Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
THEORY
OF
THOUGHT
TREATISE
ON
DEDUCTIVE
LOGIC
Jt. -Davis
"
'O \iiv
ovv
Kara
TO
Trpay/m
Q.
"
Gewptiv
ARISTOTLE,
ra
KOIVU
NEW
HARPER "
YORK
PUBLISHERS
SQUARE
BROTHERS,
FRANKLIN
Entered
according
to
Act
of
Congress,
in
the year
1880,
by
HARPER
"
BROTHERS,
In
the
Office
of
the
Librarian
of
Congress,
at
Washington.
PREFACE.
LITTLE
in
preface
sense
is
needed. the
believe
The
treatise
within
is not the
elementary
grasp
of and mature imno
the
of
bringing
This
is made.
subject
to
minds.
be
impracticable,
in
such
profession
at
It is
elementary
the Its
in
the
sense
it
no
begins previous
one
the
beginning,
of the
supposing subject.
will be
reader
extent
to
knowledge
masters
is
who
its contents
possession of
with
its
details
of
the
science, acquainted
to
doctrines,
and
prepared
It
study
with
a
profit
and
treatises.
is, in general,
the
its modern
reproduction
student
may
Logic.
Whatever
he
must
scorn
antiquity,
he would
even
know
doctrine the
recent
respecting
literature for
of it is
Thought
of
read that
intelligently
in
the
sympathy
and
with the
him,
permeated
ancient
with
the
terminology
doctrines
the
gicians. lo-
The
of mind.
treatise
his
"
reverts
as
to
Aristotle, and
is
largely
through
has been
is
ment restate-
theory
his
colored
by
filtration
Since
day,"
also
and A up
says
to
Kant,
this
to
"Logic
it has
backward
take
no
time
all
to
forward,
thus,
appearance,
ages
to
and
perfected."
it
nor
fiery
trial
for
has remain
neither
refined
it, and
the
sum
it is
likely
human aimed
at
perpetually
Hence,
and
an
accepted treating
part
the
of
of
I have than
knowledge.
at
in
old
Logic,
rather
clear, correct,
modification.
complete
late which
a
statement
any been
Of
some
years
are
many examined is
innovations
and
have
proposed,
in
as
of
criticised.
Whenever
indicated
the
treatise
new
view
offered,
it is
distinctly
such.
IV
PREFACE.
great
and
number
and
variety
of
examples,
the have
both
for
for
seemed
praxis,
to
me
mitigating
desirable.
somewhat
severity
been
subject,
from
They
some are
collected
every
are
available
source
ancient,
some
modern,
many
newly
used
at
invented.
with hand
have
great
freedom
standard
authors, Hamilton,
and
a
keeping
Mansel,
or more
constantly
Thomson,
school-book their
views
Arnauld, Mill,
and
Whately, Bain,
their
De
Morgan,
writers,
and
dozen
and
profited
by
research,
it seemed
phraseology
references
whenever
to
Abundant
them,
together
be deemed with
with
this
eral genI
ter, mat-
acknowledgment,
have
not
will,
to
hope,
the
sufficient. recondite
accessible
sought
have
to
embellish
margin
to
but
added lead
references
into
other
works,
hoping
The there
it is
yet
wider
with be
too
fields.
much
treatise
prepared
it
pains.
to
That but
are
no
would
all its
much
hope,
its
sent
to
its
account
with is
imperfections
it
on
head.
If,
if
on
the
it
whole,
will
it
good
book,
the
will
live
and
be
useful
not,
die,
the
sooner
better.
K.
UNIVERSITY
OF
DAVIS.
VIRGIMA.
CONTENTS.
PART
FIRST."
INTRODUCTORY.
OF LOGIC.
Paga 1 2
I.
DEFINITION
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Definition,
Science.
"
and
tb
word
an
Logic
Art of
Logic
the
not
Thought
Forms of
Object-matter
Logic
4 5
Thought
Forms.
"
Necessary Theory
Free of
Psychology
Distinguished
Thought Adopted
1
8
7.
Treatment
II.
PRIMARY
LAWS. 9 10
11
1. 2. 3.
Origin
Law Law Law Laws
a
and
General
Character
of of of
Identity
Contradiction Excluded
are
13 14 15 16
Complementary
Criterion Sufficient of
6.
Only
Negative
of of
Reality.
"
7. The
8.
Principle
Postulate
Reason
The
Logic
17
PART
SECOND."
I. THE
OF
CONCEPTS.
TERM.
19 19
1.
General
of
Logic
of Marks
2.
3.
Abstraction." Generalization
Specialization
and General
20 22
24
4.
5. 6.
Conception,
Realization These Acts
Individual of
Concepts
Each Other
Imply
25 25
7.
8.
Abstractions
Language.
"
Symbolic
Thinking
27
VI
CONTENTS.
II. QUALITY.
Page
1. The
2. 3.
Four
Views
to be
Taken of
of
Concepts
30 30 31 31 32 33 34
The
Analysis
Knowledge
Obscure
Clear Distinct
4. Confused
6. 6.
Inadequate
Intuitive and
and
Adequate
Symbolic
7. Perfect
Knowledge
III. QUANTITY.
1. Intension 2. The
3. 4.
and
Extension
35 36
Law
of these of
an
Quantities
Abstraction
The The
Quantity
37
38
Coexistence
of the
Quantities
IV.
RELATION.
40 40 42 42
1. In 2.
Intension,
"
Identical
and
Different Conflictive
3. Involved
4.
Relations
in Extension
"
6. Subordination.
6.
Genera
and
Species
43 45 45
Correspondencies
Terms Second Intentions
7. Correlative
8. First and
46
V.
.
DEFINITION.
48 49 50 50 52 54
1. 2. 3.
The The
Intensive Scholastic
View View
Intersection
of
Concepts
4. Kinds 5. Rules
6.
of Definitions
Praxis
VI.
DIVISION.
50 50
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
and
Division
Contrasted
of Wholes
"
Co-ordination. The
Dichotomy
57
58 59 60 62
Trichotomy and
Canon and Rules
$ 7. Praxis
CONTENTS.
Vll
VII.
COMPLETE
SYSTEM.
Paga 64 65
._
1. 2. 3.
Scheme Tree of
of the
Two
Quantities
Porphyry
Genus.
"
Sumraum
The
Categories
Individual
66 68 69
4. Infima
5. 6.
Species." The
of the and Series
Extent
Definitions
Divisions
Convertible
70 71 72 74
7. The
8. 9.
Logic Logic
Systems Systems
The The
Primary
Applied
PART
THIRD."
I. THE
OF
JUDGMENTS.
PROPOSITION.
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
1.
Judgment
Defined.
"
Return
75
2. Parts
3. 4. 5. 6.
of the
Proposition." The
Subject
76 77 78 79
Copula
Strict
Logical Form
Judgments,
80 82 82 85
7. Categoricaland
8. 9.
Conditional
Total
and
Partial and of
Positive
10.
1 1. 12. 13.
Symbols
88
Compound
89 93 94
Synthetic
Degree
14.
100
II. INFERENCES.
1. Divisions.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
"
Immediate
Inference
102
103 104 104
Implied Judgment
A
Discriminated.
General and
Active Added
Determinants
Complex Conceptions
Infinitation
7. Conversion
8.
Opposition
Praxis..,
.
89.
113
Yin
CONTENTS.
III. INNOVATIONS.
Page
1. 2.
Many
The
Proposed
Semi-definite "Some" Predicate.
"
115 115
Table
116
New
Forms,
to be
their
Occurrence
118
120 123
Proved
Compounded
in Character
6. Mathematical
PART
FOURTH."
I. THE
OF
REASONINGS.
SYLLOGISM.
125
'
1. Its Definition 2. 3.
Its
Parts,and
their Order
,
130 133
Kinds
4. The
5.
137
139
General
Rules
II. FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
1-14
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Conspectus Reasonings
The Names Moods
of
Figure
Second and Third
in the Evolved
Figures
of the Moods
Reduction
Equivalent Moods
Fourth
7. The
8.
Figure.
.
-.
The
Syllogism Vindicated
9. Praxis
III. QUANT1TATIVES.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
170
173
Demonstration
Qualitatives
175
176
Syllogisms of Comparison
Hamilton's The Causal
178 179
180
7. Praxis
IV.
COMPOUND
AND
DISGUISED
FORMS.
183 186
" "
1.
2.
The
Epichirema
CONTENTS.
IX
Pag.
3. 4. 5. 6.
The
Sorites of
187
Resolution
Arguments
Premises
7. Modes
8. Praxis
Arguing
Named
V.
CONDITIONALS.
200 .' 200
"
1. Divisions 2. 3. 4. 5. G.
Conjunctives Disjunctives
207
209 211 213 215
Conjunctive-disjunctives
Conjunctive Syllogisms DisjunctiveSyllogisms Syllogisms Conjunctive-disjunctive
The Dilemma
7.
8. 9.
217 220
Praxis
VI.
ANALYSIS Order
OF
CONDITIONALS.
225 226
" " " " " " " " " "
1. The 2. Real
3. 4. 5. 0.
Question,and
and Ideal
of Discussion
Thought
of
First Second
PrepositionalUse PrepositionalUse
Founded
on
Contingent Hypothetical
229 232
Reasonings
these
Uses Use
235
Reasonings Implied
Unreal
in the
Second
237
242
7. The
8. 9.
Hypothetical
not
Inferences
not
245 249
Syllogisms are
Inferences
10.
Summary
of Doctrine
250
PART
FIFTH."
OF
FALLACIES.
I. DISTRIBUTION.
" "
"
1. 2. 3.
Treatment Bacon's
of Fallacies Idols
Justified
253 254
..................................................
Mill's Classification
"
"
4.
Whately's
Classification Classification
255
............................................. .......................................
......
5. Aristotle's 0.
256
258
"
Paralogisms
.........................................................
II. SOPHISMS
IN
DICTION.
261
" "
1. Their
2. Of
Common
Fault
................
=.
...............................
Equivocation
.......................
.............................
261
CONTENTS.
Page
3.
Of
Amphiboly. Composition
Accent of and Division
266
4.
Of
267
5.
Of
268
6.
Of
Figure
Speech.
270
III.
SOPHISMS
IX
MATTER.
1.
Of
Accident
2.
Of
Absolute
Terms
273 276
280
3.
Of
Ignoring
Antecedent
Refutation
4.
Of
and
Consequent
5.
Of
Begging
False
the
Question
282
6.
Of
Cause
290
7.
Of
Many
Questions
294
IV.
EXAMPLES.
1.
Inexplicable
The Achilles
Fallacies
290
2.
296 Cronus
3.
The
Diodorus
298
4.
The
Litigiosus
Mentions
299
5.
The
300
6.
The
Sorites
'
301
7.
8.
The
Ignava
Ratio
302
Praxis
305
LOGIC,
OR
THE
THEORY
OF
THOUGHT.
PAET
FIRST."
INTRODUCTORY.
I. DEFINITION
OF
LOGIC.
forms of
thought. The word Logic is derived from the Greek Xoyto/,an adjective stood. of study)underor Trjoay^m'a (matter qualifying "7rtorr//t^ (science) "
1.
Logic is
"
the science
"
of the
necessary
The The
meaning
latter is
of
Xoyto/ and
of its
to both the ratio and the oratio of the equivalent rivative, into the deto thoughtand to speech. This ambiguity passed Latins, and has affected the views of many to the objectas logicians matter
of the
some science,
holding that
it treats of words
or
language
rather than
of
thought.1
not
Aristotle did
doctrine he
first
by the term Xoyuv/ the science whose designate Analytic, Apodeictic, fullydeveloped. The terms
3.
See
Hamilton's
Logic, p.
It may
be well to note
at the outset
that
logicians
are
divided be the
into three
to
subject of
and the
Phenomenal,
or conceptions schools, according as they hold words,things, the Verbal, the respectively, Logic ; and these are entitled, The first is representedby many Conceptional Schools.
De
Morgan.
The
second
numbers At
Bacon,
the head
among
expositors.
recent
Kant,
followed and
German and
and generally,
; to whom
by
may the
Hamilton be added
most
Arnauld. writers,following of
present
treatise takes
as
in
view. thought. But Logic treats Kantian, or conceptualist, and is expressed in words,Logic cannot proceed thoughtis always about things, See entire disregardof these, but should constantlykeep them subordinate.
Cretiens's
v.
Oxford, 1848.
1
INTRODUCTORY.
and including to Dialectic, latter equivalent Sophistic) Topic (the of Logic. names were by which he denoted partsor applications special the whole science. Plato used to designate He used no term one than Logic proper includes, while the term Dialectic to denote more and it is usually Aristotle used it to denote less, regardedas the most the designation for Logic. With whom ancient synonym nated Logicorigiand does not appear ; but it is ancient, being used by Cicero, is attributed by Boethius to the early Peripatetics. and
in pointof having, complementof cognitions, acter form, the character of logical perfection ; in pointof matter, the charof a branch' of knowledge of real truth."3 The logical perfection and exhibiting its objectis attained by systematically arranging and in harmonious connection. matter, clearly, distinctly, completely, classification. Again,the object-matter of a science must This implies
"
2.
"
Science is
it cannot
be said to be known of
a
; what
is unreal
false cannot be
be
constituent
science.8 Hence
:
the definition
a
may
abbreviated conveniently
thus
Science
is
of real branches of
truths; or
have far
thus:
Science
knowledge have
reached
so.
mathematics,none
done
knowledge has
"
and made great outgone its crude beginnings, called sciences. branches s uch towards this are ideal, properly progress that science is a body The distinction between science and art is, of
a
and deductions to explain some object-matter ; an principles of for the completion with practical skill, body of precepts, A that science teaches
us
art is
some
work.
to
know,
an
clares de-
with somethingexists,
which be
its
somethingmust
ut
to belong produced."4
In science scimus
; in art scimus
producamus.
Science
ov ITTHTTI]TO givesrules. Uepiyeveaiv Ti\rr), TTEJOI distinction holds good, in reference to the extremes, as to
and
mere
manual
arts.
But
science often
pendent into art,and art, except in its rudest forms, is so dedirectly that usually on science, they cannot be set clearly apart.
Logic, p. 335. of axiomatic Scientific knowledge (TO iiritsTavQai), principles except when of and of the conviction the truth edge a given proposition, a knowlrequires (VOEIV), of its reason Aristotle's Anal. Post, i, or cause. 2, 1.
3
"
Hamilton's
Thomson's
Outline
6.
Aristotle.
DEFINITION
OF
LOGIC.
intermediate g.
called arts; ground,and yet are never Rhetoric, Grammar, etc.,are commonly viewed as
arts.8
have viewed Logicas an art,and entitled it The art logicians of thinking (Aldrich) (Arnauld 7) ; The right ; The art of reasoning it to be both, thus : Others pronounce of reason etc. use (Watts), Ars artium, et scientia scientiarum (Duns Scotus,13th century);* art of thinking, The art and science of reasoning (Whately) ; The Some which
means,
of
correct
and thinking,
of
the conditions
art
of correct
The thinking(Mill0).
us
extreme
is that it teaches
course course
how
to
as
in
Logic is
see.
about
A
as a
in Ethics them
is to make A modified
or virtuous,
in
to Optics
is that
how to avoid correctly, or, negatively, to test the validity of given arguments. be set aside
as
scope
of littleor
never use
sisting convalue,
and
the
initiated un-
never
It is art. nor an even primarily, secondarily, how we do think and how we a science ; the science teaching strictly think if we think correctly. It is the theoryof reasoning must ; or, it is the theoryof thought. The difference between better, Logic and an Art of Thinkingis similar to that between Anatomy and Surgery. The value of Logic is such as belongs to pure science, which, in this day, needs no demonstration. It is somethingof profoundcst
not
But
Logic is
what
are
the mental
matter
of such
true?
not, Is it useful?
but
we
have
to
do
fi
See Hamilton's
I}Art de
"
admirable
work, known
commonly
as
the
Logic, p.
26.
Ex. of Hamilton's
iv,ch. xvii. Also opinion " in Faust,pt. i,speech of Mephistopheles der Schuler." It may be to Goethe's, that this is merely the mocking gibe of Mephistopheles; but cf. in Wahr. objected und Dicht. pt. i, bk. iv.
contemptuous
of
10
Logic,Essay, bk.
INTRODUCTORY.
with
it here the
as
not knowledge,
mastered
however, one
has
cultivation special
whatever
it is manifest understands,
more
The
Greek
subdivided
utens.
and after these the scholastic Aristotelians, Aristotelians, Logic into what the latter called Logica docens and Logica former is
as explained an
The
abstract
guce
tradit proecepta ; the latter as a concrete of these rules to use ing quce utitur prceceptis.Hamilton, follow"
the latter Logic," Concrete Logic." The former onlyis Logic; the latter, or Special called "Applied Logic,"and treating of the quiteproperly chiefly sciences should be logically methods by which particular developed, the science of of is no whatever of cordingly Logic, Logic proper, and acpart
or
"
"
General
Abstract
will be
in disregarded
the
present treatise.13
Thus
own
"
3. The
guished it is distin-
from matter.
its
special object-
Astronomy
of geology,
of its flora ; mathematics,of quantity of its fauna ; botany, ; zoology, of principles of mind ; of God ; philosophy, ; psychology, theology, of morals,etc. ; so Logic treats of thought. Thought denotes ethics, from perception, as distinguished only the acts of the understanding, of whose exercises Logic takes no account. volition, desire, feeling, memory, of one tion noThought may be simplydefined as the cognition in
or
or
under
another.
a
Hence
in this act
understand
of
be
conscious it is.
"
the is
without
cognizing
it
what and
This
a
say,
It is
book," I
we
is,
or
certain class
Now thought.13 think about all conceivable things, but all of these are to Logic we indifferent except one, that is, thought itself. In Logic we perfectly think about thought. What Logic evolves.14 thoughtinvolves,
concept of thingswhich
book."
is
11 "
and
McCosh's
p. 42.
Id. pp.
9, 10.
Elench. ix. Sciences and demonstrations, De Soph. says he,are Aristotle, The dialectician and would infinite, requireomniscience to treat them. possibly of all has to discover only the principles to common spheres thought.
"
DEFINITION
OF
LOGIC.
"
with
4. W^e
not
at
all
concern
itself
what
thoughtconsiders. things
It treats of
thoughtregardless
It is usual to express this by sayingthat Logictreats of its content. its matter. The i. e. excluding of the forms of thought abstractly, form thus: of from thoughtas distinguished I think
"
its matter
me
When
book
"
before
of this
thought is
The forms
into which
or as as a
very various
the form of it, is a folio," ;" and ment." judgas thought may be represented empty shells, of thought; the enter content matter may as different substances may
mere
to which outlines,
statue
marble.
of whether the same be formally may So the science Morphology treats of the forms
of minerals. No
no
The
matter
have,of
under
course,
some
separateexistence.
of
form
thought;
we
and
consciousness
unless
some
can
cogitable except have any form of thoughtcan be thought under it. object
these of
objectis
existence in But
by
lytic ana-
abstraction the
consider the
manner
apart;
we
can
consider
can
either
or thought, object
the matter
from
the form
of
distinguish
of
form
thought,
its matter, that Logic considers. arc logicians abstracting stood is extralogical. This might be underfond of sayingthat all matter ter to represent Logic as a science without a content, without mathas its own like every other science, But Logic, of its own. special is extralogical. Its object-matter is thought; all other matter content. Its form of is thoughtdischarged object-matter of its matter
; i. e., it is the
Modern
abstract
one science,
from abstracting
to all ;
all.
and making that subjected, relation to similar and equal is the science Now philosophy science in the
sense
and principles,
the fundamental
that its
is object-matter
primary truths
that underlie
not at all. Hence or Logic logically proceeds philosophy exhibits the that it is fundamental in the sense to philosophy even well as every as necessary processes of thoughtwhich bind philosophy to proceedlogically, other science. Moreover, Logic is itself bound
But
and
can
become
science
only by conforming to
and explicate exhibit.
those
processes
which
it is its province to
INTRODUCTORY.
supposedthat Logic treats of thoughtonly in scientific pursuits.It treats of thought as exercised and displayed Thought as exhibited in all kinds of literature and universally. in silent meditation ; all our common in common conversation, speech, about the most trivial things and at every instant, thinking, every-day is is formally all of the same nature, proceedsin the same manner, if correct. trations illuslaws,is logical by the same Consequently, governed of Logicare to be drawn not merelyfrom any of the principles wherein but from any kind of knowledge, of the sciences, anything of thought. Logic teaches or explains becomes whatever an object mind rightly thinks at any time about anything. how any human
"
not
5. To
define
Logic as
of
thoughtwould
clearly is inter alia a science of formal thought, its character. Psychology from Logic. Psychology is an empirand needs to be distinguished ical is evolved from It therefore is tive, inducscience ; it an experience. It systematizes the conscious natural science, a posteriori. one In dealing mental activities, and pointsout their laws. with the faculty the modes in which we of thought, it explains think,teaching
how
we
discriminate
do
consciousness
Logic,on
all
an
at
It accepts science. or theoretical, speculative obtains by the analysis of given products of from or Psychology, certain primary laws ; from these it deduces secondary laws thought, and thus proceeds the necessary processes to demonstrate of thought, follow in thinkingcorrectly. It is therethose we fore of thought, must but empirical,
a
do
think,as
but to
matter
not
a
how
we
matter
of
It
not appeals,
to consciousness,
in support of its truthfulness. demonstration, of thought; Logicis the then,is the natural history Psychology, considers thoughtas an theoryof thought. Psychology operation ; of Logic considers it as a product. Psychologytreats conceiving, judgments, reasonings. reasoning judging, ; Logic treats of concepts, it must be. as treats of thought as it is ; Logic of thought Psychology Psychologyteaches how we do think,Logic teaches how we must of thought merely as actual, think. the The one treats the forms other proves them necessary. Like
demathematics,Logicis purely
INTRODUCTORY.
Theory
reduced.
denotes It is
into
a
the
most
general
of the
a
laws
to
winch
facts
can
be
and facts the
collection
inferences
facts
of of
compressed demonstrably
laws their the that
principles Logic
; it is
systematized
a
explanation
collection
true.
is and
such it
systematized
occupied
It with
govern
thinking,
certain
is
demonstrating
axioms.
Thought.
"
pure of
Y.
It is evident would be
that very
no
work abstract
strictlylimited
and difficult. since
a
by
the
definition
a
of
Logic
Being
pure
discussion form
can
forms,
be
it could realized
offer in Even
examples
; for
abstract much
cannot
consciousness in
are
apart from
matter,
less
it the
be
expressed.
symbols
Again,
themselves treatise
species
of
matter
that from It
is
extralogical. Psychology,
it
if the of the
no
be
kept strictlyapart
to
will
actual
thinking.
in
will
tell
to act
us
ing noth-
actually proceed
of the
nature
its efforts
tize systemaas
knowledge,
the
nothing
thinking
of
giving
rise
to
of be have the
phenomena
of
illegitimate
thinking.
science
if any,
would writers In
Consequently, few,
bound pure, of shall
allowed
be
idly rig-
by
the
definition. its
present
treatise, while
abstract
Logic
and
basis, while
this
Thought,
keeping
the
object constantly
definition how the whenever mind
in
view,
it
seems
freely transgress
We it does and
to
as
limits
not
shall think.
consider We actual
merely
must
think,
shall
give copious
of
concrete
illustrations,
to
analyze
and
exhibit the
exercises of
thought, appealing
to
experience
consciousness
to
theory, just
of
the laws
astronomer
turns
the
stars
to
the
of
the
Mecanique
Celeste.
PRIMARY
LAWS.
II. PRIMARY
"
1. In the
are
of Psychology we study of
is necessitated the mind to which intelligence constitution. Among by virtue of its essential and original necessitated by the others are certain forms of thought determined or itself. The chief of these necessary of the thinkingsubject nature forms the judgment,the reasoning. By sayingthat are, the concept, think that the mind cannot these forms are necessary is meant truly
there
certain modes
except
must
in
them.
But
since
be
both universal,
in the
sense
human
necessary, they in every found sense they are that all the thoughts of each mind are that it cannot others. be that
a
they are
native
and
always determined
in them.
For
on
form
is be
sary neces-
If so, it would of
merely
the
which contradicts our notion contingent, forms being necessary and universal, we may
necessity.Now,
them
as
view
governed
general
a
by
These necessary laws. abstract principles common will analysis, enunciated, they are
or
laws will be
to the
an
of expression
the
plete com-
be
ultimate
as
and
evolved
and
known of
as or LogicalPrinciples,
Primary
Fundamental
Laws
Thought.1 productsof thought viewed Logic, in language ysis, to a critical analare subjected
or general
exhibit
universal forms. of
In
other
words, if from
literature
we
manifestations
matter
common
and
them, we
discover
residuum
to
manner,
ing havThese
certain forms
that
considered as governedby laws ; and these are forms,beinguniversal, those obtained by found to be the same as laws,when enunciated, are Thus subjective analysis. the two processes
are
complement of laws is assumed by Logic as its punctum from them as and it proceedsto demonstrate saliens, synthetically
This
1
For the
of history
these
laws,see
Hamilton's
Logic, pp.
62-68.
10
INTRODUCTORY.
axioms the
the judgment, laws of the concept, secondaryor special The whole of pure Logic is onlyan articulate development reasoning. in which they of these Primary Laws, and of the various modes the necessary, is to say that the ble, It is not that they are inviola-
are
applied.
To
say that these self-evident laws
are
of contradictory
not
each is inconceivable.
is constrained
to obey them, as a necessity constrained to obey the laws of gravitation, inertia, planetis blindly or sciously unconetc. They are violable in the sense that we may wilfully or, inconsequence; them; but the result is fallacy, disregard null and void. the mental process is then suicidal or absolutely rather, be legitimate All consequent thinking must forms con; i. e., it necessarily to these laws,advertently or inadvertently. They are the primary
of
of the
not
mere
reader must
as
laws
so
to
seem
truisms.
When
to have
perienced always known, beingimpliedin every thoughtwe have ever exor observed, though until stated we are as unconscious of them of the laws that govern our as we breathing.Being the are widest generalities, and, indeed,governing penetrating every science, that comprehends anything, theyseem of all every mental movement that thingsthe most familiar and trite. Their very truth requires Standingrelated to the axioms of geomthey contain nothingnew. etry first elaborate at related these are to as they propositions, appear frivolous. But if and even singularly meagre, barren of significance, the code by which all human these laws are really thought is actually then their study is not futile ; so far from being barren, regulated, of principles productive ; so far from they are the most wonderfully
the
significance. profoundest
three. The firstis the Law are Primary Laws of thought affirmation. It is variously of all logical of Identity.It is the principle Omne est ens ;3 Everyenunciated: e. g., Whatever ens or is, is, thing is equalto itself;* Every objectof thoughtis conceived as which agree can be united itself; A thingis what it is ; Conceptions
6 6
in
or thought,
affirmed of the
;
or
same
at subject
the
same
time.7
The
formula
3
is A=A
A=a'+a"
s
+ a'"
form.
4
Scholastic Logic, p. 56. Hansel's ProlegomenaLogica, p. 167. 'Thomson's " 114. Outline, See Hamilton's
Hamilton's Bain's
57
PRIMARY
LAWS.
11
"2 + 2 4;" "4=2x2;" examples: "4 The Idea is equal 3 + 1," etc.; "Accordingto Plato, to 2X2;" "4 itself;" Man's a man for a' that ;" is nitrate of potash;" Saltpetre
are following
= = = " " "
The
was
Baron
Verulam
"
;"
"
Francis
Bacon
was
the father
Man
is rational and
animal
"
;"
A
"
Man habit
Man
is the
habit
;"
"
What
I have
Hamilton
or
partial identity
sameness
concept stands
formula.
to
"
each of its
in expressed
notion
"
the second
"
Man
;
"
of its constituents
"
Man similarly,
is animal."
We
may
go
further,
to the
poreal, cor-
part of
the
the comprehends
notion
and
we
may
say,
corporeal."In
part of what
to be
this extension
in implicated
of
is
the
subject.
To affirm that
a
solemn
and trifling,
is
ridiculed
propoxitioest verier ilia in qua idem de seipso.6 ject When, however, we consider that every obprccdicatur
of
by
Locke.
thoughthas
and
from distinguished
is evident that every concept may be viewed in relation to these characteristic and that these two several aspectsmust be affirmed of each other. and The law then declares the
as
the
better
of expression
it
This perhapsbe : A notion and its constituents are the same. is a more of the axiom : A whole is equalto the general expression of its parts. In the predicate, the whole is contained explicitly sum which in the subject is contained implicitly. It is obvious that this law enjoins it is self-consistency ; or, rather, in the necessity for self. in thought that is formulated -consistency be the aspects this law. Whatever of a thing, whatever be the modes the thoughtunof statement derlying it, concerning they must be equivalent; each
must
would
be the
same.
"
3. The of all
second
is the
Law
of Contradiction.
are:
It is the The
same
ple princisub-
logical negation.
at
attribute
same
cannot
be
the
same
time
denied
of the
Boethius.
See Hamilton's
Logic, p.
507.
12
INTRODUCTORY.
that contradicts it;10\Vhat is predicate No object is unthinkable ; be thoughtunder concan tradictory contradictory attributes ; The same thingcannot be A and non-A : this the absence cannot be both hot and cold.13 As this law enjoins room it ought condition of thought, of contradiction as the indispensable
a
" ia
have
of Non-contradiction.14 non-A. is
The
formula
is:
is not
"
Exampleswhich, if taken
infancyin
"
ally, liter-
Dotage
"
dexterous
;
"
;"
The
etc. speak,"
However
to compelled
"
volunteer
;"
Since
;"
Two
"
kinds
of
fops and fools ;" Nothing extempore speeches, of the elements ;" We ;" The decomposition of the foreand but littleof that." Each going nothingbut silence,
" "
the
law, and
a
is
felo de
se.
By
fundamental
law of
mind, which
Bain
of Relativity,
oppositeor counter every notion has an the other be conceived. virtue of the one can
there is
the
crooked or line, opposed the not-straight and a knowledge of good is impossible to opposedevil, evil. Hence Now the old scholastic maxim
:
mind
not
knowing
Contrariorum
eadem
est scientia.
and of
cannot their union is contradiction, consist, opposites formulated in the Law as consistency, thorough-going
we
these
affirm that
this is
we line, straight
we our
think
an
act
good,we
also say that it is a crooked line ; when may not also think it evil. Our assertions,
must not contradict each other. If to be consistent, thoughts, it destroys itself. Having made an sertion, asthey do, the thought is null, Affirmations not self-consistent are to abide by that. are we
contradiction
carries
us
one
step further.
An
tradictory, beingmade, it not merely forbids us to affirm also its conbut it authorizes us, or requires the contradictory us, to pronounce its contradicfalse ; i.e., to deny,of an object of thought,
who Aristotle,
the
of principle
"
Metapli.
10
Kant's
Critique of Pare
Logic, p.
58.
Reason.
"
11
Hamilton's Bain's
13
Logic, p. 16.
transl. p. 115. Meiklejohn's Hansel's Prolegomena Logica, p. 167. followed 18 Krug's Logik, " by Hamilton. ; See
PRIMARY
LAWS.
13
the principle be enunciated thus : Of two tory. Accordingly, may be false. E. g., This straight must line is not one contradictories, crooked ;" This good act is not evil ;" No chastisement is joyous ;"
" " " "
Francis
Bacon
was
not
Roger Bacon;"
are
"A
dishonest
to
man
is not
some
If trustworthy."
or
all diamonds
are
then precious,
say that
is
diamonds
Whatever denied
are
repugnant,
Neither
of it.
The
can
Laws
of
and Identity
as a
co-ordinate.
be deduced
the evolved
first. In every such attempt is unavoidably which is pesecondary presupposed, second from
two
have, however, been identified by many ilton as Leibnitz, Wolf, Kant, Herbart. And Hamphilosophers,
in the statement
All
essentially onlyby a posone, differing itive the be two summed Perhaps fairly may be self-consistent. must thought
are
J
"
4. The
of Excluded
Middle.
forms
as
givenin
or
the
other must
be affirmed
necessary.
no ground,
third Hence
ria /
be
true.
Lex
exclusi medii
aut
tertiiinter duo
contradicto:
enunciate it thus
a
Of
must two
two
must
be true. is
Either
no
given judgment
course.17 Of
formula be
be true,or
its
: there contradictory
middle
one contradictories,
must
exist in every
one
The subject.18
is: X
is either A
or
non-A;
other must
posited.
A few will examples suffice: Either it is true
"
that God
a
or exists,
exist ;"
"
Man
not
must to
be
free
agent,unless
are
necessitated
;"
To
be
or
Infinite mercy offers salvation to all." In this last example the opposition " in denied nite," infiis bounds no-bounds bounds and is between ; and hence no-bounds
must
be
which affirmed,
is done ad
in
"
offers is
an
The
absurdum
one
this law.
alternatives it shows
one
to
be absurd,
be true ; for
15 17
Shown
in Hoffbauer's
Logik, %
23.
16 "
Thomson's
14
INTRODUCTORY.
we
are
authorized
or
by required
and
its contradictory
true.
The
Laws united
of Contradiction in
one
may
be
iently convenname
statement, to which
is the
of principle
might
strict
:
be
given the
"
division logical
two
and
enunciate
it thus
Of
contradictories,
firmed either af-
must
or
be true, the other false ; of every false.30 This compound of Excluded denied
be
either
true
or
by logical
Oportetde
the
aut affirmare
negare*1 Hamilton
:
also.
givesfor
firm afwe can attributions, contradictory the other affirmed, onlyone of a thing; and if one be explicitly is denied." is implicitly This is the compound ; the latter member the principle of contradiction. His subsequentexposition, however, is correct. Bain clearly makes the mistake.23 So also Herbert Spencer. Middle Middle is : The appearance of Excluded says the principle without excluding of any positive mode of consciousness cannot occur mode cannot mode ; and the negative a correlative negative occur He without the excluding correlative
of Excluded
Of
mode.2* positive
and Excluded Middle arc Contradiction, " 5. The Laws of Identity, complementary. "The objectwhich I conceive is by the mutually Law and by the Law of Identity discerned as beingthat which it is, But it is not. of Contradiction is distinguished from that which these two them made correlatives must also be between regardedas constituting the universe of all that is conceivable ; for the distinction above is not between
two
definite
between
the
of object
which
I do not think.
Non-A
the implies
exclusion of A
and only,
of
end nothingelse,
thus denotes
19
The Mill
Greeks.
Tie says Logic, p. 205. the unmeaning : possibility,
"
20
that
e.
between
"
and
a
third
g.,
meaning un-
Acracadabra
is
second
is neither intention,"
true
nor
false.
But
is
an
If unmeanis a vacuum. ing, proposition any it means then,is nothing ; or, nothing, says nothing. The third possibility, Examination ilton, Hamalso See the true and the false. there is nothing between of
assertion at all ?
Its content
ch. xxi.
21
Lex.
P/iilosoph. p. 136.
"
34
Logic, p.
59.
5.
83
Logic, p. 17.
16
INTRODUCTORY.
i. e., possible in thought; and this is logically possible, in fact. Pure mathematics true of many thingsthat are impossible with mere That the stars may deals exclusively logical possibilities. the earth is physically fall on impossible ; that revenge may be a But both are conceivable ; they may be duty is ethically impossible. in thought; they are logically represented possible.I may think but this conceivability Waterloo is a failure, a fiction, or Christianity evidence that they are so. no While, then,these laws are the highest of an object, criterion of the non-reality they are no criterion at and all of its reality ; and theythus stand to existence in a negative, relation. Says Kant, The principle tion of contradicnot in a positive, is a universal but purely criterion of all truth." And negative this holds equallyof all the proximate and special of applications of the whole of Logic. Our science, these laws ; that is, then,in its is not a positive criterion of truth ; it can relation to other sciences, with thoughtsand not criterion, only be a negative beingconversant with the possibility and not the reality with things, of existence. is said to be
" "
We eminent
have
referred to the
Law psychological
of
German
to the
competent
and This
have held that the human philosophers of the absolute, has or that which cognition extensive
can
is tion, rela-
have
elaborated thereon
Absolute
systems of philosophy.
or proceedonly upon a more the primary laws of thought. Fichte and less admit the Law of Identity, but deny the two others, the Schelling between the Ego and the Non-egobeingmerged empirical antagonism in the identity of the absolute Ego." Hegel regards all the laws as but only for the finite Understanding, valid, theybeinginapplicable The eclecticism of Cousin atto the higher tempts processes of the Reason.
"
the
of cognition
the repudiating
laws of
Logic.
from
It is therefore there is
no
involved
in undeniable
contradictions
which
escape.
"
7. The
of principle
as
Sufficient Reason,
or
Determinant
Reason,
It is
has been
laid down
:
Every judgmentmust have a first distinctly It was enounced of Identity with the principles and Contradiction, the together Contradiction as the of his Logic. Kant adopted it, regarding
thus
87
ciated enunthought. sufficient ground for its assertion. who made by Leibnitz, it,
basis crite-
115.
PRIMARY
LAWS.
17
and Sufficient Reason the criterion of as possibility, logical But logical and logical are one. logical reality. possibility reality rion of followed Fries and Hamilton, in his lectures,
Krug
in
admitting the
"
in Logic,but subsequently he gave to this high position principle it extralogical." Mansel says, The relation it up, and pronounced to the act of judgment is merelynegative of this principle ; it forbids
us
in certain
cases
to
a
for
and it does no more. judge at all, thought of any kind is its relation
case
The
only
other
to
some
be
proper
law,"i.c., by
that
2
by its givenPrimaryLaws.
law of
determined
"The
only the
some
as
law
other."
but thought, be governed by every act of thought must the principle, Adopting this view,we reject of
forming no
element positive
Logic.
"
state
to
8. In
an
connection
with
the of
Primary Laws,
Logic.
it is
:
importantPostulate
to
It is this
be allowed in the
state
is
doctrine of the
of reasoning in ordinary guage, lanexpression but with the internal reasoningof the mind itself. Logic, all the propositions has alwayspresented of a syllogism, though altherefore, of them is usually in actual argument one left unexor more pressed. and highly But, since all speechis very elliptical rhetorical, be allowed to Logicin general, the postulate be furand must ther must the accurate extended to include not only and complete rendition however into language, and awkward its expresof the thought prolix sion rhetorical for but also the be, Logic disregards elegance, may
not deals, syllogism
allrhetorical
forms,into the
providing only that the practicable, thought itself be not changed. For as Logic deals only with the of the accidents of expression. it must be independent thought,
literaland direct statement Hence when
one a
deals logician
"
with
an
abbreviated than
meets
or
pression, exfigurative
wherein
more
is meant
the
he at once and metaphors, intimations, thoughtis conveyed in hints, He then proceeds, What is the full and true meaning of this? asks, and must be allowed to strip off all ornament, to supply all Iacuna3,
38
; and
p. 251.
30
29
Hamilton's
Logic, p. 81.
18
INTRODUCTORY.
and
to
to
exhibit
the
thought
so
naked and
and
entire. and
to
This
is
often
difficult
do,
thought
being
He
subtle be
evasive,
too,
language
make the and called much
so
meagre
in
and
inaccurate. for
must
allowed, provided
Such and
changes
thought entirely
"
seology phrais
not
mere
convenience,
modified.
always
alternative
thereby
essentially
having
a
similar
propositions, Propositions,"
Mill
to assert
equal
for
matter
reach,
shall
"
are
Equipollent
in be the allowed
quel. se-
term
we
have
use
states
the
Logic
postulates
which will for
to
the the
same
meaning
of it."
any
a
words
express any
is
it;
that
we
require
liberty
with that
exchanging
The deals
proposition
of
other self-evident
is
equipollent
the
justice
not
the
on
ground
Logic
with
words,
thoughts.
PAET
SECOND."
OF
CONCEPTS.
I. THE
TERM.
"
the
1.
Thought
the
viewed
as
product
the
as
of
intellect
exhibits when
three
forms,
in
Concept,
Judgment,
Reasoning, which,
the
expressed
the and of
Term,
in
the
Proposition,
three be
are
not to
different
concepts
is the into result these
reduced of
a
judgments.
may
concept
be
one
prior
acts
judgment', and
of But and the each
analyzed
of
two
again.
reasoning
relations distinct
is
to
judgment
a
relation of these
a
things through
of
their for
third.
forms
thought
of
consideration,
Under their the
constitutes
general
us
division
Logic.
Concepts, then,
constituent
or
let
consider
first
Origin, they
common
and
elements Term.
being comprised by
title of
N6tion,
the
"
2.
An
account
of the
cannot
genesis of concepts
be
belongs
here.
more
to strictly
Psychology,
may First When
as
but
entirely omitted
Three
momenta
be of
Generalization,
Conception.
to
some
object,either
an
external
memory,
thing
it apprehends
presented
it
are
or
mental of
a
image presented
number other of
or
in
only
possessed
as
of and
qualities.
If then
These mind
apprehended
what is
unlike
"
each shock
several, the
called
the the
difference." the
is the of
now
fixed
on
one
quality,as
color,
weight,
or
other
qualitiesconsequently
one on
become
obscure,
attention the
perhaps
is
consciousness, this
into vivid
of
which
is fixed
not
one
thereby
drawn
consciousness,
Thus
or
becoming by
chief, if
to
the
cognition.
abstracted view
this
quality the
In of the this
has
been
drawn is the
logical psycho-
Abstraction
negative
positive act
20
OF
CONCEPTS.
of qualities, in being plurality But this one be considered as concentrated on one. quality may from all others. In this logical abstracted or drawn view Abstraction away is a positive act by which we cognizeone quality apart. It that we obtain a clear and distinct notion is thus by abstraction of the qualities, ject, attributes, characters, features, properties, etc.,of an oball of which terms and are included in are nearlysynonymous, Logic under the one term, marks.
to
a
being denied
It may
be at
"
once
noted
that marks
are
of several sorts
or
kinds.
They
a
are,
1st. Positive
or
as negative;
rational
is
mark negative,
of
man.
as
rational
is
an
a calculating original, of his rationality. mark of man, this being a consequence derivative, 4th. Simple or complex ; as conscious is a simple mark (i. e., one animal of and not susceptible analysis) a complex mark of man, the and sentient. So red is a simple latter beingcompounded of organized mark of one kind of rose, and vegetable a complex mark. mortal 5th. Common is a mark to man or as common peculiar; with other animals, risible a peculiar mark, found in no other being. A peculiar is called mark and to to this, as a property," belonging
3d.
or Original
derivative
as
rational
is
an
"
no
other, yet
A
as
not
considered
essential ; thus
is
one
mobile
a
is
property of
body.
alone ; The
belongingto
be discerned
individual single
Cain. may
in any
number
of marks
which
great. It would
all the marks
of grain
corn.
be
to impossible
enumerate
which
might
be discerned
in
so
simple an
"
and
3.
But
in memory many
as
produce the
but The
some
shock
of
givkthe
shock
an
of repetition
of
determines
are
When
some
jects ob-
agree, while others wholly disagree in certain respects, those which partially consciousness is concentrated naturally on
found
agree ; and
then,in them,
on
those marks
in
or
through which
they
THE
TERM.
21
To
givea
crude illustration:
is attracted to
a
attention
horse,an
ox,
the
etc.,that may
then observe
more
but agreeingin some present, respects. We and is/otwv that each has a hairy hide, particularly
be
marks
are
they agree.
which stand in similar relation to
our gans or-
marks
those
the similarity is complete, cognition.When the effects which they produce in us are indiscernible. But what we is to us virtually the same cannot distinguish ; i. e., they are subjectively if they were identical. The same, to us as identical, objectively consider them to be, though really in different objects. we accordingly,
and
faculties of
This
same,
is the
essence
of all
Generalization ;
the
same.
It is would
is to think the similar may say that to generalize fiction of thought,1 but one without which our be- unable
of objects grasp the multiplicity think that each of the animals named in the
to
limited powers
We to us. presented above example has the same to either of now applicable to unityin thought. Such notion.
is g., four-footed. This mark the objects.A plurality has been reduced
e. a
mark,
mark generalized
is
that generalization is classification. by anticipation a They are but different aspects of the same operation.By thinking to several individuals, mark as common we therebygroup them, we constitute a class containing Thus the animals above named them. belongto the class or group quadruped. remark that when we Also we of ana number imals speak of observing have already Their we together, thought them as one group. marks and therebywe have already have been generalized, common constituted the total of the objects considered into the class already We may animal.
of that, havingaffirmed the mark four-footed of these objects, a class, some we, in the same constituting thereby act,under the shock of dissimilarity, deny this mark of the rest. The class;i.e., are birds, reptiles, etc., therebyconstituted into a negative
observe
Now
let it be noted
the Overlooking
same,
a
fictitiouscharacter
the thinking
similar to be
the really
times,that
to
all
Thomson's
of things, and is common independently See Whately's chapter on Realism, Logic, p. 305 sq. ; and Ucberweg's History of Philosophy, " 91 sq.
22
OF
CONCEPTS.
one
characterized by the
in groups are dissimilar The the other does not. the equals
These two mark, non-four-footed. negative and that one possesses the mark four-footed,
sum
of the two
groups, the A
and
non-A,
total of the
animal. universe,
Further,if
we
contemplate
the
we special group quadruped, and of dissimilarity. The ox and the goat each have horns ; beingand call them horned we similar, quadrupeds. The horso generalize horns ; being similar in this negative and the dog have no respect, of -horned them into a negative non we quadrupeds. generalize group But, at the same time, the two groups being dissimilar in respectof having and not having horns,we think them different or diverse. classifiedinto two co-ordinate kinds,the or They are thus specialized, and the non -horned,subordinate to quadruped, which is their horned the necessary correlative to gensum. This,then,is Specialization, eralizatio is to think the dissimilar and we may say that to specialize or diverse,
It also is classification. It is
occurs
not
the
process
without
"
4. The
third moment
To
of
Concept.
number
conceive have
is to (con-capere) been
of marks
one
abstracted, they
be
collected
by
a a
thought into
concept is
a
notion,and this referred to substance concept. A concept, then,is a union of marks in one
bundle
of marks
constitutes
notion
some
; or,
thought of
the mind many
as
in inhering
an
thing.
our
Every
marks.
to thingpresented
has
indefinite
to
of plurality
Observation
can
make
known
us, but
edge, knowl-
fulness and
can complexity,
exhaust take
in
them.
at
once
of the mind
is known.
not can-
presence
to
A
prehend com-
becomes representation
in
we one
confused than
a
attempt
grasp
or
more
a
form
tempt, Giving up the atvery few of them. few embracing comparatively concept of the thing,
a
marks, making
The
selection of those
or
which
are
most
essential.
concept
of a part onlyof the marks of which an individual representation affords only a one-sided and inis the sum, and consequently object
So the German
Hence
"
"
"
24
OF
CONCEPTS.
making a unityof
I form my plurality, concept of star. This is applicable a host of distinct to,or contains under it, individuals has all these marks. the word
"
this
The
notion
express
this bundle To
a
individuals. A
concept is
of the similar
are
or qualities
of the
therebyconstituted
We
may
now more
into
the mind
"
knows is to form
concepts.
that the
"
of
5.
It is obvious
between similarity
are
concept expresses merely the relation it denotes, the things of course, that implying,
But
a wre
there
also differences.
to
mere
can
relation cannot
be realized in
cognizea relation of things, is contradictory and absurd. and yet not the thingsrelated, Or, an an act of cognition necessarily implies object cognized ; but a relation be an object, of its terms cannot since there is nothingin it stripped is not cognizto the thinking subject.A concept,therefore, able opposite it affords no absolute or irrespective of that is, in itself; object knowledge. A concept can be realized in consciousness only by applying of the related similar in those it to one more as or spects. reobjects When we attempt to represent by an image any abstract find it impossible.We absolute object, thus we can an as generality individual and determinate object. realize it only as attached to some is found to consist in this : that though we Its whole generality must individual of the class, realize it in thoughtas comprisedin some we The generality of a concept,then,is potential, may do it under any.
suppose
not
consciousness; for
actual.2
For
example:
This
term
I have
is
sides.
notion triangle, of three a figure general to several species, others to applicable among the Now
at the
the
and to the scalene. equilateral be it must in its generality, triangle scalene. But herein is
a
should
same
attempt to realize
time both
equilateral
and
image must have its sides all equaland yet unequal. Hence such an image is impossible. and scalene, be both equilateral it must while the image cannot Still,
a
contradiction ; the
See Hamilton's
THE
TERM.
25
an image,then, or else draw with my pencil, of its sides, the equality and equilateral triangle ; and by disregarding all particular marks this individual figure, I can template concharacterizing alone the notion trilateral figurewhich it comprises. Thus realized in consciousness. only is the concept triangle one or
be
the other.
"
6.
It must
are
not
be
understood
now
scribed de-
They are actually separateand successive in the mind. in reality but are not distinct and independentacts, guished only so distinand stated in order to enable us to comprehend and speak of indivisible operation. It is merely the several aspects of an actually of a mark the generalization cannot a logical analysis.For instance, without a grouping of several without a classification occur ; that is, is essentially in one which stractio abclass, conception objects ; and, again, is analysis, that there was which implies already by the mind a though it may have been very obscure,of marks, from synthesis, into clear consciousness; is drawn but. a synthesis which one among is conception. of marks, however obscure, Moreover, a mark and a concept are commutable. Every mark is A conand every concept potentially a mark. a concept, cept potentially is expressed by a substantive or substantive phrase by ; a mark and of the transmutation these an or adjective phrase; adjective to the change in the aspect of grammatical forms, corresponding
is thought,
a
familiar fact.
is used
Thus
a
"
Man
is
an as
animal,or
a
is animal."
Here
animal
first as
use
next concept,
mark.
The
tion distinc-
consists in the
made
is
a
of the notion
if used
"
the notion
is
a
concept ;
is
an
mark. of
Thus
"
Man
animal
means
is
one
of the
r'
kinds
means
thingsdenoted
man now
"
by
Man*
is animal
that
that
here,and
notion The
genetically ; it
means
concept or
two
so changingthe convertible, constantly freely to exterm need a common press that we thought,
"
either.
notion
"
is most
suitable.
"
very
7. In
common
this
connection
may
be
noticed
another
very
subtile but
only the play of thought. A mark, which is strictly this relation being obscured by attribute of something, or is, quality itself a thing. Inoften thought of as though it were abstraction,
26
OF
CONCEPTS.
stead of
being referred
Marks
to its
severed
existence.
therefrom
so
it is, it were, comas pletely substance, original and established in an indepenby thought, dent treated are specifically called abstractions,"
"
and
are
by expressed
of
great number
of
have
the termination
ocean,
"-ness."
mark
etc. ; but fineness is thought of as sapphire, of these things, and spoken of as though it had a real existence but justice is extolled apart by itself. Again, Aristides is just, In the one is thought as concrete from the mark case any person. inherent in something; in the as (con-crescere=to together), grow other case abstract. These are proper oppoit is thought as entirely is concrete is A concrete sites. Human term ; humanity,abstract. of an of an the name attribute. object;an abstract term the name An abstract term, then,is the name of a mark thought as a thing.3 of sucli terms in every refined language The uncounted multitude shows what familiar use is made by human thought of this fiction. and the abstract are and different regionsof thought, concrete The and constantly ing the difference should be clearly as a confusobserved,
the
of
one
with
the
other
often
leads to
the
grossest absurdities.
the factitious and fictitious not Plato,in the Sopkistet, recognizing of abstracts, exist which are nature real; incorpoargues that thingsmay and for justice and wisdom, says he, are incorporeal; justice and
a thing something. By something he means in and by itself, and not merely as the quality of capableof existing other thing. From this source some grew the Platonic doctrine of that abstracts are independent entities. The Aristotelian Ideas, teaching
wisdom
must
be
"
"
doctrine idle
of
substantial forms
and
second
and substances,
all the
stractio TO eV,TO vpotot', and similar abrespecting speculations ov, TO have the same origin. Many of the gross blunders of of the abstract attributable to this confusion modern are metaphysics If the student of philosophy would always, and concrete. at least or of importance, guage in cases adopt the rule of throwingthe abstract lancouched into a concrete it is so frequently in which form, in with aid the obscurities and he would find it a powerful dealing He would of metaphysical then see clearly speculation. perplexities which constitute what of nothings the character of the immense mass passes for philosophy."
" 4
"
See Mill's
4. See remarks of
Letters on Bailey's
Bain,Logic, p. 52
sq.
THE
TERM.
27
to language
"
and
means
8. It is
to important
our
cepts. con-
concept would
from
to
immediatelyfall
it has been it permanent.
and
back
into the
were
infinitude
some~
confusion
which render
there not
by
which
words. of which
The it
concept is fixed
can
ratified in
is
at
then,is the
It is the
of thought. Many thoughtsare valuable either not register and are dismissed. at all or only for the moment, Any one of high is preserved value and needed for further use by a sign; we give it a
"
name.
Nomina of
a
sunt
notionum
notce."
is
a common noun.
The
noun,
name
notion general
a
Every common
to belonging
therefore, expresses
fasciculus of attributes
a
each
of several
objects. It
to
a
stands for
unit that
an
be
used
in further
by concept is expressed
an
and that adjective noun, considered as a thing. We and also that many action,6
of
"
mark
a
by
of
mark
add that a verb is the name of an may notions are registered in phrasesinstead
of
a as
words ; e. g., we have no single word to express our notion single to only one like a rainyday." A noun singular applies object,
but then it is singular only in its presentapplication proper name, ; "a song,""this world," "my horse," "the king." It is evident
singular meaning is
means a
obtained
"
by adding some
or
word. limiting
as
indefinite article
us
some
any
one
in
Give
song."
a
The
definite
a
"
indicates class ;
as
king comes," Cesar's army." All such names are connotative, they implyattributes or marks, and when used to denominate a subject they carry these marks into the subject is non-connotative.6 and attribute them to it. A proper name strictly It denotes an individual, but does not indicate or imply any attributes of that individual. of a quality It is not the name or qualities ; it is but an in our minds unmeaning mark or sign which we connect with an object, that when this signmeets our so may eyes or ears we
6
The
J. C.
traced Scaliger
the
noun
and
the verb to
a
ence differ-
temporary
state. transitory
See
Mill's
an
able discussion
connotative
non-connotative
terms.
28
OF
CONCEPTS.
think
of that
individual ; it does
nor individual, name
not
of itself connote
the
convey
any
information
as
of the proper
considered
mere
the But
name
individual
to object presented
intuition.
is
if it stands
for
or
a evidently complement of in the example given indefinite plurality, an as marks, and connotes above ("4) of the notion Socrates. When Euclides, having heard of from the fame of Socrates, went Megara to Athens to see him, and That person is Socrates, then cersome one tainly pointedhim out, saying,
expresses my
notion
of
an
it individual,
the proper name, thus attributed to the person, connoted and carried with it the marks which constituted Euclides' notion of rates, Socand identified this While
language is
have
not
thought must
been
to
thought,for
to
the
necessary
Without
could A
never
rise above
necessary to give to our intellectual progress, to establish each step in advance stability for our advance, to another beyond. Without as a new starting-point there language
thought.
sign is
knowledge realized of the essential properties of things, and all ascent from the sphereof sense to the sphereof moral and religious is without it impossible, or intelligence possible only to a very low degree.7 In thinking without language, it follows from what was said in " 5
no
could be
that at every
must
be realized in
sciousness con-
example. It is obvious that this is a clumsy and very restricted procedure.By the device of languagethe is emancipated from mind of continuous the necessity realization. Instead of this intuitive thinking, this to call it, prefer or, as I would aged, imeither perceived we or thinking by example, may think by signs, which is called symbolicthinking.8 As Berkeleyremarks,9 It is not in the strictest reasonings, that significant necessary, even stand for notions, which should, every time they are used, names, for. the ideas they are made to stand excite in the understanding In reading and discoursing, names are used,for the most part,as symbolic in which, though a particular be letters are in algebra, quantity that marked it is not requisite by each letter, yet,to proceedright, image
an
" T
by
of
admirable
of exposition iv ry
iv ry
(fiwpyT"V
De
'
8.
THE
TERM.
29
in
every
step each
letter should
was
suggest
to
to
your for."
thoughts that
By
this
means
ticular parthe
quantity it
and facility
appointed thought
are
stand
range
of
vastlyincreased.
in this
use
There
is
danger,however, peculiar
for
of words that
as
ry tempora-
substitutes and
write
as we nonsense
thoughts. Campbell
persons
are
shows
by
it many
and
even
cious judito
well-informed without
sometimes
one
led to talk
say,
speak thoughtlessly,
"
bilinear
is cold
donation,"
corrected
was
or
say
"
the I
weather
my
as
blazes."
men are
The
liars
ist Psalm-
himself
this And
said, in
haste, all
and of
;" which
very
well, for
lie.
are
saying included
this
him,
us
likely a
"
reminds
of wise
the but
at
saying
the money
end
of
Hobbes, that
of
words
the
counters
men,
It of
is
consequently needful,
the
test
says
Mansel,
ascertain
the
of
thought,and
to
at occasionally
intermediate
to submit stages,
result of
of
an
example, and
a
the
possiblecoexistence
The
the individual intuitive its
the
of is
a
attributes class is
in
corresponding object of
if the
intuition.
of
existence members
possibleonly
its
existence
possible;hence
or
symbolicalcognition supposes
condition, and
a
cognition
it.
possibleas
of
derives
validityfrom
of
an
test
thought, then, as
in the
is an possibility,
image
example,
We
is
possible only
that the
absence them
of self-contradiction.
must,
notions, look
in the
face,and, thus
realizing
This
they
do
not
involve
case,
or
attributes. contradictory
an
by
intuition which
of
example, called, by
an
the
mans, Ger-
Anschauung,
to
may
envisaging.11
with the attributes members
of
Symbolic conception,then, is
sense or
imaged by
the
mind, and
associated
of
of significant
the class. As in
be defined symbolic thinking,the concept may now and representof attributes united under a sign, ing
collection
objectsof possible
intuition.
10
11
Prolegomena Logica, p.
X.
35
sq. and
30
OF
CONCEPTS.
II.
QUALITY.
in four ways. with reference First,
"
1.
Conceptsmay
be viewed
to the
and in which, which theyrepresent, the external objects things, or indirectly, they originate, they are considered as arising directly of from them as their source or qualities ; as constituted of the marks to one to many the things : this is or common thing, ; as applicable ject, subwith reference to the mind, or thinking their Origin. Secondly, towards perfection ; as they are considered as having gradations less clear, etc. : this is their Quality. Thirdly, or distinct, beingmore with reference to their contents, they are considered as comprehending : this is their Quantity. Fourthly, marks, or as extendingto things tions relawith reference to each other, they are considered in reciprocal co-ordinate as or as or contained, as the 'same different, containing Their Origin having been subordinate : this is their Relation. or considered under the previous topic, to examine, secondly, we come now their Quality.
of concepts. His quality in a famous littletract On Knowledge,Truth, views were expressed In it he pointedout the distinction, and Ideas." examined, already between intuitive and symbolic to Hamilton, which, according thinking, in Germany the whole controversybetween Nominalism and superseded that agitated France and England for several centuries. Conceptualism have quality less perfectly as or according they more Concepts resent repin consciousness their objects.The following scheme marks the degrees : by which knowledge approaches perfection
"
"
( Obscure
Knowledge
( Confused2
Inadequate
(Distinct....-]
(
{
( "j Adequate
( Intuitive
[-Perfect.
)
Symbolic
of the
tract
In
Ada
Eruditorum,
be
1684.
See
translation
appended
then
to
It would
were
named
and
Confused
might
be taken
genus
to
include Obscure
32
OF
CONCEPTS.
it is thingsthat lie nearest to it, declaring -what it is. and then proceedto render it distinct by stating not these, etc.3 it is righteousness, is not pardon, E. g., Justification We think a concept distinctly Distinctness of thought has two modes. from each the marks which it connotes when we distinguish when we can other, this is its distinctness in intension ; and, again, each other, this is its the thingswhich it denotes from distinguish Intensive distinctness is obtained by definition, distinctness in extension.
of especially ing it,
those
"
"
the
enumeration
Extensive
distinctness is obtained
under
can
which by division,
concept. Thus, a chemist's notion of and its marks, i. e., give its intension, name
there i.e., give its extension. be),
the both
its varieties of
rieties va(if
My notion thought was from and imagination it clearly obscure until I separated perception, memory, its characters and it is now becoming distinct by studying indistinct ; but intensively and kinds. Our notion of red is very clear, it from blue. the particulars cannot name we by which we distinguish somewhat It is, more as we can name distinct, however, extensively A primitive etc. the varieties scarlet, notion, such as crimson,pink, be analyzed, is without marks, is therefore cannot identity, being ultimate, be cognizedonlyper se. and can Though perfectly indefinable,
it has clear,
no
or
extensive.
think a then adequate. We knowledge is inadequate, and importance distinct concept adequatelywhen the relative number sufficient to correctly of the marks which it connotes are representthe When everything," thingswhich it denotes. says Leibnitz, that enters into a distinct notion is distinctly known, when the last analysis
"
5. Distinct
"
"
tinguish must we keep in mind that he does not disLeibnitz, and that these graduateinsensibly into but degrees, kinds of knowledge, has which another I discern in an objectsome one each other. When quality not, the is to declare that they are not be sufficient ground for me one this may two, be sufficient and so far my the other, knowledge is clear. But this would not, perhaps, it and cannot what I tell the for to describe is, me yet object ; my ground
3
If
we
would
understand
But as I discern more and still indistinct or confused. therefore, knowledge is, from what we call merely more marks, my knowledge of the objectgradually passes I then describe and it. When can distinct into but clear knowledge, indistinct, I can but not until define it inadequately, the distinctness becomes more complete, tinctive i . enumerate I all its disit define all its marks discerned can adequately, e., are to perfection consists in a discerning marks. The whole process from obscurity of
more
and
more
marks.
QUALITY.
33
of which I scarcely know then the knowledge is adequate, reached, the knowledge of numbers^ whether a perfect example can be offered; have a nearly to it." Perhaps we near however, approaches adequate of so few marks, its definition consisting knowledge of a chess-board, ultimate and simple and they so nearly : a square composed of sixtycolors. Dr. Thomson four equal opposite says, squares of alternately carries the which We analysis may consider any knowledge adequate equate far for the purpose in view." E. g., A machinist has an adsufficiently and knowledge of the machines he has invented, constructed, But this is practical, not logical, used. adequacy. The great bulk of our inadequate. knowledge is logically
is
"
"
6.
a
Distinct
distinct
knowledge
or
dividual, inimage an in it all the marks connoted by the concept,and containing denoted by the concept. Notions itselfcontained under the class of things those of visual objects, not arc very complex,and especially in an we exemplified readily image ; but when one is very complex, able to image it completely. Thus could not image a not we are Even before the eye, we could not such figures were some chiliagon. the difference between one of 1000 sides and one of 1001 sides. perceive at least to or When, however," says Leibnitz, we are able wholly, this image,I call the knowledgeintuitive." to form a great extent, in longeranalyhe continues, especially But, for the most part," ses, do not behold at a glance the whole nature of a thing, which we would be intuitive knowledge, but we employ signsinstead of things. We commonly omit,for the sake of expedition, of these any explication in presentthought, that we have such explisigns cation knowing or believing in our of when I think a polygon of a Thus, chiliagon, power. thousand equalsides, I do not alwaysexpressly consider the nature of of of but I employ these words in the a side,' thousand,' equality,' them." This is symbolic placeof the ideas which I have concerning of numbers, such as those which state the velocity thinking. All large miles per second), the distance of the sun (91millions of (186,000 light and also all such very complex notions as religion, civilization, miles), known to us onlysymbolically. the Englishconstitution, are war, etc., is readily while Our knowledgeof primitive intuitive, as unit, notions, for the most our part,symbolical.4 knowledgeof compositeones is,
think
symbolic. an example,
We
"
**
"
'
'
'
Leibnitz
was
not
the
as first,
Hamilton
and
Thomson
who intimate,
re-
34
OF
eoxc^rrs,
"
it
is
be at the V. If knowle'clg'e
same
time both
it is clear, when perfect.We think a concept perfectly distinct, in a nd individualized It intuitive is evident an adequate, example. is hardly, that knowledge logically or tainable perfect only in rare cases, atBut we are too easily with obscure content by the human mind. and thus our indistinct knowledge, or thoughtsare often vague, and absurd, without our or even of self-contradictory becoming aware it. Then we believe that we blind. we are really see, when But should our still our edge knowlconcepts become logically perfect, would be very far from absolute perfection. Truth," savs Cudworth, "is biggerthan our minds, and we are not the s-ime with it, but have a lower participation only of the intellectual nature, and arc than comprehenders rather apprehendcrs thereof. This is, indeed,one of have not a perfectly our state,that we creaturely badge hensive compresuch as is adequate and commensurate nor even to knowledge, Yet it is the ability of things." the essence to form concepts of things, the many in one, to classify to comprehend and understand and arrange of knowledge, in order of relations the objects that is above all other?, of intellect, the gloryof the human the great power mind, and that which constitutes its immeasurable the brute. over But, superiority of the other hand, it is the necessity forming concepts at all, the on of resorting to a fiction of unity in plurality, the necessity necessity of making a minute perfectio part stand for a vast whole, that marks the immind. However and finite character of the human ly perfectof a logical this may be done, it is merely the perfection device, of knowledge. To know not the perfection thingsin any measure,
"
the human
mind
must
think
its immeasurable
does not think at all, to the divine mind, which but inferiority all things, knows, by the immediate intuition of the things themselves, and totality. in their real plurality at once
marked
he
intuitive and
impressedit
modern
though certainly symbolicthinking, distinction clearly same implied Not being able to point out follows :
"
the
as
in
to
instead of the realities about,we use names thingsthemselves that we reason in the names to be consequences their symbols. Then the consequences appear in the counters to the calculator the realities, just as the consequences appear tion, the counters. in the objects be the consequences by As, in calcularepresented the counters in manipulating deceived by those unskilled are those who are
are are
who
names
skilled, so,
deceived
those who are unacquainted reasoning, See by paralogisms." supra, pp. 28, 29. in
with
the power
of
QUANTITY.
