Catechism or

Thinking or logic teaching

intended for And self-education with illustrative examples from MG Fechner

Leipzig in the tree gardener's bookstore 1823

Content Introduction
First Chapter of the division of logic

Pure logical elementary teaching

Chapter Two From the logical things and the features Chapter Three of the top laws of thought Fourth chapter of the terms generally CHAPTER V. Of the quantity of terms Chapter Six of the quality of the terms Chapter Seven of the relation and modality of the terms Eighth chapter of the judgments in general Chapter Nine of the categorical judgments Chapter Ten of the sameness, subordination, opposition and reversal of categorical

judgments
CHAPTER XI Of the hypothetical and disjunctive judgments Chapter Twelve From the differences of the judgments and sentences in terms of their

content

Chapter X. Of the circuits in general and the categorical insbesondre Chapter X. Of the hypothetical and disjunctive conclusions CHAPTER XV Of the abbreviated conclusions CHAPTER XVI Of the figured conclusions Chapter XVII of the composite circuits Chapter Eighteen errors and fallacies

Pure logical methodology

CHAPTER XIX From science, system and method CHAPTER XX Of the explanations CHAPTER XXI Of the organizations Twenty-second chapter of the evidence

Applied Doctrine of Elements

CHAPTER XXIII Of the logical diseases (logical pathology) Twenty-fourth chapter of the logical remedies (logical Therapeutics) Twenty-fifth chapter of the acquisition of the knowledge and experience of the particular Chapter XXVI continued Twenty-seventh chapter of the reflection Twenty-eighth chapter of the communication of knowledge

Introduction Although the human mind is a simple creature, at which one can distinguish neither spatial nor temporal parts, so you take it according to the different types of activities which he expresses, more assets to him, in which the base of these activities is sought. First place, a distinction the imagination or cognitive faculty and the faculty of desire, each of which is separated into the upper and lower back at him. The upper cognition is concerned, the reason ( ratio ) and the mind ( intellect ) with the latter belonging, power of judgment among themselves, although they often also called the entire top imagination intellect or reason in another meaning, the lower cognition is also the (theoretical) Sensuality ( sensualitas ), and contains the external senses and internal sense, which latter can beirechnen the imagination. - With the research and presentation of the original laws of the imagination or knowledge assets, employs the theoretical philosophy with that of the original laws of desire practical. The sensuality is an asset to any perceptions ( perceptiones ), which is understood all concepts that a given object (object objectum ) by his presence brings us directly. So I take a tree true if such a truly stands before me, and be seen or felt by

me, so I take a hit if I really suffer the same, a sound when it really sounds is taken from my ear, and when I against a tree, a shock or sound only in general, I would think, without being interacted with by their presence on me, it would not be expected to perform. Since the items that we should perceive all really need to be present, one can easily understand that there is always only single, specific objects can be perceived, but nothing can be collected or connected more of them shared it, and of these one has a distinguishing feature of perceptions or ideas of sensibility of the concepts and ideas (ideas of understanding and reason).Some examples will illustrate this. If I see a particular book, so is the idea which is thus awakened in me the sensuality of it is a perception, because it is produced by the presence of the book itself in me, and there is a single specific book, which I imagine.Would have But if I saw several books, my features, which all agree this abgemerkt, and then connected in my mind, so I would get by combining thinking this, all gesehnen of my books jointly zukommenden features to any perception of a book because yes no particular book caught the imagination like in me, but to the concept of a book that can take place in my soul quite independently of any single particular book, what one already it recognizes, because yes, the concept of a book ever on must fit all the books, and therefore can not just introduce a single real. Similarly, when I hear a certain tone, then this provides a perception of it in me when I got noticed several tones and taken from these perceptions those features together, get them all anyway, so I get also by the Confederates same no perception of a specific tone, but an idea of the tone at all, I can make me without a sound by its very presence takes my imagination to complete. The perceptions are either intuitions ( intuitiones ) or feelings ( senationes ), depending on the idea that excites an object directly by his presence, more to the perceiver itself (the subject of perception) or the perceived object (the object of perception) is obtained. Therefore I say: I am looking for a house, a tree, a sound of (because in philosophy, the word perception not merely of perceptions we means of obtain the sense of sight, used), however, I feel a shock, I feel well-being, etc. . In that case, as in this, I get ideas by immediate presence of the objects themselves, ie perceive, but there occurs the nature or status of the property, the house, tree or more sound into my consciousness, I refer my idea only on this, think of these items, but not to me, whereas in the latter case, with the sensation occurs my own, the perceiver state more into consciousness, I refer the idea more of myself, make myself to object of my imagination, but not the things that they caused. The sensuality or the perception comprehends under the external senses and internal sense. The external senses are the ones through which we look at the state of the physical world and feel, and they themselves are bound to physical organs, here are the rough road so-called five senses and the physical sense of community, the internal sense, but is the one through which we what going on in our own soul, perceive. So it is a perception of my internal sense when I notice in myself that I'm happy, or sad, or pensive. Even the imagination can expect with the inner senses through which we conceptions that arise from absent or not at all actually existing objects in our minds perceive.

If only we had the assets to perceptions, we would be able to do any general terms that get several items together to receive, such as the concepts of virtue, beauty, etc. would can not arise in us because they are nowhere individually, apart neither look nor feel can; yes we would not even be able to get an idea of sensible objects. Because if I would have looked at a house for example, I would not even know, what it essentially belonged to a home, which I therefore include in the concept of the house and what I would omit it. If I have a yellow house look eg with a flat roof, the perception would I continue to teach nothing but that such a house really stand before me, and the yellow color, and the plate roof would be just as much place in my opinion, than the walls and the roof at all, which I notice on the same. Would be intuition and concept the same, so I would have to record from home, the indicator in the notion that a house be yellow and should have a shallow roof, which is not necessary but because it also houses other colors and with sharp roofs are. With each new view, therefore my concept would change, I would have taken from a home, and I would end up not knowing what I should imagine in such a general. But now the soul out of the assets of the views and feelings which go only to individual objects, including the ability to gather up from the individual perceptions of the characteristics which they agree with each other, these multiple perceptions to connect zukommenden common features and summarize in one . Such a combination of characteristics that are more common perceptions, it is called simply a term ( notio, conceptus ) and the ability to form concepts, reason. For example, if I have more organic beings, whether perceived by the external sense or by the imagination imagined, so my mind will compare them and notice that some of these organic beings get several features in common, such as root, stem, branches, leaves, flowers, wood, whereas other features may be different to them. The common features will now collect the mind, unite, and from it form the concept of the tree that are not common features, however, omit from the definition of the tree, which can not go beyond the perception itself, the individual must take the object as it is their presents. The sense as does a tree with pointed leaves and white flowers true, but the mind is the Zackigsein of the leaves and the white color of the flowers does not compete with the concept of the tree he is, because otherwise a tree that no jagged leaves and white flowers had, and of which there are but would be a tree if it otherwise was consistent in all the other features to the already formed concepts of the tree. - This activity of the mind in virtue of which he studied along common characteristics and connects to it to form concepts, called the discursive activity of the mind, because he thereby runs through the features of the objects to speak ( discurrit ) to retrieve the matching. Herein is the thinking part. In this form of thinking or concepts can now again distinguish different acts or acts of mind. Namely when multiple perceptions are given, from which the mind is to form a concept, it may not need all of the above features are included in the individual perceptions, if they are not common to them, for example, the concept of to form the house, not the yellow color to form the concept of man, not its Clothed One, although these features in several different perceptions, which are of the understanding supplied by the sensuality outfitted. Thus, by the mind of these

features, which are not essential to the concept that he wants to make, as it looks away, they say, he abstracting from them, and on the other hand seeks the mind of the features in the formation of his term are essential, and by particularly directed his attention to this, they say, he reflecting upon them. For example, if the mind has the views of black and white, clothed and unclothed people in front of him, and I will make to this the concept of man in general, he is from the black and white color of these people, so abstracting entirely as of her clothed or unbekleidetsein because these features may not be included in the concept of people, because otherwise they would be common to all men, whereas it is the features that have the black and white, clothed and unclothed people in common, reflecting, for example on head , hands and feet, mind, etc. The recording of this now common features in the concept called determination, and their connection with each other combination. The determination is still different from the reflection: Because you can reflect or look at a feature in an intuition, because it appeared to the first prestige to fit the formation of the term, or we do not yet know whether it fit or not fit to be to could, whatever you want to explore first by reflection, but after it rejected as unfit. For example, when I initially reflecting the characteristic white color, because it seemed at first sight as if it would be included in the concept of people with, or I only want to investigate whether it belongs to the notion of man after but find that there are black people, so I'll leave the determination of the reflection does not follow, but abstracting again from the white skin color, but if I have, however, reflected on the head of the people, and now find that all people really will play a head so I'll then follow the determination of reflection, that is, I suppose really the feature of the head with the concept man, and combine it with the other features that I had already recorded. From these various activity statements to a different abstraction, reflectivity, and combination Determinationsvermgen assets also in the mind. - Incidentally, it is well to note that the mind is not only able to form perceptions of their common characteristics through collection concepts, but that he can also make other terms of concepts again, by reflecting on their common characteristics. Example of justice, goodness, gentleness, and the other good qualities of the people who are inherently terms, he may, by that which belongs to them jointly, summarizing or combined, form the concept of virtue. Another example: If someone looks at a number of individual insects, he can together take the same common features, and it formed the concept of insect at all, also when he sees several birds he can from these also form the concept of bird at all; as well as the concepts of fish, mammal in, etc., etc., but now he can look at all the individual terms, insect, bird, fish with his intellect, and as he examined them together common features, resulting form the concept animal again, and he now has previously formed the term plant so he can re-summon the Community Characteristics of the terms animal and plant, and from the concept of an organic being formed, etc., so that one sees how the mind can always rise higher in his terms, until he finally comes in a very general, which are common to all objects, like the concept of being. - The mind must be supported in all its activities from the judgment. One can only imagine namely objects for themselves, but also in relation to other ideas. For example, a house I can

only imagine simply for themselves, but I can imagine based on the yellow color, in the first case I have only either the pure concept or pure intuition from home, but in the other case, by the relationship between I the yellow color and the house sit, I say: I judge such as the house or the house is yellow is not yellow or yellow, etc. are all the houses are judgments. It is easily seen that the combination of determination and is really just a judgment, and it is therefore the judgment itself also expect to understanding, which includes those activities. - Find one now the basis of a judgment in another, so that one derives from the other off, so this is called closing. For example, if I say, all organic beings are alive, the dog is an organic being, so the dog is alive, so I have made, because I have the sentence: The dog is alive, the judgment: all organic beings are alive, derived. The closing is the peculiar business of reason, and because a still uncertain judgment when its truth is to be derived or inferred from another, last can only be concluded from such a thing is universal and unconditional itself - otherwise would have its truth will not close itself again - one writes also the reason the consciousness of the absolute and general, and its relation to the Conditional and Special to such a well known and unconditional general term an idea, which is the highest up to which the human mind can collect. This subheading includes the ideas God, freedom. In the transactions of the mind, the power of judgment and reason, ie in the form of concepts, judgments and conclusions is thinking, therefore solely belongs to the upper imagination, because the sensuality provides the only means of their perceptions of food for thought. Now you can look at the thinking in two ways: once just by looking at the concepts that are found in thinking, considered in their relation to each other, without taking into consideration the objects themselves, which are presented by it. For example, if I say that man is rational, or: The animal is not reasonable, so I can here refrain from the objects that are presented by the terms of humans, animals and rationality, whole, and pay attention only to whether the concept of a is really related to the other, as in the first case, or whether it is presented as not related to it, as in the second case, or whether a term is commonly referred to another (eg all men are mortal) or general (eg some men are mortal), etc., so that it therefore makes no difference here, of what items I speak, because I prefer only the form of the sentence, whether it is affirmative, negative, general or special, etc. into consideration. In this respect, therefore, the rates are: God is almighty, the animal is greedy, the tree is green, its all the same, because here the ideas of powerful, greedy, all green on one kind of God's ideas, animal, tree are related, although animal, tree, etc., are very different from each other. Looking at just the thought of this page, it is called a formal or analytical thinking, probably also thinking par excellence, where you do not care about the items that are intended, but merely the way in which ideas are connected. But it takes the same time in thinking on the subjects of consideration, which are thought and considered the relationship of the ideas do not among themselves (as in analytical thinking), but to their objects, it is called a materiales or synthetic thinking, or cognition, when the analytical thinking, thinking is called par excellence. Therefore, the formal truth is to distinguish the thinking of the substantive truth. A sentence can be formally quite right and true, if it is not repugnant to the laws

of formal thought, but wrong material. If I say for example: All the flowers are white, so this set is formally correct, because such a general relationship of not conflicting ideas as to how this can really happen under the laws of formal thinking from white to flower, and here it is all the same whether the ideas flower or tree or white or black there remain basic, provided only that the ideas themselves are connected to each other in a proper way, therefore, the judgment has a right shape. Material is, however, or under the laws of recognizing the sentence: All the flowers are white, wrong, because if I really prefer the imaginary objects themselves, and white flower color into consideration, I find that not all flowers are white. The sentence, however: animal is animal, would be formally wrong, because it would remain just as wrong if I also take animal put an object, which I just always wanted to, so that so here its falsity not by the nature of the object itself may be limited, but in the incorrect type of connection of the ideas themselves, and therefore must be in the form of a judgment. - Besides these two types, either just ideas to consider in relation to each other, or for use in relation to their objects, you can also consider to what extent the ideas of certain objects a feeling of pleasure or pain arouse in us the extent to which such the viewing pleasure of a beautiful face, or an ugly grimace disgust aroused in us, and that is called the receptivity for such kind of pleasure and pain, what ideas excite in us tastes. After these three ways of looking at our ideas, breaks the theoretical philosophy into three main sections, the logic that deals with the original laws of formal thinking, and thinking teaching is Schlechtweg; metaphysics which, or of the original laws of substantive thinking of knowledge is, and therefore is called epistemology, and finally into the aesthetics or the theory of taste, which is the law of representation and recognition of objects, how they excite a feeling of pleasure or displeasure in us. It follows from the foregoing, of course, that logic can not comment on the nature of objects to teach ourselves, because they do not consider the ideas in relation to such, but only in relation to each other. By logic no new truths can thus be found, but they can still check whether the truths we think we have found really match with the nature of our thinking power, they can show the way to derive from really found truths others follow quite , and errors that result from a tangled, incorrect thinking, uncover. The logic can we not teach thinking, but they can but the laws by which the thinking is done, clearly put before our eyes, and so put us in a position to detect when not observing the same, the mistakes, they can show us what we have to pay attention to if we want to examine the formal truth of a concept, or Urteiles circuit.

First Chapter Of the division of logic + Question. What is logic? answer. logic is that part of theoretical philosophy, which makes us acquainted with the laws of (formal or analytic) thinking. But

it does not consider the thought, insofar as it refers to specific objects, but only teaches the laws of thought in general, therefore, indicates the way in which all objects must be thought, if they were ever so different. In this respect they are now considered just the way of thinking in itself, it is also said that they prefer merely the form of thought into consideration, whereas the matter of thinking, under which one understands the real imaginary objects, disregard or abstracting. F. How to share a logic? A. A distinction is first and foremost the general and specific logic. The former is concerned with the form of thought in general, and is also elementary logic, the latter are rules for thinking in particular sciences, and therefore can not be shown separately from these. Q. How is the general logic divided? A. First of the pure and the applied. Pure logic, the rules of thought on all to how they originally held in higher cognition, the applied contrast refers to the various conditions into consideration, of which the application of those rules depends, eg on the conditions which cause us to false judgments can, and forestall the means such. Q. How is divided pure logic? A. In the (pure) and the elementary theory (pure) methodology. The former considers the chores of the mind, individually and concepts, judgments and conclusions, and specifies the rules by which it shall do so, the latter teaches to give means of proper treatment of those operations of our scientific knowledge a the thinking skills appropriate form, and it has therefore to do with what is seen in statements, dispositions and evidence. F. How to share the logic applied a? A. In a (applied) and an elementary teaching (applied) methodology. The former is concerned with the theory of the origin of the logical appearances and error (logical pathology), and the doctrine of the means against errors (logical therapy), the latter deals with the acquisition and communication of knowledge.

