

of
less

categories,

because

it

concentrates

within of

itself,

in and

more

or

developed
it.
In

form,
this second

the

whole

Philosophy,
has But side in of

coincides

with

sense

Logic

rightly
such other such be
a

assumed,

on

occasion,
cannot

the tolerate
of

name

of existence of

Metaphysic.
at

Metaphysic

the

its
for it

any far
as

Philosophy
would-be

either

Nature had

or

Spirit;
content

so

sciences
in

any

real

would
to

already
understand
and

comprised
estimate

the

Metaphysic
of

itself.

In

order
for

and

the the

value

Hegel's

reasons

preserving
into

systematizing
rationally

traditional and

scholastic

division and the

philosophia
realis

(Logic
of

Metaphysic)
and of

philosophia
whole of

(the

philosophy philosophy
which be for this untouched is

Nature be

Spirit),

the

Hegelian
a

must

more

thoroughly
more

examined
"

necessity
however,

becoming
taken here.
than

daily
But the
of the

urgent.
I
can

This better

cannot,

under brief

find
of

no

conclusion that the

essay
treasures

expression Hegelian
will
of

the

hope

as

yet
be

Philosophy
be the
wise main those if he

may
not

speedily merely
but

explored.
the
it of his

And
continuous

the

explorer
march business
to

follows makes

argument,

special
which

examine

pregnant
in such

germs

thought

he

will

there

find

scattered

abundant

measure.

THE

PROBLEMS
BY

OF

LOGIC

FEDERIGO

ENRIQUES.

INTRODUCTION.

meaning of Logic and its specialcontributions rendered it developed within the boundaries to thought, as of Greek in the Aristotelian philosophy to its consummation of looking at things, system reveals to us three different ways superimposed one upon another : which strove to arrange 1. A metaphysic, according to genus and speciesthe relations it found obtaining within the actual of the classification thus procured,to lay world, and, by means
STUDY

of the

the

foundation
2.

of Science.

with laws the

concerned itself directly theory of concepts, which the products of human thought,and sought to discover the by which the latter is governed in its work of combining and definite into simpler elements building them up

structures.

3. A

doctrine determine govern

which

forms^
laws

to

which

analysisof verbal expressionsexactly corresponding to the the understanding in its pursuit after know
endeavoured, by
an

ledge.
The followers worked metaphysical Realism combined a metaphysic of the held itself aloof from
out

by

Plato
a

and

his of

actual

with

theory

Sophistical argumenta On the other hand, as tion. might have been expected, the confounded with the inquiry into its analysis of thought was and Logic may be said,to a certain extent, verbal expression, to have merged into Grammar. of Logic carried all before it This formalistic interpretation resolved in the Scholastic Philosophy,and finally itself, by way

the concept, and

all

2i8

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

back

to

Descartes
some

and

Bacon

by

means

of

deeper criticism,

suggestedby

of the fundamental

views

of Kant.

I.

LOGIC

AS

THE

SCIENCE

OF

EXACT

THINKING.

Logical thought occupies itself with objects which ordinary speech accepts as given. But what exactly is an object ? It is essential for the interests of Logic that defined. With this general idea should be clearly this end in observations : view, we offer the following immediate data of experi 1. Thought takes for its objects world, such as stone, namely, things from the perceptible ence, house, animal, etc. But, in defining or drawing inferences these things, it always presupposes from certain conditions, in these data are taken virtue of which as objectsof thought." for instance,certain conditions of physical It assumes, unchangethat offer can us ableness, so experience equivalent percepts, in which be related can thought to one and the same object. A crushed stone, a fallen house, a dead animal, are no longer denoted the same objects as those just now by the terms :
OBJECTS.
" " "

stone, house, animal.

2.

Thought
from
a

takes the

as

its

things or
here is of

relations

object abstracta from perceptible between them. The implication

all the different to something that is common of perceptible which or can things, perceptible things, groups under certain classification. For instance,the be arranged a abstracta a horse," dog," man," etc.,being taken as objects, is then accepted as given classification of living creatures e.g. class and to to a or creature kind, one belongs only. every of taken the object of The abstract concept as creature, living all the individuals to thought, corresponds in the same way be regarded as class,which can belonging to one and the same of the class. equallyrepresentative in which relation between In the case a things is taken the qualitycommon to all these things is considered as object, from the thingsthemselves. in abstraction Thus, for example, here : the idea we speak of geometricalcoincidence or equality is that of all possiblepairs of coincident before us figures ; is abstracted coincidence from these pairs, and the relation of close which and is then thought of as a something common, a
" " "
"

"

"

"

"

examination

of them

has

revealed

to

us.

THE

PROBLEMS

OF

LOGIC

219

Thought takes as its object a thing or a relation as it actually not or independently of whether merely possible, exists. Here the object is the immediate product of the thought
3.

which
4.

positsit.
An

indeterminate
means

object may
word
vary
must

be

taken stands

as

such

hypotheIn this
as

by tically
case,

of
or

sign or

which
in

for it.

the

sign

word

meaning
other

according
hand,
attached
to
...

it

the objects. On equivalent signs (symbols or words) may stands

for

different

different
one

be

and
,

a', object; thus, for instance, the signs a, b, c b' "/, be so arranged with respect to the objects denoted may class, by A and Ar that every sign belongs to one respectively class is composed of equiva class only, since every and to one lent signs which object. Thus, correspond to the same
the
same

Corresponding to A Corresponding to A'

"

a'

b'

cf
.

a=\=af
LOGICAL
cases

PRINCIPLES.

If

we
"

now

compare

the

different

find that they all we object," the following characteristic : An object is always com possess and datum recognized as similar to pared by thought to some
in which

thought positsan

it whenever
common

the likeness
in the this

is such

as

to

enable

the

presence be

of

element presence
an

different"

presentationsto
is then

detected
as a

the that
over

of

common

element

taken

sign

objectwhich

has

already been thought is being thought

a logical objectis something which is again. More briefly, positedas an invariant of thought. Such an invariability implies and in of these the principles conditions are conditions, given

Logic,taken
1. 2.

in their

most

elementary sense.

The
The

3. The

of Identity. principle of Contradiction. principle of Excluded Middle. principle of these

is as follows : When principles two a judgment is passed as objects are thought simultaneously This their identityor difference. to judgment is determined at which by the objects themselves ; the moment entirely they

The

import

three

are

of

thought,and the fact that the thought is or is not a repetition preceding one, are not taken into consideration. These then, co-operate in transforming a temporal principles,

220

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

thought into an intellectual system of contemporaneous relations ; they give us, as it were, a momen example of such tary vision of the timeless. We get an transformation in the representation of the above-mentioned of signsor written words. In this connexion by means process of Logic express the conditions we say that the principles may of the possibility of the expression of thought in speechschemata, or in a system of signs. It follows from this that since the laws are themselves implied in the use of signsthey be deduced from cannot specialrelations between signs; any hence the principle the relation a does not of a express states Identity but is a mere tautologousjudgment which nothing. NOTE. If we refuse to recognize in the principles of Logic the conditions of connected of thinking(definition object "), and regard them instead as judgments relating the to actual,we shall be forced to joincompany with the Eleatics and to deny the flux of perceptible things. For when related to Reality at a lose all meaning. Hence, if instant these principles particular the principles taken of Logic as principles (cf. objective II.), geneticprocess
"

and

of

"

become

either false

or

futile. The

thought in which objects that have already been identified or distinguished of taken as data consists of various operations, are by means from the given,to create which it is possible, (define) starting new objects. Such fundamental are : logical operations 1. The combining of several objects in a class (group, the arranging of various objectsin a series or even totality), (subordinate class).1 between classes or of a correspondence The two 2. positing of one certain such that with every element a (object) series, homologous element of the other is associated (mathematical concept of function]. which can be shown To these operations, to be simple cases divide of psychological association, are opposed those which (dissociation). that is to of two or more classes, distinguishing 3. The logical process
1

LOGICAL

OPERATIONS.

of

This latter operation can that every element

be reduced in turn seeks

can

to

the former taken

a

if

we

assume

classes to be

so

formed In

be

with together
to

this way,

Symbolic Logic

to

avoid

reference

the

one. succeeding of character genetic

the

thought.

THE

PROBLEMS

OF

LOGIC

221

say,

determining (Interferenz}. of inverting 4. The

between
cases,
two

the

of

the

common

elements

collectively

ence

such
every

several

given function or a given correspond classes (Inversion].Generally speaking,in elements of the first class correspond to
a

element We have

of the

second

class. of abstraction
an

remark especially able instance of this operation. A class (a,b, c ...)can always which be thought as a single object A, corresponds to the elements (that is to say, is a function of the said a, b, c we elements). If,then, we wish to invert the correspondence, from A to each of the objectsa, b, c which must are pass (equal}. thought as interchangeable
... ...

in the process

To similar

think
to

as

different
is in

from

b,

c
...

and

to

think

it

as

think different objects; the to b, c reality is taken as given ; the second first is the object a, which is the abstraction a of the class A. The abstraction of the element then,becomes in its of a class, turn new a by means of which we can regard the elements object, class as since their of the same presentations, interchangeable differences are ignored by thought. EXAMPLE. human. Each Titus, Gaius, Sempronius are of them one corresponds to a representation of the ab...

stractum

"man."
An of

CONCEPTS. abstractum
created it
owes or

object which
element
of
a

can

be
"

as interpreted a

"

the
is

the

class

forms

concept, and

Gaius
...

to which exhaustively explained by the abstraction its existence. For example, after the persons Titus, who constitute the members of a certain society have

been
to

named,

the

concept "member

of this

society" may
in

be said
to

be

determined which
as

by abstraction.
admit
of
as

But

addition

these

concepts accepts
the
A

exhaustive
to

data

concepts
:

the

description, thought also meaning of which we subjoin

a as

remarks following
1.

given concept
latter

may
can

the objectswhen peculiar to it.

2.

correspond to be thought

class

of posited

determinations

of all the thought as the abstractum determinations of which it is capable, and is expressly explained such if the corresponding as determinations are actually thought: this is only possible if they form a finite class.

The

concept

is

222

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

3. It is number of

possible for
determinations

concept
; in

to
case

admit it is

of

an

infinite

that

impossible to
or

think the objects involved : but actually (a) We can decide if any particular object is determination

is not

(")
concept
same

of this concept. All the objects which are

are

determined The which classes.

determinations possible priorias belonging to one

as can

of this and the the law

class.

concept,

it were,
create
an

accordingto
determinate

thought
The of
a

presupposes Unlimited
runs

number thus
:

of
the of

statement

of this law
an

determinations possible which in turn the

concept form
is the
" "

class infinite

concept itself concept

of which circles,

abstractum.

EXAMPLES. of

The

circle

correspondsto

class

be can only a finite number actually thought. A figure being given, acquaintedwith any one form a judgment as to whether the concept can it is or is not a circle. And however circles be given,they are deter many mined in advance of one class ; by the concept as members and this class becomes largerand largerin proportionas more and more circles are successively thought. The assumption of infinite class of circles implies this pre-determination of an an

infinitely many

and infinite series of finite classes, circles which CONTENT determined

1.

the any

series embraces

all the

have
AND

been

thought

at

given moment.
A

COMPREHENSION.

concept
be

can

be

The

either by assigning class C of objectsof

; or,

which

it may contain

regarded as
C, and
c

the abstractum
2.
are

The

sum-total

of the classes which

it.

which

not

identical with

The

class C is called the content contain C

of the concept form the

; the

sum-

total of the classes which the concept itself. Thus the concept

comprehensionof according to
its

can

be determined

either

comprehension
These metrical
c are

or

its content. be illustrated by a well-known geo may of characteristic determinations a concept lie within
content
a

definitions

figure. The by points which represented

of the

circle C '; the the

surface and the

circle represents the of all the circles or totality

of

concept,

within sion.

closed Each

plane surfaces lines which contain C represents its comprehen surfaces corresponds to a of these more one
of all the

THE

PROBLEMS

OF

LOGIC

223

general concept abstractingfrom

DEFINITION. reached
whenever tions

which
one

includes

c, and

which

is of
a

reached
c.

by
c

of the The of

characteristic marks
of definition
or

exact

concept

is
...,

by
c

means

other from

concepts
a, b
. . .

given objects a,
of
can

by means etc.)which (combining, distinguishing,

is derived

logical opera be expressly

indicated.
The

classical doctrine
to

of definition in

was

with

reference
can

the

cases

which

the

mainly comprehension of a
more

formulated

concept

be

determined
is

general concepts : this definition by proximate

But
we

by the difference between the origin of the scholastic

and

rule

of

genus

here

have
a

an

difference. specific the theory opportunityof considering

of definition from
as

wider

point of
of And

view.
as

There

are,

or or

may may

be,

many

kinds of definitions
of

concepts

there are,
are

be,

systems

logicaloperations.
which

of definition
1.

correspondto

elementary types thus : elementary operations,

there

Definitions

reached
meter

of

the concept is c by combination, in which for example, the peri \ by combining a given a, b a polygon is arrived at by combining the length of the
...

sides.
2.