35
III. QUANTITY.
"
1. We
a
are
next
to
consider
to
their
tents, con-
of Logic than the within the province strictly lyingmore which belong rather to Psychology. That a concept two preceding, since it consists of a variable is manifest, be viewed as a quantity may of things. to a variable plurality of marks, and is applicable plurality view
And
this indicates
or an
that the
is quantity
twofold.
It is either
an
tensive in-
is said quantity. A concept viewed intensively its marks, which are reduced to unityin thoughtby being to connote in one substance ; viewed extensively, the conconceived as inhering cept is said to denote which are reducid to unity its objects or things, in thoughtby being conceived class or group, as one constituting of the class possessing Its marks, then, each member all the marks. constitute the deconstitute the connotation of a concept; its objects notation extensive
of The
concept.1
of
a
intension
termined or depth,is deconcept,or its comprehension by the greateror smaller number of marks contained in it,
it is the
sum.
the concept man is composed example, of the marks all thought as existing, sentient, rational, living, in one substance. of the connotation of the This explication inhering is its determination is a being, definition ; thus,Man or concept man and rational. sentient, living, of a concept,or its sphere The extension or breadth,is determined of objects of specific or by the greater or smaller number concepts, contained under it. For example, contains under it the concept man the specific etc. mechanic, Again,the chemist, artist, concepts logician,
and
of which
For
This
taken
in
general terms
remained It
was
the marvellous
until the
Port-RoyalLogic,1662.
taken and philosophy, of the subsequent works on doubtless again original.It passed thence into most but in England nothing beyond Logic. In Germany the doctrine was developed, Arnauld's expositionwas borrowing attempted until Hamilton expounded and appliedit, as from Krug,Esser,and other German an writers, integral largely part of the science. That he overestimated its consequences
will be seen
time
in
overlooked totally f or therein, the first it. was applied by Arnauld, with whom
in the
sequel.
36
OF
CONCEPTS.
contains under it the objects Aristotle, Porphyry, concept logician and the This rest. of the denotation Boethius,Arnauld, Hamilton, explication
of
a
Observe viewed
said to
is said to contain in it, to or intensively it is said to contain under but viewed extensively things.
it other
concepts,or
"
number extend
marks
of marks
to
are a
of
and, on
hand, if the
be
many
the distinctive,
of onlya small number of things. predicated Thus the concept bird has only a few marks, such as existing, living, it is sentient, tains winged,biped, etc.; but feathered, applicable to, or conof things number undcl' it, the cona great variety or cept ; whereas dudf\i9" more or marks, such as ivcb-footcd, etc.,and the variety denoted is Hence of less. number have the genwe thingsthereby eral
concept can
include and
law
the intension,
smaller
the
smaller
extension
in inverse ratio. arc quantities ing ThinkConceptsare modified in thoughtby changingtheir content. in marks, we and vice versa. In theoretical strictthink out things, ness, the thinking in one mark is the thinking class or thing, out one and vice versa, and the ratio is exact; but in actual thought, owing to the incompleteness of our concepts,the ratio is very far from exact, and the law applies The theoretical statement, sense. general only in a loose, however, should be limited to the essential and original marks,
words, the
two
and
does
not
refer
to
the
accidental
and
the
derivative.
Original
marks
carry The
their derivatives
along with
not
do therefore, latter,
it
more
them
by
only render
It follows maximum is
a
explicit.
the above A that the minimum
from
of extension. is
one
concept in which
a
minimum
in which
of plurality
depth longerbe
or
mark. i. e., it has but one Such a concept is being or distinguished, which connotes thing, only the mark existing. It is called a simple concept as opposed to complex or compound. Now the extension or breadth of a simple concept is at a maximum. Thus the concept extends to, everything that exists, or beingor thingcontains under it, in the universe. everything
QUANTITY.
37 of extension
or
On
the other A
is the maximum
of
intension.
is
one
concept in which
in which
i.e. it includes
a
mum sphereis at a miniguished, of objects no can a plurality longerbe distinin its sphere to but one or object.Such applies the extension
the sJcy^ or or tomb, or Virginia,
day's to-
Each
because individual,
or
be
and is called an only one object, divided. Now the intension logically
a
comprehensionof
Aristotle
individual is at
maximum.
Thus
the
cept con-
an
in it, or or contains, contains, conceivably comprehends, of marks, so numerous indefinite plurality to defy all computaas tion ;
a
number
of the
in things
the universe.
is said that an abstract term previoustopicit was the name of a mark thought as a thing. This is a device of thought, into a form which enables us to make them mere bringing qualities the subjects of judgments. A quality, beingthus treated as a concept, be thought as itself possessing must the two quantities intension and
a
"
3. Under
an
abstraction
is both
connotative
and
notative. de-
an
abstraction is from
connotes
its
ponents. com-
The
wisdom
that (abstract)
then
and good full of mercy peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." Here both posifruits; tive and negative tributed atelements, which,taken together, are wise, compose to wisdom its intension or connotation;they are its marks. as Now is wisdom from we above,and thus convey into may say, Charity it (connotare), attribute to it, all these marks. tion or Again,an abstracdenotes its several kinds. The wisdom just described is one
kind. scendeth
are,
But
not
we
arc
told there is
wisdom
a
de-
then,at
or
There devilish." above, but is earthly, sensual, least two kinds of wisdom, and these constitute its extension It is evident
that the
from
denotation.
are
kinds
denoted
by
an
straction aban
themselves be
it follows
that
abstraction can
wisdom.
these Evidently
concrete
marks The
be
attributed to the
"
notion.
above
marks
may
be affirmed of
The
spirit-
and
17.
See
i,17
to
ii, 16,where
of wisdom.
38
OF
CONCEPTS.
wise man." Bat an abstract lias qualicarnally ties the E. wisdom that "The concrete. that do not belong also to g., than from to be desired above is more cometh more rubies, precious of is a defence better than strength, better than weapons than gold, wise man." The be said of "The stractio abwar." This cannot spiritually
wise,or ually
of the
then,connotes
It does not
new
series of marks.
What
is this series? of
marks, but
a
original
merely as quality
rare
: e. quality
g., AVisdom
; that
is,it
is
desirable, ennobling,
so plete, com-
and
With quality.3
as absolute, a
with
second, wherein
more
the mark
is viewed
more
be can therefore, things, said of the abstract than of the concrete is notion,which, perhaps, of the favor shown it by thinkers. A one reason notion, primitive without such as single, when taken abstractly, havingno components, is, the first series. We can or unity only those things say of singleness to the second series. belonging
thoroughlyas
thing. Many
"
as a
The
thinkingin
the
either predicate as a class ; as, Facts are stubborn, things. or, arc stubborn call thinking in the intensive quantity ; the other, may plies imthe extensive quantity. It is true that one quantity
we
stated already
that
may
think
and other,
we
do
not
think the
one
without
at the
same
time
thinkingthe
of two is in vivid one thinking ordinary while the other, is comconsciousness, paratively, though within consciousness, and it may be very, obscure. either phase of thinkNow ing become one more habitual, considering attentively may person of a thing, another the qualities it as a member of a class. regarding I am inclined from observation to believe that thinking in intension
other.
But
in
bk. i, ch. ii, Logic, " 5, says : A non-connotative term is one which a signifies subjectonly (e. name), or an attribute only. Whiteness, g., a proper attribute only. None of these names, virtue,signify an are conlength, therefore, nctative." But is not prudence a virtue ? He afterwards modifies this statement, in some only of attributes, saying: Even abstract names, though the names may instances be justly considered as connotative ; for attributes themselves have may
in Mill,
" "
his
to
them
; and
word
which
denotes is the
attributes may
"
connote
an
attributes."
"
His is
a
example
name
word
to
hurtful
common
many
that the
name
is
hurtful
or
undesirable
qualityin quality.
horse
receives this
40
OF
CONCEPTS.
IV.
RELATION.
will view different.
"
them Of
1. In
relations of concepts, the reciprocal we considering firstintensively.1 identical or Notions thus viewed are
for unless there are identical strictly absolutely none; and are fore therethere be some difference, they cannot be distinguished, taken strictly, one. Indeed, the phrase two thingsidentical," is a contradiction in terms. Yet in Logic we tions, speak of identical nodiffer meaning those which,having reference to the same object, mind only in being conceived by different minds, or by the same at different times,these slight differences being considered not as whose differences belonging to the notion itself. Notions proper but only extrinsic or accidental, not intrinsic or essential, tively relaarc are
"
notions
identical.
Such
notions
are
also called
they are called reciprocating being all common, different languages, convertible. Thus signstaken from passion Comas and sympathy,""Conspectusand synopsis," and "Achromatic
"
stand often for similar or cognate notions colorless," of a definition, is unmerited "Grace as favor,"are for each
; and
the terms
tions, no-
convertible
the same essential marks. comprises Notions are absolutely different when there is no similarity. ly Strictis loosely there are in extreme none cases ; but the term applied the similarity is very slight and unimportant, when in "Blue and as different heavy,"or "Money and memory." Notions are relatively when and verse; dione they have at least one importantmark common
thus
"Saint"
from
differs from
"Sinner," "Wise
"from
"Unwise,"
"A
brightday"
"A
dark
day."
are Again, notions viewed intensively congruent, incongruent, and conflictive. Congruent notions are such as agree, or may be connected in thought. All identical notions also are congruent; many that are not identical ; as "Learning and virtue," "Beauty and riches," for though in themselves very different, "Magnanimity and stature;"
"
2.
The
doctrine Sec
Drobisch.
RELATION.
41
they can
be easily
combined.
notions Incongruent
"
are
"
such
as
not can-
same
object ; as
answer,
loud
is
no
incongruous jumble.
one
Notions
no
meaning.
It is is
the difference
Virtue arid vice," negationof the other ; as " Beauty and deformity," Wealth and poverty." Such notions are said to be in opposition. and contrary. of two is principally kinds,contradictory Opposition denies or Contradictories are only two ; and to affirm or deny either, affirms the other ; both cannot cal be,but one must be ; they are reciproand not-blue," "Bine as "Walking and not-walking," negatives; and Gentile," "Jew "Simple and complex,""One and another,""A there are, by In case of contradictory and non-A," etc. opposition, of Excluded the principle ceivable. Middle, only two conflictive notions conContraries also are only two; These are disjunct notions. both be that neither exists; it may but while they cannot coexist, tertium be denied through the affirmation of something else, a may White and black," Running and lying," traries. etc.,are conquid. Thus ciich that involves
a
"
"
"
A be neither
color may
be
neither white
nor
black,but gray.
I may
but sitting. lying, firstdefine disparate In order to define contraries more must AVC exactly, notions. notions or contradictories, cannot These,like disjunct notion ; they exclude, be associated in one they theydeny each other, conflictive. contradictories contraries differ from were are as They said to do ; i.e., it may be that neither of two exists. But disparate
running nor
notions
notions
are
more
than
two.
They
constitute
a
"
series of co-ordinate
two between extremes White, graj, black ;" graduating ; as "Running, walking,standing, sitting, lying;" "Old, middle-aged, of a disparate Day, twilight, night." Now the two extremes young ;" "Wise and scries are contrary notions; e. g., "Day and night," foolish," Tall and short," Love and hate," Infinitely great and in the Categories, small." Aristotle, vi,14, says: Contraries infinitely
" "
"
"
are
in the
same
genus
are
most
distant from
each other.
and from
nothing of disparates Logic knows When abstract we involve matter. as contraries, they necessarily the matter of a notion, and consider only its form, it is impossible
observed that pure
to know
that
one
notion
is the
mere
Logicknows
42
OF
CONCEPTS.
"
3.
We
note
one
other
distinction between
concepts viewed
or a
tensive in-
As
either involved
the
co-ordinate.
One
sum
latter forms
part
of the
of the former. the comprehension constituting and both Two concepts are co-ordinate when they are coexclusive, lower concept. in the same immediately comprehended These and Athenian. For example: Socrates involves both famous of the marks
arc
co-ordinate. and
But
Athenian
further involves
Greek;
"
and
Greek,
It is evident that these latter notions European,human. that not are proximate and immediate in Socrates," equally and that they are to each other some are given only through others, Thus in the relation of part and whole. thought evolves the simple of knowledge consists in this out of the complex ; and the perfecting the intension into clear and distinct consciousness unfolding progressive obscure and confused. of notions originally and of marks In speakingof concepts as involving, as parts of a The sense. whole, these words are used in a peculiar parts are not
European ;
partes
extra
permeates and
as
informs and
concept. Thus
whiteness
of chalk
arc
both
white
thoughtto
coexist
throughout.
conceptsin
"
the
4. We
now
pass to
consideration
of the relations of
which, however, be it constantly kept in quantityof extension, thing. These relations are mind, is but a different aspect of the same
of three
1st. Of
One
one
concept
coincides
cases
is included
in
another
when
the
sphere or
of the
with,or
is contained
:
or are
under,that
of the other.
There
are as
two
of inclusion
when
as a
the
one or
coincide spheres
is contained
as an
common.
when genus,
under
the
a
as other,
under species
individual
under
species. spheres
2d. Of have
a
Intersection.
Two
their
common
part,and each
One
part not
common.
3d. Of their
Exclusion.
no
concept
is excluded
from
another
when
:
of exclusion There arc two cases part common. Co-ordination ; as when, though mutuallyexclusive, both arc (a.) have spheres
under
the
same
concept.
under the
as
not
both
contained immediately
concept.
RELATION.
Let
us
now
restate
the
above, and
by symbolize
Euler's circular
in which the sphereof a concept is represented notation,2 by a circle ; linear notation,3 in which the extent of a con-" and also by Hamilton's by a horizontal line ; the relation of two or more, cept is represented under the other, and by their comparativeone ly by such lines standing by a vertical line greater or less extent ; affirmation beingexpressed horizontal ones two nection. joining by the absence of such con; negation,
Globe
( Coextension
Sphere
Inclusion.
Animal
Subordination
Protestants
Intersection,
Irish
Wonpon
Co-ordination Exclusion
Swortl
Spear
Evolution
Non-co-ordination
[ E
}(
0
Chance
Of
"
are
only three
remark, special
will
ordination co-
co-ordination. the
Subordination
and
be treated at
; intersection under
topicDefinition ;
under
Division.
"
5.
When
one
concept is subordinate
the
to
or
contained
under
other, anmore
it differs from
relations of concepts the logical sensualizing of it in his Lettrcs d une made attributed to Euler, who use by circles is usually PrinccKse d'Allemagne, in a 1768. It is found, however, posthumous work of Christian Weise, Rector of Zittau, who died in 1708. Ploucquet employed the the triangle, instead of the circle. Drobisch's Logic, " 84 ; see square, and Haass
2
The
invention
of this method
"
also Thomson's
3
and
an
Hamilton's
Logic, pp.
133
and
180.
improvement of Lambert's linear notation as found to the circular notation. Organon,1764. It is to be preferred Both and therefore, those in intension, not represent only relations in extension, are though convenient and helpful, inadequate. See Hamilton's Logic, p. 670 sq.
is
a
This
in his Neucs
44
OF
CONCEPTS.
by extendingto fewer individuals. It is called a species. Thus sword is a species of weapon is a species of animal. ; man is contained Sword under iveapon ; it comprehends more marks, but it extends to fewer notion. The superior things ; it is the narrower is the more concept,sinc3 it contains under it more things, general
notion,and
sword
;
marks
and
hence
Thus The
weapon
is the genus
of
to
animal
is the genus
notion notion.
animal
extends
merely relative terms ; for the genus may be contained under some ative higherconcept, and then relto this highergenus it is a species. is a species Thus weapon of the genus instrument. Of course contain the species under it may and then become lower concept, the genus of that lower species. some sword is a genus Thus under it the lower species sabre, containing A etc. relative to lower a genus rapier, concept that is alternately relative to some concepts,and a species higher concept,is called a
subaltern genus. A genus is a universal notion,or
of from
a
besides men ; it is the broader many things It is manifest that genus and species are
because universe,
This is the
it binds
whole.
ad unum A versus. etymological, meaning of universe, E pluribus unum. It is called, then, means, strictly, universe, by way of eminence,the Logical A species, Whole.3 since it is but a part of this whole,is a particular notion. We should distinguish between the usual meaning of universe, that unlimited highest as prises genus which comall thingsin one, and universe considered as a limited genus which unites only some things. A universe or genus is usually present to the mind of a speaker, within which his thoughts revolve, and under which, often without in his statements. If we naming it,he is bringing sumed apprehendhis asand follow understand his thoughts we universe, may ; if not, confusion is inevitable from the ambiguities of language. Thus the word civil has many to meanings; it is opposed to natural," and to if to Now ecclesiastical," discourteous," so on. military," civil service be spoken of,and it is apprehendedthat the talk is under the tacitly implieduniverse of "the departments of government," it is intended then we understand that to exclude military In rude parlance and and confusion is avoided. we ecclesiastical,"
" " " " " " " " " " "
the
"
Universale
totum
quoddam
est ;
tur
totum
RELATION.
45
know one what, in general, say, we must understand his particular statements. Both genera
and
are species
is
in about, talking
order to
called
is called classification. The and species to genera thingsaccording has been somewhat pated anticipsychological classify process by which we and specialization, which in the account given of generalization and specification. with generification AVhen we terms are synonymous form all the think the similar to be the same, we a genus including and brute we similar things. Thus in contemplating man experience each what is similar ; we abstract from the shock of similarity ; we think it the same, or common to both ; we give it a name, and thus and the genus, animal, containing under it man establish the class, think the dissimilar to brute as species.On the other hand, when we of the thingsconform be diverse, a portion sidered. a we excluding species, animals the shock of Thus in contemplating we experience the quality which marks abstract from man rational, dissimilarity ; we Thus we affirm it of man and deny it of the rest. the diversity ; we of animals,the rational and the irrational, establish two or species
men
and
brutes.
These the species as Finally, partsmake up the genus as a whole. do marks, but are as are paries extra partes,for they do not coexist, and rubies are actually separable groups of things; c. g., diamonds it is possible of jewels. Consequently, to symbolize species rically, geometthe relations of concepts viewed in extension, by circles or lines, which is not practicable when they are viewed in intension.
"
6. It should
be
observed
that subordination
in the
of quantity
of intension. Also to involution in the quantity corresponds the term is applicable while the term generalization to either quantity, to the intensive relates to extension, and corresponds specification is a thinking For determination term determination. in, a synthesis, concretion of marks, and this, since it throws out things, specifies a a fying concept. Determination,then,restricts the denotation by ampliextension the and terminates only in individualization. connotation,
"
7.
as
correlatives.
cording Ac-
the
Law
things. We
out
an
know
of the dark ; up
knowledge always includes two Relativity, heat by transition from cold; lightby passing There is no such thingas by contrast to down.
of
absolute
knowledgeof
any
one
; property
we
could not
know
mo-
46
OF
CONCEPTS.
knowing rest ; our firstparents had no knowledge of good until it was bought dear by knowing ill." We of one member be thinking of the couplethan of the other, more may of the heat rather than of the cold, of the straight line rather than of the crooked ; but if either exists, the other always coexists with it in consciousness. is the explicit, The one the other the implicit, subject of the thought. This would seem double names to occasion verse throughoutall the uniof things, and if complete, would contain no language, single but consist of couples. Accordinglywe find a great many .names, Correlative Terms," in each of which,if called couples, specifically either member be expressed, the other is implied;as "Parent and and effect," "Ruler and subject," "Cause child," "Heavy and light," and species," "Rich and poor," "Genus "Positive and negative." The last example, Positive and negative," To affirm and to and the generalization of all or deny,"is probablythe basis, origin, the rest. of the two less of a negative has usually One more or where names have not been adopted for both character ; and in cases for every exists in thought as a negative.Hence one correlatives, itive posframed be 'concrete name a as relative corcorresponding negative may such the prefixes to it by attaching a as negativeparticle,
tion if
we were
debarred
from
"
"
"
"
un-,
"
as
Conscious
and
"
unconscious," Temperate
and
"
Godly intemperate,"
Another mode
in which
and
godless," A
non-A."
"
8.
concepts are
is
a
related is
expressed by
and
almost
disused
terms logical
or
First Intention
Second
thingsformed of the mind to the object. It denotes by the first or direct application things. The concepts which we have been usingas illustrations Socrates is regardedby the mind The object all firstintentions. are as Greek,man, animal,body, etc. A mental state may be thought as
concept
a
Intention.6 A firstnotion
intention
of
All these
are
firstintentions
intention is
firstintentions. is the
as
It denotes
concepts
of
It tilings.
conceptionunder
which Thus
regardsits
first intentions
to man,
and
of
4 6
gentiam animae
Logic, p. 2 and p. 55. "Ego dico intentionem nil aliud esse quam De in alicujus rei consideratione." Zabarella,
"
attentionem
ac
dili-
48
OF
CONCEPTS.
V. DEFINITION.
"
1. In
order
to
give to
them into a systematize must consider what we think,i. e., what is comwe prehended operation. First, consider in thought. Secondly, of what and must we how many i.e., to what and how many the thingswe think, objects The thought extends. comprehension of thought is developedby its extension, Definition; by Division. Our thoughtsby this means rendered distinct, the internal or intensive distinctness being seare cured by definition ; the external or extensive distinctness, by division. of thought (ii, Thus we approximateperfection " 4). It has already been stated that definition is the explication of the marks of a thought or concept (iii, essential and original " 1). Thus, Man is defined as rational, to repeatthe example, existing. sentient, living, It is
of statement
is aAvk-
ward, and
animal
common
in most
involves
man
to
with
and
define
summarily,
in this
Man
is rational and is
The
mark
summation,
that connote
as distinctive, belonging
animal.
then,consists
one
only two,
essential and
of which
is
common
the marks which the implicitly it follows that they are reciprocating definition contains explicitly, or convertible concepts (iv, " 1), Either may be substituted for the is a polygon of three sides," and other. A polyThus, A triangle gon of three sides is a triangle." Or, as "Every rectilineal figure so having a common point," Every may be divided into triangles rectilineal figure a may be divided into polygonsof three sides having common point." of marks,are no as plurality containing incapable Simple notions, for of definition. The notion being, example, having only one mark, is an indefinable, and no differential or distinctive element, an existing, indefinite notion. It is distinguishable a mere only from nothing,
" " "
Since
the
notion
defined contains
DEFINITION.
49
Indeed,a simplenotion, having having no content. empty negation but one mark, cannot in strictness be called a concept. On the other since practically \ve defined, hand, an individual cannot be logically
cannot
form
notion
common
which
it has in
can
marks all the essentialand original comprising vidual with any other notion or thing. An indi-
only be described.
that
to the above definition, according
"
2. It is obvious
to primarily
account,
relates
the intension
of
concept. The
however,viewed
and
nomenclature
are
most
proximategenus
is that class under
and their view quantity, nition Accordingto them, a defiand the specific difference.
which the notion defined is proximategenus is the proximategenus to the Thus animal contained. immediately the difference is that which distinguishes The specific concept man. Thus rational is of that genus. notion defined from all other species difference that distinguishes the specific from all other species man Let it be recontained under animal, as beasts, etc. marked birds, fishes, since it distinguishes that rational is also the genericdifference, the notion
man
from
et
the genus
animal.
Such
"Snow Other examples are: differentiam. is frozen (^specific mist" ( proximategenus); "Logic difference) is the science (=p. g.)of the necessary forms of thought" (rrs. d.) ; the of is men's conduct "Eloquence influencing (=p. g.)by power of speech" ( s. d.). means These two elements, the proximate difference, genus and the specific for the proximate make up the whole intension of every notion, genus all the marks common connotes to the several species.But to make it is further necessary to define the genus. the explication complete, We This done, the same necessity again appears, and is met. ceed proin this manner until we notion as the highest and reach a simple final genus, which cannot be defined. For example: definition per genus
== =
A
A
A
An An
mammal (=g.). ( d.) flesh-eating its young is a vertebrate (=g.) suckling mammal ( d.). vertebrate is an animal (=g.) havingan internal skeleton (=d.). animal is a sentient ( d.)organism( ".)" organismis a living (=d.)being( g.)carnivore is a
"
"
"
Here
have
the whole
"
50
0?
CONCEPTS.
"
common
3.
Concepts often
part,and
each
intersect ; that
a
two is,
concepts often
have
not
are
There are Irish Protestants part not common. and there are Protestants Irish not Protestants, ; also there are Irish. Some blacls. not; some heavy things thingsare heavy,some is which is conThe not. a common tained black,some species part under each
a or
words, whenever
of two Now may
to
certain group of thingsmay the group being a common part. genera, these genera intersect, the and the of the two portions a definition, genus difference,
as a
be each viewed
concept in extension.
to be the
If so,
they will
be
seen
common
part. Thus
the
notion
^_^^_^^
animal
are
man,
being both, is
that
are are
the
ra-
animals
not
/
7?
A
A
there
rational
I Aft
\) j
as a
beingsthat
think of
man
not
an we
we animals,as angels. Ordinarily, him under this notion animal, bringing use
proximate genus
to
; and
the mark
him
rational
as
specific
animals. the
is
a
difference But it is
characterize
him,
as
to to
mark
off from
to
other
perfectly competent
to
use
refer him
rational
;
being as
"
genus, and
rational the
animal
thus, Man
being ("p. g.)having animal nature" (" s. d.). Therefore of a definition are convertible in thought, and it depends two portions wholly upon the use made of them in thought as to which
which the difference.
So, if
watch
it may be thought either as a sort of portportable timepiece, able of thing or as a kind of timepiece ; if a concept is a bundle marks, it may be thought either as a kind of bundle or as meaning that kind of marks which are bundled together. Aristotle observes that specific difference is of the nature of genus.
"
4. Since
definition is the
of explication
of
of its definitions is the perfection of a science. the perfection thought, In studyinga preparedscience, we begin with the definitions ; but in constructing end with the definitions. True, in its we a science, of provisional, make constant we use early necessarily imperfect stages, of scisubstitutes ; and so it was that Socrates, at the birth ence,1 presiding for and analyzing definitions. spent his whole life in searching
The
mother method
of of
his this,
midwife
and, in allusion
to
DEFINITION.
51
But
as
improved, science progresses, its definitions are modified, gradually the science real ; and when they are finally and made perfected,
perfected. definition three kinds of logical This givesoccasion to distinguish and the genetic.This the nominal,the real, per genus et differentiam, it treats of the distinction is grounded on the matter ; pure Logic, as kinds of definition. Consequently, if we form, only, does not know each of these three kinds of definition exhibits consider the form only, difference. When look into the we the proximategenus and specific the discover such variations and imperfections as justify matter, we
is
above
distribution. definitions express the meaning of a word as all the marks and used, not explicating understood much requires
are
Nominal
it is popularly
common (since
usage
less than
exact
or derivative, Thus, "A pension accidental, peculiar. "A violin is a musical instrument is an allowance for past services;" with a bow ;" The east is where the and played having four strings
those that
"
sun
rises." The
mere
mostlynominal.
a or rule, decree,
of synonyms, heaping-together
as
Law
"
is
Centaur" "bullas means or statute," merelygivingthe etymology,' nitions defiare no goader," though often called nominal definitions, obviously at all. The imperfect, definitions, provisional spokenof above in order to prepare the way for real ones, are nominal as preliminary,
definitions.8
Real definition is concerned essential marks with the real nature
of
things ;
it
folds un-
form, and these only, original defined. It is that are and adds none not implied in the subject ence. Such are the perfected definitions of a scitherefore strictly analytic. actness An example can hardlybe found. The exunexceptionable of mathematical thought gives approximations.Thus, A from is everywhere whose periphery circle is a planefigure equidistant
all the
"
in their
In
the nominal
and
the
in which there is no dence eviis one to Aristotle, definition, according taur. of the existence of the object to which the definition is applicable ; as a centotle Aristhe recent ones, differ widelyfrom Subsequent logicians, especially it from and the its meaning and from each other in stating distinguishing of the best authorities, and real. The statement in the text agrees with some It is a pointof littleimportance. On to accord best with popular usage. seems the whole subject, note C. Hansel's Appendix to Aldrich, see
2
The
nominal
52
OF
CONCEPTS.
each and
other.
The
that requisite
relates marks, which constitutes the distinction, evidently original to matter, not at all to form. Hence, as said, exclusively pure Logic knows nothingof this distinction. itself with the rise or proA geneticor causal definition concerns duction but as becoming. Thus, of a thing; considers it, not as being, is a solid generated A cone by the revolution of an angleabout one but made, this defiof its sides.7' The notion defined not beinggiven, nition is synthetic. called definitions definitions are sometimes,though improperly, Logical definitions a posteriori. A them from to distinguish a priori, the consequences the conditions, definition a posteriori or generalizes the marks connoted but the things of a concept, or explicates, not
"
denoted. which
E. g., " Malaria is that which induces fever ;" " Mind desires and wills." Obviouslythese knows and feels, and hence all,
are
is that
are
not
definitions at second
also
called
The pseudo-definitions.
tivity, example,which merely unfolds the denotation of mental acdivision. a logical is,of course, strictly of the marks. evolves only some An An unqualified, Explication, A Description is a series of explications. givesmarks or Exposition in the thing. It deals, characteristics as concrete therefore, only with of its marks, the selection being the individual, giving any number governedmerelyby the purpose.
"
5. A
few
RULES, practical
some
of them
deduced
from
and useful in forming good definitions, are principles, be definition A good must If the genus is not proximate, the 1st. Adequate.
"
admissible
definition is too
of the
wide.
it is too
a
If the
narrow.
common
to
all members
class,
Man
is
rational
(toonarrow). A praying animal (" 1). convertibility but 2d. Not negative. A definition ought to tell what a thing is, E. g., Parallels are lines that do not tell merelywhat it is not. some meet ments opposed to pain." Negative state;" Pleasure is the feeling
" "
serve
to render
notion
not
and clear,
a
are
valuable
distinct
as
precursory
to
render is
notion
defined
as shadow, freedom, essentially negative, E. g., Cuvier, its definition is properly negative. as
invertebrate
"An
animal destitute of
an
internal skeleton."
DEFINITION.
53
,
3d. Not
not
contain the
name
of the
derivative
a
nor
thingby in a circle or reciprocally, a\or, by the ancients, diallelon ("m, It is a sort of logical of the E. g., Life is the sum seesaw. X//Aa"'). vital functions ;" A cause is the concurrence that produces an fect." ef" " " "
Here board
is
a
It may
a
be mediate.
thin
plank is
"A
thin
board
who
;"
"
will expressed
and ruler,"
ruler is
one
gives laws."
There
is
similar vice in
called by the same names. reasoning, It must contain nothing unessential or superfluous. grainwhich in England is generally given to horses, supports the people" (Dr. Johnson). This specific
difference is unessential.
does
not
nor fail,
So,
"
Man
is
risible animal."
This
nition defi-
but it offends strictly logical purity, scientific system or arrangement of thoughts. Again, A triangle against is a figure having three sides and three angles."Here is superfluity. Derivatives should be excluded as superfluous, for they are contained in their originals. E. g., The circumference of a already circle is a curved line returning etc. ing Every line returnupon itself," curved is superfluous. upon itself is a curved line ; hence 5th. Perspicuous. It should be intelligible, and brief. We literal, define only to make distinct ; hence terms more a thought more fused conthan the one defined violate perspicuity. is E. g., Net-work with interstices anythingreticulated or decussated at equaldistances, between the intersections" (Dr. Johnson). "The soul is the firstenlife potenor telechy body possessing tially energy of a natural organized is This Leibnitz. all obscure, (Aristotle). tive Again, figurasays should d o cate indibe excluded. for not language instance, Tropes, what a thing is, but onlysomething similar. E. g., The Divine Nature is a circle whose centre is everywhereand the circumference have ceased nowhere." metaphorical Many terms, however, originally in to be so. These may must be used, and sometimes be, especially but extreme ity brevmental is certainly science. Finally, a merit, brevity
" " " " " " "
violate
may
leave
matter
more
obscure
than needless
prolixity.3
See Hamilton's
Logic, pp.
121-123.
341-349.
His treatment
notes
is borrowed
almost
entirely
from
in
x.
54:
OF
CONCEPTS.
"
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6.
V.
and criticisethe following : Analyze, classify, line is without breadth. Euclid. A length Science is classified knowledge. is a machine for raising water. A pump A beggaris a person who asks alms. Motion is the translation of matter through space. Words are signsof thoughts. is formed ameter. A spheroid about its diby the revolution of an ellipse
6. Praxis.
"
8.
is the Philosophy
sun
science
of
9. The
is the orb
givingthe
10. An 11.
ing constitut-
OJcen.
12.
The
and
soul is the
by principle
"
which
we
perceive,
understand.
is
Aristotle.
is the conscious
substance;or, spiritual
"
subject.
is the unextended.
Bain. concentrated.
Attention
is consciousness
16.
17.
18. 19. 20.
21.
22.
23.
ternal Perceptionis the faculty by which we immediatelycognizeexobjects. A dragon is a serpentbreathing flame. is a conspectusof the chief points. A synopsis Logic is the art of reasoning. of the understanding Logic is the light-house (pharusintellectus) A pension is an allowance made to any one without an equivalent. In England it is generally understood to mean pay given to a for treason to his country. Dr. Johnson. state-hireling Green is a color compounded of blue and yellow. in the wrong Dirt is matter place. Lord Palmerston. Truth is the agreement of a cognition with its object. of dog. A spaniel is a species A whale is a fish inhabiting oil as the polarseas, and furnishing
" "
an
article of
commerce.
27. Animal
28. 29. 30. 31.
etc. fish, birds, reptiles, denotingmen, beasts, Wealth is thingsuseful, necessary, and agreeable. Pain is a disagreeable affection of mind or body. A feeling is a mental affection involving cither pleasure or pain. in recognizing we Beauty is the feeling unity amidst experience variety.
is the genus
56
OF
CONCEPTS.
VI. DIVISION.
" 1. The correlative of Definition is Division. As to the intension, or depth,of a concept,so primarily
to primarily
evolves or explicates marks ; a division explicates evolves subordinate conceptsor things. or nition the comprehension the sphere. By defiThe one develops ; the other, the denotation. the connotation is analyzed By ; by division, distinct definition the notion is rendered internally or intensively ; by Thus division the notion is rendered externally distinct. or extensively is defined by unfoldingits connoted the notion man parts,rational its denoted and animal ; it is divided by unfolding as logician parts, be assured and non-logician.Only by division, can we says Aristotle, that nothinghas been omitted from the definition of a thing.
its
or breadth. extension,
A definition
"
in
are or
2. As
it is preliminary, which
:
needful to thinks
under
the mind
of wholes it.
They
as
follows
1st. The
Whole. This is of two sorts: Qualitative or Logical The comprehensive, intensive whole, whose or characteristic, (a.) parts are marks evolved by Definition. extensive The or whole, whose parts are universal, generic, (b.) or thingsevolved by Division. species Mathematical
or
2d. The
Whole. Quantitative
Of two
sorts
whole,with which we are at present more particularly logical creation of thought. It is qualitaa concerned, is purelysubjective, tive of a bundle of qualities or marks, ; i.e., it is the concept consisting and containing other concepts. These its parts are separable onlyby The the There two mental abstraction. are first, intensive species. whose in the old Logic a metaphysical whole (called whole), parts are
The
we
also Logic commonly distinguishes shall find need only for the above.
the
others Whole, and some Physical See Hamilton's Logic, pp. 142-144.
; but
DIVISION.
57
marks,has
extensive
been
considered
under the
whole, whose
parts are
is
an
is more division,
mathematical viewed
as a
tive, subjec-
and quantity,
These
can
be
evolved
must
the whole
parts are
be
neither marks
is
division. logical kinds. This whole is of two species. in which its parts originate. They
homogeneous,as a polygon severed into similar triangles; or the human of head,trunk, and limbs. as heterogeneous, body,consisting of dissection. A sword,which divides Anatomy is a science of partition, into sabre,rapier, ondly, Secetc. etc.,is parted into hilt and blade, the collective whole is an of similar parts, one aggregation by the parts. Such are the notions of an army, a forest, originated a These are formed by the repetition town. of of the notions a soldier,
a
tree,a house.
class
We
must
not
confound
the notion
army,
which
is
generalor
taken
as a
notion,a logical whole, with the notion an army collective notion, individual thingformed by a collection an
of other individual
things.
ordinate subform we alreadyseen how by specialization Since pure Logic considers onlythe form, groups, or species. each genus or universal whole can contain under it only two species, marked with A and non-A. For A beinga generic i. e., a difference,
mark
not
"
3. It has
been
found
we
in the genus
a
or
divisum,but found
in
some
of its
members,
know
without priori,
are
that thought,
the members
of any research into the matter exclusive of each other and exhaustive
of the divisum.
This is division
by dichotomy,and
are
are
contradictories.
or are
rational
irrational,
and
anglesare rightand oblique j the oblique Jews acute and obtuse; the ancients were Greeks and barbarians, or ly, and free. The process viewed intensiveor bond Gentiles,
in marks, is thinking
as
called determination
; viewed
is called specification. as extensively, establishing species, In relation to each other, as the two species are co-ordinate, being of equal rank in respectof the divisnm ; but we remark that either may be of indefinitely greater breadth than the other. The negative sence of the dichotomy is characterized by the abmember of the mark A, mark non-A. or, in other words, by the negative
58
OF
CONCEPTS.
Hence
or
we
have
class peculiar
some
infinitated almost
concepts. In
and everything, E. g., Ungodly,unhappy,apathy, blindness, senseless, dark, positive. freedom, shadow, atheist, idle, sober,dead, etc. cold,infinite,
privative, concepts called negative, their sphereis very wide, denoting cases almost nothing connotingvery little,
of
division, that pursued beyond a single is regarded and subdivided into when a species as a subaltern genus is, to select some lower species,then it is requisite at the outset one erence in refof the original mark divisum as a ground or principle on or This generic to which the several divisions shall be made. mark chosen is called the ground of division, so fundamcntum diviMankind select his religious sionis. For example,in dividing we character or creed as the ground of division, and, subdividing upon the same thus : obtain a logical we series, principle,
"
4. When
the process
is
"
"
Mankind
I
Theists
I
Atheists
Monotheists
Polytheists
Antichristians
Christians
Papists
Jesuits
Protestants
Non-Jesuits
[etc.
The number
of distinct forms
etc.]
in which this of mark, the principle
thingsto be divided will determine the extent has respectto the matter of the series. This procedure obviously of thought, add that, and is not strictly if it is propure Logic. We posed the i.e., one to establish a real division, of true nature unfolding the thingscontained under the divisum, scientific, one rigidly or, in short, of division an essential and it is requisite to select as a principle of the divisum,and to adhere to it throughout. So mark original in fact, but it is, in an logical perfection requires, rarely practicable
division, appears
in the extended And series. this
between
nominal
and
real definition may well be carried out relative to division. A nominal artificial division would be one or made for some transient purpose
DIVISION.
59
or
to attain
or
division ;
end ; or one tentative and precursory practical such as the and useful, one popularly accepted observed
A
on or
to
real
hundreds of"
real
minutes
to proposing*
to their true and essential nature, thingsaccording in order to attain correct objective knowledge of thingsas they are. Such division developsnatural kinds,and is to be looked for in the
more
The
Linna?an
were
tentative ; those
of Jussieu's natural
system
are
real
scientific. rigidly
"
5.
In divisions not
the matter,
than dichotomous happens that we have those more ; we have a trichotomy(rp/%a, threefold ; -ip"Eir, to cut), or a may poE. "Doctrines arises hurtful." This are harmless, lytomy. helpful, g., from two Either it is an abbreviation by which series of causes. a subordinate species is condensed co-ordinate into one statement, as, Mankind and obtuse ;"or, are "Angles are acute, right, Christians, and atheists ;" or, Plants are Jews, Mohammedans, polytheists, endogens,exogens, acrogens." Or it arises from the lack of a sharp
" "
it often
definition of
our
concepts. There
is between
very
many
of
our
to assignclearly thoughts a wide border-land which it is impossible to either, tertium quid, third species which it is neca a essary constituting to
the divisum.
Thus
we
have
our
reference to their
"
and
night. So ;"
"
want
petence, White, gray, black ;" Riches,comof these old,"etc. For many Young, middle-aged, we
have
mediate
and weak
we species
have
no
names,
as
between
side and
well ;
strong
We A
etc. ; long and short ; wise and foolish, have remarked that in a strictly division the two logical
bers, mem-
of that universe non-A, are contradictories ; no member be both, nor the be neither. In a trichotomy can can or a polytorny members parate notions. river,are disare Thus, brook, creek, disparate
and
notions
two extremes
contained
of such
a
under
the
genus
brook
streams
of
may
water.
The
as division,
and
are river,
traries. conlogical
A it may
thing of
this genus
cannot
be
both, but
be neither ;
be the tertium
quid.
seems
Let it be also noticed that in which a notion cases many have been originally of its co-ordinate notion a mere negative into thought it a
so character, positive
to
has had
be
now
thought
CO
OF
CONCEPTS.
negative ; or perhapsboth are really positive, white and exists. and no mere Thus, black, the mere negative is dark. So true and untrue or false; happy and negative unhappy ; honor and dishonor ; temperate and intemperate, which last has become So protestant. So also pleasureand pain. Plato taught inverted. is merely the absence that pleasure nists or negationof pain; the Hedoboth arc positive. taughtthe reverse Also, ; but unquestionably it was that evil is the mere taughtanciently negationof good ; and to-daythere are those who hold that good is the absence of evil ; but both good and evil are positive, and in this case there is no intermediate ferent ground. Actions are either good or bad ; there are no indifas
and" positive
the other
as
"
actions.
of one, and only one, strictly a polytomous division admits Finally, notion. or Thus, ** Some men lend,some borrow, privative negative do both, others do neither;" "Plants some are monocotyledonous, flowerless." and The intermediate or dicotyledonous, acotyledonous the undefined or indifferent part, often takes this ground,well named Men are negativecharacter ; as positively lazy, very industrious,
"
and
neither the
one
nor
the other."
"
6. The
importanceof
well be
of definition and
respectively in the balance of which of analysis and synthesis, lies the perfection of knowledge.3 Such is the excellency of definition and distribution," old logician, that almost they alone do suffice for the absolute says an of any art ; therefore, in Phcedro the wise Socrates, putting-down saith that if he find any man who can he Platonis, cunninglydivide, will follow his stepsand admire him for a god." shall do well, We directions. then,to observe the following practical first present for forming divisions this the account From we given, instances of the objectsdenoted CANON : Assemble representative mark as a principle by the divisum,and, having fixed upon a generic this principle for a select a mark of division, immediatelyinvolving the specific difference ; then divide the denotation by affirming specific which it determines, difference of the species denying it of all other divisions pursue a similar course, contained objects. In subsequent
are
" "
division cannot
overrated.
They
the reflex
and thoroughlydivided, have attained we defined, adequately this and a process exhausts its complete knowledge of its characters and kinds, See Kant's Logik," 98. content.
8
When
notion is
DIVISION.
61
in involving
each
new
and, of
To this
course,
we
difference the one preceding, immediately specific of division. the original principle
now
canon
as
ther fur-
guide to
1st. Each
same
correct
division
division
throughouta
should be
an
be
which principle,
governedby importantmark
the
of
gives
are
fault logical
division." This
Thus:
is
an
"Men
pagans."
abbreviated
firstdivision is members
geographical;the
cross evidently or
second,color
common
the
third,religion.The
man
may
bo
This
very
is detected concealed, is to
rect, trichotomyor polytomy,if cormember be reduced to a dichotomy by taking any one as may and including all the others under its negative. If this can positive be done with each member, without cutting any one, the division is mineral." sound. Thus, "Physical substance is animal, vegetable,
by dichotomy.
That
say, any
Tested:
"P.
S. is A
or
and
non-A
(=A
the
"
M) ;"
is "M
and non-M
(=V+M);" (=A+V)."
or
is "V
and
non-V
will clearly demonstrate following The religious sects of Great Britain and Dissenting." if we The principle selected must be essential, would attain scientific knowledge. It must be important, determining many
we
This
to
real,
other The
if attributes,
would
evolve
an
extended
and
valuable series.
division is made determines its ground. purpose with which an artificial into horsemen In civilaffairs it would be useless and absurd to divide men and
in a gramaffairs it is important.Words military mar in phabeti aldivided relations to a are dictionary, according syntactical ; manual will divide plants Medical botany and the florist's to and both deviate from Jussieu. We sort our books by size, differently, for show. fit our shelves ; by subjects, for handy reference ; by binding,
footmen;
but in
2d.
members Dividing
one
must,
as
No
must
exhaust
the divisum
; as,
Mankind
are
rational beings
"
and
more
ments politicians." Togetherthey must exhaust it ; as, GovernThis is insufficient and democracies." are monarchies,oligarchies, not ; there are other forms of government. Togetherthey must than exhaust it ; as, Vertebrates are quadrumana, bimana,quad"
62
OF
CONCEPTS.
in man. Leibnitz overlap communicant writers callsthis last fault So, Imaginative species." and writers of tales." Again, Sciences are deductive are dramatists, poets, and inductive." These species ter are communicant, since the latof deduction. There is no science non-deductive. makes large use
" " "
bimana
ne
from its own must directly proximategenus. species emerge and immediate overlook its not must overleap Thought parts and from the divisum This the theoryrequires to remote species. spring ; for the sake of brevity, such a saltus is allowed, but practically, error. thought passingthrough intermediate steps to guard against Thus
of
we
may
treats
of
as well infinitesimals,
"
as
This lastmember equals nonquantity." magnitudesof assignable is far from being infinitesimals." The genus "mathematical subjects" to these species.2 proximate
"
out
7. Praxis.
Are
the If
sixteen examples Partitions or following If not, point are Divisions, they correct?
to dichotomous
reduce correct,
statement.
1.
2. 3.
4.
and negative. are affirmative, Propositions hypothetical, or Thought is by conception, by judgment,or by reasoning. The mental faculties are sensation, ory, memperception, imagination, and judgment. Is the year or are the seasons divided into spring, tumn, ausummer, and winter ? flower consists of
5. A
6.
and the corolla, calyx, stamens, and pistil; and stigma. consists of ovary, style, pistil Literature consists of writings sical, clashistorical, poetical, religious,
and
current.
7. Matter is
8.
and aeriform. What is the principle ? solid, liquid, and Turanian. are Aryan, Semitic, Languages
are figures more
9. Rectilineal
of figures
than four
sides.
xxv.
mostlyfrom
Drobisch's
Esser's
Logic, ""
Outline, "
bk.
55 ; and
Logic,
of Definitions,
"
119.
Division which
favorite
censures
ch. v), and teaches that its ii, obtained. chief use is to test definitions when the Among the later Peripatetics have drawn chiefly from Bcethius's Modern method was esteemed. more logicians work De Divisione. Cf. Cic. Top. 10. See Kant's Logic, and Quintil. also ch. vi, v, " 113; and Trend,Elem. " 58. Aristotle
Post. (Anal.
64
OF
CONCEPTS.
VII.
COMPLETE
SYSTEM.
of
of Logic treating
the
some a
this will
of
a
giveoccasion topic.
We
to
remark
few
additional
The
notion
been
of the form proceed to examine such a series when it is evolved into a completesystem. will present As preliminary, and at the risk of some we repetition, scheme of the two quantities and remark : upon the following
under
the last
"i f Existing g
2. ?
I Existing, living
sentient living, j Existing,
Men.
The
as
obvious
pointhere
one
thoughtthat
; that the
intension
extension increases,
maximum
of either
is the minimum
marks
and
think
in
the Now
same
act.
For
this
act,on
each
mark
thrown
; for in it abstract
these from
away a complement of marks, and thus at least one other which passes out of consciousness. from sentient, existing, living,
rational
"
draw
Thus,
then
we
first abstract
from existing living. On the side of extension there is, for each abstraction, a generalization. In thinkingout rational, think i. the marks in brntes, e., we existing, are as sentient, living, belongingto brutes in common generalized
sentient ; then
with
men;
and
these two
classes of
are things
united
in the
more
class which we or term animal. Hence, generalization general generic is also generification. It follows that abstraction and generalization what might be called directly correlatives ; directly are parallel, parallel in the different quantities. direction as moving in the same In descending think in marks and think out things the series, we
in the
same
act.
This
act, on
the intensive
is determination, side,
COMPLETE
SYSTEM.
05
because the
down and fixes spein a mark, while it narrows bringing cifically of of a lso tains atsmaller class the limit a or things, definitely which in Determination,, fuller, deeperknowledge of them.
the scheme
is the inverse correlative of abstraction, which descends, there is for each determination a On the side of extension, ascends. think In thinking in sentient, into existing, we living, specialization.
out
by and we a subordinate, special, vegetation, excluding is also specification. animal. Hence or class, specialization specific is the inverse correlative of generalizawhich descends, tion, Specialization, determination and specialization which ascends. Finally, may correlatives. be called also parallel parallel, directly or, simply, the side abstraction is analyIt should also be observed that on one sis, the other side, the order is and determination synthesis on ; while, is analysis, is synthesis. and generalization reversed, specialization that is analysis in one of thought, is Hence the movement quantity in the other. The neglectof this distinction by logical synthesis
plants,i. c., the
notion
animal
have
established
confusion
in the
use
of these terms.
of Aristotle, of Porphyryto the Categories ten writisagogue in the third century,was of the as a detailed explanation designed its doctrine subsequent relations of genera and species.From cians logiconstructed a scheme which, because of the form it presented, called by the Latins the tree of Porphyry (arbor was Porpyriana), and by the Greeks the ladder (xA/juaQ.1 It exhibits a hierarchy of concepts scheme presents a complete representing system. The following the device in a modified form, with the same used: matter already
"
2. The
as Aquinas,see Mansel's Aldrich, p. it, given by Thomas 32. The isagogue will be found appended to Owen's translation of the Organon of Aristotle (Bonn'sed.) to St. Hilaire's LogiqueD'Aristote, also prefixed ; and traduite (Paris, from the 1844). The doctrine of the isagogueis drawn largely of Plato. and the sometimes is in almost writings, expressed very words,
For
delineation of
66
OF
CONCEPTS.
"
and
3. It is evident
that the
individuals to
classes,
generalizations forming wider and wider classes or the marks connoted, at last must genera, at each step diminishing of widest reach a notion generality, connotingbut one mark, above rise ; and the process necessarily ceases. which, of course, it cannot notion is called fined the This highest, widest summum genus,"and is dethe genus that cannot become a as species.It is represented in it only the noin the above scheme by Being or Thing, containing tion and containing under it all things. This is a simple existing, be defined, notion and cannot not being referable to a genus. fixed by The Aristotelian logicians consider the summa as genera to the ten Categories or nature, and ten in number, corresponding of Aristotle.2 By the Categories, Aristotle means, metaphysically, Predicaments of objective of the modes a posteriori or real a classification classification of the most a existence;logically, generalterms that of any subject whatever. trated illusbe predicated can They are as follows, : examples by his own by
successive
"
1.
2.
Substance; it is a
"
man,
etc. horse,
3.
Quantity ; Quality ;
" "
4. Relation ;
"
5. Action
;
" "
three cubits, etc. long, it is white, etc. grammatical, it is double, half as large, etc. greater, it cuts,burns, etc. it is two
cubits
6. Passion ;
it is cut, is
burned,etc.
7. Place ;
"
8.
9. 10.
Agora,in the Lyceum, etc. last year, etc. was Time; it is to-day, yesterday, etc, Posture ; it is recliningj seated, Possession ; it is having shoes, armor, etc.
it is in the
"
"
"
that Everything
or
can
be
spokenof
or
thought of
comes
under
one
be a can Categories ; in other words, whatever is in one or the other of these Predicaments. subjectof predication of a series of notions, Each is, the highest therefore, generalization in his logical each a summum whatever Aristotle, writings, genus. intends the Categoevidently ries place they may hold in his metaphysics, of the widest notions signified enumeration to be an by single been sharply cised, crititerms. They have excited a world of discussion, and as often recalled to banished to metaphysics, repeatedly is not made the analysis to them : 1st. That Logic. Kant objects the enumeration is incomplete on principle ; 3d. ; 2d. That any one the other of these
See also
9 \, Topica,
; and
7. iv, Metaphysica,
COMPLETE
SYSTEM.
That among
notions are intruded among empirical that the original. Hamilton objects but included absolute,
:
derivative
genus of
under
higher.3
Being,ens.
in different deassumed partment ma sum Practically, particular genera are that notion is accounted the sumnium of thought. Usually, or genus which is characterized by the mark selected as the principle of the ground of the division. This summum genus is the subject
science.
mum
science, Plant" will be the actual sumsubgenus ; in zoology, Animal ;" in chemistry, Compound stance," "Wealth in political common;" and so in more economy, Thus,
in botanical
" "
"
See
Logic, pp.
der
r.
139-141
; and
his note
in Reid's
45 sq. ; and
Works,p.
687.
Kritik Note
A
V. p. 65 ; Mill's
Logic, p.
see
Hansel's
B.
was Categories which, as a mnemonic, we quote as follows : pupilin Martinus Scriblerus, man, Cornelius was forced to giveMartin sensible images. So,calling up "he coachanswered : I at the bear-garden. The man he asked him what he had seen the for a prize two was a fair man, a saw men sergeant in the guards, fight ; one blue butcher the other black,a butcher ; the sergeant had red breeches, ; they
concrete popular,
illustration of the
"
the butcher in fought on a stage about four o'clock ; and the sergeant wounded the leg. Mark, quoth Cornelius, how the fellow runs through the Predicaments : Men (substantia}, black fair and two sergeant and butcher (qualitas), (quantitas), four o'clock (quando), et passio), a stage (ubi), wounded the other (actio on (relatio), blue and red breeches (Jtabitus)" fighting (situs), Another mnemonic is
124 as
follows
: 3 5 6
Arbor
789
sex
servos
fervore
10
ustos, refrigerat
ero.
Ruri These
two
eras
stabo,nee
to
tunicatus
mnemonics
that
Logicis
an
of the most
common-place thinking.
68
OF
CONCEPTS.
placematters.
mum
See But
genus.
is the sumexample invi,"4, where "Mankind" of the words the frequentuse thing," being,"
" "
etc.,shows
mum
what
constant
mental
we
reference
is had
to
the
true
suman
genus.
Indeed,whenever
do not do not
"
know
care
the
to be
proximateor
we exact,
"
mount
thing."
Thus
: an
comet
is
relative object call it a thing, thus mark we to some or one exclusively, especially, all others by a direct reference of it to the summum omitting genus ; wish is a hurtful thing, when Wine we because,"etc. So, also, as, mark ; as, Cruelty is a hateful thing." to emphasizesome one
" "
wish to consider
"
4. On
hand, when
the mind
descends
in
it must reach a finally things, rejecting mum class that connotes that contains under it only individuals, a maxia of common marks, and denotes a minimum plurality plurality division into kinds must of things. Here the process of logical cease. fined class is called the This deepest, narrowest ;" and is deinfima species It is represented in become that cannot the species a genus. as in it many the scheme by Man, containing common taining marks, and conunder it only individual human beings. also as fixed consider the infima species The Aristotelic logicians such in terms like man, horse, etc. Classes, by nature, and expressed to be as not, by them, be admitted negroes, mustangs, etc.,would but only accidental varieties. But the whole question at all, species of natural kinds belongsentirely and with it Logic to the naturalist, Pure Logic cannot essential has nothingto do. discriminate between The logician and accidental marks. nature gets nothingfrom objective
marks
"
but
from
them of
no
his
system
without
any
other
primary laws
until The
thought.
mark,
common
Hence
to
the
even
division
two
continues
dividual in-
that comprehends all the common species for that onlycannot be made the infima species, marks is theoretically a genus by further division. The individual then,not beinga kind,is not a logical not part,i.e.,canbe obtained by division. The constituents of the infima species be counted, and hence may may, however, be estimated numerically, But the individual, under it individuals. it is spokenof as containing
as
the word
as
that which
to
cannot
be divided. individual
What, then,is
the
difference
by
which
the distinguish
-*.^
COMPLETE
SYSTEM.
^^^Ss
69
from
the infima
? species
It is
while that,
the infima
consists species
at least marks, the individual possesses, besides these, only of common in the scheme one mark, represented particular by Father of Logic. mark This particular determines only a numerical, and not a specific difference ; therefore, the individual cannot but only debe defined, scribed. Such is the logical individual. The actual, individual or real,
possesses also
or
time.
It
can
be
ered sev-
be
discriminated differences
are
only in perception,
endless.
internal.
Its numerical
and brief, obviously very meagre senting prethan is of the to fication. classino more requisite exemplify principles of series but The extent is, incalculable, theoretically, any of thought, the upper and lower and in view of the matter practically, reached. If the characters which afford the principle limits are soon of such a division are only external and contingent, there is a division in the.wider sense; if they are internal and constant, there is a division in a stricter sense but also essential ; if they are not onlyinternal, and original, there is a division in the strictest sense. with Starting
"
5. The
scheme
before
us
is
an
genus, infima
even
the wider
divisions must
soon
tically prac-
in the
botanical
natural
through some
characters far
an as as
hundreds accidental
as species, though the strictest divisions, extend system, may, treated by dichotomy, of steps. But pure Logic takes no account of or
the laws of of
act
conception, any
The number
attributes which
are
each
other.
of attributes in the
each
progress
in the formation
of subordinate
exceptper
saltum.
follows : in two laws, is expressed as impossibility lar 1st. The law of homogeneity: Any two notions the most dissimibe similar. Consequently must, in some they can always respect, be subordinated to some higherconcept. 2d. The law of heterogeneity:Any two notions the most similar furnishes the be dissimilar. This dissimilarity must, in some respect, which process, therefore, ground for a new division, may be continued ad infinitum.
"
"
70 6. Before
to the
OF
CONCEPTS.
"
the dismissing
tree of
Porphyry,attention
division.
must
be
called re-
the scale ;
down. division, We
which sets it apart difference, give the specific and then the proximate from co-ordinate notions, next genus, the one above,which involves all the marks of the preceding genera, including the highest. Thus the definition comprises all the scale lyingabove its subject. Next we proceedto divide and subdivide until we reach and include the lowest species.Thus division, hausts moving downward, exthe scale. The system then is complete, the work is thoroughly is and the treatment exhaustive. done, scientifically expansive is It not necessary that this order should be rigidly observed. In the progress of and one
a
of definition may
often
division, replace
to the point preponderate according in the scale at which a beginning is made, or according to the inclination of the writer or the nature of the subject. In Plato's Kepublic, of the noblest examples of logical one method, successive definitions of justice until a satisfactory are one broughtto the test and rejected is obtained. in the enumeration Then division preponderates, of the
or
and of the classes in a State that answers soul, powers of the human to them ; as well as of the declinations throughwhich the perfect ity, polif it could
be
would constructed,
have
to
pass.
The
whole
is
fused
in such a manner and adorned together by a dramatic element, the finest work to render this dialogue of heathen philosophy. as In the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, definition predominates, but with considerable aid from division. Thus he enumerates the opinions of about the good," and rejects all but the rightone. men Defining that under the name of he is led on to define the parts happiness,"
" "
case
of the
moral
and
intellectual
a
consider his
explanation completewithout
convertible
vision di-
classes.4
are
a scientific correlatives, either in tabulated divisions, in a or entirely system may be expressed series of definitions. These are, mutatis mutandis, the same thing. We with the exhaust the summum may begin genus, and, descending, scale by a series of divisions. Or, we may begin with the infima exhaust the scale with a series of definitions. and, ascending, species,
define the
proxi-
See Thomson's
OF
CONCEPTS.
in one,
but
in many and
series.
It is true
that in most
minds
there
is
much
confusion
evinced words.
in
by
the
indefinite and
entangling
of
common
of the humblest
mental
life is
occupied
recting cor-
and generalizing
thoughts.
a cow
Captain Cook
natives
landed
in the
:
South
a
Sea
of
the Islands,
exclaimed
in astonishment
It is
to
kind
goat !
The
animal
known
They specialized by
was
large;
so
cow
is the
It may
hoped
that
in
they
form
have their
now
corrected
at once
matter
but classification,
perfect. If I should speak of a button, What It beingby no do you mean a child by button? I may the means easy to define this familiar thing, escape, and satisfy the different kinds of buttons ; or, querist by naming and describing is a button, show it a specimen, : This still, perhapsmore easily saying which will do prettywell, to the scholastic aphorism, since, according
was logic might ask:
"
omnis
intuitiva
to think
notitia est
is
more
the burden
Every book, whose author has well the point. In turning the leaves, find the whole divided into we the general divisions being so called by way of eminence ; the parts, these into sections; these into parts are subdivided into chapters; formal partition paragraphs responding cor; these into sentences ; this external, to the internal logical division of the subject-matter. So it is, in matters small and great, we are governed, though for the most law ; and whoever his notions of part unconsciously, by logical adjusts in systematic to their true relations, thingsaccording order,each clear
of others and he is
child.
distinct in
is the
well-stored cultivated,
lect, intel-
the eminently
in the usus inaccuracy loquendiof familiar words requires that they should be largely set aside in building Hence up a science. fined, denearlyevery science has many unusual,technical terms, sharply and located in its system : such words not as are to be likely drawn into vulgaruse, and have their edgesworn off by the attrition of every-day handling.In these technicalities a science arranges its classificationsin obedience to the logical have discussed, we principles and when its system is complete, it then has attained that logical per-
"
8. The
COMPLETE
SYSTEM.
73
of science
to according'
fection which
is
characteristic specially
its
ideal definition.
the
divisions multiplied
in
sciences, many
have
adopted-
also for the several subaltern genera, in order to mark the relative placeof each stepin the ascending and descending series grees and conveniently the various declearly of generalization. Thus the system of Zoology, as given by is as follows : modified from Cuvier, Agassiz, slightly
out
Second
Intentions. First Intentions.
Kingdom,
Branch. Class. Order.
. . . .
Family
Genus
.
Species. Variety.
The any student
of
Mineral. Animal, Vegetable, Radiates. Articulates, Vertebrates, Mollusks, Fishes,etc. Mammals, Birds,Reptiles, etc. Ilerbivora, Bimana, Quadrumana, Carnivora, etc. W easels, Bears,Seals, Cats, Dogs,Civets, Felis (thetrue Cat), Lynxes,etc. etc. Panthers, Leopards, Lions, Tigers, Indian Lions. Nubian,Arabian,Persian,
Logic would
do well to make
visit to thoughtful
a logical History. It presents On entering universe. The summum genus is material productof nature. of suche finds this universe logically cession divided,on the principle ancient in time,perhapsinto two floors ; the lower presenting subdivided into Zoology Geology; the upper, recent products, products, in opposition to the extinct life in the lower and Botany extant life, floors is, sort of these two division. Between a a gallery, perhaps, the enter tertium quid,devoted to Lithologyand Mineralogy. We into two lower apartment,the Hall of Geology. It is subdivided the other for Structural Geology. The for Paleontology, one halls, the ftmdamentum dico-ordinate subdivisions, first of these has many to be visionis beingagainhistorical. At first glance the ground seems the the open floor, on size^ largespecimensbeing grouped centrally small being in side cases. But these largespecimens mostly belong
Museum well-arranged
of Natural
"
to the
ever the fault is not serious. Whatgeologic age, and hence be pardoned as pracit must however,is involved, tically logical offence,
same
unavoidable.
a
The
;
side cases,
one
we
observe,are
we
is the Silurian age ; If the Carboniferous ; and so on in the order of time. ; another, approach the last named, we find it subdivided into fossiliferous
geologic age
fauna
and
to
flora.
On
we
find
one
set of shelves
devoted
the tribe of
to Phosnogams ; another,
that of Calamites
74
OF
CONCEPTS.
another, to that
we
of
Cryptogams.
the
is
Looking
Ferns,
on
the the
shelves
of the
In
latter,
some
find
a
the
Lepidodendrons,
the individual In this in time
a new
and
Equisetse.
and species,
so
cases
single shelf
come
then
of
at
last
other
we
to
specimens.
is abandoned
And
with
each
the the
terior inis
a
departments.
succession
case,
that
to
of principle of the
the
and
ground
to
cross
of
adopted.
This
fault,and logical
gives rise
divisions.
is,however, justified
by
the
If these
objects were
amusement,
arranged merely
but
not to
to
please the
eye, It is
they might
this
scientific
instruction. natural
museum
logical arrangement
according
that As
a
important
of
affinities,
distinguishesthis product
of in the
by
it offers
a
the this
thought,
it
peculiaradvantage
to
the
in
student
Logic, that
presents
logical
words,
but
things themselves.
of
"
9.