Pure logical elementary teaching Second Chapter From the logical things and the features Q. What is meant by logical things and a logical absurdities? A. A logical thing ( ens Logicum ) is that which can be thought of according to the laws of mind, even if it is not really experience finds in the world, a logical absurdity ( nonens Logicum ), however, what also can not even be imagined. The logical thing and absurdity is indistinguishable from the real things and probably nonentities, of which the former experience in the world really finds, the latter not.

Q. What are examples that illustrate this? A. An animal, what the shape of a dragon, or possessed of such a size that it reached to the moon with the back, would be a logical thing, because there is nothing to prevent us, we to think such an animal, whereas it would be a real absurdity, because it is not really experience finds in the world. A square circle, however, or a leaf, that would at the same time and in the same place green and not green, you should keep not only real, but also for logical absurdities, because these also could not even imagine. One can see from these examples that many logical things can be, which are not real things, therefore, contrast has any real thing, insofar as it related has on us can be thought of as a logical thing, because otherwise it could not at all be thought and therefore would be for us as well as not there. - By the way, is a logical thing - and only such can be used in the logic of the question - basically nothing more than a concept or an idea of the mind. Q. What is meant a thing? A. Through features. Q. What is characteristics? A. Characteristics ( notae ) are ideas which are included as components in other ideas, and so several ideas can be different from each other. For example, the leaf of the tree is a feature, because it is an idea that is included as part of the presentation of the whole tree, and you can distinguish them from the ideas of an animal, house, etc. thereby. It also features the well-known characteristics, specifications, characteristics, predicates characters. Be resolved only insofar as such a thing, it may be thought, and one thing that did not feature would have existed as well as not for our minds, could not be imagined. Q. How can you distinguish the characteristics? A. In inner and outer, affirmative and negative, significant and non-significant, original and derived, directly and indirectly, fertile and infertile. Q. What are internal and external features? A. Internal or absolute characteristics are those taken for an object to determine, but the external features, which is also called relative or relationship or ratio characteristics which determine only the ratio or relationship that has the object to a different things. Thus, stem, root, leaf, flower, inner characteristics of the tree, because they define the concept of the same without any regard to other items, however, that the tree is grown in the ground, or that his master a certain direction against another tree has, are external or relationship characteristics, because they only push a relationship to other things of the same.The thing to which the ratio by means of the relationship Merkmales is expressed, as in the above case, the earth is called the Mitbezogene or correlate. Therefore require all exterior features a correlate. Q. What are affirmative and negative characteristics? A. Affirmative or positive features are those by which one imagines something as really belonging to a things, negative or negative contrast by which to exclude something of a thing. For example, red, warm, affirmative features are quickly because they express properties that a thing really exists, however undyed, are not warm negative characteristics because they exclude properties of the existence of a thing. Is a negative one feature denied again, so it creates an affirmative feature, eg uncolored is not as much as the colored

affirmative feature. Q. What are essential and non-essential features? A. Main features ( essentialia, attributa ) are those that must come by the imaginary things at any time and get necessary if the term is not intended to be a completely different from the thing itself. In contrast, non-essential features are ( accidentalia ), which is also called random, by the way that they do not get an object with resistance, and therefore can also be thought away from it, without changing the concept in general. So, for example, the characteristic of voluntary movement in a major animals, because it is so common to all animals and resistant that a creature that lacked this feature would be to look for no animal but a plant or something else would have to be; however, the feature of four feet is a non-essential in the animal, as there are also animals with more or less than four feet, and the concept of the animal generally remains unchanged, the same, though I do not think the feature of four feet to it. - Combined The essential features of a thing make its essence, and are this things either exclusively owned ( attributa propria ), or come even other objects to, ( attributa COMMUNIA ), so the feature of voluntary movement on earth, at least, the animal creatures exclusively own, the essential feature of the diet but also comes to the plants. - Physical characteristics can be no essential because they merely express relationships to other objects, but this can change. Q. What are original and derived characteristics? A. Original Features ( notae originariae, primitivae, radicales ) are those which are inferred not only from other features derived ( see derivativae consecutivae ), however, such a thing other than the features episodes the same shall be settled. Thus, the sharpness is an original feature of a cutting tool, its ability, however, to divide other bodies, based on this knowledge, an original feature of a circle is that all its points equidistant project from a certain point, that he is a crooked line, a derived from it. Q. What are direct and indirect characteristics? A. Immediate or next characteristics are those which are the object of equal resolved itself, indirect or however remote those that are first come until the to another feature of the object, and only so far on object itself refers. For example, the sheet would be a direct feature of the tree, because it applies equally to the tree itself, the green color against a collateral of the same feature, because it applies only to this Journal, and only by means of on the tree. Q. What features are fertile and infertile? A. Fertile features are those from which many other features can be derived, and which may therefore serve to distinguish an object from many other objects. Infertile characteristics, however, are those in which this does not occur. Chapter Three By the highest laws of thought Q. Can the mind in obtaining characteristics of process on free things to arbitrariness, or he is bound by certain laws? A. He is, as nothing happens in the world without laws, bound by certain laws, which he must watch if his thinking is to

have (formal) truth. Who thinks this contrary, thinks logically inaccurate or wrong. The logic teaches us not only to observe these rules but rather are founded so deeply into the nature of our mind that they each also followed unconsciously, when he only enjoys the ordinary common sense. The logic here has nothing more to do than to make our minds clear. Q. What are the highest laws of logical thinking? A. The principle of opposition or resistance dispute ( s repugnantiae principium of contradiction ), the principle of continuous equality ( princip identitatis absolutum. ), the principle of exclusion of the Middle or third parties ( pr. excluded middle tertii s ) and the principle of sufficient reason ( pr. rationis sufficientis ). These four principles are commonly takes as the basic laws of thought. Pitcher called the principle of contradiction and the principle of thesis, and sets him a principle of antithesis, the principle of sufficient reason, but he also called rate of synthesis, a set of proportional or relationship have equality as the main laws of thought to the side . Q. What is the principle of contradiction? A. One can express it this way: None of things come to contradictory characteristics, or: Every things only unanimous features to come. Ie it is called contradictory characteristics such one of which almost cancels what the other has set, and can be thought therefore never united in one things. Such contradictory characteristics are as green and not green; mortal and not mortal. One can also express this principle as follows: There can be no A think this would not A at the same time, if one A at all any feature or thing, what one you just always want to understand. Q. What are examples which illustrate the principle of contradiction? A. According to the principle of contradiction is one can not think of a thing is both round and not round, a thing is also a table and not a table, a tree wearing the same time fruit and no fruit. All this would contradictions, which would abolish the one feature that the other has set. Q. What do you call that which can be thought according to the principle of contradiction, or is really thinking? A. What can be meant by the same, is logically possible, and to that extent it will really think logically or really a logical thing. That a logical thing but not the same as experience in the world would be provided vorfindend is mentioned above. - Anyone who thinks the principle of contradiction apparently opposed, therefore apparent contradictions of the say that he thought absurd. Q. What is also to be noted in the law of contradiction, that he might not be misunderstood? A. It could of external features that express mere relations, and relationships seem as if their thinking could also contradictory things combined in one. For example, you probably said by the same people: it's large, and in some respects again: He is not great. But the first time you look at it maybe in relation to an ant, the elephant in relation to a second time, so the highlights here a relationship not based on what has been set by the other, as against the ant man, however great, against the elephant is not large, and the apparent contradiction is therefore only in the expression, not the cause. Should be noted, furthermore, that the law of

contradiction is only of the same period and the same room, for a man may eg today not tomorrow be fun and funny, or red in the face and arms not red. However, it is simply impossible to imagine a person who would be both funny and not funny, and red at the same spot and not red. Q. What is the principle of continuous equality or sameness? A. You push it like this: Every thing is equal to itself, or: Every thing is consistent with itself, or A is equal to A. Because that is a thing only can be thought through features, and only account for the combined features of all the things the term, as well as the characteristics of an imaginary thing and the concept of same must be completely the same. Further, this principle means nothing. For example, the term: Circle, and characteristics, line, be everywhere equidistant from a point, taken together, have all come out to one, because I think just it only the circle, as I summarize the features mentioned. Q. What conclusions can be drawn from the principle of sameness? A. The thing which come all the characteristics of a term to which the term itself must be settled, and which lack the features, the can not get the concept itself, further what is the characteristics of a concept that applies the concepts themselves, and are the features are different, the concept itself is different. Q. What is the principle of exclusion of the third or middle? A. It is also called the principle of complete determination and pushes it like this: How an object is determined conceived as continuous, must come to him from all possible almost opposite characteristics one. So a thing must either round or not round, as white or non-white, are thought to be alive or not alive. Of such downright opposite or contradictory features of the mind is always forced to choose one, and settle a thing (both at the same time he can after the first principle is not) and there is no third or middle feature what he about taking one of the two opposite could include in the term, hence the name of this principle. One can also express this principle as follows: Each imaginary determined as continuous objects must either get each feature or not. Q. What is the law of sufficient reason? A. It puts it this way: Combine each set to end with a presupposed as a reason or shorter, Sit nothing without reason. After the previous principle namely every thing from two contradictory characteristics although must get one, the mind can by no means arbitrary one of which enclose the things he must be induced or compelled by something, either the one or the other, as either green or not green, alive or not alive to settle the things. This now is what causes the mind to which to set a feature preferably before the other, is the reason, and that which depends on this reason, the result. According to this principle is required of anyone who claims something, even knowing why he says it, and the one who wanted to settle things a bit, without being able to specify a reason for it, would grossly violate the laws of thought. Therefore, we must also talk with exercises in dispute (disputations) not to fight with, yes, yes, no, no, but defend his own opinion by reason of the enemy and try to refute reasons. - The logical reason is probably the way to distinguish from the real reason: the former is merely the reason that something is so and not otherwise thought of, but the second that something is really

in a certain way. Q. What is the principle of antithesis? A. It can be expressed as follows: Under opposite determinations of a thing you may put only one, and if this is a set, then you must cancel the other. This principle of antithesis follows from the principle of the argument or appeal. F. ? What is the principle of inclusion-wise or proportionate equality A. It is expressed as: Two terms that coincide with a third, or linked, relate to each other in the same proportion, or even two things that a third identical, are similar If the thing itself so A is the things X, and X is the thing to the thing B, then B is also the thing be like the A things. This rate depends on the extent together with the principle of sufficient reason, because the equality of the thing with the things X A and B things, here is the reason that also A and B is equal to itself.

Chapter Four Of the terms in general Q. What is a term? A. A term ( notio, conceptus ) is a happening with consciousness linking several common characteristics or ideas of the unity of the whole. It is formed by comparation (comparison of several performances), abstraction (reticle of the various features thereof), reflection (on inspection, their common features); Determination (recording of the common features in the whole to be formed), and combination (Association of recorded features discussed the whole) as in the introduction. Incidentally, these various actions of the mind are not separated in reality as if they are presented here, but rather where they flow together, and are separately only because of the ease of looking at us. Q. What is meant by abstract and concrete terms? A. If we a term very pure and set apart for himself, so it is called an abstract concept, but a practical, how you have linked him with other ideas, or with respect to certain objects thinks. So, for example, virtue, excellence thought an abstract concept, whereas, if I think a virtuous man, so I think the term virtue concrete; him by thinking with the idea man, linked him to refer to these.Similarly, the concept of green color, absolutely thought an abstract concept, but thought of a leaf, it is concrete. - On each term is abstract because it is just it formed by abstraction, Single, Looking Away from the various of his ideas, but he is by thinking it in relationship, specifically, and as such, the terms have only benefit for us when she thought concretely related to objects. Q. In what ways we are accustomed to consider the terms to make their logical nature clearly? A. In terms of their quantity, their quality, and their relation modality.

Chapter Five The quantity of the items Q. What is the quantity of a term? A. In the set of ideas that you think related by him. This quantity can then be either the volume or quantity of the contents of a term. Q. What is meant by the scope and content of a term A. The scope or the sphere of a term ( see ambitus sphaera notionis ) do all of those things to which the term can be obtained as a feature, whereas the content of a concept ( complexus notionis ) consists of those ideas that are thought the same as united. Q. What are examples of this? A. From the conception of man, the scope is the Europeans, Asians, Africans, Americans and Sdindier, because all of these can be related to the concept of man as a feature, whereas making the content of the concept of man, the ideas of the head, chest, abdomen, hands and feet, mind, reason, language, etc., because all these features put together the concept of man first. Thus the scope of the term tree will form the oak, the beech, the fir tree, the fruit trees, etc., whereas its content, the root, stem, leaves, etc. Q. What is to be included under a concept, and a concept? A. Of the things that make the extension of a concept to which the term can be thus obtained as a feature, they say: you are under the terms contained of the things, however, which make up the content of a concept, they are included in the terms. Root, stem, leaves, however the same in the term, as oak, beech, fir tree are included under the term in the above case. Imagine a phrase from another, ie, subsume it under. Q. What is the relationship and scope of the concepts in terms of their quantity to each other? A. The greater the extension of a concept is, the smaller its content and vice versa. For example, the scope of the term human is larger than the scope of the term Negro, because there are people under the terms contained except the negroes are many other ways people, whereas the content of the term Negro is greater than the term of the person, because the Negro still have the black skin color come out of the other characteristics of a human being too, the woolly hair, etc.. Similarly, the scope of the term character is greater than that of the term triangles, because it contains in itself, or may be referred to it as a feature, not only all the triangles, but also quadrilaterals, pentagons, round shape, etc. On the other hand, the content is the concept of triangle greater than the figure of the term, because it contains, in addition to the characteristic of the confined space within limits, which plays the figure, even the that these boundaries are formed by three lines along with many others, to be derived from it. - The reason for this relationship between the scope and content of a concept is that when recording several features in the content of a concept, all those things need to be ruled by the same extent, which does not belong to this feature. If one were, for example in the term human being also the feature of white color, so increased the quantity of its contents, so then this person would term can no longer be related to the negro, and by then it would exclude from the concept, the scope would the same decrease.

Q. What is meant by simple and compound words, single words and common terms? A. A simple term ( notio simplex ) is the one whose content is so small that it only consists of a single characteristics, and that it by no dissection can be decomposed into several ideas, a composite ( not composita. ), however, is such, where such a decomposition in several characteristics or performances still take place. From the above it follows that basic terms must have the greatest extent proportionate. A single term ( notio individualistic ) is a term whose scope is so small that it deals no other more broad ideas among themselves, a general or common (not. universalis ), however, still contain ideas are under. Single items must have relatively the largest content. Q. What are examples that illustrate this? A. The concept of being is a simple concept that you simply can not dissect in more features, but precisely because of its emptiness, he has the most extensive scale as one can in all things, the feature of being or existence relate. The concept of movement is already a composite as one can distinguish in it the characteristics of change of Zeitlichsein and Rumlichsein, since motion is a pre-existing spatial variation in time. But the movement has also been a smaller extent, because they can not relate to all things as a feature. - A single concept is the notion of a specific nature, such as a certain plant, a particular animals, but that it should not be confused with an intuition, because it is not directly related to the individual subject, not by its direct action on the sensuality, but only indirectly in the mind, created by linking its individual features. A common term is any term that can refer to different objects. Q. What is species-and genus terms? A. Both terms refer to the scope of the terms. A species concept ( notio specialis ) is the one that contains only individual things among themselves, a generic or generic concept (notio generalis ), however, a term that contains the specific concepts among themselves. Thus, the term lily is a species concept, because its scope only includes individual things, that all individual lilies among themselves, whereas the term plant is a generic term, because it contains the specific concepts lily, rose, carnation, etc. among themselves. The generic terms are divided into lower and higher. Namely several generic terms may be included under another generic terms again, and this is because of the higher generic term, so that the generic terms insects, fish, birds will be so included under the higher generic animal, and that the generic terms animals and plants under the even higher: organic creature. - The highest is the generic term, which includes all other generic terms among themselves, and he has therefore the largest scale but have the smallest content, so that he could be based on all sorts of objects as a feature, they therefore believe it to themselves. However called or highest generic terms including those that are high in only a particular number of things. So is the highest generic term for all individual races, the term man, although he himself is actually the term of an organic being. Q. How naturalists call the lower and higher classes? A. The genus, which initially contains more lower classes among themselves, is called the order containing multiple orders among themselves, class, and contains several classes among themselves, a realm of nature .