Definitions

(Inter/ by differentiation erenz).

c

One

and

the

same

concept
is

may
a,

appear b
...,

as

the
....

certain

given concepts

and
when

b' a',

differentiation
a,

b
...

complete (as compared with

class
c

the

classes be

between difference A definition by corresponding to differentiated when

as

a',b' ...)can
to

far
no

as

which in

corresponds

a, and

they have

other

element

common.

3. Definitions
two
as

classes

of

between by correspondence.A correspondence bf and is taken af, a,b concepts (or objects)
... ...

given ;
another

concept

can

then

be defined

to

datum,
called
to

within

the established
in

EXAMPLE.
ences
are

The mind of
.

definitions

corresponds correspondence. familiar which correspond

as

that

which

by
. .

means

of such An

of
. . .

the
,

king

etc.
,

phrases as : the father important example of this

Science We
must

in Natural species of definition occurs b is explained as caused menon by a.

when
note

pheno
that

here

this definition
may the be

since a phenomenon generallyunacceptable, At any rate this is so until produced by several causes.

is

successive

order

of
cease

phenomena
to

is held

to

be

predetermined,
part.

when

will causality

play an

ambiguous

224

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

4.

Definitions
are

etc.). These

by abstraction (Grassmann, Helmholtz, Peano, the definitions which led us to investigate the
abstraction when it
can

of the concept. significance An object is defined by

to

be

shown

be

member

of

class ; the
must

relation then three

equation. This relation called by Peano : perties,

exhibit

like an appears fundamental pro

b, and (a) Transitive property ; if a b, b (b) Symmetrical property ; if a a. (c) Reflective property ; a
= =
"

b
-

c,

c.

a.

EXAMPLE. abstraction defined

the

Euclid which could

was

the

first

to

give

definition when

by
he

be used

for scientific purposes

two

magnitudes by comparing with a similar relation (Proportion). them direction of a straight The line is also defined by abstrac it is defined by means of the relation between tion when lines which two parallel possesses the three fundamental pro of an equation. perties modern the Hence most physicistsdefine their funda mental concepts by abstraction ; thus, for example, Maxwell define and Mach mass equal masses," the by the relation of which they explain. physicalcontent value the concept of In Political Economy, also, expresses that of abstractum (i.e. an exchangeable equivalent ; namely, in commerce) goods. CONCEPTS. LOGICAL PURELY Logical operations start from given concepts, and their aim is to create ones. new By
" " " " "

relation

between

abstracting from

the

differences
are

which reached

reside
; these

within
are

their used
as

concepts meaning purely logical

generalschemata

for all the concepts which

have' been

created

by scientificor ordinarythought and for all the relations which them. hold good between Such totality ',series, agreement, etc.,whose concepts are class, have already encountered. we names in character All the conceptual relations which are logical to" between be traced back to the relation of 'belongingan can
'

c"

element The derived. As

a

and

or class,

to

the inclusion of the

most

one

class in another. those

so

relation of

is equality

important of
under which
we

matter

of

the first form fact,

encoun-

226

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

LOGICAL

RELATIONS.
. . .

If

concept

is formed

from

other

and can of logical operations, given concepts a, b by means in them, the defined as originating consequentlybe expressly logical operationsby which c was constructed are conceived as relations, logical obtainingbetween c, a, b of But whenever two concepts c, d can be defined by means other data a, b kind of logical as a relation, some general For rule, exists between instance, a logicalrelation r, d.
...
.

...,

obtains

between

c,

d, if

includes

d, if

and

are

differen

tiated concepts, etc. In ordinary speech

logical relations
is B"

are

expressed by
"every

propositions. The singular "A proposition

A
A is B"

and

the universal

express the relation of inclusion ; the concept B contains (B\ ; in other words, the class corresponding to the former the class

correspondingto the latter (or the individual). While A is B" the particular denotes, on proposition"some the other hand, that the two classes correspondingrespectively another (thatis different from one to the concepts A and B are to say, have common elements). It is important for us here to gain a clear understanding relations between of the (psychological) import of the logical
contains

concepts.
As
a

(such

as

relations imply logical operations general rule,logical the work of which on etc.), combining, distinguishing, other data of involved is taken
as

the conceptsand

done.
:

There

are,

however,
1.
on

two

As

ways Created Relations.

"7, b
...

relations regardinglogical

When,

as

the result of

operating example,

certain data
...

c, d

is

relation between logical posited, by which they are defined ;

a
a

the concepts
for

the relation between

2.

b and -f-

a.

immediately given concepts and the possibility of creatingnew the combined ones on are basis of other data is abstractly expressed. If a straight Let us take, as an example, the proposition : with a surface,it belongs to line has two points in common the plane." here three We have concepts : point,straight line and classes line and the plane are conceived as plane. The straight relation expressed implies a condition,and of points." The of the infinitely combination the assumed pointsinto the many
As
"

Given

Relations.

When

"

THE

PROBLEMS

OF

LOGIC

227

classes denoted condition. the concepts

line" and "plane" by "straight There that is to say, a given exists,

" " "

must

this satisfy

relation

between

plane." straightline and relations Two DEDUCTION. or logical systems of logical relations 5, S' are equivalent when they are or can be estab lished by the same logicaloperations; or, in other words, when the conditions operations which governing the constructive in both cases. they express are the same The be inferred from or is the consequent of system Sf may of S' 6" whenever the conditions implied in the construction
are

such which

as

are

realized

in that

system S, and

of

constructive in

opera

tions of 5.

satisfies the

conditions from

implied
S

the

construction

When
are we

S'

follows

from

Sr, the

two

systems
When

equivalent.
talk of
we

deducing
mean

new
we

logicalrelations
exhibit from relations

from

given system
and collectively
The

S,
in

that

which,

detail,are

inferences

6".

is contained in the fact of such a deduction possibility that every operation or every system of logicaloperations can be For
can

transformed

into if the the the

same

various classes
a,

equivalent systems
", c
are

of
into

relations.

example,
arrive
c.

combined

at

result

by combining

the

(abc\ we classes (ab)

and

Thus

relations
a

belongs

to

(abc)

b
c

belongs to (abc] belongs to (abc] following system

:

can

be

combined

as

in the

(ab) belongs to (abc)

c

belongs to (abc]

and

the

equivalent to the former. AXIOMS. Among the purely logical concepts which of the cognitive concepts there are general schemata
relations which express the the

the

latter is

form
some

universal all

fundamental

of properties

logical operations, and

Such
:

form
are

elementary principlesof

deduction.

relations

called axioms.

Examples
1.

The

associative property
The

exhibited

in

the of

operation of
(ab) and
c. : operation

combining :
2.

class

is (abc)

the combination
of

The

commutative

property

the

same

If

228

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

arranged in series which are re much garded as equal,however they may differ in kind, the abstract concept of the series (ati] is the class (ab ...). transitive -, symmetrical and of reflective properties 3. The
concepts
a,
...

several

are

equation.
4.

The

of principle
c, then
a

inclusion includes
as

If the

class

includes

b,

and

b includes

c, etc.

This the

principle appears of inference : theory

of
the

abstractum b is
c

other
a

of substitution in principle If a is b (the concept b being the wtth a\ and if concepts combined
c.
a

the

it follows
must

that

is

logicalcontradiction or paradox which relations. The lurks in the verbal expressionof logical of the rule to a single paradox consists in the formal application : case, as in the following
We
notice

here

The Peter
.'.

are apostles

12 are are

in number.

and and

Paul Paul

apostles.
i 2

Peter the

in number.

Peano

meets

meanings
"
and This
s.

of

the

different two difficulty by distinguishing by copula,which he symbolises respectively for which it

device
our

answers

the

purpose

was

invented,

view it to explainthe paradox. In our opinion, is not the copula but the middle that changes its meaning. term In the major premissit refers to "the class of apostles (which is said to consist of twelve), while in the minor premiss "apostle"
in but it fails,
"

is the abstract
was

conceptum

of

an

individual

of the class. of the

Peano

two obligedto distinguish

meanings
a

because copula, the abstract

he

omitted

to

differentiate between within THEORIES. it. The

class

and

concept

immanent

foregoingconsiderations will help us to understand the structure of a deductive theory. Let deductive take some us theory half-way through,omitting all to the principles as implied therein : for instance,any inquiries shall find book on Geometry after the first chapter. We certain concepts, that in the development of the theorems relations obtainingbetween the logical with them, are accepted
DEDUCTIVE

given. The development consists concepts which are produced

as

in the express of those out

declaration

of

new

given by originally

THE

PROBLEMS

OF

LOGIC

229

means

of

relations Let of

in the logical operations, and (theorems}from the given relations.

now

deduction

of

new

us

try

to

re-ascend,

as

far

as

we

can,

the

ladder

which constitutes the theory. explanations and deductions deduction Since both we point backwards explanation and find : must, at the beginning of the theory,necessarily them Fundamental not are or 1 primary concepts, which of which selves all the explained, but by means concepts in the theory are explained. occurring Fundamental 2. or primary relations (axioms or postulates)
.

which theorems

are

not

themselves

deduced,

but

from

which

all

the

of the

There

cepts and

theory are deduced. is a certain freedom of choice in selecting which con relations shall be taken as primary in any particular
a

theory.
For in

placeof
c

system of concepts A,B,C..., and

of

of relations

"2, b, ":..., another

system
be

concepts
as

and

relations
as

A',

',C'

...

and the

a',b\

...

can

substituted

long

it is

equivalentto

in this connexion, means that originalone. Equivalence, be completelyexplained by means of A, B, C... can A', B', C and from deduced the reverse. a, b\ c' a, b, c..., and
...
...

The
no

of postulates

theory
all of
can

are

said all of
;

to

be

system deduced
one

from

less than
them be

them

independentwhen is equivalent to
words,
any when
no

the
one

deduced
the

from

in

other

of

postulates

deduced

from

of

the

others.
The
none

fundamental them
can

concepts of
be

theory are
means

indeducible
of the

when

of the

explained by

others, even

which relations were help of those fundamental assumed as obtainingbetween them. This question as to the independence of the principles and the indeducibility of the concepts of a deductive theory has given rise to remarkable developments within the sphere of mathematical inquiry.1

with

IMPLICIT

DEFINITION.
are

points which point of view.

!Cf. F.

of

most

remarks the on subjoin some the philosophical importance from

We

Problemi della Sa'enza,2nd edition. Enriques, Bologna, 1910: Zanichelli. Teubner. ) Questioni Leipzig, 1910: riguardanti la geometria tlementare. Zanichelli. trans. Bologna, 1900: (German Leipzig: Teubner.) der Geometric,"Encyklopddieder mathem. Prinzipien Wissensch. Leipzig, 1909 :

(German
"

trans.

Teubner.

230

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

in which the con case speciallyremarkable cepts and postulatesof a deductive com theory are the more the analysisof its axioms pletelyexplainedthe more rigorously
one can can

There

is

be be

carried

out.

This

is the

case

whenever of

all the

concepts

adequately explained by means given objects,not in proportion as mutually related (theory without postulates), the relations developed in the course of the theory are generated by the same operationsas those that explain the concept. Let for example, three classes,A, B, C, and the three us assume, them : followingrelations existingbetween
A A

and

have

an

element
"

in

common.

b
a

In

such

mutually

may and we related, A

=

case,

we

assume

that

the

arrive at the C

objects a, b, c are not followingexplanation:

=

(bc\ B=(ac\

(ab\
to
a

Our

supposititiouscase
in

corresponds
presuppose
are

certain

deductive
of

theories

which which

the

concepts

finite number

of logical generated by means Thus the whole theory is an actual logical progress. But, as a general rule,this is not possible. The geometri cal postulates, the concepts of for example, which combine line and plane,assume that the straight line and point,straight number the the plane include of points. Hence an infinite the concepts express the relations posited as existing between be imagined as conditions which of a logical never can process completed. of But as can never assume we given objects by means be exhaustively ex all the concepts of a theory can which assumed rather must plained. We regard the necessarily of the fundamental concepts. postulatesas implicitdefinitions the logical process The question then arises as to whether demanded by the postulatesis possible ; that is to say, whether be accepted. This themselves the postulates can question can immediate based on by existential hypotheses only be answered intuition or on physical, psychologicalor historical experience : exactly as has been done in the different critical discussions

objects from operations.

they

as

to

the foundations

of Mathematics.

THE

PROBLEMS

OF

LOGIC

231

II.

LOGIC

AND

REALITY.

LOGIC
PRINCIPLES.