We
now
close
this
general
and
to
division
Logic.
its the second
In
it
we
have
most
considered
how
thought
We
are
does
must enter
elaborate upon
highest and
Before
complete
however,
to
results.
is
about
part, which,
only
new
another
aspect
of
the
details.
to
ing proceedapplication
to
the
view,
attention
is recalled in every
we
the
three
Their
fundamental
laws
at
which
govern has
pure
so
thought
aspect.
have
each
step
A
been
obvious, that
may its
point
is divided
it out.
general example
into both affirmed
of
be here
given.
and
X,
by dichotomy
must
A species,
non-A, then
turn
genus
of
be
e.
these
species in
non-A
by
the
ty Identibe
g.,
Every
is
X, and
Every
is X. ;
The
e.
speciesmust
A be affirmed
;
e.
denied One
the
of each
other
by
the Law
of
a
of Contradiction
g., No
is non-A.
species being
Law of is not in the
denied
other
no
must
by
g.,
Middle, there
is A.
of
middle
ground
be should
Whatever made
applicationsshould
The Laws
root
ly constantnever
the very
subject.
be whole
forgotten,as
they
the
corner-stone, the
of
the
Theory
of
Thought.
PAKT
THIRD."
OF
JUDGMENTS.
I. THE
PROPOSITION.
"
1. To
as a
judge
is to of
bring
one
thing
is
are
in
or
under
or
another.
of
judg*
raent,
Two
product
or
thought, compared
the
issue
result
as
comparison.
or as
things
and
notions
apprehended
that
similar
or
the
virtue
a
judgment
of this
pronounces declared
two terms
as
they
agree
that
they
notions
are
By
reduced
to
relation, the
duality
in
is fied. uniboth
unity
; the
one
Necessarily
cannot
is
thought
the there be
For
be
thought
On
since
as
merely determining,
other
nothing
as
determined.
hand,
both
cannot
thought
Hence,
other. the
merely
one
determined,
be
one
is then
nothing determining.
the
one
must
determining,
is
other
determined,
or
of
the
in
Therefore,
is is
thought
as
an
attribute
;
or
mark
contained
as a
other, which
the other
thereby
contained Before
determined
else
it is
thought
class which
under, and
thereby
it will
are
determined. be well
are
proceeding,
which
we
to
reiterate
not
an
that
the
tions considerathose
of
to
upon
entering
not to
advance the
beyond
arrangement
We
just
concluded. into
over a
We
are
advance,
is
since
thoughts
pass
a
complete
a
system
of The the
same
are
again
portion
of
consider
it from
and
different
point
has
view. been
an
almost
judgment
;
a
already
is
remarked.
concept
E.
"
"
is
an
judgment
explicit concept.
the and marks
animal
"
g.,
"
Man" animal
concept
the
that
involves implicitly
"
rational
"
and
from
;"
ment judgin
Man
is rational
or
differs its
the We
that
or
concept
are
only
that
upon
it
new
unfolds,
explicitly states,
It is
content.
not, then,
a
ground.
sufficiently apparent
time
or we
in
forming
rarchy hie-
of
at
concepts, every
step
now
subordinate
we
co-ordinate
a
notions,
every
is
of
division
is
definition,
consider
pronounce
judgment.
of
What
proposed
to
the
parts
and
kinds
these
76 and judgments,
OF
JUDGMENTS.
laws which regulate their formation or limiting the grounds upon which we do to investigate determine their validity, the relations of our and must judge in determining concepts. This is for oftentimes true not onlyof immediate judgment,but also of reasoning; cannot determine the relation between two we cepts, condirectly do it by comparing each with a third. but must Let us, then,keep in mind that in what follows wre are only improving our pletely knowledge of the modes by which the mind progresses towards comits thoughts. And let us also remember that systematizing every step is governedby the three primary laws,and, in pure Logic, by no others.
the
judgment expressedin language is called a proposition. is subjectively The What a a proposition. judgment is objectively is to sever firsttreatment it by partition into three portions. These said above: notion of some1st. The thing was are, accordingto what of something determined, called the Subject; 2d. The notion called the Predicate ; 3d. That which determining, expresses the two, called the Copula. These relation between this recognized exist the existence of,neither can each implies terms are correlatives, the other. In every express judgment somethingis spoken of without, that is the Predicate ; that is the Subject ; somethingis said of it is Pure ;" Snow that which says this" that is the Copula. Thus, "some Sentences is Pardoned;" "Sighs are are "Sin Prayers;" Stars are Planets;" or, to indicate merely the "some Propositions;" and predicate, The subject beingthe extreme parts form, S is P." It is not of the proposition. called the Terms in this partition, are words ; they should consist of single that these terms at all requisite relations. words in intricate grammatical may be composed of many struse in the study of an abencounter difficulties E. g., The very many we to be overcome science ("subject) are by persistent ("copula) effort stimulated by a desire to acquire knowledge" (^predicate).
"
2. A
"
"
"
"
"
"
With
taper light
to
To Is
eye of heaven
garnish("-subject)
ShaJcs. (^predicate).
"
and
ridiculous excess"
The
meaning metaphysical
We
noun
of
be understood.1
a
observe
and substance is supposedto subject must that the logical alwaysbe subject consist of many
104
substantive
(which may
i. e., somewords),
See Hamilton's
Metaphysics, pp.
and
110.
THE
PROPOSITION.
77 Non-entis
or
thingthoughtof
The We may, the the
as
havingsubstance.
nulla sunt
predicata.
predicate may
be either substantive
that which
is thrown
contained
der un-
predicate.
includes the copula, and this is still predicate reckon the copulaas a the usage of grammarians. But logicians now distinct co-ordinate part. Since a judgment always expresses the in mind, the copulamust always presentrelation of two notions now
"
3. In Aristotle the
appear
its
own
as
the
presenttense
kingdom in which an eternal now The copula admits of only one negation. Hence qualification, the negative wherever it may sentence particle, negative occur,
as a
is
in is
is
no
considered
not
part
of the
strained;""No
old
"
bulwark,"i.e.,Britannia
The in order to This is the
needinga bulwark. held that the copulamay be otherwise modified logicians that attends the judgment. express the degreeof certainty Doctrine of Modality."Thus,"
"
( Problematic Modal
; as, A
can
may
be B.
judgments are
v
?"^\
as" A
be Bcannot
be B. be B.
must
"Demonstrative." Recent or Apodeictic" the doctrine of modality, and account the modifiers as reject logicians be B." a part of the predicate ; thus, A is something that may above stated, that the copulacan be modified in no way as They hold, whatever except by the negative particle.8 it has quite The meaning of the copulais ambiguous,or, rather, a section it will be number of different significations. In a following is conthat it may be interpreted either as as or seen tained comprehends,"
are
" " "
The
latter two
called
"
under."
Thereafter
we
"
means
is
meaningswill appear as we progress. We need to remark here onlythat it requires Always,however, interpretation. it implies Aristotle the modified or limited by predicate. existence, not an The copula affirms merely a relative, existabsolute, says :3 equalto ;"
and other
"
See Hamilton's
Loyic, p.
181
sq.
DC
Elenchi, Sophist-lei v, 3.
78 ence." From
OF
JUDGMENTS.
"Ptolemy
or
is
dead,"we So,
"
cannot
infer that
ns as a
"
Ptolemy is"
man
only that
he exists to
dead
"
can,
Ptolemy is not alive denies his it in the other sense. but implies existence relative to life, the verb to be declares absolute In merely existential propositions I am," sum* it is both copula and predicate. Thus, existence, I am I am in such or means a being." The existing," predicate is the summum case So, Enoch simplemark. genus, or its single, not ;" "It is fine weather was elry to-day;""There was a sound of revthat doeth good, no not by night" (Byron); "There is none that practise i. e., some exist, self-denial," one;" "There are men be construed as existential or Some a propositions may very few. otherwise ; as, It is impossible to love and be wise " may be construed by
" " "
"
remembrance
tradition.
"
"
either "To
"
be wise cannot
be"
"
coexist,
six Rich-
or
To
love and
impossible."So,
"
monds
in the field."
"
also,
this old man's
That
I have
ta'en away
daughter,
her."
"
It is most
true
Shaks.
That
speechthe copulais absorbed in verb forms word. and the whole proposition consist of a single or elided, may that twinkle ; E. g., Stars twinkle," Stars are things Cogito,"=I Ilium fuit" is raining am (existential) thinking;"Pluit"=It ; "Did he Troy is something which formerly existed (existential); is one who came come "Yes,"=He yesterday?" Ans. yesterday; He is who did "He love. All verbs one was or loved," loving, to be" their variety ing arisare perhaps fundamentally one, the verb of various attributive notions with this from the incorporation verbial simple verbal element,and its own past and future forms beingadwith the present tense. notions incorporated
in
common
" " = " =^
"
are
true.
"
"
4. In accordance
that all sitions with its postulate,4 Logic requires propoin the above examples, without shall be transformed, so as that, distortion of the
the thought, The severally appear.
or retrenchment, addition,
three
parts,
is be said
process
quitetroublesome and awkward, but nevertheless must has justbeen performed. E. g., "So he said" becomes "What
"
See Part
8.
80
OP
JUDGMENTS.
under
one
or
another
of
the number Categories.Porphyry and the Schoolmen enlarged of the Predicables to five, by substituting Species(aspredicable and Specific Difference for Definition. of individuals) This was the of improvement; for, as Aristotle himself had reverse remarked, each of these is of the nature of Genus, and interchangeable with it.' The doctrine of the Predicables, however, like that of the Categories, has ceased to play a prominentpart in Logic.7
"
6. Various
divisions
are
made
of
judgments
or
for propositions
in each case, and genus divided is the same used in each,it is evident that there will be
ative judgment may be either affirmbe either intensive or negative ; and an affirmative judgment may This is not, however, a logical fault here,since the extensive. or several divisions are not proposed as steps in a series, but are independent divisions.
Thus,
an
intensive
of each other.
judgments are intensive This distinction is grounded on the relation of suband extensive. ject and contained, and predicate, whole as as containing reciprocally and is the whole, or part. In the intensive judgment the subject is the part, minor term. or Thus, The major term ; the predicate
The
"
firstdivision to be considered
is that
earth is
Here spherical."
a
let
us
"
earth
"
as
an.
sive inten-
to
as
We complement of marks. which thereby it the mark enters into, or spherical," a part of,this whole ; for it is only one mark out
of whole, consisting
"
characterize It is
our
notion
"
earth."
:
This
"
is
an
The
earth
the
whole, or
"
major
is
a
; the
is subject
the
term.
"
Thus,
8
The
earth
Here sphere."
let us view
the notion
sphere
Part See
2d,v, "
Hansel's
3.
Aldrich, Appendix,Note A, for a discussion of the Predicables. found in Topica, 8,where Aristotle says : Every predicate i, it expresses with its subject, does not. If it reciprocates, cither reciprocates or of in either the whole essence the former case or none; (TOri yv ilvai) the subject, it it If does it is called Definition ; in the latter, either a not, Property. expresses
The doctrine will be
or
none.
In the former
case
it must
case
be
Difference. is neither
it is
property
genus,
and
yet is
present with
thing.
THE
PROPOSITION.
81
as
such as the things, the geometother planets, the sun, all globular their satellites, fruits, rical 'under included all which etc., things are sphere, rain-drops, notion our sphere." Now in the givenjudgment we declare that the earth is one of these things, a part of the great complement of thus: thingsdenoted by "sphere." It is conventionally expressed The earth is contained under sphere." This means : My notion notion of sphere." For another of the earth is contained under my the mark attributing example: Men are mortal ;" this is intensive, the major term. to men, Again, Men are mortals ;" this mortality is extensive, mortals is the major term, a genus embracing also is a species contained under this and "men" "brutes" and "plants," how of it. Let it be remarked the which is predicated genus and replacedby "comprehends" and copula is here interpreted
an
extensive
whole,constituted of
greatmany
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
is contained
under."
but most there is frequently only is the copulaambiguous, to show which of the two quantities nothingin the entire proposition mind readily view to the is thought. And, indeed, passes from one and any proposition of being interpreted whatever is easily other, capable While this is of logical cither intensively or ment, moextensively. in a theoryof thought, it is not of the smallest pracimportant tical One volume a viewingevery person might peruse consequence. read another the volume same viewingevery intensively, proposition and the knowledge acquired by each would extensively, proposition It is a fault of the old Logic, not, for that reason, differ appreciably. Not
of
its nomenclature
and
treatment
has
exclusive
of extension. quantity while a logical the proper place to observe that, This seems tion proposihave individual it cannot individual have an an subject, may in extension is For the predicate of a logical proposition predicate.
a one mere
genus
nor
; in
is intension, We
mark.
say
An
"
individual
can
neither
be the
a
the other.
may
Great
is the
is Diana
;"
but
this is
rhetorical
"
is
great." Again,we
in the
and the predicate subject, The favorite pupil of Plato was say but an equivalent proposition ; logical,
"
but in qualitative,
the
whole. quantitative
les attributs qu'elle enferme de 1'idee, J'appelle comprehension convient." Port' soi. J'appelleetcndue de Tidee, les sujets a qui cette idee en ch. vi. RoyalLogic, pt.i,
8
Says Arnauld
"
"
82
OF
JUDGMENTS.
"
are
7. The
second The
division of
ditional. con-
of
since they grammaticalforms of sentences or clauses, of mental states, with the generic faculties correspond expressions mind, thus,
"
Sentences
are
\ Interrogative, Cognition. Conditional, "" expressing ) Categorical, "" Exclamatory, Feeling. Desire. Optative, Will. I Imperative,
" " "
is real and not merely interrogative sentence, if the question shows that a comparisonis being made which has not yet rhetorical, reached an issue in judgment. It is the search after ground for judgment. Conditional sentences or propositions express a comparison so completethat only certain grounds or premisesremain in nearly is stated as a condition. matter question. Such doubtful or contingent and disjunctive. E. g., "If They are of two sorts,conjunctive it ;" and, This view is either can this, explain you you understand inaccurate." Conditional propositions junctive, subaccurate or arc indicative, A categorical or potential. proposition son expresses a comparii t is not reference absolute. to completed; making any condition, and potential It also appears in the indicative, moods. subjunctive, forms ; Logic is concerned only with the conditional and categorical of the other four forms for these only are propositions, none ing expressThe consideration of-the conditional a declaration. judgment is gorical postponed until we shall have finished our examination of the catethen,the words judgment,propjudgment. For the present, osition, will be understood to mean the categorical. etc., unqualified, it means The term categoricalis originally legal, accusing." In Logic it means attribution a downright statement, a predication or and hence simpleor absolute. A categoriby condition, unqualified cal is unconditionally then, is one in which the predicate proposition,
"
An
"
"
"
affirmed
or
denied
of the
subject.8
judgments is
"
"
9
8.
The
third division of
partial.It
"
the term tive," categoricalmeant originally by Aristotle, merely affirmahis successor in the Lyceum, as opposed to negative." By Theophrastus, in the it was sense a s ditional." conabsolute," simple," direct," opposed to employed it has continued to be employed by all subsequent In this signification See Hamilton's Logic, logicians. p. 207.
As
used
"
"
"
"
"
"
THE
PROPOSITION.
83
is called their is
is
judgment or proposition determined this of the subject, as solely by the quantity according total or partial. visions, diThe following exhibits the important scheme
a
"
f are Propositions
Total
or
definite
j Individual,e.
"
stage.
-j
( Partial
or
players.
love.
seek
e. j Indefinite, particular
reputation.
and hence of the proposition, is indiof the subject, cated quantity It is often the case that all, by the predesignations some, etc. no sign of quantityis prefixed.A judgment always has quantity of the thinker and speaker, in the mind but the either total or partial hearer is frequently left to surmise the quantity intended from the
The
context,
or
from
the matter.
Thus,
"
"
Birds
Birds sing," i. e., some ter do, the matpredicate being of the essence ; Some class these as definite inbeing accidental or contingent. logicians a" doubtful propositions," grammariansspecify very like as some gender." But, as seen in the scheme, we have another and a better
"
use
for
the
word
"
"
as
ton Hamil-
stitute conproperly class. When undertake to reduce such a proposition a we to strict logical to designate the quantity form, it is needful, generally, of the subject by its sign. Individual propositions those in which a whole, the subject, is are indivisible unity. It may be a proper judged of or viewed as a single, Caesar is ambitious ;" or an objectdesignated vidual indias an noun, as, or by the definite article, by any demonstrative word or phrase ;
calls
do them, preindesignatepropositions,
not
"
"
as,
The
world
is round
;"
"
This
man
"
is
is crazy ;" " The whole head All Jerusalem went out to meet
"
him."
"
It may
be
collective
whole,as,
The
senate
has
;" adjourned
tribes." was Apostles Universal propositions have subjects which are logical wholes. The total number of objects within a divisible but undivided class are i.e., all taken together judged of ; as, All men are players," ; Every
in the twelve typified
" "
The
of college
10
the
ent unfortunately ambiguous,being used to express two quite differrelations ; the quantity of thought or of concepts being intensive and extensive, of quantity judgments being total and partial.If not heeded, this various application of the term is liable to confuse. The quantity of a judgment has no reference whatever
to intension
or
This
term
is
extension.
84
OF
JUDGMENTS.
Such terms said to be are severally. of each object distributed; because what is said is said distributively All is ambiguous, in the class. It seems, then,that meaning either in individual propositions in all as a unity, as as ; or all as a plurality, The former is called the cumular meaning ; the universal propositions. usual meaning. The and is its most latter is called the exemplar, distribution are all, or every, each,both, signsof universality any, none,
man
is
taken
"
"
of material substances, neither, always,never, whoever,wherever,etc. Names and universal are as gold, etc., singular water, flame, stone,salt, without
one
They predesignation.
of substance.
or
each denote
any
and
every
portionof
kind Partial
those in which we judge of a are propositions particular less than the whole denoted by the naked subject. number of objects, but onlyof some. The old logical That is, meaning we judge not of all, is is some of some at least, perhaps all ; hence it only may be De Morgan proposes to This is the indefinite some. particular." and instead indefinite ; instead of call it vague or particular also is ambiguhe proposes full." The word of some universal," ous Some at least, men love," perhapsall, as, ; either it is some haps per" " " " " " " "
" "
all do ;
not
or
it is
some
at
most,
not
all, as,
if
we
"
Some
men
seek reputation,"
all, which
"
is
true clearly
mean
which
is found
"
in the cannon's
mouth."
The
it excludes all." judgment; the second is the semi-definite, is indefinite or semi-definite, the predesignation Whether is gensome erally the but context to be determined or Hamilton, who matter, by portance which he considers of imintroduced into our Logic this distinction, insists that some in reasoning, is alwaysthought as semi-definite of the judgment is universal ; a rule that when the other term A subject is certainly objectionable.11 qualified by the article a or an and semi-definite ; as, A German when it means any) is particular (except If we did. i. e., some German invented printing," substitute one becomes total and the name for Faust,"the proposition a German The signsof partial individual. or are subjects particular some, not
" " " "
not all,
every,
few, there
the
are
"
a that, are
or
an, one,
There
also
whole, are
that approximate a whole, signs if taken still, strictly, ular, particall ; as, many,
though
every
one,
The
following
11
Sec
Appendix
to
his
Logic, p.
531.
THE
PROPOSITION.
85
total negatives : few, very few, hardly or nearly scarcely any, little, Few small, slight, are saved,"i.e., Nearly all rare, seldom, etc. ; e. g., are not, perhaps none ; hence indefinite. But a few is affirmative ;"" i. e., a small number all;hence are, perhaps e.g., "A few are saved," indefinite. Terms or qualified by such signs, merely thoughtas particular,
are
"
are
said to be undistributed.
and negative. judgments is into positive The positive that the subject affirms, proposition by the Law of Identity, in that of part in the relation of equivalence, and predicate are or and whole, contained and containing.The negative denies, proposition such relation, and by the Law of Contradiction, excluding subject the sphereor comprehensionof the other. each from predicate, By of Excluded the principle Middle,no third form of declaration is possible; the relation in question between and either subject predicate
"
9. The
fourth division of
does every
or
does
not
it is yea exist,
or
"
nay.
is of the form is not P." S is The proposition ground of this division of judgments is called their Quality.12 But let us examine the meaning of negation littlemore a larly. particuOftentimes a negativejudgment simply denies one thing of If we is not vapor," Smoke the meaning another,no more. say, probablyis that these two notions, though liable to be confounded, unlike that they should be set entirely are so essentially apart in It is simply a holding thought. There is no thought of a genus. if it is said,"Smoke is not fluid," back from So also, the error. is simply denied mark as no more. comprehended in the subject, Again,in other negativejudgments there is a thought of a genus, is not a gas;" i. e., the which is denied to the subject; as, "Smoke
" "
Hence, S P," or
as
has been
said,
genus
contain
under
it smoke
as
one
of its kinds.
Smoke
no
is excluded
more. a
the
sphereof
gases, but
be
mental
reference
containing genus,
of each
under
"
which Men
are
they,as
not
co-ordinate Here
man
other ; as,
to
brutes."
most
limited likely,
co-exclusive and
exhaustive
notions
the Lastly,
13
Another
or
unfortunate
no
confusion
has negative
reference
the
discussed.
86
OF
JUDGMENTS.
as a
such
denied
"
Man
is not
for bruising ;" or, See Follywaltzing reptile In far from Wisdom's way," i.e., Folly's way is not Wisdom's way. there is a thought of a containing this case, also, genus or universe in common, to a narrow limitingthe notions, which .have much sphere. In a negative the copula, judgment the negativeparticle qualifies though it may not stand in connection with it. E. g., Not a drum is "No heard" (Wolfe);"Not man was every mistake is culpable;" shall inherit eternal wiser for his learning" drunkard (Selden) ; "No that doeth good,no, not one ;" That goodness life;" There is none is no name, dream" and happiness no judgment (Byron). A negative which is a taken strictly, is said to have a copula," phrase, negative the qualified contradiction in terms, but is used to designate copula. 'It is needful to observe that affirmative propositions often contain of the predicate, and should as a part either of the subject or negatives for negative E. g., Not to know not be mistaken me propositions. unknown" "lie that does not heed,stumbles (Milton); argues yourself
beast for
nor burdens,
"
"
"
"
"
;"
"
"
To
wonder
not
is
rare
art," Nil
"
admirari
prope
res
cst
una
(Horace).In
those
it is following
in the
is a part of the subject.In the negative in that extremity the general "Even predicate:
" "
the
cry was, No
surrender
I plicate supwithout
no
that
often
"
g.,
on
blind ;"
Darkness
and
silence fall
sea." may
as
These also be
also are, in
conveyedin
by
means
of such
phrases
the contrary, wanting or deficient on far from, the reverse of, beyond, and the like. in,devoid of, the negative the predicate, the judgment When particle qualifies but something is affirmed is affirmative;it is not mere a denial, is a negative notion. of the subject, We have though the predicate that many remarked have notions, originally already pure negatives, character.13 These are no in usage had thought into them a positive accompaniedby the thoughtof a narrow longerpure, and are generally in a pure negation which. is not the case or universe, ; e. g., helpgenus unwell, uneven, indirect, immortal, etc. Thus, if I Lss, unpleasant,
13
2d,vi, "
5.
88
"
OF
JUDGMENTS,
tribution section that the dispredicate.We have shown in the previous of the subject is according of the judgment ; to the quantity do not distribute, that universals distribute, and particulars the subject. the distribution of the predicate, Now which takes place in thought without any verbal sign, of the judgment. depends on the quality
the
The Some
"All
some
RULE
is:
not.
Thus,
are
buildings only,for
"
there
not
houses, as
or
Again, particular. since are no pyramids, pyramid can be called is distributed or house ; hence this predicate universal. Again, a Some houses are i. e., some for tents, dwellings," dwellingsonly, is particular. ; hence the predicate caves, and shipsalso are dwellings i. e., some houses,such as Again, Some houses are not dwellings," not any are churches, factories, shops, dwellings ; hence the predicate
No houses
"
"
is here universal.
which rule,
comes as
from
the old
Logic,and
is that
Hamilton, as
we we affirm,
we
impugns
of
to
extension
the terms.
in the therebyinclude the subject as by the predicate merely a part of it ; and that when from that class wholly. therebyexclude the subject
class denoted
we
deny, we
"
10.
In
forms,which
of the sylloanalysis gism, and quality the quantity of judgments. There exhibited as theysymbolize by vowel letters,15
and
following
TABLE
OF THE
PROPOSITIONAL
Formulae.
FORMS.
Examples. All oaks
are are
Quality. Symbols.
Affirmative,
"
"
All S is No S is S S
Negative, Negative,
to
"
E
"
"
"
Some Some
"
(some)trees.
No
oaks
are are
Some ..Some
"
It is curious
first adopted by an old symbolicletters were vowels in and first two the the words affiwao HSspanus; theybeing add that the old logicians abounded in mnemonic cordingly, devices, and,acmay the said Petrus supplied the following stanza,
note
that
these
"
THE
PROPOSITION.
Individual considered
is a total, arc (" 8),since the subject propositions and symbolized as universal, by A and E.
ly usual-
rather than of judgments. propositions are Propositions Simple, Complex, and Compound. A Simple proposition consists of only one tains judgment; i. e., it conthan one and one not more subject predicate.It may, however, and skilfully consist of many elements ; as, grammatical Well-organized of happiness administered in their governments are productive subjects." A Complex proposition involves with the principal judgment one subordinate ment incidental judgments. This subordinate eleor more or incidental to the principal or subject cate. prediappears as a clause, is A who is learned E. g., man ;" Whoever is right respected
11. The
"
fifth division is of
"
"
"
is safe fire is
;"
"
Who
steals
my
purse,
steals trash
"
(Shaks.) ;
cannot
"
little
quench"
first
is in
"Ill (Shaks.);
blows
the
wind
that
In profitsnobody" (Shaks.).
subject, though the latter two are, the inverted. In the following the clause wholly,
am
monarch
"
of
all / survey
"
"
(Cowper) ;
"
The
cry is still They come."1 to choose the wrong the wit In the
:
is out
"
I ivas When ways a (Shaks.) boy, I used al; the age is in, side" (Johnson); When What I have written,I have written." (Shaks.) ;
"
"
are
the stars
who
was
hard-hearted such
exacted he
ivas
the payment
much disliked
of
the money
all
he
lent with
that severity
by
good men"
(Lamb).
A subdivision of incidental clauses may
be made
into
and
The
the marks
of
woman,
evade
the God
not
now
who is born by the notion of few days and full of trouble;" "Jonah sought to who is omnipresent" Explicative clauses express judgments renewed subordimade, but formerlymade, and now
or
Explicative merelyunfolds
nately. Limitative
to
as
"
may
also be allowed
limit indicate,
avaricious
a are
those which, are removing restriction, restrict the notion they qualify ; as,
This
"
discontented."
is not is well
said of all
men,
limited class.
"
So,
He
mere
paid that
a
is well
it is
is not policy,
90
OF
JUDGMENTS.
virtue."
a we
"
The
concession
in
"
I will trust So in
"
him Live
though he slay me
we
"
moves re-
conceivable
"
restriction.
"
how
we
can,
yet die
They strive that they may enter in" and limited by purpose ; are They take heed lest theyfall" the predicates tion, the restrictive is a condiWhen the other negatively. one positively, be converted into a conditional. the categorical easily proposition may
must
In (Shaks.).
Thus
the
example above
may
become
"
If
men
are
cious, avari-
they are
We
now
discontented."
garded these incidental clauses of all kinds being rethat,
observe
adverbial elements, the or adjective, merely as substantive, needful to is in Logic treated as simple. It was complex proposition clauses for be forewarned not to mistake discuss it only that we may to strict logical a proposition ; and, in reducing propositions principal to the principal form, that we may be careful to subordinate them in place is he is ing, rich, savor predicate.Thus, He, who, though subject share with him ivho is needy without lessening that can is one S is P. what is enjoyed tence Indeed,the complex sen;" here the form is, that is strictly reducible to one is often directly simple. Thus, A who is is respected," learned man the first example given above, A learned man, of learning," is respected." A man or reduces to is one that comprisestwo The or more Compound proposition for or co-ordinate, nearlyso ; and these, logical purposes, judgments, and stated independently.It is of two kinds, to be separated require less obvious. or accordingas the compounding elements are more has received are The first kind,wherein these elements quiteevident, and needs only the illustration of a few examples no name, specific ; and life is is "Art de(Longfellow) fleeting" long, ; "Every man as, old would be live but sireth to man no (Swift). long,
" " " " "
"
We
are
on
such
; and
"
stuff
our
As
dreams
are
made
a
littlelife
Is rounded
"
with
come,
on
sleep."
men
Shaks. go,
Men But
may
I go
and
may
forever."
"
Brook. Tennyson's
"
in three words. vici" contains three distinct propositions vidi, Veni, and Caesar were triumvirs;"here are three prop"Pompey, Crassus, ositions: "Crassus vir trium2 d. 1st. was a Pompey was a triumvir;'* triumvir." a If,however,we say ;" 3d. Caesar was Pompey,
" " "
were
the three
"Koses
and
liliescontend
for
is single proposition taken collectively whole. as one So, and in her cheek," is single home a
THE
PROPOSITION.
91
simple;but
there
are
in "Darkness
and
silence settle
on
land
and
on
sea,"
four
"
propositions.
cannot
Ho
! hearts, scribes, bards, poets tongues,figures, ! hoo write, Think,speak, sing, cast, number, His love to Antony." Shaks.
" " "
there
are
six distinct
to its
own
that each
answers predicate
were
count
thirty-six.
of Compound propositions
the
second
less
and requiring for this reason called Exponibles. are obvious, analysis, These more than the others require since they are attention, special and in syllogizing with them it is often requisite that more intricate, resolved. We three species: 1st. Exclusives name they be distinctly and Exceptives and De'sitives. ; 2d. Comparatives ; and 3d. Inceptives 1st. EXCLUSIVES. Compounds of this species may be formulated
thus
AisB.
=
..
..=A ..=E
(Nonon-AisB
E. g, "Faith alone
justifies"=
is
not
not
justify.
that this
to
alone," 15
"
proposition may be inverted and the exclusive thus,"Justification is by appear in the predicate; is only A.
" " "
All but one in which were Exceptivesare exemplified saved," One was saved and not saved ;" I and O. means Nearly all were No useful rule can be given for the resolution of these two forms of exponibles.Generally, if not always, the elementaryjudgments differ in quality, is to be noted as direct and the other as indirect and one or implied. The distinction between the exclusive and exceptive is of no forms convertible, practical moment, as they are readily the only difference being that what is the direct judgment in the one of the exbecomes the indirect in the other. The following some clusive are and merely,sole, : only,alonet exclusively, particles exceptive the annexed to the subject solely, but,etc. These particles quantify i.e., He is all the wise. God alone is wise," predicate universally ; as, Annexed to the predicate to that predicate they merelylimit the subject
*'
; as,
"
The
sacraments
are
but
are
no
"Wo
give some
to
of their various- modes examples illustrating None facilitate the recognition of them hereafter.
" "
but
the brave
(Dryden) ;
"
fool thinks
none
except
92
OF
JUDGMENTS.
Caesar,was ;" merely patriotic ;" Brutus, in killing satellite ;" or, is only our The moon Christ is the only Saviour ;" is our ;" Mercy but murders, pardoning those that only satellite "The kill" (Shaks.); paths of glorylead but to the grave" (Gray); i. e., we "God alone is worthy of being loved for his own sake," sake,and all other thingsfor God's ought to love God for his own ways sake ; Only those riches which you shall have given away will alabide with you," Quas dederis solas sender habebis opes tial, (Maris in the exclusive or exceptive particle Ep. v, 43). Sometimes the sense, but not expressed one Lord, one faith, (Thereis only) ; as,
himself
"
wise
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
baptism (Eph.iv,5). contain in which 2d. COMPARATIVES. we Propositions compare two judgments; for it is one to say that a thing is such,and one less so than another thing. Thus, other to say that it is more or affirms that Pain is the greatestof evils," of Epicurus, the maxim This is more and that it is the extreme that pain is an one. evil,
one
"
"
evident
two
when
we
may
be
contradicted
in
no
denied
saying that
why may not the Pain is a great evil ?" Because what is said here as predicate, other evils merely excludes other evils ; but in the above comparative included by what is said. are expressly When and DESITIVES. 3d. INCEPTIVES we say that a thing has
But
"
however, allowed the first compoPeripatetics, nent, is the evil. that vice extreme second, saying be said of any proposition same having a qualified
commenced,
the "I
or
ceased to
be,such,we
make
two
one statements,
about
the time indicated. Thus, after, I now and that heretofore believe,
traries. con-
I did not
I have
simply "I believe" says nothingof the began to be marble," and, Augustus Home past. Again, "With These may fairly be With Augustus Ptome ceased to be of brick." and left it of brick, as "Augustus found Rome saying, interpreted and desitives are compounds becomes a little marble." That inceptivcs consider that a questionsuch as "Have evident when we more you 2" affirms the component that you have been drinking, quitdrinking and questions drinking. only the second,whether you are now that which classed not observed are It should be judgments many as compound,whose outward form is simply S is P," nevertheless imply in thought an indirect judgment. This is true of every semithat to say
" "
THE
PROPOSITION.
93
definite
judgment (" 8). Sometimes, on the other hand, we convey ing leavour merely insinuate," ; we thoughtsby indirections expressed real meaning,to be understood. the direct judgment,our Logic its to with the latter, postulate, and, according alwaysdeals primarily
"
givesit completeexpression.1"
"
12.
sixth division is of
rather judgments
:
than
of
propositions.
It is exhibited in the
scheme following
Analytic
Judgments
are
priori.
or empirical. Postcriori
Synthetic\
(
a a
priori or priori
pure. pure.
S as somethingwhich P belongs to the subject predicate in the concept S, the judgment is called is contained, though covertly, of the adds nothingto the conception Analytic. Since the predicate but only unfolds its constituent marks, which are thought subject, it is also called Explicative. in the subject, though confusedly, already, I need not go beyond the concept extended. E. g., All bodies are but need merely body in order to iind extension connected with it, in it. this predicate in order to discover to analyzethe conception The analytic judgment is a priori. It is not grounded on experience, to form because I need not go out of the sphereof my conceptions it, of i s and hence resort to the testimony experience quiteunnecessary. is not That extended bodies are an empirical judgment,but itself its necessity stands firm a priori. It is a necessary judgment, arising from the ground of identity.Analytic tant, judgments are highlyimporof distinctness but are so only because by them we attain the in the and extended synthesis which is requisite for a sure conception progress of knowledge. P lies completely out of the concept. When, however,the predicate the judgment is called Synthetic. Since S, though connected with it, of the subject increases the conception the predicate by something ered could have discovwhich contained in it, not which was no analysis this judgment is also called Augmentative or Ampliative. in it, is something totally E. g., All bodies are heavy. This predicate When the
derived mostly from Arnauld, of compound propositions, analysis for these supposed to be exis intended to serve haustive. logical purposes, and is not even and To the student of Logic it will be sufficient in most generally cases, illustrativeand helpful. The above
16
94
OF
JUDGMENTS.
different from
what
think necessarily
as
contained
in the
concept
body,and
those
a
adds
to the content
are
of that notion.
Syntheticjudgments
priori. The
subdivided
are
into
those
and posteriori
which as judgments from experience, such are alwayssynthetical. I cognizeby analysis the concept body But now I augment throughthe marks extension and impenetrability. of body, I find knowledge. Looking back on my experience my connected with the above marks ; so I amplify ception conweightalways my of it this additional mark, saying, by predicating Body is heavy. is the ground of this synthesis, because the notions body Experience and weight, though one is not contained in the other,stillbelong to another contingently one as parts of a whole of experience. But synthetic judgments a prioriare not grounded on experience, does experience E. g., Every nor help us at all in forming them. has a cause. event The concept event implies antecedent time,from which I could form of a an judgment. But the conception analytic lies quiteout of the concept event, and indicates a thing encause tirely different. This judgment, therefore is not analytic.Moreover, from which I derive the conception of event does not the experience of cause, and hence experience is not the ground include an experience of the judgment. Again,the judgment has a universality which experience that cannot of can never a come give, expressing necessity is essentially which contingent. Such a judgment is, experience, How is a a priori. What, then,is its ground ? therefore, altogether synthetic judgment a priori possible? This is the questionwhich in his Critique Kant undertook to answer portance Its imof Pure Reason. is inestimable, for upon this class of synthetic or ampliative of the whole judgmentsdepends speculative knowledge.17
former
13. "'
in
considered two kinds of wholes we topic18 previous under which mind its objects the logical, or or contemplates itative qualand the mathematical, whole. Under the presor quantitative, ent have thus far considered we topic judgment as in the former only, Under
a
"
Vernunft, " 4. The distinction of propositions bk. ch. followed (Logic, i, vi), by Bain the above famous bk. i, ch. ii, the same seems as tion distinc(Logic, substantially " 7), of by Kant judgments into Analyticand Synthetic. Those logicians reject, a nd all consider a however, the class of synthetic judgments priori, synthetic judgments real propositions to be a posteriori or or empirical. 18 Part 2d,vi, " 2. See also Hamilton's Locjic, pp. 379,380.
to
17
and
by Mill
96
OF
JUDGMENTS.
two
notions
or
terms.
Can De
all relations
be
these
three?
Are
there not
others?
Morgan
sists in-
that relations
to
include X
them
has
a
"Every
We
and proposes distinct are very numerous, essentially thus: all in one generalized copula of relation," relation to some Y," embracing the above, and also
"
such connectives
shall of the for
as
in
"
controls
Y,"
"
X
no
causes
Y,"
and
many
there
is
need
for this
great
can mass
but there appears to be a necessity and its obverse to the meaning commonly
is true
that
"
judgment comparative
mass as as we
Thus,
The
of the earth
is
of the moon"
mass
means,
have much
seen as
in the
mass
precedingsection,
of the moon,
The
of the
earth is
the
somethingin addition." But if the comparison of the copula, then combe accepted parative as an interpretation expressed would to be in thought quite simple. seem propositions of two planets, I judge simply I mentally the masses When compare is greaterthan the other, without at all thinking and directly that one The and has somethingto spare. is as much the other, that one as construed ical, mathematas copulathus understood,and the proposition from law disappear.29 difficulties arising syllogistic many Both terms of judgments of degreeare always individuals viewed dividual inmathematical of designating wholes. There are various modes as such as by the definite article, by demonstrative and possessive
and has
" Thou art the man pronouns, etc. ; e. g., wholes. Collective wholes These are integral
;"
"
This
is
our
home."
"
often
occur
e.
g.,
legionis ten cohorts." Another mode is by a proper name, or by mark ; as, Aristotle is the Father of Logic." Every some particular whose is quantified, "all" or as "some," is predicate proposition
" 30
The
two
copulasabove
The
described
express
the relation of
and
degree between
as
two
relation between
the whole
"
such,
o/the ;" part of;" e. g., This is of circle." different a a quantitative o/the judgment part kind from but does not seem to require especial that of degree, exposition. that "comprehends" in the qualitative whole is similar It is worthy of note is greater than'1'1 in the quantitative is contained under" is strikingly to liko ; and is lessthan." real. AVe quantitativeBut there is another correspondence more ly is contained think the relation of whole and part, and well as qualitatively as under" corresponds to "is apart of." For example, teachers. The preachers contained under (or, are a class of) are section the teachers. The preachers of a rc a a are of) (or, part
is
a
" " " "
"
copula "is
The
thumb
hand
THE
PROPOSITION.
97
the mathematical
;
e.
whole, and
the
"
all" is not
" all reasoncrs are g., All men individual totals. both terms are
;"
"
Ducks
The
braic alge-
is a 2x3," and 'V" / (a;+y)(ar"y)," equation, as, "6 its two members individuals. are character, judgment of the same called quantitative, because primariAll such judgments are properly ly, and essentially they alwaysrelate to space or time, fundamentally, the science of quantity. the bases of mathematics, An individual may be known by the test that its partsare not kinds. in become in " 6 that an individual cannot We have seen a predicate In the mathematical whole the predicate, whole. well the logical as the individual predicate the subject, as is, beingalwaysan individual, the characteristic mark of a judgment of degree. therefore, of these propositions, and a test of their A consequent peculiarity is that they are all simply convertible. No special equivalency, symbol Since the subjects is needed. vidual are total, theyare treated like indiand symbolized with this (" 8), by A and E (" 10), propositions that whereas individual propositions marked tible inconverare difference, of degree is always and only simply " 7),the proposition (ii, the copula is greatconvertible. When the terms not equivalent, are er in conversion than" must be substituted by is less than" and. vice versa. When either term may be substituted they are equivalent,
=
"
"
wherever
the other
occurs.
be discriminated from individual, terms must with which Singular is a logical "A man" they are apt to be confounded. qualitative of member the class one whole, meaning man," and is a single That man," which is a mathematical, thought very different from The whole. first is singular; the second, individual. quantitative liable to be confused with equivalent are Singular propositions sitions, propoit is in both ; but surely of the terms because of the oneness there is generality animal evident enough that in A horse is an there is animal and no equivalence This horse is my ; whereas in and no generality. equivalence Likewise let us distinguish coextensive and equivalent notions. between Two coextensive logical wholes are aptlysymbolized by two concentric circles whose radii arc equal. But it should be kept in and hence are mind that these circles are mathematical quantities, rather equal. But coextcnsion belongsto the logical or equivalent, coextensive The following are whole, and is essentially qualitative. notions : ;" En;" Triangleand trilateral Honesty and probity
" " " " " " " " "
98
OF
JUDGMENTS.
"
flowerless
;" plants
But
ment thought of,i.e., whenever the judgis is the subject consuch terms in extension strued simple, containing the when in thought as contained under the predicate.And be replaced is thought, still the copula cannot coextension by the is equal to" but it should be read is coand read extensive signof equality
nor expressed
" "
with." Also
we
must
not
be embarrassed
by
the factitious
of generality
and doubt that the terms are individual propositions, many quantitative " A is equal to the quanA=B The quantity totals. ;" this means, tity
"
able, equalquantities, purelyas such,are indistinguishthe quanof A is the same The quantity as (isidentical with) tity of The strength Men are stronger than boys means of B." of boys." "Every diameter is a is greater than the strength men The lengthof every diameter is equal to the double radius means than The superior more move slowly planets lengthof two radii." is less than that of The the inferior means speed of the superior The specific Iron is not as heavy as lead the inferior." means old as Circus jokes arc of iron .is less than that of lead." gravity
B
;"
or, since
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
means
The
"
Women The
love best
is
equal to that
love is greaterthan
other."
"
that
abstract
are qualities
and totals,
are less,
when
identified
to
by
"
as."
wholes and the mathematical logical convertible in thought, often readily such transference requiring are of few verbal changes or none to adapt the expression to the mode presses Mankind," which in the very form of the word exthought. Thus be replaced notion containing under it species, a general may and race," which is individual, having no species, by The human into sections. So there are kinds of army ; and can onlybe partitioned all there are wings of an army. Being or thingis general, including is not a general kinds of existing notion, things ; but the Universe the but a mathematical whole, a collection of all thingsinto a unit, only one not a part of any other,and is capableonly of dissection. be thought as Again, the term animal is general ; but animals may collective whole comprisingmany individuals similar in certain (isa It remains observe that the
" "
THE
PROPOSITION.
99
sential such
as
may
deluge.
in and
indefinite article
ways ;
either of two
by thoughtinto parts, ark, and the part destroyedby the be interpreted a qualifying predicate may Gold is a metal thus means cally logi" "
be severed
think it that gold is a kind of metal,but we strictly may that gold is a part of metals taken as a collective mathematically, notion may be thus transmuted whole. In short, perhapsany general reduced in thought to a mathematical collective whole or a quantity, its species of many similar individuals, ered becoming dissevconsisting members. and the essential difference between the two modes weightyfact, is the reason, I apprehend, of thought, not being recognized, why and a number of subsequent Hamilton have attemptedthe logicians and to equations, reduction of all propositions proposedtherebyto the old logical But such reduction is artificial. supersede system.21 It exhibits the processes of thinking, not as they really occur, but in forms into which less violence. or they may be construed by more of Logic is possible Such a presentation only because of the power which the mind has of transmutingits notions from logical wholes
and
This
partsinto mathematical wholes and parts. On the other hand, the old Logic was limited
would part. A Latin logician
a
to
the
whole logical
and
called
judgment of degreeis a case and would relation all such insist on belongingonly to the logical forms being construed in the logical whole. no Hence, perhaps, bol symto such propositions, was nor were assigned they otherwise recognized. But these propositions in constant abound, they are use, they stand in ics and mathematas frequently premises all kinds of reasonings,
" "
consists
may, it is true, transmute but we then incur the most strictly logical,
of them.
We
them
into
ositions prop-
in the
this
with
again is
law. Moreover, attempt to bringthem under syllogistic for we not natural, not thought as it is, reason artificial,
It is without any such transference. propositions needful, then,to admit them to a prominent and importantposition in Logic if we would thinking. truly representhuman mathematical
and his Notably George Boole in his MatJiematical Analysisof Logic (1847), his the of Laws will A Investigation of principles of Thought. very good resume be found in Bain's Logic, make Jevons would Logic mechanical ! pp. 1 90-207. See his LogicalMachine,"facingthe titleof his Principles of Science.
"
3i
100
OF
JUDGMENTS.
is the form In each of the following propositions, " 14. Praxis. is it simple, what? or (" 7). If categorical, conditional, or categorical, duce or complex,or compound? (" 11). If simple or complex,rethe copula (" 6). form to strict logical (" 4),and interpret and quality solve Affix the symbol of quantity (" 10). If compound, re-
it into
its
elements, and
affix the
or express it as an equation and honor the king. to fear God 1. It is the duty of every man like home. disinterested. There is no place are 2. Very few patriots
symbol to inequality.
each.
If mathematical,
0. NothinoO
is harmless
that is mistaken No
news
for virtue.
news. me.
4. Men
are
all sinners.
is
good
"
6. One 7. Not
8. Not
Pope.
many
metals
are
without
lustre.
9.
beingrich is not alwaysan evil. Diogenes was no fool. but that which there is nothingbeautiful, -existent, Except the self
is not.
"
Rousseau.
into vice. passing if it is knowledge. Virtue is teachable, The rich are not therefore happy. All is not gold that glitters. civilization. of the highest None but Aryans are capable of Virginia. the father of the University Jefferson was
Hardly any
Ah The
many
meet,
"
shall be their
winding sheet.
far
as
Campbell.
flatters.
"
1C.
17.
possible.
he who
us
is not
none,
but
and
alone.
were
Shaks.
no more.
"
death,resistance
my
serves
order
Gibbon.
I propose
Whereto
That
thou art
Burnet. thoughtsonly as conjectures. of the visage mercy, but to confront Milton. happy, owe to God.
" "
offence?
Arrows George Eliot is Mrs. Lewes. Though this be madness, yet there's
Those
are
swifter than
in it.
"
eagles.
method
Shaks.
the class in
Logic.
There But
howsoe'er fireside,
vacant
defended,
won
has
chair.
"
Longfellow.
the
"
27.
28.
is Saltpetre
race.
There
are a
who
be
on
them.
Wordsworth.
29.
There's
ends,
Shaks.
Rough
hew
will.
"
THE
PROPOSITION.
101
30.
The
time
"
has
been
my
senses
would
have
cooled
to
hear
night
shriek.
31.
32.
Shaks.
so
Nothing is
Some few books
to
easy
are
as
to
object.
He
is
to
as
wise
as
Solomon.
some
to
be and
tasted, others
"
be
swallowed, and
L.
do
be chewed
now are
33. 34.
35. 36.
revels lived
ended.
I could
know
me.
king,but
dig his
the
"
Shaks.
shorter
;
"
Shaks.
joy the
far
world
"
give,
Byron.
his
means.
His
beyond
let thee
go, unless
thou
bless
was
me.
author
a
of Novum
Organum
not
the inventor
of Falstaff.
when fool,
he holdeth
wise.
It will The
hardlybe
is
sufficient to resolve
was generals
only a
few
of these
examples.
most
skilful of
Napoleon.
dishonest.
of forms
thought.
enter
every
in,but
Father.
circle is the
duties
was are
Your He
tasks have
are
all but
impossible.
many
errors.
too
impulsivea
is the
not
to
committed
Yonder He
forest
refuge of
outlaws.
"
51.
52. 53. 54.
first and
last will
Milton.
are
all men
and
is to be word, exclusively,
most
All
55.
56.
sublime
act
is to
put another
virtus.
thee.
est
de n'en
point attcndrc.
"
Tr.from Virgil.
20. viii,
57. Nobilitas
58. 59. 60.
atque unica
Juv.
"
Sat.
habet
spes
Troja,si tales
a
habet.
Seneca.
nisi Ia3ditur,
est
seipso.
"
Id.
61. 62.
has
fortes. et vir prudens quam vires, sapientia quam been a dead language for five hundred years. survives is the fittest.
which
102
OF
JUDGMENTS.
II. INFERENCES.
of modes previous topic we have examined seven An eighthremains, so important dividing judgments or propositions.
"
1. Under
the
separateand
the various
as
extended
consideration. which
This
grounded on
processes
:
by
judgments are
be stated
(
follows
Intuitions.
Judgments
are
"
( Inductive.
( Inferences.
-J
( Deductive,
( Im mediate.
-J
Mediate.
synthetic judgments of Kant These kind being empirical, the other pure. one from which all knowledge, the ultimate premises but They lie on the threshold of Logic, the science of principles. to Philosophy,
Intuitions
are
the
Inferences
from
we
are
defined by Aristotle to be
down follows and of
"
enunciations
in
which,
what
somethinglaid
have
laid down
Locke says, To infer is necessity." laid down as true,to draw in nothingbut,by virtue of one proposition another as true." (inferre) Says Mill : It is the act of drawing a conclusion from to infer is to derive a premises."More generally, premisedjudgments. judgment from one or more inferences Inductive are synthetic.They are universal judgments and of empirical derived from cases intuition, particular furnishing Their importance is so great premises for subsequentdeduction. discussion of them will require that an adequate a distinct treatise. Deductive inferences are analytic. They are inferred judgments of than that of the premises. They are the subject equalor less generality and mediate. immediate and are of two kinds, of Deductive Logic,
"
When
two
notions
known
as
related are, in
intervention
modified
a
the
of
third
notion
as
In this case the inference is immediate. one comparison, from another. There is but one premise, judgment is derived directly the the givenjudgment ; and the derived judgment merely represents givenmatter in a modified form.
104
OF
JUDGMENTS.
the Finally,
"
"
Immediate
and
Inference
is not
by
an
the Sum
of
of Thomson
McCosb,
of the
inference at
compound judgment
"
obvious
"
sort.
Thus,
"
merely compounded of Copper is red," Copper is malleable," It is strange phrasing etc. to call it inference from these components. It is also quite remarkable an that McCosh includes under this head the bringingtogether the components
of
a
tenacious
is
definition.
"
3.
As
preparatoryto
an we
account
of
those
several kinds
we
mediate of imstate
a
shall have
subsequent use,
of the
may
not
in the form to all deductions prohibition applicable RULE : The quantification We must not be increased. all to from all,
some
following
infer from
some
to some,
from
from
some
to
all.
no
It is
evident sufficiently
a
that what
only of
furnishes
ground for
statement
all. concerning
"
two
4. Active
and
Passive.
The
change from
active to
of immediate
inference to be noticed.
to be rather
from
the other.
is the
In
"
God
made
the
world,"something is said
In
"
God
;" he
the
of thought. subject
u
is The world,"and subject since the somethingis said of it. The inversion, too, is only partial, made is in the predicate Hence notion in both cases. I would prefer to consider this change as an immediate inference ; but it is a of littleimportance. question
was
The
world
made
by God,"
"
"
"
5. There
are
two
kinds
of immediate
inference
introduced
into
"
be stated
together,
terms
The
new
same
mark
may
be added
to both
of
judgment.
"
The
"
judgment thus
is
formed
"
is inferred from
the
cheap fuel ;" since Science is system," then A false science is a false system." is narrowed, is more The extent of both subject and predicate closely in a mark, going from genus to species. determined. This is thinking
Thus, since
Coal then fuel,"
"
other.
Cheap
coal is
We
same
determinant
not
an
from
both
ject sub-
also
but legitimate,
Complex Conceptions.
two
to parallel
The
terms
of
judgmentmay
marks
to the
concept.
INFERENCES.
105
then " A scientific arrangement is a Thus, since " Science is system," then The consumption systematic arrangement ;" and since Coal is fuel," of coal is the consumption of fuel." Two judgments may of one be amalgamated on this principle, the terms being added as
" "
marks
of
to the
terms
of the other.
"
Thus, since
"
museum
is is
a
tion collec-
tized systema-
"
the
6. Inflnitation.'
This mode
of immediate
merely negativejudgment to the in the outer, infinite sphereof things, the subject (i, " 9). It places and limits it only by the subtraction of the predicate from that sphere. Thus, from "The soul is not mortal,"I immediatelyinfer The soul is non-mortal." These propositions that express different not identical, but merely similar. The thoughts. They are not equal,
"
inverse inference
of
an
is included
under
a
the
mere
"
same
name
infinite proposition to
called infinitation.
we
Thus, from
"
combatants." not Quakers are immediately infer that purelyaffirmative and doublynegative judgments are said to iinitated thus,since and
vice
versa.
"
Also be in-
Man
is
then mortal,"
"
No
man
is
non-mortal;!*
the by infinitation, RULE : Change the quality of the judgment and of the predicate. This is done, if the premisehas either a negative copulaor predicate, the negative from to the other; if one by simplytransferring particle both are negative, it from both ; if neither, by subtracting by adding it to both. Observe that, of the judgment is always though the quality the quantity remains unchanged. This process Bain calls changed, but he denies that it is properly Obversion," an inference, insisting that the two notions arc mutually under the law of Relativity. implied To avoid awkward compounds with non, we make use of a privative has been or as as suffix, in-, prefix although, -less, etc., un-, dis-, remarked, words so formed are often not pure negatives. repeatedly of the quality, For example, but they often mean, not the privation the existence of it in a low degree So uncom; as, unwise, careless. crooked. We pounded negativeterms are generally impure ; as, night, inference
"
Hence,
for immediate
Commonly
in
a sense
in
different
ever, J^quipollence.We use this word, howlogicians the to mean accordant with its etymology, same more only thought Part 8. See 1st, phraseology. ii, "
106
OF
JUDGMENTS.
are,
then,to be
on
our
lest we tion,
derive too
Under
illustrations as
Since
"
follows,
are
All metals No
fusible ;
then
"
No
metal
is infusible is
A E I 0
E yields
"
miser is
sins
men
"
Some Some
"
Every miser
Some Some sins
men are
"
"
are
A O I
"
"
We
as
may
in the
series of immediate
inferences,
Since Then
Some Some
Then Then
Some Some
thingsare not intangible ; invisible thingsare tangible ; (Convertsimply.) tangible thingsare invisible ; tangible thingsare not visible
invisible
0 I
I
0
cians, Morgan, followed by Thomson, Bowcn, McCosh, and other logifrom the first by a complex rule, and derives this last directly of infinitation ; but,as it obviously volves inclasses it as a second method modes confuses two of inference. to do so conversion, needlessly
De One
Since Then
other
example,
"
Then Then
Every unjustact is inexpedient ; No unjustact is expedient ; (Convertsimply.) No expedient act is unjust; Every expedientact is just
would contend
A E
"
E
A
Some
ries, se-
hesitate to admit
"
7. Conrersion. and
In
immediate
inference
the by conversion,
ject subare
transposed.Besides
we
must
take
heed
make
naked
made predicate is meant without its signof quanterm a term a naked tity, has been a boy," Thus, from all,some, etc. Every old man infer that cannot we Every boy has been an old man ;" but only old man." Some has been a boy is an who one Hence, to avoid to reduce the proposineedful before converting tion error, it is generally and predito its strict logical form, that in which subject, copula, cate of will three We consider kinds illative only distinctly appear.
must subject subject.By
" " "
be made
and predicate,
INFERENCES.
and conversion,
these
onlyso
\ve
far
as
our
in
ing syllogiz-
which requires,
that is,
be able to
each
of the four
A, E, I,O. judgments
the terms without changing the Simple conversion transposes of the proposition. It may be applied the quality to E, or quantity
1st.
and to I.
Thus,
"
without
poet is
E E
I
Some Some
good
poor
mathematicians financiers
are
poor
financiers;
good
mathematicians
by A or E, is always " 13), symbolized judgment of degree (i, and only simplyconvertible. of a proposition 2d. Conversion per accidens reduces the quantity but leaves its quality (hencealso called C. by limitation), unchanged. is I. Thus, It is applied to A, cud the converse
The
"
Since Then
All Some
"
A
=
The
name
was
the universal
If
we
conversion
of
distribute the
of the convertend, linear "rectipredicate in becoming the subject does not change its quantity figures," of the converse. of the conthe subject vertend, But, for the same reason, of the affirmain becoming the predicate tive planetriangles," reduced. Also observe that our has its quantification converse, the I rule (" 3) forbids us to retrace this step to reconvert general
it is predicate,
"
"
into A. 3d.
E also may be converted per accidens. Conversion by contraposition changes the the
converse
of quantity
It proposition.
is I.
is
to applied
the
O, and the
RULE
:
contrapone
and Infinitate
Some Some
course
simply. Thus,
;
=
Since Then
pure
air is not
0
I
unwholesome
This is of
compound process, and was devised to convert O, It has been also "which cannot be converted simply, or per accidens. called conversion by negation." obvious that the doctrine it is sufficiently Upon a slight inspection An intensive of conversion has respect to judgments in extension.
a
"
108
OF
JUDGMENTS.
time changing its judgment cannot be converted without at the same into a concept ; as, All men into a mark, and its predicate subject
"
are
mortal
in
"
converts
to
"
Some
mortals
are
human."
Otherwise
the
be changed to extension. must converting lows (i, " 6),it folAgain,since an individual cannot become a predicate The individual judgment (i, that no " 8) can be converted. be held inconwhen used to representit, vertible. must " 10), symbolA or E (i, and is pretty," We say "Venus may say, "Something prettyis Venus ;" but this apparent conversion per accidens is only a This gives of thought is stillVenus. rhetorical inversion ; the subject
view
occasion to remark
that
no
mere
inversion is
conversion. logical
"
each
8.
Opposition.
forms
either
one
of in
the four
A, E, I,O,
the
same
matter
of the
The
is opposition
such
that if the
be taken as true, or as false, can we given proposition of the others. of at least some infer the truth or falsity exhibited upon a diagram, thus, kinds,usually
"
immediately
It is of four
All Salt is
Pure,
Contrary
No
Salt is Pure.
SQUARE
OF
;"
"
"*.
"^
OPPOSITION.
\S
Some Salt is
\J
Subcontrary
"
Pure,
!
"
Some
Salt is not
Pure.
1st.
the
same
in both cannot
be
quantityand quality. Both cannot be true, and both false. of the laws of statement This is merely a specific
and Excluded Middle.
an
Contradiction
be
sublated
"
Pure,"
posit
O, (affirm)
it is true
Salt is not
can
Pure."
Salt is
Pure," be
that
"
Some
men as
such doctrine,
If immediatelysublate E, No Salt is Pure." then it cannot has a conscience," be said Every man have no conscience." Again,if you prove that A mind and body, is to be believed, the connection between
"
have it is
shown thereby
that
doctrine
is to
be
disbelieved
because
incomprehensible."
INFERENCES.
109
Such
common
to phrase,
be
for diagonal
the
of A contraryopposition
"
and
E, and
is
for
this reason,
it being applied both to contraries and to contradictories.4 ambiguous, form of is the only perfect Contradictory opposition all others being more less imperfect. or opposition, Proof is direct and indirect. If we wish to refute an adversary, we
may
show
that his
arguments
are
do false,
not
sustain his
assertion,
and is fails. The result is merelynegative, which, beingunsupported, and prove his asserwish to go further, often sufficient. But we may tion false. positively the method If this is done
is direct.
by
if
an we
his
own
sertion, as-
But
contradictory
his assertion
infer and, having established it, immediately proposition, the method false,
"
is indirect.
are
Thus, if
one
affirms with
Hobbes
that
All human
motives
"
to
Some one prove that If this be established, then the this O that his is,
A is false.
may
was
undertake unselfish."
from
The
proof called
reductio ad
use
absurdum
is indirect and of
similar. quite
Euclid makes
much
of it.
Instead
demonstrates
and
2d.
and
E, universal propositions
in quality differing only. Both cannot be true, but both may be false. Between these propositions there is a tertium quid,namely I and O. If A, All S is P," be posited, E, No S is P," is sublated,
" "
and vice
versa.
But that
if either is
not
be
are
"Only
some
I and
O.
deny
some
that Stars
are,
Planets"
does not
Planets
some
true is,
that
and
are
"
To
are
No
wars some
evil
"
does not
some are
giveposition
not, then
to
All
are, and
both
the others
false.
or
The
Aristotelic doctrine
is the
of
the
one
here
de
quatre espeees.
II y
a:
1"
et de la possescelle des relatifs; 2" celle des contraires ; 3" celle de la privation sion la de Cette et the1'affirmation de i cal 4" enfin celle negation. (TiprjmQ t"ic) ;
joue un grand role dans le systeme d'Aristote." De la Looppositions ch. x. Tome 1838). See Aristotle's Categories, giqm D'Aristote, i, p. 172 sq. (Paris,
orie des
"
110
OF
JUDGMENTS.
tinctions in
Caliban
In
is
man,"
and
"
Caliban
often
is not take
man."
controversyopponents
establish
asserts
"
to failing
his
"
own
gives to
men are
the
apparent victory.
Another opposes
E. g., One
that
are
All
to be trusted."
this with
No
men cases
to be
some
face of cited
in
of his
but being unable to prove it in trusted," who are to be trusted, leaves the question
in of possession
and confusion,
not
opponent
have
the field.
Indeed,
they have
is too
faced squarely
each
that Some men are much, but the diametrical contradictory, would insure an easy victory. not to be trusted," which in this case I and O, particular exists between 3d. Subcontrary opposition ositions propin quality differing only. Both
be false. If
not
Hamilton
calls these
as
I, Some
"
S is P," be taken
true.
true,it may
that
"
be that
must
"
0,
"
Some If
"
S is Some
P," is also
But
if I is
then O false,
true
be true. Some
that
Some
be true
that
"
Some
are
not."
"
Some
S is
Some
P," the
then the propositions are intended, and hence strictness they become contraries,
is
no
"
"Some"
"inpure
subcontrary opposition.But
one
in the
"
is different from
that
in the other.
are perhapsall)
Thus,
if I observe may
that
Some
"
metals
(some at least,
it fusible,"
be that
"
Some
know,
rule
are
infusible."
Here
the
Some
"
is
holds
definite
"
if the Some good. But, further, (i, " 8),then our rule changes from
"
be
thought as
may
semi"
"
Both Some
be true
to
Both
must
be true."
Thus,
I know
that
"
flowers
"
(some at
flowers
most, not
are
"
not
it must
be true that
Some
4th. Subalternate
in
exists opposition
between
If I have
or a
bank, it is evident I
I cannot credit,
$5
$10.
If I have
$10
at my
draw
$100.
This is
specific application
112
OF
JUDGMENTS.
4
The summed
chief
as
not results,
"
meaning,may
be
follows,
"I
Contradictories }S is
"
One
must
be true,and
P, J
Some
S is P.
'^ P'
Contraries
"
Both
cannot
be false.
'
Some
is not
T.
P. )
Subcontraries
"
Both
may
be false.
All S is Some No
P,
-]
S is P.
iS
P.
It
tes
"
^ "$
^e
is true particular
S is P S is not
Some
\]
may be tabulated also
Contradictories.
r
The
same
matter
thus,
"
Contraries.
Subalterns,
"
If A
If E
is true, 0 is is true,
. "
.
false,
, A
E A
false,
false,
I true.
I is false,
_
0 true.
Umversals
""
_. .
If A
v.
is
0 false,
is
true.
The
)
otherg undetermined.
If E
I is true. is false,
If I is true, E
If 0
is
is false. )
is
The
otherg undeterminedi
A
. . .
Particulars
-j
i
true, A
If I is
E is true, false,
A false,
false.
If 0 is
is true,
E false.
Hence others
"
by
are
; otherwise
v *
The
old Latin
rather needlessly that opposition cannot warn us be logicians the exist unless of both propositions predicate [and the subject] violate this precaution, We when do not predicate we say they,
Manner;
as, Hector
is and
is not
man;
i.e., he is
dead
man,
but not
2.
is and
is not
he black; i.e.,
is
but black-haired,
red-
faced.
3.
is not with
an
with
4. Time
is not
; i.e.,he
is not when
boy,but
is at the
siegeof
Troy.
INFERENCES.
113
"
9. Praxis.
Draw
an
immediate
inference from
propositions by added
1. The
determinants
(" 5):
"
wages
of sin is death.
"
Use
2.
as
Noveltyis pleasure.
as a
Use
3. War
is
an
evil.
with
Use,
"
unprovoked,welcomed
ardor,which
reaches
to
our
hearth-stones.
Infer from
4. The
the
"
Use
the
5. Heaven
from
an
of fate.
"
Pope.
V-
Use,
"
wisdom
and love.
Combine
C.
each of the
one
Honesty deserves reward. whom meet is a neighbor. we Every man 7. The year is dying in the night. Tennyson. The swift runner is speedily exhausted.