Q. What are the intermediate species, next genera and species removed? A. Between genera ( genera media ) are the ones that are higher than one but lower than the other species, so are held between them. For example, tree is an intermediate species between fruit trees and plants, because it is higher than the species of fruit trees, lower than the plant genus; those he includes among themselves; under this he is self contained. - The genus under which a species is directly called for that the next ( genus proximum ), but the one under which it is available only indirectly through intermediate species, a remote ( genus remotum ). Q. What is subordination and appointment of the terms? A. Subordinate concepts ( notiones subordinatae ) are those which are contained under another concept. For example, the concepts of bird, fish, animals are subordinated to the concept. Therefore, all species of the genera and species are all lower to higher subordinate. The term, which is subordinate to the other, is called the lower or closer ( see angustior inferior ), but the one which contains the other below it, or more upper ( superior latior s ). So man is a higher concept than Negroes and Kalmuck, plant a tree and a higher herb. The higher term, the lower one all. - Alderman terms ( . coordinatae not ) are those which are both contained in the same time or at a third term. Thus, insect and fish are coordinate terms, because they are both included under the term animal, leaf and root are also coordinate terms, because they are included in the term plant. Each coordinate terms can not be both subordinate to each other and vice versa. Depending coordinate terms are genera or species, it is called secondary species or sub species. Thus, rodents and ruminants addition genres, mouse, rat, side ways. - The longest term is also the highest generic concept, has the largest scale, can be subordinated to any other, yet, attach to, but everyone has subordinated to themselves. Q. What laws apply concerning the higher and lower terms? A. What belongs to the higher terms or contradicts that also comes to or contradicts all under his lower terms, or in other words: what belongs or is contrary to the whole sphere of a term that comes to or contradicts any part of this sphere. Furthermore: What belongs to all lower terms or contradicts that also comes to or contradicts their higher terms. The first law arises from the, drawn from the set of continuous equality inference that what is true of the characteristics of a concept, and the concept must apply itself: Because of the higher concept is just one which contains all lower among themselves, and so on as a feature it must be related. The other law arises from the fact, that the higher concept of that is created by linking the common characteristics of its lower terms, therefore, what is common to all the lower terms are necessary in the higher terms must also be found. - By the way, many features may be located on lower terms that do not get the higher, because just because of their smaller scale their content is greater.

Chapter Six

Terms of the quality of Q. What is considered in terms of the quality? A. The degree of consciousness with which the terms are intended in a linked ideas. After this distinction is clear, sharp, detailed and complete or perfect terms. Q. What is the clarity ( claritas ) of a term? A. In that degree of awareness of the characteristics of a concept by virtue of which one is able to distinguish its object from other objects at all. According as the number of things that the object of the concept can be distinguished, large or small, depending on the clarity of the term thereof is larger or smaller. The opposite of a clear definition is a dark ( not. obscura ). So many people have only dark notions of what philosophy, what is logic, ie they do not know these sciences belonging to differ from others. Taking a concept clearly, is called to develop it. Q. What is meant by clarity ( perspicuitas ) of the terms? A. Those degrees of awareness of the characteristics of a concept by virtue of which it is capable, just to distinguish these features from each other again. The clarity of a concept is therefore nothing else than the clarity of its features and also has various degrees. Is the opposite of clarity, the lack of clarity ( imperspicuitas ) which is also confusion ( confusio ) is called when the characteristics of a concept not been determined but may be from each other. Therefore a clear concept does not need to be clear. So I can know how to distinguish adequately of the other sciences, philosophy indeed, but perhaps not specify the characteristics that make up the essence of philosophy, because I know they can not be separated and distinguished. So in this case I have a clear or no clear conception of philosophy. - Conversely, a clear concept must always be clear: Because concepts can be distinguished only by the consciousness of different features in them, and this consciousness is even more necessary for clarity, as in mere clarity. Q. In which relationships can be considered the clarity of the concepts? A. The clarity of a term can refer to the content, as also refer to the extension of a concept. Those who also is the intensive and analytical clarity, is produced by decomposition of a term in the characteristics of which it is composed and development thereof; these, extensive or synthetic clarity by distinguishing the lower terms, which are contained in the higher . That happens through explanations, this result of divisions. Set, the concept of philosophy would become clear to me, so that I know to distinguish the same from all other sciences, I wanted to but that he would give me extensively and intensively clear, so I would look for to distinguish the various sciences in terms of its scale that are included under the term philosophy, so first and foremost the theoretical and practical philosophy, it should be me extensively even more, so I would in theoretical philosophy, logic, metaphysics and aesthetics, in practice the legal doctrine that ethics and religious doctrine differentiate to seek me, to the clarity to drive even further, I would look at each of these science again the clean section to be distinguished from applied, etc., in this way I would make the philosophy extensive or clear synthetic or divide them. So now I also notion of philosophy would clearly intense or analytically, I would break it down into its

characteristics; that philosophy is a science and that it is investigating the recent reasons and purposes of human knowledge and activity. To achieve an even higher degree of intense clarity, I would the terms science, knowledge, activity, reason, dissect purpose of the new, and so pass through continued dissecting to ever higher degrees of clarity, explain the concept more and more. - Easy terms can no intense clarity, although clarity possess: Because they do not contain any variety of features in yourself, so can simple terms as that of the existence, not even explain individual terms, however, can come no extensive clarity, having no contain variety of things among themselves, and therefore they can not be divided. - The clarity of which has been discussed here is, the logical, intellectual or discursive, in contrast to the sensual or aesthetic, which is a vividly making of what has been generally presented is through examples, as often as in this booklet happens. Q. What is meant by detail and perfection or completeness of the terms? A. Both are higher degrees of clarity. The detail is in fact a term that degree of consciousness of its characteristics by virtue of which it is capable of up to dissect these features again, thus the clarity of the features themselves So in the above examples, the term philosophy is detailed in terms of its scale dissected. Since you can continue the dissection of the characteristics of a concept always on, so the verbosity has its degrees. The highest degree of logical detail the completeness or perfection of the terms, which then takes place when you came through continued dissection in such terms that can not be further dissect; regarding the content in a simple, regarding the scope of individual terms.

Chapter Seven Of the relation and modality of the terms Q. What is the relation of the terms? A. In those definitions of what they come only in respect to other terms, ie in the same mutual relationship. This ratio can now be four-fold nature: it concerns namely the sameness and difference, the agreement and the conflict, the interior and exterior, the matter and form of the terms. Q. What terms do you call all the same or identical? A. Those which have all the features in common. - Similar or related terms ( . cognatae not ) are those which, although not all, but a lot of characteristics in common. Different terms mean in terms of the features that are not common. - Terms that are all the same or completely identical, also called exchange terms, because you can put an arbitrary place of the other. You can only make so far more criteria than either of them different people or the same people at different times, or be thought of as characteristics of different things, otherwise they would only constitute one and the same concept. Q. What are unanimous and conflicting terms? A. Unanimous ( consentientes, convenientes ) are those which can be combined in the presentation of an object together. If you are opposed to illegal or conflicting called in a broader sense. The

opposition can now take place either directly or indirectly. In the first case it is also the pure or perfect opposition ( oppositional contradictoria, diametralis by simplicem negationem s ), and the opposite to this kind terms: conflicting, contradictory, negative, or almost directly opposite terms. It takes place when one of the opposing concepts as such contains a negation of what has been put in another term.Of directly opposite terms ( not. contrariae, see contrarie oppositae, oppositae by positionem alterius ) which is also called contrary, positively or indirectly opposes raises one to the other by mere negation, but even by their own positive characteristics. Of contradictory terms all but two are held, and one of them has to get every object according to the law of exclusion of the Middle. Of merely conflicting terms more than two can occur and they can also be thought away all of an object. Q. What are examples to explain the former things? A. round and white are unanimous concepts, because they fall into each performance unite, when I think about a thing, so this does not prevent the least that I still me who knows, think. Round and not round but or knows and does not know are contradictory or directly opposite terms, because of an almost negates what the other sets, only one can be thought of both in one and the same idea, and both at the same time but thought away, can you can not. Round and square or sad and happy are conflicting terms, because the fact that something as I sit around, I prevent that it can not also be set as a square, the same case is sad and happy at. Q. What is the interior and exterior of a term? A. The interior consists of a term in its essential features, the appearance of contrast in its nonessential, either the textures ( affections ) or conditions ( relationes are).Thus the interior of the concept is animal: that it is an organic entity that moves from free arbitrariness, and its food from freely studied, however the exterior of the term animal is the feature of four feet, or of life in the country . Q. What is meant by the concepts of matter and form? A. The matter of the concept is to those ideas which are linked by the same unit, but the shape. in the manner of their connection Since the logic of what is presented by the terms, quite apart, a closer examination of the matter of the terms is not the same.

Chapter Eight Of the judgments in general Q. What is a judgment? A. A judgment ( judicium ) is the determination of the relationship or the relationship that takes place between given concepts, and is expressed through words, a set of (propositional, enuntiatio ). I say as man is mortal, so here I determine the relationship between man and mortality and thus judge. Q. What can you distinguish in every sentence? A. matter and form. The matter of the judgment to make accessible from the ideas which the relationship between one thinks, as above man and mortality, but the shape is the way how the relationship

between these concepts is thought. The logic looks on the nature of the matter and considered all judgments from formal teaching of thinking just the same shape. Q. In what ways we are accustomed to consider the sentences in order according to their form zulernen know? A. As the concepts in terms of their quantity, quality, relation and modality. The quantity determines the scope of the subject in a sentence, the quality of the nature of the predicate, the nature of the relation between the link itself gegebnen a verdict ideas, and the modality of the relationship in which the sentences are to our knowledge assets. Schicklichsten on it, put in relation to the consideration of the judgments of the reason is. F. How to distinguish the judgments in terms of their relation? hypothetical and disjunctive. A. In categorical,

Chapter Nine Of the categorical judgments Q. What is a categorical judgment? A. A categorical judgment (judgment settlement) is one in which the term is relative as a (affirmative or negative one) on the other trait. Such judgments are often also called judgments such. The above judgment: Man is mortal, is a categorical, because the term is related mortality is as a feature on the term humans. All judgments that are not themselves categorically are at least composed of categorical, and by the peculiar logic operation thereof, will only hypothetical and disjunctive judgments forth. Also the quantity and quality of judgments initially relates only to categorical. Q. What is meant by subject, predicate and copula in a categorical judgment? A. subject is called the one idea, to which the other is referenced as a feature; predicate but, what is related to the subject as a feature.Thus man is above the subject, the predicate mortal. The subject is usually preceded by in a sentence, but can also, without change in its nature something to be placed behind the predicate, as a man, when the sentence is then an offset is mortal. The copula or the connecting word in categorical judgments is really nothing other than the word, although it is often only contain hidden in it. For example, the sentence: The man has intellect, is logically developed: Man is a mind-to-do. - Often copula and predicate merged into one word. For example, a person thinks, which is as much as man is a thinking. Some sentences seem to have no subject, as it thunders, it rains. However, one must think of the predicate associated with at least a vague subject but here. Such sentences are called logically imperfect. Q. How much categorical judgment forms are there in terms of quantity? A. Three. Namely, the predicate is either connected with a single subject, or with many subjects a certain type or a certain kind with all subjects in the first case, the judgment is a single or individuales, the second a special or particulate, in a third general or universal. Guttenberg invented the art of printing is a single sentence;

many people live sake of eating, a special, all animals are unreasonable, a common one. Signs which indicate the extent of the subject, the pronouns are for each of these judgments, the one, the same, etc., for the special: some, few, many, several, etc., for the general: all, every, no, etc. Designated judgments are those where the subject is a peripheral character of this kind in itself, has any inscription where it missing. (Certain judgments . jud determinata ) is called the general and individual judgments; indefinite ( indeterminate ) specific. Q. How much categorical judgment forms are there in terms of quality? A. Also three: affirmative or affirmative, negative or negative and infinite, limiting or limitative. In the affirmative judgments, the predicate, the subject is taken as real in the content of the subject, or what is the same, presented as brought into the sphere or scope of the predicate, in negating sentences, the subject is thought beyond the sphere of the predicate; in the infinite, it is placed in the sphere of a term that is outside the sphere of another, or what says the same thing, by negation of a feature set is another in the content of the subject. Q. What are examples of this? A. Affirmative sentences are: The lion is strong, the plant is green, because in both cases the subject is in the sphere or scope of the predicate, strength and green color, or features than those in the added content of the terms lion and plant. Negative judgments, however, are: The gold is not white, the sun is not running around the earth, for here the subject from the scope of the predicate or predicate is excluded from the content of the subject. Limitative judgments: The human soul is immortal, the dress is undamaged. Here I bring the subject through the negation of mortality in the sphere of eternal life, the dress by negation of damage under the sphere of wholeness. - The limitative judgment is thus distinguished from the negative sense that in the former the subject of the sphere of an affirmative feature excluded, but not brought into the sphere of a different affirmative feature, with the latter but just by the exclusion from the sphere of an affirmative feature in the another affirmative is set. Q. What are the short term has been given the categorical judgments in terms of their quantity and quality? A. They have referred to the first four vowels, so that A is a common and yet affirmative, E a general negative one and the same time, a special and at the same time I affirmative, O negative one at the same time and expressing a particular opinion. Hence the Latin verse: Asserit A negat e universaliter sed ambo; Assarit I, O negat particulariter sed ambo. The limitative and individual judgments here are unmindful, because the conclusions in respect of which this short marking method is chosen, the individual judgments of the general and the limitative be equally appreciated the affirmative: examples of this marking method are: A. All animals are organic beings. E. No animal can live without food. I. Some people are taught. O. Many people are not taught.