AND

METAPHYSICS. The
are

"

VALIDITY

OF

THE

LOGICAL

processes still
more

of

and life, practical

of

into logicalthinking enter in the building up indispensable

means
an can

the sciences

; for

only by
use

their
as

ideas

be

rendered

determinate. presupposes
a

This

of

Logic

instrument

of

knowledge
govern the

certain any

correspondence between
the
are

thought and
to

reality, or,
one

at

rate, between Hence

we

laws
once

which

and
is

the

other.

led at
:

the

question

which

fundamental for knowledge

are

how

is the

of application

Logic possible? Two points which : investigation

1.

intimatelyrelated
how the

call for

special

As

to

whether

and

of a objects impliesthe persistence the world of Reality. Whether there is anything 2.

immutability of logical correspondingsomething in

Reality correspondingta
find four different

in

generaland abstract concepts. With we regard to the first question,

attitudes have been taken
up
at

various

times

by philosophical
The
of principles is real ; all that real existence. is
a

thought.
THE DOCTRINE
OF THE

ELEATICS.

of everything that Logic imply the immutability is is rational THE

sensuous :

hence

change and
OF

motion

have

no

DOCTRINE

HERACLITUS.

Reality

flux

of

of bility

nothing in it is rational. things : hence the applicationof the logical principles.)

DOCTRINE
between
OF

(Impossi
the

THE

HEGEL.

Reason

must

overcome

contradiction

which for itself constructs understanding, of unchangeable objects (by means logicalthinking),and in which empirical reality, everything is changeable. Hence must create we a higher Logic to supply the theory of the to thought which transcends experience. Reality will be seen when it is looked be rational from the standpoint of this at so-called higher Logic (Dialectic}. DOCTRINE
OF

CRITICAL
of

POSITIVISM.
as an

Critical Positivism

regards the system

scientific

Hegel
a

unsuccessful

attempt
the
a

to

base

procedure upon
and

correspondence
If
no we more are

between

under syn

standing
thesis of

experience.

to

have

rational

knowledge, it must

violate the

laws

of

logical

232

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

understanding) than thinking (intellect, claims of the empiricallygiven. Hence of Logic, but does not deny the validity
admissions
:

it must Critical makes

ignore
the

the

Positivism

following

thought are unchangeable. objectsof logical That Reality itself is changeable, but that within (b*) relations can the changing flux things and be distinguished which change so slowly that they may be treated as logical objects. the approximate correspondences established (c) That between objectsand unchanging realities admit of pro logical gressivecorrection by the help of deduction and experimental (a) That
the and verification, bilities can Thus towards
to
an

that

in
at.

this way

new

and

stricter

immuta

be arrived

is understandingand reality synthesize

exact

to

progress

selection

from

given realities of those which

: by the logicalprinciples satisfythe conditions laid down that is is science and to say, alreadypartly rational, Reality, it progressively strives to make so. The possibility AXIOMS. of progressively VALUE OF THE which is implied in scientific construction Reality, rationalizing is based upon of deductive a fundamental theories), (justification constitutes the objective value of demand, and this demand Logic. of Logic make assertion As already said, the principles no of the real,but simply state the conditions to the nature as of thought must which objects satisfy. To this we must add :

when the

these laws of

conditions

are

those satisfied,

axioms

which

state

logical operationsand the fundamental properties of the classes created by thought also sum up the properties of the classes or organisms which correspond to these in reality. expressedby the Subjectto the conditions of unchangeableness the totality of real thingsexhibits the proper of Logic, principles ties demanded by the axioms (combining,changing,etc.). Thus, for example, cashiers test the real value of the logical their calcula developments of arithmetic when they compare tions with actually existing currency.
Hence the
we

may

objects or scientific theory denote

that the constancy of say in general terms of a relations which form the subject-matter the limit to which

previousthinkinghad

234

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

: Reality into separate objects going

back

to

Heraclitus'

doc

Reality and the flux of radical Empiricism may be looked on as a perceptible things, of rather Nominalism than as an completion annulling ; although from other points of view this sphere might seem adapted to the revival of certain mysticalforms of Realism.
CRITICAL IDEAS.
1.

trine

of

the

inter-connectedness

of

SOLUTION

OF

THE

PROBLEM admits
:

OF

GENERAL

The The

critical point of view inter-connectedness of

experience(the demand

of

Empiricism). 2. The psychological explanationof the formation of con But it claims cepts,as put forward by the English Nominalists. 3. That within the flux of Realityapproximate invariables be distinguished can (objects). with logical while the combination, in accordance 4. That of such objects into classes is an arbitrary proceeding principles, which are made the part of thought,yet those combinations on in the interests of knowledge are determined by certain purposes with real signifi which invest the concepts so made (motives) and which express themselves objectswhich by positing cance, conditions as regardssimilarity. the logical satisfy
5. The
leads the
us

radical

scientific concepts, thus determined, than of something more to the recognition unchangeable creation of

objectsfrom which we started. Realism. The theory here sketched may be termed scientific advance of science an uninterrupted, in the logical It recognizes series gives which but progressive series of mental constructions, of the inter-connected an us approximate idea (representation) system of Reality. We subjoina few remarks in elucidation of this theory. meet It is true that in the world of experiencewe never since But but only with actual lions. with the lion-type,"
"

Plato

admitted

the

existence

of

"

lion

"

in

the
was

world from

of the

ideas, the

of empirical interpretation What did Plato

as

Realism

beginning excluded. existence mental (ideal)

It appears
norm,
norm

reallymean

by the
an

of the that he

lion

the

? type of its species

conceivable which

to

concrete

regarded the type as individuals approximate.

in

ideal this

In

all the
are

degree
So

appear reflected in harmonious Realism

relations

which

individuals

in

varying
the

Platonic interpreted,

simplicity. be brought under may

THE

PROBLEMS

OF

LOGIC

235

point of
value certain sistence
to

view

of modern

Natural

Science,

which

ascribes
so

real
as

the

or species (biological

in mineralogical)

far

averages in The the

tend

to

exhibit
in

greater regularityand
of the

per

appearance

individuals

characteristic

only important difference is that : of Platonic Realism 1 lays great weight on the invariability and of this idea constructs a Metaphysic by means species, which does not lend itself to the modern evolutionarytheory.
marks.
.

2.

Scientific
in the

Realism,
Eleatic

however,

cannot

repeat the
to

error

contained

theory,and

ascribe

by the concept. The species is admitted as an approximate hypothesisonly,requiring evidence. confirmation by a posteriori with regard to the concept of physical or In the same way, natural law^ Scientific Realism adopts the attitude which was
demanded invariability introduced
science which of into modern science for

Reality of invariability

the strict

by Galileo
determined

and

Descartes. the relations

The

Mechanics,

example, examines
are

by

the motions

of bodies

not

under

actually
therefore

existingbut under
arrives
at

and conditions, artificially simplified

abstract

results.

The

real value

of
to

its

conceptions is
which be

measured

by the degree of approximation

facts
to

truth with

they enable
that closer

be

predicted.
to

But

it cannot

denied

approximations
any value the

are invariability we

discovered
in for

scientific
life. much
a

procedure than
example,
certain in the than which

which
of

encounter

by ordinary
of
not

For
more

the

constant

gravity is
are

roughly calculated
necessary

acceleration

fallingbody,
for. SUBSTANCE

the

corrections

allowed

AND

CAUSE.

But
test

we

must

go of

deeper than
two

Scientific mental Nature.

The

Realism

does,
those
"

and

the
are

value

the

funda
laws

categoriesof
I
mean

relation

which

expressed
Cause.
an

in the

of

of Substance
"

and

concept

Substance

implies

order

of

phenomena

that certain permanently existingtogether; it is assumed per whose characteristics combine into definite ceptible groups, is of conceived then the substance as persistence forming perceptible objects. Thus, for example, energy," matter,"
" "

and

even

the

different

kinds

of

matter

which

constitute

the the

so-called

simple bodies, are

of substance.

scientific concepts,

under falling

category

Scientific

inquiry always employs

the

of Substance categories

236 and

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

of dis prioripossibility under these categories. Scientific coveringrelations which come results confirm, though only approximately, the constructive and value of the hypothesis. In this way the significance when, with the hypothesisitself is brought to light, especially of science,a new of understanding and application progress
an
a

of Cause

whenever

there

is

it becomes truth

above : In the hypothesis mentioned there exists a mutual world of perception or dependence, reciprocal w hich binds all all objects and relation, together appearances to those which are proximate to them in either space or time. The laws which affirma relation of Substance or of Cause imply a selection of objects or conspicuous phenomena, a change in which Hence the lack bringswith it a noticeable change in the data. serial phenomena must be made or of a law for simultaneous up for by approximating the phenomena involved as closely as and possible, by paying stricter attention to the relations which zvhen the law was ivere formulated. neglected But if, of insist instead we acceptingan approximate result, that all the relations of Substance Cause of which any given or law is supposed to supply corrections be taken into must
"

necessary. in the contained

This

is

how

we

have

arrived

at

the

consideration, we

shall find ourselves

confronted

with

the

diffi

in a transcendental cultyof ascribing meaning at all, sense, any to any definitive expression. For the universe consists of an number of related data, acting and reacting upon one infinite in this circumstance another. It is precisely in the fact that scientific Realism admits of an unlimited advance in a graduated perfection that we find the essential difference between it and metaphysicalRealism.
"

"

THE

PROBLEM

OF

METHODOLOGY.

So

far

we

have

been

those general occupied with the critical inquiry as to how discovered which alone the be to are application principles by of the construction of Logic to reality, and, as a consequence, reach the rational science, is possible. But when we a methodologicalpoint of view we find that the theory of know ledge contains an element of Pragmatism. Stated in generalterms, the problem of Methodology is to of scientific determine the acquirement and extension how knowledge takes place. attitude we have taken up permits us to The philosophical adopt the proposalof StanleyJevons and Claude Bernard, and

THE

PROBLEMS

OF

LOGIC

237

exhibit
cation
or

this

process

under of the

schema

which

is

merely
use

modifi

extension

schema

already in

for inductive

reasoning. Jevons
tion between nized
the

has

the great merit and

which He

of

having reconciled
fills as
an

the

opposi
recog in in

the inductive function

deductive

sciences; for he
different

deduction

instrument

inductive induction
:

proof.

distinguishedfour

stages

(2) hypothesis; (3) deduc (i) tion ; (4) verification. The schema actuallyemployed in scientific procedure is of Jevons ; for much one more complicated than this simplified that some knowledge has already inquiry presupposes every and been acquired; while the comparison of observations in the light of a theory previously held experiments made of course but by often suggests the hypothesis ; not expressly,
Pre-scientific observation;
means

of

concepts

which

have

been

formed

in the

course

of the

inquiry.
follows : as modify the inductive schema (i) Pre-scientific observations and experiences (negating or affirmingconcepts hitherto employed) ; (2) construction of con We
must

therefore

cepts which
deduction
This
;

exhibit hypothetically

the

nature

of

the

real ;

(3)

(4)

verification.
so

last stage, in

far

as

it tends
a

to

confirm

the

hypo

for thesis,providesa starting-point Attention

must

further

inductive

process.

be

drawn

to

the

part

played by hypothesis,

according
group of

to this

schema,

in the

which phenomena inquiry. Every theory contains : in the involved 1. Implicit hypotheses, positingof certain of logicalthought (such hypotheses, data or relations as objects for instance, as are or we mass speak of a implied when of Physics. (invariables) employ the constants 2. Explicit hypotheses,which, by the help of deduction, be brought to the test of verification by experiment. But can here we must notice carefully two points : (a) Under artificially simplified conditions, the result of to the experiment may offer an affirmative or negative answer the implicit in the hypothesis,when question formulated hypo theses have been correctly apprehended. More often,however, such results confirm or refute not (b)
" "

of a conceptual representations scientific a together constitute

238

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

single hypothesis,
of hypotheses.
may It

but

an

inference

which

follows

from

system

happen,
are

therefore, that
confirmed and been confirmed processes,

the

inferences

from
; in

any that

given system
case

partly
have

partly negated
are

those for

which further

taken
to

as

the
more

point

inductive

leading
comes

startinggeneral
here

hypotheses.
The value of

generalizingby
must

inference

out

very

clearly. Implicit hypotheses

element in the in
our

be

regarded
for

as

the
are

least
not

variable

systems
of entire from

of any

knowledge,

they

contained
are

postulates
in
an

particular theory,
Nevertheless,
time
is
an

but the

rather of

immanent these
The

science. time
to

revision

hypotheses

imperative duty.
not

confirmation of
success
or

such

implicithypotheses does
whole

depend
the

on

the

failure of definite experiments,but

as a :

upon
the

con

gruence

of experimental results
the Axiom
OF

criterion

of
The

implicit hypothesesis
PRESUPPOSITIONS

of Contradiction.
PROCEDURE. the estimate

EXPERIMENTAL
we can

points
of

of

view

from

which
to
a

probable
and
a

worth

experiments tending theory

fact that
on

confirm

given hypotheses

given

scientific One
out not

call for

important
the the

result value

specialmethodological inquiry. of such an inquiry is that it brings

of

the

experience
certain

in

general
in

is

dependent
science

only

implicit hypotheses
also
on

contained

the

under mental

discussion, but

presuppositions of experi

procedure

which
or

of the causal
It
a

relation

imply hypotheses as the mutual dependence

means

is,for instance, by
the
are

of similar

continuity of phenomena. hypotheses, admitted

to

the

priori,that
in

science determined and time.

of

phenomena
another The of the

Physics attempts to show that impinging upon by forces

in the of
to

its
one

space

presuppositions contained
and relation Cause
can
a

metaphysical
further
a

notions

Substance causal that into

a

also be

admit back

traced

analysis ; thus Group of primary

of
a

causes,

is, to

constant

transformation

preceding

causal

consequent

relation.