"
industrious. feathers.
an
have reptiles
to
put
innocent
man
to
death.
men's
in the
right place.
old.
and jewels
brutes
are
grow
Convert
16.
each of the
"
Life every man holds dear. 17. Two straight lines cannot enclose
1 8. None 19.
are man
free who
do not govern
space. themselves.
With
20. Few
21.
know
impossible.
'Tis
22.
mortal soil.
114
OF
JUDGMENTS.
23. 24.
25.
loveth mistake
instruction, loveth
is
are no
knowledge.
proof
often
on
of
ignorance.
to
promises
falls many
no
not
be
trusted.
26.
shadow gem of
his tomb.
serene,
ocean
27.
purest ray
caves
dark
unfathomed
of
bear.
"
Gray.
From the
28.
each
of
the
immediate
ences, infer-
annexed the
conclusion
are
and
7) :
"
All
.'.
righteous
is
unhappy
are
is wicked.
29.
No
.".
virtues
perfect ;
are
superhuman. improbable
are
30.
Some
.*.
Some
true
cases
not
impossible.
31.
Some
.'.
not not
popular;
always unpatriotic.
The
unpopular
is
a
32.
Certainty
/.
kind
of
light;
Darkness
is doubt.
following propositions
false ?
are
true, what
opposites arc
Young.
also
true,
(" 8) :"
an
By
No Some Some
night
one
atheist
half
believes
God.
"
is
always happy.
are
democracies
unstable.
not
great
orators
are
statesmen.
following
true
are
false, what
"
opposite propositions
arc
also
false,
(" 8) :
37. All
3". 39. 40.
self-confident honest
men
persons become
have
strong will.
No Some
private
vices
not
are
Some
plants do
produce
INNOVATIONS.
115
III. INNOVATIONS. which " 1. Since the revival in England of the study of Logic, of Whately'streatise, about by the publication there has brought manifested
from
was
been
herited in-
much
as
of the Middle logicians Ages. This body of doctrine we have spoken of as the old,or Latin Logic, that it is obsolete, not meaning to intimate thereby to even or likely it from recent doctrines. vanish away, but simplyto distinguish The from of dissatisfaction has arisen not so much a supposedinaccuracy the old doctrines as from their supposed inadequacy.Many important modifications and additions have been proposedby high authorities, such as Hamilton, De Morgan, Mansel, Boole, Thomson, Mill, but as yet few have been generally Bain,Jevons,and others, accepted, its the old holds and has been the chief Logic ground. Hamilton his views have been most and made innovator, widely discussed, the deepestimpression will give our attention eswe pecially ; and, therefore,
the scholastic
Latin
to them.
"
been
2. Hamilton's
doctrine
of
the semi-definite
"
Some"
has
already
whether it should be received questionable into Logic at all, even as a mere exception. Some," if not either a wholly and simply indefinite, probably always designates else a compound or wholly definite judgment imperfectly expressed, judgment whose two elements are each whollyindefinite. If we say members of this University Some this are now studyingLogic," a certain Some," i.e., judgment in our minds would be whollydefinite, "All the members of the Philosophy Class are now studyingLogic," of the University. without any thought whatever of other members But
" " "
stated/
it is very
In
" i,
of
8.
It may
be remarked
consequence
to
the old
doctrine
fearful.
to
in the
Appendix
out. the whole scheme Logic, p. 535, where with the of doctrine old new the one Opposition replacing entirely of "Incompossibility," and hence better, it would to seem simpler and sufficient, treat the cases of the semi-definite meaning as exceptions to the old rules. Instead of thus
Hamilton's
is
worked elaborately
116
OF
JUDGMENTS.
should be reduced to judgment then is A, and the proposition with the thought. Again,if we that form, in conformity Some say flowers are fragrant," then this implies at most, not all," meaning some the counter-thought that "Some flowers are not fragrant."If in a grammatically this double thought be expressed simplesentence, for the logician that it be expressed, then we have postulates Only flowers are fragrant."This is an exponible some compound proposition flowers which into how Some know not (I analyzes many) are flowers (I know and "Some how not (I), fragrant" many) are not fragrant" (0). Each of these elements considered in itself, entirely is for the indefinite I meaning of ; apart from the other, wholly know how not many" must in that case be "perhaps all." The semi-definite character does not at all appear unless one judgment is this is the case the other ; and when the judgas limiting recognized ment is not simple, but compound. Now to be n Logic, professing of thought, must not stop short of its simpleelements, thorough analysis the compound as co-ordinate with the simple, must not recognize and does not, cannot, undertake to formulate the compound modes of thought, which are legion, but evolving their elements formulates only these. Therefore the semi-definite judgment,being compound, forms of thought, be denied a position must the elementary among perfect imand if recognized take its place the abbreviated, at all must among of statement, subject modes to analysis at any moment and full discrete expression. The
" "
"
"
"
importantaddition to the old Logic proposed by is his doctrine of "The Hamilton Thorough-goingQuantificationof The old Logic teaches that negatives the Predicate."8 distribute the affirmatives do not teaches that in (i, " 9). Hamilton predicate, both affirmative and negative be either judgments the predicate may distributed or undistributed. Hence, to the four Aristotelic judgments four of the old Logic he has others, superadded commonly
"
3. The
most
the Novum
called bis great work Appendix,p. 509 sq. As Bacon Logic, in the Aristotelic to allusion Oiyanon, so Hamilton calls his Oryanum, in allusion to Aristotle's Analytics," New Analytic," treatment of these for.ms the and proposes cellent thereby to placethe keystonein the Aristotelic arch." For an exof Hamilton's statement An see warmly approved by himself, views, Essay the New on Analyticof logical Forms, by Thomas Spencer Baynes, an admiring from having been a prize The Essay is the more pupilof Hamilton's. interesting See Hamilton's
" " "
examination
paper.
INNOVATIONS.
117
judgments. These
are
included
in the following-
TABLE
OF
THE
EIGHT
PROPOSITIONAL
FORMS.
BEST
men
are
all reasoners
|mcn
lovers
C:
"-
:P
"
men
are
some
lover?
[men
poets
":
Aff.
"
men
are
all poets
[tm?n
singers
(^ C,
,^_
.p
men
are
some
singers
|me"
s'ngers
"
,P
"owe 5, w, ini,Parti-partial,
men
are
not
some
singers.lnc"
poets
me"
. .
C,BT- ,P C, "K
:P
"
Some vi,0,ina,Parti-total,
men
are
not
any poets.
lovers
"
any
men
are
some
lovers..
meu
":""-,P
C: H:P
brutes
WORST
"
E, viii,
ana,
men
are
any
brutes..
mea
.
is needed. to discussion, The table explanation, preparatory of symbols, and of examples. All the consists of six columns one the same thing. In.the first symbols in any one horizontal line mean Roman numerals t he column, the designate Aristotelic or Latin judgments ond judgments. In the sec; the Arabic numerals, the Hamiltonian column, the Hamiltonian judgments also are designated by vowel Some letters:
u
for
universal ; Y, and E.
In
as
correlatives of O
or
u"
and
77,
as
the Greek
a
stands for
sal univer-
undistributed term ; or particular for the negative stands for the affirmative copula f (affirmo) ; n (ncyo) in each of the first consonant copula f and n being respectively needs serve obthose words. The fourth column no explanation ; but we the affirmative that its symbols are defective in not distinguishing from the negative forms, and must therefore be supplemented by
distributed
term
; i for
"
the words
"affirmation"
or
"negation."The
that "men"
for
"
is of
amples, ex-
in which
both
"
males
and each
females ; and
birds"
are instance,
lovers" of
are
is the linear
118
OF
JUDGMENTS.
vice deingenious As of Hamilton's, to which,however, he gave no name. specific will call it the "Graphic Notation" it is not properly we symbolic, is expressed The subject or by C or T (gamma),the third predicate of the Roman and Greek alphabets.These are letters respectively unconscious taken that they may be indifferent, no preference being which perhapsmight not be if they were successive given to cither, lettersfrom the same pressed alphabet. The distribution of either term is exAll C." next to it ; thus C: is read The by a colon standing is expressed next non-distribution of cither term to it ; by a comma thus ,F is read Some T." The positive copulais expressed by a pointed crossed (H-). The peculiar dash ("^) by the same ; the negative of the device is that it discriminately sion advantage expresses either extenthis copula indicates intension. or Pointing to the predicate, extensive contained an judgment, and should therefore be read The seventh column
more an
" " "
calls for
remark.
It is
is read
"All
is contained intensive
"
under
some
F."
it indicates an Pointingto the subject, " comprehends;" thus C: ,P is read Other examples are: ,C:=Some F,
" "
All C
is contained any
some
C;
I1
any
is contained
under
T;
-H:C JT,
Some
"
Worst"
in
we
the
declare "best"
we
"
declare "worst"
deny
a worse
any
of the
terms
judgments in
than any that
relation between
The
no require remainingpoints
explanation.
us
"
4. The
before firstquestion
77, are
Whether is,
forms of them?
the four
and uses,
Y, w, and
not
never
such
as
the mind
some
may tions
rarelyor
all, some,
express
True
the
predesigna-
in the above table as quantifying the occurring in the old forms we not usually so are are expressed. Still, predicate, for the predicate.Thus in A, we said to think in a quantification think All are some ;" in O, Some are not any,"etc. Now, do we All are all," Some think are also sometimes not are all," Some any,
" " " "
"
not
some," and
The
seems all,"
Not
common
use
of the
afa,
"
All
are
to
be
overwhelming.
If
we
into inquire
quantity
a
of the
whenever "Man
erty prop-
is all that is
120
OF
JUDGMENTS.
and predicate to be of any moment. Each ject ceases, it is claimed, it becomes indifferent which stands first, term quantified, ment every judgof two terms. being reduced to an equationor non-equation the old doctrine of Conversion is swept away, and we Consequently terms at will.4 Upon this we mark resimplytransposethe quantified may at once, that to claim that the distinction between the subject, that which we that which we are speakingof,and the predicate, say of it, has been reduced to naught,is absurd; for to nullify this distinction would require not a mere of technical forms,but remodelling of the forms of human a remodelling thought. will concede that the two But we affirmative Hamiltonian ments judgin thought, and occur (whatever may be said of the negative) however,does not entitle them appear in our reasonings.This alone, in Logic co-ordinate with the Aristotelic forms. to a position Before what decidingupon this claim it is needful to re-examine them all somemore closely.
"
Are
5.
The
second
can
to question,
be
decided
with
the
Hamiltonian
be
admitted
to
rank
to show they but compound, and hence are to be rejected. they are not simple, The two negative have been rejected forms,ani and ini, by nearly writers on various grounds. They at once all logical excite prejudice forms of speech. by being so awkward, and so unlike the common and not the power, Says Thomson, "They have the semblance only, of a denial." We exclusion ; and add, that a denial is essentially an if the quantity of the thing excluded be thought of at an exclusion, exclusion is meaningless, ex m or all, is, termini, of a total. A partial rather a self-contradictory phrase. The exclusion of a part of a thing that the total portion is totally has meaning,and it is, excluded. Let that a total exclusion (a tautological is differit be remarked ent phrase) from the exclusion of a total. Moreover, we may totally exclude, without any thoughtwhatand in simplejudgment do totally ever exclude, of the thingexcluded. of the quantity no Therefore, simple ative negpredicate. judgment can have a particular If it be said that the exclusion of a part implies the non-exclusion and that this is expressed of another part, by ni,we replythat such a of a simplenegative, is compound, consisting exproposition totally
simplejudgments?
We
undertake
Hamilton's
Logic, p.
525.
INNOVATIONS.
121
arid of a simple affirmative, eluding, including.Such compound judgments are admitted to be conceivable, they may be sometimes in in reasoning, useful, they may appear as premises they may occur forms. But, being compound, they cannot claim a place syllogistic less can in Logic, much "hey take rank with the simpleforms, to and to which they must themselves reducible, be rewhich they are duced in any completelogical analysis. It is at least The form ifa has been accepted by some logicians. When Some the simple we men are poets," say very questionable. Some contained under the class poets,' are men meaning is that In neither Some that men are poetical." or, changingto intension, does there seem to be any thought case, in this simplepredication, in the predicate.It is neither "all poets"nor whatever of quantity is indefinite in an absolute sense, i.e., some poets." The quantity it does not exist in the thought. If the question stantly think inwe arises, All poets are men," and compounding the two proposithat tions for the sake of brevity, all poets we men are may say, Some ("ifa). This,then,also appears to be a compound proposition. of an I maintain here that the predicate well as of as affirmative, has strictly whatever. That assigned a negative, no quantification by the old Logic is merely in view of conversion, vance, it has no other relein anticipation of the converse. and is given solely Now a is which coming term thought without reference to quantitycannot in beof an trudes) the subject affirmation (unless another judgment inbe anythingother than the wholly indefinite "Some" (" may be next to none, or perhaps all). Hence the scholastic rule that the of affirmatives is (in view of conversion) undistributed ; and predicate in thought into I,if the judgments be simple therefore also A converts be swept away by any logical ; and the rule per accidens cannot with words, objectively, to device. For true Logic is not a juggling of what occurs what may be done with them, but a representation see in our subjectively thoughts.6 If this falls, all But the stronghold of Hamilton's doctrine is afa. the others go with it. Let us observe that the doctrine of a quantified either old or new, is applicable predicate, only to judgments in extcn" "
*
"
"
"
"
"
"
Let
term
us
rule requiring that the middle that in the syllogistic note, by anticipation,
be distributed at least once,
"
warned that the predicates of usually affirmatives are not distributed," It should be, are a pure undistributed." ative, negto which is equivalent meaning less than particular." undistributed,"
we are
" " "
122
OF
JUDGMENTS.
for thinking a good reason quantityinto the of conversion, in the old doctrine ; but to in anticipation as predicate is alwaysquantified that the predicate in thought hold with Hamilton is to exclude the judgments in intension from Logic. But,by a curious insists than any other logician, sion, he, more inconsistency, upon intenand ever, expands Logic to embrace it fully. One of the two, howbe givenup. must must we But, if we giveup intension, giveup and then Logic ceases for intension is primary, extension to be. also, have in extension no absolutely meaning Says Mill,"Propositions The Logic of the quantibut what they derive from comprehension. fied and the out of takes leaves them them, comprehension predicate This consequence is certainly sufficient to cast a a caput mortuum"
sion.
We
can
sec
shade
When
of
over suspicion
we
all trilaterals," arc triangles the whole to cover is it not evident that, ground occupiedby this that "Every triangle is first, statement, two judgments are required: that ?" How trilateral," and, secondly, Every trilateralis triangular is it possible that to be a simplejudgment which is divisible to pronounce of these may into two, and especially when be thought one
"
make
without when
one
the
when other,
may
"
and
the other
unknown,
If "All All
trilaterals is Is it half
a
is
"
In Hamilton's the
"
often as this determination of the smallbecomes est as predicate by adding a//, import This it does directly some, or their equivalent it to the predicate; the same or accomplishes predesignations E. g., Directly limitative form. in an exceptive or end indirectly, : as, E. g., Indirectly: Peter,James, John, etc.,are all the apostles.' as, is is all that God is i.e., the ''God alone is good,' good;' Virtue i. e., Virtue is all that is noble ;' On earth there is only nobility,' great.' Now the nothinggreat but man,' i.e., Man is all earthly has always been,as stated by Scheibler : Omnis doctrine of logicians alteram alteram exclusiva resolvitur in duas simplices, affirmatam, been discussed (i, " 12). If it be negatam. This view has already and exclusive propositions are correct,if such exceptive compound, and illustrations, statement that then it appears from Hamilton's own afa is a compound proposition.
* * * * ' i " e
6ioyzV, p. 517.
INNOVATIONS.
123
It may be conceded that that this form afa is familiar in speech, if you please, it is natural, that men make constant of it in reasoning, use that such which
one
or
in forms reducible to syllogistic are easily reasonings and perspicuity both premises are are afa,that brevity
promoted by its use, and hence that it should be included in every of human in this of the forms logical analysis thought. But .Logic cannot proposed analysis stop short of simple and ultimate forms. If it were art teachingns how to reason how to detect an or even in. reasoning, for an then there might be occasion elaboration error and symbolizing of compound forms,though indeed the work would be endless. But as it is on the higherground of a science, ing showone
how
we
do and must
as
it think,
is out
of character to
pound presentcomcan
the results of
is all
B,
can
be
is A.
whatever
or
be
proved
"
All A
B, and All B
can
is all B, is A.
which could
B proved from its elements It is not possible that there should be a single instance in from premises with quantified a conclusion, provable predicates, not be proved from if we the same set forth all unqualified,
are a
be
be
those which
involved. really
an
instance,
the doctrine of
would be a real addition to the quantified predicate theoryof thought; otherwise not.7 of Mill, De Morgan,Bain, supported by the authority Consequently, and others, to the intrusion of the compound form we object afa,and its train, the simple forms, and reject the doctrine of The among ilton. Quantification of the Predicate," Thorough-going taught by HamWe into are glad to escape from the fearful complications and rest in the comparative which it leads, of the Aristosimplicity telic Logic; and we honor the old logicians in the belief that, during
"
the two
years of their acute and were not allowed considered, surely did not
to belong
thousand
these discussions,
in their
forms
were
the
would
"
6. The
foregoing argument
exclude his forms
trine, docview
and
from
the Aristotelic.
The
taken is
it does not
exhibit completely
us
cognates. Let
examine
their It
yet
7
more
We closely.
have
pronouncedthem
compounds.
124
OF
JUDGMENTS.
to say that each results from the accurate perhaps be more and becomes a logical judgments, simple compounding of two simple, mathematical explanation. judgment. This needs some Hamilton of distributed and undistributed predispeakscontinually cates. but only,as The old Logic,too, uses the same expressions, have said, plished accomwe which, indeed,is already precursory to conversion, is thoughtinto the predicate. We the quantification soon as as of a purely have denied that the predicate logical judgment has, simple that it is absolutely or can whatever, have,any quantification affirming thrust in indefinite. We now add,that a quantitative predesignation moves a predicate by the compounding of two simplejudgments reupon fers the judgment from the logical or whole,and transqualitative whole. mathematical it to the quantitative or Hence, if we view the judgment in reference to its origin, we may call it compound, or must no longer compounded; but if we view it in its own sense, we but a simplemathematical call it a logical, judgment (i, " 13). For, consider the meaning of "all" in the predicate.It is not, it but is always the cannot divisive, be,the distributive, exemplar all," whole. cumular indivisible, "all,"a mathematical total, E.g.,"All are men bimana;" this is the distributive "all," meaning that all,
would
"
each,and every
us
man arc
"
is in the
say "All
men
has the mark, bimana. But let or class, all bimana;" this does not mean "Every man
men nonsense. are
is all every
bimana," nor
All
is
every It
bimana," nor
means
"
"
Every
man
is
bimana,"which
"All
men
(asa
in
"
collective whole) all bimana Thus all are total, (as ditto). is never but cumular,and enforces the the predicate distributive, of the also subject
a
all "
a
to
be cumular.
a
predicate
" "
of
is negative
not mathematical,
some
in the
the
the
is a mathematical whenever predicate part. More generally, is designated, both terms uals, individare quantityof the predicate and the judgment is mathematical. The effect of thus quantifying is to transmute the judgment from the qualitative the predicate to ilton's whole,in which it is simple. This shows that Hamquantitative distributed predicate is a complete misnomer, and the fact
" "
To
avoid
future forms
Hamiltonian
by their
esteem
we author,
will note we misapprehension, that, though denying to the the rank and importantposition assigned to them in Logic occasion to have for the sake of brevity, in syluse them, may logizin
use
Also
a
we
shall be free to
to
his nomenclature
and
valuable contribution
the
of appliances
technical
we
PART
FOURTH."
OF
REASONINGS.
I. THE
SYLLOGISM.
treatment
"
1.
The
and logical be
first
natural
of
definition
fixes be
notions; then
kinds.
let general,
that
subdivisions
is
which ascertained,
its denotation.
then settled,
Thus,
in
We
one
refers
before us. now proceed with the subject defined thought in a general have already to be the bringsense ing notion in or under another. This duplex definition obviously of thought, to the two the intension and the extension. quantities The distinction
in
between
we
these found
is
we thorough-going;
met
it be
at
the
outset
concepts ;
notion of
a
that
construed
in either
quantity ;
and may
we
to
be true of
reasonings. As
of
every
a
either
complement
marks,
as
or a
as
kind
thing,so
into
a
either
marks bringing-in
a
under
genus.
But
from
or by judging. thought is either by conceiving and judgment are Now let it be again observed that conception kinds or species and the same not two of thought, but one thing in a different form, or viewed different aspects or under phases. Every judgment, and every judgment is an explicit concept is an implicit the definition givenabove of thought is equalconcept. Consequently ly the definition of conceiving and of judging. There are, however,two rect, dithe immediate kinds of conception, or
"We
have
and Second.
are are
or
indirect.
The
first has
been
treated
in Part
comparison of two notions by which they when The second occurs we or immediately conjoined, disjoined. and rethrough ignorance unable to make a direct comparison,
direct
126
OF
REASONINGS.
sort
to
third former
notion,which
enables
us
with
or
to
their agreement
and consequently to conjoin them. This or disjoin disagreement, Immediate is mediate conception. has received no specific conception when the unqualified word is used. and is always understood name, is called reasoning.This,then, is the logical inition defMediate conception : Reasoningis mediate conception. in this view. I have the notion man Let us exemplifyreasoning I am On comparing these, and the notion free-willed. unable to decide to that concept. By the prinwhether or not this mark belongs ciple of
the Law
of
or a
Excluded
Middle
am
constrained
cannot
to
believe
which, I
termine. deimmediately
sponsible, re-
So I seek and I
see
comparison.
man
that directly
that
the notion
the
notion
involves responsible
man
involves view.
as
one
of its marks
free. This is the intensive would the matter extensive quantity, not to decide whether or directly
I know that the class free-ag cnts
But
proceedrather in be expressed thus : I am able unis a kind of free-agent. man contains under it the species sponsible reunder
it
man
If 1
agents, and
able
one now
and
so
am as
to
under
it
man
of its kinds.
In
exact
accordance
with
we this,
now
observe
that there
are
two
the immediate and the mediate rect. indior or direct, judgments, Immediate It judgment has been considered in Part Third. but issues in the explicit also is the direct comparisonof two notions, Mediate judgment ocdeclaration that theyare conjoined or curs disjoined. to judge this agreement or disagreewhen, not beingable directly ment, of comparison, and explicitly seek a third notion as a medium we
kinds of
state
does
or
does
not
agree
with
this
third;and thus
or
enabled to conclude
do
whether they do explicitly other. This is mediate ate judgment. Immediand is alwaysunderstood no name, specific
is used.
when
the The
word unqualified
Mediate
judgmentis
called
ing. reason-
then,is: Reasoningis mediate judgment. definition, logical It is quite evident that there is no essential difference between diate memal, and mediate judgment ; the difference is merely forconception and is usually ment neglected.Also it is evident that a mediate judgwill exhibit three propositions. when Let in words expressed
128
OF
REASONINGS.
Another definition is : A clearly larly will hereafter more appear. is an inference is derived from by which one proposition Syllogism contained in the others. the one others conjointly, two beingvirtually with this definition : A SylloAristotle opens his Prior Analytics gism i n enunciation is an from (Aoyoe, oratio) which, somethinglaid down and admitted, somethingdistinct from what we have laid down, follows of necessity." the import of this last phrase, follows of Let us consider at once of a syllogism The essence not in the truth of consists, necessity."
" "
"
the but
nor new
is
inferred,
judgment,the truth of be denied without which cannot cepted acimpugning those we have already of the syllogism, for true. In other words, the essence and all is the necessary of the that is actually declared by it, consequence flows from the necesconclusion from the premises. This necessity sary the syllogism to which character of the primary laws of thought, quently alone it is ultimately and by which conforms governed. It is frein the conclusion by the addition of "must." For expressed example, productionof
a
and
distinct
"
are
fusible,
gold is
must
metal,
be fusible.
The
common
then,between distinction,
demonstrative
and
moral
or
lies wholly in the matter, not at all in the form. probable reasoning, is in all cases The form, or rather the process, by which we the infer, i.e., apodicdemonstrative, equally same, and is in all cases, if correct,
tic, necessary.
affirmation of necessary sequence being the essence, it follows that the syllogism is really indivisible act only one judgment,a single The
thought. Though apparently complex, though in a certain sense three judgments, it does not affirm either of them taken including but only the necessary dependence of one the others. on separately, It is a judgment concerning the relation of one judgments, affirming easilybe expressedin a singleproposition ; may sequence, and That is is it fusible inference from the an e. g., gold judgments that of the metals, and that they are all fusible. is one of this doctrine is that Logic does not conAnother cern consequence of the several propositions. itself with the truth or falsity One all may be false, the antecedents, the consequent or but,havinggranted also be allowed, if the reasoning is sound,the syllogism must regular.
of
THE
SYLLOGISM.
We
is
the consequent note that the antecedents beingtrue, however, what measure of doubt belongs to the antetrue. cedents, Also, necessarily of doubt, no no justthat measure less, belongsto the more, may, But should the antecedents
is
consequent.
be established
be found
it does false,
not
consequent is false ; it
true
upon
some
other
were Italy were were
The The
.'. The
Greeks of
natives
Italy ;
Greeks.
Grant
these
be
for it admitted,
follows of
But necessity.1
not
consequent is
Before
for false,
prove
it from
two additional remarks may be entering upon another section, is an expression of one of the units of which appended. A syllogism elaborate argument is only the sum. The longest chain or the most most complex net-work of reasoningmay be stated in syllogisms linked together. The links are quitesimilar. When we thoroughly
understand
true
and
not
kinds,we
understand
all. of
It is
that
does argumentation
form
logisms syl-
abbreviated
by elisions and
variations from
elaborate it may be,stillit can be resolved into its and these stated in regular form and consecution. elementary syllogisms, however
and conversation, common-place thinking of our if closely even witticisms, lightest analyzed and many will be found to resolve into syllogisms. stated, fully is but a repetition of one The other remark made. In previously the study of reasoning not advancingbeyond complete we, of course, are system. The function of reasoningor mediate judgment is clear and distinct, to ascertain their to make our solely conceptsmore in the hierarchies and thus to fix their places true relations to each other, and more of our which therebyapproximatemore thoughts, of knowledge. the perfection to completesystems,
our
Moreover, much
of
bk. ii, ch. ii;and, Logic^ p. 322. Priora, per contra,Esser,in Hamilton's treated Aristotle as by Syllogism, of Logic. The student in the Prior Analytics, read by every should be carefully best text of the Organon is probably that of Theo. Waitz, accompanied by his valuable that the of Latin commentary is but be to it isagogue Porphyry regretted ; been included. has The 1844), not, at least in the edition I am using (Leipsic, and must not be neglected. translation and commentary of St. Hilaire is classical, For English readers Owen's and Poste's text, and notes translation (Bohn's ed.), excellent. and De arc translation, notes on 1866), Soph.(Macmillan, See Anal.
It may be well to say here that the doctrine of the
'
130
OF
REASONINGS.
"
our
2. The
treatment
next
step in the
treatment
of the
like syllogism,
that in
is to view it as a mathematical or proposition, it thus and The obtained sever whole, by partition. quantitative parts cated. by dissection are to be examined and named, and their relations indiwill then proceedto consider the kinds of syllogism. We has been anticipated, consists of three propoThe as syllogism, sitions,
of the
two
of which
are
called the
are
and antecedents,
the
consequent. The
in the together
two.
antecedents To
and premises,
is to (con-cludere)
which
Aristotle describes a conclusion as a together perfect ; as when is an The example in the syllogismof the extremes." following of extension, quantity
"
All Men
Persons Men
;
=M:
=
""
P M
P
"
Major
Minor
=
Premise Premise
;
;
All Slaves
.*. All
S: S:
"
Slaves
Persons
""
Conclusion.
There
are
here
only three
terms to
or
"
Slaves being contained under Men, and Men part, under Persons. Persons,then,is the term of widest the symbols) ; Slaves,
extent.
term
being contained
extent
(asin
the
of least extent
; and
Men
of intermediate
is found in each
This
M, which
Term,
of the which
;
but not in the conclusion. The other two premises, terms, called the Extremes, are both found in the concluare sion together separately they are called the Major Term and the Minor Term.
we
may
define
Term
as
follows,
"
Middle
(M) is the
the
one
with
which
each
of the extremes
compared in
Major
Term
premises. It
term
Argument.
(P)is the
of
whole. The
Minor
It
the least or (S)is the term of least quantity, is always(inextension) of the conclusion. the Subject
is the
Major
Premise
It
placedfirst. usually
Minor Premise
is the
the premisecontaining
Minor
Term.
It
usually placedsecond.
THE
SYLLOGISM.
131
Examples in
transmute
All Slaves
the
quantityof
into this
intension
will
now
be
one
given.
other,
"
We
the
are
one
above
;
and quantity,
=
add
" "
human
are
Silver is Metallic ;
; Metal /.
S: M: S:
M
P P
\ "" =
Personal
is Positive ;
"
S:
"
M:
"
Slaves
are
Personal.
Silver is Positive.
"
The
and
"
somewhat the
By
"
Positive
the graphicnotation'2 on the right, in the conclusion. form This condensed is copulaof the extremes like that standing read exactly justbefore it. The extensive syllogism be expressed in a similar way, only the copulas of course can read in the direction that the copula When inverted. we are points, is contained under ;" when we read it should be read i.e., extensively, in the direction opposite i.e., intensively, to that the copula points, ** it should be read comprehends" In changing the extensive syllogism into the intensive, the middle of the extremes continues but the relative quantity term intermediate,
"
is in
inverted;the greatest part in extension (P) becomes the least part and vice versa. This is in accord with the law that extension intension,
and
intension
are
in inverse
ratio.
In the
example
is
"
Silver
this
S Positive," comprehends
obviously
Hence, in intension the major and the minor is the the Subject of the conclusion, term
P the least.
of the conclusion. And
Predicate
placethe the order of the premises is transposed. We major premise first, have, then, for changing a syllogismof either quantityinto the the followingRULE : Transpose the premises, and invert in other, thought the meaning of the copula; i.e., instead of "comprehends"
to
hence,since it is usual
think
"
is contained
under"
and
vice
versa.
For
example.
"
are
Positive elements
; 5)
-J
Silver is Is
a a
"
:M
"
:i
( .*. Silver
of
is syllogism
so
that general
apply to
either
renders it I
"
he says in the first part call," that which its is both itselfin the mid-
of the Prior
the Analytics,3
"
middle which
term
another
and another
in it ; and
by
lies in position
See Part
3d,iii, " 3.
Ch. iv.
132
OF
REASONINGS.
The
extremes
that which
is in
in
another
is.
major
extreme
the
4
is ; the minor
extreme,
of
as
that which
is under
It
P inheres
M
.'. P
is predicatedof,all M ;
is is
of,all predicated
S ;
predicatedof,all S.
dle bringsthe middle term, as he says above,into the midto state the preferring position.Soon after his day logicians, in their natural form with the subject first, propositions transposed in in order to keep the middle term the middle position. the premises,
We
have,then,the
"
(
Ancient order
"
is P ;
( /.
This order
was
S is P.
thought it in this reto placethe major premisefirst, more spect important returning and these high authorities determined to Aristotle, subsequent in method of the in exour tension, Consequently stating syllogism usage. from the time of Aristotle until the only quantity recognized the middle term does not have middle place. recently, There however, no valid reason why the major premise seems, natural to begin should have precedence. It is said that it is more
our
observed
of
who Bocthius,
statement
with
the
greatestwhole.
a
It may be so, but in the often find the order of we reasoning conclusion
and the or or thesis, problem, qucesitum, in reversed order ; as, Silver is a positive element ; for it is elements." Is not this quitea and all metals are positive unless a more ? If so, then unquestionably, order of statement
" 4
metal,
natural satis-
Anal
Pri. i, iv.
The
middle
term
is the
them.
when Properly,
or
meaning
mean
of ye
thing we
ing seek"
the Ex.
mean
middle
term
notion.
our
by
26. xii,
Meanness,as appliedto
Can To
you
save
using means,
mean
has
acquired a
bad
sense.
imagine I
my
so
could prove,
my
life by is
a
changing of
love ?
"
Dryden.
had sense,
The
cat's paw,
the middle
is the
THE
SYLLOGISM.
133
reason factory
can
be
adduced, we
are
proved ap-
of
tion conven-
and the syllogism. reasoning and so determinin rule, Reasoningis bringinga case under a general the asserthe major premiseis a rule, tion it. In the syllogism The minor the Sumption (Obersatz). of a generalcondition, somewhere or that the condition of the rule, premiseis the cognition under the condition takes place other, ; or, is that which brings a case of what of the rule, the Subsumption (Vntersatz).The nexus somewhat
different
view
of
is subsumed
under
the condition,with
a
the assertion
of
the
is rule,
the Conclusion
that
a
Hence (Schlusssatz).
certain
of its condition
the conclusion
a
syllogismis the cognition is necessary, through the subsumption proposition understand under rule. Hereby we a givengeneral in thingsindividual, but as not as manifested priori,
as
maintained,and universally
And universal
necessary under a certain condition. and is determinable in that all stands under the universal, this,
of necessity.8 itself of rationality or laws,is the principle
"
3.
In
proceedingnow
to
the consideration
of
kinds,we
notice,
into deductive and inductive. reasonings truth from consists in drawing a less general Deduction a particular or Induction consists in rising truth antecedently known. from a general of a general It is rule or law. facts to the determination particular which has justbeen given of reasoning evident, then,that the account and the syllogism relates exclusively to deductive thought. Many writers on Logic, induction as a kind of reasoning accepting opposed the inductive process to syllogistic to deduction, attempt to subject forms and commendable. The results are not laws. nor profitable
the first,
common
division of
Likewise
in the
the following
:
order of the
of propositions
the involved
syllogism
is
reversed completely
"
Qui melior
Non
servo,
cum
avarus,
In triviisfixum
demittit ob assem,
quoque
; porro,
"
video ;
metuens
nam
Qui
The
erit
unquam."
Hor.
16. i, Epist.
argument
re-ordered
stated thus
Whoever The
.'. No
6
Sumption. Subsumption.
Conclusion.
See
Logik, ""
134
OF
REASONINGS.
tioned They are menhere only to say that it is at least very questionable whether be viewed the inductive process can of reasonas a ing properly species not under the definitions of reasoning have at all, we certainly it will be understood that by reasoning given. Without presentdiscussion, the deductive process, and hold that the syllogism mean we to it. and its laws pertain exclusively is a general Since the sumption of a syllogism since the or rule, major premisecontains notions of wide,often of absolute, generality, of the reader, the questionmay have alreadyarisen in the mind Whence are they obtained ? To say they are the conclusions of prior be true,but is an insufficient and wider reasonings cases may in most to these. recurs as What, then,is the question answer, for the same tion ultimate source We of these generalities? answer, it is either intuithat induction. or By the former we know, for example, Every of gas is in the that "The volume change is caused;" by the latter, inverse ratio of the pressure." Sciences whose deductions are wholly
An
examination
of
such
views
must
be
deferred.
"
from
intuitive
truths
are
called
or priori, are
pure,
or
demonstrative
deductions
a
from
both
called
to be noticed is into intensive and syllogisms examined in the precedThis has already been sufficiently extensive. ing in order there because introduced needful to general inition, defsections, and to a completeview of the relations of the dissected parts. We for all, and once of now are briefly preparedto make an estimate, the importanceof this distinction. Hamilton, to whom debted inwe are for introducing it into the logical literature of our language, insists it is all the two at that strenuously great length -important, of thoughtyielding distinct kinds of reasoning. Reatwo soning quantities and more in intension, natural form he says, is the simpler of relieved a radical it he claims to have reasoning ; and in introducing in the presentlogical defect and vital inconsistency system." refuse to the modes We thus distinguished the title of cannot
division
of
"
much
in
this
case
is it worth ?
The
external
ference dif-
premises. But the order of the wholly in transposed thereon premisesbeing merely conventional, any distinction founded and artificial, and hence goes is entirely not real and natural, arbitrary for nothing. It is merelya convenient way by which we dicate agree to inThe other difference named is intended. which in quantity the rule is in the inverted meaning of the copula. This is not an ex-
136
OF
REASONINGS.
and
believe
that
only
he
who
is
ridinga
hobby
would
find
it
faulty.
From these considerations
extensive is of very small, if of syllogisms the emphamoment, and certainly sis very far from deserving any, logical with passive givento it by Hamilton, and repeated sequacity by so shall keep it in view onlyfor the sake writers. We subsequent many and in illustrations use indifferently of more either completetheory, quantity. The following divisions of the syllogism determined are simplyby The general the kind of its propositions. division is into The and the Conditional shall for syllogism. We Categorical time continue to treat of the former exclusively. The consideration some of the latter is postponedto a subsequent Topic. into be s ubdivided Categorical syllogisms variously may The latter are deferred to a subsequent 1. The Simpleand the Compound. for the present. Topic. The simplewill occupy us exclusively
" "
between
and
may intensive
we
conclude justly
2. The
Total
one
and
the
the Particular.
is particular, is particular, the syllogism proposition versal, uniWhen all three propositions conclusion. are havinga particular of the proposition the syllogism is universal. The quantity
When
any
determines
3. The
this kind.
one Negative. When premiseis negative, is negative, the syllogism The quality conclusion. a negative yielding of one ing premisedetermines this kind. The two latter kinds,dependand for call remark further at on no quality, quantity present. illustrated by an example which They may, however, be here jointly and one conclusion has one a negative, yielding premiseparticular,
which
No
is both.
murmurs
are
prayers
murmurs
(E)
(I)
^~^
Prayers.
Some Some
sighsare sighsare
/.
not
prayers...
.(0)
~"'S
of position
Topic next in the firstfigure. are Under the present Topic it remains to consider the Canon, and General Rules of the categorical syllogism.
under
the
THE
SYLLOGISM.
137
"
4. The
judgment whereof
that the antecedents the three
the
the consists, syllogism essentially mined consequent,is deterhowever, thought. Since these, the
judgment by
necessitate
primary laws of because of their wide generality, not readily are applicable, logicians of sylhave sought to express in a single CANON the principle special logism of the three primary that is only a special statement a Canon laws as governingthe syllogism, and which be used as an may easy and direct test of its validity. The results of these attempts are not of the Canon the several forms quate being each inadevery satisfactory, will here state some of We ; but they are nevertheless useful. the most noteworthy:
1. "Part
are
of
a as
spoken of
is
Remembering that marks partis part of the whole." as parts of a concept,and species parts of a genus,
of thought, to both quantities and obviously applicable the logical and the mathematical. Its generality, ity, brevto both wholes, and simplicity render it perhaps It is, the most useful form. ever, howbeing applicable inadequate, only to affirmative syllogisms.A modified form, applicable is What whole, is : only to the logical of a whole may said distributively be said of a part." If the reader will applythese forms to either of the foregoing affirmative syllogisms, the meaning will be sufficiently obvious ; and it will also become dent eviis only the essential judgment of the syllogism that the Canon in second intentions. generalized this axiom
"
2.
"
Contentum
contenti
est contentum
continentis"
"
Leibnitz.
wise Like-
applicable only to
3.
"
affirmative
syllogisms.
A transest etiam prcedicatum lation prcedicati subjecti." of Aristotle's first antipredicamental lowing rule (Categ. iii).The folof this excellent form : a free rendering as may be regarded
Prcedicatum
4.
"
Whatever
term
or
or
denied
of
any
middle
ed containsubject under it." Burgersdyck. Applicable, however, only in extension. de quibusdam et singulis. 5. valet etiam Quicquid de omni valet, de singulis valet.1'' de quibusdam,nee nee Quicquid de nullo valet,
or
denied
of any
"
"
These
out
are
the famous
"
Dicta
de omni
by
6.
"
the Latin
Nota
notce
seems
from logicians
est nota
of
ipsi" This
7. under
"
rei
repugnans
notaj,repugnat rei
the intensive
of
a
syllogism.
What
stands under
"
138
"
OF
REASONINGS.
8.
In
so
far
as
two
notions
(notions proper,
do
or
or
either individuals)
a common
both
agree, or,
so
one
the agreeing,
third other."
notion, in
form
9.
agree with
each
This is Hamilton's
we
"
will
a Supreme Canon for the "Unfigured Syllogism," consider in the sequel. briefly
What
worse
relation of
and
a
between
one, at
either of two
terms
common
which
the
two
Supreme Canon for the Figured of statement and absolute Syllogism." He claims for it perfection of syllogisms it being the principle intensive and extensive, generality, and negative, positive involving any of the eightHamiltonian
"
themselves."
This is Hamilton's
"
judgments.9
10.
distributed or replaced by an equivalent, by its unby any of its parts." We progenus, or, if distributed, pose it be and a more this, general truly principle, more believing to of the actual process of thoughtin reasoning than some of expressive in the preceding. It is simple and self-evident. For convenience will call it the Canon of Replacement. Its view of the we reference, is somewhat It considers the Sumption as declaring syllogism peculiar. relation between two notions ; the Subsumption as declaring that a other notion is equivalent some logist to,or a part of,one of these ; the syljudgment as being the substitution of that for this ; and the Conclusion as setting forth the result. Thus, to take an old standard are mortal;" but "Socrates is a man," i.e., he is example,"All men "All men" So, replacing by this part, one, a part of "All men." have therefore "Socrates is mortal." This Canon will apply not we in the logical but also to those in the only to all reasonings whole, mathematical whole. For example:
"Any
notion
may
be
is
equal to equal to
B ;
B is equal to C ;
.\
is
C.
This
most
simple and
said could
not
most
common
Dr. Reid
be
to subjected
See also the Table of the Logic, pp. 604, 605. p. 584 ; and Discussions, F orms Part in 3. Eight Propositional " 3d, iii, of this Canon, it seems that Hamilton's Notwithstandingthe high pretensions* own No. li a and b,No. v a, No. vi b,No. vii a, Negative Moods" (Logic, p. 679), No. viii 6,No, xi a (Ferio\and No, xii b are in direct violation of it.
" "
See
THE
SYLLOGISM.
139
canons,
and
hence very
condemned
the whole
science and
art
of
is Logic,
simplecase when referred to the Canon of Replacement. Moreover, judgments often undergo easy modifications which" difficultto express in strict syllogistic form and bringunder comare mon but which this Canon and justifies. at once rules, logical explains For an example we take the famous logical puzzleproposedby the which not in a page they solve, Port-Royallogicians, very clearly, and a half of discussion ; which Jevons says cannot be provedby the rules of the syllogism ;" and which most other writers omit to notice.10
a obviously
"
The
us
to
honor
kings;
Louis XIV.
Louis XIV
/.
king;
us
The
to
honor to
Its solution
seems
by replacementis
obvious
call for
remark,and
once
process
by
which
acceptthe conclusion.
"
test
5. Aristotle's dicta
are
cases, somewhat
resolved the
of the syllogism into a series of GENERAL RULES which are principle to all figures conform ; must applicable ; to which all sound reasonings and which, being quitesimple and appliedin succession, render the and sure.11 They are as a syllogism process of testing easy, quick,
follows
1. A
only three,terms.
For
if there
be
the four, is
a
A good syllogism have no common term. can premises is a quadruped a a triad, tripod. The following really ; verbally
:
Quaternio Terminorum
Feathers
/.
darkness
Feathers
contrary
to
darkness.
10 n
an
to
one
ch. ix ; and Jevons' Lessons in Logic, Penser, pt. iii, p. 158. Hamilton with (Logic, sq.)reduces the six or eight Rules to three, p. 215 it seems and with a sacrifice also, as sacrifice of their generality, acknowledged of 1st and 2d is their stated in first Rule His our merely me, perspicuity. See UArt de
compound
the
easy
to
canon
sentence.
as
from
and
test
of the
canon
back
the
why condense them ? The very intent is to evolve needed for a ready as statements are explicit simple, many of any syllogism. Of course, we may condense them validity much without displaying ingenuityor obtainingany itself,
But
advantage.
140
OF
REASONINGS.
2. It has
terms
give
have
three
more
and pairs,
in the
All
repetition. Apparentlywe
are nerves
sentient
=A
=
=A
=
Worms
are
sentient
is good, and the form logical shall hereafter reasoning ; but we find that it is a Sorites, into two of three proporesolving syllogisms sitions The each.
3. One
premise
at least must
Ibe affirmative.
term
agrees with neither of the other two, we whether or not they agree with each other.
No marble
is sentient
are
infer these
From
through it premises,
=E
Some
statues
not
marble true
=0
we
get
no
conclusion ; however
not No
man men
any statue
sentient.
is
it may
destitute entirely
are are
religious feeling
are
=E
=
not not
true true
who
tirely en-
destitute of
religious feeling
=0
the negativeparticle an affirmative, premiseis really which thereby becomes being treated as belongingto the predicate, and constitutes the subject of the conclusion. to infidels," equivalent But the minor
"
4. If
one
premise
term
For if
one
is
the conclusion be negative. must negative, be denied finally to denied to the middle,it must
is
which
men men
by
Rule
3. =0
=
E. g.
weep
feel
We
cannot
it may
true obviously is essentially Few it. do not yield be,these premises ative, negconstrued givesus a negative and rightly a yielding sumption,
"Some conclude,
who
conclusion negative
thus,
"
Sumption,
Now Hence
Most All
. .
men
do not feel
weep
=0
=A
subsume,
we
men
conclude, Many
term must in
a
who
feel do
not
weep
once.
=0
5. The
middle
be
distributed
at least
For
if in dif-
each
premiseit
is used
sense, partial
it may,
in
denote each,
THE
SYLLOGISM.
141
ferent
and objects,
so
be
in violation of Kule
Some Some of of
our our
1.
in
all,
citizens citizens
refined
profanelanguage gentlemen
the middle
=1 =1
we
can
conclude
for nothing,
refers to entirely evidently of fault is called the fallacy logical it is not quiteso very obvious;
example,
"
valid
This
.'. This
has three terms syllogism has three terms syllogism is a valid syllogism
"A
=
=A
Here hence
the middle
is not
is in each
case
the
of predicate stated
an
and distributed;
when
therefore the
Even
is not
the
of portions
the middle
are
clusion con-
virtually
z=I
=A
portion
paper
total.
is
For
example,
"
Some
currency
notes
are
legaltender
currency
we
Government
paper
From and
these
think
no
conclusion is
"
competent ; but
may
happen to know,
it thus,
a
All of
certain
Government
.*. Government
notes
is legal tender portion that are portion notes tender are legal
=A
=
"A term
middle
more
be
so
that quantified
is
of the two
is portions
than
the
whole,a conclusion
Quantificationof
Term."
For
example,
are
Asiatics heathen
=1
=1 =1
Asiatics
are
Asiatics
are
"
mankind '
"
half
heathen
example will
have
are
suffice:
never
Very few men Nearly all men .'. Many who are
The old
far
far from
Logic makes
that the
no
it is manifest
logical.
142
OF
REASONINGS.
particularin
is
to
premise
cannot
must
be
so
only some
part
wo premised,
conclude
cannot
argue
from
whole.
The
Process.
term to
IllicitMinor,
is
an
Here
ous obvi-
winged
a
=A =E
bat bat
is not
bird
is not
winged
is not winged,"
=E
The
majorterm,
"
distributed
an
since premise,
it is there the
of predicate
icate pred-
the
Hence there is an illicit proposition. negative, process of is an illicit not quite so obvious, major term. The following, ess procof the minor
Persons Good
.*. Good
term
without
are imagination
not
true
poets
=E
=
often without
not true
imagination
poets
=E
There and
are
two
are
deduced
we
from
those
preceding,
nately. co-ordi-
might
be
appended as
corollaries ; but
two 1
particularsthere
is
no
can
be
no
conclusion. for
a
For
if the
5.
1,there
distributed term
middle,Rule
If
Rule 3. If they be I O or OI, are premises negative, of O ; if this be taken the predicate term there is but one distributed, conclusion for the middle term, then illicit major,since the negative the major term ; if it be required by Rule 4 distributes its predicate, both
not
so
5.
E. g.
well
=1 =1
Some Some
students
are
are
not
card-players
=0 =0
not
Some Some
students do not
"
=0
"
Germans
"
are
(Nothingfollows.)
144
OF
REASONINGS.
II. FIGURE
AND into
MOOD.
to the position Figuresaccording In the First Figureit is the subject of the major of the middle term. of the minor. In the Second, it is the prediand predicate premise, cate is of In the the of both premises. Third,it subject both. In of of the major premise, and subject the Fourth, it is the predicate
"
1.
are Syllogisms
divided
the minor.
Thus
useful
tion no-
of Rhetoric, Figure"was borrowed by Figures from of speech. On literal forms which the plain, are departures there ought to be some standard form from which this analogy, one all others are departures, and thence properly called Figures. Such First Figure, which is the pure type of standard form is the misnamed deductive Each
argument.1
figures may
claim to have its
It is
Canon. totle's Arisspecial dicta de omni et nullo are specially adapted to the firstfigure. to adapt them in turn to so as easy to modify the phraseology
But this cumbers
us
of these
with four
canons
instead of
and to
no
advantage.
We
that the last three may be rules governingthe figures, There are, however, special deduced from rules of the syllogism, to which it is well to give some the general tention. atshow subsequently illustrated by They follow,
an
example.
'formulas' vocat), syllogismorum, (Appuleius quce dicuntur figuras lul. Pacius putat, quia figuris ab Aristotele appellatas esse geometricis adscriptis ab eo illustratisint. Equidem hanc vocem tarn a geometrispetinon syllogismi de termmorum ordine tam accipiendamputaverim, quern o-^^/ia ipso appelquam lari licebit, etiam si de geometricis non figuris cogitetur." (Waitz,Com. on Organ., maintains the opinion of Pacius. 26 b 33.) But Hamilton, per contra,
,
FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
145
CONSPECTUS
Example.
1 (subprce). Fig. No
man
OF
FIGURE.
Special Rules.
is
perfect
are arc men
Mnjor premise
Minor
must must
be
universal.
.Some saints
.". Some
premise
be affirmative.
saints
not
perfect.
man.
.Major premise
One
must be
be
universal.
Some
.*. Some
premise
must
negative. (Elseuudistrib.
is
saints
not
perfect.(Hence
the conclusion
always negative,Rule
saints
not
Minor
promise
must
be affirmative.
saints
perfect.Conclusion
must
man.
.If either
If
prem.
is neg..
maj. must
be
be univ. univ. be
saints
not
maj. prcm.
min.
(Elseuudis.
saints
perfect.If
prem.
These
examined ; but grounds should be thoroughly need be retained in memory. All have only those of the firstfigure reference to extension. To adapt them to the intensive syllogism, it is needful only to change the word "major" to "minor" and vice The symbolic notation of the example versa, wherever they occur. for each of the four figures; above (in extension) is the same the notation graphic is different for each of the
Perfect
Men
rules and
their
figures ; thus
^-,S
(Fig. 1.)
I Saints
insist that the variations logicians to display of the syllogism are simplyserving arbitrary, by figure in all possible the middle term They endeavor to positions. in either of the last three is distorted and unnatural, prove that reasoning and that the firstonly is the natural order of thought. Kant in exfollowed by Hamilton in a littletract on the question, himself, in the firstfigure is actually tenso,contends that all reasoning ; for, of the others, the mind interpoin one when perforce it is expressed lates and thus the of of one the converse at least tally menpropositions, which alone is pure and natural. This reduces it to the first figure, We is possible to prove. to conceive, but perhapsimpossible readily
"
2.
Quite
number
of recent
10
146
OF
REASONINGS.
that a reasoning and which in the first is orderly however, grant, figure natural will, when reduced to another, awkward, and appear distorted, unnatural. illustratesthe Indeed,the examplegivenabove sufficiently fact. But it
are seems
that the
same
is true
of
the second
and
third ;
in one which naturally the other or reasonings appear of these two figures, and that these, when reduced become to the first, will briefly harsh and disordered. We consider these two, deferring of the fourth figure. until later an examination It is hardlyto be questioned that the natural order of predication is that which predicates a greaterof a less, as a genus of a species. than to say How better to say Some much scents are pleasant" "Some pleasant thingsare scents." Now there is nothing in the of a negativeproposition nature that determines the relative extent of its two terms ; but if we happen to know that one is wider than the other, make that the predicate we naturally ; and if it be the will naturally middle term, the reasoning cause befall in the second figure, then it will be the predicate in both premises. E. g. :
"
that there
The
true
was was
were apostles a
not
thieves ;
Judas
.'.
thief ;
a
Judas
not
true
apostle.
"
No thieves were the major premiseto By converting but sacrificethe smooth natural we get the firstfigure, as givenin the second figure.
true
apostles,"
order of statement
On
terms
we
know
to be the narrower
of the two
is the middle term, the reasoning will negative proposition fall in the third figure, because then it will be the subject of naturally both premises. E. g. :
The The
/.
Some
apostles sought no temporal reward ; zealous in their work ; were apostles zealous persons did not seek temporalreward.
minor
were
the By converting
zealous persons premise to "Some but manifestly lose the smooth we apostles," get the first figure, of the givenexpression.
uralness nat-
So, then,we
reasons
conclude
that,since in
third
some
cases
ural nat-
the prescribe
and reject the first, figure but a true exvariation, pression arbitrary
act.2
See
FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
147
Let
us
append
may
be concluded
of the
be establishing general propositions ; the universal affirmative A can proved only in this figure. In its two affirmative forms the predicates wholes than the are always thought as greater subjects.But sometimes mine detera a previous thought, special purpose in view,may the greater whole the subject, and this also to prefer to mate us will often throw in the second the reasoning third figure rather or than the first. The second figure, whose conclusion is always negative, and seems adapted for proving differences in things, especially is its principle that if one obscure thought. Hence term clearing contained under and another excluded from a third, they exclude :is called the dictum de di verso* The third figure, whose each other conclusion is alwaysparticular, seems specially adapted for bringing and thus provingan in examples, universal stateto some ment. exception is that two terms Its principle which contain a common part, if other contains a part which the does not, one partially agree ; or de excmplo. E. g. : differ. This is called the dictum they partially
" "
Tweed Tweed
/.
was
not
an
honorable
man
; ;
Some
at
least of
high culture
"
was
not
honorable.
This
conclusion
are
is the
of contradictory
All of
high
intellectual culture
and overthrows it. Hence the third figure is well honorable," suited to disprove A, and also E. The middle term in the example is individual. Such a case can occur only in Fig.3 ; for in either of the others the middle term is once at least a predicate, and an individual cannot become This a predicate. alone establishes, not but the merely the naturalness and propriety, of this figure. Moreover remark that while the middle we necessity, is essentially, term of comparison, it is and hence always, the medium that it is necessarily of the first figure only in affirmative syllogisms of intermediate extent. of the logicians But some referred to above, Bain and Bowen, involve in their objections as and to the second
Says Whately (Loyic, arguments used in the process called p. 101), "The in referred to this figure. The phrase be most injiniti will, general, easily is applied to a series of arguments in which we one by one certain go on excluding or certain classes of thingsfrom that whose real nature suppositions seekwe are
Abscissio
ing
to
ascertain."
148
OF
REASONINGS.
third
the figures
notion
term
intermediate
is meant
extent.
"
This
confusion
by
subdivided into Moods, of the syllogism are figures and quality of the premises. The upon the ground of the quantity and qualconclusion need not be taken into account, since its quantity ity determined are by the premises. The method for determining
"
3. The
four
is
to
as
follows
But
not to
not
will
bracketed
"
are one
be eliminated
"
as
violative of General
Rules
with
half
remain
as
Rules. be
In
reference to
IE, we
may
remark
negative,
by
of this conclusion, the major term, is therefore predicate distributed ; but the major premise I has neither tenn distributed, illicit which violates Rule 6, giving major. in which of the four figures Let us now each of these eight inquire valid combinations We Rules ("1), and applythe Special may occur. find that EA in each
in which
Rule
4 ; the
can
appear
of the four
figures,
as
indicated
are
The
figures
the others
we Upon counting,
can
Syllogism.
Let
us
"
now
4. The
annex
each
a
of
it necessitates,
and
as
coin
word that
the
name
of
mood,
thus:
three vowels
in their
"
Major
remotior
not
their
in secunda minor figura qui mcdio proprior, appellatur qui Aristotle b relations With est ab eo." of the terms, the (Waitz,26 37.) the Cf. fixes Elem. figure. Trendelcnburg, arbitrary position, " 28. terminus
FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
149
The
and
moods the
names
of the
of
other the
three
are figures
same
way,
nineteen
moods
arranged
in the
HEXAMETERS, which
:
Barbara,
"
; Celarent, Darii, Fevio que priori* 1 secundcc ; Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco Tertia Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton, habet. addit Quarto,insuper Bocardo,2 Ferison Bramantip, Camenes, Diraaris, Fesapo, Fresison.
or
Dokainok.
1
"
orFakofo.
These
names
By applyingits name and and the quantity its seen now directly,
and the method
convenient. exceedingly indicate its figure, at once to any reasoning, we of each proposition, and also, will be as quality
are
which
for,since these
form syllogistic
at
once
are
moods, whenever
names
have
simple
to which
of these
is
know we applicable,
that the
is reasoning
It may
into account
taken should
moods,
; in
Fig.1
EAO
two
and
EAO
Fig.2
two
viz., others,
and
AEO
; and
valid,indeed,but
in each is saL
AEO. These are Fig.4 one other,viz., clusion superfluous ; for it will be observed that the conparticular, althoughthe premiseswarrant a univer"
in
They
are
called the
Subaltern needful
moods,"
"
or
Moods
of
ened weak-
conclusion."
In
It is not
to take them
it will be seen that each of the notingthe conclusions, is proved in Fig.1. Its four moods, however, are
judgments obviously
fourth
being unessential
varieties of
Barbara
or
Darii.
Celarent
or
Ferio.
AllMisP;
All
.*. All
or or
NoMisP;
All
or
some some
S is M ; S is P.
some
/.
or
No
S is M ; S is P,
Some
S is not P.
Here
is
one
and positive
one
form. negative
Since
all the
other
moods
shall find, the other of be reduced to one or may, as we theyare the two fundamental forms of all reasoning.
these,
150
OF
REASONINGS.
Again, in noting
seen
the
conclusions
throughout it
will be
further
that
A E I 0
1
"
is
proved in
" "
1 3 3
"
in 1
"
4 6 8
initialletter is B.
" "
C.
D.1
"
moods,
"
"
"
"
moods,
3
"
"
"
F.3
Except Bramantip.
Except Baroco
is the
and Bocardo. to
hardest
establish
the easiest to
overthrow In
; and
is the
easiest to
are more
establish and
overthrown easily
"
two
5. We
are
now
to consider REDUCTION.
It is A
kinds.
Reduction.
reduced ostensively
in each
name
the
as
these.
initial consonant
is the
Fig.1
to which
same
it reduces.
Or, more
must
generally,
have the
initialletter. We
except Baroco
their alternates ing substitutit.
Bocardo,
and
one
or,
replaced by
is
Dokamok.
or
by accomplished
direct
us
both
premisesan
of
a
immediate
inference from
in
consonants
in the
name
mood
doing
this.
symbolizedby proposition
simply.
the vowel
that precedes
it is to be converted p
k f
m
is to be converted per precedingproposition in Bramantip, accidens. after conwhere it shows that, verting (Except simply,a universal is warranted by the premises.This is of per accidens, which reduces quantity.) justthe reverse indicates conversion by contraposition. indicates infinitation. indicates that the premises to be transposed are (mutari). indicates that the
consonants
The
b, d, 1,n,
but are inserted significant, for metrical quantity. or euphony, If in a given syllogism is needful here. the
r,
t, are
not
in order is not
to
reduction
is
an an
individual individual
the reduction
practicable ; for
This consideration makes clear, not be converted. cannot proposition other than the first, but their necesof figures sity, merely the propriety since many individual propositions of our involving reasonings in the firstfigure. cannot be expressed
152
OP
REASONINGS.
seems
was
to be
simpleand sufficiently
in the
obvious.
more
But
the
Bocardo the
famous of
opprobrium
"
the
than
Hamilton,
looked
to
So
as an
considered
upon
find
if you
got, it
Middle
exit.
to
duringthe
as a
given in
"
Oxford
a name
of the ancient logical reliquc arose what somegloryof that venerable seminary." Perhaps the perplexity from of rethe process being considered and named as a kind duction. of the present day continue to speak of it Many logicians But obviously it is not a reduction at all, "indirect reduction." as and to call it so is mere confusion. It is, as indicated, already only of of it indirect in these the the when test occurs an validity reasoning
which
moods.
tested
And
it may
can
be
But
of Baroco
and
Bocardo, is
of
no
and value,
We superfluous.
have
inherited it from
who, as has been said, logicians, supposedthat these two moods could reduced. In this they were not be ostensively mistaken. Mark Duncan, in 1666, showed that by as as 1612, and after him Noldius, early of contraposition the use Baroco could be reduced to Ferio, and Bocardo Noldius proposed to call the former Facrono, to Darii. and the latter Docamroc. Whately called attention to this method, but
did not observe
a
defect in the
name
defective
by omittingthe
may
terminal
the reduction
be
Baroco, which
Fakofo
and in
proposedthe
to
names
Dokamok
an
exhibited admission
example the
we
reduction
not
of the former
Ferio.
of the
The
monic mne-
and lines,
dismiss
from
technical
Logic this
a
useless practically
test per
impossibile.
marvel
ing mean-
De Morgan ingenuity.
than
be
of
"
written."
"
Hamilton
on
calls them
says
that
taking them
6
their
own
Logic, pp.
313-14.
FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
153
there ground,
are
few
were,
human
so
inventions
as
which
They
invention
far
referred to as the author of the Hispanus, already native of Lisbon,became a prepositional symbols. He was Pope in 1277, and died the same John XXII Greek year. The corresponding lines are much less ingenious, of the moods the names in them as mark onlythe order,the quantity, of the propositions, and the quality of reduction, not the and, indeed,not even indicating any method moods. of Nicephorus Blemthe invention equivalent They were Patriarch of Constantinople. had Which midas, who was nominated in this invention is uncertain. It is curious, however, to note priority that these two attained the two highestplaces, the one in logicians the Roman, the other in the Greek had hierarchy ; but as the one so hardlybegun to reignwhen he was killed by the fall of his palace, the other, the nomination,did not enter on the office at all. declining The several works of the Pope and the Patriarch were for turies cenmany the text-books on Logic, the one in the Latin, the other in the Greek But
of Petrus
schools.7
it may
be asked, properly why should we have reduction ? does not become more Reasoningcertainly cogent by being reduced to the firstfigure and permore elegant ; but,says Bowen, it becomes spicuous. That depends on whether a given case naturally belongsin the first figure. If so, then this is true. But if the case longs benaturally in some other figure, then its reduction to the firstrenders it less awkward and obscure. The answer more or more usually given that the assumes the validity system of reduction is a method for testing of reasonings.As the dicta of Aristotle arc directly applicable the first to instead for the other of other dicta only figure, inventing reduce them to the first, and then apply the dicta de omni we figures, et nullo. Thus we become assured of the validity of our reasoning, and any fallacies in it, which might otherwise escape notice,become It views at once is clear, but unsatisfactory. apparent. This answer it is not worth Logic as an art. If such be the objectof reduction, hour's study; for in actual argumentation this test is never an used for lack of it. The and the uninitiated never err by the initiated, mind ease an practically argument in its familiar grasps with more condensed modes in them of presentation, and sees and more clearly its validity in these prothan when or certainly expressed invalidity, very
Hamilton's
Logic, p.
308.
OF
REASONINGS.
The
answer
we
would
to give is prefer
as
lows: fol-
that
same.
the purLogic is a science. The system of reduction serves pose of showing that all reasoning is governedby the same principle, take natuthese processes of thought, whatever shapesthey may rally and in all cases and the are one spontaneously, fundamentally We thus enabled to comprehend in a single are ments grasp moveof intellect which
otherwise
would
seem
multifarious end
and
plexed. per-
We Our
not
unity which
is the
of all science.
such
but investigation,
its direct
is object
"
6.
In the mnemonic
moods hexameters,
of the
same
occur figure
together. We present on the opposite page a scheme in moods moods are equivalent arranged together. Equivalent
reducible The
to
which
are
the those
each
other.
Their
are
names
have
the
same
initial letter.
three methods
of notation
This
scheme
brings
: following facts, important among of moods mood not are Equivalent merely reducible to the same in any a syllogism Fig.1, but are reducible to each other. That is, in any of its equivalents. This mood by reduction be expressed may is evinced by the symbolicnotation being similar for all equivalents. be reduced to another mood not equivalent. But a syllogism cannot Thus well as the order of it appears that the variation by figure, as is in a sense external ; whereas the unessential, accidental, premises, of the and quality variation by mood, which depends on the quantity it would is essential and internal. Hence to be logiseem cally premises, under it accurate to consider the syllogism more as containing under which we find varieties moods, the equivalents being the species, and then we which have in figure, reach the individual moods also might be formed of those A subspecies received proper names. tion. moods requiring only simpleconversion in order to reducequivalent and appear in each of the four Such are absolutely equivalent, figures.They constitute groups in the scheme. that is, initialletter, Moods which have the same moods, equivalent in B conclude A ; those conclude the same formal judgment. Moods
several to light
in
conclude
E; those
in D
conclude
I; those
A
in F
conclude
O.