Q. What is said of the modality of categorical judgments? A. They also determined three forms of judgment: the problematic, assertoric, and apodictic. In the first, the relationship between subject and predicate is merely presented as possible; presented in the other and really made as happened, made in the third as necessary. Examples of problematic judgments are: Human life can last over one hundred years, and the war may soon break out, of assertoric: Life is short, and the war has broken out of apodictic: The man must die, and the war must break out. F. Let probably still other significant differences, except for the mention in terms of quantity, quality and modality to the categorical judgment forms, discover,? A. The main forms of categorical judgments are quite exhausted by these approaches. Insofar, however, as the judgments expressed by words, so be at rates you can still distinguish them verschiedne forms, which can be represented by the following scheme. The sentences are: 1) easy ( propositiones simplices ) 2) put together ( prop. compositae ) a) apparently composed ) compound sentences Vergleichungsstze b) Hidden composed exclusively in the narrow sense ) Ausschlieungsstze b) exzeptiv

) a)

) restriction sets a) restrictive in the narrow sense reduplikativ b). Q. How did the simple composite of the rates differ? A. A set is simple, in which the subject is both the predicate only of a main term, even if the terms of subject and predicate are not easy, and the sentence or particularistic is universal, whereas when the subject or predicate or both are repeatedly is composed of the set, because it consists of several judgments basically, is why you also exponibel calls him in the broad sense, and the composition is a hidden, exponibel in the strict sense. Q. What are examples of this? A. Simple sentences are: The boy is teachable, and people love the pleasure. A compound sentence is: The people and animals are living creatures, because he actually consists of two sentences: People are living creatures, the animals are living creatures. As well: the glass is fragile and transparent, is, logically developed: the glass is fragile, the glass is transparent. Q. What are joining or copulative sentences and Vergleichungs or comparative sentences in which you share the apparently composite? A. In the copulative sentences several subjects or predicates are connected to each other, in the comparative is a thing settled a feature in higher grades as another. Examples of copulative sentences are listed in the previous answer; comparative sentences are: The tiger is more cruel than the lion, the child is weaker than the man These rates

were developed hot: The lion is cruel, The Tiger is even more cruel. The man has a certain degree of strength, the child has a lower degree of strength. Q. What is Ausschlieungsstzen or exclusive sets and restriction or restrictive? A. exclusive or exclusionary in the broader sense are the sentences in which an exclusion at all restrictive and in a broader sense, in which a restriction occurs at all. A set as restrictive in the narrow, if the subject to the exclusion of all other him similar things something is settled, the block is exclusive in the strict sense, but if the subject only to the exclusion of a certain part of it is somewhat resolved, the record is exzeptiv sense, if the restriction is done by a special admixture; reduplikativ mind if it is only expressed by a recurrence. Q. What are examples of this? A. exclusive in the strict sense are the sentences: The cuckoo alone can hatch its birds of others; Only unfilled seed-bearing flowers. The latter sentence would be fully developed so hot: Many flowers are unfilled, these are seed-bearing, the others are not seed-bearing. Exzeptive sentences are: The Greeks dealt with a lot of fine arts, except the Lacedaemonians. Walks are pleasant except in bad weather.Restrictive in the narrower sense: the sciences treated as branches of industry can not thrive. Money as a means to good ends has great value. Reduplitative sentences are: The general as a commander must be strict. The greed, as greed is always to blame. - Flow rates, which are restrictive in the strict sense, expresses it, that what is said to apply only in certain respects. By contrast, rates reduplikative that the word that is repeated is to be taken in its truest, most essential importance, which may explain the above examples. Chapter Ten Of the sameness, subordination, opposition and reversal the categorical judgments Q. What judgments do you call all the same or equally valid ( identica aequipollentia )? A. Those in which matter and form are the same. Therefore monotony judgments can only differ in that they are referred to by different words, so make different sets, or insofar as they are thought by different people or different times. Q. What is the subordination of judgments? A. judgments where represent the subject and predicate in the same way two terms, in which one but the scope of the subject is greater than in the other, called subordinate ( subalterna ), and While judgment is the one in which the subject is the broader term, the subordinating ( subalternans ), but that in which it is the lower, the child ( subalternatum ). Thus, the following sentences are subordinate: 1) The Europeans are clothed; 2) The Germans are clothed; 3) The Saxons are clothed. Europeans is another term than the Germans, because they are included under him thus, if 1) and 2) are compared, 1) under the ordering, 2) the subordinate sentence. In contrast, if 2) and 3) are compared, is 2) the subordinating and 3) the child, because the German conception of the subject is beyond the subject of Saxony. - Must come after the above-mentioned law, that what belongs to the higher concept, also contained all lower under him, the

truth conditions of subordinating the judgment of the child. Q. What is understood. ? to under unanimous and opposite judgments A. Unanimous judgments ( consentientia ) are such that both can be thought of as true at the same time, however, or conflicting opposite (opposita, repugnantia ) those of which abolishes what the other sets, of which therefore can be thought of only one thing to be true. The opposition of the judgments can now be an immediate, direct, adversarial, or indirect, indirect, contrary according to the terms. It is contradictory when, in the judgment done a nothing more than the negation of what was set in different verdict; contrary, however, if by setting something in a judgment (ie, not by mere denial) what the other judgment was set, is repealed. Q. What are examples of this? A. Unanimous verdicts are: The man who loves life, Man is mortal. Directly opposite: Man is mortal; Man is not mortal. Contrarian: This house is completely of stone; This home is completely out of wood. - Directly opposite judgments are only two possible each time, and one of them must be true, if not each already contains a contradiction in itself. For example, would the judgments, the quadrangular soul is mortal, the square soul is not mortal, neither of them true, since the concept of a square soul is conflicting itself, contradictory judgments can think of more than two without one of them necessarily true ought to be. Q. What are subkontrre judgments? A. Such, one of which is particularly affirms what the other very negative (ie, I and O); eg Some animals are carnivorous, some animals are not carnivorous, or Most animals have feet, some animals have no feet. It is easily seen that subkontrre judgments both may be true. Q. What is meant by inversion ( conversio ) of the sentences? A. A set is called Reverse: Making the predicate in the subject and the subject to the predicate. This reversal may now be in three ways, place 1)simpliciter (pure or unchanged), if quantity and quality to be reversed judgment be left unchanged; 2) peraccidens if the quantity of the judgment, and 3) by contra positions, if the quality of the judgment changed will. The judgment with which the change is carried out, is in the first two cases, the reverse or conversum , in the which is converted to the inverting or convertens . At the contra position is the first judgment, the contraponierte, the other is contraponierende. F. ? What are examples of this A. Rein are reversed: No animal is reasonable, no reasonable person is an animal; lucky few are virtuous, some virtuous are happy. (Generally speaking: No A is B, no B is A. Some A are B, some B are A.) Per accidens are reversed: All plants are organic beings, and some organic beings, plants, all cats are carnivores, some predators are cats. (General: All A is B, some B is A.) By contraposition are reversed: All men are mortal, no man is an immortal, all animals are alive, no non-living thing is a beast. (General: All A is B, no non-B is A.) Chapter Eleven Of the hypothetical and disjunctive judgments Q. What is a hypothetical judgment (inferential judgment)? A. The matter of the

hypothetical judgment consists of two categorical judgments, but the shape and the same essence but the fact that these two categorical judgments are related to each other as cause and effect. Examples of hypothetical judgments are: If the planets move around the sun, their calm is only apparent, furthermore, if the man has reason, he also will. In both examples, the first categorical judgment contains the reason why the other is set, the latter is therefore to be regarded as a consequence of the first. Q. What distinguishes the hypothetical judgments? A. The antecedent (antecedent, condition, hypothesis, ratio, conditio, membrum prius see antecedens ), which makes the thought of as a basic judgment, and the consequent (the hindlimb, Conditional, thesis, rationatum, membrum posterior consequens s ) containing the inference from the antecedent. In the judgment thus: If man is virtuous, so he has a good conscience is the first sentence of the first clause, the second of the postscript. One can, however, also make the postscript to the first, eg The man has a good conscience, if he is virtuous, which alters only the form of the sentence (the judgment expressed in words), but not the judgment itself. The particles, if so, which are used to describe the shape of the hypothetical judgment 1) are particulae consecutivae called.
1)

You do not believe the word, if so, whether the form itself, they serve only to indicate the same.

Q. What else is around to notice even of the hypothetical judgments? A. On the nature of categorical judgments that make up the fabric of the hypothetical, whether sold singly, generally, affirmative or negative, etc., are, in the logical view of the hypothetical judgments are not taken into consideration, for the logic considered so merely the form of judgments, which consists in the hypothetical in the peculiar logic operation of the two categorical judgments, and all is the same, even if the categorical judgments would have to be ever so different, it is enough out to make a hypothetical judgment that they are related to each other as cause and effect, and this ratio should be only just explained. - If the hypothetical judgment of more than two judgments, it is a composite, eg, if the virtuous man always happy and the wicked would still unhappy, so there would be no merit to practice virtue and avoid vice. Q. What is the essence of a disjunctive judgment (opposition of judgment)? A. If you determined that several present opposite characteristics of one to the exclusion of the other is to be based on a term without specifying however that, as one falls a disjunctive judgment . Examples disjunctive judgments are: The pleasure is either a permitted or that are not allowed; This man is either a German or an Englishman or a Frenchman.Here I have indeed determined only so much that of the opposite characteristics, German, English, French (they are opposite or indirectly contrary) one should come unto men, but which, at the same time is indicated by the statement that if a feature is actually included in the term, then the rest are excluded, that I not men, if I really think it to me as an Englishman, even at the same time to think of as French, which by virtue of any case the nature of the conflicting terms would not be possible. Q. What is further to be noted by the disjunctive judgments regarding their matter

and form? A. The matter of disjunctive judgments actually consists of several opposite categorical judgments. The therein opposite predicates called separation members ( membra disjuncta so) like top German, English, French are. The one ratio of the separation elements, one by which it must be the true characteristic of the assessed object, constitutes the form of the disjunctive judgment and is determined by the particles either, or ( particulae disjunctivae same, or called) also probably only by one. The separation members may be located directly opposite, as permitted above, and not allowed, or indirectly, such as German, French, English, in the first case there are only two members of separation, in the past there may be several. Q. What can be in terms of the modality of the hypothetical and disjunctive judgments remember? A. Your parts taken separately are problematic, but considered as a whole according to their shape, they are apodictic, ie they are set as necessary. In the hypothetical judgments, neither the antecedent is in fact thought to be necessary for even the hindlimb, but probably the combination of the two as cause and effect. So you think in the disjunctive judgments not each of the individual opposite categorical judgment, of which it consists, as necessarily true, and the whole sentence is but a necessary set because this only determines precisely that of several present possible features one of the object had come. Chapter Twelve Of the differences between the judgments and sentences in terms of content 2)
2)

Although the logic of the content or does it actually matter and the origin of the sentences in the mind off, but it will not be inappropriate to discuss in this connection a lot about it, how it is done in most textbooks of logic.

Q. How is analytic and synthetic judgments differ? A. Analytic judgments are those where, refers a feature that you thought contained in the term of the subject to this as a predicate. The others are called synthetic. For example: the food intended for the conservation of creatures is an analytic proposition, because the term food I ever think to myself with a feature that creatures thereby be obtained. In contrast, the sentence would be: The foods are tasty, synthetic, because the characteristic of taste is not yet in terms of food. Thus, the sentence would be: The light is shining, an analytical, because I was already thinking in terms light to shine as a feature with me included, however: the light is fast, is apparently a synthetic proposition, because as the concept of speed would have in the light. - In analytic sets so you take out a feature of the concept of the subject itself and connects it afterwards as a predicate so that, in synthetic one takes it fro somewhere else. - Tautalogisch is an analytic proposition, when the subject is connected to itself as a predicate, for example, bread is bread, a living creature lives. - It is easy to see that our knowledge can actually by forming analytic judgments can not be extended, since they testify only to what we know already, but may by the same our attention more executed passes to individual features of a term and thus the clarity of thought be promoted. We can really increase the scope of our knowledge merely by forming synthetic judgments. Q. How theoretical and practical sets differ? A. Those are some of the makeshift

of knowledge; these that say something to the expedient of action. Q. What are indemonstrable and demonstrable records? A. The first are immediately certain, ie, those not derived from other propositions whose truth (demonstrated) can be, but is clearly for themselves. The others are indirectly certain, ie, those whose truth can be derived from other sentences and must. Q. What is a principle? A. principle, axiom or principle is a certain theoretical immediately set which can therefore be derived from any other, but even used to derive other sentences from it. Thus, the above-mentioned laws of thought, of the opposition, the consistent principles of equality, etc.. Examples of principles of mathematics are that two straight lines do not include a space, adding that like attracts like, are the same. Q. What is a postulate? A. postulate or requirement set is a practical set, which indicates that something should be brought forth, and as it certainly immediately implies that there could also be produced. These postulates are: to draw between two points is a straight line, to extend a straight line indefinitely. Namely nobody can prove that it was actually possible (if that is not evidence of the experience is mentioned), but why is not it say that in this somewhat incongruous sentences is required, since each of the immediate certainty of the feasibility of the Demanded is convinced. - From these postulates in the ordinary sense to distinguish the so-called postulates of practical reason, which do not demand to do something, but rather, something that can not be proven, to believe without proof to the moral interest will, as the existence of God and the human freedom. Q. What is a theorem or theorem and a task or problem? A. The former is a theoretical proposition whose truth must be derived only from the other, the latter a practical set of rules governing the execution of an action, which proved to be of only that they could be executed. An example of a theorem is, that the angles in each triangle together two straight right make up, because it must be proved only from other mathematical theorems, an example of a task is: An equilateral triangle recorded. A problem is 1) Qustion. ie, a sentence which indicates what is to be executed, 2) the resolution that the manner of execution displays, and 3) the demonstration, which is derived from other propositions that the Required'm really produced by the method specified in the resolution . - The theorem merely the thesis and demonstration latter proof are essential, the former of which contains the to be proved sentence itself - To make it so again hollow short, an axiom is just some theoretical, a postulate a direct certain practical set; a theorem a certain indirect or evidence capable and needy theoretical, a practical problem like a record. - It should be noted that this and the following foreign expressions Corolarium, Lemma Scholion are often used especially in mathematics. Q. What is an additive or Corolarium, also well known Porisma or Consektarium? A. A sentence that can be easily viewed directly from what went before in the lecture, and therefore needs no detailed evidence. So you can be the proposition that in any rectilinear triangle the three angles together make two rights, recognized as Scholion, that when held angles in a triangle is a right or an obtuse

(greater than a right), the other two angles, each must be acute (less than a right). Q. What is a Lehnsatz (not dogma) or Lemma? A. A sentence that took over in the presentation of a science from alternative science, and because its truth has already been established there is no proof of the new. Q. What is a Scholion or a note? A. A set of non-essential part of the presentation in the context of a science, but is only activated in a side intent, mostly to what is offered, to explain more. Q. What is an empirical judgment? A. Such whose truth is based on evidence from the experience, but not from other judgments. Chapter Thirteen Of the circuits in general and in particular the categorical Q. What is a conclusion ( ratiocinium, syllogism )? A. The truth of a still uncertain as imaginary as the judgment of a certain imaginary dissipation. Q. What is different in the finals? A. matter and form. Matter or substance to make the judgments, which make up the conclusion, however, the form of the syllogism consists precisely in the peculiar logic operation of judgments in virtue of which the judgment as a fundamental truth of the other is set. This form is part of the word therefore ( ergo indicated). Q. What is different in the matter of the conclusions? A. Those sentences which contain the reason for the to be derived, the Skilled advance, the antecedents or premises (be, because they are in front of regular circuits, propositiones praemissae but the sentence;) called containing the Derived, the final sentence or Conklusion ( conclusio, conclusum ). For example, in the conclusion: All poor people are unhappy, Nero was a bad person, so Nero was unhappy, the first two sentences are the premises or antecedents, the latter the Conklusion or the final sentence. Q. What is the difference between the inner and outer shape of the conclusions A. The inner shape refers to the link type of the judgments in circuits, as it is conceived in the mind, but on the outside the diversities in terms of their expression by sets . Q. How does one distinguish the conclusions of its internal form? A. Depending on the first premise (the major premise) is a categorical, hypothetical, or disjunctive judgment into categorical, hypothetical and disjunctive. Q. What are examples of this? A. A categorical conclusion is: All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal. Thought to the following catfish: If Socrates is a man, he is mortal, then Socrates is a man, so he is mortal, it would be a hypothetical conclusion, and disjunctive he would be if he'd thought so: either Socrates is mortal or he is not a man, Socrates is a man now, so he is mortal. Q. What part of a complete categorical conclusion A. First of three main sets ( propositiones ), the first of the antecedent or the rule ( . prop major ) is called (in the above example: All men are mortal), and the other of the base, the assumtion or