THE

PROBLEMS

OF

LOGIC

239

CONCLUSION.

It

has

been

impossible
of
have the

to

attempt,

in

this

brief

sketch,
;
we

any shall

exhaustive be
content

discussion
if

problems
their

touched

upon and

we

indicated

scope

their

philo

sophical
A
more

significance.
penetrating
upon
not

insight
further
that

into

these

problems
of of

must

neces

sarily
This

wait

the

developments
the of science

scientific

procedure.
expects
same sense

does

mean

Theory

Knowledge
in the

illumination

from let

the

advance
the be
to

experiment
of the

as

does,

us

say, I may
or

Physics.
expression
of

Epistemological
contributes
"

experience
not
to

if
"

allowed

Nature

the

subject-matter
a

Science,
conquest,

but

to

Science
the

itself,
last

regarded
to

as

process the

of

gradual
instrument
the

and,
which

in

resort,
is carried

human

reason,

by
one

this and the

the

process

out.

Given the
to

reality,
await
them that the

on

hand,
It

spiritual
task
of In

elements
human this

on

other,
draw

one

another.
into

is

reason

together
aim

synthesis. Positivism,

sense

we

may

say

of
is

Critical
to

as

distinguished
laid

from

previous
in Kant's

attempts,

carry

out

the

programme

down

Critique,
and

especially
in

within

the

spheres
spirit

of
consonant

Epistemology,
with that

Logic,
in

Methodology,
it

scientific

which

originated.

THE

TRANSFORMATION CEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS

AND

OF

THE IN

CON MODERN ON

EPISTEMOLOGY LOGIC

ITS

BEARING

BY

NICOLAJ
I.

LOSSKIJ.
CONSCIOUSNESS AND OF

THE

STRUCTURE

OF

KNOWLEDGE.

Philo leading part in modern im As a sophy is that of consciousness. general rule,the mediate data of consciousness form the starting-point from modern which philosophersproceed to build up their conception of the world. bases itself on an Epistemology, in particular, of the forms of analysisof consciousness, on an investigation

THE

concept

which

plays

the

"

"

consciousness,and
Hence
no

so

on.

modification the

of

this

concept

and no sciences, philosophical be allowed must it. to lurk unchallenged within The most dangerous of such presuppositionsis that to which psychologism, subjectivism, solipsism, anthropocentricism The and other similar theories owe their existence. assumption

neglected by

safely presuppositions
can

be

is that

consciousness

is identical

with

the

sum

total

of

the

of the individual, or, more psychical states exactly, with is aware. of psychical states the sum of which the individual this conception of consciousness, we If we with start must end in Pan-psychism, psychologicalIdealism,intellecinevitably similar theory. tualistic Phenomenalism, or some of consciousness, of this view Owing to the wide vogue idea and of the supposed evidence in its favour, an erroneous takes the facts has that Philosophy which any up sprung lead to of consciousness its starting-point must as necessarily

242

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

often

Substantialism to or spiritualistic wards the mechanical and materialistic view of the psychical life. But modern Philosophy is graduallyemancipating itself both from the old spiritualistic Substantialism and from the custom It conceptionof the world. ary assumptionsof the mechanical is working out for itself an entirely new concept of consciousness,

unconscious, towards

which

is based

not

on

unexamined but

conclusions upon the

from

presup It is

positions imposed, dogmatically

and

exact

description
"

articulation

of

the process

of becoming conscious.
himself

helped to establish this new Weltbegriff concept, and in his Menschliche has even, all unawares, taken it as his starting-point. Hence his polemic against the habit of proceeding from the facts of is based entirely consciousness a on misunderstanding. The new conceptionof consciousness which is leadingPhilo Idealism be sophy out of the cul-de-sac of psychological may
formulated
as

remarkable

that,amongst

others, Avenarius

follows stands
is

Consciousness
a

is the sum-total

thing
This

which

in

certain

unique

relation to

of every the Ego.

therefore be described or simple,and cannot defined by analysisinto its elements. We can only indicate it by the followingexpression, which is metaphoricalonly,and be taken must not literally. Everything falls within the the has." If we which sphere of consciousness Ego agree the Ego has the content to call what of consciousness (the ex but unfortunately we pressionis not quite free from objection, the theory of con find no formulate better one) we can may sciousness wish to bring forward here as follows : Every fact we relation
" " "

of consciousness such fact of

a

is made

up

of at least three

moments

; every

depends
content

Ego,
the

of an the presence upon of consciousness, and of a relation between for its existence

According to this theory every fact in Realitywith is not merely a fact,it is also,owing to which / am acquainted with it by the that my the circumstance Ego is connected of conscious content relation of a having-in-consciousness," it the function ness ; in other words, the Ego exercises towards of becoming conscious. for consciousness is the presence of this The only necessity
two.
"

relation

or

function. the

The

nature

of the

content

which

enters

into relation with

no

Ego

is

matter

of indifference.

It is of
are

the phenomenon we whether in this connexion significance whether it belongs to or physical, dealingwith is psychical

the

CONCEPTION

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

243

inner

life of the

subjector
Thus,
to

falls within take

an

the

sphere

of

the

trans-

world. subjective

the motion illustration,

of

pendulum

is

non-psychical phenomenon, belonging to

an

the transact

of it may, world ; nevertheless by means subjective of consciousness become ception, part of the content

of per

of

subject
a

knowing.
The

traditional
relation

theory
the The the

of

consciousness
and the

also
content

recognizes
to

unique
up
new

between

Ego

be

taken the

into

consciousness. is that the

difference
new

between

the

old and

conception
relation

theory placesin the foreground

content

the It

between the

emphasizes
not

Ego and the functionalcharacter

content

of consciousness.

it will
or

allow

that the

of

of consciousness.^ Hence consciousness is psychical

erroneous

but maintains this to be an subjective, based on dogmatic pre-suppositions. This

assertion,

transformation, which

appears

at

first sight

so

insig

leads to results of far-reaching nificant, importance. It seems, to lead Philosophy along entirely new indeed, likely paths. For the

concept

of

consciousness
than
was

is

now

seen

to

be

far

more

A originallybelieved. philosophy which from this concept is much starts more supple ; innumer able new before it. In proof of this we possibilities may open it has out that blow alike freed itself with point one already from and of from the necessity Solipsism denying the existence of matter of transmuting it by violence into a complex of or psychical processes. No one literature can acquainted with modern philosophical is widely extended. deny that this movement But, being still confusions have only in the earlystages of its development,some arisen. Different philosophers employ different terms for what

comprehensive

are

realitythe same points,and concentrate

the another.
"

in

things ; they choose

their attention
not

different

startingdifferent

only

on

points of
one

problem, but on Then, too, there

are

points;
to
ness

such, for instance,as

lie far apart from points which is still disagreement on essential the Ego is to be conceived, to how
that the
content

what

degree we
to

to

assume

of conscious
so more

is bound

the

Hence
exact

without
is

bond, Ego by a constant a special investigationor

and
a

on.
or

less

analysis it
the
term

impossibleto

establish

the

of affinity

the

JBy
mean

the state

content," as opposed to "trans-subjective content,' we "subjective of the individual himself,his joys,wishes, etc.

244

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

different forward

theories

of consciousness

which

have

We epistemologists. Modern Theories of publish the results of an inquiry in discussed ; here Knowledge," where this questionhas been fully of a host that out we can only bring forward a few names might be quoted, and we cannot attempt to prove that their
"

by

different

brought hope shortly to

been

views

are

related. deserves the first mention.

may

W. the

Schuppe

content

of consciousness
to

be
not

According non-psychicaland
fall within

to

him,
trans-

that is subjective, life.1 psychical In Rehmke

a we

say, it need

the individual

similar

doctrine

of equallyimportant representative Here too belongsAvenarius1 theoryof consciousness. of co-ordination of principles (Prinzipialkoordinan
" " "

have

central of the the co-ordination atiori) by which he means or organ" (Zentralglied) Ego and of its opposite(Gegenglied) members of a whole, a doctrine which he has developed in as his work : Der menschliche Weltbegriff. find a similar theory under quitea different form in the We of Windelband and Rickert in so far,at any rate, that writings consciousness Rickert maintains in his theory of supra-individual contents and non-subjective character of some the non-psychical the Within of consciousness. Marburg school of transcen dental Idealism, Natorp is developinga new theory of conscious The new is also emphasized in ness. concept of consciousness in Grundlegung the works of the present writer, more especially Standand Grundlehren der Psychologic des Intuitivismus, vom

punkte des Voluntarismus?

In modern is
in
to frequently

Psychology also
be met of T. with.

the We

new

theory of

consciousness

find it under

different forms

Lipps ; in the writings of Pfander, a in his Einfilhrung in die Psycho of Lipps, especially disciple treatise by Stumpf, entitled Erscheiremarkable logic ; in a very also in the inquiries Funktionen und psychische ; and nungen carried on by the school of Psychology founded by Killpe.
the works
1See

Schuppe:
und imm.

"

Erkenntnistheoretische and
"

kenntnistheorie

Zeitschrift fur
2

Phil

Logik," 1894; 1896.

for the

Logik," 1878; und Grenzen Begriff

"Grundriss
der

der

Er-

in Psychologic,"

in i Psychologii, Woprossy Philosophii Max d. Int. and 1904-1905, Niemeyer, trans. by Grundltg. 1902-1903 1904. Halle, 1908,and Die Grundlegung d. Psychol v. St. d. Volunt. Earth, Leipzig, These

appeared

first time

in

German

Die

CONCEPTION

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

245

In

the

present
of

treatise

we

shall

discuss

the

bearing

on

Logic
with
more

of this
it from

reform
the

the

concept of
up

consciousness, dealing
in
our

standpoint taken

previous works,
must

We especiallyin Grundlegung des Intuitivismus. it is which fore begin by making quite clear what this

there

distinguishes

conceptionof
Consciousness,

consciousness
as

from

others.

of already explained,is the sum-total all contents the Ego stands in a certain unique rela to which indicated be metaphorically to tion, which by the verb may Of this have." however, there are two kinds, clearly having,"
" "

from distinguishable is clearlyan content joy, wish, etc.) ; but

one

another

in my

some

cases

the

conscious

expressionof
in others it
seems

Ego (as,for example, to confront the Ego as

within
"

something
my direct view my

alien

to
as

consciousness

and itself, only falls something given to

"

the in
so

field of far
as

me

attention
"

to

it,and
and
so

to

the

extent

that I
may
"

keep
the

it in

(as
of But
"

red,"
"

"

hard,"
"

on).
second

We the

call

first

kind

content

mine," and
my

the

* given-to-me."

my

states

of consciousness

(joys, wishes)may,
in
a

in their I have

turn, become
before
me.
are

the In

objectof
this
case

attention,the objectwhich
two-fold
it in two
"

they stand
with

Ego, and
!{

connected

relation to my different ways, being both

"

that they are states ") and (in the sense givenmy for consideration. to-me an as object The of second kind having-in-consciousness is the most important for the Theory of Knowledge.
mine
" " "

"

In

this

kind

of and

consciousness
some

there
or a

exists
;

relation
no

between
difference

the

Ego

content

other

it makes

whether

phenomenon, whether tive (the sphere of the trans-subjective world. We between the Ego and something
attention,
and leads
to
or

psychical or material it fall within the sphere of the subjec the psychical life of an of or individual)
content

this

be

will which

call this
owes

unique
"

relation
to

its existence

my

that

something being

given-to-me ":
between

perception, intuition, subject and object.

1This with the under school various of
des

gnoseologicalco-ordination

distinction of the content forms and in in

of consciousness of

into two

classes may
in the der

be

met

Schuppe's Theory
my

Knowledge,

Psychologyof
It has been he Philosophise

Lipps,

works Die

Die

Grundlehren

Psychologic vom

Standpunkt
worked
out

Voluntarismus

and
a

Grundlegung

des Intuitivismus.
:

quite recently under

s.

similar form

by D. Michaltschew

Studien, 1909,

z.B. pp. 31-39.