The
are exceptions
Bramantip and
Dokamok.
are
The
linear and
circular notation
symbolic.
cases
different circular
diagram may
be made
in most
FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
155
SYNOPSIS
Equiv. Moods.
IIs-
OF
EQUIVALENT
H"
MOODS.
Linear N.
Eu"-
Graphic N.
Circular
N.
Fig.1.
"
Barbara
C, ^-:M,^-:F
4.
Bramantip
Fig. 1.
"
Celarent
2. Cesare 2. Camestres
"
"
4. Camenes
(Rejected)
"
3. Disarais
"
3. Datisi
"
4. Dimavis
CRejected)
"
3. Dokamok
Ditto
(Bocardo)
3.
Darapti
C,
"
:M:
"
,r
Fig. 1.
"
Ferio
2. Festino
;H-;M,^,r
:^-:M,
"
"
3. Ferison
,F
"
4. Fresison
(Rejected) j
"
2. Fakofo
(Baroco)
"
3.
Felapton Fesapo
C:H*:M:"~,1
o
$"r)
"
4.
(Rejected)
156
OF
REASONINGS.
no tion, Tins,however, presents advantages.The linear notais not thus variable, is on this account rather to be preferred.
graphicnotation
is not
but symbolic,
consists
of arbitrary
signs.It
whereas the mood. may express the
expresses all the accidental variations in external form, linear expresses only the internal, essential feature, i. e., used graphic, In
in the
The
scheme the
to
express
extension,
copula pointsto the in intension to the subject the copula of the predicate, ; in general, In comparing the sevconclusion alwayspoints to the major term. eral of moods in case ing containnot forget, must we notations, especially and therefore interchangeable. indifferent, m, that C and F are what calls the disgusting Hamilton rules Arnauld, after detailing them and proposes to superfor reduction," superfluous, pronounces sede Rule them General follows If the : for Reduction,as by one do not appear in the order required of the syllogism terms by the this order by any legitimate them first figure, make assume conversion, also transposing, if need be,the premises.
"
also intension.
extension
gitimac preparedto examine the Fourth Figure. Its lehas been disputed it to be awkward, Feeling by many logicians. it as an various reasons. encumbrance, assigning they reject of toleration, Hamilton a monster undeserving hotlydenounces it as
"
7. We
are
now
"
and
favor."
He
argues
to the quantities is violative of the order of thought, other in the same and syllogism that his assumptionthat the To this we to no first, object, purpose. in intension is grounded solely are which, premises upon their order, and hence indicates nothing inherent in the we repeat,is arbitrary, that such alternations of quantity secondly, reasoning. We object, in the other figures, often to good purpose, are occur very frequently essential (i, and in some seem cases " 3). If so, we may grant they it. Indeed, in Fig. a ground for rejecting occur 4, without furnishing stand apart. Every logical cannot these quantities has been said, as judgment, every reasoningis in both at once, and their alternate predominanceis not, in any importantsense, a change of thought. have stood Other logicians thought so well of Fig.4 that it has withthese attacks and taken deep root in the literature of Logic,
one
in because the premises are useless, from in extension, and that passing
intension
of these
Logic, p. 303.
FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
157
that every elementary if it treatise must giveit place. Yet,truly, could be discarded without marring the symmetry of the science,
so
without
great
decide
the loss of any essential doctrine or stride towards And it would simplicity. the
be- a
not
difficult to
it is that question. The chief reason given for retaining this fourth variation to exhaust the possible forms; Figurerequires used or awkward. 4 is essential to completeness, that Fig. however rarely is essential. But this is true only if the order of the premises We have decided that the order is not essential, tional. beingmerely convenexhaust the forms ; and It follows that the firstthree figures that the fourth is the firstwith transposed premises, contrary to agreement, and hence ought not to appear. which is The advocates of Fig. 4, however, point to its conclusion, and claim that it implies an not that which Fig.1 should give, tial essendifference. The
is reply
not
difficult. Let
S M is
is
us
M; P;
.'. P
is S.
that the conclusion is not the one which the mind see readily It strongly inclines to conclude S is to draw. is naturally disposed conscious of a revulsion. P ;" and in concluding P is S,"it is fully Here
we
" "
This which
it is that should
seems
so
awkward, and
The explanation is simplesyllogism. draw the conclusion S is P," and so does mentally that the reasoner P infers by conversion that in Fig. 1 ; and then immediately reasons and almost unconsciously. But a slight This is done tacitly, is S." reflection on the process leaves littledoubt that the judgment S is the premisesand the expressed between P"is mentallyinterpolated clear. A concrete conclusion. example will perhapsmake this more
" " "
characterize the
Brama-
All All
.*. All .'. Some
kings are
men are
men
mortals ; mortals
are
Direct
"
(an
kings are
mortals
Indirect"
tip.
the transposition of the similar, entirely and the simpleconversion of the conclusion being all that is premises to present them Celarent and Darii. as May we not rather requisite order of the premises beingnonsay, they are Celarent and Darii (the Camencs and Dimaris
are
with essential)
the conclusion
simplyconverted.
158
OF
REASONINGS.
both Fesapo and Fresison are each reduced to Ferio by converting the conclusion intact. This reduction does not require leaving premises, of the premises. It is not probable, the transposition however, that the mind performsthis double conversion when reasoning tacitly
in these moods.
It would
us
rather
seem
the above.
Let
Fes-
illustrate:
No
Direct" Indirect
"
ghostsare angels; All angelsare spirits ; ap(e- .*. No ghostsare spirits ;) tacit interpolation. not ghosts by conversion per .'. Some o. are spirits
"
"
accidens.
This
major term. But this the mind and instantly the given quantity restores feels, by The case with Fresison is precisely the same. converting per accidens. These two moods, then,are illegitimate. in concluding that the three legitimate We therefore justified are 4 are those of Fig.1 stated irregularly with moods in reality of Fig. and having an indirect conclusion which is an premises, transposed
an
conclusioninterpolated
is
illicit process
of the
immediate
inference from
direct conclusion.
The
two
moods Consequently '^Illegitimate are, of course, to be condemned. f rom its should be with all its moods, rejected Fig.4, usurped place forms should be classed with in the logical system,and its legitimate forms of the syllogism. the irregular is not recognized The fourth figure nor by Aristotle, by any of his tributes earlyfollowers. Averroes, in his Commentary on the Organon, atflourished a thousand its introduction into Logic to Galen,who But a criticalexamination of the extant logical years previously. discovers of trace of the physician it. The Spanish no writings Moor appear
is therefore in any
extant
believed to
have
been
mistaken.
As
it does
not
Commentary,
its
is altogether uncertain. We conclude, however, origin may confidently but in early in ancient, times. that it did not originate mediaeval,
this discussion of the simpleAristotelic syllogism, concluding it ever will consider a chargethat has been standing we against back to whom it may be traced. since the days of Sextus Empiricus, contained in one or both premIt alleges that the conclusion is already ises
"
8. In
; that what
is to be
provedis
hence
therein assumed
to
be true ; that
the
can
is begged,and question
make
and
we syllogism it imputesuselessness
of the
pronounces
its pre-
100
OF
REASONINGS.
speakingof the usual order of the which he calls "the in the formal syllogism, synthetic propositions of petitio this order the objection On principii order," he says, if not unrefutable, stands hitherto unrefuted, tertains against Logic." He enthe odd fancy that the objection be got rid of by merely can in a different order, the propositions puttingthe conclusion writing and insists that it is the true first. This he calls the analytic order," much like a solemn joke. Could he This seems order in thought with think that the difficulty might be obviated by a juggling really his conclusion, if a speaker starts with stating order of words? an Truly, But it in words. he cannot be said to have already admitted ? Else has he not already thought it in a premisenot yet expressed his conclusion be a conclusion ? Bo wen, not seeing the joke, how can adoptsand expands this replyof Hamilton as a serious and sufficient replyto the unrefuted if not unrefutable" objection.18 All logicians We must help ourselves in this matter as well as we can. be nothing in a valid conclusion admit that there can freely i. e., in both premises, both in the premises, that is not contained taken together. The conclusion of a syllogism consists merely of a which statement of the relation of two notions, succinct and explicit relation is thought in their comparison in the premisesthrough a It is universally ate third notion. allowed after Aristotle that a medireasoningis not three successive judgments as appears when written out to the eye, but that it is a single act of mind, a single sion judgment. Hence to admit that the premisescontain the concluis pretty much the same thing as to admit that the conclusion contains i.e., previousitself. But to say that it is contained already, ly, of a reasoning. The in the premisesis to mistake the nature but not chronological, antecedents. arc as premises logical, premises if the comparisonbe onlyapparently Now and not really mediate,
Will Hamilton
help us?
In
"
ia
"
"
if that which
term
terms, and
the
of this known relation. This is fallacy. merely a repetition But if the Herein is no This is to beg the question." progress. that through which the relation of the medium be distinct and really then this is not to other two notions is ascertained, beg the question,"
" "
12
13
See also
FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
161
Let
us
remember
can
that the
conclusion It is
a
are
correlatives,
common case
exist without
very
mind
may
of possession
two
truths, but,
the consequence has never been havingthoughtthem together, and is to this mind unknown. It may have occurred thought, utterly as a which (qucesitum) question ; but these two familiar propositions, necessitate it, not havingbeen broughttogether, not premare together ises, and the qucesitum is not a conclusion. For example, everybody knows that young infants cannot have no words, nor talk, signsof that are not merelyinstinctive effects. Again, doubts no one thoughts that such infants really think. Yet many brought persons have never these truths together as premisesof a conclusion. They may have in their own minds the fact that can be inferred, ing questioned but,beit was a question the apart from these truths, merely. But bring truths thus together
:
no reason
language ;
;
a
and is it not
new
seen instantly we
truth which
may
state
thus apart,
.'. Some
can reasoning
without
language.
any one say that nothingis proved here ? Is there not a step forward in knowledge, advance from the known an to the unknown ? would persons, in view of this simplesyllogism, say, Why, of but I never of it. The two that, course, I might have known thought
Will
Many
contain the conclusion, but this is not premises together ;" they do not assume question it, a new they produce it, from But either alone.
one
to
"
beg the
truth distinct
it is said in
in
one
form the
of the indictment
and that in stating it we premisesalone, said in this proposition in the as merelyrepeatwhat is already apart, in this form has example quoted above from Mill. The objection been greatly confirmed by the view that Arnauld takes of the syllogism. He says that every valid syllogism is governedexclusively by this principle One of the two antecedents must contain the conclu: sion,
"
contained
of
and excellent view very ingenious which Arnauld intends the statement.
This is very true, and in of the syllogism the sense in But it is not,as .is an claimed,
14
11
162
OF
REASONINGS.
it be fairly construed to nor can principii, acknowledgment of petitio sustain the charge. The conclusion is contained in the premisein notion is contained under one that any single broader, the same sense its genus; but observe that the other premiseis necessary to show of a general which on this. I may have a good clear conception rule, ing sufficient grounds I have accepted as true, but know nothuniversally it is applicable. We to which whatever of a multitude of cases may these unknown cases, but I say that the rule contains or includes them to appear by bringing not conscious of that until it is made am and then I progress in knowledge. in as minor premises, All men when are mortal,"have we not we illustration, say "Plato is mortal." Not at least, said, by implication virtually already unless we have also said, or know, or thought that Plato is a man," Plato" may be a statue, or a book, or which is the minor premise. For
" " "
town,
or
what
not.
can
I must
firstthink that
"
Plato is
"
man
before,
under
objection through the unwittingmental supply of the obvious minor premise. 'Yet a reasoning excmplum was found needful by very similar to our The at Lystra.15 Paul and Barnabas people there knew very well should be worshipped." St. Paul sup"No man the major premise, plied with you ;" also are men, of like passions the needed minor, We obvious that and the conclusion contained in these two premises was so in which each premise left unexpressed.But let us take a case it was
"
The bald truisms say he is mortal. in logical to the sake, exampleslend countenance simplicity's this.rule. I
for usual,
is
: questionable
No
murderer
hath
are
eternal life ;
;
All warriors
.'. No
murderers
warrior
hath
eternal life.
Here
we
have
major premisewhich
and
some
Hence,
would
the affirmation of the conclusion. involving is merely to expand Whately says that the objectof reasoning in those and unfold the assertions wrapped up, as it were, and implied Elsewhere he speaksof geometry as being with which we set out." I suppose this is tantamount all wrapped up in its definitions and axioms. that the conclusion is virtually contained in to the statement to Whately's the premises. I do not object metaphor,but say that be affirmed without
"
15
Acts xiv.
FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
103
knowledgethus wrapped
actual
unwrapped. But is knowledge edge virtual or potential knowledge, knowledge at all? Is not real knowlindeed,be said to exist when only that which is actual ? Can it, not present in mind ? Only in that very shadowy and questionable to exist shape in which potential energy is said by the physicist stored up in an inert, A keg of powder contains in it inactive mass. but a spark is needed to realize it. So, i.e., potentially, an explosion, if the major premise contains the conclusion, it certainly needs the has stored minor to bring it about. A boulder on a mountain-top But it stays there of potential quantity energy. up in it an immense down minor the steep, until some starts it rolling very ineffectively have any experience of its force. and this is necessary before we can arises to a questionclearly Very often,in our search after truth, the have at hand the major premise, establish which we but,lacking unable to reach a conclusion. minor, we are utterly Why is this if in affirmed the conclusion? the major we have already Why affirming and state it as established ? For instance, mer astrononot explicate an it,
observes
a new
and potential,
come to be-
comet, and
He knows will not
at
once
it will return
ing mov-
againto
in
a
our
system.
full well
return
; but from
he
can
and
pains he is finally
the one in nothingrespecting With minute to establish a minor. sets to work patiently and three or four pointsin the comet's orbit, determines
to affirm that its orbit is
enabled
Then, hyperbolic.
now
but not
questionresolves
will not
a as
into
the
established
our
conclusion
return.
largepart of
an
vestiga inthoughtful
search minor
rather or after,
therebynew
truth.
Is it not
of
new
to deduce the consequences progress in knowledge for one facts and laws obtained by observation and induction ? Is not
movement
an advance,
from
confused
to the
clear and
distinct
an
of the true relations of our discovery intuitive ideas and their systematic arrangement something gained, by deductive inference, something new ? All this is accomplished reaches too far to be and by it alone. The objection to the syllogism addition
Is not
sound.
Were
Newton
of the
labored in vain.
Let us,
syllogism. The
Libyan
fable
slain
by
an
arrow
164
OF
REASONINGS.
from
its
to
own
wing.
the
So
the
armory
of
of its
the
own
logicianhas
destruction.
own
imagined
contain
fatal weapon
has empiricist
seized the
sword,
suicide.
His
tries,like Giant
he is
uses
captive
the
to
commit
Plainly
argument
Any
The The
the follows
prove
syllogism useless.
as
reasoning principii;
Aristotelic Aristotelic
that
proceeds
upon
the
assumption
of its conclusion
is
io petit
'"
as syllogism,
is admitted
V.
syllogism is
confessedlypetitio principii.
kid in its mother's milk. itself
true.
a
Surely proved
and
this is
seething the
has be
not
But
if it has
ing, reason-
true, then
this
syllogism is
false A
proved
stillthe
its conclusion We
diction self-contra-
dismissed.
this for
reasoning to be sound,
the minor
syllogismdoes
notice above.
far from
not
commit
suicide,
premise
is
false.16
must
At
risk of which
we being prolix,
another It is
phase
of the
tion objecthe
we
Mill
confuses
with
the
said,very ingeniously,
deduced itself.
is from Thus
that
quite often
not must
the
conclusion, so
being
"
premise, is actuallyrequired to
do
we
the
"
premise
Plato
in order
know
from
"
All that
men
"
are
that
"
mortal," but
that it is
Plato
are
to
know
reallytrue
that the
All
men
mortal."
The
attain
cases
universal
proposition we
If this
were
must
first know
all
individual
it includes.
true, then
But
universal
propositions would
a
be
possible.
as
it is not
We
an
obtain
universal
such proposition,
not
the
one
cited,not
an
from from
of all cases,
a
by deduction, but by
most, from
to
a
induction number.
singlecase,
of
or, at
very
limited
Once
in
possession
it, we
and it,
proceed thereby
bring
new
other
cases,
hitherto
served, unob-
under
draw
conclusions. specific
18
We
should
perhaps
note
that
the
usual
vague
and
sense
of the will
been
accepted
in this
reply.
meaning
examined
hereafter.
FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
1C5
"
of
9. Praxis.
Supplythe
conclusion
to each
of the
of the name premises. Prefix to each syllogism and Bocardo To Baroco If not in Fig.1, reduce it thereto. apply order of the propositions The regular also the test per impossibile. the one the major premise, is preserved taining conthroughoutthis section, in extension, of the conclusion viewed the predicate being
stated first.
1. Whoever
possesses
prudencepossesses
all
virtue;
"
Whoever
2. Prudence
virtue must possess prudence. Aristotle. possesses one the benefit of individuals ; has for its object
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
prudenceis a virtue. No good action results in evil ; results in evil. Some alms-giving the intellect; All abstract studies strengthen the intellect are profitable. Exercises that strengthen of perfection No science is capable ; All science is worthy of culture. No vicious conduct is praiseworthy ; is conduct All heroic praiseworthy. All prideis inconsistent with religion ; Some by the world. prideis commended No duty involves loss; is occasionally To givefreely a duty. virtue a good in itself; account All true philosophers do not account virtue a good in itself. Cicero. The Epicureans is free ; No one governedby passion Sensualists are governedby passion. All good reasoners are candid;
But
"
Some
12. True
infidels are
not
candid.
of
1 3.
14.
genius; have proved true poets. Very unwise men No virtue is a natural quality ; God for its author. has Every natural quality Some kinds of anger are not unrighteous; Every kind of anger is a passion.
poets
are men
1 5. Some
of
our
tax-laws
are
All
1 6. No
measures oppressive
166
OF
REASONINGS.
17. Some
of the truths
human affecting
conduct is
conduct
are
speculative;
19.
animal are principles are Nearly all animal impulses All expedient acts are comformable to nature; Nothing conformable to nature is hurtful to society.
moral
the
Prefix the following, proposition. any lacking Write the linear and graphic notation of each.
name
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
orbits ; elliptic Therefore the orbits of the asteroids are elliptic. An inflated currency enables many persons to make rapid fortunes ; one hence, since this is promotive of national prosperity, way is to inflate the currency. to promote national prosperity He that is always anxious is never are happy; but covetous men alwaysanxious. infliction of nature; therefore natal deformity an Disgraceis never is no disgrace. the rod hateth his child ; hence no lovingparent He that spareth All
move
bodies planetary
in
25.
26.
27.
prejudiced person can of our reliable judgesare partisans. be a justjudge, none the heart is a blessing Whatever purifies ; But there are afflictionsthat purify the heart. attain high public Sometimes honors; but bad men very bad men are alwaystruly contemptible.
no
and prejudiced,
28.
All
are
men
are
liable to
sorrow
; hence
some,
at
29. There
of continuous prosperity to grief. boasting may come virtuous men who are necessitarians; it follows are practically abolish the disthat while all necessitarians speculatively tinction
between
in 30. The
vice and
some virtue,
who
do this
are
theless, never-
connection
with
are
matter
is
there certain,
thingsvery
but every one is impolitic; every war ruinous procedure in some is, cases, good virtue is
is
32. No
love of
peace which
opposedto
love of truth.
168
OF
REASONINGS.
the mind, but wearies the flesh ; so that study strengthens what wearies, strengthens. merit in a rival ; 48. Every candid man acknowledges does not do so ; Every learned man is not candid. /. Every learned man 49. It is characteristic of theft to get, though not by gift, something for nothing ; this gambling does,and thus is akin to theft. 50. A true evolution is caused whollyfrom within ; but since very few been if any, have exempt from adventitious causes, beings, scarcely any, perhapsnone, have been evolved. of moral order is wrong; 51. Any disregard is doubtful ; moral order whose moral quality Every action disregards is not doubtful as to quality .'. Any action doubtful as to its moral its moral quality. 47. Hard
52. All
do
not
to
succeed ; hence
not
all strive
who
53. What
wish to succeed.
is not in is Scripture
not
on binding are
conscience ;
found
not
Most
.*. Some
unlearned
men are
unlearned
worthy of respect.
content ;
55. No
one
is rich who
is not ;
No
.*. No
miser is content
miser is rich.
56. Some
57.
of political ; ignorant economy Congressmen are evidently Such are unfit to legislate ; for the position sent to Congress. unfit are Hence some persons inherit the kingdom of God ; Flesh and blood cannot Its heirs are human beings;
.*. Some
of
us
shall not
58. All
so
59. No
imprudent acts are not vicious ; all are, however, foolish ; and is not alwaysvice. folly impenitentsinner can hope to escape the wrath of God, yet
the most
not
even
hardened
wish
can
to escape ;
Hence
60.
desire it
hope
few
for salvation. ;
Scarcely any
Yet
of the
ship's company
crew
could swim
numerous
only a
z
perished ;
some
.'. Some
could not
x
swim
who
nevertheless survived.
; hence
x
61. Some
is y ; every y is not
is not
z.
FIGURE
AND
MOOD.
169
62.
Bacon
we
was
notable
statesman
and
are
as
lie also
of
was
great
philosopher,
infer
that is of
great
philosophers
use
statesmen.
63.
Whatever
practical
is is
of
is
worthy
attentive
;
study
Syllogistic
.'.
no
practical worthy
the
of
use
Syllogistic
The The
ancient
not
attention.
64.
produced
were
greatest
Greeks
;
masterpieces
of
art
Laceda3monians
ancient
.*.
They
All
produced prisoners
are
such
masterpieces.
from
65.
restrained
;
are
enjoying
the
common
right
of
personal
But
.'.
liberty
on
sailors
shipboard personal
not
prisoners
They
Whatever The
use
enjoy
liberty.
should
;
66.
causes
intoxication
causes
be
prohibited
of
wine
intoxication be without
is
not
/.
The No The
use
of
wine
should is
prohibited.
a nervous
67.
being
mimosa mimosa
system
;
sentient
no nervous
.'.
The The
has will
system.
his
68.
of
strong
resists
not
conquers
;
passions,
and
so
does
he
that
successfully
.*.
temptation yield
are
does
to
temptation
for
possesses
their
powerful
;
will.
69.
beings
that
suffer
accountable
actions
;
many that
is
suffer
punishment
are
are
irrational accountable
/.
Many
Suicide
punishment
one
not
for
their and
actions.
70.
simply
some
form
or
of
voluntary
has is
not
death;
embraced
to
voluntary
many roes he-
death,
and
in
form
;
so
other,
been
by
be
martyrs
suicide
always
condemned.
170
OF
REASONINGS.
III. QUANTITATIYES. mathematical been or judgment has already quantitative considered at some to consider specially length. It is now requisite whole. in the quantitative Quantitative judgmentsare very reasonings
"
1. The
common.
We
sometimes
reason
with
them
and alone,
in other
sonings rea-
with qualitative judgments. In neither they intermingle is such reasoning case governedby the rules of the Aristotelic syllogism. The old Logicdoes not, I believe, these judgments recognize these reasonings not as distinct in kind, and governed nor ; certainly all to be reduced to the Aristotelic laws. It would require by special This is in most, and broughtin subjection to its rules. syllogism, That but requires more or less violence. cases possible, perhapsin all, is to say, the unitythus attained is not the result of analysis, showing in form and that ultimately these kinds of reasoning are one principle, of the 'other, and the one into the mould but is attained by pressing it into an unnatural form. of Logic beBut the object ing thus forcing of thought in its original to exhibit the essential nature forms, and treat these judgments or reasonings it should recognize in the whole apart from others, and assign their special to them quantitative in these quantilaws. Pure Mathematics proceedsalmost exclusively tative forms ; and the anatomical sciences, which are all essentially ences sciof dissection and naming,deal, with quantities at least, primarily and sections, and kinds. and not with qualities tal fundamenas Logic, these processes, exhibiting should explain to all, the native manner of thought in all its forms. exists between When between two two or individuals, equivalence the copula means is individual, aspects or thoughts of the same is the same matical as,"and may be expressed equal to" or by the matheof London is ( ) sign of equality.E. g., "The population of London is (=) one double that of New York ;" "The population with such propositions million." The principle governingreasoning is the axiom thing are equalto Things that are equal to the same of Replacement (i, each other." The first part of the Canon " 4), notions replaceeach other,"will be found to Equivalent may be more and hence is preferable to the generalin its application,
" " = " "
QUANTITATIVES.
axiom.
The
form typical
of
A
this
is of equivalence syllogism
U;
the
: following
=
B
.'. A
C;
C.
as
examplein
of density of density
this form
is
follows
is
the human
of water body is the density ; of air taken 817 times ; the density of air. body is 817 times the density term
here is the
standard
of
ure. meas-
function of logical of all sorts. standards of measure They furnish the media through which cannot be immediately enabled to compare which we are quantities the pound, the atomic weight the bushel, compared. The yard, of hydrogen,the thermometer, barometer, electrometer, etc.,supply in calculations. with middle terms our through which to reason us of equivais an example of the negativesyllogism The following lence, the only formal variation of which it is susceptible :
gives
remark
Selfishness is not
the
essence
of virtue ;
Duty
is the
essence
of virtue ;
selfishness.
We
remark
in this
examplehappen to particular
be
then,abstract notions as well as concrete general, may whole. be thought in the quantitative differen inIn the equivalent the order of premisesis obviously syllogism, is also indifferent. order of subjectand predicate The and the of thought, the subject be made either term That is, may without other change. The distinction of major other the predicate, that of major and minor premises, and minor terms, and consequently The does not exist, the terms tion proposiequivalent being equivalent.
abstract.
-is always and
then,has
no no
sion, only simplyconvertible. The doctrine of ConverIt follows, that also, placerelative to this syllogism.
Figure is
to
of
moment,
and
is to
two, the
is
every
term
be
and
non-distribution These
cannot, then,arise.
render the
treatment logical this of this
eliminations
syllogism
from
within
the grasp
of immature
minds,
even
172
to
OF
REASONINGS.
in the logical reasoning the unit form requires whole with the Aristotelic syllogism as more mental discipline and maturity.Hamilton declares "mathematics impetuously exercise." not a logical It would perhapsbe wiser to hold is no substitute for Logic," that and to with Coleridge Mathematics studies as the consider mathematical to preparatory proper discipline studies." logical It will be well to observe that the distinction taken between logical and mathematical is not identical with the familiar distinction reasoning between moral reasoning Moral reasoning, and demonstration. in the quantitative often occurs better called dialectics, whole, and is less uncertainty. then mathematical, or yet it always involves more is in many not quantitative Demonstration but cases or mathematical, The difference between these is that alwayscarries with it certainty. dialectics involves to some extent matter, and hence empirical any is exclusively from falls short of certainty demonstration ; whereas and carries their necessity intuitive principles, along with it. This in the nature then,is not grounded on anythingpeculiar distinction, of the reasoning employed,which in all cases carries with it justthe that belongsto the premises, to certainty but it same approximation of the premises is found in the nature themselves. According to its definition by Aristotle, demonstrative reasoning, producing scientific of the certainty a conviction knowledge in the strictest sense, requires laid down.3 of the propositions His scholastic followers devised the Demonstratio :" as a specimenof the following syllogism potissima
3 " "
apprehendit quitethoroughly ;
whereas
animal homo
animal
rationale;
homo
risibilis.
Here
is
in completeidentity
the
whole ; but construed in the mathematical readily is empirical, and not not hence a intuitive, priori, In moral reasoning demonstration. we proceedfrom
what
is
granted
See in
Exercise
2
of Mind."
The
distinction
sense. specific Aristotle treats of demonstration Anal. Post, i,2, 1. in the his illustrations in from chs. i-xiii, drawing lytics, especially pure
3
as an Study of Mathematics for Aug. 24th,1850. See also an article in the Athenaeum and drawn between mathematical logical reasoningimplies is not logical. The latter term, unfortunately, is used thus all reasoning of course, logical. In its generalsense is,
"
On
the
Posterior
Ana-
mathematics.
QUANTITATIVES.
173
firstbe allowed. must In demonstrative by the disputant ; the principia reasoningthere is no concession ; or rather there can be no nishes furdemonstrative, disputant. Pure mathematics,which is strictly the clearest illustrations of quantitative reasonings.
"
attention to pure mathematics, and therein of quantitative to synthetical geometry, to observe the application
2. Let us,
then,turn
to
our
logical We some use soning, reaqualitative geometry process. in general, of the genus, when it has proved of triangles or as it afterthat the three angles wards are equalto two rightangles, together of triangle the equilatthis truth to the several species eral, applies
find that makes
of
"
and reasoning,
ascertain how
and truly
best to
exhibit its
the
We
it sometimes
uses
but that by far the greater part of its mediate syllogisms, comparative inferences are in equivalent syllogisms. itself magnitudes, supplies Geometry,which is the science of spatial of definiwith a series of technical terms tions at the outset by means our complex notions of various magnitudes. It then analyzing these. Thirdly, it states indiscrim concerning laysdown certain postulates certain axioms. These
are,
however,
of
two
kinds:
the self-evident properties judgments,stating synthetical lines cannot Two of spatial enclose magnitudes,such as straight a space" (Ax.x); and, 2d, Certain analytical judgments,such as ing to the same are "Things equal equalto each other" (Ax.i). Accordaxioms proper, and must to Kant, the first are be assumed geometrical
1st,Certain
"
evident before any of the more intuitively complex relations be known can They constitute the ultimate premby demonstration. ises from which the science proceeds, and are, therefore, its peculiar basis. Those of the second class express general of equality conceptions and inequality relative to magnitudes. They are derived from the to quantity, and, corresponding PrimaryLaws of Thought as applied and general rules of the qualitative to the Canon syllogism, govern, in whole.* inferences in the quantitative a mode our similar, entirely to regardthese analytical It has,however, been usual for logicians
as
Axiom
1st of Euclid
(givenabove) is
statements
are
the Canon
same. are
inference.
Nos. 6
and
are
merely modified
3,4, 5, which
of the
from
other
Nos. 2 and
deducible
it,
of immediate
to "complex conceptions" " 5). E. g., As from "A corresponding (Part 3d, ii, horse is an is we is and "Whatever strong," immediatelyinfer animal," young A young The sums horse is a strong animal,"so under the axiom of equals b+d. can are we d,that a+c equal," 6,and c immediatelyinfer from a
" " = = =
174
OF
REASONINGS.
in geomeultimate premises with the synthetical, as axioms,together try, of the in to a demonstration, place and, analysis exhibiting logical
one
or
the other
as
the
are
g.
to
are equalto each other ; equal to the same the adjacentexterior and interior anglesof a triangle are
the
same
equal to
Magnitudes equal to
The three interior
and
.'. They
are
adjacentexterior
and interior
anglesof
the
are triangle
anglesand angles ;
rightanglesare equalto
adjacentexterior
equal to
each other.
and
Much
of the analysis logicians may be found in Mansel's Aldrich.0 it is very possible Now to exhibit an of arguments in the analysis whole in the same logical making one of the dicta of Aristotle manner, the major premise of the syllogism result ; but both process and would be cumbersome and artificial. It is far simpler, and clearer, natural to treat geometrical treat qualitative more as we reasonings axioms as canons reasonings.Let us take the analytic governing the process, and developthe demonstration the form and authorizing If you ask me to jusby a direct chain of quantitative syllogisms. tify I justify Aristotle's dicta, as by deducing it my Canon, I do it, from the Primary Laws. The above syllogisms would then reduce to the one : following
a
.
and
similar
of Euclid's Proposition analysis v, bk. i;6 lastic from certain old schosame proposition
The
interior
anglesof
equal to
are triangle
equal
to
an
adjacentexterior
and
interior
angle;
But
.*.The
these
are
two
interior
anglesare
The
as
is expression
rendered
facile by the
use
of
lettered
a
figure,
verbal
is
customary,whereby
two
placeof
of exhibiting the logical of a part. This method description analysis of a geometrical and more shorter, proof is not only far simpler, to me to correctly direct than the usual way, but it seems represent
process, which
"
Note Appendix,
L.
OF
REASONINGS.
to properly
be viewed
as
"
the
The copulainterpreted.
same
"
demand
A is a kind might be made to bring A is contained under B," or of its marks of B," or A has for one or B," under the rule species and what follows is the predicate.Then, that the is is the copula, and so ad infinitum. the demand might be repeated, upon the result, in the equivalent misnamed So far of quantitative reasoning degree, the positive degree.
" " "
comparativedegreehave for their copula ematical is greater is less than," for which the maththan,"or its correlative, of form The typical sign of inequality may be substituted. the syllogism is :
"
4.
in Propositions
the
"
"
A"B;
B
/. A
"C;
" C.
invert the
meaning
of the
copulaand
read
B is lessthan A ; C is lessthan B ;
.*. C is lessthan A.
The The
.*. The
planetJupiteris greaterthan
earth is greaterthan the
moon
the earth ;
;
planetJupiteris greaterthan
class of
the
moon.
The What
axiom
is
governingthis
a
syllogisms may
be
stated thus:
than greater
was
What
is greater than the thing.10 still greater said in " 1 respecting the elimination of Conversion,
is to
of comparison. syllogisms for the simplicity of this reasoning. We cannot, however, say as much the premises authorize more than the strictly For,be it observed, cal logiconclusion states. This excess is usually thus : expressed
to
.*. By
so
and Figure,
Mood
be
also applied
much
the
more
is A
greater than C.
may
This
to mean
sort
"
of
argument
a
is called
which fortiori,
by
A fortiori
is greater than C.
Such
we
can
be reached
a
may
10
argument
this
so
affirma-
In pure
mathematics
is used but rarely as compared with the syllogism by aid of however, that Euclid demonstrates find, others of his firstbook.
QUANTITATIVE
3.
177
live
contain less (ormore) than the premises sometimes between the reasoning whole truth. Logicians distinguish and that a majoread minus ; but the distinction is ad majus, a minore since one is simplyconvertible into the other.11 superficial, examine miscellaneous examples.Our Let us now some analytically above may be analyzed thus : typical syllogism in syllogism which the
A B
.*. A
is is is
as as as
much much
as as as
B C C
much
Here
is
simpleconcrete example:
The The
.*. The
higherthan the man ; higherthan the tree ; is stillhigherthan the man. spire
tree is is spire
as
This may
be re-dressed
The The of height of height heightof
follows
.'. The
These
propositions may
The
be further
as
thus analyzed,
as
heightof
we
the tree is
muck
that of the
man
etc. (andmore),
Very
the
often
do not
may
The The
need the
conclusion pleonastic
:
; in which
case
argument
be resolved thus
sea
ocean
is broader
is
as
broad
the
sea
(and more);
.*. The
ocean
is broader
Here The
the second
which surplus
into
is elided in
thought.
syllogism may
term
be construed is
as
Barbara, by takingfor
It is evident that
"what
broad
as
the sea."
judgments as compound,and views the that both kinds of judgments of degree as complex. Also, reasoning the judgmentsare in the same occur reasoning.Sometimes may as : triplex,
considers the
A B
includes B ;
11
De
Morgan givesa
authorities.
more
elaborate
our
common
See bis
than others of
178 The
OF
REASONINGS.
things.
"
It says that
"
"
is
"
greater than
B," which
it says,
of,1st,
as
much
coincides A partially that 3dly, Not only do both kinds of judgments of degree occur but qualitative judgments also often combine reasoning, For example,
"
;" also
as, B."
same
in the
tive. quantita-
The
The
.'. Our
sun sun
is
star
about revolving
remote
celestial centre
is the centre
of
our a
celestial centre.
The
form
is
M M
.'. S
is contained is the
same
under
as
P..
Qualitative.
Quantitative. Qualitative.
cases.
S
P
is contained
under
The
Nothing is in reasoning than to have the minor premise declare more common of notions, of which then replaces the one simply the equivalence The equivaother in the major premiseto constitute the conclusion. lence in such cases, however, amounts to identity, and should be read
"is the
same
Canon
of
is Replacement
as."
a
We
whole
append
to the
singleexample
:
of
from reasoning
the mathematical
follows as part,
A
A
.*. A
minute
is a part
a
degreeis
minute
is a part
of a
circle.
"
5.
It is
cases, the
in readily,
be
converted
when this cannot be done without however, many cases and some perhapswherein it is whollyimpracticable. great violence, often be readily On the other hand, qualitative as syllogisms may There
arc,
sometimes sometimes not at quantitative, by violence, of this change may have been the frequentpracticability so they not recognizing attempts of recent logicians, many
into
the fundamental
to
wholes,to reduce
all propositions
the whole
is Hamilton's
been already
the Canon of which has "Unfigured Syllogism,"12 whatever given in i," 4. He says that any syllogism
18
See
Appendix
to
his
Logic, p. 626
QUANTITATIVES.
1*79 find
may
be
transmuted the
as
in the
example,and following
: to
f
an
adequate
in expression
form unfigured
reduced
Darii, Fig. 1,
All
are patriots
Unfigured Syllogism.
All and patriots who
some some some
brave
\
"
brave
men
are
who who
patriots "/"
brave.
"]
Some
flee and
are patriots
( .'.Some
who fleeand
brave
men
are
quantified predicate. has Hamilton overlooked "This form been while, by logicians, says, in fact, it affords a key to the whole dently mystery of syllogism."Eviinto the quantitait is only a forcing the qualitative reasoning tive and the awkward, in order mould, needlessly making expression The innovation and the to avoid even the mere appearance of figure. claim have been received with a justcoldness by all except the most
devoted followers of Hamilton.
It will be observed
that the
change involves
the
"
6.
It is needful
to
is another
which cannot be regarded either qualitative one as judgments, These are causal judgments.Besides the two modes or quantitative. of thought we have discussed, there is that in which we think events, another. With such one as about, or determining causing, bringing and effects. The judgments we syllogize, pursuinga train of causes class of form elementary
of this
stands syllogism
A B
.*. A
causes causes causes
thus
B ; C ; C.
violence to any of the forms we have but logically it is quite similar to the quantitative considering,
reducible without
syllogism.The
copulais
or
"
causes"
is to
be
changedto
of
cause
Obviouslythere
that which
tant imporfacts
in life reasoning
in science than
and
of nature.
logicinvolved
has been
to
call for
special
remark,however, that the copulais often absorbed A governs A excites B," etc. as A lifts B," B," These,for be allowed to stand in the place of the more simplicity's sake, may
" " "
formal
in the of
one
maintained copula, providedthe causal relation is continuously which was the effect reasoning.Just that event, and no other,
must
be the
cause
of the
next,and
so
on
in
chain
throughout
the series of
propositions.
180
OF
REASONINGS.
"
7. Praxis,
Name
each
of the
rea" following
if need proposition.Re-dress, soilings belongs. Supply any lacking the several sylloand exhibit the copula. Explicate be,analytically, gisms
that may
as
be involved
in
one
example.
Construe
two
or
three
: qualitative
1. The
favorite
of pupil
the
Academy
was
Aristotle:
Aristotle became
.-. Plato's
the head
of the rival
Lyceum
his rival.
was
2. The
author
was
was
the
French greatest
dramatist ;
Racine
:.
of Athalie ; dramatist.
Racine
French greatest
3. The
And
4. John
law.
"
Peter knew
.-. John
knew
6.
States ;
of the Union ;
States
are
part
is .*. Virginia
not
as
its duties ;
Its duties
/.
are
The
Sandstone
Red
/.
Sandstone
lies above
Coal ;
Coal.13
than rubies; precious gold;
9. Wisdom
And
/.
rubies than is of
Wisdom A follows
10.
B;
BfollowsC;
/.
follows C.
13
This
example
is
given by Whately
See Fowler's
about
without
remark.
It has been
sore
ble trou-
to his successors.
Deductive
the head
summary
of Lincoln
treatment
it ; and
QUANTITATIVES.
181
11. If God
more
field,
shall he
not
much
12. The
earth;
And
.*. The
that of
Jupiter ;
that of
a
is within
Jupiter.
bisects the chord and
13. The
to perpendicular
arc.
chord
tlie
subtended A
For
in the
I) C and B
are
C, A
D
is
equalto
A
each
is
common
if two
nuse
equalto B D ; for have the hypotheright-angled triangles and a side of the one equal to those of
are
; hence
the also
14. The The
.'. The
of
dome
the
sky;
;
the dome
the
sky.
heaven of heavens
cannot
"
15.
and
contain
1
that I have
builded.
1 6. To
To
overcome
temptation ;
Satan ; also.
to conquer
.*. Self-denial
mastery
of Satan
17. If two
lines cut each other, the straight vertical or oppositeangles will be equal. For the angles 0 E A and A E D are together to two right equal since the angles which one line makes with anangles, other straight of it side are together equalto tw7o right angles upon one ; and the anglesA E D and DEB are togetherequal to two for the same therefore the two right angles angles reason; C E A and A E D are together A E D equalto the two angles and Take DEB. the common angle A E D, and the away remainingangle C E A is equalto the remainingangleDEB. In the same be demonstrated it can that the angles manner C E B and A E D are equal. Therefore if two straight lines, etc. Q. E. I)." Euclid, Prop, xv, bk. i.
contain
18. Cocoanuts
milk;
cocoanuts ;
These
/.
barrels contain
These
182
OF
REASONINGS.
1 9.
Pilate's The
dictator
was
the with
servile
mob
;
"
cried
one
voice,
the
masters
Crucify
of
him
;"
/.
They
For
judged
were
were
the
judge.
to
20.
if, when
death saved
of
we
enemies,
;
we
were
reconciled
God
by
shall
the be
his his
Son life.
"
much Rom.
more, v,
10.
being
reconciled,
we
by
21.
It
were
better
is
to
have
no
opinion
of
of for
God the
at
all
is is
than
such
an
opinion
other of the is
as
unworthy
;
him;
one
unbelief,
the
the
contumely
"
and
certainly
xvii.
superstition
reproach
Deity.
Bacon,
Essay
184
OF
REASONINGS.
formal statement would a logically Besides, of almost any thoughtintolerably render the expression prolix.Brief is not only more and but often more forcible, expression pleasing do not clear. Unnecessary words but obscure,thought. elucidate, It is
to the wise is
sufficient."
best,then, to
use
no
more
than
are
needful
to
convey
the
it is customary and distinctly. For these reasons thought clearly such as are to abbreviate expression. Essential propositions, greatly in various elided ; others are compounded or condensed are obvious, state the thoughtsentire, ing accordnor, indeed, ways, so that theyrarely The Enthymeme is the usual form of brief to their actual order. statement so we frequently ; and since reasonings appear in this guise, section to its consideration. will devote the rest of this prefatory in that case, It is customary, then,to abridgesyllogisms ; and since, is in the mind is some only,such statement part of the reasoning plete incomcalled an which is thus defined : An v (f Ouyuw), Enthymeme We two or one syllogism, judgmentsbeing unexpressed.1 may, four of orders viz. : then,distinguish enthymemes,
1st. The
g., Sinus
is
fixed
unexpressed. E.
of faith is sin.
often
sinful ; for
conclusion
faith it is
unexpressed. E. g., Enoch pleasedGod ; but to please him (=2 whoever God impossible pleases
faith).
Only
one
"
stone proposition expressed. E. g., if we see on a tombThe memory of the justis blessed," is the impliedsyllogism often occurs manifest. This form of texts, in the use sufficiently If some and in witticisms. proverbs, pithy sayings, me one, seeing is hard," I am vexed, should say, The way of transgressors sorely for the implied concludes me a transgressor, indignant, syllogism yet since it has an undistributed middle, when Falstaff, falsely, running
"
4th.
from which
to
"
the
battle-field, says,
a
"
The
better In the
part of valor
same
scene
is
discretion,"
ply re-
also is Prince
major premise.
Hal,
"
he
is
in exclaims,
this world
we
another
1
call "an
insinuation,"
though an ancient view and generally This, acceptedin Logic,is not the enter matof a peculiar thymeme of Aristotle. With him the enthymeme is a reasoning from likelihoods and signs, Anal. Prior. See t " t IKUTUV wv. (rvXXoyKTjuoc rj o7//"/ ii, 27; Rhet. i,2; also Hamilton's Logic,Lect. xx; Discus"ians^ p. 153 sq. (Am, ed.) Appendix,note F. ; and Hansel's Aldrich,
"
COMPOUND
AND
DISGUISED
FORMS.
185
is often indirect, question i.e., a premisefrom which the doubtful proposition follows, a very of answer, since it furnishes also the ground of the mode satisfactory violates Ans., "Whatever opinion. E. g., "Is smuggling a crime?" of John is crime." of society the rights Again, when the disciples rectly indi?" he replied asked our Lord, Art thou he that should come not, however, in words,but in by givingthem a minor premise, and simply hour he performed many In that same acts. miracles, the
conclusion.3 implied
The
answer
to
"
"
to
them.3
of
a
The
message
to
Pilate from
his
furnishes
an
instance
of
an
Have
thou
sentence
with
that
just man."
for the
The
arguments
of the
premiseson
Caesar."
rested.4 A
may
stand alone.
unto
speech before
this minor
"
Festus
The
major to
Caesar is entitled to certain immunities." One unto appealing thus standingalone Aristotle calls an of the propositions enthyme'Adararov and matic an as sentence,6 quotes the following example: opyrjv
p) 0uAarre,Qvrirbs"v.
immortal
"
may
be
rendered, O
a
"
mortal,
cherish not
is rendered,
hate."
strictly
to
Being
and mortal,"
this constitutes
minor
the
mainder, re-
which
is the conclusion.
an
So it seems,
in the
common
ical log-
view,to be rather
The
enthymeme
of the firstkind.
than of the frequently major premise is omitted more any ily readother propositions, because it contains commonly a general rule, and understood fullyadmitted; whereas the minor premise is tablished quitecommonly a questionof fact which needs to be stated and esin order to be subsumed. E. g., A certain celestialbody
"
exhibits
proper
motion
among
famous
member
of
the solar
system."
of
a
The
Csesar consists
series of
This suggested.7
When
we
audience draw
whose
favor
is doubtful.
to
be
somewhat
their own,
often feeling
more
logic.
Hen.
4
6
sc.
4.
Luke
Acts
Julius
186
OF
REASONINGS.
is one syllogism, Epichirema, or reason-rendering to both,a supporting attached to either premise, or reason.
"
2. An
to say, it is
thymeme.
A
called another
"
an
having for a premisethe conclusion of an ensyllogism This enthymeme may, of course, be expanded into a syllogism whose premise is the conclusion of another is syllogism episyllogism" One whose conclusion is the premise of
"
is called
protyllogism"E.
g.
Episyllogism. Vice
is odious ; is
a
Prosyllogism.
(
"
Whatever
Avarice
enslaves is enslaves ;
is
a
vice ;
Avarice
.'. Avarice
-|
is odious.
( .*. Avarice
vice.
The
reason
of thus, in propriety
or reasons
is apparent. propositions of returning the same over ground ; By so doing we avoid the necessity not so likely and by clearing doubts as we to excite we are go along, of suspense. in the hearer the disgust that comes of Cicero pro Milone, though not formallyan oration The epiand an analysis chirema,may be viewed as one on an extended scale, of it stated thus
:
It is lawful to
one slay
who
us
permit
our own
it ;
law
we and, in addition,
have
has
it. justified
Clodius
renders
his equipment of probable ; again, the known such a design ; and, finally, it also evinces
to
murderous
acter char-
of his attendants
this purpose.
It Therefore,
was
slayClodius.
effort of
an
It is
more
common
for
the whole
of the
advocate
to
be directed
to
the establishment
no
minor
premise,and
long speeches
object. This suggests that the arrangement of criminal courts our to, or rather presents the parts of,a corresponds syllogism.The judge expoundsthe law,which is the major premise in the case, and, being fully n o established, requires proof. The that The accused prosecutorendeavors to prove the minor premise, If conclusion Not guilty," is guilty," which no the jury decides. Now the judge, the minor is established. follows. But if Guilty,"
have often
other
"
"
"
COMPOUND
AND
DISGUISED
FORMS.
187
in
the
Whoever
: :
" "
The The
prosecutor proves
judge sentences
The
sheriff executes.
heap)is a chain of enthymcmes,holding " 3. A Sorites (o-wpoc^a and episyllogism. the relation of prosyllogism It is called throughout It can, of course, the chain syllogism (Kettenschluss). by the Germans
be
in expressed
either
the quantity,
intensive
mon com-
form.
We
givean
illustrativescheme SCHEME
of the two
OF
SORITES.
The
The '
Goclenian
or regressive form,
in intension.
u
is
c
in extension.
Resolution.
Resolution.
a
A B
.
is B ; is C ;
is
c.
is d ; E ; E.
is not
E ;
is not
b is not
C
.'. a
is D ; is d.
D is not
.'. A
C is D ;
.'. c
B is C ;
e.
A
e.
is B ;
is not
is not
.'. b
is not
.'. A
is not
E.
Example.
Some The The The Some
who
are
Example.
are on
prosperous
are
avaricious ;
No
discontented
men
men on
are
happy
intent
men men
; ;
avaricious intent
on
intent
All
intent
gain are
are men men men are are
discont'd
on
men
gain;
men men.
discontented who
are
not
happy
are
prosperous prosperous
avaricious
not
prosperous
not
happy.
happy
Notation
in
depth.
Notation
in
breadth.
A,
"
,0:
"
,C:
"
,D: -H
:E
E: -H
:D,
"
:C,
"
:B,
"
,A
Other
notations
in breadth.
188
OF
REASONINGS.
The
difference between
these two
forms
is
questionof
We
order of
and therefore premisesmerely, of the syllogism, the case to use second have for extension ; but it is
an
agreement, nothingmore.
and progressive, Till Kant's
Logicians
which
should
be called words.
strife about
and the Goclenian progressive. Kant regressive, reversed this. Afterwards, Jacobi restored it, followed by Krug and The other German influence of Hamilton, who follows logicians. Kant, has fixed in all recent Englishtreatises the names as we give If we them. of intension, regardthe Aristotelic form as expressive it ascends from fact to law, and might properly be called the ascending form. If we of extension, regardthe Goclenian form as expressive law to fact, it descends from and might properly be called the form. descending The following should be particularly observed : points
1st. The
telic form
called
Sorites has as many middle terms, and hence resolves regular into as many it has premises, less one. as syllogisms, is the onlymajorpremisethat is expressed 2d. The firstproposition ; all other premises minors. are 3d. Each unexpressed major is the conclusion of the precedingsyllogism.
4th.
Only Only
one
premise may
be
and negative,
this must
come
last in
firstin extension ; else illicit process. and this must premise may be particular,
in intension and the last in extension ; else undistributed We also remark that in the scheme all the
in Fig. 1. are syllogisms in the Sorites cannot other ever, occur throughout. One step,howfigures be in Fig.2 or Fig.3, but only one, and it must be either may the first or the last. This, against Hamilton, is established by Mill.8
of this and
rules,
chain.
may
be connected
continuous
The
The
name
also of
be found
in
still retained
as, the
vol. ii, Logic, of Hamilton, p. 619; and Mill's Examination p. If Sir W. found Hamilton had in any other harshly, sq. says : of logical writer such a misuse language as he is here guilty of,he would have writers." roundlyaccused him of total ignoranceof logical
8
See
Hamilton's
226
rather Mill,
"
COMPOUND
AND
DISGUISED
FORMS.
ISO
"
4. Our
usual way
only
few
examplesof
the
abbreviated, cumulated,and
compounded, and
Such the
of the fact that all may be resolved into simplesyllogism illustrations are needful, however, in order to confirm
emphasisthat the precedingstatements, and show with practical the unit of elaborate reasonings. is truly simplesyllogism The student of Logic should exercise himself in the reduction of select he will find In most statement. cases arguments to syllogistic to discern and this no easy task,a nice discrimination beingrequisite eliminate the merely rhetorical elements,and to bring out all the rather than expressed. He of which is often suggested much proof, the ultimate and then to is advised to begin by stating conclusion, If a premise seek for the premiseson which it immediatelyrests. and requires proof,regard it as a conclusion from priorpremises, backwards Thus trace the reasoning until the premsearch for them. ises
are
with
which For
the the
argument
conclusion
may
occur
commences, is often in
not
proof.
stated order
these
any
"
It will often
happen that
the
same
proved
by
into the truth of the premarguments, and then the inquiry many ises will branch out accordingly.In mathematical other strative demonor
will of
course
never as if,
take
since place,
absolute
same
increase ; and
of several different
we demonstrations,
But
in
select the
there is often a cumulation of absolutely certain) conclusion, i.e., each proving it arguments, each provingthe same these we to be probable, and from estimate the aggregate probability."
not
"
who "Whatcly,
out
makes of
an
these
the
course
argument
of
tree,or
sion, divilogical
thus
Z Conclusion,
is
X, proved by
190
OF
REASONINGS.
Our He
firstexample is drawn
an
from
Austin's Province
ofJurisprudence.
he
is
a
states
argument
"
which moralists,
combats,thus
and
No
opinion or
is held
or
sentiment felt
which
result of observation
Observation by all mankind. and induction, to the same lead different men as to applied subject, But the judgments which are passedinternally different conclusions.
on
induction
or
of actions, or pravity
are excite,
sentiments
all
men.
or
ings feel-
actions
moral
sentiments
quently, Conseour
gotten by
excite of
ductions in;
nor
from
were
the tendencies
or
them
these sentiments
then
inductions
and others,
or are instinctive,
an
epi-
terms, may
Inductions
Moral
.*. Moral
are
not
held
by
all men
alike ;
^entimentsare
sentiments
are
alike;
inductions. instinctive ;)
Epi. (Allsentiments
Moral
.*. Moral
not
are are
inductive
not
are
sentiments sentiments
inductive ;
instinctive.
The
28-30.
second "And
example we
we
take from
that all
the
to Epistle
the Romans
viii,
for good to together them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. whom For he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be his conformed to the image of Son, that he might be the first-born brethren. he did predestinate, them Moreover, whom many among he called, them he also justified he also called ; and whom ; and whom them he also glorified." he justified, and stated so nearly This is evidently in or a polysyllogism, sorites, is needless. Another form that redressing strict logical premise, quite thus : he gloriAnd whom at the close, obvious,is to be supplied fied, work whom all for to are things together good." The they they formal conclusion then would be : he did Therefore,whom strictly work together all things for good." foreknow, they are they to whom it might read thus : More freely and fully whom Therefore, stated, he did foreknow, predestinate, and call according to his purpose, they,
" " "
know
thingswork
192
OF
REASONINGS.
of kin to God
by
Ins
he spirit,
is
base and
ignoble
(What
Man
.'. Man
is of kin to beasts
and
not to
to
God
;
is base
and
ignoble ;)
is of kin to beasts
and
not
God
is base
and
ignoble. ;) ignoble
But
(Who thus deny man's kinshipwith God make man (They that deny a God must deny this kinship ;) man's .*. They destroy nobility.
likewise magnanimity and destroys take an example of a dog, and mark the
"Atheism
nature
; for
and
he finds courage he will put on when man, who to him is instead of a god,or melior natura,
is
which
as
that confidence So
man,
nature
his own,
attain.
when
himself upon divine force and faith which human nature and
as
obtain ; therefore,
atheism
nature
human The
of the
to exalt itselfabove
depriveth frailty."
it
above
might perhapsbe
it would
seem
as
in part an
argument from
analogy; but
dog, maintained
better
than
on
his
Man
resting
beyond
his reach.
Now
: by complex conceptions
depriveshim to exalt himself above human means frailty ;) of reliance God man on (Atheism deprives ;) of the exalt himself, to and man means .*. Atheism deprives human nature. magnanimity and the raising
on man (Whatever deprives Eut,furthei;
(Whatever deprivesman
of
reliance
God
of this
so
stroys de-
of the
means
to exalt himself
is hateful
;)
Atheism
.*. Atheism
One
follows
"
ever How-
the attributes of
"
God the
"
Being who
made
and who
'
mind
of this universal
COMPOUND
AND
DISGUISED
FORMS.
193
them
on
is most
we men
clear and
full ;
evidence How do
we
which
know
that
for that is not what we form havinga certain visible bodily chiefly but rational agents, such as we call men) ? imply by the word 'man' not mind is by the immediate evidence of our senses Surely (since not but by observing the things an the objectof sight), performed,
"
"
founded
on
observed
contrivance
argument ;)
man
exists is the
proof that
exists.
The
.'.
The
proofthat proofthat
fourth
God God
proofthat
exists ;
exists is most
from the Appendix to we example, take, of the first part of Paley's Whately'sLogic,an analysis Evidences, somewhat the statement. modifyingand condensing
a
For
and
final
The
is from
God
Of
was case
minor
was
the
major
by
in ancient
times;
presentthe
is reversed.
establish the
minor,as
follows
who
pass
their lives in
"
statements,
new
"
who
submit
to
rules of
conduct,
"
in consequence
are
of their
belief, by
such evidence ;
:
worthy of credit ;
are are
Christian miracles
.*.
attested
worthy of credit
i.e.,
is attested by religion
"
credible miracles.
The
is
major of this syllogism,That a story so attested is credible," supportedby two arguments: 1st,That it is a prioriimprobable
since no sufficientmotive storywould be thus attested, be supposed. 2d, That it is a posteriori since no improbable,
a
that
can
false
13
194
OF
REASONINGS.
storywhatever lias ever been so attested ; and hence, false storyof miracles ever has been so attested. no by subalternation, The proof of this last proposition bifurcates; viz., concerningsuch it is proved to be, cited as parallels, stories as have been,or are likely
other miraculous
either, They
as
"
are
not
so
or attested,"
lous," miracuThey are not properly of the narrathe veracity tor, questioning
"
The
pointsof
the minor
premise of
the
are syllogism
established
by
"
series of
arguments :
That
"
"
witnesses for Christianity suffered is proved: early since their doctrine to suffer, 1st. A priori:they were likely foolishness. and regarded as an was offence, 2d. From profanetestimony. Christian testimony. 3d. From is proved: That they suffered in support of their statements 1st. By that they had nothing else so to support except the claims of the new religion. of historians, both Christian and profane. 2d. By the testimony and That they submitted to new rules of conduct,
the
"
That
this
was
consequence
of their belief of
their
are story,
proved. similarly
"
That
are
what
we
that the original unlikely story should taken its place. have been lost and a new one 2d. By incidental allusions of ancient writers,showing the to be the stories of these witnesses and of our Scriptures
1st. A
priori: it
is
same.
3d.
By
the inherent
of our credibility
a new
historical It will be
of
reasons
Scriptures.
that much
by supported
is
series.
seen
argument
the
same
number a cumulative,
being cited to that in the latter part of the analysis be turned into a syllogism by easily
"
to be to
5.
a
in what
at firstglance appears
be
rule.
discovers but which a slight inspection single simplesyllogism, essential deviation from compound, or at least to involve some will state and analyze We a few examples. representative
COMPOUND
AND
DISGUISED
FORMS.
195
it is evident that compound proposition, and that the statement there must be at least one compound premise, involves two or more syllogisms.E. g. : When
a
conclusion
is
The
triumvirs
were
ambitious
Crassus
;
were were
and and
triumvirs
Crassus
ambitious.
three syllogisms involved in one If statement. obviously there are stillthree. But substitute for the major term we friends," if we then there is but one, since the substitute founded the empire," simple. change makes all the propositions involves a surWhen the conclusion is simple, plus a compound premise
" "
of matter.
Whatever The
.*. The
moon moon
E. g.
revolves about
alone
present phases;
revolves about
the earth ;
makes
phases.
This about
not
compound
the
moon
minor
premise resolves
which the revolve about
it would
into
"The
moon
"
revolves What
no
from earth,"
conclusion the
and follows,
is
clusion con-
the
does not
from earth,"
which
is
competent,since
is contained
more syllogism
in the
may
which conclusion,
Justification
Our
.*. Our
by faith alone
is
This may evidently in Barbara be resolved into two simple syllogisms and Celarent. But this is not requisite pound ; for we may treat the comin such case if simple. as propositions An has the effect to distribute, rather to totalize, or subject exceptive the predicate of the proposition, for one of its elements is negative. The following therefore, though it may be construed as reasoning, AAA, Fig.3, is sound :
fail are
scorned
"
afa
fail suffer
are
=afa ^afa
scorned
on
is sound
condition
is distributed
in both but in
the
is
196
OF
REASONINGS.
by
sort
of
and
scorned."
In the
all three
are propositions
compound
but exponibles,
intricate.
all are Except the evil-minded, But none are truly happy save
.'. There
are
truly happy ;
the content alone ;
are
evil-minded.
we this, Redressing
have
as
follows
are
but but
are are
the evil-minded.
This
is compound throughout, but the matter Camestres, into four syllogisms, the conclusion doubly so. The whole explicates the following conclusions : yielding
is in form
are are.
not
non-evil-minded.
evil-minded.
non-evil-minded.
not
are
evil-minded.
When
we we
two
affirmative conclusions,
undistributed which
middle. evolved
to
conclusion effect of
case,
an
from
competent, because
the this
totalize the
predicate.In
for
we
clusion. premisesis collected in the conSuch an intricate form and analysis less. needare, however, quite will be sufficient; Any one of the simpleelementary syllogisms from its conclusion immediately the infer, by infinitation, may
in the
other three.
"
6.
There
is
class of
these have received, treatment to have seems unsatisfactory been the bane of writers on logic.The premises stated. arc irregularly in order to indeed,but require, They consist of simplepropositions the substitution of equirules, logical bringthem under the common pollent of inferences. In else one or more or subsidiary propositions, and
some cases
the resolution
cannot
few
characteristic
examples.
COMPOUND
AND
DISGUISED
FORMS.
197
The
from following
9
Arnauld
is
by pronounced
Jevons
to
practica be im-
The The
.*. The
sun
is
Persians Persians
Here Canon
are
five terms
the conclusion being obtained applicable, Replacementis directly tributed in the minor premise, the sun by its undisby replacing, declared in the major premise. as a thinginsensible," genus, rules the resolution is very simple. But even under the common logical the major premisewe ceptions, From infer, by complex conimmediately may and a thinginsensible," They who worshipthe sun worship Barbara. then have a perfectly we regular would hardlypuzzle a tyro : The following of
" "
Whoever
A
probes
is
wound
is
on
the verge
of crime ;
wound
probed by
on
the healer ;
.*. The
healer is
For the
"
The An
minor, substitute the active form immediately inferred, passive have againBarbara. healer probesa wound," and we immediate inference in opposition is as an example involving
:
follows
That And
.'. It is
riches
are
often
true
bitter
curse men
yet it is also
that most
no
men
desire what
bitter
curse.
The
which syllogism
is
is the
bitter
Darii following
;
They
Most
.*. Most
who
men men
curse
bitter
curse.
This the
inferred by complex conceptions ; major premiseis immediately then its contradictory, conclusion, by opposition ; for if E is false,
true.
I,is
the
be invalid.
The
He
" 4) as directly example formerlycited (i, of Replacement. Aldrich (p. 99) pronounces it the ground that it has five terms, and therefore is evidently is wrong ; the reasoning very good.
commands
a us
divine law
XIV is
to
honor
kings;
Louis XIV.
Louis
.'. The
king ;
commands
us
divine law
to
honor
Lessons in
Logic, p.
158.
198
OF
REASONINGS.
It is
evident sufficiently
true
term
here is
"king." This,
then,is the
in
a
form
All
that
of the major premise, which, being redressed subject : as gives equipollent, may be accepted
of those whom
a
kings are
XIV XIV
is
commands
us
to
honor
Louis
.'. Louis
king;
whom
is one
us
to
honor.
The
form
conclusion
for
"
of this
The
to honor
Louis
more
XIV."
: satisfactory
The
treatment following
is
a
readers be
Louis XIV
"
king ;
and
we one
we inverting, get: are thinkingof is Louis XIV).
whole to the quantitative by transference XIV (i. king e.,the we : by complex conceptions,get This
is Louis
"
Whatever .But
commands
us us us
to
(Whatever commands
commands
.*. Whatever
Now,
The
commands commands
king commands to honor all kings commands to honor all kings commands to honor all kings; us
honor this
us
us us us
to
honor
Louis XIV
this
to honor to
king;)
honor
Louis XIV.
.*. The
to
honor
Louis XIV.
and named certain described, Logicianshave distinguished, of which be fairly included of arguing, modes account some may under the present topic. ad rem is the direct proof of the main The argumentum pointin question. The reductlo ad absurdum indirectly proves an assertion by proving of its contradictory. the absurdity It is much used in geometry. It called argumentum The refutation of is sometimes per impossibile. also be accomplished assertion may an by an inverse treatment,10 by its In hear the true. discussions we sometimes proving contradictory
"
7.
remark, "Your
be
argument
is illogical or a premiseis reasoning of false. The argument from effects is very similar. In a question the passage of a law for the suppresmere expediency -as,for example, sion of intemperance we might argue from effects, and, showing that resulted in evil and that they had actually to be evil, they are likely pediency similar cases, we in analogousor entirely might thus prove the inexif posof such a measure. Questions of duty should always, sible, in w ithout but be determined a priori, regardto consequences ;
shown, then
too
much."
If
an
absurd
quence conse-
"
"
10
See Part
3d,ii, "
8.
200
OF
REASONINGS.
"
a
8.
Praxis.
it is the
or a simpleenthymeme, or an epichirema, In form. implied in full logical syllogisms the pro- and epi-syllogism. distinguish
Write
an
out
of
epichirema,
1. Blessed 2.
are
the
Cunning
cannot
virtue ; for
no
virtue
degrades.