subsumption ( . prop minor ) (Socrates is a man), the third of the final movement ( conclutio ) (ie Caius is mortal). In these three main sets now have three main concepts ( terminated ) be included, namely two terms whose mutual relationship is determined in the final movement, one of which the subject or the minor term ( terminus minor ), and the other the predicate or the generic term ( terminus major ) is called. For this purpose, there is the middle term ( terminus medius ). Each main term comes in a complete categorical conclusion twice before, the generic term (mortal) in the major and final sentence both times as a predicate of the minor term (Caius) in the minor and final sentence both times as a subject, and the middle term (man) in the major and the minor, there as a subject, as a predicate here. The name of the preamble and sub-concept stem from the fact because the generic term usually the higher, the lower term is lower, and in the close up the subordination of the lower term to be derived under the generic term, through the mediation of the middle term, from the major premise. F. ? By what scheme can express the position of the main concepts in a clean and complete categorical conclusion A. The generic term or the subject name is S, the middle term M, the minor term or the predicate P, so they come in the following ways are to: M=P S=M S = P. Q. On which usually rests the validity of the categorical conclusions? A. On the following: What the characteristic of a thing belongs or contradicts that comes to or contradicts the thing itself, or, what amounts to the same thing that a whole class plays or contradicts which also contradicts all species and individuals of the same, the generic and specific concepts are namely, as was evident from the teachings of the terms above mentioned, the general nature of all the things that are under them. So comes the conclusion above, the predicate mortal the feature of Caius, man, to, consequently also the Caius himself, or, in other words, the characteristic mortal, so also the Caius who comes to the whole class of people, a individual of this species is. The truth of this rule can be derived from the principle of continuous equality. Latin one has expressed it this way: notae nota est nota rei ipsius, or quicquid de omni valet, valet etiam de quibusdam et singulis Quidquid et de nullo valet de quibusdam nec nec de singulis valet ( called the dictum de omni et nullo ), or quicquid valet de genere, valet etiam de specie quicquid repugnat generic, repugnat etiam speciei. Q. What are the essential rule is to observe the major premise in categorical conclusions? A. It must be general. (Individual judgments are valid for the general conclusions; limitative of the affirmative equal). For if the preamble is not based on the whole circumference of the middle term does not apply without exception to him, so he can not be obtained with certainty on the subject, which is set as contained in the circumference of the middle term. For example, would the conclusion: Some

scholars are poor, Leibniz was a scholar, that Leibniz was poor, wrong, because the preamble is poor, not here on the entire circumference of the middle term scholar, but only to a part related the same as the word some displays, but now it is possible that the negative term Leibniz, is not just contained in this part, the poverty is referenced as a feature; therefore I get through this conclusion no perfect certainty that Leibniz was really poor. I could however say that all scholars are poor, Leibniz was a scholar, so would it follow with irrefutable certainty that Leibniz was also poor, because here is the poverty on the entire circumference of the middle term scholar, under which one thinks Leibniz as contained related, and so would have according to the said laws, that what the characteristics of a thing belongs, even the things themselves must come, Leibniz explains necessary for poor. Q. What must be designed the pedestal in categorical conclusions? A. The base does not negating sentence should be, but rather the subordination of the lower term must in him be really included among the middle term, so that the middle terms plays, then testified also by the sub-term could. From the premises: All men are mortal, the cat is not human; would so much than nothing infer, because if I state the mortality in the major of the people, but then in the minor the cat is not in the scope of the term human female, rather excludes it, so then has what is predicated of the people, no relation to the cat, and this may be mortal or not, nothing can be concluded from the above assumptions. It appears easy to see that the inability to infer anything from such premises; remains the same, one may take human, mortal, cat, accept terms that you want. Q. What rule applies from the end of the sentence categorical conclusions? A. It depends in terms of its quality by the major premise and in terms of its quantity after the minor. For example, if I have the premises: No animal has reason, all cats are animals, so now I have to put the final sentence negative and universal, and because the major premise is negative (in terms of quality), and the lower set is (in terms of quantity) universal . I will therefore express the final sentence: So no cat has brains. (No that is suppressed in a word from a general denial). Although I could also conclude from the premises: So some cats do not mind, where is the final sentence would be particularistic, but concluded in this way seems to be little; downright wrong but would be the final sentence, if I wanted to put him in the affirmative: So have all cats mind. Q. What is said of the basic concepts in categorical conclusions? A. It should be held to their not more than three, and the Mitbegriff must therefore be taken in the major, in the same sense as in the minor, otherwise one has actually four basic terms, when the same two are designated by the same word. In such a case, the predicate is based on a different feature in the major, as that's what the subject is subordinated in the minor, therefore the predicate of the major premise does not take on the subject in the concluding sentence to be carried necessary because this in no way has been brought to its sphere. A conclusion to which this rule is not observed, it is called sophism ambiguitatis see amphiboliae , and he can often come out very ridiculous and absurd, as the following examples show: What is lazy, smelly, Caius is lazy, so Caius stinks. The rose is a disease, this flower is a rose, so this flower is a

disease. Who is naughty, must obtain a reference, this spring is naughty, so this spring must obtain a reference. - Apparently, the first example of the middle term lazy in the major where he means so much as a decaying, taken in a very different sense than in the minor, where it is as much as a languid, therefore Caius in the minor is not in the scope of the been brought lazy one of which is a characteristic of the stink, and this can not therefore be related to the Caius in the final movement. Q. In what manner the ancients sought to inculcate the forms of memory, which can have a categorical conclusion on the quantity and quality of the assessments contained in it, if he really is in accordance with the laws of reason? A. They formed the following words, which the vowels have the meaning given in the judgments, namely that A is a generally affirmative, E expresses a generally negative one sentence, I am a very affirmative, O a particularly negative one. Barbara (all bodies are heavy, all stones are bodies, all the stones are so heavy.) CElArCnt (No animal has language, all the monkeys are animals, so no monkey language.) Darius (Everything organic is malnourished, stuff on earth organically, that stuff is fed on the ground.) Ferio (No plant moves with arbitrariness, some plants are organic beings, so some organic beings do not move with arbitrariness.) The first vowel in every word expresses all the characteristics of the first premise, the second that of the other, and the third that of the final movement, the word barbara therefore indicates that in a categorical conclusion premise, base and final sentence can be general and affirming at the same time and the word Celarent that premise and final set of generally negative, but which it can be generally affirmative pedestal, etc. - Each categorical conclusion can not be brought to one of these four forms, according to the laws of logic, or formally wrong, though perhaps what is included in the final sentence; would happen true. If I would exclude eg: all organic beings are nourished, no stone is an organic entity, so no stone is nourished, so it would be randomly true that the stone is not nourished, but it was followed by no means out of the antecedents, and the conclusion would Thus, while material truth, but no formal (SD of the difference of the substantive and formal truth Introduction), he would be logically wrong. Namely, in this conclusion, two errors committed, first, that the minor premise is negative, and secondly, that the conclusion does not depend in its quality to the major premise and the consequence of the vowels would be in this conclusion such: AEE, as in any of the listed words takes place, and if you wanted to make different conclusions after such a form, the falsehood would easily jump into your eyes, as all men are mortal, and no animal is a human, so no animal is mortal. No one here is against the material truth of the premisses have something to object, so it must be in the form of the conclusion that the final sentence derived from them is still wrong. Chapter Fourteen Of the hypothetical and disjunctive conclusions

Q. What does a hypothetical conclusion? A. Also three main sets, the upper set, base and final set hot, the first of which is a hypothetical judgment. The main terms but or terminated more than three can be held in it. Q. What is the basic rule for the hypothetical conclusions? A. If the condition or the reason is set as well as the related or the result is set, and if the conditioned or the sequence is canceled, it is also the condition or the reason repealed. Latin as: A Veritate rationis ad veritatem nati ratio, a ratio falsitate nati ad falsitatem rationis valet consequentia . - The validity of this rule is based on the principle of sufficient reason, in virtue of which a necessary connection between cause and effect takes place. Q. What types of hypothetical conclusions are there? A. Two species; an affirmative ( modas ponens ) and a negative ( modus tollens ). After the first type you close to the truth of the front element in the major on the hind limb eg: If Socrates is a man, he is mortal, then Socrates is a man, so he is mortal, after another one closes of the falsity of the hind limb to the falsehood of the front element eg: If Caius would be a supreme being, he would be immortal, Socrates is not immortal now, so it's not a higher being. These two ways to close hypothetically, suggest themselves from the basic rule given for the hypothetical conclusions. F. Can not connect either of the falsity of the front element in the hypothetical major premise on which the hind limb, and the truth of the hind limb on the front gate? A. No, because it can be from something true indeed nothing wrong, but probably from something wrong sometimes some truth to be concluded; which is not true then because of the alleged wrong reason, but some may have a real reason otherwise. For example, if following the hypothetical premise of an inference would be: If all the plants have white flowers, as well as the lily has white flowers, so the front element would be wrong, because there are also plants other than white flowers, however, but a true hindlimb would be inferred and since the lily really wears white flowers. I wanted to now infer from the falsity of the front element to that of the hind limb in this way: Now, not all plants white flowers, including the lily has no white flowers, the conclusion, as you can easily see would be wrong, and also wrong, I would conclude that if I wanted to derive the truth of the front of the hind limb from limb in this way: Now, the lily has white flowers, including all plants have white flowers. Q. What is a disjunctive conclusion? A. Also from a major premise, minor premise and conclusion sentence, the first of which is a disjunctive judgment. Again, can occur more than three main concepts. Q. On which usually rests the validity of disjunctive inferences? A. In the following, that when the separation of elements in a disjunctive judgment one is set as true, then the other, should be repealed as wrong, and that if one of the members of separation is set as false, then one of the other, (ie, where to find only two members instead of separation, the other) must be set to true. Latin: . A positione unius contradictorie oppositorum ad negationem alterius, a negatione unius ad positionem alterius valet consequentia (This Latin rule may seem merely to be considered by

such disjunctive circuits where only only two directly opposed separation members take place but it is also far generally because of several indirectly opposite separation members of one are the direct opposite must the rest be taken together, as would be the separation of limbs white, red, black, as are red and black not white, white and red not black,. black and white not red) Q. What types disjunctive conclusions are there? A. A mode tollendo ponens , where closed by negation one or more separation members on indefinite affirmation of the other division members, and a mode ponendo tollens , where by the particular affirmation of one or the indefinite affirmation of several members of separation is all the other closed on certain negation. An example of the first disjunctive of conclusion is the following: This man is either a scholar or an artisan, or a soldier, and now he is not a scholar, so he is a craftsman or soldier, or even but now he is not a scholar nor craftsmen, so he was a soldier. An example of the second of conclusion is that the Earth moves around the sun either, or the sun around the earth, or they both stand still, and now the earth moves around the sun or she stands still, so the sun does not move to the earth, or, now, the earth moves around the sun, so the sun does not move around the earth, even they both are silent. Q. What is a dilemma or horned circuit ( cornutus )? A. An example of such is the following: If the writings of the Greeks were bad, they would have either gone down or you reading now would be neglected, and now they are but not perished, and their reading is now not neglected, so they are not bad. Here is the premise a compound of a hypothetical judgment with a disjunctive, by the latter constitutes the rear section of the hypothetical judgment; also the falsity of all isolation elements contained in the major premise is the subset asserted, and finally in from the falsity of the separation of members of the hind limb of the falsity of the front limb hypothetical major premise closed. In these pieces is just the essence of the dilemma. It is a hypothetical conclusion, the major premise contains a disjunctive hindlimb and to the modus tollens closes. - Are the separation of more than two members, so such a conclusion is a vielgehrnter or Polylemma. Chapter Fifteen Of the abbreviated conclusions Q. How do you divide the conclusions with regard to their external form? A. In formal and non-formal. Those are full and at the same time proper conclusions, like were all the examples given so far, this part incomplete, abbreviated or hidden ( crypticae ) when something in them, actually, in conclusion belonging missing; sometimes extraordinary, perverse, figured conclusions or final figures, if deviates the position of their sentences or main terms in any respect from the natural train of thought. Q. What types of closing is expected to be the incomplete and abbreviated? A. subheading zufrderst those where the final sentence of the reason its validity is attached only briefly as an example of virtue One must befleiigen because it brings us closer to the purpose of our lives. Here, since the final sentence on the front is so

such conclusions are also wrong. Also be expected here called Enthymemata, ie circuits where a premise is omitted, and the distinction Enthymemen in the first or second order, depending on whether the first or the second premise is missing. - An example of a Enthymema the first order is: Socrates is a man, so he is mortal, one of one of the second order: All men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal. To make these conclusions completely, you would have to implement in the first case, all men are mortal, in the second: Socrates is a man. Such Enthymemen are allowed sake of brevity of speech, once can assume, namely, that the reader or the listener the omitted premise can be thought of as even understanding it. Q. What is meant by immediate or otherwise circuits mind? A. A distinction was formerly and probably still now partly indirect inferences or syllogisms, like all that were previously mentioned, and immediate conclusions or inferences mind. The name of the latter was one such, of which they thought that they could be derived without mediating judgment merely from a premise, and that they needed even just a premise, because the requirement that the transformation by means of the activity of the mind of the final sentence to bring out follow quite could. One must expect to Enthymemen the first order this kind of conclusions, however, because all of them can be omitted think a hypothetical premise, as you will easily notice the same in the different now leading to species. Q. What kinds of immediate inferences are there? A. 1) Equality conclusions ( ratiocinia pariationis see aequipollentiae ) 2) subordination conclusions ( rat. subordinationis ) 3) opposition circuits (rat. oppositionis ) 4) reversal circuits ( rat. conversionis ) 5) Modalittsschlsse ( rat. modalitatis ).

Q. What are equality conclusions? A. Such where the truth or falsity of a sentence from another, it is concluded that the words is different from that just after. Such conclusions are the following equality: all things are changeable, so they do not always remain in the same state; This man has stolen something, so he is a thief. Q. What are subordination conclusions? A. Such where you from the truth of a general proposition that a particular derived, which is subordinate to that,., or from the falsehood of a special rate, the falsity of the general, who is the special superior Examples of this are: All bodies are heavy, so some bodies are heavy, some people are not taught, that all men are not taught. The validity of conclusion of this is based on the previously stated principle that what belongs to a whole sphere, must come to all parts of the sphere, and therefore, if not all parts of the sphere plays, even the whole sphere can not come. Latin: . A Veritate universalis propositionis ad veritatem particularis, a falsitate particularis ad falsitatem universalis valet consequentia well is to be noted, that is not the reverse of the falsity of a general theorem on the falsity of the under him special, or of the truth of the particular set could infer the truth of his superior general.

Q. What are opposition conclusions? A. Such where we deduce the truth or falsity of a sentence from another opposed to it. They are either contradiction or conclusions Kontrarittsschlsse; depending on the opposition held directly or indirectly. For those of you close to the truth of a sentence to the falsity of the other, or vice versa, according to the law of the exclusion of third parties; such as: the virtuous are happy, they are not unhappy. In Kontrarittsschlssen can conclude only from the truth of a sentence to the falsity of the other, but not vice versa, since both may be wrong. I may include, for example: This table is of wood, so it's not of stone, but not so: This table is not of stone, so he is of wood, because he can still be of much more. Q. What are reversing conclusions? A. Those where the same concludes with a judgment by merely reversing something that can happen after the earlier Specified in three ways : simpliciter, per accidens and per contrapositionem . The cases where rules for the reversal can specify have the old scholastics, though not quite complete, as expressed by the following little poem: I f e c simpliciter convertitur, E v A per accidens , A st 0 per contra, sic fit conversio tota . That is, from E and I can be closed by pure inversion; from E and A per accidens , from A and 0 by contrapositionem . Q. What are Modalittsschlsse? A. Such where one derives the truth of a judgment of a lower modality judgments of higher modality. This one has nothing more to do than that you make a apodictic sentence to a assertive, assertive or a problem. For example, the man must die sometime, so the person dies sometime, or: Man dies sometime, so the person can die any time. Conversely, one can not derive from a judgment of low modality one of higher, ie an assertoric judgment of a problem or an apodictic from an assertive, hence the Latin rule: From esse ad posse valet consequentia, a posso ad esse non valet consequentia . Chapter Sixteen Of the figured conclusions Q. What is figured circuits (Final figures extraordinary, wrong conclusions). A. Actually such conclusions, in which the natural order of thought appropriate allowance rates or terms, without, however, do the logical truth of the conclusion itself demolition changed 's. Commonly is expected, however, still the ordinary final shape as a final figure. - Should be noted, incidentally, that the final figures will be limited merely to the premises of categorical conclusions, as these are subject to the most changes. A. In what ways changes can be made that may cause actual final figures? A. Either you put only the premises, without changing the position of the main concepts contained in them, or you just put the main terms, without the position of the premises to change itself, or you will make the transfer, both in respect of the

premises as the main terms. The first is displacement type (after pitcher) the conclusion thetic figure, the second is the antithetical figures, and the third the synthetic. Otherwise we usually reckoned merely the ordinary form of the conclusion and the three antithetical figures that arise from mere displacement of the main concepts, and let the rest of the night. Q. How much closing figures there are, and how they can be vivid and generally represent? A. If we calculate the proper circuit configuration with the characters, so there are eight of its 1) the ordinary, 2) the thetic, 3) three antithetical, 4) three synthetic. , the scheme whereby they can be represented is this: Where M the middle term, P is the predicate or the generic term, S is the subject or the sub-term. Ordinary Synthetic thetic antithetical form of inference figure Figures 12345678 MP PM MP SM AM SM MS MS MS MS SM SM SP MP PM PM SP The reduction of any such final figure ( reductio syllogismi figurative ) occurs in that one, proper place instructing him his every sentence and terms of the ordinary final shape again. This can be done with the synthetic and antithetic only by reversing the sentences, although not always pure or simpliciter , but often also per accidens or by contrapositionem must be made; however, what can be no general rules, as it often on the mind it sets itself arrives, apart from the logic. In most cases, this will be able to derive this from the inversion circuits indicated give away. F. ? What are examples of the final figures A. To 1) final shape of the ordinary: All organic beings are mortal, all men are organic beings, that all men are mortal. To 2) of the prosthetic body: All human beings are organic beings, all organic beings are mortal, that all men are mortal. To 3), the first figure antithetical: No Immortal is an organic beings, all human beings are organic, so no man is immortal. To 4) all organic beings are mortal, no unorganized 3) is a human being, that all men are mortal. To 5) No Immortal is an organic being, no unorganized is a human being, that no man is immortal. To 6), the first synthetic character: All human beings are organic beings, no Immortal is an organic being, that no man is immortal. To 7) No unorganized is a human being, all organic beings are mortal, that all men are mortal. To 8) No unorganized is a human being, not an organic being is immortal, so no man is immortal. - All these final figures of 2) to 8) do have perfect logic circuit force, but to apply for a proper conclusion; each must be attributed to 1).
3)

The base here is not negative, for two negations affirm.