246

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

This
an

relation is not

causal

relation ; it does

not

consist in

of the non-Ego on the Ego, or conversely of the Ego on effect the non-Ego. is accustomed For this reason the scientist who have been estab with the relations which to deal exclusively lished are by Physics, Chemistry, and Physiology, and is view of the world, and who recognized in the mechanical unfamiliar with the kind of relations which underlie all cognitive finds great difficulty in accepting the theory of the processes, of consciousness since the fact that here
a

structure

propounded.
is
" "

Now

imply any causal no longer any

content must

given-to-me does not and object, there are interaction between subject grounds for maintaining that every perceived
content
sensuous

be

in its nature, that

is to

say, must

be

theory, space, time, and although ; nevertheless, in any sense be described as elements of knowledge they cannot derived from sensations, they are "given-to perception.Further, this theory leads us back the Platonic at several points to doctrine of the contemplationof ideas.1 But in being explainedas a relation of being-given-to between the subject and the known object,the true nature is of consciousness the three restricted not to already and mentioned of consciousness ; namely, the Ego, the content the relation between them co (perceptionor epistemological ordination). As already pointed out, the Ego brings the of attention into play ; in other words, it bringsabout a activity individual. state in an Further,in order to subjective psychical become of the aware given content, the subject knowing must over perform an act ; he must set the given content in order them. it with to against other contents compare this point onwards From knowledge of the object is gained but of this process of comparing and distinguishing; by means for it only reveals such knowledge must always be incomplete, side of the object,namely, the one to us one apprehended and of so form, on). by means comparison (colour, time is thus an apprehended a definite object Every judgment concerningit is formed, and if we call the matter of the this judgment the cognitivecontent sum we may up follows : In every process of results of the preceding as analysis
this
" " " " "

made

According to up of sensations. motion are regarded as non-sensuous

"

"

This

result of Intuitivism is der

Seele als Problem

developed in my treatise : Die Unsterblichkeit Erkenntnistheorie vol. 104. ; Woprossy Philosophii^

der

CONCEPTION

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

247

judging three elements subjectknowing ; these

"

distinguishedin addition to the the content, and the act the object, are of cognition. When, for example, I say, on perceivingthe swing the of a pendulum, pendulum is swinging," the object of complex segment of reality knowledge here is that infinitely
can

be

which

is denoted

in this

(This segment of in virtue of knowledge which was in this judgment gained in is a pendulum.") In this case This the earlier judgment, an is the of the judgment content swinging of the pendulum ; directed to the act of knowledge is made up of the attention of comparison. this object and its motion, and also of the work
"

the pendulum." judgment by the term is denoted by the word pendulum reality
" " "

We

must
on :

draw
one

knowing
the other

side
act

the

of

the act sharp dividing line between and the object and known content knowledge is always a psychicalstate and

of
on

of

the

subject knowing

bears

the

character

of

an

event

(in

other words, it is

which comes to pass at the moment temporal), the other the judgment is formed. On in which hand, the of knowledge may be non-psychical, transobject and content and may belong to a different point of time from thesubjective act ; indeed of mathe they may even, as in the case cognitive matical be timeless. ideas,
two
:

These
as

sides of the process

of

knowing

may

be described

act is the side of the psychicindividual, cognitive it is the subjective side of knowledge, while the objectand con constitute its objective side. In every tent of the cognition act of knowing, besides the objectand the content of the cognition also necessarily be (the objectiveside of knowledge) there must the individual's psychicalact of knowing (the subjectiveside). This givesrise to an illusion ; the individual knowing believes

follows

The

these

different

sides To

of

the

cognitive
of

process

to

form

one

whole. inseparable
erroneous

the influence

this illusion is due

to

the the of

act transference of the qualities of the cognitive content

objectand
Thus like

known

; in

other
the

words,

the

transference

from qualities

objectiveside of knowledge. arises the erroneous conviction that object and content, the act of knowledge,must ^psychical states of the subject, subjectiveto
even

the

happening in time,and
And
in this is founded the
moment

at the same

time that
are

as

the act of existence

knowing.
of

the
in

theory

the

things
be

beyond proved
"

which

they
prove

perceived

cannot

that it is

to impossible

their continuous

existence.

248
Here been

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

we

have
to

the root show If

see

of all the

different theories which

have

framed

that
we

everythingwhich
remember what

exists is immanent has been said

in consciousness.

above,

however,
and able. upon We

we

shall

that

the differences between

the immanent
not

the transcendental
must

theories of
in

knowledge

are

irreconcil

bear
the

mind

the

distinction

already insisted

sides of the act of objective that the temporal qualities knowing and must further remember of the act of knowing do not necessarily belong to the object of this act. We then admit and that the object content can be transcendent as and content over of knowledge may against the knowing subject, or over even as against any conscious man, ness whatever, although in the moment of framing a judgment become immanent in the consciousness know they of the subject is brought about through the functioning ing. This immanence of the individual^who brings attention to bear on the object and content in question. between If
we

and subjective

accept this view

no

of the structure

of consciousness

we

shall have of truth

"

in determining the fundamental difficulty

qualities

and universal validity; in other words, eternity identity, independence of the individual knowing. According to the theory of Intuitivism a true knowledge of a constituent A of the world (an idea, an event, and so on) is gained whenever, in of cognitiondirected towards act virtue of an it,this element of knowledge ; that is to say, the object and content becomes its objectiveside. into an when it enters act of cognition as individuals and However at whatever are perceiving, many been times this perceptiontakes place, as long as it has really A perceived and not merely fancied,it is always the same of the judgment : in other words, the content which forms eternal and valid. The advan truth is identical, universally other theories, for example that of Husserl, tage over a by this theory is that it is not driven to assume possessed of the world ; it need not posita separate and ideal reduplication realm of truths. According to our theory even a changing and temporal content, in so far as it is considered in relation to the be a truth ; that is to say, it has an eternal, act of knowing, may valid meaning. This result is not identical and universally obtained by transforminga temporal element of the world into and ideal relation timeless idea,but by admitting a specific a known. between the subject knowing and the object (observation)

250

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

psychicallifeof the individual, cognitionis always the result of analysis, side of cognition is always while the objective in character. synthetic The science of Logic investigates the grounds on which the relation between the subject and object of a judgment are or based, and is only concerned with the objective synthetical side of cognition which, as we have seen, is the sub ; analysis, of the individual knowing, and only serves work as a jective is of the side of judgment, bridge to objective importance for Psychology,but not for Theory of Knowledge. As a matter of fact, however, owing to the confusion of the individual-subjective side of cognition, with the objective Logic occupied itself almost until Kant's time, with the problem of analysis. entirely, there grew Hence, owing to a series of misconceptions, up a in the forefront, and tendency to place the relation of identity let that of ground and to consequent recede into the back ground. In so doing Logic did not forget the relation of for instance, the ground and consequent, but transformed it (as, Rationalists did) into that of identity. Associated with this the further tendency to place in the foregroundthe Laws of was and of Excluded of Contradiction Middle, which we Identity, laws of thought, call the anafyticowhile the synlogical may law of Sufficient Ground fell into neglect. Since thetico-logical Kant's time interest in the synthetical side of cognitionhas been on the increase ; nevertheless, even up to the present day,, this question has remained the attitude of logicians inde on such on terminate,especially points as mediate inferences and do not rank the principles those judgments which amongst will pass on here to a somewhat of knowledge. Hence we of judgment and syllogism. closer examination

in the

2.

Judgment

and

Syllogism.

are logiciansand epistemologists agreed that an of a distinguishing and identifying objectis cognized by means which is directed towards it, that is to say, by means activity of a comparison with other objects. of the process This is a correct from the psycho account incorrect when, misled logicalside, but it becomes by the writers transfer this tendency already mentioned, philosophical side. For the notion then arises explanation to the objective
"

Most

CONCEPTION

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

251

cognition is the product of a comparison of subjectand of premisses and or predicate, conclusion, so that the meaning and of a logical ground of a judgment consist in the establishing of contradiction relation of identity or only partial) (generally between subject and predicate. According to this theory a judgment e.g. the rose is red," is constructed as follows : the subject is the perceptionof the red rose, and the predicate is
"
"

that

added
41

to
"

it

by
the

means

of

the
"

identification partial

of the idea

of

be said red rose." Similarlyit may : perception that the syllogism conductors Natrium is a metal, metals are : of electricity, of electricity is is a conductor therefore natrium red with
" "

based between
41

on

the

for it asserts of identity, principle the denotation

"

identity partial
of the

either
"

or

the connotation of

concepts

conductor natrium," electricity." Jevons' Principlesof Science affords a classical example of this tendency in Logic. It is worthy of remark that even avowed of Kant, and been have disciples logicians who strongly in fluenced by him, although they recognize the categorical synthesisas the basis of the objectiveside of knowledge, yet do not consistently in their logical systems. carry out this principle They often turn back, in a hesitatingsort of way, to the
metal and

"

principleof Identity as the logical ground of the judgment, of the smuggling it in under such terms as the agreement
" "

predicate with the subject, the and so predicate in the subject,

But the
most
we

"

logical
and

immanence

"

of

the

on.

must

now

give

concise

clear

formulation
of

of

They
of

important characteristics of these systems unconscious or on imply a return, conscious

the
to

Logic.
part

the

their author, to
a

doctrine be

of

the

Rationalists,who
when
the

only
com

allow

bination

judgment and of subject

grounded logically
of this
"

predicate is determined
kind
"

necessity. A
the

typical form

by an analytical in of necessity occurs

analytical judgment SP is P (ifindeed such statements deserve be called judgments). An to essential property of this judgment and of all judgments which are analytically is that laws of thought an necessary appeal to the three logical the axioms of Identity, of Contradiction and of Excluded Middle suffices to establish the necessity and universal validity of the judgments based upon them.1
" "

It

was

on

this account

that

we

agreed

to

call them

the

Laws a;/rf////V0-logical

of

Thought.

252

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

Modern
can

are logicians

well
an

aware

that

not

every

judgment

But by means of a one. analytical curious of a theory of inferencethey have discovered way of synthetical at any rate, the deduction exhibiting, judgments from result the of an syntheticalpremisses as analytical necessity.Of course, where universal synthetical premissesare taken as given, without any formal logical grounding especially of premisses which underlie all knowledge, such as the Law of Geometry, etc., there is no Causation, the axioms difficulty in showing that between such universal synthetical premisses less and the synthetical conclusions drawn from them which are general in character, there exists a relation of analytical be subsumed necessity (a secondary law, for instance, can under a more general law). In the great majority of modern systems of Logic this is how the relation between precisely premissesand conclusion is explained. This is evident from the fact that they nearlyall contain statements such as the following:The conclusion must than do the premisses(no addition is logically contain more not term must justifiable), or, no appear in the conclusion which was in the premisses(since be no logical contained there would not The conviction under and so on. ground for its appearance), is that a conclusion is only logically lying all such statements established when it follows from the premissesby an analytical to saying that whenever necessity. But if this is so it amounts premisses are accepted as given it is only necessary to appeal of Excluded and the Laws of Identity, of Contradiction to the con Middle to compel every thinking being to admit clusions drawn from them. In a logical theory so constructed
" " "

be transformed

into

it is clear Law

that

there

is

no

need

for

the

fourth

law, the

of Sufficient Ground
to to

customary
necessary

quote
their
so

(Reason). But since it has become it, many although it is not logicians,
cannot

systems,
we

make

up

their minds

to

following situation : out of into their deference to custom logiciansbring this axiom what to do with there they do not know systems, but when for it it is only by it. And if they do find an application Contra of Identity, of the Laws reading into it the contents diction and Excluded Middle it,that is to say, ; by exhibiting demands that only such law which as a judgments as are shall be recognized as determined necessity by an analytical
discard it. And

get the

CONCEPTION

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

253

adequately established.
the Law other of three laws.

It

is taken with

merely
such
an

That

epitome of the interpretation

as an an

Sufficient

Ground

has
to

retained the

even

illusion of

independence is perhaps due to applied negatively, prove is for example, as : "A man
a

fact that

it is
such
woman

generally
inferences,
is not

the
a

of invalidity

human
a

being, a saying, we
his

man,

therefore

woman we

is not have

human

being."
may
:

In
"

proof of
"

what

been

quote
Ein

the

Logik

of

Alexander
des

Wedenskij and

treatise

neuer

und

leichter Beweis

syst. Philos.
because

Kritizismus philosophischen (Arckivfur significant 1910). These examples are especially

are

they
with
us

taken

from

system

of

Logic which

has

been

built up
show

foundation. They great consistency on a Kantian ex how, with regard to the problem we are now clearly modern
the
are

amining,the
insistingon when they
abandon
the process

Kantians

remain

true

to

their master

in

it when

syntheticalcharacter of objective knowledge of knowledge, but dealing with the principle laws of thought and to the logical they come
of inference is based between
"

of inference.
on

Wedenskij's theory
"

his

doctrine

of

connexion The logicalcoherence. and the premisses," says Wedenskij, conclusion upon the

the

conclusion
of

or

the

dependence

the

premisses in valid syllogisms is generally coherence called logical or logicaldependence." 1

But of
an

in what

does

that Laws

analysis of it means nothing

of Contradiction

coherence logical syllogismWedenskij comes

more

this

consist
to

By
by
and

way

the conclusion
the

than

the coherence

demanded
This

and

of Excluded

Middle.

coherence
con

exists, Wedenskij
clusion
; it may

says, also

not

only between
between
square and the
to

premisses
"

exist of
a

concepts
the

thus
of

it exists

between

the

concept
we

concept

rectangu-

larity ; for
square
a

were

is

a as

square

judgment that a should be obligedto conceive we rectangularfigure, not rectangular. Such a judgment, however, is in
to assent

refuse

conflict with
contradiction that

the is

content

of the concept be

of

square,

and,

since
we see

unthinkable,cannot
which into contradiction

thought.
cannot

Hence

that is

logically necessary
thought

be

denied

without

leadingour
of such

with
to

itself (the occurrence

Law

contradiction
2

is, according

the

of Excluded

Middle, inevitable)."
1

Logik," 6, p.