3. It is I ; be not 4. 5. 6.
afraid.
"
7.
8.
See Hamilton's Cogito, Metaphysics, ergo sum. p. 258. should be moderate ; for excess will cause disease. Every man have no friends. Kings,havingno equals, leans, sinners above all the GaliSuppose ye that these Galileans were ? because they suffered such things I tell you nay. also it often yields is to it, as Will,since it often combats desire,
not
9. The
is
good
for
food, and
these
since animals,
they have
10.
to
and
he
cloven
is
Man, inasmuch
desires and
in
and is, selfish, naturally moreover, which have no limits or power passions
11.
needs the restraints of law. themselves, is preferable to Occasional turbulence, being the less of two evils,
rigid despotism.
12.
What
no
if
rule
never
and is,
a principle alwaysis,
law
admitting
exception?
man
13.
wise
and
is
never
because he is never surprised, disappointed; he forms no expectations that are not placed
upon
14.
certain basis.
to
Suppose a
"No
say, "I
dislike all
find foreigners;"
premise
which, with
15. Whatever
this
would saying,
assertion,
foreigner ought to
tends
to
1C.
of a low pursuits deserves to be promoted. This classical learning nature does, since it cultivates a taste for intellectual enjoyments. because the writers had The Scripture narratives are trustworthy, cere sinof knowing the facts;also, were the means they evidently
withdraw
and
candid ;
are
consistent.
friends to religion, are being the basis religion patriots ance national prosperity; but, since their lives are not in. accordwith its
some
great statesmen
are
not
friends to
religion.
COMPOUND
AND
DISGUISED
FORMS.
201
18. Lithium
is
an
element; for it
an
producesan
therefore is alkali,
element. it is
unjust;I
so
know my
that it is
just, un-
because
me
so
; and
conscience tells
20.
When
the
as
a was
religious
duced, introa
Christ's resurrection
attracted much
ing strik-
naturally
it
the truth of inquiryrespecting have been exposed as story would surely been
one.
the resurrection,
imposturehad
Put
the
in the Goclenian
:
the
21.
prudentare temperate;
The
temperate are
constant
are
constant
The
unperturbed ; without sorrow The unperturbed are ; Those without sorrow are happy ;
.*. The
prudentarc
its
Put
22.
the
in following
write
the notations
Nothing which
What A has
no
is indissoluble is mortal
of parts is indissoluble composition has no composition of parts spirit ; A thinking substance is a spirit ;
The
mind
.*. The
is
mind
as following
sorites in regular
; for
war
has become
necessity,
and
we
onlyby
country
24.
be raised which can without money, go to war of the But the only tax which the resources taxation.
can
bear
is the
on
the
population.
hold the
must
demagogue must
favorite with he follow.
them,he
them
fore ; theremust
understands
their
weaknesses,and
his
contempt
202
OF
REASONINGS.
25.
Riches
are
for
therefore
and spending for honor and good actions spending, be limited by the worth extraordinary expense must
"
of the occasion.
26.
J3acon, Essay
nor
xxviii.
a
therefore
crime, no
should go
one
this who
any
other
crime
acts
with
good
intent
should
will
conduct
is of this
and character,
it is generous
are
credit
failures in business many who of free credit ; so that not every one
freely. But
fails is
faulter de-
results either
as
ple sim-
imitates the natural action of the nerves effectually of the muscles in exciting than electricity the contractility transmitted alongtheir trunks ; and it has hence been supposed is the real agent by which that electricity philosophers by some But there are many the muscles. the nerves act on objections the rest, to such a view ; and this very important one among trunk which that electricity may be transmitted alonga nervous while the tied tightly round it, has been compressedby a string checked by nervous power is as completely passage of ordinary had been divided. this process as if the nerve Carpenters
agent
more
"
Physiology.
28. We
are
not
of the
second
rate
we
book
of the Novum
Organum.
is, indeed,an
elabo:
and
are
of that which analysis.But it is an analysis all doing from morning tillnight, and which we continue
correct
to do
even
in
our
dreams.
"
Macaulay.
the reason,
common.
29. Our
in respect of also,
which
rational
reason
is beings,
This
us
being so,
to
mon com-
which
commands there is
a
what
do, and
also ; of the
a ner man-
not
we
to
are
do ; this
being so,
and
common
law
hence
members
political community :
state,
"
is in
Marcus
30. The
mon com-
to exclude, as therefore,
far
as
to
COMPOUND
AND
DISGUISED
FORMS.
203
31.
chief. happiness ; in other words, to exclude misBut all punishment is mischief ; all punishment is in itself an of utility, if punishment evil. Upon the principle ought at all to be admitted,it ought only to be admitted in so far as it promises to exclude some greaterevil. Jeremy Bentham. Because the greatest part of men such as prefer their own are is sensual that good which even private good before all things, that
"
subtract from
before whatsoever
is most
divine ; and
with good,together
the
the contrary,
one
doth
make
men
part slower
to the
and
can
proner
to the
other than
by
that
law
men
prevail
do
with sufficiently
for the benefit of which may
them
men more
laws
make
wards, re-
seemed
allure unto
de-
terreth from
evil than any
6.
thereto
bk.
32. How
33.
I, x,
reason
in Acts
3-6 xxviii,
Prove
that O cannot be a premisein Fig.1 ; that it syllogistically be the major in Fig. in Fig.3. the minor cannot Also 2, nor be negative. Also prove that in Fig.2 the conclusion must that in Fig.3 the conclusion must be particular.
out
involved in the following and syllogisms irregular : compound forms,supplying any inference that may be lacking
34. The
to establish a republic. endeavoring A republic is a representative government ; French .*. The to establish a representonce more are endeavoring ative
once
more are
Write
the
French
government.
35.
The
/.
is merely a purchasing value of money ; power Interest on money is only a reward of abstinence ; Interest on money is not the value of money. Now
no
36.
for chastening
the
present seemeth
to
be
37. I
38.
the grievous ; nevertheless afterwards it yieldeth of righteousness which them exercised thereby. unto are 11. ffeb.xu, because I have nothingto give. givenothing, solely
"
None There
are are
happy but
many
rich
the
men
virtuous;
who
are are
rich
men
not
virtuous;
.*. There
are
who
not
happy.
204
OF
REASONINGS.
39.
Whoever
says, I love
not
his brother
he ?
hath
seen, how
whom
out
he hath not
They
He
are
of the reach ;
of their enemies
who
cannot
be robbed
of what
cannot
they love
be robbed
of what
he loves who
loves God
alone ;
They who love God alone are out of the reach of their enemies. 41. Every good pastor is ready to givehis life for his sheep ; Now pastors in the present day who are ready to give their lives for their sheep are rare ; in the present day scarcely are /. There any good pastors. 42. The Gospel promisessalvation to the faithful ; faithful ; the world condemns are Many whom the world condemns. salvation to many whom ,\ The Gospelpromises is happiness 43. Every one desires happiness ; hence ; but virtue (alone)
/.
every
44.
one
desires virtue.
"
Arist.
Eth.,bk. iii.
masters
to obey their servants obligates Christianity thingsonly which are not contrary to the law
in those
;
of God ;
But
unlawful
of God in
an
Therefore
it does not
to
serve
unlawful
ness, busi-
to do.
to fear; not subject are guilt thence it is that conscious hypocrites are alwaysshy and timid, and self-possessed. while the innocent are unsuspecting and Lord Derby are eminent statesmen; 46. Gladstone, Disraeli, But they are also eminent authors ; is not inconsistent with statesmanship. success cases /. In some literary one to sacrificeis greaterthan all others save 47. (The commandment ;)
are
not
conscious
of
To
/.
love is
more
To love God No
man
is the
See Mark
28-34. xii,
48.
is to be
tur pro
alicno
our
of another
(Netno puni-
Nearlyall of
.*.
miseries
our
are
entailed
are
on
us
by the
crimes of others ;
Few,
A
if any, of
miseries
49.
true
moral
But
.-. A
there is
no
excellence without
true
50. Put
in his chief happiness places philosopher activity. Cicero's episyllogism ("2) in form, and name
moral
the mood.
COMPOUND
AND
DISGUISED
FORMS.
205
What
names
may
be
given
in
to
the
following
reasonings
51.
given
a
point
line
only
drawn,
be
a
one
perpendicular angle
which
can
be would
if
second
be would formed
the
it
the
given
to
right
the
same
angle
side
by by
But
definition,
the
equal
on
first
of
pendicular; perthese be
for
right
part
which
in
angles
of
are
equal.
hence
one
angles
would
to
the
other,
part
would
equal
52.
the
whole,
Demetrius
35-41.
is
impossible.
Acts
used
in used
by
vers.
xix,
23-27
and
by
the
town-
53.
by
our
Lord
in
Luke
xiii,
15-16;
and
in
John
x,
34-36.
54.
Those That
used used
by by
Paul
in
Rom. in
v,
7-10.
55.
Eliphaz
Job
iv, 17-19.
206
OF
REASONINGS.
V.
CONDITIONALS.
have been considered.
is
now
"
common
1. Thus
far
forms onlycategorical
The
to
stated.
forms
be
and modification, A
what
extent.
is
A conditional judgment absolutely. categorical judgment predicates tion. which constitutes a condiaffirms relatively to some prerequisite the condition Its forms are primarily as according distinguished in a disjuncof an antecedent clause, or tion, by means implied expressed
or
both.
f
Thus
:
e.
Categorical
f
Judgments
-j
( Conditional
"
Conjunctive ; e. Disjunctive -J ; e.
P.
( Dilemmatic
By
Boethius conditional
" "
; e.
or
non-D.
synonymous
with
this,having been
here. Each
is used as to put together) (con-dare, and to place under), hypothetical (vTro-nOevat, after him, is adopted usual with most logicians
"
of
is the The word a hypothetical. nerically supposition (sub-ponere) " Latin congener of with it. The dilemand synonymous hypothesis," matic proposition, is also called because of its compound character,
the
conjunctive-disjunctive proposition.1
2. A
of which, involves two clauses, one conjunctive hypothetical the condition, is regardedas the subordinate member, and expressing is called the antecedent, the reason, the protasis to stretch (Trpo-reiveii', is regardedas the the conditioned, before).The other,expressing clause or member, and is called the consequent, the apodosis principal is to give back). Usually and formallythe antecedent (cnrottiSorai, written first, but inversions are quitecommon.
"
with as hypotheticalspecifically, conjunctive." synonymous Hence the dilemmatic he terms a hypothetico-disjunctive proposition. See Logic, also Bain Whately, and, indeed, except Mansel,all the Oxford p. 167. logicians, and others, and "conditional7' as specific. as use "hypothetical" generic,
uses
Hamilton
"
"
"
208
OF
REASONINGS.
to be strictly must make a complete Disjunctive judgments, logical, the disjunct members must exhaust the divisum, disjunction ; that is, be exclusive of each other. They are therefore contradictoand must ries. The characteristic of contradictory is that the oppoopposition
sites cannot
true
both be true
must
and
cannot
both
must
be
and
one
be
false ;
and
already
D, or
C is non-D.
are wars are
wars
not
evil.
he is not
guilty.
have
a
When
the division is
more
than and
dichotomous,we
e.
series of
coexclusive ;
g.,
either
E, or F, or or or solid, liquid,
aeriform.
must dictories Disparates alwaysbe reduced,for logical treatment, to contraby groupingthem into two opposed members ; e. g., Bodies
are
Angles are
Less than
aeriform obtuse
=
=)
fluid.
) oblique.
of
series disparate
will not
yielda
junctive dis-
judgment,since they are not exhaustive. Thus, to say "Birds shot either sitting for they or are flying is insufficient, may be shot the extreme which are contraries, running or swimming. Hence of a disparate cannot terms a disjunctive series, yield judgment. Thus
"
we
cannot
and
either black
or
white,"for
nor
some
are
red,
is neither true
We also be
said above
in that,
coexclusive. the
This
true,but often
not but intersect, are and coexclusive, species communicant perfect species.Such a division will yieldan immon, judgment,which, as it is very comincomplete disjunctive
E. g.,
fool
or
knave.
We may
affirm he be both.
may
must
be
the
other,but
not
it is also true
that he
These
terms, then,are
thus
:
contradictories. The
ment judg-
be formulated
Either C is D,
or
C is T.
Here
and
stand
for
communicant
one
species.The
true, and both
principle governing
may be
true
:
this form
is that
must
be
CONDITIONALS.
hence,denying one
As
for conwe venience, will, subcontrary opposition, and disparate these from contradictory disjunctive distinguish judgmentsas subcontrary disjunctive judgments. Disjunctive judgmentsfrequently appear in the form this is the law of
"
Either C is
D, or
is N.
was a a
III
monster, or Shakespearewas
or
wrong. I mistook
has patient
was
Either Cassar
or
him, etc.
criminal.
Here
a
the matter
not
judgment is
"
between
distinct. Such opposed clauses is entirely for there is no immediate disjunctive, directly position opis mediate ; the opposed clauses. The opposition
he
thus,
Either Richard
Bat If he
was
III
a
was
monster,
or
was
not
monster
not
monster, Shakespearewas
III
was a
wrong
Either Hence,
Richard
monster,
or
Shakespearewas
members that
wrong.
The
are
directly
of
between
one
of these and
the necessary
consequence
ways aland disjunctive are judgmentsalways affirm, conjunctive C is neither D nor never E," negative. If we say positive, The boy is neither smart nor e. g., good,"this is not to declare an but is merelya double denial. alternative, Both
" "
indicates, propositions " 4. Conjunctive-disjunctive are, as the name compounds of the two precedingforms, and hence involve no new
havinga disjunction conjunctives in both ; or, inverting the in the antecedent, in the consequent, or or in both in one or formula, having a conjunction they are disjunctives to greatapparent members. Their forms,which are certainly subject and intricate. If there numerous as are variations, usually represented is called dilemmatic but two are members, the proposition disjunct They principle.
may
as
be defined
double a (oi-Xe/i/m,
assumption) ; if three,trilemmatic
more
; if
four,te-
tralemmatic ; the
or
if
than
two,
is
ever, howpolylemmatic.Ordinarily,
to applied
"dilemmatic" adjective
all indiscriminately.8
when speakingof will use onlythe adjective we confusion, to certhe use of the nouns tain dilemma," trilemma," propositions, restricting etc.,
8
To
avoid
common
"
"
forms syllogistic
hereafter to be described.
14
210
OF
REASONINGS.
In
"
we
gave the
If A is
abbreviated following
form
as
representative:
B, C
is either D
or
non-D.
This may
now
be
expandedto
is
"
If A
B, either
"
C is
D, or
C is non-D.
Again expandingwe
have
Either if A
is B, C is D ;
or
if A
is
B, C
is non-D.
same
This
now
appears
as
double
dents antece-
and
disjunct consequents.
consider that
a
Now of two
let us
in the
quality
is D," and "C is non-D," makes them distinct e. g., "C clauses, E is F ;" C is D," and clauses, quite properlyrepresented by for a partial does not modify, except in ultimate analysis, identity of such propositions. the logical treatment Also, that a separate of contradictory and be representation subcontrary opposition may that every formal statement omitted,with the understanding sents repreeither. Again,since disparate members be must always grouped, for logical treatment, into two contradictory members, and since the forms trilemmatic and polylemmatic and subject of this nature to are this rule, they also may be omitted in a classification of forms that is grounded on the relation of clauses rather than of terms. Under these provisos exhaustive we an may represent very easily of the conjunctive-disjunctive statement forms,thus :
" "
1,Simple,(a)" Either if A
"
is
B, C
is D ;
or
if A
is
B, E
is F ;
having antecedents
is
identical and
consequents disjunct.
identical.
"
(b""Either if A
"
having
if A
2, Complex,
"Either
"
is
The
1
are following
concrete
examplesof
was
these forms
or
(a)
"
If Socrates
was
innocent, Anytus
we
either deceived
a
If
we
go
to war,
must
either contract
debt
or
demnify in-
ourselves at the
1
enemy's expense.
a
(b)
"
If
man
is either well
or
illdeserving, he is he
at
moral
or
agent.
the
If my
is
covered,
move.
if I capture
attacking
or
the next
If the
the consequences
of his act, he
was
criminal ;
if not,
insane. is
Either
popular, popular, compulsion is unnecessary ; or if it is unwill be resisted if the compulsion people are indifferent, ; or compulsionwill be fruitless.
if education
CONDITIONALS.
211
now described, "Upon the basis of the conditional propositions have in tererected a system of syllogizing minology logicians corresponding with the categorical system. There are then four kinds of conditional syllogisms. The Conjunctivehypothetical which has for its is one syllogism the minor premiseand conclusion major premisea conjunctive proposition, being the affirmation or denial of its component clauses. It
"
5.
claims
for
its
canon
the Law
of
Sufficient
Reason, modified
its
thus
for Every assertion must have a ground or reason is explicated into two axioms, as follows : the reason 1. Asserting asserts the consequent.
2.
This support.3
the
reason.
The
of neither
axiom, it
is
is said,
true.
Denying the
other
reason.
son rea-
does not
not
deny
reason
the
and consequent,
affirm the
; for it may
follow from
To
do either is
to this. fallacy.But we shall find exceptions The double axiom The form givesrise to two so-called moods. the conjunctive in these two moods, and their names, syllogisms
as
of
are
follows
MODUS
: f
If A But
A
is B ; is B ;
then
C is D ;
But
POXENS
""
C is not
is not
D ;
"" MODUS
TOLLENS
( .'. C (constructive)
If the PONENS.
"
is D.
',
.'. A
B.
(destructive).
TOLLENS.
increases ;
is not
They
.'. Wealth
industrious ;
is
',
Wealth
.*. The
increasing ;
"
increasing;;
peopleare
not
industrious.
is always universal and affirmative. or major premise, sumption, Either or both of its clauses may be particular or negative ; but the total proposition affirms that the antecedent necessitates alwaysuniversally the consequent. It will be observed the minor that the the both major premiseonly is conditional, conclusion
in
The
premise and
the
also
each
of
the
two
If beingcategorical.
were
both or conclusion,
it and
not
the minor be
the hypothetical,
reasoningwould
are
conditional,
but
In but
terms
may
only three propositions, there may be four terms, as in the given example. All the in the major premise. Hence, unlike the categorical occur logism sylthe minor premiseintroduces no new term, and the conclusion have nothingin common with it.
3
conjunctive syllogismthere
See Part
212
OF
REASONINGS.
There
1. The
are
three RULES
deduced
from
the
axioms,as follows
clause subsumptionin Ponens agrees with its corresponding differ in quantity. but may in quality, with its corresponding 2. The subsumption in Tollcns disagrees clause in both quantity and quality. with conclusion in Ponens 3. The agrees, and in Tollcns disagrees, its corresponding clause in both quantity and quality.
in Tollens are because the only true denial is by disagreements the Let us, however, remember that when the logical contradictory. in the previousexample,contradiction is as subjectis individual, In illustration of the rules, we merely a changeof quality. may take
These
the
: following
If any
are
nation prospers
all
are
benefited ;
SA11
or or
Some
Some That
not
benefited ; benefited ;
"" TOLLENS.
This
one are
is not
.'. All
benefited.
.*. None
prospering.
The principles.
not
offend these
If A
is not is not
B, then
B ;
C is not C is D ;
is B.
D ;
"
PONENS, asserts,
"
TOLLENS, denies,
D.
! .'. A
(destructive.)
If
we
we contrapone a majorpremise,
moods which
the
one
to the
other.
Hence the
the same, they are fundamentally of the two axioms common origin
to
state
the argument
to
be left God
a
unexpressed;e.
liar." of
make A
in detail might be urged against this objections will be content at present with pointing scheme of syllogizing. We clause is the infinitated out a couple of exceptions.Whenever one form of the
as other,
"
number
If A
is B, A
is not
non-B," or
of the
converse
is true ; i.e., denying the antecedent denies the consequent, and the consequent affirms the antecedent. As these forms affirming
CONDITIONALS.
213
not
unfrequently occur,
rlo,
"
providefor
them.
For
am ex-
If silver is
If not If he
even
was
be refused all
were
in payment of debts.
lost.
him.
If force is
If the scheme
equivalentforce is
of the hypothetical the following as the Canon (i. gives e., or more : "Two syllogism propositions beingthought as conjunctive) in quality, indeterminate but as in quality the mutuallydependent, of quality in the one infers a determination of the determination in the other." But this, the other hand, on corresponding quality is true, in its full generality, ry only of the above exceptedcontradicto-
Hamilton
forms.
goes
on
to
"
say,
This
Canon
bodies em-
and which
the Mill
have
He logicians."
"
says, in
our
There
is
author's Lectures
their
to appendices, relating
like a true critic, hypothetical propositions."But Mill, others to reconstruct as proceedsonly in the tollent mood, leaving they may.
and
is one Disjunctive hypothetical syllogism havingfor its and having the disjunction major premisea disjunctive proposition, resolved in the minor premiseand conclusion.6 Accordingto Hamilton, it is governedby the axiom of Excluded that Middle,7 affirming
6.
"
The
of two
contradictories
one
must
be
true
and
The
5 Examination vol. ii, Logic, of Hamilton, p. 602. p. 225. Our Hypothetical and Disjunctive be reduced to the class of Syllogisms may Conditional Syllogisms. The Hypotheti.cals should be called, as by they were Boethius and others, the in co-ordinate to of contrast Conjunctive, species Disjunctive. of the species, as a name Hypothetical, ought to be abandoned. The Conjunctive inasmuch are as solutely negationor affirmation is not abconditional, but and left of the is one made quality asserted, proposition alternative, inasmuch dependent on another. The Disjunctive are as is a notion conditional, not absolutely asserted as subjector predicate of another or others, but alternatively with some of but with some a conjoined of part, part, given plurality only the affirmation of it with one the negation of others." notions, part involving 7 of (Hamilton's Logic, p. 600.) Rather, Duality. See Part 1st, ii, " 4. 8
"
214
OF
REASONINGS.
members wo being contradictories, disjunct may, through affirming the and This vice two other, versa. moods, each of yields one, deny which is double. and forms : names They have the following
MODUS PONENDO TOLLENS.
men
are are
are
either
Some
not
or justified justified;
under
condemnation
are are
;
"
Some
.*. Some
justified ;
not
or
Po. TOLLENS.
.'. Some
under
or
cond.
under
cond.
This
.*. He
one
is not
under
cond.
That
.*. He
one
is under
cond.
is
justified.
is not
justified.
is universal not the clauses) sumption (thewhole proposition, The conclusion must the subsurnption and affirmative; vary. may and the opposite the subsumption, have the same as quantity quality. We shall hereafter find that every contradictory disjunctive ment judgEach be reduced to two conjunctives. conjunctive yields may with the four two moods, and the four forms thus arising correspond forms. disjunctive Negativeclauses call for no modification of the rules ; e. g. :
The
But
C is not
D, or D, /.
E is not E is F.
F ;
If the
members disjunct
parate (disan
contradictories before
inference
be drawn.
Sciences
E. g.
are
either pure,
is neither
a a
or inductive, nor an
mixed
To. PONENS.
"
Astronomy
pure
inductive science ;
.*. Astronomy is
mixed
science.
formal
illustration is
as
follows
or
Either C is D,
E is
F, or
G is H.
Now
of contradictory
taken
gether. to-
To. PONENS."
"
C is not
D ; /. Either E is
F, or
:
G is H.
Neither E is
"
F, nor
G is H
.'. C is D.
Po. TOLLENS.
"
216
OF
REASONINGS.
is not wealth,or fame," the disjunction pleasure, be valued on other grounds. We for virtue may should exhaustive, members the disjunct further ascertain whether are or contradictory viewing the only subcontrary.We may then proceed to syllogize, either as a conjunctive or as a disjunctive. proposition the conjunction members If we on reason lookingon the disjunct is governed by the principles the syllogism as a explained singleclause, it must
ensure
either
in
"
5 ; thus : Either if A
is
B, C
is D ;
or
if A
is
B, E
is F ; E is F ;" TOLLENS.
POXENS."
But
A is B ;
j
E is F.
"
Neither
/. A
C is D, nor
/. Either C is
D, or
is not
B. deceived.
_,
PONENS.
"
taughtfalsely, they were either deceivers or apostles They were neither deceivers ) They did teach falsely ; f either deceivers deceived. nor .*. They were deceived. or .'. They did not teach falsely.
If the
in each mood. The one plainly hypothetical syllogisms, the tollent form, is givenby Kant and Wolf as a dilemma, and latter, But certainly it is by Wallis and Mansel as a disjunctive syllogism.7 neither ; for it simplydenies the antecedent throughdenyingthe consequent; resolves one. This it neither introduces a disjunction nor is sometimes tollent form called cornutus, or the horned syllogism because in the sumption the disjunctive members are (bi-cornis), opposed like horns to the assertion of the adversary ; with these we in order to throw it from one side to the other in the subsumption, is very Such a syllogism toss it altogether away in the conclusion. abused for the purpose of deceiving, easily through a treacherous appearance of solidity, and from terrifying a timorous opponent by its horned aspect." Krug. It should be remarked that while the particleseither or" are disjunctive the corresponding negatives neither nor" are not so, but total. They do not exclude one condition of or on are conjunctive but they exclude both or all. They directly the inclusion of the other, and consequently deny both clauses, deny the existence of the disjunction.
are
"
"
These
"
"
"
"
This is not
He says this form of reasoning is sometimes Aldrich, p. 109, note. duces called a Dilemma, but it is a perversion of the Dilemma proper, and introis distinction whatever no as disjunctive syllogism, ; being merelya common shown in fact, the enumeratio,not ch. 19). It is, the comby Wallis himcelf (iii, of Cicero. plexio,
See
Hansel's
CONDITIONALS.
21 7
involved disjunction in the conjunctive-disjunctive lookingon the conjunctive proposition the syllogism is disjunctive, and governed statement a single as clause, in " 6. by the principles Thus, adoptingfor convenience explained
Now,
on
the other
hand, if
we
reason
on
the
the abbreviated
form, we
If A
have
is
B, either
D ; is F.
C is
D, or
E is F ;
To. PONENS."
But
/. If A
0 is not
is
B, E
innocent, Anytus
not
was
either deceived
or
perjured ;
deceived ;
was
Socrates
innocent, Anytus
was
perjured.
have another To. Ponens. we perjured, If the disjunct members contradictories, they are, as in this example, also two forms in Po. Tollens, or the destructive mood. yield The conjunctive-disjunctive now explained, syllogism, although it is not properly has a dilemmatic dilemma at all. The a sumption, full of confusion here, and often mistake it for the dilemma. are logics and rejects the Thomson, following so names it, Hamilton,distinctly
dilemma
proper
from
Logic.8
is a conditional syllogism (or trilemma,etc.) " 8. The Dilemma and a disjunctive conjunctive etc.) premise, havinga double (ortriple, is dilemmatic, or conjunctivopremise. Neither one of its propositions treated conjuncIn the conjunctive-disjunctive tively, disjunctive. syllogism first the disjunct in the as section, explained part of the preceding members of the sumption are either affirmed both togetheror denied both together. But they may be affirmed or denied disjunctively. is declared in the subdisjunction existing It is therefore in the conclusion. and (in the complex forms) sumption, which then appears merely needless to state it in the sumption, is distributed; Thus the dilemmatic as a double proposition conjunctive. in the of its essential features, the conjunction, one appearing in the subsumption the disjunction, sumption; the other, appearing In this
case
the
and
conclusion.
as
It
plies, im-
sumption and which the subsumption conjunctive ; but it is usual to place the double and call it the sumption or major premise. first,
to
which
of these shall be
'
So also Bain.
See
Logic, p. 121
sq.
218
OF
REASONINGS.
The follows
1.
Dilemma
:
inconvertible
forms,as
Simple constructive
PONENS.
"
is
B, C
is D ; and is
if E is F, C is D ; is F ;
either A D. is
B, or
2.
Complex
constructive
"
If A
But
B, C
is D ; and
is
if E is F, G is H ;
E is F ;
PONENS.
either A
B, or
.'. Either C is
D, or
G is H. if E is
3.
Complex
destructive
"
If A But
is
B, C
A
is D ; and
F, G
F.
is H ; H ;
TOLLENS.
D, or
G is not
.'. Either
B, or
E is not
that the
subsumptionin
components
the conclusion
each form
of the
declares
junction dis-
certain of the
is
between complex it declares a disjunction the sumption. A single concrete example from Demosthenes It is in the complex constructive form, as
the other
de
Corona
:
fice. suf-
follows
If JEschines
joinedin is unpatriotic ;
either he
the
he publicrejoicings,
But
.*. Either he is
is
unpatriotic.
The
form
of the
sumption in
If A is
this
examplemay
if A is not
be
thus expressed
B, A
is
C;
and
B, A
is D.
Here
the firstterm
complex,
other
No.
in
2 ; for
each
or
quality.
a
be both
constructive simple
and
Denying
If But
.'. A
AisB,Cis
is not
D;
andif
E is
F,C
is
D;
in Tollens. syllogism This,however, is merelya double conjunctive has an appearance of being than the last, much The following, more the It is given as to No. 1. simpledestructive form, corresponding and copiedfrom him with approbation such by Fowler, by McCosh :
If A But
.*. A
if A
is
D, or
E is not
B, E is F; F;
is not
CONDITIONALS.
219
be
examined,
in its
it will
be
found
to treat
to
a
be
No.
contraponed,
in
treated
to treat
Tollens.
Now,
proposition
is to
Ponens,
the
same
contraponed
in
form
in is the
Tollens,
same.
do
thing.
cannot
The be
reasoning
as
both
cases
Hence
it
this the
same
form
as
accepted
additional
to
those
a
given,
being
No.
1, and
of
only slightlydisguised by
the letters
in
rearrangement,
after is
a
sition, contrapo-
alphabetical
is to
or
order.
a
Truly, simple
it
simple
may
structive de-
dilemma,
either
are
which
say the
that
dilemma
in
the
destructive same,
are
in
constructive
not
form
essentiallythe
which
we
we
should
reckon
both
this
statement
now
supporting.
"
Whately,9
destructive is true
a
endorsed
by Mansel,10
that
"
says,
There
is
cannot
be
simple
This
dilemma,"
his
the
of
destructive the
always complex."
"
under
definition
dilemma,
as
syllogism having
more
conditional
and
premise
But the
with
than
of
narrow.
one
antecedent,
disjunctive
minor."
this
limitation is too be
the
major
The
not
premise
is
purely arbitrary,and
under the proper
truth
is that
definition
either,but
both. In
disputation
If
to
an
adversary
meet
"
caught
an
on
the
horns
of
dilemma."
is said Athenian
; for if
he
it
by
opposite conclusion,
thus engage you
son
he "An
"rebut mother
dilemma."
to
Aristotle
son,
illustrates in
her
Do will This
not
public
if you
you
do
is will
to
me
just, men
hate
enter
hate the
; and
what
is
you. into
rebutted
; for
by
following retort
is
ought
love
are
public affairs
what is
constructive
if I do
unjust,men
me." Both
will
; and
if I do
just,the
form,
The
gods
and
love
these
an
in the
complex
Cynic,
who
is followed
by
first dilemma
originated with
himself
from
Antisthenes with
proposed
by
it to
excuse
meddling
politics.
10
5.
Note
in
Aldrich, p.
108.
220
OF
REASONINGS.
"
9. Praxis.
to Specify
what
of the
following judgments
its members. form, logical distinguish belongs, put into which of the five forms does it fall ? Contrapone If conjunctive, is it contradictory four or subcontrary, examples. If disjunctive, If reduce to If mediate or immediate? a dichotomy. a polytomy, is it simpleor complex ? Formulate with letters. If the dilemmatic, is defective, proposition say wherein.
it in
1. Wherever
there is
smoke, there
is fire.
(Wherever
If in any
place.)
2. If
a
it is
promotiveof
the I
and industry
wealth
err
of its
is
subjects.
3. If I err, it is because
am
human
; for to
human.
(Isthis
if not.)
good reasoning?)
4. I will not 5. Until the 6. Is any let thee go, unless thou
bless
me.
(Unless
=
nightcome,
or
we
must
work. pray.
8. 9. 10.
palace. (Real difference.) Hiawatha left his hut or wigwam. (Nominal.) If the rebellion be not crushed, the king will be dethroned. If virtue is voluntary, then vice is. Aristotle, N. Ethics, bk.
"
iii. the
11. Punishment
is intended
or
to
reform
criminal.
12.
(Perhaps both.)
threats could
Neither
were
nor flattery
prevail.
do the works
same
13. If ye 14.
Abraham's the
n sun
seed, you
and
moon
would
Whenever
are
attract in the
=
at
maximum.
a
(Whenever
tion, ques-
it does neither.
16. Ye
shall not
eat of
17. If ye eat,ye shall die. Though ye eat,ye shall not die, (Though if. The concessive clause, introduced by " though," =even etc., of grantsthe protasis clause. principal
not
a
sentence
whose
"
is denied by apodosis
the
The
above
means
It is not
true,or
it docs
18.
that if ye eat,ye shall die.") follow, Though deep,yet clear;though gentle, yet not dull. been decided whether the
or war
will continue
or
not.
ruin.
who
moves
either
the
round
the
sun.
CONDITIONALS.
221
23.
AlthoughHomer
of
sometimes
poets.
amat
woman
24. Aut
aut
"
Syrus.
("A
25.
hates; she
never
thirds
it.")
them. destroyed
If you
have
(Si non
26.
the poor, you have occidisti. From Arnauld.) pavisti, failed to nourish
"
If the heart is
is solitary
27. The
28.
29.
Polit. i,cap. 1. god. Aristotle, The world will not be happy until either kings become phers, philosobecome or kings. Plato's Repub. philosophers have worn he must made by the prisoner, If the foot-marks were
"
shoes too
30. Virtue
31.
Ad
ybs.
is teachable
if it is
or
If
man
is either well
knowledge. he illdeserving,
is
moral
agent.
32. If the
be of the sides of a triangle one square described upon equalto both the squares described on the other two sides of
by
these two
sides is
rightangle.
"
there
no
difference.
34. Nor
anxious
fear,
it less, awhile.
35.
I shaken
Might have
If
an
bloomed
with its
owner
kind
is merely a proposition, example among the following gize syllofrom the it. If an incomplete syllogism, completeit and name If a conjunctive-disjunctive, and mood. or a dilemma, classify
with letters.
If
36. If any
that objection
established
37. Mahomet
was an
a change in urged would justify be maintained. laws could reasonably no laws, either an enthusiast or an impostor; can
be
He
.*. He
was was
enthusiast ;
an
not
impostor.
"
Gibbon.
are
38.
Corn be
will be
so.
dear
if the crops
seem
to likely
39. A
government
of
a
cannot
be
at the
same
censer li-
free press ;
;
But
/.
the
The
OF
REASONINGS.
40. If
man
cannot
make
an
progress towards
must we perfection,
believe
41. I
divine. or brute, already incapable be accused of actingcontrary to my law, with justice, could, only if I maintained that Mursena purchasedthe votes and was that he did not buy But I maintain in doing so. justified the votes; therefore I do nothing contraryto the law." Cicero pro L. Murcena, cap. iii. (Ramus cites this as bad reasoning. him
to be either
Was
42. Unless
he
?) right
can a move
matter
of
must
move
given it by
43. If
being. spiritual
be
cannot
etc. therefore,
brief ; and
be borne
patiently.
not not
44. If the
the best
we possible,
must
or prefera better,
that he But
we
not
create
better.
45.
by for we should theresuppositions, his power. Therefore his intelligence, limit his goodness, or the system of the universe is the best. (Thomson, Outline, wise. p. 150, like" 109, quotes this as a trilemraa. McCosh, Logic, Are they right ?) of mental discipline or as Whether Logic be regardedas a means But it is it ought to be studied. a practical guide in reasoning, entertain neither of these both. Hence
man were
"
what ?
46. If this
wise,he would
were or jest
not
in
jest ;
and if he
good,he
do
so
in earnest;
But
/.
he does
it either in
in earnest
Either he is not
wise,or
he is not
in the Alexandrine
good. Librarybe
is
no
in
conformitywith
; if
Koran, there
be burned. is worth
need
of them
adverse,
they should
be
nently pre-emi-
developthe
valuable exceedingly be
information.
worth
the cost.
dilemma.
Right?)
49. If any
have been
lishment the estabtheory could be framed to explain satisfactory of Christianity by human causes, such a theorywould such theoryhas ever been proposed before now ; but no be framed. can proposed; hence,none
224
OF
REASONINGS.
57.
If
be you be
no
preached
that there
that
is
he
no
rose
from
the
of then
dead,
the
is
how dead
say
?
not
some
resurrection the
if
resurrection be
not
of
dead,
is
our
Christ
Christ
is also
preaching
found that the he dead
:
vain,
and
vain.
we
are
false
raised rise
witnesses
of
God,
,
because he dead
have
not
testified up,
if is is
so
of
God that
up
not.
Christ For
whom the
not
raised
rise
be
if
not,
then
not
Christ
;
raised
and
your
if
Christ Then If
most
be
raised,
also life
your
faith
are
vain
ye
are
yet
Christ
we
in
are
sins.
they
this
which
fallen
asleep
in
in
perished.
of all
men
in
only
1
"
we
-have
xv,
hope
12"
Christ,
are
miserable.
58.
Cor.
19.
system
of
government
which
must
extends
one
to
those
actions either
to
a
that
are
performed
divine
secretly
be this
;
which
or
refers the
providence
of another
in
life,
to
rewards
and
world
of
Every
which
.*.
perfect
are
system
government
must
extend
to
those
actions
performed
of
a
secretly
can
JSFo
system
to
government
be
perfect
in
which this
does
not to
either
regular
divine
of
5.
providence
another
life,
or
and
punishments
See
world.
"
Wai-burton's
Legation.
59.
vi, "
of what
There
we
are
two
kinds
and
things
we
we
ought (From
not
to
fret
form
about,
a
what
"
can
help,
either
cannot.
this,
dilemma.)
them latter sin and
;
60.
We the
must
gratify
will
our
vicious
us
propensities
iu must sin and
or
resist the
former
course
involve
misery,
fall into
requires
misery,
or
self-denial
therefore
we
either
practise
self-denial.
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
225
VI. ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
two declares a relation between proposition categorical condition beingexpressed.A conthat is, ditional no terms unconditionally; involves an or proposition hypothetical express condition. in the conjunctive The latter is a complex sentence, consisting, form, and of a subordinate the apodosis of a principal or clause, consequent, antecedent or condition. the protasis or clause, and syllogisms whether conditional propositions The question may is forms discussed much to categorical not be reduced by or may proposition "By Kant and his followers the hypothetical logicians. of judgment essentially form tinct disis described as representing a the latter being thoroughlyassertorial, from the categorical; assertorial only as in its constituent parts, the former problematical each in itself them. Two the relation between judgments, regards combined in a single truth ; and thus be hypothetically false, may form. The hypobe reduced into categorical cannot this combination thetical of distinct from in like manner, is a form reasoning syllogism, and not reducible to it, the categorical, beingbased on a different law of Sufficient Reason,a raof thought, namely,the LogicalPrinciple rationati ad negationemrationis valet tione ad rationatum,a negatione consequential whether the categoris not properly But observe that the question ical the and hypothetical forms are convertible. as Theory of Logic not be done with with what may or Thought has no concern may this : Does forms. The question thoughthypotheticall proper to Logic is differ from that categorically expressed ; and if so, expressed what is the specific difference ? In other words, Are there two processes and do kinds of of thought, two we there are as propositions, how we to explain need a distinct system of syllogizing necessarily ? We to think when matter is thought hypothetically propose now its process is one ; of thought, show that while there are two spheres has essentially that all reasoning the same form, havingthe Aristotelic for its formal unit. We syllogism propose to discover the true rela-
"
1. A
See Kant's
Log'ik, " 25
and
"
76 ; and 15
Hansel's
Aldrich, Appendix,Note
I.
226
OF
REASONINGS.
and hypothetical and to show that they categorical thinking, do not differ logically, but only psychologically. will first pointout a psychological In attempting tion distincwe this, of thought; then consider the propositional between two spheres of hypotheticals, and the syllogisms therefrom ; and then use arising advert to the common doctrine of conditionals. Herein we logical that thought hope to confirm the generaldoctrine of this Treatise, is of only two kinds,immediate and mediate,and that of the logical is ultimately latter the Aristotelic syllogism the universal form.
lions of
thought as or categorically. Ideal thought considers its matter firms and afas merelylogically possible, in a supposititious that is, mode. This matter hypothetically, exist ; but thoughtposits ence, merely its ideal existmay or may not really and, limited only by self-contradiction, proceedsto evolve logically
2.
or
"
Thought
is either of the
real
of the ideal.
Real
and existent,
affirms
denies of it
conceivable
to
be
the real,
So even is known when the matter consequences. mind choose rather to view it ideally, thought may
one
sphereto
the other.
Thus
when
I say
man,
therefore he is
a
mortal,
But when
I say
real conclusion.
then he is
man,
mortal,
this
without regard to ideally, making a supposition I reason statement to an ideal hypothetical equally
conclusion. What
ideal from real thought is precisely what distinguish distinguishes from categorical hypothetical judgments. Thus far we and "conditional" have used the words changeably "hypothetical"as inter" But the former is opposed to categorical synonymous. in the characteristic that it formallyexpresses a condition of the presses thought; the latter in the other characteristicthat it exprincipal and not real declared fact. The ideal, supposititious thought, words should be used accordingly. It is manifest that the distinction between and categorical thetical hypobut psychological. judgments as real and ideal is not logical, it is shown This will still more that thought in plainly appear when the real and in the ideal sphereis logically the same ; that is, governed into the same laws, assuming the same forms, analyzing by the same and hence indistinguishable on logical principles, grounds.
"
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
227
These
two
by
It would
pressed exare formally -moods, the real and the ideal, grammaticalmoods, indicative and subjunctive.
constructed and expressing by a language scientifically these moods would always of the speaker, the mind accurately refined But perhaps in all of the more be sharplydiscriminated. notablyin our own, there has been a strong tendencyto languages, obliterate the subjunctive forms, and to substitute the indicative to all which In hypothetical are propositions, express ideal thought. the indicative has largely usurped the place of the ideal, essentially
seem
grammariansto characterize the subjunctive for its But this is inept, doubt or uncertainty. is entirely sistent conexpress doubt, and its presenttense
for in this case,
or so
far
as
the
pression ex-
and rhetorical,
not
ideal
arc
modes
of
of intellectual apprehension ; whereas belief and doubt are cognition, of self-consciousness. These coexist with cognitions, modes feelings, in psychological from them but are very widely separated analysis. tion distincIf,then,they are not to be made the basis of a psychological the less should they be made modes much of thought, between distinction. Any uncertainty basis of a logical attendinga premise do modifies in no way whatever the character of our reasoning. We
not
are reason one
way
when
cases
we
are
in
doubt, and
in another
when
we
certain.
In all
is necessary, not
in
demonstration
than
in
dialectics.
An
and attaches to the conclusion, in a premiseis carried along, uncertainty fects The doubt afwithout being itself increased or diminished. Hence must the doubt. we the reasoning not the reasoning, nor of certainty, aside any consideration of the feelings here set entirely have care not to confuse doubt, etc. ; and especially degree of belief, real and ideal. these feelings with the intellectual moods The indicative deals with mood, then, properly
as
the
real.
It declares
facts concerning
influence of
to the
a
doubt,taken
perhapsunder the itselfto express, what properly belongs upon deals with thought. The presentsubjunctive is objectively contingent.It expresses a supposition
facts. It has moreover,
one
which
to express
an
not ideal,
228
OF
REASONINGS.
real distinction between The psychological but unreal. contingent, in language.3 embedded and ideal thought is thus profoundly taken It will be useful to illustrate this matter divisions, by some In the developmentof view. in a grammaticalrather than a logical forward in have moved of the subjunctive the tenses our language,
time, so
that
expresses
future
presenttime.
E. g., "If
be said, it would commonly now is equally If the book is in this room," etc., which, though indicative, ideal and contingent. however, the step forward in time Considering, of ideal subjunctive find three phrases as we thought: established, be found."
Perhaps more
1st. The
and apodosis future; both the protasis contingent lyingin the future ; beingsuppositions ideal and
from
(a)Future
the
of standpoint
be
the
; present
e.
g. :
forgiven.
be welcome.
he
wax
would
Only were
I tell you
should fat,
I love you
more.
hold
their peace,
out.
the stones
immediatelycry
(b)Future
2d. The
ideal
from
the
if you
of standpoint
were
the past ;
would
e.
g. :
it.
I told you
to do
I this,
reward
and
unreal present ; it
being impliedthat
e.
neither the
nor protasis
g. :
If he Were The
were
the
moon
I would if I could. I would tell him. here, be answered. should it definite, question would be always full if it were self-luminous.
were
playingholidays,
as
play would
be
tedious
as
to
work.
"
Shakespeare.
ideal and
g. :
been
seen
him.
not
Could
citywould
have
taken.
joinedwith mine, once pledgeappeared the token ; These follies had not then been mine, had not been broken. Byron, My earlyvows Oh, had
As
fate been
this
"
Too
deeply to
be
uprooted
or
disturbed
the declaring
absolute
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
229
Besides there
are a
forms
Past tense
Had Were
combined
g.
he been
these his
not
indicative
apodosis ;
g. :
I maintain it.
The
same
e.
g. :
Though
The
same
joinin hand,the
wicked
unpunished.
a
in the iterative
to relation, equivalent
centres
rule ; general
and
be
moon
an
e.
g. :
If
of the
sun
be
in the
line with
the centre
of the
there earth,
must
eclipse.
The
with subjunctive
If love be
the
imperative ; e.
rough with
g. :
"
rough with
of
you, be
love.
Shakespeare.
be made
God, command
the
bread.
The
with subjunctive
Had you
seen
potential ; e.
it
was
g. :
{he citybefore
and
razed,you
foreseen
might
have
thoughtit
destruct in-
could not
have
an
its fate.
e.
construction comparative
He
with
g. :
were
Shakespeare.
of these mixed examination forms must be omitted ; we Any special being mixed, the principles onlyobserve that, governingtheir elements
govern
them.
conjunctive then,is an ideal form of speech hypothetical, either the contingent is a subthe unreal. The protasis ordinate or expressing clause related to the apodosis, in the contingent forms,either antecedent condition. This indicates a double as a qualifier or as an in thought. They are that is made forms of these hypothetical use either propositions a containing qualified term, or they are propositions first inference. We will consider the an declaring qualified propositions. Looking on the contingent forms,we observe that very often the sole purpose in the mind of a speaker usingthis form is to declare an ideal truth. It is a mere not intended to offer a one proposition, reason, but to state a judgment. In such case, since the mind passes from the ideal sphere and vice versa, these to the real, readily prop-
"
3. The
230
OF
REASONINGS.
be easily reduced to categorical forms. The generally but rather as a qualification, being viewed,not as a condition, protasis or we limitative, explicative " 2) thus : may redress the four forms (v, ositions may
1
(a)If
house
be
undermined,it will
undermined
fall
i. e., A
house
will fall.
;
virtue is
written ; rhyming is poetry, poetry is easily i. e., Poetry that is mere is written. rhyming easily
carbon will
will burn
i.e.,The
the categorical ideally, equivalent This difference is psychological states as a real fact. and grammatical, is grammatically not logical.The hypothetical a proposition The generality of a universal sentence. a complex,but logically simple, statement must not be confused with the ideality of a hypothetical
" A house undermined and " An will fall," jurious insay deed,if it be unintentionally committed, is not a crime,"the
here hypothetical
When
we
former
is stated
as
real
an
existence. actual,
not ideal. The latter is both general and ideal. general, Each of the foregoing and examplesmay be taken as a general rule, stand as the major premise of a syllogism, it may be viewed as a or Other cases are specialized times somestatement,and used as a minor. and fitted to become The following, onlyparticular, only minors. cited by Fries3 as an example of a hypothetical not reducible to it : or form, is general as we categorical particular according interpret
If Caius is
It is
he disengaged,
as a
is
writing poetry.
It may
be construed
universal statement
meaning
"
whenever Caius,
thus But
iterative relation, At any or every expressing also be construed as a particular it may statement
is Caius, being disengaged,
now
time
that,"etc.
"
meaning
writing poetry.
in jeder behauptet,
Es ist sogar fehlerhaf t, indem man Systemder Logik," 62. ein die Subjekthat,konne man hypothetischen Regel,die nur Caius verbinden Wenn frei z. eine kategorische B., Regel ; der ganze Yordersatz dichtet er.' Im Allgemeinen, wenn so
'
"
beiden Pradikate
von
in
mit dem
so
Pradikat
verbunden
und
nicht
nur
sein Pradikat
der
geht diese Veranderung gar nicht. Noch willkiirlicher sind die hypothetische wenn Regel zwei verschiedene Subjekte hat." 239. Aldr'wli, p.
Geschaften
See
232
OF
REASONINGS.
are proposition,
obscure
or
unknown. kind.
arc
But
differentiate
these that
four
as propositions of conjunctives
of another four
terms
Nor
it,as Thomson
always causal.
very is
says, Attributives of
as reason
terms,
as
above, are
common,
no
well
as
Moreover, there
why,
from the atthe causal should be distinguished tributive Logic, deduction all judgments are thought judgment. In logical and far as they are and conceived in so cause effect, attributively, and consequent. stand to each other in the relation of reason thought, becomes reason. cause subjective Objective
deductive
forms claring deas contingent propositions inference. The conjunctive an as a whole, affirms proposition, of which the two subordinate propositions relation between it cona sists. It expresses a judgment respecting judgments. It is logically is the subject, and the protasis The apodosis the a simplesentence. is so named, and The protasis ten writpredicate.5 (jrpoTtiveiv} usually shall hereafter show, it is in reality we as because, first, a premise,
"
4. Let
us
consider
now
the
the
antecedent. logical declares ? This relation is conjunctive The proposition declares consequence.
what
invariable. that
one
It is the relation of
judgment is consequent on, or follows from, another. Let it now be particularly observed that the affirmation is not onlysimple, 1. c., this relation is affirmed unconditionally. but categorical; E. g. :
If virtue is
knowledge,it is
its
teachable.
we
Now
That
have
"
judgment
that it is
knowledge.
sented pre-
This
is
less is it
when categorical
The
The
that of
invert this statement. generally logicians here which evidently which something is said,
If is reliable, the history
But
the
is subject, properly,
e.
g. :
latter
days are
days.
days being the better days,and we say quite of history. on, or follows from, the reliability in conjunctives would be a littleplainer This relation of subjectand predicate if and stated thus : the usual form were, as in the present sentence, inverted,
Here
we are
talkingabout
the latter
simply that
its truth
is conditioned
is B ;
sun
bloom,if the
shines.
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
233
That the
the other
as
clause
as
its
subject,
the relation of consequence, is a and declaring predicate, look into the will perhapsbe a littleclearer if we simplecategorical lies its material truth of the proposition, and consider wherein matter When or we falsity. say
If
man
is
he responsible,
must
be
free agent,
we
of reality
as
his
of nor responsibility
we
These
treated here
ideal.
But
do
connection,
the necessary coexistence of the two. Indeed, the force of the word " " of this consequence. in the example is to declare the necessity must the dependence of one of the two That the conjunction on clauses, the
manifest
when
we
sider con-
entirely independentof
the
God, Mohammed
is
was
the
prophet of
we
God.
The
indisputable, yet
be
one
hold
both
of the
having a false condition. is false, that the protasis but that the This,however, does not mean is false, that the givencondition is not the affirmation of consequence Hence it would perhapsbe better to say that a false hypocondition. thetical is is one as affirming inconsequent.E. g. : consequent what
If Moses
was
a
said to
he lawgiver,
was
very
meek.
Here
we as
may
a
admit
each clause
follow
from
the other.
The
concessive
false ; but it the hypothetical the consequence, thus pronouncing also. E. g. : does more, it denies the apodosis
(Ifour
"
outward
our
man
the perish,
man
inward
man
must
man
fail.)
is renewed."
Though
outward
Since,then,the
lie
truth
and
acceptanceof
of this
conjunctive proposition
declaration
as a
wholly in the
correctness
unconditional single
of sequence, it is manifest
whole, is a simple
affirmation of this relation. categorical In the previous section it appearedthat the conjunctive hypothetical its firstprepositional in makes simplyan ideal statement,and use it and the correspondthat the sole difference in thought between
234
OF
REASONINGS.
the latter real; judgment is that the former is ideal, ing categorical It now a difference that is non-logical. thetical hypoappears that the same in its second prepositional the relation of as declaring use, in that regard, and real. In a former chapter inference, is, categorical it was or judgment in the categorical pointedout that the syllogistic Aristotelic syllogism declares consequence. in Wheresimply and solely then is the distinction between this and the hypothetical expression None of inference ? in that the this, beyond syllogistic appears inference is from is that the matter whereas judgment pronouncedreal, in the hypothetical judgment the inference is from matter that is is psychological, ideal. This difference, not So we logical. repeat, find no ground to justify discrimination between we a logical far, then, and hypothetical categorical thought.6 in our Before advancing remarks arc worthy of place. two analysis, of the conjunctive First: We have pointed and predicate out the subject ; where is the copula? Many logicians call the conjoining particle, united with the verb to be" the copula. Thus, say they,in conjunctives
"
it takes, among
"
these others,
forms
-
"
If
then
is
;"
When
then is
"
;"
:
"
Where
is
there is
."
"
In disjunctive
these forms
or
Either
a
or
is in
;"
is either
of
."
"
This is
and confusing,
us
the word
copula." Let
the conditional the
the
copula in
that it is
forms
impliedby
particles.7
We the that while remark, secondly, the
common
characteristic of above
not
the indicated,
to peculiar
at all
It may
"
be well to note
that immediate
e.
If
inferences
junctive, grammatical characteristic of the conis classed as a conjunction. But it was ing a transitive verb,havoriginally for its object the clause following it. As explained sions Tooke, in Diverby Home it is the the second of of Parley, imperative, Anglo-Saxongif, singular, person is the verb gif to Its then, grant," m eaning, give. original allow," admit," an, "in case to "provided that," "suppose,"but is now equivalent that,""should it that." be proved that," it follows from Thus : or
" " " "
The
word
which ""/","
usual
If That
man
keep
must
my
words.
follow.
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
235
Like other things, propositions. respecting propositions the attribute of attributes. In a conjunctive have a variety propositions is that of being an inference from another proposition. predicated them
to
be
But
this is
That
onlyone
the whole
of many
be
E. predicated.
axiom.
g.
part is
an
mathematical
now.
My
time is
eternal
It is obvious
propositions may
be either term
of
predication.
of a merelyas a qualifier thoughtwe use the protasis such from evident that we may reason it is quite of the apodosis, term form not. or judgments as premiseswhether reduced to categorical The only difference is,that when the judgments are in hypothetical reduced to catein the ideal mood; when form, we are then reasoning real. "When, on the other hand, we think the matter as we goricals, son we view the propositions an inference, as declaring may likewise reaits and this judgment being categorical, from them as premises, the copula understand We is real. matter ?/" as representing may form, thus: from" and presenta typical "follows
"
5. "When
in
"
C is D
E
.'. E
if A
is B ;
is F if C is D ;
is F if A is B.
The
order of nature
if it tends to promote
It must
if
.*. It must
product of benevolent design, good ; and beneficent author, have had an intelligent it is the product of benevolent design; and beneficent author, have had an intelligent
is the moral
if it tends to promote
moral
good.
the usual ing form, the follow-
is Barbara. This,evidently,
Returningto
If the
using of
credit is
demand
for
goods,
all forms
But
.'. If
exchange are a form of credit ; for goods, the using of credit is a demand bills of exchange affect prices.
bills of
is Barbara. This,also,
We
by
the
Canon It is
of
Replacement.
discover
no new
and principles, hence need no new These examplesmay properly be rules or forms. called Conjunctive and so distinguished from Hypothetical Syllogisms,
we so manifest, then,that, far,
236
OF
REASONINGS.
the
; but
the
difference is
not evidently
Let The
us
at
once
extend
the
view
to
other
forms
of
hypothetical.
pounded which,as we shall hereafter show, is comdisjunctive proposition, and of conjunctives, therefore subject to the same ment, treataffirmation, may, however,be considered as a simplecategorical of alternatives. either predicating or a mark alternatives, predicating of disjunctives, formed So, then, we may have Aristotelic syllogisms and such are true Disjunctive Hypothetical Syllogisms.E. g. :
Memory
.*. In
Also it is either
philosophic ; or spontaneous ; voluntary this case, what is either voluntary or spontaneous is also either circumstantial or philosophic.
or
is either circumstantial
of disjunctives. It is consists partly following Aristotelic ; but its reduction to strict logical terminin form, thus deevidently its mood, is quitea complex process. Its solution by replacement
This
is Darapti. The
and
or
easy
either spontaneous
is
whatever
are
voluntary has
moral
or
.*. Desires
either spontaneous,
is a compound, a conjunctivo-disproposition
the
same
view, and
we
may
have
Aristotelic
E. g.
But
unselfish use of despotic entirely power, be cither a saint or a philosopher; he must saints and philosophers are rare ; ruler makes
an
.'. Those
rulers who
so
conduct
themselves
are
rare.
There
g.
there must be a higher essentially inert, moving power, and this impliesa governingwill.
we So,also,
may
have
g. :
If government has
and
rightto
use
enforce the
without
a
then it has
rightto
cases
citizens,
for in extreme
this may
a
requisite ;
civil war, inaugurate of such
use
rightto
to the
result likely
/.
If
counter military power, has a right to enforce its laws, civil war it has the right to inaugurate of revolution. for the suppression state
rightof revolution ;
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
237 of conditional
:
series of may be
tions proposi-
Sorites.
E. g.
If the If If
.*. If
the word of God, they should be clearly are explained Scriptures ; studied ; they must be diligently they should be clearly explained, order of men be devoted to them ; must an studied, they must be diligently the Scriptures the word of God, an order of men be devoted to them. must are
This is
we
affirmed
;
"
"
the
are Scriptures
the word
of God
to
order of
men
must
be devoted
them
the forms
would
be
construct in the ponent mood. we a Finally, syllogism, may of disjunctives, Sorites consisting wherein the reasoningis strictly of this character, is partly and involves a Aristotelic. The following : prosyllogism
"
Every
A
or
mathematical science of
worthless ;
exact
The
.*. It is
either inductive
worthless.
The
in reasoning
all these
cases
Hence of sequence alone. under its moods, and is subject to its Canon
cannot
and
rules.
then, Logic,
of
these distinguish
as
kinds
of
as reasoning,
different forms
thought.
viewed as declaring ence, inferan conjunctive proposition, within itself a reasoning. The affirmation of sequence implies is a characteristic common to it and the syllogistic judgment. The is a condition or logical antecedent of the apodosis protasis ; in other is a consequent, conclusion. and the apodosis or words,it is a premise, is thoughtthus,or merely as a qualiNow, whether a conjunctive fied be ascertained onlyby considering the proposition, can, in general, of course, undetermined. and the context. In pure Logic it is, matter
6. But
"
the
Let
us
illustrate:
If air is pure, it is wholesome.
upon
mere
is testimony,
persons who do not receive it direct induction from observation or exof most
238
OF
REASONINGS.
is and, though capable of being construed syllogistically, perience, with them a simplejudgment,not expressive of any reasoning ever, whatwith but equipollent
"
Pure
air is wholesome.
But
in this
example,
If the
moon
has
no
it has atmosphere,
no
twilight,
there would
seem
by
the
cessitated reasoning implied being ne; the apodosis under some such as : rule, protasis standing general
to
be
Atmosphere
The
is essential to the
phenomenon
of
twilight.
as
be
in expressed
no
full
follows
(An
now, it follows that The
orb
that has
has has
no
If the
moon
moon
twilight ;)
We
ideal minor an have, then, in this given condition or protasis the apodosis. It is manifest, ideal conclusion, an yielding premise, that the contingentconjunctive therefore, hypothetical proposition inference is a simpleIdeal Enthymeme.8 an declaring in the ideal sphere been indicated that we may reason It has already and that the principles of thought as well as in the real, are precisely the
to
same.
We
may
pass from
case;
the
one
to
the
other; from
the
if real,
the real
we
from
the ideal to
have
a
have
ground.
from
the last
and
example we
We
ideal minor
conclusion.
may
mortal,
man,
If Plato is Plato
is mortal.
This
throughoutall of
its
is purelyideal. propositions
A varied but
quitecorrect
view of the
as
follows
: quence se-
It is
under
affirm
an
Upon the existence (inthe Form 1 a) of would come the ideal minor which, as a generalrule, this major ; is only to affirm indirectly the sequence unexpressedpremise. For example :
If virtue is
merely an depend?
affirmation of necessary
But upon
an as
what
does this
to
knowledge,it is teachable.
that is merely to say that you admit this
"
Do
of
you
admit
this ?
Yes.
Then
All forms
a tal men-
Hence
a
major,would
240
OF
REASONIXGS.
In
example
all the
Clauses
however, be
terms
are
given.
plete com-
each
other that
intermediate
not
to supplied
This it may
obvious.
us.
do, unless
speakeror
these to chief
He
may,
his
with his ideally connectingit at once premise hypothetically, and then proceedto supplythe media, E. g. : ultimate conclusion,
If the desire for distinction is
an
essential stimulus
to
industry,
then communism
is
to antagonistic
Here
to establish the it
show
that
If the tenth
of proposition
true,then
the
one an
hundredth actual
is true
also." of the is
matter
As
example
He
before
us,
we
will quote
speaking contemptuouslyof the Art of the syllogism, saying, God has not been so sparing make to them barelytwo-legged to men creatures,and left it to Aristotle to make them rational." He then tries to show that logical than useless, forms are worse beingconfusing.The passage is curious effort to overthrow that which it uses, and therefore unwittingly an as acknowledges. He says, To infer is nothingbut by virtue of one laid down true." true to "draw in another This he as as proposition shall be punished illustratesby the following in another example: If men
" " "
Locke.9
world,then
"
men
can
determine
themselves."
lie then
remarks,
What
is it that shows
the reasonableness
of
but it,
view
of the connection
. .
in the conclusion ?
The
.
connection
punishment in another world and the idea of God's punishing;between God's punishing of the punishment and the justice of the punishment; between justice and guilt; between guiltand a power to do otherwise;between a
power
to
there is between
do otherwise
and
freedom
; and
between
men
freedom and
and
self-
the connection between sees determination, Now, I ask whether the connection
more seen clearly
tion. self-determinabe
not
of
the
extremes
in this
simple and
natural five
or
Essay on
tJw Human
Keason,"
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
241
in decrying form logical very clear that, and natural" way, he has developed the
a
so
showing us the simple enthyrnemeinto hypothetical form that redressing nearlyin strict logical
and
all the
"
plied imfounded on or reasoning in the form of is thoughtstrictly in the contingent hypothetical is ideal, the Aristotelic syllogism.The only distinction is that one add that viewed as a conditional proposition, the other real. We now it differs from the categorical only in that the apartfrom its ideality, latter does not express a condition. But, in fact, tion proposievery logical is its premises is a conclusion conditioned on ; so all reasoning conditional reasoning.The conditional character may not appear in but it belongsto all thought. It adheres to every possible expression, is b ut then this not or intuitive; judgment except the primitive is susunconditional neither requires nor ceptible thought. A judgment truly of proof; it cannot appear as the conclusion of a syllogism. is a conditional judgment in Or, in other words, every syllogism the antecedents and the conclusion the consewhich the premises quent. are and conditional, So, then,the distinction between categorical accident of expresis a mere with Aristotle,10 which did not originate sion, and ought to be dismissed to have been introduced, ought never and hypothetical from Logic. The distinction between categorical is of no moment, and belongsto psychology, logical propositions ought also to be discarded.11
It has
now
been
shown
that
10
See Part
"
ing, in themselves, Logic knows nothpropositions, is not that conceived as and takes no account Logic may be held true the the clusion, conneither nor In premises Logic guarantees contradictor}'. reasoning, the former ; for a syllogism but merely the consequence of the latter from the on assertion of the truth of one is nothingmore than the explicit proposition, contained. of other propositions hypotJicsis beingtrue in which that one is implicitly and false A conclusion may thus be true in reality (as an assertion), yet logically
11
Of the truth
falsehood
of
; all in
(asan inference).
In
a
certain ; and
sense,
of Logic stands opposed to absolute or necessity hypothetical have well denominated scholastic philosophers recent The more simple necessity. the necessitas The and these two species the necessitas consequentice consequentis. of one former is an ideal or formal necessity thought ; the inevitable dependence necessary
the
upon
The latter is a real or material nature. of our another, by reason intelligent the inevitable dependence of one thingupon another because of its necessity; to all legitimate come* The former is a logical common nature. own necessity, 16
242
OF
REASONINGS.
the ideal unreal are now expressing junctive These are to be considered. always in the past tenses of the subIn usus the meaning which they convey is mood. loguendi, (hence unreal ") of the thought,and, always to deny the reality to be of these also two thus,is alwaysindirect. There seem uses, either indirectly to declare a fact, to declare an inference. or indirectly the firstuse : We at once exemplify
"
7. The
forms hypothetical
"
"
Were
he
king,he
would
tyrannize.
That
is to say, he is not
king,and
not
he does not
not
tyrannize.
If it were
so, I would
say it.