Chapter Seventeen Of the composite circuits Q. How one distinguishes simple and compound circuits A. A simple circuit ( monosyllogismus ) is one which consists of only a single conclusion, a composite

circuit or a circuit range ( polysyllogismus, series syllogistica ), where several conclusions as causes and consequences communicate with each other, in such a way that the conclusion of the one who is always used as a general set of the other. For example 1) All men are mortal, all Europeans are people, so all Europeans are mortal. 2) All Europeans are mortal, all Europeans are German, so German are all mortal; 3) All German are mortal, Socrates is a German, therefore Socrates is mortal. Q. What is Vorschlu and Nachschlu? A. Vorschlu ( prosyllogismus ) is always the one end, the final sentence is made the premise of another circuit, and this is then Nachschlu ( episyllogismus ). Thus, for example, above 1) Vorschlu of 2) and 2) the Nachschlu 1) further comprises 2) Vorschlu of 3) and 3) Nachschlu of 2). The Vorschlu must contain all of the basic Nachschlusses. Q. What is meant by progressive and regressive final series? A. A progressive or progressive (prosyllogistische) Final series is one where you lift the Vorschlusse and proceeds to the Nachschlusse, of which the above conclusion series are an example, a regressive or retrograde ( episyllogistische) series, however, is one where you lift of the Nachschlusse, and rises to Verschlusse. One need only reverse the above series, so that the conclusions after the order of 3), 2) 1) follow, we have an example of a regressive series. Q. What is meant by a Epicherem? A. a conclusion where one or both of the basic premises of their validity is attached only briefly to make it without a peculiar conclusion. For example, the Europeans are mortal, because all Europeans are mortal, and now all Germans are Europeans, so all German are mortal. Q. What is meant by a chain losing or sorites? A. A chain of syllogisms ( sorites, syllogism concatenatus, syllogism acervatus included) arises when several enthymematisch abbreviated circuits are connected to each other that their antecedents in immediate succession, and a common final sentence . example, Socrates is a German, who is a man who is also an organic being;, who is an organic being, is mortal, so is who is a German, is also a European, who is a European, a man is . Caius mortal This is an example of an ordinary or common chain circuit, which can be represented by the following scheme: Of A is B -B-C -C-D -E-E - E - F.

_____________________________

So true of F. A

Here you go namely the subject of the conclusion (mortal, A) as a concept, and linked to the same gradually verschiedne predicates (B, C, D, E, F) as a means of concepts by getting one refers to the other, until you get to that predicates, which should be linked as a general term with the subjects (mortal with German, A to F). Returns one of the premises of this order around so that the conclusion of the permanent same that the result is a reverse or goklenianischer chain of syllogisms, which has the following schema:

E F is -D-E -C-D -B-C - A - B _____________________________

So A is F.

For example, all organic beings (E) are mortal (F) All people (D) are organic beings (e) All Europeans (C) People (D), all German, (B) Europeans (C), Caius ( A) is a German (B). Caius So (A) is mortal (F). Are you losing the chain this form: If A, then B - B --- C - C --- D - D --- D - F --- e _____________________________ Now A, so also F (according to the modus ponens ) or: Now F is not A not so well (according to the modus tollens ). This creates a chain of hypothetical conclusion from it. This results in the way of saying that nothing is changed in the essential form of the sorites, if you give them more or fewer members than there are here in the schemes. Chapter Eighteen Miscarriages and fallacies Q. What difference it makes between the falsity of conclusions? A. First of distinction is material and formal falsity of conclusions. The first is the substance that is the last form of the same. If I would exclude eg: All animals are reasonable, the dog is an animal, so the dog is reasonable, then the conclusion would be material wrong, because what is stated in the major premise and conclusion sentence, does not take place in reality; formally, however, would be the conclusion is true and correct for it are all observed the previously stated rules of inference. The premise is generally, and the subset affirmative, the final sentence depends on its quality after the major premise and its quantity on the base and there are only three main concepts therein; these have their proper place, in a word, it is a decent, complete , categorical conclusion on its shape and not the least is to be suspended. I would exclude the other hand, as follows: All animals are unreasonable, the man is not an animal, so the man is not unreasonable, this conclusion would be true material, but formally wrong. There is, however, in reality instead, that the animals are unreasonable, nor that man is not an animal, and that it is not unreasonable, therefore, what the contents of each set: that is, the matter of the conclusion is concerned, no objection, however

is the form of the conclusion incorrect in the base is negative, and the final sentence is not directed in its quality to the major premise. - It can be understood easily that there may be circuits where both types of falsehood are united. Q. What is the difference between you making a false conclusion or paralogism and a fallacy or sophism ( captio, fallacia, cavillatio )? A. The former is a conclusion which is, unconsciously forms incorrectly, the latter a conclusion that one to others deceive, set up incorrectly. The different kinds of wrong conclusions have received from the Old verschiedne, now little more common names. Pure logical methodology Chapter Nineteen Of science, system and method Q. What is science? A. Science is a variety of findings that after a certain principle (first principle) are ordered, and thus constitute a concordant forming a unity whole, or even: Since such an order otherwise than by strict can emerge observation of the rules of logic or intellect. Science is a variety of insights that make one, according to logical rules connected whole. One must distinguish this form and substance to every science. The fabric is just the multiplicity of gegebnen to science knowledge that as long as she is still raw, disordered, unconnected, an aggregate is called, the form, however, is the regular concordant for unit connection, these findings are put into. Q. What is system? A. System shall mean any form at all, which is replaced by a multiplicity of parts that it is ordered by a certain principle. The form of science is therefore systematically, and you can even call it science knowledge, a systematic whole. Often also called probably the science itself (ie, matter and form together) system, and carries the name yourself or other objects on which have a systematic form. - A unit of knowledge can only be down to a science, that it is brought into systematic form. - Put it knew someone the rules of thinking in general, and in particular in terms of concepts, judgments and conclusions, he would thereby the substance to logic. Let us now suppose once it if someone wrote a book about the substance, but so that it all together mingled, perhaps by the thought set in terms of concepts, then by the general laws of thought, then again by the terms and between all without order soon dealt with the conclusions of the judgments soon, he would have brought in this book is a unit of knowledge, but by no means a science. Would now but another, and ordered these findings so that he only of the laws of thought in general, acted then for each type of thinking, that he that which belonged to the concepts, judgments and conclusions, each together and also here in abhandelte good order, so this unit would have brought to the knowledge that he had given her a systematic form, they made to science. Q. What do you call the process by which a raw material or a knowledge unit is given a systematic form? A. method, namely to what extent method means any regular type of procedure.

Q. What kinds of method, one according to which findings can be linked to a scientific whole different? A. The analytical (also resolution, inventing, heuristic, retrograde, regressive called) and the synthetic (composing, scientific, scientifische forward border, progressive ). Q. In what way, the procedure for the analytical method? A. It starts from several individual and well-known truths. After you have probably seen this, comparing them with each other, looking at them on the same, and so is by compilation of the same general truths. Several such general truths are compared again, still looking to draw more general truths from them, and continues in the same way continues on and on, until we finally arrived at such general truths, which have been subordinated to all present aggregate of certain findings. So you go away at the analytical method from the particular to the general, and how the particular can be considered always as the general conditions, it is of the conditional or reasoned to the conditions and reasons. F. How to proceed with the synthetic method, and how does the same to the analytical? A. The synthetic method is proposing just the opposite way of the analytic. This only searches the general and supreme principles or principles of a science of the particular to, the synthetic method of principles on the other hand, raises and manages the special from it. It is either universal truths advance, or uses the one found by the analytical method, and presents them in their application to particular cases dar. Are these particular cases still universal truths, it shows once again the special on what it is results until they finally subordinated to the whole mass of the first principles of knowledge. - The analytical method has been the inventing called because the human mind is always followed her with the prospect of general truths, the synthetic contrast, it has also assigned the name of scientific or scientifischen because after her fittest and coherently a teaching building completely can be represented, only one must not forget that it is most often comes to the principles by which you make at the beginning of such a synthetic representation only analytically. - This book is, as far as it allows the investiture of it's contents written by the synthetic method. There are only given in the general laws of thought, and then shown their particular application to concepts, judgments and conclusions, and been sent ahead the particular even with these individual sections always the more general. If I hand moved so that I only individual terms would have compared to it deduct the laws of thought for terms generally found as well as by comparison of individual judgment and final species only the laws of judgments and conclusions in general, by then comparison of the laws of thought in conceptions, judgments, and conclusions found in the laws of thought quite generally, and only as principles they would now be displayed apart, so I would proceed analytically. - In strictly scientific lectures always uses the synthetic method because it teaches see most clearly from each other in their mutual dependence the context of the findings, in teaching lectures and in textbooks but is it also frequently used analytical method where they excellent at their place is because it exercises the mind, seek universal truths themselves. - The main rules of the synthetic method is that it records not arbitrarily adopted lays down as the top principles of the truth you have no rational conviction, and that then the

whole science follow rather infers from the once established principles (with consistency). This one is not in a position, it is a sign that the principles if not wrong, but stand on shaky basis, and require a more careful examination before one continues in the synthetic structure of science. Q. What is mainly requires the methodical presentation of a science? A. It is the content, scope and context of the findings must be given to their duly conscious of the first done by explanations, the second the result of divisions, the third by the evidence. Chapter Twenty Of the statements Q. What is meant by explanation ( declaratio ) of a term? A. a sentence or a combination of several sentences, in which the characteristics of a term specified in a way that these can thus be distinguished from others.The subject whose characteristics are to be specified precisely, does Explained ( declaratum ), and the predicate specifies what is known as its feature, the explanatory ( declarans membrum sc ). Q. What do you do for a difference between explanation, description and definition, everything verschiednen kinds of explanation? A. Explanation ( explicatio ) is called a sentence in which something is only explained as it is sufficient to some expedient; description ( descriptio ) when specified many of the characteristics of a term to distinguish the same ease of others; definition ( definitio ) but if you only enter the two main features, the one, the family ( genus ) indicating under which owns the Stated while the other , ( see nota specialis differentia specifica ) indicating thereby that explained by the other species of the same sex is different. Q. What are examples of this? A. Suppose I were speaking of the following philosophy: Philosophy brightens up our minds, accustomed him, not just stand to the outside of things to stay, but by their inner nature, to investigate their reasons; practices it, nachzusuchen the General anywhere in particular, and to strive not only in its findings but also in his actions everywhere for a rational unit, etc., I would have an explanation of the term philosophy in relation to the beneficial consequences that their studies expresses our mind, given. - I Wanted to provide a complete description of the philosophy, so I would have all the individual features that await you ever indicate, however, since this is not unlike the complete statement of the philosophy could be done yourself, so we are accustomed to is the same as ever not refer to science this term because this would coincide with the description of the presentation of the thing itself, turns against him more often on natural objects to. If I wanted to describe a tree, for example, I would specify the characteristics that are its leaves, stem, root and so peculiar.To give a definition of philosophy, I would say you had the science which treats of the last reasons and purposes of human knowledge and activity. Here is the genus, Science, and the specific difference , or the specific difference but, through it from the other objects to which the term science

as genus belongs, is different. The feature that it is about the ultimate grounds, etc., because this feature is no other science. So would be in the definition: freedom is the capacity of self-determination, assets of the genus , the characteristic of selfdetermination, but, reducing the freedom of other assets is different, the . differentia specifica - Continued Notes to develop a concept in several respects give a discussion or debate ( expositio ). Q. What is meant by analytic and synthetic statements? A. Synthetic statements are made, however, the given analytical terms. Made under these terms mean, such that one has only formed by composition of certain characteristics themselves, the others are called shared. If I eg the features Line and Gleichweitabstehen zusammenvereinige all their points from a certain point, so I'm going to thus make the concept of the circle, and then when I explain the circle as a line extending whose points all equidistant from a point will I have given a synthetic (created by composition) explanation of it. I suppose but as the terms like God and freedom or soul, as those terms are me be absolutely given, and I will if they are not at all simple terms that are absolutely impossible to explain, only analytically explain, setting it dissolve into the different kinds of features (analyzed). Q. What is the name declarations, property declarations and declarations of origin? A. The name declaration or word description ( d nominalism verbalis s ) gives the meaning of a word by other synonymous terms to testify without knowing anything about the nature of the concept itself. You zweckt from merely to prevent confusion of expression, not the concept itself. So it would be a name declaration when I said seeing is the sensation which we obtain by means of the eyes. By this statement, we have become wiser about anything in the what is actually based the character of vision, but we know now what we have to relate the expression of vision. - An item of property or real explanation ( d realistic ) which is where one specifies the essential characteristics of the concept itself, not the word of words, but the concept is different from the terms. Like for example, the statement of philosophy above. - A generation or declaration of origin or genetic explanation ( d genetica ) is one which indicates that from what a thing; like is as follows: The circle is a figure, which arises when a line is attached to the one end , will be turned over to the other until they come back to their former position. - It should be noted that in the the genetic explanations real mathematics and the real are called nominal. Q. What is the main explanation and side explanation? A . Main explanation ( d primaria ) is the one which features the direct, secondary explanation ( d secundaria ), however, indicating the indirect characteristics of a concept. You can continue with the side explanations until you get to simple features, in this way a term is more and more developed. Q. What terms can not explain real? A. The simple, because you can specify any of these characteristics. So no one is the concept of being to another, as to give a word of explanation can; saying about it was so much as exist, as little seems to be a real explanation of life to be possible. Can only explain simple concepts, ie for certain relations specify characteristics of them.