6 (Russian edition), 1910.

Op. cit. " 134, p. 95.

254

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

It is clear from

this passage

that

coherence by logical

and

what we have called analy logical Wedenskij means necessity tical necessity. Let us now how see Wedenskij proves that preciselythe interconnexion required by his theory obtains and how between the premisses and conclusion, he establishes the necessityof the axiom of Sufficient Ground to explain the of conclusion of a rules Inference. The legitimate he is v alid virtue of our inference," (in only necessarily says, preceded it)in so far as we admit that agreement with what that which is in contradiction with itself cannot be thought. For that quicksilver is a fluid and instance,if we have admitted that all fluids are natural compulsion obligesus to a elastic, admit that quicksilver is elastic. But why is this necessary ?
"

"

Because

we

hold

self-contradiction

to

be

unthinkable

; if we

of quicksilver we rejectthe elasticity fluid

or

either

deny

that

it is

that

admitted maintain

and have elastic, already yet we But other both these judgments. the on if, hand, we all fluids
are

nothing to prevent us from concluding as follows : Although quicksilver is a fluid, and all fluids are elastic, is not elastic. yet quicksilver If we of Contra that fluids are not governed by the Law assume do not know whether or that we diction, they are governed by it is elastic, that quicksilver to admit or not, there is no necessity and that all even though we have admitted that it is a fluid,
are

that

self-contradictions

thinkable

there is

fluids
"

are

elastic.

I must

not, of

course,

be understood

here to

mean

that the

of a correctly-drawn necessityof admitting the conclusion This inference is onlyconditioned by the Law of Contradiction. Middle. If of Excluded the Law also follows from necessity could neither affirm nor we deny the predicateelastic of the instead relate the predicateto but could subject quicksilver,'
* ' '

the and

in subject

way

which

allowed

of simultaneous

affirmation

us negation (let agree to symbolize this third relation by the then be at should is not ') we copula X instead of is and the conclusion, while accepting the premisses, to reject liberty, the premisses. In such and could do this without contradicting and all fluids is a fluid, could say, althoughquicksilver we a case but is neither elastic nor not-elastic, are elastic, quicksilver
' ' ' *

^-elastic.'
"

Still it is evident inferences

in

that

is only logical necessity of the Law of

immanent

in

valid

virtue

Contradiction.

CONCEPTION

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

255

Hence in
so

I far
as

say
we

that

valid

inferences

are

true necessarily

only

hold

self-contradiction
is based
on

to

be Laws

unthinkable."1
of

Thus and
of

the

conclusion

the

Contradiction
laws

Excluded
"

Middle.
Law of
;

Nevertheless,
Sufficient Ground
of the absence

these

do

not

suffice.

If the

is excluded this law the

from rules

Logic, difficulties arise

of the

in

it be justified. Only by its help can syllogismcannot that is to say, logically be shown, for example, why it is incorrect, to have a illicit, premiss in the first figure, negative minor is a to why, for instance, it is not permissible argue : Man
"

human
a

human

being, woman being.

is not In

man,

therefore
Laws

woman

is not

this

case

the
are

of
way

Contra Identity,

diction and
the

Excluded

Middle

in

no

violated,and
because
the
our

yet
the
pre
to

conclusion

is invalid.

Why

is this ?

Simply

Law
misses the

of Sufficient Ground contain

no 2

is violated ; because

given
consent

ground
of is

sufficient to

compel

conclusion."
"

But

in

cases

valid

syllogism, the
virtue

premisses contain
of the
us

ground
the

which

sufficient,in
follows from

Laws
to
assent

of

Contradiction
to

and

of Excluded which

Middle, to compel
them."
the
3

conclusion
on,

Further
"

Wedenskij
as

formulates

law

as

follows

judgments for which 4 there exists a Sufficient Ground to compel our acceptance." all the preceding quotations, From and more from especially the last but one, we that accordingto this interpretation the see axiom has no of Sufficient Ground independent and positive
accepts
true

Thought

only

those

content

; it is
more

mere

summation

of the

three
"

other

laws

and

is

for example, of a to justify prohibitions especially ; of concluding from affirmative or two quaternio terminorum of the syllogism. premisses in the second figure But this is as if a enunciate to physicistwere Boyle's Law
a mass
" "

used

The
of and

temperature remaining
gas varies
as inversely

the the

same,

the

pressure
were

of
to

volume," and
states
mass

add

there
varies

is another the

law

which of
a

that

when is not

the
in

temperature
It remains
1

pressure its volume."

of gas

to verselyproportional to
"

be

pointed out
und
p. 203.
*

that this

of interpretation

the

A.

Archiv.
2

Wedenskij, Ein neuer ftirsystem. Phil. 1910,

leichter Beweis

des

philosoph.Kritizismus,"
4

Op. cit. p. 197.

Logic, p. 96.
R

Op. cit. p. 96.

256

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

theory of syllogismcan
in
so

far

as

author

and

only dispensewith the Law of Identity reader,while apparentlyoccupied with

and
the

the Law

of Contradiction

negative side of the

more

process

of

read into this discussion the inference, involuntarily

cant

side positive The assertion from

which that

is

by expressed
conclusion

the Law "not-C"

of

signifi Identity.
an

the

is

illicit

premisses A and B because it is in con in the premisses is really tradiction to the thought contained equivalentto the assertion : The premissesA and B contain the thought C\ hence the conclusion C as part of their content is obligatoryon every thinking being in virtue of the partial between it and the premisses. identity Moreover, Wedenskij could not have dispensed with a direct of Identity but for the fact that he appeal to the axiom followed a con by-path : instead of comparing the correct with the premisseshe took the is elastic clusion quicksilver He erroneous conclusion, quicksilveris not elastic." put is a fluid," this by the side of the premiss, quicksilver and of the syllogism, then proceededto draw, under the third figure fluids are not elastic ; or, according the new conclusion, some
inference the
" " " "

"

"

to the method
"

of so-called "immediate
no

inference" then

the

conclusion,
con

is quicksilver with

elastic fluid."

He the of

clusions

the

premisses of
one or

compared these syllogism and found

them. If But the

that

they
had

contradicted is not

other

reductio

ad absurdum

here. permissible

Wedenskij'sopponent

of the first conclusion he would challenged the necessity have also have challengedthat of the second, and could never been led into self-contradiction by this means. The logical grounds of systems which reduce all the logical the impressionof necessity judgments to an analytical convey scientific. Their exhibition of the logical moment being strictly in the ground of all judgments appears contained con ideally Nevertheless, it is not difficult to vincing and irrefragable. and exactitude show that this cogency are only apparent. As absence of contradiction of fact,the identityand matter a which compel assent to the judgment, 6" is P" can only be established '; but since of a judgment previously proved by means ad infinitum, be continued this process cannot some judgment, which was have served as a starting-point concept or idea must into the system of knowledge without itself incorporated being in an analytical necessity. grounded
"

258

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

for example, the concepts and red "), the judgment rose (as, be absolutely in questionwould meaningless: those S's which P are P are ("those roses which are red are red "). But we have said enough. The emptiness of the conclusions drawn
" " " "

"

under

similar
not

circumstances admit of

is still

more

apparent

; but

our

exemplification.To sum up what we is of value which necessity saying : Every analytical based on a synthetical It for knowledge is necessarily necessity. is only possible be otherwise : an analysis when cannot a syn thesis is alreadygiven. 5 and P can The presence of a necessary synthesis between 5 is explicitly be detected by the fact that whenever mentioned admitted P is always tacitly ; it is enough, for example, to think of an equilateral equiangular, triangle instead of an that a triangle." Hence judgment (or a syllogism) equilateral itself contains an analytical and whose necessity, starting-point thrown into the contains be cannot a synthesis, necessary form, all SP is P" but must appear under patentlyanalytical the form which has the appearance of being syn at any rate in practice shall always find Moreover we thetic, "S is P." that the analyticalformula a theory invented by expresses Logic, while in real life judgments and syllogismsare always in the form of or form, *" is P" expressed in the synthetical the conclusion has not yet been a series of premissesof which drawn. explicitly into the mind : But if this is true a doubt creeps irresistibly based not be that judgments and syllogismsare it not may according to their form, but also reallyon a only apparently, Is analytical inference merely a logical ? synthetical necessity be the synthetical In practice, invention ? easily necessity may confused of the concept ,S with the analytical. If the content combined is necessarily with that of the concept P, the syn is in danger of being regarded as "S is P thetical judgment be said that P is implicitly for it may thought in 5, analytical, if I Similarly, or, in other words, that S is changed into SP. I cannot think the premisses 6" is M, and M is P" help draw ing the conclusion "S is P"; hence it is easy enough to transform that the con the synthetical (which consists in this, necessity
"
" " "

space does have been

"

"

"

"

"

sequent of the consequent is the consequent of the

ground)into

analytical one, by adding the conclusion and comparing the conclusion,not thought,
an

to

the

with

premissesin the premisses

CONCEPTION

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

259

but with S-M, M-P" premisses in which even already incorporated. In this way,
"

the

conclusion

was

identity is
of

pre

served. We therefore
to
an

maintain

that

the

reduction

syllogisms
result of
a

analytical necessity is

previous artificialtransformation that such an analytical judgment ; we further maintain and explains nothing. For formation no serves purpose all truths that are based an on analyticalnecessityhave
the
same

judgments and only possible as the of a synthetical into

a

trans

indeed

always
in
a

truth

as

their

basis,and
In other

this truth

is

grounded
is

syntheticalnecessity.
valuable
when it is
a

truth words, analytical

only

correctly performed analysis of a correct in which the starting-point of synthesis. It is only in the case knowledge contains (in the subject of a judgment or the my a synthesisSP, which has objective premisses of a syllogism) it and P yieldsan analytical that the comparison between validity, A is objectivelyvalid. comparison of P and necessitywhich is an of Identity, task which can SP, based on the Law easy The this be faultlessly in consists, not difficulty performed. but in choosing a true synthesis as a starting-point. process, evades the problem of synthesis, Hence a logicalsystem which which is a asserts that, the premisses being given (from whence of of indifference), its task is restricted to the examination matter the ground of the judgments deduced therefrom, such a system,
I say, merits the but known of

reproach that
superfluous
"

the task
for be it

it has

undertaken

is not

merely easy how already

As
a a

truth
if fact,

can

matter

the sole

only consists in showing repeated correctly. of logically means establishing

the process,
as we

judgment
it

is

and necessity, analytical consists in

have

shown

above, only
may be
water

known,

caricatured
is

repeating something already follows : If I know, as by

of oxygen

that experience,

hydrogen, this knowledge rests no on logicalfoundation ; but if I say (in of speech) less indirect forms Water is composed of or more and and hydrogen, hence oxygen hydrogen compose oxygen becomes water," my a grounded scientific knowledge logically fact. No for this sort of grounding an doubt appeal to the Laws of Identity, Third and Excluded Contradiction suffices, composed
"

and

and

there

is

no

part left for the

"

Law

of

Sufficient

Ground

to

play.
As far
as

its

logical

"

side

is concerned

such

grounding,

260

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

it is true, appears ever, it is useless.

and certain correct ideally So long as Logic continues

as

how practically, to propound these

criticism such theories, traditional force. rules

that

which

was

directed

against the
in

theory
down

of

syllogism by J.
course,
are

S. Mill

will remain

It does laid

not, of

follow from useless.

this that the technical Such

for syllogisms, are perfectly
"

by Logic

"S is M and Mis as instance, P, therefore 5 is P and correct useful, although the theories which

have

been
are

brought
based
are

forward

to

explain
to

the

on principle

which

they

for the most criticism may

part worthless.
those
as

Our

extends be

theories of
"

syllogismwhich,

are substitution," (though in a lesser degree,as, for instance,by yet conceived in as Jevons), applyingthe Law of Identity.As a matter of fact, is P, therefore S is P" P, not M, is e.g. the syllogism S is M, M

although they

classed

theories of

"

substituted of inferring of the

poses

for M. P from

If this is

de

facto substitution (and not

of the Hence

an

"S in virtue of the axiom is the P

are

that the consequent

consequent
that M
to

consequent
identical.

ground) it presup
these
"

and base

theories

are

compelled
well
as

therefore above.

judgment (the premiss M is P ") as and of Identity, the syllogism on the principle are have the criticism we to brought forward open
the reader any that have been have made troubled
to to note

Should

the

various

attempts

base

the

he will be aware ledge on analytical necessity, tendency prevails in spite of frequent dissertations on the in modern of knowledge logicaland epissynthetic nature will have such a careful observer temologicalliterature. And and ambiguity which characterizes the incompleteness remarked the systems embodying this theory. Sigwart's Logic may
" "

of know certainty how widely this

"

"

serve,

in

this respect,as under the

material

for criticism.