That
the ideal
case
supposed
is denied
its statement
which is to posit its opposite. The apodosis makes fact, which is thus indirectl of,the real fact, contraryto, or in spite
declared.13
is not the ultimate purport. Yet supposition these propositions more indirectly, quite another meaning. convey to be a rhetorical or grammaticalor linguistic device for They seem saying something emphatically, quite aside from and beyond what
But
the words
to state
directly express,
Were he
and
which
it would
perhapsbe
difficult
It is
clearly impliedthat
seems
he is not
here,and I do
the
not
tell him.
But
to state
purport
be to declare my
to
some
myself in
but and my of is
now
reference
matter
I mean quiteemphatically,
in this
case
sayingthis. The state of mind, perhapsto justify in question.So, briefly, and indirectly, to affirm that I am so disposed
my circumstance
one
objectof
that
no
whatever
prevents
of the absence
of the
object
there
so
action'; my
no
made fully
up, all of to
hinder
from
know
what
I think
and
feel and
will about
Observe
quence, whatever
modalityof its objects. The latter is an extrathe syllogistic and wholly dependent over logical necessity, inference, the modalityof the matter This ancient on modern distinction, consequent. ophers philoshave not only overlooked but confounded." Hamilton,Discussions, p. 146; 12 The past tense of the subjunctive in the subordinate clause of a categorical force of denial. E. g., "I would I were propositionhas the same a boy" implies that I am not a boy.
be and above
"
the material
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
240
more implies
than
we
first stated.
not
be,
here,and therefore only I do the sole condition, the only reason why I do then,there is none. present disposition,
Just
so
"
He
is not
not
In my
in the former
example,
He
is not
"
If he
were
he king,
would
nize," tyran-
the does
not
meaning
"
is
"
thus tyrannize,"
If it
were
king,and for this reason only he his tyrannical indirectly tion. disposideclaring
so, I would not
Again,
not
say
affirms my it,"
fulness. truth-
In the
following example,
"Were this beam rotten
not
rotten,it would
serve,
we
as
and
but unserviceable,
and
In the trite
proverb
were
If wishes
we
say
but
about beggars' vain longings, somethingindirectly, rhetorically, still more in the application of the saw, we mean to rebuke indirectly, In Macbeth's speech, aspirations. extravagant
If it were It
were
done done
when
quickly,
outlives
must itself,
he
means
not
but rather he
giveus
pause ;
hesitation.
Gay'scouplet,
!
happy
could I be with
either,
away
is
of palimpsest
enamoured
distraction.
present.
In the unreal
we past,
have,
here, my
brother had not
If thou
hadst been
died,
which
of confidence in superhuman a indirectly strong expression and love. Might, could, or should,in the apodosis, modifies power the meaning,referring the matter to possibility, or ability, duty. of this sort must be treated logically with reference Propositions to the primary, fundamental,unexpressed meaning,and not to the ostensible ideal statement,nor of fact, which are secto the negation ondary, tent, indirect inand, taken apart from the primary though more are to be viewed senseless. They are, then, and interpreted generally as simplecategorical judgments. to the unreal proposition Turning now an inference, we declaring find it presents a further peculiarity. Let us recall that the denial of
is
244
OF
REASONINGS.
an
one antecedent,
or
more
of the
that premises
Then
so so
let us
must
consider the
: following
talks
be crazy ;
Diogenes talks
.*. Diogenes must
be crazy.
in mind may for emphasisperhavingthis reasoning prefer, haps, to state it indirectly. denial of this a By expressing ideally mental conclusion, he denies ideally the fact of his minor, a denial of a grantedfact, and hence professedly he and thus indirectly false,
Any
one
Thus
Diogenes not
crazy, he would
not
talk
so
mean we language, of our words. Our reasoning is consciously and intentionally and goes to establish its opposite. unreal,
of
renew
our
old familiar
is not
a man.
example,
It Plato be not
he mortal,
a
Here
the matter
is stated in
were
as ideally
mere
as contingency, formally
But questionable.
If Plato
not
mortal,he would
not be
man,
the matter
is stated
as
without
sayingso,
Since Plato is
man,
he must
be mortal.
But
in the
the fully,
No
ourselves
more
be wet.
It will be observed
as
is
manifest sufficiently
.
ad
absurdum,
If
were ignorance
Were
would
be
'twere folly to be wise. bliss, then discontented some happy, happy. (Seeexample in iv, " 3.)
These the
conclusions
Hence
Were
not Christianity
from been
it would Were
not
have
God, accompanied by
of
credible
miracles;
its miracles
unworthy
have
credit,
attested in the
manner
they would
in which
not
been
it has been
in
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
245
The
formal
indirect
called the method of absurdum, appropriately is conveniently, and usually stated demonstration, elegantly, For
an
reductio ad
instance refer to
of the
as
51.
conclude when
an declaring
offered
it denies an conclusion, By an ideal denial of an unexpressed but unquestionable which denial, unexpressed premise, being absurd, of that conclusion.13 affirms the truth and reality impliedly
commonly known in (v, conjunctive Logic as the hypothetical syllogism " 5). Aristotle ignores In one all forms of the so-called conditional syllogism. placein
8.
now
"
It is needful
to
revert
to
the form
his
now
known
was
as
the
right. nevertheless introduced into Logic by his Conditional syllogisms were in the Lyceum, Theophrastus, immediate successor were accepted by his rival Eudemus, and were adoptedby the Stoics. They have received the of nearly in one all logicians down to the pressanction, way or another, ent endorsed and time. were Especially they by Boethius, developed and his great authority has given them a permanent placein Logic. Stillthere has been a continual wrangle about the details of the system, their be to a dissatisfaction, sidered conbetraying deep although right of m odes has been special reasoning hardly questioned.The of Aristotle have generally felt it needful to admiring commentators for the hiatus which his disregard of them makes in his Analytics apologize however,Saint-Hilaire, who, in his translation of the ; excepting,
contained in this and the development of the matter of the views presented throughout this general sion. discussections, previous nor, indeed, is found in in hint to be Arnauld a our sentence a Hardly Logics. single speaksof the enthymemic character of conditionals. Mansel (App. to Aldrich, p. 240) writes two in sentences which the doctrine glimmers. The most statement explicit I have encountered is from Titius (Ars Cogitandi, ch. xii), follows : Conas ditionalis seu nihil aliud est quam hypotheticus enthymema vel sine majore vel minore." e st "Syllogismusdisjunctivus enthymema sine majore." "Sequitur nullum circa syllogismos vel formam condipeculiare concludendi fundamentum tionales occurrere, nam materiam adeoqqe argumentationesirnperfectas, sylloviews were worked out before this gismorum regulariumillicontinent." My own new. caught my ey-e, but it seems they are not altogether
seen a
"
lie syllogism.14
13
1 have
nowhere
14
"
If
because
man
it exists, should be
is necessary
;
that
animal
should
animal
must
exists,
the
there
But have
do propositions
not
240
OF
REASONINGS.
Emboldened Organon,insists that they are therein recognized.15 by let us question admitted silence of Aristotle, this generally their title, did his work onlyby half. and judge whether the Stagyrite of modern A number writers on Logic,recognizing hypothetical in modes various distinct of endeavor as syllogisms reasoning, ways to show that they may be reduced to Aristotelic forms. But are they recall that deductive inference is of two kinds, at all? We reasonings
mediate
and
In mediate
inference middle
we or
determine medium.
of two
is the
gism sylloa
process, and
hence
middle
so hypothetical syllogisms, contain Therefore they are not syllogisms, middle term. no called, of reasoning the following not expressive at all. Inspect :
term
If law
MODUS
PONENS.
Cut
.*. Our
secure
;"
=
Major
Minor
Premise. Premise.
Conclusion.
There
is
are
no
term
the two
terms
found
in the conclusion
premises. There are in all four terms, and all found in the so-called major premise. The so-called minor duces introwith the conclusion, no new matter, and has nothing in common in the true syllogism. as occurs necessarily
dont on a davantage les syllogismes hypothetiques, voulu faire honneur eleves Theophrasteet Euderne. encore Les syllogismes a ses sont Aristote les de conce qu' vention. hypothetiques appelle syllogismes d'hypothese, II en avait traite tout au long dans un ouvrage que le temps nous a ravi, mentionne dans le Premiers Analytiques, mais que lui-meme i, 44, 4." Logiquc then d' Aristote, Ix. St.-Hilaire discussion. to a proceeds Preface, See,also, p. tome top. i,8, 9. He has against him, however, Waltz (see Comment, on Anal. iv, Prior, i, thorities, (seeDiscussiojis, 44) and Hamilton p. 151). For references to other auand Hamilton's Grote's note. see Logic, Aristotle, p. 613, note; p. 243,
"
compared in
16
"
Aristote
n'a pas
omis
In the passage
some
above of
as
referred
to
promises
to
treat
at
future time
never
Syllogismsfrom
there
are no
was can
realized,
extant
references to it.
the various by Syllogismsfrom Hypothesis Aristotle meant all and forms what are now known of the Rcductio ad impossibile, not at as thetical Hypohistorical fact the that stated, Syllogisms.Moreover, already Theophrastus of the term which was firmative, categorical," changed the Aristotelic sense simply "afis evidence that he, and not his to the sense opposed to "hypothetical," of the inventor the the point was system. I have not seen master, hypothetical but the change seems to indicate that Aristotle had no such opmentioned, clearly posed need for one to mark a new term, and that Theophrastus found a special be
proved
that
"
distinction.
248
OF
REASONINGS.
of
"
more
than
of
part; if so,
debtors
we
can
conclude
me.
the Here
of reality
it appears
part only
that the
Some
my
will repay
is conjunctiveproposition hypothetical
the
ideal
entbymeme; that
is not a syllogism at all, nor pressive exconjunctive syllogism of reasoning inference of any kind ; that it merely reiterates or the enthymeme as real ; that it indicates a transfer from the ideal to the real on unexpressed grounds; that it is simply a formal mode in whole of announcing the ideal premise established as real, in or of the conclusion. The reasoning part, and the consequent reality in the two is purely and is duplicated Aristotelic, implied enthymemes. A second view considers the conjunctive as proposition merely an In this view affirmation of sequence, its second use. prepositional consists of three propositions. The conjuncthe so-called syllogism tive affirms the necessary coexistence of the other two judgments, or, it affirms only a consequence from One of to the other. one better, these affirms categorically in whole in part, of one the existence, or
the so-called
fact.
The
fact.
is ; but
if
is, y
is ; then y is.
againis an enthymeme. In this view,however,the enthymeme in the two lies solely but is strengthened categorical judgments, by a distinct affirmation of their necessary sequence. The reasoning, then, lies not at all in any inference from the hypothesis to the assertion, but wholly in the relation of the two categorical judgments as premise and conclusion. This reasoning is purelyAristotelic. A third view is that the conjunctive affirms indirectly proposition In this view the so-called hypoan unexpressedmajor premise.18 thetical of affirms the three real propositions a categorical syllogism Aristotelic syllogism. It is not now directne or an enthymeme, unless the inof the major be held to bestow this character, and not the it as a special form slightest ground appears on which to distinguish of reasoning. mode or
It follows
in
Here
of Sufficient Reason10
is
an
entire superfluity
Logic.
and
of
on
violation
Reason
the enthymeme, developing rules of the Aristotelic to be a violation of one another of the general or that the Platonicosyllogism. Hamilton latterly suspected Leibnitzian Law Mansel of place in Logic,and out was definitely
Consequentwill
found,
18
"
Sec Part
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
249
reached
There
can
be
no
doubt
it
was
that it should
be
to relegated
whence Metaphysics,
drawn.20
that disjunctive and explicitly other are compound conditional propositions merely enthymemes. We here speak of disjunctives as compounds, and it is easy to show that they are so. two members Every disjunctive havingsubcontrary consists of two hypotheticals, which may be explicated thus :
9. to
more
"
It remains
indicate
C is either D
or
E ;
c.
e.
g., God
is either loved
is not is not
or
feared ;
yieldsIf
and
C is not
D, C
is E ;
g., If God
If C is not
E, C
is D ; e. g., If God
When
others
is contradictory, in "God is cither trustworthy as opposition the two or untrue,"the analysis yieldsfour hypotheticals, being:
If C is D, C is not
If C is E ;
e. e.
the
is
he trustworthy,
is not
untrue
E, C
is not
D ;
is untrue, he is not
trustvvorth}'.
or
quadruple proved hypotheticals of it is is true it. Moreover, tive easy to show that the so-called disjuncis merely a reiteration of the enthyrneme expressed syllogism by another Thus of these constituent or one : hypotheticals.
it follows hypothetical,
C is either D
or
into explicates
(What
is not
D
D
;
is E
;)
"and"
(What
is not
is D
;)
If C is not
If C is not
E ;
then C is E.
then C is D.
These
Modus
two
in simple syllogisms
Barbara of
or
Darii
correspondto
is not D
the
T.ollendo
Ponens.
is D is not E
In
case
(What
;)
"and"
(What
then
is E
;)
If C is D ;
If C is E ;
then C is not
E.
C is not
D.
These Modus
two
latter
in syllogisms
Celarent
or
Ferio
Ponendo
Tollens.
or
condenses
four
that the
ideal
or
real.
; also p. 251.
20
See Hamilton's
p. 235
; and
note
Aldrich,
193.
250
OF
REASONINGS.
pound, acknowledged comand is obviously made and the dilemma up of conjunctives cate It is needless to trace the principle through these intridisjunctives.
The
is proposition conjunctive-disjunctive
an
forms.
It may
be
well,however,
to
observe
is has
one proposition, disjunctive merely a disparate E. g. : form. been reduced to the conjunctive
member
Man If
man
must
bo either
capableof
progress,
or
brute,or
a
be either
brute
divinity. or a divinity.
gisms, Ought not, then,these conditional forms,these pseudo-syllofrom to be banished Logic? By no means ; for they are true, of expressing and hence modes and very common thought, natural, and treatment. call for logical common Nothing is more analysis his premise than for a reasoner to state hypothetically at the outset
"
10.
and
conclusion. he is
This
he does E. g. :
of
and clearness,
to
sho\v
whither
tending.
If the
was prisoner
sane, then he is
for responsible
his act.
His
first
argument
As
may
be
to
show
the
of necessity
next
the
to
he counsel, accusing
endeavors
sequence establish
minor, perhaps by showing the deliberation of the his motives, etc., etc. ; and, it may be,he brings consistency,
evidence. "When the he closes by argument is complete,
: categorically declaring
The
was prisoner
sane, therefore he is
for responsible
his act.
to call the various conditional place, proposes for argumentation." forms preparations Again,many of these conditional forms present exceedingly densed conof which the mind darts with expressions reasonings through and unless the thinker is familiar with their analysis, he is rapidity, in the more in danger, intricate dilemmatic especially forms,of paralogism, of Hence these were or being imposed upon by sophism. with the Greek Sophists, favorite forms and indeed are still preferred On the by all who wish to make the worse appear the better reason. other hand, their condensation and givesto a justargument weight, and rhetorical force. They should, then,be discussed, not only logical of analysis, but also because of the practical as advantage subjects sulting re-
Hence
Hamilton,
in
one
"
from It is The
unfortunate
ought to
be
ANALYSIS
OF
CONDITIONALS.
251
minor and
true
premise,"
methods of
"
mood,"
reduction
etc.,
etc.,
and
the but
attempt
distinct with
and
to
rules the
to,
from,
confusion
syllogism,
so
has
filled
in
centuries
error.
But false
deeply
and
rooted
literature,
that the
so
widely
spread
can
is
this
system
terminology, authority.
needed
correction
be
made
only
It
by
is
of
a
the
highest
great
any
adduced
satisfaction,
of
however, conditionals,
of
to
say
so
that
far from
the
omission
by
for
totle Aris-
treatment
calling
and the
it
apology,
ter characof
may of
be
as
an
evidence
the should
is
profound
respect clear,
thorough
silence be
his
Analytics.
when imitate
its
Logicians significance
the
and
master,
modest To immediate these
and
not
would
well
to
it.
There
sum
up and
are
but
two
kinds
of
deductive
inference,
is
the
the The
mediate.
various forms
The
of
analysis
conditional ideal distinct
of
Aristotle
limited
to
kinds.
propositions enthyrnemes.
from
are
tially essen-
hypothetical
such
conjunctives, reasoning
and all
or
There
is
no
thing
as
conditional
categorical
conditional.
but The
all
conditional called of
is
categorical, syllogisms
;
categorical
not
is
so-
conditional kind
do
are
syllogisms
of the
at
all,
nor
inferences real.
any
but
are
mere
enthymeme
of rules
as
They
but
not,
therefore,
take their
require places
of
system
Aristotelic
and
forms,
which is
rightly
exhaustive
under
system,
an
analysis
deductive
thought.
PAET
FIFTH."
OF
FALLACIES.
I. DISTRIBUTION.
whose consequences have been " 1. The Primary Laws of Thought, in expoundedin the foregoing pages, are derived from, or formulated accordance
are
with,the ultimate
their is,
constitution original
contradictories the human
are
of
mind.
by questioned
mind.
with them are equally processes and results in strict conformity in the same in But these Laws not necessary sense. arc necessary
sense
be obeyed. Mental processes do they must perforce conform to them. not necessarily They declare how we must think, Our thoughts if we think consecutively ; but they are not inviolable. in their course, like the planets, determined not are by inexorable The forces. planethas no choice. Laws of thought arc impressed mental constitution just as laws of health are our impressed upon The latter constitution. we or consciously unconsciously may upon our physical is but the inevitable consequence disease ; the disregard, but only to incur the deadlier conformer sequence we may likewise disregard, of error and folly. its posiA System of Logic, a Theory of Thought, is complete on tive do and must in showing how we ly think,if we think correctside, But this cannot and fruitfully. at the be, without contemplating of incorrect thinking. of error, and modes time the possibility same that every notion has its opposite, of Relativity Law The declare^ the notion of error, that the notion that the notion of truth implies the notion of incorrect, of correct, regulated thought implies lated unreguand of the were same white, shade, thought. If all objects ContraHence the scholastic maxim would be distinguishable. : none the
that riorum law eadem
est
scientist. We
cannot
one
consider
the
observance other.
of
apart from
the implicates
When
is exhibited, bad reasoning must be conceived as at good reasoning least possible, else the good cannot be conceived as good. According
"
DISTRIBUTION.
250
is a reasoning, reasoning is one and in a certain old kind of syllogism, sophlsticus syllogismus and ignorance, book the fruits of demonstration opinion, are, science,
to
old
definitions," says De
Morgan,
"
bad
from
bad
what demonstration,
we
would
now
call no
to glance showing the methods of correct reasoning, been the rules have frequently Examples violating side fixed on the positive given. But as our view has been steadily of the theory, has been very incorrect thinking, the negative or side, completionof our task imperfectly developed. To the satisfactory and systematic view it is needful now that we take a comprehensive of the violations of the Laws of Thought. If any further justification treatise needed for adding to our were in the valuable practical it might be found discussion of Fallacies, a to a habit the studyof them. It contributes greatly results following of clear and logically that one be familiar with consecutive thought, it is inwith the slips to which clined, the various dangersthat threaten it,
the
snares
which
environ
it.
Error,seen
to be
error, is
; it is
error,
thus
only when in the guiseof truth that it is dangerous. skill in detecting abounds, and a practical disguised,
is of inestimable value. So
is important
exposingit
this
sidered, con-
confine itself to very simple that,while Logic might justly illustrations of the violations of its rules, it is customary to extend the examination many
to
quiteintricate
be
and
difficultcases, and
to
consider
varieties of
error.
Moreover,if it can
shown, as
thinkingare
at bottom
cious progress, that all kinds of fallait violations of established logical rules,
we
that the Aristotelic will go far to confirm the doctrine of this treatise, is the unit of all mediate thought. syllogism
"
them
name as
2. Bacon
was
the
attempteda systematic
error.1 He
made of
enumeration
a
of the various
of human four
of "Idols"
the significant genera, under of illusions, described in the sense 'an image), (a^oc,
"
in
I do find, in a magic mirror. He therefore, presented says : this enchanted glass false appearances, of several distinct four idols, or subdivisions." These he sorts,every sort comprehending many
as
if
enumerates
follows
Novum
Organum,
lib. i ;
Summary
of Part
ii;
Aphorism
38 sq.
254
OP
FALLACIES.
Idola
common
tribus ; Idols
of the nation
or
certain
weaknesses
of human of the
nature, we
den of
or
Idola
specus ; Idols
cave,
and (I.positions
manners.
circumstances
Idola
fori;
as
Idols
usage
of the
or forum, publicassembly,
bar, arising
wise other-
from
of words
which
representthingsmuch
false
Idola and
which theatre, of
systems of philosophy
have introduced.2 reasoning The intellect, son therefore, by mixing with pure reamay be perverted individual propensities or our our affections, gregarious ; the false the imposing delusions of reinvolved in language, or ceived suggestions declares that the doctrine concerning theories. Bacon these of nature relation to the interpretation Idols bears the same the as doctrine bears to deductive Logic. sophistical paralogisms concerning Whcwell, however, thinks that his precepts concerningthese Idols methods "have little to do
the fori,
with
snares
Natural
of
And Philosophy."3
moreover
the
class Idola
"
3. The
next
most
uses
notable
attempt
at
classification of include
error
is
of
the word
"fallacies" to
all kinds
intellectual error, and discovers five genera : 1. Fallacies a priori; Errors in simpleinspection, from arising
"
natural
prejudices.
Observation
;
"
2. Fallacies of
Errors
or
in the
ground
of
induction,
from arising
either mal-observation
;
"
non-observation
of the facts.
3. Fallacies of Generalization
from arising
Errors in the process of induction, of drawing conof the legitimate mode misconception clusions facts.
"
from
observed
4. Fallacies of in against
5.
Ratiocination ;
Errors
in
argumentation, provided
Syllogism. Fallacies of Confusion ; Errors arising from evidence beingconceived in so indistinct a manner not to produce any clear consciousness as of the means by which the conclusion is reached.
"
See Hallam's
Literature
admirable
chapterxx, Part
ch. iii, the of Europe,Part iii, "" 58, 59. Read, also, the of in on Port-Royal 3d, Logic, "Sophisms common
Civil Life."
3
20.
bk. Logic,
v, ch. ii.
250
OF
FALLACIES.
the
fallacies
common
to
every
science.
limited
in number.
the common fallaciesthat belongto no investigate We limit our attention to formal shall accordingly
The
fallacies; material
excluded.
to
We
shall consider
in order
to
matter
a
only in
so
far
as
it
be needful
it inspect
to discover
fault of form.
But
of
then,indeed,we
fallacies
shall undertake
as
show
are
that
at
nearlyall
the kinds
material
bottom
formal, violating
scholastic
shall
adopt the
classification
are speaking,
formal
is commonly described as "any unsound of mode " 5. A Fallacy which conviction,and to be decisive our arguing, appears to demand of the question in fairness it is not." in hand, when Says Kant : A is false in form rational reasoning which while valid in appearance is a fallacy. Such a reasoning is n. paralogism if we ourselves deceived are Let us by it. It is a sophism if we seek to deceive others." define more and say that any violation of logical lacy. law is a falwidely, This falsuin).We agrees with its etymology (fallere, may
" 9
have
tur.
classifications as
well
as
the
non
sequi-
psychological ; one of not the least moment Although, and is by the influence of Hamilton, it has crept into our language, writers on erence by nearlyall subsequent Logic with humble defrepeated
in and Logic, used little
it is not subdivision,
but logical,
elsewhere.
to these
bold to discard
sense. logical
and it,
useful
Fallacies, then,are
1st. of ^uponinspection
of two
kinds
or Paralogisms;
violation of
This
law logical
is manifest
the form
accords
meaning of the word as used by Aristotle. It is so used by De is best fitted to Morgan, who says: "Paralogism, by its etymology, offence against What the formal rules of inference."1 an signify here we call paralogisms formal are by Whately as distinguished and by Mill as fallacies of ratiocination." fallacies,"
" "
B
the
De
ix.
The
which treatise,
is the last of
the series
the ORGANON, but printedby Waitz as the final section of constituting the Topica, is as follows : ITept$e T"V "ro$"i"mfcwv iXsy^wv Kai ~Cjv tyaii'OiJ.evdii' St d\\' OVK i\tyxwv Hiv ovruv iXtvj^uv. TrapaXoyivn"v 9 lo Formal Logik," 90. Logic, p. 239.
DISTRIBUTION.
2d.
Sophisms ;
or
those whose
violation of
of the form but requires consideration a alone, upon inspection of the language, of the matter to discover it. These correspond in or
and to Whately's"material fallacies," general
to Mill's "fallacies
of"
confusion." "rather
and
not to
seem
"It
to
answers seem
persons," says
not to
totle, Aristo
be, than
be
; for
unreal of
the the
who
is to
uses
the semblance
is
a
say, he
counterfeit
(So"/"oc,
clever, cunning).11 above,subdivided by Aristotle into two of the Scholastics, follows are as classes,12 which, in the terminology in voce or (a)Those in dictione, (01 rt]v \i"tv) ; the formal napa
as
Sophisms are,
indicated
fault
therebeing concealed by ambiguity of language. Generally, other. fore, they disappear by being translated from one languageinto anThey correspondto Bacon's Idola fori,and to Whately's " fallacies." Of them Aristotle makes a selection rather semi-logical than
a
'
for division,
we
of exhaustive,
six
treat extra
in
re
t"w (oi
as therefore, Generally, lying concealed in the subject-matter. in whatever language to the thought, adhering theypersist, expressed. fallacies" of Whately. Of them to the non-logical They correspond considered. Aristotle selects and treats seven kinds; subsequently
"
It is needful to forewarn
a
double
or
manifold
matter
of doubt
or
Very
the
same
shall be referred. a given species genus even be individual fallacy may, with equalpropriety,
can some
referred to different
regardit as
choose whether
one
to
on expatiates
the distress of
we tyrannical,
hence
to
argues
assume
government is
"
must
Every coun-
11
Sir Thomas
a
with
cause
fonde
(Works,p. 475)thus caricatures him : argumente, prove unto a symple soule that two
More
"
woulde, Sophyster
were
egges
and
one
and
twayne
to soyle hys fonde argumente, symple unlearned man, though he lacke learnying the two and byd / and to eat hath yet wit enough to laugh thereat, egges himselfe, tak and eat the thyrde." the Sophyster
Yt
17
258
OF
FALLACIES.
try under
which constitutes the fallacy of undistributed tyranny is distressed," that middle; or "Every distressed country is under a tyranny," false premise, which, though materially a nevertheless, yields,
a
good argument, and is not a fallacy. The foregoing distribution of fallacies, well as the detailed statement as is substantially that of Aristotle. He has been followed hereafter, for two thousand ification closely by logicians years, the onlyconsiderable modwhich we adopt. Attempts beingthe scholastic terminology, at an improved classification have been made, but no one has been partment but in the degenerally approved. Mill's arrangement is masterly, of deductive fallacy he adheres quiteclosely to Aristotle. We have herein, treatment, to present. In the special then,nothing new that the several we hope to show, by a more thorough analysis, classes are amenable to the laws of the syllogism, and hence are strictly
a
formal from
classification and
treatment
arc,
however, far
No 'one can forecast the ground is boundless. devious intricacies, the perplexities, the incoherences, the entanglements to the human possible understanding. On se fait une idee precise
"
de
metis Pordre,
non
pas
du
desordre"
"
6.
Paralogisms,
as
we
have
termed
them,
were
not
treated
as
ter, by Aristotle or by the scholastics. The masand his devout disciples until very recent times, were so perfectly familiar with the laws of thought and their application, that the idea of an the formal of a proposition structure or open offence against committed and maintained seemed to being unconsciously syllogism and absurd. But it is different with us. them impossible Palpable all laws violations of syllogistic of comlaws,though they are mon-sense, merely of fallacy whatever. are as as frequent any other species The slipshod ers, judgments and crippled arguments that every -day talkand teachers, sometimes and even are content legislators, preachers, of their utter inconsequence, need to be to use, unconscious greatly and spreadout in thin transparency. But broughtinto the sunlight has read the preceding it were who one superfluous pages, for him than barely indicate these bald simplicities. that we more in the logical A paradox, When this sense, is a self-contradiction.13 is manifestly to A fallacious non-A, we have a formally equivalent
=
13
This is the
sense
in which
I understand
Aristotle in
to general
use
the word.
See De
DISTRIBUTION.
259
attribute. Is such an error judgment or a contradictory thus When a remark," beginswith a preliminary speaker
"
possible?
" "
to what
he
is about
to
we say,"
are
reminded
"
of
in his
and progress,"
course,
are
of the
mere
captain's forward
the
rear."
These, of
blunders.
in A
illustrated under their topics. sufficiently How Immediate inferences are sometimes fallaciously drawn. often, if not orally, is this error the silence of thought, committed : All is B ; all B therefore,
of money
amount large
is A !
You
agree with
may
afterwards
a
say you
justnow
admitted
that to be
wealthyis
to
of money, and, unchallenged, draw a false conamount clusion. large is or is not good whether a man of determining The difficulty is a commonplace of moralists and satirists. Society, however, applies, without hesitation, a very beyond doubt,good men simplerule. Since, it concludes, do good deeds, that he who to itself, quitesatisfactorily does good deeds is a good man ; whereas selfish prudence dictates a / of action almost as imperatively virtue itself. We virtuous course as possess
are
more
liable to
we
this
error
are, when
consider
the
because
metallic does
come
money." Moreover,though "All seed however true it may not follow, logically
from
come
from
"
it plants," All
be,that
plants
seed."
the fallacy of usingthe contraryof a proposi-/ opposition, logical has already instead of its contradictory, been noticed.14 Importion, tant it is maintained,as errors practical may arise from this. When that this in some creeds, Every dutiful act is meritorious," popular No dutiful act is meritorious," should not be met by the moralists with In
" "
"
for
of
are
two not
contraries
both
may
dutiful acts
at least not not
prove
easily proved; not the other, to popularapprehension. That a thingis not white does ,/" this fallacy thus broadly it black. Nobody can commit
so." This
in the intricacies of
an
may be
be
false,
"
but
with
"
Some
stated;but
many
of
that
not
Some
are," my
it
;" for,unless
I affirm
Some
are
may
be true.
Yet,if palm.
he
the the people, frames an extended artfully reply, will very likely not strictly givehim questions personal,
"Part
"8. 3d,ii,
260
OF
FALLACIES.
Paralogisms violatingthe
illustrated several could but
in
law
of
syllogism
the
have
already been
Rules.15
If
ciently suffithe
connection
a
with
General
propositions of hardly
ever
syllogism were
but
lurk
fullystated,these
almost
paralogisms expression
The is
occur;
since
always
the
unseen
in
the
unexpressed thought.
false
;
obvious Another
complete
is to
statement.
paralogism
false,or
of
a
regard
the
the
conclusion
is
as
because
premise
the
one
because
from
argument
of God
unsound
also, to Thus,
if
infer
some
truth argues
premise
the
that
of
a
the
from
to
conclusion.
its
for
existence
another
an
might perhaps
of
some
be
able
refute
the
argument
by
ducing pro-
instance
nation
;
destitute
of such
belief,the
then
to
dictory contra-
of
minor many
premise might
the
the
argument
ought
God,
term
true
go
for
nothing.
refutation would be
think
otherwise, and
of the
a
consider
in
that
this
disproved
an
existence of
which
:
they
guilty of
Whatever
illicit process
is
major
must
; thus
; ;
universally believed
of of
a
be
The
.*.
existence existence
God God
is not is not
universally believed
true.
The
being already
of
a
of
the
truth
truth of
of
the
first
God,
the
the
:
ise, prem-
be
the
is
fallacyof
undistributed
is true
;
middle
; thus
universally believed
of of
a
existence existence
God God
is true is
The
universally believed.
one
If
these
two
fallacies the
were
would
quent, conse-
proceed
the
from
the
antecedent
to
the
denial
to
of
the
the
other
affirming the
two
a
consequent
the
antecedent.
conditional
which fallacies,
pointed out
middle.16
with respectively
process
and
undistributed
16
See
Fart
4th, i,"
5.
16
Whately, Logic, p.
191.
SOPHISMS
IN
DICTION.
261
II. SOPHISMS
IN
are
DICTION.
an require inspection fault. They all logical repeated ambiguously,
"
1. The
sophismcein
dictione
those that
of the
arise
though identical
two
eye and
ear, must
be counted
for twice,
a
it represents
term
different
concepts. A
is,
in thought, risively a therefore, Quatcrnio terminorum,or, as it has been deanimal a called, quadrupes logicum (see logical quadruped, is the vice of all fallacies General Rules,No. 1). This,fundamentally,
ambiguityis in the middle term, the fallacy with that of undistributed middle ; for while corresponds very nearly in ambiguous middle the extremes are compared with two different terms, in undistributed middle they are compared with two different
parts of the
We adhere
treats enter to
same now
in dictione.
When
the
term.
must
and Aristotelic ground, upon the consecrated the time-honored terminology. Aristotle enumerates of these
and
six kinds
of sophisms,
which
we
scholastic
designations.
first
a
"
2.
The
ambiguity in
different
senses.
term, single
the
use
of
word
we
or
term,
have
the
"
sophismof
be
punishedby law;
actions
;
for theft
are
criminal be
punishedby
law.
The
doubly ambiguous,both ''criminal" and "actions" The phrasein one premise being used in different senses. deeds ; in the other, a legal signifies highlyinjurious process. Again :
middle
term
is here
Here
the
ambiguity may
upon the
be thrown
If perfectio.
we latter,
either upon the finis the or upon have ambiguous major. The follow-
262
OP
FALLACIES.
givenby
Aristotle
of
the
is
a
Euthydemus
redressed by Poste. It (ch. iv), The middle term, Plato, " 12-18. has learned
to
y/m/z/iamroc,
term
is
schoolboywho ambiguous.
o
spell. The
minor
6 JpafJtp,aTLKOQ
tTTlffrf]fJl(t)V'
.'. o
[ia.vQa.vwv
these would
of
course
Such
scorn
obvious which
cases
as
deceive
no
one.
The
ever, howlogical examples are often treated overlooks, in actual discussions are the fact that premises often very wide not stated at all, and the conindeed, clusion perhaps apart, one or the other, and also remote well tion, so an ambiguitymay very ; escape detecand lead to error. "Whenever the premises we can bringtogether and conclusion in the form of a compact syllogism, the sophism of is usually manifest. We must recollect, equivocation quite too, that a
"
"
with
series of
arguments
link.
If
an
is like
chain,which
is
"
is not
stronger than
its
weakest
cannot
ambiguous term
One said." may
chain
be
depended on.
has been
truth
in what
observe, There is a great deal of Yes, maybe it is all true, except one
essential minute
is most point. The sophistry dangerousthat lies hidden in do not, in general, and come neglected points. Burglars
"
batter down
in at
some
window
whose
"
does not kindle a tar neglected. An incendiary of the hall, but leaves a lighted barrel in the middle candle in the thatch or in a heap of shavings." is so prolific of false doctrine as this. Are mere Perhaps no fallacy ? Men imagine," that their words, then, so dangerous says Bacon, of language; but it often happens that have the command minds this rule is often misAnd rule. languagebears rule over their minds." in ambiguities, abound and no proespecially, Livinglanguages, cedure is safe that has not providedagainst and that does not them, The onlyremedy is an exact definition close watch upon them. lieep of terms. Whoever would and a consistent use discuss a subject in tions, writingor speechwith scientific accuracy must set out with definiin which and often state the precise he uses sense common
have fastenings
"
"
words.
It is
one
criterion of The
an
advanced
and
science to have
its terms
the
mathematical
have
erroneous
consequence.
264
OF
FALLACIES.
may
attach to
supreme
"
The
confusion of nature
of
is
has no sovereign create these for his subjects. law in the juridical with law sense as in Butler's chapter "The on exemplified
" " "
but legislator;
the
moral
formity uni-
Moral
Government
on
of God."
He
calls the
course
of nature
government
merely ground pain. But have nothingmoral in them ; they may be used for these precautions criminal ends. Guy Fawkes obeyed a law of nature when he arranged his powder-minewith safety to himself.2 for firing is used, The several meanings in which the word inconceivable and needhave obscured greatly, and its confusion with lessly incredible," the controversy between the intuitional and empirical extended, but incredible to the ancients, schools of philosophy. Antipodeswere that inconceivable. the not properly Every child conceives clearly cow or jumped over the moon," and maybe believes it, maybe not. of which is truth is a thing conceivable, the contradictory Necessary i. e., cannot be thought or imaged by the mind. This inconceivable, is incredible ; but it does not follow that whatever is incontradictory ceivable, inconconceivable is incredible. Two contradictories may be equally finiteand infinite space ; but, beinglogical as contradictories, it was be true. must able inconceivone Again,before the coming of Christ, that justice and mercy could consist, but not incredible ; since conceivable also. Now then it has become it is inconceivable clearly that election and free-will can consist ; but these, not being logical
" " " "
the
that it induces
to avoid precautions
found
credible.8
commit a fallacy publicfrequently by the ambiguity of the phrase scarcity of money." In the language of commerce, medium, "money" has two meanings, currency, or the circulating investment on loan. In this and capital investment,especially seeking is spoken of, last sense the word is used when the "money market" is said to be high or low, the rate of and when the value of money The consequence of this ambiguityis that as interest being meant. in this latter sense of money the scarcity soon as as beginsto be felt, and the rate of interest of obtaining there is a difficulty soon as loans, is high, it is concluded that this must arise from causes actingupon
"
"
Zo/7/c, p. 617. The troublesome of inconceivable discussed by Mill in are ambiguities his Examination his and in chs. vi ch. bk. v-vii. He argues, ii, of Hamilton, Logic, ; and has failed to dissipate the mists. however,in the interest of empiricism,
8
" "
Bain's
SOPHISMS
IN
DICTION.
265
the
more
sense popular
; that the
to
diminished
in
or ought quantity,
have
been
increased.
no
medium, circulating
for more money, cry then arises for more relieve this increase of which can possibly
pressure.4
A man is justified (Rom. iii, 28) that ently without the deeds of the law,"he is usingthe word justify consistas throughout, meaning treated by God as free from guilt." When then how that by works "Ye St. James says (Epist. see ii, 24), and not by faith only," is justified, he too is usingthe word a man consistently, meaning seen to be justbefore God," which, he says, will see and acthe evidence of works. All candid minds knowledge requires When
St. Paul
concludes
"
"
"
"
"
in such
case
the two
are
statements
are
not
tory, contradic-
that both
arguments
pun, is
conclusive.5
the logical cation. sophism of equivogenerally Swift's taken from Charles Lamb6 quotes the following, Miscellanies : "An Oxford scholar meeting a porterwho was carrying him with this extraordinary accosts a hare through the streets, tion quesLamb hare ?" is that thine ments comor a wig : Prithee, own friend, the fun of it admirably. The Logic of it and analyzes on this, is quite expandsthus : plain.The enthymeme impliedin the question
or paronomasia,
wig is not one's own Surelythat is not your be a wig. .*. It must
A
hair ;
own
hare ;
Here
as a
are
two
or premises, negative
else undistributed
say that
a
middle,as well
ambiguous middle.
mock As herein
the
reason
"
Still we
on men
argument founded
"
term.
Two
ate
generally quite of the middle a palpable equivocation for a wager, one ate ninetyate oysters
may pun
for he
ate
a
is
nine,but
Here the
other
is
two
more,
hundred
and
won."
line,7
Mantua, vae
pun,
as
contains
double
such
untranslatable
of course,
be
similarly analyzed.
It may
be well
to
remark
here,once
for
that all,
most
of
to Humor sort. seems mock are wittyjests logicof some to feeling, or misplaced. Wit primarily exaggerated feeling
relate relates
McCosh's
Essaysof Elia,
"
'
266
OF
FALLACIES.
rather to
under
from intellectual in character, and often, is more cognition, and cious, fallaeven a absurdly logical play of thought manifestly Dr. Johnson's lets flya sharp dart of truth. a fishing-pole,
"
rod
with
worm
at
one
end and
"
is a other,"
mock
Mr. Beecher's
and
on a
the
Beechcrs,"is
mock
division.
Ward, travelling
in alarm, "Mister Conductor, railway -car, suddenly cries out you'veput the cow-catcher on the wrong end of this 'ere train ; there ar'nt nothingon airth to prevent a cow from in behind coming right and biting and the folks." Here is a curious mixture of humor here, in the affected alarm at the supposed mistaken sarcasm rangement, ar; humor and the grotesque consequences apprehended; wit in the duction slyassumption Your train runs slower than a cow," implied by the deEven the most ously serithrough the ambiguous cow-catcher." intended form, sophism becomes, when reduced to strict logical be ludicrous sham that wonder could so one we palpably a any of its externals becomes deceived by it. As majestystripped a jest, and contempt. a grave so argument may be exposedto laughter many
" "
"
V
3. The
second
Fallacia class,
ambiguitylies
sentence
term.
return
much
is twice two
and
three?
hope
member
a
of the House
rose liar,
Commons,
is
that you
and
said, It
quitetrue, and
6p" bpqi Ti"'
'
An
example of
Aristotle's is :
TOVTO
o
opt! TIQ
TOVTO
o
b
.*. 6
KIHJV KlbiV
OjO".
The
Is the question by a factoryat work, we shall find iron things. This furnishes the syllogism,
to The The
.*. The
totle example givenby ArisEuthydemus, " 67.8 A disputant says, in reply of the silent possible ? that if we speaking go tools far from
Another
beingsilent
iron tools is
the
In the Nicene
Creed,the words
8
by
whom
all
were things
made
"
are
See Jowett's
SOPHISMS
IN
DICTION.
267
to the Father
or
to
the Son. is
In the
a
Commandment,
them
"
tive geni-
by generation." the hearer has thus two grammaticalrenderings, sentence When a his preference and overlook is likely to adopt that to which inclines, governedeither by
or
children
"
the
other.
This the
was
the habitual
trick of the
oracles.
Thus
the
prophecy of
in Henry spirit
The But duke him
VI:10
die
violent death.
But
is
just the
famous
response
of
the
oracle to
: Pyrrhus
vincere posse ;
in bello
peribis.
and Falcompositions and dcatjpcarcc), arise from the confusion of lacia divisionis (avvQeaiQ ay tributed universal with a collective term. Accordingto Whately,when a disof compoit is the fallacy term is afterwards used collectively, sition when collective is term used it is a afterwards distributively, ;
"
4. The
third and
fourth
Fallacia classes,
of division. This is clear, but seems not fallacy and the distinction the meaning of Aristotle, preserving.Aristotle's example is as follows :
the
to
have
been
actly ex-
is
hardlyworth
Two Two
/.
and and
three three
and
odd ;
Five is
"
even
and
odd.
The
at
one
sense,
noticed. repeatedly time in its cumular,at another in its exemplar or it gives rise to this sophism. E. g. :
All the
A
.'. A
are equal to anglesof a triangle of an a : triangle angle is equal to two rightangles.
ambiguityof
When
taken
distributive
two
rightangles ;
B C is B C
So
"
thick shade
do so, or that each does so. together to the mind, many are presented
"
persons
too
weak
or
too
in-
One
more
notable
two
amphiboly :
be
"
occupiedby
students
students
shall university except nine,they being single." (Old Regulations.) in this university and one room except nine, every Code.) (Revised
"
All
the
dormitories
of this
Part 2, act
sc. i,
iv.
268
OF
FALLACIES.
view of them ; but confine their attention comprehensive to each by turns, infer, decide,and act accordingly. Thus, the his health by successive acts of intemperance, debauchee cause bedestroys of these acts would of itself be sufficient to destroy it. no one thus: I am Others reason not bound to contribute to this charity, conclusion that all to that, to the other,drawing the practical nor nor The said to reason be neglected.11 Owenites thus are charity may the doctrine of human : against responsibility
dolent to take
He But
.*. No
who
necessarily goes or stays is not a free agent ; either goes or stays ; one necessarily every
is free.
one
All such We
sometimes
hear
an
argument
great men. very well without would still have been discovered, at most
Newton law
arose
prove that the world could do If Columbus America had never lived,
to
only a
had
never
some lived,
of
any
until some etc. one gravitation, and of Newton. Because of Columbus having the qualities one might have had his placesupplied great man by another
man,
great
and
the
argument
The
term
concludes
men
could
pensed be dis-
with.
"great men"
is distributive in the
premises,
t
*
"
An
5. The
or prosodies,
accentus
example givenby
Aristotle is from
v
Homer
KarcLTrvQiTcn
o[i(3p"p.1*
ov
Some
he critics,
TO ov
says,
emend
tbis,speakingthe
affirmative to
more
sharply
(XeyovTEQ
of
"
changing oZvTepov),
"
part," saying naught is rotten the remark that the ambiguitycan writing. This is because in his time
were
instead negative; this by by the rain." He prefaces in speech, but onlyin hardlyoccur the written words
and breathings, of the Greeks
were
not
marked
with
accents
and
hence
times some-
ambiguous to
In
not
to the ear.
a
like
manner
with
ambiguityin
in
written word
or
phrase
is resolved
usually by
"
stress
courteous. gallant',
Not
brave ; and voce. Thus, gallant, the least difference " may either no mean
difference at
or all,
very
"
11
Whately, p.
217.
Mill, p.
570.
1S
Iliad, 23,328.
Dindorf
has
ov.
SOPHISMS
IN
DICTION.
269
thy neighbor," against that we emphasized, meaning convey jury perthe neighbor. We read in the is not forbidden except against the prophet spake to his sons, of Kings,xiii, first book 27, "And The italics indicate Saddle me the ass ; and they saddled him" saying, that the word was by the translators; mistakingit for an supplied so emphatic word transfers the saddle. Jeremy Bentham, it is said, feared being misled by false accent that the person employed to read for him was to maintain a monotone. required The fashion of takinga Scripture text and drawing thence a series word and then on of doctrines by puttingemphasis first on one other anif not dangerous. A wrong is very questionable, emphasismay pervert and wholly confound the meaning. But, on the other hand, we present different by admissible and various emphasisforcibly may in what different lights Observe the sentiment. views of the same thought may be placedby changing the stress of voice on the words of our thou the Son of man with a kiss ! Saviour : Judas,betrayest
If in
reading
"
Thou
slialt not
bear
false witness
is
the
the
reproachturn
rests
on
the
infamy of treachery.
with
it rest upon
"
connection
his Master.
the Saviour's
turns
personalcharacter.
his of the prostitution
with
to
a a
it upon
peace
of hate and
ruin.
Any
of such Gesture and which
statement tone
as manner
of
was
something that
meant to
has been
said with
and
may
A person
it is the
between
truth
falsehood.
serves
quotes another,omittinganything
of the
to
show
the
meaning;
he
to
or
one
who
out withas
of
one
cites in italics so
to
attempts
to make notes
them
of
imply more
or by italics,
exclamation, or
centus.
fallacies. Sarcasm and are jests generally of accent, perhapscannot be assumed ironymay be referred to the fallacy without it. Some be, declines a task as beyond his one, it may and another assures him that his diffidence is highly commendable, powers; and Said Job to his fully by the circumstances. justified shall die with and wisdom No doubt but ye are the people, friends, meaning the contrary. The tones and inflections of his voice, you; feel sure, were to irony. This is very effective, those peculiar we may since it is hardlypossible to frame a reply. We have said that
"
270
OF
FALLACIES.
"
6. The
sixth
limited
by
to
Aristotle to
wherein
the
cases
The
name
name
of what
an
is not
give ground for in uninflected languages, sophistry.This,however, is hardlypossible is commonly held to include and so at present the species any perversion solecism. For of grammar, example: any
Whatever This
/.
man a man
of
action
(e. g.,
terminate
like the
walks
on
on
he
walks
the whole
trampleson day ;
He
trampleson
this
source
the
day.
from the arising of paronyms, use or words, such as a substantive, conjugate adjective, and verb coming from the same These have by no means ilar simroot. artful;""Pity and pitiful;" meanings. E.g., "Artist, artisan, "Presume and What is presumption;""Project and projector;" "imaginary" is unreal,but an "image" formed of wood or stone is real ; To to a knowledge apprehend is to lay hold on, or to come fear or dread. of,while apprehension often signifies
" " " "
Very
similar to
of
ambiguityis
that
Designingpersons are untrustworthy ; Everybody forms designs ; be trusted. .*. Nobody can
Are there
enough to think that strong ? Then the drink,because it is strong,givesstrength they commit double of ambiguous terms, and of supposing that an effect fallacy be like its cause. must They should try strong poison. Fallacies such differences, founded than on hardlybe more says Whately,can because in Greek, a more jests. They are not named by Aristotle, constructed the meaning of paronyms, with regularly language, very few exceptions, does exactly (ra ffvaroL-^a) correspond ; and paronyms
.
peoplein
the world
foolish
were
locus of
The
is also to be included
other
e.
of speech figures
g.
Herod
A fox
fox ;
quadruped
.'. Herod
In
14
down.
Disgusted
bon
ou
Si Ton
demontre
conjuguesest
les autres
est qu'il
mauvais,
"
on
demontre,par
cela meme,
tous
le sont
egalement."
St.-IIilaire.
OF
FALLACIES.
III. SOPHISMS
IN
MATTER.
Sophismata extra dictioncm are those in which we must go and inspect the matter beyond the outer form and beyond the diction, in order to discover the logical fault. They are commonof thought, ly
"
1. The
called "Material
not
as
those whose
fault does
lie in form
nor
but language,
in the
matter,
meaning by
this
premisesare false. If so, then their consideration faultless, and, as alreadysaid, they are logically does not belongto our subject. But it is not so ; these sophismsare that we examine the formallyfaulty logically, ; only it is requisite
is correct,but that the
matter
in order
to
discover this.
Of
this genus,
and Aristotle,
after
him
the Latin
enumerated logicians,
accidentis
seven
The
^
Fallacia firstclass,
whenever
common.
it is
assumed
that
and subject
By
not
"
accident" here
means,
but any suborcalled the accident in Logic, dinate usually notion. and individual is to be Every species part of a general regardedas an accident of its genus in this sense.2 For example, mortal ; but Every horse is (an accident of) All men are (subject) and accident), mortal ; hence (equating subject Every horse is a man, is a horse." But it does not follow that "man" and Every man and An "horse" have all their attributes in common. example from the is
"
merelywhat
text not
is :
"
Since
Coriscus is not
is not
is
man,
it does is denied
man,
because
who Socrates,
is merely an Coriscus,
accident
of .man."
examples are,
but
as
the
one
undistributed
middle, the
we
illustrations of the
of them.
are
present sophism
must
view
Either
premiseof
the firstand
instead simply,
the
major
second
1
supposedto
be converted
of per
accidens.
Soph. ch. v. Aristotle does not consider these sophisms as having false in detail their formal faults. He repeatedly excludes from but exposes premises, the consideration of matter false. or as true Logic * See De Soph.ch. xxiv, where Accidens is discussed at greaterlength.
De
SOPHISMS
IN
MATTER.
273
giveBarbara
and
givesrise to
text
the F. accidentis.
example from
the
is
as
follows:
do not know what
I
am
You
I
am
going to
the nature of the
ask
you
about
summum
going to
do not
ask you
about
of the
bonum;
.". You
know
the nature
summum
bonum.
Here
the
of (unknown) subject
(summum
the genus (about is equated to be asked) bonum). The example may be viewed as
enabled
in
He
He
/. He our
loose lying
as an properly amphiboly. certain sophismswhich have long to classify Logics. The standard example is :
stillmore
a a a
man
speakstruly ;
calls you
a man
knave knave
speakstruly.
what is presubject (knave) naming a species mised of a subject This is the best solution I a naming genus (man). have seen, but it is not therebybrought under any Aristotelic class. and concludes it is best considDe Morgan confesses it troublesome, ered But it is clearly Aristotle's F. accidentis. Thus : Equivocation.3 You (subject) are a man (genus) ; but A knave is (an accident of)a Here
is inferred of
a
"
man
; therefore
You accident)
are
knave."
Or
conversion of A by Boethius4 given to the legitimate confirms this explanation of Aristotle's meaning. He has been very and very variously that practically this so misunderstood, generally of sophismhas long since dropped out of the list. Indeed, species who there are very few logicians treat it correctly, to or seem even understand from this malconversion it. Errors arising have already been indicated in i," 6, on Paralogisms.
Fallacia dicto secundum a " 2. The second class, quid ad dictum simpliciter (TOa.7r\wQ f/fji"ia7rXd"c uAAa Try T) TTOV "/ TTOTE "/ Trpog n arises from the confusion of an absolute statement with a Xeyevdai), statement limited in manner, time,or relation. It is obvious place,
dicto
ad dictum simpliciter
the intent of Aristotle ; was quid. This,beyond question, but Whately,followed by De Morgan, Mill, Bain, and their seconda-
Logic, p.
242.
Tart
SJ,ii, "
7.
13
274
OF
FALLACIES.
is
ignored.
It is needless
to
make
of these separatespecies
correlatives.6
The
dum
firstinfers from
to
one
statement
made
under
restriction
(secun-
quid)
made
without
is
restriction
E. g. : (rimpliciter).
be forbidden
;
Whatever The
.'. The
use use
pernicious ought to
is
of wine
pernicious ;
be forbidden.
of wine
ought to
to
Here
the minor
to
premiserefers
used.
wine
used
wine,however
infers from
This
is the
a thingfrom arguingagainst
The
second
without
limitation
to
one
it may essential,
be,to what
is accidental.6
old standard
What You
example is :
to
.'. You
bought yesterday you ate bought raw meat yesterday ; ate raw meat to-day.7
you
day ;
Here
in the conclusion, of meat with the accidental quality inferred, of rawness added, what in the major is said of it simply; i. e., of the essential substance, without regardto its accidental qualities.
is
The
firstof these cases, when we look into the matter, may evidently be construed as illicit minor ; for what is premised of some, a tain ceruse
of
wine, is concluded
of all
use
of wine.
The
second
"
case
is
a plainly quaternion, havingan ambiguous middle is used in two different bought yesterday" senses, with its accident. only, secondly this class of sophismsmight be included Under
"
; for
What
you
sentially es-
firstsimply or
one
to
be
called
F.
dicto secundum
quid
ad
dictum
a
secundum
alterum
quid. When
which life
it is asserted
to despicable,
has been
is to
taken
by
one
others have
cruel and
infer from
case special
another
sophismnamed.8
6
See De
"
Soph.ch.
was raw
xxv.
Hence,perhaps,the
mentioned
same
confusion
with F. accidentis.
as
This piece of It
and
raw
meat
has remained
uncooked, as fresh
it in the
state
time.
when
Reisch it in
1496;
8
Whately found
2C5.
justthe
in
De
Morgan,p.
SOPHISMS
IN
MATTER.
of the species dangerous sophisms before us are those which do not lie in a single but slip now syllogism, in when from to another in a chain of arguone passing syllogism ment, and are thus committed the One of the by changing premises. conditions oftenest changed is the qualification of time. It is a in political that prices, principle profits, economy wages, etc., always find their level." This is often interpreted if it meant that they as while the truth is they rarely most at their level, are generally are, their as but, Coleridge level," alwaysfinding expresses it, they are which might be taken as a paraphrase ironical definition of a or an
commonest
" "
the Perhaps
and most
storm.
very good rule not to encourage infer of all who solicitalms what is true
a
It is
but beggars,
we
should
not
rule to avoid lawsuits, but sometimes cumstances cirgood general make an appealto law a duty. These may be taken as instances of the error called the misapplication of abstract truth ; vulgarly where that is, is applied true in the abstract, to concrete a principle, true absolutely, and no modifying cases, and reasoned on as if it were circumstances could ever exist. This is to reason a dicto by possibility
a
it is So, also,
simplidterad
and It is
are
dictum
secundum
quid. It is
an
error
very
common
very fatal in
and politics
society.9
orators
by
this
that fallacy
and
deceive
and others,
themselves
of these
their accidents.
Men
commend
which
to a nation ; obedience which has no to a power disloyalty which is licentiousness ; a faith which is rightful authority ; a liberty which is superstition.10 mere credulity ; a religion The gods,say the Epicureans, be invested with human must form, because that form is most and everything beautiful must be beautiful, found in them. form is not absolutely But as the human beautiful, but only in relation to other bodies,it does not follow that it must be
is
in
God, who
The
is beautiful
absolutely.11
cases, to
a requires degreeof
in
A
the stating
man
quid which
many
persons
seems
accuracy absurd.
the
was on a ham acquitted stealing evidence showed only that he had stolen a part being convicted of perjurycommitted "in the
indicted for
the of
a
ground that
ham. other An-
year
1846," the
10
McCosh's
Logic, p. 128.
Il
Arnauld,p.
262.
276
OF
FALLACIES.
judge
read
" "
entertained the
of objection
ought to
have
as
Such minutiao are in the year of our Lord 1846." and quirksof the law ;" but abundant the quibbles shown that the most
minute caution is
not requisite
denounced
experience
to
has
commit
of secundum quid. through the fallacy injustice that the lacies. falstatement We are recur jests usually palpable againto A servant who was Boccaccio tellsthe following ing roaststory: stork for his master was a prevailed by his sweetheart to upon When the the bird came the table, cut off a leg for her to eat. upon of the other leg. The man what was become desired to know master had but one answered that storks never leg. The master, very angry, before he punishedhim, dumb but determined to strike his servant where took him the next day into the fields, they saw storks standing The servant to turned triumphantly storks do. each on one as leg,
"
his master,
on
which
their
did he
sumption as-
other
not
but
you
would
have
shown
his other
can
that what
of predicated
be
yesterday so, ; if you had done of this is in too.' The the leg gist of storks in general can predicated
"
be
roasted storks ;
so
quid.
how
And
when
the
dicto
many
black
beans
it would if you
take
to
make
A
ten
white
ones,
he
skin 'em."
worthy reply.
bean
is still a bean.
"
3. The
third
of the refutation, is ignorance to the wrong en-), answering point, proving of the thesis which one (elenchus) somethingnot the contradictory This supposes a disputant, intends to overthrow. an futation, attempt at con-
It
title, general the issue, or mistaking proposedby Whately,of Irrelevant Conclusion, where the attempt is to establish a thesis by a include all cases to it,or of something which may be proof of somethingnot sustaining mistaken for it. This latter might well be termed Ignoratio or Mutatio condusionis. something Formallythe fault is either in establishing of that is not the required the else or thesis, contradictory establishing thesis. somethingthat is not the required
to
a
take
wider
"
For
cases,
sec
De
Morgan, p.
252
sq.
SOPHISMS
IN
MATTER.
277
If I argue
the
of utility general
some
proposedmeasure,
we are
and
my
not
ed interestspecially
is irrelevant. and his conclusion the true elenchus, he ignores it, I show that it is the proper consequence If,in support of my thesis, the true conclusion, and my conclusion I ignore of previous legislation, is irrelevant. his If it be affirmed that
a man
has
adopted is not the best ; if one party vindicates, instance of resistance the ground of general a particular on expediency, to government, and you ought not to do evil that oppose that we good may come, you are guiltyin each case of ignoratioelenchi. has committed cious atroan instead of provingthat the prisoner Again,if,
cious crime,you prove that the crime of which he is accused is atrothat the poor ought to be relieved in this instead of proving ; if, to be you prove that the poor ought certainly way rather than that, The of ignoratio in each case condusionis. are guilty relieved, you
of law previous in our courts so called, technically pleadings, special of the varieties of statement out intended to produce, to trial are that the case may not at issue, the real points so made by the parties, elenchi. "A murrer" dethe defence ignoratio be ignoratio nor conclusionis, to the remark is about equivalent "Well, what of that?" it may, perhaps, be no in question, That is, grantingthe statement and, if so, is irrelevant. ground of action, in the construction and prosecution important Nothing can be more of the precise of an argument than a clear and adequateconception swer pointto be proved or disproved. In the speechof Diodotus13 in anto put the Mityhad arguedthat it would be just to Cleon,who but not that, that the question was lenians to death,he reminds him
whether
it Avould be
a
"
to execute
them.
So
Canning,in
we
of Commons assumed
in
my
replyto
by
opponent,whether
it is essential
in the that
our
Peninsula,but whether
to
in the
unchanged."
Thus
it is not
cooler thinkers to
of the real nature
their remarks with remindingthe audience preface of the pointon which issue is joined ; and the longer
and
more
greaterthe need
exordiums.
when For,especially
19
5.
278 combatants
at all.
OF
FALLACIES.
often goes
joinissue
One
in
the wrong points, or do not joinissue loses the propto the east,another to the west ; one osition
on
and question,
wanders
amidst
crowd
of irrelevant
details;
ticulars par-
another
mistakes
contraries for
some
; and, after
hours
not
what
hav" been
One out a case which his discussing. it has not the least bearingon the quesas readily admits,the more tion overthrown similar collateral a proposition, ; another,having his resound the field; makes over pretendedtriumph yet another, of to the prejudices having been rather shattered by reasons, appeals rational antagonist with his auditory, and, overwhelming his more off the apparent and acknowledged victor ridicule and abuse,comes
in the contest.1* And
has made
they adversary
this reminds
of
us
that the
form
We personalities.
one
mutatio often takes the or ignoratio with warmth, and without understanding dispute
or
another.
Passion
bad
faith leads
us
to
attribute to
our
meaning,in order to carry on the contest to greater advantage. It is a signboth of weakness and depravity the debaters ignore that in almost every dispute the question, In all the and aim their tongues or their pens at their antagonists. of mankind, this tendency controversies that have shaken the opinions radical and rebel, is visible. In politics, the epithets tors, tyrants and traiIn philosophy, and weapons. have for ages been watchwords
what adversary the terms ferent materialist, sensualist, idealist, transcendentalist, are, in difof admiration
are or
is far from
his
mouths, terms
names
Quaker
and
Methodist
memorials
are
in the
past ;
and
of
our
in the present. We plentiful and the world,delighting in a antagonist, the fiercer and more batant. comvituperative ; reason, did and
not
But
of truth.
This
Calvin
This
does
not
prove
Calvinism
to
be
fanaticism.
of
Pascal's
Provincial vituperative
Letters
the is very littleto the honor of their author, for it indicates at once he thus aroused to weakness of those he attacked and of those whom
joinin
truth
14
his
The hostility.
as
Juvenal
done
as
littlefor
some
furnishes Oration,"
280 4. The
to
OF
FALLACIES.
"
fourth
givesrise
of antecedent
and
consequent
seems
If reciprocal. from
follows whatever
from is
A,
we
B.
Because
be that whatever in
a
has
every
man a
fever
16
is
hot,it
does
follow
that
at firstglance, examples, tive. of converting to be merelythe fallacy seem simplya universal affirmafurther. be Aristotle's meaning. Let us examine This cannot of this falsely inferred conIn another mode he says,17 sequence, Subsequently
who
is hot is in
fever."
These
"
contradictories of the
antecedent
and
to the relation of the directly consequent is supposed to correspond antecedent and consequent. If B follows from sumed asA, it is falsely So in Melissus's argument, if that non-B follows from non-A. is unlimited; so that if the is limited, the generated the ungenerated
heavens
uncreated, they are boundless." This makes it sufficiently is to infer the truth of the antecedent that Aristotle's F. consequentis plain
are
from
and consequent,
an
to
infer the
of falsity
the
consequent
If A
can
the
of falsity
cannot
antecedent. B
When
it is
admitted,
is ;
nor
say, But
say, But
is
16
De De
Soph.ch. v.
Morgan
does
is :
states not
17
18
which His
sion to be simply the affirmation of a concluconsequentis f ollow from the a mere non logically premises, sequitur.
the P.
example
Episcopacyis of Scripture origin ; The Church of England is the only episcopal church
.'. The
church
that
"
should
be
England ; supported.
in
he says, as consecutive and without flaw," logicof this, the to was clergy recently imputed by an Englishnewspaper ; which,he adds,Avas hard it is merely a logical the clergy. Truly, insect. on for, being sexipedalian, in well to any and every fallacy But De Morgan's definition will apply equally ; is, in definition of could not have a proper fallacy general. This, fact, logical then, been of the schoolmen, his studiouslypassive the meaning of Aristotle, lowers, folnor who surely Neither De Morgan nor meant to be specific. Hamilton,who omits all mention of this sophism in his Lecture xxiii, to have looked into seems The the treatise De Soplmtid Eknclti. former apparently draws from Aldrich, who misses' the point entirely. Nor is Aldrich corrected by Mansel in his notes. Bain views the examples as merely erroneous conversions (p. 675). No recent writer seems the false reasoning properlyto apprehend the scope of this species ; and if treated at all, is treated entirely out of place. duly included by it,
The
maintenance
of the
SOPHISMS
IN
MATTER.
281
This where
think
cannot
has alreadybeen noticed under Paralogisms, inconsequence is often conBut the fallacy the formal fault is pointedout. cealed continually by the matter, and beclouded by feeling.People and express themselves as if they believed that the premises be false if the conclusion is true. The truth, or supposedtruth, which follow
from
a
of
the inferences
doctrine
often
enables it to
find
sophical philoabsurdity. How many had intrinsic recommendation which scarcely systems any because they were have been received by thoughtful men supposedto favorite view in lend additional support to religion, some morality, other cherished persuasion or some politics, ; not merelybecause their but because its leadingto wishes were therebyenlisted on its side, sound conclusions appearedto them what they deemed a strong presumption
acceptance in spiteof
its gross in favor of its truth ! 19
And,
or cause a
on
the other
hand, a good
bad of
and extreme advocates adduce in its Temperance. Its warm and of distorted and disof misstatement amount favor an appalling from facts ; and, again, facts they sometimes unquestionable proportioned totle reach their conclusions by a startling to Arislogicunknown followers. Now the argument for this good and his slow-gaited it does not is very simpleand impregnable cause ; but,unfortunately, furnish material enough for the popularoratory of the day,which, untethered by fact or logic. The revulsions the cause soars therefore, has suffered ought to teach its advocates that a bad argument is worse stantly than no they inargument. For when peoplediscover the fallacy, conclude that because and the counter-fallacy, commit a therefore the conclusion the argument illogical, or premise is false, is false ; and
so
of that
hold
cause
is
worse
than
the first.