Q. What is the good definition of a term? A. you must be 1) reasonable ( adaequata ), ie neither too far ( sc latior suo definito ), nor too narrow ( angustior ), 2) measured ( PRAECISA ), 3) not the same ( idem per idem declarans ) as short and simple as possible and without pictorial disguises. Q. What is too wide and too narrow a definition? A. An excessively wide definition is one in which too few features are specified, so the same fits also on other objects to be defined as the, and it is therefore may differ from those not belonging. Such a definition would be too broad eg: Man is an organic being, because after you were also monkeys and geese to humans. Too narrow a definition is, however, where features are given too much; therefore, excluded from the concepts to be defined several parts that actually belonged to its circumference, simply because they do not possess the characteristic listed wrongly. So next would be too narrow a definition that man is endowed with reason, a supernatural being with a white skin. Here apparently the characteristic of the white skin would be too much, would at least be objected that many Negroes. - A definition may be too far in one respect, in another be too tight, as the following: Man is an organic being with a white skin. Q. What is it that a definition should be measured? A. You should not accidental and derived, but only original material and where possible include a loud affirmative characteristics. So would be missing of this rule, if you, like an old philosopher, the people defined as a two-legged animal without feathers. For in the first two legs of the feature is not essential to the people who otherwise would any ball that takes away the soldiers a leg, it also behave humanity, and then also a negative feature is incorporated. - Negative characteristics you do not like therefore takes on a definition, because it nothing can be put to the essence of a thing belonging to the same concept, however, sometimes you can not distinguish it from related terms very completely avoided. - A derived feature I would have included in the above definition of the circle, if I had said that he was a round figure.After that he must be round, follows from the fact that all points equidistant same project from a certain point. Q. What is meant by an identical definition? A. We call such a loop statement ( see orbis vicious in definiendo ). It takes place when the self-declared, it is repeated in the main or in a supporting statement and therefore you want to get through what is supposed to be explained itself, the statement to pass. These would include: The circle is a circular figure. Life is in the living activity of organic creatures. It is easily seen that a concept can not win in the least clarity and distinctness by such definitions, but beginners often fall into the mistake to use the same. Q. Why should not figurative expressions with definitions used for? A. Because you can think of many such, and therefore the term is not sufficiently defined and distinguished by the same. Examples of such definitions are: Friendship is a bond of soul, the youth is the spring of life. As poetic comparisons considered, like their records can find instead, just not as declarations are to develop the essence of a concept. In strictly scientific work must therefore contain her. CHAPTER XXI

From organizations Q. What is classification? A. division ( divisio ) is an indication of the manifold, which is included in the extent of a concept as soon as it is done in a way that the (contradictory or contrary) opposite ideas presented here are separated from each other . So is dissolved at the higher classification of the term in the lower contained under it, the genus to the species on the other hand, the term is decomposed in explaining the features it contains. The higher concept, which is divided is called the banded whole ( totum divisum ), and the lower terms, in which the higher is divided, the division of members ( membra dividentia ), and the characteristic by which one carries out the classification, the classification reason ( fundamentum divisionis ). Thus, in the plant system Linnischen plant the totum divisum ; each plant genera and species membra dividentia and the number and position of the stamens, which happens after the division, the fundamentum divisionis . Q. What is meant by word division, property division, division, arrangement? A. word division or distinction ( see divisional verborum distinctio ) is the statement of the various meanings of a word, goes to the extent of a particular expression, but not one to be designated by term itself, is therefore rather than the logic of the grammar. The like: cat means a long leather purse or a certain predator or a disease of the hut people. Property division, however, is really the logical separation of a term occurring in genera and species. For example, the cat-like animals ( membrum divisum ) are the lion, the tiger, the house cat, etc. ( membra dividentia ). Decomposition or fragmentation ( partitioned ), is not dissecting the scope of a term or distinctive indication of that to which the term can be obtained as a feature; therefore of the actual division ( divisio ) to distinguish, rather it is only the identification of the components of a composite whole ( Totius compositi ), for example: The cat is out of mind, body, feet, tail, etc. The division or partition of a series of thoughts and arrangement (isdispositio ) called. For example, a treatise of the cats might get the following disposition that one. Firstly of the physical properties, secondly, by the same way of life, thirdly, of the benefits and harms of the revenue they generate, talks Q. How does one distinguish the classifications in terms of the number of partition members? A. In two-tier ( dichotomae ) and multi-unit ( polytomae ), the latter of which may be tripartite, etc., four members.Dividers with adversarial classification elements are necessary dichotomy, with contrary they may be polytomisch. For example, the following classification of the people: the people are white or not white, could be no more than two links to, on the other hand: the people are white, black, brown, would polytomisch. Q. What is meant by secondary divisions and subdivisions? A. In addition to divisions ( see codivisiones divisiones coordinatae ) arise when one divides a term for various reasons classification. For example, the people, after the color divided into white, black, etc., then their mind forces in wise, witty, stupid, etc., would be subdivisions. - Subdivisions ( subdivisiones divisiones subordinatae s ) are those which occur when a partition member is divided anew. Example: if you split the Sugtiere in

herbivorous, carnivorous, etc. so you can again make use of the grass-eating animals subdivisions by placing them in einhufige and mehrhufige shares etc. These subdivisions but you can continue only up to individuals, which then only partition allow. - The list of all possible in respect of a term at each other and subordinate divisions is called a system of concepts or logic board. Q. What are the rules for dividing? A. 1) The banded concept must be completely exhausted by the division members, it has no layout element, which is actually included within the scope of a term, excluded, one more thing, what the addition to the extent concept is to be with drawn as a classification element. 2) The division members must mutually exclusive, that is, it must not something to be taken by a division limb under another division member; whereas eg the classification of leaves missing in round, oblong, and toothed, because it may be among the toothed leaves also elongated and rounded to give; therefore you would not know under which classification element, one would have to make such a sheet, perforated both would be elongated. This rule can be observed only if you set up opposite contradictory or contrary the division members. 3) The division must move continuously, the subdivisions must not be mixed among the upper and middle division not be skipped. I divided the animals into mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and white-flowered animals, so I would here the higher classification element, whiteflowered animals provided, etc., on a level with the lower mammal in bird because it was supposed to take place the subordination as follows: The animals are divided into rotbltige and white-flowered, the rotbltigen in Sugtiere, birds, fish and amphibians, the weibltigen in insects, crustaceans, mollusks and worms 4) . A jump in the division I would have done if I had the rotbltigen animals divided equally so in horses, oxen, carp, snakes, because in this way the central division members such as mammal, bird, fish, amphibian would be skipped. 4) There must be appropriate, related to business reasons classification are selected which affect the essence of the thing binned. Who would, for example, people at a natural history by viewing the same clothes they wear, divided!
4)

But there are also other colored juices in some animals of this class.

Twenty-Second Chapter From the evidence Q. What is a proof ( argumentatio, probatio )? A. The (by means of circuits happening) derivation of the truth of a finding from another assumed as true, or the description of the reason of the necessity of a thing. The judgments from which a proof is assembled to make his matter ( materia ), the nature of their linkage, but its form ( format ), work which partly an internal means, inasmuch as it is the peculiar of proof itself, and partly an exterior, inasmuch as it determined by the expression of the proof sets. The argument ( fundamentum argumentationis probationis s ) is that judgment, from which, as the true prerequisite, just a knowledge to be derived, and is represented in words, a principle ( principium ). This is either a supreme, final, absolute, if it can be derived from nothing, that is for certain is accepted immediately,

or a relative if he can indeed be derived from even higher principles, but but for the particular case, without even to have been first proved is assumed to be true. The probative value of the nerve or the soul of the proof ( see nerve vis argumentationis probationis s ) is in the essential content of the sentence or sentences from which is inferred to be proved. F. How to distinguish reason and experience prove proof? A. One reason proof or evidence a priori ( arg. rationalis ) is such where one infers something from general principles recognized by our cognitive faculties as necessary principles. A proof of experience, empirical evidence or proof a posteriori , however, is the one where some of extrasensory perception (facts of experience) is proved. So it's a proof a priori , when I Belgian Government maintains the laws of gravity, the need for which I have seen before that a stone that has fallen from a certain height, have a certain amount of time used to long on the earth. A proof a posteriori , however it would be, if I nmliche it would prove that after the lapse of this time, I really could see the stone arrive on the ground. Q. What is meant by a direct, immediate, ostensive evidence and an indirect, consequential or apagogischen? A. The former is a proof in which one the downright dartut to be proved from the truth of the evidence ground, last, however, which one well deductio ad absurdum calls, such where one concludes the proof of the truth ends of the falsity of its opposite. The first of proof is generally preferable to the latter. On that you can see the connection between cause and effect in a; although this must be forced to admit the Proven, but does not recognize the reason why it is so and not otherwise. The logic may incidentally explain only those indirect evidence of matter where the truth of it is inferred to Providers on their from the falsehood of his direct counter part, because they wanted to infer it from the falsity of a contradictory opposite, so you do not bedchte that there are still several contradictory opposites could be, maybe its a zukme the truth without needed it to be the one on whose evidence it is actually apart. Extremely frequently makes use of the mathematics of deductionsabsurdity , which can be found in Euclid's Elements hinlngliche examples; Zeb I. 7 14th Q. How does one distinguish demonstration, Probation and probable evidence? A. apodictic demonstration or proof ( , demonstratio strict sense ) is one which is conducted with strict necessity, and therefore allows no reasonable throw; Probazion ( probatio strict sense ), however, is a proof par excellence, in which apart from the rigor of the evidence. A wahrschein1icher evidence ( arg. probabilistic ) is such where one leads more and more important as reasons for resisting a thing without being able to bring it to a complete certainty. F. How to distinguish the general proof (???, ad veritatem ) of the special force (????, ad hominem )? A. The first is one such , the absolutely necessary and generally of reasons is valid, carrying his credibility in itself, and remains true even if he'd believed by nobody;, but the other one which in itself is wrong, but is guided he any one or more specific persons who do not discover the false appearance is convinced of the truth of the evidence to ends. Because dishonest trustee maintain

this kind of evidence to use frequently, they were called also advocates or pettifoggers-proof. Q. How does one distinguish the evidence concerning its external form? A. In simple (monosyllogistische) and composite (polysyllogistische), in scholastic or formal or non formal and free, in full or unabgekrzte and incomplete or abbreviated. - The meanings of these terms are readily apparent from the words themselves Q. What are the rules to follow when the evidence? A. Zufrderst all the rules well to observe here that have already been stated in the conclusions, since the whole argument is based on conclusions. But then one must carefully guard against the following errors: 1) You erschleiche erbettle or nothing ( see petitio principu fallacia quaesiti medii ). This one does when one assumes something as argument, which is either downright wrong, or even the certainty but still lacking. 2) It is enough, nothing different than what is to be proved, or in other words, to twist the question point ( punctum quaestionis not) of the proof, because otherwise the very purpose of the proof will be missed. The mistake you commit from acquaintance with the actual point of this rule will issue, ignoratio elenchi called, whereas the same arbitrary rotation mutatio elenchi , and the resulting solid conclusion sophism mutationis elenchi . 3) One should avoid evidence that rotate in a circle, that is those where the evidence at the end of the argument used by itself ( in orbit demonstrando, diallelus s )????. 4) You guard against jumps in the evidence ( saltus in demonstrando a probando ), which means that you can not deduce a set from the other without the associated mediating judgments and conclusions. In the following example would be a leap evidence that man has a body, so he is mortal, because here there is no mediating the judgments: The human body is subject to all the laws of organic bodies and all organic bodies are mortal. - If, however, the omitted sets of a kind that anyone can easily add it thinks of itself, it is considered that such a leap for allowed and investigated by the like to convey the brevity of expression. 5) One should take care to much to prove, that you avoid arguments, those which can apparently the truth of reason to proof ends could be, but also allow the other wrong conclusions and then can be followed by the ancients from some truth nothing wrong so you would have to explain such an argument invalid, and with him all the evidence. Who, for example, the phenomenon that the juices rise in the plants in the air, trying to explain the attraction of the sun, would prove too much, because then inorganic tubes, fluids would in other, be uplifted by such an attraction. CHAPTER XXIII From the logical diseases (logical pathology) Q. What do you understand under the name of logical diseases? A. appearance and error. Logical appearance takes place then, once we have all the same ideas of different ideas all the same objects, or of different objects. We are led by such erroneous judgments, which we believe are true, it is called these errors. Q. What is the actual reason of error? A. The limitations of human

cognition. Namely, if our mind would be able to fathom all in its associated conditions, no bill and hence no error would occur to him. But so manifold influences can inhibit the free and lawful activities of our faculty of cognition and judgment to determine the false judgments, especially if it is weak or inexperienced or nature of, if not the proper attention will be devoted to the assessed items. Q. What are the influences that are capable of producing logical appearance and error? A. subheading includes first and foremost the mind. The sense of itself but can only get light, not error because it does not judge.I see as a sheet because of an illness my eyes yellow, which is actually green, so this is a sham, because I of different objects (actually a yellow and a green leaf) here get all the same ideas. If I but also the sheet seems really yellow, so I can but my mind or my reason, guided by conclusions, say, the sheet is not really yellow, but it looks to me as, in this case, then I fall into no error because I sense by the certificate can not be determined at an incorrect judgments myself. But I judge that sheet, which seems to me wrongly yellow, is really of this color, so I would make a mistake. We see from this that if the sense not wrong itself, but they by their influence on the higher cognitive faculties may cause errors. This can sometimes be done by the external senses when the bodies to which they are attached, are not in the related condition, or have the corresponding relationship and the corresponding location on the famous Increasing, partly through the inner sense by here often emotional states the ideas of objects obscure, or inner sense ideas because of their too great vivacity may appear as external.Some call the sensory errors ( errores sensuales ) also Beschleichungsfehler ( vitia subreptionis ), because the mind is thereby equally surprised or crept through my mind. Q. What influences are also able to attract errors? A. If the memory of the ideas gehabten not kept loyal, or too vivid that they either do not visualized ideas with proper clarity, or merely mental images can appear as real objects; or if the power of memory, which is to recognize the gehabten ideas again (insofar as it is distinct from the memory, the same merely kept) does not affect belonging, as well as a result errors may occur, which can, if they were caused by memory, memory errors or error ( errores memoriales ) calls einbilderische errors ( errores imaginarii ), however, how far the defective activity of the imagination excited her. Also, the association of ideas or involuntary association of ideas by virtue of which one in the mind rather than wealthy imagination can cause the emergence of another, when they their is (standing in contrast) either similar to or with their contrasting, or even once in the mind in touch with her place had, may have influence on the excitation of errors, by ideas that do not belong together, linked and different ideas can be confused. Q. What is meant by linguistic or symbolic error ( s errores linguistici sermocinales )? A. These are those which arise from misunderstanding of words or sentences. The great diversity and ambiguity of words often causes the same; especially as the language and the characters are one of the principal means awakening our findings. Q. Is not the faculty of desire and ability to feel a source of errors? A. However. The moods of our Begehrungs and emotional assets have much

influence on the decisions that we make, and make us more inclined to keep this or that without hinlngliche reasons true or false depending on it coincides with our state of mind or not. So believe the miser of his passion (excessive sensual desire) blinded that money is the highest good, as the dismal man sees everything in black light. Also special moods of our mind can distract our attention from objects by the same afferent merely to the concordant to them, and thus cause that vague, confused, or downright wrong ideas from those arising in us. F. Can also probably give rise to external circumstances of illusion and error reason? A. Yes. Body composition, like education, social relations, country, life, habits of all kinds and much else can be considered at least as remote causes of errors by giving the activity of our mind directly or indirectly, a special and one-sided direction. Q. What is meant by prejudice ( praejudicia )? A. These are errors that arise from a sheen that external circumstances (see the previous question) has been initiated. So many prejudices through education, habits, etc., causes, of which daily life provides enough examples. This subheading prejudices of the nobility of the state, prejudices, that this or that country is the best, etc. Q. Is probably differed a preliminary ruling by a preconception? A. However. A preliminary ruling ( . praevium j s preliminary budget ) is namely one which one falls, without being able to give reasons for its validity hinlngliche yet, but with the caveats, it remains to be tested. Q. What is meant by rational errors? A. These are those which arise from an incorrect application of the laws of mind or reason; like, if you from the fact that two things in time to follow each other, makes the conclusion that one of the reason is the other ( post hoc, ergo propter hoc ), or if one infers anything from a false proof reason. F. How to distinguish fundamental errors ( errores principales, radicales, originarii, ????) and derived ( err derivativi. )? A. The former are those false judgments from which others are false concluded, the resulting inferred hot-derived errors. Every error, how it is used as a principle, is the fundamental error, and can be very disadvantageous in that it is used to derive a lot of other errors. Q. How different theoretical or speculative and practical errors? A. The former are those which discriminate only the truth of our knowledge, the latter those that have influence on our actions. As would be the in a practical error that would consider suicide allowed for. CHAPTER XXIV From the logical remedies (logical Therapeutics) Q. How is the inevitable mistake? A. Since every human being is a limited knowledge regarding its assets, as each is exposed to the influences that may contribute to the generation of errors, as well as every person in general is subject to error. - But every error arises from a note, and it is basically only made prey of the