If any

of my

is no necessity impressionthat analytical ground, they may convince longerregarded as the only logical in of the prejudice from that book of the longevity themselves its favour,and of its capacityfor reproducing itself under new

readers

are

forms. In order it may

tions
to

free ourselves
to

from

be which

well tend

examine
to

the and
to

leaningin and psychological

any

that direction other condi the

evoke

foster it. formulate

And the

we

will take of

opportunity thus

offered

doctrine

logical

CONCEPTION

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

261

coherence

and
correct

the
one.

principle of logicalproof
of

which

is,in

our

view,

the

The

side psychological
we

knowledge,
in
a are

the

consists, as

have

already said,
and

cognition, comparison. In this

act

of

comparison,
to

samenesses

differences In

established
that this

; that

is

say,

an

is performed. analysis

order

psycho

the presence of a certain logicalprocess may be set in motion the content with which of consciousness something is necessary do who thinkers Those be compared. not can keep the sub jectiveand objectivesides of cognition apart take it for granted of a judgment consists in the establish that the logical structure of contradiction between of identityor of a relation the ment of consciousness And if the conditions contents compared.

governing the
the

process
structure

of

comparison,
final

on

the

one

hand, and,

on

other, the

of the

side of the logical objective, one another, it certainlydoes the elements which

product of judgment) are not

appear
as

this process

(the
from of

kept apart
whole

though the
the

comparison must of the judgment or of the be reproduced in the logicalstructure of fact, comparison (or distinguish syllogism. But, as a matter of the a ing) only plays psychologicalscaffolding ; it part enables to distinguish me for myself the differences between the
elements which make up the

formed

the

subjectsof

world
I learn
to

and
to

the

manner

of the laws

their

inter-connexion
which combine

; in this way
to

single out
out

elements of their

form
that

unities and in which

structure

trace

the

combination.
not

But
enter

I thus of

itself
as

into

the

distinguishunities does judgment ; it only my

the worldparticular up. the the
rose

appears
content

the

background against which

I I of
am

in

which

interested

is thrown
or

Thus,
"

for

example,
as

when colour
to

answer
"

for

myself
roses

others
"

question

to

the

this

rose," I distinguish
other
"

(5X)
from

according By
a. new

its

from colour,

round
rose

about

it,

or

its environment dint of

(S2\ and
comparing
"
"

I say the
"

this in has

is red."

rose

property
;

redness process,

(P}
I
"

"

question with other roses, been brought under my

notice

and,
"

in

the
"

have this

become
"

impressed by
and my
not to

the

fact that

redness

to belongs

rose

any

other

part
those
was

of

the 5

environment.
P and the their

Nevertheless,
mutual relation

judgment
not

only
include

contains

and

; it does

elements made.

of

environment

with

which

the

comparison

262

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

By
have
structure

means

of the

the

psychological process
between neither

of

detected

connexion

.S and

comparison, I Pt but in the

nor

has

of my judgment entered : hence its

not

identification

distinction

establishment between
connexion

of

subject and
between

consists in the logicalsignification relation of identity of contradiction a or but of a necessary predicate, synthetical

them.

And,

as

matter

of

relation a fact,

of

or identity

contradiction this

between
has

the

subject 5 ("this rose,"

determined
"

that
vious

is to

say,

objectwhich
"

been
"

by

pre

"

flower," tree," rose," but whose cognitive acts as colour is still undetermined) and the predicate P (red)does not This is obviously a exist. syntheticaljudgment, and the relation between its subject and predicate can only be exhibited relation of partial as a to the unnatural identityby recourse method have of treatingit we already described, namely, by It is taking as the subjectof the judgment, not S, but SP. the as generallysaid that the perception,this red rose,"serves is added to it subjectof the judgment, and that the predicate of the partial identification of the idea (Verstellung) by means red with the perception this red rose." But the logicians who support this theory forgetthat, if I still require an of cognitionto establish the colour of the act already have had the perceptionexpressed by rose, I cannot
" " "

the have

words had

"

this red
a

"

rose

; and

that, on
do
not
"

the

other

hand, if

requirea fresh act of is red this rose indeed, : my cognitionto discover perception, is nothing but a psychologically abbreviated expressionof the is red." this rose judgment Expressing this more accurately, and in more generalterms, we may say : the supporters of this between perception and judgment theory forgetthat the difference is a psychological, Hence it is impossible to not a logical, one. the traditional theory of judgment by placingthe synthesis save of vS and P within the subjectof the judgment (or within the and then maintaining that a judgment only arises perception), PS} after the comparison of P with the synthesis which results in a judgment is not a Further, the analysis but a singling out of comparison between subjectand predicate,
such
I perception,
" "

See,

on

"

44.

That N.

side,see

this red rose,"Lipps' Grnndlagen der Logik,ist edition, as points differs in no the perception respect from the judgment on its objective : Die Losskij chap.vi. Die Erkenntnis Grundlegung des Inttiitivismus, such
"

"

als Urteil."

CONCEPTION

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

263

and and predicate subject

contents

their inter-relation from In other

the

of totality of

the

judging an lay synthetic necessity of consciousness between of connection the contents given-to the relation between me." The logical subjectand predicateof a judgment is not one of identityor of contradiction,but of the In order to draw special syntheticalnecessity of connection. should be the thrown into the this attention to judgment point, is also." The relation thus where form : 5 is,P necessarily called be relation of functional must a abstractly conceived down has been to mean term unduly narrowed dependence (this in so far as we and effect), relation of cause are dealing with a lie of elements combinations so events, and on) which (ideas, are outside the act of cognition; when, however, we considering
of consciousness.
act

words, the
the

is

which analysis,

seeks

to

bare

"

"

how the

far this

same

inter-connexion

enters

into

the

structure

of

it must be called a relation judgment or of the syllogism, Between the subject and of ground and predicate consequent. relation of and the of a judgment, then, ground consequent not and this relation expresses a synthetical, an exists, analytical,

necessityof connexion.1 well be All judgments, negative as affirmative, can as The into the given formula. thrown judgment : Quantities addition of the to formed equals are not equal unequals by added where to equal quantities are means : unequal quantities result is an the inequality." In other words, here too the is a synthetic relation of relation between subject and predicate
" " "

ground

and

consequent.
The

Even
"

identical
The

judgments
A and

form B

no

are magnitudes another identical with one if the magnitudes A and means : In B are them." given, so is the relation of identitybetween these judgments the true predicate is the concept of identity, and not the relation which unites subject and predicate. The

exception.

judgment

"

"

symbolism

of

Mathematics

tends
:

to

foster

an a
=

erroneous

con

ception of identical judgments

the formula

b conveys

the the and the

of the judgment, and that impressionthat b is the predicate it symbolizes the logicalrelation between sign of equality the concept between in reality relation the subject. But
"

and a quantities

"

concept
1

"

relation
that

subject of such judgments, while the the of identity serves and as predicate,
"

is the

The

doctrine

admirablyset

forth in

of ground judgment contains a synthesis Lipps'Grundlagen der Logik, " 82.

the

and

consequent

is

264

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

the

relation logical with

between

these

concepts which
a

invests

their

judgment is the synthetical the relation of ground and consequent. or of connection, necessity Nor do judgments of perceptionform an exception to the shall be inclined to overestimate the general rule. But we these from other judgments if characteristics which distinguish do not bear in mind circumstance the following we : The system necessities of synthetical forms an endless chain, consisting of
an

combination

the character

of

infinite number

of

links, S-M-N-P-R.
"

If
"

we

take

two

non-consecutive between them

links of this chain

is still a

necessary this we when do so assert we quent ; nevertheless, is to us which because a inexplicable," necessity
"

the relation e.g. S and R relation of ground and conse

in virtue of
we are

not

aware

of the intermediate the

where
not
"

judgments of perception, objectperceivedfalls within the sphere of the real,

Most
"

links.

the

ideal, world, bear this character.

"

This

"

rose

and

its

red colour each

"

stand really
"

in

relation of functional of
"

dependence

to

and

other ; the existence this rose here at this moment" its redness are inter-connected, but of course necessarily the links
at

only

as

either end of

long chain

of intermediate

relations. functional relation of this kind a When, therefore, the structure function
to enters

into other The of

a

of the

judgment, it
a

deserves

as

much

as

any

be called
a

relation of

judgment is no judgment concerning mathematical

necessityof such
them
tween out

ground and consequent. less stringent than that

ideas.
assert

The the
we

difference be with necessity could make this

consists in this intermediate

as a

we

here

the assigning

links.

Before

necessityas clear

should have to we necessity all these complicated task of discovering perform the infinitely infinite number of other in other words, of exhibiting an links, relations. this doctrine

mathematical

judgments and the theory of consciousness given at the beginning of this treatise of the former that the approxima is obvious. It is by means tion between Logic and Ontology implied in the latter is made and the same of element one possible. For, as a matter of fact, when the world (whether the real or ideal world) is Ontological the part of the considered act on independentlyof the cognitive into the sphere of Logic as subjectknowing, but passes over Thus there of a judgment. it becomes the content soon as
The connexion

between

of

266

THE

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OF

PHILOSOPHY

is

no

longer any

inclination

to

follow

the

custom,

so

charac

Logic, of ignoring all non-syllogistic forms of (mediate)inference,or, at any rate, of throwing them, of a syllogism.1 if necessary, into the form by force, If the logical of mediate inference, and of judgment, principle is the principle of Sufficient Ground, i.e. a synthetical we necessity,
need
.'.

teristic of the

traditional

not
=

be astonished C"
"

to

meet

such

forms

as

"

B,

C,

or

Thales

lived earlier than

Anaximander,
therefore Thales

Anaxilived
con
"

mander

lived

earlier than

Anaximenes,
a

earlier than clusion which

in
a

Anaximenes," where
was

concept appears in the

not

contained in the whenever

in the

premisses ("earlier than

process
is not of
a

different
This
must
a

sense

than

premisses).
the and inference
mere con

happen
forward
The be drawn

sists in

real

movement,

analytical
which
con

marking time.
clusions may

different formulas offer

to
a

accordingto
and been

wide

fruitful field for

which, up investigation, writers. logical

All that
we

the

present, has

neglected by

saying,however, in no way impairs of Identity, of the axiom the significance but it assigns it another place, a place which is, perhaps,more important than For Ontology must modern return Logic is willingto admit
"

have

been

to
"

the

old

traditional

form

of

this

axiom

"

is

"

or

every

element
must

of the world be

is identical with
as

itself."
"

In

Logic
of

this axiom

formulated A
not

follows
one

In

all acts
same

judgment
In

the

content objective

remains
a

and

the

A"

the

absence be

of this law
"

would

present,

neither them.2 the laws

singleelement of judgment functional subject,predicate nor

and of Excluded

dependence between With regard to

Middle
process
we can

of Contradiction the part that

here

only inquireinto
The

they play in the

the process of role has been

of

inference.

conviction
is but my
a

in

knowledge as a whole theirs alreadyexhibited in detail in

1

subordinate

des Intuitivismus? Grundlegung

An
to

excellent demonstration the form syllogistic

ences

of reducing all mediate infer unjustifiableness der Schlusse, is givenby M. Karinskij in his Classification of the

pp.
2

63-76 (Russian).
For
a

we

have

discussion of the way expounded is admitted

in which
"

this law

"

when

the structure

my

Grundlegung des
3

Intuitivismus
"

and explainsthe universality chap. vii.

,

knowledge of truth,see eternity

of

Op. cit. chap. x.

Die

letzten

Grundlagen der Erkenntnis,"

pp. 324-329.

CONCEPTION

OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

267

In

our

opinion,the
Middle
"

function in the

of

the

axioms

of

Contradiction

and
in

of Excluded
most

process
as

of inference the

(at any
of

rate

cases,

such, for
even

instance,
mode

first
:

figure

the is is been
a a

syllogism

and
are

in

the

Barbara

Quicksilver
"

fluid, fluids
established
to

elastic, therefore
not
means a

quicksilver is elastic
one

regulative and by
the the axiom

productive
of
a

for

once

it has and

process

of

of

Sufficient

Ground

according that quicksilver is elastic

is the
not

inference

(because
the
no

consequent
the

of the
"

consequent

consequent
"

of in of

ground)
case

judgment
is

quicksilver is
the

elastic

can

be admitted.
two

Before
even more

inference

is drawn It consists

the in

role

these
a

axioms

modest.

admitting
these
two

choice
"

between
"

the

two

judgments
not

"

either

"

quicksilver is
of of inference And crowd of

elastic

or

quicksilver is
be

elastic."