Whoever
that to the principle steadily but merely unproven. in such case the conclusion is not disproved, An and the prisoneris declared "Not indictment fails, guilty," not provedguilty."But the is an abbreviation for which, I take it, found innocent." True, he is to be people conclude he has been is not proof. presumed innocent until found guilty ; but presumption is he the more The more deliberate and skilful the criminal, likely between this verdict. The vast remove to win unproved guiltand marked. innocence ought to be clearly would should truly
" "
19
Mill's
Logic, p.
560.
282
OF
FALLACIES.
"
vtiv
5.
The
(TOnapa. principii
TO
kv
upxy
an
XajLr/3dtion assump-
is (curate)
proposition
proof assumed without proof." Elsewhere he says that requiring this sophism may be called,81 the Petitio qucesiti, or more as correctly in five ways. The first and begging the question, appears to occur the very thing that should be proved is manifest most way is when the terms the This cannot assumed. are easily pass undetected when
"
same
; but when
synonyms
may
are
used,or
name
or
it circumlocution,
is particular
if
we
to be
of a single ence, sciobjects of a single and assume their genus, are objects that opposites, in It appears that what should be proved alone is assumed science. universal A third way is when with other propositions. a company is assumed and the particular what ought is to be proved, ; as when Here it appears of some. to be proved of all contraries is assumed is aswith other propositions that what is to be proved in company sumed A fourth way is when alone. divide^the questionto be we it in detail ; as when and assume cine have to prove that mediwe proved, is the science of health and disease, and successively it to assume be the science of each. A fifth way is when two facts are reciprocally
have to prove
and involved,
we
assume
the
one
to
prove
the
other ;
as
when
we
20
blunderingtranslation of the Avistotelic phrase, iv, i, 3, Aristotle defines though of universal acceptance. In his Metaphysics, ciple," prinis produced, that from which anythingexists, is known." in general, as or used for that on which something else depends ; and It is always and properly law and for an original dement. Cf. Hamilton's thus both for an original Reid,p. of the principle not 761. The fallacy before us is the assumption, properlyso form or other,of the qiwstion proposed for proof. originally but, in some called, est Pacius, in his Cvtnmentarius in Organon (in Anal. Prior, ii, 16), says, "Non vel *" ry "PXVi ^ "S*i *n principle iv rrJQ "px$"'^ es^ Prineipi^ ; sed TOV petitio initio fuit in id et quod proposituni disquiest, ejusproblematis, dpxy TrpoKtijikvov, and Hansel's See also Hamilton's 369 sitionem vocatum." Logic, Aldridi, p. ; Appendix^note E. We have rather a startling etymologyof the phrase furnished us by Du Marsias, for its own is worth sake: "Co mot preserving s'appelle Logique, p. 81, which voler vcrs quelque de principe, du mot et du chose, petition grcc Trcro/jcu, qui signifie ainsi faire de latin dire veut mot commencement; line petition principe, principium, qui chose que ce qui a d'abord etc c'est recourir en d'autres termes a la meme mis en question."
a
" "
21
rather
SOPHISMS
IN
MATTER.
283
assume
when side."
with the diagonal, square is incommensurate is incommensurate that the diagonal with the of these five
most
portant, im-
proceedto illustrate at some length. of this sophism occurs when a premiseis either the The firstmode in sense the conclusion, else actually or same as proved from it. This named the Hysteron protcron,and the Circle. indicates two varieties,
will
now
The
are or
former
in
sense
the conclusion
and
ise prem-
does not
syllogism ; e.
g.,
The A
schism
in the church."
single proposition doctrine is heretical, for it has wrought a from which is thus a corollary proposition
a
extend
beyond
itselfwould
were proved,
in his senses,
be considered
as
therein
in languagewhich makes to be it seem expressed in abstract that a proposition It is not uncommon two. expressed in conis offered as proof of the same terms crete expressed proposition both take Pretended terms. proof and pretendedexplanation this form ; e. g., The loadstone attracts iron because of its magnetic This is burlesqued by Molierc in the speechof Bachelierus : power.
23
"Mihi
docto doctore
causam
Deraandatur
ct
rationem
quare
facit dorraire.
Quia
in
eo
Virtus
of several
in words
We principii. petitio and offer as a reason Saxon origin, and vice versa; of Norman origin,
is well
the House
in
calculated to
elevate
the character
of
the
by
it. The
These
"
are
It is
so.
Why
Because
so.
and should be
23
from distinguished
then
immediate
inferences.
five modes also of proceeds to distinguish Petitio contrariorum. has reference to the In petitio procedure principii wrong it affects only the contrary and affects the conclusion ; in petitio contrariorum b them. For a parat hemselves and the relation subsistingetween propositions phrase of these five modes, see Grote's Aristotle, vol. ii, 62. p. 33 Le Halade Imaginaire Intermede. : Troisieme
13. viii, Topica,
Aristotle
284
OF
FALLACIES.
This
what
which
but occurs in does not, however, require a proposition, fallacy Bentham calls question-begging ;" meaning,names appellatives under it. The names of poguiseof stating beg the question litical as arc Liberal, Conservative, Democratic, Republican, parties,
"
much
used
in this way
"
e.
g.,
Those
who
favor
the
of preservation
the fundamental
with
even
of our act principles government should of course the Conservative party." These are potent when but laudatory, when more so Rebels,and most vituperative ; as, Radicals, litical poThe word "innovation" catchwords. bad having acquireda
sense, the
admission,which
is has
is
that unavoidable,
to its
new
measure
is
an
innovation Galileo
alwaysconstrued
accused
Aristotle himself
:
Now
heavy thingsis to tend to the centre of thingsto flyfrom it ; that heavy thingstend towards experience proves and that light thingsflyfrom it ;
of
the
and universe,
of
light
the centre
of the
earth,
.'. The
centre
of the universe.
could Aristotle say in the major that heavy thingstend to the centres of the universe,except by assuming that the two centre are How
which identical, is what
he undertakes
to
prove.84
Sophistes, attempts to prove that thingsmay exist which are incorporeal, arc by the argument that wisdom and justice and justice must be something. Here, if by and wisdom incorporeal, of something" be meant, as Plato did in fact mean, a thingcapable in and by itself, of some and not as the quality other thing, existing the conclusion does he begs the question anythingelse, ; if he means This fallacy not follow. might also be classed as ambiguous middle ; in the substance, "something" in the one premise meaning some of thought, whether substance or attribute. some other, object of matter,that It was once an argument for the infinite divisibility have an upper and an must small, every portionof matter, however under surface. Those usingthis argument did not see that it assumed of arriving the impossibility the very pointin dispute, at a minimum
Plato,in
the
"
minimum,
a
its upper
and
under
be
one
; it will be
argument
than the
because the premise seems plausible identical with it.25 conclusion, though really
is very
84
Arnauld,p.
249.
"
Mill's
Logic, p.
574.
SOPHISMS
IN
MATTER.
285
The
formal
fault of
two terms
Hysteronproteron is
only,
"
of syllogism
enthymemic by givingthem in
A A
.'. A
mode
of
pretended logical biped. This is disguised by but two of the propositions, stating
a
that it is
different words.
;
The
A
A
.'. A
forms
is B ;
is A ;
are
these,
"
is B
is B ; is B.
is B.
There We
is
can
no
it is
merely"marking
time."
understand
of three sides has its anglesequal to Every rectilinear figure is a rectilinear figure of three sides ; Every triangle has its anglesequal to two rightangles. .'. Every triangle
two
rightangles;
and predipremiseis a definition. Now the subject cate of a defining identical in thought, the latter are proposition in the above example, The pointto be proved, merelybeingexplicit. is that the three-sided figure has its anglesequalto two rightangles, in the major whether it be called a triangle This is assumed not. or and reiterated in the conclusion. The example is obviously premise, in the second of the two cither extreme precedingforms.28 Whenever of an is identical in thought with the middle apparent syllogism but two terms, however much the phraterm, there are of course seology tion, iterainvolves mere change. Such a pseudo-syllogism may and no been progress of thought; the conclusion has already and nothing is proved. It is merely the replacestated in a premise, ment in the following: of a term the reverse; as or by its definition, will be to depress The effect of the proposedmeasure wages and to oppress all needy persons, since lower rates of payment for labor will and a cruel, be caused by it, unjustburden laid upon the poor." The use of a proposition which it is itself dependto prove that on ent for proof by no means impliesthe degree of mental imbecility
" a
Here
the minor
potissima in Part 4th,iii, " 1. 27 I am that this view might be extended to the inclined to the opinion strongly and synthetic analytic judgments of Kant (seePart 3d, i," 12). Perhaps it would be correct to say that any syllogism anaI}Ttical having either premise a mere ment, judgis and is in what contained a unfolding principii, petilio actually name, and that whose those are a nothing premises synthetical judgments, ; only proves of to actual proof. If so, this would amount conjunction distinct facts, modify the defence of the syllogism and facilitateit. (Part4th,ii, " 8)
Demonstratio
36
"
"
286
OF
FALLACIES.
of comprehendinghow this might be supposed. The difficulty be committed when reflect that we sophism can possibly disappears all persons, even of opinions the instructed, hold a great number out withhow they came Hence exactly recollecting by them. they may be from into them another. one easily betrayed deducing alternately A person of the Scriptures time insist on the divine origin may at one because they contain certain sublime doctrines which could not be discovered by the natural sagacity of the writers;at another time he in the Scriptures, may insist that these doctrines are true because found to be wholly accepted. So which, being of divine origin, are in his Phcedo,demonstrates the immortality of Plato, says Hamilton,*8 the soul from its simplicity demonstrates its ; and, in the Republic, from its immortality. simplicity When the same a are premise and conclusion which are actually thus somewhat from of the firstmode remote each other, this variety of petitio is called "Reasoning in a Circle," Orbis vel circulus principii
in
which
demonstrando,vel
as a
diallelus
The (SiaXX?'/Xwr).
:
form
may
be
resented rep-
pro- and
A
thus epi-syllogism,
is B ;
C is B ;
C is A ;
/. C is B.
then"
A
/. A
is C ;
is B.
Of
course
any
number
of
syllogisms may
steps,the
when
more
the
greater
the number
of intermediate
man
the
walking around
; not
so
hill is
sophism to fullyconscious
meridian line.
he walks
alonga
have only to narrow the circuit we expose this fallacy, and out intermediate exhibit the proposition, when casting steps,
to
comes
Hence,
by
it
round
The
circle is from
"Whately:29
of matter Every particle gravitates equally. have you for that? Why ? What reason
Because
contain
more
ever particles
more gravitate
strongly ;
heavier
more
are
No,
How
but
do you
know
that ?
Because
How
they are
that
heavier. it ?
matter
does
prove
mass same
which
is
specifically
needs
have
of them
in the
space.
46
Logic, p. 372.
89
Logic, p. 221.
288
OF
FALLACIES.
is not at all a being stillafloat. This,then, question in takingthat for grantedwhich Its fault lies solely It would be petitio prindpiito prove to a Mohammedan
of Christ from of authority
nem
formal
is not
fallacy.
granted.
the
not
divinity
the
ad homi-
texts
in the New
Testament,for he does
be
a
admit
valid argumentum
mission of Jesus, prophetic of the Koran for the authority he acknowledges. The phrase the unwarranted petitio principii, assumptionof a principle, and the the i s or begging question, properly specifically applied of the sophism. It is not, however, to this second mode to designate in which anythingis presupposed be understood as if e'very probation If so, it and not proved were worthless. at once to be rejected as
to prove
him
from
the Koran
the
to
ascend
to
the ultimate
principles
ing, assumptions. Were this the meanis guilty of whatever.33 A probation there could be no probation which may be doubted on the this sophismonly when a proposition ple ground on which the thesis itself is doubted is assumed as a princiand we thus attempt to prove the uncertain by the equally of proof, Sound probation must uncertain. as are departfrom such principles cither immediatelygiven as ultimate, or mediatelyadmit of proof than the proposition from other sources itself in question.33It is connected are allowed," closely assumptions says Aristotle,that when with the issue, we on deny them, and refuse them as premises, may the pleathat they beg the question." mode of the sophism was of this second Among the schoolmen of their time consisted largely of interest. The philosophy peculiar established by authority, and certain general (principia) propositions derived from intrinsic evidence. Among supposed to be ultimately of the doctrines which with these tenets were were Aristotle, regarded Stultum due only to inspired est dicere Arisa reverence Scriptures. which Others were considered as totelem errare. were propositions
" " 34
unwarranted
83
"The
main
of principles
reason
are
in themselves
apparent.
For
to
make
to take a\v;iy all possibility were nothingevident of itself to man's understanding of knowing anything. And herein that of Theophrastusis true, They that seek of all thingsdo utterly overthrow reason.' a reason Hooker, Ecd. Pol. i,8, 5. 33 Hamilton's that a saltus in probation is a He further observes Logic, p. 371. of of intermediate an case use a propwe ; for, special link, petitio by an ellipsis osition which is actually without its proof. 34 DC Soph. xvii.
'
"
"
SOPHISMS
IN
MATTER.
280
those as rigorous of Euclid. None were in rare ever questioned; perhaps, cases, except, in the nominalist as when, consequently, was controversy,society shaken to its foundations by a moral earthquake. These principia, at the command of every disputant. admitted,were beinguniversally had properly in Barbara The syllogism for its sumption, a principium and an cxemplum for its subsumption. The petitio occurred principii when any one, to prove his case, made it an example under a principle
as
demonstrations
which without
was
not
among
"
those
was
assumed
to bring it under their logical offering empire. Thus, were to argue from must one Every beingvoid of reason perish that therefore the brutes perish, it would be denounced as petitio principii, this sumption not being found among the acknowledged principia. is essential to Again,suppose one to argue that since Entire liberty civil law,being an abridgmentof liberty, and happiness," well-being
" "
is therefore detrimental
and
should
be abolished.
To
this would
be
Of course, if your major is true ; but unless you offer prereplied, liminary the We illustratefurther beg question. proof, by you may the reply of Cardinal Richelieu to an f or who applicant clemency the to il faut vivre." thought reason matter, saying, Mais,monsieur,
"
Said his
a
Grace, Je n'en vois pas la necessite." There is, perhaps, breath of inhumanityin this, it means but logically that the postulate
was
"
admitted by him as Cardinal, and principles that one but not the question. might reasonably beg his life, The third mode of petitio the particular to prove assumes principii the universal. Aristotle himself seems of this when he to be guilty is in accord with natural law,on maintains that slavery the ground that the neighboring the are barbarians, being inferior in intellect,
not
among
the
of the Greeks.85
need
no
illustration. special
how of
ing Concern-
latter, however,we
will remark
easy it is to frame
different by the use apparently opposed or terms. For example, "Everywhere the lightof life and truth was for darkness covered the land,and gross darkness the people." lacking, Again, Alexander was the son of Philip;therefore Philipwas the father of Alexander." The last exampleis cited by Dr. Reid as a case of for which Logic does not provide. Truly so ; simplereasoning" it. but,on the other hand, Logic has been careful to provide against
" "
propositions correlative
88
2. Politica, i,
19
290
OF
FALLACIES.
"
TLOV
6. The
causa
pro
causa,
"
(TOp)
a'inov
u"c
at-
not
for a cause what TiQlvat). We mistake,"says Aristotle,36 for what is not a reason] when an a reason a cause [meaning,
is
relevant ir-
one
of
has been foisted into an proposition argument as if it were His example is a reductio ad impossithe necessary premises." ble that
"
to prove We
assume
are
not
of destruction is generation opposite ; of destruction is a particular Therefore the opposite a particular generation. and its is life But death is a particular destruction, opposite ; and to live is to be generated. This is absurd. is generation, therefore, Life, that the
"
Therefore
life and
the soul
are
not
identical.
"
Q. E. D.
The
absurd
conclusion may
"
be
the contradiction of a justify is mentally foisted into that Life and the soul are identical," premise, stated as the Q. E. D. It is treated as and its contradictory the train,
if it
we were
proper
the the
cause
of the absurd
which conclusion,
or non causa
it is not, and
causa.
so
have
of fallacy
37
false cause,
pro
Aristotle
afterwards the
says
of suppression
we
know
cause
must examine whether we fallacy If it the sequence. premisewould interrupt foisted in that it is a superfluous proposition
the
of the absurd
question. In
the Prior
he Analytics,
says,
The
most
ous obvithe
is when
thesis is not
was
connected
by
any
middle
term
with
the
as conclusion,
the sophism of non causa Topica when discussing pro We the to commensuratethis should causa. if, disprove exemplify of the side of the square to the diagonal, we ness appended an argument for Zeno's theorem that there is no such thing as locomotion, therebyto establish a reductio ad absurdum" pretending It is clear that Aristotle intended to designate by non causa pro wish to refute is the cause, the pretencethat the proposition we causa in a reductio ad impossibile, of the false conclusion which in fact flows from the sophism consists in maintaining other premises; that is,
said in the
s
is false because
that
particular premise
is false.
An
impertinence.It arises in dialectic disputation the practice of askingthe opponent to grant certain premises. is asked and granted among the rest, proposition unnecessary
of sheer it is selected
"
and afterwards
88
as
the false
assumption.39
S8
De
v. Soph.
89
Ami.
Prior,
19. ii,
See
Manseljin
SOPHISMS
IN
MATTER.
291
Aristotle does
cases a
sophism of
false
cause
to
of reductio
wherein
by virtue of a premisethat does not of this vice. For instance, necessitate it. He himself is not guiltless he insists that there are three kinds of simplemotion, because body has three dimensions, but hardlymakes it clear how the one follows from the other, i. e., givesus no middle term these propto connect ositions.
exist
conclusion
is declared
He
would
prove
are
they
have
circular But
motion, and
has the
what
of contrariety And
is not
with the
or corruption
alteration of
body ?
rectilinear motion
at least
misstated, by perhaps
noticed several Logic. We have already deviations from the Aristotelic sense common more misapprehensions, In this case is of sufficient importance the error less grave. to reor quire that the common view be set aside and the original stored. reone It is needful to explain the deviation and to justify this
statement.
Let Causa
us
first note
by
the old
The logicians.
a
the existence of
fact. When
rain falls upon the ground,the ground is wet; the rain is the cause The cause of there beingan eclipse of of the ground's being wet.
it and the earth. between The interposes is the cause of our knowing a fact. It has rained, Causa cognoscendi that the ground is wet. Here the same therefore I know thingis the both of the existence of the fact and of my knowing the fact. cause
the
sun
is that the
moon
But The
what
may
be
cause
in the other.
E. g.,
it has rained.
it and
There
is an
eclipse
be between
the
mining, deterthen,is the logical ground ; it is the cause cognoscendi, but the judgment. This we now not the fact, commonly call and use the word cause reason for,or signof,a thing, only in the
of
causa no
sense specific
essendi*1
doubt that
in the title of the sophism Aristotle, the causa intended exclusively under consideration, or reacognoscendi, There
can
be
40
In this
inversion, reasoningfrom
effect to cause,
An
we
should
be
note
that
a
we
are
of Causes. of Plurality fallacy than any that to other a cause perhaps illative"because" is stillused
due
to
of variety
observed.
The
generically.
292
OF
FALLACIES.
son;
him,
cause
and intended
limitation.43 In
recent
times,the word
have for the causa essendi, logicians becoming used almost exclusively this sophism. commonly mistaken his meaning and wronglyinterpreted sufficient to be the assumption without They define the fallacy of another. Thus, essendi} (causa ground that one thingis the cause of a change in the weather ; is the cause that a change in the moon the heat bad luck ; the dog-star, causes thirteen at table brings Sirius, attributed his that prevails during his ascension.43 Whitcfield once at the last being overtaken by a hail-storm to his not having preached fore thereSince many town. a nation having a heavy debt has prospered, instances These are clearly a national debt is a national blessing.
" "
of the
hoc ergo propter Post hoc ergo propter hoc,or of Cum fallacy duction, bad inof bad generalization or is merely a case hoc.4* This fallacy and therefore, however importantit may be,has no proper placein Deductive Logic. But by our recent writers it is declared to be strictly the non causa pro causa, and is introduced and exclusively it is not only an this title. Now discussed in this placeand under
from
non
the
meaning
pro
of Aristotle and
a
the
scholastics
to
the interpret
causa
blunder logical
the deductive fallacies. On the include the inductive post hoc among be Aristotle's non other hand, however causa lightly may pro causa esteemed,it clearly belongsto the deductive fallacies; its formal vice, since it has Next
error was no
middle
term,
being that
word
it is
cause
to
the
restriction of the
former
says,
The
pro
causa
is very
causes a
common,
and
fall into it
of the true
of
things.
have
vacuum
attributed
thousand
; for
break
a
when
it freezes, which
ure nat-
because
the water
endure
contracts,and
and
so
thus leaves
vacuum,
cannot
;"
on,
of that which is rendered cause,"but has the generalsense fairly of blamable." with bad the sense a thing ;" mostly something chargeable 43 ^En. x, 273. See Virgil, 4* inNon sic causa cujus est causa. Says Cicero, Causa ea est quae id efficit sed quod cuique efficienter id ei causa sit, debet,ut, quod cuiqueantecedat, telligi
42
aiTiov
is
"
"
"
'
"
antecedat."
48
251-56.
SOPHISMS
IN
MATTER.
Aldrich
vera
it designates
"
Fallacia
non
non
causa
pro
causa
non
lum Haec
si
aliis de fuerit,
solvitur
negando causam
is germanam." Whately, under the influence mainly of Aldrich, He first acceptshis mistaken view,and illustrates at fault. evidently the blunder, it. Then, dissatisfied, he guesses correctly that logicians and reason were confoundingcause ; and proposes to substitute the *" of Undue title Fallacy remarkingthat the varieties of Assumption," this are infinite.47 Verily from a false ; for this is merely to reason in any way. But such is not a logior premise, suppressed disguised cal for Logic has nothing to do with the falsity of the at all, fallacy premises. De Morgan treats the non causa pro causa very gingerly. is of lie says, It the mistake imaginingnecessary connection where
"
of cause, considered
in the widest
sense
of
and the wrong. But right view only. For instance,he quotes the had such a profound knowledge of music
that he
"
could who
distinguish
made this
note
; and
then
remarks, The
any
one
did not
person
who
cannot
distinguish
pends de-
note
to
begin with,if he
bound
learning any
the
musical
instrument
in which
over
keep the not so gifted that if Saunderson were by nature, peace ; and, secondly, the defect of than music have supplied would more no knowledge These remarks show that would givehim sight." knowledgeof optics he had only the causa essendi in mind sumption ; for he therein denies the asof the disthe efficient cause criminati that knowledge of music was And recent Englishlogicians so our generally.49 promptly
ear, should
be
48
48
4T
Whately'sLogic, pp.
p.
223-33.
49
makes
the
mistake
(Logic, p.
626
and
view as a dethe mistaken ductive Krug, misstates the meaning of non the deductive fallacies fallacy.He also wrongly puts post hoc among the title non causa (Logic, pp. 237-39). Mill does not use pro causa, and omits to notice the Aristotelic species.He puts the post hoc in its appropriate place among Fallacies of Generalization.") Minor false inductions. (See Logic, bk. v, ch. v, on all that I have examined,and they are many, blunder along with passive writers, Bequacity.
causa, and
treats
"
294
OF
FALLACIES.
interrogationum (TOra the sophism of many questions.It is the effort epionifiara tt" TTOICIJ'), asked in one. to get a single to several questions E. g., Was answer
"
7. The
seventh
class is Plurium
Pisistratus the
not
to respondent A a single a false position. indeed,but so question, will assert or deny some stated or compounded that a simpleanswer E. g., Did you take anythingwhen you other impliedproposition. broke into my house last night? Are you the only rogue in your family? Have you quit drinking?60 Have you cast your horns? the sophism is sometimes this last ancient example, called the From Several questions Cornutus. put as one should be met at once by of the compound question into its elements."5 the decomposition which has long served as the example," Obviously ; as in the following
As
he
was
commit
the
"
standard
trem
illustration:
"
Menedemus, Alexino
Nee inquit,
verberare
desiisset?
pathe
dead
one
does?
waggish query of Charles II : fish add to the weight of a bowl of water, as This implies which for a time the two questions,
sit?
for
notingthe sophism of dialectic disputation the is to be found in the eristicmethod among and answer, the answers Greeks, which proceedsusually by question familiar to readers of being conventionally yea or nay," a method is to entrap his Plato's Dialogues. The effort of the Sophist unwary into which him admission be turned can an as against respondent from borrowed is attribThe following uted, Fries,55 example, paradoxical. to Eubliin its original form, by Diogenes Laertius (vii, " 196), des the Megarian as the inventor:
"
frivolous. quite
The
occasion
Have Must
No. ? you lost ten counters you not have lost what you had
"
at
the
beginningof
the game
and
have
not
now
"
Yes.
counters
now
Have Then
you
ten
"
No. contradicted
you have
lost ten
yourself.
stillhad
But
he had lost
only two
counters, and
eight.
60
52
63
B1 De Soph. xxx, 3d,i, " 12. from 135. ii, Originally DiogenesLaertius, See the hackneyed story at lengthin Hamilton's Metaphysics, p. 118. ch. 18, " 135. See De Soph,xvii ; and Diog.Laert. bk. ii,
See Part
65
" Logik,
109.
It is cited also in De
xxii. Soph.
296
OP
FALLACIES.
IV. EXAMPLES.
from " 1. Logic, The profession.
to
the time
acute and
of
became Aristotle,
among
the Greeks
themselves
invent
Athenians busied fun-loving especially with which deride the to entangleand puzzles these worthies themselves used the
same
with Many of these puzzles, together have been handed down similar inventions by the scholastic logicians, As satisfactory the centuries to us, discussed at every turn. solutions Rationes." were Inexplicabiles They rare, they received the title of mostly from Diogenes Laertius, by Gassendi,in his \were collected, reviewed Liber de Origins et Varietate Logicce, and are analytically by wit and be of to a mere acuteness, Hegel.1 Appearing generally play marvel at the interest they have excited, and at at their celebrity, we of the most the importanceattached to them by some distinguished have an historical interest ; and thinkers of antiquity. They certainly references to them, the student of Logic literature makes as frequent their acquaintance. to make cannot neglect The disguises which innumerable. It assume are sophistry may in the conditional forms,for these, to lurk most seems securely being the guise often very intricate, most are confusing. Perhaps completedisits great capacity is the dilemma, which, from for entangled and hence is always the favorite form of the Sophists, statement, was and distrust. In some regardedwith suspicion cases, however, very will select and exWe amine simpleforms have provedvery troublesome.
"
few
of the most
noted
of the
known
which
they
"
the
2. The
Achilles
of tenet leading of rest and motion is a necessary result of the conthat the identity trary not serious in this arguhowever, he was opinion. Probably, ment,
to support proposed by Zeno the Eleatic, Parmenides, the unity of all things, by showing
was
but intended
had
been
thrown
on
xvi, Fhilos.,Werkc, p.
119
sq.
EXAMPLES.
297 in the
the doctrine
his opponents by involving to find in his theory.a absurdities that they professed thus : Suppose that Achilles runs The sophism runs
of
his master
same
ten
times
as
as run
tortoise this
that
is
one
mile in advance.
has advanced
Now, when
Achilles
mile,the tortoise
has
run
yV
has
so
of
mile
his pursuer
farther;and
Achilles
can
then
never
advanced
on,
ad
Hence
this a sound argument, though leadingto pronounces demonstration falsehood. not canWhately says the pretended palpable
Hamilton
be possibly
exhibited
of
in
Hansel, is
easier.
surrender
:
form.3 This confession, syllogistic says criterion. But the syllogistic nothing is
Thus
space
an
Any
The
.'. This
+ equal to ffc-
-I~
+ TTrinr
is
sum
of
infinite series ;
to be
space space
passed over
by
Achilles is
equalto
is infinite.
The
whole
sophism
major
premiseis
case
The
infinite series may be, and in this whether space is or is not false, premiseis equally
sum
of
an
divisible ad The
6
says
tacit
infinitum. This is the solution given by Descartes.4 is refuted by Herbart. Mill solution attemptedby Coleridge5 in the lies in the ambiguity of the word the fallacy infinite," nitely is infifalse assumption, Hobbes and as hinted,that whatever divisible is infinite. The argument proves that to pass through
"
finite space
time.
a requires
time
that is
not
an
finite in-
This
is tantamount
to the solution
of Descartes.
Viewed
as
volving it is not a logical fallacy.Viewed as inpremise, an ambiguous term, it is a quaternion. Aldricli says, "Solvitur ambulando, quod fecit Diogenes." This ley's reminds us that Dr. Johnson, in like view, thought he refuted BerkeZeno and Berkeley affirm that idealism by kicking a stone. contradicts sense. reason practically, Diogenes and Johnson reply,
having a
false
that
a
sense
contradicts
in
reason
; which
is
clcncki.7 ignoratio
1.
Hansel's
note
De Aristotle, d'ffle.
4
Soph,x, 2, and
and
Cousin,Nouvcaux
6 vol. iii, Friend, pt. i, Epist. p. 93. Ep. 118. The four principal arguments with which Zeno proposed to
of motion
are
as
follows
298
OF
FALLACIES.
"
3. The
Diodorus
Cronus
is
so
called from
the
name
of its inventor.8
It also
It ranks
the impossibility of motion. to demonstrate professes the Inexplicables, and has probablybeen more high among other
on puzzle
record.
It is
as
follows
it is, or
either in the
placewhere
is not and
in the
place
in the
act
or
it is not ;
move
But
it cannot
in the
place where
it
room
nor
place where
suffer where
.'. Motion
there to move,
nothing can
is
impossible.
had
reason
The
to
lament
instead
surgeon to reset his dislocated shoulder,who, irrefutable of setting it,set himself to prove by this same for
a
that dislocation was impossible. logic It is a conjunctivo-disthe is quitecorrect. Formally reasoning treated conjunctively in the tollent mood. But syllogism, junctive the major premiseis false. is not contradictory. the disjunction "The First, place where a of the place where it is not ;" but moves body is is contradictory is not contradicted in a placewhere in a place it is by moves it is not,"but rather, it should be,by does not move in where as it is." If so stated, the same conclusion could not be a placewhere denied drawn, for then the consequent could not be totally formally the grounds adduced in the minor. on view the disjunction cannot we as quiring remerelyincomplete, Secondly, and therefore inept;for the tertium quid to complete a it, second member, "moves where it is not,"cannot be accepted in a place at all ; it is a self-contradiction, or a mere jumble of words,a bit of
" " " " " "
sheer
nonsense.
1. Motion
cannot
placeuntil
it has
body
in
motion
cannot
arrive at
another
unlimited
number
as
of intermediate
places.
2. Achilles cannot
the
because tortoise,
often
as
moment, previous
of time is
he reaches the
half of
a same
moving
in the
with the
traverses velocity,
a
pointat rest,in whole of that time. a given time,in the other in the For interesting these famous arguments, see historical notices concerning Hist, Phil. 20. weg's of " Laert. ii, 112. "Diog.
one
case, with
equal to the whole ; for the same point, distance when an equal (i. compared, e., the other with a point in motion), in the one
Ueber-
case, in half of
EXAMPLES.
299
the Thirdly,
use
firstdisjunct member
"
is rendered
absurd
preposition in." A body cannot be in situ. This,also, is essentially in a place," a self-contradiction, of words. A body can ing/row an use only be thought as movincongruous it was, through the placeiu which it is, the placein which This objection raised by into the placewhere it is about to be. was and is repeated Gassendi, by De Morgan.9 Mansel considers the disjunction as a third as incomplete, omitting in a place where and of it is, horn, the possibility moving partly the major where it is not ;" and therefore he rejects in a place partly is givenby Hobbes.10 But solution, substantially, premise. The same I cannot understand what is meant by a body's moving partly clearly in a placewhere it is not." Hobbes, however, undertakes to prove small it however with a diagram that a body, quantulumcunque sit, all at once leave the whole of its former so place may be, "cannot to the that a part of it shall not be in that portionwhich is common is left and the other which which is two namely,the one places, This is merely an evasion ; for a part of a body is itselfa reached." body,to which the sophism stillapplies. Or it may be considered as the question an metaphysically, involving attempt to solve the difficulty of matter. the infinite divisibility concerning refers the sophism to F. accidentis" and supplies the omitted Bo wen A moving body,at o.ny one indivisible moment, must limitation thus :
of the
" " " "
be either where
moment
it is is
or
where
it is not.
Hence, in
any
one
indivisible
motion When
motion
space.
is
the
italicized is the he
conclusion
mean
I
ber mem-
am
does
by
be where
it is not?"
"
of
4. The
is or Reciprocus, Litigiosus,
noted
dilemma The
of which
we
have two
accounts, one
Greek
ia
and
one
Roman.13
latter tells it
his pupil in the and Euathlus, the princeof sophists, Protagoras, law. Euathlus had contracted to pay his tuition fee when he gained
Formal
10
Rhctores
is said
it is told of Corax
and
KCIKOV
13
thence
to have
proverb, KOJCOV
which
the
vulgarof to-day.
Aulus
bk. Gcllius,
300
OF
FALLACIES.
But
not
having any
in
case, he
was
for the
who, by Protagoras,
Learn,most
demand
you
court,addressed
men,
him
foolish of young
must.
my
For
; and
if the if in
by decree
you
of the court
matters however that, be judgment against you, by the terms of your favor,
may
turn
out, pay
me
I shall
our
obtain
the fee
shall have
gainedyour
first case."
To in
"
this
was
an
corresponding terms, as
Most
of masters, learn from your own whatever may be sapient argument that, of the court, absolved I must the finding be from For if the any claim of yours. I shall accordingly and if I decree be in my favor, adverse, shall pay pay nothing; nothingby virtue of the contract, for I shall not have gained my firstcase."
The the
case
to
find
ratio
decidendi, adjourned
The omitted
for pros.
the
"
same.
member the
is
no
decree
and suit,
is incomplete. The disjunction had no at all." Protagoras ground have quashed the case with a nolle
The
"
to
5. The
of old among
the
the Greeks
by
also invented
by
to
Eublides.
is
to
death
in
the vain
attempt
solve it.14
Cicero
it thus
that
"If
you
say you
you
and lie,
say
so
then truly,
same
you
do lie; but
if you
at
once
say
so
then falsely,
speak the
truth.
The
is assertion, therefore,
false
and
true."
15
"The without
No
one
can
lie
The
to
statement
'
is senseless."
understand
that
I lie in this
that I lie." Then it would be more to formally logical very statement like all other assertions, offered primarily say that this statement,being,
a self-contradiction, itself, logical paradox, destroying and therefore null. Gassendi puts the sophism thus : Qui juratse \ falsum jurare et falsum jurat, vere jurat." as a
"
true, is
14
Diog.Lacrt, 7,"
196.
16
15
Acad.
Note
in
6,4.
EXAMPLES.
301
Let
of the
us
speak once
and again,
more
generally,
a
A paradox.17 logical
in
self-contradiction in terms
of course, is,
blunder
Human Let The There
us
onlyby
the infinite.
volunteer.
crime
of suicide deserves
many kinds
to
capital punishment.
than to know extra
so
of individuals.
so
It is better not
know
much
many
thingsthat
not
aren't
so.
But
sometimes
the
paradox is
say of say
we a or man
and dictionem,
quiteso
be
vious. ob-
Suppose we
true,then he
the truth. follows
is
a can never
that he is
"
alwaysa
liar.
If this be
imply
telling
But
since
man
must
that "a
always a
"
think that any man it may say this, it liar" is an impossible conception,
self-contradiction.
Hoc
unum
scio, quod
It is certain that there is nothing certain," to have said. reported said the paradoxical of the Middle Academy. This sayphilosophers ing is the thus uncertain so : Pyrrho, Sceptic, Everything disputed that it is even doubtful whether there be nothing certain." But this absolute scepticism those who doubt that doubt itself is doubtof ing involves also a self-contradiction ; it professes a belief that there is no belief. Of all universal propositions, it has been said, one only latet error: is allowable, In generalibus this denies all others;and looked at,it too commits suicide. then,when closely to the remark that jests once arc more Recurring fallacies, generally
" " "
"
we
add
that the
essence
of
the "Irish
bull" is self-contradiction.
Though perhapsnot half the lies they tell of the Irish are true,yet natural art with them, and not intentional mistake. seems a bulling
Bulls
are
not dead,but in earnest. The Paddy who said he was jests of the isle whose a living was only speechless, felo de se, and typical is not yet full, askingonlyfor non-interference, overflowing cup of woe
"
des.
G. The
Sorites
Persius18 to
Chry-
sippusas
the false. No. Do
the
attributes it to Eubli-
It is defined
grees by Ulpian as a sophism in which by very small detrue to the evidentis broughtfrom the evidently ly respondent -of corn make For example, I ask,Does one a heap? grain ? No. And two grains Do three grains make a heap ? No.
17
See Part
3.
"
"
Bk.
ii, "
108.
302
OF
FALLACIES.
so
on,
adding each
with
time
at
last the
a
does make
single grainmakes allthe difference bewhat is and what is not a heap,which is absurd. tween This reasoning, is called by various as appliedto various objects, Besides Sorites, which Cicero renders by Acervalis, have names. we the Crescens, the Superpositus, the Calvus, This last name and others. is derived from the exemplum of Eublides, wherein the series of queshair from a man's head whether pulling one y tions beginswith asking makes him bald. The sophism is used by Horace21 to ridicule the fashion of valuing rites Soauthors merelyfor their antiquity.The name does not occur in Aristotle. After him, it was used by the ancients, of the above but only as a designation sophism. About the middle of the fifteenth centuryit came also to the chain to be applied between which and this ancient sophism there exists no syllogism,28
a
'
chargehim
that saying
20
whatever.23 analogy
In
"
of the sophism, explanation Krug says,24It attempts,from the of assigning the limit of a relative notion, to show, by impossibility continued interrogation, the impossibility of its determination at all. There are certain notions which are conceived only as relative, as portional, proand whose limits we the cannot, therefore, assign by gradual
addition
if that,
a
or
detraction of
cannot
one
denomination.
But
it does not
it is
follow
incapable of any determination, and therefore null." This explanation is adopted Hamilton.25 in The is this to as view, evidently, by form, sophism, of definition. a fallacy
is commonly attributed to the Ignava ratio (ayoe Ao'yoc) Stoics, by whom it was employed in support of their doctrine of fate.26 It is propounded by Cicero27 in the form of a complex constructive
notion
be determined
in this manner,
"
7. The
dilemma; thus:
If it be fated that you
recover
from
a
your present
or
disease,
will
recover
then,whether
and
you
call in
doctor
not,you
not, you
do not
a
recover,
or or
then,whether
But
.*. It
call in
doctor
wi1:!not
recover. recover.
recover,
is useless to call in
doctor.
30
De
23 88
S1 4. Divinatione, ii, 1, 43 sq. Epist. ii, 21 See Hamilton's Logic, 267-69. Logik," 177. pp. This origin is questioned by Hamilton,Logic, p. 331.
a3
Part
"
"
De
304
OF
FALLACIES.
of the universe." a8 the whole future history, agency, lie might predict This doctrine excludes human and, if pushed to its logical results, liberty,
from fatalism. essentially has continually and Necessity controversy between Liberty tated agi-
differ
the
world, in
one
form
or
another, from
more
most
ancient
times.
more
No
controversy is
morals
not
more
none ancient,
none universal, a
has
keenlyexcited
on
the minds
of men,
not
none
has exerted
greater influence
; it has divided
only their
but nations, and has modified only schools, but their manners, opinions, customs, religion, its influence the
and many
names.
government.
Under
Ignava
ratio
a
has
taken
of variety
Among
libero
these
are
De
fato,Metens
De possibi(thereaper),
De libus, ris
only in
Let
us
givenabove.
it. What
is meant
is subsuraption fated
not is, to
by
event
be?"
is "inevitable,"
by any precedentor concurrent of my and personally substantially expressed by regardless So our personal argument reduces to :
"
that
modified
events,
effort."
If
an
event
of is, regardless
my
to be, effort,
my and my
effort is useless ;
if it
of is, regardless
my
not effort,
to
be,
But
my
effort,
not
to
be.
.*. All
my
effort is useless.
can an
affirm it ?
What I
can
ground
neither
It may
nor
be true of
some
event,as
we
that eclipse,
affect it ; and
of it
or place from other causes wholly or in part upon my of conditions. of causes, an assemblage only real fate is a concurrence of the necessary conditions, and one Supply a new cause, take away if you please the result will be different, to call it so, a though still, fated or necessary result. Fate changes then her decree. Sending for a doctor introduces a new to send may be the neglecting cause;
either take may say that it must at all. But not events depend many effort as a conditio sine gua non. The
omission
of
condition
necessary to recovery.
88
Mill's
Logic, p. 250.
EXAMPLES.
305
If the necessitarian
causes, I
that objects
my
will is itselfdetermined
am
by prior
a
replythat
recover
then,it may
or
be,I
fated to
send for
a
doctor,
and
so
to
may
be fated not to So my
of this
fated neglect,
to die.
send,and, as
that pleaded
adopted the argument, once, it is said, undertook his slave for theft, to flog who aptly fated to steal. And I to flog you,"was the reply.
"
miscellaneous examples are Among the following of good reasoning from true premises, and others from some cases false premises, well as fallaciesproper. is sound, If the reasoning as indicate the logical fect, degive the mood; if not, analyzethe thought, of fallacy. and name the species
8. Praxis.
"
*S legitimate argument may fail to win assent; No fallacy is a legitimate argument ; fail win to assent. c an /. No fallacy 2. Whatever ought to be resisted represses the liberties of mankind ; that do so, there are governments ; Among those things .*.Governments ought to be resisted. 3. Every one desires happiness ; Virtue secures happiness ; desires virtue. .*. Every one is wicked ; 4. Idolatry Wickedness should be punishedby law ; should punishidolatry. .*. Law be proven true by its success, 5. Christianity cannot
1. A
has succeeded ;
it be proven by its alleged miracles, has its alleged for Buddhism miracles ;
to be true.
.*.
6.
But
/.
we
ought thus
forbidden
to devote
The
fourth
are
commandment
to kill ;
is
duties, religious obligatory upon us ; one day in seven ; obligatory upon us.
seven
to
is
V. We
Inflicting ; capital punishmentis killing forbidden to inflictcapital arc .*. We punishment. it immediately Then 8. A king is a man. minants, follows, by added deterthat a good king is a good man.
20
306
9. No
OF
FALLACIES.
moral
But
.-. Some
10. The
were
is an animal impulse ; principle of action ; animal impulses are some principles of action are not moral principles. principles them if the penal laws against would be aggrieved papists enforced ;
But
11.
these
are
no
reason
to
complain.
/.
12.
/.
Nothing is better than wisdom; Dry bread is better than nothing; Dry bread is better than wisdom. is a true poet; No person destitute of imagination who are destitute of imagination Some are good logicians. No true poet is a good logician.
But necessitarians ; virtuous men are practically subvert the distinction all necessitarians speculatively between
1 3. Some
Some
who
deny
are
virtuous. practically
14.
business is
illegal;
interferes with another's business ; Underselling is illegal. /. Underselling mined 15. Pestilence, being "a visitation of God," its event is not detercauses. by physical of its nature, but only in desires to do wrong if cognizant 1 3. No one of ignorance virtue is knowledge, ; and, therefore, consequence ing and is to be attained by education ; for no one desires evil knowPlato's Gorgias. and to do wrong is evil. From it as such, of character might have been inferred from his 17. His imbecility have this failing. for all weak princes proneness to favorites; illud sentit; 18. Quod tangitur a Socrate Columna a Socrate ; tangitur Ergo,Columna sentit. therefore we 19. The right of the government is unquestionable; ought to obey it. is seen by white that does not decomposelight 20. Every visible object and is therefore white ; light, that does not decompose light. A black-board is a visible object
"
/.
black-board form of
is white.
21.
Any
A
political
not
power
democracy does
to subject
exclude the
violent revolutions.
EXAMPLES.
807
22. The
;
are
planets ;
.*.
They
are
seven.
23. No
tails;
one
has
tail more
than
no
cat ;
freedom of speech must allow every man whole, for the good of the state ; for it is the interests of the
a on
the
to
joy en-
sentiments
its affairs.
x=2,
y=r3.
add
=
Take
the
self-evident
ax^ax equations
ay^ay,
ax
them
"
and together
give ax"
2
s
=
ay
ay.
Dividingby
a,
we
obtain
x=ry,
or
3. est syllaba
caseum
26.
Mus Mus
rodit ;
caseum Ergo,syllaba
rodit.
"
are
many
not
men
know
"
how
48. /SVweca, J2/?^. that reason exceeding clear and rightly, to make a syllogism Logic is ; therefore,
useless.
28. If all
are
to testimony
to be believed ;
But
.*. No
to be believed ;
miracles is to be admitted.
are
29. None
civilized ;
were
The
.*.
ancient Germans
whites ;
30.
of
and life,
I will
with dispense
the
31. Unless
to Logic professes
be
an
instrument
of
the invention,
;
proach re-
that it discovers
But
.'. The
make
unfounded.
is conscience ?"
32.
Teacher,
Smart
What
boy, "Don't know" (=" unprepared"). within you that tells Teacher, Why, conscience is something
"
"
"
you
when
"
you
have done
Boy,
"
Oh,
yes ; I had
it once, and
send
for the
doctor."
OF
FALLACIES.
me fatigue
This itself is
.*. It
one
of them
34. A
will
not
make
heap;
grain ;
may
A
.*. A
hundred hundred
is
no
(99+ 1) is made
is not
uncommon
a
by
one
heap.
occurrence
35.
What
be expected; reasonably
;
To
.-. To
is no uncommon in a lottery occurrence gain a high prize be expected. gain a high prize may reasonably
36.
My
The
hand
touches
.*.
My
No
37. The
\
magnitude
that
can
be
seen.
in
order that it may be visible. Hence every part, though invisible, affect Hamilton's the mind. See must Metaphysics, p. 243.
"
38.
J
event happens every day must be a very probable are .*. Improbableevents very probable.
But
what
39. Omnis
equus
est bestia ;
est sequus ; Justus est bestia. .*. Omnis Burgersdyck. Justus 40. Nuisances are punishable by law ; \ A noisydog is a nuisance ; .*. A by law. noisydog is punishable There's ne'er a villain dwelling in all Denmark, 41. Ham.
"
Omnis
But Hor.
he's
an
arrant
no
There To
needs
tell us
this.
"
42.
.*. Tinsel
43.
Curate
(ritualistically inclined),
cross over
I
"
am
sorry to
"
see
that you
have
placeda
the altar
to the signdeeplycut into the wood-work). (pointing observe we have not placedone there, But please Curate, but, the contrary, have taken one away." Punch. on
"
"
44. Tu
EXAMPLES.
309
45. What
would
an
an
irresistibleforce
counter en-
Ans."
? of my
Yes,he
Then Not he
is my
the half-brother,
mother,but
not
of my
by
father, good
was
man
; for Cha3redemus
was
his
Sophroniscus.
other than
a
father ?
he who
as a
is other than
stone
father be
father? or,
are
you
Are
I
am.
a are
stone,you
not
are
not
stone ; and
being
gold, you
gold.
a
Very
And It At
seems
true.
so
is not father,
father.
father.
is
demus, "
47. Who Who
/.
26.
is most
eats eats
Who
48. A
specially prepare
This school is not
for
our
vocation ; it
we
for in professional,
do not
for business ;
/.
not
be
49. There
rule without
This statement
.*. This
is itself a rule ;
statement
are
has
i.e., There
50.
rules
Now
is
no
part of time,for
whole
is Time
composed
is either
time The
is not
former
past or future.
fore There-
yet exists.
time has
existence.
"
Aristotle's
OF
FALLACIES.
is a square, say 16 inches ; figure 256 therefore containing 16x16 square it in the inches. Cut dividing piecesby and placethe parts in position so as Jines, base is 26 whose the rectangle to make annexed
=
inches
and
altitude 10
=
inches.
2 60
This
tangle rec-
contains 10x26
.-.256 52. The
man
=
260.
who I
see
is
walkingaway
"
from
me
does not
grow
But
.-. What
what I
see
desires,
;
are
they will
and But
or so
be
content perfectly
will
gratified. fully
either
they will
desires,
gratified. they will have them fully be will content. .-. They perfectly 54. Knowledge is power ;
Power
.-.
is desirable ;
is desirable. sui sunt sui ;
Knowledge
Qui
sunt
55.
domini domini
sunt
sui
juris;
Servi sunt
56.
\forever
Mind,
Ideas cannot I have the But
it
juris. boasted that he had The acute metaphysician Bishop Berkeley and irreligion atheism, by scepticism, put an end to of an Eternal of the existence the followingdemonstration Ergo,Servi
" "
sui
of God
:
a
mind
in which
to-daythat I had unless there this would be impossible existed duringthe interval.
same
mind
in which
Hence their
there must
exist
Universal
Mind
in which
presence in our thrusts 57. Whoever surgeon Weib Ein 58. nur
59. A
minds.
an injury. person commits an does this ; therefore he commits injury. besitzen ist seiner Leidenschaft Ziel. fries, " 109. zu
"
312
OF
FALLACIES.
67. There is
no
such
thing as
none
void ; for in
; for
as
no
down
or merely a privation
ferences, nothing there are no difin privation or negation.But a void in a Therefore, negationof matter.
in
void,bodies could
nature to do.
"
not
move
up
and
down,
which
it is in their
Aristotle's attended
Physica.
The
court
68. The
doctor who
to
sue
had
him
"
to permission
him. Docthor, didn't ye agree that, kill or cure,' question ye would charge me "Yes." Well, docthor, only a guinea?" did
ye
cure
her?"
"
"Well, docthor,did
did
\
69.
naither,
fee ?"
nee
films
70.
imperat matri, qua3 et non-dominatur.31 Grsecis, imperat. Dominatur itaque If the wife you espouse be beautiful, she excites jealousy ; If she be ugly, she disgusts ;
Therefore
it is best not
a
to marry."
Bias,quotedby Aldus
ashore ;
Gellius.
71. A
sailor is not
board,nor
sailor.
is
sailor a shore ;
or
But
/.
alwayshe
is either aboard
a
72. A
gainby
All
another's loss is
mandment. com-
desire to
the expense of another,breaks this commandment. 73. He that is of God heareth God's words; ye, therefore, hear them John viii, 47. not, because ye are not of God.
at profit
"
74. If Abraham
were
justified by works,then
But
not
he had whereof
to
(before God).
God
2. Romans, iv,
(anyone
can was
have whereof
not
Abraham (therefore,
justified by works).
the
of testimony falsity
75. What
is of less be
are
cannot
Miracles
;
/.
than
the
of falsity
mony testi-
Miracles cannot
This famous
"
be established
"
by testimony. Hume.
"
31
or
discussion
of it, see
Butler's Lectures
on
Ancient
i, Philosophy, p. 414
; and
EXAMPLES.
313
76.
to the innocent
as therefore,
that the
at prisoner
the bar
ought not
to be punished,
it appears
that you maintain his innocence. dieses vor : Hast du einen Hund Euthydcmos kommt
er
? Ja.
Hat
Junge?
Hund
em
Ja.
1st
er
der Vater
der
Jungcn?
cm
ist dcin
Vater
Hund.
Fries,"
men are
109. not
Cited also in De
Soph. xxiv.
78. If
known
to be influenced in the performanceof a likely the oaths commonly duty by takingan oath to perform it, if men administered are superfluous; to be so are likely
one
influenced, every
must
should
be made
one
to take
or
an
oath to behave
other
rightlythroughouthis
be the
are case.
life. But
the oaths
of these
either Therefore,
the
man
commonly
be
minister ad-
or superfluous,
every
should
required
"
to
take
an
oath
to
behave
Whately.
79. The of justice and the appointments of being variable, principles it follows that the principles of justice nature invariable, are no Aristotle's Ethics, bk. iii. appointmentof nature.
"
80. If the
at
or
favor
of God
is not
bestowed
at
random,
"
on
no
principle
persons
be bestowed
to respect
God
is
no
respecterof
with
persons." Therefore
to men's
be bestowed
ence refer-
conduct.
81.
82.
of the son was Jupiter the grandsonof Saturn. Two lines cannot straight lines of straight parallel
Sumncr^s
space
(Axiom x).
an
But
two
infinite
drawn midway Moreover, if a third space. between them, it will divide this infinite space into two equalparts,each of which is one half of infinity.
83.
infinite
Opium
84.
"
of their patients advise some poison. But physicians of their paadvise some to take opium. Therefore, physicians tients to take poison. I cannot be conscious of a The knowledge of relatives is one." mental act without being conscious of the object to which that of memory lies in the the object act relates. But confessedly is
to
be.
Therefore, in memory
am
am
scious con-
an
in object
the
and past,
conscious
of what
does
exist.
See Hamilton's
Metaphysics, p. 146
sq.
314
OF
FALLACIES.
85.
Animal
use
food
it ; and do
do not with,for the vegetarians dispensed food may be dispensed with,for the Esquimaux vegetable may be
use
not
it.
or
But
/.
vegetable.
who
are
with. All food may be dispensed soldiers should be brought into the field but those 86. No
well
None
to perform their part; qualified well qualified to perform their part; but veterans are
only should be brought into the field. of objects For if attention at once. attend to a plurality 87. We can be nothingbut the concentration of consciousness on a smaller of simulthan constitute its widest compass of objects taneous number N it is evident that, unless this widest compass knowledge, do attend of consciousness be limited to only two we objects,
.-. Veterans
when
we
converge
consciousness
88.
89.
once. complement Hamil tori's Metaphysics, p. 165. In what and how many ate phrasesdoes Hamilton, in his immediis cognizant of extension, that sight demonstration assume to be proved? Ibid., the point p. 385. in an Anabaptist to prove against It would be bad reasoning the in believing that infants are caCatholics that they are wrong pable since nothing is said of it in the Scripture of baptism, ; that we ought to believe only because this proof would assume which is denied by the Catholics. what is in the Scripture,
" .
that total
than
"
"
"
"
Arnauld, p.
90.
251.
How
can
we
conceive
we
God, since
we
can
attribute
no
virtue to
him ?
prudence? But since prudence what need consists in the choice between good and evil, God have of this choice,not being capableof any evil? can ? and reason But intelligence Shall we say that he has intelligence
For shall and
from
to
reason serve
to discover to
us
that which
can
is unknown
is known
can
now
there
in
be
nothingunknown
this relates
he has
no
God.
be justice
men
God, because
only to
the intercourse of
nor
temperance, since
since he is susceptible of strength, and is not exposedto any danger. How neither pain nor labor, that be a god which has neither intelligence nor can therefore, desires to
moderate;
nor
virtue ? 32
83
Natnra
Deorum,
bk. iii.
EXAMPLES.
315
91. That
which
is
has the
use
of
reason
has not;
There
.*. The
better nothing'
use
The
Stoics.
of
a
92.
Why
full
when ball,
not sail,
the mast-head
shipin
to
nearer
the stern
93.
of the vessel ?
Gold
and
and silver
of the
gold
by
is exportation
diminution
of the
wealth
94. If
man
country.
necessary
be
is
agent determined
for rewards
men were
there would
foundation
and
be
useless unless
determined indifferent
cause
and were necessary 'agents, free and were pain; because if men be
no
motive
to
them
the law.
is
a
95. It is certain
that
drunkenness
vice
odious
are
to God
and
man.
It is
certain equally
destructive to the
and physical of him who moral,intellectual, energies habitually makes of them. I claim, use n ot it is the that therefore, only
96.
97.
from their use, but,as a totally citizen and philanthropist, to exert all his influence to obtain and enforce a law prohibiting the sale of any kind of intoxicatin beverages. the of Biunde,as stated (Analyze argument of Krug and the reply in Hamilton's Metaphysics, pp. 565-66.) Minus multiplied minus cannot plied by giveminus ; for minus multiby plusgivesminus, and minus multiplied not by minus cangivethe same productas minus multipled by plus. Euler's Algebra. See Mill's Logic,p. 575.
man
duty good
of every
to
abstain
"
98.
"
Either God
wills to
remove
nor
or
he
can can.
and will If he If
not;
he
to
or
he neither will
or
will and
can
of God.
also is
can,
foreign
he is If he
of
If he
then
both both
cannot
be God.
and
which will,
alone is consistent
with
the nature
not
remove
God, then
them ?"
33
whence
why
does
he
83
Ira
Dei,xiii.
316
OF
FALLACIES.
99.
The
doctrine
of
of
an
omnipresent
is
as
divine
to
power the
say
and
agency
as
in
the
operations
sound
Nature
; for
contrary
Scriptures
expressly,
"
it is to earth
philosophy
forth
the
Scriptures
The
bringeth
100.
fruit
of herself ""Mark,
the ancient
means
iv, 28.
historical
of records and will
If
reconciliation culture
to
manner
between
be
modern be
sought
by
interpretation, it
did
not
attempted
in
prove
either
that
the
is ;
or
divine
to
manifest historical
rences occur-
itself
the
of
related, which
deny
the
away
the
validity
the
not
ancient
Scriptures
is to
that
actual
were
divine, which
books.34
tell its
own
explain
the
absolute
contents
of
101.
Do
but
let
the the
story;
which
grant,
for
the
sake
of
argument,
and it
of the consistent
dogmas
whole. the
a
it asserts
a man
throughout, begins,
as
becomes
When
of
Strauss wonder
does, by
he finds
assuming
its
falsity
its
conclusions,
chaos
of
no
premises
fragmentary
dictions.35 contra-
34
D.
F.
Strauss,
Alton
in
Leben
Jesu,
Int.
"
1.
35
Dean
Locke,
Works,
vol.
i,ch.
xxxviii.
FINIS.
VALUABLE
AND
INTERESTING
FOR
WORKS
PUBLIC
AND
BY
PRIYATE
HARPER "
LIBRARIES,
NEW YORK.
PUBLISHED
BROTHERS,
For
" BROTHERS, of Books suitable for Libraries published by U AKPER be had CATALOGUE, which gratuitously on application may the publishers personally, or by letter enclosing Ten Cent* in postage stamps.
a
full List
see
HARPER'S
to
HARPER
"
BROTHERS
will
send
their
on
ENGLAND.
II.
The THOMAS
History
in vols.,
of
England
from New
the
sion Acces-
By
BABINGTON
5
a
MACAULAY.
Edition, Paper
50.
MACAULAY'S of Lord
MISCELLANEOUS
Works
a
Macanlay.
50 ; Half
From
Plates. Electrotype
in vols.,
Box,
00 ;
Edges,
Sold
and
Gilt Sets.
Tops, $10
Sheep, $12
HUME'S Caesar and
only in
from
ENGLAND.
to
History of England,
of James New
the
Invasion HUME.
G
of Julius New
a
the Abdication
II.,1688.
By
DAVID
in vols.,
Tops, $12
00 ;
Half
Calf,$25
50.
Sold 00.
only in
Sets.
Popular Edition,
in vols.,
GIBBON'S
ROME.
Historyof
GIBBON. SMITH.
and Dean
Empire.
ZOT, and
G
By
Dr.
EDWARD WILLIAM
With New
by
MILMAN,
New
M.
Gui-
Edition, from
Calf, $25
50.
Electrotype
and Gilt
Plates.
Edges,
Sold
only
in Sets.
00.
STATES.
History of
the Continent Constitution.
to
the United
to
States.
FIRST the
Discovery of
the Federal Federal
the
Organizationof
SERIES: of the
Government the
From
Adoption
of the
Constitution
Sixteenth
a
Congress.
By
RICHARD
HILDRETH.
Labels,Uncut
50.
Edges,
and
Gilt
Tops, $12
00 ;
Sheep,$15 00;
Half
Calf,$25
Sold
only in Sets.
Valuable
Works
for
Public
and
Private
Libraries.
MOTLEY'S
DUTCH JOHN
REPUBLIC. LOTH
HOP
The
Rise
Republic.
a
History. By
of William with Half of
MOTLEY,
and
LL.D.,
Gilt
With
Portrait
Orange.
75.
Cheap only
in Edition,3 vols.,
Paper Labels,Uncut
Calf, $12
Sold 50.
Edges,
in Sets.
8vo, Cloth,$10
MOTLEY'S From
"
History of
of the
the United
lands: NetherTruce
Years'
1584-1G09.
Spain, and
JOHN in vols.,
Origin
Destruction D.C.L.
Spanish
Armada.
By
Gilt Sets.
LOTIIROP
a
MOTLEY,
LL.D.,
Portraits.
Tops, $8 00;
Calf,$17
00.
00.
only
Death
of John
of
Barneveld, Advocate
and Movements
of
View War."
Primary
JOHN
Causes
"Thirty
By
Gilt
LOTHROP
a
MOTLEY, $5 00;
2
LLD.,
Half
D.C.L.
Illustrated.
Box,
Edges, and
Sets.
Tops, $4
00 ;
Sheep,
Calf,$8
50.
00.
Sold
only in
OriginalLibrary Edition,
vols., 8vo,Cloth,$7
WORKS.
GOLDSMITH'S
PETER
The F.S.A.
Works From
of Oliver
Goldsmith.
Edited
4
by
CUNNINGHAM,
Half
New and
Electrotype Plates.
Gilt the New
vols.,
Edges,
Uniform
$10 00;
of
Calf,$17
00.
with
Macaulay, Hume,
JOHN DE
GEDDES'S
De I."
History
Holland.
Witt, Grand
1623-1654.
Pensionary
With
a
By
Portrait.
MULLER'S
POLITICAL With
HISTORY Reference
RECENT
TIMES WILLIAM
1876
to
(1816MULLER.
1875).
the Rev. SYMONDS'S
Special
an
Germany.
the Period
By
Appendix covering
Ph.D.
from
00.
1881, by
P. PETERS,
12mo,
STUDIES SYMONDS.
Cloth,$3
IN
2
SKETCHES
AND ADDINGTON
SOUTHERN
ROPE. EU-
By $4
00.
JOHN
Post vols.,
Svo, Cloth,
SYMONDS'S
GREEK
POETS.
2
Studies
of the Greek
Poets.
50.
By
JOHN
ADDINGTON
SYMONDS.
Valuable
Works
for
Public
and
Private
Libraries.
DU
CHAILLU'S
in of the
EQUATORIAL
with
Explorations and
of the Manners and
tures AdvenCustoms
Equatorial Africa;
and other
00
;
People, and
of the Chase
Animals. Half
By
25.
8vo, Cloth,$5
DU and CHAILLU'S Further
Calf,$7
LAND.
Journey By
25.
to
Ashango
B. Du
Land,
EquatorialAfrica.
00 ; Half
P.
CHAILLU.
8vo, Cloth,.$5
CONGREGATIONALISM. Hundred
Calf,$7
The
Congregationalism of
:
the
Years,
as
Seen
in its Literature
or
with
erence SpecialRefWith
a
certain
Recondite, Neglected, By
THE Sources
II. M.
Disputed Passages.
Bibliographical Appendix.
STANLEY'S Dark THROUGH
DEXTER.
00.
DARK
of the
CONTINENT.
Through
the Great
to
the of
Continent;
or, The
Nile,Around
STANLEY.
Lakes
EquatorialAfrica, and
149
Down 10
the Atlantic
2
Ocean.
Illustrations and
Maps.
00.
By
II. M.
$10
DABTLETT'S
EGYPT South
to
TO
PALESTINE.
Observations
Wilderness, and
with
LETT,
Country.
the
Journey By
made
Special Reference
D.D.
History of
the Israelites.
50.
S. C. BART-
Maps
LIFE
and
Illustrations.
Svo, Cloth,$3
The With
FORSTER'S
Swift Uncut GREEN'S JOHN
OF
DEAN JOHN
SWIFT. FORSTER.
50.
Early
Life
of Jonathan
(1667-1711). By
Edges
and Gilt
Portrait.
Svo, Cloth,
Tops, $2
PEOPLE.
ENGLISH RICHARD
History
With
00.
of the 4
English People. By
00 ;
GREEN,
Half
M. A.
Maps.
Sheep, $1200;
GREEN'S
MAKING
Calf,$19
OF
ENGLAND.
The
Making
50.
of
England.
By
J. R. GREEN.
With
Maps.
OF With
Svo, Cloth, $2
ENGLAND.
GREEN'S
CONQUEST
GREEN. NORTH of
The
Conquest
50.
of
England.
By
J. R.
Maps.
Svo, Cloth, $2
OF
SHORT'S
Americans
AMERICANS Their
ANTIQUITY.
The
North
Antiquity. By
JOHN
of Civilization
00.
Considered.
T. SHORT.
Svo, Cloth,$3
SQUIER'S
Land
PERU. Incas.
to
Peru
Incidents GEORGE
of Travel
and
Exploration
00.
in
the S.
of the
By
E.
late U.
Commissioner
Peru.
With
Illustrations.