free activity of our judgment as to whether they want to make this bill a mistake, so far every single mistake by a careful process probably unavoidable. In general therefore be for everyone, even the wisest and most intelligent people exist cases where he is wrong, but that no one may be excused by the fact that he had to be wrong because the lunatics in general is inevitable, especially in this or that individual specific case. Q. How does one distinguish the remedy for the error ( remedia erroris )? A. In preventive ( remed, praeservantia ) and curative ( remed sanativa. ), the first prevent the emergence of error, the others raise the error on already incurred. Q. What are preventive against error? A. 1) acquaintance with our cognitive powers, the laws of their effectiveness and the limits of their application. 2) knowledge of the various sources of error. 3) caution, prudence and deliberation in judgment. 4) restraint (?) Of applause in all doubtful cases. - The last rule states that one should, if one has not a sufficient reason for the truth of a judgment, not yet accept the same as such and make sure, but leave it undecided. Q. What are the healing remedy for errors in general? A. Just the discovery and resolution of the ticket that generated the error, as such may apply. The bill is discovered, when you get to know the exciting causes of error in the particular case; resolved when the different ideas that were thought to be all the same, different, and the same ideas that were thought to be different, recognizes for all the same. Q. How can know that one is caught in error, and are therefore compelled to raise it? but one A. Just one can of each specific errors not know this of course, because otherwise it would indeed be no more errors when their falsehood would have been seen. But because we always have to hover the consciousness that we are subject to error than people in general, so we need every single judgment we make, at least to think of the possibility that it was an erroneous, and through repeated testing and comparison with the judgments of others about to be certainly looking for. Q. What are the remedy for the above individual types of error? A. They consist merely in the correct application of the previously dates indicated for the prevention and cure of errors of rules to individual cases. Chapter XXV Of the acquisition of the knowledge and experience of the particular Q. What are the ways in which we have information? reflection. A. The experience and

Q. What do we mean by experience? A. We then say that we have an experience when, as a little exercise by means of the senses. Q. What do you call the experiential, on the one arrives at knowledge? A. The empirical way, from the Greek words Empiria that experience means. The findings themselves, which are acquired through experience, are called empirical, or knowledge a posteriori , and the rational or knowledge a priori opposite, that is those which are not obtained by way of experience, therefore, if there are such, either but

are mediated by the higher cognitive faculties are already originally in us or. Q. Of what nature are the empirical findings? A. Empirical evidence can never have such a completely universal and necessary validity. Experience shows us that is always only One, and if we had even looked or felt so much One, it would give us but still no information about the things that have not looked or felt like. The experience can be, strictly speaking, to me, actually teach nothing more than that this or that property at the individual things that I perceived reached, whether they, also located on the things I do not perceived, they can not do anything about it testify, nor that they must necessarily be present at the things perceived. Our reason itself can not draw general conclusions from the experience and necessary, for otherwise ought reversal circuits can occur such that a particular judgment from a general, and could be derived from an assertive apodictic. But like circuit types are not allowed to reason. F. If you have not yet final species that seek out the particular individuals or the general and derive necessary? A. Yes. These are the conclusions after induction and analogy that may just be mere chance and therefore no strict certainty but because they come from the experience. They are based on the assumption of a universal law of nature that our mind feels urged to accept. F. How to proceed with the of conclusion? A. If we have observed that an affirmative or negative one feature of many individual things of a kind zukomme, we conclude by the inductive method, the same feature will also be present in all other particulars of the same kind, whether it is not perceived in the same same, and the inductive nmliche of conclusion is also reason to believe that a feature when it plays several species of a genus, and all the other species of this genus will come when it is not really the same perceived in them. Short can express the principle of induction that. What is true of many things belonging to a species or genus, also true of the other. - Examples of inductive conclusions are: All the plants that I have seen so far, had green leaves, so the plants that I have not really seen, green leaves will have. All people, of which I have been taught by their own or other experience, were mortal, so all men will ever be mortal. - It is easily seen that these conclusions can not accept the ordinary inner form of syllogisms, because the major premise would remain particularistic. The probability, however, can often be very large, which is obtained by this inductive of conclusion, one must not only have made little experience, of which one includes; bask can be conducive to such hasty conclusions, as well happen every day. Q. How does one complete and incomplete induction? A. Mathematical induction is one where you have made a kind of all individual things, or all of the individual species of a genus from experience that any feature zukomme them, and concludes that it the whole genus zukomme. This of conclusion by induction would, how far the experience would be founded, on which it was based, also universal and necessary validity, but it actually is not held because, as one can know that one really with all particular things or modes are as species or genus was known by experience, since nothing prevents that besides the perceived other place. Incomplete induction is

simply the so-called induction, which was top of the speech, where one includes only severaw to the General. F. How to proceed with the of conclusion by analogy? A. According to her, it is concluded that things if they agree on several of the known characteristics of them, in the other to be consistent, although the match is not yet perceived herein . If, therefore, after induction, to put it very briefly, then closes: One in many ways so in everything, so you close the other hand, according to the analogy: Many things in one, so everything in this one. The probability conferred by the analogy (for certainty can be achieved by them as little as obtained by induction), is the greater, in each of several pieces the thing on which one makes the conclusion has been observed consistently with that from which to make the conclusion. Examples of analog circuits are: I see an organic thing, which with several other organic matters therein agrees that it has flowers, leaves, stem, because now they also have a root, so I conclude that even that will have a root. So it is an inference by analogy, if I conclude that people agree in their facial features, will also agree in their character. - The analogy of conclusion is essentially based on the fact that believed it was of things that agree with each other in several pieces, a common ground exists, and because of the same reason, the same must follow, as will also the common ground shared consequences for things have not just brought the perceived in all respects. - The newer, Schelling's philosophy of identity sprung natural philosophy, which only recognizes a real ground of all searches, most often to prove by analogy. Chapter XXVI Continued Q. What is your own and others' experience? A. My experience is that where objects of ourselves, strangers, where they are perceived by others. Q. What are observations and preliminary search? A. observations ( observationes ) are deliberate, with attention given phenomena associated perceptions without arbitrary changes thereof; experiments ( experimenta), however, employed intentionally changes with given items that are arbitrary and made for the purpose of any particular property closer to get to know them; passes through such changes by then to be able to watch them from several sides, and in several circumstances. Both observations and experiments are used to provide the suitable security experience and determination, and must be always connected with one another where possible. Q. What one has to do when one wants to use foreign experience to perfect his own knowledge? A. One the credibility of the testimony (testimony of) di must examine the report, which others report on how they perceived, so as not to running the risk of making mistakes or deliberate falsehoods foreign to their own mistakes. Here we have now seen both the inner and the external credibility of the testimony. Q. What is meant by internal and external credibility? A. The internal credibility of a witness depends on whether the thing speaks of the same thing, in itself is possible or likely. For example, someone told that he had seen a ten cubits tall giant,

so this story would leave all internal credibility, even if would be the man who told them, otherwise known as a wise and truthful known. - The external credibility of a witness, however depends on: 1) From the drive ( dexteritas ) the witness whether he really has (healthy mind and senses) the requirements for a correct perception, and whether he is a a direct witness (eyewitness) or merely indirect (ear witness) is because the former has more external credibility for themselves, as the last-named. 2) From the sincerity ( since ritas ) of the witness, because some of free will, or forced to deny the truth when he is immediately felt her conscious. Q. What is a legend? A. A narrative based on any specific products, so you can not even check duly regard to their external credibility. Has become a legend propagated by several people age, it is called a tradition (traditional ), and once they start the same due to any particular products, it is then rumor ( rumor ). Q. What do you call the faith granted to foreign experience? ( Fides historica ). Twenty-seventh chapter Of the reflection Q. What is the reflection ( meditatio )? A. In the intentional direction of the mind on some object of knowledge in order to teach thoroughly about the same. Following this his own train of thought, it is a direct, but it follows a strange train of thought, an indirect reflection. The former is also thinking in the narrow sense or thinking par excellence. Q. What did you observe in the immediate thought? A. One must methodically, according to the rules of thought process here, looking to make every term that occurs in thinking clearly and distinctly in terms of its content and scope, before you in thought progresses, from the resulting therefrom explanations and organizations must seek to draw inferences, and thereby a purpose to be aware of him for whom they are pulled, you must also link to the object of thought relating ideas together so that they are a slightly over-looking Royal and coherent whole. Q. In what way can take place, the indirect reflection? A. part by reading ( lectio ), partly by listening ( auditio ); listening makes a vivid impression, however, permitted to read more deliberation and arbitrary Stationary, by his own reflection between free to leave game. Q. What did the one who wants to perfect his knowledge by listening, watching like? A. He must be on the subject on which he wants to teach by listening to prepare ( praeparatio ), or looking to gain a preliminary knowledge about To be able to follow while listening to himself the teacher with his thoughts he must while listening Eight give ( attentio ), and subsequently repeat the heard ( repetitio thinks), so it einprge his memory and it still careful could be, so the saying repetitio est Mater Studiorum . The hearing must never be a mere dead apprehension of what another says, but his own immediate thought there must also always be activity to process what you hear. A. Historical Faith

Q. What needs to be investigated in a thorough reading first and foremost? A. 1) If you have the actual words of an alleged writer before him, and 2) what is the true meaning of these words, the first examines the criticism, the second hermeneutics ( Exegetik, Auslegekunst). Q. How does one distinguish the criticism? A. In a higher and a lower. The higher criticism examines the authenticity (authenticity) of a font as a whole and to its main parts, the lower, the integrity (integrity) of the same, in respect to the present in their individual words and phrases. Thus, the higher criticism will have to investigate whether the speeches has been attached to the Cicero, are really all of it, if he books the ad Herennium , etc., actually written, as its author called it the lower criticism, whether this or that word inserted this or that place, moved or was corrupted, etc. The higher criticism examines the authenticity of a signature excellent by comparison of the peculiar style and spirit the same with that which prevails in other undoubtedly genuine writings by the same author, average out, and the lower critical mainly takes comparisons of multiple transcripts, translations and citing that find themselves out of the script to be tested in other works to help, and allowed themselves when they can not achieve perfect certainty thus, assumptions ( conjecturae ) about the true nature of Scripture. Twenty-eighth chapter Of the communication of knowledge Q. What types of communication of knowledge can be distinguished? A. The unilateral, where only a part of contributing to the teaching of the other, and the mutual where both parties mutually contribute to their instruction. The former happens during lessons, the latter in the interview. Q. How can the teaching done? A. Both orally and in writing, but the logical rules are the same for both types. Mainly it comes to the kind of instruction in teaching ( methodus didactica ) to, ie the shape of the lecture, which is operated to release the findings, it is mostly an internal, how it relates to the nature of the arrangement and connection of thought itself, partly a external, how it relates to the investiture and presentation of ideas through words and sentences. Q. What types of speech, a distinction with regard to the internal shape? A. the first place, depending on the ideas put forward are linked to synthetic or analytic method, synthetic and analytic. - Referring to the constitution of the subject of consideration to which the speech is directed, it will either academically or national standard, that have for those who wish to gain a thorough knowledge of the carried forward science, and the necessary knowledge to do so; this for those who want to penetrate too deeply into the science without, and without the necessary knowledge to thorough learning to have the same, but want to get some insight into it, so in general for the unlearned, for the people. The lecture is also the scholastic scholastic, scholarly, scientific, scientifische, systematic, akroamatische, esoteric. He follows a strict logical order, seeks to achieve the greatest possible accuracy and completeness, and makes use of its own made-up words ( technical terms ) to adequate description

of the thoughts that sometimes differ from the ordinary use of language in their very meaning. The national uniform presentation is also called the popular, exoteric. He must for the sake of clarity, because he always requires learners of less scientific education, ease of the strictly logical method, stick to the ordinary speech use, and to exemplify what is offered as search, he must build his teachings on things that can be assumed that they are already known to the ignorant, and often use far more words than the scientifische teaching manner to, what was perhaps expressed in a manner not understood, to make it clear by other terms and phrases. - The mathematical method of presentation is nothing else than the scientifische method, applied to the mathematics.That their rates are usually listed here under special titles, is nothing substantial, and rather refers to the outward form. Q. What types of speech can be distinguished in terms of external form? A. A broken (fragmentary, aphoristic, rhapsodistische) if you just recites his thoughts in short sentences, such as is the case in Hippocratic medicine and Platner's philosophical aphorisms, and a coherent (continuous, kohrierende) if the thoughts are presented in continuous connexion, - a unbildliche, direct and figurative, parabolic, indirect, mysterious, enigmatic, depending on whether one expresses his ideas outright, or in images, similes, enigmatic stories clothes them, - a monolingual (monologue) and bilingual (dialogue), and the last, if only questions and answers are changed here, is the erotematische, and is then either catechetical or Socratic (after Socrates called so that in this kind of erotematischen presentation was champion), whichever it takes merely the memory or the mind of the learner to complete, in the catechetical method, namely the learner is merely asked what he knew, or should know, however, the questions in the Socratic be set that seems to develop itself in what is asked what he wanted to tell the questioner. In order to have examples of this, one does best to read Xenophon's Memorabilia or dialogues of Plato, in which Socrates is introduced as speaking. - Next, we distinguish between epistolarische form where a written presentation is written in letter form, the syllogism, where it is written in the formal conclusions, and the tumultuous or desultory, when he is messy, confusing, and often from one object to the other about jumping: the discursive, digressive, if you frequently runs off the main object of the paper to dwell on side objects. Q. What needs to take place when the conversation is intended to serve as mutual thoughts notification to perfect knowledge? A. The sub speaker's need striving to go through those items in respect of which their judgments are different, to gain compliance, so that they at stand the truth. Since his own opinion of the true holding of the lower speaker's anyone in the beginning at least, - because otherwise it would not even be his opinion - so everyone is looking to bring the other meaning that he (the other) gives up his opinion , and agree with everything that he, (the former) has. Since this quest takes place from both sides expected, it creates a contrast between the active sub-speak, which thought intellect or reason dispute ( s pugna intellectualis logica ) is called. Q. How can it be out of thoughts dispute? A. Either in the form of a confidential conversation ( colloquium familial ) or as a public and solemn struggle of opinion

( disputatio Solemnis ). Q. What are the rules for both types of thoughts dispute, if it is to be done rationally? A. One must always keep in mind the purpose of the interview, namely to win the truth through the mutual resistance. Therefore one must not merely deny the allegations of his adversary, ie in some way by using the weaknesses of the opponent, looking to bring this silence, but by general reasons refute him. One has the dispute itself the point at issue (status controversiae ), ie the object in whose respect the judgments are different, determine possible, and do not depart from him, one must be on the principles which should serve as the basis of the dispute, Unite, because if everyone proves something of an opposite reason proposition, no one can refute the other, until he has refuted the principle itself, you would have to if we would not agree on the principles, arguing only about this before you to be drawn about the resulting might argue inferences. Hence the saying: contra principia negantem disputari non potest . - It must also avoid unnecessary dispute or Logomachieen word, not arguing about things that can not be identified because they exceed the limits of our knowledge, not on those that are not worth the arguing ( de lana caprina ). - The evidence of the opponent are not merely to check for their formal, but also according to their substantive accuracy, and where a mistake is discovered, it must also be made aware of the source of error. - If one has refuted the proof of a theorem, we must not believe, refuted by the record itself, or might have proved the correctness of his own opinion, because other than the refuted evidence of the opponent may have other more valid place for his sentence. The dispute must be finally done with humanity and without passion.