Which
a

judgments
in
even

is to

accepted
the of

is decided

by

process

accordance in the

with
absence
to

principleof Sufficient this regulative form, and

recognition,yet
the any
two

Ground.
were a

judgments
could be

demand

premisses that
Ground,
would

chosen

subject to
same

law
;

of Sufficient
"

always yield the

Writers
on

conclusion

1 quicksilveris elastic."

allowing
present
and

the

seclusion,but

Logic have shown of Sufficient principle that a tendency in

is evidenced

considerable

reluctance
come

in

Ground
this

to

out

of its
at

direction
as

exists

the

day
the in

by
the

such

works

Wundt's

Logik
the view

by

discussion

of

first and
From

second

figures of
of his

Syllogism
closed der and

Sigwart's Logic.
system

this

point
in

the

abstract
is

given by Lipps

Grundlagen
of all the is

Logik
Fr.

inferences

especially interesting. A classification based of Sufficient Ground the principle on

in his treatise In
our
:

given
als

by

Erhardt
des

Der

Satz

vom

Grunde

Prinzip
we

Schliessens.
to

Grundlegung
theory
to

des all

Intuitivismus
the

attempted logicalproblems.
Much
must

have

apply this
to

leading
thinkers

work

still remains in the task of in this

be

done, and
we

many

co-operate

before

can

hope

to

have have

complete attempted
1

transmutation
to

Logic
treatise.

in

the

spirit we

indicate
of

of

the identity of ensures Identity and "quicksilver,""fluidity," "elasticity."

course

Of

the axiom

the

conceptualcontents

INDEX

OF

PROPER

NAMES.

Aristotle, Aristotelian, 19, 31, 37, 38,

68 ff., 1 66, i68,2i6f.

Galileo, 73,
Goethe, 66.

235.

Avenarius, 241

and

n., 242, 244.

Grassman, Hamilton,
Hartmann,

224.

Bacon, 206, 218.

170. v., 34.

Baldwin,

168

n.

Baumgarten, 208. Bergmann, 24. Berkeley, 60, 233. Bernard, 236. Boole, 156, 169 Boyle, 255. Bradley, 159. 208. Breitinger, Cantor,
Comte,
ii2n.,
n.

Hegel,
231-

3, 5, 34, 46, 50, 60, 214 f.,

Helmholtz,

224.

231, Heraclitus,

234.

Herbart,

12, 60.

Hobbes, 206. Hume, 1 6, 41,.233Husserl, 248.

113.

James,

104

n. n.

20.

Couturat, 101, 192 n., 198 n. Croce,

199, 213

136, 165 n., 189 n.,

n.

Jespersen, 192 n., 198 Jevons, 236f.,251.

Dedekind,
Delke, 146
De

95, U2n.,
n.

113.

46, 56 ff., Kant, 7, 12, 21, 29, 33, 39 ff., 60,65, 83, 135, 239, 250, 251. 266 n. Karinskij,

Kempe,

133 f. 105, 129 f.,

Morgan, 109, 142. Descartes, 218, 235. Driesch, 42. Eleatics, 220, 231, Enriques, 216, 229 Erhardt, 267. Euclid, 126, 224.
Fechner,
77.

Keynes, i68n. Kirchoff, 93. Klein,

117. 244. Kiilpe,

235.
n.

Ladd-Franklin, Lask,

i68andn.

24 n., 28 n., 34.

Leibniz, 60, 158, 189.

Lipps,
267.
129,

244,

245

n.,

262 n.,

263 n.,

Fichte,60. Frege,
no,

148.

Locke,

12.

INDEX

OF

PROPER

NAMES

269

Lorenz, 198.

Ramism,
262 n.,

19. 244. 244.

Losskij, 240,

263 n.

Rehmke,

Lotze, 29, 37, 46, MacColl, 154. Mach, 224.

58, 62.

Rickert,48, 49, Royce, 67. Ruge, 148,

i.

Russell, 95,
260.

101, no,

128, 132, 14511.,

Maxwell, 224. Mill,J. S.,46, 233,

Michaltshew,245 Natorp, 244,

257

n.

207. Schleiermacher, Schroder, 138, 164, 165,172,

179.

n.

Schuchardt, 197.

94. Newton, Newtonian, 88 ff.,

Ostwald, 190, igSn. Padoa, 225. Pascal, 181. Peano, 95, no, I28f.,138, 224, 228. 86 ff., n. Peirce, 82 ff., 91, 112 Pfander, 198 n., 216, 234, 235. Plotinus,34.
244.

Schuppe, 244 and n., 245 n. Sigwart,29, 34, 260, 267. Socrates,Socratic, 74, 23, 69 ff., Sophists, 19, 23, 71.
Stoics,19, 57,
68.

106.

Stumpf, 244.
Thales, 89. Vailati, 147. Vico,
208.

106, Plato,Platonism, 57, 61, 69 ff.,

Plutonists, 75. Poretzky,169. Pythagoras, 171.

Wedenskij, 253 f., 255 Windelband, 7, 244.

Wundt, 267.

n.,

256.

GLASGOW

PRINTED

AT

THE

UNIVERSITY

PKESS

BY

ROBERT

MACLEHOSE

AND

CO.

LTD.

Weiss'sche

Universitatsbuchhandlung,

Heidelberg

(Publishing House)

THE

PHILOSOPHY

OF

THE

PRESENT
An

TIME
edited
ARNOLD RUGE

International

Year-book

by DR. (HeidelbergUniversity)

Vol. Vol. Vol.

(LITERATUR II. (LITERATUR III. (LITERATUR

I.
Each Volume

1908 and 1909) xii, 544 1910) x, 306 p. 1911) xii, 313 p.
155., bound
175. 6d.

p.

Time", published annually, is a record of "Philosophy of the Present and disser works, books, articles, programms periodicals, encyclopaedic idea of each tations dealing with Philosophy. It also attempts to give some of notes written by the author, by extracts from the item by means specially
" "

and The table of contents to reviews. by references and contains sections according to subject-matter 12

volume
a

is divided detailed Index.

into

VERLAG

VON

J. C.

B. DR.

MOHR

(PAUL

SIEBKCK)
WINDELBAND

IN

TUBINGEN

PROFESSOR

WILHELM

Lehrbuch
Lex.

der
SECHSTE 8.

Geschichte
DURCHGESEHENE

der
AUFLAGE Gebunden

Philosophic
M.

1912.

M.

12.50.
HEINRICH

15.

PROFESSOR

DR.

RICKERT

Die

Grenzen

der

naturwissenschaftlichen

Begriffsbildung
Eine

logische Einleitung in
ZWEITE Lex. 8. 19^.
NEU

die historischen
AUFLAGE

Wissenschaften

BEARBEITETE

M.

18.

"

Gebunden

M.

20."

Internationale
UNTER

Zeitschrift fiir
MITWIRKUNG VON

Philosophic der

Kultur

Rudolf

Eucken,

Heinrich

Gierke, Edmund Meinecke, Husserl, Friedrich Rickert, Georg Simmel, Ernst Troeltsch, Max Weber, Wilhelm Heinrich Wolfflin Windelband,
von

Otto

HERAUSGEGEBEN

VON

RICHARD 3 Heften

KRONER
10.
"

UND

GEORG M.
12.
"

MEHLIS
.

Ein

Band

von

kostet M. Hefte Einzelne Inhalt

uber

gebunden

M.
:

4.50

BAND

individuelle Gesetz.

SIMMEL (Berlin): Das FRIEDRICH der Ethik. Prinzip MEINECKE Kaiserfeier. und (Freiburg i. B.) : Deutsche Jahrhundertfeier PAUL NATORP VOSSLER und Psychologic. KARL (Marburg) : Philosophic VARISCO BERNARDINO (Miinchen): Das System der Grammatik. (Rom) :
2

IV.

Heft

(Juli1913).
Ein Versuch

GEORG

das

Grundlinien

einer Theorie

der Erscheinungen.

Notizen.

WORKS
By
RIDDLES
of

ON
Dr.
F.

PHILOSOPHY
C.
S.

SCHILLER
A
zos.

OF

THE
Third

SPHINX.
Edition. 8vo.

Study
net.

in

the

Philosophy
En

Humanism.

HUMANISM.
larged.
Svo.
ios.

Philosophical Essays.
net.

Second

Edition.

STUDIES
FORMAL
ios.

IN

HUMANISM.
:

Second Scientific and

Edition.

Svo.

ios.

net.

LOGIC
net.

Social Problem.

Svo.

By Professor
THE
8vo.

WILLIAM

JAMES
Two vols.

PRINCIPLES
255.
net.

OF

PSYCHOLOGY.

TEXT-BOOK

OF

PSYCHOLOGY.

Crown

Svo.

;s.

net.

By Professor
A

HARALD

HOFFDING PHILOSOPHY
:
a

HISTORY
of the

OF

MODERN

Sketch
our own

History of Philosophy from

Translated

the Close Two

of the vols.

Renaissance Svo. 15$.

to net

Day.

by

B.

E.

MEYER.

each.

THE
GALEN
4s.

PROBLEMS
M.
net.

OF
and
a

PHILOSOPHY.
Preface

Translated JAMES.
Globe

by
Svo.

FISHER,

by

WILLIAM

6d.

THE
B.

PHILOSOPHY
E. MEYER. Svo.
i2s.

OF
net.

RELIGION.

Translated

by

OUTLINES
LOWNDES.

OF
Crown

PSYCHOLOGY.
Svo. 6s.

Translated

by

M.

E.

DICTIONARY
Edited

OF by
Professor

PHILOSOPHY J.
net.

AND
With New

PSYCHOLOGY.
Illustrations and
net. net.

M.

BALDWIN. Vol. I.

Extensive Vol. II.

Bibliographies. Crown
New Edition. 345.

4to.
Vol.

Edition.
Farts.

345.
425.

III., in Two

LONDON

MACMILLAN
2

AND

CO.,

LTD.

WORKS
THE
A

ON
SCHOOLS
OF

PHILOSOPHY
OF
EVOLUTION
BY

PHILOSOPHY
OF

HISTORY

THE

PHILOSOPHICAL

THOUGHT

VARIOUS

WRITERS

EDITED

BY

SIR
PROFESSOR OF MORAL

HENRY
PHILOSOPHY IN THE

JONES
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW

Ready.

THE By

EVOLUTION
Professor

OF
ADAMS,
In

EDUCATIONAL
M.A.,

THEORY.
8vo.
ros.

JOHN

B.Sc., LL.D.

net.

THE
THALES

HISTORY
TO

OF
ARISTOTLE.

GREEK

Preparation. PHILOSOPHY By
Professor

FROM
LL.D.

JOHN

BURNET,

THE

HISTORY
HOBBES TO REID.

OF

MODERN By
Professor G.
TO

PHILOSOPHY
F. STOUT.

FROM

OTHER

VOLUMES

FOLLOW.

HISTORICAL
fessor EMILE 8vo. B.A.

STUDIES
BOUTROUX. 8s. 6d. net.

IN
Authorised

PHILOSOPHY.
Translation

By
by FRED

Pro

ROTHVVELT,,

AESTHETIC
GENERAL

AS

SCIENCE
AINSLIE,
B.A.

OF
Translated 8vo.

EXPRESSION
from
IDS.

AND
Benedetto

LINGUISTIC.

the
net.

Italian of

Croce, by DOUGLAS

PHILOSOPHY
AND DOUGLAS ETHIC.

OF
AINSLIE,
B.A.

THE
from 8vo.

PRACTICAL.
the Italian of
125.

ECONOMIC
Benedetto

Translated

Croce,

by

net.

THE

PRINCIPLE Being
D.C.L. the Gifford 8vo.
los.

OF
Lectures
net.

INDIVIDUALITY
for 1911.

AND
BERNARD

VALUE.
LL.D.,

By OF By

BOSANQUET,

THE

VALUE Being
D.C.L. the 8vo.

AND
Gifford
IDS.

DESTINY
for 1912.
net.

THE
BERNARD

INDIVIDUAL.
BOSANQUET,
LL.D.,

Lectures

THE
R. A.

CROWNING
PHILOSOPHY. C. A

PHASE Study
M.A.,
in D.Phil.

OF
Kant's Svo.

THE Critique
IDS.

CRITICAL
of

Judgment.
WINDELBAND.

By

MACMILLAN,

net.

HISTORY
Translated

OF by J.

PHILOSOPHY.
H. TUFTS. Svo.

By
175. net.

Dr.

W.

ON
AND the

THE
THE

CONSCIOUSNESS
INDIVIDUAL. Processes. A

OF
Contribution FRANCIS

THE
to

UNIVERSAL
the

Phenomenology
Crown

of

Thought
net.

By

AVELING,

Ph.D., D.D.

Svo,

5s.

LONDON

MACMILLAN
4

AND

CO., LTD.